.

Craters of the Moon National
 

Monument Draft MMP Amendment
 and Environmental Impact Statement

Prepared by

U.S. Department of the Interior



Bureau of Land Management



Shoshone Field Office

400 West F Street

Shoshone, ID 83352 USA



Phone: (208) 732–7200

Fax: (208) 732–7317

E-mail:

BLM_ID_CRMO@blm.gov


This page intentionally

left blank
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

Craters of the Moon National Monument iii

Draft MMP Amendment

Table of Contents
 

Dear Reader Letter ..................................................................................................................... xiii
 

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... xv
 

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
 

1.1. How to Read this Document ........................................................................................... 2
 

1.2. Purpose and Need for the Monument Management Plan Amendment ........................... 3
 

1.2.1. Purpose ................................................................................................................... 4
 

1.2.2. Need ....................................................................................................................... 5
 

1.3. Planning Area and Maps ................................................................................................. 5
 

1.3.1. Land Ownership and Administration in the Planning Area ................................. 10
 

1.3.2. Geographic and Social Setting ............................................................................. 12
 

1.4. Scoping ......................................................................................................................... 12
 

1.4.1. The Public Scoping Process ................................................................................. 12
 

1.4.2. Management Concerns ......................................................................................... 13
 

1.4.3. Issues and Concerns Addressed ........................................................................... 13
 

1.4.3.1. Issues and Concerns Used to Develop Alternatives ................................. 14
 

1.4.3.2. Issues and Concerns Analyzed in Greater Depth ...................................... 14
 

1.4.4. Issues and Concerns Considered but Not Analyzed in Depth ............................. 15
 

1.5. Planning Criteria/Legislative Constraints ..................................................................... 16
 

1.6. Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 18
 

1.6.1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs ........................................... 19
 

1.6.2. Data Summary ..................................................................................................... 20
 

1.6.3. Collaboration ........................................................................................................ 21
 

1.6.3.1. Intergovernmental, Interagency, and Tribal Relationships ....................... 21
 

1.6.3.2. Cooperating Agencies ............................................................................... 21
 

1.6.3.3. Tribes ........................................................................................................ 22
 

1.6.3.4. Other Federal Agencies ............................................................................. 22
 

1.6.3.5. Other Stakeholder Relationships ............................................................... 22
 

1.7. Related Plans ................................................................................................................. 22
 

1.8. Overall Vision ............................................................................................................... 24
 

1.8.1. Desired Future Conditions ................................................................................... 24
 

1.8.1.1. Soil and Water Resources ......................................................................... 25
 

1.8.1.2. Vegetation Resources ................................................................................ 25
 

1.8.1.3. Fish and Wildlife ....................................................................................... 25
 

1.8.1.4. Wildfire Ecology and Fuels Management ................................................. 26
 

1.8.1.5. Native American Rights and Interests ...................................................... 26
 

1.8.1.6. Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 26
 

1.8.1.7. Visual Resources ....................................................................................... 26
 

1.8.1.8. Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas .................................................. 27
 

1.8.1.9. Livestock Grazing ..................................................................................... 27
 

1.8.1.10. Transportation and Travel Management ................................................. 27
 

1.8.1.11. Recreation and Visitor Experience .......................................................... 28
 

Table of Contents
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

iv Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

1.8.1.12. Social and Economic Conditions ............................................................ 28
 

2. Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 29
 

2.1. How to Read This Chapter ............................................................................................ 31
 

2.2. General Description of Alternatives ............................................................................. 32
 

2.2.1. Alternative A ........................................................................................................ 35
 

2.2.2. Alternative B ........................................................................................................ 36
 

2.2.3. Alternative C ........................................................................................................ 37
 

2.2.4. Alternative D ........................................................................................................ 37
 

2.2.5. Alternative E ........................................................................................................ 38
 

2.3. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ................................................... 39
 

2.4. Management Common to All Alternatives ................................................................... 42
 

2.5. Description of Management Actions by Alternative .................................................... 42
 

2.5.1. Alternative A - No Action .................................................................................... 42
 

2.5.2. Alternative B ........................................................................................................ 45
 

2.5.3. Alternative C ........................................................................................................ 48
 

2.5.4. Alternative D ........................................................................................................ 51
 

2.5.5. Alternative E ........................................................................................................ 53
 

2.6. Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 57
 

2.7. Comparison of Impacts ................................................................................................. 66
 

3. Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 71
 

3.1. How to Read this Chapter ............................................................................................. 73
 

3.2. Resources ...................................................................................................................... 74
 

3.2.1. Soil Resources ...................................................................................................... 74
 

3.2.2. Water Resources ................................................................................................... 77
 

3.2.3. Vegetation Resources ........................................................................................... 79
 

3.2.4. Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species ............................................ 95
 

3.2.5. Native American Rights and Interests ............................................................... 113
 

3.2.6. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 113
 

3.2.7. Visual Resources ................................................................................................ 114
 

3.2.8. Wilderness Study Areas ..................................................................................... 117
 

3.2.9. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics .............................................................. 117
 

3.3. Resource Uses ............................................................................................................. 120
 

3.3.1. Livestock Grazing .............................................................................................. 120
 

3.3.2. Travel and Transportation .................................................................................. 126
 

3.3.3. Recreation and Visitor Use ................................................................................ 126
 

3.3.4. Socioeconomic Values ....................................................................................... 127
 

3.3.5. Climate Change .................................................................................................. 130
 

4. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................. 133
 

4.1. How to Read this Chapter ........................................................................................... 135
 

4.1.1. Impact Analysis Descriptors .............................................................................. 135
 

4.1.2. Types of Impacts ................................................................................................ 137
 

4.1.3. Direction and Extent of Impacts ........................................................................ 137
 

4.1.4. Impact Considerations ....................................................................................... 137
 

Table of Contents
_

Craters of the Moon National Monument v

Draft MMP Amendment

4.1.5. Chapter Organization ......................................................................................... 138
 

4.2. Discussion of Impacts by Resource and Resource Use .............................................. 139
 

4.2.1. Soil Resources .................................................................................................... 139
 

4.2.1.1. Summary ................................................................................................. 139
 

4.2.1.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 139
 

4.2.1.3. How Activities Affect Soil Resources .................................................... 140
 

4.2.1.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ..................................................... 141
 

4.2.2. Water Resources ................................................................................................. 152
 

4.2.2.1. Summary ................................................................................................. 152
 

4.2.2.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 153
 

4.2.2.3. How Activities Affect Water Resources ................................................. 153
 

4.2.2.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ..................................................... 155
 

4.2.3. Vegetation Resources ......................................................................................... 163
 

4.2.3.1. Summary ................................................................................................. 163
 

4.2.3.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 164
 

4.2.3.3. How Activities Affect Vegetation Resources ......................................... 165
 

4.2.3.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ..................................................... 167
 

4.2.4. Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species .......................................... 187
 

4.2.4.1. Summary ................................................................................................. 187
 

4.2.4.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 188
 

4.2.4.3. How Activities Affect Wildlife and Fish ................................................ 189
 

4.2.4.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ..................................................... 194
 

4.2.5. Native American Rights and Interests ............................................................... 206
 

4.2.5.1. Summary ................................................................................................. 206
 

4.2.5.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 207
 

4.2.5.3. How Activities Affect Native American Rights and Interests ................ 207
 

4.2.5.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ..................................................... 208
 

4.2.6. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 212
 

4.2.6.1. Summary ................................................................................................. 212
 

4.2.6.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 213
 

4.2.6.3. How Activities Affect Cultural Resources ............................................. 213
 

4.2.6.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ..................................................... 214
 

4.2.7. Visual Resources ................................................................................................ 218
 

4.2.7.1. Summary ................................................................................................. 218
 

4.2.7.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 219
 

4.2.7.3. How Activities Affect Visual Resources ................................................ 219
 

4.2.7.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ..................................................... 219
 

4.2.8. Wilderness Study Areas ..................................................................................... 220
 

4.2.8.1. Summary ................................................................................................. 220
 

4.2.8.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 221
 

4.2.8.3. How Activities Affect Wilderness Study Areas ...................................... 221
 

4.2.8.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ..................................................... 221
 

4.2.9. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics .............................................................. 223
 

4.2.9.1. Summary ................................................................................................. 224
 

4.2.9.2. How Activities Affect Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ............... 224
 

4.2.9.3. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ..................................................... 225
 

4.2.10. Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................ 226
 

4.2.10.1. Summary ............................................................................................... 226
 

4.2.10.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 227
 

Table of Contents
_

_

_

_

vi Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

4.2.10.3. How Activities Affect Livestock Grazing ............................................ 228
 

4.2.10.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ................................................... 231
 

4.2.11. Travel and Transportation ................................................................................ 246
 

4.2.11.1. Summary ............................................................................................... 246
 

4.2.11.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 247
 

4.2.11.3. How Activities Affect Travel and Transportation ................................. 247
 

4.2.11.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ................................................... 247
 

4.2.12. Recreation and Visitor Experience ................................................................... 249
 

4.2.12.1. Summary ............................................................................................... 249
 

4.2.12.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 249
 

4.2.12.3. How Activities Affect Recreation and Visitor Experience ................... 250
 

4.2.12.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ................................................... 250
 

4.2.13. Socioeconomic Values ..................................................................................... 252
 

4.2.13.1. Summary ............................................................................................... 252
 

4.2.13.2. Assumptions and Indicators .................................................................. 254
 

4.2.13.3. How Activities Affect Socioeconomic Values ...................................... 255
 

4.2.13.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ................................................... 255
 

4.2.14. Climate Change ................................................................................................ 257
 

4.2.14.1. Summary ............................................................................................... 257
 

4.2.14.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 258
 

4.2.14.3. How Activities Affect Climate Change ................................................ 258
 

4.2.14.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative ................................................... 258
 

4.3. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................... 259
 

4.3.1. Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use .......................................... 263
 

4.3.1.1. Soil Resources ......................................................................................... 263
 

4.3.1.2. Water Resources ...................................................................................... 265
 

4.3.1.3. Vegetation Resources .............................................................................. 266
 

4.3.1.4. Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species ............................... 268
 

4.3.1.5. Native American Rights and Interests .................................................... 273
 

4.3.1.6. Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 274
 

4.3.1.7. Visual Resources ..................................................................................... 275
 

4.3.1.8. Wilderness Study Areas .......................................................................... 276
 

4.3.1.9. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ................................................... 276
 

4.3.1.10. Livestock Grazing ................................................................................. 277
 

4.3.1.11. Travel and Transportation ..................................................................... 280
 

4.3.1.12. Recreation and Visitor Experience ........................................................ 281
 

4.3.1.13. Socioeconomic Values .......................................................................... 282
 

4.3.1.14. Climate Change ..................................................................................... 283
 

4.3.2. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .................................. 284
 

4.3.3. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................................... 284
 

4.3.4. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ... 285
 

5. Consultation and Coordination .......................................................................................... 287
 

5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 289
 

5.2. Key Planning Checkpoints .......................................................................................... 289
 

5.2.1. Interdisciplinary Team ....................................................................................... 289
 

5.2.2. Tribal Consultation ............................................................................................ 290
 

5.2.3. Other Formal Consultation ................................................................................ 290
 

Table of Contents
_

_

_

Craters of the Moon National Monument vii

Draft MMP Amendment

5.2.4. Coordination with Other Organized Entities ..................................................... 290
 

5.2.5. General Public and Other Collaborative Activities ........................................... 291
 

5.3. Future Collaboration ................................................................................................... 291
 

5.4. List of Interested Parties and Stakeholders ................................................................. 292
 

5.5. List of Preparers .......................................................................................................... 293
 

Appendix A. Bibliography ......................................................................................................... 295
 

Appendix B. Management Common to All Alternatives - Carried forward from the 2007
 

Craters of the Moon MMP ............................................................................................ 311
 

Appendix C. Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved
 

Resource Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1– Chapter 2, and Required
 

Design Features .............................................................................................................. 319
 

Appendix D. Forage Production Estimation ............................................................................ 363
 

Appendix E. Common and Scientific Names of Plant and Animal Species Occurring at
 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve ............................................... 367
 

Appendix F. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework .................................... 375
 

Appendix G. Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Seasonal Habitat Methodology on Craters
 

of the Moon BLM National Monument Lands ............................................................ 379
 

Appendix H. Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock
 

Grazing Management [USDI BLM, 1997] ................................................................... 383
 

Appendix I. Socioeconomic Reference and Data Tables ......................................................... 387
 

I.1. Economic Model ............................................................................................................ 387
 

I.2. AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage .......................................................................... 389
 

Appendix J. Glossary ................................................................................................................. 391
 

Appendix K. Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................. 403
 

Table of Contents
This page intentionally

left blank
Craters of the Moon National Monument ix

Draft MMP Amendment

List of Figures
 

Figure 1.1. Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Agency Management ............. 2
 

Figure 1.2. Planning Area Overview Map

Figure 3.14. Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Late Fall-Winter Habitat on BLM Monument
 

....................................................................................... 8
 

Figure 1.3. Detailed Planning Area .................................................................................................. 9
 

Figure 1.4. Allotment Administration ............................................................................................ 11
 

Figure 2.1. Process Used to Define Analysis Topics ..................................................................... 31
 

Figure 2.2. Process Used to Develop Alternatives to Current Management (No Action) ............. 32
 

Figure 2.3. Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Management Zones ............. 34
 

Figure 2.4. Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative A ............................................................ 44
 

Figure 2.5. Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative B ............................................................. 47
 

Figure 2.6. Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative C ............................................................. 50
 

Figure 2.7. Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative D ............................................................ 52
 

Figure 2.8. Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative E ............................................................. 56
 

Figure 3.1. Craters of the Moon Eruptions, Lava Flows, and Lava Fields .................................... 74
 

Figure 3.2. Natural Soil Susceptibility to Wind Erosion ............................................................... 76
 

Figure 3.3. Natural Soil Susceptibility to Water Erosion ............................................................... 77
 

Figure 3.4. Fire Frequency in the Monument (1970–2015) ........................................................... 81
 

Figure 3.5. Existing Vegetation Types in the Monument (2013) ................................................... 83
 

Figure 3.6. Biotic Integrity (Jurs and Sands Data, 2001–2002) ..................................................... 90
 

Figure 3.7. Biotic Integrity (Habitat Assessment Framework Data, 2012–2013) ......................... 91
 

Figure 3.8. Greater Sage-Grouse Current Habitat Types on BLM Monument Lands ................. 102
 

Figure 3.9. Greater Sage-Grouse Biologically Significant Units in Craters of the Moon ........... 104
 

Figure 3.10. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas on BLM Monument Lands ...... 105
 

Figure 3.11. Sagebrush Focal Areas on BLM Monument Lands ................................................ 106
 

Figure 3.12. Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Breeding Habitat on BLM Monument Lands ....... 108
 

Figure 3.13. Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Summer Habitat on BLM Monument Lands ........ 109
 

Lands ................................................................................................................................ 110
 

Figure 3.15. Visual Resource Management Classes in Craters of the Moon National Monument
 

& Preserve ........................................................................................................................ 116
 

Figure 3.16. Inventory for Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Map ..................................... 119
 

Figure 3.17. Livestock Grazing Allotments (Current Management) ........................................... 121
 

Figure 3.18. Monument and Preserve Five-County Socioeconomic Study Area ........................ 128
 

Figure 3.19. Cash Receipts from Agricultural Markets, 5-County Region ................................. 130
 

Figure 4.1. Livestock Grazing Allotments-Alternative B ............................................................ 234
 

Figure 4.2. Livestock Grazing Allotments-Alternative C ............................................................ 238
 

Figure 4.3. Livestock Grazing Allotments-Alternative D ........................................................... 241
 

Figure 4.4. Livestock Grazing Allotments-Alternative E ............................................................ 244
 

Figure D.1. Existing Ecological State in Craters of the Moon .................................................... 365
 

Figure D.2. Proportions of Ecological States in Craters of the Moon ......................................... 366
 

Figure I.1. Sample illustration showing a portion of Excel-based grazing economics marginal
 

impact calculation worksheet. (Full spreadsheet available upon request.) ...................... 389
 

List of Figures
This page intentionally

left blank
Craters of the Moon National Monument xi

Draft MMP Amendment

List of Tables
 

Table 1.1. Land Ownership within the Planning Area ................................................................... 10
 

Table 1.2. Planning Area Livestock Grazing Administration

Table 3.5. Site-Scale Suitability Summary of Occupied Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats on
 

........................................................ 10
 

Table 1.3. Scoping Meeting Locations, Dates, and Attendance .................................................... 13
 

Table 2.1. Management Zone Areas in Craters of the Moon ......................................................... 33
 

Table 2.2. Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative ................................................... 58
 

Table 2.3. Relative Comparison of Impacts Among Alternatives ................................................. 66
 

Table 3.1. Vegetation Types in the Monument [NatureServe, 2013] and BLM datasets ............... 84
 

Table 3.2. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species in Craters of the Moon ............................ 92
 

Table 3.3. Special Status Plants in the Monument ......................................................................... 94
 

Table 3.4. Special Status Animal Species in the Monument Area ................................................. 99
 

BLM-Administered Lands in the Monument ................................................................... 111
 

Table 3.6. Visual Resource Management Class Areas in Craters of the Moon National
 

Monument & Preserve ..................................................................................................... 115
 

Table 3.7. Summary of Wilderness Study Areas ......................................................................... 117
 

Table 3.8. Standards and Guidelines Assessments in Monument Associated Allotments .......... 124
 

Table 3.9. Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Area by County ................... 128
 

Table 4.1. BLM Acres of Vegetation Unavailable to Livestock, by Alternative ......................... 169
 

Table 4.2. BLM Acres of Vegetation Available to Livestock, by Alternative ............................. 170
 

Table 4.3. Annual Risk of Contact (ROC) projections for Monument allotments within 22
 

Miles of the Lost River PMU/CHHR. These projections assume the presence of

domestic sheep. ................................................................................................................ 192
 

Table 4.4. Acres of Wildlife Habitat Available to Livestock Grazing on BLM-Administered
 

Lands in the Monument. .................................................................................................. 195
 

Table 4.5. Analysis of Impacts of Alternatives on Net Revenue from Cattle Operations ........... 253
 

Table 4.6. Analysis of Impacts of Alternatives on Net Revenue from Sheep Operations ........... 253
 

Table 4.7. Analysis of Impacts of Alternatives on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock
 

in the Monument .............................................................................................................. 259
 

Table 4.8. Estimated Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts by Alternative .................................. 283
 

Table 5.1. List of Preparers .......................................................................................................... 293
 

Table E.1. Common and Scientific Names of Plant and Animal Species Occurring at Craters
 

of the Moon National Monument & Preserve .................................................................. 367
 

Table F.1. Breeding habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories for site-scale
 

habitat descriptions (adapted from Connelly et al. (2000), Sather-Blair et al. (2000),

and Hagen et al. (2007)). ................................................................................................. 376
 

Table F.2. Summer habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories for upland
 

sagebrush site-scale habitat descriptions (adapted from Connelly et al. (2000),

Sather-Blair et al. (2000), and Hagen et al. (2007)). ....................................................... 377
 

Table F.3. Winter habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories for site-scale
 

habitat descriptions (adapted from Connelly et al. (2000), Sather-Blair et al. (2000),

and Hagen et al. (2007)). ................................................................................................. 378
 

List of Tables
This page intentionally

left blank
Dear Reader Letter
 Dear Reader:

Attached for your review and comment is the Craters of the Moon National Monument and

Preserve Draft Monument Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement

(Draft MMP Amendment/EIS) for the Idaho Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Shoshone Field

Office. The BLM prepared this document in consultation with cooperating agencies, and in

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, implementing regulations, the

BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), and National Environmental Policy Handbook

(H-1790-1), and other applicable law and policy.

The planning area consists of about 753,200 acres of land which includes about 275,100 acres

of lands managed by the BLM’s Shoshone, Burley, and Upper Snake Field Offices. Based

on this analysis, the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Management

Plan (2007 MMP) will be amended and guide livestock grazing management of public

lands within the Monument administered by the Shoshone, Burley, and Upper Snake

Field Offices and Craters of the Moon National Monument into the future. The Draft

MMP Amendment/EIS and supporting information is available on the project web site at:

http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/nepa_register/Craters-plan-amdt_2013.html

The BLM encourages the public to provide information and comments pertaining to the analysis

presented in the Draft MMP Amendment/EIS. We are particularly interested in feedback

concerning the adequacy and accuracy of the proposed alternatives, the analysis of their respective

management actions, and any new information that would help the BLM as it develops the plan.

In developing the Proposed MMP Amendment/Final EIS, which is the next phase of the planning

process, the decision maker may select various management options from each of the alternatives

analyzed in the Draft MMP Amendment/EIS for the purpose of creating a management strategy

that best meets the needs of the resources and values in this area under the BLM multiple use and

sustained yield mandate. As a member of the public, your timely comments on the Draft MMP

Amendment/EIS will help formulate the Proposed MMP Amendment/Final EIS. Comments will

be accepted for ninety (90) calendar days following the Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) publication of its Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The BLM can best utilize

your comments and resource information submissions if received within the review period.

Comments may be submitted electronically to: BLM_ID_CRMO@blm.gov. Comments may

also be submitted by mail to:

Craters of the Moon National Monument Planning Team

BLM Shoshone Field Office

400 West F Street

Shoshone, ID 83352

To facilitate analysis of comments and information submitted, we strongly encourage you to

submit comments in an electronic format.

Your review and comments on the content of this document are critical to the success of this

planning effort. If you wish to submit comments on the Draft MMP Amendment/EIS, we request

xiii
that you make your comments as specific as possible. Comments will be more helpful if they

include suggested changes, sources, or methodologies, and reference to a specific section or page

number. Please note, if reviewing the document electronically, page numbers at the bottom of

each page are different from the Adobe Reader page number listed at the top of the program

window. Please make note of which page numbers you are referencing. Comments containing

only opinion or preferences will be considered and included as part of the decision making

process, but they will not receive a formal response from the BLM.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying

information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment - including your personal

identifying information - may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in

your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot

guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Copies of the Draft MMP Amendment/EIS have been sent to affected Federal, state, and local

government agencies, as well as Tribal governments. Due to the BLM’s paper-use reduction

initiatives, we encourage the public to review electronic copies of this plan. The Draft MMP

Amendment/EIS will be available online and on CD. A limited number of hard copies will be

printed and available upon request on a first come, first served basis.

Thank you for your continued interest in the Draft Craters of the Moon National Monument and

Preserve Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement. We appreciate the

information and suggestions you contribute to the planning process. For additional information

or clarification regarding this document or the planning process, please contact Lisa Cresswell,

MMP Team Lead, at (208) 732-7200.

Sincerely,

Holly Crawford

Craters of the Moon Monument Manager

Bureau of Land Management

xiv
Executive Summary
 

What is BLM proposing to do in this plan?

The BLM has completed the Draft MMP Amendment/EIS to determine the appropriate

management of livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands (public lands) within the

Monument (approximately 275,100 acres). This MMP Amendment/EIS analyzes management

options for the BLM-managed portions of the Monument that were not previously addressed

by the 2007 MMP and will amend that plan. Among the most important decisions the BLM

will make through this plan amendment are what lands should be made available for livestock

grazing and with what protections for greater sage-grouse (sage-grouse). (For more information,

see Chapter 1, Introduction).

Why is BLM doing this plan?

In 2008, Western Watersheds Project filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the

District of Idaho (Court) alleging the Secretary of the Interior and the BLM violated NEPA

and FLPMA when the BLM issued Records of Decision (ROD) on 16 Resource Management

Plans (RMP) between 2004 and 2008, including the 2007 MMP. In 2011, the Court found

that the planning decision violated NEPA and FLPMA because the underlying EIS supporting

the Management Plan was deficient by (1) failing to adequately address the 2004 Nature

Conservancy Report [Jurs & Sands, 2004], the 2004 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies Conservation Assessment, the BLM’s own Special Status Species Policy, and the

National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy and (2) failing to consider a no-grazing

alternative or any alternative that would have reduced grazing levels. In November 2012, the

Court ordered the BLM to revise the 2007 MMP in order to address these deficiencies. The BLM

proposed to accomplish this by completing a set of plan amendments analyzing no-grazing and

reduced-grazing alternatives, in addition to developing measures for sage-grouse conservation

within the Monument.

How is this proposed plan amendment different from the 2007 Craters of the Moon National

Monument and Preserve MMP?

The 2007 MMP was not vacated by the 2012 Court Order and management direction found in the

existing plan will remain in effect. As such, alternatives developed for this planning effort are

consistent with the management objectives found in the 2007 MMP.

This document analyzes a range of options for managing livestock grazing while protecting

sage-grouse and its habitat, including reduced-grazing and no-grazing alternatives. This document

will amend the existing 2007 MMP.

Since the 2007 MMP was signed, the BLM finalized the Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment (GRSG ARMPA), which amended the 2007 MMP to address

several of the deficiencies identified by the Court with regards to sage-grouse conservation in

the Monument. Please refer to Chapter 1, Introduction for more details on the relationship of

the two Amendments.

What are the major issues and focus of controversy?

The major issues in the Draft MMP Amendment/EIS are decisions on the location and amount of

livestock grazing and protection of Monument values, including sage-grouse and their habitat.

xv
The Draft MMP Amendment/EIS examines a range of alternatives for livestock grazing, while

also offering appropriate sage-grouse protections.

To understand the current condition, the planning team applied the Habitat Assessment

Framework (HAF) methodology in 2012 and 2013 to evaluate current habitat suitability for

sage-grouse. Occupied seasonal habitats were mapped using recent telemetry data and current

habitat data, which were reviewed by Federal and State biologists.

Data showed that a lack of sagebrush cover resulting from wildfire is primarily responsible

for habitats not meeting the seasonal requirements for sage-grouse throughout the Monument

(Table 3.5, “Site-Scale Suitability Summary of Occupied Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats on

BLM-Administered Lands in the Monument”). Adequate breeding habitat is an indicator of

other habitat needs, and a lack of sagebrush was the sole cause of 73% of evaluated sites being

unsuitable for breeding habitat, whereas herbaceous components were the sole cause of 3% of

sites being unsuitable. Grasses and forbs are sufficient components of the sage–grouse breeding

habitat on 89% of all sites evaluated, whereas sagebrush was sufficient in 61%. 16% of sites

evaluated were unsuitable for summer habitat, and sagebrush was a cause in 95% of them and

herbaceous components were a cause in 43% (38% are a combination of the two). A lack of

perennial grass cover and height (19% of sites) and a low availability of forbs (16% of sites)

have detracted from the ability of areas to provide for the life-cycle needs of sage-grouse in the

planning area, but not nearly to the extent of sagebrush (95% of sites). 67% of BLM-managed

Monument lands have burned in the last 15 years. Just over half of which has burned more than

twice since 1999. Re-establishing adequate sagebrush cover would substantially increase habitat

quality within the Monument for sagebrush obligate species, including Greater sage-grouse.

Noticeable changes in plant community species composition caused by historic grazing

(late 1800’s-early 1900’s) are persisting and exacerbated through frequent, sometimes

recurrent wildfire. Historic livestock grazing still has measurable effects, but BLM’s current

livestock grazing management in the Monument has improved, particularly since the inception of

Idaho’s Standards for Rangeland Health in 1997.

The NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions (potential vegetation) were used to estimate the amount

of forage present in the Monument, supported by data collected in 2012 and 2013. Estimates

range from a minimum of 111,000 AUMs of perennial grass production in low production years

to 222,000 AUMs of perennial grass production in high production years. Considering that 46%

of the Monument is within reference state and 40% is rangeland seeding, grass production

could achieve the high-end potential. The current allocation of 38,187 AUMs is only 34% of

the minimum possible production.

What alternatives are being considered by BLM?

The Draft MMP Amendment/EIS contains five alternatives that provide a range of livestock

grazing availability and sage-grouse protections. For more information on the alternatives

analyzed, see Chapter 2, Alternatives. Alternative C is BLM’s preferred alternative.

Alternative A, the no action alternative, would continue the management established in the current

ROD for the 2007 MMP. Under this Alternative, 273,900 acres would be available for livestock

grazing, with 38,187 animal unit months (AUMs) available.

Alternative B would reduce AUMs allocated for livestock grazing by approximately 75% and

close six areas to grazing: Little Park kipuka, the North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment,

xvi
Larkspur Park kipuka, the North Pasture of Bowl Crater Allotment, Park Field kipuka, and a

portion of the Craters Allotment. This alternative would adjust two allotment boundaries and

make 21,000 acres (about 8% of those currently available) unavailable for livestock grazing, for

the protection of Monument values.

Alternative C would make 273,600 acres available for livestock grazing and adjust two allotment

boundaries, which would set the maximum number of AUMs at 37,792. Where appropriate,

livestock grazing could be used as a tool to improve and/or protect wildlife habitat. Guidelines for

livestock grazing management would be set based on vegetation and wildlife habitat conditions

and needs.

Alternative D would remove livestock grazing from BLM-managed lands within the Monument

boundary and adjust two allotment boundaries. All livestock-related developments would be

removed and some fences may be required to exclude livestock from the Monument.

Alternative E would reduce AUMs available for livestock grazing to 19,388 AUMs and close

Larkspur Park kipuka to grazing. Where appropriate, livestock grazing would be used as a tool to

improve and/or protect wildlife habitat. Guidelines for livestock grazing management would be

set based on vegetation and wildlife habitat conditions and needs.

How does the preferred alternative compare to the alternatives in the Draft MMP Amendment/EIS?

The Preferred Alternative—Alternative C—is similar to Alternative A, as it makes similar

lands available to livestock grazing, but it adjusts the AUMs permitted slightly and includes

new direction for grazing management for the benefit of sage-grouse and cultural resources

not currently found in Alternative A as amended by the ARMPA. Alternative C also requires

analysis of season or timing of use, duration and/or level of use (AUMs), and grazing schedules at

grazing permit renewal when livestock management practices are not compatible with meeting

or making progress towards Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health. The Preferred Alternative

offers opportunities to provide for sustainable livestock grazing while protecting Monument

values and sage-grouse habitat. The Preferred Alternative would give land managers the ability to

conduct active vegetation restoration projects and the opportunity to use livestock grazing as a

tool to attain restoration objectives. For example, the Preferred Alternative would direct grazing

for sagebrush recovery and to benefit the diversity of seedings, thereby enhancing the value of

sagebrush steppe communities for wildlife such as greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits.

While historic grazing practices were a factor contributing to the decline of sage grouse habitat

[Jurs and Sands, 2004], grazing management on BLM lands has changed and rangeland health

has steadily improved in recent decades. BLM managed lands in the Monument currently must

meet or make progress towards meeting Idaho’s Standards for Rangeland Health, which include

requirements for sage-grouse habitat. The AUM levels are not dramatically reduced in Alternative

C because the forage to provide for the full permitted use is currently present provided proper

management is followed. For a variety of economic and logistical reasons, as well as current

trends and effective cooperation with permittees, it is unlikely permittees would graze to that

level. By adjusting the AUM level slightly, land managers retain the flexibility to use livestock

grazing as a tool to attain restoration objectives.

Wildfire and the incursion of invasive plants are currently identified as primary threats to

sage-grouse habitat on public lands in Idaho [USDI USFWS, 2013], including within the

Monument [Jurs and Sands, 2004]). Since the 2007 MMP, wildfires have markedly reduced the

amount of key sage grouse habitat to 27% of the habitat in the Monument. The 2007 MMP set

xvii
forth a Desired Future Condition (DFC) that sage-grouse restoration habitat R1 and R2 will

achieve significant progress toward reclassification as key habitat and restoration projects were

planned at that time, but subsequent wildfires reduced much of the key habitat to R1. The

restoration DFC was not vacated by the court and is still an important element of Alternative C,

although it is not described in detail in this Draft MMP Amendment.

There are major contrasts between Alternatives B, C, D and E. Alternatives B and E would reduce

livestock grazing within the Monument, both in acres and in AUMs, while Alternative C would

maintain current livestock AUM levels. The emphasis in Alternative B would be on protection of

Monument values and biological resources, including habitat values for sage-grouse. Alternative

D would eliminate livestock grazing completely, thus failing to meet the DFC set forth in the

2007 MMP to provide sustainable forage for wildlife and livestock.

How long will this plan direct BLM management of Craters of the Moon National Monument and

Preserve?

The dynamic nature of public land resources and uses requires that BLM maintain, amend, and

when necessary, revise its land use plans. Typically, the life of a land use plan is about 20 years.

What is next?

The BLM will accept public comments on the Draft MMP Amendment/EIS for the next 90 days.

Based on public comments received, the agency will prepare a proposed Final Craters of the

Moon National Monument and Preserve MMP Amendment/EIS and ROD.

xviii
Chapter 1. Introduction
 
This page intentionally

left blank
Craters of the Moon National Monument 1

Draft MMP Amendment

The BLM, Twin Falls District, Shoshone Field Office is preparing a Draft MMP Amendment/EIS

addressing livestock grazing management on public lands within the Craters of the Moon National

Monument and Preserve (Monument). The 2007 MMP dictates management over National

Monument and Preserve lands and resources. This MMP Amendment will guide livestock grazing

management on BLM lands within the Monument boundary. Figure 1.1, “Craters of the Moon

National Monument and Preserve Agency Management”, shows the administrative breakdown of

Monument Lands. Please note that the National Park Service (NPS) Monument and Preserve

lands are those administered by NPS, and no grazing is permitted there.

The preparation and adoption of a land use plan, or MMP Amendment in this case, by BLM is a

Federal action subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended.

NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared for any Federal action that may significantly affect the

human environment. This Draft MMP Amendment/EIS has been prepared in accordance with

NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations on the implementation of

NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), the Resource Management Planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.1 et

seq.), the BLM National Environmental Policy Handbook (H-1790-1), and the BLM’s Land Use

Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). It analyzes and discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative

impacts of the alternatives considered.

FLPMA requires the BLM to develop, maintain, and revise land use plans to ensure public lands

are managed in accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. FLPMA

recognizes the nation’s need for minerals, food, timber, and fiber from public land as well as the

importance of maintaining some lands in their natural condition to provide food and habitat for

fish and wildlife and opportunities for outdoor recreation.

This MMP Amendment is also subject to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA),

as amended and affords the public the opportunity to comment under Section 106 and the State

Protocol Agreement (2014), Stipulation IV.B.

This Draft MMP Amendment/EIS will provide the BLM with a comprehensive framework for

administering grazing on public lands and analyzes the future use and management direction of

the many natural and cultural resources found in the planning area over the next 20+ years.

Within the planning area, BLM manages approximately 275,100 acres of public land surface in

Blaine, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power counties. Table 1.1, “Land Ownership within

the Planning Area”, describes the land surface ownership. The management discussed in this

analysis and the decisions to be made based on the MMP Amendment/EIS are within the BLM’s

administrative authority and responsibilities.

Chapter 1 Introduction
2 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 1.1. Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Agency Management

1.1. How to Read this Document

This Draft EIS (1) provides the BLM with sufficient information to make informed, reasoned

decisions concerning the planning area, and (2) informs the public about potential management

options.

This document is organized to provide the reader with sufficient information to understand (1)

the issues to be addressed, (2) the range of management actions available to address issues, (3)

the environment in which these issues occur, and (4) the consequences of these actions for the

human environment.

Chapter 1 Introduction

How to Read this Document
Craters of the Moon National Monument 3

Draft MMP Amendment

● Chapter 1 (Introduction) introduces the planning area and describes the purpose and need for

the MMP Amendment. This chapter provides a brief description of the area, scoping and

planning issues, DFCs, planning criteria and process, and consistency with other plans.

● Chapter 2 (Alternatives) provides detailed descriptions of the five alternatives and how they

were developed. It summarizes environmental consequences by alternative and, as appropriate,

their effectiveness in achieving objectives, thus providing a clear basis for choice among

alternatives. It also summarizes alternatives that were considered, but dropped from further

analysis.

● Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) describes the planning area’s existing conditions that would

affect or be affected by the management actions being considered. This chapter provides the

baseline for analyzing the effects of the alternatives discussed in Chapter 4.

● Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) presents a detailed analysis of the consequences of

implementing each alternative, including the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Both

short- and long-term impacts are discussed.

● Chapter 5 (Consultation and Coordination) provides information on how consultation was

conducted, opportunities for public involvement, and how the BLM will respond to comments.

1.2. Purpose and Need for the Monument Management Plan

Amendment

The BLM published the MMP in 2007. In 2008, Western Watersheds Project (WWP) filed a

complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (Court) alleging the

Secretary of the Interior and the BLM violated NEPA and FLPMA when the BLM issued RODs

on 16 RMPs between 2004 and 2008, including the Craters of the Moon MMP. In 2011, after

briefing and oral argument, the Court noted that,

“... the MMP/EIS failed to adequately address the best science and the agency’s

own policies designed to protect that habitat. Moreover, the MMP/EIS failed to

discuss alternatives to the status quo regarding grazing.”

Specifically, the Court found that the EIS supporting the 2007 MMP planning decision violated

NEPA and FLPMA by (1) failing to consider a no-grazing alternative, (2) failing to consider the

recommendations for sage-grouse conservation contained within a 2004 Nature Conservancy

Report [Jurs & Sands, 2004] and the 2004 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

(WAFWA) Conservation Assessment, (3) failing to fully discuss the agency’s Special Status

Species Policy and National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, and (4) failing to

consider any alternative that would have reduced grazing levels. In November 2012, the Court

ordered the BLM to correct these defects. The BLM has done so with two RMP amendment

processes supported by EISs.

Prior to beginning the amendment process, a national strategy for sage-grouse management

was initiated through issuance of BLM's Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2012-044. The

IM provided direction to all of the planning efforts across the range of sage-grouse to consider

applicable conservation measures when revising or amending RMPs in sage-grouse habitat.

The IM also directed BLM to consider the measures set forth in "A Report on National Greater

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures" [NTT Report, 2011]. The national planning strategy

Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose and Need for the Monument Management

Plan Amendment
4 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

responded to an increasing national concern over the future of the sage-grouse and its habitat,

including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife's March 2010 finding that sage-grouse was "warranted but

precluded" from listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

As part of the national planning strategy, the BLM developed the GRSG ARMPA which

considered sage-grouse conservation measures from the NTT Report. Specifically, the ID/SW MT

GRSG ARMPA amended 29 BLM and U.S. Forest Service land use plans for twelve BLM field

offices in Idaho and southwestern Montana, including the 2007 Craters of the Moon MMP.

An alternative submitted by Idaho Governor Butch Otter was considered and analyzed in the

GRSG ARMPA. The GRSG ARMPA analyzed reduced-grazing and no-grazing alternatives as

well. The Craters of the Moon MMP Draft EIS/Amendment also analyzes reduced-grazing and

no-grazing alternatives at the local level for the planning area.

At the completion of the Craters of the Moon MMP Amendment, the BLM’s goal is to have a land

use plan for the Craters of the Moon planning area that includes the following: (1) sage-grouse

specific conservation measures that help to alleviate threats to sage-grouse in the Monument and

(2) management actions and goals for livestock grazing within the Monument that will guide

management of those BLM lands.

In short, the GRSG ARMPA now addresses the Court-identified defects in the 2007 MMP

associated with sage-grouse analysis. The Craters of the Moon MMP EIS/Amendment will

incorporate its outcomes as stipulated, and address all of the Court’s deficiencies, specifically the

lack of no-grazing and reduced-grazing alternatives.

The Court Order did not vacate the 2007 MMP, thus management direction regarding livestock

grazing and sage-grouse habitat found in the existing plan did not change. In 2015, the GRSG

ARMPA amended the Craters of the Moon MMP. The No Action alternative for this Amendment

is the 2007 MMP as amended by the GRSG ARMPA. The decisions in the Craters of the Moon

MMP that were made through the GRSG ARMPA amendment process will not vary among

the alternatives in this Amendment process. The alternatives developed for this Draft MMP

EIS/Amendment are consistent and comply with the DFCs found in the GRSG ARMPA and the

2007 MMP, except for Alternative D which is not consistent with the 2007 MMP livestock DFC

to “provide livestock forage on a sustainable basis for the life of the plan”.

1.2.1. Purpose

The purpose of this MMP Amendment is to update the 2007 MMP’s grazing management

direction to make it consistent with current laws, regulations, and policies regarding greater

sage-grouse habitat conservation. More specifically, its purpose is to consider a range of NEPAand FLPMA-compliant management options for livestock grazing and greater sage-grouse on

BLM-managed lands in the planning area in a manner that maintains the Monument values listed

in Proclamation 7373, which expanded the Monument in 2000.

The BLM will analyze a reasonable range of livestock grazing management alternatives consistent

with goals for the greater sage-grouse and its habitat outlined in the BLM’s current policies, the

existing objectives for vegetation and wildlife resource management as identified in the DFCs

in the 2007 Craters of the Moon MMP, Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines

for Livestock Grazing Management (Standards), protection of Monument Values, as well as

other relevant agency policies and guidance.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose
Craters of the Moon National Monument 5

Draft MMP Amendment

Proclamation 7373 provides the basis for the protection, conservation, and enjoyment of

Monument Values or Objects by declaring “Craters of the Moon holds the most diverse and

youngest part of the lava terrain that covers the southern Snake River Plain of Idaho, a broad

plain made up of innumerable basalt lava flows during the past 5 million years. The most

recent eruptions at the Craters of the Moon took place about 2,100 years ago and were likely

witnessed by the Shoshone people, whose legend speaks of a serpent on a mountain who, angered

by lightening, coiled around and squeezed the mountain until the rocks crumbled and melted,

fire shot from cracks, and liquid rock flowed from the fissures as the mountain exploded.” The

original Proclamation, subsequent proclamations and legislation, and the public planning process

associated with the 2007 MMP, resulted in the identification of all Monument Values/Objects

related to the importance of the Monument. For the purposes of this plan amendment, Monument

Values/Objects, as identified through proclamations, legislation, and the public scoping process,

to be protected will refer to:

● All volcanic features in the Monument, including, but not limited to kipukas, craters, cones,

lava flows, caves, and fissures

● The Great Rift

● Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

● Scenic vistas and great open landscapes

● Important habitat for Greater sage-grouse

● Historic and traditional relationships with the land including but not limited to traditional

ranching, hunting, and all traditional Native American practices

1.2.2. Need

This MMP Amendment is needed to cure deficiencies identified by the Court in the 2007

MMP/EIS. The Court found that BLM failed to adequately address the current science and agency

policies designed to protect sage-grouse habitat, primarily with regard to managing livestock

grazing in Monument. The Court also found that BLM failed to consider a range of alternatives

related to livestock grazing, including consideration of a no-grazing alternative or any alternative

that reduced grazing. As discussed above, the GRSG ARMPA addresses the Court-identified

defects associated directly with sage-grouse habitat conservation, while the need for the Craters of

the Moon MMP Amendment is to address defects in the range of livestock grazing management

alternatives considered. Both amendments utilize and observe the 2004 Nature Conservancy

Report [Jurs & Sands, 2004], WAFWA Conservation Assessment, BLM’s Special Status Species

Policy, and the National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy.

The MMP Amendment also needs to maintain compliance with FLPMA, the Monument values

listed above, the objectives for vegetation and wildlife management identified in the DFCs in the

2007 MMP, Standards, as well as other relevant agency policies and guidance.

1.3. Planning Area and Maps

The planning area is located in south-central Idaho in Blaine, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and

Power counties. It extends roughly from the Snake River near Lake Walcott, north to Arco,

Chapter 1 Introduction

Need
6 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Idaho Figure 1.2, “Planning Area Overview Map”. It is a component of the BLM’s National

Conservation Lands (NCL) and contains NPS Monument, NPS Preserve, and BLM Monument

lands Figure 1.1, “Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Agency Management”.

National Conservation Lands

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve is a component of the BLM’s NCL. The

mission of the NCL is to conserve, protect, and restore these nationally significant landscapes that

are recognized for their outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values.

NCL are part of an active, vibrant landscape where people live, work, and play. They offer

exceptional opportunities for recreation, solitude, wildlife viewing, exploring history, scientific

research, and a wide range of traditional uses. The NCL sustain these remarkable landscapes of

the American spirit for the future.

The Monument

Craters of the Moon National Monument was designated in 1924 by President Coolidge to

preserve its ‘lunar’ landscape thought to resemble that of the Moon and was described in the

Proclamation as a, “weird and scenic landscape peculiar to itself.” Since 1924, four other

presidential proclamations expanded and adjusted the Monument boundary, from roughly 25,000

to 53,000 acres. In November 2000, Presidential Proclamation 7373 expanded the Craters of the

Moon National Monument from approximately 50,000 acres to nearly 750,100 acres, where

management of exposed lava was transferred from BLM to NPS and BLM-managed lands were

included to assure protection for the entire Great Rift volcanic zone, a, “remarkable fissure

eruption together with its associated volcanic cones, craters, rifts, lava flows, caves, natural

bridges, and other phenomena characteristic of volcanic action which are of unusual scientific

value and general interest.” [Proclamation 7373, 2000]

Craters of the Moon is the largest basaltic volcanic field of dominantly Holocene (less than 10,000

years old) lava in the continuous United States. Its central focus is the Great Rift, a 52-mile

long crack in the earth's crust. The Great Rift is the source of a remarkably preserved volcanic

landscape with an array of exceptional features. Craters, cinder cones, lava tubes, deep cracks,

and vast lava fields form a volcanic sea on central Idaho's Snake River Plain. This composite

volcanic field was formed by a series of eight separate eruptive episodes separated by series of

quiet periods. The now dormant volcanic field is currently in the latest of these quiet periods.

Some lava flows traveled distances up to 43 miles from their vents, and some flows diverged

around areas of higher ground and rejoined downstream to form isolated islands of older terrain

surrounded by new lava. These areas are called ‘kipukas.’

Kipukas can provide a window to vegetative communities of the past that have been unmodified

by human influence like most of the remaining Snake River Plain. In many instances, the rugged

lava surrounding small pockets of soils has protected kipukas from people, animals, and even

exotic plants. As a result, a few of these kipukas represent some of the last nearly pristine and

undisturbed vegetation in the Snake River Plain, including relict stands of sagebrush that are

essential habitat for the sensitive greater sage-grouse populations. These tracts of vegetation are

remarkable benchmarks that aid in the scientific study of changes to vegetative communities from

recent human activity as well as the role of natural fire in the sagebrush steppe ecosystem.

Following the 2000 Monument expansion, NPS and the BLM completed a joint MMP to

guide all activities in the Monument and Preserve. Because of the different laws and policies

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Area and Maps
Craters of the Moon National Monument 7

Draft MMP Amendment

constraining each agency, the process was hybridized to include all of the mandatory portions

of each agency’s planning process.

Key management objectives were identified in the 2007 Craters of the Moon MMP. Specific

management objectives in the 2007 MMP related to this planning effort include:

● Proactively protect and restore sagebrush steppe communities,

● Emphasize protection of vegetation resources in North Laidlaw Park,

● Maintain a road network suitable for aggressive fire management within the Monument, and

● Support a large and proactive integrated weed management program.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Area and Maps
8 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 1.2. Planning Area Overview Map

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Area and Maps
Craters of the Moon National Monument 9

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 1.3. Detailed Planning Area

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Area and Maps
10 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

1.3.1. Land Ownership and Administration in the Planning Area

The Monument is the planning area, as it is the unit covered by the 2007 MMP which will be

amended on the basis of this MMP Amendment/EIS. The Monument comprises lands managed

by the BLM, the NPS, and the State, as well as limited private land. Table 1.1, “Land Ownership

within the Planning Area”, provides the breakdown. State and private lands are grazed in

conjunction with the adjoining BLM lands throughout the majority of the planning area; however

the management actions included in this MMP Amendment/EIS apply only to BLM-managed

lands in the planning area.

Table 1.1. Land Ownership within the Planning Area

Land Ownership Acres Percent

BLM 275,100 37%

NPS 463,300 62%

State 8,200 1%

Private 6,600 1%

Craters of the Moon National Monument, Shoshone, Burley, and Upper Snake Field Offices

and the Planning Area

The 2000 Proclamation that designated the current Craters of the Moon National Monument and

Preserve boundary incorporated lands from three BLM Field Offices: Shoshone, Burley, and

Upper Snake, as well as National Park Service lands. Shoshone and Burley Field Offices lie

within the Twin Falls District, while the Upper Snake Field Office is in the Idaho Falls District.

Shoshone Field Office was named as the lead BLM office for Monument management, although

management of livestock grazing remained with the Field Office that originally managed those

allotments.

Of the 275,100 acres managed by BLM, 273,900 are currently available for livestock grazing.

Table 1.2, “Planning Area Livestock Grazing Administration” further summarizes the acres of

BLM lands that are available to grazing by which Field Office administers them. Figure 1.4,

“Allotment Administration” shows the location of these grazing lands and the allotments they

comprise by administering field office.

Table 1.2. Planning Area Livestock Grazing Administration

Livestock Grazing Administration BLM Acres Percent

Craters of the Moon National

Monument

110,800 40%

Burley Field Office 53,400 19%

Shoshone Field Office 34,000 13%

Upper Snake Field Office 75,500 28%

Chapter 1 Introduction

Land Ownership and Administration in the Planning

Area
Craters of the Moon National Monument 11

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 1.4. Allotment Administration

Chapter 1 Introduction

Land Ownership and Administration in

the Planning Area
12 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

1.3.2. Geographic and Social Setting

Socioeconomic conditions in these counties have followed roughly the same pattern as the rest of

the U.S. since 2008: a long upward trajectory in economic variables such as personal income

and employment was interrupted by the 2007-2009 recession. Although growth has resumed, the

growth rate has slowed from what it was prior to the onset of the recession. In contrast with many

other parts of the U.S. and Idaho, the five-county region has experienced net out-migration. In

other words, more residents have moved away from the area than have moved to the area. In spite

of this out-flow of residents, total population has increased due to local births.

The Monument plays multiple roles within the socioeconomic structure of the surrounding

community. Grazing feeds revenues into the local agricultural economy at multiple levels. The

Monument attracts visitors from outside the region, who spend money in local retail and service

industry outlets. In addition, Monument employees’ salaries and employee spending contribute to

the community economy. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) from the Federal government to the

State make an additional contribution to the regional economy.

1.4. Scoping

Scoping is a term used in the CEQ regulations to describe the early and open process for

determining issues to be addressed in an EIS. A list of stakeholders and other interested parties

is also confirmed and augmented during the scoping process. Scoping involves soliciting input

from other stakeholders, including other agencies, organizations, and the general public. It also

entails the internal, interdisciplinary review required by NEPA. Agency regulations and standard

procedures also play a role in determining the issues and alternatives to be considered in an EIS.

1.4.1. The Public Scoping Process

A Notice of Intent (NOI) informs the public of BLM’s intent to initiate the planning process and

prepare an EIS. It invites participation from affected and interested agencies, organizations,

and the general public in determining the planning criteria, scope, and significant issues to be

addressed in the alternatives. The NOI to prepare the Craters of the Moon Plan Amendment was

published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2013. This Notice served as the beginning of BLM’s

formal scoping process. The BLM also uses the NEPA public participation requirements to assist

the agency in satisfying the public involvement requirement under Section 106 of the NHPA.

Information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the MMP

Amendment will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the

context of both NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.

A project email address and website were created when the NOI was published. The website

provided information on the open houses, instructions for submitting scoping comments, a link to

the Federal Register NOI, scoping information, and a link to the current management plan for

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve.

A press release was sent out on July 22, 2013. Letters to interested parties and permittees were

sent on July 23, 2013. A public notice of the scoping meetings was placed in five newspapers and

ran in July and August. Newspapers included: The Times-News, The Arco Advertiser, The Post

Register, The Idaho Mountain Express, and the Idaho State Journal.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Geographic and Social Setting
Craters of the Moon National Monument 13

Draft MMP Amendment

In July and August of 2013, “open house” style scoping meetings were held in Rupert, Carey,

Arco and American Falls, Idaho. This format was used to encourage discussions about (1) issues

to be addressed in the plan, (2) concerns about the process/planning criteria, and (3) development

of the alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft MMP Amendment/EIS. At each meeting, at least

three members of the MMP Interdisciplinary (ID) Team, plus the BLM Monument Manager, were

available to answer questions. Maps and a presentation were also displayed. Some attendees

submitted written comments at that time. Forty individuals participated in these meetings (see

Table 1.3, “Scoping Meeting Locations, Dates, and Attendance”).

Cooperating Agency invitations were sent to five counties, five cities, and fourteen State and

Federal agencies. Blaine County, Power County, the City of American Falls, and the Idaho State

Department of Agriculture requested Cooperating Agency status. Memoranda of Understanding

(MOUs) have been signed with these four cooperators.

Table 1.3. Scoping Meeting Locations, Dates, and Attendance

Location Date Number of Public Attendees

Rupert City Hall July 30, 2013 1

Carey City Council August 1, 2013 20

Arco/Butte Business Incubator August 6, 2013 2

American Falls District Library August 9, 2013 18

The BLM initiated formal government-to-government consultation with the Shoshone-Paiute

Tribe through the Wings and Roots process in August 2013. Government-to-government

consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes was initiated through correspondence in

September 2013 and in person on November 2013.

As a result of public scoping efforts, 26 responses were received. Responses were submitted in

the format of comment forms provided during public scoping meetings, letters, and e-mails.

For a detailed description of all issues identified during scoping, refer to the 2013 Craters of the

Moon National Monument Final Scoping Report. The report is available on the Craters of the

Moon MMP Amendment web site at: https://eplanning.blm.gov

1.4.2. Management Concerns

In addition to issues identified through public scoping, the scope of this analysis includes pertinent

BLM management concerns, as identified in the Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1).

Management concerns are generally of a program-specific nature, and while they may not be

externally generated or controversial, they deserve consideration in the planning process. The ID

team reviewed planning handbook direction as part of their internal, interdisciplinary review of

the proposal to identify the issues and concerns to be addressed. This resulted in refinement of

broad management concerns to reflect the context of this Draft MMP Amendment/EIS.

1.4.3. Issues and Concerns Addressed

The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook defines a planning issue as, “disputes or controversies

about existing and potential resource allocations, levels of resource use, production, and related

management practices” [USDI BLM, 2005a]). It is more than just a position statement about

current policies. An issue:

Chapter 1 Introduction

Management Concerns
14 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

● Has a cause and effect relationship with the proposed action or alternatives,

● Is within the scope of the analysis,

● Has not been decided by law, regulation, or previous decision, and

● Is amenable to scientific analysis rather than conjecture.

Issue identification is critical for alternative development for resource management planning.

For this Draft MMP Amendment/EIS, a three-step process was used to identify and group the

issues. First, the ID Team read all 26 scoping comment letters and identified 316 individual

comments. Next, they determined which comments were within the scope for analysis in this

amendment because they (1) suggest a reasonable alternative, (2) contribute to developing

reasonable alternatives, (3) contribute to developing design features or mitigation measures, (4)

suggest credible information or methodologies that should be considered during the analysis, (5)

present information that is relevant to the analysis, (6) describe changes to the proposed action

along with supporting reasons why the changes should be made, or (7) suggest analysis that is

necessary to make a reasoned choice among alternatives. They were grouped into nine broad

resource or management-driven concerns.

As noted above, management concerns are generally broad and program specific in nature but

were refined through ID team review to develop concerns specific to this analysis.

1.4.3.1. Issues and Concerns Used to Develop Alternatives

As outlined in section 1.2, Purpose and Need, alternative development in this Draft MMP

Amendment/EIS was driven primarily by law and regulation, as well as the 2012 Court Order,

rather than by specific environmental issues and concerns. The results of public scoping and

internal, interdisciplinary review were used to flesh out the alternatives framed in response to

the Court Order.

1.4.3.2. Issues and Concerns Analyzed in Greater Depth

Based on public scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review of the proposed amendment, the

following issues and concerns were identified to guide this analysis.

Monument Values: How will grazing management affect the values for which the Monument

was designated?

Soil Resources: How will grazing management changes affect planning area soils in terms of

erosion and compaction?

Water Resources: Water is a scarce commodity in the Monument. How will grazing management

changes affect riparian areas and playas?

Vegetation Resources: The Monument supports diverse and unique vegetation communities,

and the 2007 MMP mandates their protection. Some special status plant species occur within

these communities. How will potential changes in livestock grazing management affect these

communities and species? How will potential changes in livestock grazing management,

specifically those proposed by this amendment, affect fuel loads and fire behavior within the

Monument? How will they affect introduction and spread of noxious weeds?

Chapter 1 Introduction

Issues and Concerns Addressed
Craters of the Moon National Monument 15

Draft MMP Amendment

Wildlife and Fish: The Monument’s diverse habitats support important wildlife resources,

including some special status species. Greater sage-grouse are a serious concern. How will

changes in grazing management affect these wildlife species?

Native American Rights and Interests: The Monument is important to certain Native American

rights and interests. How will these be affected by changes in grazing management?

Cultural Resources: How will changes in grazing management affect protection of the

Monument’s cultural resources?

Visual Resources: The 2007 MMP recognized the importance of the Monument’s visual

resources. How would these resources be affected by changes in grazing management?

Wilderness Study Areas: The Monument includes several Wilderness Study Areas. How will

changes in grazing management affect these areas?

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: How will lands with wilderness characteristics in the

Monument be affected by changes in grazing management?

Livestock Grazing: How will the proposed changes affect grazing management flexibility,

complexity, forage allocation, availability, and accessibility?

Travel and Transportation: The 2007 MMP recognized the importance of the road network for

fire management and control. How will changes in grazing management affect the road network?

How will roads that could potentially become unnecessary due to changes to grazing be treated?

Recreation and Visitor Experience: The monument provides unique opportunities for recreation

and tourism, and the 2007 MMP supports these activities. How will changes in grazing

management affect these opportunities?

Socioeconomic Values: Ranching is an important component of the local socioeconomic setting.

How will changes in grazing management affect counties, communities, and permittees?

Climate Change: How could BLM reduce management effects on climate change?

1.4.4. Issues and Concerns Considered but Not Analyzed in Depth

Several types of comments did not warrant in-depth analysis in the EIS because they did not

provide information that was helpful to make a reasoned choice among alternatives. Such

comments included, but were not limited to, (1) stating a personal opinion with no supporting

rationale, (2) discussing other projects or other project areas, (3) stating a disagreement with BLM

policy, (4) discussing decisions that have already been made, or (5) simply stating agreement or

opposition to the project. Such issues and concerns raised through public scoping and internal,

interdisciplinary review are noted below, followed by the BLM rationale for dropping them

from in-depth analysis.

Predator Control: Controlling predatory populations will benefit greater sage-grouse populations.

Rationale: Management and control of predators is outside the jurisdictional authority of BLM.

Scope of the MMP Amendment/EIS: The BLM should look beyond livestock grazing in the

Monument and update all components of the 2007 MMP.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Issues and Concerns Considered but Not

Analyzed in Depth
16 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Rationale: The 2007 MMP process has already addressed and analyzed the other land use

allocations and activities within the planning area. The scope of this planning effort is limited to

resolving specific defects identified by the Court in 2012 (see Section 1.2, “Purpose and Need for

the Monument Management Plan Amendment”) which were not addressed in the 2015 GRSG

ARMPA. The BLM will focus on analyzing a range of reasonable alternatives for livestock

grazing management, including reduced- and no-grazing alternatives. DFCs, management goals,

and management actions that are not directly related to livestock management in the Monument

will remain unchanged.

ACEC Creation: The BLM should consider an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)

designation for sage-grouse.

Rationale: While the BLM 1613 – Area of Critical Environmental Concern Manual (1988)

provides guidance on how the public can nominate ACECs, in this case it’s considered outside

the scope of this Draft MMP Amendment/EIS because it does not address the purpose and need

(see Section 1.2, “Purpose and Need for the Monument Management Plan Amendment”). The

analysis of ACEC nominations took place during the 2007 MMP planning process. The scope

of this planning effort is limited to resolving specific defects identified by the Court in 2012, as

discussed in Section 1.2, “Purpose and Need for the Monument Management Plan Amendment”.

The GRSG ARMPA preparers received an ACEC nomination for the protection of sage-grouse

that included part of the Monument. That nomination was considered in the GRSG ARMPA and

will not be considered again in this planning effort.

1.5. Planning Criteria/Legislative Constraints

Land use plans are changed through either a plan amendment or a plan revision. The process

for conducting plan amendments is basically the same as the land use planning process used in

creating RMPs, or in this case the 2007 MMP. Plan amendments (see 43 CFR 1610.5-5) change

one or more of the terms, conditions, or decisions of an approved land use plan. These decisions

may include those relating to desired outcomes; measures to achieve desired outcomes, including

resource restrictions; or land tenure decisions. Plan amendments are most often prompted

by the need to:

1.	 Consider a proposal or action that does not conform to the plan,

2.	 Implement new or revised policy that changes land use plan decisions, such as an approved

conservation agreement between the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),

3.	 Respond to new, intensified, or changed uses on public land, and/or

4.	 Consider significant new information from resource assessments, monitoring, or scientific

studies that change land use plan decisions.

The BLM regulations set out in the Code of Federal Regulations 43 CFR 1600 and the NEPA

process detailed in the CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1500 guide preparation of plan amendments

and associated environmental review.

The regulations ensure that plan amendments are tailored to the identified issues and that

unnecessary data collection and analyses are avoided. Planning criteria are based primarily on

standards prescribed by applicable laws, regulations, and agency guidance, and consultation with

Native American Tribes. They are also based on consultation and coordination with public, other

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Criteria/Legislative Constraints
Craters of the Moon National Monument 17

Draft MMP Amendment

Federal, State, and local agencies and government entities. Planning criteria serves to keep

analysis of information pertinent to the planning area.

Below are the planning criteria and laws, regulations, and policies that form the basis for

these criteria and are relevant to each of the resource topics discussed in this Draft MMP

Amendment/EIS. This process will:

● Comply with NEPA, FLPMA, NHPA, the Idaho State Protocol Agreement with SHPO (2014),

Presidential Proclamation 7373, and all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies;

● Comply with the Court’s November 2012 order;

● Consider reasonable alternatives in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR part 1610 and

40 CFR part 1500;

● Only apply to public lands and the mineral estate managed by the BLM in Craters of the Moon;

● Follow the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 and the BLM NEPA Handbook

H-1790-1 where appropriate;

● Comply with all applicable climate change policy and direction, including Secretarial Order

#3289, Amendment 1;

● Comply with guidance found in the BLM Manual 6100 - National Landscape Conservation

Systems;

● Comply with guidance found in the BLM Manual 6220 - National Monuments, National

Conservation Areas, and Similar Designations;

● Comply with guidance found in the BLM Manual 6840 - Special Status Species Management

and other policies related to Special Status Species;

● Comply with guidance found in the BLM Manual 6310 - Conducting Wilderness Characteristics

Inventory on BLM Lands;

● Comply with guidance found in the BLM Manual 6320 - Considering Lands with Wilderness

Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process;

● Comply with guidance found in the BLM Manual 6330 - Management of Wilderness Study

Areas;

● Comply with guidance found in the BLM Manual 6280 - Management of National Scenic

and Historic Trails and Trails Under Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional

Designation;

● Include broad-based public participation;

● Include coordination with State, local, and Tribal governments to ensure that BLM considers

provisions of pertinent plans; seeks to resolve any inconsistencies among State, local, and

Tribal plans; and provides ample opportunities for State, local, and Tribal governments to

comment on the development of the Plan Amendment;

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Criteria/Legislative Constraints
18 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

● Rely on available inventories of the lands and resources as well as data gathered during the

planning process, including, but not limited to, Habitat Assessment Framework data collected

in 2012 and 2013;

● Follow requirements to address greater sage-grouse habitat and conservation as outlined in the

National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy and the subsequent GRSG ARMPA;

● Consider actions that will ensure BLM lands in Craters of the Moon meet or make significant

progress toward meeting Idaho’s Standards;

● Use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and incorporate geospatial data to the extent

practicable and Federal Geographic Data Committee standards and other applicable BLM data

standards will be followed;

● Incorporate and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield;

● Involve consultation with Native American tribal governments;

● Recognize valid existing rights; and

● Use analysis in the 2007 Craters of the Moon Final EIS to the extent possible and practicable.

1.6. Planning Process

The process for the development, approval, maintenance, and amendment or revision of RMPs, in

the case of the 2007 MMP, is initiated under Section 202(f) of FLPMA and Section 202(c) of

NEPA. When developing a land use plan, BLM uses a multi-step process, some of which may

happen concurrently. Where more detailed management direction is required, BLM will prepare

and analyze activity plans after the MMP Amendment’s completion.

The steps in this process are:

● Issues Identification. The BLM identifies issues and concerns through the scoping process,

which includes the public, State and local governments, other Federal agencies, and internal,

interdisciplinary review. Issues are also identified through consultation with Native American

tribes.

● Criteria Development. Planning criteria are drafted to ensure decisions are made to address

issues pertinent to the planning effort. They are derived from a variety of sources, including

applicable laws and regulations, existing management plans, other agencies’ programs, tribal

consultation, and public scoping.

● Data and Information Collection. Data and information on the natural and cultural resources

in the planning area are collected based on the planning criteria and issues developed during

scoping.

● Analysis of the Management Situation. Current natural and cultural resource management

practices are assessed to identify issues and potential opportunities in the planning area.

● Alternatives Formulation. A reasonable range of management alternatives are developed that

address issues identified during scoping and meet the purpose and need.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Process
Craters of the Moon National Monument 19

Draft MMP Amendment

● Alternatives Assessment. The effects of each alternative are analyzed, including the No

Action Alternative.

● Preferred Alternative Selection. The alternative that best resolves planning issues is identified

as the Preferred Alternative.

● Management Plan Selection. First, the Draft MMP Amendment/EIS is made available for

public review for at least 90 days. After comments have been received and analyzed, the

document is modified as necessary. The Final EIS and Proposed MMP Amendment are then

published and made available for a 30-day protest period concurrent with a 60-day Governor’s

consistency review. Land use plan decisions are subject to protest in accordance with planning

guidance, and any protest would be resolved by the National BLM Director. If the Idaho BLM

Director approves a Final MMP Amendment, then a Record of Decision would be signed by

the Director to approve it.

● Implementation and Monitoring. The management measures outlined in the approved MMP

amendment would be implemented on the ground, and future monitoring conducted to test

their effectiveness.

1.6.1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs

According to FLPMA (Section 209 [9]), “...the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds practical,

keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans; assure that consideration is given to those

State, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the development of land use plans for public

lands; assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal

government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local

government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of land use programs, land

use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed

decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands.”

If these entities do not have officially approved or adopted resource-related plans, then RMPs

and their amendments must, to the extent practical, be consistent with those entities’ officially

approved and adopted resource-related policies and programs. This consistency will be

accomplished so long as BLM RMPs and amendments incorporate the policies, programs, and

provisions of public land laws and regulations.

As previously described, this MMP Amendment/EIS will amend the existing 2007 MMP. The

2007 MMP covers a broad area and addresses a wide range of programs, concerns, and resources.

It must, therefore, function at a general level. Decisions still valid in the 2007 MMP have been

carried forward.

The BLM is required to manage lands in accordance with the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health

and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration [43 CFR 4180]. These Fundamentals

are minimum standards for watersheds, ecological processes, water quality, and wildlife

habitat. They also dictate that if it is determined that livestock grazing management needs to be

changed to meet the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health that it must be done within one year

of the determination. Each state has implemented its own specific Standards related to these

fundamentals. Idaho’s Standards and Guidelines are provided in Appendix H.

The more specific actions required to attain the goals and DFCs defined in the 2007 Plan

and carried forward in this EIS are accomplished through monitoring and implementation

Chapter 1 Introduction

Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs
20 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

plans. These plans apply to specific program areas, projects, or operational and development

strategies for specific areas of the planning area. Because planning is an ongoing and continuous

process, this MMP Amendment must be viewed as a dynamic document. Future, site-specific

implementation plans would use the goals and DFCs defined in the 2007 MMP as their starting

point. Implementation plans for actions with potential environmental effects would require formal

alternatives analysis in compliance with NEPA and related legislation. All such documents would

be prepared with the appropriate level of public input.

1.6.2. Data Summary

The interdisciplinary planning team used the most accurate and current data available when

analyzing the impacts of alternatives, so it was essential that data was from reliable and reputable

scientific sources. In addition to the BLM, Federal agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey,

USFWS, NPS, and Department of Energy, and State of Idaho agencies, including Fish and Game,

Department of Lands, Office of Species Conservation, Department of Commerce, and Department

of Agriculture, have provided high-quality GIS data and tabular data that was used in the analysis.

Data collection efforts throughout 2012 and 2013 included Habitat Assessment Framework data

collection for allotments within the Monument. Data were collected at nearly 400 sites, and the

information has been used to determine seasonal greater sage-grouse habitat suitability within

the Monument. In addition, a number of telemetry studies have been initiated in the Twin Falls

District over the last several years. Data collected from those studies regarding the movement of

sage-grouse in the vicinity of and within the Monument will be used in this Plan Amendment/EIS.

New and existing resource information in the Shoshone Field Office, including existing GIS

thematic maps (i.e., fire history, range improvements, vegetation treatments, land status, cultural

resources, etc.), monitoring data, and grazing files, was used in formulating alternatives and in

the impact analysis.

The ID team has reviewed, updated, and evaluated its data collection and has no additional data

needs. They have compiled the data and put it into a digital format for use during the planning

process and to develop resource maps for the MMP Amendment/EIS.

Pre-existing digital data has been updated to the same standards required for new data where

practical. The process of reviewing and updating data is important to the adequacy of the planning

process, as the data is needed to quantify resources, create updated maps, and analyze information

during alternative formulation. New data generated as part of the MMP Amendment/EIS process

will meet applicable established standards and will be available to the public upon request at the

completion of the project.

Metadata must be created and appropriately maintained for GIS data to be used in review.

Metadata is information about data and/or geospatial services, such as content, source, vintage,

spatial scale, accuracy, projection, responsible party, contact information, method of collection,

and other descriptions. Reliable metadata development, structured in a standardized manner, is

essential to ensuring that data are used appropriately and any resulting analysis is creditable.

The ID Team did not receive any new data from sources outside of the BLM and Idaho

Department of Fish and Game during scoping.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Data Summary
Craters of the Moon National Monument 21

Draft MMP Amendment

1.6.3. Collaboration

The BLM approaches planning based on collaboration, in which interested groups and people,

often with varied or opposing interests, work together to seek solutions for managing BLM

lands. Collaboration mandates methods, not outcomes; and does not imply that parties will

achieve consensus. Collaboration implies that tribal, State, and local governments, other Federal

agencies, and the public will be involved well before the planning process is underway, rather

than only at specific points stipulated by regulation and policy. Cooperating local, State, and

Federal agencies have been a part of the MMP Amendment effort to the fullest extent possible.

During plan implementation, BLM will continue partnerships with those entities to select high

priority projects and resolve emerging issues.

1.6.3.1. Intergovernmental, Interagency, and Tribal Relationships

Section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA requires BLM to provide for public involvement of other Federal

agencies and State and local government officials in developing land use decisions for public

lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions that may have a significant effect on

lands other than BLM. It also requires that the BLM, to the extent practical, keeps itself informed

of other Federal, State, and local plans; assures that consideration is given to those plans germane

to the development of BLM land use plan decisions; and assists in resolving inconsistencies

between Federal and non-Federal plans, if possible.

The CEQ regulations require an early and open process for identifying significant issues related to

a proposed action and obtaining input from the affected public prior to making a decision that

could significantly affect the environment. These regulations specify public involvement at

various junctures in the development of an EIS. The BLM designed an iterative review process

in order to capture issues from numerous public sources and to satisfy CEQ and FLPMA

requirements. These reviews consisted of:

● ID Team product development and internal agency review;

● Formal government-to-government consultation with Native American Tribes;

● Review from the Resource Advisory Council (RAC) and Cooperating Agencies;

● Review from Federal, State, and local agencies;

● Review and comment from the general public; and

● ID Team revisions based on this feedback.

1.6.3.2. Cooperating Agencies

The CEQ defines a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction, by law or special

expertise, with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal under the purview

of NEPA [40 CFR 1501.6]. Any Federal, State, or local government authority with such

qualifications may become a cooperating agency by agreement with the lead agency. Agencies

cooperating formally for this plan include the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Blaine

County, Power County, and the City of American Falls.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Collaboration
22 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

1.6.3.3. Tribes

Consultation and participation in the planning process by the Shoshone-Bannock and

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes began with publication of the Federal Register NOI. Throughout the

development of this Draft MMP Amendment/EIS, the Tribes have played an active role. Their

contributions will result in an amendment to the 2007 MMP that provides for better, more

responsive land stewardship.

Consultation with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes is conducted through the Wings and Roots Native

American Campfire, an established government-to-government consultation process. Plans for

the Draft MMP Amendment/EIS were first presented to the Tribes at a Wings and Roots meeting

in August 2013. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribe has indicated that they are interested in any action

that would result in ground disturbances or impacts to sage-grouse. Government-to-government

consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes was initiated through correspondence in

September 2013 and in person with the tribal Environmental Staff on November 13, 2013. No

formal comments have been received to-date from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, but they did

informally indicate they were most concerned with management actions that might affect tribal

access, native plants, and sagebrush obligates. The BLM will continue to collaborate with the

Tribes during the ongoing planning process.

1.6.3.4. Other Federal Agencies

Other Federal agencies contributed to the planning process through comments and cooperation

throughout the planning process. We have received written comments from the EPA and NPS and

have been in contact with USFWS.

1.6.3.5. Other Stakeholder Relationships

The Twin Falls RAC is a 15-member advisory panel which provides advice and recommendation

to the BLM on resources and land management issues. Membership includes a cross section

of Idahoans representing energy, tourism and commercial recreation, environmental, and

archaeological or historic interests, as well as elected officials, a tribal representative, and the

public-at-large. Council members are selected for their ability to provide informed, objective

advice on a broad array of public-land issues, and their commitment to collaboration in seeking

solutions to those issues. RAC members are updated and coordinated with throughout the

planning process.

WWP submitted three comment letters (two dated August 21, 2013 and one dated August

23, 2013) during scoping that suggested a number of issues and concerns they felt should be

addressed in the MMP Amendment. They also met with BLM representatives on July 1, 2014, to

discuss the alternatives the ID Team developed. They have been active in the initial stages of the

planning process and will continue to be involved throughout the process.

1.7. Related Plans

In addition to the Federal mandates and guidelines mentioned above, the planning team considered

a number of existing management plans, programmatic documents, and implementation plans

in the preparation of this Draft MMP Amendment and EIS. The MMP Amendment will strive

Chapter 1 Introduction

Related Plans
Craters of the Moon National Monument 23

Draft MMP Amendment

for consistency with plans and their revisions pertaining to lands included in and surrounding

the planning area, including, but not limited to, the following:

● County comprehensive plans for Blaine, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power counties

● State agency plans and comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies

○ Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2005

○ Idaho State Water Plan, 1996

○ Idaho Transportation Plan, 2004

○ Working for Recreation: The 2007-2010 IDPR Strategic Plan

○ Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORP), 2007-2010

○ Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho, 2006

● Federal agency plans

○ Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve MMP, 2007

○ Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Comprehensive Travel Management

Plan, 2009

○ Idaho and Southwest Montana Sub-regional Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan
 

Amendment and EIS/ROD, 2015
 

The BLM used applicable information from the land use plans and programmatic NEPA

documents to develop the management actions in Chapter 2.

The Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region,

including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwest Montana, Nevada

and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah

In response to a 2010 determination by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that the listing

of the Greater sage-grouse (GRSG) under the ESA was “warranted, but precluded” by other

priorities, the BLM, in coordination with the US Forest Service, developed a landscape-level

management strategy, based on the best available science, that was targeted, multi-tiered,

coordinated, and collaborative. This strategy offers the highest level of protection for sage-grouse

in the most important habitat areas. It addresses the specific threats identified in the 2010 USFWS

“warranted, but precluded” decision and the USFWS 2013 Conservation Objectives Team report.

The ROD and approved RMP Amendments are for the Great Basin Region Greater Sage-Grouse

Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California,

Oregon, and Utah. The Craters of the Moon planning areas falls within the Sub-regional Idaho

and Southwestern Montana Approved Amendment area. The Amendments include habitat

management direction that avoids and minimizes additional disturbance in sage-grouse habitat

management areas. Moreover, they target restoration of and improvements to the most important

areas of habitat. Management under the approved Amendments is directed through land use

allocations that apply to sage-grouse habitat. These allocations accomplish the following:

Chapter 1 Introduction

Related Plans
24 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

• Eliminate most new surface disturbance in the most highly valued sagebrush ecosystem areas

identified as Sagebrush Focal Areas

• Avoid or limit new surface disturbance in Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) and

Important Habitat Management Areas (IHMA), of which Sagebrush Focal Areas are a subset

• Minimize surface disturbance in General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA)

In addition to protective land use allocations in habitat management areas, the Amendments

include a suite of management actions, such as establishing disturbance limits, sage-grouse habitat

objectives, mitigation requirements, monitoring protocols, and adaptive management triggers

and responses. They also include other conservation measures that apply throughout designated

habitat management areas.

The cumulative effect of these measures is to conserve, enhance, and restore sage–grouse habitat

across the species’ remaining range in the Great Basin Region and to provide greater certainty

that BLM land use decisions in sage-grouse habitat across the species’ remaining range in the

Great Basin Region can lead to conservation of the sage-grouse and other sagebrush-steppe

associated species in the region.

The scope of the Craters of the Moon Draft MMP Amendment/EIS is more narrow than that of the

broader GRSG ARMPA. Specifically, the Craters of the Moon Draft MMP Amendment is focused

on livestock grazing management decisions within the Monument. While the two planning

efforts overlap to a limited extent, they focus on separate and distinct planning decisions to be

made at different geographic scales. The GRSG ARMPA broadly addresses livestock grazing

best management practices, sets a prioritization scheme whereby grazing permits will be renewed

to incorporate GRSG protections, and provides for sage-grouse conservation across Idaho and

southwestern Montana. The Craters of the Moon Draft MMP Amendment/EIS specifically

considers the allocation of AUMs within the Monument and the availability of Monument lands

for grazing.

1.8. Overall Vision

1.8.1. Desired Future Conditions

DFCs or goals are the primary focal points for implementing the MMP, and should reflect the

values of the management agency and general public by expressing a desired condition for the

area’s natural and cultural resources in the foreseeable future. DFCs are very broad statements

used to describe the most desirable future condition of resources and/or land uses within

the planning area. DFCs aid BLM in identifying actions that will most effectively address

unsatisfactory resource conditions, as required by laws and regulations, national policy (e.g.,

BLM Strategic Plan Goals), State Director guidance, and resource or social considerations.

The listed DFCs do not describe specific actions needed to attain those conditions, but rather are

the future vision for the Monument used to develop a course of action. They resulted from

a collaborative process involving the ID Team, and include concepts from existing planning

document decisions. DFCs were also developed through consultation with Native American

Tribes. The following DFCs were developed during the original 2007 planning process from

issues or concerns raised by the public and the ID Team during scoping. Addressing these 2007

MMP DFCs remains an objective of this MMP Amendment/EIS. The Court Order did not vacate

Chapter 1 Introduction

Overall Vision
Craters of the Moon National Monument 25

Draft MMP Amendment

the 2007 MMP; management direction regarding livestock grazing and sage-grouse habitat found

in the existing plan will remain in effect and is now amended by the GRSG ARMPA. Where there

may be conflicts, the DFCs of the GRSG ARMPA take precedence over the 2007 MMP DFCs

(Appendix C). The pertinent 2007 MMP DFCs for this planning effort are as follows. A complete

list of the 2007 MMP DFCs is contained in Appendix B.

1.8.1.1. Soil and Water Resources

Soils are stable and functional. The amount of bare mineral soil and cover of perennial vegetation,

litter, and biological soil crust are within 10% of that expected for the ecological site.

Riparian areas and wetlands within the planning area are maintained, restored, or enhanced

so that they provide diverse and healthy habitat and water quality conditions for riparian- and

wetland-obligates and other wildlife species.

1.8.1.2. Vegetation Resources

The high ecological condition of the vegetation of North Laidlaw Park and Bowl Crater is

maintained.

There is no net loss, and preferably a net gain, of sagebrush steppe communities over the life

of the plan.

Native plant communities sustain biodiversity and provide habitat for native wildlife.

Woodland communities are maintained as healthy mixed-age communities within their natural

range and distribution.

Natural ecological processes are the dominant factor in determining the composition and

distribution of plant communities in the Preserve and Wilderness areas.

Continuity of habitat for special status species and general wildlife is emphasized.

Preventing or limiting the spread of noxious weeds using integrated weed management

perpetuates the natural condition and biodiversity of the planning area.

The areas dominated by invasive annual species are minimized.

Kipukas in the Pristine Zone (Figure 2.3, “Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

Management Zones”) are free of noxious weeds.

Sustainable forage is available for livestock and wildlife.

All plant communities are in or making progress toward Fire Condition Class 1.

1.8.1.3. Fish and Wildlife

Habitat within the planning area supports a diverse range of native wildlife species and gives the

public high-quality opportunities for wildlife-based recreation.

Habitat for migratory birds, including forage, water, cover, structure, and security is available

within the Monument to support healthy populations of resident and migrant species.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Desired Future Conditions
26 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Sage-grouse restoration habitat (R1 & R2) will achieve significant progress toward reclassification

as Key habitat. (See Section 3.2.4, “Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species”.)

High-quality habitats for sagebrush-obligate species are provided.

Species composition in Key sage-grouse habitat will reflect site potential.

The DFCs of the GRSG ARMPA apply to the Monument as well. Where there may be conflicts,

the DFCs of the GRSG ARMPA take precedence over the 2007 MMP DFCs.

1.8.1.4. Wildfire Ecology and Fuels Management

Fire is allowed to function as a natural process in the Wilderness and Preserve.

1.8.1.5. Native American Rights and Interests

Traditional cultural properties of Native American tribes and access to those properties are

preserved within the Monument for the use and benefit of current and future tribal members.

For Native American tribes that have ties to this land as part of their ancestral homeland, the

Monument holds meaning and value and is a place where treaty rights and religious/sacred

traditions may be practiced in a manner supportive of the purpose of the Monument.

Agencies and tribes maintain a government-to-government relationship, and the agencies

routinely consult on matters involving the treaty interests and/or rights of tribes.

Tribal oral history will be considered and incorporated into interpretive materials, as well as

resource management.

1.8.1.6. Cultural Resources

The extent and condition of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties are documented

and adverse effects are avoided.

The agencies maintain a single, consolidated cultural resource database.

Archaeological resources either listed on or eligible to be listed on the National Register of

Historic Places are protected in an undisturbed condition unless it is determined through

appropriate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that disturbance or

natural deterioration is unavoidable.

The qualities that contribute to the eligibility for listing or listing of prehistoric/historic structures

and historic trails on the National Register are preserved and protected in accordance with the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, unless it is determined through appropriate consultation that

disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable.

1.8.1.7. Visual Resources

Existing opportunities to experience solitude, dark night sky, and views of landscapes remain

substantially free of human intrusions.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Desired Future Conditions
Craters of the Moon National Monument 27

Draft MMP Amendment

A primitive and natural visual setting is retained.
 

The visual integrity of Goodale’s Cutoff historic trail corridor remains protected.
 

Management activities meet or exceed adopted Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes.
 

1.8.1.8. Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

Natural conditions in Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), including air quality, dark

night skies, and natural quiet, are substantially free of human influences.

Air quality degradation and adverse impacts to air quality related values, particularly visibility,

within the Class I air quality area of the Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area do not occur.

Future generations enjoy the enduring wilderness resources of the Craters of the Moon

Wilderness, including its conservation, scientific, cultural, educational, and recreational benefits.

WSAs retain the wilderness values identified in the wilderness inventory and study process.

1.8.1.9. Livestock Grazing

Sustainable rangeland ecosystems are healthy; public rangelands are maintained or restored to

meet Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

[USDI BLM, 1997].

Livestock forage is provided on a sustainable basis for the life of the plan, consistent with other

resource objectives and with public land use allocations.

Livestock developments are consistent with DFCs for natural, cultural, and visual resources.

1.8.1.10. Transportation and Travel Management

There is a net decrease of road mileage within the Monument.

The road system in the planning area provides access for visitors, permittees, non-Federal

landowners, and administrative needs while protecting those resources and values the Monument

was established to preserve.

The agencies coordinate road management inside and outside of the Monument in a cooperative

fashion with local government agencies so that the transportation system is managed in a

comprehensive, logical manner.

The agencies also work cooperatively with local government agencies to provide appropriate

access to the Monument and private lands within the Monument.

The road system within the planning area supports efficient response time for fire suppression

activities.

Most management direction related to travel and access is covered by management zone

allocation.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Desired Future Conditions
28 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

1.8.1.11. Recreation and Visitor Experience

The Monument builds and maintains positive relationships with visitor user groups and education
 

organizations.
 

The public perceives the Monument as a single entity, and its management as a model of public
 

service.
 

The public understands and appreciates the area’s natural and cultural resources, including its
 

history and uses.
 

The public has access to Monument information and learning opportunities, both on- and off-site.
 

Information/orientation materials such as travel maps, safety bulletins, resource information, and
 

recreation information are available.
 

Visitors are offered a variety of interpretive media within the Frontcountry Zone.
 

1.8.1.12. Social and Economic Conditions

Gateway and other nearby communities benefit economically and socially from the presence of

the Monument.

Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2. Alternatives
 
This page intentionally

left blank
Craters of the Moon National Monument 31

Draft MMP Amendment

2.1. How to Read This Chapter

Development and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives is required by NEPA, CEQ

regulations [40 CFR1502.14], and BLM and NEPA planning handbooks (H-1601-1 and H-1790-1,

respectively). This Draft MMP Amendment/EIS evaluates five resource management alternatives

including the continuation of current management, or no action alternative. The process used in

deciding what topics needed to be analyzed in depth for this amendment, including incorporation

of consistent and valid management practices from the current land use plan is described in

Figure 2.1, “Process Used to Define Analysis Topics”. The process used to develop alternatives

to the current management alternative is depicted in Figure 2.2, “Process Used to Develop

Alternatives to Current Management (No Action)”. These alternatives constitute a range of

reasonable public-land management actions that set different priorities and measures.

Although each alternative has unique objectives and management actions, some management

actions are common to some or all alternatives. Each alternative represents a complete land use

plan amendment that could guide management in the planning area.

The alternatives were developed to address the purpose and need for action discussed in section

1.2. Management actions from the 2007 MMP that are still applicable were carried forward. Some

management actions were not considered because they: (1) did not meet BLM planning criteria

within the scope for this amendment, or (2) were not consistent with current policy or guidance.

Figure 2.1. Process Used to Define Analysis Topics

Chapter 2 Alternatives

How to Read This Chapter
32 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 2.2. Process Used to Develop Alternatives to Current Management (No Action)

DFCs describe the goals or outcomes for the next 20+ years within the planning area (see

Section 1.8, “Overall Vision”). To support these broad DFCs, additional management actions

were developed for this MMP Amendment that describe a measurable process to achieve them.

DFCs are an important consideration in alternative development, MMP implementation, and

monitoring effectiveness. Management actions may vary across alternatives.

2.2. General Description of Alternatives

This draft MMP Amendment/EIS considers five alternatives. Alternative A is the current

management based on guidance from the 2007 MMP. Alternatives B, C, D, and E represent a

reasonable and feasible range of management options that emphasize different resource use

combinations, allocations, and management actions to address issues and improve consistency.

The management actions comprised by each alternative are identified in Section 2.5. Each

alternative represents a complete plan, developed to be flexible as technology and management

policies change. The decisions from the GRSG ARMPA apply to all alternatives.

Management Zones

All Federal lands within the Monument are currently assigned to one of four management

zones. The management zones - Frontcountry, Passage, Primitive, and Pristine - guide future

management actions within the Monument (see Figure 2.3, “Craters of the Moon National

Monument and Preserve Management Zones” and Table 2.1, “Management Zone Areas in Craters

of the Moon” for an acres breakdown). For a detailed description of each Zone, see the 2007

MMP. The basic concept of each Zone is as follows:

The Frontcountry Zone is defined by structures and grounds provided for visitor support services

such as information, education, and recreation. Access is easy and convenient and the encounter

rate with other visitors is very high.

The Passage Zone is intended to accommodate the flow of people and vehicles from one place to

another and to provide minimal accommodations such as parking, trailheads, primitive campsites,

and information kiosks or signs for people preparing to venture into the Primitive and/or Pristine

Zones of the Monument.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

General Description of Alternatives
Craters of the Moon National Monument 33

Draft MMP Amendment

The Primitive Zone provides an undeveloped, primitive, and self-directed visitor experience while

accommodating motorized and mechanized access on designated routes. Facilities are rare and

provided only where essential for resource protection.

