News and Information
Water Planning Process History
Historical Planning Documents
Wyoming Water Facts
River Basin Plans
Statewide Framework Plan
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
June 11, 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.
The next three basin advisory group meetings were then scheduled as follows:
- August 13th - 3 p.m. - Worland, WY
- October 8th - 3 p.m. - Thermopolis, WY
- December 17th - 3 p.m. - Powell, WY
Planning Team Issues
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
Consultant Update / Future Water Use Investigation - BRS Engineering, Inc.
Doug Beahm, BRS Engineering, Inc., gave a presentation on the screening criteria that would be
used to rate future water use opportunities for the Wind/Bighorn River Basin. This criteria was
developed in the Green River Basin planning process and is fixed for compatibility with the State=s
other existing plans. Doug went on to indicate that the projects would be categorized into four
groups: rehabilitation projects that preserve existing uses and economic dependencies, projects that
rectify existing demands/needs/shortages, projects that meet projected future
demands/needs/shortages, and trans-basin diversions of water that enhances in-state uses.
It was noted that projects would be judged within each of the categories using six different criteria.
These criteria would be weighted differently for each category. The criteria to be utilized were:
water availability, financial feasibility, public acceptance, number of
sponsors/beneficiaries/participants, legal/institutional concerns, and environmental/recreational
benefits. Each of the criteria for a particular project would receive a ranking between 0 and 10, with
0 being the most difficult or unfavorable, and 10 being the easiest or most favorable. These values
were then to be multiplied by the inherent weighting factors and finally added together to determine
the project's overall score.
Doug finished by noting that these resultant scores were only to place the projects in some sort of
relative order, and were in themselves meaningless. Also, the rank of a project would represent the
relative likelihood that a project is desired and feasible. Furthermore, such a project could only be
compared to projects within the same category. It was stressed that input from the Wind/Bighorn
Basin Advisory Group would be critical during this phase of the planning process.
Wind River Reservoir Study - Phil Ogle, WWDC
Phil Ogle, WWDC Project Manager, opened by describing the Upper Wind River Level I Study that
was recently completed. He stated that the purpose of the project was to determine the need for
water storage within the basin and to evaluate alternative storage sites to meet those needs. Phase 1
of the project entailed gathering and reviewing available information about the area, evaluating the
modeling of water demands within the basin, and the initial screening and evaluation of potential
reservoir sites. It was noted that through the process of screening the sites, 150 potential sites were
narrowed down to 75 sites, and then again, down to 26 sites. Phase 2 of the study focused on an
evaluation of recommended alternatives, including: hydrology and water rights analyses, geologic
conditions, permitting and environmental constraints and mitigation, cultural resources constraints,
conceptual designs and cost estimates, and finally funding sources.
Phil then gave a summary of the results of the study which identified basin runoff per year, the
current surface water use per year, and the amount of water that was potentially available. The
timing of the flow, future awards, and other future demands were discussed as well. Phil then
showed the group a set of five plans for potential projects in the Upper Wind River area and
explained the benefits and disadvantages of each. The five projects discussed were: Bull Lake
Enlargement, Little Wind River North Fork No. 3, Dinwoody Lake Enlargement, Wind River East
Fork No. 1, and Steamboat. A comparison of the costs, capacities, and storage costs between the
projects was then made.
Popo Agie River Watershed Level I Study - Phil Ogle, WWDC
Phil Ogle, WWDC Project Manager concluded his remarks by detailing another WWDC project, the
Popo Agie Watershed Level I Study. It was noted that the purpose of this project was to evaluate
and describe the Popo Agie River Watershed and to develop a watershed management plan which
would identify problems and propose practical economic solutions. Phil mentioned that the plan
would provide a baseline which could be used and expanded. Specific concerns within the area
included: flooding within areas of the watershed, the lack of late season flows through Lander, the
efficiency of irrigation systems, channel structure and erosion in the lower watershed, water quality
within the watershed, and water storage needs and opportunities. A brief question and answer period
followed this presentation.
Popo Agie Watershed Planning - Jeri Trebelcock, Popo Agie Conservation District
Jeri Trebelcock, District Coordinator with the Popo Agie Conservation District, discussed the
geographic area in which the district had responsibility, including three tributaries of the Popo Agie
River (Middle Fork, North Fork and Little Popo Agie) and more than 500,000 acres. Jeri noted that
there were 20 members on the district's steering committee, and that the group was advised by
Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs). Jeri continued her presentation by going through the current
efforts of the conservation district, including ongoing water quality and quantity investigations.
Also discussed was the potential for flooding within the Lander city limits and what measures could
be taken to minimize the risks to the city. A brief question and answer period followed Jeri's
Fisheries of the Wind River - Joe Deromedi, Wyoming Game & Fish Department
Joe Deromedi, with the Wyoming Game & Fish Department, discussed the management of the Wind
River fisheries, which included 1111 streams and 883 lakes. Currently, efforts were being directed
at 10 salmonid species, 10 cool or warm water sport fish species and 17 non-game fish species. Joe
continued by briefly describing sampling methodologies, including: electrofishing, gill netting,
seining, via sonar, and/or angler surveys. It was noted that five basic management concepts were
employed by the agency, including: catchable, basic yield, trophy, wild and unique. Joe detailed
each of these philosophies and the reasons that such might be employed in a particular area.
Joe then stressed why fisheries were important to Wyoming, by showing examples of the number of
fishing licenses, the number of angler days available, and the amount of revenue generated
(commercial importance, etc). The biological impacts were then discussed as well. Joe concluded
his presentation by detailing the agencies' priorities in the basin, including native fish, important
waters, whirling disease, aquatic nuisances, access issues, and habitat concerns. Specific examples of
progress within the basin relative to these priorities were then discussed.
In summary, it was noted that the Wyoming Game & Fish were: (1) increasing efforts to maintain
native fish communities; (2) taking steps to prevent spreading of disease and introduction of aquatic
nuisances; (3) placing more emphasis on long term habitat projects rather than short term projects;
and (4) looking for access to quality fishing areas.
Public Comment Period
The floor was then opened for comments from the public in attendance. There were no comments
from the group.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.