Powder/Tongue River Basin Water Plan
Final Report

II      Basin Water Use Profile

A.     Overview

As with all chapters in this final plan report, explicit lists of references are not provided. Instead, all references to reports, maps, and personal communications are provided in the Technical Memoranda prepared for each category of water use. The reader is referred to the following technical memoranda for a more detailed description of each topic as well as the list of references:

• Irrigation Diversion and Operation Description
• Storage Operation and Description
• Irrigated Lands Mapping and Water Rights Data
• Irrigated Crops
• Agricultural Water Use
• Municipal Water Use
• Domestic Water Use
• Industrial Water Use
• Recreational Water Uses
• Environmental Water Uses

B.     Agricultural Water Use

Irrigated agriculture in the planning area is primarily associated with forage production for the livestock industry. Ranchers depend on irrigated cropland to provide winter feed and summer grazing for a successful ranching enterprise. Early in Wyoming's history, ranchers had discovered that successful farming required irrigation. By the 1890's, many ranchers were taking advantage of cheap irrigation of bottomlands along the small tributary streams, but most of the water from the large rivers was being carried unused into other states. As the direct flow supply of the streams became fully appropriated, reservoirs were constructed, where suitable sites could be found, to store spring runoff for late-season irrigation uses. One of the earliest of these was Cloud Peak Reservoir. This reservoir began as a natural lake on the main stem of South Piney Creek. An earthen embankment and an outlet works were constructed to increase the storage regulation potential of this site. Today there are 14 significant storage facilities in the Powder/Tongue River Basin planning area, allowing for expanded irrigation use of the natural flows in the planning area

According to the 1972 Framework Water Plan, well over 80 percent of the water consumed by man's activities in the Northeastern corner of Wyoming is used for irrigation. An accurate estimate of current agricultural water use is, therefore central to a comprehensive water use inventory. Estimates of water use by agriculture can generally be divided into the following three components:

1. Quantity of irrigated lands
2. Types of crops grown
3. Amount of water consumed for irrigation

A 1:24,000 scale Geographic Information System (GIS) data theme was developed to represent the spatial extent and character of irrigated lands throughout the planning area. The most current (1994 to 1996) stereo aerial photography was used as the primary basis for mapping the irrigated lands. In addition to the 1994/1996 stereo aerial photography, 1983 Color Infrared (CIR) aerial photography, and 1979 black-and-white aerial photography available for portions of the planning area were utilized to verify the limits of irrigation. The Tabulation of Adjudication Surface Water Rights of the State of Wyoming, ditch plat maps, and irrigation wells data obtained from the State Engineer's Office were utilized to further double-check areas of prospective irrigation. Following the office mapping process, field verification of the mapping results was performed and the mapping was provided to the SEO Division 2 field personnel for further verification. All man induced irrigation or subirrigation was delineated and irrigated lands were divided into the following categories:

A - Full service irrigation (typically receives a full water supply);
B - Partial service irrigation (typically receives a reduced water supply due to limited water availability or the inability to provide complete field coverage);
C - Man induced subirrigation (beneficial use resulting from incidental irrigation such as ditch seepage to areas below a canal);
E - Idle irrigation (lands not currently receiving water, typically due to nonfunctional delivery facilities);
S - Spreader dike irrigation (dikes constructed across ephemeral streams to spread infrequent flows over the land to increase beneficial use);
H - Minor beneficial use, (lands that receive some beneficial use on occasion such as lands served by "kick-out" ditches on ephemeral streams).
AD, BD, and ED . A, B, or E lands that have underwent or are currently undergoing residential development.

A database of the water rights associated with the mapped irrigation was also developed. This database, when linked to the irrigated lands polygons through the Geographic Information System (GIS), allows for identification of the water rights attached to the polygons of irrigated land.

For a more detailed description of the attributes provided for the Irrigated Lands and Point of Diversion spatial data themes and the Water Rights tabular database, as well as the digital base maps and other associated data themes, see the "Irrigated Lands and Water Rights Data" technical memorandum.

The extent of irrigated land within the planning area is shown on Figures II-1 through II-4. A typical area of irrigated lands mapping is illustrated on Figure II-5. The extent of the digital base map coverage is shown on Figure II-6 and the Agricultural Wells with yields of at least 50 gpm are shown on Figure II-7.

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

A summary of the quantity of irrigated lands is provided on Tables II-1 and II-2 and on Figure II- 8.

Table II-1
Summary of Irrigated Lands By Irrigation Classification (Acres)

Subbasin Name	HUC	Irrigation Classification
		A	B	C	AB	AC	BC	ABC	Total ABC	AD	BD	Total AD, BD	S	H	E	ED	Total E, ED	Total
Little Bighorn	10080016	635	685	16	340	61	0	0	1,737	7	0	7	0	0	632	0	632	2,376
Upper Tounge	10090101	22,085	12,294	655	16,099	4,808	906	9,487	66,334	1,926	1,881	3,807	245	52	2,757	25	2,782	73,220
Middle Fork Powder	10090201	2,866	3,156	0	2,179	871	20	2,031	11,123	0	0	0	0	0	512	0	512	11,635
South Fork Powder	10090203	645	734	91	561	0	0	0	2,031	0	0	0	0	72	383	0	383	2,486
Upper Powder	10090202	1,257	987	17	724	125	0	4,850	7,690	0	0	0	1,495	2,795	619	0	619	12,869
Crazy Woman Creek	10090205	2,351	2,993	32	2,007	568	0	4,669	12,620	0	0	0	688	254	843	0	843	14,405
Clear Creek	10090206	11,326	5,622	724	6,895	3,565	598	8,056	36,786	145	316	461	140	261	1,869	193	2,062	39,710
Middle Powder	10090207	0	581	0	0	0	0	0	581	0	0	0	1,553	484	275	0	275	2,893
Little Powder	10090208	163	2,950	49	0	0	38	0	3,200	0	0	0	3,363	3,312	172	0	172	10,047
TOTAL		41,328	30,002	1584	28,805	9,998	1562	29,093	142,372	2,078	2,197	4,275	7,484	7,230	8,062	218	8,280	169,641

Table II-2
Summary of Irrigated Lands By Primary Source of Supply (Acres)

Subbasin Name	HUC	Primary Source of Water Supply
		Ground Water	Surface Water	Total
Little Bighorn	10080016	0	2,376	2,376
Upper Tounge	10090101	0	73,220	73,220
Middle Fork Powder	10090201	58	11,577	11,635
South Fork Powder	10090203	0	2,486	2,486
Upper Powder	10090202	45	12,824	12,869
Crazy Woman Creek	10090205	97	14,308	14,405
Clear Creek	10090206	20	39,690	39,710
Middle Powder	10090207	0	2,893	2,893
Little Powder	10090208	0	10,047	10,047
TOTAL		220	169,421	169,641

Figue II-8
Acreage of Irrigated Land by Irrigation Classification

Irrigated Crops

Irrigated agriculture in the planning area is primarily associated with forage production for the livestock industry. Ranchers depend on irrigated cropland to provide winter feed and summer grazing for their stock. Alfalfa, grass hay, and pasture grass are the dominant crops grown in the planning area. Lesser amounts of small grains and corn are also produced.

Stereo aerial photography was used as a primary basis for determining the types of crop grown in the various portions of the planning area. A visual assessment of the condition of the fields and the foliage density was used as a primary means of distinguishing between alfalfa and grass hay or pasture. Row crops such as grain crops or corn were more easily distinguished visually although they were of much more limited extent. Following the office mapping process, field verification of the crop identifications was performed. Crop distributions from County Agricultural Statistics were used as a further crosscheck of the results.

The resulting distribution of irrigated crops is summarized in Table II-3 and on Figure III-9 by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC4) subbasin.

Table II-3
Summary of Irrigated Crops (Acres)

Subbasin Name	HUC	Acreage						Total Active	% Of Active Irrigated Acres
		Alfalfa	Grass	Grain	Corn	Idle	Total		Alfalfa	Grass	Grain	Corn
Little Bighorn	10080016	591	1,030	86	38	632	2,377	1,745	34	59	5	2
Upper Tounge	10090101	45,981	15,050	6,596	2,812	2,782	73,221	70,439	65	21	10	4
Middle Fork Powder	10090201	6,345	3,479	916	383	512	11,635	11,123	57	31	8	4
South Fork Powder	10090203	1,289	550	186	78	383	2,486	2,103	61	26	9	4
Upper Powder	10090202	5,821	5,239	837	353	619	12,869	12,250	47	43	7	3
Crazy Woman Creek	10090205	8,337	3,512	1,192	521	843	14,405	13,562	61	26	9	4
Clear Creek	10090206	24,223	8,464	3,490	1,471	2,063	39,711	37,648	64	23	9	4
Middle Powder	10090207	155	2,430	21	11	275	2,892	2,617	6	93	1	0
Little Powder	10090208	342	9,471	60	0	172	10,045	9,873	3	96	1	0
TOTAL		93,084	49,225	13,384	5,667	8,281	169,641	161,360	58	30	8	4

Figue II-9
Acreage of Irrigated Land by Crop

Irrigation Water Consumption

The depletion of water by irrigation is primarily dependent on the number of acres irrigated, the crop water demands, and the amount of water available to meet these demands.

Total crop water demands are dependent on the consumptive use of the crop. The crop consumptive use requirement is the maximum water use of a well-watered crop under optimum growing conditions. A portion of the total annual rainfall is available to meet this consumptive use requirement. Effective precipitation is defined as that part of the total rainfall during the growing season, which is available to meet the consumptive water requirements of the crops. The remaining consumptive use requirement, unmet by natural rainfall, is referred to as the Consumptive Irrigation Requirement (CIR).

Knowing the number of acres of irrigation within a Service Area (a grouping of lands served by a common supply ditch), the types of crops grown, and the climatic conditions, estimates of the theoretical maximum diversions can be made for all of the irrigated lands throughout the basin. In practice however, actual diversions commonly fall short of the amount necessary to meet the full CIR of the crops (the "theoretical maximum diversion requirement"). This is especially true with flood-irrigated, forage crops. Actual conditions seldom represent the optimum conditions necessary to achieve maximum water consumption.