The Pristine Zone includes mostly lava flows, designated Wilderness, and Wilderness Study

Areas. This zone provides an undeveloped, primitive, and self-directed visitor experience,

generally without motorized or mechanized access. Facilities are virtually nonexistent.

Table 2.1. Management Zone Areas in Craters of the Moon

Management Zone BLM-Managed Acres NPS-Managed Acres Percent of BLMManaged Acres in the

Total Monument

Frontcountry Zone 218 2,070 < 1%

Passage Zone 5,700 794 1%

Primitive Zone 202,100 10,146 27%

Pristine Zone 67,100 450,333 9%

Chapter 2 Alternatives

General Description of Alternatives
34 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 2.3. Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Management Zones

Chapter 2 Alternatives

General Description of Alternatives
Craters of the Moon National Monument 35

Draft MMP Amendment

2.2.1. Alternative A

CEQ regulations at Section 1502.14(d) require an EIS to analyze the “No Action” Alternative.

The No Action Alternative is defined as no change from current management direction and may

also be referred to as “No Action” or “Alternative A” in this document. The existing designations,

allowable uses, and management actions contained in the 2007 MMP would continue to be

implemented, unless changed by laws, regulations, or policies.

Alternative A serves as the baseline for comparison with the other four alternatives.

The amount of forage allocated in the Monument is 38,187 animal unit months (AUMs, the

amount of forage needed to support a cow/calf pair or livestock equivalent for one month) and is

based on the best available GIS data. This total is based on the percentage of BLM land within the

Monument, compared to the total BLM land within each allotment. The 2007 MMP estimated the

forage available in the Monument based on the calculated percentage of each allotment within the

Monument compared to the size of the entire allotment, regardless of land ownership within the

allotment boundary. The GIS data at that time calculated the forage at 36,963 AUMs. This is not

a change in the total forage allocation, merely a more accurate estimate of the current condition.

Actual livestock use for allotments in the Monument, however, has been much lower than the

permitted numbers since 1998 when Idaho Standards were implemented. The 15-year average

actual use for allotments in the Monument has been determined to be 11,791 AUMs with a range

of 7,744 AUMs to 16,805 AUMs in any particular year. The full range of Actual Use, while

accounting for fires, varying forage conditions, and permittee operations is 5,847 AUMs to 19,388

AUMs. This range is based on adding the low actual use for each allotment compared to the high

actual use for each allotment since 1997. Approximately 1,200 acres are currently unavailable for

grazing, leaving 273,900 acres of BLM land open to grazing in the Monument.

Under the No Action Alternative, livestock grazing would continue to be managed under direction

found in the 2007 MMP, which will be analyzed in two ways:

1.	 Actual use: 11,791 AUMs over 273,900 acres of public land based on a 15-year average

arrives at the existing condition.

2.	 Full permitted use: Active permitted livestock use of 38,187 AUMs annually over 273,900

acres of public land analyzes full implementation of the alternative.

In addition:

● No new areas of livestock exclusion would be proposed in this alternative.

● All management actions related to livestock grazing and sage-grouse management that were

outlined in the 2007 MMP would be carried forward. The decisions in the GRSG ARMPA are

common to all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative.

● Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health would be the driving force in determining livestock

grazing levels (permitted use) and practices (grazing systems) in the future, within the current

licensed use. Upon completion of Land Health Assessments (LHAs), it would be determined

whether Standards are being met, and if not, the causes for not meeting the Standard(s) would

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative A
36 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

be determined. If current livestock grazing practices were determined to be the cause of an

allotment not meeting one or more standards, then livestock grazing practices would be

changed. Some practices that could be considered include, but are not limited to, changes in:

○ Season or timing of use

○ Duration and/or level of use (AUMs)

○ Grazing schedules (including rest or deferment)

○ Numbers of livestock

○ Distribution of livestock use

○ Kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, or goats)

○ Voluntary measures such as temporary non-use.

● New range improvements for management of livestock would continue to be considered on a

case-by-case basis. All new livestock developments would be designed to benefit the resources

affected and help achieve Standards, and must be compatible with achievement of MMP

goals and objectives. No new livestock developments would be permitted in the Bowl Crater

Allotment or the North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment unless they result in a net benefit to

those resources identified as needing improvement or protection.

2.2.2. Alternative B

Alternative B, emphasizes protection of Monument values and biological resources, including

habitat values for greater sage-grouse, through significantly reduced livestock grazing.

1.	 Livestock grazing would be removed from 6 areas (Little Park kipuka, the North Pasture of

Laidlaw Park Allotment, Larkspur Park kipuka, the North Pasture of Bowl Crater Allotment,

Park Field kipuka, and part of the Craters Allotment) to eliminate livestock grazing impacts

to Monument features and values specifically mentioned in Proclamation 7373 (total of

19,800 acres). Existing pasture fences and natural barriers would be employed to exclude

grazing from these areas.

2.	 The boundary between the Kimama and Poison Lake Allotments would be adjusted to

coincide with the Monument boundary to resolve a management issue. Those acres in the

Kimama Allotment that are within the Monument would be absorbed into the Poison Lake

Allotment, and acres in the Poison Lake Allotment that are outside the Monument would

be absorbed into the Kimama Allotment.

3.	 Approximately 254,100 acres of public lands in the Monument would be available and

21,000 acres (closed areas plus those currently unalloted) would be unavailable for livestock

grazing for the life of the plan.

4.	 A 20% reduction from the 15-year average actual use would be applied to those areas

remaining available to livestock grazing, setting the maximum number of AUMs allowed

in the Monument to 9,432. AUM reductions would be implemented during the grazing

permit renewal process in order of priority, based on current policy. Reduction methods

could include the following:

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative B
Craters of the Moon National Monument 37

Draft MMP Amendment

a.	 Meeting rangeland health Standards

b.	 Closing the areas identified in Alternative B and reducing the corresponding allotment

AUMs proportionately

c.	 Adjusting AUMs to reflect allotment boundary adjustment removing Kimama

Allotment from the Monument

d.	 Asking permittees for voluntary reductions or relinquishments

e.	 Reviewing site specific Monument values present in each allotment, such as geological

features, native biological communities, wilderness character and/or WSAs.

5.	 Range improvements would be restricted to only allow those that would be a net benefit to

wildlife habitat as determined by the Authorized Officer.

6.	 Guidelines for livestock grazing management (seasons of use, stocking rates, livestock type,

etc.) would be set based upon vegetation and wildlife habitat conditions/needs and would

be applied during the implementation of the Plan (the Standards and Guidelines/permit

renewal process).

2.2.3. Alternative C

Alternative C emphasizes maintenance or enhancement of intact vegetation communities and

biological integrity, and reduced impacts on greater sage-grouse habitat and life-cycle needs,

through increased flexibility to use grazing as an ecological management tool.

1.	 Approximately 273,600 acres of public lands in the Craters of the Moon National Monument

would be available for livestock grazing and 1,500 acres (closed areas plus those currently

unalloted) would be unavailable for livestock grazing for the life of the plan.

2.	 The boundary between the Kimama and Poison Lake Allotments would be adjusted to

coincide with the Monument boundary to resolve a management issue. The Kimama

Allotment would be excluded from the Monument and those acres would be absorbed into

the Poison Lake Allotment thereby setting the maximum AUMs at 37,792. (See Figure 1.4,

“Allotment Administration” for a visual description.)

3.	 Where appropriate, livestock grazing could be a tool (seedings, fuel breaks, restrictions, etc.)

utilized to improve or protect wildlife habitat.

4.	 Guidelines for livestock grazing management in each allotment/for each permit (seasons of

use, stocking rates, livestock type, etc.) would be set based upon vegetation and wildlife

habitat conditions/needs and would be applied during implementation of the Plan (the

Standards and Guidelines/permit renewal process).

2.2.4. Alternative D

Alternative D emphasizes protection for geologic, cultural, and natural resources and features

through elimination of livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands within the Monument and

removal of infrastructure coincident to livestock grazing management on BLM lands.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative C
38 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

1.	 No grazing permits would be authorized in the Monument. No public lands would

be available for livestock grazing for the life of the plan. The current livestock use

authorizations would remain in effect for 2 years following the signing of the Record of

Decision (43 CFR 4110.4–2(b) (2005)).

2.	 All livestock developments (e.g., corrals, cattleguards, fences, tanks, troughs, pipelines,

reservoirs/ponds, spring developments, wells) on BLM-administered lands within the

Monument would be removed or decommisioned, unless needed for fire suppression.

3.	 Infrastructure and disturbance attributed to livestock use and livestock management would

be prioritized for removal, rehabilitation, or restoration.

4.	 Additional fencing may be required to keep livestock out of the Monument.

5.	 Monitoring data for allotments would still be collected and LHAs would still occur consistent

with priorities and current policy. Because of the intermingling of private and State lands

in the Monument and the BLM land adjacent to and contiguous with the Monument, each

allotment would also need to be evaluated to determine the extent to which additional

fencing would be required to enforce a grazing closure.

2.2.5. Alternative E

Alternative E emphasizes maintenance or enhancement of intact vegetation communities and

biological integrity, and reduced impacts on greater sage-grouse habitat and life-cycle needs,

while reducing permitted AUMs to maximum actual use levels. The AUM level in Alternative

B was a reduction based on average Actual Use levels, whereas this alternative’s AUM level is

based on the amount of use in each allotment since the implementation of Idaho’s Standards for

Rangeland Health. Use levels have fluctuated in the Monument based on variations in permitte

operations, fires and subsequent closures, drought, and other annual occurrences. This level takes

these variations into account and sets the AUM level based on the amount of grazing that has

resulted in the current conditions.

1.	 Approximately 272,800 acres of public lands in the Craters of the Moon National Monument

would be available for livestock grazing and 2,200 acres (closed areas plus those currently

unalloted) would be unavailable for livestock grazing for the life of the plan

2.	 A reduction from the full permitted 38,187 AUMs would be applied to those areas available

to livestock grazing, setting the maximum number of AUMs allowed in the Monument to

19,388. AUM reductions would be implemented during the grazing permit renewal process

in order of priority, based on current policy. Reduction methods could include the following:

a.	 Meeting applicable rangeland health Standards.

b.	 Closing Larkspur Park and reducing the corresponding allotment AUMs proportionately

c.	 Adjusting AUMs to reflect allotment boundary adjustment removing Kimama

Allotment from the Monument

d.	 Asking permittees for voluntary reductions or relinquishments

e.	 Reviewing site specific Monument values present in each allotment, such as geological

features, native biological communities, wilderness character and/or WSAs.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative E
Craters of the Moon National Monument 39

Draft MMP Amendment

3.	 The boundary between the Kimama and Poison Lake Allotments would be adjusted to

coincide with the Monument boundary to resolve a management issue. The Kimama

Allotment would be excluded from the Monument and those acres would be absorbed into the

Poison Lake Allotment.(See Figure 1.4, “Allotment Administration” for a visual description.)

4.	 Larkspur Park kipuka would be closed to livestock grazing.

5.	 No net gain in disturbance from livestock-related infrastructure or developments would be

allowed. Any new infrastructure must follow previously established corridors/areas or be

offset by rehabilitation of disturbance elsewhere.

6.	 Where appropriate, livestock grazing could be a tool (seedings, fuel breaks, restrictions, etc.)

utilized to improve or protect wildlife habitat.

7.	 Livestock grazing management in each allotment/for each permit (seasons of use, stocking

rates, livestock type, etc.) would be set based upon vegetation and wildlife habitat

conditions/needs and would be applied during implementation of the Plan (the Standards and

Guidelines/permit renewal process).

2.3. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

The ID Team members discussed and considered different alternative concepts and approaches

based on future planning trends, public comments, and BLM expertise. As a result of these

discussions, alternative themes were developed and revised to reflect a reasonable range of

options. Some proposed alternatives were not carried forward for detailed analysis due to the

following:

● They did not fulfill the requirements of FLPMA 43 United States Code (USC) Part 1701 et

seq. or other existing regulations.

● They did not meet the purpose and need as described in Chapter 1.

● They were outside the scope of the BLM’s authority.

A brief description of the alternatives considered, but not analyzed in detail is provided below.

Close All Kipukas to Grazing

The ID Team discussed closing all kipukas in the Monument to livestock grazing as a possible

alternative. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it was deemed too similar to

Alternative D and would be duplicative. Most of the larger kipukas are analyzed for removing

livestock grazing in Alternative B, but the removal of livestock grazing from Laidlaw Park, the

Monument’s largest kipuka, is analyzed as part of Alternative D. It is also important to note that

not all kipukas in the Monument are representative of relic vegetation. For example, Laidlaw Park

has a number of rangeland seedings throughout. The rugged lava described in Proclamation 7373

did not, in this instance, protect Laidlaw Park from people, animals, and exotic plants. In addition,

making Laidlaw Park unavailable to livestock grazing would result in no livestock use in Laidlaw

Park, without affecting the AUM level across the rest of Monument. (This Amendment analyzes

Monument-wide AUMs. If livestock use was reduced in one place, the overall AUMs would be

reduced, but the reduction would have been localized and not applied over the entire Monument.)

Passive Restoration

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail
40 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Passive restoration would be similar to Alternative D, but the BLM would have no active role in

restoring areas that were disturbed in the past. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because

it is not responsive to the purpose and need (Section 1.2, “Purpose and Need for the Monument

Management Plan Amendment”) and it is addressed with management action VEG-8 in the 2007

MMP, which emphasizes proactive restoration of areas with poor to fair biotic integrity through

active and passive means.

Aggressive Restoration

This alternative would be similar to Alternative D, but with more concerted effort to actively

return the Monument to its native state. Actions could include removal of undesirable vegetation

through chemical and mechanical means, reseeding native plant species, and removing human

infrastructure, for example. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it is not responsive

to the purpose and need (Section 1.2, “Purpose and Need for the Monument Management Plan

Amendment”). Aggressive restoration is addressed in Alternative C, and restoration activities

outside of livestock grazing were already addressed in the 2007 MMP.

The Governor’s Sage-Grouse Alternative

The Governor’s sage-grouse alternative was considered in the BLM’s GRSG ARMPA. Addressing

the same alternative in two EISs would be duplicative and inconsistent with NEPA practice.

Section 1.2, “Purpose and Need for the Monument Management Plan Amendment” outlines

the roles of the GRSG ARMPA and this MMP Amendment/EIS. In addition, the Governor’s

alternative for the GRSG ARMPA was not limited to addressing grazing in the Craters of the

Moon National Monument and Preserve, which is the focus of this effort.

Western Watersheds Project Proposed Alternative

WWP submitted three comment letters (two dated August 21, 2013, and one dated August

23, 2013) during scoping that suggested a number of issues and concerns they felt should be

addressed in the MMP Amendment. None of these concerns were specifically identified by

WWP as a complete alternative, but rather as matters that needed to be taken into account by the

planning team. The ID Team subsequently crafted five alternatives using input from all the public

scoping comments BLM received, including the WWP comment letters.

On March 30, 2014, a representative of WWP requested a meeting with the BLM via e-mail to

discuss a WWP alternative. A meeting was held on July 1, 2014 with two representatives of

WWP and Idaho BLM to discuss WWP’s proposal. The BLM shared the draft alternatives the

planning team had developed, and WWP commented on those alternatives. WWP suggested that

Alternative C should be eliminated from analysis because they felt it was too similar to the No

Action Alternative. However, Alternative C was not eliminated from analysis as it provides

for flexible grazing management as a management tool and is thus substantially different from

the No Action Alternative. It is part of a range of reasonable alternatives, which is required

by CEQ NEPA regulations.

Based on this meeting, BLM summarized several WWP requests as a single alternative including

the following elements:

● BLM-managed land in Laidlaw Park would be unavailable for livestock grazing,

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail
Craters of the Moon National Monument 41

Draft MMP Amendment

● Remaining BLM Monument lands would be closed to spring grazing, early summer grazing,

and winter grazing to protect greater sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe communities during

these seasons,

● Utilization levels would be established for the entire Monument,

● Any lands undergoing wildfire rehabilitation and/or restoration efforts would be closed to

grazing for a minimum 10-year period,

● Specific protection measures would be developed for microbiotic soil crusts,

● Designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) to protect sage-grouse

habitat would be considered, and

● Livestock grazing administration, including changes in allotment boundaries, within the

Monument would be changed from three field offices and the Monument to a single

administering office.

WWP’s proposed alternative has been considered as a whole by the BLM, and eliminated from

detailed analysis for the following reasons.

Allocating BLM-managed lands within Laidlaw Park as unavailable for grazing is currently

analyzed in Alternative D. The impacts of restricting spring, early summer, and winter grazing are

currently analyzed in Alternatives B and D. Should the deciding official choose to select any or all

of these management actions, the option to do so will have been analyzed.

Utilization levels are typically set during the grazing permit renewal process, if necessary, to

allow BLM land managers to make site-specific decisions for flexibility in allotment management

(i.e. allowing managers to respond to current on-the-ground conditions and updated policies).

Appendix C in the BLM Planning Handbook does not include utilization levels as a necessary

component of a LUP. It is an implementation-level, allotment specific decision and will not be

determined at the land use plan level.

The Twin Falls District Programmatic Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan and

Environmental Assessment (October 2013), which includes the Monument area, gives BLM

land managers the discretion to rest post-fire rehabilitation areas until treatment and/or resource

objectives are met. There is no need to set an arbitrary 10-year rest period since the BLM has the

authority to rest lands to meet emergency stabilization and rehabilitation treatment objectives.

The current 2007 MMP addresses preservation of biological soil crusts (i.e. microbiotic soil

crusts) in the Monument and Preserve, while recognizing that these crusts have not been observed

as a highly conspicuous element there. This may be due to soil texture and chemistry, annual

precipitation amount and timing, associated vegetation, and disturbance history. However,

the 2007 MMP does set a DFC and management actions for soils that include provisions for

biological soil crusts. Those provisions were not vacated by the Court and will be carried forward

in the MMP Amendment.

Several proposed ACECs were analyzed in the 2007 MMP but were not designated at that time.

ACECs have been deemed outside the scope of this effort, and proposals for ACEC nominations

were not solicited during public scoping. For these reasons, an ACEC is not analyzed.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail
42 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

The delegation of authority for the livestock grazing administration of the BLM Monument

lands was set forth in the Updated Idaho Supplement of the Delegation of Authority Manual

(IM-ID-2012-004). Delegation of Authority decisions are internal State Director decisions and

not subject to formal public review and comment. As such, it would be inappropriate to make

such delegation changes through the planning process.

As noted above, several elements of WWP’s proposal have been incorporated into one or more

of the alternatives that the BLM has developed for detailed analysis. Other elements have been

deemed to be outside of the scope of this planning effort. Considering all these suggested

management actions as a whole, the WWP proposed alternative did not constitute a complete

land use plan amendment as the other alternatives do. After all the restrictions and additional

closure areas, the Monument would be effectively closed to livestock grazing, which is analyzed

in Alternative D. It was deemed too similar to Alternative D to warrant a separate analysis in the

document. Based on these considerations, it was not carried forward as a stand-alone alternative.

2.4. Management Common to All Alternatives

All of the management guidance in the 2007 MMP is carried forward and will continue to apply

under all alternatives. See Appendix B, Management Common to All Alternatives - Carried

forward from the 2007 Craters of the Moon MMP for a list of Management Actions that still

apply. The decisions in the GRSG ARMPA are also common to all alternatives.

New Management Actions Common to All Alternatives

Wildlife and Fish Management Action

WLIFE-11A: Schedule small-scale construction and routine maintenance activities to avoid or

minimize disturbance to priority species and their habitat during important seasonal periods.

2.5. Description of Management Actions by Alternative

This section describes the management actions that would apply to those actions under each

alternative. Land use plans identify outcomes, or DFCs, expressed in terms of specific actions

which direct BLM actions.

Management actions are identified for and pertain to resources, resource uses, and social and

economic conditions. They are usually quantifiable, measurable, and may have established

time frames for achievement, as appropriate. Management actions can either be common to all

alternatives or specific to one or more. Table 2.2, “Comparison of Management Actions by

Alternative” summarizes the management actions listed below. Because livestock trailing does

not fall under livestock use allocation and has been addressed in the 2013 Livestock Trailing for

Shoshone Field Office EA (DOI-BLM-ID-T030-2012-0044-EA), trailing management actions

are not addressed in this MMP Amendment.

2.5.1. Alternative A - No Action

Existing Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Management Common to All Alternatives
Craters of the Moon National Monument 43

Draft MMP Amendment

GRAZ-2A: BLM land available for livestock use totals approximately 273,900 acres. BLM land

not available for livestock use totals approximately 1,200 acres. NPS land not available for

livestock use totals approximately 463,300 acres. (Please note that acres are different from how

they were identified in the 2007 MMP. Acres for this plan amendment were updated as part of a

GIS data-cleaning exercise in 2013.) See Figure 2.4, “Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative

A”.

GRAZ-3A: Permitted livestock use totals 38,187 AUMs. The current livestock use authorizations

will be maintained until LHAs are completed and the BLM determines that adjustments in

livestock use are necessary to meet Standards, vegetation, wildlife, livestock, or resource

objectives.

GRAZ-4A: Use of existing livestock developments in Primitive and Pristine Zones may continue.

The BLM may remove developments if they are no longer serving a useful purpose or resource

objectives warrant their removal. Sites will be restored.

GRAZ-6A: There will be no new livestock developments permitted in the Bowl Crater Allotment

or the North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment unless they result in a net benefit to those

resources identified as needing improvement or protection.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative A - No Action
44 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 2.4. Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative A

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative A - No Action
Craters of the Moon National Monument 45

Draft MMP Amendment

2.5.2. Alternative B

New Management Actions proposed under Alternative B:

Water Resources Management Actions

WATER-4B: Implement actions that would restore all riparian areas to proper functioning

condition (PFC). Where riparian areas and wet meadows meet PFC, strive to attain reference

state vegetation relative to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Ecological Site

Description.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

WLIFE-12B: During permit modification, develop specific habitat objectives for priority wildlife

species (e.g., big game, sage-grouse, Idaho dunes tiger beetle).

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

VEG-24B: During permit renewal, where possible, adjust grazing systems to focus livestock use

on non-native perennial seedings.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

GRAZ-2B: BLM land available for livestock use totals 254,100 acres. BLM land not available for

livestock use totals approximately 21,000 acres. NPS land not available for livestock use totals

approximately 463,300 acres. See Figure 2.5, “Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative B”.

GRAZ-3B:Permitted livestock use totals 9,432 AUMs. The current livestock use authorizations

would be maintained until Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health evaluations or similar

NEPA-compliant decisions identify the need for adjustments in livestock use to meet Standards,

Monument values, resource objectives, or plan AUM levels. AUM reductions would be

implemented during the grazing permit renewal process in order of priority based on current

policy, by:

1.	 Closing the areas described in the alternative and reducing the corresponding allotment

AUMs proportionately

2.	 Adjusting AUMs to reflect allotment boundary adjustment removing Kimama Allotment

from the Monument

3.	 Accepting voluntary reductions or relinquishments from permittees

4.	 Reviewing site specific Monument values present in each allotment, such as native biological

communities, wilderness character and/or WSAs, and sage-grouse habitat.

GRAZ-4B: All livestock developments (e.g., corrals, cattleguards, fences, tanks, troughs,

pipelines, reservoirs/ponds, spring developments, wells) in areas that are unavailable for livestock

grazing would be identified, analyzed, and prioritized for removal, consolidation, or modification

to maintain and improve intact habitats.

GRAZ-6B: There would be no new livestock developments in areas closed to grazing.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative B
46 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

GRAZ-7B: Adjust the Poison Lake and Kimama Allotment boundaries to coincide with the

Monument and Preserve boundary.

GRAZ-8B: Locate new salt, minerals, supplements, troughs, reservoirs, and holding facilities

more than 200 meters from lava edges and playas, to ensure that they avoid conflicts with cultural

resources. Evaluate existing water developments and corrals to identify conflicts with cultural

resources, and prioritize for removal or relocation if a conflict exists.

GRAZ-14B: In allotments with a single permittee and/or intact native plant communities,

prioritize retiring the permit or closing the allotment if grazing privileges are relinquished or an

allotment becomes vacant.

GRAZ-15B: No spring or early summer livestock grazing (March 15 - June 15) would be allowed

in sage-grouse nesting or early brood-rearing (i.e., breeding) habitats .1

GRAZ-22B: No new spring developments will be permitted.

GRAZ-25B: During implementation (i.e. permit renewal) and when/where necessary, provide

flexibility in grazing permit terms and conditions to allow annual/seasonal adjustments in the

intensity, timing, duration and frequency of grazing use over time that best supports management

objectives.

GRAZ-26B: Conversions in kind of livestock may be allowed as long as the following are

addressed through an appropriate environmental review:

● Concerns of other permittees in the affected allotment would be considered in analysis of the

conversion proposal

● The amount of AUMs converted from one livestock kind to another would be in proportion to

the allotment's suitability for grazing that kind of livestock

● All conversions would be initially conservative (50% conversion for the first 3 years as

modified by suitability and water availability)

● Necessary range improvements would be completed prior to livestock use

● Results of ongoing monitoring studies would determine whether the new AMP and level of

conversion is satisfactory

● Final conversion levels will depend on the desired season of use, initial balance between spring

and fall sheep use, and resource response to that use.

1The breeding season dates (March 15- June 15) are consistent with the Breeding/Nesting Season identified in the NMV

LWG Sage-grouse Conservation Plan (2011). These seasonal dates are specific to management actions 15B, C, and E. The

focus of these dates is to capture the core of the breeding season as identified in the NMV LWG Sage-grouse Conservation

Plan (2011). Table 2-2 of ID/SW MT Greater Sage-Grouse RMP Amendment identifies a Lek Habitat seasonal use period

from March 1 to May 15, and a Nesting/Early Brood Rearing seasonal use period from May 1 to June 30. Cumulatively,

these seasonal dates are broader. However, Table 2-2 of the Amendment also identifies that seasonal dates can be adjusted

by local unit according to geographic region. Although, the core of breeding season for this amendment has been identified

as March 15 to June 15, these dates may be adjusted to reflect the broader seasonal habitat dates identified in the Table 2-2

of the ID/SW MT Greater Sage-Grouse RMP Amendment.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative B
Craters of the Moon National Monument 47

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 2.5. Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative B

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative B
48 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

2.5.3. Alternative C

New Management Actions proposed under Alternative C

Water Resources Management Actions

WATER-4C: Implement actions that would restore all riparian areas to PFC.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

VEG-24C: During permit renewal, where possible, adjust grazing systems to focus livestock use

on non-native perennial seedings.

VEG-25C: Consider directing grazing for sagebrush recovery and/or to benefit the diversity of

seedings.

VEG-26C: Identify and implement scientific reference areas to study the effects of livestock

grazing on different vegetation communities/conditions. Each reference area would be paired

with an adjacent grazed area in a similar vegetation type and condition to monitor the effects

of livestock grazing on a variety of plant communities. The absence of grazing would be the

only difference between management of reference areas and that of adjacent areas with similar

vegetation. Each reference area would be a minimum of 40 acres, and the total acreage of all

reference areas would not exceed 1,000 acres. Fencing would vary depending on the objective

of the treatment, but would be built to meet BLM standards.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

GRAZ-2C: BLM land available for livestock use totals 273,600 acres. BLM land not available

for livestock use totals approximately 1,500 acres. NPS land not available for livestock use totals

approximately 463,300 acres. See Figure 2.6, “Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative C”.

GRAZ-3C: Total permitted livestock use is 37,792 AUMs. The current livestock use

authorizations would be maintained until Idaho Standards evaluations or similar NEPA-compliant

decisions identify the need for adjustments in livestock use to meet Standards, vegetation,

wildlife, livestock, resource objectives, or plan AUM levels.

GRAZ-7C: Adjust the Poison Lake and Kimama Allotment boundaries to coincide with the

Monument and Preserve boundary.

GRAZ-8C: Locate new salt, minerals, supplements, troughs, reservoirs, and holding facilities

more than 200 meters from lava edges and playas, to ensure that they avoid conflicts with cultural

resources. Evaluate existing water developments and corrals to identify conflicts with cultural

resources, and prioritize for removal or relocation if a conflict exists.

GRAZ-12C: During permit modification, use monitoring information and LHAs to develop

specific management objectives and grazing management plans designed to maintain, enhance, or

restore vegetation condition.

GRAZ-13C: When livestock management practices are not meeting or making progress

towards Standards, implement changes in grazing management through grazing authorization

modifications, or AMP implementation. In the analysis the following actions must be considered,

but are not limited to:

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative C
Craters of the Moon National Monument 49

Draft MMP Amendment

● Season or timing of use;

● Duration and/or level of use (AUMs);

● Grazing schedules (including rest or deferment).

GRAZ-15C: Within sage-grouse nesting or early brood-rearing (i.e., breeding) habitats, coordinate

with the permittee to manage grazing use to avoid the sage-grouse breeding period (March 15 -

June 15)1, such as through rotations, scheduling, or managing water sources when practical.

GRAZ-25C: During implementation (i.e. permit renewal) and when/where necessary, provide

flexibility in grazing permit terms and conditions to allow annual/seasonal adjustments in the

intensity, timing, duration and frequency of grazing use over time that best supports management

objectives.

GRAZ-26C: Conversions in kind of livestock may be allowed as long as the following are

addressed through an appropriate environmental review:

● Concerns of other permittees in the affected allotment would be considered in analysis of the

conversion proposal

● The amount of AUMs converted from one livestock kind to another would be in proportion to

the allotment's suitability for grazing that kind of livestock

● All conversions would be initially conservative (50% conversion for the first 3 years as

modified by suitability and water availability)

● Necessary range improvements would be completed prior to livestock use

● Results of ongoing monitoring studies would determine whether the new AMP and level of

conversion is satisfactory

● Final conversion levels will depend on the desired season of use, initial balance between spring

and fall sheep use, and resource response to that use.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative C
50 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 2.6. Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative C

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative C
Craters of the Moon National Monument 51

Draft MMP Amendment

2.5.4. Alternative D

New Management Actions in Alternative D:

Water Resources Management Actions

WATER-4D: Implement actions that would restore all riparian areas to PFC.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

GRAZ-2D: BLM land available for livestock use totals 0 acres. BLM land not available for

livestock use totals approximately 275,100 acres. NPS land not available for livestock use totals

approximately 463,300 acres. See Figure 2.7, “Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative D”.

GRAZ-3D: No livestock grazing would be permitted through the life of the plan. The current

livestock use authorizations would remain in effect until 2 years from the signing of the ROD. [43

CFR 4110.4-2(b) (2005)]

GRAZ-4D: Infrastructure coincident to livestock grazing management on BLM lands would

be removed or decommissioned. Access and developments related to State and private lands

would remain.

GRAZ-6D: There would be no new livestock developments on public land in the Monument.

GRAZ-7D: Adjust the Poison Lake and Kimama Allotment boundaries to coincide with the

Monument and Preserve boundary.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative D
52 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 2.7. Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative D

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative D
Craters of the Moon National Monument 53

Draft MMP Amendment

2.5.5. Alternative E

New Management Actions in Alternative E:

Water Resources Management Actions

WATER-4E: Implement actions that would restore all riparian areas to proper functioning

condition (PFC).

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

VEG-24E: During permit renewal, where possible, adjust grazing systems to focus livestock use

on non-native perennial seedings.

VEG-25E: Consider directing grazing for sagebrush recovery and/or to benefit the diversity of

seedings.

VEG-26E: Identify and implement scientific reference areas to study the effects of livestock

grazing on different vegetation communities/conditions. Each reference area would be paired

with an adjacent grazed area in a similar vegetation type and condition to monitor the effects

of livestock grazing on a variety of plant communities. The absence of grazing would be the

only difference between management of reference areas and that of adjacent areas with similar

vegetation. Each reference area would be a minimum of 40 acres, and the total acreage of all

reference areas would not exceed 1,000 acres. Fencing would vary depending on the objective

of the treatment, but would be built to meet BLM standards.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

GRAZ-2E: BLM land available for livestock use totals 272,800 acres. BLM land not available for

livestock use totals approximately 2,200 acres. NPS land not available for livestock use totals

approximately 463,300 acres. See Figure 2.8, “Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative E”.

GRAZ-3E: Permitted livestock use totals 19,388 AUMs. The current livestock use authorizations

would be maintained until Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health evaluations or similar

NEPA-compliant decisions identify the need for adjustments in livestock use to meet Standards,

Monument values, resource objectives, or plan AUM levels. AUM reductions would be

implemented during the grazing permit renewal process in order of priority based on current

policy, by:

1.	 Meeting applicable rangeland health Standards.

2.	 Closing Larkspur Park and reducing the corresponding allotment AUMs proportionately

3.	 Adjusting AUMs to reflect allotment boundary adjustment removing Kimama Allotment

from the Monument

4.	 Accepting voluntary reductions or relinquishments from permittees

5.	 Reviewing site specific Monument values present in each allotment, such as native biological

communities, wilderness character and/or WSAs.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative E
54 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

GRAZ-6E: No net increase in disturbance from livestock-related infrastructure or developments

would be allowed. Any new infrastructure must follow previously established corridors/areas or

be offset by rehabilitation of disturbance elsewhere. Disturbance buffers for new infrastructure

follow:

● Fences and pipelines — must be within route disturbance (20 ft. from center of primitive

roads, 30 ft. from center of roads)

● Troughs and wells — must be within a historically used watering site, identified prior to

development

● Corrals — must remain within existing corral sites

GRAZ-7E: Adjust the Poison Lake and Kimama Allotment boundaries to coincide with the

Monument and Preserve boundary.

GRAZ-8E: Locate new salt, minerals, supplements, troughs, reservoirs, and holding facilities

more than 200 meters from lava edges and playas, to ensure that they avoid conflicts with cultural

resources. Evaluate existing water developments and corrals to identify conflicts with cultural

resources, and prioritize for removal or relocation if a conflict exists.

GRAZ-12E: During permit modification, use monitoring information and LHAs to develop

specific management objectives and grazing management plans designed to maintain, enhance, or

restore vegetation condition.

GRAZ-13E: When livestock management practices are not meeting or making progress

towards Standards, implement changes in grazing management through grazing authorization

modifications, or AMP implementation. The following actions must be considered, but are not

limited to, in the analysis:

● Season or timing of use

● Duration of use

● Level of use (AUMs)

● Grazing schedules (including rest or deferment).

GRAZ-15E: Within sage-grouse nesting or early brood-rearing (i.e., breeding) habitats, coordinate

with the permittee to manage grazing use to avoid the sage-grouse breeding period (March 15 -

June 15)1, such as through rotations, scheduling, or managing water sources when practical.

GRAZ-25E: During implementation and where necessary, modify grazing management to meet

seasonal sage-grouse habitat requirements. When practical, provide flexibility in grazing permit

terms and conditions to allow annual/seasonal adjustments in the intensity, timing, duration, and

frequency of grazing use over time that best supports management objectives.

GRAZ-26E: Conversions in kind of livestock may be allowed as long as the following are

addressed through an appropriate environmental review:

● Concerns of other permittees in the affected allotment would be considered in analysis of the

conversion proposal

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative E
Craters of the Moon National Monument 55

Draft MMP Amendment

● The amount of AUMs converted from one livestock kind to another would be in proportion to

the allotment's suitability for grazing that kind of livestock

● All conversions would be initially limited (50% conversion for the first 3 years as modified by

suitability and water availability)

● Necessary range improvements would be completed prior to livestock use

● Results of ongoing monitoring studies would determine whether the new AMP and level of

conversion is satisfactory

● Final conversion levels will depend on the desired season of use, initial balance between spring

and fall sheep use, and resource response to that use.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative E
56 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 2.8. Livestock Grazing Availability-Alternative E

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternative E
Craters of the Moon National Monument 57

Draft MMP Amendment

2.6. Comparison of Alternatives

The Comparison of Alternatives table below summarizes all new management actions proposed

under Alternatives A through E, which would be in addition to the current management actions

in the existing plan.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives
58 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Table 2.2. Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Water Resources WATER-4B: Implement

actions that would restore

all riparian areas to

PFC. Wherever riparian

areas and wet meadows

meet PFC, strive to

attain reference state

vegetation relatives to the

NRCS Ecological Site

Description.

WATER-4C: Implement

actions that would restore

all riparian areas to PFC.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative C.

Wildlife and Fish WLIFE-11A: Schedule

small-scale construction

and routine maintenance

activities to avoid or

minimize disturbance to

priority species and their

habitat during important

seasonal periods.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

WLIFE-12B: During

permit modification,

develop specific habitat

objectives for priority

wildlife species (e.g., big

game, sage-grouse, Idaho

dunes tiger beetle).

N/A

Vegetation

Resources

VEG-24B: During permit

renewal, where possible,

adjust grazing systems

to focus livestock use

on non-native perennial

seedings with the primary

purpose of deferral or rest

and/or reduced utilization

levels in areas of desirable

native vegetation.

(Monument-wide)

Same as Alternative B. N/A Same as Alternative B.

VEG-25C: Consider

directing grazing for

sagebrush recovery and/or

N/A Same as Alternative C.

Chapter

2 Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives
59 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Resource Alternative

A AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE

to benefit the diversity of

seedings.

VEG-26C: Identify and

implement scientific

reference areas to

study the effects of

livestock grazing on

different vegetation

communities/conditions.

Each reference area

would be paired with an

adjacent grazed area in a similar vegetation type

and condition to monitor

the effects of livestock

grazing ona variety of

plant communities. The

absence of grazing would

be the only difference

between management of

reference areas and that

of adjacent areas with

similar vegetation. Each

reference area would be a minimum of 40 acres,

and the total acreage

of all reference areas

would not exceed 1,000

acres. Fencing would

vary depending on the

objective of the treatment,

but would be built to meet

BLM standards.

N/A Same as Alternative C.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives
60 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Livestock Grazing GRAZ-2A: BLM land

available for livestock

use totals approximately

273,900 acres. BLM

land not available for

livestock use totals

approximately 1,200

acres. NPS land not

available for livestock

use totals approximately

463,300 acres.

GRAZ-2B: BLM land

available for livestock

use totals 254,100 acres.

BLM land not available

for livestock use totals

approximately 21,000

acres. NPS land not

available for livestock

use totals approximately

463,300 acres.

GRAZ-2C: BLM land

available for livestock

use totals 273,600 acres.

BLM land not available

for livestock use totals

approximately 1,500

acres. NPS land not

available for livestock

use totals approximately

463,300 acres.

GRAZ-2D: BLM land

available for livestock

use totals 0 acres. BLM

land not available for

livestock use totals

approximately 275,100

acres. NPS land not

available for livestock

use totals approximately

463,300 acres.

GRAZ-2E: BLM land

available for livestock use

totals 272,800 acres. BLM

not available for livestock

use totals approximately

2,200 acres. NPS land

not available for livestock

use totals approximately

463,300 acres.

GRAZ-3A: Permitted GRAZ-3B: Permitted GRAZ-3C: Permitted GRAZ-3D: No livestock GRAZ-3E:Permitted

livestock use totals livestock use totals livestock use totals grazing will be livestock use totals

38,187 AUMs. The 9,432 AUMs. The 37,792 AUMs. The permitted through the 19,388 AUMs. The

current livestock use current livestock use current livestock use life of the plan. The current livestock use

authorizations will be authorizations would be authorizations would be current livestock use authorizations would be

maintained until Idaho maintained until Idaho maintained until Idaho authorizations would maintained until Idaho

Standards for Rangeland Standards for Rangeland Standards for Rangeland remain in effect until 2 Standards for Rangeland

Health evaluations or Health evaluations or Health evaluations or years from the signing Health evaluations or

similar NEPA-compliant similar NEPA-compliant similar NEPA-compliant of the ROD. (43 CFR similar NEPA-compliant

decisions identify the decisions identify the decisions identify the 4110.4-2(b)(2005)) decisions identify the

need for adjustments in need for adjustments in need for adjustments in need for adjustments in

livestock use to meet livestock use to meet livestock use to meet livestock use to meet

Standards, vegetation, Standards, Monument Standards, vegetation, Standards, Monument

wildlife, livestock, or values, resource wildlife, livestock, values, resource

resource objectives. objectives, or plan AUM

levels. AUM reductions

would be implemented

during the grazing permit

renewal processin order of

priority based on current

policy, by:

1) Meeting rangeland

health Standards,

2) Closing the areas

identified in alternative

B and reducing the

corresponding allotment

AUMs proportionately,

3) Adjusting AUMs to

reflect allotment boundary

resource objectives, or

plan AUM levels.

objectives, or plan AUM

levels. AUM reductions

would be implemented

during the grazing permit

renewal processin order of

priority based on current

policy, by:

1) Meeting rangeland

health Standards,

2) Closing the areas

identified in the alternative

and reducing the

corresponding allotment

AUMs proportionately,

3) Adjusting AUMs to

reflect allotment boundary

Chapter

2 Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives
61 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Resource Alternative

A AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE

adjustment removing

Kimama Allotment from

the Monument,

4) Accepting voluntary

reductions or

relinquishments from

permittees, and

5) Reviewing site specific

Monument values present

in each allotment, such

as native biological

communities, wilderness

character and/or WSAs.

adjustment removing

Kimama Allotment from

the Monument,

4) Accepting voluntary

reductions or

relinquishments from

permittees, and

5) Reviewing site specific

Monument values present

in each allotment, such

as native biological

communities, wilderness

character and/or WSAs.

GRAZ-4A: Use of

existing livestock

developments in

Primitive and Pristine

Zones may continue.

The BLM may remove

developments if they

are no longer serving a useful purpose or

resource objectives

warrant their removal.

Sites will be restored.

Consider removing

projects that are not

needed for livestock

management throughout

Monument or negatively

effect GRSG habitat.

GRAZ-4B: All livestock

developments (e.g.,

corrals, cattleguards,

fences, tanks,

troughs, pipelines,

reservoirs/ponds,

spring developments,

wells) in areas that

are unavailable for

livestock grazing would

be identified, analyzed,

and prioritized for

removal, consolidation, or

modification to maintain

and improve intact

habitats.

Same as Alternative A. GRAZ-4D:

Infrastructure coincident

to livestock grazing

management on BLM

lands would be removed

or decommissioned.

Access and

developments related

to state and private lands

would remain.

Same as Alternative A.

GRAZ-6A: There will GRAZ-6B: There would Same as Alternative A. GRAZ-6D: There would GRAZ-6E: No net

be no new livestock be no new livestock be no new livestock gain in disturbance

developments permitted developments in areas developments in the from livestock-related

in the Bowl Crater closed to grazing. Monument. infrastructure or

Allotment and the developments would

North Pasture of the be allowed. Any new

Laidlaw Park Allotment infrastructure must follow

unless they result in previously established a net benefit to those corridors/areas or be

resources identified as offset by rehabilitation

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives
62 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Resource Alternative

A AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE

needing improvement or

protection.

of disturbance elsewhere.

Disturbance buffers for

new infrastructure follow:

Fences and Pipelines-must

be within route

disturbance (20 ft from

center of primitive roads,

30 ft from center of roads)

Troughs and Wells-must

be withina historically

used watering site (to be

identified prior to project)

Road-30 ft from center

Primitive Road-20 ft from

center

Corral-must remain within

an existing corral site

GRAZ-7B: Adjust the

Poison Lake and Kimama

Allotment boundaries

to coincide with the

Monument and Preserve

boundary.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

GRAZ-8B: Locate

new salt, minerals,

supplements, troughs,

reservoirs, and holding

facilities more than 200

meters from lava edges

and playas, to ensure

that they avoid conflicts

with cultural resources.

Evaluate existing water

developments and corrals

to identify conflicts with

cultural resources, and

prioritize for removal or

relocation ifa conflict

exists.

Same as Alternative B. N/A Same as Alternative B.

GRAZ-12C: During

permit modification, use

N/A Same as Alternative C.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives
63 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Resource Alternative

A AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE

monitoring information

and LHAs to develop

specific management

objectives and grazing

management plans

designed to maintain,

enhance, or restore

vegetation condition.

GRAZ-13C: When

livestock management

practices are not

meeting or making

progress towards

Standards, implement

changes in grazing

management through

grazing authorization

modifications, or AMP

implementation. The

following actions must be

considered, but are not

limited to, in the analysis:

1) Season or timing of use

2) Duration and/or level

of use (AUMs)

3) Grazing schedules

(including rest or

deferment).

N/A Same as Alternative C.

GRAZ-14B: In allotments

witha single permittee

and/or intact native plant

communities, prioritize

retiring the permit or

closing the allotment

if grazing privileges

are relinquished or an

allotment becomes vacant.

N/A

GRAZ-15B: No spring or GRAZ-15C: In N/A Same as Alternative C.

early summer livestock sage-grouse nesting

grazing (March 15- June or early brood-rearing

15) would be allowed in (i.e., breeding) habitats,

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives
64 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Resource Alternative

A AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE

sage-grouse nesting or

early brood-rearing (i.e.,

breeding) habitats.

coordinate with the

permittee to manage

grazing use to avoid the

sage-grouse breeding

period (March 15- June

15), such as through

rotations, scheduling, or

managing water sources

when practical.

GRAZ-22B: No new

spring developments will

be permitted.

GRAZ-25B: During

implementation (i.e.

permit renewal) and

when/where necessary,

provide flexibility in

grazing permit terms

and conditions to

allow annual/seasonal

adjustments in the

intensity, timing, duration

and frequency of grazing

use over time that best

supports management

objectives.

Same as Alternative B. N/A Same as Alternative B.

GRAZ-26B: Conversions

in kind of livestock may

be allowed as long as the

following are addressed

through an appropriate

environmental review: • Concerns of other

permittees in the affected

allotment would be

considered in analysis of

the conversion proposal, • The amount of AUMs

converted from one

livestock kind to another

would be in proportion to

Same as Alternative B. N/A Same as Alternative B.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives
65 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Resource Alternative

A AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD AlternativeE

the allotment's suitability

for grazing that kind of

livestock, • All conversions would

be initially conservative

(50% conversion for

the first three years as

modified by suitability

and water availability), • Necessary range

improvements would

be completed prior to

livestock use, • Results of ongoing

monitoring studies would

determine whether the

new AMP and level of

conversion is satisfactory,

and • Final conversion levels

will depend on the desired

season of use, initial

balance between spring

and fall sheep use, and

resource response.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives
66 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

2.7. Comparison of Impacts

Table 2.3, “Relative Comparison of Impacts Among Alternatives” summarizes potential impacts

among each of the alternatives. Where appropriate, the table quantifies potential impacts

anticipated from the proposed management actions for each of the five alternatives. The table

summarizes impacts under the five alternatives in acres (e.g., more acreage implies more impact,

either beneficial or adverse) or qualitative descriptions comparing the impact potential among the

alternatives (e.g., high potential, moderate potential, or low potential) with a brief description

of the qualifying rationale.

The following table was developed in reference to Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

This table does not compare each alternative to the No Action Alternative, nor does it include

cumulative impacts. The Summary section for each resource in Chapter 4 provides a more

detailed comparison of impacts between the alternatives and definitions of the descriptors. Please

also refer to Chapter 3, Affected Environment for more information about specific Monument

resources (i.e., number of WSAs and existing infrastructure statistics).

Table 2.3. Relative Comparison of Impacts Among Alternatives

Resource Impact Alternative

A

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Soil

Resources

Potential to

stabilize soils

Lowest

potential;

fewest acres

unavailable to

grazing

Moderate

potential;

substantial

increase

in acres

unavailable to

grazing

Minor potential;

slightly

more acres

unavailable to

grazing than

Alterative A

Highest

potential;

most acres

unavailable to

grazing

Minor to

moderate

potential;

due to no

net increase

in livestockrelated

infrastructure

disturbance

Acres

unavailable

to livestock

grazing

1,200 21,000 1,500 275,100 2,200

Water

Resources

Potential

to protect

riparian

vegetation,

fisheries, and

water quality

Minor to

Moderate

potential;

continue

management

for PFC

Moderate

to High

potential;

Substantially

reduced

AUMs,

manage for

reference state

Moderate

potential;

continue

management

for PFC

Highest

potential;

due to the

elimination

of livestockrelated

activity in the

Monument

Minor to

Moderate

potential;

continue

management

for PFC

Potential Moderate High Moderate to Highest Moderate

to improve potential; potential; due High potential; potential; potential;

playas continue

management

for playas

to closed areas

and reduced

AUMs

seasonal

restrictions

will benefit

playas

due to the

elimination

of livestockrelated

activity in the

Monument

seasonal

restrictions

will benefit

playas

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impacts
Craters of the Moon National Monument 67

Draft MMP Amendment

Resource Impact Alternative

A

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Vegetation Potential to Moderate Moderate Moderate to Highest Moderate

Resources protect intact

native plant

communities

potential;

current

management

offers some

protection

to High

potential; due

to closed areas

and reduced

AUMs

High potential;

management

actions

are more

restrictive than

Alternative A

potential;

due to the

elimination

of livestockrelated

activity in the

Monument

to High

potential;

management

actions

are more

restrictive

than

Alternative

A

Wildlife and Potential to High High High potential; Highest High

Fish protect greater

sage-grouse

habitat

*Monument

Value

potential;

continued

management

for sagegrouse habitat

provided

by GRSG

ARMPA

potential; due

to closed areas

and reduced

AUMs and

continued

management

for sagegrouse habitat

provided

by GRSG

ARMPA

seasonal

restrictions

will benefit

sage-grouse

habitat and

continued

management

for sagegrouse habitat

provided

by GRSG

ARMPA

potential;

due to the

elimination

of livestockrelated

activity in the

Monument

and continued

management

for sagegrouse habitat

provided

by GRSG

ARMPA

potential;

seasonal

restrictions

and no net

increase in

livestockrelated

infrastructure

disturbance

will benefit

sage-grouse,

as well as

continued

management

for sagegrouse habitat

provided

by GRSG

ARMPA

Native Potential to Moderate Moderate Moderate Highest Moderate

American protect and potential; potential; due potential; due to potential; potential;

Right and preserve Native Tribes have to reduced more intensive due to the due to more

Interests American

Rights and

Interests

*Monument

Value

not identified

any specific

threats under

the current

management

AUMs management

of livestock

grazing

elimination

of livestockrelated activity

intensive

management

of livestock

grazing and

reduced AUMs

Cultural Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate Highest Moderate

Resources to protect

and preserve

cultural

resources

*Monument

Value

potential;

no specific

threats under

the current

management

potential; due

to reduced

AUMs

potential; due to

more intensive

management

of livestock

grazing

potential;

due to the

elimination

of livestockrelated activity

potential;

due to more

intensive

management

of livestock

grazing and

reduced AUMs

Visual Potential to be Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate

Resources commensurate

with

designated

VRM classes

*Monument

Value

potential;

continued

management

for current

classes

potential;

continued

management

for current

classes

potential;

continued

management

for current

classes

potential; due

to reduced

human

impacts

potential;

continued

management

for current

classes

Chapter 2 Alternatives
 

Comparison of Impacts
 
68 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Resource Impact Alternative

A

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Wilderness Potential Low Moderate Low potential; Highest Low potential;

Study Areas to enhance

characteristics

of WSAs

*Monument

Value

potential;

due to

continuation

of current

management

potential;

due to some

removal

of human

impacts

within WSA

boundaries

due to

continuation

of current

management

potential; due

to reduced

human

impacts

due to

continuation

of current

management

Lands with Potential Low potential Moderate Low potential Highest Low potential

Wilderness to enhance potential due yet higher potential; due yet higher

Characteris- wilderness to removal/ potential than to reduced potential than

tics character in

lands with

wilderness

characteristics

reduction

within

lands with

wilderness

characteristics

Alternative A

with proposed

habitat

improvements

human

impacts

Alternative

A; due to no

net increase

in livestockrelated

infrastructure

disturbance

Livestock

Grazing

Acres

unavailable

to livestock

grazing

1,200 21,000 1,500 275,100 2,200

AUMs

available to

livestock

grazing

*Monument

Value

38,187 9,432 37,792 0 19,388

Travel and Potential Low potential; Minor Low potential; Highest Minor to

Transporta- to change no change potential; due no change from potential; due Moderate

tion travel and

transportation

use

from existing

levels

to reduction

in livestockrelated traffic

existing levels to elimination

of livestockrelated traffic

potential; no

change or very

slight reduction

in livestockrelated traffic

Recreation Potential for Low user Minor Low user Lowest Minor

and Visitor user conflict conflict; no potential; conflict; no potential; due potential;

Experience change from

existing levels

reduction

from existing

levels; users

may notice

some removal

of livestock

grazing

change from

existing levels

to elimination

of livestock

grazing

slight reduction

from existing

levels; users

may notice

some removal

of livestock

grazing

Chapter 2 Alternatives
 

Comparison of Impacts
 
Craters of the Moon National Monument 69

Draft MMP Amendment

Resource Impact Alternative

A

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

SocioeconomicsPotential to

impact socioeconomics

*Monument

Value

Low

potential; no

change

Moderate

potential; due

to reduction of

AUMs

Low potential;

no change

Highest

potential; due

to elimination

of grazing

Minor to

Moderate

potential but

less than

Alternative

B; due to

reduction of

AUMs

Climate

Change

Percentage of

annual U.S.

greenhouse

gas emissions

from livestock

0.004% 0.0009% 0.004% 0% 0.018%

Chapter 2 Alternatives
This page intentionally

left blank
Chapter 3. Affected Environment
 
This page intentionally

left blank
Craters of the Moon National Monument 73

Draft MMP Amendment

3.1. How to Read this Chapter

This chapter describes the existing conditions for BLM resource programs, resource uses, special

designations, other management areas, and the socioeconomic environment within the Craters

of the Moon National Monument Planning Area. Management of resources and resource uses

on BLM-managed public land is directed by various laws, regulations, policies, and other

requirements. Information in this chapter refers only to BLM lands within the Monument

boundary (Figure 1.2, “Planning Area Overview Map” and Figure 1.3, “Detailed Planning Area”).

This chapter describes both the biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) components that may

be affected by the actions described in the alternatives. In addition to describing existing

conditions in the planning area, Chapter 3 identifies, where appropriate, management challenges

for resources and resource uses on BLM land.

This chapter serves as the baseline against which the impacts of the alternatives, described in

Chapter 2, are analyzed and then compared in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

For place locations (streams and communities, for example) please reference Figure 1.2,

“Planning Area Overview Map”, Figure 1.3, “Detailed Planning Area”, and Figure 1.4,

“Allotment Administration” as well as the lava field and flow map below (Figure 3.1, “Craters of

the Moon Eruptions, Lava Flows, and Lava Fields”).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

How to Read this Chapter
74 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.1. Craters of the Moon Eruptions, Lava Flows, and Lava Fields

3.2. Resources

3.2.1. Soil Resources

Soils within the Monument vary and reflect the differences and interactions between parent

material, topography, vegetation, climate, and time. The most significant differences depend on

the presence or absence of lava flows and the degree of soil development on volcanic substrates.

Soils in this region are volcanic in origin and described by the USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) as being volcanic-ash and mesic soil temperature. Soils on flows

less than 13,000 years old are dominated by shallow organic soils called Folists, while older

flows have deeper mineral soils which include Entisols, Aridisols, and Mollisols [Vaughn et al.,

2011]. Vaughn et al. (2011) reports the difference in soil development on these lava surfaces as

related to the availability of loess following volcanic activity, where older flows were subjected

to relatively large depositions of loess during and following the most recent glacial activity

in the region [Vaughn et al., 2011].

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 75

Draft MMP Amendment

The lava flows, which occupy two-thirds of the Monument, are made up of basalt lava rock. Soils

on the younger basalt flows (lava that is visible on the surface) and cinder beds are limited to

the initial decomposition of rock and cinders and deposition of windblown loess within crevices,

cracks, and fissures. Some plants can establish and grow in little to no soil. As time progresses,

soil development continues and more vegetation establishes. Sagebrush steppe, mountain areas,

and kipukas within the Monument have deeper, well-formed soils, and include those areas that

are visibly vegetated.

The high desert environment of the Monument results in lighter-colored soils with low organic

matter content. Most of the soils in the Monument are silt loam to sandy loam and vary in depth.

They are moderately drained to well drained, except where clay horizons are present. Playas are

scattered throughout the Monument and exhibit a much slower rate of percolation due to the soil

composition. Playas remain ephemerally moist late into the summer months. Soils that are

disturbed, not properly vegetated, or located on steep slopes are susceptible to water and wind

erosion.

Soil conditions vary throughout the Monument. Areas impacted by concentrated uses, such as

OHVs, road travel, range improvements, and sheep bed-grounds exhibit more compaction and

erosion than other areas where uses are more distributed or receive less use. Soil compaction

reduces the infiltration of water and impedes healthy root system development in plants. This

can lead to the establishment or expansion of noxious weeds and invasive plant species and

decreases the ability of the site to support desirable vegetation. Typically, these uses are limited to

localized areas that vary little from year to year.

Sheep bed grounds and watering areas are specific sites that have been used since grazing began

in the Monument in the early 1900s. Not all sites are used every year, but new sites are no longer

established, and impacts to these sites are all similar. These areas and range improvement projects

are monitored for invasive species.

Roads and trails were evaluated during the 2009 Craters of the Moon National Monument and

Preserve Comprehensive Travel Management Plan (TMP), and redundant, unused, or unneeded

routes were identified for closure and subsequent rehabilitation. To date, several of these routes

have been rehabilitated, and soil compaction issues associated with the routes are decreasing. As

the rehabilitated areas continue to establish vegetation, soil erosion will diminish as well.

Figure 3.2, “Natural Soil Susceptibility to Wind Erosion” and Figure 3.3, “Natural Soil

Susceptibility to Water Erosion” summarize soil susceptibility to wind and water erosion on

BLM-managed land within the Monument. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (1993) defines

wind erosion as detachment, transport, and deposition of soil by wind, and water erosion is the

removal of soil by water, such as rainfall or runoff. These processes are accelerated by exposed

soil after a wildfire.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil Resources
76 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.2. Natural Soil Susceptibility to Wind Erosion

[Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 2013]

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 77

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.3. Natural Soil Susceptibility to Water Erosion

[NRCS, 2013]

3.2.2. Water Resources

Surface water resources are limited in the Monument. Stream channels are largely nonexistent

within the exposed lava flows, and streams draining from the Pioneer Mountains rapidly become

subterranean once they encounter the lava flows. Several small perennial streams and ground

water dependent springs occur in the Pioneer Mountains at the north end of the Monument.

The BLM has identified 14 surface water sources within the BLM administered portion of

the Monument. The majority of these sources are groundwater dependent springs. Portions

of two perennial streams do occur within the BLM administered portion of the Monument.

Approximately 916 meters of Huff Creek and 66 meters of Copper Creek have been identified

and are unavailable to grazing. Very short segments of the Little Wood River and waterways

associated with Fish Creek also occur within the Monument boundary; however, these segments

appear to be representative of original stream channels, which currently do not support surface

water, and are also unavailable to grazing. The active channel for these systems occurs outside

the Monument boundary. A portion of Champagne creek also intersects the BLM administered

portion of the Monument; however, this segment also does not support surface water and is

unavailable to grazing. A small portion of Lava Lake and Huff Lake, approximately two acres

each, occur on BLM administered land within the Monument. The presence of surface water at

Lava Lake does not appear to be persistent, and there does not appear to be any presence of

surface water at Huff lake. The remainder of the surface water sources are groundwater dependent

springs. BLM has condition assessments for five of these springs, two are identified as Functional

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
78 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

at Risk, one as Functional at Risk-Upward Trend, and two as Proper Functioning Condition.

These assessments were completed in June of 2005. The majority of these springs are available

to livestock grazing. The watersheds of Big Cottonwood Creek and Copper Creek span BLM

lands immediately north of the Monument and could be indirectly affected by livestock grazing

management in the planning area.

Seasonal playa lakes are scattered throughout the sagebrush steppe desert, including the

Monument. Many of these playas have been developed by the BLM to create reservoirs, which

increases their water-holding capacity and longevity. Numerous caves within the Monument lava

flows contain ice deposits, which become melt water during the summer.

Wetlands and Riparian Communities

Wetland and riparian communities rarely occur in the Monument. The cold-water springs, creeks,

lakes, and marshes on lower slopes of the Pioneer Mountains support limited aquatic, wetland,

and riparian habitat for numerous plant and animal species. Several species of water-loving

(hydrophilic) plants, waterfowl and marsh birds, two frog types, several small mammals,

beaver, and moose use these habitats. Many other species use the water sources these areas

provide. Wetlands mapped by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) are limited to the

northwest corner of the Monument. Most wetlands and wetland habitats are palustrine (non-tidal,

inland wetlands dominated by terrestrial and emergent vegetation) and are only seasonally or

temporarily flooded.

The Monument is mostly composed of a semiarid sagebrush steppe ecosystem. These areas

generally receive 8 to 16 inches of precipitation a year. Given the lack of significant precipitation,

snow runoff is the primary source of water in the Monument. The snow runoff accumulates in

playas which hold water long enough to allow some specialized aquatic organisms to grow and

reproduce, but not long enough for a pond or marsh ecosystem to develop. Most of the playas

dry up by July.

Water Rights/Water Use

The State of Idaho granted the NPS federal reserved water rights within the Monument boundaries

in 1998. The priority dates of the rights range from 1924 to 1996, depending on the date when

each area was added to the Monument. These rights grant diversions of 54.5-acre feet per year

from all surface water and groundwater sources to provide for domestic, irrigation, or industrial

use within the Monument [Hurlbutt, 1998]. The rights do not entitle the United States to maintain

any specific water table elevation in the Snake River Aquifer beneath the Monument.

The BLM has 337 water right claims on file with the Idaho Department of Water Resources

including 18 springs, 192 playa lakes, and 127 reservoirs within the Monument. The claims,

primarily used for stock water and wildlife, are for 333.5 total acre-feet per year, and a minimal

amount of 0.02 cubic feet per second on each source. Priority dates of the water rights claims

start as early as 1926.

Water resources in the Monument are used in a variety of ways: drinking water for the Monument

Visitor Center, livestock watering sites, and recreational opportunities like bird watching. Due to

the small size and ephemeral nature of playa lakes, there is negligible human recreational use that

involves primary or secondary contact with water. However, human use and activities sometimes

alter water and associated resources. Playas and reservoirs developed by BLM are an integral part

of this semiarid ecosystem, and they often are the only source of water for wildlife and livestock.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 79

Draft MMP Amendment

The aquatic and wetland habitat supported by Carey Hot Spring has historically been altered by

concentrated livestock use and human recreation. In 2004, the perimeter of the spring was fenced

to avoid further degradation by livestock and conditions inside the exclosure have improved.

Water Quality

Steep-sided canyons with high gradient channels and a narrow floodplain characterize the

watersheds of Big Cottonwood Creek and Copper Creek. These streams are very similar in

geology consisting of sagebrush-covered hillsides in short valleys of sand- and clay-type surface

soils. High discharge typically occurs in late spring and early summer due to snowmelt (< 5 cubic

feet per second); low discharge occurs in late summer or early fall (<1 - 2 cubic feet per second;

[Falter & Freitag, 1996]; [Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program (BURP), 2007]).

Mining activities in the Big Cottonwood Creek drainage north of the Monument boundary

pre-date establishment of the Monument in the 1920s. Outbuildings and tailing materials from

the Paymaster Mine remain along the west fork of the creek; however, it is not likely that water

quality is currently impacted by past mining activities.

Streamwater quality in Big Cottonwood Creek has been monitored and has generally been found

to be good, with no violations of Idaho State standards for temperature [BURP, 2007], dissolved

oxygen, and/or turbidity [Falter & Freitag, 1996]. Total dissolved solids content of the water,

as indicated by electrical conductivity, has been found to be moderate to low [Falter & Freitag,

1996]; [BURP, 2007]. The stream’s waters are carbonate-based, of moderately low alkalinity

and carbon dioxide, and neutral to slightly basic pH. Streamwater nutrient concentrations of total

phosphorus have been shown to be moderately high with nitrogen limitation indicated, and

streamwater concentrations of nitrate nitrogen are high [Falter & Freitag, 1996].

Low to moderate levels of fecal coliform with high fecal streptococcus bacteria in streams suggest

animal, rather than human, influence on the stream. Aquatic insect associations are relatively

balanced; the community is predominantly comprised of Dipterans, Ephemeropterans, and

Plecopterans. Stream bank and channel stability is good, with little indication of eroding or

collapsing banks [Falter & Freitag, 1996]; [BURP, 2007].

Big Cottonwood Creek and Copper Creek, and grouped stream orders thereof, are identified as

not supporting beneficial uses and are classified as a 303 D impaired stream. Huff Creek, and

grouped stream orders thereof, are not classified as a 303 D impaired stream. Several segments of

Huff Creek were not assessed for beneficial uses. However, one segment of Huff Creek which

was assessed for beneficial uses was found to not be supporting [DEQ, 2014].

3.2.3. Vegetation Resources

Although some of the younger lava flows are devoid of vegetation, there is surprising diversity

among plants and plant communities in the Monument (see Appendix E, Common and Scientific

Names of Plant and Animal Species Occurring at Craters of the Moon National Monument &

Preserve). The type and density of vegetation varies widely, depending on the availability of soil.

Lava flows and kipukas show a full range of ecological succession - from pioneer plants, such as

lichens and mosses on basalt surfaces, to complex plant communities in kipukas and rangelands

bordering lava flows. Rough topography of the lava flows creates numerous microsites where soil

and water accumulate and can support plants that would normally occur in higher precipitation

zones.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
80 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Limber pine stands occur on cinder cones and lava flows in the northern part of the Monument.

The transition between limber pine and juniper vegetation communities occurs between Blacktail

Butte and the Craters of the Moon National Wilderness Area. This ecotone normally occurs in

montane regions and is an unusual feature for the lava flows [USDI BLM, 1980]. Quaking aspen

and Douglas-fir stands are found on some north-facing slopes in the northern portion of the

Monument. Riparian and wetland habitats are limited to the northern periphery due to geology,

topography, and climate of the area.

Early successional plant communities on the cinder cones produce diverse spring wildflower

displays. Areas with greater soil development support the sagebrush steppe vegetation that

typifies the Snake River Plain. Sagebrush steppe is found on approximately 60% of the Monument

and covers the more developed soils of rangelands, kipukas, cinder cones, older lava flows, and

the Pioneer Mountain foothills, most of which is in the BLM-managed portion of the Monument.

Sagebrush steppe vegetation type was once common throughout the Snake River Plain, as well

as in the Intermountain West and Upper Columbia River Basin. However, fire, agriculture, and

historical livestock management practices have modified composition and reduced the extent of

this vegetation type throughout these regions [Blaisdell, Murray, & McArthur, 1982]; [Whisenant,

1990]; [Bunting et al., 2002]; [Strand & Launchbaugh, 2013].

Some portions of the Monument, such as isolated kipukas on NPS lands, have been infrequently

grazed by livestock and have seen little in the way of other human-related disturbances.

Consequently, these areas, which are protected by newer, rough lavas, offer some of the best

remaining examples of native sagebrush steppe in the Snake River Plain. They are considered

Monument values and exemplary of range conditions before European-American settlement and

the introduction of domestic livestock. Some of these areas offer a unique opportunity to observe

native plant communities that have experienced low anthropogenic disturbance levels, as well

as successional processes associated with disturbances, such as fire, and weeds introduced by

wildlife, recreation, or airborne means.

Fire and Vegetation Management

Between 1970 and 2015, approximately 310,000 acres have burned in wildfires within the

boundary of the expanded Monument, primarily on BLM-administered land. About two-thirds

of this acreage has burned two or more times (Figure 3.4, “Fire Frequency in the Monument

(1970–2015)”).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 81

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.4. Fire Frequency in the Monument (1970–2015)

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
82 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Peak fire years occurred in 1992 (61,000 acres), 1999 (87,000 acres), 2005 (56,000 acres), and

2006 (65,000 acres). Extensive acreages outside of and adjacent to the Monument also burned

during this period. About half of Laidlaw Park and Paddelford Flat and nearly all of Little Park

have remained unburned in the last decade. Relatively small fires have burned on vegetated lava

and in kipukas, notably Little Prairie in 1992 (1,900 acres), Echo Crater in 2000 (600 acres), and

most recently the Point Well Fire in 2015 (1,000 acres).

Fire plays a key role in determining the diversity and condition of vegetation communities.

Large tracts of sagebrush have been lost due to extensive wildfires, and fires have perpetuated

exotic annual grasslands. However, fire also plays an important role in the maintenance of some

vegetation types, including aspen and mountain shrub. Please refer to the 2007 MMP, Chapter

2, Natural Resources, Vegetation, including Special Status Species and Fire Management (pp.

22–23) for more details about wildland fires in the Monument.

Vegetation in the original Monument and parts of the expanded Monument has been inventoried

and mapped through various efforts [Day & Wright, 1985]; [Whipple, 1992]; [Jurs & Sands,

2004]. A 2003 vascular plant inventory effort estimated the presence of more than 600 species

within the Monument [Popovich, 2006]. Since the current MMP was published in 2007, NPS has

completed an inventory in 2008, estimating about 175 non-vascular plant species [Hutten, 2008].

The most current vegetation map of the Monument was created with the use of Landsat imagery.

Data from various vegetation studies, as well as inventory and monitoring points, were used

to define spectral signatures detectable from the Landsat satellite. Vegetation inventory and

ground-truthing of the map are ongoing; the vegetation map is a dynamic resource. This map,

which is relatively broad in scale, is intended to provide a frame of reference for vegetation

distribution and diversity within the Monument. The following discussion describes complexes

that group and define the various vegetation types illustrated in Figure 3.5, “Existing Vegetation

Types in the Monument (2013)”.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 83

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.5. Existing Vegetation Types in the Monument (2013)

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
84 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Vegetation Types in the Monument

The Monument is part of the Snake River Plain ecoregion [NatureServe, 2013]. The National

Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS) has been set as the standardized vegetation

classification system for BLM land use planning efforts. BLM Policy IM 2013-111 defines the

strategies and levels to use for consistent mapping and classification efforts across the BLM.

RMP amendments are directed to use Macrogroups to define cover types for general existing

vegetation. Table 3.1, “Vegetation Types in the Monument [NatureServe, 2013] and BLM

datasets” lists the Macrogroups found in the Monument, as well as their corresponding BLM

Midscale description, and a more general vegetation complex grouping. The following vegetation

types are found in the Monument:

Table 3.1. Vegetation Types in the Monument [NatureServe, 2013] and BLM datasets

Complex BLM Midscale Macrogroup

Mountain Shrub Northern Montane & Foothill Forest Northern Rocky Mountain Lower

Montane & Foothill Forest

Subalpine & High Montane Forest Rocky Mountain Subalpine & High

Montane Conifer Forest

Juniper & Mountain Mahogany

Woodlands and Scrub

Intermountain Singleleaf Pinyon -

Western Juniper Woodland

Riparian Shrubland Western North American Montane Wet

Meadow & Low Shrubland

Montane Shrubland & Grassland Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie &

Shrubland

Northern Great Plains Woodland

Sagebrush Steppe Tall Sagebrush Shrubland Great Basin & Intermountain Tall

Sagebrush Shrubland & Steppe

Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland Great Basin & Intermountain Dwarf Sage

Shrubland & Steppe

Grasslands Dry Non-Sagebrush Shrubland &

Grassland

Great Basin & Intermountain Dry

Shrubland & Grassland

Intermountain Basins Semi-Desert

Grassland

Dry Non-Native Perennial Grassland Introduced & Semi Natural Vegetation

Dry Non-Native Annual Grassland Introduced & Semi Natural Vegetation

Vegetated Lava Unconsolidated Materials, Volcanic

Rock, Bedrock, Scree, Cliff and Canyon

Intermountain Basins Cliff, Scree &

Badland Sparse Vegetation

Other Land Use Urban Developed & Urban

Herbaceous Agriculture Herbaceous Agricultural Vegetation

Roads Roads

Mountain Shrub Complex

The mountain shrub complex occurs at the north end of the Monument in the Pioneer Mountains.

This complex covers about 4% (<10,000 acres) of the BLM portions in the Monument, but

it includes vastly different and important habitat types that contribute to the diversity of the

complex. These areas are typically at the higher ranges of elevation in the Monument, but

inclusions are found where adequate moisture or temperature regimes exist, such as in rocky

outcrops along the lava edges. Livestock use is usually lower in these areas than in the other

complexes across the Monument, due in part to the scattered nature of this complex, and limited

accessibility when compared to the more widespread complexes. However, the mountain shrub

complex is important to wildlife, and is used as part of the landscape by various species.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 85

Draft MMP Amendment

Four vegetation types are included in this complex. The Northern Montane & Foothill Forest and

Subalpine & High Montane Forest types are found on relatively steep, north-facing slopes of older

cinder cones. The Riparian Shrubland type, which can be found along Little Cottonwood Creek,

is characterized by dense woody vegetation such as black cottonwood, chokecherry, willow, alder,

and a dense layer of tall forbs near permanent watercourses. The Montane Shrubland & Grassland

vegetation type includes communities dominated by mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and

mountain snowberry that occupy slopes and ridges of the Pioneer Mountains.

Sagebrush Steppe Complex

Sagebrush steppe includes all areas where adequate soil deposition or development has occurred

to allow sagebrush taxa and associated shrubs with a bunchgrass understory to dominate. The

sagebrush steppe complex and associated midscale classifications comprise 35% of BLM portions

of the Monument (97,000 acres). Due to the drastic reduction of sagebrush steppe in southern

Idaho by cultivation, fire, and weed invasion [Hironaka, Fosberg, & Winward, 1983], some of the

sagebrush communities in the Monument are the best remaining examples of this vegetation type

on the Snake River Plain, and considered as Monument values.

The sagebrush steppe appears to be a monotonous landscape; however, there is a remarkable

diversity of plant and community types. Many factors influence the diversity, density, cover,

distribution, and health of this high desert sagebrush steppe. Factors include differences in soil

depth and development, precipitation gradient (ranging from 8 to 14 inches), elevation gradient

(ranging from 4,000 to 7,500 feet between the southern and northern ends of the Monument),

historical and current land management, invasive species, and fire frequency. In turn, vegetation

structure and composition influence the ability of the community to resist invasive species

infestation, as well as recover from fire.

Sagebrush steppe vegetation in the Monument is dominated by four species of sagebrush. Three

subspecies of big sagebrush include mountain big sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, and Wyoming

big sagebrush and threetip sagebrush is the fourth species. Midscale classifications include Tall

Sagebrush Shrubland and Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland, but can be further broken down into Midto High-Elevation Sagebrush Steppe and Low-Elevation Sagebrush Steppe because of elevation

and precipitation gradients.

The Mid- to High-Elevation Sagebrush Steppe vegetation type is generally defined by the

presence of mountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush, which are found in the northern end

of the Monument and occur in higher-elevations that are colder and receive more precipitation.

Low sagebrush is also found in this vegetation type, occurring as a mosaic within mountain

big sagebrush.

The Low-Elevation Sagebrush Steppe vegetation type is defined by basin big sagebrush,

Wyoming big sagebrush, and threetip sagebrush, though these may overlap to some extent

with the mid-elevations. Basin and Wyoming big sagebrush are adapted to the hot, seasonally

dry conditions of the Snake River Plain and can be found intermixed. Basin big sagebrush

communities occur in pockets of deeper, more fertile soils. Wyoming big sagebrush communities

tend to be found in shallower soils.

Threetip sagebrush is widespread throughout the Monument, particularly in areas that burned

within the last 20 years. Threetip sagebrush is the only sagebrush found in the Monument that

re-sprouts following fire. The Low- and Mid- to High-Elevation Sagebrush Steppe vegetation

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
86 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

types contain other common shrubs such as antelope bitterbrush, rubber rabbitbrush, and green

rabbitbrush.

Understory components in the sagebrush steppe complex vary widely in type and abundance,

but common species include Sandberg bluegrass, Idaho fescue, needle-grasses, bluebunch

wheatgrass, and the exotic annual cheatgrass. Forbs such as buckwheats, arrowleaf balsamroot,

lupine, phlox, and milkvetches are also commonly found growing in these vegetation types.

Both diversity and abundance of herbaceous plants increase with rising elevation and moisture

throughout the Monument.

The reduction of large tracts of sagebrush through increased size and frequency of wildfires is a

concern in the area. Less obvious is the loss of native understory plants, particularly native

bunchgrasses that are valuable components to the ecosystem. Plants such as bluebunch wheatgrass

and Idaho fescue may not be resilient under conditions of closed shrub communities, frequent

fire regimes, cheatgrass invasion, altered climate or site conditions, or excessive grazing. The

reduction in these native species by one factor increases their susceptibility to other factors. Once

native understory species are excluded, they are very difficult to reestablish [Hironaka et al., 1983].

The variation of sagebrush steppe communities influences the multiple values and uses of this

landscape in the Monument. These areas are valued as crucial winter range habitat for mule deer

and pronghorn, essential habitat for sagebrush-obligate wildlife like sage-grouse, important

watersheds, sources of livestock forage, and for recreational use. Conditions of the sagebrush

steppe community in the Monument vary greatly, primarily due to relative isolation and past

and present land uses.

The Monument contains more than 500 kipukas, many of which contain relatively undisturbed

native sagebrush steppe communities. Fire, livestock grazing, recreation, or cheatgrass invasion

have altered some of the kipukas; however, other kipukas in the Monument have been protected

from access and buffered by rough lavas. The abundance and condition of resources within most

of these kipukas is undocumented and relatively unknown. Nevertheless, those kipukas that have

been documented and studied make it clear that these unique islands of native vegetation are

important rangeland and scientific benchmarks [Henderson & Murie, 1958]; [Yingst & Handy,

1961]; [Tisdale, Hironaka, & Fosberg, 1965]; [Caicco & Wellner, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c].

Laidlaw Park, Paddelford Flat, Larkspur Park, and Little Park are kipukas, but are referred to as

“parks” due to their larger size, accessibility, and land uses. There is road access to and within

these parks, and livestock grazing is a current and historical use. All four parks contain the

sagebrush steppe vegetation type, as well as areas dominated by annual and perennial grasslands.

The abundance of native species and the quality of these sagebrush steppe communities depends

mainly on management practices and cumulative effects of environmental responses. For

example, the northern parts of Laidlaw Park retain sufficient native understory and sagebrush.

Conversely, historical grazing practices, frequent wildfires, Aroga moth infestations, cheatgrass

invasion, and noxious weeds have negatively affected the southern portions of Laidlaw Park. In

addition, the southern part of Laidlaw Park receives less rainfall than the northern part, making it

less resilient to disturbance [Jurs & Sands, 2004].

Grasslands Complex

The Dry Non-Native Perennial Grassland and Dry Non-Sagebrush Shrubland & Grassland

vegetation type is dominated by native or introduced perennial grasses. The grasslands complex

covers 60% of the BLM portions of the Monument (166,000 acres) and covers a wide range of

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 87

Draft MMP Amendment

precipitation and elevation. Historically, Dry Non-Sagebrush Shrubland & Grasslands were part

of the sagebrush steppe complex and formed because of disturbance, primarily through wildfire.

Shrubs would eventually reestablish in perennial grasslands if they remain unburned for several

decades. In most cases, fire is the main cause of shrub removal. Some shrubs such as threetip

sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, and green rabbitbrush are able to re-sprout, and mountain big

sagebrush is able to reestablish more rapidly (roughly 10 years). However, Wyoming and basin

big sagebrush must regenerate from seed and can be slow to reestablish after fire.

Dry Non-Native Perennial Grasslands typically lack a shrub component, such as sagebrush, and

possibly have reduced forb diversity. Established, non-native perennial seedings function to

reduce soil movement from both water and wind erosion, and limit invasive species expansion

and establishment. They are resilient to disturbances, requiring little input to maintain a stable

system following natural disturbance events like wildfires, and are more able to withstand repeat

moderate to heavy grazing than mid-size native perennial bunchgrasses. Crested wheatgrass is

a key component of Dry Non-Native Perennial Grass communities in the Monument. Peak

production of crested wheatgrass typically occurs in April-June, tapering off in July. An initial

leaf height of at least 4 inches prior to grazing is recommended to sustain productivity and vigor

of grazed plants [Meays, Laliberte, & Doescher, 2000].

The Dry Non-Native Annual Grassland vegetation type is the result of altered disturbance

regimes, such as soil surface disturbance or frequent fires in areas with longer natural fire return

intervals. Cheatgrass is the primary component and is an exotic species that perpetuates short

fire-return intervals and conditions that maintain its dominance.

In many cases, microsite conditions have often been altered to the extent that native grasses are

unable to effectively compete with cheatgrass and noxious weeds. Under these conditions, burned

areas are revegetated by seeding perennial vegetation to prevent the establishment of annual

grasslands. In areas where altered site conditions and high competition from exotic species

exist, select cultivars of introduced and native perennial grasses and forbs have been used

to rehabilitate burned areas. Some of the species seeded in rehabilitated areas are crested or

Siberian wheatgrass, Snake River wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sherman’s

big bluegrass, and Sandberg bluegrass. Forbs such as blue flax, sainfoin, scarlet globemallow,

and alfalfa have also been seeded. Exclusively native plant seedings have also been completed

in Wilderness Study Areas. Both the NPS and BLM encourage the use of native species for

restoration and rehabilitation efforts.

Vegetated Lava Complex

This system is limited to basalt lava, and cinder cones or fields. Scattered occurrences of

buckwheats, limber pine, and juniper may be present.

Exposed lava flows are the newest lava flows and are mostly devoid of vascular plants; however,

lichens and mosses are frequently present. Vegetated lava is defined as lava fields with greater than

5% total vegetative cover, with plants occurring as islands, pockets, or clustered individuals in the

lava flow. This complex covers less than 1% of the BLM portions of the Monument (roughly

1,100 acres). The vegetated lava complex mainly consists of early successional and adaptable

plants that grow in limited soil that blows into the cracks and fractures on young basalt rock.

The type of lava and the amount of soil determine the type and density of vegetation. Penstemon

and sticky cinquefoil grow in shallow soils, while desert sweet, rockspirea, and Lewis’ mock

orange are present in deeper crevices. Trees, such as limber pine in the north end of the Monument

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
88 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

and juniper in the south end, also grow in crevices and cracks where sufficient moisture is

funneled and retained. These trees may grow as scattered individuals or as small woodlands.

Antelope bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, and sagebrush can also be found (up to 15% of vegetative

cover) where more soil development or deposition has occurred.

Vegetation Condition

Each of the aforementioned vegetation complexes is represented by a multitude of Ecological Sites

in varying conditions. Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD) produced by the NRCS characterize

these Ecological Sites and they provide estimates of the plant community composition that would

be typical for a particular soil type, elevation, slope, and aspect on the landscape. They describe

the reference state if there were no disturbances, such as excessive grazing or fires, as well as

multiple states that could occur under various disturbance regimes.

Monitoring data and various assessments (Standards and Guidelines Assessments, HAF

assessments, Jurs and Sands (2004)) have sought to characterize the condition of the plant

communities in relation to these ESDs. In 2004, a study was published to establish the current

condition and provide management recommendations for the vegetation communities in Laidlaw

Park, Little Park, and Paddelford Flat, the three largest kipukas in the Monument [Jurs and Sands,

2004]. The conditions described in this report mirror those that are used in the ESD State and

Transition Models. In the State and Transition Models, vegetation communities are described

by the degree of departure from the reference state. The plant community of the Ecological Site

is able to withstand a certain level of disturbance and maintain its stable state, recovering from

a fire or withstanding grazing pressure. If a threshold of disturbance level is crossed, then the

community cannot return to reference state without significant inputs, such as seeding.

For comparison, the Jurs and Sands report uses biotic integrity ratings of “Good,” “Fair,” and

“Poor.” “Good” was defined as, “the plant community has the capacity to sustain its natural

biological diversity (plants and animals) and values within the context of normal environmental

stress (fire, drought, flood, herbivory, etc.).” “Fair” was defined as, “the community’s biological

diversity and capacity has been diminished, it is vulnerable to further degradation, but it can

return to a higher level of organization if environmental stressors are low and infrequent enough

to allow recovery.” “Poor” was defined as, “the community’s biological diversity and capacity

has been seriously degraded and it has crossed a threshold. It cannot return to higher levels of

organization within any reasonable time frame without substantial external inputs (i.e. seeding).”

The basis for both sets of ratings are similar, as well as the means of maintaining the ratings or

causing progression towards the reference community or retrogression towards another stable

state. In the State and Transition models, State 1A is the reference community, which would be

comparable to Good biotic integrity. These communities can sustain themselves given proper

grazing and fire management.

State 1B (sometimes it is State 1.2 or other designation, but for simplicity, comparable states will

be referred to as 1B in this document) in the State and Transition models is generally a plant

community that has maintained its shrub component, but lost some of its herbaceous component,

generally due to improper grazing and a lack of fire. This state is comparable to a Fair biotic

integrity rating, as it still maintains the components for natural recovery to reference state (State

1A or Good) with proper livestock management, such as light utilization rates and periodic rest.

State 1C in the State and Transition models is generally brought about by wildfire in a reference

community. It generally has an intact herbaceous component, but some species, such as Thurber’s

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 89

Draft MMP Amendment

needlegrass may be reduced and cheatgrass may invade due to the wildfire disturbance. The Jurs

and Sands report did not have a comparable category to the State and Transition models for this

category. The report designated them as Good, Fair, or Poor based on the aforementioned criteria.

State 2 in the State and Transition models is comparable to the Poor biotic integrity rating. These

sites have crossed a threshold and are generally dominated by cheatgrass and Sandberg bluegrass.

Significant inputs would be necessary to improve the biotic integrity of these sites. They cannot

recover to reference state without seeding.

The Jurs and Sands report assessed seeded areas as it assessed native areas, but the State

and Transition models allow for another stable state in which an area is seeded with native or

non-native cultivars.

The Jurs and Sands study was conducted during the fall of 2001 and spring of 2002. 2001

was a severe drought year, and 2002 was slightly below average, which may explain some of

the discrepancies in the following maps. Fall data collection can result in missing some of the

herbaceous components of a plant community, and many forbs do not express themselves fully

during a drought. Early season sampling can make plant identification difficult, as well. Both

limitations were noted in the Jurs and Sands report. The same limitations apply to the HAF

methodology (i.e. seasonal and/or drought data collection limitations), however the HAF is

designed to sample for sage-grouse habitat at the time the habitat is used. The following maps

depict the biotic integrity ratings presented by the Jurs and Sands report with a comparison to

those comparable ratings from data collected in 2012 and 2013.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
90 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.6. Biotic Integrity (Jurs and Sands Data, 2001–2002)

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 91

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.7. Biotic Integrity (Habitat Assessment Framework Data, 2012–2013)

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
92 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Nonvascular Plants

A non-vascular plant inventory completed in 2008 found about 70 moss, 10 liverwort, and 95

lichen species in the Monument [Hutten, 2008]. These organisms, also known as biological

soil crusts, occur to some extent in every vegetation type in the Monument and are commonly

observed on exposed lava. Non-vascular plants perform a number of ecologically important

functions; they actively decompose detritus, break down rock, and add structure and nutrients to

the soil. They are important components of the functioning ecosystem and serve as environmental

quality indicators.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species

Eleven species of weeds designated as noxious by Idaho State Law have been identified in the

Monument: spotted knapweed, diffuse knapweed, Russian knapweed, rush skeletonweed, leafy

spurge, Canada thistle, musk thistle, Scotch thistle, Dalmatian toadflax, Dyer’s woad and field

bindweed [State of Idaho, 2001]. Disturbed areas such as road rights-of-ways, intensively grazed

areas, and burns are particularly susceptible to invasion by exotics; consequently, most of the

noxious weeds are found specifically in these areas.

Table 3.2. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species in Craters of the Moon

Common Name Scientific Name Statewide List Type

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Control

Musk thistle Carduus nutans Control

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Containment

Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe Containment

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea Containment

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Containment

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Containment

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Containment

Dyer’s woad Isatis tinctoria Control

Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica dalmatica Containment

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium Containment

Note

“Control” means to obtain control through any or all of the following methods:
 

prevention, rehabilitation, eradication, or modified treatments.
 

“Containment” means halting the spread of a weed infestation beyond specified boundaries.
 

[Idaho Code Title 22 Agriculture and Horticulture, Chapter 24 Noxious Weeds, Idaho State
 

Department of Agriculture]
 

Spotted knapweed and diffuse knapweed have been documented extensively along U.S. Highway

20/26/93 through the northern extent of the Monument. More than 200 infestations of knapweed

occur along the highway within Monument boundaries. NPS mapped and treated these locations

in 2001 and 2003. Spotted and diffuse knapweeds have also been documented and treated in

Paddelford Flat and Laidlaw Park, along the west and east edges of the Monument, respectively.

