Wyoming State Water Plan
Wyoming State Water Plan
Wyoming Water Development Office
6920 Yellowtail Rd
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Phone: 307-777-7626
Wyoming Water Development Office
6920 Yellowtail Rd
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Phone: 307-777-7626
| SUBJECT: |
Appendix S Future Water Use Opportunities |
| PREPARED BY: | HKM Engineering Inc. |
| DATE: | February 2002 |
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this task is to identify future water use opportunities that can be implemented to satisfy present and projected water demands in the Little Bighorn River, Tongue River, and Powder River Basins in Wyoming. 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.
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:
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. For the Powder/Tongue River Basins, the screening criteria and evaluation method developed for the Green River Basin Plan were presented to the Basin Advisory Group (BAG) for consideration, modification, and adoption at a BAG meeting held October 10, 2001. The criteria adopted by the BAG, and a description of each criterion, is presented below:
Criterion 1: Water AvailabilityLONG-LIST OF FUTURE WATER USE OPPORTUNITIESThis 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.
Criterion 2: Financial Feasibility
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.
Criterion 3: Public Acceptance
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.
Criterion 4: Number of sponsors/beneficiaries/participants
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).
Criterion 5: Legal/Institutional concerns
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.
Criterion 6: Environmental/Recreation benefits
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.
Compiling the long-list of future water use opportunities began with a review of published reports available for the study basins. The level of information and data available for the projects identified through the literature review varied from very sketchy to completed conceptual designs.
Specific groundwater development projects were not identified and included on the long-list. However, groundwater development is included as a generic future water use opportunity for each of the sub-basins and was considered along with the surface water opportunities. Similarly, groundwater produced in the development of coalbed methane was not included on the long-list. 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 Basins 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.
The initial long-list was presented to the BAG at a meeting held October 10, 2001, and distributed to BAG members with a memorandum dated October 19, 2001. BAG members were asked to review the list and identify potential opportunities not included on the initial draft of the long-list.
Comments and suggestions received from BAG members and additional research led to the development of the final long-list. This list is presented in Appendix A, and the future water use opportunities included on the long-list are shown on Figure 1.
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 considered to eliminate projects include: 1) the project has already been constructed; 2) the location of project facilities, i.e. within a National Forest or wilderness area, presents major legal, institutional, and permitting constraints; and, 3) the original demand for the project no longer exists and is not expected to appear within the planning period.
The initial long-list presented to the BAG on October 10th and distributed to the BAG on October 19th identified opportunities proposed to not be included on the short-list. Reasons for eliminating projects from short-list consideration were provided. Again, BAG members were asked to review the proposed eliminations and provide comments.
Comments and suggestions received from BAG members and additional research led to the development of the final short-list.
SHORT-LIST EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The methodology described in this section is intended to assist the user of the 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.
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.By categorizing the short-list projects into one of these four types, projects are evaluated only relative to similar type projects. Furthermore, the projects are grouped by sub-basin to allow planning evaluations by geographic locale.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 Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 for each of the six basins of the planning area.
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.
Table 1
Evaluated Short-List: Little Bighorn River Basin
| Project Evaluation Criteria | |||||||||
| Project Type (see below) Project Title |
Map Loc. No. |
Est. Yield(y), Cap(c) or Depl(d) (AF) |
Water Availability |
Financial Feasibility |
Public Acceptance |
No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries |
Legal/ Institutional Constraints |
Environmental/ Recreation 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 | 1,6 | 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 | 2 | 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 additive result of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score Type 1: Rehabilitation projects that preserve existing uses |
Table 2
Evaluated Short-List: Tounge River Basin
| Project Evaluation Criteria | |||||||||
| Project Type (see below) Project Title |
Map Loc. No. |
Est. Yield(y), Cap(c) or Depl(d) (AF) |
Water Availability |
Financial Feasibility |
Public Acceptance |
No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries |
Legal/ Institutional Constraints |
Environmental/ Recreation Benefits |
Total Score |
| Type 1 | |||||||||
| Misc. Canal Rehab (Conservation) | unk | Not Ranked, only one project of this type | |||||||
| Type 2 (None) | |||||||||