Through the current planning effort, comparisons have been made between actual historic diversions for 70 key irrigation ditches and the theoretical maximum diversion to the lands served by these ditches (Service Areas). The relationships developed allow for estimation of actual diversions and depletions where records are unavailable. According to these relationships, the average proportion of actual historic diversions to theoretical maximum diversions is at a maximum in wet years (73 %), is somewhat lower in normal years (71 %), and is considerably lower in dry years (56 %). The ditches included in these averages serve a total of 79,046 acres and constitute 49 percent of the total active irrigated acreage in the planning area (161,360 acres). The climatic areas used in calculating the CIR and corresponding Theoretical Maximum Diversion Requirements are shown on Figure II-10.

click to enlarge

Not all of the water diverted for irrigation goes to meeting the crop water demands, in fact, the crop water consumption often times represents only a minor portion of the total diversion amount. A significant portion of the diverted flow is lost to seepage from the main conveyance ditch, lateral ditches, and field ditches, headgate leakage, ditch tailwater waste, field wastewater, and deep percolation past the crop root zone. Much of this "water loss" ultimately returns back to stream system for reuse downstream. That portion of the estimated actual diversion volume that is consumed by the crop is defined here as the estimated actual depletion. The estimated actual depletions for wet, normal, and dry years total 194,000 acre-feet, 184,000 acre-feet, and 178,000 acre-feet respectively and are summarized in Table II-4. The estimated actual depletions for the lands supplied by surface water and ground water are provided in Tables II-5 and II-6 respectively.

Table II-4
Estimated Actual Depletions (Acre-Feet)

Source of Supply	Active Irrigation (Acres)	Hydrologic Condition	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
Little Bighorn Basin	1,781	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 6 29	56 126 342	370 421 402	731 654 539	618 640 369	206 216 162	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	1,981 2,064 1,844
Tounge River Basin	62,760	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	27 189 1,049	1,994 4,614 11,422	12,268 15,398 14,764	24,914 22,463 21,219	20,365 21,741 14,108	9,461 6,960 5,458	2 3 8	0 0 0	0 0 0	69,031 71,369 68,028
Powder River Basin - Surface Supply	86,742	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	642 905 2,433	5,941 8,054 11,429	20,284 22,513 22,713	36,101 28,901 30,912	31,965 28,546 21,270	15,512 10,414 8,941	65 81 120	0 0 0	0 0 0	110,509 99,414 97,819
Powder River Basin - Ground Water Supply	203	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 3	17 13 18	49 42 40	91 58 68	83 64 47	39 18 18	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	279 194 194
Little Powder River Basin	9,873	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	655 591 580	939 1,119 1,678	2,339 2,142 1,982	3,435 3,039 2,814	3,183 2,763 2,048	1,611 1,325 825	24 21 17	0 0 0	0 0 0	12,186 10,999 9,943
Total	161,359	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	1,324 1,691 4,094	8,947 13,926 24,889	35,310 40,516 39,902	65,271 55,115 55,553	56,213 53,754 37,842	26,830 18,934 15,404	91 105 145	0 0 0	0 0 0	193,987 184,041 177,828

Table II-5
Estimated Actual Surface Water Depletions (Acre-Feet)

Source of Supply	Climate Stations1	Active Irrigation (Acres)	Hydrologic Condition	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
Little Bighorn Basin	Sheridan	1,781	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 6 29	56 126 324	370 421 402	731 654 539	618 640 369	206 216 162	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	1,981 2,064 1,844
Tounge River Basin	Sheridan	62,760	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	27 189 1,049	1,994 4,614 11,422	12,268 15,398 14,764	24,914 22,463 21,219	20,365 21,741 14,108	9,461 6,960 5,458	2 3 8	0 0 0	0 0 0	69,031 71,369 68,028
Upper Clear Creek	Buffalo	39,176	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	18 148 825	1,606 4,023 6,202	8,482 11,228 11,096	15,170 13,811 13,418	13,273 13,489 9,207	6,295 5,201 3,755	4 5 8	0 0 0	0 0 0	44,847 47,906 44,511
Lower Clear Creek	Buffalo & Weston	7,174	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	27 56 203	329 735 1,325	1,491 2,065 1,924	2,915 2,528 2,488	2,443 2,431 1,656	1,202 991 713	3 4 6	0 0 0	0 0 0	8,409 8,812 8,315
Upper Crazy Woman Creek	Buffalo	12,324	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	6 47 259	506 1,265 1,949	2,678 3,541 3,498	4,774 4,346 4,222	4,160 4,228 2,885	1,975 1,631 1,178	1 2 3	0 0 0	0 0 0	14,100 15,061 13,994
Lower Crazy Woman Creek	Buffalo & Weston	1,418	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	54 66 96	130 173 184	278 326 302	498 423 403	447 394 305	213 173 138	5 6 9	0 0 0	0 0 0	1,624 1,561 1,438
Upper Powder River Basin	Kaycee	18,107	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	210 207 551	2,288 1,085 1,214	5,307 3,879 4,558	9,336 5,715 8,036	8,568 5,910 5,462	4,331 1,727 2,393	20 27 38	0 0 0	0 0 0	30,059 18,549 22,252
South Fork Powder River	Kaycee & Midwest	2,103	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	5 4 6	304 25 7	725 251 218	1,157 425 684	1,028 567 457	548 64 176	1 1 1	0 0 0	0 0 0	3,768 1,337 1,548
Lower Powder River	Buffalo & Weston	6,440	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	322 378 494	779 747 548	1,324 1,222 1,115	2,253 1,653 1,662	2,045 1,527 1,298	947 626 588	32 36 55	0 0 0	0 0 0	7,701 6,188 5,760
Little Powder River Basin	Weston	9,873	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	655 591 580	939 1,119 1,678	2,339 2,142 1,982	3,435 3,039 2,814	3,183 2,763 2,048	1,611 1,325 825	24 21 17	0 0 0	0 0 0	12,186 10,999 9,943
Total		161,156	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	1,324 1,691 4,094	8,930 13,914 24,870	35,261 40,475 39,862	65,181 55,057 55,485	56,131 53,690 37,795	26,790 18,915 15,386	91 105 145	0 0 0	0 0 0	193,708 183,846 177,634

Notes: ¹ Where more than one climate stations were weighed 50-50.