Rush skeletonweed has been reported in various locations in Laidlaw Park and the west side of

the Monument; it is also found in the vicinity of Bear Trap Cave and Kings Bowl on the east side

of the Monument. Many observations of this species have not been officially documented, but

incidental observations suggest that it is much more widespread than any current mapping effort

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 93

Draft MMP Amendment

shows. For instance, from data collected for habitat assessments in 2012 and 2013, 24% of

transects had at least one occurrence of rush skeletonweed. This weed also takes advantage of

disturbed soil and spreads primarily by seed.

Leafy spurge has been documented in the west part of the Monument as small, scattered sites

within the sagebrush steppe and vegetated lava vegetation types (Carey Lava Field). It has also

been recently documented in the group campsite north of highway 20/26/93. Large infestations

are known to exist along the west edge of the Monument near Monument Butte, Sand Butte, and

the town of Carey. These large infestations have increased potential for further introduction and

spread onto the Monument by way of birds, deer, livestock, and vehicles. BLM is continuing a

control program specifically developed to address infestations on lava-based terrain.

Thistles are scattered throughout the Monument. Nearly 100 total locales have been documented

for all three noxious thistles.

Dyer’s woad has been found and treated near Brigham Point. Other scattered occurrences have

been treated along the east and west sides of the Wapi Flow. Dyer’s woad is known to occur

across the Wapi Flow.

Both BLM and NPS have initiated integrated noxious weed programs. Efforts to control these

species are in effect, including the use of mechanical and spray techniques, as well as limited use

of biological control agents. The priority species discussed have been targeted specifically for

mapping, treatment, and prevention programs. Education and public awareness are emphasized

by both agencies. Involvement in Cooperative Weed Management Areas has resulted in strong

community commitment and cost-effective management of noxious weeds.

Other invasive, exotic species, such as cheatgrass, are as much of a concern as state-listed

noxious weeds. Cheatgrass, a common and widespread invader throughout the West, is extremely

competitive and readily invades and dominates disturbed land. It can be a component of

undisturbed or otherwise healthy sagebrush. For example, cheatgrass has been documented in

several kipukas that lack a history of common human disturbances such as livestock grazing. This

annual grass out-competes native vegetation and perpetuates a frequent fire regime, which further

discourages the regrowth of native species and encourages more cheatgrass. This has been a key

management concern for BLM and has driven the development of more effective disturbed land

rehabilitation and restoration techniques. Approximately 28,000 acres of BLM-managed lands in

the Monument have cheatgrass and other invasive annuals as a dominant component, or greater

than 50% composition. As soils types change with increased precipitation and elevation and

decreased temperature, the amount of cheatgrass present decreases.

BLM and NPS have implemented nationwide policies against invasive and harmful exotic

species. All the species mentioned in this discussion have been targeted for eradication,

containment, or control.

The dispersal and spread of noxious weeds can happen through a variety of means, including

the visitor use for resources offered in the Monument (e.g. hunting, camping, and OHV use),

wildfires, as well as natural transportation means, such as wind, birds, and other wildlife.

Livestock can contribute to the dispersal of weed seeds and materials through feed consumption,

and seeds can be transported by livestock coats and also by vehicles and equipment related to

livestock grazing. Certified weed-free hay is required on all BLM lands (USDI BLM, 2011).

Special Status Plants

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
94 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Special status plants are those federally listed under the ESA and species recognized by Idaho

and BLM as sensitive. All species identified as sensitive by BLM must be managed proactively

by BLM to protect these species, and NPS strives to manage its land to protect any federally

listed, state-listed, or special status species. The most current list will always be the applicable

special status species list.

The Idaho Native Plant Society and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) Natural Heritage

Program (INHP) meet annually with State and Federal agencies to review the status of plants

considered to be globally, state, or locally rare. The resulting list is used to determine which

species lack federal protection under the ESA, require, or would benefit from protection at a

local or regional level.

Two BLM sensitive plants are known to occur within the Monument: obscure phacelia and Picabo

milkvetch. Areas within and surrounding the Monument have been systematically surveyed for

both obscure phacelia and Picabo milkvetch, and population information is documented in status

and monitoring reports [Moseley & Popovich, 1995]; [Murphy, 2002].

Obscure phacelia is one of Idaho’s rarest plants, with only six occurrences (population areas)

known statewide. Obscure phacelia is an erect-stemmed annual that grows primarily on

moderately steep, north and east facing slopes of volcanic-based mountains and buttes at

approximately 5,390 to 6,200 feet elevation. It often grows in dark-colored, well-drained

silt-loams with varying amounts of sand, gravel, cobble, stone, and boulder colluvium intermixed.

Most microsites are not cindery or extremely gravelly. Soils are derived from and overlay

volcanic substrates. Areas supporting obscure phacelia usually lack litter accumulation, are

always relatively loose or scarified (due to animal and erosion disturbance), and lack dense

perennial vegetation. The soil depth varies from shallow (over boulders) to moderately deep. The

range of obscure phacelia in Idaho is from the eastern side of the Great Rift of the Upper Snake

River Plain to the foothills of the Pioneer Mountains [Murphy, 1995].

Picabo milkvetch is narrowly endemic to stable, sandy soils in the north-central portion of the

eastern Snake River Plain, near the foothills of the Pioneer Mountains and Picabo Hills. Picabo

milkvetch is frequently found in open grassy areas (often in previously burned patches within

sagebrush shrubland) and is rarely found in the understory of late-seral sagebrush stands [Moseley

& Popovich, 1995]; [Alexander, Liston, & Popovich, 2004].

Table 3.3. Special Status Plants in the Monument

Common Name Scientific Name Type

Obscure phacelia Phacelia inconspicua 2

Picabo milkvetch Astragalus oniciformis 3

Note

Type 2 — Species that are imperiled because of rarity or because other factors
 

demonstrably make it very vulnerable to extinction.
 

Type 3 — Globally rare, very rare in Idaho, or uncommon but not imperiled,
 

with moderate endangerment factors.
 

Type 4 — Generally rare in Idaho with small populations or localized distribution and currently
 

have low threat levels.
 

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 95

Draft MMP Amendment

3.2.4. Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species

During a single year, about 200 species of birds, 60 mammals, ten reptiles, and at least three types

of amphibians occupy the Monument (Appendix E, Common and Scientific Names of Plant and

Animal Species Occurring at Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve). Late 1960s

surveys identified more than 2,000 species of insects in a very small portion of the northernmost

part of the Monument [Horning & Barr, 1970].

Wildlife and Fish Habitats and Common Monument Animal Species

Sagebrush steppe communities comprise much of the wildlife habitat within the Monument.

Numerous species are found in sagebrush habitats [Braun, Baker, Eng, Gashwiler, & Schroeder,

1976]; [Trimble, 1989]. Some of these are sagebrush obligates (restricted to sagebrush habitats

during breeding season or year-round) or near obligates (occurring in both sagebrush and

grassland habitats [Paige & Ritter, 1999]. Sagebrush obligates or associates that occur in the

Monument include the sagebrush sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sage thrasher, sage-grouse, pygmy

rabbit, sagebrush vole, and sagebrush lizard.

Sagebrush and the native perennial grasses and forbs of the sagebrush steppe are important

sources of food and cover for wildlife [Dealy, Leckenby, & Concannon, 1981]. During winter, the

evergreen foliage of sagebrush often provides the only available green vegetation, and its protein

level and digestibility are higher than that of most other shrubs and grasses [Peterson, 1995].

Pronghorn, pygmy rabbits, and sage-grouse may exclusively eat sagebrush in winter, and it also

becomes a major portion of mule deer and elk diets. Taller sagebrush provides cover for mule

deer and sage-grouse [Dealy et al., 1981], and the crowns of sagebrush break up hard-packed

snow, making it easier for animals to forage on the grasses beneath [Peterson, 1995].

Throughout the rest of the year, sagebrush provides food for pygmy rabbits and sage-grouse;

protective cover for fawns, calves, rabbits, and grouse broods; and nesting sites for many

shrub-nesting birds. The sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, sagebrush sparrow, and sage-grouse

most frequently nest in or beneath sagebrush.

The Monument encompasses some lower slopes of the Pioneer Mountains, which contain both

perennial and ephemeral springs. Several of these springs feed small creeks and marshes. A

number of species of waterfowl and marsh birds, two frog species, several small mammals,

beaver, moose, and several other species use these habitats exclusively. Numerous species of

birds use these areas as primary habitat.

Inland redband trout, a subspecies of rainbow trout, may also be present in the isolated cold-water

creeks just north of the Monument. Current range-wide abundance of redband trout is unknown;

however, resident populations of the species persist at some level in all major areas of their

historical distribution in Idaho [IDFG, 2005].

Fairy and tadpole shrimp, two types of freshwater crustacean, can be found in almost every

seasonal water pool [Bratton, 1990] in more arid regions of the Monument. Fairy shrimp serve

as a valuable food source for migratory waterfowl that use playas as resting areas along their

long trek north in spring and early summer.

The Monument contains some scattered stands of trees, including riparian stands of black

cottonwood, willows, alders, and quaking aspen; upland stands of quaking aspen or Douglas

fir; and lava- or cinder-based stands of limber pine and junipers. These forested sites are used

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
96 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

by more than 110 species of birds, at least four species of reptiles, and at least 37 mammals.

Migrant forest birds are highly selective of stopover habitat [Kerlinger, 1995], and these forest

stands are important to birds traveling from the Northern Rocky Mountains. Many resident

species, including Clark’s nutcracker, chickadees, nuthatches, woodpeckers, and others, use them

exclusively. Forested sites also provide critical thermal cover for deer, elk, and moose in the

foothills of the Pioneer Mountains [Griffith, 1983].

Extensive lava flows serve as habitat for numerous animal species. At least seven species of bats,

several species of rodents, and several species of cave invertebrates use lava tubes and flows in the

Monument. The flow surfaces are also used by many species of vertebrates and invertebrates, and

several species are dependent on the lava structures. Species such as pika, woodrats, skinks, and

rock wrens are found primarily on the rock surfaces. Several snake and bat species are dependent

on cavities in the lava for hibernation sites.

Subspecies of the Great Basin pocket mouse, the pika, and the yellow-pine chipmunk are endemic

to the lavas of the Great Rift. Darker fur characterizes these subspecies, which may be an

adaptation to the black lava rock. Pikas are known primarily as residents of high-elevation alpine

regions, and those living on the Craters of the Moon Lava Field occupy lower elevations and the

highest mean temperatures within the species’ range [Beever, 2002].

Several species of birds are also dependent on the lava structures. The Monument has a large

population of rock wrens that nest almost exclusively on basalt formations. Many cavity-nesting

species nest in rock cavities on the flows. Chickadees and swallows are typically associated with

woodlands but will use rock crevices when these features occur near limber pine or juniper stands.

Mountain bluebirds and violet-green swallows nest primarily in tree cavities but are known to use

rock crevices for nesting. Both species have been documented nesting in crevices and bubbles in

flow surfaces in the Monument [Rich, 1984].

Both western and mountain bluebirds have experienced major range-wide declines as result of

habitat loss and competition from introduced European starlings. Bluebirds nest in high densities

in the north part of the Monument, but are seen far less frequently in southern areas, where

substantial flocks of starlings now breed.

Numerous bird species, such as sagebrush sparrows, sage thrashers, and long-billed curlews

are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (USC Title 16, Chapter 7, Subchapter II;

Appendix C) and have been documented in the Monument, occupying all habitat types. The

migrant patterns include permanent residents, summer residents, migrants only using resting areas

a few days a year, and winter-only residents.

Reptiles in the Monument also occupy a wide range of habitats. Ten species of reptiles have been

identified in the Monument, including five snakes and five lizards. Several hibernating sites

for snakes have been identified in the Monument [Lee, 2002]. These hibernacula may contain

animals from several square miles of summer habitat both inside and outside the Monument.

Garter snakes and rubber boas are predominantly riparian species, and skinks and gopher snakes

usually use rocky habitats with sparse vegetation. Night snakes may occupy the area but are

rare and difficult to survey [Peterson, 2003].

Two frog species occur in the Monument, Boreal chorus frog and Pacific tree frog. Two toad

species may exist in the Monument as well. One, the Great Basin spadefoot toad, has been

detected only once in recent inventory work, but it can remain dormant for several years and is

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 97

Draft MMP Amendment

not readily detected while in burrows. Western toads have not been detected in surveys since

1987; they may have been locally extirpated.

Six species of large mammals are known to inhabit the Monument: mule deer, elk, pronghorn,

moose, cougar, and black bear. Most are widespread throughout the Snake River Plain and

Pioneer Mountains and regularly can be found in or near the Monument.

Mule deer are scattered throughout most of the vegetated areas year-round; the south part of

the Monument contains substantial winter range for deer [IDFG, 2003]. Mule deer occupy the

northern areas in spring and summer, with two distinct herds migrating into the Pioneer Mountains

by autumn [Griffith, 1983]. One of these herds comes from lands to the north and west of the

Monument. The other herd winters in the desert area south of the Craters of the Moon Lava Field.

This herd slowly migrates to the northwest as vegetation dries out throughout the summer. By

late summer or early fall this herd has merged with the herd from the northwest. Upon reaching

the riparian areas, they have access to water and browse that is still fresh. NPS monitoring since

1988 in the northwest part of the Monument indicates a very dynamic population that fluctuates

greatly with varying annual conditions. This may even include shifting migration routes out of the

area in some years [IDFG, 2003].

Elk occupy widely scattered areas of the Monument year-round, with recorded sightings from

both immediately east and west of the Craters of the Moon Lava Field and in larger kipukas like

Laidlaw Park. Large numbers of elk winter in the Pioneer Mountains along the northwest part of

the Monument. Two distinct groups of more than 100 animals each were recorded moving back

and forth across the west boundary during early 2003 [IDFG, 2003]. In summer, most of these elk

move to mesic habitats west and north of the Monument; however, summer use has also been

recently reported in central portions of the Monument such as the southern half of Laidlaw Park.

Pronghorn are found within much of the Monument and are common throughout the year in

Laidlaw Park [IDFG, 2003]. A migrant herd of pronghorn uses the west part of the Monument

as a migratory corridor and birthing area [IDFG, 2003]. Occasional use during winter has also

been recorded in this area. Smaller numbers of animals can be found along the east boundary

and near the Great Rift. Winter range has been identified in the southern areas and near the

Great Rift [IDFG, 2003].

Moose colonized the riparian areas of the Monument in 1999 and are common in both the Big and

Little Cottonwood Creek watersheds of the Pioneer Mountains. Suitable habitat is limited in the

Monument, so further expansion is not likely.

Cougar and black bear are also found in the Pioneer Mountains area of the Monument. In recent

decades, documented observations have been confined to the north part of the Monument in or

adjacent to the Pioneer Mountains. Sightings of these two species are rare, and little is known

about their status in the Monument.

Bighorn sheep infrequently occur in the Pioneer Bighorn Sheep Population Management Unit

(PMU), which is approximately ten miles north of the Monument. This is the closest bighorn

sheep PMU to the Monument. IDFG defines a PMU as: “a population or groups of connected

populations in similar habitats with similar management priorities [IDFG, 2010]” The IDFG does

not manage to maintain a population of bighorn sheep in the Pioneers PMU, and there does

not appear to be a persistent bighorn sheep population in this PMU [IDFG, 2010]. Sporadic

observations of bighorn sheep are documented within the Pioneer PMU every few years. Bighorn

sheep have been observed 8–20 miles north and west of the Monument on 12 occasions from

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
98 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

1970-2006 [IDFG, 2013]. The source population for these sheep is unknown; they may be

associated with either the East Fork Salmon River population or the Lost River population [IDFG,

2010]. Domestic sheep pose risk of disease transmission to bighorn sheep; contact between

species can result in mortality to bighorn sheep individuals and reduce long-term herd health.

Therefore, management focuses on minimizing potential contact between bighorn sheep and

domestic sheep and preventing bighorn sheep that contact domestic sheep in this area from

returning to an established population of bighorn sheep. The IDFG has agreed to BMPs with all of

the known domestic sheep producers who operate within this PMU. These BMPs were developed

to reduce the potential for contact between domestic and wild sheep. Specifically, the BMPs focus

on prompt communication of bighorn sightings and minimizing the likelihood of contact between

domestic and bighorn sheep. Furthermore, the BMPs outline methods IDFG may use when a

bighorn sheep is sighted. These methods include monitoring, deploying a radio collar on, or

euthanizing the bighorn sheep [IDFG, 2010].

Due to the lack of a persistent bighorn sheep population within the Pioneer PMU, a core herd

home range has not been identified by the U.S. Forest Service for this unit. Core herd home

ranges were delineated by the U.S. Forest Service to inform the Risk of Contact Tool USDA, 2013

where appropriate [Foster and Foster, 2015]. The Risk of Contact Tool is a GIS spatial model

that provides a logical and documented process that quantifies the risk (percent probability) of a

bighorn sheep intersecting a domestic sheep allotment, pasture, or trailing corridor [Mugoitio &

Wilhelm, 2014;[USDA, 2013]]. The USFS defines a Core Herd Home Range (CHHR) in the

Payette National Forest FSEIS (2010) as: “the area within which most herd individuals spend

most (95 %) of their time.” The nearest CHHR to the Monument is associated with the Lost River

PMU, which is approximately 19 miles from the Monument. The East Fork PMU/CHHR is

approximately 56 miles from the Monument.

The Risk of Contact Tool was not utilized for the Pioneer PMU because of the lack of a persistent

bighorn sheep population, no CHHR, and the need to incorporate hypothetical data. The Risk

of Contact Tool was not utilized for the East Fork PMU because the distance from this PMU

and associated CHHR is too great to register with the Risk of Contact Tool, which is spatially

limited to 22 miles. The Risk of Contact Tool was utilized for the Lost River PMU, because some

allotments overlapping the Monument occur within 22 miles of the Lost River CHHR. For the

Lost River PMU/CHHR the analysis was considered for all allotments, regardless of current

livestock type, because the conversion from cattle to sheep is allowed.

Four species of large mammals and one small mammal were extirpated from the Monument

during the twentieth century. The North American bison, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, gray

wolf, and grizzly bear were last documented in the early twentieth century [Smithsonian Institute,

2003]. One previously extirpated species, the porcupine, has recently reoccupied historical

habitat within the Monument. Wolves from the reintroduced Central Idaho packs occupy territory

immediately north of the Monument.

Special Status Wildlife and Fish

Special status species are those listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, candidates or

species proposed for listing under the ESA, listed by BLM as sensitive, or listed by the USFWS

as a Bird Species of Conservation Concern or Focal Species. The BLM manages BLM sensitive

species to provide conservation for those species and their habitats, and to minimize the need for

future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The NPS strives to manage its lands to

protect any federal, state, or BLM-listed species.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 99

Draft MMP Amendment

Table 3.4, “Special Status Animal Species in the Monument Area”lists the special status animal

species that are known or reported in the Monument area. The table is a representation of a

dynamic list that is expected to change over the life of the plan. The most current list will always

be the applicable special status species list.

Table 3.4. Special Status Animal Species in the Monument Area

MAMMALS

Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) California myotis (Myotis

californicus)

Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus)

Long-legged Myotis (Myotis volans) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

Piute ground squirrel (Urocitellus

mollis )

Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus

idahoensis)

Western Small-footed Myotis (Myotis

ciliolabrum)

Townsend’s big-eared bat

(Corynorhinus townsendii)

BIRDS

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus)

Black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza

bilineata)

Black tern (Chlidonias niger)

Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri) Calliope hummingbird (Selasphorus

calliope)

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

(Tympanuchus phasianellus

columbianus)

Eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus

savannarum)

Green-tailed towhee (Pipilo

chlorurus)

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus

urophasianus)

Lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes

lewis)

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius

ludovicianus)

Long-billed curlew (Numenius

americanus)

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern pintail (Anas acuta)

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus

cooperi)

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes

montanus)

Sagebrush sparrow (Artemisiospiza

belli)

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus

thyroideus)

Willow flycatcher (Empidonax

traillii)

Western burrowing owl (Athene

cunicularia)

REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS

Western toad/Boreal toad (Anaxyrus

boreas)

FISH

Inland redband trout (Oncorhynchus

mykiss gairdneri)

INVERTEBRATES

Idaho point-headed grasshopper

(Acrolophitus pulchellus)

St. Anthony sand dunes tiger beetle

(Cicindela arenicola)

Blind cave leiodid beetle

(Glacicavicola bathyscioides)

The USFWS has provided a list of endangered, threatened, and proposed species that may be

present in the five-county area surrounding the Monument. According to this list, threatened and

endangered animal species that could potentially occur in counties that span the Monument

are Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), bull trout

(Salvelinus confluentus), and the Snake River Physa snail (Physa natricina). Although not

identified on the list, the Bliss Rapids snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola) and Banbury Springs

limpet (Lanx sp.) were considered. However, habitat for these species is not available in the

Monument. The Monument is not in a lynx analysis unit, does not contain critical habitat, and is

not considered to provide suitable habitat for Canada lynx. The Monument also lacks suitable

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
100 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo. Individuals could occur in the vicinity of the Monument

during migration but require relatively large (≥ 20 ha) stands of cottonwood with a dense shrub

understory for nesting. Cuckoos have been observed 10 - 20 miles south and west of the

Monument in the Big Wood River and Snake River corridors. Surface water conditions are not

adequate for the survival of bull trout or the snails, all of which require substantial riverine or

cold-water spring habitat. There are several small perennial streams in the Pioneer Mountains

at the north end of the Monument, but these streams rapidly become subterranean once they

encounter the lava flows.

Animal species that were formerly federally listed but are now considered to be recovered include

the gray wolf and bald eagle. The gray wolf was delisted on May 5, 2011. Wolves are known to

occur in the vicinity of the Monument [Williams, 2002]; [IDFG & Nez Perce Tribe, 2014] and

were observed and tracked just north of the Monument in spring and winter of 2001. The pack

was thought to have followed migrating elk and deer. Individual wolves have also been observed

near the boundary of the Monument, with several confirmed sightings in this area since 2000.

The bald eagle was delisted as a federally threatened species on August 8, 2007. There is a bald

eagle breeding territory just west of the Monument near Carey Lake Marsh. Transient, wintering

bald eagles might be found anywhere throughout Blaine, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power

Counties, including parts of the Monument.

The USFWS recently completed a status review for listing the greater sage-grouse as a

Threatened or Endangered species under the ESA. In 2010 the USFWS determined that listing the

sage-grouse was warranted for listing under ESA, but precluded by higher priority listing actions.

This decision classified sage-grouse as a Candidate species under the ESA. In a subsequent

settlement agreement, the USFWS was directed by the Court to make a final listing determination

by September 30, 2015. In light of the 2010 "warranted but precluded" finding, and the USFWS

conclusion that BLM and USFS land use plans were lacking adequate regulatory mechanisms to

conserve sage-grouse, the BLM and USFS embarked on an effort to amend land use plans across

most of the west to incorporate land use allocations and other measures designed to conserve

sage-grouse. A Record of Decision for these amendments was signed on September 21, 2015.

After a thorough analysis of the best available scientific information and taking into account

ongoing key conservation efforts and their projected benefits the USFWS on September 22, 2015

determined that greater sage-grouse do not face the risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable

future and does not need protection under the ESA. Sage-grouse will continue to be managed as a

BLM Sensitive Species in Idaho. Sage-grouse occur throughout the sagebrush steppe ecosystem

and are commonly found on the Monument and adjacent lands.

In 2000, Idaho BLM initiated the "Key Habitat Map" outlining areas of sagebrush used by

sage-grouse at some point of the year, as well as potential restoration areas. The map has been

updated annually by BLM with input from IDFG. The following are the habitat classifications of

the "Key Habitat Map": Key, Restoration 1 (R1), Restoration 2 (R2), Restoration 3 (R3), and

Recent Burn (RB) [Sather-Blair et al., 2000].

● Key habitat areas are generally large-scale, intact sagebrush steppe areas that provide

sage-grouse habitat.

● R1 lands are sagebrush-limited areas with acceptable understory conditions in terms of

perennial grass species composition.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 101

Draft MMP Amendment

● R2 lands are areas dominated or strongly influenced by invasive annuals such as cheatgrass,

medusahead rye, or similar species. Areas with sagebrush may or may not be present, but in

general, understories are not suitable for sage-grouse.

● R3 lands are areas where junipers and/or other conifers are encroaching into sage-grouse

habitat areas.

● RB lands are areas that have recently burned and the type of habitat that is coming back and its

restoration potential has not yet been determined.

Within the Monument, there is approximately 266,000 acres of mapped "Key Habitat" on BLM

administered public land, of which 28% is Key, 60% is R1, 2% is R2, 0% is R3, 7% is RB, and

3% is not classified.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
102 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.8. Greater Sage-Grouse Current Habitat Types on BLM Monument Lands

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 103

Draft MMP Amendment

The BLM recently developed a national strategy to preserve, conserve, and restore sagebrush

habitat for the sage-grouse. The Record of Decision for the GRSG ARMPA addresses threats to

sage-grouse and their habitat, and has amended the 2007 MMP to provide management actions

for the conservation of sage-grouse, as incorporated. This Amendment draws from numerous

conservation planning and scientific documents. Principle documents include the following:

Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multi-scale Habitat Assessment Tool, 2004 BLM

National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, 2011 Sage-grouse National Technical Team

Report, State Wildlife Agency Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plans, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Sage-grouse Conservation Objectives Team Report, Western Association of Fish and

Wildlife Agencies Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Strategy, and USGS Open-File Report

2013-1098.

From this Decision the BLM and USFS have identified Priority Habitat Management Areas

(PHMA), Important Habitat Management Areas (IHMA), General Habitat Management Areas

(GHMA), and Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA). PHMA habitat is generally described as having the

highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable populations of sage-grouse. IHMA is

generally described as lands that have a moderate to high conservation value for habitat and

populations, but are not as important as PHMA. GHMA habitat is generally described as areas

having lower quality or patchy habitat with reduced lek connectivity. Sagebrush Focal Areas are a

subset of PHMAs, and provide for some additional conservation measures. In the Monument,

approximately 52% (142,200 acres) of BLM-administered lands are classified as PHMA, 44%

(121,400 acres) IHMA, 4% (10,800 acres) GHMA, and 52% (142,100 acres) SFA.

In addition to the aforementioned habitat management areas, the ID/SW MT Sub-regional

EIS incorporates the use of Biologically Significant Units (BSU) which serves as the basis for

anthropogenic disturbance calculations and analysis of adaptive management triggers. The

ID/SW MT Sub-regional EIS defines a BSU as “a geographical area within greater sage-grouse

habitat that contains relevant and important habitats and that is used as the basis for comparative

calculations to evaluate changes to habitat. A biologically significant unit or subset of the unit

is used to calculate the human disturbance threshold and the adaptive management habitat

trigger.” In Idaho, BSUs consist of “all of the modeled nesting and delineated winter habitat,

based on 2012 data, within PHMA and IHMA within a conservation area”. BSUs are stratified

amongst conservation areas. A total of eight conservation areas are identified within Idaho.

The Monument encompasses portions of the following conservation areas: Idaho Desert

Conservation Area-Priority, Idaho Desert Conservation Area-Important, and Idaho Mountain

Valleys Conservation Area-Priority.

The anthropogenic disturbance cap (3%) is identified as a threshold for development threats

(e.g., mining, infrastructure, and energy development). This plan amendment does not propose

development that would impact the disturbance cap. Disturbance calculations will be identified

separate of this analysis. A full description of BSU development, anthropogenic disturbance, and

adaptive management is available in Appendix E of the ID/SW MT Sub-regional EIS.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
104 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.9. Greater Sage-Grouse Biologically Significant Units in Craters of the Moon

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 105

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.10. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas on BLM Monument Lands

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
106 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.11. Sagebrush Focal Areas on BLM Monument Lands

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 107

Draft MMP Amendment

Sage-grouse within the Monument area are part of the Snake-Salmon Beaverhead population,

which extends from central Idaho to southwestern Montana [Garton et al., 2011]. Sub-populations

include the Upper Snake, Lemhi-Birch, Little Lost, Big Lost, and North Side Snake [Garton et al.,

2011]. The Monument is predominately located within the North Side Snake sub-population,

but the northern portion of the Monument does overlap the Big Lost sub-population. The

Snake-Salmon Beaverhead population is considered to be at low risk, meaning that sage-grouse

are common or uncommon, but not rare, and are usually widespread throughout the area [USDI

USFWS, 2012 & 2013]. The population has fluctuated around 5,000 males since 1992 and

was considered stable to increasing from 2007 to 2010; however, the population has markedly

declined from historical levels [Garton et al., 2011]. Population abundance, as indicated by the

average number of males per lek, declined by over half from 1965 to 2007 [Garton et al., 2011].

Observations made by IDFG in the Monument also indicate a significant decline in sage-grouse

lek activity over the past half century. There are 110 leks on BLM administered public lands in the

Monument, and 36 surveyed leks were documented as occupied in 2015. IDFG completed aerial

lek surveys in the Monument in 2015 to identify and count new and historic sage-grouse leks.

Specifically, Laidlaw, Little Park, and Paddleford Flat were surveyed. IDFG surveyed 90 historic

leks, 36 of which were active, and identified 12 possible new leks. A total of 606 sage-grouse

were observed during the survey [ Meints & Rasmussen, 2015.]

Loss and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats has been cited as a primary cause of the decline

of sage-grouse populations [Connelly, Knick, Schroeder, & Stiver, 2004]; [Schroeder et al.,

2004]; [Leu & Hanser, 2011]. Potential and current threats to sage-grouse in the Monument

include wildfire and the change in wildfire frequency, incursion of invasive plants, drought,

and improperly managed livestock grazing [USDI USFWS, 2010 & 2013]. Regional threats

also include urban and rural development, large-scale infrastructure (e.g., major roads, power

lines, and wind energy facilities), disease, agricultural practices such as sagebrush control and

insecticides, predation, human disturbance, sport hunting, seeded perennial grasslands, and conifer

encroachment [ North Magic Valley Sage-grouse Local Working Group (NMVLWG), 2011].

Occupied seasonal habitats for sage-grouse in the Monument were mapped in cooperation

with the state wildlife agency (Appendix G, Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Seasonal Habitat

Methodology on Craters of the Moon BLM National Monument Lands). Historic and current data

and knowledge by local sage-grouse experts were used to help identify seasonal use areas and

to determine the migratory status of the local sage-grouse population. Three main sage-grouse

seasonal use areas (breeding, summer, and late fall-winter) were identified. In many areas of the

Monument, seasonal habitats overlapped or were occupied by sage-grouse year-round.

Occupied seasonal habitats were delineated based largely on the presence of sagebrush,

occupied leks, previously mapped seasonal use areas, and/or sage-grouse observation data

(primarily from telemetry studies). Approximately 212,400 acres of BLM administered public

lands in the Monument were mapped as occupied breeding habitat (Figure 3.12, “Greater

Sage-Grouse Occupied Breeding Habitat on BLM Monument Lands”). Occupied summer and

late fall-winter habitats encompassed 248,900 and 204,000 acres, respectively (Figure 3.13,

“Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Summer Habitat on BLM Monument Lands”, Figure 3.14,

“Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Late Fall-Winter Habitat on BLM Monument Lands”).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
108 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.12. Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Breeding Habitat on BLM Monument Lands

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 109

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.13. Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Summer Habitat on BLM Monument Lands

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
110 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.14. Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Late Fall-Winter Habitat on BLM Monument

Lands

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 111

Draft MMP Amendment

Habitat assessments conducted in 2012 and 2013 in Craters of the Moon revealed that

approximately 16% of surveyed habitats currently known to be occupied by sage-grouse during

the breeding season (March 15 - June 15; Appendix G, Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Seasonal

Habitat Methodology on Craters of the Moon BLM National Monument Lands) possessed the

vegetative characteristics important for successful nesting and chick survival to sustain stable

populations (Table 3.5, “Site-Scale Suitability Summary of Occupied Greater Sage-Grouse

Habitats on BLM-Administered Lands in the Monument”). Approximately 30% of known,

surveyed brood-rearing areas (occupied from June 16 - October 15) were determined to provide

suitable habitat, and 37% of known, surveyed wintering areas (occupied from October 16 -

March 14) met the habitat guidelines [Stiver, Rinkes, & Naugle, 2010]. Ecologically limited

areas (e.g., sparsely vegetated, rocky inclusions) that would not have the potential to support

plant communities that provide suitable habitat for sage-grouse given their edaphic and climatic

potential [USDI BLM, 2001]) were not identified but are known to exist in localized areas

throughout the Monument. Similarly, areas on the north end of the Monument that possess slopes

in excess of 40% would not have the potential to provide suitable breeding habitat for sage-grouse

[Idaho Sage-Grouse Advisory Committee (ISAC), 2006], although the sites are likely used by

birds for foraging year-round.

Table 3.5. Site-Scale Suitability Summary of Occupied Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats on

BLM-Administered Lands in the Monument

Suitability Rankings Suitability Acreages for Sage-grouse Seasonal Habitat Areas

Breeding Summer Winter

Suitable Areas 20,766

(16%)*

47,819

(30%)

48,735

(37%)

Marginal Areas 59,432

(44%)

77,972

(50%)

20,163

(16%)

Unsuitable Areas 53,975

(40%)

31,066

(20%)

61,212

(47%)

Total Surveyed Areas 134,173 156,858 130,110

* Percentages represent the percentage of ranked seasonal habitat within the total known occupied

seasonal area.

Wildland fire has resulted in a lack of sagebrush cover, and is largely responsible for habitats not

meeting the seasonal requirements for sage-grouse in many areas of the Monument. Specifically,

of the areas identified as unsuitable for breeding habitat in the Monument, 73.3% of the sites were

found to be unsuitable solely because sagebrush cover was lacking, and a lack of sagebrush was a

contributing factor on an additional 24.0%. A lack of perennial grass and forb height, cover of

mid-height native perennial bunchgrasses, and a low availability of forbs have also detracted from

the ability of areas to provide for the life-cycle needs of sage-grouse in the planning area. Of

the areas within the Monument identified as unsuitable for breeding habitat, 2.6% of the sites

were solely due to low herbaceous cover, and a lack of herbaceous cover was a contributing factor

on the 24% of sites previously mentioned. Excessive grazing by domestic livestock during the

late 1800s and early 1900s, coupled with severe drought, has significantly impacted sagebrush

ecosystems [Knick et al., 2003]. Long-term effects from this overgrazing, including changes

in plant communities and soils, persist today [Knick et al., 2003]. Degradation continues to

occur in localized areas where livestock congregate, including near water sources, supplements,

corrals, and sheep bedding grounds [Jurs & Sands, 2004]. These areas are not large (generally

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
112 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

5 - 10 acres), but they are present throughout the Monument and increase the potential for the

establishment and spread of noxious and invasive plants [Jurs & Sands, 2004].

Habitat suitability rankings for other sensitive Monument wildlife have not been assessed

specifically. However, within their range, sage-grouse are dispersed into wide-ranging populations

that utilize a diversity of habitats during each life stage (e.g., higher-elevation wet meadows

and lower-elevation sagebrush flats). These factors make sage-grouse an appropriate focal

species [Mills, 2007] for broader conservation of sagebrush habitats [Hanser & Knick, 2011].

Managing for sage-grouse will generally benefit other sagebrush-obligate species such as pygmy

rabbit, sagebrush sparrow, and sage thrasher, as well as generalist species such as mule deer and

pronghorn antelope. However, on finer scales, habitat guidelines for sage-grouse may not capture

the needs of other species that utilize the sagebrush steppe. For example, some avian species

require more or less sagebrush or herbaceous cover as compared to sage-grouse [Kaltenecker,

Moser, & Bond, 2006]. In addition to managing for sage-grouse habitat, maintaining a resilient

mosaic of vegetation communities that reflect the various transitional states of sagebrush steppe

will be important over the Craters of the Moon landscape.

The pygmy rabbit, a BLM sensitive species, has been documented in several areas of the

Monument. Records ranging from the 1930s through 2013 indicate locations from the

southernmost areas to the NPS Monument lands [Hoffman, 1988]. Pygmy rabbit populations

have experienced severe declines throughout their range, including Idaho. The rabbits generally

prefer mature sagebrush stands with a dense canopy cover [Gabler, Heady, & Laundre, 2001] and

relatively deep, friable soils. However, there are few surveys for the species in southern Idaho,

and the distribution and status of the species is not well understood.

The Monument contains numerous caves and several cave-related species of concern, including

seven species of bats that are USFWS species of concern, Idaho species of special concern,

and/or BLM sensitive species. Only two maternity colonies of Townsend’s big-eared bat have

been confirmed in Idaho, and both sites are found in the Monument [IDFG, 2005]. Numerous

hibernacula have been identified in the Monument for this and other bat species. Six other cave

roosting bats that are classified as sensitive or of concern are found in the planning area [Keller &

Saathoff, 1996]. In addition to bats, other cave species are of concern, including the blind cave

leiodid beetle. Two of the five known worldwide sites for this species are in the Monument

[IDFG, 2005].

Two additional insects listed as sensitive by BLM have been documented on lands adjacent to

the Monument. One, the Idaho point-headed grasshopper, is found in the Lost River drainage.

Two of the five known sites are near the northeast perimeter of the Monument. Their preferred

habitat is relatively level or rolling terrain with gravelly to rocky soil having low sparse vegetative

cover [IDFG, 2005] between 4,800 and 7,000 feet in elevation.

The Idaho dunes tiger beetle is found only in sand dunes in south central and southeast Idaho.

Beetles have been documented at several sites near the southeast corner of the Wapi Lava Field

[Idaho State Conservation Effort, 1996]. More potential habitat for this beetle may exist within

the Monument in sand dunes and adjacent sandy soils [Idaho State Conservation Effort, 1996].

Potential and current threats to the species in the Monument include dune succession via invasion

by native and exotic weeds as well as dune stabilization via grass seedings, trampling of larval

burrows by livestock, and the use of insecticides such as Malathion [Idaho State Conservation

Effort, 1996].

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 113

Draft MMP Amendment

3.2.5. Native American Rights and Interests

Native American Indians inhabited southern Idaho, including the present day BLM lands, for

thousands of years prior to European contact. This ancient way of life was dismantled by

settlement of America when large numbers of immigrants seeking land sought to displace the

tribes. During the 1850s and 1860s treaties were negotiated with the tribes in the northwestern

United States in order to acquire Indian lands for homesteading. The settlement of the

northwestern United States by non-Indians led to the collapse of the Tribal Nations as they were

previously known, including their economic, social, cultural, religious, and governmental systems.

The Federal government has a special trust responsibility to American Indian Tribes that is defined

by treaties, statutes, and executive orders. According to the Department of the Interior Secretarial

Order 3335, the trust responsibility covers lands, natural resources, money, or other assets held by

the Federal government in trust or that are restricted against alienation for Indian Tribes and Indian

individuals. Proper discharge of the trust responsibility requires BLM to protect treaty-based

fishing, hunting, gathering, and similar rights of access and resource use on traditional tribal lands.

Within the planning area, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation have

rights to hunt (and by extension, to fish and gather plant foods) on the unoccupied lands of the

United States; these rights are reserved in the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868. The BLM is also

responsible under statute, regulation and executive order to consult with Tribes, with or without

treaties, whose interests might be affected by land use decisions. Ongoing consultation with the

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the

Fort Hall Reservation indicates that tribal interests include a wide range of natural and cultural

resources. Effective collaboration and coordination, including government-to-government

consultation, throughout the planning process are the keys to achieving the management goals of

the BLM, while preserving tribal rights and interests in public land resources.

The BLM conducts government-to-government consultation with the Shoshone-Paiute

and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in accordance with the American Indian Religious Freedom

Act, Executive Order 13007, BLM Manual 8120, Executive Order 13175 Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, Secretarial Order No. 3317 DOI Policy on

Consultation with Indian Tribes, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the Archaeological Resource Protection Act, and Manual

Handbook H-8120-1.8.

3.2.6. Cultural Resources

The term cultural resources refers to all physical traces of past human activity on the landscape.

They are a fragile, non-renewable resource, subject to impacts and degradation from many

sources, both natural and human caused. The NHPA outlines the procedures by which Federal

agencies are to evaluate and determine cultural resource significance and develop mitigation

and preservation requirements. The Craters of the Moon National Monument contains a wide

variety of cultural resources. Native American Tribes used this region continuously for at least

the last 12,000 years. They crossed the Monument on their seasonal route to Camas Prairie to

harvest camas lilies, making use of the natural resources along the way. Euro-American trappers

and explorers first entered the region in the early 1800s, followed by thousands of immigrants

on the Oregon Trail between 1845 and 1865, many of which took the Goodale's Cutoff through

the northern end of the Monument.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Native American Rights and Interests
114 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

The discovery of gold and other valuable minerals brought many more people to Idaho, including

Chinese immigrants in the 1880s. The resulting conflict between Native Americans and the

newcomers precipitated the removal of Native Americans to reservations at Fort Hall and Duck

Valley. Several key events in the Bannock War of 1895 over Camas Prairie took place within the

region. Railroads, such as the Oregon Short Line, were built and towns were founded across the

area, but little development took place within the Monument. After the mining boom faded in the

early 1900s, agricultural projects were built across the region, such as Magic Dam and Milner

Dam, along with their many associated irrigation canals. Livestock grazing also became more

prevalent. Numerous Basque immigrated to Idaho to work in the sheep industry and settled in

Idaho. Early ranchers discovered Indian and game trails across the lava flows into the large

kipukas of the Monument and began grazing livestock there. Later, roads were constructed across

the lava flows to facilitate grazing in these kipukas. Traces of all these activities still remain on

the landscape. David Louter (1992) completed a Historic Context Statement for the Monument

that details the history of the Monument.

Cultural Resources within the Monument consist of over 500 Native American and

Euro-American historic sites, as well as traditional cultural properties. Short segments of the

Goodale’s Cutoff of the Oregon Trail still serve as primitive routes on the north end of the

Monument, but several portions of the trail have been destroyed by the construction of Highway

93. Historically, the trail was upgraded to serve as the main route from Arco to Carey before

the new highway was built. Very few if any intact ruts remain. Goodale’s Cutoff is currently

under study for potential designation as a segment of the Oregon National Historic Trail. The

congressionally authorized study is being conducted by the NPS.

Nearly 10% of BLM lands within the Monument have been inventoried to date, mostly as a

result of post fire rehabilitation inventories and Section 110 inventory. Recent cultural resource

overviews completed for the Monument [Henrikson, McAlister, & Long, 2006] and the Shoshone

Field Office BLM [Henrikson, Guenther, & Cravins, 2009] document Native American use of

the area. Geospatial studies have helped document Native American use patterns within the

Monument and have been used to inform management decisions [Henrikson, 2005].

Currently, the main impacts on cultural resources are wildfires, wildfire suppression, and human

vandalism/looting. Livestock concentration at water sites, mineral locations, or bed grounds can

also impact archaeological site surfaces. Fires destabilize site surfaces by removing vegetation,

which allows wind erosion to occur. Suppression activities and livestock trampling can have

similar effects on site surfaces.

The BLM has developed a nationwide Programmatic Agreement (nPA) that governs the manner

in which the BLM will meet its responsibilities under the NHPA. A State Protocol Agreement

(SPA) for Idaho (2014) now implements the 2012 nPA by describing how the Idaho SHPO and

the BLM will interact and cooperate pursuant to the nPA. The goal of this Protocol and the nPA

is to continue the meaningful and productive partnership between BLM and the SHPO and to

implement alternative procedures pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.14(b), to enhance the management of

cultural resources (as defined by the BLM 8100 Manual, including properties of religious and

cultural significance) under the BLM’s jurisdiction.

3.2.7. Visual Resources

Perpetuating scenic vistas and open western landscapes for future generations is one of the

purposes and values identified for Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve. The

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 115

Draft MMP Amendment

visual resources of Craters of the Moon represent a remnant of the undeveloped American West

and one of the few remaining great expanses of sagebrush steppe. The contrasting lava flows

were described in the 1924 Presidential Proclamation originally establishing the Monument as a

“weird and scenic landscape peculiar to itself.” These lava flows create a unique viewscape in

North America.

Gray-green sagebrush steppe and black lava fields abut the high Pioneer Mountains to the north.

Across the Monument, 3,500 feet of vertical relief presents visitors with enormous panoramic

views to the south. On a clear day, the Grand Tetons, 140 miles to the east, can be seen from the

Monument. One of the nation’s clearest airsheds enhances these long, uninterrupted vistas.

The Monument contains numerous striking volcanic features such as pahoehoe and a’a lava flows,

cinder cones, spatter ramparts, and enormous lava fields. Low shield volcanoes and cinder cones

(known locally as “buttes”) rise up throughout the entire landscape. The exposed lava varies in

color, while shapes and textures of flows add scenic variety on a smaller scale. Nearly barren of

vegetation, the most recent lavas at times flowed around kipukas, which offer some visual relief

from the continuous lava. Expansive sagebrush steppe and grasslands, as well as the different

ages and types of lava surfaces, support a remarkable variety of plant and animal communities

that add to the visual diversity of the Monument.

Visual Resource Management VRM is a standard tool used by the BLM to identify and protect

visual values on public lands (8400-Visual Resource Handbook and Manual Series).

The 2007 MMP placed all public land within Craters of the Moon National Monument and

Preserve as either Class I or Class II management classes. There are currently no Class III or

IV designations within the Monument. Generally, all BLM lands located within the Pristine

Zone, Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas are designated Class I, while the rest of the

Monument is designated Class II. The VRM classes provide standards for planning, designing,

and evaluating future management actions.

The Monument’s designated visual resource management classes and objectives are as follows:

● Class I – The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape.

Any contrast created within the characteristic landscape must not attract attention. This

classification is applied to Visual ACECs, wilderness and WSAs, Wild and Scenic Rivers,

and other similar situations.

● Class II – The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape.

Changes in any of the basic visual elements caused by management activity should not be

evident in the landscape. A contrast may be seen but should not attract attention.

Table 3.6. Visual Resource Management Class Areas in Craters of the Moon National

Monument & Preserve

VRM Class BLM Managed Acres Percent of BLM Managed Acres

in the Monument

Class I 73,500 27%

Class II 201,600 73%

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources
116 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.15. Visual Resource Management Classes in Craters of the Moon National

Monument & Preserve

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 117

Draft MMP Amendment

3.2.8. Wilderness Study Areas

According to BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, BLM’s objectives are,

consistent with relevant law, to manage and protect wilderness study areas (WSA) to preserve

wilderness characteristics so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for designation by

Congress as wilderness and to provide policy guidance for prolonged stewardship of WSAs until

Congress makes a final determination on the management of WSAs.

The Monument contains all or part of four wilderness study areas including Raven’s Eye, Great

Rift, Bear Den Butte, and Little Deer. The total WSA acreage within the Monument and Preserve

is approximately 471,300. Of those acres, 389,600 have been recommended by BLM as “suitable”

for designation as wilderness in the 1991 Idaho Wilderness Study Report. Prior to Proclamation

7373, the BLM managed these WSAs in their entirety; however, after the Proclamation, the

lava within the Monument boundary was transferred to the NPS, which included most of the

WSA acreage.

Some human-made facilities in the WSAs include wildlife guzzlers, sheep bed grounds, fences,

and watering structures associated with livestock use. The sights and sounds of roads adjacent to

the WSAs are visible and audible from within limited portions of the WSAs. Communication

towers near Arco and Lava Lake are visible from portions of the Great Rift WSA. Refer to pages

166-168 in the 2007 Craters of the Moon Monument Management Plan for a more in-depth

description of the Monument’s WSAs.

Table 3.7. Summary of Wilderness Study Areas

Wilderness

Study Area

Acres within the

Monument

NPS Acres BLM Acres Total Acres Acres within

Monument

Recommended

Suitable by

BLM

Great Rift 381,100 335,000 46,000 381,800 322,450

Raven’s Eye 45,400 37,000 8,400 68,300 67,110

Little Deer 35,100 21,300 13,800 35,200 0

Bear Den Butte 9,700 4,300 5,400 9,700 0

3.2.9. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Section 201 of FLPMA requires the BLM to maintain an inventory, on a continuing basis, of all

public lands and their resources and other values, which includes wilderness characteristics. It

also provides that the preparation and maintenance of the inventory shall not, of itself, change or

prevent change of the management or use of public lands. Regardless of past inventory, the BLM

must maintain and update as necessary, its inventory of wilderness resources on public lands.

The primary function of an inventory is to determine the presence or absence of wilderness

characteristics [Manual 6310, p. 2]. According to BLM Manual 6310, Conducting Wilderness

Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands, “Managing the wilderness resource is part of the

BLM’s multiple use mission. Lands with wilderness characteristics provide a range of uses and

benefits in addition to their value as settings for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.”

The Monument’s lands with wilderness characteristics inventory was completed in 2014,

with 21,300 acres found to contain wilderness characteristics. Refer to Figure 3.14,

Inventory for Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Map for a summary overview and

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness Study Areas
118 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/lands_with_wilderness/lwc_id_twinfallsdistrict.html for more

details.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
Craters of the Moon National Monument 119

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.16. Inventory for Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Map

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
120 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

3.3. Resource Uses

3.3.1. Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing on BLM is divided up into smaller, more manageable areas called allotments.

Grazing on these allotments is managed through a permitting process, in which certain mandatory

terms and conditions are specified. A grazing permit is required by 43 CFR 4130.3 (2005) to

specify the kind (species of animal) and number of livestock to be allowed; the period of the year

in which grazing would be allowed (season of use); the allotments to be used; and the amount of

use to be allowed in AUMs. Other terms and conditions can be specified as well that will assist

in achieving management objectives, provide for proper range management, or assist in the

orderly administration of the public rangelands.

Generally, one AUM equates to about 790 pounds of dry forage. Current AUM levels in the

Monument were based on earlier vegetation production inventories and analyses to determine

how much forage would be allocated for livestock and how much would be allocated for other

uses, such as wildlife and watershed needs and were originally implemented in the 1980s. AUM

levels in the allotments involved with the Monument were established through their respective

land use plans and were adopted based on land area through the 2007 MMP. The effects of

the current use levels are monitored for each allotment to determine if future adjustments are

necessary to maintain or improve rangeland health.

The Monument is cooperatively managed by the NPS and the BLM. NPS administers 463,300

acres, or 62%, of the Monument, and that area is not available for livestock use. NPS lands

consist primarily of exposed lava flows, which are mostly devoid of available forage and/or

inaccessible to livestock; therefore, prohibiting grazing in these areas had little to no impact on the

livestock industry. The BLM administers 275,100 acres, of which 273,900 are currently allocated

for grazing. This land is divided into 22 allotments that are administered by three field offices in

two BLM districts (see Figure 1.4, “Allotment Administration”).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Resource Uses
Craters of the Moon National Monument 121

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.17. Livestock Grazing Allotments (Current Management)

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
122 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Presidential Proclamation 7373 (2000) states, “Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the

Bureau of Land Management in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all

lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the Monument

administered by the Bureau of Land Management.”

The planning area is unique in its grazing management due to the overlapping of the Monument

boundary with allotments administered through three different BLM field offices. The planning

area includes portions of 18 allotments along with four allotments that lie wholly within the

Monument. The Monument boundary is rarely along any other administrative boundary or other

barrier to livestock movement. In this discussion of grazing allotments, all figures (acreages and

percentages) will be based on the amount of each allotment that lies within the Monument and is

administered by the BLM unless otherwise specified.

Existing grazing allotments include 6,600 acres of private land and 8,200 acres of State land

within the Monument. Some of the land controlled by permittees is offered for exchange-of-use

and is managed in conjunction with the public lands; the rest is informally managed as part of the

allotments. Unallotted tracts total 1,200 acres, consisting primarily of isolated parcels of public

land and were made unavailable to livestock grazing in the 2007 MMP.

Presently 86 permittees in the planning area are allocated 38,187 AUMs. This total is the

maximum amount of forage that can be allocated in the Monument at any one time, and actual

use or total permitted use could be any amount below this total based on allotment-specific

analysis. Of the total, 16,548 AUMs are allocated for cattle and 21,639 AUMs are allocated for

sheep. Since 1997, livestock use has averaged 11,791 AUMs within the Monument, which is

31% of the permitted use. The lower use levels have primarily been from sheep permittees

leaving allotments as forage matures and dries out, and moving on to other BLM allotments or

Forest Service allotments without using all of their permitted AUMs. Some cattle permittees

have also used fewer AUMs, either as a result of their own operational fluctuations or due to

changing forage conditions, such as following a wildfire or drought. Total forage production in

the Monument has been estimated at 111,300 AUMs in an unfavorable year and 227,900 AUMs

in a favorable year Figure D.1, “Existing Ecological State in Craters of the Moon”.

The analysis in this document is based on Actual Use; the use reported at the end of the grazing

season by permittees. It is an accurate account of the livestock use in an allotment throughout

the grazing season. Billed use may differ from Actual Use, because some allotments are billed

before grazing occurs, based on a grazing application that reflects the permittees' plans for the

upcoming grazing season. Therefore, some fluctuations in plans may occur, causing billed use to

differ from Actual Use. Where Actual Use is not obtained, however, billed use will be assumed

to reflect Actual Use.

Two allotments are solely allocated for sheep, 13 allotments are solely allocated for cattle, and

seven allotments are allocated for both. In nine allotments, several operators run livestock in

common, while the other 13 allotments are permitted to single operators.

Grazing systems, or acceptable grazing practices, for allotments are detailed in Allotment

Management Plans (AMPs). AMPs in the Monument range in date of establishment from 1991

to 2011. Grazing systems are developed by the BLM in conjunction with livestock operators

and other interested parties. AMPs are subject to Standards (Appendix H, Idaho Standards for

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management [USDI BLM, 1997]), as are

adjustments made to AUM allocation. The Standards for Rangeland Health in the State of Idaho

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
Craters of the Moon National Monument 123

Draft MMP Amendment

are, “the Bureau of Land Mangement’s management goals for the betterment of the environment,

protection of cultural resources, and sustained productivity of the range” [USDI BLM, 1997].

Rangeland Health evaluations have been conducted on 20 out of 22 Monument allotments,

as shown in Table 3.8, “Standards and Guidelines Assessments in Monument Associated

Allotments”. These evaluations begin with consultation between BLM staff, interested publics,

and resource users. Field assessments and evaluations are then conducted to determine the

achievement or non-achievement for each Standard. If a Standard is not being met or is not

making significant progress towards being met, then the cause for non-achievement must be

determined. If livestock grazing practices are determined to be the cause, BLM is required by

regulation to change livestock management to meet or to make significant progress toward

meeting all applicable Standards. Table 3.8, “Standards and Guidelines Assessments in

Monument Associated Allotments” lists all allotments associated with the Monument. In

allotments where all Standards were not met and livestock grazing practices were determined

to be the cause, changes to management were made to lead towards uniform achievement of all

Standards. Management changes that have occurred in the allotments listed in the following table

include implementing rest-rotation grazing systems, adjusting AUM levels, setting sheep to cattle

conversion rates, designated cattle and sheep pastures, limitations on sheep bedgrounds and

watering sites, and riparian exclosures. Preliminary monitoring data and the HAF data collected

in 2012 and 2013 show that progress is being made towards meeting Standards in the Monument.

The individual allotments will be assessed during the implementation of this amendment to fully

evaluate any site-specific responses to management changes.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
124 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Table 3.8. Standards and Guidelines Assessments in Monument Associated Allotments

Allotment Year

Evaluated

Standard

1–Watersheds

Standard

2–Riparian

Areas and

Wetlands

Standard

3–Stream

Channel/

Floodplain

Standard

4–Native

Plant Communities

Standard

5–Seedings

Standard

6–Exotic

Plant Communities,

other than

Seedings

Standard

7–Water

Quality

Standard

8–Threatened and

Endangered

Plants & Animals

Big Desert

Sheep

2011 Meeting NA NA Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Meeting NA NA Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Bowl Crater 2004 Meeting NA NA Meeting NA NA NA Not Meeting

(Fire)

Cottonwood 1999 Meeting Not Meeting

(Livestock)

Not Meeting

(Livestock)

Meeting NA NA Meeting Meeting

Cox’s Well 2004 Meeting NA NA Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

NA NA NA Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Crater 1999 Meeting Not Meeting

(Livestock)

Not Meeting

(Livestock)

Meeting Meeting NA Meeting Meeting

Craters 2011 Meeting NA NA Meeting NA NA NA Meeting

East

Minidoka

1999 Meeting NA NA Meeting Meeting NA NA Not Meeting

(Fire)

Huddle’s

Hole

1999 Meeting NA NA Meeting Meeting NA NA Meeting

Kimama 1999 Meeting NA NA Not Meeting

(Livestock)

Not Meeting Not Meeting NA Not Meeting

Laidlaw Park 2002 Meeting NA NA Not Meeting Meeting NA NA Not Meeting

Lava Lake 2007 Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting NA Meeting Meeting

Minidoka 2004 Meeting NA NA Not Meeting

(Fire)

Meeting NA NA Not Meeting

(Fire)

Pagari 2007 Meeting Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Not Meeting

(Fire)

Meeting NA Not Meeting Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Poison Lake Not Yet

Evaluated

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
125 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Allotment Year

Evaluated

Standard

1–Water-

sheds

Standard

2–Riparian

Areas and

Wetlands

Standard

3–Stream

Channel/

Floodplain

Standard

4–Native

Plant Com-

munities

Standard

5–Seedings

Standard

6–Exotic

Plant Com-

munities,

other than

Seedings

Standard

7–Water

Quality

Standard

8–Threat-

ened and

Endangered

Plants& An-

imals

Quaking

Aspen

2010 Meeting NA NA Meeting NA NA NA Meeting

Rudeen 2004 Meeting NA NA Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

NA NA Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Sand 2004 Meeting NA NA Meeting Meeting NA NA Meeting

Schodde 1999 Meeting NA NA Meeting Meeting NA NA Not Meeting

(Fire)

Smith 2012 Meeting NA NA Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

NA NA Not Meeting

(Livestock)

Sunset 2010 Meeting NA NA Meeting NA NA NA Meeting

Timber Butte Not Yet

Evaluated

Wildhorse 1999 Meeting Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Meeting Not Meeting

(Livestock)

Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Meeting Not Meeting Not Meeting

but Making

Significant

Progress

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
126 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Structural range improvements in the Monument include fences, cattle guards, riparian exclosures,

reservoirs, water gap structures, wildlife guzzlers, corrals, wells, and pipelines with associated

water troughs. Non-structural range improvements within the Monument include seedings,

fire rehabilitation and restoration projects, fuel breaks, and road rehabilitations. Rangeland

improvements are used in the Monument to improve livestock distribution, provide livestock

forage, restore degraded areas, protect sensitive sites, improve wildlife habitat, and facilitate

management of livestock. Many of these are also closely associated with the road system in

the Monument.

Trailing of livestock between allotments is another common practice in the livestock industry, and

historical trail routes are still used today in many areas of the Monument. The majority of this

trailing occurs along existing roads. These corridors were designated for primary management by

the BLM to allow for continued livestock trailing and other authorized uses in these corridors.

Trailing is a separately authorized use and the effects are analyzed as part of the 2013 Shoshone

Field Office Livestock Trailing Permit EA (DOI-BLM-ID-T030-2012-0044-EA).

3.3.2. Travel and Transportation

The amount and types of travel allowed within the Monument were determined by the 2007 MMP

and subsequent 2009 Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Comprehensive

Travel Management Plan (TMP).

All routes are designated open, limited, or closed as depicted on the Craters of the Moon National

Monument and Preserve Travel Map.

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use in the Monument includes off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain

vehicles (ATVs), utility vehicles (UTVs), snowmobiles, and other motorized vehicles. Most

OHV use in the Monument occurs during hunting seasons or in association with other land

uses such as livestock operations.

The amount of OHV-specific recreation on the BLM portions of the Monument is small.

Recreation Management Information System (RMIS) data estimates an average of less than 3,500

visits per year. Most OHV activity takes place on the route network, since no trails have been

designated for motorized use. The primary use periods are spring and fall. A small amount of

mountain biking occurs in the expanded Monument.

According to the comprehensive TMP, livestock operators use the existing route network for a

variety of livestock management activities such as trailing livestock, hauling water, moving sheep

camps, and maintaining existing facilities. Combining the cattle and sheep use together yields an

estimated 1,575 vehicles using the route network per year for all grazing-related activities. For a

more detailed description of how livestock operations utilize the transportation network, refer

to page 45 in the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Comprehensive Travel

Management Plan EA [ID-230–2007–EA-332].

3.3.3. Recreation and Visitor Use

The project area was identified as an Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) in the 2007

MMP. At that time ERMAs were defined as “identified areas where recreation is planned for and

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Travel and Transportation
Craters of the Moon National Monument 127

Draft MMP Amendment

actively managed on an interdisciplinary-basis in concert with other resources/resource programs.

ERMAs offer recreation opportunities that facilitate visitors’ freedom to pursue a variety of

outdoor recreation activities and attain a variety of outcomes.” Since then, the BLM’s recreation

planning policy has been revised and as a result, the definition and management of an ERMA has

changed. According to the updated policy, 8320 Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services

(R&VS), a designated ERMA is “an administrative unit that requires specific management

consideration in order to address recreation use, demand, or R&VS program investments. The

ERMA is managed to support and sustain the principal recreation activities and the associated

qualities and conditions of the ERMA. Management of ERMA areas is commensurate with the

management of other resources and resource uses.” In order to comply with the current recreation

planning policy, the BLM lands within the Monument will be classified as Public Lands Not

Designated as Recreation Management Areas. This aligns the recreation management objectives

established in the 2007 MMP, which are carried forward in this plan amendment, with the current

policy direction. Public Lands Not Designated as Recreation Management Areas are all lands

not established as an SRMA (Special Recreation Management Area) or an ERMA. They are

managed to meet the basic R&VS and resource stewardship needs. Recreation is not emphasized,

however recreation activities may occur except on those lands closed to public use. The R&VS

are managed to allow recreation uses that are not in conflict with the primary uses of these lands.

The 2007 MMP addresses the current policy requirements for Public Lands Not Designated as

Recreation Management Areas which are: (a) visitor health and safety; (b) use and user conflicts;

(c) the type(s), activities and locations where special recreation permits would be issued or not

issued; and (d) mitigation of recreation impacts on cultural and natural resources.

Visitation to the expanded part of the Monument was estimated at 3,276 visits in 2013, according

to BLM’s RMIS data. Monument recreation pursuits requiring access include: hunting, driving

for pleasure, geologic exploration (including caving, lava hiking, and sightseeing), hiking,

primitive camping, photography, horseback riding, and mountain biking. Most recreational

access to the expanded Monument area is for the purpose of visiting destination locations in

the Monument such as Snowdrift Crater, Wapi Park, Kings Bowl, and Bear Trap Cave. A

small number of visitors travel to lesser known locations within the Monument for a variety of

recreation purposes. A more in depth description of each recreation opportunity can be found on

pages 171-177 of the 2007 MMP EIS.

3.3.4. Socioeconomic Values

The Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve falls within a five-county area in

Idaho. The counties in which the Monument boundaries lie are Blaine, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka,

and Power (Figure 3.14, Monument and Preserve Five-County Socioeconomic Study Area). For

all socioeconomic sections in this document, the term, “Study Area,” refers to this five-county

area. Due to data availability and the way socioeconomic information is collected and organized,

the county level is the smallest quantifiable unit for analysis. The Monument and Preserve inhabit

only about 14% of the Study Area (Table 3.9, “Craters of the Moon National Monument and

Preserve Area by County”).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomic Values
128 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.18. Monument and Preserve Five-County Socioeconomic Study Area

Table 3.9. Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Area by County

County County Total Acres Monument Acres per

County

% of Monument per

County

Blaine 1,700,338 383,322 23%

Butte 1,435,061 136,632 10%

Lincoln 772,219 17,190 2%

Minidoka 488,427 164,014 34%

Power 924,874 52,085 6%

TOTAL 5,320,918 753,244 14% of the 5 counties is in

the Monument

Socioeconomic conditions in these counties have followed roughly the same pattern as the rest

of the U.S. in recent years: A long upward trajectory in economic variables such as personal

income, employment, and so on was interrupted by the 2007-2009 recession. Although growth

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomic Values
Craters of the Moon National Monument 129

Draft MMP Amendment

has resumed, the growth rate has slowed from what it was prior to the onset of the recession. In

contrast with many other parts of the U.S. and Idaho, the five-county region has experienced net

out-migration. In other words, more residents have moved away from the area than have moved

to the area. In spite of this out-flow of residents, total population has increased due to local births.

Over time, unearned income (income from investments, rental properties, retirement accounts,

etc.) has become an increasingly large source of total income within the five counties, reaching

a high of around 45% of all income as of 2009. This implies that the local economy could be

enjoying benefits of stability that come with income that is not dependent on the labor market,

and it corresponds with an aging population. Ups and downs in employment are less likely to

translate into ups and downs in demand for consumer goods and services within the study area.

On the other hand, market disruptions that negatively impact asset values at the national level

could disproportionately affect the wealth and economic stability of local residents.

From 1970 to 2000, job growth in services, construction, and retail-related industries outpaced

growth in every other economic sector in the region. Services industry jobs increased by a much

larger number than did jobs in any other industry during those same years, but since 2000, most

sectors’ employment numbers have remained fairly steady. Personal income in the area has

followed the same pattern as that exhibited in the job market: large gains from 1970 to 2000 in

the services industry has been followed by more stability in that and other industries since the

year 2000. It is important to note that in previous recession and recovery cycles, the region

experienced positive job growth during the recovery period. Since the end of the 2007-2009

recession, the five-county region has continued to experience job losses, losing at twice the

percentage since 2009 as during the recession itself (5.1% in comparison with 2.5% during the

recession). In spite of those negative job growth figures, per capita income and average income

per job have both performed well in comparison with the State of Idaho, with per capita income

growing at more than 12% from 2000 to 2011, compared with 2% for Idaho as a whole. A recent

NPS economic report shows that 200,525 visitors to Craters of the Moon National Monument

and Preserve in 2013 spent $6.6 million in communities near the park. That spending supported

94 jobs in the local area [USDI NPS, 2013].

More than 25% of residents within the five-county region self-identify as Hispanic. This is almost

ten percentage points higher than for the U.S. as a whole. The Native American population in

the study area is also larger as a proportion of the overall population as compared with the U.S.

Poverty rates within the study area are lower than for the U.S. as a whole, another indication that

the local economy is somewhat more stable and healthier than the nation’s economy.

At 12.5% in 2012, farm earnings as a percentage of total earnings are quite a bit higher in the

five-county region than in the U.S., for which the percentage was 1% in the same year. This

indicates that agriculture plays a much larger role in the economy in the study area than in the

rest of the U.S. Total gross revenue to agriculture has shown strong growth in the past decade,

with growth in both crop and livestock-related revenue. In 2007, beef cattle operations comprised

nearly 30% of all farm enterprises in the study area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomic Values
130 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 3.19. Cash Receipts from Agricultural Markets, 5-County Region

3.3.5. Climate Change

Climate change is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as “a

change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes

in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and persist for an extended period, typically

decades or longer.” It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability

or as a result of human activity [IPCC, 2007].

The IPCC [Climate Change Supplementary Information Report (SIR), 2010] states, “Warming of

the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global

average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global

average sea level.” Global average temperature has increased approximately 1.4°F since the early

20th century [Climate Change SIR, 2010]. Warming has occurred on land surfaces, oceans, and

other water bodies, and in the troposphere (the lowest layer of earth’s atmosphere, up to 4-12

miles above the earth). Other indications of global climate change described by IPCC include:

● Rates of surface warming increased in the mid-1970s, and the global land surface has been

warming at about double the rate of ocean surface warming since then.

● Eleven of the last 12 years rank among the warmest years on record since 1850.

● Lower-tropospheric temperatures have slightly greater warming rates than the earth’s surface

from 1958-2005.

Earth has a natural greenhouse effect wherein naturally occurring gases such as water vapor

(H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) absorb and retain heat.

Without the natural greenhouse effect, earth would be approximately 60°F cooler [Climate

Change SIR, 2010]. Current ongoing global climate change is believed by scientists to be linked

to the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases (GHGs), which may persist for decades or even

centuries. Each GHG has a global warming potential that accounts for the intensity of each

GHG’s heat trapping effect and its longevity in the atmosphere [Climate Change SIR, 2010]. The

buildup of GHGs such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons since the

start of the industrial revolution has substantially increased atmospheric concentrations of these

compounds compared to background levels. At such elevated concentrations, these compounds

absorb more energy from the earth’s surface and re-emit a larger portion of the earth’s heat back

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
Craters of the Moon National Monument 131

Draft MMP Amendment

to the earth rather than allowing the heat to escape into space than would be the case under more

natural conditions of background GHG concentrations.

A number of sources contribute to the phenomenon of climate change, including emissions

of GHGs (especially carbon dioxide and methane) from livestock production, fossil fuel

development, large wildfires, activities using combustion engines, changes to the natural carbon

cycle, and changes to radiative forces and reflectivity (albedo) [Gerber et al., 2013]. It is

important to note that particular types of GHGs will have various sustained climatic impacts over

different temporal scales due to their differences in global warming potential (described above)

and lifespans in the atmosphere. For example, carbon dioxide proper may last 50 to 200 years in

the atmosphere while methane has an average atmospheric life time of 12 years [Climate Change

SIR, 2010]. Land uses and/or land management activities that increase the ability of vegetation

and soil to sequester carbon can help mitigate the effects of climate change. Such activities

include improving/restoring riparian and wetland areas, improving forest age class diversity,

health, and resiliency, mitigating the size and intensity of wildfires, and maintaining/improving

livestock grazing management.

Activities in Idaho accounted for approximately 28.5 million metric tons (Mt) of gross carbon

dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions in 2011, an amount equal to about 0.4% of total U.S. gross

GHG emissions [World Resources Institute, 2014]. Idaho’s gross GHG emissions are rising faster

than those of the nation as a whole (gross emissions exclude carbon sinks, such as agricultural

soils). Idaho’s gross GHG emissions increased 51% from 1990 to 2011, while national emissions

rose by only 8% from 1990 to 2011 [World Resources Institute, 2014].

In 2011, the principle sources of Idaho’s GHG emissions were energy and agriculture, accounting

for about 57% and 36% of Idaho’s gross GHG emissions, respectively. Within the energy sector,

transportation accounted for the majority of emissions [World Resources Institute, 2014].

Current U.S. GHG emissions from livestock total approximately 213 Mt of CO2e per year

[Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2014a]; current U.S. emissions of all GHGs total

approximately 6.8 billion metric tons (Bt) of CO2e per year [EPA, 2014a]; current global emissions

of all GHGs total approximately 43.8 Bt of CO2e per year [World Resources Institute, 2014].

Indicators of climate change include temperature, precipitation, snowpack, stream flow, stream

temperature, plant phenology, wildfire, and vegetation dynamics [Gillis et al., 2010], all of which

continue to change throughout Idaho. A recent study of Idaho meteorological data collected from

1968 to 2008 shows a decrease in precipitation and an increase in temperature across the state

[Sohrabi, Ryu, Abatzoglou, & Tracy, 2012]. Within the Monument, trends in temperature and

precipitation generally appear to fall within the historical range of variability (1901–2012),

although temperature extremes (extreme warm) have occurred [USDI NPS, 2014]; [Monahan

& Fisichelli, 2014].

Chapter 3 Affected Environment
This page intentionally

left blank
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences
 
This page intentionally

left blank
Craters of the Moon National Monument 135

Draft MMP Amendment

4.1. How to Read this Chapter

This chapter provides the scientific and analytic basis for a comparison of the alternatives.

Considering the existing environmental condition that would be affected by this MMP

Amendment (Chapter 3, Affected Environment) along with the alternative descriptions (Chapter 2,

Alternatives), the types and magnitude of impacts were identified and quantified, to the extent

practicable. Regardless of resource or resource use, the BLM is guided by Planning Criteria

listed in Appendix C of the BLM Planning Handbook, and, as such, these are not specifically

outlined as assumptions.

4.1.1. Impact Analysis Descriptors

This chapter describes the direction, extent, and duration of identified impacts or effects. Both

impacts and effects are used synonymously. Where quantitative data was not available, impacts

are described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms. Unless otherwise noted,

the following qualitative impact thresholds were used for analyzing the intensity of effects on

resources or resource uses:

Negligible: The resource or resource use would not be affected, or the effects would be at or

below the level of detection, and the changes would be so slight that they would not be of any

measurable or perceptible consequence.

Minor: The effects on the resource or resource use would be detectable but localized, small, and

of little consequence to the resource or use. Mitigating measures, if needed to offset adverse

effects, would be simple and successful.

Moderate: The effects on the resource or resource use would be readily detectable, but localized.

Mitigating measures, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be extensive and probably

would be successful.

● For livestock grazing, localized effects would be defined as affecting an allotment, and/or

pastures or small portions of multiple allotments.

● For wildlife and fish resources, the action would result in a level of disturbance that causes

discernible impairment of the function of an important habitat (a significant reduction in

wildlife or fish use is anticipated), but the impacts can often be reduced or eliminated through

seasonal use restrictions, implementation of recommended management practices, and/or

habitat mitigation. This level of impact can result in a cumulatively significant effect if multiple

impacts are present over a large area and are not mitigated.

● For vegetation resources, the effects would be perceptible across a sizable segment of the plant

community over a relatively large area. Special status plants could be affected.

● The effect on soil productivity or fertility would be readily apparent and result in a change in

the soil character over a relatively wide area.

● The effects would be perceptible across a sizable segment of a riparian community or over a

relatively large area containing water resources. Desired conditions would be altered on a

short-term basis.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

How to Read this Chapter
136 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

● For Native American Rights and Interests, the impact would be measurable and perceptible.

The impact would change one or more characteristics or defining features of trust resources,

ethnographic resources, traditional use areas or treaty rights, but does not diminish the integrity

of the resource to the extent that it is jeopardized.

● For cultural resources, the impact would be measurable and perceptible. The impact would

change one or more character-defining features of an archaeological resource. If the impact

diminishes the integrity of the resource to the extent that its NRHP eligibility is jeopardized,

the Section 106 determination of effect would be “adverse effect”.

Major: The effects to the resource or resource use would be obvious and would result in

substantial consequences to the resource or resource use. Extensive mitigating measures would be

needed to offset adverse effects and their success would not be guaranteed.

● For livestock grazing, the effects would be widespread, affecting entire allotments, and/or

multiple pastures or large portions of multiple allotments.

● For wildlife and fish resources, the action would result in a level of disturbance that causes

substantial impairment or loss of the function of an important habitat even though some

animals may still be present in the affected areas. Changes in the abundance or distribution

of wildlife or fish may occur to such an extent that a population would not likely return to

its previous level. Seasonal use restrictions, implementation of recommended management

practices, and/or habitat mitigation are still useful; however, the impact cannot be fully

mitigated within the planning area.

● For vegetation resources, the action would cause a considerable effect on native plant

populations, including special status plants, and the effects would cover a relatively large area

inside and outside the Monument.

● The effect of soil productivity or fertility would be readily apparent and long-term and

would substantially change the character of the soils over a large area within and outside of

the Monument.

● The action would cause substantial and long-term impairment of water resources over a

significant portion of the planning area.

● For Native American Rights and Interests, the impact would be substantial, noticeable,

and permanent. The impact would change one or more character-defining features of trust

resources, ethnographic resources, traditional use areas, or treaty rights, diminishing the

integrity of the resource to the extent that it is no longer able to sustain traditional uses or

support the exercise of treaty rights.

● For cultural resources, the impact on archaeological sites would be substantial, noticeable, and

permanent. For NRHP eligible or listed archaeological sites, the impact would change one or

more character-defining features of an archaeological resource and diminish the integrity of

the resource to the extent that it is no longer eligible for listing on the NRHP. For purposes

of Section 106, the site’s NRHP eligibility is lost and the determination of effect would

be “adverse effect”.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impact Analysis Descriptors
Craters of the Moon National Monument 137

Draft MMP Amendment

4.1.2. Types of Impacts

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be discussed in this chapter.

Direct effects are caused by the proposed action and occur at the same time and place.

Indirect effects are caused by the proposed action and occur later in time or farther in distance,

but are still reasonably foreseeable.

Cumulative effects result from incremental impacts of actions - when added to other past, present,

and foreseeable future actions - regardless of what person or agency (federal or non-federal)

undertakes those actions.

Direct and indirect impacts are discussed in Section 4.2, “ Discussion of Impacts by Resource and

Resource Use”. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 4.3, “Cumulative Effects”.

4.1.3. Direction and Extent of Impacts

The extent of an impact is described in terms of how much of an area it might affect (scale). The

scale is usually described as occurring at either the local level or on a landscape basis. The local

level occurs at a specific site or relatively small area, while landscape occurs throughout all or

most of the analysis area, and varies by resource or resource use. Unless specifically identified,

impacts would be at the local level. For cumulative impacts, the area(s) in which a resource

may be affected, the “region of influence,” may differ from the planning area. The region

of influence can vary by resource or resource use; limits may be natural features (watershed),

political boundaries (county), or resource norms (regional air quality, visual resource viewsheds,

and social and economic conditions).

Impacts can be temporary (short-term), long lasting (long-term), or permanent. For this

analysis, short-term impacts are defined as those environmental changes, during and following

ground-disturbing activities that generally revert to pre-disturbance conditions soon or within

a few years, after the disturbance has taken place. Long-term impacts are defined as those that

would remain beyond short-term activities.

4.1.4. Impact Considerations

This impact assessment recognized laws, regulations, policies, guidelines, and BMPs or

techniques that would generally apply to all future actions. Additionally, no ground-disturbing

activities would directly result from approval of this MMP Amendment. Such future activities

would require site- or project-specific environmental evaluations prior to their final approval

[BLM Manual 1601].

For each resource it is necessary to summarize results to the appropriate extent because of the

large volume of data. The descriptions of potential impacts focus on those resources that could

be substantially affected or were identified by the public and/or agencies as issues, regardless of

the impact, such as biological and vegetative resources. Presented in a general summary are the

potential impacts on those resources not substantially affected or not identified as major issues,

such as cultural and visual resources. Impacts on these resources would be minimal (negligible to

moderate) with only slight differences between alternatives.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Types of Impacts
138 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

For comparison and analysis purposes only, acreage figures, and other measurements used and

referred to, are approximate. The BLM only has decision authority on BLM-managed public

land, not NPS, private or State lands.

4.1.5. Chapter Organization

The potential impacts on each resource/resource use for the alternatives are discussed under four

sections. They include a summary/brief comparison of the four alternatives proposing how they

would achieve objectives and DFCs. Because the analyses are broad in nature and not all factors

that influence how impacts may act on a resource are known, assumptions are made for analytical

purposes, and to provide for comparison between alternatives. Since not all resources or resource

uses react the same, definitions or time-lines for short- and long-term impacts are identified

in each resource or resource use assumption.

In order to limit redundancy and provide clarity, a general discussion on how activities affect

resources/resource uses has been developed. It also provides an overview of the management

action impacts on a resource and whether it is short- or long-term. The following are examples

of impact types:

● Short-term: Fire may remove vegetation required for animal forage in a given year.

● Long-term: It may take decades for sagebrush to recolonize a site where it has been eliminated

by fire.

Lastly, the impacts discussion provides analysis of the direction, extent, and duration to which the

change agents operate for each alternative. The discussion of impacts works hand-in-hand with

management actions, but is not a reiteration of them.

There are several general assumptions for the impact analysis that are common to all alternatives:

● Each alternatives will be implemented in compliance with BLM standard practices, BMPs,

design features, guidelines for surface disturbing activities, and mitigation guidelines.

● Soil resources will be managed to meet applicable Standards under all alternatives.

● Comparison of impacts among resources is intended to provide an impartial assessment to

inform the decision maker and the public. The impact analysis does not imply or assign a value

or numerical ranking to impacts. Actions resulting in adverse impacts on one resource may

impart a beneficial impact on other resources.

● Surface disturbances generally increase surface runoff due to an increase in impervious surface,

changes in water routing, and loss of vegetation. Surface disturbances can also decrease

recharge to aquifers with increases in impervious surface due to compaction, or by transporting

water away from areas which have the capability to infiltrate.

● The greater the amount of surface disturbance, the greater the probability that accelerated

erosion by wind and water would occur.

● Vegetation restoration projects would eventually be successful on 100 percent of the affected

areas. This is for analysis purposes only and may not reflect actual success rates. Meeting

stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration objectives would result in project success.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Chapter Organization
Craters of the Moon National Monument 139

Draft MMP Amendment

● Funding would be available to implement the alternatives described in Chapter 2, Alternatives.

● The alternatives would be implemented as described in Chapter 2, Alternatives.

4.2. Discussion of Impacts by Resource and Resource Use

4.2.1. Soil Resources

4.2.1.1. Summary

Alternatives A and C would potentially authorize the most livestock grazing, with the largest

area available to grazing and the most AUMs authorized. These alternatives will require more

intensive monitoring if all AUMs are used to ensure land health standards are met. The impacts

of Alternatives A and C on soil resources would be minor, in that they would be a continuation

of localized but detectable increases in soil bulk density and erosion in areas of livestock

congregation. Increases in the area of the impacts could occur with full permitted use, but the

locations would not change.

Alternative B would result in less surface disturbance than Alternatives A, C and E at full

implementation, but would have more direct effects than Alternative D because livestock grazing

would continue in certain portions of the Monument. Disturbed soils in areas closed to grazing

would recover in a shorter amount of time than grazed areas. The impacts of Alternative B would

also be minor in that there would be localized improvements in the soil resources with lower

livestock congregation. Areas of grazing closure would no longer be affected by livestock grazing.

Alternative D would not have any land available to livestock grazing, this would have the least

amounts of impacts related to direct livestock utilization, but would have short-term impacts

from removal of infrastructure related to livestock grazing. Alternative D could have increased

short-term impacts to soils if increased fence infrastructure is deemed required to keep livestock

outside the Monument portions of existing allotments that intersect the boundary. In the long

term, livestock traveling the fenceline would have minor effects to the soil resources, and

localized impacts within the Monument would no longer occur.

Alternative E would permit about half the AUMs of Alternatives A and C, with a focus on no net

increase in soil disturbance from livestock grazing infrastructure. Alternative E would have more

impact than Alternatives B and D, but less impact than Alternatives A and C. Alternative E would

be a continuation of the current minor impacts to soil resources, but the effects would be lessened

compared to Alternatives A and C if fully utilized by livestock.

Projects and permits would have site-specific impacts on soils that are not analyzed in detail

at this level of planning, due to implementation-level, variation in effects based on location,

duration, timing, and the actual proposed action.

4.2.1.2. Assumptions

● Information about soils and the response of soils to various actions was compiled from

NRCS soil surveys, other agency maps and documentation, relevant literature, and resource

experts. The analysis was based on reference information, anticipated effects of management

prescriptions by alternative, and professional judgment.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Discussion of Impacts by Resource and Resource Use
140 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

● Soils rated as medium or greater potential for water erosion and moderate or greater potential

for wind erosion are more likely to erode than soils rated as having low potential for water

erosion and slight potential for wind erosion.

● The type and extent of ground cover as well as the removal or disturbance of that cover affects

soil erosion and infiltration rates.

● All alternatives will continue to manage BLM lands toward the resource objective of DFCs

and to meet Land Health Standards.

4.2.1.3. How Activities Affect Soil Resources

Water Resources Management Actions

Soils associated with riparian areas have unique characteristics that contribute to the functionality

of the system [USDI BLM, 2006]. Striving to maintain or achieve PFC, protection, and restoration

of these areas helps to improve soil quality and overall function of the riparian system.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Vegetation management actions are intended to improve or maintain the health of the current

plant communities and provide habitat for wildlife. Uses and disturbance can lead to soil loss

and site degradation, or can contribute to increases in plant health and increased soil retention

and improvement. Managing for improved or maintained vegetation conditions would also

protect or maintain the soil resources.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Wildlife management actions are intended to improve or maintain habitat conditions in the

Monument. Construction or maintenance related to projects that will help achieve those goals

may impact soils in the short term through soil compaction and disturbance, the extent of which

depends on the timing and duration of the activity. However, if spatial restrictions to livestock use

were put into place to benefit wildlife and their habitats, then those restricted areas would benefit

soils by limiting ground-disturbing activities.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock grazing can be a surface-disturbing activity, ranging from negligible to moderate

disturbance impacts from uses and infrastructure associated with the activity. Direct impacts to

soil from livestock grazing include compaction of soil, reduced infiltration, and increased erosion

potential. Livestock grazing can affect soils by removing vegetation cover and trampling. The

extent of these effects can vary by season of use, soil moisture content while being grazed, and

duration of use. Season of use could extend across spring, summer, fall, and winter. Trampling

can create a physical soil crust, which reduces water infiltration [Belnap, 2003]. Biological soil

crusts are an important biotic component of soils, contributing to nutrient cycling and protection

of soils. Livestock grazing can affect biological soil crusts, soil microtopography, and aggregation

by trampling and disturbing crusts, although the degree of impacts vary depending on timing,

intensity, and duration of use. Stable aggregates at the soil surface help maintain infiltration

capacity by limiting physical crusting and blockage of surface connected macropores during

storms. Also, aggregated pores contribute to water storage capacity, as well as water transmission

through the soil [Herrick, 1999].

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 141

Draft MMP Amendment

Soil bulk density is a factor that affects soil texture, air and water capacity of the soil, and root

development potential. Although natural soil composition factors affect soil bulk density, it can

also be affected by disturbances such as livestock use. Livestock concentration areas are an

example of a location that would likely exhibit increased soil bulk density. This can lead to

decreases in water infiltration, reduced porosity, increased runoff, and reduced or more difficult

conditions for plant root development.

Erosion is related to vegetation cover and structure [Herrick et al., 2005]. A correlation exists

between the presence of herbaceous cover of varying heights to wind speed. Greater wind speeds

were recorded in areas where herbaceous cover had been removed or greatly reduced, which in

turn increased the amount of soil erosion from wind [Sankey, Germino, & Glenn, 2009]. Soil

compaction potential is increased on fine soils. Soil compaction can be caused by mechanical

disturbances, such as from driving, heavy grazing, and off-highway vehicle use. Freeze and thaw

cycles help naturally alleviate compaction in rangeland soils, as does avoidance of disturbance

while soils are saturated.

Livestock grazing management actions include the removal, maintenance, or creation of

infrastructure, such as water sources and fences. These activities may affect soils in the

short-term, with negligible to moderate impacts, including compaction from equipment, or

increased susceptibility to water or wind erosion from removal or reduction of vegetative

cover. Long-term effects to the soils resource are evidenced from the maintenance or creation

of infrastructure, and may be negligible to moderate. These impacts include localized shifts in

vegetation composition from maintenance activities or livestock congregation, and sustaining

compaction and areas susceptible to erosion. Increases to grazing use, in general, can reduce the

amounts of litter available in the system [Shariff, Biondini, & Grygiel, 1994]. Litter can provide

soil protection through dispersing direct impacts from precipitation to bare mineral soil, and can

increase percolation and retention of moisture in the soil profile. Continuing to, or achieving

Standards would help reduce impacts to soils from livestock grazing.

4.2.1.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Soils: Alternative A

Water Resources Management Actions

Soils associated with riparian areas have unique characteristics that contribute to the functionality

of the system [USDI BLM, 2006]. Striving to maintain/achieve PFC, protection, and restoration

of these areas would help to improve the soil characteristics and overall function of the system.

There would be no changes to water resource management actions in Alternative A.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Existing vegetation management actions are intended to improve or maintain the health of the

current plant communities and provide habitat for wildlife. Uses and disturbance can lead to soil

loss and site degradation, or can contribute to increases in plant health and increased soil retention

and improvement. Continuing to manage for improved or maintained vegetation conditions

would protect or maintain the soils resource.

There would be no changes to vegetation resource management actions in Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
142 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Scheduling construction and maintenance activities to avoid or minimize disturbance to certain

wildlife and habitats in the Monument could impact soils either negatively or positively depending

on the timing of the activity. Wet soils are more prone to compaction related to equipment used

for maintenance and construction. However, if spatial or temporal restrictions were enforced, then

those soils would benefit from the limit to ground-disturbing activities during a time of year when

soils are more likely to be saturated and susceptible to compaction.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock grazing would continue across the Monument as authorized in the past. Actual use has

averaged 11,791 AUMs over the past 15 years, with a high use of 19,388 AUMs but could increase

to the full allocation of AUMs, which is 38,187. The full allocation would continue to be dispersed

use, but could potentially increase the amount of soil disturbance and compaction associated with

livestock infrastructure due to increased use and pressure. Impacts could continue, and would be

addressed and managed to meet Standards at the implementation level during the permit renewal

process. Roughly 1,200 acres would be unavailable for livestock grazing under Alternative A

(See Table 2.3, “Relative Comparison of Impacts Among Alternatives” in Chapter 2).

Livestock concentration areas would likely have higher soil erosion and soil bulk density than

dispersed-use areas. Higher use levels would increase the overall potential for soil erosion and

bulk density. Timing and intensity would also affect soils; for instance, consistent use on wet soils

would result in an increase in soil compaction.

