United States Department of Agriculture

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

North Fork Eagle Creek Wells 

Special Use Authorization

Forest 

Service

Southwestern 

Region

Lincoln 

National Forest

MB-R3-08-08

August 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.

Printed on recycled paper – June 2015
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

North Fork Eagle Creek Wells 

Special Use Authorization Project

Lincoln National Forest, Lincoln County, New Mexico

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Travis G. Moseley, Forest Supervisor

3463 Las Palomas Road

Alamogordo, NM 88310

For Information Contact: Dave Warnack, District Ranger

901 Mechem Drive

Ruidoso, NM 88345

(575) 257-4095

Abstract: We (USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest) propose to authorize, under a new 

special use permit, the operation of four municipal supply water wells (and their associated facilities 

as described in more detail in chapter 1) located on National Forest System land in the North Fork 

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

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

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

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

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

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

drawdown from pumping of these wells. The new permit would include additional monitoring and 

mitigation measures as part of the permit’s terms and conditions. These requirements respond to the 

purpose and need for action and minimize potential adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater 

resources from well operations. This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) compares 

environmental effects of implementing three alternatives, including (1) continuation of pumping; (2) 

no pumping; and (3) an adaptive management approach to continued pumping. 

The preferred alternative is alternative 1. The preferred alternative would continue pumping from the 

North Fork well field. We would authorize, under a new special use permit, the operation and 

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

associated monitoring wells; well house control station; underground pipeline and power line; and 

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

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

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

at least every 5 to 10 years and would be based on review of available monitoring information. The 

permit term would be shortened if necessary, based on the results of these more frequent reviews and 

verifications of permit terms and conditions. The new permit would also include additional 
monitoring and mitigation measures, as part of terms and conditions of the new permit, as described 

in detail in chapter 2.

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

Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) on November 14, 2014 for public comment. We published 

notices that it was available for public comment in the Federal Register and as a legal notice in the 

Ruidoso News; and in email and letter notifications to all those on the project mailing list. We 

requested comments within a 45 day period. 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. 

We prepared this Final EIS based on public and other agency comments received during the 

Supplemental Draft EIS comment period and additional interdisciplinary team input. It includes the 

identification of our preferred alternative (alternative 1 – continuation of current management). It 

incorporates corrections and changes suggested by the public (as summarized at the beginning of 

chapter 1 and in appendix E), and the project interdisciplinary team. The result is a balance providing 

municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso and protecting natural resources.

Administrative Review Process: This FEIS and associated draft decision document (Record of 

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

to 36 CFR 218, subparts A and B. Objections will only be accepted from those who have previously 

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

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

must be based on previously submitted, timely, specifically written comments regarding this proposed 

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

The objection must contain the minimum content requirements specified in §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/or Ranger District(s) 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 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: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:

Mail: Southwestern Region

333 Broadway SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

Phone: 505-842-3292

TTY: 505-842-3198

FAX: 505-842-3110

Email: objections-southwestern-regional-office@fs.fed.us

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

Summary

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

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

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

road access located on National Forest System land in the North Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork) 

drainage. The new permit would be authorized for up to 20 years, with stipulations for frequent 

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

but would occur at least every 5 to 10 years. The new permit would include terms and conditions 

reflecting monitoring and mitigation measures; responding to the purpose and need for action, and 

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

operations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

between the North Fork stream gage and the Eagle Creek stream gage, totaling approximately 2 

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

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

in 2005 based on concerns that operating these wells could be affecting streamflow in Eagle Creek. 

The case was dismissed in 2006 after all parties to the lawsuit signed a Stipulation Agreement, in 

which the Lincoln National Forest agreed to complete an environmental analysis before a new permit 

can be issued to the Village of Ruidoso. As part of that analysis, the agreement also requires that an 

independent watershed and geohydrologic study of Eagle Creek and the North Fork wells be 

undertaken by an entity not previously involved in the lawsuit. 

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

the existing wells and their associated pipeline, underground power cable, well control house, and 

road access in this FEIS. These wells supply a substantial amount of the Village of Ruidoso’s 

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

water supply ranging from 24 to 29 percent. When indirect annual contributions are added to direct 

contributions (based on factoring in diversions from return flow credits, described in more detail in 

chapter 1 and in chapter 3), this increases to 36 to 43 percent. During the summer months, data show 

that 57 to 87 percent of total direct and indirect annual diversions can be attributable to the North 

Fork wells). There is a need for: (1) authorizing, under a special use permit, the Village of Ruidoso’s 

ability to access and divert groundwater from its North Fork wells on National Forest System land, as 

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

rely upon; and (2) protecting natural resources on National Forest System lands by maintaining 

adequate surface and groundwater flows to sustain or improve riparian and aquatic ecosystems that 

may be affected by groundwater drawdown from pumping of these wells.

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

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

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

process. We received a total of 102 comment letters from the public—including agencies, 

organizations, individuals, and elected officials—in response to our request for input. We analyzed all 
Summary

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

of these scoping comments to identify the issues and information that have been analyzed in this EIS

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

These significant issues include effects of well pumping on water resources, aquatic habitat and fish, 

riparian vegetation, water rights, and socioeconomics. These issues were used to develop alternatives 

to alternative 3 (identified in the DEIS and the SDEIS as the proposed action) including:

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

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

would continue at historic levels, in accordance with the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights. 

The new permit would be issued with similar terms, conditions, and history of water use that 

has been in operation since 1988.

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

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

these wells would not be authorized and would be discontinued. 

We released the DEIS for public comment on May 25, 2012. The Little Bear Fire started on June 4, 

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

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

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

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

supplemental DEIS was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012. We received 19 

comments between June and September 2012 (email, letters, or phone calls) that were either related to 

the content of the DEIS prior to suspension of the comment period or on our request for information 

on changed conditions due to the Little Bear Fire (appendix C). 

We incorporated much of the May 2012 DEIS into the SDEIS, with changes made necessary by the

effects of the Little Bear Fire. We used information from:

• public comments we received on the DEIS before we suspended the comment period;

• multiple interdisciplinary team discussions;

• discussion and coordination with project stakeholders (Village of Ruidoso, Eagle Creek 

Conservation Association, and the U.S. Geological Survey);

• literature review; and 

• amended resource analyses of the post-fire project area.

We released the SDEIS for public comment on November 14, 2014, and received 23 responses during 

the 75-day public comment period. We prepared this Final EIS based on public and other agency 

comments received during the SDEIS comment period and additional interdisciplinary team input

(see appendix E). It includes the identification of our preferred alternative (alternative 1 –

continuation of pumping at historic levels). It incorporates corrections and changes suggested by the 

public (as summarized at the beginning of chapter 1 and in appendix E) and the project 

interdisciplinary team. The result is a balance between providing municipal water to the Village of 

Ruidoso and protecting natural resources.

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

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

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

management requirements.
Summary

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

Figure 1. Project vicinity
Summary

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

Figure 2. Project area 
FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF v

Contents

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

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action.......................................................................................9

Background ........................................................................................................................................9

Water Rights.................................................................................................................................11

Changes between the Supplemental Draft EIS and the Final EIS....................................................12

Purpose and Need for Action ...........................................................................................................12

Desired Condition.........................................................................................................................12

Existing Condition........................................................................................................................13

Need for Action............................................................................................................................15

Management Objectives...............................................................................................................15

Preferred Alternative........................................................................................................................15

Decision Framework........................................................................................................................16

Public Involvement ..........................................................................................................................16

Significant Issues .............................................................................................................................17

Water Resources...........................................................................................................................17

Aquatic Habitat and Fish..............................................................................................................18

Riparian Vegetation......................................................................................................................18

Socioeconomics............................................................................................................................19

Water Rights.................................................................................................................................19

Nonsignificant Issues.......................................................................................................................20

Soil Quality...................................................................................................................................20

Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................20

Wildlife.........................................................................................................................................20

Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................20

Recreation and Scenery ................................................................................................................20

Public Safety and Well Security...................................................................................................21

Regulatory Framework and Consistency with Management Direction ...........................................22

Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986, as amended).................22

Agency Direction..........................................................................................................................23

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative .......................................................29

Introduction......................................................................................................................................29

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail.......................................................................................................29

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No Change - Continue Pumping at Historic Levels.......29

Alternative 2 – No Action (No Pumping) - Discontinue All Pumping ........................................32

Alternative 3 - Adaptive Management .........................................................................................33

Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................41

Wildlife and Fish..........................................................................................................................42

Water, Soil, and Vegetation..........................................................................................................42

Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................42

Public Safety and Health ..............................................................................................................42

Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................42

Water Resources and Fisheries.....................................................................................................43

Riparian Vegetation......................................................................................................................45

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.........................................................46

Suggestions for Changes to Alternative 3 (Adaptive Management) – General............................46

Suggestions for Changes to the Proposed Action – Monitoring and Adaptive Management ......48
Contents

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

Suggestions for New Alternatives................................................................................................ 55

Alternative 3 Described in the DEIS as the Proposed Action...................................................... 62

Comparison of Alternatives............................................................................................................. 62

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences......................................... 91

Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 91

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions............................................................. 92

Significant Issue: Water Resources.............................................................................................. 100

Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 100

Measurement Indicators............................................................................................................. 102

Incomplete or Unavailable Data ................................................................................................ 104

Pre-Little Bear Fire Affected Environment................................................................................ 111

Post-Little Bear Fire Affected Environment.............................................................................. 126

Summary.................................................................................................................................... 139

Environmental Consequences.................................................................................................... 140

Significant Issue: Aquatic and Fish Habitat ................................................................................. 154

Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 155

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 155

Environmental Consequences.................................................................................................... 159

Significant Issue: Riparian Vegetation ......................................................................................... 165

Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 165

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

Environmental Consequences.................................................................................................... 171

Significant Issue: Socioeconomics............................................................................................... 177

Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 177

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 183

Environmental Consequences.................................................................................................... 190

Significant Issue: Water Rights.................................................................................................... 205

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

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 205

Environmental Consequences.................................................................................................... 211

Vegetation (Except Riparian Vegetation)...................................................................................... 212

Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 212

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 213

Environmental Consequences.................................................................................................... 215

Conifer Density, Fire Regime, and Water Yield........................................................................ 218

Wildlife (Except Aquatic Habitat and Fish).................................................................................. 221

Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 221

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 222

Environmental Consequences.................................................................................................... 225

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity................................................................................ 229

Unavoidable Adverse Effects........................................................................................................ 229

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources............................................................ 229

Other Required Disclosures........................................................................................................... 230

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination................................................................................... 231

Preparers and Contributors............................................................................................................ 231

Core ID Team Members ............................................................................................................ 231

Supporting IDT Members.......................................................................................................... 233

Federal, State and Local Agencies, Tribes and Others .............................................................. 234

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the EIS Were Sent.............. 235
Contents

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

Glossary of Hydrology and Water Rights Terminology ...............................................................237

References Cited...............................................................................................................................241

Appendix A – Public Scoping Results.............................................................................................263

Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos..................................................407

Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS .................................415

Appendix D – Photos of Post-Little Bear Fire Conditions............................................................429

Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Public Comments on the Supplemental Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement...................................................................................................433

Index ..................................................................................................................................................567

Tables

Table 1. Streamflow before 1980 and after 1988, measured at the Eagle Creek gage .........................................57

Table 2. Summary of alternative components......................................................................................................63

Table 3. Summary of environmental effects by alternative..................................................................................66

Table 4. Past, in progress and planned activities within the Upper Eagle Creek drainage ...................................96

Table 5. Streamflows measured at the Eagle Creek gage...................................................................................124

Table 6. Little Bear Fire conditions in the North Fork and South Fork, Eagle Creek Watersheds.....................126

Table 7. Water repellency classes in the North Fork Eagle Creek Basin ...........................................................131

Table 8. Changes in storm event peak flows after the Little Bear Fire, Eagle Creek modeling locations..........131

Table 9. Summary of anticipated wildfire effects on water resources................................................................139

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

using potential adaptive management triggers for flow volume.....................................................149

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

Creek ..............................................................................................................................................156

Table 12. Species classified as facultative wetland plants (Reed 1988) occurring in the North Fork 

Eagle Creek sampled quadrats........................................................................................................167

Table 13. Average annual costs used in financial efficiency analysis................................................................181

Table 14. Population by race and ethnicity (2010).............................................................................................190

Table 15. Discounted present value of costs and present net value of the alternatives......................................193

Table 16. Summary of available water (acre-feet per year) per alternative, based on available past data 

(for alternative 1, this is actual pumping data) ...............................................................................199

Table 17. 2010 Consent order between the applicant and Office of the State Engineer for the four 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells, updated with recent information from 2014..................................207

Table 18. 2010 Consent Order Surface and Groundwater Rights Combined. (The surface diversion and 

supplemental groundwater can be combined at any rate by any withdrawal method 

(surface or ground) .........................................................................................................................207

Table 19. Eagle Creek drainage summary of water rights, updated with recent information from 2014 

(see also figure 11) .........................................................................................................................209

Table 20. Listing of comments that were received on the SDEIS ......................................................................433

Table 21. Public comments on the SDEIS and Forest Service Responses .........................................................435

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

changed conditions in the North Fork Eagle Creek Project Area ...................................................415

Figures

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

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

Figure 3. Flowchart of the proposed adaptive management strategy for alternative 3 .........................................35

Figure 4. Upper Eagle Creek drainage for cumulative impact analysis................................................................93

Figure 5. Little Bear Fire Burn Severity...............................................................................................................94
Contents

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

Figure 6. South Fork flows (red) compared to Eagle Creek confluence flows (blue) ........................................105

Figure 7. Flow frequency of Eagle Creek, water years 2000-2010 ....................................................................107

Figure 8. Flow frequency of Rio Ruidoso, water years 2000-2010....................................................................107

Figure 9. Cumulative streamflow and diversions from North Fork Wells (Source: Finch et al. 2004, 

Figure 15) .......................................................................................................................................108

Figure 10. Cumulative baseflow comparison over time (Source: Balleau and Silver 2010, Attachment 

9).....................................................................................................................................................108

Figure 11. Village of Ruidoso water supply in the Eagle Creek drainage ..........................................................117

Figure 12. Measured water levels in alluvium and bedrock, September 2008 and March 2009 ........................121

Figure 13. North Fork well field groundwater drawdown ..................................................................................122

Figure 14. Flow frequency from 1971-1980 before pumping began ..................................................................123

Figure 15. Flow frequency depicts the flow frequency from 1989-1998 after pumping had commenced .........123

Figure 16. North Fork Eagle Creek showing channel and adjacent vegetation (photographs taken by 

Terry Miller in July 2011) ..............................................................................................................169

Figure 17. South Fork Rio Bonito showing various degrees of intermittent to perennial flows 

(photographs taken by Terry Miller in July 2011)..........................................................................170

Figure 18. Population change for the Village of Ruidoso, Lincoln County and the State of New Mexico 

(U.S. Department of Commerce 2011, State of New Mexico 2008)..............................................184

Figure 19. Total metered water use and the percent of use occurring in summer months (Wilson and 

Company 2005) ..............................................................................................................................186

Figure 20. Diversion estimates...........................................................................................................................187

Figure B 1. Eagle Creek Gage (November 2010)...............................................................................................407

Figure B 2. North Fork Gage (November 2010).................................................................................................407

Figure B 3. South Fork Gage (November 2010).................................................................................................408

Figure B 4. North Fork Eagle Creek (during wet spring of 2008)......................................................................408

Figure B 5. North Fork Eagle Creek along road (November 2010)....................................................................409

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

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

taken by Nathan Myers on September 28, 2006)............................................................................409

Figure B 7. Confluence of South Fork and North Eagle Creek (November 2010).............................................410

Figure B 8. North Fork Eagle Creek lower end (November 2010).....................................................................410

Figure B 9. North Fork Eagle Creek upstream of the North Fork wells (Nov 2010)..........................................411

Figure B 10. North Fork Eagle Creek upstream from the North Fork wells (Nov 2010)...................................411

Figure B 11. Eagle Creek diversion dam downstream of Eagle Creek gage (Nov 2010)...................................412

Figure B 12. Eagle Creek downstream of diversion dam (November 2010)......................................................412

Figure B 13. Eagle Creek downstream of Alto Lake (November 2010).............................................................413

Figure B 14. North Fork Well 3 (August 2011)..................................................................................................413

Figure B 15. North Fork Well 4 (November 2010) ............................................................................................414

Figure B 16. North Fork Well 1 (November 2010) ............................................................................................414

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

(August 22, 2012)...........................................................................................................................429

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

(August 22, 2012)...........................................................................................................................430

Figure D 3. Looking southeast to the North Fork crossing upstream of the North Fork gage (August 22, 

2012)...............................................................................................................................................431

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

in an unnamed drainage (August 22, 2012)....................................................................................432
FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 9

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

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

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

the North Fork Eagle Creek (or North Fork) drainage. The new permit would be authorized for up to 

20 years, with stipulations for frequent review and verification of the permit terms and conditions. 

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

would add terms and conditions to the permit reflecting monitoring and mitigation measures;

responding to the purpose and need for action, and minimizing potential adverse impacts to surface 

water and groundwater resources from well operations.

Background

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

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

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

Service began discussions with the Office of the State Engineer, the Village of Ruidoso, and the Eagle 

Creek Conservation Association concerning permit renewal. Since 2005, well operations have 

continued under annual operating plans while the environmental analysis and decisionmaking process 

for issuing a new permit is being conducted. 

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

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

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

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

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

flow credits, described in more detail in the next section and in chapter 3), this increases to 36 to 43 

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

annual diversions can be attributable to the North Fork wells. 

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

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

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

revised in November 2010 and November 2011 (Matherne, Myers and McCoy 2011). Findings show 

that:

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

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

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

Without pumping, North Fork Eagle Creek would still be intermittent below the wells. About 

1,600 feet downstream of the North Fork stream gage the creek’s water sinks into the stream 

channel alluvium and bedrock aquifer, so this reach remains dry during dry periods, although 

water resurfaces from the alluvium in some downstream reaches (stretches ranging from 10 to 

50 feet long). Streamflow, when present, tends to occur in reaches where there are bedrock 

outcrops in the channel or the alluvium is thin. There are three gaging stations; one each for 

the South Fork, North Fork, and Eagle Creek.

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

table results and creates a cone of depression around the wells. 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

10 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

• 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 have not been fully characterized. 

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

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

base flow were lower during the study period (2007–2009) than before 1988 (1969–1980). 

Although years of below average precipitation were recorded during both time periods, there 

were no days of zero flow recorded at the Eagle Creek gage from 1969–1980. No-flow days 

were recorded in 11 years (totaling 789 days) of the 20 years analyzed after 1988, with 8 of 

the last 10 years having no-flow days. No-flow days occurred during periods of both below 

and above average precipitation during the study period but no-flow days did not occur 

during periods of below average precipitation before 1988. It is important to note that the 

Eagle Creek gage measures flow from both North Fork and South Fork, and that the Eagle 

Creek gage used to be (1969–1980) at a different location further downstream along Eagle 

Creek. The exact position of this prior location is not known with certainty (this is described 

in more detail in the water resources section of chapter 3).

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

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

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

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

basin yield.

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

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

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

was estimated using Darcy’s law to range from 0.6 to 1.2 cubic feet per second. Sustained 

flows greater than 2.2 cubic feet per second (threshold rate of 1.0 cubic feet per second loss to 

bedrock plus 1.2 cubic feet per second) are needed to both saturate the alluvium and maintain 

continuous flow in the North Fork. From September 2007 through March 2009, 2.2 cubic feet 

per second of discharge was equaled or exceeded at the North Fork gaging station 2 percent 

of the time. During the study period, a discharge of 1.2 cubic feet per second was equaled or 

exceeded at the North Fork gaging station 8 percent of the time. 

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

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

North Fork wells at Eagle Creek of between 0.5 and 0.8 cubic feet per second. Finch et al. (2004) 

determined by a mass balance analysis of the Balleau groundwater model that about 70 percent of the 

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

groundwater storage. 

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

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

together with the low storage capacity of the aquifer.

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

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

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

severities as follows:
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 11

• 26 percent high burn severity

• 26 percent moderate burn severity

• 27 percent low burn severity 

• 21 percent unburned or very low severity 

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

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

pronounced when these extensive, severe fires occur in coniferous mountain watersheds such as the 

Eagle Creek headwaters. As summarized in the following “Existing Condition” description and 

described in more detail in the “Water Resources” section of chapter 3, several hydrological aspects 

of the North Fork Eagle Creek watershed have been changed or are expected to change over time 

because of the Little Bear Fire. 

Water Rights

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

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

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

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

Engineer which was used as a basis for a 2010 consent order adjudicating a total of 2,539.34 acre-feet 

per annum with an additional 846.46 acre-feet per annum subject to beneficial use to be filed on or 

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

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

surface water rights on Eagle Creek.

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

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

Creek basin. To our knowledge as of April 2015, this agreement between the two parties has not been 

acknowledged by the Office of the State Engineer. If an updated consent order from the Office of the 

State Engineer including this agreement is issued, we will recognize the updated consent order as the 

most current description of the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights. Until that time, we will use the 2009 

final adjudication as the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights in the North Fork Eagle Creek. More 

details regarding this memorandum are included in the “Water Rights” section of chapter 3. The 

alternatives presented in this document for analysis would not be affected by implementing this 

memorandum of agreement.

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 the one of the North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

(H-1979) to the surface point of diversion at Eagle Creek and Alto Lake. The permit severed the 

adjudicated rights to this H-1979 NFEC well. 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 

the H-1979 NFEC well (for more details, see the water rights section of chapter 3). Because the proof 

of beneficial use amount of 350.42 remains with H-1979 and has to be pumped to be proven as a 

water right, this will allow the Village of Ruidoso’s future pumping levels to remain comparable to 

the historical pumping averages at around 740 acre-feet per year. 

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

even on Federal land, except for Federal reserved water rights. The Forest Service has authority to 

allow or deny use of National Forest System lands and to determine what is reasonable access (e.g. 

conditions of use of National Forest System land).
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

12 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Changes between the Supplemental Draft EIS and the Final 

EIS

In response to public comment (described in detail in appendix E) and continued interdisciplinary 

team input, we have made some changes to this FEIS. Changes include:

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

on the SDEIS;

• Revisions to the water resources section of chapter 3 to address public comments, including 

the addition of some new figures;

• Minor revisions to the aquatic habitat section of chapter 3 to address concerns regarding 

fishing creel data;

• Revisions to the socioeconomic section of chapter 3 to reflect the addition of cost 

information;

• Minor revisions to the riparian section of chapter 3 to ensure consistency with changes made 

to the water resources section;

• Minor revisions to the water rights section of chapter 3 to reflect new information regarding 

water rights transfers in the project area;

• Additions to the Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from detailed analysis section of 

chapter 2;

• Minor adjustments to mitigation measures and monitoring for the alternatives analyzed in 

detail in chapter 2;

• Clarifications to analysis and conclusions sections to identify alternative 2 (no pumping) as 

the baseline condition against which impacts of the action alternatives are compared;

• Addition of appendix E to summarize public comments received on the SDEIS and the Forest 

Service response;

• Identification of alternative 1 (no change; continue pumping at historic levels) as the 

preferred alternative.

Purpose and Need for Action

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

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

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

lands in the project area.

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

Desired Condition

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

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

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

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

project area; and input from USDA Forest Service personnel and stakeholders. We also considered the 

changes in condition in the project area due to the Little Bear Fire.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 13

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

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

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

at the gage and/or measured at associated monitoring wells, during dry periods, and no-flow 

days average 20–30 days or less per year, or their equivalent measured at associated 

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

1989 and 2011. 

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

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

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

functions to aid in restoration of watershed conditions affected by the Little Bear Fire. Water 

quality in North Fork Eagle Creek is maintained, recognizing that short-term adverse impacts 

due to the Little Bear Fire are likely, but that these effects will diminish over the long-term. 

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

for average or median water table depth annually or seasonally (based on monitoring) is 

maintained. 

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

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

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

and seeking opportunities for transferring water rights to locations off of National Forest 

System land.

Existing Condition

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

the time of this writing regarding conditions and uses along North Fork Eagle Creek. Information 

used is listed in the references section later in this document, included in the project record, and 

discussed in more detail in each resource section of chapter 3. 

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

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

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

the wells, when present, occurs in reaches where bedrock outcrops into the channel or where 

bed load (sand and gravel) deposits are thinner. North Fork Eagle Creek has less available 

sustained base flow than it did before the wells began pumping in 1988. Annual discharge, 

direct runoff, and base flow were lower during the U.S. Geological Survey study period 

(2007–2009) than before 1988 (1969–1980). No-flow days average approximately 46 days 

per year (1988–2011).

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

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

Water Resources Report in the project record (AECOM 2015). These include:

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

availability, lead to greater runoff from storms and snowmelt, and temporarily increase 

surface water yield.

• Reduced storage of water in litter which can increase overland water flow.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

14 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

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

increase recharge from large monsoonal events.

• Reduced infiltration which can increase overland flow and erosion.

• Changed surface streamflow resulting in temporary increases in ‘flashy’ responses to rainfall 

and rapid snowmelt, seasonal changes in snowmelt and altered water quality. 

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

long-term, there could be a return to pre-burn baseflow conditions, or increased baseflow due 

to tree and shrub densities, reduced evapotranspiration and monsoonal recharge. 

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

greater volumes of sediment and debris, greater flash flood frequency, increased erosive 

power, and modified channel conditions.

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

increased or accelerated evaporation, sublimation, and melt. 

• Vegetation within the project area riparian corridor consists primarily of ponderosa pine and 

boxelder in the overstory and grass in the understory. Obligate wetland species are generally 

not supported by this stream based on the results of surveys conducted in 2010–2011; willows 

and sedges were only occasionally observed. North Fork Eagle Creek provides streamside 

recreation and wildlife viewing. 

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

(Miller 2015), the Little Bear Fire affected vegetation in the project area, including the riparian 

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

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

intensity and there was no high intensity fire. There was little loss of vegetation in the riparian 

corridor due to the wildfire but some areas showed signs of sediment flow where vegetation was 

covered in sediment, bank scouring and deep cobble deposits near the confluence of the North Fork 

and South Fork of Eagle Creek.

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

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

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

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

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

months (Wilson and Company 2005; AECOM 2012 and 2015; Hennighausen and Olsen 2012 and 

Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. 2014).

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

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

described in an updated summary of “water rights, return flow and conditions resulting from the Little 

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

Village of Ruidoso lost their ability to use Eagle Creek surface water because of poor water quality 

and debris flows. Groundwater availability was also reduced due to damage to aquifer recharge. Since 

the 2012 Little Bear Fire, the Village of Ruidoso has been diverting more surface and groundwater 

from the Rio Ruidoso to meet the demand for municipal water. Water storage in Grindstone Reservoir 

by diversion from the Rio Ruidoso has declined to historic lows. The Village of Ruidoso anticipates 

the effects of the wildfire on water quality and aquifer recharge in Eagle Creek will stabilize over a 

period of years so that resumption of their normal operations would be possible in the future.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 15

Need for Action

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

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

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

component of the Ruidoso municipal water supply system that residents and visitors rely 

upon; and 

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

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

by groundwater drawdown from pumping these wells.

Management Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

and opportunities for transferring water rights to locations off of National Forest System land; 

and 

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

adequate surface and groundwater flows and protecting water dependent ecosystems. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requires that ‘thoughtful and prudent’ management be applied to groundwater beneath National Forest 

System lands as a valuable resource.

Preferred Alternative

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

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

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

associated monitoring wells; 

• well house control station; 

• underground pipelines and power lines; and 

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

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

verification of the permit terms and conditions. These could occur as often as every year but would 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

16 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

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

requirements reflecting additional monitoring and mitigation measures; responding to the purpose and 

need for action, and minimizing potential adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater resources 

from well operations. 

The preferred alternative; once finalized in a Record of Decision and included in the operating plan, 

which is part of the special use permit; would require the Village of Ruidoso to implement and pay 

for any identified monitoring of groundwater and surface water resources,. Cost estimates for the 

alternatives are included in the socioeconomics section of chapter 3. The USDA Forest Service, with 

assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey, if possible, may also assist with certain aspects as 

mutually agreed upon by all parties. 

Decision Framework

The Lincoln National Forest Supervisor must decide whether to issue a new permit to re-authorize the 

Village of Ruidoso’s North Fork well operations on National Forest System lands, and if so, under 

what terms and conditions, including adaptive management requirements. 

Public Involvement

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

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

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

to 174 stakeholders including private landowners, agencies, organizations, and tribes. We also posted 

information on the Lincoln National Forest web site and published a news release in the Ruidoso 

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

17, 2011, to provide project information and answer questions. As of January 2012, we received a 

total of 102 comment letters from you, the public—including agencies, organizations, individuals, 

and elected officials—in response to our request for input. Appendix A displays all those who 

provided comments prior to January 2012 and the completion of the DEIS, the consolidation of all 

these comments, and how these comments were addressed in the DEIS.

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

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

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

News, and email and letter notifications were distributed to all those on the project mailing list. We 

requested comments by July 9, 2012. We received several requests for extensions to the comment 

period and Lincoln National Forest Supervisor Trujillo granted an additional 60-day extension, 

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

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

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

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

address the changed conditions in the project area. This was published in the Federal Register on July 

20, 2012. While we discontinued the formal comment period on the DEIS, we did invite any 

comments on the changed conditions in the project area by September 7, 2012. We also received 

comments on initial drafts of chapters 1 and 2 of the DEIS from stakeholders and these comments 

were also considered in development of this document. Appendix C includes a summary of the 

comments that were received and how they were used in preparation of the SDEIS.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 17

We released the SDEIS on November 14, 2014. We published notices that it was available for public 

comment in the Federal Register, and as a legal notice in the Ruidoso News; and in email and letter 

notifications to all those on the project mailing list. We requested comments within a 45 day period. 

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. 

We prepared this Final EIS based on public and other agency comments received during the 

Supplemental Draft EIS comment period and additional interdisciplinary team input. It includes the 

identification of our preferred alternative (alternative 1 – continuation of pumping at historic levels).

Some changes have been made as a result of additional discussion among the project interdisciplinary 

team to achieve a balance between providing municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso and 

protecting natural resources. The Final EIS also incorporates suggested corrections and changes in 

response to public comments. The changes are summarized at the beginning of chapter 1 and our 

response to public comments is detailed in appendix E.

Significant Issues

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

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

compare differences in effects among alternatives in chapter 3. Where necessary, we updated these for 

the SDEIS to reflect changed conditions due to the Little Bear Fire.

Water Resources 

Well pumping changes the dynamics of groundwater (groundwater drawdown and water table) and 

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

are linked and limited by accessible available quantities of water. Water resources over time can also 

be affected by climate change.

Measurement Indicators

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

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

compared using the following indicators:

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

anticipated to occur at the Eagle Creek gage during a year of average precipitation. No-flow 

conditions are defined as anything less than 0.01 cubic feet per second in the stream at the 

gage.

• Streamflow Quantity: Compare estimated occurrence of flows equal to or greater than 1.2 

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

flow value is a selected benchmark simply used for impact comparisons. Other larger or 

smaller rates could have been selected as a comparison metric (e.g., 1.0 cubic feet per 

second), but the 1.2 value lies between the 50 percent exceedance flows for the pre-pumping 

(1.6) and post-pumping periods (1.1) at the Eagle Creek confluence gage. In addition, for the 

pre-pumping period 1970 through 1980 (full measurement years) at that gage, the average 

annual baseflow was calculated to be 1.13 cubic feet per second, and the median was 1.19 

cubic feet per second, based on table 4 of the USGS report (Matherne, et. al. 2011). This 

comparative metric for potential impacts is not used as an adaptive management trigger under 

Alternative 3.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

18 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

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

within the projected drawdown (see figure 12 and figure 13 in chapter 3). (For impact 

assessment purposes, it is assumed that these features are connected to the more general basin 

groundwater system. Actual conditions may differ. 

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

projected drawdown (see figure 12 and figure 13 in chapter 3).

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

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

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

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

in rainfall, reduced snowpack accumulation, evapotranspiration, more frequent early season 

snowmelt, and reduced seasonal peak flows and/or shorter flow durations.

Aquatic Habitat and Fish 

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

Lowering streamflow may increase temperatures and temperature related fish mortality. Quantity, 

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

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

channel conditions, are necessary to support fish populations. Sufficient water supplies must also be 

available during summer months to provide water temperatures needed for survival of aquatic 

species.

Measurement Indicators

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

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

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

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

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

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

analysis has been removed. This is because this indicator is not likely to apply either to short-term or 

long-term post-wildfire conditions, since the North Fork Eagle Creek channel will transport and rework sediment and debris for a considerable number of years. This is described in more detail in the 

Water Resources Report (AECOM 2015). However, water quality will be used in a general sense to 

compare the alternatives in chapter 3 qualitatively. 

Riparian Vegetation 

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

These water quantity changes could indirectly affect quantity and quality of riparian vegetation along 

the stream corridor.

Measurement Indicators

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

condition. Alternatives will be compared using the following indicators:

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

implementing each alternative. 

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

implementing each alternative.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 19

Socioeconomics

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

Well pumping may result in changes in groundwater and surface water availability. Limiting access to 

groundwater pumping has potential to alter municipal water supply, affect streamside recreational use 

(public use of streams for streamside recreation, fishing, and wildlife viewing), and affect private land 

(availability of water for domestic wells).

Measurement Indicators

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

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

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

Alternatives will be compared using the following indicators:

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

withdrawal limitations are used to measure the potential for change to historic North Fork 

well diversion. Effects of groundwater withdrawal limitations will be examined on historic 

North Fork well diversion (average annual), diversion for Alto Creek and Grindstone 

Reservoirs (average annual) and projected demands from the 40-year water plan. In addition, 

effects of groundwater withdrawal limitations will be examined on historic North Fork well 

diversion during the 5-month summer resort period (high demand on water use) from May to 

September. 

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

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

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

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

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

measure potential for change to quality of recreation experience from streamflow quantity, 

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

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

• Financial Efficiency: A method called present net value will be used to estimate overall cost 

of alternative implementation, including identified monitoring measures. 

• Values, Beliefs and Attitudes: Where economic or other effects on area communities cannot 

be quantified, a qualitative discussion of nonmarket and social values will be used. 

Accordingly, values, beliefs, and attitudes of area communities are presented to address social 

considerations.

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

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

environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority and low 

income populations.

Water Rights

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

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

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

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

water rights. 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

20 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Measurement Indicators

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

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

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

Nonsignificant Issues

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

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

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

analysis, so these will be addressed more briefly in chapter 1 or chapter 3 of the FEIS. We have 

identified the following six for the North Fork project:

Soil Quality

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

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

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

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

Vegetation

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

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

vegetation. The possible effect of conifer density on water yield in the drainage was also identified 

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

Wildlife

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

listed and sensitive species, management indicator species, and migratory birds are discussed in 

chapter 3; these nonaquatic wildlife species are not significant to this project and are, therefore, only 

discussed briefly in chapter 3.

Cultural Resources

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

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

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

the alternatives and the impacts of this disturbance would be adequately minimized by 

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

the forest archaeologist be notified before any ground-disturbing activities to ensure surveys are up to 

date and no protection measures are needed. Therefore, this project would not affect cultural 

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

Recreation and Scenery

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

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

due to the limited nature of effects from well pumping, as summarized below. Therefore, this project 

would not affect recreation and scenery and these topics are not discussed in chapter 3. 

There are no wild and scenic rivers within or near the project area.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 21

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

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

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

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

as Outstanding National Resource Waters1 (New Mexico Environment Department 2011) but these 

are all upstream from the project area and do not have potential to be affected by proposed actions. 

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

for outfitter/guides or other special use permit holders. 

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

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

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

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

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

the North Fork Eagle Creek well field. Dispersed recreation, as defined in the forest plan, is recreation 

use that occurs outside of developed sites and requires few, if any, facilities other than roads and 

trails. In the project area, dispersed recreation activities primarily including hiking, backpacking, and 

camping. The only aspects of dispersed recreation with potential to be affected by the alternatives are 

streamside recreational use and fishing opportunities. Since these recreation aspects are discussed in 

other sections of chapter 3 (under “Aquatic Habitat and Fish” and “Socioeconomics”), dispersed 

recreation is not discussed further.

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

in chapter 3 of the FEIS. However, depending on results of the water resources analysis and the 

possibility of effects to springs and seeps in the larger drainage, there is potential for a cumulative 

effect. Monitoring measures are identified for springs to determine if any effects are occurring; the 

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

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

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

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

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

sensitivity level. These recreation and scenery classifications would not be directly or indirectly 

affected by North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping.

Public Safety and Well Security

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

State-regulated safety standards and requirements. The permit would require the Village of Ruidoso 

to comply with all other laws and regulations, and because it is their responsibility under State lawto 

ensure safe and secure facilities, public safety and security will not be addressed in chapter 3. Each 

wellhead is secured and locked. As stated in the description of alternative 1 (preferred alternative, 

continue pumping at historic levels) and alternative 3 (adaptive management), the Village of Ruidoso

 1 State of New Mexico Outstanding National Resouces Waters possess certain water quality, wildlife habitat, recreational 

opportunities or ecological attributes, as defined by state standards, which are available at: 

https://www.env.nm.gov/swqb/ONRW/. 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

22 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

may install security fencing around each well, if needed, and this would be captured in an operating 

plan that is a component of the permit.

Regulatory Framework and Consistency with Management 

Direction

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

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

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

Management Act, and various Executive Orders. Chapter 3 of this document (and in more detail in 

resource reports in the project record) identifies the regulatory framework that is applicable to each 

resource analysis. 

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

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

laws and executive orders.”

The preferred alternative is consistent with applicable management direction in laws, regulations, 

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

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

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

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

developed so that forest plan consistency can be assured.

Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(1986, as amended)

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

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

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

The forest plan goals for water resource management on the Lincoln National Forest include (pp. 12-

13 of the forest plan):

• Provide support to resource management activities with emphasis on maintaining water 

quality and quantity.

• Secure and provide an adequate supply of water for the protection and management of the 

forest; contribute to the forest’s estimated 123,000 acre-feet per year (acre-feet per year) of 

water yield (p. 9 and p. 217 of the forest plan).

• Manage for a favorable flow of water for users by improving or maintaining all watersheds to 

a satisfactory or higher condition (the 2011 Watershed Condition Classification Technical 

Guide (USDA Forest Service 2011) would be used to determine satisfactory conditions).

• Manage riparian areas to provide optimum vegetation and ecological diversity (the 2011 

Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide (USDA Forest Service 2011) would be 

used to determine these conditions).

The project area occurs within forest plan management area 1I – Upper Ruidoso. This management 

area is managed primarily for recreation (p. 78 of the forest plan). There are no specific standards and 

guidelines for this management area that apply to special use permit authorizations or water 

resources. The project area is not within lands identified as base-in-exchange, or lands identified by 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 23

the Forest Plan for possible exchange out of National Forest System management because other lands 

may better accomplish desired management objectives.

Standards and guidelines applicable to all management areas (p. 28 of the forest plan) relevant to this 

project include:

• Protect and enhance riparian habitat. 

• Maintain and enhance fish habitat. Avoid causing disturbances to existing habitats.

• Update water rights inventory, maintain and protect existing water rights.

• Limit special use permits to only necessary public utilities on land identified as base-inexchange.

Agency Direction

The Forest Service is in the process of revising agency-wide groundwater management directives, 

separate from this project. A draft of these directives was made available for public review and 

comment on May 6, 2014. However, the proposed groundwater directives were put on hold in 

December 2014 and formally withdrawn in a June 2015 federal register notice pending further 

discussions with states and tribes. A new proposal will eventually be published and available for 

public comment. When approved, these directives will outline agency policy and procedures for 

groundwater management. They will not however create any new legal authority that the agency does 

not already possess. Once finalized, we will review them for applicability to this project. In the 

meantime, we have thoroughly reviewed and considered current agency direction related to 

groundwater management for this project. 

Current Forest Service Manual (FSM) directives for groundwater resource management include:

FSM 2500, Chapter 2530 – Water Resource Management

• Objectives include: (1) produce water of a quality suitable for the beneficial uses identified in 

the land and resource management planning process (FSM 1920) and (2) ensure safe drinking 

water subject to public use on national forests, whether the source is a natural or developed 

water supply (FSM 7420). Where State standards do not exist, observe Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) water quality criteria (FSM 2532.02).

• Include a water quality evaluation for all environmental analyses (FSM 1950). Identify the 

water quality implications of proposed and alternative land management practices (FSM 

2532.03).

FSM 2500, Chapter 2540 – Water Uses and Development –

FSM 2541.04c Region 3 Supplement – National Forest System Water Rights – Forest 

Supervisors

• Maintain and update annually the forest’s water uses, requirements, and rights inventory. 

Assure that wells and pipelines proposed by the Forest Service are evaluated with the same 

criteria established below for entities other than the Forest Service. A state water permit is not 

needed for water use under the reservation doctrine. All other Federal water uses, however, 

must be in compliance with applicable state law and pursuant to state-based water right or 

permit. Whether a water right is based on state or Federal law, water development by the 

Forest Service requires NEPA compliance. 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

24 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

FSM 2541.34 - Water Uses and Development – National Forest System Water Rights -

Water Rights and Uses for Other Purposes

• Evaluate projected water requirements of uses of National Forest System lands for purposes 

such as hotels, power developments, and transmission lines not directly related to Forest 

Service programs. Assess environmental effects of the use before authorizing the use. If the 

projected water requirements conflict with existing or potential Forest Service uses and rights 

or will adversely affect national forest resources, the potential permittee must seek alternative 

water sources or develop mitigation plans acceptable to the Forest Service.

FSM 2541.35 Region 3 Supplement 

• Groundwater beneath National Forest System lands in the region is a valuable resource that 

requires thoughtful and prudent management. Understanding ground and surface water 

interactions facilitates the protection of surface water rights. Where surface and groundwater 

are connected, groundwater discharge sustains base flows in National Forest System streams 

and is the source of water for springs and seeps. This groundwater discharge may be critical 

for sustaining aquatic and riparian ecosystems along with the numerous resources and 

activities dependent upon them. Data describing ground and surface water interactions are 

valuable information for State agencies to have as they fulfill their responsibilities for the 

administration of water rights (FSM 2541.35). 

• If water supplies in sufficient quantities to meet the applicant’s needs are located in existing 

wells or found through exploration, a detailed plan to determine impacts should be required. 

This plan will be site specific and designed to identify potential impacts to forest resources 

and neighboring water supplies, and must be approved by the Forest Service before testing 

for impacts. 

• In considering requests to use water from a known aquifer underlying National Forest System 

lands, modeling drawdown and resultant impacts may be sufficient provided that there is 

adequate information available regarding key aquifer parameters such as transmissivity, 

storativity (capacity), recharge rate, saturated thickness, etc. Modeling shall be conducted 

using a groundwater flow model approved by the Forest Service in consultation with the 

appropriate state agencies. In the absence of sufficient information to model impacts, an 

aquifer test such as long-term pumping of existing and/or exploratory well(s) may be 

required. The purpose of the test is to evaluate the potential impacts of removing water at 

production levels from the well(s) under consideration. As testing occurs, there should be 

simultaneous measurements of water levels and/or pressures in other wells within the vicinity 

and of flows in adjacent surface waters. Any aquifer test(s) should be conducted during 

periods of appropriate flows in adjacent surface waters so that impacts can be identified and 

used to support modeling of drawdown characteristics and/or impacts to surface water 

resources over time. Chemical characterization may be necessary to further evaluate the 

potential connection between ground and surface water sources. If the proposal involves the 

transport of groundwater pumped from nearby non-National Forest System lands across 

National Forest System lands, the above testing may still be required to evaluate impacts of 

the groundwater withdrawal (40 CFR § 1508.25 Scope, 40 CFR § 1508.7 Cumulative 

impact). Note that in the analysis of impacts, the state may play a pivotal role in the 

determination of impact based on state law and priority dates. For example, the state may find 

that a negative impact to a junior appropriator is acceptable to meet the needs of a senior 

water rights holder. In the documentation and decision process, consider the statement in 40 

CFR § 1508.14 Human environment: “economic or social effects are not intended by 

themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement” (Sec. 3(b)).
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 25

• All monitoring or mitigation measures necessary to ensure protection of forest resources 

during the construction of water pumping, storage, or transport facilities, and during the longterm removal of groundwater should be included in annual plans of operation attached to and 

made a part of the permit(s). Mitigation measures such as not pumping during critical times 

of the year or returning water to streams and springs will be considered only if they have been 

granted all applicable state authorizations and if forest resources can be protected over a longterm period.

♦ The holder would be required to bear the costs of monitoring and mitigation either 

directly through permit language or indirectly through the use of a collection agreement 

that funds the Forest Service to accomplish the work.

♦ If long-term monitoring detects additional or unforeseen adverse impacts to forest 

resources, or if mitigation measures do not adequately protect forest resources, the permit 

shall be suspended or revoked as appropriate (36 CFR § 251.60 (a)(2)(D)). To reverse or 

prevent a suspension, the holder shall undertake such efforts as are necessary to eliminate 

adverse impacts (sec. 5).

♦ Applicable laws and regulations governing wells and water rights shall be adhered to for 

all proposals. This includes state requirements for notifications, drilling permits, well 

abandonment procedures, and water rights; and Federal (for example, Environmental 

Protection Agency) requirements and recommendations for monitoring wells, 

construction, sampling, and abandonment.

• In the event that testing, modeling, or monitoring indicates a possibility that appropriable 

waters are or may be impacted, the Forest Service shall follow the procedures appropriate for 

the state(s) in which the development is located. If an appropriate state remedy is not 

available, the Forest Service may seek remedy in any court of jurisdiction. The Forest Service 

shall not issue a permit for construction or issue/reissue a permit for production unless the 

applicable state authorization has been granted for the proposed development. In the event 

that a state withholds authorization for a water development proposed by the Forest Service, 

the requesting Forest Service official is advised to consult with the Office of General 

Counsel. Permits issued by the Forest Service for exploration, evaluation, construction, 

and/or production do not convey a water right to the holder (sec. 6).

FSM and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) directives for special use permitting include:

FSH 2709.11, 52.3 – Special Uses – Standard Forms and Supplemental Clauses

• C-8. Operating Plan. The holder shall provide an operating plan [optional - and revise the 

plan every (year(s)/month(s)]. The plan shall be prepared in consultation with the authorized 

officer or designated representative and cover operation and maintenance of facilities, dates 

or season of operations, and other information required by the authorized officer to manage 

and evaluate the occupation and/or use of National Forest System lands. The provisions of the 

operating plan and the annual revisions shall become a part of this authorization and shall be 

submitted by the holder and approved by the authorized officer or their designated 

representative(s). This operating plan is hereby made a part of the authorization.

FSM 2716.12 - Special Use Authorizations - Review before Reissuance

• Before approving the issuance of a new special use permit for an established use, an analysis 

of the conditions of the use shall be made to determine whether changes in permit conditions 

are needed. Every opportunity should be taken to correct deficiencies and bring older 

facilities and permit areas up to standard. New requirements must be reasonable and 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

26 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

defensible. To ensure an orderly and planned accomplishment of objectives, a schedule of 

completion dates shall be made a part of the permit.

• When an existing use is no longer desirable, or when the area is needed for uses of higher 

priority, the permittee should be given written notice that a request for a new permit will not 

be approved if the improvements are transferred. This notice will allow the permittee to make 

the most satisfactory arrangements possible, and is to be given at the earliest possible date. 

FSM 2800, Chapter 2880 – Geologic Resources, Hazards and Services

• In analyzing land management activities, consider: (1) location, function, and value of 

groundwater-dependent resources; (2) value of groundwater-dependent vegetation to provide 

fish and wildlife habitat, control sediment, and maintain stream temperatures and stream 

channel stability; (3) groundwater recharge and discharge areas and effluent and influent 

stream channel conditions; (4) water quality and deposition or buffering of potential water 

pollutants; (5) fluctuations in groundwater levels, discharge quantities, and timing of flow; 

and (6) cumulative effects of management activities on groundwater resources (FSM 2881.2).

• The objectives of geologic resources activities are to protect, manage, and improve 

groundwater and groundwater-dependent ecosystems, recognizing their unique values, while 

implementing land management activities (FSM 2882.02).

• Manage groundwater dependent ecosystems in relation to legal mandates, including but not 

limited to those associated with flood plains, wetlands, water quality, dredge and fill material, 

endangered species, and cultural resources (FSM 2882.03).

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 251, Subpart B, Special Uses

Section 251.50 - Scope

• All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, except those 

authorized by the regulations governing sharing use of roads (§212.9); grazing and livestock 

use (part 222); the sale and disposal of timber and special forest products, such as greens, 

mushrooms, and medicinal plants (part 223); and minerals (part 228) are designated “special 

uses.” Before conducting a special use, individuals or entities must submit a proposal to the 

authorized officer and must obtain a special use authorization from the authorized officer, 

unless that requirement is waived....

Section 251.51 – Definitions

• Permit—a special use authorization which provides permission, without conveying an interest 

in land, to occupy and use National Forest System land or facilities for specified purposes, 

and which is both revocable and terminable.

§251.54 Proposal and application requirements and procedures.

• Pre-application actions—(1) Initial screening. Upon receipt of a request for any proposed use

other than for noncommercial group use, the authorized officer shall screen the proposal to 

ensure that the use meets the following minimum requirements applicable to all special uses: 

(i) The proposed use is consistent with the laws, regulations, orders, and policies establishing 

or governing National Forest System lands, with other applicable Federal law, and with 

applicable State and local health and sanitation laws. (ii) The proposed use is consistent or 

can be made consistent with standards and guidelines in the applicable forest land and 

resource management plan prepared under the National Forest Management Act and 36 CFR 

part 219. (iii) The proposed use will not pose a serious or substantial risk to public health or 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 27

safety. (iv) The proposed use will not create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or 

occupancy. (v) The proposed use will not unreasonably conflict or interfere with 

administrative use by the Forest Service, other scheduled or authorized existing uses of the 

National Forest System, or use of adjacent non-National Forest System lands. (vi) The 

proponent does not have any delinquent debt owed to the Forest Service under terms and 

conditions of a prior or existing authorization, unless such debt results from a decision on an 

administrative appeal or from a fee review and the proponent is current with the payment 

schedule. (vii) The proposed use does not involve gambling or providing of sexually oriented 

commercial services, even if permitted under State law. (viii) The proposed use does not 

involve military or paramilitary training or exercises by private organizations or individuals, 

unless such training or exercises are federally funded. (ix) The proposed use does not involve 

disposal of solid waste or disposal of radioactive or other hazardous substances.

Section 251.61 Applications for new, changed, or additional uses or area

• Holders shall file a new or amended application for authorization of any new, changed, or 

additional uses or area, including any changes that involve any activity that has an impact on 

the environment, other uses, or the public. In approving or denying new, changed, or 

additional uses or area, the authorized officer shall consider, at a minimum, the findings or 

recommendations of other affected agencies and whether to revise the terms and conditions of 

the existing authorization or issue a new authorization. Once approved, any new, changed, or 

additional uses or area must be reflected in the existing or a new authorization.

Section 251.64 - Renewals 

• When a special use authorization provides for renewal, the authorized officer shall renew it 

where such renewal is authorized by law, if the project or facility is still being used for the 

purpose(s) previously authorized and is being operated and maintained in accordance with all 

the provisions of the authorization. In making such renewal, the authorized officer may 

modify the terms, conditions, and special stipulations to reflect any new requirements 

imposed by current Federal and state land use plans, laws, regulations or other management 

decisions. Special uses may be reauthorized upon expiration so long as such use remains 

consistent with the decision that approved the expiring special use or group of uses. If 

significant new information or circumstances have developed, appropriate environmental 

analysis must accompany the decision to reauthorize the special use.

• When a special use authorization does not provide for renewal, it is discretionary with the 

authorized officer, upon request from the holder and prior to its expiration, whether or not the 

authorization shall be renewed. A renewal pursuant to this section shall comply with the same 

provisions contained in the paragraph above.

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 29

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Preferred 

Alternative

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares alternatives considered for the North Fork project, and includes 

updates made since we released the SDEIS for public comment. It includes a description of each 

alternative considered in detail, as well as those alternatives that were initially considered but not 

developed for further analysis. Alternatives considered in detail are compared based on alternative 

components, measurement indicators, and how well they achieve the purpose and need for action and 

address the significant issues. A summary table of the environmental effects of each alternative is 

included at the end of this chapter. 

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

The USDA Forest Service developed three alternatives for detailed analysis, considering public 

comments, USDA Forest Service direction, internal scoping, and changed conditions resulting from 

the Little Bear Fire. These include a ‘no change’ alternative that would continue pumping at historic 

levels with no change in current management, a ‘no action’ alternative that would discontinue 

pumping, and the adaptive management alternative. The no action alternative sets the baseline against 

which the effects of pumping are compared. A no action alternative is required in an EIS (40 CFR 

1502.14(c)).

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No Change - Continue Pumping at 

Historic Levels

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

permit. It reflects continued pumping from the North Fork well field, a continuation of current 

management, reflected under a new special use permit and associated operating plan. 

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

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

associated monitoring wells; well house control station; underground pipeline and power line; and 

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

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

of the permit terms and conditions, 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
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

30 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

• 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/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. Prior review and approval of any maintenance or 

repair activities would ensure any needed mitigations would be applied to minimize any potential for 

adverse impacts due to ground disturbance or noise (see “Mitigation Measures” section later in this 

chapter).

The Village of Ruidoso would also maintain National Forest System Road 127A from State Road 532 

to the North Fork well sites. Any maintenance activities performed by the Village (including the low 

water crossing of National Forest System Road 127A across North Fork Eagle Creek) would only 

occur following review and approval by the Forest Service. Security fencing may be installed around 

each wellhead; the Village of Ruidoso would contact the Forest Service for approval and scheduling 

prior to this work being performed to ensure that any needed mitigations would be applied to 

minimize any potential for adverse impacts due to this ground disturbance or noise (see “Mitigation 

Measures” section later in this chapter).

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

pumping would continue at historic levels2

, in accordance with the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights. 

The new permit would be issued with similar terms, conditions, and history of water use that has been 

in operation since 1988, as described below. While the terms and conditions of the permit would be 

similar to the expired permit, the new permit would adhere to the most current special use permit 

templates.

Water use would likely average approximately 740 acre feet per year, with highest use between 

March and September (ranging from a combined total of 60 to 117 acre feet per month); between 

2002 and 2010, use averaged 569 acre-feet per year and ranged between 433 and 807 acre-feet per 

year. As discussed in the “Background” section of chapter 1 and in more detail in the 

“Socioeconomics” and “Water Rights” sections of chapter 3, from 2001 to 2006, the Village of 

Ruidoso obtained approximately 31 percent of its water supply from the North Fork well field. Based 

on recent information from the Village of Ruidoso, 46 to 75 percent of its water supply can be 

attributed to North Fork Eagle Creek well diversions (Village of Ruidoso 2012). In 2010, this was 

estimated at 77 percent (Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. 2014). 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 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 than the historic level 

with any transfer. As part of the special use permit, the authorization would include an annual 

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

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 31

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: MW1A, B, C; MW-2A; MW-3A; and MW-5A (see figure 12 and figure 13, chapter 3). Where 

possible, data would be collected electronically via transducers and data loggers that would 

provide daily measurements. 

• Well Pumping Reports: Daily pumping quantities of water from each of the North Fork 

wells would be reported in gallons per minute (summarized for the month).

The Village of Ruidoso would be responsible for daily operations, facilities and road maintenance

(National Forest System Road 127A maintenance is the responsibility of the Village of Ruidoso from 

NM 532 to the gate below the summer homes) and coordinating with us on maintenance/repair 

projects or data collection activities.

The Village of Ruidoso would be required to notify us if they implement stage 5 water restrictions 

(stringent water conservation measures). This would prompt a joint Forest Service and Village of 

Ruidoso review of the annual operation plan and development of an agreement to temporarily modify 

well pumping if needed to address a critical water situation. 

While alternative 1 (no change) is essentially continuing the Village of Ruidoso’s current well 

operations, it does include added mitigation and monitoring measures that are not currently 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. These measures would become 

part of a new annual operating plan under this alternative and are described under the “Mitigation 

Measures” and “Monitoring” headings later in this section. These include the following potentially 

ground disturbing actions in addition to periodic monitoring and data collection:

• Installing two new alluvial monitoring wells (one near the Eagle Creek gage and one near the 

North Fork gage). 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.

• Rehabilitating existing wells, as needed.

• Conducting either a slug test or an aquifer pumping test. 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. 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 transported away from the 

area of the aquifer test in order to avoid infiltration of the pumped water, which could bias the 

test.

• Identifying a new water quality sampling location and marking this for future use.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

32 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

• Installing a new precipitation gage in coordination with the United States Geological Survey.

With these added mitigations and monitoring, alternative 1 (no change) addresses the purpose and 

need and the significant issues, as shown in the analysis in chapter 3 (and summarized in table 2 and 

table 3). Implementation of these additional mitigations and monitoring were assumed for 

implementation of this alternative and were considered in the effects analysis provided in chapter 3 

and summarized at the end of chapter 2. 

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

control measures and costs) would also be developed.

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

The USDA Forest Service would deny a new permit for the Village of Ruidoso’s North Fork well 

operations and maintenance. Using these four municipal water supply wells and associated 

monitoring wells; well house control station; underground pipeline and power line; and road access 

located on National Forest System land would not be authorized and would be discontinued, except 

those identified for future monitoring. The Village of Ruidoso would be required to remove wells and 

associated facilities from National Forest System lands within approximately 6–12 months of

notifying the Village of Ruidoso their permit would not be reissued. National Forest System road

127A would no longer be maintained by the Village of Ruidoso. 

If this alternative were selected, the Village of Ruidoso would have the option to file an application 

with the Office of the State Engineer to transfer the point of diversion of their water rights to 

location(s) off National Forest System land, as described in the “Water Rights” section of chapter 3. 

The Village of Ruidoso would no longer be able to access and put to beneficial use their adjudicated 

water rights at this current location, and would be required to move them, subject to approval by the 

Office of the State Engineer.

While this is outside the scope of this analysis, we anticipate that the existing North Fork stream gage 

would be removed at some point in the future if this alternative were selected, but the Eagle Creek 

and South Fork Eagle Creek gages may remain in place for future monitoring. These gages are the 

property of the U.S. Geological Survey and this would be a decision they would make if their use 

were no longer needed. 

If the gages remain and if funding were provided through the U.S. Geological Survey or other parties, 

surface water monitoring may continue at the existing Eagle Creek below South Fork gage (U.S. 

Geological Survey 08387600), even if pumping were no longer authorized. Water levels may be 

monitored at selected locations in or near the well downstream of the existing well field in the vicinity 

of MW-5. Recording devices or methods, measurement frequencies, and reporting provisions would 

be determined and implemented cooperatively between the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. 

Geological Survey.

Alternative 2 (no pumping) includes some additional mitigation and monitoring measures as 

described in the “Mitigation Measures” and “Monitoring” sections later in this section. Alternative 2 

(no pumping) addresses some aspects of the purpose and need and the significant issues, as shown in 

the analysis in chapter 3 (and summarized in table 2 and table 3). The Village of Ruidoso would not 

be responsible for any aspects of stream gage- or monitoring well-operation or maintenance or any 

mitigation or monitoring measures if this alternative were selected. Implementing this additional 

mitigation and monitoring was assumed for this alternative and considered in the effects analysis 

provided in chapter 3 and summarized at the end of chapter 2.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 33

Alternative 3 - Adaptive Management

This alternative was developed to address the purpose and need for action and management objectives 

and provides a balance between providing municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso while also 

ensuring maintenance or improvement of water-dependent resources. It incorporates revisions 

necessary to reflect the changed conditions in the project area from the Little Bear Fire. 

The Forest Service would authorize, under a new special use permit, the operation of four municipal 

supply water wells (three equipped and one unequipped) and associated monitoring wells; well house 

control station; underground pipeline and power line; and road access located in the North Fork Eagle 

Creek drainage on National Forest System land. The new permit would be authorized for up to 20 

years, with stipulations for frequent reviews and verification of the permit terms and conditions. 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. The permit term would be shortened if necessary, based on the results of these more 

frequent reviews and verifications of permit terms and conditions.

All existing associated facilities (underground pipeline, power line, well control house and 

monitoring wells) that are described for alternative 1 (no change) would also be approved as part of 

the permit under alternative 3 (adaptive management). As stated for alternative 1 (no change), the 

Village of Ruidoso would conduct periodic routine repair/maintenance to these structures as needed. 

Prior to any maintenance or repair, the Village of Ruidoso would contact us for approval and 

scheduling prior to performing any work. For this analysis, it is assumed that any ground disturbance 

necessary for anticipated maintenance or repair of the pipeline, control house, well, monitoring wells, 

or underground electric cable would be minimal. Prior review and approval of any maintenance or 

repair activities would ensure any needed mitigations would be applied to minimize any potential for 

adverse impacts due to ground disturbance or noise (see “Mitigation Measures” section later in this 

chapter).

Security fencing may be installed around each wellhead; the Village of Ruidoso would contact the 

Forest Service for approval and scheduling prior to this work being performed to ensure that any 

needed mitigations would be applied to minimize any potential for adverse impacts due to this ground 

disturbance or noise (see “Mitigation Measures” section later in this chapter).

As under alternative 1 (no change), the Village of Ruidoso would also maintain National Forest 

System Road 127A from State Road 532 to the North Fork well sites, following review and approval 

by the Forest Service prior to performing any maintenance work, including the low water crossing of 

National Forest System Road 127A across North Fork Eagle Creek.

The new permit would include an annual operating plan that would reflect current adaptive 

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

adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater resources from well operations. Water use would 

equal approximately 900 cumulative acre feet or less over any 3 consecutive water years (300 acrefeet per year or less). This could vary based on monitoring results of the adaptive management 

triggers described in more detail below. This water use threshold would be implemented as a starting 

point only and could be adjusted (up or down), depending on the results of monitoring. The Village of 

Ruidoso would prepare an annual operating plan in consultation with us. We would require the 

Village of Ruidoso to prepare monthly reports, electronic reports in spreadsheet format, with the 

following information:
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

34 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

• 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: MW1A, B, C; MW-2A; MW-3A; and MW-5A (see figure 3). Where possible, data would be 

collected electronically via transducers and data loggers that would provide daily 

measurements. 

• Well Pumping Reports: Daily pumping quantities of water from each of the North Fork 

wells would be reported in gallons per minute (summarized for the month). 

The Village of Ruidoso would be responsible for costs associated with the adaptive management 

strategy and monitoring, daily operations, facilities, and road maintenance (National Forest System 

Road 127A maintenance is the responsibility of the Village of Ruidoso from NM 532 to the gate 

below the summer homes), and coordinating with us on maintenance/repair projects or data collection 

activities. These include the following potentially ground disturbing actions in addition to periodic 

monitoring and data collection:

• Installing two new alluvial monitoring wells (one near the Eagle Creek gage and one near the 

North Fork gage). 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.

• Rehabilitating existing wells, as needed.

• Conducting either a slug test or an aquifer pumping test. 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. The pumping, or aquifer test 

involves a pumping well and one or more observation wellsand 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).

• Identifying a new water quality sampling location and marking this for future use.

• Installing a new precipitation gage in coordination with the United States Geological Survey.

Implementing the additional mitigation and monitoring identified for alternative 3 was assumed for 

this alternative and considered in the effects analysis provided in chapter 3 and summarized at the end 

of chapter 2.

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

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

over time. The North Fork Eagle Creek basin is characterized as highly transmissive - (water moves 

through it easily); yet with a relatively low groundwater storage capacity. These two characteristics 

make it sensitive to variations in precipitation patterns and intensity.

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

control measures, and costs) would also be developed.

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. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 35

Figure 3. Flowchart of the proposed adaptive management strategy for alternative 3

Install new alluvial monitoring 

wells and conduct monitoring of 

Eagle Creek, North Fork and 

South Fork gages and/or alluvial 

wells; water table depth2, 

springs, riparian obligate trees & 

water quality; conduct slug test 

or aquifer pump test

Are there >30 days of no flow at 

the Eagle Creek gage or >30 days 

of alluvial well elevation below 

7,609 feet? Is water elevation 

below necessary rooting depth?

YES

If this trigger 

is reached 

while pumping 

is occurring 

between 3/1-

9/30, limit 

pumping to 

<50%

volumetric 

rate at North 

Fork gage (or 

well elevation 

of 7,904 ft) 

until surface 

flow resumes 

(or well 

elevation is 

reached)3

NO

Continue 

pumping: add 

data to future 

years: if hit 

≥30 days, limit 

pumping as 

described 

under YES

Conduct monitoring as in YEAR 

1−may not include seeps/springs 

or water quality if completed in 

YEAR 1; slug test/aquifer test 

only needed once

Conduct monitoring as in YEAR 2 Conduct monitoring as in YEAR 2. 

Conduct repeat of 2010/2011 

riparian baseline survey

NO

Continue 

pumping: add 

data to future 

years: if hit 

≥30 days, limit 

pumping as 

described 

under YES

Are there >30 days of no flow at 

the Eagle Creek gage or >30 days 

of alluvial well elevation below 

7,609 feet? Is water elevation 

below necessary rooting depth?

YES

If this trigger 

is reached 

while pumping 

is occurring 

between 3/1-

9/30, limit 

pumping to 

<50% 

volumetric 

rate at North 

Fork gage (or 

well elevation 

of 7,904 ft) 

until surface 

flow resumes 

(or well 

elevation is 

reached)3

Are there >30 days of no flow at 

the Eagle Creek gage or >30 days 

of alluvial well elevation below 

7,609 feet? Is water elevation 

below necessary rooting depth?

YES

If this trigger 

is reached 

while pumping 

is occurring 

between 3/1-

9/30, limit 

pumping to 

<50% 

volumetric 

rate at North 

Fork gage (or 

well elevation 

of 7,904 ft) 

until surface 

flow resumes 

(or well 

elevation is 

reached)3

NO

Continue 

pumping: add 

data to future 

years: if hit 

≥30 days, limit 

pumping as 

described 

under YES

YEAR 4

STEP 2: Was average water 

table depth maintained in years 1, 

2, & 3? Was pumping below 900 

cumulative acre feet in years 1, 2, 

3? 

STEP 1: Were there more than an 

average of 20 days of no flow at the Eagle 

Creek gage (or equivalent alluvial well 

elevation) or per year in YEARS 1, 2, & 3?

YES

Limit pumping to 

<50% volumetric 

at North Fork 

gage (or well 

elevation of 7,904 

ft) and go to 

STEP 2

NO

Go to STEP 2

YES

Continue 

pumping and 

go to STEP 3

NO

FS to review 

triggers &

may require 

reduced 

pumping & go 

to STEP 3

STEP 3: Was there measurable 

decline in riparian vegetation 

based on YEAR 3 monitoring?

YES

And did you 

answer YES to 

STEP 1? If so, 

back to STEP 

1

NO

Continue 

pumping

YEAR 5

Conduct monitoring as in YEAR 2 

Evaluate & document results of 

years 1−4 to determine 

effectiveness of management

strategy

WORKING?

Achieving 

purpose and 

need & 

management 

objectives? If 

YES, then no 

change and 

continue 

implementing

NOT 

WORKING?

Make 

adjustments

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 1

ALTERNATIVE 3 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

1 October 1−Sept 30, each year.

2 Five years of water table depth 

monitoring should be complete 

prior to YEAR 1; if not, continue this 

monitoring in YEAR 1 and 

subsequent years until complete

3 Prompt consultation between VoR 

and USFS would be used to

determine withdrawal limitations
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

36 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

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

riparian vegetation as described below. Exceeding these thresholds would trigger implementation of 

adaptive management strategies to mitigate the impact to surface resources (figure 3). If thresholds 

are not exceeded, there would be no restrictions on pumping. Adaptive management strategies 

currently under consideration, if thresholds are exceeded, include limitations on groundwater 

withdrawal rates and cessation of pumping for short periods. In addition, a threshold would be 

established for the total volume of water withdrawn from the Village of Ruidoso’s wells over a 

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

thresholds and mitigations to prevent degradation of surface resources.

The proposed action would require the Village of Ruidoso and USDA Forest Service to work in 

partnership, with assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey, if possible, to conduct monitoring and 

adaptive management of groundwater and surface water resources. Generally, direct costs associated 

with adaptive management and monitoring would be the responsibility of the Village of Ruidoso (see 

socioeconomics section of chapter 3 for cost estimates). Four key adaptive management triggers; 

which would be identified through the monitoring indicators; would be used to evaluate the 

effectiveness of this management strategy. This adaptive management strategy would be incorporated 

into the operating plan for the permit. The use of an automated control system such as electronic 

switches or something similar, would be considered as part of adaptive management and monitoring 

implementation, in combination with interactive staff communications to ensure success. 

Adaptive Management Triggers (Monitoring Indicators)

Trigger #1 - North Fork Surface Flow Volume and Alluvial Water Depth 

This trigger would act as an indicator of surface and subsurface flows necessary to maintain or 

improve existing riparian and aquatic ecosystems along the North Fork Eagle Creek below the 

existing well field. The Village of Ruidoso would be responsible for continued collection of alluvial 

water depth measurements collected at new wells located at the Eagle Creek gage (U.S. Geological 

Survey 08387600) and the North Fork gage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387550), at existing or 

rehabilitated monitoring wells at the MW-1A and MW-5A well locations along the North Fork Eagle, 

and existing pumping wells. The Eagle Creek stream gage, located just below the confluence of the 

North Fork and South Fork tributaries, records surface flow volume rates (quantities) in cubic feet per 

second. These data are currently collected and stored by the U.S. Geological Survey, and available to 

the USDA Forest Service and public on the U.S. Geological Survey water data web site 

(http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). 

Because these data may no longer be reliable due to the Little Bear Fire and subsequent debris 

loading in the Eagle Creek drainage, this adaptive management trigger would use these Eagle Creek 

gage streamflow data (if deemed available and reliable), in conjunction with water depth 

measurements from monitoring wells along North Fork Eagle Creek including new monitoring wells

to be located at the North Fork and Eagle Creek stream gages. Common elevation datums and 

transects would be established by surveys and permanently located in the field at the North Fork gage 

and its new monitoring well, at MW-1A and MW-5A, and at the Eagle Creek gage and its new 

monitoring well. These surveys would relate historic and current streamgage stages to benchmark 

water levels in monitoring wells and to elevations of the streambed and banks. If stream gage data are 

deemed unavailable or unreliable, water level data from alluvial monitoring wells would be used 

instead as adaptive management benchmarks. Flows and/or water levels in wells would be monitored 

on at least a daily basis, and transformed at least monthly into elevations based on a common 

established datum.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 37

If there are more than 20 days per year of no surface flow (less than 0.01 cubic feet per second or an 

equivalent monitoring well elevation) over a period of 3 consecutive water years at the Eagle Creek 

gage, or more than 30 no-flow days within any single water year (October 1–September 30), the 

Village of Ruidoso would reduce groundwater withdrawal rates from pumping wells. Based on recent 

pre-wildfire streamgaging data, this flow trigger (0.01 cubic feet per second) has historically 

corresponded to an equivalent water surface elevation of 7,609.0 feet at the Eagle Creek gage. (This 

value is accurate to approximately 0.2 feet.)

If either of these adaptive management triggers (streamflow or water level thresholds) is activated 

while pumping is occurring between March 1 and September 30, then groundwater withdrawals from 

the North Fork pumping wells would be limited. Prompt consultation between appropriate Village of 

Ruidoso and USDA Forest Service staff would be required and the conclusive results of this 

consultation would determine groundwater withdrawal limitations. Groundwater withdrawals would 

be limited to 50 percent of the volumetric rate of surface flow at the North Fork gage (or a monitoring 

well elevation of 7,904 feet at the North Fork gage upstream from the pumping wells) until: 1) 

surface flow at the Eagle Creek gage resumes, or 2) the water level elevation in a new monitoring 

well at the current Eagle Creek gage location reaches at least 7,609 feet; or 3) other criteria 

determined by the USDA Forest Service staff at the time of consultation on this trigger are met. 

The following parameters and assumptions form the basis on which the North Fork Eagle Creek 

surface flow and alluvial water depth trigger would be modeled and managed:

• Using a 3-year running average allows for natural fluctuations in precipitation and snowmelt 

runoff, and periodic short-term drought cycles, considering historic trends. 

• The 3-year threshold of 20 no-flow days is equal to about half the average number of no-flow 

days experienced since pumping began (1988-2011), and should result in an improved trend 

in surface flows and moisture regimes in the North Fork tributary and its associated riparian 

area. The number of no-flow days and alluvial water depth measurements would be evaluated 

based on real time daily recordings from the Eagle Creek stream gage (if deemed reliable and 

available) in conjunction with a new monitoring well near the Eagle Creek with daily 

measurements taken. 

• If we identify additional criteria for groundwater withdrawals in response to trigger activation 

and required consultation, the criteria would be documented in writing and distributed 

appropriately. Such criteria may be provisional if needed, and could be based on pumping 

volumes, durations, or other monitored parameters. There are naturally-occurring monthly, 

seasonal, and annual variations in precipitation, evapotranspiration, runoff, and groundwater 

recharge. Eagle Creek watershed characterizations have been based on historical data.

Contrasting dry, average, or wet periods exist in these historic data. Similar natural moisture 

swings will occur in the future. Also, the long-term regional climate may change, creating 

local effects. Therefore, flexibility in the adaptive management response to flow or water 

level triggers is needed. Monitoring and mitigation measures are recommended for the 

purpose of enhancing multiple-resource management in the project area. In particular, using 

information gathered from monitored snowpack, precipitation, and water levels would allow 

site-specific responses to adaptive management triggers to be tailored to existing conditions, 

forecasted or reasonably expected conditions, or other considerations.

• We recognize that the Eagle Creek stream gage includes flow contributions from the South 

Fork tributary. For consistency with data gathered since 1969, the Eagle Creek stream gage 

location would continue to be used, assuming there are no measurable changes in human 

development or water use within the North or South Fork drainages. The South Fork and 

North Fork stream gages or the new monitoring well located at the North Fork gage location 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

38 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

(U.S. Geological Survey 083875550) would also continue to be used in long-term 

monitoring, but have insufficient historical data to initially be used as an effective trigger. 

Additional surveying and monitoring will allow these locations to be incorporated into the 

adaptive management framework. The relationship between the current Eagle Creek gage 

location and its previous location is discussed in more detail in the water resources section of 

chapter 3.

• Alluvial water level elevation triggers in new monitoring wells at the current Eagle Creek and 

North Fork gage locations (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600 and 08387550, respectively) 

are based on historical elevations for the 0.01 cubic feet per second ("no flow") condition at 

those sites. As of October 2012, post-wildfire streambed surface elevations at the North Fork 

gage are approximately 3 feet higher than the pre-wildfire condition, and substantial channel 

disturbance also has occurred at the Eagle Creek gage due to sediment accumulation and site 

repair.

• An initial survey traverse with appropriate closure would be conducted at the start of the 

monitoring program to correlate channel and bank elevations, gage datums and stages, and 

monitoring well water level elevations between the North Fork gage location (U.S. 

Geological Survey 08387550), all monitoring wells, and the Eagle Creek gage location (U.S. 

Geological Survey 08387600). Cross-sectional elevation surveys would be conducted 

annually at the permanently-located transects (at the North Fork gage, MW-1A, MW-5A, and 

the Eagle Creek gage locations) to identify ongoing modifications in streambed and bank 

levels and locations.

This trigger is different than that described in the DEIS and incorporates modifications as a result of 

the anticipated changes in the project area along the North Fork Eagle Creek following the Little Bear 

Fire. Even as hillslope conditions eventually restore to reasonably stable post-Little Bear Fire

conditions, a substantial amount of deposited sediment and debris is expected to move through the 

drainage system for decades. This will modify channel and bank conditions, streamflow occurrence 

and water levels, and gaging conditions. By tying adaptive management streamflow triggers to water 

level elevations, and by connecting monitoring locations to established elevation benchmarks, these 

flows, water levels and alluvial conditions can be more successfully tracked over time.

Trigger #2 - Water Table Depth 

This trigger would provide a continuous indicator of the status of groundwater storage along the 

North Fork Eagle Creek. The Village of Ruidoso would continue to maintain monitoring well MW1B and other selected wells in or near the North Fork Eagle Creek well field, using them to retrieve 

daily data on water table levels. Data for pumping rates from individual pumping wells would also be 

retrieved. Water table depth data (feet below ground surface) have been collected by U.S. Geological 

Survey and stored in the acre-feet database. These data and the values additionally collected would be 

continuously reported to the Forest Service and public on a water data web site maintained by the 

Village of Ruidoso as real time and historic daily averages. The U.S. Geological Survey water data 

Web site or a database maintained by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer may be used for 

these reporting purposes, pending an agreement with either agency. The reporting frequency (e.g., 

daily or weekly) would be determined through further interactions between the USDA Forest Service, 

the Village of Ruidoso, and other interested parties.

Using the sum of all monitoring data collected prior to implementation (2 years of data collected by 

U.S. Geological Survey during their study plus the data collected by the Forest Service during the EIS 

process, estimated at approximately 5 years of data), the Forest Service would evaluate these data to 

establish an adaptive management trigger (threshold) for average or median water table depth. For 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 39

example, if the water level in monitoring well MW-1B declines to more than 75 feet below ground 

surface, then pumping shall cease until the water level recovers to 65 feet below ground surface. The 

water table depth threshold may be established on an annual or seasonal basis (e.g. growing season, or 

spring, summer and fall), and would be based on interpretation of data representing periods of no 

pumping and pumping. If selected, the seasonal orientation would consider water table fluctuations 

under conditions of snow accumulation, snowmelt, low precipitation, and monsoonal moisture. Upon 

data collection and interpretations, individual thresholds may be established for different wells 

monitored at different locations along the North Fork Eagle Creek. To avoid extreme conditions, 10 

percent of the values would be trimmed from both the highest and lowest portions of the dataset(s).

The Village of Ruidoso would be required to maintain a corresponding average water table depth that 

is equal to or above these thresholds over 3 consecutive water years. If groundwater pumping of 

North Fork wells results in a declining trend in the average water table depths over any 3-year period, 

the Village of Ruidoso would reduce diversions from the wells until the average water table depth is 

reestablished and the Forest Service determines that pumping may resume without creating further 

departures over a 3-year period.

In addition, the unnamed spring on the right bank of the North Fork upstream from the North Fork 

gage (UTM coordinates of 430344.177, 3697589.137 meters) would be monitored monthly for 

continued flow. Water chemistry at this spring would be characterized to ascertain its source (e.g., 

deep bedrock). After at least two years of monthly monitoring, changes or cessation of flow rates at 

this spring would be used to further inform potential adaptive management actions.

Trigger #3 - Riparian Vegetation

This trigger would provide an indicator of the effects of groundwater withdrawal on the condition and 

trend of surface resources in and downstream from the North Fork Eagle Creek basin and was 

developed to complement the surface flow and alluvial water depth trigger. 

The riparian inventory conducted in 2010-2011 would be used as a comparison so that any future 

changes in riparian vegetation in the project area would be apparent with future monitoring. Shortterm and long-term trends in riparian vegetation canopy cover, composition, and conditions would be 

evaluated and documented by repeating the riparian inventory at least every five years, between June 

1 and July 15. This will provide an opportunity to examine any noticeable shifts in riparian vegetation 

at a community level. This inventory would be coordinated with stream geometry monitoring along 

the North Fork Eagle Creek, as further detailed under “Monitoring, Water Resources and Fisheries” 

below. 

We would conduct annual monitoring of riparian obligate tree species (e.g. willows, boxelder) and 

other facultative wetland species in the project area in order to detect short-term changes in condition 

and canopy cover. Individual monitoring plots known to contain facultative wetland vegetation would 

be examined annually for continued presence/absence of these species. 

Trigger #1 for streamflow and alluvial water depth would be used to determine when pumping would 

be reduced. As a guideline for trigger #1, we chose the minimum rooting depth of 30 inches for 

shining willow (Salix lucida) and 34 inches boxelder (Acer negundo)

3 to define the inner and outer 

edge of the riparian area, respectively and their growing season (March 1 through September 30). If 

water level elevations in monitoring wells used for trigger #1 decline greater than these depths below 

 3 Minimum rooting depths were developed from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service PLANTS database, 

minus a six inch buffer (USDA, NRCS 2015).
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

40 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

their benchmark elevations [currently 7,609 feet above mean sea level NAVD88 at the Eagle Creek 

gage location, 7,904 feet above mean sea level NAVD88 at the North Fork gage location, or other 

benchmark elevations to be identified at monitored wells], then pumping would be reduced until 

water level elevations are within 30 to 34 inches of the water level benchmark or other mitigating 

arrangements are made and implemented with the Village of Ruidoso. If riparian conditions are 

adversely affected by stream channel or bank instabilities, monitoring locations and/or trigger 

activation would be modified as deemed necessary by qualified agency riparian specialists. 

If annual monitoring of riparian obligate or other facultative wetland species detects substantial 

reductions in condition or canopy cover, or if the 5-year re-reading of the baseline riparian inventory 

detects measurable declines in canopy cover or composition, the Forest Service may require 

diversions from the wells to be reduced to below 50 percent of the annual average well diversions (in 

acre-feet per year or acre-feet per year), or may modify benchmark water level elevations in 

monitoring wells that serve as the baseline for other triggers, to help restore riparian vegetation. This 

trigger would be used in conjunction with the streamflow and alluvial water depth trigger to 

determine if reductions in pumping are necessary.

The following parameters and assumptions form the baseline on which the North Fork Eagle Creek 

riparian trigger would be managed:

• Annual monitoring would be relatively fast and inexpensive while still providing a method to 

detect rapid changes in keystone obligate and facultative wetland plants that occur in the 

project area and upstream of the current baseline monitoring area.

• Because the riparian corridor was not substantially affected by the Little Bear Fire and 

experienced primarily low intensity fire only, using the pre-wildfire riparian inventory 

baseline survey conducted in 2010-2011 is still appropriate and would provide an important 

method for gaging change in riparian conditions over time. Changes in alluvial deposits, soil 

deposition and bank shearing observed in some areas post-wildfire will be noted and 

documented.

Trigger #4 - Well Pumping Volume

The Village of Ruidoso would continue daily monitoring and recording of groundwater withdrawals 

through the North Fork Eagle Creek wells (pumping volumes in acre feet). Combined with 

precipitation and streamflow records over time, this metric would be used to develop an additional 

reliable indicator for modeling anticipated effects of groundwater withdrawals on surface resources 

within the North Fork Eagle Creek basin by accurately modeling the cone of depression.

4

An initial adaptive management trigger (threshold) of 900 cumulative acre feet over any 3 

consecutive water years (300 acre-feet per year) would trigger a review by the Forest Service of the 

current thresholds and mitigations at maintaining or improving surface resource conditions. This 

threshold is based on 500 acre-feet per year recharge for the North Fork basin as determined by the 

chloride balance method described in the U.S. Geological Survey report (Matherne et al. 2011). If the 

 4 The cone of depression is based on Figure 16 of Matherne and others (2011) [see FEIS Figure 12]. Bedrock water level at 

piezometers MW-1B and MW-1C are measured halfway between the pumping center and the North Fork gage. In March 

of 2009, MW-1B showed a drawdown of 75 feet at a time when the pumping rate was approximately 600 acre feet per 

year. At 75 feet of drawdown, Figure 16 shows that the cone of depression has negligible effect in the vicinity of the North 

Fork gage. If drawdown at MW-1B or MW-1C is limited to 75 feet, then effects to the upper reaches of the North Fork 

would be minimized. This water level maintenance would be independent of wet or dry periods, as the cone of depression 

would have the same shape whatever the pumping rate is to achieve it. However, Figure 16 makes note that the alluvial 

wells were dry in March of 2009, which will also need to be considered in the adaptive management for riparian areas. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 41

water level elevations in the alluvial wells or at MW-1B are shallower than related adaptive 

management triggers, then greater pumping volumes may be allowed. If analysis results indicate that 

current thresholds and mitigations are not sufficient to maintain surface resource conditions, 

management of groundwater withdrawals would be adjusted to provide additional protections against 

further degradation of riparian and other surface resources within the North Fork Eagle Creek basin.

Adjustments in Management of Water Withdrawals 

As time and funding allow, we would conduct periodic North Fork project area site visits to observe 

facility operations, gages and wells, streamflow, and riparian conditions. Notes and photographs (if 

applicable) would be taken and added to the project file. Every 5 years that the permit is in effect, or 

when triggered by exceeding the water withdrawal threshold described above, the Forest Service 

would evaluate and document monitoring results to determine effectiveness of the adaptive strategy 

and determine whether an adjustment to the parameters of this adaptive management strategy are 

warranted. These 5-year evaluations would correspond with the New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer (Office of the State Engineer) (Roswell District) 5-year water accounting periods. For water 

accounting purposes, the Office of the State Engineer water year runs from November 1 through 

October 31, and the year is numbered by the October date (e.g., Office of the State Engineer Water 

Year 2014 begins on November 1, 2013 and ends October 31, 2014). Forest Service 5-year adaptive 

management evaluations would be conducted on a schedule that coordinates with the Office of the 

State Engineer accounting periods.

• Even as hillslope conditions eventually restore to reasonably stable post-Little Bear Fire

conditions, a substantial amount of deposited sediment and debris is expected to move 

through the drainage system for decades. This will modify channel and bank conditions, 

streamflow occurrence and water levels, and gaging conditions. By tying adaptive 

management streamflow triggers to water level elevations, and by connecting monitoring 

locations to established elevation benchmarks, these flows, water levels and alluvial 

conditions can be tracked over time.

• Based on the 5-year evaluations of the special use permit, the Forest Service may relax or 

further restrict specific parameters of this adaptive management strategy, with modification to 

the operating plan of the permit. These 5-year evaluations would coincide, if possible, with 

the State Engineer 5-year accounting periods for the Hondo Basin. 

• Adjusting these parameters would be based on USDA Forest Service determinations of the 

extent to which the North Fork well operations are consistent with the purpose and need and 

identified management objectives.

Adaptive management adjustments include limitations on groundwater withdrawal rates and cessation 

of pumping for short periods; increases in withdrawal rates could also occur depending on the results 

of monitoring. 

Alternative 3 (adaptive management) includes some additional mitigation and monitoring measures as 

described in the “Mitigation Measures” and “Monitoring” sections (below). Alternative 3 (adaptive 

management) addresses the purpose and need and the significant issues, as shown in the analysis in 

chapter 3 (and summarized in table 2 and table 3).

Mitigation Measures 

Forest Service resource specialists have developed the following mitigation measures that would 

apply to implementation of the alternatives, including any adaptive management or monitoring 

requirements. Some would differ by alternative, as indicated below.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

42 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Wildlife and Fish 

• All Alternatives: In the event that any mechanized equipment use that may be necessary for 

implementing repair, maintenance or operation activities of the wells/associated facilities, 

fencing activities around the wells, or for monitoring or adaptive management (or for well 

and facility removal under alternative 2 (no pumping)), this activity would not occur within 

0.25 mile of the northern goshawk post-fledging area from March 1 to September 30 to 

minimize disturbance during the breeding season. The Village of Ruidoso would contact the 

Smokey Bear Ranger District for this location. 

• All Alternatives: In the event that any mechanized equipment use that may be necessary for 

implementing repair, maintenance or operation activities of the wells/associated facilities or 

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

(no pumping)), this activity would not occur within 0.25 mile of the adjacent protected 

activity center during the Mexican spotted owl breeding season (March 1–August 31). 

Water, Soil, and Vegetation

• All Alternatives: USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region best management practices 

(USDA Forest Service 1982) for water quality management and the National Best 

Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands 

(USDA Forest Service 2012) would be applied to any ground-disturbing activities under any 

of the alternatives related to maintenance and operation of the wells/associated facilities or 

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

practices would ensure that any potential for increased soil erosion or vegetation disturbance 

would be minimized. 

• Alternative 3 (adaptive management): The adaptive management triggers (monitoring 

indicators) described for this alternative serve as measures that would minimize the potential 

for adverse impact to water, soil, and vegetation resources.

• Alternative 1 (preferred alternative; continue pumping at historic levels) and alternative 

3 (adaptive management): The Village of Ruidoso would be required to develop and 

implement a water conservation strategy as part of the terms and conditions of their special 

use permit.

Cultural Resources

• Alternative 2 (no pumping): The Lincoln National Forest archaeologist would be consulted 

prior to removal of any wells and associated facilities in order to ensure cultural resource 

protections are provided, as needed. No impacts are expected at this time since no known 

sites are located within the area of potential effect. 

• All Alternatives: If any human remains or artifacts determined to fall under the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act guidelines are unearthed during project 

activities, we would consult with all appropriate tribes. 

Public Safety and Health 

• The Village of Ruidoso is responsible for ensuring all wells and associated facilities are safe 

and do not pose a danger to public health or safety.

Monitoring 

The first eight monitoring measures described below for water resources and fisheries would be 

implemented for either alternative 1 (preferred alternative; continue pumping at historic levels) or 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 43

alternative 3 (adaptive management). Monitoring is also recommended for alternative 2 (no pumping) 

and is described below as monitoring measure nine. 

These measures would be used in conjunction with those already identified as part of the alternative 

descriptions provided earlier in this chapter, including those discussed as part of adaptive 

management under alternative 3 (adaptive management). 

Implementing these additional monitoring measures was assumed for these alternatives and was 

considered in the effects analysis provided in chapter 3 and summarized at the end of chapter 2.

Water Resources and Fisheries

1. Under alternative 1 (preferred alternative) or alternative 3: The Village of Ruidoso would 

rehabilitate existing monitoring wells, or construct new ones upstream and downstream of the 

well field, to ensure that only one individual water-bearing zone of interest is monitored within 

each screened zone. New alluvial monitoring wells would be constructed by the Village of 

Ruidoso adjacent to the North Fork of Eagle Creek, at the locations of the existing North Fork 

streamgage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387550) and Eagle Creek below South Fork streamgage 

(U.S. Geological Survey 08387600). In order of increasing depth, the individual groundwater 

zones of interest in the well field area include the stream alluvium, shallower fractured and 

weathered zones within volcanic bedrock, and deeper bedrock zones within the same volcanic 

aquifer system. Well rehabilitation can include sealing off multiple completions with bentonite 

and/or grout as appropriate; or other means of isolating a source zone by adaptations of the wells 

already in place. In addition, if a pumping alternative is selected, deep, long-screen wells would 

be selected or newly constructed and monitored both upstream and downstream of the well field

to track water table depths as part of monitoring. The screened portions of these two wells would 

be the same as the elevation range of the screened or open zones of the pumping wells. The 

results of this monitoring would be used (along with proposed riparian monitoring) to assist in 

determining potential effects to riparian vegetation by comparing to minimum rooting depths of 

facultative wetland species. 

2. Under alternative 1 (preferred alternative ) or alternative 3: Using the re-configured as well 

as new monitoring wells completed from Monitoring Measure 1, the Village of Ruidoso would 

conduct slug tests or aquifer pumping tests of the individual water-bearing zones of interest at the 

well field. The choice of tests would ultimately depend on the time and resources available, and 

on conclusions reached during coordinating efforts that would be completed between the Village 

of Ruidoso and USDA Forest Service. Comparable and contemporaneous tests would be 

completed for each water-bearing zone of interest, so that comparisons can be made between 

appropriate test results and a greater understanding of the hydrogeologic nature of the well field

can be gained. Surface flow observations would also be made before, during, and after the 

groundwater tests at selected locations along North Fork Eagle Creek.

3. Under alternative 1 (preferred alternative) or alternative 3: Monthly water quality field 

measurements would 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 

would be determined and marked or monumented immediately below the well field, at or near 

existing monitoring well MW-5 or wherever surface flow frequently occurs downstream. Field 

sampling constituents would include water temperature, air temperature, pH, turbidity, dissolved 

oxygen, and specific conductance. If approved in writing by the USDA Forest Service, the 

frequency of sampling could be reduced to a quarterly basis or less. All data records would be 

filed with the Lincoln National Forest Supervisor’s office on a quarterly basis during the first 

year, and as agreed-on thereafter.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

44 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

4. Under alternative 1 (preferred alternative) or alternative 3: Daily mean flow and/or water 

level measurements would 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 would be ascertained, and 

if significant alluvial underflow occurs, then modifications would 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 would be undertaken to 

further understand any correlations. Rehabilitated or newly constructed wells described in 

measure #1 above may be substituted for existing monitoring wells as needed, and may be used to 

substitute for surface flow gages. Recording devices or methods, and measurement frequencies, 

would be determined cooperatively between the USDA Forest Service and Village of Ruidoso. If 

digital devices are employed, data recording time-steps and clocks would be consistent between 

all monitoring wells and flow gages; time-steps would be four hours, six hours, or twelve hours. 

Time-steps would not fluctuate. Flow or water level measurements would generally correspond to 

water quality field data collection efforts if conducted under Water Resources Monitoring 

Measure 3. Data would be reported on a monthly basis to the USDA Forest Service, U.S. 

Geological Survey, and the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, and stored in a publically 

available database maintained by one of these agencies as determined through further 

coordination and decisionmaking. Quarterly and annual data summaries and conclusions would 

be developed and made publically available by the Village of Ruidoso, with the USDA Forest 

Service acting in an agency review and approval capacity.

5. Under alternative 1 (preferred alternative) or alternative 3: Eight springs and seeps in the 

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

a monthly basis for 1 year: priority locations would be such features alongside or in the channels 

in the upper North Fork Eagle Creek and Carlton Canyon. Locations are indicated on figure 2

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

constituents at springs would consist of common parameters including flow rate, temperature, pH, 

and specific conductivity. Additional water quality constituents (e.g., carbonate, bicarbonate, 

chloride, sulfate) would be included for springs if specified by the USDA Forest Service, and 

samples would then be retrieved and handled for laboratory analyses of those constituents if they 

were deemed necessary.

6. Under alternative 1 (preferred alternative) or alternative 3: Stream gradient, planform, and 

stability indicators would be monitored and documented annually by the Village of Ruidoso

between June 1 and July 15 at selected and benchmarked cross-section locations along the North 

Fork Eagle Creek for the first 5 years during the term of the permit. Cross-sections would be 

located a minimum of every 1,000 feet downstream from the existing North Fork Eagle Creek 

streamgage location to the Eagle Creek below South Fork streamgage location, below major 

tributary junctions, and at selected sharp bends. Stream channel width, bank height and angle, 

aggradation or degradation of sediment or debris, longitudinal profile, flow estimates, pool 

locations, and other selected geomorphic characteristics would be documented 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 would 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. Under alternative 1 (preferred alternative) or alternative 3: Snowpack on Sierra Blanca 

would be monitored by the Village of Ruidoso for the permit duration through access to the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service data portal. Anticipated dry, average, or wet spring 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 45

seasonal moisture conditions will be ascertained monthly and documented by monthly 

memoranda to the Forest Service for the months of January, February, March, and April every 

year. At least one precipitation gage along the North Fork Eagle Creek watershed divide would be 

maintained by the Village of Ruidoso for the permit duration in cooperation with the U.S. 

Geological Survey, and monthly total precipitation accumulations would be reported to the USDA 

Forest Service on a quarterly basis every year.

8. Under alternative 1 (preferred alternative) or alternative 3: The Village of Ruidoso would 

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 

would be 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 would be shared with the USDA Forest Service. The 

implementation could 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 nopumping conditions would be better understood and predicted. Time-steps for historic and 

updated conditions (e.g., weekly, monthly, etc.) would be determined through coordination 

between the USDA Forest Service and Village of Ruidoso. If practicable, the USDA Forest 

Service preference would be to develop, reasonably calibrate, document, and update a sitespecific 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 would be developed and calibrated during the initial three years of the 

term of the permit, and used through the continuation of the permit term to further inform 

adaptive management of surface and groundwater relationships along the North Fork Eagle 

Creek. 

9. Under alternative 2 (no pumping): Surface water monitoring would continue at the existing 

Eagle Creek gage below the South Fork (USGS 08387600), and water levels would be monitored 

at a selected well downstream of the existing well field in the vicinity of MW-5. Foundation 

conditions at the Eagle Creek stream gage would be ascertained, and if significant alluvial 

underflow occurs, then modifications would be implemented to either minimize or measure 

alluvial underflow past the gage. Recording devices or methods, measurement frequencies, and 

reporting provisions would be determined cooperatively between the USDA Forest Service and 

U.S. Geological Survey. This monitoring would be conducted as time and funding allowed and 

would be used to determine possible changes in flow due to discontinuation of pumping. If digital 

devices are employed, data recording time-steps and clocks would be consistent between all 

monitoring wells and flow gages; time-steps would be either four hours, six hours, or twelve (12) 

hours. Time-steps would not fluctuate.

Riparian Vegetation

1. Under alternative 1 (preferred alternative) or alternative 3: The 2010 baseline riparian 

vegetation survey would be repeated every 5 years, as described in the adaptive management 

strategy description of alternative 3 earlier in this chapter. Annual monitoring of riparian obligate 

tree species (e.g. willows, boxelder) and other facultative wetland species within the project area 

would also be used to detect short-term changes in condition and canopy cover. This monitoring 

would be coordinated with stream geometry and stability monitoring as described above for 

“Water Resources and Fisheries”. 

2. Under alternative 2 (no pumping): The 2010 baseline riparian vegetation survey would be 

repeated at 5-year intervals, as time and funding allows.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

46 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

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. We also considered applicable USDA Forest 

Service direction as summarized in chapter 1.

The following sections describe the comments we received from the public related to alternatives 

during scoping and the formal comment period on the SDEIS, and why these were not carried 

forward for detailed analysis in this document.

Suggestions for Changes to Alternative 3 (Adaptive Management) – General

No-flow days (days where there is zero flow in North Fork Eagle Creek) should be 

eliminated entirely from the adaptive management alternative - assure that the 

stream flows every day. 

The no pumping alternative will be analyzed in detail and is the alternative with the best potential to 

eliminate no-flow days. This alternative would “leave downstream flows in the same state that they 

would be absent the pumping of the North Fork Eagle Creek wells” which is required for the EIS 

analysis as part of the stipulation agreement. 

As stated in the U.S. Geological Survey report and summarized in chapter 2 of the EIS, although 

years of below average precipitation were recorded during the time period before the wells began 

pumping and after the wells began pumping, there were no days of zero flow recorded at the Eagle 

Creek gage from 1969-1980. A total of 789 no-flow days were recorded in 11 years of the 20 years 

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

periods of both below and above average precipitation during the study period but no-flow days did 

not occur during periods of below average precipitation before 1988. It is important to note that the 

Eagle Creek gage measures flow from both the North Fork and South Fork.

The “Manual Direction Summary” document (USDA Forest Service 2011) and Thompson (2015) 

illustrates that we do not have the authority in New Mexico to establish a minimum instream flow and 

that certain Forest Service manual direction related to instream flow does not apply to this particular 

project. Requiring zero no-flow days as part of alternative 3 (adaptive management) would not be 

consistent with these conclusions or our interpretation of New Mexico state law.

The purpose and need for taking action and the management objectives outlined for this project would 

not be achieved with eliminating no-flow days completely. Alternative 3 (adaptive management) 

proposes to reduce the number of no-flow days to an average of 20–30 days or less per year, roughly 

half of the average number of no-flow days experienced between 1989 and 2011. This would allow 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 47

pumping to occur under a closely monitored adaptive management strategy designed to ensure 

protection of forest resources while providing needed municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso.

For these reasons, this suggestion to eliminate no-flow days completely was not added to alternative 3 

(adaptive management), but will be addressed by the no pumping alternative. However, the predicted 

number of no-flow days per year may be used as an indicator in the “Water Resources” section of 

chapter 3 in order to compare and contrast alternatives in the EIS.

The term of the permit should be 10 years with an option to renew (instead of the 

stated 30 years). There should be a review of the permit every 4 years, not every 5 

or 10 years as stated.

The term of the permit has been revised slightly in the description of alternative 3 (adaptive 

management) since public scoping, as follows: “The new permit could be authorized for up to 20 

years, with stipulations for frequent reviews and verification of the permit terms and conditions. 

These could occur as often as every year, but would occur at least every 5 to 10 years.” 

We changed the term of the permit from 30 years as originally stated to 20 years and also added in a 

provision for annual reviews based on a review of Forest Service manual and handbook direction 

regarding special use permitting. 

Stipulations for review and verification of the operating plan of the permit are important at regular 

intervals during the administration of a permit; this is stated in the description of alternative 3 

(adaptive management). Keep in mind that the alternative that is ultimately selected for 

implementation in the record of decision would be inserted into the new permit authorization. One of 

the terms will be an operating plan which would include mitigation measures, monitoring, and 

adaptive management details. The USDA Forest Service and the Village of Ruidoso would develop an 

operating plan each year to guide management for that year. As also stated in alternative 3 (adaptive 

management), the permit and its operating plan would go through frequent reviews possibly as often 

as every year, but at least every 5 to 10 years. Changes to the permit’s annual operating plan 

(including any need for changes in adaptive management monitoring) could be made as a result of 

these reviews to ensure forest resource protection is being achieved. 

Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis since it is very similar to 

alternative 3 (adaptive management). 

Don’t authorize well #2 and decommission it since it is not being used and never has 

– this is required by the State Engineer Office water regulations.

The Village of Ruidoso does not use well #2 because it is not equipped, is not tied into the main line, 

and does not have power. However, the proposed action includes mention of this well in the Village of 

Ruidoso’s permit in order to authorize its presence on National Forest System land. If we did not 

mention this well in the permit, the Village of Ruidoso would be required to cap it or remove it from 

National Forest System land. Removal of an existing well also has the potential to impact water rights 

associated with the well. Removal of an existing well would result in ground disturbance and 

additional environmental impacts that would need to be carefully evaluated. Capping the well 

permanently would preclude its use in the future for other management needs such as monitoring.

If the Village of Ruidoso proposed to begin pumping water from well #2 at some point in the future, 

this use would still be guided by all the parameters established for the well field as a whole. If any 

new impacts not analyzed in the EIS would result from this new use of well #2, new or additional 

environmental analysis may be necessary at that time.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

48 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

For these reasons, we feel permitting well #2 is appropriate in the proposed action and would provide 

the most flexibility for future management without resulting in any additional environmental impacts. 

This alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

Don’t authorize well #3 since it is damaged and is not currently being used.

As stated above, the proposed action includes mention of this well in the Village of Ruidoso’s permit 

in order to authorize its presence on National Forest System land. If we did not mention this well in 

the permit, the Village of Ruidoso would be required to cap it or remove it from National Forest 

System land. Removal of an existing well also has the potential to impact water rights associated with 

the well. Removal of an existing well would result in ground disturbance and additional 

environmental impacts that would need to be carefully evaluated. Capping the well permanently 

would preclude its use in the future for other management needs such as monitoring. 

If the Village of Ruidoso proposed to begin pumping water from well #3 at some point in the future, 

this use would still be guided by all the parameters established for the well field as a whole. If any 

new impacts not analyzed in the EIS would result from this new use of well #3, new or additional 

environmental analysis may be necessary at that time. 

For these reasons, we feel permitting the presence of well #3 is appropriate in the proposed action and 

would provide the most flexibility for future management without resulting in any additional 

environmental impacts. This alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

Suggestions for Changes to the Proposed Action – Monitoring and Adaptive 

Management

Install a bedrock saturation switch instead of using a depth to water threshold.

We developed the depth to water threshold as described in the proposed action in order to define 

water table depth based on an average over several years so as to allow for natural fluctuations in 

precipitation and runoff. Once the average is identified, the monitoring wells would be used to 

provide water table depth indicators; these wells would provide this information nearly as quickly as a 

bedrock saturation switch. 

Using this switch to shut off the pumps whenever the bedrock is not saturated is very similar to the 

suggestion to not allow any no-flow days under the proposed action. The aquifer in communication 

with the stream needs to remain saturated, or the stream will lose flow to the aquifer. For the reasons 

described above for not eliminating no-flow days from the proposed action, we do not feel that the 

requirement for saturated bedrock before any pumping can occur meets the purpose and need for 

action or the management objectives for this project. 

Under the proposed action, the Village of Ruidoso would be required to maintain water table depth at 

or above the identified threshold (threshold would be identified after 5 years of data are collected) 

over 3 consecutive water years. If groundwater pumping of the North Fork Eagle Creek wells results 

in a declining trend in the average water table depth over any 3-year period, the Village of Ruidoso

would be required to reduce pumping until the average water table depth is reestablished and the 

USDA Forest Service determines that pumping may resume without creating further departures over a 

3-year period. Use of this threshold would allow pumping to occur under a closely monitored

adaptive management strategy designed to ensure protection of forest resources while providing 

needed municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 49

For these reasons, this suggestion to maintain saturated bedrock and to use a switch to detect this 

condition so that pumps are turned off when it is not achieved was not added to the proposed action, 

but will be addressed by the no pumping alternative. Detailed prescriptions from the alternative 

(identified in the record of decision) which is ultimately selected for implementation would be 

inserted into the operating plan for the permit. This includes mitigations, monitoring, and adaptive 

management actions. The USDA Forest Service and the Village of Ruidoso would develop an annual 

operating plan each year based on the terms and conditions of the permit to guide management for 

that year. As also stated in the proposed action, the permit would go through a review and renewal at 

least every 5 to 10 years. Changes to the operating plan of the permit (including any need for changes 

in adaptive management monitoring) could be made during any of these steps to ensure forest 

resource protection is being achieved; they may require additional environmental analysis. 

All monitoring information should be relayed electronically to the Forest Service and 

then made available to the public via the Web.

Having all monitoring information available electronically would be beneficial for management and 

would make it easier to disseminate this information to those who are interested. However, the 

specifics regarding how monitoring information is collected, stored, analyzed, and otherwise made 

available is outside the scope of this environmental analysis. The EIS will evaluate the effects of 

various well pumping alternatives on forest resources and socioeconomics; how data are relayed and 

made available for any of the alternatives would not result in any differences in effects to forest 

resources or socioeconomics. 

For these reasons, this suggestion was dismissed from further detailed analysis. However, the USDA 

Forest Service will consider this suggestion when deciding how best to implement whatever 

alternative is ultimately selected in the record of decision.

All monitoring should be conducted by the Forest Service or the Office of State 

Engineer and not the Village of Ruidoso.

As discussed above, the specifics regarding how monitoring is conducted is outside the scope of this 

environmental analysis. The EIS will evaluate the effects of various well pumping alternatives on 

forest resources and socioeconomics. While monitoring is a large component of the proposed action 

and has the potential for some effects (i.e. primarily labor implications and cost), exactly who would 

conduct the monitoring is not relevant to the environmental analysis. 

For these reasons, this suggestion was dismissed from further detailed analysis. However, the USDA 

Forest Service recognizes the importance of monitoring to this project and the desire for objective 

evaluations and adherence to whatever monitoring plan is ultimately selected in the record of 

decision. Any actions included in the operating plan of the USDA Forest Service special use permit 

must be authorized and approved by the USDA Forest Service. It is common practice for certain 

special use permit terms and conditions or the operating plan provisions (such as monitoring) to be 

conducted by the USDA Forest Service or an approved contractor or third party and paid for by the 

Village of Ruidoso. 

Adaptive management monitoring should be on a 5-year rotation/

Adaptive management monitoring should be on a 4-year rotation.

The proposed action includes verifying the success of the adaptive management strategy every 5 

years, so that adjustments would be made within 5 years if needed to ensure protection of forest 

resources. Therefore, the suggestion for a 5-year rotation is achieved by the proposed action. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

50 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Shifting this verification to every 4 years instead of every 5 years would not likely result in any 

measurable difference in “on-the-ground” effects to forest resources due to the similarity between a 4-

year review and a 5-year review and the variability in forest resource measurements over a 1-year 

period. As described previously, special use permits are to be managed with multiple levels of review 

and adjustment. Detailed prescriptions from the alternative (identified in the record of decision) 

which is ultimately selected for implementation would be inserted into the permit. The USDA Forest 

Service and Village of Ruidoso would develop an annual operating plan each year based on the 

mitigation measures of the permit. As also stated in the proposed action, the permit would go through 

a review at least every 5 to 10 years. Changes to the terms and conditions of the permit (including any 

need for changes in adaptive management monitoring) could be made during any of these steps to 

ensure forest resource protection is being achieved; they may require additional environmental

analysis. For these reasons, this suggestion was dismissed from further detailed analysis.

Depth to water threshold should be based on a pre-well baseline and not on a postwell baseline, as is currently described.

The USDA Forest Service developed the depth to water threshold as described in the proposed action 

in order to define water table depth based on an average over several years to allow for natural 

fluctuations in precipitation and runoff. Once the average is identified, the monitoring wells would be 

used to provide water table depth indicators. However, we recognize that any post pumping water 

table surface is curved (within the cone of depression) and is transitory and is not the same as the prewell pumping baseline.

Using a pre-well baseline for average water table depth instead of the 5-year post-well average is very 

similar to the suggestion to not allow any no-flow days under the proposed action or to use a bedrock 

saturation switch. The pre-well average water table depth was likely close to the stream channel, but 

we have no way of knowing exactly what the water table depth was before pumping began; this can 

only be inferred based on Eagle Creek gage information and some other factors as described in the 

U.S. Geological Survey report. For the reasons described above (for not eliminating no-flow days 

from the proposed action and not requiring bedrock saturation) in the proposed action, we do not feel 

that establishing a water table depth based on pre-well conditions meets the purpose and need for 

action or the management objectives for this project. We intend to use the average water table depth 

threshold as a baseline for comparison; a datum by which current conditions are compared. It is a 

method for measuring relative change. 

Under the proposed action, the Village of Ruidoso would be required to maintain water table depth at 

or above the identified threshold (threshold would be identified after 5 years of data are collected) 

over 3 consecutive water years. If groundwater pumping of the North Fork Eagle Creek wells results 

in a declining trend in the average water table depth over any 3-year period, the Village of Ruidoso

would be required to reduce pumping until the average water table depth is reestablished and the 

Forest Service determines that pumping may resume without creating further departures over a 3-year 

period. Using this threshold, in combination with the other identified indicators, would allow 

pumping to occur under a closely monitored adaptive management strategy designed to ensure 

protection of forest resources while providing needed municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso. For 

these reasons, this suggestion to use a pre-well baseline for water table depth was not added to the 

proposed action, but will be addressed by the no pumping alternative. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 51

There should be no limit on pumping during drought – you should use precipitation 

and projected streamflow instead. 

Not instituting any control over pumping during drought situations would not meet the purpose and 

need for action. The thresholds for water table depth, streamflow, riparian conditions, and pumping 

volumes in the proposed action include using 3-year running averages. This considers historic trends 

and allows for natural fluctuations in precipitation and snowmelt runoff, and periodic short-term 

drought cycles. While we recognize that water demand may be highest during times of below average 

precipitation, this is also the time when water-dependent resources are also stressed. Use of the 

thresholds identified in the proposed action would allow pumping to occur under a closely monitored 

adaptive management strategy designed to ensure protection of forest resources while providing 

needed municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso. For these reasons, this suggestion was not added to 

the proposed action but will be addressed by the no action (no change) alternative.

The 5-year monitoring requirement for water table depth before making adjustments 

is too long.

The proposal to base the water table depth threshold on the average depth based on 5 years of data 

collection was developed to allow for natural fluctuations in precipitation, snowmelt runoff, recharge, 

and periodic short-term drought cycles. We do not think that using 5 years of data is too long since it 

is important to ensure the average depth is based on a long enough time period to capture these 

natural fluctuations. However, we recognize that waiting until a decision is made on this project to 

initiate the last 3 years of this needed monitoring is not ideal at present, it appears feasible for the 

USDA Forest Service to conduct monthly water table depth monitoring on monitoring well MW-1B 

beginning immediately. If this occurs, this means that the average water table depth could be 

determined prior to a decision on this project. 

This statement in the proposed action has been revised slightly to capture this. 

Using the 5-year water level average is not accurate. This should be removed since 

it is not supported by the U.S. Geological Survey study.

Please see the response above regarding use of the average water table depth based on 5 years of data. 

We do not agree that developing an average water table depth based on multiple years of data (and not 

just the 2 years collected during the U.S. Geological Survey study) is in conflict with the findings of 

the U.S. Geological Survey study. The U.S. Geological Survey study used a 5-year moving average to 

analyze the precipitation trend, so it is consistent with that approach, especially since we are 

concerned about the relationship between drought and water table depth.

Groundwater withdrawals should be based on 50 percent of the streamflow 

measured at the North Fork gage.

The proposed action includes monitoring streamflow as follows: “If there are more than 20 days per 

year of no surface flow (less than 0.01 cubic feet per second) over a period of 3 consecutive water 

years at the Eagle Creek gage, or more than 30 no-flow days within any single water year (October 1–

September 30), the Village of Ruidoso must reduce groundwater withdrawal rates from these wells. If 

either of those thresholds is exceeded, then groundwater withdrawals from the North Fork wells 

would be limited to 50 percent of the volumetric rate of surface flow at the North Fork gage (which is 

upstream from the wells) until surface flow at the Eagle Creek gage resumes.” 

The proposed action includes basing groundwater withdrawals on 50 percent of the flow measured at 

the North Fork gage, as you suggest, if the thresholds for no-flow days is reached. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

52 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Weekly field checks should be added to the monitoring strategy. 

We recognize the value in periodic visual inspections during the course of implementation of any 

adaptive management strategy. While visual observations would not contribute to the data needed to 

verify the adaptive management triggers (monitoring indicators), it could provide anecdotal 

information on flow patterns, flood events, gage and well conditions, and vegetation condition and 

recreational use, to name a few. Conducting periodic visual observations has been added to the 

proposed action under the adaptive management strategy. However, we do not agree that mandatory 

weekly field checks are necessary to ensure an effective monitoring strategy. With limited funding 

and personnel, this would be difficult to implement. 

If there are violations to the stipulations, immediate actions should be taken until 

artesian flow regimes are regained.

We recognize that in successfully implementing the new permit, there must be consequences in the 

event the Village of Ruidoso does not comply with the terms and conditions. However, this is outside 

the scope of this environmental analysis. This EIS evaluates the effects of various well pumping 

alternatives on forest resources and socioeconomics. Effects are analyzed on the assumption that all 

the components of any alternative (including mitigations, monitoring, and adaptive management 

strategies) are implemented as described. In other words, it assumes full compliance. If the Village of 

Ruidoso is in noncompliance with applicable statutes or regulations or the terms and conditions of the 

authorization, the USDA Forest Service would handle it administratively per Federal Regulations. 36 

CFR 251.60 (B). For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis.

The water table depth monitoring should be based on information from NF-1, NF-3 

and NF-4 and MW-1B, not just MW-1B as is currently stated.

We agree that the wording in the explanation of how monitoring well MW-1B would be used for 

monitoring water table depth is not entirely accurate. We agree that all available information should 

be used and this may include data from the other monitoring wells and water supply wells. This 

clarification has been added to the proposed action. 

Comments on Stream Augmentation 

Drop stream augmentation from any further consideration. It does not address the purpose 

and need and could result in adverse impacts by expanding the cone of depression and 

exacerbating these effects to forest resources and by introducing chemical properties of 

groundwater above the surface.

Stream augmentation has been proposed by the Village of Ruidoso as a way to mitigate the potential 

for adverse effects to streamflow due to well pumping. We recognize that there are advantages and 

disadvantages to the use of stream augmentation and that there is literature available on this topic. 

Stream augmentation with groundwater is sometimes used to provide surface flow where there would 

otherwise be little or none. This may be beneficial, as in the case of saving an endangered species; or 

it can create other issues. The most obvious of these being added lowering of the water table and the 

potential for surface water degradation. We considered the following factors in determining whether

or not stream augmentation should be carried forward for detailed analysis: 

• Sommer and Horwitz (2009) made the observation that “. . . artificial augmentation will 

inevitably change the system in another direction, i.e. the ‘recovered’ state will be slightly 

different to the original state. In addition, it will require ongoing care, will use a valuable 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 53

resource relatively inefficiently, and will not address the root causes of the problem, namely 

overextraction of groundwater and declining rainfall.”

• Parasiewicz (2008) emphasized the importance of simulating the natural variable discharge 

that any stream will have throughout the year, minus the extreme spikes. Lowering the stream 

temperature in the summer or raising temperature in the winter by addition of groundwater 

may be detrimental to fisheries (Cowx 2004). Lower dissolved oxygen content of augmenting 

groundwater could also lead to asphyxiation of fish and invertebrate species (ibid.).

• Constituents generally not present or in very low concentrations in surface runoff may be 

highly enriched in groundwater which has equilibrated with the host aquifer. Utilizing 

groundwater to augment lakes in Florida resulted in significant increases in radium activity. 

The radium in this case was from the Floridian aquifer (Brenner et al. 2006). Water of high 

ionic strength potentially being released from aquifer storage and recovery projects for 

Everglades restoration was recognized as representing a “major ecological change” (National 

Research Council 2002).

• Additional pumping near a stream that is disconnected, or above the water table, can increase 

the length of the stream that is disconnected, resulting in more flow reduction (Brunner et al. 

2011).

Any withdrawal of groundwater to augment the creek at any point would result in a cone of 

depression that would be in addition to whatever drawdown is being caused by water supply 

pumping. As documented in more detail in the project record, we evaluated two scenarios. For the 

first, the transmissivity was set at 2,941 square feet per day and the storage coefficient was set at 

0.0014 (these numbers were taken from Atkins-Landfair, Inc. 1985). Based on this rough calculation 

under this scenario, water table drawdown would be approximately 2 feet within 50 feet from the 

pumping well after 1 year. For the second, the transmissivity was set at 1,250 square feet per day and 

a storage coefficient was set at 0.002 (these numbers were taken from Balleau Groundwater, Inc. 

2004). Based on this rough calculation under this second scenario, drawdown would roughly be 4 feet 

within 50 feet from the pumping well after 1 year. 

These two simulations assume the aquifer is homogenous. Any barriers, such as faults or areas of 

lower hydraulic conductivity would serve to increase these drawdown effects. And again, these 

estimated drawdowns would be additive to any drawdown resulting from water supply pumping. The 

deeper the cone of depression formed due to water supply pumping or stream augmentation, the 

longer it would take for the water table to recover. 

Another aspect of evaluating this alternative is ensuring that we can describe it in enough detail so it 

can be meaningfully evaluated and compared to the other alternatives. In order to determine these 

specific parameters (e.g. When would we decide to augment flow? How long would it be used? How 

would we decide to stop augmenting flow?), the Village of Ruidoso proposed a pilot study to us and 

the New Mexico Surface Water Quality Bureau. The Surface Water Quality Bureau stated that this 

type of study falls under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency and requires a 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The Environmental Protection Agency 

stated that the use of groundwater is inconsistent with surface water and that North Fork Eagle Creek 

needs to be managed for aquatic systems and the Surface Water Quality Bureau considers it 

swimmable/fishable. This implies that this action could result in adverse effects to water quality and 

aquatic ecosystems. Because of these factors, the Village of Ruidoso would need to go through a 

lengthy permitting process with the Environmental Protection Agency, effectively eliminating the 

opportunity to conduct a pilot study in time to inform the EIS. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

54 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

The Village of Ruidoso initially filed a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit 

application to conduct a pilot test to the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 office on October 

27, 2011, with the final filing occurring on November 28, 2011. The Village of Ruidoso is currently 

awaiting action on this application (Atkins Engineering Associates 2014).

Without a pilot study, we do not have any measurable parameters for how, specifically, this 

alternative would be implemented. Using the adaptive management triggers from the proposed action 

would be unrealistic since these are based on groundwater maintenance. The pilot study was to be 

used to assist in determining some of these parameters and to see if streamflow could be maintained. 

We would need these parameters in order to effectively analyze this alternative in the EIS.

Implementing stream augmentation would not meet the purpose and need for taking action or the 

management objectives for this project because of the potential for adverse impacts to forest

resources, expansion of the cone of depression, and lack of detail regarding how stream augmentation 

would be used on North Fork Eagle Creek. It also would not address any of the significant issues for 

analysis. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

Add a pilot test of the stream augmentation adaptive management option to the proposed 

action so this can be tested for feasibility early on in the permit.

We removed stream augmentation as a potential adaptive management adjustment in the proposed 

action upon further examination of the range of alternatives and the desire for each alternative to 

stand alone. As discussed above, stream augmentation was initially considered as a stand-alone 

alternative and we recognized at that time the value of conducting a pilot test. After the Little Bear 

Fire we reevaluated this option to see if changes due to the fire would allow us to test stream 

augmentation without negatively affecting other resources. However, as stated above, because of the 

potential for adverse impacts to forest resources, possible expansion of the cone of depression, and 

the lack of detail regarding how stream augmentation would be used on North Fork Eagle Creek, 

stream augmentation would not meet the purpose and need for taking action or the management 

objectives for this project. It also would not address any of the significant issues for analysis. For 

these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

Keep stream augmentation. It will enhance riparian vegetation.

See responses above. 

The current description of the stream augmentation alternative does not make sense. How 

will thresholds for groundwater maintenance be used to determine when to augment 

streamflow? 

Following the release of the notice of intent, the interdisciplinary team realized that the way in which 

the stream augmentation alternative was described may not be implementable. There is a disconnect 

between how the monitoring thresholds would be used to decide when to augment streamflow. As 

currently written, exceeding the thresholds for streamflow, water table depth, and riparian vegetation 

would trigger augmentation of streamflow by pumping groundwater into the North Fork of Eagle 

Creek stream channel to mitigate adverse impacts to surface resources. 

As we explained in the responses above, we do not have information on what thresholds could be 

used to determine when to augment streamflow. Initially, a pilot test was proposed to identify these 

parameters and thresholds. However, there is not enough time to complete a pilot test within a 

reasonable timeframe for this EIS analysis. Because of this and the other reasons described above, 

this alternative has been dismissed from further detailed analysis.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 55

Suggestions for New Alternatives

Ensure that the range of alternatives includes all reasonable alternatives (and no 

less than one) that leave downstream flows in the same state they would be absent 

pumping, to be in compliance with the stipulation agreement.

This is addressed by alternative 2 (no pumping). The no pumping alternative would leave downstream 

flows in the same state they would be absent pumping and is currently in the range of alternatives for 

detailed analysis. This alternative will provide a very valuable comparison to the other alternatives to 

show the effects well pumping has on forest resources and economics. It is within the discretion of 

the decision maker for this project to select this alternative following their review of the final EIS and 

all public comments received. 

We could not identify any other reasonable alternatives besides the no pumping alternative that would 

also meet the purpose and need for action, the management objectives, and be consistent with our 

manual direction, as summarized in the separate “Manual Direction Summary” document (USDA 

Forest Service 2011) and in chapter 1. For these reasons, no additional alternatives were developed to 

meet this criterion. We feel this is consistent with the stipulation agreement. 

Build a water purification plant.

This suggestion is outside the scope of this project. While we recognize the value in reclaiming and 

reusing wastewater for municipal water needs, the specifics of how, when, and where this is done is 

outside the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service. However, we will ensure the Village of Ruidoso

is aware of this suggestion. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from detailed analysis.

Add more storage capacity to the system.

This suggestion is outside the scope of this project. While we recognize the value in additional water 

storage, the specifics of how much, when, and where this is done is outside the jurisdiction of the 

USDA Forest Service. 

Having additional water storage would allow the Village of Ruidoso to pump water from the North 

Fork of Eagle Creek during high flow periods and store the water so it could then be used during dry 

periods. Removing excess water from the system during high flow periods and limiting pumping 

during low flow periods would provide for forest resource needs and municipal water. It could also 

minimize the need for extensive mitigations, monitoring, and adaptive management actions. 

However, adding more storage to the system would be difficult due to the high volume of storage 

needed to meet demand and the logistics and cost this would entail. 

Based on some rough calculations, the Village of Ruidoso requires approximately 41–42 million 

gallons of water during the typical dry season to meet the demand for municipal water.

A household’s average water use was estimated to be 0.5 acre feet per year. This is 163,000 gallons of 

water per household. According to the census Web site, the Ruidoso/Ruidoso Downs metropolitan 

area has the equivalent of 4,600 households needing 2,300 acre feet (750 million gallons) per year. 

Three weeks of storage would amount to about 42 million gallons. The largest storage tanks are about 

2 to 3 million gallon capacity, which would require 14 to 21 of the largest tanks, or a 13-acre surface 

reservoir with an average 10-foot depth. 

In speaking with one company that supplies water storage tanks (Aquastore tanks and domes), each 

tank would cost about 2.8 million dollars, for a total cost of approximately 40 million dollars. Besides 

the cost, there is added difficulty in determining if there is a feasible location.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

56 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Constructing a new dam impounding 50 acre feet (about 16 million gallons) would cost from 2.5 to 

3.5 million dollars, based on some rough estimates. A new dam in this area would be considered 

“high hazard” since it is most likely that people would be living downstream of it. Expansion of an 

existing dam, such as Alto Reservoir, is a complex undertaking. A 50-acre-foot dam would typically 

be about 25 feet high. An alternative to a single large reservoir could be a series of smaller dams, 

which would lessen the hazard, but would cost about the same.

Adding more storage capacity to the system to address water shortage during times of drought is 

typically not feasible due to economic considerations. During times of drought, source production 

would be the main limiting factor for water quantity. If the source cannot produce enough water, it is 

not economical to add additional water storage capacity if demand does not change during times of 

drought.

Water storage capacity for a drinking water system is based upon several calculations such as pressure 

requirements, maximum flow velocities within the piping, piping sizes, and most important, peak 

hourly demand, and maximum fire flow requirements. These are specific to the water system design.

The need for additional storage during dry periods is not typically incorporated into the calculations 

for a water system because of the economic factors of overbuilding. The water system would need to 

be evaluated to determine capacity, if additional water treatment methods would be necessary (per 

New Mexico Environment Department regulations), and if the water system infrastructure would 

have the capacity to distribute the additional water. This evaluation would need to consider additional 

engineering, design, and construction implications for the water system infrastructure. Environmental 

impacts related to the ground disturbance associated with added infrastructure would also need to be 

considered.

For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. We will ensure the 

Village of Ruidoso is aware of this suggestion.

Clear vegetation on private land to improve the water table and increase fire 

protection.

How vegetation is managed on private land is outside the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service and 

outside the scope of this project. However, we recognize that upland vegetation can influence the 

water table. The EIS includes an evaluation of the effects of forest density (and any changes in forest 

density over time, if known) within the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage to water availability, as a 

component of the cumulative impacts analysis. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from 

detailed analysis.

Don’t build any more golf courses or other new developments.

This suggestion is outside the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service and outside the scope of this 

project. While we recognize the value in reducing future demands on the municipal water supply 

through limiting new development, the specifics of how, when, and where this is done is outside the 

jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service. However, we will ensure the Village of Ruidoso is aware of 

this suggestion. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from detailed analysis.

Minimum Instream Flow Alternative

The components of this suggested alternative are included below:

• Install new gage on North Fork Eagle Creek above the confluence with South Fork Eagle 

Creek

• Install electronic monitoring switches on pumps and gages
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 57

• Establish a minimum instream flow (we suggest 1.2 cubic feet per second based on the U.S. 

Geological Survey study) 

• When flows are below the minimum instream flow measured at the new gage, stop pumping 

(the switches on the pumps will automatically shut off) 

• When flow is greater than the minimum instream flow, continue pumping

• Add storage capacity to the system so that more water can be pumped and stored during high 

flows 

• Authorize a 10-year permit term with options for renewal

The basis for this alternative is in establishing and then managing for a minimum instream flow at all 

times. The flow suggested (1.2 cubic feet per second) is supported by the U.S. Geological Survey

study if our desired condition is continuous flow. Here is the excerpt from the U.S. Geological Survey

Report Abstract:

If it is assumed that, without pumping, the bedrock aquifer would be saturated to the 

base of the alluvium, then a discharge of only 1.2 cubic feet per second required to 

saturate the alluvium in its thickest and widest reach would be needed to sustain 

continuous flow in the stream. During the study period, a discharge of 1.2 cubic feet 

per second was equaled or exceeded at the North Fork gaging station 8 percent of the 

time. Based on the discharge record at the Eagle Creek gage, given alluvium and 

channel configurations similar to those described in this study, streamflow in some 

part of the stream channel between the North Fork and Eagle Creek gages was likely

discontinuous during part of the year during both time periods.

We compared the number of months per year when flow was less than 1.2 cubic feet per second

during the early period (August 1969 through December 1980) and after pumping began (April 1988 

through 2011), as shown in table 1.

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

Flow Measured at Eagle Creek Gage Percent of Time Months per Year

Early Period (1969-1980)a

Time dry 0.0 percent 0.0

Flow greater than 0.12 to 1.2 cubic feet per 

second

46.1 percent 5.5

Flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second 53.9 percent 6.5

Late Period (1989-2011)b

Time dry 12.3 percent 1.5

Flow greater than 0.01 to 1.2 cubic feet per 

second

57.2 percent 6.9

Flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second 30.5 percent 3.7

a - Data used for this calculation came from 1969-1980; this results in slightly different figures than that reported 

in table 5 because 2 additional years were used (1969 and 1970); however the results are similar. 

b - Data used for this calculation came from 1989-2011; this results in slightly different figures than that reported 

in table 5 because 2005 data were used; however the results are similar.

Before pumping began, flow measured at the Eagle Creek gage was greater than 1.2 cubic feet per 

second about 54 percent of the time, or for approximately 6.5 months out of every year. Since 

pumping began, flow has been greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second about 30 percent of the time or 

for approximately 3.5 months out of every year. To manage pumping to maintain this minimum 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

58 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

instream flow continuously would mean that we would be managing for a condition that did not exist 

before the wells began pumping. 

We recognize flow has changed since pumping began and that dry periods have increased. We 

reanalyzed this data to make interpretations regarding all available data, which is presented in the 

water resources section of chapter 3. 

As stated in our response to the suggestion to eliminate no-flow days completely from the proposed 

action, the USDA Forest Service does not have the authority in New Mexico to establish a minimum 

instream flow and the relevant sections of our Forest Service Manual do not apply to this project since 

North Fork Eagle Creek does not meet certain criteria (see separate “Manual Direction Summary” 

document (USDA Forest Service 2011) for further information). Therefore, requiring the Village of 

Ruidoso to manage for a continuous minimum instream flow is not consistent with these conclusions 

and is outside the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service in New Mexico.

As stated in the purpose and need for taking action, the management objectives outlined for this 

project, and the desired conditions for the project area, we are not striving to attain continuous flow in 

North Fork Eagle Creek. Rather we are striving to: (1) attain increased flow (measured by a reduction 

in no-flow days), consistent with the intermittent nature of North Fork Eagle Creek in the project 

area; (2) ensure groundwater discharge sustains base flows and is a source of water for springs and 

seeps and water-dependent ecosystems; and (3) ensure riparian vegetation is maintained or improved 

and that streamside recreation opportunities are available. 

We recognize the value in having a separate stream gage for North Fork Eagle Creek. This would 

simplify the necessary calculations between the Eagle Creek gage and the South Fork gage and would 

provide easily obtainable flow measurements continually for North Fork Eagle Creek flows in the 

project area. However, there are already three gages installed on this system; installing a fourth would 

require additional funding (estimated between $18,000 and $100,000 in addition to annual 

maintenance costs; the North Fork gage cost $32,608 to install), additional time and labor, additional 

manpower for monitoring, and added stress to the system. Gages have impacts on stream habitat. 

While these effects can be minimized, they need to be considered before installing any new structures 

in streams. As one example, they can result in barriers to fish movement. There is already concern 

that the various gages and road crossings on North Fork Eagle Creek are limiting the ability for fish 

passage and movement within and upstream from the project area. Finally, finding a suitable location 

for a gage upstream from the confluence with the South Fork would be difficult due to the width of 

the channel here and the depth of the alluvium.

We re-considered this suggestion for a new gage upstream from the Eagle Creek gage in response to 

additional suggestions during the SDEIS comment period. We reached the same conclusion, as 

described above, and did not feel this merited additional analysis. We also recognized that there is 

difficulty in being able to find a suitable gage location nearer to the North Fork wells due to the width 

of the channel in this location. We concluded that the proposed use of the existing gages, and 

additional alluvial wells as proposed as part of alternative 3 should provide the necessary data needed. 

The USDA Forest Service agrees that using electronic monitoring switches would be beneficial for 

management and would minimize monitoring efforts. This type of system would only work with 

establishing a minimum instream flow, and as stated above, this is outside the jurisdiction of the 

Forest Service and would not meet the purpose and need for action. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 59

Adding additional storage capacity to the system and evaluating different permit term lengths have 

been addressed in previous responses. For these reasons, the minimum instream flow alternative was 

dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

Limited Restrictions Alternative 

The components of this suggested alternative are included below:

• Instead of using the 300 acre-feet per year threshold per year, use the 2009-2010 pumping 

volume of 738 acre-feet per year. The 300 acre-feet per year threshold (which is based on 490 

acre-feet per year annual recharge rate from the U.S. Geological Survey study based on the 

chloride mass balance method). This should instead be based on 1,950 acre-feet per year

(which is the mid-range based on the annual groundwater recharge rate computed by U.S. 

Geological Survey using the basin yield method and acknowledges the range of error). Using 

738 acre-feet per year is more in keeping with the 1,950 number. 

• Do not apply the requirement for no more than 20–30 no-flow days per year during times of 

drought. Instead use measured annual precipitation and projected streamflow. 

• Allow stream augmentation during drought conditions to benefit riparian vegetation. 

• Do not use the 5-year average water table depth as a monitoring indicator as it does not take 

into account the fluctuating nature of the aquifer during drought and subsequent recharge 

during precipitation events. There is no evidence of an expanding cone of depression outside 

of National Forest System lands. Remove the riparian monitoring threshold. 

• Allow groundwater diversions to continue at 2009-2010 water year levels at least until the 

Village of Ruidoso has been granted approval to move their water rights and allow sufficient 

diversion of municipal water rights off of National Forest System lands. 

• Account for Office of the State Engineer required reporting per the Hondo Basin duty of 

water special master report. 

The 300 acre-feet per year threshold per year was based on the 500 acre-feet per year recharge for the 

North Fork basin as determined by the chloride balance method described in the U.S. Geological 

Survey report. The recharge rate from the chloride balance method was used instead of the rates 

calculated using the basin yield because of less certainty in evapotranspiration estimation. The 

chloride balance method also gives a maximum value for recharge because the rocks may contribute 

chlorine. We do not agree that calculating the recharge rate and then the acceptable well pumping 

threshold based on the basin yield method is appropriate since the proposed action includes adaptive 

management to achieve the desired conditions. The use of the recharge rate determined by chloride 

balance is a safe starting point because it should represent a maximum groundwater recharge rate 

method. 

That being said, the initial threshold of 900 cumulative acre feet over any 3 consecutive water years 

(300 acre feet per year) is not a stand-alone threshold. As stated in the proposed action, hitting this 

threshold would trigger a review by the USDA Forest Service of the other current thresholds and 

mitigations at maintaining or improving surface resource conditions. We would decide, based on 

evaluation of all monitoring indicators, if changes would be needed. 

We are also unclear regarding the suggestion to use 1,950 acre-feet per year; this amount would 

exceed the current water right for 1,692 acre-feet per year (based on the 2010 Consent Order) which 

is based on maximum pumping. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

60 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

We recognize that the 300 acre-feet per year threshold was only a starting point based on the best 

available information at the time the proposed action was developed. We have since re-evaluated this 

number based on additional reanalysis of all available information (as recently discussed at the 

hydrologist technical meeting held in April 2011 and the results of which are documented in chapter 

3) and conclude that it still valid based on the best available science. However, the proposed action 

includes adaptive management strategies that would allow for additional monitoring results to be used 

to continually review and refine these thresholds based on new information. 

For these reasons, the suggestion to use the 2009-2010 pumping volume of 738 acre-feet per year as 

the well pumping volume threshold was dismissed from further detailed analysis but will be 

addressed by the no action (no change) alternative.

The other suggestions for removing the no-flow day thresholds, removing the average water table 

depth threshold, removing the riparian thresholds, and allowing groundwater diversions to continue at 

2009-2010 levels are essentially a description of the no action (no change) alternative. The no action 

(no change) alternative will be analyzed in detail in chapter 3. 

The suggestion to use stream augmentation is addressed in the previous responses to stream 

augmentation earlier in this document. 

In regards to the request for Office of the State Engineer reporting, we defer to them in the allocation, 

adjudication, and transferability of water, even on public lands. The USDA Forest Service as a federal 

entity recognizes fully adjudicated basins and the apportionment of waters of a designated district by 

a Water Master.

The Village of Ruidoso would be allowed to pump up to 50 percent of the volumetric 

rate of surface flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second, up to a total of 300 acrefeet per year, measured at the North Fork gage upstream of the wells.

We considered whether this alternative would meet the purpose and need for action. While it would 

likely meet the second need statement (protecting natural resources on the national forest by 

maintaining adequate surface and groundwater flows to sustain or improve the riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems that may be affected by groundwater drawdown from the pumping of these wells) it 

would not likely meet the first need statement (authorizing, under a special use permit, the Village of 

Ruidoso’s ability to access and divert groundwater from its North Fork Eagle Creek wells on National 

Forest System land, as a substantial component of the municipal water supply system (attributable, at 

times, to providing up to 75 percent of the municipal water supply) that Village of Ruidoso residents 

and visitors rely upon). While this alternative would continue to provide the Village of Ruidoso with 

water access, it would not likely continue to contribute substantially to the municipal water supply.

The occurrence of flows greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second at the North Fork gage is quite limited 

(often occurring less than 4 percent of the time). Calculations based on a cutoff of 1.2 cubic feet per 

second at the North Fork gage from September 2007 through November 2011 data, show that:

• The Village of Ruidoso would be able to divert 300 acre-feet per year (or more, if allowed) 

during average or wetter years under this alternative. The ability to divert, however, would be 

much more severely limited during dryer years. It is possible that in some years, the well field

would produce less than 10 acre-feet per year under these proposed criteria. 

• The average available water for pumping would be approximately 152 acre-feet per year

(based on these 4 years of available data only), which would be substantially less than the 

Village of Ruidoso’s current average (569 acre-feet per year based on data from 2002-2010). 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 61

Thus, this suggested alternative is very narrow and does not provide the needed flexibility to respond 

to the first need statement; it could result in an immediate and significant reduction in current levels 

of use. 

The basis for this alternative is in establishing and then managing for a minimum instream flow at all 

times, measured at the North Fork gage. The flow suggested (1.2 cubic feet per second) is supported 

by the U.S. Geological Survey study if our desired condition is continuous flow. As stated in our 

response to the suggestion to eliminate no-flow days completely from the proposed action and to our 

response to the minimum instream flow alternative (see previous responses to these suggested 

alternatives earlier in this section), the USDA Forest Service does not have the authority in New 

Mexico to establish a minimum instream flow. Certain sections of our Forest Service Manual do not 

apply to this project since North Fork Eagle Creek does not meet certain criteria (see separate 

“Manual Direction Summary” document (USDA Forest Service 2011) for further information). 

Therefore, requiring the Village of Ruidoso to manage for a continuous minimum instream flow is not 

consistent with these conclusions and is outside the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service in New 

Mexico. 

For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis.

The Village of Ruidoso would be allowed to pump up to 80 percent of the average 

annual quantity of groundwater recharge

This suggestion was provided during the SDEIS comment period and includes the following: 

• Allow the Village of Ruidoso to pump up to 80 percent of the average annual quantity of 

groundwater recharge that will occur post-wildfire based current canopy density, vegetation 

type and distribution, and soil moisture requirements. 

• Recharge estimates after 10 years can be recalculated and should be based on actual USDA 

Forest Service forest management performed and USDA Forest Service financial assurances 

related to maintaining a healthy watershed. 

• The calculation of groundwater recharge must not be performed using the chloride massbalance method. 

• Village monitoring would include: 

♦ Groundwater levels in North Fork monitoring wells: MW- lA, MW- lB, MW-lC, MW3A, and MW-5A.

▪ Monitoring frequency: hourly

▪ Reporting frequency: monthly

♦ Monitor groundwater levels in North Fork production wells H-1979 (North Fork 1), H1981 (North Fork 3), and H-1982 (North Fork 4)

▪ Monitoring frequency: hourly

▪ Reporting frequency: monthly

♦ Monitor diversions from North Fork production wells H-1979 (North Fork 1), H-1981 

(North Fork 3), and H-1982 (North Fork 4)

▪ Monitoring frequency: monthly

▪ Reporting frequency: monthly 

♦ Streamflow at North Fork Eagle Creek gage (08387550), South Fork Eagle Creek gage 

(08387575), and Eagle Creek below South Fork gage (08387600)
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

62 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

▪ Monitoring frequency: real time data as currently performed by USGS

▪ Reporting frequency: as currently provided on USGS website

We considered this a suggestion. We compared it to the purpose and need and evaluated whether, 

from a hydrologic standpoint, if it was feasible and implementable and if it would meet the purpose 

and need for action. 

The Village’s recommended alternative may be useful as a management tool in the future, and 

revisiting recharge estimates (and other conditions) after ten years is warranted. However, at this 

point in time, the 80 percent seems to be an arbitrary value. In addition, current estimates of recharge 

are acknowledged to be uncertain, further complicating a volume estimate to apply for ten years. The 

approach may simply compound the potential effects of pumping on the hydrologic system. Also, 

uncertainties about recharge volumes may endure beyond a ten-year period. In the interim, the 

objective of further quantifying recharge should not distract from more direct management of riparian 

condition and watershed health based on factors and approaches already considered.

It also appears to only consider adjustments in management after a 10-year period (“Recharge 

estimates after 10 years can be recalculated”...). It is unclear if the desired conditions of “no-flow 

days average 20–30 days or less per year” or if “[t]he thresholds for average or median water table 

depth annually or seasonally (based on monitoring)” could be met by this alternative if management 

adjustments are not considered on a continual basis. It is also unclear if the need “to provide for 

protection of forest resources on National Forest System lands” can be met without an adaptive 

management approach during years of below average annual recharge. 

For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

Alternative 3 Described in the DEIS as the Proposed Action

Alternative 3 described in this document is not exactly the same as the proposed action that was 

described in the DEIS and distributed for public comment, although they are quite similar. Since the 

distribution of the DEIS we have made a few adjustments to address anticipated conditions due to the 

Little Bear Fire and the ability for successful adaptive management and monitoring into the future, as 

well as public input on the DEIS. The intent of the proposed action, however, is the same and it 

includes similar adaptive management triggers and monitoring to the proposed action described in the 

DEIS.

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the primary alternative components and how well the alternatives 

achieve the purpose and need (table 2) and summarizes the effects of implementing each alternative 

(table 3). The effects of implementing each alternative are described in detail in chapter 3.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 63

Table 2. Summary of alternative components

Components

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No 

Change (Continue Pumping)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Permit New permit issued and authorized for up to 20 

years, with stipulations for frequent reviews and 

verification of the permit terms and conditions. 

These could occur as often as every year, but 

would occur at least every 5 to 10 years.

No permit issued; wells and 

associated facilities would no 

longer be authorized and all use 

would be discontinued.

Same as alternative 1.

Wells Used Four wells authorized under permit (three equipped 

and one unequipped); wells #1 and #4 would 

typically be used.

If the Village of Ruidoso proposed to begin 

pumping water from wells #2 or #3, permit terms 

and conditions would be reviewed; new 

environmental analysis may be necessary. 

None - wells would be removed 

from National Forest System land 

within 6-12 months

Same as alternative 1.

Associated 

Facilities

Permit includes operation and maintenance of 

existing monitoring wells, well house control 

station, underground pipeline and power line, and 

National Forest System Road 127A road 

maintenance between NM 532 and gate below 

summer home area.

Under alternative 1, security fencing would also be 

installed around each well and 2 new alluvial 

monitoring wells (one near Eagle Creek gage and 

one near North Fork gage) would be installed 

None – associated facilities would 

be removed from National Forest 

System land within 6-12 months, 

and no new facilities would be 

installed

Same as alternative 1.

Annual Well 

Pumping 

Volumes

Approximately 740 acre feet per year, with highest 

use between March and September (ranging from 

a combined total of 60 to 117 acre feet per month); 

between 2002-2010, use averaged 569 acre-feet 

per year and ranged between 433 and 807 acrefeet per year. 

None Approximately 900 cumulative acre feet or less 

over any 3 consecutive water years (300 acre 

feet per year or less). May vary based on 

monitoring results of other adaptive 

management triggers. This would be 

implemented as a starting point only and could 

be adjusted (up or down), depending on the 

results of monitoring.

Gages It is assumed that the North Fork, South Fork and 

Eagle Creek U.S. Geological Survey gages would 

remain in place and would continue to be 

periodicaly monitored by the U.S. Geological 

Survey.

North Fork gage would possibly 

be removed; South Fork and 

Eagle Creek gages would 

possibly remain and would be 

monitored by the U.S. Geological 

Survey.

Same as alternative 1. However, the adaptive 

management strategy also identifies the use of 

new alluvial monitoring wells as an integral 

component of this alternative.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

64 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Components

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No 

Change (Continue Pumping)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Monitoring The Village of Ruidoso would provide monthly 

reports to the USDA Forest Service including 

bimonthly static and pumping water levels, well 

operation schedules, and daily pumping quantities 

(summarized for the month) for the month in acrefeet.

As described in more detail in the monitoring 

section (beginning on page 42) in this chapter, 

several monitoring measures would be 

implemented for alternative 1:

#1: Existing monitoring wells would be rehabilitated 

or new ones constructed upstream and 

downstream of the well field. New alluvial 

monitoring wells would be constructed by the 

Village of Ruidoso adjacent to North Fork Eagle 

Creek, at the locations of the North Fork stream 

gage and Eagle Creek stream gage. 

#2: Using the reconfigured and new monitoring 

wells from measure #1, the Village of Ruidoso 

would conduct slug tests or aquifer pumping tests 

of the individual water-bearing zones of interest at 

the well field. 

#3: The Village of Ruidoso would take monthly 

water quality field measurements at all three 

existing surface flow gages on the North Fork, 

South Fork, and Eagle Creek, and one additional 

streamflow sampling location immediately below 

the well field or wherever surface flow frequently 

occurs downstream. 

#4: The Village of Ruidoso would continue to 

record daily mean flow and water level 

measurements at the three stream gages or new 

monitoring wells and monitoring wells used in the 

U.S. Geological Survey program. 

#5: The Village of Ruidoso would identify and 

monitor eight springs and seeps in the North Fork 

Eagle Creek drainage on a monthly basis for 1 

year. 

Surface water monitoring would 

continue at the existing Eagle 

Creek below South Fork gage 

(U.S. Geological Survey

08387600), and water levels 

would be monitored at a selected 

well downstream of the existing 

well field in the vicinity of MW-5. 

Recording devices or methods, 

measurement frequencies, and 

reporting provisions would be 

determined cooperatively 

between the USDA Forest 

Service and U.S. Geological 

Survey. Adding a transducer that 

would record hourly so diurnal 

variations could be accounted for 

would be considered.

The 2010 baseline riparian 

vegetation survey would be 

repeated at 5-year intervals, as 

time and funding allows.

Same as alternative 1, but with the following 

additional monitoring indicators which would be 

used to inform the adaptive management 

triggers described under alternative 3 

(beginning on page 36): 

Baseline: An initial survey traverse with 

appropriate closure would be conducted at the 

start of the monitoring program to correlate 

channel and bank elevations, gage datums 

and stages, and monitoring well water level 

elevations between the North Fork gage 

location (U.S. Geological Survey 08387550), 

all monitoring wells, and the Eagle Creek gage 

location (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600).

Cross-sectional elevation surveys would be 

conducted annually at the permanently-located 

transects (at the North Fork gage, MW-1A, 

MW-5A, and the Eagle Creek gage locations) 

to identify ongoing modifications in streambed 

and bank levels and locations.

#1: Surface flow volume would be 

measured at the Eagle Creek gage and 

North Fork gage and/or alluvial water 

elevations measured at new wells located 

at the Eagle Creek gage and North Fork 

gage.

#2: Water table depth in monitoring wells 

and water wells would be measured 

monthly and reported.

#3: Annual monitoring of riparian obligate 

species (e.g. willow and boxelder) would 

occur. 

Trends in riparian condition, vegetation 

canopy cover, and composition would be 

evaluated and documented at least every 

5 years.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 65

Components

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No 

Change (Continue Pumping)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Monitoring 

(cont.)

#6: The Village of Ruidoso would monitor and 

document stream gradient, planform, and stability 

indicators annually between June 1 and July 15 at 

selected and benchmarked cross-section locations 

along the North Fork Eagle Creek for the first five 

(5) years of the permit term. After the first five 

years of the permit term, these parameters would 

be measured every three years or less (if approved 

in advance) during the permit term.

#7: The Village of Ruidoso would monitor 

snowpack on Sierra Blanca for the permit duration. 

At least one precipitation gage along the North 

Fork Eagle Creek watershed divide would be 

maintained, monitored and reported on by the 

Village of Ruidoso for the permit duration to the 

USDA Forest Service on a quarterly basis every 

year.

#8: The Village of Ruidoso would develop and 

calibrate a site-specific groundwater computer 

model in cooperation with the Forest Service and 

other selected, qualified parties representing 

appropriate stakeholder interests along the North 

Fork of Eagle Creek. 

An implementation plan with schedule, tasks, 

responsible parties, reporting requirements, quality 

control measures, and costs would be developed.

Daily pumping quantities in cubic feet would be 

collected and reported monthly. 

An implementation plan with schedule, tasks, 

responsible parties, reporting requirements, 

quality control measures, and costs would be 

developed.

Summary of 

Connected 

Actions 

related to 

Monitoring 

Existing well rehabilitation and/or reconfiguration 

Slug test or aquifer pumping test of individual water 

bearing zones 

Identification of one new water quality sampling 

station (marked or monumented)

Identification of one new precipitation gage in 

NFEC basin, in cooperation with USGS

None Same as alternative 1
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

66 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Table 3. Summary of environmental effects by alternative

Water Resources - Well pumping results in changes in dynamics of groundwater (groundwater drawdown and water table) and surface water (streamflows,

wetlands, springs and seeps). Surface water and groundwater availability are linked and limited by accessible available quantities of water. Water resources over 

time can also be affected by climate change.

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Estimated 

duration of no 

surface flow 

conditions at the 

Eagle Creek 

Gage 

One to 2 weeks a year during average 

precipitation periods; 8 to10 weeks a year 

during drier periods 

Zero no-surface flow periods at the 

Eagle Creek gage

No more than 4 weeks a year, or 3 weeks a 

year over 3 years, based on implementation 

of adaptive management triggers, regardless 

of dry or wet year

Estimated 

occurrence of 

flows equal to or 

greater than 1.2 

cubic feet per 

second at the 

Eagle Creek 

Gage 

Forty-six percent of the time during an average 

precipitation year, or about 5.5 months per 

year; 19 percent of the time during a belowaverage precipitation year, or about 2.3 months 

per year

Fifty-seven percent of the time, or 

about 6.8 months per year during an 

average precipitation year

Would likely range from 47 percent to 57

percent of the time, regardless of dry or wet 

year 

Impacts to 

springs and 

seeps based on 

drawdown 

Two springs are within the area of projected 

drawdown (figure 12 and figure 13 in chapter 3) 

and could be affected; effects would likely 

range from moderate to severe. Other existing 

groundwater modeling indicates that more 

extensive drawdown could occur (Balleau 

Groundwater 2004). Under those conditions, a 

number of other springs or seeps in the upper 

North Fork drainage could be similarly 

adversely affected

No spring or seeps affected Pumping would continue to adversely impact 

springs and seeps due to projected 

groundwater drawdown. 

However, when compared to alternative 1, 

decreased drawdown and shorter water-level 

recovery times would also decrease the 

duration and extent of drawdown, reducing

impacts to springs and seeps. Impacts would 

be local and long term, but minor to 

moderate since some recovery would be 

provided during dry periods.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 67

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Impacts to 

domestic wells 

based on 

drawdown

Two domestic wells are within the area of 

project drawdown (figure 12 and figure 13 in 

chapter 3) and could be affected; effects would 

likely range from moderate to severe. Other 

existing groundwater modeling indicates that 

more extensive drawdown could occur (Balleau 

Groundwater 2004). Under those conditions, a 

number of other domestic wells in the upper 

North Fork drainage could be similarly 

adversely affected

No domestic wells affected Pumping would continue to adversely impact 

domestic wells due to projected drawdown. 

However, when compared to alternative 1, 

decreased drawdown and water level 

recovery times would also decrease the 

duration and extent of drawdown, reducing

the impacts to domestic wells compared to 

alternative 1. Impacts would be local and 

long term, but minor to moderate since some 

recovery would be provided during dry 

periods.

When compared to alternative 2 (no 

pumping), domestic wells would continue to 

be adversely impacted by projected 

groundwater drawdown

Success of the 

alternatives over 

time considering 

possible climate 

change

If climate change predictions occur, streamflow 

quantities may decline; spatial extent and 

duration of no-flow conditions and flow 

conditions below 1.2 cubic feet per second

could increase; stream temperatures could 

increase; springs, seeps, and domestic wells 

may experience declining flows or water levels 

at a faster pace under potential changing 

climatic conditions over the long term.