| Sheridan Canal System | 13 | unk | 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 additive result of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score Type 1: Rehabilitation projects that preserve existing uses |
Table 3
Ranked Short-List: Clear Creek Basin
| Project Evaluation Criteria | |||||||||
| Project Type (see below) Project Title |
Map Loc. No. |
Est. Yield(y), Cap(c) or Depl(d) (AF) |
Water Availability |
Financial Feasibility |
Public Acceptance |
No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries |
Legal/ Institutional Constraints |
Environmental/ Recreation 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 Enlargement | 34 | 7,500 c | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 228 |
| Groundwater Enlargement | 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 |
| Trangle 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 | 31 | 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 Creek 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 additive result of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score Type 1: Rehabilitation projects that preserve existing uses |
Table 4
Ranked Short-List: Crazy Woman Creek Basin
| Project Evaluation Criteria | |||||||||
| Project Type (see below) Project Title |
Map Loc. No. |
Est. Yield(y), Cap(c) or Depl(d) (AF) |
Water Availability |
Financial Feasibility |
Public Acceptance |
No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries |
Legal/ Institutional Constraints |
Environmental/ Recreation Benefits |
Total Score |
| Type 1 (None) | |||||||||
| Type 2 (None) | 6 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | |||
| Hazeltonm 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 Site "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 y | 7 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 161 |
| 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 additive result of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score Type 1: Rehabilitation projects that preserve existing uses |
Table 5
Ranked Short-List: Powder River Basin
| Project Evaluation Criteria | |||||||||
| Project Type (see below) Project Title |
Map Loc. No. |
Est. Yield(y), Cap(c) or Depl(d) (AF) |
Water Availability |
Financial Feasibility |
Public Acceptance |
No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries |
Legal/ Institutional Constraints |
Environmental/ Recreation Benefits |
Total Score |
| Type 1 (None) | |||||||||
| Type 2 (None) | 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 | 53 | 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 Reservoir | 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 | 5 | 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 additive result of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score Type 1: Rehabilitation projects that preserve existing uses |
Table 6
Ranked Short-List: Little Powder River Basin
| Project Evaluation Criteria | |||||||||
| Project Type (see below) Project Title |
Map Loc. No. |
Est. Yield(y), Cap(c) or Depl(d) (AF) |
Water Availability |
Financial Feasibility |
Public Acceptance |
No. of Sponsors/ Beneficiaries |
Legal/ Institutional Constraints |
Environmental/ Recreation Benefits |
Total Score |
| Type 1 (None) | |||||||||
| Type 2 (None) | |||||||||
| Type 3 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 6 | |||
| Coal Mine Reclamation Reservoirs Reservoir | 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 additive result of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score Type 1: Rehabilitation projects that preserve existing uses |
REFERENCES
CH2M HILL, Prefeasibility Study Tongue & Little Bighorn River Project, March 1977, State of Wyoming, Governor's Interdepartmental Water Conference
Wyoming Water Development Commission, Little Bighorn River Preliminary Feasibility Study of Development Alternatives and Delivery Options, September 1981, Report to the Honorable Ed Herschler, Governor of Wyoming
Wyoming State Engineer's Office, Wyoming Water Planning Program, Report 10, Water & Related Land Resources of Northeast Wyoming, April 1972.
Banner Associates, Inc., Tongue River Level I, January 1985, Wyoming Water Development Commission
Centennial Engineering & Research, Inc., Alliance Lateral Ditch Level II Rehabilitation Feasibility Study, Final Report, October 1986, Wyoming Water Development Commission
Harza Engineering Company, Storage Development For Water Supply, Powder River Basin in Wyoming, Level I Reconnaissance Study, September 1983, Wyoming Water Development Commission
Harza Engineering Company, Powder River Storage Development, August, 1974, Wyoming State Engineer's Office, Wyoming Water Planning Program
HKM Associates, Crazy Woman Watershed Project Level II, Phase I Rehabilitation Plan and Phase II Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates, November 1991, Wyoming Water Development Commission
Harza Engineering Company, Middle Fork Powder River Dam and Reservoir Project Conceptual Report, January, 1986, Wyoming Water Development Commission
Wright Water Engineers, Wyoming Yellowstone River Basin Exchange and Water Supply Project . A Plan to Increase Wyoming's Use of Water From the Powder River by an Exchange to Montana of Clarks Fork Water, May, 1981, Cadiz Corporation
Appendix A . Long-list and Short-list of Future Water Use Opportunities
The following is a long-list of future water use opportunities for the Powder, Tongue, and Little Bighorn River Basins of Wyoming. The long-list was compiled from a review of published reports and input from the Basin Advisory Group. A brief description of each project is provided. Numbers in parentheses following the project title, i.e. (MLN 6), are map location numbers indicating the location of the projects on Figure 1. Projects without map location numbers either have no specific location, i.e. groundwater development, or the project features are outside of the study area. Projects marked with an . * . were eliminated from the short-list. Reasons for elimination are provided.
Little Bighorn River Basin
