Draft EIS Appendix 8 

APPENDIX 8—MONITORING METHODS TO ASSESS 

WYOMING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR 

HEALTHY RANGELANDS 

RANGELAND STANDARDS

The 1995 rangeland reform process modified the grazing regulations to address the fundamentals of 

rangeland health. In August 1997, the Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management for the Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the State 

of Wyoming were approved by the Wyoming State Director. The objectives of the rangeland health

regulations are to “promote healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and 

improvement of public rangelands to properly functioning conditions...and to provide for the 

sustainability of the western livestock industry and communities that are dependent upon productive,

healthy public rangelands.” The fundamentals of rangeland health combine the basic precepts or physical 

function and biological health with elements of law relating to water quality and plant and animal 

populations and communities. Initially, the standards focused on livestock grazing on Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM)-administered lands, but the standards were developed to apply to all uses and 

resources. 

In the Rawlins Field Office, rangeland standards were assessed on an allotment basis from 1998 through

2000. However, allotment assessments tend to emphasize management and impacts from livestock

grazing, rather than all uses that occur on and potentially impact public lands. In addition, assessing 

watersheds, water quality, and habitat for wildlife, fisheries, and Threatened and Endangered species,

often does not correspond to allotment boundaries and is more logically evaluated on a larger scale. In 

January 2001, Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2001-079, Guidance for Conducting Watershed-Based

Land Health Assessments, was sent to field offices from the Director of BLM. This IM transmitted the 

4180 Manual Section and 4180-1 Rangeland Health Standards Handbook and provides guidance for

conducting assessments and evaluations for ascertaining rangeland health on a watershed basis. Under

Policy/Action, it states: "The Field Offices are to consider all assessment requirements for the watershed

being assessed and select methods which will provide information needed to fulfill those requirements.

When a field office invests its resources in an assessment, the end product should substantially meet all 

assessment needs to avoid conducting multiple assessments for multiple needs. For example, a wellplanned, watershed-based assessment can provide the information needed for allotment evaluations, 

biological assessments for Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation, and developing habitat 

management plans, Water Quality Improvement Plans for Total Maximum Daily Loads on impaired

waters, and watershed restoration actions." In order to complete all Standard Assessments within the 

original 10-year time frame, watersheds have been divided into seven units, with the upper Colorado

River watershed report being the first completed (see Map A8-1). 

The standards are the basis for assessing and monitoring rangeland conditions and trends. The 

assessments are conducted by an interdisciplinary team with participation from permittees and other

interested parties. Assessments are conducted only on BLM-administered public land; however, 

interpretation of watershed health and water quality may reflect on all land ownerships within the area of

analysis. The following describes and explains the six standards.

Rawlins RMP A8-1 
Appendix 8 Draft EIS 

Standard 1—Watershed Health 

Within the potential of the ecological site (soil type, landform, climate, and geology), soils are stable and

allow for water infiltration to provide for optimal plant growth and minimal surface runoff. 

THIS MEANS THAT— 

The hydrologic cycle will be supported by providing for water capture, storage, and sustained release. 

Adequate energy flow and nutrient cycling through the system will be achieved as optimal plant growth 

occurs. Plant communities are highly varied within Wyoming. 

INDICATORS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO— 

• 

•

• 

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

•

• 

• 

Water infiltration rates 

Soil compaction

Erosion (rills, gullies, pedestals, capping) 

Soil micro-organisms

Vegetative cover (gully bottoms and slopes) 

Bare ground and litter. 

These indicators are applied, as appropriate, to the potential of the ecological site. The standard is

considered met if upland soil cover generally exceeds 30 percent, obvious signs of soil erosion are not

apparent, and stream channels are stable and improving in morphology.

Standard 2—Riparian/Wetland Health 

Riparian and wetland vegetation have structural, age, and species diversity characteristic of the state of

channel succession and is resilient and capable of recovering from natural and human disturbance in order 

to provide forage and cover, capture sediment, dissipate energy, and provide for ground water recharge. 

