Share this:

Wyoming environmental regulators who tested the waters of a crowded and stunning Wind River Range lake last summer did not detect the same worrisome concentrations of fecal bacteria that federal regulators uncovered three years earlier. 

At issue is Lonesome Lake, a 35-acre waterbody at the base of the Cirque of the Towers that generated headlines after the Environmental Protection Agency published its most recent National Lakes Assessment. The western Wyoming backcountry lake contained more Enterococci — a bacteria indicative of fecal matter — than any of the other 981 lakes surveyed randomly around the country. The concentration registered 384 times greater than the EPA’s safety criteria for swimming. 

The concerning one-time test result from a summer 2022 water sample triggered a multi-agency investigation. Last summer, water quality specialists on five occasions made the 20-plus mile roundtrip to and from the headwaters of the North Popo Agie River to take additional tests for E. coli, a more commonly used fecal bacteria marker. On Wednesday, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality published its results

“We’re not showing any indications of public recreation risk, based on our E. coli sample,” said David Waterstreet, the state agency’s watershed protection manager. 

Lonesome Lake was well below the DEQ threshold designed to protect people from getting sick from swimming, he said. 

“Currently, it is meeting that criteria,” he said. 

The south and west reaches of Lonesome Lake are visibly shallow in this July 2025 photo taken while descending from Jackass Pass. (Mike Koshmrl/WyoFile)

In fact, zero of 10 Lonesome Lake samples had any detectable E. coli. The water was gathered from both the east and southern shorelines in the peak summer backpacking and climbing seasons. 

The complete absence was unexpected and a stark contrast to the results from the EPA’s summer 2022 Enterococci reading, which remains “unexplained” in the view of DEQ surface water monitoring supervisor Jeremy ZumBerge.

“I can’t explain why the value was as high as it was,” ZumBerge said. “Whether that was real or not real remains a bit of a mystery.” 

In some regards, the EPA’s earlier test results were not completely surprising. 

‘Poop Lake’

Lonesome Lake has long had a reputation for being unsafe due to human feces, with some even giving it the moniker Poop Lake. A staffer at Pinedale’s Great Outdoor Shop told WyoFile last summer that his shop advises Wind River Range travelers to steer clear of standing water in the Cirque of the Towers.

“I tell people definitely do not swim in there, I tell people definitely do not drink the water,” Brian Cromack said. “It’s been heavily contaminated for a long time, just via the negligence of outdoor recreation enthusiasts over the years.”

Lonesome Lake attracts about 400 people a week during the busiest stretch of the backpacking season in August. (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality)

Seated at between 10,000 and 13,000 feet in the Shoshone National Forest, the Cirque of the Towers and its Lonesome Lake have long been among the most visited destinations in the Winds. There’s a camping prohibition within a quarter mile of the shoreline due to crowding, and a trail counter shows that use crests at 400 visitors a week during the peak summer. Many of the backpackers, climbers, dogs and livestock using the basin have to go poop while traveling through the cirque’s small, 2-square-mile watershed. 

“There’s a longstanding view that there potentially are water quality issues there due to the amount of recreation in the area,” ZumBerge said.

Used toilet paper litters a tree stand overlooking Lonesome Lake in July 2025. High human use is a suspected contributor to off-the-charts fecal bacteria concentrations the EPA detected in the lake during a 2022 assessment, though a more rigorous Wyoming sampling effort detected no E. coli. (Mike Koshmrl/WyoFile)

Shoshone National Forest spokesman Evan Guzik reiterated the point. 

“Considering the historical anecdotal reports and elevated Enterococci from 2022, visitors should continue to use caution when recreating in Lonesome Lake or using it as a drinking water source,” Guzik said. 

No corroboration

But at least for now, the DEQ has not found any data corroborating the human health hazard. 

Wyoming water quality specialists would typically proceed to their next sampling target if they don’t detect a pollutant in the first year of looking, but they’re considering replicating their efforts in summer 2026 because of the public interest in Lonesome Lake. 

“It’s not an easy undertaking — 20-mile day hikes — to get samples,” ZumBerge said. “We discussed whether the effort was really worth it, but … we are seriously evaluating doing this again.” 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality staffers who sampled Lonesome Lake five times in 2025 also sampled Big Sandy Lake, another highly trafficked waterbody on the opposite side of the Continental Divide. They again detected no E. coli. 

There are flowing waters in the region that contain unsafe concentrations of E. coli, however. 

Frosted cow manure complements the lawn-like banks of Lander Creek in September 2025. Upstream portions of the Sweetwater River tributary contain unsafe levels of E. coli, but the state is proposing to reclassify the waterway so that it is no longer tagged with a bacterial impairment. (Mike Koshmrl/WyoFile)

Lander Creek, just to the southwest, has long suffered from a feces-related impairment, though DEQ has proposed to reclassify and delist the Wind River Range stream. A 14-mile stretch of the Sweetwater River has also been tagged as unfit for immersive recreation because of bacteria that could make swimmers sick. 

“Our monitoring targets both reservoirs and rivers and streams,” said Waterstreet, DEQ’s watershed protection manager. “Over the history of evaluating different types of waters, we typically find E. coli pathogens more often when we’re in a stream network.”

Mike Koshmrl reports on Wyoming's wildlife and natural resources. Prior to joining WyoFile, he spent nearly a decade covering the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s wild places and creatures for the Jackson...

Leave a comment

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *