Rafting on Snake River Lake Marie, Snowy Mountains Wyoming Wind River Range picture

Wind/Bighorn River Basin Water Plan
Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 5 FUTURE WATER USE OPPORTUNITIES

5.1 Screening Criteria

5.2 Project Summaries

5.3 Opportunities to Enhance and Protect Water Quality

CHAPTER 6 POTENTIAL FOR POWER PRODUCTION

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Power Development Opportunities and Constraints

6.3 Hydropower Facilities

6.4 Fossil Fuel Facilities

6.5 Economic Analysis

6.6 Permitting and Environmental Issues

6.7 Recommendations and Conclusions

Appendices

Appendix A Long List of Future Water Use Opportunities

Appendix B Bibliography

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 5 FUTURE WATER USE OPPORTUNITIES

5.1 Screening Criteria

5.2 Project Summaries

5.3 Opportunities to Enhance and Protect Water Quality

CHAPTER 5
FUTURE WATER USE OPPORTUNITIES

5.1 Screening Criteria

5.1.1 Introduction

The list of opportunities compiled under this task is intended to be used by individuals and organizations that need to develop a water supply to satisfy their specific needs. One must always recognize that any screening criteria, which is applied between categories, may unfairly treat the project within the adjudged .less important. category. For example a municipal water supply that provides new water to 10,000 persons may be judged more important than the agricultural water supply development for 5,000 acres of alfalfa. With population benefits as a heavily weighted criterion, the municipal projects will always rank higher than the agricultural projects. For this reason, the Wind/Bighorn Basin Planning Team developed screening criteria, which could be applied independent of category, as well as within the individual category.

A long list of future water use opportunities was developed with input from the Basin Advisory Group (BAG), and is included here as Appendix A. To assist the users of this list to identify potential opportunities to satisfy their demands, the following methodology was employed to evaluate specific opportunities on the long list relative to similar and related opportunities. This methodology evaluates opportunities according to the likelihood that they are desirable, functional, and capable of receiving the support required for development. The intent of this exercise is to provide individuals and organizations with .a place to start. in their investigation to develop a water supply to satisfy their specific needs, rather than to .rank. potential projects.

The procedure used to complete this evaluation consists of the following five steps:

1. Establish project groupings into category and sub-category;
2. Develop screening criteria to evaluate future water use opportunities;
3. Develop a long list of future water use opportunities;
4. Develop a short list of opportunities;
5. And evaluate the opportunities on the short list.

5.1.2 . Project Categories

Specific to the Wind/Bighorn Basin planning process, four initial categories were identified. These were Municipal, Agriculture, Environmental and Religious/Cultural.

Category 1: Municipal

This category includes the development, augmentation and improvement of public water supplies throughout the WBHB. Several regulatory and non-regulatory issues have focused attention on this issue within the 30 year planning period. Prior to the 1990.s many of the municipal water systems were surface water based. In 1986, the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed and many of its requirements were promulgated during the 1990.s. These requirements included watershed protection plans, extensive water treatment and disinfection requirements. In response to these new requirements, water system operation and maintenance costs became increasingly prohibitive and several municipalities moved to a deep ground water option. In conjunction with the development of new water supply sources and the increased cost of water supply, treatment and distribution, a regionalization of water systems began to occur. Finally the susceptibility of surface water based systems to drought was realized in the late 1990.s through 2002 and alternate supplies became a realistic goal.

Category 2: Agriculture

This category includes the development, augmentation and improvement of agricultural storage, conveyance and distribution throughout the WBHB. Several administrative and planning issues have focused attention on this issue within the 30 year planning period. Agriculture has always been a significant player within the economy of the WBHB. Economic incentives are an essential element in maintaining agricultural production at current and future levels. Such incentives include inexpensive and available water supply, storage and distribution. Another important institutional factor in the WBHB.s water management is the two million acre Wind River Indian Reservation, located in Fremont and Hot Springs Counties. Tribal surface water rights date to 1868 and are the oldest in the WBHB. Legal proceedings between the State of Wyoming and the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes awarded the right to 500,000 acre feet of water from the Wind River system to the Tribes. Half of this allotment was designated for new irrigation projects. Downstream users, whose rights are junior to those of the Tribes, are accustomed to having this water available. Working out a future planning scheme that will allow new uses and adequately distribute the existing water resources is a formidable task. Future planning projects must address this.

Category 3: Environmental and Recreational

This category includes development and preservation of water supplies for environmental purposes and recreational uses. Within the 30 year planning period, environmental and recreational uses are anticipated to become increasingly more important. Preservation of wetlands, riparian buffers, and maintenance of minimum streamflows and minimum reservoir pools are addressed as regulatory, as well as conservation goals. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important to the Wind/Bighorn Basin economy. With nearly 71% of the WBHB under public ownership, including several national forests and Yellowstone National Park, recreation interests are a major player. Water for fish hatcheries, campgrounds and golf courses are new demands. The impact of drought conditions and an administrative water rights call on junior appropriators have made the issue of minimum flows controversial.

Category 4: Religious and Cultural

This category includes the preservation and maintenance of existing springs, lakes and water sources for religious and cultural purposes. This category for the most part applies to the 2.2 million acre Wind River Indian Reservation, home of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes. The Reservation is located mostly in Fremont County, with a relatively small area in Hot Springs County. As active BAG members, the Tribes have identified preservation of water related natural features and sites for religious and cultural purposes as an important category.

5.1.3 . Project Sub-Categories

To assist in further project groupings eight sub-categories were developed as part of the Wind/Bighorn Basin planning process. These sub-categories were intended to allow comparison of projects based on the type of project and were as follows:

5.1.4 . Screening Criteria

A significant task of the river basin planning process is the development of screening criteria and methods for evaluating future water use opportunities identified and listed for the study basins. The Wind/Bighorn Basin project team adopted the screening criteria and evaluation method, which was originally developed for the Green River Basin Plan. These criteria were presented to the BAG for consideration and comment.

Criterion 1: Need

This criterion reflects the ability of a project to meet existing and future water needs in the WBHB. A score of one is assigned if the project falls in an area of surplus. A score of ten reflects that the project will potentially benefit areas within existing shortages even during wet years.

Criterion 2: Water Availability

This criterion reflects the general ability of a project to function, given likely bypasses for environmental uses and prior rights. It is not a reflection of the relative size of the project. With respect to ground water availability, this criterion is reflective of an aquifer.s likelihood to yield the anticipated project demand. A score of one indicates no dependable supply, whereas a score of ten reflects that water is available even during dry years.

Criterion 3: Financial Feasibility

This criterion reflects the effects of the combination of technical feasibility, high or low construction costs, and economic use to which the water would be put (e.g. irrigation of native meadows vs. cultivation of alfalfa or row crops). The intent of this criterion is to indicate the sponsor.s ability to afford the project or meet Wyoming Water Development Commission (or other) funding source criteria. A low number, one, represents a project which is ineligible for WWDC funding or where the cost significantly exceeds the benefits. A high number represents a project that would more easily meet funding and repayment requirements.

Criterion 4: Public Acceptance

This criterion reflects the extent to which a project will encounter or create public controversy, one, versus a project that would likely engender broad public support, ten. For example, on-stream storage in environmentally sensitive areas would be very controversial, while off-channel storage in less sensitive areas would more likely be supported.

Criterion 5: Number of Sponsors/Beneficiaries/Participants

This criterion reflects the desirability of a project, that a project serving a larger segment of the population should be evaluated higher, ten, than one serving only a few, one. This criterion is problematical, when one applies it to many of the conservation or institutional/administrative options, or to projects where there is no clearly defined sponsor. Such projects could be ranked higher, since they benefit a large number of people, yet no single entity is identified as a lead or direct sponsor. As sponsors adopt these types of projects (e.g. leak detection/pipeline replacement), such projects will rise to the top of the short list.

Criterion 6: Legal/Institutional Concerns

This criterion reflects the perceived ease, ten, or difficulty, one, with which a project could be authorized and permitted under existing state and federal law. In several cases, certain long list projects received lower rankings because there was known opposition and the threat of litigation. A number one, reflects a project with known fatal flaws, whereas a number ten, reflects a project which is easily permittable, no mitigation required and has strong support from the environmental or neighborhood groups.

Criterion 7: Environmental/Recreational Benefits

This criterion reflects the positive, a number ten, environmental and recreational aspects of a project versus those projects, which have a potential negative, a number one, impact on recreation and/or the environment. If this project would result in no net gain or loss, a number five was assigned. For example a ground water development project for a small town would rate a five, since it has neither a positive or negative environmental benefit.

5.1.5 . Weighting of Screening Criteria

Each screening criterion was assigned a weight depending on its relative importance to assuring a successful project. Weights were assigned values between one and ten by the consulting team based on its understanding of the values and preferences expressed by BAG members during the project development. Weights are listed in the following table.

Table 5.1-1 Screening Criteria
Screening CriteriaRelative Weight
Need8
Water Availability7
Financial Feasibility7
Public Acceptance6
Number of Sponsors / Beneficiaries6
Legal / Institutional Concerns5
Environmental / Recreational Benefits7

After the long list was developed, each long list project was evaluated for the individual criterion on the basis of one to ten. After applying the criterion weights to each number, a total .value. of the long list project was established.