Soils: Alternative B

Water Resources Management Actions

The water resources management actions would allow suspension or modification of livestock

grazing to occur if livestock grazing is determined to be a factor in not meeting riparian or

watershed Standards, following LHAs. Soils are a critical component of functionality in a riparian

system, and also considered a resource to protect. Typically, an adequate vegetation component

can help to protect the soil resource by dispersing overland flows, trapping sediment, and

stabilizing and protecting banks [USDI BLM, 2006]. Unsuitable timing and duration of livestock

grazing could be a causal factor in an area not meeting PFC. If determined to be a factor, adaptive

changes to grazing management would help protect the soils resource in areas not meeting PFC.

Springs would not be developed under Alternative B. This would eliminate soil disturbing

activities associated with spring development and protect the resource.

Improvement and enhancements to water systems for the benefit of wildlife habitat and vegetation

(Sections 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.4) would protect the soil resource across the landscape, although

modifications to enhance the functionality or remove unneeded systems may have short-term

negligible to moderate impacts to soils.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative B, grazing would prioritize utilization on non-native perennial seedings. This

would reduce grazing pressures on soils in native areas, but would increase impacts to soils in

seeded areas. Grazing can increase soil compaction when concentrated or heavy use is allowed,

and can also contribute to physical soil crusts, which can restrict water infiltration and seed

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 143

Draft MMP Amendment

germination. However, grazing would be authorized at a greatly reduced level from Alternative

A, so grazing is anticipated to be more dispersed, except on non-native seedings, and overall,

have less of an impact on the soils resource. Alternative B would continue to strive to achieve

Standard 5 (Seedings), which includes ensuring rangeland seedings are “functioning to maintain

life form diversity, production, native animal habitat, nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the

hydrologic cycle” [USDI BLM, 1997].

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Impacts from wildlife and fish resources management actions are the same as discussed in

Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Lands available for livestock grazing would be reduced to 253,700 acres and AUMs would be

decreased across the entire Monument. This would lead to a decreased impact to soils from

livestock grazing. Grazing reductions would either eliminate or further disperse utilization across

the landscape, therefore reducing grazing-related soils issues such as compaction within lands

closed to grazing. Long-term reduced impacts to soils related to livestock infrastructure would

also result from less utilization, although grazing management through rest and deferment can

also reduce impacts at higher stocking rates.

New livestock developments would not be allowed in areas closed to grazing. This would

eliminate the impacts to soils associated with developments, such as soil disturbance and

compaction. Livestock developments are associated with use concentration areas, and typically

cause greater soil compaction than natural conditions. Removal, consolidation, or modification

with the intention of benefitting wildlife would also provide a net overall benefit for the soil

resource. Avoiding placement of concentration areas near sensitive cultural resources would help

protect these resources by dispersing use, and indirectly conserve the soils. Management actions

under Alternative B would influence livestock concentration away from playas and protect soil

structures that are unique to playas.

Under Alternative B, the Kimama Allotment would gain 40 acres of non-Monument lands.

Poison Lake Allotment would gain nearly 800 acres of Monument lands. Shifts to the allotment

boundaries are likely to incur similar impacts as current management to soils through utilization

by livestock.

Modifications of livestock management through a variety of practices, including changes in

timing, duration, and intensity, allows for flexibility to achieve DFCs for habitat, of which soils

are an underlying component. Soils can be affected either negatively or positively through a

variety of management actions, including adjusting timing of use, stocking rate, scheduling rest,

or deferment, livestock numbers, kind, and distribution. Impacts to soils from adjusting livestock

management to achieve DFCs for habitat include increasing residual cover on a landscape level,

which would reduce the potential for erosion. When livestock grazing is appropriately managed,

it can provide an opportunity to alleviate soil compaction through natural processes. However,

certain areas may continue to receive or see an increase in localized impacts from changes to

livestock management that may be necessary to facilitate achievement of DFCs. For instance,

shifting grazing from a native vegetation area in good condition to a non-native perennial seeding

to facilitate residual cover for wildlife values may also cause an increase in erosion potential

or compaction in the seeding. The extent of impacts on the soil resources from modifications

to livestock management depend on timing, intensity, and duration of grazing, and would be

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
144 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

negligible across the landscape, but could be negligible to moderate in localized areas. These

impacts would be related to achieving DFCs, and would be implemented to produce a net benefit

to impacted resources across the landscape.

Winter livestock grazing could occur across the Monument under Alternative B. Vegetation is

important in the winter for snow capture to aid in retention and incorporation of winter moisture

into the soil profile. Winter use can improve dispersal through cooler temperatures and improved

natural water availability, which disperses impacts to soils when saturated. However, this is

limited during severe weather and extreme temperatures, which can cause livestock to congregate

on available feed and water areas, and cause direct impacts to soils through trampling and

compaction. Compaction affects nutrient uptake, soil porosity, moisture availability, and root

development for plants. Degrees of compaction and extent would vary depending on stocking rate

and repeated use of an area. Areas that are heavily used when soils are saturated would be more

likely to exhibit compaction than areas that are lightly to moderately used, with rest or deferment

to allow for natural processes, such as freezing and thawing, to alleviate any compaction issues.

Also, in light to moderately used areas, compaction issues would likely be limited to localized

effects in areas of livestock congregation, such as near water or mineral sources. Soil surface

microrelief is also correlated to infiltration, so areas that are heavily trampled could see reduced

infiltration rates [Warren, Thurow, Blackburn, & Garza, 1986].

Alternative B would avoid livestock utilization in spring or early summer in sage-grouse nesting

or early brood-rearing habitats, although spring livestock grazing could occur across the rest of

the Monument. This alternative would eliminate or reduce impacts from livestock grazing on

soils within GRSG breeding and brood rearing habitat, during spring and early summer, a time of

year when saturation is common. Soils are typically saturated at this time through retained winter

moisture and renewed spring rainfall. Plants are utilizing available soil moisture to initiate growth

as soil temperatures increase. During this time, soils are more prone to compaction, increased

soil bulk density, and reduced porosity, which can, in turn, restrict root growth and reduce soil

water holding capacity. Cool temperatures and improved natural water availability can improve

livestock distribution, reducing impacts from livestock congregation to become negligible to

slight, and widespread. These restrictions would also reduce impacts to soils at concentrated-use

areas in close proximity to leks by restricting livestock use.

Summer livestock grazing could occur across the Monument under Alternative B. Summer in the

planning area is associated with hotter and drier conditions and the completion of plant growth

cycles. Drier conditions can reduce the potential for soil compaction as compared to wetter

conditions, but can also increase livestock congregation due to reduced water availability and

hotter conditions. Summer conditions also reduce the distance that livestock will travel between

forage and water sources. Loafing in congregation areas by livestock increases, which can cause

soil erosion and compaction.

Fall livestock grazing could occur across the Monument under Alternative B. This season

provides a mix between summer season impacts and winter season impacts. Plants have mostly

completed growth cycles, so water uptake is minimal at this time. Soils are drier, but conditions

are typically cooler than summer months, but also warmer and milder than winter conditions.

Cool temperatures improve livestock distribution, creating a situation in which livestock are more

inclined to range in order to forage, which disperses impacts to soils. However, natural water

availability is limited depending on fall precipitation, and could limit distribution more than

typically seen in spring conditions. At the end of fall, soils typically begin to become saturated,

and could experience the impacts discussed under winter grazing.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 145

Draft MMP Amendment

Retiring an allotment would essentially make the area unavailable for grazing for the life of the

plan. This could impact the soil resource, from negligible to moderate by eliminating the potential

for impacts to the soil resource from livestock grazing, but would depend on the current condition,

and if all or part of the permits for an allotment were retired.

Vegetation is affected during drought by insufficient soil moisture [NRCS, 2004]. Taking

management precautions and measures during drought will help retain adequate vegetation cover

to protect soils from erosion, allowing for a negligible impact on soils by livestock during drought.

Conversion in kind of livestock is allowed in this alternative. Different types of livestock utilize

forage in different manners, and can have different impacts to soils. A different kind of livestock

may have a positive effect on soil condition that may not be realized through the currently

authorized livestock kind.

Soils: Alternative C

Water Resources Management Actions

Water management actions impacts in Alternative C would be the same as Alternative A.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B by directing grazing to prioritize utilization on non-native

perennial seedings and would have the additional goal to target grazing for sagebrush recovery

in these seedings. This may impact soils in the short term through removal of vegetation, but

timing of grazing could be administered to have minimal impacts to soils. For instance, avoiding

direct grazing within a localized area would reduce or minimized impacts to those soils during

the period of soil saturated.

Identifying and implementing reference areas to study the effects of livestock grazing on

vegetation would also allow an opportunity to see effects on soil resources. Areas where

grazing is excluded would reduce impacts to soils, but areas where grazing is changed to meet

the objectives of the study may have negligible to moderate impacts to the soils. Exclosures

may have short-term moderate, localized impacts to soils from disturbance from the required

infrastructure to create the exclosures.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Impacts from wildlife and fish resources management actions on soil resources would be the

same as discussed in Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock management actions related to protection or maintenance of wildlife habitat would

indirectly affect the conservation and protection of the soil resource through temporal and spatial

restrictions. However, the degree of the impacts depend on timing, intensity, and duration of

grazing. Livestock grazing could authorize up to 37,792 AUMs on 273,600 acres. Roughly

1,500 acres would be unavailable for grazing under Alternative C. These management actions

provide more use across a larger portion of the planning area than Alternative B but the use

and lands available are comparable to Alternative A. Management actions within Alternative E

allow similar acreage as in Alternatives A and C, but with less AUM’s available and no net gain

of disturbance from livestock related infrastructure. It also would have more long-term impacts

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
146 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

to soils than Alternative D, since Alternative D does not make any lands in the Monument

available for grazing. If necessary, livestock grazing would be adjusted to meet Standards, of

which soil stability is a major component. Livestock use at the full permitted use levels would

decrease residual vegetation and herbaceous litter, leaving soils more susceptible to impacts from

erosion. Areas exposed to moderate to heavy livestock grazing typically have less litter than areas

subject to light or no grazing [Shariff et al., 1994]. However, adjustments to timing, duration,

and intensity could lead to a negligible to minor increase in impacts to soils, when compared to

Alternative A. Impacts would likely be moderate at a localized level, such as around concentrated

use areas associated with salt and water sources, and negligible to minor at a landscape level.

Livestock developments would be allowed only if they are of neutral or net benefit to sage-grouse.

Use concentration areas are associated with livestock developments, and typically cause greater

soil compaction than natural conditions. Removal, consolidation, or modification with the

intention of having a neutral impact or benefitting wildlife would provide an indirect overall

benefit for the soil resource, although short-term moderate impacts would be associated with

removal and modification of range improvements. Long-term impacts immediately in the

vicinity of improvements would remain, ranging from negligible to moderate soil disturbance or

compaction. Any changes to range improvements would be evaluated during LHAs. Removing

range improvements would have a long-term impact to soils in those areas by removing localized

soil disturbance related to maintenance and use, but may increase concentration at remaining

improvements, increasing the impacts to soils in those specific locations.

Alternative C would avoid livestock utilization in spring or early summer in sage-grouse

nesting or early brood-rearing habitats, when possible, although spring livestock grazing could

occur across the rest of the Monument. This would reduce impacts from livestock grazing on

soils during a time of year where saturation is common. Soils are typically saturated at this

time through retained winter moisture and wetter periods of spring rainfall. Plants are utilizing

available soil moisture to initiate growth as soils warm. During the spring and early summer, soils

are more prone to compaction, which results in increased soil bulk density, and reduced porosity.

These changes can subsequently restrict root growth and reduce infiltration and soil water holding

capacity. Cool temperatures and improved natural water availability can improve livestock

distribution, reducing impacts from livestock congregation to become negligible to slight, and

widespread. Duration and extent of these effects vary with the soil texture. Coarse-textured

soils are able to more rapidly reduce compaction and increase porosity when exposed to natural

processes, such as freeze-thaw cycles [Long, Quinn-Davidson, & Skinner, 2014]. These

restrictions would also reduce impacts to soils at concentrated-use areas in close proximity to leks

by restricting livestock use. This is similar to Alternative B, but would potentially allow more

impacts to soils because grazing could still be allowed if scheduling changes are determined to

not be practical, from a grazing administration aspect.

Winter livestock grazing could occur across the Monument under Alternative C. Vegetation is

important for snow capture to aid in retention and incorporation of winter moisture into the soil

profile. Winter use can improve livestock dispersal through cooler temperatures and improved

natural water availability, which disperses impacts to saturated soils. However, this response is

limited during severe weather and extreme temperatures, which can cause livestock to congregate

at available feed and water areas, and cause localized, direct impacts to soils through trampling

and compaction. Compaction affects nutrient uptake, soil porosity, moisture availability, and root

development for plants. Degrees of compaction and extent would vary depending on stocking rate

and repeated use of an area. Areas that are heavily used when soils are saturated would be more

likely to exhibit compaction than areas that are lightly to moderately used, with rest or deferment

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 147

Draft MMP Amendment

to allow for natural processes to alleviate any compaction issues. Also, in light to moderately

used areas, compaction would likely be limited to localized areas of livestock congregation, such

as near water or mineral sources. Soil surface microrelief is correlated to infiltration, as well, so

areas that are heavily trampled could see reduced infiltration rates [Warren et al., 1986].

Summer livestock grazing could occur across the Monument under Alternative C. Summer in

the planning area is associated with hotter and drier conditions and the completion of plant

growth cycles. Drier conditions can reduce the potential for soil compaction as compared to

wetter conditions, but can also increase livestock congregation due to reduced water availability

and hotter conditions. Summer conditions also reduce the distance that livestock will travel

between forage and water sources. The frequency of loafing increases during the summer, which

can cause soil erosion and compaction, at a localized level, through increased livestock use at

congregation areas.

Fall livestock grazing could occur across the Monument under Alternative C. This season

provides a mix between summer season impacts and winter season impacts. Plants have mostly

completed growth cycles, so water uptake is minimal at this time. Soils are drier, but conditions

are typically cooler than summer months, but remain warmer and milder than winter conditions.

Cool temperatures improve livestock distribution, creating a situation in which livestock are more

inclined to range in order to forage, which disperses impacts to soils. However, natural water

availability is limited depending on fall precipitation, and could limit distribution more than

typically seen in spring conditions. At the end of fall, soils typically begin to become saturated,

and could experience the impacts discussed under winter grazing.

Vegetation is affected during drought by insufficient soil moisture [NRCS, 2004]. Taking

management precautions and measures during drought will help retain adequate vegetative

cover to protect soils from erosion and degradation, allowing for a negligible impact on soils

by livestock during and after drought. The general approach of Alternatives B, C, and E in

regard to vegetation management during drought conditions is similar. However, Alternative B

is more focused on ameliorating impacts to sage-grouse habitat while Alternative C is aimed at

promoting overall vegetative resilience. Alternative E reduces impacts to sage-grouse habitat

though not to the extent of Alternative B while decreasing soil disturbance with no net gain

of livestock infrastructure.

Other livestock grazing management actions impacts would be the same between Alternatives B,

C, and E.

Soils: Alternative D

Water Resources Management Actions

Water management actions impacts in Alternative D would be the same as Alternative B.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

No new vegetation management actions are identified in Alternative D.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Impacts from wildlife and fish resources management actions would be the same as discussed in

Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
148 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

No BLM lands in the Monument would be available for livestock grazing in Alternative D.

Current livestock use authorizations would continue for two years following the signing of the

ROD, so short-term current impacts to soils would continue as related to livestock grazing.

Livestock grazing would not be authorized in Laidlaw Park under Alternative D. This area has a

variety of soil types and temperature, elevation, and precipitation gradients. For instance, the

south end of Laidlaw Park has mesic, sandy-loam soils at roughly 4,500 feet elevation, and

receives 10-12 inches of precipitation yearly. In comparison, the north end of Laidlaw Park is

comprised of frigid, loamy soils, roughly 5,500 feet elevation, and averages 12-16 inches of

precipitation per year. Responses to no grazing across Laidlaw Park would be the same as the

effects of no grazing described for the remainder of the Monument.

Winter livestock grazing would not be allowed across the Monument under Alternative D.

Vegetation is important in the winter for snow capture to aid in retention and incorporation

of winter moisture into the soil profile. Winter use can improve dispersal through cooler

temperatures and improved natural water availability, which disperses impacts to soils when

saturated. However, this is limited during severe weather and extreme temperatures, which can

cause livestock congregation to available feed and water areas, and cause direct impacts to soils

through trampling and compaction. Compaction affects nutrient uptake, soil porosity, moisture

availability, and root development for plants. Soil surface microrelief is correlated to infiltration,

as well, so areas that were heavily trampled could see improved infiltration rates, although this

may not be evidenced for several years, until an episodic event remedied the current condition

[Warren et al., 1986].

Under Alternative D, spring livestock grazing would not be allowed across the Monument. Soils

are typically saturated at this time through retained winter moisture and renewed spring rainfall.

Plants are utilizing available soil moisture to initiate growth as soils warm. This alternative would

eliminate or reduce impacts from livestock grazing on soils during a time of year when saturation

is common. Saturated soils are susceptible to impacts, including compaction and reduction in

soil porosity. Livestock restrictions under Alternative D would also reduce impacts to soils at

concentrated-use areas in close proximity to leks.

Summer livestock grazing would not be authorized across the Monument. Summer in the

planning area is associated with hotter and drier conditions and the completion of plant growth

cycles. Drier conditions can reduce the potential for soil compaction as compared to wetter

conditions, but can also increase livestock congregation due to reduced water availability and

hotter conditions. The conditions also reduce travel by livestock to forage at greater distances

from water sources. Loafing increases, which can cause soil erosion and compaction. However,

these impacts would not occur since livestock grazing would not be authorized in the Monument.

Fall livestock grazing would not be authorized across the Monument. This season provides a mix

between summer season impacts and winter season impacts. Plants have mostly completed

growth cycles, so water uptake is minimal at this time. Soils are drier, but conditions are typically

cooler than summer months, while warmer and milder than winter conditions.

Access to private and State inholdings would continue, and developments on these lands would

remain. Removing infrastructure from BLM lands associated with livestock grazing would have

short-term moderate to major widespread effects on soils, and would require restoration to reduce

effects beyond the short-term. Total removal of infrastructure would result in soil disturbance

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 149

Draft MMP Amendment

that may be site specific, but effects would be across the entire area. Soil disturbance results in

exposed soil that can be susceptible to erosion, and creates a prime opportunity for noxious weeds

and invasive plant species to establish, which can alter soil chemistry, shift plant composition, and

increase susceptibility to erosion. It is assumed that following infrastructure removal, restoration

would be successful, but long-term efforts would still be needed to ensure that impacts, which

could be negligible to moderate, to soils from implementation of Alternative D would continue to

diminish over the life of the plan. If fencing is used to restrict livestock movement into areas

made unavailable, this would also result in short-term negligible to moderate impacts. Moderate

impacts would likely be restricted to site-specific improvements, such as cattleguards, which are

necessary to continue to facilitate the visitor use aspect of the Monument. Noxious weeds and

invasive plant species may establish and increase in these new disturbance areas, as well as

dust. Indirect effects include more soil disturbance potential due to livestock shifts in use from

unavailable portions of allotments to areas outside of the Monument that remain available.

Restricting new livestock developments in the Monument would eliminate related impacts to soils

in the Monument. This change may shift livestock use to allotments outside of the Monument,

which would indirectly increase impacts to the soil resource in areas that experience more

livestock use. Removing spring developments when determined to be a causal factor in the spring

not achieving potential would result in short-term moderate impacts to soils. This could include

increased sedimentation in the spring system and potential establishment or expansion of noxious

weeds and invasive plant species. Initial surface disturbance of removing infrastructure will cause

negative soil impact but would then return to equilibrium with a high potential of achieving DFC.

Soils: Alternative E

Water Resources Management Actions

Impacts under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative C.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Alternative E is similar to Alternatives B and C by directing grazing to prioritize utilization on

non-native perennial seedings and would have the additional goal to target grazing for sagebrush

recovery in these seedings. This may impact soils in the short term through removal of vegetation,

but timing of grazing could be administered to have minimal impacts to soils. For instance,

avoiding direct grazing within a localized area would reduce or minimize impacts to those soils

during the period of soil saturation.

Identifying and implementing reference areas to study the effects of livestock grazing on

vegetation would also allow an opportunity to see effects on soil resources. Areas where

grazing is excluded would reduce impacts to soils, but areas where grazing is changed to meet

the objectives of the study may have negligible to moderate impacts to the soils. Exclosures

may have short-term moderate, localized impacts to soils from disturbance from the required

infrastructure to create the exclosures.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Impacts from wildlife and fish resources management actions on soil resources would be the

same as discussed in Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
150 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Livestock management actions related to protection or maintenance of wildlife habitat would

indirectly affect the conservation and protection of the soil resource through temporal and spatial

restrictions. However, the degree of the impacts depend on timing, intensity, and duration of

grazing. Livestock grazing could authorize up to 19,388 AUMs on 272,800 acres. Roughly

2,200 acres would be unavailable for grazing under Alternative E. These management actions

provide more use across a larger portion of the planning area than Alternative B. It also would

have more long-term impacts to soils than Alternative D, since no lands in the Monument are

available to grazing in Alternative D. If appropriate, livestock grazing would be adjusted to meet

Standards, of which soil stability is a major component. Areas exposed to moderate to heavy

livestock grazing typically have less litter than areas subject to light or no grazing [Shariff et al.,

1994]. However, adjustments to timing, duration, and intensity could lead to a negligible to minor

increase in impacts to soils, when compared to Alternative A. Impacts would likely be moderate

at a localized level, such as around concentrated use areas associated with salt and water sources,

and negligible to minor at a landscape level.

New livestock developments would only be allowed within existing disturbance areas unless

offset by rehabilitating other disturbed areas. Disturbance buffers for fence development must be

within 20 feet of the center of primitive roads and 30 feet from the center of roads, or within a

previously disturbed area. Troughs and wells must be within historically use or existing watering

sites, while corrals must be within historically used corral sites. This would eliminate the impacts

to soils associated with new range improvements, including soil disturbance, compaction, and

also protect of soil structures that are unique to playas.

Removal, consolidation, or modification with the intention of having a neutral impact or

benefitting wildlife would provide an indirect overall benefit for the soils resource, although

short-term moderate impacts would be associated with removal and modification of range

improvements. Long-term impacts in the immediate vicinity of improvements would remain,

ranging from negligible to moderate soil disturbance or compaction. Any changes to range

improvements would be evaluated during LHAs. Removing range improvements would have

a long-term impact to soils in those areas by removing localized soil disturbance related to

maintenance and use, but may increase concentration at remaining improvements, increasing the

impacts to soils in those specific locations.

Under Alternative E, the Kimama Allotment would gain 40 acres of non-Monument lands.

Poison Lake Allotment would gain nearly 800 acres of Monument lands. Shifts to the allotment

boundaries are likely to incur similar impacts as current management to soils through utilization

by livestock.

Alternative E would avoid livestock utilization in spring or early summer in sage-grouse nesting or

early brood-rearing habitats, when possible, although spring livestock grazing could occur across

the rest of the Monument. This would reduce impacts from livestock grazing on soils during

a time of year where saturation is common. Soils are typically saturated at this time through

retained winter moisture and renewed spring rainfall. Plants are utilizing available soil moisture

to initiate growth as soils warm. During the spring and early summer, soils are more prone to

compaction, which results in increased soil bulk density, and reduced porosity. These changes can

subsequently restrict root growth and reduce infiltration and soil water holding capacity.

Cool temperatures and improved natural water availability can improve livestock distribution,

reducing impacts from livestock congregation to become negligible to slight, and widespread.

Duration and extent of these effects vary with the soil texture. Coarse-textured soils are able to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 151

Draft MMP Amendment

more rapidly reduce compaction and increase porosity when exposed to natural processes, such

as freeze-thaw cycles (Long, Quinn-Davidson, & Skinner, 2014). These restrictions would also

reduce impacts to soils at concentrated-use areas in close proximity to leks by restricting livestock

use. This is similar to Alternative B, but would potentially allow more impacts to soils because

utilization could still be allowed if grazing scheduling changes are determined to not be practical,

from a grazing administration aspect.

Winter livestock grazing could occur across the Monument under Alternative E. Vegetation is

important for snow capture to aid in retention and incorporation of winter moisture into the soil

profile. Winter use can improve livestock dispersal through cooler temperatures and improved

natural water availability, which disperses impacts to saturated soils. However, this response is

limited during severe weather and extreme temperatures, which can cause livestock to congregate

at available feed and water areas, and cause localized, direct impacts to soils through trampling

and compaction. Compaction affects nutrient uptake, soil porosity, moisture availability, and root

development for plants. Degrees of compaction and extent would vary depending on stocking rate

and repeated use of an area. Areas that are heavily used when soils are saturated would be more

likely to exhibit compaction than areas that are lightly to moderately used, with rest or deferment

to allow for natural processes to alleviate any compaction issues. Also, in light to moderately

used areas, compaction would likely be limited to localized areas of livestock congregation, such

as near water or mineral sources. Soil surface microrelief is correlated to infiltration, as well, so

areas that are heavily trampled could see reduced infiltration rates [Warren et al., 1986].

Summer livestock grazing could occur across the Monument under Alternative E. Summer in

the planning area is associated with hotter and drier conditions and the completion of plant

growth cycles. Drier conditions can reduce the potential for soil compaction as compared to

wetter conditions, but can also increase livestock congregation due to reduced water availability

and hotter conditions. Summer conditions also reduce the distance that livestock will travel

between forage and water sources. The frequency of loafing increases during the summer, which

can cause soil erosion and compaction, at a localized level, through increased livestock use at

congregation areas.

Fall livestock grazing could occur across the Monument under Alternative E. This season provides

a mix between summer season impacts and winter season impacts. Plants have mostly completed

growth cycles, so water uptake is minimal at this time. Soils are drier, but conditions are typically

cooler than summer months, while remaining warmer and milder than winter conditions. Cool

temperatures improve livestock distribution, creating a situation in which livestock are more

inclined to range in order to forage, which disperses impacts to soils. However, natural water

availability is limited depending on fall precipitation, and could limit distribution more than

typically seen in spring conditions. At the end of fall, soils typically begin to become saturated,

and could experience the impacts discussed under winter grazing.

Vegetation is affected during drought by insufficient soil moisture [NRCS, 2004]. Taking

management precautions and measures during drought will help retain adequate vegetative cover

to protect soils from erosion and degradation, allowing for a negligible impact on soils by livestock

during and after drought. The general approach of Alternative B, C and E in regard to vegetation

management during drought conditions is similar. However, Alternative B is more focused on

ameliorating impacts to sage-grouse habitat while Alternative C is aimed at promoting overall

vegetative resilience. Alternative E reduces impacts to Sage Grouse habitat not to the extent of

Alternative B while decreasing soil disturbance from no net gain from livestock infrastructure.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources
152 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Other livestock grazing management actions would be the same as Alternatives A and C.

4.2.2. Water Resources

4.2.2.1. Summary

It is anticipated that most activities on public lands have the potential to affect water resources.

Adverse impacts are generally described as surface-disturbing activities that could affect the

functionality of water resources by removing vegetation, compacting hydric soils, or diverting the

water source. Effects to water quality would primarily occur through actions that increase runoff,

sedimentation, or nutrients. Conversely, beneficial impacts result from management actions that

protect or restore water resources. The analysis boundary for water resources is defined as the

Monument boundary (planning area) but also considers overlapping allotments and coinciding

watersheds. This area would account for any effects attributed to livestock grazing management

in the Monument that could result in a change in surface water conditions or riparian-wetland

functionality.

Alternative A proposes the most acres of land available to livestock grazing and no change to

permitted AUM levels. Alternative A would likely meet objectives and DFCs for the planning

area because riparian areas and wetlands would be maintained, restored, or enhanced over

the long term. Managing for Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Proper Functioning

Condition would have a slight landscape-level benefit to water resources. However, the lack

of implementation-level guidance concerning livestock grazing management in Alternative A

could result in minor adverse impacts to water resources because short-term degradation would

likely occur in localized areas.

Alternative B would result in a significant reduction of both acres and AUMs available to livestock

grazing and would likely result in minor to moderate beneficial impacts to water resources

in the planning area. Water resources in areas closed to grazing would likely improve from

current conditions because structural range improvements and livestock use would be eliminated.

Management that strives to attain reference state vegetation in riparian-wetland areas would

benefit water resources in the northern portion of the planning area. Individual playas throughout

the remainder of the Monument would benefit from the restricted season of livestock use.

Alternative C would result in a minor reduction of acres and AUMs available to livestock grazing.

Alternative C is similar in many respects to Alternative A, but Alternative C includes additional

management actions that increase protection of water resources. Overall, Alternative C would

likely result in minor to moderate beneficial impacts to water resources in the planning area.

Alternative D would close the planning area to livestock grazing. This alternative provides

the greatest protection to soils and vegetation from disturbances related to livestock grazing

management, and therefore would likely result in moderate beneficial impacts to water resources

in the planning area.

Alternative E would reduce allocated AUMs available to livestock grazing by approximately

50%, and would likely maintain or result in minor to moderate beneficial impacts to water

resources in the planning area. Should AUMs be removed or reduced in areas supporting water

resources then water resource conditions would be expected to improve in those areas because

removal of unnecessary structural range improvements would decrease livestock use.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 153

Draft MMP Amendment

4.2.2.2. Assumptions

● Riparian areas will be managed to meet Standards and PFC under all alternatives.

● Attainment of PFC is the minimum needed for proper riparian function. This minimum is not

the same as late-successional riparian communities.

● Riparian areas and stream channels exhibit natural variability and periods of instability due to

erosional and depositional forces on the stream banks and stream bed.

● Actions that disturb soils, particularly those most susceptible to erosion, are more likely to

create dust or deliver sediment to surface waters and adversely impact water resources.

● Actions that protect soils and vegetation will generally mitigate or prevent adverse impacts

on water resources.

● The greater the amount of surface disturbance in a watershed, the greater the probability

that excess surface runoff and sediment will enter the stream and contribute to the loss of

riparian-wetland functionality.

● Surface runoff to streams generally increases as livestock stocking rates increase, but this is not

a linear relationship. For example, low stocking rates typically result in no measurable impact to

surface runoff, moderate stocking rates typically result in a negligible impact to surface runoff,

and high stocking rates have the highest potential for increasing surface runoff to streams.

● Actions that reduce AUMs and restrict season of use could cause livestock use patterns to shift,

thereby increasing or decreasing use both inside and outside of the Monument.

● Placing salt and mineral supplements outside riparian-wetland communities is a tool that can

reduce livestock use of riparian-wetland areas.

● Salt and mineral supplements will not be located within 0.25 mile of water resources [USDI,

2006].

● Wildlife can adversely impact riparian-wetland areas, depending on the numbers and types of

wildlife and when the use occurs. However, impacts from wildlife are more localized and site

specific and are not widespread in the planning area.

● Consideration of surface water conditions when conducting BLM assessments, such as PFC

and LHAs, will help to identify areas for management efforts.

● Water rights currently filed for livestock grazing management that will no longer be used for

that purpose will be transferred to wildlife use and/or fire protection use.

● Water developments will continue to be available for fire suppression purposes.

4.2.2.3. How Activities Affect Water Resources

Water Resources Management Actions

Improving riparian-wetland areas not currently in PFC, by managing for Standards, would have

long-term beneficial impacts on water resources by decreasing erosion and sedimentation through

improved riparian and wetland vegetation. Maintaining riparian and wetland areas in PFC would

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water Resources
154 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

ensure that desirable vegetation would occur in a diverse mixture, and exhibit appropriate vigor,

growth, and reproduction relative to the site’s landform, geology, and hydrology. The sites

would be relatively stable even during typical flood flow, and would resist the establishment of

noxious weeds and invasive plants over the short and long terms. Any improvement beyond

PFC would be beneficial for the areas affected, with the scale of those impacts dependent upon

how much of the riparian-wetland area was improved rather than maintained. Reference state

condition would vary by area, but would likely contain deep-rooted hydric vegetation (e.g., Carex,

Juncus, and/or Salix species) that would increase bank stability and maintain high water table

levels. Management actions that improve watershed conditions in adjacent uplands and promote

re-vegetation of riparian-wetland areas would reduce sediment input into surface waters and

improve water quality over the short and long terms.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Activities that affect the ecological condition of the watershed and its vegetative cover would

directly or indirectly affect water resources. The degree of impact attributed to any one

disturbance or series of disturbances is influenced by location within the watershed, time and

degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and hydrologic condition. In general, adverse or

beneficial changes to vegetation could have corresponding adverse or beneficial impacts on

water resources. For example, upland activities that result in ground disturbance or changes to

vegetative cover could result in short-term increases in sediment to local water resources, thereby

degrading water quality.

Climate change could also affect vegetation composition and precipitation patterns, thereby

altering the recharge to springs and seeps. Specifically, climate change could lead to warmer

and drier summer conditions via shifts in the timing, duration, and amount of precipitation,

effectively facilitating increased wildland fire severity and frequency. Low-to-moderate-intensity

fires release nutrients into the water and hold long-term importance for land- and stream-form

development. However, larger and more severe fires could result in the temporary loss of riparian

vegetation and associated stream shading, thereby increasing water temperatures and accelerating

sediment transport into stream systems [Ecoregional Assessment Program, 2013]. Reductions in

vegetation cover, whether through climate change, fire, or livestock grazing, could increase the

erosion potential of an area, whereas increases or shifts in vegetation cover to more resilient and

stable species could reduce erosion potential.

Management systems that use grazing to modify vegetation in a prescriptive manner, such as

prioritizing utilization on non-native perennial seedings, could have beneficial direct and indirect

impacts on water resources over the long term by placing emphasis on grazing in areas of the

Monument that do not have riparian-wetland resources. Limiting or eliminating livestock use of

riparian vegetation, or altering the timing and duration of the riparian area grazing, would help

promote healthy vegetation that directly benefits riparian areas and water resources by stabilizing

streambanks and filtering sediment from overland flow before it enters water bodies [USDI, 2006].

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Scheduling small-scale construction activities and routine maintenance to avoid or minimize

disturbance to priority species and their habitat during important seasonal periods is not expected

to adversely or beneficially impact water resources.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 155

Draft MMP Amendment

Livestock grazing can impact riparian vegetation and water resources in different ways, depending

on the season of use, pasture rotation, stocking rate, and existing vegetation [USDI BLM, 1997b];

[USDI, 2006]. Management actions that improve watershed conditions in adjacent uplands (e.g.,

managing for Standards) could reduce sediment input into riparian and aquatic systems, and

would benefit water resources over the short and long terms. Conversely, livestock congregation

in riparian-wetland areas can adversely impact water quality by over-utilizing riparian forage,

which removes shade materials, and can increase water temperature. Streambank disturbance

from hoof shear, soil compaction, and vegetation disturbance and removal can also contribute

to increased sedimentation and water temperature. Fecal deposition increases when livestock

congregate near surface waters and adversely impacts water quality by increasing fecal coliform.

Indirect livestock grazing impacts could result from the reduced ability of the system to withstand

a high runoff event, leading to accelerated erosion or stream channel alteration.

Grazing during the summer and fall can increase riparian and water quality impacts because

livestock tend to congregate where limited resources of water, shade, and forage can be found

during high temperatures [Baker, Boren, & Allison, 2001]. Grazing earlier in the growing

season (spring and early summer) allows riparian vegetation more time to recover than either

late summer or fall grazing and can improve vegetation growth in riparian areas, if carefully

monitored [Mosley, Cook, Griffis, & O’Laughlin, 1997]; [Baker et al., 2001]. Improved riparian

vegetation would benefit water quality by increasing stream shade, lowering water temperature,

and decreasing sedimentation. Winter grazing has the least overall impact on riparian areas

[USDI BLM, 1997b]; [Baker et al., 2001]. However, long-term use of riparian areas in winter

could lead to a decline of palatable native species, which could increase water temperatures from

reduced vegetative cover.

In areas where livestock use is continuous or takes place annually during the critical growing

season for uplands or during the riparian-wetland hot seasons, moderate or less use (≤ 60%

utilization) might be necessary to achieve Standards and PFC. Higher levels of livestock grazing

could decrease bank stability, increase soil compaction, and lead to a loss of vegetative cover

[USDI, 2006]. Concentrated livestock grazing in these areas would also result in greater potential

to introduce noxious weeds and invasive plant species. However, slight to moderate livestock

grazing would likely result in beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland systems by reducing

potential for over use, hummocking, and streambank shearing. With healthier herbaceous

communities, riparian-wetland areas would be capable of filtering and trapping more sediments

and contaminants, which would enhance water quality.

Monitoring and adaptive management can be used as tools to reduce the impacts of livestock

grazing on riparian-wetland areas and water quality [Williams, Szaro, & Shapiro, 2009]. Fencing

streams to exclude livestock grazing is also a widely used approach for restoring riparian habitats

[Platts, 1991] and improving water quality. Under all alternatives, management would seek

to restore or protect the integrity and functionality of riparian-lentic (i.e., riparian or wetland)

systems, benefitting water resources over the long term.

4.2.2.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Water Resources: Alternative A

Water Resources Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water Resources
156 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Alternative A manages riparian-wetland areas for PFC, which would beneficially impact water

resources over the long term. The BLM manages for Standards and implements various

site-specific actions to move areas toward PFC. Management actions may include water

developments in upland habitats to draw grazing animals away from riparian-wetland areas,

exclusionary fences to eliminate use by livestock, and frequent herding of livestock away from

riparian-wetland areas. These actions are anticipated to ultimately result in a riparian-wetland

system with increased vegetation and structural diversity, which would provide better water

quality and decreased sedimentation compared to nonfunctional areas. Systems that meet PFC

would also be resilient to sedimentation resulting from upland disturbances.

Current management would not specifically protect playa resources from livestock grazing.

However, under all alternatives, no additional playas would be modified or developed; playas

that have been altered for livestock use would also be evaluated for potential restoration on

a case-by-case basis.

If livestock use reached total allowable permitted levels, maintaining and/or improving

riparian-wetland areas to PFC would likely require additional site-specific management to

achieve DFCs as compared to the current situation. Several springs in the northern portion of

the planning area are currently fenced off to livestock and would not be impacted by changes in

livestock grazing management. However, additional fencing or managing for appropriate seasons

and duration of use would need to be implemented to protect or restore the natural function of

riparian-wetland areas not currently excluded from livestock.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Alternative A manages vegetation communities to meet Standards. Sagebrush steppe that

meets Standards promotes resilient herbaceous communities capable of stabilizing upland

soils, dissipating water-flow energy, and increasing water infiltration rates and water-holding

capacity. Healthy vegetation communities minimize sedimentation and excessive water flow

into riparian-wetland areas, promoting PFC. Conversely, degraded sagebrush steppe allows

for increased overland flow and sediment movement. Degraded vegetation communities also

contribute to increased erosion and sedimentation in riparian-wetland areas until they are

improved to meet Standards.

If livestock grazing use reached total allowable permitted levels, maintaining and/or improving

sagebrush steppe communities to meet Standards would likely require additional structural

range improvements (e.g., pipelines and water troughs) to achieve DFCs as compared to the

current situation. Increased grazing use in the immediate vicinity of new developments could

locally degrade vegetation communities, which could adversely impact water resources in those

watersheds at both localized and landscape scales.

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Scheduling small-scale construction activities and routine maintenance to avoid or minimize

disturbance to priority species and their habitat during important seasonal periods is not expected

to adversely or beneficially impact water resources.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Alternative A allows livestock grazing on 273,900 acres of BLM-administered lands in the

planning area. It does not allow livestock grazing on 1,200 acres of the planning area. However,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 157

Draft MMP Amendment

the relative scarcity of surface water in the Monument means the effects of management actions

would usually be localized to individual water bodies except in the northern portion of the

planning area.

Riparian-wetlands would experience the highest adverse impacts during the summer when

livestock tend to loiter and select these areas for higher-quality forage, open water, and thermal

cover. If improperly managed, livestock could directly impact bank stability in lotic systems;

limit the growth, vigor, and composition of riparian-wetland herbaceous communities; affect

water quality; and create hummocking and compaction, which decreases water infiltration rates

and water-holding capacity [USDI, 2006]. Overuse of upland forage could also cause increases

in overland flow, contributing to excessive sedimentation in riparian-wetland areas. Grazing

management strategies, such as rotation, deferment, seasonal rest, and the manipulation of season

of use and grazing intensity, would be implemented to manage vegetation composition, cover,

and vigor to maintain or achieve Standards and PFC. Fences could also be used to restore

riparian-wetland areas that do not meet PFC by minimizing livestock grazing. However, fencing

all riparian-wetland areas would not be a practical management strategy over a large scale, and

fences could result in a number of adverse impacts to wildlife (see Section 4.2.4.3 Livestock

Grazing Management Actions).

Most water bodies affected by livestock in the Monument would be ephemeral playa lakes.

Many of the naturally formed playas have historically been modified to increase their storage

capacity for livestock watering. These and other livestock improvements serve to distribute

livestock over a larger area, but also can increase concentrated use. Livestock use during spring

and early summer could contaminate individual playas with fecal coliform bacteria and nutrients

from manure. Localized effects on water quality from grazing use would be expected to be long

term with intensity ranging from negligible to potentially major in local sites, depending on the

concentration level and duration of livestock use. The effects would occur in individual playas

throughout the Monument but would likely be more pronounced in smaller water bodies, which

have less capacity to dilute added nutrients.

Water Resources: Alternative B

Water Resources Management Actions

Alternative B manages riparian-wetland areas to maintain or achieve PFC but also strives to attain

reference state vegetation in riparian-wetland areas relative to site potential. Unlike Alternative

A, which relies on managing for Standards and implementation of site-specific actions to maintain

and/or achieve PFC, Alternative B focuses on using the natural capacity of sites and reduced

levels of livestock grazing to improve riparian-wetland areas. Riparian fencing would likely

need to be implemented to achieve reference state conditions if found to result in a net benefit

to wildlife. Other potential management actions include developing water in upland habitats to

draw grazing animals away from riparian-wetland areas and/or frequent herding of livestock

away from riparian-wetland areas.

PFC is a minimal requirement for meeting Standards 2 and 3 (Appendix H, Idaho Standards for

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management [USDI BLM, 1997]) and

provides for properly functioning riparian-lentic systems that are capable of dissipating stream

energy associated with high waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality.

However, this minimum is not the same as late-successional riparian-wetland communities.

Successfully managing toward reference state would provide for greater benefits to water

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water Resources
158 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

resources by further improving conditions, including functional status and water quality. The

potential to attain these benefits is more likely under Alternative B relative to Alternative A.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Alternative B also manages vegetation communities to maintain or achieve Standards. However,

this alternative prioritizes livestock use on non-native perennial seedings, which could beneficially

impact springs and streams by placing emphasis on grazing in areas of the Monument that do not

have riparian-wetland resources. Playas in the seeded areas could be impacted from increased

livestock use, however. Effects to individual playas could include minor to moderate changes in

nutrient concentrations, bacteria levels, and turbidity.

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Impacts on water resources are expected to be the same as discussed for Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Alternative B allows livestock grazing on approximately 254,100 acres of BLM-administered

lands in the planning area. Approximately 21,000 acres of the planning area would be unavailable

to livestock grazing. Areas unavailable to livestock grazing contain numerous playa lakes that

would benefit from the closure over the short and long terms. Riparian-wetlands would primarily

benefit from the reduction of livestock grazing; however, concentrated use near surface waters

would continue to occur.

Several springs in the northern portion of the planning area are currently fenced off to livestock

and would not be impacted by changes in livestock grazing management. Riparian-wetlands that

are accessible to livestock across the northern portion of the Monument would benefit from lower

levels of livestock use and associated riparian and upland area disturbances that alter the natural

delivery of sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to surface waters. Locally, the reduction

in numbers of livestock would result in less vegetation use, bank erosion, sedimentation, and/or

contaminants from fecal matter, as compared to the current condition. The water quality of

individual playas in the available areas also would improve due to the potential reduction in fecal

deposition and subsequent contamination with fecal coliform bacteria and nutrients.

Water resources outside the Monument could receive more or less livestock use as a result of the

AUM reductions in the planning area. For example, numerous springs and perennial streams are

present in the BLM portions of grazing allotments that span the Monument boundary. Additional

livestock use in these pastures would increase the potential for sedimentation, loss of streamside

vegetation, and loss of water-holding capacity.

Restricting livestock grazing to avoid nesting and early brood-rearing habitats from March 15

to June 15 would likely result in increased use of these areas during the late summer, adversely

impacting riparian-wetland resources in the northern portion of the Monument. Conversely, playas

are primarily used by livestock during the spring and early summer and would generally benefit

from the restricted season of use. Management actions designed to protect cultural resources

from concentrated livestock use would also benefit playa resources by ensuring that water

developments, supplements, and holding facilities are placed at least 200 meters from playa edges.

Alternative B focuses on the use of livestock grazing management strategies that do not require

additional water developments to maintain, enhance, or achieve objectives. Water resources

would not be impacted by the development of additional reservoirs, playas, wells, or springs

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 159

Draft MMP Amendment

during the life of this MMP. For example, under current management, development of springs and

other water sources to support livestock could alter the vegetation present at the water sources

before diversion, resulting in a decrease in the extent of riparian-lentic areas.

Compared with Alternative A, management under Alternative B would further reduce, but would

not eliminate, impacts from livestock grazing activities on water resources. Alternative B would

provide long-term benefits to playa lakes in areas closed to livestock grazing. Individual playas

throughout the remainder of the Monument would benefit from the restricted season of livestock

use. Management that strives to attain reference state vegetation in riparian-wetland areas would

benefit water resources in the northern portion of the planning area. However, springs and streams

could be adversely impacted in the short-term by increased livestock use during late summer.

Water Resources: Alternative C

Water Resources Management Actions

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C would beneficially impact water resources over the long

term by managing for PFC. However, maintaining and/or improving streams and springs to

PFC would likely require additional site-specific management to achieve DFCs as compared to

the current situation.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Impacts on water resources are expected to be similar to Alternative B. However, additional

management actions under Alternative C would consider directing grazing for sagebrush recovery

and/or to benefit the diversity of seedings, resulting in beneficial impacts to springs and streams,

under the current condition, by placing emphasis on grazing in areas of the Monument that do not

have riparian-wetland resources. However, playas near the seeded areas could be impacted from

increased livestock use. Effects to playas could include minor to moderate changes in nutrient

concentrations, bacteria levels, and turbidity.

Alternative C would allow for implementation of up to 1,000 acres of ungrazed reference plots

throughout the planning area. Surface-disturbing activities associated with these efforts could

have short-term impacts on water resources by increasing the delivery of sedimentation; however,

water resources within the exclosed areas would likely incur long-term benefits from the removal

of livestock.

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Impacts on water resources are expected to be the same as discussed for Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Under Alternative C, approximately the same number of acres and AUMs would be available

to livestock grazing as under Alternative A. However, Alternative C adjusts livestock grazing

season-of-use dates and terms and conditions on a case-by-case basis to avoid adverse effects

to vegetation condition. Similar to Alternative A, in the short-term Alternative C could result

in more livestock use near surface waters compared to the current condition, which would

adversely impact those resources.

Alternative C promotes the use of livestock management strategies such as rotation, deferment,

seasonal rest, and the manipulation of season of use and grazing intensity to maintain or achieve

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water Resources
160 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Standards and PFC. Systems that prove to be ineffective will be reevaluated and revised as

necessary. Similar to Alternative B, allowing for annual and within-year modification of livestock

grazing systems would provide the opportunity to adapt to changing conditions, especially during

drought periods.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative C suggests scheduling livestock grazing to avoid nesting

and early brood-rearing habitats from March 15 to June 15 in sage-grouse nesting and early

brood-rearing habitats, which could result in increased use of these areas during the late summer,

adversely impacting riparian-wetland resources in the northern portion of the Monument.

Although similar to Alternative B, the probability that these impacts could occur may be less

likely under alternative C because these practices are suggested where practical, but not required.

In addition, Alternative C would likely result in the greatest use of riparian-wetland areas during

late summer, relative to the other alternatives, due to higher permitted AUM levels and restrictions

on livestock use during spring and early summer.

Similar to Alternative B, existing water developments would be evaluated during LHAs to

determine if modifications are necessary to achieve objectives, which could benefit water

resources. However, Alternative C would also allow for new water developments in the planning

area. Potential for an increase in invasive species establishment would be monitored and treated

post-construction. However, there would be surface disturbance where projects are constructed

that could result in short-term increases in sediment to local water resources. New developments

such as troughs and supplements could also distribute livestock to areas currently too remote from

water to be grazed substantially, resulting in a reduction of water quality impacts to nearby playas.

Alternative C grazing management would likely result in greater long-term beneficial impacts to

water resources than Alternative A. Management actions relative to livestock grazing would be

similar to those described for Alternative B, but additional structural range improvements would

be permitted that could benefit water resources. Compared to the current condition, increased

livestock use in sensitive areas could result in adverse impacts to water resources. However,

conducting LHAs, allowing for annual and within-year modification of livestock grazing systems,

and designing and managing range improvements to conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse

seasonal habitats would ensure movement towards meeting objectives for water resources,

relative to Alternative A.

Water Resources: Alternative D

Water Resources Management Actions

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D strives to attain reference state vegetation in

riparian-wetland areas. Objectives for water resources would likely be achieved faster through

livestock removal than by managing with livestock because recovery could occur without

mechanical disturbance and vegetation removal or alteration. However, for severely degraded or

altered sites, active restoration may be required to achieve reference state condition [Gardner,

Stevens, & Howe, 1999]. Where range improvements are determined to have a negative impact

on riparian function, active restoration would be utilized to improve riparian function and

restore springs to their pre-developed state, thereby benefitting water resources where these

improvements are implemented.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 161

Draft MMP Amendment

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative D manages vegetation communities to meet Standards,

which would promote the health of water resources over the long term.

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Impacts on water resources are expected to be the same as discussed for Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Under Alternative D, livestock use would be unavailable on approximately 275,100 acres for the

life of the plan; no grazing would be authorized on the BLM-administered lands in the planning

area. Structural range improvements and disturbance attributed to livestock use and livestock

management would be prioritized for removal, rehabilitation, or restoration except where required

to keep livestock out of the planning area. Similar to Alternative B, water resources in allotments

outside the Monument boundary could receive more or less livestock use as a result of the AUM

reductions in the planning area.

Several springs in the northern portion of the planning area are fenced off to livestock and

would not be impacted by changes in livestock grazing management. Riparian-wetlands that are

currently accessible to livestock across the northern portion of the Monument would benefit

from decreased riparian and upland area disturbances that alter the natural delivery of sediment,

organic matter, and woody debris to surface waters. Locally, the cessation of livestock grazing

would result in less vegetation use, bank erosion, sedimentation, and/or contaminants from fecal

matter, as compared to the current condition. In areas where streambanks or riparian-wetland

vegetation is degraded, livestock exclusion may enable passive recovery to occur [USDI, 2006].

However, for severely degraded or altered sites, active restoration may be required to achieve

reference state condition [Gardner et al., 1999]. In the remaining portions of the Monument,

including Laidlaw Park, numerous playa lakes would benefit from the closure over the short and

long term. Specifically, the water quality of individual playas would likely improve due to the

reduction of fecal deposition and subsequent contamination of surface waters with fecal coliform

bacteria and nutrients.

Although closing the Monument to livestock grazing would generally maintain or improve water

resources within the planning area, the degree of impact would vary by season. For example,

playas are primarily used by livestock during the spring and early summer and likely would not

benefit from grazing closures occurring during late summer, fall, or winter because soils would be

dry or frozen and there would be little to no water present in playas during this time. Conversely,

riparian-wetlands would primarily benefit from grazing closures during late summer because

livestock tend to congregate where limited resources of water, shade, and forage can be found

during high temperatures; however, closures occurring during any season may promote recovery

of the streambank and/or the functional riparian community [USDI, 2006].

Management under this alternative would include removal of water developments, fences, and

other structural range improvements, which would result in short-term surface disturbances that

could impair water resources. However, removing troughs near springs could make more water

available on the ground, thus increasing the extent of riparian-lentic areas over the long term.

Water Resources: Alternative E

Water Resources Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water Resources
162 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative E would beneficially impact water resources over the

long-term by managing for PFC.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Similar to Alternative C additional management actions under Alternative E would consider

directing grazing for sagebrush recovery and/or to benefit the diversity of seedings, resulting

in beneficial impacts to springs and streams by placing emphasis on grazing in areas of the

Monument that do not have riparian-wetland resources. However, playas near the seeded areas

could be impacted from increased livestock use. Under such circumstances, effects to playas

could include minor to moderate changes in nutrient concentrations, bacteria levels, and turbidity.

Similar to Alternative C, Alternative E would allow for implementation of up to 1,000 acres of

ungrazed reference plots throughout the planning area. Surface-disturbing activities associated

with these efforts could have short-term impacts on water resources by increasing the delivery of

sedimentation; however, water resources within the exclosed areas would likely incur long-term

benefits from the removal of livestock.

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Impacts on water resources are expected to be the same as discussed for Alternative B.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Alternative E would reduce allocated AUMs in the Monument to 19,338. Impacts on water

resources from livestock grazing management actions are expected to be greater for Alternative E

relative to Alternative B, but would be less than Alternatives A and C. Alternative E prescribes

48% more AUMs than Alternative B. Conversely, Alternative E reduces AUMs by approximately

50% and 51 % relative to Alternatives A and C, respectively. Similar to other Alternatives,

Alternative E is expected to have beneficial long-term impacts to water resources by managing

for meeting PFC. Alternative E allows livestock grazing on approximately 272,800 acres of

BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Additional acres of the planning area, including

areas that support water resources, could be unavailable to livestock grazing if portions of the

Monument are closed to accommodate a reduction in AUMs from the current condition.

It is expected that riparian-wetlands would primarily benefit from the reduction of livestock

grazing; however, concentrated use near surface waters would continue to occur. In areas where

livestock use is continuous or takes place annually during the critical growing season for uplands

or during the riparian-wetland hot seasons, moderate or less use (≤ 60% utilization) might be

necessary to achieve Standards and PFC. Higher levels of livestock grazing could decrease

bank stability, increase soil compaction, and lead to a loss of vegetative cover [USDI, 2006].

Concentrated livestock grazing in these areas would also result in greater potential to introduce

noxious weeds and invasive plant species. However, slight to moderate livestock grazing would

likely result in beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland systems by reducing potential for over use,

hummocking, and streambank shearing. With healthier herbaceous communities, riparian-wetland

areas would be capable of filtering and trapping more sediments and contaminants, which

would enhance water quality. Several springs in the northern portion of the planning area are

currently fenced off to livestock and would not be impacted by changes in livestock grazing

management. Riparian-wetlands that are accessible to livestock across the northern portion of the

Monument would benefit from lower levels of livestock use and associated riparian and upland

area disturbances that alter the natural delivery of sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to

surface waters. Locally, the reduction in AUMs would result in less vegetation use, bank erosion,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 163

Draft MMP Amendment

sedimentation, and/or contaminants from fecal matter, as compared to Alternatives A and C. The

water quality of individual playas in the available areas also would improve due to the potential

reduction in fecal deposition and subsequent contamination with fecal coliform bacteria and

nutrients. Water resources outside the Monument could receive more or less livestock use as a

result of management actions that restrict livestock grazing in the planning area. For example,

springs and perennial streams are present in the BLM portions of grazing allotments that span the

Monument boundary. Additional livestock use in these pastures could increase the potential for

sedimentation, loss of streamside vegetation, and loss of water-holding capacity. Conversely, a

reduction of livestock use in these pastures could reduce that potential.

Similar to C, Alternative E suggests scheduling livestock grazing to avoid nesting and early

brood-rearing habitats from March 15 to June 15 in sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing

habitats, which could result in increased use of these areas during the late summer. Avoiding

spring and early summer grazing in nesting and late brood-rearing sage-grouse habitats would

likely result in increased use of these areas during the late summer, adversely impacting

riparian-wetland resources in the northern portion of the Monument. Conversely, playas are

primarily used by livestock during the spring and early summer and would generally benefit

from the restricted season of use. Management actions designed to protect cultural resources

from concentrated livestock use would also benefit playa resources by ensuring that water

developments, supplements, and holding facilities are placed at least 200 meters from playa edges.

Alternative E focuses on the use of livestock grazing management strategies that result in no

net gain in disturbance from livestock related infrastructure or development. Minimizing the

footprint of livestock related infrastructure and developments would not result in additional

impacts to water resources from the development of new infrastructure. Requiring a no net gain in

disturbance from livestock related infrastructure is expected to maintain, but not increase, current

levels of disturbance associated with these features. Alternative E would provide long-term

benefits to playa lakes in areas closed to livestock grazing. Individual playas throughout the

remainder of the Monument would benefit from the restricted season of livestock use. Managing

for PFC would benefit water resources throughout the planning area.

4.2.3. Vegetation Resources

4.2.3.1. Summary

Alternative A would allow livestock grazing to continue in the same manner as currently

authorized. This alternative allocates the greatest number of acres to livestock use with the

fewest restrictions on that use. Vegetation DFCs would continue to be met through restoration

objectives and treatments identified in the 2007 MMP, through the use of the fuels program for

proactive vegetation treatments, and to a lesser extent, Emergency Stabilization and Burned

Area Rehabilitation (ES & BAR) projects for stabilization following wildfires. Livestock

management and its impacts on the vegetation resources would continue to be deferred to the

implementation-level management following Land Health Assessments. Impacts upon vegetation

resources would be minor to moderate under Alternative A. As new range improvement projects

are allowed, those areas would be localized, but detectable. Areas of vegetation treatments would

experience widespread, detectable changes in the vegetation resources.

Alternative B reduces AUMs by varying degrees across the Monument. Reductions, areas made

unavailable to livestock grazing, and management actions would be used to meet the DFCs.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
164 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Alternative B makes the least acreage available to livestock grazing while still allowing the use to

occur. Monument values in kipukas and previously identified unique vegetation communities

would be protected through the removal of livestock grazing, and authorized use levels would

be greatly reduced across the entire Monument. Other uses identified in the 2007 MMP would

continue to be allowed across the Monument. Alternative B would allow minor, localized

enhancement through removal of range improvement projects and moderate impacts to vegetation

resources from vegetation treatments.

Alternative C allocates roughly the same AUMs as are currently permitted, and also designates

management actions to use livestock grazing at the permitted level as a tool to achieve DFCs.

Alternative C authorizes the most livestock use and meets the 2007 MMP DFCs through the

proactive application of livestock grazing. Alternative C would also allow minor to moderate

impacts to vegetation resources, for similar reasons as Alternative A.

Alternative D makes the entire Monument unavailable to livestock grazing. Most DFCs are met

through other actions identified in the 2007 MMP. Alternative D would have minor effects, due to

the boundary fence, and moderate effects due to the vegetation treatments.

Alternative E reduces allocated AUMs to the high recent actual use level; about half of those

allocated in alternatives A and C. No net gain in disturbance from livestock related infrastructure

would be allowed. All new infrastructure would be established in existing disturbance areas or be

mitigated by rehabilitating disturbance elsewhere. All other management actions are similar to

those in Alternatives A and C. The impacts of Alternative E would be minor to moderate.

Each alternative offers the opportunity to manage for maintaining conditions that meet PFC or

for improving existing vegetation conditions, as described by the DFCs. Livestock grazing

is addressed as a tool for directing the existing vegetation condition in Alternatives B and

C. Alternative D completely removes livestock grazing, which would allow for the continued

existing vegetation condition, except in areas where vegetation manipulation treatments are

implemented, such as the poor condition sites identified for restoration in the 2007 MMP through

the use of fuels treatments (e.g., prescribed fire, herbicide, and seedings).

Impacts to special status plant species within the area would be negligible. Because all alternatives

would maintain current or reduce grazing levels, there would be no change in the current

effects. Picabo milkvetch is endemic, but not at risk due to its preference for early to mid-seral

sagebrush communities with stable, sandy soils [Moseley & Popovich, 1995]. Newly opened

areas with fairly infrequent soil disturbance are favorable. Current and proposed management is

not expected to change Picabo milkvetch habitat conditions.

Impacts to obscure phacelia would also be negligible throughout all alternatives due to its

adaptation to low-level disturbance and need for an occasionally opened woody overstory in

early to mid-seral communities. Big game browsing may be important for decreasing woody

species canopy cover, while livestock may reduce perennial grass cover in obscure phacelia

habitat (Murphy, 1995). Current and proposed management is not expected to change obscure

phacelia habitat conditions.

4.2.3.2. Assumptions

The analysis area for vegetation resources is all BLM lands within the planning area. This analysis

describes potential impacts to vegetation from management actions and resource uses that are the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 165

Draft MMP Amendment

focus of the MMP Amendment. Livestock grazing, the management activity addressed in the

MMP Amendment has the potential to impact vegetation resources.

● Grasslands/Shrublands evolved with large ungulate grazing, but with different distribution,

both spatial and temporal, utilization type, and intensity than typified by present day domestic

livestock use.

● Fires will continue to happen. In the past 20 years, across the Great Basin, fire size and intensity

have increased, and fire return interval has decreased. This trend is expected to continue.

● Achieving Standards is a priority and will continue to be. This includes maintenance of

seeded areas to meet LHA stability objectives, at the least, and continue to maintain/improve

native communities. Areas with intact shrub cover are considered desirable for both habitat

and vegetation management objectives, which encourage maintenance and enhancement of

those areas.

● Wildlife utilize vegetation for forage consumption and cover values. Large ungulates are

present throughout the entire Monument and utilize a variety of plant species as forage and

cover. The quality and distribution of the various vegetation types will continue to be a key

component to wildlife presence and dissemination.

● Livestock grazing has been an ongoing use since the 1860s across a large portion of the

Monument.

● Livestock grazing is one of the most common uses on the vegetation resources in the

Monument. Restrictions and closures would successfully keep livestock out of restricted

or closed areas.

● Noxious weed infestations will continue to be inventoried and treated. Noxious weeds will

continue to be introduced across the planning area via land uses and natural processes, such as

wind and wildlife movement. Management actions are assessed for potential to decrease or

increase acres occupied by noxious weeds and invasive plant species.

● Plant responses to grazing vary by plant community, duration, timing, and intensity. Plants,

both on the community and individual level, respond to grazing pressures in different ways.

Timing and duration, as well as the current state or vigor exhibited by the plant, are all factors

in how plants respond to pressures from biomass removal, stressor, or disturbance.

● Cultivars of native species would be considered native. Communities dominated by native

cultivars would be classified as Native Perennial or Shrub/Native Perennial in the current

vegetation map. In general, these communities would be expected to emulate native

communities with respect to structure and ecosystem processes. Natural processes would

continue to drive plant communities between ecological state and transitions.

● Current vegetation, as mapped, is used for the MMP Amendment. This dataset is dynamic and

there may be small discrepancies in acreages and percentages. These are minor when applied

in context across the entire planning area.

4.2.3.3. How Activities Affect Vegetation Resources

Livestock grazing can be a surface-disturbing activity, ranging from negligible to moderate

disturbance impacts from uses and infrastructure associated with the activity. Impacts of this

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
166 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

activity to vegetation resources include crushing and consuming plants. Repetition of livestock

grazing can lead to reduction of plant vigor and health, or entire removal of plants in a localized

area. When this happens, areas become more at risk for the establishment of noxious weeds and

invasive plant species, both as expansion from existing populations and establishment of new

populations.

Water Resources Management Actions

Vegetation is a critical component in the functionality of a riparian system. It acts to disperse

overland flows, trap sediment, stabilize and protect banks, and provide diverse species for

wildlife cover and forage needs [USDI BLM, 2006]. Multiple studies have been completed

regarding riparian area vegetation responses to livestock grazing. Treatment factors vary as

much as responses, but timing, duration, and intensity are the three common factors of change

implemented to derive a response in plant species diversity and system stabilization [USDI BLM,

2006]. Adjusting livestock grazing at the implementation level to meet PFC would meet the DFCs

of riparian areas as outlined in the 2007 MMP.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Vegetation management action success depends on ecological site potential, current vegetation

condition, presence of noxious weeds and invasive plant species, precipitation, and site factors

such as aspect, slope, and elevation. Use restrictions would eliminate or reduce impacts

from livestock grazing. Natural disturbance, such as wildfire, is anticipated to continue, as

well as related short-term disturbances from ES & BAR activities; ES & BAR would also

stabilize conditions and rehabilitate burned areas to perennial-dominated native vegetation

types. Pro-active vegetation treatments have been discussed and identified in the 2007 MMP,

and ES & BAR activities will follow the most recent Programmatic Emergency Stabilization and

Rehabilitation Plan (PESRP) for the Twin Falls District.

Vegetation and soils have a close relationship; impacts to the soil resource can directly impact

the health and functionality of vegetation. Impacts from water and wind erosion and other forms

of surface disturbance can reduce the soil’s capability to provide an environment that supports

vegetation. A healthy soil resource will promote healthy vegetative attributes.

Climate change could lead to more drastic, episodic events that affect growth, phenology, and

resilience of plants and populations. Drought tolerant species may thrive. Increase potential for

die-off in marginal zones, such as small inclusions, increase invasive species that are better suited

to a particular area than native species, resulting in a potential for species composition shifts in

plant communities [Monahan & Fisichelli, 2014].

In the face of changing climate dynamics, diversity of species composition and inclusion of

certain species in ecosystems may increase in importance. For instance, nitrogen-fixing legumes

could become more important as a long-lived species to ecosystems because of their ability to

increase C-sequestration for longer time periods [Derner & Schuman, 2007].

Uses and disturbance can lead to soil loss and site degradation, and reduced desirable species

composition; or can contribute to increases in plant health, vigor, and changes in species

composition that would help to attain DFCs.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 167

Draft MMP Amendment

Livestock grazing is the dominant use of the vegetation resource in the planning area. Historic

grazing has been a major influence in plant succession. Appropriate grazing management can

help improve plant vigor and species composition, while inappropriately managed grazing can

lead to a decline in the health of a plant community, or facilitate a shift in composition [Curtin,

2002]; [Valone, Meyer, Brown, & Chew, 2002]; [Briske, Fuhlendorf, & Smeins, 2005]. It can

also facilitate the introduction or expansion of noxious weeds or invasive plants, or provide a

method of managing existing occurrences. Increasing and maintaining plant species richness can

help improve community resistance to invasive plant expansion [Anderson & Inouye, 2001].

Control of weed populations through livestock grazing involves grazing an invasive species at

a crucial point in its life-cycle. For example, cattle can graze areas infested with the annual

grass cheatgrass in early spring before boot formation, thereby limiting seed production

[Hempey-Mayer & Pyke, 2008]. However, the use of livestock for this purpose is expensive and

requires a long-term commitment. Expenses and factors for success in grazing invasives are

timing, duration of grazing, expense to the allotment holder in moving animals and intensive

management provided by the BLM. It also has the potential to impact vegetative resources by

reducing ground cover, increasing soil compaction, and making the area vulnerable to new

noxious weeds or invasive plant species infestation.

Long-term, improper utilization can drive a plant community towards grazing tolerant species,

such as rhizomatous grasses (e.g. Western wheatgrass) or mat-forming species (e.g. Sandberg

bluegrass). This shift can progress further towards a large reduction in perennial species and

increases in invasive annual grasses (e.g. cheatgrass). Combined with other disturbance factors,

such as wildfire, a new successional state may appear. This creates a system that requires

increased active inputs to regain a stable, resilient plant community.

Season of use is a contributor to the distribution and general utilization of vegetation by livestock.

Season of use and stocking intensity together may have the biggest impact on sagebrush

communities, as it relates to sage-grouse habitat [Beck & Mitchell, 2000]. Dates are generalized

because climatic conditions vary from season to season, and are affected by plant phenology, soil

moisture conditions, and general availability of use areas by varying degrees from year to year.

For instance, annual grass phenology can vary tremendously from year to year, dependent on a

variety of climatic conditions. If cheatgrass control or minimization in the vegetation community

is the desired outcome, then grazing systems would need to vary use dates from year to year, as

well. Fall green-up is a common phenomenon in the Monument area, so cheatgrass reduction

by livestock would not be limited to spring grazing [Cox, R. D., & Anderson, V. 2004]. It

is also recommended that a targeted cheatgrass reduction-grazing program be coupled with

restoration/rehabilitation of desirable perennial species, in order to achieve a management

objective of stabilized rangelands, moving towards a resilient plant community.

Special status plants can be impacted by livestock grazing or infrastructure in a similar manner as

other more prevalent plant species. Livestock grazing infrastructure can impact plants by deep

excavation and major soil compaction in localized areas and by creating an opportunity for

noxious weeds and invasive plant species to establish or increase. Noxious weeds and invasive

plant species can impair habitat for rare plants. Increases to the amount of infrastructure or

concentrating livestock use in the plant’s habitat could impact an occurrence.

4.2.3.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Vegetation: Alternative A

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
168 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Water Resources Management Actions

Vegetation is a critical component in the functionality of a riparian system. It acts to disperse

overland flows, trap sediment, stabilize and protect banks, and provide diverse species for

wildlife cover and forage needs [USDI BLM, 2006]. Multiple studies have been completed

regarding riparian area vegetation responses to livestock grazing. Treatment factors vary as

much as responses, but timing, duration, and intensity are the three common factors of change

implemented to derive a response in plant species diversity and system stabilization [USDI BLM,

2006]. Adjusting livestock grazing at the implementation level to meet PFC would meet the DFCs

of riparian areas as outlined in the 2007 MMP.

There would be no changes to water management actions in Alternative A.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Currently, actual use has averaged 11,791 AUMs over the last 15 years, which is less than the

38,187 AUMs authorized in the 2007 MMP. In Alternative A, permitted use would remain the

authorized use. Current average actual use would probably continue, and would impact vegetation

in the same manner as the existing use. Current vegetation condition would also continue, as it

relates to livestock grazing. However, actual use could increase to the permitted use level under

this alternative.

Under Alternative A, grazing systems and timing would continue to be managed at the

implementation level, during the permit renewal process. Spring, summer, fall, and winter grazing

would continue at varying times across the Monument.

Forage utilization is expected to continue similar to current use levels. However, the full

permitted use is nearly three times the 15-year average Actual Use under Alternative A. More

vegetation would be removed during use and could impact plant community composition in either

a positive or negative direction. However, the full permitted use would not be dispersed equally

across the Monument, as roughly 1/3 of the allotments show average billed use at more than 90%

of their permitted AUMs. In turn, the effects of increased vegetation consumption to the currently

permitted use levels would be unequally distributed across the Monument.

LHAs would continue to be used to determine if current livestock management is compatible

with Land Health Standards. Full permitted use would be an increase from the average actual

use. Over the past 15 years, actual use has reflected roughly 1/3 of permitted AUMs are being

utilized across the Monument. Use would continue to be directed at the permit renewal level,

and would need to continue to meet DFCs described in the 2007 MMP. If 100% of permitted use

was to occur, little change to vegetation removal and eventual composition shifts is anticipated in

areas that are currently near 100% of the permitted use, while use levels would likely shift from

slight to light and from light to moderate levels, averaging about 34% use, [USDI BLM, 1999] in

areas where actual use is currently at a much reduced level from the permitted use.

The 2007 MMP describes limitations to infrastructure expansion for the Bowl Crater Allotment

and the North Pasture of the Laidlaw Park Allotment. In Alternative A, these recommended

limitations would continue.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Typically, timing of range improvements maintenance or construction for the benefit of wildlife

coincides with the least sensitive time for plant communities (wildlife habitat). Avoidance

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 169

Draft MMP Amendment

of construction and maintenance when soils are saturated and prone to compaction, or when

noxious weeds have set fruit and would be likely to establish if dispersed by equipment used for

maintenance would help protect or retain wildlife habitat conditions.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Currently, half (11) of the 22 allotments partially or entirely in the Monument are available for

grazing in spring, fall and/or winter. One-quarter (5) of the allotments are available for grazing

in the spring and fall. One-quarter (5) of the allotments are available for grazing in the summer

and fall. One of the allotments is available for grazing in the spring only. The season of use is

unlikely to change until permit renewals are completed for the individual allotments, or LHAs

show that a change in season is necessary to meet Standards. Season of use is dependent on a

range of variables, including availability of moisture and temperature to initiate current year’s

growth and development, and plant phenology throughout the year, and may include spring,

summer, fall, or winter.

Currently, less than 1,200 BLM acres are unavailable for grazing. Areas currently excluded from

grazing are not part of any allotments, are not readily accessible, and have not been assessed for

ecological condition. Vegetation classification is available for these areas (Table 4.2, “BLM

Acres of Vegetation Available to Livestock, by Alternative”. The classifications are described

in Chapter 3, and are described by acres unavailable in Table 4.1, “BLM Acres of Vegetation

Unavailable to Livestock, by Alternative”.

Table 4.1. BLM Acres of Vegetation Unavailable to Livestock, by Alternative

BLM Midscale

Vegetation

Classification

Alternative A

acres

Alternative B

acres

Alternative C

acres

Alternative D

acres

Alternative E

acres

Roads, Urban 50 110 55 660 9

Unconsolidated

Materials, Volcanic

Rock, Bedrock, Scree,

Cliff and Canyon

20 65 20 1,140 20

Northern Montane &

Foothill Forest

7 7 7 10 7

Juniper & Mountain

Mahogany

Woodlands and Scrub

4 5 4 20 4

Riparian Shrubland 5 10 10 20 10

Subalpine & High

Montane Forest

0 0 0 60 0

Northern Great Plains

Woodland

0 0 0 30 0

Great Plains

Mixedgrass Prairie

& Shrubland

6 190 20 9,500 20

Tall Sagebrush

Shrubland

700 15,100 1,000 96,200 1,750

Dwarf Sagebrush

Shrubland

50 50 50 1,000 46

Dry Non-Native

Perennial Grassland

100 600 100 104,900 108

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
170 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

BLM Midscale

Vegetation

Classification

Alternative A

acres

Alternative B

acres

Alternative C

acres

Alternative D

acres

Alternative E

acres

Dry Non-Native

Annual Grassland

150 1,000 150 28,200 160

Dry Non-Sagebrush

Shrubland &

Grassland

0 3,800 0 33,200 0

Table 4.2. BLM Acres of Vegetation Available to Livestock, by Alternative

BLM Midscale

Vegetation

Classification

Alternative A

Acres

Alternative B

Acres

Alternative C

Acres

Alternative D

Acres

Alternative E

Acres

Roads, Urban 600 550 600 0 600

Unconsolidated

Materials, Volcanic

Rock, Bedrock,

Scree, Cliff and

Canyon

1,100 1,100 1,100 0 1,100

Northern Montane &

Foothill Forest

5 5 5 0 5

Juniper & Mountain

Mahogany

Woodlands and Scrub

20 20 20 0 20

Riparian Shrubland 15 10 10 0 10

Subalpine & High

Montane Forest

60 60 60 0 60

Northern Great Plains

Woodland

30 30 30 0 30

Great Plains

Mixedgrass Prairie &

Shrubland

9,500 9,300 9,500 0 9,500

Tall Sagebrush

Shrubland

95,500 81,200 95,200 0 94,500

Dwarf Sagebrush

Shrubland

1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000

Dry Non-Native

Perennial Grassland

104,800 104,300 104,800 0 104,800

Dry Non-Native

Annual Grassland

28,000 27,200 28,000 0 28,000

Dry Non-Sagebrush

Shrubland &

Grassland

33,200 29,400 33,200 0 33,200

Areas currently identified as unavailable would remain so. These areas are not identified for

vegetation treatments, and are unlikely to change vegetation composition to a measurable extent

over the life of the plan, unless affected by natural disturbances, such as wildfire. Little change

in vegetation classification is expected to occur in areas identified as Unconsolidated Materials,

Volcanic Rock, Bedrock, Scree, Cliff and Canyon, Agriculture, Roads, and Urban areas.

Northern Montane & Foothill Forest, Juniper & Mountain Mahogany Woodlands and Scrub,

Riparian Shrublands, and Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie & Shrubland comprise 23 acres of

the total unavailable to livestock grazing in Alternative A. Typically, these areas are in good

condition, and are present in more favorable precipitation and elevation gradients that promote

native plant diversity and resilience.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 171

Draft MMP Amendment

Tall Sagebrush Shrubland and Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland are the main vegetation types

unavailable in Alternative A, with a total of 784 acres. These areas may have variable composition

in the understory, but sagebrush is the dominant overstory. Livestock grazing removal could

affect these areas either positively or negatively over the life of the plan, dependent on current

condition, past land use history, and climatic conditions. These changes include manipulation

of the vegetation composition through livestock grazing; this shift could trend in a positive or

negative direction. Residual vegetation cover could increase with reduced livestock grazing,

which could benefit wildlife, help maintain soil moisture and reduce erosion; however in areas of

high annual grass cover, this reduction in grazing use could contribute to increased fine fuels.

Changes may not be significantly measurable, unless precipitated by a perceptible event. For

instance, a community may persist in a consistent state until an episodic climate event occurs that

influences the expansion of a certain plant component [Valone, Meyer, Brown, & Chew, 2002].

Dry Non-Native Perennial Grassland (108 acres) would require inputs to affect change to the

current vegetation state to a more native vegetation type. Assisted succession is the most effective

path for restoration from non-native perennial-dominated vegetation to a native community; in

order to maximize treatment success, though, this requires inputs such as tilling and herbicides for

undesirable plant species control, mechanical seedbed preparation, and seed placement through

broadcast or drill [Cox & Anderson, 2004]. However, these areas are not identified as priorities

for restoration in this alternative. It is unlikely that a measurable alteration in the vegetation

community would occur over the life of the plan. Dry Non-Native Annual Grassland comprises

147 of the unavailable acres in Alternative A.

ES & BAR would still happen on all vegetation types, if determined necessary, through ES

& BAR plans. Fire and proactive vegetation treatments to manage fuels, fire behavior, and

vegetation response to fires will continue to occur at similar rates as seen over the last 33 years.

While wildfire ignitions are unpredictable, and are either human-caused or natural, flame lengths,

rates of spread and final fire size vary based on both natural and anthropogenic factors, such as

fine fuel presence (especially non-native annuals), weather, topography, and response time.

Livestock grazing would continue to remove fine fuels from the system, but effectiveness as a fire

hazard reduction tool would be dependent on a variety of factors, including timing, duration, and

intensity [Nader, Henkin, Smith, Ingram, & Narvaez, 2007].

In Alternative A, infrastructure related to livestock grazing would continue as directed under the

2007 MMP. Management of livestock grazing and its use on vegetation in the Monument would

continue to be tied to achieving Standards on an allotment-by-allotment basis. Standards include

guidelines for maintaining or improving conditions related to noxious and invasive weed species,

native plant communities, rangeland seedings, and non-native annual communities. New range

improvements would not be allowed in the Bowl Crater Allotment or the North Pasture of the

Laidlaw Park Allotment unless they would result in a benefit to resources identified as needing

improvement or protection. Range improvements could be considered for other resource needs,

such as livestock management and dispersal in the rest of the Monument. Vegetation impacts from

infrastructure varies from minimal ground disturbance for a short term such as is typical along a

fence, to removal of vegetation directly around a water source, and a shift in vegetation condition

and composition related to the changed dispersal of livestock following the implementation of a

new range improvements. Range improvements could also be removed and restored to achieve

the 2007 MMP DFCs, as well as to continue to achieve Standards. Actions would happen at the

implementation level, such as through a grazing permit renewal.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
172 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

In Alternative A, livestock grazing would be managed at the implementation level through permit

renewals and changes would occur if Standards are not being met and grazing is a causal factor

or necessary to improve conditions, then livestock grazing management would be changed.

If a riparian area is not meeting PFC and livestock is determined to be a factor, then grazing

management would be adjusted to meet PFC.

Fence and associated infrastructure removal would directly impact vegetation in the short term by

crushing vegetation, and removing vegetation, such as shrubs, that interfere with fence removal.

Long-term impacts are expected to be minimal, since ground disturbance is typically isolated

to a localized area with fence removal. Cattleguards would also be removed. Cattleguards are

typically associated with heavier traffic roads with reduced vegetation components, so removal

would minimally impact the existing vegetation surrounding the cattleguard. However, treatment

such as seeding or herbicide would help establish perennial vegetation and reduce noxious weeds

and invasive plant species occurrences once the cattleguard has been removed.

An allotment could be retired from permitted grazing, but would still be available for “reserve” if

the need for forage presented itself, such as if wildfire displaced livestock grazing from another

area. Grazing would intermittently affect vegetation present, but would likely occur at a much

reduced level, and would be available at varying seasons and durations. Vegetation response

would depend on natural factors, and also with the type and level of use authorized as part of

the reserve.

Vegetation: Alternative B

Water Resources Management Actions

Vegetation components are a critical factor in the health, resilience, and condition of a riparian

area. Improper timing and duration of livestock grazing can contribute to the removal of desirable

vegetation in a riparian area, which can contribute to a decline in the functioning of the system.

This alternative would allow the suspension or modification of livestock grazing to occur if

livestock grazing is determined to be a factor in not meeting riparian or watershed Standards,

following LHAs. Vegetation is a critical component in the functionality of a riparian system. It

acts to disperse overland flows, trap sediment, stabilize and protect banks, and provide diverse

species for wildlife cover and forage needs [USDI BLM, 2006]. Multiple studies have been

completed regarding riparian area vegetation responses to livestock grazing. Treatment factors

vary as much as responses, but timing, duration, and intensity are the three common factors of

change implemented to derive a response in plant species diversity and system stabilization

[USDI BLM, 2006]. Adjusting livestock grazing at the implementation level to meet PFC would

meet the DFCs of riparian areas as outlined in the 2007 MMP and Idaho and Southwestern

Montana Sub-Regional Greater Sage-Grouse RMP Amendment. The continued movement of

the riparian plant community toward a reference community state would provide a point of

comparison for similar vegetation of other various riparian zone types.

Springs would not be developed. Four undeveloped springs are on the BLM portions of the

Monument, and two developed spring systems. The developed springs are enclosed by fencing,

which deters grazing and protects the associated vegetation from livestock use. It is anticipated

that this condition would remain the same with Alternative B.

Water development practices have changed over the last few decades in ways that can enhance

riparian vegetation. This includes trough placement, fencing, returning or cycling overflow

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 173

Draft MMP Amendment

water through the riparian area, and improved spring box designs. Improvements to current

water systems, and moving troughs out of riparian areas would improve the vegetation condition

at those sites by reducing trampling and improving the efficiency of natural water use as a

stock water source.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Livestock grazing would be directed towards Dry Non-Native Perennial Grass vegetation types

(past seeding treatments) in order to reduce grazing pressures on native plant communities. In

grass-dominated plant communities, sagebrush is a lacking component. Management changes to

livestock grazing, including timing, intensity, and duration, can help facilitate achievement of

DFCs. Impacts could be negligible at the landscape level to moderate at a localized area. For

instance, fall grazing can maintain the existing community, and improve bunchgrass production,

although improvement in forb production is variable. Heavy fall grazing by sheep may reduce

sagebrush, but would likely only occur at localized areas, such as bedgrounds [Laycock, 1967];

[Laycock, 1979]. Heavy grazing can also lead to mortality of juvenile sagebrush through

trampling, so grazing with the objective of reducing herbaceous cover competition in order to

facilitate shrub establishment and expansion must be balanced with the effects of heavy grazing,

which can include soil compaction, and increases in noxious weeds and invasive plant species.

Vegetation changes can be directed through a variety of management actions, including

modifying timing of use, stocking rate, scheduling rest or deferment, livestock numbers, kind, and

distribution. Grazing can be used as a tool to alter the vegetation community if a desirable seed

source is present, whether in the soil as part of the seedbank or applied following reduction of

vegetation by livestock grazing [Cox & Anderson, 2004]; [Davies, Boyd, & Nafus, 2013]. The

impacts to values such as soil stability and the potential for noxious weeds and invasive plant

species to increase must be considered. Grazing has the potential to increase soil compaction, and

the feasibility to implement the necessary level of grazing intensity and duration on a landscape

scale can be limiting factors in utilizing grazing as a restoration/rehabilitation tool. Grazing can

be used as one component of a multifaceted restoration program. Active restoration would be

necessary to facilitate native species recovery in areas with abundant sagebrush overstory and a

high percentage of invasive annuals comprising the understory, such as is found in Larkspur Park.

Natural recovery allows natural processes to occur and regenerate vegetation in areas subjected to

a disturbance. Variables such as degree of disturbance (e.g. massive soil removal or disturbance),

and previous condition of the area, drought, pests, disease, noxious weeds and invasive plant

species presence, determines the time required to see a measurable amount of recovery at a site.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Impacts from wildlife management actions would be the same as discussed in Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

In Alternative B, new livestock developments would not be allowed in areas closed to grazing

(approximately 21,000 acres). This would eliminate the impacts to vegetation associated with

developments, such as vegetation removal and trampling, soil disturbance and compaction,

and vegetation composition shifts. Use-concentration areas are associated with livestock

developments, and typically cause a removal of vegetation or change in composition. Noxious

weeds and invasive plants have an increased potential to establish or spread when soil and

vegetation are disturbed, and are associated with livestock developments. Removal, consolidation,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
174 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

or modification with the intention of benefitting wildlife would also provide a net overall benefit

for the vegetation present.

Under Alternatives B, C, D and E, the Kimama Allotment would gain 40 acres of non-Monument

lands. Poison Lake Allotment would gain nearly 800 acres of Monument lands. 80% is Dry

Non-Native Perennial Grassland, and nearly 20% is Dry Non-Native Annual Grassland. Shifts to

the allotment boundaries are likely to incur the same impacts to vegetation through utilization by

livestock.

Livestock grazing is an action that is associated with removal of vegetation, trampling, and some

soil disturbance, especially when it occurs in conjunction with concentrated-use areas. Alternative

B would avoid placement of concentration areas near sensitive cultural resources, which would

help protect these resources by dispersing use on vegetation and soils in the area, thus retaining

vegetation cover and soil intactness in those localized areas. This would help protect the sensitive

soil and vegetative structures unique to playas, as well. However, removing use concentration

from one area would likely cause an increase in concentration elsewhere, which would remove

vegetation and increase trampling in a different location.

Modification of livestock management through a variety of practices, including changes in

timing, duration, and intensity, allows for flexibility by managers to achieve DFCs for habitat, of

which vegetation condition and type is a major component. This would enhance vegetation by

considering and implementing those management actions to achieve DFCs. Seasonal uses may

include spring, summer, fall, or winter grazing. Spring grazing occurs when plants are utilizing

soil moisture to initiate growth. Dormancy ends around March, when early season plants, such as

false dandelion, cheatgrass, and bluegrass, initiate growth. This gradates across the Monument

from south to north, and varies from year to year dependent on precipitation, temperature, and

weather patterns. Heavy spring grazing can reduce forbs and perennial grasses, when repeated

every year without deferment or rest. Defoliation of cool-season bunchgrasses can be damaging

if it is excessive, occurs during the main growth period, and substantial regrowth following

the defoliation is prevented by inadequate moisture. However, grazing plants after flowering

helps avoid the reduced regrowth and root mass reduction that can manifest in plants defoliated

during the emergence of the flowering stalk [Ganskopp, 1988]. Limited early spring grazing

may be more beneficial than limited later spring grazing [Brewer, Mosley, Lucas, & Schmidt,

2007]; [Ganskopp, 1998]. Heavy spring grazing by sheep has been shown to increase sagebrush

dominance, but can reduce bitterbrush, bunchgrass, and forb production. Cheatgrass control

through grazing could occur in the spring; however, grazing that reduces annuals can also reduce

perennial grasses. A reduction in perennial grasses can result in increased annual grass presence

by expanding the niche annuals need to thrive. Grazing in cheatgrass could reduce flame lengths

and burn severity , but not necessarily the rate of spread [Diamond, Call, & Devoe, 2009], grazing

effectiveness as a fire hazard reduction tool would be dependent on a variety of factors, including

timing, duration, and intensity [Nader, Henkin, Smith, Ingram, & Narvaez, 2007].

Summer in the planning area is associated with hotter, drier conditions, and completion of plant

growth cycles. Early season perennial grasses such as Sandberg bluegrass, and annual grasses,

such as cheatgrass or sixweeks fescue, would have completed their life cycle for the season, and

either have set seed and entered dormancy or have died. Mid-size perennial bunchgrasses, such

as bluebunch wheatgrass or crested wheatgrass, would be reaching the end of their seasonal

cycles, likely ranging from seed set to seed shatter stages. Grasses and forbs are more tolerant

to livestock grazing at this stage than during active growth, which typically occurs through

late spring and into summer.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 175

Draft MMP Amendment

Fall grazing can maintain the existing plant community, and improve bunchgrass production,

although improvement in forb production is variable. Heavy fall grazing by sheep may reduce

sagebrush [Laycock, 1967]; [Laycock, 1979]. A source for the desirable vegetation also must be

present in order to accomplish an increase in the desired component [Laycock, 1967]; [Laycock,

1979].

