This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library.

For additional information about this document and the document conversion process, please contact WRDS at wrds@uwyo.edu and include the phrase

“Digital Documents” in your subject heading.

To view other documents please visit the WRDS Library online at: http://library.wrds.uwyo.edu

Mailing Address: Water Resources Data System

University of Wyoming, Dept 3943 1000 E University Avenue

Laramie, WY 82071

Physical Address: Wyoming Hall, Room 249 University of Wyoming

Laramie, WY 82071

Phone: (307) 766-6651 Fax: (307) 766-3785

Funding for WRDS and the creation of this electronic document was provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission

(http://wwdc.state.wy.us)

N 4. Zi)t

UPPER GREEN LEVEL II

STORAGE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT

REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR

AND

LEGISLATIVE SELECT WATER COMMITTEE

WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

ACTION REPORT

April 15, 1983

OF WYOMING ED HERSCHLER GOVERNOR

BARRETT BUILDING TELEPHONE: 307-777-7626 CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82002

Michael H. Reese Adminstrator

The Honorable Ed Herschler Governor, State of Wyoming

Members of the Select Legislative Water Committee

Gentlemen:

Nelson E. Wren, Jr. Chairman

Walter J. Pilch Vice Chairman

Lewis Freudenthal Secretary

Lee Coffman Kenneth Kennedy

William J. Kirven. Jr. J.W. Wes Myers

James Noble Willard C. Rhoads

Under the provisions of Chapter 60, Section 12, (1982 Session Laws), the Wyoming Water Development Commission shall make a recommendation for each project based on the following alternatives:

1. Proceed with next level of activity; 2. Continue study at the present level of activity, 3. Terminate consideration of the project.

For reasons enunciated in this report, the Wyoming Water Development Commission has moved to discontinue the storage studies for the Upper Green River Project, authorized by Section 4(d) of Chapter 60, 1982 Session Laws.

Respectfully Yours,

Nelson E. Wren, Chairman, Wyoming Water Development Commission

NEW/mrr

Enclosure

Feasibility Results

Upper Green Level II Storage Development Project

INTRODUCTION

On March 23, 1983 the Wyoming Water Development Commission

unanimously approved a motion to "Cease All Work" on the Level II Upper

Green River Storage Development Project. This action was based on the

results of the pre-feasibility study completed January 12, 1983 and

subsequent meetings with the project sponsor, The Big Piney Conservation

District.

The purpose of the document is to provide a brief explanation and

justification for the above described Commission action.

BACKGROUND

In February 1982 the Wyoming Legislature's Forty-Sixth Session

authorized the "Upper Green River" storage development project. "To

store early spring runoff for late season supplemental irrigation water

supplies." The legislation identified thirteen (13) potential storage

sites in the Upper Basin, however after a series of public meetings, the

Project Sponsor developed a final list of eight (8) sites to be studied.

These sites included:

(1) Sixty-Seven Reservoir enlargement or replacement,

(2) McNinch Wash,

(3) Fish Creek,

(4) Snider Basin,

(5) South Cottonwood,

2

(6) LaBarge Meadows,

(7) Sand Hill,

(8) North Piney

* See Figure I

The Wyoming Water Development Commission, then contracted with the

firm of ARIX, a professional corporation, of Riverton, Wyoming, on

August 9, 1982 as the prime consultant for the Upper Green River Study.

As directed by their contract the ARIX firm then initiated a

pre-feasibility study of the above sites, in hopes of further narrowing

the list of 8 to those sites with the greatest project potential for

final feasibility analysis.

3

R 115W.

T36N

T34N

T33N

T31N

T30N

R.1I4W. R.1I3W.

4

R.IIIW.

{ j

R.II;f' ( I

UPPER GREEN STORAGE DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR

I L._ SITES 1. South Cottonwood 2. McNinch Wash 3. 67 Res. Enlargement

" 4. Sand Hi 11 5. Fish Creek 6. Snider Basin

~ 7. LaBarge Meadows 8. North Piney

I N

I MILES

6 d 7

LEGEND

For .. , Bounda,y

C-1r hullda"

Cr .... or R,ver

SCALE I Z!lO,OOO

Pot.nllal Dam 5,1. ..

WYOMING RANGE

POTENTIAL STORAGE

SITES

GREEN RIVER BASIN

Wyo""nQ

FIGURE I

PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY RESULTS

The final pre-feasibility study was completed and distributed to

the project sponsor and Sublette County Libraries the week of January

10, 1983 and all interested parties were given approximately four (4)

weeks to review the document and prepare comments prior to meetings held

in the basin the week of February 7, 1983. The Commission staff then

met with the Big Piney Conservation District the evening of February 9,

1983 to discuss study results and formulate recommendations as to how

the final feasibility study should proceed.