5.1.6 . Long List of Future Water Use Opportunities

Compiling the long list of future water use opportunities began with a review of published reports available for the study basins, knowledge of the basin and recommendations received at the October 2002 BAG meeting. The level of information and data available for the projects identified through the literature review varied from very sketchy to completed conceptual designs.

Both surface and ground water development projects were identified and included on the long list. Municipal projects have and will continue to include replacement of surface water sources with deep ground water supplies. Regionalization of municipalities and rural areas are and will continue to be included in these types of projects. Water conservation projects were included on the long list and reflect a growing attitude of both the funding agencies and the people of the WBHB. Environmental, religious and cultural projects reflect the ethnic diversity of the users in the WBHB, which includes ranchers, tourists, city dwellers and members of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribe. Although hot geothermal water is present and serves as a major tourist attraction in portions of the WBHB (primarily, Yellowstone and Hot Springs County), it was not included in this study. Similarly, ground water produced in the development of coalbed methane was not included on the long list and is not considered a major player in the WBHB.

Water right permit applications have been submitted to the State Engineer for several of the projects included on the long list. Some of the applications have been approved and the State Engineer has granted permits authorizing project development. The majority of the projects, however, have not been elevated to permit status and the applications remain in the pending status. Several of the projects are in various stages of study and feasibility determination within the WWDC process. These were addressed in the long list and in some cases were elevated to the short list.

Water right information was not compiled for the projects, nor was water right status considered in the subsequent evaluations of the projects. Each of the projects on the long list were evaluated under the assumption that a water right for the project could be obtained and conflicts with competing water rights could be resolved. Consideration was given to simply compiling the water right status for information only and not for the purpose of evaluation. However, this task proved to be beyond the scope of this river basin planning study.

Another future water use opportunity in the WBHB is the establishment of instream flow water rights and minimum reservoir pools. These water rights are developed through a specified procedure that begins when the WGFC proposes a stream segment for an instream flow water right. Once submitted, the WWDC reviews the data and the stream hydrology to determine if adequate water is available to meet the proposed new water rights. The SEO then either grants or rejects the water right. Instream flow opportunities are included on the long list since not only have several reaches been granted, but a large number remain in the queue. As new segments are nominated they will be advanced through the process. Minimum reservoir pools have been proposed to sustain both recreation and fisheries. They have been included on the long list, yet specific locations (sponsors) have not been identified. This type of project will need to be reviewed and approved by the owner of the reservoir, which in many cases is the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

An initial long list, which included over 200 water storage projects was presented to the BAG in August of 2002. Following discussions and further input from the BAG a supplemental long list was presented to the BAG at the October meeting. These two lists were combined and amended in time for the December 2002 BAG meeting in Powell. This latter long list was broken into categories and sub-categories, which defined the type of project or project grouping. The individual long list projects were scored individually and as a category/sub-category group.

Although scoring and weighting of the individual projects did occur, the use of these multiple categories allowed projects of similar nature to be compared to each other directly. In this manner, an environmental project wasn.t directly compared to a municipal project.

5.1.7 . Short list of Future Water Use Opportunities

Projects and opportunities on the long list were reviewed to determine if they should be included on the short list or if they should be eliminated from consideration during the 30-year planning period. Reasons to eliminate projects included:

Given the size, breadth and distribution of project needs within the WBHB planning area, an attempt was made to develop short list projects that might benefit different interests throughout the WBHB. This included an attempted geographical distribution of projects throughout the planning area.

5.1.8 . Summary of Project Evaluation Methodology

The methodology described in this section is intended to assist the user of the long/short list of future water use opportunities. The process described can be employed to establish .a place to start. in the quest to match specific water demands to future water use opportunities. There should be no question that many of the long list projects may migrate to the short list and ultimately to project status over the 30-year planning horizon.

The process begins after a project need is defined. This project need could be served from the existing long list or short list of future water use opportunities or may require a new entry. The project need should be defined by its category and/or sub-category. The screening criteria, developed under this basin planning process should be applied or, in the case where things may have changed since the creation of the original long list, be reapplied to the project. The result of the screening process will be an evaluation of opportunities in accordance with the relative likelihood that they are desirable, functional, and capable of receiving enough public support to be implemented. In general, the results should present an overall favorable future water use opportunity or project.

Finally once a project is defined and screened, the process of implementation takes place. In many cases, this will include:

5.2 . Project Summaries

5.2.1 . Introduction

As part of the BAG process, the Wind/Bighorn Project Planning Team developed a long list of potential structural and non-structural opportunities to meet current and projected water demands over the 30 year planning horizon. Structural opportunities include, but are not limited to storage reservoirs, deep ground water wells, and conveyance system upgrades. Non-structural opportunities include, but are not limited to local and basin-wide conservation, meters, leak detection programs and administrative changes in water rights and water delivery.

After the long list was developed, each long list project was evaluated for the individual criterion on the basis of one to ten. After applying the weights to each number, a total .value. of the long list project was established.

Appendix A: of this report presents the long list of potential future water use projects.

5.2.2 . Development of the Long List

The level of information and data available for the projects on the list of future water use opportunities varies significantly from very sketchy to completed conceptual designs. Therefore, the exercise of assigning weights to criterion and evaluation scores to projects is subjective and the results of the evaluation process can only be interpreted to reflect the knowledge and judgment of the individual assigning the weights and scores. In order to make the process more objective and less subjective, detailed engineering, legal, and environmental investigations would need to be completed to advance all projects to the same level of information and data.

The user is cautioned to avoid a quantitative comparison of projects solely based on their individual performance under the screening criteria and weighting process. With this in mind, the long list was presented to the BAG on a performance basis within the project category and/or subcategory. This process resulted in the establishment of four groups or quartiles as described below, and are included in Appendix A:

Group 1 . Projects that scored within the first quartile or the upper 25% of projects within a similar category.

Group 2 . Projects that scored within the second quartile or upper 25 to 50% of projects within a similar category.

Group 3 . Projects that scored within the third quartile or upper 50 to 75% of projects within a similar category.

Group 4 . All other remaining projects

As one can see from this list, water storage opportunities have been studied extensively over the years and there are over 200 potential water storage projects within the WBHB. Many of these projects are unrealistic, in that they fall in environmentally sensitive areas, may never be permitted, and/or they may not meet a basin plan, which prioritizes need, water availability and financial feasibility of the project as important parameters.

Several of the proposed long list projects are actually water administration ideas. For example .development and administration of flow augmentation plans. requires Wyoming Legislature, State Engineer and State Board of Control involvement. As more and more basin municipalities move from a surface water source to a deep Paleozoic well, more .out-of-basin. water (i.e. deep ground water) will be returned to the surface water system. This volume of water may serve as an administrative .credit. for future surface water supply development.

Other long list projects include water conservation ideas. These projects may include implementation of a Leak Detection Program for a municipality and replacement of old, leaking water lines. Although the concept will be implemented at the time of the development of the long list, no specific sponsor was identified. As such, its group weight is lower than if a sponsor was identified.

5.2.3 . Development of the Short list

As part of the process, the BAG members were asked to review the long list and identify potential opportunities not included on the proposed long list as well as the relative merits of the individual projects. Comments and suggestions received from BAG members and additional research led to the development of the final long list and ultimately the short list.

In the development of the short list, each project was assigned to a category: Municipal, Agriculture, Environmental/Recreational, and Cultural/Religious. Projects were then rated by category. For example, municipal projects were rated against other municipal projects. Agricultural storage projects were rated against similar projects. The final grouping of short list projects is presented in the following table.

5.2.4 . Summary

It must be emphasized that the short list tables reflect the knowledge and judgment of the individuals that performed the exercise. When other individuals having different opinions and a different level of knowledge of the projects being evaluated complete the exercise, different scores will result. Variable results will be achieved because different weights will be assigned to the evaluation criteria and different scores will be assigned to the projects.

One should recognize that the final Wind/Bighorn Basin short list is a reflection of the Planning Team.s professional opinion and an attempted quantitative evaluation. Individual BAG members and the BAG, as an entity, may disagree or find other rationale for including certain long list projects on the final short list.

It is hoped that this short list may help initiate the required investigations leading to the selection of a future water use opportunity or it may lead to a new and completely separate evaluation. The evaluated short list is preliminary in nature and should not be used by any other funding entity to prioritize funding awards.