Winter grazing could occur in the planning area. However, residual vegetation is important in

the winter to capture snow and incorporate winter moisture into the soil profile. Winter use

has little effect on most vegetation because it occurs in a time before soil moisture has been

depleted and plants are dormant. Cool temperatures and improved natural water availability in the

spring, fall, and winter can create an ideal situation for improved livestock dispersal, reducing

livestock congregation. However, extreme weather conditions can cause livestock to congregate

on available water and feed areas, which can create impacts to vegetation through soil compaction

and vegetation reduction at localized areas.

Spring and early summer are typically the periods of most active plant growth in the Monument.

Avoiding livestock utilization in spring or early summer in nesting or early brood-rearing habitats

would eliminate impacts from livestock grazing to those plant communities that support those

habitat types. Grazing restrictions would either reduce or entirely eliminate utilization of plants,

soil compaction, and trampling of plants associated with use at livestock congregation areas, such

as mineral supplement or water sites. However, this use could be displaced or increased to new or

existing areas in the Monument, and could occur in different seasons.

Retiring an allotment would make the area unavailable for livestock grazing. Impacts would vary

depending on the current condition of the vegetation and if multiple permits were retired in the

allotment or only a few permits were affected.

Livestock grazing can affect vegetation composition and structure by removing biomass, affecting

height and plant shape, and limiting growth. It can also be used to facilitate establishment of

certain plants, such as shrubs, or have a minor impact to vegetation by grazing after the plant

has completed its annual growth cycle, as discussed previously.

Under Alternative B, management objectives would be focused on achieving vegetation

composition and structure consistent with appropriate sage-grouse seasonal habitat objectives,

relative to the site potential. Monitoring would be necessary to gauge the efficacy of a

treatment or management action, and could be used to inform adjustments to livestock use

through management. Monitoring vegetation encompasses a broad spectrum of timing;

frequency and appropriate methods should be determined by following BLM technical reference

recommendations.

Alternative B allows grazing management to be adjusted as appropriate during drought to provide

for adequate food and cover for sage-grouse. Drought can affect vegetation by forcing dormancy,

reducing production, and stressing plants by taxing carbohydrate reserves. As a result, plant vigor

diminishes. Longer deferment may be necessary in droughty conditions [Brewer et al., 2007];

[Ganskopp, 1998]. Adjusting grazing during periods of drought can alleviate additional stress

associated with biomass removal during critical growth periods. Additionally, plants may enter

dormancy sooner than in a non-drought year. Once dormancy has been entered, impacts to plants

from grazing may diminish.

Different plant species are affected to varying degrees from livestock grazing during a drought.

The effect of drought on vegetation varies depending on the extent and severity of the drought.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
176 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

For instance, Idaho fescue is more readily impacted by livestock grazing during a drought than

crested wheatgrass [Ganskopp & Bedell, 1981]. The impacts to vegetation following a drought

may not manifest until years following the drought. Responses will vary depending on the

utilization received, including timing, duration, and intensity, as well as other natural variables,

such as the extent of the drought and pre-drought vegetation condition.

Conversion in kind of livestock would be allowed in Alternative B, and would occur through an

implementation/project level analysis. This would be completed to identify impacts, to determine

if DFCs will be met through the conversion, and to ensure management objectives of the 2007

MMP are met. Different kinds of livestock utilize forage in different manners, and can impact

plant communities to different degrees. For instance, sheep will utilize browse species such as

bitterbrush, and may select for forbs in spring and early summer, while cattle favor grazing

grasses, although species preference varies throughout the year. In certain cases, a different kind

of livestock may be a desirable change in order to achieve a DFC for vegetation condition, which

is not achievable through the currently authorized kind of livestock.

Vegetation: Alternative C

Water Resources Management Actions

Vegetation components are a critical factor in the health, resilience, and condition of a riparian

area. Improper timing and duration of livestock grazing can contribute to the removal of

desirable vegetation in a riparian area, which can contribute to a decline in the functioning of the

system. However, management of grazing to achieve Standards, and continued feedback through

monitoring would reduce landscape level impacts and allow for achievement of DFCs.

Alternative C would allow the suspension or modification of livestock grazing if it is determined

to be a factor in not meeting riparian or watershed Standards or if it is necessary to meet DFC.

Vegetation is a critical component in the functionality of a riparian system. It acts to disperse

overland flows, trap sediment, stabilize and protect banks, and provide diverse species for wildlife

cover and forage needs [USDI, 2006]. Multiple studies have been completed regarding riparian

area vegetation responses to livestock grazing. Treatment factors vary as much as responses, but

timing, duration, and intensity are the three common factors of change implemented to derive

a response in plant species diversity and system stabilization [USDI BLM, 2006]. Adjusting

livestock grazing at the implementation level to meet PFC would meet the DFCs of riparian areas

as outlined in the Monument plan.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

AUMs are higher in Alternative C than in Alternative B, and are roughly the same as Alternative

A. Also, approximately 500 acres more of Dry Non-Native Perennial vegetation (non-native

perennial seedings) are available for grazing in Alternative C than in Alternative B. Overall,

though, this is a minor acreage amount. Flexibility in grazing duration, intensity, and timing is

encouraged as part of Alternative C, in order to meet DFCs. Like Alternative B, grazing would be

prioritized on non-native perennial seedings. Established, non-native perennial seedings function

to reduce soil movement from both water and wind erosion, and limit invasive species expansion

and establishment. They are resilient to disturbances and are more able to withstand moderate to

heavy grazing than mid-size native perennial bunchgrasses. This focused grazing could create an

opportunity for increases in other plants, such as sagebrush, but only if a seed source was present.

Heavy grazing could also lead to mortality of juvenile shrubs through trampling [Laycock, 1967];

[Laycock, 1979]. Grazing intensity and duration would be determined through site-specific

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 177

Draft MMP Amendment

NEPA analysis compliance. Invasive annual plants would vary in response to increased grazing

pressures, dependent on timing, duration, and intensity. For instance, cheatgrass seed density can

be reduced by clipping to a short height (2.5 cm) after the flowering stage but before the seed

ripens. Cheatgrass left taller than that has almost no effect on seed density, when compared to

non-grazed plants. Grazing plants to this height may be most effective if grazed a second time

when/if the inflorescence emerges following regrowth [Hempy-Mayer & Pyke, 2008].

Alternative C would allow for up to 1,000 acres of reference sites, or study areas, to be established

throughout the Monument. Study areas, such as paired plots, are a commonly used tool to

measure effectiveness of, or differences between vegetation treatments. Livestock grazing would

be the treatment difference between the exclosure area and the area continuing to be grazed.

Setting up paired plots would allow the opportunity to study grazing effects across a broad

range of plant communities, with varying composition, climatic gradients, and ranging issues.

Fencing would be necessary to create a study plot, and can lead to short-term moderate effects

to vegetation in a localized area through crushing and removing plants to allow for installation.

Since the intention of the study is to see effects of grazing treatments, areas could be subjected to

heavier or directed grazing for varying durations in order to measure an effect. This could lead

to short-term moderate impacts, depending on the degree of vegetation removal, timing and

duration, and the current condition of a plant community. These effects would be controlled to a

limited area, as related to the scope of the study. As part of a paired plot, there would also be a

portion of the study area subjected to less intensive or no grazing.

Livestock Management Actions

Alternative C makes 300 additional acres unavailable to grazing (1,500 acres total) when

compared to Alternative A. These include areas that are in good vegetative condition, and are not

identified as needing treatment in the 2007 MMP. Removing areas from livestock grazing would

maintain the current condition of those plant communities as related to any composition shifts that

may be related to livestock grazing; however, natural processes would continue, such as wildfire,

and the plant community would respond as expected in a dynamic system [Davies et al., 2014].

Utilization at the full allocated AUM level would result in an increase in disturbances related to

livestock grazing compared to the average actual use, but similar to the fully utilized No Action

Alternative. These could include increases to the number and location of existing bed grounds,

increased mineral placement, and an increase in, consolidation of, or a change in the location of

water haul sites. These are localized disturbances. Vegetation in newly established sites would

be expected to follow the trend of past placement - reduced vegetative cover, increased noxious

weeds and invasive plant species, and soil compaction. These impacts are most observable in

the localized disturbance footprint, which normally ranges from as small as just surrounding

the concentration area to one-half mile out.

Changes to livestock-related infrastructure are anticipated through this alternative in order to

manage potential increased utilization, and also to incorporate a wider range of seasons of use

and management schemes to meet the DFCs. These increases or changes in placement would

have localized impacts, but overall would be anticipated to improve the vegetation condition,

as part of the DFCs. The site-specific impacts of infrastructure changes would be assessed and

analyzed during the permit renewal process.

Grazing can alter the vegetation community. The potential to affect soil stability or increase

noxious weeds and invasive plant species must be considered when actively utilizing livestock

grazing to maintain, enhance, or restore vegetation condition. Grazing has the potential to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
178 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

increase soil compaction, and the feasibility to implement the necessary level of grazing

intensity and duration on a landscape scale can be limiting factors in utilizing grazing as a

restoration/rehabilitation tool. Grazing could be used as one of many tools in a restoration

program.

Livestock can be managed to achieve habitat DFCs through manipulating the timing, duration,

and intensity of grazing. This requires the flexibility to change grazing practices in response

to vegetation condition and type. Incorporating this flexibility and specific objectives into

Allotment Management Plans after Land Health Assessments would allow grazing to be used as

a tool to enhance or restore vegetation condition.Vegetation changes can be directed through a

variety of management actions, including changing timing of use, stocking rate, scheduling rest

or deferment, livestock numbers, kind, and distribution. This would enhance vegetation by

considering and implementing those management actions to achieve DFCs. Seasonal uses may

include spring, summer, fall, or winter grazing. Spring grazing occurs when plants are utilizing

soil moisture to initiate growth. Dormancy ends around March, when early season plants, such as

false dandelion, cheatgrass and bluegrass, initiate growth. This gradates across the Monument

from south to north, and varies from year to year dependent of precipitation, temperature, and

weather patterns. Heavy spring grazing can reduce forbs and perennial grasses, when repeated

every year without deferment or rest. Defoliation of cool-season bunchgrasses can be damaging

if it occurs during the main growth period and substantial regrowth following the defoliation is

prevented by inadequate moisture. However, grazing plants after flowering helps avoid the

reduced regrowth and root mass reduction that can manifest in plants defoliated during the

emergence of the flowering stalk [Ganskopp, 1988]. Limited early spring grazing may be more

beneficial than limited later spring grazing [Brewer et al., 2007]; [Ganskopp, 1998]. Heavy spring

grazing by sheep has been shown to increase sagebrush dominance, but can reduce bitterbrush,

bunchgrass, and forb production. Cheatgrass control through grazing would be targeted in the

spring; however, grazing that adversely affects annuals can also reduce perennial grasses, which

can result in increased annual grass by expanding the niche annuals need to thrive. Grazing in

cheatgrass could reduce flame lengths and burn severity , but not necessarily the rate of spread

[Diamond, Call, & Devoe, 2009], grazing effectiveness as a fire hazard reduction tool would be

dependent on a variety of factors, including timing, duration, and intensity [Nader, Henkin,

Smith, Ingram, & Narvaez, 2007.]

Winter grazing could occur in the planning area. However, residual vegetation is important in

the winter to capture snow and incorporate winter moisture into the soil profile. Winter use

has little effect on most vegetation because it occurs in a time before soil moisture has been

depleted and plants are dormant. Cool temperatures and improved natural water availability in the

spring, fall, and winter can create an ideal situation for improved livestock dispersal, reducing

livestock congregation. However, extreme weather conditions can cause livestock to congregate

on available water and feed areas, which can create impacts to vegetation through soil compaction

and vegetation reduction at localized areas.

Fall grazing can maintain the existing plant community, and improve bunchgrass production,

although improvement in forb production is variable. Heavy fall grazing by sheep may reduce

sagebrush [Laycock, 1967]; [Laycock, 1979]. A source for the desirable vegetation also must be

present in order to accomplish an increase in the desired component [Laycock, 1967]; [Laycock,

1979].

Summer in the planning area is associated with hotter and drier conditions, and completion of plant

growth cycles. Early season perennial grasses such as Sandberg bluegrass, and annual grasses,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 179

Draft MMP Amendment

such as cheatgrass or sixweeks fescue, would have completed their life cycle for the season, and

either have set seed and entered dormancy or have died. Mid-size perennial bunchgrasses, such as

bluebunch wheatgrass or crested wheatgrass, would be reaching the end of their annual growth

cycles, likely ranging from seed set to seed shatter stages. Plants are more tolerant to livestock

grazing at this stage than during active growth, which typically occurs in the late spring.

Spring and early summer are typically the periods of most active plant growth in the Monument.

Avoiding livestock utilization during spring or early summer in nesting or early brood-rearing

habitats would reduce impacts from livestock grazing to plant communities that support those

habitat types. Grazing restrictions would reduce utilization of plants, soil compaction, and

trampling of plants associated with use at livestock-congregation areas, such as mineral or water

sites.

Drought can affect vegetation by forcing dormancy, reducing production, and stressing plants

by taxing carbohydrate reserves. As a result, plant vigor diminishes. Adjusting grazing during

periods of drought can alleviate additional stress associated with biomass removal during

critical growth periods. For instance, to maintain mid-size native perennial bunchgrasses, such

as bluebunch wheatgrass or Thurber needlegrass, limit consecutive late spring/early summer

defoliation to two years or less. Longer deferment may be necessary in droughty conditions

[Brewer et al., 2007]; [Ganskopp, 1998].

Different plant species are affected to varying degrees from livestock grazing during a drought.

The effect of drought on vegetation varies depending on the extent and severity of the drought

[Ganskopp & Bedell, 1981]. For instance, Idaho fescue is more readily impacted by livestock

grazing during a drought than crested wheatgrass is. The impacts to vegetation following a

drought may not manifest until years following the drought. Responses will vary depending

on the utilization received, including timing, duration, and intensity, as well as other natural

variables, such as the extent of the drought and pre-drought vegetation condition.

Impacts from fence and associated infrastructure removal would be the same as discussed in

Alternative A.

Impacts from allotment retirement and forage reserve would be the same as discussed in

Alternative A.

Livestock infrastructure development impacts in the Bowl Crater Allotment and the North Pasture

of the Laidlaw Park Allotment would be the same as discussed in Alternative A.

Kimama Allotment would gain 40 acres of non-Monument lands. Poison Lake Allotment would

gain nearly 800 acres of Monument lands. 80% is Dry Non-Native Perennial Grassland, and

nearly 20% is Dry Non-Native Annual Grassland. Shifts to the allotment boundaries are likely to

incur the same impacts to vegetation through utilization by livestock.

Livestock grazing is an action that is associated with removal of vegetation, trampling, and some

soil disturbance, especially when it occurs in conjunction with concentrated-use areas. Avoiding

placement of concentration areas near sensitive cultural resources would help protect these

resources by dispersing use on vegetation and soils in the area, thus retaining vegetation cover

and soil intactness. This would help protect the sensitive soil and vegetative structures unique

to playas, as well. However, removing use concentration from one area would likely cause an

increase in concentration elsewhere, which would remove vegetation and increase trampling in

a new or existing location.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
180 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Livestock grazing can affect vegetation composition and structure by removing biomass, affecting

height and plant shape, and limiting growth. It can also be used to facilitate establishment of

certain plants, such as shrubs, or have a minor impact to vegetation by grazing after the plant

has completed its annual growth cycle, as discussed previously.

Alternative C will have reference area studies on effects of livestock grazing on different

vegetation communities/condition. Each ungrazed reference area would be paired with an adjacent

area which has been grazed. Monitoring vegetation encompasses a broad spectrum of timing,

and frequency should be determined by following BLM technical reference recommendations.

Monitoring is necessary to gauge the efficacy of a treatment or management action, and can be

used to inform adjustments to use through management.

LHAs and other monitoring data can help to determine the direction a vegetation community is

trending, and why, on a management unit level. Permit modifications can allow management

objectives to be developed at that level, address the issues brought forth during LHAs, and define

how management objectives and DFCs from the MMP level will be addressed.

Conversion in kind of livestock involves changing from one species of livestock to another and

would be an allowed action in this alternative. An environmental assessment would be completed

to identify impacts, to determine if DFCs will be met through the conversion, and to ensure

management objectives of the 2007 MMP are met. Different kinds of livestock utilize forage

in different manners, and can impact plant communities to different degrees. In certain cases, a

different kind of livestock may be a desirable change in order to achieve a DFC for vegetation

condition, which is not achievable through the currently authorized kind of livestock.

Water development practices have changed over the last few decades in ways that can enhance

riparian vegetation. This includes trough placement, fencing, returning or cycling overflow

water through the riparian area, and improved spring box designs. Improvements to current

water systems, and moving troughs out of riparian areas would improve the vegetation condition

at those sites by reducing trampling and improving the efficiency of natural water use as a

stock water source.

Impacts from grazing management measures designed to meet sage-grouse habitat objectives

would be the same as in Alternative B, with the exception that grazing would be allowed on

16,000 more acres of the Monument (See Table 4.2, “BLM Acres of Vegetation Available to

Livestock, by Alternative”.

Vegetation: Alternative D

Livestock Management Actions

In Alternative D, all BLM lands in the Monument would be made unavailable for livestock

grazing use. This would include all types of use and all seasons of use — winter, spring, summer,

and fall. State and private lands (approximately 2% of the total Monument area, or 14,800 acres)

would still be accessed and available for grazing use.

Livestock grazing infrastructure on BLM-managed lands would be identified and prioritized for

removal, rehabilitation, or restoration. Further infrastructure may be needed to keep livestock

from using the Monument lands that are unavailable for grazing.

Roads and ways would continue to be maintained and accessed for recreational use, fire

suppression, and restoration or rehabilitation activities in the Monument.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 181

Draft MMP Amendment

Immediate changes around bed grounds and water haul sites would include an increase in

vegetation, both perennial and annuals. Noxious weeds and invasive plant species that may

have been present in smaller amounts on the site will have an opportunity to expand in these

disturbed sites, as livestock grazing and trampling will not be present to provide an immediate,

repetitive reduction in plant densities on these concentrated use areas. If perennials are present,

the response in health and vigor will relate to the previous health of the plants and the degree of

annual competition that develops. Removal of infrastructure would result in short-term impacts to

vegetation by removal and destruction of vegetation, and compaction of soils, which can affect

the ability of plant root systems to retain vigor and for native seedlings to establish successfully.

An expanded opportunity for increases in noxious weeds and invasive plant species would be

created at these disturbances. Restoration through weed control and seeding may be necessary

to reestablish a desirable plant composition.

Vegetation responses from livestock removal would also vary depending on the state of the

community prior to the end of grazing. For instance, sites that have crossed a threshold to a new

state, one dominated by low-stature perennial grasses and invasive annual plants, would currently

have low biotic integrity and be less productive. Other sites may have transitioned to a new state

dominated by seeded species, and may have limited diversity compared to an intact, native site.

For both of these site types, higher levels of input than simply removing livestock grazing are

required in order to transition these states to a more resilient, or native plant community. It is

unlikely that these sites contain the integrity and resiliency to regain a native plant community

type unless major inputs are involved. These landscape level inputs are dependent on program

development and funding availability. A source for the desirable vegetation must be present in

order to accomplish an increase in the desired component [Laycock, 1967]; [Laycock, 1979].

Davies et al. (2014) states that “in the absence of fire, well-managed livestock grazing and

long-term grazing exclusion often produce similar plant community composition, productivity,

and densities”.

Livestock grazing would not be authorized in Laidlaw Park under Alternative D. This area has a

wide range of plant communities, as related to the variable soil types and temperature, elevation,

and precipitation gradients. For instance, the south end of Laidlaw Park is sandy-loam soils at

roughly 4,500 feet elevation, and receives 10-12 inches of precipitation yearly. This fosters a

native plant community that includes bluebunch wheatgrass, needle-and-thread grass, Indian

ricegrass, Wyoming or basin big sagebrush, and Picabo milkvetch. In comparison, the north end

of Laidlaw Park is comprised of loamy soils, roughly 5,500 feet elevation, and averages 12-16

inches of precipitation in a year. Plant communities are dominated by mountain big sagebrush

or three-tip sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and basalt milkvetch. Pockets of

shrubby aspen and chokecherry are also found in this area. Throughout the entire Park, are

scattered rangeland seedings varying from predominantly crested wheatgrass to native cultivars

used after wildfires for emergency stabilization. Cheatgrass is a major vegetation component

in some parts of the Park, decreasing in response to increasing precipitation and elevation,

decreasing temperatures, and different soil types. The response to no grazing across Laidlaw Park

would vary as dramatically as the vegetation communities.

Biological soil crusts are an important component of nutrient cycling in semi-arid ecosystems,

and are sensitive to disturbances, such as moderate to heavy livestock grazing pressures or

concentrated use areas. However, recovery of biological soil crusts can take 20-125 years to

complete, once an area has been protected from disturbance [Belnap, 2003]. Natural recovery of

vascular and nonvascular species following the removal of livestock grazing could potentially

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
182 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

take longer than the life of the plan, depending on the state of the community prior to the end

of grazing.

Noxious weed control and invasive plant species distribution is an issue that is not related

solely to livestock grazing. The dispersal and spread of noxious weeds is also dependent on the

visitor use for resources offered in the Monument (e.g. hunting, camping, and OHV use), as

well as natural transportation means, such as wind, birds, and other wildlife. Disturbances such

as wildfires can create a niche that allows for establishment or expansion of noxious weeds

and invasive plant species. However, livestock can contribute to the dispersal of weed seeds

and materials through feed consumption, seeds can be transported by livestock coats, and also

by vehicles and equipment related to livestock grazing. Certified weed-free hay is required on

all BLM lands [USDI BLM, 2011].

Weed management is a long-term commitment of resources and time across land ownerships.

Prevention is the most cost-effective treatment, but is not always the most plausible solution since

noxious weeds and invasive plant species are present in varying degrees across much of the

Monument. Complete removal of livestock use from the Monument would only be an effective

solution to the weed expansion and introduction if all other uses were removed simultaneously

and control/containment measures were put into place by all ownerships. In areas where invasive

species, such as cheatgrass, are already present as a low component of the vegetation, immediate

cessation of large domestic ungulate grazing may in fact allow a flush in cheatgrass density to

occur [Courtois, Perryman, & Hussein, 2004].

Restoration objectives and treatments would be carried forward from the current MMP. Plant

community changes may reflect episodic climatic events – no change may be evidenced for a long

period of time, and then a sudden measurable response will manifest [Valone, Meyer, Brown,

& Chew, 2002]. It is difficult to estimate the time required to achieve a measurable vegetation

change in response to removal of livestock grazing, especially without inputs from other sources.

Vegetation changes may or may not be in a positive direction, in relationship to the DFCs outlined

in the 2007 MMP. Currently, about 70% of the Monument is estimated to be in a vegetation

condition that would require active restoration efforts to return to a climax plant community

state. The majorities of these areas are functioning as stable states, in relation to hydrologic

and biotic cycling, and are providing quality habitat for a variety of wildlife species’ different

lifecycle needs. About 25% of the Monument exhibits slight departure from the climax plant

community. This departure is related to naturally occurring disturbances, such as wildfire, and is

responding as expected in a dynamic system. Nearly 5% of the Monument is consistent with a

climax plant community in relation to ESDs.

Cheatgrass control through grazing would not occur and assuming that funding trends would not

dramatically shift for the fire management or fuels program - response times and fuels reduction

treatments (not including any type of grazing) would be similar to what has occurred in the

past. Meanwhile, fine fuel loading and continuity would increase without the reductions from a

well-managed grazing program and would result in increased rates of spread, flame lengths, and

final fire size [Strand et al., 2014].

Vegetation: Alternative E

Water Resources Management Actions

Vegetation components are a critical factor in the health, resilience, and condition of a riparian

area. Improper timing and duration of livestock grazing can contribute to the removal of

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 183

Draft MMP Amendment

desirable vegetation in a riparian area, which can contribute to a decline in the functioning of the

system. However, management of grazing to achieve Standards, and continued feedback through

monitoring would reduce landscape level impacts and allow for achievement of DFCs.

Alternative E would allow the suspension or modification of livestock grazing if it is determined

to be a factor in not meeting riparian or watershed Standards. Vegetation is a critical component

in the functionality of a riparian system. It acts to disperse overland flows, trap sediment, stabilize

and protect banks, and provide diverse species for wildlife cover and forage needs [USDI, 2006].

Multiple studies have been completed regarding riparian area vegetation responses to livestock

grazing. Treatment factors vary as much as responses, but timing, duration, and intensity are the

three common factors of change implemented to derive a response in plant species diversity and

system stabilization [USDI BLM, 2006]. Adjusting livestock grazing at the implementation level

to meet PFC would meet the DFCs of riparian areas as outlined in the Monument plan.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Allocated AUMs are higher in Alternative E than in Alternative B, and are roughly half of what is

allocated Alternatives A and C. Also, approximately 500 acres more of Dry Non-Native Perennial

vegetation (non-native perennial seedings) is available in Alternative E than in Alternative B.

Overall, though, this is a minor acreage amount. Flexibility in grazing duration, intensity, and

timing are encouraged as part of Alternative E, in order to meet DFCs. Like Alternative B,

grazing would be prioritized on non-native perennial seedings. Established, non-native perennial

seedings function to reduce soil movement from both water and wind erosion, and limit invasive

species expansion and establishment. They are resilient to disturbances and are more able to

withstand moderate to heavy grazing than mid-size native perennial bunchgrasses. This focused

grazing could create an opportunity for increases in other plants, such as sagebrush, but only if

a seed source was present.

Heavy grazing is not anticipated other than within small areas around range improvements if

this happens it could lead to mortality of juvenile shrubs through trampling [Laycock, 1967];

[Laycock, 1979]. Grazing intensity and duration would be determined through site-specific

NEPA analysis compliance and maintained through achievement of Standards. Invasive annual

plants would vary in response to increased grazing pressures, dependent on timing, duration, and

intensity.

For instance, cheatgrass seed density can be reduced by clipping to a short height (2.5 cm) after

the flowering stage but before the seed ripens. Cheatgrass left taller than that has almost no

effect on seed density, when compared to non-grazed plants. Grazing plants to this height may

be most effective if grazed a second time when/if the inflorescence emerges following regrowth

[Hempy-Mayer & Pyke, 2008].

Alternative E, as in C, would allow for up to 1,000 acres of reference sites, or study areas, to be

established throughout the Monument. Study areas, such as paired plots, are a commonly used

tool to measure effectiveness of, or differences between vegetation treatments. Livestock grazing

would be the treatment difference between the exclosure area and the area continuing to be grazed.

Setting up paired plots would allow the opportunity to study grazing effects across a broad range

of plant communities, with varying composition, climatic gradients, and ranging issues.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
184 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Fencing would be necessary to create a study plot, and can lead to short-term moderate effects

to vegetation in a localized area through crushing and removing plants to allow for installation.

Since the intention of the study is to see effects of grazing treatments, areas could be subjected

to heavier or directed grazing for varying durations in order to measure an effect. This could

lead to short-term moderate impacts, depending on the degree of vegetation removal, timing

and duration, and the current condition of the local plant community. These effects would be

controlled to a limited area, as related to the scope of the study. As part of a paired plot, there

would also be a portion of the study area subjected to less intensive or no grazing.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Impacts under Alternative E are the same as Alternative A.

Livestock Management Actions

The areas made unavailable to livestock in Alternative E are the same as the areas identified in

Alternative A and C, with the addition of Larkspur Park (2,200 acres total). These include areas

that are in good vegetative condition, and are not identified as needing treatment in the 2007

MMP. Removing areas from livestock grazing would maintain the current condition of those

plant communities as related to any composition shifts that may be related to livestock grazing;

however, natural processes would continue, such as wildfire, and the plant community would

respond as expected in a dynamic system [Davies et al., 2014].

Allocation at the full permitted AUM level would be similar to the current use levels recorded

in the last 15 years of use. This would result in a no net increase in disturbances related use

from livestock grazing. Vegetation in newly established sites would be expected to follow the

trend of past.

Grazing can alter the vegetation community. The potential to affect soil stability or increase

noxious weeds and invasive plant species must be considered when actively utilizing livestock

grazing to maintain, enhance, or restore vegetation condition. Grazing has the potential to

increase soil compaction, and the feasibility to implement the necessary level of grazing

intensity and duration on a landscape scale can be limiting factors in utilizing grazing as a

restoration/rehabilitation tool. Grazing could be used as one of many tools in a restoration

program.

Livestock can be managed to achieve habitat DFCs through manipulating the timing, duration,

and intensity of grazing. This requires the flexibility to change grazing practices in response

to vegetation condition and type. Incorporating this flexibility and specific objectives into

Allotment Management Plans after Land Health Assessments would allow grazing to be used as a

tool to enhance or restore vegetation condition. Vegetation changes can be directed through a

variety of management actions, including changing timing of use, stocking rate, scheduling rest

or deferment, livestock numbers, kind, and distribution. This would enhance vegetation by

considering and implementing those management actions to achieve DFCs. Seasonal uses may

include spring, summer, fall, or winter grazing. Spring grazing occurs when plants are utilizing

soil moisture to initiate growth. Dormancy ends around March, when early season plants, such as

false dandelion, cheatgrass and bluegrass, initiate growth. This gradates across the Monument

from south to north, and varies from year to year dependent of precipitation, temperature, and

weather patterns. Heavy spring grazing can reduce forbs and perennial grasses, when repeated

every year without deferment or rest. Defoliation of cool-season bunchgrasses can be damaging

if it occurs during the main growth period and substantial regrowth following the defoliation is

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 185

Draft MMP Amendment

prevented by inadequate moisture. However, grazing plants after flowering helps avoid the

reduced regrowth and root mass reduction that can manifest in plants defoliated during the

emergence of the flowering stalk [Ganskopp, 1988]. Limited early spring grazing may be more

beneficial than limited later spring grazing [Brewer et al., 2007]; [Ganskopp, 1998]. Heavy spring

grazing by sheep has been shown to increase sagebrush dominance, but can reduce bitterbrush,

bunchgrass, and forb production. Cheatgrass control through grazing would be targeted in the

spring; however, grazing that adversely affects annuals can also reduce perennial grasses, which

can result in increased annual grass by expanding the niche annuals need to thrive. Grazing in

cheatgrass could reduce flame lengths and burn severity , but not necessarily the rate of spread

[Diamond, Call, & Devoe, 2009], grazing effectiveness as a fire hazard reduction tool would be

dependent on a variety of factors, including timing, duration, and intensity [Nader, Henkin,

Smith, Ingram, & Narvaez, 2007.]

Winter grazing could occur in the planning area. However, residual vegetation is important in

the winter to capture snow and incorporate winter moisture into the soil profile. Winter use

has little effect on most vegetation because it occurs in a time before soil moisture has been

depleted and plants are dormant. Cool temperatures and improved natural water availability in the

spring, fall, and winter can create an ideal situation for improved livestock dispersal, reducing

livestock congregation. However, extreme weather conditions can cause livestock to congregate

on available water and feed areas, which can create impacts to vegetation through soil compaction

and vegetation reduction at localized areas.

Fall grazing can maintain the existing plant community, and improve bunchgrass production,

although improvement in forb production is variable. Heavy fall grazing by sheep may reduce

sagebrush [Laycock, 1967]; [Laycock, 1979]. A source for the desirable vegetation also must be

present in order to accomplish an increase in the desired component [Laycock, 1967]; [Laycock,

1979].

Summer in the planning area is associated with hotter and drier conditions, and completion of plant

growth cycles. Early season perennial grasses such as Sandberg bluegrass, and annual grasses,

such as cheatgrass or sixweeks fescue, would have completed their life cycle for the season, and

either have set seed and entered dormancy or have died. Mid-size perennial bunchgrasses, such as

bluebunch wheatgrass or crested wheatgrass, would be reaching the end of their annual growth

cycles, likely ranging from seed set to seed shatter stages. Plants are more tolerant to livestock

grazing at this stage than during active growth, which typically occurs in the late spring.

Spring and early summer are typically the periods of most active plant growth in the Monument.

Avoiding livestock utilization during spring or early summer in nesting or early brood-rearing

habitats would reduce impacts from livestock grazing to plant communities that support those

habitat types. Grazing restrictions would reduce utilization of plants, soil compaction, and

trampling of plants associated with use at livestock-congregation areas, such as mineral or water

sites.

Drought can affect vegetation by forcing dormancy, reducing production, and stressing plants

by taxing carbohydrate reserves. As a result, plant vigor diminishes. Adjusting grazing during

periods of drought can alleviate additional stress associated with biomass removal during

critical growth periods. For instance, to maintain mid-size native perennial bunchgrasses, such

as bluebunch wheatgrass or Thurber needlegrass, limit consecutive late spring/early summer

defoliation to two years or less. Longer deferment may be necessary in droughty conditions

[Brewer et al., 2007]; [Ganskopp, 1998].

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
186 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Different plant species are affected to varying degrees from livestock grazing during a drought.

The effect of drought on vegetation varies depending on the extent and severity of the drought

[Ganskopp & Bedell, 1981]. For instance, Idaho fescue is more readily impacted by livestock

grazing during a drought than crested wheatgrass is. The impacts to vegetation following a

drought may not manifest until years following the drought. Responses would vary depending on

the utilization received, including timing, duration, and intensity, as well as other natural variables,

such as the extent of the drought and pre-drought vegetation condition. Impacts from fence and

associated infrastructure removal would be the same as discussed in Alternative A. Impacts from

allotment retirement and reserve forage would be the same as discussed in Alternative A.

Livestock infrastructure development and disturbance from livestock related infrastructure would

not have a net gain in disturbance. Any new infrastructure must follow previously established

corridors/areas or will be offset by restoring/rehabilitating disturbance elsewhere. Fences and

pipeline must be within 20 feet of the center of a primitive road or 30 feet from the center of a

road. Troughs, wells and corrals must be within historically used sites identified prior to project.

Kimama Allotment would gain 40 acres of non-Monument lands. Poison Lake Allotment would

gain nearly 800 acres of Monument lands. 80% is Dry Non-Native Perennial Grassland, and

nearly 20% is Dry Non-Native Annual Grassland. Shifts to the allotment boundaries are likely to

incur the same impacts to vegetation through utilization by livestock.

Livestock grazing is an action that is associated with removal of vegetation, trampling, and some

soil disturbance, especially when it occurs in conjunction with concentrated-use areas. Avoiding

placement of concentration areas near sensitive cultural resources would help protect these

resources by dispersing use on vegetation and soils in the area, thus retaining vegetation cover

and soil intactness. This would help protect the sensitive soil and vegetative structures unique

to playas, as well. However, removing use concentration from one area would likely cause an

increase in concentration elsewhere, which would remove vegetation and increase trampling in

a new or existing location.

Alternative E and C will have reference area studies on effects of livestock grazing on different

vegetation communities/condition. Each ungrazed reference area would be paired with an adjacent

area which has been grazed. Monitoring vegetation encompasses a broad spectrum of timing,

and frequency should be determined by following BLM technical reference recommendations.

Monitoring is necessary to gauge the efficacy of a treatment or management action, and can be

used to inform adjustments to use through management.

LHAs and other monitoring data can help to determine the direction a vegetation community is

trending, and why, on a management unit level. Permit modifications can allow management

objectives to be developed at that level, address the issues brought forth during LHAs, and define

how management objectives and DFCs from the MMP level will be addressed.

Conversion in kind of livestock involves changing from one species of livestock to another and

would be an allowed action in this alternative. An environmental assessment would be completed

to identify impacts, to determine if DFCs will be met through the conversion, and to ensure

management objectives of the 2007 MMP are met. Different kinds of livestock utilize forage

in different manners, and can impact plant communities to different degrees. In certain cases, a

different kind of livestock may be a desirable change in order to achieve a DFC for vegetation

condition, which is not achievable through the currently authorized kind of livestock.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 187

Draft MMP Amendment

Water development practices have changed over the last few decades in ways that can enhance

riparian vegetation. This includes trough placement, fencing, returning or cycling overflow

water through the riparian area, and improved spring box designs. Improvements to current

water systems, and moving troughs out of riparian areas would improve the vegetation condition

at those sites by reducing trampling and improving the efficiency of natural water use as a

stock water source. Water development will follow the management objective of no net gain in

infrastructure/improvements.

Impacts from grazing management measures designed to meet sage-grouse habitat objectives

would be the same as in Alternative B, with the exception that grazing would be allowed on

16,000 more acres of the Monument (See Table 4.2, “BLM Acres of Vegetation Available to

Livestock, by Alternative”.)

4.2.4. Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species

Wildlife habitat occurs on all public lands throughout the planning area. Fish habitat does not

occur on BLM-administered lands available to livestock grazing in the Monument but could be

influenced by BLM management inside the Monument. Most activities on public lands have the

potential to adversely or beneficially impact wildlife and fish and their habitats. Impacts to wildlife

and fish species are generally described as the loss, modification, or degradation/improvement of

habitat or key habitat features; the disturbance/disruption of individuals during sensitive time

periods; or direct animal mortality. Adverse impacts to special status species and their habitats are

usually of more concern than impacts to general wildlife and fish because of the limited nature of

their numbers, habitat, or unique threats. The analysis boundary for wildlife (excluding bighorn

sheep) and fish is defined as the planning area, but also considers overlapping grazing allotments

and coinciding watersheds (IDEQ 6th field HUCs) because these areas could be indirectly

affected by BLM management inside the Monument. The analysis boundary for bighorn sheep

considers the IDFG bighorn sheep PMUs which occur within the spatial boundary of the Risk

of Contact Tool (22 miles).

4.2.4.1. Summary

Alternative A proposes the most acres of land available to livestock grazing and no change

to currently permitted AUM levels. Alternative A would likely meet objectives and DFCs

for the planning area because the distribution, abundance, and quality of wildlife habitats

would be maintained or improved over the long term. Managing for Standards would have a

landscape-level benefit to wildlife and fish resources. However, the lack of implementation-level

guidance concerning livestock grazing management could result in minor adverse impacts on

wildlife and fish as habitat degradation would likely persist in localized areas, such as sheep bed

grounds and livestock supplement sites. Management actions are incorporated for sage-grouse

as identified in the approved ID/SW MT Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment, which would

minimize impacts to sage grouse and their habitats. The provisions of this plan amendment are

common to all alternatives. These management action are expected to benefit other sensitive

wildlife resources as well, particularly sagebrush associates.

Alternative B would result in a significant reduction of both acres and AUMs available to

livestock grazing and would likely result in minor to moderate beneficial impacts to wildlife

resources. Areas closed to grazing would make the most progress toward achieving the goals

and DFCs for wildlife in the shortest time. Wildlife habitat would likely improve over current

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
188 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

conditions because the amount of structural range improvements and use of resources by

livestock would decrease.

Alternative C would result in a minor reduction of acres and AUMs available to livestock grazing.

Alternative C is similar in many respects to Alternative A, but Alternative C includes additional

management actions that increase habitat protection in areas important to wildlife, especially

special status species. Overall, Alternative C would likely result in minor to moderate beneficial

impacts to wildlife and fish resources.

Alternative D would close the entire planning area to livestock grazing. This alternative would

provide the greatest protection to resources from disturbances related to livestock grazing

management, and therefore would likely result in minor to moderate beneficial impacts to

wildlife and fish and their habitats. Upland wildlife would mostly benefit from the increased

availability of forage and cover; aquatic species may benefit from the long-term improvement

of riparian-wetland areas. Although interior fences coincident to livestock grazing (e.g., fences

not on the planning area boundary) would be removed, the potential addition of fence to keep

livestock out of the planning area could result in adverse impacts on wildlife in those areas.

Alternative E would result in a reduction of AUMs available to livestock grazing and would likely

result in minor to moderate beneficial impacts to wildlife resources. Areas closed to grazing

would make the most progress toward achieving the goals and DFCs for wildlife in the shortest

time. Wildlife habitat would likely be maintained consistent with current conditions because the

amount of structural range improvements and AUMs would be representative of maximum

actual use levels.

4.2.4.2. Assumptions

● Areas closed or excluded to use or activity would not be impacted by that activity, whereas

areas open or available would likely be influenced by the use or activity.

● Three general categories of human disturbance would be the most influential on wildlife and

fish species and their habitats: 1) disturbance or disruption from casual use; 2) disturbance or

disruption from permitted activity; and 3) changes in habitat condition.

● Special management based on season or distance (e.g., exclusion areas, avoidance areas with

restrictions or stipulations) may eliminate, reduce, or promote some effects.

● Actions that reduce livestock grazing could cause livestock use patterns to shift, thereby

increasing or decreasing use both inside and outside of the Monument.

● Altering livestock grazing patterns could impact wildlife or fish habitat and its use.

● Ground-disturbing activities and structural range improvements could positively or negatively

modify wildlife habitat or cause loss or gain of individuals, depending on the size of the area

disturbed, the nature of the disturbance, the species affected, and the location of the disturbance.

● Water developments can be a tool to improve grazing practices and habitat, but can expand

adverse impacts of grazing to new areas.

● Management activities that result in impacts on vegetation would have a corresponding adverse

or beneficial impact on wildlife or fish habitat.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 189

Draft MMP Amendment

● In general, as the number of AUMs increase, the amount of residual herbaceous cover would

decrease because of increased consumption and trampling by livestock.

● The change in residual cover from grazing is not uniform across the landscape.

● Current year and/or residual herbaceous vegetation influences nesting, thermal, and security

cover for wildlife.

● In general, areas with more herbaceous cover provide higher levels of nesting, thermal, or

security cover for sage-grouse.

● Because sage-grouse are sensitive to habitat disturbance and require large, intact habitat patches

to complete their annual life history, alternatives proposing to protect the most sage-grouse

habitat from disturbance are considered of greatest beneficial impact to the species.

● Suitable habitat conditions for sage-grouse, as determined by employing methods outlined

in the Habitat Assessment Framework [Stiver et al., 2015], are adequate to provide for the

life-history requirements of the species.

● Seasonal ranges of sage-grouse are sufficiently mapped to provide an assessment of direct and

indirect impacts to currently occupied habitats.

● Sage-grouse are an umbrella or indicator species for other sagebrush-associated special status

wildlife including pygmy rabbits and passerine birds such as Brewer’s sparrow, sagebrush

sparrow, and loggerhead shrike [Hanser & Knick, 2011]. Therefore, actions taken to benefit

sage-grouse are assumed to result in benefits to other sagebrush-associated species.

● The health of aquatic species is directly related to the overall health and functional capabilities

of water resources.

● Riparian-wetland areas that have achieved PFC provide higher quality habitat for wildlife than

areas that have not achieved PFC.

● Activities that cause substantial disturbance to soils and vegetation can adversely impact water

quality and quantity, reducing habitat quality for fish that require clear water, moderated stream

flows, and clean substrates.

● Consideration of aquatic habitat conditions when conducting BLM assessments, such as PFC

and LHAs, will help to identify areas for habitat management efforts.

4.2.4.3. How Activities Affect Wildlife and Fish

Water Resources Management Actions

Riparian-wetland areas and playas support the greatest biological diversity of all habitats in the

planning area. Management actions that protect, restore, and improve these areas would result in

beneficial impacts to wildlife, including aquatic species. Management of riparian-wetland areas

to meet PFC and Standards would increase habitat diversity and water quality by increasing the

structural and functional vegetation and decreasing sedimentation. Improving aquatic habitats

would increase their suitability for many species, including big game, fur-bearing animals, small

game, migratory game birds, neotropical migrants, amphibians, and invertebrates. Actions that

provide for PFC would likely increase the production of terrestrial and aquatic insects, resulting

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
190 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

in improvements to amphibian populations, and providing additional foraging opportunities for

other insect-eating wildlife. Areas managed to exceed the minimum requirement of PFC would

result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife, including aquatic species.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Modified and degraded landscapes can affect the carrying capacity and species richness of

habitats by altering the amount of available cover, forage, and prey species for wildlife. In

general, changes to vegetation, whether in quantity or quality, would have corresponding

impacts on wildlife, including aquatic species. Under all alternatives, rangelands would be

managed to meet Standards and for specific plant species and vegetative attributes, which would

directly impact wildlife habitat. Plant communities lacking a balance of herbaceous and woody

components would adversely impact wildlife in the planning area because most species depend on

sagebrush/grass and mixed shrub communities, at least seasonally, to meet part of their forage,

cover, or migration needs.

Management practices designed to promote the recovery of sagebrush could increase wildlife

species diversity and richness, depending on different species’ habitat requirements. Species that

require late-seral habitat would benefit from the recovery and diversification of sagebrush steppe,

while species that require early to mid-seral communities would lose habitat. Early-seral habitat

is not currently limited on the Monument due to wildfire. Conversely, islands of intact sagebrush

and perennial grasslands surrounded by degraded lands support limited wildlife and species

richness. Focusing on the restoration of sagebrush steppe would increase structural diversity for

sagebrush-obligate wildlife over the long term. Improving riparian-wetland areas would have the

same impacts as described under the previous section.

Climate change could also affect vegetation composition by shifting the timing, duration,

and amount of precipitation; warmer and drier summer conditions could effectively facilitate

increased wildland fire severity and frequency. Historically, moderate fire return intervals and

low intensity fires allowed sagebrush to persist within recently burned areas and thus promoted

the mixed composition of sagebrush communities. However, wildfires are becoming larger

and more frequent and, with the invasion of noxious species, have increased the risk of the

native plant community shifting to a community dominated by annual grasses and other exotic

species. This shift in the vegetation community decreases habitat structure and function and

provides unsuitable forage and cover conditions for many sagebrush-associated animal species

[Ecoregional Assessment Program, 2013]; [Miller et al., 2011].

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Scheduling small-scale construction and routine maintenance activities to avoid or minimize

disturbance to priority species and their habitat during important seasonal periods would reduce

disturbance of priority species during crucial periods and could benefit other wildlife species using

these areas. Impacts to other wildlife species resulting from potentially disruptive activities would

be addressed during project-specific NEPA compliance through the implementation of timing

stipulations and spatial buffers, such as those described in the Seasonal Wildlife Restrictions and

Procedures for Processing Request for Exceptions on Public Lands in Idaho [USDI BLM, 2010],

the Draft Guidelines for Raptor Conservation in the Western United States [Whittington & Allen,

2008], and the ID/SW MT Greater Sage-Grouse Amendment.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 191

Draft MMP Amendment

Livestock grazing could result in direct competition with wildlife for forage, water, and space.

Wildlife disturbance or displacement could also result from the construction and maintenance

of range improvements. At unsustainable levels of grazing, impacts can lead to loss of

vegetative cover, reduced water infiltration rates, decreased plant litter, increased bare ground,

reduced nutrient cycling, decreased water quality, increased soil erosion, increased transport

and establishment of weeds, and reduced overall habitat quality for wildlife and fish. Habitat

destruction would be greatest in areas of livestock concentration, especially when resources are

most susceptible to damage (i.e., saturated soils). For example, livestock tend to concentrate in

riparian-wetland areas important to wildlife and fish, which can result in impacts to the quality

and quantity of vegetation available for security cover, forage, and stream shading.

Sustainable management of livestock grazing, including deferring grazing on pastures, resting

pastures, and monitoring forage utilization would likely avoid or minimize adverse impacts

to wildlife and fish resources. Management of BLM-administered lands to meet both habitat

objectives for sage-grouse and Standards would result in actions that would balance the impacts

of grazing while sustaining wildlife species and their habitat. For example, the development of

livestock grazing strategies, such as emphasizing utilization on non-native seedings, would

provide an opportunity to improve or maintain native range conditions that support a diversity of

wildlife species.

Research suggests that moderate or less livestock grazing (≤ 60% utilization) occurring from

mid-summer through winter is generally compatible with the maintenance of perennial grasses

and forbs in sagebrush communities [Crawford et al., 2004]. If carefully monitored, conservative

livestock use during the spring and early summer also may align with DFCs for wildlife, by

providing sufficient residual cover for sage-grouse as well as making forbs more accessible

to sage-grouse in grazed areas [Crawford et al., 2004]. However, at higher levels of grazing,

trampling and defoliation of palatable vegetation species could have short- and long-term impacts

on upland vegetation by reducing plant vigor and reproduction, thereby limiting resources

available to wildlife and the capacity of existing perennial communities to reestablish [Anderson

& Holte, 1981]. In general, as the number of AUMs increases, the amount of residual herbaceous

cover would be reduced because of increased consumption and trampling by livestock. If grazing

occurs during the late- or post-growing season (i.e., summer - winter), less vegetation would be

available for wintering wildlife and for security cover for nesting birds prior to new growth the

following spring. Livestock use occurring in the early spring would also result in a reduction of

the residual herbaceous understory from the previous year’s growth. Inadequate security cover

could lead to increased predation and lower nesting success for upland nesting birds such as

sage-grouse, sage thrasher, and Brewer’s sparrow [Connelly et al., 2004]; [Braun, 2006].

Livestock may disturb nests and burrows used by wildlife. Although a relatively small portion of

bird nests are actually trampled by livestock [Renfrew & Ribic, 2003], the effects may be additive

to other forms of nest failure [Renfrew, Ribic, & Nack, 2005]. Livestock are known to flush birds

from nests [Coates, 2007], which could increase detection of nests by avian predators. Livestock

may also trample burrows used by wildlife such as pygmy rabbits, ground squirrels, burrowing

owls, and tiger beetles. Grazed sites with sandier soils are more likely to have burrows collapsed

by livestock than pastures with loamy soils [Holmes, Green, Morgan, & Livezey, 2003].

While there would be adverse impacts to some wildlife species from livestock grazing, there

would also be beneficial impacts to other species. For example, grazing can improve nesting

habitat for long-billed curlew and horned larks by reducing the height of vegetation. Livestock

grazing can also enhance forage and habitat conditions for wildlife by increasing the palatability of

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
192 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

forage. A number of research studies have shown the nutritional quality of shrubs [Alpe, Kingery,

& Mosley, 1999] and grass [Pitt, 1986]; [Westenskow-Wall, Krueger, Bryant, & Thomas, 1994]

was improved for a period of time by livestock grazing on winter range. Periodic (once every three

to five years) moderate spring grazing by livestock was reported to promote the establishment of

desired shrubs for browse [Austin, 2000] by reducing grass competition to shrub seedlings and

increasing shrub canopy [Ganskopp, Svejcar, Taylor, Farstvedt, & Paintner, 1999]. In addition,

light to moderate grazing in dense, grassy meadows during late spring and early summer can

stimulate the regrowth of forbs, thereby inducing use by sage-grouse [Beck & Mitchell, 2000].

Livestock grazing practices also impact specific species in difference ways. Cattle diets overlap to

a high degree with those of elk, and domestic sheep diets have a high overlap with pronghorn and

mule deer diets, potentially creating year-round competition for forage between livestock and

big game species. When cattle are removed during winter months from elk crucial winter range,

it eliminates most of the potential competition between these two species; however, moderate

summer grazing by cattle may also improve forage conditions for elk during critical periods

(i.e., winter and early spring) [USDI, 2006]. Similarly, winter use by domestic sheep can cause

competition with mule deer and pronghorn on their respective winter ranges, but summer and

fall cattle use of grasses balances wildlife use on pronghorn and mule deer winter range by

maintaining a more diverse and healthy mixture of grasses and shrubs in these habitats.

Domestic sheep pose risk of disease transmission to bighorn sheep; contact between species can

result in mortality to bighorn sheep individuals and reduce long-term herd health. “Disease,

primarily bacterial pneumonia, has played a uniquely important role in the dynamics of bighorn

sheep populations and has been responsible for numerous bighorn sheep population declines

throughout North America [Cassirer & Sinclair, 2007]”. To inform the potential for Risk of

Contact, the Risk of Contact Tool was utilized for the Lost River PMU/CHHR. Based on this

analysis two allotments (Craters and Quaking Aspen) were identified to occur within 22 miles of

the Lost River PMU/CHHR. The Annual Risk of Contact projections for the Craters allotment

was zero for both summer use (May to October) and winter use (November to April) by domestic

sheep. The Annual Risk of Contact for Quaking Aspen Allotment was virtually zero for both

summer and winter use. Risk of contact assumes domestic sheep presence. However, these

allotments are currently grazed by cattle. As such, the risk of contact is currently zero. The

Risk of Contact was analyzed because conversions from cattle to sheep are permitted. The Risk

of Contact is common to all alternatives, except for Alternative D. The Risk of Contact for

Alternative D is zero because it does not authorize livestock grazing within the Monument.

Table 4.3. Annual Risk of Contact (ROC) projections for Monument allotments within 22

Miles of the Lost River PMU/CHHR. These projections assume the presence of domestic

sheep.

Allotment Summer ROC Winter ROC

Craters 0.0% 0.0%

Quaking Aspen 0.1% 0.4%

Although the Risk of Contact Tool was not relied upon to inform the Risk of Contact relative to the

Pioneer PMU, the Risk of Contact is expected to be low. This is concluded because the Pioneer

PMU does not contain a persistent presence of bighorn sheep. The lack of a persistent bighorn

sheep population would reduce the likelihood that bighorn sheep would occur in proximity to the

Monument. Moreover, the majority of the Monument is not characterized as preferred bighorn

sheep habitat. Bighorn sheep are known to inhabit steep, rocky, and mountainous terrain. The

Monument is predominately open and characterized by reduced topographic variation. Suitable

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 193

Draft MMP Amendment

habitat in vicinity of the Monument is almost exclusively restricted to the Pioneer Mountains.

Only a very small portion of the Monument overlaps the foothills of the Pioneer Mountains. Of

note, the majority of this portion of the Monument is administered by the NPS, which does

not permit grazing.

Range improvements, such as fencing and water developments, are designed to assist in the

management of livestock grazing distribution and use patterns, but could impact wildlife in

various ways. Fences can benefit wildlife habitat by controlling or eliminating livestock grazing

in areas important to wildlife, resulting in increased vegetative cover and forage availability.

However, existing fences, particularly those that do not conform to BLM standards for fence

construction, create travel barriers, alter distribution patterns, increase stress and energy loss, and

cause injury or death to big game from entanglement. Fences become a larger concern during

periods of deep snow and late in the winter season when animal body condition is poor. Fences

also create hazards for low-flying birds and provide perches for avian predators. Mortality could

be mitigated for some species by marking the top wire of the fence [Stevens et al., 2012] and

utilizing perch deterrents. New fences constructed to BLM standards would present similar

hazards to wildlife, but to a lesser degree. The indirect beneficial impact of fences is the control

of appropriate levels and durations of livestock grazing, which improves health, vigor, cover, and

production of vegetation important to wildlife and fish.

Water developments can benefit wildlife such as bats, migratory birds, and big game by providing

additional watering areas in arid habitats [Taylor & Tuttle, 2007]. Development of offsite water

also allows streams and other water sources to be fenced out, thereby maintaining higher-quality

riparian areas for wildlife. Water developments provide the opportunity to defer or rest certain

habitats from livestock grazing to improve vegetative values and can alter grazing distribution to

increase cover in areas that previously received high utilization levels, which would beneficially

impact wildlife and fish and their habitats.

However, creating additional water sources expands livestock use to new areas. Areas that

receive less livestock use are often favored by wildlife due to ample forage and cover, reduced

competition for resources, and limited human disturbance associated with grazing management

activities [Hosten, Whitridge, & Broyles, 2007]. Increased grazing use in the immediate vicinity

of new water developments can degrade the value of these habitats by removing vegetation,

altering plant community structure and composition [NMVLWG, 2011], trampling ground-nesting

birds or small mammals, and displacing wildlife. The development of springs and other water

sources to support livestock can also reroute the natural flow of water [NMVLWG, 2011],

resulting in a decrease in the extent of riparian-wetland areas. Water developments pose a

drowning hazard to wildlife [NMVLWG, 2011] and may produce mosquitoes that carry the West

Nile virus. West Nile virus could be lethal to crows, eagles, gulls, hawks, jays, owls, ravens,

sage-grouse, and a variety of songbirds in the planning area [Marra et al., 2004].

Predicted climate change effects on local precipitation and temperature may also increase the

occurrence of insect outbreaks and diseases such as West Nile virus [Ecoregional Assessment

Program, 2013]. The risk of West Nile virus is expected to increase as temperatures increase and

is likely related to the amount of surface water associated with irrigated agriculture, as well as

livestock tanks and ponds that contain shallow water and emergent vegetation [Ecoregional

Assessment Program, 2013].

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
194 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

4.2.4.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Wildlife and Fish, including Special Status Species: Alternative A

Water Resources Management Actions

Alternative A manages riparian-wetland areas to maintain or achieve PFC, which would

beneficially impact wildlife resources over the long term. Healthy riparian areas improve aquatic

habitat, which provides foraging opportunities for wildlife that prey on aquatic vertebrates and

invertebrates.

The BLM utilizes sustainable management practices and various site-specific actions to move

areas toward PFC. Management actions may include water developments in upland habitats

to draw grazing animals away from riparian-wetland areas, exclusionary fences to eliminate

use by livestock, and frequent herding of livestock away from riparian-wetland areas. These

actions are anticipated to ultimately result in a riparian-wetland system with increased vegetation

and structural diversity, leading to an increase in abundance and diversity of wildlife and

fish. Although this management would likely improve habitat, because the PFC assessment

methodology does not directly incorporate the habitat requirements of wildlife and fish, additional

management might be necessary to ensure the habitats provide conditions suitable to meet the

life-history requirements of various species. Specifically, management practices that achieve

Standards 2, 4, and 8 would help to fulfill the habitat requirements of numerous wildlife and

fish species.

If livestock grazing use reached total allowable permitted levels, maintaining and/or improving

streams and springs to PFC would likely require additional site-specific management to achieve

DFCs as compared to the current situation. For example, riparian fencing could be implemented

to protect or restore the natural function of riparian areas. Additional fence would be a minor

source of mortality for some wildlife, primarily birds, and could restrict access by some species of

wildlife to riparian-wetland habitats.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Alternative A manages sagebrush steppe communities to prevent loss of shrub cover and

promotes a diverse, desirable grass and forb understory. It also seeks to restore annual grasslands

and highly degraded sagebrush steppe communities to achieve a mosaic of shrubs, forbs, and

grasses capable of sustaining native wildlife. Management of BLM-administered lands to meet

Standards would result in actions that would provide an appropriate mix of grass, forb, and shrub

species composition and structure that would provide forage, security, and thermal cover needed

for wildlife resources. This would result in minor to moderate, long-term, beneficial effects for

numerous BLM sensitive species, including many species of migratory birds.

If livestock grazing use reached total allowable permitted levels, maintaining and/or improving

sagebrush steppe communities to Standards would likely require additional structural

improvements (e.g., pipelines and water troughs) to achieve DFCs as compared to the current

situation. Increased grazing use in the immediate vicinity of new developments could degrade the

value of these habitats for wildlife.

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 195

Draft MMP Amendment

Under all alternatives, seasonal restrictions for small-scale construction and routine maintenance

activities would be applied to avoid or minimize disturbance to priority species and their habitat.

Seasonally restricting disturbance activities in these areas would reduce harassment of priority

species during crucial periods and could benefit other wildlife species . Impacts to other wildlife

species resulting from potentially disruptive activities would be addressed during project-specific

NEPA through the implementation of timing stipulations and spatial buffers. Important wildlife

periods include winter for most wildlife, spring for nesting birds and birthing for big game, and

early summer for some songbirds.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Alternative A allows livestock grazing on 273,900 acres of BLM-administered lands in the

planning area. It does not allow livestock grazing on 1,200 acres. Lands open to grazing could

reduce habitat quality for some species of wildlife, depending on grazing management, the

grazing season of use, plant utilization levels, and the kinds and amounts of infrastructure built or

maintained to facilitate grazing. However, all AMPs, detailing the management of livestock on

portions of the Monument, would be subject to NEPA review and analysis; therefore, impacts of

grazing can be expected to be minimal due to the application of sustainable grazing management.

There would be no direct competition for forage, water, or space between livestock and wildlife

on closed lands, which would beneficially impact wildlife.

Wildlife habitat available or unavailable (closed) to livestock grazing for each of the alternatives

is described in Table 4.4, “Acres of Wildlife Habitat Available to Livestock Grazing on

BLM-Administered Lands in the Monument.”. Fish habitat does not occur on BLM-administered

lands available to livestock grazing in the Monument; therefore, no impacts to fish would occur

under this alternative. However, fish that occupy streams in allotments that span the Monument

boundary could be indirectly affected by management actions that restrict livestock grazing

within the planning area.

Table 4.4. Acres of Wildlife Habitat Available to Livestock Grazing on BLM-Administered

Lands in the Monument.

Wildlife Habitat Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Shrubland 76,500

(99%)1

62,500

(81%)

76,500

(99%)

0 75,500

(98%)

Grassland 195,600

(>99%)

189,900

(97%)

195,500

(>99%)

0 195,500

(>99%)

Deciduous

Woodland

100

(100%)

100

(100%)

100

(100%)

0 100

(100%)

Other2 1,700

(93%)

1,600

(87%)

1,700

(93%)

0 1,700

(93%)

Total 273,900

(>99%)

254,100

(92%)

273,600

(>99%)

0 272,800

(>99%)

Sage-grouse

Breeding

211,700

(>99%)

192,000

(90%)

211,400

(>99%)

0 210,600

(>99%)

Sage-grouse

Summer

248,100

(>99%)

228,300

(92%)

247,800

(>99%)

0 247,000

(>99%)

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
196 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Wildlife Habitat Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Sage-grouse

Winter

203,200

(>99%)

184,000

(90%)

202,900

(>99%)

0 202,100

(>99%)

Elk Winter 77,300

(>99%)

77,300

(>99%)

77,300

(>99%)

0 77,300

(>99%)

Mule Deer Winter 91,900

(>99%)

91,900

(>99%)

91,900

(>99%)

0 91,900

(>99%)

Pronghorn Winter 89,200

(100%)

89,100

(>99%)

89,200

(100%)

0 89,100

(>99%)

Total Big Game

Winter

107,000

(>99%)

106,800

(>99%)

107,000

(>99%)

0 106,800

(>99%)

Note

1 Percentages represent the percentage of wildlife habitat within the Monument that is available
 

to livestock grazing.
 

2 Other includes sparse vegetation, agriculture, and developed vegetation types.
 

Livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans and would

be modified as necessary to meet Standards, which includes maintaining healthy, productive,

and diverse populations of native plants and animals. National and state drought policies (e.g.,

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-094: Resource Management During Drought; [USDI

BLM, 2013]) are in place and would be followed to minimize impacts on rangelands under

drought conditions. Continuation of these drought policies would not specifically protect wildlife

habitat, although the policies could provide indirect benefits through more conservative use of

sagebrush steppe habitat.

Livestock forage utilization levels would be established on a case-by-case basis under Alternative

A, which typically manages forage use to not exceed moderate utilization of key forage species.

In areas where utilization levels are excessive (> 60%), such as near water troughs and sheep bed

grounds, adverse effects on wildlife resulting from competition for forage would be long-term.

Areas of high plant use could adversely impact the success of many species of ground-nesting

birds by reducing plant density and the standing height needed to effectively conceal nests from

predators [Connelly, Schroeder, Sands, & Braun, 2000], although some grassland bird species

would benefit from the increased availability of shorter-grass areas. High utilization levels in

riparian-wetland habitats would reduce available forage and cover for wildlife and aquatic

resources and could cause a decline in plant diversity, which could result in a decline in the

number of species the area can support.

In the areas available to livestock grazing, Alternative A has no restrictions regarding seasons of

use. Livestock grazing that predominantly occurs during spring, summer, and fall would limit

direct spatial impacts to wintering big game and sage-grouse. Sage-grouse and other upland

wildlife would primarily be affected by livestock grazing activities during the spring and early

summer. Livestock use could result in trampling of ground nests or dislodge some eggs or nests

in low shrubs; as stated above, this is rare. However, the presence of livestock would increase

the likelihood of sage-grouse abandoning their nests [Crawford et al., 2004]. Birds that lose or

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 197

Draft MMP Amendment

abandon nests early in the breeding season may renest. However, renesting is less likely later

in the breeding season (late June).

Livestock also many incidentally trample and collapse burrows used by wildlife such as pygmy

rabbits, burrowing owls, and invertebrates. In particular, Idaho dunes tiger beetle larvae could

be crushed by livestock during the spring (April-June) when instars are more likely to occupy

shallow burrows. However, livestock use simultaneously ensures that sand dunes remain active

by reducing encroaching vegetation, thereby providing habitat for the species to persist [Bauer,

1991]; [Idaho State Conservation Effort, 1996].

Sheep use of playas as watering areas can impact species like pronghorn that could use the water

during fawning (spring and early summer). Although the water associated with playas would dry

up naturally each year, it would be available for longer periods without the sheep use. Activities

related to sheep herding (the presence of humans and dogs) would temporarily displace wildlife

during the spring and fall.

Livestock grazing managed for light to moderate utilization and authorized outside of sensitive

periods such as nesting and fawning/calving would likely reduce or eliminate potential conflicts

and be the most beneficial for wildlife and their habitats [Beck & Mitchell, 2000], [Crawford et

al., 2004]. Special status wildlife, such as sage-grouse, would benefit where grazing management

considers habitat needs. Although little direct experimental evidence links grazing practices to

population levels of sage-grouse [Connelly & Braun, 1997], the impacts of livestock grazing on

sage-grouse habitat have been studied. Several authors have noted that unsustainable grazing by

livestock could reduce the suitability of breeding and brood-rearing habitat, adversely affecting

sage-grouse populations [Dobkin, 1995]; [Connelly & Braun, 1997]; [Beck & Mitchell, 2000].

For example, the reduction of grass heights due to livestock grazing in sage-grouse nesting

and brood-rearing areas has been shown to negatively affect nesting success when herbaceous

height is reduced below 7 inches [Gregg, Crawford, Drut, & DeLong, 1994], and a reduced

availability of forbs resulting from heavy sheep use during the spring and early summer can affect

the reproductive success of sage-grouse [Barnett & Crawford, 1994]. However, Aldridge et al.

(2008) did not find any relationship between sage-grouse persistence and livestock densities,

likely because livestock numbers do not necessarily correlate with range condition. It was found

that the intensity, duration, and distribution of livestock grazing are more influential on rangeland

condition than the livestock density values used in their modeling efforts [Aldridge et al., 2008].

Range improvements can also change livestock grazing patterns and alter the way wildlife use

their habitats. Alternative A allows range improvements on a case-by-case basis, and it is

expected that new projects to improve livestock distribution (e.g., fences, pipelines, ponds, and

water troughs) would continue to a degree throughout the majority of the planning area and would

be subject to site specific NEPA review. In order for range improvements to be approved (and for

the impacts described below to occur), this NEPA review would need to determine that the project

presented no significant impacts (EA) or that the impacts were outweighed by the benefits (EIS).

Existing livestock developments could be removed if they are no longer serving a useful purpose

or if resource objectives warrant their removal. New developments would not be permitted in the

North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment and Bowl Crater Allotment unless they result in a net

benefit to those resources identified as needing improvement or protection. Depending on the

project and location, wildlife habitat could be reduced or divided at the local scale.

New fences could add to the 68 miles of existing fence on BLM-administered lands in the

Monument, increasing the potential for collisions by special status birds and possibly leading

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
198 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

to altered movement patterns of big game traveling to and from seasonal or foraging habitats.

However, fences control livestock movements allowing a larger number of pastures to remain

ungrazed during nesting, which partially mitigates impacts to nesting birds at the planning area

scale.

New water developments associated with livestock grazing might also affect wildlife. Water

developments provide the opportunity to defer or rest certain habitats from livestock grazing

to improve vegetative values and can alter grazing distribution to increase cover in areas that

previously received high utilization levels. Development of offsite water also allows springs and

other water sources to be fenced out, thereby maintaining higher-quality riparian-wetland areas

for wildlife. However, new water developments constructed in sage-grouse nesting habitat would

likely reduce hiding cover by facilitating increased harvest of standing grasses that shield nesting

sage-grouse and young chicks. If proper design features are not incorporated, the development

of water sources to support livestock also can have the secondary effect of changing the habitat

present at the water source before diversion. This impact could result in the loss or reduction

of riparian or wet meadow habitat important to wildlife as sources of forbs or insects. Water

developments for livestock could be used as mosquito breeding habitat if shallow water and

emergent vegetation are present, and thus have the potential to facilitate the spread of West

Nile virus.

The average number of AUMs used by livestock has been significantly below authorized use over

the last 15 years (average 31% of permitted use levels). If livestock grazing use reached total

allowable permitted levels, failure to implement appropriate livestock grazing management could

degrade habitat for numerous sensitive species. Maintaining and/or improving wildlife habitats to

meet Standards would require additional site-specific management to achieve DFCs as compared

to the current situation. Additional structural improvements such as fences, pipelines, and troughs

would likely be implemented to distribute livestock use. When livestock developments encourage

use in areas previously not used or rarely used by livestock, effects on native wildlife, including

but not limited to sage-grouse, can be expected. Impacts would take the form of increased

disturbance, loss of forage, and loss of hiding cover. However, the utilization of all permitted

AUMs could also increase the amount of shorter-grass areas used by ground-foraging bird species

and locally improve nesting habitat for species such as long-billed curlew.

Wildlife and Fish, including Special Status Species: Alternative B

Water Resources Management Actions

Alternative B manages riparian-wetland areas to maintain or achieve PFC but strives to attain

reference state vegetation in riparian-wetland areas relative to the NRCS ESD. Unlike Alternative

A, which relies on managing for Standards and site-specific actions to maintain and/or achieve

PFC, Alternative B focuses on using the natural restorative capacity of sites and reduced levels

of livestock grazing to improve riparian-wetland areas. Riparian fencing could be implemented

to achieve DFCs if found to result in a net benefit to wildlife.

PFC is a minimal requirement for meeting the habitat requirements of wildlife; however, this

minimum is not the same as late-successional riparian-wetland communities. The establishment

of willows or other woody plants would provide long-term structure for nesting, foraging, and

cover for wildlife using riparian areas. Increases in the quantity and quality of herbaceous

riparian-wetland vegetation and insects would also have beneficial impacts on special status

wildlife species, and sage-grouse in particular.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 199

Draft MMP Amendment

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Similar to all alternatives, Alternative B manages to maintain or achieve Standards. In addition,

Alternative B prioritizes adjusting livestock grazing systems to focus livestock use on non-native

perennial grass seedings. Focusing grazing on non-native perennial grass seedings could provide

greater benefits to wildlife utilizing intact native sagebrush habitats. Focusing grazing on

non-native perennial grass seedings would increase the availability of forage and cover in intact

native sagebrush habitats. However, wildlife use of non-native seedings does occur, including use

by sage-grouse. Over the short term, this management action could result in adverse impacts to

wildlife species that use the seeded communities occurring across approximately 104,000 acres of

the planning area. For example, habitats north of the Wapi Lava Flow currently provide important

year-round habitat for sage-grouse. Increased livestock use in these areas would decrease the

residual cover available for nesting and brood-rearing activities and could alter the insect prey

base [Rambo & Faeth, 1999] used by birds, lizards, and some small mammals. Conversely, the

higher utilization in the seeded communities could increase the amount of shorter-grass areas

used by ground-foraging bird species and locally improve nesting habitat for species such as

long-billed curlew. Over the long term, however, the percentage cover of sagebrush in the seeded

areas would likely increase [Pellant & Lysne, 2005], benefitting numerous sagebrush-obligate

species that utilize these areas, including sage-grouse.

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Impacts on wildlife and fish resources from scheduling small-scale construction and routine

maintenance activities to avoid or minimize disturbance to priority species and their habitat

during important seasonal periods are expected to be the same as discussed for Alternative

A. Alternative B does provide for, during permit modification, the development of allotment

specific habitat objectives for priority wildlife species. Allocating specific habitat objectives for

priority species is expected to provide for beneficial impacts to priority species by promoting

management practices that minimize conflicts and promote species conservation. The benefits

from implementing habitat objectives during the permit renewal process would vary depending

on the presence of species, availability of habitat, habitat quality, and other factors. However, it is

expected that management objectives would seek to minimize conflicts and could provide for

minor to moderate beneficial impacts.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Alternative B allows livestock grazing across approximately 254,100 acres of the planning area.

Approximately 21,000 acres of the planning area would be unavailable to livestock grazing to

benefit Monument values, including habitat for sensitive wildlife species such as sage-grouse.

Shrubland habitats in the closed areas are used extensively for bird nesting and brood rearing, and

removing livestock from these areas would minimize potential livestock-related impacts such as

displacement and trampling and would result in greater amounts of residual upland cover both in

the short and long terms. Closing these areas to livestock grazing would also reduce potential

competition for forage, water, and space between livestock and big game. Depending on plant

species’ presence in the understory, native forbs and grasses could increase, and sites in poor

ecological condition could recover. However, removing livestock grazing could also hasten

habitat degradation if ungrazed fuel loads in communities comprised of dense sagebrush and an

understory of annual grasses result in wildfires that burn uniformly and kill sagebrush over a

large area [Crawford et al., 2004].

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
200 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Reducing the stocking rate throughout the remainder of the planning area by 20% of the previous

15-year average of actual use would similarly decrease competition for forage and could enhance

wintering habitat for big game and nesting habitat for many species of sagebrush-obligate wildlife

across the remaining 254,100 acres of the planning area available to livestock grazing. In addition,

wildlife and fish habitats outside the Monument could receive more or less livestock use as a

result of the AUM reductions in the planning area. For example, perennial streams that provide

habitat for sensitive fish species such as redband trout are present in BLM portions of grazing

allotments that span the Monument boundary. Additional livestock use in these pastures would

increase the potential for sedimentation, loss of streamside vegetation, and loss of water-holding

capacity in these watersheds, thereby reducing habitat for several fish species.

Alternative B manages shrublands and grasslands for biological diversity and to benefit wildlife,

consistent with meeting Standards. Allotments would be prioritized for retirement if grazing

privileges are relinquished or if an allotment becomes vacant; RCAs would not be considered.

Overall, Alternative B grazing management would result in greater long-term, beneficial impacts

to wildlife than Alternative A.

Important habitats, such as lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing areas (i.e., breeding habitat)

occupied by sage-grouse (see Appendix G, Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Seasonal Habitat

Methodology on Craters of the Moon BLM National Monument Lands), outside of closed areas,

would be seasonally protected through restrictions on 191,964 acres, which would minimize

potential adverse impacts on sage-grouse and other sagebrush steppe wildlife during important

life-cycle activities, notably breeding, nesting, and calving/fawning. Approximately 62,100 acres

in the planning area would be open to livestock grazing with no seasonal restrictions, which could

result in adverse effects to big game or several ground-nesting species in these areas. Effects to

wildlife would be more likely to occur where concentrated livestock use results in heavy utilization

of herbaceous species (i.e., perennial grasses and/or forbs) or disturbance to individual wildlife.

Management under Alternative B would restrict types of potential livestock grazing infrastructure.

In the areas closed to livestock grazing, no new livestock developments would be permitted. Also,

in areas closed to grazing all livestock developments (e.g., corrals, cattleguards, fences, tanks,

troughs, pipelines, reservoirs/ponds, spring developments, wells) would be identified, analyzed,

and prioritized for removal, consolidation, or modification to maintain and improve intact habitats.

In areas open to livestock grazing, Alternative B focuses on the use of livestock grazing

management strategies that do not require additional water sources or fences to maintain,

enhance, or achieve habitat objectives. No additional reservoirs, playas, wells, or springs would

be developed during the lifetime of the MMP. Water developments can locally increase the

amount of livestock presence and plant harvest; therefore, management that precludes new

developments would locally benefit many species of wildlife that utilize these areas for foraging

or nesting. Limiting range developments to maintain or improve intact habitat would beneficially

impact wildlife resources. However, developments also provide the opportunity to defer or

rest certain habitats from livestock grazing to improve vegetative values and can alter grazing

distribution to increase cover in areas that previously received high utilization levels. The indirect

beneficial impact of livestock developments is the control of appropriate levels and durations of

livestock grazing, which improves health, vigor, cover, and production of vegetation important

to wildlife and fish.

Compared with Alternative A, management under Alternative B would further reduce, but would

not eliminate, impacts from livestock grazing activities on sensitive species, including sage

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 201

Draft MMP Amendment

grouse and their habitat. Alternative B would provide long-term benefits to sage-grouse by

increasing upland and riparian nesting and brood-rearing habitat amount and quality, and would

decrease both short- and long-term impacts to the species by reducing livestock use of seasonal

habitats. Also, it could remove certain developments in closed areas to maintain and improve

intact habitat habitats. Beneficial impacts to other sagebrush-obligate wildlife would also likely

be greater under Alternative B than Alternative A, because sage-grouse needs would be the focus

for managing sagebrush steppe habitats [Dobkin, 1995].

Wildlife and Fish, including Special Status Species: Alternative C

Water Resources Management Actions

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C would beneficially impact wildlife resources over the long

term by managing for PFC. However, maintaining and/or improving streams and springs to PFC

would likely require additional site-specific management to achieve DFCs as compared to the

current situation. If used, riparian fencing could be a minor source of mortality for some wildlife,

primarily birds, and could restrict access of some species of wildlife to riparian-wetland habitats.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Impacts on wildlife are expected to be similar to Alternative B. However, additional management

actions under Alternative C would consider directing grazing for sagebrush recovery and/or to

benefit the diversity of seedings. Increased livestock use in seedings would result in short-term,

adverse impacts to wildlife because the residual cover of existing perennial grasses would be

reduced in localized areas. Livestock also may trample sagebrush seedlings, thereby removing

a source of sage-grouse food and cover [Connelly et al., 2004]. However, over the long term,

increases in sagebrush cover and/or forb abundance would improve habitat for sage-grouse, big

game, and other species that use the seeded areas.

Alternative C would allow for implementation of up to 1,000 acres of ungrazed reference plots

throughout the planning area. Temporary human presence during construction and monitoring

would cause short-term disturbance to wildlife. However, depending on the size of the plots,

wildlife that forage or nest in the enclosures could benefit over the long term from the lack of

disturbance and competition for forage with livestock. The installation of additional fence in the

planning area, which would be necessary for many of the plots, would reduce habitat quality in

localized areas. Where possible, new fences would tie into existing fences on public land, which

may reduce the amount of new fence construction.

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Impacts on wildlife and fish resources are expected to be the same as discussed for Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Under Alternative C, approximately the same number of acres would be available to livestock

grazing as under Alternative A. Also, there would be little change to the total livestock forage

allocation unless an allotment is retired from grazing, or site specific evaluations indicate the

need. Authorized grazing could result in a reduction of forage and cover for wildlife, including

numerous species of birds and big game.

Special status species habitat protection measures, primarily those for sage-grouse, would be more

restrictive to livestock grazing than Alternative A, but would be less restrictive than Alternative B.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
202 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

These restrictions would minimize adverse impacts on sagebrush-obligate wildlife from livestock

management activities over an area that is smaller than what is proposed under Alternative B, but

greater than Alternative A, and would provide a long-term benefit to wildlife in the planning area

because management would be tailored to maintain or improve sagebrush habitats.

Alternative C manages shrublands and grasslands to meet Standards. Management would result

in actions that could balance the impacts of grazing while sustaining wildlife and their habitat.

LHAs would be prioritized consistent with the management actions identified in the ID/SW MT

Sub Regional EIS, and implementation guidelines for livestock grazing management would be set

based upon vegetation and wildlife habitat conditions. Specific objectives would be developed to

maintain, enhance, or restore vegetation conditions relative to site potential. Livestock grazing

would be used as a tool where needed to enhance sagebrush recovery and/or to benefit the

diversity of non-native, seeded communities. Diverse plant communities would beneficially

impact wildlife because each species has its own particular forage and cover requirements;

generally, the more diverse the habitat, the more species of wildlife it can support.

If implemented, seasonal restrictions within sage-grouse breeding habitats would result in the

same beneficial impacts to sage-grouse as described for Alternative B; however, implementation

of the seasonal restrictions would likely not occur in every pasture within the seasonal habitats.

The pastures that would be grazed during the breeding period would typically rotate annually.

Where livestock grazing is adjusted or seasonally restricted to provide appropriate forage and

cover in breeding areas, impacts of grazing on sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate wildlife

would be locally reduced. However, this benefit may be offset if heavy livestock use occurs in

the grazed pastures, especially since sage-grouse usually exhibit high site fidelity [Crawford et

al., 2004].

Overall, Alternative C grazing management would likely result in greater short- and long-term

beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative A, and fewer short- and long-term beneficial

impacts than Alternatives B and D. Management actions relative to livestock grazing would

be similar to those described for Alternative B; however, additional livestock management

activities would be permitted that could adversely impact wildlife species and would result in a

larger wildlife impact area. Livestock use in sensitive wildlife habitats could result in wildlife

displacement, competition for forage, and loss of habitat around developments. Conducting

LHAs, managing for sage-grouse and their habitats, would reduce impacts from grazing relative

to alternative A. Implementing management that meets the habitat needs of sage-grouse would

likewise improve conditions and strengthen management for most other sagebrush-obligate

species [Dobkin, 1995]; [Hanser & Knick, 2011].

Wildlife and Fish, including Special Status Species: Alternative D

Water Resources Management Actions

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D strives to attain reference state vegetation in

riparian-wetland areas. However, because no livestock grazing would occur on public lands, less

fencing would be needed to meet the DFCs for riparian-wetland areas, which would result in

greater beneficial impacts to wildlife.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative D manages sagebrush steppe communities to prevent loss

of shrub cover and promotes a diverse, desirable grass and forb understory. As outlined in the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 203

Draft MMP Amendment

2007 MMP, vegetation management would seek to restore annual grasslands and highly degraded

sagebrush steppe communities to achieve a mosaic of shrubs, forbs, and grasses capable of

sustaining native wildlife and fish.

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Impacts on wildlife and fish resources are expected to be the same as discussed for Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Under Alternative D, livestock use would be unavailable on approximately 275,100 acres for

the life of the plan; no grazing would be authorized on public lands in the planning area.

Infrastructure and disturbance attributed to livestock use and livestock management would be

prioritized for removal, rehabilitation, or restoration except where required to keep livestock out

of the planning area. Similar to Alternative B, wildlife and fish habitats outside the Monument

could receive more or less livestock use as a result of the AUM reductions in the planning area.

Closing the planning area to livestock grazing would likely maintain or improve riparian-lentic

habitats within the Monument by reducing vegetation use, bank erosion, sedimentation, and/or

contaminants attributed to livestock use. Reducing adverse impacts attributed to livestock is

expected to promote healthy riparian-wetlands. Healthier riparian-wetlands would improve

aquatic habitat, which would provide enhanced foraging opportunities for wildlife that prey on

aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates. In more arid regions of the Monument, the water quality

of individual playas would likely improve due to the reduction of fecal deposition by livestock,

benefitting numerous aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates and enhancing stopover habitat for

migratory birds during the spring and fall. Wildlife such as pronghorn that utilize playas during

fawning (spring and early summer) would benefit from the reduced competition with livestock.

Management under Alternative D would reduce impacts on sage-grouse and other

sagebrush-associated wildlife compared to Alternative A and the remaining action alternatives.

Sagebrush habitats in the Monument are used extensively for bird nesting and brood rearing

during the spring and summer and provide critical forage and cover for sage-grouse during late

fall and winter. Removing permitted grazing would minimize potential livestock-related impacts

such as displacement of individual birds and trampling of nests and would result in greater

amounts of residual upland cover both in the short and long terms. This alternative would also

reduce potential competition for forage, water, and space between livestock and big game during

critical periods such as winter as well as calving/fawning in the spring and early summer.

Closing Laidlaw Park to livestock grazing would similarly decrease competition with wildlife

for forage, water, and space and could enhance breeding, nesting, and wintering habitats for

numerous upland species (e.g., sage-grouse, migratory birds, and big game) occurring across

83,100 acres of the planning area. Specifically, 83,100 acres of occupied sage-grouse breeding

habitat, 63,500 acres of occupied summer habitat, and 63,400 acres of occupied late fall-winter

habitat would be protected from potential livestock-related impacts. This action could also result

in greater amounts of residual upland cover and forbs for wildlife in the short and long terms,

particularly in high-use areas such as near water troughs and sheep bed grounds.

Depending on plant species’ presence in the understory, native forbs and grasses could increase.

However, removing livestock grazing could hasten habitat degradation if ungrazed fuel loads in

communities comprised of dense sagebrush and an understory of annual grasses result in wildfires

that burn uniformly and kill sagebrush over a large area [Crawford et al., 2004]. A complete

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
204 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

grazing exclusion could also promote exotic annual grass invasion in some situations. Davies,

Svejcar, and Bates (2009) determined that long-term grazing exclusion followed by fire typically

resulted in exotic annual grass invasion, while fire following moderate levels of grazing did not

promote invasion. Moderate grazing made the perennial herbaceous component of the sagebrush

plant communities more tolerant of fire [Davies et al., 2009], perhaps due to a reduction in crown

litter [Davies, Bates, Svejcar, & Boyd, 2010].

Management under this alternative would include removal of water developments, fences, and

other range infrastructure that could contribute to wildlife mortality or locally modify habitat

conditions. Removal of water troughs could decrease available source habitat for mosquitoes

that could carry the West Nile virus and would make more water available on the ground for

sage-grouse, their habitats, and other wildlife species. Removal of up to 65 miles of existing

interior fence would reduce the potential of sage-grouse direct fence strikes as well as the number

of perches for avian predators within these areas. Sage-grouse collision risk with fences was

quantified using methodologies developed by Stevens and others (2012). Occupied leks from

2011 were used to inform risk of collision. Removal of existing interior fences would remove 33

miles of fence identified as a collision risk. Collision risk estimates for these 33 miles includes:

10.6 miles of high risk, 13.6 miles of moderate risk, and 9 miles of low risk.

Although interior fences would be removed, additional fence infrastructure could be necessary

to separate federal no-grazing areas from other federal, private and state parcels with grazing.

This could result in increased risk of sage-grouse strikes and big game entanglement along

those boundaries. Where construction of new fences occurs within 1.25 miles of occupied

sage-grouse leks or existing high-density fence areas, the fences would pose a collision risk for

sage-grouse and would provide additional perches for avian predators. However, mitigating

measures (e.g., marking fences and installing perch deterrents) could be utilized to reduce the

incidence of sage-grouse mortality [Stevens et al., 2012]. Also, building fences consistent with

suggested practices to minimize big game conflicts could minimize adverse consequences with

entanglement of big game. This may include adjusting spacing between wires, using a minimum

number of wires, adjusting fence height, utilizing smooth wire, utilizing drop-down fences, or

increasing visibility.

One option to facilitate closing Monument lands to livestock grazing would be to fence existing

cattle allotments along the boundary. Approximately 92 miles of perimeter fence would be

required to accomplish this. This includes 43.6 miles of infrastructure that represents a collision

risk to sage–grouse, including: 16 miles of high risk, 15.3 miles of moderate risk, and 12.3 miles

of low risk. Developments related to State and private lands would remain. That portion of the

Monument allocated to sheep would not be fenced, and would be signed for closure. Fences

would not be constructed within sheep allotments because domestic sheep can be controlled with

herders, thus reducing the need to construct fence in these portions of the Monument.

Alternately, if all cattle and sheep allotments within the Monument area are fenced along the

boundary, approximately 162 miles of fence would be constructed. Constructing 162 miles of

fence would result in a increase of approximately 70 miles of fence infrastructure relative to

the option of only fencing cattle allotments. Fencing 162 miles of the monument boundary is

estimated to include 67.5 miles of fence infrastructure that would represent an increased collision

risk to sage-grouse, including: 25.8 miles of high risk, 25.7 miles of moderate risk, and 16 miles

of low risk. Increasing fence infrastructure would increase the risk of collision for sage-grouse

and entanglement of big game. Relative to other options, this option is expected to have the

greatest consequences for priority species from conflicts with fence infrastructure.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
Craters of the Moon National Monument 205

Draft MMP Amendment

If fencing the Monument boundary is not utilized to facilitate closing Monument lands to grazing

then intensive livestock management practices or utilization of existing fence infrastructure

adjoining the Monument boundary would be necessary to close Monument lands to livestock

grazing. Intensive livestock management practices may include not utilizing water sources within

one mile of the Monument boundary, as well as placing salt and other minerals supplements away

from the Monument boundary. Existing infrastructure would be the nearest adjacent pasture or

allotment boundary fence adjoining the Monument. Utilizing existing fence infrastructure would

result in an additional closure of approximately 92,000 acres of land outside the Monument

boundary. Either of these options would result in a decrease in fence infrastructure, due to the

removal of 65 miles of interior fence. Removal of existing interior fences would remove 33 miles

of fence identified as a collision risk to sage-grouse, including 10.6 miles of high risk, 13.6 miles

of moderate risk, and 9 miles of low risk. Decreasing fence infrastructure would decrease the risk

of collision with sage-grouse, entanglement with big game, and decrease potential perch sites

for avian predators.

