Greybull River Watershed Plan Is To: 12 1

1 Greybull River Watershed 2 Water Quality Management Plan

3 4 January 4, 2010

6 7 A comprehensive natural resource management plan 8 addressing water quality issues within the Greybull River Watershed 9 10 11 Developed by: 12 MEETEETSE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 13 GREYBULL RIVER WATERSHED STEERING COMMITTEE 14 GREYBULL RIVER WATERSHED LANDOWNERS 15 16 Assistance Provided by: 17 USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 18 WYOMING ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 19 20

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 2 -

1 Greybull River Watershed Steering Committee 2 Participants Name Lee Allen Betty Johnson Ken Beer Hollis Jones Laura Bell Steve Jones Greg Bevenger Jim Lawler Jason Burckhardt Mary McKinney Bob Capron Robin Moser Karri Cary Susan Reaves Dave Crowther Wayne Reaves Mark Dallon Tracy Renner Eric Decker Colin Simpson Emily Ewart Dallen Smith Sandra Frost Tracy Smith Craig Geving Dave Sweet Linda Gillett Carla Thomas Jim Gould Katherine Thompson Ray Gullion Ann Trosper Janet Hallsted Cathy Upton Joe Hicks Lew Wiser Gerald Jech Steve Yekel Arlie Jensen Clara Mae Yetter 3 4 Entities Represented Bureau of Land Management Greybull Valley Irrigation District Hot Springs Conservation District Local landowners and residents Meeteetse Conservation District Natural Resources Conservation Service Nature Conservancy Park County Planning Department Park County Weed and Pest Powell Clarks Fork Conservation District Resource Conservation and Development Council South Big Horn Conservation District Trout Unlimited University of Wyoming Department of Renewable Resources University of Wyoming Extension U.S. Forest Service Wyoming Game and Fish Wyoming State Legislators 5 Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 3 -

1 Table of Contents 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 3 MISSION ...... 5 4 PURPOSE ...... 5 5 CLEAN WATER ACT- 1972 ...... 5 6 WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ...... 5 7 CONSERVATION DISTRICT’S ROLE ...... 6 8 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES ...... 6 9 WDEQ 303(d) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERBODIES ...... 6 10 PUBLIC AWARENESS ...... 7 11 PARTNERSHIPS ...... 8 12 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ...... 8 13 CONSERVATION DISTRICT AUTHORITY FOR WATERSHED PLANNING PROCESS ...... 8 14 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...... 10 15 GEOLOGY ...... 10 16 GEOMORPHOLOGY ...... 12 17 TOPOGRAPHY ...... 13 18 CLIMATE ...... 13 19 SOILS ...... 14 20 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES ...... 15 21 GROUNDWATER ...... 16 22 VEGETATION ...... 17 23 INVASIVE SPECIES ...... 18 24 Rangeland Impacts ...... 20 25 Riparian Impacts ...... 20 26 FIRE...... 21 27 Historic Fire Occurrence...... 21 28 Fire Ecology and Soils ...... 21 29 Little Venus Fire ...... 21 30 Current Fire/Treatment Activity ...... 22 31 Catastrophic Fire and the Wildland Urban Interface ...... 22 32 WILDLIFE AND RECREATIONAL NATURAL RESOURCE HISTORY ...... 22 33 AGRICULTURAL HISTORY ...... 24 34 AGRICULTURE ...... 24 35 MINING AND MINERALS ...... 27 36 TIMBER ...... 28 37 CONCERNS AND ISSUES ...... 29 38 WATER QUALITY ...... 29 39 WILDLIFE ...... 29 40 Wildlife Population Management ...... 29 41 Wildlife Habitat ...... 30 42 Habitat Maintenance ...... 31 43 Herbivory ...... 31 44 Fires and Wildlife ...... 32 45 Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality ...... 32 46 Wildlife Habitat and Water Quantity ...... 32 47 Invasive Species and Wildlife ...... 32 48 Water Temperature and Wildlife Issues ...... 33 49 AGRICULTURE ...... 33 50 Grazing and Land Management ...... 33 51 Animal Feeding Operations (AFO)...... 35 52 Invasive Species in Agriculture ...... 35 53 Loss of Agricultural Lands ...... 36 54 Crop Production ...... 37 55 Water Development ...... 38 56 RECREATION ...... 39 57 MINING ...... 40

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 4 -

1 OIL AND GAS ...... 40 2 URBAN/RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LANDUSE ...... 40 3 ROADS ...... 41 4 WASTE MANAGEMENT ...... 42 5 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 43 6 GENERAL - LAND USE OVER THE ENTIRE WATERSHED ...... 44 7 WILDLIFE HABITAT ...... 45 8 WILDLIFE HABITAT USE AND WATER ...... 46 9 WILDLIFE HABITAT MAINTENANCE ...... 47 10 AGRICULTURAL USE ...... 48 11 AGRICULTURAL GRAZING LANDS USE ...... 49 12 AGRICULTURAL WATER DEVELOPMENT ...... 50 13 RECREATION ...... 50 14 SMALL ACREAGES ...... 50 15 APPENDICES ...... 51 16 Appendix 1 - Literature Cited ...... 51 17 Appendix 2 - Glossary of Terms ...... 54 18 Appendix 3 – Charts, Maps, and Tables ...... 61 19 Chart 1: SNOTEL Site Precipitation ...... 61 20 Table 1: Rosgen Classification ...... 62 21 Table 2: Wyoming Weed & Pest Control Act Designated List ...... 63 22 Table 3: List of Scientific Plant Names ...... 64 23 Map 1: Watershed Location ...... 66 24 Map 2: General Base Map ...... 67 25 Map 3: Landscape Features ...... 68 26 Map 4: Ecoregions ...... 69 27 Map 5: Forested Lands ...... 70 28 Map 6: Land Ownership ...... 71 29 Map 7: Watershed Impairments ...... 72 30 Map 8: Irrigated and Non-irrigated Lands ...... 73 31 Map 9: Sage Grouse Leks and 3 Mile Radius...... 74 32 Map 10: Pipelines and Transmission Lines ...... 75 33 Map 11: Average Annual Precipitation ...... 76 34 Map 12: Roads ...... 77 35 Map 13: Soils ...... 78 36 Map 14: Surface Waters ...... 79 37 Map 15: Subwatersheds ...... 80 38 Map 16: BLM Prescribed Burning and Vegetation Treatments 2002 through 2007 ...... 81 39 Appendix 4 – Action Register/Milestone Table ...... 82 40

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 5 -

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 3 MISSION 4 The mission of the Greybull River Watershed Steering Committee is to support voluntary practices 5 that can address the human influenced portion of water quality issues related to nonpoint source 6 pollution within the Greybull River watershed with consideration to historic, custom, cultural, and 7 natural background influences within the watershed; thereby improving water quality and associated 8 natural resources while preventing the need for government regulatory agency enforcement actions. 9 10 PURPOSE 11 The purpose of the Greybull River Watershed Plan is to: 12 1. Evaluate and summarize the overall condition of the Greybull River Watershed, considering 13 historical land use practices and hydrology; 14 2. Initiate proactive voluntary efforts thereby maintaining local stewardship and avoiding 15 potential state and federal regulatory actions due to water quality concerns; 16 3. Document existing Best Management Practices (BMPs) within the Greybull River Watershed 17 and continue development and use of existing BMPs, as well as other practices that benefit 18 watershed health and water quality; 19 4. Research options for improving and maintaining water quality and overall watershed health 20 while maintaining a focus on voluntary and incentive based installment of BMPs for water 21 quality enhancement; 22 5. Continue and/or expand basic water quality monitoring activities within the Greybull River 23 Watershed to evaluate the impacts of the watershed planning processes on water quality; 24 6. Evaluate the appropriate classification of the streams within the Greybull River watershed; 25 7. Develop and maintain a positive cooperative relationship between stakeholders, agencies, 26 and others with vested interest in the watershed; 27 8. Provide opportunities to improve and maintain the cultural, economic and environmental 28 health of the watershed using diverse resources. 29 9. Work to assist the water body’s recognition as meeting its designated uses and removal of 30 Greybull River from the WDEQ 303(d) List of Waterbodies with Water Quality 31 Impairments; 32 10. Facilitate the implementation of goals and objectives of this watershed plan; 33 11. Provide a forum for dynamic, long term watershed planning. 34 35 CLEAN WATER ACT- 1972 36 The Clean Water Act (CWA) was adopted by Congress for two primary purposes. That is to: 37 1. Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters; and 38 2. Where attainable, to achieve water quality that promotes protection and propagation of fish, 39 shellfish, and wildlife, and provide for recreation in and on the water. This goal is commonly 40 expressed by the phrase “fishable/swimable”. 41 42 WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 43 In order to ensure compliance with the CWA, the State of Wyoming is required to adopt water 44 quality standards (laws or regulations) to enhance water quality and protect public health and 45 welfare. Under Section 305(b) of the CWA, the State of Wyoming must also report on the condition 46 of their water(s) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) once every two years. This Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 6 -

1 report, prepared by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), is known as the 2 305(b) report. Under section 303(d) of the CWA, States must identify those waters within its 3 boundaries that are not meeting the water quality standards (“impaired waters”) applicable to that 4 waterbody based on its designated use(s). A designated use is that use that a waterbody is capable of 5 attaining although it may or may not be currently attained by that specific segment or body of water. 6 States are required to address impaired waterbodies by establishing water quality standards and 7 pollution control activities designed to achieve and maintain the designated use. 8 9 CONSERVATION DISTRICT’S ROLE 10 Following the enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. EPA has delegated water quality 11 assessment and regulatory responsibilities to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 12 (WDEQ), which is the regulatory agency responsible for enforcement of the CWA as it applies to 13 Wyoming waters. Local Conservation Districts, by statutory authority, have assumed the 14 responsibility of leading information and education programs and providing technical and financial 15 assistance to their constituents to conserve Wyoming’s natural resources, and to protect the quality 16 of life of all Wyoming citizens. 17 The Meeteetse Conservation District (MCD) serves as a liaison between WDEQ and local land 18 mangers within the Greybull River Watershed to address water quality concerns and to investigate 19 historical, custom, cultural, and background conditions as they apply to environmental compliance 20 with regard to water quality standards. The MCD has also endorsed the formation of the Greybull 21 River Watershed Plan Steering Committee to develop a locally-led, comprehensive watershed 22 management plan to improve water quality and watershed health while preserving the economic 23 sustainability of agricultural operations and other activities within the Greybull River Watershed. 24 25 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES 26 Monitoring activities on the Greybull River by the MCD began in 1997 and have continued since 27 then. The MCD prepared a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) at that time and has recently updated 28 that SAP to meet current credible data statute requirements. The MCD Sampling and Analysis Plan 29 will guide further monitoring for E. coli bacteria. Other monitoring efforts on the river have been 30 undertaken by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Wyoming Game and Fish (WGF), 31 irrigation districts, and other interested parties. Monitoring has also been undertaken for chemical, 32 physical and biological constituents. 33 Data collected under the previous SAP and the current versions indicate that the status as impaired 34 was warranted, but that the actual nature of the impairment appears highly complex and variable 35 (MCD, 2007 and MCD, 2009). Analysis of the water quality data collected by MCD is ongoing. 36 37 WDEQ 303(d) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERBODIES 38 In 2002, the Greybull River was initially listed as impaired for fecal coliform from the confluence 39 with the Bighorn River upstream an undetermined distance on the Wyoming Section 303(d) List, 40 Table A: 303(d) water bodies that warrant classification as impaired. This listing in 2002 was based 41 on a USGS one time sample. In 2004, water quality data submitted by MCD resulted in the fecal 42 coliform impairment of the Greybull River being modified to the confluence with the Bighorn River 43 upstream to the Wyoming Highway 120 Bridge. In 2006, additional monitoring led to a further 44 reduction of the impaired reach from the confluence with the Bighorn River upstream to the Sheets 45 Flat bridge (WACD, 2007). In the 2008 303(d) List of “Waters with a Water Quality Impairment”,

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 7 -

1 the Greybull River is on Table A-impaired for fecal coliform during the contact recreation season 2 from the confluence with the Bighorn River upstream to the Sheets Flat bridge (Appendix 3, Map 7). 3 According to the water quality standard for the State of Wyoming, a waterbody is designated for 4 protection of primary contact recreation (any recreational or other surface use of the water that could 5 be expected to result in ingestion of the water or immersion). Furthermore, according to the 6 Wyoming State Surface Water Quality Rules and Regulations Chapter 1, all waters designated for 7 primary contact recreation, during the summer recreation season (May 1 through September 30), 8 shall not have concentrations of E. coli bacteria exceeding a geometric mean of 126 organisms per 9 100 milliliters based on a minimum of 5 samples, taken during separate 24 hour periods, in a 30 day 10 time span. 11 If a water body is designated for protection of secondary contact recreation (any recreational or other 12 surface water use in which contact with the water is either incidental or accidental and that would 13 not be expected to result in ingestion of the water or immersion) E. coli concentrations cannot 14 exceed 630 organisms per 100 milliliters of water based on a minimum of not less than 5 samples 15 obtained during separate 24 hour periods for any 30-day period. Waters on table “A” must meet the 16 guidelines for primary contact recreation unless otherwise noted during the recreational period of the 17 year (May 1 through September 1). Waters not listed in table “A” must meet the requirements of st th 18 Secondary Contact Recreation. During the period of October 1 through April 30 , primary contact 19 recreation streams only need to meet standards of secondary contact. 20 The Wyoming State Water Quality Standards also state that: 21 During the summer recreation season, on all waters designated for primary contact recreation, 22 the following single-sample maximum concentrations of E. coli bacteria shall apply: 23 (i) High use swimming areas - 235 organisms per 100 milliliters 24 (ii) Moderate full body contact - 298 organisms per 100 milliliters 25 (iii) Lightly used full body contact - 410 organisms per 100 milliliters 26 (iv) Infrequently used full body contact - 576 organisms per 100 milliliters 27 Single-sample maximum values may be used to post recreational use advisories in public 28 recreation areas and to derive single-sample maximum effluent limitations on point source 29 discharges. An exceedance of the single-sample maxima shall not be cause for listing a water 30 body on the State 303(d) list or development of a TMDL or watershed plan. The appropriate 31 recreational use category (i through iv above) shall be determined by the administrator as 32 needed, on a case by case basis. In making such a determination, the administrator may 33 consider such site-specific circumstances as type and frequency of use, time of year, public 34 access, proximity to populated areas, and local interests (Wyoming DEQ, 2007). 35 36 These standards are currently being used by WDEQ and it is recognized that they may change in 37 time. 38 39 PUBLIC AWARENESS 40 MCD hosted a public meeting in 2006 to inform the public and the land managers within the 41 Greybull River Watershed of the 303(d) listing issue and to discuss possible solutions. MCD invited 42 presenters to explain potential implications of the listing of the Greybull River and the attendees 43 were informed of the option of a local watershed assessment and planning effort being acceptable to 44 WDEQ to address the water quality impairment. The presenters included representatives of the 45 MCD and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Citizens attending these meetings 46 agreed that MCD should provide leadership to move forward with a locally led watershed planning Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 8 -

1 effort. In addition, approximately 20 citizens agreed to serve on a steering committee to provide 2 leadership for the watershed assessment and planning process. Additional meetings were held 3 among MCD staff and board members, NRCS staff and Greybull River Steering Committee 4 members to continue working through the Greybull River Watershed assessment and planning 5 process. The Greybull River Watershed Steering Committee was formally created in January, 2007. 6 The Greybull River Watershed Steering Committee has continued to work with MCD and NRCS to 7 finalize the Greybull River Watershed Plan. 8 The Greybull River Watershed Plan will be available for a 45 day public comment beginning th 9 November 12 , 2009, before being approved and submitted to WDEQ for its final approval. Once 10 the watershed plan is adopted by WDEQ, the Greybull River Steering Committee and MCD will 11 continue with implementation of the plan and continue to work towards the goal of removal of the 12 Greybull River from the WDEQ 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. 13 14 PARTNERSHIPS 15 Because of the diverse nature of the landowners in the watershed, the level of interest of state and 16 federal agencies, and the attention of non-profit groups who have a cooperative interest within the 17 watershed, it is important to identify opportunities for partnership and cooperation. There are 18 opportunities for the identification and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and 19 conservation programs. It is important to look for opportunities to develop voluntary management 20 plans that first, meet the individual goals of owners and managers, and second, address resource 21 concerns. 22 23 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING 24 There are significant opportunities for developing conservation planning within the watershed that 25 will address the concerns of both individual operators, and the unified base of constituents and 26 federal land managers within the watershed. In order to be successful, planning should be flexible, 27 and initiated from the bottom. Plans that start with individual goals, then expand to local priorities, 28 and then make their way to the watershed, regional, and state level, are far more likely to be 29 successful. The key to balancing the application of financial resources in a manner that recognizes 30 the multi-use nature of many western lands can be found in following the NRCS planning 31 guidelines, where Soil, Water, Air, Plant, Animal, and Human (SWAPA-H) aspects of the plan are 32 clearly addressed in the process. If planning is done correctly, management options become multi 33 dimensional, so that certain resource concerns, such as invasive species, are not ignored, but are 34 addressed in the implementation of the plan. 35 36 CONSERVATION DISTRICT AUTHORITY FOR WATERSHED PLANNING PROCESS 37 Under Wyoming Statute 11-16-103 Legislative declarations and policy, the Meeteetse Conservation 38 District has the authority to “provide for the conservation of the soil and water resources of this state, 39 and for the control and prevention of soil erosion and for flood prevention or the conservation, 40 development, utilization, and disposal of water, and thereby to stabilize ranching and farming 41 operations, to preserve natural resources, protect the tax base, control floods, prevent impairment of 42 dams and reservoirs, preserve wildlife, protect public lands, and protect and promote the health, 43 safety and general welfare of the people of this state.” 44 Wyoming Statute 11-16-122 (b) authorizes the Conservation Districts to “conduct surveys, 45 investigations and research and disseminate information relating to . . . the conservation, 46 development, utilization and disposal of water. . . in cooperation with the government of this state or Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 9 -

1 its agencies . . . (v),” to “develop comprehensive plans for . . . conservation of soil and water 2 resources . . .[that] specify in detail the acts, procedures, performances, and avoidances necessary or 3 desirable to carry out the plans (xvi),” and to “make public the plans and information and bring them 4 to the attention of owners and occupiers of land within the district (xvii).” 5 In 1996 Wyoming Conservation Districts, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the 6 Wyoming Department of Agriculture saw an increasing need for conservation districts to represent 7 local interests and take the lead in watershed planning efforts. As a result they developed the 8 Watershed Strategic Plan to guide watershed planning efforts across the state. This document insists 9 that “any Watershed effort led by a conservation District should be landowner driven. . .[and] any 10 participation on behalf of any landowner is strictly voluntary.” By taking an active role in the 11 planning process, the Greybull River Watershed landowners and the MCD has adhered to this 12 principle. The landowners have followed the steps for watershed planning as outlined in the 13 Watershed Strategic Plan. They have identified and prioritized concerns, set goals and objectives, 14 and developed a watershed management plan. Included in the Greybull River Watershed Plan are 15 elements to solicit funds, implementation of the plan, and plan evaluation. 16 According to Meeteetse Conservation District’s 2008 Land Use Management and Resource 17 Conservation Plan (LUMRCP) General Planning Policy: “The MCD will strive to improve the 18 mineral cycle, water cycle, and energy flow of the public and private lands within the District 19 through improved land use management and natural resources conservation, management, and 20 planning in keeping with the custom and culture of the community in order to provide for economic 21 and social stability” (Meeteetse Conservation District, 2008). 22 Following, are some excerpts from MCD’s LUMRCP related to watershed planning: 23 Watershed Planning Goals: 24 ♦ There be developed a landscape scale watershed plan, bringing together the physical 25 characteristics of the watershed, significant elements of water quality, and the riverine 26 system’s hydrology, and incorporating historical land use and the custom and culture of the 27 watershed. 28 ♦ The health of watersheds and quality of their natural resources within and affecting the MCD 29 be maintained or improved in a sustainable manner. 30 Watershed Planning Objectives: 31 ♦ A steering committee comprised of persons representing the custom and culture of the MCD 32 and of other stakeholders of Greybull River watershed health develop a comprehensive 33 strategic watershed plan for that portion of the Greybull River watershed in the MCD and 34 Park County. 35 ♦ That the Greybull River watershed plan steering committee shall develop its watershed plan 36 in a manner that provides for its future incorporation in this Plan. 37 Watershed Planning Policy: 38 ♦ The MCD strive to provide opportunities to improve and maintain the cultural, economic and 39 environmental health of the watershed using diverse resources. 40 ♦ The MCD will endeavor to provide a forum for dynamic, long term watershed planning, 41 including yield and storage, means of watershed assessment, and the effects of proposed 42 statutory changes. 43 ♦ The MCD shall strive to ensure that changes to Wyoming DEQ/WQD Ag Use Protection 44 Policy truly protect the agricultural use of discharge water from oil and gas development 45 and to support agricultural use of discharge water under authority of W.S.37 § 11-16-103. 46 Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 10 -

1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2 The Greybull River Watershed lies within the Bighorn Basin in the northwest corner of Wyoming 3 (Appendix 3, Map 1, Map 2, Map 3, and Map 6). The 2006 WDEQ 305(b) report describes this area: 4 “The Big Horn River Basin takes up a large portion of north-central Wyoming. For this report, 5 the basin includes the Wind River and all the other drainages into the Big Horn River in 6 Wyoming, as well as the Little Big Horn River Sub-basin. The basin is bounded by the Absaroka 7 Range on the west, the Wind River Mountains, Beaver Rim and Bridger Mountains on the 8 southwest, south and southeast respectively, and the Big Horn Mountains on the east. As with any 9 river basin, water quality is strongly influenced by geology and terrain. Natural water quality 10 characteristics of streams coming off the Wind River Range and Big Horn Mountains are fairly 11 similar due to relatively similar terrain, geology and climate. Water quality is generally good in 12 these mountain ranges, but water quality gradually changes as streams flow across the basin to 13 the Big Horn River due to natural erosion and stream processes increasing sediment and total 14 dissolved solid (TDS) loads. Accelerated erosion, irrigated agriculture runoff, discharge from oil 15 and gas development and other dischargers, and other human activities have the potential to 16 degrade the water quality further (USGS, 1956; USGS, 1999). 17 Streams draining the Absaroka Range naturally carry very high sediment loads due to the easily 18 eroded volcanic geology and relatively young mountains. Most of the lower portions of the Big 19 Horn Basin have thin soils derived from highly erodible, saline, alkaline and/or phosphate-rich 20 geologic materials. Additionally, much of the precipitation in the lower elevation portions of the 21 basin (which typically receive less than 9 inches per year) emanates from thunderstorms, which 22 tend to cause flash flooding and severe erosion of normally dry soils. Therefore, the Big Horn 23 River naturally carries high sediment loads, but it is thought that human influences have 24 increased the sediment loads. Man’s influence on sediment transport in some of the lower 25 elevation portions of the basin is believed to date to the 1880s, when a combination of old grazing 26 practices (primarily long term with high densities of stock) removed the existing grasses and 27 began a cycle of intense runoff and gullying which exacerbated naturally occurring existing 28 conditions (Marston and Anderson, 1991). Construction of dams and other activities that modify 29 the natural flow regime of the basin have also played a part (USGS, 1956; Bray, 1996). Recovery 30 has been slow and difficult in the lower elevation, more arid parts of the basin.” 31 32 GEOLOGY 33 The Greybull River is the third largest tributary of the Bighorn River. It flows approximately 94 34 miles to its confluence near Greybull, Wyoming (Appendix 3, Map 14 ). The total drainage area is 35 about 1,120 square miles. The headwater streams begin in the Absaroka Mountain Range in 36 Northwest Wyoming. Geologically, the upper part of the watershed was formed by volcanic activity 37 and contains mostly porous rock and highly erodible soil types. The lower portions of the watershed 38 are primarily sedimentary rocks of Mesozoic and Tertiary age. 39 The Bighorn Basin is a large depression that sits in north central Wyoming. The size of the basin is 40 roughly 10,000 square miles and the basin is bounded by the Beartooth, Absaroka, Washakie, Owl 41 Creek, Bighorn, and Pryor mountains. The Greybull watershed is located at the southwest corner of 42 the Bighorn Basin. The Basin opens at its north end as it enters Montana (Lageson and Spearing, 43 1988). These mountain systems were generally uplifted during the Laramide Orogeny. This 44 mountain building episode started around 55 – 80 million years ago during the late Cretaceous 45 period and is generally accepted as ending 35 – 50 million years ago. There is debate and dispute on 46 the causes and dates of this event, but the overall result was the building of most of the mountain 47 ranges in the Rocky Mountain region. The Laramide Orogeny is named after Wyoming’s Laramie Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 11 -

1 mountain range. The oil, gas, gypsum and coal (organic deposits) in the watershed are thought to 2 have been deposited during the period of time prior to the mountain building period.