Table 5.2-1 Short List of Future Projects:
CategoryName of ProjectDescription of ProjectLocation of Project
I. MUNICIPAL


Type of Project:
New Source
Paleozoic Well FieldConstruct Deep Aquifer SupplyRegionalization: Lander/
Hudson/Riverton

Paleozoic Well FieldConstruct Deep Aquifer SupplyRegionalization: W.R. Reservation

Paleozoic Well FieldConstruct Deep Aquifer SupplyRegionalization: Hot Springs County
Type of Project:
Distribution/
Storage Opportunities
Bighorn Regional
Joint Powers Board
Storage Tanks/TransmissionHotSprings/Washakie County

Tensleep/HyattvilleStorage Tanks/TransmissionWashakie County
Type of Project:
Conjunctive Use
Aquifer Storage
and Retrieval
Alluvial Aquifer AugmentationUpper Wind River/Riverton Area
Type of Project:
Water Management
Ground Water
Control District
Administration of Future
Development
Riverton Area

Ground Water
Control District
Administration of Future
Development
Paintrock Anticline and Hyattville
Type of Project:
Water Conservation
Leak DetectionMunicipal Survey and Repair of
Leaks
Basin-wide

Reuse of Grey Water
Non Potable Water
Irrigation of Parks/CemetariesBasin-wide
II. AGRICULTURAL


Type of Project:
New Source
None

Type of Project:
Storage Opportunities
Bull Lake Dam
Enlargement
Reservoir EnlargementBig Wind River

Dinwoody Lake EnlargementReservoir EnlargementBig Wind River

SteamboatNew ReservoirBig Wind River

Ray LakeReservoir EnlargementLittle Wind River

Little Popo Agie-Off Channel Site 5New ReservoirLittle Popo Agie

Pumpkin DrawNew ReservoirOwl Creek

Neff Park (Popo Agie Study)New ReservoirPopo Agie

Lake CreekNew ReservoirClarks Fork

Moraine Creek No. 1New ReservoirShell Creek
Type of Project:
Distribution
Popo Agie Master PlanDitch Headgate and
Diversion Improvements
Popo Agie Basin

Kirby Creek WatershedStock ReservoirsKirby Creek Basin
Type of Project:
New Lands
Riverton EastConstruct New Diversions/DitchesWind River Basin

WestsideConstruct New Diversions/DitchesBig Horn Basin
Type of Project:
Water Conservation
Midvale/LeClair
Riverton Valley
Ditch Linings/
Conveyance Improvements
Wind River Basin

Wind River
Irrigation Project
Ditch Linings/
Conveyance Improvements
Wind River Basin
Type of Project:
Basin Transfer
Clarks Fork to
Greybull Drainage
Storage and PipelineClarks Fork to Big Horn Basin
III. ENVIRONMENTALInstream FlowsAdmin Minimum FlowsWind and Big Horn Basin

Minimum Reservoir PoolsAdmin Reservoir ReleasesWind and Big Horn Basin

Watershed/Habitat Improv.Water Quality Impaired StreamsBig Horn Basin
IV. CULTURAL and
RELIGIOUS
Water Use by TribesCoordinated Reservoir ReleasesWind and Big Horn Basin

5.3 . Opportunities to Enhance and Protect Water Quality

5.3.1 . Introduction

Since the passage of the 1973 Environmental Quality Act, the State of Wyoming has empowered the Water Quality Division of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ-WDQ) with the authority to promulgate surface and ground water standards and regulations, and to protect water quality through the agency.s permitting and enforcement processes. The Wind River Indian Reservation (WRIR) has a similar department of environmental quality. The state and tribal programs must comply with a variety federal regulations, including the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and others.

Ground water quality, availability, and usage are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Technical Memorandum, Tab 17, .Ground Water Availability.. Currently no ground water protection or ground water control areas are designated within the WBHB, however, two areas in the WBHB have been identified for potential ground water protection due to high use.

For surface water, the DEQ-WDQ and similar tribal programs have classified streams and water bodies within the WBHB in accordance with EPA.s 303 regulations and have created a 303 (d) listing of impaired streams. The Wyoming 303 (d) listing of impaired streams and water bodies for the WBHB is provided in Appendix B of Chapter 2 of the Technical Memorandum, Tab 9, .Environmental and Recreational Use. or can be found at http://deq.state.wy.us/.

Watershed planning, sponsored by the WWDC, is in progress for the Popo Agie watershed and is proposed for 2003 funding for the Kirby Creek watershed. Watershed planning is also conducted within areas dominated by federal lands and by federal land management agencies such as the BLM and U.S. Forest Service under their own programs.

5.3.2 . Inter-Agency Considerations

Ten of Wyoming.s 34 Conservation Districts are located in the Wind River, Bighorn and Clarks Fork Basin. They are the Powell, Clarks Fork, Shoshone, Cody, South Bighorn, Meeteetse, Washakie County, Hot Springs County, Dubois Crowheart, Lower Wind River, and Popo Agie Conservation Districts. These conservation districts conduct a variety of programs, which are designed to minimize agricultural related impacts to the environment and water quality.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a number of programs administered by its Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The Wind River, Bighorn and Clarks Fork Basins are administered through a single NRCS district office located in Worland. NRCS initiatives related to water quality and environmental protection include: the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), the Conservation Resource Program (CRP), and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).

Other considerations within the WBHB include: Yellowstone National Park; Wyoming.s only Congressionally designated .Wild and Scenic River., a twenty-mile stretch of the Clarks Fork river near Cody; the Wind River Indian Reservation; the presence of glaciers in the Wind River mountains whose drainage is tributary to the WBHB; and federal land ownership of some 61% of the WBHB. Examples of inter-agency cooperation with respect to water quality protection and/or enhancement include; cooperative water quality sampling and analysis relative to 303 (d) by the DEQ-WDQ and various Conservation Districts, and WWDC sponsored watershed planning studies sponsored by Conservation Districts with participation by NRCS, BLM, and/or others.

5.3.3 . Water Quality Impairments and Special Considerations

Waters are declared .impaired. when they fail to support their designated uses after full implementation of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits and "best management practices." Under the Clean Water Act, every state must update its .303(d). list of impaired waters every two years after reviewing "all readily available data and information." Appendix B, Chapter 2, Tab 9, .Environmental and Recreational Use. of the Technical Memorandum, provides listing information on water bodies in the WBHB that are considered quality impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The 2002 303 (d) listing, includes 19 reaches of impaired streams within the Wind River, Bighorn, and Clarks Fork River Basins. Of the impaired reaches 16 are related to levels of fecal coliform. The remaining three reaches, all along the Clarks Fork, are impaired due to elevated metal concentrations. The 303 (d) listing also includes 13 threatened waterbodies. One of the impairments is related to loss of habitat and the other 12 are threatened due to fecal coliform.

5.3.4 . Summary

As discussed in Chapter 3, Tab 17, of the Technical Memorandum .Ground Water Availability., two areas in the WBHB have been identified for potential ground water protection due to high use. These are the Upper Wind River aquifer in the vicinity of Riverton and the Madison/Bighorn Aquifer within the Paintrock Anticline near Hyattville. Surface water quality impairments are primarily due to elevated levels of fecal coliform. The source of contamination in all cases is listed as unknown. One aspect of current watershed improvement planning projects is to reduce the concentrations of livestock instream floodplains and wetland areas. If this current livestock use is contributing to the elevated levels of fecal coliform, the planned watershed improvements should reduce the fecal coliform levels. Current watershed planning also focuses on the reduction of erosion and associated contribution of sediment to the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of the streams. In addition, various land management agencies (BLM, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service), the Wind River Indian Reservation, conservancy districts, and agencies such as the NRCS each have programs relative to watershed improvement, which will in turn improve surface water quality.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 6 POTENTIAL FOR POWER PRODUCTION

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Power Development Opportunities and Constraints

6.3 Hydropower Facilities

6.4 Fossil Fuel Facilities

6.5 Economic Analysis

6.6 Permitting and Environmental Issues

6.7 Recommendations and Conclusions

CHAPTER 6
POTENTIAL FOR POWER PRODUCTION

6.1 . Introduction

As part of the WBHB Plan, this study evaluates the potential for power production within the basin planning study area. The analysis considers the physical and economic ability to produce power via hydropower or fossil fuels, the market potential for hydropower purchases and the economics of financing the facilities. The purpose of the report is to develop a conceptual-level evaluation of the opportunities for power development within the WBHB. The information contained herein relies heavily on previously published information, information developed in the WBHB Plan and past projects by the consulting team. The report serves as a roadmap to further studies on particular power generation types and sites.

The WBHB Planning study area incorporates the Wind, Bighorn, Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone, Yellowstone, Madison and Gallatin River Basins. Because those portions of the Yellowstone, Madison and Gallatin River Basins within the state of Wyoming are within Yellowstone National Park, no water development projects were proposed in the basin plan, and thus, no discussion of potential power projects within the park is considered in this report. All of the river basins are tributary to the Yellowstone River in southern Montana, which is subsequently tributary to the Missouri River in northeastern Montana. In general, the WBHB Plan found that there is ample opportunity for water development projects within the WBHB, including the need and availability of water for major reservoirs. These reservoir sites were used as a basis for the hydropower sites within this report.

6.2 . Power Development Opportunities and Constraints

A power market survey was performed to assess the regional market for power, particularly hydropower, in the Wind/Bighorn Basin area. The objectives of the survey were to characterize the regional power marketplace, identify potential power purchasers and to estimate the approximate pricing range available for power in the WBHB.