The final extent of fence necessary to implement no grazing in the Monument would be

determined during implementation of this MMP Amendment.

Wildlife and Fish, including Special Status Species: Alternative E

Water Resources Management Actions

Impacts are expected to be the same as discussed for Alternative C.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Impacts are expected to be the same as discussed for Alternative C.

Wildlife and Fish Resource Management Actions

Impacts on wildlife and fish resources are expected to be the same as discussed for Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Alternative E allows livestock grazing across approximately 272,800 acres (99%) of the planning

area. Approximately 2,200 acres of the planning area would be unavailable. Closing these areas

to livestock grazing would reduce potential competition for forage, water, and space between

livestock and priority species. Depending on plant species’ presence in the understory of areas

closed to grazing, native forbs and grasses could increase, and sites in poor ecological condition

could recover. However, removing livestock grazing could also hasten habitat degradation if

ungrazed fuel loads in communities comprised of dense sagebrush and an understory of annual

grasses result in wildfires that burn uniformly and kill sagebrush over a large area [Crawford et

al., 2004].

Reducing the stocking rate throughout the remainder of the planning area by 51% of total

permitted AUMs would similarly decrease competition for forage and could enhance wintering

habitat for big game and nesting habitat for many species of sagebrush-obligate wildlife across the

remaining 272,800 acres of the planning area available to livestock grazing. In addition, wildlife

and fish habitats outside the Monument could receive more or less livestock use as a result of the

AUM reductions in the planning area. For example, perennial streams that provide habitat for

sensitive fish species such as redband trout are present in BLM portions of grazing allotments

that span the Monument boundary. Additional livestock use in these pastures would increase the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species
206 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

potential for sedimentation, loss of streamside vegetation, and loss of water-holding capacity in

these watersheds, thereby reducing habitat for several fish species.

Important habitats, such as lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing areas (i.e., breeding habitat)

occupied by sage-grouse (see Appendix G, Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Seasonal Habitat

Methodology on Craters of the Moon BLM National Monument Lands), outside of closed

areas, could be seasonally protected through restrictions on livestock grazing if implemented.

Deferment of grazing in these habitat types during the early brood rearing season would minimize

potential adverse impacts on sage-grouse and other sagebrush steppe wildlife during important

life-cycle activities, notably breeding, nesting, and calving/fawning. Effects to wildlife would be

more likely to occur where concentrated livestock use results in heavy utilization of herbaceous

species (i.e., perennial grasses and/or forbs) or disturbance to individual wildlife.

Compared with Alternatives A and C, management under Alternative E would further reduce, but

would not eliminate, impacts from livestock grazing activities on sensitive species, including sage

grouse and their habitat. Relative to Alternative B, Alternative E is expected to have slightly more

adverse impacts, because it allocates more AUMs and acreage available to grazing. Regardless,

Alternative E is expected to provide long-term benefits to sage-grouse by increasing upland and

riparian nesting and brood-rearing habitat amount and quality, and potentially would decrease

both short and long-term impacts to the species by reducing livestock use of seasonal habitats.

Alternative E is expected to result in similar benefits to Alternative B, because the benefits of

reducing herbaceous matter consumption are similar, just at reduced level relative to Alternative

B. Beneficial impacts to other sagebrush-obligate wildlife would also likely be greater under

Alternative E, because Alternative E would reduce herbaceous matter consumption by reducing

permitted AUMs. Decreasing herbaceous matter consumption would be expected to increase

cover and forage for priority species, resulting in long term beneficial impacts.

4.2.5. Native American Rights and Interests

Federal agencies are required to take into account the effects of their actions on Native American

values, such as tribal treaty rights/trust resources, ethnographic resources, access to traditional use

areas and/or religious/sacred sites, preservation of archaeological sites, the handling of Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) materials, and the maintenance of

suitable habitat for subsistence species of importance to Tribes.

4.2.5.1. Summary

All alternatives would meet the DFCs for Native American Rights and Interests outlined in the

2007 MMP and protect traditional tribal relationships with the land.

Alternative A would have a moderate effect on maintaining the long-term integrity of the majority

of ethnographic and cultural resources within the Monument by continuing to emphasize

aggressive range restoration. Short-term, minor to moderate impacts could occur from vehicle

traffic, initial restoration activities, wildfire and suppression activities, and livestock grazing.

Alternative C would have the same impacts as Alternative A.

Alternatives B and E would have a moderate effect on maintaining the long-term integrity of the

majority of ethnographic and cultural resources within the Monument by reducing the number of

permitted livestock AUMs, livestock-related developments, and removing a substantial number of

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Native American Rights and Interests
Craters of the Moon National Monument 207

Draft MMP Amendment

acres from livestock grazing. Short-term, site-specific, negligible to minor impacts could still

occur from the remaining livestock grazing activities.

Alternative D would have the same moderate effect on ethnographic and cultural resources

as Alternative B, without the potential for any impacts from livestock grazing. The natural

reclamation of some roads may have a site-specific, long-term, minor to moderate impact on

Tribal access under Alternative D, but could be mitigated through consultation with Tribes.

4.2.5.2. Assumptions

In order to analyze the effects of the plan alternatives on Native American values, several

meetings were held with interested Tribal staff to collect their comments on the alternatives.

Analysis indicators used to identify impacts to Native American Rights and Interests are

associated with the number of acres available for livestock grazing and the amount of permitted

AUMs, by alternative. Certain assumptions were made regarding Native American values within

the Monument. These assumptions include:

● Section 106 archaeological inventory would be conducted for all proposed development

projects as required by the NHPA under each of these alternatives. The agencies would

undertake Tribal consultation if any proposed development was determined to have adverse

impacts to cultural resources or Native American values.

● Tribes regulate their own members’ hunting on the Preserve and the BLM areas of the

Monument.

● BLM and NPS staff would continue to meet with interested Tribal staff on a regular basis to

discuss and address issues of concern as they arise.

● The current road network provides sufficient access to traditional use areas for Tribal members.

● The handling of NAGPRA materials would follow the guidance provided in the law and would

not vary by alternative.

4.2.5.3. How Activities Affect Native American Rights and Interests

Water Resources Management Actions

The development of springs and ponds before the passage of FLPMA and NEPA have damaged

cultural resources in the past. Removing these facilities and recontouring the ground surface

would not necessarily mitigate those past impacts, due to the nature of cultural resource deposits.

Once disturbed, subsurface cultural deposits cannot be recreated. Section 106 inventory and

Tribal consultation would be used to avoid any additional impacts to cultural/ethnographic

resources that may be present in these areas.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

The occurrence of Tribal Rights and Interests does not measurably differ between native

vegetation areas and non-native, seeded areas. Therefore, directed grazing could potentially

increase livestock-related impacts in seeded areas, while reducing impacts to native vegetation

areas. The level of impact would be dependent upon the number of AUMs authorized and the

number of acres available for grazing. The season of use could also have a bearing on the level

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Native American Rights and Interests
208 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

of impact. Cultural resource site monitoring would identify areas of highest impact and steps

could be taken to mitigate those impacts where found. Native plants and sagebrush obligates,

such as sage-grouse, are of high value to Tribes. Any action that would impact those resources

will be of concern to Tribes.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Several activities typically associated with livestock grazing have the potential to impact

ethnographic/cultural resources, native plants, and sagebrush-obligate species. (See Section 4.2.4,

“Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species” for a description of how livestock grazing

impacts sagebrush obligates.) Facility construction, maintenance, and/or removal can impact

cultural and ethnographic sites by moving soil, destroying subsurface cultural resources deposits,

and damaging native plant communities. These implementation-level impacts are generally

mitigated by the NEPA and the NHPA Idaho State Protocol Agreement (SPA) (2014).

Livestock, whether cattle or sheep, can also impact cultural and ethnographic resources in a

number of ways [Osborn, Vetter, Hartley, & Brown, 1987]; [Wildesen, 1982]. Typically, one

animal on the surface of a site does negligible damage to subsurface deposits. The number of

animals present and the amount of surface use/disturbance can vary widely across an allotment.

Many impacts can be short or long term and minor to major in effect, but tend to be very

site-specific in nature. Animals can potentially move or break surface artifacts by hoof action,

but the uppermost layers of archaeological sites are generally assumed to be disturbed levels by

professional archaeologists. Cultural resource damage occurs most often when livestock pressure

is so concentrated that the uppermost level of a site is eroded away and deeper deposits below 4

in. (10 cm) are exposed. This effect can be most readily observed at livestock watering locations

where animals tend to congregate for long periods of time. The weight of the livestock and the

season of use also have a bearing on the type/degree of impact. Sheep, even in large numbers,

are typically moved often and have less long-term impacts than cattle, especially when soils are

wet. Native plant communities can sustain similar impacts in areas of concentrated livestock use.

Much of this impact is normally mitigated through the procedures outlined in NHPA and SPA.

Livestock are also known to rub on cultural resources such as historic structures and rock art

boulders, especially in sheltered areas where they might congregate. There are relatively few

standing historic structures within the Monument and no livestock-accessible rock art sites.

Therefore, potential impacts from livestock rubbing on cultural resources within the Monument

are rare.

A certain amount of vehicle traffic is also associated with livestock management activities,

including four-wheel drive trucks and ATVs. Depending upon the time of year this traffic occurs,

vehicles can potentially exacerbate erosion of roads if they are wet, damaging any cultural

resources that may happen to lie within road routes. Such impacts could be short or long term and

minor to major in degree, but are typically site-specific in nature.

4.2.5.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Native American Rights and Interests: Alternative A

Water Resources Management Actions

Direction under the 2007 MMP allows for playa restoration. Any such restoration would be

subject to SPA and Section 106 inventory and potential impacts to any cultural resources sites

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Native American Rights and Interests
Craters of the Moon National Monument 209

Draft MMP Amendment

would be mitigated. Therefore, impacts to cultural and ethnographic resources would be negligible

from the actual restoration. Reducing the number of livestock attracted to those natural water

sources would have long-term, site-specific effects on soil stability, wildlife, and native plants.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative A, sagebrush steppe restoration efforts would continue. This can involve the

use of prescribed fire and drill seeding to return the vegetation to a mix of perennial plants and

shrubs. Any fire, wild or prescribed, exposes cultural resources on the ground surface, placing

them at risk for unauthorized collection and increased soil erosion. Any restoration projects

would be subject to SPA and Section 106 inventory as they arise to assure cultural resources are

not impacted. Flagging cultural resources for avoidance often attracts attention to those sites and

increases the risk of unauthorized collection. Sagebrush steppe restoration activities would have

a short-term, minor to possibly moderate effect on cultural resources. However, the long-term

stabilization of the soils, the return of native plant communities, and the reduced potential for

future wildfires would have a long-term, moderate effect on Native American Rights and Interests.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

In Alternative A, livestock grazing continues at the current level of 38,187 AUMs permitted on

273,900 acres of land available for grazing. Actual use levels over the last 15 years average

about 11,791 AUMs per year. This alternative has the most acres available for livestock grazing

of the five, with only 1,200 acres unavailable for grazing. Any new livestock water facilities

are restricted to the Passage Zone (Figure 2.3, “Craters of the Moon National Monument and

Preserve Management Zones”), although few new developments are anticipated and none have

been installed since the 2007 MMP was signed. Since livestock tend to congregate around

water sources, there could be long-term, site-specific, minor to moderate impacts to cultural

and ethnographic resources located near water sources. Following the procedures in Appendix

H of the SPA could mitigate these impacts.

Native American Rights and Interests: Alternative B

Water Resources Management Actions

Increased emphasis on restoring all riparian areas to PFC and striving to reach reference state

under Alternative B would have a long-term, site-specific effect to Native American Rights and

Interests by reducing the number of livestock attracted to those natural water sources as described

in Ch. 3 Water Resources and the potential for livestock-related impacts.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative B, sagebrush steppe restoration efforts would continue. The only change in

vegetation management would be the direction of prioritizing grazing on non-native perennial

seedings rather than native vegetation. This action could potentially increase livestock activity

on cultural or ethnographic resources in those areas. Livestock congregation around water

sources and at corrals can cause soil disturbance and erosion, subsequently destabilizing cultural

resource site surfaces. However, the reduced number of AUMs permitted in this alternative

makes this unlikely. There would be a long-term, site-specific, negligible to minor impact to

Native American Rights and Interests in non-native seeded areas.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Native American Rights and Interests
210 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

In Alternative B, livestock grazing management would change dramatically. The level of

permitted AUMs would be reduced to 9,432 AUMs permitted on 254,100 acres of land available

for grazing. There would be a reduction of 21,000 acres available for grazing by closing Little

Park kipuka, the North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment, the North Pasture of Bowl Crater

Allotment, Park Field kipuka, a portion of the Craters Allotment, and Larkspur Park kipuka.

No new water facilities would be permitted in the closed areas and existing facilities would be

identified for removal, consolidation, or modification to maintain and improve intact habitats if

warranted. Removal of livestock grazing and the supporting infrastructure from some areas would

result in reduced opportunity for livestock trampling on native plant communities and cultural

resources, thereby reducing the potential for soil erosion and increasing surface stability of sites.

These management actions would create a long-term, moderate effect to Native American Rights

and Interests in the areas excluded from grazing.

Any new livestock water facilities are restricted to the Passage Zone (Figure 2.3, “Craters of the

Moon National Monument and Preserve Management Zones”), although few new developments

are anticipated and none have been installed since the 2007 MMP was signed. Any new salt,

mineral supplements, troughs, reservoirs, and holding facilities would be placed more than 200

meters from lava edges and playas, minimizing the likelihood of livestock congregation on

cultural and ethnographic resources.

Livestock congregation tends to create long-term, site-specific, minor to moderate impacts to

plant communities and cultural resources located near water sources. However, this alternative

would evaluate existing water developments and corrals to identify any conflicts with cultural

resources, and prioritize them for removal or modification. No new spring developments or water

pipelines would be allowed in areas closed to grazing. Such measures would create a long-term,

minor to moderate effect on cultural resource site surface stability.

For the purpose of protecting sage-grouse in Alternative B, no spring or early summer livestock

grazing would be allowed in nesting or early brood-rearing habitats. This exclusion of spring

grazing may improve soil stabilization by avoiding livestock traffic over wet soils, and thus

improving cultural resource site stabilization and native plant communities in those areas. Some

trailing and vehicle activity could still occur across closed public lands because the State and

private lands could still be grazed in the spring. Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate

effect on cultural and ethnographic site surface stability. The removal of livestock from some

areas of the Monument may result in a long-term improvement to wildlife species of Tribal

interest in those closed areas.

The design and/or removal of structural range improvements to benefit sage-grouse would have

a negligible impact to cultural resources, as any new project would be subject to NEPA review

and inventory. This action could have a long-term, site-specific, negligible to minor impact to

Native American Rights and Interests.

Native American Rights and Interests: Alternative C

Water Resources Management Actions

The impacts to Native American Rights and Interests from riparian restoration under this

alternative would be the same as Alternative A.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Native American Rights and Interests
Craters of the Moon National Monument 211

Draft MMP Amendment

Impacts to cultural and ethnographic resources by potentially directing grazing for sagebrush

recovery under Alternative C are very similar to the impacts under Alternative A, due to the

similar number of permitted AUMs. There would be long-term, negligible to minor impacts to

Native American Rights and Interests.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

New restrictions on livestock grazing to ease impacts to sage-grouse would also indirectly lower

impacts to cultural and ethnographic resources by adjusting season of use, level of use, and

grazing schedules in areas not meeting Standards and by turning off water troughs in lekking

areas during breeding season to avoid attracting livestock. Alternative C would have a long-term,

negligible to minor effect to Native American Rights and Interests.

Native American Rights and Interests: Alternative D

Water Resources Management Actions

The impacts to Native American Rights and Interests from riparian restoration under this

alternative would be the same as Alternative B.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Impacts to Native American Rights and Interests from vegetation management under this

alternative would be the same as Alternative A. Even without the presence of livestock grazing,

the effects of wildfires, fire suppression activities, and restorations would continue as under

Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Any fence or facility removal, as well as new fence construction, would be subject to NEPA and

cultural resource inventory and any sites would be mitigated. Therefore, impacts to cultural and

ethnographic resources would be negligible from these activities. The removal of livestock

Monument-wide would provide for long-term, moderately increased levels of protection for

plant and wildlife species of Tribal interest.

There would be no spring grazing during sage-grouse breeding season authorized under

Alternative D. The exclusion of livestock grazing and associated vehicle activity during the

wetter, spring season would result in less potential soil erosion to roads, as well as less soil

erosion due to hoof action of the livestock themselves. Less soil erosion indirectly benefits

cultural resources and native vegetation in all areas of the Monument by stabilizing soils. Some

trailing and vehicle activity could still occur across public lands because State and private lands

could still be grazed in the spring. Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate impact to

Native American Rights and Interests.

Under this alternative, there would be no winter grazing permitted. Wintering wildlife species of

interest to Tribes in the Monument would not experience any conflicts with livestock. Native

plants would be dormant. Soils are usually frozen during most of the winter season, so potential for

soil erosion is low that time of year. The exclusion of livestock grazing during the winter season

would have a negligible to minor impact to native plants and cultural/ethnographic resources.

Alternative D closes all of the Monument, including the Laidlaw Park kipuka, to livestock grazing

year round. Such a closure would greatly reduce the potential for livestock/wildlife species

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Native American Rights and Interests
212 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

of concern to Tribes conflicts, livestock congregation on cultural resource sites, and impacts

to native vegetation on public lands within Laidlaw Park. However, State and private lands

within Laidlaw Park would continue to be grazed, so a certain amount of livestock-associated

vehicle traffic and livestock trailing would still occur across public lands. With regards to Native

American Rights and Interests, there would be a minor to moderate impact to wildlife, native

plants, and site surface stability within Laidlaw Park were it to be closed to livestock grazing year

round. The same is true for the entire Monument.

Some roads may be naturally reclaimed from less livestock management-related travel, which

may indirectly help stabilize native plant communities and cultural resource site surfaces that

happen to lie within road prisms. Reduced numbers of access routes could potentially prevent

Tribal members from accessing some areas with motorized vehicles, but this could be mitigated

through Tribal consultation where necessary. There would be a long-term, minor to moderate

impact to Native American Rights and Interests in those instances.

Native American Rights and Interests: Alternative E

Water Resources Management Actions

The impacts to Native American Rights and Interests from riparian restoration under this

alternative would be the same as Alternative A and C.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Impacts to cultural and ethnographic resources by potentially directing grazing for sagebrush

recovery under Alternative E are very similar to the impacts under Alternative C. As with

Alternative B, the reduced level of authorized AUMs in this alternative makes the impacts

of directing grazing toward non-native perennial seedings less likely to result in livestock

congregation and soil destabilization. There would be a long term, site-specific, negligible to

minor impact to Native American Rights and Interests.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

New restrictions on the amount of disturbance allowed from livestock-related infrastructure or

developments would indirectly lower impacts to cultural and ethnographic resources as well.

Alternative E would have a long-term, negligible to minor effect to Native American Rights and

Interests.

4.2.6. Cultural Resources

To date, there are over 500 recorded cultural resources within the planning area on BLM land,

consisting of a variety of Native American use areas and livestock-related, Euro-American sites.

Sources of impacts to cultural resources are surface-disturbing activities which may result from

wildfires and suppression activities, vegetation restoration, livestock grazing, and vehicle traffic.

Natural deterioration is continually impacting cultural resources as well, due to the continual

accretion and deflation of desert soils.

4.2.6.1. Summary

All alternatives would meet the DFCs for cultural resources outlined in the 2007 MMP and

preserve the traditional, historical relationships with the land, with the exception of Alternative D.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 213

Draft MMP Amendment

Because of the location and current condition of the NPS Study Trail Goodale’s Cutoff, none of

the alternatives would result in measurable impacts to the trail.

Alternative A would have a moderate effect on maintaining the long-term integrity of the majority

of archaeological resources within the Monument by continuing to emphasize range restoration.

Short-term, minor to moderate impacts could occur from vehicle traffic, initial restoration

activities, wildfire and suppression activities, and livestock grazing. Alternative C would have

the same impacts as Alternative A.

Alternative B and E would have a moderate effect on maintaining the long-term integrity of the

majority of archaeological resources within the Monument by reducing the number of permitted

livestock AUMs, livestock related developments, and removing a substantial number of acres

from livestock grazing. Short-term, site-specific, negligible to minor impacts could still occur

from the remaining livestock grazing activities.

Alternative D would have the same moderate effect on cultural resources as Alternative B,

without the potential for any impacts from livestock grazing.

4.2.6.2. Assumptions

In order to analyze effects of the plan alternatives on cultural resources, all available information

regarding known archaeological sites was compiled. Map locations of cultural resources were

compared with locations of the acres available for livestock grazing for each alternative. Analysis

indicators used to identify cultural resource impacts are associated with the number of acres

available for livestock grazing and the amount of permitted AUMs, by alternative. Certain

assumptions were made regarding management of cultural resources in the future. These

assumptions include:

● Some proactive Section 110 inventory (i.e. non-project related inventory) will be completed

within the Monument each year.

● Inventory will be conducted for all proposed development or restoration projects and for grazing

permit renewals as required by FLPMA, NHPA, and SPA under each of these alternatives.

● NRHP listed and eligible sites, including the NPS Study Trail Goodale’s Cutoff, will be

monitored for vandalism and other impacts and protected/stabilized as necessary.

● Wildfires will continue to occur and range restoration will be performed for most burned

areas using Section 106 to mitigate impacts to cultural resources and the NPS Study Trail

Goodale’s Cutoff.

● None of the management actions in the Alternatives would substantially interfere or be

incompatible with the nature and purposes of the National Study Trail, including the resources,

qualities, values or associated settings or the primary use or uses.

4.2.6.3. How Activities Affect Cultural Resources

Water Resource Management Actions

The excavation of ponds in playas prior to the passage of FLMPA and NEPA have damaged

cultural resources in the past. Removing these facilities and recontouring the ground surface

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
214 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

would not necessarily mitigate those past impacts, due to the nature of cultural resource deposits.

Once disturbed, subsurface cultural deposits cannot be recreated. SPA/Section 106 inventory and

Tribal consultation would be used to avoid any additional impacts to cultural resources that may

be present in these areas.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

The occurrence of cultural resources does not measurably differ between native vegetation areas

and non-native, seeded areas. Therefore, directing grazing could potentially increase livestock

related impacts to sites in seeded areas, while reducing impacts to sites in native vegetation areas.

The level of impact would be dependent upon the number of AUMs authorized and the number of

acres available for grazing. The season of use could also have a bearing on the level of impact.

Cultural resource site monitoring would identify areas of highest impact and steps could be

taken to mitigate those impacts where found.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Several activities typically associated with livestock grazing have the potential to impact cultural

resources. Facility construction, maintenance, and/or removal can impact sites by moving soil

and destroying subsurface cultural resources deposits. These impacts would be mitigated by the

Section 106 process.

Livestock, whether cattle or sheep, can also impact cultural resources in a number of ways

[Osborn et. al.,1987]; [Wildesen, 1982]. Typically, one animal on the surface of a site does

negligible damage to subsurface deposits. The number of animals present and the amount of

surface use/disturbance can vary widely across an allotment. Many impacts can be short or long

term and minor to major in effect, but are typically site-specific in nature. Animals can potentially

move or break surface artifacts by hoof action, but the uppermost layers of archaeological sites

are generally assumed to be disturbed levels that lack integrity by professional archaeologists.

Cultural resource damage occurs most often when livestock pressure is so concentrated that the

uppermost level of a site is eroded away and deeper deposits below 4 in. (10 cm) are exposed.

This effect can be most readily observed at livestock watering locations where animals tend to

congregate for long periods of time. The weight of the livestock and the season of use also have a

bearing on the type/degree of impact. Sheep, even in large numbers, are typically moved often

and have less long-term impact than cattle, especially when soils are wet.

Livestock are also known to rub on cultural resources such as historic structures and rock art

boulders, especially in sheltered areas where they might congregate. There are relatively few

standing historic structures within the Monument and no livestock-accessible rock art sites.

Therefore, potential impacts from livestock rubbing on cultural resources within the Monument

are rare.

A certain amount of vehicle traffic is also associated with livestock management activities,

including four-wheel drive trucks and ATVs. Depending upon the time of year this traffic occurs,

vehicles can potentially exacerbate erosion of roads if they are wet, damaging any cultural

resources that may happen to lie within the road bed. Such impacts can be short or long term and

minor to major in effect, but typically site-specific in nature.

4.2.6.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Cultural Resources: Alternative A

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 215

Draft MMP Amendment

Water Resources Management Actions

Direction under the 2007 MMP allows for playa restoration. Any such restoration would be

subject to NEPA review and cultural resource inventory, and any cultural sites would be mitigated.

Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be negligible from the actual restoration. There

would be long-term, site-specific effects to cultural resources by reducing the number of livestock

attracted to those natural water sources, which would allow site surfaces to stabilize.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative A, sagebrush steppe restoration efforts would continue. This involves the use

of prescribed fire and drill seeding to return the vegetation to a mix of perennial plants and

shrubs. Any fire, wild or prescribed, exposes cultural resources on the ground surface, placing

them at risk for unauthorized collection and increased soil erosion. Any restoration projects

would be subject to Section 106 inventory to assure cultural resources are not impacted. Flagging

cultural resources for avoidance often attracts attention to those sites and increases the risk

of unauthorized collection. Sagebrush steppe restoration activities would have a short-term,

minor to possibly moderate impact on cultural resources and soil stability. However, long-term

stabilization of the soils and the reduced potential for wildfire would result in a long-term,

moderate effect to cultural resources.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

In Alternative A, livestock grazing continues at the current level of 38,187 AUMs permitted on

273,900 acres of land available for grazing. Actual use levels over the last 15 years average

about 11,791 AUMs per year. This alternative has the most acres available for livestock grazing

of the four, with only 1,200 acres unavailable for grazing. Any new livestock water facilities

are restricted to the Passage Zone (Figure 2.3, “Craters of the Moon National Monument and

Preserve Management Zones”), although few new developments are anticipated and none have

been installed since the 2007 MMP was signed. Since livestock tend to congregate around water

sources, there could be long-term, site-specific, minor to moderate impacts to any cultural

resources located near existing water sources, but those impacts would be mitigated by following

the procedures outlined in the SPA.

Cultural Resources: Alternative B

Water Resources Management Actions

Increased emphasis on restoring all riparian areas to PFC and striving to reach reference state

under Alternative B would have a long-term, site-specific effect on any cultural resources in

riparian areas by reducing the number of livestock that have access to those natural water sources

and improving site surface stability.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative B, sagebrush steppe restoration efforts would continue. The only change in

vegetation management would be the direction of prioritizing grazing on non-native perennial

seedings. This action could potentially increase livestock activity on cultural resources in

non-native seeded areas. Likewise, livestock congregation around water sources and at corrals

can cause soil disturbance and erosion, subsequently destabilizing cultural resource site surfaces

if they occur there. However, the reduced number of AUMs permitted in this alternative makes

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
216 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

this unlikely. There would be a long-term, site-specific, negligible to minor impact to cultural

resources in non-native seeded areas.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

In Alternative B, livestock grazing management would change dramatically. The level of

permitted AUMs would be reduced to a total of 9,432 AUMs on 254,100 acres of land available

for grazing. A reduction of 21,000 acres available for grazing would close Little Park kipuka,

the North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment, the North Pasture of Bowl Crater Allotment, Park

Field kipuka, Larkspur Park kipuka, and a portion of Craters Allotment to grazing. No new water

facilities would be permitted in the closed areas and existing facilities there would be identified

for removal, consolidation, or modification to maintain and improve intact habitats if warranted.

Removal of livestock grazing and the supporting infrastructure from some areas would result in

reduced opportunity for livestock trampling on cultural resources, thereby reducing the potential

for soil erosion and increasing soil stability of sites. Some trailing and vehicle activity could still

occur across closed public lands because State and private lands would remain open for grazing.

These management actions would create a long-term, moderate effect to cultural resources in the

areas excluded from grazing.

Any new livestock water facilities are restricted to the Passage Zone, although few new

developments are anticipated and none have been installed since the 2007 MMP was signed. Any

new salt, mineral supplements, troughs, reservoirs, and holding facilities would be placed more

than 200 meters from lava edges and playas, minimizing the likelihood of livestock congregation

on cultural resources.

Livestock congregation can create long-term, site-specific, minor to major impacts to cultural

resources located near water sources. However, this alternative would evaluate existing water

developments and corrals to identify any conflicts with cultural resources, and prioritize them for

removal or modification. No new spring developments or water pipelines would be allowed. Such

measures would create a long-term, minor to moderate effect to cultural resource site stability.

For the purpose of protecting sage-grouse, no spring or early summer livestock grazing would be

allowed in nesting or early brood-rearing habitats. Exclusion of spring grazing in Alternative B

may improve soil stabilization by avoiding vehicle and livestock traffic over wet soils, and thus

improve archaeological site stabilization in those areas. This would have a long-term, moderate

effect on cultural resource site stability.

The relocation or removal of structural range improvements to benefit cultural resources would

have a negligible to minor, short term impact to cultural resources, as any new project would be

subject to NEPA review and cultural resource inventory to avoid sites.

Cultural Resources: Alternative C

Water Resources Management Actions

The impacts to cultural resources from riparian restoration under this alternative would be the

same as Alternative A.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 217

Draft MMP Amendment

Impacts to cultural resources by potentially focusing grazing for sagebrush recovery under

Alternative C are very similar to the impacts under Alternative A, due to the similar amount of

permitted AUMs. There would be long-term, negligible to minor impacts to cultural resources.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

New restrictions on livestock grazing to reduce impacts to sage-grouse would also indirectly

lessen impacts to cultural resources by adjusting season of use, level of use, and grazing schedules

in areas not meeting Standards and by turning off water troughs in lekking areas during breeding

season to avoid attracting livestock. This action would have a long-term, negligible to minor effect

on cultural resources.. The relocation or removal of structural range improvements to benefit

cultural resources would have a negligible to minor, short term impact to cultural resources, as

any new project would be subject to NEPA review and cultural resource inventory to avoid sites.

Cultural Resources: Alternative D

Water Resources Management Actions

The impacts to cultural resources from riparian restoration under this alternative would be the

same as Alternative B.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Impacts to cultural resources from vegetation management under this alternative would be the

same as Alternative A. Even without the presence of livestock grazing impacts, wildfires, fire

suppression activities, and restorations would continue as under Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Any fence or facility removal, as well as new fence construction, would be subject to inventory

and any sites would be mitigated. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be negligible

from these activities.

Some roads may be naturally reclaimed from less livestock management-related travel, which

may indirectly stabilize site surfaces that happen to lie within road prisms (the area consisting of

road surfaces and any cut slope and road fill).

Under this Alternative, there would be no spring grazing during sage-grouse breeding season.

The exclusion of livestock grazing and associated vehicle activity during the wetter, spring season

would result in less potential soil erosion to roads, as well as less soil erosion due to hoof action

of the livestock themselves. Less soil erosion indirectly benefits cultural resources in all areas of

the Monument by stabilizing subsurface cultural resource deposits. Some trailing and vehicle

activity could still occur across public lands because State and private lands could still be grazed

in the spring. There would be a long-term, moderate impact to cultural resources.

Under this Alternative, there would be no livestock grazing during the wintering sage-grouse

season either. Soils are usually frozen during most of the winter season, so potential for soil

erosion is low that time of year. The exclusion of livestock grazing during the winter season

would have a negligible to minor impact to cultural resources.

Laidlaw Park kipuka would be closed to livestock grazing year round. Such a closure would

greatly reduce the potential for livestock congregation on cultural resource sites on public lands in

Laidlaw Park. However, State and private lands within Laidlaw Park could continue to be grazed,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
218 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

so a certain amount of livestock-associated vehicle traffic and livestock trailing could still occur

across public lands. With regards to cultural resources, there would be a minor to moderate

impact to site surface stability within Laidlaw Park were it to be closed to livestock grazing year

round. The same is true of closing all Monument lands to grazing.

Cultural Resources: Alternative E

Water Resources Management Actions

The impacts to cultural resources from riparian restoration under this alternative would be the

same as Alternatives A and C.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Impacts to cultural resources by potentially directing grazing for sagebrush recovery under

Alternative E are very similar to the impacts under Alternative C. As with Alternative B, the

reduced level of authorized AUMs in this alternative makes the impacts of directing grazing

toward non-native perennial seedings less likely to result in livestock congregation and soil

destabilization. There would be a long term, site-specific, negligible to minor impact to cultural

resources in non-native seeded areas.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

New restrictions on the amount of disturbance allowed from livestock-related infrastructure or

developments and a reduced level of AUMs permitted would indirectly lower impacts to cultural

resources as well. Alternative E would have a long-term, negligible to minor effect to cultural

resources.

4.2.7. Visual Resources

The region of influence used for the visual resource analysis is the planning area. Indicators used

for analysis are the assigned visual resource management classes and how proposed management

actions comply with those class objectives.

According to the Visual Resource Inventory Manual H-8410-1, “the assignment of visual

management classes is ultimately based on the management decisions made in RMPs. However,

visual values must be considered throughout the RMP process. All actions proposed during the

RMP process that would result in surface disturbances must consider the importance of the visual

values and the impacts the project may have on these values. Management decisions in the RMP

must reflect the value of visual resources.” [H-8410-1, p. 6]

4.2.7.1. Summary

No management actions are proposed for visual resources in this plan.

The visual resource contrast rating system is a systematic process used by the BLM to analyze

potential visual impacts, or contrasts, of proposed projects and activities. It should be used as

a guide to ensure that every attempt is made to minimize potential visual impacts. The Visual

Resource Contrast Rating Manual H-8431-1 indicates that the degree to which a management

activity affects the visual quality of a landscape depends on the visual contrast created between a

project and the existing landscape. The contrast can be measured by comparing the project

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 219

Draft MMP Amendment

features with the major features in the existing landscape (landform/water, vegetation, and

structures). The basic design elements of form, line, color, and texture are used to make this

comparison and to describe the visual contrast created by the project. The Visual Resource

Contrast Rating Manual provides guidelines for obtaining project descriptions and design

techniques for mitigating visual impacts in order to meet management class objectives.

All actions proposed in Alternatives A through E would be subject to a Visual Resource Contrast

Rating and would have to comply with assigned visual resource management class objectives that

are designated in the current MMP.

4.2.7.2. Assumptions

● While VRM inventories may include all land jurisdictions and ownerships, BLM visual

management decisions would only apply to BLM-managed lands.

4.2.7.3. How Activities Affect Visual Resources

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Depending on utilization levels and the density and visibility of range improvements, livestock

grazing can have various degrees of impacts to visual resources.

4.2.7.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Visual Resources: Alternative A

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock-grazing management would continue to comply with designated visual resource

management classes within the Monument, resulting in negligible impacts to visual resources.

Visual Resources: Alternative B

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock-grazing management would continue to comply with designated visual resource

management classes within the Monument. Reductions in grazing would result in a minor

short-term reduction in contrasts to the natural landscape due to fewer visible livestock during

periods of grazing. This would cause minor beneficial impacts to visual resources.

Visual Resources: Alternative C

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock-grazing management would continue to comply with designated visual resource

management classes within the Monument, resulting in negligible impacts to visual resources.

Visual Resources: Alternative D

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources
220 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

The removal of livestock grazing in the Monument, including Laidlaw Park, would result in

impacts, or contrasts, to the existing landscape features (land/water, vegetation, and structures) in

the Monument. Changes in the elements (texture, color, line, and form) of the landscape features

could occur. The short-term, direct impacts would occur as range improvements are removed and

disturbed areas are rehabilitated. In the long term, direct impacts would occur as all disturbed

areas from grazing operations are restored to reflect the natural landscape. This would result in

moderate beneficial impacts to visual resources.

In areas where new fencing would be needed to exclude livestock grazing from the Monument,

short-term impacts to the natural landscape would occur as areas of disturbance are created

associated with fence installation. Long term impacts to the natural landscape would also occur

due to new fences visually contrasting with the surrounding landscape. This would result in

minor negative impacts to visual resources.

Visual Resources: Alternative E

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock-grazing management would continue to comply with designated visual resource

management classes within the Monument, resulting in negligible impacts to visual resources.

4.2.8. Wilderness Study Areas

The BLM’s management policy is to continue resource uses on lands designated as WSAs in a

manner that maintains the area’s suitability for preservation as wilderness.

The wilderness characteristics of each WSA were reviewed and compared to each alternative.

Based on past actions and current actions in the project area, predictions were made on the

short- and long-term impacts to the WSA resources. When applicable, the WSA locations were

compared to the locations of proposed actions and if there were potential impacts, they were

analyzed.

4.2.8.1. Summary

No management actions are proposed in this MMP Amendment for WSAs.

Under Alternatives A, B, C and E, livestock grazing would still be present. Depending on how

WSA lands are utilized by grazing, impacts would differ between alternatives. Under Alternative

A, the overall impacts to WSAs would be negligible to moderate. Under Alternative B, the

overall impacts to WSAs would be negligible to moderate. Under the Alternative C, the overall

impacts to WSAs would be minor to moderate. Under Alternative E, the overall impacts to WSAs

would be negligible to moderate. Please note that any moderate impacts under Alternatives A, B,

C, and E would be very site specific and occur in localized locations associated with livestock

improvements.

Under Alternative D, WSAs would not be impacted from livestock operations. Although livestock

grazing is allowed in WSAs, the complete removal of livestock and associated infrastructure

would have an overall enhancement to wilderness characteristics in WSAs.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wilderness Study Areas
Craters of the Moon National Monument 221

Draft MMP Amendment

4.2.8.2. Assumptions

● Management decisions would not be proposed that would affect Congress's ability to make a

wilderness determination for Raven’s Eye, Great Rift, Bear Den Butte, and Little Deer WSAs.

● Management activities would comply with BLM’s current policy on WSA management.

4.2.8.3. How Activities Affect Wilderness Study Areas

Water Resources Management Actions

Restoring riparian areas to PFC and removing any signs of human development would enhance

the naturalness characteristics of WSAs.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Directing grazing to utilize non-native perennial seedings and to help recovery of sagebrush and

seeding diversity would enhance the naturalness of WSAs. These non-native perennial seedings

are sometimes visible as rows and are a human-caused impact.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

The presence of wildlife in WSAs are considered to be a supplemental value to the wilderness

characteristics. Wildlife actions taken to benefit wildlife would comply with the non-impairment

mandate to reduce human impacts.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock grazing can impact the naturalness, opportunities for solitude, and primitive and

unconfined recreation of wilderness study areas. Where livestock congregate, impacts to the

vegetation can be noticeable. The presence of livestock and related infrastructure are noticeable

by visitors and can impact solitude. Motorized vehicle use associated with livestock operations

can spread noxious weeds and invasive plant species from infested areas into currently un-infested

areas, altering natural conditions.

4.2.8.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Wilderness Study Areas: Alternative A

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Small-scale construction activities and routine maintenance activities to avoid or minimize

disturbance to priority species and their habitat during important seasonal periods would have a

negligible impact to wilderness characteristics within WSAs. The impacts would be reductions

in naturalness from human activity and developments. According to BLM Manual 6330,

management actions taken to support wildlife management, whether proposed by the State or

the BLM, must conform to the non-impairment mandate, as detailed in 1.6.C of Manual 6330.

For all actions, the BLM will ensure that the non-impairment criteria are met, or that one of

the exceptions to non-impairment applies. (see section 1.6.C of Manual 6330). These impacts

would be the same for all alternatives.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wilderness Study Areas
222 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

As indicated in the 2007 MMP analysis, livestock use affects wilderness characteristics in WSAs

by altering natural animal and plant communities. These characteristics are also affected by the

continued maintenance of and motor vehicle access to range improvements (such as fences and

watering sites). Wildlife populations and distribution are altered when livestock compete with

native wildlife for forage. The effects vary, since livestock do not use the WSA lands uniformly.

The presence of temporary roads and livestock developments would not disqualify the area from

potential legislative designation as wilderness. Any removal of infrastructure within WSAs

would have a direct minor impact by enhancing the naturalness, opportunities for solitude,

and unconfined recreation of those areas. Livestock use is authorized only on the WSA lands

administered by BLM (16% of the total WSA acreage). Even within that 16%, the use of the

lands by livestock is not uniform.

Vegetation in sheep bed grounds can be substantially altered by repeated annual use, but many

areas near the edge of the lava field are grazed only lightly, if at all. Therefore, the effects would

vary from negligible to moderate, depending on location. Most effects would be short-term, but

potential changes to sagebrush steppe plant and animal communities through the spread of exotic

annual grasses would be long-term and difficult to reverse.

Overall, the effect of livestock use on naturalness, opportunities for solitude, and unconfined

recreation in WSAs could be moderate in some local areas where livestock concentrate, and the

vegetative structure would be altered for long periods of time (5+ years). Because there would

be no major impacts on the WSA resource, the wilderness values contained in the Monument’s

WSAs would not be impaired.

Wilderness Study Areas: Alternative B

Water Resources Management Actions

Restoration of riparian areas within WSAs would enhance naturalness by creating a more natural

appearance and helping re-establish native species. This would be a direct long-term minor

impact. The impact would be the same for Alternatives C and D.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Grazing focused on non-native seeded areas that may occur within WSAs, could have short-term,

minor impacts by the decrease in vegetation and concentration of cattle in those areas. However,

there could be long-term minor to moderate enhancements to wilderness values, depending on

success of the re-establishment of diverse, native vegetation.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

In this alternative, the impacts from grazing would be similar to Alternative A; however, with a

reduction in livestock grazing of 20% from average actual use, the intensity of impacts to WSAs

could be reduced, depending on how WSA lands are used. In the six areas where livestock grazing

would be completely removed (Little Park kipuka, North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment,

Larkspur Park kipuka, North Pasture of Bowl Crater Allotment, part of the Craters Allotment,

and Park Field kipuka) there would be a long-term moderate enhancement to naturalness and

opportunities for solitude. These areas either lie within the boundaries of WSAs or portions of

them are designated WSA. Approximately half of Little Park kipuka lies within either the Little

Deer WSA or the Great Rift WSA. The northern portion of the North Pasture of Laidlaw Park

lies within the Great Rift WSA. Larkspur Park kipuka lies entirely in the Great Rift WSA. The

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wilderness Study Areas
Craters of the Moon National Monument 223

Draft MMP Amendment

North Pasture of Bowl Crater Allotment lies entirely in the Great Rift WSA. Only a very small

portion of the Park Field kipuka lies within the Great Rift WSA.

If an allotment containing WSA is retired there would be a direct long-term moderate

enhancements to wilderness values in those areas.

Wilderness Study Areas: Alternative C

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Grazing focused on non-native seeded areas that may occur within WSAs, could have short-term,

minor impacts from the decrease in vegetation and concentration of cattle in those specific areas.

However, there could be long-term minor to moderate enhancements to wilderness values,

depending on success of the re-establishment of diverse, native vegetation. Where fences are

constructed for reference areas within or adjacent to WSAs, there would be impacts to the

wilderness characteristics from fencing and the possible differences in vegetation utilization

resulting from reference area implementation. These impacts would be direct, minor, short-term

impacts for the duration of the reference areas and once the restoration area is removed.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Overall, the changes in grazing between Alternative A and Alternative C would not result in any

measurable differences in impacts to WSAs and their suitability.

Wilderness Study Areas: Alternative D

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

In this alternative, livestock use would not affect wilderness characteristics in WSAs as described

in the other alternatives. The WSAs, or portions of WSAs, within Laidlaw Park and the rest of the

Monument, would not be affected by livestock developments and other related infrastructure.

Motor vehicle use related to grazing operations on ways, cherry-stems, and boundary routes

would be eliminated within the Monument. The removal of all grazing operations within the

Monument would result in a long-term moderate impact by enhancing the wilderness values

identified for each of the WSAs.

Wilderness Study Areas: Alternative E

Overall, the changes in grazing between Alternative A and Alternative E would not result in any

measurable differences in impacts to WSAs and their suitability.

4.2.9. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Lands with wilderness characteristics provide a range of uses and benefits in addition to their

value as settings for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. BLM’s policy and guidance

for conducting wilderness characteristics inventories are set forth in Section 201 of FLPMA.

Due to the narrow scope of this plan amendment, decisions are not being made on how these lands

will be managed in the future. This is consistent with BLM Manual 6320, page 2.

Initial discussions on lands with wilderness characteristics revealed that there was a not a current

inventory in the Monument. On March 20, 2014 the Shoshone Field Office conducted an office

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
224 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

exercise to identify wilderness characteristics for the MMP Amendment/EIS. The staff used

available GIS information, current travel maps, and resource specialists’ knowledge. During

April/May/June 2014, staff field verified the presence or absence of wilderness characteristics

within the units identified during the office inventory on March 20, 2014.

4.2.9.1. Summary

No management actions are proposed in this plan amendment for lands with wilderness

characteristics.

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and E, livestock grazing would still be present. Grazing may continue

to occur in lands with wilderness characteristics. Under each of these alternatives, the overall

impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics would be negligible to moderate detractions

of wilderness character, while some management actions in Alternatives B and E may have

negligible enhancements to wilderness character. There are no discernible differences in impacts

to wilderness character amongst the alternatives that allow livestock grazing.

Under Alternative D, lands with wilderness characteristics would no longer be impacted

from livestock operations. Although livestock grazing is allowed in lands with wilderness

characteristics, the complete removal of livestock and associated infrastructure would provide

overall moderate enhancements to existing wilderness characteristics.

4.2.9.2. How Activities Affect Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Water Resources Management Actions

Restoring riparian areas to PFC and removing any signs of human development would enhance

the naturalness characteristics of lands with wilderness characteristics.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Directing grazing to utilize non-native perennial seedings and to help recovery of sagebrush and

seeding diversity would enhance the naturalness of lands with wilderness characteristics. These

non-native perennial seedings are sometimes visible as rows and are a human-caused impact.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

The presence of wildlife in lands with wilderness characteristics are considered to be a

supplemental value to the wilderness characteristics. Wildlife actions taken to benefit wildlife

would comply with the non-impairment mandate to reduce human impacts.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock grazing can impact the naturalness, opportunities for solitude, and primitive and

unconfined recreation of lands with wilderness character. Where livestock congregate, impacts

to the vegetation can be noticeable. The presence of livestock and related infrastructure are

noticeable by visitors and can reduce the opportunity for solitude. Motorized vehicle use

associated with livestock operations can spread noxious weeds and invasive plant species from

infested areas into currently un-infested areas, altering natural conditions.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
Craters of the Moon National Monument 225

Draft MMP Amendment

4.2.9.3. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative A

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Small-scale construction activities and routine maintenance activities to avoid or minimize

disturbance to priority species and their habitat during important seasonal periods would have a

direct, minor, short-term impact to wilderness characteristics if they are present. These activities

could result in human-made features and human impacts that would reduce naturalness where

present. Relatively minor human impacts on naturalness are acceptable so long as they are

substantially unnoticeable (BLM Manual 6310, pg. 7). This analysis would be the same for

all alternatives.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock grazing affects wilderness characteristics by altering natural animal and plant

communities. These characteristics are also affected by the continued maintenance of and motor

vehicle access to range improvements (such as fences and watering sites). Natural wildlife

populations and distribution are altered when livestock compete with native wildlife for forage

and when predator control activities are undertaken to protect livestock. Temporary roads and

livestock developments do not disqualify areas from having wilderness characteristics. Any

removal of infrastructure within identified lands with wilderness characteristics would have a

direct minor enhancement to the naturalness, opportunities for solitude, and unconfined recreation

of those areas. Effects vary, since livestock do not use the lands with wilderness characteristics

uniformly.

Vegetation in sheep bed grounds can be substantially altered by repeated annual use, and many

areas near the edge of the lava field are grazed only lightly, if at all. Therefore, the effects would

vary from negligible to moderate, depending on location. Most effects would be short-term, but

potential changes to sagebrush steppe plant and animal communities through the spread of exotic

annual grasses could be long-term and difficult to reverse.

Overall, the effect of livestock use on lands with wilderness characteristics could be moderate in

some local areas where livestock concentrate because of possible vegetation structure changes

and permanent infrastructure. At the landscape scale, livestock use on lands with wilderness

characteristics would be negligible to minor since livestock use would be dispersed throughout

the planning area and any wilderness characteristics that may be present.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative B

Water Resources Management Actions

Restoration of riparian areas enhance naturalness by creating a more natural appearance and

helping re-establish native species. This would be a direct, long-term, negligible to minor impact.

The impact would be the same for Alternatives C and D.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Grazing that is focused on non-native perennial seedings could have a long-term, indirect minor

to moderate enhancement to naturalness depending on success of diverse, native vegetation

re-establishment.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
226 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

In this alternative, the impacts from grazing would be similar to Alternative A; however, with

20% reduction in livestock grazing from average actual use, the intensity of impacts to lands with

wilderness characteristics could be reduced, depending on use levels and patterns of those lands.

If an allotment containing wilderness characteristics is retired there would be a direct, long-term,

minor to moderate enhancement to wilderness values in those areas by removing the human

impacts of grazing administration.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative C

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Grazing that is focused on non-native perennial seedings could have a long-term, indirect, minor

to moderate enhancement to naturalness depending on success of diverse, native vegetation

re-establishment. These impacts would be enhancements to the naturalness of the wilderness

characteristics. Where fences would be constructed for reference areas within or adjacent to lands

with wilderness characteristics, there would possibly be impacts to those values from fencing and

the differences in vegetation utilization between the reference and non-reference areas. These

human impacts would be direct, minor, short-term impacts for the duration of the reference

areas and once the area is removed.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Overall, the changes in grazing between Alternative A and Alternative C would not result in any

measurable differences in impacts to wilderness characteristics where they exist.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative D

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

In this alternative, livestock use would not affect wilderness characteristics as described in the

other alternatives. The wilderness characteristics would not be affected by livestock developments

and other related infrastructure within Laidlaw Park and the rest of the Monument. The removal

of all grazing operations within the Monument would result in a long-term moderate enhancement

to the wilderness values identified in the lands with wilderness characteristics.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative E

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Overall, the changes in grazing between Alternative A and Alternative E would not result in any

measurable differences in impacts to wilderness characteristics where they exist.

4.2.10. Livestock Grazing

4.2.10.1. Summary

The types of impacts upon livestock grazing are similar among the alternatives, however, each

alternative varies in the degree of those impacts. In general, Alternative A would be the least

restrictive upon livestock grazing, by having the fewest restrictions on range improvements and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
Craters of the Moon National Monument 227

Draft MMP Amendment

areas available to grazing, along with the highest available AUMs. As a result, lessees and

permittees would have a broader range of management options to support grazing operations.

Alternative A would have moderate impacts upon livestock grazing.

Alternative C has more impacts than Alternative A, primarily because of the restrictions placed

upon range improvements. Impacts on livestock grazing from management restrictions in timing,

season of use, LHAs, and vegetation management are more difficult to quantify, but also have

major long-term impacts when compared to the No Action Alternative.

Alternative E has greater impacts than Alternative C, primarily through the closure of some areas

to livestock and a nearly 50% reduction in AUMs allocated under the 2007 MMP. Many other

actions in Alternative E are similar to those of Alternative A or C, but they are more restrictive

upon livestock grazing and therefore have more severe impacts.

Alternative B would be the most restrictive on grazing management while still allowing grazing

to occur. Alternative B has greater impacts than Alternatives A, C, and E, because of the closure

of more areas to livestock and the 75% reduction in AUMs allocated under the 2007 MMP. Many

of the other actions in Alternative B are similar to those of Alternative C, but they are more

restrictive upon livestock grazing and therefore have more severe impacts.

Alternative D has the highest degree of impacts on livestock grazing of all other alternatives.

Livestock grazing would not be permitted within the Monument. This would cause the greatest

direct impacts upon livestock grazing and the greatest indirect impacts on those areas outside the

Monument in allotments that span the Monument boundary.

4.2.10.2. Assumptions

Indicators of impacts to livestock grazing/range management are as follows:

● Changes in permitted AUMs in areas open to livestock grazing

● Changes in the type of livestock permitted on allotments

● Prohibitions or limitations on the construction or maintenance of structural and nonstructural

range improvements

● Modifications to or removal of structural range improvements

● Closures of areas to livestock grazing for the life of the plan

● Changes to the timing, duration, or frequency of permitted use, including temporary closures

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

● Under all alternatives, all new and renewed leases and permits would be subject to terms and

conditions determined to be necessary by the authorizing officer to achieve the management

and resource objectives and to Standards for BLM-administered lands.

● Changes in resource condition would be identified through monitoring according to current

BLM protocols.

● Changes in livestock management would be made on an allotment- or pasture-specific basis to

achieve resource objectives.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
228 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

● Range improvements (e.g., fences, pipelines, water wells, troughs, and reservoirs) could create

a localized loss of vegetation cover. Fencing would cause a temporary loss due to construction,

whereas other types of improvements may cause vegetation loss over the improvements’

useful life. Additionally, wells, troughs, and reservoirs might cause long-term loss of desirable

vegetation due to repeated livestock disturbance where animals congregate, and could be

restored only if abandoned.

● The construction and maintenance of range improvements would continue in the planning

area, and would vary according to the constraints imposed by each alternative. New range

improvements would be subject to limitations, as defined in the amended MMP. Range

improvements are generally intended to improve livestock distribution and management,

which would maintain or improve rangeland health and could benefit the forage base and

wildlife habitat.

● Permitted AUMs allocated to livestock grazing would be determined on an allotment-specific

basis during the implementation of the amended MMP and would provide for the needs of

vegetation communities and wildlife habitat.

● Management actions that limit or restrict livestock use within the Monument would result in

increased livestock use outside the Monument.

4.2.10.3. How Activities Affect Livestock Grazing

Impacts on livestock grazing are generally the result of management actions that limit, reduce,

or prohibit livestock grazing or AUMs in the planning area. Actions that degrade rangeland

health and forage production, or that restrict areas open to grazing, the season of use, timing, or

the ability to construct and maintain range improvements would result in impacts that make

livestock grazing more difficult to manage. Management actions that make livestock grazing

management more flexible include those that increase AUMs, decrease restrictions on livestock

grazing, improve rangeland health or livestock forage, distribute livestock in ways that increase

access to forage, or reduce costs to livestock grazing management. Direct impacts to livestock

grazing result from those management actions that change AUM allocations or restrict grazing

management practices. Indirect impacts are those that affect rangeland health and productivity

or result in a change in livestock grazing management. Key types of impacts analyzed in this

document are detailed in the following sections.

In the following discussion, impacts upon livestock grazing are referred to as positive or beneficial

if they increase management flexibility, reduce complexity, make more forage available, or make

forage more accessible. Impacts upon livestock grazing are referred to as negative, adverse, or

detrimental if they make management more difficult, more complex, reduce available forage, or

make access to the forage more difficult. When discussing or referring to other resources in this

section, a positive or beneficial impact is one that leads the resource towards the DFCs, and

negative or detrimental impacts lead the resource away from DFCs.

Water Resources Management Actions

Unregimented livestock grazing can impact riparian ecosystem function [Armour et al., 1991];

therefore, managing riparian habitat can directly impact livestock grazing through excluding

livestock at specific sites, increasing herding, adding range improvements (such as cross fences

and water gaps), and adjusting season of use and livestock numbers. Managing riparian habitat

to maintain PFC is required for BLM-administered lands [43 CFR 4180.2(e)(3)]. It benefits

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
Craters of the Moon National Monument 229

Draft MMP Amendment

grazing livestock indirectly by providing cleaner and more reliable water sources and more

dependable forage availability. The BLM has been managing riparian and wetland areas for

these objectives since at least 1997, though additional impacts could occur as other management

needs are identified and implemented.

Protecting water quality and watershed health is a requirement of the Idaho Standards for

Rangeland Health as well as state and federal water quality standards. If additional management

needs are identified and implemented, changes could be required in livestock management,

such as deferring or shortening grazing periods, adding range improvements, excluding grazing

from riparian areas, establishing riparian pastures, and increasing livestock herding. In areas

requiring exclusion of livestock or other restrictions on livestock management, these limitations

could increase costs to permittees and lessees.

Climate modeling has predicted increased variability and frequency of floods and droughts in this

region [Chambers & Pellant, 2008]. This may lead to changes in springs and seeps, causing them

to dry up earlier, and resulting in a change in livestock use patterns [Ecoregional Assessment

Program, 2013]. This would require increased riparian monitoring, at least on a temporary basis,

and more intense livestock management to ensure that riparian areas continue to meet Standards.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Managing grazing to manipulate vegetation communities may indirectly affect livestock grazing

by increasing vegetation productivity and improving forage in the long term. This would be

the case especially where current conditions are not meeting Standards and invasive plants are

common. For example, in allotments with a history of intensive grazing, transitions in the

composition of sagebrush communities may have occurred that have reduced native perennial

grasses and forage for livestock. This can lead to wide variation in the amount of forage available

to livestock due to the increased dominance of annual species such as cheatgrass. However, when

grazing management is put into place to promote health and vigor of the herbaceous community,

it may result in a short-term reduction in available forage, but in the long term a healthy plant

community would provide a more stable forage base for livestock [Klemmedson & Smith, 1964].

Some areas would require additional active restoration, such as reseeding grasses and forbs or

controlling invasive species.

Vegetation management designed to curb the incursion or encroachment of non-native invasive

annual grasses could reduce forage availability in the short term. However, these treatments

generally enhance rangeland conditions in the long term [NTT, 2011].

The management of vegetation communities using natural disturbance regimes, such as prescribed

grazing, and using vegetative treatments to accomplish biodiversity objectives and improve plant

community resilience could also benefit livestock grazing in the long term by maintaining a

more consistent forage supply. However, activities that are more management intensive, such as

prescribed grazing could also increase complexity and difficulty of managing grazing.

As noted in the discussion of vegetation, climate change may lead to species composition shifts

in plant communities. As species composition shifts, livestock grazing patterns will also shift,

requiring re-assessment of grazing systems and practices to ensure that grazing allotments meet or

make progress towards meeting Standards.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
230 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Most actions that are beneficial to fish and wildlife habitat are also beneficial to livestock grazing

in the long term. However, the actions that avoid direct competition or interaction between

livestock and wildlife are typically more restrictive to livestock grazing, and therefore, may

have a negative impact. For example, improving riparian ecosystems tends to have long-term,

beneficial impacts on livestock grazing by improving forage productivity and water quality.

However, restricting the times that a range improvement could be used, such as to avoid disturbing

sage-grouse on a lek, would have a detrimental impact upon livestock grazing through restricting

access to water and forage.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Changes in livestock grazing management could impact grazing opportunities in a variety of

ways. For example, implementing particular livestock grazing management requirements to

benefit sage-grouse could affect livestock grazing. Some management requirements may result in

short-term and long-term increased costs to permittees and lessees, or AUMs could decrease for

some permittees and lessees due to the following:

● Implementation or modification of a grazing strategy

● Change in season of use, livestock kind, or livestock class

● Construction or modification of range improvements, when ability to disperse livestock is

impacted

● Viability of existing operations could be compromised if grazing seasons or areas of use are

eliminated or severely restricted.

These management requirements could result in direct and indirect impacts on individuals. For

example, if a ranch were seasonally dependent on forage from BLM-administered lands, a

reduction or elimination of AUMs may affect the entire ranching operation by reducing the total

amount of available forage [Torell et al., 2002].

Permittees and lessees and/or the BLM may incur a short-term cost from some management

actions that will result in long-term benefits. For example, construction of range improvements

to improve livestock distribution and allow use across a larger portion of the rangeland would

generally enhance rangeland health in the long term; however, it would have short-term costs.

Constructing off-site water sources and fencing riparian and spring sources could keep livestock

away from sensitive riparian areas and provide a cleaner, more reliable source of water for

livestock; however, it would represent an increased cost for permittees through increased

construction and maintenance costs. Other requirements could increase annual operating costs,

such as increased time feeding animals on private land due to shortened or changed seasons of

use, more complex pasture rotations or herding on public land, which requires increased labor and

fuels costs for moving animals, or annually maintaining let-down fences.

Restricting the locations of new grazing infrastructure would limit livestock access to available

forage. There are many areas of the Monument with very little infrastructure, especially livestock

watering sources. As a result, very little grazing occurs in these areas, though forage production

is sufficient to allow it. With new water sources in these areas, this forage would become more

accessible to livestock.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
Craters of the Moon National Monument 231

Draft MMP Amendment

In instances where an allotment is closed to grazing or AUMs are reduced for vegetation

objectives, the agency may have to compensate the permittee or lessee for the range improvement

projects constructed under a range improvement permit or cooperative agreement, in accordance

with 43 CFR 4120.3-6(c).

4.2.10.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Livestock Grazing: Alternative A

Water Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative A, there would be no changes in management for water resources. Natural

water sources are currently managed for PFC, and the mechanisms to reach PFC are available

under this alternative. This alternative continues the existing BMPs and protection from

accelerated or unnatural erosion in the current plan. Continuing to implement projects designed to

enhance watershed health will improve vegetation resources and will improve water and forage

for livestock over the long term. Adjustments in livestock grazing, however, may be necessary

to meet water or soil resource related Standards and could result in short-term, adverse impacts

to livestock grazing.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative A, there would be no changes in management for vegetation, including

special status species and fire management. Existing sagebrush steppe communities would be

protected to prevent loss of shrub cover, and would be managed to prevent or inhibit invasive

species infestation or expansion, and promote a desirable herbaceous understory. Management

that promotes healthy perennial herbaceous understory communities would improve livestock

forage in the long term.

Under Alternative A, restoration would continue in the planning area, with long-term benefits to

livestock forage. Localized areas may see reductions in available forage by the re-establishment

of sagebrush, however, other areas with poor understory vegetation would provide higher forage

value for livestock after restoration. Vegetation would be managed to improve plant communities,

and impacts on range management from these actions would be minimal. All of these actions,

however, could require adjustment to livestock grazing management. Management for noxious

weeds or invasive plant species would continue under the direction of current management plans,

with the focus on areas not meeting Standards or DFCs.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative A, there would be no changes in management for wildlife, including special

status species. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife will focus on species of special concern and

to detect species population decline. Land use authorizations will be required to include actions

and stipulations necessary to protect special status species. Small-scale construction and routine

maintenance activities would be scheduled to avoid or minimize disturbance to priority species

and their habitat during important seasonal periods.

Actions designed to avoid direct competition or interaction between livestock and wildlife tend to

be more restrictive to livestock grazing, and therefore may have a negative impact. However,

actions that improve wildlife habitat also tend to be beneficial to livestock grazing in the long

term by improving forage conditions. Restricting the timing of range improvement maintenance,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
232 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

such as to avoid disturbing sage-grouse on a lek, would have a moderate impact upon livestock

grazing by limiting access to range improvements and forage. Routine maintenance generally

occurs in the spring before livestock turn-out. Natural deterioration of range improvements,

such as fences, is accelerated over winter due to freezing and thawing or weighting from snow.

Therefore, maintenance in the fall or winter, after the grazing season, would result in the need for

additional maintenance prior to turn-out in the spring.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

There would be no changes to livestock grazing management under Alternative A. Approximately

273,900 acres of BLM land would be made available for livestock use, while approximately 1,200

acres would not be available. Permitted livestock use would total 38,187 AUMs, and livestock

use authorizations would be subject to Standards. Management of livestock grazing is designed to

provide for protection or enhancement of other resource values. Where Standards are not being

met due to livestock, adjustments in livestock grazing would be necessary. This would cause

short-term, detrimental impacts, such as reduced stocking rates, but long-term benefits such as

increased forage quality. Likely impacts would include restrictions on seasons of use, grazing

schedules, or stocking levels, with a result in increases of available forage over the long term.

Range improvements would continue to be a part of livestock grazing management, including in

Primitive and Pristine Zones (Figure 2.3, “Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

Management Zones” (p. 34)), but removal could occur to accomplish resource objectives. New

range improvements would be limited in the Bowl Crater Allotment and the North Pasture of

Laidlaw Park Allotment. Range improvements could also be removed if current management

determines that they are redundant or unneeded. If range improvements are unneeded or

redundant for livestock grazing management there would be negligible to minimal effects on

livestock grazing. However, it could have adverse impacts upon livestock grazing by removing a

water source or fencing that might be needed to facilitate grazing management, but is unneeded

for another resource or resource use. If a water source was removed, livestock grazing pressure

would shift to other areas in an allotment, causing higher utilization in some areas. This could

reduce available forage for livestock and could require an adjustment in stocking rate.

Livestock Grazing: Alternative B

Water Resources Management Actions

There are few riparian areas within the Monument, and those are localized north of Highway

93/20/26 in the foothills of the Pioneer Mountains. These riparian areas are generally in PFC or

Functional-at-Risk. The effects from water resource management on livestock grazing would

depend upon the measures taken to attain reference state vegetation. The riparian areas are

used by livestock, however, none on BLM land are indispensable for the management of the

allotments. Livestock exclosures would be simple and effective methods to ensure that livestock

do not negatively impact the riparian areas. In allotments permitted for sheep use, simple herding

practices would also be effective, causing minimal impacts. If exclosure fences were not allowed

in allotments with cattle permits due to other BLM policy or management decisions, the effects

upon livestock grazing management would be the greatest because herding and other practices

are less effective for cattle than fences, and other mitigating measures would be needed, such as

closing a pasture or seasonal restrictions. This would have moderate impacts on livestock grazing

management with long-term effects by increasing the difficulty and complexity of livestock

management in order to reach reference states for riparian areas.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
Craters of the Moon National Monument 233

Draft MMP Amendment

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative B, livestock grazing would be directed to prioritize utilization on non-native

perennial seedings. This could require additional effort by the permittees or additional

infrastructure to control the livestock and direct use to these seedings, particularly if high use

levels are desired (i.e. to effect change in the seeding composition). Directing livestock to these

areas that tend to be more resilient from livestock grazing, and thus reducing use in other more

sensitive areas could result in improving rangeland conditions in lesser-grazed areas through

lighter utilization. If changes in species composition is the desired goal in the seeding (such as

re-establishing sagebrush), then livestock management could be affected by reducing available

forage over the long term because these seedings usually have the highest forage productivity and

the greatest resiliency to grazing.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

There would be no impacts upon livestock grazing management from wildlife and fish

management actions in Alternative B.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

This alternative includes several management actions that limit or dictate the type, location, and

design of range improvements, as well as limit the season in which they can be used. Each of

these actions may not result in a major impact to livestock grazing individually, but collectively

would result in major, long-term impacts. Range improvements are designed to improve

livestock distribution or handling, and to help maintain or improve vegetation condition across

the landscape. This alternative severely limits this ability, and would make it more difficult to

manage livestock in a way that does not impair land health. While overall livestock use in the

Monument would be reduced in this alternative, the use that would still be allowed would be

concentrated in certain areas during certain seasons because many range improvements would

not be available. Most areas that are unsuitable for sage-grouse breeding habitat are lacking in

sagebrush but have adequate herbaceous components. While managing for overall achievement

of Standards, concentrating use in those areas in the spring may reduce the suitability of the

herbaceous component, whereas more dispersed use would also disperse the impacts, rendering

them much less severe.

Removing livestock grazing in the Little Park, the North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment,

Larkspur Park, the North Pasture of Bowl Crater Allotment, and Park Field kipuka would cause

major, long-term impacts to livestock grazing management Figure 4.1, “Livestock Grazing

Allotments-Alternative B”. The action would make two pastures of the Laidlaw Park Allotment

(Little Park and the North Pasture) unavailable to grazing, reducing the area available to livestock

by 17,700 acres (20% of the allotment). The North Pasture of Bowl Crater Allotment is 700 acres

(53% of the allotment). The Park Field and Larkspur Park in the East Minidoka and Minidoka

Allotments, respectively, are less essential to the management of those allotments overall, but

would still require adjustments to the management schemes. The South Pasture of the Craters

Allotment is not currently used by livestock and making it unavailable would not affect livestock

grazing. A 20% reduction from average Actual Use would result in a reduction of 28,755 AUMs

(or about 75% reduced from permitted use) when compared to Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
234 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 4.1. Livestock Grazing Allotments-Alternative B

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
Craters of the Moon National Monument 235

Draft MMP Amendment

This alternative also requires that BLM evaluate existing range improvements and possibly

decommission, relocate, or otherwise modify them. These types of actions have similar effects on

livestock grazing as those limitations on new range improvements. There may also be moderate

impacts to livestock grazing management through the removal of range improvements in areas

not available to livestock grazing. For example, water storage and/or wells that are currently

used may still be necessary to allow grazing to continue in those areas that remain available

for livestock grazing. This alternative would make some range improvements unavailable for

use and/or limit the ability to create new livestock developments in order to manage livestock

grazing. This would cause major impacts to livestock grazing in those areas that continue to

be available for livestock grazing.

Limiting the ability to locate supplements or some structural range improvements near the

lava edge also limits livestock distribution. This would make management for Standards more

difficult, but mitigating measures such as alternate sites would likely be found or other areas of

allotments outside the Monument boundary might be found to reduce the effects upon livestock

grazing. This would also tend to concentrate livestock grazing impacts to those areas outside the

Monument in allotments that span the Monument boundary.

This alternative would cause minor impacts to the Kimama and Poison Lake Allotments. The

current boundary between the allotments is primarily along a major road, as is the Monument

boundary. However there are a few areas where there is some overlap, causing small areas of the

Poison Lake Allotment to lie outside the Monument and small areas of the Kimama Allotment

to lie within the Monument. This alternative would realign the boundaries of the allotments to

fully include the Poison Lake Allotment within the Monument and fully exclude the Kimama

Allotment from the Monument. Implementation of this alternative would result in no net increase

in fencing between the allotments. There would be a net increase of 740 acres in the Poison Lake

Allotment and a corresponding net decrease of 740 acres in the Kimama Allotment.

Retiring an allotment from livestock use once a permit is relinquished would, in effect, make it

unavailable for livestock use. The amount of area that would be left unused by livestock would

depend upon the allotment affected, the other ownerships involved in the affected area, and

whether the allotment spans the Monument boundary. In those allotments that span the Monument

boundary, suspending livestock grazing within the Monument does not necessarily correspond to

suspending livestock grazing outside the Monument. This also goes for those areas with State of

Idaho or private lands intermingled with the BLM land.

This alternative includes seasonal restrictions on livestock grazing based on the sage-grouse life

cycle. This action would result in major long-term impacts to livestock grazing. In addition to

those areas not available to grazing, 192,000 acres of breeding and early brood rearing habitat

that is currently used during that period would not be available to livestock grazing from March

15 to June 15.

Many of the permittees in the Monument use their BLM allotments in the spring and early

summer as a part of a larger operation that includes private pasture and Forest Service allotments.

Changing the timing of the permit in the Monument allotments would require shifting use on the

Forest Service permits and on private land to manage their operation. These habitat restrictions

would result in a wide range in seasonal and annual variation in available forage for livestock.

This would make livestock grazing management much more complex, requiring seasonal and

annual adjustments to grazing systems, allowed forage consumption, and would require intense

seasonal monitoring. These habitat boundaries are not along any particular livestock movement

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
236 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

boundary, so managing livestock to avoid use in these areas would be exceedingly difficult with

the limitations on construction of range improvements placed through other BLM management

direction.

Livestock Grazing: Alternative C

Water Resources Management Actions

Under this alternative, all riparian areas would be restored to PFC. Unregimented livestock

grazing can have adverse impacts on riparian ecosystems [Armour et al., 1991]; therefore,

managing riparian habitat can directly impact livestock grazing through excluding livestock at

specific sites, increasing herding, adding range improvements (such as cross fences and water

gaps), and adjusting season of use and livestock numbers. Managing riparian vegetation to

maintain PFC is required for BLM-administered lands [43CFR 4180.2(e)(3)]. It benefits grazing

livestock by indirectly providing cleaner and more reliable water sources and more dependable

forage availability. The BLM has been managing riparian and wetland areas for these objectives

since at least 1997, though additional impacts could occur as new management needs are

identified and implemented.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative C, livestock grazing would be directed to prioritize utilization on non-native

perennial seedings, as well as focused on sagebrush recovery. This could require additional

effort by the permittees or additional infrastructure to control the livestock and direct use to

these seedings, particularly if high use levels are desired (i.e. to affect change in the seeding

composition). Directing livestock to these areas that tend to be more resilient from livestock

grazing, and thus reducing use in other more sensitive areas could result in improving rangeland

conditions through consistently lighter utilization. If changes in species composition is the

desired goal in the seeding (i.e. re-establishing sagebrush), then livestock management could

be affected by reducing available forage over the long term because these seedings usually have

the highest forage productivity and the greatest resiliency to grazing. The effects under this

alternative would be greater than under Alternative B because the overall use levels would be

greater due to higher AUM allocation. Therefore, greater effort would be required to ensure

that Standards continue to be met.

Reference areas would be established to study the effects of livestock grazing on different

vegetation communities. The effects of this management action would be negligible due to the

small scale of the exclosure areas. Size and placement of these reference areas would need to be

in areas that would show differences, therefore they would need to be in areas used by livestock.

As long as placement of these reference areas is not such that it hinders livestock movement and

dispersal throughout the pasture, then effects would be negligible. These exclosures would

likely be small enough that adjustments in permitted AUMs would not be necessary to offset the

loss of livestock forage availability.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative C, impacts to livestock grazing from wildlife management, including special

status species management, would be similar to Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
Craters of the Moon National Monument 237

Draft MMP Amendment

Under Alternative C, permitted livestock use totals 37,792 AUMs. The current livestock use

authorizations will be maintained until LHAs are completed and the BLM determines that

adjustments in livestock use are necessary to meet Standards, vegetation, wildlife, livestock, or

resource objectives, or AUM levels set in this amendment. There would be a net decrease of

155 AUMs, due to the adjustment of the Kimama/Poison Lake Allotment boundary that places

the area of Kimama Allotment that is within the Monument into the Poison Lake Allotment

(Figure 4.2, “Livestock Grazing Allotments-Alternative C”).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
238 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 4.2. Livestock Grazing Allotments-Alternative C

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
Craters of the Moon National Monument 239

Draft MMP Amendment

The Kimama Allotment is to be excluded from the Monument under this alternative; therefore

those AUMs will also be excluded and not re-allocated. The current boundary between the

allotments is primarily along a major road, as is the Monument boundary. However there are a

few areas where there is some overlap, causing small areas of the Poison Lake Allotment to lie

outside the Monument and small areas of the Kimama Allotment to lie within the Monument.

This would realign the boundaries of the allotments to fully include the Poison Lake Allotment

within the Monument and fully exclude the Kimama Allotment from the Monument. The

implementation would require only relocating a fence and result in no net increase in fencing

between the allotments. There would be a net increase of 740 acres in the Poison Lake Allotment

and a corresponding net decrease of 740 acres in the Kimama Allotment. This would result

in a 155 AUM decrease in the Monument (all those within the Kimama Allotment). Permit

adjustments are not anticipated to be necessary due to this action, but they will be evaluated

during the Land Health Assessments.

There would be 273,600 acres of BLM land made available for livestock use, with 1,500 acres

made unavailable. The effects of this action would be negligible. The areas made unavailable

to livestock through this management action are currently not used by livestock, therefore the

management of livestock would not be affected.

Existing range improvements would continue to be a part of livestock grazing management,

however all would be evaluated for potential removal, consolidation, or decommissioning. This

could have adverse impacts upon livestock grazing by removing a water source or fencing that

might be needed to facilitate grazing management. If a water source was removed, livestock

grazing pressure would shift to other areas in an allotment, reducing grazing pressure at that

location, but causing higher utilization in some areas because of poorer distribution of livestock.

This could reduce available forage for livestock because of distance from water and could require

an adjustment in stocking rate.

This alternative includes limitations on the placement and design of new range improvements and

the placement of supplements. This action has the potential to have moderate impacts to livestock

grazing, because limiting the ability to locate supplements or some structural range improvements

near the lava edge also limits livestock distribution. This would make management for Standards

more difficult by concentrating livestock use, but mitigating measures would likely be found. The

action would also tend to shift livestock grazing use patterns and distribution to other areas.

Retiring an allotment from livestock use once a permit is relinquished would, in effect, make it

unavailable for livestock use. The amount of area that would be left unused by livestock would

depend upon the allotment affected, the other ownerships involved in the affected area, and

whether the allotment spans the Monument boundary. In those allotments that span the Monument

boundary, suspending livestock grazing within the Monument does not necessarily correspond to

suspending livestock grazing outside the Monument. This also goes for those areas with State of

Idaho or private lands intermingled with the BLM land.

Minimizing livestock use in sage-grouse habitat during the breeding and nesting period would,

in effect, limit livestock grazing on 192,000 acres during those time periods. Under the current

permits, AUMs would be severely limited. However, changing the season of use on the permits

could be accomplished during the implementation of this Amendment. Assuming that AUM

levels remain the same, livestock use could be shifted to the summer, fall, and winter seasons.

Many of the permittees in the Monument use their BLM allotments in the spring and early

summer as a part of a larger operation that includes private pasture and Forest Service allotments.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
240 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Changing the timing of the permit in the Monument allotments would require shifting use on the

Forest Service permits and on private land to manage their operation. The effects of changing the

seasons of use on those other areas is outside the scope of this analysis, but there are generally

reasons for permitted seasons of use such as snowpack and plant growth, and drastic changes

may not be feasible.

Increasing summer livestock use would increase the demand for water, resulting in a

corresponding need for increased water capacity at existing watering sites, or increased numbers

of watering sites. If the use were to occur in fall or winter, water use would be less than in

summer and there would be less need for watering facilities for livestock. Winter use also results

in increased maintenance demands from permittees because pipelines and troughs freeze and

need repairs to provide the necessary water. This maintenance increases the ground disturbance

frequency though not the overall footprint.

Allowing conversion in kind of livestock from one species to another would have moderate

effects on livestock grazing. This would be on a case-by-case basis and in single allotments at

a time. It could result in a more comprehensive utilization of forage because of differences in

foraging behavior between kinds of livestock. More livestock developments may be necessary

to harvest the allowable forage, although developing new infrastructure is more difficult in this

alternative than Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing: Alternative D

Water Resources Management Actions

Livestock grazing would not be allowed in the Monument, therefore it would not be affected by

water resources management.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Livestock grazing would not be allowed in the Monument, therefore it would not be affected by

vegetation resources management.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

There would be no effects to livestock grazing from fish and wildlife management.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Under this alternative, there would be a reduction in the area available for livestock grazing

of 273,900 acres. Additionally, 38,187 AUMs of livestock forage would no longer be made

available. Removing the majority of livestock grazing infrastructure in the Monument would

have a negligible effect on livestock grazing, as it would no longer be necessary to manage

livestock under the “No Grazing” Alternative. However, removal of some infrastructure related to

livestock grazing management on public lands would have major, negative, long-term effects on

livestock grazing management in those areas directly adjacent to the Monument. The primary

range improvements that would have a negative effect if removed would be wells and water

storage facilities related to livestock grazing. There are several wells within the Monument that

are used to fill water trucks, which are then driven to areas inside and outside the Monument to

water livestock. While water use in the Monument would no longer be necessary for livestock

grazing, the wells would still be necessary for use in areas outside of the Monument (Figure 4.3,

“Livestock Grazing Allotments-Alternative D”).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
Craters of the Moon National Monument 241

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 4.3. Livestock Grazing Allotments-Alternative D

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
242 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

The Kimama/Poison Lake Allotment boundary would be adjusted to exclude Kimama from the

Monument. Four allotments would be entirely closed to livestock grazing, while the other 17

would be partially closed to grazing. Of the 38,187 AUMs and 273,900 acres no longer available,

Laidlaw Park kipuka, which is the majority of the Laidlaw Park Allotment and all of the Bowl

Crater Allotment would account for 10,641 AUMs distributed among 16 grazing permits, and a

total of 83,100 acres. This alternative would also completely close the Poison Lake and Huddle’s

Hole Allotments, which would account for 3,306 AUMs and 19,100 acres. Additionally, Little

Park (the remainder of the Laidlaw Park Allotment), the Park Field kipuka, Larkspur Park, and

Paddelford Flat kipuka would be closed to grazing accounting for 2,616 AUMs and about 17,300

acres. The remaining 21,324 AUMs and 154,400 acres that would no longer be available are

divided among the remaining allotments.

Grazing in the closed areas of the Wildhorse, Big Desert Sheep, and Minidoka Allotments could

be prevented through clear marking to inform the sheep herders of the boundary. About 70 miles

of marking would be necessary. The remainder of the allotments have cattle permits, and it would

be more difficult to prevent grazing in the Monument, as would the Wildhorse, Big Desert Sheep,

and Minidoka Allotments if conversions in kind of livestock were to occur in the future.

It would be necessary to change the cattle management in the allotments that span the Monument

boundary. Water sources within about one mile of the boundary would not be used, and salt or

other supplements would have to be placed away from the boundary. If this is not possible,

then the entire pasture would have to be closed to livestock grazing to exclude livestock from

the closed area. This would close about 92,100 additional acres to livestock grazing outside the

Monument, and reduce the available forage in those allotments.

The most effective method of preventing livestock from crossing the boundary into the Monument

would be to fence along the border. To fence the allotments with cattle permits would require

about 92 miles of fence. While herding sheep usually effective, fencing would be a more certain

means of preventing sheep from entering the allotment, and that would be an additional 70 miles

of fence. Fencing would also result in fewer indirect effects upon livestock grazing in those

allotments that span the Monument boundary.

Livestock Grazing: Alternative E

Water Resources Management Actions

The effects of water resources management actions under Alternative E would be the same as

those under Alternative C.

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative E, livestock grazing would be directed to prioritize utilization on non-native

perennial seedings, as well as focused on sagebrush recovery. This could require additional

effort by the permittees or additional infrastructure to control the livestock and direct use to

these seedings, particularly if high use levels are desired (i.e. to affect change in the seeding

composition). Directing livestock to these areas that tend to be more resilient from livestock

grazing, and thus reducing use in other more sensitive areas could result in improving rangeland

conditions through consistently lighter utilization. If changes in species composition is the

desired goal in the seeding (i.e. re-establishing sagebrush), then livestock management could

be affected by reducing available forage over the long term because these seedings usually have

the highest forage productivity and the greatest resiliency to grazing. The effects under this

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
Craters of the Moon National Monument 243

Draft MMP Amendment

alternative would be greater than under Alternative B because the overall use levels would be

greater due to higher AUM allocation. Therefore, greater effort would be required to ensure

that Standards continue to be met.

Reference areas would be established to study the effects of livestock grazing on different

vegetation communities. The effects of this management action would be negligible due to the

small scale of the exclosure areas. Size and placement of these reference areas would need to be

in areas that would show differences, therefore they would need to be in areas used by livestock.

As long as placement of these reference areas is not such that it hinders livestock movement and

dispersal throughout the pasture, then effects would be negligible. These exclosures would

likely be small enough that adjustments in permitted AUMs would not be necessary to offset the

loss of livestock forage availability.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Under Alternative E, impacts to livestock grazing from wildlife management, including special

status species management, would be similar to Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Alternative E would be more restrictive on grazing management than Alternatives A and C, but

less restrictive on grazing management than Alternatives B and D. Larkspur Park and an area

currently in the Craters Allotment would be made unavailable to livestock grazing under this

alternative. Allotment boundaries would be adjusted to exclude those areas. Approximately 2,200

acres would be unavailable for livestock grazing, including the 1,200 acres already unavailable in

the 2007 MMP. There would also be a boundary adjustment between the Kimama and Poison

Lake Allotments to coincide with the Monument and Preserve boundary (Figure 4.4, “Livestock

Grazing Allotments-Alternative E”). The remainder of the Monument (272,800 acres of public

lands) would be available for livestock grazing for the life of the plan.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
244 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure 4.4. Livestock Grazing Allotments-Alternative E

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
Craters of the Moon National Monument 245

Draft MMP Amendment

Under Alternative E, permitted livestock use equals the sum of the high Actual Use of each

allotment since 1997, or 19,388 AUMs. The current livestock use authorizations would be

maintained until LHAs are completed and the BLM determines that adjustments in livestock use

are necessary to meet Standards, vegetation, wildlife, livestock, or resource objectives, or AUM

levels set in this amendment. There would be a net decrease of 18,849 available AUMs.

The Kimama Allotment is to be excluded from the Monument under this alternative; therefore

those AUMs will also be excluded and not re-allocated. The current boundary between the

allotments is primarily along a major road, as is the Monument boundary. However there are a

few areas where there is some overlap, causing small areas of the Poison Lake Allotment to lie

outside the Monument and small areas of the Kimama Allotment to lie within the Monument.

This would realign the boundaries of the allotments to fully include the Poison Lake Allotment

within the Monument and fully exclude the Kimama Allotment from the Monument. The

implementation would require only relocating a fence and result in no net increase in fencing

between the allotments. There would be a net increase of 740 acres in the Poison Lake Allotment

and a corresponding net decrease of 740 acres in the Kimama Allotment. Permit adjustments

are not anticipated to be necessary due to this action, but they will be evaluated during the term

permit renewals.

Existing range improvements would continue to be a part of livestock grazing management,

however all would be evaluated for potential removal, consolidation, or decommissioning. This

could have adverse impacts upon livestock grazing by removing a water source or fencing that

might be needed to facilitate grazing management. If a water source was removed, livestock

grazing pressure would shift to other areas in an allotment, reducing grazing pressure at that

location, but causing higher utilization in some areas because of poorer distribution of livestock.

This could reduce available forage for livestock because of distance from water and could require

an adjustment in stocking rate.

This alternative includes limitations on the placement and design of new range improvements and

the placement of supplements. This action has the potential to have moderate impacts to livestock

grazing, because limiting the ability to locate supplements or some structural range improvements

near the lava edge or in other new areas also limits livestock distribution. This would make

management for Standards more difficult by concentrating livestock use, but mitigating measures

would likely be found. The action would also tend to shift livestock grazing use patterns and

distribution to other areas.

Retiring an allotment from livestock use once a permit is relinquished would, in effect, make it

unavailable for livestock use. The amount of area that would be left unused by livestock would

depend upon the allotment affected, the other ownerships involved in the affected area, and

whether the allotment spans the Monument boundary. In those allotments that span the Monument

boundary, suspending livestock grazing within the Monument does not necessarily correspond to

suspending livestock grazing outside the Monument. This also goes for those areas with State

of Idaho or private lands intermingled with the BLM land. Suspending livestock grazing in the

remainder of allotments outside the Monument boundary would require a LUP amendment to

make them unavailable. If suspending livestock grazing outside the Monument boundary was the

goal and there was a LUP amendment, similar effects to infrastructure could be assumed as in

areas made unavailable through this analysis.

Minimizing livestock use in sage-grouse habitat during the breeding and nesting period would,

in effect, limit livestock grazing on 192,000 acres during those time periods. Under the current

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing
246 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

permits, AUMs would be severely limited. However, changing the season of use on the permits

could be accomplished during the implementation of this Amendment. Assuming that AUM

levels remain the same, livestock use could be shifted to the summer, fall, and winter seasons.

Many of the permittees in the Monument use their BLM allotments in the spring and early

summer as a part of a larger operation that includes private pasture and Forest Service allotments.

Changing the timing of the permit in the Monument allotments would require shifting use on the

Forest Service permits and on private land to manage their operation. The effects of changing the

seasons of use on those other areas is outside the scope of this analysis, but there are generally

reasons for permitted seasons of use such as snowpack and plant growth, and drastic changes

may not be feasible.

Increasing summer livestock use would increase the demand for water, resulting in a

corresponding need for increased water capacity at existing watering sites, or increased numbers

of watering sites. If the use were to occur in fall or winter, water use would be less than in

summer and there would be less need for watering facilities for livestock. Winter use also results

in increased maintenance demands from permittees because pipelines and troughs freeze and

need repairs to provide the necessary water. This maintenance increases the ground disturbance

frequency though not the overall footprint.

Allowing conversion in kind of livestock from one species to another would have moderate

effects on livestock grazing. This would be on a case-by-case basis and in single allotments at

a time. It could result in a more comprehensive utilization of forage because of differences in

foraging behavior between kinds of livestock. More livestock developments may be necessary

to harvest the allowable forage, although developing new infrastructure is more difficult in this

alternative than Alternatives A or C.

4.2.11. Travel and Transportation

The region of influence used for the transportation analysis is the planning area. Travel and

transportation is managed under the direction set forth in the 2007 MMP and the Craters of

the Moon National Monument and Preserve Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. The

Monument route network was originally established to facilitate grazing operations and fire

operations, with some routes established by recreation use for purposes such as hunting.

The Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Comprehensive Travel Management

Plan was completed in 2009.