If predicted changes in temperature, 

precipitation and runoff conditions 

occur, they could continue to create 

long-term declines in North Fork 

flows, even without pumping. Water 

temperatures may rise overall; this 

could be particularly noticeable during 

summer low flows. Springs, seeps, 

and nearby domestic wells may 

eventually experience declines or go 

dry. Qualitatively, these effects could 

occur at a slower pace than under 

alternative 1. This could allow greater 

flexibility and time for resource 

management to adapt to changing 

conditions, if they occur.

Predicted effects of climate changes may still 

occur over the long run, as described for 

alternative 1 and 2. However, adaptive 

management strategies could reduce the 

timing and severity of these effects to the 

extent possible, when compared to 

alternative 1. If they occur, increased 

temperatures, reduced snowpack, and 

accelerated snowmelt would require ongoing 

adjustments in adaptive strategies to 

maintain streamflows and groundwater 

availability. However, experience gained 

through adaptive management could allow 

more informed strategies to be developed for 

water resources management under 

changing climatic conditions, if they occur.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

68 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Updated Direct

and Indirect 

Effects due to 

Little Bear Fire: 

Short Term

Over the short term (until water recovery 

occurs in about 2019), continued pumping 

would reduce streamflow and groundwater. 

While increased soil moisture and streamflow 

are possible due to reduced transpiration 

losses, these are likely to be offfset by 

increased runoff and reduced infiltration and 

groundwater recharge.

The accumulation of sediment and debris could 

increase depth to saturated conditions. In some 

locations, greater thickness of newly deposited 

alluvium could reduce the presence of surface 

flow or pooling; continued pumping at historic 

levels could further reduce the occurrence of 

surface flow or pools.

Over the short term (until water 

recovery occurs in about 2019), 

effects of no pumping would 

encourage the occurrence of 

streamflow and increased 

groundwater levels. Large portions of 

the stream would remain intermittent 

during periods of average 

precipitation.

The accumulation of sediment and 

debris could increase depth to 

saturated conditions. In some 

locations, greater thickness of newly 

deposited alluvium could reduce the 

presence of surface flow or pooling, 

even without pumping. If this occurs, 

it would be less frequent or extensive 

than under either alternative 1 or 3.

Over the short term (until water recovery 

occurs in about 2019), water resource 

impacts from implementing alternative 3 

would be limited by the application of 

pumping restrictions. During this period, 

impacts of natural post-wildfire recovery 

would override some of the pumping impacts 

and some of the adaptive management 

effort. During the short term post-wildfire

recovery period, pumping effects would be 

limited to the extent possible through an 

iterative and adaptive approach as the 

landscape, stream channel, and 

groundwater recharge processes adjust to 

the fire disturbance.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 69

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Updated Direct

and Indirect 

Effects due to 

Little Bear Fire: 

Long Term

In the long term (after post-wildfire recovery), 

watershed conditions are expected to trend 

toward approximate pre-wildfire conditions. If 

conifer stands burned at moderate to high 

severity convert to grass or shrubs, less 

evapotranspiration could improve water yield 

and groundwater availability. Effects from 

implementing alternative 1 over the long term

would be the same as, or potentially slightly 

less than, those described above for each 

indicator for the pre-wildfire assessment.

In the long term (after post-wildfire

recovery), watershed conditions are 

expected to return to approximate 

pre-wildfire conditions. If conifer 

stands burned at moderate to high 

severity convert to grass or shrubs, 

less evapotranspiration could improve 

water yield and groundwater 

availability. If this occurs in the 

absence of pumping under alternative 

2, aquatic habitats could be 

enhanced and additional 

opportunities for improving riparian 

conditions would result.

Over the long term, the Village of Ruidoso 

would be able to pump its municipal supply 

from the North Fork Eagle Creek most of the 

time, and would be able to pump at reduced 

levels during some, but not all, of the 

restricted periods. During dry years, adaptive 

management would improve flow conditions 

and reduce the amount of no-flow days 

along the North Fork Eagle Creek. With 

respect to surface flows and alluvial 

groundwater levels, an approximate middle 

ground between alternative 1 and 2 would be 

attained during average precipitation years 

under alternative 3. Drawdown effects may 

still occur at springs, seeps, and domestic 

wells, but are anticipated to be less than 

those expected under alternative 1. If climate 

changes to warmer and drier conditions 

occur, ongoing adjustments in management 

strategies to maintain streamflows, alluvial 

groundwater levels, and Village of Ruidoso 

water supplies would be required.

Experience gained through adaptive 

management would allow more informed 

water resources strategies if climatic 

changes occur.

In the long term (after post-wildfire recovery), 

watershed conditions are expected to return 

to approximate pre-wildfire conditions. If 

conifer stands burned at moderate to high 

severity convert to grass or shrubs, less 

evapotranspiration could improve water yield 

and groundwater availability. If this occurs 

with adaptive management of North Fork 

Eagle Creek pumping under alternative 3, 

aquatic habitats could be enhanced and 

additional opportunities for improving riparian 

conditions could result.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

70 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Cumulative 

Effects

Cumulative water resources impacts would 

involve ongoing reductions in flow and water 

quality along Eagle Creek within the cumulative 

impact area, due primarily to reduced 

groundwater recharge. These would be 

adverse, long-term and regional impacts that 

would range in severity from moderate to 

severe. Additional water supply developments 

in the region would create further impacts to 

surface water, groundwater, and associated 

resources and would likely extend beyond the 

North Fork watershed.

Beneficial cumulative recharge 

effects to aquifers, springs and 

seeps, and possibly stream 

baseflows may result within parts of 

the Eagle Creek drainage. The 

magnitude and extent of these effects 

is unknown, since it is likely that the 

Village of Ruidoso would continue to 

exercise its water rights and make 

withdrawals elsewhere in the Eagle 

Creek system. Impacts from such 

activities could offset beneficial 

impacts from no pumping at the North 

Fork Eagle Creek well field.

Cumulative water resources impacts would 

include flow and water quality reductions in 

Eagle Creek within the cumulative impact 

area. Water supply pumping for the Village 

of Ruidoso is conducted at five water wells 

along lower Eagle Creek and the Village of 

Ruidoso diverts surface water from the 

stream a short distance below the Eagle 

Creek gage. As a result, groundwater 

recharge in downstream alluvial and bedrock 

aquifers would still be adversely affected, to 

a greater extent than alternative 2 (no 

pumping), but to a lesser extent than under 

alternative 1. Implementing alternative 3 

would have minor effects on these impacts, 

as pumping in the North Fork Eagle Creek 

would generally be permitted most of the 

time.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 71

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Updated

Cumulative 

Effects due to 

Little Bear Fire: 

Short Term

Over the short term (until water recovery 

occurs in about 2019), continued pumping

under alternative 1 would add cumulatively to 

downstream water resources impacts from the 

fire as well as other water uses outside the 

forest boundary, resulting in reductions of 

downstream baseflows and groundwater 

levels. Adverse effects to streamflows would be 

masked by accelerated surface runoff, erosion 

and debris flows, channel geometry changes, 

and reduced water quality, however. Other 

water users in the cumulative impact study

boundary would affect surface drainage and 

groundwater levels. Depending on the timing 

and volumes of these other water withdrawals 

and returns, all these factors would combine to 

largely obscure the downstream effects of 

North Fork Eagle Creek pumping.

Over the short term (until water 

recovery occurs in about 2019), the 

cessation of pumping under 

alternative 2 would contribute 

beneficially to downstream baseflows 

and groundwater levels outside the 

forest boundary. Beneficial effects to 

streamflows could be masked by 

accelerated surface runoff, erosion 

and debris flows, channel geometry 

changes, and reduced water quality, 

however. Other water users in the 

cumulative impact study boundary 

would affect surface drainage and 

groundwater levels. Depending on 

the timing and volumes of these other 

water withdrawals and returns, these 

factors could obscure some of the 

beneficial effects from alternative 2 in 

the short term. This may allow more 

opportunity for resource management 

responses to climatic conditions.

Over the short term (until water recovery 

occurs in about 2019), management of 

pumping under alternative 3, when 

compared to the current condition 

(alternative 1) would contribute beneficially 

to downstream baseflows and groundwater 

levels outside the forest boundary. These 

beneficial effects to streamflows could be 

masked by accelerated surface runoff, 

erosion and debris flows, channel geometry 

changes, and reduced water quality, 

however. Other water users in the 

cumulative impact study boundary would 

affect surface drainage and groundwater 

levels. Depending on the timing and volumes 

of these other water withdrawals and returns, 

these factors could obscure some of the 

beneficial effects from alternative 3 in the 

short term. 

When compared to no pumping (alternative 

2), this alternative would not result in the 

same benefical impacts to downstream 

baseflows and grounwater levels. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

72 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Updated

Cumulative 

Effects due to 

Little Bear Fire: 

Long Term

Over the long term, cumulative effects would 

be the same as those described above for the 

pre-wildfire assessment; potential cumulative 

effects on streamflows and groundwater would 

not be restricted to water uses by the Village of 

Ruidoso, as described in detail in chapter 3.

Over the long term, additional 

streamflow and groundwater would 

pass downstream from North Fork 

Eagle Creek into the cumulative 

impact study area resulting in 

beneficial recharge effects to 

aquifers, springs and seeps, riparian 

condition, and possibly stream 

baseflows. Due to the number of 

other water users in the cumulative 

impact study area, the magnitude and 

extent of these effects is unknown.

Implementing alternative 2 would 

preclude the use of the North Fork 

Eagle Creek well field for municipal 

water which would create additional 

demands and associated pumping 

drawdown effects on other water 

resources in the Eagle Creek 

drainage or nearby.

Over the long term, post fire cumulative 

impacts would be the same as those 

described above for the pre-wildfire

assessment. Potential cumulative effects on 

streamflows and groundwater would not be 

restricted to water uses by the Village of 

Ruidoso, as described in detail in chapter 3. 

Implementing alternative 3 would 

occasionally create temporary demands by 

the Village for other water sources. It is likely 

that the Village would met those demands by 

pumping groundwater supplies elsewhere, 

by additional leasing of existing water rights, 

by developing additional storage facilities, by 

enacting further water use limitations beyond 

its current practices, or some combination of 

these. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 73

Aquatic Habitat and Fish - Well pumping results in changes in the water table which may affect streamflow to varying degrees. Lowering streamflow may 

increase temperatures and temperature-related fish mortality. Quantity, quality, and water flow availability that mirrors natural flow patterns are important for 

aquatic habitat and fish. Suitable water quality and temperatures, which are partially based on water depth and channel conditions, are necessary to support 

fish populations. Sufficient water supplies must also be available during summer months to provide water temperatures needed for survival of aquatic species.

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Streamflow 

quality and 

quantity 

indicators for 

water resources 

and implications 

for aquatic 

habitat and fish

The North Fork Eagle Creek below the well 

field to the Eagle Creek gage was probably 

never a high quality fishery and has always 

been limited by the intermittent nature of the 

creek. There are now fewer fish in North Fork 

Eagle Creek and fewer opportunities for 

recreational fishing along North Fork Eagle 

Creek than there were before 1988. This is 

probably due, at least in part, to reduced 

streamflow as a result of North Fork Eagle 

Creek well pumping. This trend would continue 

by implementing alternative 1. 

Improved surface flow, eliminated or 

reduced no-flow days and reduced

duration of stream temperatures above 

68 degrees Fahrenheit would improve 

aquatic habitat and fishing potential. 

While this segment of North Fork Eagle 

Creek is not considered a high quality 

trout fishery and this would not change 

with implementation of alternative 2, 

aquatic habitat conditions would 

improve over the long term and provide 

higher quality fish habitat over time and 

fish recovery would be enhanced.

Effects would be similar to alternative 2 

because surface flow would improve, noflow days would be reduced (but not 

eliminated) and there would be a reduction 

in the duration of stream temperatures 

above 68 degrees F; these changes would 

result in improved aquatic habitat and 

fishing potential, but these changes would 

be less than those for alternative 2 but 

greater than those for alternative 1. 

Updated Effects 

due to the Little 

Bear Fire: Short 

Term

No fish were observed in the upper perennial 

reaches (upstream of the North Fork gage) 

during surveys conducted in 2013 after the fire. 

Aquatic invertebrates typically decline 

immediately after a fire. 

In the short term, reduced water quality, 

channel morphology changes, and deeper 

alluvial deposits due to the fire would continue 

to reduce the fish and aquatic habitat quality in 

the project area while the watershed is 

recovering. Pools and stretches of surface 

water may be reduced and this would affect 

aquatic habitat and fish presence. Continued 

pumping under alternative 1 during the short 

term is expected to continue to limit the 

potential for fish and aquatic habitat 

improvement. 

In the short term, reduced water quality, 

channel morphology changes, and 

deeper alluvial deposits due to the fire 

would continue to reduce the fish and 

aquatic habitat quality in the project 

area while the watershed is recovering. 

The effects of no pumping, however, 

would encourage the occurrence of 

streamflow and increased groundwater 

levels (more so than under alternative 

1) although large portions of the stream 

would remain intermittent during 

periods of average precipitation. Pools 

and stretches of surface water may be 

reduced and this would affect aquatic 

habitat and fish presence. Under 

alternative 2, the potential for fish and 

aquatic habitat improvement will 

continue to be limited but not as much 

as under alternative 1. 

In the short term, reduced water quality, 

channel morphology changes, and deeper 

alluvial deposits due to the fire would 

continue to reduce the fish and aquatic 

habitat quality in the project area while the 

watershed is recovering. During the short 

term post-wildfire recovery period, 

pumping effects would be limited to the 

extent possible through an iterative and 

adaptive approach as the landscape, 

stream channel, and groundwater 

recharge processes adjust to the fire 

disturbance. Under alternative 3, the 

potential for fish and aquatic habitat 

improvement will continue to be limited but 

not as much as under alternative 1. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

74 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Updated Effects 

due to the Little 

Bear Fire: Long 

Term

Over the long term, after post-wildfire recovery, 

watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. Aquatic 

invertebrates could respond positively to 

increased stream productivity but the 

timeframe for this recovery is difficult to predict. 

Water yield and groundwater availability may 

improve as shown in the water resources 

analysis and debris flows could result in a more 

dynamic channel environment benefiting fish 

habitat. However, continued pumping would 

obscure some of these potential benefits. 

Therefore, adverse effects from implementing 

alternative 1 over the long term would be the 

same as, or slightly less than, the pre-wildfire

assessment for alternative 1.

Over the long term, after watershed 

recovery, effects from no pumping 

would be the same as those described 

in the pre-wildfire assessment for 

alternative 2. Aquatic invertebrates 

could respond positively to increased 

stream productivity but the timeframe 

for this recovery is difficult to predict. 

Water yield and groundwater availability 

may improve as shown in the water 

resources analysis and debris flows 

could result in a more dynamic channel 

environment benefiting fish habitat. 

With the cessation of pumping, these 

potential benefits could be increased 

Therefore, beneficial effects from 

implementing alternative 2 over the long 

term would be the same as, or slightly 

more than, the pre-wildfire assessment 

for alternative 2.

When compared to alternative 2 (no 

pumping), over the long term, flow 

conditions would continue to be adversely 

impacted by pumping. 

When compared to alternative 1, ver the 

long term, during dry years, adaptive 

management would improve flow 

conditions and reduce the amount of noflow days along the North Fork Eagle 

Creek.

With respect to surface flows and alluvial 

groundwater levels, an approximate 

middle ground between alternative 1 and 2 

would be attained during average 

precipitation years under alternative 3.

In the long term (after post-wildfire

recovery), watershed conditions are 

expected to return to approximate prewildfire conditions. If conifer stands burned 

at moderate to high severity convert to 

grass or shrubs, less evapotranspiration 

could improve water yield and 

groundwater availability. If this occurs with 

adaptive management of North Fork Eagle 

Creek pumping under alternative 3, 

aquatic habitats could be enhanced and 

additional opportunities for improving 

riparian conditions could result. Therefore, 

beneficial effects from implementing 

alternative 3 over the long term would be 

the same as the pre-wildfire assessment 

for alternative 3.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 75

Riparian Vegetation - Well pumping results in changes in the water table which may affect streamflow to varying degrees. These water quantity changes could 

indirectly affect quantity and quality of riparian vegetation along the stream corridor.

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No 

Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Predicted 

qualitative shifts 

in communities 

over time 

Because baseline riparian vegetation 

monitoring was not undertaken prior to the 

development of the wellfield, predictions 

regarding the effects of the alternatives on 

riparian communities are uncertain. 

Alternative 1 has likely led to a shift in the 

riparian community to one more reflective of 

drier condtions 

Since the spatial extent and duration of noflow conditions and flows less than 1.2 

cubic feet per second would increase over 

time (climate change combined with 

continued pumping), there would be less 

water available in the alluvium for plant 

growth and sustenance. If groundwater 

levels lower beyond current levels, there 

would be an increase in xeric, upland 

species and a decrease or loss in riparian 

species dependent on shallow 

groundwater, over the long term.

Because baseline riparian vegetation 

monitoring was not undertaken prior to the 

development of the wellfield, predictions 

regarding the effects of the alternatives on 

riparian communities are uncertain

Project design features minimize any direct

effects to riparian vegetation during well 

and facility removal. Indirectly, improved 

groundwater and surface flow would 

increase available moisture for riparian 

vegetation and could result in maintenance 

or expansion of the riparian zone over time; 

slight increases in communities featuring 

facultative wetland species is possible, but 

may not be fully realized due to the 

possibility of continued climate changerelated drying trends, over the long term.

Because baseline riparian vegetation 

monitoring was not undertaken prior to the 

development of the wellfield, predictions 

regarding the effects of the alternatives on 

riparian communities are uncertain. The 

drainage would remain an intermitten 

stream in the area near the wellfied and 

therefore, riparian vegetation expansion 

would continue to be limited under 

alternative 3.

Pumping would continue to adversely 

impact groundwater and surfaceflow and 

this would continue to decrease available 

moisture for riparian vegetation.

Compared to alternative 1, however, 

improved groundwater and surface flow 

would increase available moisture for 

riparian vegetation and could result in 

maintenance or expansion of the riparian 

zone over time; slight increases in 

communities featuring facultative wetland 

species is possible, but may not be fully 

realized due to the possibility of continued 

climate change-related drying trends, over 

the long term. Effects would be more 

similar to alternative 2 than alternative 1 

due to improvements in water availability. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

76 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No 

Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Predicted 

qualitative shifts 

in riparian tree 

species 

Box elder, Pacific willow and other riparian 

tree species would show signs of stress 

and reduced canopy cover over time due to 

reductions in groundwater and streamflow. 

It is likely that Pacific willow would 

eventually die out and would no longer 

occur along North Fork Eagle Creek below 

the well field over the long term (Pacific 

willow upstream of the North Fork gage 

would not be affected).

Project design features would minimize any 

direct effects to riparian trees during well 

and facility removal. Indirectly, increased 

water availability would likely not result in 

measurable changes in box elder but 

Pacific willow would likely experience 

increased seedling recruitment and could 

expand; however, this may not be a 

substantial change over the current 

condition considering the possibility of 

continued climate change-related drying 

trends, over the long term.

Indirect effects to box elder and Pacific 

willow would be more similar to alternative 

2 than alternative 1 due to improvements 

in water availability.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 77

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No 

Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Updated Effects 

due to Little 

Bear Fire: Short 

Term

In the short term, fire effects are likely to 

result in a shifting of sediment and cobble. 

This channel instability could result in some 

riparian areas being buried and an increase 

in alluvium that would reduce surface flow. 

However, these adverse effects to riparian 

tree species and communities could be 

offset by the opportunity for species such 

as willows to colonize new areas.

In the short term, fire effects are likely to 

result in a shifting of sediment and cobble. 

This channel instability could result in some 

riparian areas being buried and an increase 

in alluvium that would reduce surface flow. 

However, these adverse effects to riparian 

tree species and communities could be 

offset by the opportunity for species such 

as willows to colonize new areas. The 

effects of no pumping would encourage the 

occurrence of streamflow and increased 

groundwater levels (more so than under 

alternative 1) although large portions of the 

stream would remain intermittent during 

periods of average precipitation. Pools and 

stretches of surface water may be reduced 

and this could affect riparian habitat. Under 

alternative 2, the potential for riparian 

habitat improvement will continue to be 

limited but not as much as under 

alternative 1.

In the short term, fire effects are likely to 

result in a shifting of sediment and cobble. 

This channel instability could result in 

some riparian areas being buried and an 

increase in alluvium that would reduce 

surface flow. However, these adverse 

effects to riparian tree species and 

communities could be offset by the 

opportunity for species such as willows to 

colonize new areas.

During the short term post-wildfire

recovery period, pumping effects would be 

limited to the extent possible through an 

iterative and adaptive approach as the 

landscape, stream channel, and 

groundwater recharge processes adjust to 

the fire disturbance. Under alternative 3, 

the potential for riparian habitat 

improvement will continue to be limited but 

not as much as under alternative 1. 

Alternative 3 would encourage the 

occurrence of streamflow and increased 

groundwater levels (more so than under 

alternative 1) although large portions of the 

stream would remain intermittent during 

periods of average precipitation. Pools and 

stretches of surface water may be reduced 

and this could affect riparian habitat.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

78 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No 

Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Updated Effects 

due to Little 

Bear Fire: Long 

Term

Over the long term, water yield and 

groundwater availability may improve as 

shown in the water resources analysis, 

benefiting riparian habitat. However, 

continued pumping would obscure some of 

these potential benefits. Therefore, adverse 

effects from implementing alternative 1 over 

the long term would be the same as, or 

slightly less than, the pre-wildfire

assessment for alternative 1.

Over the long term, after watershed 

recovery, effects from no pumping would 

be the same as those described in the prewildfire assessment for alternative 2.

Over the long term, during dry years, 

adaptive management would improve flow 

conditions and reduce the amount of noflow days along the North Fork Eagle 

Creek. With respect to surface flows and 

alluvial groundwater levels, an 

approximate middle ground between 

alternative 1 and 2 would be attained 

during average precipitation years under 

alternative 3. Over the long term, after 

watershed recovery, effects from 

implementing an adaptive management 

strategy would be the same as those 

described in the pre-wildfire assessment 

for alternative 3.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 79

Socioeconomics - Effects on water available for diversion have potential to affect local social and economic conditions. Well pumping may result in changes in 

groundwater and surface water availability. Limiting access to groundwater pumping has potential to alter municipal water supply, affect streamside recreational 

use (public use of streams for streamside recreation, fishing, and wildlife viewing), and affect private land (availability of water for domestic wells).

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Municipal water 

supply (overall 

and during 5-

month summer 

resort period)

Average annual contributions from North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells would continue to provide 

from 25 to 29 percent percent of the Village of 

Ruidoso water supply if current trends in total 

diversion and North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

diversion continue; past trends in North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells diversion during the 5-month 

summer resort period would also continue (38 

to 58 percent in 2006 and 2004, respectively). 

Consideration of additional contributions 

attributable to North Fork Eagle Creek well 

diversions (50 percent return flow credit) North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells would continue to 

provide 36-43 percent to the municipal water 

supply overall, and 57-87 percent during the 

summer months. 

Annual diversions in the future could average 

approximately 569 acre-feet per year.

North Fork Eagle Creek wells would 

not contribute 25-29 percent of the 

municipal water supply or 38-58

percent during the summer months; 

this need would have to come from 

another water source

There would be no water diverted; 

this water would need to come from 

another source.

There would be periodic restrictions on 

pumping, particularly during the summer. 

Based on the streamflow adaptive 

management triggers, North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells would provide about 23-25

percent to the municipal water supply 

overall, and 25-57 percent during the 

summer. Including the 50 percent return flow 

credit; North Fork Eagle Creek wells would 

continue to provide 34.5-37.5 percent to the 

municipal water supply overall, and 37.5-

85.5 percent during the summer months. 

Restrictions based on the streamflow 

triggers would likely be enacted fequently

during below-average precipitation years but 

infrequently during average or above 

average precipitation years.

Annual diversions could average 236 acrefeet per year or more depending on how the 

adaptive management triggers were 

implemented 

Projected 

production 

If average annual diversion from these wells 

continues they would contribute 11 percent of 

the projected adjusted diversion needs (5,097 

acre-feet) for the year 2045.

Without groundwater withdrawal, 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells would 

not contribute towards future Village 

of Ruidoso demand and their 

projected contribution (11 percent) in 

2045 would have to come from 

another source.

Average annual diversion from North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells would continue and they 

would continue to contribute towards future 

Village of Ruidoso demand; Based on 

enacting the streamflow adaptive 

management triggers, their projected 

contribution in 2045 would be 0.1 - 1.3

percent less than under alternative 1. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

80 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Streamflow 

quality and 

quantity and 

springs/seeps 

indicators for 

water resources 

and implications 

for streamside 

recreational use

With continued periods of no flow days, flows 

below 1.2 cubic feet per second, periods of 

stream temperatures above 68 degrees 

Fahrenheit and effects to springs/seeps (as 

shown in the water resources section), 

streamside recreational use would be 

negatively affected; the quality of this 

recreation experience would be less than that 

provided by either alternative 2 or 3.

With elimination of no-flow days and 

approximately 7 months annually with 

flows above 1.2 cubic feet per 

second, and no effects to 

springs/seeps (as shown in the water 

resources section), streamside 

recreational use would improve over

current conditions and would be of 

higher quality compared to either 

alternative 1 or 3. 

Pumping would continue to adversely 

influence streamflow quantity and springs 

and seeps. However, when compared to 

alternative 1, with a decrease in the number 

of no-flow days an increase in the duration of 

flows greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second, 

a reduction in times when stream 

temperatures are above 68 degrees

Fahrenheit, and a decrease in the potential 

effect to springs/seeps, streamside 

recreational use would improve over current 

conditions and over that provided by 

alternative 1, but would be of lower quality 

than that provided by alternative 2.

Domestic wells 

indicator for 

water resources 

and implications 

for private land 

water supply

The potential for adverse effects to the 

availability of domestic well water are greatest 

under this alternative compared to alternative 2 

or 3; up to two domestic wells could be directly 

affected. 

Because no domestic wells would be 

directly affected by groundwater 

drawdown under this alternative, 

there would be no effect to the 

availability of water for domestic use.

Pumping would continue to impact domestic 

wells by groundwater drawdown. However, 

drawdown would decreased and water level 

recovery times would decrease the duration 

and extent of existing drawdown, which 

would lessen the on-going impacts to 

domestic wells. The potential for adverse 

effects to the availability of domestic well 

water would be less than alternative 1 but 

greater than alternative 2. 

Financial 

Efficiency 

Present net value would range from $4.6 to 

$7.2 million. The Village of Ruidoso would be 

required to incur costs associated with 

monitoring activities proposed under this 

alternative

Benefits would be realized from on-going use 

of the wells for municipal water supply

Present net value would be 

approximately $217,000; more 

financially efficient (in terms of cost) 

than alternatives 1 or 3.

Resource benefits from maintained 

streamflow and maintenance or 

improvement of riparian vegetation 

would be realized 

No benefit realized from contribution 

to municipal water supply

Same as alternative 1
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 81

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Values, attitudes 

and beliefs 

Quality of life as it relates to municipal water 

supply would remain unchanged under this 

alternative; quality of life associated with the 

quality of recreation experience and the 

availability of domestic well water would remain 

unchanged; the Lincoln National Forest would 

continue to support quality of life at levels 

experienced currently.

Quality of life as it relates to municipal 

water supply would be adversely 

affected since North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells would no longer 

contribute to the water supply; quality 

of life associated with the quality of 

recreation experience and the 

availability of domestic well water 

would be improved over current 

conditions; the Lincoln National 

Forest would continue to support 

quality of life in the area but less than 

currently supported from municipal 

water supply and more in terms of the 

quality of recreation experience and 

the availability of domestic well water.

Quality of life as it relates to municipal water 

supply would be less than experienced 

currently due to restrictions on North Fork 

Eagle Creek well pumping. However, quality 

of life associated with the quality of 

recreation experience and the availability of 

domestic well water would be improved over 

current conditions; the Lincoln National 

Forest would continue to support quality of 

life in the area but less than currently 

supported from municipal water supply and 

more in terms of the quality of recreation 

experience and the availability of domestic 

well water.

Environmental 

justice (effects 

of agency 

programs that 

disproportionatel

y impact 

minority and low 

income 

populations)

There would be no disproportionately high or 

adverse human health or environmental effect 

on minority or low-income populations. Quality 

of life related to water supply, recreation and 

domestic well water would remain unchanged 

from current conditions. 

There would be no disproportionately 

high or adverse human health or 

environmental effect on minority or 

low-income populations. While 

adverse effects to total municipal 

water diversions are anticipated they 

are expected to be distributed 

amongst all segments of the Village 

of Ruidoso population since water 

diversion from the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells cannot be attributed to 

supply certain areas of the Village of 

Ruidoso. Consequently, effects are 

not considered disparate since effects 

would occur to communities 

regardless of racial, ethnic or poverty

status. 

There would be no disproportionately high or 

adverse human health or environmental 

effect on minority or low-income populations. 

While adverse effects to total municipal 

water diversions are anticipated they would 

be the same as those described for 

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

82 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Cumulative 

effects

Since there are no direct and indirect effects 

(conditions would remain unchanged), there 

would be no cumulative effects. 

Regardless of the contributions of the 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells to the 

water supply, future water supply 

needs exceed existing supply and 

existing water rights, even with 

implementation of utility use reduction 

and conservation. Without North Fork 

Eagle Creek contributions, the 

potential for adverse cumulative 

effects to municipal water supply 

would be greater under this 

alternative than either alternative 1 or 

3. However, adverse cumulative 

economic effects to the quality of 

recreation experience would be less 

under this alternative than alternative 

1 or 3. Similarly, adverse cumulative 

economic effects to nearby domestic 

wells would be less under this 

alternative than alternative 1 or 3.

Regardless of the contributions of the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells to the water supply, 

future water supply needs exceed existing 

supply and existing water rights, even with 

implementation of utility use reduction and 

conservation. With limited North Fork Eagle 

Creek contributions, adverse cumulative 

economic effects to municipal water supply 

would be greater under this alternative than 

under alternative 1but less than alternative 2. 

Adverse cumulative economic effects to the 

quality of recreation experience would be 

less under this alternative than under 

alternative 1 but more than alternative 2. In 

addition, the potential for adverse cumulative 

economic effects to nearby domestic wells 

would be less than under alternative 1 but 

more than alternative 2.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 83

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Updated Direct, 

Indirect and 

Cumulative 

Effects Due to 

Little Bear Fire

Implementation of alternative 1 would achieve 

the first need statement regarding the Village of 

Ruidoso’s ability to access and divert 

groundwater from its North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells because it would continue to provide 

water to the Village of Ruidoso.

Once conditions allow for North Fork Eagle 

Creek well pumping to resume at pre-wildfire

levels it is likely that the Village of Ruidoso will 

have made water supply adjustments in order 

to meet water supply demand and their 

reliance on North Fork Eagle Creek well 

pumping may be less.

While the short-term effects of implementing 

alternative 1 to other aspects of the 

socioeconomic analysis are uncertain during 

the watershed recovery period, the long-term 

effects are the same as those described above 

for the pre-wildfire assessment. 

Alternative 2 does not address the 

first need statement and would not 

provide any contribution to the 

municipal water supply. Without 

groundwater withdrawal, the North 

Fork wells would not provide their 

pre-fire share of Village of Ruidoso 

water supply and would not contribute 

toward future demands for water 

diversion. 

While the short-term effects of 

implementing alternative 2 to other 

aspects of the socioeconomic 

analysis are uncertain during the 

watershed recovery period, the longterm effects are the same as those 

described above for the pre-wildfire

assessment.

Implementation of alternative 3 would 

achieve the first need statement regarding 

the Village of Ruidoso’s ability to access and 

divert groundwater from its North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells because it would continue to 

provide water to the Village of Ruidoso.

However, alternative 3 may not provide the 

pre-wildfire share of water as would 

alternative 1. Regardless, when additional 

indirect contributions attributable to the 50 

percent return flow credit are considered 

under alternative 3, North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells would continue to provide 37.5 to 85.5 

percent of municipal water supply during the 

5-month summer resort period.

Once conditions allow for North Fork Eagle 

Creek well pumping to resume at pre-wildfire

levels it is likely that the Village of Ruidoso

will have made water supply adjustments in 

order to meet water supply demand.

Consequently reliance on North Fork Eagle 

Creek well pumping may be less than 

depicted above.

While the short-term effects of implementing 

alternative 3 to other aspects of the 

socioeconomic analysis are uncertain during 

the watershed recovery period, the long-term 

effects are the same as those described 

above for the pre-wildfire assessment.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

84 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Water Rights - Well pumping results in changes in dynamics of groundwater and surface water. Surface water and groundwater availability are linked and are 

limited not only by accessible available quantities of water, but also by available water rights. Limiting access to groundwater pumping has potential to alter 

municipal water supply and affect beneficial use of the Village of Ruidoso’s total adjudicated water rights.

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Beneficial use of 

the Village of 

Ruidoso’s water 

rights

Without limitations on groundwater withdrawal, the 

Village of Ruidoso would be able to access and put 

to beneficial use their adjudicated water rights, 

which, as of 2014, total 1838.51 acre feet per year.

Without groundwater withdrawal at the 

current location, the Village of Ruidoso

would need to file application with the 

Office of the State Engineer to transfer 

the point of diversion of theirwater rights

(updated in 2014). If protests are filed 

the Office of the State Engineer would 

hold a formal hearing and decide the 

case. This decision could be appealed. 

These hearings can take months or 

years to complete. This is a state of 

New Mexico process that does not 

involve the USDA Forest Service.

With the potential for limited 

groundwater withdrawal at the current 

location, the Village of Ruidoso would 

need to file application with the Office 

of the State Engineer to transfer the 

point of diversion of a portion of their 

water rights (as summarized for 

alternative 2).

Updated Effects 

due to the Little 

Bear Fire: Short 

Term

The fire halted the production of both surface and 

groundwater diversions along Eagle Creek due to 

water quality and debris flow issues. This impacted 

water production and the Village of Ruidoso’s ability 

to access the return flow credits along the Rio 

Ruidoso. The shift from the Eagle Creek watershed 

to the Rio Ruidoso watershed created a temporary 

redistribution of water rights along the Rio Ruidoso 

(also impacted by water quality from the Little Bear 

Fire). Approved on an emergency basis by the 

Office of the State Engineer, the Village of Ruidoso

received a temporary additional point of diversion, 

at the confluence of the Rio Ruidoso and Carrizo 

Creek to the south, to provide water to the 

Grindstone Dam for use in the municipal supply. 

This redistribution is anticipated to be short-term in 

nature. Lack of diversion due to emergency 

circumstances created by the Little Bear Fire in 

2012 is not expected to have a direct effect on the 

beneficial use of the Village of Ruidoso’s 

adjudicated water rights.

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 85

Measurement Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No Change Alternative 2 – No Action 

Indicators (Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) (No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Updated Effects Over the long term, historic water rights and Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1.

due to the Little allocation will remain as defined in the 2010

Bear Fire: Long Consent Order. Therefore, the effects of 

Term implementing alternative 1 to the beneficial use of 

the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights is the same as 

that described in the pre-wildfire assessment 

above.

Non-Significant Issue - Vegetation (other than riparian)

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Invasive Plants 

(musk thistle) 

There would be no direct effects since there 

would be no ground disturbance. This species 

occurs in a wide enough range of conditions to 

be neither beneficially nor detrimentally 

affected by changes in water depth. Therefore, 

there would be no direct or indirect effects on 

the increased risk of spread for musk thistle or 

other non-native invasive plants.

This alternative includes removal of 

facilities with the end of the permit. 

Although the area of the disturbance 

would be relatively small, this ground 

disturbance would still contribute to the 

increased likelihood of non-native plant 

spread, minimized by the 

implementation of mitigation measures.

Same as alternative 1

2013 Regional

Forester’s 

Sensitive 

Species 

(Wooton’s 

hawthorn and 

Sierra Blanca 

cliff daisy)

No effect to Regional Forester’s sensitive 

species determination. There would be no 

direct effects since there would be no ground 

disturbance. Because Sierra Blanca cliff daisy 

is not dependent on groundwater or surface 

water there would be no indirect effects to this 

species. Wooton’s hawthorn populations are 

stable to increasing in the project area and 

appear to have a wide enough range of 

conditions to not be indirectly affected by 

changes in groundwater or surface water. 

No effect to Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species determination. 

Mitigation measures would be 

implemented to ensure there would be 

no direct effects from ground 

disturbance associated with removal of 

wells and facilities. Indirect effects 

would be the same as those described 

for alternative 1.

Same as alternative 1
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

86 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Upland 

Vegetation

There would be no direct effects since there 

would be no ground disturbance. Indirect 

effects of water drawdown would reach into the 

North Fork Eagle Creek basin and would result 

in a reduction of available moisture for new 

growth. However, upland vegetation is not as 

sensitive to water fluctuation as riparian 

vegetation and would be resistant to changes 

in moisture; adverse effects would be minimal. 

Growth of individual trees may be stunted, but 

would not result in any measurable affects 

across the project area as a whole.

There would be no direct effects since 

ground-disturbing activities would be 

limited to the riparian corridor and 

project design features would minimize 

the effects to vegetation in the area of 

disturbance. Having more groundwater 

available in the North Fork Eagle Creek 

basin would provide added moisture for 

new growth. However, upland 

vegetation is not as sensitive to water 

fluctuation as riparian vegetation; 

beneficial effects would be minimal. 

Growth of individual trees may 

increase, but would not result in any 

measurable affects across the project 

area as a whole.

There would be no direct effects since 

there would be no ground disturbance. 

Indirect effects would be the same as 

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

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 87

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative

No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Updated effects

to Vegetation 

due to the Little 

Bear Fire 

Upland vegetation burned by the fire is likely to 

experience additional stress due to effects from 

fire damage and therefore could be adversely 

impacted from reduced water availability due to 

drawdown from well pumping. Therefore, the 

potential for adverse impacts from alternative 

1, as described above, could be somewhat 

greater than predicted above, post-wildfire. 

Because upland vegetation is less sensitive to 

groundwater drawdown effects from pumping 

than vegetation in the riparian zone, these 

differences between pre-wildfire and postwildfire effects are likely negligible to minor. 

The impacts to Wooton’s Hawthorn and Sierra 

Blanca cliff daisy are the same as those 

described for the pre-wildfire assessment 

above.

All musk thistle populations were burned in the 

project area and increases in occurrences in 

the project area are likely as a result of the 

wildfire. Native seeding was undertaken 

following the Little Bear Fire to reduce further 

noxious weed spread (USDA Forest Service 

2012). Project design features would minimize 

spread. Therefore, the impacts to invasive 

plants are the same as those described for the 

pre-wildfire assessment above.

Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

88 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Non-Significant Issue - Wildlife

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No 

Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Federally listed

species 

(Mexican 

spotted owl) 

No effect determination under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act; nearest nesting area 

is 0.75 miles from North Fork Eagle Creek; no 

suitable nesting/roosting or critical habitat 

within action area. There would be a mitigation 

measure to avoid disturbance activities to 

Mexican spotted owl during breeding and 

nesting season from March 1 to August 31.

Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1

2013 Regional 

Forester’s 

Sensitive 

Species

No effect to Regional Forester’s sensitive 

species (Northern goshawk, Sacramento 

mountains salamander, Ruidoso red squirrel). 

Nearest northern goshawk nesting area is 0.1 

mile from action area; nearest known 

salamander location is 0.4 mile from action 

area; no known populations of Ruidoso red 

squirrels in project area There would be a 

mitigation measure to avoid disturbance 

activities to northern goshawks during the 

breeding season. 

Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1

Management 

Indicator 

Species 

No management indicator species for riparian 

habitat are known to occur in the project area; 

management indicator species for mixed 

conifer (pygmy nuthatch), aspen (hairy 

woodpecker), high quality browse (mule deer), 

mixed conifer (elk and Ruidoso red squirrel) 

would not be affected; Forest-wide habitat and 

population trends as a whole would not be 

affected due to the small size of the project 

area. 

Same as alternative 1; the increase in 

available surface water and indirect 

benefit to riparian vegetation could 

result in improved water availability 

(particularly for elk and deer) and 

habitat quality 

Same as alternative 1
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 89

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No 

Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping) Alternative 3 –Adaptive Management

Migratory Birds There would be no impact to migratory bird 

species or their habitats There would be no 

unintentional take of adults, eggs, and/or chicks 

and no ground or habitat disturbance for 

migratory birds. The mitigation measure to 

avoid disturbance activities to northern 

goshawks and Mexican spotted owls during the 

breeding season would also minimize the 

potential for effects to migratory birds. 

Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1

Updated Effects 

due to the Little 

Bear Fire

While impacts from the Little Bear Fire to

threatened, endangered and sensitive species,

management indicator species, migratory birds,

and their habitats are not known with certainty, 

it is likely that some of these species were 

affected to some degree, at least in the short 

term. However, based on supplemental 

analysis, implementation of any of the 

alternatives post-wildfire should not contribute 

to any additional direct or indirect adverse 

impacts (see the wildlife section in chapter 3). 

The effects from implementing alternative 1 are 

the same as those for the pre-wildfire

assessment.

Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 91

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project 

area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the 

scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in the alternatives chapter. 

Significant issues (water resources, aquatic habitat and fish, riparian vegetation, socioeconomics, and 

water rights) are discussed first, followed by nonsignificant issues. 

Where there are differences in the affected environment and environmental consequences of the 

alternatives due to the Little Bear Fire, these are noted. 

Figure 4 is a map of the project area and the cumulative impact analysis area. Figure 5 depicts the 

boundary and burn severities of the Little Bear Fire in relation to the North Fork project area.

Methodology

The impact analysis and conclusions contained in this chapter were based on Lincoln National Forest 

staff knowledge of the resources and site, reviewing of existing literature and agency studies, 

information provided by specialists within the USDA Forest Service, other agencies and contractors, 

and professional judgment. The methodology section at the beginning of each resource heading 

describes any additional specific data collection/analysis or other methods used for that resource.

Potential impacts in this chapter are described in terms of type (direct, indirect, cumulative and are 

the effects beneficial or adverse?), context (are the effects site specific, local, or even regional?), 

duration (are the effects short term or long term?), and intensity. 

Direct effects occur at the same time and in the same locations as actions that cause them. Indirect 

effects are those that occur at a later time or in a different location than the actions that were their 

cause. Cumulative impacts result from the additive impacts of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in or near the area. 

For purposes of this analysis, short-term effects are those expected within the next 1 to 10 years and 

long-term effects are those that are expected between 10 and 20 years or more unless specifically 

defined in individual resource sections below. 

The analysis we present for alternative 3 (adaptive management) in each resource section considers 

the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting from implementing all adaptive management 

triggers, as described in the description of the adaptive management alternative in chapter 2 as well as 

the implementation of identified mitigations and monitoring measures. The analysis we present for 

alternatives 1 and 2 in each resource section considers the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts 

resulting from the implementation of all mitigation measures and monitoring specific to these 

alternatives (as described at the end of chapter 2) are implemented. 

The methodology portion of each resource section in this chapter includes a summary of any changes 

to the methods used for analysis based on the Little Bear Fire.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

The specialist reports used in preparation of this chapter are:

• Final Water Resources Report for the FEIS(AECOM 2015)

• Riparian Vegetation Report and Botanical Resources Report for the FEIS (Miller 2015a and 

Miller 2015b)

• Fish and Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Biological Assessment for 

the FEIS (Bright 2015a and Bright 2015b)

• Socioeconomics Report for the FEIS (Eichman 2015)

• Water Rights Report for the FEIS (Thompson 2015)

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes the action (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The baseline used for cumulative effects analysis is the no action alternative. The cumulative effects 

analysis; while it includes some consideration of past human actions; does not fully quantify all 

effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. By looking 

at current conditions, we capture residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless 

of which particular action or event contributed those effects. The Council on Environmental Quality 

issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions, which

states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current 

aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” 

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service NEPA regulations 

(36 CFR 220.4(f)). For these reasons, while some past actions are listed and considered, the focus of 

the cumulative analysis is based on current environmental conditions, and to the extent possible, the 

no action (no pumping alternative). 

The North Fork Eagle Creek project area lies wholly within the 3,400-acre North Fork Eagle Creek 

basin, which is located within the larger 10,300-acre upper Eagle Creek drainage. The upper Eagle 

Creek drainage is a subset of the 37,200-acre Devil’s Canyon hydrological unit code 6th field (HUC 6) 

watershed. We assessed watershed conditions within the Devil’s Canyon HUC 6 as part of a 

nationwide effort (USDA Forest Service 2010) and these assessment results were used in evaluation 

of cumulative effects. 

We chose the upper Eagle Creek drainage (figure 4) for the cumulative impact analysis area because 

of the potential for impacts of multiple actions on the natural environment, particularly hydrologic 

resources, within this one drainage. As described in more detail in the “Water Resources” section later 

in this chapter, this smaller and more relevant drainage boundary was used instead of the larger 

Devil’s Canyon HUC 6 boundary in order to focus analysis on that portion of the Eagle Creek 

drainage above Alto Lake and within a few miles downstream of the lake, with the most potential to 

be affected by North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping in combination with other actions in the same 

drainage. Alto Lake controls the flows downstream and is part of the Village of Ruidoso’s and Alto’s 

water supply. The drainage area below this is also quite different than the upper drainage in terms of 

climate, geology, and precipitation. However, the area of cumulative impact may differ depending on 

the resource affected. If a different cumulative impact area is chosen for a specific resource, we 

discuss this in that specific resource section later in this chapter. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 93

Figure 4. Upper Eagle Creek drainage for cumulative impact analysis
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Figure 5. Little Bear Fire Burn Severity
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 95

We received several comments during the public scoping period and subsequent comment periods 

related to the size and boundary of the cumulative impact study area, as shown in appendix A, C and 

E but we continue to feel confident in the size and configuration of the cumulative impact study area 

as depicted in figure 4 and figure 5, for the reasons described above. The list in table 4 and the actions 

shown on the map in figure 4 have been updated since the 2012 DEIS.

The upper Eagle Creek drainage is comprised of approximately 66 percent National Forest System 

land (6,750 acres), 11 percent Bureau of Indian Affairs land (1,150 acres on the Mescalero Apache 

Reservation) and 23 percent private land (2,360 acres). Populated communities within the upper 

Eagle Creek drainage include Alto and portions of the Village of Ruidoso. Generally, the major use of 

private property located within the drainage is for the rural residential lifestyle. Many residences are 

seasonally occupied.

A catalog of certain actions (ones that are contributing effects to affected resources analyzed) 

occurring within the upper Eagle Creek drainage is summarized in table 4 below. In progress or 

planned actions, known as of this writing, are also included and were compiled from the “Lincoln 

National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions” (queried in August 2011, May 2014, and again in 

April 2015), input from the district staff, New Mexico State Forestry Division, and applicant. 

As shown in table 4, approximately 3,406 acres within the 10,300-acre upper Eagle Creek drainage 

(or 33 percent) have been treated or are planned for treatment in the foreseeable future with fuel 

reduction, road work, or facility construction. Approximately 6,700 acres (or 65 percent of the 

drainage) has been burned in past wildfires, including the recent 2012 Little Bear Fire. 

There are currently no reasonably foreseeable future plans for vegetation treatments on National 

Forest System lands within the drainage but one New Mexico State Forestry project is planned in the 

next 1–2 years. 

The “Affected Environment” sections for each resource later in this chapter discuss the current 

conditions in the project area. Cumulative watershed effects analysis assumes all planned projects 

have been completed.

The “Water Resources” and “Socioeconomics” sections of this chapter provide additional detail 

related to the municipal water supply and how this is currently managed and plans for future 

management. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

96 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

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

Project Type/Timing

Within 

Upper 

Eagle 

Creek 

Drainage?

Approximate 

Acreage/miles 

within Upper 

Eagle Creek 

Drainage

Forest Service in 

progress or planned 

projects

El Capitan mineral 

exploration

Test core drilling/planned No

Hale Lake and East Hale 

Lake grazing allotments 

management

Livestock grazing/ongoing No

Stokes Easement and 

road construction/reroute 

of National Forest System 

Road 256

Acquisition of an easement to cross private 

land and reroute portion of National Forest 

System Road 256

No

NM 532 road realignment Rebuilding of three curves on NM 532 is 

planned for FY12. 

Yes 2 miles

Integrated Non-native 

Invasive and Native 

Invasive Plant Project 

Vegetation management Yes

Divide Grazing allotment 

management 

Livestock grazing No

Grindstone Wetland 

Development

Watershed management No

Merchant Grazing 

allotment management

Livestock grazing No

Skinner Grazing Allotment Livestock grazing No

Seven Cabins Road 

Realignment 

Road management No

Ski Apache Postfire 

Rehabilitation

Special Use Management Yes 80 acres

Ski Apache Recreation 

Enhancement

Special Use Management Yes 40 acres

West Mountain Push Units 

7-9

Fuels Management No

Forest Service ongoing, 

routine management 

activities

Outfitter/guide permittees Outfitter/guides utilize the Eagle Creek area for 

access to trails and dispersed camping.

Yes N/A

North Fork wells 

maintenance

Routine maintenance of the municipal North 

Fork well field and pipeline

Yes 4 acres

National Forest System 

Road 127A maintenance

Routine maintenance of National Forest 

System Road 127A for access to dispersed 

camping, well field, and Summer Homes Tract.

Yes 2 miles

National Forest System 

Road 117 maintenance

Routine maintenance of National Forest 

System Road 117 for access to national forest.

Yes 7 miles
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 97

Project Type/Timing

Within 

Upper 

Eagle 

Creek 

Drainage?

Approximate 

Acreage/miles 

within Upper 

Eagle Creek 

Drainage

Forest Trail T-12 

maintenance

Routine maintenance of T-12 in the Summer 

Home Tract. This trail is located directly above 

the Eagle Creek well field.

Yes 2 miles

Relevant Forest Service

past activities 

U.S. Geological Survey

gage installation

U.S. Geological Survey installed weirs in Upper 

Eagle Creek and at the confluence of the north 

and south forks. A flume was also installed 

along the south fork. 

Yes 0.25 acre

National Forest System 

Road 127A road work

The first low water crossing was rebuilt after a 

flood event in 2008.

Yes 0.25 acre

Village of Ruidoso surface 

diversion

The Village of Ruidoso surface diversion for 

collection of water along Eagle Creek. 

Yes 0.25 acre

1 surface 

diversion 

along Eagle 

Creek

Village of Ruidoso

municipal well field

installation 

The Village of Ruidoso municipal well field and 

pipeline were installed in the early 1980s for 

access to groundwater rights supplemental to 

the surface diversion. 

Yes 4 acres

Eagle Creek Summer 

Homes domestic well 

installation

A series of six domestic wells were installed at 

the summer home tract for drinking water in 

2009. 

Yes 6 domestic 

wells

Eagle Creek Summer 

Homes septic tank 

installation

A series of septic tanks were installed at the 

summer home tract for waste disposal in 2009. 

Yes 0.5 acre

NM 532 road 

reconstruction

Reconstruction of NM 532 at mile marker #3 

due to flood in 2008.

Yes 0.5 mile

Burned Area Emergency 

Response Treatment 

Trash bars installed at mouth of Carlton 

Canyon in response to Ski Run Fire.

Yes 0.25 acre

Eagle II thin and hand pile 

projects

Thinning, hand piling, and burning projects. Yes 1,770 acres

Oak Grove Host site Construction of a host site at Oak Grove 

Campground above the North Fork of Eagle 

Creek.

Yes 0.25 acre

Ski Run Wildfire Wildfire in 2003 located between Carlton and 

Johnson Canyons. Fire bisected by NM 532. 

Area burned to around 1 mile of Eagle Creek 

Summer Home Tract.

Yes 265 acres

Cree Wildfire Wildfire in May 2000 Yes – a 

portion

912 acres

Little Bear Fire Wildfire in 2012 Yes 5498 acres

Thinning in southeast 

corner of project area

Yes – a 

portion

2 acres

Firewood sales Firewood treatments Yes – a 

portion

89 acres
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

98 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Project Type/Timing

Within 

Upper 

Eagle 

Creek 

Drainage?

Approximate 

Acreage/miles 

within Upper 

Eagle Creek 

Drainage

Burned Area Emergency 

Response (BAER)

Activities for the Little 

Bear Fire

The placement of 150 feet of Jersey barriers 

along Eagle Creek; installation of 100 cubic 

yards Gabion baskets; installation of a 10 foot 

culvert extension and overflow drain; 

installation of concrete slope paving around 

each bridge; aerial seeding and mulching was 

accomplished in high-severity burned areas in 

the drainage and hillsides above the cabin 

areas.

Yes 100 acres

Past and ongoing 

activities outside of 

National Forest System 

lands

Eagle Creek RV Resort Installation of a privately owned campground 

3 miles downstream from the North Fork Eagle 

Creek in 2010.

Yes 33 acres

Bottlehouse Cabin rentals Installation of cabins and rental units 1⁄4 mile 

south of well field on private land in 2009. 

Yes Unknown

Various domestic wells Approximately 20+ domestic wells at 

residences located below the Eagle Creek well 

field.

Yes 1 acre

Water use –

greater than 

20 domestic 

wells

Softball field Municipal softball fields are located on village 

land approximately 3 miles below the Eagle 

Creek well field

Yes 5 acres

Ruidoso Winter Park 

tubing area

A private tubing area is located on private 

lands 3 miles below the Eagle Creek well field. 

Snow blowing machines utilizing private Eagle 

Creek water rights are used to supplement 

snowfall. The tubing area was installed in 2008 

approximately. 

Yes 5 acres

water use

State Forestry projects Hazardous fuel reduction and wildland-urban 

interface biomass projects.

Yes 900 acres

State Forestry projects Hazardous fuel reduction and wildland-urban 

interface treatments (Moon Mountain and 

Lincoln Country Wildland-urban Interface).

No

Village of Ruidoso water 

line 

The abandonment and relocation of a water 

line within Eagle Creek. Requirement by the 

Dam Safety Bureau after the Little Bear Fire

Yes 5 acres

Village of Ruidoso wells Rehabilitation of North Fork well #4 Yes 0.25 acres

Village of Ruidoso surface 

diversion

Cleaning and maintenance of the Village of 

Ruidoso surface diversion

Yes 1 acre

Village of Ruidoso wells Placement of jersey barriers around National 

Forest System well #4 and Green well. New 

Mexico Environment Department requirement 

for security

Yes 0.5 acres

Village of Ruidoso wells Deepening supplemental wells to 1,500 feet Yes 4 acres
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 99

Project Type/Timing

Within 

Upper 

Eagle 

Creek 

Drainage?

Approximate 

Acreage/miles 

within Upper 

Eagle Creek 

Drainage

Planned activities 

outside of National 

Forest System lands

State Forestry project Hazardous fuel reduction project planned for 

2012–2013

Yes 300 acres

Village of Ruidoso wells Applications to pump from an additional 7 

wells, supplemental to the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells 

Yes 7 wells

Totals: 

Acreage/miles within 

Upper Eagle Creek 

Drainage

15 miles of road and trail maintenance

345 acres of past or ongoing ground 

disturbance due to structures or facilities

6,700 acres of area burned in previous 

wildfires 

1,861 acres of fuels reduction and firewood 

treatments (National Forest System lands)

1,200 acres of state forestry fuels reduction 

treatments

Approximately 33 municipal water and 

domestic wells combined
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Significant Issue: Water Resources

The major issue addressed in this section is the effect that well pumping has on hydrologic resources 

in the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage, including potential cumulative effects downstream in the 

larger Eagle Creek drainage. This issue encompasses multiple subjects that include understanding the 

connection between the stream, the alluvial aquifer, and the deeper groundwater that is extracted by 

the wells, as well as characterizing the effects that climate change may be playing in these processes.

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

table elevations, spring flows, and seeps), surface water (streamflows and pools), and associated 

resources (riparian conditions, wetlands). Lowering streamflow may increase surface water 

temperatures, and reduce the amount of water accessible to vegetation. Surface water and 

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

water, but also by available water rights. Water resources over time can also be affected by climate 

change. 

The final supplemental Water Resources Report (AECOM 2015) provides a more detailed description 

of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences, considering the changes caused 

by the Little Bear Fire. These reports are incorporated by reference, discussed briefly below, and 

available in their entirety in the project record. 

Methodology 

The direct effects study area is the upper Eagle Creek drainage (figure 2) above the Eagle Creek gage. 

The cumulative impacts area extends through the Eagle Creek drainage to the location of the former 

U.S. Geological Survey stream gage named Eagle Creek near Alto, New Mexico (Eagle Creek near 

Alto, U.S. Geological Survey gage number 08387800) (figure 4). This area incorporates an additional 

approximately 7 stream miles of Eagle Creek below the direct effects study area.

The cumulative impact area occupies 15.7 square miles (including the project study area) and extends 

into lower elevations than the North Fork drainage. Eagle Creek near Alto gage, now discontinued, is 

located at approximately 6,840 feet above mean sea level. Major water features in the cumulative 

impact area, but outside the direct effects study area, include the Eagle Creek surface water diversion 

for the applicant; lower Eagle Creek; Alto Reservoir; several additional municipal water supply wells; 

and Alto Crest Water Treatment Plant No. 3. The Water Resources Report provides more details 

regarding why this area was selected (AECOM 2015).

Water supply pumping for the applicant is conducted at six water wells along lower Eagle Creek 

(figure 11), and the Village of Ruidoso diverts surface water from the stream a short distance below 

the Eagle Creek gage. Approximately 26 individual homes are located along the North Fork and 

upper Eagle Creek, a number of which are located downstream of the North Fork well field.

The analysis methods we use here are based on a comprehensive review of existing hydrologic and 

geologic reports and memoranda, as well as data available for groundwater depths, aquifer 

characteristics, streamflows, and water chemistry. We undertook a time-intensive program of 

additional data collection and interpretation for the project in coordination with the USGS. We 

describe and compare hydrologic conditions based on a review of these data, the geologic conditions, 

and the hydrologic conditions with and without groundwater pumping. Potential effects on the 

hydrologic system for the alternatives are displayed on either a qualitative to quantitative basis, 

depending on the data, information and resources available. We used descriptive or analytical 

approaches for this effort, employing existing data that include known or assumed characteristics of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 101

aquifers, geologic factors, groundwater levels, streamflows, channel conditions, surface water and 

groundwater chemistry, wells, and well field pumping. No further groundwater modeling or data 

collection efforts were undertaken. 

The original impact assessment as documented in the 2012 DEIS was based on carefully-selected 

long-term data that included a pre-pumping (“no pumping”) period (before the North Fork Eagle 

Creek well field was activated). These data and other collected information form the assessment basis 

for alternative 2 (no action – no pumping). By using extended periods-of–record in the original 

assessment, the effects of short-term natural variation were minimized when comparing potential 

pumping impacts. Short-term natural variation effects are believed to be substantial in the 

mountainous watershed setting, so the original assessment approach and its impact indicators are 

judged to remain appropriate for longer-term post-wildfire impact comparisons. Given the 

complications of limited post-wildfire data availability and quality, qualitative appraisals have been 

used as necessary in the post-wildfire water resources impact assessment.

We describe direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in terms of duration and extent. Short-term 

impacts include those that would be in effect over a relatively limited duration. For purposes of this 

assessment, short-term refers to a period of approximately 3 months or less. We have determined this 

on the basis of annual seasons and the general responses of surface water and groundwater conditions 

to seasonal variations. In addition, at the fairly high elevations and limited fair weather durations in 

the North Fork, perturbations to water resource conditions may have related effects on watershed 

condition, riparian communities, aquatic resources, and recreational uses in a 3-month period or less. 

We describe long-term impacts as those having effects greater than 3 months. Typically for this 

project, however, long-term impacts would affect surface water, groundwater, or their uses by water 

dependent resources for periods of years. 

We considered context and intensity when describing impacts. An action must be analyzed in several 

contexts—such as the immediate vicinity, affected interests, and locality. Intensity refers to the 

severity of the impact. Thus, we describe impacts in terms of negligible, minor, moderate, or 

substantial. Because of the complexity of the water resources setting and the level of quantification 

available from existing data and information in both the project study area and the cumulative impact 

area, the significance of potential impacts is qualitatively assessed. Professional judgment is involved 

here, with the goal of making an unbiased assessment that addresses USDA Forest Service 

management objectives and the project purpose and need. These findings may depart from other 

determinations based on differing information or viewpoints.

The spatial extent of potential impacts is described as being site specific, local, and/or regional. For 

the purposes of this assessment, site-specific impacts are those that would occur at the North Fork 

Eagle Creek well field and in the immediate vicinity approximately one-half mile upstream (to the 

North Fork gage) or downstream. Local impacts would extend over the upper Eagle Creek drainage, 

defined as the drainage area upstream of the Eagle Creek gage. The Eagle Creek gage, with its long 

data history and location at the mouth of the drainage, serves as a logical limit of focus for local 

concerns and water resources characterization. Regional impacts would occur within the cumulative 

impact area, as shown in figure 4. 

Updates to Methodology Due to the Little Bear Fire

The Little Bear Fire modified watershed conditions in the North Fork of Eagle Creek drainage area.

Major wildfire effects that influence the water balance of the area include changes in the frequencies 

and magnitudes of surface runoff and groundwater recharge, modified snow accumulation and melt, 

shifts in evapotranspiration rates, and additional sedimentation and debris accumulation in the stream 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

channel. Most of these factors will offset each other or may possibly allow greater overall water yield 

from the North Fork (as surface water flow or groundwater recharge). However, the accumulation and 

movement of coarse sediment through the North Fork Eagle Creek valley and stream system is likely 

to occur for many years. This will affect the locations and time-spans of flow exposure in the open 

channel.

Based on recent research, a transient or short-term wildfire recovery period may last roughly three to 

seven years from the summer of 2012 (when the Little Bear Fire occurred). During this transition, 

there is likely to be reduced infiltration, increased surface water runoff, and reduced partitioning of 

precipitation to groundwater recharge. Approximately four to eight years following the Little Bear 

Fire, long-term post-wildfire conditions are expected to more generally resemble the pre-wildfire

hydrologic setting. Plant cover regrowth will slow runoff. Overall evapotranspiration rates will likely 

be reduced from shifts in vegetation. Flood magnitudes are expected to decline, as are sediment yields 

from snowmelt or smaller rainfall. Under major storm events, however, we anticipate large volumes 

of sediment and debris would still be eroded and transported to the valley floor. The North Fork is 

expected to accumulate and route runoff and sediment inputs from its tributaries. This will change 

channel conditions over a longer time period.

If long-term stand conversions from coniferous forest to grass or shrubs occur extensively in the study 

area, decreased evapotranspiration could encourage greater water yield as surface water flow or 

groundwater recharge. The potential for this could be greater if more extensive grassland types 

become established in the watershed. Preliminary results from ongoing regional studies also suggest 

that exceptional monsoonal moisture also may provide additional groundwater recharge in some areas 

where tree cover is reduced (Newton et al. 2012a, b). However, the North Fork Eagle Creek has a 

different geologic setting than the area in that investigation, so such recharge may or may not occur in 

the project study area. In short, once the transitional wildfire recovery period has passed, hillslopes 

and surface runoff conditions should plateau, and water yield from the North Fork Eagle Creek 

watershed is expected to be similar or somewhat greater than pre-wildfire conditions.

Uncertainties exist about current and future recharge and groundwater availability estimates based on 

differences of opinion about post-fire watershed conditions and their timing. These relate primarily to 

the reduced 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. Eventually, post-fire recovery is expected to return the North Fork project area to 

approximate pre-fire water resources conditions. For this reason, much of the original pre-fire impact 

assessments remain pertinent to long-term anticipated post-fire effects of the alternatives.

Measurement Indicators

We used the following measurement indicators to compare the potential impacts of implementing the 

alternatives. 

Streamflow Quantity: Compare the estimated durations of no surface flow conditions anticipated to 

occur at the Eagle Creek gage during a year of average precipitation. No-flow conditions are defined 

as 0.01 cubic feet per second or less in the stream at the gage.

Streamflow Quantity: Compare the estimated occurrence of flows equal to or greater than 1.2 cubic 

feet per second at the Eagle Creek gage during a year of average precipitation. This flow value is a 

selected benchmark simply used for impact comparisons. Other larger or smaller rates could have 

been selected as a comparison metric (e.g., 1.0 cubic feet per second), but the 1.2 value lies between 

the 50 percent exceedance flows for the pre-pumping (1.6) and post-pumping periods (1.1) at the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 103

Eagle Creek confluence gage. In addition, for the pre-pumping period 1970 through 1980 (full 

measurement years) at that gage, the average annual baseflow was calculated to be 1.13 cubic feet per 

second, and the median was 1.19 cubic feet per second, based on Table 4 of the USGS report 

(Matherne, et. al. 2011). This comparative metric for potential impacts is not used as an adaptive 

management trigger under the adaptive management alternative.

Pre-wildfire Streamflow Quality indicator: Based on available surface water and air temperature 

data, analyze the adaptive management alternative, and compare it with project alternatives, for the 

anticipated occurrence of periods when the mid-day streamflow temperature during the growing 

season (May to October) would exceed 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit) at the Eagle Creek 

gage. After the Little Bear Fire, this impact indicator no longer applies. Soil erosion and nutrient 

changes, organic debris, and sediment and rubble transport will continue to modify North Fork Eagle 

Creek water chemistry, turbidity, and channel geometry (depth, width) over time after the wildfire.

Based on this, the broad pre-wildfire trends in streamflow temperature at the Eagle Creek gage (or 

other locations) probably would not apply to general post-wildfire conditions, and post-wildfire data 

to modify this indicator are lacking. 

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

area of projected drawdown (see figure 12 and figure 13). For impact assessment purposes, it is 

assumed that these features are connected to the more general basin groundwater system. Actual 

conditions may differ. 

Domestic Wells: Identify domestic wells that may be affected by pumping as those within the area of 

projected drawdown (see figure 12 and figure 13).

Success of the Alternatives over Time Considering Climate Change: This indicator involves a 

qualitative analysis without significance determination, based on a general review of the indicators 

above under possible climate change effects. Potential effects on water resources from climate 

changes may include reduced basin yield and recharge from changes in rainfall, reduced snowpack 

accumulation, evapotranspiration; more frequent early season snowmelt; later onset of winter, 

reduced seasonal peak flows, and/or shorter flow durations.

We derived these measurement indicators on the basis of existing data, anticipated future data that 

may result with additional monitoring (see chapter 2), and the management objectives stated in more 

detail in chapter 1 and in the final supplemental Water Resources Report (AECOM 2015). These 

indicators are oriented to flow presence in the North Fork, water availability for riparian vegetation 

and aquatic habitat, improving watershed condition, and maintaining domestic water uses along the 

North Fork. 

The climate change indicator was developed in response to USDA Forest Service policy requirements 

(Joyce 2008). It is based on a review of recent research and published agency viewpoints for the 

Southwestern U.S. Currently none of the alternatives are anticipated to have a noticeable effect on 

climate change. Actions that typically may have an effect on climate change are generally those that 

create substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Due to the nature of the well field infrastructure (wells, 

pumps, electrical power, and pipelines), greenhouse gas emissions are expected to be negligible. 

Based on this, the anticipated effects of climate change are oriented to potential effects on the project 

alternatives, rather than potential effects from the project alternatives.

We provide more detail regarding the rationale for the selection of these measurement indicators, and 

why others were not used, in the Water Resources Report (AECOM 2012) and final supplemental 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Water Resources Report (AECOM 2015). We document below the process used to review each of 

these indicators following the Little Bear Fire. 

Updates to Measurement Indicators Due to the Little Bear Fire 

We reviewed fire effects on stream gage conditions and data records, of monitoring well data records, 

of precipitation data and well field pumping records. Sediment and debris adversely affected data 

collections at stream gages, and either wildfire effects or access restrictions appear to have adversely 

affected some of the monitoring well data. Interruptions in electrical power sources for data logging 

equipment may also have resulted from the Little Bear Fire.

In reexamining water resources impact indicators, an effort was made to compare pre-wildfire 

streamflow and monitoring well conditions to similar post-wildfire conditions. This effort was limited 

by the short timeframe for data collection following the wildfire, by compromised or missing data, 

and by the considerable natural variation of precipitation inputs to the hydrologic system over the 

relatively short pre-wildfire versus post-wildfire comparison periods. As described in more detail in 

AECOM 2015, periods selected for attempted comparisons of wildfire effects focused on generally 

similar precipitation inputs for a 2- or 3-month, season when stream flows would primarily reflect 

groundwater conditions, and lesser evapotranspiration effects. Based on this detailed exercise and 

other similar reviews, no consistent comparative impact indicators were developed for pre-wildfire

versus post-wildfire conditions. In addition, the post-wildfire watershed recovery period, estimated at 

approximately 3 to 7 years after the summer of 2012, is temporary enough to have minimal influence 

on the alternatives or decision-making.

For these reasons, the original water resources impact indicators, with the exception of the streamflow 

water quality indicator, are valid for longer-term post-wildfire conditions. The former streamflow 

water quality indicator is not likely to apply either to short-term or long-term post-wildfire conditions, 

since the North Fork Eagle Creek channel will transport and rework sediment and debris for a 

considerable number of years. In the short-term, additional nutrient content in surface flows may 

enhance aquatic habitat conditions for some species. As stream deposits are reworked over the longterm, additional turbidity and suspended organic carbon and silt will likely increase surface water 

temperatures and reduce oxygen availability as a result of the fire. Such reworking will likely occur 

periodically over the long term, due to intense rainfall or snowmelt events. During relatively stable 

interim periods, however, parts of the channel could reflect water quality similar to that before the 

fire. These areas would be pools and riffles that form and change over time as the channel geometry 

adjusts.

Incomplete or Unavailable Data

Although a substantial amount of surface water and groundwater data are available in the study area 

and the cumulative impact area, much of these data are sparse or have been retrieved at different 

times and locations. This prevents a thorough understanding of the hydrologic systems involved. In 

addition, some factors of interest (such as water quality) simply have too little data for anything other 

than cursory interpretations. The North Fork Eagle Creek hydrologic system is complex, and varies 

from season to season, from year to year, and from place to place. Characterizing this system by 

itself, as well as in the light of manmade perturbations, requires a consistent and extensive dataset 

both temporally and spatially. Information lacking in the water resources data and analysis include 

water quantity and quality information for surface water and groundwater; further definition of waterbearing zone characteristics; and a strong definition of the temporal and spatial relationships between 

pumping activities, groundwater levels in the various zones, and the extent, magnitudes, and durations 

of surface flows. We describe monitoring methods in chapter 2 that satisfy these information needs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 105

Updates to Incomplete and Unavailable Data Due to the Little Bear Fire

Several factors complicated the original pre-wildfire assessment; and comparisons between pumping 

conditions and time periods were configured to treat these factors as similarly as possible between the 

pre-pumping period and subsequent pumping periods. Uncertainties in the approaches and the 

assessment results were clearly spelled out in previous resource documentation. It must be 

emphasized that impact assessments are based on comparing the predicted impacts of one alternative 

to another. If possible, comparisons should account for other variables in a consistent manner from 

one case to another. To encourage this, available data should be treated and used similarly across 

comparisons unless departures can be accurately defined. For example, in the pre-pumping data for 

Eagle Creek (approximately 1980 and earlier), there are no separate data available for flows from the 

South Fork tributary. South Fork contributions are essentially a random signal in that data set. In fact, 

South Fork flows are reflected in all Eagle Creek flow data. Specific South Fork data are only 

available for four years beginning in September 2007, approximately 30 years after the onset of 

pumping. For purposes of comparisons, removing the South Fork contribution from the Eagle Creek 

confluence gage data would require a convincing and accurate approach to projecting those tributary 

flows back to other time periods considered in the assessment (e.g., the pre-pumping period, and other 

periods before records began in September 2007). Such an approach would need to consistently 

explain what happens to South Fork flows when they are greater than the Eagle Creek flows, which 

occurs almost as frequently as the lesser condition, and then treat (i.e., modify) all data through time 

(many years) with a consistent and convincing quantification of tributary watershed responses and 

variations in gaging conditions. Issues with that approach can be visualized by examining Figure 6

below, wherein South Fork flows sometimes mimic the confluence gage, sometimes are an order of 

magnitude less, or sometimes are larger than the confluence flows. Or alternatively, impact 

comparisons could (and did) treat South Fork contributions to the Eagle Creek gage consistently, as 

essentially a random signal in all the downstream flow data used in the assessment.

Figure 6. South Fork flows (red) compared to Eagle Creek confluence flows (blue)

Alluvial underflow at the surface water gages is probably a factor influencing Eagle Creek 

streamflow records. After the original water resources impact assessments were completed in 2011, 

the USDA Forest Service and AECOM learned from the Village of Ruidoso that the Eagle Creek gage 

had been moved downstream from its original location in the mid-1980s. The original gaging site is 

not specifically known. More importantly, it was not known during earlier EIS work if alluvial 

underflow at the old U.S. Geological Survey gage location was greater than, less than, or equal to 

conditions at the new location.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Current anecdotal input from the Village (2015) is that the new location has alluvial underflow and 

the old location was on bedrock. If, as maintained by the Village, up to 0.16 cubic feet per second 

may underflow the current Eagle Creek gage, that could offset the flow differences between the 

historical periods used to derive comparisons of potential impacts between pumping and nonpumping alternatives. Further investigation into this indicates that while there may be an underflow 

effect at the “new” gage location, the conclusion that flow effects result from pumping still pertains. 

Derivation of the maximum underflow value (0.16 cubic feet per second) mentioned by the Village 

has not been documented. Using Figure 29 from the U.S. Geological Survey report (Matherne, et. al. 

2011), between 0.05 and 0.12 cubic feet per second could flow through the alluvium at the Eagle 

Creek gage. Based on contributing watershed areas, it can be reasonably assumed that at least onethird of the alluvial underflow at the Eagle Creek gage originates from the South Fork. Using the 

remaining two-thirds leaves approximately 0.033 to 0.08 cubic feet per second underflowing the gage 

from the North Fork, or an average between them of about 0.06 cubic feet per second. It should be 

noted that these are very small values, and within the inaccuracies of gage measurements. 

At the Eagle Creek gage, the long-term pre-pumping daily flow at the 50 percent exceedance level is 

about 1.6 cubic feet per second at the “old” gage location. Under similar precipitation and record 

length, the similar post-pumping value is about 1.0 cubic feet per second at the “new” gage location. 

Adding any of the North Fork underflow values (0.033, 0.06, or 0.08 cubic feet per second) back into 

the post-pumping value would not substantially change the conclusions about long-term pumping 

effects on typical stream flows. 

An additional review was done for the no-flow assessment, in an effort to place the pre-pumping (old 

gage location) and post-pumping (new gage location) conditions on a similar basis. Simply adding a 

default flow value to the newer Eagle Creek gage data would instantly create continuous flow, since 

the lowest possible recorded value is zero. Instead, the underflow values determined above from 

USGS data were subtracted from the older gage data, as though that station had allowed underflow 

similar to that suspected at the new location. Using ten-year periods of record, flows less than or 

equal to 0.01 cubic feet per second (defined as no-flow) were tallied for the underflows. This allowed 

negative values to be counted as no-flow. For the 0.08 cubic feet per second underflow case, 73 noflow days (2 percent) occurred at the simulated “old” gage location. This is generally similar to the 

91 no-flow days determined for the ten-year “pumping” period (1989-1998) at the new gage location 

in previous investigations. For the 0.033 cubic feet per second underflow case, there were zero noflow days at the simulated old gage, and for the 0.06 cubic feet per second underflow case, there were 

19 no-flow days at the simulated old gage. It can be seen that this exercise is quite sensitive to input 

values; in addition, gaging inaccuracies are acknowledged to exist. As a check, however, results from 

most of these exercises still indicate a general decline in streamflows from the pre-pumping condition 

to the pumping condition. Comparison to the Rio Ruidoso (figure 7 and figure 8) and to other work 

for the area (figure 9 and figure 10) also appear to confirm this.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 107

Figure 7. Flow frequency of Eagle Creek, water years 2000-2010

Figure 8. Flow frequency of Rio Ruidoso, water years 2000-2010
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Figure 9. Cumulative streamflow and diversions from North Fork Wells (Source: Finch et al. 2004, Figure 

15)

Figure 10. Cumulative baseflow comparison over time (Source: Balleau and Silver 2010, Attachment 9)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 109

For this and other data-based reasons, uncertainties and approximations in the assessments were 

identified in the pre-wildfire water resources text. The Little Bear Fire has not changed those, and 

instead has added further complexity. In particular, uncertainty remains as to the long-term average 

groundwater recharge volume in the North Fork Eagle Creek basin. This is discussed in greater detail 

in other sections, in the U.S. Geological Survey project study (Matherne et. al. 2011), in several 

consulting documents, and in the alternatives discussion section in chapter 2 of the FEIS. This 

uncertainty is largely caused by year-to-year natural variation, and by differences in measurement and 

estimation techniques between investigators. The Little Bear Fire has not modified these conditions, 

which are the natural variation and differences between estimation techniques. In fact, further 

uncertainties about current and future recharge estimates exist, based on differences of opinion about 

post-fire watershed conditions. 

During supplemental document preparation following the Little Bear Fire, additional background 

information was collected from the U.S. Geological Survey, the Western Regional Climate Center, the 

Village of Ruidoso (including Shomaker and Associates and others), and Balleau Groundwater 

(Balleau 2014). Information provided by the Village of Ruidoso consisted of water level data 

collected from ongoing measurements at monitoring wells along the North Fork Eagle Creek, daily 

pumping records for recent years, and a summary of water supply issues related to the Little Bear Fire 

(Peery 2013, Atkins 2014). Information from the U.S. Geological Survey consisted of their postwildfire debris flow probability report (Tillery and Matherne 2013) as well as additional monitoring 

data for streamflow and local precipitation. Western Regional Climate Center information consisted 

of additional precipitation, snowfall, and temperature data for recent years. This additional 

information is largely discussed in the Post-Little Bear Fire Affected Environment text.

Reduced water quality and debris flows resulting from the Little Bear Fire adversely affected Village 

surface diversions and storage facilities. Significant sediment as well as suspended and dissolved 

organic matter prevented surface water treatment. In addition, reduced aquifer recharge adversely 

affected the North Fork Eagle Creek well field capacity (Atkins 2014). New pump installations were 

completed in North Fork wells NF-1 and NF-4 to maintain sufficient groundwater supply in light of 

these issues. Reduced surface water and groundwater production along Eagle Creek also created the 

need by the Village of Ruidoso to increase diversions of both surface water and groundwater from the 

Rio Ruidoso. Surface water from that source was similarly contaminated by the Little Bear Fire, or 

was unavailable due to drought. At the same time, water for the Village of Ruidoso in storage at 

Grindstone Reservoir was at historic lows (Atkins 2014). After the recent drought and the Little Bear 

Fire, surface water diverted from Eagle Creek has been non-existent or extremely polluted with ash 

and silt during flash flood events (Atkins 2014). This water is not treatable in the Village of Ruidoso’s 

existing facilities.

Since 1966, the Village of Ruidoso has been authorized by the New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer (Office of the State Engineer) to divert part of its water supply from the Rio Ruidoso by 

discharging (“returning”) treated municipal wastewater to that stream. Some of that discharged water 

is originally diverted from the Eagle Creek drainage (both surface water and groundwater) for Village 

supply. The surface water diversion on Eagle Creek is downstream of the North Fork Eagle Creek; 

currently used water wells are both within and downstream of the North Fork Eagle Creek. After use 

and treatment, Eagle Creek water is released to the Rio Ruidoso for effluent credits, allowing 

additional diversion from the latter system. All of these diversion points and wells are metered, and 

daily readings are reported monthly to the Office of the State Engineer. The Rio Ruidoso has greater 

surface water and groundwater availability, and is a primary source of Village supply. Additional 

details on Village water supplies are presented in the Water Rights and Socioeconomics reports.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

The Little Bear Fire reduced the Village’s ability to divert adequate supplies from the Eagle Creek 

drainage and maintain return flow credits on the Rio Ruidoso. Historically, water from the North Fork 

Eagle Creek well field has significantly contributed to the Eagle Creek/Rio Ruidoso credits (Atkins 

2014). To meet municipal demand under the post-wildfire circumstances, the Village has relied on 

basic water rights to divert from the Rio Ruidoso system. These basic rights are being depleted at a 

rate that will exhaust them well before the end of their associated five-year accounting period ending 

on October 31, 2016 (Atkins 2014). By October 31, 2013, the Village of Ruidoso’s five-year basic 

rights accounting totals on the Rio Ruidoso had been substantially expended. At that time, basic water 

rights remaining for diversion in the Rio Ruidoso drainage had been depleted to only 865 acre-feet for 

the remainder of the accounting period. The Village will have diverted all of its basic rights on the 

Rio Ruidoso by approximately the end of August 2014 (Atkins 2014).

In addition to these supply concerns, the need to lease and temporarily move water rights has created 

additional costs to the Village for the leases, Office of the State Engineer permitting, and related 

litigation. The Village anticipates that a number of years will pass before the Little Bear Fire effects 

are sufficiently reduced to allow a return to full use of Eagle Creek surface water and groundwater, as 

well as diversion credits for return flows on the Rio Ruidoso. A substantial contributor to the Eagle 

Creek/Rio Ruidoso credits historically has been the North Fork Eagle Creek well field (Atkins 2014).

The Village of Ruidoso continues to rely on the Eagle Creek well field and drainage area for its water 

supply. Following a Memorandum of Agreement and settlement with Rio Hondo Land and Cattle 

Company, the Village’s right to water diversion within the drainage consists of approximately 1,624 

acre-feet per year of groundwater, approximately 761 acre-feet per year of surface water, and 

supplemental groundwater from all Eagle Creek wells on and off National Forest System lands. In 

addition, the Village has an approximately 137 acre-feet per year groundwater right in the H-1497 and 

S wells, for a total of approximately 2,523 acre-feet per year, plus return flow credit from diversion of 

approximately 2,386 acre-feet per year. Some of these water rights have priority dates as early as 

1882 (Atkins 2014). Further information indicates that on October 23, 2014, the Office of the State 

Engineer issued a permit to the Village allowing the transfer of 700.83 acre-feet year from Well H1979 to the surface point of diversion at Eagle Creek and Alto Lake. The permit severed the 

adjudicated rights to H-1979. However, the Village’s municipal rights pertaining to Proof of 

Beneficial Use, in the amount of 350.42 acre-feet year, remain provable at H-1979. Additional 

discussion of this recent activity is presented in the Water Rights section later in this chapter and in 

more detail in the Water Rights report (Thompson 2015).

Information provided by Balleau Groundwater, Inc. further described the local and regional 

groundwater modeling work being done by that firm. Preliminary simulations conducted by Balleau 

Groundwater for long-term post-wildfire conditions indicate that pumping the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells for a 20-year period would create drawdown and stream depletions at the well field. The 

potential for more extensive regional pumping effects was also discussed in Balleau Groundwater

investigations and supporting material (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013).

If the Forest Service approved a special use permit allowing North Fork Eagle Creek well field

pumping, an important tool resulting from the Balleau Groundwater modeling work is that, over the 

post-wildfire long term, North Fork Eagle Creek well field pumping rate and North Fork Eagle Creek 

stream depletion can be correlated. Their modeling indicated a time-lag (in years) between pumping 

adjustments and water levels in the well field; in addition, some simulations of well field management 

indicated dry conditions along the North Fork Eagle Creek much of the time (Balleau 2014).

The cumulative study area for water resources was determined by reviewing available streamgaging 

data along the Eagle Creek drainage; the increasing complexity of the geologic and water resources 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 111

setting at greater distances from the mountain front; the availability of data within that setting; and the 

substantial expansion of water uses and returns, water rights, infrastructure, and related data 

requirements downstream of National Forest System lands. The USDA Forest Service has no 

jurisdiction for permits, monitoring, or mitigation outside its own boundaries. So, while water use and 

supply issues are regional concerns in south-central New Mexico, they are difficult to address due to 

USDA Forest Service jurisdictional issues. 

It should be noted that there are considerable differences of opinion between credible, qualified water 

resource specialists about the potential effects of pumping the North Fork Eagle Creek well field. For 

example, see the discussions in this report under “Extent of Pumping Drawdown” and “MountainFront Recharge”. Other investigators note that assumptions used in calculating stream depletions 

frequently lead to overstating actual effects, and that lack of data often leads to overly-conservative 

analysis (Finch 2014). Because of these discussions, an additional measure to include an overall data 

visualization tool; which may include groundwater model development, calibration, and application 

through stakeholder cooperation; has been added to chapter 2 of the EIS (see “Monitoring; Water 

Resources and Fisheries; Item 8) . If implemented, that measure would enhance the potential for 

informed well field management if a special use permit is issued by the Forest Service. 

This recommended data compilation and visualization measure would likely provide valuable 

management tools. If implemented, modeling would require cooperative development and 

documentation of the inputs, the calibration criteria, and the interpretation of outputs for well field

management purposes. Other recommended adaptive management practices, monitoring, and 

mitigation measures (see chapter 2) would be implemented during the modeling timeframe if a 

special use permit for continued pumping is approved through a selected alternative.

Pre-Little Bear Fire Affected Environment

Climate and Geology 

The study area encompasses approximately 8.1 square miles and has a total relief of over 2,900 feet. 

The North Fork drainage covers an area of 5.3 square miles and confluences with Eagle Creek just 

upstream from the Eagle Creek gage at 7,610 feet in elevation. It is a steep-sided drainage (slopes 

approaching 50 percent in areas) consisting of evergreen forest, with a riparian corridor up to several 

hundred feet wide that flanks the stream channel in the lower reaches near the confluence with the 

South Fork (Matherne et al. 2011) (We describe riparian vegetation more fully in the “Riparian 

Vegetation” section of this chapter). North Fork Eagle Creek stream channel gradient ranges from 

over 1,400 feet of rise per mile of run (27 percent slope) in the headwater reaches to less than 190 feet 

per mile (4 percent) in the lower reaches. The average gradient along the North Fork channel 

upstream from the confluence as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic map 

is approximately 470 feet per mile (9 percent).

Precipitation varies with altitude, varying from an average 37 inches per year or more at the Sierra 

Blanca climate station (10,280 feet above mean sea level) to 14 inches per year at Fort Stanton 

climate station (6,220 feet above mean sea level) and lower averages at other stations at lower 

elevations (Matherne et al. 2011, Western Regional Climate Center 2011). Precipitation consists 

mainly of winter snow and summer monsoonal rains. On average, 65 percent of the annual 

precipitation falls as monsoonal rains from mid-June through October. Precipitation not only varies 

significantly by elevation and time of year, but also from year to year. The Ruidoso climatic station 

(6,930 feet above mean sea level) averaged 21.8 inches per year from 1942 through 2010, with a 

range of values from 34.81 inches (1965) to 12.27 inches (1970) (National Climatic Data Center 

2010, Western Regional Climate Center 2010). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

The study area lies within the Sierra Blanca Structural Basin with Permian and Cretaceous 

sedimentary rocks that are overlain by up to 3,000 feet of Tertiary volcanic flows and flow breccias. 

The lower part of the North Fork drainage is comprised of the Tertiary Sierra Blanca volcanics, which 

consist of andesitic lava flows and pyroclastic deposits up to 3,000 feet thick (Matherne et al. 2011, 

Rawling 2009, Allen and Kottlowski 1981). 

The geology underlying the alluvium and volcanic rocks is not well defined. Outside the study area 

but within the cumulative impacts area, significant geologic changes occur along the reach between 

Alto Reservoir and the old gage location (see figure 4 where there is a substantial geologic fault 

system – the Ruidoso Fault Zone (Rawling 2009).

Based on data compilation and evaluation of the best available information (as described in detail in 

AECOM 2015), the Tertiary volcanics are fractured and there may be a number of major fracture sets 

that have not been previously recognized in field mapping. These fractures have the potential to 

control groundwater flow and may allow for connection between groundwater in the Tertiary 

volcanics and surface waterflow in the North Fork. 

Groundwater

The groundwater system in the North Fork drainage consists of a fractured volcanic rock aquifer 

overlain in some locations by discontinuous alluvial aquifer along the North Fork. The volcanic 

aquifer outcrops in the area near and directly downstream of the North Fork gage. The alluvial aquifer 

is present where the river valley widens in the general area of the village well field, beginning near 

the location of monitoring well MW-1A and extending to the confluence with the South Fork with 

volcanic bedrock outcrops in areas below the well field forcing any alluvial water to the stream.

Both the volcanic system and the alluvial system are recharged by streamflow. The volcanic system is 

recharged through fracture zones in outcrops along the stream channel, including near the North Fork 

gage. Recharge of the alluvial system in the area of the well field exhibits some amount of 

dependence upon whether the volcanic aquifer’s water level is depressed. If the water level is 

depressed, a streamflow between 0.8 and 1.2 cubic feet per second is necessary to overcome the 

induced infiltration occurring at the volcanic outcrop before alluvial recharge can occur. The alluvial 

system easily transmits water horizontally, where it discharges back to the stream in the form of base 

flow, but does not readily transmit water vertically into the underlying volcanic aquifer.

The aquifer tests of the volcanic system by Atkins-Landfair (1985) and Shomaker (1989) have 

yielded a range of estimates for the hydraulic properties of the village well field along the North Fork. 

The best estimate for transmissivity seems to be in the range of 1,200 to 1,500 feet squared per day. 

This is the range found in the reanalysis of the Atkins-Landfair (1985) data and in the one radial flow 

plot found by Shomaker (1989). The storage coefficient estimates range from 0.0001 to 0.006. 

Probably, the best estimate is in the range of 0.001 to 0.002.

The Village of Ruidoso wells in the volcanic aquifer show both radial flow and fracture flow. Most of 

the wells show fracture flow early in the drawdown history and this can change over to radial flow 

with time. The key is the proximity of the well to a fracture and whether the well is a pumping or 

monitor well. As noted by Shomaker (1989), fracture flow will give way to radial flow as water is 

drained from the fracture. In a few cases, we noticed the unit slope on a radial flow plot and this can 

be interpreted as indicating a boundary condition that forces the well to draw water from the aquifer 

as if it were draining a closed volume. Because of the limited duration of the pumping tests, the 

different screened intervals within the volcanic aquifer for the village wells, the dominant effect of 

fracture flow, and the fact that none of the village wells are fully penetrating, we should view any 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 113

interpretation of boundary effects with caution. The aquifer in the Tertiary volcanics is not confined, 

is not homogeneous, and does not meet the limiting assumptions used in developing type curves for 

the hydraulic properties of an aquifer. Thus, the results of the aquifer tests by Atkins-Landfair (1985) 

and Shomaker (1989) need to be used with caution and treated as a general approximation of the 

behavior of the aquifer in the Tertiary volcanics in response to pumping. Storage in fractured volcanic 

aquifers is generally lower than for porous media equivalents, with the exception of the upper 

weathered zone; and though the hydraulic conductivity may be high, a unit volume of such an aquifer 

only holds a small percentage of water.

Multiple springs and seeps have been mapped or documented in the study area and are depicted on 

figure 13. In the North Fork drainage, these features range in elevation from approximately 8,020 feet 

to nearly 8,400 feet above mean sea level. A group of springs are present near the summer home area 

just upstream of well DW-3 along the North Fork and another group approximately 0.25 mile up the 

side-canyon that enters from the southwest in that area. A spring and a seep have been noted 

approximately 0.4 mile up the eastern branch of Telephone Canyon. A spring is also mapped 

approximately 0.5 mile up Carlton Canyon. Two springs are mapped in the South Fork drainage, one 

approximately 0.3 mile up the draw that Road 532 follows and at approximately 7,880 feet above 

mean sea level, and the other approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Eagle Lake No. 2 on another draw 

at approximately 8,360 feet above mean sea level (USDA Forest Service 2007; Chaves County 

District Court 1979). These springs may or may not be connected to the more extensive groundwater 

system that provides stream baseflows, depending on whether or not they are associated with a 

perched aquifer; more information is necessary to determine this.

Surface Water

North Fork Eagle Creek is classified on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic map as an 

intermittent stream, which indicates flow during wet seasons and times when the groundwater table is 

higher than the stream, contributing to the surface flow. In its upper reaches upstream of the North 

Fork well field, perennial streamflow conditions are maintained in years of average and higher 

precipitations by springs fed by groundwater (Matherne et al. 2011). Both the South Fork and Eagle 

Creek below the confluence were originally classified as perennial streams with year-round flow 

(U.S. Geological Survey 1963). In general, at the well field and downstream, the North Fork Eagle 

Creek flowed intermittently in most years prior to pumping. The extent and duration of surface flow 

has since been reduced along the North Fork by pumping. We ascertained general relationships 

between flow in the North Fork and pumping using consistent, fairly long-term data periods. These 

are summarized below from the preceding text sections, but described in detail in AECOM (2015).

We derived water balance estimates and reviewed flow frequencies for three separate time periods of 

the same length before the Little Bear Fire. The first time period, from 1971 to 1980, was a period 

prior to the Village of Ruidoso’s well field installation. This period’s overall precipitation was slightly 

above average based on regional meteorological data. The second time period, from 1989 to 1998, 

was after the village had begun pumping. The overall precipitation for this second period was again 

slightly above average. The third period, from 2000 to 2010 (excluding water year 2005 due to a lack 

of gaging data) was a period of pumping during overall below average precipitation. Severe back-toback drought years and a few wet years characterized this latter period.

We made general qualitative comparisons between these pre-wildfire periods from the water balance 

approximations, as follows.

When comparing the first two periods—where the major difference in watershed conditions was the 

onset of well field pumping—the latter period (with pumping) shows somewhat reduced overall 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

streamflow, reduced average base flow, and an increase in total estimated average recharge plus 

pumping. These conclusions are consistent with independent findings by Finch et al. (2004) and 

Balleau Groundwater (2004).

The last period (2000–2010) indicates generally lower average basin yield than the preceding periods, 

due to droughty conditions in the late 1990s/early 2000s and vacillating wet/dry conditions later in the 

period. During this back-and-forth climatic condition, mean annual base flows generally appear to 

decline still further when compared to the previous two periods. Similarly, further reduction in overall 

mean annual streamflow has apparently occurred, beyond the amount that might be anticipated by 

reduced basin yield. However, this is complicated by the occurrence of drought. 

Complicating factors in the water balances mainly include: estimating basinwide precipitation from 

point precipitation data, potential changes in forest canopy evapotranspiration over time, and 

relocation of the Eagle Creek stream gage in 1988 to a site that may allow more alluvial underflow. In 

addition, there may be a slight regional groundwater effect from snowmaking withdrawals at Ski 

Apache wells in the nearby Rio Ruidoso watershed. Basinwide precipitation estimates were derived 

consistently for all of the time periods examined. Forest canopy changes are known to have occurred 

since the late 1800s; the change between analysis periods beginning in 1971 is unknown. The stream 

gage relocation may have had a slight effect on flow measurements; more information on this would 

be needed if future flow monitoring is done. While it is possible that there may be interbasin 

groundwater transfer based on the nature of the fractured volcanic aquifer, the fact that Ski Apache 

wells are outside the Eagle Creek watershed reduces the likelihood that those diversions have affected 

flow at the Eagle Creek gage. While these factors and others contribute some quantitative uncertainty 

to the comparisons, well field pumping remains the dominant hydrologic influence between 

comparison periods.

In general, some reduction in streamflows and increases in recharge factors result on the North Fork 

from pumping during average to wet years. These effects are somewhat moderated during multiple 

years of average or greater precipitation. During drought years or more extended dry periods, 

pumping effects on North Fork streamflows and groundwater conditions are more noticeable. In 

either case, the greatest pumping influences on surface water, over longer periods of time, appear to 

be on the occurrence of lower flow rates in the North Fork. These flows in particular are reduced so 

that the presence of water in deeper pools, or in isolated stream portions that flow over bedrock, is 

less likely now than before pumping began. 

We did not discover any direct correlation between pumping and streamflow over shorter time steps 

(e.g. daily, weekly or monthly), even when considering multiple variables, as discussed in more detail 

in AECOM (2012 and 2015). This result is likely due to data limitations and the wide variation in 

hydrologic factors at shorter time periods.

Streamflow and Pumping Correlation Based on Geology and Water Chemistry

We evaluated the potential effect of village well pumping on North Fork streamflow through 

examination of the village wells, the geology of the North Fork area, the aquifer properties of the 

Tertiary volcanics, and the chemistry of surface and groundwater. We discuss this approach in detail 

in AECOM (2015). We describe conclusions from this evaluation here.

The study of Finch et al. (2004) of monitored flow along the North Fork Eagle Creek shortly after the 

village wells had been shut off and were recovering, showed a definite loss of streamflow in the range 

of 0.3 to 0.69 cubic feet per second while the water table was depressed over 200 feet below the base 

of the stream. This study used five flow measurement locations along the stream reach near the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 115

village wells. Flow measurement techniques were not documented, but results suggest streamflow 

loss by induced infiltration. This hypothesis would be consistent with the geology of the North Fork 

area and also the water chemistry. Matherne et al. (2011) also showed that there are periods when the 

water table in the volcanics can rise even when the village wells are pumping and conversely, the 

water table can fall when the village wells are not pumping. This suggests that the key to streamflow 

loss along the North Fork is the depth of the water table below the base of the stream. The village 

wells can certainly affect the water table depth when they are pumping, but other factors can depress 

the water table, even when the wells have been shut off.

Balleau and Silver (2010) estimated the potential base flow capture by the village wells by comparing 

prepumping flows along the North Fork as recorded at the Eagle Creek gage with flows since the 

onset on pumping and for the period from approximately 1989 to 2010. Their analysis showed that 

the wells capture about 0.7 cubic feet per second of flow along the North Fork on an average annual 

basis. The maximum capture would be the pumping rate, which is approximately 0.8 cubic feet per 

second on an average annual basis (Balleau and Silver 2010).

Geochemistry of Surface and Groundwater 

Groundwater tapped by village wells NF-4 and NF-3 and the monitor wells MW-4B and MW-4C 

near these village wells is distinct from groundwater tapped by village wells NF-1 and NF-2 and the 

monitor wells MW-1B and MW-1C. This may be due to the somewhat deeper well screens in NF-4 

and NF-3 and their associated monitor wells. NF-1 (as shown in figure 13) has never been used by the 

applicant; it is not equipped nor tied into the main line and it does not have power. 

If there is any interaction between surface water and groundwater along the North Fork, it is near 

village well NF-1. Groundwater near this well may be the result of infiltration of surface water and 

reaction of the surface water with the minerals in the surrounding rock. Groundwater near NF-4 does 

not interact with surface water, except possibly in MW-4B due to a fault that connects to lower 

Carlton Canyon (Matherne et al. 2011). Groundwater along the North Fork has an isotope signature 

for deuterium and oxygen-18 that is distinct from surface water; deuterium and oxygen-18 isotopes 

suggest that surface water does not directly recharge groundwater. The isotope signatures are 

distinctly different, even though groundwater is mostly less than 30 years old.

Domestic and Municipal Water Use

Downstream from the North Fork, the majority of water rights along Eagle Creek are for domestic 

and municipal uses, with some irrigation use and a few commercial uses. Surface diversions have 

historically occurred just outside the study area downstream on Eagle Creek below the confluence of 

the North and South Forks prior to 1985 and through to present time. Existing water rights in the 

project area are discussed in more detail in the “Water Rights” section later in this chapter.

Roughly 20–30 individual domestic water wells occur in the upper Eagle Creek drainage and 6 of 

these are located in the Eagle Creek summer home area upstream from the North Fork well field

(Medlock 2011 and Forest Service files). The available well log information indicates that, for wells 

along the North Fork with recorded construction details, recent installations were completed in 

fractured basalt zones at depths ranging from about 50 to 60 feet, or through to deeper zones ranging 

from about 160 to 180 feet. Additional information (Midkiff 2002) indicates that some of the early 

private wells along Eagle Creek Canyon Road were originally less than 100 feet deep. Other early 

wells were about 110-feet deep (H. Puckett in Medlock 2011). Since the late 1990s, several historic 

wells have been deepened to between 200 to 400 feet (Midkiff 2002). Some wells may have 

shallower or deeper source zones. Original estimated yields varied broadly, on the order of 5 to 25 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

gallons per minute, and some wells may still deliver in the higher range of these yields. Substantial 

declines in well yields were noted around the year 2002 (Midkiff 2002).

It is assumed that most of the homes along the North Fork use septic systems. Self-supplied domestic 

demands for homes on septic systems are about 44 gallons per capita per day (New Mexico Office of 

the State Engineer 2005). Assuming 3 individuals year around for each of 26 assumed homes in the 

vicinity of the North Fork well field, the total demand from domestic wells would be approximately 

1.25 million gallons per year (about 3.8 acre-feet per year). This is a negligible amount in comparison 

to well field pumping.

Village of Ruidoso Water Supply 

The Village of Ruidoso water supply system provides supply from two subwatersheds, Devils Canyon 

(Eagle Creek) and Upper Rio Ruidoso, through surface water diversion and groundwater pumping in 

both. These two subwatersheds are both part of the larger Pecos River basin. The delivery system 

infrastructure consists of 2 raw water reservoirs, 2 surface water treatment plants, and 18 permitted 

wells, of which 11 are active wells, capable of together producing peak capacity of approximately 6 

million gallons per day (Wilson and Company et al. 2005). Groundwater is combined with surface 

water at Alto Lake Reservoir and piped to the Alto Crest Water Treatment Plant (WTP 3) and treated 

before being pumped into the system. Potable water production from Alto Crest WTP 3 varies 

depending upon water demands from the system, averaging as much as 2.3 million gallons per day 

(7.06 acre-feet per day), or as little as 0.5 million gallons per day (1.53 acre-feet per day) for water 

supply (Wilson and Company et al. 2005). 

The Village of Ruidoso water supply in the Eagle Creek drainage includes surface water from the 

Eagle Creek surface diversion just downstream from the Eagle Creek gage, the four North Fork wells 

(although NF-1 is not used and is not tied into the system), four supplemental wells to the North Fork 

wells located near Alto Lake, and both the brown well and green well located near the surface 

diversion. Figure 11 illustrates this system. We provide more details regarding both the Eagle Creek 

and Rio Ruidoso water supply in AECOM (2015), the socioeconomics report (Eichman 2015), and 

the water rights report (Thompson 2015). Both the “Socioeconomics” and “Water Rights” sections of 

this chapter provide additional information regarding municipal water supply. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 117

Figure 11. Village of Ruidoso water supply in the Eagle Creek drainage
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Watershed Condition Classification

Regionally, watershed conditions have been recently classified by the USDA Forest Service according 

to a nationwide Agency program (the “Watershed Condition Framework,” USDA Forest Service 

2011a) and its associated protocols (Potyondy and Geier 2011). Objectives of the program include 

integrating ecosystem-based approaches to managing watersheds; improving efforts to restore 

watersheds and aquatic habitats; and enabling priority-based resource allocations for restoration 

efforts. This program establishes a consistent approach to watershed assessment. Twelve indicators 

are scored (either good, fair, or poor and then averaged) by multidisciplinary agency teams, and used 

to classify watershed condition. These indicators represent underlying ecological, hydrological, and 

geomorphic functions and processes that can affect watershed condition. The major program 

emphasis is on aquatic and terrestrial processes and conditions that Forest Service management 

activities can influence on National Forest System lands (USDA Forest Service 2011a, Potyondy and 

Geier 2011).

These average scores are then further averaged between indicators to ultimately arrive at an overall 

score by which to assign watershed condition classes 1, 2, or 3 as follows: 

• Class 1 (functioning properly) scores of 1 to 1.6; 

• Class 2 (functioning at risk) scores from 1.7 to 2.2; and 

• Class 3 (impaired function) scores from 2.3 to 3 (USDA Forest Service 2011a). 

Based on the “Watershed Condition Framework,” the North Fork and South Fork drainage areas on 

National Forest System lands have been classified as impaired function (USDA Forest Service 2011b, 

Banks 2011). Watersheds classified at impaired function exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and 

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition (Potyondy and Geier 2011). Typically such 

drainages have exceeded some physical, hydrological, or biological threshold, and substantial 

changes to the factors that caused the degraded state are needed to restore proper functioning 

condition (Potyondy and Geier 2011). On National Forest System lands in the study area, the lowest 

relative scores were received for aquatic habitat, aquatic biota, riparian/wetland vegetation, fire 

regime, and terrestrial invasive species.

Regional Extent of Pumping Drawdown 

Information from the U.S. Geological Survey and other investigators (Finch et al. 2004, Balleau 

Groundwater 2004, Midkiff 2002) show that when groundwater is pumped from the North Fork 

wells, a temporary decline in the water table results, creating a cone of depression around the wells. 

This cone of depression deepens water levels in both the alluvium and underlying volcanics. Pumping 

and streamflow are related, in that pumping near a stream will deplete surface flows in a porous 

channel setting. This effect occurs within the North Fork Eagle Creek. As a result, the intermittent 

(seasonal) flows or pools that historically occurred from a short distance above the well field

downstream to the Eagle Creek gage have been reduced in magnitude and extent by pumping. These 

effects are more pronounced during dry seasons or dry years. However, the degree of these 

connections and the nature of groundwater flow paths are complex in the North Fork Eagle Creek 

study area and have not been fully characterized. For this reason, the actual extent of long-term 

drawdown from pumping is unknown, as are the details of pumping effects on streamflows and 

groundwater levels. These conditions have been estimated by the investigations described above. 

Because of the fractured nature of the Tertiary volcanics and limiting factors on drawdown migration, 

such as the Bonito Lake stock, estimating the approximate regional extent of drawdown due to 

Village well pumping requires simplifying assumptions. Balleau Groundwater (2004) developed some 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 119

hypothetical cases for possible drawdown migration. One of those cases simulated the aquifer system 

with a line barrier boundary 1,100 feet northwest of the well field and a line recharge boundary 

(Eagle Creek) 5,000 feet southwest. Recharge and barrier boundaries were modeled to restrict northsouth migration of the cone of influence. The aquifer was simulated with transmissivity of 1,250 feet 

per day, and it was assumed that there was no surface water capture. The well field was simulated to 

pump 570 acre-feet per year for 15 years. Resulting drawdown was about 40 feet at the well field at 

15 years (Balleau Groundwater 2004). 

In actuality, the Tertiary volcanics in the area of the Village well field along the North Fork of Eagle 

Creek are fractured, very heterogeneous, and the wells pump from different horizons within the 

volcanics. To develop an analytical model for estimating the regional effect of pumping on water 

levels in the volcanics requires the following assumptions: 1) the aquifer in the volcanics is 

homogenous and isotropic; 2) the Village wells pump from the same level in the volcanics and thus 

tap the same aquifer; and 3) the aquifer properties determined from pumping tests where radial flow 

was evident in some wells apply to all wells – thus ignoring the role of fracture flow. In addition, 

Balleau Groundwater (2004) assumed the volcanic aquifer was confined, when in fact it is 

unconfined.

Under current data conditions, analytical models of regional drawdown effects include a number of 

assumptions that produce different estimates of regional drawdown caused by the Village wells. From 

a data perspective, the U.S. Geological Survey made observations of drawdown during two separate 

occasions; these results are presented in figure 12, and have been projected on an area basis for this 

assessment in figure 13.

Although a projected drawdown is indicated on figure 12 and figure 13, it must be recognized that 

with the existing monitoring data and available modeling inputs, there are substantial uncertainties in 

predicting groundwater drawdown in this hydrologic system under various conditions of pumping and 

precipitation. 

Based on the information available, the projection based on observed drawdown is of interest for 

ascertaining effects on springs, water available for riparian vegetation, and domestic well pumping. 

That drawdown is anticipated to remain within the Eagle Creek drainage.

Pumping drawdown may be more extensive than indicated in figure 12 and figure 13, based on results 

of predictive groundwater models (Balleau Groundwater 2004). However, if a projected 10-foot 

drawdown contour is accepted as reasonable sensitivity when making comparisons of pumping 

effects, then other existing modeling work indicates that the maximum extent of the 10-foot 

drawdown impacts due to Village well pumping is limited to the Eagle Creek drainage. 

There are differences of opinion between investigators regarding the influence on water levels 

between regional (i.e., background) recharge versus induced (from pumping) recharge during 

monitoring. In addition, the monitoring that resulted in the ascertained cone of depression during the 

U.S. Geological Survey investigation took place after a major recharge period. Above-average 

precipitation occurred in the 2 years preceding the monitoring, and storms associated with Hurricane 

Dolly contributed to the flood of late July 2008. Monitored water levels continued to rise until winter 

in spite of continued pumping (Matherne et al. 2011). Then in March 2009, the stream channel was 

dry from a point just below Domestic Well #3 (DW-3) downstream to immediately above the Eagle 

Creek gage (Matherne et al. 2011). 

Based on field surveys and monitoring measurements, the U.S. Geological Survey is reasonably 

certain that the North Fork gage is outside the zone of influence of well field pumping. A number of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

other features, namely domestic wells, springs, and zones of existing or potential riparian habitat, 

occur outside the pumping drawdown identified in U.S. Geological Survey monitoring. The observed 

and projected pumping drawdown in figure 12 and figure 13 are thought to be appropriate for 

purposes of assessing impacts. The actual extent, depth, and timing of pumping drawdown are 

unknown. Other projections of potential drawdown shape and extent exist (e.g., Balleau 2004a), but 

all of these cases involve significant and somewhat differing sets of assumptions. As indicated on 

figure 13, two springs, one in Carlton Canyon and another in an unnamed tributary to the South Fork, 

occur within the projected drawdown based on the U.S. Geological Survey observations. As discussed 

previously, these features may be connected to a more general groundwater system, or may have 

relatively isolated perched sources. Additional study would be necessary to determine this at the 

various sites within the North Fork drainage.

Conditions before Pumping Began in 1988

Prior to the establishment of the North Fork Eagle Creek well field, the volume of water withdrawn 

for use in the North Fork drainage was minimal. No municipal groundwater pumping occurred on the 

North Fork prior to 1985, when water rights were exercised by the applicant to construct the well 

field. 

Although actual data that characterized the prepumping conditions is limited to stream gage data at 

the Eagle Creek gage, there are multiple sources for personal accounts and anecdotal evidence to the 

conditions prior to installation of the North Fork Eagle Creek well field.

While flows were generally perennial in upper reaches above the North Fork gage historically, 

anecdotal evidence of the North Fork Eagle Creek stream conditions indicates that, prior to pumping, 

flows further downstream were inconsistent, that the stream has been a marginal fishery, and that 

surface water availability for domestic purposes above the well field has often been scarce 

(McGlothlin 2011, Medlock 2011). Typically the stream disappears into the alluvium for some 

distance, resurfacing as streamflow when an impermeable obstruction is reached.

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted studies from 2007 to 2009 to determine potential effects of the 

North Fork well field on streamflow in the Eagle Creek basin, and to provide data for the EIS. The 

U.S. Geological Survey report was released on October 21, 2010, and subsequently revised in 

November 2010. It concluded that, in parts of its upper reaches, the North Fork Eagle Creek is a 

perennial stream maintained by base flow from groundwater. It becomes intermittent in the 2 miles 

upstream from the Eagle Creek gage (Matherne et al. 2011). Without pumping, North Fork Eagle 

Creek would still be intermittent below the wells. About 1,600 feet downstream of the North Fork 

stream gage, streamflows sink into the channel alluvium and bedrock aquifer. As a result, this reach 

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

reaches (stretches ranging from 10 to 50 feet long). More extensive flow presence occurs along the 

stream during wet years or seasons. At other times, streamflow, when present, tends to occur in 

reaches where there are bedrock outcrops in the channel. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 121

Figure 12. Measured water levels in alluvium and bedrock, September 2008 and March 2009
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Figure 13. North Fork well field groundwater drawdown
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 123

As discussed previously in the “Surface Water” section, the Eagle Creek gage flow frequency was 

compared for two 10-year periods of similar precipitation, one during pre-pumping and one during 

post-pumping timeframes. Figure 14 depicts the flow frequency from 1971 to 1980 before pumping 

began, and figure 15 depicts the flow frequency from 1989 to 1998 after pumping had commenced. 

The frequency of a certain flow decreased from the pre-pumping to the post-pumping period. Flows 

of 1 cubic feet per second or greater were experienced in the pre-pumping period approximately 60 

percent of the time, and flows of 0.1 cubic feet per second or greater were experienced approximately 

98 percent of the time; flows exceeded 0.01 cubic feet per second 100 percent of the time. During the 

post-pumping period, flows of 1 cubic feet per second or greater, 0.1 cubic feet per second or greater, 

and 0.01 cubic feet per second or greater were experienced approximately 52 percent, 96 percent, and 

98 percent of the time, respectively, at the Eagle Creek gage below the confluence of the North and 

South Forks. An analysis of flow conditions generally similar to these are summarized in table 5. It 

should be noted that other calculations of flow frequencies may vary depending on the time periods 

used and the flow rates compared. In addition, unknown factors discussed previously for the water 

balance comparisons also apply to flow frequency comparisons.

Figure 14. Flow frequency from 1971-1980 before pumping began 

Figure 15. Flow frequency depicts the flow frequency from 1989-1998 after pumping had commenced 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

These results indicate that prior to well field pumping, mean daily flows consistently occurred at the 

Eagle Creek gage. The stream never went dry at that location, although it likely was dry at various 

locations upstream where extensive alluvial deposits absorbed flow. Flows greater than 1.2 cubic feet 

per second occurred approximately 57 percent of the time, or generally about 7 months of the year. 

In a 10-year period having generally similar precipitation, but after the onset of pumping, the stream 

occasionally went dry at the Eagle Creek gage. This occurred about 2 percent of the time. The 

occurrence of flows in the lower range between 0.01 and 1.2 cubic feet per second increased 

somewhat, and the occurrence of flows above 1.2 cubic feet per second decreased somewhat from the 

prepumping period (table 5). 

The later 10-year period of pumping (2000 through 2010) was characterized by precipitation swings 

between drought and above average amounts. Larger changes in overall flow conditions occurred at 

the Eagle Creek gage as pumping continued. Flows ceased at the gage approximately 22 percent of 

the time, and smaller flow rates occurred approximately 60 percent of the time. The general 

percentage of time that the larger flows (above 1.2 cubic feet per second) occurred at the gage, about 

19 percent, continued to decline from previous 10-year periods. 

Table 5. Streamflows measured at the Eagle Creek gage

Flow Measured at Eagle Creek Gage Percent of Time Months per Year

Prepumping 10-Year Period 

(1971 through 1980)

Time dry (flow 0.01 cubic feet per second or less) 0 0

Flow greater than 0.01 to 1.2 cubic feet per second 43.4 5.2

Flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second 56.6 6.8

Early Pumping 10-Year Period 

(1989 through 1998)

Time dry (flow 0.01 cubic feet per second or less) 2.5 0.3

Flow greater than 0.01 to 1.2 cubic feet per second 51.7 6.2

Flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second 45.8 5.5

Later Pumping 10-Year Period 

(2000 through 2010, without data for 2005)

Time dry (flow 0.01 cubic feet per second or less) 21.6 2.6

Flow greater than 0.01 to 1.2 cubic feet per second 59.2 7.1

Flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second 19.2 2.3

From this analysis, it is clear that during average or above average precipitation periods, the effects of 

well field pumping are discernible but create generally minor differences from historical prepumping 

conditions at the Eagle Creek gage. Greater effects may or may not occur upstream. In less than 

average precipitation periods, however, the effects of pumping on streamflows are much more 

pronounced. The stream goes dry at the Eagle Creek gage for a substantial part of the time, and other 

flow rates are generally reduced below prepumping conditions. These effects translate into 

corresponding reductions of streamflow and near surface water availability up to and somewhat 

beyond the well field.

Information from the U.S. Geological Survey and other investigators (Finch et al. 2004, Balleau 

Groundwater 2004, Midkiff 2002) show that when groundwater is pumped from the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells, a temporary decline in the water table results, creating a cone of depression around the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 125

wells. This cone of depression deepens water levels in both the alluvium and underlying volcanics. 

Pumping and streamflow are related, in that pumping near a stream will deplete surface flows in a 

porous channel setting. This effect occurs within the North Fork. As a result, the intermittent 

(seasonal) flows or pools that historically occurred from a short distance above the well field

downstream to the Eagle Creek gage have been reduced in magnitude and extent by pumping. These 

effects are more pronounced during dry seasons or dry years. As surveyed in combination, the North 

Fork and South Fork watershed condition classification on National Forest System lands has been 

listed at impaired function, exhibiting low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to 

natural potential conditions. However, the degree of these connections and the nature of groundwater 

flow paths are complex in the North Fork Eagle Creek study area and have not been fully 

characterized. For this reason, the actual extent of long-term drawdown from pumping is unknown, as 

are the details of pumping effects on streamflows and groundwater levels. We estimate these 

conditions through the investigations described above.

We conducted a further review exercise to compare, in a very general fashion, flow conditions at the 

Eagle Creek Gage to those of the Rio Ruidoso at Ruidoso (U.S. Geological Survey Gage 08386505). 

While there are differences between the drainages these gages represent (e.g. size, elevation ranges, 

aspects, geology, channel length, alluvial deposits, vegetation), both drainages are fairly high 

elevation, forested drainages next to each other on the east side of Sacramento Mountains/Sierra 

Blanca region. For the purposes of general comparison, flow frequencies were developed for both 

drainages over a common period of record represented by mean daily discharge data at the gages. 

Results indicate that, in a general sense, unit-area discharges during a pumping period on Eagle Creek 

are substantially smaller than on the Rio Ruidoso, particularly in the lower flow ranges. For example, 

the Eagle Creek flow having a 50 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in a recent year is 

approximately 0.065 inches per day per 100 acres. On the Rio Ruidoso, the flow at the same 

frequency is approximately 0.5 inches per day per 100 acres, almost an order of magnitude greater 

than on Eagle Creek. Flows essentially cease on Eagle Creek whereas they continue on the Rio 

Ruidoso. Although there are differences in these drainages and sources of error in the gaging data, the 

results indicate substantial differences in recent flows even after adjusting for differences in basin 

area. It is likely that some of these differences result from pumping in the North Fork Eagle Creek 

well field.

Climate Change

There appears to be a general consensus currently among climate specialists that, regionally, the 

Southwestern United States is experiencing a drying trend. Modeling indicates that this is expected to 

continue well into the latter part of the 21st century (USDA Forest Service 2010). A slight warming 

trend observed over the past 100 years is anticipated to continue, with the greatest warming expected 

during winter. Snowpack monitoring suggests that increasing temperatures have generated snowmelt 

progressively earlier in the year, causing streamflows to deliver water to storage and water users in 

larger volumes earlier in spring (USDA Forest Service 2010). In western North America regionally, 

there is later onset of winter, spring snowpack has declined, and snowmelt timing has come earlier in 

the year (Knowles et al. 2006; Mote et al. 2005; Cayan et al. 2001; Stewart et al. 2005). Shorter 

winters, and less snowpack, may also affect the timing of peak river flows. In addition, as snowpacks 

shrink, seasonal stream temperatures could increase (USDA Forest Service 2008).

Changes in overall precipitation are more difficult to predict than temperature changes, because 

precipitation is more variable in time and space. Added complexities such as topography and 

monsoonal timing complicate precipitation predictions in the Southwest (USDA Forest Service 2010). 

Southwestern precipitation may be reduced overall, and skewed toward fewer larger events. Increased 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

frequency of drought could occur by mid-century (Enquist et al. 2009). However, predictions vary as 

to effects on runoff caused by broad regional precipitation and temperature changes. These potential 

effects deserve more investigation, particularly for small, high elevation headwater basins where most 

runoff is generated (Christensen and Lettenmaier 2007). 

Post-Little Bear Fire Affected Environment 

Fire Extent and Severity

As summarized in chapter 1 and in figure 5, the Little Bear Fire burned approximately 35,300 acres 

within the Smokey Bear Ranger District on the Lincoln National Forest in June of 2012 (USDA 

Forest Service 2012b). Wildfire characteristics within the Eagle Creek watershed are summarized in 

table 6.

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

Burn Severity

North Fork Eagle Creek, 

Acres (Percent of Total)

South Fork Eagle Creeka

Acres (Percent of Total)

High 877 (25.9) 176 (9.8)

Moderate 877 (25.9) 63 (3.5)

Low 905 (26.8) 128 (7.1)

Unburned/Very Low 723 (21.4) 276 (15.3)

Area Outside Wildfire

Perimeter

0 (0.0) 1,157 (64.3)

Totals 3,282 1,700

a - The South Fork listing includes the area between the South Fork and the streamgage at the confluence (U.S. Geological 

Survey Eagle Creek below the South Fork, #0387600).

Source: USDA Forest Service GIS information 2013.

The purpose of this section is to describe how hydrologic conditions have changed (or are expected to 

change) in the North Fork Eagle Creek project area and surrounding watersheds as a result of the 

wildfire. This Water Resources section is based on the detailed analysis provided in the supplemental 

Water Resources Report (AECOM 2015). This AECOM (2015) report, available in the project record, 

includes multiple tables, maps and figures to illustrate and support the information provided therein. 

Not all of these tables, figures and maps are included here in this section but are instead either 

referenced or the information summarized.

During and after the wildfire, Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) efforts were undertaken by 

the Forest Service to characterize resource conditions within the wildfire perimeter. The BAER 

reports (USDA Forest Service 2012a, b) and additional information from existing research form the 

basis for much of this supplemental description of affected water resources within the study areas. 

Extensive, damaging wildfire is widely acknowledged to be a major watershed disturbance, and to 

potentially create substantial changes in watershed dynamics and water balance factors. These 

modifications especially occur where large fires take place in coniferous mountain watersheds such as 

the Eagle Creek headwaters. Although the Little Bear Fire intensity varied over the study area 

watershed, BAER investigators identified water-repellent soils across intensity categories, and fires 

typically convert forest types on the Smokey Bear District. Hydrologic responses also vary according 

to complex relationships of slope and aspect, geology, and regional climate characteristics. In addition 

to information retrieved from the BAER reports, changes in hydrologic conditions are anticipated on 

the basis of research into large fires in the Southwest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 127

The following information focuses on the primary water balance factors affected by the Little Bear 

Fire, as determined from available data collections and ascertained from existing research. Other 

conditions that will likely affect water monitoring, mitigation and management also are considered. 

Precipitation and Snow Accumulation/Ablation

Precipitation continues to be monitored at several established Federal and state sites within the region 

(Natural Resource Conservation Service 2013; Western Regional Climate Center 2013). In addition, 

the U.S. Geological Survey installed a number of rain gages in or near the Eagle Creek watershed 

after the Little Bear Fire. The purpose of the U.S. Geological Survey network is to provide 

information related to the potential for high runoff and flooding, erosion, and debris flow conditions 

in response to precipitation events (oral communication with Dr. A.M. Matherne, U.S. Geological 

Survey, November 12, 2013); data collection began on July 16, 2013 (U.S. Geological Survey 2013). 

Major rainfall events recorded at the Buck Mountain near Alto gage, at elevation 10,751 feet near the 

western divide of the study area watershed, occurred in roughly the second week of September. This 

also is reflected in other U.S. Geological Survey rain gages recently installed in the vicinity. Larger 

events recorded at Buck Mountain also included events in July, August, September and October 2013, 

as described in more detail in AECOM 2015. There is substantial variation in precipitation data 

including that discussed above and other data analyzed (variation from place-to-place, month-tomonth, and year-to-year) and in many locations, data are missing. 

Beyond these additional data, current and expected future conditions reflect the influence of the Little 

Bear Fire. Large severe fires affect water balance factors such as snow accumulation and ablation, 

infiltration, surface runoff and groundwater partitioning, and evapotranspiration. Potential changes in 

snow accumulation and ablation (collective processes of snow removal) are perhaps the most directly 

related precipitation effects from moderate to severe wildfires; these are discussed here, and effects 

on evapotranspiration and other factors are discussed subsequently. 

A number of investigations have examined the effects of coniferous stand reductions (thinning, 

clearcutting, fire, beetle kill) on canopy interception, snowpack accumulation, and snow losses in the 

mountain west (Biederman and Brooks 2013; Harpold et al. 2013; Hibbert 1967; Pugh and Small 

2011; Newton et al. 2012; Stednick 1996; Troendle 1983; Troendle and Meiman 1986). Early 

investigations into thinning or clearcutting effects indicated that, although snowpack in treated areas 

generally accumulated to greater depths, this was highly variable based on aspect and slope. In 

general, the peak water equivalent of the snowpack increased less than 12 percent in most studies 

based on small treatment plots. Larger treatments (up to 83 percent of stand reduction) in lodgepole 

pine resulted in a 20 percent increase in peak water equivalent within the snowpack (Wilm and 

Dunford as cited in Troendle 1983). For post-fire situations, there is good circumstantial evidence that 

greater accumulations of snow may occur following fires that remove some tree cover because of 

decreased interception of snow by the canopy. However, if the burned area exceeds about four times 

the height of surrounding cover, snow accumulation may decrease due to wind scour (Haupt 1979 in 

Clark 2001). Similarly, in watershed-scale studies after clearcutting, increased snowpack ablation 

losses in the cleared areas (through additional solar radiation, sublimation, and winter melt) resulted 

in no significant gains in total seasonal water equivalent (Troendle 1983). 

Similarly, it is expected that in the study area there will be little or no additional water input from 

snow accumulation and melt after the wildfire. Recent studies in New Mexico indicate that after the 

Las Conchas Fire (southwest of Los Alamos), a single snow event generated much greater 

accumulation in the burned area compared to unburned coniferous forest (Harpold et al. 2013). For 

single snow events, generally 25 to 45 percent of the snow was intercepted by the coniferous canopy 

in the unburned area, compared to no interception in the burned area. However, over the longer term, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

seasonal ablation in the burned areas reduced snowpack there. Ablation during the winter reduced the 

snowpack in the burned areas by 50 percent prior to the onset of melt (Harpold et al. 2012). 

Ultimately, there was approximately 10 percent greater water available for melt in the unburned areas. 

These investigators also concluded that topography played an important role in post-burn snow 

conditions. Another study at Valles Caldera indicated that vegetation structure played a major role in 

snowpack distribution, and noted both greater snow accumulation as well as ablation in open areas 

(Molotch et al. 2009). The duration of snowpack was greater under the forest canopy. That study 

suggested that snow accumulation (and water availability) under the forest canopy was less sensitive 

to weather variations between years than in the open areas. 

These findings generally agree with investigations by Troendle and others. In summary, for cleared 

coniferous western forests, investigations indicate that snow losses from increased solar radiation and 

other factors will offset the potential snowpack gains and also accelerate melting of the remaining 

snow. There may be somewhat less water input from snow in the burned areas, and seasonal weather 

variations will have greater effect on water inputs from snow. 

Vegetation Changes and Evapotranspiration

The North Fork Eagle Creek project area contains a variety of vegetation communities, including 

mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, and grassland vegetation types (Kuhar 2013). All of 

these are interspersed with patches of oak brush (Quercus spp.). Forest Service monitoring during 

2006 and 2007 in the adjacent Bonito watershed has lately been used to characterize pre-wildfire

conditions in the North Fork Eagle Creek project area, which has similar elevations and vegetation 

types. On the sampled sites, grasses and forbs contributed to less than 50 percent of the total plot 

vegetation cover, and tree species were the dominant cover. The greatest proportions of grasses and 

forbs occurred in areas that had undergone large wildfires in the first half of the twentieth century 

(Kuhar 2013). 

Research indicates that stem densities in southwestern forest stands have increased (Covington and 

Moore 1994; Johnson 1994; Kilgore 1981). Historically, dry upland sites had more open, park-like 

stands, while stands in protected, moist areas tended to have dense, closed canopies (Kuhar 2013 and 

summarized in the Vegetation section later in this chapter). Current densities range between 1,700 to 

2,900 trees per acre in dry upland mixed conifer stands, about 3,900 trees per acre in ponderosa pine 

stands, and about 6,800 trees per acre in pinyon juniper stands (based on the Bonito watershed 

sampling). Over 90 percent of these trees are less than 5 inches in diameter (Kuhar 2013). The U.S. 

Geological Survey noted that pre-wildfire tree-canopy cover ranged from 0 to 100 percent in all of the 

elevation bands in the study area vicinity; the average pre-wildfire canopy cover in the North Fork 

Eagle Creek Basin was about 69 percent; in the South Fork Eagle Creek Basin, it was about 65 

percent; and in the Eagle Creek-below-confluence contributing area, pre-wildfire canopy cover was 

about 83 percent (Matherne et al. 2011). 

The timing of these changes in watershed vegetation is important to water balance characterization in 

the North Fork Eagle Creek hydrologic study area. Anecdotal information from Forest Service

personnel indicate that the vast majority of this growth occurred in the last part of the 1800s and the 

first part of the twentieth century (written communication with Ms. Kim Kuhar, Lincoln National 

Forest, January 21, 2014). This would have been prior to streamgaging in the 1970s and the beginning 

of the Village well field utilization in the late 1980s. On this basis, since the 1970s, the most 

substantial changes in evapotranspiration and canopy interception within the study area watersheds 

are due to the Little Bear Fire. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 129

The USDA Forest Service study in the area indicates that historically, topography did not limit fires to 

discrete vegetation types. This is documented from the 3,600-acre wildfire in 1935 that burned 

through ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and some pinyon-juniper stands (Kuhar 2013). (This also is 

consistent with the Little Bear Fire, which burned through high-elevation mixed conifer to lowerelevation pinyon-juniper woodlands.) In addition, the study indicated that all larger fires were standreplacing. Large-scale fires such as these on the Lincoln National Forest have typically converted 

coniferous forests to grass-shrubland associations. Based on both photographic evidence and 

monitoring data, these conditions can persist for multiple decades (Kuhar 2013). For example, a 

3,000-acre wildfire in the nearby Bonito watershed in the 1930s converted the landscape to 

predominantly oak shrublands. Evidence of the wildfire could still be seen in 2002. Based on this 

local information, the wildfire-caused reduction in forest canopy and the shift to grass or grassshrubland vegetation could modify evapotranspiration factors in the water balance of the North Fork 

Eagle Creek project area. Additional information about potential post-wildfire vegetation succession 

and fire return-interval is presented in the Fuels Specialist Report for the North Fork Eagle Creek EIS 

(Kuhar 2013). 

A number of investigators have studied the effects of forest canopy reductions on watershed yield 

(Hibbert 1967; MacDonald and Stednick 2003; Troendle and Meiman 1986). Most of these authors 

addressed watershed yield as equivalent to streamflow, and provided little or no analysis of 

groundwater conditions. Nonetheless, fairly consistent findings indicate that reducing forest canopies 

increases water yield, increasing forest canopies reduces water yield, and the responses to treatments 

are highly variable (Hibbert 1967; Stednick 1996). Latitude and solar radiation, precipitation patterns, 

and treatment types and extents are some of the major influences on changes in water yield produced 

by manipulating vegetation. 

General indications are that annual evapotranspiration rates in ponderosa pine stands range from 

about 10 to 20 inches, with more specific data indicating 17 inches annually in western interior 

ponderosa pine stands (Lull, section 6 in Chow 1964). Thompson (1974) indicated 19.4 inches per 

year in ponderosa pine on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona, so it appears that 17 to 

20 inches is a reasonable range for ponderosa pine evapotranspiration in the region. 

Evapotranspiration rates in western mixed conifer stands were estimated at 22 inches annually, and 

approximately 14.5 inches annually for pinyon-juniper woodland types (Lull, section 6 in Chow 

1964). Over several years, Johnston et al. (1969) investigated evapotranspiration on Gambel oak 

types underlain by herbaceous vegetation near Ephraim, Utah. They found rates ranging from about 

13 to 16 inches per year in those communities, with the higher values at higher elevations of about 

7,900 feet. Soils were thin and underlain by fractured rock; measurements in oak communities were 

based on depths drilled to 6 feet. At 9,200 feet, the grass-herbaceous type had reasonably consistent 

evapotranspiration rates of approximately 11 inches per year (Johnston et al. 1969), substantially less 

than documented for the forest types.

In general, these findings indicate that there may be some net water gain in the long term in those 

parts of the North Fork Eagle Creek watershed that undergo stand conversion from forest types to 

grass-shrublands. Fires typically convert forest types to oak shrublands on the Sacramento and 

Smokey Bear Ranger Districts. This is evident on multiple fires since the 1970s, such as the Burgett, 

Patos, Cree, Scott Able, Walker, Penasco fires, as well as fires documented in the Bonito River 

Corridor from the 1930s to the 1950s (Kuhar 2012). If high and moderate severity burns convert 

vegetation types, this could occur on 52 percent of the North Fork watershed (table 6). The 

occurrence and maintenance of post-wildfire grassland types likely would further reduce annual 

evapotranspiration losses from the water budget. This would create additional water yield for an
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

unknown period of years, either as surface flow, or possibly as both surface flow and groundwater 

recharge.

In the southern Sacramento Mountains, preliminary results from ongoing hydrogeology studies 

related to the potential effects of tree thinning indicate that preferential flow paths in soils have a role 

in groundwater recharge (Newton et al. 2012a). This study examined the stable isotopic composition 

of soil water, and identified snowmelt water in soil storage that is slowly evaporated. In general, 

groundwater recharge and availability in the area heavily depends on snowmelt (Newton et al. 

2012b). Research appears to indicate that in the spring, trees generally utilize this water in the soil. 

However, water in heavy monsoonal rains has a different isotropic signature, and infiltrates quicker 

and deeper through preferential flow paths. This water from exceptional monsoon events likely 

reaches underlying bedrock, and may recharge groundwater (Newton et al. 2012a). After the 

beginning of monsoons, at least 50 percent of the water taken up by trees comes from this deeper 

infiltrating water. After the monsoon season, trees return to using the shallower soil moisture (Newton 

et al. 2012a). Thus, although a decrease in trees may increase soil evaporative losses, and regrowth of 

grass-shrubland vegetation may or may not substantially reduce water uptake, there may be water 

budget benefits from tree removal if more groundwater recharge is available through preferential flow 

paths. Newton et al. (2012b) noted that water effects from reducing tree stands are site-specific and 

variable, and depend on a number of factors such as geology, climate, vegetation types, and 

hydrogeologic setting.

Surface Runoff and Streamflow Gaging Data 

A frequent wildfire effect is the formation of water-repellent soils from the heating of organic resins, 

excessive drying, and changes in soil structure and pore space (Debano 1990; Luce 2005). Early 

characterization of this phenomenon was done in the 1940s by the USDA Forest Service in fire-prone 

chaparral watersheds in California. This effect also is known as “soil hydrophobicity”. Under such 

conditions, soils actually repel water (snowmelt, rainfall, overland flow) rather than infiltrating it. 

Coarse, sandy or gravelly soils tend to be more susceptible to water repellency than finer (silty or 

clayey) soils (Luce 2005). Surface runoff can be dramatically altered if fire-induced water repellency 

is extensive. Hydrologic responses such as reduced infiltration, irregular surface and subsurface 

wetting, preferential runoff pathways, and accelerated overland flow can result from soil 

hydrophobicity (Doerr and Moody 2004). In general, the hydrophobicity is broken up or is 

sufficiently washed away within 1 to 2 years after the wildfire (Robichaud 2000), but this is likely to 

vary considerably with site-specific factors. The BAER report and associated maps for the Little Bear 

Fire indicate that water repellent soils were inventoried in the North Fork Eagle Creek watershed 

(USDA Forest Service 2012a). Based on inspection of the fire severity/soil inventory maps, it appears 

that the severity of soil water repellency generally corresponds to fire severity for the Little Bear Fire 

overall. This is not entirely consistent, however. Within the North Fork Eagle Creek study area itself, 

the water repellency investigation plots and results are indicated in table 7. Investigators in Colorado 

found that strongly hydrophobic soils formed most commonly under moderate and severe fire 

intensities in ponderosa and lodgepole pine communities, they also occurred (but not as strongly) 

under low-intensity burns (Huffman, et. al. 2001). Statistically significant differences between fire 

intensities and soil hydrophobicity were not identified due to the large variability within and between 

sites.

Variation in soil hydrophobicity at different spatial scales appears to be linked to the amount of 

hydrophobic organic matter in the soil, and the variability of macropores (e.g., root channels) (Doerr 

and Moody 2004). Water repellency can occur at the surface, or at greater depths (usually less than 20 

inches) in the soil (Doerr and Moody 2004; Ericksen and White 2008). Ponderosa pine, mixed conifer 

and spruce/fir ecosystems have larger and thicker duff layers when compared to pinyon pine/juniper 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 131

and grassland ecosystems. These heavier layers provide longer burn time, thereby enhancing the 

potential for hydrophobic soils (Clark 2001; USDA Forest Service 2012a). Soil and remaining ash 

layers above the water repellent layer can be more prone to erosion. Importantly, because of this and 

accelerated runoff conditions, erosion and sedimentation frequently increase under post-wildfire 

runoff conditions. This in turn reduces surface water quality. Runoff event modeling was conducted 

by the USDA Forest Service BAER team shortly after the Little Bear Fire (USDA Forest Service

2012b). The BAER hydrologists analyzed 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year recurrence interval storms 

with durations of 6 hours. Runoff simulations used storm duration inputs of 6 hours, to reflect typical 

late summer high intensity monsoonal events that are considered the principal threat from these fires. 

The extent of the monsoonal convective design-storm generally does not exceed 5 square miles 

(3,200 acres) (USDA Forest Service 2012b). Continued rainfall or consecutive days with light 

precipitation will fill the remaining soil pore space (that is left above hydrophobic layers), to the point 

where a subsequent event could generate substantial peak flow rates and runoff volume. BAER 

modeling predicts that the storm event peak flows in the Eagle Creek area are expected to increase as 

indicated in table 8.

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

Site Id

Hydrophobicity

(field points) Burn Severity

CarltonCny_1 Low Low

CarltonCny_2C High Moderate

BuckMtn_1 High Unburned/Very Low

3_EagleCreek Low Low

Up_EagleCrk_1 Low Moderate

Source: USDA Forest Service 2012a.

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

Watershed

Area, 

Square 

Miles

Pre-Burn/

Post-Burn 100-

year, 6-hour peak, 

cubic feet per 

second Change

Pre-Burn/

Post-Burn 25-

year, 6-hour 

peak, cubic feet 

per second Change

Upper North Fork 2.5 3,483/6,511 1.9x 2,007/4,468 2.2x

Lower North Fork 2.9 3,947/5,719 1.5x 2,378/3,774 1.6x

South Fork 2.8 3,388/4,911 1.5 1,966/3,202 1.6x

Confluence, North 

and South Forks

8.1 10,147/16,982 1.7x 5,949/11,088 1.9

Eagle Creek into 

Alto Lake

11.8 13,258/21,274 1.6x 7,523/13,751 1.8

Source: USDA Forest Service 2012b

From table 8, it is important to note that in general, the modeled peak flow rates expected after the 

Little Bear Fire are approximately 1.5- to 2-times the pre-burn estimates. Increases for more 

frequently expected storms such as the 10-year or 2-year, 6-hour storms, would likely be similar. 

These more frequent storms are more likely to occur in the period during which recovery of the 

watershed surface occurs. Other measurements in the Southwest indicate that post-wildfire peak flows 

from storms can be one or more orders of magnitude greater than pre-wildfire peak flows 

(Woodhouse 2004, Gottfried et al. 2003, Veenhuis 2002, Neary et al. 2012). In addition, the frequency 

of larger runoff events likely increases in response to wildfire, although precipitation inputs are not 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

modified (Veenhuis 2002). Further, research has found that the change in the unit-area peak discharge 

is greater for the more frequent, lower-intensity rainfall events than for the less frequent, higherintensity rainfall events (Moody and Martin 2001). Southwestern investigators also found that 

measurements of post-wildfire changes in storm peak discharges (which had 1.45-fold to 870-fold 

increases) were much larger than measurements of post-wildfire changes in annual runoff (which had 

a 0.5-fold decrease to a 4.5-fold increase) (Moody and Martin 2001). These changes could occur in 

both severely-burned and moderately-burned watersheds (Neary et al. 2005).

A two- to 3-year period of vulnerability to debris flow occurrence on sideslopes within the study area 

watershed is estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey (Tillery and Matherne 2013). Soil 

hydrophobicity generally lasts 1 or 2 years, but may vary widely depending on fire and soil 

conditions. (Extreme durations of up to 6 years were recorded in DeBano 1981). Recovery of 

hillslope hydrologic conditions in the Little Bear Fire area may take 5 to 7 years (USDA Forest 

Service 2012b). On the basis of these estimates, hillslope hydrologic recovery may take as little as 2 

to 5 years, or up to 6 or 7 years post-wildfire. For purposes of further discussion, an approximate 

period of 3 to 7 years is described as the post-wildfire hydrologic “short-term”. With this 

approximation, short-term effects on hillslope hydrology are anticipated to occur between the years 

2012 to 2015, or possibly until 2019.

Large, damaging fires do not modify the occurrence of precipitation, but do modify hillslope 

hydrologic processes. Since the frequency of larger runoff events is likely to increase (Veenhuis 

2002), incidental streamflows may increase over limited periods of several days or a couple of weeks. 

These flows will result from “flashy” runoff events - when flows increase and decrease, they will do 

so sharply. In general, however, given that there will be less infiltration and larger amounts of surface 

runoff during the 3 to 7 year period of transient post-wildfire hillslope recovery, less water from 

snowmelt and rain will be available to recharge the underlying aquifer zones, sustain low-flow period 

baseflows in the stream, and supply the well field. If the amount of precipitation input remains similar 

to pre-wildfire conditions, but more surface water runs off faster, the amount of water available to be 

partitioned to groundwater recharge will be less over the hydrologic short term. If groundwater 

recharge conditions lag hillslope conditions by a year, then overall hydrologic recovery to a 

resemblance of pre-wildfire conditions may take roughly 4 to 8 years or so post-wildfire, generally 

estimated as sometime between 2016 to 2020. 

Current conditions at existing streamgages (illustrated in AECOM 2015 and also shown in some postwildfire photos in appendix D) depicts between 4 to 6 feet of sediment infill. Repeated episodes of 

such infilling at the streamgages are anticipated for at least between 3 to 7 years after the wildfire, as 

the watershed slopes re-stabilize. In addition, sediment and debris (e.g., gravel, cobble, and wood) 

will be stored and routed through the North Fork valley over a considerable period of time. During 

that time, which may be several decades (oral communication with Mr. N.C. Myers, U.S. Geological 

Survey, November 12, 2013), the stream alluvium will be re-worked and the channel may migrate 

within its floodplain. These dynamics will repeatedly pile sediments in the approaches to the gages. 

Without suitable flow approach conditions, streamgages are woefully inaccurate. Essentially 

streamgages measure the level of free-flowing open-channel flow in relation to a known datum, and 

then that level is converted to a discharge value through rating equation(s) specific to the

measurement device. When sediment or debris collects in the gage approach or throat, what is 

actually measured is the water level within a porous medium with reduced cross-sectional area and 

additional energy losses. Although the water may be stagnant or nearly so, its level is still being 

measured and converted to an erroneous flow rate. Inaccuracies are particularly likely at high flows 

during scour and fill, and afterwards as new ratings need to be established. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 133

Because of the unstable channel and gaging conditions at the North Fork and Eagle Creek 

(confluence) surface flow gages, alternative means of monitoring along the stream will be needed in 

order to implement effective adaptive management or simply to collect reliable data for a future use. 

In order to obtain more reliable data and provide for stabilization and potential recovery of the 

riparian system, the expanded use of monitoring wells is advised. Otherwise, frequent surface gage 

inspection and maintenance would be required to provide monitoring data, and this would be timeconsuming and expensive. In addition, surface flow data collected between maintenance activities 

would be suspect in such an active channel environment. Further, the problem of underflow bypassing 

the gages through porous alluvium would continue to challenge data assessments, unless monitoring 

wells were established as the basis for an adaptive management program or reliable data collection 

effort.

As shown in figure 38 in the water resources specialist report, located in the project record, indicates 

much of the tributary flow from the North Fork and South Fork, respectively, that contributes to the 

Eagle Creek gage below the confluence. Figure 39 in the water resources specialist report, located in 

the project record, indicates the flows, however inaccurate, being measured on the mainstem of Eagle 

Creek below the South Fork (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600). Based on available U.S. Geological 

Survey data collected in early December 2013, flow measurements had ceased at the downstream 

gage (Eagle Creek below South Fork) in June 2013, and had been zero for a considerable period 

beforehand (9 months - since October 2, 2012). New U.S. Geological Survey data downloaded in 

mid-January 2014 indicates late-summer monsoonal moisture effects on streamflow. These new 

records may reflect recent site maintenance activities and the time required for data review and 

approval. Using available data, general comparisons were made between the amounts of runoff 

generated by pre-wildfire versus post-wildfire summer storms. The events and seasonal conditions 

were selected on the basis of reasonably discrete periods of rainfall (recorded at Cloudcroft and 

Ruidoso) and streamflows recorded at the North Fork (U.S. Geological Survey 083875500) and Eagle 

Creek below South Fork (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600).

Comparisons did not include the South Fork since wildfire damage was much more limited in that 

watershed. Each period was selected on the basis of little or no rainfall or streamflow for several days 

before and after the timeframes inspected. Differences in pumping are described in the discussions 

below. For a fairly short 9 day rain period in July 2011 (July 17 to 26, 2011), the total rainfalls at 

Cloudcroft and Ruidoso were approximately 1.0 and 0.8 inches, respectively. Total pre-wildfire

streamflows over the period were approximately 0.6 acre-feet at the North Fork gage, and about 1.1 

acre-feet at the Eagle Creek confluence gage. At the time, the Village of Ruidoso was pumping 

approximately 1.1 acre-feet per day from supply well NF-4. Over an 8-day post-wildfire event (July 1 

to 8, 2012), the total rainfalls at Cloudcroft and Ruidoso were approximately 1.3 and 0.9 inches, 

respectively. Total post-wildfire streamflows over the period were approximately 9.6 acre-feet at the 

North Fork gage, and about 8.1 acre-feet at the Eagle Creek confluence gage. However, there was no 

pumping in July 2012 according to Village records, except 1.2 acre-feet pumped on July 26 from well 

NF-4.

So, for somewhat more precipitation over similar durations, the amount of water estimated at the 

gages increased by roughly an order of magnitude from pre-wildfire to post-wildfire conditions. In 

neither case was there an unusual, 1-day downpour. The greatest daily precipitation during the prewildfire timeframe was 0.44 inches (recorded at Cloudcroft). The greatest daily precipitation during 

the post-wildfire timeframe was 0.88 inches (also at Cloudcroft). However, there had been nearly 

constant well field pumping throughout July 2011, in comparison to essentially no pumping in July 

2012.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Over a more lengthy pre-wildfire period (July 11 to September 11, 2011), the total rainfalls at 

Cloudcroft and Ruidoso were approximately 9.8 and 8.5 inches, respectively. (Several days of data 

were missing at Ruidoso.) Total pre-wildfire streamflows over the period were approximately 43.1 

acre-feet at the North Fork gage, and about 3.5 acre-feet at the Eagle Creek confluence gage. 

Pumping records indicate that approximately 1.1 acre-feet per day were withdrawn in July, 1.06 acrefeet per day in August, and about 1.3 acre-feet per day in September.

Over a similar post-wildfire period (July 3 to September 12, 2012), the total rainfalls at Cloudcroft 

and Ruidoso were approximately 7.7 and 4.9 inches, respectively. (Again, several days of data were 

missing at Ruidoso.) Total post-wildfire streamflows over the period were approximately 93 acre-feet 

at the North Fork gage, and about 73 acre-feet at the Eagle Creek confluence gage. There was 

essentially no pumping in July or most of August, but about 1 acre-foot per day was withdrawn in the 

last 10 days of August and through September. 

So, for even somewhat less post-wildfire precipitation over similar durations, the amount of water 

estimated at the gages increased by over a factor of two in the North Fork, and by a factor of roughly 

20 at the confluence gage from pre-wildfire to post-wildfire conditions. The greatest daily 

precipitation during the pre-wildfire timeframe was 4.02 inches (recorded at Cloudcroft). The greatest 

daily precipitation during the post-wildfire timeframe was 1.85 inches (also at Cloudcroft). Flow 

conditions for these two periods are reflected in Figures 38 and 39 in the water resources specialist 

report. However, there were pumping differences between these periods, notably between the weeks 

in July and early August. There was continuous pumping in July and August 2011, but no pumping in 

July and the first 3 weeks of August, 2012.

While these events or timeframes generally indicate the effects of the Little Bear Fire on surface 

runoff, there are several uncertainties involved in reviewing them. Available pumping well 

information indicates that there were differences in pumping activities between these comparison 

periods. Also, precipitation fields vary in mountainous terrain, so there is no assurance that these 

short-term data for Cloudcroft and Ruidoso represent rainfall over the study area. They probably do 

serve as indications, however. (U.S. Geological Survey raingages in and near the North Fork Eagle 

Creek watershed were not activated until July 2013). In addition, the water balance is clearly not 

preserved between the North Fork gage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387550) and the Eagle Creek 

confluence gage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600). For the short-term post-wildfire event (July 1 

through 8, 2012), there is a loss of about 1.5 acre-feet (15 percent) from the North Fork to the Eagle 

Creek confluence gage even without pumping. 

In the July to September 2011 period, there is a tremendous pre-wildfire difference (about 12x) 

between the North Fork flow and the much smaller flow downstream at the Eagle Creek mainstem. 

Pumping occurred throughout this period. In the post-wildfire July to September 2012 data, there are 

still approximately 20 acre feet lost (27 percent) between the gages. According to Village records, 

pumping occurred during approximately the last half of this period, and totaled approximately 20 

acre-feet. Based on the shorter period of early July 2012, flow differences could also result from 

malfunctions at the surface water gages, seepage losses to groundwater, or both. Again, the expanded 

use of monitoring wells in a data collection program would resolve these issues in any future 

monitoring.

Erosion and Debris Flows 

Investigations indicate that a major post-wildfire effect is the lack of effective ground cover, litter, and 

vegetation to intercept rainfall and attenuate overland flow. In general, erosion and runoff increase 

with a reduction in cover. This is true in the burned area (USDA Forest Service 2012a). In areas 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 135

investigated within the Little Bear Fire perimeter, a thin ash layer was common on areas of moderate 

and severe burns where high winds and vertically rotating columns of air (whirlwinds) within the 

steep canyons may have blown ash away. Experience has shown that, regardless of the degree of 

water repellency, areas in the southwest that have short duration, high intensity storms produce 

extreme runoff events. Ash and soil is lost if most of the vegetative cover has been removed. 

The Forest Service BAER team estimated post-wildfire erosion losses and volumes using a standard 

approaches, the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model and the Erosion Risk Management 

Tool (ERMiT). Within the Little Bear Fire perimeter in general, the average pre-wildfire erosion rate 

was less than 1 ton/acre. Near the project area, the average post-wildfire erosion rate for Ski Apache 

in high and moderate severity was estimated to be 114 tons/acre, and sediment delivery was estimated 

to be about 7,500 cubic yards per square mile (USDA Forest Service 2012a). In addition, past work 

indicates that post-wildfire erosion rates and sediment yields are underestimated from the WEPP 

model (USDA Forest Service 2012a). These projected losses can be considerably reduced by postwildfire treatments, however, and treatments were applied in the North Fork Eagle Creek project area.

Sheet, rill and gully erosion of these magnitudes will form preferential overland flow paths that 

exacerbate flash flooding and greater rates of surface runoff. In addition to the suspended sediment 

and channel bedload from accelerated erosion, more severe debris flows are likely to occur within the 

project area and nearby. 

Further review indicates that severe fire intensity in steep forested watersheds in the Southwest could 

establish rill and gully networks that alter hydrologic responses for much longer (Neary et. al. 2012). 

Severe fire intensity within the North Fork watershed occurred at only the highest elevations, and 

over about 26 percent of the drainage area. Severe fire also occurred at high elevations in the South 

Fork watershed, and occupies about 10 percent of that drainage. These extents are much less than the 

conditions investigated by Neary et. al. (2012) for the Schultz Fire near Flagstaff, but point to the 

possibility that severely burned, high-elevation portions of the Eagle Creek headwaters may continue 

to release sediment, debris, and accelerated runoff into the lower watershed for many years. Some of 

these areas will heal over time, so the contributing areas eventually could be smaller than the 

percentages indicated.

After the Little Bear Fire, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted debris flow probability modeling for 

lands within the wildfire perimeter (Tillery and Matherne 2013). Using a set of empirical hazardassessment models, developed from data from recently-burned drainage basins throughout the 

intermountain West, general estimates of the probability and volume of debris-flows were made for 

selected drainage basins within the burn area. Several of the smaller sub-basins within the 

direct/indirect hydrologic study area watersheds were included in those selected for the U.S. 

Geological Survey analysis. The analysis indicates that debris flows are highly probable over much of 

the North Fork Eagle Creek study area, and also nearby over parts of the cumulative study area. 