Three major transmission-owning utilities operate in the general vicinity of the study area. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) transmission facilities are generally 115kv, and parallel the Bighorn River from approximately Riverton to Lovell. PacifiCorp-East lines are generally 230kv, and can be tapped northwest of Thermopolis. Tri-State lines are generally at or below 115kv, and could be tapped west of Lovell, Thermopolis and Riverton. Black Hills Power and Light and Basin Electric Power Cooperative also own small segments of transmission facilities, primarily as generator outlet transmission or to serve isolated load areas. WAPA or PacifiCorp-East facilities would be the most suitable interconnections, since Tri-State lines have a generally radial configuration. PacifiCorp-East and WAPA indicated a willingness to allow interconnections to their system. There are, however, limitations in transmission capacity from the region to outside areas. Historically, there have been constraints moving power from Wyoming southward to the Denver area. This suggests that the power project would be most justified based on in-basin demand, rather on demand in the entire Rocky Mountain Region or beyond.

The operation of numerous hydroelectric and coal-fired plants in the region heavily influences the market for power, including market pricing. Eight parties expressed potential interest in purchasing project output, and none expressed strong interest. Four parties (WAPA, PacifiCorp-East, Wyoming Municipal Power Agency, and Tri-State) indicated a specific interest in seeing a project built with a degree of dispatchability. For a hydropower plant, this would require a reservoir with a certain amount of storage space dedicated to hydropower that could be managed for power production first, with only secondary benefits for water supply, recreation, environmental enhancement, etc. Power companies who expressed an interest in power, created from future projects, indicated a general power purchase price in the range of $0.04/kwh. Final pricing would be based on market conditions at the time contracts were negotiated, and in some cases could be indexed to the Mid-Columbia region power trading hub in Oregon.

6.3 . Hydropower Facilities

The analysis of hydropower facilities was conducted in two steps. First, a .long list. of potential hydropower sites was generated based on proposed reservoir facilities generated as part of the Wind/Bighorn River Basin Plan. Then, a screening process was used to reduce the long list to a .short list. of 11 sites. A more detailed hydropower facility and economic analysis was conducted on the short listed sites. Because the primary purpose of this study was to identify regional-scale hydropower projects that could be developed in conjunction with additional storage for water supply purposes in the WBHB, smaller hydropower installations, such as hydropower installations on canals, run-of-river installations using piped diversions and facilities on smaller reservoirs were not considered.

Developing a short list from the long list incorporated both numeric scoring of criteria, subjective scoring of criteria and other general information about the site. The criteria used during the screening process included:

Scoring for criteria 1 and 2 were performed based upon the methodologies described previously. Once the scoring was performed, the sites were sorted based upon scores and divided into 4 groups based upon the score quartiles. Then, in general, sites were selected based upon criteria 3 through 5, with a concentration on those sites with scores in the first or second quartile. A summary of the short listed sites is shown in Table 6.3-1.

Table 6.3-1 Short list of Hydropower Sites
Site
ID
Site NameBasinRegionReservoir
Capacity
(ac-ft)
Hydropower
Group
Water
Supply
Group
16Bull Lake Creek No. 4WindBig Wind River159,00011
16Bull Lake Creek No. 4 (Pump-Storage)WindBig Wind River159,00011
25Dinwoody Lake EnlargementWindBig Wind River82,58021
53SteamboatWindBig Wind River36,00021
61Wind River Blue HolesWindBig Wind River375,00011
62Wind River East Fork No. 1WindBig Wind River103,00012
81Clarks ForkClarks ForkClarks Fork River522,85014
134Little Wind River North Fork No. 3WindLittle Wind River38,60013
153KirbyBighornMainstem Bighorn River130,00012
174Nowood RiverBighornNowood River175,00014
193Owl Creek South Fork No. 2BighornOwl Creek20,09022
Notes:
(1) Score groupings are based upon quartiles of the scores for all sites. Those sites in group 1 were in the upper 25% of scores, those in group 2 in the top 25% to 50%, those in group 3 in the top 50% to 75% of scores, and those in group 4 in the bottom 25%.

Hydropower generation is primarily a function of the head available at the site and the flow rate through the generation facility. An operational analysis of each reservoir site was conducted using the dry, average and wet year hydrology and downstream water supply demands generated in the Wind/Bighorn River Basin Plan. From this information, available head and release rates were determined. Standard methodologies and values for turbine and generator efficiency were used to size hydropower facilities and calculate hydropower generation at each site. For most sites, two turbine sizes were investigated to bracket the potential configuration at the site. A summary of the hydropower calculations is shown in Table 6.3-2.

6.4 . Fossil Fuel Facilities

The analysis shows that either coal fired or gas fired electric power generation facilities within the WBHB would be feasible. Recent advances in gas turbine technology and diminished environmental impacts, as compared to coal fired facilities, may favor gas turbine facilities. It is assumed that power developments will be modest, based on local consumption needs, due to current limitations in regional transmission capacity.

A summary of the conceptual designs and annual revenues expected from the fossil fuel facilities is presented in Table 6.4-1. The plant capacities were developed based upon estimates of the extractable coal from the representative coal fields and project life, and developed using similar facilities elsewhere in Wyoming. Unit construction costs for the facilities were taken from Idaho National Energy Laboratories published data (INEL, 2003). Annual energy production was calculated based upon an average annual generation to capacity ratio of 85%, while annual revenue was calculated based upon power prices developed in the market study.

Table 6.3-2 Summary of Average Annual Hydropower Facility Analysis
Site
ID
Site NameTurbine
Flow
(cfs)
Unit
Size
(kw)
Turbine
Output
(kw)
Hydropower
Generation
(MWh)
Power
Revenue
($1.000)
16Bull Lake Creek No. 4 (Small Unit)5009,3002,47120,104668
16Bull Lake Creek No. 4 (Large Unit)60011,0002,46920,100667
16Pumped Storage @ Bull Lake Creek No. 4 (Gen)2,00030,00026,19672,049446
16Pumped Storage @ Bull Lake Creek No. 4 (Pump)2,00038,00025,98694,854
25Dinwoody Lake Enlargement (Small Unit)1755008367422
25Dinwoody Lake Enlargement (Large Unit)3501,00011994531
53Steamboat2309005514,490149
61Wind River Blue Holes92016,5007,30658,1441,930
62Wind River East Fork No. 1 (Small Unit)456009780327
62Wind River East Fork No. 1 (Large Unit)4556,0006164,979139
81Clark Fork No. 2 (24 Hours Operation)80015,00011,61695,3703,166
81Clark Fork No. 2 (8 Hours Peaking Operation)2,40045,00034,40594,1003,556
134Little Wind River North Fork No. 3 (Small Unit)1051,8001,28910,539350
134Little Wind River North Fork No. 3 (Large Unit)1502,5001,32410,639353
153Kirby (24 Hours Operation)1,5507,5005,72446,9421,559
153Kirby (8 Hours Peaking Operation)4,65016,00013,08235,8841,356
174Nowood River (Small Unit)4003,1002,31919,003631
174Nowood River (Large Unit)5003,8002,38319,310641
193Owl Creek South Fork No. 2 (Small Unit)555501541,23041
193Owl Creek South Fork No. 2 (Large Unit)1009001451,11937
Notes:
(1) Summary for Normal (Average) Hydrologic Year
(2) Assumed power price = $33.20 per MWh

Table 6.4-1 Summary of Potential Fossil Fuel Power Facilities
SiteTypeCapacity
(MW)
Construction
Cost
($ million)
Annual
Generation
(MWh)
Annual
Revenue
(million)
Project
Life
(years)
Employees
MinePlant
O&M
WindCoal200$368.51,489,200$49.4305550
BighornCoal300$552.72,233,800$74.23015550
GeneralGas Turbine500$263.23,723,000$123.630---25

6.5 . Economic Analysis

To determine the overall economic feasibility of the hydropower facilities, benefit-cost ratios were estimated for the proposed hydropower generation facilities at each site. In estimating the net cash flow for each year, the power revenue, operation and managment costs, and tax and loan payment were included in the analysis and the present worth of the net cash for each year was estimated based on the assumed discount rate. The sum of the net present worth during the project life was compared with the present total capital costs to determine the benefit/cost ratio. If the benefit/cost ratio is higher than one, the project would be economically feasible. For this analysis, the following factors were used: a 30-year and 50-year project life, a discount rate of

