News and Information
Water Planning Process History
Historical Planning Documents
Wyoming Water Facts
River Basin Plans
Bear River Basin
Green River Basin
NE River Basin
Platte River Basin
Powder/Tongue River Basin
Snake/Salt River Basin
Wind/Bighorn River Basin
Basin Advisory Groups
Mission and Purpose
GIS Web Mapping
Framework Water Plan
Platte Water Atlas
Water Search Engine
Send Us Your Comments
State Engineer's Office
Water Resources Data System
Water Plan Home Page
Water Development Office
Wind/Bighorn River Basin Advisory Group
April 9, 2002
The facilitators for the Wind/Bighorn Basin Advisory Group, Sherri Gregory-Schreiner and Cathy
Lujan, of Counterpoise Consulting, Inc. in Cheyenne, opened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. They
introduced themselves and reviewed the agenda for the meeting. Participants then introduced
themselves by stating their name, place of residence, and affiliation. The sign-in sheet was then passed
around the room.
Planning Team Issues
The next three basin advisory group meetings were scheduled as follows:
June 11th - 3 p.m. - Lander, WY
Barry Lawrence, WWDC River Basin Planner, distributed copies of past presentations to be added to
the basin advisory group reference notebook. Barry then updated the group on the status of the
planning processes for the Snake/Salt, Powder/Tongue, Northeast, Bear and Green River Basins. He
detailed the activities in each, as well as the invited BAG speakers, and consultant work in progress (if
applicable). He then invited interested individuals to attend any or all of the BAG meetings in the
August 13th - 3 p.m. - Worland, WY
October 8th - 3 p.m. - Thermopolis, WY
Surface Water and Groundwater Modeling - BRS Engineering, Inc.
Doug Beahm introduced Jerry Gibbons from Montgomery, Watson and Harza. Jerry discussed the
surface water modeling effort. He indicated that they were trying to assess current water availability
by synthesizing available data. It was noted that they were modeling historical diversions, and not
water rights. Jerry mentioned that the model would be broken out into sub-basins, including the
Clarks Fork, Yellowstone, Bighorn, Wind, Madison and Gallatin Rivers. He continued his
presentation by discussing the sources for the information, the study period chosen (1973-2001), the
determination of dry, average, and wet years, and the various model nodes, etc. He concluded by
asking for help from the Wind/Bighorn BAG members, by reviewing the schematics placed around the
room, and assisting in identification of available data sets which would aid in model development.
Doug Beahm then introduced Chris Lidstone from Lidstone and Associates. Chris discussed the status
of the effort to evaluate the basin's ground water resources. He discussed identification and
characterization of a variety of well types, including, domestic, agricultural, industrial, etc. Chris
noted that they were in the process of sorting the wells not only by use, but by size, and were also
looking at impacts amongst the wells, aquifer capacities, etc. He further noted that they were not
looking at wells producing less than 50 gpm. Chris showed numerous maps of the area which detailed
the ground water characteristics discussed.
Conditions and Operation of the River System in the Wind/Bighorn Basin -
John Lawson, Area Manager, US Bureau of Reclamation
John Lawson opened by discussing the US Bureau of Reclamation's presence in the basin. To
illustrate this, he showed the group a series of maps detailing current areas of operation, including the
Riverton, Boysen, Owl Creek, Hanover-Bluff, Shoshone Project and Buffalo Bill Units. He then
discussed each of the units' features and contributions to their respective areas. This included water
for irrigation, power generation, flood control, and recreation.
After discussing the system, John explained the current conditions within the basin. He then detailed
the water supply forecast, noting that conditions were still better than last year. He indicated that the
Bureau of Reclamation still felt that they could meet the demands of the water users this year. A brief
question and answer period followed John's presentation, including a discussion of dust abatement
problems in the area.
Instream Flow Law - John Barnes, Wyoming State Engineer's Office
John Barnes opened by stating that only the State could own an instream flow water right. John
described what an instream flow water right was, and the genesis for the Instream Flow Law which
was passed by the legislature in 1986. He noted that prior to this, it was generally accepted that water
had to be diverted to be beneficially used. Also, there were questions regarding the ability to abandon
such rights since water was not being diverted.
John explained that the instream flow process involves three agencies. The first is the Game & Fish
Department which selects the stream segment on which to file an instream flow application. This is
done using knowledge of the fisheries in question. Following Game & Fish Department input, the
Water Development Commission performs a hydrologic assessment to evaluate the potential to supply
the flow amounts requested under the instream flow application. This may include streamgaging as
part of the evaluation. The Water Development Commission submits the water right application with
its findings. The State Engineer's Office then provides for public comment and a public hearing on
the application. Following such input, the State Engineer's Office decides whether or not to approve,
approve with modifications, or reject the application.
John indicated that there are currently 83 instream flow applications filed with the State, with 16
having been permitted. He also noted that during the last week, the first instream flow filing to utilize
stored water was submitted, with the proposed section being located below Fremont Lake.
Fisheries of the Bighorn River
- Steve Yekel, Wyoming Game & Fish Department
Steve Yekel opened by telling the group how the Wyoming Game & Fish Department manages the
fisheries of the Bighorn River Basin, noting that they apply management by concept. Steve noted that
five management concepts existed: catchable, basic yield, trophy, wild, and unique. He then
proceeded by giving examples of fisheries managed under each concept.
Steve continued by discussing how many waters were managed in the Cody region, which turns out to
be 1,452 streams and standing waters (917 which are suitable for trout). It was noted that diversity
best describes the fisheries of the basin, with 7 native game species, 12 native non-game species, and
28 non-native species. Specific concerns for the basin include habitat losses through erosion,
overgrazing and fire supression; instream flow dewatering; barriers (i.e. - fish losses to diversions);
and non-point pollution. He closed his presentation by giving examples of special projects that the
Game & Fish Department have been working on in the area.
Public Comment Period
The floor was then opened to comments from the public. One BAG member asked for more time on
the agenda to comment on the planning process and to interact with the consultants preparing the basin
plan. No other comments were forthcoming from the group.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.