Debris flow volume estimates were derived independently of the debris flow probabilities. Based on 

the empirical modeling, volume estimates indicate that the North Fork of Eagle Creek downstream of 

Telephone Canyon (i.e., downstream of a point about 0.2 miles upstream of the North Fork 

streamgage) is anticipated to receive over 100,000 cubic meters (at least 3.5 million cubic yards) of 

debris from the watershed sideslopes in response to a 2-year recurrence interval 30-minute rainfall 

accumulation of about 1 inch (Tillery and Matherne 2013).

Relative hazard rankings of post-wildfire debris flows were produced by summing the estimated 

probability and volume rankings to illustrate those areas with the highest potential occurrence of 

debris flows with the largest volumes (Tillery and Matherne 2013). The central part of the North Fork 

of Eagle Creek, from about 0.2 miles upstream of the North Fork streamgage to about 0.13 mile 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

downstream of Carlton Canyon, is ranked as one of the drainages having the highest combined 

probability and volume relative-hazard ranking for debris flows (Tillery and Matherne 2013). Below 

Carlton Canyon, the downstream segment of the North Fork to its confluence with the South Fork has 

the second highest combined relative-hazard ranking. In addition, most tributaries of the North Fork 

upstream of the summer home locale, including Telephone Canyon and others, also have the second 

highest combined relative-hazard ranking of debris flow probability and volume.

The significance of these conditions is that scour and fill, headcuts, and other channel modifications 

will occur over a considerable number of years in the North Fork and South Fork of Eagle Creek. The 

channel environment, and particularly the locations of surface flows, will be more dynamic than 

before the wildfire. Regular measurement of open channel flow over time, such as might be done in a 

monitoring program, will be much more expensive and less reliable. These factors will likely require 

revised approaches to water management for environmental purposes along the North Fork Eagle 

Creek. 

Groundwater Recharge and Water Levels

Groundwater recharge in the Sacramento Mountains is heavily dependent on snowmelt (Newton et al. 

2012b). Based on the discussions above, there are not likely to be additional inputs to the overall 

water balance, and particularly to aquifer recharge, from wildfire effects on snowpack due to 

increased ablation losses. Over the short-term transient post-wildfire recovery (i.e., generally 3 to 7 

years), soil hydrophobicity and the removal of vegetation and litter are likely to increase surface 

water runoff and reduce infiltration and deeper percolation. In the longer term post-wildfire condition 

(i.e., 4 to 8 years or more), stand conversion from coniferous forest types to grass-shrublands in some 

parts of the study areas is likely to decrease evapotranspiration losses and encourage the movement of 

water to greater depths within soil, unconsolidated deposits, and fractured rock. Preliminary results 

from ongoing studies indicate that exceptional monsoonal moisture also may provide additional 

groundwater recharge in areas where tree cover is reduced (Newton et al. 2012a). Annually, the 

potential for increased recharge would be greater if evapotranspiration levels are substantially less in 

the grass and shrub types that are expected to be more extensive in the post-fire watershed, than they 

were in the pre-fire dense conifer forest. 

Numerous investigations allude to increased water yield after forest treatments (e.g., thinning, 

logging) or wildfires (e.g., Troendle 1983, Troendle and Meiman 1986, Stednick 1996, Troendle and 

Reuss 1997, Stednick 1996, MacDonald and Stednick 2003, Woodhouse 2004). In almost all these 

investigations, “water yield” means surface water flow. Yield measurements have been typically 

short term (less than 5 years) and made at streamflow gages or as runoff estimates. Few 

investigations on the effects of forest stand reductions on groundwater recharge are available in 

published literature.

Possibly the most extensive review of the recharge topic within the Southwest coniferous region has 

been recently conducted by Wyatt (2013). After rigorously collecting references and a systematic 

screening effort, he found 37 references that addressed forest tree removal and its effects on 

hydrologic responses, specifically recharge. Data from individual studies suggested that reducing tree 

density increased water yield and groundwater recharge while reducing evapotranspiration (Wyatt 

2013). Specifically, when 20 to 100 percent of a conifer-dominated watershed was treated, the 

literature showed a 0 to 40 percent increase in “water yield”.

However, although one study did show a correlation, there was no overall correlation for all studies 

between percent area treated and groundwater recharge. Results were shown to be highly variable, to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 137

diminish within five to ten years for water yield increases, and even sooner (less than four years) for 

groundwater table heights (Wyatt 2013). 

Then, using a groundwater-flow model with somewhat favorable recharge assumptions, it was 

estimated that over a proposed ten-year period of forest restoration treatment, a one percent increase 

in annual recharge to regional aquifers was estimated compared to years 2000 to 2005 conditions 

(Wyatt 2013). However, these increases were assumed to quickly decline after treatment due to 

regrowth of vegetation. The modelers assumed that groundwater recharge responded in a similar way 

to researched streamflow responses after tree removal in southwestern semi-arid, conifer-dominated 

ecosystems.

Available literature describes a high degree of variability in groundwater recharge response to 

coniferous forest removal in the West and Southwest. This results from different site-specific 

settings. There is substantial precipitation input in the upper Eagle Creek watersheds, and tree 

removal by the Little Bear Fire is extensive. There are likely to be post-fire vegetation shifts, and 

correspondingly, some degree of reduced evapotranspiration. Rapid herbaceous growth, which could 

be several times the pre-fire herbage production (Campbell et al. 1977), would utilize some 

precipitation input and somewhat offset evapotranspiration reductions. More frequent runoff, and 

evaporation from warmer denuded soil surfaces, would also reduce the amount of water available for 

groundwater recharge. 

However, the North Fork channel occurs in a lower-elevation valley comprised of coarse colluvium 

and alluvium. All drainage and sediment from the higher hillslopes are routed through lower slopes 

and the broader valley floor. In addition to changed hillslope conditions, it is possible that channel 

braiding and seepage could help increase local groundwater recharge at lower elevations in the North 

Fork watershed. The magnitude, extent, and duration of such effects are unknown.

Water levels in monitoring wells along the North Fork of Eagle Creek have continued to be recorded 

by the Village of Ruidoso (written communication from Ms. C. Thompson, USDA Forest Service, 

November 26, 2013). Recent water level graphs from the monitoring wells are indicated in Figures 43 

through 47 in the water resources specialist report, located in the project record. The deep wells 

(MW-1B, MW-1C, and MW-3A) show a more-or-less consistent springtime water level rise from late 

January through mid-April of 2013, with a steady rise from early March through mid-April. 

Substantial water level rises in these wells can be noted during the onset of monsoonal moisture in 

July 2013, corresponding to precipitation increases indicated in U.S. Geological Survey rain gages 

around the watershed, and at Cloudcroft and Ruidoso. The rapid water level rises in September 2013 

likely correspond to the relatively large total precipitation (over 8 inches) during roughly the second 

week of that month, as also recorded by U.S. Geological Survey precipitation monitoring.

The shallower monitoring wells (MW-1A, MW-5A) appear to react more quickly to precipitation or 

snowmelt pulses. Monthly total precipitation values at the regional stations were generally less than 

average for the winter of 2012 and 2013, and daily air temperatures indicate melt was likely occurring 

sporadically throughout the winter and early spring. At MW-5A, the hydrograph in August 2012 is 

responding to a mid-month precipitation series that totaled about 3.9 inches at Cloudcroft and 3.0 

inches at Ruidoso. Monitoring well MW-1A did not respond to that event. For the March 2013 water 

level rises at MW-1A and -5A, about 1.2 inches of precipitation fell in early March at Cloudcroft, but 

data at Ruidoso are missing, and the U.S. Geological Survey rain gages were not operating then. 

Given the mixed freeze-thaw temperatures at Cloudcroft, the March 2013 rises might have been a 

rain-on-snow or frozen ground event. The rapid water level rises in early September 2013 correspond 

to the greater total rainfall falling at that time, as discussed in chapter 2.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

There is a substantial amount of missing data, but the record does extend through the 2012 rainfall 

series, with an essentially flat trend likely indicating that the pump was off. Pumping occurred 

sometime around May 2013, at roughly the same time as water level declines in the deep monitoring 

wells MW-1B, MW-1C, and MW-3A (Figures 44, 45, and 46, respectively in the water resources 

specialist report, located in the project record). These conditions may relate to pumping drawdown in 

bedrock, as water placed in storage (on the seasonal rising limb) is removed. Alternatively, the water 

levels in deeper wells may simply reflect seasonal precipitation changes, noting the rises following 

rainfall after July 2013. (Pumping conditions after May 2013 are unknown.) The recession lines at 

shallow monitoring well MW-5A are parallel between the August 2012 event (likely non pumping in 

NF-1) and the May 2013 period (likely pumping in NF-1). There also is a general surface flow 

decline indicated at the North Fork streamgage during the May 2013 period. 

Water Quality 

Large wildfires generally reduce surface water quality as a result of substantially increased sediment 

concentrations, ash and other organic materials, and nutrient changes. Often, concentrations of 

nitrogen, phosphorus, and other ions increase in streams after burning (Tiedemann et al. 1979 as cited 

in Clark 2001). Increases in bicarbonates, nitrates, ammonium, and organic nitrogen are common 

(Chandler et al. 1983 as cited in Clark 2001). These may contribute to eutrophication or algal blooms 

in downstream waterbodies.

Runoff water chemistry is typically modified in the first few storms after a large wildfire, and 

frequently returns to pre-burn characteristics after 1 or 2 years (Clark 2001). However, increased 

turbidity, sediment, and organic carbon loads may persist for much longer, depending on the stream 

network and transport through the watershed. Higher post-wildfire sediment concentrations, organic 

debris, and nutrient concentrations from hillslopes may reduce dissolved oxygen availability in 

streamflows. In combination, these changes would alter water quality for a period of years after the 

wildfire. Based on the BAER fire intensity mapping, the project area along the North Fork underwent 

low intensity to under-burn fire conditions. This indicates that the remaining overstory along the 

stream may be mostly green and have limited scorch, or may have been subjected to even less fire 

damage (USDA Forest Service 2012a, b). In addition, the low fire severity or under-burn areas along 

the North Fork may contain adequate remaining ground cover to help reduce accelerated sheet 

erosion from source areas within the stream corridor.

Along the North Fork and downstream in the Eagle Creek drainage, as well as in other watersheds, 

water quality has been severely impacted by the Little Bear Fire. These impacts are known to be 

extensive, but their anticipated duration is unknown. For this reason, post-fire considerations of water 

quality are not specifically addressed further in this document.

Climate Change 

In the final draft of the pre-wildfire Water Resources Technical Report (dated November 9, 2011), the 

introductory text to the precipitation analysis done for preceding years of record is no longer 

necessary in the context of the current U.S. Geological Survey report version (Matherne et al. 2011). 

In their final report revision (also released in November 2011), the U.S. Geological Survey no longer 

described a shift in seasonal moisture as a factor in runoff patterns or baseflow conditions in the Eagle 

Creek watershed. Since a comparison of seasonal conditions had already been done for the project, 

indicating that precipitation shifts were unlikely, previous climate explanations for flow conditions 

are no longer presented in this technical report following the latest U.S. Geological Survey revision. 

Other discussion of the potential nature of long-term climate change is anticipated to apply to postwildfire conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 139

Summary 

Water resources effects from the Little Bear Fire are anticipated to generally follow the preceding 

discussions, which are based largely on collected research and USDA Forest Service post-wildfire

investigations. Some research was conducted under different conditions than those in the study areas; 

however, on-site, local, or regional findings have been incorporated where available. These moreapplicable investigations create a different perspective from some of the findings from other parts of 

the West. In general, ongoing and anticipated wildfire effects in the Eagle Creek study area 

watersheds and the North Fork project area can be summarized as indicated in table 9 below. It should 

be noted that the duration of some effects depends on the timing, extent, and nature of vegetation 

changes within the burned areas, as previously discussed. In addition, some processes interact to 

increase or decrease the overall effects.

Table 9. Summary of anticipated wildfire effects on water resources

Hydrologic 

Process Type of Change Specific Effect

Anticipated Duration of 

Effectsa

1. Canopy 

Interception

Reduced Reduced moisture storage in the 

canopy

Short-term, and possibly 

long-term

Greater runoff in smaller storms Short-term, and possibly 

long-term

Temporarily increased surface 

water yields 

Short -term

2. Litter 

Storage of 

Water

Reduced Less water stored in litter Short-term, and possibly 

long-term

Overland flow increased Short-term, and possibly 

long-term

3. Transpiration Temporary 

elimination or 

possible long term 

reduction

Soil moisture increased Possibly long-term

Streamflow increased Possibly long-term

Recharge possibly increased from 

large monsoonal events

Possibly long-term

4. Infiltration Temporarily 

reduced

Temporary increases in overland 

flow and erosion

Short-term

Temporary increases in storm 

flows

Short-term

5. Surface 

Streamflow

Changed Temporary increases in “flashy” 

responses to rainfall or rapid 

snowmelt

Short-term

Seasonally maintained or 

decreased during snowmelt 

Short-term and possibly 

long-term

Water quality reduced Short-term

6. Baseflow Changed Short-term decreases (less 

infiltration and recharge)

Short-term

Long-term return to pre-burn 

conditions, or potential long-term 

increases due to reduced 

evapotranspiration and 

monsoonal recharge through 

preferential pathways

Long-term
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Hydrologic 

Process Type of Change Specific Effect

Anticipated Duration of 

Effectsa

7.Stormflow 

and Sediment/

Debris Yields

Increased Event volumes and peak flow 

rates substantially greater for 

period of years

Short-term

Volume “bulked” by sediment and 

debris

Short-term

Time to peak shorter (“flashier”) Short-term

Greater flash flood frequency Short-term

Erosive power increased Short-term

Channel modification and 

transport of sediment/debris, over 

decades

Both short-term and 

long-term

8. Snow 

accumulation

Changed 

(Generally these 

factors offset each 

other)

Increased snow accumulation Both short-term and 

long-term

Increased or accelerated 

evaporation, sublimation, and 

melt 

Both short-term and 

long-term

a - Short-term durations are estimated to range from three to seven years post-wildfire. Long-term durations are estimated to 

extend beyond that time-frame. Some long-term effects (particularly related to canopy, litter, and transpiration changes) are 

more or less likely depending on the nature and extent of any stand conversions that may occur. 

Source: Modified from Neary et al. 2005.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Streamflow Quantity

Based on inferences from historical conditions, under alternative 1 (no change), the general duration 

of no surface flow days at the Eagle Creek gage would be approximately 1 to 2 weeks a year during 

average precipitation periods and approximately 8 to 10 weeks a year during drier periods. By 

themselves, impacts from no-flow conditions would be short term and local. According to the flow 

frequency analysis of pumping during approximately average precipitation, flows of 1.2 cubic feet per 

second or greater would occur approximately 46 percent of the time. This would be a reduction of at 

least 10 percent from prepumping conditions, when flows of 1.2 cubic feet per second or greater 

occurred about 57 percent of the time (table 5). During drier years, flows of 1.2 cubic feet per second 

or greater would occur approximately 19 percent of the time, a substantial reduction from the average 

prepumping conditions used to ascertain conditions under alternative 2 (no pumping).

The actual occurrence of no-flow or reduced-flow periods would heavily depend on pumping rates, 

timing, and precipitation. If it is assumed that historic conditions can be used to infer future 

conditions, then according to table 5, the combined periods of flows less than 1.2 cubic feet per 

second (below which alluvial groundwater is assumed to become limiting to riparian and aquatic 

communities) would average approximately 6.5 months of the year during years of generally average 

precipitation. This would be an average increase of approximately 1.3 months over the duration of 

these lower flows (5.2 months) during the prepumping period used to ascertain conditions under 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 141

alternative 2 (no pumping). During drier years, the period of flow below 1.2 cubic feet per second 

would be extended on average to approximately 9.7 months of the year. This would be an increase of 

approximately 4.5 months over the duration of these lower flows during the prepumping period (5.2 

months), a long-term impact in relation to prepumping conditions. Over a 20-year period of permit 

authorization, years of these severely reduced flows would be likely. 

Discontinuous intermittent streamflows at reduced levels would continue near and downstream of the 

well field, creating site specific and local adverse impacts on flow rates and extent. The availability of 

alluvial groundwater would continue to be locally limited. These adverse direct impacts would be 

short term to long term and moderate to severe, depending on background precipitation. Over a 30-

year period of permit authorization, years of severe impacts from reduced flows would be likely, and 

opportunities for achieving management objectives would be limited.

Springs and Seeps

A number of springs or seeps are outside of the assumed pumping drawdown as depicted in figure 12

and figure 13. Based on this information, it is unlikely that these springs have or would experience 

impacts from the Village well field operations. A spring in Carlton Canyon and another in an 

unnamed tributary to the South Fork are likely to undergo flow reduction impacts from pumping 

based on U.S. Geological Survey drawdown observations and projections derived from them. The 

projections assume that these springs are not sourced from perched waterbearing zones, but are 

supplied by the basin-wide groundwater system. Given the general uncertainties associated with 

drawdown impacts, effects at those two sites would likely range from moderate to severe. Other 

existing groundwater modeling indicates that more extensive drawdown could occur (Balleau 

Groundwater 2004). Under those conditions, a number of other springs or seeps in the upper North 

Fork drainage could be similarly adversely affected.

Nearby Domestic Wells

The estimated drawdown encompasses or is immediately adjacent to two upstream domestic wells 

(DW-1 and DW-2). Water level measurements indicate that the nearest (DW-1) was within the actual 

cone of depression of the Village well field on September 3, 2008, and again on March 17, 2009 

(Matherne, et. al. 2011). Under alternative 1, water levels would decline according to assumed 

drawdown approximations, creating long-term, site-specific adverse impacts on domestic water 

supplies. These impacts would be moderate to severe, depending on the existing depths and yields of 

individual wells, which vary between locations. Other existing groundwater modeling indicates that 

more extensive drawdown could occur (Balleau Groundwater 2004). Under those conditions, a 

number of other domestic wells in the upper North Fork drainage could be similarly adversely 

affected.

Anticipated Effects of Climate Change

Under alternative 1 (no change), streamflow quantities may decline from climate change effects. 

Quantifying these effects is not possible due to uncertainties in climate predictions. Qualitatively, the 

spatial extent and duration of no-flow conditions may increase along the North Fork. The presence of 

flows equal to or greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second may decline with drier climatic conditions, 

which could reduce water availability in the alluvium for plant growth and sustenance. Opportunities 

for maintaining or improving watershed condition on National Forest System lands in the upper Eagle 

Creek drainage would be limited. Improving resource conditions and achieving the management 

objectives described above would become qualitatively more difficult under drier conditions. This 

would be exacerbated by ongoing well field pumping. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Streamflow temperatures could increase beyond those expected under current conditions, due to 

decreasing snowpack accumulations, more rapid seasonal melt, and generally warmer and dryer 

conditions overall. Qualitatively, pumping under the no action alternative could intensify these 

adverse conditions. Reduced recharge to zones supplying water to springs, seeps, and nearby 

domestic wells could be further exacerbated by these same climatic effects. Springs, seeps, and 

nearby domestic wells could experience declining flows or water levels at an accelerated pace under 

anticipated climate changes. If they occur, these adverse effects would be long term, local to regional, 

severe impacts.

Updates to Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 1 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

Over the short term (i.e., until watershed “recovery” in three to seven years, or until about 2019), 

pumping effects under Alternative 1 are likely to reduce streamflows and groundwater levels along 

the North Fork Eagle Creek. Based on table 9, reduced transpiration losses from vegetation have the 

potential to increase soil moisture and streamflow, but in the short term, these will likely be offset by 

substantially increased surface runoff rates from flashy events, greater runoff frequency, and reduced 

infiltration and groundwater recharge. In some locations, the accumulation of sediment and debris in 

the stream channel could physically increase the depth to saturated conditions below the new surface 

of the channel bed. This would be a natural impact resulting from the fire. Flows in intermittent parts 

of the North Fork Eagle Creek are understood to be related to shallower alluvial deposits over nearsurface bedrock. In some locations, greater thickness of newly-deposited alluvium could naturally 

reduce the presence of surface flow or pooling. Pumping at historic levels under this alternative could 

then act in accord with fire impacts, and further reduce the occurrence of surface flow or pools under 

post-wildfire conditions. These impacts may be somewhat reduced by increased post-fire 

groundwater recharge, if it occurs.

There are post-fire channel changes along the North Fork. This is a result of accelerated erosion, 

sediment and debris accumulations, and greater runoff. Channel changes are likely to have long-term 

effects on the expression of surface flow versus alluvial underflow in the channel. Where channel 

aggradation or widening occurs, streamflow may be “buried” within a debris deposit or dispersed into 

many small surface flow branches. Where channel downcutting occurs or debris piles do not form,

exposed flow would be more frequent. These conditions may migrate over time along the North Fork 

so that at any particular place and time, distinguishing pumping effects would be complicated by 

changing channel conditions. Additional monitoring measures have been developed to address this.

Over the long term, (after hillslope recovery), runoff conditions are expected to trend toward 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. Severe storm runoff and sediment transport would still occur. 

Overall rates and frequencies of surface yield would still likely increase somewhat above the pre-fire 

condition due to less interception and ground cover. In general, though, large removals from the 

water balance by substantially increased surface runoff would eventually decline in comparison to the 

short-term post-fire flashy conditions. Runoff frequency would also decline from the short-term postfire conditions. In addition, if large areas of conifer stands eventually convert to grasses or shrubs 

(Kuhar 2013), somewhat less evapotranspiration would improve overall watershed yield. If this 

occurs, it could also improve groundwater availability within the North Fork Eagle Creek.

If these longer-term post-wildfire effects occur, potential impacts from this alternative could be 

somewhat less than those described for the pre-wildfire assessment. If long-term additional recharge 

and water yield increases do not result from watershed recovery, then long-term impacts from this 

alternative would be expected to resemble those described in the pre-wildfire water resources 

assessment and DEIS (USDA Forest Service 2012). Impacts would be less than the pre-fire 

assessment if long-term changes in post-fire vegetation reduced evapotranspiration losses, and if 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 143

groundwater recharge eventually increased after the fire. These effects are likely to occur, although to 

an unknown degree. Reduced evapotranspiration losses are likely, and increased groundwater 

recharge may occur. Surface runoff may also increase somewhat over the long term, modifying the 

overall water balance. While pumping effects would still occur under alternative 1, they would be 

somewhat less over the long term than was described for the pre-fire assessment

However, without substantial long-term reductions in evapotranspiration, and enhanced groundwater 

recharge, the general durations of flow conditions would be similar to those described in the DEIS 

(USDA Forest Service 2012) and technical report developed before the Little Bear Fire. Under those 

conditions, based on inferences from historical conditions (see table 10 and “Eagle Creek Flow 

Patterns before the Little Bear Fire”) the general duration of no-surface-flow days in the lower 

reaches of the North Fork Eagle Creek would be approximately 1 to 2 weeks a year during average 

precipitation periods. This could increase to approximately 8 to 10 weeks a year during drier periods.

Streamflows of 1.2 cubic feet per second or more at the Eagle Creek gage location would be 

anticipated to occur about 10 percent less than under no-pumping conditions (alternative 2) during 

average precipitation periods, and about 40 percent less than the no-pumping condition during drier 

years. The two springs within the projected pumping drawdown would likely undergo flow volume 

and duration reductions. Similarly, water levels in domestic wells would likely decline. If climate 

changes occur, and drier conditions result, pumping under this alternative would likely further reduce 

streamflows and exacerbate adverse climatic effects on springs, seeps and domestic wells, in 

comparison to alternatives 2 or 3. Opportunities for improving riparian conditions along the North 

Fork Eagle Creek would be reduced in comparison to alternatives 2 or 3.

Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative water resources impacts from alternative 1 (no action) would include additional 

adverse flow and water quality reductions in Eagle Creek, and continued groundwater drawdown in 

alluvial and bedrock aquifers throughout the cumulative impact area resulting from other village wells 

along Eagle Creek (figure 11). These combined adverse effects would largely result from the ongoing 

water supply withdrawals in the drainage. By far, near-term withdrawals would be dominated by the 

North Fork wells, based on pumping capacities and historical withdrawals, described in more detail in 

the “Socioeconomics” and “Water Rights” section of this chapter. Alternative 1 would continue these 

withdrawals. In turn, these could create adverse impacts to riparian vegetation, aquatic habitat, and 

other beneficial uses along the Eagle Creek corridor through reduced groundwater storage. These 

impacts would be long term and would likely extend beyond the North Fork watershed. 

Future estimated water supply requirements by the village are estimated to be approximately 5,097 

acre-feet per year, even with conservation. Existing water supplies and water rights as developed do 

not meet those needs. Current diversions along Eagle Creek and the Rio Ruidoso, as described in the 

“Affected Environment, Domestic and Municipal Water Use,” are about 3,850 acre-feet per year. This 

leaves approximately 2,125 acre-feet per year yet to be obtained and developed to meet eventual 

demand. Given that the Eagle Creek water rights total approximately 2,539 acre-feet per year, a 

substantial amount of additional water supply infrastructure will be required in the Ruidoso region. 

Qualitatively, this will generate additional long term, regional impacts in the area. Some of these may 

occur along Eagle Creek in the cumulative impacts area. 

Forest fuel reductions, prescribed burns, recreational developments, and wildfires (as listed in table 4) 

act to increase runoff and sedimentation in the cumulative impact area. Planned activities would be 

conducted using best management practices to avoid or minimize these impacts. Historically, 

wildfires have ranged from roughly 40 to 600 acres in size near the North Fork Eagle Creek. These 

are relatively small disturbances in terms of increasing runoff or sediment yields, and impacts to
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

surface water and groundwater availability would be local and minor. Occasional water quality 

impacts from turbidity and sediment concentrations may result from forestry operations or wildfires 

in the cumulative impact area.

Updates to Cumulative Effects from Alternative 1 due to the Little Bear Fire 

Over the short term (three to seven years after the Little Bear Fire in mid-summer 2012), continued 

pumping under alternative 1 cumulatively would add to downstream water resources impacts from the 

wildfire as well as other water uses outside the forest boundary. An adverse effect of North Fork 

Eagle Creek pumping would be reduced downstream baseflows and groundwater levels. However, 

over the post-wildfire short term (until hillslope recovery), the adverse effects to streamflows outside 

the project area would be masked by accelerated surface runoff, erosion and debris flows, channel 

geometry changes, and reduced water quality resulting from the Little Bear Fire on a broader 

geographic scale. In addition, water users other than the Village of Ruidoso in the Eagle Creek system 

would affect surface runoff and groundwater levels. Those effects would be outside the control of 

either the Forest Service or the Village of Ruidoso. Depending on the timing and volumes of other 

water withdrawals and returns in the cumulative study area, all these factors would combine to largely 

obscure the downstream effects of North Fork Eagle Creek pumping in the short term. 

Under alternative 1, anticipated long-term cumulative effects (four to eight years post-fire and 

beyond) would be similar to or somewhat less than those previously described above for the prewildfire cumulative assessment. In comparison to alternatives 2 or 3, these would generally include 

streamflow reductions in Eagle Creek, and continued groundwater drawdown in alluvial and bedrock 

aquifers throughout the cumulative study area. As discussed in the Water Rights section, applications 

by the Village of Ruidoso for additional points of diversion along Eagle Creek are pending at the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer. If wells are pumped at these points in combination with 

pumping of North Fork Eagle Creek wells, it could extend drawdown effects in comparison to 

alternatives 2 or 3. The occurrence and extent of off-site drawdown effects, if they occur, are 

unknown and likely beyond the scope of this EIS.

It also should be noted that potential cumulative effects on streamflows and groundwater resources 

would not be restricted to water uses by the Village of Ruidoso. A substantial number of individual 

domestic wells and other points of diversion exist within the Eagle Creek basin, within and 

downstream of the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage. Approximately 20 domestic wells (or more) 

occur within the Eagle Creek drainage below the North Fork Eagle Creek well field. Real estate 

developments and resorts particularly have points of diversion along the lower Eagle Creek drainage 

near Alto, as recorded by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (2014). All of these uses 

would contribute to moderate to major long-term cumulative water resources impacts, depending on 

the amount and timing of water withdrawals and the nature of measures implemented to control 

surface drainage and runoff water quality. Although the Village of Ruidoso implements water 

conservation measures and enacts water restrictions during periods of drought or other emergencies 

(such as the Little Bear Fire), the Village of Ruidoso is not the only water user in the region and has 

limited, if any, control over other water users. In addition to these considerations, the Little Bear Fire 

was widespread across several drainage basins, including Little Creek and the Rio Bonito.

Widespread cumulative wildfire impacts on surface runoff, groundwater recharge, and water quality 

were described previously. The effects of forest fuel reductions, prescribed burns, and other activities 

would be the same as qualitatively described previously for the alternative 1 pre-wildfire cumulative 

assessment.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 145

Conclusion

Under alternative 1, existing well field infrastructure (wells, pumping facilities, pipelines, and access) 

would remain in place and be used for operations. Spatially discontinuous, intermittent streamflows 

would continue at reduced levels near and downstream of the well field, creating site-specific and 

local impacts on flow rates and extent. The occurrence and extent of perennial flows or pools along 

the North Fork would be reduced in comparison to alternatives 2 or 3, but would be complicated by 

sediment deposition and long-term channel modifications from the Little Bear Fire. The availability 

of alluvial groundwater would continue to be reduced locally. These adverse direct impacts would be 

short-term to long-term and moderate to severe, depending largely on background precipitation, 

reductions in watershed evapotranspiration, and possible increases in local groundwater recharge. The 

two springs within the projected pumping drawdown would likely undergo flow volume and duration 

reductions. Adverse long-term, site-specific impacts to domestic water supplies would occur. These 

impacts would be moderate to severe, depending on the existing depths and yields of individual wells 

and any changes in hydrologic system responses long after the fire. 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 reductions in flow 

along Eagle Creek within the cumulative impact study area. These could be adverse, long-term, more 

extensive impacts that would likely range in severity from moderate to severe. 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.

Alternative 2 - No Action (No Pumping) 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Streamflow Quantity

Based on historical data for prepumping conditions, the lower portions of North Fork Eagle Creek 

would remain an intermittent stream during years of average precipitation. Upper reaches of the North 

Fork may have perennial flow durations. No-flow days would still occur at various locations along 

stream reaches where large alluvial deposits are located, generally starting in May, June or later. 

These flow conditions would occur because smaller streamflows would be absorbed by the alluvium. 

Without pumping, however, the magnitudes and extents of intermittent flows would increase above 

current conditions during pumping or those anticipated under alternative 1 (no change). Isolated 

perennial flows or pools may occur in some locations above the Eagle Creek gage. These would be 

beneficial long term, local impacts to current conditions with pumping, but would represent minimal 

or negligible changes from prepumping conditions. Opportunities for improving watershed condition 

and achieving other management objectives would improve.

If historical prepumping conditions are assumed to reflect alternative 2 (no-pumping), the occurrence 

of no-flow days would be eliminated downstream at the Eagle Creek gage (or its former location 

slightly downstream) during average or wetter years. According to the flow frequency analysis during 

the prepumping period of slightly above average precipitation (figure 12 and figure 13), flows of 1.2 

cubic feet per second or greater would occur approximately 57 percent of the time (table 11). This 

would represent an absolute increase of about 10 percent beyond the occurrence of these flows 

anticipated under the no action alternative during average years. This would be a beneficial, long term 

local impact in comparison to current conditions with well field pumping. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

146 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Springs and Seeps

Under this alternative, there would be no groundwater drawdown due to village well field pumping, 

and springs and seeps would not be impacted by pumping the wells.

Nearby Domestic Wells

Similar to the reasoning for springs and seeps, because there would be no groundwater drawdown 

under this alternative, there would be no impact to nearby domestic wells from the village well field.

Anticipated Effects of Climate Change

Under alternative 2 (no action – no pumping), the potential climate change effects could still occur. 

Predicted changes in temperature, precipitation, and runoff conditions could continue to create longterm declines in North Fork flows, even without pumping. Water temperatures may rise overall; this 

would be particularly noticeable during summer low flows. Springs, seeps, and nearby domestic wells 

could eventually experience declines or go dry. Qualitatively, these effects would occur at a slower 

pace than under alternative 1 (no change). This would allow greater flexibility and time for resource 

management to adapt to changing conditions, if they occur.

Under alternative 2, there would be no groundwater drawdown due to pumping, and springs, seeps, 

and domestic wells would not be affected by Village of Ruidoso pumping. If climate change occurred 

and resulted in drier conditions, long-term reductions in North Fork flows would occur. Qualitatively, 

these effects would occur at a slower rate under alternative 2 than under alternative 1. This may allow 

more opportunity for resource management responses to climatic conditions.

Updates to Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 2 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

Over the short-term (i.e., until watershed “recovery”), effects under alternative 2 would encourage the 

occurrence of streamflows and increased groundwater levels along the North Fork Eagle Creek. Large 

portions of the stream would remain intermittent during periods of average precipitation. In some 

locations, the accumulation of sediment and debris in the stream channel could physically increase the 

depth to saturated conditions below the new surface of the channel bed. Flows in intermittent parts of 

the North Fork Eagle Creek are understood to be related to shallower alluvial deposits over nearsurface bedrock. In some locations, greater thickness of newly-deposited alluvium could reduce the 

presence of surface flow or pooling, even without pumping. If this occurs, under alternative 2 it 

would likely be less frequent or extensive than under alternatives 1 or 3. 

Over the long term, post-wildfire hillslope and vegetation conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. If conifer stands convert to grasses or shrubs, somewhat less 

evapotranspiration may somewhat improve watershed yield and may contribute to groundwater 

recharge. If these conditions occur in the absence of pumping under alternative 2, aquatic habitats 

could be enhanced and additional opportunities for improving riparian conditions would result in 

comparison to alternatives 1 or 3.

There are post-fire channel changes along the North Fork. This is a result of accelerated erosion, 

sediment and debris accumulations, and greater runoff. Channel changes are likely to have long-term 

effects on the expression of surface flow versus alluvial underflow in the channel. Where channel 

aggradation or widening occurs, streamflow may be “buried” within a debris deposit or dispersed into 

many small surface flow branches. Where channel downcutting occurs or debris piles do not form, 

exposed flow or pooling would be more frequent and observable. These conditions may migrate over 

time along the North Fork, so that at any particular place and time, quantifying flow increases could 

be complicated by changing channel conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 147

Under alternative 2, there would be no groundwater drawdown due to pumping, and springs, seeps, 

and domestic wells would not be affected by Village pumping. If climate change occurred and 

resulted in drier conditions, long-term reductions in North Fork flows would occur. Qualitatively, 

these effects would occur at a slower rate under alternative 2 than under alternative 1. This may 

allow more opportunity for resource management responses to climatic conditions.

Cumulative Effects

If alternative 2 (no pumping) were implemented, additional groundwater would pass downstream 

from the well field area into the cumulative impact area. On this basis, combining the effects of 

alternative 2 (no pumping) with other past, present, and foreseeable future action would result in 

downstream migration of groundwater within the stream alluvium and/or bedrock. As a result, 

beneficial recharge effects to aquifers, springs and seeps, riparian condition, and possibly stream base 

flows may result. The magnitude and extent of these effects is unknown, since the village operates 

five additional water supply wells in the overall Eagle Creek drainage. 

Implementing alternative 2 would effectively preclude the use of the existing well field for municipal 

water supply by the village. As such, it would conflict with part of the purpose of the action: 

authorizing the village under a special use permit to access and divert groundwater from its North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells. Alternative 2 would significantly reduce the existing Village water supply, 

and may create substantial adverse indirect effects on municipal services and finances. From a water 

resources standpoint, this would likely create additional demands by the Village of Ruidoso on other

water sources downstream within the Eagle Creek drainage or in other drainages. These demands 

would most likely be met by groundwater supplies elsewhere, with associated aquifer withdrawals. 

Associated impacts would probably involve drawdown related reductions in stream base flows, 

nearby well water levels, and flow reductions at springs and seeps. The occurrence of these impacts 

would depend on the water sources used to meet the demand, whether or not new water wells were 

brought into service, and where and how pumping occurred. These additional water supply factors, 

interactions, and related impacts elsewhere would generally be the same as those qualitatively 

described for alternative 1 (no action).

Forest fuel reductions, prescribed burns, recreational developments, and wildfires would all act to 

increase runoff and sedimentation in the cumulative impact area. Controls on forest activities and the 

impacts of wildfires would be the same as qualitatively described under alternative 1.

Updates to Cumulative Effects from Alternative 2 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

Over the short term (3 to 7 years after the Little Bear Fire in mid-summer 2012), the cessation of 

North Fork Eagle Creek pumping under alternative 2 would contribute to downstream baseflows and 

groundwater levels outside the forest boundary. Over the post-wildfire short term (until hillslope 

recovery), these beneficial effects would be masked by accelerated surface runoff, erosion and debris 

flows, channel geometry changes, and reduced water quality resulting from the Little Bear Fire. In 

addition, other downstream water users would affect surface drainage and groundwater levels.

Depending on the timing and volumes of other water withdrawals and returns in the cumulative study 

area, these factors could obscure some of the beneficial effects of alternative 2 in the short term. 

After longer-term watershed recovery in the basins affected by the Little Bear Fire, additional 

streamflow and groundwater would pass downstream from the North Fork Eagle Creek well field area 

into the cumulative study area under alternative 2. As a result, beneficial recharge effects to aquifers, 

some springs and seeps, riparian condition, and possibly stream baseflows may result. The magnitude 

and extent of these effects is unknown, due to the number of other water users in the area. Over the 

long-term, cumulative water resources impacts would be similar to those previously described for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

alternative 2 in pre-wildfire assessments. The effects of forest fuel reductions, prescribed burns, and 

other activities would be the same as qualitatively described for alternative 1.

Implementing alternative 2 would effectively preclude use of the North Fork Eagle Creek well field

for municipal water supply by the Village of Ruidoso. As described above for pre-fire conditions, 

shutting down the North Fork wells would most likely create additional demands and associated 

pumping drawdown effects on other water resources in the Eagle Creek drainage or nearby. As 

discussed in the Water Rights section, applications by the Village of Ruidoso for additional points of 

diversion along Eagle Creek are pending at the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. It should be 

noted, however, that potential cumulative effects on streamflows and groundwater resources would 

not be restricted to water uses by the Village of Ruidoso, as mentioned above under alternative 1.

Conclusion

Under alternative 2 (no pumping), the upper portions and other isolated parts of the North Fork would 

be maintained as perennial reaches. Intermittent flows would occur from slightly above the well field

downstream to the Eagle Creek gage, wherever alluvial deposits entirely absorb streamflows. On the 

basis of historical prepumping data, the occurrence of no-flow days at the Eagle Creek gage would be 

substantially reduced or eliminated. Similarly, without natural channel modifications, flows greater 

than 1.2 cubic feet per second could be expected to occur between 55 to 60 percent of the time under 

average precipitation. This would increase opportunities for watershed improvement, and allow 

increased water availability for other uses. This pre-fire flow duration estimate could increase under 

alternative 2 over time. Natural channel modifications are anticipated to continue for an unknown 

period. At any particular place and time along the North Fork, these could somewhat obscure the 

overall effects of alternative 2.

In comparison to alternatives 1 or 3, beneficial cumulative recharge effects to aquifers, springs and 

seeps, and possibly stream base flows may result under alternative 2 (no pumping) within parts of the 

broader Eagle Creek drainage. The magnitude and extent of these effects is unknown, since it is likely 

that the village would continue to exercise its water rights and make withdrawals elsewhere in the 

larger Eagle Creek system. Impacts from such cumulative activities are unknown, but in combination 

with other water users, they may offset beneficial impacts from no pumping at the North Fork Eagle 

Creek well field.

Alternative 2 would significantly reduce the existing Village water supply. In turn, this would likely 

create additional demands by the Village on other water sources downstream within the Eagle Creek 

drainage or in other drainages. Although outside the North Fork watershed, such demands and water 

supply adjustments would likely create other cumulative effects on water resources.

Alternative 3 - Adaptive Management

Direct/Indirect Effects

Streamflow Quantity

Under the adaptive management alternative, we would enact pumping restrictions when the no-flow 

day management trigger reached the prescribed thresholds. These restrictions would decrease the 

amount of water the village could withdraw by limiting the pumping rate to 50 percent of the 

streamflow reported at the North Fork gage or by undertaking other management actions. 

Using the potential adaptive management triggers (monitoring indicators) described for alternative 3 

(adaptive management) in chapter 2 of the EIS, we conducted a review of the hypothetical 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 149

implementation of the flow volume triggers, using historical flow conditions as data inputs. Table 10

displays the results of this exercise. 

Based on an analysis of no-flow durations per year, we approximated the amount of time that 

pumping would be limited each year, assuming that pumping could resume without limitation once 

flow resumed at the Eagle Creek gage, but that the pumping limit would be imposed immediately if 

no flow occurred again in the water year. For this exercise, we assumed the management trigger reset 

every October 1 if there was flow on that date. If there was no flow on October 1, the pumping limit 

that was triggered the previous year was assumed to remain in effect until flow resumed. No-flow 

days that occurred during pumping limits of this type counted toward the new water year’s trigger 

limit. Table 10 indicates the approximate total duration in each historical year when pumping would 

have been limited. Note that the estimated limitations would not necessarily have been continuous 

over the entire durations indicated.

Under the adaptive management strategy for alternative 3, it can be seen from table 10 that 

management triggers are most generally enacted during dry years. During average years, the triggers 

would be enacted much less frequently. The effects of this approach would be to generally maintain 

perennial streamflow conditions in the upper reaches of the North Fork, and to mitigate the potential 

adverse pumping impacts on intermittent flows from the well field downstream to the Eagle Creek 

gage. As a result, only minor, local, short-term impacts to streamflow magnitude and extent would 

occur in comparison to alternative 1. The Village of Ruidoso would be able to pump its municipal 

supply most of the time, and would be able to pump at reduced levels during some, but not all, of the 

restricted periods. From an impact perspective, it is estimated that the change in the occurrence of the 

1.2 cubic feet per second streamflows (an impact metric) would be between 0 and 10 percent of the 

prepumping condition during average years. During dry years, adaptive management would improve 

flow conditions and reduce the amount of no-flow days at the Eagle Creek gage. An approximate 

middle ground between the prepumping (assumed to be equivalent to alternative 2) and pumping 

conditions (alternative 1) would be attained during average years. Pumping restrictions would 

mitigate adverse effects to surface waterflows and alluvial water availability during dry years. 

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

potential adaptive management triggers for flow volume

Water Year

Approximate Noflow Period 

(Weeks)

Potential Adaptive

Management Trigger 

Enacteda Approximate Weeks of Limited Pumping

Prepumping, approximately 

average precipitation 

conditions

1971 0 None 0

1972 0 None 0

1973 0 None 0

1974 0 None 0

1975 0 None 0

1976 0 None 0

1977 0 None 0

1978 0 None 0

1979 0 None 0

1980 0 None 0

Period Average 0 NA 0
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Water Year

Approximate Noflow Period 

(Weeks)

Potential Adaptive

Management Trigger 

Enacteda Approximate Weeks of Limited Pumping

Postpumping, approximately 

average precipitation 

conditions

1989 <1 None 0

1990 3 None 0

1991 0 None 0

1992 0 None 0

1993 0 None 0

1994 0 None 0

1995 0 None 0

1996 8 to 9 30 d/ya 4 to 5

1997 0 None 0

1998 0 None 0

Period Average 1 to 2 n/a <1

Postpumping, drought or 

fluctuating precipitation 

conditions

2000 6 to 7 30 d/y 2 to 3

2001 10 to 12 30 d/y 6 to 7

2002 16 to 18 Bothc 14 to 16

2003 18 to 20 Both 15 to 17

2004 20 to 22 Both 22 to 24d

2005 1 to 2 None 0

2006 18 to 20 30 d/y 14 to 16

2007 0 None 0

2008 3 to 4 None 0

2009 9 to 10 30 d/y 5 to 6

2010 4 to 5 20 d/y for 3 yb 4 to 5d

Period Average 10 to 12 n/a 8 to 10

a - “30 d/y”: This proposed adaptive management trigger would be enacted to restrict pumping where there are 30 or more noflow days within 1 water year.

b - “20 d/y for 3 y”: This proposed adaptive management trigger would be enacted to restrict when there are 20 or more no-flow 

days over 3 consecutive water years.

c - “Both”: This indicates that both triggers were reached during the water year.

d - The no-flow period extended from the previous water year into the new, which did not allow the trigger to reset on Oct. 1.

By limiting pumping, the aquifer drawdown would decrease, and the proportion of volcanic aquifer 

recharge that would remain for water level recovery would increase. This would shorten aquifer water 

level recovery times, and decrease the duration of no-flow periods at the stream gage.

As described in detail in the alternative 3 (adaptive management) description in chapter 2, other 

management triggers, in addition to the trigger for no-flow days, would be used to manage pumping 

operations. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 151

Springs and Seeps

As described under alternative 1, two springs occur within the drawdown projected from U.S. 

Geological Survey field observations. These and other springs in the watershed may be connected to 

the overall basin hydrologic system, or may have isolated, perched groundwater sources. Assuming 

that these springs are connected to the larger groundwater system, management under alternative 3 

would somewhat decrease the duration and extent of drawdown, lessening impacts to springs and 

seeps in comparison to alternative 1. Compared to alternative 2, some drawdown impacts and 

springflow reductions would still occur over the approximated area of drawdown depicted in figure 

12 and figure 13. These are anticipated to be local and to occur repeatedly over the long term, but be 

less than alternative 1 since some recovery could occur during wet periods and would be assisted by 

adaptive management during dry periods. As noted under alternative 1, additional springs and seeps 

occur within the North Fork watershed that could be affected by pumping if they are connected to the 

basin groundwater system and if drawdown is more extensive than currently projected. Adaptive 

management and monitoring would address impacts to springs and seeps if they become more 

extensive or severe.

Nearby Domestic Wells

The decreased drawdown and water level recovery times would also decrease the duration and extent 

of impacts to domestic wells in comparison to alternative 1. Potential impacts would be the same as 

those described for springs and seeps; local and long term, but minor to moderate. Adaptive 

management would address greater impacts to domestic wells if they occurred.

Anticipated Effects of Climate Change

Under the adaptive management alternative, the expected effects of climate change could still occur 

over the long run, as described for the other alternatives. However, adaptive management strategies 

would reduce the timing and severity of these effects to the extent possible. Increased temperatures, 

reduced snowpack, and accelerated snowmelt could require ongoing adjustments in adaptive 

strategies to maintain streamflows and groundwater availability. However, experience gained through 

adaptive management would allow more informed strategies to be developed for water resources 

management under changing climatic conditions, if they occur.

Updates to Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

Under alternative 3, potential water resources impacts in the North Fork Eagle Creek over the short

term (3 to 7 years) after the Little Bear Fire may be limited by the application of pumping restrictions.

During this period, however, the impacts of natural post-wildfire watershed and channel adjustments 

will override some of the pumping impacts and some of the adaptive management effort. Even with 

stabilization efforts, watershed sideslopes will continue to erode for a period of years under the severe 

rainfall events common to the region. This will decline over time on sideslopes during the short-term 

recovery period, but a much longer period will involve active sediment and debris accumulation and 

transport through the valley, the North Fork Eagle Creek channel system, and downstream.

During the short-term, channel re-configuring processes will modify the locations and durations of 

open channel flow or pools. This will be most noticeable after severe rainfall events. Similarly, 

riparian conditions at a given point along the North Fork Eagle Creek will be modified through 

natural post-wildfire adjustments to the channel bed and banks. For this reason, periodic and 

spatially-distributed monitoring measures are described and recommended in chapter 2. Adaptive 

management practices have been re-oriented toward monitoring well placement and recording, in an 

effort to minimize the reliance on shifting channel and streamgage conditions. During the short term 

post-wildfire recovery period, pumping effects would be limited to the extent possible through an 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

iterative and adaptive approach as the landscape, stream channel, and groundwater recharge processes 

adjust to the wildfire disturbance.

Over both the short- and long-terms, management triggers would be most generally enacted during 

dry years. During average or wet years, management triggers would be enacted much less frequently.

For this reason, measures for monitoring precipitation conditions, groundwater conditions, and 

employing computer simulations of surface- and groundwater interactions have been described and 

recommended in chapter 2. 

Over the long-term, the Village of Ruidoso would be able to pump its municipal supply from the 

North Fork Eagle Creek most of the time, and would be able to pump at reduced levels during some, 

but not all, of the restricted periods. During dry years, adaptive management would improve flow 

conditions and reduce the amount of no-flow days along the North Fork Eagle Creek in comparison to 

alternative 1, but probably less than alternative 2. With respect to surface flows and alluvial 

groundwater levels, an approximate middle ground between alternative 1 (continued pumping at 

historic levels) and alternative 2 (no pumping) would be attained during average precipitation years 

under alternative 3. Drawdown effects may still occur at springs, seeps, and domestic wells, but are 

anticipated to be less than those expected under alternative 1. If climate changes to warmer and drier 

conditions occur, ongoing adjustments in management strategies to maintain streamflows, alluvial 

groundwater levels, and Village of Ruidoso water supplies would be required. Experience gained 

through adaptive management would allow more informed water resources strategies if climatic 

changes occur.

Over the long term, watershed conditions are expected to return to approximate pre-wildfire

conditions. If conifer stands convert to grasses or shrubs, somewhat less evapotranspiration may 

slightly improve watershed yield. There may be additional groundwater recharge. If these conditions 

occur along with adaptive management of North Fork Eagle Creek pumping, other resource effects 

could occur. For example, habitats could be enhanced and additional opportunities for improving 

riparian conditions would result.

There have been post-fire channel changes along the North Fork. These are a result of accelerated 

erosion, sediment and debris accumulations, and greater runoff. Ongoing channel changes are likely 

to have long-term effects on the expression of surface flow versus alluvial underflow in the channel. 

Where channel aggradation or widening occurs, streamflow may be “buried” within a debris deposit 

or dispersed into many small surface flow branches. Where channel downcutting occurs or debris 

piles do not form, exposed flow or pooling would be more frequent and observable. These conditions 

may migrate over time along the North Fork. At any particular place and time, distinguishing 

pumping and management effects would be complicated by changing channel conditions. Additional 

monitoring measures have been developed to address this.

Cumulative Effects

Combining the effects of the adaptive management alternative with other past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions would result in potential cumulative water resources impacts that would 

include flow and water quality reductions in Eagle Creek within the cumulative impact area. Water 

supply pumping for the applicant is conducted at six water wells along lower Eagle Creek (figure 11), 

and the Village of Ruidoso diverts surface water from the stream a short distance below the Eagle 

Creek gage. As a result, groundwater recharge in downstream alluvial and bedrock aquifers would 

still be adversely affected, but to a lesser extent than under current conditions or alternative 1 (no 

action). The adaptive management alternative would have minor effects on these impacts, as pumping 

in the North Fork Eagle Creek would generally be permitted most of the time. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 153

Implementing the adaptive management alternative would occasionally create temporary demands for 

other water sources on the part of the Village of Ruidoso. It is possible that the Village of Ruidoso 

would meet those demands by pumping groundwater supplies elsewhere or by constructing additional 

storage facilities, by enacting water use limitations, or some combination of these approaches. In 

addition, future water supply infrastructure and withdrawals would create additional water resources 

impacts as qualitatively described previously for alternative 1 (no action).

Forest fuel reductions, prescribed burns, recreational developments, and wildfires would all act to 

increase runoff and sedimentation in the cumulative impact area. Controls on forest activities and the 

impacts of wildfires would be the same as qualitatively described under alternative 1 (no action). The 

extent and effects of these potential activities are unknown.

Updates to Cumulative Impacts from Alternative 3 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

Over the short term (3 to 7 years after the Little Bear Fire in mid-summer 2012), the management of 

North Fork Eagle Creek pumping under alternative 3 would contribute to downstream baseflows and 

groundwater levels outside the forest boundary. Over the post-wildfire short term (until hillslope 

recovery), these beneficial effects would be masked by accelerated surface runoff, erosion and debris 

flows, channel geometry changes, and reduced water quality resulting from the Little Bear Fire. In 

addition, other downstream water users would affect surface drainage and groundwater levels.

Depending on the timing and volumes of other water withdrawals and returns in the cumulative study 

area, these factors could obscure some of the beneficial effects of alternative 3 in the short term. The 

effects of management under alternative 3 would likely range between the adverse (but obscured) 

effects of alternative 1 and the beneficial (but obscured) effects of alternative 2. 

Over the long term, post-wildfire cumulative water resources impacts would be similar to those 

previously described for alternative 3 in pre-wildfire assessments (AECOM 2012, USDA Forest 

Service 2012, AECOM 2015). Implementing alternative 3 would occasionally create temporary 

demands by the Village of Ruidoso for other water sources. It is likely that the Village of Ruidoso 

would meet those demands by pumping groundwater supplies elsewhere, by additional leasing of 

existing water rights, by developing additional storage facilities, by enacting further water use 

limitations beyond its current practices, or some combination of these. As discussed in the Water 

Rights section, applications by the Village of Ruidoso for additional points of diversion along Eagle 

Creek are pending at the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. If wells are pumped at these 

points, it could extend drawdown effects in combination with pumping of the existing wells.

It should be noted, however, that potential cumulative effects on streamflows and groundwater 

resources would not be restricted to water uses by the Village of Ruidoso, as mentioned above under 

alternative 1. The effects of forest fuel reductions, prescribed burns, and other activities (including 

other water uses besides Village of Ruidoso supplies) would be the same as qualitatively described for 

alternative 1.

Conclusion

Under the adaptive management alternative, the purpose and need for the action would be addressed 

in a manner that satisfies the municipal water supply demands of the village to the extent possible 

while providing for resource values on National Forest System lands. Surface water and groundwater 

availability in the North Fork would improve, and the intermittent flow durations in the stream would 

be generally similar to prepumping conditions. Perennial flow segments or pools would be more 

likely to occur. Adaptive management restrictions on pumping would mitigate impacts during dry 

periods. There would still be some drawdown impacts on springs, seeps, and domestic wells, but the 

extent and severity of these impacts would be reduced from current conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Water supplies for the Village of Ruidoso would be reduced during periods of pumping restrictions 

(an adverse impact). Under alternative 3, these impacts would be less than under alternative 2. 

Ongoing water conservation efforts and other water management actions being taken by the Village 

could reduce the severity of these impacts, but under some conditions, pumping restrictions would 

still reduce water supplies from the North Fork. Adaptive management triggers and monitoring 

measures associated with alternative 3 have been developed to improve water resources management 

in the North Fork watershed, to provide some flexibility in the approaches taken, and to develop 

records of results.

Climate changes in the Southwest may occur, but their effects would be accommodated to the extent 

possible under the adaptive management approach. Cumulative impacts to surface water and 

groundwater availability would occur. Adaptive management under an approved permit authorization 

would help address cumulative impacts and water supply issues as they were identified. 

Summary

As described in table 2, the alternatives differ in how they respond to the purpose and need for action 

related to protecting forest resources. Alternative 1 (no action) would not meet this need since 

allowing applicant operations to continue at current levels would continue to result in substantially 

more time when flows measured at the Eagle Creek gage are below 1.2 cubic feet per second. 

Alternative 2 (no pumping) would allow for natural conditions to return and groundwater pumping 

would cease. This would result in a return to natural conditions. Alternative 3 (adaptive management) 

would also meet this need since the change in the occurrence of 1.2 cubic feet per second streamflows 

would be between 0 to 10 percent of the prepumping condition during average years. During dry 

years, adaptive management would improve flow conditions and reduce the amount of no-flow days 

at the Eagle Creek gage; an approximate middle ground between the prepumping and pumping 

conditions would be attained during average years. Implementing a closely monitored adaptive 

management strategy with thresholds would minimize impacts of groundwater drawdown and provide 

increased groundwater and surface waterflow under alternative 3 (adaptive management). This 

increase would provide adequate flows for protecting water dependent ecosystems. Table 2 also 

provides a comparative summary of the effects of each alternative on each water resource 

measurement indicator.

Significant Issue: Aquatic and Fish Habitat 

The fishery and aquatic habitat issues related to North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping include 

changes in the water table which may affect streamflow to varying degrees. Lowering streamflow 

may increase temperatures which can adversely affect fish. Quantity, quality, and waterflow 

availability that mirrors natural flow patterns are important for aquatic habitat and fish. Suitable water 

quality and temperatures, which are partially based on water depth and channel conditions, are 

necessary to support fish populations. Sufficient water supplies must also be available during summer 

months to provide water temperatures needed for survival of aquatic species.

We include a more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental 

consequences for this project in the fish and wildlife report and biological evaluation (Bright 2015a). 

The supplemental fish and wildlife report and biological evaluation (Bright 2015 provides a more 

detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences, considering 

the changes caused by the Little Bear Fire. These reports are incorporated by reference, discussed 

briefly below, and available in their entirety in the project record.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 155

Methodology 

The direct effects study area is the upper Eagle Creek drainage (figure 2) above the Eagle Creek gage. 

The cumulative impacts area extends through the Eagle Creek drainage to the location of the former 

U.S. Geological Survey stream gage named Eagle Creek near Alto, New Mexico (Eagle Creek near 

Alto, U.S. Geological Survey gage number 08387800) (figure 11). This area incorporates 

approximately 7 additional stream miles of Eagle Creek below the study area.

Baseline information used to assess impacts to aquatic habitat and fish was provided by Forest 

Service specialists using professional judgment. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish fisheries 

biologists were consulted for information regarding past and current fish management along the North 

Fork and levels of angler use. Forest Service records from the pre-well pumping period were searched 

for information related to aquatic habitat and fish management prior to well pumping. Other agency 

records, literature, and anecdotal information and photographs were also used where appropriate to 

assist in determining whether any changes have occurred to aquatic habitat and fish populations in the 

project since pumping began as well as to assist in determining effects of the alternatives on these 

important resources.

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

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

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

pumping). Alternatives were compared using the water resource streamflow quantity and quality 

indicators (see “Water Resources Methodology” in the previous section of this chapter). 

The “Methodology” section at the beginning of this chapter describes the general approach used for 

cumulative effects analysis. Activities and projects summarized in table 4 and figure 4 were 

considered in the aquatic habitat and fish cumulative analysis. 

Post-wildfire conditions were assessed to compare with the pre-wildfire conditions described in the 

DEIS. All post-wildfire reports including the BAER reports, field visit reports by resource specialists, 

wildfire impact assessments, and post-wildfire assessment maps were reviewed and cited in 

describing changes to fish and wildlife conditions. Literature relevant to wildfire effects on fish and 

wildlife habitats and resources were reviewed and cited where applicable to the Little Bear Fire 

situation.

Affected Environment

There are no federally listed, proposed, or candidate fish species, nor any Regional Forester sensitive 

species occurring in the North Fork Eagle Creek. Brook trout and rainbow trout are the only fish 

species currently documented in the portion of the North Fork between the North Fork gage and 

Eagle Creek gage. Persistent brook trout populations occur primarily in the perennial stretches and in 

the headwaters of the drainage in the White Mountain Wilderness (upstream from the North Fork 

gage), but during streamflow periods they have been found in some ponded sections of the North 

Fork in the Eagle Creek summer home area (upstream from the North Fork gage) and further 

downstream. 

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish records indicate that fish stocking has occurred along 

the North Fork as far back as 1896 with rainbow trout. There have been releases of nonnative brown 

trout, catfish, and brook trout and native Rio Grande cutthroat trout periodically through the 1960s as 

reported by Little (1960a, b) and Hansen (pers. comm. 2011). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Fish survey records from the 1960s through 2007 document the presence of brook trout in the North 

Fork (Little 1960a, Little 1960b, Little 1961, Hansen and Denny, personal communication 2011). As 

summarized in McGlothlin (2011) and in table 11, in the 1960s, brook trout were collected in a 100-

foot section 1 mile below Eagle Creek Lodge (which is now in the present day Eagle Creek summer 

home area). Fish averaged about 4-5 inches in length and there were no other species besides brook 

trout collected. Water temperatures varied between surveys and ranged from 55 to 70 degrees 

Fahrenheit. These reports note: (1) very little fishing during the summer months because of low water 

conditions; (2) low densities of emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation (including algae and 

cattails); (3) ponderosa pine and spruce-fir as the dominate vegetation type; and (4) perennial reaches 

for the first 3.5 miles and then intermittent reaches downstream, except during periods of high runoff. 

Medlock (2011) also provides insights into pre-well pumping stream conditions and fishing 

opportunities along the North Fork consistent with the summaries above. 

Ross (1970) documents very good aquatic insect populations (the food source for trout) and an 

opinion that the North Fork has the capability of producing a quality cold water fishery, but notes that 

overall stream conditions were measurably better above the Eagle Creek summer home area than 

below. Patterson (1971) notes that the North Fork fishery is nearly nonexistent and that any 

improvement would be beneficial. Only brook trout were caught in the North Fork in 2007. 

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

Creek

Date Source Information

1920s -

1930s

Richard Hansen, New 

Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish 

(Hansen, pers. 

comm. 2011)

North Fork Eagle Creek stocked with brook trout and Rio Grande 

cutthroat trout in the 1920s and 1930s.

1959 -

1960

New Mexico 

Department of Game 

and Fish Basic 

Survey of Eagle 

Creek Report (Little 

1960a)

Surveyed manmade pond areaa which is believed to be within the 

present day well field (T10S, R12E, Section 36), although there are 

differing opinions among agency biologists on this; rainbow trout 

and stunted brook trout observed in stream; noted that creek was 

shallow and narrow with the exception of two ponds; permanent 

water exists for 3.5 miles and then becomes intermittent except 

during periods of high runoff; boulders and rubble with some areas 

of sand and silt documented; water temperature varied from 55 °F 

to 66 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Recommends fish only be planted during years of adequate 

precipitation (except at manmade fish ponds); noted that stream is 

unsuitable for trout plantings except during high runoff from winter 

snows and noted little fishing during summer months.

1960 New Mexico 

Department of Game 

and Fish Basic 

Survey of Eagle 

Creek Report (Little 

1960b and Little 

1961)

Fish restricted to pools during low water; noted stream 6 feet wide 

and 3 feet deep; 37 fish sampled.

1963 Forest Service Upper 

Eagle Creek 

Watershed Analysis 

(USDA Forest 

Service 1963)

Notes that “the Eagle Creek water sinks and seeps away and is not 

delivered to the Rio Ruidoso or Rio Hondo system except during 

short periods of peak flow” and “records of the Eagle Creek 

drainage show some flood damage nearly every year with major 

floods occurring every 3 to 4 year intervals”.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 157

Date Source Information

1970 Forest Service Report 

(Ross 1970) 

Survey to determine if North Fork Eagle Creek has potential as a 

cold water fishery. Sampled three areas (above summer homes, 

below summer homes and near “old gravel borrow pit”); above 

summer home reach ranked highest for potential, but noted all 

three areas with potential; report author recommended stream 

improvements to enhance fish habitat; also noted “high amount of 

alluvium” in stream and recommended removing this alluvium (to 

provide gravel) in order to improve stream habitat.

1971 New Mexico 

Department of Game 

and Fish letter (1971)

Memo to Forest Service in response to Ross report stating the 

report gave good ideas; noted North Fork Eagle Creek has 

potential for “limited access fishing” and “present day fishing is 

nearly nonexistent.”

a - It is also well documented and understood that manmade ponds used to occur in the Eagle Creek summer home area and 

were stocked with fish.

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish does not currently highlight the North Fork as a 

fishery with the public. They consider the North Fork a “self-sustaining brook trout fishery” (meaning 

they don’t stock it or otherwise encourage the fishery in this area, but it does have a population of 

brook trout that persists). The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish likely stopped investing in 

stocking it in the 1970s and 1980s due to fluctuating water levels and the quality of the habitat 

(Hansen, personal communication 2011). Over the last few years, the New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish has moved fish from various isolated pools near road crossings upstream (presumably 

upstream of the North Fork gage) to where there was more consistent flow (Denny personal 

communication 2011). 

As described in detail in the “Water Resources” section previously in this chapter (and documented in 

detail in AECOM (2015)), the North Fork streamflow has been affected by well pumping and is less 

now than it was prior to the onset of pumping in 1988; dry periods have increased and there are 

substantially more months per year when flow is less than 1.2 cubic feet per second.

An area below the confluence of the North and South Forks of Eagle Creek is listed by the New 

Mexico Environment Department as impaired because of reduced flows from well pumping (New 

Mexico Environment Department 2011a and 2011b). The department concludes that without 

improved management of the North Fork Eagle Creek well field, these conditions would be expected 

to persist or worsen. 

Conditions before Pumping Began in 1988

Based on the compilation and evaluation of the best available data (summarized above), there is 

sufficient information to substantiate reduced flows, less fish presence, and decreased fishing 

recreation in the North Fork since the wells were authorized and began pumping in 1988. It appears 

that higher quality aquatic habitat and fishing opportunities existed in the North Fork before the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells began pumping when compared to current conditions and fish populations 

(primarily brook trout) are substantially less now than they were before 1988. While many factors 

likely contribute to this shift (e.g. flood events, seasonal variations in precipitation and recreational 

use, loss of manmade fishing ponds due to flooding, variability in data collection and reporting, and 

reductions in direct New Mexico Department of Game and Fish fish stocking), it is likely that 

pumping is a one of the primary causes reducing the North Fork streamflow. However, as shown in 

table 11 and summarized above, the North Fork never provided a high quality trout fishery; 

conditions appear to always have been variable from year to year. Variations in seasonal flows in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

many reaches of the North Fork can affect stream temperature (important for fish survival) and algae 

and aquatic insect habitat (trout prey base), and have likely done so since before 1988. 

There is no concrete evidence to conclude whether North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping is affecting 

groundwater and surface water upstream from the well field and above the North Fork gage. 

Matherne et al. (2011) concluded the cone of depression created by well pumping did not extend 

further upstream than the North Fork gage, but, as described in the “Water Resources” section of this 

chapter, worst-case drawdown effects are possible above the gage (figure 12 and figure 13) extending 

into the Eagle Creek summer home area. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that, while 

effects to aquatic habitat and fish are possible above the North Fork gage, the majority of the most 

important North Fork aquatic habitat and brook trout habitat (occurring in the historically and 

currently perennial upper reaches and upstream of the summer home area) are not being measurably 

affected by North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping. 

Therefore, while the North Fork, particularly below the North Fork gage, has always been a marginal 

trout fishery, the quality of trout habitat and recreational fishing experience it currently provides is 

lower today than it was in the late 1980s, and North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping has contributed 

to this decline.

Conditions after the Little Bear Fire 

Cordova (2013) reported that three visits were made to the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage during 

the field season in 2013 that document post-wildfire conditions. Each visit to this drainage had a 

different emphasis (debris flow information, botany survey, college field trip). All three of these visits 

encompassed a review of the upper reaches of the drainage (Wilderness Area). During each of these 

visits (April, early July, late July) a cursory observation of pools where fish were seen historically 

was assessed. No fish were observed during these outings. He concluded that “I feel very confident in 

saying that the fish population in the North Fork Eagle Creek was extirpated by the floods that 

occurred after the Little Bear Fire”. Cordova (2013a) reported that the riparian system is in excellent 

shape in the upper watershed! Once we get stability on the upper slopes we will have the opportunity 

to consider introducing fish back into the system, possibly Rio Grande cutthroat. The South Fork of 

the Bonito may be a better candidate due to 7.5 miles of riparian habitat. There is only a very small 

stretch of year round flow in the North Fork Eagle Creek (approx. 1.5 miles) (Cordova 2013a).

Dunham et al. (in University of Idaho 2007) showed that physical stream habitats can remained 

altered (e.g., stream temperatures) for many years following wildfire, but that native aquatic 

vertebrates can remain resilient. In a management context, this suggests that wildfire may be less of a 

threat to native species than human influences that alter the capacity of stream-living vertebrates to 

persist in the face of natural disturbance.

AECOM (2015) presents information directly relevant to the post-wildfire situation indicating that 

there is a potential to have perennial or near perennial stream flows reestablished from combined 

summer rain falls and increased surface runoff. However, the spikes in water flow will most likely be 

seasonal and of short duration instead of year-round which may not provide a perennial water flow.

However, there should be a greater volume of water in the North Fork Eagle Creek as a result of the 

wildfire. The significance of erosion and debris flows will be to make the channel environment more 

dynamic than they were before the Little Bear Fire with the potential to rejuvenate fish habitat and 

overall conditions (AECOM 2015). This report indicates that post-wildfire water quality is likely to 

be affected for 1-2 years and turbidity impacts could last considerably longer than 2 years both in the 

wildfire area and downstream.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 159

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Change 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The comparison and analysis of alternative 1is made using alternative 2, the no pumping alternative, 

as the baseline condition. The current level of effects to aquatic habitat and fish would continue. As 

shown above, there is sufficient information to substantiate reduced flows, less fish presence, and 

decreased fishing recreation in the North Fork since the North Fork Eagle Creek wells were 

authorized and began pumping in 1988. This trend would continue with implementation of alternative 

1 (no action). 

As described in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter, spatially discontinuous, intermittent 

streamflows would continue at reduced levels near and downstream of the well field under alternative 

1 (no action), creating site specific and local impacts on flow rates and extent. The duration of 

excessively warm low-flow water temperatures would continue to be about 1 or 2 weeks longer per 

year than under prepumping conditions; an adverse effect on aquatic uses and fish. All of these effects 

could be exacerbated over the long term by possible climate changes toward more extended drier 

conditions, with resultant adverse effects to the quality of habitat for aquatic species and fish.

As stated previously, the majority of the most important North Fork aquatic habitat and brook trout 

habitat (occurring in the historically and currently perennial upper reaches further upstream from the 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells and the North Fork gage) are not being measurably affected by North 

Fork Eagle Creek well pumping and this would not change with implementation of alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

As described in the water resources of this chapter, cumulative water resources impacts include 

ongoing reductions in flow and water quality along Eagle Creek within the cumulative impact area, 

due primarily to reduced groundwater recharge. Additional water supply developments in the region 

would create further impacts to surface water, groundwater, and associated resources. 

Combining the direct and indirect effects to aquatic habitat and fish with other past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions with the larger drainage (as summarized in table 4 and figure 4) and for 

water resources above, implementation of alternative 1 (no change) would result in minor to moderate 

adverse cumulative effects to aquatic habitat and fish similar to those described for water resources.

The burn severity of the Little Bear Fire burn was high or moderate throughout 53 percent of the 

wildfire boundary. Bury et al. (no date) reports that some research on large, stand-replacing wildfires 

on lotic biota suggests that wildfire ultimately benefits aquatic invertebrates and fishes, even those 

species that are negatively affected by the disturbance in the short-term, immediately after the 

wildfire. For example, Lyon suggested that some aquatic invertebrates may decline immediately after 

a wildfire, then increase to levels above pre-wildfire conditions as a response to increased stream 

productivity. Large fires can have long-term effects on streams by: (1) reducing invertebrate diversity 

for a decade or longer; (2) changes in peak discharge, stream channel morphology, large woody 

debris inputs, and sediment loadings; and (3) elevated temperature and altered water chemistry. Also, 

the effects of wildfire on stream biota may be more pronounced in headwater streams than in midorder or larger streams. McCormick, et.al.(2010) provide references that indicate that where native 

fish populations are naturally depauperate or have declined and become increasingly isolated because 

of anthropogenic activities, the effects on fish populations are more pervasive and long lasting.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Conclusion 

Implementation of alternative 1 (no change) would result in a “may impact” determination to aquatic 

habitat and fish species (primarily nonnative brook trout and rainbow trout) and their habitat. 

In some locations, the accumulation of sediment and debris in the stream channel due to the Little 

Bear Fire could physically increase the depth to saturated conditions below the new surface of the 

channel bed. Flows in intermittent parts of the North Fork Eagle Creek are understood to be related to 

shallower alluvial deposits over near-surface bedrock. In some locations, greater thickness of newlydeposited alluvium could reduce the presence of surface flow or pooling. Pumping at historic levels 

under this alternative could further reduce the occurrence of surface flow or pools under short-term 

post-wildfire conditions (AECOM 2015).

Reduced water flow in the North Fork Eagle Creek compared to no pumping would impact the 

ecology of many aquatic organisms including aquatic flora and fish. There are no listed, management 

indicator, or sensitive fish species in the North Fork of Eagle Creek. There will be no disturbance to 

aquatic and fish species from activities at the well sites including road maintenance, well house 

activities, maintenance of underground power line and pipeline, well operation, vehicle ingress and 

egress, and mechanical maintenance of the wells because there will be no soil movement into the 

stream because of conservation measures. There are no connected actions that would affect fisheries. 

Cumulative effects contributed to this determination.

Update to overall effects from Alternative 1 due to the Little Bear Fire: 

No fish were observed in the upper perennial reaches (upstream of the North Fork gage) during 

surveys conducted in 2013 after the wildfire. Aquatic invertebrates typically decline immediately after 

a wildfire. In the short-term, reduced water quality, channel morphology changes, and deeper alluvial 

deposits due to the wildfire would continue to reduce the fish and aquatic habitat quality in the project 

area while the watershed is recovering. Pools and stretches of surface water may be reduced and this 

would affect aquatic habitat and fish presence. Continued pumping under alternative 1 during the 

short-term is expected to continue to limit the potential for fish and aquatic habitat improvement. 

Over the long term, after post-wildfire recovery, watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. Aquatic invertebrates could respond positively to increased 

stream productivity but the timeframe for this recovery is difficult to predict. Water yield and 

groundwater availability may improve as shown in the water resources analysis and debris flows 

could result in a more dynamic channel environment benefiting fish habitat. However, continued 

pumping would obscure some of these potential benefits. Therefore, adverse effects from 

implementing alternative 1 over the long term would be the same as, or slightly less than, the prewildfire assessment for alternative 1.

Alternative 2 - No Action (No Pumping) 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The comparison and analysis of other alternatives were made using alternative 2, the no pumping 

alternative as the baseline condition.

Over the short term (i.e., until watershed recovery after the Little Bear Fire), effects under this 

alternative would encourage the occurrence of stream flows and increased groundwater levels along 

the North Fork Eagle Creek. Large portions of the stream would remain intermittent during periods of 

average precipitation. In some locations, the accumulation of sediment and debris in the stream 

channel could physically increase the depth to saturated conditions below the new surface of the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 161

channel bed. Flows in intermittent parts of the North Fork Eagle Creek are understood to be related to 

shallower alluvial deposits over near-surface bedrock. In some locations, greater thickness of newlydeposited alluvium could reduce the presence of surface flow or pooling, even without pumping. If 

this occurs, it would be less frequent or extensive than under alternative 1(AECOM 2015).

As shown in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter, increased surface flows would result from 

implementation of alternative 2 (no pumping). Intermittent flows would occur from slightly above the 

well field downstream to the Eagle Creek gage, wherever alluvial deposits entirely absorb 

streamflows, as occurred before pumping began. On the basis of historical prepumping data, the 

occurrence of no-flow days at the Eagle Creek gage would be substantially reduced or eliminated. 

Similarly, flows greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second would occur approximately 57 percent of the 

time under average precipitation conditions. This would increase opportunities for watershed 

improvement and allow increased water availability for other uses. 

Streamflow temperatures would still exceed 68 degrees Fahrenheit during part of the summer season, 

but this would occur for a total of about 4 weeks or so under average conditions and is thought to be 

within the normal range for this stream system historically. Climate change impacts could still occur, 

which have the potential to reduce flows and increase water temperatures over time, but there would 

be more flexibility and time available to select and implement climate change strategies for water 

resources management. 

These improvements in streamflow quantity and quality would improve aquatic and fish habitat in the 

North Fork and provide for improved recreational fishing opportunities over the long term.

The most important North Fork Eagle Creek aquatic habitat and brook trout habitat (occurring in the 

historically and currently perennial upper reaches further upstream from the North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells and the North Fork gage) are not being measurably affected by North Fork Eagle Creek well 

pumping. However, by stopping all pumping, any potential for effects above the North Fork gage 

would be eliminated. 

Cumulative Effects

Beneficial cumulative recharge effects to aquifers, springs and seeps, and possibly stream base flows 

may result under alternative 2 (no pumping) within parts of the Eagle Creek drainage. The magnitude 

and extent of these effects is unknown, since it is likely that the village would continue to exercise its 

water rights and make withdrawals elsewhere in the Eagle Creek system. Impacts from such activities 

could offset beneficial impacts from no pumping at the North Fork Eagle Creek well field.

Combining the direct and indirect effects to aquatic habitat and fish with other past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions within the larger drainage (as summarized in table 4 and figure 4) and for 

water resources above, implementation of alternative 2 (no pumping) has the potential to improve 

aquatic and fish habitat and recreational fishing in the larger Eagle Creek, but since the magnitude 

and extent of other water withdrawals in the larger drainage in the future is unknown, beneficial 

effects could be offset in the cumulative impact area. 

The following discussion is relevant to the post-wildfire situation. Bury et al. (no date) reported that 

some research on large, stand-replacing wildfires on lotic biota suggests that wildfire ultimately 

benefits aquatic invertebrates and fishes, even those species that are negatively affected by the 

disturbance immediately after the wildfire. For example, Lyon suggested that some aquatic 

invertebrates may decline immediately after a wildfire, then increase to levels above pre-wildfire

conditions as a response to increased stream productivity. Large fires can have long-term effects on 

streams by: (1) reduced invertebrate diversity for a decade or longer; (2) changes in peak discharge, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

stream channel morphology, large woody debris inputs, and sediment loadings; and (3) elevated 

temperature and altered water chemistry. Also, the effects of wildfire on stream biota may be more 

pronounced in headwater streams than in mid-order or larger streams. McCormick, et al. (2010) 

provide references that indicate that where native fish populations are naturally depauperate or have 

declined and become increasingly isolated because of anthropogenic activities, the effects on fish 

populations are more pervasive and long lasting.

Conclusion

Implementing alternative 2 (no pumping) would result in a “beneficial impact” determination for 

aquatic and fish habitat. 

Update to overall effects from Alternative 2 due to the Little Bear Fire:

In the short term, reduced water quality, channel morphology changes, and deeper alluvial deposits 

due to the wildfire would continue to reduce the fish and aquatic habitat quality in the project area 

while the watershed is recovering. The effects of no pumping, however, would encourage the 

occurrence of streamflow and increased groundwater levels (more so than under alternative 1) 

although large portions of the stream would remain intermittent during periods of average 

precipitation. Pools and stretches of surface water may be reduced and this would affect aquatic 

habitat and fish presence. Under alternative 2, the potential for fish and aquatic habitat improvement 

will continue to be limited but not as much as under alternative 1. 

Over the long term, after watershed recovery, effects from no pumping would be the same as those 

described in the pre-wildfire assessment for alternative 2. Aquatic invertebrates could respond 

positively to increased stream productivity but the timeframe for this recovery is difficult to predict. 

Water yield and groundwater availability may improve as shown in the water resources analysis and 

debris flows could result in a more dynamic channel environment benefiting fish habitat. With the 

cessation of pumping, these potential benefits could be increased Therefore, beneficial effects from 

implementing alternative 2 over the long term would be the same as, or slightly more than, the prewildfire assessment for alternative 2.

Alternative 3 - Adaptive Management

Direct and Indirect Effects

The comparison and analysis of alternative 3 is made using alternative 2, the no pumping alternative 

as the baseline condition. As stated in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter, implementing 

alternative 3 (adaptive management), would result in improved surface water and groundwater 

availability in the North Fork Eagle Creek over current conditions, and intermittent flow durations in 

the stream would be generally similar to prepumping conditions; summer stream temperatures would 

also be roughly similar to those experienced historically. Because surface flow would improve, noflow days would be reduced (but not eliminated) and there would be a reduction in the duration of 

stream temperatures above 68 degrees Fahrenheit; aquatic habitat and fishing potential would 

improve over current conditions; these changes would be less than those for alternative 2 (no 

pumping) but greater than those for alternative 1 (no action). 

However, continued removal of water from the basin would affect fish habitat in the stream by 

continuing to reduce waterflows from historic prepumping conditions which would continue to create 

dry periods and the potential for extended durations of elevated water temperature. The adaptive 

management strategy as part of alternative 3 (adaptive management) would minimize impacts during 

dry periods and provide opportunities to reduce the potential for adverse effects to aquatic habitat and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 163

fish. Over the long term, possible climate change effects could occur, but their effects would be 

accommodated to the extent possible under the adaptive management approach.

The most important North Fork aquatic and brook trout habitat (occurring in the historically and 

currently perennial upper reaches further upstream from the North Fork Eagle Creek wells and the 

North Fork gage) are not being measurably affected by North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping. With 

restrictions on pumping, any potential for effects above the North Fork gage would be minimized. 

Under alternative 3, potential water resources impacts in the North Fork Eagle Creek over the shortterm (three to seven years) after the Little Bear Fire may be limited by the application of pumping 

restrictions. During this period, however, the impacts of natural post-wildfire watershed and channel 

adjustments will override some of the pumping impacts and some of the adaptive management effort. 

Even with stabilization efforts, watershed side slopes will continue to erode for a period of years 

under the severe rainfall events common to the region. This will decline over time on side slopes 

during the short-term recovery period, but a much longer period will involve active sediment and 

debris accumulation and transport through the valley, the North Fork Eagle Creek channel system,

and downstream action. 

During the short term, channel re-configuring processes will modify the locations and durations of 

open channel flow or pools. This will be most noticeable after severe rainfall events. Similarly, 

riparian conditions at a given point along the North Fork Eagle Creek will be modified through 

natural post-wildfire adjustments to the channel bed and banks. Adaptive management practices have 

been re-oriented toward monitoring well placement and recording, in an effort to minimize the 

reliance on shifting channel and stream gage conditions. During the short term post-wildfire recovery 

period, pumping effects would be limited to the extent possible through an iterative and adaptive 

approach as the landscape, stream channel, and groundwater recharge processes adjust to the wildfire

disturbance.

Effects would be similar to alternative 2 because surface flow would improve, no-flow days would be 

reduced (but not eliminated) and there would be a reduction in the duration of stream temperatures 

above 68 degrees Fahrenheit; these changes would result in improved aquatic habitat and fishing 

potential, but these changes would be less than those for alternative 2 but greater than those for 

alternative 1 (Table 3, chapter 2, Supplemental Information Report).

Cumulative Effects

There would be cumulative impacts to surface water and groundwater availability as described in the 

“Water Resources” section. Adaptive management under an approved permit authorization would 

help address cumulative impacts and water supply issues as they were identified. Ongoing water 

supply developments and activities on National Forest System lands, as described under alternative 1 

(no action), would add to regional, long-term impacts to water resources and, thus, would have 

potential to adversely impact aquatic resources due to reductions in groundwater and surface water 

availability in the cumulative assessment area.

Combining the direct and indirect effects to aquatic habitat and fish with other past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions within the larger drainage (as summarized in table 4 and figure 4) and for 

water resources above, implementation of alternative 3 (adaptive management) has the potential to 

result in cumulative effects to aquatic and fish habitat and recreational fishing in the larger Eagle 

Creek drainage due to reductions in surface water and groundwater availability. However, 

implementation of adaptive management would help to minimize cumulative impacts. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

In June of 2012, the Little Bear Fire burned approximately 35,300 acres of National Forest System 

Lands on the Smokey Bear Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest, with a total burn area 

44,330 acres as of June 28, 2012. The burn severity was high or moderate throughout 53 percent of 

the wildfire. Bury et al.(no date) report that some research on large, stand-replacing wildfires on lotic 

biota suggests that wildfire ultimately benefits aquatic invertebrates and fishes, even those species 

that are negatively affected by the disturbance immediately after the wildfire. For example, Lyon 

suggested that some aquatic invertebrates may decline immediately after a wildfire, then increase to 

levels above pre-wildfire conditions as a response to increased stream productivity. Large fires can 

have long-term effects on streams by: (1) reducing invertebrate diversity for a decade or longer; (2) 

changes in peak discharge, stream channel morphology, large woody debris inputs, and sediment 

loadings; and (3) elevated temperature and altered water chemistry. Also, the effects of wildfire on 

stream biota may be more pronounced in headwater streams than in mid-order or larger streams.

McCormick, et al.(2010) provide references that indicate that where native fish populations are 

naturally depauperate or have declined and become increasingly isolated because of anthropogenic 

activities, the effects on fish populations are more pervasive and long lasting. There are no connected 

actions that would add to the cumulative effects. 

Conclusion

Implementation of alternative 3 (adaptive management), may impact aquatic habitat and fish habitat 

(primarily nonnative brook trout and rainbow trout habitat) including habitat for many aquatic 

organisms and aquatic plants when compared to a no pumping situation; continued pumping would 

prohibit full recovery to pre-pumping conditions, but closely monitored pumping, as described for 

alternative 3 (adaptive management), would be an improvement over existing conditions.

There would be no disturbance to aquatic or fish species’ habitat from activities at the well sites 

including road maintenance, well house activities, maintenance of underground power line and 

pipeline, well operation, vehicle ingress and egress, and mechanical maintenance of the wells because 

there would be no soil movement into the stream and because of implementing conservation 

measures.

Update to overall effects from Alternative 3 due to the Little Bear Fire: 

In the short term, reduced water quality, channel morphology changes, and deeper alluvial deposits 

due to the wildfire would continue to reduce the fish and aquatic habitat quality in the project area 

while the watershed is recovering. During the short term post-wildfire recovery period, pumping 

effects would be limited to the extent possible through an iterative and adaptive approach as the 

landscape, stream channel, and groundwater recharge processes adjust to the wildfire disturbance. 

Under alternative 3, the potential for fish and aquatic habitat improvement would continue to be 

limited but not as much as under alternative 1. 

Over the long term, during dry years, adaptive management would improve flow conditions and 

reduce the amount of no-flow days along the North Fork Eagle Creek. With respect to surface flows 

and alluvial groundwater levels, an approximate middle ground between alternative 1 and 2 would be 

attained during average precipitation years under alternative 3.

In the long term (after post-wildfire recovery), watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. If conifer stands burned at moderate to high severity convert to 

grass or shrubs, less evapotranspiration could improve water yield and groundwater availability. If 

this occurs with adaptive management of North Fork Eagle Creek pumping under alternative 3, 

aquatic habitats could be enhanced and additional opportunities for improving riparian conditions 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 165

could result. Therefore, beneficial effects from implementing alternative 3 over the long-term would 

be the same as the pre-wildfire assessment for alternative 3.

Summary

Implementation of alternative 2 (no action) and alternative 3 (adaptive management), would both 

achieve the second need statement for this project which is “protecting natural resources on the 

national forest by maintaining adequate surface and groundwater flows to sustain or improve the 

riparian and aquatic ecosystems that may be affected by groundwater drawdown from the pumping of 

these wells”; alternative 2 (no action) would likely improve aquatic and fish habitat while alternative 

3 (adaptive management) would likely sustain aquatic and fish habitat. Because both alternatives 

would either sustain or improve aquatic habitat quality, both alternatives meet this need. However, 

alternative 2 (no action), would move the project area toward desired conditions quicker than 

alternative 3 (adaptive management). Alternative 1 (no change) does not meet this need statement 

since long-term adverse impacts to streamflows and aquatic habitat and fish are predicted, particularly 

when combined with long-term shifts in climatic conditions.

Significant Issue: Riparian Vegetation 

Relevant forest plan direction related to riparian vegetation in this project is included in chapter 1. We 

used this direction to guide the analysis of the effects of the alternatives to riparian resources.

We include a more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental 

consequences for this project in the riparian report (Miller 2012a and Miller 2015a). The 

supplemental riparian report (Miller 2015) provides a more detailed description of affected 

environment, methods, and environmental consequences, considering the changes caused by the Little 

Bear Fire. These reports are incorporated by reference, discussed briefly below, and available in their 

entirety in the project record.

Methodology 

In order to determine existing conditions, we conducted riparian vegetation surveys in 2010 and 2011 

in order to characterize the vegetation along the North Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork) and provide a 

comparison for future monitoring to determine changes over time. The field protocol we used was 

created by the Stream Systems Technology Center (Merritt and Dwire 2008). We collected tree 

composition, stem density, basal area, frequency, dominance, and importance at each plot and 

elevation above the channel and we calculated distance from the active channel from survey data and 

through use of 2009 National Agriculture Imagery Program aerial imagery using ArcGIS 9.3. Merritt 

and Dwire (2008) and Miller (2012a) provide detailed field methods, preliminary results, and 

photographs. Analysis and interpretation of this baseline riparian vegetation data is provided in 

Merritt and Bevan (2011) and Miller (2012a) and summarized in this section. 

In order to determine the conditions of riparian vegetation before North Fork Eagle Creek well 

pumping began in 1988 and whether North Fork riparian vegetation has changed as a result, 

qualitative differences in vegetation along the North Fork Eagle Creek and South Fork Rio Bonito 

were made through use of photographs taken in July 2011 (Merritt and Bevan 2011), as described in 

more detail in the next section. We explored other methods to assist in describing pre-well pumping 

riparian conditions and these are summarized in the next section and provided in detail in Merritt and

Bevan (2011) and Miller (2012a). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

166 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

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

These water quantity changes could indirectly affect the quantity and quality of riparian vegetation 

along the stream corridor. Alternatives are compared using the following indicators:

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

implementing each alternative. 

Species Composition: Predicted qualitative shifts in communities over time, based on implementing 

each alternative. 

The analysis of the alternatives presented in this section is qualitative and predicts the effect of 

proposed actions on riparian vegetation and riparian tree species within the North Fork Eagle Creek. 

We characterize short-term effects as 1 to 10 years and long-term effects as 10 to 20 years. We 

selected the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area (figure 2) as the spatial effects boundary it 

contains the area of predicted direct/indirect effects from projected drawdown (figure 12 and figure 

13). Accordingly, the cumulative effects boundary matches the largest area of indirect effects. 

Analysis emphasis was put on the North Fork below the North Fork gage since this area is within the 

cone of depression as identified by Matherne et al. (2011) and within the area of drawdown as 

depicted in figure 12 and figure 13 meaning that this area is the most likely to show changes to 

riparian vegetation due to changes in hydrology. Cumulative effects were determined using Lincoln 

National Forest shapefiles of past project areas and considered past, present, and foreseeable future 

actions as described in table 4 and figure 4. Baseline information used to assess impacts to riparian 

vegetation was provided by USDA Forest Service specialists using professional judgment. 

While the area has been examined during the Burned Area Emergency Response effort and some 

quantitative work has been done (Kuhar 2012 and 2013), the original transects that established the 

2010 riparian vegetation condition were not sampled again.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

There is minimal information and data regarding the condition and extent of riparian vegetation along 

the North Fork prior to well pumping. We have no baseline vegetation monitoring or any photo 

sampling prior to the initiation of North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping in 1988. Because of this, we 

attempted to establish a reference reach (another physically and hydrologically similar stream that 

might emulate prepumping conditions along the North Fork). We initially considered several areas 

(South Fork Eagle Creek, North Fork Eagle Creek upstream from the wells and above the North Fork 

stream gage, Eagle Creek below the Eagle Creek gage, Turkey Canyon, Bear Creek, upper watershed 

of South Fork Rio Bonito, Bonito Creek, Cedar Creek and South Fork of Rio Bonito). With the 

exception of South Fork Rio Bonito, none of these other reaches met the criteria for a suitable 

reference reach based on various rigorous GIS analyses of physical conditions, opinions from local 

district staff familiar with these areas, and/or field visits. South Fork Rio Bonito seemed the most 

similar to the North Fork Eagle Creek based on physical attributes and we field checked it in 2011. 

This field check concluded that, while the reach had similar characteristics, it was different enough 

than the North Fork Eagle Creek in several factors that it raised doubt about whether it would provide 

a suitable comparison. For purposes of this analysis, we did not pursue a quantitative comparison for 

these reasons. However, detailed photos were taken along South Fork Rio Bonito during 2011 and 

were used to provide some qualitative generalized comparisons to riparian vegetation potential along 

the North Fork Eagle Creek. Merritt and Bevan (2011) provide more details regarding this 

comparison and the results.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 167

We obtained prepumping aerial images of the North Fork Eagle Creek and they showed significant 

flooding in 1986 and 2007/2008 between photographic periods (prepumping images from 1987; 

postpumping images from 1994 and 2009) and this likely obscured any changes in channel form that 

might have been attributable to upstream groundwater pumping and depletion of surface flow and 

groundwater levels. Changes attributable to altered groundwater levels and streamflow can include 

channel narrowing or channel widening depending upon the type of alteration and the setting; we 

could not ascertain this from the aerial photo analysis.

Affected Environment

Current Conditions

Riparian vegetation along the North Fork is comprised largely of upland, xeric species. This is 

indicative of riparian areas adjacent to streams with intermittent flow and water tables sufficiently 

deep to exclude many phreatophytes5 and plants with high water requirements. 

There are seven primary community types represented but the most frequently occurring plant 

community type is the creeping bentgrass/orchard-grass/fringed brome community, followed by the 

marsh muhly/wheatgrass community. 

Seven species in all the sampled quadrats6 were facultative wetland plant species7 (occurring in 

wetlands 67 to 99 percent of the time), as shown in table 12, and these facultative wetland species 

make up only 13 percent of all species sampled. With the exception of marsh muhly, none of these 

species were community dominants and none occurred in more than three quadrats. All of the 

facultative wetland species were native to New Mexico with the exception of common sheep sorrel 

and curly dock. There were no obligate wetland species8 (occuring in wetlands 99 percent of the time) 

in any sampled quadrat. Rooting depths for these species are also noted in table 12.

Table 12. Species classified as facultative wetland plants (Reed 1988) occurring in the North Fork Eagle 

Creek sampled quadrats

Common Name 

Species Species

Number of

Quadrats

Minimum Rooting Depth 

(inches)a

boxelder Acer negundo 2 40

Parry’s thistle Cirsium parryi 1 Not applicable

largeleaf avens Geum macrophyllum 1 12

marsh muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa 13 8

cutleaf coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata 3 12

common sheep sorrel Rumex acetosela 3 Not applicable

curly dock Rumex crispus 3 Not applicable

a - From USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012: http://plants.usda.gov

We recorded four tree species in sampled plots and we used their relative density, dominance, and 

frequency to develop an importance value (as described in more detail in Merritt and Bevan (2011) 

 5 A plant with a deep root system that draws its water supply from near the water table.

6 A quadrat is a square (of either metal, wood, or plastic) used in ecology and geography to isolate a sample, usually about 

1m2 or 0.25m2

. The quadrat is suitable for sampling plants, slow moving animals (such as millipedes and insects), and 

some aquatic organisms. 7 Facultative wetland species usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67–99 percent), but are occasionally found in 

nonwetlands. 8 Obligate wetland species occur almost always (estimated probability 99 percent) under natural conditions in wetlands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

168 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

and Miller (2012a)). These species, ranked from most important to least important, are as follows: 

white fir, ponderosa pine, boxelder, and Mexican white pine.

Boxelder is the only species on this list that is considered a riparian species due to its dependence on 

shallow groundwater. Boxelder ranked below or nearly equal to the upland species occurring on the 

valley bottom, indicating that it is no more abundant in the North Fork riparian areas than drought 

tolerant upland species. Both Pacific willow and Wooton’s hawthorn (a Forest Service sensitive 

species) occur along the sampled North Fork reach, but none were sampled in the inventory. Pacific 

willow is a riparian species dependent upon shallow water tables (with a minimum rooting depth of 

10 inches) and Wooton’s hawthorn is a riparian species indicative of relatively shallow groundwater; 

because this species is a Forest Service sensitive species, it is discussed further in the “Vegetation” 

section later in this chapter, under “Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species.”

The presence of willow, Wooton’s hawthorn and seven facultative wetland species indicates that the 

North Fork Eagle Creek maintains some moister microhabitats with sufficiently shallow groundwater 

and or soil moisture to support such species.

Conditions before Pumping Began in 1988

Data relating to the pre-well pumping riparian vegetation in the project area is sparse. Fish survey 

reports from the 1960s (Little 1960a, b; Little 1961) include notes regarding vegetation in the project 

area (shoreline vegetation was ponderosa pine with various grasses and forbs) and include photos at 

sampling stations that closely resemble current vegetation, with ponderosa pine and grass along 

streambanks. Range reports (Edwards 1963, Edwards 1964) include notes that the area was comprised 

of several vegetation types including mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, mountain bunchgrass and 

bluegrass bottom and that the area had “deteriorated” to a Kentucky bluegrass, forb type with an 

increase in erosion. Medlock (2011) provides a compelling case for the lower half of the North Fork 

being intermittent prior to pumping. Included in his report is an historical photo of the area showing 

vegetation similar to current vegetation in the area above the well field in 1947. Of particular note in 

this photo is the lack of obligate wetland species one would associate with a riparian community 

along a perennial stream (e.g. willow and cottonwood in the overstory).

Though we do not know the prepumping condition of North Fork riparian vegetation, we do know 

there has been reduced water availability along the North Fork since the North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells began pumping, as described in more detail in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter. 

Reduced water availability can affect riparian vegetation. Reduced water availability for plants can 

also be influenced by flood deposited alluvium in the valley bottom of the North Fork which raises 

the flood plain and channel, and causes the stream to flow below the alluvium. Either of these factors 

could explain the existing conditions and composition of the riparian vegetation along the North Fork. 

Figure 16 illustrates a typical reach of the North Fork during the 2011 survey. We did note significant 

changes in the aerial extent of coarse alluvium and channel widening in aerial images taken after 

major flooding in 1986 and in 2007/2008. For comparison, figure 17 illustrates a typical reach along 

South Fork Rio Bonito during the 2011 field visit. While we determined that, based on the current 

level of information, South Fork Rio Bonito may not provide a suitable reference reach from which to 

establish a baseline survey and quantitatively compare to survey results from the North Fork Eagle 

Creek, it provided a useful tool for visual comparison and inferences about riparian potential along 

the North Fork if there were more sustained elevated water tables. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 169

Figure 16. North Fork Eagle Creek showing channel and adjacent vegetation (photographs taken by

Terry Miller in July 2011)

The upper and lower left frames of figure 16 show a dry streambed, with vegetation on either side of 

a barren channel. A solitary Salix lucida, shown in the left lower frame, looks to be in poor condition 

either from drought stress or browsing. The lower right frame shows a quadrat (R2T1P1) that is 

dominated by Sprorobolus cryptandrus and follows into the community of the same name. The plot 

also contains Artemisia ludoviciana and Muhlenbergia racemosa. 

The riparian vegetation in figure 17 appears roughly similar in composition with the North Fork Eagle 

Creek, but with higher abundance than seen in figure 16. This may be indicative of more sustained 

elevated water tables along the South Fork Rio Bonito compared to the North Fork. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

170 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Figure 17. South Fork Rio Bonito showing various degrees of intermittent to perennial flows

(photographs taken by Terry Miller in July 2011) 

Conditions Following the Little Bear Fire 

The Little Bear Fire burned throughout the analysis area. Burn intensities in the riparian area (200 feet 

on each side of Eagle Creek) were low in general. Approximately 82 acres (47 percent of total 

riparian) were underburned, 93 acres (53 percent of total riparian) burned at low intensity and 1 acre 

(less than 1 percent of total riparian) burned at moderate intensity. 

A field visit on November 19, 2013 revealed that most of the riparian vegetation in the sampling area 

looked minimally unaffected by the wildfire and related indirect effects such as flooding. Some sites 

showed signs overland flow of sediment where vegetation was buried at the time of the field visit. 

Most transects were missing at least one of the rebar pieces marking the beginning or end of the 

transect. Bank erosion had scoured away at least five meters of bank at Reach 3 Transect 1.

Additionally, neither piece of rebar was located at this transect. Larger and more durable transect 

markers will have to be placed using GPS and photos from the monitoring report. The area most 

affected (in the reaches where riparian monitoring took place) by the flooding following the wildfire

is at the confluence of the north and south forks of Eagle Creek. Deep cobble dominates the area from 

Reach 4, Transect 2 to Reach 4, Transect 1, which totals approximately 400 feet (700 feet from the 

gage at the road).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 171

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Change

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no direct effects to riparian vegetation from continuing current pumping operations under 

alternative 1 (no action). However, indirect effects are likely. Indirect effects would occur when water 

table drawdown limits available moisture to riparian vegetation and creates sustained water tables 

below the minimum rooting depths for facultative wetland species (table 12). This can cause poor 

growth, reduced seed production, and in severe enough cases, the death of individual plants, loss of 

species, and vegetation change.

As described in the “Water Resources” section earlier in this chapter, the general duration of no 

surface flow days at the Eagle Creek gage is approximately 1 to 2 weeks during average precipitation

periods and approximately 8 to 10 weeks during drought periods. Streamflow quantities are 

anticipated to decline over the long term from climate change effects, with the spatial extent and 

duration of no-flow conditions increasing along the North Fork. The presence of flows equal to or 

greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second would decline, which would reduce water availability in the 

alluvium for plant growth and sustenance. Opportunities for maintaining or improving watershed 

condition on National Forest System lands in the upper Eagle Creek drainage would become severely 

limited.

If groundwater levels were lowered below present levels for a sustained period of time and surface 

flow was to become less frequent, it is very likely that vegetation change would occur. This shift 

would likely include a decrease or loss in those species dependent upon shallow groundwater (table 

12), and an increase in xeric, upland plant species. Factors that distinguish riparian areas from 

uplands include the presence of shallow groundwater and periodic flood-related disturbance (Merritt 

et al. 2010).

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

processes, reductions in groundwater levels could cause riparian areas to become compositionally 

similar to adjacent uplands. Shifts in vegetation along riparian areas correspond to the degree of 

hydrologic change. Minor changes (e.g., small reductions in groundwater levels) could result in a 

shift in species to lower elevations closer to the water table and nearer the active channel. Such shifts 

are common along streams in response to the availability of water (Merritt et al. 2010). However, 

once groundwater levels (and subsequent vadose zones9 and seasonal soil moisture) fall below the 

threshold of the water requirements of a species, those species will not persist in the system. The 

vadose zone extends from the top of the ground surface to the water table.

If groundwater were depleted and surface flow were reduced from its current state along the North 

Fork, one might initially expect boxelder, Pacific willow, and other phreatophytic shrubs and trees to 

temporarily show signs of drought stress and reduced canopy cover. Shifts and losses of the primary 

community types along the North Fork would likely occur as well. Chronic reduction in groundwater 

levels during the growing season would likely result in the loss of phreatophytes, and conversion to 

upland forest and meadow, and the potential for communities not currently represented along the 

North Fork to become established. In such a scenario, communities in and along the channel may be 

 9 Vadose water is located in the pore spaces of a rock or soil, in the zone of soil or rock between the ground surface and the 

water table.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

172 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

well represented by ruderal species10, generalists, and those natives adapted to periodically disturbed, 

dry conditions.

Species Composition:

Although most of the North Fork riparian vegetation is well adapted to dry periods, maintaining 

diversity in the riparian area relies on retaining the facultative wetland species and the communities in 

which they live. While elements of these species and communities would probably remain in 

microsites, it is likely that vegetation would shift toward the channel and to lower elevations nearer 

the water table under alternative 1 (no action). 

Riparian Tree Species Canopy Cover:

Boxelder would likely remain in the North Fork Eagle Creek riparian area at its currently low levels 

in even the most extreme drawdown scenarios due to the widespread nature of the species and the 

continued recruitment of new generations. However, only nine individual Pacific willow plants were 

identified and there appears to be no recruitment of younger age classes even though the adult plants 

looked healthy. 

Updates to Direct/Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

The Little Bear Fire will likely result in a shifting of sediment and cobble around as seen in the area 

between Reach 4, Transect 2 to Reach 4, Transect 1(AECOM 2015). The instability of the channel 

could result in some riparian areas being buried and an increase in alluvium that would reduce surface 

flow in the short term. However, these effects could be offset by the opportunity for species such as 

willows to colonize new areas. Water availability to riparian vegetation is not likely to be greatly 

changed as a result of the Little Bear Fire in the long term. One possibility is that there might be a 

slight increase in water availability if large portions of the upland vegetation convert to shrub species 

(AECOM 2015). While possible, this conversion is not a forgone conclusion. However, nearby 

burned areas have converted from upland vegetation to shrub species (Kuhar 2013).

Cumulative Effects

Implementing past, present, and future activities within the North Fork drainage area (figure 2 and 

table 4) with implementing alternative 1 (no action) would result in no more than minor cumulative 

impacts to riparian vegetation because these activities do not typically take place in the riparian 

corridors or would have effects that are so small in magnitude as to be irrelevant.

Streamside riparian vegetation outside of the North Fork drainage area was not included in the 

cumulative effects boundary (based on the definition and rationale for spatial boundaries we present 

in the “Methodology” section) but we did qualitatively consider it using the results of the water 

resources evaluation in this larger area. As stated in the “Water Resources” section, cumulative water 

resources impacts would involve ongoing reductions in flow and water quality along Eagle Creek 

within the larger upper Eagle Creek cumulative impact area, due primarily to reduced groundwater 

recharge. These would be adverse, long term and regional impacts that would range in severity from 

moderate to severe. Additional water supply developments in the region would create further impacts 

to surface water and groundwater; these impacts would also likely result in adverse impacts to 

associated resources, like streamside riparian vegetation. The level of site-specific effect to riparian 

vegetation further downstream and outside the North Fork Eagle Creek project area cannot, however, 

be predicted with certainty.

 10 A ruderal species is a plant species that is first to colonize disturbed lands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 173

Updates to Cumulative Impacts from Alternative 1 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

The Little Bear Fire was widespread across several drainage basins, including Little Creek and the 

Rio Bonito. Widespread cumulative wildfire impacts on surface runoff, groundwater recharge, and 

water quality were described in the water resources report (AECOM 2015). Riparian vegetation 

downstream and outside the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area could experience greater 

cumulative impacts since the footprint of effects from the Little Bear Fire is so large.

Conclusion

Implementing alternative 1 (no change) could result in the loss of Pacific willow, which is an 

important component of the North Fork riparian vegetation diversity. However, based on the best 

available information, this stretch of the North Fork was intermittent before the wells began pumping 

and exhibited periodic stretches of no flow regardless of pumping. Pacific willow, then, has probably 

never been a major component of the vegetation in this area, but is well represented in the perennial 

portion of the North Fork upstream from the wells. This upstream area would not be affected by 

implementation of alternative 1 (no change), as described in more detail in the “Aquatic Habitat and 

Fish” section earlier in this chapter. 

Implementing alternative 1 (no change), then, would either marginally maintain current riparian 

vegetation condition in the project area in the short term or result in some declines due to continued 

reductions in water availability. Over the long term, however, climate change induced shifts toward 

drier conditions, as described in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter, would result in 

additional stress to riparian vegetation and would experience adverse effects. Therefore, alternative 1 

(no change) may be in compliance with the forest plan over the short term, but would not achieve the 

purpose and need for action or project objectives and would not move the project area toward desired 

conditions over the long term.

Update to overall effects from Alternative 1 due to the Little Bear Fire: 

In the short-term, wildfire effects are likely to result in a shifting of sediment and cobble. This 

channel instability could result in some riparian areas being buried and an increase in alluvium that 

would reduce surface flow. However, these adverse effects to riparian tree species and communities 

could be offset by the opportunity for species such as willows to colonize new areas.

Over the long term, water yield and groundwater availability may improve as shown in the water 

resources analysis, benefiting riparian habitat. However, continued pumping would obscure some of 

these potential benefits. Therefore, adverse effects from implementing alternative 1 over the long

term would be the same as, or slightly less than, the pre-wildfire assessment for alternative 1.

Alternative 2 - No Pumping 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Implementing alternative 2 (no pumping) would result in direct adverse effects to a small portion of 

the riparian vegetation because of ground disturbance related to removing pumps. This could result in 

plants being uprooted, crushed, and killed. Due to the size of area of disturbance and implementation 

of project design features, this effect would be minor and short term. 

Indirect beneficial effects from alternative 2 (no pumping) would result from an increase in available 

moisture for riparian vegetation. While surface flow would remain consistent with an intermittent 

stream, increases in surface flow and groundwater and subsequent moisture available for plant growth 

would provide an opportunity for riparian vegetation expansion. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

174 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Species Composition:

Facultative wetland species would be beneficially affected by implementing alternative 2 (no 

pumping). Increases in communities featuring facultative wetland species would likely occur due to 

increased water availability, but the magnitude of change would likely be relatively minor. Over the 

long term, these positive changes could be affected by climate change and may be less widespread 

with shifts toward drier conditions, as described in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter.

Riparian Tree Species Canopy Cover:

Boxelder would remain relatively constant or would increase somewhat under implementation of 

alternative 2 (no pumping), and Pacific willow would likely increase due to improved moisture for 

seedling establishment. Over the long term, these positive changes could be affected by climate 

change and may be less widespread with shifts toward drier conditions, as described in the “Water 

Resources” section of this chapter.

There are no anticipated changes in effects to riparian vegetation as a result of the Little Bear Fire in 

alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Implementing past, present, and future activities within the North Fork drainage area (figure 2 and 

table 4), in addition to implementing alternative 2 (no pumping), would result in no more than minor 

cumulative impacts to riparian vegetation because these activities do not typically take place in the 

riparian corridors or would have effects that are so small in magnitude as to be irrelevant. 

Streamside riparian vegetation outside of the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area was not included 

in the cumulative effects boundary (based on the definition and rationale for spatial boundaries we 

present in the “Methodology” section) but we did qualitatively consider it using the results of the 

water resources evaluation in this larger area. As stated in the “Water Resources” section, beneficial 

cumulative recharge effects to aquifers, springs and seeps, and possibly stream base flows may result 

within parts of the Eagle Creek drainage. The magnitude and extent of these effects is unknown, since 

it is likely that the Village of Ruidoso would continue to exercise its water rights and make 

withdrawals elsewhere in the Eagle Creek system. Impacts from such activities could offset beneficial 

impacts from no pumping at the North Fork Eagle Creek well field. These impacts could result in 

beneficial impacts to associated resources, like streamside riparian vegetation. The level of sitespecific effect to riparian vegetation further downstream and outside the North Fork Eagle Creek 

project area cannot, however, be predicted with certainty.

Conclusion

Implementing alternative 2 (no pumping) would at least maintain and possibly improve riparian 

vegetation condition in the project area. Therefore, it would be in compliance with riparian direction 

in the forest plan and would achieve the purpose and need for action and project objectives. 

Implementation of alternative 2 (no pumping) would move the project area toward desired conditions 

more so than either alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (adaptive management).

Update to overall effects from Alternative 2 due to the Little Bear Fire: 

In the short term, wildfire effects are likely to result in a shifting of sediment and cobble. This channel 

instability could result in some riparian areas being buried and an increase in alluvium that would 

reduce surface flow. However, these adverse effects to riparian tree species and communities could be 

offset by the opportunity for species such as willows to colonize new areas. The effects of no 

pumping would encourage the occurrence of streamflow and increased groundwater levels (more so 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 175

than under alternative 1) although large portions of the stream would remain intermittent during 

periods of average precipitation. Pools and stretches of surface water may be reduced and this could 

affect riparian habitat. Under alternative 2, the potential for riparian habitat improvement will 

continue to be limited but not as much as under alternative 1. 

Over the long term, after watershed recovery, effects from no pumping would be the same as those 

described in the pre-wildfire assessment for alternative 2.

Alternative 3 - Adaptive Management

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no direct effects as a result of implementing alternative 3 (adaptive management), since no 

ground-disturbing activities would occur. Indirect effects would be more similar to those from the no 

pumping alternative 2, than to the no action alternative 1. Beneficial effects would result from an 

increase in available moisture for riparian vegetation. While surface flow would remain consistent 

with an intermittent stream, and no-flow days would not be eliminated, increases in surface flow and 

groundwater and subsequent moisture available for plant growth would provide an opportunity for 

limited riparian vegetation expansion. 

Species Composition:

Facultative wetland species would be beneficially affected by this alternative compared to 

implementing alternative 1 (no action) but less so than for alternative 2 (no pumping). Increases in 

communities featuring facultative wetland species would likely occur due to increased water 

availability, but the magnitude of change would be relatively minor and less than that expected for 

alternative 2 (no pumping). Over the long term, positive changes could be affected by climate change 

and may be less widespread with shifts toward drier conditions, as described in the “Water 

Resources” section of this chapter. 

Riparian Tree Species Canopy Cover:

Boxelder and Pacific willow would remain relatively constant under implementation of alternative 3 

(adaptive management), although some willow recruitment would be possible if climatic conditions 

are favorable. Over the long term, any changes could be affected by climate change and may be less 

widespread over the long term with shifts toward drier conditions, as described in the “Water 

Resources” section of this chapter. 

Updates to Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3 Due to the Little Bear Fire:

Change in effects are expected to be the same as those described in alternative 1, except that any 

positive benefit from increased availability of water to riparian vegetation would be greater in 

magnitude in alternative 3.

Cumulative Effects

Implementing past, present, and future activities within the North Fork drainage area (figure 2 and 

table 4) in addition to implementing alternative 3 (adaptive management), would not result in more 

than minor cumulative impacts to riparian vegetation because these activities do not typically take 

place in the riparian corridors or would have effects that are so small in magnitude as to be irrelevant. 

Streamside riparian vegetation outside of the North Fork Eagle Creek basin was not included in the 

cumulative effects boundary (based on the definition and rationale for spatial boundaries we present 

in the “Methodology” section) but we did qualitatively consider it using the results of the water 

resources evaluation in this larger area. As stated in the “Water Resources” section, cumulative water 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

176 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

resources impacts would include flow and water quality reductions in Eagle Creek within the 

cumulative impact area. Water supply pumping for the applicant is conducted at six water wells along 

lower Eagle Creek, and the village diverts surface water from the stream a short distance below the 

Eagle Creek gage. As a result, groundwater recharge in downstream alluvial and bedrock aquifers 

would still be adversely affected, but to a lesser extent than under alternative 1 (no action). 

Implementing alternative 3 (adaptive management) would have minor effects on these impacts, as 

pumping in the North Fork Eagle Creek would generally be permitted most of the time. These 

impacts could result in impacts to associated resources, like streamside riparian vegetation. The level 

of site-specific effect to riparian vegetation further downstream and outside the North Fork Eagle 

Creek project area cannot, however, be predicted with certainty.

Conclusion 

Implementing alternative 3 (adaptive management), would maintain and likely improve riparian 

vegetation condition in the project area, although not to the level expected under alternative 2 (no 

pumping). Therefore, it would be in compliance with riparian direction in the forest plan and would 

achieve the purpose and need for action and project objectives. Implementing alternative 3 (adaptive 

management) would move the project area toward desired conditions but likely at a slower pace than 

alternative 2 (no pumping). 

Update to overall effects from Alternative 3 due to the Little Bear Fire: 

In the short-term, wildfire effects are likely to result in a shifting of sediment and cobble. This 

channel instability could result in some riparian areas being buried and an increase in alluvium that 

would reduce surface flow. However, these adverse effects to riparian tree species and communities 

could be offset by the opportunity for species such as willows to colonize new areas.

During the short term post-wildfire recovery period, pumping effects would be limited to the extent 

possible through an iterative and adaptive approach as the landscape, stream channel, and 

groundwater recharge processes adjust to the wildfire disturbance. Under alternative 3, the potential 

for riparian habitat improvement will continue to be limited but not as much as under alternative 1. 

Alternative 3 would encourage the occurrence of streamflow and increased groundwater levels (more 

so than under alternative 1) although large portions of the stream would remain intermittent during 

periods of average precipitation. Pools and stretches of surface water may be reduced and this could 

affect riparian habitat.

Over the long term, during dry years, adaptive management would improve flow conditions and 

reduce the amount of no-flow days along the North Fork Eagle Creek. With respect to surface flows 

and alluvial groundwater levels, an approximate middle ground between alternative 1 and 2 would be 

attained during average precipitation years under alternative 3. Over the long term, after watershed 

recovery, effects from implementing an adaptive management strategy would be the same as those 

described in the pre-wildfire assessment for alternative 3.

Summary

Implementing the no pumping alternative 2 or alternative 3 (adaptive management), would achieve 

the second need statement for this project which is “protecting natural resources on the national forest 

by maintaining adequate surface and groundwater flows to sustain or improve the riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems that may be affected by groundwater drawdown from the pumping of these wells.” 

Because both alternatives would either sustain or improve riparian vegetation in the North Fork Eagle 

Creek drainage area, both alternatives meet this need. However, alternative 2 (no pumping) would 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 177

move the project area toward desired conditions more quickly than alternative 3 (adaptive 

management). Alternative 1 (no change) does not meet this need statement since long-term adverse 

impacts to streamflows and riparian habitat are predicted, particularly when combined with long-term 

shifts in climatic conditions.

Implementation of alternative 1 (no change) would either marginally maintain current riparian 

vegetation condition in the project area in the short term or result in some declines due to continued 

reductions in water availability. Over the long term, however, climate change induced shifts toward 

drier conditions, as described in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter, would result in 

additional stress to riparian vegetation and would experience adverse effects. Therefore, alternative 1 

(no action) may be in compliance with the forest plan over the short term, but would not achieve the 

purpose and need for action or project objectives and would not move the project area toward desired 

conditions over the long term.

Effects compared to pre-pumping conditions

The effects of all alternatives compared to pre-pumping conditions are uncertain because baseline 

vegetation monitoring was not undertaken prior to the development of the well field. Alternative 1 has 

likely led to a shift in riparian community to drier conditions as illustrated in figure 16. Alternative 2 

would result in an increase of available moisture for riparian vegetation Riparian vegetation should 

increase in quality and expand away from the channel. The drainage would remain an intermittent 

stream in the lower area near the well field, which would limit expansion of riparian vegetation. 

Alternative 3 would maintain riparian vegetation at the current state, but without baseline monitoring 

it’s not possible to determine the shift in riparian vegetation that has occurred since pumping began.

Significant Issue: Socioeconomics

The level of North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping has the potential to affect local social and 

economic conditions. Defining features of every area influence and shape the nature of local 

economic and social activity. Among these are unique area natural amenities and features provided by 

the Lincoln National Forest. Changes to these features in turn can affect local social and economic 

conditions. For example, the quality of recreation experience may be affected by changes in the 

quantity and quality of surface flow in Eagle Creek. In addition, limitations on groundwater 

withdrawals under this EIS could affect the supply of water available for diversion for the Village of 

Ruidoso. 

We include a more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental 

consequences for this project in the socioeconomics report (Eichman 2015) and includes a more 

detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences, considering 

the changes caused by the Little Bear Fire. These reports are incorporated by reference, discussed 

briefly below, and available in their entirety in the project record.

Methodology 

Groundwater withdrawal limitations may affect the supply of water available for diversion by the 

applicant. Well pumping may result in changes to groundwater and surface water availability which 

has the potential to affect streamside recreation use (public use of streams for streamside recreation, 

fishing, and wildlife viewing) and private land (availability of water for domestic wells). In addition, 

impacts to quality of life and environmental justice effects were of concern. Consequently, the 

following social and economic indicators are used to compare the effects of each alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

178 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Where updates are necessary due to the Little Bear Fire, these are noted in the following text for this 

section.

Municipal Water Supply:

Estimates of potential forgone water diversion from groundwater withdrawal limitations are used to 

measure the potential for change to historic North Fork Eagle Creek well diversion. Effects of 

groundwater withdrawal limitations are examined on historic North Fork Eagle Creek well diversion 

(average annual), diversion for Alto Creek and Grindstone Reservoirs (average annual) and projected 

demands from the 40-year water plan. In addition, effects of groundwater withdrawal limitations are 

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

period (high demand on water use) from May to September. These estimates also consider effects to 

village diversion from additional indirect diversion attributable to North Fork Eagle Creek wells from 

the 50 percent return flow credit11.

Municipal water supply indicators examine the effect of groundwater withdrawal limitations using an 

estimate of potential forgone water diversion over estimates of pumping restriction durations. The 

Village of Ruidoso anticipates that it will be a period of years before attenuation of wildfire effects 

will allow a resumption of the full use of Eagle Creek surface water, groundwater and the diversion 

credits for the return flow credit (Atkins 2014). This analysis assumes this attenuation will occur as 

stated in the water resources section: “After approximately four to eight years following the Little 

Bear Fire, long-term post-wildfire conditions are expected to more generally resemble the prewildfire hydrologic setting” (page 100 of “Water Resource” section). Thus the pre-wildfire data 

characterizing historic municipal water supply sources are an accurate depiction of a post-wildfire

baseline useful for analysis of groundwater withdrawal limitations. Historic data on surface flow 

indicate that, had similar restrictions been implemented historically, pumping would have been 

limited over a broad range of time (from 0 weeks in most years, to 2 to 3 weeks in water year 2000, 

and approximately 20 weeks in water year 2004 ) (AECOM 2012). Restrictions would decrease the 

amount of water the village could withdraw by limiting the pumping rate to 50 percent of the 

streamflow reported at the North Fork gage. Using historic data of surface flow during years where 

restrictions would have occurred provides a frame of reference for forgone water diversion (50 

percent of streamflow) during these periods. During water years 2000, 2003, and 2004 half of the 

average daily surface flow was 0.219 cubic feet per second, based on data in the Water Resources 

Report, appendix A (AECOM 2012). Over periods ranging between 2 to 22 weeks, restrictions would 

have amounted to approximately 3.3 to 33.5 cubic feet per second of forgone water diversion in some 

water years between 2000 and 2010. Converting to acre feet per day indicates that restrictions, when

they might have occurred historically, would have ranged from approximately 6.5 acre-feet over 2 to 

3 weeks up to approximately 66.5 acre-feet over 20 to 22 weeks in a water year. 

Loss of North Fork Eagle Creek well diversion has occurred as a result of the Little Bear Fire in June 

of 2012. The Village of Ruidoso anticipates that it will be a period of years before attenuation of 

wildfire effects will allow a resumption of the full use of Eagle Creek surface water, groundwater and 

the diversion credits for the return flow credit (Atkins 2014). This analysis assumes this attenuation 

will occur. Thus the pre-wildfire data characterizing historic municipal water supply sources are an 

 11 The village receives a 50 percent return flow credit for all water produced from the North Fork well field. The return flow 

credit is the result of at least 50 percent of the water diverted from the North Fork well field being returned to the Rio 

Ruidoso via the village’s wastewater treatment plant. The return flow credit allows the village to divert 50 percent of the 

total quantity of water produced from the North Fork well field from other wells outside of the Eagle Creek watershed or 

surface water from the Rio Ruidoso.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 179

accurate depiction of a post-wildfire baseline useful for analysis of groundwater withdrawal 

limitations.

Over the long term, post-wildfire vegetative transitions in the watershed may slightly improve 

groundwater availability within the North Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork Eagle Creek drainage on and 

off Federal land) (see water resources section). If this occurs, contributions to municipal water supply 

could be slightly greater throughout the year and during the 5-month summer resort period. 

Consequently, reliance on North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping may be less than depicted above.

Effects on measures of dependency presented above can be considered an upper bound of potential 

effects. Thus, this should be considered a maximum reduction to municipal water supply 

contributions.

Streamside Recreational Use:

Streamside recreational use indicators are used to measure the potential for change to the quality of 

recreation experience from streamflow quantity and riparian vegetation associated with springs and 

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

As stated on page 128 of the water resource report, the former streamflow water quality indicator is 

not likely to apply either to short-term or long-term post-wildfire conditions, since the North Fork 

Eagle Creek channel will transport and re-work sediment and debris for a considerable number of 

years. In the short term, additional nutrient content in surface flows may enhance aquatic habitat 

conditions for some species. As stream deposits are reworked over the long term, additional turbidity 

and suspended organic carbon and silt will likely increase surface water temperatures and reduce 

oxygen availability, as a result of the wildfire. This reworking will likely occur periodically over the 

long term, due to intense rainfall or snowmelt events. During relatively stable interim periods, 

however, parts of the channel could reflect water quality similar to that before the fire. These areas 

would be pools and riffles that form and change over time as the channel geometry adjusts.” Thus 

conclusions about effects to the quality of recreation experience, from changes to water quality, are 

difficult to make. If oxygen availability is reduced significantly, then impacts to recreation could be 

negative. However, if additional nutrients enhance the habitat for fish, recreation experiences could 

improve. Regardless, the streamflow quantity and springs and seeps indicators are sufficient for 

analysis of effects to the recreation experience.

Availability of Domestic Well Water and Water for Irrigation:

Availability of domestic well water indicators are used to measure the potential for change to private 

land water supply using an estimate of water drawdown similar to the springs and seeps indicator 

used above (as described in the “Water Resources” section earlier in this chapter). The availability of 

surface water for irrigation uses employs the streamflow quantity indicator (estimated durations of no 

surface flow and estimated occurrence of flows equal to or greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second 

during a year of average precipitation; Water Resources Report; AECOM 2012 and 2015).

Financial Efficiency (PNV)

Financial efficiency provides information relevant to the future financial position of the community if 

the project is implemented. Financial efficiency considers anticipated costs and revenues that are part 

of monetary transactions. According to OMB Circular A-94, PNV is the standard criterion for 

deciding whether a project is economically justifiable. Financial efficiency analysis is not intended to 

be a comprehensive analysis that incorporates monetary expressions of all known market and nonmarket benefits and costs. Many of the values associated with natural resource management are best 

handled apart from, but in conjunction with, a more limited financial efficiency framework. These 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

180 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

non-market benefits and costs associated with the project are discussed throughout the Final SEIS and 

other specialist reports.

The analysis of financial efficiency is a comparison of those costs and benefits that can be quantified 

in terms of actual dollars spent or received in the analysis area. As the Forest Service Handbook 

2409.18 indicates, this analysis provides a comparison of anticipated costs and revenues that are part 

of Forest Service monetary transactions. Given the information provided, financial efficiency 

measures are calculated in this analysis to provide a means of comparing the financial efficiency of 

alternatives. This analysis offers a consistent measure for comparison of alternatives. However, it 

should not be viewed as a complete answer. The financial efficiency measures discussed below, 

along with social, ecological or other non-market values discussed throughout the document, provide 

a complete comparison of the alternatives. 

The alternatives are compared using a financial efficiency measure called present net value (PNV). 

This measure is generated with use of a technique called discounting which is based on a principle 

called the “Time Value of Money.” The idea is that money received now is worth more than the same 

amount received in the future. This makes sense since the money received now could be put to some 

advantageous use or interest could accrue until the future date. Using this concept, costs occurring in 

the future must be discounted back to represent their current value. A 4-percent discount rate is 

commonly used for evaluations of long-term investments and operations in land and resource 

management by the Forest Service (FSM 1971.21). This discount rate is used in the calculation of 

present net value.

According to OMB Circular A-94, present net value is the standard criterion for deciding whether a 

project is economically justifiable. Present net value is a way of comparing all monetarily valued 

costs, and is calculated by subtracting the discounted sum of costs from the discounted sum of 

benefits. A positive present net value suggests the discounted sum of benefits is greater than the 

discounted sum of costs, and a negative present net value suggests the opposite. Since the benefit, in 

terms of maintained streamflow, water quality, and riparian habitat are not quantifiable the present net 

value represents the discounted sum of costs. These benefits are described qualitatively in the 

indicated sections of this document and supporting specialist reports in the project record. 

The financial efficiency analysis is specific to the monitoring measures identified in Chapter 2. Costs 

include those listed in table 13. All costs, timing, and amounts were developed by the specialists on 

the project’s interdisciplinary team with assistance from the Village of Ruidoso and John Shoemaker 

& Associates. Indirect effects on financial efficiency, associated with lease or purchase of additional 

water rights, are not considered under this analysis since these effects are not reasonably foreseeable 

under the alternatives. As discussed under cumulative effects, the village has taken actions to secure 

additional rights and diversion that would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under the 

alternatives. Thus analysis of potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is not reasonably 

foreseeable.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 181

Table 13. Average annual costs used in financial efficiency analysis

Monitoring Measure 

(pages 44 to 48) Description

Average annual 

cost

Monitoring Measure 1 Monitoring of existing monitoring wells (including 

maintenance)

$30,000

Monitoring Measure 1 Transducer maintenance $3,000

Monitoring Measure 1 New Wells (3 total) $66,000

Monitoring Measure 1 Fencing around wells $16,000

Monitoring Measure 2 Slug tests/aquifer pumping tests

Monitoring Measure 2 Slug test - low estimate $20,000

Monitoring Measure 2 Slug test - high estimate $30,000

Monitoring Measure 2 Aquifer pumping test - low estimate $600,000

Monitoring Measure 2 Aquifer pumping test - high estimate $1,000,000

Monitoring Measure 3 Monthly water quality field measurements at 

surface flow gages 

$18,000

Monitoring Measure 4 Surface gage monitoring and maintenance $17,160

Monitoring Measure 5 Monitoring springs and seeps $78,000

Monitoring Measure 6 Monitoring Stream gradient, planform, and 

stability indicators 

$12,000

Monitoring Measure 7 Install of weather station for Monitoring snowpack 

and precip. at one gage

$20,000

Monitoring Measure 7 Annual cost of weather station $2,250

Monitoring Measure 8 Analyzing/modeling adaptive management 

triggers

Monitoring Measure 8 Adaptive management triggers – low estimate $175,000

Monitoring Measure 8 Adaptive management triggers – high estimate $300,000

Monitoring Measure 9 Surface gage monitoring by USGS, USFS or other 

parties

$16,000

Riparian Vegetation 

Monitoring

Baseline riparian vegetation survey (every five 

years)

$3,170

Riparian Vegetation 

Monitoring

Interim annual riparian veg surveys $317

Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes: 

The values, beliefs, and attitudes of area communities are presented to address social considerations: 

where economic or other effects on area communities cannot be quantified, a qualitative discussion of 

nonmarket and social values has been added. Direction provided in 40 CFR 1502.23 and Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.15 (July 6, 2004) and 22.35 (January 14, 2005) provides for qualitative 

analysis to evaluate the effects of nonmarket values. Therefore, the alternatives’ nonmarket aspects 

are discussed qualitatively where appropriate and are described in other resource sections of the EIS.

Accordingly, the values, beliefs, and attitudes of area communities are presented to address social 

considerations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

182 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Environmental Justice:

Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, orders Federal agencies to identify and address environmental 

justice effects, which are any adverse human health and environmental effects of agency programs 

that disproportionately impact minority and low income populations. 

In order to accurately portray local social and economic conditions above and potential effects under 

the alternatives, the geographic scope of analysis must be defined. The social and economic 

relationships and effects extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the project area. The role of actions 

under the EIS within the larger county must be addressed while not masking potential change within 

communities in the area. Thus area information is presented at two geographic scales based on 

available data: county and census county subdivision. Characteristics of Lincoln County are presented 

alongside characteristics of Ruidoso census county subdivision given economic linkages between the 

county and the census county subdivision containing the Village of Ruidoso and the project area. 

Environmental justice is examined at both the county and census county subdivision level.

When we look at the social effects of land management actions, the most critical impacts may be to 

small, rural communities (Rudzitis and Johnson 2000, pg 5). Consequently, geographically defined 

communities are an important and relevant level for social assessment. However, not all social 

scientists agree that the geographically based community is always the appropriate level of analysis. 

The Northwest Forest Plan’s Federal Ecosystem Management Advisory Team (FEMAT 1993, pg VII35) makes the point that this view “only refers to physical or political boundaries and not to the 

relationships among people who reside within such boundaries.” Consequently, social relationships 

are examined regardless of geography in the section on values, beliefs, and attitudes. 

This analysis examines effects of groundwater withdrawal limitations on projected demands from the 

40-year water plan. Projections that consider water utility use reductions indicate 5,097 acre-feet per 

year will be required in 2045; however, existing water supplies and water rights as developed do not 

meet these needs. Consequently a number of other water supply alternatives need to be discussed as 

part of the plan for future Ruidoso water supply and water rights needs (Wilson and Company 2005, 

pp. 1–53). 

Baseline information used to assess impacts to social and economic resources was provided by USDA 

Forest Service specialists, literature, and professional judgment. 

The primary differences between the content of the DEIS and the SDEIS was in reference to the Little 

Bear Fire. In this updated Socioeconomics report for the SDEIS, additional literature review was 

conducted, new information from the Village of Ruidoso was sought (Atkins 2014), and the analysis 

was modified to reflect changes to the water resources report. The Atkins (2014) data outlined that the 

Village of Ruidoso anticipates that it will be a period of years before attenuation of wildfire effects 

will allow a resumption of the full use of Eagle Creek surface water, groundwater and the diversion 

credits for the return flow credit (Atkins 2014). In addition to the six existing and operating wells that 

are supplemental to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells in the Eagle Creek basin, there are an 

additional 7 supplemental wells in the cumulative impact analysis area off of National Forest System 

lands that the Village has applied for and that could also divert the Eagle Creek water right in the 

future (Office of the State Engineer, personal communication, 2014). The water resources report 

provides updated underlying assumptions for the socioeconomics analysis (e.g. post-wildfire

estimated to have eight year full attenuation period). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 183

Incomplete Information

Post-wildfire socioeconomic information is not available, so this analysis relied on assumptions based 

on conclusions in water resources report (AECOM 2015) which are summarized at the beginning of 

this chapter. This analysis assumes the attenuation of wildfire effects will occur as stated in the water 

resources section: “After approximately four to eight years following the Little Bear Fire, long-term 

post-wildfire conditions are expected to more generally resemble the pre-wildfire hydrologic setting” 

(page 100 of “Water Resource” section). Thus the pre-wildfire data characterizing historic municipal 

water supply sources are an accurate depiction of a post-wildfire baseline useful for analysis of 

groundwater withdrawal limitations.

Affected Environment

History

The Mescalero Apaches were some of the first to inhabit the area. They hunted and fished in the 

Sacramento Mountain area surrounding the Village of Ruidoso and were only occasionally visited by 

Spanish explorers who ventured into the Rio Bravo Valley. Trappers followed the Spanish and were 

then followed by traders, merchants, and their families (Village of Ruidoso 2010). The Ruidoso area 

was first settled in the 1850s, with mining and ranching among the primary draws. The settlement, 

originally called “Dowlins Mill,” thrived on logging, hunting, and the mill (Wilson and Company

2005).

By the end of the 19th century, the Village of Ruidoso was a small settlement, known for its 

associations with Billy the Kid and other historic figures of the West. In the beginning of the 20th 

century the Village of Ruidoso became increasingly known as a vacation destination for its natural 

amenities; its elevation and resulting cooler temperatures provided refuge from the heat in New 

Mexico and west Texas. After World War II, the Village of Ruidoso’s reputation as a resort destination 

grew with construction of Ruidoso Downs. Tourism began to flourish in 1962, when the Sierra Blanca 

Ski area (now Ski Apache) was opened (Village of Ruidoso 2010). The town grew dramatically in the 

1970s with an influx of retirement homes, second homes, resort related cabins, town homes, and 

motels (Wilson and Company 2005). 

The expansion seen in the 1970s provided the first challenge for the Village of Ruidoso’s water utility. 

Individual utility systems were constructed for the developments and subdivisions. These systems 

were often stand-alone, in difficult terrain, with waterline sizes that were insufficient for community 

needs such as fire protection. In the mid-1970s water system improvements were undertaken, under 

the first water master plan, to address system inadequacies across the entire Village of Ruidoso. 

Under the plan, a number of improvements were recommended including storage at Alto Crest and a 

new treatment plant at Eagle Creek (Wilson and Company 2005).

Population Change

Population in Lincoln County increased by 12,897 people (61 percent) between 1969 and 2010 

(figure 18). Growth in the county over this period was outpaced by the State (100 percent) and 

exceeded growth in the Nation (52 percent). Population within Ruidoso census county subdivision 

increased by 7,298 people (100 percent) between 1990 and 2010 which, in terms of growth, outpaced 

the Nation (24 percent), the State (35 percent) and Lincoln County (67 percent) over these 2 decades 

of available data (U.S. Department of Commerce 2011). Population projections suggest Lincoln 

County and the State of New Mexico will increase in the next 15 years. Projections suggest that 

between 2010 and 2025, Lincoln County will increase by 20 percent (4,021 persons) while the State 

will increase by 36 percent (648,578 persons) (State of New Mexico 2008). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

184 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Figure 18. Population change for the Village of Ruidoso, Lincoln County and the State of New Mexico 

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

The 10-year historical trend of full-time resident population growth is not considered dependable by 

the Village of Ruidoso (Village of Ruidoso 2010). Using data from the “Village of Ruidoso 

Comprehensive Plan,” village officials have accepted the use of population growth scenarios that 

range from 2 to 3.5 percent growth per year (Village of Ruidoso 2010). This range coincides with the 

rate of growth calculated for the 40-year water use plan of 2.63 percent per year; which was based 

upon existing water usage data, from the years 1997 through 2004 (Wilson and Company 2005).

Conditions before Pumping Began

By the time pumping of North Fork Eagle Creek wells had started in 1988, the Village of Ruidoso had 

established itself as a resort destination community and had also made water system upgrades to 

accommodate the expansion of the community (Wilson and Company 2005). In the mid-1980s, 

employment and population declined along with construction and related sectors. However, growth

resumed in the early 1990s (figure 18) and water diversion from North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

became part of the Village of Ruidoso water supply. 

The importance of the North Fork Eagle Creek to community well-being and quality of life was 

apparent long before pumping began. Summer homes in the area benefited from the stream, its 

vegetation, and dependent wildlife. Dispersed recreational use of the area was common and included 

hiking, wildlife viewing, and some fishing.

Per Capita Water Use

Standard measures of per capita water use for the applicant do not reflect true individual residential 

water use, as the actual number of persons using water is far higher than the per capita figure, due to 

the presence of part-year residents and tourists. The 40-year water plan notes that full-time resident 

population figures for the village, from the 2000 U.S. Census, account for only 30 to 45 percent of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 185

occupancy and, thus, do not reflect the number of persons present in the Village of Ruidoso using 

water (Wilson and Company 2005). Since water use information is unavailable for this unaccounted 

population, the data on per capita water usage for the Village of Ruidoso presented below only 

provides a frame of reference for comparison with other cities. 

Village of Ruidoso per capita water use is obtained from the 40-year water plan, which is the most 

current information available, and metered water use data. This data yields an estimate of 136 gallons 

per capita per day (Wilson and Company 2005). While this figure is not directly representative of 

Village of Ruidoso water use, as has been stated, it provides a comparison with other New Mexico 

cities in the area. Compared to the Village of Ruidoso, the cities of Albuquerque and Las Cruces had 

higher gallons per capita per day (185 an d189 per capita per day, respectively) while Rio Rancho and 

Santa Fe’s use were similar (140 gallons per capita per day). The combination of climate, altitude, and 

surrounding forest moderates outdoor water use in the Village of Ruidoso in comparison to 

surrounding towns and villages. Thus, the water usage per person is likely lower in the Village of 

Ruidoso compared to other communities (Wilson and Company 2005).

Trends in Water Use

As a year-round mountain destination resort and a hub for regional recreation, the Village of Ruidoso

has several unique and distinguishing characteristics that influence both water use growth (instead of 

population growth) and total water usage. The first characteristic influencing water usage is that fulltime residents make up less than half of the water usage of the village (Wilson and Company 2005). 

Historical water data shows that water use is heavily impacted by the size of the part-time, resort 

related population. The 1998 Water Master Plan indicated the metered water total for the 5-month 

summer resort period (May through September) served an average of 14,000 persons while the census 

estimated population in 1998 at 6,500 persons. The Village of Ruidoso’s 40-year water plan estimates 

that less than half of the total water is comsumed by this permanent population (Wilson and Company 

2005).

Metered water, is that water represented from reading the water meters of billed customers, and for 

the Village of Ruidoso, includes ONLY totals of residential and commercial metered water. Existing 

metered water records for summer months (from May and September) and by year (from 1991 

through 2004) are utilized for examining water consumption. The peak related summer months are 

used to identify resort related variations and demonstrate the degree of water use during the summer 

season related to total metered water use per the convention used by Wilson and Company (2005). 

Total metered water use per year in figure 19 below shows an increase early in the period examined; 

from 1,100 acre feet in 1991 to 1,360 in 1998. The decrease in 1996 likely occurred as a result of 

adopting a policy focusing on water conservation planning efforts, system-wide utility use reductions, 

and leak reduction efforts. From 1999 to 2004 a decrease in total metered water use to 1,200 acre feet 

occurred as a result of per person water conservation, system-wide reductions in water losses, and 

village enforced restrictions on water use (Wilson and Company 2005). The adoption of restrictive 

water rate ordinances in 1998 and revisions in 2000 and 2002 likely had the negative effects on 

consumption depicted in figure 19 below. In addition, the decreases seen from 1999 through 2004 are 

due, in part, to village efforts to reduce leakage and conserve water, but also, due to the ongoing 

drought during which outdoor watering enforced restrictions were instituted from 2001 through 2003. 

In addition, local forest fires in 2000, 2001, and 2002 kept many part-time residents and visitors 

away, further reducing use (Wilson and Company 2005).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

186 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Figure 19. Total metered water use and the percent of use occurring in summer months (Wilson and 

Company 2005)

Recreation use and the resort related population vary depending on factors such as national and 

regional economies, weather issues (drought and snowfall), and fires (noted above). Summer use (the 

sum of consumption in summer months) as a percent of total metered water use increased slightly 

over the same period as above (from 52 percent in 1991 to 53 percent in 1998) and correspondingly 

decreased to 45 percent in 2004. While summer recreation use may be increasing, policies to reduce 

consumption and drought have likely resulted in the observed reduction in the share of consumption 

over the summer months. 

The Importance of the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells 

Relative to Water Supply for the Village of Ruidoso 

The water supply for the Village of Ruidoso is derived from surface and ground water sources in the 

Rio Ruidoso and Eagle Creek drainages which are within the Hondo Basin, in the upper reaches of 

the Pecos River watershed. In water supply terminology, total water production is sometimes used 

interchangeably with the term total water diversion, to mean the total water produced or withdrawn 

from surface or groundwater for a water supply system. The two terms do not mean the same thing, 

and the recorded amounts are not always equal, thus, use of these terms interchangeably is not 

accurate. 

Water production is always measured at the end of a treatment system, prior to release to the public as 

potable water. Water diversions may be measured at any number of locations: lake or stream intake 

structures, interim raw water meters, or at the raw intake meter at the beginning of a treatment plant. 

Measurement differences between the two terms include process uses through the plants, including 

backwash water and other uses between the measurements. Also, depending upon location of the raw 

water meter, losses due to reservoir water evaporation, or reservoir leakage (which is significant for 

Grindstone Reservoir), or delivery line leakage (for diverted water transmission lines such as the 

Eagle Creek line), may also account for differences between the water as measured for diversion and 

the water as measured for production (Wilson and Company 2005). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 187

Since the share of production from the North Fork Eagle Creek wells cannot be determined, their 

importance is measured relative to total water diversion. As discussed above, water diversion 

estimates depend upon the location of measurement and are subject to variation based on leakage and 

other losses. Therefore, diversion as reported and adjusted diversion estimates are presented below in 

order to establish a range of values for use in estimating the contribution from the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells to total water diversion for the applicant. 

Adjusted diversion estimates are available from Wilson and Company 2005. They report values 

adjusted for volume adjustments in Grindstone and Alto Reservoirs due to net filling or withdrawal 

from raw water reservoirs. In addition their adjusted estimates consider unaccounted leakage through 

Grindstone Dam. Figure 20 shows that over the period of available data from 1998 to 2004, adjusted 

diversion ranged from a high of 2,656 acre-feet in 1999 to a low of 1,901 in 2003 and averaged 2,248

acre-feet.

Estimates of diversion as reported are also available from Wilson and Company 2005. Figure 20

shows that over the period of available data from 1998 to 2004, diversion as reported from Wilson 

and Company ranged from a high of 2,842 acre-feet in 2001 to a low of 1,793 in 2003 and averaged 

2,261 acre-feet.

Figure 20. Diversion estimates

A second source of diversion as reported was made available by the Village of Ruidoso for the period 

from 1997 to 2009. Figure 20 shows that over this period, diverted water ranged from a high of 2,506 

acre-feet in 2006 to a low of 1,394 in 1997 and averaged 2,043 acre-feet. 

Diversion data specific to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells are available for the period from 2002 to 

2010, based on data obtained in preparation of the Water Resources Report (AECOM 2015). Over 

this period diversion from these wells has averaged 569 acre-feet per year, has not fallen below 433 

acre-feet per year, and has not exceeded 807 acre-feet per year. The 3 years of North Fork Eagle 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

188 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Creek well diversion data that overlap total diversion estimates for the Village of Ruidoso (from 2002 

to 2004; figure 20) give insight on the importance of North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion to the 

applicant water supply. North Fork Eagle Creek well diversion as a share of total diversion for the 

Village of Ruidoso varies depending on the source of total diversion data used. North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells diversion as a share of adjusted diversion ranges from 24 percent in 2002 to 29 percent in 

2004. North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion as a share of diversion as reported (Wilson and Co. 

2005) ranges from 25 percent in 2002 to 27 percent in 2004. Lastly, North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

diversion from diversion as reported by the Village of Ruidoso ranges from 26 percent in 2002 to 27 

percent in 2004. Considering these three sources of total diversion for the Village of Ruidoso, North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion has contributed from 24 to 29 percent of Village of Ruidoso water 

supply over the period of available data (2002 to 2004). In addition, indirect diversion attributable to 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells from the 50 percent return flow credit12 adds to the Village of Ruidoso 

water supply contribution. Accounting for these additional indirect contributions, North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells has provided 36 to 43 percent of Village of Ruidoso water supply. 

Wilson and Company characterize the 5-month summer resort period as May through September in 

order to examine water consumption during this period. This period typically has a pattern of higher 

streamflows from spring snowmelt, followed by low flows in June and July, and then higher 

streamflows again in August and September from monsoonal rains. The recent monthly diversion data 

for North Fork Eagle Creek wells (from the Village of Ruidoso) indicates that from 38 to 58 percent 

(in 2006 and 2004, respectively) of total annual diversion from the well field has been pumped during 

this 5-month summer resort period. Accounting for the additional indirect contributions from the 

return flow credit indicates that from 57 to 87 percent of total annual diversion can be attributable to 

the North Fork Eagle Creek wells during the 5-month summer resort period. For the overlapping 

years with total municipal diversion data (2002 through 2004), the well field pumping during the 5-

month summer resort period represents 11 percent (2002) to 16.6 percent (2004) of the total 

municipal adjusted diversion for the year. 

Future Village of Ruidoso demand for adjusted diversion is projected in the 40-year water plan and 

considers water utility use reductions. These projections indicate 5,097 acre-feet per year will be 

required in 2045 and exceed existing supplies and rights, thus, additional water supply sources will be 

necessary (Wilson and Company 2005). 

Loss of North Fork Eagle Creek well diversion has occurred as a result of the Little Bear Fire in June 

of 2012. The Village of Ruidoso anticipates that it will be a period of years before attenuation of 

wildfire effects will allow a resumption of the full use of Eagle Creek surface water, groundwater and 

the diversion credits for the return flow credit (Atkins 2014). This analysis assumes this attenuation 

will occur as stated in the “Water Resources” section: “After approximately four to eight years 

following the Little Bear Fire, long-term post-wildfire conditions are expected to more generally 

resemble the pre-wildfire hydrologic setting” (page 100 of “Water Resources” section). Thus the prewildfire data characterizing historic municipal water supply sources are an accurate depiction of a 

post-wildfire baseline useful for analysis of groundwater withdrawal limitations.

 12 The village receives a 50 percent return flow credit for all water produced from the North Fork well field. The return flow 

credit is the result of at least 50 percent of the water diverted from the North Fork well field being returned to the Rio 

Ruidoso via the village’s wastewater treatment plant. The return flow credit allows the village to divert 50 percent of the 

total quantity of water produced from the North Fork well field from other wells outside of the Eagle Creek watershed or 

surface water from the Rio Ruidoso.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 189

Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes

The “Village of Ruidoso’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan” lauds the area’s natural amenities such as 

beautiful mountains and green pines. It notes that its most important attributes are “Ruidoso’s 

diversity, friendliness, and quality of life for future generations” (Village of Ruidoso 2010). In 

addition, in 2012 the Village council reached an agreement on a slogan that represents the vision for 

Ruidoso: “Ruidoso... Living in Nature’s Playground.” Thus, quality of life can certainly be 

considered linked to area natural amenities managed in part by the Lincoln National Forest. 

A range of values were evident from public scoping comments received as part of the public 

involvement process for this EIS. The value of present and future water supply for the applicant was 

expressed. In addition, the importance of the quality of streamside recreation experience was also 

expressed. Specific recreational opportunities include activities such as fishing, wading, dispersed 

camping, and wildlife viewing, as discussed briefly in the “Recreation and Scenery” section in 

chapter 1. The quality of life of private landowners in the area with domestic wells potentially 

affected by surface water changes also deserves consideration. This range of values indicates where 

shared values exist and where values may conflict among community members. This information is a 

fundamental part of the USDA Forest Service’s social impact analysis process; it enables Agency staff 

to address these values (USDA Forest Service 2009). 

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to “identify and address the disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low income populations.” According to the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s (CEQ) Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA (1997) “minority populations should be 

identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the 

minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority 

population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis . . . a 

minority population also exists if there is more than one minority group present and the minority 

percentage, as calculated by aggregating all minority persons, meets one of the above stated 

thresholds.” Thus, the ethnic and racial composition of New Mexico, Lincoln County, and Ruidoso 

census county subdivision are of interest. The shares of 2000 population by race and ethnicity are 

displayed in table 14.

13 In the year 2010, the share of population described as white was greater than 

the state in Lincoln County and Ruidoso census county subdivision. In Ruidoso census county 

subdivision, the shares of American Indian and Alaska Natives, Asians, and Pacific Islanders were 

slightly greater than Lincoln County in 2010 (U.S. Department of Commerce 2010). Since the 

difference in shares between the different geographies is small, these differences may not be 

considered “meaningful” as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality. However, populations 

of minority groups that live outside these geographies or live within this area at different spatial 

scales may use the Lincoln National Forest within the project area. Thus, while the data may not 

reflect the presence of environmental justice populations as defined by the Council on Environmental 

Quality they still may exist in the area or use national forest lands in the project area. Consequently, 

the potential for disparate or adverse effects to minority groups are examined under socioeconomic 

effects of the alternatives. 

 13 Race and ethnicity shares do not add to 100 percent because Hispanics can be of any race.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

190 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Table 14. Population by race and ethnicity (2010)

Region White

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian and 

Alaska 

Native Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two 

or 

More 

Races

Hispanic 

(of any 

race)

United 

States

72.4% 12.6% 0.9% 4.8% 0.2% 6.2% 2.9% 16.3%

New 

Mexico

68.4% 2.1% 9.4% 1.4% 0.1% 15.0% 3.7% 46.3%

Lincoln 

County

85.1% 0.5% 2.4% 0.4% 0.0% 9.2% 2.5% 29.8%

Ruidoso 

CCDa 85.0% 0.5% 2.9% 0.5% 0.1% 8.9% 2.3% 29.6%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2010

a – CCD = Census County Division

In addition to race, concentrations of people living under the poverty level are of interest when 

considering the environmental justice implications of the proposed action. Council on Environmental 

Quality guidance on identifying low income populations states “agencies may consider as a 

community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of 

individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences 

common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.” In 2012, the percent of people living in 

poverty in the Village of Ruidoso (13.6 percent) was less than shares in Lincoln County and the State 

(14.7 and 19.5 percent, respectively) (U.S. Department of Commerce 2013). Thus, the census data 

indicate that low income populations, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality may not 

exist. However, low income populations that live outside these geographies or live within this area at 

different spatial scales may use the Lincoln National Forest within the project area. Thus, while the 

data may not reflect the presence of environmental low income populations as defined by the Council 

on Environmental Quality, they still may exist in the area or use National Forest System lands in the 

project area. Consequently, the potential for disparate or adverse effects to low income groups are 

examined under socioeconomic effects of the alternatives. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No Change 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Municipal Water Supply

Without limitations on groundwater withdrawal, municipal water supply, as it relates to North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells diversion, would not be affected under the no change alternative. Over the short

term (i.e., until watershed “recovery”) contributions would remain uncertain during the transitional 

wildfire recovery period. Over the long term (i.e., after the wildfire recovery period) watershed 

conditions are expected to return to approximate pre-wildfire conditions (“Water Resources” section

beginning on page 100); thus, average annual contributions from North Fork Eagle Creek wells could 

continue to provide from 24 to 29 percent of the Village of Ruidoso water supply (see discussion 

above) if current trends in total diversion and North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion continue. In 

addition, past trends in North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion during this 5-month summer resort 

period could continue (38 to 58 percent of well field pumping in 2006 and 2004, respectively). 

Consideration of additional indirect contributions attributable to North Fork Eagle Creek well 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 191

diversions from the 50 percent return flow credit indicate that North Fork Eagle Creek wells would 

continue to provide 36 to 43 percent to the municipal water supply overall, and 57 to 87 percent 

during the 5-month summer resort period. Based on recent available data, well field pumping during 

this 5-month period would represent between approximately 11 to 16.6 percent of total municipal 

pumping for the year. In addition, over the long-term, post-wildfire vegetative transitions in the 

watershed may slightly improve groundwater availability within the North Fork Eagle Creek (North 

Fork Eagle Creek drainage on and off Federal land) (see “Water Resources” section beginning on

page 100). If this occurs, contributions to municipal water supply could be slightly greater throughout 

the year and during the 5-month summer resort period.

