Northeastern River Basin Advisory Group
Niobrara County Fairgrounds - Lusk
August 17, 2000
The facilitators opened the meeting at approximately 6:10 pm. They introduced themselves and
welcomed participants to the meeting. The facilitators explained that name tents have been
prepared for BAG members and the tents will be distributed with the reference notebooks.
Participants introduced themselves by stating their name, affiliation, and place of residence.
The facilitators sent a sign-in sheet around the room and explained the agenda to set the
expectations for the meeting.
Planning Team Issues
Jon Wade gave a status report of the basin plans underway for the Bear and Green River Basins.
Both basins are nearing completion with results to be presented in the near future. BAG members
are reviewing draft products.
Jodie Jackson distributed reference notebooks to BAG members. The record of the June 15 BAG
meeting was also distributed and BAG members were instructed to insert the record behind Tab F
in the notebook. Jodie then described the contents of the notebook binders and the updates that
will be mailed to BAG members prior to each meeting. These updates will include items to be
filed in the reference notebooks with instructions where the materials are to be filed. She
explained only individuals who receive the notebooks will receive the updates.
Barry Lawrence distributed and explained the list of BAG members for both the Powder/Tongue and
Northeast studies. Barry reported all nominees for the Northeast (NE) BAG were contacted and
most agreed to serve on the BAG. He indicated there are still sectors and geographic locations
that are not represented and he requested names of individuals who could be contacted for those
sectors. Barry indicated that the membership list also includes names of alternates.
Question: Were any additional county commissioners contacted to serve as alternates?
Response: Not yet, but they will be contacted.
Barry brought up the issue of having representatives of state and federal agencies included on
the BAG. He indicated the Powder/Tongue BAG requested representation by the Wyoming Business
Council and Dave Spencer agreed to represent the Business Council on that BAG and has indicated
his wishes to also serve on the Northeast BAG.
Question: Is Dave Spencer the appropriate person to represent the Business Council since he is
not the representative for this area.
Response: Dave Spencer indicated he should serve on both BAGs.
The planning team was also approached by State Parks and Recreation indicating their desire to
also serve on the NE BAG. BAG members discussed the advantages and disadvantages of having state
and federal agency representation. The BAG agreed to have these state agencies represented on
the BAG. The facilitators indicated agency representatives would be given reference notebooks
and updated on previous BAG meetings.
The facilitators explained the BAG had previously selected the following meeting dates and
locations: October 12 in Gillette; December 14 in Newcastle. The BAG agreed to hold the
subsequent meeting on February 8 in Moorcroft.
Consultant Update - HKM Engineering
Joe Lord of Lord Consulting and Wade Irion of HKM Engineering presented a review of the scope of
work to be completed by the Consulting Team. The work to be performed under each of the seven
tasks included in the scope was explained. A question and answer session followed the
There was a discussion of stock water use and how it will be addressed in the plan. It was noted
that stock water consumption is included in the gages and will be accounted for in the hydrologic
modeling. The BAG felt that stock water was an important issue in the basin.
Question: How many nodes will be used in the model and will the selection of the nodes be
brought to the BAG for review?
Response: The number and location of nodes is not known at this time. Each basin will be
modeled separately and nodes will be selected within the basins to define the models. The BAG
will review the modeling work, including the selection of node locations.
Question: Will private landowners be contacted to determine what they are doing to enhance
and protect groundwater?
Response: Private landowners will be contacted and the BAG will need to identify those
Question: Will the irrigation study include flood irrigation by spreader systems?
Response: Flood irrigation systems will be included in the study.
Future Meetings of Interest
BAG members were informed of two meetings being held which should be of interest to the group.
The first was the Environmental Quality Council meeting on August 31st regarding proposed
revisions to the Chapter 1 stream classification system. This meeting will be available through
the state video conferencing system. The second meeting deals with the proposed new rules for
water supply and sewage systems for new subdivisions. The later meeting will be held on
September 12th in Sundance at 2 pm.
Issues Identification Process
The facilitators explained the process followed at the last BAG meeting to identify issues.
They explained the objective for the meeting was to prioritize the issues by river basin.
The BAG members proceeded to prioritize issues and subissues with the results presented in the
table on the following page.
Comment: Bag members should review the remaining issues and subissues relative to the
prioritization process prior to the next meeting. Topics remaining include conservation,
groundwater, regulatory, water rights, quantity, quality, and uses.
Question: If the BAG is going to identifying issues over the next several months, will the
work the planners are doing now and in the next few months be relevant?
Response: The issues identification process, and the discussion that occurs during the
process is important to the planners and will be used as it occurs. The issues identification
process will be most important during Task 5 when future use opportunities are identified and
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 pm.
Northeast Basin Advisory Group
Prioritization of Issues and Subissues by River Basin
1 -- denotes the highest priority, 3 the lowest
|Issue/Subissue ||Niobrara River
||Little Missouri ||Cheyenne River
|Issue: Related Lands|
|Private Land Rights ||1
||1 ||1 ||1|
|Noxious Weeds ||2 ||2
|Streambank Erosion ||X ||X
1 - Federal, 2 - State, 3 - Private
|Issue: Surface Water Development|
|Agricultural ||1 ||1
|Recreation ||3 ||X
|Municipal ||2 ||X
|Issue: Economic Development|
|New and Existing Roads ||3 ||1
||3 ||1L, 3U|
|Subdivisions ||1 ||2
|Industrial ||2 ||3
||1 ||1U, 3L|
X -- indicated the subissue is not a major issue for the basin
1L, etc. indicates the issue is priority number 1 in the lower portion of the basin, etc.