Powder/Tongue River Basin Water Plan
Final Report

V      Future Water Use Opportunities

A.     Introduction

To further assist the users of this list to identify potential opportunities to satisfy their demands, a methodology is presented that can be employed to evaluate a specific opportunity on the list relative to similar and related opportunities. The suggested methodology evaluates opportunities according to the likelihood they are desirable, functional, and capable of receiving the support required for development. By using the list of future water use opportunities and employing the evaluation methodology, individuals and organizations will have "a place to start" in their investigation to develop a water supply to satisfy their specific needs.

The procedure used to complete this task consists of the following four steps which are described in this section of the report:

1. Develop screening criteria to evaluate future water use opportunities;
2. Develop a long-list of future water use opportunities;
3. Develop a short-list of opportunities; and,
4. Evaluate the opportunities on the short-list.

B.     Screening Criteria

Criterion 1: 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.

This criterion reflects the effects of the combination of technical feasibility (high or low construction cost) and economic use to which the water would be put (e.g. irrigation of native meadow vs. cultivation of alfalfa or row crops). The intent of this criterion is to indicate the likely ability to afford the project or meet Wyoming Water Development Commission (or other) funding source criteria. A low number represents a project with suspect ability to be repaid, whereas a high number represents a project that should more easily meet funding and repayment requirements.

This criterion reflects the extent to which a project will encounter or create public controversy (low number) versus a project that would likely engender broad public support (high number). 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.

This criterion reflects the desirability, all other things being equal, that a project serving a larger segment of the population should be evaluated higher (higher number) than one serving only a few (lower number).

This criterion reflects the perceived relative ease (high number) or difficulty (low number) with which a project could be authorized and permitted under existing state and federal law.

This criterion reflects the net effect of positive environmental and recreational aspects of a project as offset, to the extent it can be determined, by potential negative impacts on these attributes.

C.     Long-List of Future Water Use Opportunities

Table V-1
Long-list of Future Water Use Opportunities

Title	Map Location Number
Little Big Horn River Basin
Little Big Horn River Export System	1,6
BEPC Sunrise Project	2
Twin Creek Reservoir	2
Fuller No. 1 Reservoir	3
Fuller No. 2 Reservoir	4
Half Ounce Reservoir	5
Tongue River Basin
North Fork Reservoir	7
South Fork Reservoir	8
Rockwood Reservoir	9
Upper State Line Reservoir	10
Prairie Dog Reservoir	11
Lower State Line Reservoir	12
Sheridan Canal System	13
Shutts Flats Reservoir	14
Alliance Lateral Ditch Rehabilitation *	15
Jones Draw Reservoir	16
West Fork Reservoir	17
WTM Reservoir *	18
Clear Creek Basin
Little Sour Dough Reservoir	19
Camp Comfort Reservoir	20
Lake DeSmet and Enlargements	21
Reynolds Shell Creek Reservoir *	22
Reynolds Piney Creek Reservoir *	23
Boxelder Reservoir *	24
B.C.L Reservoir	25
Lower Clear Creek Reservoir	26
Tex Ellis Reservoir	27
South Rock Creek Reservoir	28
Triangle Park Reservoir	29
Canyon Reservoir	30
South Clear Creek Reservoir	31
Lynx Park Reservoir	32
Sour Dough Creek Reservoir	33
Tie Hack Reservoir Enlargement	34
Crazy Woman Creek Basin
Enlargement of Negro Creek Reservoir	35
Crazy Woman Reservoir	36
North Fork Crazy Woman Reservoir	37
Hazelton Watershed Site "A" SCS	38
Hazelton Watershed Site "B" SCS	39
Lower Crazy Woman Creek Reservoir	40
Crazy Woman Watershed Improvement District *	41
Doyle Creek Reservoir	42
Powder River Basin
Middle Fork Powder River Reservoir	43
Pumpkin Reservoir	45
Bass Industrial Reservoir	46
Moorhead Reservoir	47
Arvada Reservoir	48
Fortification Creek Reservoir	49
Fence Creek Reservoir	50
Gibbs Reservoir	51
Morgareidge No. 7 Reservoir	52
Red Fork Powder River Reservoir	53
Buffalo Creek Reservoir	54
Clarks Fork Exchange	Not in study area
Little Powder River Basin
Coal Mine Reclamation Reservoirs	Not specified

* denotes opportunities not included on the short-list

Figure V-1
Future Water Use Opportunities

click to enlarge

Specific groundwater development projects were not identified and included on the long-list. However, groundwater development was included on the short-list as a generic future water use opportunity for each of the sub-basins and was considered along with the surface water opportunities. Similarly, water conservation was not included on the long-list but was included in the short-list evaluations. Water conservation, resulting from improvements to irrigation practices, provides additional water to satisfy present and projected demands by decreasing the current level of irrigation depletions. This decrease in irrigation depletions can be achieved without reducing the number of acres irrigated by changing the irrigation method from flood to sprinkler and by lining ditches experiencing significant seepage losses.

Groundwater produced in the development of coal bed methane was not included on the long-list of future water use opportunities. Although this resource has the potential to supply small, localized demands over the short-term, the feasibility of developing a significant water supply from this activity is considered to be limited because of the wide geographic dispersion of the wells and the projected short time of operation.

Water right permit applications have been submitted to the State Engineer for many 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.

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 a water right for the project could be perfected 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 and, more important, the information derived from this effort promised to be more confusing than useful.

Another future water use opportunity in the Powder/Tongue River Basin is the establishment of instream flow water rights. These water rights are developed through a specified procedure that begins when the Wyoming Game and Fish Department proposes a stream segment for an instream flow water right. The segment is then studied by the Water Development Commission, and the water right is granted or rejected by the State Engineer. This opportunity is not, however, included on the long-list since the segments that have been proposed are either under investigation, have been granted, or have been rejected. As new segments are nominated they will be advanced through the process.

D.     Short-List of Future Water Use Opportunities

As previously noted, water conservation was not included on the long-list but was included in the short-list evaluations. The only water conservation measure considered in this short-list evaluation was ditch lining. The process involved compiling a list of ditches having high seepage losses, estimated to be greater than 30%, and including these ditches in the short-lists as "Misc. canal rehab. (Conservation)". The list was compiled from the Diversion Operation Technical Memorandum prepared for the Powder/Tongue River Basin Plan and the State of Wyoming 2001 Irrigation System Survey Report. The list was then reviewed and modified by the State Board of Control Superintendent of Water Division Number Two. The resulting list included the following nine ditches: Alliance, PK, Burn-Cleuch, Colorado Colony, East Side, Gerdel, Peralta, Interstate (Pennoyer), and South Side. All of these ditches are in the Tongue River Basin.

Comments and suggestions received from BAG members and contributed to the development of the final short-list. Future water use opportunities included on the long-list that were not carried forward to the short-list are identified in Table V-1 and on Figure V-1. Specific reasons for not including the projects on the short-list are provided in Appendix A to the technical memorandum prepared for this topic.

E.     Short-List Evaluation Methodology

The process begins after the short-list of future water use opportunities has been prepared. The result of the process is an evaluation of opportunities according to their relative likelihood they are desirable, functional, and capable of receiving enough public support to be implemented. In general, the results present an overall picture of the favorability of a future water use opportunity or project.

The first step in the process is to categorize the future water use opportunities into one of the four types described below:

Type 1: Rehabilitation projects that preserve existing uses.

Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages.

Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands.

Type 4: Projects that enhance uses in other Wyoming basins.

After the short-list projects have been assigned to a type category, the six evaluation criteria were used to evaluate the projects under each of the types.