Future demand for diversion outlined in the 40-year water plan (5,097 acre-feet per year) exceed 

existing supplies and rights, thus, additional water supply sources are necessary (Wilson and 

Company 2005) regardless of actions under this EIS (for more detail see the discussion of cumulative 

effects under the action alternatives and mitigation measures identified below). As noted above, 

current levels of North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion could continue under this alternative and if 

recent average annual diversion from these wells continues, they would contribute 11 percent of the 

projected diversion demand for the year 2045. 

Using available data from 2002-2010, annual diversion from the North Fork wells averaged 569 acrefeet per year. Using the most recent data available for 2008-2010, annual diversion averaged 721 

acre-feet per year and ranged from 622 acre-feet per year in 2009 to 807 acre-feet per year in 2010 

(table 16) (Water Resources Report, appendix A; AECOM 2015).

Streamside Recreation Use 

Under the no change alternative, it is anticipated that over the short term (i.e., until watershed 

“recovery”) the quality of recreation experience would remain uncertain during the transitional 

wildfire recovery period with uncertainty in water quantity and quality. Over the long term (i.e., after 

the wildfire recovery period) watershed conditions are expected to return to approximate pre-wildfire

conditions (“Water Resources” section beginning on page 100); thus, streamflow quantity would be 

the same as experienced by recreationists in the recent past. At the Eagle Creek Gage the general 

duration of no surface flow days would continue to be approximately 1 to 2 weeks during average 

precipitation periods and approximately 8 to10 weeks during drought periods. Flows of 1.2 cubic feet 

per second or greater would occur between approximately 10 to 40 percent of the time (see “Water 

Resources” section v). Continuation of these conditions could support a lower quality streamside 

recreation experience compared to alternative 2 (no pumping) and alternative 3 (adaptive 

management) since flows under these alternatives are greater than the no change alternative.

Over the long-term, springs, seeps and dependent riparian vegetation important to the quality of 

recreation experience would be the same as pre-wildfire conditions if current management continues 

under this alternative. Two springs are within the area of projected drawdown, as depicted in figure 12

and figure 13, and could be affected. Other existing groundwater modeling indicates that more 

extensive drawdown could occur and therefore, a number of springs and seeps in the upper North 

Fork drainage could be similarly affected (see water resources section earlier in this chapter). As 

noted in the riparian report, the instability of the channel could result in some riparian areas being 

buried. However, these effects could be offset by the opportunity for species such as willows to 

colonize new areas. In addition, the riparian report notes that water availability to riparian vegetation 

is not likely to be greatly changed as a result of the Little Bear Fire. This suggests that impacts to 

springs and seeps and the quality of recreation dependent on associated riparian vegetation could 

occur. Consequently alternative 2 (no pumping) and alternative 3 (adaptive management) provide less 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

192 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

of a possibility of major effects to the quality of recreation experience from impacts to springs, seeps 

and associated riparian vegetation.

Availability of Domestic Well Water and Water for Irrigation

Two domestic wells are within the area of projected drawdown, as depicted in figure 12 and figure 13, 

and could be affected (see water resources section earlier in this chapter). Since there would be no 

groundwater drawdown under alternative 2 (no action) and less groundwater drawdown under 

alternative 3 (adaptive management) than the no change alternative, the potential for adverse effects 

to the availability of domestic well water are greatest under this alternative. 

Under the no change alternative, it is anticipated that over the short term (until watershed “recovery”) 

the availability of water for irrigation would remain uncertain during the transitional wildfire recovery 

period. Over the long term (after the wildfire recovery period) watershed conditions are expected to 

return to approximate pre-wildfire conditions (water resources section); thus, streamflow quantity 

would be the same as experienced by agriculture users in the past. At the Eagle Creek Gage the 

general duration of no surface flow days would continue to be approximately 1 to 2 weeks during 

average precipitation periods and approximately 8 to10 weeks during drought periods. Flows of 1.2 

cubic feet per second or greater would occur between approximately 10 to 40 percent of the time (see 

“Water Resources” section beginning on page 100).

Financial Efficiency 

As discussed above, the present net value is the discounted sum of costs associated with each 

alternative. This analysis is not intended to be a comprehensive benefit-cost or present net value 

analysis that incorporates a monetary expression of all known market and non-market benefits and 

costs that is generally used when economic efficiency is the sole or primary criterion upon which a 

decision is made. Many of the values and costs associated with natural resource management are best 

handled apart from, but in conjunction with, a more limited benefit-cost framework. Therefore, they 

are not described in financial or economic terms for this project, but rather are discussed in other 

sections of this document and other specialist reports; for example effects on riparian vegetation and 

watersheds resources. When evaluating trade-offs, the use of efficiency measures is one factor of 

many used by the decision maker in making the decision. 

Table 15 summarizes the discounted present value of costs and present net value for each monitoring 

measure. A 4 percent discount rate was used over the 20 year life of a permit. Under alternatives 1 and 

3 the present net value would range from $4.6 to $7.2 million dollars. Under these alternatives the 

Village of Ruidoso would pay for all monitoring measures except riparian vegetation monitoring 

(which would be covered by the forest) thus their present net value would be slightly less than the 

total present net value. While less financially efficient than alternative 2 the village would benefit 

from ongoing use of wells for municipal water supply. In addition, benefits from maintained instream 

flow and improved riparian condition would be realized. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 193

Table 15. Discounted present value of costs and present net value of the alternatives

Monitoring Measure Alternatives 1 and 3 Alternative 2

Monitoring Measure 1 $541,912 $- 

Monitoring Measure 2

Slug test - low estimate $19,231 $- 

Slug test - high estimate $28,846 $- 

Aquifer pumping test - low estimate $576,923 $- 

Aquifer pumping test - high estimate $961,538 $- 

Monitoring Measure 3 $244,626 $- 

Monitoring Measure 4 $233,210 $- 

Monitoring Measure 5 $1,060,045 $- 

Monitoring Measure 6 $53,422 $- 

Monitoring Measure 7 $49,809 $- 

Monitoring Measure 8

low estimate $2,378,307 $- 

high estimate $4,077,098 $- 

Monitoring Measure 9 $- $217,445

Riparian Vegetation Monitoring $12,683 $- 

Low estimate of PNV $4,593, 245 $217,445

High estimate of PNV $7,234,343 $217,445

Values, Beliefs, Attitudes

The “Village of Ruidoso’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan” notes that the Village’s most important 

attributes are “Ruidoso’s diversity, friendliness, and quality of life for future generations” (Village of 

Ruidoso 2010). In addition, the slogan for the Village of Ruidoso’s vision is: “Ruidoso... Living in 

Nature’s Playground.” Thus, quality of life can certainly be considered linked to area natural 

amenities managed in part by the Lincoln National Forest. 

As discussed above, municipal water supply, as it relates to North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion, 

would be unaffected under the no change alternative over the long term. Thus, quality of life as it 

relates to municipal water supply would remain unchanged under this alternative. In addition, quality 

of life associated with the quality of recreation experience and the availability of domestic well water 

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

Forest would continue to support quality of life at levels experienced currently.

Environmental Justice

The no change alternative is not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effect on minority or low income populations. As noted above, quality of life as it 

relates to municipal water supply, recreation opportunities, and the availability of domestic well water 

would remain unchanged under this alternative. Consequently, there would be no environmental 

justice effects. 

Cumulative Effects

The Village of Ruidoso’s 40-year plan has shown that future needs for water supply and water rights 

exceed existing supplies and rights. Future water usage projections show that the Village of Ruidoso 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

194 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

will require 5,097.2 acre-feet per year diversion, even with existing and future utility use reductions 

and conservation. Existing water supplies and water rights as developed do not meet these needs 

(Wilson and Company 2005, pp. 1–53). With water supply uncertainty following the Little Bear Fire

the Village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease additional water rights and has increased diversion of 

surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 2014). In addition to the six existing and 

operating wells that are supplemental to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells in the Eagle Creek basin, 

there are an additional 7 supplemental wells in the cumulative impact analysis area off of National 

Forest System lands that the Village has applied for and that could also divert the Eagle Creek water 

right in the future (Office of the State Engineer, personal communication, 2014). 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 

Lake14. In addition, the Village of Ruidoso has several pending applications with the Office of the 

State Engineer (State of New Mexico, Office of the State Engineer, personal communication, 

September 2014) that could affect groundwater and surface water withdrawal along Eagle Creek. 

These applications are listed in the water resources report (water resources report page 7). If all these 

pending applications are approved by the Office of the State Engineer, it would enable the village to 

access their water rights (for both surface and groundwater) from approximately 16 wells and two 

surface diversions along Eagle Creek (water resources report page 7). Thus, once conditions allow for 

North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping to resume at pre-wildfire levels it is likely that the Village of 

Ruidoso will have made water supply adjustments in order to meet water supply demand.

Consequently reliance on North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping may be less than depicted above. 

Effects on measures of dependency presented above can be considered an upper bound of potential 

effects. There are additional domestic wells and points of diversion for real estate developments and 

resorts, along the Eagle Creek drainage below the North Fork Eagle Creek well field, off of National 

Forest System land. Consequently the potential cumulative effects on streamflows and groundwater 

resources are not restricted to water uses by the Village of Ruidoso. More information on this 

uncertainty can be found in the water resources section under the “Cumulative Effects” section and 

the section “Additional Impact Information”.

If the Village of Ruidoso resumes pre-wildfire levels of groundwater withdrawal, the potential for 

adverse cumulative effects to municipal water supply would be less under this alternative than the 

other alternatives. These effects would accrue in addition to effects from other actions identified in 

table 4. However, the potential for adverse cumulative economic effects to the quality of recreation 

experience provided by streamflow quantity, springs, and seeps would be more under this alternative 

than the other alternatives. Similarly, the potential for adverse cumulative economic effects to nearby 

domestic wells would be higher under this alternative than under the other alternatives.

Conclusion

Over the long term (after the wildfire recovery period), average annual water diversion from North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells could continue to provide historic contributions to the Village of Ruidoso 

water supply under this alternative. However, a lower quality streamside recreation experience is

anticipated compared to alternative 2 (no pumping) and alternative 3 (adaptive management) since 

additional surface flow, and improved spring and seep conditions are anticipated under alternative 2 

(no pumping) and alternative 3 (adaptive management). In addition, the potential for adverse effects 

to the availability of domestic well water are greatest under this alternative since there would be no 

groundwater drawdown under alternative 2 (no pumping) and less groundwater drawdown under 

 14 The permit severed the adjudicated rights to H-1979. However, the Village of Ruidoso’s municipal rights pertaining to 

PBU, in the amount of 350.42 af/yr, remain provable at H-1979.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 195

alternative 3 (adaptive management). The discounted present value of costs is greater than alternative 

2 however, the village would benefit from ongoing use of wells for municipal water supply.

Alternative 2 - No Action (No Pumping) 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Municipal Water Supply

Without groundwater withdrawal, the North Fork Eagle Creek wells would not provide their prewildfire share of Village of Ruidoso water supply (from approximately 24 to 29 percent of direct 

water supply and 36 to 43 percent of total water supply that considers indirect contributions from the 

50 percent return flow credit; see discussion above). In addition, larger contributions from North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells during the 5-month summer resort period would also discontinue (38 to 58 percent 

in 2006 and 2004, respectively of direct water supply and 57 to 87 percent of water supply that 

considers indirect contributions from the 50 percent return flow credit). Additionally, without 

groundwater withdrawal, North Fork Eagle Creek wells could not contribute toward future Village of 

Ruidoso demand for diversion (5,097 acre-feet in 2045; Wilson and Company 2005).

As shown in table 16, alternative 2 would not provide any water to the applicant for municipal water 

supply. 

Streamside Recreation Use 

Under alternative 2 (no pumping), it is anticipated that over the short term (until watershed 

“recovery”) the quality of recreation experience would remain uncertain during the transitional 

wildfire recovery period with uncertainty in water quantity and quality. Over the long term (after the 

wildfire recovery period) watershed conditions are expected to return to approximate pre-wildfire

conditions (see water resources section); thus, streamflow quantity would be greater than experienced 

by recreationists in the recent past. At the Eagle Creek gage the occurrence of no-flow days would be 

limited and during average or wetter years, there may be continuous flow. Flows of 1.2 cubic feet per 

second or greater would occur approximately 60 percent of the time (AECOM (2015) located in the 

project record). These conditions could support a higher quality streamside recreation experience 

compared to alternative 1 (preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) and alternative 3 

(adaptive management) since flows under these alternatives would be less than under alternative 2 (no 

pumping). 

Over the long term, springs, seeps, and dependent riparian vegetation important to the quality of 

recreation experience would at least be maintained, and could be improved, over pre-fire conditions 

under this alternative, as described in more detail in the water resources and riparian vegetation 

sections earlier in this chapter. In addition, in the absence of pumping, post-wildfire vegetative 

transition could result in enhanced aquatic habitats and additional opportunities for improving 

riparian conditions (“Water Resources” section beginning on page 100). Thus, alternative 2 (no 

pumping) provides the least possibility of detrimental effects to the quality of recreation experience 

from impacts to springs, seeps, and associated riparian vegetation since no withdrawals would occur.

Availability of Domestic Well Water and Water for Irrigation

Two domestic wells are within the area of projected drawdown, as depicted in figure 12 and figure 13, 

and could be affected (see water resources section earlier in this chapter). Since there would be no 

groundwater drawdown under alternative 2 (no pumping), there would be no adverse effects from 

pumping on the availability of domestic well water. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

196 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Under alternative 2 (no pumping), it is anticipated that over the short term (until watershed 

“recovery”) the availability of water for irrigation would remain uncertain during the transitional 

wildfire recovery period. Over the long term (after the wildfire recovery period) watershed conditions 

are expected to return to approximate pre-wildfire conditions (“Water Resources” section beginning 

on page 100); thus, streamflow quantity would be greater than experienced by agriculture users in the 

past. At the Eagle Creek Gage the occurrence of no flow days would be limited and during average or 

wetter years, there may be continuous flow. Flows of 1.2 cubic feet per second or greater would occur 

approximately 60 percent of the time (Water Resources Report; AECOM 2015). These conditions 

could support a higher quantity of water for irrigation uses compared to alternative 1 (preferred 

alternative, continue pumping at historic levels)and alternative 3 (adaptive management) since flows 

under these alternatives would be less than under alternative 2 (no pumping).

Financial Efficiency 

Table 15 summarizes the discounted present value of costs and present net value for each monitoring 

measure. A 4 percent discount rate was used over the 20 year life of a permit. Under alternative 2 the 

only cost that would be incurred would be the cost of surface gage monitoring that would be incurred 

by the U.S. Geological Survey, USDA Forest Service or other parties. This alternative is more 

financially efficient, in terms of cost evaluated, than alternatives 1 and 3, however the village would 

not benefit from use of wells for municipal water supply. In addition, under this alternative, benefits 

from maintained instream flow and improved riparian condition would be realized. These benefits are 

not described in financial or economic terms for this project, but rather are discussed in other sections 

of this document and other specialist reports; for example effects on riparian vegetation and 

watersheds resources.

Values, Beliefs, Attitudes

As discussed above, North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion would no longer contribute to municipal 

water supply under alternative 2 (no pumping). Thus, quality of life as it relates to municipal water 

supply would be less than experienced before the wildfire under the no change alternative and less 

than under alternative 3 (adaptive management). However, quality of life associated with the quality 

of recreation experience and the availability of domestic well water would be greater than the other 

alternatives. Thus, under alternative 2 (no pumping), the Lincoln National Forest would continue to 

support quality of life to the area community but less than supported before the wildfire from 

municipal water supply and more in terms of the quality of recreation experience and the availability 

of domestic well water.

Environmental Justice

Alternative 2 (no pumping) is not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effect on minority or low income populations. While adverse effects to total 

municipal water diversions are anticipated, they are expected to be distributed amongst all segments 

of the Village of Ruidoso population since water diversion from the North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

cannot be attributed to supply certain areas of the Village of Ruidoso. Consequently, effects to these 

communities cannot be considered disparate since effects would occur to communities regardless of 

racial, ethnic, or poverty status. However, low-income populations are more vulnerable to total 

municipal water diversions due to possible increases in the financial cost of water.

Cumulative Effects

Regardless of pumping restrictions under this EIS, the Village of Ruidoso 40-year plan has shown 

that future Ruidoso needs for water supply and water rights exceed existing supplies and rights. 

Future water usage projections show that the Village of Ruidoso will require 5,097.2 acre-feet per 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 197

year diversion, even with existing and future utility use reductions and conservation. Existing water 

supplies and water rights as developed do not meet these needs (Wilson and Company 2005 pp. 1–

53). With water supply uncertainty following the Little Bear Fire the Village of Ruidoso has taken 

steps to lease additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the 

Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 2014). In addition to the six existing and operating wells that are supplemental 

to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells in the Eagle Creek basin, there are an additional 7 supplemental 

wells in the cumulative impact analysis area off of National Forest System lands that the Village has 

applied for and that could also divert the Eagle Creek water right in the future (Office of the State 

Engineer, personal communication, 2014). 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 H1979 to the surface point of diversion at Eagle Creek and Alto Lake15. In addition, the Village of 

Ruidoso has several pending applications with the Office of the State Engineer (State of New Mexico, 

Office of the State Engineer, personal communication, September 2014) that could affect 

groundwater and surface water withdrawal along Eagle Creek. These applications are listed in the 

water resources report (water resources report page 7). If all these pending applications are approved 

by the Office of the State Engineer, it would enable the village to access their water rights (for both 

surface and groundwater) from approximately 16 wells and two surface diversions along Eagle Creek

(water resources report page 7). Thus, , once conditions allow for North Fork Eagle Creek well 

pumping to resume at pre-wildfire levels it is likely that the Village will have made water supply 

adjustments in order to meet water supply demand. Consequently reliance on North Fork Eagle Creek

well pumping may be less than depicted above. Effects on measures of dependency presented above 

can be considered an upper bound of potential effects. There are additional domestic wells and points 

of diversion, for real estate developments and resorts, along the Eagle Creek drainage below the 

North Fork Eagle Creek well field, off of National Forest System land. Consequently the potential 

cumulative effects on streamflows and groundwater resources are not restricted to water uses by the 

Village of Ruidoso. More information on this uncertainty can be found in the water resources section 

under the cumulative effects section (page 8) and the section “Additional Impact Information” 

(“Water Resources” section page 100).

Without groundwater withdrawal, the potential for adverse cumulative effects to municipal water 

supply would be greater under this alternative than the other alternatives. These effects would accrue 

in addition to effects from other actions (as identified in table 5). However, the potential for adverse 

cumulative economic effects to the quality of recreation experience provided by streamflow quantity, 

springs, and seeps would be less under this alternative than the other alternatives. Similarly, the 

potential for adverse cumulative economic effects to nearby domestic wells would be less under this 

alternative than under the other alternatives. 

Conclusion

Without groundwater withdrawal, the North Fork Eagle Creek wells would not continue to provide 

their pre-wildfire share of Village of Ruidoso water supply (from approximately 24 to 29 percent of 

direct water supply and 36 to 43 percent of total water supply that considers indirect contributions 

from the 50 percent return flow credit; see discussion above). In addition, larger contributions from 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells during the 5-month summer resort period would also discontinue (38 to 

58 percent in 2006 and 2004, respectively, of direct water supply and 57 to 87 percent of water supply 

that considers indirect contributions from the 50 percent return flow credit). Additionally, without 

groundwater withdrawal, North Fork Eagle Creek wells could not contribute toward future Village of 

 15 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-fee per year, remain provable at H-1979.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

198 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Ruidoso demand for diversion (5,097 acre-feet in 2045; Wilson and Company 2005). However, the 

potential for adverse effects to the quality of recreation experience provided by streamflow quantity, 

springs, and seeps would be less under this alternative than the other alternatives. Similarly, the 

potential for adverse effects to nearby domestic wells would be less than under the other alternatives. 

The discounted present value of costs is less than the other alternatives however, the village would 

not benefit from ongoing use of wells for municipal water supply.

Alternative 3 - Adaptive Management

Direct and Indirect Effects

Municipal Water Supply

Over the short term (until watershed “recovery”) management triggers would be most generally 

enacted during dry years under this alternative. During average or wet years, management triggers 

would be enacted much less frequently. The exact effect on contributions to municipal water supply is 

uncertain since the Village of Ruidoso anticipates that it will be a period of years before attenuation of 

wildfire effects will allow a resumption of the full use of Eagle Creek surface water, groundwater and 

the diversion credits for the return flow credit (Atkins 2014). 

Over the long term (after the wildfire recovery period) watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions (“Water Resources” section beginning on page 100). With 

restrictions on groundwater withdrawal under this alternative, the North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

would not provide their pre-wildfire share of Village of Ruidoso water supply (from approximately 24 

to 29 percent of direct water supply and 36 to 43 percent of total water supply that considers indirect 

contributions from the 50 percent return flow credit; see discussion above). Restrictions under this 

alternative would decrease the amount of water the village could withdraw by limiting the pumping 

rate to 50 percent of the streamflow reported at the North Fork gage. Using pre-wildfire data of 

surface flow during years where restrictions would have occurred provides a frame of reference for 

forgone water diversion (see methods discussion above). As an example using recent historical data, 

over the range of restrictions, the forgone water diversion due to withdrawal restrictions could reduce 

the contribution of North Fork Eagle Creek wells to approximately 23 to 25 percent of the recent total 

Village of Ruidoso diversions under alternative 3 (adaptive management). Consideration of additional 

indirect contributions attributable to North Fork Eagle Creek well diversions from the 50 percent 

return flow credit indicate that North Fork Eagle Creek wells would continue to provide 34.5 to 37.5 

percent to the municipal water supply.

Over the long term, if restrictions occurred during the 5-month summer resort period, the share of 

summer contributions from total annual diversion from North Fork Eagle Creek wells (38 to 58 

percent of annual well field pumping in 2006 and 2004, respectively, of direct water supply and 57 to 

87 percent of water supply that considers indirect contributions from the 50 percent return flow 

credit) would also be less. Over the range of hypothetical pre-wildfire restrictions, the forgone water 

diversion due to withdrawal restrictions could reduce the share of summer resort contribution to 

between 25 and 57 percent of total annual well field withdrawal under alternative 3 (adaptive 

management). Consideration of additional indirect contributions attributable to North Fork Eagle 

Creek well diversions from the 50 percent return flow credit indicate that North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells would continue to provide 37.5 to 85.5 percent during the 5-month summer resort period.

Restrictions on groundwater withdrawal from North Fork Eagle Creek wells would minimally reduce 

contributions toward future Village of Ruidoso demand for diversion (5,097 acre-feet in 2045; Wilson 

and Company 2005). Based on recent data, for example, the forgone water diversion due to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 199

withdrawal restrictions would negligibly reduce contributions to projected annual demand by 0.1 to 

1.3 percent. 

In order to determine generalized impacts to average annual diversion from implementing alternative 

3 (adaptive management) compared to alternative 1 (no change), pre-wildfire data available (from 

September 2007 to November 2011) were used. Based on this analysis, as shown in table 16, annual 

diversion from the North Fork wells in the future would likely be less under alternative 3 (adaptive 

management) than that provided under alternative 1 (no change). If the adaptive management 

approach proposed under alternative 3 (adaptive management) were applied to the years 2008–2011, 

annual diversion under alternative 3 (adaptive management) would have ranged from 300 acre-feet 

per year (or more) to less than 50 acre-feet per year; this would have varied by year due to whether it 

was a wet or dry year and how the adaptive management triggers were implemented. Annual 

diversion from the North Fork wells in the future would be the least under alternative 2 (no pumping).

Table 16. Summary of available water (acre-feet per year) per alternative, based on available past data 

(for alternative 1, this is actual pumping data)

Year

Alternative 1 

(no change)

Alternative 2 

(no action)

Alternative 3 

(adaptive management)

a

2008 735 0 300

2009 622 0 300

2010 807 0 300

2011 not currently available 0 47

Average 721 (2008-2010) 

569 (2002-2010) 

0 236

Contribution to 

existing 

average annual 

Village of 

Ruidoso

diversion 

100% 0% 88–98 percent if only no-flow day 

triggers used, as described on page 

125

8–53 percent if no-flow day and 

pumping volume triggers used, as 

shown above

42 percent average

a – It is important to note that the adaptive management triggers in alternative 3 (adaptive management) are written to provide 

flexibility in implementing restrictions on pumping; this analysis used the 900 acre-feet per year over 3 years or 300 acre-feet 

per year trigger as its starting point. If only the no-flow days trigger was used, these volumes would likely have been 

substantially higher and would only have reduced pumping volume from 6.5 to 66.5 acre-feet per year compared to alternative 

1; projecting these results into the future should be viewed as a maximum reduction; available water to the applicant may be 

higher.

Based on implementing the no-flow day restriction at the pre-wildfire Eagle Creek gage under 

alternative 3 (adaptive management), pumping reductions would likely range from 6.5 acre-feet per 

year to 66.5 acre-feet per year, if similar conditions occurred in the long term as the pre-wildfire years 

used in the analysis (see “Water Resources” section of this chapter for more information); or would 

provide approximately 88–98 percent of the applicant’s current average annual diversion (using a 569 

acre-feet per year average for current levels). This is considered a reasonable range of estimated 

reductions from implementing the flow condition triggers, which are the primary proposed 

management tool under alternative 3 (adaptive management). 

However, there may be further reductions based on cumulative pumping volumes and water table 

triggers, as described in the “Adaptive Management” section of the alternative 3 (adaptive 

management) description in chapter 2. Under adaptive management, these reductions would likely 

vary over time according to USDA Forest Service review, different pumping strategies, monitoring 

results, and hydrologic conditions. Under some circumstances, additional triggers could be applied to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

200 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

maintain the flow system, whereas under other conditions only the flow triggers (the primary 

management tool) would be applied. 

Assuming the 300 acre-feet per year adaptive management trigger was implemented combined with 

the flow condition triggers (or 900 acre-feet per year over 3 years) during 2008–2011, average annual 

diversions would have been reduced over actual diversions (table 16); under this scenario, alternative 

3 (adaptive management) would have contributed an average of 236 acre-feet per year, or between 8 

and 53 percent (42 percent average) to the applicant’s average annual diversion. 

As shown, if available pre-wildfire data are indicative of future years, implementing alternative 3 

(adaptive management) could measurably limit the water available for applicant pumping through 

implementation of adaptive management triggers, and these limits would likely be greatest during dry 

years (such as 2011). However, all of the adaptive management triggers proposed are designed to be 

used in concert with each other and to be flexible so that a balance between providing water and 

protecting resources is met. In addition, over the long term, post-wildfire vegetative transitions in the 

watershed may slightly improve groundwater availability within the North Fork Eagle Creek (North 

Fork Eagle Creek drainage on and off National Forest System land) (see “Water Resources” section 

beginning on page 100). If this occurs, contributions to municipal water supply could be slightly 

greater throughout the year and during the 5-month summer resort period. This should be considered 

a maximum reduction scenario, based on limited data available from pre-wildfire years, and should 

therefore be used with caution. It is possible that available water could be higher than shown here. 

Streamside Recreation Use 

Under alternative 3 (adaptive management), it is anticipated that over the short term (i.e., until 

watershed “recovery”) the quality of recreation experience would remain uncertain during the 

transitional wildfire recovery period with uncertainty in water quantity and quality. Over the long

term (i.e., after the wildfire recovery period) watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions (“Water Resources”section beginning on page 100); thus, 

streamflow quantity would be greater than pre-wildfire levels. In addition, streamflow quantity under 

this alternative would be less than under no pumping alternative. By limiting pumping the aquifer 

water level recovery times would decrease leading to a decrease in the duration of no surface flow 

periods (Water Resources Report; AECOM 2015). Consequently, these conditions could support a 

higher quality streamside recreation experience compared to the no change alternative but lower 

quality than alternative 2 (no pumping).

Over the long-term springs, seeps and dependent riparian vegetation important to the quality of 

recreation experience could be improved over pre-fire conditions under this alternative. Two springs 

are within the area of projected drawdown, as depicted in figure 12 and figure 13 and could be 

affected. However, the decreased drawdown and shorter water-level recovery times predicted under 

this alternative would also decrease the potential for impacts to springs and seeps, compared to 

alternative 1 (see water resources section earlier in this chapter). In addition, post-wildfire vegetative 

transition along with pumping restrictions could result in enhanced aquatic habitats and additional 

opportunities for improving riparian (water resources section). Thus, alternative 3 (adaptive 

management) provides the less detrimental effects to the quality of recreation experience from 

impacts to springs, seeps and associated riparian vegetation than the no-change alternative but more 

detrimental effects than alternative 2 (no pumping). According to the riparian report, change in effects 

are expected to be the same as those described in alternative 1, except that any positive benefit from 

increased availability of water to riparian vegetation and therefore recreation would be greater in 

magnitude in alternative 3.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 201

Availability of Domestic Well Water and Water for Irrigation

Two domestic wells are within the area of projected drawdown as depicted on figures 7a and 7b, and 

could be affected. However, the decreased drawdown and shorter water-level recovery times 

predicted under this alternative would also decrease the potential for impacts to these wells, compared 

to alternative 1 (see water resources section beginning on page 100). The potential for adverse effects 

are still greater though, than under alternative 2 (no pumping).

Under alternative 3 (adaptive management), it is anticipated that over the short term until watershed 

“recovery”) the availability of water for irrigation would remain uncertain during the transitional 

wildfire recovery period. Over the long term (after the wildfire recovery period) watershed conditions 

are expected to return to approximate pre-wildfire conditions (see “Water Resources” section page 

100); thus, streamflow quantity would be greater than pre-wildfire levels. In addition, streamflow 

quantity under this alternative would be less than under the no pumping alternative. By limiting 

pumping the aquifer water level recovery times would decrease leading to a decrease in the duration 

of no surface flow periods (Water Resources Report; AECOM 2015). Consequently, these conditions 

could support a higher quantity of water for irrigation uses compared to the no-change alternative but 

lower quantity than alternative 2 (no pumping).

Financial Efficiency 

Table 15 summarizes the discounted present value of costs and present net value for each monitoring 

measure. Under alternatives 3 the present net value would range from $4.6 to $7.2 million dollars 

depending on a range of costs based on professional opinion in the face of uncertainty (see Table 15). 

Under this alternative the Village of Ruidoso would pay for all monitoring measures except riparian 

vegetation monitoring (which would be covered by the Forest) thus their present net value would be 

slightly less than the total present net value. While less financially efficient than alternative 2 the 

village would benefit from ongoing use of wells for municipal water supply. In addition, benefits 

from maintained instream flow and improved riparian condition would be realized. These benefits 

are not described in financial or economic terms for this project, but rather are discussed in other 

sections of this document and other specialist reports; for example effects on riparian vegetation and 

watersheds resources.

Values, Beliefs, Attitudes

As discussed above under alternative 3 (adaptive management), it is anticipated that North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells diversion would contribute less to municipal water supply than currently. Thus quality of 

life as it relates to municipal water supply would be less before the wildfire. However, quality of life 

associated with the quality of recreation experience and the availability of domestic well water would 

increase under this alternative relative to the current situation. Thus, under this alternative, the 

Lincoln National Forest would continue to support quality of life to the area community; less than 

supported before the wildfire from municipal water supply and more in terms of the quality of 

recreation experience and the availability of domestic well water.

Environmental Justice

Alternative 3 (adaptive management) is not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effect on minority or low income populations. While adverse effects 

to total municipal water diversions are anticipated, they are expected to be distributed amongst all 

segments of the Village of Ruidoso population since water diversion from the North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells cannot be attributed to supply certain areas of the Village of Ruidoso. Consequently, effects to 

these communities cannot be considered disparate since effects would occur to communities 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

202 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

regardless of racial, ethnic, or poverty status. However, low-income communities could be more 

adversely affected if rates for water increase.

Cumulative Effects

Regardless of pumping restrictions under this EIS, the Village of Ruidoso 40-year plan has shown 

that future Ruidoso needs for water supply and water rights exceed existing supplies and rights. 

Future water usage projections show that Ruidoso will require 5,097.2 acre-feet per year diversion, 

even with existing and future utility use reductions and conservation. Existing water supplies and 

water rights as developed do not meet these needs (Wilson and Company 2005 pp. 1–53). With water 

supply uncertainty following the Little Bear Fire the Village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso 

(Atkins 2014). In addition to the six existing and operating wells that are supplemental to the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells in the Eagle Creek basin, there are an additional 7 supplemental wells in the 

cumulative impact analysis area off of National Forest System lands that the Village has applied for 

and that could also divert the Eagle Creek water right in the future (Office of the State Engineer, 

personal communication, 2014). 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 Lake16. In addition, the Village of Ruidoso has 

several pending applications with the Office of the State Engineer (State of New Mexico, Office of 

the State Engineer, personal communication, September 2014) that could affect groundwater and 

surface water withdrawal along Eagle Creek. These applications are listed in the water resources 

report (water resources report page 7). If all these pending applications are approved by the Office of 

the State Engineer, it would enable the village to access their water rights (for both surface and 

groundwater) from approximately 16 wells and two surface diversions along Eagle Creek (water 

resources report page 7). Thus, once conditions allow for North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping to 

resume at pre-wildfire levels it is likely that the Village of Ruidoso will have made water supply 

adjustments in order to meet water supply demand. Consequently effects on measures of dependency 

presented above can be considered an upper bound of potential effects. There are additional domestic 

wells and points of diversion, for real estate developments and resorts, along the Eagle Creek 

drainage below the North Fork Eagle Creek well field, off of National Forest System land.

Consequently the potential cumulative effects on streamflows and groundwater resources are not 

restricted to water uses by the Village of Ruidoso. More information on this uncertainty can be found 

under the “Cumulative Effects” and “Additional Impact Information” headings in the “Additional 

Impact Information” section.

With restrictions on groundwater withdrawal under this alternative, the potential for adverse 

cumulative economic effects to municipal water supply would be greater under this alternative than 

under the no change alternative but less than alternative 2 (no pumping). These effects would accrue 

in addition to effects from other actions identified in table 5 of the EIS. The potential for adverse 

cumulative economic effects to the quality of recreation experience provided by streamflow quantity, 

springs, and seeps would be less under this alternative than under the no change alternative but more 

than alternative 2 (no pumping). In addition, the potential for adverse cumulative economic effects to 

nearby domestic wells would be less under this alternative than under the no change alternative but 

more than alternative 2 (no pumping). 

 16 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-fee per year, remain provable at H-1979.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 203

Conclusion

With restrictions on groundwater withdrawal under alternative 3 (adaptive management), the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells would not provide their pre-wildfire share of Village of Ruidoso water supply 

(from 24 to 29 percent of direct water supply and 36 to 43 percent of total water supply that considers 

indirect contributions from the 50 percent return flow credit; see discussion above). As an example 

using pre-wildfire data, over the range of restrictions, the forgone water diversion due to withdrawal 

restrictions could reduce the contribution of North Fork Eagle Creek wells to approximately 23 to 25 

percent of the recent total Village of Ruidoso diversions under alternative 3. Consideration of 

additional indirect contributions attributable to North Fork Eagle Creek well diversions from the 50 

percent return flow credit indicate that North Fork Eagle Creek wells would continue to provide 34.5 

to 37.5 percent to the municipal water supply. The potential for effects to forgone water diversion is 

greater during the 5-month summer resort period (38 to 58 percent of annual well field pumping in 

2006 and 2004, respectively of direct water supply and 57 to 87 percent of water supply that 

considers indirect contributions from the 50 percent return flow credit). Over the range of 

hypothetical pre-wildfire restrictions, the forgone water diversion due to withdrawal restrictions could 

reduce the share of summer resort contribution to between 25 and 57 percent of total annual well field

withdrawal. Consideration of additional indirect contributions attributable to North Fork Eagle Creek 

well diversions from the 50 percent return flow credit indicate that North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

would continue to provide 37.5 to 85.5 percent during the 5-month summer resort period. Municipal 

water supply would be greater under this alternative than the no pumping alternative and streamflow 

quantity under this alternative would be less than under the no pumping alternative.

Over the long term, post-wildfire vegetative transitions in the watershed may slightly improve 

groundwater availability within the North Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork Eagle Creek drainage on and 

off National Forest System land) (see “Water Resources” section). If this occurs, contributions to 

municipal water supply could be slightly greater throughout the year and during the 5-month summer 

resort period. In addition to the six existing and operating wells that are supplemental to the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells in the Eagle Creek basin, there are an additional 7 supplemental wells in the 

cumulative impact analysis area off of National Forest System lands that the Village has applied for 

and that could also divert the Eagle Creek water right in the future (Office of the State Engineer, 

personal communication, 2014). 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 Lake17. In addition, the Village of Ruidoso has 

several pending applications with the Office of the State Engineer (State of New Mexico, Office of 

the State Engineer, personal communication, September 2014) that could affect groundwater and 

surface water withdrawal along Eagle Creek. These applications are listed in the water resources 

report (water resources report page 7). If all these pending applications are approved by the Office of 

the State Engineer, it would enable the village to access their water rights (for both surface and 

groundwater) from approximately 16 wells and two surface diversions along Eagle Creek (water 

resources report page 7). Thus, once conditions allow for North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping to 

resume at pre-fire levels, it is likely that the Village will have made water supply adjustments in order 

to meet water supply demand. Consequently reliance on North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping may 

be less than depicted above. Effects on measures of dependency presented above can be considered 

an upper bound of potential effects. Thus, this should be considered the maximum reduction to 

municipal water supply contributions. Under this alternative the village would be required to incur 

costs associated with monitoring activities required under their permit. The discounted present value 

 17 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-fee per year, remain provable at H-1979.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

204 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

of these costs is greater than alternative 2 however, the village would benefit from ongoing use of 

wells for municipal water supply that would not be realized under alternative 2.

The potential for adverse effects to the quality of recreation experience provided by streamflow 

quantity, springs, and seeps would be less under this alternative than under the no change alternative 

but more than alternative 2 (no pumping). In addition, the potential for adverse effects to nearby 

domestic wells would be less under this alternative than under the no change alternative but more 

than alternative 2 (no pumping). 

Summary

Implementing alternative 1 (preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) or alternative 3 

(adaptive management) would both achieve the first need statement for this project which is 

“authorizing, under a special use permit, the applicant’s ability to access and divert groundwater from 

its North Fork Eagle Creek wells on National Forest System land, as a substantial component of the 

municipal water supply system that Ruidoso residents and visitors rely upon.” Because both 

alternatives would continue to provide water to the Village of Ruidoso and would, therefore, continue 

to contribute to the municipal water supply, they meet the intent of this need statement. However, 

alternative 3 (adaptive management) may not provide the pre-wildfire share of water as would 

alternative 1 (preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) (from approximately 24 to 29 

percent of direct water supply and 36 to 43 percent of total water supply that considers indirect 

contributions from the 50 percent return flow credit; see discussion above). Regardless the discussion 

above notes that when additional indirect contributions attributable to the 50 percent return flow 

credit are considered under alternative 3, North Fork Eagle Creek wells would continue to provide 

37.5 to 85.5 percent of municipal water supply during the 5-month summer resort period. Alternative 

2 (no pumping) does not address this need statement and would not provide any contribution to the 

municipal water supply. Over the long term, post-wildfire vegetative transitions in the watershed may 

slightly improve groundwater availability within the North Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork Eagle 

Creek drainage on and off National Forest System land) (see “Water Resources”section page 100). If 

this occurs, contributions to municipal water supply could be slightly greater throughout the year and 

during the 5-month summer resort period. In addition to the six existing and operating wells that are 

supplemental to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells in the Eagle Creek basin, there are an additional 7 

supplemental wells in the cumulative impact analysis area off of National Forest System lands that 

the Village has applied for and that could also divert the Eagle Creek water right in the future (Office 

of the State Engineer, personal communication, 2014). Once conditions allow for North Fork Eagle 

Creek well pumping to resume at pre-wildfire levels it is likely that the Village of Ruidoso will have 

made water supply adjustments in order to meet water supply demand. Consequently reliance on 

North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping may be less than depicted above. Effects on measures of 

dependency presented above can be considered an upper bound of potential effects. Thus, this should 

be considered a maximum reduction to municipal water supply contributions.

While the short-term effects of implementing alternatives 1, 2 and 3 to other aspects of the 

socioeconomic analysis (streamside recreational use; domestic wells and water for irrigation; values, 

attitudes and beliefs; and environmental justice) are uncertain during the watershed recovery period 

following the Little Bear Fire, the long-term effects are the same as those described above for each

alternative for the pre-wildfire assessment.

The socioeconomic principles and goals listed above illustrate the need for the Lincoln National 

Forest to adopt a management alternative that adequately responds to changing human conditions and 

demands while also supporting multiple uses and sustained yield. Alternative 3 (adaptive 

management) moves towards the above forest plan goals to the greatest extent, compared to the other 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 205

alternatives. The no change and no pumping alternatives (1 and 2) do not address the intent of the 

forest plan as well as the adaptive management alternative. Alternative 2 (no pumping) meets the 

second goal to “Secure and provide an adequate supply of water for the protection and management 

of the Forest” but does not go as far towards meeting the forest plan as the adaptive management 

alternative in regards to other goals to “Use land ownership adjustment to accomplish resource 

management objectives and respond to public needs” and “Provide opportunities to satisfy local 

demand for Forest resources” (USDA Forest Service 1986).

Significant Issue: Water Rights

The purpose of this section is to discuss the applicant’s water rights in the context of the proposed 

alternatives. The issues related to reissuance of a special use permit to the applicant to continue 

pumping from wells located on National Forest System lands includes the beneficial use of the 

Village of Ruidoso’s adjudicated water rights. This section provides a brief overview of the Village of 

Ruidoso’s existing water rights and discusses water rights in the context of each alternative. 

Methodology

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

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

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

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

water rights. 

The North Fork Eagle Creek wells along Eagle Creek draw water in the amounts associated with the 

right that is attributable to each well. Changes to the amount of groundwater withdrawal by the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells could potentially impact the Village of Ruidoso’s timely beneficial use of the 

water rights tied to each well. The alternatives will be compared using the following measurement 

indicator:

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

Affected Environment

The “Water Rights Report” (Thompson 2015) is available in the project record and includes an 

overview of water rights in New Mexico and a detailed history of the Village of Ruidoso’s water 

rights. This report is incorporated by reference, discussed briefly below, and available in its entirety in 

the project record. The glossary also provides some of the more commonly-used terms related to 

water rights. 

Except for Federal Reserved Rights, the Federal Government defers to state law in the allocation of 

water on public lands. The Federal government recognizes those water rights on public lands that 

were perfected according to state law [California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co. 

(S.Ct.1935)].

New Mexico follows the prior appropriation doctrine. Central to New Mexico’s definition of prior 

appropriation is that all appropriated waters must be put to beneficial use, and that priority shall give 

the better right. Beneficial use is the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right. The state’s water 

law is found in New Mexico Statutes Chapter 72. The Office of State Engineer, appointed by the 

Governor and confirmed by the State Senate has broad authority over New Mexico’s distribution of 

the State’s water. The State Engineer is responsible for supervising the state’s water resources through 

the appropriation and distribution of all of the state’s surface and groundwater. The State Engineer is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

206 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

also secretary for the Interstate Stream Commission, which is responsible for investigating, 

protecting, conserving, and developing New Mexico’s water supply.

Water rights in New Mexico can be held by any entity except by the State Engineer. A water right can 

be severed from the land through an application to the Office of the State Engineer. Water rights can 

also be transferred from one entity to another, but a change application must be filed and approved by 

the Office of the State Engineer. Water rights are also considered real property and may be bought or 

sold and can be conveyed as part of a piece of real property or it can be severed from the land and 

sold separately. New Mexico’s surface water code was created in 1907 and when it became a state in 

1912, the new constitution adopted the prior appropriation doctrine. Any appropriation of surface 

water initiated on or after March 19, 1907 requires a valid permit issued by the State Engineer. Since 

March 29, 1907, New Mexico has considered most surface water in the state to be fully appropriated, 

so most recent water rights are attributable to groundwater.

The New Mexico groundwater code was enacted in 1931. The groundwater code specifies the 

administrative procedures for processing any application of new groundwater, to change the place of 

use or purpose of use of an existing groundwater right, to change the location of a well, to add a 

supplemental well, or to drill a replacement well. However, groundwater use and development can 

only be administered by the Office of the State Engineer in basins that have been declared to have 

reasonably ascertainable boundaries. The Office of the State Engineer can close declared basins in 

order to limit future use and prevent impairment of existing uses. 

Surface and groundwater can be hydrologically connected. Conjunctive water use recognizes this 

typical connection and tries to utilize it to more efficiently manage the water supply. Conjunctive 

management of both surface water and groundwater has been established by judicial affirmation in a 

case known as City of Albuquerque v. Reynolds (1962). The New Mexico Supreme Court recognized 

the statutory authority of the State Engineer to conjunctively administer hydrologically connected 

surface and groundwater.

In 2010, a consent order was negotiated with the Village of Ruidoso and the Office of the State 

Engineer to more accurately define the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights in Eagle Creek. This subfile 

order adjudicates the groundwater rights wells (H-1979 through H-1982) in the total combined 

amount of 1,692.88 acre-feet per year at each respective point of diversion and also recognizes the 

Village of Ruidoso’s right to place an additional 846.46 acre-feet per year into use subject to filing of 

proof of beneficial use by December 31, 2024. This consent order is the Village of Ruidoso’s 

adjudicated water rights as of 2014. This water rights summary is shown in table 17 and in figure 11

earlier in this chapter. 

The 2010 Consent Order also discusses the Village of Ruidoso’s surface rights along Eagle Creek 

(located off National Forest System lands and adjudicated in subfile R.33) and the separate 

relationship with the North Fork wells (table 18). The surface diversion can be combined with 

supplemental water pumped from the North Fork wells to satisfy the Village of Ruidoso’s surface 

water rights along Eagle Creek. This surface water right and supplemental groundwater pumped from 

the North Fork wells is in addition to and separate from the Village of Ruidoso’s groundwater rights 

discussed in the previous section. Therefore, an additional 761.12 acre-feet per year could be pumped 

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

rights. This combined surface diversion and groundwater from the North Fork wells is illustrated in 

the following table.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 207

Table 17. 2010 Consent order between the applicant and Office of the State Engineer for the four North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells, updated with recent information from 2014.

Well Number

2009 Final 

Adjudication

and Recent 

Permit

Applicant’s 

Municipal Righta to 

Additional af/yr 

Subject to Proof of 

Beneficial Use on 

12/31/2024b

Total af/yr Combined Final 

Adjudication and Municipal 

Right Still Subject to Proof 

of Beneficial Usec

H-1979 (North Fork Well 1) 0.00 350.42 350.42

H-1980 (North Fork Well 2) 46.77 23.39 70.16

H-1981 (North Fork Well 3) 550.71 275.36 826.07

H-1982 (North Fork Well 4) 394.57 197.29 591.86

TOTAL 992.05 846.46 1,838.51

a – NMSA 72-1-9 allows municipalities a water use planning period not to exceed 40 years, in which water rights can be 

developed based on the water development plan.

b – The applicant can pump this amount now or wait to pump as long as they show beneficial use before December 31, 2024.

c – This is the maximum amount the applicant can ever pump from each well.

Table 18. 2010 Consent Order Surface and Groundwater Rights Combined. (The surface diversion and 

supplemental groundwater can be combined at any rate by any withdrawal method (surface or ground)

Diversion Amounta Location

Surface Diversion combined Off National Forest System lands

Surface Diversion combined Off National Forest System lands

H 1497 combined Off National Forest System lands

H 1497-S combined Off National Forest System lands

H-1979 combined North Fork Eagle Creek -National Forest System

lands

H-1980 combined North Fork Eagle Creek -National Forest System

lands

H-1981 combined North Fork Eagle Creek -National Forest System

lands

H-1982 combined North Fork Eagle Creek -National Forest System

lands

H-1979-S combined Off National Forest System lands

H-1979-S2 combined Off National Forest System lands

H-1979-S3 combined Off National Forest System lands

H-1979-S7 combined Off National Forest System lands

Total 761.12

a - Withdrawal is based on priority, but the amounts can be diverted from any combination of surface or groundwater. There is 

not an attributable amount to each individual withdrawal method (surface or groundwater).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

208 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

The priority dates for the surface diversion listed in table 18 are shown below: 

Priority and Amount

1882 for 91.435 af/yr

1883 for 257.01 af/yr

1884 for 21.72 af/yr

1885 for 94.115 af/yr

1887 for 10.86 af/yr

1894 for 39.82 af/yr

1895 for 50.675 af/yr

1896 for 47.055 af/yr

1902 for 36.2 af/yr

July 9, 1913 for 112.23 af/yr

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 (table 18). In addition, the Village or Ruidos has several 

pending applications with the Office of the State Engineer (State of New Mexico, Office of the State 

Engineer, personal communication, September 2014) that could affect groundwater and surface water 

withdrawal along Eagle Creek. These applications are enumerated below:

• The Village of Ruidoso filed an application to make wells H-1497 and H-1497-S 

supplemental to H-1979, H-1980, H-1981 and H-1982. In that application, the Village 

requested that pumping from H-1497 and H-1497-S be limited to 300 acre-feet per year for

each well.

• The Village of Ruidoso then filed an application to add wells H-1979-S-10, H-1979-S-11, H1979-S-12, H-1979-S-13 and H-1979-S-14 as additional supplemental wells to H-1979, H1980, H-1981 and H-1982. In this application, the Village requested that pumping from H1979-S-10, H-1979-S-11, H-1979-S-12, H-1979-S-13 and H-1979-S-14 be limited to 400 

acre-feet per year for each well.

• Next, the Village of Ruidoso filed an application to add wells H-1979-S-5 and H-1979-S-6 as 

supplemental wells to H-1979, H-1980, H-1981 and H-1982. In this application, the Village 

requested that the combined pumping from H-1979-S-5 and H-1979-S-6 be limited to 400 

acre-feet per year.

If all these pending applications are approved by the Office of the State Engineer, it would enable the 

applicant to access their water rights (for both surface and groundwater) from approximately 16 wells 

and two surface diversions along Eagle Creek (see also figure 4 and figure 5). This allows the 

applicant to diversify extraction methods based on water availability.

The Village of Ruidoso has also entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Rio Hondo Land 

and Cattle Company. Both parties agreed to the following:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 209

• The Village of Ruidoso only has 1,624.51 acre-feet per year in the North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells (a loss of 68.37 acre-feet per year from the 2009 consent order). 

• The Village of Ruidoso will not attempt to change the diversion for any of its rights outside 

the Eagle Creek basin. The Eagle Creek basin is defined as the basin lying west of the 

north/south quarter line of Section 36 Township 10S, Range 13E, NMPM. 

• The Village of Ruidoso will cancel all excess rights pertaining to the proof of beneficial use. 

To our knowledge as of August 2014, this agreement between the two parties has not been 

acknowledged by the Office of the State Engineer. If an updated consent order from the Office of the 

State Engineer including this agreement is issued, the USDA Forest Service will recognize the 

updated consent order as the most current description of the applicant’s water rights. Until that time, 

the USDA Forest Service will use the 2009 final adjudication and recently approved permits as the 

Village of Ruidoso’s water rights in the North Fork Eagle Creek. The alternatives presented in this 

document for analysis would not be affected by implementation of this memorandum of agreement.

Water Distribution

To summarize, the Village of Ruidoso has groundwater rights in North Fork Eagle Creek on National 

Forest System lands. In addition to the four North Fork Eagle Creek wells, the Village of Ruidoso 

also has water rights for other water diversions in other parts of the Eagle Creek basin (and off of 

National Forest System land) that include a surface diversion, four supplemental wells to the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells, and both the brown and green wells (totaling six additional wells and one 

surface diversion) in the Eagle Creek drainage off of National Forest System lands; and 2,561.57 

acre-feet in water rights (figure 11 and table 19). Table 19 lists the water rights associated with each 

of these diversions in the larger Eagle Creek drainage.

Table 19. Eagle Creek drainage summary of water rights, updated with recent information from 2014 (see 

also figure 11)

State Engineer File Number and Name

Annual Historic Maximum 

(acre-feet per year)

0173, 187: Eagle Creek Surface Diversion 761.12

H-1979 North Fork 1 (NF-1)

H-1980 North Fork 2 (NF-2)

H-1981 North Fork 3 (NF-3)

H-1982 North Fork 4 (NF-4)

H-1979-S “Alto Lake well”

H-1979-S-2 “River well”

H-1979-S-3 “Ball Field Concession well”

H-1979-S-7 “Below Alto Lake well”

1979 Series Total Water Right

992.05

Municipal Right for H-1979 series wells subject to PBU in 

2024

846.46

H-1497 “Green well”

H-1497-S “Brown well”

H-1497 Series Total Water Right

107.57

Total Eagle Creek Water Rights 2707.28

Total North Fork Wells Water Rights 1838.51
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

210 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Eagle Creek Surface Supply:

This water right is the Village of Ruidoso’s share (one half) of the now-dissolved Eagle Creek InterCommunity Water Supply Association, which was originally established in 1954. These water rights 

have priority dates ranging from 1882 to July 9, 1913. Wilson and Company (2005) report that the 

average annual streamflow available for diversion is approximately 1,600 acre-feet per annum or 2.21 

cubic feet per second (992 gallons per minute) at the Eagle Creek diversion point. Streamflow data 

shows occasions during drought periods when very little or no flow is available for diversion on 

Eagle Creek (Wilson and Company 2005). 

Brown and Green Wells:

The H-1497 series wells near the Eagle Creek point of diversion are commonly known as the Brown 

and Green (or Woodpecker) wells. These wells have priority dates of 1869 and 1923 and are 

adjudicated for 59.61 acre-feet per year. Additionally, water rights were transferred to these wells in 

the amount of 77.76 acre-feet per year with a priority date of 1867. The total volume of finalized 

water rights associated directly with these two wells is 137.37 acre-feet per year, of which half may 

be consumptively used while the other half must be return flow. These wells also may be used to 

supplement the diversion of surface flows from Eagle Creek (Wilson and Company 2005). 

Groundwater is combined with surface water at Alto Lake Reservoir and piped to the Alto Crest 

Water Treatment Plant (WTP 3) and treated before being pumped into the system. Potable water 

production from Alto Crest WTP 3 varies depending upon water demands from the system, averaging 

as much as 2.3 million gallons per day (7.06 acre-feet per day), or as little as 0.5 million gallons per 

day (1.53 acre-feet per day) for water supply (Wilson and Company 2005).

Once treated, the water removed from the Eagle Creek drainage is then pumped into two large tanks 

that sit at the top of the drainage boundary that divides the Eagle Creek drainage and the Rio Ruidoso 

drainage. The water from the North Fork wells leaves the Eagle Creek drainage and enters the Village 

of Ruidoso’s distribution system that supplies its customers in the Rio Ruidoso drainage. After the 

water is used by the customers, it is collected via the sewer system and sent to the wastewater 

treatment plant. Once treated, the effluent is then discharged into the Rio Ruidoso. Because some of 

the discharged effluent is actually water from the Eagle Creek drainage, the Village of Ruidoso

receives an effluent credit. Based on this, the Village of Ruidoso is able to divert surface water from 

the Rio Ruidoso in an amount equal to what portion of the discharged effluent leaving the wastewater 

treatment plant is attributable to what is pumped out of the Eagle Creek drainage. 

Rio Ruidoso Water Supply

We describe above the applicant’s water rights associated with one part of the applicant water supply 

system, the Devils Canyon (Eagle Creek) portion. The other part of the Village of Ruidoso water 

supply comes from the Upper Rio Ruidoso watershed, through surface water diversion and 

groundwater pumping. These two subwatersheds are both part of the larger Pecos River basin and

administered by the Office of the State Engineer. Upper Rio Ruidoso water is diverted as both 

pumped groundwater and through a river intake. Groundwater is treated at the wellhead and fed 

directly into the distribution system. Surface water is collected at Grindstone Reservoir and treated at 

the Grindstone Water Treatment Plant before being fed into the distribution system. Grindstone 

Reservoir storage capacity is 1,520 acre-feet (488 million gallons). Combining Eagle Creek and 

Upper Rio Ruidoso together consists of 2 raw water reservoirs, 2 surface water treatment plants, and 

18 permitted wells, of which 11 are active wells, capable of together producing peak capacity of 

approximately 6 million gallons per day (Wilson and Company 2005). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 211

The 2012 Little Bear Fire halted the production of both surface and groundwater diversions along 

Eagle Creek due to water quality and debris flow issues. This not only impacted water production, but 

also affected the Village of Ruidoso’s ability to access the return flow credits along the Rio Ruidoso.

The shift from the Eagle Creek watershed to the Rio Ruidoso watershed has created a temporary 

redistribution of water rights along the Rio Ruidoso (also impacted by water quality from the Little 

Bear Fire). Approved on an emergency basis by the Office of the State Engineer, the Village of 

Ruidoso received a temporary additional point of diversion, at the confluence of the Rio Ruidoso and 

Carrizo Creek to the south, to provide water to the Grindstone Dam for use in the municipal supply.

This redistribution is anticipated to be short-term in nature and historic water rights and allocation 

will remain as defined in the 2010 Consent Order.

The Village of Ruidoso also has several pending applications with the Office of the State Engineer 

(State of New Mexico, Office of the State Engineer, personal communication, September 2014) that 

could affect groundwater and surface water withdrawal along Eagle Creek, as described earlier. If all 

of these pending applications are approved by the Office of the State Engineer, it would enable the 

Village to access their water rights (for both surface and groundwater) from approximately 16 wells 

and two surface diversions along Eagle Creek. This would allow the Village to diversify extraction 

methods based on water availability.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative - No Change

There are no effects under alternative 1 (preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) 

since the Village of Ruidoso would be able to put to beneficial use their adjudicated water right at the 

current point of diversion, which total 1,838.51 acre-feet per year and provide, on average, a direct 

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

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

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

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

diversions can be attributable to the North Fork wells.

Lack of diversion due to emergency circumstances created by the Little Bear Fire in 2012 is not 

expected to have a direct effect on the beneficial use of the Village of Ruidoso’s adjudicated water 

rights.

Alternative 2 – No Action (No Pumping)

Without groundwater withdrawal at the current location, the Village of Ruidoso would have the 

option to file application with the Office of the State Engineer to transfer the point of diversion of 

their water rights. This is a State of New Mexico process that does not involve the USDA Forest 

Service. The process to transfer water rights can be time consuming. The Village of Ruidoso would 

need to file an application to transfer water rights with the Office of the State Engineer. After the 

application is filed, a notice of intent to change the right’s use or place of use is published in the 

newspaper of record where the rights are located. Anyone who objects to the proposed transfer files a 

formal protest with the Office of the State Engineer. Protests must be based on a claim that the 

transfer will impair existing rights, be contrary to the conservation of water, or be detrimental to 

public welfare. If no protest is filed, the Office of the State Engineer could approve the transfer if it 

finds the transfer compatible with State law. If however, there is a protest, the Office of the State 

Engineer holds a formal hearing on issues set out in the protest and decides the case. If either party is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

212 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

dissatisfied with the Office of the State Engineer’s decision, an appeal can be made to district court. 

These hearings can take months or years to complete. 

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Management 

With the potential for limits to be placed on the amount of groundwater withdrawn from the North 

Fork well field, dependent on implementation of the adaptive management strategy under alternative 

3 (adaptive management), the Village of Ruidoso would have the option to file an application with the 

Office of the State Engineer to transfer the point of diversion of a portion of their water rights. This is 

a State of New Mexico process that does not involve the USDA Forest Service, but as described 

above for alternative 2 (no pumping), can be time consuming and lengthy; the Office of the State 

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

Update to overall effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

The wildfire halted the production of both surface and groundwater diversions along Eagle Creek due 

to water quality and debris flow issues. This impacted water production and the Village of Ruidoso’s 

ability to access the return flow credits along the Rio Ruidoso. The shift from the Eagle Creek 

watershed to the Rio Ruidoso watershed created a temporary redistribution of water rights along the 

Rio Ruidoso (also impacted by water quality from the Little Bear Fire). Approved on an emergency 

basis by the Office of the State Engineer, the Village of Ruidoso received a temporary additional point 

of diversion, at the confluence of the Rio Ruidoso and Carrizo Creek to the south, to provide water to 

the Grindstone Dam for use in the municipal supply. This redistribution is anticipated to be short-term 

in nature. Lack of diversion due to emergency circumstances created by the Little Bear Fire in 2012 is 

not expected to have a direct effect on the beneficial use of the Village of Ruidoso’s adjudicated water 

rights.

Over the long term, historic water rights and allocation will remain as defined in the 2009 Consent 

Order. Therefore, the effects of implementing alternatives 1, 2 and 3 to the beneficial use of the 

Village of Ruidoso’s water rights is the same as that described in the pre-wildfire assessment above.

Vegetation (Except Riparian Vegetation) 

Vegetation (except riparian vegetation) is not a significant issue and we will only briefly discuss it 

here.

This analysis focuses on three different aspects of vegetation: upland vegetation; threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive plant species; and nonnative invasive plants. In the next section, we discuss 

the relationship between forest density and water yield. 

A more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences for 

this project can be found in the vegetation report (Miller 2012b). The supplemental vegetation report 

(Miller 2014 and Kuhar 2014 and Miller 2015) provides a more detailed description of affected 

environment, methods, and environmental consequences, considering the changes caused by the Little 

Bear Fire. These reports are incorporated by reference, discussed briefly below, and available in their 

entirety in the project record.

Methodology 

Baseline information used to assess impacts to vegetation was provided by specialists with the Forest 

Service, literature, and professional judgment. Upland vegetation was analyzed in Arcmap 10.1 using 

the terrestrial ecosystem unit inventory dataset clipped to the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage 

boundary (figure 2). North Fork Eagle Creek was buffered by 200 feet to designate the riparian area. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 213

This riparian area was then excluded from analysis for upland vegetation. Cumulative effects were 

determined using Lincoln National Forest shapefiles of past, present and future project areas (table 4).

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants were analyzed in Arcmap 10.1 using the rare plant forest 

inventory dataset clipped to the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area. North Fork Eagle Creek was 

buffered by 200 feet to designate the riparian area. Cumulative effects were determined using Lincoln 

National Forest shapefiles of past, present and future project areas (table 4). Existing populations of 

rare plants were examined in the field in 2010 and 2011. Much of the project area was surveyed for 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants as part of the Eagle Creek project in 1996 and 2002. 

Nonnative invasive plants were analyzed in Arcmap 10.1 using the corporate nonnative invasive plant 

forest inventory dataset clipped to the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area. Cumulative effects were 

determined using Lincoln National Forest shapefiles of past, present and future project areas (table 4).

Temporal effects boundaries are 1 to 10 years for short-term effects and 10 to 20 years for long-term 

effects. The North Fork Eagle Creek drainage boundary (figure 2) was chosen as the spatial boundary 

because it contains the area of predicted direct/indirect impacts from projected drawdown, as 

described in more detail in the water resources section of this chapter and shown in figure 12 and 

figure 13.Accordingly, the cumulative effects boundary matches the largest area of direct and indirect 

effects.

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

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

availability are linked and limited by accessible available quantities of water. These changes have the 

potential to indirectly affect water available for recruitment, growth, and maintenance of upland 

vegetation, depending on the extent of possible water table drawdown and rooting depth. The 

alternatives are compared using the following indicators:

Upland Vegetation: extent and duration of possible water table reduction and proximity to upland 

vegetation communities.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants: proximity and timing of proposed actions and 

possible water level changes to habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. 

Nonnative Invasive Plants: possibility for increasing the spread of nonnative invasive plants.

Affected Environment

Upland Vegetation 

Vegetation in the North Fork Eagle Creek project area, described prior to the Little Bear Fire in 2012, 

consists of mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, high grass, and mid-grass vegetation types. Mixed conifer 

is the most prevalent and makes up approximately 88 percent of the project area. Forest density is 

discussed separately in the “Conifer Density, Fire Regime, and Water Yield” section.

Upland vegetation in the project area burned in the Little Bear Fire with a mix of burn severities. 

Most grass, ponderosa pine and mixed conifer communities burned at low intensity or less. However, 

each of these vegetation types did experience some moderate and severity burn severity, as shown in 

more detail in Miller 2015. The areas in the drainage that burned with severe intensity were generally 

located in the wilderness area. These areas could potentially undergo a type change from forest to 

shrub types as seen after fires on the forest (Kuhar 2013). Stand data collected in 2012 to assess 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

214 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

wildfire effects showed that areas in the perimeter of the Little Bear Fire that had previous fuels 

treatments were burned at low severity or less (Kuhar 2013).

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

We reviewed the Lincoln National Forest sensitive species list (USDA Forest Service 2007) to 

determine what threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species are either known to occur or have 

potential to occur in the project area based on habitat preferences. We consulted the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service Web site (on November 10, 2011 and again on February 4, 2014) to 

determine endangered and threatened species for Lincoln County (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard). 

There is one endangered species, Kuenzler’s hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri), 

that is listed for the county, but does not occur nor have the potential to occur in the project area, 

based on habitat preferences. For these reasons, this species would not be affected by proposed 

actions and was not considered further. 

We also considered 23 other plant species on the Lincoln National Forest sensitive species list for this 

project, as described in more detail in Miller (2012b), but only two of these have the potential to be 

affected by proposed actions. The focus of this analysis, then, is on Wooton’s hawthorn (Crategus 

wootoniana) and Sierra Blanca cliff daisy (Ionactis elegans) because they are known to occur in the 

project area. The other 21 species considered either do not occur in the project area, do not have 

habitat in the project area, or have potential habitat in the project area but that would not be affected 

by proposed actions. 

There are four known populations of Wooton’s hawthorn in the project area. This species often occurs 

near the banks of Eagle Creek; its preferred habitat is canyon bottoms and openings in lower montane 

coniferous forest. All populations occur greater than 750 feet upstream of the wells (the nearest is 750 

feet from the wells and the farthest is about 0.5 mile from the wells). Populations were delineated and 

censused by Dr. Richard Worthington and T. Nicolet in 2001. The earliest record of this species in the 

project area dates from an herbarium record collected in 1899. Other specimens were collected in 

1984 and 1997 (Dr. Tim Lowrey, pers. comm. 03/08/2011).

All four occurrences were burned in the Little Bear Fire (table 4). Twenty eight percent of the 

occurrences were underburned and 72 percent were burned at low intensity; there were no 

populations burned at moderate or severe intensity. Field surveys by TEAMS and Lincoln National 

Forest personnel determined that populations have increased since the initial survey work in 2001, 

with the exception of one population that was affected by the Little Bear Fire due to erosion following 

a flooding event.

There are six known populations of Sierra Blanca cliff daisy in the project area. All populations occur 

more than 1.25 miles upstream of the wells and in cliffs (the nearest is 1.25 miles and the farthest is 

2.5 miles from the wells and in the cliffs). Their preferred habitat is igneous rock faces in montane 

coniferous forest at 7,600–9,500 feet in elevation.

All six occurrences were burned in the Little Bear Fire (table 4). Eight percent were underburned, 59 

percent were burned at low intensity and 33 percent at moderate intensity.

Nonnative Invasive Species

Through Executive Order 13112 (which was signed in 1999) the National Invasive Species Council 

was established to ensure that Federal programs and activities to prevent and control invasive species 

are coordinated, effective, and efficient. Invasive species are those that are not native to the ecosystem 

under consideration and that cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 215

human, animal, or plant health. For policy purposes, invasive species are those whose negative 

impacts outweigh their beneficial effects (Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2006). 

The term “noxious weed” refers to a legally defined category of nonnative invasive species. Legally, a 

noxious weed is any plant designated by a Federal, state, or county government as injurious to public 

health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property (Sheley, Petroff, and Borman 1999). The current 

New Mexico Noxious Weed List (Gonzales 2009) includes 37 species that have the potential to 

negatively impact the State’s environment or economy. The list also includes eight species designated 

as watch list species that have the potential to become problematic in the State. The Lincoln National 

Forest list of nonnative invasive species known to occur on the forest (Stewart 2011) was also 

reviewed. The only nonnative invasive plant species from these lists that has been observed in the 

North Fork Eagle Creek effects analysis area is musk thistle (Carduus nutans). It was detected in 

riparian monitoring plots five times and was observed occasionally throughout the area, outside of 

established plots. We have identified approximately 62 acres of musk thistle in the project area, 

located primarily along North Fork Eagle Creek and along Ski Run Road to the west.

Musk thistle is a biennial member of the sunflower family that grows to 6 feet tall. In one growing 

season a single plant can produce over a 100,000 seeds. Therefore, it can increase from a single plant 

to a rather large infestation within 2 to 3 years. The seeds can remain viable in the soil for roughly 15 

years, which necessitates intensive monitoring of sites and repeat treatments. Musk thistle does best 

in disturbed areas, such as along roadsides, grazed pastures, and old fields, but it can also invade 

deferred pastures and native grasslands. It can occur in almost all habitats except dense forest, high 

mountains, deserts, and frequently cultivated farmland. Musk thistle is one of the most widespread 

and problematic invasive species on the Lincoln National Forest.

All the musk thistle populations were burned in the project area. BAER guidance assumes that a 25-

30 percent increase in area occupied by weeds would be an acceptable rate (White Paper Noxious 

Weeds, BAER Guidance and Direction. March 17, 2001). It is likely that musk thistle occurrences 

have increased as a result of the Little Bear Fire. Seeding was undertaken following the Little Bear 

Fire to reduce further noxious weed spread (USDA Forest Service 2012). 

Environmental Consequences

All Alternatives 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Upland Vegetation 

Neither alternative 1 (preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) or alternative 3 

(adaptive management) propose any new substantial ground disturbance and, therefore, would not 

result in any direct effects to upland vegetation. Any minor amounts of ground disturbance associated 

with routine maintenance and monitoring needs under alternative 1 (preferred alternative, continue 

pumping at historic levels) would be negligible and minimized by project design features. Under the 

worst case drawdown scenario (figure 12 and figure 13) for alternative 1 (preferred alternative, 

continue pumping at historic levels), indirect effects of water drawdown would reach into the North 

Fork Eagle Creek drainage area and could reduce available moisture for new growth. Upland 

vegetation is not as sensitive to water fluctuation as riparian vegetation and would be resistant to 

changes. Upland species have colonized dry soils with only natural precipitation as a water source. 

These species would be marginally affected by groundwater withdrawal and any associated 

groundwater decline. Growth of individual trees may be stunted, but vegetation is expected to survive 

these impacts; while individual plants could be affected, this would not result in measurable affects to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

216 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

upland vegetation across the project area as a result of implementing alternative 1 (preferred 

alternative, continue pumping at historic levels). Because alternative 3 (proposed action) proposes an 

adaptive management strategy that would reduce the level of drawdown and would result in increases 

in water availability, the potential indirect effects would be similar to alternative 1 (preferred 

alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) and could be of less magnitude. 

Because alternative 2 (no pumping) would eliminate pumping entirely, there would be no drawdown 

and the possibility for adverse effects to upland vegetation would be eliminated. Alternative 2 (no 

pumping) would result in ground disturbance through removal of wells and well facilities; this has the 

potential to directly affect vegetation, but this potential effect would be minimized by project design 

features and would be negligible. 

Update to overall effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

Upland vegetation burned by the wildfire is likely to experience additional stress due to effects from 

wildfire damage and therefore could be adversely impacted from reduced water availability due to 

drawdown from well pumping. Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts from alternative 1 and 3, 

as described above, could be somewhat greater than predicted above, post-wildfire. Because upland 

vegetation is less sensitive to groundwater drawdown effects from pumping than vegetation in the 

riparian zone, these differences between pre-wildfire and post-wildfire effects are likely negligible to 

minor.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

Sierra Blanca cliff daisy is a shallow-rooted small plant that prefers rocky substrates in canyons. It 

does not occur within the vicinity of the well field and would, therefore, not be affected by any 

ground-disturbing actions under any of the alternatives (routine maintenance and monitoring activities 

for alternatives 1 and 3 or well facility removal under alternative 2). This species is not dependent on 

groundwater and would not be directly or indirectly affected by well pumping. Therefore, 

implementation of alternative 1 (preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) would not 

result in either direct or indirect effects to this species. 

Wooton’s hawthorn is found along the North Fork near the creek and within the riparian area but also 

ranges further upslope to the top of flat benches; it has been observed in dry, steep gravelly slopes on 

the edge of ponderosa pine forest. In other locales, populations are found in dry roadcuts away from 

water. Wooton’s hawthorn observations along the North Fork over the last 7 years indicate stable or 

increasing populations (Cordova, personal communication 2011). Surveys by Richard Worthington in 

2001 found that one of the occurrences in North Fork Eagle Creek had 20 plants, matching an 

herbarium record from 1984 (prepumping period). Monitoring undertaken in 2010 and 2011 found 

population sizes that matched those of Worthington. Post-wildfire monitoring found that all except 

one population exceeded the population sizes noted by Worthington. Post-wildfire monitoring found 

that one population had been affected by a flooding event where a large amount of the streambank 

was scoured away. Populations contained all age classes: seedlings, saplings, and mature shrubs. 

There is every indication that Wooton’s hawthorn occupies a wide enough ecological amplitude to be 

unaffected by pumping. 

For these reasons, there would be “no effect” to either Wooton’s hawthorn or Sierra Blanca cliff daisy 

with implementation of alternative 1, 2, or 3. 

Update to overall effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

The impacts to Wooton’s Hawthorn and Sierra Blanca cliff daisy are the same as those described for 

the pre-wildfire assessment above.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 217

Nonnative Invasive Species

Nonnative plant invasions can cause undesirable, irreversible changes. They have a variety of 

mechanisms that give them a competitive advantage over native species. Invasive plants often 

produce abundant seed, have extensive root systems, establish and spread in a wide range of habitats, 

grow rapidly, initiate growth earlier or later in the season than native plants, exploit water and 

nutrients better, and have no native enemies. According to Sieg et al. (2003), invasive species can 

displace native plants, out-cross with native flora, alter nutrient cycling and other ecosystems 

functions, and even change the flammability of an ecosystem. Many invasive plant species thrive in 

North America because they were introduced from other continents and have no natural controls here

such as insect predators, plant pathogens, competing plants, and herbivores.

Neither alternative 1 (preferred alternative) nor alternative 3 (adaptive management) propose any new 

substantial ground disturbance and, therefore, would not result in any direct effects to upland 

vegetation; while some minor effects are possible from ground disturbance associated with the 

installation and operation of new alluvial wells (estimated to be less than 0.25 acres of disturbance) 

and the maintenance of existing facilities and routine maintenance and monitoring activities under 

these alternatives, project design features would minimize the potential for more than negligible 

effects. Therefore, possible effects are limited primarily to the indirect effects from water drawdown. 

Because musk thistle has a wide ecological amplitude and occurs in many types of habitats, it would 

neither be beneficially nor detrimentally affected by changes in water depth under any of the 

alternatives. For these reasons, there would be no indirect effects from implementing any of the 

alternatives and there would be minimal direct effects from implementing alternative 1 (preferred 

alternative) or 3. 

Alternative 2 (no pumping) would result in ground disturbance through removal of wells and well 

facilities, which has the potential to directly affect musk thistle. Although the area of the disturbance 

would be relatively small, the disturbance would still contribute to the increased likelihood of 

nonnative plant spread. This potential would be minimized through implementation of project design 

features and would be minor and short term. 

Update to overall effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

All musk thistle populations were burned in the project area and increases in occurrences in the 

project area are likely as a result of the wildfire. Native seeding was undertaken following the Little 

Bear Fire to reduce further noxious weed spread (USDA Forest Service 2012). Project design features 

are part of the action alternatives to minimize spread. Therefore, the impacts to invasive plants are the 

same as those described for the pre-wildfire assessment above.

Cumulative Effects

Because the direct and indirect effects from implementing any of the alternatives on upland 

vegetation, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species, or nonnative invasive plants are quite 

minimal, the possibility for cumulative effects is, therefore, also minimal. Combining the effects from 

alternative 1 (preferred alternative), 2 (no action), or 3 (adaptive management) with other past, 

present and foreseeable future actions (as shown in table 4 and figure 4) within the North Fork Eagle 

Creek drainage area would not result in any measurable effects to these vegetation resources; Sierra 

Blanca cliff daisy and Wooton’s hawthorn populations would continue to persist; project design 

features would be implemented to reduce the spread of nonnative invasive plants on other projects in 

the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area; and upland vegetation effects would be negligible. The 

relationship between conifer density and water yield is discussed in the next section. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

218 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Conclusion

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from implementing any of the alternatives on upland 

vegetation, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species, or nonnative invasive plants would be 

minimal because they are not measurably affected by changes in water levels, and possible effects 

from ground-disturbing activities would be minimized through project design features.

Effects compared to pre-pumping conditions

Alternative 1 effects for upland vegetation are minimal compared to the pre-pumping conditions, 

because this vegetation type is not as sensitive to changes in moisture regime as riparian vegetation. 

However, less available moisture could exacerbate other environmental stressors on individual trees 

or shrubs in the drawdown area. This could result in the loss of more individual plants than would be 

found in the absence of pumping. Alternative 2 effects would be nearly identical to pre-pumping 

conditions with the exception of slight ground disturbance associated with removal of pumps. 

Alternative 3 would be similar to those of alternative one compared to pumping, however any effects 

would occur with less intensity and duration.

None of the alternatives affect rare plants. There is no difference for these species under any of the 

alternatives compared to the pre-pumping condition. 

The effects from all alternatives to non-native invasive species are from associated ground 

disturbance. These effects are expected to be minimal due to the small footprint of disturbance in 

each alternative. Water fluctuations are expected to have a negligible effect on non-native invasive 

species present in the project area. Therefore, all effects from all alternatives compared to the prepumping condition are expected to be minimal. 

Implementing any of the alternatives would be consistent with forest plan direction for upland 

vegetation, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species, and noxious weeds. The alternatives 

are compliant with the Endangered Species Act, Forest Service Manual 2670 (Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive Species), Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) and Forest Service 

Manual 2900 (Invasive Species).

Conifer Density, Fire Regime, and Water Yield

As documented in detail in the Fuels Report for this project (Kuhar 2013), surveys conducted by the 

Ecological Restoration Institute in 2007 in the adjacent Bonito Creek drainage on the Lincoln 

National Forest indicate that tree stem densities were considerably less in pre-settlement conditions of 

the late 1800s than they are now. For mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and pinyon-juniper woodlands, 

landscapes affected by frequent fire intervals, stem densities ranged from 10 to 30 trees per acre. 

Landscapes tended to be more heterogeneous, supporting multiple seral states where dry upland sites 

had open, park-like stands, while stands in protected, moist areas tended to have dense, closed 

canopies. 

Based on data collected in the North Fork project area in 1998, tree density averaged over 2,700 trees 

per acre and 94 percent of this density was comprised of trees five inches or less in diameter. 

Following thinning treatments in this area between 2003 and 2009, tree density was reduced to 479 

trees per acre in 2012 and 87 percent of this density was comprised of trees five inches or less in 

diameter. When data were collected following the Little Bear Fire in 2012, tree density was further 

reduced to 350 trees per acre and 76 percent of this was comprised of trees less than five inches in 

diameter.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 219

Photographic evidence combined with local wildfire scar data indicates that the project area has 

experienced a short return interval of mixed severity wildfire that has included both standreplacement and surface fire activity. Current evidence shows stand replacement occurred at 100-

3,000-acre patches that affected all vegetation types within the project area. The last large wildfire

(prior to the Little Bear Fire) was about 650 acres in size and occurred in 1989. Wildfire scar data 

suggest a fire return interval of 26 years with a range of 12-55 years between fires. Fires potentially 

affected all vegetation types in a single occurrence. This is evident in a 3,600 acres wildfire that 

occurred in 1935 which burned through ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and some pinyon-juniper 

stands.

Typically stand replacement fires have resulted in type conversions to shrub and grassland. This is 

evidenced on both the Smokey Bear and Sacramento Ranger District where fire scars can be found 

today and with grass-forb-shrub the dominant cover. These vegetative associations can persist for 

multiple decades as displayed in both photographic evidence and monitoring data.

Post-Little Bear Fire Monitoring Results

Multiple plots were established within the Little Bear Fire perimeter immediately after the passage of 

the wildfire and were then monitored post-monsoon season in both 2012 and 2013 to assess species 

composition and trends. Areas which did not burn or burned at low severity remained a combination 

of mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, oak species, and pinyon-juniper. It is predicted that grass and forbs 

will dominate the vegetative cover and species composition in areas burned in the first few years 

post-wildfire. As time progresses and at ten years out and later, shrubs are likely to replace grass and 

forbs as the dominant cover type. 

Regionally

Current forest and rangeland conditions in the Southwest indicate that these systems are not 

functioning properly, due in part to unnaturally high tree densities (USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region – Regional Strategic Action Plan 2003 and Dahms and Geils 1997). By the 

early 1900s, fire exclusion began altering forest structure and fire regime (Covington et al. 1994). 

Forests with high stem density and fuel loading combined with extreme fire weather conditions have 

led to severe and large wildfires (Graham et al. 2004). This situation has been the impetus for the 

creation of, among other things, the National Fire Plan, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA 

2003), and the Southwestern Region’s National Forests’ Central Priority Strategy (USDA Forest 

Service 2004). This “Central Priority” is intended to help restore ecological functionality of wildfire

to fire-adapted ecosystems in the Southwestern Region, which includes the Lincoln National Forest. 

It is estimated that 145 million cubic feet of biomass is added yearly to New Mexico’s forests through 

growth (USDA Forest Service 2004) and this added forest density puts these forests at heightened risk 

of high severity wildfire and insect outbreaks. It is the central priority of the Forest Service in the 

Southwestern Region to thin these forests (USDA Forest Service 2004). 

Changes in forest density, due to vegetation management activities such as thinning or fuels 

treatments, can influence water yield. The Water Resources section of this chapter summarizes the 

anticipated effects of the Little Bear Fire on hydrologic factors in the North Fork study area. In 

general, however, it is well accepted that forest density can influence water yield, in addition to fire 

severity. If forest cover is reduced, increases in water yield or runoff can result. Forests also affect the 

water budget by transpiration loss, the transfer of water from the soil to the atmosphere through the 

tree roots, trunk, and leaves (Allen 2001, MacDonald 1987, Urie 1966). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

220 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Dahms and Gils (1997) state that “probably the largest effect on forest health in Southwestern 

ponderosa pine is due to the increase in the density of the trees . . .” The authors go on to state that 

this increased density results in lower water yields, which has a negative impact on riparian areas. 

Stednick (1996) and Grant et al. (2008) found that reducing forest cover by 20–25 percent could 

result in changes in annual water yield but reductions less than this may not result in water yield 

changes. Grant et al. (2008) documents that although any disturbance that reduces the density of live 

vegetation cover will locally increase runoff from forested watersheds; flow increases are generally 

not measurable until about 25 percent of the basal area of a forested watershed has been harvested.

The Gila National Forest (based in Silver City, New Mexico) prepared a briefing paper recently 

related to the potential for increasing water yield (USDA Forest Service 2009). This paper cites Neary 

et al. (2008) for a summary of past research efforts to increase water yield from watersheds in the 

Southwest as well as factors that determine whether increases would be viable in these watersheds. 

The key conclusion from Neary et al. (2008) that is discussed in this paper is that Southwestern 

forested watersheds offer minimal potential for increases in water yield due to: 

1. low and variable precipitation and high rates of evapotranspiration and sublimation found in the 

Southwest; 

2. while high elevation mixed conifer forests and more mesic forests have the best potential for 

sustainable increases in water yield compared to other forested sites, this forest type is limited in 

the Southwest; is often difficult to access; and requires meticulous management to maintain its 

natural multiaged stand structure; and 

3. any water yield increases would be difficult to measure and to store.

Garrett evaluated forest restoration opportunities on the Lincoln National Forest in 2001 (Garrett 

2001). This report documents an increase in forest density from an average of 20–70 trees per acre 

before European settlement to an average of 200–250 trees currently. This evaluation notes that more 

water was likely available for springs, seeps, and streams in pre-European settlement conditions than 

is provided currently due to the more open nature of forested stands. This report also projects the 

effects of returning ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands on the Smokey Bear Ranger District to 

presettlement conditions over 50 years and projects substantial increases in water yield and other 

benefits. 

Has increased forest density since pre-European settlement affected water yield in the North 

Fork Eagle Creek drainage area? 

Based on the available data summarized above, mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forests on the

Smokey Bear Ranger District and within the upper Eagle Creek drainage have increased in density 

since the early 1900s, similar to most forests across the Southwest. It is also likely that this increased 

forest density has contributed to a reduction in water yield in this drainage over the last century, 

particularly when combined with periods of drought. There are no data available to discern the level 

of influence forest density has played in available surface flow and groundwater in the North Fork 

Eagle Creek drainage area (figure 1), particularly in the time period since the wells began operating in 

1988. It is assumed that the majority of this change occurred in the 80–90 years between the turn of 

century and the late 1980s when the North Fork wells began pumping; how much of a influence forest 

density has had on water yield since 1988 (when the wells began operating) is unknown. Additional 

site-specific research would be necessary to determine this level of effect and how this could 

influence water yield over time. 

See the discussion of expected changes in water resources due to the Little Bear Fire earlier in this 

chapter for a specific evaluation of the North Fork Eagle Creek study area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 221

Would the implementation of past, present, and foreseeable future actions, combined with 

implementing alternative 1 (preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels), 

alternative 2 (no action/no pumping) or 3 (adaptive management), result in measurable 

changes in conifer density and resultant changes in water yield? 

Efforts have been undertaken to reduce forest density and decrease the risk of high severity fire. As 

described in more detail in the vegetation report (Miller 2015b) and the fuels report (Kuhar 2013), 

within the 3,400-acre North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area (figure 1) prior to the Little Bear Fire, 

past efforts (Eagle thinning and prescribed burning projects in 2003, 2004, and 2007 as shown in 

table 4) focused on thinning smaller diameter trees and reducing understory ladder fuels. The Ski Run 

wildfire in 2003 affected approximately 7 percent of the North Fork Eagle Creek basin and removed 

overstory trees and created openings. These past actions combined, prior to the Little Bear Fire, 

totaled approximately 10 percent of the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage. Since the Little Bear Fire, 

forest density in the Eagle Creek basin has decreased. The “Water Resources” section earlier in this 

chapter summarizes the impacts of the Little Bear Fire on hydrologic conditions in the watershed, 

over the short- and long-term. This is also detailed in the supplemental Water Resources Report in the 

project record (AECOM 2015).

As shown in table 4, past, current and future activities, combined with reduced forest density due to 

wildfires, contribute to increases in water yield (Bosch and Hewlett 1982, Grant et al. 2008); how 

substantial of an effect this might be is unknown, particularly when combining this possible benefit 

with the current level of water diversion from municipal water supply wells and domestic wells 

(approximately 30 wells) in this larger upper Eagle Creek drainage, as described in more detail in 

AECOM (2015). 

Wildlife (Except Aquatic Habitat and Fish)

Wildlife (except aquatic habitat and fish) is not a significant issue and we will only briefly discuss it 

here.

This analysis focuses on three different aspects of wildlife: management indicator species, threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive wildlife species, and neotropical migratory birds.

A more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences for 

this project can be found in the fish and wildlife report and biological evaluation and the wildlife 

biological evaluation (Bright 2015a and 2015b, located in the project record). The supplemental 

wildlife report and biological evaluation (Bright 2015) provides a more detailed description of 

affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences, considering the changes caused by 

the Little Bear Fire. These reports are incorporated by reference, discussed briefly below, and 

available in their entirety in the project record.

Methodology 

The use of a management indicator and special interest species approach is consistent with forest 

direction (forest plan, p. 31 and 105) and from the forest plan environmental impact statement (pgs. 

108, 109, 161-163, and 309-312) and serves as the basis for this management indicator species 

assessment. Selected management indicator species reflect general habitat conditions needed by other 

species with similar habitats. Management indicator species were included in this analysis if they 

were known to occur in the project area. 

Executive Order 13186 places emphasis on conservation of migratory birds. Migratory birds were 

assessed by determining important bird areas or important overwintering areas occur in the project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

222 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

area. The list of migratory bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act appears in Title 50, 

section 10.13 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 10.13). The memorandum of 

understanding between the Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service and USDA Forest Service 2008) provides direction to the Forest Service on the preservation 

and reduction of take associated with migratory birds. 

The effects of the proposal on selected bird species were determined primarily through coarse filter 

analyses, using the species’ primary habitat. These are focus vegetative community types for which 

properly functioning conditions and desired future conditions have been identified across the forest. 

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

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

availability are linked and limited by accessible available quantities of water. These changes can 

directly affect water availability for wildlife species and indirectly affect the quality of wildlife 

habitat. In order to compare alternatives, the following measurable indicators have been developed: 

• Changes in habitat quality and population trends for management indicator species in 

ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, woodlands, and aspen;

• Changes in habitat quality and population trends for threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species; and 

• Changes in vegetation community types that are primary habitats for neotropical migratory 

birds, regionally important species listed by Partners in Flight, important bird areas or 

important overwintering areas, and migratory birds.

Baseline information used to assess impacts to wildlife was provided by specialists with the USDA 

Forest Service, literature, and professional judgment. 

The “Methodology” section at the beginning of this chapter describes the general approach used for 

cumulative effects analysis. Activities and projects summarized in table 4 and figure 4 were 

considered in the wildlife species cumulative analysis. 

Affected Environment

Management Indicator Species

Five management indicator species are known to occur within the project area or have habitat in the 

project area, as listed below. Habitat and populations trends for these species were assessed on the 

forest in 2006 (Salas 2006), and these conclusions are also listed. No management indicator species 

that represent riparian habitats occur within the project area. However, under the 10th Circuit Court 

(UEC v. Bosworth, 2004), the USDA Forest Service is required to analyze all management indicator 

species for which habitat is present within the project area Unless the forest has actual survey 

information to show that the species in question is absent from the area.

Pygmy nuthatch – ponderosa pine; an indicator of snags and large trees; also uses mixed conifer. 

Trends in habitat quality are downward forestwide, but population trends are stable.

Hairy woodpecker – aspen; an indicator of aspen snags. Trends in habitat quality are downward 

forestwide, but population trends are stable.

Mule deer – piñon-juniper woodlands; an indicator of browse and dense canopy (scrubby cover, 

browse species, and closed landscapes). Trends in both habitat quality and populations are stable.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 223

Elk – mixed conifer; an indicator of high quality mixed conifer and mountain meadows. Trends in 

habitat quality are upward and population trends are stable.

Ruidoso red squirrel – mixed conifer; an indicator of high quality mixed conifer with interlocking 

crowns and trees of cone-bearing age. Trends in both habitat quality and populations are stable.

While impacts from the Little Bear Fire to non-riparian management indicator species or habitat are 

not known with certainty, it is likely that populations of these species were affected to some degree, at 

least in the short-term. Ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper (and interspersed aspen) did 

experience wildfire, ranging from very low to high severity. Because the majority of the North Fork 

project area affected by the Little Bear Fire burned at moderate or low intensity, it is assumed that the 

habitat conditions for which these species are indicators, were not adversely impacted over the longterm. Over the short-term, it is possible that habitat quality could increase in the project area for these 

species due to an increase in snags (hairy woodpecker), an increase in shrubs and browse (mule deer), 

and an increase in grasses and forbs (elk).

Disturbance to upland vegetation would likely not be measurable, as described in more detail in the 

riparian vegetation section of this chapter. None of the management indicator species that represent 

riparian habitat occur within the project area. There would be no habitat type conversion as a result of 

this project. Miller (2015) concluded that facultative wetland species are likely to be beneficially 

affected by alternative 3 compared to the current condition (alternative 1). Slight increases in 

vegetation shifts favoring communities featuring facultative wetland species may occur, but gains 

would likely be moderated by the continued drying trends of climate change over the long-term time 

frame of this analysis. Therefore, there adverse impacts to management indicator species that inhabit 

or rely upon riparian habitats would range from negligible to minor, with the opportunity for slight 

improvement in riparian habitat conditions over the long-term under alternatives 2 and 3.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

We consulted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Web site to determine endangered and 

threatened animal species for Lincoln County 

(http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/SBC_view.cfm?spcnty=Lincoln). This list (queried 

March 2012 and again in July 2014) fulfills the requirements of the US Fish and Wildlife Service to 

provide a current species list pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Seven animal 

species (New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, black-footed ferret, Mexican spotted owl, northern 

aplomado falcon, whooping crane, mountain plover, and Rio Grande cutthroat trout) are listed for 

Lincoln County, New Mexico. We also reviewed the Forest Service Southwestern Region Regional 

Forester’s threatened, endangered and sensitive species (USDA Forest Service 2013) and the Lincoln 

National Forest Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 2012 (which were derived in part from

the Lincoln County list of federally listed species) in order to determine which threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive wildlife species are either known to occur or have potential to occur in the 

project area vicinity based on habitat preferences. According to this information, the Mexican spotted 

owl is the only federally listed threatened or endangered species that is included in this analysis. No 

other federally listed species, or their suitable habitat or designated critical habitat, occur in the 

project area or that could potentially be affected by continuation of North Fork well operations. Out 

of the 38 species on the Lincoln National Forest Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 2012) 

that were considered, only the following 4 species are included in this analysis, as described in more 

detail in Bright (2015a):

• Mexican spotted owl

• Northern goshawk

• Ruidoso red squirrel 

• Sacramento Mountains salamander
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

224 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Mexican spotted owls inhabit mixed coniferous and pine/oak forests, canyons, desert caves, and 

riparian areas throughout the Southwest and within the Lincoln National Forest (Ganey et al. 2011). 

The three main prey food species are wood rats, deer mice, and voles (Ward et al. 1995, Stokes 1997). 

Canopy cover and herbaceous ground cover are important prey habitat conditions. 

There are three protected activity centers in the vicinity of the project area (Carlton, Krause and Eagle 

protected activity centers), with the Carlton Canyon protected activity center being the nearest of the 

three; its boundary is adjacent to the action area surrounding the wells, but its nesting area (“no touch 

zone”) is approximately 0.75 mile outside the action area and is separated by steep topography. This 

protected activity center has produced young every year except 1995, 2000, and 2011 (Cordova, pers. 

comm. 2011). The Eagle protected activity center is located in the upper headwater reaches of North 

Fork Eagle Creek and the Krause protected activity center is almost entirely outside the 3,400-acre 

North Fork Eagle Creek drainage to the east of the North Fork Eagle Creek action area. 

Based on monitoring results from 2011, there was no documented reproduction in any of these 

protected activity centers during the 2011 breeding season. All three protected activity areas were 

burned in the Little Bear Fire with varying levels of severity. The Carlton protected activity center

burned at mostly low and very severity, the Krause protected activity center at mostly moderate and 

low protected activity center and the Eagle Creek protected activity center at mostly high and 

moderate severity. While the long-term effects from the wildfire on these owls are unknown, it is 

clear that the wildfire adversely impacted suitable nesting habitat within each protected activity center

(USDA Forest Service 2012d). 

Northern goshawks prefer large tracts of mature, closed canopy, deciduous, coniferous and mixed 

forests with an open understory. There are two established post-fledging areas within the vicinity of 

the project area. The Krause post-fledging area is approximately 0.20 mile from the 5-acre action area 

surrounding the wells. The Telephone post-fledging area (established in 2010), has a known nest that 

is about 0.10 mile from the well sites. No goshawks were found in either post-fledging area during 

2011 surveys (Cordova, pers. comm. 2011). There would be a breeding season mitigation measure 

included in any new permit issued for any new construction or mechanized activity. This measure 

would prohibit construction or mechanized activity within 0.25 mile of the post-fledging areas from 

March 1 through September 30. 

Northern goshawk habitat within these two post-fledging areas burned at moderate to high severity in 

the Little Bear Fire (USDA Forest Service 2012d). 

The project area contains very marginal habitat for Sacramento Mountain salamanders. In 2001 an 

extensive survey was conducted as part of another project (Cordova, pers. comm. 2012). Surveys 

were conducted in areas above 8,000 feet in elevation. In all cases, salamanders were found above 

8,600 feet and documented in the upper reaches of Eagle Creek within the wilderness area and the 

upper reaches of Carlton and Johnson Canyons. Salamanders were documented in Telephone Canyon 

in 2002 during a separate effort. The closest known salamander occurrence is approximately 0.4 mile 

from the 5-acre project area along Johnson Canyon. 

While no data are currently available on direct effects to the closest salamander occurrence in 

Johnson Canyon, it is possible that this site and other areas of potential habitat in the upper reaches of 

Eagle Creek were adversely impacted by the Little Bear Fire. Salamanders could experience direct 

mortality and habitat loss due to post-wildfire threats (USDA Forest Service 2012). Salamanders can 

be negatively impacted by opening up of shady mature forest and by destruction or removal of 

downed logs in a post-wildfire situation (USDA Forest Service 2012d).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 225

The Ruidoso red squirrel is a mixed conifer associated species. Based on the small size of the 5-acre 

project area, suitable habitat is limited; there are no known populations within the vicinity of the well 

field (Cordova, pers. comm. 2011). 

Migratory Birds (Species Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act)

The evaluation of effects to migratory birds uses the Forest Service Southwestern Region’s protocol 

that focuses on migratory birds included on the New Mexico Partners in Flight’s Highest Priority 

Species list, along with considering effects to important bird areas and important overwintering areas 

for migratory birds (New Mexico Partners in Flight 2007). The proposed project design and 

evaluation complies with the 2001 Executive Order 13186 regarding responsibilities of Federal 

agencies to protect migratory birds.

Based on a course filter analysis using species’ primary habitats; regionally important species listed 

by Partners in Flight; important bird areas; and important overwintering areas, four migratory birds 

were considered further for this analysis, as follows: 

• Virginia’s warbler

• Grace’s warbler

• Flammulated owl

• Red-faced Warbler

There are no designated important bird areas or important overwintering areas (large wetlands) on the 

Smokey Bear Ranger District where they would be expected to be impacted by activities proposed for 

this project. 

Nesting habitat for these species are likely to have been adversely effected by the Little Bear Fire, at 

least in the short-term, due to the loss of heavy brush understory and some over story in mixed conifer 

and ponderosa pine vegetation types.

Environmental Consequences

All Alternatives 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Management Indicator Species

There would be no direct or indirect effects to mule deer, elk, hairy woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, or 

Ruidoso red squirrels or their habitat from implementation of any of the alternatives. The potential for 

disturbance during routine maintenance and repair of the wells and associated facilities would be 

minimal for alternative 1 (preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) and alternative 3 

(adaptive management); disturbance related to shutting the wells down under alternative 2 (no 

pumping) would also be minimal. Disturbance to upland vegetation would likely not be measurable 

(Miller 2015b). None of the management indicator species that represent riparian habitat occur within 

the project area. There would be no habitat type conversion as a result of this project. 

The trends for management indicator species as reported in the most recent forestwide management 

indicator species assessment update (Salas 2006) would not be changed from the actions described in 

the alternatives for this project because there would be no habitat type conversions. There would be 

no new ground-disturbing activities or habitat type conversions and the baseline conditions would be 

maintained. Management indicator species habitats within the project and action areas would be less 

than 1 percent of the total acres on the forest. Even with the change in management indicator species 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

226 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

habitat due to the Little Bear Fire, the implementation of the alternatives is not expected to 

appreciably alter this changed condition to the positive or negative.

The population and habitat trends listed previously for each management indicator species are 

forestwide and the project area is too small in size to create a measurable change in any of these 

trends. In addition, the potential effects are not measurable. Population trends for elk, mule deer, hairy 

woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, and red squirrels are stable on the forest in spite of drought conditions. 

Habitat trends are down for pygmy nuthatch and hairy woodpecker, but proposed actions would not 

contribute to any habitat type conversions for these species in the project area. There are no data that 

suggest that populations are being affected by well site activities or water use in the North Fork Eagle 

Creek project area. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

There would be no direct or indirect effects to the Mexican spotted owl or its designated critical 

habitat associated with any of the alternatives. There is no suitable nesting or roosting habitat and no 

designated critical habitat within the project area. The nearest owl protected activity center (Carlton) 

is adjacent to the 5-acre action area where the wells are located, but the nesting area (“no touch 

zone”) is 0.75 mile away from this action area across steep topography and dense forest cover. There 

is no line of sight between the nearest known nest and action area. Owl surveys (USDA Forest 

Service 2003 – Biological Analysis Supplement) and more recent annual protected activity center 

monitoring (current as of 2011) have not detected owl presence within the 5-acre project area. The 

current annual operating plan for well maintenance and operations, as well as alternative 1 (preferred 

alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) and alternative 3 (adaptive management) include a 

mitigation/conservation measure to avoid construction or mechanized equipment use during the 

breeding season (March 1–August 31) within 0.25 mile of the protected activity center boundary (to 

mitigate the potential for disturbance due to noise). Alternative 2 (no pumping) also includes a 

mitigation measure to avoid construction or mechanized equipment activities associated with shutting 

the wells down during the breeding season. Therefore, any disturbance would be virtually the same 

for all alternatives. There is no evidence of effects to Mexican spotted owl occurrence or reproduction 

from disturbance related to past well operations including maintenance of National Forest System 

Road 127 going into the well sites, which is 0.75 mile from the protected activity center boundary. 

Both the Carlton and Eagle PACs were occupied in 2014. Generally, spotted owl reproduction across 

the District increased in 2014 (Cordova 2014) following the fire. 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to the three sensitive species (northern goshawk, 

Sacramento Mountains salamander, or Ruidoso red squirrel) or their habitat associated with 

implementing any of the alternatives. Any facility maintenance and repairs, including road 

maintenance, would be routine and minimal, including work on approximately 3⁄4 mile of the spur 

leading into the well site from the main road (National Forest System Road 127). While goshawks are 

known to occur in the project vicinity (the nearest nest site is 0.10 mile from the project area), upland 

vegetation would not be measurably affected by proposed actions (Miller 2012b). No surveys have 

detected Sacramento Mountains salamanders within the project area. No populations of Ruidoso red 

squirrels have been documented in the project area, and no upland vegetation would be measurably 

impacted by the project (Miller 2015b). 

Update to overall effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

Based on monitoring results from 2011, there was no documented reproduction in any Mexican 

spotted owl protected activity centers during the 2011 breeding season. All three protected activity 

centers were burned in the Little Bear Fire with varying levels of severity. While the long-term effects 

from the wildfire on these owls are unknown, it is clear that the wildfire adversely impacted suitable 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 227

nesting habitat within each protected activity center (USDA Forest Service 2012d). Northern goshawk 

habitat within two known post-fledging areas burned at moderate to high severity (USDA Forest 

Service 2012a). No data are available on possible wildfire impacts to salamander habitat. 

Salamanders can be negatively impacted by opening up of shady mature forest and by destruction or 

removal of downed logs in a post-wildfire situation (USDA Forest Service 2012d). Even with these 

changes in threatened, endangered and sensitive species habitat, implementation of any of the 

alternatives post-wildfire would not contribute to any additional direct or indirect adverse impacts. 

The effects from implementing alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are the same as those described above for the 

pre-wildfire assessment.

Migratory Birds

There would be no direct or indirect effects to any migratory bird species or their habitat associated 

with any of the alternatives. The potential for noise or direct disturbance from ground disturbance 

during routine maintenance and repair of the wells and associated facilities would be minimal for 

alternative 1 (preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) and alternative 3 (adaptive 

management); disturbance related to shutting the wells down under alternative 2 (no pumping) would 

also be minimal. Disturbance to upland vegetation would likely not be measurable (Miller 2015b). 

There would be no habitat type conversion as a result of this project. There would be no unintentional 

take of adults, eggs, and/or chicks and no ground or habitat disturbance from any of the alternatives 

for migratory birds. There would be no conversion of habitat during this project. 

Update to overall Effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

Migratory bird nesting habitat for these species are likely to have been adversely effected by the Little 

Bear Fire, at least in the short term, due to the loss of heavy brush understory and some over story in 

mixed conifer and ponderosa pine vegetation types. Even with these changes in migratory bird 

species habitat, implementation of any of the alternatives post-wildfire would not contribute to any 

additional direct or indirect adverse impacts. The effects from implementing alternatives 1, 2 and 3 

are the same as those described above for the pre-wildfire assessment.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for wildlife is the project area. Because the direct and indirect effects 

from implementing any of the alternatives on management indicator species, threatened, endangered,

and sensitive wildlife species, and migratory birds are quite minimal, the possibility for cumulative 

effects is, therefore, also minimal. Combining the effects from alternative 1 (preferred alternative, 

continue pumping at historic levels), 2 (no action), or 3 (adaptive management) with other past, 

present, and foreseeable future actions (as shown in table 4 and figure 4) within the project area 

would not result in any measurable effects to these wildlife resources. While these projects and past 

changes such as the Little Bear Fire, forest management practices, disease, insects, and climate 

change have affected trends for these wildlife species and their habitats across the forest and in the 

Southwest, the minor effects from this project on a relatively small area would not cumulatively add 

to these larger trends. 

Conclusion/Determination of Effect

Mexican Spotted Owl

There would be no direct or indirect (disturbance) to Mexican spotted owls, owl habitat, or prey 

species as a result of implementing any of the alternatives. All alternatives would have “no effect” on 

the Mexican spotted owl or its suitable or designated critical habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

228 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Regional Forester Sensitive Wildlife Species

The current annual operating plan for well maintenance and operations, as well as alternative 1 

(preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) and alternative 3 (adaptive management) 

include a mitigation/conservation measure to avoid construction or mechanized equipment use within 

0.25 mile of any northern goshawk post-fledging area during the breeding season (March 1–August 

31). Alternative 2 (no pumping) also includes a conservation/mitigation measure to avoid construction 

or mechanized equipment activities associated with shutting the wells down during the breeding 

season. Therefore, any disturbance would be virtually the same for all alternatives. There is no 

evidence of effects to goshawk occurrence or reproduction from disturbance related to past well 

operations including maintenance of National Forest System Road 127 going into the well sites.

Past well pumping and related activities have also not resulted in any known or documented impacts 

to Ruidoso red squirrels or Sacramento Mountains salamander individuals or their habitat; 

implementation of any of the alternatives would not measurably effect upland vegetation (Miller 

2015b) or alter the intermittent nature of North Fork Eagle Creek. 

While differences in available surface water and minor changes in riparian vegetation are possible 

under implementation of the alternatives (AECOM 2015 and Miller 2015a), these changes would not 

result in changes in habitat for northern goshawks, Ruidoso red squirrels or Sacramento Mountains 

salamanders. Therefore, well pumping alternatives would have “no impact” on any sensitive species 

or their habitat.

Management Indicator Species

Forest management practices, disease, insects, and global climate change have affected trends for all 

management indicator species and their habitats. Climate changes have affected specific plant 

communities as well as the migratory habits of some species to the point that they are using areas 

different from those where they have been surveyed in the past. The proposed alternatives would not 

create any habitat type conversions. There have been no population declines of any of the 

management indicator species attributable to North Fork well site activities or water withdrawals. 

Permit reissuance and subsequent well pumping alternatives would have “no impact” on any 

management indicator species or their habitat.

Migratory Birds 

The current annual operating plan for well maintenance and operations, as well as alternative 1 

(preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels) and alternative 3 (adaptive management) 

include a mitigation/conservation measure to avoid construction or mechanized equipment use within 

0.25 mile of any northern goshawk post-fledging area during the breeding season (March 1–August 

31) or within 0.25 mile of any Mexican spotted owl protected activity center. There are no planned 

activities within this buffer zone. Alternative 2 (no pumping) also includes a conservation/mitigation 

measure to avoid construction or mechanized equipment activities associated with shutting the wells 

down during these breeding seasons. The above mitigation measures would protect any migratory 

bird species during the nesting season and would prevent any unintentional take of birds, nests, eggs, 

or chicks. There would be no habitat disturbance and, thus, no habitat conversion. 

While maintenance activities would occur under alternatives 1 and 3, these activities (driving existing 

roads to the well sites and checking well conditions, water conditions in the wells) are not ground 

disturbing actions and would not result in effects to migratory bird species. Past well operations have 

not shown any evidence of impacts to migratory bird species, nesting, or reproduction, even during 

drought periods. There have been no known or suspected population declines of any of the above 

species attributable to well site activities or water withdrawals. There would be no unintentional take 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 229

on migratory bird populations. Well pumping alternatives would have “no impact” on any migratory 

bird species or their habitat, or any designated important bird areas. 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

The National Environmental Policy Act requires consideration of “the relationship between shortterm uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” 

(40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, 

including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general 

welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive 

harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of 

Americans (NEPA Section 101).

If the short-term use of the water resources in the North Fork is defined as the well field permit 

authorization period of up to 20 years, with stipulations for review and verification of the permit 

terms and conditions at least every 5 to 10 years, then long-term productivity would extend at least 

that far into the future. Under alternative 1 (preferred alternative, continue pumping at historic levels), 

surface water and groundwater available for forest management (including watershed condition, 

riparian and aquatic habitat, and recreation) would be limited to the existing conditions or further 

reduced. Under alternative 2 (no pumping), there would be no short-term uses of the water supply, 

and long-term productivity on forest lands would have substantial near-term opportunities for 

improving condition. Under alternative 3 (adaptive management), a moderated condition would be 

attained that would allow maintenance of some of the applicant’s existing water supply, while 

providing opportunities for improving existing water resources conditions.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

The adaptive management alternative includes implementation of adaptive management, project 

design features, and best management practices (chapter 2) intended to avoid, minimize the extent of, 

or reduce the potential for adverse effects on the environment. Each section of chapter 3 describes the 

spatial and temporal context for unavoidable adverse effects predicted from alternatives 1, 2 and 3.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a 

species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of 

time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a 

power line rights-of-way or road.

There are no irreversible commitments of forest resources under the adaptive management alternative

(alternative 3) or either alternative 1 (no action) or 2 (no pumping). Under any of these management 

actions, the presence and uses of surface water or groundwater resources eventually could be returned 

to a prior state through subsequent management actions, subsequent precipitation and runoff, and 

groundwater recharge. An irretrievable commitment of water resources would occur under alternative 

2 (no pumping) from the standpoint of the loss of municipal water supply on the part of the village. 

That loss could conceivably be reversed by other decisionmaking on the part of the forest at some 

remote point in time. However, alternative 2 (no pumping) does not represent a total “loss” of water 

resources for beneficial use. It is common in water resources management to have conflicting 

demands from different beneficial uses. In the case of alternative 2 (no pumping), the irretrievable 

loss of municipal use would allow greater use by other resource objectives. Similarly, under 

alternative 1 (no action), ongoing substantial withdrawals by the village for municipal supply would 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

230 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

represent irretrievable losses for other uses. For both alternatives, water resources and their uses could 

be eventually retrieved under changing management conditions.

Other Required Disclosures

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

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental review 

laws and executive orders.” 

Alternatives 2 and 3 comply with the following Federal laws and regulations:

• Endangered Species Act

• Clean Water Act

• Clean Air Act

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

• National Historic Preservation Act

• National Forest Management Act

There are no conflicts between alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, 

and local policies and plans.
FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 231

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and 

non-Forest Service persons during development of this EIS. We specifically list the project role and 

qualifications for those members of the IDT that prepared sections of this document. Others that were 

consulted throughout the project for input, advice, and review are listed separately.

Core ID Team Members

AECOM 

Robert C. Berry, PhD – Hydrogeologist/Geochemist - Water Resources Analysis (Groundwater 

and hydrogeology): PhD, Geology/Geochemistry, Princeton University; Prof. Degree, 

Hydrogeology, Colorado School of Mines; BS, Geology, University of Hawaii; 36 years of 

experience.

Dr. Berry is a groundwater hydrologist and geochemist responsible for hydrogeological evaluation of 

groundwater basins, aquifer testing and evaluation, aqueous geochemistry and geochemical modeling, 

and groundwater flow and transport modeling. He is also experienced in modeling entire groundwater 

basins, investigating mining hydrology issues, and water supply evaluations. Dr. Berry is an 

experienced field geologist with mapping experience throughout the western U.S., in rocks ranging 

from Archean metasediments to Quaternary alluvial deposits.

James K. Burrell, EIT – Engineering Hydrologist - Water Resources Analysis (Surface water): 

MS, Civil Engineering and BS, Forest Management, Colorado State University; 21 years of 

experience.

Mr. Burrell is a hydrologist specializing in surface water hydrology, open-channel hydraulics, stream 

and watershed stabilization, and related erosion and sediment transport issues. His engineering 

background includes fieldwork and computer modeling for rainfall/runoff, channel discharges and 

flood hydraulics, stream stability and scour, and sediment transport and retention structures in the 

U.S. and overseas. He also spent several years developing and calibrating river basin-scale continuous 

rainfall/runoff models as a contractor to the National Weather Service (Office of Hydrology). 

David Fetter – Surface Water Hydrologist - Water Resources Analysis (water resources): BS, 

Watershed Science, Colorado State University; 8 years of experience.

Mr. Fetter specializes in surface water hydrology. His responsibilities have included working directly 

with government agencies while acting as a state permit coordinator, conducting detailed hydrologic 

investigations and researching, writing and editing environmental sections for permits and project 

documents. His project work includes National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) report preparation 

for the Bureau of Land Management and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Prior to joining 

AECOM, Mr. Fetter worked for the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, and also supported 

interdisciplinary studies of wetland ecology within Rocky Mountain and Yellowstone National Parks.

U.S. Forest Service – TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Larry Bright – Biologist - Aquatic Habitat, Fish and Wildlife Analysis: Graduated from Oregon 

State in 1964 with a B.S. in Fish and Wildlife Management. Worked 28 years with Oregon 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

232 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Department of Fish and Wildlife and retired while serving as the wildlife research program manager. 

Worked 10 years with the U.S. Forest Service, serving as the forest Fish and Wildlife Biologist on 

two National Forests, after 3 years of ranch work and developing a fee fishery for a ranch in 

Washington. 

Henry Eichman – Economist - Socioeconomic Analysis: B.A. in Biology from Colorado College 

and a M.S. in Agricultural and Resource Economics from Oregon State University. From 2000 to 

2004, Henry worked with Federal and state agencies on raptor research efforts in Colorado and 

Arizona. Prior to joining TEAMS in 2007, Henry worked as an economist for BLM’s Prineville 

District in Oregon.

Vickey Eubank – GIS Specialist - GIS analysis and maps: Associate of Science in Science and 

Business from Labette County Community College. Vickey is very experienced in using multiple GIS 

applications. She excels in creating or revising complex GIS processing to facilitate analysis, 

modeling, programming, and creating GIS tabular, statistical, spatial, and mapping products for an 

array of projects. Vickey has accomplished a variety of complex GIS assignments including: an oil 

and gas leasing environmental impact statement (EIS); classification of satellite imagery; developing 

range capability models; forest plan revision; and fireshed modeling. Prior to her tenure with 

TEAMS, Vickey worked for the Custer National Forest as a GIS specialist and for the Kootenai 

National Forest as a transportation planner. Vickey has worked with TEAMS since 2004. 

Deborah McGlothlin – Environmental Coordinator - Interdisciplinary Team Leader and 

Document Preparation: Graduated from Northern Arizona University in 1992 with a BS in Biology 

and from Arizona State University in 1996 with a MS in Environmental Resource Management. 

Worked for the Tonto National Forest as a wildlife biologist from 1990 to 2000; for Grand Canyon 

National Park as an environmental coordinator from 2000 to 2008 and for U.S. Forest ServiceTEAMS enterprise as an environmental coordinator since 2008. 

Terry Miller – Botanist - Riparian Vegetation and Botany Analysis: Graduated from Southern 

Illinois University - Carbondale with a BA in Plant Biology and a MS in Forest Resources from the 

University of Idaho - Moscow. Worked with the Forest Service since 2001 including positions such as 

a SCEP student on the Fishlake National Forest in Utah, a district botanist on the Plumas National 

Forest in California, and as a forest botanist on the Hiawatha National Forest in Michigan. Terry has 

worked for TEAMS since October of 2008. He has experience working on a variety of projects 

including timber management, fuels treatment, noxious weed treatment, watershed restoration, 

grazing management, travel management, and a variety of special use projects. Terry has experience 

with rare plant habitat enhancement, rare plant monitoring, rare plant surveys, noxious weed 

treatment, grant proposal writing, native plant restoration, and NRIS.

Kristin Whisennand – Writer/Editor - Document Editing: Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from 

Dartmouth College and a Bachelor of Science in Resource Conservation Management from the 

University of Montana, graduate study in archaeology and paleontology at the University of Montana. 

Kristin works as a technical writer/editor with TEAMS preparing environmental and technical 

documents. Prior to TEAMS, she worked for 5 years as a team leader with the Forest Service Content 

Analysis Team and for 9 years as an archaeologist with the Lolo National Forest. Kristin has been 

with TEAMS since 2002.

U.S. Forest Service – Centralized National Operations

Roger Congdon, PhD – Hydrogeologist - Water Resources Oversight: Bachelor of Science in 

Geology from Portland State University in 1983, Master of Science in Geology from the University 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 233

of Utah in 1987, Doctor of Philosophy in Geology from Johns Hopkins University in 1991. Worked 

with the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, Virginia, from 1991 to 1994; with the Bureau of Land 

Management in Elko, Nevada, from 1994 to 2002; with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Vero Beach, 

Florida, from 2002 to 2005; with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Las Vegas, Nevada, from 2005 to 

2007; with the U.S. Forest Service from 2007 to the present. Supplemental training included 

hydrogeology at the University of Maryland in 1992 and miscellaneous short courses in groundwater 

modeling, aquifer testing, karst hydrology, and watershed modeling. He has experience with mine 

dewatering issues, well siting, groundwater modeling, and has been project manager for the Newmont 

Gold Quarry expansion EIS in Nevada. Roger is a member of the Washington Office hydrogeology 

team in the U.S. Forest Service.

U.S. Forest Service – Lincoln National Forest 

Christina Thompson – District Recreation and Lands Staff - Water Rights Analysis: Graduated 

from the University of New Mexico in 2004 with a BA in Geography and from the University of New 

Mexico in 2006 with a Master of Water Resources with an emphasis in water policy and management. 

She has worked for the Lincoln National Forest (NF), Smokey Bear Ranger District as the 

recreation/lands/minerals assistant from 2006 to 2009; from 2009 to 2011 as the Gila and Lincoln 

NFs zone lands/minerals specialist; 2011–present as the Smokey Bear Ranger District 

recreation/lands staff. 

Supporting IDT Members Name Affiliation an d Posit ion Project respon sib ilit y

April Banks Lincoln National Forest Hydrologist Water resources input and 

oversight

Linda Cole Lincoln National Forest GIS Coordinator Forest data layers and shape 

files

Rebecca Cross Forest Service Southwestern Region 

Assistant Group Leader for Lands Special 

Uses 

Special use permitting input 

and oversight

Larry Cordova Smokey Bear Ranger District Biologist Wildlife, fisheries, and botany 

input and oversight

Ron Hannan Lincoln National Forest Planning Staff 

Officer 

NEPA input and oversight; 

project management

Kim Kuhar Smokey Bear Ranger District Fire Ecologist Fuels analysis and postwildfire monitoring results and 

interpretation 

Kristen 

Loughery 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit Economist Socioeconomic analysis input 

and review 

Diane Prather Lincoln National Forest Archaeologist Cultural resource input and 

tribal consultation 

Peg Sorensen Acting Lincoln National Forest Planning 

Staff Officer 

NEPA input and oversight
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

234 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Name Affiliation an d Posit ion Project respon sib ilit y

Eric 

Turbeville

Smokey Bear Ranger District Recreation 

Specialist

Recreation input and 

oversight; district project 

coordination

Patti Turpin Lincoln National Forest NEPA Coordinator NEPA input and oversight; 

PALS data entry and updates

Dave Warnack Smokey Bear District Ranger Overall project direction and 

coordination; liaison with 

forest supervisor

Gary Ziehe Lincoln National Forest Natural Resources 

Staff Officer 

Overall resource 

input/oversight

Federal, State and Local Agencies, Tribes and Others

In February 2011, we released the notice of intent and proposed action and mailed a scoping letter 

with a detailed purpose and need and proposed action description to 174 stakeholders including 

private landowners, agencies, organizations, and tribes. We also posted information on the Lincoln 

National Forest Web site and published a news release in the Ruidoso News on February 15, 2011. 

We held a public open house at the Ruidoso Middle School on February 17, 2011, to provide project 

information and answer questions. As of November 2011, prior to release of the DEIS in 2012, we 

had received a total of 102 comment letters from you, the public—including agencies, organizations, 

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

We received comments from the following Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and groups. We 

also received many additional comments from local citizens and private landowners and business 

owners. These scoping comments received and how we used them in preparation of both the 2012 

DEIS and this document is described in appendix A.

• Alto Lakes Water and Sanitation 

District

• County of Lincoln

• Eagle Creek Conservation Association

• Eagle Creek Summer Home 

Association

• New Mexico Environment 

Department

• Pew Trusts

• Stevan Pearce, Congressman

• Upper Hondo Soil and Water 

Conservation District

• Village of Ruidoso

• Ysleta del sur Pueblo

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

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

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

News, and email and letter notifications were distributed to all those on the project mailing list. 

Comments were requested by July 9, 2012. We received several requests for extensions to the 

comment period and Forest Supervisor Trujillo granted an additional 60-day extension, requesting all 

comments be submitted no later than September 9, 2012. 

The Little Bear Fire started on June 4, 2012 and encompassed approximately 98 percent of the project 

area. Because of the substantial impact this wildfire had on the project area analyzed in the DEIS, 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 235

Forest Supervisor Trujillo decided to stop the comment period on the DEIS and begin the process to 

prepare a supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) that would address the changed conditions in the project area. 

This was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012. While we discontinued the formal 

comment period on the DEIS, we did invite any comments on the changed conditions in the project 

area by September 7, 2012. 

We received comments from the following Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and groups prior 

to the discontinuation of the comment period.

• Village of Ruidos Mayor

• Congressman Stevan Pearce

• Office of the State Engineer

• United States Geological Survey

• Environmental Protection Agency

• US Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

Appendix C and E include summaries of the all comments that we received and how they were used 

in preparing this document. 

Throughout the development of this project and EIS, we have met multiple times with the applicant, 

the Eagle Creek Conservation Association, and the United States Geological Survey. We have also 

had discussions with the Office of the New Mexico State Engineer, the New Mexico Game and Fish 

Department, and members of Congress from the State of New Mexico. 

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

Sent

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically requested a 

copy of the document. In addition, copies have been sent to the following Federal agencies (or 

agencies otherwise notified of availability), federally recognized tribes, State and local governments, 

and organizations:

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

• Alto Lakes Water and Sanitation District

• APHIS

• Chief of Naval Operations

• County of Lincoln

• Department of Energy

• Eagle Creek Conservation Association

• Eagle Creek Summer Home Association

• Federal Aviation Administration

• Federal Highway Administration

• Hopi Tribal Council

• Hopi Cultural Preservation Office

• Mescalero Apache Tribe

• National Agricultural Library

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service – Southwestern Office
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

236 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

• Natural Resource Conservation Service

• New Mexico Environment Department

• New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

• OEPC

• Pew Trusts

• Pueblo of Zuni

• Stevan Pearce, Congressman

• United States Environmental Protection Agency

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service

• United States Army Corps of Engineers

• United States Coast Guard

• Upper Hondo Soil and Water Conservation District

• Village of Ruidoso

• Ysleta del sur Pueblo
FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 237

Glossary of Hydrology and Water Rights 

Terminology

Acre-foot – Volume of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; equivalent to a volume of 

43,560 cubic feet, approximately 325,829 gallons, or approximately 7,758 barrels of water.

Adjudication – A legal process that can settle the rights of two water right holders with respect to one 

another or it can settle all the rights to water within a particular water system. This process does not 

create new water rights, it only confirms existing rights. The completion of adjudication results in a 

court decree outlining the priority, amount, purpose (determination of use), periods, and place of 

water use.

Alluvial – Pertaining to material or processes associated with transportation or deposition of soil and 

rock by flowing water (e.g., streams and rivers).

Alluvium – Unconsolidated or poorly consolidated gravel, sands, and clays deposited by streams.

Andesitic – Consisting of a gray, fine-grained volcanic rock.

Appropriate – To take the legal actions necessary to create a right to take water from a natural stream 

or aquifer for application to beneficial use. 

Appropriation – The right to take water from a natural stream or aquifer for beneficial use at a 

specified rate of flow, either for immediate use or to store for later use. Usually confirmed by a water 

court decree.

Aquifer – A body of rock that is sufficiently permeable to conduct groundwater and to yield 

economically significant quantities of water to wells and springs.

Aquifer test - An aquifer test (or a pumping test) is conducted to evaluate an aquifer by "stimulating" 

the aquifer through constant pumping, and observing the aquifer's "response" (drawdown) in 

observation wells. Aquifer testing is a common tool that hydrogeologists use to characterize a system 

of aquifers and flow system boundaries.

Base flow – The volume of flow in a stream channel that is not directly derived from surface runoff.

Basin yield – The amount of water that will flow from a drainage or catchment area in a given time.

Bedrock – A general term for solid rock that lies beneath soil, loose sediments, or other 

unconsolidated material.

Beneficial use of water – The use of water by man for any purpose which benefits are derived, such 

as domestic, municipal, irrigation, livestock, industrial, power development, and recreation. Under the 

New Mexico Constitution beneficial use is the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right to use 

water; therefore, beneficial use of public water diverted or impounded by manmade works is an 

essential element in the development of a water right.

Borehole – The wellbore itself, including the open hole or uncased portion of the well. Borehole may 

refer to the inside diameter of the wellbore wall, the rock face that bounds the drilled hole.

Change (Water Right) - Process by which a water right is changed with respect to the point of 

diversion, place of use or nature of use. 

Confined aquifer – An aquifer containing water between two relatively impermeable boundaries. 

The water level in a well tapping a confined aquifer stands above the top of the confined aquifer and 
Glossary of Hydrology and Water Rights Terminology

238 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

can be higher or lower than the water table that may be present in the material above it. In some cases 

the water level can rise above the ground surface, yielding a flowing well.

Confluence – The act of flowing together; the meeting or junction of two or more streams; also, the 

place where these streams meet.

Conjunctive Water Use - Combined use of ground water and surface water.

Cretaceous – The geologic span of time between 145 and 65 million years ago.

Double-mass analysis – A technique where the cumulative volume is plotted to reveal changes in the 

slope of the line, which indicates a change in conditions.

Drainage – A region or area of no particular scale bounded peripherally by a water parting and 

draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water.

Drawdown – The lowering of the elevation of the groundwater level from pumping wells. At the 

well, it is the vertical distance between the static and the pumping level.

Effluent – The water leaving a water or wastewater treatment plant. 

Effluent exchange – The practice of using wastewater effluent as a replacement source for diversion 

of water upstream.

Evapotranspiration – The portion of precipitation returned to the air through evaporation and plant 

transpiration.

Flow frequency – statistical analysis that results in the percentage of time that specified discharges 

are equaled or exceeded. These results are often graphed in the form of an exceedance curve.

Formation – A body of rock that is sufficiently distinctive and continuous that it can be mapped. In 

stratigraphy, a formation is a body of strata of predominantly one type or combination of types; 

multiple formations form groups, and subdivisions of formations are members.

Groundwater – Generally, all subsurface water as distinct from surface water; specifically, that part 

of the subsurface water in the saturated zone (a zone in which all voids, large and small, ideally are 

filled with water under pressure equal to or greater than atmospheric).

Hydrograph – A graph showing stage, flow, velocity, or other hydraulic properties of water with 

respect to time for a particular point on a stream.

Intermittent stream – A stream that flows only part of the time or during part of the year.

Mitigate, mitigation – To cause to become less severe or harmful; actions to avoid, minimize, rectify, 

reduce or eliminate, and compensate for impacts to environmental resources.

Municipal Water - May come from either ground water or surface water. Once water has entered a 

municipal water system, it will be considered municipal water.

Nested wells – Multiple wells completed in a group that extend to differing elevations below the 

ground surface.

Perennial stream – A stream or reach of a stream that flows throughout the year.

Permeability – The capacity of soil, sediment, or porous rock to transmit water; the property of soil 

or rock that allows passage of water through it.

Point of Diversion (POD) - Point specified in a water right from which water is diverted from a 

source. 
Glossary of Hydrology and Water Rights Terminology

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 239

Porosity – The ratio (usually expressed as a percentage) of the volume of openings in rock or soil 

material to the bulk volume of the material. With respect to water, porosity is a measure of the waterbearing capacity of a formation. 

Prior appropriation – The water law doctrine that confers priority to use water from natural streams 

based upon when the water rights were acquired. Water rights are confirmed by court decree; holders 

of senior rights have first claim to withdraw water over holders who have filed later claims.

Priority Date - Date of establishment of a water right.

Recharge – The introduction of surface water or groundwater to replenish groundwater storage in an 

aquifer.

Riparian – Pertaining to the banks of a river, stream, waterway, or other typically flowing body of 

water as well as to plant and animal communities along such bodies of water.

Runoff – That part of precipitation that appears in surface streams; precipitation that is not retained 

on the site where it falls and is not absorbed by the soil.

Slug test - A slug test is a particular type of aquifer test where water is quickly added or removed 

from a groundwater well, and the change in hydraulic head is monitored through time, to determine 

the near-well aquifer characteristics. It is a method used by hydrogeologists and civil engineers to 

determine the transmissivity/hydraulic conductivity and storativity of the material the well is 

completed in.

Storage coefficient – A measure of the volume of water an aquifer releases from or takes into storage 

per unit surface area of the aquifer per unit change in head or water level. 

Supplemental well (from New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 1978) - The owner of a water 

right may drill and use a supplemental well upon making application but prior to the publication and 

hearing set out in Section 72-12-3 NMSA 1978, if:

(1) the supplemental well is drilled into the same and only the same underground stream, channel, 

artesian basin, reservoir or lake as the well being supplemented; and

(2) the supplemental well does not increase the appropriation of water to an amount above the 

existing water rights; and

(3) an emergency situation exists in which the delay caused by publication and hearing would 

result in crop loss or other serious economic loss; and

(4) the state engineer, after a preliminary investigation, finds that the supplemental well does not 

impair existing water rights, and grants him a permit authorizing the drilling and use of the 

supplemental well prior to publication and hearing.

Surface Water - All waters whose surface is naturally exposed to the atmosphere (e.g., rivers, 

streams, lakes, reservoirs, impoundments, ponds, springs).

Syenite – A light colored, coarse-grained igneous rock consisting mainly of feldspar.

Tertiary – The geologic span of time between 65 and 3 to 2 million years ago.

Unconfined aquifer – An aquifer containing water that is not under pressure; the water level in a well 

is the same as the water table outside the well.

Watershed – A drainage defined by the Watershed Boundary Dataset (NRCS et al. 2010) and 

identified by a 10-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC-10).
Glossary of Hydrology and Water Rights Terminology

240 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Water diversion – May be measured at any number of locations: lake or stream intake structures, 

interim raw water meters, or at the raw intake meter at the beginning of a treatment plant.

Water production – Is always measured at the end of a treatment system, prior to release to the 

public as potable water. 

Water Right - The right to use a specific quantity of water occurring in a water supply, on a specific 

time schedule, at a specific place and putting it to a specific beneficial use.

Water year – The 12-month period, October 1 through September 30. The water year is designated 

by the calendar year in which it ends. Therefore, the 2000 water year ended on September 30, 2000.

Well - Horizontal or vertical excavation or opening into the ground made by digging, boring, drilling, 

jetting or driving for utilizing or monitoring underground waters.
FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 241

References Cited

Specialist Reports

AECOM. 2012. North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report. Prepared by AECOM for TEAMS 

Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 

AECOM. 2014. Water Resource Impacts Supplemental Information Report Prepared by AECOM for 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest.

AECOM, 2015. Final Water Resource Impacts Supplemental Information Report Prepared by 

AECOM for TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National 

Forest.

Bright, Larry. 2012a. Fish and Wildlife Report for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Permit 

Reissuance DEIS. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, NM.

Bright, Larry. 2012b. Biological Evaluation and Assessment for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells 

Special Permit Reissuance DEIS. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, 

Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Bright, Larry. 2015a. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Fish and Wildlife Report 

for Final Environmental Impact Statement. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger 

District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Bright, Larry. 2015b. Final Biological Evaluation and Assessment for the North Fork Eagle Creek 

Wells Special Permit Reissuance DEIS. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger 

District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Eichman, Henry. 2012. Socioeconomics Report for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use 

Authorization DEIS. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, NM.

Eichman, Henry and Kristen Loughery. 2014. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: 

Socioeconomics Report for Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. TEAMS 

Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Eichman, Henry. 2015. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Socioeconomics 

Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey 

Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Kuhar. K. 2013. Draft Fuels Specialist Report, North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Project EIS. December 

6, 2013. USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

Kuhar, K. 2012. Post Fire Vegetation Recovery, Little Bear Fire. Forest Fuels Specialist internal 

agency report, October 16, 2012. USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, 

Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

Miller, T.R. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Riparian Vegetation 

Monitoring Report. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, NM.
References Cited

242 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Miller, Terry R. 2012a. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS, Riparian Vegetation 

Report. Teams Enterprise Unit for the Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, 

NM. 

Miller, T. 2012b. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Botanical Resources Report. 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Miller, T. 2014a. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Supplemental Vegetation 

Report for the SDEIS. Teams Enterprise Unit for the Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, NM.

Miller, T.R. 2014b. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Botanical Resources 

Report for Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for 

Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Miller, T. 2015a. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Supplemental Vegetation 

Report for the Final EIS. Teams Enterprise Unit for the Smokey Bear Ranger District, 

Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Miller, T.R. 2015b. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Botanical Resources 

Report for Final Environmental Impact Statement. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear 

Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Thompson, Christina. 2012. Water Rights Report for the North Fork Eagle Creek Special Use 

Authorization DEIS. Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM. 

Thompson, Christina. 2015. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Water Rights 

Report for Final Environmental Impact Statement. Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, NM

References Cited in Chapters 1 and 2

Atkins Engineering and Associates, Inc. 2014. Personal communication. Summary of Eagle Creek 

Water Rights, Return Flow, and Conditions Resultant from Little Bear Fire and Drought. 02 

February 2014. Email.

Atkins-Landfair, Inc. 1985. Village of Ruidoso, Eagle Creek Exploratory Well Drilling Final Report. 

Roswell, NM.

Balleau Groundwater, Inc. (BGW) 2004. Analysis of North Fork Well field and Effects on Eagle 

Creek: Balleau Groundwater, Inc., Albuquerque, NM, Technical Memorandum by Casey 

Cook of BGW prepared for the Ford Secure Trust, November 3, 2004, 10 p., 3 Tables, 20 

Figures.

Bosch, J.M. and J.D. Hewlett. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of 

vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology, 55: 3-23.

Brenner, Mark, Thomas J. Whitmore, Melanie A. Riedinger-Whitmore, Brandy DeArmond, Douglas 

A. Leeper, William F. Kenney, Jason H. Curtis, and Byron Shumate. 2006. Geochemical and 

biological consequences of groundwater augmentation in lakes of west-central Florida 

(USA). J Paleolimnol (2006) 36:371–383.

Brunner, Phillip, Peter G. Cook, and Craig T. Simmons. 2011. Disconnected surface water and 

groundwater: from theory to practice. Groundwater 49, no. 4: 460-467.
References Cited

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 243

Cowx, I. G. 2004. Potential impact of groundwater augmentation of river flows on fisheries: a case 

study from the River Ouse, Yorkshire, UK. Fisheries Management and Ecology, Volume 7, 

Issue 1–2, pages 85–96, February.

Finch, S. T., R. L. Peery, and A. M. McCoy. 2004. Water Resource Evaluation of Eagle Creek 

Watershed, Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. Prepared by John Shomaker and Associates for 

Village of Ruidoso, NM, October 2004.

Grant, Gordon E., Sarah L. Lewis, Frederick J. Swanson, John H. Cissel, and Jeffrey J. McDonnell. 

2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A Stateof-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service PNW-GTR760. May.

Hennighausen and Olsen, LLP. 2012. Review of USDA Forest Service Draft EIS for Village of 

Ruidoso North Fork Wells. Lettter from Alvin F. Jones to David Warnack, Smokey Bear 

District Ranger with two attached memoranda from Roger Peery and Jack Atkins. January 12

Matherne, A. M., N. C. Myers, and K. J. McCoy. 2011. Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin and Effects 

of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 1969–2009. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5205 (revised November 2011). Prepared in cooperation with the 

Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

New Mexico Environment Department. 2011. Letter to USDA Forest Service in response to scoping. 

Office of the Secretary, Santa Fe, NM.

National Research Council. 2002. Regional Issues in Aquifer Storage and Recovery for Everglades 

Restoration: A Review of the ASR Regional Study Project Management Plan of the 

Comprehensive Everglades. The National Academic Press. Washington, DC.

Parasiewitz, Piotr. 2008. Habitat time series analysis to define flow augmentation – strategy for the 

Quinebaug River, Connecticut and Massachusetts, USA. River. Res. Applic. 24: 439–452 

Sommer, Bea and Pierre Horwitz. 2009. Macroinvertebrate cycles of decline and recovery in Swan 

Coastal Plain (Western Australia) wetlands affected by drought-induced acidification. 

Hydrobiologia (2009) 624:191–203

USDA Forest Service. 1982. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. R-3 FSH 2509.22. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.22!r3

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Forest Service Manual 2500 – Watershed and Air Management –

Chapter 2530 – Water Resource Management. 

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

amended.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest Service Southwestern Region Manual 2500 – Watershed and Air 

Management – Chapter 2540 – Water Uses and Development. Region 3 Supplement. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest Service Manual 2540. Region 3 Supplement.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Forest Service Manual 2500 – Watershed and Air Management –

Chapter 2540 – Water Uses and Development – Servicewide.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service Manual 2800 – Minerals and Geology. Chapter 2880 –

Geologic Resources, Hazards and Services 
References Cited

244 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

USDA Forest Service. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Manual Direction Summary/Issue Brief 

prepared for the North Fork Eagle Creek Special Use Authorization Project. Lincoln National 

Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-978. July 2011. Primary Authors: John P. 

Potyondy and Theodore W. Geier.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on 

National Forest System Lands; Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-990A. April 2012

Village of Ruidoso. 2006. Special Use Permit Application for North Fork Eagle Creek wells and 

associated facilities. July. Application from Village of Ruidoso to Lincoln National Forest. 

Wilson and Company Inc. Engineers and Architects, John Shoemaker and Associates, Inc., and Atkins 

Engineering Associates, Inc. 2005. Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico 40-Year Water Plan. 

Prepared for Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico, August 2005. 

References Cited in Chapter 3 and in Supporting Specialist 

Reports

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework – A Framework for Assessing and 

Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition. U.S. Forest Service Publication FS-977. May 

2011. Internet website: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/. Accessed October 5, 

2011.

Water Resources

Atkins, J. D. 2014. Written communication from Mr. Jackie D. Atkins, PE, PS, Atkins Engineering 

Associates, to Jim Burrell, AECOM, and to the Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, regarding Eagle Creek water rights, return flows, and conditions resulting 

from the Little Bear Fire and drought. 7 pgs. February 25, 2014. Atkins Engineering 

Associates, Roswell, NM. 

Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. (Atkins). 2011. Memorandum of March 4, 2011, re: Additional 

Eagle Creek Surface Water Discharge Calculations, from Atkins Engineering Associated to 

the Village of Ruidoso file. Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc., Roswell, New Mexico.

Atkins-Landfair, Inc. 1985. Village of Ruidoso, Eagle Creek Exploratory Well Drilling Final Report. 

Roswell, New Mexico.

Allen, J. E. and F. E. Kottlowski. 1981. Scenic Trips to the Geologic Past Series No. 3: RoswellRuidoso-Valley of Fires. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Socorro, 

New Mexico, 96p. 

Balleau Groundwater, Inc. (BGW). 2004a. Analysis of North Fork Well field and Effects on Eagle 

Creek: Balleau Groundwater, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Technical Memorandum 

prepared by Casey Cook of BGW for the Ford Secure Trust, November 3, 2004, 10 p., 3 

Tables, 20 Figures.
References Cited

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 245

Balleau Groundwater, Inc. (BGW). 2004b. Mountain-Front Hydrology of Eagle Creek and Rio 

Ruidoso Tributaries of Rio Hondo. Technical Memorandum prepared for the file of the Ford 

Secure Trust, by W. Peter Balleau and Steven. E. Silver, November 3, 2004. 76 pages. 

Balleau Groundwater, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Balleau, W. P. 2014. Written communication from W. Peter Balleau, Balleau Groundwater, Inc., to 

Deborah McGlothlin, U.S. Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit, Flagstaff, AZ 

Balleau, W. P. and S. Silver. 2010. Peer Review and Technical Audit of SIR 2010-5205. Technical 

Memorandum prepared for Rio Hondo Land and Cattle Company, December 2010.

Banks, A. 2011. Personal communication with Ms. April Banks, P.E., Forest Hydrologist, Lincoln 

National Forest, Alamogordo, New Mexico and Jim Burrell, Senior Hydrologist, AECOM, 

Fort Collins, Colorado concerning USFS Watershed Condition ratings for the North Fork and 

South Fork drainages of Eagle Creek on Forest Service Lands. November 4, 2011. 

Biederman, J. and P. D. Brooks. 2013. Improved Prediction of Water Availability and Quality 

Following Forest Disturbance. Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of 

Arizona. 

http://wsp.arizona.edu/sites/wsp.arizona.edu/files/Biederman%20WSP%20Final%20Report%

202013.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2013. 

Blaney, H. F. and W. D. Criddle. 1962. Determining consumptive use and irrigation water 

requirements: U.S. Department of Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin 1275,

Bredehoeft, J. 2007. It is the Discharge. Guest editorial in Ground Water, 45(5), September – October 

2007, pg 523. National Ground Water Association, Westerville, Ohio. 

Brummal, J. 2011. Eagle Creek Summer Home Association Photo Album. Internet website: 

http://www.brummal.com/EagleCreekPhotos.htm. Accessed April 7, 2011

Bury, R. Bruce, Major, Donald J, and Pilliod, David. No date. Responses of Amphibians to Fire 

Disturbance in Pacific Northwest Forests: A Review. The Role of fire in nongame wildlife 

management and community restoration: traditional uses and new directions. GTR-NE-288

Campbell, R.E., Baker, M.B. Jr., Ffolliott, P.F., Larson, F.R., and C.C. Avery. Wildfire Effects on a 

Ponderosa Pine Ecosystem: An Arizona Case Study. USDA Forest Service Research Paper 

RM-191. September 1977. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA 

Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Cather, S. M. 1991. Stratigraphy and provenance of Upper Cretaceous and Paleogene strata of the 

western Sierra Blanca Basin, New Mexico. In Barker, J. M., B. S. Kues, G. S. Austin, and S. 

G. Lucas, editors, Geology of the Sierra Blanca, Sacramento, and Capitan Ranges: New 

Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook 42. p. 265-275. 

Cayan, D. R., S. A. Kammerdiener, M. D. Dettinger, J. M. Caprio, and D. H. Peterson. 2001. Changes 

in the Onset of Spring in the Western United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society, 82(3), March 2001, pp. 399-415. American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA.

Chaves County District Court. 1979. GIS Dataset created by USFS-Teams from information 

contained in: Judgment on Lincoln National Forest Claims. Historic listing of rights and 

water uses under permit or license. Book 146, Pages 521 -523. 
References Cited

246 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Christensen, N. and D. P. Lettenmaier (2006). "A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of 

climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River basin." 

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 3: 3727-3770.Donohoe, L. C. 2004. Selected 

hydrologic data for the upper Rio Hondo basin, Lincoln County, New Mexico, 1945-2003: 

USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5275, 28 p.

Chow, V. T. (ed.). 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology – A Compendium of Water-resources 

Technology. Section 6, part VI, “Evapotranspiration”, by H.W. Lull. McGraw-Hill Book 

Company, New York, New York.

Clark, B. 2001. Soils, Water, and Watersheds. Chapter 5, Fire Effects Guide. National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho.

Cordova, Larry. 2013. Personal communication. Fish Observation Survey Results. 

Cordova, Larry. 2013a. Personal communication. Riparian System Condition and Rio Grande 

Cutthroat. 

Covington, W. W. and M. M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern Ponderosa Forest Structure: Changes since 

Euro-American Settlement. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 92, No. 1, January 1994. Society of 

American Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland.

Craigg, S. D. 1992. Water Resources on the Pueblos of Jemez, Zia, and Santa Ana, Sandoval County, 

New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4091. 

Prepared in cooperation with the Jemez River Indian Water Authority. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

DeBano, L. F. 1990. The Effect of Fire on Soil Properties. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report INT-280. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/documents/GTRs/INT_280/DeBano_INT-280.php 

Accessed January 10, 2013.

DeBano, L. F. 1981. Water-Repellent Soils: a state-of-the-art. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report PSW-46. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA 

Forest Service, Berkeley, CA.

Denny. 2011. Personal communication

Doerr, S. H. and J. A. Moody. 2004. Hydrological Effects of Soil Water Repellency: on Spatial and 

Temporal Uncertainties. Hydrological Processes 18, pp. 829-832. Published online in Wiley 

Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hyp.5518.

Earlougher, R. C., Jr. 1977. Advances in Well Test Analysis. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Dallas, 

Texas. 264 pages.

Eckhardt, K. 2005. How to Construct Recursive Digital Filters for Baseflow Separation. Hydrological 

Processes 19(2):507-515.

Enquist, C., A. Bradley, M. Cross, G. Garfin, D. Gori, P. McCarthy, and R. Oertel. 2009. Jémez 

Mountain Climate Change Adaptation Workshop: Process, Outcomes, and Next Steps. 

Southwest Climate Change Initiative. The Nature Conservancy; in partnership with the U.S. 

Forest Service, University of Arizona, University of Washington, the Wildlife Conservation 

Society. April, 2009. Internet website: 

http://nmconservation.org/projects/new_mexico_climate_change/. Accessed September 29, 

2011.
References Cited

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 247

Ericksen, H.E. and R. White. 2008. Soils under Fire: Soils Research and the Joint Fire Science 

Program. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-759. May 2008. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Fekete, B. M., C. J. Vorosmarty, J. O. Roads, and C.T. Willmott. 2004. Uncertainties in Precipitation 

and Their Impacts on Runoff Estimates. Journal of Climate, Vol 17, pp 294-304. American 

Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts.

Finch, S.T., Jr. 2014. Calculating Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions for Water Right 

Transfers – How Far Do We Go? Abstract of John T. Shomaker & Associates, Inc. 

presentation at the National Ground Water Association Conference on Hydrology and Water 

Scarcity in the Rio Grande Basin. February 26, 2014, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Albuquerque, NM. 

National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH. 

Finch, S. T., R. L. Peery, and A. M. McCoy. 2004. Water Resource Evaluation of Eagle Creek 

Watershed, Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. Prepared by John Shomaker and Associates for 

Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico, October 2004.

Galaska, H.S. and R.A. Galaska. 2011. Personal communication from Mr. Hank Galaska and Ms. Rita 

Galaska, private residents along the North Fork of Eagle Creek, to Ms. Deborah McGlothlin, 

USFS TEAMS Project Leader, with text and photographs regarding historic and present-day 

flow and stream channel conditions in the North Fork. June 14, 2011. Ruidoso, New Mexico.

Goff, F., S. A. Kelley, J. R. Lawrence, C. Cikoski, D. J. Krier, C. J. Goff, and V. T. McLemore. 2011. 

Preliminary Geologic Map of the Nogal Peak Quadrangle, Lincoln and Otero Counties, New 

Mexico. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources Open-File Geologic Map 

OF-GM 134, scale 1:24,000 (color).

Gottfried, G.J., Neary, D.G., Baker, M.B, Jr., and P.F. Ffolliott. 2003. Impacts of Wildfires on 

Hydrologic Processes in Forest Ecosystems: Two Case Studies, in: Proceedings, 1st 

Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds. USDA Agricultural Research 

Service. www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/icrw/Proceedings/Gottfried.pdf. 

Hansen. 2011. Personal Communication

Hansen and Denny. 2011. Personal communication

Harpold, A. A., J. A. Biederman, K. Condon, M. Merino, Y. Korgaonkar, T. Nan, L. L. Sloat, M. Ross, 

and P. D. Brooks. 2013. Changes in Snow Accumulation and Ablation following the Las 

Conchas Forest Fire, New Mexico, USA. In: Ecohydrology. DOI: 10.1002/eco.1363. Wiley 

Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Published online January 2013. Internet URL 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eco.1363/full. Accessed December 2013.

Helsel, D.R. and R.M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Techniques of WaterResources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 4, Hydrologic 

Analysis and Interpretation, Chapter A3. Internet website: 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3

Hibbert, A. R. 1967. Forest Treatment Effects on Water Yield. In: W.E. Sopper and H.W. Lull (eds.). 

International Symposium for Hydrology. Pergamon, Oxford, United Kingdom. (Elsevier 

Limited, Kidlington, Oxford, United Kingdom).
References Cited

248 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Huffman,E.L., MacDonald, L.H, and J.D. Stednick. 2001. Strength and Persistence of Fire-Induced 

Soil Hydrophobicity under Ponderosa and Lodgepole Pine, Colorado Front Range. 

Hydrological Processes, Volume 15, Issue 15, October 2001. DOU: 10.1002/hyp.379. John 

Wiley and Sons, Wiley Online Library.

Hultstrand, D.M. 2006. Geostatistical Methods for Estimating Snowmelt Contribution to the Seasonal 

Water Balance in an Alpine Watershed. Thesis submitted in fall 2006, in partial fulfillment of 

the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 

Colorado.

Jenkins, D. N. and J. K. Prentice. 1982. Theory for aquifer test analysis in fractured rock under linear 

(nonradial) flow conditions. Ground Water, Vol. 20, No. 1. January-February 1982.

Johnson, M. 1994. Changes in Southwestern Forests, Stewardship Implications. Journal of Forestry, 

Vol. 92, No. 12, December 1994. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland.

Johnston, R. S., R. K. Tew, and R. D. Doty. 1969. Soil Moisture Depletion and Estimated 

Evapotranspiration on Utah Mountain Watersheds. Research Paper INT-67. USDA Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Joyce, L.A. 2008. Climate Change Assessments. (May 20, 2008). U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/assessments.shtml 

Kelley, V. C. and T. B. Thompson. 1964. Tectonics and general geology of the Ruidoso-Carrizozo 

region, central New Mexico In Ash, S. R. and L. R. Davis, eds., Ruidoso Country: New 

Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 15th field conference, October 16–18, 1964.

Kilgore, B. M. 1981. Fire in Ecosystem Distribution and Structure: Western Forests and Shrublands. 

Proceedings of the Conference, Fire regimes and Ecosystem Properties. December 11-15, 

1978, Honolulu, HI. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report WO-26, June 1981. 

Washington, DC.

Knowles, N., Dettinger, M.D., and D. R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in Snowfall versus Rainfall in the 

Western United States. Journal of Climate, Vol 19, pp 4545-4559. September 2006. American 

Meteorological Society, Boston. MA.

Kuhar. K. 2013. Draft Fuels Specialist Report, North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Project EIS. December 

6, 2013. USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

Kuhar, K. 2012. Post Fire Vegetation Recovery, Little Bear Fire. Forest Fuels Specialist internal 

agency report, October 16, 2012. USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, 

Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

Kuhar, K. 2014. Written communication 1/21/14.

Lim, K. J., B. A. Engel, Z. Tang, J. Choi, K-S. Kim, S. Muthukrishnan, and D. Tripathy. 2005. 

Automated Web GIS based Hydrograph Analysis Tool, WHAT. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association, December 2005. American Water Resources Association, 

Middleburg, Virginia. Internet website: https://engineering.purdue.edu/~what/.

Little, Ralph G. 1960a. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations, Basic Survey of Eagle Creek. Federal Aid 

Project F-22-R-1, Work Plan 4, Job A-2-3. March 31, 1960. New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. March
References Cited

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 249

Little, Ralph G. 1960b. Periodic stream survey, Eagle Creek. Work plan 4, job i-1. New Mexico game 

and fish departments. June

Little, R.G. 1961. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations, Periodic Check of Eagle Creek. Federal Aid 

Project F-22-R-2, Work Plan 4, Job No. I-1. January 26, 1961. New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Liu, J., H. Takahashi, N. Hayakawa, M. Lu, D. Zhang, and X. Ma. 2002. Precipitation Interpolations 

using Spatial Model and Water Balance in a Mountainous Watershed based on GIS and DEM. 

Journal of rthe Japan Society of Hydrology and Water Resources, Vol 15 (5), pp 496-504. 

Japan Society of Hydrology and Water Resources, International Academic Printing Co. Ltd., 

Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0075, Japan.