4.2.11.1. Summary

No management actions are proposed in this plan amendment for transportation.

The 2007 MMP indicates that the routes throughout the Monument accommodate recreation

visitors, non-Federal landowners, livestock grazing operations, and administrative needs. Most

motorized use is related to livestock grazing administration; however, the total motorized use

within the Monument is very low.

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and E, livestock operations would still exist; therefore, the travel

network would still be utilized by grazing operations. However, with the reduction of grazing

operations in Alternative B and E, the associated routes for those closed areas would experience a

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Travel and Transportation
Craters of the Moon National Monument 247

Draft MMP Amendment

moderate to major reduction in use. Under Alternative D, all grazing would be removed from the

Monument resulting in most routes being utilized for recreation visitors, non-Federal landowners,

and agency resource management. Some routes would still be needed to provide access to State

and private lands where grazing would continue. Under Alternatives A and C the overall impacts

to travel and transportation would be negligible. Under Alternative B and E the overall impacts to

travel and transportation would be minor to moderate. Under Alternative D, the overall impacts to

travel and transportation would be moderate to major.

Proposed management actions will be in accordance with the DFCs for transportation established

in the MMP.

4.2.11.2. Assumptions

● The transportation network will continue to be utilized in various degrees by recreation users,

non-Federal landowners, and administrators regardless of presence of livestock operations.

● Recreational motorized vehicle-use in the Monument would gradually increase, based on

current and anticipated trends in use and population growth.

4.2.11.3. How Activities Affect Travel and Transportation

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock operators use the existing route network for a variety of livestock management

activities such as trailing livestock, hauling water, moving sheep camps, and maintaining existing

facilities. Maintained routes are used more frequently as primary access in and out of use

areas; however, two-tracks or primitive routes are also used to move sheep camps and distribute

livestock across the range.

4.2.11.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Transportation: Alternative A

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Under Alternative A, there would be no change in livestock management. Permittees would

continue to conduct grazing operations on the existing road network and to trail livestock along

road corridors. This would result in a direct, long-term, minor effect on access roads, and periodic

maintenance would be necessary to retain existing route conditions. Under full permitted use,

there would be an increase in route use associated with the increase in AUMs used by livestock

operations. This increase in use would have a direct, long-term, minor to moderate effect on

access roads, which will require periodic maintenance to maintain road conditions.

Transportation: Alternative B

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

This alternative would result in a decrease in use on the routes that are within, or provide access

to, the Little Park kipuka, North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment, Larkspur Park kipuka, North

Pasture of Bowl Crater Allotment, and Park Field kipuka. Access to the Little Park kipuka and the

North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment is a maintained county road that would continue to be

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Travel and Transportation
248 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

used by other visitors. Access to the Larkspur Park kipuka involves approximately 3 miles of

primitive road from the Brigham Point road, which is a maintained road. Access to the North

Pasture of Bowl Crater Allotment is approximately 4 miles of primitive road. Access to Park

Field kipuka involves access by 7 miles of primitive road from Highway 24 and approximately 8

miles of primitive road from the Arco-Minidoka Road. This reduction in use would be a direct

long-term, negligible to minor impact to transportation. Over time some of these primitive routes

that provided access for grazing management could see a reduction in use such that they could

become naturally re-vegetated. If recreational OHV use on routes diminishes or is minimal

enough, natural re-vegetation of the road bed is possible. It is also possible that vegetation

regrowth could pose a fire threat as an infrequent vehicle passes over the vegetation and traps

it in the undercarriage. This natural re-vegetation would have an indirect, long-term minor to

moderate impact to the transportation network.

In all other areas in the Monument where grazing still occurs, impacts will be the same as

Alternative A.

In sage-grouse nesting or early brood-rearing habitats, routes would be restricted from March 15

to June 15. This would have a direct, short-term, minor impact to access for grazing operators,

recreation visitors, and other users.

Transportation: Alternative C

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Impacts under Alternative C would be the same as impacts identified under Alternative A.

In sage-grouse nesting or early brood-rearing habitats, routes would be restricted from March 15

to June 15. This would have a direct, short-term, minor impact to access for grazing operators,

recreation visitors, and other users.

Transportation: Alternative D

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

The removal of grazing operations within the Monument would result in a direct, long-term

moderate to major reduction of motorized use of the transportation network. It is important to note

that grazing administration accounts for most of the transportation use in the Monument and is

very low. Over time some of the unmaintained routes that provided access for grazing could see a

reduction in use such that they could become naturally reclaimed, or re-vegetated. If recreational

OHV use on routes diminishes or is minimal enough, natural re-vegetation is possible. It is also

possible that vegetation regrowth could pose a fire threat as an infrequent vehicle passes over the

vegetation and traps it in the undercarriage. This natural re-vegetation would have an indirect,

long-term, minor to moderate impact to the transportation network. Many of the roads that receive

regular maintenance may require less maintenance in the long term due to less use in the spring

when wet roads are susceptible to damage resulting in a direct, moderate impact.

Transportation: Alternative E

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Impacts under Alternative E would be the same as impacts identified under Alternative A and C.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Travel and Transportation
Craters of the Moon National Monument 249

Draft MMP Amendment

In sage-grouse nesting or early brood-rearing habitats, routes would be restricted from March 15

to June 15. This would have a direct, short-term, minor impact to access for grazing operators,

recreation visitors, and other users.

4.2.12. Recreation and Visitor Experience

Although management actions of this plan amendment apply only to BLM-managed lands,

recreation opportunities within the Monument also occur on NPS-managed lands and a small

amount of dispersed sections of State-administered lands. In the past 10 years, there have been a

few informal complaints of user conflicts between recreation visitors and livestock operations.

Visitor use is very low in the expanded Monument because the area is in a remote location,

and many of the same recreation opportunities are available in more convenient locations.

Recreational visits to the BLM Monument are often for a specific purpose. Recreational activities

in the expanded part of the Monument, in order of popularity, include hunting; driving for

pleasure; geologic exploration including caving, lava hiking, and sightseeing; hiking; primitive

camping; photography; horseback riding; and mountain biking.

4.2.12.1. Summary

No management actions are proposed in this plan amendment for recreation.

Livestock operations may, at times, interfere with some recreational activities, such as driving for

pleasure, hunting, solitude, or sightseeing; however, some visitors enjoy observing sheep-herding

or cattle-driving. Under Alternatives A, B, C, and E, livestock operations would still exist to

varying degrees within the Monument. Alternatives B and E would provide for the absence and

reduction of livestock grazing in certain areas which would have an overall minor to moderate

impact on recreational visitors. Overall, the impacts from all alternatives would be negligible

to minor.

Under Alternative D, the removal of all grazing operations would eliminate possible user conflicts

with recreational visitors and greatly reduce the potential for observations of livestock operations.

The DFC for recreation established in the MMP will be met under all alternatives.

4.2.12.2. Assumptions

The method of analysis used to evaluate effects on recreation within the planning area was based

on field observations and professional knowledge.

The following assumptions were made when analyzing the effects on recreation.

● Current recreational opportunities within the Monument would continue as described in the

2007 MMP.

● Educating the public on how to act when encountering livestock operations can reduce the

likelihood of potential conflicts.

● Idaho Department of Fish and Game will continue to allow hunting of sage-grouse and big

game in Idaho and the Monument.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation and Visitor Experience
250 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

4.2.12.3. How Activities Affect Recreation and Visitor Experience

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

A healthy vegetative ecosystem enhances the overall experience when visiting the Monument.

Viewsheds with sagebrush and other native vegetation are photographed and studied within the

Monument Healthy sagebrush and native vegetation communities are aspects to the preferred

setting for desired recreation opportunities.

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Wildlife within the Monument provides for certain recreation opportunities such as hunting

and wildlife viewing. Healthy, productive wildlife populations would enhance those recreation

opportunities. Management actions taken to limit visitors to certain areas for priority species

during certain times would create use conflict only in those restricted areas and times.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

The presence of cattle and sheep and their attendant facilities and equipment from livestock

operations can interfere with many types of recreational experiences such as driving for pleasure

(cars and OHVs), hunting, solitude, or sightseeing. However, livestock operations and the concept

of “open range” appeals to some Monument visitors. In the past 10 years there have only been a

few informal complaints of use/user conflicts with livestock operations in the Monument.

4.2.12.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Recreation: Alternative A

Wildlife and Fish Resources Management Actions

Actions taken to benefit wildlife populations would enhance hunting and wildlife viewing

opportunities within the Monument by promoting population growth. This would have an

indirect, long-term, minor to moderate impact on these recreation activities. There could also

be impacts on recreational visitors when seasonal restrictions are in place for priority species by

restricting travel. However, the amount of recreational visitation during the restriction period of

6:00 PM to 9:00 AM, March 15 through June 15, would be low enough that it would result in

negligible impacts. This is true under all alternatives.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

This proposal allows those recreation opportunities identified in the 2007 MMP to continue

to be available. Under Alternative A, the impacts on recreation will stay consistent with the

analysis done for the 2007 MMP. For instance, continued livestock operations would result in the

presence of cattle and sheep and their attendant facilities and equipment. This could interfere with

many types of recreational experiences, causing long-term, minor to moderate, impacts on these

experiences, particularly during spring and fall months in locations where livestock operations

and recreation activities occur in the same area at the same time. The presence of livestock

disturbances along roadways, trails, and heavily visited areas are direct effects from livestock

operations to the recreation visitor. As identified in the 2007 MMP EIS, livestock operations pose

a health and safety concern for Monument visitors. For example, large sheep-guarding dogs are

not human-friendly and may have little or no experience with humans or being treated as pets.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation and Visitor Experience
Craters of the Moon National Monument 251

Draft MMP Amendment

Often, these dogs are left alone to tend a sheep band, and their only duty is to chase off or kill

anything they deem to be a threat to the sheep. Visitors are advised to avoid these dogs and to

prevent their pets from venturing near sheep-guarding dogs and the sheep. These use-conflict

interactions have various degrees of impact on visitors’ experiences. Through a partnership with

the Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission and various awareness campaigns, the BLM uses

education as a means to mitigate such use conflicts with recreation visitors and grazing operations.

Given the long cultural history of livestock operations on public lands, some opportunities for

recreational experiences related to seeing and appreciating sheepherding, cattle driving, and other

activities would be possible, creating long-term, negligible to minor effects.

Recreation: Alternative B

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

The recovery of sagebrush and other native vegetation would return vegetation to a more natural,

healthy state contributing to improved photography, nature study, and other experiences. Healthy

sagebrush and native vegetation communities are aspects to the preferred setting for desired

recreation opportunities. This would result in indirect, long-term, negligible to minor impacts.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Under Alternative B, visitors could notice the removal of grazing infrastructure, equipment, and

livestock within the Little Park kipuka, North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment, Larkspur Park

kipuka, North Pasture of Bowl Crater Allotment, and Park Field kipuka. Range improvement

removal in these areas would result in an indirect, negligible to minor impact to the recreational

experiences. The same impact would result from any removal of other livestock developments

that were identified for removal in other areas. With all other areas that continue to have grazing,

impacts will be consistent to Alternative A.

Recreation: Alternative C

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative B.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Overall, the changes in grazing between Alternative A and Alternative C would not result in

any measurable differences in impacts to recreation opportunities and visitors. This alternative

would have the same impacts as Alternative A.

Recreation: Alternative D

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Under this alternative, recreation visitors would not experience any interactions with livestock

operations, livestock, or associated infrastructure on BLM lands within the Monument. Visitors to

the Monument would no longer come across livestock herds and guard dogs along roadways, or

elsewhere. This would result in direct, short- and long-term impacts to the recreational visitor.

When analyzing the small amount of recreation visitation with the amount of use from grazing

operations, there would be a minor change in the amount of social encounters. Visitors would not

observe livestock related infrastructure within the Monument, which would result in an indirect,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation and Visitor Experience
252 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

long-term impact. Some of the more longer-lasting impacts from grazing such as over-grazed

areas and other disturbed sites would eventually become less noticeable to the recreational visitor.

Visitors could observe additional fences around the boundary of the Monument which may result

in negligible to minor impacts to the visitor experience. Opportunities to view livestock would no

longer be present in the Monument. Visitors who seek livestock viewing opportunities would

become displaced and would be required to travel outside of the Monument for those desired

opportunities. In total, though, removal of livestock grazing would have a negligible to minor

positive impact on recreation and the visitor experience.

Recreation: Alternative E

Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Overall, the changes in grazing between Alternative A and Alternative E would not result in

any measurable differences in impacts to recreation opportunities and visitors. This alternative

would have the same impacts as Alternative A.

4.2.13. Socioeconomic Values

4.2.13.1. Summary

Under the various alternatives evaluated in this analysis, the economic impact of prospective

changes in stocking rates are not proportional to the changes in AUMs. Because of reductions

in expenses associated with operating on any given allotment, a specific percentage reduction

in AUMs does not result in an equal percentage reduction in net revenues to the enterprise. In

addition to reductions in operating costs, producers may also have the opportunity to realize

revenues through selling excess livestock or increasing output by means of feeding them

off-allotment. Because not all opportunities are open to all producers, the assumptions used in

this analysis are not presumed to apply to all ranchers’ circumstances. Rather, they represent a

general overview that should be adjusted when applied to specific allotments or to the attributes of

individual ranches’ cattle or sheep operations.

The following tables summarize the estimated impacts of possible changes in AUMs under

each alternative on the total net revenue of all ranching operations with permits for running

livestock on Monument allotments, collectively. The analysis was completed using a partial

budgeting approach rather than a whole-enterprise approach. This approach aids to evaluate

economic changes of minor adjustments to the business plan as opposed to using a specified set

of production practices over a specific period of time . For example, if changes in permitted

Monument AUMs result in changes in head of livestock under a given operation, then fixed

ranching costs will have to be distributed over a different number of animals. The BLM does not

have access to each individual ranch’s whole-operation financial documentation. Therefore, the

type of analysis that is appropriate for this planning effort is partial-budget marginal analysis,

which takes into consideration proposed changes in management and the estimated impacts

that can be directly attributed to those changes. The level of complexity that would involve

individual whole-enterprise budgets is beyond the scope of this analysis, but would be important

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Socioeconomic Values
Craters of the Moon National Monument 253

Draft MMP Amendment

for individual ranchers to keep in mind as they evaluate the possible impacts of the alternatives

on their own ranching enterprises.

The dollar figures shown in the tables are estimated annual figures. The impacts of changes

over ten-year permit time spans are shown in detailed calculations included in Appendix I,

Socioeconomic Reference and Data Tables.

Table 4.5. Analysis of Impacts of Alternatives on Net Revenue from Cattle Operations

Alternative Approximate

% Change

in Average

Annual

Billed AUMs

Change in

Total Cattle

AUMs

Total Cattle

AUMs

Estimated

Annual Net

Revenue

Estimated

Annual

Impact on

Net Revenue

Estimated

10–year

Impact on

Net Revenue

(3% discount

rate)

A (No Action) 0% 0 5,023 $372,661 $0 $0

B -20% -1,005 4,018 $295,592 -$77,069 -$657,416

C 0% - 321% 0 to 11,076 5,023 to 16,099 $372,661

-$1,222,091

$0 to $849,430 $0 to

$7,245,812

D -100% -5,023 0 $55,954 -$316,707 -$2,701,579

E 0% - 164% 0 to 3,215 5,023 to 8,238 $372,661 to

$619,225

$0 to $246,564 $0 to

$2,103,225

As of the completion of this analysis, conditions in the cattle market had pushed sale prices of

livestock upward by an unusual amount in a short time due to severe drought, severe winter storm

herd losses in the Great Plains, and disease losses in competing livestock market populations. The

estimated prices used are not expected to persist as market conditions adjust over time. The use of

different assumptions would result in different numeric results.

Table 4.6. Analysis of Impacts of Alternatives on Net Revenue from Sheep Operations

Alternative

Approximate

% Change in

AUMs

Change in

Total Sheep

AUMs

Total Sheep

AUMs

Estimated

Annual Net

Revenue

Estimated

Annual

Impact on Net

Revenue

Estimated

10-year

Impact on Net

Revenue (3%

discount rate)

A (No Action) 0% 0 6,768 $2,442,927 $0 $0

B -20% -1,354 5,414 $2,044,029 -$398,897 -$3,402,675

C 0% to 321% 0 to 14,925 6,768 to 21,693 $2,442,927 to

$5,387,216

$0 to

$3,484,603

$0 to

$2,972,437

D -100% -6,768 0 $448,307 -$1,994,619 -$17,014,505

E 0% to 164% 0 to 4,332 6,768 to 11,100 $2,442,927 to

$4,006,573

$0 to

$1,783,296

$0 to

$15,211,874

Environmental Justice

Demographic statistics for the area of analysis indicate that there is a higher than typical number

of people living and working in the area who self-identify as Hispanic, in comparison with the

Idaho as a whole. To the degree that reductions in AUMs translate into reductions in workforce,

and to the degree that the affected workforce is made up of a disproportionately high number

of people of Hispanic or Latino origins, it is possible that cutbacks in permitted AUMs could

have a disproportionately negative impact on Hispanic workers and populations within the study

area. Whether or not this disproportionate impact would actually be realized would depend on the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Socioeconomic Values
254 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

specific decisions made by affected ranchers in response to any reductions in AUMs, if permitted

and utilized AUMs were indeed to be reduced.

4.2.13.2. Assumptions and Indicators

Evaluation of the estimated impacts for each of the alternatives was completed using the best

available data. The most recent published data was used, but extrapolated data were used where

the most recent published data were unacceptably out-of-date.

As of the completion of this analysis, conditions in the cattle market had pushed sale prices of

livestock upward by an unusual amount in a short time. Rather than using prices that reflected

the specific combination of unusual conditions that caused this spike in prices (severe drought,

severe winter storm herd losses in the Great Plains, and disease losses in competing livestock

market populations), the estimated prices used were based on averages derived from the most

recent available enterprise budgets published by the University of Idaho Extension.

The data were evaluated under the following assumptions:

● Average range-grazed calf weight of 490 lbs.

● 10% of the calf crop is retained as replacement heifers

● Percentage of calves reaching market ranges between 90% (100% minus percentage lost to

predation, disease, etc.)

● The grazing season ranges from 7 months, depending on the allotment

● Market price for calves is $2.35 per pound

● Market price for cull cows is $0.64 per pound

● Ranchers will sell mother cows which are in excess of permitted numbers (due to reduced

AUMs) as 1100 lb. cull cows, and revenues from those sales will earn 2% interest

● All analyses were completed using the 15-year average billed number of AUMs

● No private pasture is available as a source of replacement forage

● All proportions of cattle to sheep ratios of AUMs allocated on the Monument were assumed to

remain constant across alternatives

● Operating costs were derived from the published formula for calculating Federal grazing fees

● Federal grazing fee per AUM is $1.69

● Sheep enterprises were assumed to experience average marginal losses of $84.93 per AUM

under current market conditions, based on University of Idaho Extension enterprise budget

data for typical “feeder” and “fat” enterprises

● Total head of sheep were estimated using 0.2 Animal Units per ewe/lamb pair

● Costs of ownership/capital costs were not included in the analysis for either cattle or sheep

● BLM allotment AUMS are the limiting factor that sets maximum herd and flock sizes

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Socioeconomic Values
Craters of the Moon National Monument 255

Draft MMP Amendment

● When there is a reduction in the number of herd or flock animals permitted on a given allotment,

it is assumed that all excess animals will be sold, either internally from one allotment to another

within an individual ranch enterprise as a “sale” between herds (if the ranch has access to

another allotment with capacity for the additional animals) or externally to another ranch

4.2.13.3. How Activities Affect Socioeconomic Values

The socioeconomic impacts of changes in grazing management on the Craters of the Moon

National Monument are complex and uncertain. The prospective future economic impacts of

each alternative depend on several factors. These factors include conditions in the markets for

beef, sheep, and associated products; conditions in markets for competing goods such as pork

and chicken; changes in the local and regional agricultural economies; and changes in the local

and regional non-agricultural economies. Economic impacts of possible changes in grazing

management include both the direct effects on ranch operators and the indirect impacts that could

occur within the affected ranches’ supply chains. Additional effects could be felt as affected

ranchers adjust buying patterns in their personal lives in response to changes in income. Although

the number of livestock grazed on the Monument represent a small percentage of grazed livestock

in the region surrounding the study area, their economic importance to the ranches operating

on the Monument must not be discounted. 1

Potential social impacts of possible changes in grazing management include disruption of existing

contemporary and traditional patterns of work and family life, alteration of relationships between

members of the local communities affected, and impacts to community activities and commercial

networks. The degree to which these possible effects might be felt in any given community

within the study area would depend on the relative resilience and flexibility of relationships,

social systems, and networks of various types within those communities. It is possible that in

communities where traditions are based on long-standing cultural values rather than being

primarily based on current economic activity within the livestock industry, adjustments within

the ranching sector might have only a minimal impact on social and cultural relationships and

activities within the community itself. It is often the case that ranchers remain active in the cattle

or sheep business because of family traditions, personal values, and cultural history. These factors

are recognized as having value to communities within the region surrounding the Monument.

4.2.13.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Socioeconomic Values: Alternative A

Under Alternative A, cattle operations would be expected to realize net revenues of approximately

$372,661, depending on forage availability, season of use, and output.

Should range conditions be unfavorable, calf weights are expected to be close to 430 lbs. at sale,

resulting in relatively low revenues combined with higher costs of operation. Under favorable

conditions, range-fed calf weights would be expected to reach approximately 530 lbs. at sale,

generating higher revenue. On average, sale weight is expected to be approximately 490 lbs. In

1Based on farm receipts reported in the most recent available National Agricultural Statistics Service data, it is estimated

that the 2012 sales of cattle, sheep, and goat-related products reached just over $68,760,000 in the five county economic

study area. The maximum total value contributed by grazing allotments on the Monument represents approximately 2.6%

of all income derived from cattle, sheep, and goat operations in the five county region. In 2012, all farm earnings in the

economic study area were reported at $289,100,000. The estimated maximum value of livestock operations on the

Monument comprise just over six tenths of one percent (0.00626%) of all farm income in the economic study area.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Socioeconomic Values
256 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

addition, if the grazing season is long, the total number of head is expected to be lower than

would be the case if grazing were to concentrate the same number of AUMs into a shorter grazing

season. A longer season of use for grazing also subjects the herd to higher losses to predators,

weather events, and disease. This could result in a lower percentage of the calf crop reaching the

market in fall. Total potential net revenue, therefore, will be higher when the grazing season on

the Monument is shorter rather than longer.

Under Alternative A, sheep operations would be expected to realize net revenues of approximately

$2,442,927, assuming that 85% of birthed lambs make it to market.

Socioeconomic Values: Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the total available AUMs are expected to be reduced by approximately 20%

from average actual use. It is assumed that permittees do not have access to alternative pastures as

a replacement for reduced AUMs on the Monument. Because the BLM AUMs limit total herd

size, animals for which there is no BLM forage available are assumed to be culled from the herd

and sold. Estimated net revenue under this Alternative is $295,592 per year, depending on calf

weights, the length of the season of use, and the resulting herd size. It is estimated that the

corresponding economic impacts on all permittees’ combined net revenues would be losses

totaling approximately $77,069 per year. The total decrease under each possible scenario is

slightly less than a 20% reduction in net revenue due to revenue expected to be obtained through

the sale of cull cows.

Under Alternative B, sheep operations would be expected to realize net revenues of approximately

$2,044,029, assuming that 85% of birthed lambs make it to market. This would be an estimated

decrease of $398,897 in annual net revenue. Total expected revenue includes a modest annual

return from selling excess ewes, either at market or internally between ranch-owned flocks.

Socioeconomic Values: Alternative C

Under C, the average annual available AUMs are expected to be reduced by approximately 1%

from average actual use, although this is speculative due to unknown future range conditions.

Under C, the average annual available AUMs for cattle are expected to range from average billed

use to as high as the full permitted level, which would be approximately 16,099 AUMs. The

actual future use is unspecified due to unknown future range conditions. Estimated net revenue

under this Alternative ranges from $372,661 to $1,222,091 per year, depending on stocking rates,

calf weights, the length of the season of use, and the resulting herd size. It is estimated that the

corresponding economic impacts on all permittees’ combined net revenues would range from

no impact to an increase of approximately $849,430 per year in net revenue in comparison with

baseline conditions.

Under Alternative C, sheep operations would be expected to realize net revenues ranging from

approximately $2,442,927 to a high of $5,387,216, assuming that 85% of birthed lambs make it to

market. This would be an estimated increase of between $0 and $3,484,603 in annual net revenue,

depending on the adaptive management strategy implemented in each grazing year.

Socioeconomic Values: Alternative D

Under the No Grazing Alternative, Alternative D, cattle and sheep ranchers again face the same

constraints as under Alternative B. It is assumed that selling each herd in its entirety, either on the

open market or within the ranch by internally “selling” the excess livestock from one operating

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Socioeconomic Values
Craters of the Moon National Monument 257

Draft MMP Amendment

unit to another, would be the best or only available option across all Monument allotments.

Estimated annual net revenue realized from the sale of cattle is $55,954. This range is based on

the assumption that income from cattle sold will be invested at a rate of return of 2%. Estimated

total annual marginal losses for cattle under this alternative are approximately $316,707.

Under Alternative D, sheep operations would be expected to realize net revenues of approximately

$448,307 assuming that 85% of birthed lambs make it to market. This would be an estimated

marginal decrease of $1,994,619 in annual net revenue.

Socioeconomic Values: Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the total average available AUMs for cattle are expected to range from 5,023

to 8,238. Estimated net revenue under this Alternative is expected to range from approximately

$372,661 to $619,225 per year, depending on stocking rates, calf weights, the length of the season

of use, and the resulting herd size. It is estimated that the corresponding economic impacts on all

permittees’ combined net revenues would range from no impact to an increase of approximately

$246,564 per year in net revenue in comparison with baseline conditions.

Under Alternative E, sheep operations would be expected to realize estimated net revenues

ranging from $2,442,927 to $4,006,573, assuming that 85% of birthed lambs make it to market.

This would be an estimated increase of between $0 and $1,783,296 in annual net revenue.

4.2.14. Climate Change

Methane emissions from enteric fermentation are the result of normal digestive processes in

ruminant and non-ruminant livestock. Microbes in the animal digestive system breakdown food

and emit non-energy methane as a by-product. More methane is produced in ruminant livestock

than in other animals because of digestive activity in the large fore-stomach to break down grasses

and other high-fiber feeds [Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), 2008]. Livestock

manure may also produce GHGs such as methane and nitrous oxide. When manure is handled as

a solid or deposited on pasture, range, or paddock lands, it tends to decompose aerobically and

produce little or no methane, although nitrous oxide emissions may occur [EPA, 2014b].

Methane emission rates from cattle vary widely and depend on many variables [Johnson &

Johnson, 1995]; [DeRamus, Clement, Giampola, & Dickison, 2003]. Estimates for grazing cattle

typically range from 80 – 101 kilograms of methane per year per animal [EPA, 2009]or 6.7 - 9.2

kilograms of methane per month. These figures were used to calculate approximate emissions

from livestock for each alternative.

4.2.14.1. Summary

Alternatives A and C would have a similar effect on GHG emissions in that they have similar

levels of AUMs authorized. At full permitted use, these alternatives would produce between 7,558

and 7,637 metric tons (t) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year, which is approximately

0.03% of Idaho’s annual GHG emissions, 0.004% of the annual U.S. GHG emissions from

livestock, 0.0001% of the annual U.S. emissions of all greenhouse gases, and 0.00002% of the

global emissions of all GHGs. There would be a negligible effect to climate change.

Alternatives B and E would have a reduced level of GHG emissions due to the reduced AUMs

permitted. Overall, however, there would be a negligible effect to climate change.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Climate Change
258 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Alternative D would have no GHG emissions produced and would have a negligible effect to

climate change.

4.2.14.2. Assumptions

This analysis assumes a methane emission rate of 8 kilograms of methane per AUM. Assuming

methane has a global warming potential 25 times that of carbon dioxide [EPA, 2013], each AUM

results in 0.2 t of CO2e.

Overall, changes in rangeland carbon storage as a result of changes in grazing practices are likely

to be small and difficult to predict. Therefore, this analysis will assume that changes in grazing

practices in the Monument would not result in a significant change in total carbon storage.

4.2.14.3. How Activities Affect Climate Change

Water Resources and Vegetation Resources Management Actions

Land uses and/or land management activities that increase the ability of vegetation and soil

to sequester carbon can help mitigate the effects of climate change. Such activities include

improving/restoring riparian and wetland areas, improving age class diversity, health, and

resiliency of forests, mitigating the size and intensity of wildfires, and maintaining/improving

livestock grazing management.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions

Livestock grazing can affect rangeland carbon levels, through changes in plant community and

changes in ecosystem processes, but the effects have been variable and inconsistent among the

ecosystems studied [Schuman, Ingram, Stahl, Derner, Vance, & Morgan, 2009]. Some studies

have found that grazing can result in increased carbon storage compared to no grazing, because

of increased plant turnover and changes in plant species composition [Follett, Kimble, & Lal,

2001]. Many changes in rangeland carbon from different grazing practices do not result in

substantial changes in total ecosystem carbon, but are redistributions of carbon, for example, from

above-ground vegetation to root biomass [Derner & Schuman, 2007].

4.2.14.4. Discussion of Impacts by Alternative

Climate Change : Alternative A

Continuing to permit 38,187 AUMs for grazing use in Alternative A would result in methane

emissions of 7,637 t of CO2e per year (Table 4.6). The 15-year average actual use in Alternative

A produces 2,358 t of CO2e per year. Activities in Idaho accounted for 28.5 million metric tons

(Mt) of CO2e emissions in 2011; U.S. emissions of GHGs from livestock totalled approximately

213 Mt of CO2e [EPA, 2014a]; U.S. emissions of all GHGs totalled 6.8 billion metric tons (Bt) of

CO2e [EPA, 2014a]; global emissions of all GHGs totalled 43.8 Bt of CO2e [World Resources

Institute, 2014]. Emissions under this alternative would represent 0.03% of Idaho’s annual GHG

emissions, 0.004% of the annual U.S. GHG emissions from livestock, 0.0001% of the annual U.S.

emissions of all GHGs, and 0.00002% of the global emissions of all GHGs. There would be a

negligible impact to climate change.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Climate Change
Craters of the Moon National Monument 259

Draft MMP Amendment

Table 4.7. Analysis of Impacts of Alternatives on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock

in the Monument

Alternative AUMs/Year Metric Tons

CO2/Year

% of Annual

Idaho

Greenhouse

Gas

Emissions

% of

Annual U.S.

Greenhouse

Gas

Emissions

(Livestock)

% of

Annual U.S.

Greenhouse

Gas

Emissions

% of Global

Greenhouse

Gas

Emissions

Alternative

A (actual -

permitted)

11,791 –

38,187

2,358 – 7,637 0.008 – 0.03 0.001 – 0.004 0.00004 –

0.0001

0.000005 –

0.00002

Alternative B 9,432 1,886 0.007 0.0009 0.00003 0.000004

Alternative C 37,792 7,558 0.03 0.004 0.0001 0.00002

Alternative D 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alternative E 19,338 3,848 0.0136 0.018 0.00006 0.000009

Climate Change : Alternative B

Reducing livestock grazing use to 9,432 AUMs would result in methane emissions of 1,886 t

of CO2e per year. Emissions under this alternative would represent 0.007% of Idaho’s annual

GHG emissions, 0.0009% of the annual U.S. GHG emissions from livestock, 0.00003% of the

annual U.S. emissions of all GHGs, and 0.000004% of the global emissions of all GHGs. There

would be a negligible impact to climate change.

Climate Change : Alternative C

Permitting livestock grazing use at 37,792 AUMs would result in methane emissions of 7,558

t of CO2e per year. Emissions under this alternative would represent 0.03% of Idaho’s annual

GHG emissions, 0.004% of the annual U.S. GHG emissions from livestock, 0.0001% of the

annual U.S. emissions of all GHGs, and 0.00002% of the global emissions of all GHGs. There

would be a negligible impact to climate change.

Climate Change : Alternative D

Removing livestock use would result in no methane emissions from livestock grazing on the

Monument. Methane emissions from livestock on some adjacent private and State lands would

still be present within the Monument. There would be negligible impact to climate change.

Climate Change : Alternative E

Reducing livestock grazing use to 19,338 AUMs would result in methane emissions of 3,848

metric tons of CO2e per year. This emission would represent 0.018% of the annual U.S. GHG

emissions from livestock, 0.00006% of the annual U.S. emissions of all GHGs, and 0.000009% of

the global emissions of all GHGs. There would be a negligible impact to climate change.

4.3. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with the combined

effects of all other ongoing actions, in a particular place and within a particular time. While

impacts can be differentiated as direct and indirect, short term and long term, cumulative impacts

consider the compounding effects of all actions over time. Thus, the cumulative impacts of an

action can be viewed as the total effects of all activities on a particular resource, ecosystem or

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects
260 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

human community, no matter what entity (Federal, non-Federal or private) is taking the action.

The Cumulative Impacts section is organized to first provide a general description of regional

influences. These are factors within and outside the planning area that, when considered with

management actions identified in each alternative, would create either beneficial or adverse

cumulative impacts that should be analyzed. This discussion is followed by analysis of cumulative

impacts for each resource and resource use that had adverse impacts identified in the resource

discussions under Environmental Consequences above.

In order to diminish redundancy and repetition, the Regional Influences discussion is designed

to provide detailed information regarding issues that would affect a majority of the Planning

Area's resources. Regional influences include noxious weeds and invasive plants, fire and fuels

management, livestock grazing, and lands and realty actions. Following the Regional Influences

general discussion is the cumulative impacts analysis, divided by resource, in the Planning Area.

Each discussion begins with a regional description for that resource, followed by past and current

trends, as well as future anticipated trends. Past and current trends describe the current status of

the resource, as well as noteworthy events from the past that contributed to the current situation.

Future anticipated trends discuss potential outcomes of current trends in the foreseeable future.

Following the past, current and future trends section is a description of cumulative impacts

for each alternative. This part of the analysis addresses the region-wide effect that proposed

management could have on the resource being discussed.

Regional Influences

To determine potential cumulative impacts, projects in the area surrounding the Monument were

identified. The area of primary concern is composed of the five Idaho counties in which the

Monument is located: Blaine, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power Counties. Projects outside

this five-county area, however, are also considered if they have the potential to affect resources

with broad regional importance. Projects identified for the purposes of cumulative impact

analyses are past actions, planned or actions that are currently being implemented, and reasonably

foreseeable future plans or actions. These projects were considered regardless of what agency,

organization, or person undertakes them. Projects included in the cumulative impact analysis

may not affect all resources equally.

Cumulative impact analyses are presented in this document by resource topic. The projects that

make up the cumulative impact scenario were analyzed in conjunction with the impacts of each

alternative to determine if they would have any additive or interactive effects on a particular

resource.

Idaho Statewide Implementation Strategy for the National Fire Plan

The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL), in conjunction with the BLM and other federal

agencies, signed the Idaho Statewide Implementation strategy for the National Fire Plan. The

implementation plan focuses on fire prevention and suppression, hazardous fuels reduction,

restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems, and the promotion of community assistance in fire

management [IDL, 2002].

Livestock Grazing

Eighteen grazing allotments extend into the Monument and four are completely within the

boundary, for a total of 22 allotments. Much of the surrounding BLM and state lands have been

grazed since the 1860s and will continue to be grazed.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects
Craters of the Moon National Monument 261

Draft MMP Amendment

Wildfire

Between 1970 and 2013, approximately 310,000 acres have burned in wildfires within the

boundary of the Monument, primarily on BLM-administered lands. About two-thirds of

this acreage has burned two or more times (Figure 3.4, “Fire Frequency in the Monument

(1970–2015)”). Extensive acreages outside of and adjacent to the Monument have also burned

and will continue to do so. Large tracts of sagebrush have been lost due to extensive wildfires,

and fires continue to foster an environment for the persistence, dominance, and expansion of

non-native annual grasses.

Climate Change

Indicators of climate change include temperature, precipitation, snow pack, stream flow, stream

temperature, plant phenology, wildfire, and vegetation dynamics [Gills et al., 2010] all of which

continue to change throughout Idaho. A recent study of meteorological data collected from

1968 to 2008 suggests a decrease in precipitation and an increase in temperature across the

state [Sohrabi, Ryu, Abatzoglon, and Tracy, 2012]. Sohrabi et al. (2012) suggest that these

trends will continue in the future.

Weed Management

Cooperative weed management activities exist among the counties, private landowners, and

government agencies.

Irrigated Agriculture

Substantial portions of the privately owned lands adjacent to the Monument are irrigated for

agricultural production. Irrigated lands directly adjoin the Monument in three primary areas: east

of the Wapi Lava Field, in the vicinity of the City of Carey near the west end of the Monument,

and north of the Monument near the City of Arco.

Arco-Minidoka Road

In its comprehensive plan, Blaine County stipulates that the Arco-Minidoka Road segment within

its jurisdiction will continue to be maintained at its current level. Furthermore, the Blaine

County Commissioners have specifically stated that this part of the road will be maintained in

its current condition.

Fire Management Direction Amendments (FMDA)

In 2008, Idaho BLM amended 12 existing land use plans with direction to manage fire, fuels,

and related vegetation through the FMDA. The planning area, which includes the Monument, is

composed of public lands managed by the Burley, Shoshone, Upper Snake, and Pocatello Field

Offices, which are parts of the Twin Falls and Idaho Falls BLM Districts. The plan amendment

forms the foundation for district fire management plans and normal fire rehabilitation plans, and it

provides guidance for fuels treatments and vegetation management.

Upper Snake Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision

In 2008, the Upper Snake Field Office began a revision of its Resource Management

Plan/Management Framework Plans. Before a Draft RMP/EIS was released, the Upper Snake

land use plans were amended by the Idaho/SW Montana Greater Sage-grouse Plan Amendment

EIS/ROD, which provides guidance for 85% of its 1.8 million acres. Rather than continue that

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects
262 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

revision effort, Upper Snake Field Office is currently developing a new approach to plan for the

few remaining issues and areas not addressed by that plan amendment.

U.S. Highway 93 (US 93) Realignment

The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) plans to realign and upgrade the segment of US 93

that passes through and along the northern boundary of the Monument.

Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

The BLM will continue to assess all livestock use allotments in Idaho with the use of the Idaho

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. These

Standards are designed to provide resource measures and guidance needed to ensure healthy,

functional rangelands. Livestock use allotments are evaluated to determine if Standards are being

met or if significant progress toward meeting them is being achieved. If Standards are not being

met, the BLM is required to make changes that would help achieve these Standards in the future.

Gateway West Transmission Line

This project was jointly proposed by Rocky Mountain Power and Idaho Power to build and

operate approximately 1,000 miles of new high-voltage transmission lines between the Windstar

substation near Glenrock, Wyoming and the Hemingway substation near Melba, Idaho. It passes

just south of the Monument boundary. The project would include approximately 150 miles of 230

kilovolt (kV) lines in Wyoming and approximately 850 miles of 500 kV lines in Wyoming and

Idaho. The final Record of Decision for this segment was signed in November 2013.

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Comprehensive Travel Plan

A Travel Management Plan was completed in 2009, subsequent to the CRMO 2007 MMP. It

provides for the management of a travel network capable of accommodating the transport of

people and equipment in a way that is appropriate for the Craters of the Moon National Monument

and Preserve, while protecting the objects of interest present in the Monument. The Travel Plan

applies only to lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Programmatic Emergency Stabilization and Restoration Plan

The Twin Falls District (TFD) Programmatic Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan

(PESRP) Environmental Assessment provides guidance for treatments, implementation, and

monitoring related to burned areas following wildfires. This plan was signed in 2013, and includes

all the BLM lands in Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve. Post-fire recovery

objectives are defined in the plan for both emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions, and

are in conformance with the 2007 Craters MMP. Site-specific ES & BAR plans are completed

within 21 days following the containment of a fire, and a DNA is completed to determine

compliance with the PESRP. Typically, ES & BAR treatments are funded for three years.

Big Desert and Minidoka Fuel Break Projects

In an effort to preserve sagebrush communities from the threat of wildfire, both the Burley and

Upper Snake River Field Offices have recently completed environmental assessments for the

construction of fuel break projects within their field offices adjacent to the Monument.

Idaho and Southwest Montana Sub-Regional Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment

and Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects
Craters of the Moon National Monument 263

Draft MMP Amendment

Based on ongoing threats to the sage-grouse and its habitat throughout the West, and the USFWS’s

schedule for making a decision whether to list the species under the ESA, the BLM and the

U.S. Forest Service amended several land-use plans (LUPs) for lands that include sage-grouse

habitat to incorporate consistent objectives and conservation measures into all relevant plans.

This EIS amended the 2007 MMP as well.

Secretarial Order No. 3336 Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management, and Restoration

Secretarial Order No. 3336 sets forth enhanced policies and strategies for preventing and

suppressing rangeland fire and for restoring sagebrush landscapes impacted by Fire across the

West. It builds upon past experience and successes for addressing rangeland fire, and broader

wildland fire prevention, suppression, and restoration efforts to ensure improved coordination with

local, State, Tribal, and regional efforts to address the threat of rangeland fire at a landscape-level.

4.3.1. Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use

4.3.1.1. Soil Resources

Region of Influence

The area of analysis for cumulative effects on soils is defined as the Monument and a zone of

approximately 50 miles extending out from the perimeter. This was considered to be the distance

within which wind-blown weed seed dispersal, soil removal and deposition, or fire-related

impacts would be most likely to affect vegetation resources in the Monument. This influence

would be greatest on the west side of the Monument because of the prevailing wind patterns.

Past and Current Trends

Past actions that have affected soils are anthropogenic disturbances, agricultural practices on lands

surrounding the Monument, historic livestock grazing practices, and wildland fires and related

suppression activities. Native vegetation was reduced or removed with these activities, allowing a

potential increase in noxious and invasive species, or seeding of non-native perennial species in

an attempt to increase livestock forage and stabilize soils. Soil loss and movement were the most

notable effects of these past actions, and stabilization was a result of the seedings. Emergency

stabilization following wildland fires continues to occur in areas determined to need soil

stabilization. Livestock grazing also continues across the Monument, and outside of adjacent or

partial allotments. This use can result in negligible to minor impacts through reduced vegetation

cover, but can be mitigated through maintaining residual cover and proactive grazing management.

Future Anticipated Trends

Wildland fires and rehabilitation treatments are anticipated to continue in and around the

Monument. This may be related to climate change, if warmer, drier conditions are expressed.

Although fires will result in short-term negligible to moderate impacts, treatments are also

expected to continue to mitigate long-term impacts of soil erosion and movement. Current land

uses in and around the Monument are anticipated to continue at roughly the same degree as

in the past.

The Idaho/SW Montana Sage-grouse EIS has amended the existing Monument Management

Plan. Which has affected soils by setting priorities and objectives for sage-grouse habitat to meet

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
264 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

conservation measures resulting from that EIS. These affects are anticipated to be similar to the

objectives and goals outlined in the 2007 MMP as well as in this MMP Amendment.

Cumulative Effects

Soils: Alternatives A and C

Cumulative impacts to soils from actions outside of the Monument and reasonably foreseeable

in the Monument are anticipated to be long-term, negligible to minor adverse impacts, such as

associated with continued variable levels of resource uses, and natural episodic events. This

includes actions from lands both in and out of the Monument.

Vegetation cover loss correlates to an increased potential for soil loss, so the occurrence

of wildland fires will continue to require emergency stabilization to facilitate vegetation

establishment and recovery, when deemed necessary.

Standards would continue, and would be used to determine if livestock use is meeting

pre-determined Standards, as related to soil health and integrity.

Climate change could cause a shift in vegetation cover amounts and the health of ecological

systems, and could be either an increase or a decrease [Monahan & Fisichelli, 2014]. Climate

change could facilitate warmer, drier summer conditions, which could facilitate increased

wildland fire severity and frequency. Reductions in vegetation cover, whether through climate

change, wildland fire, or herbivory, can increase the erosion potential of an area, whereas increase

in vegetation cover or shifts in cover to more resilient and stable species can reduce erosion

potential [Ecoregional Assessment Program, 2013].

Soils: Alternative B & E

Cumulative impacts to soils from actions outside of the Monument and reasonably foreseeable in

the Monument are anticipated to be negligible and site specific in the Monument, and negligible

to minor cumulative impacts from actions continuing on lands around the Monument. Impacts

would be at a reduced level in Alternative B and E as compared to Alternatives A or C, as

grazing use would be reduced in this alternative. However, this could affect the placement of

fuel loading across the landscape, which may contribute to wildland fire expansion, which in turn

may offset the reduced soil erosion potential observed from reduced grazing levels. Alternative E

also places into effect no net gain of soil disturbing activities from infrastructure or rangeland

improvements within the Monument.

Soils: Alternative D

Cumulative impacts to soils from reasonably foreseeable actions outside of and in the Monument

are anticipated to be negligible to minor beneficial and site specific in the Monument, and

negligible to minor from actions continuing on lands around the Monument, including potential

increases in livestock use in portions of allotments outside of the Monument, but that span the

boundary. Although livestock grazing in the Monument would be removed, as well as effects

to the soil resource from that use, wildland fire could continue or increase in intensity and rate

of spread due to conditions related to climate change and minimized vegetation reduction from

herbivory.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
Craters of the Moon National Monument 265

Draft MMP Amendment

4.3.1.2. Water Resources

Region of Influence

The region of influence for water resources encompasses the allotments that span the boundary

of the Monument and surface waters in coinciding watersheds (IDEQ 6th field HUCs). This

region of influence would account for any effects attributed to livestock grazing management

in the Monument that could result in a change in surface water conditions or riparian-wetland

functionality.

Past and Current Trends

Livestock grazing is the dominant land use in the area, and almost all of the land area is managed

for grazing. There are 98 grazing allotments that are contained fully or partially within the

affected watersheds, and 22 allotments are analyzed in the direct and indirect effects. Within the

region of influence, approximately 185 miles of stream have been listed by IDEQ as water quality

limited/impaired, also known as (303)d streams, for combined biota/habitat bioassessments.

Numerous playas have been modified to enhance stock watering.

Wildfires have caused disturbances within the watersheds, increasing the potential for overland

flows, soil erosion, and increased stream sedimentation. When wildfires have burned and removed

riparian vegetation, the compounding impacts such as increased stream temperatures, loss of

water infiltration, decreased bank stability, and impaired aquatic species habitat have occurred.

Approximately 50% of the area within the watersheds affected by this MMP Amendment region

of influence burned from 1970 through the 2014 fire season; some of this area has burned multiple

times. The total acreage burned within this region of influence over the same time-frame is

about 2,486,700 acres.

Future Anticipated Trends

Impacts on water resources from roads, agricultural practices, fuel breaks, wildfires, livestock

grazing, and other surface-disturbing activities in and adjacent to the Monument are expected to

continue and could result in elevated sediment and nutrient delivery to water bodies. Although

most water resources are affected by historic and/or current livestock grazing, the majority of the

region is federally managed. Reasonably foreseeable future livestock grazing management is

expected to improve the condition of the riparian areas and watersheds at a minimum to make

significant progress toward meeting Standards, with an overall objective of meeting Standards.

Additional threats include wildfire and climate change, which could affect future vegetation

composition and precipitation patterns, thereby altering the recharge to springs and seeps.

Specifically, climate change could influence water resources by shifting the timing, duration, and

amount of precipitation. Climate change may also affect the duration and frequency of wildfires.

Low-to-moderate-intensity fires release nutrients into the water and hold long-term importance

for land- and stream-form development; however, larger and more severe fires could result in the

temporary loss of riparian vegetation and associated stream shading, thereby increasing water

temperatures and accelerating sediment transport into stream systems [Ecoregional Assessment

Program, 2013].

Cumulative Effects

For all alternatives the impacts on water resources from past, current, and future anticipated

trends, when considered with the impacts expected under each alternative, could result in

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
266 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

temporary and long-term cumulative impacts on water resources from surface-disturbing activities

that increase nutrient and sediment delivery to waterbodies. Impacts on water resources would be

greater in areas where livestock use and surface-disturbing activities increase. In addition, climate

change could lead to warmer, drier summer conditions, which could facilitate increased wildland

fire severity and frequency. Reductions in vegetation cover, whether through climate change, fire,

or livestock grazing, could increase the erosion potential of an area, whereas increases or shifts in

vegetation cover to more resilient and stable species could reduce erosion potential.

Uses and activities on BLM-managed lands would address water resource objectives by seeking

to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Uses and activities would be managed to meet water quality

standards on stream segments that are water quality limited. Playa resources would be addressed

through managing for Standards. Managing toward the objective of meeting Standards and PFC

would have long-term beneficial cumulative impacts on water resources.

Water Resources: Alternatives A and C

Alternatives A and C are anticipated to result in long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts to water

resources by managing toward the objectives of meeting Standards and PFC. Adverse impacts

could occur from potential increases in livestock use and natural episodic events, such as wildfire.

Management under Alternatives A and C would make less progress towards reference state

conditions, but would still maintain or improve water resources to meet Standards and PFC.

Water Resources: Alternative B

Alternative B would likely result in long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts to water resources

because surface-disturbing activities related to livestock grazing in the planning area would be

minimized or seasonally restricted. Although Alternative B could result in increased use of

riparian-lentic areas during late summer; however, management under this alternative would seek

to attain reference state conditions in riparian-lentic areas. Alternately, if livestock use shifted to

areas outside the Monument, management under Alternative B could result in adverse cumulative

effects to water resources outside the Monument. Similar to Alternative A, natural episodic

events, such as wildfire, could result in adverse cumulative impacts.

Water Resources: Alternative D

Alternative D would likely result in long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts to water resources

because surface-disturbing activities related to livestock grazing would be removed from the

planning area. Management under this alternative would also seek to attain reference state

conditions in riparian-lentic areas. Similar to Alternative B, if livestock use shifted to areas

outside the Monument, management under Alternative D could result in adverse cumulative

effects to water resources outside the Monument. Similar to Alternative A, natural episodic

events, such as wildfire, could result in adverse cumulative impacts.

Water Resources: Alternative E

The cumulative effects of Alternative E are expected to be similar to Alternatives A and C, except

a potential increase in livestock use would not occur. .

4.3.1.3. Vegetation Resources

Region of Influence

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
Craters of the Moon National Monument 267

Draft MMP Amendment

The area of analysis for cumulative effects on vegetation is defined as the Monument and a zone

of approximately 50 miles radius extending out from the perimeter. This was considered to be the

distance within which wind-blown weed seed dispersal, soil removal and deposition, or fire-related

impacts would be most likely to affect vegetation resources in the Monument. This influence

would be greatest on the west side of the Monument because of the prevailing wind patterns.

Past and Current Trends

Past actions that have affected vegetation in the area of analysis include anthropogenic

disturbances, agricultural practices on lands surrounding the Monument, historic livestock

grazing practices, and wildland fires and related suppression activities. These practices have

impacted vegetation through the introduction of noxious weeds and invasive plant species, and

may have caused shifts in vegetation composition beyond a given natural threshold and created a

new ecological state. Vegetation manipulation has occurred across the Monument in the past,

and continues to occur, in the form of projects intended to increase forage production, stabilize

soils, reduce fuels, create greenstrips or fuel breaks, and restore native shrub, grasses, and forbs.

These past land treatments have stabilized soils, established non-native and native vegetation, and

reduced noxious and invasive plant species in areas of successful establishment. The Idaho/SW

Montana Sage-grouse EIS/ROD has amended the existing MMP. This will affect vegetation by

setting priorities and objectives for sage-grouse habitat to meet conservation measures outlined in

that EIS. These affects are anticipated to be similar to the objectives and goals outlined in the

2007 MMP as well as in this Plan Amendment.

Future Anticipated Trends

Areas surrounding the Monument would continue to be used for various activities, including

agriculture, development, travel and transportation planning and creation, livestock grazing,

and recreation. These activities have changed vegetation composition and increased noxious

weeds and invasive plant species in the past. Wildfires and rehabilitation treatments, as well as

pro-active land treatments, have occurred across the Monument and surrounding areas. These

projects strive to establish desirable grasses, forbs, and shrubs, increase ecological system

resiliency, reduce wildland fire severity and spread, stabilize soils, and reduce noxious weeds and

invasive plant species. They can have a negligible to major impact on the vegetation resources

through the short-term removal of vegetation, potential for noxious weed and invasive annual

plants establishment, and potential natural ecological condition shifts.

Current land uses in and around the Monument are anticipated to continue at roughly the same

level as in the past. These uses are likely to continue to disperse noxious weeds and impact intact

plant communities. Certain areas would be rehabilitated to better condition than currently in, but

other areas would remain indefinitely disturbed.

Cumulative Effects

Vegetation: Alternatives A and C

Activities affecting vegetation outside of the Monument could negatively affect vegetation

resources both in and outside the Monument. Noxious weed populations are established in

areas surrounding the Monument, and are treated regularly, with the anticipation of long-term

negligible to moderate impacts.

Livestock grazing would be managed to meet Standards as related to biotic health and integrity.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
268 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Climate change could cause a shift in vegetation cover amounts and the health of ecological

systems, and could be either an increase or a decrease [Monahan & Fisichelli, 2014]. Climate

change could facilitate warmer, drier summer conditions, which could facilitate increased

wildland fire severity and frequency. Climate change, wildland fire, or herbivory can all cause

reductions in vegetation cover. Land treatments, either following these disturbances or as

proactive measures before effects are observed, could cause shifts to more resilient and stable

species [Ecoregional Assessment Program, 2013].

Vegetation: Alternatives B and D

Cumulative effects on vegetation from reasonably foreseeable actions outside of and in the

Monument are anticipated to be negligible and site specific in the Monument, and negligible to

minor cumulative impacts from actions continuing on lands around the Monument. Impacts

would be at a reduced level in Alternative B as compared to Alternatives A or C, as grazing use

would be reduced with this alternative. However, this could affect the placement of fuel loading

across the landscape, which may contribute to wildland fire expansion, causing an immediate

reduction in vegetation cover, a potential for establishment of noxious weeds and invasive plant

species, and a possible shift in plant community composition. Impacts would be at a reduced level

in Alternative D compared to Alternatives A and C because no grazing would be allowed in the

Monument. However, although livestock grazing in the Monument would be removed, wildland

fire could continue or increase in intensity and rate of spread due to conditions related to climate

change and minimized vegetation reduction from herbivory.

Vegetation: Alternative E

Within Alternative E cumulative effects on vegetation from reasonable foreseeable actions outside

of and in the Monument are anticipated to be negligible and site specific within the Monument, or

negligible to minor cumulative impacts from actions continuing on lands around the Monument.

Impacts would be at a reduced level compared to Alternative A & C and higher than alternative B

& D from grazing utilization within the Monument. Alternative E would limit vegetation loss due

to soil disturbing activities related to rangeland improvement or infrastructure by enforcing a no

net gain disturbance management and limited areas that would have range improvement. These

area are pre-existing developed areas within the Monument now or historically.

4.3.1.4. Wildlife and Fish, Including Special Status Species

Region of Influence

The region of influence for numerous wildlife species (e.g., resident amphibians and reptiles)

encompasses the Monument and overlapping grazing allotments, but also considers coinciding

watersheds (6th Field HUCs). The region of influence for bighorn sheep considers the IDFG

bighorn sheep PMUs which occur within the spatial boundary of the Risk of Contact Tool (22

miles) relative to the Monument boundary. The region of influence for sage-grouse is defined

as the Monument and surrounding areas within the Snake-Salmon Beaverhead population of

sage-grouse. This large population extends from the Snake, Salmon, and Beaverhead watersheds

into southwestern Montana. The region of influence for sage-grouse is considered to be the

distance within which bird movements and dispersal (e.g., genetic connectivity) have been

observed to occur and, thus, was selected to capture the potential influence of management

activities in the planning area on the sage-grouse population. This area also provides meaningful

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
Craters of the Moon National Monument 269

Draft MMP Amendment

context and relevance for other large and/or highly mobile species (e.g., big game, raptors, and

migratory birds) that could utilize sagebrush steppe habitats in the Monument.

Past and Current Trends

Sagebrush steppe communities historically occupied the majority of the analysis area. A decrease

in these communities over the last century has resulted in disturbed and fragmented wildlife and

fish habitats and corresponding declines in the abundance of wildlife and fish species that depend

on these ecosystems to complete important life-cycle activities. Mammals, birds, amphibians,

reptiles, fish, and invertebrates have been specifically impacted by the loss or conversion of

upland and riparian-wetland habitats, wildfire, drought, introduction of exotic species, historic

and current livestock grazing, increased roads and motorized vehicle use, recreational use,

chemical treatments of lands from industrial, agricultural, and residential applications, degraded

water quality, and disease outbreaks.

Habitat availability is a primary limiting factor for sagebrush-associated species in this region

due to a combination of land use change and natural disturbances such as wildfire. The Snake

River Plain has a long history of agricultural land uses, and the majority of highly productive

lands have been converted to farmland, resulting in a sagebrush landscape that is drier and less

productive than those of past eras [Manier et al., 2013]. In addition, the wildfire interval has

become more frequent and, with the invasion of noxious species, has increased the risk of the

native plant community shifting to a community dominated by annual grasses and other exotic

species. This shift in the vegetation community decreases habitat structure and function and

provides unsuitable forage and cover conditions for many sagebrush-associated animal species.

Wildfires at lower elevations, including habitats in the planning area, have the greatest impact to

the natural community; few of the sagebrush habitats within this area are undisturbed and many

have altered understories that reduce the ability of the habitat to support sage-grouse. Specifically,

approximately 747,900 acres (85%) of the grazing allotments affected by this MMP Amendment

burned from 1970 through the 2013 fire season.

Sage-grouse were historically widespread throughout the Snake River Plain, but populations

have undergone long-term declines, partly due to ongoing losses of habitat quality and quantity.

Sage-grouse abundance declined by over half from 1965 to 2007. However, the Snake-Salmon

Beaverhead population has fluctuated around 5,000 males since 1992 and was considered stable

to increasing from 2007 to 2010 [Garton et al., 2011]. This population is considered to be at

low risk of extirpation [USDI USFWS, 2013] with virtually no chance of declining below 500

individuals in the next 100 years [Garton et al., 2011]. Sage-grouse are common or uncommon,

but not rare, and are usually widespread throughout the area [USDI USFWS, 2012], despite

long-term declines in abundance.

Future Anticipated Trends

Future wildlife and fish trends in the analysis area are largely dependent on the maintenance of

sagebrush steppe communities. The majority of sagebrush habitat in this region is federally

managed, and current trends in the region indicate a higher future demand for multiple-use

activities (e.g., energy development and transmission lines, motorized vehicle and other

recreational uses), with potential corresponding impacts on wildlife and fish resources. It is

anticipated that agricultural practices on private lands and permitted livestock grazing on

federally managed lands will continue into the future at roughly the same level as current use

(273,900 acres, or >99% of the planning area, is currently available to livestock grazing). Grazing

management on BLM lands has steadily improved in recent decades and currently must conform

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
270 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

to Standards, which include wildlife and fish habitat requirements. Reasonably foreseeable future

livestock grazing is expected to improve the condition of riparian areas and uplands at a minimum

to make significant progress toward meeting Standards.

Additional threats include wildfire and climate change, which could affect future vegetation

composition by shifting the timing, duration, and amount of precipitation. Climate change also

may affect the duration and frequency of wildfires. Historically, moderate fire return intervals and

low intensity fires allowed sagebrush to persist within recently burned areas and thus promoted

the mixed composition of sagebrush communities. However, wildfires are becoming larger and

more frequent, effectively reducing the habitat quality and quantity of sagebrush communities

[Ecoregional Assessment Program, 2013]. Maintaining and improving sagebrush steppe

communities to provide diverse, abundant, and high quality wildlife and fish habitats on public

lands will largely depend on wildfire and weed management programs and successful upland and

riparian habitat restoration and rehabilitation programs. Although overall trends toward habitat

loss and fragmentation are likely to continue, especially in southern portions of the region where

wildfire and weeds persist at higher levels, appropriate vegetation management, including fuel

breaks, could substantially alleviate these threats on large parcels of public land.

Predicted climate change effects on local precipitation and temperature may also increase the

occurrence of invasive animal species, insect outbreaks, and diseases such as West Nile virus

(WNv) [Ecoregional Assessment Program, 2013]. Most notably, WNv has been identified in

sage-grouse populations in Idaho and may result in persistent low-level mortality and possibly

severe outbreaks, leading to local extinctions and/or regional population declines [Ecoregional

Assessment Program, 2013]. The risk of WNv is expected to increase as temperatures increase

and is likely related to the amount of available surface water associated with irrigated agriculture

on private lands, as well as livestock tanks and ponds on public lands [Ecoregional Assessment

Program, 2013]. Larger populations of sage-grouse, such as the Snake-Salmon Beaverhead

population, may absorb the impacts if population growth is supported by quality habitat.

Cumulative Effects

For all alternatives the impacts on wildlife and fish resources from past, current, and future

anticipated trends, when considered with the impacts expected under each alternative, could

generate temporary and long-term cumulative impacts on wildlife and fish resources from

activities that result in the loss, modification, or degradation/improvement of habitat; the

disturbance of individuals during sensitive time periods; or direct animal mortality. In addition,

climate change could lead to warmer, drier summer conditions, which could facilitate increased

wildland fire severity and frequency. Reductions in vegetation cover, whether through climate

change, fire, or livestock grazing, could alter both the habitat quality and quantity of sagebrush

communities.

Uses and activities on BLM-managed lands would address wildlife and fish resource objectives

by seeking to reduce disturbances of both wildlife and fish and their habitats. For example,

livestock grazing management must conform to Standards, which include wildlife and fish habitat

requirements. Implementation of reasonably foreseeable conservation measures designed to

protect sage-grouse habitat could also benefit wildlife and fish resources.

Wildlife and Fish, including Special Status Species: Alternative A

Alternative A is anticipated to result in long-term beneficial cumulative impacts to wildlife and

fish resources because managing to meet Sstandards would be expected to improve or maintain

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
Craters of the Moon National Monument 271

Draft MMP Amendment

conditions for wildlife and fish resources. Although some regional influences on lands not

administered by BLM would continue to impact wildlife, fish, and their habitats, the management

prescriptions identified here and additionally those identified in the ARMPA are expected promote

the conservation of wildlife and fish resources. In particular ARMPA would cumulatively

influence this and other alternatives in this plan by markedly reducing threats to wildlife and

fish resources in the region, particularly on BLM and USFS administered public lands. In

particular, the Snake-Salmon Beaverhead population of sage-grouse is expected to benefit. The

Snake-Salmon Beaverhead population of sage-grouse is relatively large and presently stable;

however it does face threats from a variety of human and natural causes, primarily wildfire and

weeds. Ongoing activities that could alleviate impacts of fire include vegetation management

actions that reduce fuels, control noxious weeds, and improve wildlife habitat, such as the Big

Desert and Minidoka fuel break projects. Moreover, future actions on public lands consistent

with the implementation of ARMPA are expected to provide short-term and long-term benefits

to further reduce these threats. This is concluded because management actions in ARMPA

are developed to promote the sustainability and health of Greater sage-grouse populations,

their habitats, as well as promote landscape level rangeland health. Greater sage-grouse are

considered an umbrella species for other sagebrush associated species (Hanser and Knick, 2011);

consequently, it is assumed that management which promotes the short-term and long-term

benefits of sage-grouse would also provide short-term and long-term benefits to other sagebrush

associate species. Because the Monument occurs within the sagebrush biome, many of the species

present and affected by the plan are sagebrush associates. For a full analysis of the effects of the

ARMPA, please refer to the ID/SW Montana Sage-Grouse EIS.

Wildlife and Fish, including Special Status Species: Alternative B

Alternative B is anticipated to result in long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts to wildlife and

fish resources because structural range improvements and livestock use of wildlife habitats would

be restricted in the planning area to a great extent. However, if livestock use shifted as a result of

the AUM reductions in the planning area, management under Alternative B could result in adverse

cumulative effects to wildlife and fish resources outside the Monument. Regional influences on

lands not managed by BLM would still impact wildlife and fish and their habitats, and overall

trends toward habitat loss and fragmentation are likely to continue from spread of invasive weeds,

wildfire, large-scale infrastructure, and other threats in the region. However, due to the expected

long-term improved condition of habitat quality in the planning area from livestock grazing

management, especially in sensitive wildlife habitats, implementation of Alternative B could result

in an overall cumulative benefit to wildlife resources. The influence to cumulative effects from

ARMPA under Alternative B is expected to be similar to those described under Alternative A.

Wildlife and Fish, including Special Status Species: Alternative C

Alternative C is anticipated to result in long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts to wildlife

and fish resources. Although livestock use could potentially increase from current levels,

Alternative C includes actions that would enable management to meet conservation objectives

for sage-grouse over the short and long term. Management under this alternative would provide

increased implementation-level guidance that would increase protection of sagebrush habitats,

compared to current management, but to a lesser extent than Alternatives B and D. The influence

to cumulative effects from ARMPA under Alternative C is expected to be similar to those

described under Alternative A.

Wildlife and Fish, including Special Status Species: Alternative D

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
272 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Alternative D is anticipated to result in long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts to wildlife and

fish resources because livestock grazing and associated infrastructure would be removed from the

planning area. Similar to Alternative B, if livestock use shifted as a result of the AUM reductions

in the planning area, management under Alternative D could result in adverse cumulative effects

to wildlife and fish resources outside the Monument. Management under this alternative would

also have limited ability to affect spread of weeds and wildfire, the major threats to sagebrush

steppe communities in the region. The primary means of alleviating these major threats is through

vegetation management, which is limited to certain areas and unlikely to approach the scope of

the threats. Furthermore, if implementation of Alternative D would reduce livestock permittees’

abilities to keep ranches maintained or profitable, they could be sold and developed, causing

additional loss of habitat [Wilkins et al., 2003]. Ultimately, the effects of removing livestock

grazing in sage-grouse habitats on a landscape scale are unknown, and it is unclear whether

complete removal would improve sage-grouse habitat or increase population levels ([USDI

USFWS, 2010] and references therein). The influence to cumulative effects from ARMPA under

Alternative D is expected to be similar to those described under Alternative A.

Alternative D could result in a net increase in fence infrastructure to facilitate closing Monument

lands to grazing. If fencing existing cattle allotments along the boundary is implemented it

could cumulatively result in a net increase of approximately 27 miles of fence infrastructure.

Cumulatively fence infrastructure representing a collision hazard to sage-grouse would also

increase by 10.5 miles if this option is implemented.

If existing cattle and sheep allotments along the boundary are fenced to facilitate the closure

then there could be a cumulative increase in fence infrastructure by 97 miles. Cumulatively

fence infrastructure representing a collision hazard to sage-grouse would also increase by 34.5

miles if this option is implemented.

Cumulatively increasing fence infrastructure is expected to increase the risk of collision for

sage-grouse and entanglement of big game. Adequately marking fences could minimize the

risk of collision with sage-grouse. Also, building fences consistent with suggested practices to

minimize big game conflicts could minimize adverse consequences with entanglement of big

game. This may include adjusting spacing between wires, using a minimum number of wires,

adjusting fence height, utilizing smooth wire, utilizing drop-down fences, or increasing visibility.

Alternative D could result in a net decrease in fence infrastructure If livestock management or

existing fence infrastructure is used to close Monument lands to grazing. Cumulatively this option

would result in a net decrease in fence infrastructure from the removal of 65 miles of existing

fence infrastructure within the monument. Cumulatively this would remove 33 miles of fence that

represents a collision hazard to sage-grouse.

Wildlife and Fish, including Special Status Species: Alternative E

Alternative E is anticipated to result in long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts to wildlife

and fish resources because livestock use of wildlife habitats would be reduced in the planning

area. Also impacts from structural range improvements could be reduced as well. These

benefits would occur at a lesser extent relative to Alternative B, but would be greater relative

to Alternatives A and C. However, if livestock use shifted as a result of the AUM reductions

in the planning area, management under Alternative E could result in adverse cumulative

effects to wildlife and fish resources outside the Monument. Regional influences on lands not

managed by BLM would still impact wildlife and fish and their habitats, and overall trends

toward habitat loss and fragmentation are likely to continue from spread of invasive weeds,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
Craters of the Moon National Monument 273

Draft MMP Amendment

wildfire, large-scale infrastructure, and other threats in the region. However, due to the expected

long-term improved condition of habitat quality in the planning area from livestock grazing

management implementation of Alternative E could result in an overall cumulative benefit to

wildlife resources. The influence to cumulative effects from ARMPA under Alternative E are

expected to be similar to those described under Alternative A.

4.3.1.5. Native American Rights and Interests

Region of Influence

The area of analysis for cumulative impacts to Native American Rights and Interests was

defined as all the livestock grazing allotments within the Monument, as well as those allotments

that extend outside the Monument because Plan Amendment actions would not affect Native

American Values outside these allotments.

Past and Current Trends

For many years, Monument allotment lands have been subject to a variety of uses and events

that have affected cultural and ethnographic resources to various degrees. Historic livestock

grazing and the associated water developments and roads/infrastructure construction have had an

impact on native plants, wildlife, and cultural resources before the passage of FLPMA, NEPA,

and the NHPA.

Wildfires have always occurred in the Monument and on the surrounding lands. Before modern

fire fighting methods, fires would burn vast areas unchecked. The earliest post-fire restoration

methods consisted of seeding crested wheatgrass on large tracts with a plow. The introduction of

non-native plant species changed the vegetation communities dramatically in some areas.

Since the passage of FLPMA, NEPA, and the NHPA, the impacts to cultural resources from

livestock developments, road construction, and post-fire restoration have been greatly reduced or

mitigated by using the Section 106 process to avoid impacts to sites. The 2000 designation of

the expanded Monument and the subsequent 2007 MMP and the 2009 Comprehensive Travel

Plan provided even more protections for wildlife, native plants, and cultural resources from

development within the Monument. Wildfires and restorations continue to occur, but modern

suppression techniques and the use of rangeland drills for seeding have reduced the amount of

soil disturbance. Native species are used in seed mixes where appropriate. Livestock numbers

have fallen dramatically in recent years due to economic and environmental reasons as compared

to historic numbers. Even the amount of illegal archaeological collection has fallen due to

public awareness of preservation laws to protect sites. All of these factors have resulted in the

preservation of Native American Rights and Interests.

Future Anticipated Trends

Based on the trend over the past several years since the 2007 Plan was signed and the fact

that no new major developments are proposed within the Monument, there would be little

foreseeable change in Native American Rights and Interests. If climate change were to cause

drought conditions more often, AUM levels might be further reduced due to changes in forage

and wildfires could become more severe. It is difficult to speculate what long-term effect climate

change could have to Native American Rights and Interests, but regardless, wildfires will continue

to occur in the future. Given the low level of recreation use the Monument has seen since it’s

expansion, future increases in recreational use are not anticipated any time soon.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
274 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

The final GRSG ARMPA now provides more restrictions on infrastructure development for the

benefit of sage-grouse. Combined with all the aforementioned regional influences, the trend seems

to be toward less wildlife, native plant, and cultural resource disturbance from human-caused

factors, with the continued potential for impacts from climate change and wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Native American Rights and Interests Alternatives A-E

Under Alternatives A, B, C and E, cumulative impacts to Native American Rights and Interests

from actions outside the Monument boundary, plus those of the alternatives, would have

long-term, negligible to minor impacts.

Cumulative impacts to Native American Rights and Interests in Alternative D from actions

outside the Monument boundary, plus those of this alternative, would be long-term, negligible to

minor improvement to Native American Rights and Interests.

4.3.1.6. Cultural Resources

Region of Influence

The area of analysis for cumulative impacts to Cultural Resources was defined as all the livestock

grazing allotments within the Monument, as well as those allotments that extend outside the

Monument because Plan Amendment actions would not affect cultural resources outside these

allotments.

Past and Current Trends

For many years, Monument allotment lands have been subject to a variety of uses and events that

have affected cultural resources to various degrees. Historic livestock grazing and the associated

water developments and roads/infrastructure construction have had an impact on cultural

resources, as well as the thousands of sheep that grazed here in the pre-WW II years. Many sites

associated with playas were damaged or destroyed by the excavation of water catchments for

livestock before the passage of FLPMA, NEPA, and the NHPA.

Wildfires have always occurred in the Monument and on the surrounding lands. Before modern

fire fighting methods, fires would burn vast areas unchecked. The earliest post-fire restoration

methods consisted of seeding crested wheatgrass on large tracts with a plow. Plowing disturbs the

soil much deeper than modern seed drills, resulting in more cultural resource disturbance. Often

times, these projects were not subject to inventory and cultural resources were not avoided by

the plows.

Since the passage of FLPMA, NEPA, and the NHPA, the impacts to cultural resources from

livestock developments, road construction, and post-fire restoration have been greatly reduced or

mitigated by using the Section 106 process to avoid impacts to sites. The 2000 designation of

the expanded Monument and the subsequent 2007 MMP and the 2009 Comprehensive Travel

Management Plan provided even more protections for cultural resources from development within

the Monument. Wildfires and restorations continue to occur, but modern suppression techniques

and the use of rangeland drills for seeding have reduced the amount of soil disturbance. Livestock

numbers have fallen dramatically in recent years due to economic and environmental reasons as

compared to historic numbers. Even the amount of illegal archaeological collection has fallen

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
Craters of the Moon National Monument 275

Draft MMP Amendment

due to public awareness of preservation laws to protect sites. All of these factors have resulted

in more stable archaeological site surfaces.

Future Anticipated Trends

Based on the trend over the past several years since the 2007 Plan was signed and the fact that no

new major developments are proposed within the Monument, there would be little foreseeable

change in the stability of cultural resources. If climate change were to cause drought conditions

more often, AUM levels might be further reduced due to reduced forage and wildfires could

become more severe. It is difficult to speculate what long-term effect climate change could have

to cultural resources, but regardless, wildfires will continue to occur in the future.

The final GRSG ARMPA now provides more restrictions on infrastructure development for

the benefit of sage grouse, indirectly benefiting cultural resources as well. Combined with all

the aforementioned regional influences, the trend seems to be toward less archaeological site

disturbance from human-caused factors, but potentially increased impacts from wildfires due to

climate change.

Cumulative Effects

Cultural Resources: Alternative A-E

Under Alternatives A and C, cumulative impacts to cultural resources from actions outside the

Monument boundary, plus those of the alternatives, would be long-term, negligible to minor

impacts.

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in Alternative B, D and E from actions outside the

Monument boundary, plus those of this alternative, would be long-term, minor improvement

in site stability.

4.3.1.7. Visual Resources

Region of Influence

The region of influence used for the visual analysis is the planning area. The youngest and most

geologically diverse section of basaltic lava terrain found on the Eastern Snake River Plain lies

within the Monument boundary. These geological features along with expansive sagebrush

steppe and grasslands, add to the visual diversity of a viewscape unique in North America. The

Monument boundary has been adjusted and expanded several times since its inception to further

protect and manage these unique visual resources.

Past and Current Trends

Wildfires have played a large role in impacting the visual landscape in the Monument. Visual

impacts include smoke, increased vehicle traffic, fire lines, and the contrast between burned

and unburned areas. Burned areas can vary in size from a few acres to tens of thousands of

acres. Another historic influence on the visual landscape is the occurrence of noxious weeds

and invasive plant species.

Future Anticipated Trends

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
276 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

With current and expected future drought conditions along with expected fires, there will continue

to be disturbances to the visual landscape.

Cumulative Effects

Visual Resources: All Alternatives

The cumulative impacts on visual resources from actions inside and outside the Monument,

added to the effects of Alternatives A, B, C, and E would be minor to moderate, mainly due to

fence marking. Alternative D may have a slightly higher impact to visual resources if additional

fencing is built during implementation.

4.3.1.8. Wilderness Study Areas

Region of Influence

The region of influence for analysis is the boundaries of the four WSAs that are partially, or fully,

within the Monument, as described in Chapter 3. As effects of livestock grazing and other uses

described in this plan may only occur within a certain allotment boundary or in isolated areas

within the Monument, any impacts to WSA acres could impact their suitability as whole, whether

that be a reduction or enhancement of wilderness characteristics.

Past and Current Trends

Since their designation, the Monument’s WSAs have seen very little change in their wilderness

characteristics. The major threats to their suitability are wildfires, noxious weeds and invasive

plant species, motorized cross country travel, and potential energy developments. Currently, there

are no plans for Congress to make any decisions for designating or releasing the Monument’s

WSAs.

Future Anticipated Trends

Only Congress has the authority to either designate WSAs as wilderness or release them from

further study. If Congress decides to designate any WSA as wilderness, those lands will then

be managed pursuant to the Wilderness Act. If Congress decides to release any WSAs from

further study, these areas will no longer be subject to BLM’s WSA policy and will be managed

under general BLM management authorities.

Cumulative Effects

Wilderness Study Areas: Alternative A-E

The management actions in these alternatives along with projects outline above will not produce

an aggregate negative effect upon the wilderness characteristics and values that would constrain

Congress’s decision to designate the areas as wilderness.

4.3.1.9. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Region of Influence

The region of influence for this analysis is the total area of units where wilderness characteristics

were present during inventory for this MMP Amendment. See Figure 3.16, “Inventory for Lands

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
Craters of the Moon National Monument 277

Draft MMP Amendment

with Wilderness Characteristics Map” for a map of inventory units. While most of the units lie

within the Monument boundary, there are some that extend beyond the Monument boundary. This

is a result of the unit boundaries being established based on route analyses per guidance found in

BLM Manual 6310.

Past and Current Trends

Since the initial inventories conducted in the 1980s, the Shoshone Field Office has not maintained

an ongoing inventory of wilderness characteristics within the Monument. There has been some

inventory conducted in isolated areas in the Monument for various other projects since the new

direction on lands with wilderness characteristics was released in 2012.

Future Anticipated Trends

The inventories for lands with wilderness characteristics will continue to be maintained and

updated as necessary in land use planning efforts. The presence of the Monument precludes the

threat of future large-scale developments which could impact the current lands with wilderness

characteristics.

Cumulative Effects

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Alternative A-E

The management actions in these alternatives along with projects outlined above, will not produce

an aggregate effect upon the wilderness characteristics and values. Also the presence of lands

with wilderness characteristics will not change, or prevent change of the management or use

of public lands proposed in each alternative.

4.3.1.10. Livestock Grazing

Region of Influence

The area of analysis for cumulative effects on livestock grazing is the area encompassed by those

allotments that lie either wholly or partially within the Monument boundary because any decision

affecting the Monument would likely require an adjustment in the management of the remainder

of those allotments. Many livestock operations in the Monument also rely on forage produced on

other federal, state and private lands within the region, and decisions affecting forage availability

on those lands would influence the importance of access to available forage within the planning

area. However, while it would be reasonable to assume that actions that affect forage availability

within the planning area would have an indirect effect upon the need for forage in these other

areas, the complexity of these effects make any analysis of these effects purely speculative.

Past and Current Trends

From early settlement to 1945, public lands in the State of Idaho were managed by the General

Land Office (GLO) in coordination with the Grazing Service. Under that management, public

lands were categorized as arid, broken, mountainous, or grazing. Many settlers depended on

public lands to supplement their livestock operations. Local ranchers grazed the public lands in

conjunction with their private ranch lands on a first-come, first-served basis. Livestock migrated

from the southern end of the Shoshone Field Office (Magic Valley and Snake River Plains) to

the north (Wood River Valley, Camas Prairie, and Stanley Basin) or towards eastern Idaho in the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
278 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

spring and summer and back again in the fall, north to south. All livestock were herded to grazing

locations in the late 1800s and through the mid-1900s.

The Grazing Service dealt mainly with grazing policy and the GLO managed settlement, land

sales, land exchanges and mineral rights; however, there were some redundancies between

the two agencies. Due to the considerable costs of World War II, Department of the Interior

(DOI) officials sought a way to combine the two agencies. In 1946, the DOI formed the BLM

and grazing on public lands was formalized and regulated. During this time, the BLM began

managing public grazing lands by dividing areas into grazing allotments. Livestock were herded

or “trailed;” moving between private lands, state leases, and federal grazing permits (BLM and

U.S. Forest Service), whereby grazers or permittees were assigned to specific allotments.

The Monument has had sheep use, and to a lesser extent cattle use, since the 1860s. Prior to

World War II, the historic livestock use and sheep numbers in Idaho were substantially higher

than they are today. In the early 1900s, there were numerous reports in the Great Basin of

being able to count the sheep bands on the mountains by the dust clouds, and that little forage

was available for any of them [Box & Malechek, 1987]. The Shoshone Field Office started

to encounter numerous requests for sheep use conversions to cattle use in the late 1970s and

early 1980s, and this trend continued into the early 1990s as producers shifted their interests. In

addition, wildlife management was aimed at reducing competition for the scarce forage and

elimination of predators, such as wolves and coyotes.

There have been many structural and non-structural range improvement projects established

throughout the 22 allotments in the planning area. Structural range improvement projects include

fences, cattle guards, riparian exclosures, reservoirs, water gap structures and pipelines with

associated water troughs to help facilitate livestock grazing management in allotments. These

projects became necessary infrastructures as rangeland management grazing systems and

livestock conversions from sheep to cattle were implemented and structural projects continue

to be analyzed and implemented today. Non-structural improvements have included vegetation

treatments such as brush control, weed control, and seeding.

In addition, the BLM has developed a national strategy to preserve, conserve, and restore

sagebrush habitat, the ecological home of the sage-grouse. The BLM issued national policy and

direction, based on local needs and information, to guide the agency’s actions and raise the

importance of sagebrush conservation in BLM planning efforts. The decisions resulting from the

ID/SW Montana Sage-grouse EIS addressed sage-grouse issues and the impacts of amending all

pertinent RMPs, including that for the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve,

to reflect new conservation measures, including the land use plans under which the planning

area is managed. The Record of Decision, amended the 2007 Craters MMP to include the new

management direction. This planning effort resulted in plan-level guidance that will be used to

direct future on-the-ground projects and is detailed in the Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment.

New conservation measures for sage-grouse were formalized in the plan amendment, and impacts

to livestock grazing have occurred as a result of the new management direction. Some reasonably

foreseeable changes include modifications to permitted livestock use and management changes

to the allotments where Standards are not being met. Such changes could also be dependent on

natural factors, including wildfires and drought.

Future Anticipated Trends

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
Craters of the Moon National Monument 279

Draft MMP Amendment

The Burley, Shoshone, and Upper Snake Field Offices and permittees will continue to provide

maintenance of all structural range improvements (fences, reservoirs, pipelines, guzzlers, corrals,

cattle guards, and spring developments and troughs), road maintenance, and cattle guard or spring

box replacement where warranted and allowed. New structural projects such as cattle guards,

management fences, and water developments will continue to be proposed and analyzed to help

promote or maintain progress toward Standards and support guidelines for livestock grazing

management. Ongoing Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation projects and

monitoring throughout the Monument area in conjunction with wildfires occurs continuously.

Future changes to livestock grazing in the Monument are likely, as both the BLM’s and operators’

management shift over time, based on resource considerations and business needs. Some

reasonably foreseeable scenarios that may change livestock grazing for the operators are changes

in permitted use, changes to which allotments they are permitted in, and changes in private land

ownership through sale or leases. Reasonably foreseeable scenarios that may change livestock

grazing from a land management perspective include wildfires, flood, seasonal weather such as

extreme temperatures and wet springs, or changes that may need to occur due to monitoring

and data collection.

Cumulative effects upon livestock grazing under all alternatives are most likely to stem from

those regional influences that limit, reduce, or prohibit livestock grazing or AUMs in the planning

area. Actions that degrade rangeland health and forage production, or that restrict areas open to

grazing, the season of use, timing, or the ability to construct and maintain range improvements

would result in impacts that make livestock grazing more difficult to manage.

Within the Monument, vegetation communities are influenced by livestock grazing management,

wildfires, rehabilitation efforts, fuel break projects, and climate. All activities that affect

vegetation communities indirectly affect livestock grazing. These influences all interact to affect

changes in the vegetation communities, and thus the forage base for livestock grazing.

While current livestock management strives to maintain and enhance rangeland health,

historically unregulated livestock grazing contributed to the current abundance cheatgrass. The

abundance of cheatgrass contributes to the size, severity, continuity, and frequency of wildfires in

a feedback loop. In an attempt to disrupt this loop, rehabilitation efforts following wildfires are

designed to establish more fire resistant and resilient species that can reduce the abundance of

cheatgrass. The Programmatic Emergency Stabilization and Restoration Plan directs treatments

following wildfires. These treatments often result in changes in plant communities, including

establishment of perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs that were often absent prior to the wildfire.

Fuel breaks are a change in the vegetation community in small, narrow strips, such as along

roads, in an attempt to prevent large wildfires. Predictions of warmer, drier climate will affect

vegetation communities and wildfires alike.

Some of these influences can also result in a temporary reduction in available forage, close areas

to grazing, restrict grazing management, or increase the forage base. Establishment of perennial

grasses and forbs in areas that were previously dominated by cheatgrass would increase the

available forage, causing shifts in grazing patterns without changing AUM allocations. After

wildfires, burned areas are typically rested from livestock grazing, to allow the vegetation to

recover. Areas treated under the ES and BAR plans are also rested from livestock grazing until

seeded species are established and able to withstand grazing pressure.

Cumulative Effects

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
280 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Livestock Grazing: Alternative A

Cumulative effects under Alternative A would likely be most influenced by the Idaho and

Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment,

wildfires, and subsequent rehabilitation efforts. Specific goals and management actions have been

identified to conserve sage-grouse habitat or improve rangeland condition. This management

direction will influence livestock grazing similarly to other actions that influence vegetation

communities. All management actions in the EIS are designed to improve rangeland health,

and therefore would prove beneficial to livestock grazing in the long term, though short-term

effects may be reductions in forage allocation, areas available to grazing, seasonal restrictions, or

limitations on grazing-related infrastructure. For a full analysis of the effects of the Approved

Resource Management Plan Amendment, please refer to the ID/SW Montana Sage-Grouse EIS.

Livestock Grazing: Alternatives B, C, and E

Cumulative impacts to Alternatives B, C, and E are similar to those of Alternative A, though

to varying degrees, as related to the restrictions placed on grazing in each alternative. Under

Alternatives B and E, the closure of some areas to livestock grazing and the reductions of

available AUMs in the planning area would likely displace livestock grazing into areas outside

the Monument. Concentrating livestock use in areas that are managed through other LUPs would

cumulatively result in more difficulty in managing those areas to meet Standards.

Livestock Grazing: Alternative D

The implementation decisions that would be required if this alternative were selected would not

be considered to have cumulative impacts upon livestock grazing. Yet, when coupled with the

Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan

Amendment, cumulative impacts could occur upon those areas of allotments that lie outside the

Monument. Allotments that span the Monument boundary would likely see shifts in use patterns

and may need adjustments in management as a result, since no grazing would be allowed inside

the Monument. Additional management actions brought about by the Sage-Grouse Amendment

would be likely affect livestock grazing or AUMs in those areas. Changes in livestock use from

livestock grazing being excluded from the Monument, compounded with increased limitations

and barriers to livestock management could cause major, long-term, negative impacts to livestock

grazing.

4.3.1.11. Travel and Transportation

Region of Influence

The region of influence for the transportation analysis is the Monument boundary. This region

of influence was chosen to reflect the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan (Travel Plan) which uses the Monument boundary.

Past and Current Trends

Over the past 15 years, the actual use of allotments is much lower than the permitted use. While

some routes have been upgraded and maintained since the 2007 MMP and 2009 TMP, there has

been no need for an increase in routes for livestock grazing. With the implementation of the

Travel Plan, there has actually been a net decrease in routes within the Monument.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
Craters of the Moon National Monument 281

Draft MMP Amendment

Future Anticipated Trends

With expected slow growth in regional visitation, combined with potential increases in Monument

visitations described in the MMP, there could be a gradual increase in visitation within the

Monument which would result in more use of the transportation network. It is projected that

transportation and access needs for livestock grazing will not increase throughout the life of

this plan.

Cumulative Effects

Transportation: Alternative A, B, C, and E

Distribution of the recently developed travel maps in nearby communities may attract more

visitors to the Monument. Since the 2007 MMP and 2009 TMP, there have been road

improvements in the Monument, reducing travel time for travelers and fire engines. Increased

efforts in providing updated travel information at kiosks located at the Monument’s access points

could increase the amount of compliance for cross-country travel and seasonal restrictions for

sage-grouse. Overall, the effects of these actions, along with the effects of actions in Alternatives

A, B, C and E, would result in long-term, minor to moderate changes to transportation patterns.

Transportation: Alternative D

In addition to the cumulative impacts for Alternatives A, B and C, Alternative D would result in

long-term, moderate to major reduction of motorized use of the transportation network due to the

absence of livestock operation use.