The evaluation process entails assigning a weight value to each of the criteria. These values range from a weight of 10 for criteria judged to be very important, to a weight of 1 if the criterion is not considered significant. Different criterion weight values are assigned for each of the four type categories. For example, Criterion 1: Water Availability is not significant for Type 1 projects, since these projects already have an established water supply, and will be assigned a low weight value. Conversely, this criterion is very important for projects categorized under Types 2, 3, and 4, and will be assigned higher weight values.

Each project is then assigned an evaluation score for each of the six criteria. These scores range from a high of 10 if the project is very favorable for that criterion, to a low score of 0 if the project is very unfavorable. Scoring a project under each criterion is accomplished relative to the other projects in the same type category. For example, consider Project X and Project Y that are categorized as Type 2 projects and the evaluation of these two projects concludes Project X will result in more environmental and recreational benefits (Criterion 6). Therefore, Project X will receive a higher score than Project Y under Criterion 6 with the difference in scores reflecting the degree to which Project X provides more environmental and recreational benefits than Project Y.

The total evaluation score for a project is then computed as the sum of the products of the weight value and the evaluation score. Projects achieving a higher total score are considered to be more desirable, more functional, and have a higher capability of receiving enough public support to be implemented, relative to the other projects in the same type category.

As previously stated, 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 totally subjective and the results of the evaluation process can only be interpreted to reflect the knowledge and judgement 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 suggested evaluation process described above was applied to the short-lists of future water use opportunities to provide an example of the thought process followed in its application. The results of the application of the process are presented in the six tables presented on the following pages for each of the six basins of the planning area.

Table V-2
Evaluated Short-List for the Little Big Horn River Basin

			Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below) Project Title	Map Location Number	Est. Yield (y), Cap (c) or Depl (d) (AF)	Water Availability	Financial Feasibility	Public Acceptance	No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries	Legal/ Institutional Constraints	Environemental/ Recreational Benefits	Total Score
Type 1 (None)
Type 2 (None)
Type 3			6	5	6	5	8	6
BEPC Sunrise Project	2	82,110 c	6	7	7	5	5	6	214
Little Bighorn River Export System	1	29,600 y	8	7	6	7	3	5	208
Groundwater Development		unk	5	6	8	4	7	4	208
Half Ounce Reservoir	5	10,000 y	8	6	4	5	5	3	185
Twin Creek Reservoir	6	38,588 c	8	6	4	4	4	4	178
Fuller No. 1 Reservoir	3	22,829 c	4	3	5	4	5	5	159
Fuller No. 2 Reservoir	4	1,549 c	4	3	5	4	5	4	153
Type 4 (None)

Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

Table V-3
Evaluated Short-List for the Tongue River Basin

			Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below) Project Title	Map Location Number	Est. Yield (y), Cap (c) or Depl (d) (AF)	Water Availability	Financial Feasibility	Public Acceptance	No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries	Legal/ Institutional Constraints	Environemental/ Recreational Benefits	Total Score
Type 1
Misc. Canal Rehab (Conservation)		unk	Not ranked, only one project of this type
Type 2
Sheridan Canal System	13	68,500 y	Not ranked, only one project of this type
Type 3			6	8	6	7	6	6
Upper State Line Reservoir	10	75,000 y	8	6	7	7	6	7	265
Lower State Line Reservoir	12	88,000 y	8	6	7	7	6	7	265
Jones Draw Reservoir	16	2,500 y	5	5	8	8	7	4	240
West Fork Reservoir	17	2,500 y	5	5	8	8	7	4	240
Prarie Dog Reservoir	11	20,000 y	6	4	7	4	6	6	210
Rockwood Reservoir	9	93,000 y	7	7	4	5	3	5	205
Groundwater Development		unk	4	4	9	4	6	4	198
North Fork Reservoir	7	21,600 y	7	5	5	4	3	5	188
South Fork Reservoir	8	13,200 y	7	5	5	4	3	5	188
Shutts Flats Reservoir	14	7,600 y	7	4	5	4	3	5	180
Type 4 (None)

Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

Table V-4
Evaluated Short-List for the Clear Creek Basin

			Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below) Project Title	Map Location Number	Est. Yield (y), Cap (c) or Depl (d) (AF)	Water Availability	Financial Feasibility	Public Acceptance	No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries	Legal/ Institutional Constraints	Environemental/ Recreational Benefits	Total Score
Type 1 (None)
Type 2 (None)
Type 3			6	8	6	7	6	6
Lake DeSmet Enlargements	21	239,243 c	8	9	7	5	7	4	263
Lower Clear Creek Reservoir	26	30,300 y	8	5	6	6	6	7	244
B.C.L. Company Reservoir	25	29,300 c	7	5	6	6	6	7	238
Tex Ellis Reservoir	27	17,100 y	7	4	7	6	7	6	236
Tie Hack Reservoir Enlargements	34	7,500 c	4	5	7	8	4	7	228
Groundwater Development		unk	4	3	7	3	6	5	177
Little Sour Dough Reservoir	19	1,642 c	4	3	4	3	3	4	135
Camp Comfort Reservoir	20	11,640 c	4	3	4	3	3	4	135
South Rock Creek Reservoir	28	13,300 c	4	3	4	3	3	4	135
Triangle Park Reservoir	29	3,000 c	4	3	4	3	3	4	135
Canyon Reservoir	30	5,000 c	4	3	4	3	3	4	135
South Clear Creek Reservoir	32	5,000 c	4	3	4	3	3	4	135
Lynx Park Reservoir	32	10,700 c	4	3	4	3	3	4	135
Sour Dough Reservoir	33	4,500 c	4	3	4	3	3	4	135
Type 4 (None)

Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

Table V-5
Evaluated Short-List for the Crazy Woman Creek Basin

			Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below) Project Title	Map Location Number	Est. Yield (y), Cap (c) or Depl (d) (AF)	Water Availability	Financial Feasibility	Public Acceptance	No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries	Legal/ Institutional Constraints	Environemental/ Recreational Benefits	Total Score
Type 1 (None)
Type 2			6	7	5	6	4	3
Hazelton Watershed Site "B"	39	3,000 acres	5	7	5	7	4	4	174
Doyle Creek Reservoir	42	3,000 acres	5	7	5	7	4	4	174
Hazelton Watershed "A"	38	1,580 acres	7	5	6	5	3	3	158
Type 3			6	8	5	6	5	6
Crazy Woman Reservoir	36	10,500 y	7	6	6	6	5	5	211
Lower Crazy Woman Reservoir	40	67,200 y	7	4	6	7	4	6	202
North Fork Crazy Woman Reservoir	37	2,759 c	6	5	5	4	6	4	179
Enl. Negro Creek Reservoir	35	13,900 c	7	5	5	5	3	4	176
Groundwater Development		unk	4	3	7	3	6	5	161
Type 4 (None)

Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

Table V-6
Evaluated Short-List for the Powder River Basin

			Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below) Project Title	Map Location Number	Est. Yield (y), Cap (c) or Depl (d) (AF)	Water Availability	Financial Feasibility	Public Acceptance	No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries	Legal/ Institutional Constraints	Environemental/ Recreational Benefits	Total Score
Type 1 (None)
Type 2			6	7	5	6	4	3
Morgareidge No. 7 Reservoir	52	4,600 acres	5	6	5	7	4	4	167
Red Fork Powder River Reservoir		unk	4	4	5	6	4	4	141
Type 3			6	8	5	6	5	6
Moorhead Reservoir	47	35,000 y	8	7	7	6	5	6	236
Buffalo Creek Reservoir	54	unk	8	3	7	6	7	6	214
Pumpkin Reservoir	45	60,000 y	6	6	6	6	6	5	210
Clarks Fork Exchange		99,700 c	8	6	6	5	3	6	207
Bass Industrial Reservoir	46	123,380 c	6	6	6	5	5	5	199
Arvada Reservoir	48	35,000 y	6	6	6	5	5	6	199
Middle Fork Powder River Reservoir	43	27,000 y	5	5	5	6	7	5	196
Fence Creek Reservoir	50	106,700 c	7	4	7	5	6	4	193
Fortification Creek Reservoir	49	63,300 y	5	4	7	6	6	4	187
Gibbs Reservoir	51	10,800 y	6	5	6	4	5	5	185
Groundwater Development		unk	3	3	7	3	6	5	155
Type 4 (None)

Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

Table V-7
Evaluated Short-List for the Little Powder River Basin

			Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below) Project Title	Map Location Number	Est. Yield (y), Cap (c) or Depl (d) (AF)	Water Availability	Financial Feasibility	Public Acceptance	No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries	Legal/ Institutional Constraints	Environemental/ Recreational Benefits	Total Score
Type 1 (None)
Type 2 (None)
Type 3			6	8	4	5	4	6
Coal Mine Reclamation Reservoirs		unk	5	7	8	6	6	8	220
Groundwater Development		unk	6	5	7	4	7	5	182
Type 4 (None)

Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

It must be emphasized the six evaluated short-list tables reflect the knowledge and judgement of the individual that performed the exercise. When another individual having different opinions and a different level of knowledge of the projects being evaluated completes the exercise, different total scores will likely 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.

Given this intrinsic characteristic of the evaluation methodology, it is difficult if not impossible to use the resulting evaluated short-lists for anything other than to establish "a place to start" the required investigations leading to the selection of a future water use opportunity compatible with the specific water demands of the reviewer. The evaluated short-lists simply aren't appropriate to be used by the Wyoming Water Development Commission or any other funding entity to prioritize funding awards.

F.     Legal and Institutional Constraints

Federal Environmental Laws

The following is a list of water development and management actions that can initiate or "trigger" federal environmental laws. A discussion of applicable federal legislation is presented following the list.

• Issuance and renewal of special use and right-of-way permits on federal lands.

• Contracting for storage water from federal reservoirs.

• Discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States, including rivers, streams, and wetlands

• Procurement and renewal of licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to produce hydropower.

• Use of federal loan or grant funds to construct a new water project or rehabilitate an existing water project.

• Endangered Species Act . enacted to protect threatened and endangered plant and animal species.

• National Environmental Policy Act . requires a comprehensive analysis of the impacts predicted to result from a proposed action, and the consideration of alternative actions.

• Clean Water Act . designed to protect and enhance water quality by controlling the discharge of pollutants into streams.

A significant portion of the Powder/Tongue River Basin is federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Federal agencies managing these lands must assure that the requirements of the above laws are met before they can issue a special use permit authorizing a proposed action, such as construction of a water project.

Wyoming Environmental Laws

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act provides that the State of Wyoming certify any federally licensed or permitted facility which may result in a discharge into the waters of the state. The 401 certification provides a mechanism for the Wyoming to amend, or perhaps veto, an action that the federal agency might otherwise permit. While the 401 certifications are required for several federal actions, most 401 Certifications relate to Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permits required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Wyoming Water Law

The Wyoming constitution establishes water in the state to be the property of the state, and use of water requires a permit from the State Engineer. Consequently, before a proposed water project can proceed to development the project sponsor must obtain a permit from the State Engineer.

The use of water is administered by the State Engineer and the State Board of Control that consists of the State Engineer and the Superintendent of each of the four water divisions of the state. Water is administered under the prior appropriations doctrine that dictates the water right with a senior or earlier priority date is entitled to receive its full amount before water rights with later, or junior, priority dates receive any of their allocation. The priority date of a water right is established as the date the water right application is filed with the State Engineer. Before water is available for use by a new project all water rights with priority dates senior to the priority of the proposed project need to be satisfied.