Lucas, S. G., S. M. Cather, P. Sealey, and J. H. Hutchison. 1989. Stratigraphy, paleontology, and 

depositional systems of the Eocene Cub Mountain Formation, Lincoln County, New Mexico; 

a preliminary report: New Mexico Geology, vol.11, no.1, p.11-17.

Luce, C. H. 2005. Land Use and Land Cover Effects on Runoff Processes: Fire. Section 120, in: 

Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences, M.G. Anderson and J.J. McDonnell (eds.). John 

Wiley and Sons, Inc. Somerset, New Jersey.

MacDonald, L. H. and J. D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and water—a state-of-the-art review for 

Colorado: Fort Collins, Colorado. Water Resources Research Institute CWRRI Completion 

Report No. 196.

Matherne, A.M. 2011. Personal communication from Dr. Anne-Marie Matherne, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Ms. Deborah McGlothlin, U.S. Forest Service 

TEAMS Project Leader, dated September 8, 2011.

Matherne, A.M. 2013. Personal Communication

Matherne, A. M., N. C. Myers, and K. J. McCoy. 2011. Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin and Effects 

of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 1969–2009. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5205 (revised November 2011). Prepared in cooperation with the 

Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

MacDonald, L. H. and J. D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and Water: A State-of-the-Art Review for 

Colorado. Sponsored by the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Colorado Water 

Resources Research Institute, Denver Water, and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy 

District. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Completion Report No. 196, Colorado 

State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

McCormick, Frank H., Bruce E. Eiemen, and Jeffery L. Kershner. 2010. Biological Responses to 

Stressors in Aquatic Ecosystems in Western North America: Cumulative Watershed Effects of 

Fuel Treatments, Wildfire, and Post-wildfire Remediation. USDA Forest Service, RMRSGTR-231. Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States: 

Chapter 11.

McGlothlin, D. 2011. Summary of agency report information related to fisheries and riparian habitat 

in the project area (2 mile stretch of North Fork Eagle Creek from present day North Fork 

gage to Eagle Creek gage). September 14, 2011.
References Cited

250 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Medlock, J. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek - An Intermittent Stream - Not a Cold Water Fishery. 

Personal communication from Mr. J. Medlock, private resident along the North Fork of Eagle 

Creek, to Mr. D. Warnack, District Ranger, Smokey Bear Ranger District Lincoln National 

Forest, Ruidoso, New Mexico, with text and photographs regarding historic flow and stream 

channel conditions in the North Fork. September 13, 2011. Ruidoso, New Mexico.

Midkiff, W.A. 2002. Water Availability along Eagle Creek. Personal communication from Dr. W. 

Midkiff, Midkiff Engineering Company, to the Lincoln National Forest, regarding streamflow 

and groundwater conditions in the North Fork of Eagle Creek, with figures and analysis of 

sustainable yield, well conditions, and additional surface water and groundwater factors. June 

6, 2002. Ruidoso, New Mexico.

Midkiff, W.A. 2001. Eagle Creek Observations and Anecdotes. Personal communication from Dr. W. 

Midkiff to the Lincoln National Forest, regarding streamflow and groundwater conditions in 

the North Fork of Eagle Creek. October 24, 2001. Ruidoso, New Mexico.

Molotch, N. P., P. D. Brooks, S. P. Burns, M. Litvak, R. K. Monson, J. R. McConnell, and K. 

Musselman. 2009. Ecohydrological Controls on Snowmelt Partitioning in Mixed-conifer Subalpine Forests. Ecohydrology, May 2, 2009. Wiley Interscience DOI 10.1002/eco.48.

Moody, J. A. and Martin, D. A. 2001. Post-wildfire Rainfall Intensity – Peak Discharge Relations for 

Three Mountainous Watersheds in the Western USA. Hydrological Processes Volume 15, 

Issue 15 (2981- 2993). John Wiley and Sons, Wiley Online Library.

Mote, P. W., A. F. Hamlet, M. P. Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining Mountain Snowpack 

in Western North America. Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and the Ocean 

Contribution Number 1073. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, January 2005. 

American Meteorological Society, Boston. Massachusetts. 

Myers, N.C. 2013. Personal Communication 11/12/13

Nathan, R. J. and T. A. McMahon, 1990. Evaluation of Automated Techniques for Baseflow and 

Recession Analysis. Water Resource Research 26(7):1465-1473. American Geophysical 

Union, Washington, D.C.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2010. Climate data for Ruidoso, New Mexico. Internet 

website: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~StnSrch~StnID~10100284. 

Accessed on December 20, 2010.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. New Mexico SNOTEL Site Sierra Blanca 

(1034). Internet URLs http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/view, and 

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/reports/UpdateReport.html;jsessionid=IjPCfMgwruJVOziXCF

kFlbKU?report=New+Mexico&format=SNOTEL+Precipitation+Summary+Update+Report. 

Accessed December 7 and 10, 2013.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Sierra Blanca SNOTEL site. NRCS National 

Weather and Climate Center. Internet website: 

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=1034&state=nm. Accessed August 23, 

2011.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2005. Digital hydrologic unit boundary GIS layer 

to the Subwatershed (12-digit) 6th level for the State of New Mexico. Internet website: 

http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed. Accessed December 20, 2010.
References Cited

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 251

Neary, D. G., K. C. Ryan, and L. F. DeBano, (eds.). 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of 

Fire on Soils and Water. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4 (revised 2008). U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah

Neary, D.G., Koestner, K.A., Youberg, A., and P.E. Koestner. 2012. Post-fire Rill and Gully 

Formation, Schultz Fire 2010, Arizona, USA. Geoderma 191 (2012) 97-104. Elsevier 

Publishing. Internet URL: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma. Accessed November 22, 

2013.

Neff, B. P. and J. R.Nicholas. 2004. Uncertainty in the Great Lakes Water Balance. U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004- 5100. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

Virginia.

Nevada Division of Water Resources. 2011. Water Words Dictionary. State of Nevada Division of 

Water Resources. Internet website: http://water.nv.gov/programs/planning/dictionary/. 

Accessed October 12, 2011.

New Mexico Climate Center. 2011. ET and Hydrology Tools. Internet website: 

http://weather.nmsu.edu/. Accessed August 20, 2011.

New Mexico Environment Department. 2011a, 2010-2012 State of New Mexico Final CWA Section 

303(d) / Section 305(b) Integrated List. Page 414.

New Mexico Environment Department. 2011b, Streams and Lakes in US Forest Service Wilderness 

Areas Designated as Outstanding Natural Resource Waters 20.6.4.9.D(1) and (3) NMAC. 

www.nmenv.state.nm.us. January 14.

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE). 2014. New Mexico Water Rights Reporting 

System. Accessed June 8, 2014. 

http://nmwrrs.ose.state.nm.us/nmwrrs/wellSurfaceDiversion.html

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE). 2005. New Mexico Water Use by Categories –

Supplemental Report 2005. Technical Report 52 S, June 2005. Adapted from NMOSE 

Technical Report 51. Compiled and edited by the Water Use & Conservation Bureau Staff, 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

New Mexico Fifth Judicial District. 2010. State of New Mexico, ex rei. State Engineer and Pecos 

Valley Artesian Conservancy District, Plaintiffs, v. L. T. Lewis, et al., and United States of 

America, Defendants, and State of New Mexico, ex rei. State Engineer and Pecos Valley 

Artesian Conservancy District, Plaintiffs, v. Hagerman Canal Co., et al., Defendants. 

Nos.20294 and 22600 Consolidated. Consent Order, March 8, 2010.

Newcomer, R. W. Jr. and J. W. Shomaker. 1991. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 42nd 

Field Conference, Sierra Blanca, Sacramento, Capitan Ranges. Water Resources of the 

Ruidoso-Carrizozo-Tularosa Areas, Lincoln and Otero Counties, New Mexico. 

Newton, B. T., C, Gierke, H. Garduno, N. Canaris, and T. Kludt. 2012a. Sacramento Mountains 

Watershed Study: Can We Increase Our Water Resources by Thinning Trees in the 

Mountains? Aquifer Mapping Program, Preliminary report, June 2012. New Mexico Bureau 

of Geology and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, Socorro, 

New Mexico. Primary Study Contact: Mr. Talon Newton, Hydrogeologist, New Mexico 

Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, 

801 Leroy Place, Socorro, NM 87801 
References Cited

252 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Newton, B. T., G. C. Rawling, S. S. Timmons, L. Land, P. S. Johnson, T. J. Kludt, and J. M. Timmons. 

2012b. Sacramento Mountain Hydrogeology Study. Final Technical Report, June 2012. 

Prepared for the Otero County Soil and Water Conservation District. Aquifer Mapping 

Program, New Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of 

Mining & Technology, Socorro, New Mexico.

Patterson, Robert. 1971. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Roswell, NM.

Peery, R. 2013. Personal communication between R. Peery, CEO/Principal Hydrogeologist, John 

Shomaker & Associates, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico, and C. Thompson, Forest Service 

IDT Liaison, Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, Ruidoso, New Mexico, 

transmitting recent well water level data for monitoring and production wells in the Village of 

Ruidoso well field along the North Fork of Eagle Creek. November 12, 2013.

Potyondy, J. P. and T. W. Geier. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. USDAForest Service Publication FS-978. July 2011. Downloaded from Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/. Accessed October 5, 2011.

Pugh, E. and E. Small. 2011. The Impact of Pine Beetle Infestation on Snow Accumulation and Melt 

in the Headwaters of the Colorado River (Abstr.). Ecohydrology, Vol. 5, Issue 4, July 2012. 

Published online June 7, 2011. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eco.239/abstract. 

Accessed December 8, 2013. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Somerset, New Jersey. 

Rawling, G.2004. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Angus 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Lincoln County, 

New Mexico. N.M. Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Open-File Geologic Map 95, 

1:24,000 scale (color).

Rawling, G. 2009. Geology of the Ruidoso area, Lincoln and Otero counties, New Mexico; New 

Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources Open-file Report 507. Internet website: 

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/openfile/details.cfml?Volume=507. Accessed on 

November 17, 2010.

Rice, S. 2011. Personal communication from Mr. S. Rice, private resident along the North Fork of 

Eagle Creek, to to Mr. D. Warnack, District Ranger, Smokey Bear Ranger District Lincoln 

National Forest, Ruidoso, New Mexico, with text and photographs regarding flow and stream 

channel conditions in the North Fork. June 14, 2011. Ruidoso, New Mexico.

Robichaud, P. R. 2000. Fire Effects on Infiltration Rates after Prescribed Fire in Northern Rocky 

Mountain Forests, USA. Journal of Hydrology, Vols 231-232, May 2000. Elsevier Inc., 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Romero, D.M. and S.E. Silver. 2012. Simulation of the Aquifer System in Part of the Hondo Basin 

from the Sierra Blanca to Riverside, New Mexico. Presentation at the Geological Society of 

America Conference, Rocky Mountain Section - 64th Annual Meeting (9–11 May 2012), 

Albuquerque, NM. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO. 

Ross, John S. 1970. North Fork Eagle Creek Stream Survey Report. U.S. Forest Service, Lincoln 

National Forest.

Roth, B.E. K.C. Slatton, and M.J. Cohen. 2007. Searcy, J. K., and C. H. Hardison. 1960. DoubleMass Curves. With a section “Fitting Curves” by W. B. Langbein. U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1541-B. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
References Cited

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 253

Shomaker, J. W. 1989. Testing and Evaluation of Eagle Creek Wells 1-4 (SEO File Numbers H 1979 

through H-1982. Memorandum to Frank Potter, Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico dated May 

27, 1989.

Stednick, J. D. 1996. Monitoring the Effects of Timber Harvest on Annual Water Yield. Journal of 

Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95. Elsevier Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Stewart. I. T., D. P. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward Earlier Streamflow Timing

across Western North America. Journal of Climate, Vol. 18, April 2005, pp 1136-1155. 

American Meteorological Society, Boston. Massachusetts.

Streltsova, T. D. 1976. Well Testing in Heterogeneous Formations. Exxon Monograph. 402 pages. 

Theis, C. V. 1935. The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric Surface and the Rate and 

Duration of Discharge of a Well using Groundwater Storage. American Geophysical Union. 

Vol. 16, pp. 519-524.

Thompson, J. R. 1974. Energy Budget Measurements over Three Cover Types in Eastern Arizona. 

Water Resources Research 10(5):1045-1048. American Geophysical Union, Washington, 

D.C.

Thompson, C. 2013. Personal Communication 11/26/13

Tillery, A. C. and A. M. Matherne. 2013. Postwildfire Debris-Flow Hazard Assessment of the Area 

Burned by the 2021 Little Bear Fire, South-Central New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2013-1108. Prepared in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service, 

Lincoln National Forest. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Troendle, C. A. and J. O. Reuss. 1997. Effect of Clear Cutting on Snow Accumulations and Water 

Outflow at Fraser, Colorado. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 1(2): 325-332. European 

Geosciences Union. Internet website: http://www.hydrology-and-earth-systemsciences.net/home.html

Troendle, C. A. 1983. The Potential for Water Yield Augmentation from Forest Management in the 

Rocky Mountain Region. Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 19, No. 3. June 1983. American 

Water Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.

Troendle, C. A. and J. R. Meiman. 1986. The Effect of Patch Clearcutting on the Water Balance of a 

Subalpine Forest Slope. Presented at the Western Snow Conference, April 15-17, 1986, 

Phoenix, Arizona. Printed by Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

http://www.westernsnowconference.org/. Western Snow Conference, Soda Springs, 

California.

University of Idaho. 2007. Stream Ecosystem Response to Wildfire. US Forest Service Joint Venture 

Agreement No. 02-JV-11222014-196 with Univ. of Idaho. Project no. FKK493. Boise, ID.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. GIS Spatial Dataset Shapefile: Water Points within the Lincoln National 

Forest. January 1, 2007. Alamogordo, New Mexico.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. In Brief: Climate Change and Water – Perspectives from the Forest 

Service. FS-908, June 2008. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/files/CC%20and%20Water%20In%20Brief.pdf. Accessed 

November 7, 2010. 
References Cited

254 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning. A 

Guide for Addressing Climate Change in Forest Plan Revisions for Southwestern National 

Forests and National Grasslands. May 2010. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Watershed Condition Framework – A Framework for Assessing and 

Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition. U.S. Forest Service Publication FS-977. May 

2011. Internet website: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/. Accessed October 5, 

2011.

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. USDA Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification Condition –

Region 3. Internet website: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/. Accessed October 

5, 2011.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the North Fork Eagle Creek 

Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln National Forest, Lincoln County, New 

Mexico. . Document Number MB-R3-08-04, May 2012. Lincoln National Forest, 

Southwestern Region. USDA Forest Service, Alamogordo, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Soil Report. Ski Apache, Little Bear Fire BAER Resource Report (with 

appendices). Hill, J., N. Koehler, and M. Kiesow. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. BAER Hydrology Report, 2012 Little Bear Fire, Lincoln National 

Forest. Snyder, J., A. Banks, P. Brown, and C. Lovely. USDA Forest Service, Lincoln 

National Forest, Alamogordo, New Mexico.

USDA Forest Service 2012c. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Team Little Bear Fire 

White Paper. July 3, 2012. USDA Forest Service, Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest. Ruidoso, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2012d. Little Bear Fire Burned Area Emergency Response Wildlife, Fish, and 

Rare Plants Report. Parsons, Zachary D. and Larry Cordova. 2012.Lincoln National Forest, 

Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln County, New Mexico. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream 

Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence. EPA/600/R-11/098B, September 

2013. External Review Draft. USEPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1963. 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map: Angus. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. Current Conditions for New Mexico: Precipitation. USGS 

New Mexico Water Science Center. Data for precipitation gages Bluefront-Crest-South Fork 

Trails Junction near Alto, New Mexico; Buck Mountain near Alto, New Mexico; Bonito Lake 

near Alto, New Mexico; Skyview recreation Site near Alto, New Mexico; and Nogal Peak 

Crest Trail 25 near Alto, New Mexico. 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nm/nwis/current/?type=precip&group_key=NONE. Accessed 

November 13, 2013.

U.S. Geological Survey – National Water Information System (USGS-NWIS). 2011. Water data for 

New Mexico. Internet website: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nm/nwis. Accessed August 2011.
References Cited

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 255

Veenhuis, J. E. 2002. Effects of Wildfire on the Hydrology of Capulin and Rito de Los Frijoles 

Canyons, Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02-4152. Prepared in cooperation with the National Park 

Service. U.S. Geological Survey, Albuquerque, NM.

Western Regional Climatic Center (WRCC). 2010. Monthly Climate Station Summary for Ruidoso 2 

NNE, New Mexico (297649). Internet website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliRECtM.pl?nm7649 (accessed on December 20, 2010).

Western Regional Climatic Center (WRCC). 2011. Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries for 

New Mexico. Internet website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmnm.html. Accessed 

August 2011.

Western Regional Climatic Center (WRCC). 2013. Precipitation data for Ruidoso 2NNE, Cloudcroft, 

Mountain Park, and Elk2 climate stations, New Mexico. 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmnm.html. Accessed December 7, 2013.

Western Regional Climatic Center (WRCC). 2014. Monthly and daily precipitation totals for 

Cloudcroft and Ruidoso, New Mexico. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmnm.html

Wilson and Company Inc. Engineers and Architects, John Shoemaker and Associates, Inc., and Atkins 

Engineering Associates, Inc. 2005. Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico 40-Year Water Plan. 

Prepared for Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico, August 2005. 

Woodhouse, B. 2004. Fire Effects on Stream Discharge. Southwest Hydrology, September/October 

2004. University of Arizona Sustainability of Semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas 

(SAHRA) Center, Tucson, AZ. Internet URL: http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/index.html

Wyatt, C.J.W. 2013. Estimating Groundwater Yield following Forest Restoration along the 

Mogollon Rim, Arizona. Thesis submitted by Clinton J. Wyatt in partial fulfillment of the 

requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology. May 2013. Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff.

Xu, C., L. Tunemar, D. C. Yongqin, and V. P. Singh. 2006. Evaluation of seasonal and spatial 

variations of lumped water balance model sensitivity to precipitation data errors. Journal of 

Hydrology 324 (2006) 80-93. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Riparian Vegetation 

AECOM. 2012. North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report. Prepared by AECOM for TEAMS 

Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 

AECOM. 2015. Water Resource Impacts Supplemental Information Report Prepared by AECOM for 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest.

Cordova, Larry. 2011. Smokey Bear R.D. personal communication: e-mail to D. McGlothlin.

Edwards, William G. 1963. Upper Eagle Creek Erosion Control Narrative Report. Lincoln National 

Forest.

Edwards, William G. 1964. Alto Allotment Narrative Report. Lincoln National Forest.

Hill, M.O. 1979. TWINSPAN - A FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered 

two-way table by classification of individuals and attributes. Ecology and Systematics, 

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Kuhar, Kim. 2012. Post Fire Vegetation Recovery Little Bear Fire, Lincoln National Forest.
References Cited

256 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Kuhar, Kim. 2013. North Fork Eagle Creek Fuels Specialist Report, Lincoln National Forest. 

Little, Ralph G. 1961. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Periodic Check of Eagle Creek. Federal 

Aid Project F-22.R-2, Work Plan 4, Job I-1. New Mexico Department of Fish and Game. 

Little, Ralph G. 1960a-June. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Basic Survey of Eagle Creek. 

Federal Aid Project F-22-R-1, Work Plan 4, Job A-2-3. New Mexico Department of Fish and 

Game. 

Little, Ralph G. 1960b-August. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Basic Survey of Eagle Creek. 

Federal Aid Project F-22-R-1, Work Plan 4, Job A-2-3. New Mexico Department of Fish and 

Game. 

Matherne, A. M., N. C. Myers, and K. J. McCoy. 2011. Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin and Effects 

of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 1969–2009. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5205 (revised November 2011). Prepared in cooperation with the 

Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Medlock, J. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek - An Intermittent Stream - Not a Cold Water Fishery. 

Personal communication from Mr. Justin Medlock, private resident along the North Fork of 

Eagle Creek, to Mr. Dave Warnack, District Ranger, Smokey Bear Ranger District Lincoln 

National Forest, Ruidoso NM, with text and photographs regarding historic flow and stream 

channel conditions in the North Fork. September 13, 2011. Ruidoso, New Mexico.

Merritt, D.M. and V. Bevan. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Riparian Vegetation Analyses. Stream 

Systems Technology Center, Fort Collins, CO. for TEAMS Enterprise and Smokey Bear 

Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Merritt, D.M. and K.A. Dwire. 2008. Response of Riparian Vegetation to Hydrologic Alteration: 

Draft Field Protocol. Stream Systems Technology Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Merritt, D.M., M.L. Scott, N.L. Poff, G.T. Auble, and D.A. Lytle. 2010. Theory, methods and tools for 

determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation: riparian vegetation-flow response 

guilds. Freshwater Biology 55:206-225 

Miller, T.R. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Riparian Vegetation 

Monitoring Report. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, NM.

Miller, T.R. 2015. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Botanical Resources Report 

for Final Environmental Impact Statement. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger 

District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 2002. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. The 

Blackburn Press, Caldwell, NJ.

Reed, P. B. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: National summary. Biological 

Report 88, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

USDA, NRCS. 2015. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 15 July 2015). National Plant 

Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.
References Cited

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 257

Socioeconomics and Recreation 

Atkins, Jackie D. 2014. Letter from Jackie D. Atkins to Jim Burrell. Summary of Eagle Creek Water 

Rights, Return Flow, and Conditions Resultant from Little Bear Fire and Drought. Sent 

February 25, 2014

FEMAT, 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Forest ecosystem management: an 

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Joint publication of the United States 

Department of Agriculture: Forest Service; United States Department of Commerce: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries Service; United 

States Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and National Park Service; and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

DC, USA.

McGranahan, D. 1999. “Natural Amenities Drive Population Change. USDA Economic Research 

Service. Agricultural Economics, Report #781. 

Office of the State Engineer (OSE). March 31, 2014. Email correspondence on the well transfer and 

diversion.

Office of the State Engineer (OSE). September 19, 2014. Email correspondence with Christina 

Thompson, Forest Service, regarding pending Village of Ruidoso supplemental well 

applications.

Rudzitis G. and Johnson, R. 2000. “The Impact of Wilderness and Other Wildlands on Local 

Economies and Regional Development Trends.” USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P15(2): 14-26. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p015_2/rmrs_p015_2_014_026.pdf

State of New Mexico, 2008. University of New Mexico. New Mexico County Population Projections 

July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2035, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New 

Mexico. Released August 2008. Can be accessed at http://bber.unm.edu/demo/table1.htm 

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

Service. September 1986. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and Social 

Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of Effects on 

Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River basin DEIS. 

ICBEMP, Walla Walla, WA 99362

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW GTR 788. Allen, Stuart D., D. 

A Wickwar, F. P. Clark, R. Potts, and S. A. Snyder, 2009. Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes 

Technical Guide for Forest Service Land and Resource management, Planning, and 

Decisionmaking. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/33266 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2010. U.S. Census Bureau American Factfinder Table DP-1 Can be 

accessed at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2010b. U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts, American 

Community Survey. Can be accessed at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ 

US Department of Commerce. 2011. US Census Bureau. Population Estimates, Archives. Can be 

accessed at http://www.census.gov/popest/ for 1960 to 2000 and at 

http://www.census.gov/popest/intercensal/index.html for 2000 to 2010.
References Cited

258 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2012. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information 

System, Washington, D.C. Employment data from Table CA25N and income data from Table 

CA05N

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Can be 

accessed at http://www.census.gov/acs/

Village of Ruidoso 2010. The Village of Ruidoso Comprehensive Plan.

Wilson and Company Inc. Engineers and Architects, John Shoemaker and Associates, Inc., and Atkins 

Engineering Associates, Inc. 2005. Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico 40-Year Water Plan. 

Prepared for Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico, August 2005. 

Water Rights

Atkins Engineering and Associates, Inc. 2014. Personal communication. Summary of Eagle Creek 

Water Rights, Return Flow, and Conditions Resultant from Little Bear Fire and Drought. 02 

February 2014. Email.

Hearing Nos. 00-041 and 02-069 Consolidated. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. 21 June 

2006. Web.

New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. Water Rights Considerations Regarding 

Conjunctive Use of Surface Water and Groundwater in New Mexico. October 1997. Web. 

New Mexico Statutes, Annotated. 1978. § 72-12-24, Supplemental Well; Rule 2-4, Supplemental 

Well, Groundwater Regulations

State of New Mexico v. L.T Lewis. OSE Subfile No. R. 203 Nos. 20294 and 22600. Fifth Judicial 

District, Chaves County, NM. 4 May 2010. Print.

State of New Mexico. Office of the State Engineer. Glossary of Water Terms. Web. 03 Nov. 2011. 

<http://ose.state.nm.gov>.

State of New Mexico. Office of the State Engineer (OSE). September 19, 2014. Email 

correspondence with Christina Thompson, Forest Service, regarding pending Village of 

Ruidoso supplemental well applications.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. National Science and Technology Center. New Mexico, Water 

Rights Fact Sheet. 21 Aug. 2001. Web. 3 Nov. 2011. 

<http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/newmexico.html>.

Wilson and Company Inc. Engineers and Architects, John Shoemaker and Associates, Inc., and Atkins 

Engineering Associates, Inc. 2005. Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico 40-Year Water Plan. 

Prepared for Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico, August 2005. 

Vegetation

AECOM. 2012. North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report. Prepared by AECOM for TEAMS 

Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 

AECOM. 2015. Water Resource Impacts Supplemental Information Report Prepared by AECOM for 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest.

Allen, Alistair and Deborah Chapman. 2001. Impacts of afforestation on groundwater resources and 

quality. Hydrogeology Journal (2001) 9:390-400.
References Cited

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 259

Cordova, personal communication 2011

Covington, W. W. and M. M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern Ponderosa Forest Structure: Changes since 

Euro-American Settlement. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 92, No. 1, January 1994. Society of 

American Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland.

Dahms, Cathy W.; Geils, Brian W., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of forest ecosystem health in the 

Southwest. General Technical Report RM-GTR-295. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 97 p.

Garrett, David and Pamela. 2001. Evaluating forest restoration opportunities on the Lincoln National 

Forest. M3 Research. September 25.

Gonzales, I Miley 2009. New Mexico Noxious Weed List Update. New Mexico Department of 

Agriculture, Las Cruces, NM April 1, 2009

Grant, Gordon E., Sarah L. Lewis, Frederick J. Swanson, John H. Cissel, and Jeffrey J. McDonnell. 

2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A Stateof-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service PNW-GTR760. May.

Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) 2006 Invasive Species Definition Clarification and 

Guidance White Paper. Submitted by the Definitions Subcommittee of the Invasive Species 

Advisory Committee (ISAC) April 27, 2006

Kuhar, Kim. 2013. North Fork Eagle Creek Fuels Specialist Report, Lincoln National Forest. 

Lowery, Tim. 2011. Personal Communication. email to Terry Miller regarding records of Crataegus 

wootoniana Eggleston

MacDonald, L.H. 1987. Forest harvest, snowmelt, and streamflow in central Sierra Nevada. Forest 

Hydrology and watershed management. Proceedings of the Vancouver symposium, August.

Medlock, J. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek - An Intermittent Stream - Not a Cold Water Fishery. 

Personal communication from Mr. Justin Medlock, private resident along the North Fork of 

Eagle Creek, to Mr. Dave Warnack, District Ranger, Smokey Bear Ranger District Lincoln 

National Forest, Ruidoso NM, with text and photographs regarding historic flow and stream 

channel conditions in the North Fork. September 13, 2011. Ruidoso, New Mexico.

Neary, D.G., K.A. Koestner, and B. Poff. 2008. Water yield from harvesting, thinning, and burning 

Southwestern mountain forests: Historical experience from US Forest Service Research. 

Proceedings of the World Environmental & Water Congress, Honolulu, HI, May 13-16, 2008.

Sheley, R., J. Petroff, M.. Borman, 1999. Introduction to Biology and Management of Noxious 

Rangeland Weeds, Corvallis, OR.

Sieg, C. H., B. G. Phillips, and L. P.Moser. 2003. Exotic invasive plants. Pp. 251–267 in Ecological 

restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine forests, ed. P. Friederici. Washington, D.C.: Island 

Press.

Stednick, J. D. 1996. Monitoring the Effects of Timber Harvest on Annual Water Yield. Journal of 

Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95. Elsevier Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Urie, D.H. 1966. Influence of forest cover on snowpack and groundwater recharge. USDA Forest 

Service and Michigan Departmetn of Conservation.
References Cited

260 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

USDA Forest Service 2000. Forest Service Handbook. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsh_1.html.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Southwestern Region – Regional Strategic Action Plan 2003. Internal 

USDA FS report.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Southwestern Region’s National Forests’ Central Priority Strategy. 

Internal USDA FS report.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. FSM 2600 - Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. 

Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm?2600

USDA Forest Service. 2007. GIS Spatial Dataset Shapefile: Water Points within the Lincoln National 

Forest. January 1, 2007. Alamogordo, New Mexico.

USDA Forest Service 2009. Potential to increase water yield on the Gila National Forest – Briefing 

Paper. December 16.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. FSM 2900 - Invasive Species Management

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Little Bear Fire Burned Area Emergency Response Wildlife, Fish, and 

Rare Plants Report

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. November 2014. Threatened, Endangered, and candidate Species, 

and Species of Concern downloaded on 02/04/2014

Aquatic Habitat, Fish, and Wildlife 

AECOM. 2012. North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report for the DEIS. Prepared by AECOM 

for TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest.

AECOM. 2015. North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report for the Final EIS. 

Aquatic Consultants Inc. 2012. Letter to Forest Supervisor, Comments to Aquatic and Fish Section of 

NEPA Reports. Albuquerque, N.M. 

Bright, Larry. 2015. Biological Assessment (BA) for TES wildlife for the North Fork Eagle Creek 

Wells Special Use Authorization. 

Bury, R. Bruce, Major, Donald J, and Pilliod, David. No date. Responses of Amphibians to Fire 

Disturbance in Pacific Northwest Forests: A Review. The Role of fire in nongame wildlife 

management and community restoration: traditional uses and new directions. GTR-NE-288

Cordova, Larry. 2011. Smokey Bear R.D. personal communications: email. 

Cordova, Larry. 2011a. Smokey Bear R.D. personal communication: email. Gavilan GOS PFA. 

Cordova, Larry. 2011c. Mexican Spotted Owl Inventory and Monitory Results Annual Report. 

Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 

Cordova, Larry. 2011d. Northern Goshawk 2011 Inventory and Monitoring Annual Report. Smokey 

Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 

Cordova, Larry. 2013. Personal communication. Fish Observation Survey Results. 

Cordova, Larry. 2013a. Personal communication. Riparian System Condition and Rio Grande 

Cutthroat. 
References Cited

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 261

Dunham, Jason B., A. E. Rosenberger, C. H. Luce, and B. E. Rieman. 2007. Influences of Wildfire 

and Channel Reorganization on Spatial and Temporal Variation in Stream Temperature and 

the Distribution of Fish and Amphibians. Ecosystems 2007; 10:335-346. 

Eagle Creek Conservation Association (ECCA). 2002. Killer of Eagle Creek, Letter to Smokey Bear 

Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest. 

Ganey, Joseph L.; Ward, James P. Jr.; Willey, David W. 2011. Status and ecology of Mexican spotted 

owls in the Upper Gila Mountains recovery unit, Arizona and New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-256WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 94 pp. full text pdf.

Kennedy, C. E. 1971. USDA, Lincoln National Forest. Memo of meeting notes. 

Little, Ralph G. 1961. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Periodic Check of Eagle Creek. Federal 

Aid Project F-22-R-2, Work Plan 4, Job I-1. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 

Little, Ralph G. 1960-June. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Basic Survey of Eagle Creek. 

Federal Aid Project F-22-R-1, Work Plan 4, Job A-2-3. New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish. 

Little, Ralph G. 1960-August. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Basic Survey of Eagle Creek. 

Federal Aid Project F-22-R-1, Work Plan 4, Job A-2-3. New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish. 

Matherne, A. M., N. C. Myers, and K. J. McCoy. 2011. Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin and Effects 

of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 1969–2009. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5205 (revised November 2011). Prepared in cooperation with the 

Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

McCormick, Frank H., Bruce E. Eiemen, and Jeffery L. Kershner. 2010. Biological Responses to 

Stressors in Aquatic Ecosystems in Western North America: Cumulative Watershed Effects of 

Fuel Treatments, Wildfire, and Post-wildfire Remediation. USDA Forest Service, RMRSGTR-231. Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States: 

Chapter 11.

Merritt, David M. and Vernon Bevan. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Riparian Vegetation Analyses. 

Stream Systems Technology Center Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants Staff Fort 

Collins, CO.

Miller, Terry R. 2015. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS, Riparian Vegetation 

Supplemental Report. Teams Enterprise Unit for the Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, New Mexico. 

Miller, Terry R. 2012a. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS, Riparian Vegetation 

Report. Teams Enterprise Unit for the Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, 

NM. 

New Mexico Environment Department. 2011. Letter to U.S.F.S. in response to scoping. Office of the 

Secretary, Santa Fe, NM.

New Mexico Partners in Flight. 2007. New Mexico Bird Conservation Plan Version 2.1. C. Rustay 

and S. Norris, compilers. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

North Fork Eagle Creek Special Use Authorization Project Scoping Outcome Summary. 2011. 

Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 
References Cited

262 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Patterson, Robert. 1971. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Roswell, NM.

Ross, John S. 1970. North Fork Eagle Creek Stream Survey Report. U.S. Forest Service, Lincoln 

National Forest.

Salas, Danney. 2006. Lincoln National Forest Management Indicator Species Assessment Update. 

Stokes, Marcie R. 1997. Biological Assessment and Evaluation; Eagle Creek Wells and Pipeline 

Permit Reissuance. Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, Ruidoso, NM. 

University of Idaho. 2007. Stream Ecosystem Response to Wildfire. US Forest Service Joint Venture 

Agreement No. 02-JV-11222014-196 with Univ. of Idaho. Project no. FKK493. Boise, ID. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment of Five Forest

Plans. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, New Mexico, Lincoln National Forest. 

Alamogordo, NM.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Biological Assessment and Evaluation (BA/E), Ruidoso Water System. 

Smokey Bear R.D., Lincoln National Forest, Ruidoso, New Mexico

USDA Forest Service. 2007. GIS Spatial Dataset Shapefile: Water Points within the Lincoln National 

Forest. January 1, 2007. Alamogordo, New Mexico.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Burn Area Emergency Area Response Team (BAER) White Paper. 

Smokey Bear R.D., Lincoln National Forest, Ruidoso, New Mexico. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Little Bear Fire Burned Area Emergency Response Wildlife, Fish, and 

Rare Plants Report. Parsons, Zachary D. and Larry Cordova. Lincoln National Forest, 

Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln County, New Mexico. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Listed and Sensitive Species in Lincoln County 

(http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/SBC_view.cfm?spcnty=Lincoln) – Accessed 

March 2012.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Changes to New Mexico Listed and Sensitive Species Lists 

(http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/SBC_Changes.cfm). Accessed March 2012.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Listed and Sensitive Species in Lincoln County Species 

Update, (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/SBC_view.cfm?spcnty=Lincoln) –

Accessed July 2014.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Changes to New Mexico Listed and Sensitive Species Lists 

https://ecos.fws.gov/tails/extMod/ipacGetActivity!processSpListRequest.action?activityId=2

3603 Accessed July 2014.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA Forest Service. 2008. MOU to Promote the Conservation 

of Migratory Birds; FS Agreement 08-MOU-1113-2400-264. 

Village of Ruidoso Annual Operating Plan for Wells Used on National Forest System Lands. May 

2008. 

Ward, J. P., Jr. and W. M. Block. 1995. Mexican spotted owl prey ecology. Chapter 5 (48 pp) in: 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida), Volume II. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Albuquerque, NM. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ES/MSO_RecoveryPlan_Downloads.html 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 263

Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

Responses to Scoping

Contact

(Letter No.) Last Name First Name Organization

1, 2, 13, 14, 47, 

60, 69, 99, 101

Midkiff Bill Eagle Creek Conservation Association

3, 41 Sugarman Steve Attorney, Eagle Creek Conservation 

Association

4 No name 

given

Pew Trusts

5 Kennedy John

6 Ibarra Tomas

7 Rodgers Jimmy

8 Rosky Ivonne

9 Bryant Dan Attorney, Village of Ruidoso

10 Peery Roger

11, 59 Hutchens Terrell Eagle Creek Summer Home Association

12 Loera Javier Ysleta del sur Pueblo

15 Medlock Justin

16 Rehfeld Debbie

17 Maue Lisa

18 Taylor Clark

19 Tam Joseph

20 Foster Ron

21 Hardeman Ron

22 Hill Larry and Dorothy

23 Adamy Earl Alto Lakes Water and Sanitation District

24, 27 McMaster Terry (8 others 

signed onto this 

letter)

25 Roybal Julie New Mexico Environment Department

26 Elliott Criss

28 Potter Frank

29 Hamilton Stacy

30 Carpenter Clark

31 Loddy Rushie

32, 42, 52, 100, 

102a

Alborn

Lee

Jones

Ray

Debbie

Alvin

Village of Ruidoso

Village of Ruidoso

Attorney, Village of Ruidoso

33, 53, 57 Rice Steve

34 Sarber Mrs. Greg

35 Hoyle Anita and Lynn
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

264 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Contact

(Letter No.) Last Name First Name Organization

36 Sedillo Eileen (3 other board 

members signed this 

letter)

County of Lincoln

37 Sawinski B.

38 Davenport Martin

39 Mussers Larry and Barbara

40 Pearce Stevan Member of Congress, 2nd District, NM

43 Brunells Bert

44 Pippen Bill

45 Richardson Donda

46 Ruddle Rick

48 Arrowsmith Janet

49 Brown Dixie

50 Karn William

51 No name 

provided

Upper Hondo Soil and Water Conservation 

District

54 Davis, Jr. Lloyd

55 Sayner Franklin

56 Galaska Henry and Rita

58 Johns John Prudent Associates

61 Cassels Kelly Attorney, SBCandW law

62 Murphy Bob and Lorraine

63 Hulme Phyllis and Bernie

64 Hiser Tom and Eloise 

65 Salas Rafael R.

66 Salues James and Amy

67 Myers Frank and Kathe

68 Mauldin Michael and Victoria

69 Mayfied Marlene

70 Smith Janet

71 Townsend John and Theresa

72 Yankee William and Dot

73 Hoats Dennis

74 Plymale Allen and Linda

75 McCullough Harold

76 Newsom Glenda and Charlie

77 Rivers The

78 Roberson Max and Marilyn

79 Hancock Flloyd and Joe Alice

80 Mimoso Nancy and JE 

81 Beaty Brett (8 others signed 

this letter)
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 265

Contact

(Letter No.) Last Name First Name Organization

82 Calhoun Roland and Sydney

83 Sawyer Mary

84 Wittenger Bernie

85 Buckley Verna

86 Kirkman Sue

87 Lutrell Johnnie and Tom

88 St. John Don

89 Barnett

90 Enlol Terrie

91 Swier EV

92 Kinyon Bill

93 Perry Kenneth

94 Hickman Fred and Betty

95 Johnson Bob

96 Borthomyger Richard A

97 Beyer Lucy P

98 Montgomery Weldon

a – Letter 102 came from Alvin Jones, Henninghausen & Olsen, LLP, attorney for the Village of Ruidoso and enclosed 

comments from Roger Peery (John Shomaker and Associates hydrogeologist) and Jackie D. Atkins, P. E. (Atkins Engineering 

and Associates)
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

266 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Categorized Scoping Comments and Responses

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

55 1 Alternative As the large majority of the water supply of Ruidoso is 

derived from Eagle Creek rights I think it is extremely 

important the Village continue to pump the well fields on 

Upper Eagle Creek. Please give strong consideration to 

the continuation of the ability of the Village of Ruidoso to 

pump from Forest Service land.

5.1 Suggestion The range of alternatives for detailed analysis in the 

EIS, as described in chapter 2 includes a no action 

(no change) alternative (continuation of pumping 

with no change in existing well pumping operations) 

as well as the proposed action (pumping but with 

implementation of adaptive management options to 

minimize effects and two other alternatives that 

address the key issues. 

26 1 Misc. -

Thank you 

for your 

comment

I’m just an everyday citizen who with his wife moved full 

time to Ruidoso last year. We had a summer home here 

for over ten years and decided this was where we would 

retire and live out our remaking years. We still love the 

small village, our many friends, the mountains and forest. 

But the pettiness between village and county government 

is disappointing over the issue of water. Yes, this has 

been a continuous issue for many years but our 

governments must work together for the common good of 

all its citizens and reach compromise that we can all live 

with. To say “to hell with your stream” or “just learn to live 

with 25% of your current water supply” is an insult to 

common sense. I don’t have a solution to this issue but I 

do hope we can get our leaders to lead together and 

represent all of our citizens for our common good and put 

aside egos and personal agendas.

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment or 

procedural 

concern

See response to commenter 55, comment 1 above. 

The purpose and need for taking action and the 

management objectives developed for this project 

include achieving a balance between the need for 

the municipal water supply and protecting forest 

resources.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 267

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

18 9 Alternative 1 

No Action 

(con with 

rationale)

The no action alternative of issuing a permit with no 

changes in the existing operation is not a solution to the 

problems identified by the available science provided in 

the reports by USGS, Finch and Balleau. This alternative 

is not viable to the economy of the area nor the required 

environmental management of the Eagle Creek drainage 

as provided in the Forest Service manual.

3.1 Alternatives We recognize that the no action (no change) 

alternative (continuation of pumping with no change 

in existing well operations) does not fully address 

the purpose and need for action. Our purpose and 

need for action recognizes that a change from the 

current situation is necessary to provide a balance 

between protection of forest resources and 

providing water. Having the no action (no change) 

alternative in the range of alternatives is important 

for comparison of the effectiveness of the other 

alternatives in addressing the key issues and the 

purpose and need. The EIS includes a detailed 

analysis of effects of all alternatives on the key 

issues, including natural resources and 

socioeconomics. 

51 10 Alternative 1 

No Action 

(con with 

rationale)

The no action alternative of issuing a permit with no 

changes in the existing operation should not be 

considered as a solution to the problems provided in the 

reports by USGS, Finch and Balleau. This alternative is 

not sustainable to the economy of the area or the required 

environmental management of the Eagle Creek drainage.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

4 5 Alternative 2 

No Pumping 

(pro with 

rationale)

None of these accommodations should be made unless 

Ruidoso immediately takes actions in other ways to 

preserve water. No action by Forest Service should take 

place unless Ruidoso shows action on their part to 

conserve water.

3.1 Alternatives We considered suggestions for additional water 

conservation measures and these are described in 

chapter 2.

38 2 Alternative 2 

No Pumping 

(pro with 

rationale)

As a homeowner in Eagle Creek Canyon I see the 

damage to an aquatic ecosystem caused by overly 

aggressive groundwater pumping. I favor surface water 

over aggressive urban growth. Until the Village seriously 

implements infrastructure improvements, conservation 

measures, and rainwater catchments, I encourage the FS 

to implement Alternative 1 – No Pumping.

3.1 Alternatives We considered suggestions for additional water 

conservation measures and these are described in 

chapter 2. 

The forest supervisor will review and consider all 

the findings presented in the EIS before he selects 

an alternative for implementation. 

4 4 Monitoring None of these accommodations should be made unless 

Ruidoso immediately takes actions in other ways to 

preserve water. This plan should be reviewed every 4 

years mandatorily.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

268 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

4 1 Misc. -

Outside the 

Scope

None of these accommodations should be made unless 

Ruidoso immediately takes actions in other ways to 

preserve water. All gray water must be reused.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

4 2 Misc. -

Outside the 

Scope

None of these accommodations should be made unless 

Ruidoso immediately takes actions in other ways to 

preserve water. No more golf courses to be built or 

developed and some should close down. They are big 

users of water for no purpose at all.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

4 3 Misc. -

Outside the 

Scope

None of these accommodations should be made unless 

Ruidoso immediately takes actions in other ways to 

preserve water. Prohibit new development if there is no 

water available. NJ had to do this some time back. Just 

prohibit new building.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

17 1 Misc. -

Outside the 

Scope

I believe that until the Village of Ruidoso fixes its pipes, 

enacts conservation and catchment measures, and 

proves that it is willing to work with individuals and other 

agencies that the Forest Service should concentrate on 

the health of the forest in and around Eagle Creek which 

is also suffering.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

1 11 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

Bill stated that if the Village built additional storage 

capacity, they could continue to pump during periods of 

high flow and store the water. The Village should take 

water when nature provides it and then store it.

3.1 Alternatives We considered this suggestion for additional 

storage capacity and this is described in chapter 2.

18 15 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

The natural fluctuation precipitation and snowmelt runoff 

would allow the Village of Ruidoso to obtain a controlled 

amount of municipal water from the Eagle Creek drainage 

without impacting the surface flow if the Village of Ruidoso 

had additional storage capacity. (Contact 18, Comment 5)

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

11 2 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

If an alternative source of fresh water is not available, a 

viable alternative would be for the Village of Ruidoso to 

construct a water purification plant allowing the Village to 

reclaim wastewater. Perhaps grants from the Federal 

Government are available for such projects. Many other 

cities in arid areas including El Paso, Texas, have water 

purification plants for this purpose. This would allow the 

Village of Ruidoso to reclaim much of its wastewater and 

greatly reduce or eliminate the demand for groundwater 

from the North Fork Eagle Creek wells.

3.1 Alternatives We considered this suggestion for a new water 

purification plant and this is described in chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 269

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

37 1 Alternative 2 

(pro with 

rationale)

I own several lots in the Enchanted Mesa subdivision and 

my well is deep and does not produce enough water. I 

object to the idea of the Village obtaining water rights and 

a special use permit since they have not managed well 

what they got. Perhaps my opposition as a landowner will 

be considered.

5.1 Comment The Forest Service does not have jurisdiction over 

water rights; this is under the jurisdiction of the 

State of New Mexico. The applicant currently owns 

water rights and this is outside the scope of this 

analysis. The decision whether to issue the 

applicant a new special use permit for operation of 

the North Fork wells will be made following the 

detailed analysis presented in the EIS.

5 1 Alternative 2 

No Pumping 

(pro with 

rationale)

I strongly urge the Forest Service to select the no 

pumping alternative in this matter. The Ruidoso 

municipality has a poor record of only operating the wells 

in Eagle Creek in accordance with the permits that it has 

held in the past. As a residence in the Eagle Creek 

watershed, I have noticed a dramatic reduction in the 

surface water of Eagle Creek as well as reduction in the 

groundwater by way of drying water wells owned by 

myself and neighbors. This reduction of waterflow in the 

watershed coincides with the Village of Ruidoso’s stepped 

up draw on its wells in the Eagle Creek watershed. 

3.1 Alternatives The EIS includes a detailed analysis of the no 

pumping alternative and will compare this to the 

other alternatives under consideration. Chapter 3 

describes the potential effects of all alternatives to 

forest resources, including water resources. The 

forest supervisor will review and consider all the 

findings presented in the EIS before he selects an 

alternative for implementation. 

35 1 Alternative 2 

No Pumping 

(pro with 

rationale)

I believe that Eagle Creek wells should not be authorized 

for city use. They have been over pumping and lowering 

the level at all our private use wells.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

270 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

18 14 Alternative 3 

Proposed 

Action (con 

with 

rationale)

The Village has environmentally degraded this area of 

public Iands. Manual 2541 limits the actions available to 

the U.S. Forest Service when there is evidence of 

degrading the natural resources of the stream. The 

allowance in the monitor indication section in the 

proposed action to allow no-flow days should not be 

considered. No-flow days during the period of 1988 to 

2009 has affected the North Fork tributary and its 

associated riparian area and its ability of a cold water 

fishery since the North Fork wells were put in operation. 

The degradation of riparian condition is evidenced by the 

comparison of the riparian vegetation upstream of the 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells. I feel that the threshold of 

20 days per year of no surface flow or more that 30 noflow days within a single water year will be adverse to the 

established and improvements of the riparian vegetation 

between the North Fork wells and the Eagle Creek stream 

gauge.

3.1 Alternatives We considered suggestions for eliminating no-flow 

days from the proposed action and have discussed 

this is chapter 3. The EIS includes a detailed 

analysis of effects of well pumping on aquatic 

habitat, fish, and riparian vegetation. The methods 

we use to evaluate riparian condition changes over 

time are described in chapter 3 of the EIS in the 

“Riparian” section.

14 2 Alternative 3 

Proposed 

Action (pro 

with 

rationale)

The ECCA agrees that a new permit, if issued, should 

include additional terms and conditions for adaptive 

management (monitoring, evaluation, and modification) to 

insure management objectives are met.

3.1 Alternatives Details of the alternative that is ultimately selected 

for implementation will become part of the terms of 

any new permit issued. This includes any mitigation 

measures, monitoring, or adaptive management 

actions developed through the EIS process.

45 1 Alternative 3 

Proposed 

Action (pro 

with 

rationale)

I cannot believe that this is coming down now. We all 

need to work together to keep our water and our town. 

The Forest Service would even be cut if Ruidoso had no 

water.

3.1 Alternatives Thank you for your comment. The purpose and 

need for taking action and the management 

objectives developed for this project include 

achieving a balance between the need for municipal 

water supply and protecting forest resources.

1 12 Alternative 4 

Stream 

Augmentation (con 

with 

rationale)

ECCA does not like the stream augmentation alternative. 

There is a different chemical makeup of groundwater 

pumped to the surface (more dissolved solids, etc.) and 

this does nothing to maintain saturated bedrock.

3.1 Alternatives We carefully considered whether stream 

augmentation should be carried forward into 

detailed analysis in the EIS. We considered how 

well the alternative addresses the purpose and 

need for action and its potential for effects to forest 

resources, among other criteria. We have 

addressed this in chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 271

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

14 12 Alternative 4 

Stream 

Augmentation (con 

with 

rationale)

We agree with the first two of the three adaptive 

management alternatives plus the ones we have 

proposed. The ECCA strongly resists even considering 

flow augmentation. Flow augmentation can only occur by 

diverting groundwater into the stream, further 

exacerbating the cone of depression. The USGS and 

Balleau and Finch (Peery) have all discussed the 

degradation of natural resources that result from the cone 

of depression.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

14 13 Alternative 4 

Stream 

Augmentation (con 

with 

rationale)

The other factor to consider is that groundwater contains 

more dissolved chemicals than the natural stream water. 

Any attempt to augment surface flow with imported water 

from other locations, especially if such water should be 

brackish, would have a very deleterious effect.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

14 35 Alternative 4 

Stream 

Augmentation (con 

with 

rationale)

The ECCA encourages the Forest Service to conduct a 

thorough and adequate review to completely rebut the 

flow augmentation proposal based on the three 

geohydrologic reports that predict extensive degradation 

to downstream resources from an expanding cone of 

depression. These three reports are by the USGS, Finch 

(Peery), and Balleau.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

14 35 Alternative 4 

Stream 

Augmentation (con 

with 

rationale)

We resist authorization of surface flow augmentation 

because it further exacerbates the degradation of 

downstream resources as we have previously discussed.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

18 6 Alternative 4 

Stream 

Augmentation (con 

with 

rationale)

The alternative that allows pumping of the North Fork 

wells and thereafter providing surface flow augmentation 

is not a viable management alternative. This will only 

contribute to an excessive cone of depression and 

reduction of surface flow in its natural condition. To pump 

water from the wells and deposit the water so the stream 

gauge indicates a minimum amount of flow will not negate 

the fact that the pumping is exceeding the threshold 

required for sustained surface flow.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

272 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

24 2 Alternative 4 

Stream 

Augmentation (con 

with 

rationale)

I am deeply opposed to the Village of Ruidoso being 

allowed to draw water from Eagle Creek wells at any time 

when the water is not already freely flowing in Eagle 

Creek! I am deeply opposed to water being pumped from 

Eagle Creek underground aquifer to the above ground 

stream in order to have water flowing in Eagle Creek 

because this will put an even worse strain on the 

underground aquifer that is already negatively affected!

3.1 Alternatives We considered suggestions for eliminating no-flow 

days from the proposed action and have addressed 

it chapter 2. The EIS includes a detailed analysis of 

the effects of well pumping on aquatic habitat, fish, 

and riparian vegetation. 

See response above regarding consideration of 

stream augmentation.

27 3 Alternative 4 

Stream 

Augmentation (con 

with 

rationale)

I am deeply opposed to pumping water from underground 

to the stream above ground.

3.1 Alternatives See response above regarding consideration of 

stream augmentation.

36 16 Alternative 4 

Stream 

Augmentation (con 

with 

rationale)

Lincoln County strongly and totally resists any 

consideration of flow augmentation. Flow augmentation 

can only occur by pumping groundwater into the stream, 

further expanding the cone of depression. The USGS has 

discussed the degradation of natural resources that result 

from the cone of depression.

3.1 Alternatives See response above regarding consideration of 

stream augmentation.

51 7 Alternative 4 

Stream 

Augmentation (con 

with 

rationale)

The alternative that allows pumping of the North Fork 

wells and thereafter providing surface flow augmentation 

is not a viable management alternative. This will only 

contribute to an excessive cone of depression and 

reduction of surface flow in its natural condition. To pump 

water from the wells and deposit the water so the stream 

gauge indicates a minimum amount of flow will not negate 

the fact that the pumping is exceeding the threshold 

required for sustained surface flow.

3.1 Alternatives See response above regarding consideration of 

stream augmentation.

52 13 Alternative 4 

Stream 

Augmentation (pro 

with 

rationale)

Stream augmentation by groundwater discharge to the 

stream from the Village wells during a drought could be 

beneficial to the riparian vegetation in U.S. Forest lands.

3.1 Alternatives See response above regarding consideration of 

stream augmentation.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 273

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

52 8 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

Pilot testing of stream augmentation with groundwater 

discharge to North Fork below the well field area should 

be included in the proposed action and performed early in 

the initial period after special use permit approval to 

determine the feasibility of this option.

3.1 Alternatives We carefully considered whether stream 

augmentation should be carried forward into 

detailed analysis in the EIS. We considered how 

well the alternative addresses the purpose and 

need for action and its potential for effects to forest 

resources, among other criteria. We have 

addressed this in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2.

1 2 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

ECCA has concern with the 30-year term for the permit, 

as proposed. What about a 10-year term with 

opportunities for review and renewal every 10 years 

instead? 

3.1 Alternatives We considered different variations on the term of 

the permit to determine if they should be carried 

forward into detailed analysis in the EIS. We have 

addressed this in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2.

1 8 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

Install new gage just upstream of the North Fork and 

South Fork confluence on North Fork - this would 

minimize the need to rely on math calculations to subtract 

out flow from South Fork at the Eagle Creek gage.

3.1 Alternatives We considered installing a new gage in the location 

suggested, as a component of a new alternative. 

We have addressed this in the “Alternatives” 

section of chapter 2. 

1 9 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

When flow is below 1.2 cfs at the new gage, stop 

pumping. Whenever 1.2 cfs is maintained at this new 

gage, continue to pump.

3.1 Alternatives We considered this as a component of a new 

alternative. We have addressed this in the 

“Alternatives” section of chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

274 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

1 10 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

Bill confirmed there is precedence for this type of 

approach; it is being used currently on the Rio Ruidoso 

(when a certain flow is achieved, the pumps continue to 

pump; when it is below a certain flow, the pump 

automatically shut off). This would eliminate the need for a 

3-year running average. If the switches were installed, 

when the water level is below the 1.2 cfs, the pump is shut 

off.

3.1 Alternatives See response above for the 1.2 cfs suggestion. 

In regards to management of the Rio Ruidoso, we 

recognize that the applicant is managing for a 

minimum instream flow. Grindstone Reservoir was 

built to store an adequate municipal water supply 

for the growing Village of Ruidoso. Prior to 

instituting this new management, the entire flow in 

Rio Ruidoso was being diverted at times into the 

reservoir via an underground gravity-fed pipe. The 

Ruidoso River Association and the Village of 

Ruidoso reached an agreement to maintain a 

minimum instream flow through town in order to 

protect tourism and water quality. Using CWA 319 

funds, the group installed an automatic gate at the 

diversion that is operated via telemetry to a USGS 

gage upstream. When the flow at the gage drops 

below 6 cfs, the diversion to Grindstone is closed so 

the entire 6 cfs is allowed to flow through town and, 

thus, provide aquatic habitat and aesthetic value. 

The primary difference between North Fork Eagle 

Creek management and Rio Ruidoso management 

is that the Forest Service has no jurisdiction over 

the Rio Ruidoso (in this particular area) and had no 

reason to be involved in that agreement and 

subsequent management. In the case of North Fork 

Eagle Creek, we have jurisdiction over the special 

use permitting of wells on National Forest System 

lands, but do not have the authority to require this 

same type of system in New Mexico (as described 

in more detail in the separate “Manual Direction 

Summary” document and the scoping outcome 

summary). 

If the Eagle Creek Conservation Association and 

the applicant voluntarily came to an agreement 

regarding identifying and maintaining a minimum 

instream flow on North Fork Eagle Creek, we could 

authorize the agreement through the special use 

permitting process (assuming it would provide for

the protection of forest resources and provide 

adequate municipal water supply). We could 

authorize the minimum instream flow management
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 275

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

plan if it met Forest Service needs, since it would 

be a proposal coming to us from the applicant. In 

the current situation, however, we do not have the 

authority to mandate a minimum instream flow and 

so considering this type of alternative in our EIS is 

outside our authority and does not meet the 

purpose and need.

13 12 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

All of the three hydrological studies seem to agree on a 

volume of annual groundwater recharge in the vicinity of 

300 acre-feet. The ECCA does not find fault with the 

number, only the time of diversion. If the water flowing at 

the North Fork gage is only 1 cfs, then any pumping that 

would lower the level of bedrock saturation would cause 

surface water to flow into the bedrock aquifer rather than 

flowing along the surface. 

The two conditions the ECCA proposes that will protect 

the stream are cut-off switches to the Village wells that 

are activated immediately when (1) flow in the North Fork 

drops below the USFS determined minimum in-stream 

flow, and (2) when saturation of bedrock drops below the 

bedrock surface or below the USFS determined safe 

level.

If these conditions become stipulations for the operation 

of the wells, the ECCA will not oppose allowing the Village 

to operate their wells to supplement water diverted for 

storage during periods of higher than baseline surface 

flow.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions as components 

of a new alternative. We have addressed them in 

the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

1 1 Monitoring ...they have confidence in the overall plan but have 

concern in its implementation and its heavy reliance on 

monitoring. What are the assurances that this level of 

monitoring will occur, especially considering the past 

history of this permit? ECCA proposes electronic 

monitoring instead of the labor-intensive and timeconsuming monitoring proposed by the Forest Service.

3.1 Suggested 

Alternative

See response above. 

1 7 Monitoring Install electronic monitoring switches. 3.1 Alternatives See response above. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

276 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

14 30 Monitoring “Every 5 years that the permit is in effect, or when 

triggered by exceeding the water level threshold 

described above, the Forest Service would evaluate and 

document monitoring results to determine effectiveness of 

the adaptive strategy and determine whether an 

adjustment to the parameters of this adaptive 

management strategy are warranted.”

We have already discussed our belief that using the water 

level threshold proposed by the Forest Service will not be 

effective in maintaining surface flows. We believe most 

certainly that such is the case.

We feel confident that staff promotions in the USFS will 

occur quickly enough that there will be no continuity in the 

personnel conducting each successive 5-year review. As 

an alternative to monitoring by the USFS field staff, we 

suggest that data be electronically delivered daily and 

evaluated at monthly intervals. If these data demonstrate 

that a prospectively determined number of violations 

occur in a time period prospectively defined, adaptive 

management adjustment shall be undertaken 

immediately. We also suggest at least one direct visual 

examination of conditions on the North Fork be conducted 

and recorded weekly, unless violations are observed, in 

which case adaptive management adjustments shall be 

undertaken immediately.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

13 13 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

If the Village will construct additional storage facilities, our 

proposal will allow the Village to divert all of their surface 

water rights and up to an additional 300 acre-feet of 

groundwater rights. The result may be more water for the 

Village than the average annual diversion from the North 

Fork during the last 10 years.

3.1 Alternatives We considered additional water storage and we 

have addressed this in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2.

14 7 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

The Forest Service should not authorize use of Well 

Number 2 that has never been equipped or used. It 

should be declared abandoned and properly 

decommissioned in accordance with the SEO water well 

regulations. It is reportedly filled with rocks and other 

debris that could pose a contamination hazard.

3.1 Alternatives We considered not authorizing well 2 and have 

addressed it in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 

2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 277

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

18 1 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

The Forest Service proposed action should be changed to 

the authorization the existing wells that are in operation 

(NF well 1 and NF well 4) and require the plugging and 

abandonment of the two wells that are not presently in 

use and have not been in use for a significant period of 

time. The validity of authorizing four municipal water wells 

when two wells have not been used in many years and 

the two wells presently in production have the ability to 

withdraw more ground water than the 300 acre-feet per 

year stated in the “Well Pumping Volume” section of the 

proposed action. NF Well 2, for example, is filled with beer 

bottles as a result of its location being a party place and 

the damaged protective cover allowed open access. 

According to personal communication with city water 

employee, NF Well 3 has an obstruction or separated 

casing that prevents the installation of a pump to the full 

depth of the well.

3.1 Alternatives We considered not authorizing well 2 and well 3 

and have addressed it in the “Alternatives” section 

of chapter 2.

36 12 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

The Forest Service should not authorize use of Well 

Number 2 that has never been equipped or used. It 

should be declared abandoned and properly 

decommissioned in accordance with the SEO water well 

regulations.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

51 1 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

The Forest Service proposed action should authorize the 

existing wells in operation (NF well 1 and NF well 4) and 

require the plugging and abandonment of the two wells 

that are not presently in use. The validity of authorizing 

four municipal water wells would allow the ability to 

withdraw more ground water than the 300 acre-feet per 

year stated. NF Well 2, for example, is filled with beer 

bottles as a result of its location being a party place and 

the damaged protective cover allowed open access, and 

apparently NF Well 3 has damages that prevent 

installation of a pump to the full depth of the well.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

14 8 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

The ECCA resists issuing a permit for more than 10 

years, and that only with considerable stipulations for 

operation, monitoring, and adaptive management by the 

Forest Service.

3.1 Alternatives We considered different variations on the term for 

the permit to determine if they should be carried 

forward into detailed analysis in the EIS. We have 

addressed this in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

278 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

14 9 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

We suggest that operational data including depth-to-water 

and quantity and rate of diversions be relayed 

electronically, directly from the wells to a Forest Service 

office where it is automatically and continuously recorded. 

We request that the Forest Service make easily available 

monthly updates and summaries that are easy to interpret 

by lay persons.

3.1 Alternatives We considered electronic monitoring and have 

addressed it in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 

2.

14 10 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

“Thresholds would be established for streamflows, water 

table depths, and riparian vegetation”... Adaptive 

management options currently under consideration 

include limitations on groundwater withdrawal rates; 

cessation of pumping for short periods; and/or surface 

flow augmentation.

The ECCA recommends that a continuous minimum instream flow be required as a condition any time pumping 

is occurring. At any time flow measured at the 

downstream reach of the North Fork, near its confluence 

with the South Fork, drops below a minimum instream 

flow agreement, determined by the Forest Service, an 

automated switch will cut off power to all of the pumps. 

The pump switch shall not reactivate until the minimum 

instream flow is recovered.

3.1 Alternatives We considered this suggestion as a component of a 

new alternative and have addressed it in the 

“Alternatives” section of chapter 2. The separate 

“Manual Direction Summary” document also 

includes consideration of minimum instream flow. 

14 11 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

The ECCA recommends that a similar switching system 

be connected to a depth-to-water agreement. This switch 

should operate the same as the minimum instream flow 

switch. Our recommendation is to instrument the bedrock 

for saturation in lieu of a depth-to-water threshold. The 

USGS has reported than when surface bedrock is not 

saturated, surface water is diverted downward to recharge 

the dry bedrock.

3.1 Alternatives We considered this suggestion as a component of a 

new alternative and have addressed it in the 

“Alternatives” section of chapter 2. The separate 

“Manual Direction Summary” document also 

includes consideration of minimum instream flow. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 279

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

14 17 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

Therefore, the ECCA suggests construction of a 

dedicated flow measurement gage that will measure flow 

(and no-flow) in the down-stream-most stretch of the 

North Fork. We encourage the Forest Service to proceed 

directly to their proposed fall-back position and allow the 

Village to pump at half the rate of flow (in gallons per 

minute) that is simultaneously being measured at the 

North Fork gage. Also, we encourage an absolute 

minimum instream flow requirement that must be 

sustained downstream on the North Fork before power to 

the pumps is permitted. These recommendations will 

result in huge manpower savings by the Forest Service 

personnel assigned to adaptive management duty.

3.1 Alternatives We considered this suggestion as a component of a 

new alternative and have addressed it in the 

“Alternatives” section of chapter 2. The separate 

“Manual Direction Summary” document also 

includes consideration of minimum instream flow. 

14 38 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

Second, we have discussed how the safe, annual well 

diversions must be established with respect to the surface 

flow at the time of the diversion. Even a 50 percent 

reduction in the initial allotment can be destructive to the 

stream if taken during periods of low flow. A minimum 

instream flow is a critical prerequisite to any pumping.

3.1 Alternatives We considered this suggestion as a component of a 

new alternative and have addressed it in the 

“Alternatives” section of chapter 2. The separate 

“Manual Direction Summary” document also 

includes consideration of minimum instream flow. 

16 1 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

I own two properties in Alto area 3/4 mile west of TR’s and 

Phillips 66 gas station. They both are on wells. I have 

cleared (thru logging program) both properties and feel 

this has helped water tables increase. My neighbors west 

of me have not and feel that many properties in this area 

should be asked to clear or thin for water table increases 

and fire control. If you are going to draw more water out 

you should assist and require properties in projected well 

area be thinned, perhaps using logging program 

reimbursement dollars. This would help fire control and 

water levels. Please consider this as part of requirements 

for further well drilling for Ruidoso.

3.1 Alternatives We considered clearing vegetation on private land 

and have addressed it in the “Alternatives” section 

of chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

280 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

18 13 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

The volume of the ground water pumping should be 

restricted so that the surface flow in the North Fork Eagle 

Creek can be maintained. This is indicated in the 2541 

Manual of the Forest Service which limits the adverse 

affects of national forest resources. The Village of 

Ruidoso can pump on limited bases the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells and maintain surface flow in the North Fork. 

The Village of Ruidoso can thereafter remove addition 

water through the surface water just east of the Forest 

Service boundary for additional municipal supply. The 

Village of Ruidoso has always had this option but has 

elected to ignore the local watershed management 

required for a stream with limited and fluctuating 

precipitation. 

3.1 Alternatives The proposed action includes provisions to both 

improve surface flow and allow pumping. 

We describe how manual direction will be met for 

this project in the separate “Manual Direction 

Summary” document. This is summarized in 

chapter 1 of the EIS. 

36 15 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

Lincoln County recommends that a continuous minimum 

instream flow be required as a condition any time 

pumping is occurring. At any time flow measured at the 

downstream reach of the North Fork, near its confluence 

with the South Fork, drops below a minimum instream

flow agreement as determined by the Forest Service, an 

automated switch will cut off power to all of the pumps. 

The pump switch shall not be reactivated until the 

minimum instream flow is recovered.

3.1 Alternatives We considered this suggestion as a component of a 

new alternative and have addressed it in the 

“Alternatives” section of chapter 2. The separate 

“Manual Direction Summary” document also 

includes consideration of minimum instream flow. 

36 23 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

Lincoln County resists issuing a permit for more than 10 

years, and that only with considerable stipulations for 

operation, monitoring, and adaptive management by the 

Forest Service.

3.1 Alternatives We considered different variations on the term for 

the permit to determine if they should be carried 

forward into detailed analysis in the EIS. We have 

addressed this in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 281

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

41 5 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

The documentation released thus far indicates that the 

USFS’s alternatives analysis may be unnecessarily and 

illegally constrained. Perhaps most importantly, the USFS 

appears poised to consider only a 30-year permit in 

connection with the North Fork well field. Of course, the 

USFS has the discretion and the authority to issue a much 

shorter permit. Particularly in light of the complexity of the 

technical issues that attend your decision – together with 

the fact of climate change which creates an uncertain 

background and context for future pumping – it would be 

far more prudent for the USFS to consider issuing a shortterm permit for North Fork well field pumping. Your failure 

to have identified such an alternative is troubling, but is 

easily rectified at this stage of the USFS’s NEPA analysis.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

51 5 Alternative 

New 

Suggested

We agree with the USGS final report that indicates that 

when groundwater is pumped from the NF wells, it causes 

a temporary decline in groundwater which lowers the 

water table and creates an expanding cone of depression 

around the wells. The effects can be seen upstream and 

downstream. The volume of the groundwater pumping 

should be restricted so that the surface flow in the North 

Fork Eagle Creek can be maintained as indicated in the 

2541 Manual of the Forest Service which limits the 

adverse affects of national forest resources. The Village of 

Ruidoso can pump on limited bases the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells and maintain surface flow in the North Fork. 

The Village of Ruidoso can thereafter remove additional 

water through the surface water just east of the Forest 

Service boundary for additional municipal supply. The 

Village of Ruidoso needs to utilize this option, rather than 

degrade a stream with limited and fluctuating precipitation.

3.1 Alternatives The proposed action includes provisions to both 

improve surface flow and allow pumping. 

We considered eliminating no-flow days from the 

proposed action as described in the “Alternatives” 

section of chapter 2.

The “Manual Direction Summary” document 

describes how manual direction applies to this 

project. We summarize this direction in chapter 1. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

282 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

18 5 Laws, 

Regulations, 

and Policy

I agree with the USGS final report that indicates that when 

ground is pumped from the NF wells, it causes a 

temporary decline in groundwater which lowers the water 

table and creates an expanding cone of depression 

around the wells. Go to the area today and you can see 

the effects are far reaching, both upstream and 

downstream. The volume of the groundwater pumping 

should be restricted so that the surface flow in the North 

Fork Eagle Creek can be maintained. This is indicated in 

the 2541 Manual of the Forest Service which limits the 

adverse affects of national forest resources. The Village of 

Ruidoso can pump on limited bases the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells and maintain surface flow in the North Fork. 

The Village of Ruidoso can thereafter remove addition 

water through the surface water just east of the Forest 

Service boundary for additional municipal supply. The 

Village of Ruidoso has always had this option but has 

elected to ignore the local watershed management 

required for a stream with limited and fluctuating 

precipitation. The Village has environmentally degraded 

this area of public Iands. Manual 2541 limits the actions 

available to the U.S. Forest Service when there is 

evidence of degrading the natural resources of the 

stream. 

3.1 Alternatives We discuss effects to water resources in detail in 

chapter, including the cone of depression and the 

water table. 

The “Manual Direction Summary” document 

describes how manual direction applies to this 

project. We summarize this direction in chapter 1.

In the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2 we 

address eliminating no-flow days and completing 

and establishing a minimum instream flow. 

14 32 Alternative 

Range

“No Pumping Alternative: The Forest Service would not 

issue a new permit...” “No Action (No Change) Alternative: 

The Forest Service would issue a new permit ... with no 

change in existing ... operations.” The ECCA 

acknowledges that consideration of both of these 

alternatives is required by the rules for creating of an EIS.

3.1 Alternatives Thank you for your comment.

14 33 Alternative 

Range

Additional alternatives: We remind the Forest Service of 

the additional legal agreement with the ECCA which 

requires that the NEPA analysis include “all reasonable 

alternatives (and no less than one alternative) that leave 

downstream flows in the same state they would be in 

absent the pumping of the North Fork wells.”

3.1 Alternatives The no action (no pumping) alternative meets this 

requirement. We have also addressed this in the 

“Alternatives” section of chapter 2, where we 

considered whether there are any other alternatives 

that would meet this requirement. 

47 1 Alternative 

Range

Are you aware of, do you have a copy of, and do you plan 

to add the following alternative to the alternatives listed in 

the NOI? Same as above quote.

3.1 Alternatives Yes, we have a copy of the stipulation agreement. 

See above response.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 283

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

38 1 Alternatives Building a gauging station on the North Fork below the 

present wells and before the South Fork would more 

accurately assess the effects of non-pumping. After a 

sufficient amount of time for the aquifer to recharge, a 

new permit along the lines of alternative 3 could be 

issued. I see no reason, other than turbidity issues (that 

can be fixed) or the Village’s need to hang on to water 

rights, why Eagle Creek cannot be allowed to flow free 

into Alto Reservoir and then pumped to Alto Crest 

treatment station. Water rights may be about the money, 

but Eagle Creek is about keeping surface water alive in an 

arid landscape. 

3.1 Alternatives We considered installing a new gage as described 

in the alternatives section of the scoping outcome 

summary.

There is a surface diversion located downstream of 

National Forest System land on Eagle Creek which 

is operated by the applicant. There are also other 

municipal and domestic wells before Eagle Creek 

enters Alto Reservoir. The Forest Service has no 

jurisdiction over these diversions. 

49 1 Alternatives 

1 No Action 

(pro with 

rationale)

Yes, it would be a perfect world if we had lots of running 

streams in our area. Our village depends on water for our 

present and future. Cutting this water source off makes no 

sense. Should we just pack up and move so that Eagle 

Creek can run year round? How can this even be 

debated?

3.1 Alternatives Thank you for your comment. The purpose and 

need for taking action and the management 

objectives developed for this project, as we 

describe in chapter 1 of the EIS, includes achieving 

a balance between the need for municipal water 

supply and protecting forest resources. The range 

of alternatives under consideration includes ones 

that allows pumping to continue.

36 18 Best 

Available 

Science

Lincoln County strongly urges the Forest Service to 

authorize the USGS to place these data on a timeline for 

all of the years for which data are available.

5.1 Suggestion Thank you for your comment. We agree that this 

timeline would be helpful to the analysis. We 

discuss this in more detail in the “Water Resources” 

section of chapter 3.

12 1 Cultural 

Resources

We believe that this project will not adversely affect 

traditional, religious, or culturally significant sites of our 

Pueblo and have no opposition to it; However, we would 

like to request consultation should any human remains of 

artifacts unearthed during this project be determined to fall 

under NAGPRA guidelines.

4.1 Non-Key Thank you for your comment. There is a project 

design feature requiring consultation if any human 

remains or artifacts are discovered. We include this 

design feature in chapter 2 of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

284 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

11 1 Fisheries It is time for the Lincoln National Forest and the applicant 

to make some tough decisions about the village wells on 

North Fork Eagle Creek. The association is concerned 

that the pumping of water from these wells since they 

were put into service in 1988 has reduced the streamflow 

to zero from approximately 1⁄4 mile above the wells to New 

Mexico Hwy. 532 and below for 95% of the year. The zero 

streamflow has destroyed the habitat that prior to the 

village wells was beaming with fish. The wildlife that relied 

upon Eagle Creek for water have had to move toward 

town and other populated areas to find water.

1.1 Key – Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish

We agree that the potential for effects of well 

pumping on aquatic habitat and fish is a key issue 

for this project. We describe and analyze these 

effects in detail in chapter 3. 

We will also address this issue in the wildlife 

resource report and biological evaluation.

13 9 Fisheries The ECCA has evidence that the North Fork of Eagle 

Creek supported trout and the sport of trout fishing prior to 

pumping. A trout fishery was located adjacent to the North 

Fork. The North Fork is still shown to be a fishable stream 

in maps and literature available from the USFS and the 

NM Game and Fish Department.

In 2004, the New Mexico Environment Department issued 

an Integrated List of Impaired Surface Waters. Ref. NMED 

303(d)/305(b) showed the designated use of Alto Lake 

and Eagle Creek (Alto Reservoir to Mescalero Apache 

bnd) to be High Quality Coldwater Fishery. The 

attainments for both were “not supporting.” The assessed 

date was 1/1/1998.

1.1 Key – Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish

Thank you for this information. We will consider this 

in preparation of the EIS. We agree that the 

potential for effects of well pumping on aquatic 

habitat and fish, including trout, is a key issue for 

this project. We describe and analyze these effects 

in detail in chapter 3.

We also address this issue in the wildlife resource 

report and biological evaluation.

14 1 Fisheries We resist the notion that any trout stream in New Mexico 

should be sacrificed for municipal growth.

1.1 Key – Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish

See above response.

1 3 Lands ECCA would like to see penalties (not necessarily 

financial) for non-conformance with the terms of the 

permit, but recognizes this is outside the scope of the EIS.

4.6 Non-Key Specific details regarding permit administration are 

outside the scope of the EIS, as we explained in the 

“Alternatives” section of chapter 2. 

1 15 Laws, 

Regulations, 

and Policy

ECCA also requests that an action plan be developed that 

shows how FSM direction is being met.

4.5 Non-Key We describe how FSM direction applies to this 

project in the separate “Manual Direction Summary” 

document. We summarize this in chapter 1 of the 

EIS. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 285

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

25 2 Laws, 

Regulations, 

and Policy

There are no known conflicts with requirements under 

NMED laws and regulations. The proposed project falls 

under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act or the 

New Mexico Drinking Water Regulations (NMDWR). 

However, review of the public water supply engineering 

and construction will NOT be required pursuant to 

NMDWR 20.7.10.200(3)(g). There are no known 

deficiencies or inaccuracies in the information provided.

4.1 Non-Key Thank you for your information.

36 4 Laws, 

Regulations, 

and Policy

Relevant to the water right issues is the Forest Service 

Manual, 2541.34- Water Rights and Uses for Other 

Purposes. “If the projected water requirements conflict 

with existing or potential Forest Service uses and rights or 

will adversely affect national forest resources, the 

potential permittee must seek alternative water sources or 

develop mitigation plans acceptable to the Forest 

Service.” Item 2541.34 would appear to limit the action 

available to the USFS for meeting the item (1) objective, 

purpose, and need for action.

4.1 Non-Key The purpose of the EIS is to evaluate in detail 

alternatives for achieving the purpose and need for 

action and the management actions identified. 

These include achieving a balance between 

providing municipal water and protecting forest 

services. We describe how well each alternative 

addresses these factors in chapter 3. 

Details of the alternative that is ultimately selected 

for implementation will become part of the terms of 

any new permit issued. This includes any mitigation 

measures, monitoring, or adaptive management 

actions developed through the EIS process that 

would be necessary to minimize adverse effects to 

forest resources.

36 7 Laws, 

Regulations, 

and Policy

The Forest Service Manual (FSM 2500, Chapter 2540) 

requires that impacts of water withdrawals from aquifers 

underlying National Forest System lands be quantified 

with a groundwater waterflow model approved by the 

Forest Service (p. 11 of the scoping document), or by a 

controlled aquifer test. No such model or controlled test is 

in the present plan.

4.5 Non-Key This requirement applies to proposals for new wells, 

but the proposed action would authorize existing 

wells. However, we agree that a controlled aquifer 

test or model would be valuable for future 

management, and we discuss this in more detail in 

the EIS.

1 17 Misc. -

Literature 

Citations

ECCA suggests the FS review the Watershed Report 

(prepared by Stream Dynamics) – Nora sent this to 

George this morning – it contains valuable information 

and aerial photos regarding streams in this watershed.

5.1 Suggestion Thank you for providing this document. It is 

available to the IDT and they have reviewed it for 

applicability to this project.

13 5 Misc. -

Literature 

Citations

The ECCA requests the inclusion and use of the Finch 

(Peery) Report, the Balleau Reports (all referred to in the 

USGS report), and The Killing of Eagle Creek in the 

preparation of the EIS.

5. 1 Suggestion These documents are available to the IDT and they 

have reviewed them and use them, as applicable, in 

the preparation of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

286 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

13 7 Misc. -

Literature 

Citations

Peter Balleau has prepared several documents including 

the Mountain-front Hydrology of Eagle Creek and Rio 

Ruidoso tributaries of Rio Hondo (Ref 2004a) Analysis of 

North Fork Well field and Effects on Eagle Creek (Ref 

2004b), both referenced in the USGS Proposal and Final 

Report.

5.1 Comment These documents are available to the IDT and they 

have reviewed them and use them, as applicable, in 

the preparation of the EIS

6 1 Misc. -

Thank you 

for your 

comment

He asked if any new wells or facilities, like pipelines, were 

being proposed. He also asked if it was near Ski Apache. 

I told him no new facilities, just an evaluation of the effect 

of existing wells and facilities is being analyzed. I also 

mentioned that it was in proximity of the reservation and 

he could see this on the map. He was not concerned and 

did not have any specific comments, but asked to remain 

on the mailing list.

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

Thank you for your interest in this project.

8 1 Misc. -

Thank you 

for your 

comment

... I received the materials but do not understand what the 

project pertains to and how it would affect me.

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

Thank you for your interest in this project. We

apologize for not being able to return your phone 

call as no phone number was left on the message.

54 1 Misc. -

Thank you 

for your 

comment

1913 - State of New Mexico grants permit to railroad for 6 

sec cf of water. (Basically the flow of Eagle Creek except 

flood times.) 1914 - Eagle Creek pipeline built; 1946 -

applicant incorporated beginning many water rights 

purchases in Rio Ruidoso. 1954 - Eagle Creek Assn. 

formed and with Capitan Boys the railroads water rights 

and 1, 000 plus acres in Eagle Creek and Little Creek. 

1988 - Forest Service and Ruidoso Village agreement for 

North Eagle Wells.

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

Thank you for this information.

14 18 Monitoring The new operating condition we propose would be, 

“groundwater withdrawals would be limited to no more 

than 50 percent of the volumetric rate (gallons per minute) 

of surface flow at the North Fork gage.”

Our proposal provides for immediate response to realtime conditions. Accordingly, we resist using the 

monitoring described further in this category. We cannot 

support using Forest Service manpower in the manner 

proposed, knowing that the results will not be responsive 

to the need for providing operational controls on pumping 

while maintaining instream flow in the North Fork.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions, and we have 

addressed them in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 287

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

14 31 Monitoring “Adaptive management adjustments currently under 

consideration include: Limitation on groundwater 

withdrawal rates; cessation of pumping for short periods; 

and/or surface flow augmentation.” The ECCA 

recommends that limitations on withdrawal rates be tied to 

real-time measurements of instream flow at the North 

Fork gage. We recommend that cessation of flow for

operation violations last long enough for artesian 

conditions to resaturate the bedrock. ... The ECCA 

encourages the Forest Service to consider the solutions 

we have recommended because they are responsive to 

the environmental resources for which the Forest Service 

is responsible.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and have 

addressed them in the “Alternatives” section of of 

chapter 2.

14 37 Monitoring First, the proposal continues to use zero-flow days in the 

South Fork as an indicator of instream flow conditions on 

the North Fork. How are the 300 no-flow days per year in 

the North Fork to be restored during the proposed 5-year 

study that is based on no-flow days in the South Fork? 

Only with continuous flow in the North Fork will restoration 

occur and such flow can only be measured with a gage 

dedicated to measuring flow in the lower North Fork.

3.1 Alternatives The Eagle creek gage, minus the South Fork gage, 

serves as a surrogate for measuring flow in the 

North Fork. The proximity of the two gages to each 

other makes this acceptable. We describe this in 

more detail in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 

2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

288 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

15 1 Monitoring The USFS proposal seems to ignore the geology of the 

area as noted in the USGS report, “The Hydrology of 

Eagle Creek Basin and Effects of Groundwater Pumping 

on Streamflow, 1969-2009,” where it states: “The 19-

month record for the North Fork gaging station indicates 

that, even without the North Fork wells pumping, 

streamflow in the North Fork might not be continuous in 

the well-field reach because of the thickness of the 

alluvium and channel deposits.” There is simply no 

evidence that, even if the Village Wells reduced water 

withdrawal by 50% (of the North Fork gage), that this 

would allow surface water to flow. This monitoring 

indicator will be impossible to attain and it seems to set 

the Village up for failure.

3.1 Alternatives We recognize that this stretch of North Fork Eagle 

Creek has always had areas where flow is subsurface, due to the thickness of the alluvium. We 

developed our purpose and need and management 

objectives to achieve a balance between providing 

municipal water and protecting forest resources. 

We have addressed this in more detail in the 

separate “Manual Direction Summary” document 

and in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2. We 

are not striving to manage for a minimum instream 

flow. Instead, we are concerned about providing 

flow through the alluvium and ensuring groundwater 

resources are maintained. 

The proposed action also includes a monitoring and 

adaptive management strategy so that we can 

apply, test, and monitor the initial thresholds and 

parameters. If adjustments are needed over time, 

there are provisions for making these adjustments.

We discuss in detail the effects of each alternative 

on socioeconomic resources in chapter 3. 

18 5 Monitoring The allowance in the monitor indication section in the 

proposed action to allow no-flow days should not be 

considered. No-flow days during the period of 1988 to 

2009 has affected the North Fork tributary and its 

associated riparian area and its ability of a cold water 

fishery since the North Fork well were put in operation.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions, and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

18 5 Monitoring I feel that the threshold of 20 days per year of no surface 

flow or more that 30 no-flow days within a single water 

year will be adverse to the established and improvements 

of the riparian vegetation between the North Fork wells 

and the Eagle Creek stream gauge.

3.1 Alternatives We discuss the effects of all alternatives on riparian 

vegetation in chapter 3.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 289

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

18 2 Monitoring I agree with the adaptive management strategies and feel 

that the adaptation should be on a five (5) year rotation. 

According to the USGS study, (Scientific Investigations 

Report 2010-5205) there was zero no surface flow days 

prior to the pumping of the North Fork Eagle Creek wells. I 

hope through this evaluation process that we can 

realistically correct the past errors in management by 

establishing parameters by which the applicant can pump 

a limited amount of water for their needs but also provide 

surface waterflow in the stream bed.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

18 7 Monitoring The monitoring of the thresholds should not be left up to 

the applicant. This avenue is like letting the “fox guard the 

hen house.” Threshold monitoring should be electronic 

where possible and available for all to see via Web sites

to facilitate the proposed adapted management strategy.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

18 8 Monitoring I fully support an adaptive management strategy that 

allows for management adjustments with limitations on 

ground water pumping, cessation of pumping for short 

periods, and feel that electronic monitoring should activate 

these adapting management adjustments by electronic 

shutting off pumping facilities when monitoring indicators 

of surface flow volume, water table depth, and water 

pumping volume are met via electronic monitoring.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of the scoping 

outcome summary. 

18 3 Monitoring I support the mandatory base line of three hundred acre 

feet of pumped groundwater threshold, but, it is evident 

that in the past the Lincoln National Forest has violated 

the public trust by the following: (1) allowing the applicant 

to dry up what was once a beautiful cold water fishery 

stream; and (2) by allowing the applicant to continue 

unrestricted pumping without a permit since 1995. How 

long is the Forest Service going to allow this atrocity to 

continue? Who is going to be responsible to the public to 

make sure the environment is restored?

4.5 Non-Key The purpose and need for taking action and the 

management objectives developed for this project, 

as we describe in chapter 1, include achieving a 

balance between the need for the municipal water 

supply and protecting forest resources.

36 3 Monitoring Lincoln County agrees that a new permit, if issued, should 

include additional terms and conditions for adaptive 

management (monitoring, evaluation, and modification) to 

insure management objectives are met. • Lincoln County 

does not believe that the applicant should be responsible 

for their own monitoring. The Forest Service or the State 

Engineer’s Office should be charged to do that.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

290 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

36 6 Monitoring The Forest Service proposes (p. 7 of the scoping 

document) to monitor water table depth at the well field for 

purpose of establishing a threshold depth that the 

applicant would be required to maintain. The proposed 

threshold reflects post-well development conditions 

already impacted by the well field. Restoring the stream 

may instead require groundwater conditions to be at or 

near pre-well development baseline levels.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

36 13 Monitoring Lincoln County resists any monitoring done by the 

applicant. The Forest Service or the State Engineer’s 

Office should do all monitoring.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

36 14 Monitoring Lincoln County suggests that operational data including 

depth to water and quantity and rate of diversions be 

relayed electronically, directly from the wells to a Forest 

Service office where it is automatically and continuously 

recorded. We request that the Forest Service make easily 

available monthly updates and summaries that are easy 

to interpret by laypersons.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

36 17 Monitoring The applicant has been monitoring and maintaining the 

Eagle Creek stream gage up to this point. It is always 

jammed up with debris and other materials. They have not 

been successful in properly monitoring this gage and the 

Forest Service needs to make sure this monitoring gage is 

clear.

4.5 Non-Key Thank you for your comment. The Eagle Creek 

gage is managed and maintained by the U.S. 

Geological Survey. While we think this gage has 

been operational, we will forward your comment to 

the USGS. 

36 18 Monitoring The Eagle Creek gage, alone, does not provide an 

accurate measurement of surface flow exiting the North 

Fork. Lincoln County requests the Forest Service 

oversight to insure that accurate measurements are 

continuously delivered electronically to a Forest Service 

office. We suggest the pump power cutoff switch be 

located in a tamperproof box at this flow gage. 

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

36 18 Monitoring Lincoln County is concerned how authorizing pump 

operations at a 5-year average water table depth will 

protect or restore streamflow. Allowing continued 

operation with no restriction on depth to water for 5 more 

years will make the problem worse.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 291

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

36 20 Monitoring The county supports a minimum initial threshold of 300 

acre-feet per year. There are valid reasons explaining why 

additional thresholds, such as minimum instream flows 

and saturated bedrock, should be met. If the diversions 

are taken under excess surface flow conditions, the 

continuous flow of the stream will not be interrupted.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

36 21 Monitoring The County is supportive of the paragraph: “If analysis 

results indicate that current thresholds and mitigations are 

not sufficient to maintain surface resource conditions, 

management of groundwater withdrawals would be 

adjusted to provide additional protections against further 

degradation.”

5.1 Comment Thank you for your comment.

41 6 Monitoring Just as the USFS appears poised not to consider 

reasonable alternatives, the USFS also appears poised 

not to consider a broad range of monitoring and mitigation 

conditions which would assure that impacts of North Fork 

well field pumping are minimized. In brief, the USFS 

should assure that monitor-ing and mitigation conditions 

are based on the most relevant gage readings and 

minimize all downstream effects in the event that undue 

adverse effects are determined. As currently configured, 

the monitoring and mitigation conditions appear likely to 

allow undue adverse effects–once identified – to con-tinue 

unabated for an unnecessarily long period of time. ECCA 

encourages you to assure that the monitoring and 

mitigation plan is robust, aggressive, and responsive in 

“real-time” to observed impacts of pumping in the North 

Fork well field.

4.5 Non-Key We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

We feel that the proposed action with its proposed 

monitoring and adaptive management plan is 

responsive to the issues, implementable, and 

addresses the purpose and need for action. In the 

EIS, we fully evaluate all alternatives and describe 

how well each one addresses the key issues and 

the purpose and need for action. 

51 2 Monitoring We agree with the adaptive management strategies and 

feel that the adaptation should be on a five (5) year 

rotation. According to the USGS study, (Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5205) there was zero no 

surface flow days prior to the pumping of the North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells. Through this evaluation process we 

are hopeful realistic parameters will be established by 

which the applicant can pump a limited amount of water 

for their needs but also provide surface waterflow in the 

streambed.

4.5 Non-Key We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

292 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

51 8 Monitoring The monitoring of the thresholds should not be left up to 

the applicant. Threshold monitoring should be electronic 

where possible and available for all to see via Web sites 

to facilitate the proposed adapted management strategy.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

51 3 Monitoring We support the mandatory base line of three hundred 

acre feet of pumped groundwater threshold, provided that 

is upheld.

5.1 Comment Thank you for your comment.

51 9 Monitoring We fully support an adaptive management strategy that 

allows for management adjustments with limitations on 

groundwater pumping, cessation of pumping for short 

periods and feel that electronic monitoring should activate 

these adapting management adjustments by electronic 

shutting off pumping facilities when monitoring indicators 

of surface flow volume, water table depth, and water 

pumping volume are met via electronic monitoring.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions as described in 

the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2. 

52 9 Monitoring When implementing the monitoring indicator of surface 

flow of Eagle Creek at Eagle Creek below South Fork 

Gage, the use of 20 no-flow days per year over a 3-year 

period or 30 no-flow days within a single year to trigger a 

reduction in groundwater diversion does not take into 

account the intermittent nature of North Fork during 

drought conditions. Reducing Village pumping during an 

extended drought would cause additional hardship on the 

Village in providing sufficient water to the Village 

municipal water system. A more equitable procedure 

could be derived which considered the measured annual 

precipitation and projected streamflow such that the 

Village is not required to suspend or reduce pumping 

because of the effects of an extended drought.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

We evaluate the effects of all alternatives on 

socioeconomics in chapter 3, including effects 

during drought conditions over time.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 293

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

52 10 Monitoring The use of the average 5-year water level of the deeper 

aquifer as a monitoring indicator does not take into 

account the water level declines caused by extended 

drought and lack of recharge associated with said 

droughts. The intermittent nature of North Fork would not 

be improved by attempting to maintain an average water 

level in the deep aquifer. As discussed in item 1 above, 

during abundant precipitation events the aquifer storage 

recovers significantly and can recover to pre-North Fork 

Wells levels. Given this recharge condition which is 

apparent across the entire Hondo Basin (by inspection of 

USGS and State Engineer water level records), there is 

no evidence of a continually expanding cone of 

depression reaching outside of U.S. Forest lands.

3.1 Alternatives We agree that during an extended drought it would 

not be possible to have perennial flow merely by 

raising the water table some percentage of the way 

to the surface. However, the less storage depletion 

there is, the less time it would take to recharge the 

loss. 

We discuss whether implementing the alternatives 

will result in an expanding cone of depression in 

chapter 3. 

52 12 Monitoring The use of well pumping volume limited to 900 cumulative 

acre-feet over a 3-year period or 300 acre-feet per year is 

based on the annual groundwater recharge rate of 490 

acre-feet per annum as calculated by the chloride mass 

balance approach as described in item 4 above and which 

may be too low as discussed by USGS. The well pumping 

volume could just as well be based on the annual 

groundwater recharge rate of 1,950 acre-feet per annum 

as calculated by USGS using the basin yield method. 

Using the annual groundwater recharge rate as computed 

by the basin yield method would indicate that the 

allowable pumping volume should continue at least 

equivalent to the November 1, 2009, to October 31, 2010, 

water year of 738.01 acre feet. The groundwater 

diversions should be accounted for coincidentally with the 

State Engineer administered water years being from 

November 1 of each year to October 31 of the next year. 

Also the 5-year accounting of the State Engineer as 

required by the court adoption of the Hondo Basin “Duty 

of Water” special master report should be implemented in 

the adaptive management strategy. Allowance should be 

made in special use permitting for North Fork groundwater 

diversions to continue at the 2009-2010 water year 

amount at least until such time as the Village had 

accomplished approved water right move permitting to 

allow for sufficient diversion of the municipal water rights 

off of U.S. Forest lands.

3.1 New 

Alternative 

Suggested

We considered these suggestions and addressed 

them in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

We recognize that the recharge rates from the 

USGS report are only a starting point. We intend to 

revisit each threshold identified in the proposed 

action after we reanalyze the data (as discussed at 

the hydrology technical meeting in April 2011), to 

ensure they are still accurate based on the best 

available information. We discussed this in more 

detail in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2. 

In the proposed action, we also acknowledge that 

adjustments may be necessary over time as 

monitoring continues. If the existing recharge rates 

are too conservative based on additional monitoring 

(particularly from the shallow monitoring wells), then 

we would adjust them. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

294 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

The monitoring indicators listed above and the use of 

streamflow augmentation by groundwater discharge may 

indicate in future years that there need be no reduction at 

all in North Fork well diversion.

1 14 Monitoring -

Mitigation

FSM 2541.34 states that a mitigation plan is necessary 

also. ECCA has not seen this, despite requests for 

information.

5.1 Comment Details of the alternative that is ultimately selected 

for implementation will become part of the terms of 

any new permit issued. This includes any mitigation 

measures, monitoring, or adaptive management 

actions developed through the EIS process that 

would be necessary to minimize adverse effects to 

forest resources. The selected alternative will then 

be identified as the “mitigation plan” in the permit.

14 23 Monitoring -

Riparian 

Vegetation

“This metric would provide an indicator of the effects of 

groundwater withdrawal on the condition and trend of 

surface resources in and downstream from the NFEC 

basin.”

We believe that such an objective can be met with the 

changes we propose but not using the metric as currently 

proposed in this notice of intent.

3.1 Alternatives We agree that we should be using a reference 

reach to help identify changes in riparian conditions 

over time. We will be collecting this data during the 

summer of 2011 so we can incorporate that 

information into the riparian monitoring strategy in 

this EIS. We specifically address this in chapter 3. 

The purpose and need for taking action and our 

management objectives include maintaining or 

improving riparian health over time; but not 

specifically re-creating a riparian condition on North 

Fork Eagle Creek that may have existed before the 

wells began pumping. Once we review the best 

available science (including data collected from a 

reference reach), if we see indications that riparian 

conditions have changed over time due to well 

pumping, we will review the monitoring indicators to 

ensure they remain valid (see the “Alternatives” 

section of chapter 2 for more detail).
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 295

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

14 24 Monitoring -

Riparian 

Vegetation

“The Forest Service would fund annual or biannual 

monitoring of riparian vegetation in the project area to 

include the approximately 2-mile section between the 

wells and the Eagle Creek stream gage.”

The ECCA fully supports this effort. We feel it is important 

to point out that the riparian vegetation now evident in this 

section of Eagle Creek is the result of over 25 years of the 

North Fork being mostly dry. Historical descriptions of 

such vegetation or the method described below would 

provide a more reasonable baseline for determining the

change attributable to a reduced- to absent- instream 

flow.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

14 25 Monitoring -

Riparian 

Vegetation

“This would provide a baseline so that any future changes 

in riparian vegetation in this area would be apparent with 

future monitoring.”

The ECCA suggests that the proper baseline should be 

established from riparian areas that have been served by 

streams that actually flowed for the last 25 years, such as 

the South Fork of Eagle Creek and Bonito Creek. George 

Douds, the acting Smokey Bear Ranger could probably 

shed some light on establishing a meaningful baseline.

3.1 Alternatives See response above. 

14 14 Monitoring -

Riparian 

Vegetation

The ECCA would like to expand the phrase “maintain or 

improve existing riparian vegetation conditions” to include 

“aquatic ecosystems,” especially “fish and fish habitat,” as 

described in the Purpose and Need for Action and in the 

Forest Service Manual.

6.1 Document 

specific comments 

or corrections

We agree with this suggestion and have made this 

change in the “Monitoring” section of the “Proposed 

Action” description.

14 19 Monitoring -

Water Table 

Depth

“The applicant would continue to maintain monitoring well 

MW-1B and collect data on changes in the water table 

levels.”

The ECCA suggests that it would be reasonable for the 

Village to continue monitoring and reporting depth-towater in NF-1, NF-3, and NF-4 as they agreed to in the 

settlement agreement. A better resolution would be to 

have these data electronically transferred directly to the 

Forest Service from the wells.

3.1 Alternatives We agree that the data from these other wells 

should be used in addition to MW-IB as discussed 

in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2. This 

change has been made in the “Monitoring” section 

of the “Proposed Action” description.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

296 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

14 20 Monitoring -

Water Table 

Depth

“Water table depth data (feet below surface) would be 

collected and stored in the USGS database.”

The ECCA suggests that data collected and stored is 

useless until it has been plotted on an easy-to-interpret 

timeline. The raw data in tabular form and the plotted data 

should be readily obtainable at any time, for any 

timeframe, to the public or other interested parties. We 

strongly urge the Forest Service to authorize the USGS to 

place these data on a timeline for all of the years for which 

data are available.

5.1 Suggestion Thank you for your suggestion. We use various 

ways of discussing this type of data in our analysis 

in the “Water Resources” section of chapter 3 of the 

EIS.

14 21 Monitoring -

Water Table 

Depth

“Once 5 years of monitoring data from this well have been 

collected, including the 2 years of data collected prior to 

developing this EIS, the Forest Service would evaluate 

this data, and use the 5-year average water table depth to 

establish a threshold for average water table depth.”

The ECCA observes that the Forest Service could have 

contracted with the USGS to plot, on the same timeline, 

all of the data available from the Village depth-to-water 

and Eagle Creek water diversion records, the USGS 

measurements of flow at the Eagle Creek gage, and 

precipitation data. Data are available beginning 2 years 

before the hydrological study actually began. The Forest 

Service could have evaluated these data prior to the time 

that the USGS study was actually conducted. 

According to our review of this visual display of same-time 

events, the data would show that the water table is 

controlled by the pump level. Pumping is discontinued 

when the water table no longer covers and cools the 

pumps. We believe cavitation and pump burnout to be a 

recurring event. We believe that use of these data, plotted 

on a common timeline, will ensure a balanced EIS. 

The ECCA does not understand how authorizing pump 

operations at a 5-year average water table depth will 

protect or restore streamflow. Allowing continued 

operation with no restriction on depth-to-water for 5 more 

years makes even less sense to us.

3.1 Alternatives See response above.

We considered your suggestion not to use a 5-year 

average water table depth in the “Alternatives” 

section of of chapter 2.

We agree that waiting until a decision is made on 

this project to begin collecting the additional 3 years 

of data is not ideal. We are committed to collecting 

this information now and using the sum of the years 

of data collected before implementation to base the 

average water table depth on. We discuss this in 

more detail in chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 297

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

Our hypothesis is that when dry days in the North Fork 

are examined against depth-to-water on the same day, a 

causal and quantifiable relationship will be observed that 

is far more useful than waiting 5 more years to determine 

an average water table depth. In our opinion, the USGS 

can, and should, determine the dry days in the North Fork 

mathematically from existing gage measurements.

14 22 Monitoring -

Water Table 

Depth

“The applicant would be required to maintain an average 

water table depth that is equal to or above this threshold 

over 3 consecutive water years.” 

We know that “the average water table depth” resulted in 

over 300 dry days in the North Fork each year. The USGS 

reports that when the bedrock is not saturated, surface 

water is redirected down to recharge the aquifer, resulting 

in a dry streambed. We resist any further plans to use a 3-

or 5-year average water table depth as a monitoring 

indicator or operational control.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions in the 

“Alternatives” section of chapter 2. 

14 27 Monitoring -

Well 

Pumping 

Volume

“The applicant would continue daily monitoring and 

recording of groundwater withdrawals through the North 

Fork wells (pumping volumes in acre feet). Combined with 

precipitation and streamflow records over time, this metric 

would be used to develop an additional reliable indicator 

for modeling anticipated effects of groundwater 

withdrawals on surface resources within the NFEC basin.”

Along with the condition that depth-to-water be added to 

the above three variables discussed in the above 

paragraph, the Forest Service has defined the data the 

ECCA most strenuously encourages the Forest Service to 

rely upon. We cannot be more emphatic that these data, 

available from 1969 to the present, should be evaluated 

as soon as possible. We recommend that well operating 

parameters be based on the relationships observed in 

evaluating these data in addition to data developed 

prospectively by the USGS. Of prime consideration is how 

these conditions relate to whether the North Fork is wet or 

dry. 

Pump operating parameters based on the above two 

paragraphs would be very defensible and would protect 

the surface flows and water-dependent systems described 

as part (2) of the Forest Service objectives.

3.1 Alternatives See response above regarding timeline.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

298 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

14 28 Monitoring -

Well 

Pumping 

Volume

“An initial threshold of 900 cumulative acre feet over 3 

consecutive water years (300 acre feet per year) would 

trigger a review by the Forest Service of the current 

thresholds and mitigations at maintaining or improving 

surface resource conditions.”

The ECCA is delighted to support a minimum initial 

threshold of 300 acre feet per year. As discussed earlier, 

there are valid reasons explaining why additional 

thresholds, such as minimum instream flows and 

saturated bedrock, should also be met. Our position is 

that the stream can probably survive the proposed, initial 

quantities of diversion without degrading the stream, if the 

diversions are taken under excess surface flow conditions 

so that the continuous flow of the stream will not be 

interrupted.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions in the 

“Alternatives” section of chapter 2. 

14 29 Monitoring -

Well 

Pumping 

Volume

“If analysis results indicate that current thresholds and 

mitigations are not sufficient to maintain surface resource 

conditions, management of groundwater withdrawals 

would be adjusted to provide additional protections 

against further degradation of riparian and other surface 

resources within the NFEC basin.”

The ECCA is supportive of this paragraph. In fact, if 

combined with the additional thresholds we have 

suggested, we feel comfortable that the necessity of 

subsequent adjustments in management of water 

withdrawals is unlikely.

5.1 Comment We considered these suggestions in the 

“Alternatives” section of chapter 2. 

52 7 Water Rights More diversion of groundwater may be required by the 

Village over and above the proposed 300 acre-feet per 

annum during the initial years of the special use permit 

period to prevent extreme hardship to the Village in 

producing sufficient water for the Village municipal 

system.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

We evaluate all the alternatives and their potential 

for impacts to municipal and private water supply in 

chapter 3 of the EIS. 

As we stated in the proposed action, this particular 

threshold is not a stand-along trigger for change, 

but would be used in combination with the other 

thresholds to determine if we need to adjust 

pumping restrictions. 

The proposed action is one alternative out of the 

several that we will analyze in detail in the EIS. Our 

analysis describes how each alternative addresses 

the key issues and the purpose and need for action. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 299

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

4 7 Municipal 

Water 

Supply 

System

None of these accommodations should be made unless 

Ruidoso immediately takes actions in other ways to 

preserve water. There are a whole litany of ways for water 

challenged areas to cope. Before giving any forest land 

help, all of us in this nation want to know what Ruidoso is 

doing to help its own situation. Many other communities 

have faced this same issue. Some have made water out 

of sea water. What is Ruidoso doing to help itself. It has a 

duty and obligation to take steps within itself to help itself. 

Or are they looking for welfare help?

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions for conserving 

water in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2.

5 2 Municipal 

Water 

Supply 

System

The City of Ruidoso should consider tapping the majority 

of its needed water supply where the majority of the city 

exists, in the Rio Ruidoso watershed.

3.1 Alternatives This suggestion is outside the scope of this 

analysis.

13 11 Municipal 

Water 

Supply 

System

Prior to the Village wells going into operation, the Village 

used surface diversion from both the diversion dams and 

Alto Reservoir. The water treatment plant located above 

Alto Reservoir was constructed for the purpose of treating 

this surface water.

Records of surface water diverted to the surface-water 

treatment plant, prior to the wells, show that the Village 

diverted an increasing quantity of water each year, as its 

needs grew. The year before the wells were put into 

operation was the year of the greatest municipal diversion 

the Village has made. Never, during the years the pumps 

were operating, was the Village able to divert as much 

combined surface and groundwater from the North Fork 

as they did the year before the pumps went on line.

5.1 Comment Thank you for this information.

22 1 Municipal 

Water 

Supply 

System

I think the public should be told what the average daily 

use of water in gallons is for Ruidoso, and then everyone 

and Village Hall think about how long can Eagle Creek 

water basin continue to furnish 60 to 70% of your supply.

5.1 Comment We discuss this topic in chapter 3 of the EIS in the 

“Socioeconomics” section, where we will consider 

the community dependence on Eagle Creek as the 

municipal water supply.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

300 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

23 4 Municipal 

Water 

Supply 

System

The district’s overriding concern in this endeavor is to 

protect its ability to provide water service to homes and 

businesses within the district. Thus upstream users must 

not be allowed to take water in such quantities as to 

impair our ability to serve them. With this the district asks 

that the Lincoln National Forest in its preparation of the 

EIS take into consideration the possible impacts this 

project potentially has on the ability of the district to be 

able to rely on a sustainable water supply to continue 

serving its customers.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

See response above.

24 3 Municipal 

Water 

Supply 

System

It is not right for Ruidoso to wastewater on golf courses, 

swimming pools, and never ending development of 

subdivisions while taking water from surrounding county 

private well owners. I ask the Forrest Service to listen to 

not just the wealthy developers in Ruidoso but also to the 

many county residents that are negatively impacted by the 

outright theft of our water supply. I realize that many in 

Ruidoso want to see it turn in to an Aspen like community 

but what they fail to realize is that Aspen has the water to 

be the size they are and Ruidoso does not. Aspen has the 

great rocky mountains to draw from and Ruidoso has one 

"1" mountain with limited moisture. Ruidoso has to get a 

grip on the fact that they cannot continue to grow unless 

they bring a water source in from somewhere else. 

Ruidoso also has to give back the water they currently 

draw from the Eagle Creek aquifer which rightfully 

belongs to ALL county residents. Gavilan Canyon Creek 

runs through the back of my property and it was never 

considered a year round flow but I can tell you that it has 

also been negatively impacted by the draw on Eagle 

Creek by the Village. Gavilan Creek is spring fed. The 

springs on Gavilan Creek are all but dried up for several 

years now due to Ruidoso illegally over pumping North 

Fork wells.

3.1 Alternatives We include information on Ruidoso per capita 

consumption compared to other cities in New 

Mexico in chapter 3 of the EIS. A complete analysis 

of actions that affect applicant water consumption 

and demand is outside the scope of this project, but 

our cumulative impact analysis considers city 

consumption.

31 1 Municipal 

Water 

Supply 

System

Suggesting the USFS cuts off 70% of Ruidoso’s municipal 

water supply is just ludicrous. The thru village operated 

wells on the North Fork of Eagle Creek were in fact drilled 

just for this purpose - to supply Ruidoso with water.

5.1 Comment The purpose and need for taking action and the 

management objectives we developed for this 

project, include balancing the need for a municipal 

water supply and protecting forest resources. We 

explain this in chapter 1 of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 301

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

39 1 Municipal 

Water 

Supply 

System

We realize that the city needs water for the residents, but 

we believe they need to find another source of getting 

water, rather than relying so much on the water from 

Eagle Creek. If they don’t have enough water, why don’t 

they stop all the new building that depletes the water 

supply? What are they going to do in the future, if they run 

out of water?

3.1 Alternatives We consider these suggestions for restricting new 

construction in chapter 2 of the EIS.

1 13 NEPA -

Effects 

Analysis

ECCA believes that the FS needs to determine the 

quantity of water needed to maintain forest resources, as 

outlined in FSM 2541. This should be included in the EIS.

4.1 Non-Key In the separate “Manual Direction Summary” 

document, we have described what manual 

direction applies to this project. We will also 

summarize this in chapter 1 of the EIS. The 

purpose and need for taking action and the 

management objectives we developed for this 

project, include balancing the need for a municipal 

water supply and protecting forest resources. We 

explain this in chapter 1 of the EIS.

10 1 NEPA -

Effects 

Analysis

How can limitations be placed on pumping from the 

village’s North Fork wells when no impacts to vegetation, 

or wildlife have been documented?

4.1 Non-Key In chapter 3 of the EIS we describe existing 

vegetation and wildlife conditions including what we 

know, based on the best available information, 

regarding changes over time since the wells began 

pumping. 

The alternatives evaluated in the EIS range from no 

restrictions on pumping (no change in current 

management) to no pumping at all. 

13 2 NEPA -

Effects 

Analysis

We support adopting the USGS definition for the North 

Fork to be the same as the study area, the approximately 

2-mile stretch of streambed from the North Fork gage to 

the streambed confluence with the South Fork, and the 

strata below this stretch.

6.1 Document 

specific comments 

or corrections

The way in which our project area is described is 

consistent with your suggestion: “The North Fork of 

Eagle Creek (NFEC) between the North Fork 

stream gage and the Eagle Creek stream gage, 

totaling approximately 2 stream miles, is the 

emphasis of this environmental analysis 

(attachment 2).” 

13 14 NEPA -

Effects 

Analysis

Among other things, Balleau’s timelines of depth-to-water 

and well production are incredibly useful in understanding 

the interplay of the various “metrics.” The USGS assured 

the ECCA that a more complete presentation of these 

data with more current information added would be a part 

of their report. We are sorry this omission has occurred 

and we encourage the Forest Service to compile and 

incorporate these data in their EIS preparation and 

review.

6.1 Document 

specific comments 

or corrections

Thank you for your suggestion. We use a timeline 

with the most current and complete data in our 

analysis of water resources.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

302 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

41 8 NEPA -

Effects 

Analysis

As noted above, the dataset acquired by the USGS in this 

matter leads to the conclusion that pumping in the North 

Fork well field has led to intermittent stream conditions in 

which “no-flow events” are observed in the stream. These 

events did not occur prior to the onset of pumping in the 

North Fork well field. Therefore, the biological impacts of 

your decision must be carefully analyzed. As noted above, 

as a result of climate change the impacts of pumping in 

the North Fork well field are likely to be exacerbated by 

diminishing base flow. ECCA encourages you to 

comprehensively and objectively evaluate the full range of 

impacts that your decision will have on natural 

ecosystems – including fish and wildlife – prior to 

issuance of your record of decision. As I am sure you can 

appreciate, your decision is likely to have a very 

significant impact on aquatic and riparian resources in the 

Lincoln National Forest. Given the tremendous 

incalculable value of these very precious resources, the 

ongoing NEPA process should incorporate a careful 

impacts analysis as to these issues.

Key – Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish 

Our intent with the EIS is to comprehensively and 

objectively evaluate the potential effects of the 

alternatives on forest resources based on the key 

issues. We analyze and discuss biological 

resources—specifically aquatic habitat and fish and 

riparian vegetation—in chapter 3 of the EIS, the 

specialist report, and the biological evaluation (BE).

14 34 NEPA -

Issues

“The main issue to be addressed is the effect that the 

proposed continuation of well pumping may have on 

hydrologic resources (surface water and groundwater) in 

the North Fork Basin, including potential cumulative 

effects downstream in the larger Eagle Creek watershed. 

Other issues identified thus far include effects of well 

pumping on aquatic habitat and fish (particularly brook 

trout), downstream recreational use (public use of streams 

for stream-side recreation, fishing, and wildlife viewing), 

riparian vegetation condition, and municipal water supply.”

The ECCA applauds and supports the above statement 

as an excellent description of the issues. We endorse this 

description as if it were our own.

4.1 Non-Key Thank you for your comment.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 303

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

36 1 NEPA -

Issues

“The main issue to be addressed is the effect that the 

proposed continuation of well pumping may have on 

hydrologic resources (surface water and groundwater) in 

the North Fork Basin, including potential cumulative 

effects downstream in the larger Eagle Creek watershed. 

Other issues identified thus far include effects of well 

pumping on aquatic habitat and fish, downstream 

recreational use (public use of streams for stream side 

recreation, fishing, and wildlife viewing), riparian 

vegetation condition, and municipal water supply.” (see 

Federal Register Volume 76, No. 23, Page 6116) Lincoln 

County would like to emphasize that the issues presented 

impacts the health of the entire watershed and all Lincoln 

County residents, not just municipal water supplies. The 

upper reaches of this watershed maintain the health of the 

whole system.

Key – Water 

Resources

We will evaluate the effects of the alternatives on all 

of these key issues in chapter 3 of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

304 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

3 1 NEPA -

LawsuitStipulation of 

Dismissal 

USGS 

Report

As you might know, the April 17, 2006, Stipulation of 

Dismissal of the above captioned lawsuit provided for the 

preparation of an independent watershed and geohydrologic study of Eagle Creek and the North Fork wells. 

Pursuant to the stipulation, the U.S. Geological Survey 

conducted the contemplated study and issued a report 

entitled “Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin and Effects of 

Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 1969-2009.” The 

Stipulation of Dismissal further provides that ECCA shall 

be provided “an opportunity to submit comments to the 

USFS” on the report. ECCA commissioned Mr. Pete 

Balleau of Balleau Groundwater, Inc. to conduct a 

scientific peer review of the USGS report...... According 

to Mr. Balleau, the USGS report simply “does not directly 

address the effect of the well field in isolation from other 

influence on streamflow” in Eagle Creek and the streams 

to which Eagle Creek is tributary. Finally, Mr. Balleau 

concludes that the data acquired by the USGS for the 

purposes of its report lead directly – and exclusively – to 

the conclusion that pumping in the North Fork well field 

has resulted in a diminution of flow in Eagle Creek and 

downstream. In short, the USGS did some excellent 

groundwork here in the acquisition of critical data needed 

to assess the geo-hydrologic impacts. However, the 

USGS’s efforts seemed to stall there, and the USGS 

never directly addressed itself to the specific purpose of 

the study which was to assess the interaction of 

groundwater and surface water with pumping in the North 

Fork well field. If the USGS had directly addressed the 

specific issue which it was charged to address in the 

report, it would have determined – as did Mr. Balleau –

that pumping in the North Fork well field has a significant 

adverse effect on the geo-hydrology of the region. 

5. 1 Suggestion Any questions or concerns regarding the contents 

of the USGS report should be directed to the 

USGS. 

We used the best available data in evaluating the 

potential impacts of the alternatives to all key 

issues. This includes using the USGS report, as 

well as other relevant studies and reports. We also 

objectively evaluated all available data and ensure 

that our conclusions are based on existing data (not 

necessarily just analysis or conclusions reached in 

any one study or report). This was discussed at the 

April 26 technical meeting. 

We also, following our reanalysis of the data and 

preparing the EIS, make recommendations for 

future monitoring, such as an extended aquifer test 

or pumping test.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 305

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

In light of its significant inadequacies, the USFS cannot 

rely on the USGS report – as currently drafted – in 

support of its National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) 

analysis of a special use permit application. One of 

NEPA’s primary purposes is to ensure that an “agency, in 

reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully 

consider, detailed information concerning significant 

environmental impacts” of a proposed action. Robertson 

v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 1845 

(1989). As part of its obligation to consider “detailed 

information” concerning proposed actions, agencies are 

obligated to provide a “meaningful response to serious 

and considered comments by experts” such as those 

provided by Mr. Balleau in this case. Western Watersheds 

Project v. Kraayenbrink, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 149363 

at *16 (10th Cir. 2011).

In this case, there is no doubt but that the USFS’s reliance 

on the USGS report—as currently flawed—would taint the 

NEPA compliance process and vitiate the analysis and 

conclusions associated with the USFS’s consideration of 

the request for a special use permit for pumping in the 

North Fork well field...... Insofar as the USGS report in 

particular is concerned, Mr. Balleau has made it very clear 

to the USGS that he is willing to remain involved with the 

drafters of the USGS report if they desire to rectify the 

various errors that they made in the preparation of their 

report. On behalf of ECCA, I extend the same offer to the 

USFS as it proceeds to consider the application for a 

special use permit in connection with the North Fork well 

field; that is, Mr. Balleau is available to discuss the 

technical aspects—including the environmental impacts—

of pumping in the North Fork well field at the convenience 

of the USFS. Particularly in light of Mr. Balleau’s

conclusion that the USGS data supports a finding that 

pumping in the North Fork well field has a direct and 

adverse consequence on the surface waterflow within the 

region, I urge you to seek corrections from the USGS in 

connection with its report before the USFS relies on the 

analysis therein during the upcoming decisionmaking 

process.

Comment is continuation of previous row. See 

response above.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

306 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

9 1 NEPA -

Public 

Involvement 

You have not fulfilled your contractual obligations to 

provide participation and input to the village. Stop this 

process and meet with us as agreed to.

4.1 Non-Key We recognize the importance of continued applicant 

communication and participation in the EIS process 

and have provided multiple opportunities for review 

and input. 

Please contact Christina Thompson at the Smokey 

Bear Ranger District if you would like to discuss this 

further.

10 3 NEPA -

Public 

Involvement 

When will a formal presentation be held that has an open 

forum for submitting comments from interested parties?

4.1 Non-Key We held a public open house on February 17 at the 

Ruidoso Middle School during the public scoping 

period to gather input and hear concerns regarding 

this project. 

Once we prepare the draft EIS, there will be 

another opportunity for you to comment which may 

include another public meeting. We expect the draft 

EIS to be released October 2011. 

41 3 NEPA -

Public 

Involvement 

As you are aware, the impetus of the ongoing NEPA 

process was a lawsuit filed against the USFS by ECCA 

which has a significant interest in this matter, which 

interest is subject to injury and impairment by USFS 

decisions based on a flawed process. I have previously 

spoken by telephone with Ms. Debbie McGlothlin 

concerning the ongoing NEPA process, and I have 

encouraged Ms. McGlothlin to assure that this process is 

as open and as transparent as possible. In particular, I 

spoke with Ms. McGlothlin about ECCA’s interest to 

participate in a meeting at which the experts retained by 

all interested parties may discuss the scientific issues 

which are central to USFS decisionmaking. By means of 

this letter, I again encourage the USFS to convene a 

meeting of the specialists in order to provide assurances 

that the relevant technical matters are comprehensively 

and objectively developed in a manner that will provide 

USFS decision makers with a sound scientific and legal 

basis for their decision.

4.1 Non-Key This technical meeting took place on April 26, 2011.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 307

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

41 4 NEPA -

Public 

Involvement 

From the scoping notice, it is apparent that the USFS 

intends to circulate for comment a draft EIS in this matter 

– as it is legally required to do – prior to issuance of a final 

EIS and Record of Decision. However, ECCA encourages 

you to exceed the minimum requirements of NEPA in 

connection with the North Fork well field decision by 

providing ample opportunities for all interested parties to 

assure that the USFS’s analyses and decisions are 

scientifically and legally sound, and in compliance with all 

pertinent Federal and State law. As I am sure you can

appreciate, your decision in this matter will be extremely 

controversial and implicates USFS compliance with the 

National Forest Management Act, the Multiple UseSustained Yield Act, the Federal Lands Policy and 

Management Act, and New Mexico water law. A careful 

balancing of the competing interests affected by your 

decision will be best achieved by conducting a NEPA 

process during which there are frequent opportunities for 

communications and feedback between the USFS and 

affected parties.

4.1 Non-Key We are aware that there is a high level of interest in 

this project and we will ensure the NEPA process is 

open and transparent and that everyone has 

opportunities to contribute. 

1 18 NEPA -

Purpose and 

Need

ECCA thinks that management objective 1 as stated in 

the NOI is outside the mission of the Forest Service.

4.3 Non-Key Thank you for your comment. We believe both 

objectives meet our Agency’s intent to protect forest 

resources. 

13 8 NEPA -

Purpose and 

Need

Balleau’s depictions of his modeled cone of depression 

and area of influence provide a powerful visual impact. 

We think it appropriate for the Forest Service to conduct 

further dialogues with Balleau on this topic.

5.1 Suggestion We invited Peter Balleau to the technical meeting 

held on April 26 to ensure full understanding of all 

available data.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

308 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

14 6 NEPA -

Purpose and 

Need

We further applaud the continuing articulation, “If the cone 

of depression continues to expand, it can impact water 

dependent resources outside the stream corridor.” We 

think however, that beginning this sentence with “When” 

rather than “If” is more accurate. Both the reports of Finch 

(Peery) and Balleau agree with this paragraph.

The ECCA believes the following sentence to be an 

accurate, non-ambiguous, non-subjective observation of 

the condition of the North Fork prior to pumping. “There 

were no days of zero flow recorded at the Eagle Creek 

gage from 1969-1980.” The rest of the paragraph 

describes conditions on the North Fork based on flow 

measurements at the Eagle Creek gage between 1988 

and 2008. “It is important to note that the Eagle Creek 

gage measures flow from both North Fork and South Fork 

tributaries.” We believe the following to be more accurate: 

“It is important to note that the North Fork was dry the 

majority of the period from 1988 to 2008. The only flow 

being measured at the Eagle Creek gage, most of the 

time, was the South Fork.” The South Fork is not the 

focus of our litigation or of the EIS. The causal 

relationship of the cone of depression and the dry North 

Fork riverbed has not been addressed.

6.1 Document 

specific comments 

or corrections

Thank you for this suggestion but we disagree that 

this change from “if” should be made. Our analysis 

in the EIS will include predictions about whether the 

alternatives would result in an expanding cone of 

depression. We will use the cone of depression as 

one indicator in the water resources analysis to 

compare and contrast alternatives. 

We also do not agree with your suggestion to 

change the statement about the Eagle Creek gage 

and the South Fork gage. This is simply an excerpt 

from the USGS report. Our water resources 

analysis in the EIS will be based on an objective 

analysis of all available data (as discussed at the 

April 2011 technical meeting); this is where 

interpretations will be made about flow in the North 

Fork, among other things. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 309

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

36 22 NEPA -

Purpose and 

Need

The Desired Conditions (pp. 3-4 of the scoping document) 

seek to reduce no-flow days at the Eagle Creek gage by 

half (down to 20 to 30 days per year), but does not 

explicitly re-state the goal of leaving downsteam flows as 

they would be absent the North Fork wells. That goal is 

specified in the stipulation agreement. We note that the 

U.S. Geological Survey (SIR 2010- 5205) reports no 

record of zero-flow days in the decade before the North 

Fork wells were drilled.

6.1 Document 

specific comments 

or corrections

The 2006 stipulation agreement (modified in 2009) 

includes a requirement that the Forest Service 

“shall include an analysis of all reasonable 

alternatives (and no less than one alternative) that 

leave downstream flows in the same state that they 

would be absent the pumping of the North Fork 

wells.” 

This means that we need to evaluate at least one 

reasonable alternative in the EIS that leaves 

downstream flows in the same state they would be 

if the North Fork wells were not pumping. This is 

separate from the purpose and need for the project 

or our desired conditions. The stipulation 

agreement does not require that this be part of our 

management objectives or our desired conditions. 

We evaluate the no action (no pumping) alternative 

in detail and compare the other pumping 

alternatives to this to illustrate the effects of 

pumping and not pumping on surface and 

groundwater resources and other forest resources. 

This comparison will then be used by the forest 

supervisor in selecting an alternative for 

implementation.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

310 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

52 2 NEPA -

Purpose and 

Need

The discussion of possible adverse effects to “waterdependent resources outside the stream corridor” 

discussed in the background section of the notice and 

found in the purpose and need statement is not supported 

by the USGS hydrology report since the report only 

addresses the hydrology in U.S. Forest lands within the 

Eagle Creek drainage.

6.1 Document 

specific comments 

or corrections

This statement in the “Purpose and Need” 

document is as follows: “When groundwater is 

pumped from the North Fork wells, a temporary 

decline in groundwater lowers the water table and 

creates an expanding cone of depression around 

the wells. If the cone of depression continues to 

expand, it can impact water-dependent resources 

outside the stream corridor. This situation is 

exacerbated by location of the wells within the 

stream channel, together with the low storage 

capacity of the aquifer.” 

The last two sentences related to the possibility for 

an expanding cone of depression and its potential 

for effects to water dependent resources is an 

interpretation we have made based on the 

information provided in the USGS report. You are 

correct that this is not an excerpt or quote directly 

from the USGS report. This will be clarified in the 

EIS. 

52 3 NEPA -

Purpose and 

Need

The last statement in the section “Factors Affecting Eagle 

Creek Discharge” of the USGS report on page 51, 

describing the correlation between North Fork well 

pumping and stream discharge, reads as follows: “This 

correlation indicates that, whereas pumping and 

streamflow are related, any interaction between the two 

parameters is likely to be complex and to involve 

additional variables and processes that have not yet been 

quantified.” This statement has been completely omitted 

from the published notice and from the draft purpose and 

need and proposed action statement.

6.1 Document 

specific comments 

or corrections

We intend to use the best available data in 

evaluating the potential impacts of the alternatives 

to all key issues. This includes using the USGS 

report, as well as other relevant studies and reports. 

We also intend to objectively evaluate all available 

data and ensure that any conclusions we reach are 

based on existing data (not necessarily just analysis 

or conclusions reached in any one study or report). 

This was discussed at the April 26 technical 

meeting. 

We agree that the quote you refer to above is not 

currently included in the Purpose and Need 

document. This is clarified in the EIS. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 311

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

32 1 NEPA -

Request for 

extension of 

comment 

period

I write with a formal request to extend the public comment 

period for the Lincoln National Forest New Mexico North 

Fork Eagle Creek Well Special Use Authorization EIS 

comment period presently set to close on March 21st , 

2011. For the reasons indicated below I request a forty 

five (45) day extension of the formal comment period..... 

....As indicated in the final Draft of Purpose and Need and 

Notice of Intent with regard to the North Fork Wells 

Special Use Application, the North Fork of Eagle Creek is 

hydrologically complex and the water rights permitting 

issues are likewise formidable. First and foremost, the 

North Fork of Eagle Creek is a vital and integral part of the 

Village’s wet water supply. The Village’s NFEC water right 

permitting structure is crucial to the ability of the Village to 

meet the needs of its residents. ...

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

We welcome comments regarding this project at 

any time during the NEPA process. There will be 

another formal opportunity for comment after we 

release the draft EIS.

40 1 NEPA -

Request for 

extension of 

comment 

period

I write with a formal request to extend the public comment 

period for the Lincoln National Forest New Mexico North 

Fork Eagle Creek Well Special Use Authorization EIS 

comment period presently set to close on March 21st, 

2011....This request for extension is made on behalf of 

the people of the Village of Ruidoso and the business 

community in the Ruidoso Valley. I understand that other 

local government entities and NGOs will also be 

submitting a similar request for extension of the comment 

period. As indicated in the final Draft of Purpose and Need 

and Notice of intent with regard to the North Fork Wells 

Special Use Application, the North Fork of Eagle Creek is 

hydrologically complex, and the water rights permitting 

issues are likewise formidable....

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

See response above.

18 4 NEPA -

USGS 

Report

The USGS study and others have provided the science to 

provide some common sense management to an area of 

known environment degradation. The natural streamflow 

that existed in the past can again be there if the Forest 

Service will do what’s right.

5.1 Comment We include a detailed evaluation of all alternatives 

and the potential for effects to water resources and 

water-dependent natural resources in the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

312 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

41 1 NEPA -

USGS 

Report

My letter to you of February 2, 2011, addressed at length 

the critical inadequacies of the report prepared by the 

USGS to serve as the scientific basis for the USFS’s 

decisionmaking process in connection with the North Fork 

well field project: “Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin and 

Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 1969-

2009.” As I stated in that letter, the USGS report is not 

responsive to ECCA’s concerns about the effects of North 

Fork well pumping on the regional geo-hydrology. 

According to Mr. Pete Balleau—ECCA’s expert in this 

matter—“[t]he main flaw in the report comes from the 

study design which excludes the necessary counterfactual 

‘with pumping’ and ‘without pumping’ analyses” in an 

effort to ascertain the specific geo-hydrologic effect 

associated with pumping in the North Fork well field. 

Based on the data acquired by the USGS in its 

preparation of the report, Mr. Balleau concludes that that 

pumping in the North Fork well field has resulted in a 

diminution of flow in Eagle Creek and downstream. 

Indeed, the USFS appears to acknowledge that pumping 

in the North Fork well field is directly linked to a diminution 

in flow and further acknowledges that pumping has led to 

intermittent conditions in Eagle Creek which did not exist 

prior to the onset of pumping. Of course, the foregoing 

conclusions—which are clearly supported by the dataset 

acquired by the USFS in this matter—lie at the heart of 

the USFS’s ongoing NEPA analysis. The flaw in the 

USGS report—if not rectified—will lead to a fatally flawed 

NEPA analysis that cannot legally support a decision with 

respect to the North Fork well field pumping. ECCA urges 

you to assure that your NEPA process be based on the 

best possible scientific information and a complete and 

comprehensive assessment of the observed hydrological 

impacts of pumping. Unfortunately, this scientific analysis 

is not to be found in the current iteration of the USGS 

report.

5.1 Suggestion Any questions or concerns regarding the contents 

of the USGS report should be directed to the 

USGS. 

We agree that the flow record in the USGS report 

appears to show diminished flow in the latter period, 

post-well pumping. The wells are adjacent to the 

stream (which exacerbates the potential for effects 

to the stream) and the chemistry shows a mix of old 

and young water.

We also agree that we need to reanalyze all the 

available data to ensure the conclusions we make 

in the EIS are based on the best available 

information. As we discussed at the April 26 

hydrology technical meeting, we intend to use the 

best available data in evaluating the potential 

impacts of the alternatives on all key issues. This 

includes using the USGS report, as well as other 

relevant studies and reports. We also intend to 

objectively evaluate all available data and ensure 

that any conclusions reached are based on existing 

data (not necessarily just analysis or conclusions 

reached in any one study or report). 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 313

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

41 2 NEPA -

USGS 

Report

Mr. Balleau has previously provided extensive criticism—

to both USFS and USGS—of the inadequacies which flaw 

the USGS report. Furthermore, Mr. Balleau has made 

himself available—and continues to make himself 

available—to both USFS and USGS staff to correct 

analytical errors in the USGS report and to conduct the 

cause-and-effect/before-after analysis that the USGS 

failed to perform. As noted above and as noted in my 

letter to you of February 2, 2011, the main charge given to 

the USGS when it was commissioned to prepare its report 

was to assess the effects of pumping in the North Fork 

well field on the regional geo-hydrology. As Mr. Balleau 

has explained, the USGS did not complete this task, and 

the analyses which it did perform are—in some 

respects—scientifically flawed. ECCA encourages you to 

respond to Mr. Balleau’s credible scientific criticism in a 

comprehensive and objective fashion.

5.1 Suggestion See response above.

42 3 NEPA -

USGS 

Report

Eagle Creek crosses the Ruidoso Fault Zone 

approximately 2 miles east of Alto Reservoir. The recent 

State Engineer and USGS Eagle Creek Below Alto 

Reservoir Seepage Study established that all flow up to 5 

cfs is lost to the subsurface across the fault zone and 

recharges the deeper aquifer system.

5.1 Comment Thank you for this information.

51 4 NEPA -

USGS 

Report

The USGS study and others have provided the science to 

provide some common sense management to an area of 

known environment degradation. The natural streamflow 

that existed in the past can again be there if the Forest 

Service will do what’s right.

5.1 Comment We include a detailed evaluation of all alternatives 

and the potential for effects to water resources in 

the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

314 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

52 1 NEPA -

USGS 

Report

The lowering of the water levels in the deep aquifer while 

pumping the wells is a temporary condition which is 

reversed by higher precipitation events with recharge to 

the deeper system. The recharge can result in recovery of

the water levels back to the pre-well pumping water levels 

as shown during the USGS study period. This is 

discussed in the “North Fork Eagle Creek Groundwater 

Response” section of the USGS report on pages 37 

through 39. This discussion does not support the 

“continuing expanding cone of depression” discussed in 

the background information as published in the notice and 

as listed in the draft purpose and need statement.

6.1 Documentspecific commentWe agree that it seems the water table recovers 

quickly However, the lower it is, the longer it will 

take to recover. This quick recovery is also an 

indicator that there isn’t much storage capacity in 

the rock.

In the background section of the “Purpose and 

Need” document we state that “if the cone of 

depression expands, then....” This was not 

intended to say that the cone of depression is 

expanding only that the pumping alternatives 

evaluated in the EIS could result in expansion. Our 

detailed analysis in chapter 3 of the EIS includes 

predictions about whether the cone of depression 

would or would not expand based on 

implementation of the proposed alternatives. Our 

analysis is based on the objective evaluation of all 

available data, as discussed at the April 26 

hydrology technical meeting.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 315

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

52 4 NEPA -

USGS 

Report

The average annual groundwater recharge rate listed in 

the draft purpose and need and proposed action 

statement was 490 acre-feet per annum. This value was 

calculated by the chloride mass balance approach which 

the USGS acknowledges may be too low. The statement 

by USGS in the last sentence of the “Chloride Mass 

Balance Method” section on page 27 of the USGS report 

reads as follows: “The amount of recharge probably varies 

from year to year, depending on climate conditions, and 

may well be larger than the value calculated by using the 

chloride mass-balance approach.” The basin yield method 

for determining groundwater recharge indicates a direct 

computation of 1,950 acre-feet per annum as shown on 

table 9, page 26 of the USGS report. The USGS points 

out in the report, within the last two sentences of the 

section entitled “Basin Yield Method,” on page 24 of said 

report that the cumulative error for the estimate of 

recharge was estimated at plus or minus 1,380 acre-feet 

per annum. This indicates that recharge computed by the 

basin yield method falls within the range of 570 to 3,300 

acre-feet per year. The midrange would be 1,950 acrefeet per annum which is substantially higher than the 490 

acre-feet per annum chloride mass balance approach. 

The 490 acre-feet per annum annual recharge rate 

appears to be the basis for limiting the well diversions to 

300 acre-feet per annum.

6.1 Document 

specific comment

There is no doubt that the magnitude of recharge 

will vary from year to year and the estimates we use 

may not be entirely accurate. John Bredehoeft 

(2007) wrote that actual recharge is difficult if not 

impossible to accurately determine. Monitoring of 

groundwater and surface flow is critical. 

Bear in mind that just because we come up with a 

number for recharge (and assuming it is correct), 

this doesn’t mean we would be free to pump that 

much. Whatever is pumped would induce recharge, 

which would deplete water somewhere on the 

surface (from less evapotranspiration or surface 

flow, for example). Otherwise, the water is mined 

from the aquifer and never fully replaced. We are 

left with the task of determining an acceptable 

proportion of the recharge that could be pumped 

and still provide forest resource protection. 

Also remember that the initial threshold of 900 

cumulative acre feet over any 3 consecutive water 

years (300 acre feet per year) in the proposed 

action is not a stand-alone threshold. As we stated 

in the proposed action description, hitting this 

threshold would trigger a review by the Forest 

Service of the other thresholds and mitigations for 

maintaining or improving surface resource 

conditions. At that point, we would decide, based on 

evaluation of all monitoring indicators, if changes 

were needed. 

As we recognized in the “Alternatives” section of the 

Scoping Outcome Summary, the 300 afy threshold 

is only a starting point based on the best available 

information at the time we developed the proposed 

action. Based on additional reanalysis of all 

available information (as recently discussed at the 

hydrologist technical meeting held in April 2011), 

we may refine that number. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

316 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

We will revisit each threshold in the proposed action 

after we reanalyze the data to ensure these 

numbers are accurate and supported by the best 

available science. In the proposed action, we also 

include adaptive management strategies that would 

allow for additional monitoring results to be used to 

continually review and refine these thresholds 

based on new information.

52 5 NEPA -

USGS 

Report

The USGS report indicates that there is no strong

correlation between well pumping and stream discharge 

for the 19-month North Fork Gage record and the 20-yearold Eagle Creek Below South Fork Gage record in the first 

sentence following the section “Effects of Pumping on 

Continuous Flow in North Fork Eagle Creek” on page 57 

of the hydrology report. Also, in the section “Discharge 

Required to Sustain Continuous Flow in North Fork Eagle 

Creek,” pages 56 and 57 of said USGS report, up to 2.2 

CFS at North Fork Gage would be required to maintain 

surface flow through North Fork. The 2.2 CFS was 

equaled or exceeded only 2 percent of the time during the 

study period from September 2007 through March 2009, 

which indicates that North Fork would have been 

intermittent 98 percent of the time with the available flow 

recorded at the North Fork gage.

5. 1 Comment Thank you for your comment. Based on additional 

reanalysis of all available information (as recently 

discussed at the hydrologist technical meeting held 

in April 2011), we will draw some conclusions in the 

EIS regarding flow patterns on North Fork Eagle 

Creek before and after pumping began and also 

use this to predict the effects of the alternatives on 

streamflow. 

18 10 Recreation The Village of Ruidoso has proclaimed and promoted the 

business of tourism in the area but has ignored an integral 

part of tourism by the environmental degradation of the 

Eagle Creek drainage and its cold water fishery that drew 

campers, fisherman, and naturalists to a drainage located 

on the national forest. VOR has completely eliminated 

fishing from Alto Lake. This lack of overall tourism 

management is an economic component that the Village 

of Ruidoso has chosen to ignore because of poor 

management and lack of concern for the natural 

resources that surround the village.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

We discuss the impacts to socioeconomics in 

chapter 3 of the EIS. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 317

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

41 9 Recreation Likewise, ECCA encourages you to comprehensively and 

objectively consider the impact of your decision on 

recreational values in the Lincoln National Forest. 

Opportunities for water based recreation in the Lincoln 

National Forest are limited, and your decision should not 

impair these opportunities.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

We discuss impacts to socioeconomics, including 

streamside recreation users, in chapter 3 of the 

EIS.

51 11 Recreation If the Village of Ruidoso promotes the business of tourism 

they need to address the degradation of the Eagle Creek 

drainage and its cold water fishery that once attracted 

campers, fisherman. This negatively impacts fishing in 

Alto Lake. This is an economic component that the Village 

of Ruidoso has chosen to ignore either because of lack of 

knowledge or concern for the natural resources that 

surround the Village.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

We discuss impacts to socioeconomics, including 

streamside recreation users, in chapter 3 of the 

EIS.

13 10 Riparian Trees suffered a drastic impact and hundreds of fine old 

cottonwood and oak trees along the streambed died.

1.1 Key – Riparian 

Vegetation 

We discuss the impacts to riparian vegetation in 

chapter 3 of the EIS.

18 5 Riparian The degradation of riparian condition is evidenced by the 

comparison of the riparian vegetation upstream of the 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells.

1.1 Key – Riparian 

Vegetation

We discuss the impacts to riparian vegetation in 

chapter 3 of the EIS.

33 1 Riparian Virtually all of the cottonwood trees along the creekbed 

have died in the last decade. Some dead trees in back of 

my house are 16" diameter and larger.

1.1 Key – Riparian 

Vegetation

We discuss the impacts to riparian vegetation in 

chapter 3 of the EIS.

39 3 Riparian Down in the creek bottom there are many trees that are 

dying, I believe, because of lack of water. All along the 

creekbed there are dead oak trees now, that used to be 

pretty when leafed out, but are now dead. There is a huge 

cottonwood tree that is dead, and is now cut down. Some 

of the neighbors that live on the creek tell us that the 

creek used to run most of the time, and that they used to 

even fish in it. It is a shame that any entity should be able 

to cause this sort of hardship on the environment.

1.1 Key – Riparian 

Vegetation

We discuss the impacts to riparian vegetation in 

chapter 3 of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

318 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

42 4 Riparian There has been no diminution of riparian vegetation in the 

Eagle Creek basin over the past 50 years. In fact, forest 

growth has dramatically increased and is the primary 

cause of any decline in streamflow. Restoration of forest 

density to what it was 50 years ago will dramatically 

increase streamflow, even in drought years. This will also 

reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfire which will 

destroy streamflow for use as a water source. If a wildfire 

occurs, water supply will have to rely completely on 

ground water.

1.1 Key – Riparian 

Vegetation

We describe existing riparian conditions in chapter 

3 of the EIS. We will include a summary of any 

changes in riparian vegetation along North Fork 

Eagle Creek that have occurred since the wells 

began pumping. We will use the best available 

information; comparing existing conditions to those 

prior to well pumping in 1988. In the EIS we will 

also discuss whether forest density in the 

watershed has increased over time, and if so, if this 

has contributed or could cumulatively contribute to 

the effects of the alternatives on streamflow over 

time. 

Our initial experience with the effects of forest 

density on water availability indicates that this effect 

is often quite small and localized. However, we 

agree that it makes sense to take a look at this 

potential effect as part of the cumulative effects 

analysis in the EIS. 

48 1 Riparian In 2003, I had to remove 3 large cottonwood trees from 

along the dry Eagle Creek streambed. They were 

beautiful trees, probably 60 or 70 feet tall, but had died 

over the 7 years we’d lived here. It is clear that the trees 

had flourished until recently.

1.1 Key – Riparian 

Vegetation

Thank you for this information. We discuss the 

impacts to riparian vegetation in chapter 3 of the 

EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 319

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

51 6 Riparian Manual 2541 limits the actions available to the U.S. Forest 

Service when there is evidence of degrading the natural 

resources of the stream. The allowance in the monitor 

indication section in the proposed action to allow no-flow 

days should not be considered. No-flow days during the 

period of 1988 to 2009 has affected the North Fork 

tributary and its associated riparian area and its ability of a 

cold water fishery since the North Fork wells were put in 

operation. The degradation of riparian condition is 

evidenced by the comparison of the riparian vegetation 

upstream of the North Fork Eagle Creek wells. The 

threshold of 20 days per year of no surface flow or more 

that 30 no-flow days within a single water year will be 

adverse to the riparian vegetation between the North Fork 

wells and the Eagle Creek stream gauge. The natural 

fluctuating precipitation and snowmelt runoff would allow 

the Village of Ruidoso to obtain a controlled amount of 

municipal water from the Eagle Creek drainage without 

impacting the surface flow if the Village of Ruidoso had 

additional storage capacity.

3.1 Alternatives We considered eliminating no-flow days completely 

and discuss this in chapter 2 of the EIS.

We discuss the impacts to riparian vegetation in 

chapter 3 of the EIS.

53 1 Riparian Along with many of my neighbors, I have a number of 

large, dead cottonwood trees along the creekbed. These 

trees are decades old and obviously environmental 

conditions have changed during fairly recent time.

1.1 Key – Riparian 

Vegetation

Thank you for this information. We discuss the 

impacts to riparian vegetation in chapter 3 of the 

EIS.

52 11 Riparian 

Vegetation

Riparian vegetation monitoring used as an indicator would 

necessitate the establishing of the present baseline 

condition for the intermittent North Fork stream reach. 

There has been no apparent riparian vegetation change 

documented or known for the pre-North Fork wells 

conditions to the present conditions. Since the stream is 

intermittent, the comparison should be made to other 

existing intermittent stream riparian vegetation conditions 

in the Lincoln National Forest. The proposed 

implementation of stream augmentation to surface 

waterflows in North Fork should improve riparian 

vegetation conditions, but this improvement should not be 

required as a condition in special use permitting.

1.1 Key – Riparian 

Vegetation

We will describe existing riparian conditions in 

chapter 3 of the EIS, including any changes over 

time based on the best available information. In the 

“Riparian Vegetation Methodology” section we 

describe how baseline conditions were assessed 

and how we will evaluate changes over time. 

7 1 Social and 

Economics

His concern is the Village of Ruidoso could pump so much 

water that any well he drills on his land will be dry. Dry 

well on his land, renders his land worthless.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

We discuss impacts to socioeconomics, including 

the potential effects to private landowners, in 

chapter 3 of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

320 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

19 1 Social and 

Economics

I would also point out that with increased pumping from 

Eagle Creek many of our neighbors have had to redrill 

their wells.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

Thank you for this information. 

See response above.

19 2 Social and 

Economics

I would suggest, that, if the village needs the water from 

the Eagle Creek basin and that when that use results in a 

loss to those who rely on that same water then the village 

should compensate those who need to put in new wells.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

We discuss impacts to socioeconomics, including 

the potential effects to private landowners, in 

chapter 3 of the EIS.

Whether or not the village should compensate 

private landowners is outside the scope of this EIS. 

21 1 Social and 

Economics

The loss of this water would be devastating to Ruidoso, its 

citizens, businesses, and tourists. That loss would be a 

huge threat to health, safety, and welfare. It would put the 

Village at even more risk in our ability to fight a 

catastrophic fire. Remember that the Village's biggest 

neighbor is the Lincoln National Forest. It is likely that if 

the Village loses a substantial part of our water supply 

due to an administrative decision within the USFS, many 

thousands of people will be adversely affected. Citizens of 

Ruidoso will know that few will benefit from this decision. 

However, many will be negatively impacted and 

threatened by that decision.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

Effects of well pumping on municipal and private 

land water supply is discussed in chapter 3 of the 

EIS. We recognize the need for providing for the 

applicant’s ability to access this groundwater as an 

important component of the municipal water supply 

and the need to protect forest resources, as stated 

in our purpose and need for action. We will be 

carefully evaluating the potential effects of each 

alternative on each key issue, including 

socioeconomics, in the EIS. 

23 3 Social and 

Economics

Because we have seen impairment in the past because of 

pumping of Village wells in times of drought, any permit 

issued for the future must be conditioned so that the 

Village must curtail its pumping so as to protect 

downstream users from impairment.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

We discuss impacts to socioeconomics, including 

the potential effects to private landowners, in 

chapter 3 of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 321

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

24 1 Social and 

Economics

I live South of the North Fork Wells “just one hill top over” 

in the next valley to the south of the North Fork wells on 

North Gavilan Road or in the old Blood Ranch Area “West 

side of Highway 48.” My parents live approx. 1 mile East 

of me on Gavilan Canyon “East side of Highway 48.” We 

are both on water well systems mine being a private well 

and my parents being community well system with 5 

homes on it. We have both been greatly impacted by the 

Villages use of the North Fork wells as it has drawn down 

the underground aquifer to a point that I had to drill a new 

deeper well 1.5 years ago. My parents only have 2 people 

that live here full time using the community water well and 

it hardly produces enough water to supply the two full time 

residents and we have no idea what will happen when or 

if all 5 residents are here at the same time as there will 

not be enough water to go around at that point. There 

used to be plenty of water for 5 residents in my parents 

water well located on Gavilan Canyon Road but not now. 

Everyone around my parents use community water wells 

and everyone has been having problems with their wells 

for several years now. Eagle Creek used to run full time 

year round with trout in it because I fished it as a kid and 

now for years it has been dry and without fish. The use of 

the North Fork wells has negatively impacted the 

residents of Eagle Creek water wells, the flow of Eagle 

Creek and negatively affected the recharge of ground 

aquifer for many miles and areas to the Hondo Valley. In 

my personal opinion Ruidoso is thieving water from others 

to satisfy their never ending thirst for unencumbered 

growth.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

Thank you for this information. We discuss impacts 

to socioeconomics, including the potential effects to 

private landowners, in chapter 3 of the EIS.

27 1 Social and 

Economics

My water well and my parents have been greatly impacted 

in a negative way by the village pumping North Fork wells.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

Thank you for this information. We discuss impacts 

to socioeconomics, including the potential effects to 

private landowners, in chapter 3 of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

322 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

28 1 Social and 

Economics

Recently the Office of the State Engineer, by court order 

issued 2,539 acre-feet of groundwater from the North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells, The village historical use has been 

1,000–1,600 per anum. The Village also has 760 acre-feet 

of surface rights on Eagle Creek. Ruidoso received 

approximately 50% effluent credit on an instantaneous or 

accrual basis from Eagle Creek which is applied to the 

diversion of Rio Ruidoso to the Grindstone plant or 

reservoir. In a nut shell the Village of Ruidoso by 

purchase and transfer from the Railroad Company owns 

all of the water rights on Eagle Creek with the exception of 

the Alto Village and Kokopelli wells, which are located 

below Alto Lake. 

The Moran report of 1906 refers to Eagle Creek as an 

intermittent stream. Recent USGS studies and Village of 

Ruidoso historical records indicate the same. 

The proposed draft issued by the USFS reduces the 

Village of Ruidoso to 50% of the volumetric rate of surface 

flow with a maximum of 300 acre-feet annually. If 

successful this will result in the diminution of diverting 

water from the Rio Ruidoso and Eagle Creek creating 

inadequate fire protection during fire season as well as 

curtailing commerce within the village and our inability to 

meet peak demand production.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

From 2009 to 2010, the applicant utilized wells NF1 and NF-4. The combined average for that period 

was roughly 740 acre feet per year. The highest 

use during this period occurred between March and 

September, ranging from a combined total of 60 to 

117 acre feet per month.

As stated in some previous responses, remember 

that the initial threshold of 900 cumulative acre-feet 

over any 3 consecutive water years (300 acre-feet 

per year) in the proposed action is not a standalone threshold. As we stated in the proposed 

action description, hitting this threshold would 

trigger a review by the Forest Service of the other 

thresholds and mitigations for maintaining or 

improving surface resource conditions. At that point, 

we would decide, based on evaluation of all 

monitoring indicators, if changes were needed. 

As we recognized in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2, the 300 afy threshold is only a starting 

point based on the best available information at the 

time we developed the proposed action. Based on 

additional reanalysis of all available information (as 

recently discussed at the hydrologist technical 

meeting held in April 2011), we may refine that 

number. We will revisit each threshold in the 

proposed action after we reanalyze the data to 

ensure these numbers are accurate and supported 

by the best available science. In the proposed 

action, we also include adaptive management 

strategies that would allow for additional monitoring 

results to be used to continually review and refine 

these thresholds based on new information.

The effects of all alternatives on socioeconomics is 

discussed in chapter 3 of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 323

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

33 1 Social and 

Economics

The original owners of my residence had a second well 

drilled after the water level in the first well dropped to the 

pump intake in 2008. I understand that a number of 

residents in the lower canyon have had to re-drill or 

deepen their wells in the last 10 years due to lowering of 

the water table. In summary, my neighbors in the lower 

canyon are concerned about a continuing drop in the 

water table level and further environmental degradation if 

the Village is allowed to continue unregulated pumping. I 

think only the most die hard opponents of pumping want 

to completely shut down the Village well field, but 

limitations need to be put in place.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

Thank you for this information. We discuss impacts 

to socioeconomics, including the potential effects to 

private landowners, in chapter 3 of the EIS.

34 1 Social and 

Economics

Irregardless of who is to blame for allowing a special use 

permit to expire back in 1995 or why citizens filed a 

lawsuit resulting in unintended consequences for all of us 

today. . . .the bottom line is HOW ARE WE TO SURVIVE 

if you cut off up to 70% of our water supply? I moved to 

this little village from Chicago nearly 6 years ago, seeking 

a bucolic paradise to grow old in. . . .this situation has 

quickly turned my dreams into a nightmare. Please find 

your compassion and humanity and issue us another 

special use permit, albeit with some reasonable changes 

to keep everyone happy.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

Our purpose and need for taking action and the 

management objectives we developed for this 

project, as we explain in chapter 1 of the EIS, 

include achieving a balance between the need for 

municipal water supply and protecting forest 

resources.