Table 6.5-1 Benefit/Cost Ratios for Hydropower Sites
Site
ID
Site NameUnit
Size
(MW)
B-C Ratio for Given Loan Life
and Escalation Rate
30-year50-year
2 percent3 percent2 percent3 percent
16Bull Lake Creek No. 4 (Small Unit)9.30.1190.193N/AN/A
16Bull Lake Creek No. 4 (Large Unit)11.00.1190.194N/A0.475
16Pumped Storage @ Bull Lake Creek No. 430.0N/A(-) 0.332N/A-0.267
25Dinwoody Lake Enlargement (Small Unit)0.5(-) 0.937(-) 1.002N/A(-) 0.779
25Dinwoody Lake Enlargement (Large Unit)1.0(-) 0.714(-) 0.749N/A(-) 0.854
53Steamboat0.90.4130.526N/A0.943
61Wind River Blue Holes16.50.4920.616N/A1.069
62Wind River East Fork No. 1 (Small Unit)0.6(-) 0.769(-) 0.812N/AN/A
62Wind River East Fork No. 1 (Large Unit)6.00.314N/A0.582N/A
81Clark Fork No. 2 (24 Hours Operation)151.2921.521N/AN/A
81Clark Fork No. 2 (8 Hours Peaking Operation)45N/A1.126N/AN/A
134Little Wind River North Fork No. 3 (Small Unit)1.80.8180.984N/A1.588
134Little Wind River North Fork No. 3 (Large Unit)2.5N/A0.931N/AN/A
153Kirby (24 Hours Operation)7.51.0801.281N/AN/A
153Kirby (8 Hours Peaking Operation)16.0N/A0.333N/AN/A
174Nowood River (Small Unit)3.11.2371.459N/AN/A
174Nowood River (Large Unit)3.8N/A1.397N/AN/A
193Owl Creek South Fork No. 2 (Small Unit)0.6(-) 0.540(-) 0.553(-) 0.551N/A
193Owl Creek South Fork No. 2 (Large Unit)0.9(-) 0.496(-) 0.502(-) 0.492N/A
Notes:
(1) Bolded B/C Ratio indicates those with values greater than 1.0
(2) The B/C ratios shown in this table for the Clarks Fork and Kirby sites are for facilities built primarily for water supply purposes with secondary power benefits.
(3) N/A = Analysis not necessary based on analysis at lower rates.
(4) B/C Ratio = Annual Net Cash Flow/Annualized Capital Cost

5%, escalation rates of 2% and 3%, and loan amount 50% of the total capital costs. For those sites found feasible, other loan amounts were investigated. Table 6.5-1 presents a summary of the analysis.

Secondary economic benefits would be realized from both a hydropower facility and fossil fuel facilities. Secondary economic benefits could include decreased power costs for in-basin users due to an increase in supply, increased services provided by local companies for facility operation and maintenance and increased services supplied to facility employees. However, the primary economic benefit analyzed in this report is the increase in employment generated by the facility, both during construction and during operations. For the hydropower portion of the dam project, between 10 and 50 employees may be on-site at any given time. A majority of these employees are skilled labor and would likely be brought to the site by the contractor. However, up to 20% of the employees could possibly be hired locally. In general, once hydropower facilities are constructed and in typical operational mode, the manpower required for operations and maintenance is minimal because the dam sites are controlled from a central facility. Typically, one person or less would be required to perform day-to-day maintenance for the size of facilities being considered.

The benefit/cost ratios for fossil fuel facilities are shown in Table 6.5-2. As shown, for escalation rates of 3%, all of the facilities are economically feasible. However, at 2% escalation rates, the coal-fired facilities are only marginally feasible. It should be noted that because operation and management costs are significant for fossil fuel facilities, the benefit/cost ratio is sensitive to the estimates that are made for operation and maintenance. Secondary benefits from employment at fossil fuel facilities were discussed in the previous sub-section.

Table 6.5-2 Benefit/Cost Ratios for Fossil fuel Sites
FacilityCapacity
(MW)
30-year50-year
2 percent3 percent2 percent3 percent
Bighorn Basin - Coal2000.8351.003N/AN/A
Wind River Basin - Coal3000.8361.006N/AN/A
Typical Gas5001.0791.280
Notes:
(1) Loan amount = 50% of total costs, interest rate = 4%.

6.6 . Permitting and Environmental Issues

The proposed reservoir sites would require several federal and state permits. These permits would be required for the reservoir with or without hydropower. However, due to possible differences in release patterns, there could be slightly different impacts due to the facilities.

Federal permitting requirements associated with the enlargement of either an existing facility or the construction of a new facility are addressed under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). It is likely that some form of a reservoir or retention basin would be constructed as part of the hydropower plant facility and would trigger an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit. It is likely that an individual 404 permit would be required for the facility. The facilities would also require licensing from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The State of Wyoming and/or Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes will also require some permits to be issued. These permits would include those obtained from the Industrial Siting Administration as well as other divisions of the DEQ-WDQ. Depending upon the project site, access roads, and potential to disrupt traffic during construction, permits from the Wyoming Department of Transportation may be necessary. Diversion and beneficial use of unappropriated waters would require the appropriate permits be obtained from the Wyoming State Engineer.s Office and the Tribal Water Engineer.s Office. Additional issues affecting the sites are presented in Table 6.6-1.

Table 6.6-1 Site Specific Environmental Concerns
Site
ID
Site NameWetland
Acreage
Threatened
Species
Rare
Plants
* Cultural
Concerns
Other
Factors
16Bull Lake Creek No. 4(Conventional and Pump-Storage)231.5NoneNoneYesLands affected will be tribal lands while the dam structure is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation.
25Dinwoody Lake
Enlargement
23.9NoneDubois
Milkvetch
YesHome owners may be impacted by the proposed site.
53Steamboat94.9NoneNoneYesThe proposed site may impact Tribal land as well as private property.
61Wind River Blue
Holes
146.2NoneDubois Milkvetch, Rocky Mountain TwinpodYesThe proposed site may impact Tribal land as well as private property.
62Wind River East
Fork No. 1
19.4NoneDubois Milkvetch,Rocky Mountain TwinpodYesThe proposed site may impact Tribal land as well as private property. Homeowners may be affected by the proposed dam structure.
81Clarks Fork23.5NoneContracted Indian Ricegrass, ShoshoneaNothing on recordWY Game & Fish facilities in the area may be impacted. A dam structure may impact the area upstream that is designated as Wild and Scenic.
134Little Wind River North
Fork No. 3
2.6NoneBeaver Rim PhloxYesThe proposed site may impact Tribal land as well as private property.
153Kirby41.3NoneContracted Indian RicegrassNothing on recordThe proposed site may lie on federal land as well as private property. A railroad line and highway are located near the river and should be addressed.
174Nowood River54.4NoneContracted Indian Ricegrass, Persistent Sepal YellowcressNothing on recordThe proposed site may lie on federal land as well as private property
193Owl Creek South Fork No. 2UnknownNoneOwl Creek Miner.s Candle, Rocky Mountain TwinpodNothing on recordThe proposed site may lie on Tribal land as well as private property.
Notes:
(1) Cultural concerns at the various locations are not presented in the table but range from petroglyphs, sheep fences, burial sites and areas with artifacts as a result of past habitation.

6.7 . Recommendations and Conclusions

The WBHB Power Study was conducted to analyze the potential for both hydropower and fossil fuel facilities within the WBHB. Several potential projects were analyzed to determine the technical feasibility of the project and the economics of project development.

As shown above, the gas turbine power plants are the most attractive option for new power generation within the WBHB. However, if any reservoir were to be further evaluated for water supply purposes, these evaluations should include a technical and economic analysis of the potential for power generation. For development of any of the proposed projects, a sponsoring group or agency would need to be identified and formed. Then, this group would need to commence discussions with the potential power purchasers and provide a more detailed analysis of the selected alternative.


Appendix A
Long List of Future Water Use Opportunities

Development of New Resources
Sub-CategoryLocation, General DescriptionProject DescriptionGroup
Ground Water
Development
Paleozic AquiferMadison Aquifer vic. Of Lander2
Madison Aquifer vic. Of Southern Bighorn Basin1
Flathead Aquifer nr. Thermopolis, Hyattville1
Tensleep Aquifer nr. Big Trails4
Madison Aquifer nr. Hyattville3
Tertiary AquiferWind River Aquifer vic. Gas Hills Area4
Flooded Uranium Mine Pits nr. Gas Hills3
Flow AugmentationMunicipal Wastewater,
when supplied fm. GW
Worland1
Greybull2
Basin / Manderson2
Hyattville3
Tensleep Creek3
Cloud Seeding / Weather ModificationBighorn Mountains4

Distribution of Existing Resources
Sub-CategoryLocation, General DescriptionProject DescriptionGroup
New Canals, Ditches or PipelinesMunicipal Systems RegionalizationBighorn Regional Joint Powers Board1
Lander-Hudson Proposal1
Town of Tensleep Regionalization1
Dubois Regional1
Agricultural ConveyancePopo Agie River Master Plan1
Kirby Creek Master Plan1
Owl Creek/Hot Springs Conservation District2
StorageVariesVariesVaries
Construction of New Municipal StorageBighorn Regional Joint Powers Board
1
Town of Tensleep Regionalization
1
Hyattville Water System
2

Conservation
Sub-CategoryLocation, General DescriptionProject DescriptionGroup
StructuralMunicipal/Industrial UsersMeters for Unmetered Municipalities3
Leak Detection Program2
Utility Line Replacement2
Agricultural UsersLining ditches to reduce seepage losses2
Change from open ditch to pipeline2
Midvale Irrigation District1
LeClair Laterals1
Riverton Valley Crossings1
More efficient irrigation systems2
Low head sprinklers2
Soil tensiometers and irrigation scheduling3
Non-StructuralMunicipal/Industrial UsersReclaimed Water for Irrigation4
User rate schedule to promote conservation3
Use of raw water for irrigation4
Town of Greybull1
Agricultural UsersChange in crops to decrease consumptive use4
Irrigation Scheduling4