River Basin Compacts

The development and use of water from the Tongue River, Powder River, and Little Powder River are subject to the terms of the Yellowstone River Compact of 1950. This compact recognizes existing uses as of the date of the compact, January 1, 1950, then divides the water of the tributaries of the Yellowstone River between the States of Wyoming and Montana as follows:

• Tongue River: 60% to Wyoming, 40% to Montana
• Powder River and Little Powder River: 42% to Wyoming, 58% to Montana

Wyoming Water Development Program

In 1975, the Wyoming Legislature authorized the Wyoming Water Development Program and defined the program in W.S. 41-2-112(a), which states:

The Wyoming water development program is established to foster, promote, and encourage the optimal development of the state's human, industrial, mineral, agricultural, water and recreation resources. The program shall provide through the commission, procedures and policies for the planning, selection, financing, construction, acquisition and operation of projects and facilities for the conservation, storage, distribution and use of water, necessary in the public interest to develop and preserve Wyoming's water and related land resources. The program shall encourage development of water facilities for irrigation, for reduction of flood damage, for abatement of pollution, for preservation and development of fish and wildlife resources [and] for protection and improvement of public lands and shall help make available the water of this state for all beneficial uses, including but not limited to municipal, domestic, agricultural, industrial, instream flows, hydroelectric power and recreational purposes, conservation of land resources and protection of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state of Wyoming.

The WWDC can invest in water projects as state investments or can provide loans and grants to public entities such as municipalities, irrigation districts and special districts, for the construction of projects specific to their water needs. The WWDC has adopted operating criteria to serve as a general framework for the development of program or project recommendations and generation of information.

G.     Water Quality Issues

The success of a water development project is dependent on the ability of the source to meet the water quality needs of the proposed uses. In addition, the project itself must protect existing and potential uses of waters of the state.

The quality of water refers to its physical, chemical, radiological, biological and bacteriological properties. The concentration levels of various constituents within the water dictate the potential uses of a water source. Quality of a water source can be impacted by natural processes or by human actions. The technical memorandum prepared for this topic provides a comprehensive description of the water quality character of the Powder/Tongue River Basin.

As a result of the Environmental Quality Act, the Water Quality Division of the Department of Environmental Quality (WQD/DEQ) developed and implemented surface water quality standards. These standards are detailed in Chapter 1, Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations. Chapter 1 contains numerical and narrative standards to establish effluent limitations for point source discharges, and best management practices (BMPs) for nonpoint sources.

Ongoing Water Quality Programs

Several programs have been initiated to protect and enhance the quality of surface water in the planning area. These programs, listed below, are described in the water quality technical memorandum.

• DEQ Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) . establishes the amount of pollutant which a stream can accept and still meet its designated uses, and develops programs to improve the quality of impaired streams.

• Wyoming Water Development Commission Three Horses Study . reviews coal bed methane impacts on the drainages of Dead Horse Creek, Spotted Horse Creek, and Wild Horse Creek.

• Wyoming State Geological Survey Interactive Geologic, Geohydrologic, and Geochemical Database and Model . associates water quality with aquifers in the northern portion of the Powder/Tongue River Basin.

• Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts Watershed Planning . provides local control and planning relative to the imposition of TMDLs.

• Sheridan County Conservation Districts Tongue River Watershed Assessment . encompassed data from a number of entities to conclude the water quality of the assessed segment of the Tongue River is good to excellent with few exceptions.

• U. S. Geologic Survey Monitoring Program and Interest-Specific Studies . includes operation of 66 surface water quality monitoring stations in the planning area, the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA), the Pathogen Indicator Synoptic Study, and the Pesticide Monitoring Program.

• U. S. Environmental Protection Agency CBM Water Disposal Study . updates the Best Available Technology (Economically Achievable) listing to include entries on coal bed methane produced water.

Primary issues related to the quality of water in the planning area are detailed in industrial, agricultural, and municipal categories.

• Industrial . quality and quantity of discharges associated with coal bed methane production, but other industrial activities also impact water quality.

• Agricultural . livestock activities in riparian areas, pesticide use, and animal feeding operations.

• Municipal . controlling storm water discharges may become a significant issue in the future.