THIS MEANS THAT— 

Wyoming has highly varied riparian and wetland systems on public lands. These systems vary from large 

rivers to small streams and from springs to large wet meadows. These systems are in various stages of

natural cycles and may also reflect other disturbance that is either localized or widespread throughout the 

watershed. Riparian vegetation captures sediments and associated materials, thus enhancing the nutrient 

cycle by capturing and using nutrients that would otherwise move through a system unused. 

INDICATORS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO— 

Erosion and deposition rate 

Channel morphology and flood plain function 

Channel succession and erosion cycle 

Vegetative cover

Plant composition and diversity (species, age class, structure, successional stages, desired plant

community, etc.) 

Bank stability

Woody debris and instream cover 

Bare ground and litter. 

A8-2 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 8 

These indicators are applied, as appropriate, to the potential of the ecological site. The standard is

considered met if riparian/wetland habitat is rated in Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), and existing

management will lead to maintaining or improving resource conditions. 

Standard 3—Upland Vegetation Health 

Upland vegetation on each ecological site consists of plant communities appropriate to the site, which are 

resilient, diverse, and able to recover from natural and human disturbance. 

THIS MEANS THAT— 

To maintain desirable conditions and/or recover from disturbance within acceptable time frames, plant 

communities must have the components present to support the nutrient cycle and adequate energy flow. 

Plants depend on nutrients in the soil and energy derived from sunlight. Nutrients stored in the soil are 

used over and over by plants, animals, and micro-organisms. The amount of nutrients available and the 

speed with which they cycle among plants, animals, and the soil are fundamental components of 

rangeland health. The amount, timing, and distribution of energy captured through photosynthesis are 

fundamental to the function of rangeland ecosystems. 

INDICATORS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO— 

•

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

•

Vegetative cover

Plant composition and diversity (species, age class, structure, successional stages, desired plant

community, etc.) 

Bare ground and litter 

Erosion (rills, gullies, pedestals, capping) 

Water infiltration rates. 

These indicators are applied, as appropriate, to the potential of the ecological site. The standard is

considered met if plant communities are sustaining themselves under existing conditions and 

management. 

Standard 4—Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat 

Health, Fisheries, Weeds 

Rangelands are capable of sustaining viable populations and a diversity of native plant and animal species

appropriate to the habitat. Habitats that support or could support threatened species, endangered species, 

species of special concern, or sensitive species will be maintained or enhanced. 

THIS MEANS THAT— 

The management of Wyoming rangelands will achieve or maintain adequate habitat conditions that 

support diverse plant and animal species. These may include listed threatened or endangered species (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife-designated), species of special concern (BLM-designated), and other sensitive species 

(State of Wyoming-designated). The intent of this standard is to allow the listed species to recover and be

delisted, and to avoid or prevent additional species becoming listed. 

INDICATORS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO— 

Noxious weeds

Species diversity

Rawlins RMP A8-3 
Appendix 8 Draft EIS 

• 

• 

•

•

• 

• 

• 

Age class distribution 

All indicators associated with the upland and riparian standards 

Population trends

Habitat fragmentation.

The above indicators are applied as appropriate to the potential of the ecological site. The standard is 

considered met if habitat needed to support wildlife species is being sustained under existing conditions

and management. 

Standard 5—Water Quality 

Water quality meets Wyoming standards. 

THIS MEANS THAT: 

The State of Wyoming is authorized to administer the Clean Water Act. BLM management actions or use

authorizations will comply with all federal and state water quality laws, rules, and regulations to address 

water quality issues that originate on public lands. Provisions for the establishment of water quality 

standards are included in the Clean Water Act, as amended, and the Wyoming Environmental Quality

Act, as amended. Regulations are found in Part 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations and in Wyoming's 

Water Quality Rules and Regulations. The latter regulations contain Quality Standards for Wyoming 

Surface Waters. Natural processes and human actions influence the chemical, physical, and biological 

characteristics of water. Water quality varies from place to place with the seasons, the climate, and the 

kind substrate through which water moves. Therefore, the assessment of water quality takes these factors

into account.

INDICATORS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO— 

Chemical characteristics (e.g., pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen) 

Physical characteristics (e.g., sediment, temperature, color) 

Biological characteristics (e.g., macro- and micro-invertebrates, fecal coliform, and plant and 

animal species). 

The standard is considered unknown unless information provided by the State of Wyoming determines 

the status of a water body as impaired (not meeting) or is meeting its beneficial uses. 

Standard 6—Air Quality

Air quality meets Wyoming standards. 

THIS MEANS THAT— 

The State of Wyoming is authorized to administer the Clean Air Act. BLM management actions or use 

authorizations will comply with all Federal and State air quality laws, rules, regulations and standards. 

Provisions for the establishment of air quality standards are included in the Clean Air Act, as amended, 

and the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Regulations are found in Part 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations and in Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations. 

The standard is considered met or impaired based on information provided by the State of Wyoming. 

A8-4 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 8 

If an assessment shows that a standard(s) is not being met, factors contributing to the nonattainment are 

identified and management recommendations developed so the standard may be attained. If livestock are

contributing to the nonattainment of a standard, as soon as practical but no later than the start of the next 

grazing season, management practices must be implemented to ensure that progress is being made toward 

attainment of the standard(s). The rangeland standards establish a threshold; however, the desired future

condition of resource values will usually be at a higher level than the threshold. 

The desired future condition portrays the land or resource values that would exist in the future if 

management goals were achieved. The length of time to achieve the desired future condition would vary

depending on the resources involved, the management actions required, and the speed at which different 

resources can effectively change. For instance, improving plant cover and litter, or changing species 

composition with treatments, may be achieved relatively quickly (5 to 10 years). However, developing a 

mixed age structure of willows along a stream by changing livestock management may take 20 to 30 

years, even though the area it may be properly functioning. Other actions, such as restoring aspen 

woodland within lodgepole pine forest communities using prescribed or natural fire, may take 50 years or

more.

The framework for the watershed-based assessment and report follows the “Ecosystem Analysis at the

Watershed Scale: Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis—Version 2.2.” The format contains an

introduction and background information, followed by discussion of each rangeland standard in the order 

described earlier in this document. Within the discussion for each standard is a map and description of 

how the standard is addressed. The outline of discussion for each standard follows the six-step process 

for ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale. The six steps are: 1) characterization of the watershed, 

2) identification of issues and key questions, 3) description of current conditions, 4) description of

reference conditions, 5) synthesis and interpretation of information, and 6) recommendations. Core topics 

are discussed under the appropriate standard, with erosion processes, hydrology, and stream channels

under Standard 1; vegetation split into wetland/riparian or upland under Standards 2 and 3; species and 

habitats under Standard 4; and water quality under Standard 5. Human uses are discussed under each

standard where appropriate. 

Watershed-based assessments and reports are expected to have long-lasting results. Based on 

communication and coordination with permittees, local government, and affected interests, these reports 

provide historical perspective and a point in time analysis of the “big picture.” These reports will be 

useful to look back on when future assessments in the same area are completed. They also identify 

problems that require correction or improvement that result from not only grazing, but other sources that 

impact public lands that in the past were often not addressed. Areas of concern or management issues

identified in these reports will help identify future priorities for budget requests, project planning, and 

monitoring. 

MONITORING

Monitoring is the collection of data along with professional observations used in evaluating rangeland 

health to determine whether standards are being met. Common elements of monitoring include climate

information, animal numbers and use periods, animal diet and/or plant use data, and trends (changes over 

time) in other important values. These may be related to plant health, watershed cover, stream channel

shape, water flow and quality, macroinvertebrates, insects, wildlife populations, etc. One-time

evaluations, such as assessment of the proper functioning condition of riparian habitat, are not considered 

monitoring. The following descriptions further explain some of the types of data commonly collected and 

used in the evaluation process: 

Rawlins RMP A8-5 
Appendix 8 Draft EIS 

Rain Gages: Climate data primarily consists of precipitation information from the National

Weather Service and BLM stations around the RMPPA. These allow analysis of the amount and 

timing of moisture compared with water availability and forage production observed in the field. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Animal Numbers and Use Periods: Animal numbers are obtained from permittees for livestock,

from the WGFD for big game herd units, and from BLM counts for wild horses. Use periods 

and/or distribution of use are determined from a combination of permittee information and field

observations for livestock, and primarily from field observations for big game, other wildlife use, 

and wild horses. 

Animal Diet/Plant Utilization: This information is used to determine what types and quantities 

of plants are being eaten, as well as the changes in selection through different seasons. Animal

diet is usually obtained by fecal analysis or field observations, while plant utilization is always

measured or observed through field visits. 

Upland Cover: This information refers either to soil cover or vegetation cover, or both. It is 

determined by reading transects and/or plots. Soil cover information usually includes plant cover, 

litter, fecal matter, cryptograms, rocks, and bare ground. Plant species composition, plant 

spacing, or other data may also be collected. Vegetation cover information is often data about

plants and may include cover, density, height, and, for shrubs and trees, age and hedge class

information, all usually by individual plant species. This information is used to evaluate what the

upland range condition is and whether the proper plant species are able to sustain healthy range 

condition. 

Riparian Cross-Sections: This information is used to record changes in the channel geometry 

and the riparian stability. Cross-sections of riparian areas are surveyed with a surveying level and

rod to assess changes in channel shape. These monitoring techniques are designed to assess

changes in stream channel width and depth, side channel modifications, sloughing of banks, and

other changes in the riparian micro-topography. 

Photo Points: Photo points are usually permanent points, marked with steel posts, angle irons, or 

rock piles, where photographs are retaken to show change in vegetation, stream channels, or some 

other landscape features. There are between 2,000 and 3,000 such points, located in grasslands, 

shrublands, riparian, aspen, and juniper range types. Depending on the management objectives 

and priority, they are revisited every 2 to 10 years. They are often found in association with other

monitoring studies. 

Monitoring Wells: To assess the depth to saturation in the soil of riparian areas, the range staff

has established shallow monitoring wells (peizometers) at different riparian areas in the RMPPA. 

These help to determine the effects of grazing animals on soil compaction, porosity and

permeability, and whether water is within the rooting zone of riparian plants. There are 

approximately 20 monitoring wells in the RMPPA, which are read every 2–3 years. 

Stream Gaging Stations: Stream gages are operated and maintained on larger drainages by the

U.S. Geological Survey on a permanent basis. Other entities, like the BLM, Conservation 

Districts, and the University of Wyoming will alone or cooperatively set up stream gages on 

smaller drainages for special projects to collect more information or monitor changes in 

management. Gages are currently in place along Muddy Creek and Sage Creek for this purpose.

This usually involves documentation of amount and timing of flows, and may include various 

qualitative parameters such as turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen, and sediment load. 

Wildlife Species Activity and Counts: Special status species may have more attention focused 

upon them, such as Greater sage-grouse and mountain plover. Use areas, number of birds, and 

A8-6 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 8 

concentration areas are documented and used in future management decisions. In some cases it

may be a unique or important habitat (i.e., riparian). In the George Dew and Red Wash areas

along Muddy Creek, the species and timing of birds using the improved or created

wetland/riparian habitat is being documented to show the benefits of such activities, as well as

any possible adverse impacts to native fish. 

Macroinvertebrates: The State of Wyoming (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality)

has developed a protocol for water quality assessments that includes monitoring of 

macroinvertebrates. Local conservation districts help to collect this information as a tool to 

define priority areas for work and to monitor results. This often includes public lands as well as 

private and state lands, with data gathered shared with the affected interests. This is much less

expensive and may show results faster than simply using more stream gaging stations. 

• 

Rawlins RMP A8-7