39 2 Social and 

Economics

Many of the residents of Eagle Creek have already had to 

go deeper with water wells in order to get water. Two 

years ago we had to go without water for a day and a half, 

because the water table, I guess, was too low.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

Thank you for this information. We discuss impacts 

to socioeconomics, including the potential effects to 

private landowners, in chapter 3 of the EIS.

39 5 Social and 

Economics

We, the people of Eagle Creek, think it is about time the 

city of Ruidoso starts to think forward a bit on how the city 

can conserve water by cutting down on new building, that 

will further impact the water usage, or come up with 

another way to get water. We feel that if Ruidoso keeps 

using the water from Eagle Creek, they should be held 

responsible for the drilling of new wells for the residents of 

Eagle Creek, if our present wells go dry.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

We will discuss impacts to socioeconomics, 

including the potential effects to private landowners, 

in chapter 3 of the EIS.

Whether or not the Village should compensate 

private landowners is outside the scope of this EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

324 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

42 5 Social and 

Economics

Lincoln County over the last several years has approved 

numerous subdivisions with hundreds of lots. Instead of 

mandating water systems for these subdivisions, the 

county approved them utilizing individual private domestic 

wells that were allowed 3 acre-feet per year each. Many 

of these lots are located in the Eagle Creek basin. These 

wells take water from the basin thus diminishing the water 

available to senior water rights holders such as the 

Village.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

We discuss impacts to socioeconomics, including 

the potential effects to private landowners, in 

chapter 3 of the EIS.

Whether or not the village should compensate 

private landowners is outside the scope of this EIS.

43 1 Social and 

Economics

We have been in business since 1942. I would not want 

the USFS to do anything detrimental to our water 

resources in Eagle Creek. Our water supply is vital to our 

health, safety, and welfare. Recreation is limited in the 

Lincoln National Forest at its best. No more negative 

impacts are accepted.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

We will discuss impacts to socioeconomics, 

including the potential effects to private landowners, 

in chapter 3 of the EIS.

44 1 Social and 

Economics

I’m a 50 + year resident of Ruidoso, water for Ruidoso is 

an important thing in my existence in my business not to 

mention the existence of Ruidoso as a resort to thousands 

of visitors.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

We discuss impacts to socioeconomics in chapter 

3 of the EIS.

46 1 Social and 

Economics

As a multiple business owner I object to any new 

programs that may have a negative impact on residents or 

tourists.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

We discuss impacts to socioeconomics in chapter 3 

of the EIS.

48 1 Social and 

Economics

The house I live in was built in 1978 and the well was at 

125 feet. I don’t have data on the waterflow, but it was 

sufficient for 21 years, until November 1999 when we 

began to shower in muddy water. I got an emergency 

drilling permit and doubled the depth of the well, to 250 

feet. Apart from sulfur smells in late spring, before the 

rainy season, the output has been satisfactory. 

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

Thank you for this information. We discuss impacts 

to socioeconomics in chapter 3 of the EIS.

53 1 Social and 

Economics

My house was built in 2004. There was a second water 

well that was installed on the property a few years later 

due to sedimentation in the first well. I honestly don’t know 

if the well problem was caused by a decline in the 

groundwater level as others have suggested. 

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

Thank you for this information.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 325

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

56 2 Social and 

Economics

Around 20 years ago we paid high dollar for a property on 

Lower Eagle Creek and spent our life savings building a 

home. At the time Eagle Creek was flowing at least half of 

each year. A few years ago, when we tried to sell the 

home, several potential buyers gave questions and 

remarks that expressed their concern about the well 

problems people here are having, and about the dry 

creek. The home did not sell. Also, in the period since we 

built the home in 1995, the city of Ruidoso has approved 

the construction of a number of new high occupancy 

hotels, apparently without giving thought to a permanent 

water source, and with total disregard for permanent 

residents and wildlife along Eagle Creek.

1.1 Key -

Socioeconomics

Thank you for this information. We discuss impacts 

to socioeconomics and wildlife in chapter 3 of the 

EIS.

1 4 Water ECCA wants to get back to a minimum flowing stream. 3.1 Alternatives Our purpose and need for taking action and the 

management objectives we developed for this 

project, as we explain in chapter 1 of the EIS, 

include achieving a balance between the need for 

municipal water supply and protecting forest 

resources.

1 5 Water Maintain saturated bedrock. 3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions as components 

of a new alternative which we will describe in 

chapter 2 of the EIS.

1 6 Water Use 1.2 cfs for minimum base flow. 3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions as components 

of a new alternative which we describe in chapter 2 

of the EIS.

1 16 Water ECCA requests a depth to water timeline from USGS, as 

a supplement to their report.

5.1 Suggestion Thank you for your suggestion. We have used a 

timeline display as part of the water resources 

analysis. 

11 3 Water The Eagle Creek Summer Home Association has a 

vested interested in the waterflow of Eagle Creek and 

fears that within the near future the depleting of 

groundwater will further drain Eagle Creek, empty the 

aquifer, destroy the local ecosystem, and eliminate the 

availability of groundwater for use by the Village of 

Ruidoso.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

We will evaluate effects to forest resources in 

chapter 3 of the EIS, including the potential for 

effects to water resources, riparian vegetation, 

aquatic habitat and fish, and socioeconomics.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

326 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

13 1 Water The North Fork of Eagle Creek has been changed from a 

perennial, fishable trout stream into a dry streambed. The 

reduction of flow downstream to Alto Lake and further to 

lower Eagle Creek and ultimately to the Hondo River has 

resulted in damage to natural resources that affects 

homeowners, farmers and ranchers, and the environment, 

both within and without the Lincoln National Forest. The 

ECCA attributes this reduction in flow to the Village’s 

operation of the North Fork wells.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

We evaluate effects to forest resources in chapter 3 

of the EIS, including the potential for effects to 

water resources, riparian vegetation, aquatic habitat 

and fish, and socioeconomics.

13 3 Water Neither “intermittent” nor “perennial” accurately describes 

the historical nature of the stream. We accept that surface 

flow may have gone subsurface for short stretches 

because the height of river rock exceeded the water table 

in places. We are in agreement with the USGS that new 

river rock has been deposited, perhaps as much as 4 feet, 

as a result of recent floods. These new deposits further 

contribute to intermittently visible surface flow. We resist 

the notion that the stream was intermittently, completely 

dry for the entire 2-mile stretch prior to pumping. No 

historical documentation exists that says the North Fork 

was intermittently, completely dry prior to pumping the 

wells.

The NEPA document, Smokey Bear RD, May, 26, 1984, 

including a questionable categorical exclusion, describes 

Eagle Creek as a “perennial, high quality creek which is 

used for municipal water by the Village of Ruidoso.” 

The ECCA agrees with the USGS report describing the 

North Fork as perennial as far downstream as the North 

Fork gage. Just downstream from the North Fork gage, 

however, when the Village is operating their pumps, the 

streambed now stays mostly dry. The dry streambed, 

most of the time, is a new condition since the Village 

began operating their pumps.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for your comment. Based on our 

reanalysis of all available information (as recently 

discussed at the hydrologist technical meeting held 

in April 2011), we will draw some conclusions in the 

EIS regarding flow patterns on North Fork Eagle 

Creek before and after pumping began and use this 

to also make predictions regarding the effects of the 

alternatives on streamflow. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 327

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

13 4 Water In 2004, the ECCA completed the 2-year compilation of 

information describing the changing conditions on Eagle 

Creek, “The Killing of Eagle Creek, an Environmental 

Tragedy.” We would like to present one excerpt relevant 

to both the term “intermittent” and to fishing in Eagle 

Creek. We have selected part of a signed affidavit from 

Mike Davalos, the project engineer for drilling the North 

Fork wells, later employed as the Village engineer. 

“I was working with Atkins and Landfair who was drilling 

the wells and it only after they were finished drilling the 

wells then did I start working for the Village of Ruidoso. It 

(the creek) was an intermittent stream. I recall clearly 

because it was during the time that my son was growing 

up and I had taken him fishing up there to go fishing in the 

creek and we would go and walk the stream and there 

were parts of the stream that were flowing fairly well, it 

would support fish, and then the stream would go back 

underground and then come up some distance down the 

stream. That was pretty much the nature of the stream 

when I was working up there.”

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information.

13 6 Water The Village of Ruidoso hired John Shomaker and 

Associates, Inc. (represented by Roger Peery) to prepare 

the Finch Report (2004), referenced in the USGS report. 

The correct title is “Water-Resource Evaluation of Eagle 

Creek Watershed, Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico.” It 

states: “Approximately 20 years ago, prior to ground-water 

pumping, the original water levels in the North Fork wells 

were at or near the land surface.” “The cone of depression 

around the North Fork wells captures the streamflow in 

the well field area except during periods of relatively high 

runoff.” “The average estimated recharge to the groundwater system prior to development of the North Fork wells 

was 295 ac-ft/year.” “pumping from the North Fork wells, 

rather than variations in precipitation, are primarily 

responsible for decreased streamflow.”

Additional related presentations by Roger Peery, one of 

the contributors to the Finch Report and consultant to the 

Village, can be found in The Killing of Eagle Creek and 

the 40-Year Water Plan for the Village of Ruidoso, 

Appendix B, Hydrogeology

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

328 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

13 10 Water Beginning around the year 2000, the Alto Reservoir dried 

up and remained dry for approximately 5 years. This 

required that very little surface flow would get past the 

diversion dams. During this period, a great many of the 

homeowners along Eagle Creek, below Alto Reservoir, 

suffered. Water in the upper aquifer was no longer being 

replenished. Numerous domestic wells failed and 

homeowners had to drill into a deeper strata for water. 

The dry Alto Reservoir is part of the 10 years in which noflow days were measured at the Eagle Creek gage in 8 of 

10 years. The Village operating practice during that period 

might have created a causal relationship with the no-flow 

days.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information.

14 4 Water Item (2) of the objectives states, “Minimizing impacts of 

groundwater drawdown from this well field to maintain 

surface flows and protect water-dependent ecosystems.”

If “the impacts of groundwater drawdowns” only refers to 

the impacts of those drawdowns we have experienced 

during the last 25 years of pumping, we are in complete 

agreement with the objective. If it reflects a decision the 

USFS has already made that drawdowns to past levels 

will continue, we see such position as incompatible with 

the rest of the objective, “to maintain surface flows and 

protect water-dependent ecosystems.”

Item (2) of the Purpose and Need for Action, “protecting 

natural resources on the national forest by maintaining 

adequate surface and groundwater flows to sustain or 

improve riparian and aquatic ecosystems that may be 

affected by groundwater drawdown from the pumping of 

these waters.”

If “may be affected by groundwater drawdown” means 

“may be determined to have been affected by historical 

events” we concur. If the phrase indicates a foregone

decision by the USFS that such drawdown will continue 

unregulated, then the rest of the purpose and need cannot 

be satisfied.

We fail to understand how surface flow can be sustained 

with a void of unsaturated bedrock, hundreds of feet deep, 

directly underneath the streambed.

6.1 Document 

specific comments

Thank you for your comment. We recognize that as 

written, the second management objective is not 

entirely clear. Our intent, as written in one of our 

purpose and need statements is to protect “natural 

resources on the national forest by maintaining 

adequate surface and groundwater flows to sustain 

or improve the riparian and aquatic ecosystems that 

may be affected by groundwater drawdown from 

the pumping of these wells.” This does not mean 

drawdown would continue unregulated. Our 

proposed action is detailed; ensuring municipal 

water is available while also protecting forest 

resources through monitoring and adaptive 

management. 

We have clarified this management objective in the 

EIS to be more consistent with the above purpose 

and need statement to minimize confusion: 

“Minimizing impacts of groundwater drawdown from 

this well field by maintaining adequate surface flows 

and protecting water dependent ecosystems.”
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 329

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

14 5 Water The ECCA takes exception with “Findings show that 

during the study period there was less available sustained 

base flow than there was before the wells began pumping 

in 1988” as a stand-alone statement. The USGS implies 

or states that this reduction in base flow was climate 

related. The finding did not quantify the effect the depthto-water and the cone of depression had on the reduction 

in base flow. The ECCA supports the probability that the 

cone of depression was the major influence on the 

findings.

“When groundwater is pumped from the North Fork wells, 

it causes a temporary decline in groundwater which 

lowers the water table and creates an expanding cone of 

depression around the wells.” 

The ECCA applauds the USGS for articulating this 

condition. We take exception to the unqualified use of the 

word “temporary.” Depth-to-water records show that 

during the period of flood conditions prior to the “great 

flood,” the water table rose from 500 feet below the 

surface to artesian or near-artesian conditions over a 3-

month period of continuous recharge. When surface flow 

dropped, the Village resumed pumping and created a 

500-foot drawdown in only 2 months. Other than the 

“great flood,” this was the quickest recovery of the 

“temporary” lowering of the water table we have observed 

by reviewing depth-to-water records. We have no way of 

knowing if the bedrock was completely saturated when 

the water table reached the surface.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for your comment. Based on our 

reanalysis of all available information (as recently 

discussed at the hydrologist technical meeting held 

in April 2011), we will draw some conclusions in the 

EIS regarding the cone of depression and water 

table patterns before and after pumping began and 

use this to make predictions regarding the effects of 

the alternatives on these conditions. 

14 26 Water The ECCA has observed that much of the devastation of 

the aquifer and trees downstream from the Alto Reservoir 

occurred during the 5 years Alto Reservoir and Eagle 

Creek upstream from the reservoir remained dry. A 

saturated streambed and a full Alto Reservoir are vital to 

downstream resources. We resist a Forest Service 

conclusion that does not restore riparian vegetation by 

keeping the Eagle Creek streambed and reservoir wet.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

330 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

18 5 Water The natural fluctuation precipitation and snowmelt runoff 

would allow the Village of Ruidoso to obtain a controlled 

amount of municipal water from the Eagle Creek drainage 

without impacting the surface flow if the Village of Ruidoso 

had additional storage capacity.

3.1 Alternatives We considered this suggestion for additional 

storage capacity in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2.

18 5 Water I agree with the USGS final report that indicates that when 

ground is pumped from the NF wells, it causes a 

temporary decline in groundwater which lowers the water 

table and creates a expanding cone of depression around 

the wells. Go to the area today and you can see the 

effects are far reaching, both upstream and downstream.

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

Thank you for this information.

20 1 Water Not much can be done in the immediate future to restore 

the wildlife, however, its not too late to restore some water 

to Eagle Creek.

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

Our purpose and need for taking action and the 

management objectives we developed for this 

project, as described in the Purpose and Need 

document (which will also be summarized in 

chapter 1 of the EIS), include achieving a balance 

between the need for municipal water supply and 

protecting forest resources.

23 2 Water The USGS report titled, Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin 

and Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 

1969-2009 (Revised November 2010) on page 63, 

Summary, indicates that “no days of zero flow were 

recorded for the 11-year period 1970–80. Beginning in 

1989, however, no-flow days were recorded in 11 of 20 

years.” The Village of Ruidoso North Fork wells began 

pumping in 1988, therefore, this data indicates that the 

pumping of these wells has a substantial negative effect 

on streamflow.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information. We include a 

detailed evaluation of water resources in chapter 3 

of the EIS.

23 5 Water History has shown that when Eagle Creek is completely 

dry, the static water levels in the district’s wells located 

near Eagle Creek decline: In 2005 and 2006 a period 

when no flow was noted in Eagle Creek, static well levels 

declined substantially. The average static water level 

decline during this period was 65 feet in the three district 

wells located near Eagle Creek, with two wells showing 

declines in static water level of 75 feet and 76 feet. A 

saturated streambed and full Alto Reservoir are vital to all 

life, plant, animal, and human dependent on Eagle Creek.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information. We include a 

detailed evaluation of water resources in chapter 3 

of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 331

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

25 1 Water Eagle Creek from Alto Reservoir to the Mescalero 

boundary which includes the segment below the 

confluence of North Fork Eagle Creek and South Fork 

Eagle Creek, and South Fork Eagle Creek is recognized 

in New Mexico’s Nonpoint Source Management Program 

Plan as impaired due to reduced flow (Category 4C). In 

the 2010-2012 State of New Mexico CWA 

§303(d)/§305(b) Integrated Report South Fork of Eagle 

from Eagle Creek to the Mescalero Boundary is listed as 

not meeting its designated use for high quality coldwater 

aquatic life with a probable source on impainnent low flow 

alterations (Category 4C). The wells are located within the 

streambed. The scoping document mentions that 

streamflow loss caused by pumping ranges between 0.5-

0.8 cfs or between 23% to 36% of the necessary flow (2.2 

cfs) to maintain streamflow. It is clear that the introduction 

of these wells into the system has had negative impacts to 

the system. Without improved management of the North 

Fork Eagle Creek well field these conditions would be 

expected to persist of worsen.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information. We include a 

detailed evaluation of water resources in chapter 3 

of the EIS.

27 2 Water I am deeply opposed to the continued use of Eagle Creek 

by Ruidoso unless there is active flow of Eagle Creek 

stream above ground.

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

We considered this suggestion (establishing a 

minimum instream flow) as a component of a new 

alternative in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2. 

We also discuss this in the separate “Manual 

Direction Summary” document. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

332 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

33, 

57

1 Water There is at least one fairly recent sinkhole adjacent to the 

creekbed on my property. The residence directly west of 

my house also has a sinkhole next to the creek. My 

neighbor to the south has informed me that he filled in 2 

sinkholes on his property in the last 10 years. These 

sinkholes are at least 5' to over 20' in diameter. Most 

commonly, sinkholes occur when subsurface voids 

collapse due to a loss of supporting buoyancy when the 

water table drops.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information. Based on a very 

cursory evaluation of the photos submitted by our 

project hydrologists, we doubt that these are 

actually sinkholes in the strict sense of the word –

having to do with karst features. Sinkholes won’t 

typically form in volcanics. It appeared that the

features were actually “pipes” opening up along the 

streambank as the water level drops or the channel 

erodes down. Usually piping is formed by silty 

materials eroding out along a weak zone of 

seepage/drainage. We recognized that some of 

these features were pretty sizeable.

We will continue to consider this concern during the 

water resources data reanalysis phase, prior to 

beginning the effects analysis of the alternatives. If 

any new information comes available, we discuss 

this in the “Water Resources” section of chapter 3 

of the EIS.

56 1 Water Included are photos to show some of the results of the 

depleted water resources on our property. The largest of 7 

sinkholes...the natural creek bank went from where the 

person is standing over to the tree on the right foreground. 

The sinkhole is probably 12 feet deep. We are afraid to 

get in it to measure. Three more sinkholes have been 

filled in. The largest was about 10 to 12 feet deep, 10 feet 

in diameter, with a bottle-necked top. It took two truckloads of stone to fill these in. In the foreground, the fill 

stone sank and we added mulch to the top. Two additional 

sinkholes were filled with stone and mulch. The filling was 

done to keep us and wildlife from falling in. On one of 

these, when I was checking for more sinkholes, the 

ground gave way under me and I fell in. Luckily the hole 

was only about 4 feet deep and I was able to get out. 

When these sinkholes appeared we tried to call several 

people/agencies about what was happening, and no one 

was interested.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information. See response 

above.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 333

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

36 19 Water Lincoln County residents have observed that much of the 

devastation of the aquifer downstream from the Alto 

Reservoir occurred during the 5 years Alto Reservoir and 

Eagle Creek upstream from the reservoir remained dry. A 

saturated streambed and a full Alto Reservoir are vital to 

downstream resources. We resist a Forest Service 

conclusion that does not restore riparian vegetation by 

keeping the Eagle Creek streambed and reservoir wet.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

We considered this suggestion (establishing a 

minimum instream flow) as a component of a new 

alternative in the “Alternatives” section of the 

Scoping Outcome Summary. We also discussed 

this in the separate “Manual Direction Summary” 

document.

We include a detailed evaluation of water resources 

and riparian resources in chapter 3 of the EIS.

36 11 Water Lincoln County agrees with the articulation, “If the cone of 

depression continues to expand, it can impact water 

dependent resources outside the stream corridor.”

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

Thank you for your input.

36 5 Water Purpose and Need for Action (p. 3 of the scoping 

document) states that the 2006 stipulation agreement 

requires the Forest Service to analyze “... all reasonable 

alternatives (and no less than one alternative) that leave 

downstream flows in the same state that they would be 

absent the pumping of the North Fork wells.” However, 

the proposed action does not quantify what the flows 

would be, but for the North Fork well field. An analysis of 

baseline streamflow without the wells is needed, ideally 

with a groundwater model as provided in Forest Service 

Manual 2500, Chapter 2540.

6.1 Document 

specific comments 

or corrections

There is no way to quantify North Fork Eagle Creek 

baseline streamflow prior to well pumping because 

the Eagle Creek gage was measuring both South 

Fork and North Fork contributions; the South Fork 

gage was not installed until after the wells began 

pumping. However, after we reanalyze all the 

available information (as recently discussed at the 

hydrologist technical meeting held in April 2011), 

we will draw some conclusions in the EIS regarding 

flow patterns before and after pumping began and 

use this to make predictions regarding the effects of 

the alternatives on these conditions. 

The FSM requirement for a groundwater flow model 

applies to proposals for new wells; but the proposed 

action would authorize existing wells. We do agree 

that a controlled aquifer test or model would be 

valuable for future management. We discuss this 

topic in more detail in the EIS.

53, 

57

1 Water Also, I have observed sinkholes along the creekbed, one 

sinkhole on my property has a live 6 foot pine tree in it. 

The pine tree is tilted at an angle, suggesting it was 

growing on level ground when the sinkhole occurred. My 

next door neighbor has told me that he has filled in 2 

small sinkholes in his back yard in the last 10 years. 

Typically, sinkholes occur when subsurface voids collapse 

due to a loss of buoyancy caused by a drop in the 

groundwater level.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

334 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

10 2 Water Rights How can the USFS limit the pumping from wells that have 

state adjudicated rights?

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated 

water rights. As the land management agency, 

however, we have the authority to determine what 

is reasonable access (access to the right in this 

case is via well, pump, and pipeline) to the 

applicant’s state adjudicated water right. 

10 4 Water Rights What will the USFS do to make up, or move, the village’s 

water right and associated production to locations off 

USFS lands.

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

The Forest Service cannot interfere with the 

applicant’s water rights and/or associated 

transferability off National Forest System lands. 

However, we can provide incentives, such as 

limiting access to the rights on Forest Service lands 

through permit conditions and the annual operating 

plan to encourage the movement of the applicant’s 

water rights off Forest Service lands. 

14 3 Water Rights We observe that the Forest Service has put themselves in 

an interesting dilemma with the particular objectives they 

have picked. 

Item (1) of the Summary includes “Providing water 

management flexibility and ... incentives..., in a way that 

does not foreclose opportunities to transfer a portion of 

their water rights for these wells to locations off of 

National Forest System land.”

The concept of transferring water rights means that there 

is no right possible, forever, to the water from which the 

right was transferred. This is a very serious decision. This 

law was adopted when New Mexico was a territory and 

was patterned on Spanish precedent. Today, the concept 

of transferring water rights creates questions that may not 

have been apparent centuries ago. The ECCA cannot 

endorse transferring water rights off of the National Forest 

System.

Item (1) of the Purpose and Need for Action repeats this 

theme, “authorizing ... the Village of Ruidoso’s legal right 

to access and divert water from its North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells... .”

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

The Forest Service defers to the Office of the State 

Engineer for allocation, adjudication, and 

transferability of water rights.

Item (1): see comment above 

Item (2): we agree with you. We are using the EIS 

process to develop a mitigation plan as part of the 

permit.

Item (3): The Forest Service defers to the Office of 

the State Engineer for proof of beneficial use. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 335

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

Relevant, we think, is the portion of the Forest Service 

Manual, 2541.34 - Water Rights and Uses for Other 

Purposes. “If the projected water requirements conflict 

with existing or potential Forest Service uses and rights or 

will adversely affect National Forest resources, the 

potential permittee must seek alternative water sources or 

develop mitigation plans acceptable to the Forest 

Service.”

Item 2541.34 would appear to limit the action available to 

the USFS for meeting the item (1) objective, purpose and 

need for action.

In addition, it is our understanding of NM water law, that 

proof of beneficial use is the measure of a right. We see 

no way the Village can make beneficial use of any more 

water than they already have without further degrading 

downstream natural resources.

18 12 Water Rights I take exception to the fact that the Forest Service 

indicates that the Village of Ruidoso has 5,648 acre feet 

per year (AFY) of water rights attached to the NEC wells. 

This amount of water has never been proven up on nor is 

that volume available as per USGS study. I also object as 

stated in the Federal Register of the manage objective 

that states “Providing water management flexibility and 

water conservation to the Village of Ruidoso in a way 

does not foreclose opportunities to transfer a portion of 

their water rights of these wells to location off of National 

Forest System lands.” The Forest Service has no 

jurisdiction over water rights! The state engineer has this 

jurisdiction over water rights so I question why this is a 

management objective of the Forest Service.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

Please refer to the “Water Rights” section of our 

“Purpose and Need” document where we address 

the 5,648 afy amount and discuss the current 

consent order between the village and the Office of 

the State Engineer. 

The Forest Service defers to the Office of the State 

Engineer in the allocation of water. However, we 

can determine reasonable access to a state-issued 

water right and can provide incentives to encourage 

the transfer of water rights off of National Forest 

System lands. 

23 1 Water Rights The district provides water service to approximately 1,268 

homes and commercial business. The district has the right 

to 613.94 acre-feet of groundwater downstream from this 

project.

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

Thanks for this information.

29 1 Water Rights The attempt to steal the village water rights will leave no 

alternative except a lawsuit.

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

The Forest Service defers to the Office of the State 

Engineer in the allocation of water, even on public 

lands. 

See response above on our authority to limit 

access.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

336 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

30 1 Water Rights Do you really want to cut water off for the people of 

Ruidoso?

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

Our purpose and need for taking action and the 

management objectives we developed for this 

project, as described in the “Purpose and Need” 

document (which is summarized in chapter 1 of the 

EIS), include achieving a balance between the need 

for municipal water supply and protecting forest 

resources.

36 2 Water Rights Lincoln County supports the measures necessary to 

restore, sustain or improve aquatic habitat and fish, 

streamside recreation, fishing and wildlife viewing, riparian 

vegetation and municipal water supply on the Eagle Creek 

basin. Lincoln County agrees with the Forest Service on 

the issues identified. However, the county questions the 

authority of the Forest Service as it related to water rights 

transfers to other parts of Eagle Creek or to other stream 

systems.

Document 

Specific Comment

The Forest Service defers to the Office of the State 

Engineer in the allocation, adjudication, and 

transferability of water, even on public lands. 

36 8 Water Rights The Forest Service Manual requires that impacts on all 

downstream appropriated water rights be assessed. That 

assessment should be added to the scope of the 

environmental impact statement. The Upper Hondo 

watershed has been fully adjudicated and its findings 

were that all waters in that watershed have been fully 

appropriated with senior rights as far back as the 1850s. 

The Eagle Creek rights were created in 1984 and have 

not yet been proven up. The state engineer (through 

consent order 20294 and 22600 Exhibit 1) has recently 

removed a portion of the Eagle Creek rights due to their 

failure to prove up the rights. The Forest Service Manual 

requires that impacts on all downstream appropriated 

water rights be assessed and it is a fact that all 

downstream waters are fully appropriated and have been 

since 1907. The Forest Service has no authority pursuant 

to the Forest Service Manual to put any precedence 

whatsoever on transfers of water rights either transferred 

elsewhere in Eagle Creek or to another stream. The water 

rights in question should never be able to be transferred 

by the applicant or anyone else until: (a) 100 percent 

proven up where they were originally claimed in the Eagle 

Creek watershed (b) Only if the transfer does not 

adversely impact water rights with a seniority date prior to 

1984.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

The Forest Service defers to the Office of the State 

Engineer in the allocation, adjudication, and 

transferability of water, even on public lands. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 337

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

36 9 Water Rights Additionally, the water rights should never be transferred 

outside of the Eagle Creek watershed, as the founding 

reasons of these rights from the beginning was that they 

were sole and separate from the Upper Hondo watershed.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

The Forest Service defers to the Office of the State 

Engineer in the allocation, adjudication, and 

transferability of water, even on public lands. 

36 10 Water Rights The Forest Service has no authority over water right 

transfers whatsoever and should remove that language 

completely from their findings. Any transfer of these rights 

would severely impact the rest of the Upper Hondo 

watershed as it has been fully appropriated and 

adjudicated and can take no new diversions at any point 

on the current system. In addition, according to New 

Mexico water law, proof of beneficial use is the measure 

of a right. We see no way the applicant can make 

beneficial use of any more water than they have up to this 

point without further degrading downstream natural 

resources.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

The Forest Service defers to the Office of the State 

Engineer in the allocation, adjudication, and 

transferability of water, even on public lands. 

36 24 Water Rights The 1984 Eagle Creek Rights were based on the 

assumption that the underground system where the well 

fields lie are separate from the Upper Hondo watershed. 

That has proven to be an untrue statement (see OSE 

consent order 20294 and 22600 attached as exhibit 1). A 

large part of the underground watershed that some 

Lincoln County residents depend on for their way of life is 

put at risk by the pumping of wells that the Forest Service 

has allowed to date. Due to the Village of Ruidoso’s 

approach, past history, and recent statements about 

water, Lincoln County feels that the applicant is putting 

the whole area's investments at risk. Both the Village of 

Ruidoso’s as well as the county’s economies are 

dependent on the health of the Eagle Creek watershed. A 

large part of the growth of this area was based on the 

water right numbers which have proven to be erroneous 

(see OSE consent order 20294 and 22600 attached as 

exhibit 1). Due to the lack of infrastructure planning by the 

Village of Ruidoso for the past 20+ years, they have put 

the whole area in a precarious position.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

Thank you for your comment. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

338 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

39 4 Water Rights Didn’t the city of Ruidoso have a time lease on the water 

rights usage?

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment, or 

procedural 

concern

Please refer to the “Water Rights” section of our 

“Purpose and Need” document where we dis-cuss 

the adjudicated water rights owned by the applicant 

and the current consent order between the 

applicant and the Office of the State Engineer. This 

is also discussed in chapter 3.

41 7 Water Rights ECCA encourages you to comply with all Federal and 

State law and policy concerning the protection and nonimpairment of existing water rights. To the extent that 

pumping in the North Fork well field may impair the 

beneficial use of existing water rights—both surface water 

rights and ground water rights—it should not be permitted 

as a matter of law and policy. To this end, ECCA expects 

that your decision will be based on a careful analysis of 

the extent to which your decision will affect existing water 

rights. The USFS should not permit the Village of Ruidoso 

to pump in the North Fork well field if that pumping has an 

adverse impact on the beneficial use of water of others 

with valid and existing water rights.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

Thank you for this information. We include a 

detailed evaluation of water resources in chapter 3 

of the EIS.

42 1 Water Rights Approximately 75% of water delivered to Ruidoso 

customers, including some located outside the Village in 

the county, comes from the Eagle Creek drainage and 

Eagle Creek drainage credits. The Forest Service does 

not have jurisdiction over water rights. Jurisdiction over 

water rights in New Mexico is the purview of the Office of 

the State Engineer. Therefore, the Forest Service has no 

authority to regulate the Village’s operation of the wells, 

other than through the special use permitting process. 

The Village of Ruidoso originally obtained water rights 

from the railroad in 1954 and currently owns or leases 

99% of all groundwater and surface water rights in the 

Eagle Creek basin west of the Alto Dam and Reservoir.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

The Forest Service acknowledges the applicant’s 

state adjudicated water rights. As the land 

management agency, however, we have the 

authority to determine what is reasonable access 

(access to the right in this case is via well, pump, 

and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated 

water right. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 339

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

42 2 Water Rights In 1984, the Village drilled exploratory wells in the Eagle 

Creek watershed on Forest Service land (North Fork well 

field). The wells were located outside the then declared 

boundaries of the Hondo Underground Water Basin. The 

Village receives approximately 50% return flow credit from 

Eagle Creek drainage which is applied to the diversion of 

Rio Ruidoso water and Rio Ruidoso drainage wells. The 

Village has attempted to transfer water rights out of the 

North Fork area and has been protested by the same 

group that filed suit against the Forest Service in 2005, 

which resulted in this EIS process. The Village is currently 

spending approximately $1,200,000 to deepen an existing 

well in the Eagle Creek basin near the Alto Reservoir.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

Thank you for this background information.

50 1 Water Rights The Village of Ruidoso under New Mexico law (water) 

drilled the wells with Forest Service permission on Eagle 

Creek. Water rights were created under New Mexico 

water law and the state engineer extended the then limits 

of the water basin to include the Eagle Creek wells. The 

Eagle Creek never ran year round and many times would 

be dry for an entire year.

5.1 Suggestion, 

comment or 

procedural 

concern

Thank you for this information.

51 12 Water Rights Under management objectives the Federal Register 

states “Providing water management flexibility and water 

conservation to the Village of Ruidoso in a way does not 

foreclose opportunities to transfer a portion of their water 

rights of these wells to location off of National Forest 

System lands.” Ultimately the state engineer has 

jurisdiction over water rights, the Forest Service does not. 

This should not be a management objective for the Forest 

Service.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

The Forest Service cannot interfere with the 

applicant’s water rights and/or associated 

transferability off National Forest System lands. 

However, we can provide incentives, such as 

limiting access to the rights on Forest Service 

lands, through permit conditions and the annual 

operating plan to encourage movement of their 

water rights off National Forest System lands.

51 13 Water Rights The Forest Service indicates that the Village of Ruidoso 

has 5,648 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water rights 

attached to the NEC wells. To our knowledge this amount 

of water has never been proven up on nor is that volume 

available as per USGS study. Thank you for the 

opportunity to comment.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

Please refer to the “Water Rights” section of our 

“Purpose and Need” document where we discuss 

the adjudicated water rights owned by the applicant 

and the current consent order between the 

applicant and the Office of the State Engineer.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

340 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

52 6 Water Rights The Village of Ruidoso water rights in the North Fork wells 

have been adjudicated in a consent order under Subfile R. 

203, Chaves County Cause No. 20294 and 22600 

Consolidated, filed with the District Clerk on May 4, 2010. 

The total water right was authorized at 2,539.34 acre-feet 

per annum for municipal use with 1,692.88 acre-feet per 

annum vested and 846.46 acre-feet per annum to be 

proven by the filing of Proof of Beneficial Use prior to Dec. 

31, 2024. Since the filing of the Subfile Order, the Village 

has vested an additional 220.68 acre-feet per annum with 

the filing of Proof of Beneficial Use with the State 

Engineer on December 27, 2010. Presently there are 

1,913.56 acre-feet per annum vested and the additional 

625.78 acre-feet per annum to be proven for the 

adjudicated total of 2,539.34 acre-feet per annum 

authorized to be diverted from the North Fork wells.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

Thank you for this comment. Please refer to the 

“Water Rights” section of our “Purpose and Need” 

document where we discuss the adjudicated water 

rights owned by the applicant and the current 

consent order between the applicant and the Office 

of the State Engineer. 

52 7 Water Rights The State Engineer has the sole authority to administer 

water rights in the State of New Mexico through the 

Statutes and through Rules and Regulations promulgated 

by the State Engineer. Water right applications have been 

filed with the State Engineer to move a portion of the 

water rights downstream and off of the U.S. Forest lands, 

and said applications to relocate water rights are fully 

supported by the USFS in the draft statement of purpose 

and need and proposed action. Additional time may be 

required to accomplish the proposed water right moves 

which may extend into the period of time after issuance of 

the special use permit. 

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

We continue to discuss these actions with the 

applicant and the Office of the State Engineer and 

their applicability to the NEPA process. 

14 15 Wells and 

Associated 

Facilities

The Eagle Creek gage, alone, does not provide an 

accurate measurement of surface flow exiting the North 

Fork. The ECCA recommends construction of a dedicated 

gage just for the lower reach of the North Fork. We 

request Forest Service oversight to insure that accurate 

measurements are continuously delivered electronically to 

a Forest Service office. We suggest the pump power 

cutoff switch be located in a tamperproof box at this flow 

gage.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions as components 

of a new alternative in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 341

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

14 16 Wells and 

Associated 

Facilities

“If there are more than 20 days per year of no surface flow 

(less than 0.01 cfs) over a period of three consecutive 

water years at the Eagle Creek gage, or more than 30 noflow days within any single water year ... the applicant 

must reduce groundwater withdrawal rates from these 

wells. If either of these thresholds is exceeded, then 

groundwater withdrawals from the North Fork wells would 

be limited to 50 percent of the volumetric rate of surface 

flow at the North Fork gage (which is upstream from the 

wells) until surface flow at the Eagle Creek gage 

resumes.”

The ECCA sees merit in the Forest Service intent. We 

have already commented on the fact that, most of the 

time, flow measured at the Eagle Creek gage is only from 

the South Fork. The USGS report did not show no-flow 

days in the North Fork, downstream from the wells. The 

use of 20 and 30 no-flow days is a reflection of USGS 

data that describes the South Fork, not the North Fork. 

The South Fork is not the focus of our litigation or of the 

EIS.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions as components 

of a new alternative in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2.

4 6 Wildlife None of these accommodations should be made unless 

Ruidoso immediately takes actions in other ways to 

preserve water. What provisions are in this plan for wildlife 

and birds to get to water. If all of it goes to Ruidoso that 

means the rest of the environment suffers. We don’t want 

that to happen to national land. This is nationally owned, 

nationally supported land and we are sick of so many 

locals towns out west thinking they have the right to welsh 

and live off national taxpayers.

3.1 Alternatives We considered these suggestions as components 

of a new alternative in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2.

18 11 Wildlife The North Fork of Eagle Creek is a known habitat for the 

Mexican spotted owl. I am not well versed in the habit or 

range of this species but feel certain that if the riparian 

area that has had environment degradation caused by the 

excessive pumping of the North Fork well were to recover, 

more prey base for the owl would result.

4.1 Non-Key We address potential impacts to Mexican spotted 

owls in chapter 3 of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

342 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

48 1 Wildlife This canyon is so dry that the elk are approaching my 

horses over hay in the paddock. Am attaching a photo of 

a young bull elk alongside my corral fence. I am heartily in 

favor of returning streamflow to Eagle Creek. A former 

neighbor from across the road told me that when they 

moved on Eagle Creek Canyon Road in the early 1970s, 

the creek ran continuously and was musical at night.

4.1 Non-Key Thank you for this information.

58 1 Water 

Resources

To pull 75% of all the Village’s needs from one creekbed 

is poor management of the Village’s interests regardless 

of the legality. The wildlife and property owners are 

suffering from this over-depletion of water from a single 

source but when, not if, the Eagle Creek wells fail, the 

Village of Ruidoso will be a ghost town. Sound 

management obviously means not putting all of your eggs 

(WELLS) in one basket (water source). The Village sucks 

over 230 MILLION GALLONS of water from this single 

source. Prudent management dictates pulling water from 

numerous diversified sources. The proposed 300 acrefeet is still a large percentage of the Village’s needs. It 

provides water and hopefully allows for replenishment. 

The Village should reconsider their position for the people 

of Ruidoso’s sake if not for the future of everyone’s future 

water needs. 

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information. We include a 

detailed evaluation of water resources in chapter 3 

of the EIS.

58 2 Water 

Resources

I have held property on or near Eagle Creek since the 

mid-80s. Furthermore, I held and operated the USFS 

Eagle Creek Cattle Permit/Allotment from the 80s thru the 

early 90s. This forest permit has the Eagle Creek running 

through its entire length, approximately 10 miles. During 

my tenure on Eagle Creek, I have seen dramatic changes 

for the worse in its flow. In the mid-80s the Creek ran 

almost year round. Today it only runs in times of extreme 

snowmelt or rain. Vegetation and climatic cycles have 

contributed to the lack of flow, but the Village’s pumping of 

700 acre-feet of water, equivalent to 228,095,700 gallons 

every year, is the obvious cause. If the cause was 

environmental and or climatic then other area streams 

and rivers would be dry. 

1.1 Key – Water

Resources

Thank you for this information. We include a 

detailed evaluation of water resources in chapter 3 

of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 343

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

58 3 Water 

Resources

Mr. Camp’s observation of water flowing underground 

during the test draining of the Alto Lake serves as an 

example of what is going on in the Eagle Creek basin. 

Before the wells, water ran regularly over the area Mr. 

Camp describes. Furthermore, it ran freely over my 

property as well. Now, when the Creek flows it disappears 

into a recent sink hole on my property in Eagle Creek for 

the first few days. Then when the water table recovers, 

the stream continues on down through the national forest. 

Today whenever the stream runs, our well water turns 

brown because of the rapid replenishment of the water. 

This well is over 150 feet from the Eagle Creek bed. The 

disappearance and then reappearance of the creek water 

is so rapid and complete neighbors downstream have 

investigated to see if I had built a dam!

My well, completed in approximately 1985, has had to be 

deepened and replaced since the Village wells came into 

operation stopping the Creek’s flow and drawing the water 

table down. 

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information regarding 

observations of flow along stretches of Eagle 

Creek. We include a detailed evaluation of possible 

changes over time along North Fork Eagle Creek 

since the wells began pumping. This is described in 

chapter 3 of the EIS.

58 4 Furthermore, before the Village started drawing 75% of all 

of their water from the Eagle Creek basin, the stream 

served the wildlife well. Today, however, the management 

of the sole water source for the animals in this area has 

turned its back on the critical protection afforded to Eagle 

Creek by The Wetlands Act which made it a crime to dryup surface water in the United States.

Our purpose and need for taking action and the 

management objectives we developed for this 

project, as described in the “Purpose and Need” 

document (which is summarized in chapter 1 of 

the EIS), include achieving a balance between the 

need for municipal water supply and protecting 

forest resources.

58 5 Alternatives The proposed 300 acre-feet of water for the Village, 

approximately 100 million gallons, is far better for the 

Village from a stewardship perspective as well as 

ensuring water is available to the Village for many years 

to come.

3.1 – Alternatives Thank you for your support for the proposed action.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

344 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

59 1 Social and 

Economics

In 2007 the Forest Service required Eagle Creek Summer 

Home Association members to drill water wells to supply 

cabins with water. Six wells were drilled. Now, just 3 1⁄2 

years later, one of the wells has gone dry. It is the well 

that is approximately 3⁄4 mile upstream from the closest 

Village of Ruidoso water well. This leaves one family with 

no water supply. Our concern is that if the Village 

continues to pump water from the Eagle Creek basin at 

the present rate, the rest of the wells will soon be dry also. 

Is the Village going to supply the cabins with water as the 

wells dry up or pay to have deeper wells drilled?

1.1 Key –

Socioeconomics

Thank you for this information regarding wells in the 

summer home area. We discuss impacts to 

socioeconomics, including the potential effects to 

the summer home area, in chapter 3 of the EIS.

59 2 Water 

Resources

The association is not disputing the Village of Ruidoso’s 

legal rights to water along North Fork Eagle Creek. We 

are concerned about the humanitarian rights of the 

association cabin owners and residents along Eagle 

Creek as well as the wildlife and trout that rely on the 

surface water to survive. The Village has pumped an 

average of 550 to 700 acre-feet of water per year for the 

last 5 years. So much water has been pumped from 

beneath the streambed it has caused a cone of 

depression that has sucked the water away from the 

surface. This cone of depression has already reached one 

of our wells and we believe it is only a matter of time 

before the rest of our wells run dry

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources

Chapter 3 of the EIS includes a detailed evaluation 

of impacts of well pumping on water resources 

(including a discussion of the cone of depression), 

wildlife and aquatic resources, and impacts on 

social and economic resources (including wells).

59 3 Alternatives Is there a solution for the Village? Yes. Water can be 

drilled under Alto Lake to supply some water. The dam on 

Grindstone Lake can be repaired so the lake can be filled 

more than 50%. The Village can invest in a gray water 

recovery treatment plan that renders city wastewater 

potable. With these things in place the Village water use 

from Eagle Creek basin could be reduced to the annual 

recharge rate of 300 acre feet. It is clear to me and this 

association that there is a real water problem on Eagle 

Creek. It is also clear that there are viable solutions that 

will restore the creek for trout habitat, survival of wildlife, 

and usable water for families along the creek. 

3.1 Alternatives Thank you for your suggestions. The “Alternatives” 

section of chapter 2 includes consideration of a 

water treatment plant and increasing storage 

capacity.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 345

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

60 1 Water Rights The Village has legally combined all of their groundwater 

and surface water rights in the Eagle Creek basin, totaling 

2,523 acre-feet/annum.

That is: 1,624.51 AFY in the North Fork Wells Rights, 

761.12 AFY in the Surface Water Right, and 137.37 AFY 

in the Brown/Green Well Rights. These rights are 

combined into a common pool that can be withdrawn from 

any of the Village wells in the Eagle Creek basin. In 

addition to the 4 North Fork wells, at least 7 more Village 

wells are located downstream from the Lincoln National 

Forest. I have a small map depicting the description in the 

agreement that I will hand deliver. The Eagle Creek basin 

extends essentially from the gate to the summer cabins to 

the back gate of the Eagle II subdivision. The Village has 

agreed to irrevocably transfer all excess North Fork well 

rights to the Interstate Stream Commission.

The Village has agreed not to attempt to change the place 

of diversion for any of its Eagle Creek rights to any 

location outside of the Eagle Creek basin. The Eagle 

Creek basin is defined to mean the Eagle Creek drainage 

basin lying east of the north/south quarter line of Section 

36, Township 10 South, Range 13 East, NMPM. 

Furthermore, those the Village has agreed to forfeit its 

right to an additional 846.46 AFY subject to filing of Proof 

of Beneficial Use by December 31, 2014.

1.1 Key Issue –

Water Resources 

(water rights)

Thank you for sharing this July 26, 2011, 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) reached 

between the applicant and the Rio Hondo Land and 

Cattle Company, L.P. regarding applicant water 

rights. We have added this to our project record and 

shared with forest staff and the project 

interdisciplinary team.

60 2 Water Rights The Eagle Creek Conservation Association interprets the 

agreements as eliminating all justification for Management 

Objective (1) in the USFS Notice of Intent published 

Thursday, February 3, 2011, in the Federal Register, Vol. 

76, No. 23. “Providing water management flexibility and 

water conservation incentives to the Village of Ruidoso, in 

a way that does not foreclose opportunities to transfer a 

portion of their water rights for these wells to locations off 

the National Forest System land.” All the transferring that 

is possible has already been accomplished. The Eagle 

Creek Conservation Association observes that 

Management Objective (2) is rightfully the only objective 

remaining. “Minimizing impacts of groundwater drawdown 

from this well field to maintain surface flows and protect 

water-dependent ecosystems.”

6.1 - Documentspecific commentThank you for your comment. We do not agree, 

however, that the contents of the MOA are in 

conflict with management objective 1, as described 

in the NOI and also included in chapter 1 of the EIS. 

As clarified in comment 61-1 below, the village still 

has the flexibility to move its water rights off of NFS 

land provided that they stay within the Eagle Creek 

basin, as defined in the MOA. For this reason, we 

do not feel management objective 1 (providing 

flexibility and water conservation incentives) should 

be removed or changed.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

346 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

61 1 Water Rights 1. The Village is not required to combine its agreed rights 

in Eagle Creek. The Village rights will remain as agreed in 

the several separate listed files and their points of 

diversion are not combined or made joint and several in 

any fashion, there is no common pool from which they all 

will produce. The Village rights remain unchanged except 

as specifically changed by the agreement;

2. The Village still has the option of moving its water rights 

out of the USFS and into other areas of the Eagle Creek 

basin as defined by the memorandum of agreement.

3. There will be a new order entered by the adjudicating 

court that will amend the consent order in accord with the 

agreement.

I did not want the parties to act under any 

misapprehension of the facts. The agreement speaks for 

itself and should not be interpreted too broadly.

1.1 Key – Water 

Resources (water 

rights)

Thank you for sharing your interpretations and 

clarifications of the July 26, 2011, MOA reached 

between the applicant and the Rio Hondo Land and 

Cattle Company, L.P. regarding applicant water 

rights. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 347

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

62, 

63, 

64, 

65, 

66, 

68, 

69, 

70, 

71, 

73, 

74, 

76, 

77, 

78, 

79, 

80, 

81, 

82, 

83, 

84, 

86, 

87, 

89, 

90, 

91, 

93, 

94, 

96, 

97, 

98

1 Alternative 1 

No Action 

(continue 

pumping -

pro with 

rationale)

Please continue to allow the Village of Ruidoso to 

continue to pump water from their wells. This is part of the 

mission of the Forest Service to provide for the needs of 

present and future generations. Sufficient water is vital to 

the residents who live here and to our property values. 

The Village has gone to great expense to monitor the 

impact on the environment and has presented evidence of 

little adverse impact.

3.1 Alternatives Thank you for your comment. The purpose and 

need for taking action and the management 

objectives developed for this project, as described 

in chapter 1 of the EIS, includes achieving a 

balance between the need for municipal water 

supply and protecting forest resources. The range 

of alternatives under consideration includes ones 

that allows pumping to continue.

67 1 Water We are very concerned with the Village of Ruidoso using 

water from this area. We have seen areas around us that 

always had water go dry over the last few years and we 

do not want to see this get worse. We do not want to see 

the Village of Ruidoso affect the water availability of those 

of us who live in this area.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information. We include a 

detailed evaluation of water resources and 

socioeconomics in chapter 3 of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

348 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

72 1 Water The Village of Ruidoso’s permit should be renewed. Even 

if Eagle Creek flowed in the past there is currently 

sufficient pumping from private wells to stop that flow, 

even should the Village be taken out of the equation. Take 

Gavilan Creek. It flows up until about 20 years ago. No 

Village pumping caused this to occur; only private 

pumping for domestic wells. The same is likely the fact 

with Eagle Creek. The very folk who want fish in the creek 

are the ones who take water from the aquifer and keep it 

from flowing again (if it ever did).

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information. We include a 

detailed evaluation of water resources and 

socioeconomics in chapter 3 of the EIS and we 

include an evaluation of continuing current pumping 

at current levels.

75 1 Fish To claim that North Fork Eagle Creek is a high quality 

fishery is absurd. To deprive thousands of citizens of 

water because of this contention is absurd.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish

We include a detailed evaluation of aquatic habitat 

and fish in chapter 3. 

85 1 Alternatives Suggestion: turn water wells off every day for several 

hours. Other countries do it. Stop building new structures 

of every kind which use water. Continue to force 

restaurants to install systems which catch grease. 

Everyone has been paying $35 extra on water for this new 

installation so I say people who do not cooperate could 

have their life giving water turned off.

3.1 – Suggested 

Alternative

This is outside the scope of this analysis.

88 1 Alternatives I request that you put some pumping limitations on the 

wells if that is possible. I have property along Cedar 

Creek. When I bought the property everyone said it flowed 

to one extent or another basically year round. A few years 

later, the creek dried up completely and I found out that 

the creek drying up and Ruidoso’s drilling in the North 

Fork coincided. I remember a few years ago there was 

some controversy over the permit and Ruidoso had to 

stop pumping. Within a few weeks, the creek started 

flowing again. When the permit problem was cleared up 

and they started pumping again, the creek dried up again.

3.1 - Alternatives Thank you for this information. The proposed action 

includes adaptive management triggers that would 

limit pumping when necessary to maintain adequate 

flows.

92 1 Water We have property that backs up to the Ruidoso River so 

we know of the ups and downs of the waterflow. We are 

also aware that Eagle Creek flows are pretty rare. We do 

not know of the needs of wildlife from Eagle Creek but we 

doubt that the creek provides much. We love and 

appreciate wildlife and fish. We believe extreme care 

should be taken before wells are affected for Ruidoso.

Alternatives We discuss effects to wildlife and fish in chapter 3.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 349

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

95 1 Municipal 

Water 

Supply

I am nearing my 81st birthday and have lived on Upper 

Eagle Creek for almost 15 years and enjoyed its cool 

waters for many, many years before that. The fact is, I 

have a movie of my brother and me playing in the North 

Fork in 1934. The creek was running. I have ridden 

horseback and walked beside it immeasurable times and 

had always wanted to retire and spend the rest of my life 

beneath the canopy of its beautiful cottonwoods and 

pines.

I would like to to clear up some misconceptions:

The village alludes that 70% of its water comes from 

Eagle Creek and that shutting off the North Fork wells 

would spell disaster for the Village.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Village has 

three wells; the Brown, the Green, and the 2 Domenici 

south and east of the North Fork wells about a mile and 

on Village land. In addition, they have other wells located 

near Alto Lake. They also have surface rights to many 

cubic feet of

Eagle Creek water that is transported from its diversion 

dams, by this large pipeline, photo attached, to their plant 

located above Alto Lakes. The lake also retains what 

water passes these wells and flows over the diversion 

dams. The question then can be asked - Why do they 

need the North Fork wells in the first place, and spend all 

that money pumping and maintenance of the wells when 

several hundred feet below they can harvest almost just 

as much for much less expense? I have documents that 

backs up these questions but this is neither the time or 

place to dwell into that. 

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Rights

Thank you for this information. We describe the 

contributions the North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

make to the municipal water supply in chapter 3 of 

the EIS. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

350 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

95 2 Water Is or is not Eagle Creek an intermittent stream? I believe 

the question irrelevant. Of course on occasion it goes dry 

and one can cherry pick their way through history and find 

many instances where it did go dry. But so can one find 

that on any stream in New Mexico. See enclosed photo of 

the Rio Ruidoso. I have seen it dry up and would go with 

my Grandfather to either the spring on Cedar Creek or the 

spring on Little Creek, just below the Mt. Jeau Lookout, to 

fill containers with water when his cistern dried up. Even 

this year had the rains waited another week the Ruidoso 

would have been a dry stream. The Little Creek spring no 

longer flowed after the North Fork well’s cone of 

depression expanded to its watershed. I have also seen, 

many times, the Pecos River completely dry on its surface 

where Hwy. 70 crosses it between Portales and Roswell. 

Would one dare call the Pecos an intermittent river?

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Resources

We describe the intermittent nature of North Fork 

Eagle Creek in the “Water Resources” section of 

chapter 3.

95 3 Water A few weeks ago I drove up to your Oak Grove 

Campground and noticed that you were hauling water 

there to your summer caretaker. In my book titled, “The 

Killing of Eagle Creek An Environmental Tragedy” I quote 

Bob Scribner who probably knew more about Eagle Creek 

than any other person. The exception of course would be 

the Hightower clan, many who were born, raised and still 

live on upper Eagle Creek and fished it until the North 

Fork Wells were put on line. Bob told me that he would 

help his neighbors, who had the summer forest allotment 

for that area, drive their cows up to Oak Grove which had 

a spring for the cattle to water and turn them loose. The 

spring, which was on the Carlton Canyon watershed went 

dry when the well on the North Fork and the mouth of 

Carlton Canyon was put on line.

I visited this week with Richard Rowley 11. A very 

prominent attorney in Clovis, New Mexico. His family has 

owned one of the summer cabins on the North Fork for 

many, many years. He told me that up until the North Fork 

wells were put on line that he had not seen the creek in 

front of their cabin dry over a half a dozen times, and even 

then they would just remove a few rocks and get water. 

Not so after the wells were pumping. They used to cross 

the creek five times to reach their cabin.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Resources

Thank you for this information.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 351

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

95 4 Fish Was Eagle Creek a fishable stream? Please refer to my 

above mentioned book or talk to the Rowleys or any of the 

Hightower clan. Marti Davenport told me that in April of 

this year he walked up the North Eagle Creek Trail above 

the summer cabins and found pools that were still 

inhabited with trout.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish

We discuss aquatic habitat and fish in chapter 3 of 

the EIS.

95 5 Maintenance 

and 

Operations

An observation; the Village has a propensity to defer 

maintenance. As you can see in the photo, Eagle Creek is 

gradually undercutting the large water line between the 

diversion dams and Alto Lake. I wonder if the heavy 

concrete line full of water was designed to be a free 

standing span. Guess we will see after a couple more 

mini-floods that mountain streams are noted for.

4.6 NonSignificant Issue –

Outside the Scope

This is outside the scope of this analysis but we will 

pass this comment along to the VoR.

99 1 NEPA 

Process

The ECCA observes that the key elements (that contain 

glaring flaws) of the proposed outcome remain unchanged 

from the original proposed action in the NOI of January 

27, 2011, and the scoping document of January 28, 2011. 

It appears now that the review process that followed the 

NOI was merely a show to satisfy the required process 

and put the stamp of science and public inclusion on the 

pre-determined outcome.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

We received approximately 100 comment letters 

throughout the scoping process and have 

thoroughly reviewed and used these comments in 

preparation of chapters 1 and 2. This thorough 

process of review is documented in the September 

2011 Scoping Outcome Summary (which has been 

shared with you and is posted online) and then 

summarized in chapter 1 of the draft EIS. An 

updated version of the table of comments and our 

responses (showing all comments received, 

including those received after the Scoping Outcome 

Summary was distributed) will be included as an 

appendix to the EIS. We have also carefully 

reviewed each parameter of the proposed action 

since the NOI was issued and following the 

hydrology data reanalysis phase, to ensure that it is 

based on the best available science and meets the 

purpose and need for action.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

352 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

99 2 NEPA 

Process

The USFS and USGS have repeatedly promised to plot 

the existing depth to water data and pumping diversion 

data along with other available data such as EC gage 

data and precipitation data on a common timeline and that 

this would be used to interpret the effect of pumping on 

surface flow.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

Our AECOM hydrologists conducted the analysis 

for this project and documented their work in the 

final draft water resources report (AECOM 2011), 

which is being used for preparation of chapter 3 of 

the EIS. The data identified in the April 2011 

hydrology meeting were carefully analyzed during 

preparation of the technical report. Plots of depths 

to water in the pumping and monitoring wells, 

stream discharges at the three gages, pumping 

quantities, and precipitation were completed and 

reviewed. The AECOM staff feels this was a 

valuable suggestion and exercise, but it is only one 

approach to addressing pumping impacts. 

Unfortunately, graphing all these data makes for a 

very busy plot, or even sets of plots. Simplified 

versions of similar data are shown in figures 6, 26-

A, and 26-B of the final draft water resources 

technical report. 

A critical issue for the EIS has been to determine 

the effects of pumping on surface flow. The 

recommended plots are only one approach to 

addressing this important concern. Several 

alternative approaches were also undertaken and 

described for the water resources technical report. 

All results are consistent, in that pumping has 

adversely affected flows in the North Fork.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 353

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

99 3 NEPA 

Process

The failure of the USFS to generate, study, and 

incorporate these data into the EIS is an affront to the 

credibility of the EIS process. Unfortunately, as we have 

pointed out, the preferred alternative was already selected 

before the NOI was ever issued. 

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

We have not failed to generate, study, or 

incorporate these data; they simply do not logically 

belong in chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS. As discussed 

above, all available data were used and carefully 

analyzed as documented in the final draft water 

resources report AECOM (2011) (which was 

recently provided to you upon completion) and will 

be used in preparation of chapter 3 of the EIS. 

The proposed action was developed prior to issuing 

the NOI, as is required. This alternative has not 

been identified as the Agency preferred alternative 

at this point, only our proposed action, which will be 

analyzed in detail, along with the other two 

alternatives in chapter 3 of the EIS. We have 

revisited the proposed action parameters and made 

adjustments and refinements as needed based on 

internal scoping, public scoping, and the results of 

the hydrology data reanalysis, as described in the 

response above.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

354 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

99 4 Water Despite ECCA protests that the statement “It is important 

to note that the Eagle Creek gage measures flow from 

both North Fork and South Fork” is misleading and our 

clarification that “flow in the NFEC” downstream from the 

wells can only be validated visually or by calculation using 

flow measured at all three gages simultaneously, the 

USFS has failed to rectify their erroneous attempt to 

measure NFEC flow using only EC gage data.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Resources

The statement is not misleading—the gage 

configurations are accurately and impartially 

reported. There is no hidden intent or meaning 

behind the statement. The overriding objective of 

the reanalysis of the USGS program, as discussed 

in the hydrology group meeting in April 2011, was to 

identify and clearly state the effects of pumping on 

the North Fork. The Eagle Creek gage provides the 

only available baseline (i.e., prepumping) 

information that can serve as a benchmark. We 

have identified the EC gage as critical to 

determining trends in pumping effects because it is 

the only gage that has been in place since before 

pumping began. We recognize the value of data 

from the NF gage and the SF gage but they have 

only been in place for a few years, and only since 

pumping began. All available data were used to 

determine flow in the North Fork Eagle Creek and 

the effects of pumping, as described in great detail 

in the final draft water resources report (AECOM 

2011). 

We recognize that information from the Eagle Creek 

gage is not well suited to managing pumping 

operations (should they be approved). It should be 

noted that if an alternative that allows pumping is 

ultimately selected by the forest supervisor, some 

sort of flow monitoring immediately downstream of 

the well field may need to be specified This and 

other measures are recommended in draft form in 

the water resources technical report, and will be 

further discussed and refined as the EIS 

progresses. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 355

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

99 5 Water Most of the time, the only flow reaching the EC gage 

comes from the South Fork. We expect the USFS to verify 

this observation through calculations using simultaneous 

flow data from the NFEC gage, the SFEC gage and the 

EC gage. That is, we expect the only data used to 

interpret flow in the North Fork, downstream from the 

wells shall be those data that reflect the portion of flow 

contributed from the NFEC to the EC gage.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Resources

We would generally like to agree with the first 

statement here, which we feel should particularly be 

true during periods when low runoff, low recharge, 

and substantial pumping occur simultaneously. 

However, John Shomaker and Associates present 

conflicting information immediately after pumping in 

2003. 

In order to compare nonpumping conditions to 

pumping conditions, a long period of overlapping 

record is needed. Secondly, the relationships 

between precipitation, streamflow, and groundwater 

levels are not simple, are serially correlated, and 

vary with time. Pumping rates vary. The creek 

responds quickly to snowmelt and rainfall, but there 

is a lag for groundwater responses and streamflow 

gains or losses. We don’t have a gage immediately 

downstream of the well field. These factors 

complicate the manipulation and interpretation of 

EC gage readings. For these reasons, the stated 

conclusions about pumping effects in the final draft 

water resources report (AECOM 2011) are left fairly 

qualitative. Impact assessments in the water 

resources report are based on comparisons 

between long periods of time, when all the 

hydrologic variables are somewhat smoothed out 

and broad generalizations can be made. All of 

these conclusions are conditioned on available data 

and interpretations. 

We make comparisons between the three gages on 

page 47 and in figures 23, 24, and 25 of the final 

draft water resources technical report. Other 

analyses and confirmations of flow losses in the 

North Fork due to pumping are also presented in 

the report. 

If a pumping alternative is selected, additional 

monitoring and mitigation measures may be 

developed to help measure, report, and interpret 

flow conditions in the North Fork, beyond just using 

the EC gage.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

356 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

99 6 Cumulative 

Effects

The ECCA respectfully requests that the USFS continue 

to honor its consideration for the damage suffered by 

downstream property owners due to the effects of an 

unsaturated watershed, even though our property is out of 

the study area.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Resources

Private property downstream of Alto Lake is within 

the water resources cumulative impact analysis 

area; please see the cumulative impact analysis in 

the final draft water resources report (AECOM 

2011) for these findings. Cumulative effects to 

riparian vegetation will be discussed in the 

“Riparian Vegetation” section and socioeconomic 

effects in the “Socioeconomics” section.

99 7 Water The USGS report states, “Based on the discharge record 

at the EC gage, given alluvium and channel configurations 

similar to those described in this study, streamflow in 

some part of the stream channel between NF and EC 

gages was likely discontinuous during part of the year 

during both time periods.” The ECCA can accept this 

description and encourages the USFS to acknowledge it 

along with the ECCA definition of intermittent.

5.1 Suggestion/

Comment

The final draft water resources report (AECOM 

2011) discusses the overall conclusions regarding 

North Fork Eagle Creek streamflow prior to 

pumping based on the best available data, with 

definitions for intermittent and perennial. We will 

consider this comment and the conclusions of the 

water resources analysis to determine if any 

revisions are needed to the way in which we 

describe streamflow in the “Desired Condition” 

statement in chapter 1 of the EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 357

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

99 8 Alternatives This desired condition cannot be sustained by the 

proposed alternative that prescribes some average depthto-water as an operating condition. It is not possible to 

maintain adequate surface flow when the bedrock 

becomes unsaturated as a result of pumping. In addition, 

when a measurable cone of depression is created by 

pumping, all flow measured at the EC gage comes from 

the SF. There is no scientific basis for using an average 

water table depth threshold. This would be averaging 

flood conditions with dry or base-flow conditions when the 

pumps are on. 

3.1 Alternatives We appreciate this input. If a pumping alternative is 

selected, additional monitoring and mitigation 

measures may be developed to help measure, 

report, and interpret results. Examples of 

recommended measures are contained in the final 

draft of the water resources technical report. The 

threshold for water table depth will be discussed in 

light of these recommendations and could change 

as the EIS develops. 

The overall intent of the proposed action is 

summarized in the sentences below, which 

describe the involvement and flexibility of the 

management approach under the proposed action:

The adaptive management strategy would take into 

consideration the dynamic nature of groundwater 

systems by establishing a feedback process to 

guide the management of groundwater withdrawal 

rates over time. Thresholds would be established 

for streamflows, water table depths, and riparian 

vegetation, as described below. The proposed 

action would require the applicant and Forest 

Service to work in partnership, with assistance from 

the USGS, to conduct monitoring and adaptive 

management of groundwater and surface water 

resources.

99 9 NEPA 

Process

The ECCA hopes the USFS can see how not significant 

the streamflow quantity indicator is (1.2 cfs measured at 

the EC gage). Since only the South Fork would have been 

measured, what would the USFS do with the information 

gathered?

5.1 Suggestion/

Comment

The measurement indicator was developed strictly 

as a tool to identify potential impacts to flows, using 

data that go back sufficiently in time to assess a no 

pumping alternative, and then compare it to other 

alternatives. See the response above.

99 10 Riparian 

Vegetation 

We suggest you add “and streamside trees and 

vegetation” to the socioeconomic issue statement for 

private land.

6.1 Documentspecific 

corrections

Streamside trees and vegetation is riparian 

vegetation and riparian vegetation is really outside 

the scope of the socioeconomics analysis. 

However, riparian vegetation is evaluated in chapter 

3 and makes some qualitative predictions about 

riparian vegetation in the larger cumulative impact 

analysis area
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

358 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

99 11 SocioeconomicsWe suggest you add language (underlined below) to the 

socioeconomic indicators as follows: 

Availability of domestic well water (private land water 

supply): Predicted qualitative assessment of the effects of 

the alternatives on domestic wells based on proximity to 

NFEC wells, watershed saturation, location within the 

cone of depression, and well depth (shallow wells versus 

deeper wells). 

Streamside recreational use: qualitatively predict the 

effects of the alternatives on streamside recreational use, 

including fishing.

6.1 Documentspecific 

corrections

“Watershed saturation” is not a good tool for impact 

assessment, nor would it be for management of any 

of the alternatives. A saturated watershed is one 

where the moisture state of the soil/substrate 

column has reached saturation (i.e., water occupies 

100 percent of the pore space) throughout the 

entire watershed. This probably does occur in the 

North Fork watershed, but is not a common 

condition with or without pumping.

Fishing is more adequately addressed in the 

aquatic habitat and fish evalation in chapter 3; 

streamside recreational use as a component of 

socioeconomics is addressed in chapter 3 but the 

aquatic habitat and fish analysis provides more 

details regarding fishing potential under each 

alternative. 

99 12 Permitting a cone of depression to be created and 

maintained is in conflict with the goal of improving or 

maintaining the watershed, which your forest plan directs 

you to do.

The purpose and need for taking action and the 

management objectives developed for this project 

include achieving a balance between the need for 

the municipal water supply and protecting forest 

resources.

Water supply as available through the state system 

of water rights administration is also part of Forest 

Service responsibilities. These issues are all being 

considered in the alternatives assessments, and in 

the decisionmaking, monitoring and mitigation 

measures, and special use authorizations that 

follow them.

99 13 Implementati

on

We see an unfunded mandate in the description of the 

proposed action and its monitoring and reporting 

requirements, no plan as to whom in the USFS will have 

responsibility for oversight of the data, and no format for 

presentation of the data. Without having developed a 

template for presentation of these data in a form that is 

immediately useful, and that can be added to 

continuously, or at least with a monthly report, the USFS 

will never use these data, for adaptive management, not 

even once.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

We share this concern. Additional monitoring and 

mitigation recommendations are being developed 

along these very lines, as part of the EIS process, 

with the intent of developing a detailed 

implementation plan based on the alternative 

ultimately selected for implementation at the 

conclusion of the NEPA process. A draft set of 

recommended measures is included in the final 

draft water resources technical report that will be 

our starting point for this implementation plan.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 359

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

99 14 Alternatives Any violation of permitted operating condition must be 

detectable immediately and the pumps shut off 

immediately, preferably with an automatic trigger. Without 

such a plan in place and funded, with penalties in place 

for failure of oversight, then no permit that allows 

continuation of a cone of depression is defensible.

3.1 Alternatives We agree that violation of permitted operating 

conditions must be detected immediately. Part of 

the purpose of the adaptive management program 

under the proposed action is to monitor and prevent 

such occurrences. If a special use authorization is 

renewed, its operating plan and/or implementation 

plan would specify the factors outlined in this 

comment, under Forest Service Manual directives 

as identified in chapter 2.

99 15 Alternatives We suggest you add language (underlined below) to the 

adaptive management triggers in the proposed action, as 

follows: 

If either of these adaptive management triggers 

(thresholds) is exceeded, then groundwater withdrawals 

from the North Fork wells would be limited to 50 percent 

of the volumetric rate of surface flow at the North Fork 

gage (which is upstream from the wells) until surface flow 

at the Eagle Creek gage in the NFEC resumes.

3.1 Alternatives The adaptive management triggers are based on 

continued use of the Eagle Creek gage, for the 

reasons described in the description of the 

proposed action. 

99, 

101

16 Alternatives The ECCA proposes a simplified plan that eliminates the 

cone of depression, satisfies the mandate of the USFS to 

maintain adequate surface and groundwater flow, permits 

the VoR to pump 300 acre feet per year, maintains or 

improves surface flow conditions, and contributes to 

maintaining a saturated watershed. 

The VoR is permitted to pump up to 50 percent of the 

volumetric rate of surface flow greater than 1.2 cfs, up to 

300 acre feet per year, measured at the North Fork gage 

(which is upstream from the wells). 

This solution allows the VoR to divert water when nature 

provides it. Flowing surface water in the NFEC, as 

measured by its contribution to the flow measured at the 

EC gage, will be restored, most of the time. The burden of 

oversight will be dramatically reduced to a level that 

appropriate performance by the USFS to protect forest 

resources is probable. 

3.1 Alternatives Thank you for your suggestion. We carefully 

considered this recommended alternative as 

described in the “Alternatives” section of chapter 2 

to determine if it would meet the criteria needed for 

an alternative to be analyzed in detail in an EIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

360 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

100 1 Process The Village of Ruidoso demands that all references to the 

2009 supplement to the 2006 stipulation agreement along 

with its requirement that an analysis of all reasonable 

alternatives (and no less than one alternative) that leave 

downstream flows in the same state that they would be 

absent the pumping of the North Fork wells, be removed 

from the EIS. The Village takes the position that this twoparty 2009 supplement is legally insufficient to modify the 

three-party 2009 stipulation agreement. The Village also 

takes the position that the parties’ actions in entering into 

the stipulation without informing the Village, as well as 

their concealment of the supplement from the Village were 

both fraudulent and illegal.

6.1 Documentspecific 

corrections

According to our Office of General Counsel, the 

applicant was not legally required to be a party to 

the 2009 supplement; efforts were made at that 

time to keep the applicant informed of these 

updates. 

101 2 Alternatives Areas not yet considered:

1. At what depth can the pumps be safely permitted? 

When surface flow exceeds 1.2 cfs, the pumps only need 

to be deep enough for the water to cool the pumps. We 

suggest pump depth, consistent with the need to protect 

surface flows, be one of the stipulations of the special use 

permit.

2. A saturated stream corridor should result in double to 

triple the surface flow measured at the Eagle Creek gage.

3. We suggest a pumping moratorium be required until the 

“temporary decline in water table” has been restored to 

artesian or near artesian conditions and the pumps have 

been raised to near surface levels such that they will not 

create an expanding or destructive cone of depression.

When the wells were drilled, the belief was widely 

accepted that they would not affect surface flows. That 

was not the case. A dry streambed was the unintended 

consequence. While (our suggested) alternative 4 is not a 

perfect solution, it meets the needs of all parties involved.

3.1 Alternatives Please take note of the monitoring section in 

chapter 2 of the DEIS as well as the triggers 

identified in the adaptive management strategy of 

the proposed action. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 361

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 1 Riparian Abstract - Second Sentence, Item 2

This item indicates that the proposal addresses the need 

for “2) protecting natural resources on the national forest 

by maintaining adequate surface and groundwater flows 

to sustain or improve the riparian and aquatic ecosystems 

that may be affected by groundwater drawdown from the 

pumping of these wells.” Unfortunately, the USDA Forest 

Service has not documented or otherwise categorized 

historic changes in the forest in the subject area, nor has 

the Forest Service documented any adverse affects on 

riparian vegetation or aquatic ecosystems. It is 

unreasonable for the applicant (Village of Ruidoso) to be 

required to improve the riparian habitat, particularly due to 

the fact that there are no data pertaining to the 

management of the forest in order to maintain the forest 

and watershed health, or any documented data of any 

adverse impacts to the forest health or aquatic 

ecosystems.

1.1 Significant 

Issue - Riparian

This need statement includes the phrase “sustain or 

improve the riparian and aquatic ecosystems...” 

This means that we are striving for riparian and 

aquatic ecosystems in the NFEC project area to 

either stay in their current condition (no reduction in 

these resources over time due to pumping) or to 

improve. 

Chapter 3 of the DEIS provides a detailed analysis 

of effects of each alternative on aquatic habitat and 

fish and riparian vegetation. 

102 2 Stream 

Augmentation

Third Sentence

This sentence makes reference to the mitigation of 

potential adverse impacts. In fact, the draft EIS considers 

only one mitigation strategy that either reduces or 

eliminates the applicant’s pumping. Other strategies such 

as augmenting streamflow from groundwater produced 

during pumping were offered by the applicant but were not 

considered.

3.1 Alternatives The adaptive management strategy of the proposed 

action is described in chapter 2 of the DEIS and is 

the proposed mitigation strategy, in combination 

with the mitigation and monitoring measures 

identified separately in their respective sections of 

chapter 2. It is based on the implementation of 

several management triggers that would be used 

together to determine if restrictions on pumping 

should be enacted; only if certain conditions are 

met over time, based on careful monitoring, would 

the applicant be required to reduce or eliminate 

pumping for short periods. 

We carefully considered the applicant’s suggestion 

to augment streamflow, as an option for mitigation; 

this is described in the “Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study” section of chapter 

2 of the DEIS. We are not aware of any other 

mitigation strategies suggested by the applicant 

other than stream augmentation. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

362 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 3 Special Use 

Permit

Summary - First Paragraph, Fourth Sentence

This sentence indicates that the new authorization would 

be similar to the expired permit, with a number of other 

caveats that in fact make the new permit significantly 

different from the expired permit. Most importantly, the 

proposed draft EIS would significantly reduce the 

applicant’s access to water using its water rights as 

administered by the State of New Mexico.

3.1 Alternatives This statement regarding similarity to the expired 

permit has been revised in the DEIS. 

102 4 Process Fourth Paragraph, First Sentence

This sentence, in part, states that the environmental 

effects of authorizing the special use permit will be 

studied. With the exception of assessing the interaction of 

the surface water that can result from pumping the 

applicant’s wells, no other environmental effects were 

studied. The fact that no other environmental effects were 

studied may be the rationale for the recurring use 

throughout the draft EIS of the concept “sustain or 

improve the riparian and aquatic ecosystems that may be 

affected by groundwater drawdown from the pumping of

these wells.” The concept of “sustain or improve” is again 

presented in the last sentence of the paragraph.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

Chapter 3 of the DEIS provides a detailed analysis 

of all of the environmental factors that we studied, 

including water resources, aquatic habitat and fish, 

riparian vegetation, socioeconomics, water rights, 

upland vegetation, wildlife, recreation, and scenery.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 363

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 5 Water Fifth Paragraph, Sixth Sentence

This sentence refers to a number of “significant issues” 

including pumping effects on water resources, aquatic 

habitat and fish, riparian vegetation, water rights, and 

socioeconomics. As noted by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) (Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5205, 

Revised November 2010) and as indicated on the 1963 

USGS topographic map, the North Fork of Eagle Creek 

below the North Fork gage that is located above the North 

Fork Well Field is intermittent. The New Mexico 

Environment Department (NMED) Surface Water Quality 

Bureau, Water Quality Standards for Interstate and 

Intrastate Surface Water, as provided under Title 20, 

Chapter 6, Part 4.97 A. lists the designated uses for 

intermittent water as “livestock watering, wildlife habitat, 

marginal warmwater aquatic life and primary contact.” No 

provision or mention of “fish” is provided for in the 

designated uses for intermittent surface waters. 

Therefore, any mention of fish in the draft EIS should be 

removed. Based on the fact that there are no documented 

impacts to riparian habitat, it appears that a primary goal 

of the Forest Service through the EIS process is to 

develop instream flows in North Fork Eagle Creek without 

having water rights.

1.1 Significant 

issue - Water

The DEIS acknowledges that NFEC was an 

intermittent stream prior to pumping; we document 

and discuss this in several areas of the DEIS 

including pages 4, 6, 50 and in multiple places in 

chapter 3, particularly in the surface water section 

of the “Water Resources” section.

We provide more details on past and current fish 

populations in NFEC and Eagle Creek, including 

stocking histories and angler survey results, in the 

“Aquatic Habitat and Fish” section of chapter 3. 

The “Agency Direction” section of chapter 1 of the 

DEIS provides details on the agency direction we 

used as a framework for the EIS (Lincoln Forest 

Plan and Forest Service manual and handbook 

direction); while the NMED water quality standards 

are important and relevant information to us in 

managing water resources on Forest Service land, 

they are not the only information used; we have our 

own direction for managing stream systems, as 

documented in chapter 1 of the DEIS. 

102 6 Process Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: Document 

Structure

Page 1, First Paragraph, Second Sentence

The facts are contrary to the statements alleged in this 

sentence. References cited by the Forest Service in the 

draft EIS do not support the Forest Service claim that 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from the proposed 

action have been studied. The Forest Service has 

invested little effort, or resources, in assessing impacts to 

vegetation and wildlife, and instead has focused on 

impacts from pumping on surface-waterflow.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

We have conducted an extensive study of the 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each 

alternative on forest resources. This is described in 

chapter 3 of the EIS and summarized in DEIS Table 

2 and Table 3.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

364 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 7 Water Rights Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: Background

Page 4, First Paragraph

The quantity of water provided by the applicant’s North 

Fork Eagle Creek well field (North Fork well field) provides 

an incorrect assessment of the quantity of water provided 

to the applicant (Village) from the North Fork well field. 

The Forest Service does not recognize the fact that the 

Village receives a 50 percent return flow credit for all 

water produced from the North Fork well field. This is 

because the Village has a right to consume 100 percent of 

the water diverted from the well field. The return flow 

credit is the result of at least 50 percent of the water 

diverted from the North Fork well field being returned to 

the Rio Ruidoso via the Village’s wastewater treatment 

plant. The return flow credit allows the Village to divert 50 

percent of the total quantity of water produced from the 

North Fork well field from other wells outside of the Eagle 

Creek watershed or surface water from the Rio Ruidoso. 

Therefore, using the quantity of water diverted from the 

North Fork well field as provided in the subject paragraph, 

the Village actually obtained approximately 46.5 percent 

to more than 75 percent of its water supply from North 

Fork well field diversions.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Rights

These estimates came directly from the applicant in 

their 2006 special use permit application. However, 

we’ve added a clarifying sentence to this section of 

the DEIS as follows: 

Based on recent information from the VoR, 46 

percent to 75 percent of its water supply can be 

attributed to NFEC well diversions (VoR 2012).
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 365

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 8 Water Page 4, Fourth and Fifth Bullet Point

The subject bullet point makes references to changes in 

Eagle Creek streamflow at the Eagle Creek gage after the 

North Fork wells began pumping and the change in runoff 

patterns. The Eagle Creek gage is located below the 

confluence of the North and South Forks of Eagle Creek. 

The evaluation of effects on streamflow at the Eagle 

Creek gage did not include an evaluation of impacts from 

surface water and groundwater diversions in the South 

Fork of Eagle Creek. Diversions that can affect streamflow 

in the South Fork of Eagle Creek include surface 

diversions to fishing ponds, and pumping from large 

capacity wells for snow making at Ski Apache. New wells 

were drilled in the 2000s for snow making at Ski Apache. 

These surface water and groundwater diversions may 

affect streamflow at the Eagle Creek gage but were not 

evaluated by the Forest Service as part of the draft EIS. 

Also see comments provided below related to proposed 

alternative 3 related to changes in streamflow.

1.1 Significant 

Issue - Water

Thank you for pointing out potential sources of 

diversion along upper South Fork Eagle Creek. All 

of the snow making wells for Ski Apache are in the 

Rio Ruidoso watershed. 

Based on information available from the Office of 

the State Engineer (personal communication 

2/3/12), there are six wells in the area and four of 

these (drilled between 1963 and 1965) provide 

water to Ski Apache; three of these are located on 

Forest Service land and one is on the Mescalero 

Apache Reservation. All of these wells are located 

in the Rio Ruidoso watershed; two of these wells 

are no longer in operation. According to the OSE, 

most of the water used for snow making comes 

from a pond located on the Apache Reservation 

and this pond is also located in the Rio Ruidoso 

watershed and not in the Eagle Creek drainage. 

The headwaters of the Rio Ruidoso are at Ski 

Apache. 

While it is possible that there may be interbasin 

transfer (based on the nature of the fractured 

volcanic aquifer), the fact that these wells are 

outside the Eagle Creek watershed reduces the 

likelihood that this water diversion has affected 

streamflow at the Eagle Creek gage. 

The fishing ponds on the South Fork within the 

Mesaclero Apache Reservation are quite small, and 

while diversions to them are unknown, we feel the 

ponds are not likely to have a substantive effect on 

flows at the Eagle Creek gage, particularly over the 

timeframes used for the EIS analysis. For all of 

these reasons, we do not believe that water uses 

along the upper South Fork have effects at the 

Eagle Creek gage that would substantially alter our 

general conclusions. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

366 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

Even with all the data collections and studies 

conducted by various parties over the past few 

years, we have acknowledged and disclosed that 

there are unknowns and sources of error involved in 

detailed quantification of the behavior of this 

hydrologic system. Continued monitoring of the 

data from the South Fork and Eagle Creek gages 

over time should provide better information 

regarding these relationships.

102 9 Vegetation Page 5, Second Paragraph after the Bullet Points

The statement in the first sentence that indicates waterdependent resources outside of the stream corridor can 

be affected by pumping of the subject wells is not based 

on any data or facts. The “water-dependent resources 

outside of the stream corridor” are not identified in the 

draft EIS. The depth to groundwater in the North Fork 

Eagle Creek watershed is relatively great in all areas 

outside of the stream corridor and even in the absence of 

pumping from the North Fork well field would most likely 

not be available to the “water-dependent resources” that 

exist in the North Fork watershed.

1.1 Significant 

Issue - Water

We recognize that the potential for effects from 

groundwater pumping are greatest within the 

stream corridor. However, this statement in the 

DEIS implies that there is potential for effect further 

from the stream corridor, depending on the cone of 

depression. The potential for effects outside the 

stream corridor are discussed in chapter 3 of the 

DEIS. 

102 10 Water Rights Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: Water Rights

Absent from the background information provided related 

to water rights is the fact that 612.69 acre-feet (ac-ft) of 

water rights associated with the North Fork well field predate the creation of the Lincoln National Forest.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Rights

Even though a portion of the VoR’s water rights predate the creation of the Lincoln National Forest, 

access to those rights is still subject to reasonable 

regulation under 36 CFR Parts 251 and 261. 

102 11 Process Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: Purpose and 

Need for Action - Page 6, Paragraph 1, First Sentence

Neither the 2006 stipulated agreement, nor the 2009 

supplement, included the provision of an analysis that 

would leave downstream flows in the same state that they 

would be in the absence of pumping from the North Fork 

well field as indicated in the subject sentence. The Village 

was not a party to the 2009 supplement.

4.1 Nonsignificant 

Issue

According to our Office of General Counsel, the 

applicant was not legally required to be a party to 

the 2009 supplement; efforts were made at that 

time to keep the applicant informed of these 

updates. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 367

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 11 Process Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: Purpose and 

Need for Action; Desired Condition - Page 6

A desired condition is not provided in the subject section. 

Rather, a summary of streamflow of very limited portions 

of available streamflow, and a general comparison of the 

North Fork Eagle Creek watershed to other undefined 

watersheds is provided. Desired conditions should include 

those related to the applicant.

6.1 Documentspecific comment/

correction

This section of the DEIS describes the information 

we used to develop the desired condition 

description. It also includes in the first paragraph: 

“The applicant’s North Fork wells, authorized under 

a special use permit, are managed as a substantial 

component (attributable, at times, to providing up to 

75 percent of the municipal water supply) of the

Ruidoso municipal water supply.”

102 12 Water Page 6, Third Paragraph of Subject Section, Fourth 

Sentence

No evidence is provided in the draft EIS or the related 

references that the groundwater along North Fork of 

Eagle Creek provides water to springs and seeps. No 

springs or seeps are shown along or near the intermittent 

channel of North Fork of Eagle Creek on the USGS 1963 

map or subsequent USGS 7 5-minute topographic map. 

Springs alleged to be present above the North Fork well 

field have not been catalogued with respect to seasonal 

flow rates and water quality, nor have they been 

documented to have been impacted by pumping.

1.1 Significant 

Issue - Water

Springs and seeps are discussed in more detail in 

the “Water Resources” section of chapter 3 of the 

DEIS. 

By definition, springs and seeps are groundwater 

reaching the soil surface, although we acknowledge 

that they could be associated with a perched 

aquifer. Please see responses to comments 102-22 

and 102-25 for more information related to how the 

DEIS discusses possible effects to springs and 

seeps. 

102 13 Vegetation Page 6, Third Paragraph of Subject Section, Fifth 

Sentence

This sentence does not provide a desired condition, but 

only a statement that riparian habitat is present along 

North Fork of Eagle Creek, and general comparison of the 

area to similar but undefined and unnamed intermittent 

streams at similar elevation. No supporting documentation 

related to the similarities of other intermittent streams is 

provided. During a meeting with the Forest Service earlier 

this year, the Forest Service told the Village that it was 

unable to find a similar intermittent stream system in this 

watershed or the nearby Rio Bonito watershed.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Riparian 

This section of the desired condition description has 

been revised; reference to a comparable stream 

has been removed. The use of a reference reach is 

discussed in more detail in the “Riparian” section of 

chapter 3 of the DEIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

368 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 14 Process Page 6, Third Paragraph of Subject Section, Seventh 

Sentence

The sentence may be intended to indicate a desired 

condition that a threshold for average water depth should 

be maintained. No data are provided in the draft EIS that 

indicate the minimum groundwater depth requirements for 

wildlife or riparian habitat. All natural systems are 

dynamic, and this “desired condition” implies the need for 

a static system. The Forest Service should define 

variability in both the natural system and the riparian 

needs in an inherently and naturally dynamic system. 

Groundwater pumping would not affect the vadose zone 

that the ecosystem relies upon.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Riparian 

This sentence has since been revised as follows: 

“The thresholds for average or median water table 

depth annually or seasonally (based on monitoring)

is maintained.”

We recognize the dynamic nature of the system 

and discuss this in the adaptive management 

strategy of the proposed action and in other 

sections of chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

The vadose zone includes the capillary fringe; that 

part of the unsaturated ground above the water 

table that is saturated due to tensional forces or 

capillary rise. In fine-grained sediments, it can rise 

fairly high, providing water to root zones. The finer 

the sediments, the higher the capillary fringe rises.

102 15 Process Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: Purpose and 

Need for Action; Existing Condition - Page 6, Second 

Paragraph, Second and Third Sentences

As mentioned above, studies relied upon for the draft EIS 

did not consider the impacts on surface flow at the Eagle 

Creek gage from surface water and groundwater 

diversions that occur in the South Fork of Eagle Creek. 

Therefore, the impacts from pumping the North Fork well 

field on surface waterflow at the Eagle Creek gage are 

likely overestimated. 

The fact that the Eagle Creek gage was located farther 

downstream of its current location on a reach in the 

channel that was on bedrock during the period of 1969 to 

1980 has not been addressed. The current location is in 

an area with a significant amount of alluvium and 

subsurface groundwater flow below or around the current 

gage location is possible.

1.1 Significant 

issue - Water

See response to comment 102-8 for a discussion of 

the South Fork influence on the Eagle Creek gage. 

We recognize that the current Eagle Creek gage 

was not in place until 1988, after pumping began, 

and that the prepumping data the USGS analyzed 

in their report came from gage data from a nearby, 

but different location. We confirmed this with USGS 

via phone on 1/30/12. We understand that the old 

gage location was blown out during a flood event 

and reconstructed in its new location. The location 

of the previous gage is not well documented; there 

are differing opinions and no official record of this 

previous location. For this reason, we cannot 

ascertain whether the present location has 

“significant alluvium underflow” compared to the 

previous location. We recognize that this situation 

(the prepumping data coming from another gage 

location) is not ideal and allows for some error in 

comparing pre- and postpumping periods. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 369

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

However, we do not think that there were likely 

substantial differences in the number of no-flow 

days calculated due to this potential underflow. 

Based on a comparison of no-flow days in the 

prepumping period using the suggested 0.16 cfs as 

the definition of no-flow resulted in only 3 years 

during the prepumping period (1970, 1973, and 

1975) that would have had days that met this 

definition of no flow. Because the no-flow adaptive 

management trigger is based on reducing the 

number of no-flow days experienced since pumping 

began “roughly in half” as described in this section 

of the proposed action description, we feel that this 

still meets the intent of this trigger.

Therefore, due to the fact that the original gage 

location is unknown and we have no way of 

quantitatively comparing its level of underflow to the 

level at the present gage location plus the fact that 

a cursory comparison using the suggested 0.16 cfs 

did not result in substantial differences, we feel that 

the no-flow day trigger as part of the proposed 

action is sound. Keep in mind that, as with all of the 

adaptive management triggers, this would be a 

starting point for management and would be refined 

over time with the results of additional monitoring 

under the proposed action. 

We recognize the fact that we do not have all the 

data to answer all the questions needed; this is the 

reason that we propose additional monitoring and 

an adaptive management approach that can adjust 

management over time based on more information.

102 16 Vegetation Page 7, First Paragraph

This paragraph clearly indicates that no adverse impacts 

to riparian vegetation and habitat from historic North Fork 

well field pumping can be documented. Therefore, the 

proposed reduction in pumping as set forth in the 

Proposed Action section of the draft EIS (page 7) and the 

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action – Adaptive Management 

section of the draft EIS (pages 20–23) are unnecessary 

and not supported by any data.

1.1 Significant 

issue - Riparian

The “Riparian” section of chapter 3 of the DEIS 

provides more detail on riparian vegetation 

prepumping and postpumping. 

The adaptive management strategy of the proposed 

action is not based solely on whether we can 

document changes in riparian vegetation as a result 

of pumping.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

370 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 17 Vegetation Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: Purpose and 

Need for Action; Need for Action - Page 7, Second Bullet 

Point

This section once again draws upon the concept of 

“sustaining or improving the riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems that may be affected by groundwater 

drawdown from the pumping of these wells.” However, as 

mentioned in the first paragraph of page 7 of the draft EIS, 

no adverse impacts to the riparian or aquatic ecosystems 

resulting from pumping associated with the North Fork 

well field have been documented. The “sustaining or 

improving” concept is unsupported by data and would limit 

the applicant’s pumping. 

Soil moisture content and water available for riparian 

vegetation have been severely limited as a result of the 

Forest Service allowing the tree density and forest canopy 

to become too great throughout the watershed, resulting 

in significant increases in evapotranspiration and the 

interception of precipitation that would have otherwise 

been available for increasing soil moisture, groundwater 

recharge, and surface waterflow. The Forest Service must 

take an active role in reducing tree density and canopy 

cover in order to help sustain or improve the riparian 

habitat.

1.1 Significant 

issue - Riparian

See response to comment 102-1 related to 

sustaining or improving riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems.

The DEIS discusses the relationship between 

conifer density and water yield in chapter, including 

a discussion of agency efforts to reduce tree 

density and the potential for high severity fire. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 371

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 18 Water Rights Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: Purpose and 

Need for Action; Management Objectives - Page 7, First 

Bullet Point

The stated management objectives of providing “water 

management flexibility and water conservation incentives” 

to the applicant do not coincide with what the Forest 

Service has indicated to the applicant is its preferred 

alternative proposed in the draft EIS (alternative 3). The 

Forest Service preferred alternative severely reduces the 

ability of the applicant to utilize its water rights and provide 

water to the Village and, therefore, severely reduces 

water management flexibility. The applicant has the right 

to pump a maximum of 2,385.63 acre-feet per year (acft/yr) from the well field, and the proposed preferred 

alternative reduces the maximum allowable pumping to 

300 ac-ft/yr, with the ability to eliminate pumping 

altogether. It should be noted that the Village has pumped 

more than 1,000 ac-ft in a single year, and has pumped 

an average of more than 500 ac-ft/yr since the North Fork 

well field was put into service, and without any 

documented adverse impacts to riparian habitat or aquatic 

ecosystems. The Forest Service proposed limitation is 

even less than the 612.69 ac-ft of NMOSE permitted 

water rights associated with the well field that pre-date the 

creation of the Lincoln National Forest. 

The applicant already has a water conservation plan in 

place and conservation measures are routinely 

implemented. The draft EIS provides no suggestions for 

water conservation measures that would reduce the 

Village’s water demand. 

This management objective should be eliminated from 

consideration given the fact that Village has in place a 

water conservation plan.

1.1 Significant 

issue – Water 

Rights

The Forest Service has not yet identified a 

preferred alternative. 

As described in the adaptive management strategy 

of the proposed action in chapter 2: “An initial 

adaptive management trigger (threshold) of 900 

cumulative acre-feet over any 3 consecutive water 

years (300 acre-feet per year) would trigger a 

review by the Forest Service of the current 

thresholds and mitigations at maintaining or 

improving surface resource conditions.”

As discussed in this section of the DEIS, this is not 

a stand-alone threshold (and therefore does not 

necessarily “cap” annual diversions; the intent is to 

use this threshold in combination with the other 

thresholds and the results of careful monitoring to 

determine if pumping restrictions would be 

necessary.

We recognize that this management objective may 

be misleading or misunderstood; we have revised 

the wording of this objective in the DEIS for clarity, 

as follows: 

Recognizing the importance of the well field to 

municipal water supply by providing water to the 

applicant while also encouraging water 

conservation, management flexibility, and 

opportunities for transferring water rights to 

locations off of NFS land.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

372 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 19 Process Page 7, Second Bullet Point

The rationale for the objective of minimizing groundwater 

drawdown is not supported in the draft EIS. No adverse 

impacts to riparian vegetation, wildlife, or aquatic 

ecosystems have been documented, nor has the Forest 

Service provided specific groundwater depths that are 

needed for riparian vegetation, wildlife, or aquatic 

ecosystems. Therefore, this objective should be 

eliminated from consideration.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

Chapter 3 of the DEIS describes the effects of 

implementing each alternative on these resources.

102 20 Process Chapter 1. Proposed Action - Page 7, First Paragraph of 

Section, Last Sentence

The proposed new authorization is not similar to the 

expired permit as this sentence would lead one to believe. 

For example, the proposed authorization caps the 

maximum annual diversion to 300 acre-ft/yr (900 ac-ft in 3 

years), and with the “adaptive management strategies” 

the Forest Service can reduce annual diversions to zero. 

Additionally, this sentence makes reference to mitigating 

potential adverse impacts to surface water and 

groundwater resources from the applicant’s pumping 

when no adverse impacts have been documented to date.

3.1 Alternatives See response to comment 102-3.

As described in the adaptive management strategy 

of the proposed action in chapter 2: “An initial 

adaptive management trigger (threshold) of 900 

cumulative acre-feet over any 3 consecutive water 

years (300 acre-feet per year) would trigger a 

review by the Forest Service of the current 

thresholds and mitigations at maintaining or 

improving surface resource conditions.”

As discussed in this section of the DEIS, this is not 

a stand-alone threshold (and therefore does not 

necessarily “cap” annual diversions); the intent is to 

use this threshold in combination with the other 

thresholds and the results of careful monitoring to 

determine if pumping restrictions would be 

necessary.

Chapter 3 of the DEIS describes the effects of 

implementing each alternative on resources.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 373

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 21 Water Page 8, First Paragraph

High elevation groundwater systems such as the North 

Fork of Eagle Creek are inherently dynamic. Groundwater 

depths and surface waterflows are closely related to 

annual precipitation. The Forest Service “adaptive 

management strategy” appears to be based on the desire 

to limit the applicant’s pumping and not on any 

documented adverse affects from pumping the North Fork 

well field. It is not possible to develop threshold “triggers” 

based on groundwater depths or surface waterflow to be 

protective of nonexistent impacts to riparian habitat and 

aquatic ecosystems. The adaptive management strategy 

and related “triggers” would apparently be based on 

subjective desired conditions and not adverse impacts to 

riparian vegetation or aquatic ecosystems have been 

documented.

3.1 Alternatives Chapter 3 of the DEIS describes the effects of 

implementing each alternative on resources. We 

agree that this is a dynamic system and that 

groundwater depths and surface waterflows are 

closely related to precipitation. It is established in 

the literature that there are maximum groundwater 

depths needed for riparian plants to survive. 

The adaptive management strategy is based on 

continued monitoring and provides the framework to 

incorporate future monitoring results into 

management and adjustments to the triggers, if 

necessary. The current triggers were developed 

based on the best available current information.

102 22 Process Chapter 1. Significant Issues: Water Resources - Page 8, 

First Paragraph of Section, First Sentence

The statement, that well pumping results in changes in 

wetlands, springs, and seeps as a result of pumping the 

North Fork Well Field, is false. No documentation has 

been provided in the draft EIS or references related 

thereto that support this claim. The subject statement 

should be removed.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

This sentence refers to groundwater pumping in 

general and is not specifically stating that 

groundwater pumping in NFEC is affecting springs 

and seeps. It is followed up in the next paragraph 

with the sentence “Well pumping may affect the 

quantity and quality of streamflow, groundwater, 

wetlands, springs, and seeps.” 

The “Water Resources” section of chapter 3 of the 

DEIS discusses the potential for impacts to springs 

and seeps.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

374 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 23 Water Chapter 1. Significant Issues: Measurement Indicators -

Page 9, First Paragraph, First Sentence

This sentence indicates that well pumping “may affect” 

streamflow quantity, streamflow quality, wetlands, and 

seeps and springs. It is not possible for pumping from the 

North Fork well field to adversely affect surface water 

quality, because the quality of North Fork Eagle Creek 

surface water is significantly better than groundwater in 

the North Fork well field (October 2004, Finch, Peery, and 

McCoy, Water-Resources Evaluation of Eagle Creek 

Watershed, Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico). During 

periods of above average precipitation, the groundwater 

system in the well field area can become artesian wherein 

groundwater flows upward into the alluvial sediments and 

possibly contribute to surface waterflow, in turn adversely 

affecting surface water quality.

1.1 Significant 

Issue - Water

You are correct that this sentence indicates that 

well pumping may affect these resources (and does 

not say that it would affect these resources). 

The “Water Resources” section of chapter 3 of the 

DEIS discusses water quality.

102 24 Process Page 9, Third Bullet Point

Measurement indicators are not based on the NMED, 

Surface Water Quality Bureau standards for intermittent 

surface water bodies, nor on any data provided in the 

draft EIS. The measurement indicators are arbitrary and 

should be removed.

5. 1 Procedural 

Concern

Chapter 3 of the DEIS uses each indicator to 

compare the effects of each alternative; these 

indicators are not arbitrary and were developed to 

provide a reasonable basis for comparison between 

the alternatives in chapter 3. They are being used in 

the DEIS for comparison between the alternatives 

only and do not need to be based on NMED water 

quality standards. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 375

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 25 Water Page 9, Fourth Bullet Point

The referenced model (Balleau, 2004) is out of date and 

does not take into account current data collected by the 

USGS in its report prepared for the subject draft EIS 

(Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5205, Revised 

November 2010) or the report prepared by AECOM for 

the subject draft EIS (North Fork Eagle Creek, Water 

Resources Report, Final Draft, November 9, 2011). These 

data include updated calculations of groundwater 

recharge and watershed yield, which are both critical 

aspects that need to be included in an updated 

groundwater flow model that can be used to accurately 

simulate impacts. Furthermore, the model does not 

account for dynamic recharge to the groundwater system 

and assumes that recharge remains constant each year, 

when in fact recharge to the system is dynamic The 

USGS estimated recharge to range from 570 to 3,330 acft/yr. Further evidence of the dynamic nature of recharge 

to the groundwater system is that recharge in a single 

year can be great enough to cause the groundwater 

system to be present under flowing artesian conditions, as 

documented at the applicant’s North Fork Well 4 by the 

USGS in May of 2007.

The AECOM report clearly indicates that the Balleau 

model incorporates a number of simplifying assumptions 

that are known not to be correct including simulating the 

aquifer as a confined aquifer (resulting in greater 

drawdown than would occur in an unconfined aquifer), 

model not accounting for the fact that the aquifer has 

different “horizons,” a “line barrier boundary 1,100 feet 

northwest of the well field,” and that all Village wells pump 

from the same portion of the aquifer. There are numerous 

other simplifying assumptions in the Balleau groundwaterflow model, and the AECOM report (page 71) justifiably 

states, “Allowing for these foregoing assumptions, 

analytical modeling of regional drawdown effects 

produces the worst case scenario for regional drawdown 

caused by the Village wells.” 

1.1 Significant 

Issue - Water

We recognize that the Balleau model relies on a 

number of assumptions; these are clearly stated 

and discussed in the “Water Resources” section of 

the DEIS and in the AECOM water resources report 

(2011). We also discuss the relevant information 

from the USGS report in this section. There is a 

level of uncertainty in using the Balleau model for 

predicted drawdown but it is the best available 

information for this use. The DEIS clearly states we 

consider this a maximum effect (since the aquifer is 

treated as fully confined) and that pumping effects 

could be less. 

Keep in mind that the modeled drawdown as shown 

in Figure 6 of the DEIS simply displays drawdown 

and its relationship to known locations of domestic 

wells and springs/seeps; the analysis does not 

predict effects to these wells or springs but simply 

acknowledges that there may be effects based on 

their proximity to the wells. For springs and seeps, 

additional monitoring is suggested to determine if 

they are being affected by drawdown (as discussed 

in the “Monitoring” section of chapter 2). 

For purposes of comparison, we conducted a Theis 

analysis (which also assumes a confined aquifer) to 

compare the cone of depression to the Balleau 

model. The Theis analysis assumed pumping at 

300 afy for 1 year, transmissivity at 1,200 ft2/day 

and a storage coefficient of 0.02. The results 

showed that most springs/seeps and domestic wells 

upstream from the NFEC wells are in an area of 

predicted drawdown between 6 feet and 2 feet. 

These results are similar to the Balleau model 

which predicted these wells and springs are in an 

area of predicted drawdown between 10 feet and 5 

feet.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

376 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

The AECOM report (page 75) further acknowledges the 

limitations of trying to estimate drawdown in the 

statement, “For this reason, the actual extent of long-term 

drawdown from pumping is unknown, as are the details of 

pumping effects on streamflows and groundwater levels.”

Therefore, any drawdown, streamflow impacts, or impacts 

to springs and seeps simulated by the Balleau model are 

inaccurate because the model overpredicts drawdown 

and, therefore, overpredicts potential impacts on wells of 

other ownership, springs, and the aquatic ecosystem. 

Reference to the model prepared by Casey W. Cook of 

Balleau Groundwater, Inc. (Balleau, 2004) and the use of 

the model to assess pumping affects should be eliminated 

from the draft EIS.

102 26 Water Page 9, Fifth Bullet Point

Climate change does have the potential to increase or 

decrease streamflow and groundwater recharge. Heavy 

monsoon precipitation in 2006 and 2008 caused severe 

flooding in the area. Conversely, a resident at the 

seasonal cabins above the North Fork well field indicated 

that during the drought of the 1950s, no surface water 

was present above the cabins (USGS

Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5205, Revised 

November 2010). Natural variations in the system should 

be expected and potential affects related thereto should 

not be the responsibility of the applicant.

1.1 Significant 

Issue - Water

The “Water Resources” section of chapter 3 of the 

DEIS discusses climate change and how this could 

affect the implementation of the alternatives over 

time. This is simply a way to compare alternatives 

and does not identify applicant responsibilities. An 

analysis of the effects of climate change is an 

Agency requirement.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 377

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 27 Fish Chapter 1. Aquatic Habitat and Fish - Page 9

No fish are present in the area of concern. As previously 

mentioned, the North Fork of Eagle Creek is an 

intermittent surface water body, and was prior to the 

drilling of the North Fork well field, as document on USGS 

7.5-minute topographic map. All references of impacts to 

fish in the draft EIS should be removed. The draft EIS 

does not list or categorize the often referenced “aquatic 

habitat” that may rely on the intermittent surface water 

system. Therefore, it is not possible for a determination of 

water temperature, duration of flow, channel depth, or 

other requirements to be made. References to required 

water temperatures and channel depth for aquatic habitat 

should be removed from the draft EIS.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish

Aquatic habitat and fish was identified as a 

significant issue for this project based partly on the 

results of public scoping; many people raised 

concerns that NFEC well pumping may be affecting 

the quality of fish habitat and fishing opportunities. 

We are using the EIS process to determine if this is 

in fact the case (based on the best available 

information) and then to determine what impacts 

implementing each of the alternatives would have 

on aquatic habitat and fish. This is discussed in 

more detail in chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

Fish do occur upstream of the NFEC wells and in 

Eagle Creek. The relationship of these areas to the 

NFEC project area is discussed in chapter 3 of the 

DEIS.

102 28 Fish Chapter 1. Aquatic Habitat and Fish: Measurement 

Indicators

Page 9, First Sentence of Section, and Second Bullet 

Point on Page 10

No fish are present in the well field area and the reference 

to the presence of salmonids and any required flow, 

channel depth, and temperature should be deleted from 

the draft EIS. The draft EIS appears to be trying to make a 

case for a condition that has not existed in the well field 

area and below to the Eagle Creek gage. This approach 

and its subsequent desire to protect the area for fish in 

this intermittent surface water system incapable of 

supporting fish are unreasonable and ultimately bias the 

Forest Service preferred alternative (alternative 3).

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish

See response for comment 102-27.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

378 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 29 Water Page 10, First Bullet Point

The streamflow quantity measurement indicator of 1.2 

cubic feet per second (cfs) at the Eagle Creek gage is 

unreasonable and generally not physically possible based 

on historic surface water data available prior to the 

development of the North Fork well field. USGS gage data 

from the Eagle Creek gage indicate flows as low as 0.06 

cfs (27 gallons per minute (gpm)), and frequently below 

1.2 cfs prior to the development of the well field. This 

measurement indicator should be removed because it is 

generally unobtainable and would dramatically curtail the 

applicant’s pumping.

1.1 Significant 

Issue - Water

This is a measurement indicator only and is not 

being used as a management trigger or threshold. 

What this means is that it is one of several 

indicators discussed in this section of chapter 1 that 

are used in chapter 3 to compare and contrast the 

effects of each alternative; it is a comparison tool 

only and is not a proposed management action. 

Table 3 of the DEIS summarizes the effects of each 

alternative using these indicators, and chapter 3 of 

the DEIS describes these in detail. The “Water 

Resources” section of chapter 3 also discusses why 

this measurement indicator was selected.

102 30 Chapter 1. Riparian Vegetation - Page 10, Second 

Sentence of Section

The Forest Service has been unable to document adverse 

impacts to riparian vegetation after more than 2 decades 

of pumping from the North Fork well field. The 

presentation of the idea that pumping “could” affect 

riparian habitat appears to be intended to provide an 

avenue to arbitrarily limit the applicant’s pumping to a 

quantity that is significantly less than historic pumping.

Riparian vegetation is discussed in more detail in 

chapter 3 of the DEIS. This section describes what 

we know of riparian conditions prepumping and 

postpumping, and the effects of implementing each 

alternative on riparian vegetation over time.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 379

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 31 Vegetation Chapter 1. Riparian Vegetation: Measurement Indicators

Page 10, First Bullet Point

The only documented shifts in canopy cover since the 

forest was declared is a substantial increase in canopy 

cover and tree density throughout the forest (Garrett, L.D., 

and Garrett, P.J., Evaluating Forest Restoration 

Opportunities on the Lincoln National Forest, September 

2001). Mismanagement by the Forest Service over nearly 

a century has allowed the tree canopy to increase to a 

point that the Lincoln National Forest is concerned about 

the potential for severe fire to occur (2011 personnel 

communication with David Warnack, District Ranger, 

Smokey Bear Ranger District). The increase in tree 

density and canopy cover also severely reduces the 

opportunity for precipitation to reach the ground surface 

because precipitation is intercepted by the canopy. 

Increased tree density increases evapotranspiration 

losses and reduces soil moisture, groundwater recharge, 

and surface water runoff. The tree density and canopy 

cover of the Lincoln National Forest in the subject area 

has reduced available water supplies for the applicant, 

public use, and riparian habitat. Absent in the draft EIS is 

any mention of the affects of the increased tree density 

and canopy cover on watershed yield. The Forest Service 

should perform required work to return the watershed to a 

healthy watershed. Therefore, impacts related to canopy 

cover should be removed from the draft EIS and not 

considered until such time that the watershed has been 

restored to a healthy condition. The draft EIS should 

quantitatively evaluate the additional benefits to the 

riparian habitat, groundwater recharge, and surface water 

runoff that will occur from reducing canopy cover.

4.4. Nonsignificant 

Issue – Upland 

Vegetation

Conifer density and its potential for effect to water 

yield is discussed in chapter 3 of the DEIS.

102 32 Process Page 10, Second Bullet Point

The Forest Service has no data related to vegetative 

changes in species composition over time, and attempting 

to reduce the applicant’s pumping until such time that the 

Forest Service can collect data to assess changes in 

species composition is arbitrary and unreasonable.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

See response to comment 102-29; these 

measurement indicators are for comparison 

purposes only and are not used to reduce the 

applicant’s pumping.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

380 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 33 Fish Chapter 1. Socioeconomics - Page 10, Third Sentence

As mentioned previously, fish have not been, and are not, 

present in the intermittent reach of the stream in the area 

below the North Fork gage. It is not within the purview of 

the Forest Service to assess the water rights implications 

from pumping the North Fork well field on wells of other 

ownership. This fact aside, unlike the water rights that are 

associated with the applicant’s wells, domestic wells do 

not have water rights associated with them, but rather are 

permitted to pump groundwater. Water rights in New 

Mexico are property rights.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish

The Forest Service develops a list of significant 

issues to analyze in an EIS based on the results of 

public scoping (as described in response to 

comment 102-27) and on the potential for causeeffect relationships between an action and a 

resource (see Scoping Outcome Summary, posted 

to the forest Web site, for more details on how 

significant issues were developed for this project). 

Many people who responded during scoping were 

concerned with their own private domestic wells 

and whether NFEC well pumping may be a reason 

some have gone dry or have required deepening. 

For this reason, effects to private wells is used in 

the DEIS to compare alternatives (as shown in 

chapter 3 of the DEIS); these measurement 

indicators are for comparison purposes only and 

are not used to reduce the applicant’s pumping. 

We recognize that we have no jurisdiction over the 

applicant’s water rights (as discussed in the “Water 

Rights” section of chapter 3) or over domestic wells 

or private land uses.

102 34 Water Rights Chapter 1. Socioeconomics: Measurement Indicators -

Page 10, First Sentence and Second Bullet Point

The subject sentence and bullet point indicates that 

private land water supply may be affected. It should be 

understood that water rights in New Mexico are based on 

prior appropriation. The fact that groundwater or surface 

water may be present on or below private land does not 

entitle a landowner the use of the water. There are no 

water rights holders in the North Fork of Eagle Creek 

except the applicant. The domestic wells referred to in the 

draft EIS only have a permit to use water but do not have 

water rights. Ample aquifer thickness exists in the area for 

domestic wells to be completed to greater depths should 

the need arise. References to private land water should 

be deleted from the draft EIS.

1.1 Significant 

Issue - Water

See response to comment 102-33.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 381

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 35 Recreation Page 11, First Bullet Point on Page

As mentioned above, no adverse impacts have been 

documented as a result of the applicant’s pumping. 

Additionally, the term “streamside” is misleading for the 

subject area because it has historically been an 

intermittent surface water body, and a different term, such 

as “forest” recreational use should be used.

1.1 Significant 

Issue -

Socioeconomics

See previous responses above regarding how 

significant issues are developed. While we 

recognize that NFEC is intermittent, it is still a 

stream and does provide a different type of 

recreational opportunity than an upland area (away 

from a stream) would; there are informal camping 

areas along NFEC and documented recreational 

use along NFEC. This is discussed in more detail in 

the “Socioeconomics” and “Recreation” sections of 

chapter 3. 

102 36 Soils Chapter 1. Non-Significant Issues: Soil Quality - Page 11, 

Soil Quality

This section indicates that soil quality is not a significant 

issue. This is true because groundwater pumping does 

not affect the soil moisture that riparian vegetation relies 

upon. This is further evidence that riparian vegetation 

would not be adversely impacted by the applicant 

pumping its allowable water right.

5.1 Comment Thank you for your comment.

102 37 Eagle Creek 

Summer 

Homes

Chapter 1. Non-Significant Issues: Recreation and Land 

Use

Page 12, First Paragraph of Section

This section should be revised and remove potential 

affects to the summer homes located above the North 

Fork well field. As previously mentioned, any potential 

pumping effects on domestic wells is limited to the 

jurisdiction of the NMOSE. Furthermore, the surface water 

in the area of the summer homes has only been reported 

to have dried up during the drought of the 1950s (USGS 

Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5205, Revised 

November 2010), but not during the period since the 

North Fork well field has been in operation, indicating the 

extended periods of extreme drought have a greater 

impact on surface waterflow above the well field than 

pumping from the well field.

1.1 Significant 

issue - Water

The potential effects to the Eagle Creek Summer 

Home area are discussed in chapter 3 of the EIS 

under domestic water supply in the “Water 

Resources” and “Socioeconomics” sections. 

Domestic water supply was identified as a 

significant issue as described in our response to 

comment 102-33. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

382 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 38 Springs and 

Seeps

Page 12, Seventh Bullet Point

This bullet point references potential affects to springs 

and seeps in the “larger watershed.” This reference 

should be removed as it presumably refers to the out-ofdate Balleau model (Balleau, 2004) previously mentioned 

on page 9 of the draft EIS. Prior to the development of the 

draft EIS, the Forest Service had agreed that the limit of 

EIS studies would be to the Eagle Creek streamflow gage 

immediately below the confluence of the North and South 

Forks of Eagle Creek. Both the draft EIS and the 

November 2011 AECOM report expand the study area to 

include private land farther downstream. It should be 

understood that the Village purchased all surface water 

rights on Eagle Creek downstream of the Eagle Creek 

gage including the expanded study area. The expanded 

study area as provided for in the AECOM report 

(November 2011) negates the potential affects on the 

surface water and groundwater system resulting from 

pumping by Alto Lakes Water Cooperative, domestic well 

owners, and surface water diversions by the Village. All 

references to the “larger watershed” and areas outside the 

originally defined area of concern should be removed from 

the draft EIS and the AECOM report.

1.1 Significant 

Issue - Water

The use of the Balleau model is discussed in our 

response to comment 102-25.

Page iii of Summary describes the NFEC project 

area and states that “North Fork Eagle Creek 

between the North Fork stream gage and the Eagle 

Creek stream gage, totaling approximately 2 stream 

miles, is the emphasis of this environmental 

analysis” This is reflected in the analysis of effects 

for each resource shown in chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

While this is the area for which we emphasized our 

analysis (particularly for direct/indirect effects), we 

are obligated under our Agency direction and NEPA 

to also consider cumulative effects. 

We describe the reasons we chose this larger 

watershed area for cumulative impact analysis at 

the beginning of chapter 3 and again in the “Water 

Resources” section of chapter 3. Watershed 

boundaries are commonly used in determining 

cumulative effects to water resources and are often 

larger than the project area, due to the potential for 

actions occurring in the upper portions of a 

watershed to affect resources downstream. The 

cumulative effects are discussed qualitatively and in 

a general sense for this larger area.

102 39 Process Chapter 1. Consistency with Management Direction

Page 13, Paragraph Two, Last Sentence

The applicant was not a party to the referenced stipulation 

and, therefore, the sentence is untrue. In all meetings held 

between the applicant and the Forest Service where this 

issue was discussed, the EIS study area was limited to 

the Forest Service lands ending immediately below the 

USGS gage below the confluence of the North and South 

Forks of Eagle Creek. Reference to the stipulated 

agreement should be removed.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

See responses to comment 102-38 and 102-11.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 383

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 40 Vegetation Chapter 1. Lincoln National Forest Plan (1986, as 

amended)

Page 13, Bullet Points One through Three

As previously mentioned, the tree density has significantly 

increased and as a result has decreased the renewable 

water supplies to the watershed. If the Forest Service 

objective is truly focused on “maintaining water quality 

and quantity,” it should take immediate corrective action to 

reduce tree density and canopy cover. The most favorable 

flows can be obtained when the Forest Service takes 

corrective action.

1.1 Nonsignificant 

Issue – Upland 

Vegetation 

Conifer density and water yield is discussed in 

chapter 3 of the DEIS. Other actions taken in the 

watershed to reduce tree density and the potential 

for high severity fire are also described; these are 

mapped in Fiugre 4.

102 41 Vegetation Page 13, Bullet Point Four

There has been little effort and few expended resources in 

managing vegetation in the North Fork of Eagle Creek 

watershed. The Forest Service has the sole authority to 

manage the forest to obtain optimum vegetation and 

ecological diversity, but has taken little to no action to do 

so, with the current exception of trying to reduce pumping 

by the applicant.

4.1 Nonsignificant 

Issue – Upland 

Vegetation

See response to comment 102-40.

102 42 Riparian Page 13, Second Set of Bullet Points

The Forest Service has not provided or referenced any 

studies that address existing riparian habitat, historical 

riparian habitat, or actions required to “protect and 

enhance riparian habitat.” Fish habitat does not exist 

within the North Fork well field area or downstream. No 

current or historic data have been presented that 

document impacts from pumping on areas where fish 

habitat may exist. Fish habitat areas have not been 

presented in the draft EIS. 

Bullet point three of the subject section indicates that the 

Forest Service is to “Update water rights inventory, 

maintain and protect existing water rights.” The Village is 

the only water rights owner in the North Fork of Eagle 

Creek, and the Forest Service preferred alternative 

(alternative 3) seeks to prevent the Village from exercising 

its water rights without compensation. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS are not consistent 

with the Lincoln National Forest plan. The subject special 

use permit meets the criteria as a necessary public utility.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Riparian

Aquatic habitat and fish and riparian habitat are all 

discussed in detail in these sections of chapter 3 of 

the DEIS.

We recognize that the applicant owns water rights 

in the area and we discuss possible effects to water 

rights in the DEIS; we do not believe that this is in 

conflict with the forest plan. 

We also recognize the applicant as providing 

municipal water and that this is a necessary utility. 

We do not believe this is in conflict with the forest 

plan; effects to socioeconomics, water rights and 

other natural resources are discussed fully in the 

DEIS. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

384 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 Process Chapter 1. Lincoln National Forest Plan (1986, as 

amended): FSM 2800, Chapter 2880-Geologic 

Resources, Hazards and Services

Page 13, Bullet Point One

Item one, this section, requires the Forest Service to 

analyze “the location function and value of groundwaterdependant resources.” The draft EIS and supporting 

documentation do not provide the required analysis.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

Chapter 3 of the DEIS analyzes water resources 

(groundwater and surface resources), aquatic 

habitat, and fish and riparian vegetation, among 

other resources, using the best available 

information. This meets the intent of this manual 

direction.

102 43 Water Water Resource Management - Page 14, First Bullet Point

The reference to objectives in FSM 2530 and FSM 1920 

in Item 1 are not consistent, and not applicable to the draft 

EIS. The objective provided in FSM 2530 is to control 

nonpoint source pollution. The Village is not performing 

any activity that could be construed to be associated with 

point source pollution. The objective provided in FSM 

1920 does not address water quality. Item 1 should be 

removed from the draft EIS. Item 2 of the subject section 

should be removed from the draft EIS because there are 

no Forest Service drinking water systems in the study 

area. FSM 7420 is only applicable to Forest Service 

drinking water systems.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

This first bullet is excerpted from FSM 2800 and 

states: “In analyzing land management activities, 

consider: ...” and lists six items for the Agency to 

consider for analysis. The “Water Resources” 

section of chapter 3 of the DEIS discusses the 

aspects of groundwater resources with the potential 

to be affected; this section includes a discussion of 

water quality. Water quality is also mentioned in the 

“Monitoring” section of chapter 2.

These FSM references to 1920 and 7420 are 

actually included within FSM 2530 and were not 

edited out for this project; these are excerpts from 

FSM 2530. We recognize that implementing any of 

the alternatives would not have measurable affects 

to water quality although stream temperature (as an 

aspect of water quality) is discussed in the “Water 

Resources” and “Aquatic Habitat and Fish” sections 

of chapter 3. 

102 44 Process Page 14, Second Bullet Point

Noticeably absent from the FSM 1950 reference as 

provided for under Section 1950.2-Objectives is the 

requirement for the Forest Service to “fully consider the 

impacts of Forest Service proposed actions on the 

physical, biological, social, and economic aspects of the 

human environment.” The draft EIS has not considered 

the social and economic aspects of the proposed action 

on the applicant or those relying on water produced by the 

applicant.

5.1 Procedural

Concern

Chapter 3 of the DEIS includes a detailed analysis 

of each alternative on all significant and 

nonsignificant issues, including socioeconomics.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 385

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 45 Process Chapter 1. Lincoln National Forest Plan (1986, as 

amended): FSM 2500, Chapter 2540-Water Uses and 

Development-FSM 2541.34-Water Uses and 

Development-National Forest System Water Rights-Water 

Rights and Uses for Other Purposes - Page 14

The applicant’s pumping from the North Fork well field 

does not conflict with existing Forest Service uses. The 

Forest Service has not indicated any potential uses; 

therefore, the pumping does not affect proposed uses. 

Although the Forest Service has no existing or known 

proposed uses, the Village did submit a mitigation plan to 

the Forest Service and that plan was not accepted. No 

technical rationale for the refusal of a mitigation plan was 

provided.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

Chapter 3 of the DEIS presents the analysis of 

effects of each alternative on forest resources; this 

includes forest uses such as recreational use, 

fishing, other social factors, and other natural 

resource factors like available water and vegetation. 

The only mitigation plan we received from the 

applicant was a proposal to conduct stream 

augmentation; we considered stream augmentation 

carefully as described in the “Alternatives 

Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study” 

section of chapter 2 of the DEIS.

102 46 Spring and 

Seeps

Chapter 1. Lincoln National Forest Plan (1986, as 

amended): FSM 2500, Chapter 2540-Water Uses and 

Development-FSM 2541.35-Region 3 Supplement - Page 

14, First Bullet Point

No evidence has been provided regarding the 

hydrogeology at the referenced springs and seeps. Flows 

from springs and seeps are not necessarily related to 

groundwater or surface water sources, and it is not 

reasonable to assume that this relation exists in the 

subject study area. The Forest Service has not collected 

any baseline data documenting flows or water quality from 

the alleged springs and seeps.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

We recognize that there is little data available for 

springs and seeps in the project area, as discussed 

in the “Water Resources” section of chapter 3. 

There is no question that spring flow comes from 

groundwater. The bulleted item on page 14 only 

states FSM direction.

102 47 Process Page 15, Second Bullet Point

A Forest Service approved model does not exist, so it is 

inappropriate for the draft EIS and the AECOM report to 

reference use of the Balleau Groundwater, Inc. model. As 

appropriately noted in the subject section, the State of 

New Mexico has the jurisdiction to determine allowable 

impacts from the applicant’s pumping on junior water 

rights. As such, the NMOSE recognizes that the Village 

has a right to pump a maximum of 2,385.63 ac-ft from the 

North Fork well field, and that 612.69 ac-ft of this amount 

has a priority date prior to the creation of the Lincoln 

National Forest.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

The use of the Balleau model is discussed in our 

response to comment 102-25.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

386 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 48 Process Page 15, Third Bullet Point

The applicant has offered to perform mitigation, even 

though the Forest Service has been unable to document 

any areas where riparian habitat has been adversely 

affected. The Forest Service dismissed the applicant’s 

offers to mitigate.

5.1 Procedural

Concern

See response to comment 102-45.

102 Water rights Page 16, First Bullet Point

This item should be deleted because the applicant has 

water rights permitted by the NMOSE.

6.1 DocumentSpecific CommentWe do not see a conflict with this statement from 

FSM 2541.35 and this project. We recognize the 

applicant’s water rights for the NFEC wells and 

discuss this in the DEIS.

102 49 Process Chapter I. Lincoln National Forest Plan (1986, as 

amended): FSM 2716.12-Special Use AuthorizationsReview before Reissuance

Page 16, First Bullet Point

The applicant has made requests to clean out and 

rehabilitate the subject wells, but has been prevented 

from doing so during the EIS process.

5.1 Procedural 

Concerns

Per the annual operating plan, the VoR must submit 

work orders to conduct work on the wells. All 

submitted work orders that pertained to 

maintenance were approved. Work orders relating 

to clean out, deepening, pump changes, etc...had 

to be approved by the Plaintiff’s and the Plaintiff’s 

attorney would not approve changes to the status 

quo.

102 50 Alternatives Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: 

Alternative 1-No Action (No Change)-Continue Pumping 

at 2009-1010 Levels - Page 19

No change in the applicant’s pumping would be to allow 

the applicant to pump water in accordance with its water 

rights. At minimum, a no change alternative should allow 

the Village to pump up to the maximum quantity 

historically produced from the well field.

3.1 Alternatives We recognize that the intent of the no change 

alternative is to allow the applicant to pump without 

restriction, in accordance with their water right; this 

is how the NFEC well operations are currently 

managed under the original permit and the annual 

operating plans. 

This has been clarified in the description of the no 

change alternative in chapter 2 of the DEIS, as 

follows: 

We would issue a new permit with no change in 

existing well pumping operations. Pumping would 

continue at historic levels with no restrictions on

use, in accordance with the applicant’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.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 387

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 51 Monitoring Page 19, First Bullet Point

Water levels for monitoring purposes should include 

collection of water levels at a minimum frequency of once 

per month for specified wells in the North Fork of Eagle 

Creek. It would be more beneficial to have selected wells 

equipped with transducers and data loggers such that 

measurements could be collected more frequently (daily). 

Data could be collected by the applicant, applicant’s 

consultant, or possibly the USGS. Wells outside of Forest 

Service lands including Village Wells H-1497, H-1497-S, 

H-1979-S, H-1979-S-10, and H-1979-S-14 should not be 

included in any monitoring activities associated with the 

permit. These wells are located on land owned by the 

Village, and in some cases are many miles away from 

wells on Forest Service lands. Water levels in wells 

outside of Forest Service lands are impacted by pumping 

from other users including Alto Lakes Water Cooperative 

and domestic wells and, therefore, would not be 

representative of conditions in the North Fork of Eagle 

Creek. Furthermore, the Village has a surface water 

diversion point a few hundred feet below the confluence of 

the North and South Forks of Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. The Village has a right to divert up to 6 cfs of 

surface water from these points of diversion. The 

uppermost diversion point is above all of the Village’s 

wells in Eagle Creek that are completed on private land.

3.1 Alternatives This first bullet point came directly from the 

applicant’s signed 2008–2011 annual operating 

plans. However, we recognize this section should 

be updated to be more reflective of desired 

monitoring. It has been rewritten in the DEIS as 

follows: 

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; MW2A; MW-3A; MW-4B, C; and MW-5A (see DEIS 

figure 3). Where possible, data would be collected 

electronically via transducers and data loggers that 

would provide daily measurements. 

102 52 Alternatives Page 19, Second Bullet Point

This bullet point should be removed as it attempts to limit 

the applicant’s pumping. Historically, during peak periods 

the applicant has had to pump one or two wells constantly 

to meet demands. The Village should be allowed to 

operate its wells as needed to meet demands.

3.1 Alternatives This second bullet point came directly from the 

applicant’s signed 2008-2011 annual operating 

plans. However, we recognize this section should 

be updated to be more reflective of desired 

applicant operations. For this reason, we have 

removed this second bullet statement from the 

description of the no change alternative. 

102 53 Monitoring Page 19, Third Bullet Point

The subject water meters are equipped to record pumping 

in gallons per minute. It is not usual or customary for 

meters on groundwater supply wells to record in cubic feet 

per minute. Metering requirements are the jurisdiction of 

the NMOSE. It is likely that Forest Service personnel can 

make any required unit conversions they may need.

3.1 Alternatives We have made this change to the third bullet 

statement. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

388 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 54 Alternatives Page 20, Second Paragraph

This item conflicts with early portions of the draft EIS. 

Specifically, page 7 in chapter 1 makes reference to the 

applicant needing a water conservation plan, while the 

subject paragraph acknowledges the Village implements 

stringent water conservation measures. The draft EIS 

should be modified as necessary to rectify these 

inconsistencies.

6.1 DocumentSpecific 

Corrections

See response to comment 102-18.

102 55 Water Rights Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: 

Alternative 2-No Pumping-Discontinue all Pumping - Page 

20

This alternative is contrary to the Village’s water rights as 

well as adverse to the social, economic, and human 

needs. It would also constitute a takings issue related to 

the applicant’s water rights, wells, and related 

infrastructure.

3.1 Alternatives We recognize that the no pumping alternative would 

not provide municipal water and would affect the 

applicant’s water rights; however, it provides a way 

to compare and contrast the effects of pumping on 

forest resources and socioeconomics. This 

comparison between alternatives is shown in Table 

2 and Table 3 and in chapter 3 of the DEIS.

102 56 Riparian 

Vegetation

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: 

Alternative 3-Proposed Action-Adaptive Management

Page 20, First Paragraph, Last Sentence

The sentence makes reference to mitigating potential 

adverse impacts to surface and groundwater. The fact the 

surface waterflows may be reduced by pumping does not 

constitute an adverse impact to aquatic habitat or riparian 

vegetation. The Forest Service has not provided any data 

or documentation that indicates any adverse impacts have 

occurred to aquatic habitat or riparian vegetation. This 

alternative would attempt to maintain instream flows in 

North Fork without having water rights.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish

The proposed action does not establish a minimum 

instream flow; alternatives that would have been 

dismissed from detailed analysis as described in 

chapter 2. By definition, a minimum instream flow is 

a level below which the amount of flow in a 

specified stream should not drop. We do not believe 

that requiring a maximum number of days of no flow 

per year or over 3 years (that could be adjusted 

over time based on monitoring results) meets this 

definition.

Chapter 3 describes the effects of each alternative 

on resources, including aquatic habitat and riparian 

vegetation and whether these effects are adverse 

or not.

102 57 Alternatives Page 20, Second Paragraph

Paragraph is vague arbitrary as to its intent and as such 

should be revised or deleted.

6.1 DocumentSpecific 

Corrections

We recognize this paragraph is vague. We have 

revised this as follows:

The applicant would prepare an annual operating 

plan in consultation with us. We would require the 

applicant to prepare monthly reports, preferably 

electronic reports in spreadsheet format, with the 

following information: 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 389

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 58 Alternatives Page 20, Third Paragraph, First Bullet Point

This is the same proposed monitoring plan as provided in 

alternative 1. Comments related to this monitoring have 

been addressed above. Monitoring of wells outside of the 

Forest Service should be deleted for reasons previously 

provided.

3.1 Alternatives See response to comment 102-51.

102 59 Alternatives Page 20, Third Paragraph, Second Bullet Point

This is the same proposed pumping schedule as provided 

in alternative 1. This provision should be deleted such that 

the applicant can pump its wells as needed to meet 

demands.

3.1 Alternatives See response to comment 102-52.

102 60 Process Page 21, Second Paragraph

Contrary to the statements in this paragraph, the 

proposed adaptive management strategy does not take 

into consideration the dynamic nature of the groundwater 

system. The Forest Service has not provided data that 

document the minimum groundwater level required to 

maintain aquatic ecosystems or riparian habitat. It is 

reasonable for the Forest Service to provide evidence for 

the minimum groundwater depth required for the various 

aquatic ecosystems and riparian habitat, including 

identifying the specific timing and duration for 

groundwater depths required for each aquatic ecosystem 

and riparian vegetation. The Forest Service should also 

provide a complete catalog for each species that has 

been documented to have been impacted.

3.1 Alternatives The riparian section of the DEIS includes the 

average groundwater depths required for each of 

the facultative wetland species that occur along 

NFEC and a detailed analysis of effects by 

alternative.

Riparian vegetation composition and canopy cover 

(the measurement indicators we use in the DEIS to 

analyze the alternatives) in the Southwest differ 

between intermittent and perennial streams; 

reducing the number of no-flow days under either 

the no pumping alternative or the proposed action 

would contribute to either sustaining or improving 

riparian conditions along NFEC, as discussed in the 

DEIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

390 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 61 Process Page 21, Third Paragraph

Any thresholds established by the Forest Service to 

maintain streamflows and depth to groundwater are 

arbitrary because no impacts to aquatic ecosystems or 

riparian habitat have been documented. Controlling the 

applicant’s pumping to maintain streamflow and depth to 

water at arbitrarily selected thresholds is unreasonable. 

The last sentence of this paragraph provides additional 

evidence that the Forest Service does not want any 

reduction in streamflow, and is using the EIS process to 

try and develop instream flow rights.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

Chapter 3 of the DEIS includes a detailed analysis 

of the effects of each alternative on forest 

resources. 

The thresholds identified as part of the proposed 

action are aimed at achieving a balance between 

providing municipal water and protecting forest 

resources. The DEIS shows that NFEC surface 

water and groundwater are connected. Pumping 

creates a cone of depression and lowers the water 

table; the deeper the water table at any point, the 

greater the extent of the cone of depression and the 

longer the stretch of stream that is disconnected 

from local groundwater. 

Integral to the implementation of the adaptive 

management thresholds of the proposed action is 

continued monitoring; the results of this future 

monitoring would be used to adjust the thresholds 

(up or down). 

102 62 Monitoring Page 21, Fourth Paragraph

The USGS should continue to collect data from the 

streamflow gages. Water-level monitoring could be 

collected by the applicant, applicant’s consultant, or the 

USGS. If transducers and data loggers are used, the data 

could be provided electronically to the Forest Service, 

including applicable graphs of the data.

5.1 Suggestion We agree with these suggestions and that data 

provided electronically would be beneficial; this is 

discussed in more detail in the “Monitoring” section 

of chapter 2. 

102 63 Process Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: 

Alternative 3-Proposed Action-Adaptive Management: 

Adaptive Management Triggers (Monitoring Indicators)-

North Fork Surface Flow Volume - Page 21, First 

Paragraph, First Sentence

As previously mentioned, the Forest Service has provided 

no data that document any adverse impacts to existing 

riparian or aquatic ecosystems. If the applicant’s pumping 

has not created any adverse impacts, then continuing to 

allow the applicant to pump water in accordance with its 

water rights as administered by the State of New Mexico 

should be allowed. Forest Service references that state or 

imply that adverse impacts to existing riparian or aquatic 

ecosystems have occurred should be removed from the 

draft EIS.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish

Chapter 3 of the DEIS provides a detailed analysis 

of the predicted effects of implementing each of the 

alternatives, including the methods, data, and 

assumptions used in the analysis. These effects are 

summarized in Table 2 and Table 3 in chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 391

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 64 Water Rights Page 21, Second Paragraph

This proposed approach provided limits the applicant’s 

pumping based on streamflow at the Eagle Creek gage. 

The proposed limitation seeks to limit the applicant’s 

water rights and develop instream flows for the forest. 

The proposed number of no-flow days at the Eagle Creek 

gage that would trigger reductions in the applicant’s 

pumping is not based on any threshold required for 

aquatic ecosystems or riparian habitat and are, therefore, 

arbitrary. The Forest Service has not provided data 

related to the timing (monthly, or daily) or quantity of water 

required for aquatic ecosystems and riparian habitat.

The limitations on streamflow do not recognize impacts 

that may occur from activities within and near the South 

Fork of Eagle Creek: primarily ponds that intercept 

streamflow and pumping from large capacity wells at Ski 

Apache. Neither the draft EIS nor the AECOM report 

provide an analysis of potential impacts on surface flow at 

the Eagle Creek gage from diversions in and near the 

South Fork of Eagle Creek. The draft EIS incorrectly 

presupposes that all reductions in streamflow at the Eagle 

Creek gage are the result of pumping from the applicant’s 

North Fork wells, and not other water users or long-term 

drought conditions. The draft EIS must consider 

diversions within the South Fork of Eagle Creek and 

large-scale pumping for snow making at Ski Apache, in 

addition to other possible diversion in the South Fork and 

the related impact on streamflow at the Eagle Creek gage.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

See response to comment 102-56 related to 

minimum instream flows. 

See response to comment 102-60 related to 

minimum groundwater depths for riparian 

vegetation. The AECOM water resources report 

(2011) also discusses our initial attempts to develop 

a measurement indicator based on water table 

requirements for riparian vegetation (page 79 of the 

report) as follows: 

Initially, groundwater levels in the alluvial deposits 

monitored at the well field were reviewed with 

respect to pumping. It was hoped that an alluvial 

well water level could be used as a measurement 

indicator, particularly as it might influence riparian 

vegetation. However, no clear cause-and-effect 

relationship between these parameters was 

ascertained from available data.

The reasoning behind the use of the no-flow day 

triggers in the proposed action is described in the 

alternative 2 description in the DEIS. 

See response to comment 102-8 related to South 

Fork water uses. We did not assume that all 

reductions in streamflow at the Eagle Creek gage 

were from changes in the North Fork; other factors 

such as drought were looked at, as discussed in the 

“Water Resources” section of chapter 3. We also 

recognize the value in the data from the South Fork 

gage in the future compared to data from the Eagle 

Creek gage; however, it has not been in place long 

enough to help us ascertain prepumping conditions. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

392 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 65 Water Page 22, First Bullet Point

Contrary to the statement in this bullet point, using a 3-

year running average does not account for natural 

fluctuations in precipitation, runoff, or drought cycles. 

Likewise, this statement is not supported by either the 

USGS or AECOM reports.

Precipitation records for the Sierra Blanca SNOTEL 

station begin in 2002, and the “commonly-applied 

weighted averaging approach to estimating point data 

(Searcy and Hardison, 1960), using values from at least 

three of the nearby stations” (AECOM, November 9, 2011, 

p. 31) was used by AECOM to reconstruct a precipitation 

record for the Sierra Blanca station for the period 1971 

through 2001. It is not known which nearby stations were 

used to reconstruct the Sierra Blanca record, but the next 

highest station in the region (Cloudcroft) is 1,580 ft lower 

in elevation, and all other stations are at least 3,340 ft 

lower in elevation, raising the question of whether or not 

the weighted-averaging approach can be applied for sites 

of such different elevations. 

Reconstruction of the Sierra Blanca record is further 

called into question by the lack of trend in monthly 

proportion of precipitation, and median monthly 

precipitation, over time among nearby stations, as 

presented in tables 5 and 6 of the AECOM report. The 

report states, “There are substantial differences in 

monthly median precipitation between time periods, but 

these do not appear to be consistent at stations or 

between stations.” 

The 3-year running average should be eliminated from the 

alternative based on the lack of evidence and data to 

support the approach.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

Using a 3-year running average provides a 

reasonable time period that can be used for 

management (without excessive smoothing of data 

in contrast to a longer period) while recognizing 

periodic fluctuations due to precipitation and runoff. 

The AECOM water resources report (2011) 

provides the methods and assumptions used for the 

precipitation analysis. Averaging was done on 

separate periods by linear regression as shown in 

the report. The strong association between 

increasing precipitation and increasing elevation is 

well documented by other investigators such as the 

NRCS and the USGS (which used the same higher 

elevation stations as the water resources report 

(AECOM 2011).

The climate trend investigation in the AECOM water 

resources report was reviewing an earlier USGS 

hypothesis that a seasonal shift in precipitation has 

created changes in streamflows. The USGS has 

since disavowed that hypothesis, and the AECOM 

water resources report (2011) simply investigates 

this. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 393

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 66 Water Page 22, Bullet Points Two and Three

Limiting the applicant’s pumping based on streamflow at 

the Eagle Creek gage is not supported by data provided in 

the draft EIS or the AECOM report. The conclusion in the 

AECOM report (page 47) that “well field pumping appears 

to substantially reduce streamflows during such low flow 

periods” is based solely on a comparison of daily mean 

streamflow, in cubic feet per second, in one pre-pumping 

year (1971) and one pumping year (2004). Analysis of 

additional years, prior to and during pumping, would be 

necessary to draw this broad conclusion. For example, 

1971 was preceded by one year of below average 

precipitation, whereas 2004 was preceded by 6 years of 

below-average precipitation, based on data from the 

Ruidoso weather station.

The AECOM study found no statistically-significant 

relationship between North Fork well field pumping and 

streamflow at the North Fork gage in the 2-year 

overlapping record, and found no statistically significant 

relationship between North Fork well field pumping and 

streamflow at the Eagle Creek Gage in the 9-year 

overlapping record, considering lag times of 0 to 90 days 

(AECOM, 2011, p. 51).

The statement on page 51 of the AECOM report, 

“Generally, periods of no flow (considered as less than 0 

01 cfs) over this 9-year period follow within several 

months of periods of high pumping (greater than 400 

gpm), and/or periods of low precipitation,” directly follows 

the AECOM statement that no statistically significant 

relationship was found between streamflow and pumping, 

considering lag times of 0 to 90 days. This would suggest 

that there is too much variability in the datasets to 

establish a relationship, if one exists. The variability is 

likely due to the numerous factors involved at local and 

regional scales. Thus, the discussion of possible 

relationships on page 54 of the AECOM report is 

conjecture. 

Significant Issue –

Water

As described in the AECOM water resources report, 

these selected low-flow years are simply additional 

examples of streamflow conditions, presented in 

addition to the results of other analyses. Although a 

longer period of low precipitation preceeded the 

latter year (2004) at the Ruidoso monitoring station, 

such was not the case at stations representing 

higher elevations within the North Fork watershed. 

In addition, we used commonly accepted flow 

frequency analysis (as documented and used by 

USGS), as well as other physically based, 

deterministic approaches. We recognize there is a 

lot of variation in the system, especially at short 

timesteps; this is why we used the 10-year periods 

to derive generalizations.

All three approaches (water balance, frequencies, 

Rio Ruidoso) resulted in similar general conclusions 

about the effect of pumping on streamflow; caveats 

are spelled out in the water resources report 

(AECOM 2011). 

The lack of statistical significance between pumping 

and streamflow documented in the AECOM report 

is based on a review done at daily timesteps and 

incorporated various daily lag times. Given the 

complexity of the hydrologic system, this outcome, 

on a daily basis, is not unexpected. Statistical 

significance is not the end-all of investigations or 

the only means of deriving sound conclusions, as 

numerous published researchers have 

acknowledged. What statistical tests analyze, i.e., 

how they are set up and which data are used, is 

important to the outcomes. In addition, the error 

level of 0.05 suggested is arbitrary; other levels 

(such as 0.1 or 0.2 or more) could certainly be 

applied and may give other results.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

394 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

The statement on page 54 of the AECOM report, “In 

general, at the well field and downstream, the North Fork 

of Eagle Creek flowed intermittently in most years prior to 

pumping” is followed by, “The extent and duration of 

surface flow has since been reduced along the North Fork 

by pumping.” No statistically significant evidence has 

been presented in the report to support this second 

statement. The AECOM study (p. 55) compares the 

periods 1971–1980 (prepumping) and 1989–1998 

(pumping) and states “the latter period (with pumping) 

shows somewhat reduced overall streamflow, reduced 

average base flow, and an increase in total estimated 

average recharge plus pumping.” JSAI review of USGS 

annual discharge and base flow for the Eagle Creek gage 

(08387600; Matherne et al., 2010) for the two periods, 

and statistical analysis using the Mann-Whitney rank-sum 

test, found that the null hypothesis (there is no difference 

between discharge, base flow, or base flow as a 

percentage of discharge) cannot be rejected at the 0.05 

significance level. JSAI analysis of USGS annual 

discharge and base flow for the Eagle Creek gage 

(08387600; Matherne et al., 2010) for the period 2000-

2008 (pumping), as compared to the earlier periods 1971-

1980 (pre-pumping) and 1989-1998 (pumping), and 

statistical analysis using the Mann-Whitney rank-sum test, 

found that the null hypothesis (there is no difference 

between discharge, base flow, or base flow as a 

percentage of discharge) can be rejected at the 0.05 

significance level. Discharge, base flow, and base flow as 

a percentage of discharge, all appear to be reduced in the 

period 2000-2008 compared to the earlier periods.

Page 55 of the AECOM study states: “In general, some 

reduction in streamflows and increases in recharge 

factors result on the North Fork from pumping during 

average to wet years. These effects are somewhat 

moderated during multiple years of average or greater 

precipitation. During drought years or extended dry 

periods, pumping effects on North Fork streamflows and 

groundwater conditions are more noticeable.”

Other analytical methods, as presented in both the 

USGS report and the AECOM report, indicate 

differences in streamflows. We conclude that there 

are zero-flow days, flow frequency differences, and 

other comparisons between the pre- and postpumping periods that indicate effects from pumping. 

Similarly, it should be noted that both Finch, Peery 

& McCoy (2004, on page 19 and figure 15) and 

Balleau (2010, regarding water budgets on 

attachment 9), show discontinuity at the Eagle 

Creek gage attributed to pumping. On the basis of 

these analyses, the relationship between 

streamflow and pumping is not conjecture.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 395

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

The claimed relationship between streamflow and 

pumping appears to be based on the fact that the period 

2000–2010 had significantly lower discharge and base 

flow than 1971–1980, and the fact that pumping was 

occurring in the period 2000–2010. The claimed 

relationship also appears to be based on observations of 

data trends in specific instances between 2000 and 2010. 

The claimed relationship is conjectural because there are 

numerous climatologic, ecologic, and hydrologic factors at 

play on many different time scales.

102 67 water Page 22, Fourth Bullet Point

As previously mentioned, neither the draft EIS nor the 

AECOM report attempt to assess changes in available 

streamflow from the South Fork of Eagle Creek that may 

have resulted from pumping large capacity groundwater 

supply wells at Ski Apache or changes in storage and 

evaporation from ponds in the South Fork watershed.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

See response to comment 102-8.

102 68 Process Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: 

Alternative 3-Proposed Action-Adaptive Management: 

Adaptive Management Triggers (Monitoring Indicators)-

Water Table Depth

Page 22

This section would require that the applicant monitor 

groundwater levels so that an adaptive management 

trigger could be selected in the future. Prior to the 

implementation of the groundwater monitoring plan, the 

Forest Service should be required to document the rooting 

depths, soil moisture requirements and timing for required 

moisture, depth to groundwater requirements and timing 

for requirements, for all riparian habitat that have the 

potential to be impacted. Prior to the implementation of 

the groundwater monitoring plan, the Forest Service 

should also be required to document the streamflow and 

groundwater requirements in terms of timing, quality, and 

duration for all aquatic ecosystems in the intermittent 

portion of Eagle Creek. This will eliminate the potential for 

an arbitrary minimum groundwater depth requirement to 

be forced on the applicant by the Forest Service.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Riparian 

The water table depth threshold description has 

been revised somewhat since the final draft of 

chapters 1 and 2 were prepared, as shown in this 

section of the DEIS.

Please see response to comment 102-60 related to 

rooting depths. The monitoring measures for the no 

change and the proposed action alternatives in 

chapter 2 of the DEIS includes continued 

monitoring of groundwater depths in recognition of 

riparian vegetation rooting depths to assist in further 

refining this threshold over time.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

396 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 69 Riparian Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: 

Alternative 3-Proposed Action-Adaptive Management: 

Adaptive Management Triggers (Monitoring Indicators)-

Riparian Vegetation - Pages 22 and 23

This metric is arbitrary and doesn’t account for other 

potential adverse affects on riparian habitat or canopy 

cover. The use of “obligate tree species (e.g. willows)” to 

act as an indicator species for detecting short-term 

changes in canopy cover is inappropriate because there 

are no base line data prior to 2010. The monitoring 

indicators assume any adverse changes to be the result 

of the applicant, rather than any other possible sources, 

including management of the tree density and canopy 

which thereby reduces groundwater recharge and 

watershed yield. It is also possible that bark beetles will 

attack trees within the North Fork watershed because of 

the high tree density, as is currently occurring throughout 

many of the forests in Colorado. All riparian vegetation 

indicators used by the Forest Service should account for 

all potential actions within the forest that may be 

considered adverse, rather than simply assuming all 

adverse impacts are the result of the applicant’s pumping.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Riparian

There is a vast body of literature to support the use

of willow as a good indicator of changes in 

groundwater levels.

This threshold is written so that no triggers would 

be implemented related to riparian vegetation until 

at least 3-5 years from the time of the baseline 

survey conducted in 2010; because this 2010 

survey is therefore the baseline, we intend to use it 

to detect changes over time. If changes are 

detected based on future monitoring results 

compared to baseline monitoring results, and the 

no-flow trigger has been reached, then the Forest 

Service may require reduced diversions (as 

described in detail in this description in the DEIS); 

in other words this trigger is written with flexibility in 

mind and recognizes that data related to riparian 

vegetation is lacking. The riparian adaptive 

management trigger is one of several triggers that 

would be used, with careful monitoring, to manage 

pumping.

We recognize there are other factors that could 

affect riparian vegetation but we also conclude that 

available water is the most influential. 

102 70 Water Rights Adaptive Management: Adaptive Management Triggers 

(Monitoring Indicators)-Well Pumping Volume - Page 23

The proposed reduction in pumping severely limits the 

ability of the applicant to put its water rights to beneficial 

use. Pumping limitations would reduce the applicant’s 

water rights without just compensation. The draft EIS, the 

AECOM report, and USGS report do not provide any 

technical rationale for selecting a maximum pumping 

volume of 300 ac-ft/yr. The proposed limitation is arbitrary.

3.1 Alternatives We state the reasons for selecting the pumping 

volume trigger in the description of the proposed 

action; its selection is not arbitrary. It is also not a 

stand-alone trigger and would not be used by itself 

to limit pumping. Here is how this is described in 

chapter 2:

An initial adaptive management trigger (threshold) 

of 900 cumulative acre feet over any 3 consecutive 

water years (300 acre feet per year) would trigger a 

review by the Forest Service of the current 

thresholds and mitigations at maintaining or 

improving surface resource conditions.

We describe in this adaptive management section 

and also in the “Monitoring” section that this 

pumping volume is a starting point only and would 

be adjusted over time, if needed, based on the 

results of monitoring.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 397

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 71 Alternatives Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: 

Alternative 3-Proposed Action-Adaptive Management: 

Adaptive Management Triggers (Monitoring Indicators)-

Adjustments in Management of Water Withdrawals Page 

23, First Bullet Point

This bullet point indicates that the Forest Service may 

relax or further restrict specific parameters related to the 

permit. However, all previous portions of the draft EIS 

indicate that the Forest Service will only further restrict the 

applicant’s pumping once it has additional data. 

Alternative 3 and related portions of the EIS should be 

revised to allow for pumping rates greater than 300 acft/yr or 900 ac-ft in 3 consecutive years, if the monitoring 

indicates no adverse impacts.

3.1 Alternatives The intent described in the adaptive management 

strategy is to restrict pumping if needed, based on 

triggering the thresholds. If the thresholds are not 

triggered, there would be no restrictions on 

pumping. In addition, future monitoring results 

would be used to update/revise the triggers if 

needed to be more reflective of site-specific 

conditions. This has been clarified in the DEIS.

102 72 Water Rights In paragraph 1, page 4, the Village of Ruidoso 

percentages of water supply obtained by Ruidoso from 

the North Fork well field actually should be multiplied by 

1.5 since a return flow credit of 50% is derived from the 

North Fork water used in the Village municipal system. 

Therefore, during a drought over 75% of total monthly 

Village municipal diversions was derived from the North 

Fork well field and the additional return flow diversion 

authorized from the Rio Ruidoso as a result of the North 

Fork diversions.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Rights

See response to comment 102-7.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

398 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 73 Water In the fourth bulleted paragraph on page 4, it should be 

mentioned that the prior Eagle Creek Below South Fork 

Gage with surface flow data during years 1969-1980 was 

located approximately 360 feet downstream from the 

present location with surface flow data since 1989. The 

prior downstream location was within a stream reach that, 

by field inspection of AEAI and according to figure 29 of 

the USGS report, was on bedrock with little if any 

alluvium. It should be noted that there would be basically 

no alluvium underflow at the prior gage location, whereas 

the present gage location would have significant alluvium 

underflow of up to 0.16 CFS referring to figure 29. The no 

flow days tabulated for both the prepumping period and 

the postpumping period are not tabulated from the same 

gage location and are not comparable due to the 

difference in stream underflow conditions. The no-flow 

days are greatly exaggerated for the postpumping period 

as compared to the prepumping period by using the 

present different location of the gage.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

See response to comment 102-15.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 399

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 74 Water The first bulleted paragraph on page 5 indicates that the 

groundwater recharge was estimated to average 490 

acre-feet per year. This value was calculated by the 

chloride mass-balance method which has questionable 

accuracy according to the USGS report and the AECOM 

report. The basin yield method used by the USGS 

indicates a midpoint recharge value of 1,950 acre-feet per 

annum which equates to basin yield minus direct runoff. 

The 490 acre-feet per annum is not compatible in any 

nature with and does not correlate with basin yield, 

measured surface water out-flow, direct runoff or base 

flow of Eagle Creek. The 490 acre-feet per annum is 

substantially less than the mean annual base flow of 819 

acre-feet per annum computed independently by the 

WHAT analysis of the measured surface water outflow. 

This is not possible since recharge is the sum of base flow 

and groundwater outflow. Obviously the 490 acre-feet 

recharge value is erroneous.

1.1 significant

issue – water

As stated in the “Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study” section of chapter 

2, we believe the chloride mass-balance method is 

a valid method, as used by USGS and provides a 

reasonable basis for determining the water table 

depth threshold in the proposed action: 

The 300 afy threshold per year was based on the 

500 afy recharge for the North Fork basin as 

determined by the chloride balance method 

described in the USGS report. The recharge rate 

from the chloride balance method was used instead 

of the rates calculated using the basin yield 

because of less certainty in evapotranspiration 

estimation. The chloride balance method also gives 

a maximum value for recharge because the rocks 

may contribute chlorine. We do not agree that 

calculating the recharge rate and then the 

acceptable well pumping threshold based on the 

basin yield method is appropriate since the 

proposed action includes adaptive management to 

achieve the desired conditions. The use of the 

recharge rate determined by chloride balance is a 

safe starting point because it should represent a 

maximum groundwater recharge rate method. 

That being said, the initial threshold of 900 

cumulative acre-feet over any 3 consecutive water 

years (300 acre-feet per year) is not a stand-alone 

threshold. As stated in the proposed action, hitting 

this threshold would trigger a review by the Forest 

Service of the other current thresholds and 

mitigations at maintaining or improving surface 

resource conditions. The Forest Service would 

decide, based on evaluation of all monitoring 

indicators, if changes would be needed. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

400 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

It should be noted also that the WHAT analysis 

showed a 417 afy base flow for the 1989 to 2008 

record. The USGS included this Web-based tool, 

with reference in their report, but no discussion as 

to its accuracy or precision. Like the mass balance 

method used, it is another tool, and gives another 

answer subject to its own assumptive errors. The 

490 afy figure is presented as a minimum, with the 

reasons stated.

102 75 Water The second bulleted paragraph on page 5 states 

erroneously that sustained flows of 2.2 CFS (consisting of 

1.2 CFS to saturate the alluvium and 1.0 CFS bedrock 

loss) are needed to maintain continuous flow in North 

Fork. The USGS report indicates that from 0.6 to 1.2 CFS 

(depending on permeability) is needed to saturate the 

alluvium at the widest alluvium section on North Fork in 

the vicinity of the NF-1 well and from 0.7 to 1.0 CFS flow 

is lost to bedrock above the well field. Referring to figure 

29 of the USGS report, the value of 0.6 to 1.2 CFS flow to 

saturate the alluvium diminishes drastically down to 0.2 to 

0.1 CFS or less needed for continuous surface flow for the 

majority of the stream reach below the North Fork wells 

down to the Eagle Creek Below South Fork Gage. The 

use of 1.2 CFS flow needed to saturate the alluvium is 

greatly overstated and is an incorrect application of the 

USGS report information.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

This second bullet statement was taken from the 

USGS report, but we have revised this statement 

somewhat with additional information from the 

USGS report to address your concern. 

102 76 Water Rights In the first paragraph under water rights on page 5, the 

information should be corrected to state that the Village 

was originally adjudicated a total of 5,648 acre-feet per 

annum from the North Fork wells subject to beneficial use. 

In June 2007, the Village filed Proof of Beneficial Use with 

the State Engineer which was used as a basis for a 2010 

consent order adjudicating a total of 2,539.34 acre-feet 

per annum with 846.46 acre-feet per annum subject to 

beneficial use to be filed on or before Dec. 31, 2024.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Rights

We have made this change to this section of the 

DEIS.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 401

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 77 Process The first paragraph on page 6 is written incorrectly and 

should be corrected to state that the Village agreed to a 

2006 stipulated settlement requiring the completion of an 

environmental study but was not a party to the 2009 

supplement suggesting an alternative that would leave 

downstream flows completely undisturbed. All other 

references to the 2009 supplement within the EIS should 

be corrected to state that the Village was not a party.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

See response to comment 102-11.

102 78 Water The second bulleted paragraph on page 9 below 

“Measurement Indicators” entitled “Streamflow Quantity” 

indicates that 1.2 CFS flow in Eagle Creek at the Eagle 

Creek Below South Fork Gage should be used as an 

streamflow impact indicator. This is not a correct value for

Eagle Creek flow to saturate alluvium for the reasons as 

discussed in Comment No. 4 above. A much smaller 

value should be derived and used, possibly in the range of 

0.25 CFS or less. This smaller number should be related 

to riparian vegetation water requirements and not derived 

from saturated alluvium flow requirements.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

Keep in mind that these measurement indicators 

are not used as management triggers, as described 

in our responses to comments 102-24, 102-29, and 

102-32.

The rationale for using the 1.2 cfs indicator is 

described in the “Water Resources” section of 

chapter 3. 

102 79 Springs and 

Seeps

The fourth bulleted paragraph on page 9 below 

“Measurement Indicators” entitled “Springs and Seeps” 

relies on a Technical Memorandum of May 12, 2004 from 

Casey W. Cook, Balleau Groundwater, Inc. to identify 

springs and seeps that may be affected by pumping. 

Relying on the technical memorandum requires a 

multitude of erroneous assumptions related to aquifer 

conditions (as described in detail on page 71 of the 

AECOM Water Resources Report) such that the adverse 

results are greatly exaggerated to the worst case 

scenario. To rely on this Balleau Groundwater, Inc. work 

for any purpose would not be acceptable and would lead 

to erroneous results.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

We acknowledge the assumptions used in the 

Balleau model and describe these in detail in the 

“Regional Extent of Pumping Drawdown” section in 

the “Water Resources” section of chapter 3; we 

recognize these estimates for water drawdown are 

likely high and state that these results are being 

used to conservatively estimate possible effects. 

Additional monitoring of spring and seeps is 

recommended to address the need for more sitespecific information.

102 80 The section entitled “Aquatic Habitat and Fish” located at 

the bottom portion of page 9 is not correct as relating to 

fish populations in the intermittent reach of North Fork of 

Eagle Creek. Fish should be omitted from this discussion 

and should not be considered in alternative comparisons 

since prepumping conditions would not support fish 

populations due to the intermittent nature of the stream.

See responses to comments 102-5 and 102-27 

regarding aquatic habitat and fish; chapter 3 details 

the effects of each alternative on this issue.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

402 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 81 Domestic 

Wells

On page 10 under “Socioeconomics” the mention of 

availability of water for domestic wells should be omitted 

due to the following reasons: No data or information has 

been assembled or correlated to determine any effects to 

domestic wells on private land off of forest land and the 

Village holds all of the existing water rights to divert Eagle 

Creek surface water with senior priority dates as 

compared to the domestic permitted wells. The domestic 

wells upstream from the well field on forest land are all 

junior in priority to the Village wells on forest land and 

cannot relate the priority of the domestic wells back to the 

date of the illegal surface water diversions previously 

used by the cabin owners. The domestic wells could be 

deepened by the well owners if needed in the future.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

See response to 102-33.

102 82 Recreation At the top of page 11 under “Streamside Recreational 

Use” this discussion should be deemphasized and moved 

to the nonsignificant issues and not included in the 

alternative comparison discussion. The intermittent nature 

of the prepumping stream removes any streamside 

recreational use since the stream historically has no 

consistent streamflow.

1.1 Significant 

Issue –

Socioeconomics

Streamside recreation and fishing opportunities are 

noted in the DEIS as the only types of dispersed 

recreation that would be affected (see “Recreation” 

and “Scenery Affected Environment” section of 

chapter 3). Streamside recreational use was just 

one aspect of the socioeconomics issue analyzed 

and it provides a valuable comparison between the 

alternatives. See responses to comments 102-27 

and 102-33 for an explanation of significant issues 

and how they were selected. 

This factor within socioeconomics is discussed in 

chapter 3 and shown in Table 3 in chapter 2.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 403

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 83 Process In the last paragraph, page 21, the “Manual Direction 

Summary” document (USDA Forest Service 2011) 

concludes that the USFS has no authority in New Mexico 

to establish a minimum instream flow. Requiring no more 

than 30 no-flow days per year or no more than 20 no-flow 

days per year in a 3-year period would not be consistent 

with these conclusions. The no-flow days for the 

postpumping period are greatly exaggerated as compared 

to the prepumping period due to the previous location for 

the gage being approximately 360 feet downstream from 

the present gage location. The previous location was 

within a bedrock section of Eagle Creek with little or no 

underflow. (See AEAI discussion within Comment No. 2 of 

chapter 1 of the DEIS).

3.1 Alternatives See response to comment 102-56; we do not agree 

that the proposed action establishes a minimum 

instream flow; alternatives that proposed a 

minimum instream flow have been dismissed from 

detailed analysis, as described in chapter 2 of the 

DEIS.

By definition, a minimum instream flow is a level 

below which the amount of flow in a specified 

stream should not drop. We do not believe that 

requiring a maximum number of days of no flow per 

year or over 3 years (that could be adjusted over 

time based on monitoring results) meets this 

definition. 

See response to comment 102-73 regarding the 

possibility for underflow at the current Eagle Creek 

gage. 

102 84 Water In the second paragraph under “Well Pumping Volume” 

on page 23 the 300 acre-feet per year or 900 acre-feet 

per 3-year period is based on 500 acre-feet per year 

recharge as determined by the chloride mass-balance 

method. The chloride mass-balance method has 

questionable accuracy according to the USGS report and 

the AECOM report. The basin yield method used by the 

USGS indicates a midpoint recharge value of 1,950 acrefeet per annum which equates to basin yield minus direct 

runoff. The 490 acre-feet per annum recharge computed 

by the chloride mass-balance method is not compatible in 

any nature with and does not correlate with basin yield, 

measured surface water out-flow, direct runoff or base 

flow of Eagle Creek. The 490 acre-feet per annum is 

substantially less than the mean annual base flow of 819 

acre-feet per annum computed independently by the 

WHAT analysis of the surface water outflow. This is not 

possible since recharge is the sum of base flow and 

groundwater outflow. Obviously the 490 acre-feet 

recharge value is erroneous.

1.1 Significant

Issue – Water

See response to comment 102-74. 

We discuss the rationale for using this well pumping 

volume in the description of the proposed action in 

chapter 2. We also discuss the comparison to the 

basin yield method in the “Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Study” section of 

chapter 2; this section also elaborates on the fact 

that this trigger is only a starting point and is 

intended to be updated or revised as needed based 

on future monitoring results. It is also not a standalone threshold, as discussed in response to 

comment 102-3. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

404 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 85 Stream 

Augmentatio

n

Referring to the discussion related to the NPDES permit 

within the third paragraph from the top of page 31, the 

North Fork of Eagle Creek is intermittent and described 

under 20.6.4.98 NMAC as “All non-perennial unclassified 

waters of the state, except those ephemeral waters 

included under 20.6.4.97 NMAC.” This water body has not 

had a use attainability analysis (UAA) performed which 

triggers full protection of swimmable/fishable. This means 

that since there has been no UAA, then under EPA 

review, the strictest standard is applied without any regard 

for the existing onsite conditions.

3.1 Alternatives Thank you for this information. 

102 86 Stream 

Augmentatio

n

Referring to the discussion within the third paragraph from 

the top of page 31, related to the lengthy permitting for the 

NPDES “eliminating the opportunity to conduct a pilot 

test,” the pilot test could be accomplished as a monitoring 

parameter and data could be collected after issuance of 

the SUP with the collected data being useful in future 

adaptive management strategies and adjustments in the 

administration of the permit. Application to the EPA 

Region 6 Office for the NPDES permit to conduct the pilot 

test has been accomplished by the Village of Ruidoso with 

the initial filing on October 27, 2011, and final filing on 

November 28, 2011, with all of the water sampling results 

attached.

Approval of the NPDES permit by the EPA could well 

occur prior to completion of the EIS.

3.1 Alternatives Based on all of the best available current 

information, we have determined that the stream 

augmentation alternative does not meet the 

purpose and need for action or the other criteria 

needed to consider it in detail in the EIS (as 

described in detail in the “Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Study” section of 

chapter 2 of the DEIS). 

However, if the applicant approaches us in the 

future with a new proposal for stream augmentation 

or a pilot test of stream augmentation, the deciding 

official could consider it further at that time, pending 

additional NEPA analysis. 

102 87 Stream 

Augmentation

Within the first and second paragraphs of page 32 relating 

to stream augmentation, if a stream augmentation pilot 

test were incorporated in SUP approval as a data 

collection process, then the data collected could be 

analyzed and used in adaptive management strategies for 

managing the SUP.

3.1 Alternatives See response to comment 102-86.

102 88 Process Referring to the discussion under “Suggestions for New 

Alternatives” and the discussion on the stipulated 

agreement, on page 32, the Village agreed to a 2006 

stipulated settlement requiring the completion of an 

environmental study but was not a party to the 2009 

supplement suggesting an alternative that would leave 

downstream flows completely undisturbed.

5.1 Procedural 

Concern

See response to comment 102-11.
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 405

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 89 Storage 

Capacity

The entire discussion on page 33 under “Add more 

storage capacity to the system” should be deleted. The 

information is not correctly done using sound engineering 

principles and should be completely omitted or treated in 

the same way as the suggestion for a water purification 

plant.

3.1 Alternatives The suggestion to add more storage to the system 

was suggested by the public during scoping and we 

are obligated to consider it; we recognize these 

calculations may be rough but they were used to 

provide a generalized comparison of needed 

storage to cost; it illustrates that costs would likely 

be prohibitive. If the applicant would like to provide 

additional information on storage capacity estimates 

for use in this section, please feel free to provide it 

and we can insert it into this section. 

102 90 Water On page 34, all of the information related to the 1.2 CFS 

flow rate being supported by the USGS should be further 

clarified with additional discussion considering the 

following information: The USGS report indicates that 

from 0.6 to 1.2 CFS (depending on permeability) is 

needed to saturate the alluvium at the widest alluvium 

section on North Fork in the vicinity of the NF-1 well and 

from 0.7 to 1.0 CFS flow is lost to bedrock above the well 

field. Referring to figure 29 of the USGS report, the value 

of 0.6 to 1.2

CFS flow to saturate the alluvium diminishes drastically 

down to 0.2 to 0.1 CFS or less needed for continuous 

surface flow for the majority of the stream reach below the 

North Fork wells down to the Eagle Creek Below South 

Fork Gage. The use of 1.2 CFS flow needed to saturate 

the alluvium is greatly overstated and is an incorrect 

application of the USGS report information.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

See response to 102-75. 
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

406 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment

Classification 

Codea Response

102 91 Water On page 36 the USGS discussion on the chloride massbalance method for calculating recharge needs to include 

the following information: The chloride mass-balance 

method has questionable accuracy according to the 

USGS report and the AECOM report. The basin yield 

method used by the USGS indicates a midpoint recharge 

value of 1,950 acre-feet per annum which equates to 

basin yield minus direct runoff. The 490 acre-feet per 

annum recharge computed by the chloride mass-balance 

method is not compatible in any nature with and does not 

correlate with basin yield, measured surface water outflow, direct runoff or base flow of Eagle Creek. (See 

Comment No. 2 to chapter 2 of the DEIS above). The 

derivation of the 300 acre-feet per year pumping threshold 

is not based on correct recharge information and should 

be reconsidered.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water

See response to 102-84.

102 92 Water Rights On page 36, referring to the second paragraph from the 

bottom, containing the discussion on the 1,600 acre-feet 

per annum being the current water right; this written 

information is incorrect. The adjudicated water right for the 

NFEC wells includes 761.12 acre-feet per annum 

supplemental groundwater rights and 2,539.34 acre-feet 

per annum groundwater rights. By memorandum of 

agreement between the Village of Ruidoso and Rio Hondo 

Land and Cattle Company, the groundwater diversion 

would be limited to 1,624.51 acre-feet per annum. The 

supplemental groundwater right remained unaffected by 

the agreement, resulting in a total diversion right of 

2,385.63 acre-feet per annum for the NFEC wells.

1.1 Significant 

Issue – Water 

Rights

The current water rights associated with H1979 et 

al. are 1,692.88 afy plus an additional 846.46 afy 

subject to NMSA 72-1-9 for a total of 2,539.34 afy. 

The 761.12 (or up to 6 cfs/yr) is a surface water 

right and can be pulled from supplemental 

groundwater wells (H-1497-S et al.) Neither the 

surface diversion nor the supplemental wells are 

located on NFS lands. 

In addition, the USFS currently recognizes the 2009 

adjudication not the MOU between the VoR and Rio 

Hondo Land and Cattle Co.

102 93 Alternatives On page 37, in the last paragraph referring to the OSE 

water diversion reporting the following suggestion is 

offered: The USFS needs to attempt to keep the 5-year 

evaluations of adaptive management strategy coincidental 

with the State Engineer 5-year accounting periods for the 

Hondo basin. This would allow for adjustments in 

diversion limits to be made at the end of each accounting 

period and allow for easier diversion administration by the 

State Engineer.

5.1 Suggestion Thank you for this suggestion; this statement has 

been added to the DEIS as follows: 

Based on the 5-year evaluations, the Forest Service 

may relax or further restrict specific parameters of 

this adaptive management strategy, with 

modification to the permit. These 5-year evaluations 

would coincide, if possible, with the State Engineer 

5-year accounting periods for the Hondo basin.
FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 407

Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle 

Creek Photos

Figure B 1. Eagle Creek Gage (November 2010)

Figure B 2. North Fork Gage (November 2010)
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

408 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Figure B 3. South Fork Gage (November 2010)

Figure B 4. North Fork Eagle Creek (during wet spring of 2008)
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 409

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

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

conditions (courtesy of USGS: left picture was taken by Nathan Myers on 

May 30, 2006, and right picture was taken by Nathan Myers on September 

28, 2006).
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

410 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

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

2010)

Figure B 8. North Fork Eagle Creek lower end (November 2010)
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 411

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

2010)

Figure B 10. North Fork Eagle Creek upstream from the North Fork wells 

(Nov 2010)
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

412 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Figure B 11. Eagle Creek diversion dam downstream of Eagle Creek gage 

(Nov 2010)

Figure B 12. Eagle Creek downstream of diversion dam (November 2010)
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 413

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

Figure B 14. North Fork Well 3 (August 2011) 
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

414 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

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

Figure B 16. North Fork Well 1 (November 2010)
FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 415

Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments 

Received Since 2012 DEIS

Introduction

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

Special Use Authorization Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on May 25, 2012. 

The notification of its availability for public comment was published in the Federal Register, a legal 

notice was published in the Ruidoso News, and email and letter notifications were distributed to all 

those on the project mailing list. Comments were requested by July 9, 2012. We received several 

requests for extensions to the comment period and Forest Supervisor Trujillo granted an additional 

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

The Little Bear Fire started on June 4, 2012 and encompassed approximately 98 percent of the project 

area. Because of the substantial impact this wildfire had on the project area analyzed in the DEIS, 

Forest Supervisor Trujillo decided to stop the comment period on the DEIS and begin the process to 

prepare a supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) that would address the changed conditions in the project area. 

This was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012. While we discontinued the formal 

comment period on the DEIS, we did invite any comments on the changed conditions in the project 

area by September 7, 2012. 

This document includes a summary of the comments that were received and how they are being used 

in preparation of the Supplemental Information Report and the SDEIS. 

We also received comments from primary stakeholders in 2014 while developing this SDEIS and 

these comments are summarized here as well. 

DEIS Commenters

The following table includes all comments (email, letters, or phone calls) that were either received on 

the DEIS before the suspension of the comment period, or on the request for information on changed 

conditions due to the Little Bear Fire, or during subsequent stakeholder coordination efforts in 2014 

while preparing this SDEIS.

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

changed conditions in the North Fork Eagle Creek Project Area

Number Date Name Affiliation Type

1 June 1, 2012 Ray Alborn, Mayor Village of Ruidoso Request for comment 

period extension

2 June 12, 2012 Todd Willens, Chief of 

Staff

Congressman 

Stevan Pearce

Request for comment 

period extension

3 June 13, 2012 Steven Sugarman, 

Attorney

Eagle Creek 

Conservation 

Association 

Request for comment 

period extension

4 June 20, 2013 Alan Cuddy, Hydrology 

Bureau

Office of the State 

Engineer

Information Request

5 June 22, 2012 Ray Alborn, Mayor Village of Ruidoso Request for 

supplemental DEIS 

preparation
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

416 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Number Date Name Affiliation Type

6 June 25, 2012 Ann Marie Matherne United States 

Geological Survey

Phone call record –

monitoring well 

vandalized

7 July 2, 2012 Deborah Rehfeld DEIS comment 

8 July 3, 2012 Scott Verhines, New 

Mexico State Engineer 

Office of the State 

Engineer

Request for 

supplemental DEIS 

preparation

9 July 4, 2012 Jean Public DEIS comments 

10 July 5, 2012 Rhonda Smith, Chief, 

Office of Planning and 

Compliance

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

DEIS comments

11 July 9, 2012 Ray Alborn, Mayor Village of Ruidoso Supporting information 

(Daniel B. Stephans 

and Associates, Inc) 

submitted - request for 

supplemental DEIS 

preparation

12 July 12, 2012 Meeting between 

Lincoln NF and Eagle 

Creek Conservation 

Association members

Meeting notes DEIS comments and 

project status update 

13 August 29, 

2012

Jackie D. Atkins, PE, 

Atkins Engineering 

Consultant for 

Village of Ruidoso

Comments on Changed 

Conditions

14 August 30,

2012

Don Stockstill, President 

and others

Eagle Creek 

Conservation 

Association 

DEIS comments 

15 September 4, 

2012

Stephan Spencer, 

Regional Environmental 

Officer

USDI Office of 

Environmental 

Policy and 

Compliance

DEIS review – no 

comments

16 September 6, 

2012

Paul Cassidy, Aquatic 

Consultants, Inc. 

Consultants for the 

Village of Ruidoso

Comments on changed 

conditions 

17 September 6, 

2012

Roger Peery, John 

Shomaker & Associates, 

Inc. 

Consultants for the 

Village of Ruidoso

Comments on changed 

conditions (also 

includes review of the 

WHAT modeling 

technique)

18 September 17, 

2012

Steven Sugarman, 

Attorney 

Attorney for Eagle 

Creek Conservation 

Association

Comments from Balleau 

Groundwater, Inc. 

(consultants to Eagle 

Creek Conservation 

Association) on DEIS 

and on changed 

conditions 

19 September 12, 

2012

Alvin Jones, Attorney Attorney for Village 

of Ruidoso

Comments from 

Parametrix, Inc. 

(consultants to Village 

of Ruidoso) on DEIS 

and changed conditions
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 417

Comments Received in 2014

We received input from Balleau Groundwater, Inc. in May and June 2014; Village of Ruidoso (with 

attached written comments from Alvin Jones, Atkins Engineering Associates, and John Shomaker and 

Associates, Inc.) in June 2014; and U.S. Geological Survey in June 2014 in relation to the preparation 

of the SDEIS. These comments were shared with the Interdisciplinary Team, discussed at an 

Interdisciplinary Team meeting on July 30, and considered while preparing this document.

Comment Consideration

We reviewed each comment letter and categorized them into subjects, highlighting the overall key 

concern, issue or suggestion made, as shown below. We paid particular attention to those comments 

that suggested new alternatives or provided specific comments on the existing range of alternatives 

presented in the DEIS. We provided all original letters to all members of the interdisciplinary team so 

each resource specialist could review comments related to their particular analysis and use them in 

preparation of their revised analyses for the supplemental DEIS. Each specialist paid particular 

attention to comments on changed conditions so these could be used in preparation of revised existing 

condition analyses in the project area following the wildfire. 

Because we will be providing the supplemental DEIS to all stakeholders and those on our project 

mailing list (including all those listed here who commented on the DEIS or provided comments on 

changed conditions), we did not go through the detailed process of coding each of these 19 letters to 

identify each individual comment/concern with a detailed response. We will however, use this more 

structured and detailed process following the comment period on the SDEIS and prior to preparation 

of the Final EIS and the draft Record of Decision. 

Comment Summary 

Comments on the DEIS

Background

1. Acknowledge that the Eagle Creek gage used to be located approximately 360 feet downstream 

from its present location and this has an impact on the pre- and post-pumping comparisons on 

streamflow.

Purpose and Need

1. The SDEIS should include a revised purpose and need for action; the existing one is not 

sufficiently defined to determine the degree to which any of the alternatives would meet it. The 

SDEIS should include a valid and sufficient case for the proposed action, since the existing DEIS 

does not do this.

2. The management objectives should be reconsidered. The first objective, “Recognizing the 

importance of the well field to municipal water supply by providing water to the applicant...”, is 

flawed, subjective, and carried greater weight during the analysis than the second objective, 

“minimizing impacts of groundwater drawdown...and protecting water dependent ecosystems.”

3. The need statement related to the contribution of the North Fork wells to municipal water supply 

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

418 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Alternatives and Adaptive Management Strategies

1. The SDEIS must include a presentation of effects as a difference from the baseline involving no 

continued pumping. The baseline used (current condition following 25 years of pumping) is not 

valid.

2. The SDEIS should acknowledge that the proposed alternative 3 would severely reduce 

streamflow and lower groundwater. It is misleading to state otherwise. It does not contain an 

effective adaptive management strategy.

3. Alternative 3 should not be selected; it will not result in improved flow.

4. Eagle Creek gage data should not be used in any adaptive management strategy.

5. Provide scientific credibility for use of average depth to water as a trigger and that this results in a 

cone of depression from pumping.

6. Consider clear the land through thinning to help improve the water table.

7. Consider that the proposed action did not line up with specialist reports and scientific evidence 

with some evidence being dismissed.

8. Consider our previous comments on the threshold triggers under the adaptive management 

strategy – these comments were dismissed by the ID team without rigorous review and without 

scientific basis.

9. The SDEIS should not characterize the continuation of current well pumping as a ‘no action’ 

alternative; this is not legally a no-action alternative and distorts the analysis.

10. The SDEIS should not include use of the Eagle Creek gauge as a proxy for North Fork flows. 

This is a flawed assumption since this gauge reflects flow in the North and South Forks.

11. The SDEIS should consider in detail alternatives on non-Forest Service land and outside the 

North Fork watershed.

12. The SDEIS should include a revised adaptive management strategy that monitors bedrock 

saturation (not depth to groundwater) and ensures a more immediate response time between a 

discontinuation of pumping and amelioration of the adverse impacts associated with pumping.

13. The SDEIS should include a revised adaptive management approach that is based on the model 

provided to the Forest Service that quantifies the relationship between pumping and streamflow.

14. The SDEIS should be based on the results of the aquifer tests described in the adaptive 

management strategy so that the results can be used in modeling the permeability of the alluvial 

underflow. The deeper zone bedrock aquifer tests called for by Forest Service are less pertinent.

15. The Forest Service should solicit the comments from the U.S. Geological Survey on the adaptive 

management strategy, particularly the use of the 300 acre-feet per year threshold. There can be no 

confidence that 300 acre-feet per year is stable or sustainable by simple comparison to recharge 

amounts.

16. The preferred Alternative 3 from the DEIS was flawed for a number of reasons including the fact 

that the adverse impacts on surface and groundwater resources that resulted from increased 

vegetation density in the North and South Forks of Eagle Creek were not considered. The DEIS 

and supporting documents wrongly assumed that all adverse impacts to surfacewater flow were 

the result of the applicant's pumping.
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 419

17. The alternatives must also consider future USDA Forest Service actions needed to keep the forest 

watershed healthy by managing vegetation density and fuels that will in tum maintain favorable 

supplies of water.

18. Discard adaptive management and propose a modeled level of impact acceptable to Forest 

Service.

19. Remove trigger 1 since it would establish a minimum instream flow which the USDA Forest 

Service has no authority to do in New Mexico.

20. Remove or change trigger 3 related to riparian vegetation. Reductions in pumping have been 

shown to have no effect on alluvial water levels.

21. The SDEIS should consider stream augmentation (at least a pilot program as part of the Special 

Use Permit) and correct errors in the discussion of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System permit process in chapter 2.

22. The SDEIS should remove the discussion of added storage capacity since it was done incorrectly.

23. Remove reference to Monitoring Wells MW4-B and C. This is the well that was vandalized. Both 

well casings were filled with gravel and fence posts. Some efforts were made to recover the wells, 

but this wasn't successful, so these wells are no longer operational.

24. The SDEIS should consider in detail the Eagle Creek Conservation Association-suggested 

alternative that allows the Village of Ruidoso to operate the North Fork pumps when the bedrock 

in the streambed is fully saturated:

• Install new gage on North Fork Eagle Creek above the confluence with South Fork Eagle 

Creek

• Install electronic monitoring switches on pumps and gages

• Establish a minimum instream flow (we suggest 1.2 cubic feet per second based on the U.S. 

Geological Survey study) 

♦ When flows are below the minimum instream flow measured at the new gage, stop 

pumping (the switches on the pumps will automatically shut off) 

♦ When flow is greater than the minimum instream flow, continue pumping

• Add storage capacity to the system so that more water can be pumped and stored during high 

flows 

• Authorize for a 10-year permit term with options for renewal

25. The SDEIS should include an analysis of this alternative:

• Allow the Village of Ruidoso to pump up to 70 percent of the annual quantity of groundwater 

recharge that will occur post-wildfire. The calculation of groundwater recharge must not be 

performed using the chloride mass-balance method, nor be based on the hydrophobic soil 

conditions that will exist for the several years. This is essentially the same percentage of 

recharge that the USDA Forest Service selected for its preferred Alternate 3 using the low-end 

recharge value calculated using the chloride mass-balance method as previous described. 

• Monitoring would include streamflow, groundwater levels, surface-water quality, and riparian 

vegetation as provided below.

• Monitor groundwater levels in North Fork monitoring wells MW-1A, MW-1B, MW-1C, 

MW-3A, and MW-5A, and North Fork production wells H-1979 (North Fork 1), H-1981 

(North Fork 3), and H-1982 (North Fork 4). Modifications will need to be made to North 

Fork production wells to allow water levels to be collected.
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

420 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

♦ Monitoring frequency: hourly

♦ Reporting frequency: quarterly

• Monitor streamflow at North Fork Eagle Creek gage (08387550), South Fork Eagle Creek 

gage (08387575), and Eagle Creek below South Fork (08387600).

♦ Monitoring frequency: real time data as currently performed by U.S. Geological Survey

♦ Reporting frequency: as currently provided on U.S. Geological Survey website

• Monitor surface-water quality above and below the cabins upstream of the North Fork Well 

field.

♦ Monitoring frequency: annually

♦ Reporting frequency: annually

• Monitor riparian vegetation survey in the historically intermittent reach below the cabins.

♦ Monitoring frequency: every 5 years

♦ Reporting frequency: every 5 years

Analysis 

General

1. Too many assumptions and much of the analyses were based on qualitative evidence and opinions 

rather than quantitative scientific evidence. Modeling should be used to predict impact of 

alternatives.

2. The SDEIS should include larger project areas for both direct and indirect impacts and 

cumulative impacts. Those identified in the DEIS are too small and incorrectly drawn to account 

for where effects would be noticed. The cumulative effects study area must be revised to extend 

much farther east, at least to Picacho and Snowy River Cave BLM land, than shown on DEIS 

Figure 4. 

3. The SDEIS must be based on the best available scientific data and all available credible science.

4. The EIS should be revised to follow the guidance of the best modern science and to become more 

quantitative by using a model simulation acceptable to Forest Service as recommended by U.S. 

Geological Survey and directed in the Forest Service Manual.

5. A proper impact analysis must isolate the action effects from the baseline of “no action 

conditions”. Climate change is not part of the impacts of the Forest Service action, and should not 

be presented in the section on environmental consequences of “action” effects.

6. The SDEIS should not include any conclusions drawn from the effects of future climate changes 

related to pumping and riparian vegetation; they are not well understood. 

7. Remove discussion of climate change as a consequence of each alternative, and put a discussion 

in the baseline description of future conditions unaltered by Forest Service action. State the 

allowance in changed aquifer water levels and stream flow that will be acceptable to Forest 

Service for this special use.

8. Follow CFR and FSM on treatment of incomplete and unavailable information including 

evidence that contraindicates the proposed action.
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 421

Hydrology

1. Acknowledge that bedrock is dry due to the cone of depression.

2. Acknowledge that the North Fork Eagle Creek remains dry most of the time and that it is the only 

dry stream in Lincoln County, most of the time.

3. Provide for the protection of water sources for wildlife.

4. Correlate depth to water in National Forest System lands wells with the day of no flow in North 

Fork Eagle Creek.

5. Quantify available stream flow for use by the Village of Ruidoso.

6. Acknowledge the requirement for saturated bedrock as a prerequisite for surface flow.

7. Acknowledge that absence of flow in North Fork Eagle Creek results in no contribution to the 

flow measured at the Eagle Creek gage.

8. Complete additional hydrologic analyses including calculating “dry days” for the last 10 years 

(this information is documented but not previously reported) and if possible, determined how 

long artesian flows last.

9. The SDEIS should include revised Tables 2 and 11 with added columns showing the net change 

in available water among the alternatives. Available models have better numbers and quantify the 

transition from aquifer storage to stream depletion sources supplying the well field.

10. The SDEIS should include updated references to the most current version of the U.S. Geological 

Survey report. The DEIS must be revised to cite the correct U.S. Geological Survey report 

version. Any climate-change findings that depend on that out-of-date version must be 

reconsidered and rewritten.

11. The SDEIS should be based on controlled testing, quantitative modeling and priority analysis, as 

required by Forest Service Manual Guidance. Modeling results are available and should be used.

12. The SDEIS should include a revised Figure 4 showing the greater extent of modeled groundwater 

drawdown; the existing figure is not based on all data and modeling provided to the Forest 

Service by Balleau Groundwater, Inc. 

13. The SDEIS should contain actual historic flow data for North Fork and available modeling data. 

It should be based on efforts to characterize actual flow in the North Fork, a central issue in the 

settlement agreement.

14. The SDEIS should not focus exclusively on the upstream direct impacts of the proposed project 

and should address the direct impacts downstream, as required in the settlement agreement.

15. The SDEIS should not conclude that the cone of depression caused by pumping has anything to 

do with the lack of riparian species recruitment; there may be a number of reasons unrelated to 

pumping.

16. The historic and current condition of the South Fork of Eagle Creek is also important to consider 

because surface-water flow was perennial in 1963 (U.S. Geological Survey 1963), but was not 

during the time the DEIS was being prepared.

17. The failure to assess the adverse impacts on watershed basin yield from increased vegetation in 

the North and South Fork Eagle Creek watersheds was arbitrary, and unfortunately led U.S. 

Geological Survey to develop alternative 3 of the DEIS, which was based on the premise that the 

watershed remains static, with the exception of pumping from the Village of Ruidoso’s wells.
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

422 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

18. Use of the Web GIS-Based Hydrograph Analysis Tool (WHAT) model as part of the hydraulic 

analysis for the DEIS was inappropriate.

19. The watershed conditions as classified by the USDA Forest Service "Watershed Condition 

Framework" and as included in the DEIS are no longer valid as a result of the Little Bear Fire. In 

fact, the watershed was impaired prior to the development of the DEIS as a result of the USDA 

Forest Service fire exclusion policy and the USDA Forest Service exclusion of thinning or timber 

harvesting projects.

20. Calculations of pumping drawdown from the applicant's wells and impacts on springs and seeps 

must be updated to include changes in the watershed basin yield. Drawdown impacts will 

ultimately be reduced as a result of increased basin yield (surface-water flow and groundwater 

recharge).

21. For the Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS, any model used to simulate effects from 

pumping the Village of Ruidoso's wells must developed to address the inadequacies of the 

existing Balleau model (2004) as identified by AECOM (2015). Additionally, a new model must 

take into account dynamic recharge to the groundwater system including leakage from the 

ephemeral channel of the North Fork of Eagle Creek to the well field area, and increased surfacewater flows and increased recharge that will occur as a result of the Little Bear Fire. This 

modeling can be readily accomplished using the MODFLOW code that is readily available and 

commonly used by hydrologists and hydro geologists.

22. The trade-off of reduced diversions from North Fork wells and increased diversions from Eagle 

Creek surface water should be recognized.

23. Use a quantitative model to evaluate hydrologic conditions and changes in terms of projected 

volumes and rates due to the special use authorization. Discard the discussion of subjective 

qualitative effects.

24. Describe quantitatively the projected effects on downstream well and surface water rights due to 

the special use authorization.

25. Complete the field tests of alluvial aquifer permeability as a basis for quantifying flow to be 

routed via that material, expected to be a minor fraction of 1.2 cubic feet per second.

26. Discard the discredited idea that pumping a certain fraction of basin recharge is a “safe startingpoint” in terms of drawdown and stream depletion.

27. Correct erroneous numbers on diversions, worst case scenarios, commitment of resources, and 

misstatements of the content of Balleau Groundwater references.

28. Remove reliance of the Balleau-modeled draw down contour for determining which springs and 

seeps may be affected 

Wildlife and Aquatic Habitats

1. The SDEIS should acknowledge our specific review comments on the aquatic habitat section and 

the biological analysis (Letter 16, Aquatic Consultants, Inc.). Monitoring parameters on post 

wildfire perennial systems in the southwest (e.g., precipitation, stream profile, runoff, suspended 

sediment, water temperature, and pH) are long term in nature (up to ten years), and typically 

compiled to determined when systems can be re-populated. Aquatic Consultants, Inc. believes 

that these parameters can only be applied to perennial stream systems and any management 

triggers associated with the SDEIS should only be applied to perennial waters as intermittent 

waters are not viable fisheries.
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 423

2. Omit fish from the list of significant issues since pre-pumping conditions would not support fish 

due to the intermittent nature of the stream.

Riparian 

1. The SDEIS should not be based on the assumption that pumping at current levels will result in a 

reduction of vegetation cover and species diversity; there is no evidence to support this. The 

existing record of pumping over the last 25 years has demonstrated conclusively that current 

pumping levels have not adversely affected riparian vegetation in the project area.

2. The SDEIS should not be based on any connections between riparian vegetation and pumping 

from the well field until this connection is firmly established. This can only be done with a multiyear survey that establishes baseline conditions of the riparian habitat in the project area, but also 

demonstrates measurable trends in vegetation density and diversity that correlate to annual 

pumping volumes.

3. The USDA Forest Service was asked to address the rooting depths of riparian vegetation adjacent 

to the intermittent and perennially portions of the North Fork Eagle Creek, vegetation need and 

timing for soil moisture, minimum groundwater depth for plant survival, and any other specific 

requirements needed for the survival of the riparian vegetation along the stream channel. The 

Supplemental Information Report and the SDEIS need to include all of the aforementioned 

specific requirements needed for riparian vegetation. Presumably the USDA Forest Service would 

have a qualified expert to provide this information. The Supplemental Information Report and 

SDEIS should note that after more than 20 years of pumping from the applicant's North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells that no adverse impacts to riparian vegetation were documented.

Socioeconomics & Water Rights

1. The SDEIS water rights analysis should be expanded to the area of cumulative impact seen in 

approved models in terms of drawdown contours and stream depletion, at least to the stream 

reach of plaintiff’s diversions at Picacho. A priority analysis of impacts on all senior water users, 

plus effects on the Pecos River Compact, due to Forest Service authorizing access to the 

conditional junior-most right on the Rio Hondo must be included.

2. The SDEIS must address the impacts on the Gerald Ford and Eagle Creek Conservation 

Association concerns about comprehensive rights.

3. The SDEIS should not understate the significance of adverse environmental and socioeconomic 

impacts and overstate the impacts on water supply and only selectively uses credible science.

4. The SDEIS needs to evaluate effects to environmental resources as well as senior water rights 

holders, and make distinctions between junior and senior water rights holders. This should be 

abdicated to the Office of the State Engineer.

5. The SDEIS should consider impacts to irrigation water supply.

6. The Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS must evaluate existing water rights and 

existing wells in more detail if the SDEIS intends to continue to address potential impacts from 

the applicant's wells in the cumulative impacts area outside of National Forest System lands. As 

previously mentioned by John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. and the applicant to the USDA 

Forest Service, most of these data are readily available at the New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer website http://www.ose.state.nm.us/.

7. The SDEIS should correct errors in the reported current water right for the Village of Ruidoso.
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

424 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

8. The Forest Service, through the SDEIS should not establish a minimum instream flow because 

this is under the jurisdiction of the New Mexico State Engineer.

9. The SDEIS should not include an analysis of impacts to domestic wells since no data have been 

assembled or correlated, they are junior water rights holders.

10. The SDEIS should remove reference to streamside recreational use as a significant issue.

Comments on Changed Conditions

Resource Analysis

1. The Little Bear Fire has clearly altered the surface hydrology of the North Fork Eagle Creek 

basin, and to the extent surface hydrology is connected to groundwater hydrology, also altered the 

groundwater hydrology.

2. The effects of the Little Bear Fire are likely to further complicate the natural hydrological 

processes in the North Fork Eagle Creek basin, and therefore, further diminish the validity and 

usefulness of the DEIS.

3. The effects of the Little Bear Fire will make it nearly impossible to interpret the cause of nearterm effects to riparian vegetation in the project area if changes are made to pumping levels 

during the next five to ten years. This is particularly true since no other sufficiently similar 

riparian habitats were found in the region to use as a reference or control.

4. The effects of the Little Bear Fire will result in reduced actual evapotranspiration from moist soil 

and from the riparian shallow water table. An increase in basin yield via surface runoff and watertable recharge is expected for the period until vegetation recovers to evapotranspiration levels 

associated with normal canopy volume. 

5. The effects of the Little Bear Fire will include an increase in burn-associated ash and sediment 

that can affect surface diversions and reservoirs. Fire effects on the applicant, however, are 

relatively short-term and are not a suitable basis for deciding on this long-term special use 

authorization.

6. Adverse impacts the wildfire has had on the applicant's ability to use its surface water and 

groundwater. The applicant's ability to exercise its surface-water rights has been adversely 

impacted as a result of the wildfire and the applicant must rely more heavily on its groundwater 

wells, both on and off National Forest System lands, to meet the demands of the community. 

These alternatives must account for the changes that will continue to occur in the watershed as the 

watershed begins to stabilize.

7. The Little Bear Fire destroyed a significant amount of the vegetation in the North and South Fork 

watersheds of Eagle Creek.

8. It is well documented that surface-water runoff and soil erosion dramatically increase after a 

wildfire such as the Little Bear Fire (DeBano et al., 1998; USDA, March 2003; USDA, 2005; 

Tillery et al., 2011; USDA Forest Service, 2012; Moody and Martin, 2004). USDA Forest Service 

BAER Team (2012) estimates a surface-water increase of 128 percent for the upper portion of the 

North Fork of Eagle Creek, and a 70- to 80-percent increase in runoff near the Eagle Lakes on the 

South Fork of Eagle Creek assuming only a 25-year 1-hour storm event. Runoff estimates in the 

lower portions of the watersheds below these points were not provided by the BAER Team 

(USDA Forest Service 2012).

9. Surface-water quality has been impaired due to the production of large quantities of ash and 

sediment (USDA Forest Service, 2012), and other constituents. The BAER Team report (USDA 
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 425

Forest Service, 2012) estimated a pre-wildfire soil erosion rate of 1 ton per acre and that the postwildfire soil erosion will be up to 97 tons per acre.

10. The BAER Team (USDA Forest Service, 2012) indicates that geologic conditions within the 

burned area have already experienced changes. Changes identified (USDA Forest Service, 2012) 

include "gravitational slumping, soil movement, rock falls, and debris/mud flows." The BAER 

Team report (USDA Forest Service, 2012) also indicates that many areas are in jeopardy of mass 

wasting as indicated below. Areas within the North and South Forks of Eagle Creek are within the 

"cited areas" mentioned below.

11. The BAER Team report (USDA Forest Service, 2012) indicates significant risks are expected to 

riparian habitat including vegetation and channel morphology. The report also indicates that 

warming of the surface waters as a result of the loss of shade along the creek will have adverse 

"impacts to or loss of aquatic habitat for fish and macro-invertebrates."

12. The BAER Team report (USDA Forest Service, 2012) also indicates that there may be adverse 

impacts to wildlife, fish, and the habitat which the Threatened (Mexican Spotted Owl) and 

Sensitive (Northern goshawk and bald eagle) species rely upon.

13. The Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS must consider the effects of the fire on springs 

and seeps.

14. The cumulative effects from pumping the applicant's North Fork Well field are clearly masked by 

the cumulative effects of the Little Bear Fire. The Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS 

should acknowledge this fact and clearly define the cumulative effects of the fire on the North 

and South Fork watersheds and downstream users so that the effects from the wildfire can be 

analyzed separately from the applicant's pumping. The cumulative effects analysis should clearly 

document the wildfire impacts on the applicant's surface and groundwater supplies in the Eagle 

Creek basin and the adverse impacts on the applicant's right to put its surface and groundwater 

rights to beneficial use.

15. Aquatic Consultants, Inc. would suspect that the brook trout population has been eradicated, or 

will be shortly, in the creek due mainly to the ash, sediment loads, and debris torrents from post 

fire flood events. Based on Aquatic Consultants, Inc. study of post fire effects to fish and fish 

habitats in New Mexico, we believe that the majority of these same effects will be experienced in 

the North Fork Eagle Creek.

16. The monthly calibrated Balleau Groundwater model remains available for use as offered in 2011. 

It is suitable for simulating watershed burn scenario

17. The water resource analysis should be updated since accessible available quantities of water 

changed.

• Estimated duration of no flow conditions at Eagle Creek Gage changed.

• Estimated occurrence of flows equal to or greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second at Eagle 

Creek Gage changed.

• Water quality based on temperature: Anticipated occurrence of periods when midday 

streamflow temperatures during May-October would exceed 68 degrees Fahrenheit at the 

Eagle Creek Gage would change.

• Impacts (if any) to springs, seeps and domestic wells based on drawdown would change.

• Cumulative effects within the cumulative impact area would change.
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

426 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

18. The aquatic habitat and fish analysis should be updated since increased basin yield and recharge 

would result in changes in drawdown and less adverse effects to the water table and to streamflow 

conditions, resulting in less impact on aquatic habitat and fish.

19. The riparian vegetation analysis should be updated since increased streamflow as a result of 

increased basin yield would result in fewer impacts to riparian vegetation along the stream 

corridor.

20. The socioeconomics analysis should be updated because municipal diversions could possibly be 

substantially increased as a result of increased basin yield. The section of the EIS predicting 

future municipal water diversions availability based on the past streamflow gage data would be 

completely out of date and not applicable.

21. The water right analysis should be updated. Due to increased basin yield the Village of Ruidoso 

should be able to divert more municipal water for beneficial use. The increase in basin yield and 

increase in recharge is not predictable from the past Eagle Creek Gage data due to the changed 

evapotranspiration rates and could not be finally determined until the North Fork of Eagle Creek 

drainage area conditions stabilized after a number of years.

22. Due to the dynamic and changing nature of the basin yield, recharge and stream runoff and base 

flow conditions during the initial unstable condition in the North Fork drainage area, no realistic 

predictions can be made until the drainage area becomes somewhat stable. The time frame for 

evaluation of the changed water resources conditions necessary for the supplemental DEIS would 

need to extend into the final more stable conditions of basin yield and recharge/discharge 

conditions for the North Fork of Eagle Creek drainage area. Therefore, all of the other 

contemplated re-analysis of resources reports would also need to wait until the water resources 

report update in the future.

Purpose and Need & Alternatives

1. Given the changes in the watershed, the USDA Forest Service should eliminate existing 

Alternative 3 and develop new alternatives. As will be explained in more detail below, the 

management triggers (monitoring indicators) developed by the USDA Forest Service as part of 

Alternative 3 that would be used to limit pumping from the Village's North Fork well field are no 

longer applicable.

2. Nearly all aspects of the current DEIS need to be updated because of fire-related damage to the 

watershed.

3. The Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS must consider post-wildfire changes to 

streamflow quantity, and the fact that streamflow will continue to change as vegetation is reestablished in the watershed. Changes in the streamflow will include initial quick peak flow 

responses to precipitation events (including flash flooding) with little baseflow for a period of 

time following the wildfire, and in fact, this has already occurred. The Supplemental Information 

Report and SDEIS must consider streamflow changes over time as the watershed begins to 

stabilize. Any alternative that uses minimum streamflow conditions as management triggers as a 

rationale to reduce the applicant's pumping are not appropriate until such time that watershed 

conditions stabilize and post-wildfire streamflow conditions can be evaluated.

4. The stream gauges are no longer reliable. The fact that the gages have not accurately represented 

streamflow in the Eagle Creek watershed must be taken into consideration as alternatives and 

associated management triggers are developed for the SDEIS.

5. Any comparisons to groundwater and surface-water conditions before pumping began in 1988 are 

now irrelevant. This is because the watershed has been severely altered by the Little Bear Fire and 
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 427

surface-water runoff and groundwater recharge will be vastly different than prior to the fire. As 

previously mentioned, it will take years before hydraulic conditions in the watershed begin to 

stabilize. The Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS will need to acknowledge this fact 

and develop other methods for assessing current and future conditions as mentioned in previous 

sections of this letter. Any triggers related to streamflow quantity or groundwater depths are 

inappropriate at this time.

6. Surface water temperatures proposed in the Draft EIS are no longer valid and must be 

reevaluated.

7. Surface water quality has been negatively impacted by the ash and increased sediment load 

(turbidity).

8. The post-wildfire impacts to water quality, including increased water temperatures, sediment 

load, ash, and other contaminants will adversely affect their ability to survive. The SIR and 

SDEIS must address these issues. Any management triggers related to water quality and water 

temperature must be removed from the SDEIS.

9. The purpose and need for action should be revised or changed based on the effects of the Little 

Bear Fire.

10. Monitoring parameters on post wildfire perennial systems in the southwest (e.g., precipitation, 

stream profile, runoff, suspended sediment, water temperature, and pH) are long term in nature 

(up to ten years), and typically compiled to determined when systems can be re-populated. 

Aquatic Consultants, Inc. believes that these parameters can only be applied to perennial stream 

systems and any management triggers associated with the SDEIS should only be applied to 

perennial waters as intermittent waters are not viable fisheries.

References Provided 

Harris and Lindquist 2000. Harris, Richard R. and Donna Lindquist, Riparian vegetation 

establishment and survival on Caples Creek and Kirkwood Creek, Summer, 2000, October, 2000, 

online URL: http://www.project184.org/doc_lib/documents/2011/RVRMP-FINAL.pdf

BGW groundwater flow model files, with explanations, provided to the Forest Service in 2011

USGS Report Revision History from 2010

FSM 2540

Multiple references cited in Comment Letter 17 (Shomaker and Associates)

New Mexico Fish and Game Department fish stocking report data

2001 – 2012 North Fork Well production records with percent of total diversion 

Revised State Engineer List of Rio Hondo-Bonito-Ruidoso Stream Surface Water Right Priorities 

(1987)

The interdisciplinary team used all of these comment letters, cited literature, and this summary 

provided here as important information in preparing the Supplemental Information Report (January 

2014), revising individual resource reports and preparing the SDEIS. Meetings with both the Village 

of Ruidoso and Eagle Creek Conservation Association representatives continue to discuss overall 

project status and to gather any additional data or information they may be aware of that would 

inform our analysis in the SDEIS. 
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

428 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Next Steps

Once the SDEIS is released for the 45-day public comment period (expected fall 2014) and all 

comments are received, we will conduct a thorough comment analysis process at that time, coding, 

categorizing and providing a written response to all individual comments received by the end of the 

comment period. These comments will be used in preparation of the Final EIS and the draft Record of 

Decision. We anticipate continued contact and communication with project stakeholders throughout 

this process as the SDEIS and then the subsequent FEIS are prepared.
FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 429

Appendix D – Photos of Post-Little Bear Fire 

Conditions

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

(August 22, 2012)
Appendix D – Photos of the Post-Little Bear Fire Conditions

430 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

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

22, 2012)
Appendix D – Photos of the Post-Little Bear Fire Conditions

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 431

Figure D 3. Looking southeast to the North Fork crossing upstream of the North Fork gage (August 22, 

2012)
Appendix D – Photos of the Post-Little Bear Fire Conditions

432 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

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

an unnamed drainage (August 22, 2012)
FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 433

Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Public 

Comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

Introduction

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

Use Authorization Project Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) on November 

14, 2014. The notification of its availability for public comment was published in the Federal Register, a 

legal notice was published in the Ruidoso News, and email and letter notifications were distributed to all 

those on the project mailing list. Comments were requested 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. All of the comments 

received were analyzed in detail. We coded and categorized all of the comments in these letters. This 

appendix includes a summary of all comments received and the Forest Service response. Table 20 lists the 

commenters by individual letter number and table 21 lists each of the individual comments associated 

with each letter and the Forest Service response, indicating how they were used to prepare this Final 

Environment Impact Statement (FEIS). The number in the first column of table 21 is the letter number, 

which corresponds to the letter number in table 20. The number in the second column of table 21

identifies the individual comments within each of the 23 letters received. There were a total of 309 

individual comments within the 23 total submissions. The quantity of individual comments within each 

letter is shown in table 20.

SDEIS Commenters 

The following table includes all comments (email, letters, electronic submissions, faxes) that were 

received on the SDEIS during the comment period.

Table 20. Listing of comments that were received on the SDEIS

Letter No. Last Name First Name Organization

Quantity of 

Comments within 

Letters

1, 14 Balleau Peter Balleau Groundwater, Inc. 6

2, 16 Sugarman Steven 18

3 Blaine Tom Office of the State Engineer 5

4, 12 Midkiff William 23

5 Pearce Stevan Congress 6

6 Public Jean 4

7 Stucky Marie Environmental Protection Agency 5

8 Battin Tom Village of Ruidoso 5

9 Loera Javier Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 1

10, 11, 20 Keus Ab Eagle Creek Conservation 

Association

12

13 Cassidy Paul Aquatic Consultants, Inc. 11

15 Spencer Stephen U. S. Department of the Interior 1
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

434 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter No. Last Name First Name Organization

Quantity of 

Comments within 

Letters

17 Johnson Laura Upper Hondo Soil & Water 

Conservation District

7

18 Taylor Clark 22

19 Johnson Bob 1

21, 23 Jones

Sharp

Alvin

Susie

Hennighausen & Olsen, L.L.P 171

22 Linden Chris State of New Mexico 11

Total: 23 Total: 309
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 435

Response to Comments

Table 21. Public comments on the SDEIS and Forest Service Responses

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 5 Adaptive 

Management

The USFS adaptive management program proposes to monitor conditions in the North Fork utilizing the 

EC gage that only receives flow from the South Fork, most of the time. The USFS has refused to document 

each day that the North Fork is dry, which is most of the time.

Response:

The proposed adaptive management strategy under Alternative 3 would use several additional monitoring 

measurement locations besides the Eagle Creek confluence gage. This is described in Table 2 of the EIS, 

and in the Monitoring Measures section of the Water Resources Report. The EIS compares a 

discontinuation of pumping (Alternative 2) to continuing historic pumping (Alternative 1) to the adaptive 

management strategy as part of Alternative 3. The water resources analysis compares no-pumping and 

pumping conditions, generally using long-term pre-fire data. This was done to reduce the influence of 

other less-defined watershed and climatic variables that are more significant over short periods. The 

South Fork gage only began operation in late 2007; those flows were not measured for equivalent 

comparisons in the pre-pumping period. The relationship between South Fork gage data and Eagle Creek 

confluence data is not consistently defined; this is also true during the shorter no-pumping periods in the 

recent record. 

The USFS has not refused to document each day that the North Fork is dry; that information is based on 

available data. Pre-fire flow comparisons (such as Table 7 in the Water Resources Report) include no-flow 

days, flow-frequency analyses, and others. Post-fire flow comparisons in the EIS are necessarily 

qualitative due to the altered watershed, channel, and gaging conditions and the relatively short time since 

the fire.

See also response to letter 12, comment 12
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

436 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 13 Adaptive 

Management

Rejecting influence from Clark Taylor and Richard Carlson, the USFS has dragged out a million dollar EIS 

study for ten years, focusing on a pre- determined outcome, to justify the issuance of a virtually unchanged 

SUP and to add an administrative layer called "adaptive management" that does not contribute to the

health of the North Fork.

Response:

The Forest Service has worked through a broad spectrum of alternatives, data, and information, and 

considered extensive public input throughout the EIS process. The agency has not yet made any 

decisions. Three alternatives are analyzed in detail in the EIS and were developed to address the purpose 

and need for action, project objectives, and significant issues. These are described in chapter 1 of the EIS 

and include protecting natural resources. The Responsible Official will select an alternative for 

implementation based on the analysis presented in the EIS and the public comments received on the 

SDEIS. The decision and its rationale, including consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will 

be included in the Record of Decision. The ultimate decision stemming from the EIS will depend on 

consideration of all public input, management of conflicting water uses, and agency jurisdictions. 

14 1 Adaptive 

Management

I have another point to raise for clarification, which is the role of the cumulative pumping volumes at 900AF 

over the first 3 years as an adaptive management trigger. The text initially describes this on page 32 as a 

firm trigger that "would trigger a review of thresholds and mitigation...", but later at page 182 it is stated that 

"there may be further reductions based on cumulative pumping volumes". Please confirm for me in the 

response to this comment that the 900AF volumetric trigger is a definite requirement for examination in the 

fourth year of the permit and subsequently, not a conditional, optional or an alternative trigger that 'may' or 

may not be applied. The complete set of hydrologic comments provided to USFS on this action have been 

based on the expectation of the volumetric pumping limit being applied. That trigger should not be relaxed 

at the late stage of permitting.

Response:

The cumulative pumping volume trigger proposed as part of Alternative 3 would be a definite adaptive 

management tool under that alternative, as described on page 32 of the SDEIS [Well Pumping Volumes 

under Adaptive Management Triggers (Monitoring Indicators)]. The text on SDEIS page 182 begins with 

reference to the no-flow day trigger, and expands on that to identify that other triggers and reviews would 

also play a role in the proposed overall program.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 437

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

16 9 Adaptive 

Management

While the USFS is to be commended for making improvements to the adaptive management framework 

which was initially proposed for the NFEC Project, the USFS has still not gone far enough to assure the 

protection of all national forest resources.

Response:

The Forest Service has worked through a broad spectrum of alternatives, data, and information, and 

considered extensive public input throughout the EIS process. The agency has not made any decisions. 

Three alternatives are analyzed in detail in the EIS and were developed to address the purpose and need 

for action, project objectives, and significant issues. These are described in chapter 1 of the EIS and 

include protecting natural resources. The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation 

based on the analysis presented in the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision 

and its rationale, including consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the 

Record of Decision. The ultimate decision stemming from the EIS will depend on consideration of all public 

input, management of conflicting water uses, and agency jurisdictions.

16 10 Adaptive 

Management

In the Draft SEIS, the USFS has clarified that the adaptive management program – the monitoring, the 

“triggers,” and the “responses” – is a component part of the proposed action. That is, the USFS’s decisionmaking process for the NFEC Project is premised on the assumption that all aspects of the adaptive 

management program will be implemented by either the USFS and/or the Village of Ruidoso. 

Implementation of the adaptive management program is not discretionary, but mandatory. However, the 

adaptive management program is still flawed in certain critical respects.

Response:

The Forest Service has worked through a broad spectrum of alternatives, data, and information, and 

considered extensive public input throughout the EIS process. The agency has not made any decisions. 

Three alternatives are analyzed in detail in the EIS and were developed to address the purpose and need 

for action, project objectives, and significant issues. These are described in chapter 1 of the EIS and 

include protecting natural resources. The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation 

based on the analysis presented in the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision 

and its rationale, including consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the 

Record of Decision. The ultimate decision stemming from the EIS will depend on consideration of all public 

input, management of conflicting water uses, and agency jurisdictions. 

You are correct that the adaptive management program described for Alternative 3 is a critical component 

of this alternative and would not be discretionary if this alternative is selected. The Record of Decision will 

line out all of the non-discretionary components of the selected alternative, including any adaptive 

management provisions, any mitigations or project design features, and required monitoring. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

438 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

16 12 Adaptive 

Management

The adaptive management program is not designed to protect natural surface flows in the North Fork of 

Eagle Creek. Instead, the adaptive management program contemplates that the Village of Ruidoso’s 

withdrawals from the North Fork wells will be allowed to result in no-flow conditions on 30+ days annually. 

As discussed above, any management program which fails to restore and protect natural surface flow in 

the North Fork of Eagle Creek is inherently flawed and must be rejected.

Response:

The adaptive management strategy that is an integral part of Alternative 3 was developed to address the 

purpose and need for action and project objectives (which include protecting forest resources and 

providing municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso). We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated 

water rights. As the land management agency, however, we have the authority to determine what is 

reasonable access (access to the right in this case is via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state 

adjudicated water right.

Purpose and need and project objections are described in chapter 1 of the EIS. The No Pumping 

alternative and the No Change alternative provide a comparison of the differences between the 

alternatives, for the Responsible Official to use in making his decision on the alternative to select for 

implementation. The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation based on the 

analysis presented in the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision and its 

rationale, including consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the Record of 

Decision.

16 13 Adaptive 

Management

Second, and consistent with the discussion in the immediately preceding paragraph, the adaptive 

management “triggers” are irrational as they contemplate authorization of a Special Use Authorization that 

will result in the de- watering of the North Fork of Eagle Creek.

Response:

The water resources analysis presented in chapter 3 of the SDEIS (pages 88-139) and summarized in 

SDEIS table 3 starting on page 57 concludes that the duration of no-surface- flow conditions would 

decrease under implementation of Alternative 3 when compared to the current condition, particularly in dry 

years. The adaptive management triggers proposed as part of Alternative 3 are based on currentlyavailable data. Additional data collection, interpretation, and management are incorporated into Alternative 

3 (SDEIS chapter 2 pages 27-36 and summarized in table 2) to provide flexibility based on new 

information. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 439

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

16 14 Adaptive 

Management

Third, the Draft SEIS appears to equivocate with respect to whether or not the “pumping volume” triggers 

of the adaptive management program are a mandatory component part of the adaptive management 

program. Draft SEIS at 183. The USFS should clarify that the pumping volume “triggers” are mandatory, 

because failure to implement those triggers will eviscerate the adaptive management framework which the 

USFS intends to pursue in connection with the NFEC Project

Response:

You are correct that the adaptive management program described for Alternative 3 is a critical component 

of this alternative and would not be discretionary if this alternative is selected. The Record of Decision will 

line out all of the non-discretionary components of the selected alternative, including any adaptive 

management provisions, any mitigations or project design features, and required monitoring.

17 1 Adaptive 

Management

The adaptive management approach to correcting the environmental atrocity that has occurred on Eagle 

Creek over the last 40 years is a logical approach by the science provided by the USGS study. 

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

18 5 Adaptive 

Management

I agree with the adaptive manage strategies and feel that the adaptation should be on a five (5) year 

rotation.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. The adaptive management strategy included in Alternative 3 would be 

reviewed at least every five years (EIS, page 32), if this alternative is selected.

18 6 Adaptive 

Management

According to the USGS study, (Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5205) there was zero- no surface flow 

days prior to the pumping of the North Fork Eagle Creek wells. I hope through this evaluation process that 

we can realistically correct the past errors in management by establishing parameters by which the Village 

of Ruidoso can pump a limited amount of water for their needs but also provide surface water flow in the 

stream bed.

Response:

The adaptive management strategy that is an integral part of Alternative 3 was developed to address the 

purpose and need for action, project objectives, and significant issues. These are described in chapter 1 of 

the EIS and include protecting natural resources and providing municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso. 

The water resources analysis presented in chapter 3 of the SDEIS (pages 88-139) and summarized in 

SDEIS table 3 starting on page 57 concludes that the duration of no-surface- flow conditions would 

decrease under implementation of Alternative 3 when compared to the current condition, particularly in dry 

years. This alternative would also provide between 23-25 percent to the municipal water supply, as

discussed in more detail in the socioeconomic section of the EIS (pages 163-188) and summarized in 

SDEIS table 3 starting on page 66. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

440 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

18 15 Adaptive 

Management

I fully support an adaptive management strategy that allows for management adjustments with limitations 

on ground water pumping, cessation of pumping for short periods and feel that electronic monitoring 

should activate these adapting management adjustments by electronic shutting off pumping facilities when 

monitoring indicators of surface flow volume, water table depth, and water pumping volume are met via 

electronic monitoring.

Response:

We agree that electronic monitoring may have value as part of alternative 3. An automated control system 

as described could be used in combination with other operator-activated controls. Such systems can fail or 

improperly activate, however, so interactive staff communications should remain the overriding approach. 

We have added clarification to the description of these alternatives in the EIS to account for the

potential use of automated controls. However, as also stated on SDEIS page 40, exactly how 

monitoring data are relayed and used, once a decision is made, is outside the scope of the SDEIS. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 441

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 127 Adaptive 

Management

In the last paragraph, page 27 and the first paragraph, page 28, under Trigger No. 1of the Adaptive 

Management Triggers, the Manual Direction Summary Document (USDA Forest Service 2011) concludes 

that the USFS has no authority in New Mexico to establish a minimum in-stream flow. Requiring no more 

than 30 no flow days per year or no more than 20 no flow days per year in a three year period would not 

be consistent with these conclusions. The no flow days for the post pumping period are greatly 

exaggerated as compared to the pre-pumping period due to the previous location for the gage being 

approximately 360 feet downstream from the present gage location. The previous location was within a 

bedrock section of Eagle Creek with little or no underflow. (See AEAI discussion within Comment No.1of 

Chapter 1of the Supplemental DEIS).

Response:

We disagree that the implementation of the adaptive management strategy is outside the jurisdiction of the 

Forest Service. Except for Federal reserved water rights (which do not apply in this case), in New Mexico, 

the Office of New Mexico State Engineer has sole authority to apportion water, even on Federal land. 

However, the Forest Service has authority to determine what is reasonable access (i.e. the amount of 

water that is appropriate for removal via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s water right, while 

protecting surface resource (SDEIS, page 3). The SDEIS states that the objective is not to insure a 

continuous flow, but rather to minimize the number of dry days. As stated on page 24 of the SDEIS, 

Alternative 3 was developed to address the purpose and need for action and management objectives and 

provides a balance between providing municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso while also ensuring 

maintenance or improvement of water-dependent resources. As also stated on page 37, Alternative 3

proposes to reduce the number of no-flow days to an average of 20–30 days or less per year, roughly half 

of the average number of no-flow days experienced between 1989 and 2011. This would allow pumping to 

occur under a closely monitored adaptive management strategy designed to ensure protection of forest 

resources while providing needed municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso.

The matter of the previous gage location being “better” is impossible to verify. USGS does not move a 

gage without good reason. The reason in this case has been lost to history; we have been unable to verify 

the reason behind the relocation. We recognize that subsequent information received about the re-location 

of the Eagle Creek gage does add uncertainty to all of these analyses, and that has been clearly 

documented in the EIS (page 2, 29, 93) and the Water Resources Report. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

442 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 129 Adaptive 

Management

Under "Trigger #3 - Riparian Vegetation", discussion on pages 30 and 31, uses benchmark elevations at 

the two gages EC Below South Fork and NF of EC and establishes rooting depths of 30 to 34 inches 

below the benchmark elevations as measured through monitor wells at the two gage locations. These 

rooting depths are used as triggers to reduce pumping to 50% of North Fork Gage, which obviously would 

be a pumping rate of zero. Reduction in pumping of the North Fork wells has been shown to have no effect 

on alluvial water levels which are declined due to drought. To reduce pumping during a drought with no 

response shown in alluvial monitor wells makes no scientific sense and the alluvial water level monitoring 

should be omitted as a trigger.

Response:

Proposed Trigger #3 is cross-referenced to proposed Trigger #1 and the flow rate at the upper North Fork 

streamgage. It is possible that flow conditions at that gage could be zero when Trigger #3 would be 

activated. However, consultation and flexibility is written into management responses that could be taken 

from the triggers. 

The EIS team collected and reviewed available data, including additional data and information resulting 

from a lengthy and expensive project-specific data collection effort. Multiple outside sources of information 

clearly stated that alluvial water levels decline due to pumping, not just due to drought. Further analysis, 

impartially conducted and based on available data and resources, confirmed those existing investigations. 

Uncertainties in all of the analysis have been discussed and disclosed in text. Recommended triggers and 

monitoring measures are tailored to addressing public concerns and reducing uncertainty.

21 132 Adaptive 

Management

Referring to the discussion related to the NPDES permit within the third paragraph of page 45, the North 

Fork of Eagle Creek is intermittent and described under 20.6.4.98 NMAC as "All non-perennial unclassified 

waters of the state, except those ephemeral waters included under 20.6.4.97 NMAC". This water-body has 

not had a use attainability analysis (UAA) performed which triggers full protection of swimmable/fishable. 

This means that since there has been no UAA, then under EPA review, the strictest standard is applied 

without any regard for the existing on-site conditions. This strictest standard application does not make 

sense in this intermittent stream.

Response:

This standard is an EPA standard and is not a Forest Service standard. The EPA administers this 

standard. Intermittent streams are a natural occurrence in nature and do support appropriate riparian 

ecosystems and associated flora and fauna. The NFEC is capable of performing as both intermittent and 

perennial functions depending on water flow conditions throughout the system. 

21 133 Adaptive 

Management

Within the discussion on page 45 relating to pilot testing of stream augmentation, if a stream augmentation 

pilot test were incorporated in SUP approval as a data collection process, then the data collected could be 

analyzed and used in adaptive management strategies for managing the SUP.

Response:

This was considered but was dismissed from further detailed analysis, as described at the top of page 46 

in the EIS
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 443

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 2 Alternative -

General

Permitting either of the 2 alternatives for a Special Use Permit, as proposed, will maintain a cone of 

depression of devastating size.

Response:

A cone of depression will occur with groundwater pumping. It is likely that groundwater drawdown will 

reduce streamflow in the North Fork at some locations some of the time. Some pumping may create noflow conditions. The extent and severity of natural resource impacts would vary between pumping 

alternatives, and further, the conditions under which pumping would occur. The ultimate decision 

stemming from the EIS will depend on consideration of all public input, management of conflicting water 

uses, and agency jurisdictions. 

18 13 Alternative -

General

The alternative that allows pumping of the North Fork wells and there after providing surface flow 

augmentation is not a viable management alternative. This will only contribute to an excessive cone of 

depression and reduction of surface flow in its natural condition. To pump water from the wells and deposit 

the water so the stream gauge indicates a minimum amount of flow will not negate the fact that the 

pumping is exceeding the threshold required for sustained surface flow.

Response:

Flow augmentation was initially considered as a streamflow management tool, and was revisited again 

later during the EIS. That review is discussed in the EIS in accordance with disclosure requirements. As 

stated on SDEIS page 45, flow augmentation has not been proposed in any of the alternatives further 

considered and analyzed by the Forest Service in the EIS, or in its supporting reports. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

444 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 74 Alternative -

General

The Supplemental Water Resources Report (SWRR) of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (SDEIS) provides a thorough summary of existing data and reports for the upper Eagle Creek 

watershed before the Little Bear Wildfire. The objective of the SDEIS was to evaluate changed conditions 

within the watershed post Little Bear Wildfire. Unfortunately, the report assumes that either now, or within 

the next few years, the watershed will have the same hydrologic conditions over the entire permit period as 

those prior to the Little Bear Wildfire. This assumption is unfounded and not based on United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) reports (i.e., General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-

Volume 4, September 2005) or other published documents. This erroneous assumption results in 

essentially the same alternatives being presented with respect to pumping or not pumping of the Village 

wells, as those proposed in the original AECOM (2011).

Response:

The EIS does not assume that the watershed will have the same hydrologic conditions over the entire 

permit period; in fact, revised monitoring recommendations incorporate checking potential post-fire 

changes along the North Fork. An extensive literature review of wildfire effects on forested southwestern 

U.S. watersheds was conducted and referenced for the supplemental EIS after the Little Bear Fire. The 

review focused on water balance factors, and is summarized in the Supplemental Water Resources Report 

and related parts of the EIS. Those sources that discuss the duration of wildfire effects support the EIS 

documentation. For example, one indicates that, depending on fire severity, water yield recovery took 

generally 5 to 15 years after fires in southwestern pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine (General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-42- Volume 4, September 2005). That is within a 20-year permit period. Fire-effects 

literature was particularly selected for its western U.S. application, and was impartially reviewed and 

summarized in supporting text and tables in the supplemental water resources report. Discussion with 

Lincoln National Forest specialists indicated that “stand converting” conditions (e.g., forest to grass) were 

generally unlikely in the study area, except perhaps for a few patches of oakbrush succession. Other 

factors are discussed in the EIS and SWRR documents as identified from the literature.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 445

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 4 Alternative 

General 

With Alternative1 continue pumping current amounts, the well diversion by the Village of Ruidoso from 

wells on Forest lands would average an estimated 740 acre-feet per annum. Under Alternative 3, the 

Village diversion on Forest lands would average an estimated 300 acre-feet per annum, being the same 

quantity of water per year as the trigger point in adaptive management plan Alternative 3, if exceeded. This 

could result in a loss of 440 acre-feet per year of consumptive use (CU) water diversion for the Village. 

This amount of consumptive use diversion of water for municipal use would have to be made up by 

purchasing additional diversion on the Rio Ruidoso. Within the Rio Ruidoso there are very few if any junior 

water rights that could be moved into the Village municipal diversions. The water rights available to make 

up the 440 acre-feet per annum consumptive use are senior irrigation water rights with priorities in the 

1800's and with a consumptive irrigation requirement (CIR) of 1.44 acre-feet per acre per annum. Using 

the court ordered irrigation CIR of 1.44 acre-feet per acre per annum, then an equivalent 440 acre feet per 

acre using the court order of 1.44 CIR would amount to 305.56 acres of irrigation water rights needed to be 

purchased (440 acres divided by 1.44 CIR per acre).2 The value of senior priority irrigation water rights 

within the Rio Ruidoso drainage presently is approximately $23,000 per acre which would equate to a total 

present cost for 305.56 acres at $23,000 per acre which totals to $7,027,880.3

Response:

Recent changes in the VoR’s water rights include a permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 

acre feet from EC well H-1979 to the surface point of diversion at EC and at Alto Reservoir. The permit 

severed 700.83 acre feet from EC well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on 

EC and at Alto Reservoir. This new information has been incorporated into the Final EIS as well as 

estimated cost implications of the implementation of each alternative. See the socioeconomic and 

water rights sections of the FEIS for updated information related to water rights and economic 

implications.

12 10 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 - No Change - Continue Pumping at Historic Levels Pg. 126 (6) The use of Continued 

Pumping at Historic Levels has been documented as having degraded the environment by creating and 

maintaining a cone of depression that prevents surface flow of the NFEC across the study area. Surface 

flow recovery, except for rare, fast-moving water events, is prevented. The degradation of surface flow 

caused by continued pumping at historic levels does not satisfy the desired condition

Response:

The alternatives analyzed in detail in the FEIS do not address the purpose and need for action or the 

project objectives to the same degree and this is described in the FEIS. The maintenance of current 

riparian conditions is likely to occur under alternative 1 as a result of the long-term water extraction and a 

rebalancing of riparian area ecological dynamics of water availability and biotic responses. Each alternative 

in the EIS is compared and contrasted to each other to provide the public and the Responsible Official with 

a full understanding of the differences between alternatives, including how well they address the purpose 

and need for action and move the area toward desired conditions (as documented in chapter 3 and 

summarized in table 2)
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

446 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

17 2 Alternative 1 This lack of natural resource management has to stop, therefore, Alternative 1 – No Change should not be 

considered as a viable option.[...]The status quo is in violation of the Forest Service’s own 2500 policy

Response:

The Forest Service is obligated to consider the applicant’s proposal under 36 CFR Part 251. In addition, 

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider a reasonable range of alternatives. The Responsible Office 

(Lincoln National Forest Supervisor) will decide whether to issue a new permit or not, and if so, under what 

terms and conditions (EIS, page 9). 

The alternatives analyzed in detail in the FEIS do not address the purpose and need for action or the 

project objectives to the same degree and this is described in the FEIS. Each alternative in the EIS is 

compared and contrasted to each other to provide the public and the Responsible Official with a full 

understanding of the differences between alternatives, including how well they address the purpose and 

need for action and move the area toward desired conditions

18 16 Alternative 1 The no action alternative of issuing a permit with no changes in the existing operation is not a solution to 

the problems identified by the available science provided in the reports by USGS, Finch and Balleau. This 

alternative is not viable to the economy of the area nor the required environmental management of the 

Eagle Creek drainage as provided in the Forest Service manual.

Response:

The alternatives analyzed in detail in the FEIS do not address the purpose and need for action or the

project objectives to the same degree and this is described in the FEIS. Each alternative in the EIS is 

compared and contrasted to each other to provide the public and the Responsible Official with a full 

understanding of the differences between alternatives, including how well they address the purpose and 

need for action and move the area toward desired conditions

The predicted effects of implementing the alternatives to the local economy and to natural resources are 

described in detail in EIS chapter 3.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 447

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 9 Alternative 1 10.2 Alternative 1 - No Change The potential impacts from Village pumping to the number of flow or no 

flows days at the Eagle Creek gage is based on pre-fire conditions and is no longer applicable. The Village 

has no control over diversions by others within the Eagle Creek watershed. All diversions of surface water 

and groundwater are under the jurisdiction of the NMOSE.

Response:

The comparison of flow or no-flow days was done, in part, at the specific request of other participants in 

the NEPA public process. The evaluation is applicable to the overall EIS effort, in that it helps to clarify 

potential pumping impacts on streamflow. Granted, watershed and channel conditions have changed due 

to the Little Bear Fire. The entire supplemental EIS effort attests to the fact that current conditions differ 

substantially from pre-fire conditions. Based on relevant literature reviews, the supplemental EIS 

characterizes the post-fire changes and anticipated implications over both the short-term and long-term. 

Uncertainty in that characterization is disclosed. Other diversions within the Eagle Creek watershed, and 

the fact that the Village has no control over them, have been noted and are documented in the 

supplemental water resources report and elsewhere, particularly in the cumulative impact analysis sections 

of the water resources section of the EIS.

The Forest Service defers to the Office of the State Engineer in the allocation of water. However, the 

decision-maker can determine reasonable access to a state-issued water right and have the ability to

transfer of water rights off of National Forest System lands should they choose to do so.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

448 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 19 Alternative 1 Eliminate the proposed action and return to alternative 1 and continue with the current policy. There do not 

appear to be sufficient benefits to changing to Alternative 3to justify the large costs that will be incurred by 

the Village of Ruidoso and its residents. The actual impacts of the Little Bear Fire burn on vegetation and 

stream flows are not known and will not be known for several years. The DSEIS assumes that conditions 

will return to pre-fire conditions in 7 to 10 years. The stream flows should[...] be monitored during the 

expected recovery period to see if stream flows actually increase because of the fire. The expected 

recovery period is nearly half of the duration of the proposed action time frame while the DSEIS is based 

on the assumption of pre-fire burn conditions. Why incur the substantial costs to the Village when the 

information in the DSEIS does not support justifying the costs?

Response:

The commenter’s inputs are noted. Fire effects were projected based on a careful review of site-specific 

and regional investigations. The expected channel effects were based on a more local USGS debris and 

sedimentation study. There is uncertainty about the effects of the Little Bear Fire on the hydrologic 

system; that has been acknowledged in documentation. While intensive, the adaptive management and 

monitoring measures described in the SDEIS for Alternative 3 and the monitoring measures identified for 

Alternative 1 would create additional information valuable in managing multiple uses of the water resource 

on Forest Service lands. 

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the 

Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights include a 

permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 to the surface 

point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. The only 

likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. These 

factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections have 

been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already been 

undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under 

the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of Forest 

Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by steps 

being taken by the Village. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 449

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and benefits 

from instream flow changes has been added to the FSEIS. 

12 11 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 - No Action (No Pumping) Pg. 130 (6) Alternative 2 (no-pumping) has been shown during the 

monitoring period from March 8, 2007 to June 14, 2007 to allow surface flow to eventually recover in the 

North Fork of Eagle Creek, including the 2-mile study area, to pre-pumping conditions. Over time, the cone 

of depression will fill with water and remain full. Water flow along the surface and in the creek channel will 

extend from the North Fork gage to the Eagle Creek gage most of the time. The desired condition will be 

satisfied.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. EIS chapter 3 discloses that implementing the No Pumping alternative would 

result in improved surface flow, and eliminated or reduced no-flow days (also summarized on page 62).

12 12 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 - Proposed Action (Adaptive Management) Pg. 133 (6) The use of Adaptive Management as 

described will predictably result in the continued presence of a cone of depression of similar dimensions to 

the cone of depression created by Alternative 1. The NFEC in the study area will be pumped dry and 

surface flow recovery, except for rare, fast- moving water events, will be prevented. The USGS has the 

audacity to propose, as part of adaptive management, the use of flow measurements at the EC gage to 

interpret flow from the dry NFEC. The predictable and continued degradation of surface flow in the North 

Fork that will be perpetuated by the proposed adaptive management of pumping does not satisfy the 

desired condition

Response:

A cone of depression would occur during and after pumping under Alternative 3. At times this would 

reduce or eliminate flows at locations along the North Fork. Alternative 3 seeks to minimize those effects 

through a set of hydrologic adaptive management triggers that would improve streamflow and watershed 

conditions above those anticipated under Alternative 1 (No Change – Continue Pumping at Historic 

Levels). Proposed monitoring would further inform management, and would include monitoring wells, 

surveys, and other gages as described in the Supplemental Water Resources Report and the EIS. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

450 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

16 8 Alternative 3 Even if the USFS does not defer its decision-making in connection with the NFEC Project, it should assure 

that its final decision complies in all respects with NFMA and NEPA. Alternative 3 does not accomplish this 

purpose.

Response:

The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation based on the analysis presented in 

the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision and its rationale, including 

consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the Record of Decision. The 

ultimate decision stemming from the EIS will depend on consideration of all public input, management of 

conflicting water uses, and agency jurisdictions. 

17 1 Alternative 3 The UHSWCD supports Alternative 3 in the SDEIS.

Response:

Thank you for your comment
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 451

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 10 Alternative 3 10.3 Alternative 3 - Proposed Action-Adaptive Management Alternative 3 attempts to create an instream 

flow right. However, the USFS has no water rights and no jurisdiction over such rights in New Mexico. The 

attempt to create the instream flow has essentially remained unchanged since the initial DEIS. It is 

interesting to note that this preferred alternative is part of the USFS policies for water (USDA, 2000) and is 

not based on documented adverse impacts to riparian habitat or aquatic ecosystems, but rather a desired 

condition. The effects of post-fire on the depth and width of sediments in the North Fork Eagle Creek 

channel on surface water flow has not been assessed. The Village has senior water rights that allow the 

Village under State law to impact other wells completed after its wells. Effects of pumping Village wells on 

other wells are properly under the jurisdiction of the NMOSE.

Response:

We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights. As the land management agency, 

however, we have the authority to determine what is reasonable access (access to the right in this case is 

via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water right. We disagree that the 

implementation of the adaptive management strategy is outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. 

Except for Federal reserved water rights (which do not apply in this case), in New Mexico, the Office of 

New Mexico State Engineer has sole authority to apportion water, even on Federal land. However, the 

Forest Service has authority to determine what is reasonable access (i.e. the amount of water that is 

appropriate for removal via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s water right, while protecting surface 

resource (SDEIS, page 3). The SDEIS states that the objective is not to maintain a certain volume of water 

within the stream continuously, which is what is meant by maintaining a minimum in-stream flow. Even with 

the adaptive management plan, there will be dry days where there is no instream flow. The objective is 

only to minimize the number of dry days. As stated on page 24 of the SDEIS, Alternative 3 was developed 

to address the purpose and need for action and management objectives and provides a balance between 

providing municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso while also ensuring maintenance or improvement of 

water-dependent resources.

The consideration of pre-pumping aquatic and riparian conditions and the effect pumping has had on these 

forest resources is discussed fully in the riparian and aquatic habitat sections of chapter 3 and is 

summarized in EIS table 2. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

452 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 68 Alternative 3 Alternative 3, the Proposed Action, is essentially unchanged from previous pre-drafts and draft EIS 

documents. No adverse impacts to riparian habitat or aquatic ecosystems were documented by the USFS 

to have occurred as a result of pumping by the Village. Unfortunately, the USFS continues to ignore this 

fact.

Response:

Alternative 3 was revised since the DEIS was issued. These changes are summarized on page 4 of the 

EIS. Where changes were made to the adaptive management triggers, these changes are also discussed, 

by trigger, on EIS pages 27 -33.

The EIS discusses fish habitat prior to the start of pumping and concludes that “Therefore, while the North 

Fork, particularly below the North Fork gage, has always been a marginal trout fishery, the quality of trout 

habitat and recreational fishing experience it currently provides is lower today than it was in the late 1980s, 

and North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping has contributed to this decline.” (EIS, page 143). The EIS 

riparian analysis (pages 154-156) and states that “we do not know the pre-pumping condition of riparian 

vegetation along NFEC Though we do not know the prepumping condition of North Fork riparian 

vegetation, we do know there has been reduced water availability along the North Fork since the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells began pumping, as described in more detail in the “Water Resources” section of 

this chapter. Reduced water availability can affect riparian vegetation. Reduced water availability for plants 

can also be influenced by flood deposited alluvium in the valley bottom of the North Fork which raises the 

flood plain and channel, and causes the stream to flow below the alluvium. Either of these factors could 

explain the existing conditions and composition of the riparian vegetation along the North Fork.’” It goes on 

to discuss information related to comparing NFEC to a reference reach. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 453

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 69 Alternative 3 The preferred alternative attempts to develop instream flow rights in the absence of USFS water rights. 

The triggers as set forth in the alternative could eliminate pumping for months and jeopardize the ability of 

the Village to provide adequate supplies of water. The alternative does not consider the fact that a deeper 

and wider alluvial channel will result in less surface water and this must be factored into the analysis. The 

changed channel conditions are the result of the Little Bear Wildfire.

Response:

Please refer to previous responses regarding the USFS jurisdiction and our conclusion that implementing 

Alternative 3 would not be establishing an instream flow water right. We acknowledge the applicant’s state 

adjudicated water rights. As the land management agency, however, we have the authority to determine 

what is reasonable access (access to the right in this case is via well, pump, and pipeline) to the 

applicant’s state adjudicated water right.

The adaptive management strategy proposed as part of Alternative 3 describes tools and steps that could 

be implemented if that alternative is selected. By definition, additional flexibility is incorporated into that 

alternative to allow ongoing consideration of future conditions, data, and management tools. Changed 

channel conditions from the fire are recognized in the EIS, and have prompted the incorporation of 

additional tools and metrics in the adaptive management proposal under Alternative 3. 

As stated in the 2011 Manual Direction summary (project record #415b), we do not consider this 2 mile 

stretch of NFEC as a high priority stream on the Forest for non-consumptive stream flow. However, we do 

recognize NFEC as an important tributary to Eagle Creek and the water-dependent values it provides 

(include aquatic and riparian habitat and recreational opportunities such as camping and seasonal fishing) 

it provides as an intermittent stream.

21 76 Alternative 3 The USFS preferred alternative appears to be based in part on U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service policies (USDA, 2000) that promote instream flows, even though the Forest Service has no surface 

or groundwater rights in the subject area.

Response:

Please refer to previous responses regarding USFS jurisdiction and our conclusion that implementing 

Alternative 3 would not be establishing an instream flow water right. 

See also the 2011 Manual Direction Summary (project record #415b) that explains USFS jurisdiction 

related to this project. We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights. As the land 

management agency, however, we have the authority to determine what is reasonable access (access to 

the right in this case is via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water right.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

454 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 77 Alternative 3 The USFS preferred alternative, Alternative 3, remains little changed from that proposed during the PreDraft Environmental Impact Study, or the AECOM (2011), with the exception that extremely onerous 

monitoring requirements and structures have been added that would be quite expensive to perform and for 

which there are no baseline data for comparison and justification.

Response:

Alternative 3 was revised since the DEIS was issued. These changes are summarized on page 4 of the 

EIS. Where changes were made to the adaptive management triggers, these changes are also discussed, 

by trigger, on EIS pages 27 -33. The monitoring measures were developed based on a thorough review of 

all available information and are described more fully in the Water Resources Report. We recognize, 

however, that there are costs associated with implementation of all of the alternatives. Cost information 

has been added to the FEIS in response to this concern. 

21 78 Alternative 3 The USFS persists in supporting its originally preferred alternative (Alternative 3) regardless of the 

changed watershed conditions by not including or evaluating recent data and the changed hydrologic 

conditions. This is certainly unfortunate for the Village, but more importantly is an unscientific approach to 

a process that is presumed to be based on scientific methods and analysis.

Response:

The Forest Service has not made any decisions on which alternative to implement at this stage. A 

preferred alternative will be identified in the FEIS and the draft Record of Decision will identify a selected 

alternative and the rationale for that selection. 

The changed conditions since the Little Bear Fire were in fact considered. The effects of the fire are 

discussed in detail in each supplemental resource report in the project record and throughout the 

supplemental EIS. Changed and changing watershed conditions due to the Little Bear Fire have not 

invalidated streamflow and water supply issues. 

We fully considered additional available data provided by the Village and others and did investigate 

changed watershed conditions, as described in detail in the water resources report and throughout the 

EIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 455

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 3 Alternative 3 This report will demonstrate that the DSEIS is flawed and there is insufficient justification for reducing the 

water to the Village as proposed under Alternative 3.

Response:

The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation based on the analysis presented in 

the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision and its rationale, including 

consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the Record of Decision. The 

ultimate decision stemming from the EIS will depend on consideration of all public input, management of 

conflicting water uses, and agency jurisdictions. 

We recognize the differences in scientific conclusions regarding the effects of pumping on forest resources 

along NFEC, based on uncertainties related to limited data. We have carefully collected and analyzed 

data. Uncertainties associated with the data and the assessments are stated in the SDEIS and its 

supporting documentation
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

456 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 18 Alternative 3 Summary of Costs Likely to Impact the Village of Ruidoso with Implementing Alternative 3. Description of 

Activity Current Dollars Purchase Replacement water rights $7, 180,660 Litigation fees $152,780 

Monitoring & Measurement Costs $1,010,760 Loss of Value for inchoate water rights $5,000,000 Weather 

Station Exclusive of Annual Operating Expenses $20,000 Total $13,346,200 The total cost of nearly of 

$13.4 million to the Village of Ruidoso for accepting the proposed action plan for a special use water 

authorization can hardly be considered trivial and judged not worthy of inclusion in the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement in the discussion under the socioeconomics impacts section. This incursion of these 

costs will likely require the Village to sell municipal bonds and to either increase property taxes or increase 

water utility rates (or both) as a source of funds to retire the bonds. This increased debt load will curtail the 

capacity of the Village to provide other needed services to its residents. Given that 12 percent of the 

people living within the Village had incomes below the poverty level in 201216 according to US Census 

Bureau data; the proposed action would create an inequity issue (Environmental Justice). Those living 

below poverty level would have decreased capacity to pay increases in city taxes and fees (through 

increased property taxes or rent or water costs) and would likely eliminate purchases other necessary 

items in their budget to survive whereas the higher income groups would have more discretionary funds 

available to cover increases in property taxes and increases in utility fees

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the 

Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights include a 

permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 to the surface 

point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. The only 

likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. These 

factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections have 

been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already been 

undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under 

the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of Forest 

Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by steps 

being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and 

benefits from instream flow changes has been added to the FEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 457

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

18 12 Alternative New The natural fluctuation precipitation and snow melt run off would allow the Village of Ruidoso to obtain a 

controlled amount of municipal water from the Eagle Creek drainage without impacting the surface flow if 

the Village of Ruidoso had additional storage capacity.

Response:

As stated in the SDEIS, adding storage is outside the scope of this project. 

21 59 Alternative New Recommended Preferred Alternative: The Village would be allowed to pump up to 80 percent of the 

average annual quantity of groundwater recharge that will occur post-wildfire based current canopy 

density, vegetation type and distribution, and soil moisture requirements. Recharge estimates after 10 

years can be recalculated and should be based on actual USFS forest management performed and USFS 

financial assurances related to maintaining a healthy watershed. The calculation of groundwater recharge 

must not be performed using the chloride mass-balance method for reasons previously described. Village 

monitoring would include those provided below: ) 

Response:

Thank you for this suggestion. We carefully considered this alternative but have dismissed it from further 

detailed analysis. The rationale for this is provided in the FEIS in the Alternatives Considered But 

Dismissed section of chapter 2. 

21 134 Alternative New Referring to the discussion under "Suggestions for New Alternatives" and the discussion on the Stipulated 

Agreement, on page 46, the Village agreed to a 2006 Stipulated Settlement requiring the completion of an 

environmental study but was not a party to the 2009 supplement suggesting an alternative that would 

leave downstream flows completely undisturbed.

Response:

As described in our response to this concern during the scoping period (DEIS appendix A page 287), 

according to our Office of General Counsel, the applicant was not legally required to be a party to the 2009 

supplement; efforts were made at that time to keep the applicant informed of these updates. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

458 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 124 Aquatic -

Fisheries

The section entitled "Aquatic Habitat and Fish" located at the middle portion of page 10 is not correct as 

relating to fish populations in the intermittent reach of North Fork of Eagle Creek. Fish should be omitted 

from this discussion and should not be considered in alternative comparisons since pre-pumping 

conditions would not support fish populations due to the intermittent nature of the stream.

Response:

Table 11 and the narratives from Pages 140-143 adequately document fish populations in the stream prior 

to well pumping. We disagree that consideration of fish populations should be omitted from discussion and 

consideration. As stated in the DEIS on page 297 when this concern was brought up during the scoping 

period, aquatic habitat and fish was identified as a significant issue for this project based partly on the 

results of public scoping; many people raised concerns that NFEC well pumping may be affecting the 

quality of fish habitat and fishing opportunities. We are using the EIS process to determine if this is in fact 

the case (based on the best available information) and then to determine what impacts implementing each 

of the alternatives would have on aquatic habitat and fish. This is discussed in more detail in chapter 3 of 

the EIS. 

23 15 Aquatic -

Fisheries

The importance of fishing in the project area below the wells is not supported with sufficient evidence. The 

Bright report (Table 9) list the number of angler days and fish caught in Eagle Creek based on mail survey 

data from anglers beginning in the 1975-76year through 2007-2008. He compares the average angler days 

and fish caught from 1975-76 through 1988-89, a period before pumping began, with the period beginning 

1990-91 through 2007-08 after pumping began. The average number of angler days dropped from 717 to 

320 and fish caught from 3,220 to 890. This is a substantial drop. Bright acknowledge that it is not a 

scientific study and the data were based on the entire length of the Eagle Creek including the South Fork 

as well as areas below the confluence of the North and South Forks rather than limited to the study area. 

The study area comprises only a small part of Eagle Creek but including a discussion on fishing for the 

entire Eagle Creek is not germane to the evaluation of the impacts of pumping by the Village wells in the 

small project area. However, including these conclusions in the SDEIS report tends to be misleading and 

clouds the issue leaving the reader to conclude that fishing impacts are important to the EIS analysis

Response:

See response above regarding the reasoning behind detailed consideration of aquatic habitat and fish in 

the EIS. However, we agree that the information provided in the EIS on angler days may be misleading; 

this has been removed from the FEIS. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 459

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 16 Aquatic -

Fisheries

The reduction in angler days and fish caught could be related to lower stream flows and water 

temperatures but there are several other factors that might also be considered as drivers. To begin, the 

New Mexico Fish and Game Department no longer stocks Eagle Creek. The last historical stocking records 

show that the last stocking was 512 Rainbow trout in 1969. Their records are for the entirety of Eagle 

Creek as Fish and Game does not specify which part of creek they stocked. Also, the historical stream flow 

data indicates that the project area was not conducive for supporting fish populations because of no flow 

days during periods of droughts prior to pumping by the village.

Response:

See response above regarding the reasoning behind detailed consideration of aquatic habitat and fish in 

the EIS. However, we agree that the information provided in the EIS on angler days may be misleading; 

this has been removed from the FEIS.

13 17 Aquatic -

Fisheries

Post fire stream surveys have not documented any fish in the upper reaches of North fork eagle Creek. A 

formal fish survey was documented on the nearby Bonito Creek which was also affected by the wildfire and 

no fish were observed

Response:

This comment relates to a direct effect of the fire and does not preclude fish populations from becoming 

reestablished in future years as the system recovers. 

As discussed on page 164 of the SDEIS, Dunham et al. (in University of Idaho 2007) showed that physical 

stream habitats remained altered (e.g., stream temperatures) for many years following wildfire, but that 

native aquatic vertebrates can remain resilient. In a management context, this suggests that wildfire may 

be less of a threat to native species than human influences that alter the capacity of stream-living 

vertebrates to persist in the face of natural disturbance.

17 3 Climate Change The sections in the SDEIS on climate change should be taken out. It provides no factual analysis of the 

Eagle Creek drainage and the pumping that has depleted the stream flow.

Response:

As discussed in responses to earlier scoping comments (DEIS page 297) The “Water Resources” section 

of chapter 3 of the DEIS discusses climate change and how this could affect the implementation of the 

alternatives over time. This is simply a way to compare alternatives and does not identify applicant 

responsibilities. An analysis of the effects of climate change is an Agency requirement. 

The climate change references used and cited in the EIS and the supplemental water resources report are 

the most scientifically supportable that could be found in order to address agency-wide NEPA guidance. 

While not specifically factual to the Eagle Creek drainage, the assessment is largely based on regional 

western climate change research and U.S. Forest Service research for the southwest. It is true that “downscaling” from regional research to local watersheds is a common difficulty in current climate change 

research. Uncertainty surrounding climate change is clearly stated in the EIS and supporting report.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

460 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 3 Decision Process The million-dollar, ten-year study padded with delays has been a transparent masquerade that resembles 

the required EIS process except that it fails to thoroughly expose and discuss the causal relationship 

between the cone of depression, the dry North Fork streambed and pumping of the North Fork wells.

Response:

The EIS and its accompanying project record are based on a thorough compilation and analysis of the best 

available information related to the past effects of pumping on streamflow, and the predicted effects under 

each alternative considered in detail.

12 7 Decision Process Please do us a favor. Conclude this phony, prolonged process. Quit stalling and make your decision.

Response:

The Responsible Official’s decision will be documented in a draft Record of Decision, scheduled to be 

released in Spring/Summer 2015.

21 6 Decision Process On November 14, 2014 the Forest Service gave notice of the availability of the SDEIS dated October 2014. 

Clearly, between the date of the issuance of the SIR and the SDEIS, there simply wasn't enough time to 

adequately analyze and consider all of the circumstances noted in the SIR as requiring analysis and 

review.

Response:

The EIS and its accompanying project record are based on a thorough compilation and analysis of the best 

available information related to the past effects of pumping on streamflow, and the predicted effects under 

each alternative considered in detail. It considers the effects of the Little Bear Fire and documents this in 

chapter 3, in the project record, and in summary form in chapter 2.

11 2 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts

the ECCA is aware of the possibility that other interests and legal aspects of this controversy may prevail in 

the decision making process of this permit application.

Response:

The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation based on the analysis presented in 

the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision and its rationale, including 

consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the Record of Decision. The 

ultimate decision stemming from the EIS will depend on consideration of all public input, management of 

conflicting water uses, and agency jurisdictions.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 461

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

16 3 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts

As I have noted in my previous correspondence – and as other commenters have noted – the NEPA 

analysis for the NFEC Project is hindered by the USFS’s failure to strive for restoration and protection of 

natural surface flow in the North Fork of Eagle Creek. Pursuant to the National Forest Management Act 

(“NFMA”), the USFS must manage the water resources on national forest lands in a manner that does not 

impair surface water, groundwater, and water-dependent ecosystems. Alternative 3 of the Draft SEIS fails 

to comply with the requirements of NFMA’s substantive provisions regarding water resource – and waterdependent resource – protection.

Response:

The adaptive management strategy that is an integral part of Alternative 3 was developed to address the 

purpose and need for action, project objectives, and significant issues. These are described in chapter 1 of 

the EIS and include protecting natural resources and providing municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso. 

Two other alternatives, including No Pumping, are also fully analyzed in the EIS and provide three 

alternatives for the Responsible Official to choose from (see EIS chapter 1, page 9 for a description of the 

decision framework).

16 5 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts

The core importance of careful groundwater management to the conservation of multiple resource values 

on national forest lands is highlighted by the USFS’s recent proposed directive on groundwater resource 

management. 79 Fed.Reg. 25815 (May 6, 2014). That proposal recognizes that there are USFS certain 

policies now in place that provide a modicum of protection to the national forests’ valuable water 

resources. For example, the USFS’s existing policy is to discourage the use of on-forest water resources 

for off-forest use when there are alternatives available, except in certain limited circumstances which are 

not present here.[...]However, the proposed directive also recognizes that current USFS policy does not go 

far enough, and that the USFS requires additional authorities – including permitting authorities – to protect 

surface water, groundwater, and water-dependent ecosystems. For example, and of particular importance 

here, the proposed directive provides USFS line officers with the authority to impose terms and conditions 

on Special Use Authorizations necessary to provide assurances against degradation to both surface water 

and groundwater resources. FSM 2563.7. This authority would include the authority to impose Special Use 

Authorization terms and conditions to ensure the restoration and protection of natural surface flows. Id. 

Additionally, and also of particular importance here, the proposed directive provides USFS line officers with 

the authority to require Special Use Authorization holders to provide Water Supply Development and 

Operation Plans and to develop water conservation strategies for limiting total water withdrawals from 

national forest lands. FSM 2562.1, 2563.5.

Response:

We are aware of the proposed new groundwater directives. The brief discussion of the draft groundwater 

directives as proposed in May 2014 is included in the EIS; however, the proposed groundwater directives 

were put on hold in December 2014 and formally withdrawn in a June 2015 federal register notice pending 

further discussions with states and tribes. It is premature and speculative to attempt to apply the proposed 

groundwater directives to this project. If the directives are finalized prior to a decision being made on this 

project, the Forest Service will review, and where appropriate, incorporate their direction in the final EIS 

and project decisions. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

462 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

18 20 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts

I also object as stated in the federal register of the manage objective that states "Providing water 

management flexibility and water conservation to the Village of Ruidoso in a way does not foreclose 

opportunities to transfer a portion of their water rights of these wells to location off of national forest system 

lands." The Forest Service has no jurisdiction over water rights! The state engineer has this jurisdiction 

over water rights so I question why this is management objective of the Forest Service.

Response:

The Forest Service defers to the Office of the State Engineer in the allocation of water. However, we can 

determine reasonable access to a state-issued water right and encourage the ability of water rights holders 

to transfer of water rights off of National Forest System lands as a means to address concerns about 

access and management requirements on National Forest System lands. See also the 2011 Manual 

Direction Summary (project record #415b) that explains USFS jurisdiction related to this project. 

21 5 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts

With regard to the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization as previously noted, a 

determination was made on July 16, 2012 that the Little Bear wildfire constituted such a circumstance by 

reason of the impacts on 99 percent of the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage. This determination was 

ratified in the Supplemental Information Report (SIR) for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use 

Authorization Project, which determined that new circumstances were created by the Little Bear wildfire 

requiring that significant issues be analyzed and the components of alternatives reviewed in detail.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. The EIS describes the changed circumstances due to the Little Bear Fire, 

based on the findings in the SIR.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 463

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 70 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts

To date the USFS has failed to manage the forest in manner that meets its mission statement as provided 

in the Organic Administration Act of 1897 with respect to "securing favorable conditions of water flows." 

The USFS must provide financial assurances that it will maintain the watershed in a healthy manner in 

order for potential impacts from Village pumping to be fairly and scientifically analyzed

Response:

Vegetation management is outside the scope of this EIS, but certainly well within the mission of the 

National Forest System. The Lincoln National Forest continues to implement the Lincoln National Forest 

Plan and other guiding laws (such as the Organic Act), regulations and policy through a wide variety of 

actions and planning. Other applicable Forest Service past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions within the project area and cumulative impact analysis area were considered and are described in 

the EIS at the beginning of chapter 3. The impacts of these other proposed actions within the watershed 

were considered along with the implementation of the proposed alternatives as part of cumulative impact 

analysis. In addition, we also considered the density of conifers in the watershed and this influence on 

water yield (EIS pages 201-204), as part of cumulative impact analysis. The Forest Service is not under 

any obligation to provide financial assurances regarding future forest management; we as a federal 

agency, work within our Congressionally allocated budgets annually, to implement our guiding laws, 

regulations, and policies. “Securing favorable conditions of water flows” under the Organic Act of 1897 is 

among the many guiding laws that shape management activities. 

Once the Responsible Official selects an alternative for implementation, this will be documented in a 

Record of Decision. This ROD will describe the rationale for the decision and all the information considered 

in arriving at the decision. It will also document the components of the alternative selected, potentially

including any adaptive management, monitoring, and mitigation. Once documented in the ROD, these 

aspects of the decision are non-discretionary

22 5 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts

The State of New Mexico, and this Office, also addressed these concerns in its October 3, 2014 comment 

letter ("Comment Letter") to the Forest Service's Proposed Directive on Groundwater Resource 

Management ("Proposed Directive") pertaining to groundwater lying underneath Forest Service land. As 

addressed therein, the Forest Service's actions with regard to the Village, and groundwater in general, fails 

to acknowledge, and in some ways threatens to contradict, a century of well-established federal statutory 

and United States Supreme Court case law that requires federal deference to state water law in the West.

Response:

The process the Forest Service is undertaking to revise the groundwater directives is separate from this 

project. As we have acknowledged in the EIS, the Forest Service defers to the Office of the State Engineer 

in the allocation of water. However, we can determine reasonable access to a state-issued water right and 

encourage the ability of water rights holders to transfer of water rights off of National Forest System lands 

as a means to address concerns about access and management requirements on National Forest System 

lands. See also the 2011 Manual Direction Summary (project record #415b) that explains USFS jurisdiction 

related to this project.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

464 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

22 11 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts

In light of well-established federal law that requires deference to and protection of water rights developed 

under state laws, as well as the express directive by the Supreme Court that water rights for wildlife 

purposes must be obtained in the same manner as any other appropriator, the Forest Service is prohibited 

from obtaining water for wildlife purposes by forcing non-federal entities to reduce the exercise of their 

state law water rights.

Response:

Please refer to previous responses regarding USFS jurisdiction and our conclusion that implementing 

Alternative 3would not be establishing an instream flow water right. See also the 2011 Manual Direction 

Summary (project record #415b) that explains USFS jurisdiction related to this project. We acknowledge 

the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights. As the land management agency, however, we have the 

authority to determine what is reasonable access (access to the right in this case is via well, pump, and 

pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water right.

The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation based on the analysis presented in 

the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision and its rationale, including 

consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the Record of Decision.

22 8 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts

Under New Mexico law, the State Engineer is charged with the supervision of all waters, including 

groundwater, within the boundaries of the State and the measurement, appropriation and distribution 

thereof. For over a century, the State Engineer has developed a comprehensive administrative scheme 

that includes sophisticated technical hydrological analyses. This administrative process requires the State 

Engineer to exercise his expertise in hydrology to determine with as much scientific precision as possible 

how much water is available for appropriation and how use of that water will affect existing valid water 

rights. Once the administrative process is completed, the State Engineer's determination as to a water 

right, such as the Village's, is final

Response:

See response above

22 9 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts

Federal law requires that the Forest Service maintain and protect water right owners, such as the Village, 

in the exercise of their water rights obtained pursuant to state law, even on Forest Service lands.

Response:

See response above

1 11 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts 

Clarification/Edits

I ask that you edit the document to be consistent with the CFR guidance on comparison to the baseline of 

no action before the Final document is released

Response:

Changes have been made to the EIS in response to this comment 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 465

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

16 4 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts 

Clarification/Edits

In connection with the NFEC Project, the USFS should defer a final decision until the proposed 

groundwater directives are finalized. At that time, the USFS should re-assess the NFEC Project planning 

documents to assure that they are consistent with the language and the intent of the new regulations, as 

well as with the mandatory requirements of NFMA and NEPA.

Response:

We are aware of the proposed new groundwater directives. The brief discussion of the draft groundwater 

directives as proposed in May 2014 is included in the EIS; the proposed groundwater directives were put 

on hold in December 2014 and formally withdrawn in a June 2015 federal register notice pending further 

discussions with states and tribes. A new proposal will eventually be published and available for public 

comment. It is premature and speculative to attempt to apply the proposed groundwater directives to this 

project. If the directives are finalized prior to a decision being made on this project, the Forest Service will 

review, and where appropriate, incorporate their direction in the final EIS and project decisions. 

16 6 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts 

Clarification/Edits

In my October 2, 2014 letter to Ms. McGlothlin, I emphasized the importance of deferring a decision on the 

NFEC Project until after the USFS finalizes its new guidance on conjunctive water management on 

national forest lands. As discussed in that letter – and as discussed immediately above – the USFS has 

embarked on the development of this new guidance precisely because it recognizes that it currently lacks 

the regulatory tools to protect national forest resources from impairment associated with the withdrawal of 

groundwater resources.

Response:

See the response above regarding the proposed groundwater directives.

16 7 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts 

Clarification/Edits

That is, the new conjunctive management directive – and the authorities provided therein – in be 

specifically tailored, in part, to address the exact sort of problem that is posed by the Village of Ruidoso’s 

over-withdrawals of groundwater from the North Fork of the Eagle Creek. It is simply irrational for the 

USFS to proceed with a final decision on the NFEC Project in the current circumstances. As a result of the 

on-going rule-making procedure, the USFS is on the verge of (1) making substantive changes to policy that 

will result in additional protections for national forest resources and (2) authorizing greater latitude to line 

officers to impose conditions on Special Use Authorizations to ensure against resource degradation. To 

take advantage of these important developments, the[...] USFS should defer decision-making in 

connection with the NFEC Project until such time as the conjunctive use regulations are final

Response:

See response above regarding the proposed groundwater directives.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

466 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

16 11 Decision Process 

-Laws, Policies, 

Courts 

Clarification/Edits

In short, the Draft SEIS represents a modest improvement over the USFS’s prior approach to the NFEC 

Project. However, more importantly, the USFS’s decision-making process is still not focused on 

compliance with NFMA’s substantive requirements or NEPA’s procedural requirements. Most specifically, 

the USFS’s decision-making process and proposed decision in connection with the NFEC Project will not 

assure adequate protection of the national forest’s surface water resources and water-dependent 

ecosystems. These failures and legal shortcomings would be disappointing under any set of 

circumstances, but are especially so in light of the fact that the USFS has now recognized the importance 

of careful groundwater management and has proposed to adopt a regulatory regime that will provide the 

USFS with the additional authorities to protect surface waters and water-dependent ecosystems on 

national forest lands

Response:

The Record of Decision will document the alternative selected for implementation and the rationale for the 

decision. It will also document consistency with laws, regulations and policy and how the selected 

alternative addresses the purpose and need for action.

5 3 Decision Process 

Coordination / 

Consultation

The leadership of the Village believes that they were not properly consulted in the drafting of the DSEIS as 

promised. The Village states in their letter that they were included in one meeting on June 11, 2014, but 

were not informed of any subsequent meetings before the DSEIS was released.

Response:

Since the Little Bear wildfire occurred, our record shows several meetings and written communications with 

the Village of Ruidoso related to the preparation of the SDEIS, between 2012 and 2014. These include 

several meetings, written monthly updates, email communications and written six-.month notices. We have 

also consulted with Roger Peery of your staff in preparation of the SDEIS. As outlined in the stipulation 

agreement we have provided final drafts of each of the resource reports prepared for the SDEIS to the 

Village and provided the SDEIS 2 weeks prior to the official release. 

5 4 Decision Process 

Coordination / 

Consultation

Our government works better when we include local governments and constituencies in decision-making. I 

believe that we can craft a reasonable policy by including the public and the Village, as well as other local 

governmental entities, in this process.

Response:

We agree and value the input of local governments, the Village and the public in this process that informs 

decision-making, however, by law, the actual decision is made by the delegated Forest Service official, in 

this case the Forest Supervisor for the Lincoln National Forest. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 467

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

5 6 Decision Process 

Coordination / 

Consultation

It is imperative that your agency include those who rely on the hydrological systems providing the water 

these communities rely on in any decision-making process

Response:

We agree and value the input of local governments, the Village and the public in this process and feel that 

all of these constituencies have been provided multiple opportunities to participate in the NEPA process for 

this project.

9 2 Decision Process 

Coordination / 

Consultation

While we do not have any comments on the SDEIS (EIS No. 2014328) and believe that this project will not 

adversely affect traditional,religious or culturally significant sites of our Pueblo and have no opposition to it: 

we would like to request consultation should any human remains or artifacts unearthed during this project 

be determined to fall under NAGPRA guidelines .Copies of our Pueblo's Culture Affliction Position Paper 

and Consultation policy are available upon request.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; this is an important component of any of the alternatives and is described 

under mitigation measures on EIS page 33.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

468 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 4 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science

My comments describe several of the numerous instances where scientific knowledge has been limited, 

confused, or withheld by USFS refusal to approve and insist on the integration of the depth-to water data 

that was required and provided by the Village of Ruidoso.

Response:

The Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team did review depth-to-water and pumping information provided by 

this commenter and the Village of Ruidoso. As described in the Supplemental Water Resources Report, 

event-specific investigations of the Eagle Creek hydrologic system are complicated and obscured by 

substantial variations in watershed states (precipitation and snowmelt, streamflow, aquifer water levels, 

recharge, evapotranspiration, pumping, and their seasonal variations) at any particular time and place. 

[This is also repeatedly supported by the recent USGS publication on the Upper Rio Hondo Basin (USGS 

Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5153).] The EIS team used a carefully-derived and documented 

longer-term approach to isolating pumping effects. This is felt to be more supportable for minimizing 

variables and deriving impartial impact assessments. Other regional data comparisons were also used in 

the EIS effort. The impartial outcomes of these approaches provide a defensible basis for confirming 

pumping issues on the North Fork and comparing alternatives. 

The variation of snowmelt and monsoonal precipitation inputs, and resulting variations in 

evapotranspiration and recharge, mask the effects of any one pumping/no pumping comparison in short 

term cases (e.g., days, several weeks, up to a month or so). We do not know how long it takes for 

precipitation or snowmelt to cycle through the basin and affect the states of watershed variables. There is 

probably a lag of weeks to years, particularly with the different aquifer zones. Also, evapotranspiration 

varies over time, and especially between wet and dry cycles. These variables underlie any subsequent 

comparison of pumping variables. These issues, particularly the “lag”, remain to be further understood 

through data review, participatory discussions, and management. This is a primary reason behind the 

monitoring measure for a watershed model/integrative data visualization tool in the document.

See also the response to Letter 12, Comment 20.

12 14 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science

The USGS used the term "may be intermittent" to describe the 2-mile study area in which surface flow is 

visibly obscured along stretches where flood-carried debris covers the streambed. Historically, in the 

absence of pumping, surface flow reappeared further downstream where it was no longer obscured by 

debris. During the period 1969 to 1980, the NFEC was a perennial stream. There is no documentation that 

any dry (no-flow) days occurred in the NFEC between 1969 and 1980, before pumping.

Response:

A careful review of pre-pumping flow durations along the North Fork was conducted using information from 

as many sources as possible. Some of this information is anecdotal and conflicting. Based on this review, 

and documentation of no-flow days at some locations before pumping, it appears that some segments of 

the North Fork were perennial, and some were intermittent during the pre-pumping period. There already 

is documentation presented in the SDEIS and its accompanying Supplemental Water Resources Report 

that zero no-flow days occurred at the Eagle Creek confluence gage in the pre-pumping period. At that 

time, that location was the only monitoring point on the stream system.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 469

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 15 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science

Figure 7. Pg.106 (6) illustrates a partial view of "the cone of depression" underneath the NFEC study area, 

created and maintained as a result of pumping. Curiously, the USGS chose to locate the north boundary of 

the area of influence, for no technical reason, at the same point they installed the NF gage. On the other 

hand, the south boundary of the area of influence did not include the South Fork Eagle Creek (SFEC), a 

perennial stream before pumping, that has had many documented no- flow days under the influence of 

pumping. The alternate boundaries provided by Balleau Groundwater, Inc. are far more defensible than the 

arbitrary boundaries presented by the USGS.

Response:

Figure 7 in the EIS is simply a reiteration of USGS (2011) Figure 16, and is based on that agency’s field 

inspections and well data at the times of their visits. The USFS believes that the USGS’s north boundary 

of the area of influence is based on those observations. The period-of-record at the South Fork gage 

(USGS 08387575) starts in September 2007, after the start of pumping. While the South Fork certainly 

could have been perennial beforehand, the USFS is not aware of supporting data. Alternate boundaries 

provided by Balleau Groundwater were obtained and reviewed, and were used in the pre-fire EIS and 

water resources report. Assumptions and limitations of that information were presented. After further 

communication with Balleau Groundwater, the USFS decided to use USGS observations in its projection of 

drawdown extent for the SDEIS. Other drawdown estimates are available, and that is still mentioned in the 

SDEIS and water resources report. Proposed monitoring measures would further define this factor.

12 16 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science

Surface flow across the cone of depression is not possible except during rare storm or flood events that 

exceed 2.2 cubic feet per second. "Sustained flows greater than 2.2 cubic feet per second are needed to 

saturate the alluvium and maintain continuous flow in the North Fork." (2) Pg 1. "In the 19-month period of 

record from September 2007 through March 2009, 2.2 cubic feet per second of discharge was equaled or 

exceeded at the North Fork gaging station 2 percent of the time." (2) Pg.57

Response:

Indeed, the USGS report (Matherne and others, 2011) indicates the 2.2 cubic foot per second threshold. 

However, this is valid only for portions of the North Fork stream channel which are below the North Fork 

stream gage. Also, since this portion of the North Fork stream channel has lower gradient than the upper 

portion (Matherne and others, 2011, figure 16), it accumulates more debris from flood flows in the stream 

channel. Following the floods associated with the Little Bear fire in 2012, it is likely that more than 2.2 cubic 

feet per second is necessary to maintain flow in the stream channel below the North Fork gage. However, 

if no pumping were to occur adjacent to that portion of the North Fork, the alluvium would possibly remain 

saturated.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

470 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 17 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Figure 8. North Fork well field groundwater drawdown, Pg.107 (6) shows the USGS designated area 

affected by groundwater drawdown, the cone of depression. Curiously, the USGS located the center of 

their circle about 1/8 mile downstream from NF-4, when NF-3 is the logical center of the well field.

Response:

On the cited figure, the projected drawdown extent depicted is noted in text as being based on USGS 

observations, which are further described in the preceding figure and text. The drawdown projection is 

clearly described as an approximation, and other drawdown projections are discussed on SDEIS pages 

103 and 104. 

12 18 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Balleau Groundwater, Inc. is correct in projecting the SFEC as the southern boundary, especially when the 

depth to water exceeds 400 feet much of the time. A rational, scientific selection of the radius as being 1 

mile from NF-3 explains why, under dry conditions and deep pumping, the SFEC is also pumped dry, even 

though it is classified as a perennial stream.

Response:

Balleau Groundwater (BGW) information was extensively reviewed and included in analysis during 

technical report and EIS preparation. There are other interpretations of effects and extents, and 

assumptions and data limitations influence all of the conclusions. The BGW drawdown extent depicted in 

the DEIS and Figure 33 of earlier draft Water Resources Report indicate approximately 0.1 to 1 foot of 

pumping drawdown along the South Fork. That is based on a number of assumptions, and the actual 

drawdown may be more or less. From that, the actual effects on the South Fork are not well understood at 

this time.

12 20 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The difference between a perennial stream, an intermittent stream and a dry arroyo is the depth to water. 

In spite of numerous assurances from the USFS that depth to water data would be included and evaluated, 

both the USGS study and the AECOM reviews failed to integrate depth to water data into their reports. 

Monthly depth to water data reporting was a requirement of the Stipulation and the VoR Operating Plan 

with which the VoR has often complied.

Response:

We agree that depth to water is important. Monthly depth-to-water reporting was reviewed, but it is sparse 

data, and does not take into account the states of other watershed variables, notably precipitation and 

snowmelt, ET, and natural lag in groundwater recharge. Low storage and high transmissivity are 

understood to be aquifer characteristics in the upper Eagle Creek basin. From a larger perspective, data 

reviews and multiple outside sources have already documented pumping effects on North Fork 

streamflows, reducing them due to induced percolation and recharge. That forms a basis for further 

potential impact comparisons between alternatives.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 471

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 21 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The USGS has described the NF gage as being within the perennial region of the North Fork. The water 

table that supplies it is uphill from the gage. Once that downward flowing water reaches the cone of 

depression in the vicinity of the gate to the summer cabins, the surface water is redirected by gravity into 

media that is porous enough to allow downward flow toward the bottom of the cone. The area of influence 

of this cone of depression at the surface is about 2 miles across. All of the water inside the cone is below 

the streambed. Thus, the streambed remains dry from the gate to the summer cabins to the confluence of 

the NFEC with the SFEC, the dry reach often including the SFEC and the EC gage.

Response:

Comment noted. The EIS analyzes potential impacts from situations such as this, and other 

circumstances. A range of alternatives that may contribute to this condition, alleviate it, or create a 

different multiple-use resource setting, has been assessed in the EIS.

12 23 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Figure 26, Pg.55 (2) and corresponding depth to water data, confirm the sustainability of surface flow in the 

NFEC study area, under no-pumping conditions, for over 3 months. Between March 8, 2007, and June 14, 

2007, the static water level in NF-1 varied between 9 and 12 feet, the static water level in NF-3 held at 5 

feet, and the static water level in NF- 4 held steady at 0 feet, artesian conditions.[...] This visually 

intermittent stream condition created by a full aquifer is far different than the dry creek bed created by the 

cone of depression that causes every day to be a no-flow day in the NFEC.

Response:

There is no question that under the conditions of snowmelt, precipitation, recharge, and the lack of 

pumping during that time period, flow occurred in the North Fork. The EIS team has not contended 

otherwise. The generalization that every day is a no-flow day in the NFEC due to pumping alone is not 

supported by available information.

12 17 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Figure 8. North Fork well field groundwater drawdown, Pg.107 (6) shows the USGS designated area 

affected by groundwater drawdown, the cone of depression. Curiously, the USGS located the center of 

their circle about 1/8 mile downstream from NF-4, when NF-3 is the logical center of the well field.

Response:

On the cited figure, the projected drawdown extent depicted is noted in text as being based on USGS 

observations, which are further described in the preceding figure and text. The drawdown projection is 

clearly described as an approximation, and other drawdown projections are discussed on SDEIS pages 

103 and 104. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

472 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 18 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Balleau Groundwater, Inc. is correct in projecting the SFEC as the southern boundary, especially when the 

depth to water exceeds 400 feet much of the time. A rational, scientific selection of the radius as being 1 

mile from NF-3 explains why, under dry conditions and deep pumping, the SFEC is also pumped dry, even 

though it is classified as a perennial stream.

Response:

Balleau Groundwater (BGW) information was extensively reviewed and included in analysis during 

technical report and EIS preparation. There are other interpretations of effects and extents, and 

assumptions and data limitations influence all of the conclusions. The BGW drawdown extent depicted in 

the DEIS and Figure 33 of earlier draft Water Resources Report indicate approximately 0.1 to 1 foot of 

pumping drawdown along the South Fork. That is based on a number of assumptions, and the actual 

drawdown may be more or less. From that, the actual effects on the South Fork are not well understood at 

this time.

12 20 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The difference between a perennial stream, an intermittent stream and a dry arroyo is the depth to water. 

In spite of numerous assurances from the USFS that depth to water data would be included and evaluated, 

both the USGS study and the AECOM reviews failed to integrate depth to water data into their reports. 

Monthly depth to water data reporting was a requirement of the Stipulation and the VoR Operating Plan 

with which the VoR has often complied.

Response:

We agree that depth to water is important. Monthly depth-to-water was reporting was reviewed, but it is 

sparse data, and does not take into account the states of other watershed variables, notably precipitation 

and snowmelt, ET, and natural lag in groundwater recharge. Low storage and high transmissivity are 

understood to be aquifer characteristics in the upper Eagle Creek basin. From a larger perspective, data 

reviews and multiple outside sources have already documented pumping effects on North Fork 

streamflows, reducing them due to induced percolation and recharge. That forms a basis for further 

potential impact comparisons between alternatives.

12 21 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The USGS has described the NF gage as being within the perennial region of the North Fork. The water 

table that supplies it is uphill from the gage. Once that downward flowing water reaches the cone of 

depression in the vicinity of the gate to the summer cabins, the surface water is redirected by gravity into 

media that is porous enough to allow downward flow toward the bottom of the cone. The area of influence 

of this cone of depression at the surface is about 2 miles across. All of the water inside the cone is below 

the streambed. Thus, the streambed remains dry from the gate to the summer cabins to the confluence of 

the NFEC with the SFEC, the dry reach often including the SFEC and the EC gage.

Response:

Comment noted. The EIS analyzes potential impacts from situations such as this, and other 

circumstances. A range of alternatives that may contribute to this condition, alleviate it, or create a 

different multiple-use resource setting, has been assessed in the EIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 473

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 23 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Figure 26, Pg.55 (2) and corresponding depth to water data, confirm the sustainability of surface flow in the 

NFEC study area, under no-pumping conditions, for over 3 months. Between March 8, 2007, and June 14, 

2007, the static water level in NF-1 varied between 9 and 12 feet, the static water level in NF-3 held at 5 

feet, and the static water level in NF- 4 held steady at 0 feet, artesian conditions.[...] This visually 

intermittent stream condition created by a full aquifer is far different than the dry creek bed created by the 

cone of depression that causes every day to be a no-flow day in the NFEC.

Response:

There is no question that under the conditions of snowmelt, precipitation, recharge, and the lack of 

pumping during that time period, flow occurred in the North Fork. The EIS team has not contended 

otherwise. The generalization that every day is a no-flow day in the NFEC due to pumping alone is not 

supported by available information.

21 63 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The SWRR of the SDEIS is not based on scientific analysis of the post Little Bear Wildfire hydrologic 

conditions. Data from 2014 were not analyzed as part of the SWRR even though all water level data from 

the monitoring wells and production wells were provided monthly to the USFS by JSAI.

Response: 

This comment has been addressed in responses to similar comments from the same source. See 

responses to Letter 21, comment 74 and Letter 21, comment 7.

21 64 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The results of the SDEIS including the proposed pumping alternatives and associated monitoring 

measures do not consider the changed hydrologic conditions. It is not understand why the USFS would 

rush to promulgate the current SDEIS given the changed conditions. It would have been prudent for the 

USFS to have performed a more detailed analysis of post-fire conditions, and reviewed more references 

related to fire impacts, vegetation changes, and basin yield changes in order to fairly and scientifically 

evaluate the changed conditions

Response: 

Several changes have been made to the EIS since the fire, as described in chapter 1 of the SDEIS. A 

considerable number of relevant sources for fire effects in southwestern coniferous forests were reviewed 

for the SDEIS. Of course there are others, and given unlimited time and resources, endless research 

could be conducted as suggested by the comment. The ongoing changes in post-fire conditions have 

been documented, and are expected to keep changing for a period of time. Proposed monitoring would 

address that.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

474 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 75 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The Supplemental Water Resources Report (SWRR) of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (SDEIS) provides a thorough summary of existing data and reports for the upper Eagle Creek 

watershed before the Little Bear Wildfire. The objective of the SDEIS was to evaluate changed conditions 

within the watershed post Little Bear Wildfire. Unfortunately, the report assumes that either now, or within 

the next few years, the watershed will have the same hydrologic conditions over the entire permit period as 

those prior to the Little Bear Wildfire. This assumption is unfounded and not based on United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) reports (i.e., General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-

Volume 4, September 2005) or other published documents. This erroneous assumption results in 

essentially the same alternatives being presented with respect to pumping or not pumping of the Village 

wells, as those proposed in the original AECOM (2011).

Response: 

This comment has been addressed in responses to similar comments from the same source. See 

responses to Letter 21, comment 74 and Letter 21, comment 7.

21 84 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The Groundwater Recharge section of the SWRR references work by the USGS for estimating recharge 

using the chloride mass-balance approach. The chloride mass-balance approach used by the USGS to 

estimate groundwater recharge (Matherne et al., 2010) underestimated groundwater recharge, and 

therefore, reference to this estimate should not be considered and it should be removed from the final EIS.

Response:

Anthropogenic sources of chloride can be significant, but not in an upland watershed such as the North 

Fork Eagle Creek basin. If any doubt remains because of concern over chloride contamination from septic 

effluent from the North Fork cabins, which are only occupied part of the year; then an analysis of the 

chloride upstream of the cabins should remove all doubt.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 475

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 85 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The surface-water samples collected by the USGS (Matherne et al., 2010) that were used to estimate 

groundwater recharge using the chloride mass-balance method were collected above the North Fork Eagle 

Creek streamflow gage. There were, and still are, septic systems in use immediately adjacent to and 

above the gage at the time of sample collection. There are about 20 homes above the sample location and 

each has a septic system or some type of leach field because none of the homes are connected to a 

regional waste-water collection system. Likewise, samples collected from existing monitoring wells, 

domestic wells, and Village production wells would also be impacted by return flow from septic systems 

and attempts to calculate recharge using data from these wells would provide erroneous results. The 

USGS (Matherne et al., 2010) used other methods to estimate recharge for the area and these methods 

resulted in recharge estimates as great as 3,330 acre feet per year (ac-ft/yr).

Response: 

The septic systems in the North Fork are few and not in continual use. If there is some concern as to their 

potential for chloride contamination, samples could easily be taken from a point further upstream. The 

mass-balance recharge estimate had a large range of error due to uncertainty in each of the components 

of the equation. It is frequently overestimated in arid environments when there is no actual 

evapotranspiration data. (Gee and Hillel, 1988, Groundwater recharge in arid regions: review and critique 

of estimation methods, Hydrological Processes, v. 2, p. 255-266.)

21 86 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The Groundwater Wells in the Study Area section of SWRR mentions a "fifth" well drilled by the Village in 

the North Fork of Eagle Creek. It is our understanding that the "fifth" well was turned over to the USFS 

many years ago. The "fifth" well is not in service and the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 

(NMOSE) online database does not contain any information that the USFS submitted meter records for the 

well or properly plugged and abandoned the well. The Village does not have five production wells in the 

North Fork of Eagle Creek.

Response:

That is correct, the fifth well is not in service and this clarification has been made to the EIS in response to 

this comment 

21 87 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The last column of Table 2 of the SWRR should reflect that the Village's wells are completed as open 

boreholes from below the bottom of the screen to the total depth of the wells. Therefore, the wells are 

essentially "screened" from the top of the screen to total well depth. As mentioned above in JSAI' s 

comments on the Borehole Lithologic and Geophysical Data section of the SWRR, groundwater moves 

unimpeded from the open borehole into the well.

Response:

Existing footnotes to the table already indicate this adequately for purposes of the EIS. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

476 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 88 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

SWRR figure 6 of the Alluvial Aquifer - Village Well Pumping Correlation section presents data from Village 

North Fork production well pumping, streamflow from the North Fork Eagle Creek gage and water levels in 

monitoring well MW-5A. This section of the SWRR draws several conclusions from SWRR figure 6 that are 

incorrect, particularly in the current (post-fire) hydrologic system. The incorrect conclusions include 1) 

streamflow less than 0.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) does not increase water levels in the alluvial aquifer 

because pumping from Village production wells creates depressed water levels in the volcanic aquifer, 2) 

streamflow of 1.2 cfs or greater is required to increase water levels in the alluvial aquifer when Village wells 

are pumping, and 3) the volcanic aquifer is recharged before the alluvial system is filled.

Response:

Modifications to the Supplemental Water Resources Report have been made based on this 

comment. It should be noted that this was a pre-fire exercise, but the revised discussion still needs to be 

included as part of the overall documentation.

21 89 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

In order to properly evaluate the connection between water levels in the volcanic and alluvial aquifers and 

streamflow, the current hydrologic data must be assessed

Response:

Available hydrologic data has been assessed in the preparation of the EIS; all data considered and any 

limitations, are described in full in the water resources report and the SDEIS. Since this is likely to be an 

ongoing process, it is suggested that the limitations of newly-collected data be recognized before the 

Applicant proceeds. Data limitations exist and are likely to continue. These include cumbersome raw data 

at randomly-varying time-steps; compromised post-fire surface gages; debatable monitoring well 

conditions; and a near-term period of record immediately following a disturbance to an already variable 

hydrologic system. Some of this review was undertaken by the IDT for selected comparisons, and results 

are included in the Supplemental Water Resources Report.

21 90 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The Summary of Groundwater portion of the SWRR correctly points out that the alluvial aquifer system 

"does not readily transmit water vertically into the underlying volcanic aquifer." Similarly, the volcanic 

aquifer system cannot readily transmit water to the overlying alluvial aquifer. It should also be understood 

that recharge to the volcanic aquifer also occurs on outcrops throughout the watershed not just along the 

creek channel.

Response:

Unfortunately, this statement in the report is vague and without scale for “readily”. The occurrence of 

induced infiltration and its effects on streamflow are documented in existing information cited in the report 

(as Finch, et. al. 2004, Balleau and Silver 2010). In addition, the Supplemental Water Resources 

Report has been modified in response to this comment. It now clarifies that aquifer recharge occurs 

on a watershed basis, and also indicates that additional post-fire water yield may be available (with 

corresponding implications for potential impacts).
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 477

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 91 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

As shown on Figures 1 through 3, water levels in the alluvial aquifer at MW-5A are maintained at flows less 

than 0.5 cfs in the post-fire hydrologic setting. For example, water levels in MW-5A persisted even with 

flows as low as 0.1 cfs. Furthermore, water levels in MW-5A increase within 1 to 2 days after streamflow 

increases even when water levels in the volcanic aquifer are below the base of the alluvial aquifer. The 

post-fire data indicate the volcanic aquifer does not have to be recharged before the alluvial aquifer system 

is filled (Figs. 4, 5, and 6), and the changed hydrologic conditions after the fire have resulted in water in the 

shallow alluvial aquifer when surface flows are less than 0.5 cfs as measured at the North Fork Eagle 

Creek gage (Fig. 3).

Response:

Comment noted. Changes have been made to the Supplemental Water Resources Report in 

response to Letter 21, Comment 88 above. This comment seems to tie in with that. None of the 

conditions indicated in this comment would activate an adaptive management trigger under Alternative 3 if 

selected, except perhaps the cumulative withdrawal trigger, which is not based on streamflow or water 

levels anyway. Under the circumstances indicated, it appears that pumping would continue under 

Alternatives 1 and 3. If a Alternative 3trigger would otherwise activate, then the Village and the USFS 

would promptly coordinate on a response. No text changes have resulted from this specific comment.

21 95 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Table 3 of the SWRR and any related analysis of data should be removed from the report because the 

analysis related to the streamflow is incorrect and has no bearing on the subject SDEIS. The Eagle Creek 

near Alto gage is located outside of the cumulative impacts study area.

Response:

The cumulative impact study area is actually defined by the old Eagle Creek near Alto gage location where 

some historic data are available. The reasoning behind the cumulative study area boundary is described 

at the beginning of SDEIS chapter 3. 

21 96 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Basin yield estimates as presented in the SWRR underestimate yield in the early time periods. The USGS 

(Darr et al., 2014) estimated pre-wildfire basin yield for the upper Eagle Creek at 3,447 ac-ft/yr and 

baseflow at 819 ac-ft/yr.

Response:

Existing basin yield estimates in the technical report were done before the USGS finished their 2014 work, 

and the Supplemental Water Resources Report was being written as the USGS was writing its report. The 

EIS discloses all data used and its applicability. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

478 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 97 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

In addition to the underestimated yield, the watershed is now drastically different than it was pre-fire. The 

pre-fire estimates may prove valuable to assess basin yield two to three decades from now assuming a 

properly managed forest. A properly managed forest would, unlike the pre-fire forest, be one that is not 

allowed to become overgrown resulting in impaired hydrologic function and decreased basin yield. The 

SDEIS must evaluate baseflow in the changed conditions post-wildfire as they exist today not as they may 

exist once the forest is allowed to become overgrown again.

Response:

It is true that for the time being, the watershed is different than it was pre-fire. However, we have not seen 

data or information to support the assertion that two to three decades will be needed to stabilize post-fire 

hydrologic conditions, or what those conditions might be. Vegetation management is outside the scope of 

this EIS, but conifer density is discussed in chapter 3 of the EIS. Alternative 3provides flexibility to evaluate 

baseflows under ongoing changing conditions.

21 99 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The SWRR provides some analysis of post-fire surface and groundwater conditions through 2013, but no 

analysis of 2014 data. Although soils in some areas are initially hydrophobic after a wildfire (USDA, 2003; 

Moody and Martin, 2001; DeBano et al., 2005; USFS, 2012), this effect decreases over time (DeBano et 

al., 2005; Ffolliott et al., 2011) and lasts about 1 to 6 years (Ffolliott et al., 2011; DeBano et al., 2005). The 

decrease in the effect of hydrophobic soils should not be confused with the overall change in the 

watershed that resulted from the destruction of significant vegetation, woody debris, and forest litter, and 

the associated relatively long-term change in hydrologic conditions.

Response:

The post-fire assessment is clearly based on a number of watershed and water balance factors described 

in the Supplemental Water Resources Report text and tables. Hydrophobic soil effects are not at all 

confused with other fire effects related to vegetation and canopy changes, erosion and sedimentation, 

increased runoff, and other factors. Proposed adaptive management triggers and monitoring measures 

have been revised in light of that assessment.

21 100 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

A summary of basin-yield calculations after the Little Bear Wildfire is provided in Table 3. Calculations were 

made using the same methods as those provided in the SWRR to calculate basin yield before the fire. The 

percent canopy after the fire was reduced by the percent of moderate- to high-severity fire within each of 

the elevation bands. The post Little Bear Wildfire North Fork Eagle Creek basin yield will increase by 425 

ac-ft/yr and the South Fork Eagle basin yield will increase by 61.3 ac-ft/yr (Table 3). The baseflow will also 

increase above those calculated in the SWRR and new calculations should be provided as part of the final 

EIS, as well as the USFS preferred alternative modified accordingly.

Response:

Changes have been incorporated into the Supplemental Water Resources Report (and 

corresponding EIS sections) with respect to post-fire reduced evapotranspiration and the potential for 

greater water yield (including groundwater recharge). If implemented, Alternative 3 would provide for 

further data to be incorporated into management. See also the response to Letter 21, Comment 86 above.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 479

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 102 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

the SDEIS does not quantify the increase in streamflow following the changed hydrologic conditions of the 

watershed after the Little Bear Wildfire.

Response:

Increased streamflow is likely after the fire, as described in SDEIS discussion. However, also as 

discussed for post-fire conditions, both streamflow gages (USGS 08387550 and 08387600) have been 

repeatedly compromised by sediment and debris since the fire. That makes the data even more 

questionable than the pre-fire data at the downstream gage. 

21 105 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The desired condition of maintaining surface-water flow at the Eagle Creek gage to no flow periods of 20 to 

30 days or less per year is not based on scientific data related to the water needs of riparian vegetation, 

aquatic habitat, or wildlife. This USFS desired condition is essentially unchanged from the first draft EIS. 

The desired instream flow condition at the Eagle Creek gage appears to be based on the USDA Forest 

Service (2000) preferred conditions for maintaining instream flows.

Response:

This USFS desired condition is clearly stated to be a compromise between continuous pre-pumping flow at 

the Eagle Creek gage, and the number of post-pumping no-flow days at the gage. We recognize the 

Eagle Creek gage has since been described as a compromised monitoring location. That uncertainty is 

disclosed in the SDEIS and other locations for measurement are identified as part of Alternative 3The 

relationship of this number of no flow days to riparian and aquatic habitat is also discussed in chapter 2 of 

the SDEIS. 

21 110 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The SWRR incorrectly states that the Village's well pumping results in changes to wetlands, springs, and 

seeps. As previously mentioned, there are no data related to historic flows at springs or seeps, nor has 

there been a determination as to whether or not the source of the springs or seeps is from perched water 

movement or from the regional aquifer system. Within the SWRR, the location and extent of wetlands, if 

they exist, have not been cataloged or documented. This section indicates that "an understanding of the 

baseline hydrologic and geologic conditions has been ascertained and described." In fact, as documented 

repeatedly above, the baseline hydrologic conditions have not been ascertained and described in the postfire setting. The most complete description of the current baseline setting is included in our review of the 

SWRR.

Response:

Text modifications were made to correspond to this comment. There are springs and seeps within 

the North Fork watershed that may or may not be located within the various projected drawdown extents. 

In both the EIS and the Supplemental Water Resources Report, it is the EIS team’s responsibility to 

identify that there could be impacts to these features, but also to describe the considerable uncertainty of 

those impacts and the lack of data for the springs and seeps. With respect to the baseline post-fire 

hydrologic conditions, the reader is referred to responses to Letter 21, comment 115 and similar 

comments.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

480 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 111 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

As previously mentioned, it is unreasonable to use springs and seeps as a measurement indicator when 

no data related to them exist, other than approximate location. The lack of historic flow data, whether or not 

the features are perennial, historic response to drought, and water-quality changes make these features 

unusable for indicators with respect to Village pumping. This measurement indicator must be removed 

because it was not "derived on the basis of existing data."

Response:

Text modifications have been made to correspond to this comment. There are springs and seeps 

within the North Fork watershed that may or may not occur within the various projected drawdown extents. 

In both the EIS and the Supplemental Water Resources Report, it is the EIS team’s responsibility to 

identify that there could be impacts to these features, but also to describe the considerable uncertainty of 

those impacts and the lack of data for the springs and seeps.

21 112 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The Village has water rights for all pumping it performs . Domestic wells do not have water rights, but 

rather are permitted by the NMOSE to pump water. Any potential impact by Village pumping on domestic 

wells or any other wells is under the jurisdiction of the NMOSE. The projected drawdown area is not 

correct and must be reassessed using current hydrologic conditions for the watershed.

Response:

We agree that the VoR has water rights and we acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water 

rights. As the land management agency, however, we have the authority to determine what is reasonable 

access (access to the right in this case is via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated 

water right. We also agree that domestic wells do not have water rights. We are unclear on the assertion 

that the project drawdown area is not correct. 

21 113 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

As indicated in the SWRR, the stream channel geometry, including depth and width will continue to change 

for some period of time post-fire. The effects of having a wider and deeper alluvial channel should be 

assessed as part of the EIS. Thicker and wider alluvial channels will allow more surface water to infiltrate

into the alluvial aquifer system, and will result in less surface water. The DEIS should address this change 

because it has a significant bearing on the Monitoring Measures as proposed in the SWRR.

Response:

The potential fire effect on stream channel geometry, both laterally and vertically, is documented in the EIS 

and the Supplemental Water Resources Report. A site visit, relevant literature review, and review of the 

USGS report (Open-File Report 2013-1108) were incorporated into the text. Importantly, additional 

monitoring flexibility and related measures, at least some of which should be readily attainable, were 

added due to this consideration.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 481

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 114 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Quantification of surface flow should be based on post-fire conditions. It may take several more years to 

scientifically develop applicable quantification indicators.

Response:

Agreed, and this is really the overall context of Alternative 3 Current conditions on the North Fork are 

compromised by the Little Bear Fire. Current adaptive management triggers under Alternative 3 are based 

on current knowledge, and the intent of Proposed Action would be to create a starting point, and then be 

adaptive. 

21 115 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Based on published data related to effects of wildfires, and data for the subject area, it is not reasonable 

for the SDEIS to assume that "the original assessment approach and its impact indicators are judged to 

remain appropriate for the longer-term post-fire impact comparisons." This assumption may be true a few 

decades from now if the forest returns to an overgrown state, but it is certainly not true for the current 

hydrologic condition due to the extensive damage and changes caused by the Little Bear Wildfire.

Response:

Text modifications have been made to the post-fire sections of the Supplemental Water Resources 

Report (and EIS) in response to this comment. See also responses to similar comments (i.e., comment 

Letter 21, comment 74) 

21 116 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The SDEIS presents no data or references from fires of the size and severity of the Little Bear Wild fire that 

indicate the hydrologic conditions will be similar to what they were within 4 to 8 years as stated.

Response:

The SDEIS review is based on literature and fire experience as available for coniferous forests in the 

region, and is oriented to processes that are likely to occur in the post-fire watershed. Fire severity and 

effects (such as water-repellent soils, increased runoff, and debris flows) were reviewed from the firespecific BAER reports, other USFS data, and the local USGS investigation. All this material is cited.

21 118 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Balleau Groundwater, Inc. (BGW) is a hydrogeologic consulting firm providing services to numerous 

entities in the area that routinely protest all water rights applications by the Village. The use of a model 

developed by BGW that has not been reviewed and approved by the NMOSE, or Village consultants, is 

unreasonable and should not be included as part of the SDEIS. In addition, the changed conditions in the 

watershed post-fire nullify modeling efforts attempted pre-fire or post-fire given the current hydrologic

condition of the watershed.

Response:

The monitoring measure referred to has been revised. The USFS has not dictated the use of a 

particular model from any source. However, in its roles of gathering public input, collecting and reviewing 

available information, and discussing and disclosing that information, the USFS has properly included 

information from Balleau Groundwater and other sources. Model documentation factors and other 

considerations mentioned in this comment are why substantial use of the BGW model has not been made 

for the EIS
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

482 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 128 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

In the second paragraph under "Well Pumping Volume" at the top of page 32, the 300 acre-feet per year or 

900 acre-feet per three year period is based on 500 acre-feet per year recharge as determined by the 

chloride mass balance method. The chloride mass-balance method has questionable accuracy according 

to the USGS report and the AECOM report. The basin yield method used by the USGS indicates a 

midpoint recharge value of 1950 acre-feet per annum which equates to basin yield minus direct run-off. 

The 490 acre-feet per annum recharge computed by the chloride mass balance method is not compatible 

in any nature with and does not correlate with basin yield, measured surface water out-flow, direct run-off 

or base flow of Eagle Creek. The 490 acre-feet per annum is substantially less than the mean annual base 

flow of 819 acre-feet per annum computed independently by the WHAT analysis of the surface water 

outflow. This is not possible since recharge is the sum of base flow and groundwater outflow. Obviously 

the 490 acre-feet recharge value is erroneous. The Little Bear Fire has reduced the forest ET and therefore 

the groundwater recharge would increase significantly.

Response:

See response to letter 21, comment 120. Darr (2014) points out that the chloride “. . . method is applicable 

for use in the upland subwatersheds of the upper Rio Hondo Basin because chloride sources are typically 

not present in volcanic rocks.” Also, anthropogenic sources of chlorine in the North Fork watershed are 

insignificant.

21 130 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Under "Well Pumping Volume" last paragraph, page 31,in footnote 2, it is stated that "However, Figure 16 

makes note that the alluvial wells were dry in March of 2009, which will also need to be considered in the 

adaptive management for riparian areas." To monitor the alluvium water levels which are depleted and dry 

much of the time with or without well pumping makes no scientific sense.

Response:

Additional data from monitoring locations along the North Fork would benefit an adaptive management 

program by improving the understanding of relationships between pumping, alluvial water levels, riparian 

condition, and flow in the stream. The existing data and associated uncertainties have been discussed in 

the EIS and the Supplemental Water Resources Report. Given the high degree of variability in the North 

Fork hydrologic system, additional data would benefit future management. As for alluvial water levels being 

depleted with or without well pumping: regarding Figure 16 (from USGS 2011), production well NF-4 had 

been pumping at approximately 1.6 acre-feet per day in early March 2009, and for approximately two 

months preceding. However, there are also short periods of data showing reduced streamflows, or no 

flow, in some parts of the North Fork in the absence of pumping. Additional monitoring would help define 

conditions and promote improved management.

Matherne and others (2011) states on p. 31 that “During the study, the alluvial wells were generally dry, 

except when there was flow in the North Fork or shortly after heavy rainfall.” Flow in the North Fork 

resulted in the alluvial wells not being dry. That is the general condition; no flow, no alluvial water.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 483

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 131 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

Referring to the discussion related to the NPDES permit within the third paragraph of page 45, the North 

Fork of Eagle Creek is intermittent and described under 20.6.4.98 NMAC as "All non-perennial unclassified 

waters of the state, except those ephemeral waters included under 20.6.4.97 NMAC". This water-body has 

not had a use attainability analysis (UAA) performed which triggers full protection of swimmable/fishable. 

This means that since there has been no UAA, then under EPA review, the strictest standard is applied 

without any regard for the existing on-site conditions. This strictest standard application does not make 

sense in this intermittent stream.

Response:

Water quality aspects were introduced to the EIS on the basis of aquatic habitat and related fisheries 

concerns. The Forest Service does not have authority or responsibility for State and USEPA rules, or how 

they are administered by those agencies. State and USEPA stream-use designations, related water 

quality standards, and their application are outside USFS jurisdiction. If implemented, the proposed 

monitoring measures related to flow and water quality may form a source of information on this topic if it is 

ever pursued by appropriate agencies.

This standard is an EPA standard and is not a Forest Service standard. The EPA administers this 

standard. Intermittent streams are a natural occurrence in nature and do support appropriate riparian 

ecosystems and associated flora and fauna. The NFEC is capable of performing as both intermittent and 

perennial functions depending on water flow conditions throughout the system. 

21 135 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

The entire discussion on pages 47 and 48, under "Add more storage capacity to the system" should be 

deleted. The information is not correctly done using sound engineering principles and should be 

completely omitted or treated in the same way as the suggestion for a water purification plant.

Response:

Adding storage was considered but dismissed from detailed analysis, as stated in the SDEIS, chapter 2: 

“This suggestion is outside the scope of this project . . . this alternative was dismissed from further 

detailed analysis.”
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

484 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 136 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

On pages 48 and 49, all of the information related to the 1.2 CFS flow rate being supported by the USGS 

should be further clarified with additional discussion considering the following information: The USGS 

report indicates that from 0.6 to 1.2 CFS (depending on permeability) is needed to saturate the alluvium at 

the widest alluvium section on North Fork in the vicinity of the NF-1well and from 0.7 to 1.0 CFS flow is lost 

to bedrock above the well field. Referring to Figure 29 of the USGS report, the value of 0.6 to 1.2 CFS flow 

to saturate the alluvium diminishes drastically down to 0.2 to 0.1 CFS or less needed for continuous 

surface flow for the majority of the stream reach below the North Fork wells down to the Eagle Creek 

Below South Fork Gage. The use of 1.2 CFS flow needed to saturate the alluvium is greatly overstated and 

is an incorrect application of the USGS report information.

Response:

The material on SDEIS pages 48 and 49 is presented under “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated”. 

Most or all of these were suggested as public input to the USFS from outside parties based on their own 

ideas. They have not been continued in the NEPA analysis. The 1.2 cfs value has been used as an 

impact metric for purposes of comparisons. Its derivation and use for that has been further explained in 

text. However, that value is not included in an adaptive management approach, or in any management 

objective. 