Table II-6
Estimated Actual Ground Water Depletions (Acre-Feet)

Source of Supply	Climate Stations1	Active Irrigation (Acres)	Hydrologic Condition	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
Upper Clear Creek	Buffalo	20	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	1 2 3	4 6 6	8 7 7	7 7 5	3 3 2	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	23 25 23
Upper Crazy Woman Creek	Buffalo	97	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	4 10 15	20 27 27	37 34 33	34 35 24	16 13 10	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	112 119 110
Upper Powder River	Kaycee	58	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	8 0 0	17 6 6	31 11 19	28 15 12	14 1 4	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	98 34 41
Lower Powder River	Buffalo & Weston	28	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	4 0 0	8 3 2	15 5 9	14 7 6	6 1 2	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	46 16 19
Total		203	Wet Normal Dry	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 3	17 13 18	49 42 40	91 58 68	83 64 47	39 18 18	0 0 0	0 0 0	0 0 0	279 194 194

Notes: ¹ Where more than one climate stations were weighed 50-50.

C.     Municipal and Domestic Use

Municipal

There are twenty public water supply entities consisting of incorporated municipalities, districts, and privately owned water systems in the planning area. These entities are listed below along with an indication of whether their primary water source is surface water or ground water.

• Incorporated municipalities
  • City of Buffalo . surface water
  • Town of Clearmont . ground water
  • Town of Dayton . surface water
  • Town of Kaycee . ground water
  • Town of Ranchester . surface water
  • City of Sheridan . surface water
  • Town of Edgerton (water supplied by Casper Regional System, therefore the water source is not within this basin)
  • Town of Midwest (water supplied by Casper Regional System, therefore the water source is not within this basin)

• Districts
  • Anderson Improvement and Service District (water supplied by the City of Gillette)
  • Arvada Water District . ground water
  • Cook Road Water District . ground water
  • Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service District . ground water
  • Heritage Village Water and Sewer District . ground water
  • Means Water and Sewer District . ground water
  • Pine Butte Improvement and Service District . ground water
  • Prairie View/Champion Improvement and Service District . ground water

• Privately owned water systems
  • Soldier Creek Water Company (water supplied by the City of Sheridan)
  • Countryside Water Users Association . ground water
  • Eight-Mile Subdivision . ground water
  • Linch Utility . ground water

Table II-7 presents the monthly surface water depletions by Buffalo, Dayton, Ranchester, and Sheridan. Depletions, in million gallons (MG), are computed as the difference between the diversions from the stream and the amount of water returned to the stream through wastewater treatment facilities. Those months with negative depletions represent lagged return flows which exceed diversions for the given month. The municipalities of Midwest and Edgerton, and the Soldier Creek Water Company, although they use surface water, are not included in Table II-7. Midwest and Edgerton are supplied by the Casper area water system, which is outside the study area, and the Soldier Creek Water Company is served by the City of Sheridan.

Table II-7
Municipal Surface Water Use
(Million Gallons)

	Municipality
	Buffalo	Dayton	Ranchester	Sheridan
Population 1	3,900	678	701	18,500
GPCPD 2	325	234	300	260
DEPLETIONS
Water Source	Clear Creek	Tongue River	Tongue River	Big Goose Cr.
January	1.20	0.26	-0.20	18.84
February	0.29	-0.31	-0.80	18.84
March	-0.62	-0.04	-0.43	29.22
April	-1.99	-0.03	-0.57	27.49
May	6.67	1.02	1.13	56.90
June	27.19	2.34	3.20	98.42
July	49.54	5.62	8.01	139.94
August	48.63	5.36	6.83	150.32
September	19.44	3.95	1.13	93.23
October	5.76	0.35	-0.94	25.76
November	4.39	0.08	-0.72	13.65
December	3.48	0.45	-1.02	17.11
Total	163.98	19.05	15.62	689.72

¹ 2000 census
² Usage rate, gallons per capita per day

Table II-8 summarizes municipal ground water and Figure II-11 displays the location of municipal wells according to the records of the State Engineer's Office. Of the thirteen municipal ground water systems, only Kaycee discharges wastewater to surface water.

A comparison of existing municipal uses to the system capacity of the entity is presented in Table II-9. The general conclusion from this table is the municipal water systems in the Powder/Tongue River Basin have adequate capacity to meet existing needs. This conclusion assumes the only restriction on the amount of water supplied to the municipality is the water right, i.e. the permitted amount that can be diverted from the stream or withdrawn from a well. Hydrologic conditions, however, can also limit the amount of water available to a community. During dry years, such as 2001, water supply is not always adequate to satisfy all users and, consequently, diversions and withdrawals by entities with junior priority water rights are restricted in favor of senior appropriators.