Management
Sub-CategoryLocation, General DescriptionProject DescriptionGroup
Administrative: WSEOReview of Beneficial Uses
4
Abandonment of Unused Water Rights
4
Development and Admin. of Augmentation Plans
2
Cultural or Religious ManagementWater use for cultural purposesCoordinated Releases1
Water use for religious purposesCoordinated Releases1
Administrative: USBRRevised Reservoir Operations ScheduleBoysen Reservoir - Lower Winter Releases3
Boysen Reservoir - Higher Winter Releases3

Conjunctive Use
Sub-CategoryLocation, General DescriptionProject DescriptionGroup
Storage and Delivery OptionsLined Gravel Pits nr. RiverOpportunities near Worland, Greybull and Cody3

Aquifer Storage and RetrievalRecharge of alluvial system along Bighorn River4
Recharge of alluvial system along Upper Wind R.2

Basin Transfers
Sub-CategoryLocation, General DescriptionProject DescriptionGroup
Transbasin Diversions(In-Basin)Clarks Fork to Greybull RiverPipeline1
Wood River to Gooseberry CreekExcess storage in Sunshine Res. And pipeline2
Wood River to Cottonwood/Grass CreekExcess storage in Sunshine Res. And pipeline2
Transbasin Diversions(Out-of-Basin)Transfer to Colorado River BasinPipeline and Reservoir4
Transfer to North Platte BasinPipeline and Reservoir3

Environmental and Recreation
Sub-CategoryLocation, General DescriptionProject DescriptionGroup
Fishing/Environmental/RaftingIn Stream or Minimum Flows
1
Minimum Reservoir Pool
1
River Restoration/ Habitat Improvement
2
Recreation and TourismGolf Courses
3
Whitewater Parks
3
Public Access
4

Development of New Uses
Sub-CategoryLocation, General DescriptionProject DescriptionGroup
Municipal/IndustrialBottled Water
1
In-Situ Uranium
4
Hydropower
4
Fossil Fuels Power GenerationWind River Reservation4
Grass Ck./Kirby Ck. Near Winchester4
AgriculturalNew Lands to IrrigationWestside Irrigation Project, Washakie County1
Riverton East1
North Crowheart2
South Crowheart2
Bighorn Flats3
Improved Distribution of Stock WaterBLM Lands west of Big Trails2
Eastern Wind River Basin3
Muskrat Creek, Poison Creek, and Badwater Creek3
Kirby Creek, Hot Springs County3
Other UsesDust abatement at Buffalo Bill Res.
2

Storage Projects
Project NameLocationCapacity (AF/y)Rank
Big Wind River and tributaries above confluence with Little Wind RiverBear Creek30,5002
Brooks Lake24,5001
Bull Lake Dam Enlargement48,0001
Bull Lake Creek No. 196,7002
Bull Lake Creek No. 263,7001
Bull Lake Creek No. 31,2002
Bull Lake Creek No. 4159,0001
Caldwell Creek45,0002
Crow Creek No. 136,0603
Crow Creek No. 243,0003
Crowheart No.1106,7011
Crowheart No.27,5002
Dinwoody Creek No. 116,5001
Dinwoody Creek No.235,0002
Dinwoody Lake Enlargement82,5802
Dinwoody Re-Regulation No. 1403
Dinwoody Re-Regulation No. 22,2002
Dry Creek No. 14,3003
Dry Creek No. 204
Dry Creek No. 322,5083
Dry Creek No. 4116,0003
Dry Creek No. 504
Dunoir Creek150,0002
Horse Creek30,0003
Kinnear8,0002
Kinnear Reservoir7,1021
LeClair Warm Springs3,0002
Meadow Creek5,8004
Meadow Creek Re-Regulation No. 4193
Mud Lake26,2082
Ocean Lake Enl40,4001
Off-Channel (site 1)8703
Off-Channel (site 2)4,2003
Off-Channel (site 3)8703
Off-Channel (site 7)1,8501
Passup Creek4,3004
Pilot Butte04
Red Creek No. 12,8004
Red Creek No. 22,5004
Re-Regulation No.3854
Sand Draw No. 127,0002
Sand Draw No. 240,0002
Steamboat36,0001
Tipperay36,3123
Torrey Creek24,9002
Torrey Lake33,0002
Warm Springs Creek5,0002
Wiggins Fork No. 1325,0002
Wiggins Fork No. 2270,0002
Willow Creek No. 145,0004
Wind River Blue Holes375,0001
Wind River East Fork No. 1103,0002
Wind River East Fork No. 225,0003
Wind River East Fork No. 331,0002
Wind River East Fork No. 453,5003
Wind River East Fork No. 568,4432
Wind River East Fork No. 641,0003
Wind River East Fork No. 7122,5603
Wind River No. 1113,0001
Wind River No. 2112,0001
Wind River No. 3230,0001
Wind River No. 4195,7761
Wind River No. 562,6501
Wind River No. 670,4941
Wind River Phase 1133,9501
Little Wind River and tributaries
(excluding Popo Agie River and Beaver Creek)
Grave Lake4,5003
Little Wind River No. 122,6001
Little Wind River No. 255,0802
Little Wind River No. 55,0802
Little Wind River North Fork No. 116,5003
Little Wind River North Fork No. 214,8002
Little Wind River North Fork No. 303
Mill Creek3,9003
Raft Lake90,0003
Ray Lake Enl.41,6501
Sage Creek No. 111,7003
Sage Creek No. 23,0301
Sage Creek South Fork No. 110,8603
Sage Creek South Fork No. 212,3003
Sage Creek South Fork No. 335,0003
Sharp Nose Draw No. 12,3001
Sharp Nose Draw No. 38,5001
South Fork Little Wind River No. 1144,0002
South Fork Little Wind River No. 313,5002
South Fork Little Wind River No. 416,3002
South Fork Little Wind River No. 256,4301
St. Lawrence Creek10,0003
Trout Creek No. 18,0853
Trout Creek No. 212,4004
Popo Agie RiverBills Park03
Gill Park7102
Little Popo Agie River79,0002
Louis Lake8,0142
Middle Popo Townsend03
No. 53 (not named)9,0002
North Popo Agie River103,0003
Off-Channel (site 5)2,9401
Off-Channel (site 6)2,4001
Onion Flats10,0001
Pete's Lake7622
Popo Agie River No. 4102,3362
Popo Agie River No. 118,9001
Popo Agie River No. 238,7812
Popo Agie River No. 3102,3362
Sand Hills20,9301
Sharp Nose Draw No. 215,3361
Surrel Creek No. 19,0002
Surrel Creek No. 216,6881
Willow Creek No.29,5001
Beaver Creek (trib. Little Wind River)Batrum Gap No. 4 34,6152
Beaver Creek No. 18,8203
Beaver Creek No. 27004
Beaver Creek No. 31,2003
Beaver Creek No.427,3242
Off-Channel (site 4)4,8801
Smith and Springolf4264
Kirby DrawKirby Draw16,0004
Muskrat CreekKing Gorm5,3904
Muskrat Conant2,0394
Queen Thyra1,2354
Badwater CreekBadwater Creek (site 4)1,7704
Okie2174
Snyder Creek Detention3474
Waterworks No. 32114
Buffalo Creek trib. Bighorn RiverBuffalo Creek2,7003
Kirby CreekKirby3,0903
Bighorn RiverKirby130,0002
No Water CreekFruitland No. 17,2452
Fruitland No. 25,3182
Fruitland No. 41,0503
Nowood RiverBig Trails18,5004
Medicine Lodge2,2504
Nowood River175,0004
Paintrock1,3004
Solitude8,5704
Sumit5,8203
Tensleep Meadows13,4904
Tensleep Meadows13,4904
West Tensleep Lake1,1804
Wilson No. 13862
Wilson No. 23792
Shell CreekBeaver Creek (Coyote Basin)1,3852
Moberly-Stoddard2482
Moraine Creek No. 11,1502
Shell Canal2,1003
Shell Creek Lake2,0103
East Bighorn Lake TributariesBethwren1,3104
Crystal Creek (not named)6443
Porcupine Creek14,6604
Willis2,1303
Fivemile CreekFive Mile Creek No.11,8003
Five Mile Creek No.27,7763
Five Mile Creek No.32,1003
Maverick Spring Draw7,1004
Ocean Lake41,9311
Teapot Gulch No. 12,0003
Teapot Gulch No. 25,0224
Muddy CreekBlue Draw23,1503
Dry Muddy Creek28,0004
East Fork Sheep Creek3,9004
Muddy Creek No. 110,5003
Muddy Creek No. 234,0003
Muddy Creek No. 357,3443
Sagwup Draw No. 128,9004
Sagwup Draw No. 225,8954
Sheep Creek16,2003
Shotgun Creek No.12,7004
Shotgun Creek No.27,6004
W. Fork Sheep Creek29,1283
Cottonwood Creek trib. Boysen ReservoirBlue Holes351,0004
Cottonwood Creek1,5004
Cottonwood No. 121,1784
Cottonwood No. 221,1784
Owl CreekDempsey1,0701
Mountain View5,8301
Mud Creek North Fork4,3003
Mud Creek North Fork4,3003
North Fork Owl Creek8,7003
Owl Creek Basin5,2303
Owl Creek Irrigation23,2702
Owl Creek South Fork46,5002
Owl Creek South Fork46,5002
Owl Creek South Fork No. 122,6803
Owl Creek South Fork No. 220,0903
Owl Creek South Fork Trib.3,2001
Pumpkin Draw2,0001
Shotgun Creek2,7004
South Fork Owl Creek15,1003
Gooseberry CreekBuffalo Creek145,0002
Farmers14,5101
Gooseberry Creek3,6902
Gooseberry Creek3,6902
Gooseberry No. 11,7702
Gooseberry No. 28,5002
Little Buffalo Basin75,8102
Fifteen Mile CreekFifteen Mile Creek46,0802
Elk CreekElk Creek Valley1,1403
Greybull RiverAlpha Sandstone5792
Grey Bull River84,2004
Junietta1,2803
Lake McKinney No. 22022
Rawhide Creek34,7384
Rawhide Creek34,7384
Snyder Draw2,2402
Spring Creek64,7004
Thayer No. 16393
Dry CreekBench Canal2992
Lithomsen1,9603
Oregon Basin382,9503
Sage Creek1,0804
Sage Creek1,0804
Sage Creek Coulderwiley2,0603
Thomsen1,0103
Clarks Fork RiverBadger Basin69,2764
Bald Ridge14,6003
Clark30,4004
Clarks Fork750,0004
Clarks Fork522,8504
Hunter Mountain130,0003
Lagoon Lake1,3203
Lake Creek5,1004
Sunlight50,0004
Thief Creek200,0003
Shoshone River and TributariesBeck Lake1,000 4
Bliss Creek Meadows04
Cody Canal1,2104
Goff6633
Holden9,9003
Melvina Lake9374
Melvina Lake9364
Needle Mountain100,0004
Oregon Basin (closed basin)382,9503
Sage Creek1,0824
Sage Creek (SCS Site No. 1)1,5804
Skull Creek6414
Sulphur Creek18,4804
Wall Mountain50,0004