3 Figure 1: Geologic Map of the Greybull River Watershed 4 Volcanic activity in the last 100 million years has had a major influence on the topography and 5 geologic setting of the area. Bentonite deposits throughout the Bighorn Basin are evidence of 6 violent volcanic eruptions. Volcanism is still an ongoing feature and process within miles of the 7 watershed, as witnessed by many ongoing earthquakes, geysers and hot springs. Yellowstone Lake 8 is the caldera to the volcano that created many of the geologic features within and adjacent to 9 Yellowstone National Park. 10 Generally the basin has three major geologic “zones”. The first is made up of the high mountains 11 that ring the basin. The mountains are Precambrian “basement rocks” and volcanics that have been 12 uplifted such that much of the other strata above them have been eroded away. These rocks, once 13 the lower pieces of the continent, are now the highest points in basin. 14 The second geologic zone of the basin is the “shoulder” section that sits between the mountains and 15 the lower flat basin expanse. This zone runs from five to ten miles wide and forms a series of hills 16 and benches at the foot of the higher mountains. These shoulders are made of younger aged 17 materials, typically sedimentary, such as the famous red Chugwater formation from the Triassic 18 period. 19 The third zone reflects continuing geological change towards the center of the basin, where materials 20 again decrease in age. The center of the basin is mostly the Paleocene Fort Union formation and the 21 Eocene Willwood formation, the latter corresponding with the Wind River and Wasatch formations 22 common in the rest of Wyoming. The headwaters of the Greybull River Watershed lie in the

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 12 -

1 Absaroka Range. The Absaroka Range is a rugged 155 mi long northwest trending mountain range 2 in northwestern Wyoming and southwestern Montana and forms the core of the Absaroka volcanic 3 providence (Sundell, 1993). The Absaroka volcanic providence is composed chiefly of Eocene 4 andesitic volcanic rocks including sandstone, siltstone, claystone, conglomerate, and breccia. 5 Volcanism occurred between 53 and 38 million years ago when 10,000-ft high andesitic 6 stratovalcanos formed and were rapidly eroded and redistributed into a 6,000 ft thick blanket of 7 reworked, epiclastic volcanic rocks. The present erosion cycle carves a spectacular, rugged, 8 mountainous topography into a thick volcanic pile that overlies a Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Tertiary 9 sedimentary and tectonic basin. An important feature of the Absaroka Range is the occurrence of 10 ubiquitous mass wasting phenomena. Rock slides, rockfall, slump, earthflow, mudflow, soil creep, 11 and virtually all combinations of and transitions between these processes are common, particularly in 12 the southeastern Absaroka Range encompassing the Greybull River watershed. 13 As you progress through the watershed you see dramatic changes in geology and therefore the 14 associated deposited materials. Higher elevations tend to have materials that are more difficult to 15 erode, larger sizes of materials, and higher energy streams. The lower sections of the basin have 16 more easily erodable small materials, but also have generally decreased stream energy to move these 17 materials. The result is a system that methodically moves materials from the mountains, depositing 18 larger stones and materials as it loses energy with associated losses in elevation. As streams move 19 through the basin they begin to erode and transport the finer grained materials of the Eocene. The 20 changes can be seen in the stream bed-loads within the basin. From the mountains to the basin 21 center, the beds tend to become increasingly silty and clayey and lose much of the sand, rock, and 22 gravel that armor streambeds in the higher basin. Larger streams (free stone) maintain these coarser 23 materials longer, and therefore tend to have larger size materials in their beds. This is important as 24 these materials help to armor streambeds, trap smaller particles, and create fishery habitat. 25 The watershed has high uplift and significant differences in elevation. As the mountains continued 26 to rise, they were worn down and deposited within the Bighorn Basin. The topography of the 27 Watershed was created by the forces of erosion caused by climatic changes and geologic action. 28 The highest point in the watershed is at Francs Peak. The elevation there is 13,140 feet. Where the 29 Greybull River flows into Bighorn County, WY the elevation is approximately 4,704 feet. 30 31 GEOMORPHOLOGY 32 Precipitation (water equivalent) in the basin ranges over 40 inches per year in the high mountain 33 headwaters to less than 6 inches per year in parts of the dry basin (Appendix 3, Map 11 ). Much of 34 the precipitation falls as snow leading to large fluctuations in annual discharge, including torrential 35 stream flows during snow melt runoff (Curtis and Grimes, 2004). As a result, there are interesting 36 and varied processes affecting the geomorphology (the geologic study of landscape evolution over 37 time) in the basin. Glaciation, wind and water erosional forces have combined to mold the landscape 38 into what we now see today. During the Ice Age, massive glaciers covered the watershed and 39 produced many of the erosional forms in the landscapes of the mountains, foothills and the plains. 40 Wind, water, heat and freezing all combine to continually erode the mountains and foothills, and 41 deposit the material in the lower elevations of the plains. The state of equilibrium is not yet reached, 42 and the migration of streams and rivers, avalanches and earthquakes, heavy rainfall and snowfall, 43 and wind will continue to act to level the landforms in the Basin. The upper mountain areas have 44 high energy streams that easily move materials that are deposited by active hillslope geomorphic 45 processes. This creates a steep, rugged, and beautiful landscape that is characteristic and even 46 defines Wyoming’s mountain systems.

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 13 -

1 The geomorphology in the lower elevations of the basin is less spectacular but equally important in 2 defining the look and shape of the landscapes. Low precipitation contributes to low vegetative 3 cover. This is combined with soft sedimentary rocks and flashy precipitation. The result is a natural 4 high desert environment that is prone to erosion. Sheet, rill, gully, and wind erosion are all present. 5 High rates of erosion, slow rates of soils formation, and limited precipitation combine to form an 6 environment where change is easily noted and amplified. It is difficult or impossible to say what 7 level of geomorphic change would be considered “natural” in the basin, but anthropogenic (human 8 influenced) practices have significant capacity for positive, and/or negative impact on those rates of 9 change. 10 The Greybull River itself consists of tributaries that could be characterized as torrential, high 11 elevation, mountain streams with high channel slopes, unstable substrates, and large fluctuations in 12 discharge from spring to late summer (Hansen and Glover, 1973). 13 14 TOPOGRAPHY 15 The MCD has varying topography resultant from historic and ongoing geologic, glacial, wind, and 16 fluvial processes. The upper Greybull River (within the Shoshone National Forest) is part of the 17 Yellowstone Lava Plateau created by the volcanic eruptions in the nearby Yellowstone Park Region. 18 Uplifted and faulted sedimentary rock (interbedded sandstone, siltstone and shale formations) 19 typifies the lower area (below the Shoshone National Forest boundary) of the MCD. The typical 20 formation is called the hogback. River and stream terraces (soil and gravel benches) caused by 21 depositional/erosional actions of glaciers and high precipitation events are prevalent in the lower 22 areas of the MCD (such as the YU Bench). Floodplains are prevalent in the river and stream 23 bottoms throughout the MCD. The floodplains are areas normally subject to cyclical flooding, 24 stream channel migration and depositional/erosional events. Riparian zones normally occur in the 25 floodplain. The floodplain areas of some of the streams and rivers in the MCD have been mapped 26 while others have not. The benches and floodplains are typically where most of the irrigated 27 agricultural operations take place (Appendix 3, Map 8). Slope defines the topography of an area. 28 The MCD has many slopes (flat to steep) on the differing landforms. Slope in combination with the 29 forces of erosion and deposition create and/or influence avalanches, landslides, slumps, wildfires, 30 valley filling/deposition, surface water run-off, stream migration, soil erosion and deposition. 31 32 CLIMATE 33 Climate is central among the forces which have shaped the landscape of the watershed; rain, snow, 34 wind, frost and sun action are all prevalent. The climate of the watershed is influenced by the 35 mountains surrounding it. Westerly air masses coming from the Pacific release the majority of their 36 moisture along the western slopes (mountain ranges in Wyoming generally run north-south, thus 37 perpendicular to prevailing westerly winds). The area east of the mountains, including the Greybull 38 watershed, is characterized as being semiarid and is dominated by high plains. It is difficult to 39 classify simple climatic regions within the state due to the highly variable elevations and topography 40 (Curtis and Grimes, 2004). 41 Variability can be extreme in the basin, with cloudbursts and thunderstorms during the mid and late 42 summer producing high intensity, low duration storms that can influence debris and stream flows. 43 These conditions dramatically increase turbidity and suspended solids as well as potentially 44 influencing the geomorphic processes and altering stream channel locations and dynamics. 45 Potential evaporation exceeds 25 inches, roughly three times actual precipitation in the driest areas 46 of the watershed. The extreme temperature range over a year may be as much as 149 degrees. The Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 14 -

1 highest temperatures, exceeding 100 degrees, are attained in July and August. The lowest 2 temperatures, around -50 degrees, generally occur December through February. 3 Temperatures in the mountains range from approximately -30 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit. At higher 4 altitudes average temperatures are low, and the frost-free season shrinks to the point where frost can 5 be expected any day of the year. The average frost-free period in the watershed ranges from 90 to 6 120 days depending on elevation. The average growing season at Powell is approximately 140 days, 7 at Cody it is approximately 119 days, and at Sunshine Reservoir it is less than 100 days. At 8 Meeteetse the last killing frost of the spring-time is about May 30th, and the first killing frost of the 9 fall is about September 1st.

10 Figure 2: Western Regional Climate Center information for near Sunshine reservoir. 11 Like all basins, the Bighorn Basin is subject to temperature inversions, which affect the watershed. 12 Cold air flows out of the mountains into the lowest places. Trapped by a layer of warmer air, the 13 cold air can stagnate and remain in the Basin for several days. In contrast, the Chinook effect 14 provides relief from severe cold temperatures as unseasonably warm downslope winds blow into the 15 area during winter months. 16 As altitude increases toward the mountains, precipitation increases as well. Above 9,000 feet, 17 snowfall may be 150 to 200 inches. Total precipitation above 9,000 feet ranges from 25 to 40 inches 18 or more with five to six inches falling in summer thundershowers, and the remainder coming in the 19 form of snow pack. About 60% of the annual precipitation falls in the five months from April thru 20 August. The lack of moisture is an important factor throughout the watershed.

21 SOILS 22 The soils of the watershed are a function of the climate, topography, local vegetation types, geologic 23 parent materials, and time. Soil parent materials, topography, and climate vary significantly in the 24 watershed. In the mountainous areas of the watershed, the presence of well defined soil structure is 25 minimal, whereas the foothills and valley floors show good to well defined soil structure and 26 horizonation. The valley floors have relatively recent alluvial deposits that are characteristically 27 created from eroded sands, silts, shales and volcanic rock. The NRCS has classified most of the 28 soils in the watershed, though complete mapping is pending (Appendix 3, Map 13). Further 29 inventory and classification will need to take place in order to have a good picture of all the soil

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 15 -

1 distribution in the watershed. Through the identification of soil properties and limitations, land 2 planning and conservation practices can be developed with the most probability of success. 3 Soils can significantly affect interactions between ground water, surface water, and possible non 4 point source pollutants. Coarse high permeability soils allow precipitation events to be captured by 5 the landscape whereas low permeability, fine textured soils have high runoff rates. These vast 6 differences in soil type and texture throughout the watershed have a significant impact on irrigation 7 practices, construction suitability, recreational activities, waste disposal designs, and other activities.

8 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

9 The Greybull River is a tributary to the Bighorn and Missouri Rivers’, respectively. Figure 3 10 provides perspective for scale in relation to a watershed hierarchy classification (Maxwell, et al., 11 1995). The Greybull River hydrologic unit (10080009) is further divided into three 5th-level sub- 12 watershed units. Figure 3 displays these watersheds (Appendix 3, Map 15). Level Description Hydrologic Unit Name and Boundary Code (HUB) 1st Region Missouri (10) 2nd Sub-region Big Horn (1008) 3rd River Basin Big Horn (100800) 4th Sub-basin Greybull River (10080009) 5th Watershed Wood River (1008000902) 5th Watershed Upper Greybull River (1008000901) 5th Watershed Middle Greybull River (1008000903) 13 Figure 3: Watershed Hierarchy Classification 14 Stream flow is dominated by melting snow, with a single peak discharge generally occurring in early 15 to mid-June. Summer thunderstorm events are common and can produce short-duration spikes in the 16 hydrograph. The range in stream flows is considerable. Instantaneous peaks in the main stem of the 17 Greybull River at Meeteetse can be as high as 14,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) (although average 18 peak flow for the period of record is closer to 3685 cfs), while base flow can be below 100 cfs. Year 19 to year variability in stream flow is large and is a function of both natural and anthropogenic 20 influences. Stream flow in the watershed is related to both annual snow pack and the rate at which it 21 melts as well as the presence of reservoirs and irrigation diversion structures. Rain on snow events 22 do occur on occasion and can result in very high stream flows. Diurnal fluctuation in stream flow 23 during the snow melt period is great. Daily flows can fluctuate greatly as the river approaches its 24 annual peak flow. 25 Little documentation on groundwater exists within the watershed. Many springs and seeps occur 26 throughout the watershed and alluvial aquifers are found in the broader valley bottoms, such as along 27 the Greybull River, and its larger tributaries. The broader valley bottoms also contain the largest 28 concentrations of wetlands. The dominant stream types, based on the Rosgen classification, are A, B, 29 C, D, and G (Rosgen, 1994; see Appendix 3, Table 1). Heavy bedload movement during the snow 30 melt season and debris flow activity during the summer thunderstorm season cause channel reaches 31 within the watershed to continually change stream type as they adjust to the water-sediment budget 32 (sediment supply and stream power). In general streams in the upper elevations are less stable with 33 stability in the upper reaches being realized for short time periods.

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 16 -

1 2 Figure 4: Longitudinal, Cross-Sectional and Plan views of Major Stream Types (from Rosgen, 1994) 3 Natural sediment source areas include erosion from uplands and lateral scour of stream banks. Both 4 snowmelt and rain storm derived stream flows carry very large amounts of suspended and washload 5 sediment. Large volumes of bedload sediment are mobilized and moved during the snow melt 6 season. During summer thunderstorm events considerable amounts of earthen material are eroded 7 from uplands by overland flow, which concentrates in ephemeral channels and is then delivered to 8 main stem channels in the form of debris flows. Studies by the USFS determined that the majority of 9 the National Forest portion of the watershed was in good condition, having no significant alterations 10 of the hydrologic (water) cycle at their scale of study (USFS, 2005). Most of the hydrographs for this 11 study are from the 1970’s. There are however, alterations of the water cycle in localized areas of the 12 National Forest that were identified as concerns. These alterations were associated with historic 13 practices including but not limited to, livestock grazing, trapping of beaver, roading, and mining. 14 Progressing downstream through the watershed significant changes in hydrology occur. From the 15 forest boundary, there is a systematic progression from a mountain dominated high energy stream to 16 a more low energy sediment dominated system. Riparian zones and vegetation types change 17 significantly as well. Typically, mountain riparian zones are dominated by willows, whereas the 18 lower system is dominated by cottonwoods and grasses. The mountainous sections of the watershed 19 are the major sources of surface water. As much as 40 inches of precipitation per year fall in the 20 mountains, as opposed to as little as 6 in the lower portions of the watershed. Irrigation return flows 21 increase stream flow in the lower sections of the watershed. It has been postulated that recharge and 22 return flow are largely responsible for maintaining the year round flow in the lower portion of the 23 watershed in Park County. The effects of recharge from irrigation are more pronounced in the lower 24 tributaries to the Greybull. The Greybull itself is maintained as a perennial stream bellow the 25 Greybull Valley Dam through an agreement with the Greybull Valley Irrigation District (GVID) and 26 the Army Corps of Engineers.

27 GROUNDWATER 28 Groundwater in the watershed is generally confined to the areas adjacent to streams and rivers, 29 depending chiefly on their underlying aquifers. Stream-related (alluvial) aquifers are generally 30 composed of silts, sands and gravels underlain by sedimentary sandstone, shale, and volcanic rocks 31 in the higher area of the watershed. The aquifers in areas not directly influenced by the streams and 32 rivers are generally limited to underground permeable sandstones and limestone. Water quality 33 information is generally limited to the knowledge of landowners whose wells rely on the aquifers. 34 As a whole, water quality appears to be acceptable with or without secondary treatment (reverse Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 17 -

1 osmosis). Some artesian wells also occur within the watershed. Water quality can vary significantly 2 depending on the geologic formation accessed through drilling. High levels of Total Dissolved 3 Solids (TDS), metals, or other naturally occurring constituents can modify the quality of the ground 4 water depending on a specific formation, depth, or other factors. Human induced negative effects on 5 groundwater quality have not been widely noted in the watershed.

6 VEGETATION 7 Within the watershed, vegetation provides food resources, aesthetic quality, erosion control, ecologic 8 function, and economic benefit. Vegetation is a crucial component of the watershed, influencing 9 water quality and quantity. Vegetation also impacts river/stream flow and dynamics. In order to 10 better understand the vegetation within the watershed, detailed description of the vegetation zones 11 have been included below: 12 The following vegetation zones are dependant on elevation, topography, climate, soils, slope, and 13 aspect. Typical elevations are very general. The following descriptions are compiled from NRCS 14 publications, the poster Ecoregions of Wyoming, a joint publication of USEPA, USGS, WDEQ, 15 NRCS, BLM, and USFS (Chapman, et al., 2003), and other references (Appendix 3, Map 4). A 16 listing of historic native climax vegetation and other information can be accessed at the NRCS 17 eFOTOG website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/efotg/ and a list of scientific plant names can 18 be found in Appendix 3, Table 3. 19 Alpine: This zone exists from the top of the mountains to the top of the conifer tree line (above 20 10,000 feet, the Alpine ecoregion of Chapman, et al., 2003). Alpine tundra, rocky summits, talus 21 slopes, avalanche chutes, scree slopes, alpine lakes, meadows, stream channels, waterfalls, 22 permanent and temporary snow banks, and some glaciers typify the zone. Most of the vegetation is 23 herbaceous, with grasses, lichens, and sporadic low and dwarf shrubs. Trees present are krummholz 24 (spruce, subalpine fir, and limber pine). Representative forbs may include: alpine forget me not, 25 alpine anemone, alpine bluebells, cushion plants, alpine avens, alpine bistort, sandwort, fleabane, 26 alpine timothy, Idaho fescue, sheep fescue, spike trisetum, tufted hair grass, and sedges. 27 Subalpine: This zone includes the area from the top of the conifer tree line to the open grasslands 28 and meadows (8,500 to 10,000 feet, Absaroka Volcanic subalpine Zone and portions of the 29 Absaroka/Gallatin Volcanic Mountains ecoregions of Chapman, et al., 2003). Most of the trees are 30 conifers, however some species of deciduous trees (aspen and cottonwood) are also found. The 31 forested areas are generally dominated by coniferous trees such as Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, 32 lodgepole pine, whitebark pine, limber pine, and others. Other species may include quaking aspen, 33 sumac, buffaloberry, snowberry, black elderberry, huckleberry, birchleaf spirea, grouse 34 whortleberry, elk sedge, pinegrass, heartleaf arnica, yellow glacier lily, larkspur, monkshood, and 35 geranium. Springs, ponds and lakes with montane meadows (parks) maybe surrounded by aspen 36 trees and densely populated lodgepole are common in the middle of the zone. 37 Montane: The montane zone (7,000 to 8,500 feet, the Absaroka/Gallatin Volcanic Mountains 38 Ecoregion of Chapman, et al., 2003) supports the greatest variety of vegetation. Trees in the lower 39 zone are in open forest, with ground cover of shrubs and grasses, and large open areas are common. 40 Some of the open areas are wet meadows of sedges and willows and others are open grasslands. 41 Representative species may include Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, limber pine, 42 juniper, quaking aspen, red osier dogwood, prairie rose, common bearberry, white fir, wax currant, 43 birchleaf spirea, huckleberry, antelope bitterbrush, coralroots, pinegrass, dwarf mistletoe, sulphur 44 buckwheat, geranium, heartleaf arnica, timber oatgrass, blue grama, wheatgrass species, prairie 45 junegrass, mountain brome, and elk sedge.

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 18 -

1 Foothill Shrublands and Low Mountains: On the lower slopes of the mountains this zone (5,000 to 2 7,000 feet, the Foothill Shrublands and Low Mountains Ecoregion of Chapman, et al., 2003) is 3 comprised of shrubs and small deciduous trees. Juniper trees also occur in the foothills. Wyoming 4 big sagebrush is the dominant mid-to late seral species within this plant assemblage. Other species 5 may include rabbitbrush, antelope bitterbrush, wax currant, black sagebrush, mahogany, cinquefoil, 6 spiny hopsage, winterfat, narrow leaf hawksbeard, larkspur, phlox, plains prickly pear, yarrow, 7 lupine, geranium, pentstemon, death camas, balsamroot, mules ear, miners candle, scarlet 8 globemallow, blue grama, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, needlegrass, needle-and-thread 9 grass, Indian ricegrass, basin wildrye, Sandberg bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, and rhizomatous 10 wheatgrasses. 11 River Bottoms: Along the river and streams at lower elevations (less than 7,000 feet ) the vegetation 12 in the watershed riparian zone is dominated by a cottonwood overstory, willows, buffaloberry, 13 snowberry, alder, water birch, red osier dogwood, as well as invasive species such as Russian olives, 14 and saltcedar. Understory is typically composed of sedges, cattails, basin wildrye, brome, bluegrass, 15 as well as other grasses and invasive species. Swampy and wetland areas adjacent to the streams are 16 typically occupied by cattails, and various rushes and sedges. Overlap of alpine plants typically 17 occurs in the moist sites of riparian areas. 18 Bighorn Basin: Vegetation in the lower elevations (5,000 to 7,500 feet Ecoregion of Chapman, et. 19 al., 2003) of the watershed is sparse, typical of a high plains desert. This condition can be attributed 20 to the lack of moisture throughout the growing season and the arid soils of the region. The annual 21 precipitation is typically between 8 and 14 inches. The climax plants are bluebunch wheatgrass, 22 western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, and needle and thread grass with five to fifteen percent 23 sagebrush being common. The saline upland areas have saltbrush and the lowland areas have 24 greasewood. Other vegetation of interest includes: Sandberg bluegrass, cactus, rabbitbrush, and 25 various species of wildflowers and forbs. 26 Desert and Basins: Vegetation in the lower elevations of the watershed is sparse, typical of a high 27 plains desert (4,000 to 5,800 feet Bighorn Salt Desert and Shrub Basins Ecoregion of Chapman, et. 28 al., 2003). This condition can be attributed to the lack of moisture throughout the growing season as 29 well as the arid soils of the region. The annual precipitation is typically between 5 and 9 inches. 30 Shrub species may include: bud sage, birdfoot sagebrush, Gardner saltbush, rabbitbrush, and 31 shadescale. The saline upland areas have saltbush and the lowland areas have greasewood. Other 32 vegetation of interest includes: plains prickly pear cactus, and various species of wildflowers and 33 forbs including larkspur, fleabane, scarlet globemallow, and phlox. The common climax grass 34 species include but are not be limited to: rhizomatous wheatgrasses (including western, thickspike, 35 and streambank wheatgrass), needleandthread grass, Indian ricegrass, along with lesser amounts of 36 blue grama, bottle-brush squirreltail, prairie junegrass, sandberg bluegrass, and upland sedges.

37 INVASIVE SPECIES 38 America is under attack by many harmful alien species of plants, animals, and microorganisms. 39 Invasive species issues and concerns occur in all land use categories and are presented with regard to 40 land use. Thousands of non-indigenous species are now established in the United States, posing 41 risks to native species, valued ecosystems, human and wildlife health (USGS, 2009). Currently, in 42 Wyoming there are 25 designated noxious weeds and 6 designated pests on Wyoming’s Weed & 43 Pest Control Act Designated List (Appendix 3, Table 2). 44 An exotic (non-indigenous) species is one that has been introduced by humans outside of their native 45 range. An “invasive” species is an exotic species that has the ability to spread, establish, persist, and 46 cause harm over large areas. Noxious species are those invasive species that due to their destructive Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 19 -

1 growth habits are regulated by federal, state, and local statutes. Exotic invasive species arrived 2 from far away places like Europe, the Mediterranean, China, and other distant lands, mostly via 3 human interference. Many of these invasive species were originally introduced to North America 4 for food, fiber, erosion control, or as ornamentals. Others hitchhiked their way across the ocean in 5 the ballasts of ships. In their homelands, these species evolved with mechanisms that kept them in 6 check; processes like herbivores, insects, parasites, and diseases. In North America, these natural 7 controls are absent. 8 Characteristic traits of invasive species include high reproductive rates, abundant seed production, 9 high seed germination rates, and longevity. The enhanced ability of these invasive species to ensure 10 survival and out-compete our native vegetation poses a serious threat to our natural resources. 11 Invasive species directly and indirectly threaten fish, wildlife, plants, agricultural production, 12 recreation, and natural resource activities. These species are the second most important threat to 13 native species, second only to the impacts of habitat destruction from human development 14 (Biodiversity Project, 2004). Not only is the loss of biodiversity in riparian areas threatened, but 15 invasives also threaten the aesthetics of the river corridor. 16 The current annual environmental, economic, and health-related costs of invasive species exceed 17 those of all other natural disasters combined. Researchers at Cornell University estimate that 18 invasive species cost Americans approximately $138 billion every year (Pimentel, 1999). Of that 19 amount, over $22 million is spent by Weed and Pest Districts in Wyoming for implementation of 20 noxious weed programs (Parsons, 2009). 21 Invasive species are not limited to terrestrial varieties. They may also include aquatic species such 22 as and the New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum), land animals such as the nutria 23 (Myocastor coypus), insects such as the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) and Asian longhorn beetle 24 (Anoplophora glabripennis), as well as pathogens such as the microscopic parasite (Myxobolus 25 cerebralis) that causes whirling disease in native trout populations and the potentially fatal “West 26 Nile Virus” transmitted by the culex mosquito species. All ecosystems-urban, suburban, rural, 27 wildland, rangeland, forests, and riparian areas are vulnerable to invasion from these insidious 28 species. Because of their silent approach, detection usually goes unnoticed until infestations have 29 become so significant that it draws attention to their progress. 30 Millions of acres of once healthy, productive rangelands, forestlands and riparian areas have been 31 overrun by noxious or invasive weeds. They are invading recreation areas, BLM-managed public 32 lands, National Parks, State Parks, roadsides, streambanks, federal, state, and private lands. Noxious 33 invasive weeds inhabit over 1.3 million acres in Wyoming (Ramos, 2005). They pose a significant 34 threat to Wyoming’s crop lands, rangelands and natural areas. Wyoming has long recognized the 35 importance of managing these weeds, with its first noxious weed law legislated in 1913. Invasive 36 weeds have the potential to occupy many millions of acres in Wyoming and substantially increase 37 economic impacts within the state. Other impacts from weeds that are just starting to be understood, 38 but not yet quantified, can also have serious impacts in Wyoming. 39 Water quality, quantity, and long-term production can be reduced by invasive species such as 40 dalmatian toadflax, houndstongue, and spotted knapweed. Protecting and conserving the surface soil 41 are critical to the long-term sustainability of healthy, functioning ecosystems. Soil provides 42 nutrients and moisture necessary for plant growth and is fundamental to all life. When spotted 43 knapweed invades range land dominated by native bunch grass, protection of soil and water 44 resources is compromised. In one study, runoff was 1.5-times higher and sediment was 3-times 45 higher on spotted knapweed-dominated plots than on plots dominated by the native bluebunch

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 20 -

1 wheatgrass. Loss of soil because of noxious weeds may have very serious consequences in the 2 future (Alonso, et al., 2001). 3 Rangeland Impacts 4 Invasive species can alter ecological processes such as nutrient cycling, sedimentation and flooding. 5 Invasive weeds can alter fire cycles, fuel bed characteristics, fire behavior, and fire regimes (the 6 invasive plant/fire regime cycle). There are many places in the west where European cheatgrass 7 (Bromus tectorum) has almost entirely displaced sagebrush-grassland plants and associated animals. 8 Cheatgrass has also seriously altered the fire regime from an average return interval of 60-110 years 9 to 0-3 years. Some scientists estimate that cheatgrass is present on 100 million acres of grassland- 10 steppe in the western United States. Cheatgrass forms a dense, uniform carpet that out-competes 11 native grasses and shrubs. It greens quickly, dries quickly and produces a very flammable cover that 12 often burns completely, without allowing native plants to reestablish (Mitchell, 2000). As native 13 habitat declines, so may populations of important native animal species. There is the potential for 14 these effects to occur from the montane down through the lower elevations within this watershed. 15 Some vegetative species depend on fires for healthy regeneration. Natural and prescribed burns 16 have the potential to set back successional vegetative stages. However, invasive plant species often 17 move in after a fire so proper management and post-fire monitoring is essential for rehabilitation and 18 restoration. 19 Riparian Impacts 20 “Riparian areas—lands adjacent to creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes where the vegetation is 21 strongly influenced by the presence of water—are both ecologically and economically important. 22 Water quality, biological diversity, wildlife habitat, agricultural and ranching productivity, timber 23 production, water and power sources, recreation, and basic aesthetics are all vital functions of 24 riparian areas. In the western United States, riparian habitat covers only about 2% of the land 25 surface, but it is the single most productive type of wildlife habitat and benefits the greatest number 26 of species. For example, more than 75% of all wildlife species in southeastern Wyoming depend on 27 riparian habitats, and in the western United States, more bird species rely on riparian habitats than all 28 other western rangeland vegetation types combined. Besides providing crucial wildlife habitat, 29 healthy riparian areas provide many important ecological functions—they store water and recharge 30 aquifers, filter chemical and organic wastes, trap sediment, build and maintain stream banks, reduce 31 soil erosion, and produce plants. Water, soil, vegetation, and landform are components of the 32 riparian area that must be considered for successful management. In a healthy riparian ecosystem, 33 the four are in balance and mutually support one another” (WYGF, 2002). 34 Native prairie riparian ecosystems are being threatened by invasive species such as saltcedar 35 (Tamarix spp.), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). 36 Saltcedar, a native of Europe, Asia, China, and the Mediterranean, extends its roots deep into the soil 37 (90 feet or more) and depends on ground water for water supply. This enables it to survive where no 38 surface water is present. Saltcedar increases the salinity of the soil in an area by taking up solutes 39 from the soil and depositing them from salt glands or from leaf litter. This allelopathic (chemical) 40 effect inhibits the establishment of native species that are unable to survive in high salinity 41 conditions, thus creating “single species stands” where the only species present is Saltcedar (Di 42 Tomaso, 1998). In one year a mature saltcedar plant is capable of producing 600,000 seeds. The 43 plants can also withstand flooding conditions and be immersed for up to 70 days. Its thick roots can 44 reduce water flow, increase deposition, increase sediment along riverbanks, and even lead to 45 flooding by choking off the watercourse. Saltcedar can also cause significant reductions in stream 46 flow and rechanneling by colonizing the floodplain (Barranco, 2001). This effect greatly alters the Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 21 -

1 understory vegetation that many of our wildlife and bird species depend on; species such as: currant 2 (Ribes spp.) and silver buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea). 3 Purple loosestrife was introduced as an ornamental in the early 19th century for medicinal and 4 ornamental use. Its ability to reproduce both vegetatively and by the production of millions of seeds 5 has contributed to its spread. Purple loosestrife is present in riparian areas throughout the 6 continental United States. Estimates in Wyoming are less than 10, 000 acres. Riparian areas are 7 extremely valuable to native plants and animals, and the wholesale invasion by loosestrife poses a 8 serious threat of eventual extinction to numerous riparian-dependent species (Alonso, et al., 2004). 9 Surveys to determine the presence of purple loosestrife have not been conducted in the watershed, 10 but it is invading the adjacent Shoshone River watershed. 11 12 FIRE 13 Historic Fire Occurrence 14 According to the Shoshone National Forest 2009 Fire Management Plan, since 1970 the Shoshone 15 National Forest has averaged 26 wildfires annually and the trend in acreage being burned has been 16 increasing since 1998 due to drought, insect and disease, and changes in management philosophy. 17 Illustrating this, for the past 30 years the annual average number of acres burned is approximately 18 7,200 acres whereas the annual average number of acres burned for the last 5 years is approximately 19 16,400 acres. For information go to 20 http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/shoshone/fire/fmp/2009_0626_shf_fmp_2009.pdf 21 Fire Ecology and Soils 22 However, while the absence of large-scale fire can seem beneficial at first glance relative to timber 23 and watershed resource protection, it is important to remember that fire is an essential ecological 24 disturbance that recycles nutrients, regulates succession, maintains diversity, reduces biomass, 25 controls insect and disease, and maintains biological and biogeochemical processes (Wallace, 2004). 26 The nature and processes of soils are directly related to ecosystem productivity and sustainability. 27 Fire duration relative to the amount of heat transferred to the forest floor most influences the 28 integrity of the soil resource (Neary, et al.,1999; Wallace, 2004). Soil sterilization can occur where 29 fire intensity is high and sustained over a log period of time, such as under a burning log or slash pile 30 (Whelan, 1995). 31 Water repellency or hydrophobicity can be natural, but its presence can also be a physical response 32 to fire. Hydrophobic soils related to fire are generally found in specific litter types where high- 33 intensity conditions existed. Soil water repellency is certainly not a pre-requisite for increased post- 34 fire runoff and debris flows, but in steep terrains it can accelerate erosion processes (Neary, et al., 35 1999; Wallace, 2004). Management practices (seeding, contour log terraces, culverts, straw wattles, 36 silt fences, water bars, etc) may help mitigate erosion (Moench and Fusaro, 2002). 37 Little Venus Fire 38 In 2006, a significant wildland fire that occurred within the Greybull Watershed inside the Washakie 39 Wilderness Area, was the Little Venus fire, which burned approximately 36,000 acres. This fire was 40 caused by lightning on June 19, 2006 but was not discovered until 4 days later. Management of the 41 fire changed over the course of the fire. Initially, it was managed as a wildland fire use (WFU), 42 which allows the fire to burn to achieve resource objectives (the area had a lot of dead trees due to 43 insect and disease). However, by July 18, 2009 the fire had grown from 5,917 acres to 20,618 acres. 44 On the same day, 10 firefighters were entrapped by the fire and deployed their fire shelters. Luckily, 45 no significant injuries occurred, but the management of the fire changed from wildland fire use to Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 22 -

1 wildand fire suppression due to this incident, on the ground activities, and the increased fire activity 2 (Shoshone National Forest, 2006). 3 Following the fire, an emergency response analysis was completed in order to determine if any 4 actions were required to protect resources or mitigate significant threats to health, safety, life, 5 property, or downstream values. The fire lines along the east side of the burn were successfully 6 reseeded with native grass species, and target areas were identified for invasive and noxious weed 7 monitoring. Trails work related to erosion control, wetland protection, and hazard tree clearing was 8 also initiated, and as of 2009 was mostly complete. Relative to stream data, there was a Rosgen level 9 II stream survey completed during the fire on both the Greybull River and Jack Creek (Shoshone 10 National Forest, personal communication 2009). 11 Current Fire/Treatment Activity 12 Within the Greybull River Watershed, since 2001 the BLM has done watershed enhancement, fuels 13 reduction, and wildlife habitat enhancement treatments. Approximately, 127 acres of prescribed fire 14 has occurred within the Greybull River watershed stands (Appendix 3, Map 16). In addition, 15 approximately 1,000 acres have been treated mechanically within the watershed, releasing the 16 herbaceous component and breaking up the even age of sagebrush (J. Mononi, personal 17 communication, October 6, 2009). 18 There has also been fuels reduction work completed around structures and homes, particularly in the 19 Wood River area on state and private land in order to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. The 20 Shoshone National Forest and State Forestry have also done vegetation treatments and prescribed 21 burning within the Greybull River watershed. 22 Catastrophic Fire and the Wildland Urban Interface 23 Just as limited burning can be a good management tool, catastrophic fire (where fuels have over- 24 accumulated) can also have severe negative effects. Catastrophic fire has the potential to negatively 25 impact public safety, watershed health, wildlife, wildlife habitat, timber, and grazing resources. 26 The Park County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (PCCWPP) 2008 was written to identify the 27 “at-risk” communities and the associated “wildland-urban interface” (WUI) in Park County. The 28 WUI can be defined as the area where structures and other man made features coexist with 29 undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. The “at-risk” communities were then prioritized based on 30 fire risk and recommendations for reducing the chances of catastrophic fire in these areas were 31 made. 32 According to the 2008 PCCWPP final WUI Ratings, Francs/Timber Creek was rated as having a 33 high fire danger; Upper Meeteetse Creek, Lower Meeteetse Creek, and Upper Greybull River/Picket 34 Creek were rated as moderate fire danger; South Meeteetse, Gooseberry Creek, Sunshine Reservoir, 35 and Lower Greybull River were rated as low fire danger. These ratings will serve as a priority list for 36 addressing hazardous fuels and the associated treatments (for example, prescribed burning, logging, 37 thinning, chemical treatments, etc.) for mitigating these hazards and reducing the risk of catastrophic 38 fires. For more information go to: http://www.technicalforestryservice.com

39 WILDLIFE AND RECREATIONAL NATURAL RESOURCE HISTORY 40 The Bighorn Basin has traditionally supplied habitat for diverse and large natural populations of 41 aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. The area was used extensively by pre-Columbian Native Americans 42 who lived and traveled through the watershed, utilizing its game as a resource. Evidence shows that 43 members of the Shoshone, Crow, Arapahoe and occasionally Sioux tribes, used the area for hunting, 44 temporary occupation, and general travel. The use of the area before these Native Americans is also Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 23 -

1 evidenced by petroglyphs, etc. Game began to be further utilized by fur trappers and traders who 2 entered the Bighorn Basin in the late 1800’s. As a state, Wyoming began targeted management of 3 wildlife in the early 1900’s (Game and Fish Laws of Wyoming, 1903). It is important to note that 4 management of the natural game resources has played a significant role in shaping the current 5 economy and culture of the Bighorn Basin. 6 Recreational use, including hunting and fishing, is significant within the watershed and makes up an 7 important part of the economy within the basin. The area is a destination for recreationists from 8 within the state and worldwide who utilize it. 9 Big game populations are significant in the watershed. Numbers are not tracked on a watershed 10 basis, but the population is healthy. Statewide the number of elk herds is 35, with over 90,000 11 individuals. Mule deer numbers have declined since a peak in the 1930’s-1950’s, but they remain a 12 prevalent game animal. Approximately 6,500 mule deer make up the population of the Owl 13 Creek/Meeteetse Herd Unit (Idema and Altermatt, 2004). Other utilization of terrestrial natural 14 wildlife resources in the area include but are not limited to antelope, moose, bighorn sheep, whitetail 15 deer, predators, furbearers, small game hunting, bird watching, etc. 16 There are several terrestrial species of specific concern within the watershed that have the potential 17 to impact local use and the economy. The gray wolf, grizzly bear, and sage grouse, bald eagle, 18 (possibly lynx), can all be found in numbers that could be considered significant, based on their 19 potential to impact land use and management decisions within the watershed. One of the major 20 concerns with these species is the manner in which they may be interacting with, and possibly 21 changing the habits of other animals (domestic and wildlife) in the ecosystem. Local land managers 22 have seen changing elk herd dynamics and habitat as a function of wolf reintroduction. 23 Aquatic wildlife in the watershed is also diverse, its management and conservation are important to 24 the overall quality of the environment and life within the basin. Sport fisheries generally concentrate 25 on trout fishing. Within the watershed, streams containing trout are prevalent and trout can be found 26 throughout the system. Lower elevation portions of the main stem of the Greybull River are 27 seasonally impacted by irrigation dewatering, generally higher water temperatures, increased 28 turbidity, and diminished trout habitat. The lower elevation portions of the drainage have been 29 found to be important habitat for channel catfish, sauger and other native non-game species (WGFD, 30 2007). 31 Yellowstone cutthroat are the only trout native to the watershed and are considered a species of 32 concern within the drainage, as well as throughout their historic range (May, et al., 2003). The 33 Greybull River drainage is one of the largest contiguous refugia for genetically pure Yellowstone 34 cutthroat trout (May, et al., 2003), Stocking of non-native rainbow trout occurred as early as 1915 35 (Lenihan, 1916). However, this species did not persist and appeared to have no genetic influence on 36 the native cutthroat (Kruse, 1995). The fine spotted form of Yellowstone cutthroat trout, commonly 37 referred to as Snake River cutthroat, were stocked from 1972 to 1975 (Yekel, 1980) and now occur 38 in some Greybull River tributaries (Kruse, 1995). Maintaining and improving the health of the 39 watershed is important to the long-term conservation of Yellowstone cutthroat trout. 40 The predominance of private lands in the lower elevation portions of the drainage limits angler 41 access. Access in the upper reaches is through USFS lands and mostly by foot and horseback. 42 Consequently, fishing pressure in the drainage is low to moderate. Standing waters are limited in the 43 watershed within Park County with Upper and Lower Sunshine Reservoirs, and Roach Gulch 44 Reservoir providing the majority of angler opportunity. Species present in lakes and river systems 45 within the watershed are not limited to Yellowstone cutthroat. Other game species include, but are 46 not limited to, whitefish, rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, splake, and sauger. Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 24 -

1 In addition to private land owners, many interested groups have participated in activities to improve 2 overall conservation and/or recreational opportunities within the watershed and the Bighorn Basin as 3 a whole. Those groups include, but are not limited to: The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, The 4 Greybull Valley Irrigation District, The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Backcountry Horseman, The 5 Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, and others. These groups have representation in the local 6 communities. 7 Members of the East Yellowstone Chapter of Trout Unlimited (TU) participated actively in this 8 planning process with the goal of helping to “Preserve, Protect and Enhance Coldwater Fisheries in 9 the Bighorn Basin”. The Greybull River listing was of particular concern to TU because of the 10 watershed’s population of native Yellowstone Cutthroat trout. 11 Wildlife resources, and their associated value to individuals, communities, agencies and 12 organizations have been, and will continue to be important within the Greybull River Watershed. 13 14 AGRICULTURAL HISTORY 15 The watershed has been used for agriculture since the late 1800’s. The first permanent irrigation 16 systems were installed in the late 1870's. Construction of canals and supply ditches was generally 17 carried out on a partnership basis. These consisted of direct diversions and no storage facilities were 18 available until 1938. At this time, the Greybull Valley Irrigation District constructed the Sunshine 19 Reservoir to assist in overcoming water shortages. The lower Sunshine Reservoir and the Greybull 20 Valley Dam have since been constructed. 21 Exterior commercial markets available to this area prior to 1906 were limited and distant. Livestock 22 was marketed by means of trailing livestock to Casper, Billings, and Red Lodge, where railheads 23 were available. Sheep were generally trailed out of the Basin to be sheared. The first record of 24 sheep sheared in the Bighorn Basin consisted of 100,000 head from the Meeteetse area, which were 25 sheared at the mouth of Owl Creek in 1898. The wool was freighted to Casper by wagon. The 26 railroad arrived in Worland, Wyoming on July 12, 1906, opening this area up to distant markets. 27 Today, livestock is moved in and out of the area primarily by truck. 28 The stream valleys were the first areas permanently settled. Unsettled areas were open range until 29 regulation by the federal government occurred (i.e. Taylor Grazing Act/ Timber Reserves, etc.). The 30 cattle companies, such as the Pitchfork, Zig Zag, and CY controlled most of the range in this area 31 prior to 1898. Then the homesteaders and sheep men moved in, to settle the areas not taken by the 32 cattle companies. 33 The winter of 1886 killed most of the cattle in this area, setting back the progress and bankrupting a 34 number of large cattle companies. The winter of 1898-1899 killed most of the sheep in the area, 35 delaying establishment of the sheep industry. Livestock production is currently the major industry in 36 the watershed with winter feed such as hay and grain being the major crops. Rangeland is still 37 largely federal or state controlled and used under lease or permit for grazing livestock. The history of 38 agriculture within the basin coincides with the development of conservation practices. The early 39 economy of the Bighorn Basin, and much of its current value, lie in the protection and continued 40 stewardship of natural resources.

41 AGRICULTURE 42 The Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA) recently reported key findings from a statewide 43 survey regarding conservation issues, commissioned jointly with the Ruckelshaus Institute, The 44 Nature Conservancy, and The Trust For Public Land. Their research demonstrates that Wyoming

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 25 -

1 voters would even strongly support dedicating additional state revenues to conservation. In the 2 view of the voters, the most important funding objective is preserving “what makes Wyoming, 3 Wyoming,” as one resident put it (Maslin, Maullin, and Associates, 2007). There is tremendous 4 emphasis on keeping water in the state, protecting our family farms and ranches, and preserving 5 wide-open spaces and scenic vistas. 6 7 Conservation Issue % Extreme or Very Serious Problem 8 Availability of water for farming and ranching 57 % 9 Loss of family farms and ranches 47% 10 Natural areas, ranchlands split up by new housing dev. 44% 11 Availability of water for recreation and wildlife 40% 12 Decline in number of big game animals (elk, moose, and mule deer) 32% 13 Natural areas, ranchlands split up by oil and gas dev. 31% 14 15 16 Voters’ Top Conservation Priorities % Extremely or Very Important 17 Keeping and storing more WY water in the state 86% 18 Maintaining the strength of WY ag and tourism industry 77% 19 Preserving our wide open spaces 73% 20 Protecting the water quality of river, lakes and streams 70% 21 Preserving family farms and ranches 67% 22 Protecting the greater Yellowstone region 66% 23 Protecting fish and wildlife habitat 66% 24 Protecting our farming and ranching heritage 66% 25 (Maslin, Maullin, and Associates, 2007). 26 Wyoming citizens seem to recognize the same challenges for Wyoming that are being discussed 27 nationwide. The difference may be that the balancing of water uses and water restrictions, of 28 farming/animal agriculture and the preservation of habitat, and of preservation of farms/ranches 29 while having some growth and housing development are not merely theoretical situations to consider 30 – they are part of daily life in Wyoming. 31 Thousands of acres of farm and ranchland are lost to development each day (Rangeland Journal). 32 The greatest threat to biodiversity of plants and wildlife is fragmentation of habitat. Public land 33 ranching protects millions of acres of open habitat for rangeland species on top of what is already 34 protected by being held privately. 35 Diversity of the species grazing the land is important. The primary objective of multispecies grazing 36 is to better utilize pastures and improve animal production. Animals of different grazing habits and 37 biological structure often complement each other when joined in a grazing system. In a combined 38 mode they are better able to exploit nutrients and to resist adverse condition than when grazing 39 separately. One motivation for considering multispecies grazing is the control of internal parasites 40 affecting both wild and domestic grazers. Also, natural predation can be lessened by multispecies 41 grazing because cattle may fight off coyotes and other predators, which may also negatively impact 42 wildlife species. Importantly, improved forage production resulting from multispecies grazing 43 discourages ingestion of toxic plants, and animals would then tend to eat the forages and ignore the 44 less palatable toxic plants. Finally, as the vegetation of pastures becomes more diverse, multispecies 45 grazing tends to improve utilization (Esmail, 1991).

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 26 -

1 Grazing utilization, its definitions or its worth as a management tool, may be debated, but the reality 2 is that measurements are necessary and useful for both livestock producers and agency staff. An 3 indication of the mutualistic relations between multiple grazers and the plant community can be seen 4 in the grazing history of several state game ranges. After WWII the state game and fish agencies in 5 each of the western states began to purchase private ranches for critical big game ranges. These 6 were operating cattle ranches, which the biologists deemed critical elk or deer winter range. Upon 7 acquisition of the ranches, the biologists removed livestock to supposedly enhance the respective 8 critical big game range. After 10-20 years it became obvious that big game use of these acquired 9 ranches was shifting to adjacent private ranches where livestock still grazed. On the supposed 10 critical game ranges the vegetation had become rank and less palatable or nutritious for lack of a 11 generalist herbivore. Eventually “managed” cattle grazing programs were reintroduced to these 12 game ranges. Examples include Sand Creek in Idaho, Bridge Creek in Oregon, and Fleecer 13 Mountain, the Black Foot, the Wall Creek and the Blacktail in Montana (Burkhardt, 1996). 14 Best management practice information from Wyoming Game and Fish acknowledges that many 15 grassland wildlife species also need agricultural fields during various phases of their lives. Sub- 16 irrigated native hay fields provide some of the state’s best nesting habitat for many wetland birds, 17 such as the Wilson’s phalarope, or grassland birds such as the long-billed curlew. This is especially 18 true of fields that have not been leveled and are not under intensive management with machinery and 19 chemical treatment (Wyoming Game and Fish, 2002). 20 At some point, it gets down to money. The University of Wyoming and Wyoming Department of 21 Agriculture report that agriculture has a stabilizing effect on the Wyoming economy. Prices 22 received by producers may fluctuate, but total expenditures by producers remain surprisingly 23 constant. This consistency of production expenditures by farmers and ranchers continues to provide 24 stability to local Wyoming communities. The range cattle sector especially stimulates the economy 25 because ranchers typically sell their livestock outside Wyoming and their expenditures represent an 26 injection of “new” money into the area. Based on USDA figures for 2002, Park County was fifth 27 among Wyoming counties ranked for agriculture sales at $52.9 million or 6.1% of state sales. The 28 WSGA survey of Wyoming residents found that 74% of Wyoming voters said that they benefit 29 personally “from the presence of ranches and farms in Wyoming.” Moreover, 26% statewide said 30 their household income is dependent on the farming and ranching economy, and the numbers jump 31 to 39% in rural areas (Moline, et al., 1992). 32 USDA – Agricultural Research Service information states that grazing, whether light or heavy, 33 results in better soil as measured by its organic carbon and nitrogen content compared to un-grazed 34 rangeland. Un-grazed rangeland has more carbon and nitrogen tied up in the dead plant material 35 accumulated above ground. Studies have shown that plants on grazed areas had higher springtime 36 photosynthesis rates than those in the un-grazed areas (USDA, 2008). 37 The Public Lands Council, partnering with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, reports that 38 grazing programs protect the biodiversity and open space of the West by maintaining both private 39 and public land. Additionally, managed grazing is found to be more beneficial than exclusion from 40 grazing. A paper from New Mexico State University cites a 56-year study of rangeland, which 41 found healthier plant species on grazed rangeland than found on land excluded from grazing. As 42 often the only human presence on public lands, ranchers serve as public land managers, helping 43 government agencies to cut costs and meet resource objectives. 44 Recently, livestock’s place on grazing lands and their impact on riparian areas and streams has 45 generated some concern. Quentin Skinner, Department of Rangeland Ecology and Watershed 46 Management, University of Wyoming has written that livestock and wildlife grazing on western Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 27 -

1 rangeland is essential to maintain the economic and social values now realized by the livestock 2 industry and general public. He cautions that livestock grazing impact on riparian zones are most 3 often cited as reason to change how public lands are managed as a natural resource (Skinner, 1998). 4 Skinner says further that results from studies show that moderate grazing of vegetation may not be a 5 significant consideration in managing sediment within riparian zones. It may be that shorter stubble 6 can filter more, or at least as much, sediment than taller or un-grazed vegetation. However, very 7 short stubble may also lose sediment deposited from one flood event to the next if it is not stabilized 8 by growing or taller stubble (Skinner, 1998). 9 In riparian zones, it is reasonable to assume, Skinner writes, that grazing and flood sediment will 10 alter plants’ production potential. However, one must also consider that, in riparian zones, stubble 11 re-growth potential may be greater than in surrounding uplands. If so, there may be more flexibility 12 in managing grazing in riparian zones than on uplands (Skinner, 1998). 13 The Journal of Animal Science noted that in extensive and rugged pastures, livestock might need to 14 travel long distances from water and up steep slopes to reach all available forage. Typically, cattle 15 graze areas with gently rolling terrain near water more heavily than rugged terrain or areas far from 16 water. Cattle often prefer riparian areas, and spend a disproportionate amount of time in these areas 17 as compared to uplands. However, concentrated grazing, especially in riparian zones, may reduce 18 vegetative cover and stream bank stability as well as increasing soil erosion. To address these types 19 of problems, Wyoming producers acted. Wyoming is one of the few states to have formed a 20 “Riparian Association” in which environmentalists, agriculture producers, and professional societies 21 assemble and work toward positive alternatives to make the riparian areas productive while still 22 preserving their integrity (Bailey, 2004). 23 Managers can increase uniformity of grazing and protect sensitive rangeland by changing attributes 24 of the pasture or by modifying animal behavior. Water developments, salting, herding, creation of 25 shade areas or structures, and fencing have been used successfully to improve livestock grazing 26 distribution on both private and public lands. Rangeland livestock producers and land managers are 27 sometimes reluctant to implement changes to resolve concerns associated with localized overgrazing 28 because of the high costs of some strategies. Innovative and cost-effective approaches to improve 29 livestock grazing distribution are needed, and monies made available by government agencies for 30 such improvements are a good start. 31 Ensuring that livestock, grazing issues, and health of riparian areas and streams work in harmony is 32 important. That all stakeholders listen to the other’s positions and work toward consensus is critical, 33 but solutions that are reasonable, affordable, and feasible should be the goal.

34 MINING AND MINERALS 35 Mining gained brief importance in the MCD with the establishment of at Kirwin and the Wood River 36 Gold Mining District in 1891. William Kirwin had begun prospecting in the area high in the 37 Absaroka Mountains of the Shoshone National Forest in 1885. Gold, silver, copper, zinc and 38 molybdenum were all found during that time. 39 Mining at Kirwin lasted until about 1907. Since then metallic minerals have not been of commercial 40 importance although individuals “panning” in the streams of the area have recovered small amounts 41 of gold. The sale of the patented claims to the Forest Service by the Richard King Mellon 42 Foundation with stipulations preventing future mining has effectively terminated mining there. (The 43 FS bought the Double Dee dude ranch as well.)

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 28 -

1 Coal, for instance at the Black Diamond Mine on Meeteetse Creek, and gravel have been mined 2 commercially and by the State and county in the MCD. Coal production was also important nearby 3 in Hot Springs County at several sites. 4 The first producing oil field in the MCD was Little Buffalo Basin discovered in 1914. Since then 5 numerous oil and gas fields have been discovered: Pitchfork, North Sunshine, Spring Creek, 6 Fourbear, Willow Draw, Sheep Point, Meeteetse, Oregon Basin Southeast, and Gooseberry. 7 The area’s geology, in relation to privately, federally and state managed lands, as a source of 8 minerals is both a local and national economic resource. In addition, one economically overlooked 9 national asset of federally or state managed lands is their educational value for study of the discipline 10 and praxis of geology and the mineral industry. Colleges and universities, as well as professional 11 organizations visit sites within the MCD during field trips.

12 TIMBER 13 Increased western migration led to the addition of new states in the1870’s and 1880’s. The concerns 14 of western members of Congress shaped debates about forests on public lands in the West, bills 15 aimed at watershed and fire protection, as well as regulating timber sales. 16 Between 1871 and 1897, of the 200 land policy bills discussed in Congress, only two related to 17 forestry endured the legislative process to become laws: the Forest Reserve Act (1891) and the 18 Forest Management Act (1897). President Benjamin Harrison established the Yellowstone Park 19 Timber Land Reserve on March 30, 1891 (the reserve was renamed the Shoshone National Forest in 20 1908). 21 Timber from federal, state and private land (Appendix 3, Map 5) was used as a matter of course for 22 building homes and outbuildings in the rural community as well as the buildings of the towns. Both 23 logs and lumber from local mills were used. Local sawmills were common throughout time. A pit 24 saw located on lower Dick Creek may have been the first in the area. The Weller sawmill located on 25 Meeteetse Cr. was active in the 1890’s, Wm. Lock moved his sawmill from Dick Cr. to Deer Cr. in 26 about 2000, and several sawmill sites were located on the Wood River, from Kirwin down to the 27 Greybull River, including those operated by Clarence Jensen, the Florida and the McLean families. 28 The Black family and subsequently Vern Griffin operated a mill at Sawmill Pond on upper Dick Cr., 29 near the SNF Timber Creek Ranger Station. Mills were located on Rock Creek (later renamed 30 Pickett Creek) and at Meeteetse on the northwest side of the Greybull River. In 1958 the Yetters 31 built and operated a sawmill on Gooseberry Cr. just below the Forest boundary. Lowell Keller has 32 operated a small mill near Meeteetse since the mid-1990’s. Nearby, and involving the People of the 33 MCD, was the Linde sawmill mill that obtained timber from the Shoshone NF and sold lumber 34 nationally. Numerous mills outside the immediate area used timber harvested in the Meeteetse area. 35 Furthermore, the timber industry also provided a substantial number of winter jobs that augmented 36 farm and ranch work. 37 38

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 29 -

1 CONCERNS AND ISSUES 2 The development of this plan was prompted by concerns about water quality issues within the 3 Greybull River Watershed, and the understanding that governmental agencies would at some point 4 seek to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads and planning efforts to address watershed level issues 5 that might have an impact on area waterbodies. Therefore, in an effort to proactively address the 6 issues and concerns, local stakeholders have cooperated to identify those most relevant within the 7 watershed. Where possible, the topics are organized and presented with regard to land use. The 8 concerns and issues follow, and although not all-inclusive, represent those which were identified as 9 most important within this watershed during the plan development process. The major concerns 10 within the watershed are related to water quality, wildlife, invasive species, agriculture, recreation, 11 mining, oil and gas, urban/rural development and land use, roads, and waste management. There are 12 issues related to these concerns, and they will be approached later in this document.

13 WATER QUALITY 14 There are many parameters that can be considered when addressing water quality, these may include 15 but are no means limited to: pathogens (E. coli), water temperature, sediments, physical and 16 biological characteristics, and others. These parameters can be either numeric in nature, having 17 quantitative limits and measures, or narrative. Many of these properties affect the uses of a 18 waterbody and have the potential to affect human, wildlife (aquatic and terrestrial), and livestock 19 health. 20 Of particular concern is the fact that the Greybull River is currently listed for E. coli in a portion of 21 its lower reach. This “impairment” is defined by the Wyoming Department of Environmental 22 Quality in their 303(d) list of water bodies with water quality impairments. A more detailed 23 description of the specific listing can be found on page 5 of this document. It is important to note 24 that E. coli levels are particularly significant because E. coli is used as an indicator for the possible 25 presence of other pathogens. Because of the concerns about human health and the possible 26 socioeconomic effects of having an “impaired” water, mitigating the E. coli impairment will be a 27 major function of this plan. 28 Although the E. coli impairment was the impetus for this watershed plan, it is by no means the only 29 water quality concern that is important within the watershed. Just as E. coli may be an indicator of 30 overall pathogen levels, water quality parameters are indicators of overall watershed health. It is the 31 goal of this plan to proactively maintain and improve the condition of resources within the Greybull 32 River Watershed.

33 WILDLIFE 34 Wildlife Population Management 35 Wildlife populations, aquatic and terrestrial, should be managed to fit the habitat resource that is 36 available. Wildlife populations are managed by Wyoming Game and Fish to meet management 37 objectives. Local landowners and user groups are active participants in wildlife population 38 management decisions. Education/public awareness is an important component of understanding 39 wildlife population management in the context of watershed health and management. Both 40 consumptive and non-consumptive users have a vested interest in healthy wildlife populations. 41 Wildlife populations can have both positive and negative effects on water quality and watershed 42 health. 43 Positive effects of wildlife include aesthetic values, economic income from associated recreation, 44 cultural significance, and others. Wildlife can also negatively impact a system if management is Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 30 -

1 insufficient. Overpopulation can stress a system in many ways. Water quality can suffer. Like their 2 domestic counterparts, wildlife can trample vegetation and riparian areas, leave significant levels of 3 fecal waste, and spread disease, among other things. The presence of brucellosis and Chronic 4 Wasting Disease is of particular interest to wildlife and livestock managers. Brucellosis is 5 transmissible to humans and represents an economic threat. 6 Wildlife and Land Uses 7 As previously noted, there are many subtopics related to the concerns within this watershed. In 8 order to better understand how these concerns are relevant in land use and planning, we have broken 9 issues down into categories based on general land use. Some of these issues are overlapping in 10 nature, but in such cases it should be recognized that there is also definite overlap in the effects of 11 given practices or management techniques on other land uses within the watershed. Changes in land 12 use that remove open space are generally detrimental to the native wildlife populations

13 Wildlife Habitat 14 Wildlife resources, both aquatic and terrestrial, are important to the watershed. Their presence and 15 diversity serve as indicators of the watershed health. Wildlife has significant economic value within 16 the watershed. Hunting, fishing, and non-consumptive wildlife use all play an important role in the 17 local, regional, and state economy. In addition to economic value associated with wildlife, there is 18 an intrinsic worth that is recognized by residents and visitors alike. Healthy wildlife populations are 19 intimately tied to habitat. The watershed has enjoyed a history of careful private landowner 20 stewardship (the makeup of the watershed is intermingled public and private lands), good natural 21 resource conservation, and well managed open space. In turn, this has created an environment where 22 wildlife can flourish. Some of the specific concerns that relate directly to wildlife habitat include: 23 Adequate Vegetation – Maintaining an adequate level of vegetation is important for most land uses, 24 but it is critical for wildlife. Vegetation levels are important for their forage potential, as well as for 25 the cover that they provide for wildlife. 26 Secure Areas – These are areas where wildlife populations can move freely in order maintain 27 necessary activities such as feeding, rearing their young, reproduction, or other functions. These 28 areas may range from trees or nesting areas, to wide “open space” or corridors. Secure Areas include 29 but are not limited to: bedding areas where there is sufficient cover for animals to sleep, areas to 30 court and mate (Appendix 3, Map 9), calving/hatching grounds where wildlife can calve or hatch 31 under relatively reduced stress, and fawning grounds where young animals are protected from 32 unnecessary stressors. 33 Maintenance or Improvement of Wildlife Habitat Quality – One of the challenges facing land 34 managers is the improvement or maintenance of natural resources that are utilized by wildlife. On 35 private ground, best management activities that increase forage utilization and water distribution are 36 often undertaken to increase the viability of agricultural operations. Best Management Practice 37 (BMP) improvement activities on public land are typically more difficult to undertake, due to 38 bureaucracy and lack of funding. 39 Sharing of Habitat Between Domestic Livestock and Wildlife – There are multiple concerns that are 40 associated with sharing habitat between domestic animals and wildlife. However, these issues are 41 difficult to resolve because these animals often serve in similar niches within an ecosystem. Grazing 42 animals are particularly likely to share habitat. Private lands, especially agricultural operations, 43 typically have higher levels of available winter forage, water developments, and other traits that 44 make them desirable to wildlife. This intermingling can result in a spread of disease, such as 45 Brucellosis, from wildlife to livestock, and vice versa. In addition, ungulate population patterns Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 31 -

1 appear to be responding to wolf predation by intermingling to a greater extent with livestock. This 2 increases the capacity for spreading disease, as well as increasing livestock depredation by wolves 3 and other predators. 4 Private Property Rights – Much of the economy of the watershed and region is tied to land use. The 5 capacity to utilize resources to grow livestock, agricultural products, and/or for commercial 6 recreation is vital to most of the inhabitants of the area. Actions that improve wildlife habitat while 7 also maintaining private property rights and the economic sustainability of agricultural land use are 8 usually embraced. Conversely, there are adverse reactions to activities that compel management 9 constraints on landowners without respect to the negative economic impacts of those activities. A 10 good example can be seen in capacity for the use of the Endangered Species Act to be used for the 11 “taking” of lands. By designating critical habitat, federal decision makers, or other parties, can seek 12 to leverage how lands are managed, thus removing that right from the landowner. The results are 13 almost always negative. It is important that groups cooperate in voluntary and incentive based 14 management. Such an approach minimizes conflict, and ultimately benefits all involved. 15 Habitat Maintenance 16 Many factors influence habitat quality over time. Habitat maintenance refers to the stability of 17 habitat that may be affected by a variety of factors. Within the watershed the following are items of 18 particular concern: 19 Changing Demographics – This watershed, like much of the west, is seeing a marked change in the 20 types of rural inhabitants. Many individuals are purchasing smaller acreages within the watershed 21 for primary use as a residence. They may or may not have small agricultural components, but in 22 general these residents are not traditional agricultural “operators”. The influx of new people brings 23 with it a change in landowner values. The reason for maintaining land at given levels of 24 conservation will typically change. In some cases there is a danger of over-utilization and resource 25 degradation. As city inhabitants, or others who are unfamiliar with the arid west move to rural areas, 26 they often fail to anticipate the unique challenges faced living in rural areas. The problem can be 27 further compounded by absentee landowners who spend little or no time at what is in actuality a 28 vacation property. In addition to problems that may arise in managing significant infrastructure such 29 as irrigation to ensure riparian recharge and habitat, there is a significant concern that appropriate 30 maintenance of water quality BMPs (i.e. septic systems, water gaps etc.) will not occur. 31 Fragmentation – In the current market, when a traditional ranch is sold it is typically broken into 32 smaller pieces for resale at higher prices. This development practice, subdividing, leads to 33 fragmentation. Subdivision and fragmentation may lead to a decrease in open space and in secure 34 areas for wildlife. Wildlife corridors are commonly lost. In addition, there is increased pressure and 35 stress on animals that must learn to cohabitate with roads and new semi-urban levels of activity. 36 Herbivory 37 Herbivory is the consumption of living plant material by animals (McGraw-Hill, 2003). On an 38 annual basis, the forage available to be grazed by both wildlife and livestock is a finite resource and 39 subject to over-utilization. Defoliation due to herbivory may have negative impacts on watershed 40 health including increased potential for invasion of exotic species, siltation, and loss of wildlife and 41 vegetative diversity. The degree of herbivory will affect the resiliency of the riparian vegetation and 42 stream bank stability, the ability of the riparian zone to function as buffer. Management of 43 wildlife/agriculture herbivory is an important tool for effective land use. Vegetative health in many 44 instances is dependent on compatible grazing. While the forage resource is renewable, the resource 45 is not infinite, and if subject to overuse or mismanagement can be lost. Mismanagement may result 46 in an impaired resource as the vegetative type or productivity changes. Proper management of Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 32 -

1 herbivory can result in an improved vegetation resource including changes in species composition. 2 Proper regulation of grazing resources gives land managers the best capacity to use land 3 management practices that over time maximize production and quality of forages, and therefore 4 improves wildlife and livestock resources.

5 Fires and Wildlife 6 Fire can have both positive and negative effects on watersheds and wildlife. Natural and prescribed 7 fire can be used to manage habitat. Fire mosaics on the vegetation provide diverse habitat for 8 wildlife. A build up of dead material and the subsequent fires can be detrimental to wildlife habitat. 9 Hazardous fuels reduction treatments can be designed to benefit wildlife habitat. An example can be 10 seen where conifer over story is removed and grasses, forbs and shrubs are encouraged. In such a 11 situation, ungulates thrive on new levels of palatable understory vegetation. This increase in quality 12 and quantity of forage can be temporary as vegetation may evolve back to the pre-burned state and 13 composition. 14 Positive direct benefits of fire to aquatic habitats are usually long term in nature, and can be seen in 15 areas where small fires have been part of a cycle of regeneration. These fires are typically ground 16 burns that due to limited fuel availability are not terribly destructive. The short term negative effects 17 of fire events can be increased sediment, erosion, land slides, loss of forage and cover, water 18 chemistry changes, increased water temperature and nutrients, channel adjustments, and bank de- 19 stabilization. Watershed sedimentation dynamics and the hydrographs can also change due to fire. 20 Responsible post fire management will lessen negative fire impacts and speed watershed recovery.

21 Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality 22 Managing for desired wildlife (for example: water fowl, aquatic wildlife organisms, beaver/otter, 23 amphibians, moose, etc.) requires adequate understanding and management of water quality and 24 quantity. The degree of water quality required varies by the species of interest. Land use has a 25 direct impact on water quality and quantity. Increased turbidity and sedimentation can be caused by 26 storm events, spring runoff, fire, irrigation practices, invasive species, mass-wasting, and by 27 activities that disturb the land surface or vegetative cover. Elevated sediment levels may affect 28 aquatic species. This can lead to reduction of natural reproduction, limited food sources and 29 diversity, loss of wintering habitat, and can lead to physical damage to gilled organisms. These 30 impacts to the aquatic organisms will transfer to wildlife up the food chain.

31 Wildlife Habitat and Water Quantity 32 Just as managing for water quality is important to wildlife, so too is the management of the level and 33 timing of water, or quantity. Changes in water quantity affect water temperature, modify 34 hydrographs which can cause a loss of scouring, reduce base flows, increase leveling, and promote 35 changes in aquatic organisms’ response. This can ultimately result in a change in the distribution of 36 desired species. Lower water quantities invariably coincide with a loss of recharge (irrigation and 37 otherwise), reduction of aquatic habitat, increased concentration of pollutants, and lower oxygen 38 levels.

39 Invasive Species and Wildlife 40 Non-native species can alter hydrologic cycles and an aquatic system’s ability to cycle nutrients. 41 Invasive species compete with native species for resources, space, and nutrients. Many times the 42 habitat desirable to invasive species will make an area non-productive and unsuitable for desired 43 native plants and animals.

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 33 -

1 Invasive species are generally detrimental to wildlife habitat. They displace valuable desired habitat 2 components. Some of the invasive species of concern include several plants we also refer to as 3 “weeds”: Canada thistle, saltcedar, Russian olive, downy brome, houndstongue, knapweed, 4 toadflax, larkspur, and whitetop (for Wyoming’s Weed and Pest Designated Noxious Weed List see 5 Appendix 3). Invasive aquatic species include but are not limited to: zebra mussels, New Zealand 6 mud snails, Didymosphenia geminata (commonly known as didymo or rock snot).

7 Water Temperature and Wildlife Issues 8 Increased water temperature can negatively affect the diversity and survival of certain native aquatic 9 life. Dissolved oxygen levels are reduced in standing waters (lakes), and as water temperature 10 increases, its capacity to hold oxygen decreases. 68 degrees Fahrenheit is the threshold in the state 11 that is used to determine the difference between a warm and cold water fishery. Elevated water 12 temperatures in cold or warm water fisheries tend to limit potential. 13 There is concern about the effects of regulation related to temperature and specifically how 14 implementation of temperature standards would be addressed by regulatory agencies within the 15 State. The nature of water uses is very diverse in the watershed. There is a general lack of data on 16 the cumulative effects of reservoir cooling, flood irrigation, and return flows on water quality and 17 quantity in the watershed. 18 Some of the specific issues that directly affect the water temperature along the Greybull include the 19 widening of stream channels, loss of canopy, loss of large woody debris, reductions in flow, and 20 increase of water demand/use by human and invasive species. Informed management will be 21 important to maintaining the Greybull River as a high quality fishery. 22 23 AGRICULTURE 24 Agriculture plays a pivotal role in the custom, culture, and economy of Wyoming and the Greybull 25 River watershed. The watershed was settled by ranchers and farmers, and the infrastructure that 26 followed those endeavors still exists today. Most of the inhabitants of the watershed are still 27 involved in agriculture, either directly or indirectly. The culture of this region, with its western 28 cowboy motif and outdoorsmen’s self reliance, was developed over the last century out of necessity. 29 The agricultural community within the watershed continues to take great pride in their stewardship, 30 use, and conservation of the local resources. 31 Because agriculture has played, and continues to play a pivotal role in the watershed, it is important 32 that resource concerns related to agriculture are addressed in a concise and intelligent manner. The 33 continued viability of agricultural operations depends on developing good information on current 34 resource conditions, defining options for addressing concerns, and allowing agricultural producers to 35 select practices that work best for the sustainable management of their specific operation and 36 resource area. 37 Grazing and Land Management 38 The most common agricultural operation in the watershed is grazing. Grazing animals make use of 39 limited forages and water resources, allowing for the production of food resources in areas where 40 cultivation of the land is impractical. In many cases, grazing is the only renewable economic 41 practice for which land within the watershed is well suited. Grazing is consumptive, but when done 42 properly, it is a management tool for a renewable resource and serves to improve the overall 43 diversity and quality of plants within the landscape.

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 34 -

1 Just as well managed grazing can be beneficial, poor grazing management that results in inadequate 2 vegetation levels or diversity can negatively impact watershed health. Overgrazing can result in loss 3 of certain plants, increased erosion, or other undesirable consequences. Once again, it is important 4 to note that proper grazing as part of a management plan is beneficial. Grazing management can 5 shape the habitat of other animals, like sage grouse, elk, mule deer, and whitetails. Grazing reduces 6 excess fuel levels in areas where wildfire may occur. Grazing can be used to control invasive 7 species and improve stream habitat. Environmental quality improvements that benefit a grazing 8 operation almost always have net positive benefits on the surrounding wildlife and landscapes. 9 There are several major concerns that are becoming more prominent with relation to grazing as part 10 of an agricultural operation. 11 Fragmentation – The fragmentation of agricultural lands is becoming a major concern within the 12 watershed. Traditionally, public land in the west has been an integral part of most grazing 13 operations. This is directly related to the low productivity of lands in the arid west, and the necessity 14 of maintaining adequate pasture for management of a herd. Decreased grazing on public lands may 15 have the direct effect of increasing livestock use on private lands. As most riparian areas occur on 16 private land this action may actually result in negative impacts to more acres of riparian habitat. In 17 addition, the loss of private grazing operators on federal land will result in a decline of resources and 18 conservation practices on those allotments. In many cases improvements on public lands that benefit 19 wildlife, recreation, etc., tend to be funded by private individuals with leases or permits. Most lease 20 improvements, e.g. water wells, tanks, corrals, pipelines, have at least a partial lessee/permittee 21 contribution component. Some may be built entirely with lessee funds. 22 Cooperation efforts in land management and the effective nature of activities and plans are critical to 23 the continued good use and management of multi-use federal lands. The steering committee hopes 24 that federal agencies, land owners, and interested cooperators will use this watershed planning 25 document as a basis for the development of cooperative opportunities with respect to fragmentation. 26 Loss of Desirable Cover – The most important tool for land managers in a grazing operation is 27 education. Over time, management practices evolve and change. It is important to make 28 information available to managers so that they have an adequate understanding of the relationship 29 between stocking rates and vegetative cover. The rate, duration, seasonality, etc. of grazing 30 practices needs to be well understood by BLM, state, or private managers, and the expectations and 31 communication between those parties needs to ensure a commonality of goals and understanding. 32 There is a concern that positive management for vegetative cover is not recognized and rewarded 33 and that there should be opportunities to create better incentives. The steering committee feels that it 34 is important to reward individuals for improving aesthetics, wildlife habitat, or other management 35 goals. 36 Drought and Long Term Climate Change – Much of the West has seen a significant decline in 37 precipitation over the past decade or more. The effects of drought have caused a temporary reduction 38 in capacity of grazing lands, and thus have resulted in lower overall use. This loss of productivity 39 can have long term impacts on agriculture, as well as other segments of the economy. Several 40 complex management issues can arise because of this as a direct result. The management paradigm 41 for grazing lands can become skewed. There is a perception that managers do not plan adequate 42 reductions in stocking rates during drought, while there is an equally pervasive fear that reductions 43 made in stocking rates due to drought may become the status quo. Ultimately, management 44 decisions and plans need to be flexible enough to account for the natural variability of the climate. 45 Other effects of drought on grazing practices relate to the capacity to improve productivity of a given 46 pasture. During drought altered hydrographs result in greater irrigation water needs. Ultimately, Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 35 -

1 management decisions on water use and distribution must be made. Reductions in water quantity 2 occur. Reductions in snowpack result in reduced runoff. The cost of grazing increases. 3 Animal Waste – Throughout the West, most riparian areas and lowland pastures are privately owned. 4 At the time the west was settled, these areas were the most attractive locations for homesteads and 5 the associated winter feeding and care of livestock. This is still true today. The use of pastures near 6 water courses may negatively impact water quality. In addition to the direct effect that livestock 7 may have, winter feeding operations typically increase wildlife densities in cattle feeding areas, 8 compounding waste. Animal waste, wild and domestic, is a source of fecal coliform, which may 9 enter streams as a non-point source pollutant. 10 Water Distribution – Most pollution associated with the Greybull River is non-point in nature and at 11 this time cannot be attributed to a specific source, for example a pipe. Water, its presence, or the 12 lack thereof ultimately determines not only the distribution of the pollutant, but the level of pressure 13 and use of adjacent lands in the arid west. Limited water distribution increases pressure on riparian 14 zones, and locally increases pressure on adjacent non riparian areas. Lands closer to water sources 15 are more likely to be used by people, livestock, and wildlife, thus increasing the likelihood of excess 16 erosion, sedimentation, and waste. Increased water distribution commonly equates to better 17 distribution of animals, and therefore reduced pressure on the resource as a whole. 18 Pasture Management – As previously mentioned, grazing management can be a powerful tool for the 19 conservation and improvement of natural resources. Pasture management encompasses not only 20 grazing levels, but also the use of tools such as seeding, water development, fencing, and other 21 means to control the levels of forage, as well as the rate, timing, and duration of its removal. It is 22 important that education and opportunities exist for managers to develop the best possible 23 management for pastures. 24 Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) 25 An animal feeding operation is any operation where animals are confined for a given time period and 26 where feed is brought in for their maintenance. An AFO can be a small set of corrals, a small 27 fenced pasture area, calving areas, or any other location where any type of livestock is maintained. 28 These areas are not permitted operations, i.e. Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), but 29 they nonetheless are required to meet certain standards to ensure that they are not contributing non- 30 point source pollution to surface waters. The NRCS has worked with the conservation district to 31 make cost share available in order to mitigate unacceptable conditions related to these areas. NRCS 32 and districts will remain committed to providing technical and financial assistance to operators who 33 have a desire to correct these conditions in good faith. 34 Invasive Species in Agriculture 35 As previously mentioned, invasive species can have significant negative impacts on natural 36 resources within an area. There are several major concerns with invasive species in the watershed 37 and their direct effect on agricultural operations. 38 Loss of Forage – In many cases invasive species are prolific and competitive. Their introduction and 39 presence can result in a reduction of available forage for livestock, lost crop production, the total loss 40 of use for grazing, and increased maintenance requirements for irrigation channels. 41 Water Consumption – Water is a precious commodity in the arid west. Some invasive species that 42 are common to the watershed use huge amounts of this resource in riparian areas. Saltcedar and 43 Russian olive are examples of invasive species that use a considerable amount of water and also tend 44 to out-compete natural vegetation. Saltcedar and Russian olive have altered Wyoming’s native river 45 channels and watersheds resulting in modified flood cycles. These are important natural events that Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 36 -

1 native cottonwoods depend on for establishment. Controlling both these invasive species in riparian 2 corridors reduces groundwater consumption by 30-40 percent (MRWS, 2007). For the arid west, 3 those numbers are tremendously significant 4 Water Quality – Invasive species, especially saltcedar can be detrimental to water quality. Seeds in 5 water inhibit modern irrigation systems. In addition to the direct impacts that invasive species have 6 on water quality, the need to use pesticides to control invasives can result in non-point source 7 pollution. 8 Economics – The control of invasive species, and the associated cost of that control, is an ever 9 present factor in agricultural operations today. The cost of removal and rehabilitation can be 10 staggering. There is a loss of production, loss or damage to riparian areas, the cost of maintaining 11 recreational values, a loss of effectiveness of treatment due to inconsistent management practices 12 across ownership boundaries, the effects of invasive toxic plants to livestock, and other factors. It is 13 important that communities, individuals, and agencies continue to work together to control and 14 eradicate invasives. 15 Loss of Agricultural Lands 16 One of the greatest challenges being faced today by the agricultural community is the loss of 17 agricultural lands to other activities. This problem, faced by agricultural producers throughout the 18 nation, is a growing issue within Wyoming, and the Greybull watershed. As populations grow, and 19 mobility increases, it is becoming very popular to buy small portions of agricultural land and convert 20 it to residential uses. Industry, corporate farms, and policy decisions can also lead to a reduction in 21 the number of agricultural producers nationwide. In addition to this conversion of private 22 agricultural lands through purchase and policy, there is also an effort by some groups to remove 23 agricultural uses of federal lands through litigation. In most cases this is done by attempting to 24 mount a legal challenge to activities such as grazing on federal leases. 25 Other federal actions inadvertently remove the viable agricultural use of lands by making it 26 physically or economically infeasible to continue ranching operations in a given area. Federal 27 protection of wild horses, designation of endangered species, wolves, bears, and other animals which 28 either destroy or compete for resources, serves as a major impediment to maintaining an agricultural 29 operation. 30 As agriculture changes, there are several issues and concerns that will need to be dealt with in the 31 Greybull River Watershed: 32 Increased Population Density – Increased levels of human activity within the watershed in the future 33 may negatively affect environmental quality in the future. Increased population, both within the 34 watershed and nearby, results in increased recreational use. This invariably results in a need to 35 address resource problems. As populations grow there is an increased infrastructure demand for 36 water, sewage, garbage, etc. These issues will all need to be dealt with as agricultural land is 37 converted. 38 Water Management – The change of use and management of agricultural lands often leads to a 39 change in water rights, use, and consumption. Care needs to be taken to properly address these 40 issues as land is converted to subdivisions or other use. Residential acreages typically require more 41 water than do agricultural areas on a per acre basis. 42 Economics- Although there are other activities within the watershed, the primary renewable 43 production activity is agriculture. There is a significant concern that a loss of agriculture would 44 result in a corresponding reduction to other businesses due to the “multiplier effect” of dollars re- 45 circulating in the local community. Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 37 -

1 Effects of Landcover Change – As land from agriculture changes to other uses, there is a high 2 likelihood that there will be a corresponding loss of forage for grazing, loss of vegetative cover 3 serving as a buffer to filter sediments, loss of wildlife habitat, and loss of personal connectivity with 4 the land resources. 5 Crop Production 6 Crop production within the watershed is varied. Within the upper portions of the watershed, the 7 primary agricultural activities revolve around ranching, and the development of hay and forage crops 8 within pastures. In the lower section of the watershed, agricultural activities tend to increase in their 9 complexity. Irrigation infrastructure becomes more critical, inputs increase, and the amount and 10 types of crops produced increase as well. 11 Water Quantity and Quality Regulation – Agricultural producers expressed concern that increased 12 regulation based on water quality could eventually negatively impact water quantity/availability. 13 Currently, within the State of Wyoming water quantity and quality are handled by different agencies. 14 Thus, the issues have remained separate. There is however significant concern that other parties 15 would like to have the discretion of using water quality issues as a tool to enforce given quantity 16 decisions. The steering committee feels that it is important to find opportunities for discussion and 17 cooperation with parties in both the water quality and quantity arena in order to ensure that activities 18 in both areas remain voluntary and incentive based. 19 Sedimentation - Sedimentation and erosion are natural occurrences. There is a dynamic equilibrium 20 in every watershed for the acceptable levels of erosion and sediment transport. These are dependent 21 upon geology, stream morphology, stream flow, and other factors. It is important to understand the 22 capacity of a stream to move its “sediment load” and to manage the system to accomplish this 23 effectively. High sediment loads within this watershed occur naturally due to the geology, 24 precipitation, soils, and stream dynamics. Human induced practices may affect sediment yields. The 25 impacts of human activities in this watershed have not been quantified. However, in some cases 26 sediment yields within the waters appear decreased, and water quality increased due to the filtering 27 capacity afforded by some of the agricultural practices within the watershed. 28 It is important to manage sedimentation. Increase sedimentation may reduce available fish habitat. 29 Regulatory issues may also arise due to measured sediment loads. In general, baseline data on 30 sediment loads is insufficient and sedimentation is variable within the watershed. 31 Nutrient Management – Nutrients, such as Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium, as well as organic 32 matter, are commonly found in high concentrations within crop producing areas. These nutrients, 33 when applied at inordinate levels, times or in incorrect areas, can be transported to streams through 34 overland flow as a non-point source of pollution. Practices exist to minimize the detachment, 35 transport, and deposition of these materials. The NRCS offers planning solutions to help landowners 36 manage their input and minimize loss and removal from agricultural settings. 37 Pesticide Management – Pesticides are useful tools in agricultural operations. As previously noted, 38 invasive species, as well as undesirable plants, can hinder the use of a given piece of agricultural 39 property. This can be greatly mitigated through the use of an appropriate pesticide applied at the 40 right time and amount. It is critical though that these pesticides are used in strict accordance with 41 their intended purpose as outlined on their label. The steering committee recognizes that Weed and 42 Pest Districts provide regulation and oversight in the application of these tools. NRCS also works 43 with landowners to establish plans for the proper use and disposal of pesticides, or alternatives to 44 their deployment.

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 38 -

1 Irrigation Management Activities – Because of the importance of irrigation to agriculture, especially 2 in the semi-arid environment of the Greybull watershed, it is important to take every opportunity to 3 improve and mange irrigation resources. Improvements in irrigation efficiency have been beneficial 4 from a crop standpoint. There are however tradeoffs. The cost of an irrigation management system 5 can be high, but the ability to irrigate when and where desired usually provides enough incentive to 6 make a change from flood to some type of sprinkler irrigation. The drawback to increased efficiency 7 in irrigation is the loss of the associated return flows and the associated recharge in a system.

8 Water Development 9 The development of communities, enterprises, and activities in the west are intimately tied to water 10 development and management. Water development come in many different sizes and can have a 11 scope that is relatively limited, or that may affect an entire basin. Small water developments are 12 typically undertaken by individual operators, whereas the State of Wyoming is often called upon to 13 assist in the development and planning of larger scale projects. Individuals, irrigation companies, 14 communities, state government, and federal land managers in the watershed have all been involved 15 in water development activities. 16 Storage – Most of the issues and concerns related to water storage within the watershed are related to 17 small developments. The ability to maintain existing storage in stock water ponds and smaller 18 reservoirs is important. This can be difficult on federal lands, but it is essential that groups work 19 together to make sure that proper upkeep of these small facilities occurs. It is currently difficult to 20 increase storage capacity, and there is some discussion on how this could best be accomplished. 21 Increased storage has potential to decrease instream flows for aquatic organisms at certain times. 22 Water storage can attenuate peak flows and have profound effects on the morphology of stream 23 channels. Currently, the Greybull River is over-appropriated and all water rights are not always in 24 priority. The Greybull Valley Irrigation District (GVID) is primarily responsible for regulating the 25 distribution of its stored water within the watershed. The State Engineer’s Office (SEO) administers 26 the waters of the State within the watershed. A watershed-scale assessment of the water resources 27 by the Wyoming Water Development Commission is contemplated by this Plan. 28 Compelling issues that will continue to face mangers in the watershed will be the presence of 29 invasive species in conjunction with water storage, the impact of water storage projects on the local 30 community and existing infrastructure, lack of maintenance as systems age, private landowners 31 unaware of proper design and requirements, and the potential limited lifespan of water storage 32 projects. 33 Conveyance – The irrigation infrastructure that was created in the watershed is aging rapidly. 34 Erosion around blowoffs and sandgates is significant. Many diversion structures are old. There has 35 been damage due to the activities of beaver and other small animals. Management of debris, spread 36 of invasive species, and the assignment and understanding of responsibility for control of weeds 37 along ditches and canals for large and small holdings will be challenges that must be faced by 38 landowners and land managers. 39 Instream Flows – The status of water law in Wyoming allows only the Wyoming Game and Fish 40 Department to hold a water right for the purpose of maintaining an Instream flow. That right 41 however, is junior to water rights already in place. In a system that is over-appropriated, like the 42 Greybull, a water right of that nature is likely to never be used and would prohibit additional water 43 development. Instream flow can be an extremely contentious issue. It is therefore important that 44 groups who value the maintenance of a constant flow in riparian and aquatic systems work with 45 landowners and managers to ensure that some water remains in the stream.

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 39 -

1 Fish Passage – When development of the irrigation infrastructure was initially completed within the 2 watershed during the early 1900’s, little thought was given to the effects of structures on fish. 3 Irrigation structures can cause a blockage of upstream fish movement, loss of fish to diversions, and 4 reduce Game and Fish’s ability to manage for desired species. If it is important that future 5 endeavors maintain or upgrade the irrigation delivery systems to provide for aquatic movement, then 6 it will be important that those who value improved fisheries work with those who have other 7 priorities in order to achieve those objectives. 8 Economics of Water Development - The Steering Committee recognizes that the limiting factor to 9 the development of water resources is chiefly financial. The ability to pay for improvements, 10 maintenance, etc. is limited. The State of Wyoming does make funding available for some activities, 11 and the steering committee feels that it is important to look at opportunities in cooperation with local 12 government, Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC), and other interested parties. 13 Water Development Impacts on Land Use - When water is developed in an area, either on large or 14 small scales, it invariably changes the nature of that area. In some cases, water development is 15 essential in keeping land in production. In other situations, a tradeoff on type of land use occurs. 16 Certain agricultural land uses can be lost without water development. However, loss of land uses due 17 to water development can also occur. Yellowtail reservoir below Lovell is an example of just such a 18 tradeoff. It is important that any water development activities be well considered, planned, 19 managed, and thoroughly vested.

20 RECREATION 21 Recreational activities within the watershed have generally centered on outdoor sports such as 22 hunting, fishing, horseback riding, etc. Although these activities have always been present to some 23 degree, they are becoming more important factors in the watershed as time progresses. The increase 24 in recreational pressures has brought on an associated set of resource concerns. 25 Invasive Plant Species - For most recreationists, the enjoyment of being outdoors is diminished in 26 areas dominated by invasive weeds. These species can push out desirable species and replace them 27 with plants such as Canada thistle and musk thistle. The invasion of these spiny weeds, limits river 28 access, and the sharp spines make walking difficult. Russian olive invasion has its human costs as 29 well. Dense, essentially impenetrable stands can develop along the riverbank, making access to the 30 river difficult or impossible for recreationists such as boaters or anglers. 31 Outdoor enthusiasts may unknowingly be spreading invasive species. Weed seeds cling to clothing, 32 fur, shoes, and other equipment increasing the potential for new infestations. Riding horseback 33 through houndstongue promotes husbandry problems for horses when seeds attach to the hide. 34 Noxious weeds that displace non-game wildlife lower the quality of the outdoor experience for many 35 recreationists. Aquatic invaders often form dense impenetrable mats reducing recreation activities 36 for boaters and anglers. Loss of habitat for game animals and fish decreases success of hunters and 37 anglers. This reduces the value of areas used by recreationists. 38 Invasive Aquatic Species – As people have become more mobile, they have made it easier to carry 39 invasive species with them. Some of the species transported are done accidently. The zebra and 40 quaga mussels are examples of extremely harmful species that can be transported inadvertently in 41 gear, on boat hulls, or in other ways. It is extremely important that people work with the Wyoming 42 Game and Fish to ensure that these types of species are not introduced into the watershed. 43 In other instances, individuals have introduced non-native species of fish into waters of the State. 44 The introduction of a fish, such as walleye, can have a profound impact on an aquatic community. It

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 40 -

1 is essential that education on the negative aspects of these types of activities is widespread, and that 2 cooperation to limit these activities occur. 3 4 MINING 5 Old and new, metallic mineral mines have been identified as sources for acid mine drainage into the 6 Wood River, a tributary to the Greybull. Other old mines are not currently problematic. Other 7 mining operations, like gravel pits, are also of concern because they are a potential source of silt and 8 sedimentation (gravel pits are permitted by the WDEQ). Gravel supplies are generally concentrated 9 to upland areas. Crushing plants have the potential to negatively affect the air quality. Currently, 10 low levels of use are viewed as good for the local economy. There are coal resources within the 11 watershed, but they have not been active and economically viable since electricity and fuel oil 12 replaced coal in the early 20th century. 13 Bentonite mining is not currently active in the watershed. The potential to mine that resource is 14 common in the Bighorn Basin, but the concerns regarding those activities are generally related to 15 reclamation. Those reclamation concerns transcend any specific type of mining and in general, it is 16 simply felt that it should be done in accordance with the recommendations of the proper regulatory 17 authority. 18 19 OIL AND GAS 20 Oil and gas development in the watershed is significant, and there are additional resources that may 21 be developed in the future. Park County, other local governments, and special districts benefit from 22 property taxes on oil and gas production for most of their revenue. The road and other physical 23 infrastructure needed by the oil and gas industry (Appendix 3, Map 10) and the associated 24 maintenance affect the landscape of the watershed. Discharged (produced) water, its use, and the 25 perception of that water, are issues that are quite important within the watershed. WDEQ issues 26 discharge permits on all industry sites. Produced water is almost always highly beneficial to 27 producers in the watershed and its availability is critical. There are often efforts to set or change 28 effluent limits for discharge water, which would limit its use. The concerns deal with its beneficial 29 use and the ability to utilize that water without harm to natural resources, crops, and livestock. 30 There are questions as to the economic value of the water, remediation or storage of water, and if 31 increased political or regulatory pressure will cause companies to re-inject waters, or to cease 32 production entirely. This would adversely affect those agricultural operations that rely on that water 33 source for stock production, as well as harming the wildlife which utilize it. 34 Conflicts between the industry and other resource uses within the watershed have been minimal. It 35 is important to note that potential conflicts exist wherever there is industry growth in Wyoming. 36 Areas where conflict could occur in the future generally center on the management of lands. Split 37 estate laws have left some landowners holding the surface rights to their lands, but having another 38 party in control of the mineral rights. In general, communication, planning, and equitable 39 compensation are needed to help alleviate problems in these situations. Working cooperatively with 40 industry to develop alternatives and management will likely become more critical in the future.

41 URBAN/RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LANDUSE 42 As urban centers in the watershed increase in size, it is becoming increasingly popular to develop 43 “ranchettes” in rural areas. These small acreages share many of the benefits of country living 44 enjoyed by traditional rural inhabitants, but these benefits also come with additional challenges. 45 Some issues directly related to this growth include:

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 41 -

1 Small Acreage Land Use Management for Livestock – Prolonged feeding of animals in confined 2 areas in close proximity to surface water has the potential to adversely impact the water resources in 3 the watershed. The popularity of owning domestic livestock and pets has increased, and in some 4 cases, overgrazing and other environmental degradation have resulted. In addition, there is a need 5 for increasing education and awareness on the possible water quality effects of poor livestock 6 management on small acreages. 7 General Effects of Increased Population Density – There are many possibly negative effects 8 associated with growth into rural areas. These issues include, but are not limited to: increased traffic 9 and roads leading to increased pollution and sedimentation, changes in water use and irrigation 10 management practices, high levels of pesticides and fertilizer use on lawns and recreational 11 agricultural areas, increased number of septic systems, changes in land cover type and percentage, 12 increased levels of garbage and other waste, additional pressure on groundwater resources due to 13 wells, interruption of wildlife corridors, and changes in groundwater levels. Additional planning and 14 education efforts that deal with these and other issues may help to significantly mitigate these 15 negative effects. The steering committee recognizes that the responsibility for the intelligent 16 application of planning is the responsibility of County Commissioners and their subordinates. 17 Septic Systems – Proper installation and periodic maintenance are very important to minimize the 18 potential negative impacts of waste management practices on water quality. Individual on-site 19 sewage treatment facilities (septic systems) are common in rural areas throughout the watershed and 20 inadequate or malfunctioning systems present a potential source of contamination in ground and 21 surface water. Education on proper design, use, and maintenance of septic systems is essential to 22 ensure proper function. 23 Subdivision Growth, Land Use and Development Plans –Well planned growth is essential for 24 maintaining water quality and proper use and management within new areas. Growth can affect 25 water quality by putting stresses on existing wells and sewer systems. Construction near surface 26 water can have an adverse effect on water quality. Additional problems are likely to occur in areas 27 where natural limitations due to soils types and other factors adversely affect the use of traditional 28 septic systems, construction of roads, basements, etc. 29 Catastrophic Fire and the Wildland Urban Interface – Catastrophic fire potential in the Greybull 30 River watershed is exacerbated by recent long term drought, beetle invasion, fire suppression policy, 31 and the decline of logging to thin timber stands. Catastrophic fire events can negatively impact 32 public safety and watershed health. Fuel reduction management though controlled burning, logging, 33 thinning and/or other silviculural practices can reduce the impacts of catastrophic fire and the 34 likelihood of catastrophic fire events within the wildland urban interface.

35 ROADS 36 The Greybull watershed is aesthetically desirable and has been economically productive for well 37 over one hundred years. Although this has been in general a positive attribute, it has also lead to 38 continued and steady growth of the watershed in terms of population and general use. The increase 39 in use and growth has led to increasing number of roads, increased levels of traffic, and changes in 40 some types of road surfaces (Appendix 3, Map 12). One road surface type is not necessarily 41 appropriate for all activities. Managing the need for different road types and locations falls under 42 the authority of state, counties, municipalities, and federal land management agencies. The steering 43 committee believes that it is important that planners and other government take an active role in 44 working to ensure that roads are designed and used in a manner consistent with the requirements of 45 the appropriate authorities and that local offices are the most qualified to make use determinations.

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 42 -

1 WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 The Greybull River Watershed Plan Steering Committee recognizes that there are many possible 3 sources of waste that may affect water quality, and feels that it is important to address potential non- 4 point Source related waste issues in a holistic manner that encourages the voluntary participation of 5 all parties that may have an effect and therefore an interest in improving the water quality of 6 Greybull River and its tributaries. 7 Animal feeding operations and confined animal feeding operations (AFOs/CAFOs) - There have 8 been improvements and increased awareness in AFOs and CAFOs within the watershed in recent 9 years regarding their potential to affect water quality. There is capacity within the watershed for 10 further implementation of best management practices. Technical assistance and cost-share 11 opportunities will be presented to landowners, when appropriate and available. 12 Irrigation Management Practices - Irrigation management conservation practices are available that 13 will minimize wastewater produced by irrigation and the introduction of pollutants into surface 14 waters. Large amounts of effort have been put into modernization of irrigation in the watershed. 15 These practices enhance vegetation levels, reduce erosion, and improve the buffering capacity of 16 land surfaces. 17 Landfills - Trash, groundwater contamination, and costs associated with management have the 18 potential to be a problem in the future. The town of Meeteetse has developed a recycling program. 19 However, the life of the landfill in Meeteetse is not infinite and the steering committee may need to 20 revisit this subject at a later date. 21 22

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 43 -

1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2 Goals and objectives are generally arranged with respect to a land use category as described in the 3 Concerns and Issues section of this Plan. In some cases, significant overlap of different land uses 4 exists, and the assignment of a particular task to a particular land use category is not meant to 5 discount that overlapping relationship. 6 Notes: 7 1) Confirmation from the Responsible Parties regarding their participation was obtained during the 8 public comment period and prior to Plan approval. Where appropriate, a Memorandum of 9 Understanding or Memorandum of Agreement may be developed. 10 2) Participation as a Responsible Party is entirely voluntary and may be added or withdrawn as 11 appropriate for any entity. 12 3) Responsible Parties are listed alphabetically in the task descriptions. The list may be updated as 13 appropriate without initiating a formal plan revision process. 14 4) The proposed level of annual activity may be more aspirational than achievable. The ability of 15 Responsible Parties to participate, as well as the amount of public attendance at Task activities may 16 require modification of the annual activity level and the Milestone Table during plan implementation 17 from “annually” up to a maximum interval of “at least once every five years”. Tasks may be 18 accomplished in the aggregate at multi-objective workshops or seminars. Such adjustments are 19 considered to be Plan administration activities within the authority of the Steering Committee in 20 cooperation with the Responsible Parties and may be made without initiating a formal plan revision 21 process. 22 5) Cost estimates are imprecise and will be updated during the life of the plan without initiating a 23 formal plan revision. Estimated costs include “hard” funds and “in-kind” contributions including the 24 value of time spent by volunteers and in some cases activity participants. 25 6) The Plan will be kept current with a general five-year forward frame of reference through Task 26 PM1, including updating the Goals and Objectives Task List and the appendices as appropriate. 27 7) Abbreviations for Responsible Parties: 28 BLM - U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 29 WGFD - Wyoming Game and Fish Department 30 GRWSC - Greybull River Watershed Steering Committee 31 GVID - Greybull Valley Irrigation District 32 MCD - Meeteetse Conservation District 33 MLPAAC - Meeteetse Local Planning Area Advisory Committee 34 NRCS - U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service 35 PCWP - Park County Weed and Pest 36 RC&D - Big Horn Basin Resource Conservation and Development Council 37 SNF - U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest 38 TU - Trout Unlimited 39 UW - University of Wyoming 40 WDA - Wyoming Department of Agriculture 41 WGFD - Wyoming Game and Fish Department 42 WQD - Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division 43 Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 44 -

1 PLAN MANAGEMENT 2 Task PM1 Watershed Committee - Continue the formal existence of the Greybull River 3 Watershed Steering Committee, and continue the cooperative working relationship between 4 the Committee and the MCD, holding meetings at least semi-annually to conduct business 5 and review plan performance. The Plan will be kept current with a general five-year 6 forward frame of reference (including updating the Goals and Objectives Task List and the 7 appendices as appropriate) and in agreement with MCD planning. The MCD has expressed 8 interest in the continued formal existence of a steering committee, as well as the integration 9 of this planning into the district’s long range plan. 10 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD 11 Timeline: Quarterly meetings through at least 5 years pending the approval of the Greybull River 12 Watershed Plan. 13 Estimated Cost: $1500 per year. 14 Task PM2 Plan Maintenance Tracking – Work with the Conservation District to ensure that 15 activities related to this plan are recorded appropriately in an implementation table and 16 associated implementation log. The district will also work with BLM, Forest Service, and 17 other state and federal agencies, as well as third party cooperators, to ensure that pertinent 18 activities are recorded. 19 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD 20 Timeline: Quarterly meetings through at least 5 years pending the approval of 21 the Greybull River Watershed Plan. 22 Estimated Cost: $5,000 per year.

23 GENERAL - LAND USE OVER THE ENTIRE WATERSHED 24 Task G1 Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Document existing voluntary Best Management 25 Practices (BMPs) within the Greybull River Watershed and continue development and use of 26 existing BMPs, as well as other voluntary practices that benefit watershed health and water 27 quality. 28 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, PCWP, UW 29 Timeline: Compile a listing of existing BMPs through literature search during first year of Plan 30 implementation. Encourage BMP development and voluntary use on an ongoing basis. 31 Estimated Cost: $900 per year. 32 Task G2 Weed Management Area – Support the development and implementation of a Weed 33 Management Area within the watershed, supporting the Park County Weed and Pest Control 34 District in efforts to control invasive species within the watershed. 35 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, MLPAAC, PCWP, NRCS 36 Timeline: Ongoing during the development of the watershed plan. 37 Estimated Cost: N/A 38 Task G3 Aquatic Invasive Species – Work with Wyoming Game and Fish, Trout Unlimited, the 39 MCD, and the Greybull Valley Irrigation District to provide ongoing education on current 40 aquatic invasive species issues. 41 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, GVID, MCD, NRCS, PCWP, WGFD 42 Timeline: Once annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 43 Estimated Cost: Unknown.

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 45 -

1 Task G4 Greybull River Systems Geomorphology/Rosgen Study – Work actively with the NRCS, 2 University of Wyoming, the Shoshone National Forest, and other cooperators to develop a 3 survey of the Greybull River in conjunction with a watershed assessment. 4 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, SNF, UW 5 Timeline: Within five years of the implementation of the watershed plan. 6 Estimated Cost: $15,000 7 Task G5 Level One Watershed Study, Storage, Conveyance – Evaluate the possibility and/or need 8 for a Level 1 watershed study by June 20th, 2012. 9 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW 10 Timeline: Once annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 11 Estimated Cost: $1,000 12 Task G6 Watershed Management Workshop – Develop a workshop to give information to land 13 owners on items such as: Hunter Management Areas, wildlife habitat, riparian health, 14 conservation programs, water quality summary, septic systems, AFO/CAFOs, instream flow, 15 and small acreages. 16 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, UW 17 Timeline: Annually through the first 5 years of plan implementation. 18 Estimated Cost: $1,500 per year. 19 Task G7 Changing Demographics Watershed Executive Summary – Develop an Executive 20 Summary Brochure, in a small, attractive, user friendly format for dissemination of the 21 watershed plan basic points to the public, elected officials, and land management agencies. 22 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD 23 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 24 Estimated Cost: $1,000 25 Task G8 Water Quality – Work with the Conservation District to maintain water quality 26 monitoring within the watershed and increase an understanding of water quality issues and 27 opportunities provided by the implementation activities identified in this watershed plan. 28 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW, WDA, WQD, UW 29 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 30 Estimated Cost: $80,000 per year (total estimated WQM cost for all parties).

31 WILDLIFE HABITAT 32 Task WH1 Wildlife Education Day – Develop an educational day with the cooperation of the 33 local school district, landowners, Game and Fish, the Conservation District, and Trout 34 Unlimited, that highlights streams, habitat, biodiversity, and range use. This would be a 35 hands-on field trip activity including multiple groups and interests. The target audience 36 would be youth. 37 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, UW, WGFD 38 Timeline: Annually through the first 5 years of plan implementation. 39 Estimated Cost: $1,500 per year. 40 Task WH2 Wildlife Education Tour– Develop a tour with the cooperation of the NRCS, 41 Conservation District, Game and Fish, Big Horn Basin RC&D, TU, and landowners to, 42 showing projects and successes within the watershed. 43 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, RC&D, SNF, TU, WGFD 44 Timeline: Annually through the first 5 years of plan implementation. 45 Estimated Cost: $1,500 per year. Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 46 -

1 Task WH3 Canal Salvage - Work with the Wyoming Game and Fish, TU, FFA, local land 2 owners, local irrigation district to organize a canal salvage. 3 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, TU, WGFD 4 Timeline: Annually through the first 5 years of plan implementation. 5 Estimated Cost: $1,500 per year. 6 Task WH4 Youth Fishing Day - Work with the Wyoming Game and Fish, TU, FFA, local land 7 owners, local irrigation district to organize a youth fishing day which promotes recognition 8 of wildlife habitat and its stewardship. 9 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD 10 Timeline: Annually through the first 5 years of plan implementation. 11 Estimated Cost: $1,500 per year. 12 Task WH5 Youth Hunter Group – Work with Big Horn RC&D, and game and fish to develop a 13 Youth Hunter Group which promotes recognition of wildlife habitat and its stewardship. 14 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, RC&D 15 Timeline: Annually through the first 5 years of plan implementation. 16 Estimated Cost: $1,500 per year. 17 Task WH6 Riparian Protection – Work with NRCS, the local district, and local 18 landowners to identify projects and tools for the protection and/or improvement of 19 riparian areas on streams in the Greybull watershed. 20 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW 21 Timeline: Annually through the first 5 years of plan implementation. 22 Estimated Cost: N/A 23 Task WH7 Little Venus Burn Tour – Work with the Forest Service, Park County Weed and Pest, 24 and the Conservation District to develop a cooperative tour of the Little Venus Burn. 25 Highlights should center on the environmental impacts of the burn, the ecology, reclamation 26 and rehabilitation, and watershed level impacts of the fire. 27 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, PCWP, SNF, UW, WGFD 28 Timeline: One tour by August of 2011, with follow-up meetings, studies and/or tours as needed. 29 Estimated Cost: $10,000 for the initial tour. 30 Task WH8 Habitat Sharing Handouts – Make available information from the Wyoming 31 Department of Agriculture on Brucellosis and the effects on livestock. 32 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD 33 Timeline: Annually. 34 Estimated Cost: $1000 per year. 35 Task WH9 Intermingling of wildlife and domestic livestock - Provide a forum for discussion of 36 issues using the MCD as a conduit for determining the need for future efforts and education. 37 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD 38 Timeline: Ongoing. 39 Estimated Cost: Up to $4,000 per year if needed.

40 WILDLIFE HABITAT USE AND WATER 41 Task WHW1 Wildlife Habitat and Water Quantity – Work with the NRCS, Trout Unlimited, and 42 interested landowners, to identify opportunities for developing irrigation management plans 43 that benefit producers and wildlife. 44 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, MLPAAC, NRCS, TU, WGFD

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 47 -

1 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 2 Estimated Cost: $1,500 per workshop. 3 Task WHW2 Wildlife Habitat and Water Quantity (Passage) – Support Trout Unlimited, NRCS, 4 and GVID in effort to promote fish passage on irrigation structures within the watershed. 5 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, GVID, MCD, NRCS, TU, WGFD 6 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 7 Estimated Cost: $20,000 per year.

8 WILDLIFE HABITAT MAINTENANCE 9 Task WHM1 Wildlife Habitat and Invasive Species – Support the WGFD and PCWP by updating 10 watershed planning issues and concerns annually if needed to address pertinent invasive 11 species. 12 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, PCWP, SNF, WGFD 13 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 14 Estimated Cost: N/A 15 Task WHM2 Changing Demographics Small Acreage Workshop – Support an annual small 16 acreage workshop in cooperation with local conservation districts to highlight resource 17 management on rural small acreages. 18 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, MLPAAC, UW 19 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 20 Estimated Cost: $1,500 per year. 21 Task WHM3 Fragmentation – Provide a forum and encourage dialogue between interested 22 parties on mechanisms for the protection of open space and the economic viability of farm 23 and ranch operations and land uses. This will be done by hosting a workshop within the 24 district focusing on the watershed. 25 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, MLPAAC, UW 26 Timeline: At least once every four years during the implementation of the watershed plan. 27 Estimated Cost: Unknown 28 Task WHM4 Herbivory – Work cooperatively with the NRCS and the MCD to increase the 29 availability and application of Grazing Management Plans (or the update of existing plans) 30 within the Watershed by 25 percent over the first 5 years of plan implementation. 31 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS 32 Timeline: Ongoing during the implementation of the watershed plan. 33 Estimated Cost: $2,000 per plan. 34 Task WHM5 Fires and Wildlife – Support the Park County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 35 which is a county program that comprehensively maintains planning and relationships to 36 identify wildland and urban interfaces and prevent catastrophic wildfires. This committee 37 will work to incorporate watershed scale themes and issues into future plans as deemed 38 appropriate by the steering committee and participating cooperators. 39 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD 40 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 41 Estimated Cost: $200 per year.

43 Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 48 -

1 AGRICULTURAL USE 2 Task AG1 Conservation Planning – Work with the NRCS, conservation district, and landowners 3 to develop comprehensive conservation planning on a voluntary basis with landowners and 4 operators within the watershed. These plans should address the whole resource; Soil, Water, 5 Animals, Plants, Air, and Humans (SWAPA+H). Increase planning by 10% over the first 6 five years of plan implementation. 7 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS 8 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 9 Estimated Cost: Unknown 10 Task AG2 Maintain Voluntary and Incentive Based Efforts – Encourage the County 11 Commissioners, conservation district, and other locally elected officials and State agencies, 12 to maintain an active dialogue with the WDEQ, federal agencies, and State and federal 13 legislators in order to ensure that non-point source watershed level issues are dealt with using 14 voluntary and incentive based means rather than through regulatory activities. This plan, and 15 future activities and information related to this plan will be provided to all of these officials 16 as implementation proceeds on an annual or quarterly basis as appropriate. 17 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD 18 Timeline: Quarterly and annually, during the implementation of the watershed plan. 19 Estimated Cost: Unknown 20 Task AG3 Changing Demographics (Barnyards to Backyards) – Continue to make the Barnyards 21 to Backyards publication available at the Conservation District office, and the Meeteetse 22 library. 23 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, UW 24 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 25 Estimated Cost: $800 per year. 26 Task AG4 Stewardship Awards – In cooperation with the local media, recognize one agricultural 27 cooperator per year as an Outstanding Conservationist within the Greybull River watershed. 28 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, media cooperators 29 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 30 Estimated Cost: $100 per year (media costs unknown). 31 Task AG5 Irrigation Efficiency – Work with the Conservation District and NRCS to increase 32 irrigation efficiency on at least 200 acres per year, while also increasing the availability of 33 funding and increasing the technical assistance available. 34 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS 35 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 36 Estimated Cost: $20,000 to $80,000 per project. 37 Task AG6 Irrigation Technology Transfer Workshop – Facilitate the development of a workshop, 38 utilizing the cooperation of partners, other conservation districts, agencies, and irrigation 39 vendors, to highlight improvements in irrigation technologies and make information on 40 opportunities for cost share etc. available to land managers. 41 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS 42 Timeline: Once initially during the first five years during watershed plan implementation. 43 Estimated Cost: $10,000 per workshop. 44 Task AG7 Technology Education for Steering Committee – Host an agricultural technology 45 presentation at least once per year as part of GRWSC meetings to explore new technologies, Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 49 -

1 such as modeling, that may assist in developing and/or refining planning or implementation 2 efforts. 3 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW 4 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 5 Estimated Cost: N/A 6 Task AG8 Legislative and Regulatory Update – As part of steering committee meetings, create an 7 agenda item once per year to discuss pertinent legislative and regulatory issues and/or 8 activities from an agricultural viewpoint. 9 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW 10 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 11 Estimated Cost: N/A 12 Task AG9 Nutrient Management Plans – Work with the NRCS and conservation district to 13 support the development of nutrient management plans within individual conservation plans 14 whenever appropriate and supported by the individual operator/land manager. 15 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW 16 Timeline: Once annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 17 Estimated Cost: $1,000 per plan. 18 Task AG10 Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) – Support the implementation of at least one 19 Animal Feeding Operation mitigation project per year during the first five years of the 20 watershed plan. 21 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW 22 Timeline: One annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 23 Estimated Cost: $50,000 per project. 24 Task AG11 Pesticide Management Plans – Work with Park County Weed and Pest, NRCS and 25 the conservation district to support the development of pesticide management plans within 26 individual conservation plans whenever appropriate and supported by the individual 27 operator/land manager. 28 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, PCWP 29 Timeline: One annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 30 Estimated Cost: Unknown 31 Task AG12 Irrigation Management Planning – Work with NRCS and the conservation district to 32 support the development of irrigation management plans within individual conservation plans 33 whenever appropriate and supported by the individual operator/land manager. 34 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS 35 Timeline: Annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 36 Estimated Cost: Unknown

37 AGRICULTURAL GRAZING LANDS USE

38 Task AGGL1 Winter Season Grazing Lands Management – As part of conservation planning, 39 work with the conservation districts and the local NRCS staff to encourage best management 40 practices on winter feeding areas on grazing lands that will reduce non point source pollution 41 potential. 42 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW 43 Timeline: Ongoing during the life of the watershed plan. 44 Estimated Cost: N/A

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 50 -

1 AGRICULTURAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 2 Task AGWD1 Off Site Water Development – Support the development of off-site (springs, water 3 tanks, etc) water resources within the watershed, using cooperators such as NRCS to assist in 4 developing at least two projects per year during the first 5 years of the watershed plan. 5 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS 6 Timeline: Two per year annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 7 Estimated Cost: $30,000 per project. 8 Task AGWD2 Off Site Water/Small Reservoir Development and Maintenance – Work with land 9 managers, NRCS, and other parties, to increase off-site water/small reservoir developments, 10 maintain or increase the efficiency of existing sites, or install other BMPs that will increase 11 water availability for livestock and wildlife. 12 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS 13 Timeline: 2 per year during the implementation of the watershed plan. 14 Estimated Cost: $5,000 per project. 15 Task AGWD3 Fish Friendly Irrigation Structures – Support the implementation of Best 16 Management Practices for fish friendly irrigation structures within the watershed. 17 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, TU, WGFD 18 Timeline: Once annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 19 Estimated Cost: $10,000 per year over the first 5 years.

20 RECREATION 21 Task REC1 Recreational Invasive Species Education – Support one recreational educational 22 project per year (kiosk, brochure, workshop, etc.) within the watershed dealing with invasive 23 species or other pressing issue related to recreational use within the watershed. 24 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, PCWP 25 Timeline: Once annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 26 Estimated Cost: $1,500 per year.

27 SMALL ACREAGES 28 Task SA1 Small Acreage Workshop – Participate in an annual workshop targeting small acreage 29 land owners/managers. 30 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, PCWP, UW 31 Timeline: Once annually during the implementation of the watershed plan. 32 Estimated Cost: $1,500 per year. 33 Task SA2 Septic Systems – Evaluate the need for a septic system rehabilitation and cost share 34 program within the first five years of the watershed plan, and if necessary, establish a plan of 35 action to address the finding of the evaluation. 36 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS 37 Timeline: Once during the implementation of the watershed plan. 38 Estimated Cost: $500 39 Task SA3 Subdivision Review – Support the Conservation District in its review of subdivision 40 plans as needed, ensuring that issues and concerns related to watershed health are addressed 41 in the planning process. 42 Responsible Party(s): GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, PCWP 43 Timeline: As needed. 44 Estimated Cost: Unknown 45 Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 51 -

1 APPENDICES 2 Appendix 1 - Literature Cited

3 Alonso A., Dallmeier F., Granek E. and P. Raven. 2001. Biodiversity: Connecting with the Tapestry 4 of Life. Smithsonian Institution/Monitoring and Assessment of Biodiversity Program and President’s 5 Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

6 Bailey D.W. 2004. Management Strategies for Optimal Grazing Distribution and Use of Arid 7 Rangelands. Journal of Animal Science. 82:E147-E153. Available online: 8 http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/82/13_suppl/E147.

9 Barranco A. 2001. Invasive Species Summary Project Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima). Online. 10 Internet 27 July 2006. Available: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff- 11 burg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/Tamarix_ramosissima.html

12 Biodiversity Project. 2004. Biodiversity Threats – Invasive Species: Biodiversity Project. Available 13 online: http://www.biodiversityproject.org/html/biodiversity/invasives.htm

14 Burkhardt Dr. J.W. 1997. Grazing Utilization Limits: An Ineffective Management Tool. Rangelands 15 Magazine. 19(3), June 1997, pp. 8-9.

16 Burkhardt Dr. J.W. 1996. Herbivory in the Intermountain West, an Overview of Evolutionary 17 History, Historic Cultural Impacts and Lessons From the Past. Station Bulletin 58 of the Idaho 18 Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, 19 University of Idaho.

20 Curtis J., and K. Grimes. 2004. Wyoming Climate Atlas. Office of the Wyoming State 21 Climatologist, Laramie, Wyoming.

22 DiTomaso J.M. 1998. Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern 23 United States. Weed Tech. 12:326-336.

24 Eisenberg J. 2009. Grazing Programs. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Available online: 25 http://www.beefusa.org/govegrazingprograms.aspx

26 Eisenberg J. Property Rights. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Available online: 27 http://www.beefusa.org and http://www.thepubliclandscouncil.org .

28 Esmail S.H.M. 1991. Multispecies Grazing by Cattle and Sheep. Rangelands Magazine, 13(1), 29 February, 1991, pp. 35-36.

30 Hansen R. P. and F. Glover. 1973. Environmental inventory and impact analysis at Kirwin area, 31 Park County, Wyoming for American Metal Climax, Incorporated (AMAX). Rocky Mountain 32 Center on Environment, Summary Report, Denver, Colorado.

33 Idema K. and J. Altermatt. 2004. Owl Creek/Meeteetse Mule Deer Habitat Evaluation Project. 34 Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

35 Kruse C. G. 1995. Genetic purity, habitat, and population characteristics of Yellowstone Cutthroat 36 trout in the Greybull River drainage, Wyoming. M.S., Department of Zoology and Physiology, 37 University of Wyoming.

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 52 -

1 May B. E., W. Urie, and B. B. Shepard. 2003. Range-wide status of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout 2 (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri): 2001. USDA Forest Service. Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, 3 Montana.

4 McGraw-Hill. 2003. Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

5 McKinney E. 1997. It May Be Utilization, But Is It Management? Rangelands Magazine. 19(3), 6 June 1997, pp. 4-7.

7 Meeteetse Conservation District. 2007. Sheets Flat E. coli Project.

8 Meeteetse Conservation District. 2008. Land Use Management and Resource Conservation Plan. 9 Available online: http://www.meeteetsecd- 10 wy.gov/MCD_Land_Use_Management_and_Resource_Conservation_Plan_2008-12-10_signed.pdf

11 Meeteetse Conservation District. 2009. Greybull River E. coli WDA Grant Final Report to 12 WDA_summarybudget.

13 Memorandum from: Public Opinion Strategies and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates to: 14 Interested Parties re: Key Findings from a Wyoming Statewide Survey Regarding Conservation 15 Issues. Date: August 25, 2007.

16 Moench and Fusaro, 2002. Soil Erosion Control after Wildfire. no. 6.308. Colorado State University 17 Cooperative Extension. 4/02. Available online: 18 http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/natres/06308.html

19 Moline B.R., Fletcher R.R., Taylor D.T, Fink G., Henderson F. and L. Bourret. 1992. Contribution 20 of Federal Lands to Wyoming Range Livestock Production. University of Wyoming and Wyoming 21 Department of Agriculture, Laramie 82071.

22 Neary, D. G., Klopatek, C. C., DeBano, L. F., & Ffolliott, P. F. 1999. Fire effects on belowground 23 sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management (122): 51-71.

24 Pimentel, D., Lach R.Z., and D. Morrison. 1999. Environmental and Economic Costs Associated 25 with Non-indigenous Species in the United States. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, College of 26 Agriculture and Life Sciences, 12 June 1999.

27 Ramos, 2005. Invasive Species of Wyoming. Available online: 28 http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/pdfs/WyomingInvasives.pdf

29 Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of Natural Rivers. Catena, Vol 22: 169-199. Elsevier Science, 30 B. V. Amsterdam.

31 Satterlee S. Clean Water Act. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Available online: 32 http://www.beefusa.org .

33 Schwartz J. 1991. Wyoming’s Land Managers. Rangelands Magazine, 13(1), February, 1991, pp. 34 24-25.

35 Shoshone National Forest. 2006. Little Venus Fire Shelter Deployment Peer Review Report, July 24, 36 2006. Available online: 37 http://www.wildfirelessons.net/documents/Little_Venus_Deployment_Peer_Review.pdf

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 53 -

1 Skinner Q. D. 1998. Stubble Height and Function of Riparian Communities. Stubble Height and 2 Utilization Measurements. Department of Rangeland Ecology and Watershed Management, 3 University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, pp. 29-46.

4 USDA. 2008. State Fact Sheets: Wyoming. United State Department of Agriculture Economic 5 Research Service. Updated March 21, 2008, online. USGS. 2009. Biology – Invasive Species 6 Program. Available online: http://biology.usgs.gov/invasive/

7 Wallace L. L. 2004. After the fires: the ecology of change in Yellowstone National Park. Yale 8 University.

9 Whelan R. 1995. The Ecology of Fire. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.

10 Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts. 2007. Wyoming Watershed Progress Report. 11 Available: http://www.conservewy.com/docs/07_rpt.htm

12 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2007. Adopted Water Quality Rules and 13 Regulations, Chapter 1 (adopted 2-16-2007). Available online at: 14 http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/6547.pdf

15 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 1997. Grazing Best Management Practices, 16 Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Final, March, 1997.

17 Wyoming Produced Water Initiative booklet. Wyoming Stock Growers Association. Available 18 online: http://www.wysga.org.

19 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2007. Annual fisheries progress report on the 2006 work 20 schedule. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY.

21 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2009. Best Management Practices. Available at: 22 http://gf.state.wy.us/print.asp?id+3685

23 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1907. Game and Fish Laws of Wyoming. Compiled, edited 24 and published by Wm. R. Schnitger, Secretary of State, for the information of sportsmen, game 25 wardens, and the people. Cheyenne, 1907. LC CALL NUMBER: SK464.A5 1907 LCCN: unk82- 26 30010.

27 Wyoming Partners in Flight. 2002. Birds in Green Ribbons: Best Management Practices for 28 Riparian Areas to Benefit Birds in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander.

29 Wyoming Weed and Pest. 2006. Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act Designated List – Designated 30 Noxious weeds .S. 11-5-102 (a)(xi) and Prohibited Noxious Weeds W.W. 11-12-104. Online. 31 Internet 27 July 2006. Available: http://www.wyoweed.org/docs/designated_weeds_pests.html.

32 Yekel, S. 1980. An evaluation of Area Fisheries in the Greybull River-Wood River, Park County 33 Wyoming. An Administrative report 2279-14-6802. Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. Cheyenne, 34 Wyoming. 35 36 37

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 54 -

1 Appendix 2 - Glossary of Terms 2 Accessibility. The ease with which an area can be reached and grazed by animals. The ease with which herbivores can 3 reach plants or plant parts. 4 Aerobic. Containing oxygen. Used to describe organisms living, active, or occurring 5 only in the presence of oxygen. 6 Aftermath. Forage available after harvest, e.g., crop residue or regrowth after hay harvest. 7 Air-dry weight. The weight of a substance (usually forage) after it has been allowed to dry to equilibrium with the 8 atmosphere. 9 Alternate hypothesis. Any hypothesis alternative to the one under a test. 10 Anaerobic. Containing no oxygen. Used to describe organisms living, active, or occurring in the absence of oxygen. 11 Analysis of variance. An analysis of the total variation displayed by a set of observations, measured by the sums of 12 squares of deviations from the mean. The variation is usually separated into components associated with sources of 13 interest. 14 Animal-unit (AU). Defines forage consumption on the basis of one standard mature 1,000-pound cow, either dry or with 15 calf up to 6 months old; all other classes and kinds of animals can be related to this standard, e.g. a bull equals 1.25 AU, 16 a yearling steer equals 0.6 AU. 17 Animal-unit-day (AUD). The amount (26 pounds) of air-dry forage calculated to meet one animal unit’s requirement for 18 one day. 19 Animal-unit-month (AUM). The amount (780 pounds) of air-dry forage calculated to meet one animal unit’s 20 requirement for one animal unit for one month. 21 Aquifer. A geologic formation containing water, usually able to yield appreciable water. 22 Basal area. The proportional cross-sectional area of the stem or stems of a plant or of all plants on a stated area, usually 23 measured near soil surface. 24 Baseflow. A part of stream discharge not attributed to direct runoff from precipitation or snowmelt and usually 25 contributed by subsurface flow. 26 Baseline. Initial or background water quality conditions. Also a surveyed line. 27 Bedload. Sediment, not in suspension, moving along the streambed by rolling or bouncing. 28 Benthos. The assemblage of organisms living on or at the bottom of a body of water. 29 Best Management Practice. A practice or combination of practices found to be the most effective, practicable (including 30 economic and institutional considerations) means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by 31 nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. 32 Blurring. An exploratory data analysis technique of smoothing by replacing data points with short vertical lines of 33 appropriate length beginning with the median of the residuals. 34 Browse. That part of leaf and twig growth of shrubs, woody vines and trees available for animal consumption. 35 Bunch grass. A grass having a growth habit of a bunch, lacking stolons or rhizomes. 36 Calibration. The beginning period of time for a paired watershed design somewhat synonymous with a baseline period. 37 Canal salvage. The return of game fish to the natural watercourse from the ditch or canal. 38 Carrying capacity. The average number of livestock and wildlife that may be sustained on a management unit 39 compatibly with management objectives. It is a function of site characteristics, and management goals and intensity. 40 Catchment. The area providing runoff to a lake, stream, or well (drainage area, drainage basin, watershed). 41 Class of animal. Description of age and sex group for a particular kind of animal, e.g., cow, calf, yearling heifer, ewe, 42 fawn. 43 Climax. The final or stable biotic community in a successional series that is self-perpetuating and in dynamic 44 equilibrium with the prevailing ecological factors. 45 Coefficient of determination. The square of the correlation coefficient. Decimal fraction of percent of variance 46 explained. 47 Coefficient of variation. The standard deviation of a distribution divided by the mean. 48 Coliform bacteria. A group of bacteria predominantly found in the intestines of animals, but also occasionally found 49 elsewhere. 50 Complementary forage. Short-term forage planted to enhance the management and productivity of a ranch. Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 55 -

1 Composite sample. A combination of individual samples taken at selected intervals or volumes to minimize variability. 2 Concentration. The amount of a substance dissolved or suspended in a unit volume of water. 3 Conductance. The measure of the ability of a solution to conduct electricity that is equal to the reciprocal of the 4 resistance. 5 Confidence level. The measure of probability (〈) of the truth of a statement. 6 Confidence limits. The values of an upper and lower t of a confidence interval. The interval 7 has a probability (〈) that the value will lie between the upper and lower limits. 8 Confined aquifer. An aquifer that is surrounded by formations of less permeable or impermeable 9 material that is isolated from the atmosphere. (Artesian aquifer) 10 Conservation practice. An engineered structure or management activity that eliminates or reduces an adverse 11 environmental effect of a pollutant and conserves soil, water, plant, or animal resources. 12 Contamination. An introduction of a substance into water in a sufficient concentration to make the water unfit for its 13 intended use. 14 Continuous data. Data for which all values in some range are possible, such as height and weight. 15 Continuous grazing. The grazing of a specific unit throughout a year, growing season, or that part of a year when 16 grazing is feasible. 17 Control. In a study, a standard for comparison against which other treatments are compared, but is either untreated or 18 receives a standard treatment. Also, a stable cross section in a stream that controls flow upstream. 19 Cool-season plant. A plant that generally makes the major portion of its growth during the late fall, winter, and spring. 20 Coordinated resource management. A process in which various user groups discuss alternate resource uses, diagnose 21 management problems, establish goals and objectives, and evaluate multiple-use management options. 22 Cover. (1) The plant or plant parts, living or dead, on the ground surface. (2) The proportional area of ground covered by 23 plants on a stated area. 24 Critical area. 1.An area that must be treated with special care because of site factors, size, location, condition, values or 25 potential use conflicts.2. An area within a watershed determined to be an important source of a 26 pollutant. 27 Current meter. A devise for measuring the velocity of flowing water. 28 Decreaser. For a given plant community, species that decrease in amount as a result of environmental factors or 29 management practices. 30 Deferment. Delay of livestock grazing on an area for an adequate period of time to provide for plant reproduction, 31 establishment of new plants, or restoration of vigor. 32 Deferred grazing. The use of deferment in grazing management, but not in a systematic rotation. 33 Deferred-rotation. A grazing system that provides for a systematic rotation of the deferment among pastures. 34 Degree of use. The proportion of current year forage production consumed or destroyed by grazers. It can refer to a 35 single species or all vegetation. 36 Desired plant community (DPC). A plant community that produces the kind, proportion, and amount of vegetation 37 necessary for meeting or exceeding the management objectives for an ecological site. 38 Discharge. The rate or volume of water flowing at a specific cross section within a specified time. 39 Discharge rating curve. A curve showing the relationship between the stage at a cross section and the discharge at that 40 cross section. 41 Discrete data. Data for which the possible values are fixed, such as counts. 42 Dispersion. The mixing of the concentration of a substance in the water with another body of water due to the flow of 43 water. 44 Dissolved oxygen. The oxygen dissolved in water, expressed in milligrams per liter or percentage saturation. Drainage 45 basin. See Catchment. 46 Drainage density. The density of natural drainage channels in a given area, expressed as length per unit area. 47 Ecological site. Land with a specific potential natural community and specific physical site characteristics, differing 48 from other kinds of land in its ability to produce vegetation and to respond to management. Synonymous with range site. 49 Ecosystem. Organisms that together with their physical environment form an interacting system and inhabit an 50 identifiable space. Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 56 -

1 Effluent stream. A stream that receives water from saturated ground water. 2 Epilimnion. The upper waters of a thermally stratified lake. 3 Equipotential line. A contour line that connects points of equal head for the water table or equipotential surface. 4 Error. The difference between an occurring value and its true or expected value. 5 Eye smoothing. Drawing s smooth curve through points of data on a graph. 6 Field. A small agricultural unit implying a management area. 7 Filter strip. A conservation practice that is a strip of vegetated land established downslope of a nonpoint source of 8 pollution with the purpose of reducing the pollutant. 9 Flow line. A line indicating the direction of ground water flow toward the point of discharge. Flow lines are 10 perpendicular to equipotential lines and together they form a flow net. 11 Flume. An open conduit for flow. 12 Forage. Browse and herbage that are available for food for grazing animals or be harvested for feeding. 13 Forage production. The weight of forage that is produced within a designated period of time on a given area (e.g. 14 pounds per acre). 15 Forb. A non-woody, broad-leafed plant. 16 Frequency. In reference to the Grazing Response Index, the number of times plants are defoliated during the growing 17 season. 18 Frequency distribution. A listing of the way the frequencies of members of a population are distributed according to the 19 values of the variable. The distribution is usually shown in a table. 20 Gage. A device for determining the water level. 21 Geographic information system (GIS). A computer system that allows information about land to be as maps. Different 22 characteristics, such as vegetation or soil type, are stored as separate “layers.” The layers can be combined to display 23 interactions of characteristics. 24 Grab sample. A single sample taken at a certain time and place. 25 Grass. A plant with long, narrow leaves having parallel veins and nondescript flowers. Stems are hollow or pithy in 26 cross-section. 27 Grass-like plant. A plant that resembles a grass but has stems that are solid in cross-section, including rushes and sedges. 28 Grazing cell. A grazing arrangement comprised of numerous subdivisions (paddocks) with a central component for 29 livestock management and movement (cell center). 30 Grazing cycle. The total time of one grazing and one rest period in a unit where forage is regularly grazed and rested. 31 Grazing distribution. Dispersion of livestock grazing within a management unit. 32 Grazing management. The control of grazing and browsing animals to accomplish a desired result. 33 Grazing preference. (1) Selection of plants, or plant parts, over others by grazing animals. (2) In the administration of 34 public lands, a basis upon which grazing-use permits and licenses are issued. 35 Grazing pressure. An animal-to-forage relationship measured in terms of animal units per unit weight of forage at any 36 instant. 37 Grazing Response Index (GRI). A technique used to assess effects of the current years grazing and plan for the next 38 year. It considers grazing frequency and intensity, and the plants’ opportunity to grow or regrow before, between or after 39 grazing periods. 40 Grazing system. Grazing management that defines the periods of grazing and non-grazing. 41 Ground water. Subsurface water in the saturated zone below the water table. 42 Habitat type. The collective area that one plant community occupies or will come to occupy as succession advances to 43 climax. 44 Half-shrub. A perennial plant with a woody base whose annual stems die each year. 45 Herbage. Total aboveground biomass of herbaceous plants regardless of grazing preference or availability. 46 Herbage allowance. Weight of forage available per animal unit on the land at any instant. 47 Holistic Management (HM). A practical, goal-oriented approach to the management of the ecosystem including the 48 human, financial and biological resources on farms, ranches, public and tribal lands, as well as national parks, vital water 49 catchments and other areas. HM is a management model emphasizing connections among land, people and dollars. 50 Formerly called “Holistic Resource Management.” Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 57 -

1 Hydrograph. A graph showing discharge as a function of time for a given location on a stream. 2 Hypolimnion. The bottom water of a thermally stratified lake. 3 Hypothesis. A hypothesis concerning the parameters or form of the probability distribution for a designated population. 4 Increaser. A plant species of the original or climax plant community that increases in relative amount, at least for a time, 5 under current grazing management. 6 Indicator species. Species that indicate the presence of certain environmental conditions, seral stages, or previous 7 treatment. 8 Intensity. In reference to the Grazing Response Index, the proportion of leaves removed during a grazing period. 9 Intermittent stream. A stream or portion that flows only in direct response to precipitation. 10 Interval scale. A measurement with a constant interval size, but no true zero, such as temperature (arbitrary zero) and 11 time. 12 Introduced species. A species not a part of the original fauna or flora of a given area. 13 Invader. Plant species that were absent in undisturbed portions of the original vegetation of a specific range site and will 14 invade or increase following disturbance or continued heavy grazing. 15 Key area. A relatively small potion of a management unit selected because of its location, use, or grazing value as a 16 monitoring point for grazing use. It is assumed key areas will reflect the overall acceptability of current grazing 17 management over the whole unit. 18 Key species. Forage species of sufficient abundance, palatability, and sensitivity to management to use as indicators of 19 use of associated species. 20 Kind of animal. An animal species or species group such as sheep, cattle, goats, deer, horses, elk, antelope. 21 Kurtosis. The extent to which a unimodal frequency curve is peaked. 22 Life-form. Characteristic form or appearance of a species at maturity, e.g., tree, shrub, herb. 23 Least squares regression. Estimation of regression parameters by minimizing a quadratic form. 24 Limnocorral. A device used in lakes that isolates the water column from surrounding water. 25 Load. The quantity of material entering a receiving body of water. 26 Lysimeter. A device used to measure the water quantity or quality draining through the soil. 27 Macroinvertebrate. A large animal without a backbone that can be observed without the aid of magnification. 28 Macrophyton. A large plant that can be observed without the aid of magnification. 29 Mean. The arithmetic average of the values for a variate. 30 Median. That value of the variate which divides the total frequency into two halves. 31 Mesocosm. A medium-sized experimental unit with boundaries. 32 Metalimnion. The middle layer of a thermally stratified lake. 33 Mode. The value of the variate that has the greatest number of members of the population. 34 Model. A description of a system; often mathematical. 35 Monitoring. The orderly collection, analysis, and interpretation of resource data over time to evaluate progress toward 36 meeting management objectives. 37 Multiple use. Use of range for more than one purpose, i.e., livestock grazing, recreation, wildlife production, watershed 38 and timber production. 39 Native species. A species that is a part of the original fauna or flora of a given area. 40 Nonparametric statistics. Better termed distribution-free statistics. Testing a hypothesis that does not depend on the form 41 of the underlying distribution. 42 Nonpoint source. A diffuse location with no particular point of origin. 43 Null hypothesis. A hypothesis under test that determines the probability of the Type I error. Also a hypothesis under a 44 test of no difference. 45 Objective. A statement describing what is to be accomplished that contains an infinitive verb and an object. 46 Observation. Data that are collected or analyzed. 47 Opportunity. In reference to the Grazing Response Index, the time and actual growth plants make before, between or 48 after grazing periods. 49 Ordinal scale. Data that consist of an ordering or ranking of measurements, such as A is bigger than B. Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 58 -

1 Overgrazing. Continued heavy grazing that exceeds the recovery capacity of individual plants in the community and 2 creates a deteriorated range. 3 Overstocking. Placing a number of animals on a given area that exceeds the forage supply during the time they are 4 present. 5 Overuse. Using an excessive amount of the current years growth. 6 Paddock. One of the physically separated subdivisions or subunits of a larger management unit. 7 Palatability. The relish with which a particular species or plant part is consumed by an animal. 8 Parametric statistics. A statistical test that assumes the distribution type is known. 9 Pasture. A grazing area enclosed and separated from other areas by fencing or other barriers. 10 Phenology. The study of periodic biological phenomena that are recurrent such as flowering or seeding, especially as 11 related to climate. 12 Perennial stream. A stream that flows continuously all seasons of a year and during both wet and dry years. 13 Periphyton. Small or microscopic aquatic plants attached to submerged objects. 14 Photopoint. A point from which photos are periodically taken to monitor long-term management responses. 15 Phytoplankton. Small or microscopic aquatic plants. 16 Piezometer. An instrument for measuring pressure head in the soil. 17 Plankton. Small or microscopic aquatic organisms that are floating, or weakly motile and generally considered to be at 18 the mercy of the currents. 19 Plant community. An assemblage of plants occurring together at any point in time, denoting no particular ecological 20 status. 21 Plant succession. The process of vegetational development whereby an area over time is occupied by different plant 22 communities of later ecological stage. 23 Plant vigor. Plant health; relates to the relative robustness of a plant in comparison to other individuals of the same 24 species. 25 Plot. A small experimental unit with boundaries. 26 Pollutant. An undesirable substance in water, soil, or air at sufficient concentrations to impair the intended use of the 27 resource. 28 Pollution. A condition caused by the presence of harmful or objectionable substances in water. 29 Population. A collection of individuals. 30 Potential natural vegetation (PNV). The plant community that would develop on an ecological site if all successional 31 sequences were completed without interference by humans under the present environmental conditions; may include 32 naturalized non-native species. 33 Pure live seed (PLS). Purity and germination of seed expressed in percent; calculated as PLS = % germination x % 34 purity/100. 35 Random sample. A sample collected from a population where every sample has an equal 36 probability of being selected. 37 Range (Rangeland). Any land supporting grazable or browsable vegetation and managed as a natural ecosystem; can 38 include grasslands, forestlands, shrublands, and pasture. “Range” is not a land use. 39 Range condition. The “health” of range as compared to some standard at a point in time. The standard can be defined in 40 ecological terms or in terms of a particular use. In the ecological determination, the degree of departure from climax 41 determines condition. 42 Range improvement. Any practice designed to improve range condition or allow more efficient use. 43 Range management. A distinct discipline founded on ecological principles with the objective of sustainable use of 44 rangelands and related resources for various purposes. 45 Range readiness. The defined stage of plant growth at which grazing may begin under a specific management plan. 46 Range site. Subdivisions of rangeland for management purposes having similar soils, climate and climax plant 47 communities. Two or more identical range sites that are spatially separated should respond in a similar manner to the 48 same kind of management. 49 Range trend. The change in range condition over time. 50 Rating. A relation between stage and discharge of a stream. Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 59 -

1 Ratio scale. Measurements having a constant interval size and a true zero point, such as lengths, weights, volumes, and 2 rates. 3 Reconnaissance survey. A survey to obtain a general view of water quality; may imply samples collected at 4 approximately the same time (synoptic survey). 5 Regression. A statistical method to investigate relationships between two components. 6 Replication. The execution of an experiment more than once. 7 Resource management system. A combination of conservation practices and management identified by the primary use 8 of land or water. 9 Responsiveness. In establishing cause-and-effect, the evidence that the dependent variable is related to the independent 10 variable. 11 Rest. Leaving an area ungrazed for a specified time. 12 Rest period. The length of time that a management unit is not grazed. 13 Rest-rotation. A grazing-management scheme in which rest periods, usually for a full growing season, for individual 14 grazing units are incorporated into a grazing rotation. 15 Riparian zone. The banks and adjacent areas of water bodies, water courses, seeps and springs whose waters provide soil 16 moisture sufficiently in excess of that otherwise available locally so as to provide a more moist habitat than that of 17 contiguous flood plains and uplands. 18 Rotation grazing. A grazing scheme where animals are moved from one grazing unit in the same group of grazing units 19 to another without regard to specific graze: rest periods or levels of plant defoliation. 20 Rotational stocking. Unlike rotational grazing, rotational stocking uses grazing cycles with defined grazing and rest 21 periods. 22 Runoff. That portion of precipitation or irrigation found in surface channels and streams. 23 Runoff coefficient. The ratio of the depth of runoff from a watershed to the depth of precipitation. 24 Sample. A part of all the possible measurements in some larger group, such as the 25 population. 26 Sampler. 1. A device used to obtain an aliquot of water. 2. The person obtaining an aliquot of water 27 Selective grazing. The grazing of plant species, individual plants, or plant parts in preference to others. 28 Short-duration grazing. Grazing management whereby short periods (days) of grazing and associated non-grazing are 29 applied to range or pasture units. The lengths of grazing and non-grazing periods are based on the rate of plant growth. 30 Shrub. Any species of woody plant of less than tree height (16 feet) and usually having multiple basal stems. 31 Significance. The probability of committing a Type I error (〈). Biological significance refers to an underlying 32 assumption about relationships. 33 Skewness. A measure of asymmetry in a frequency distribution. 34 Smoothing. The process of removing fluctuations in a series of data. 35 Sod grasses. Grasses with stolons or rhizomes that form a turf. 36 Species composition. The proportions of various plant species in relation to the total on a given area. 37 Specific conductance. The ability of water to conduct electricity across a specific length at a specified temperature. 38 Stage. The elevation of the water surface above some datum. 39 Stage-discharge relation. The relationship between stream stage and discharge at a gaging station. 40 Standard deviation. A measure of dispersion of a frequency distribution that is the square root of the variance. 41 Statistic. A summary value calculated from a sample of observations. 42 Statistical error. See Error. 43 Statistics. The science of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. 44 Steady-state. Conditions that are averaging constant over time. 45 Stilling well. A chamber with small inlets connected to a water body used for measuring the water level. 46 Stocking density. The relationship between number of animals and area of land at any given time. 47 Stocking rate. The number of specific kinds and classes of animals grazing a unit of land for a specified time period. 48 Streamflow Water flowing in a stream channel. (Stream discharge)

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 60 -

1 Substitution ratio. Number of animals or animal-units of one kind or class that can be substituted for another kind or 2 class to meet a specified management objective. 3 Suitability. The adaptability of an area to grazing by livestock or wildlife. 4 Surface runoff. The portion of runoff that reaches a stream by traveling over the surface of the land. (Overland flow) 5 Suspended solids. Solids in suspension in water. 6 Synoptic survey. See reconnaissance survey. 7 Tensiometer. An instrument filled with water with a porous cup used for measuring the soil water potential. 8 Transitory range. Forested lands that are suitable for grazing for a limited time following complete or partial forest 9 removal. 10 Turbidity. A condition in water caused by suspended matter that causes the scattering and absorption of light. 11 Type I error. Reject the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true (also, α error, false alarm rate (FAR) or false 12 positive) 13 Type II error. Fail to reject the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is false (β error, or a false negative) 14 Unconfined aquifer. An aquifer where the water table is exposed to the atmosphere. (Water table aquifer) 15 Use. The proportion of current years forage production that is consumed or destroyed by grazing animals. 16 Vadose zone. Zone of soil between the surface and the water table that is not saturated. 17 Variance. The mean of the squares of the deviations from the mean. 18 Velocity meter. A meter used to measure stream velocity. 19 Warm-season plant. A plant that makes most or all its growth during late spring, summer or early fall and is usually 20 dormant in winter. 21 Water quality. The physical, chemical, and biological properties of water with respect to its suitability for an intended 22 use. 23 Water quality management. The management of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of water. 24 Water quality monitoring. The collection of information on the characteristics of water. 25 Water quality standards. A rule established by an agency or units of government; often numerical. 26 Water table. The upper surface of the saturated zone in a soil that is at atmospheric pressure. 27 Water-level recorder. A device used for recording the water elevation over time. 28 Watershed. The area contributing water to a stream, lake, or well. 29 Weed. (1) A plant growing where unwanted. (2) A plant having a negative value within a given management system. 30 Weir. A device used in a stream with a damming crest and an opening of some known geometric shape, such as a V- 31 notch. 32 Zooplankton. Small or microscopic aquatic animals. 33 34 35 Principal Sources: 36 John Ortmann, L. Roy Roath and E. T. Bartlett. Glossary of Range Management Terms no. 6.105 37 www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/natres/06105.PDF 38 39 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Part 615 Analysis 40 of Water Quality Monitoring Data National Water Quality Handbook (450-VI-NWQH, February 41 2002) http://www.wsi.nrcs.usda.gov/products/W2Q/water_qual/docs/nwqh615.pdf 42 43

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 61 -

1 Appendix 3 – Charts, Maps, and Tables 2

Precipitation at Timber Creek - Water Years 1988-2006

35 4

1988 3.5 1989 30 may 1990 1991 apr 3 1992 25 1993 1994 jun 2.5 1995 20 1996 1997 sep 2 1998 oct 1999 15 mar jul 2000 1.5 2001 aug 2002 nov (inches) Precipitation Monthly Accumulated Precipitation (inches) 10 2003 1 2004

feb 2005 dec 2006 5 jan 0.5 Average Accumulated Average Monthly

0 0

Precipitation at Kirwin - Water Years 1981-2006

40 3.5

1981 may 35 1982 3 1983 1984 1985 apr 1986 30 jun jul 2.5 1987 sep 1988 1989 25 1990 mar 1991 nov 2 1992 aug 1993 oct 20 1994 dec 1995 jan feb 1996 1.5 1997 15 1998 1999 2000 Monthly Precipitation (inches) Precipitation Monthly

Accumulated Precipitation (inches) 1 2001 2002 10 2003 2004 2005 0.5 2006 5 Average Accumulated Average Monthly

0 0 3 4 Chart 1: SNOTEL Site Precipitation

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM

1 Table 1: Rosgen Classification

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 63 -

1 Table 2: Wyoming Weed & Pest Control Act Designated List 2 3 Designated Noxious Weeds .S. 11-5-102 (a)(xi) and Prohibited Noxious Weeds W.S. 11-12-104 4 (1) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) 5 (2) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense L.) 6 (3) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) 7 (4) Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis L.) 8 (5) Quackgrass (Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv.) 9 (6) Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba and Cardaria pubescens (L.) Desv.) 10 (7) Perennial pepperweed (giant whitetop) (Lepidium latifolium L.) 11 (8) Ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum L.) 12 (9) Skeletonleaf bursage (Franseria discolor Nutt.) 13 (10) Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens L.) 14 (11) Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris L.) 15 (12) Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill.) 16 (13) Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium L.) 17 (14) Musk thistle (Carduus nutans L.) 18 (15) Common burdock (Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh.) 19 (16) Plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides L.) 20 (17) Dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria L.) 21 (18) Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale L.) 22 (19) Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.) 23 (20) Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa Lam.) 24 (21) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) 25 (22) Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) 26 (23) Common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) 27 (24) Common Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) 28 (25) Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.) 29 Designated Pests W.S. 11-5-102 (a)(xii) 30 (1) Grasshoppers 31 (2) Mormon crickets 32 (3) Prairie dogs 33 (4) Ground squirrels 34 (5) Mountain pine beetle 35 (6) Beet Leafhopper 36

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 64 -

1 Table 3: List of Scientific Plant Names Common Plant Name Scientific Plant Name alder Alnus spp. Mill. alpine anemone Anemone spp. L. alpine avens Geum rossii (R. Br.) Ser. alpine bistort Polygonum viviparum L. alpine bluebells Mertensia alpina (Torr.) G. Don alpine forget me not Myosotis alpestris alpine timothy Phleum alpinum L. antelope bitterbrush Purshia tridentata (Pursh) DC balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata(Pursh) Nutt. basin wildrye Leymus cinereus (Scribn. & Merr.) A. Löve birchleaf spirea Spiraea betulifolia Tor birdfoot sagebrush Artemisia pedatifida Nutt. black elderberry Sambucus nigra L. black sagebrush Artemisia nova A. Nelson bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) A. Löve blue grama Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. ex Kunth) Lag. ex Griffiths bluegrass Poa spp. L. bottlebrush squirreltail Elymus elymoides (Raf.) Swezey brome Bromus spp L. bud sage Picrothamnus Nutt. buffaloberry Shepherdia spp. Nutt. cattail Typha L. cinquefoil Potentilla spp. L common bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng. coralroot Corallorhiza gagnebin, orth. cons. cottonwood Populus spp. L. cushion plant More than one genus and species death camas Zigadenus venenosus Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii subsp. glauca dwarf mistletoe Arceuthobium spp. M. Bieb. elk sedge Carex garberi Fern Englemann Spruce Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm fleabane Erigeron spp. L. Gardner saltbush Atriplex gardneri (Moq.) D. Dietr. geranium Geranium spp. greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus (Hook.) Torr. green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh. grouse whortleberry Vaccinium scoparium Leiberg ex Coville heartleaf arnica Arnica cordifolia Hook huckleberry Gaylussacia spp. Kunth Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Elmer Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides (Roemer & J.A. Schultes) Barkworth juniper Juniperus spp. L. larkspur Delphinium spp. limber pine Pinus flexilis James lodgepole pine Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud lupine Lupinus spp. mahogany Cercocarpus spp. Kunth 2 3

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 65 -

1 Table 3: List of Scientific Plant Names (continued) Source: USDA Plants Database, http://plants.usda.gov/index.html) Common Plant Name Scientific Plant Name miners candle Cryptantha spp. mountain brome Bromus marginatus Nees ex Steud. monkshood Aconitum spp. mules ear Wyethia amplexicaulis narrow leaf hawksbeard Crepis tectorum L. needlegrass Stipa spp. needle and thread Hesperostipa comata (Trin. & Rupr.) Barkworth penstemon Pentstemon spp. phlox Phlox spp. pinegrass Calamagrostis rubescens Buckl plains prickly pear cactus Opuntia polyacantha Haw ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa C. Lawson prairie junegrass Koeleria macrantha (Ledeb.) Schult. prairie rose Rosa arkansana Porter quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Michx. rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus spp. Nutt. red osier dogwood Cornus sericea L. Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia L. saltbush Atriplex spp. L. saltcedar Tamarix spp. L. saltgrass Distichlis Raf. Sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda J. Presl sandwort Arenaria spp. L. scarlet globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea (Nutt.) Rydb. sedge Carex spp. L. shadescale Atriplex confertifolia (Torr. & Frém.) S. Wats. sheep fescue Festuca ovina L. small green rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus greenei (A. Gray) Greene snowberry Symphoricarpos spp. Duham. spike trisetum Trisetum spicatum (L.) Richter spiny hopsage Grayia spinosa (Hook.) Moq. spruce Picea A. Dietr. subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. var. lasiocarpa sulphur buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum Torr. sumac Rhus spp. L. timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia Vasey tufted hair grass Deschampsia caespitosa (L.) Beauv water birch Betula occidentalis Hook. wax currant Ribes cereum Douglas wheatgrass Agropyron spp. Gaertn. whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis Engelm. white fir Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. wildrye Elymus spp. L. willow Salix spp. L. winterfat Krascheninnikovia lanata (Pursh) A. Meeuse & Smit Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. wyomingensis Beetle & Young yarrow Achillea spp. L. yelllow glacier lily Erythronium grandiflorum Pursh

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM

1 Map 1: Watershed Location 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 67 -

1 Map 2: General Base Map 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 68 -

1 Map 3: Landscape Features 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 69 -

1 Map 4: Ecoregions 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 70 -

1 2 Map 5: Forested Lands 3 Source: NRCS Geodatabase 4 Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 71 -

1 Map 6: Land Ownership 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase 3 Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 72 -

1 Map 7: Watershed Impairments 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase 3 Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 73 -

1 Map 8: Irrigated and Non-irrigated Lands 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase 3 Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 74 -

1 2 Map 9: Sage Grouse Leks and 3 Mile Radius 3 Source: NRCS Geodatabase Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 75 -

1 Map 10: Pipelines and Transmission Lines 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase 3 Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 76 -

1 Map 11: Average Annual Precipitation 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 77 -

1 Map 12: Roads 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase 3 Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 78 -

1 Map 13: Soils 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 79 -

1 Map 14: Surface Waters 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 80 -

1 Map 15: Subwatersheds 2 Source: NRCS Geodatabase Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 81 -

1 2 Map 16: BLM Prescribed Burning and Vegetation Treatments 2002 through 2007

Last printed 12/2/2015 1:04:00 PM - 82 - 1 Appendix 4 – Action Register/Milestone Table Action Register/Milestone Table 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Task Action Items Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Task PM1 Watershed Committee - GRWSC, M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MCD Task PM2 Plan Maintenance Tracking – MCD, o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o GRWSC Task G1 Best Management Practices – GRWSC, o o o o o o o o MCD, NRCS, PCWP, UW Task G2 Weed Management Area – GRWSC, o o o o o MCD, MLPAAC, PCWP, NRCS Task G3 Aquatic Invasive Species – GRWSC, 1 1 1 1 1 GVID, MCD, NRCS, PCWP, WGFD Task G4 Greybull River Systems Geomorphology/Rosgen Study – GRWSC, MCD, D NRCS, SNF, UW Task G5 Level One Watershed Study Need, Storage, Conveyance – GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, o o o D UW Task G6 Watershed Management Workshop – 1 1 1 1 1 GRWSC, MCD, UW Task G7 Changing Demographics Watershed 1 1 1 1 1 Executive Summary - GRWSC, MCD Task G8 Water Quality:( maintain water quality monitoring within the watershed)- GRWSC, o o o o o MCD, NRCS, UW, WDA, WQD, UW Task WH1 Wildlife Education Day – GRWSC, 1 1 1 1 1 MCD, UW, WGFD Task WH2 Wildlife Education Tour– GRWSC, 1 1 1 1 1 MCD, NRCS, RC&D, SNF, TU, WGFD Task WH4 Youth Fishing Day - GRWSC, MCD 1 1 1 1 1 Task WH5 Youth Hunter Group – GRWSC, o o o o o MCD, RC&D Task WH6 Riparian Protection – o o o o o GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW Key: o = Ongoing Task M = Meeting D = Deadline "#" = Number per year x = Scheduled Task ? = Scheduled Task, Timing Unknown = Completed

GreybullRiverWatershedPlanFinal2010-1-5.doc 12/2/2015 - 83 - Action Register/Milestone Table 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Task Action Items Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Task WH7 Little Venus Burn Tour – GRWSC, D MCD, NRCS, PCWP, SNF, UW, WGFD Task WH8 Habitat Sharing Handouts – 1 1 1 1 1 GRWSC, MCD Task WH9 Intermingling of Wildlife and Domestic Livestock (discussion forum) - o o o o o GRWSC, MCD Task WHW1 Wildlife Habitat and Water Quantity (irrigation management plans) - 1 1 1 1 1 GRWSC, MCD, MLPAAC, NRCS, TU, WGFD Task WHW2 Wildlife Habitat and Water Quantity (Passage) – GRWSC, GVID, MCD, o o o o o NRCS, TU, WGFD Task WHM1 Wildlife Habitat and Invasive x x x x x Species – GRWSC, MCD, PCWP, SNF, WGFD Task WHM2 Changing Demographics Small Acreage Workshop– GRWSC, MCD, MLPAAC, ? ? ? ? ? UW TaskWHM3 Fragmentation -( At least once every four years) .GRWSC, MCD, MLPAAC, ? ? ? ? ? UW Task WHM4 Herbivory - GRWSC, MCD, NRCS o o o o o Task WHM5 Fires and Wildlife – GRWSC, ? ? ? ? ? MCD Task AG1 Conservation Planning – GRWSC, o o o o o D MCD, NRCS Task AG2 Maintain Voluntary and Incentive o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Based Efforts– GRWSC, MCD Task AG3 Changing Demographics (Barnyards o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o to Backyards) - GRWSC, MCD, UW Task AG4 Stewardship Awards – GRWSC, 1 1 1 1 1 MCD, media cooperators Task AG5 Irrigation Efficiency – GRWSC, 200 200 200 200 200

MCD, NRCS ac. ac. ac. ac. ac. Key: o = Ongoing Task M = Meeting D = Deadline "#" = Number per year x = Scheduled Task ? = Scheduled Task, Timing Unknown = Completed

GreybullRiverWatershedPlanFinal2010-1-5.doc 12/2/2015 - 84 - Action Register/Milestone Table 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Task Action Items Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Task AG6 Irrigation Technology Transfer ? ? ? ? ? Workshop – GRWSC, MCD, NRCS Task AG7 Technology Education for Steering ? ? ? ? ? Committee – GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW Task AG8 Legislative and Regulatory Update - ? ? ? ? ? GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW Task AG9 Nutrient Management Plans – 1 1 1 1 1 GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW Task AG10 Animal Feeding Operations 1 1 1 1 1 (AFO)Mitigation - GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW Task AG11 Pesticide Management Plans – 1 1 1 1 1 GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, PCWP Task AG12 Irrigation Management Planning – o o o o o GRWSC, MCD, NRCS Task AGGL1 Winter Season Grazing Lands o o o o o Management – GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, UW Task AGWD1 Off Site Water Development – 2 2 2 2 2 GRWSC, MCD, NRCS Task AGWD2 Off Site Water/Small Reservoir Development and Maintenance – GRWSC, MCD, 2 2 2 2 2 NRCS Task AGWD3 Fish Friendly Irrigation 1 1 1 1 1 Structures - GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, TU Task REC1 Recreational Invasive Species 1 1 1 1 1 Education - GRWSC, MCD, NRCS, PCWP Task SA1 Small Acreage Workshop – GRWSC, 1 1 1 1 1 MCD, NRCS, PCWP, UW Task SA2 Septic Systems – GRWSC, MCD, D NRCS Task SA3 Subdivision Review – MCD, GRWSC, o o o o o NRCS, PCWP

Key: o = Ongoing Task M = Meeting D = Deadline "#" = Number per year x = Scheduled Task ? = Scheduled Task, Timing Unknown = Completed

GreybullRiverWatershedPlanFinal2010-1-5.doc 12/2/2015