Table II-8
Municipal Ground Water Use
(Million Gallons)

Municipality	Population 1	Gpcpd 2	Annual Use
Anderson I&SD	Supplied by City of Gillette
Arvada WD	Individual wells, no central system
Town of Clearmont	125	220	10.0
Cook Road WD	225	N/A
Countryside WUA	250	N/A
Eight-Mile Subdivision	90	140	4.6
Green Valley Estates I&SD	72	N/A
Heritage Village W&SD	700	81	20.7
Town of Kaycee	300	210	23.0
Linch Utility	20	N/A
Means W&SD	300	600	65.7
Pine Butte I&SD	100	N/A
Prairie View/Champion I&SD	Individual wells, no central system

¹ 2000 census
² Usage rate, gallons per capita per day

click to enlarge

Table II-9
Comparison of Usage to System Capacity

Municipality	Peak Day Demand (GMP)	System Capacity (GPM)	Water Right 1 (GPM)	Raw Water Storage (Acre-Feet)
City of Buffalo	2,220	5,380	5,848	1,647
Town of Clearmont	28	100		None
Cook Road WD	N/A	120		None
Countryside WUD	N/A	200	200	None
Town of Dayton	382	1,050		None
Town of Edgerton	21	290	None	None
Eight-Mile Subdivision	14	73	100	None
Green Valley Estates I&SD	N/A	100	100	None
Heritage Village W&SD	205	370		None
Town of Kaycee	132	165	165	None
Linch Utility		15		None
Means W&SD		200		None
Town of Midwest	130	290	None	None
Pine Butte I&SD				None
Town of Ranchester	475	700	7,180	None
City of Sheridan	7,200	12,850	7,180	3,604

¹ Water right is permitted diversion amount for surface water sources and permitted well yield for ground water sources

Domestic

Domestic use includes water supplied for rural homes, subdivisions, small trailer courts, commercial establishments, parks, campgrounds, rural schools, domestic uses at coal mines, and other small water uses that are not supplied from a central public water system. These uses are almost exclusively supplied from ground water. A notable exception is that limited irrigation of lawns and gardens from a surface water source is practiced by many rural homes where a surface source is available. Figure II-12 displays the location of domestic wells according to the records of the State Engineer's Office

The population served by individual domestic systems is estimated to be 11,938. To estimate domestic water usage it is assumed individuals served by domestic systems consume between 150 and 300 gallons per day. At this usage rate the total daily domestic use in the study area is between 1.79 and 3.58 million gallons. On an annual basis, domestic use is estimated to be between 2,010 and 4,010 acre-feet.

click to enlarge

Domestic use also includes consumption by two special types of systems:

• non-transient non-community systems . such as rural schools or commercial operations where people don't live there but return there every day; and
• transient non-community systems . such as restaurants and campgrounds where different people use water from the system each day.

Total domestic use, including permanent populations and the two special systems, is estimated to be between 2.09 and 3.88 million gallons per day, or between 2,350 and 4,350 acre-feet per year.

D.     Industrial Use

click to enlarge

The information reported here was obtained from individual water users, the Coalbed Methane Coordination Coalition (CBMCC), the Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (OGCC), and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

No water is currently being used in the study area for electric power generation. Further, the one operational mine, Spring Creek, only uses minimal amounts of water for dust suppression and domestic use. Water production and consumption associated with the conventional oil and gas and coalbed methane industries are described in the remainder of this section.

Conventional Oil and Gas Production

Conventional oil and gas wells produce as well as consume ground water. Water is consumed by injection into the oil and gas aquifers to stimulate production. According to OGCC records for the year 2000, 2,343 wells produced approximately 44,000 acre-feet of water, and 1,593 injection wells consumed about 38,000 acre-feet.

Injection water comes from two sources: oil and gas produced water and wells drilled specifically to pump injection water supply. Produced water can also be discharged to the surface. Because no agency monitors the amounts of produced water injected or discharged, the net amount of water consumed by conventional oil and gas wells can't be quantified.

Coalbed Methane Production

There is little direct consumptive use of water in the CBM industry. However, the production of CBM gas results from lowering the water table over the coal seam and a significant amount of ground water is produced in this operation. OGCC records indicate approximately 24,300 acre- feet of water was pumped from the 6,184 CBM wells in the Powder/Tongue River Basin in 2001. Throughout the history of CBM production, which dates back to the 1970s, OGCC records indicate approximately 50,500 acre-feet has been pumped. The locations of the CBM wells on record with the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission as of January 2002, by regions within the planning area are shown on Figure II-14.

There is little information available to quantify what happens to water pumped from CBM wells. The majority of this production water is discharged into existing drainages, and some is conveyed to small reservoirs where it either infiltrates or evaporates. A small portion of this water is reported to be used for irrigation.

click to enlarge

E.     Recreational Use

Water-based recreation is enhanced through minimum flow releases from reservoirs, minimum pool levels maintained in reservoirs, and instream flow water rights established on streams. These water administration topics are addressed in the environmental section of this chapter.

Data compiled for water-related recreational use is presented to the extent it is available. This report does not address the economic impacts of recreation in the planning area, although this data is presented in the Technical Memorandum prepared for this topic.

Boating

Many of the streams and lakes in the study area support boating activities, including whitewater, scenic, fishing, and water skiing. Boaters tend to use Dome Lake No. 1, Kearney, Lake DeSmet, Tie Hack, Twin Lakes, and Willow Park reservoirs, with Lake DeSmet getting the greatest share of motorized boating. Boating is a non-consumptive use because it depends on waters being maintained for other purposes.

Because permits are not required for boating anywhere in the planning area, usage numbers that could indicate capacity limits and pressures are not available from management agencies. The Bureau of Reclamation's default figure of one boat per ten surface acres of water is used to estimate capacities elsewhere, but until use numbers are generated in the study area to support this estimate that guideline cannot be used.

At present, no central agency monitors or controls float trips on the streams in the study area, although individuals do occasionally float the Powder River. No records are available to quantify this use of streams within the basin.

Fishing

Fishing represents the biggest recreation-related water use in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. This use is non-consumptive and, in most cases, is dependent on water devoted to other uses such as irrigation or municipal. A notable exception to this dependency is the instream flow water right program administered by the State of Wyoming. Instream flows are discussed later in this section of the report.

The State of Wyoming classifies trout streams under the five designations listed below:

• Class 1 . Premium trout waters . fisheries of national importance
• Class 2 . Very good trout waters . fisheries of statewide importance
• Class 3 . Important trout waters . fisheries of regional importance
• Class 4 . Low production trout waters . fisheries frequently of local importance, but generally incapable of sustaining substantial fishing pressure
• Class 5 . Very low production waters . often incapable of sustaining a trout fishery

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) maintains records of fishing activity. According to recent records, the 204 streams in the Powder/Tongue study area tracked by the WGFD experience about 121,000 angler-days annually. Standing water (ponds, lakes, reservoirs) see about 109,000 angler-days in a year. These WGFD estimates are not all current and do not include the lower reaches of many drainages in the planning area. Updated estimates of fishing activity were developed for this planning study to reflect current activity in the entire planning area. These estimates indicate that the Powder/Tongue River Basin experiences approximately 140,000 activity-days of stream fishing each year and 132,000 activity-days of fishing on standing waters.

Basin management plans developed by WGFD provide additional information on fishing in the study area. This data is summarized below:

Little Bighorn River Drainage

Streams----------------------- 7,039 angler-days/year Standing Water---------------- 238 angler-days/year

Tongue River Drainage, excluding Goose Creek

Streams----------------------- 57,111 angler-days/year Standing Water---------------- 10,204 angler-days/year

Goose Creek Drainage

Streams----------------------- 15,266 angler-days/year Standing Water---------------- 10,337 angler-days/year

Clear Creek Drainage

Streams----------------------- 31,382 angler-days/year Standing Water*--------------- 57,280 angler-days/year Lake DeSmet------------------- 43,389 angler-days/year *excluding Lake DeSmet

Crazy Woman Creek Drainage

Streams----------------------- 11,046 angler-days/year Standing Water---------------- 4,262 angler-days/year

Middle Fork Powder River Drainage

Streams----------------------- 14,914 angler-days/year Standing Water---------------- 1,668 angler-days/year

Little Powder River Drainage

Streams----------------------- 2,573 angler-days/year Standing Water----------------- 518 angler-days/year

Powder River Drainage, excluding Clear Creek, Crazy Woman Creek, Middle Fork Powder River, and Little Powder River

Streams----------------------- 891 angler-days/year Standing Water---------------- 3,769 angler-days/year

Waterfowl Hunting

The harvest of migratory waterfowl is a recreational pursuit affected by the presence or absence of water. Wetlands and open water are needed for breeding, nesting, rearing, feeding and isolation from land-based predators. In the Powder/Tongue River Basin, which represents the western extreme of the central flyway, waterfowl hunting is pursued where sufficient local or migratory populations are available.

Harvest objectives are not currently used (post-1993), because harvest is taken into account in the setting of season length and bag limits by the USFWS using the "Adaptive Harvest Management" concept. In effect, the desired harvest is a prospective number using past hunter success, population effects, and regulations in concert with current-year populations. With current duck populations and hunting pressure, it appears there is a sufficient resource to provide a quality duck hunting experience now and in the near future, with the existing water resources of the basin.

Similarly, goose hunting seasons and bag limits are set under guidelines from the USFWS, although states have more flexibility in setting bag and possession limits. Like duck populations, goose populations are strong and increasing. With approval from USFWS, states can set special seasons to allow depredation harvest from growing local flocks. According to historic estimates, the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) of Canada geese has grown approximately four-fold since 1972. Since 1989, populations have increased at a rate of eight percent per year.

Lake DeSmet

Lake DeSmet, the biggest standing water recreation attraction in the Powder/Tongue River Basin, supports skiing, fishing, swimming, boating, and camping and has a long history of doing so, despite its history of ownership by private corporations. Named after an early Jesuit priest, the lake now hosts the annual Buffalo Lions Club annual Memorial Day Weekend fishing Derby, which draws 5,000 . 7,000 people.

The lake began as a 1,500-surface-acre natural lake and was developed into a reservoir with 3,265 surface acres at operational maximum. It has an average depth of 69 feet and a maximum depth of 120 feet at capacity. This supports what the Wyoming Game and Fish Department calls "the most important reservoir trout fishery in northeastern Wyoming." At least part of what makes the lake so valuable a fishery is its stable volume. The industrial rights for the lake are not developed at present, allowing the lake's level to be maintained within four to seven feet of capacity during most years. This also provides a stable base for boating under normal circumstances.

Recreation in the lake was permitted by Texaco, which allowed boat ramps and public toilets. Current facilities include 36 camping spots, two boat ramps, a subsidiary boat launching area, and three public toilets. In 2001 the lake underwent a change in ownership from Texaco to a coalition of Johnson, Sheridan, and Campbell counties. The coalition owns the water only. A little more than 30 acres were given to Johnson County as part of the transfer, but the area south of the main boat ramps, which was previously leased, will not be developed until funding becomes available.

Public access amenities, including restrooms, boat ramps, docks, picnic areas, and camping facilities, attract many visitors to Boat Dock Bay and Barkey Draw within the Mikesell-Potts access area. Texaco, Johnson County Recreation District, the Buffalo Lion's Club, and WGFD have provided resources for development and maintenance of public access. Estimates of public access and use are not available for Lake DeSmet. Although access fees have been collected since 1997, fee collection provides only a general indication of recreational use of the lake's facilities.