Appendix B
Bibliography


Alexander, R.B., Slack, J.R., Ludtke, A.S., Fitzgerald, K.K., Schertz, T.L., Briel, L.I., and Buttleman, Kim. Data from selected U.S. Geological Survey national stream water quality monitoring networks (WQN): U.S. Geological Survey, Digital Data Series DDS-37. 1996.

Allen, E.G. Leasable Mineral and Waterpower Land Classification Map of the Driggs Quadrangle, Idaho, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report OF-78-722, scale 1:250000. 1978.

American Sportfishing Association, http://www.asafishing.org

Anderson, B.M. Lithium in Surface and Ground Waters of the Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-72-6, scale 1:22000000. 1972.

Anderson Consulting Engineers. 2000. .Bear River Plan Task 3B. Surface Water Speadsheet Model Development.. Technical Memorandum, Fort Collins, CO. September 18.

Anderson Consulting Engineers. .Popo Agie Watershed Plan.. 2003

Annear, T. C., and Dey, P. D., Wyoming Game and Fish Department, .Instream Flow Program five-year Plan; 2001 to 2005,. 2001.

Annear, T. C., Wyoming Game and Fish Department, personal communication, July 2, 2001.

Annear, Tom. Personal Communication. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. June 2002.

Barnes, John. .Partial Interlocutory Decree for the General Adjudication of Surface Water Rights.. Wyoming State Engineer.s Office.

Bateman, A.F., Allen, E.G., Dugwyler, J.B., and Colbert, J.L. Leasable mineral and waterpower classification map of the Ashton quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1519, scale 1:63360. 1961.

Blakey, J.F. Temperature of Surface Waters in the Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-235, scale 1:5000000. 1967.

Bischoff, Jay, American Colloid Corporation, personal communication, September 10, 2002.

Boyle Engineering Corporation. 2001. .Green River Basin Plan Surface Water Data Synthesis and Spreadsheet Model Development.. Technical Memorandum, Denver, CO. January 2.

Brinkman, Bruce. 2002. Personal communication via e-mail. Contained in Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet entitled WindR-Flows.xls. February 21.

BRS, MWH, et al., .Power Generation Potential in the Wind River, Clarks Fork, and Big Horn Basins of Wyoming., 2003.

Case, J.C., Arneson, C.S., and Hallburg, L.L. Preliminary Digital Surficial Geology Map of Wyoming: Wyoming State Geological Survey, scale 1:5000000.1998.

Collins, Gary. Personal Interview. Wind River Reservation Water Engineer. January 24, 2002.

Cooley, M.E. Artesian pressures and water quality in Paleozoic aquifers in the Ten Sleep area of the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 2289, scale 1:250000. 1986.

Cox, E.R. Water resources of northwestern Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrolic Investigations Atlas HA-558, scale 1:250000. 1976.

Curtis, Jan, Wyoming State Climatologist. Personal correspondence by email. July 12, 2002.

Daly, Chris and George Taylor. 1997. .Wyoming Average Annual Precipitation, 1961-1990.. PRISM Services/Oregon State University. GIS Coverage

Deromedi, Joe, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Basin Advisory Group Presentation, Lander, June 11, 2002, and personal communication June 14,2002.

Drabenstott, Mark. .Beyond Agriculture: New Policies for Rural America.. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. www.kc.frb.org

Donnell and Allred. Personal Communication. August, 2002.

Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, September, 2002. http://www.eia.doe.gov/

Equality State Almanac 2000, Wyoming Economic Analysis Division, p. 105 (citing Wyoming Game & Fish Department).

Francfort, James E., Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, .U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment for Wyoming,. U. S. Department of Energy, December, 1993.

Freeman, A. Myrick, AWater Pollution Policy,@ in Public Policies for Environmental Protection, Paul R. Portney, Ed. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 1991, p. 104.

Foulke, Coupal and Taylor. .Trends in Wyoming Agriculture: Agriculture Employment (1969-1997).. UW College of Agriculture. Cooperative Extension Service. October 2000.

Fox, James E., and Dolton, Gordon L., Wind River Basin Province and Bighorn Basin Province, USGS National Oil and Gas Assessment, 1995

Galloway, Laura, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service irrigation specialist, Worland NRCS office, personal communication, 2001.

Gores and Associates, P.C. Riverton regional water master plan, Level I, Final Report. Consultant.s Report prepared for the Wyoming Water Development Commission. 1998.

Grapes, Cheryl, Resource Consultant, USDA NRCS, personal communication, June 28, 2002.

Greater Yellowstone Coalition, http://www.greateryellowstone.org. 2002.

Green, G.N., and Drouillard, P.H. Bedrock Geology Map of Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey. 1994.

Hamerlinck, J.D., and Arneson, C.S. Wyoming Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment Handbook. University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY. 1998.

Hansen, Sterling, Member Wind/Big Horn Advisory Group, personal communication August, 2001 and August, 2002.

Harvey, Edward and Jeavons, Doug. Task 4. Bear River Basin Water Demand Projections Memo 4: Future Recreational Demands. BBC Research and Consulting. 2000.

HKM Engineering Inc. 2002. Powder-Tongue River Basin Available Surface Water Determination, Task 3D. Technical Memorandum. February.

HKM Engineering Inc. 2001. Powder-Tongue River Basin Plan Spreadsheet Model Development and Calibration, Task 3B. Technical Memorandum. December.

Idaho National Energy Laboratories (INEL). 2003.

Jacobs, J. and Brosz, D., .Wyoming.s Water Resources,. University of Wyoming College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, August, 2000. http://library.wrds.wyo.edu/

Lamb, C., 2002, Personal communication with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII in Denver, Colorado.

Lewis. 1978.

Libra, R., Doremus, D., and Goodwin, C. Occurrence and Characteristics of Groundwater in the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming Water Resources Research Institute. University of Wyoming. 1981.

Lowham, H.W., Streamflows in Wyoming, US Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 88-4045, 1988.

Lowry, Sue, Interstate Streams Administrator and Director of Policy, Wyoming State Engineer.s Office, personal communications, August, 2002 and June 28, 2002.

Lyman, Bob., Wyoming State Geological Survey, personal communication, May, 2002.

Madsen, Larry, Black Hills Bentonite, personal communication, September 9, 2002.

Magstaff, Rick, WyoBen Corporation, personal communication, September 10, 2002.

Marston, R.A., Pochop, L.O., Kerr, G.L., and Varuska, M.L. (1989) Recent Trends in Glaciers and Glacial Runoff, Wind River Range, Wyoming. Proceedings of the Symposium on Headwaters Hydrology, American Water Resources Association, 159-169.

Marston, R.A., Pochop, L.O., Kerr, G.L., and Varuska, M.L. (1989) Long-Term Trends in Glacier and Snowmelt Runoff, Wind River Range, Wyoming. Project Report Prepared for the Wyoming Research Center, University of Wyoming, 1-51.

Marston, R.A., Pochop, L.O., Kerr, G.L., Varuska, M.L., and Veryzer, D.J. (1991) Recent Glacier Changes in the Wind River Range, Wyoming. Physical Geography, 12,2: 115-123.

Martner, B, Wyoming Climate Atlas, Wyoming Water Research Center, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 1986.