In analyzing the evaluation criteria matrix, shown on Table 1, the

Big Piney Conservation District found the task of selecting the best

sites, for further study, a very difficult one. Perhaps the most

disappointing aspect associated with all eight sites are the average

annual yields. After allowing for the 1/3 average daily instream flow

requirement, recommended by the Game & Fish Commission, none of the

eight sites could produce an average yield much over 2,000 acre-feet per

year, resulting in $/acre-foot costs in excess of $1,500.00. Given the

above situation, the pre-feasibility study did not address instream

flows until such time as the Game & Fish Commission had more accurate

site specific data and as a result the average yields listed in Table 1

are at best, unrealistically, high.

At this point it is also important to point out that most of

irrigators in the upper basin do not currently pay for water and that

the need for supplemental water does not occur every year.

The Big Piney Conservation District spent approximately one week,

through discussions with their membership and others, formulating their

decision on how to proceed. This decision was forwarded to the

5

1 ~fll[ 1 TABLE I £valu~tlon Crlt .. rla H~trl>t

Averaqe Avallable Storage

Ma.tmum Annual Flow Minimum Embankment Volume Storable Acre-rt.(1) Available Benefited Heigth/ Acre-ft (2) thru Hgmt. (Total Annual Annual Flow Acreaqe Length/ , (Surface GeotechnIcal

Considerations Acre-Ft. Flow) Acre-Ft. 11'1'. Acres Volume (3) Area)

St.t)' Seven Res .. rvoir E 1/2 8117-30-112 6,000

Sand Hill ReservoIr E 1/2 1 1 36-30-11) 23,000

McHlnch Reservoir E 1/2 10-30-113 6,000

Fhh Creek Reservoir

5( 1/4 26-30-115 5,500

Snider BasIn Reservoir

SW 1/4 11-29-115 13,200

..fi South CottonllOod Creek ReservoIr W 1/2 12-32-115 9,400

l a8arge Creek

Reservoir W 1/l. 16-29-116

~ North Piney

7,900

7"' Cre .. k Re servo I r See Note NE 1/4 25-31-115 (5)

5,200 (Enlargement)

14,100

5,200

1,600 (5,300)

4,300 (16,700)

6,000 (14,200)

4,800 (6,900)

5,200 (42,000 )

800

10,300

800

1,000

2,700

3,200

2,100

See Note (5)

30,700

30,700

30,700

15,000

15,000

20,400

4,200

15,700

Existing embankment 5,600 requires e>tplorat Ion

42/5050 (Enlargement) for seepage potential 292,000 CV (580 Acres) No local rlprap source

72/1580 14,100 442,000 CV (790 acres)

58/2700 5,600 504,300 CV 040 acres)

85/470 1,400 108,000 CV (50 acres)

80/550 226,700 CV

4,300 (180 acres)

PossIble seepage condo requires investigation Soft shale foundation No local riprap sources

Probable soft shale found Moderate seepage condi tions Local fine grained material No local rlprap source

Good foundatIons - shallow AlluvIum - good but costly spIllway conditions Good materIal sources

A~s1te

lower site best In area Some limestone - good spIll­way site - good material sources exc. 1 npervious

Gravel' llmestone seepage CondItions -

97/14BO 6,000 possible thrust fault and 754,000 CV (1H acres) instablllty - uncertaInty

Complex foundation condo requIres much InvestigatIon Faults - glaclal deposits -

105/1260 4,800 No rlprap - many problems -690,000 CY (160 acres) lens and uncertaintys

115/750 802,000 CY

5,600 (264 acres)

HistorIcal landsllde area Unknown condl t Ions

Cood but costl), splllway -MaterIals on site

(1) Based on LRC\\£ values which are average annual flo"s reduced by 1001 of kno"n water rights, (xxxx) z average/annual (2) No adjlJ5tment made for silt storage or permanent storage stream flo"s.

0) Does not Include emhankment replaclng strlpplngs and core trench, quantity and cost Is included In CO$t e$t1mate. (~) Does not Include undetermined costs for relocation of gu and all wells, pipellnes and misc. rights and installations. (5) Value not developed, not part of origInal contract.

EngIneering ConsIderations

Clay blanket - 3 &: 3.511 slopes - off channel -spillway &: outlet -HIgh r1prap costs -Conveyance works req'd. Low CO$t roads

Unknown all works reloc. Costs - Core and toe drain required - clay blanket -3.511 slopes - off chan­nel - high rlprap and road costs

Clay blanket - 3.5 slopes off-channel spillway 1 outlet - High rlprap costs - exten­sIve conveyance works requIred - low road eosts

Core trench - grout and toe drain - 3:1 zoned dam -on channel - Indian Creek dIversIon and conveyance -

Core trench and toe drai n • 3:1 zoned 1f clays avaIl. • on-channel - moderate costs, low riprap costs - hIgh road costs

Probable deep cutoff trench and toe draIn system - 311

EnvIronmental ConsIderatIons

CritIcal mule deer wInter range

Sage grouse nesting area -mule deer winter range

Critical mule deer winter range

Sigh horn sheep area • elk mIgra­tion - fishing area

Elk calving area -lander cutoff and graves -Popular fishing

slopes • on-Channel spUI "ay Deer Ii elk migra-

and outlet - rlprap on site - tion routes - fish

Total [st.