The WGFD stocks and maintains the fishery in Lake DeSmet primarily for the Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout, but a number of species have been caught or spotted in the lake in the past 10 years. Fishing pressure on the lake has been calculated to be 43,400 angler-days (13.3/acre) and 166,300 hours (51/acre) in a 1991 creel survey. It is estimated 90 percent of these anglers come from the three nearby counties of Johnson, Sheridan, and Gillette.

F.     Environmental Use

This section of the report discusses the water administration topics of minimum flow releases, minimum pool maintenance, and instream flow water rights. Other topics included in this section include environmental concerns associated with water produced by coalbed methane development, wetland mapping, and comments and concerns of groups with environmental interests.

Water Administration

Minimum flow releases from reservoirs, minimum pool levels maintained in reservoirs, and instream flow water rights established on streams are all intended to protect and enhance water- related habitat. A major and desired consequence of implementing these water administration criteria is the increase in recreational opportunities and use.

According to the WGFD, minimum flow releases and minimum reservoir pools have been integrated into the operating parameters of seven reservoirs in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. These reservoirs and the associated operating parameters are described in Table II-10.

Table II-10
Minimum Flow Releases and Minimum Conservation Pools

Reservoir	Minimum Flow Release (CFS)	Minimum Pool (Acre-Feet)
Park	4.5	588
Dull Knife	None	100
Willow Park	None	325
Kearney	None	Original Lake
Cloud Peak	None	Original Lake
Tie Hack	6.0	780
Twin Lake	Lesser of 2.5 or inflow	None

In 1986, the State of Wyoming enacted legislation defining "instream flow" as a beneficial use of water, and stipulated how instream flow water rights would be filed, evaluated, granted or denied, and ultimately regulated. Instream flow rights are filed with the Wyoming State Engineer's Office, held by the Wyoming Water Development Commission, and managed by Wyoming Game and Fish.

The law allows for instream flow water rights to be filed and granted on unappropriated water originating as natural flow or from storage in existing or new reservoirs. For natural flow sources, the flow amount is defined as the minimum needed to "maintain or improve existing fisheries." The language relating to stored water is slightly different, defining the minimum needed to "establish or maintain new or existing fisheries." Generally speaking, instream flow is considered a non-consumptive beneficial use.

Instream flow segments in the Powder/Tongue River Basin are described in Table II-11 and shown on Figure II-15. Of the six instream flow applications, the Wyoming State Engineer's Office has granted water rights for the segments on the Little Bighorn River, Middle Fork Powder River, and Tongue River. Evaluation and action on the other segments are pending. In addition to the six segments described in Table II-11, WGFD is currently evaluating a number of streams in the Powder/Tongue River Basin as candidates for instream flow water right applications.

Table II-11
Instream Flow Water Rights

Stream	Location	Flow/Timing	Priority
Little Bighorn River Drainage
Dry Fork 1	Mouth of Garland Gulch (Section 35, T57N, R89W) to mouth of Dry Fork (NE ¼ of the NW ¼, Section 12, T57N, R90W) (7.4 miles long)	20 cfs, Oct. 1 - March 31 25 cfs, April 1 - June 30 25 cfs, July 1 - Sept. 30 1	11/30/2000
Little Bighorn River	Mouth of Dry Fork (NE ¼ of NW ¼, Section 12, T57N, R90W) to north boundary of SW ¼ of SW ¼, Section 20, T58N, R89W (4.40 miles long)	60 cfs, Oct. 1 - Nov. 15 50 cfs, Nov. 16 - March 31 60 cfs, April 1 - June 30 62 cfs, July 1 - Sept. 30	3/6/1989
Powder River Drainage
Clear Creek No. 1	Confluence of North and South Clear Creek (NW ¼ of SE ¼ of Section 7, T50N, R83W) to the SE ¼ of NW ¼, Section 10, T50N, R83W (4.9 miles long)	7.8 cfs, Oct. 1 - March 31 40 cfs, April 1 - June 30 30 cfs, July 1 - Sept. 30	10/6/1994
Clear Creek No. 2	Ending point of Clear Creek No. 1 to SE ¼ of NW ¼, Section 6, T50N, R82W, approximately 750 feet downstream of USGS Gage No. 06318500 (3.2 miles long)	6 cfs, Oct. 1 - March 31 40 cfs, April 1 - June 30 25 cfs, July 1 - Sept. 30	10/6/1994
Middle Fork Powder River	West side of Section 28, T42N, R85W to east boundary of NE ¼ of NE ¼, Section 22, T42N, R84W (9.96 miles long)	12 cfs, July 1 - March 31 25 cfs, April 1 - June 30	2/2/1987
Tongue River Drainage
Tongue River	USFS boundary upstream to the confluence of the South Fork of the Tongue. From the confluence of the North and South Forks (NE ¼ of NW ¼, Section 22, T56N, R88W) downstream to east section of Section 10, T56N, R87W (8.28 miles long)	60 cfs, July 1 - March 31 80 cfs, April 1 - April 30 180 cfs, May 1 - June 30	6/16/1987

¹ WGFD also recommends a channel maintenance flow as part of the instream flow allocation for the Dry Fork of the Little Bighorn River. This recommendation has not been approved by the State Engineer's Office.

click to enlarge

Coalbed Methane Water Production

Coalbed methane (CBM) is produced by lowering the pressure over the coal seam through reducing the column of water in the coal aquifer. Environmental concerns related to the water produced from CBM wells fall into two categories: quantity and quality.