Miselis, Daiva V. Development of Improved Hydrologic Models for Estimating Streamflow Characteristics of the Mountainous Basins in Wyoming. Thesis submitted to the Department of Renewable Resources and The Graduate School of the University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY. 1999.

Naftz, D.L. and Smith, M.E. Ice Thickness, Ablation, and Other Glaciological Measurements on Upper Fremont Glacier, Wyoming. Physical Geography, 14,4: 404-414. 1993.

Naftz, D.L., Klusman, R.W., Michel, R.L., Schuster, P.F., Reddy, M.M., Taylor, H.E., Yanosky, T.M., and McConnaughey, E.A. Little Ice Age Evidence from a South-Central North American Ice Core, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research, 28,1: 35-41. 1996.

Naftz, D.L., Susong, D.D., Schuster, P.F., Cecil, L.D., Dettinger, M.D., Michel, R.L., and Kendall, C. Ice Core Evidence of Rapid Air Temperature Increases Since 1960 in Alpine Areas of the Wind River Range, Wyoming, United States. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107, 0. 2002.

National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 48, No. 3. March 28, 2000.

Nelson Engineering. 2001. Riverton East Irrigation Project (Draft Report). Level II Feasibility Study, Wyoming Water Development Commission. Jackson, WY. October.

Office of the Tribal Water Engineer. .Wind River Reservation Tour.. August, 2000.

Ostresh, Lawrence M., Marston, Richard A. Hudson, Walter M. Wyoming Water Atlas. Wyoming Water Development Commission and University of Wyoming. 1990.

Petras, Ivan. 2000. .Arcview 2.1 Basin Extension.. Downloaded from www.esra.com. April 11. [new link 10/2009 http://forums.esri.com/Thread.asp?c=3&f=38&t=63770]

Pochop, Larry, Travis Teegarden, Greg Kerr, Ronald Delaney and Victor Hasfurther. Consumptive Use and Consumptive Irrigation Requirements in Wyoming. WWRC Publication #92-06. University of Wyoming, Laramie. October, 1992.

Pochop, L., Marston, R., Kerr, G., Veryzer, D., Varuska, M., and Jacobel, R. Glacial Icemelt in the Wind River Range, Wyoming. Watershed Planning and Analysis in Action Symposium Proceedings, Durango, CO: American Society of Civil Engineers, 118-124. 1990.

Purcell, Mike, Institutional Constraints,@ page 1: Technical Memorandum, Green River Basin Plan, Wyoming Water Development Commission, 2001.

Rankl, James G., Ellen Montague and Bernard N. Lenz. Estimates of Monthly Streamflow Characteristics at Selected Sites, Wind River and Part of Bighorn River Drainage Basins, Wyoming. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4014.

Richter, Jr., H.R. Occurrence and characteristics of ground water in the Wind River Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming Water Resources Research Institute. University of Wyoming. 1981.

Roncolio, Teno. 1982. Report Concerning Reserved Water Right Claims By and On Behalf of the Tribes of the Wind River Indian Reservation, Wyoming. Civil Case No. 4993, District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Wyoming. December 15.

Rumsey, C.J. 1997. Instream Flow Water Rights: The Process of Appropriation. In Proceeding of Wyoming Water 1997 . What.s New in the Toolbox? April 21-23. 1997. Casper, WY. Sponsored by the Wyoming Water Resource Center, University of Wyoming.

Schuster, P.F., White, D.E., Naftz, D.L., and Cecil, L.D. (2000) Chronological Refinement of an Ice Core Record at Upper Fremont Glacier in South Central North America. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, D4: 4657-4666.

Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH). 2001b. Upper Wind River Storage Project . Level 1 Study. Final Report. Prepared for Wyoming Water Development Commission, Contract No. 05SC0291630, SEH No. AWWDC00101.00 November 30.

Smith, Tim R. .The Relationship between the Tenth District Economy and the National Economy.. Economic Review, 4th Quarter. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. 1996.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Interim Irrigation On-Farm Report for Wind River Basin Water Supply Study (DRAFT). Casper, Wyoming. May, 1992.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Irrigation Water Requirements. Part 623, National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 2. September, 1992.

State Engineer.s Office. Big Horn General Adjudication. 1999. (http://seo.state.wy.us/)

States West Water Resources Corporation. 2001. Guidelines for Development of Basin Plans. Prepared for the Wyoming Water Development Commission, State of Wyoming Water Basin Planning Process. February.

Susong, D.D., Smalley, M.L., and Banta, E.R. Water resources of Washakie County, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4044, scale 1:250000. 1993.

TriHydro Corporation, .Technical Memorandum Wind/Bighorn Lands Mapping and Water Rights Data Task 2A.. Laramie, Wyoming, 2003.

Tyrell, Pat, .Green River Basin Plan: Environmental Uses,. p. 6, December, 2000.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2002.

University of Wyoming, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, .Resident Outdoor Recreation for Fremont County, WY., July, 1999.

University of Wyoming, .Economic Trends in Wyoming.s Mineral Sector.

University of Wyoming, Water Resources Data System.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region. .Wind River Indian Reservation: Municipal, Rural, and Industrial Water Supply Needs Assessment (Draft Report).. January 1996.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service: www.nrcs.usda.gov

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), December 19, 2000, .Wyoming EQUIP FY2001 Notice #1,. Ray Gullins, NRCS, Worland, WY.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1997 Census of Agriculture. Wyoming . County Data, 1997.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Briefing.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Worland District Office, .Bighorn River Habitat & Recreation Management Plan,. 1986, p. 25.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Reservoir Information available through the Internet

U.S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17: Notice of Review: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered Species.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . Wyoming. 2001 Wyoming Survey. http://www.census.gov

U.S. Geological Survey. 2002.

U.S. National Park Service, Nationwide Rivers Inventory, 1982: http://www.nps.gov.

Vore, Ron, Water Conservationist, Basin Advisory Group Presentation, Worland, Wyoming, August 13, 2002.

Water Division Number Three, Tabulation of Adjudicated Surface Water Rights of the State of Wyoming, October, 1999.

Watts and Associates, Inc. Northeast Wyoming River Basin Plan: Future Recreational and Environmental Water Requirements Task 4. 2002.

WASS. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics for 2000. 2002.

Wentworth, C.K. and Delo, D.M.: (1931) Dinwoody Glaciers, Wind River Mountains, Wyoming. With a Brief Survey of Existing Glaciers in the United States. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 42:605-620.

Wiley, Robert, Wyoming Game & Fish Commission, personal communication, December, 2001.

Wind River Water Code, Wind River Reservation, adopted 1991.

Wind River Water Resources Control Board. .Wind River Irrigation Project Assessment and Plan.. 1994.

Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service (WASS), http://www.nass.usda.gov, August, 2001.

Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service (WASS), .Wyoming County Data, 2000.. From website: http://www.nass.usda.gov, 2002.

Wyoming Economic Analysis. Equality State Almanac 2000. 2000.

Wyoming Energy Commission Progress Report, Section VI., Electric Transmission Working Group, www.wyomingenergy.org

Wyoming Department of Employment. Research and Planning Outlook 2000: Detailed Occupational Projections and Labor Supply, October 2000.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Water Quality rules and regulations. Quality standards for Wyoming groundwaters. Cheyenne, WY. Wyoming Secretary of the State. 1993.

Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources. Visitor Use Program 1995-1999. Division of State Parks and Historical Sites. 2000.

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. Annual Report of Upland Game and Furbearer Harvest 2000. Tables 1 and 2. 2001.

Wyoming Housing Database Partnership, Final Report, September 2001.

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2000 Wyoming Oil and Gas Statistics. Casper, WY. 2000.

Wyoming State Department of Health, Table: .Birth and Rates by County of Residence, Wyoming, 1996-2000..

Wyoming State Engineer.s Office, Wyoming Instream Flow Applications, 2002.

Wyoming State Engineer.s Office, .Water Conservation, Green River Basin Plan,. Ron Vore and Sue Lowry, December, 2000.

Wyoming State Engineer.s Office (SEO), Water and Related Land Resources of the Bighorn River Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming Water Planning Program Report No. 11. Cheyenne, Wyoming. October, 1972.

Wyoming State Parks and Historic Sites Fee Program, Appendix C, .Visitation Statistics,. 2001.

Wyoming State Statutes, Title 41 . Chapter 12 . Article 6 - Yellowstone River Compact

Wyoming Water Development Commission. .Yellowstone River Compact 1950.. Wyoming State Water Plan website. 2001. http://waterplan.state.wy.us

Wyoming Water Development Commission, .2002 Legislative Report, Situation Analysis.: http://wwdc.state.wy.us

Wyoming Water Development Commission, .2002 Water System Survey Report.. 2002

Wyoming Water Development Commission, Big Horn Basin, Clarks Fork Level II Study, April, 1986.

Wyoming Water Development Commission, Irrigation System Survey Report. Cheyenne, 1999.

Wyoming Water Resources Center, .Consumptive Use and Consumptive Irrigation Requirements: Wyoming,. 1992.

Yellowstone National Park, Visitation Statistics

Yellowstone River Compact Commission (YRCC). 2002. Information and communication during Annual Meeting. Cody, WY. December 3.