21 137 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

On page 51 the USGS discussion on the chloride mass balance method for calculating recharge needs to 

include the following information: The chloride mass-balance method has questionable accuracy according 

to the USGS report and the AECOM report. The basin yield method used by the USGS indicates a 

midpoint recharge value of 1950 acre-feet per annum which equates to basin yield minus direct run-off. 

The 490 acre-feet per annum recharge computed by the chloride mass balance method is not compatible 

in any nature with and does not correlate with basin yield, measured surface water out-flow, direct run-off 

or base flow of Eagle Creek. (See Comment No.2 to Chapter 2 of the DEIS above). The derivation of the 

300 acre feet per year pumping threshold is not based on correct recharge information and should be 

reconsidered.

Response:

Matherne and others (2011) discussed the potential errors of the chloride mass-balance recharge 

determination on page 27 of their report. Basically, they say that the method gives a long-term average 

determination, with the understanding that annual recharge will vary from year to year depending on 

climate conditions; higher or lower than the average. Concerning the use of the chloride mass-balance 

method, Darr and others (2014) state that “. . . the chloride mass-balance approach was used in upland 

watersheds in order to evaluate the groundwater-recharge components to piedmont areas. The chloride 

mass-balance approach was not applicable to lower-elevation watersheds where naturally occurring 

chloride-bearing strata and possible domestic wastewater could influence chloride concentrations.” The 

North Fork watershed is such an upland watershed.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 485

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 141 Decision Process 

- General Use of 

Science and 

Analysis

On page 71 under the "Water Rights" Table and under Alternatives 2 and 3, the Village would not be able 

to fully apply water to beneficial use and the present inchoate amounts of 625.78 acre-feet per annum 

within North Fork wells No. 1and No. 3 would be in jeopardy of being lost. Under present policy of the State 

Engineer, the inchoate water right cannot be moved by application to other wells and locations away from 

the present authorized wells No.1and No.2. This means that any unproven portion of the water right would 

be lost by the Village. The present value of the inchoate water rights would be approximately $8,000 per 

acre-foot, being a total lost water right value of approximately $5,000,000. This loss of water rights would 

have to be made up by purchases of water rights in the Rio Ruidoso Drainage and moving said water 

rights to the Village of Ruidoso. This value of water rights is calculated considering the junior water rights 

value at 50% of senior water rights and the water rights are all consumptive use as adjudicated.

Response:

The village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease additional water rights and has increased diversion of 

surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 

permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent 

changes in the VoR’s water rights include a permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acft from 

EC well H-1979 to the surface point of diversion at EC and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 

acre feet from EC well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on EC and at Alto 

Reservoir.By transferring the 700.83 acre feet from EC H-1979, that allows the remaining inchoate right of 

350.42 acre feet/yr to proven up by 12/31/2024. In addition, the 10 permitted supplemental wells off of US 

Forest lands can divert Eagle Creek water rights, allowing the remaining inchoate rights to be proven at 

their identified locations. However, depending on the alternative chosen and the Village’s diversification in 

pumping, some inchoate rights could potentially be lost, but actions to secure additional rights and 

diversion have already been undertaken by the Village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated 

reductions in diversion under the alternatives

7 2 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

EPA rates the SDEIS as "LO" i.e., EPA has "not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring 

substantial changes to the proposal, and the SDEIS adequately sets forth the environmental impacts of the 

alternatives." The EPA's Rating System Criteria can be found here: http://www. epa.gov 

/oecaerth/nepa/comment s/rating s.htm l.

Response:

Thank you for your rating and your review

11 1 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action

As mentioned in our previous comments, the ECCA maintains the position that water extraction at the 

North Fork Eagle Creek well field will contribute to further degradation of the creek downstream from the 

wells.

Response:

Thank for your comment and your position. The effects of the alternatives on stream flow and other 

aspects of the environment are described in detail in EIS chapter 3.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

486 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

11 5 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

In the past, the ECCA has extensively commented on the original DEIS. Most of these comments were 

rejected or disregarded by the DEIS team. Although differing in details, Alternative 3of the SDEIS, issuing 

a permit for the use of the North Fork Eagle Creek (FEC) wells under a managed water withdrawal plan, is 

not substantially different from of the original DEIS.

Response:

The input of ECCA and other stakeholders in this process have all been valued and carefully considered in 

developing the EIS and its supporting reports. The original DEIS includes an explanation of all alternatives 

previously considered but dismissed from detailed analysis as well as a cataloging and response to all 

comments we received during the original scoping period (DEIS appendix A) which has also been added 

to the FEIS. The SDEIS also includes a summary of the comments we received on the DEIS prior to the 

Little Bear wildfire and the closure of the comment period (SDEIS appendix C) and a description of how 

these have been considered in the preparation of the SDEIS. Chapter 1 and the alternative descriptions in 

chapter 2 of the SDEIS describe the changes made to the alternatives since the DEIS was issued. 

11 6 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

The Eagle Creek Conservation Association Inc. (ECCA) remains of the opinion that the proposed action is 

to the detriment of the Eagle Creek. Extracting water near the origin of a stream is just a bad idea. It 

diminishes the downstream flow and will, like the NFEC, kill the stream and devalue the greater stream 

area for wildlife and recreation.

Response:

The predicted effects of implementing all three alternatives is included in detail in chapter 3, including each 

alternative’s predicted impact on various aspects of water resources, riparian areas, fisheries, and 

socioeconomics (including recreation).

11 7 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

The ECCA is of the opinion that the implementation of the proposed action will result in not more than little 

improvement, if any, in the surface flow of the North Fork Eagle Creek (NFEC). This opinion is supported 

by Dr. Midkiff's paper "North Fork Eagle Creek Degradation/Evaluation of Alternatives".[...]The ECCA 

recognizes the merits of Dr. Midkiff's paper; attachment of Dr. Midkiff's paper to ECCA's comments does 

not necessarily constitute full agreement of all ECCA members with its total content

Response:

Comment noted.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 487

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

16 2 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

As you know, the NEPA process which is the subject of this letter was triggered by a Settlement 

Agreement between the United States Forest Service and the Eagle Creek Conservation Association 

(“ECCA”), Gerald Ford, and Bill Midkiff in the above referenced litigation. The underlying litigation was 

triggered by the plaintiffs’ contention that unregulated pumping in the North Fork of Eagle Creek adversely 

affected environmental and socio-economic values in a way that triggers compliance with NEPA. To settle 

this litigation, the United States Forest Service (“USFS”) agreed to complete an EIS process that would 

assess the alleged impacts of North Fork pumping. A subsequent supplement to the Settlement 

Agreement obligates the USFS to assess “all reasonable alternatives,” including but not limited to an 

alternative “that leaves downstream flows in the same state that they would be in absent the pumping of 

the North Fork wells.”

Response:

Thank you for your comment. The EIS does include an alternative (no pumping) that would leave 

downstream flows in the same state they would be absent pumping.

18 14 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

The Forest Service proposed action should be changed to the authorization the existing wells that are in 

operation (NF well #1 and NF well #4) and require the plugging and abandonment of the two wells that are 

not presently in use and have not been in use for a significant period of time. The validity of authorizing 

four municipal water wells when two wells have not been used in many years and the two wells presently 

in production have the ability to withdraw more ground water than the 300 acre feet per year stated in the 

Well Pumping Volume section of the proposed action.

Response:

This suggestion is discussed on EIS pages 38 and 39, under alternatives considered but dismissed from 

detailed analysis
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

488 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 4 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

In discussion of Alternatives, including Adaptive Management Strategy and Monitoring it was noted as 

follows: "Because of the changes anticipated to hydrologic conditions and the other significant issues, as 

discussed above, we also anticipate that these management triggers may need to be revised." Specifically, 

''The surface flow volume trigger is directly tied to data that would be collected from the Eagle Creek and 

North Fork Stream gages. These gages are no longer fully operational and are expected to continue to 

require frequent maintenance. These gages may no longer be reliable as a basis for this trigger." 

Continuing, it was noted "The well pumping volume trigger identified may need to be revised based on the 

fact that the recharge value it was based on (500 acre-feet-per-year) may no longer be valid." ''The riparian 

vegetation trigger may need to be relaxed or made more flexible." Finally, ''The monitoring strategy may 

need to be adjusted; these adjustments are expected to be minor." None of the water levels or streamflow 

data from 2014 was considered in the SDEIS. Somewhat stunningly, the supplemental DEIS, as issued for 

comment on November 14, 2014 appears to reflect none of these concerns having been addressed.

Response:

The proposed adaptive management strategy is not intended to be a final, rigid approach to water 

resource management along the North Fork. By definition, it would be adaptive. Issues with existing data 

records and monitoring locations have already been presented in the EIS, its supporting documentation, 

and discussion of the proposed adaptive management strategy. Analysis of intractable short-term data 

collected close on the heels of the Little Bear Fire, especially when the need for other data sources has 

been clearly indicated in text, is not likely to modify the outcome of impartial comparisons between EIS 

alternatives. However, depending on the nature of a Special Use Permit (if one is issued), those data 

could help inform a continuing water resources management program as proposed by the Forest Service.

Keep in mind that the adaptive management triggers, however, have been revised since the DEIS was 

issued and the fire occurred. These and other changes to the EIS are listed at the beginning of chapter 1 

and also in the description of the adaptive management strategy in chapter 2. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 489

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 7 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

The agency, having determined to proceed without consideration of the changed circumstances in issuing 

the SEIS, simply failed to fulfill its lawfully mandated duty, and did not take the hard look necessary to 

evaluate the impact of the changed circumstances on the proposed action.

Response:

The USFS considered carefully the changed circumstances in its analysis of post-fire conditions, and also 

considered ongoing, changing conditions in an impartial analysis. Existing EIS monitoring measures 

already identify issues with the monitoring stations (including wells) used in the Village’s continuing data 

collection, in addition to substantial stream channel aggradation effects. It is not possible to conduct a 

quantitative post-fire analysis similar to the pre-fire analysis, which used much longer-term data. The USFS 

thus performed an extensive, impartial literature review of regional USFS and other research to develop a 

reasonable qualitative projection of post-fire North Fork watershed conditions and water balance factors. 

That review, its results, and its sources are presented in the Supplemental Water Resources Report and 

the EIS. The review is also reflected in revised proposed monitoring, and potential impact comparisons 

between alternatives. 

Raw, post-fire data provided by the Village is in a cumbersome, burdensome format (e.g., inconsistent 

timesteps) that does not correspond to pre-fire USGS data. It would require much additional data 

processing and analysis to use these data further, when their value for comparisons between EIS 

alternatives does not correspond to that effort. Where possible, the USFS did do selected additional data 

analysis to compare selected post-fire data to selected pre-fire data. That exercise and its results are 

described in the Supplemental Water Resources Report. 

Under Alternative 3 the adaptive management proposal is, by definition, specifically oriented to adaptability 

through time as additional information becomes available and is reviewed in an interactive approach. That 

is the major purpose for proposed continued data collection after recommended modifications to the 

monitoring system have been made. Current collected data can then be processed and compared to 

improved monitoring data, and perhaps add value to management.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

490 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 8 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

As mentioned above, no historic data are available for the springs or seeps. The source of the springs and 

seeps is unknown, and therefore, potential impacts from pumping are unknown. It is unreasonable and 

unscientific to assume that springs and seep will be impacted moderately to severely by pumping without 

documenting the source of the springs and without any historic or actual data that substantiates the 

assumption. Also, as mentioned above, the post-fire hydrologic conditions have vastly changed from the 

pre-fire hydrologic conditions and will not be the same in the next 4 to 8 years. All recurring references to 

this misstatement should be removed. Pre-fire conditions have no relevance to the changed hydrologic 

conditions of the watershed and should be removed from the SDEIS.

Response:

It is recognized that no historic data or source characterization have been done for springs and seeps. 

Revisions have been made to the text to address this comment. However, as mentioned in responses 

to other comments, the anticipated post-fire conditions are based on an impartial review of regional and 

local literature. Some post-fire effects will endure, as described in the EIS and reports. The basis for the 

conclusions reached regarding potential impacts to springs and seeps are documented in the water 

resources report and the EIS. While site-specific data are lacking, inferences were made and conclusions 

reached based on literature review, data and professional judgement. 

21 106 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

The SDEIS presents no technical data regarding the source of springs and seeps, no discharge 

measurements, nor any water quality. The desired condition unjustly assumes that Village pumping is the 

only mechanism that can impact springs and seeps. The desire to maintain a threshold water depth is also 

arbitrary and capricious. The SWRR attempts to show that when groundwater levels are depressed in the 

volcanic aquifer, the alluvial aquifer cannot recharge until the volcanic aquifer recharges. As documented 

above, this is untrue. Therefore, the desired condition of maintaining the as of yet undetermined watertable depths is unjustified.

Response:

As stated above, it is recognized that no historic data or source characterization have been done for 

springs and seeps and some revisions to this section of the water report and the EIS have been made to 

address this concern. 

The threshold water depth measure pertains to the goal of maintaining or improving riparian condition. If, 

after measures for rehabilitating and re-locating monitoring wells indicate that other water table 

characteristics are better suited to adaptive management, then current metrics (which simply provide a 

starting point) can be replaced. 

The SWRR does not attempt to show that the alluvial aquifer cannot recharge until the volcanic aquifer 

recharges. It can. The SWRR does attempt to show, using commonly-applied data and other reviews, 

that pumping from the volcanic aquifer affects the alluvial aquifer and stream baseflows. Pumping

drawdown is not the only factor involved in baseflow conditions; we have made clarifications to the EIS 

and its SWRR in response to this concern.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 491

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 108 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

The need for action must require the USFS to provide financial assurance that it will properly maintain and 

manage the forest in order to assure favorable surface and groundwater supplies, riparian habitat, and 

aquatic ecosystems.

Response:

Please see response to letter 21, comment 70 related to forest management and financial assurances. 

The Forest Service has worked through a broad spectrum of alternatives, data, and information, and 

considered extensive public input throughout the EIS process. The agency has not made any decisions. 

Three alternatives are analyzed in detail in the EIS and were developed to address the purpose and need 

for action, project objectives, and significant issues. These are described in chapter 1 of the EIS and 

include protecting natural resources. The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation 

based on the analysis presented in the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision 

and its rationale, including how well the alternatives address the purpose and need for action, consistency 

with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the Record of Decision. The ultimate decision 

stemming from the EIS will depend on consideration of all public input, management of conflicting water 

uses, and agency jurisdictions. It will also outline the non-discretionary measures and mitigation necessary 

for implementation. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

492 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 119 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

In the fourth bulleted paragraph under "Background" on page 2, it should be mentioned that the prior Eagle 

Creek Below South Fork Gage with surface flow data during years 1969-1980 was located approximately 

360 feet downstream from the present location with surface flow data since 1989. The prior downstream 

location was within a stream reach that, by field inspection of AEAI and according to Figure 29 of the 

USGS report, was on bedrock with little if any alluvium. It should be noted that there would be basically no 

alluvium underflow at the prior gage location, whereas the present gage location would have significant 

alluvium underflow of up to 0.16 CFS referring to Figure 29. The no flow days tabulated for both the prepumping period and the post pumping period are not tabulated from the same gage location and are not 

comparable due to the difference in stream underflow conditions. The no-flow days are greatly 

exaggerated for the post-pumping period as compared to the pre-pumping period by using the present 

different location of the gage.

Response:

Please refer to other previous comments and our responses regarding the concern with the location of the 

Eagle Creek gage. The EIS and supporting water resources report already mention uncertainties about the 

Eagle Creek gage data. Other outside sources also used historical data from both gage locations in the 

work that the EIS team reviewed, and developed conclusions consistent with the EIS. Further text and 

figures related to this topic have been added to the EIS and the Supplemental Water Resources 

Report to clarify this situation. 

It should be noted that however much “alluvium underflow” actually does occur at the relocated gage site, 

some of it originates from the South Fork drainage. Given that the North Fork drainage (approximately 

3,409 acres) is about twice the size of the South Fork drainage (about 1,778 acres), it seems reasonable to 

assume that roughly one-third of any alluvial underflow at the gage (and possibly more due to North Fork 

pumping) could originate from the South Fork, not the North Fork. If, as noted in the comment, up to 0.16 

cfs could underflow the Eagle Creek gage (USGS 08387600), then through contributing watershed areas, 

up to about 0.10 cfs of that may originate from the North Fork. Under similar precipitation conditions, a 

comparison of long-term mean daily flows (50 percent exceedance values) from the pre-pumping to postpumping periods indicates that the post-pumping mean daily flow is 1.1 cfs, or 0.5 cfs less than the prepumping value (1.6 cfs). If the 0.1 cfs underflow is added back in, then the long-term decline is 0.4 cfs, or 

25 percent of the long-term pre-pumping mean daily flow. Similarly, at lower flows (the 80 percent 

exceedance values), the long-term post-pumping decline is about 31 percent. Obviously, shorter-term 

specific flow events may vary in either direction from this, due to variable watershed states. 

Other existing data and comparisons indicate that flow reductions are likely from pumping on the North 

Fork, and this is described in detail in the EIS and supporting water resources report.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 493

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 120 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

The fifth bulleted paragraph under "Background" on page 2 indicates that the groundwater recharge was 

estimated to average 490 acre-feet per year. This value was calculated by the chloride mass-balance 

method which has questionable accuracy according to the USGS report and the AECOM report. The basin 

yield method used by the USGS indicates a midpoint recharge value of 1950 acre-feet per annum which 

equates to basin yield minus direct run-off. The 490 acre-feet per annum is not compatible in any nature 

with and does not correlate with basin yield, measured surface water out-flow, direct run-off or base flow of 

Eagle Creek. The 490 acre-feet per annum is substantially less than the mean annual base flow of 819 

acre-feet per annum computed independently by the WHAT analysis of the measured surface water 

outflow. This is not possible since recharge is the sum of base flow and groundwater outflow. Obviously 

the 490 acre-feet recharge value is erroneous. The Little Bear Fire has reduced the forest ET and therefore 

the groundwater recharge would increase significantly.

Response:

The range of error for the chloride mass-balance method in Matherne et al (2011) was given as 485 to 502 

acre-feet per year for the North Fork Eagle Creek Basin. The basin yield method includes a wider range of 

error because of uncertainties associated with each component; precipitation, evapotranspiration, and 

discharge. This results in an uncertainty of ± 1380 acre-feet per year, which is 87% of the midpoint 

estimate of 1950 acre-feet per year (Matherne et al, 2011). 

The WHAT analysis resulting in a baseflow estimate of 819 acre-feet per year was based solely on the 

Eagle Creek gage, and as such is a summation of both North and South forks of the upper Eagle basin. As 

65% of the basin is the North Fork sub-basin, its portion of the 819 acre-foot base flow estimate would be 

on the order of 536 acre-feet per year, closer to the chloride mass-balance estimate. Since the WHAT 

analysis is a statistical method, it also has a range of error associated with its use, and the selection of 

coefficients. Its error must also include the gage error and the uncertainty of the relative contributions of 

the North and South forks of Eagle Creek.

The little bear fire would indeed reduce evapotranspiration. However, recharge would not necessarily be 

increased because of hydrophobic soils and lower resistance to surface flow which would likely result in 

greater runoff and less infiltration in the short term.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

494 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 121 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

The sixth bulleted paragraph under "Background" on page 2 states erroneously that sustained flows of 2.2 

CFS (consisting of 1.2 CFS to saturate the alluvium and 1.0 CFS bedrock loss) are needed to maintain 

continuous flow in North Fork. The USGS report indicates that from 0.6 to 1.2 CFS (depending on 

permeability) is needed to saturate the alluvium at the widest alluvium section on North Fork in the vicinity 

of the NF-1 well and from 0.7 to 1.0 CFS flow is lost to bedrock above the well field. Referring to Figure 29 

of the USGS report, the value of 0.6 to 1.2 CFS flow to saturate the alluvium diminishes drastically down to 

0.2 to 0.1 CFS or less needed for continuous surface flow for the majority of the stream reach below the 

North Fork wells down to the Eagle Creek Below South Fork Gage. The use of 1.2 CFS flow needed to 

saturate the alluvium is greatly overstated and is an incorrect application of the USGS report information.

Response:

The EIS text is a direct quote from the USGS abstract, page 1, second column (Matherne, et. al. 2011). 

Other text changes clarifying the occurrence and use of the 1.2 cfs value have been made in the 

Supplemental Water Resources Report and the EIS. See also the response to Letter #21, Comment 

#136.

21 122 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

The Second Bulleted Paragraph on Page 10 under "measurement Indicators" entitled "Streamflow 

quantity" indicates that 1.2 CFS flow in Eagle Creek Below South Fork Gage should be used as an stream 

flow impact indicator. This is not a correct Value for Eagle Creek Flow to saturate alluvium for the reasons 

as discussed in Comment No. 3 above. A much smaller value should be derived and used, possible in the 

range of 0.25 CFS or less. This smaller number should be related to riparian vegetation water 

requirements and not derived from saturated alluvium flow requirements.

Response:

Based on impartial consideration of all public comments, a major issue for the EIS is flow in the stream. 

The EIS team has only used the 1.2 cfs value as an impact benchmark for comparisons between 

alternatives (i.e. a measurement indicator, see chapter 2 of the EIS for a description of these indicators 

and how they are used). This has been clarified in revised text. It is not, and never was, any sort of 

management objective, flow restriction, or monitoring tool. The adaptive management triggers, and how 

they were derived, are discussed in chapter 2 of the EIS and this section describes the relationship 

between the no-flow -day trigger and the riparian trigger and how it was derived. All of these triggers area 

adaptive and recognize that as more information is gained during implementation, modifications could be 

made.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 495

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 123 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose

and Need

The fourth bulleted paragraph on page 10 under "Measurement indicators" entitled "Springs and seeps" 

relies on a Technical Memorandum of May 12, 2004 from Casey W. Cook, Balleau Groundwater, Inc. to 

identify springs and seeps that may be affected by pumping. Relying on the Technical Memorandum 

requires a multitude of erroneous assumptions related to aquifer conditions (as described in detail on page 

71 of the AECOM Water Resources Report) such that the adverse results are greatly exaggerated to the 

worst case scenario. To rely on this Balleau Groundwater, Inc. work for any purpose would not be 

acceptable and would lead to erroneous results.

Response:

Revisions to the EIS have been made in response to this comment. See responses pertaining to 

similar comments (i.e. letter 21, comment 8).

23 20 Decision Process 

– Proposed 

Action/ Purpose 

and Need

Include a provision in the final proposed action to allow for the Village wells to pump sufficient water during 

high flow periods to prove up their full water right on the North Fork of Eagle Creek which would enable the 

Village to transfer the current inchoate water rights to non- Forest lands. The transfer of inchoate rights has 

the potential to save the Village substantial expense associated with finding and obtaining the water rights 

needed to meet the future needs of the Village. At the very least this opportunity should be explored

Response:

Implementation of Alternative 3 would not preclude the Village to pump at higher levels during high flow 

periods as long as the triggers were not reached. The success of this approach may depend on the 

Village’s available storage capacity and water conservation programs, which would all be encouraged 

under implementation of any action alternative. 

This suggestion is also addressed by alternative 2 – continue pumping at current/historic levels. 

18 16 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

The no action alternative of issuing a permit with no changes in the existing operation is not a solution to 

the problems identified by the available science provided in the reports by USGS, Finch and Balleau. This 

alternative is not viable to the economy of the area nor the required environmental management of the 

Eagle Creek drainage as provided in the Forest Service manual.

Response:

The alternatives analyzed in detail in the FEIS do not address the purpose and need for action or the 

project objectives to the same degree and this is described in the FEIS. The maintenance of current 

riparian conditions is likely to occur under alternative 1 as a result of the long-term water extraction and a 

rebalancing of riparian area ecological dynamics of water availability and biotic responses. Each alternative 

in the EIS is compared and contrasted to each other to provide the public and the Responsible Official with 

a full understanding of the differences between alternatives, including how well they address the purpose 

and need for action and move the area toward desired conditions (as documented in chapter 3 and 

summarized in table 2). The predicted effects of implementing the alternatives to the local economy and to 

natural resources are described in detail in EIS chapter 3.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

496 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

18 17 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

The Village of Ruidoso has proclaimed and promoted the business of tourism in the area but has ignored 

an integral part of tourism by the environment degradation of the Eagle Creek drainage and its cold water 

fishery that drew campers, fisherman, and naturalist to a drainage located on the National Forest. VOR has 

completely eliminated fishing from Alto Lake. This lack of overall tourism management is an economic 

component that the Village of Ruidoso has chosen to ignore because of poor management and lack of 

concern for the natural resources that surround the village.

Response:

Consequences to recreation are examined throughout the DSEIS. As stated on page 13 “North Fork 

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

sites along the North Fork Eagle Creek between the North Fork gage and Eagle Creek gage; the nearest 

developed recreation site is Oak Grove Campground, greater than 1 mile from the North Fork Eagle Creek 

well field. Dispersed recreation, as defined in the forest plan, is recreation use that occurs outside of 

developed sites and requires few, if any, facilities other than roads and trails. In the project area, dispersed 

recreation activities primarily including hiking, backpacking, and camping. The only aspects of dispersed 

recreation with potential to be affected by the alternatives are streamside recreational use and fishing 

opportunities. Since these recreation aspects are discussed in other sections of chapter 3 (under “Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish” and “Socioeconomics”), dispersed recreation is not discussed further."
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 497

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 77 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

The USFS preferred alternative, Alternative 3, remains little changed from that proposed during the PreDraft Environmental Impact Study, or the AECOM (2011), with the exception that extremely onerous 

monitoring requirements and structures have been added that would be quite expensive to perform and for 

which there are no baseline data for comparison and justification.

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the 

Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights include a 

permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 to the surface 

point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. The only 

likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. These 

factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections have 

been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already been 

undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under 

the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of Forest 

Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by steps 

being taken by the Village. Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs 

that would be incurred by the village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary 

benefit-cost analysis. As stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation

“For purposes of complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various 

alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are 

important qualitative considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least 

indicate those considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be 

relevant and important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of 

monitoring and benefits from instream flow changes has been added to the FEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

498 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 78 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

The USFS persists in supporting its originally preferred alternative (Alternative 3) regardless of the 

changed watershed conditions by not including or evaluating recent data and the changed hydrologic 

conditions. This is certainly unfortunate for the Village, but more importantly is an unscientific approach to 

a process that is presumed to be based on scientific methods and analysis.

Response:

Please refer to response to letter 21, comment 7. The USFS considered carefully the changed 

circumstances in its analysis of post-fire conditions, and also considered ongoing, changing conditions in 

an impartial analysis. It is not possible to conduct a quantitative post-fire analysis similar to the pre-fire 

analysis, which used much longer-term data. The USFS thus performed an extensive, impartial literature 

review of regional USFS and other research to develop a reasonable qualitative projection of post-fire 

North Fork watershed conditions and water balance factors. That review, its results, and its sources are 

presented in the Supplemental Water Resources Report and the EIS. The review is also reflected in 

revised proposed monitoring, and potential impact comparisons between alternatives. 

Raw, post-fire data provided by the Village is in a cumbersome, burdensome format (e.g., inconsistent 

timesteps) that does not correspond to pre-fire USGS data. It would require much additional data 

processing and analysis to use these data further, when their value for comparisons between EIS 

alternatives does not correspond to that effort. Where possible, the USFS did do selected additional data 

analysis to compare selected post-fire data to selected pre-fire data. That exercise and its results are 

described in the Supplemental Water Resources Report. 

Under Alternative 3, the adaptive management proposal is, by definition, specifically oriented to 

adaptability through time as additional information becomes available and is reviewed in an interactive 

approach. That is the primary purpose for proposed continued data collection after recommended 

modifications to the monitoring system have been made under alternative 3 (and to a lesser extent, 

alternative 1). Current collected data can then be processed and compared to improved monitoring data, 

and perhaps add value to management.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 499

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 125 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

On page 11 under "Socioeconomics" the mention of availability of water for domestic wells should be 

omitted due to the following reasons: No data or information has been assembled or correlated to 

determine any effects to domestic wells on private land off of Forest land and the Village holds all of the 

existing water rights to divert Eagle Creek surface water with senior priority dates as compared to the 

domestic permitted wells. The domestic wells upstream from the well field on Forest land are all junior in 

priority to the Village wells on Forest land and cannot relate the priority of the domestic wells back to the 

date of the illegal surface water diversions previously used by the cabin owners. The domestic wells could 

be deepened by the well owners if needed in the future.

Response:

Domestic wells located on National Forest System lands do not have water rights. Domestic wells are 

authorized as a special use and are for domestic purposes only. The Forest Service has an obligation to 

assess direct effects to other uses, as a result of actions under the alternatives, Disclosure of those effects 

does not imply a need to take action on those effects, thus this section will not be omitted. Applicability of 

Prior Appropriation Doctrine is under the jurisdiction of the Office of the State Engineer.

21 126 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

Under Socioeconomics and near the bottom of page 11under "Streamside Recreational Use" this 

discussion should be de-emphasized and moved to the non-significant issues and not included in the 

alternative comparison discussion. The intermittent nature of the pre-pumping stream removes any 

streamside recreational use since the stream historically has no consistent stream flow.

Response:

Thank you for your opinion on the non-significance of this issue. The DEIS and the SDEIS both described 

the reasoning behind this and why it was used as a comparison between alternatives. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

500 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 143 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

With the Alternative No. 1the well diversion by the VOR on Forest lands would likely average 740 acre-feet 

per annum. Under Alternative No. 3, the VOR diversion on Forest lands would likely average 300 acre-feet 

per annum, being the same quantity of water per year as the trigger point in adaptive management, if 

exceeded. This could result in a loss of 440 acre-feet per year of consumptive use (CU) water diversion for 

the VOR. This amount of consumptive use diversion of water for municipal use would have to be made up 

by additional diversion on the Rio Ruidoso. Within the Rio Ruidoso there are very little if any junior water 

rights that could be moved into the VOR municipal diversions. The water rights available to make up the 

440 acre-feet per annum consumptive use are senior irrigation water rights with priorities in the 1800's and 

with a consumptive irrigation requirement (CIR) of 1.44 acre-feet per acre per annum. Using the court 

ordered irrigation CIR of 1.44 acre-feet per acre per annum, then an equivalent (440 af/ac/an CU)/(1.44 

af/an CIR)=305.56 acres of irrigation water rights. The value of senior priority irrigation water rights within 

the Rio Ruidoso drainage presently is approximately $23,000 per acre which would equate to a total 

present cost for 305.56 acres of (305.56 acres)($23,000 per acre)=$7,027,880.The litigation cost to move 

said water rights to the VOR could be reasonably estimated at $500 per acre being a total of ($500 per 

acre)(305.56 acres)=$152,780. Apparently the replacement water diversion cost and the litigation cost 

would total $7,180,660.

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the 

Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights include a 

permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 to the surface 

point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. The only 

likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. These 

factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections have 

been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already been 

undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under 

the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of Forest 

Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by steps 

being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and 

benefits from instream flow changes has been added to the FEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 501

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 2 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

The Forest Service proposed action will clearly result in major economic impacts to the Village of Ruidoso 

and its citizens. Hence, an economic analysis should have been conducted which would have indicated 

the financial hardships being imposed on the Village. Assuming that there are no major financial impacts 

(as was done in the DSEIS) does not make them go away.

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the 

Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights include a 

permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 to the surface 

point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. The only 

likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. These 

factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections have 

been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already been 

undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under 

the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of Forest 

Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by steps 

being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and 

benefits from instream flow changes has been added to the FEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

502 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 5 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

With Alternative1 continue pumping current amounts, the well diversion by the Village of Ruidoso from 

wells on Forest lands would average an estimated 740 acre-feet per annum. Under Alternative 3, the 

Village diversion on Forest lands would average an estimated 300 acre-feet per annum, being the same 

quantity of water per year as the trigger point in adaptive management plan Alternative 3, if exceeded. This 

could result in a loss of 440 acre-feet per year of consumptive use (CU) water diversion for the Village. 

This amount of consumptive use diversion of water for municipal use would have to be made up by 

purchasing additional diversion on the Rio Ruidoso. Within the Rio Ruidoso there are very few if any junior 

water rights that could be moved into the Village municipal diversions. The water rights available to make 

up the 440 acre-feet per annum consumptive use are senior irrigation water rights with priorities in the 

1800's and with a consumptive irrigation requirement (CIR) of 1.44 acre-feet per acre per annum. Using 

the court ordered irrigation CIR of 1.44 acre-feet per acre per annum, then an equivalent 440 acre feet per 

acre using the court order of 1.44 CIR would amount to 305.56 acres of irrigation water rights needed to be 

purchased (440 acres divided by 1.44 CIR per acre).2 The value of senior priority irrigation water rights 

within the Rio Ruidoso drainage presently is approximately $23,000 per acre which would equate to a total 

present cost for 305.56 acres at $23,000 per acre which totals to $7,027,880.3

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the 

Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights include a 

permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 to the surface 

point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. The only 

likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. These 

factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections have 

been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already been 

undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under 

the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of Forest 

Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by steps 

being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and 

benefits from instream flow changes has been added to the FEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 503

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 7 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

Water Rights Litigation Costs Trying to purchase irrigation water rights on the Rio Ruidoso and getting the 

rights transferred to the Village is a difficult and time consuming process incurring substantial attorney and 

water consultants' fees and expenses. Further, the process may take several years to complete. The 

litigation cost to move said water rights to the Village could be reasonably estimated at $500 per acre-foot 

for a total of $500 per acre. Thus, the acquisition costs of the needed 305.56 acres of irrigation water rights 

would amount to a total $152, 780.4 The $500 per acre is a conservative estimate of the cost. If water 2 

Email with Jack D. Atkins PE,PS, Akins Engineering Associates to William Gorman, January 15, 2015. 3 

Ibid. 4 Ibid. rights had to be purchased from several sellers to acquire the acreage needed the cost could 

be much greater.

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of National Forest System lands that 

can divert the Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water 

rights include a permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 

to the surface point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet 

from Eagle Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek

and at Alto Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. 

The only likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. 

These factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections 

have been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already 

been undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion 

under the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of 

Forest Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by 

steps being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and benefits 

from instream flow changes has been added to the FSEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

504 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 8 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

Problems related to obtaining permits for work associated with new wells could delay the completion of the 

wells by years, and significantly increase the costs present below. If the water produced during the drilling, 

completion, develop and test pumping cannot be discharged to the land surface, the cost to complete the 

wells could increase by 150%. If water cannot be discharged to the ground surface during test pumping, 

meaningful pumping tests cannot be performed due to the inability to haul significant quantities of water 

from the sites. Based on our experience with developing groundwater flow models used as part of the EIS 

process, the costs associated with developing a groundwater flow model by committee as contemplated 

could easily double the estimated cost. "

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of National Forest System lands that 

can divert the Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water 

rights include a permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 

to the surface point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet 

from Eagle Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek

and at Alto Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. 

The only likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. 

These factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections 

have been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already 

been undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion 

under the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of 

Forest Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by 

steps being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and benefits 

from instream flow changes has been added to the FEIS. In addition, the monitoring measure regarding 

developing a model has been revised. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 505

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 9 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

The State Engineer for New Mexico has Jurisdiction over water rights in New Mexico except for reserved 

federal water rights. One can have adjudicated water rights but these rights must be put to beneficial use 

to become a property right that allows the owner to transfer the right. Putting the water to beneficial is 

called "proving-up". The village presently has 625.78 acre feet of annual ground water rights on the North 

Fork Creek that have not been proven-up (inchoate rights).8 Under the Forest Service 8 Email with Jack D. 

Atkins PE,PS, Akins Engineering Associates to William Gorman, December 13, 2014. restriction in the 

Proposed Action, the Village wells No. 1 and No. 3, would not be allowed to pump sufficient water to proveup these rights which means that these rights would be in jeopardy of being lost by the Village.9 Under the 

present policy of the State Engineer, the inchoate water rights cannot be moved by application to other 

well and other locations away from the present authorized wells No.1 and No. 3.10

Response:

We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights. The village of Ruidoso has taken steps to 

lease additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso 

(Atkins 2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of National Forest System

lands that can divert the Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of 

Ruidoso’s water rights include a permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 to the surface point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit 

severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of 

diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. In addition, the 10 permitted supplemental wells off of 

National Forest System lands can divert Eagle Creek water rights, allowing the remaining inchoate rights to 

be proven at their identified locations. However, depending on the alternative chosen and the Village’s 

diversification in pumping, some inchoate rights could potentially be lost, but actions to secure additional 

rights and diversion have already been undertaken by the Village of Ruidoso and would accommodate 

anticipated reductions in diversion under the alternatives
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

506 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 11 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

The water rights loss through non-proved up would be junior inchoate water rights. Since the loss is junior 

rights with a priority date after the year 1947, the rights would be valued at exactly % the value of senior 

water rights or $11,500 per acre. Each acre would have an adjudicated CIR of 1.44 acre-feet per year. 

Therefore the junior consumptive use water rights value lost through not being proven up would be 

equivalent to $11,500 per acre divided by 1.44 acre-feet per acre = $7,986. Rounded to $8000 per acrefoot consumptive use and multiplied by 623.78 acre feet of inchoate rights totals to approximately 

$5,000,000 (rounded). This deficit would have to be made up by the VOR thorough the purchase of water 

rights in the Rio Ruidoso Drainage.11 The estimated $5 million needed to compensate for this loss of 

inchoate water rights does not include the additional $500 dollars per acre in litigation and consultant costs 

needed to complete the purchase and secure the transfer of the water rights to the Village.

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of National Forest System lands that 

can divert the Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water 

rights include a permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 

to the surface point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet 

from Eagle Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek

and at Alto Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. 

The only likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. 

These factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections 

have been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already 

been undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion 

under the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of 

Forest Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by 

steps being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and benefits 

from instream flow changes has been added to the FSEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 507

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 12 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

Costs to the Village to Purchase, Setup and Operate a New Wireless Weather Station Required by the 

Forest Service in the Proposed Action. Option 3 requires the village to install a weather station in the 

project area. The cost of weather stations vary greatly depending on the features required, the location, 

and the quality. A safe estimate is $20,000 for a high quality Campbell system powered by solar energy 

with backup battery which will log temperature, rain fall wind and solar and transmit data by cellular 

service. This figure would include installation setup, solar panel, and software. Annual operating costs are 

expected to be about $150 per month for wireless service and about $450 per year to inspect and service 

the station about three times per year. If the setup location was not served by a maintained road, the costs 

might be higher.

Response:

Actually, the proposed measure is only about the Village partnering with the USGS to operate one of the 

precipitation gages which that agency has already installed. Since precipitation data are already being 

recorded and published by the USGS from several gages in suitable locations, it was our assumption that 

this measure would not be too difficult or expensive for the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and benefits 

from instream flow changes has been added to the FSEIS.

23 13 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

In addition ignoring the economic impact costs to the Village, Eichman and Loughery13 made several 

other comments regarding recreation activities and social justice. Many of their comments overstate the 

potential biological impacts and understated the impacts on social justice. Their comments should be 

regarded as their opinions as their views are not supported by appropriate data.

Response:

We disagree that the analysis presented in these sections of the EIS are based on personal opinions. The 

basis for the analysis and conclusions reached by these technical area specialists is described in EIS 

chapter 3 as well as the more detailed socioeconomic report in the project record. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

508 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 14 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

Over generalization on reductions of recreation benefits for the proposed action. Their claims, either direct 

or indirect, that recreation benefits will increase significantly by selecting the proposed action Alternative3 

over the current pumping authorization (Alternative 1). The proposed action only impacts a short section of 

the North Fork Creek projected to have reduced flows and more no-flow days. The potential impacts might 

impact the relative small project area but not the entire length of the creek and not areas used by hikers 

and campers some distance from the creek. Recreationists have access to many alternatives other than 

the project area of North Fork Creek area. There are many equally attractive substitutes such as; the upper 

part of the Creek, South Fork, Rio Ruidoso and other streams and a large area of the forest not in close 

proximity to the North Fork Creek to visit. Eichman and Loughery failed to discuss the other available 

choices for recreational activities leaving the reader with the impression that a recreation disaster would 

occur because of reduced flows in the relatively small project area. It is equally plausible that most visitors 

might not perceive any decline in their experience, nor is there evidence that there might be a reduction in 

overall visitor days. The lack of trees along the stream providing shade due to the Little Bear Fire is a more 

probably cause for a decrease in visitor days than any reduced stream flows in the near term.

Response:

Consequences to recreation are examined throughout the SEIS. As stated on page 13 “North Fork Eagle 

Creek primarily provides opportunities for dispersed recreation; there are no developed recreation sites 

along the North Fork Eagle Creek between the North Fork gage and Eagle Creek gage; the nearest 

developed recreation site is Oak Grove Campground, greater than 1 mile from the North Fork Eagle Creek 

well field. Dispersed recreation, as defined in the forest plan, is recreation use that occurs outside of 

developed sites and requires few, if any, facilities other than roads and trails. In the project area, dispersed 

recreation activities primarily including hiking, backpacking, and camping. The only aspects of dispersed 

recreation with potential to be affected by the alternatives are streamside recreational use and fishing 

opportunities. Since these recreation aspects are discussed in other sections of chapter 3 (under “Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish” and “Socioeconomics”), dispersed recreation is not discussed further." 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 509

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 15 Economic 

Conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

The importance of fishing in the project area below the wells is not supported with sufficient evidence. The 

Bright report (Table 9) list the number of angler days and fish caught in Eagle Creek based on mail survey 

data from anglers beginning in the 1975-76year through 2007-2008. 14 He compares the average angler 

days and fish caught from 1975-76 through 1988-89, a period before pumping began, with the period 

beginning 1990-91 through 2007-08 after pumping began. The average number of angler days dropped 

from 717 to 320 and fish caught from 3,220 to 890. This is a substantial drop. Bright acknowledge that it is 

not a scientific study and the data were based on the entire length of the Eagle Creek including the South 

Fork as well as areas below the confluence of the North and South Forks rather than limited to the study 

area. The study area comprises only a small part of Eagle Creek but including a discussion on fishing for 

the entire Eagle Creek is not germane to the evaluation of the impacts of pumping by the Village wells in 

the small project area. However, including these conclusions in the SDEIS report tends to be misleading 

and clouds the issue leaving the reader to conclude that fishing impacts are important to the EIS analysis

Response:

Please see also responses to previous comments in this table regarding the fisheries analysis. Changes 

have been made to this section to address this comments. 

Consequences to recreation are examined throughout the SDEIS. As stated on page 13 “North Fork 

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

sites along the North Fork Eagle Creek between the North Fork gage and Eagle Creek gage; the nearest 

developed recreation site is Oak Grove Campground, greater than 1 mile from the North Fork Eagle Creek 

well field. Dispersed recreation, as defined in the forest plan, is recreation use that occurs outside of 

developed sites and requires few, if any, facilities other than roads and trails. In the project area, dispersed 

recreation activities primarily including hiking, backpacking, and camping. The only aspects of dispersed 

recreation with potential to be affected by the alternatives are streamside recreational use and fishing 

opportunities. Since these recreation aspects are discussed in other sections of chapter 3 (under “Aquatic 

Habitat and Fish” and “Socioeconomics”), dispersed recreation is not discussed further." 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

510 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 18 Economic 

conditions and 

Values -

Community 

Economic Effects

Summary of Costs Likely to Impact the Village of Ruidoso with Implementing Alternative 3 Description of 

Activity Current Dollars Purchase Replacement water rights $7, 180,660 Litigation fees $152,780 

Monitoring & Measurement Costs $1,010,760 Loss of Value for inchoate water rights $5,000,000 Weather 

Station Exclusive of Annual Operating Expenses $20,000 Total $13,346,200 The total cost of nearly of 

$13.4 million to the Village of Ruidoso for accepting the proposed action plan for a special use water 

authorization can hardly be considered trivial and judged not worthy of inclusion in the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement in the discussion under the socioeconomics impacts section. This incursion of these 

costs will likely require the Village to sell municipal bonds and to either increase property taxes or increase 

water utility rates (or both) as a source of funds to retire the bonds. This increased debt load will curtail the 

capacity of the Village to provide other needed services to its residents. Given that 12 percent of the 

people living within the Village had incomes below the poverty level in 201216 according to US Census 

Bureau data; the proposed action would create an inequity issue (Environmental Justice). Those living 

below poverty level would have decreased capacity to pay increases in city taxes and fees (through 

increased property taxes or rent or water costs) and would likely eliminate purchases other necessary 

items in their budget to survive whereas the higher income groups would have more discretionary funds 

available to cover increases in property taxes and increases in utility [auto-markup:Economic]fees

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of National Forest System lands that 

can divert the Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water 

rights include a permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 

to the surface point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet 

from Eagle Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek

and at Alto Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. 

The only likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. 

These factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections 

have been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already 

been undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion 

under the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of 

Forest Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by 

steps being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and benefits 

from instream flow changes has been added to the FSEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 511

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 8 Permits The United States Forest Service (USFS) has always had adequate evidence to deny the Special Use 

Permit for the Village of Ruidoso (VoR) to operate the North Fork (NF) wells, located in and along the 

North Fork Eagle Creek (NFEC). While the degradation of the North Fork was never the intent of the 

USFS, it is indisputably the consequence of allowing continued pumping of the NF wells since 1986.

Response:

The Record of Decision will document whether or not to issue a new permit (EIS page 9). It will document 

the Responsible Official’s selection of an alternative for implementation and its rationale, based on a 

thorough review of the EIS, the project record and public comments.

18 2 Permits The issuance of a permit by the Forest Service without firm restrictions on the VOR will result in the same 

effects as no authorization since 1995. DO NOT continue to violate FS policy and the public trust.

Response:

Record of Decision will document whether or not to issue a new permit (EIS page 9). It will document the 

Responsible Official’s selection of an alternative for implementation and its rationale, based on a thorough 

review of the EIS, the project record and public comments.

7 4 Permits –

Clarification/ 

Edits

Please clarify what "checking the permit terms and conditions" means. Describe what actions could result 

from checking the terms and conditions. Describe any consequences that could result from checking the 

terms and conditions of the permits yearly versus every I 0 years.

Response:

This has been clarified in the EIS. 

7 5 Permits –

Clarification/ 

Edits

Include specific information regarding groundwater pumping rates if a 3-year declining trend equal to, or 

below, thresholds is realized.

Response:

The adaptive management strategy proposed as part of Alternative 3 and associated measures are written 

to allow flexible management of complex water resources uses. There are already sufficient metrics and 

flexibility for adaptive management in the proposed program. 

7 6 Permits –

Clarification/ 

Edits

Also, clarify the amount of time the Village of Ruidoso would have to bring water table depths above the 

thresholds.

Response:

The amount of time required for water level recovery would depend on other watershed factors, especially 

rainfall or snowmelt. Those factors are not within Village or USFS control. Adaptive management 

interactions would address conditions and needs at the time. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

512 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

6 2 Position 

Statement– No 

Rationale

I AM AGAINST USING NATIONAL LAND FOR DRILLING WELLS.

Response:

Thank you for your comment

10 1 Position 

Statement– No 

Rationale

In my capacity as secretary of the ECCA, Inc. I inform you that only correspondence coming from my office 

under my signature reflects the formal ECCA position on issues of the SDEIS and the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; it has been noted

11 3 Position 

Statement– No 

Rationale

Attached to the ECCA comments is Dr. Midkiff's draft paper "North Fork Eagle Creek 

Degradation/Evaluation of Alternatives". Although the ECCA is not completely in agreement with some of 

the statements in this paper, we believe this paper a valuable contribution to the discussion and we hope 

that it will be given ample consideration for the final issue of the SDEIS.

Response:

We received and have considered this paper.

13 1 Position 

Statement– No 

Rationale

Aquatic Consultants, Inc. (ACI) is pleased to provide comments on behalf of the Village of Ruidoso in 

reference to the changes that have occurred as a result of the Little Bear Wildfire in the North Fork of 

Eagle Creek (NFEC) watershed. These comments cover the North Fork Eagle Creek Special Use 

Authorization Project (NFECWSUAP) Fish & Wildlife Resource Report and Biological Evaluation, the 

Supplemental Information Report for the NFECWSUAP dated January 2014, and the Supplemental Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the NFECWSUA.

Response:

Thank you for your comments

15 1 Position 

Statement– No 

Rationale

The U.S. Department of the Interior has reviewed the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln National Forest, Lincoln 

County, New Mexico. In this regard, we have no comment.

Response:

Thank you for your review
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 513

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

16 1 Position 

Statement– No 

Rationale 

The comments in this letter are supplementary to and in addition to any comments that you might receive 

from the ECCA and/or its members, Dr. Midkiff, and Mr. Ford or other individuals representing Mr. Ford. 

Furthermore, the comments that I make in this letter are supplementary to the other comments that I have 

made on the proposed action during the on-going decision-making process. These other comments 

include, but are not limited to, my letter of September 7, 2012 to ex-Supervisor Trujillo and my October 2, 

2014 letter to Ms. Deborah[...] McGlothlin

Response:

Thank you for this clarification; it has been noted

19 1 Position 

Statement– No 

Rationale

The sad thing is without the wells the village still gets the water from Eagle Creek without all that expense 

from the diversion dams and the two wells down the creek plus the flow that goes into the Alto Reservoir. 

So when the village says they will lose 25% of their water resoures - that's plain bull sh_.

Response:

The socioeconomic section of the EIS in chapter 3 includes consideration of the contribution of these wells 

to municipal water supply, considering the best available information

6 1 Public 

Involvement

MAY I ALSO COMPLAIN THAT SUCH A LETTER AS THIS ONE IS SO NON INFORMATIVE THAT IT 

CONSTITUTES AS BEING ALMOST NON EXISTENT IN COMMUNCATING WITH THE PUBLIC - IT IS A 

NON LETTER WITH LITTLE TO NO INFORMATION IN IT.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; we apologize that the intent of the correspondence was unclear. The email 

you received was a follow-up to an earlier email with information on the availability of SDEIS for comment 

and how to do so, with contact information.

5 1 Public 

Involvement 

Collaboration / 

Meetings

I also request that the US Forest Service conduct a public comment session in the area after January 1, 

2015.

Response:

This request for a public meeting has been shared with the District Ranger and Forest Supervisor for 

consideration 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

514 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 14 Recreation Over generalization on reductions of recreation benefits for the proposed action. Their claims, either direct 

or indirect, that recreation benefits will increase significantly by selecting the proposed action Alternative3 

over the current pumping authorization (Alternative 1). The proposed action only impacts a short section of 

the North Fork Creek projected to have reduced flows and more no-flow days. The potential impacts might 

impact the relative small project area but not the entire length of the creek and not areas used by hikers 

and campers some distance from the creek. Recreationists have access to many alternatives other than 

the project area of North Fork Creek area. There are many equally attractive substitutes such as; the upper 

part of the Creek, South Fork, Rio Ruidoso and other streams and a large area of the forest not in close 

proximity to the North Fork Creek to visit. Eichman and Loughery failed to discuss the other available 

choices for recreational activities leaving the reader with the impression that a recreation disaster would 

occur because of reduced flows in the relatively small project area. It is equally plausible that most visitors 

might not perceive any decline in their experience, nor is there evidence that there might be a reduction in 

overall visitor days. The lack of trees along the stream providing shade due to the Little Bear Fire is a more 

probably cause for a decrease in visitor days than any reduced stream flows in the near term.

Response:

Consequences to recreation are examined throughout the DSEIS. As stated on page 13 “North Fork 

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

sites along the North Fork Eagle Creek between the North Fork gage and Eagle Creek gage; the nearest 

developed recreation site is Oak Grove Campground, greater than 1 mile from the North Fork Eagle Creek 

well field. Dispersed recreation, as defined in the forest plan, is recreation use that occurs outside of

developed sites and requires few, if any, facilities other than roads and trails. In the project area, dispersed 

recreation activities primarily including hiking, backpacking, and camping. The only aspects of dispersed 

recreation with potential to be affected by the alternatives are streamside recreational use and fishing 

opportunities. Since these recreation aspects are discussed in other sections of chapter 3 (under “Aquatic 

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

18 2 Roles and 

Authority

I also object as stated in the federal register of the manage objective that states "Providing water 

management flexibility and water conservation to the Village of Ruidoso in a way does not foreclose 

opportunities to transfer a portion of their water rights of these wells to location off of national forest system 

lands." The Forest Service has no jurisdiction over water rights! The state engineer has this jurisdiction 

over water rights so I question why this is a management objective of the Forest Service

Response:

We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights. As the land management agency, 

however, we have the authority to determine what is reasonable access (access to the right in this case is 

via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water right. Please refer to previous 

comments related to water rights and our response. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 515

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

22 4 Roles and 

Authority

The Forest Service does not have the authority to alter the elements of the Village's water right or to 

administer groundwater in New Mexico. The Forest Service does not have the

Response:

We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights and the authority of the NMOSE to regulate 

water rights under Prior Appropriations Doctrine. As the surface land management agency, however, we 

have the authority and affirmative responsibility to determine what is reasonable access (access to the 

right in this case is via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water right. Please 

refer to previous comments related to water rights and our response. 

22 6 Roles and 

Authority

The ownership of land does not confer any rights in flowing surface water or groundwater underneath the 

land of the Forest Service. Only to the extent that such water rights are acquired via state or federal law, 

can the Forest Service assert any legal interest in the public waters of New Mexico. Nor does the 

ownership of water rights, be it under state or federal law, confer upon the Forest Service the right to 

manage and regulate the water rights of others. Nevertheless, the Forest Service, through its SDEIS, 

proposes to assert such authority over water rights properly acquired, developed, and owned by the 

Village.

Response:

We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights and the authority of the NMOSE to regulate 

water rights under Prior Appropriations Doctrine. As the land management agency, however, we have the 

authority and affirmative responsibility to determine what is reasonable access (access to the right in this 

case is via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water right. Please refer to 

previous comments related to water rights and our response. 

22 7 Roles and 

Authority

New Mexico has a comprehensive and exclusive statutory scheme for managing and regulating its water 

that must be respected. The law of federal deference to state authority over water is well-established and 

should be similarly respected. While the Forest Service may manage its own water rights obtained under 

state or federal law, it has absolutely no authority to prevent other water rights owners with legal access to 

Forest Service land to divert water under an existing water right.

Response:

Thank you. We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights and the authority of the NMOSE 

to regulate water rights under Prior Appropriations Doctrine. As the surface land management agency, 

however, we have the authority and affirmative responsibility to determine what is reasonable access 

(access to the right in this case is via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water 

right. Please refer to previous comments related to water rights and our response.. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

516 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

18 7 Trust and 

Credibility

I support the mandatory base line of three hundred acre feet of pumped ground water threshold, but, it is 

evident that in the past the Lincoln National Forest has violated the public trust by the following: 1) allowing 

the Village of Ruidoso to dry up what was once a beautiful cold water fishery stream; and 2) by allowing 

the Village of Ruidoso to continue unrestricted pumping without a permit since 1995. How long is the 

Forest Service going to allow this atrocity to continue? Who is going to be responsible to the public to 

make sure the environment is restored?

Response:

The Lincoln National Forest Supervisor will decide whether to issue a new permit or not, and if so, under 

what terms and conditions (see EIS, page 9). The Record of Decision will document the alternative 

selected for implementation and the rationale for this decision, considering the EIS, the project record, and 

public comments.

21 98 Trust and 

Credibility

Based on the fact that the forest was so overgrown and that the forest was categorized as impaired before 

the fire, it is not reasonable to assume that the USFS will follow its own plans related to maintaining the 

forest in good condition without financial assurances from the USFS. Management plans that are unfunded 

are little better than having no plan at all.

Response:

Please see also response to letter 21, comment 70 related to forest management and financial 

assurances. Vegetation management is outside the scope of this EIS, but conifer density is discussed in 

chapter 3 of the EIS. 

The Lincoln National Forest Supervisor will decide whether to issue a new permit or not, and if so, under 

what terms and conditions (see EIS, page 9). The Record of Decision will document the alternative 

selected for implementation and the rationale for this decision, considering the EIS, the project record, and 

public comments.

The ROD will also include necessary adaptive management requirements, mitigations or monitoring 

measures applicable to the decision. These become non-discretionary once a decision is made.

21 107 Trust and 

Credibility

The SDEIS presents no technical data regarding the source of springs and seeps, no discharge 

measurements, nor any water quality. The desired condition unjustly assumes that Village pumping is the 

only mechanism that can impact springs and seeps. The desire to maintain a threshold water depth is also 

arbitrary and capricious. The SWRR attempts to show that when groundwater levels are depressed in the 

volcanic aquifer, the alluvial aquifer cannot recharge until the volcanic aquifer recharges. As documented 

above, this is untrue. Therefore, the desired condition of maintaining the as of yet undetermined watertable depths is unjustified.

Response:

See the response to Letter 21, comment 8, pertaining to modifications to the EIS regarding springs and 

seeps.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 517

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

1 8 Water Resources 

Clarification Edits

 I have had a quick look at the SDEIS and Water Resources report you kindly provided. There is one 

problem in the report preparation that needs corrective attention. The draft is correct in the beginning of 

Chapter 2 to say that alternative 2, no action (no pumping), "sets the baseline against which the effects of 

pumping are compared", citing the CFR. However, Table 3 and the SDEIS text and the specialist report do 

not follow that guidance, but instead compare the proposed action to continued pumping at historical 

levels. The table and texts repeatedly say the proposed action "improves" streamflow and "reduces" 

drawdown. That is incorrect and misleading in regard to the baseline against which the effects must be 

compared. The point is important because of the misunderstanding about the nature of effects that might 

be created in the public readership.

Response:

Revisions have been made to the EIS to address this comment 

1 9 Water Resources 

/Clarification 

Edits

Also, the Forest Supervisor should not be told that the proposal improves streams and reduces drawdown 

compared to no action, when the opposite is true.

Response:

Changes have been made in response to this comment 

1 10 Water Resources 

/Clarification 

Edits

The p. 128 discussion of cumulative effects is a good illustration of the editorial problem in report 

preparation where alternative 1 is wrongly labeled "(no action)" when it is elsewhere the "(no change)" 

alternative. Alternative 1 grants a permit for continued pumping. Continued pumping is said to cause 

"additional adverse flow and water quality reductions" and "adverse impact to...other beneficial uses" longterm and regional, with "moderate to severe" drawdown impacts. These impacts of continued pumping are 

compared to the proper baseline. The entire discussion of the proposed (Alternative 3) action is not. 

Obviously, causing half as much impact as the "severe" impacts does not improve the streamflow and 

drawdown in comparison to no impacts per the CFR baseline.

Response:

See responses to Letter 1, comments 9, 11, etc. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

518 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

11 10 Water Resources 

/Clarification 

Edits

The NFEC flow-days recorded in the SDEIS may be valid upstream from the well field but cannot be 

considered representative for the flow downstream from the well field. In the last years, the NFEC 

downstream from the well field has been dry for months in succession and Alto Lake has been dry for an 

entire season. Measuring NFEC stream flow should be measured downstream from the well field 

independently from the South Fork Eagle Creek. Pump operation criteria should be established on the 

basis of creek flow downstream from the well field. Only that would allow improved flow in the NFEC.

Response:

Monitoring well data collections are proposed as a means of ascertaining hydrologic conditions along the 

North Fork. The stream gages remain in the program because they may be repaired and reasonably 

reliable at some point in the future, and also because they are the links to past data. An alternative gaging 

location nearer the well field upstream of the existing Eagle Creek gage was discussed within the EIS 

team, but was considered less reliable and much more expensive to construct and maintain considering 

unstable post-fire channel conditions. This is discussed in more detail in chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

21 60 Water Resources 

/Clarification 

Edits

12.1 GENERAL COMMENTS FOR SWRR NOMENCLATURE AND EDITING Below are some suggested 

changes or corrections related to the SWRR: • Figures 1 and 4 have incorrect locations for MW-lA, North 

Fork Well 4 (NF-4), and DW-2. • Although referenced within the text, no faults are shown on Figure 2. • 

San Andres is repeatedly misspelled throughout the document as "San Andreas." • Grayburg is repeatedly 

misspelled throughout the document as "Greyberg." • The valleys wherein the South Fork and North Forks 

of Eagle Creek flow should be referred to as drainages or creek channels not river valleys.

Response:

In response to this comment, changes have been made to the Supplemental Water Resources 

Report 

11 9 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The ECCA is of the opinion that the water management plan should include environmental monitoring 

immediately upon implementation of the plan, rather than waiting for five years as stipulated by the SDEIS. 

Early monitoring may result in action that will prevent or diminish further degeneration of the NFEC

Response:

The intent of the adaptive management strategy that is proposed as part of Alternative 3 is to initiate 

monitoring network activities and adaptive management much sooner than five years. Five years would be 

an interval for a subsequent, collective, overall review.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 519

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

13 4 Water Resources 

Monitoring

On page 4, the document states "The surface flow trigger is directly tied to data that would be collected 

from the Eagle Creek and North Fork stream gages. These gages are no longer fully operational and are 

expected to continue to require frequent maintenance. These gages may no longer be reliable as a basis 

for this trigger". If this is the case, then how come monitoring of the Eagle Creek, North Fork, and South 

Fork gages are still being required. Additionally, a trigger is still instituted if there is >30 days of no flow 

at the Eagle Creek gage.

Response:

Monitoring well data collections are proposed as a means of ascertaining hydrologic conditions along the 

North Fork. The stream gages remain in the program because they may be repaired and reasonably 

reliable at some point in the future, and also because they are the links to past data. 

18 11 Water Resources 

Monitoring

Manual 2541 limits the actions available to the US Forest Service when there is evidence of degrading the 

natural resources of the stream. The allowance in the monitor indication section in the proposed action to 

allow no flow days should not be considered. No flow days during the period of 1988 to 2009 has affected 

the North Fork tributary and its associated riparian area and its ability of a cold water fishery since the 

North Fork well were put in operation. The degradation of riparian condition is evidenced by the 

comparison of the riparian vegetation up stream of the North Fork Eagle Creek wells. I feel that the 

threshold of 20 days per years of no surface flow or more that 30 no flow days within a single water year 

will be adverse to the established and improvements of the riparian vegetation between the North Fork 

wells and the Eagle Creek stream gauge.

Response:

Comment noted. This concern is addressed by the consideration of the no pumping alternative and the 

comparison of its effects to the other alternatives. Alternative 3 is oriented to multiple uses of water 

resources. The threshold values proposed under Alternative 3 were determined with that objective in mind. 

Thresholds identified under alternative 3 would likely result in the maintenance of current riparian 

vegetation as indicated by the Standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan.

18 14 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The monitoring of the thresholds should not be left up to the Village of Ruidoso. This avenue is like letting 

the "fox guard the hen house". Threshold monitoring should be electronic where possible and available for 

all to see via web sites to facilitate the proposed adapted management strategy.

Response:

This comment raises a reasonable concern, in that the Village of Ruidoso cannot be the only party involved 

in tracking hydrologic conditions along the North Fork. Agencies routinely monitor water resources on 

public lands elsewhere in the west, with or without water use conflicts or management programs. 

Electronic data collection platforms are already in place along the North Fork, and are proposed (with 

reporting) in monitoring measures for EIS alternatives. The actual data reviews and implementation of 

adaptive management would be determined through ongoing interactions with the USFS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

520 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 11 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The SWRR monitoring measures as proposed are extremely onerous and costly. The monitoring 

measures are unreasonable and would likely have the effect of forcing the Village out of the North Fork of 

Eagle Creek due to costs associated with implementation, and ongoing maintenance and monitoring. The 

proposed measures seem to be an all-encompassing wish list of monitoring for the watershed. Monitoring 

post-fire effects on water quality and changes in the alluvial stream channel should be performed by the 

USFS.

Response:

See the response to letter 18, comment 14. Proposed monitoring measures, and the measurement 

facilities involved, are recommended from a hydrologic standpoint, in light of existing data gaps and 

uncertainties. Addressing those issues as proposed would greatly improve a future multiple-use water 

resources management program.

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the 

Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights include a 

permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 to the surface 

point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. The only 

likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. These 

factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections have 

been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already been 

undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under 

the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of Forest 

Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by steps 

being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and benefits 

from instream flow changes has been added to the FSEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 521

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 12 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The current monitoring wells provide ample data with which to monitor the shallow alluvial aquifer system, 

and the intermediate and deep volcanic aquifer. Monitoring wells MW- lB and MW-1C are completed within 

intervals that are screened, or open boreholes, of the Village production wells. It is perplexing that the 

USFS would require the completion of numerous additional monitoring wells and test pumping even after 

the USGS, the federal agency that performs hydrologic and geologic investigations and studies, completed 

a hydrologic study of the watershed for the EIS. The distance from the upper-most Village North Fork 

production well to the lowest is about 1,400 ft. The existing groundwater monitoring systems consists of 

two wells completed in the volcanic aquifer, and four wells completed in the shallow alluvial aquifer 

including one well above and one below the production well. Water levels in the Village production wells 

are also monitored.

Response:

See response to Letter 21, comment 190 and letter 21, comment 83

21 13 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The requirement that each monitoring well be completed within "only one individual water-bearing zone of 

interest" implies that the current monitoring wells are completed in more[...] than one water bearing zone, 

which is not true. The rationale for completing additional monitoring wells in the volcanic aquifer above and 

below the Village's well field with screen lengths that are the same as those of the pumping wells is 

unjustified.

Response:

See response to Letter 21, comment 190 and letter 21, comment 83

21 14 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The completion of a monitoring well in the alluvial aquifer near the North Fork gage would be difficult and 

require specialized track mounted equipment because the terrain is steep. The alluvial aquifer is quite thin 

in this area; the benefits of monitoring water levels in an area where the creek flows nearly continuously is 

unreasonable and unsupported by any need for the data within the SDEIS.

Response:

New proposed well locations are proposed as part of Alternative 3 in response to effects of the Little Bear 

Fire on the stream channel and associated surface flow gages. According to the USGS, the existing North 

Fork gage is buried under approximately six feet of sediment and debris. It is likely that such deposits will 

come and go for quite some time at both the North Fork gage and the Eagle Creek confluence gage. That 

would create unreliable surface flow records and the need for constant inspection and maintenance. The 

recommended alluvial monitoring wells would be a monitoring approach that could result in more 

meaningful data at less expense over the long term.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

522 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 15 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The completion of a monitoring well downstream of the South Fork gage is also unreasonable and 

unsupported by any need for the data within the SDEIS.

Response:

Past comments from several parties have questioned the pre-fire validity of flow measurements at the 

Eagle Creek confluence gage below the South Fork (USGS 08387600). The post-fire gaging conditions 

are more suspect. The proposed monitoring well at or near that location would help rectify earlier gaging 

concerns, and resulting data could be less affected by post-fire debris. An alternative stream gaging 

location to the existing Eagle Creek gage was discussed within the EIS team, but was considered less 

reliable and much more expensive considering unstable post-fire channel conditions. This consideration is 

described in more detail in chapter 2 of the FEIS.

21 16 Water Resources 

Monitoring

Shallow alluvial monitoring wells are currently being monitored above, within, and below the Village 

production wells and the proposed wells would be redundant.

Response:

Issues with the existing shallow alluvial monitoring wells have clearly been presented in EIS documents. 

See the responses to other comments (Letter #21, Comments #15 and #16). 

21 17 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The USFS claims to have attempted debris removal from monitoring wells MW-4B and MW-4C. 

Unfortunately no data were provided related to work performed on the wells. The USFS claims the wells 

were damaged by acts of vandalism. It is unlikely that the wells could be made functional again, and they 

would need to be drilled out, then plugged and abandoned in accordance with NMOSE regulations. The 

need for replacing the wells has not been demonstrated in the SDEIS. Current monitoring wells MW- lB 

and MW- lC provide ample data for monitoring the volcanic aquifer.

Response:

Our information regarding this debris filled well is that attempts at debris removal were unsuccessful and 

that rehabilitation may be difficult. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 523

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 18 Water Resources 

Monitoring

Obtaining Federal permits to discharge water produced during drilling and pumping tests will be difficult 

and time consuming. This is because the water will ultimately flow into the creek channel, and regardless 

of whether or not the creek is running, a permit will be required. When the USGS completed the existing 

monitoring wells, water had to be hauled off in significant quantities during drilling to stay in compliance 

with turbidity standards associated with the permit. The quantity of water that will have to be hauled off is 

unknown. It may not be possible to obtain a permit to discharge water to the surface. Permits would also 

need to be obtained from the USPS to complete any new monitoring wells. Presumably the USFS would 

issue a categorical exclusion and not require any environmental studies to be performed as part of the 

permitting process. However, given that the proposed work would require pumping tests, it is unknown if 

the USFS will need to perform an additional EIS for the work. Permits would need to be obtained from the 

NMOSE to complete the wells.

Response:

Comment noted. Pumping tests are not simple and do involve certain logistical challenges. However, their 

employment is still relatively commonplace. If the USFS does require pumping test(s) or more, then the 

permitting would most likely be expedited. Additional information has been added to the EIS to 

describe in more detail these connected actions.

21 19 Water Resources 

Monitoring

As indicated in the SWRR, quite a number of pumping tests have been performed in the North Fork of 

Eagle Creek. Performing slug tests in monitoring wells is essentially an inadequate exercise because only 

the hydraulic properties of the aquifer very close to the borehole, or at worst only the well annulus, are 

actually tested. Pumping tests in monitoring wells would provide data that are of little value given that such 

a small area of the aquifer can be tested and the high likelihood that pumping impacts will not be 

measureable in nearby wells. Piping water from the tests to distances below the well field to not create

recharge conditions on other wells being monitored will be expensive. Federal permits will be required to 

discharge water to the ground surface because pumped water will ultimately enter the creek channel. It 

may not be possible to obtain permits to perform the test pumping in which case all produced water would 

have to be hauled from the site and disposed of elsewhere. Permits would need to be obtained from the 

NMOSE to perform pumping tests.

Response:

Slug tests are a cost-effective method of gaining aquifer information when other methods are too 

expensive and when water disposal is problematic. Permitting, if any, is much simpler than for pumping 

tests. If several slug tests have similar values, then the average and standard deviation can give a better 

picture of the aquifer characteristics than no data; or even a single pumping test with inadequate 

monitoring wells or relatively short or uneven pumping intervals. Indeed, pumping tests would require 

possibly difficult and time consuming permitting; however, that is true of most pumping tests.

Aquifer tests generally do require permitting. However, they are routinely performed. Considering that the 

aquifer is a fractured volcanic aquifer, standard tests may not be applicable. We remain confident that, if 

permits are required for aquifer testing, then they can be obtained.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

524 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 20 Water Resources 

Monitoring

11.3 Monitoring Measure 3 There appears to be no rationale for monthly monitoring of surface water 

quality at the gages, unless it is to assess the impacts of the forest fire or inflow from septic systems above 

the Village's wells. Therefore, the USFS should be responsible for monitoring. Collecting surface water 

quality data where none have historically existed, particularly in the post-fire hydrologic setting, has little 

value in terms of the subject permit application. Pumping by the Village cannot affect turbidity. Problems 

with turbidity are obviously those created by the fire. Other water quality issues that would be affected by 

the fire include increases in water temperature, calcium, nitrate, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, 

sodium, sulfur, total organic carbon, total dissolved solids, and zinc (DeBano et al., 1998; Knoepp et al., 

2005). Therefore, the USFS should perform all monitoring to assess fire related impacts on aquatic 

ecosystems and riparian vegetation. Background water quality at the subject monitoring points was not 

established pre-fire.

Response:

Even after a special outside agency data collection program, there are essentially no surface water quality 

data along the North Fork. It should be noted that the currently-proposed (SDEIS) water quality monitoring 

could readily be accomplished using field instruments. It may provide needed information for examining 

flow management options, at some unknown future time, which are not being planned or even predicted at 

this point in time. As the comment implies, any agency or organization could readily complete this effort to 

at least a reconnaissance level.

21 21 Water Resources 

Monitoring

11.4 Monitoring Measure 4 Water levels in the alluvial and volcanic aquifers cannot currently be used to 

determine streamflow. It may be possible 5 to 10 years from now to use water levels as a proxy for 

streamflow. References to using this approach should be removed from the EIS. The Village has offered to 

share data from all monitoring wells and pumping wells in the North Fork with the USGS. The USGS (Mike 

Darr, personnel communication) indicated that the USGS was not interested in using "data obtained by 

others" because of USGS data collection protocols. The submission of quarterly and annual data 

summaries with conclusions related to the data collected is not reasonable because the USFS to date has 

rarely accepted the opinions and conclusions of Village consultant's on hydrologic matters related to the 

subject application. Rather, the USFS appears to rely heavily on the opinions and comments from various 

parties protesting the Village's application.

Response:

See the pertinent portion of the response to Letter 21, Comment 20.

21 22 Water Resources 

Monitoring

11.5 Monitoring Measure 5 There is no rationale for monthly monitoring of the subject springs and seeps. 

As mentioned, no baseline data either pre- or post-fire exist for the springs and seeps. In addition, it is 

highly likely that claims could be made that any change from the initial 12-month data set is the result of 

Village pumping, rather than changes related to the fire, forest density, precipitation, and the like. The 

USFS should be responsible for managing and monitoring springs and seeps within the forest. These were 

not defined or monitored pre-fire.

Response:

See the pertinent portion of the response to Letter 21, Comment 20.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 525

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 23 Water Resources 

Monitoring

11.6 Monitoring Measure 6 The SWRR indicates that the alluvial thickness and extent of the creek has 

and will continue to change because of the fire. This is a monitoring measure that should rightly be 

performed by the USFS. The changing conditions of the creek channel and extent of alluvial material as a 

result of the Little Bear fire is not the responsibility of the Village.

Response:

See the pertinent portion of the response to Letter 21, Comment 20.

21 24 Water Resources 

Monitoring

11.7 Monitoring Measure 7 The Village could work with the NRCS or other appropriate entity for the 

collection of snowpack and precipitation data. However, these data are generally available online and the 

USFS should perform data downloads and data review rather than having the Village perform the task. The 

addition of another precipitation gage to collect data in cooperation with the USGS seems to indicate that 

the data may really be required to support another study, but the costs and responsibility would be placed 

on the back of the Village. The need for this additional gage is not supported by the SWRR

Response:

See the pertinent portion of the response to Letter 21, Comment 20.

21 25 Water Resources 

Monitoring

11.8 Monitoring Measure 8 The development of a water model for the area at this time would not be 

practical or reasonable. The watershed is still in a state of flux post-fire and attempts to build a reliable 

predictive model of the system for the next 5 to 10 years is illogical. Changing conditions related to 

increases in vegetation over the next few decades will affect the ability of any model to correctly predict the 

hydrologic system, unless USFS financial assurances are made as to density and type of vegetation that 

will be maintained as part of keeping the watershed healthy to maintain favorable water supplies. This 

monitoring measure suggests that a model could be developed by the applicant in cooperation with the 

USPS and other qualified parties and stakeholders. Building a model by committee and consensus will 

take a significant amount of time and resources. Presumably the Village would hire a consultant to help 

build the model, and the USPS would hire a consultant, and costs for other qualified parties and 

stakeholders would be borne by others.

Response:

Please see also response to letter 21, comment 70 regarding forest management and financial 

assurances. Vegetation management is outside the scope of this EIS, but conifer density is discussed in 

chapter 3 of the EIS. 

Regarding modeling, these difficulties, and the complex involvement in developing a model that performs 

adequately to inform future decision-making, are acknowledged. It is not the intent of the measure to 

create an unrealistic goal. Under Alternative 3, the objective was simply to create future “big-picture” 

understandings of water balance factors proceeding through time, so that managers could have better 

insight to their behavior under different conditions. Revisions to the EIS have been made to clarify this
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

526 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 26 Water Resources 

Monitoring

11.9 Monitoring Measure 9 Under the no pumping alternative, the Village would have no obligation nor 

desire to perform any monitoring. Under this alternative, the USFS would need to pay the Village for the 

streamflow gages, monitoring wells, transducers and data loggers, production wells, water rights, and 

associated infrastructure.

Response:

It is the obligation of the permittee to remove all associated infrastructure. Some limited monitoring is 

identified for implementation of alternative 2 (no pumping) but is not the responsibility of the Village, as 

stated in the description of this alternative in EIS chapter 2. 

21 59 Water Resources 

Monitoring

Recommended Preferred Alternative - The Village would be allowed to pump up to 80 percent of the 

average annual quantity of groundwater recharge that will occur post-wildfire based current canopy 

density, vegetation type and distribution, and soil moisture requirements. Recharge estimates after 10 

years can be recalculated and should be based on actual USPS forest management performed and USPS 

financial assurances related to maintaining a healthy watershed. The calculation of groundwater recharge 

must not be performed using the chloride mass-balance method for reasons previously described. Village 

monitoring would include those provided below: );;>. Monitor groundwater levels in North Fork 

monitoring wells: MW- lA, MW- lB, MW-lC, MW-3A, and MW-5A. • monitoring frequency: hourly • reporting 

frequency: monthly );;>. Monitor groundwater levels in North Fork production wells H-1979 (North Fork 

1), H-1981 (North Fork 3), and H-1982 (North Fork 4). • monitoring frequency: hourly • reporting frequency: 

monthly );;>. Monitor diversions from North Fork production wells H-1979 (North Fork 1), H-1981 (North 

Fork 3), and H-1982 (North Fork 4). • monitoring frequency: monthly • reporting frequency: monthly );;>. 

Streamflow at North Fork Eagle Creek gage (08387550), South Fork Eagle Creek gage (08387575), and 

Eagle Creek below South Fork gage (08387600). • monitoring frequency: real time data as currently 

performed by USGS • reporting frequency: as currently provided on USGS website

Response:

Thank you for this suggested new alternative. We carefully considered , but ultimately dismissed from 

detailed analysis, this proposal. Our rationale for this is included in chapter 2 of the FEIS. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 527

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 61 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The monitoring measures are so onerous and all-encompassing that it appears the USFS is trying to 

develop the most detailed interactive watershed model in the southwest at the expense of the Village, or 

quite simply the USFS is trying to make the cost of monitoring so expense the Village will not be able to 

perform the work will have to abandon its wells.

Response:

We recognize that there are several monitoring measures that would apply to the action alternatives and 

that they would require an investment in time and funding for the Village. These measures were developed 

to provide continued data-gathering in the future to inform the implementation of the adaptive management 

strategy. While NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis (as stated in Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of complying with the Act, the weighing 

of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit 

analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative considerations. In any event, an 

environmental impact statement should at least indicate those considerations, including factors not related 

to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23), we 

agree that a comparison of cost estimates for implementation of the alternatives would be a valuable 

contribution to the EIS. A discussion of costs of monitoring and benefits from instream flow changes 

has been added to the FEIS. We have also reviewed each of the monitoring measures in response 

to this comment and have made some adjustments.

The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation based on the analysis presented in 

the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision and its rationale, including 

consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the Record of Decision, as well as 

the details of any selected monitoring. The ultimate decision stemming from the EIS will depend on 

consideration of all public input, management of conflicting water uses, and agency jurisdictions. 

21 62 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The concept of developing an interactive management model may be considered a grand and noble idea 

by some, but it is beyond what is considered usual and customary for permit administration and monitoring.

Response:

Computer models are commonly used in water resources management; at least one is currently available, 

and perhaps others, with comparatively little modification. This monitoring measure was developed to 

provide a useful tool to inform future management. This measure, however, has been reviewed and some 

adjustments made in response to this and similar comments regarding modeling. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

528 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 82 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The Borehole Lithologic and Geophysical Data section of the SWRR incorrectly states: "The monitor wells 

MW- I C and MW-4C are screened below the water-bearing zane tapped by -the Village wells." In fact, all 

of the Village production wells are completed with upper screened intervals and have open boreholes 

immediately below the screened intervals. The total depth of each of the production wells exceeds that of 

the monitoring wells. Groundwater can move unimpeded through the aquifer into the open borehole portion 

of well. The resultant conclusion reached in the last sentence of the SWRR section Borehole Lithologic and 

Geophysical Data states: "The deep placement of the well screens in monitor wells MW-1 C and MW-4C 

makes them less useful in monitoring pumping in the Village wells and for use as monitor wells for 

pumping tests in the Village wells." This statement is incorrect and likely resulted in the requirement of 

additional monitoring wells to be installed as specified in the Monitoring Measures section of the SDEIS.

Response:

We have concluded that the multiple-zone construction of the existing monitoring wells is a source of 

uncertainty in monitoring individual characteristics of water-bearing zones as well as their interactions. The 

proposed measures would remedy that situation. Further, the Supplemental Water Resources Report only 

treats a cumulative study area in a qualitative manner, due to the immense complexity of infrastructure and 

geologic factors. The discussion of the volcanic aquifer extent in the cumulative impact study area has 

been revised in the SWRR based on this comment and a geologic map review. 

21 83 Water Resources 

Monitoring

The additional monitoring wells as proposed in the SDEIS Monitoring Measures section are unnecessary 

because the existing monitoring wells completed by the USGS continue to provide detailed data for 

monitoring the shallow alluvial system, and volcanic aquifer. The SWRR erroneously indicates that the 

Sierra Blanca volcanic aquifer pinches out 0.25 mile above Alto Reservoir. Drill cuttings from well H-1979-

S, located a few tens of feet south of Alto Reservoir, indicate that the volcanic aquifer extends to a depth of 

at least 1,390 ft at this location.

Response:

See response to the comment above (letter 21, comment 82). 

12 1 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

My discussion entitled "North Fork Eagle Creek Degradation / Evaluation of Alternatives" documents that 

the USFS is fully aware of the cone of depression that is created and maintained by pumping of the North 

Fork wells. The SDEIS says so. This cone of depression prevents surface flow in the North Fork, most of 

the time. This was the reason for the lawsuit by the ECCA. This is the environmental degradation problem 

the USFS has yet to address.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. The EIS discloses the predicted effects of each alternative to natural 

resources. The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation based on the analysis 

presented in the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision and its rationale, 

including consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the Record of Decision. 

The ultimate decision stemming from the EIS will depend on consideration of all public input, management 

of conflicting water uses, and agency jurisdictions. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 529

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

12 6 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

The USFS has implied that the North Fork seldom flowed before pumping by designating and repeatedly 

referring to the North Fork as "intermittent". The question is whether the USFS is willing to sacrifice North 

Fork surface water so the Village can divert it with the ease of flipping an on/off switch. The North Fork of 

Eagle Creek was a dependable and productive water source prior to pumping.

Response:

This interpretation does not accurately reflect the conclusions we have reached and have documented in 

the water resources report and the EIS. The interdisciplinary team collected information and reviewed 

additional data and information to assess the historic pre-pumping range of flow conditions at different 

places and times along the North Fork. Those conditions were determined to vary, and to include both 

perennial and intermittent open-channel flow durations. The EIS presents a detailed analysis of three 

alternatives, including a no pumping alternative and the predicted effects of implementing these in both the 

short- and long-term. The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation based on the 

analysis presented in the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision and its 

rationale, including consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the Record of 

Decision. The ultimate decision stemming from the EIS will depend on consideration of all public input, 

management of conflicting water uses, and agency jurisdictions. 

13 3 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

In general, discussions concerning what constitutes a fishery are never had on intermittent streams. This 

document points out clearly that the stretch of the NFEC from the summer homes to the Eagle Creek gage 

has been intermittent since before 1960.

Response:

As shown and discussed in the aquatic habitat section of the EIS (table 11 and the narratives from Pages 

140-143), there were fish populations in the stream prior to well pumping. As described in detail in the 

water resources report and the water resources section of EIS chapter 3, the interdisciplinary team 

collected information and reviewed additional data and information to assess the historic pre-pumping 

range of flow conditions at different places and times along the North Fork. Those conditions were

determined to vary, and to include both perennial and intermittent open-channel flow durations. Fish 

survive intermittent streams by migrating to cooler headwaters where there is adequate water during the 

periods of intermittent flows. Fish utilize intermittent stream reaches on a seasonal basis based on water 

conditions. 

13 5 Water Resources 

Watershed 

Condition

On page 4, the document states "The riparian vegetation trigger may need to be relaxed or made more 

flexible". It does not appear that this was accomplished. This trigger should be relaxed as alluvium filling 

and channel instability will drive riparian vegetation recovery for years to come.

Response:

This riparian trigger does acknowledge the changes in the alluvium depth and describes its relationship to 

trigger #1and provides flexibility in implementation based on on-the-ground information (EIS pages 30-31).
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

530 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

13 6 Water Resources 

Watershed 

Condition

On page 18, the document states, "Quantity, quality, and water flow availability that mirrors natural flow 

patterns (pre-pumping period or current "no pumping" conditions?), are important for aquatic habitat and 

fish. The natural flow pattern for this section of the NFEC is intermittent. The document also points out that 

the number of no flow days at the Eagle Creek gage has increased since 1988 when the Village of 

Ruidoso started pumping. Keep in mind when it relates to aquatic life and fisheries intermittent is 

intermittent.

Response:

See earlier responses to comments regarding the fisheries analysis (i.e. letter 13, comment 3).

13 7 Water Resources 

Watershed 

Condition

Also on page 18, the document states "Suitable water quality and temperatures, which are partially based 

on water depth and channel conditions, are necessary to support fish populations". Post fire sediment 

deposition has added four to six feet of alluvium in some portions of the NFEC substantially decreasing 

water depth and increasing channel width. The consequences of this in the near future will be increased 

water temperatures. Additionally, this increased alluvium depth will likely result in the creek being more 

intermittent.

Response:

This relates to a direct effect of the fire and does not preclude fish population becoming reestablished in 

future years as the system recovers, as described in the aquatic habitat analysis in EIS chapter 3. As 

discussed on page 164, Dunham et al. (in University of Idaho 2007) showed that physical stream habitats 

can remained altered (e.g., stream temperatures) for many years following wildfire, but that native aquatic 

vertebrates can remain resilient. In a management context, this suggests that wildfire may be less of a 

threat to native species than human influences that alter the capacity of stream-living vertebrates to persist 

in the face of natural disturbance. The EIS recognizes the short-term impact the fire is likely to have on 

water quality and turbidity and water quality was removed as an indicator (see EIS page 4). The water 

resources section of chapter 3 discusses in detail the predicted short- and long-term influence the fire may 

have no stream flow (summarized in table 9). 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 531

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

13 8 Water Resources 

Watershed 

Condition

On page 1 the document states "Without pumping, North Fork Eagle Creek would still be intermittent below 

the wells". And on page 7, it states "Standards and guidelines in the forest plan include that riparian areas 

and fish habitat are to be maintained and enhanced". It is our opinion that the limiting factor for increased 

riparian areas in NFEC below the summer homes is water depth. The plants cannot root deep enough, or 

fast enough, to tap the permanent underground water source. This scenario is much worst following the 

fire as the alluvium depth has increased substantially.

Response:

The plots closest to the confluence of North Fork and South Fork of eagle Creek have experienced a 

greater amount of alluvium deposition than plots further upstream. Rooting depths were used in the 

identification of the adaptive management triggers and the alluvium depth is noted in this discussion 

(specifically page 29 and pages 30-31). Through adaptive management, the Forest Service could relax the 

adaptive management trigger for these plots (based on monitoring results (see description of alternative 3

in EIS chapter 2), but Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project objectives still require maintenance 

or enhancement of riparian habitat. 

13 9 Water Resources 

Watershed 

Condition

On page 143, the document states "Based on the compilation and evaluation of the best available data 

(summarized above), there is sufficient information to substantiate reduced flows, less fish presence, and 

decreased fishing recreation in the North Fork since the wells were authorized and began pumping in 

1988. It appears that higher quality aquatic habitat and fishing opportunities existed in the North Fork 

before the North Fork Eagle Creek wells began pumping when compared to current conditions and fish 

populations (primarily brook trout) are substantially less now than they were before 1988". Then on page 

142, the document states "The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish likely stopped investing in 

stocking it in the 1970s and 1980s due to fluctuating water levels and the quality of the habitat (Hansen, 

personal communication 2011. So in reality, in the 1970's and 1980's the New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish (NMDGF) stopped stocking due to the intermittent water flow and poor quality of fish 

habitat. So there has never been any quality aquatic habitat or good fishing opportunity in the section of 

the NFEC downstream of the summer homes and it has nothing to do with the pumping of wells.

Response:

Please see responses to previous comments related to fish and aquatic habitat (e.g. letter 13, comment 3; 

letter 21, comment 124; letter 23, comment 15. The discussion of angler days has been removed from the 

EIS in response to this and similar comments, but we disagree with the conclusion that pumping has had 

no effect on the quality of aquatic habitat or fishing opportunity. We do recognize that other factors, such 

as reduced stocking, have an influence on fish presence. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

532 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

13 10 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

On page 154, the document states "Medlock (2011) provides a compelling case for the lower half of the 

North Fork being intermittent prior to pumping. Included in his report is an historical photo of the area 

showing vegetation similar to current vegetation in the area above the well field in 1947. Of particular note 

in this photo is the lack of obligate wetland species one would associate with a riparian community along a 

perennial stream (e.g. willow and cottonwood in the overstory)". This statement summarizes again the fact 

that the lower section of the NFEC has never been a real riparian area because of its lack of riparian 

vegetation. Aquatic plants can only grow in water or soil that is permanently saturated and this section of 

the NFEC has never been permanently saturated, pumping or no pumping. If it was, a permanent riparian 

community would have been established long before pumping started.

Response:

Please see responses to similar concerns regarding riparian vegetation (letter 21, comment 10 and letter 

21, comment 68). Facultative wetland species, are present in the project area as discussed in the Riparian 

Vegetation report and chapter 3 of the EIS. Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project objectives 

require maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat. The EIS recognizes that the riparian habitat along 

this stretch of NFEC is limited and that this is likely due to a variety of factors. 

13 11 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

Also on page 154, "Though we do not know the pre-pumping condition of North Fork riparian vegetation, 

we do know there has been reduced water availability along the North Fork since the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells began pumping, as described in more detail in the "Water Resources" section of this chapter. 

Reduced water availability can affect riparian vegetation. Reduced water availability for plants can also be 

influenced by flood deposited alluvium in the valley bottom of the North Fork which raises the flood plain 

and channel, and causes the stream to flow below the alluvium. Either of these factors could explain the 

existing conditions and composition of the riparian vegetation along the North Fork.

Response:

Please see responses to similar concerns regarding riparian vegetation (letter 21, comment 10 and letter 

21, comment 68). As disclosed in the riparian vegetation report and in the riparian section of chapter 3 

analysis using aerial photography of the project area revealed that periodic flooding has resulted in 

changes to the width of the riparian corridor based on alluvium deposition and then subsequent narrowing 

in the interim between flooding. While this is a factor in the current condition, it is likely not the only one. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 533

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

13 12 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

While we determined that, based on the current level of information, South Fork Rio Bonito may not 

provide a suitable reference reach from which to establish a baseline survey and quantitatively compare to 

survey results from the North Fork Eagle Creek, it provided a useful tool for visual comparison and 

inferences about riparian potential along the North Fork if there were more sustained elevated water 

tables". This paragraph seems to reference that if there were more sustained water levels (through 

decreased pumping) that it would increase the "riparian potential" in the lower section of the NFEC. If this 

was the case, there would have been riparian vegetation already established prior to pumping. The reality 

is that there has never been enough permanent water in this lower section to establish a riparian 

community, pumping or no pumping.

Response:

Please see responses to similar concerns regarding riparian vegetation (letter 21, comment 10 and letter 

21, comment 68). We recognize the limited information available on riparian conditions pre-pumping from 

which to draw strong conclusions. All available information was used to prepare the riparian vegetation 

report and the riparian section of chapter 3 and to reach the conclusions shown. While there is some 

uncertainty concerning the impacts of pumping on vegetation because vegetation monitoring plots were 

not established prior to pumping, there is certainty through well monitoring that water levels have dropped 

and no-flow days have increased since pumping began. There is currently riparian vegetation present in 

the project area as disclosed by the Riparian Vegetation report and DEIS and SDEIS. 

18 1 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

I know from personal observation that the unrestricted pumping of ground water from the North Fork wells 

by the Village of Ruidoso (VOR) has resulted in the environmental degradation of the Eagle Creek area 

that once was a perennial flowing stream and a viable cold water fishery.

Response:

Table 11 and the narratives from Pages 140-143 adequately document fish populations in the stream prior 

to well pumping. Prior to pumping, it is likely that portions of the North Fork Eagle Creek were perennial, 

whereas others were intermittent. Nonetheless, fish survive intermittent streams by migrating to cooler 

headwaters where there is adequate water during the periods of intermittent flows. Fish utilize intermittent 

stream reaches on a seasonal basis based on water conditions, and this could support a fishery in the 

NFEC. There are other factors affecting water quantity in the NFEC in addition to well water removal, such 

as yearly and multi-year moisture conditions, changes in evapotranspiration, and channel/alluvium/bedrock 

relationships from place to place along the stream.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

534 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

18 8 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

The USGS study and others have provided the science to provide some common sense management to a

area of known environment degradation. The natural stream flow that existed in the past can again be 

there if the Forest Service will do what's right.

Response:

The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation based on the analysis presented in 

the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision and its rationale, including 

consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the Record of Decision. The 

ultimate decision stemming from the EIS will depend on consideration of all public input, management of 

conflicting water uses, and agency jurisdictions.

18 9 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

I agree with the USGS final report that indicates that when ground water is pumped unrestricted, from the 

NF wells, it causes a temporary decline in ground water which lowers the water table and creates a 

expanding cone of depression around the wells. Go to the area today and you can see the effects are far 

reaching, both upstream and downstream. The volume of the ground water pumping should be restricted 

so that the surface flow in the North Fork Eagle Creek can be maintained.

Response:

The Responsible Official will select an alternative for implementation based on the analysis presented in 

the EIS and the public comments received on the SDEIS. The decision and its rationale, including 

consistency with laws, regulations, and agency policy will be included in the Record of Decision. The 

ultimate decision stemming from the EIS will depend on consideration of all public input, management of 

conflicting water uses, and agency jurisdictions.

18 10 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

The Village of Ruidoso can pump on limited bases the North Fork Eagle Creek wells and maintain and 

surface flow in the North Fork. The Village of Ruidoso can there after remove addition water through the 

surface water just east of the Forest Service boundary for additional municipal supply.[...]The Village of 

Ruidoso has always had this option but has elected to ignore the local water shed management required 

for a stream with limited and fluctuating precipitation. The Village has environmentally degraded this area 

of public Iands.

Response:

The various components of the municipal water supply system and how the Village manages this water are 

discussed in the socioeconomics, water resources, and water rights sections of chapter 3
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 535

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 65 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

The development of a predictive model such as that contemplated will take years and be very expensive. 

In the event that an accurate predictive model can be developed it will likely need to be updated and 

analyzed weekly by a competent professional. A key aspect of developing a predictive model will be 

financial assurance from the USFS that it will maintain the watershed in a healthy condition for favorable 

water supplies

Response:

Please see responses to previous comments regarding the use of a model (letter 21, comment 118; letter 

23-comment 8; letter 21, comment 25; letter 21, comment 61). 

Please also see previous comments regarding USFS financial assurances regarding maintaining the 

watershed (letter 21, comment 70; among others). Additional text regarding watershed models has been 

added in response to this comment. A predictive model of the system, as proposed, would provide a 

valuable management tool. It would assist all parties, including the Village, in addressing enduring local 

water issues. 

21 66 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

USFS guidelines, policies, and management plans to maintain the watershed in a healthy condition in the 

absence of financial assurances are virtually inadequate.

Response:

Please also see previous comments regarding USFS financial assurances regarding maintaining the 

watershed (letter 21, comment 70; among others). 

21 67 Water Resources 

– Watershed 

Condition

The USFS should be responsible for documenting post-fire changes in the watershed that impacted all 

aspects of the watershed. USFS monitoring should include stream channel assessments, surface water 

quality monitoring, monitoring of springs and seeps in addition to documenting the source of the springs 

and seeps, and cataloging and monitoring vegetation type and density.

Response:

Once a decision is made on this project, the Record of Decision will document the alternative selected and 

the necessary monitoring and who will be responsible. Special use permit applicants have a responsibility 

for the financial costs of implementing their permits, if approved. As stated on page 8 of the EIS, 

Alternative 3 would require the Village of Ruidoso to be responsible for the cost and implementation of any 

identified monitoring and adaptive management of groundwater and surface water resources, once 

finalized in a Record of Decision and included in the operating plan, which is part of the special use permit. 

The USDA Forest Service, with assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey, if possible, may also assist 

with certain aspects as mutually agreed upon by all parties.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

536 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 79 Water Resources 

- Watershed 

Condition

The wildfire impacted 98.7 percent of the North Fork Eagle Creek watershed and 35.4 percent of the South 

Fork Eagle Creek watershed. Therefore, the assumption in the SWRR that the watershed will have the 

same hydrologic conditions within the next few years, as it did before the fire, is incorrect. A thorough study 

of the post-fire effects should be made and all references to pre-fire effects should be removed from the 

SDEIS

Response:

We believe that we have gathered and evaluated sufficient information to support conclusions regarding 

the potential impacts of the Little Bear wildfire over the short- and long-term. At this point, the assumption 

in the EIS documentation that water balance factors will largely return to pre-fire conditions within the term 

of the requested special-use permit is supported by the impartial review of available regional literature. 

Uncertainties regarding this, the description of the literature review and its outcome, and the additional 

flexibility and monitoring that were then incorporated into Alternative 3are all documented in the EIS.

21 80 Water Resources 

- Watershed 

Condition

In an attempt to justify using pre-wildfire conditions for evaluation of future pumping impacts from the 

Village's North Fork Well Field, the Introduction of the SWRR states: "Investigators inpicate that relatively 

few years ( e.g., three to seven) are generall y needed for post-fire hills/ope conditions to approximate prefire conditions (DeBano, 1981; Snyder et al., 2012). ,, The above citation is misleading and directs the 

reader toward the incorrect conclusion that the watershed condition with respect to hydrologic conditions 

will be the same within 3 to 6 years as it was pre-wildfire. The DeBano (1981) technical report deals 

specifically with water repellant soils, and not changes in the hydrology of watersheds with respect to 

watershed yield (recharge plus surface-water runoff). Page 5 of the DeBano (1981) technical report states: 

"By the six year after the fire, the wettability of both lightly and intensely burned soils was approaching that 

of the unburned soil."

Response:

Clearly the literature review focused on water balance factors, of which soil water repellency and infiltration 

effects are known to play a major role in runoff & recharge. The conclusions from the literature review 

were not intended to find a particular outcome; in fact, it was hoped that relevant research would support a 

more abundant post-fire hydrologic system. A broad review was conducted, centering on water balance 

factors, their interplay, and the duration of fire effects on them. All reviewed references are cited and will be 

available as part of the Administrative Record.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 537

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 81 Water Resources 

- Watershed 

Condition

Furthermore, the hydrology report by Snyder (Snyder et al., 2012) does not indicate that the watershed will 

return to pre-fire conditions within a few years. The focus of the hydrology report was to estimate post-fire 

surface-water runoff compared to pre-fire runoff using a numerical model to assess risks immediately after 

the fire and the work was included in the BAER (Burned Area Emergency Response) Team report (USFS, 

2012). The model was not calibrated to pre-fire or post-fire conditions.

Response:

The BAER report (Snyder et. al.) presents little discussion about recovery since that is not its purpose. 

However, with respect to fire effects in the Rio Bonito watershed, it does state that “Recovery typically 

takes up to five years and in high severe burn areas such as South Fork could take up to seven years or 

longer.”The overall purpose of the Snyder et. al. report was simply to identify potential hazards from fire 

effects, particularly with respect to flooding. Since the water balance depends on the ultimate distribution 

of finite precipitation inputs, increased runoff would affect other water destinations within the water 

balance. Other modeling efforts, as proposed, could further define that for water management.

21 92 Water Resources 

- Watershed 

Condition

Increased vegetation throughout the North and South Fork Eagle Creek watersheds from 1969 (the time 

surface-water data collection began at the Eagle Creek below South Fork near Alto gage) until the Little 

Bear wildfire of 2012 was also responsible for decreased flows at the gage. This is because the watershed 

was impaired with respect to being overgrown and having multiple vegetation canopies, which resulted in 

increased evapotranspiration and precipitation interception by vegetative canopies and forest litter. These 

facts were not considered, or simply dismissed, in the SWRR but must be considered when assessing prefire and post-fire changes in streamflow.

Response:

The influence of upland vegetation in the watershed to water yield was considered and is discussed on 

pages 199, and pages 201-204 of the EIS. 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

538 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 93 Water Resources 

- Watershed 

Condition

There is not a direct correlation between surface-water flow at the Eagle Creek below South Fork near Alto 

gage (08387600) and the Eagle Creek near Alto gage (08387800) as indicated in the SWRR. Therefore, 

pumping from the Village's North Fork Well Field can't have a discemable impact on flows at the Eagle 

Creek near Alto gage; a gage that is no longer in use. The Eagle Creek near Alto gage is located in an 

area where surface water infiltrates readily from the creek to the underlying rocks. This fact was 

documented during a seepage study conducted in 2010 by the Village, NMOSE, and USGS. The USGS 

(Darr et al., 2014) attribute the loss of streamflow along this reach to a paleosinkhole as mapped by 

Rawling (2009). The seepage loss took place above the Eagle Creek near Alto gage. Seepage loss in 

Eagle Creek below Alto Reservoir and above the Eagle Creek near Alto gage from March 2 to April 28 

calculated from data collected by the USGS and NMOSE to be about 500 ac-ft.

Response:

This comment doesn’t appear to disagree with any statements made (or not made) in the EIS or the 

Supplemental Water Resources Report. There is no claim of a direct correlation between the Eagle Creek 

below South Fork gage, and the old, recognized-as-discontinued Eagle Creek near Alto gage. Due to a 

number of factors described in the EIS, the cumulative impact analysis for water resources was primarily 

qualitative, and the uncertainties and complicating water infrastructure factors below the project study area 

are disclosed.

21 94 Water Resources 

- Watershed 

Condition

Streamflow data and historical references (New Mexico Territorial Engineer, 1909; Mourant, 1963) indicate 

that Eagle Creek has not been a perennial stream below Alto Reservoir. The New Mexico Territorial 

Engineer (1909) noted that there is very little water in Eagle Creek except at times of floods. The primary 

reasons surface flow between the two gages cannot be correlated are as follows: 1) The presence of the 

sinkhole and high seepage loss through this reach, 2) pumping from Alto Lakes Water Cooperative and 

domestic wells, 3) unmeasured surface-water inflows between the Eagle Creek below South Fork near Alto 

gage and the Eagle Creek near Alto gage, and 4) the fact that the groundwater surface is lower than the 

base of the creek (losing stream section).

Response:

Thank you for providing this information. The 1909 document says merely that “There is practically no 

irrigation on any of these tributaries excepting a little on the Eagle which is very small as there is very little 

water in said creek excepting at times of floods.” It also states on page 68 that “Parties interested in the 

water records given herewith should take into consideration the extremely low average precipitation for 

New Mexico during the period in which these records were collected The run off of all the streams was 

therefore below normal . . .” Given this period of record with low precipitation and the qualitative nature of 

the “little water in Eagle Creek” determination, the 1909 document is of limited value compared with current 

conditions. The Mourant (1963) document is also of limited value, especially given that the Alto reservoir 

dam was not constructed until 1964 (PECOS VALLEY WATER USERS ORGANIZATION, 2001), and the 

document says almost nothing quantitative about flow in Eagle Creek.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 539

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 101 Water Resources 

- Watershed 

Condition

Increased snow ablation in the upper Eagle Creek watershed would not offset the overall water surplus 

gained from the significant loss of vegetation, thinning of the soils by erosion, and reduction in soil moisture 

requirements for vegetation.

Response:

That assertion is not supported by data or applicable regional research. An EIS team literature review 

conducted after the Little Bear Fire indicated that, unfortunately, snow losses in new, large, canopy 

openings can be significant, and can offset additional accumulation (EIS pages 113 and 114).

21 103 Water Resources 

- Watershed 

Condition

On October 14, 2014, monitoring well MW- lB, completed to an intermediate depth in the volcanic aquifer, 

had a water level that was 0.14 ft below ground surface, and from October 12 to November 20 monitoring 

well MW-1C, completed deeper in the volcanic rock aquifer, had a water level that was about 25 ft below 

ground surface. Therefore, the aquifer must also be recharged on outcrops at higher elevations, not just 

along the stream channel.

Response:

The EIS and supporting documentation does not assume that the aquifer is only recharged along the 

stream channel. Available information does indicate that the alluvial aquifer is more rapidly drained by 

pumping drawdown in the volcanics.

17 5 Water Resources 

– Water Supply

Everyone, including the Village of Ruidoso has to live with the available resources. The water supply is 

limited, therefore, the demand must also be limited.

Response:

Limiting demand is outside the scope this EIS. 

17 4 Water Resources 

Water Rights

The water rights of VOR should be transferred to the surface diversion and return the North Fork of Eagle 

Creek to as near a natural cold water fishery as possible.

Response:

The Forest Service cannot interfere with the applicant’s water rights and/or associated transferability off 

National Forest System lands. In addition recent changes in the VoR’s water rights include a permit issued 

to the Village transferring the 700.83 acft from EC well H-1979 to the surface point of diversion at EC and 

at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from EC well H-1979 and transferred the right to the 

surface point of diversion on EC and at Alto Reservoir.

18 19 Water Resources 

Water Rights

I take exception to the fact that the Forest Service indicates that the Village of Ruidoso has 5648 acre feet 

per years (AFY) of water rights attached to the NEC wells. This amount of water has never been proven up 

on nor is that volume available as per USGS study.

Response:

Please refer to the “Water Rights” section of our “Purpose and Need” document where we address the 

5,648 afy amount and discuss the current consent order between the village and the Office of the State 

Engineer.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

540 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 104 Water Resources 

Water Rights

This USFS preferred condition is an attempt to develop and instream flow right without having any water 

rights. The NMOSE has jurisdiction over water rights within the State of New Mexico.

Response:

We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights. As the land management agency, 

however, we have the authority to determine what is reasonable access (access to the right in this case is 

via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water right. 

21 109 Water Resources 

Water Rights

The Village has a water conservation plan. Water conservation measures and plans are properly within the 

jurisdiction of the NMOSE. Likewise, instream surface-water flows are under the jurisdiction of the 

NMOSE. The USFS does not have surface-water rights within the Eagle Creek system, and the USFS 

taking of Village surface and groundwater rights to maintain instream flows should be fairly compensated.

Response:

We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights. As the land management agency, 

however, we have the authority to determine what is reasonable access (access to the right in this case is 

via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water right. Because water rights are 

transferable and points of diversion can be moved off NFS lands, there are no grounds for compensation if 

access is restricted. 

21 117 Water Resources 

Water Rights

The diversion of surface and groundwater by the Village in the Eagle Creek or Rio Ruidoso watershed is 

based on the Village's water rights and conditions of approval as set forth by the NMOSE. As is 

understood and should be noted, obtaining new water rights is an expensive and time-consuming process 

that can take years to transfer even as little as 1 ac-ft of water. There is a finite quantity of water rights 

available within the subject area and many of the existing rights cannot be transferred upstream to the 

Village for a number of reasons, or rights that may be located in favorable areas may not be for sale. 

Therefore, although groundwater production rates can be relatively high in parts of the Rio Ruidoso 

watershed, it would be complicated and may not be possible for the Village to purchase more rights and 

transfer them for Village use. The NMOSE has conditioned the vast majority of the Village's water rights on 

the Rio Ruidoso based on streamflow conditions at the Hollywood gage and as a result the Village is quite 

often unable to divert surface or groundwater rights associated with its Rio Ruidoso rights. Water rights 

cannot be transferred from the Eagle Creek watershed to the Rio Ruidoso watershed.

Response:

We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights. As the land management agency, 

however, we have the authority to determine what is reasonable access (access to the right in this case is 

via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water right. The parameters of 

transferability would be determined by the OSE.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 541

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 138 Water Resources 

Water Rights

On page 51, referring to the second paragraph from the bottom, containing the discussion on the 1692 

acre-feet per annum being the current water right; this written information is incorrect. The adjudicated 

water right for the NFEC wells includes 761.12 acre-feet per annum supplemental groundwater rights and 

2539.34 acre-feet per annum groundwater rights. By Memorandum of Agreement between the Village of 

Ruidoso and Rio Hondo Land and Cattle Company, the groundwater diversion would be limited to 1624.51 

acre-feet per annum. The supplemental groundwater right remained unaffected by the agreement, 

resulting in a total diversion right of 2385.63 acre-feet per annum for the NFEC wells.

Response:

To our knowledge as of August 2014, this agreement between the two parties has not been acknowledged 

by the OSE. If an updated consent order from the Office of the State Engineer including this agreement is 

issued, the USDA Forest Service will recognize the updated consent order as the most current description 

of the applicant’s water rights. Until that time, the USDA Forest Service will use the 2009 final adjudication 

and recently approved permits as the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights in the North Fork Eagle Creek

21 140 Water Resources 

Water Rights

On page 193, the water rights listed within H-1497 and H-1497-S are incorrect and should read 137.37 

acre-feet per annum. The total Eagle Creek water rights should have been 3437.83 acre-feet per year.

Response:

Thank you for that information. The SDEIS will be updated to reflect this accurate information.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

542 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 142 Water Resources 

Water Rights

On page 71 under the "Water Rights" Table and under Alternatives 2 and 3, the Village would not be able 

to fully apply water to beneficial use and the present inchoate amounts of 625.78 acre-feet per annum 

within North Fork wells No. 1and No. 3 would be in jeopardy of being lost. Under present policy of the State 

Engineer, the inchoate water right cannot be moved by application to other wells and locations away from 

the present authorized wells No.1and No.2. This means that any unproven portion of the water right would 

be lost by the Village. The present value of the inchoate water rights would be approximately $8,000 per 

acre-foot, being a total lost water right value of approximately $5,000,000. This loss of water rights would 

have to be made up by purchases of water rights in the Rio Ruidoso Drainage and moving said water 

rights to the Village of Ruidoso. This value of water rights is calculated considering the junior water rights 

value at 50% of senior water rights and the water rights are all consumptive use as adjudicated.

Response:

The village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease additional water rights and has increased diversion of 

surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 

permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent 

changes in the VoR’s water rights include a permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acft from 

EC well H-1979 to the surface point of diversion at EC and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 

acre feet from EC well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on EC and at Alto 

Reservoir.by transferring the 700.83 acre feet from EC H-1979, that allows the remaining inchoate right of 

350.42 acre feet/yr to proven up by 12/31/2024. In addition, the 10 permitted supplemental wells off of US 

Forest lands can divert Eagle Creek water rights, allowing the remaining inchoate rights to be proven at 

their identified locations. However, depending on the alternative chosen and the Village’s diversification in 

pumping, some inchoate rights could potentially be lost, but actions to secure additional rights and 

diversion have already been undertaken by the Village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated 

reductions in diversion under the alternatives.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 543

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 143 Water Resources 

Water Rights

With the Alternative No. 1the well diversion by the VOR on Forest lands would likely average 740 acre-feet 

per annum. Under Alternative No. 3, the VOR diversion on Forest lands would likely average 300 acre-feet 

per annum, being the same quantity of water per year as the trigger point in adaptive management, if 

exceeded. This could result in a loss of 440 acre-feet per year of consumptive use (CU) water diversion for 

the VOR. This amount of consumptive use diversion of water for municipal use would have to be made up 

by additional diversion on the Rio Ruidoso. Within the Rio Ruidoso there are very little if any junior water 

rights that could be moved into the VOR municipal diversions. The water rights available to make up the 

440 acre-feet per annum consumptive use are senior irrigation water rights with priorities in the 1800's and 

with a consumptive irrigation requirement (CIR) of 1.44 acre-feet per acre per annum. Using the court 

ordered irrigation CIR of 1.44 acre-feet per acre per annum, then an equivalent (440 af/ac/an CU)/(1.44 

af/an CIR)=305.56 acres of irrigation water rights. The value of senior priority irrigation water rights within 

the Rio Ruidoso drainage presently is approximately $23,000 per acre which would equate to a total 

present cost for 305.56 acres of (305.56 acres)($23,000 per acre)=$7,027,880.The litigation cost to move 

said water rights to the VOR could be reasonably estimated at $500 per acre being a total of ($500 per 

acre)(305.56 acres)=$152,780. Apparently the replacement water diversion cost and the litigation cost 

would total $7,180,660.

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the 

Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights include a 

permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 to the surface 

point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. The only 

likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. These 

factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections have 

been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already been 

undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under 

the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of Forest 

Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by steps 

being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and benefits 

from instream flow changes has been added to the FSEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

544 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

22 1 Water Resources 

Water Rights

 The Village of Ruidoso has been using the North Fork Eagle Creek wells since 1988 and relies on this 

water source to provide water within its municipal service area. Diversions from the North Fork wells have 

ranged up to 807 acre-feet/year (afy) and averaged 569 afy. Estimates in the SDEIS of the percentage of 

the Village's total water supply from the North Fork wells range from 36 to 43% of the current annual 

diversions (page 1), representing a significant portion of the Village's supply. The percentage is much 

higher (57 to 87%, page 1) during the summer months. As stated irt the SDEIS (pp. 128, 166, 173, 175, 

177, 180 and 185), existing water supplies and water rights are inadequate to meet future demands of the 

Village.

Response:

We agree. The effects under the alternatives acknowledge the effects to the Village from restrictions on 

diversion. Further the socioeconomics effects section of the SDEIS acknowledges that existing water 

supplies and water rights are inadequate to meet future demands of the Village.

22 3 Water Resources 

Water Rights

The Village's water rights on Eagle Creek were established in a court adjudication proceeding in which the 

USFS was a party. The adjudication court did not limit the term of the right to 20 years; the adjudicated 

right has an unlimited term. The Village currently has adjudicated rights in the North Fork wells totaling 

1,838.51 afy, not the much lower amount of 300 afy proposed in the SDEIS. The Forest Service did not 

challenge the adjudication court's determination, and that decision is final.

Response:

We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights. As the land management agency, 

however, we have the authority to determine what is reasonable access (access to the right in this case is 

via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water right. There is a distinction to be 

made between the term of the applicant’s special use permit (up to 20 years) with the Forest Service and 

applicant’s water right granted by the State. 

22 10 Water Resources 

Water Rights

The Village of Ruidoso owns water rights in the Lincoln National Forest. Beneficial use of these water 

rights cannot be hindered or limited by the Forest Service's adoption of an adaptive management plan 

requiring reductions in the amount of groundwater diverted by the Village in order to establish a minimum 

flow in a forest stream.

Response:

We acknowledge the applicant’s state adjudicated water rights. As the land management agency, 

however, we have the authority to determine what is reasonable access (access to the right in this case is 

via well, pump, and pipeline) to the applicant’s state adjudicated water right.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 545

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 5 Water Resources 

Water Rights

With Alternative1 continue pumping current amounts, the well diversion by the Village of Ruidoso from 

wells on Forest lands would average an estimated 740 acre-feet per annum. Under Alternative 3, the 

Village diversion on Forest lands would average an estimated 300 acre-feet per annum, being the same 

quantity of water per year as the trigger point in adaptive management plan Alternative 3, if exceeded. This 

could result in a loss of 440 acre-feet per year of consumptive use (CU) water diversion for the Village. 

This amount of consumptive use diversion of water for municipal use would have to be made up by 

purchasing additional diversion on the Rio Ruidoso. Within the Rio Ruidoso there are very few if any junior 

water rights that could be moved into the Village municipal diversions. The water rights available to make 

up the 440 acre-feet per annum consumptive use are senior irrigation water rights with priorities in the 

1800's and with a consumptive irrigation requirement (CIR) of 1.44 acre-feet per acre per annum. Using 

the court ordered irrigation CIR of 1.44 acre-feet per acre per annum, then an equivalent 440 acre feet per 

acre using the court order of 1.44 CIR would amount to 305.56 acres of irrigation water rights needed to be 

purchased (440 acres divided by 1.44 CIR per acre).2 The value of senior priority irrigation water rights 

within the Rio Ruidoso drainage presently is approximately $23,000 per acre which would equate to a total 

present cost for 305.56 acres at $23,000 per acre which totals to $7,027,880.3

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the 

Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights include a 

permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 to the surface 

point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. The only 

likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. These 

factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections have 

been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already been 

undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under 

the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of Forest 

Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by steps 

being taken by the Village.

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). Consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and benefits 

from instream flow changes has been added to the FSEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

546 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 7 Water Resources 

Water Rights

Water Rights Litigation Costs Trying to purchase irrigation water rights on the Rio Ruidoso and getting the 

rights transferred to the Village is a difficult and time consuming process incurring substantial attorney and 

water consultants' fees and expenses. Further, the process may take several years to complete. The 

litigation cost to move said water rights to the Village could be reasonably estimated at $500 per acre-foot 

for a total of $500 per acre. Thus, the acquisition costs of the needed 305.56 acres of irrigation water rights 

would amount to a total $152, 780.4 The $500 per acre is a conservative estimate of the cost. If water 2 

Email with Jack D. Atkins PE,PS, Akins Engineering Associates to William Gorman, January 15, 2015. 3 

Ibid. 4 Ibid. rights had to be purchased from several sellers to acquire the acreage needed the cost could 

be much greater.

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the 

Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights include a 

permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 to the surface 

point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. The only 

likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. These 

factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections have 

been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already been 

undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under 

the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of Forest 

Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by steps 

being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and benefits 

from instream flow changes has been added to the FSEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 547

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 10 Water Resources 

Water Rights

The State Engineer for New Mexico has Jurisdiction over water rights in New Mexico except for reserved 

federal water rights. One can have adjudicated water rights but these rights must be put to beneficial use 

to become a property right that allows the owner to transfer the right. Putting the water to beneficial is 

called "proving-up". The village presently has 625.78 acre feet of annual ground water rights on the North 

Fork Creek that have not been proven-up (inchoate rights).8 Under the Forest Service 8 Email with Jack D. 

Atkins PE,PS, Akins Engineering Associates to William Gorman, December 13, 2014. restriction in the 

Proposed Action, the Village wells No. 1 and No. 3, would not be allowed to pump sufficient water to proveup these rights which means that these rights would be in jeopardy of being lost by the Village.9 Under the 

present policy of the State Engineer, the inchoate water rights cannot be moved by application to other 

well and other locations away from the present authorized wells No.1 and No. 3.10

Response:

The village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease additional water rights and has increased diversion of 

surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 

permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent 

changes in the VoR’s water rights include a permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acft from 

EC well H-1979 to the surface point of diversion at EC and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 

acre feet from EC well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on EC and at Alto 

Reservoir.by transferring the 700.83 acre feet from EC H-1979, that allows the remaining inchoate right of 

350.42 acre feet/yr to proven up by 12/31/2024. In addition, the 10 permitted supplemental wells off of US 

Forest lands can divert Eagle Creek water rights, allowing the remaining inchoate rights to be proven at 

their identified locations. However, depending on the alternative chosen and the Village’s diversification in 

pumping, some inchoate rights could potentially be lost, but actions to secure additional rights and 

diversion have already been undertaken by the Village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated 

reductions in diversion under the alternatives.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

548 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

23 11 Water Resources 

Water Rights

The water rights loss through non-proved up would be junior inchoate water rights. Since the loss is junior 

rights with a priority date after the year 1947, the rights would be valued at exactly % the value of senior 

water rights or $11,500 per acre. Each acre would have an adjudicated CIR of 1.44 acre-feet per year. 

Therefore the junior consumptive use water rights value lost through not being proven up would be 

equivalent to $11,500 per acre divided by 1.44 acre-feet per acre = $7,986. Rounded to $8000 per acrefoot consumptive use and multiplied by 623.78 acre feet of inchoate rights totals to approximately 

$5,000,000 (rounded). This deficit would have to be made up by the VOR thorough the purchase of water 

rights in the Rio Ruidoso Drainage.11 The estimated $5 million needed to compensate for this loss of 

inchoate water rights does not include the additional $500 dollars per acre in litigation and consultant costs 

needed to complete the purchase and secure the transfer of the water rights to the Village.

Response:

With water supply uncertainty, following the Little Bear fire, the village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease 

additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 

2014). For example, the village will soon have 10 permitted wells off of US Forest lands that can divert the 

Eagle Creek water right (Atkins 2014). Recent changes in the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights include a 

permit issued to the Village transferring the 700.83 acre feet from Eagle Creek well H-1979 to the surface 

point of diversion at Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir. The permit severed 700.83 acre feet from Eagle 

Creek well H-1979 and transferred the right to the surface point of diversion on Eagle Creek and at Alto 

Reservoir. However, these changes do not appear to have any direct effect on the alternatives. The only 

likely indirect effect would be to lower the well diversion average associated with Alternative 1. These 

factors are considered in the cumulative effects sections of the DSEIS and these sections have 

been revised in the FEIS. These actions to secure additional rights and diversion have already been 

undertaken by the village of Ruidoso and would accommodate anticipated reductions in diversion under 

the alternatives. Analysis of the potential costs of transfer or purchase of water rights is outside of Forest 

Service control and our overall decision space; this is a possible outcome potentially mitigated by steps 

being taken by the Village. 

Regardless the analysis of direct effects needs to consider monitoring costs that would be incurred by the 

village of Ruidoso under the alternatives. NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis. As 

stated in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations applying to EIS preparation “For purposes of 

complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be 

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative 

considerations. In any event, an environmental impact statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and 

important to a decision” (40 CFR 1502.23). consequently a discussion on costs of monitoring and benefits 

from instream flow changes has been added to the FSEIS.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 549

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

18 18 Wildlife - Animal 

Species: TES, 

etc.

The North Fork of Eagle Creek is a known habitat for the Mexican Spotted owl. I am not well versed in the 

habit or range of this species but feel certain that if the riparian area that has had environment degradation 

caused by the excessive pumping of the North Fork well were to recover, more prey base for the owl would 

result.

Response:

The MSO prey base is far more widespread than the relatively short distance of riparian vegetation that 

may have been impacted. MSO prey base has not been identified as a limiting factor in MSO reproduction 

for any of the PACs in the project area. 

Cordova (2014) reported an increase in MSO productivity during 2014 which indicates an adequate prey 

base is available.

2 1 Comment Period 

Extension

Let me take this opportunity to formally request an extension of the comment period until, at least, the end 

of January 2015.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; the comment period was extended

3 1 Comment Period 

Extension

 This letter is to request a 120-day extension to the comment period for the Supplemental Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; the comment period was extended

3 2 Comment Period 

Extension

 This supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS) involves significant issues with respect 

to the Office of the State Engineer (OSE). This agency intends to provide comments to the Forest Service; 

however, the current 45-day comment period provides insufficient time to conduct a thorough review of the 

SDEIS.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; the comment period was extended

3 4 Comment Period 

Extension

I respectfully request that you extend the comment period by 120 days to April 28, 2015.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; the comment period was extended

3 5 Comment Period 

Extension

I believe an extension to the comment period would allow better public participation in reviewing the 

SDEIS.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; the comment period was extended
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

550 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

3 6 Comment Period 

Extension

In addition, an extension of 120 days would not jeopardize any natural or cultural resources or create any 

endangerment to life or public safety. In summary, there appear to be no issues that require an immediate 

decisicn by the Forest Service.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; the comment period was extended

5 2 Comment Period 

Extension

 I write today to request an extension of the public comment period for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS), released November 14, 2014. The original 

45 day comment period is due to end on December 29, 2014, and I respectfully request it be extended 

another 120 days to April 28, 2015

Response:

Thank you for your comment; the comment period was extended

8 1 Comment Period 

Extension

The Village must have additional time to prepare and submit its comments to assist you fully in this 

process. Therefore, the Village is requesting this additional 120 day extension until April 28, 2014. I greatly 

appreciate your consideration of this request.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; the comment period was extended

8 2 Comment Period 

Extension

I write with a formal request to extend the public comment period of the Lincoln National Forest North Fork 

Eagle Creek Wells Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("DSEIS") comment period that is 

presently set to close on December 29, 2014.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; the comment period was extended

8 3 Comment Period 

Extension

 The granting of this request for an extension is within the discretion of the Forest Service, and under 

these circumstances, we believe it is entirely just and proper. This request for an extension is made on 

behalf of the Village of Ruidoso ("the Village"), the proponent, as well as on behalf of the Ruidoso Hondo 

Valley Chamber of Commerce. I understand that other local government entities and NGO's will also be 

submitting a similar request for an extension of the comment period.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; the comment period was extended

8 5 Comment Period 

Extension

 Consequently, the Village requires additional time for its staff and consultants to prepare meaningful and 

impactful comments with regard to the DSEIS.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; the comment period was extended
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 551

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

1 7 Requests for 

Information

Please let me know if the preparation team will respond to this problem before the final document is 

released. I would also like to know the schedule of pending actions, including the due date for comments 

on the SDEIS, the Final Analysis document availability, and the Record of Decision.

Response:

Thank you for your comment; we provided answers to these questions under a separate email reply.

4 1 Requests for 

Information

Where will I find the AECOM data quantifying the daily quantity of flow in the North Fork determined by 

flow measurements at the NF, SF and EC gages, as you promised would be authorized in the USFS 

meeting with the ECCA in July, almost 1 1/2 years ago?

Response:

See pages 108 through 110 of the SDEIS. This discussion summarizes the Final Draft Supplemental 

Water Resources Report, October 2014. In the latter, the flow durations at the three gages are quantified 

over the long-term on pages 46 through 54. Figures 18, 19, and 20 indicate flow durations for the Eagle 

Creek Confluence gage (USGS08387600), which is the long-term, pre-pumping monitoring location. 

Additional discussion of conditions (flow, no-flow) at that gage over selected long-term no-pumping and 

pumping periods are on those pages, page 49, and tabulated in Table 7. North Fork gage and South Fork 

gage summaries are presented on pages 50 through 54. An additional figure depicting South Fork 

gage flows compared to the Eagle Creek gage flows has been added to that general area of the 

water report.

6 3 Requests for 

Information

THIS COMMENT IS FOR THE PUBILC RECORD. PLEASE RECEIPT.

Response:

Your comments were received and considered by the IDT 

7 3 Requests for 

Information

Please send our office one copy of the FEIS when it is electronically filed.

Response:

We will update our mailing to ensure we send you a copy of the FEIS when ready

11 4 Attachment Attachment: Dr. Midkiff; North Fork Eagle Creek Degradation/Evaluation of Alternatives

Response : 

This attachment was reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 27 Attachment see attachment for illustrations.

Response:

This attachment was reviewed and considered by the IDT
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

552 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 71 Attachment Review of USDA Forest Service North Fork Eagle Creek Supplemental Water Resources Report, Final 

Draft from Roger Peery, CPG, PG, John Shomaker & Associates, Inc., dated January 2015

Response:

This attachment was reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 72 Attachment Additional Comments on Supplemental Draft EIS Chapters 1, 2 and 3 for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells 

Special Use Authorization from Jackie D. Atkins, PE, PS, Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc., dated 

January 27, 2015

Response:

This attachment was reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 73 Attachment Comments Regarding the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) North Fork of 

Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization from Alvin F. Jones, Esq., Hennighausen & Olsen, 

L.L.P., dated January 27, 2015

Response:

This attachment was reviewed and considered by the IDT

23 1 Attachment Comments on North Fork Eagle Wells Special Use Authorization Project: Socioeconomic Report for 

Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement from William D. Gorman, PhD, dated January 2015

Response:

This attachment was reviewed and considered by the IDT

12 9 References REFERENCES 1. May 17, 2005, e-mail to Jackie Atkins (VoR consultant) with copies to Buck 

Sanchez,(Smokey Bear Ranger) and Richard Carlson (Smokey Bear RD staff) from Clark Taylor, IRM 

Specialist, Smokey Bear RD 2. Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin and Effects of Groundwater Pumping on 

Streamflow, 1969-2009, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5205, Revised November 2010 3. 

North Fork Eagle Creek, Supplemental Water Resources Report, Final Draft, Prepared by AECOM, 

October 2014 4. Glossary of Hydrology, William E. Wilson and John E. Moore, Editors, 1998 5. Depth to 

water data supplied by VoR stipulated monthly reports. 6. Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization, MB-R3-08-04A, October 2014

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT 

21 28 References AECOM, 2011, North Fork Eagle Creek, Water Resources Report, Final Draft: consultant's report prepared 

for TEAMS Enterprise Unit and Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln Nation Forest, 103 p.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 553

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 29 References Darr, M.J., Rattray, G.W., McCoy, K.J., and Durall, R.A., 2014, Hydrogeology, Water Resources, and 

Water Budget of the Upper Rio Hondo Basin, Lincoln County, New Mexico, 2010.

Response:

This reference was reviewed by the IDT. This reference actually supports the use of the chloride massbalance method for this area. Anthropogenic sources referred to are those from lower altitudes where 

population density is high. Rocks that skew results are the sedimentary rocks also found at the lower 

elevations, and not the volcanics in the vicinity of the North Fork

21 30 References DeBano, L.F, 1981; Water Repellant Soils: a state-of-the-art, United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-46, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, March 1981

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 31 References DeBano, L.F., Neary, D.G., and Ffolliott, P.F., 1998, Fire's effects on ecosystems: John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 32 References DeBano, L.F., Neary, D.G., and Ffolliott, P.F., 2005, Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects of Fire on Soil 

and Water: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS_GTR- 42-Volume 4, Chapter 2.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT 

21 33 References Ebel, B.A., Hinckley, E.S., and Martin, D.A., 2012, Soil-water dynamics and unsaturated storage during 

snowmelt following wildfire: Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci Discuss, 16, 1401-1417, May 15, 2012.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 34 References Elder, K., Dwire, K., Hubbard, R., Rhoades, C., Ryan, S., Young, M., Porth, L., Dixon, M., and Goodbody, 

A., 2006, Disturbance and Water Related Research in the Western United States; Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, USDA Forest Service: Proceedings 2nd Interagency Conference on Research in the 

Watersheds, May 15-18, 2006; Coweeta Hydrologic Lav, Otto NC, pp. 3-21

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

554 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 35 References Ffolliott, P.F., Stropki, C.L., Chen, H., and Neary, D.G., June 2011, The 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Wildfire's 

Impacts on Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems, Hydrology, and Fuels: USDA Forest Service 

Rocky Mountain Research Station Research Paper RMRS-RP-85.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 36 References Harpold, A.A., Biederman, J.A., Condon, K., Merino, M., Korgaonkar, Y., Nan, T., Sloat, L.L., Ross, M., and 

Brooks, P.D., 2013, Changes in Snow Accumulation and Ablation following the Las Conchas Forest Fire, 

New Mexico, USA: Ecohydrology, 7, pages 440 to 452; published in Wiley Online Library Jan. 27, 2013.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 37 References Knoepp, J.D., DeBano, L.F., and Neary, D.G., September 2005, Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects of 

Fire on Soil and Water: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS_GTR-42-Volume 4, 

Chapter 3.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 38 References Leaf, C.F., 1975, Watershed Management in the Rocky Mountain Subalpine Zone: The State of our 

Knowledge. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USDA Forest 

Service Research Paper RM-137.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT 

21 39 References Matherne, A.M., Myers, N.C., and McCoy, K.J., 2010, Hydrogeology of Eagle Creek Basin and Effects of 

Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 1969-2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2010-5205, Revised November 2010.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 40 References Moody, J.A., and Martin, D.A., 2001, Post-fire, rainfall intensity-peak discharge relations for three 

mountainous watersheds in the western USA: Hydrologic Processes, 15, 2981-2993.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 555

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 41 References Moody, J.A., and Martin, D.A., 2004 , Wildfire Impacts on Reservoir Sedimentation in the Western United 

States: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on River Sedimentation, October 18 - 21, 

Yichang, China.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 42 References Mourant, W.A., 1963, Water Resources and Geology of the Rio Hondo Drainage Basin, Chaves, Lincoln, 

and Otero Counties, New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Technical Report No. 28, 85 p. 

plus maps.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 43 References Neary, D.G., and Ffolliott, P.F., September 2005, The Water Resource: Its Importance, Characteristics, 

and General Responses to Fire, Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects of Fire on Soil and Water: USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS_GTR-42-Volume 4, Part B.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT 

21 44 References Neary, D.G., Ffolliott, P.F., and Landsberg, J.D., 2005, Fire and Streamflow Regimes, Wildland Fire in 

Ecosystems, Effects of Fire on Soil and Water: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

RMRS_GTR-42-Volume 4, Chapter 5.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 45 References New Mexico Territorial Engineer, 1909, Report of the Hondo Hydrographic Survey by the Territorial 

Engineer to the court of the sixth Judicial District of the Territory of New Mexico.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 46 References Peery, R., and McCoy A., 2012, Review of North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report, Final Draft, 

Prepared by AECOM: consultant's Technical Memorandum dated February 14, 2012 prepared by John 

Shomaker & Associates, Inc.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

556 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 47 References Peery, R., 2012, Supplemental Information Report for Village of Ruidoso North Fork Wells Special-Use 

Permit: consultant's letter to Robert G. Trujillo, Forest Supervisor, Lincoln National Forest dated 

September 6, 2012 prepared by John Shomaker & Associates, Inc.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 48 References Peery, R., 2012, Review of USDA Forest Service Draft EIS for Village of Ruidoso North Fork Wells: 

consultant's Technical Memorandum dated January 11, 2012 prepared by John Shomaker & 

Associates, Inc.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 49 References Rawling, G.C., 2009, Geology of the Ruidoso Area, Lincoln and Otero Counties, New Mexico, New Mexico 

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Open-File Report OFR-507, scale 1:24,000.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 50 References Territorial Engineer for the Territory of New Mexico, 1909, Report on the Hondo Hydrographic survey; 

prepared for the Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the Territory of New Mexico.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT 

21 51 References Troendle, C.A., 1983, The Potential for Water Yield Augmentation from Forest Management in the Rocky 

Mountain Region. Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 19, No. 3, June 1983. American Water Resources 

Association, Bethesda, Maryland.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 52 References Troendle, C.A., MacDonald, L.H., Luce, C.H., and Larsen, I.J., January 2010, Fuel Management and Water 

Yield; Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States, Chapter 7, USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-231.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 557

Letter 

No.

Comment 

No. Subject Comment Text and Forest Service Response

21 53 References Troendle, C.A., Nankervis, J.M., and Peavy, A., 2007, The Herger-Feinstein-Quincy Library Group Project -

Impact of Vegetation Management on Water Yield, Final Report submitted to Colin Dillingham, HFQLG 

Monitoring Team Leader, Vegetation Management Solutions, Forest Service Enterprise Team, May 1, 

2007.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 54 References [USFS] U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, January 2000, Water & the Forest Service: 

USDA Forest Service Policy Analysis.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 55 References [USFS] U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, March 2003, Effects of Fire Exclusion in Rocky 

Mountain Ecosystems: RMRScience, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins Colorado.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 56 References [USFS] U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, September 2005, Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, 

Effects of Fire on Soil and Water: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS_GTR-42-Volume 

4.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 57 References [USFS] U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, October 2011, Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln National 

Forest, Lincoln County, New Mexico.

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT

21 58 References [USFS] U.S. Forest Service Smokey Bear Ranger District, 2012, Little Bear Fire, Burned Area Emergency 

Response (BAER) Team, White Paper: U.S. Forest Service Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National 

Forest, Ruidoso, New Mexico, June 30, 2012

Response:

These references have been reviewed and considered by the IDT 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

558 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Letters from Federal, State, 

and Local Agencies and Elected Officials

The following are text reproductions of letters received by various Federal, State and local agencies and 

officials. Copies of original letters are available upon request from the project record.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 559

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER

CONCHA ORTIZ Y PINO BUILDING, 130 SOUTH CAPITOL, SANTA FE, NM 87501

TELEPHONE: (505) 827-6091 FAX: (505) 827-3806

TOM BLAINE, P.E. Mailing Address:

STATE ENGINEER P.O. Box 25102

Santa Fe, NM 87504-5102

December 19, 2014

Mr. Travis Moseley

Forest Supervisor

Lincoln National Forest

3463 Las Palomas Road

Alamogordo, NM 88310

Dear Mr. Moseley,

This letter is to request a 120-day extension to the comment period for the Supplemental Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Project. Currently, the 45-day comment period is set to end on December 29, 2014.

This supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS) involves significant issues with respect 

to the Office of the State Engineer (OSE). This agency intends to provide comments to the Forest Service; 

however, the current 45-day comment period provides insufficient time to conduct a thorough review of 

the SDEIS. I believe an extension to the comment period would allow better public participation in 

reviewing the SDEIS. In addition, an extension of 120 days would not jeopardize any natural or cultural 

resources or create any endangerment to life or public safety. In summary, there appear to be no issues 

that require an inunediate decision by the Forest Service.

Given the above considerations, I respectfully request that you extend the comment period by 120 days to 

April 28, 2015.

Sincerely,

/s/ Tom Blaine

Tom Blaine, P.E.

State Engineer

TB/kme

cc: Tom Battin, Mayor, Village of Ruidoso

Greg Ridgley, OSE General Counsel

Mike Johnson, OSE Hydrology Bureau Chief
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

560 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Region6

1445RossAvenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

January 6, 2015

Dave Warnack, District Ranger

901 Mechem Drive

Ruidoso, NM 88345

Mr. Warnack,

In accordance with our responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

regulations for implementing NEPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regiop 6

office in Dallas, Texas, has completed its review of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (SDEIS) for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project

prepared by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The USFS proposes to authorize, under a new special

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

Forest system lands in the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage.

EPA rates the SDEIS as "LO" i.e., EPA has "not identified any potential environmental

impacts requiring substantial changes to the proposal, and the SDEIS adequately sets forth the

environmental impacts of the alternatives." The EPA's Rating System Criteria can be found here:

http://www.epa.go/oecaerth/nepa/comments/ratings.html. EPA's review did identify areas of the 

SDEIS needing clarification, and we ask that those issues be addressed in the FEIS. Enclosed are 

detailed comments which identify our concerns.

EPA appreciates the opportunity to review the SDEIS. Please send our office one copy of

the FEIS when it is electronically filed. This letter will be published on the EPA website,

www:epa.gov, according to our responsibility under Section 309 of the CAA to inform the public

of our views on the proposed Federal action. Ifyou have any questions or concerns, I can be

reached at 214-665-7560, or contact Keith Hayden of my staff at hayden.keith@epa.gov or 214-

665-2133.

Sincerely,

Marie Stucky

Chief, Office of Planning

and Coordination

Enclosures
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 561

DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR THE NORTH FORK EAGLE CREEK WELLS

SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION

Items needing clarification

Proposed action; page 8

Undertheproposed action,thenewpermitwould beissued for20years. Thepermit terms

andconditionswould be reviewed anywhere fromyearlyto once every 10years. Itis unclearwhat

"reviewingthepermittermsandconditions"entails. Doesitmeanthepermit could be modified?

Does it mean checking the permit terms and conditions against monitoring thresholds to see if

adaptive management measures should be implemented?

Recommendation:

Please clarify what "checking the permit terms and conditions" means. Describe what actions 

could result from checking the terms and conditions. Describe any consequences that could result from 

checking the terms and conditions of the permits yearly versus every 10 years.

Adaptive management trigger #2; page 30

The SDEIS states "If groundwater pumping of North Fork wells results in a declining trend in the 

average water table depths over any 3-year period, the Village of Ruidoso would reduce diversions from 

the wells until the average water table depth is reestablished and the Forest Service determines that 

pumping may resume without creating further departures over a 3-year period". There is not any specific 

information on the amount pumping would be reduced or the timeframe the Village of Ruidoso would 

have to re-establish the average water table depth threshold. Would the timeframe for compliance be nonnegotiable, or would it be based on factors like available streamflow, or precipitation amounts?

Recommendation:

Include specific information regarding groundwater pumping rates if a 3-year declining trend 

equal to, or below, thresholds is realized. Also, clarify the amount of time the Village of Ruidoso would 

have to bring water table depths above the thresholds.
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

562 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

January 14, 2015

Mr. Travis G. Moseley

Forest Supervisor

USDA

Forest Service Lincoln National Forest

3463 Las Palomas Rd.

Alamogordo, NM 88310

Dear Mr.Moseley

This letter is in response to the correspondence received in our office in which you provide Ysleta Del

Sur pueblo the opportunity to comment on the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization

Project (SDEIS) EIS No. 20140328)

While we do not have any comments on the SDEIS ( EIS No. 2014328) and believe that this project will

not adversely affect traditional ,religious or culturally significant sites of our or artifacts unearthed during

this project be determined to fall under NAGPRA guidelines .Copies of our Pueblo’s Culture Affliction

Position Paper and Consultation policy are available upon request.

Sincerely,

Javier Loera

War Captain/Tribal Historic and Preservation officer

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo

Tribal Council Assistant:

Adam Nevarez
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 563

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 1001 Indian School Road NW, Suite 348

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104

ER 14/0725

File 9043.1

January 28, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY

Travis G. Moseley

Lincoln Forest Supervisor

U. S. Forest Service

3463 Las Palomas Rd.

Alamogordo, NM 88310

Dear Mr. Moseley:

The U.S. Department of the Interior has reviewed the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact

Statement for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln National

Forest, Lincoln County, New Mexico. In this regard, we have no comment.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this document.

Sincerely,

Stephen R. Spencer, Ph.D.

Regional Environmental Officer
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

564 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

S T A T E O F N E W M E X I C O

OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER

Tom Blaine, P.E.

State Engineer

Gregory C. Ridgley

General Counsel

LITIGATION & ADJUDICATION

PROGRAM

130 South Capitol

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 25102

Santa Fe, NM 87504-5102

Telephone : (505) 827-6150

Fax: (505) 827-3887

January 28, 2015

Dave Warnack, District Ranger

901 Mechem Drive

Ruidoso, NM 88345

Dear Mr. Warnack,

This letter provides comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(SDEIS) for the No1ih Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln

National Forest, Lincoln County, New Mexico published by the U.S. Forest Service ("Forest

Service"). These comments primarily address issues of concern to the New Mexico Office of

the State Engineer with respect to the State Engineer's authority to administer water rights

within the state.

The Village of Ruidoso has been using the North Fork Eagle Creek wells since 1988 and relies

on this water source to provide water within its municipal service area. Diversions from the

North Fork wells have ranged up to 807 acre-feet/year (afy) and averaged 569 afy. Estimates in

the SDEIS of the percentage of the Village's total water supply from the North Fork wells range

from 36 to 43% of the current annual diversions (page 1), representing a significant portion of 

the Village's supply. The percentage is much higher (57 to 87%, page 1) during the summer

months. As stated iii the SDEIS (pp. 128, 166, 173, 175, 177, 180 and 185), existing water

supplies and water rights are inadequate to meet future demands of the Village.

The action proposed in the SDEIS contains administrative triggers that would alter the amount

of water that the Village could divert. If valid, such restrictions would create considerable

uncertainty in the Village's future supply. On page 21, the SDEIS states that a special use

permit would be issued for 20 years, but "the permit term would be shortened if necessary"

(paragraph 4). On page 25, the SDEIS states that allowable water diversions would be limited

to 300 afy or less, but "could vary based on monitoring results of the adaptive management

triggers" (paragraph 3). The diversion limit of 300 afy is significantly less than the average

diversions by the Village of 569 afy and the maximum diversion of 807 afy.

The Village's water rights on Eagle Creek were established in a court adjudication proceeding in 

which the USFS was a party. The adjudication court did not limit the term of the right to 20 years; 

the adjudicated right has an unlimited term. The Village currently has adjudicated rights in the 

North Fork wells totaling 1,838.51 afy, not the much lower amount of 300 afy proposed in the 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 565

SDEIS. The Forest Service did not challenge the adjudication court's determination, and that 

decision is final. The Forest Service does not have the authority to alter the elements of the Village's 

water right or to administer groundwater in New Mexico. The Forest Service does not have the 

authority to usurp the State Engineer's authority to administer water rights in New Mexico by 

imposing Forest Service conditions on the administration of groundwater in New Mexico.

The State of New Mexico, and this Office, also addressed these concerns in its October 3, 2014 

comment letter ("Comment Letter") to the Forest Service's Proposed Directive on Groundwater 

Resource Management ("Proposed Directive") pertaining to groundwater lying underneath Forest 

Service land. As addressed therein, the Forest Service's actions with regard to the Village, and 

groundwater in general, fails to acknowledge, and in some ways threatens to contradict, a century 

of well-established federal statutory and United States Supreme Court case law that requires federal 

deference to state water law in the West.

The ownership of land does not confer any rights in flowing surface water or groundwater 

underneath the land of the Forest Service. Only to the extent that such water rights are acquired via 

state or federal law, can the Forest Service assert any legal interest in the public waters of New 

Mexico. Nor does the ownership of water rights, be it under state or federal law, confer upon the 

Forest Service the right to manage and regulate the water rights of others. Nevertheless, the Forest 

Service, through its SDEIS, proposes to assert such authority over water rights properly acquired, 

developed, and owned by the Village. New Mexico has a comprehensive and exclusive statutory 

scheme for managing and regulating its water that must be respected. The law of federal deference 

to state authority over water is well-established and should be similarly respected. While the Forest 

Service may manage its own water rights obtained under state or federal law, it has absolutely no 

authority to prevent other water rights owners with legal access to Forest Service land to divert 

water under an existing water right.

Under New Mexico law, the State Engineer is charged with the supervision of all waters, including 

groundwater, within the boundaries of the State and the measurement, appropriation and 

distribution thereof. For over a century, the State Engineer has developed a comprehensive 

administrative scheme that includes sophisticated technical hydrological analyses. This 

administrative process requires the State Engineer to exercise his expertise in hydrology to 

determine with as much scientific precision as possible how much water is available for 

appropriation and how use of that water will affect existing valid water rights. Once the 

administrative process is completed, the State Engineer's determination as to a water right, such as 

the Village's, is final.

Federal law requires that the Forest Service maintain and protect water right owners, such as the 

Village, in the exercise of their water rights obtained pursuant to state law, even on Forest Service 

lands. In Diamond Bar Ranch v. United States, 168 F.3d 1209, 1214 (10th Cir. 1999), the Tenth 

Circuit Court of Appeals held:

The United States has long recognized the validity of private water rights obtained pursuant 

to state water law. See Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products, Co., Inc., 436 U.S. 604, 614, 

98 S. Ct. 2002, 56 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (noting in 1866, 1870, and 1872, Congress affirmed 

the "view that private water rights on federal lands were to be governed by state and local 

law and custom"). This recognition was made explicit in the Mining Law of 1866, which 

provides in relevant part: "Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to use of water for 

mining, agricultural, manufacturing or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the 

same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and declarations of 

courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in 
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

566 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

the same; and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes 

herein specified is acknowledged and confined."

Additionally, in United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 702 (1978), the Supreme Court held 

that unless Congress has reserved water as essential to the primary purpose of the reservation of 

federal land, the United States must "acquire water in the same manner as any other public or 

private appropriator." There the Court unambiguously held that the protection of wildlife was not a 

primary purpose of the reservation of Forest Service lands, but a secondary purpose, for which 

water rights must be acquired through state law processes.

The Village of Ruidoso owns water rights in the Lincoln National Forest. Beneficial use of these 

water rights cannot be hindered or limited by the Forest Service's adoption of an adaptive 

management plan requiring reductions in the amount of groundwater diverted by the Village in 

order to establish a minimum flow in a forest stream. In light of well-established federal law that 

requires deference to and protection of water rights developed under state laws, as well as the 

express directive by the Supreme Court that water rights for wildlife purposes must be obtained in 

the same manner as any other appropriator, the Forest Service is prohibited from obtaining water 

for wildlife purposes by forcing non-federal entities to reduce the exercise of their state law water 

rights.

Sincerely,

/s/ Chris Lindeen

Chris Lindeen

Deputy General Counsel
FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 567

Index

Adaptive management

adjustments, 41, 287

strategy, 488

triggers, 36, 149, 154, 181

Adjudication, 207

Alluvial, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 

45, 58, 63, 64, 69, 70, 73, 74, 78, 100, 105, 106, 

112, 114, 124, 125, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 

145, 146, 148, 149, 152, 160, 161, 162, 164, 176

Alluvium, viii, 9, 10, 43, 57, 58, 68, 75, 77, 106, 

112, 118, 120, 121, 125, 132, 133, 137, 141, 

142, 145, 146, 147, 157, 160, 161, 168, 171, 

172, 173, 174, 176

Alto Lake, viii, 11, 92, 110, 116, 131, 194, 197, 

202, 203, 208, 209, 210, 

Annual operating plan, 262

Aquatic habitat, v, vi, 18, 21, 73, 173

Aquifer, 181, 193

Beneficial use, 11, 20, 84, 110, 205, 207

Brook trout, 155

Canopy cover, 18, 166, 172, 174, 175

Climate change, 18, 103, 125, 138, 141, 146, 151, 

154, 161

Conifer density, vi, 213

Consent order, vii, 11, 59, 85, 206, 207, 211, 212

Cultural resources, v, 20, 42

Discharge, 53, 54

Domestic wells, 18, 19, 80, 103, 119, 141, 146, 

151, 179, 192, 195, 201

Eagle Creek gage, vii, viii, 9, 10, 13, 17, 21, 31, 34, 

36, 37, 38, 40, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 57, 58, 63, 64, 

66, 70, 73, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 111, 

114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 

133, 140, 143, 145, 148, 149, 152, 154, 155, 

161, 166, 171, 176, 195, 199

Economics, 232, 257

Environmental justice, 19, 81, 182, 189, 193, 196, 

201

Evapotranspiration, 14, 18, 37, 59, 69, 74, 101, 

102, 103, 104, 114, 127, 128, 129, 136, 137, 

139, 142, 143, 145, 146, 152, 164

Facultative wetland species, 167, 174, 175

Fishery, v, 39, 43, 45, 111

Forest density, 213

Groundwater

availability, 14

discharge, 13

flow, 5, i, 10, 15, 24, 60, 112, 118, 125, 165, 

176

level, 61

model, 110, 119

recharge, 136

withdrawal, 37, 51, 177

Groundwater model, 110

Groundwater-dependent ecosystems, 26

Hydrology, vii, 132, 166

Infiltration, 139

Intermittent, 148, 161

Invasive species, 85, 96, 213, 214

Little Bear Fire, 10, 29, 30, 33, 36, 38, 40, 41, 54, 

62, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 83, 84, 85, 87, 

89, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 

105, 109, 110, 111, 113, 126, 142, 151, 160, 

170, 182, 183, 188, 191, 194, 197, 202, 204, 211

Management indicator species, 88

Measurement indicators, 17, 18, 19, 20, 66, 73, 75, 

79, 84, 85, 88, 102, 104

Mexican spotted owl, 42, 88, 89

Migratory birds, 89

Municipal water supply, 19, 79, 178, 190, 195, 

198, 203

North Fork Eagle Creek

basin, 34, 39, 40, 41, 86, 92, 109, 175

drainage, 5, i, 10, 15, 29, 33, 44, 56, 64, 100, 

144, 158, 166, 173, 174, 176, 179, 191, 200, 

203, 204, 212

gage, 61,

Northern goshawk, 88

Office of the State Engineer, vii, 9, 11, 32, 38, 41, 

44, 59, 60, 84, 109, 110, 116, 144, 148, 153, 

182, 194, 197, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 

209, 210, 211, 212

Perennial, 153

Precipitation, 111, 127

Public safety, v, 21, 42

Quality of life, 81

Recharge, 61, 62, 111, 112, 119, 136, 139

Recreation, v, 20, 96, 186, 189, 191, 195, 200

Riparian habitat, 13

Riparian vegetation, v, vi, 14, 18, 39, 45, 75, 92, 

111, 165, 167, 173, 177, 181, 193, 212

Ruidoso red squirrel, 88

Runoff, 130, 131, 138, 142

Scenery, v, 20, 189

Sierra Blanca cliff daisy, 85, 87, 214, 216, 217

South Fork Eagle Creek, 32, 56, 61, 126, 128, 166

drainage, 37, 113, 118

gage, 32, 61

tributaries, 13, 36, 37, 105

watershed, 125, 135

Springs and seeps, 18, 103, 141, 146, 151

Stipulation agreement, i

Storage capacity, 14, 56

Streamflow, vii, 9, 13, 17, 57, 61, 73, 80, 102, 103, 

114, 130, 139, 140, 142, 145, 148, 161, 171, 210
Appendix E – Forest Service Response to Comment SDEIS

568 FEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

Surface water, 17, 19, 45, 64, 66, 84, 100, 109, 

153, 205, 210, 213

Theis analysis, 375

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES)

plants, 213, 214

species, 218

wildlife, 221, 227

Transpiration, 139

United States Geological Survey, 32, 34

Upland vegetation, 86, 87, 212, 213, 215, 216,

Volcanics

tertiary, 112, 113, 114, 118, 119

Water chemistry, 39, 114

Water diversion, 186

Water production, 186

Water quality, 13, 42, 53, 138, 139

Water rights, v, vi, vii, 11, 19, 23, 24, 30, 32, 84, 

92, 109, 110, 115, 116, 143, 144, 148, 153, 205, 

206, 209

Water table, 38, 64

Water temperature, 67, 146, 156

Water yield, vi, 74, 160, 162, 213

Watershed condition, 22, 118