Project Costs

$3,514,000

Cost Per Acre-F t Overdll of Storage Rec()In!!Iendatl on

$ 628 Do not advance (Per A.F. to feasibility enlarge.) stlJdy

Advance to f .. asl­bility 5tlJ<1y-slt ...

"Ill allo" for ma_.

storaqe of ... It er " $3,802,700 exchange betll'C~n

See Note (4) $ 270(4) all strea'" syslMfl5

$3,950,000 $ 705

$1,493,000 $1,066

$1,941,800

Do not ad, ance to feaslhility study

Do not ad, ance to (ea5lblll ty st'ldy good ,1 te charac­terl stl"s but too expens\.e due to ltd. water ,wallahility

Advance to r .. aslbll­ity study - site has excellent character­istics & potent I 31

for watf'f development

moderate road costs nursery area $3,289,000 $ 548

Advance to feasibility study geotechnical con­cerns edst that coulll signifIcantly Incr .. a~

costs

Requires over excavatIon -core, grout and toe drain &: clay blanket -·3: 1 homogen.­on - ch anne I 11 ned sp ll111a)' high rlprap and road costs

High foundation prep. costs Probable grouting - deep Core and toe dr a I n 4: 1 zoned dam - hIgh on­channel costs - high road costs

lander cutoff - deer winter range - pop-ular fishIng area $3,358,000

Impacts not known See Note (5) $4,501,440

$ 700

S 804

Do not advance to feasi­bility study-51 te has 10" .ater a,allAhlllty 1 poor gl'otechnlcal characteristic,

(Not part of orlolnal ,cope of proJ .. ct) ad'a~c .. to feaslblll ty study If co"­mission chooSt"' to "'pand scope. Sites furth .. r up­stream should be slu,1led to a,old serlous geo­

technical probl ..... '

Commission in a letter dated February 17, 1983, (see Appendix A), asking

that the Commission proceed to investigate further the North Piney,

Snider Basin, and South Cottonwood sites, (see figure II). In their

letter they also felt it important to point out to the Commission that

they "did not feel they could bare any cost on the project other than

operation and maintenance". Based on the previous statement, "Public

Benefits" would, of course, have to be extremely valuable. However,

according to the Game & Fish Commission's analysis, mitigation would be

involved at all three sites, either fishery or terrestrial and not

wildlife enhancement.

There area approximately twenty (20) direct beneficiaries associated

with each of the three sites according to Sublette County land ownership

records. In talking with some of these potential beneficiaries, and as

indicated by the many storage site investigations prepared in years

past, there is clearly a desire for storage. However, as in years past,

their desire has certainly waned when confronted with the economics

associated with storage in this portion of the Upper Green River

drainage.

The Wyoming Water Development Commission, after taking all the

above factors into consideration i.e., number of project beneficiaries,

extremely high cost of water, very low average annual yields, very

minimal public benefits and the inability of the project sponsors to

repay any Capital Construction Costs, felt that in the State's best

interest this project should be discontinued.

7

..... I ---,.... ----...,. I ./ ')--F~ ~ .. " . I I : "-t ·- '---...... .V· : ) - ( \,

./

Figure II

APPENDIX

A

9

Big Piney Conservation District P.O. Box 519 - Big Piney, Wyoming 83113 - Phone (307) 276-3374

February 17, 1983

Water Development Cowmission Barrett Building Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002

UPPER GREEN RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE PROJECT

The Big Piney Conservation District has considered the recommendations made by Arix concerning a water storage project in the Upper Green River Basin. We propose that the following sites be investigated further: North Piney, Snider Basin, South cottonwood.

The next step should be to see if the water users that would benefit from the proposed project would be willing to cooperate in such a venture. If they are not interested in the project this criteria could be used to further narrow the list of sites. Do this before spending any more funds to investigate the projects further.

Also, explain to the cooperators the fact that existing water rights will not be affected by this project. It is believed by many that the project would put all water rights on an equal basis. No project will succeed unless the facts are known to all concerned parties.

According to Mike O'Grady the wyoming Water Development Commission would handle the matter of making the above determination.

We do not feel that we can bare any cost on the project other than operatlon and malntenance.

c~ . C' (). ') . 1. ".11 . , __ , r'l r-T.A.!>"Y'Y -..c./l.--J I o {J I 1-1'"'" John J. Chrisman f"> .-

Chairman

CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF'GOVERNMENT

10

RECE!vr::n

FEB 1 8 1983