Environmental concerns about this quantity of ground water now flowing over the surface include: 1) increased sedimentation in streams; 2) increased erosion in everything from the draws and gullies collecting the discharges to main-stem rivers downstream; 3) constant presence of water over soils in areas historically watered only in brief episodes; and, 4) increased flooding.

Water quality concerns associated with CBM activity include: 1) the interaction of sodium- adsorption ratio (S.A.R.) in the produced water with soils downstream of the discharge; 2) the variable nature of potential pollutants like sodium, barium, iron, and manganese in produced waters; 3) the emergence of salt crusts on newly waterlogged clays; and, 4) the reaction of organisms (from microinvertebrates to fish to humans) to the produced waters in draws, ponds, or rivers.

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has established a general permit for CBM discharge waters. Under this permit operators are required to monitor discharges following a specified schedule, and for specified parameters, to determine if the quality of the discharge is within allowable limits. The coverage of the operators under the general permit is dependent on staying within the limits established by DEQ.

Organizations outside the state government have been calling for more information to form the basis for regulation of CBM produced water. For instance, a memorandum distributed by the Coalbed Methane Coordination Coalition (CBMCC) assesses the need for further research on discharge alternatives:

Watershed-based water management plans and landowner associations are key to controlling impact and taking maximum advantage of produced water. Alternatives to discharge such as irrigation, storage and retrieval, dust control, and fire suppression all must be tested and evaluated. Consideration must be given to surface water, alluvial underflow, and ground water. The effects of recharge on alluvium are difficult to study yet very important as alluvial aquifers are important for agriculture. On the obverse of the coin, drawdown issues must be addressed in the deeper aquifers. Means to minimize and mitigate transboundary effects on downstream parties must be identified and implemented where appropriate.

Wetlands Mapping

Wetlands are transitional lands between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of the classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes:

• at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes;
• the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and
• the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.

click to enlarge

Comments and Concerns

As part of this task, groups with environmental concerns were identified and contacted to solicit comments and concerns on environmental issues in this basin. Each of the groups were asked the following questions:

• What are the basic environmental demands/uses in the Powder/Tongue River Basin at present?
• How have those changed in the past few decades?
• How are they likely to change in the next 30 years?

• Quantity and quality of water produced by coalbed methane development
• Impediments to fish migration imposed by dams and irrigation facilities
• Protection and enhancement of wetlands, riparian habitat, and fisheries
• Impact of reservoir level fluctuations on fisheries
• Inadequacies of the TMDL program
• Protection and enhancement of habitat for threatened and endangered species

G.     Reservoir Evaporation

Table II-12
Key Storage Reservoirs

Reservoir	Active Capacity (af)	Dam Height (ft)	Surface Area (acres)	Annual Net Evap. Loss (af)
Big Goose Park	10,362	85	318	557
Big Horn	4,624	45	179	296
Cross Creek	798	30	51	278
Cloud Peak	3,570	36	174	85
Dome Lake No. 1	1,506	30	96	8,372
Dull Knife	4,345	80	130	170
Healy	5,140	50	246	205
Kearney Lake	6,324	67	193	556
Lake Desmet	111,827	80	2653	291
Muddy Guard No. 2	1,934	57	48	113
Sawmill	1,275	38	75	136
Tie Hack	2,435	110	63	148
Twin Lakes	1,317	54	52	112
Willow Park	4,457	56	213	N.A.

The locations of these reservoirs are shown on Figure II-17. In addition to the detailed information compiled for these 14 key facilities, statistical data has also been compiled for 189 additional reservoirs with capacities in excess of 50 acre-feet or in excess of 20 feet in height.

click to enlarge

Evaporation from man made storage reservoirs constitutes another consumptive use of water within the planning area. The net evaporation volume from the key storage reservoirs is determined by multiplying the net depth of evaporation (gross evaporation minus precipitation) by the water surface area of the respective reservoirs. Normal precipitation depths across the planning area were shown on Figure I-2.

End-of-month storage records are available for only four of the key reservoirs (Twin Lakes, Tie Hack, Healy, and Lake DeSmet). The average, monthly water surface area was determined for these four facilities using these records and when multiplied by the net monthly evaporation loss, yielded total evaporation volumes.

Relationships of average monthly end-of-month storage to total reservoir capacity were developed for the four facilities with historical records. These monthly proportions were averaged for the four reservoirs and applied to the total reservoir capacities of the remaining 10 facilities, in order to make reasonable estimates of monthly storage volumes and the corresponding water surface areas for these facilities as well. With this information, evaporation volumes for the remaining 10 facilities was determined. Total reservoir evaporation is estimated at 11,300 acre-feet for the 14 major reservoirs in the planning area (See Table II-12).

H.     Basin Water Use Summary

Table II-13
Summary of Current Water Uses

Water Use	Dry		Normal		Wet
	(AF/Year)
	Surface Water	Ground Water	Surface Water	Ground Water	Surface Water	Ground Water
Agricultural	178,000	200	184,000	200	194,000	300
Municipal	2,700	500	2,700	500	2,700	500
Domestic	---	4,400	---	4,400	---	4,400
Industrial1	---	68,000	---	68,000	---	68,000
Recreation	Non-consumptive
Environmental	Non-consumptive
Evaporation	11,300		11,300		11,300
TOTAL	192,000	73,100	198,000	73,100	208,000	73,200

Note 1: Includes conventional oil and gas production water and CBM production water.