4.3.1.12. Recreation and Visitor Experience

Region of Influence

The region of influence for the recreation analysis is the Monument boundary. The unique

geologic features and large expanses of sagebrush steppe and grasslands within the Monument

provide unique and outstanding opportunities for achieving solitude during recreation

opportunities. Recreation visitors to the BLM portions of the Monument seek these specific

recreation opportunities.

Past and Current Trends

There is a difference in estimated Monument visitation numbers from the 2007 MMP and this

ananlysis (estimated 20,000 visits in the 2007 MMP; 3,276 actual visitations in 2013). This

difference is the result of more in-depth visitor use calculations using road counter data, data from

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and field monitoring. There is no evidence that indicates an

actual decline in visitation over the years since the 2007 MMP.

Future Anticipated Trends

With expected slow growth in regional visitation, combined with potential increases in Monument

visitations described in the 2007 MMP, there could be a gradual increase in recreation within the

Monument. Increased demand for various OHV opportunities in the Monument may occur as well.

Cumulative Effects

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
282 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Recreation and Visitor Experience: All Alternatives

Under Alternatives A-E, the cumulative effects of proposed actions would range from negligible

to minor long-term impacts depending on the recreation experience desired. These impacts would

range from use-conflicts to recreation opportunity improvements such as enhanced hunting,

studying, and scenic driving and exploring opportunities. These cumulative effects are projected

to last the duration of this MMP Amendment.

4.3.1.13. Socioeconomic Values

Region of Influence

When an industry within a given economic region sells its products, there are direct economic

impacts in terms of the revenues that flow either within or into the region. In the case of the

present analysis, revenues will flow to ranches with headquarters located within the region,

resulting in economic impacts due to ranch spending. In addition to those direct impacts, there are

secondary economic impacts due to “re-spending” of that money by ranches, their employees, and

their suppliers, both inside and outside of the region. Conversely, reductions in revenue in-flows,

such as reduced economic activity within the cattle and sheep industries, due to decreased grazing

AUMs within the region, will reduce economic activity within the region in similar proportions.

Past and Current Trends

In recent years, total revenue from sales of agricultural output in the five-county study area has

increased. Livestock sales as a percentage of overall agricultural sales has not fluctuated a great

deal, but the total dollar amount represented by livestock-related output has increased quite a bit

during the time period since 2010. At 12.5%, agriculture is larger as a percentage of overall

income in the study area than it is within the U.S. as a whole, for which agriculture makes up

1% of total income.

Future Anticipated Trends

Based on recent increases in demand for locally-, naturally-, and sustainably grown food

products, it is possible that there will be an increase in regional demand for the output of livestock

operations in Idaho. While it is impossible to know how markets will respond and adapt to

new situations, it is likely that these changes will result in more favorable market conditions

for ranchers within the study area.

Cumulative Effects

Socioeconomic Values: All Alternatives

To the degree that agricultural operations do or don’t hire employees and obtain supplies within

the region, this secondary spending will have a greater or lesser positive impact on the regional

economy. The table below displays estimated initial and secondary impacts from the economic

activities of grazing-related cattle and sheep ranching within the five-county region of analysis.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
Craters of the Moon National Monument 283

Draft MMP Amendment

Table 4.8. Estimated Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts by Alternative

Employment Effects (Jobs) Labor Income Effects ($1,000) Output Effects ($1,000)

Direct IndirectTotal MultipliersDirect IndirectTotal MultipliersDirect IndirectTotal Multipliers

Cattle 2.7 1.2 4.4 1.63 135 49 203 1.50 570 171 807 1.42

Sheep 3.3 0.2 4.6 1.39 335 12 381 1.14 650 31 805 1.24

Cattle Each job in this region in the

cattle industry is estimated to

generate additional labor demand

equating to an additional 0.6

“jobs” within the region

Each dollar spent in this region

on labor in the cattle industry

is estimated to generate an

additional $0.50 of labor spending

within the region

Each dollar spent on this region’s

output in the cattle industry

is estimated to generate an

additional $0.42 in economic

activity within the region

Sheep Each job in this region in the

sheep industry is estimated to

generate additional labor demand

equating to an additional 0.4

“jobs” within the region

Each dollar spent in this region

on labor in the cattle industry

is estimated to generate an

additional $0.14 of labor spending

within the region

Each dollar spent on this region’s

output in the cattle industry

is estimated to generate an

additional $0.24 in economic

activity within the region

Based on results from additional IMPLAN regional economic analysis, the cattle and sheep

industries in Blaine and Minidoka counties have higher economic multipliers than does either the

study area as a whole or the three other counties within the region. This is due to the existence of

supply sources within Blaine and Minidoka counties. Based on existing industry data, ranching

activity based in Butte, Lincoln, and Power depends on supply sources outside of those individual

counties. The most likely sources of input goods and labor for those counties include cities

outside of the five-county region, such as Pocatello or Idaho Falls, or even outside of Idaho.

Due to those likely sources being located outside of the region of analysis, the influence of the

relatively higher multiplier effects in Blaine and Minidoka counties is somewhat tempered, and

the overall multipliers shown in the tables above are lower than they would be were more supply

sources located either within the counties without larger communities, or were they located

adjacent to them, but within the five-county region. Some of the impacts of reduced grazing

within the study area will be felt by counties outside of the five-county region.

Because it is not possible to accurately predict what will occur in the livestock markets of the

future, it is important to refrain from assuming that the conditions that exist today will continue

to exist in the future. All outcomes are prospective, uncertain outcomes. What this means for

livestock producers is that retaining the right to specific numbers of AUMs is a desirable means of

maintaining the ability to respond in the most advantageous way to future adjustments in markets.

Should agency managers determine that AUM use must be permanently reduced in order to

adequately protect sensitive natural resources, then ranchers will need to make adjustments in their

long-term contingency plans. How ranchers’ plans will change is also uncertain, and there are

many possible configurations of local, regional, and national beef and sheep production systems.

4.3.1.14. Climate Change

Region of Influence

The area of analysis for cumulative effects on climate change is defined as the grazing allotments

wholly or partially within the Monument. Any methane emissions resulting from livestock

grazing administration within the Monument would disperse into the atmosphere.

Past and Current Trends

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects by Resource and Resource Use
284 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Past events that may have contributed to climate change include wildfires and possibly historic

grazing in the early 1900’s when livestock numbers were at an all-time high. In 2011, the

principle sources of Idaho’s GHG emissions were energy and agriculture, accounting for 57%

and 36% of Idaho’s gross GHG emissions, respectively. Within the energy sector, transportation

accounted for the majority of emissions [World Resources Institute, 2014].

Future Anticipated Trends

While long-range regional changes might include the Monument, it is impossible to predict

precisely when they could occur. Measurable change may occur beyond the life of the Plan.

Indicators of climate change include temperature, precipitation, snowpack, stream flow, stream

temperature, plant phenology, wildfire, and vegetation dynamics [Gillis et al., 2010], all of which

continue to change throughout Idaho. A recent study of Idaho meteorological data collected from

1968 to 2008 shows a decrease in precipitation and an increase in temperature across the state

[Sohrabi, Ryu, Abatzoglou, & Tracy, 2012]. Within the Monument area, trends in temperature

and precipitation generally appear to fall within the historical range of variability (1901–2012),

although temperature extremes (extreme warm) have occurred [USDI NPS, 2014]; [Monahan

& Fisichelli, 2014].

Cumulative Effects

Climate Change: Alternatives A-E

Because there are negligible impacts to climate change under all alternatives, there would be no

cumulative impacts to climate change.

4.3.2. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

NEPA requires a discussion of any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, which

would result from an implemented proposal. An irreversible resource commitment refers to

nonrenewable resources, is final, and cannot be changed. For example, destruction of cultural

resource values. An irretrievable resource commitment refers to decisions resulting in the loss

of production or use of a resource. For example, a decision not to treat woodlands encroaching

into adjacent grassland habitat results in the irretrievable loss of forage production from the

grassland community. This action is not irreversible, because once a treatment is applied, the

forage production of the grassland is restored.

The decision to select one of the alternatives described does not constitute an irreversible or

irretrievable commitment of resources because the decision does not authorize on-the-ground

activities. Instead, decisions made in the selected plan serve to guide future actions and

subsequent site-specific decisions. Following the signing of the Record of Decision for the MMP,

subsequent implementation plans (e.g., activity- or project-specific plans) would be developed

and implemented by the BLM. Implementation requires appropriate project-specific planning,

NEPA analysis, and final BLM approval authorizing on-the-ground activities to proceed.

4.3.3. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Section 102 (C) of NEPA requires disclosure of any adverse environmental effects that cannot be

avoided following implementation of a proposal. Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that

remain following the implementation of mitigation measures or impacts for which no mitigation

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of

Resources
Craters of the Moon National Monument 285

Draft MMP Amendment

measures exist. Unavoidable adverse impacts for all activities were disclosed in the 2007 MMP.

Some unavoidable adverse impacts would occur as a result of MMP Amendment implementation.

Others are a result of public use of lands within the planning area. Surface-disturbing activities

would cause localized unavoidable impacts. Although these impacts would be mitigated to the

extent possible, unavoidable damage is inevitable. The greatest unavoidable adverse impact

would result from habitat fragmentation due to the inability to restore non-shrub areas.

In some circumstances, the loss of sagebrush steppe habitat either by direct disruption or by the

spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants would be irreversible. In other instances, reversing

the loss of habitat would take many years to complete, thus irreversibly affecting wildlife that

depend on these habitats.

Inadvertent damage to or loss of cultural resources from livestock grazing, intentional vandalism,

and other surface-disturbing activities is unavoidable. Although mitigation measures could be

implemented, the impacts on the area during rehabilitation, restoration, and facility development

could not be mitigated. The number of sites that could be inadvertently damaged by wildfire is

unknown, but the likelihood of damage or disturbance is directly proportional to the acreage

affected. Numerous land use restrictions imposed throughout the planning area to protect

sensitive resources and other important values, by their nature, would impact the ability of

permittees, individuals, and groups who use the public lands to do so freely without limitations.

Although attempts are made to minimize these impacts by limiting the protection level necessary

to accomplish objectives, unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.

4.3.4. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and

Long-Term Productivity

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires discussion of the relationship between local, short-term uses of

the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of resources.

As discussed in the introduction to this chapter (4.1) short-term impacts are those changes that are

caused by ground-disturbing activities that generally revert to pre-disturbed conditions within

a few years. Long-term impacts persist beyond a few years. Under all alternatives, short-term

disturbances of soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat from vegetation treatments would be more

than offset by the long-term productivity of the restored sagebrush steppe habitat. This would be

particularly true for Alternatives B, C, and E with the greater emphasis on long-term restoration

of habitat. Management actions to improve soil, water, riparian, vegetation, and habitat resources

would improve the productivity of wildlife and special status species habitats throughout the

Planning Area. These activities are directed toward achieving long-term improvement in

ecosystem productivity. Long-term impacts on soil structure and vegetation would occur in

specific areas where concentrated livestock grazing occurs. However, concentrating livestock use

to certain areas would limit the adverse impacts from extending to other areas of the Planning

Area.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses

and Long-Term Productivity
This page intentionally

left blank
Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination
 
This page intentionally

left blank
Craters of the Moon National Monument 289

Draft MMP Amendment

5.1. Introduction

The BLM conducted this planning process in accordance with requirements of NEPA, CEQ

regulations, and the Department of the Interior and BLM regulations and policies. NEPA and

associated regulatory/policy framework require federal agencies to involve interested publics in

their decision-making, consider a range of reasonable alternatives to proposed actions, and prepare

environmental documents that disclose the potential impacts of proposed actions and alternatives.

Title II, Section 202 of FLPMA directs BLM to coordinate planning efforts with American Indian

Tribes, other federal agencies, and State and local governments as part of its land use planning.

This chapter documents BLM's collaborative approach throughout the development and release of

the draft MMP Amendment/EIS for the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve.

In developing these documents, BLM enabled stakeholders to participate at the level and to

the degree that best met their needs and interests. Those ways included obtaining updates

via newsletters and open houses, developing products, and engaging in discussions and issue

resolution. The distinction between public involvement (i.e., information sharing and feedback)

and collaboration (i.e., product development interaction) is instrumental in understanding and

appreciating BLM’s approach.

5.2. Key Planning Checkpoints

The collaborative process used “key checkpoints” so stakeholders knew who would have input

into product development and at what stage. Using this iterative approach, draft products were

developed and then circulated through the structured checkpoints. These provided for consistency

with other planning efforts, met public expectations, and provided a two-way understanding of

actions and their impacts.

Checkpoints included:

● Product development by the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve ID Team

● Review by the affected Native American Tribes

● Review of products by the Twin Falls District RAC and Cooperating Agencies

● Public input

● ID Team refinement through assimilation of new information into the affected documents

5.2.1. Interdisciplinary Team

Products circulated through each checkpoint were resubmitted to the ID Team, a group of

resource specialists responsible for developing the plan's components within their respective

fields. Typically, it accepted all input and suggestions generated through the various checkpoints

and considered, addressed, and refined the product(s), as appropriate.

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

Introduction
290 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

5.2.2. Tribal Consultation

In keeping with Tribal preferences, applicable laws, regulations, and policies, regular

consultations were held with Tribal officials. From a regulatory standpoint, BLM must use the

consultation process to “identify the cultural values, religious beliefs, traditional practices, and

legal rights of Native American People which could be affected by BLM actions on Federal

lands.” From the beginning, meetings were held with the Shoshone-Paiute and Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes to determine consultation procedures, format, and key junctures.

Consultation with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation occurs

through the Wings and Roots Native American Campfire process initiated by them and Twin Falls

District several years ago to facilitate their government-to-government relationship.

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes chose to be involved on both a government-to-government and

staff-to-staff basis. They provided information about their Tribal perspective and, together with

BLM, identified appropriate methods for addressing issues through face-to-face meetings and

document reviews. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe and BLM work to maintain the coordination

at both levels.

All Tribal consultation and input occurred through direct interaction between BLM staff and Tribal

representatives. The ID Team incorporated Tribal perspectives into products under development.

5.2.3. Other Formal Consultation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, directs federal agencies to ensure

that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the existence of any

listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat (50 CFR 400). The ESA authorizes

federal agencies to enter into early consultation with the USFWS to make those determinations.

The USFWS has provided a list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and/or candidate species

that may be present in the five-county area surrounding the Monument. According to this list,

threatened and endangered animal species that could potentially occur in counties that span the

Monument are Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus),

bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and Snake River Physa snail (Physa natricina). BLM expects

that there will be "No Effect" to Canada lynx, yellow-billed cuckoo, bull trout, or Snake River

Physa snail as a result of this MMP Amendment.

State Historic Preservation Office

The SHPO must be consulted concerning any resource management proposals that might affect

a cultural property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Consultation with SHPO is a normal part of the planning process. No NRHP listed or eligible

properties would be affected.

5.2.4. Coordination with Other Organized Entities

Resource Advisory Council

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

Tribal Consultation
Craters of the Moon National Monument 291

Draft MMP Amendment

The Twin Falls District RAC is a fifteen-member, Federal Advisory Committee Act-chartered

group responsible for providing consensus-based advice to BLM. The RAC received briefings

and was afforded opportunities to comment on product and processes at their regularly scheduled

meetings. The RAC has been actively involved with product development, public meetings,

developing alternatives, and providing a unique perspective relative to other collaborative

processes.

Cooperating Agencies

Cooperator status was offered to and accepted by the Idaho Department of Agriculture, Blaine

County, Power County, and the City of American Falls. To be a cooperating agency, there must

be jurisdictional overlap with BLM, the agency must be able to offer special expertise, and

their involvement should enhance coordination and consistency. Each cooperator signed a

formal, cooperating agency memorandum of agreement and their representatives participated in

the planning process.

5.2.5. General Public and Other Collaborative Activities

Since different people and stakeholders prefer different levels of involvement, multiple

opportunities were provided so that everyone could participate at the level that best suited them.

Therefore, activities were designed to range from simple information sharing and feedback to

involvement in product development to meet specific stakeholder needs and their desired level

of involvement.

The participation and engagement of special interests groups, landowners, and general

public/stakeholders was solicited throughout the process. Participation included open houses

and community meetings.

Personal contacts, news releases, newsletters, e-mail notices, a BLM planning website, and

Federal Register notices were the primary tools used to communicate with stakeholders and

collaborators. Upon request, BLM provided presentations and had informal discussions relative

to specific concerns.

Through collaboration, processes and products were revised, as necessary. As a result, plan

amendment alternatives were designed, to the extent possible, to achieve the DFCs developed

in the original 2007 MMP.

5.3. Future Collaboration

The collaborative process will continue through the MMP’s completion, and during development

of implementation plans after the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. Future public involvement

will be based on existing understandings, processes, and structured checkpoints.

● Public notifications will occur through newsletters, media releases, web postings, and key

contacts with stakeholders. Such communications will continue through the release of the ROD.

● Community meetings will be held to clarify information and help the public understand the

proposed action. Such communications will continue through the release of the ROD.

● Formal consultation with the Tribes and SHPO will occur throughout the MMP Amendment

process and, as appropriate, during plan implementation.

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

General Public and Other Collaborative Activities
292 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

● Ongoing coordination with local governments and special interest groups will occur through

the comment period and subsequent analysis as appropriate.

● Comment response will occur at the conclusion of the formal comment period when the ID

Team completes a detailed comment analysis. The BLM will forward the comment analysis

results to the RAC and cooperating agencies to determine appropriate responses to the

comments, including any alternatives’ additions or modifications.

● Any substantive changes between the Draft and Proposed MMP Amendment will be reviewed

by the Tribes, SHPO, the RAC, and cooperating agencies. Public meetings will be held to

solicit feedback on the proposed changes.

● The EIS will respond, where appropriate, to all substantive, written comments received during

the comment period, and will incorporate changes resulting from the collaborative revision

process. The ROD will be issued by BLM after the release of the Final EIS, Governor’s

Consistency Review, and resolution of any protests.

5.4. List of Interested Parties and Stakeholders

The following is a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who expressed interest in

the MMP Amendment/EIS during the preparation of this document.

Native American Tribes

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes

Government Agencies and Representatives

Blaine County

City of Arco

City of Carey

City of Rupert

Congressman Mike Simpson

Butte County

Environmental Protection Agency

Governor C. L. “Butch” Otter

Idaho State Department of Agriculture

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Idaho Department of Lands

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

List of Interested Parties and Stakeholders
Craters of the Moon National Monument 293

Draft MMP Amendment

Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Minidoka County

Senator Mike Crapo

State of Idaho

Business Organizations and Other Groups

Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

Permittees

Prairie Falcon Audubon Inc.

National Parks Conservation Association

The Pioneers Alliance

Western Watersheds Project

WildLands Defense

5.5. List of Preparers

Table 5.1. List of Preparers

Name Responsibility Qualifications

Tara Anderson Wildlife Biologist MSc Natural Resources and

Environmental Studies - Biology

BAc Ecology (minor in Chemistry); 7

Years Experience

David Freiberg Recreation Planner BA Natural History, MA

Environmental Studies; 20 Years

Experience

Lisa Cresswell Project Manager/Team Lead,

Archaeologist

MA Anthropology; 25 Years

Experience

Nathan Jayo Recreation Planner BS Resource Recreation and Tourism

w/ Minor in Parks, Protected Areas,

and Wilderness Conservation; 12

Years Experience

Cassondra Mavencamp GIS, Writer/Editor BS Biology (concentration in

Organismal Ecology); 10 Years

Experience

Danelle Nance Natural Resource Specialist BS Agricultural Science &

Technology; 14 Years Experience

Dan Patten Rangeland Management Specialist BS Range Resources

BS Wildlife Management

MS Rangeland Ecology; 14 Years

Experience

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

List of Preparers
294 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Jesse Rawson Wildlife Biologist B.S. Wildlife Resources; 9 Years

Experience

Julie Suhr-Pierce Socioeconomist PhD Economics; 30 Years

Experience

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination
Craters of the Moon National Monument 295

Draft MMP Amendment

Appendix A. Bibliography
 

Bibliography
 Aldridge, C. L., S. E. Nielsen, H. L. Beyer, M. S. Boyce, J. W. Connelly, S. T. Knick, & M. A.

Schroeder. (2008). Range‐wide patterns of greater sage‐grouse persistence. Diversity

and Distributions 17, 983‐994.

Alexander, J.A., Liston, A., & Popovich, S.J. (2004). Genetic Diversity of the Narrow

Endemic Astragalus oniciformis (Fabaceae). American Journal of Botany, 91(12), doi:

10.3732/ajb.91.12.2004 .

Alpe, M. J., Kingery, J. L., & Mosley, J. C. (1999). Effects of Summer Sheep Grazing on Browse

Nutritive Quality in Autumn and Winter. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63(1), 346-354.

Anderson, J.E., & K.E. Holte. (1981). Vegetation development over 25 years without grazing on

sagebrush-dominated rangeland in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Range Management

34, 25-29.

Anderson, J. E., & Inouye, R. S. (2001). Landscape-Scale Changes in Plant Species Abundance

and Biodiversity of a Sagebrush Steppe over 45 Years. Ecological Monographs, 71(4),

531-556. Retrieved April 9, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100035.

Armour, C. L., Duff, D. A., & Elmore. W. (1991). Position statement on the effects of livestock

grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries. 16(1), 7-11.

Austin, D. (2000). Managing Livestock Grazing for Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) on Winter

Range in the Great Basin. Western North American Naturalist, 60(2), 198-203.

Baker T., Boren J., Allison C.D. (2001). Strategies for livestock management in riparian

areas in New Mexico. College of Agriculture and Home Economics Guide

B-119. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico. Available:

http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/B-119.pdf.

Barnett, J.K., & J.A. Crawford. (1994). Pre-laying nutrition of sage grouse hens in Oregon.

Journal of Range Management, 47(2), 114–118.

Bauer, K. L. 1991. Observations on the developmental biology of Cicindela ArenicolaRumpp

(Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Great Basin Naturalist, 51(3), 226–235.

Beck, J. L., & Mitchell, D. L. (2000). Influences of Livestock Grazing on Sage

Grouse Habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), 993-1002. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783858.

Beever, E. A. (2002). Persistence of pikas in two low-elevation national monuments in the

western United States. Park Science, 21, 23-29.

Belnap, J. (2003). The World at Your Feet: Desert Biological Soil Crusts. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment. 1(4), 181-189. Retrieved March 14, 2014, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3868062.

Appendix A Bibliography
296 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program (BURP). (2007). Idaho Department of Environmental

Quality, Twin Falls, Idaho.

Berry, J.D., & Eng, R.L. (1985). Interseasonal movements and fidelity to seasonal use areas by

female sage grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 49, 237–240.

Blaisdell, J. P., Murray, R. B., & McArthur, E. D. (1982). Managing Intermountain Rangelands

— Sagebrush-Grass Ranges. General Technical Report INT-134. USDA Forest Service

(USDA FS).

Bratton, J. H. (1990). Seasonal pools - an overlooked invertebrate habitat. British Wildlife, 22-29.

Braun, C.E. (2006). A blueprint for sage-grouse conservation and recovery. Grouse Inc., Tucson,

Arizona.

Braun, C. E., Baker, M. F., Eng, R. L., Gashwiler, J. S., & Schroeder, M. H. (1976). Conservation

committee report on effects of alteration of sagebrush communities on the associated

avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88, 165-171.

Brewer, T. K., Mosley, J. C., Lucas, D. E., & Schmidt, L. R. (2007, September). Bluebunch

Wheatgrass Response to Spring Defoliation on Foothill Rangeland. Rangeland Ecology &

Management, 60(5), 498-507. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4540849.

Briske, D. D., Fuhlendorf, S. D., & Smeins, F. E. (2005). State-and-Transition Models,

Thresholds, and Rangeland Health: A Synthesis of Ecological Concepts and Perspectives.

Rangeland Ecology & Management, 58(1), 1–10. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from

http://jstor.org/stable/3899791.

Bunting, S. C., Kingery, J. L., Hemstrom, M. A., Schroeder, M. A., Gravenmier, R. A., & Hann,

W. J. (2002, September). Altered Rangeland Ecosystems in the Interior Columbia Basin.

General Technical Report PNS-GTR-553. USDI BLM.

Caicco, S. L., & Wellner, C.A. (1983a). Research Natural Area Recommendation for Big Juniper

Kipuka. BLM.

Caicco, S. L., & Wellner, C.A. (1983b). Research Natural Area Recommendation for Brass

Cap Kipuka. BLM.

Caicco, S. L., & Wellner, C.A. (1983c). Research Natural Area Recommendation for Sand

Kipuka. BLM.

Cassirer, F. E., & Sinclair, A.R.E (2007). Dynamics of Pneumonia in a Bighorn Sheep

Metapopulation. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71:1080–1088..

Chambers, J.C. & M. Pellant. 2008.Climate change impacts on northwestern and

intermountain United States rangelands. Rangelands, 30(3):29–33, from

http://dx.doi.org/10.2111/1551-501X(2008)30[29:CCIONA]2.0.CO;2.

Christiansen, T. (2009). Fence marking to reduce greater sage-grouse collisions and mortality near

Farson, Wyoming – summary of interim results. Wyoming Game and Fish Department

unpublished interim report.

Appendix A Bibliography
Craters of the Moon National Monument 297

Draft MMP Amendment

Clark, L., J. Hall, R. McLean, M. Dunbar, K. Klenk, R. Bowen, & C. A. Smeraski. (2006).

Susceptibility of greater sage-grouse to experimental infection with West Nile virus.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 42:14-42.

Climate Change Supplementary Information Report (SIR). (2010). Climate change supplementary

information report for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, Bureau of Land

Management. Report on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change for Montana,

North Dakota, and South Dakota. Technical report prepared for the Montana/Dakotas

Bureau of Land Management by URS Corporation. URS Project 22241790.

Clinton, W.J. (2000). Proclamation 7373 - Boundary Enlargement of the Craters of the Moon

National Monument, November 9, 2000. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley,

The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=62283.

Coates, P. S. (2007). Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nest predation and

incubation behavior. Idaho State University, Boise.

Connelly, J.W., & Braun, C.E. (1997). Long-term changes in Sage Grouse Centrocercus

urophasianus populations in western North America. Wildlife Biology 3, 229-234.

Connelly, J.W., Browers, H.W., &. Gates, J. (1988). Seasonal movements of sage grouse in

southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 52, 116–122.

Connelly, J.W., Knick, S.T., Schroeder, M.A., & Stiver. S.J. (2004). Conservation assessment

of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Connelly, J.W., Schroeder, M.A., Sands, A.R., & Braun, C.E. (2000). Guidelines to manage sage

grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4), 967-985.

Connelly, J.W.,Wakkinen, W.L., Apa, A.P., & Reese, K.P. (1991). Sage-grouse use of nest sites in

southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 55, 521-524.

Cooperrider, A.Y., Boyd, R.J., & Stuart, H.R., Editors. (1986). Inventory and monitoring of

wildlife habitat. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Denver, Colorado.

Courtois, D. R., Perryman, B. L., & Hussein, H. S. (2004, November). Vegetation Change after 65

Years of Grazing and Grazing Exclusion. Journal of Range Management, 57(6), 574-582.

Retrieved April 18, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4004011.

Cox, R. D., & Anderson, V. (2004, March). Increasing Native Diversity of Cheatgrass-Dominated

Rangeland through Assisted Succession. Journal of Range Management, 57(2), 203-210.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4003920.

Crawford, J.A., Olson, R.A., West, N.E., Mosley, J.C., Schroeder, M.A., Whitson, T.D., Miller,

R.F., Gregg, M.A., & Boyd, C.S. (2004). Ecology and management of sage-grouse and

sage-grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management, 57(2), 2–19.

Curtin, C. G. (2002). Livestock Grazing, Rest and Restoration in Arid Landscapes. Conservation

Biology, 16(3), 840–842.

Appendix A Bibliography
298 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Davies, K. W., Bates, J. D., Svejcar, T. J., & Boyd, C. S. (2010). Effects of long-term livestock

grazing on fuel characteristics in rangelands: An example from the sagebrush steppe.

Rangeland Ecological Management 63, 662-669. November 2010.

Davies, K. W., Svejcar, T. J., & Bates, J. D. (2009). Interaction of historical and nonhistorical

disturbances maintains native plant communities. Ecological Applications, 19(6),

1536-1545.

Davies, K. W., Vavra, M., Schultz, B. W., & Rimbey, N. R. (2014). Implications of Longer Term

Rest from Grazing in the Sagebrush Steppe. Journal of Rangeland Applications. 1, 14–34.

Day, T. A., & Wright, R. G. (1985, January). The Vegetation Types of Craters of the Moon

National Monument. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station. University of

Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Dealy, J. E., Leckenby, D. A., & Concannon, D. M. (1981). Wildlife habitats in managed

rangelands - the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: plant communities and their

importance to wildlife. USDA Forest Service general technical report PNW-120.

DeLong, A. K., Crawford, J. A., & DeLong, D. C., Jr. (1995). Relationships between vegetational

structure and predation of artificial sage-grouse nests. Journal of Wildlife Management

59, 88-92.

DeRamus, H. A., Clement, T. C., Giampola, D. D., & Dickison, P. C. (2003). Methane

emissions of beef cattle of forages: efficiency of grazing management systems. Journal of

Environmental Quality 32:269-277.

Derner, J. D., & Schuman, G. E. (2007). Carbon sequestration and rangelands: A synthesis of

land management and precipitation effects. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,

62(2), 77–85. Retrieved from: https://afrsweb.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/30180000/

DernerPDF/32.JSWC62(2)Derner.pdf.

Diamond, J.M., Call, C.A., & Devoe, N. (2009). Effects of targeted cattle grazing on fire behavior

of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland in the northern Great Basin, USA. International

Journal of Wildland Fire, 18, 944–950. doi:10.1071/WF08075.

Dobkin, D. S. (1995). Management and conservation of sage-grouse, denominative species for

the ecological health of shrubsteppe ecosystems. United States Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon.

Doherty, M. K. (2007). Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: A

comparison of natural, agricultural, and effluent coal-bed natural gas aquatic habitats.

Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and

sinks: 1990 – 2007. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013). Revisions to the greenhouse gas reporting

rule and proposed confidentiality determinations for new or substantially revised data

elements; proposed rule. 40 CFR Part 98, Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 63.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2014a). Greenhouse gas inventory data explorer.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/inventoryexplorer.

Appendix A Bibliography
Craters of the Moon National Monument 299

Draft MMP Amendment

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2014b). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions

and sinks: 1990-2012. EPA 430-R-14-003. Washington, D.C.

Falter, M. C., & Freitag, R. J. (1996). Baseline study of water resources on Craters of the Moon

National Monument, Idaho. Technical report NPS/CCSOUI/NRTR-96/06.

Follett, R. F., Kimble, J. M., & Lal, R. (2001). The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester

carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. CRC Press LLC. Boca Raton, Florida.

Foster, M., & Foster, L. (2015). Idaho; Bighorn Sheep Core Herd Home Range Delineations.

U.S. Forest Service. Unpublished Report.

Gabler. K. L., Heady, L. T., & Laundre, J. W. (2001). A habitat suitability model for pygmy

rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) in southeastern Idaho. Western North American

Naturalist 61, 480-489.

Ganskopp, D. (1988, November). Defoliation of Thurber Needlegrass: Herbage and Root

Responses. Journal of Range Management, 41(6), 472-476. Retrieved March 15,

2014, from https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/viewFile/12852/

12129#page=27.

Ganskopp, D. (1998, May). Thurber Needlegrass: Seasonal Defoliation Effects on Forage

Quantity and Quality. Journal of Range Management, 51(3), 276-281. Retrieved March

15, 2014, from http://oregonstate.edu/dept/EOARC/sites/default/files/publication/419.pdf.

Ganskopp, D. C., & Bedell, T. E. (1981, March). An Assessment of Vigor and Production

of Range Grasses following Drought. Journal of Range Management, 34(2), 137-141.

Retrieved April 16, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3898130.

Ganskopp, D., Svejcar, T., Taylor, F., Farstvedt, J., & Paintner, K. (1999). Seasonal Cattle

Management in 3 to 5 Year Old Bitterbrush Stands. Journal of Range Management, 52,

166-173.

Gardner, P.A., Stevens, R., & Howe, F.P. (1999). A handbook of riparian restoration and

revegetation for the conservation of land birds in Utah with emphasis on habitat types in

middle and lower elevations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partnership for Wildlife ACT

Program - Grant PW-5, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, publication number 99-38.

Garton, E. O., Connelly, J. W., Horne, J. S., Hagen, C. A., Moser, A., & Schroeder. M. (2011).

Greater sage-grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. S.T. Knick and

J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape

Species and its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38, 239–382. University of California

Press, Berkeley, California.

Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. &

Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock – a global assessment of

emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO), Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf.

Gillis, S., Knapp, B., Wolf, J., Izo, J., McElliot, K., Reader, J., Peterson, A., VanSant, D., &

Weller, N. (2011). Indicators of climate change in Idaho report summary: understanding

Appendix A Bibliography
300 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

climate change and its impacts through indicators. University of Idaho. Retrieved from

http://webpages.uidaho.edu/jabatzoglou/PDF/IndicatorsofClimateChangeIdaho.pdf.

Gregg, M. A. (1991). Use and selection of nesting habitat by sage-grouse in Oregon. Thesis,

Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Gregg, M.A., Crawford, J.A., Drut, M.S., & DeLong, A.K. (1994). Vegetational cover and

predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management, 58, 162‐166.

Griffith, B. (1983). Ecological characteristics of mule deer: Craters of the Moon National

Monument, Idaho. Thesis. University of Idaho College of Forestry, Moscow, Idaho.

Hagen, C. A., Connelly, J. W., & Schroeder, M. A. (2007). A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology. 13,

Suppl. 1, 42-50.

Hanser, S. E., & Knick, S. T. (2011). Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species for shrubland

passerine birds: a multi-scale assessment. Studies in Avian Biology, 475–488.

Headwaters Economics. Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit. (2014).

Hempy-Mayer, K., & Pyke, D. A. (2008, January). Defoliation Effects on Bromus tectorum

Seed Production: Implications for Grazing. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 61(1),

116-123. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25146757.

Henderson, F., & Murie, A. (1958, October 20). Proposed Addition to Craters of the Moon

National Monument. USDI NPS.

Henrikson, L. S. (2005).“Using Geospatial Data to Interpret the Holocene Archaeological Record

on the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve.” Craters of the Moon

Science Symposium, Pocatello, Idaho. Paper presentation.

Henrikson, L. S., Guenther, M., & Cravins, C. (2009). “Shoshone Field Office BLM

Archaeological Overview.” Report of research compiled for the Bureau of Land

Management by the Center for Archaeological Research, California State University,

Bakersfield. Copy on file at the Shoshone Field Office BLM, Idaho.

Henrikson, L. S., McAlister, K. W., & Long, M. M. (2006). “Craters of the Moon National

Monument and Preserve Archaeological Overview.” Report of research compiled for the

Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service by the Museum of Natural

and Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene Report 2006-022. Copy on file at

the Shoshone Field Office BLM, Idaho.

Herrick, J. E., Van Zee, J. W., Havstad, K. M., Burkett, L. M., & Whitford, W. G. (2005).

Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems, Volume II:

Design, supplementary methods and interpretation. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental

Range. ISBN 0–97755552–0–0. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Hironaka, M., Fosberg, M. A., & Winward, A. H. (1983, May). Sagebrush-Grass Habitat Types

of Southern Idaho. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station. Bulletin No. 35.

University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho.

Appendix A Bibliography
Craters of the Moon National Monument 301

Draft MMP Amendment

Hoffman, R. A. (1988). Craters of the Moon National Monument base-line inventory and

monitoring (wildlife) final report, Report B-88. University of Idaho, Cooperative Park

Studies Unit, Moscow, Idaho.

Holmes, A. L., Green, G. A., Morgan, R. J., & Livezey, K. B. (2003). Burrowing Owl Nest

Success and Burrow Longevity in North Central Oregon. Western North American

Naturalist, 63 (2), 244-250.

Horning, D. S., Jr., & Barr, W. F. (1970). Insects of Craters of the Moon National Monument,

Idaho. University of Idaho College of Agriculture, Miscellaneous series no. 8.

Hosten, P.E. Whitridge, H., & Broyles, M. (2007). Diet overlap and social interactions among

cattle, horses, deer and elk in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, southwest

Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford District.

Available at: http://soda.sou.edu/bioregion.html.

Hurlbutt, D.C. (1998). Order of partial decree, water right nos. 34-13586, 34-13587,

34-12383/36-15342, 34-12384/36-15343. 34-12385/36-15344, 34-12386, 34-12387,

34-12388, 34-12389, 3615345, and 36-15346, Presiding Judge, Snake River Basin

Adjudication, Fifth Judicial District for the State of Idaho.

Hutten, Martin (2008). Lichens & Mosses of Craters of the Moon National Monument.

Unpublished inventory obtained from National Park Service..

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). (2008). Idaho greenhouse gas inventory and

reference case projections 1990-2020. Center for Climate Strategies.

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). (2014). Idaho’s 2012 Integrated Report.

Boise, Idaho.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). (2003). Unpublished survey or observation data

from Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). (2005). Idaho comprehensive wildlife conservation

strategy, Appendix F: species accounts and distribution maps for Idaho species of greatest

conservation need. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game,

Boise, Idaho. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/cwcs.cfm.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). (2010). Bighorn sheep management plan 2010.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). (2013). Bighorn sheep observation data (1968 -

2013). Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Jerome, Idaho.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) & Nez Perce Tribe. (2014). 2013 Idaho wolf

monitoring progress report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho; Nez Perce

Tribe Wolf Recovery Project, Lapwai, Idaho.

Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee (ISAC). (2006). Conservation plan for the greater

sage-grouse in Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Idaho State Conservation Effort. (1996). Habitat conservation assessment and conservation

strategy for the Idaho dunes tiger beetle. Report no. 7, Boise, Idaho.

Appendix A Bibliography
302 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). Climate change 2007: mitigation of

climate change, Metz, B., O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (eds.).

Johnson, D.H. (1980). The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating

resource preference. Ecology 61, 65–71.

Johnson, K. A., & Johnson, D. E. (1995). Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal

Science 73(8):2483-2492.

Jurs, L., & Sands, A. (2004). An Inventory, Assessment, and Recommended Management of

Sagebrush Steppe Vegetation in Laidlaw Park, Little Park, and Paddelford Flat, Craters of

the Moon National Monument and Preserve, Idaho.

Kaltenecker, G. S., Moser, A. M., & Bond, L. (2006). Assessment of habitat for sagebrush steppe

dependent birds at Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve. Idaho Bird

Observatory, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho.

Keller, B., & Saathoff, R. T. (1996). A netting survey of water and cave areas used by bats at

Craters of the Moon National Monument, Butte County, Idaho. Unpublished report from

Idaho Museum of Natural History.

Kerlinger, P. (1995). How Birds Migrate. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.

Klebenow, D. A. (1969). Sage-grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife

Management 33, 649-662.

Klemmedson, J. O., & Smith, J. G. (1964). Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.). Botanical Review.

30(2), 226-262.

Knick, S. T., Dobkin, D. S., Rotenberry, J. T., Schroeder, M. A., Vander Haegen, W. M., & Van

Riper III, C. (2003). Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues

for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. Condor 105, 611-634.

Kuntz, M., Champion, D. E., Spiker, E. C., Lefebvre, R. H., & McBromme, L. (1996). The Great

Rift and the Evolution of the Craters of the Moon Lava Field, Idaho.

Kuntz, M., Skipp, B., Chamion, D. E., Gans, P. B., Van Sistine, D. P., & Snyders, S. R. (2007).

Geologic Map of the Craters of the Moon 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, Idaho.

Laycock, W. A. (1967). How Heavy Grazing and Protection Affect Sagebrush-Grass

Ranges. Journal of Range Management, 20(4), 206-213. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3896253.

Laycock, W. A. (1979). Management of Sagebrush. Rangelands, 1(5), 207-210. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3900320.

Lee, J. (2002). Personal communication.

Leu, M., & Hanser, S. E. (2011). Influences of the human footprint on the sagebrush landscape

patterns: implications for sage-grouse conservation. S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly

(editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and

its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology, 38, 253–272. University of California Press,

Berkeley, California. Long, Jonathan W.; Quinn-Davidson, Lenya; Skinner, Carl N., eds.

Appendix A Bibliography
Craters of the Moon National Monument 303

Draft MMP Amendment

2014. Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and

southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 231–232 p.

Louter, D. (1992). Craters of the Moon National Monument: An Administrative History. National

Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Seattle, Washington.

Makela, P., & Major, D. (2012). A framework to identify greater sage-grouse preliminary priority

habitat and preliminary general habitat for Idaho. BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho.

Manier, D. J., Wood, D. J. A., Bowen, Z. H., Donovan, R., Holloran, M. J., Juliusson, L. M., &

Mayne, K. S. (2013). Summary of science, activities, programs and policies that influence

the rangewide conservation of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). United

States Geological Survey open-file report 2013-1098, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Marra, P., Griffing, S., Caffrey, C., Kilpatrick, A. M., McLean, R., Brand, C., Saito, E., Dupuis,

A. P., Kramer, L., & Novak, R. (2004). West Nile Virus and Wildlife. BioScience, 54(5),

393-402.

Meays, C. L., Laliberte, A. S., & Doescher, P. S. (2000). Defoliation Response of

Bluebunch Wheatgrass and Crested Wheatgrass: Why We Cannot Graze These

Two Species in the Same Manner. Rangelands, 22(6), 16-18. Retrieved from

http://www.jstory.org/stable/4001468.

Meints, D. R. & Rasmussen, C. (2015). Greater Sage Grouse Aerial Lek Surveys in and around

Craters of the Moon National Monument. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Magic

Valley Region, Jerome, ID..

Miller, R. F., Knick, S. T., Pyke, D. A., Meinke, C. W., Hanser, S. E., Wisdom, M. J., &

Hild, A. L. (2011). Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and limitations to long-term

conservation In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors), Greater sage-grouse: Ecology

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology, 38.

University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Mills, L. S. (2007). Bridging applied population and ecosystem ecology with focal species

concepts. Conservation of wildlife populations, 276–285. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford,

United Kingdom.

Monahan, W. B., & Fisichelli, N. A. (2014). Climate exposure of U.S. national parks

in a new era of change. PLoS ONE 9(7), 1–13. Fort Collins, Colorado. DOI:

10.1371/journal.pone.0101302.

Morrison, M. L., Marcot, B. M., & Mannan, R. W. (1998). Wildlife-habitat relationships:

concepts and applications. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Moseley, R., & Popovich, S. (1995). The Conservation Status of Picabo milkvetch (Astragalus

oniciformis Barneby). Idaho Department of Fish and Game & Shoshone District Bureau

of Land Management.

Mosley, J. C., Cook, P. S., Griffis, A. J., & O’Laughlin, J. (1997). Guidelines for managing cattle

grazing in riparian areas to protect water quality: review of research and best management

practices policy. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, Report no. 15.

Appendix A Bibliography
304 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Murgoitio, J., & Wilhelm, A. (2014). Bighorn Sheep Risk of Contact Tool Comparison of 2013

BLM Utilization and Results in Idaho. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office.

Unpublished Report.

Murphy, C. (2002). The Conservation Status of Phacelia inconspicua (Obscure scorpion plant) in

Idaho — an update. Idaho Department of Fish and Game & Upper Snake River District,

Bureau of Land Management.

Nader, G., Henkin, Z., Smith, E., Ingram, R., & Narvaez, N. (2007). Planned Herbivory in the

Management of Wildfire Fuels: Grazing Is Most Effective at Treating Smaller Diameter

Live Fuels that Can Greatly Impact the Rate of Spread of a Fire along with the Flame

Height. Rangelands, 29(5), 18–24. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4640320

Accessed May 2014.

National Technical Team (NTT). (2011). National greater sage-grouse conservation

measures/planning strategy. U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management

(USDI BLM).

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). (2004). Understanding Soil Risks and Hazards:

Using Soil Survey to Identify Areas with Risks and Hazards to Human Life and Property.

National Soil Survey Center. Lincoln NE: USDA. Retrieved April 23, 2014 from

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052508.pdf.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). (2013). Web Soil Survey. USDA. Retrieved

January 25, 2012 from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

NatureServe. (2013). International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological

Classifications. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington VA, USA. Data current as of

12 July 2013.

North Magic Valley Sage-grouse Local Working Group (NMV LWG). (2009). Seasonal Habitat

Mapping Methodology, Habitat Sub-committee.

North Magic Valley Sage-grouse Local Working Group (NMV LWG). (2011). Sage-grouse

conservation plan. Available at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/sageGrouse/

LWGnorthMagValley.pdf.

Northern Great Basin Ecoregion Rapid Ecoregional Assessment. (2013). Final report, contract

L10PC00483.

Osborn, A., Vetter, R., Hartley, L., & Brown, J. (1987). Adverse Effect of Domestic Livestock

Grazing on the Archaeological Resources of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah, Midwest

Archaeological Center Occasional studies in Anthropology No. 20, editor F.A. Calabrese..

Paige, C., & Ritter, S. A. (1999). Birds in a sagebrush sea. Partners in Flight, Western Working

Group.

Patterson, R. L. (1952). The sage-grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, Denver, Colorado.

Pellant, M., & Lysne, C. R. (2005). Strategies to enhance plant structure and diversity in crested

wheatgrass seedings. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-38.

Peterson, C. (2003). Personal communication.

Appendix A Bibliography
Craters of the Moon National Monument 305

Draft MMP Amendment

Peterson, J. G. (1995). Sagebrush: ecological implications of sagebrush manipulation. Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana.

Pitt, M. D. (1986). Assessment of Spring Defoliation to Improve Fall Forage Quality of Bluebunch

Wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum). Journal of Range Management, 39(2), 175-181.

Platts, W. S. (1991). Livestock grazing. Pages 389-423 in W.R. Meehan (ed.) Influences of forest

and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat. American Fisheries

Society, Special Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland.

Popovich, S. (2006). Checklist of Vascular Plants: Craters of the Moon National Monument and

Preserve. Wildhorse Consulting, Idaho.

Rambo, J. L., & Faeth, S. H. (1999). Effect of vertebrate grazing on plant and insect community

structure. Conservation Biology 13, 1047–1054.

Renfrew, R. B. & Ribic, C. A. (2003). Grassland Passerine Nest Predators Near Pasture Edges

Identified on Videotape. Auk, 120(2), 371-383.

Renfrew, R. B., Ribic, C. A., & Nack, J. L. (2005). Edge Avoidance by Nesting Grassland Birds:

A Futile Strategy in a Fragmented Landscape. Auk, 122(2), 618-636.

Rich, T. (1984). Mountain bluebird use of treeless lava flows for nest sites. Western Birds 15,

39-40.

Rimbey, N., & Torrell, L. A. (2011, July). Grazing Costs: What's the Current Situation?,

University of Idaho, 2011. Accessed at http://web.cals.uidaho.edu/idahoagbiz/files/2013/

01/GrazingCost2011.pdf.

Sankey, J. B., Germino, M. J., & Glenn, N. F. (2009). Aeolian sediment transport following

wildfire in sagebrush steppe. Journal of Arid Environments, 73, 912-919.

Sather-Blair, S., Makela, P., Carrigan, T., & Anderson, L. (2000). A Framework to Assist in

Making Sensitive Species Habitat Assessment for BLM-Administered Public Lands in

Idaho. Idaho Bureau of Land Management. Unpublished report.

Schroeder, M. A., Aldridge, C. L., Apa, A. D., Bohne, J. R., Braun, C. E., Bunnell, S. D.,

Connelly, J. W., Deibert, P. A., Gardner, S. C., Hilliard, M. A., Kobriger, G. D., McAdam,

S.M., McCarthy, C.W., McCarthy, J. J., Mitchell, D. L., Rickerson, E. V., & Stiver, S. J.

(2004). Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. Condor, 106, 363-376.

Schuman, G. E., Ingram, L. J., Stahl, P. D., Derner, J. D., Vance, G. F., & Morgan, J. A.

(2009). Soil carbon sequestration and the greenhouse effect, 2nd edition. SSSA Special

Publication 57. Madison, Wisconsin.

Shariff, A. R., Biondini, M. E., & Grygiel, C. E. (1994). Grazing Intensity Effects

on Litter Decomposition and Soil Nitrogen Mineralization. Journal of Range

Management. 47(6), 444–449. Allen Press & Society for Range Management.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4002994.

Smithsonian Institute. (2003). Museum records of the National Museum of Natural History at the

Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C.

Appendix A Bibliography
306 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Sohrabi, H., Ryu, J., Abatzoglou, J., & Tracy, J. (2012). Climate extreme and

it’s linkage to regional drought over Idaho, USA. Nat Hazards DOI

10.1007/s11069–012–0384–1. Retrieved http://www.researchgate.net/publication/

235702016_Climate_extreme_and_its_linkage_to_regional_drought_over_Idaho_USA.

Soil Conservation Service. (1993). Soil survey manual. Ch. 3. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.

Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps.portal/nrcs/

detail/soils/planners/&cid=nrcs142p2_054262.

State of Idaho. (2001). Noxious Weeds Rules. Idaho Administrative Code. Department of

Agriculture. IDAPA 02.06.22.

Stevens, B.S. (2011). Impacts of fences on greater sage-grouse in Idaho: collision, mitigation,

and spatial ecology. Thesis. University of Idaho.

Stevens, B. S., Connelly, J. W., & Reese, K. P. (2012). Multi-scale assessment of Greater

Sage-Grouse fence collision as a function of site and broad scale factors. Journal of

Wildlife Management. 76, 1370-1380.

Stiver, S. J., Rinkes, E. T., & Naugle, D. E. (2010). Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Unpublished report. Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl, eds. (2015).

Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical

Reference 6710–1. Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and

Wildlife Agencies, Denver, Colorado..

Strand, E. K., & Launchbaugh, K. L. (2013, April). Livestock Grazing Effects on Fuel Loads for

Wildland Fire in Sagebrush Dominated Ecosystems. Great Basin Fire Science Delivery

Report.

Taylor, A. R., & Tuttle, M. D. (2007). Water for wildlife: a handbook for ranchers and range

managers. Bat Conservation International.

Tisdale, E. W., Hironaka, M., & Fosberg, M.A. (1965, May). An Area of Pristine Vegetation in

Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho. Ecology, 46(3), 349–352. Ecological

Society of America. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1936343.

Torell, L. A., Tanaka, J. A., Rimbey, N., Darden, T., Van Tassell, L., & Harp, A. (2002).

Ranch-Level impacts of changing grazing policies on BLM land to protect the greater

sage-grouse: evidence from Idaho, Nevada and Oregon (Policy Paper SG-01-02).

Caldwell, ID, USA: Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands.

Trimble, S. (1989). The Sagebrush Ocean. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada.

University of Idaho Extension Enterprise Budgets. http://web.cals.uidaho.edu/idahoagbiz/

enterprise-budgets/, accessed April 2014.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). National Agricultural Statistics Service Data.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/, accessed April 2014.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Forest Service. (2010) Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Written

Appendix A Bibliography
Craters of the Moon National Monument 307

Draft MMP Amendment

to supplement the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Land Resource Management Plans Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) completed in 2003. Written to add direction

to the 2003 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan that would

provide for viability of bighorn sheep. .

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Forest Service. (2013) Bighorn Sheep Risk of

Contact Tool User Guide. McCall, Idaho: USDA Forest Service Bighorn Sheep Working

Group, Critigen Inc., 2013.. .

United States Department of Commerce (USDC), Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional

Economic Information System. (2012). Tables CA05, CA05N, & CA45. Washington,

D.C.

United States Department of the Interior (USDI). (2006). Riparian area management: grazing

management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Technical reference

1737-20. BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737. Bureau of Land Management, National Science

and Technology Center, Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (1980). Great Rift

Proposed Wilderness Final Environmental Impact Statement.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (1986).

BLM Manual Handbook 8431–1 – Visual Resource Contrast Rating..

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (1986).

BLM Manual Handbook 8410–1 – Visual Resource Inventory..

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (1988).

BLM Manual 1613 – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern..

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (1991).

Idaho Wilderness Study Report, Volumes 1 and 3..

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (1997a).

Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/id/publications.Par.91993.File.dat/

SGFinal.pdf . Accessed April 2014.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (1997b).

Riparian area management: grazing management for riparian-wetland areas. USDOI,

Bureau of Land Management, BLM/RS/ST-97/002+1737, National Applied Resource

Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (1999).

Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements. (Technical Reference 1734–3).

National Applied Resource Sciences Center. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management.

http://web.nc.blm.gov/blmlibrary/techref.htm Accessed April 2014.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM).

Habich, E. F. (2001). Ecological Site Inventory. (Technical Reference 1734-7).

National Science & Technology Center. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management.

http://web.nc.blm.gov/blmlibrary/techref.htm, Accessed 2014.

Appendix A Bibliography
308 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (2010).

Seasonal wildlife restrictions and procedures for processing requests for exceptions on

public lands in Idaho. BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (2011, July

21). Final Supplementary Rules to Require the Use of Certified Noxious-Weed-Free

Forage and Straw on Bureau of Land Management Lands in the State of Idaho. Federal

Register, 76(140).

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (2012).

Instruction memorandum no. 2012-043: greater sage-grouse interim management policies

and procedures. Washington, D.C.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (1986).

BLM Manual Handbook 8410–1 – Visual Resource Inventory.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (2012).

BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics on BLM Lands.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (2012).

BLM Manual 6320 – Considering Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (2012).

BLM Manual 6330 – Management of Wilderness Study Areas.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (2013a).

Internal Data, WO Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-084, 2013 Grazing Fee, Surcharge

Rates, and Penalty for Unauthorized Grazing Use. Washington, D.C.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (2013b).

Instruction memorandum no. 2013-094: resource management during drought.

Washington, D.C.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM). (2013).

Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-111: The National Vegetation Classification and

Associated Mapping Standards for Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents and

Assignment of State-level Vegetation Classification Data Stewards. Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Interior, National Park Service (USDI NPS). (2013). 2013 National

Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States,

and the Nation. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR-2014–824. Retrieve

from http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/economics.cfm Accessed July 2014.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDI NPS). (2014). Climate

change resource brief: recent climate change exposure of Craters of the Moon National

Monument and Preserve.

United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2010).

Federal register notice March 5, 2010. FWS-R6-ES-2010-0018 or MO 92210-0-0008-B2.

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list the

greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered.

Appendix A Bibliography
Craters of the Moon National Monument 309

Draft MMP Amendment

United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI USFWS). (2012).

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) conservation objectives: draft report.

Denver, Colorado.

United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI USFWS). (2013).

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) conservation objectives: final report.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.

United States Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program (USGS GAP). (2011). National Land

Cover, Version 2.

Valone, T. J., Meyer, M., Brown, J. H., & Chew, R. M. (2002). Timescale of Perennial Grass

Recovery in Desertified Arid Grasslands Following Livestock Removal. Conservation

Biology, 16(4), 995-1002.

Walker, B. L., & D. E. Naugle. (2011). West Nile virus ecology in sagebrush habitat and impacts

on Greater Sage-Grouse populations. In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors), Greater

sage-grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in

Avian Biology, 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, K. E. Doherty, & T. E. Cornish. (2007). West Nile virus and Greater

Sage-Grouse: Estimating infection rate in a wild bird population. Avian Diseases,

51:691-696.

Welch, B. L., Pederson, J. C., & Rodriquez, R. L. (1988). Selection of big sagebrush by

sage-grouse. Great Basin Naturalist 48, 274-279.

Welch, B. L., Wagstaff, F. J., & Roberson, J. A. (1991). Preference of wintering sage-grouse for

big sagebrush. Journal of Range Management, 44, 462-465.

Westenskow-Wall, K. J., Krueger, W. C., Bryant, L. D., & Thomas, D. R. (1994). Nutrient Quality

of Bluebunch Wheatgrass Regrowth on Elk Winter Range in Relation to Defoliation.

Journal of Range Management, 47, 240-244.

Western Watersheds Project v. Ken Salazer, Secretary, Department of the Interior.

4:08–CV-516–BLW (District of Idaho, 2012).

Western Watersheds Project v. Ken Salazer, Secretary, Department of the Interior. Declaration of

Brent E. Ralston. 4:08–CV-516–BLW (District of Idaho, 2012).

Whipple, J. (1992). Review of Herbarium Plant List. Crater of the Moon Herbarium.

Whisenant, S. G. (1990, November). Changing Fire Frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains:

Ecological and Management Implications. Proceedings — Symposium on Cheatgrass

Invasion, Shrub Die-off, and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. (General

Technical Report INT-276). USDA Forest Service.

Whittington, D. M., & Allen, G. T. (2008). Draft guidelines for raptor conservation in the western

United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management,

Washington, D.C.

Wildesen, L E. (1982). The Study of Impacts on Archaeological Sites, Advances in

Archaeological Methods and Theory, 5, 51-96. Academic Press, Inc..

Appendix A Bibliography
310 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Wilkins, R. N., Brown, R. D., Conner, R. J., Engle, J., Gilliland, C., Hays, A., Slack, R. D., &

Steinbach, D. W. (2003). Fragmented lands: Changing land ownership in Texas. Texas

A&M University, College Station.

Williams, B. K., Szaro R. C., & Shapiro, C. D. (2009). Adaptive management: the U.S.

Department of the Interior technical guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Williams, R. (2002). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, Arco, Idaho. Personal

communication.

World Resources Institute. (2014). Climate analysis indicators tool. http://cait2.wri.org.

Yingst, D., & Handy, H. M. (1961). Research Island? Our Public Lands. Bureau of Land

Management. 11(1).

Appendix A Bibliography
Craters of the Moon National Monument 311

Draft MMP Amendment

Appendix B. Management Common to All
 

Alternatives - Carried forward from the
 

2007 Craters of the Moon MMP
 

Much of the Management Guidance in the 2007 Plan is carried forward and will continue to

apply regardless of alternatives. The actions described in Appendix B would be implemented

regardless of which alternative is ultimately selected. This section compiles common direction

in one place so that the reader can focus on the actual differences among alternatives. Laws,

regulations, and policies drive a large portion of BLM’s work. Agencies frequently do not have

much latitude to vary proposed management across alternatives and still comply with those laws,

regulations, and policies.

Soil Resources Management Actions

SOIL-1: Soils would be protected from accelerated or unnatural erosion from ground disturbing

activities.

SOIL-2: The potential for, or presence, extent and condition of, biological soil crusts would be

investigated to provide specific management guidance.

SOIL-3: Biological soil crusts would be considered in management decisions where appropriate.

Water Resources Management Actions

WATER-1: No additional playas would be modified or developed.

WATER-2: Playas would be evaluated for restoration on a case-by-case basis.

WATER-3: The agencies would work with appropriate State of Idaho authorities to obtain water

resources needed for Monument purposes.

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire Management Actions

VEG-1: To protect vegetation resources, no new livestock developments will be permitted in

Bowl Crater Allotment or the North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment unless they result in a net

benefit to those resources identified as needing improvement or protection.

VEG-2: Existing sagebrush steppe communities will be protected to prevent loss of shrub cover

and managed to promote a diverse, desirable grass and forb understory .

VEG-3: Annual grasslands and highly degraded sagebrush steppe communities will be restored to

achieve a mosaic of shrubs, forbs, and grasses capable of sustaining native animal populations.

VEG-4: Restoration projects will be prioritized relative to locations of key greater sage-grouse

habitat and population strongholds. Emphasis will be on projects that restore annual grasslands

and degraded sagebrush steppe communities, as well as enlarging and connecting habitats in

good condition.

Appendix B Management Common to All

Alternatives - Carried forward from the 2007

Craters of the Moon MMP
312 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

VEG-5: National and Idaho state habitat guidelines for greater sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe

obligates developed by interagency working groups regarding composition and structure of

sagebrush habitats on a landscape scale will be adopted to guide sagebrush steppe management.

VEG-6: Current science and best available technologies and plant material will be considered in

analysis and implementation of all restoration projects. Restoration treatments may be active or

passive and may include, but are not limited to, the following: prescribed fire, thinning, mowing,

herbicide treatment, seeding, temporary removal of livestock and/or changes in grazing regimes

or facilities, and road closures.

VEG-7: Areas classified as poor to fair biotic integrity will be highest priority for restoration

treatments.

VEG-8: Aggressive protection of existing sagebrush steppe communities and proactive

restoration of areas with poor to fair biotic integrity through both active and passive means

will be emphasized.

VEG-9: Approximately 80,000 acres of BLM-administered land will be restored. About 31,000

acres of annual grassland and 49,000 acres of highly degraded low elevation sagebrush steppe

(poor to fair biotic integrity) will be treated to control cheatgrass and restore big sagebrush cover.

VEG-10: All special status species in the Monument will be inventoried with monitoring plans

established, particularly when and where, adverse impacts may occur.

VEG-11: Actions and stipulations necessary to protect special status species and their habitats

will be made part of land use authorizations (e.g., limiting fragmentation of special status species

populations when considering road maintenance) and fire planning.

VEG-12: Use of native plants will be emphasized in rehabilitation and restoration projects, and

only native plants will be used for rehabilitation or restoration projects within the Pristine Zone.

Integrated weed management principles will be used to:

● Detect and eradicate all new infestations of noxious weeds;

● Control existing infestations; and

● Prevent the establishment and spread of weeds within and adjacent to the planning area.

VEG-13: Weed infestations in wilderness areas will be controlled by methods consistent with

minimum tool requirements and integrated weed management principles, including prevention of

disturbance activities, use of chemical and mechanical methods to control or physically remove

noxious weeds, and selective application of herbicides and possibly biological controls.

VEG-14: Integrated weed management principles will be applied proactively throughout all

zones. This program will emphasize protection of weed-free areas and aggressive detection and

control of noxious or highly invasive exotic weeds and will include an analysis of the trade-offs

involved in herbicide use versus non-chemical methods of weed control.

VEG-15: Only certified weed-free hay, straw, and mulch will be permitted within the Monument.

VEG-16: Wildland fires will be suppressed to protect life and property, healthy sagebrush

steppe communities, recent rehabilitation and restoration projects, cultural sites, and the Little

Cottonwood Creek watershed.

Appendix B Management Common to All Alternatives

- Carried forward from the 2007 Craters of the Moon

MMP
Craters of the Moon National Monument 313

Draft MMP Amendment

VEG-17: Fire will be managed to maximize protection and restoration of sagebrush steppe in

the Passage and Primitive Zones.

VEG-18: Wildland fire use will be allowed in the Wilderness and Preserve except when

incompatible with resource management objectives or if there is a danger to life or property.

VEG-19: Limited prescribed fire (<500 acres) will be used in the aspen, conifer, and mountain

shrub vegetation types to improve wildlife habitat and invigorate plant communities while

protecting the Little Cottonwood watershed.

VEG-20: In the event of wildland fire, burned areas will be rehabilitated when necessary to

restore the appropriate mosaic of sagebrush species and subspecies, along with a diverse perennial

understory, and to suppress invasive and noxious weeds.

VEG-21: The cooperative arrangement between the Bureau of Land Management and the

National Park Service related to fire management will continue, including cooperative agreements

with local fire departments and rural fire districts.

VEG-22: The Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service will develop a joint fire

management implementation plan for the Monument.

VEG-23: The network of main arterial roads will be managed to support access for wildland

fire suppression.

Wildlife Management Actions

WLIFE-1: Inventory and monitoring of wildlife will emphasize species that are regionally or

nationally important.

WLIFE-2: A monitoring program will be established to detect species populations in decline and

species as indicators of the health of the ecosystem, and to record the presence of species of

special concern.

WLIFE-3: The NPS, in consultation with the State and Tribes, will designate areas within the

Preserve and periods of time when no hunting will be permitted for protection of the area’s

resources.

WLIFE-4: On all NPS-administered lands, predator control will not be authorized by the Park

Service except on a case-by-case basis.

WLIFE-5: Native animal species identified as pests will be managed in accordance with the

applicable BLM or NPS management policies depending upon the administrative area in which

the pest occurs.

WLIFE-6: All special status species in the Monument will be inventoried with monitoring plans

established, particularly when and where adverse impacts may occur.

WLIFE-7: Actions and stipulations necessary to protect special status species and their habitats

will be made part of land use authorizations (e.g. limiting fragmentation of special status species

populations when considering road maintenance) and fire planning.

WLIFE-8: Active and historic leks will be protected from disturbance during the sage-grouse

breeding season. Some examples of potential protection measures as presented in the Idaho

Appendix B Management Common to All

Alternatives - Carried forward from the 2007

Craters of the Moon MMP
314 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Sage-grouse Advisory Committee’s 2006 Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-grouse in

Idaho include:

● Apply use restrictions where needed and appropriate on existing roads or trails near occupied

leks to minimize nonessential activity between 6 PM and 9 AM (in general this guideline

should be applied from approximately March 15 through May 1).

● Avoid human activities such as fence maintenance or construction or any project or related work

at or near (1 km or 0.6 mile) occupied leks that results in or will likely result in disturbance

to lekking birds, between 6 PM and 9 AM (in general this guideline should be applied from

approximately March 15 through May 1).

● Avoid creating unnecessary disturbance related to livestock management activities near

occupied leks whenever possible.

● Improve the dissemination of information to elementary and high school students, hunters,

resource user-groups, and others to increase their understanding of sage-grouse and sagebrush

steppe conservation issues.

● Monitor leks in a manner that minimizes disturbance to sage-grouse following established

protocol (Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee 2006, Sections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.1.2).

WLIFE-9: Consistent with Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock

Grazing Management (USDI BLM 1997) determinations, livestock grazing management will be

modified as necessary to ensure key sage-grouse habitat achieves site potential.

WLIFE-10: The BLM will continue to hold annual meetings and coordinate closely with U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services Program, and livestock lessees to reduce livestock

losses. The BLM will encourage non-lethal methods, education, and the targeting of specific

offending animals for lethal methods. These procedures will be implemented to protect both

public safety and the natural resources for which the Monument was designated.

Livestock Grazing Management Actions (Revisited in this amendment)

GRAZ-1: Nine allotment boundaries will be altered to accurately reflect the NPS/BLM boundary.

There will be no change in AUM preferences actually available for grazing.

GRAZ-2: BLM land available for livestock use totals approximately 273,900 acres. BLM land

not available for livestock use totals approximately 1,200 acres. NPS land not available for

livestock use totals approximately 463,300 acres. (These acre values were updated using the best

available information and GIS data; however, this statement has the same intent as GRAZ-2

of the 2007 MMP.)

GRAZ-3: Permitted livestock use totals 36,965 animal unit months. (Corrected AUMs

are calculated at 38,187 AUMs since the 2007 MMP estimate.) The current livestock use

authorizations will be maintained until Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health evaluations or

similar NEPA-compliance decisions identify the need for adjustments in livestock use to meet

standards, vegetation, livestock, or resource objectives.

GRAZ-4: Use of existing livestock developments in Primitive and Pristine Zones may continue.

The BLM may remove developments if they are no longer serving a useful purpose or resource

objectives warrant their removal. Sites will be restored.

Appendix B Management Common to All Alternatives

- Carried forward from the 2007 Craters of the Moon

MMP
Craters of the Moon National Monument 315

Draft MMP Amendment

GRAZ-6: There will be no new livestock developments permitted in Bowl Crater Allotment or

the North Pasture of Laidlaw Park Allotment unless they result in a net benefit to those resources

identified as needing improvement or protection.

Cultural Resources Management Actions

CULT-1: A comprehensive Archaeological Overview and Assessment of known and potential

archaeological resources (baseline research report) within the planning area will be completed.

CULT-2: A Cultural Resource Management Plan that describes how specific sites will be

managed, defines what areas need additional inventory, and designates potential use categories

for sites will be completed for the Monument.

CULT-3: Measures such as access limitations and periodic monitoring will be identified to

proactively manage and protect cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties.

CULT-4: Projects will be planned and designed so as to avoid adversely impacting cultural

resources where possible. The BLM and the NPS will consult with Tribes and the Idaho State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to develop alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate

any potential adverse effects.

CULT-5: Through consultation with the Idaho SHPO, areas for Section 110 cultural resource

inventories will be prioritized.

CULT-6: A proactive Section 110 inventory will be conducted as funding allows, expanding the

cultural resource database for the Monument.

CULT-7: A minimum of 10% of the Monument will be inventoried for cultural resources over the

life of the plan. The focus of the Section 110 Inventory will be in the Primitive and Passage Zones.

CULT-8: The significance of known archaeological and historic resources, structures, and

landscapes will be evaluated and documented, in conjunction with the Idaho SHPO, for listing on

the National Register.

CULT-9: Activities that may affect the Goodale’s Cutoff of the Oregon Trail, the NPS

headquarters/visitor center Mission 66-era, or other properties listed or eligible for the National

Register will be undertaken in consultation with the Idaho SHPO.

CULT-10: At-risk National Register eligible sites will be monitored for vandalism or other

disturbances and protected/stabilized as necessary.

CULT-11: National Register eligible properties will be monitored periodically and steps will be

taken to stabilize any property found to be deteriorating and to limit access as needed.

CULT-12: The agencies will pursue more public education and interpretation off site, with

increased monitoring and protection for those sites at risk.

Native American Rights and Interests Management Actions

NAAM-1: Native American Tribes that have expressed an interest in traditional cultural

properties within the Monument will be consulted on a regular basis regarding the management

of those properties.

Appendix B Management Common to All

Alternatives - Carried forward from the 2007

Craters of the Moon MMP
316 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

NAAM-2: Handling of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act materials will

be addressed as a component of a Cultural Resources Management Plan.

NAAM-3: Should any Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act material ever be

inadvertently discovered within the Monument, the agencies will follow the tribal consultations

procedures outlined in the Act regarding their treatment.

NAAM-4: The agencies in consultation with the Tribes will identify protection measures for any

places of traditional cultural importance to Native Americans to preserve the integrity and use

of those areas as described in National Register Bulletin 38.

NAAM-5: Agencies will consult with associated Native American tribes to develop and

accomplish the programs of the Monument in a way that respects their beliefs, traditions, and

other cultural values.

NAAM-6: Agencies will consult with Native American tribes prior to taking actions that will

affect natural and cultural resources that are of interest and concern to them.

NAAM-7: Hunting, gathering, and the use of certain natural resources as sacred objects for

religious use will continue on the Preserve and the expanded areas of the Monument.

Visual Resources Management Actions

VRM-1: BLM and NPS managers should seek the cooperation of visitors, neighbors, and local

government agencies to prevent or minimize impacts and prevent the loss of western landscape

vistas and natural dark conditions.

VRM-2: Existing waste dumps will be inventoried and cleaned up.

VRM-3: VRM inventory classes will be designated as management classes.

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas Management Actions

WILD-1: NPS and BLM will develop a joint Wilderness/Wilderness Study Area (WSA)

Management Plan following the completion of this plan. No additional wildlife water

developments or other habitat manipulations will be undertaken to manage wildlife populations in

Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, or the Preserve.

WILD-2: As part of the joint Wilderness/WSA Management Plan, and consistent with current

guidance on inventorying for and managing to protect or enhance wilderness characteristics, the

agencies may conduct additional inventory, consider citizen proposals, and consider protections

of lands with wilderness characteristics.

WILD-3: Minimum requirement analysis will precede any proposed management activities

within designated wilderness areas and WSAs will continue to be managed under the guidance of

the Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review (replaced in 2012 by Manual

6330 Management of Wilderness Study Areas).

WILD-4: Use of aircraft to survey and monitor wildlife populations could be continued, but

flights will be scheduled to avoid high visitor use periods. Any landing of aircraft or dropping of

supplies from aircraft in wilderness or WSAs will be consistent with a minimum requirement

and minimum analysis.

Appendix B Management Common to All Alternatives

- Carried forward from the 2007 Craters of the Moon

MMP
Craters of the Moon National Monument 317

Draft MMP Amendment

WILD-5: Ways or travel routes within WSAs not identified during wilderness inventories will be

closed to motorized vehicles and rehabilitated.

WILD-6: Should Congress release any Wilderness Study Area from WSA status, then the area

will be managed under the direction of this land use plan.

Travel and Transportation Management Actions

Eighteen travel and transportation management actions were established in the 2007 Monument

Management Plan. The 2007 Plan directed that a comprehensive travel management plan be

written as an implementation-level plan. The management zones, road and trail classification

system, and other provisions of the Monument Management Plan provided the framework for

developing the Comprehensive Travel Plan, which was completed in 2009. It is now the most

current management specific to travel and transportation in the Monument.

Actions specific to the Comprehensive Travel Plan include:

● Maintain roads, as defined on page 2 of the travel plan, to a consistent standard to support

wildfire operations,

● Seasonally close routes in big game winter habitat when needed,

● Seasonally close and limit routes to protect sage-grouse,

● Restrict occupancy in areas of known active sage-grouse leks during the breeding season,

● Limit some Primitive Roads to administrative use only in order to minimize human-caused

wildfire threats and the spread of non-native invasive plants and noxious weeds,

● Allow administrative use only on some routes to Monument infrastructure such as range

improvements associated with grazing and livestock operations, wildlife management, and

exclosures,

● Construct vehicle parking areas in order to minimize human-caused wildfire threats and the

spread of non-native invasive plants and noxious weeds,

● Close and remove/rehabilitate some Primitive Roads in the Pristine Zone to protect

archaeological and geological resources,

● Provide access for motorized and non-motorized recreational activities,

● Develop and analyze a ‘toolbox’ of options for route closures, and

● Protect valid existing rights.

Visitor Use Management Actions

VISIT-1: A Long-Range Interpretive Plan for the Monument will be developed.

VISIT-2: Both agencies will coordinate services to meet the needs of permittees, visitors,

students, educators, interest groups, and the general public.

Appendix B Management Common to All

Alternatives - Carried forward from the 2007

Craters of the Moon MMP
318 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

VISIT-3: Monument staff will continue to promote visitor safety and resource protection.

Designated roads, trails, and facilities will be maintained, and new facilities will be provided as

appropriate in the Frontcounty Zone for resource protection and visitor enjoyment.

VISIT-4: Developed facilities such as the visitor center at the original NPS Monument will

continue to be provided. Informational/orientation materials dealing with recreation, maps, safety,

and resource concerns will be posted on kiosks located at all primary backcountry access points

surrounding the Monument and at the Carey and Kimama BLM fire stations.

VISIT-5: Interpretive programs and the maintenance of exhibits and waysides will continue.

VISIT-6: Educational programs for schools will focus on programs on-site in the original

NPS-administered Monument. A number of programs (summer and winter) aimed at special

users will be presented each year.

VISIT-7: Educational programs will be expanded to off-site locations.

VISIT-8: A variety of interpretive media for on- and off-site use will continue to be developed.

VISIT-9: Interpretive signs will be provided along the US 20/26/93 corridor.

VISIT-10: Interpretation outside the Frontcounty Zone will emphasize publications, web sites,

exhibits, and other off-site interpretive media.

VISIT-11: Interpretive emphasis will be on providing new interpretive and educational materials

and programs outside the expanded portion of the Monument and in partnering communities and

facilities.

VISIT-12: A variety of portable media (maps, tapes, guidebooks, etc.) will be developed to

interpret the expanded portion of the Monument.

VISIT-13: Informational/orientation material dealing with recreation, maps, safety, and resource

concerns will be available in gateway communities. Visitor center(s) operated in cooperation with

local partners will be proposed within the I-84 corridor.

VISIT-14: Commercial outfitters and guides will be encouraged to offer a range of guided

experiences. Visitors who might not otherwise have the proper knowledge, vehicles, or

preparation to experience the interior of the Monument will then have a viable option that will not

require a lot of road, trail, and facility improvement.

VISIT-15: Safety and resource protection will be emphasized at all access points.

Socioeconomic Values Management Actions

SOCIO-1: An intergovernmental coordination group will be considered to ensure consistency

of this plan with other state and local plans.

SOCIO-2: The agencies will participate with interested communities in their planning for

accommodating Monument visitors through their communities.

Appendix B Management Common to All Alternatives

- Carried forward from the 2007 Craters of the Moon

MMP
Craters of the Moon National Monument 319

Draft MMP Amendment

Appendix C. Idaho and Southwestern
 

Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved
 

Resource Management Plan Amendment
 

Attachment 1– Chapter 2, and Required
 

Design Features
 

Below is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Attachment 1 of the Idaho and Southwestern Montana

ARMPA for reference purposes. The guidance in this document is common to all Craters of

the Moon National Monument draft Plan Amendment alternatives. For more details, please

see the original document.

CHAPTER 2

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

2.1 Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment Instructions

This ARMPA is now the baseline plan for managing GRSG in Idaho and southwestern Montana

in the following district offices: Boise, Twin Falls, and Idaho Falls in Idaho and Western Montana

in Montana. The ARMPA adopts the management described in the Idaho and Southwest

Montana Greater Sage- Grouse Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final

Environmental Impact Statement (2015), with modifications and clarifications as described in the

Modifications and Clarifications section of the record of decision (ROD).

In the event there are inconsistencies or discrepancies with previously approved RMPs, this

ARMPA’s decisions will be followed, unless there are more restrictive decisions in the existing

plans. The BLM will continue to tier to statewide, national, and programmatic EISs and other

NEPA and planning documents and will apply RDFs or other management protocols in other

planning documents after appropriate site- specific analysis.

All future resource authorizations and actions in GRSG habitat will conform to or be consistent

with the decisions contained in this ARMPA. All existing operations and activities authorized

under permits, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other authorizations will be modified, as

necessary and appropriate, to conform to this plan amendment within a reasonable time frame.

However, this ARMPA does not repeal valid existing rights on public lands. A valid existing

right is a claim or authorization that takes precedence over the decisions developed in this plan.

If such authorizations come up for review and can be modified, they will also be brought into

conformance with this plan amendment, as appropriate.

While the Final EIS for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Proposed GRSG RMP Amendment

constitutes compliance with NEPA for the broad-scale decisions made in this ARMPA, the BLM

will continue to prepare environmental assessments (EAs) and EISs where appropriate as part of

implementation level planning and decision-making.

2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
320 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

This section of the ARMPA presents the goals, objectives, land use allocations, and management

actions established for protecting and preserving Greater Sage-grouse and its habitat on public

lands managed by the BLM in Idaho and Southwestern Montana. These management decisions

are presented by program area. Not all types of decisions were identified for each program.

Land use allocations are depicted in Appendix A. A Monitoring Framework is also included (in

Appendix D) to describe how the implemented program decisions will be monitored.

This section is organized by program area beginning with the Special Status Species (SSS)

program, which identifies specific goals, objectives, and management actions for Greater

Sage-grouse and its habitat. For ease of identification into the future, each program area has

identified abbreviations (see below) for these program areas and each decision in that program is

numbered in coordination with the abbreviation:

● Special Status Species (SSS)

○ GRSG Management Areas

○ Adaptive Management

○ Anthropogenic Disturbance

○ Monitoring

● Vegetation (VEG)

○ Sagebrush Steppe

○ Conifer Encroachment

○ Invasive Species

○ Riparian and Wetlands

● Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE)

○ Pre-suppression

○ Suppression

○ Fuels Management

○ Post-Fire Management

● Livestock Grazing (LG)

● Wild Horses and Burros (WHB)

● Minerals Resources (MR)

○ Fluid Minerals

○ Locatable Minerals

○ Salable Minerals

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 321

Draft MMP Amendment

○ Non-Energy Leasable Minerals

○ Mineral Split Estate

● Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar) (RE)

● Livestock Grazing (LG)

● Lands and Realty (LR)

○ Utility Corridors and Communication Sites

○ Land Use Authorizations

○ Land Tenure

○ Recommended Withdrawals

● Recreation and Visitor Services (REC)

● Travel and Transportation (TTM)

● Mitigation (Montana)

● Coordination

Table 2.1 is a summary of the allocation decisions presented for each GRSG habitat management

area.

Table 2-1 Summary of Allocation Decisions by GRSG Habitat Management Areas

Resource PHMA IHMA GHMA

Land Tenure Retain Retain Retain

Solar Exclusion Avoidance Idaho – Open

Montana- Avoidance

Wind Exclusion Avoidance Idaho – Open

Montana- Avoidance

Major ROWs Avoidance Avoidance Open

Montana - Avoidance

Minor ROWs Avoidance Avoid Open

Oil and Gas Open with Major

Stipulations

Open with Major

Stipulations

Open with

Controlled Surface use

and Standard Stipulations

Geothermal Open with Major

Stipulations

Open with Major

Stipulations

Open with

Controlled Surface use

and Standard Stipulations

Non-energy Leasables Closed Open Open

Salable Minerals Closed Open Open

Locatable Minerals SFA = Recommend

Withdrawal

Other PHMA = Open

Open Open

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
322 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Travel Management Limited Limited Idaho –Limited

Montana Limited to

Designated (see Dillon

RMP)

Livestock Grazing Open Open Open

2.2.1 Special Status Species (SSS)

Goal SSS 1: Maintain and/or increase the abundance, distribution and connectivity of GRSG by

conserving, enhancing and restoring GRSG habitat to maintain resilient populations by reducing,

eliminating or minimizing threats to GRSG habitats.

Goal SSS 2: Provide for the needs of GRSG and their habitat while also providing for resource

uses in accordance with BLM’s direction for multiple use and sustained yield as described in

FLPMA.

Goal SSS 3: Manage anthropogenic development and human disturbance to minimize the

likelihood of adverse population level effects on GRSG.

Goal SSS 4: Reduce the risk of West Nile Virus or other disease outbreaks from BLM

management actions.

Goal SSS 5: Conserve, enhance, and restore the sagebrush ecosystem upon which GRSG

populations depend in an effort to maintain and/or increase their abundance and distribution, in

cooperation with other conservation partners.

Objective SSS 1: Maintain or make progress toward all lands within PHMA and IHMA (at least

70%) capable of producing sagebrush so there is a minimum of 15 percent sagebrush cover and

conifers absent to uncommon within 1.86 miles of occupied leks.

Objective SSS 2: Incorporate GRSG Seasonal Habitat Objectives (Table 2.2), into the design

of projects or activities, as appropriate, based on site conditions and ecological potential, unless

achievement of fuels management objectives require additional reduction in sagebrush cover to

meet strategic protection of GRSG habitat and conserve habitat quality for the species or at least

one of the following conditions can be demonstrated and documented in the NEPA analysis

associated with the specific project:

● A specific objective is not applicable to the site-specific conditions of the project or activity;

● An alternatives objective is determined to provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its

habitat (based on appropriate scientific findings); or

● Analysis concludes that following a specific objective will provide no more protection to

GRSG or its habitat than not following it, for the project being proposed.

● These habitat objectives in Table 2–2 summarize the characteristics that research has found

represent the seasonal habitat needs for GRSG. The specific seasonal components identified

in the table were adjusted based on local science and monitoring data to define the range of

characteristics used in this subregion. Thus, the habitat objectives provide the broad vegetative

conditions we strive to obtain across the landscape that indicate the seasonal habitats used by

GRSG. These habitat indicators are consistent with the rangeland health indicators used by

the BLM.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 323

Draft MMP Amendment

● The habitat objectives will be part of the GRSG habitat assessment to be used during land

healthy evaluations (see Appendix D, Monitoring Framework). These habitat objectives are not

obtainable on every acre within the designated GRSG habitat management areas. Therefore,

the determination on whether the objectives have been met will be based on the specific sites’s

ecological ability to meet the desired condition identified in the table.

● All BLM use authorizations will contain terms and conditions regarding the actions needed to

meet or progress toward meeting the habitat objectives. If monitoring data show the habitat

objectives have not been met nor progress being made towards meeting them, there will be an

evaluation and a determination made as to the cause. If it is determined that the authorized

use is the cause, the use will be adjusted by the response specified in the instrument that

authorized the use.

Table 2–2 Habitat Objectives for GRSG

Attribute Indicator Desired Condition Reference

LEK HABITAT (Seasonal Use Period March 1 – May 15)1

Lek Security Proximity of trees Trees (i.e., in Idaho mainly juniper,

conifers, and does not include oldgrowth juniper, pinyon pine and

mountain mahogany; in Montana mainly

Douglas-fir) absent or uncommon on

shrub/grassland ecological sites within

1.86 miles (3 km) of occupied leks.

Baruch-Mordo et al.

20137

Stiver et al. 201513

Proximity of sagebrush

to leks

Adjacent protective sagebrush cover

within 328 ft. (100 m) of an occupied lek

Stiver et al. 201513

NESTING/EARLY BROOD REARING 1,5,10,12,13,14 (Seasonal Use Period May 1 – June 30) 1

Cover and

Food

Seasonal habitat extent

(Percent of Seasonal

Habitat Meeting Desired

Conditions)

>80% of the nesting habitat meets the

recommended vegetation characteristics,

where appropriate (relative to ecological

site potential, etc.).

Connelly et al. 20008

Sagebrush cover 2 15-25% Connelly et al. 20008

Connelly et al. 20039Hagen

et al. 200711

Sagebrush height

Arid sites3 Mesic sites4

12-31 inches (30-80cm)

16-31 inches (40-80cm)

Connelly et al. 20008

Predominant sagebrush

shape

Predominantly spreading shape5 Stiver et al. 201513

Perennial grass cover

(such as native

bunchgrasses) 2

Arid sites3Mesic sites 4

>10%

>15%

Connelly et al. 20008

Stiver et al. 201513

Perennial grass (and

forb) height (includes

residual grasses)

≥ 7 inches Connelly et al. 20008

Connelly et al. 20039Hagen

et al. 200711Stiver et al.

201513

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
324 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Perennial forb cover 2

Arid sites3 Mesic sites4

>5%

>10%

Connelly et al. 20008

Perennial forb availability Preferred forbs are common with

several species present6

Stiver et al. 201513

LATE BROOD-REARING/SUMMER1, 15 (July-October)1 Late brood-rearing areas, such as riparian,

meadows, springs, higher elevation mesic uplands, etc. may occur within other mapped seasonal habitat areas.

Apply late brood rearing/summer habitat desired conditions locally as appropriate.

Cover and

Food

Seasonal habitat extent

(Percent of Seasonal

Habitat Meeting Desired

Condition)

>40% of the summer/brood habitat

meets recommended brood habitat

characteristics where appropriate (relative

to ecological site potential, etc.)

Connelly et al. 20008

Sagebrush cover2 Uplands 10-25%

Riparian/Meadow: Sagebrush cover

within 100 m

Connelly et al. 20008

Table 2–2 Habitat Objectives for GRSG continued

Attribute Indicator Desired Condition Reference

Sagebrush height 16 to 32 inches (40-80cm) Connelly et al. 20008

Perennial grass and forb

cover 2

>15%

Upland and riparian

perennial forb availability2

Preferred forbs are common with

appropriate numbers of species present6

Stiver et al. 201513

Riparian and/or meadow

habitat condition

Proper Functioning Condition Stiver et al. 201513

WINTER1 November-March1 (Apply to areas of known or likely winter-use)

Cover and Food Seasonal habitat extent

(Percent of Seasonal

Habitat Meeting Desired

Condition)

>80% of the wintering habitat meets winter

habitat characteristics where appropriate

(relative to ecological site, etc.).

Connelly et al. 20008

Sagebrush cover and

height above snow

Sagebrush is at least 10 inches (25 cm)

above snow and ≥10% cover16

Connelly et al. 20008Stiver

et al. 201513

Notes and references:

1.	 Seasonal dates can be adjusted by local unit according to geographic region.

2.	 Since plant species and/or life forms may overlap, total vegetative cover, inclusive of shrubs,

forbs and grasses may exceed 100%.

3.	 Arid corresponds to the 10 – 12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis

is a common big sagebrush sub- species for this type site (Stiver et al. 2015).

4.	 Mesic corresponds to the >12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana is a

common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (Stiver et al. 2015).

5.	 Collectively the indicators for sagebrush (cover, height, and shape), perennial grass and

perennial forb (cover, height and/or availability) represent the desired condition range for

nesting/early brood rearing habitat characteristics, consistent with the breeding habitat

suitability matrix identified in Stiver et al. 2015. Sagebrush plants that are more tree or

columnar-shaped provide less protective cover near the ground than sagebrush plants with

a spreading shape (Stiver et al. 2015). Some sagebrush plants are naturally columnar

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 325

Draft MMP Amendment

(e.g., Great Basin big sagebrush), and a natural part of the plant community. However, a

predominance of columnar shape arising from animal impacts may warrant management

investigation or adjustments at site specific scales.

6.	 Preferred forbs are listed in Stiver et al. 2015. Overall total forb cover may be greater than

that of preferred forb cover since not all forb species are listed as preferred.

7.	 Baruch-Mordo, S., J. S. Evans, J. P. Severson, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J. M. Kiesecker,

M. J. Falkowski, C. A. Hagen, and K. P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from trees.

Biological Conservation 167:233-241.

8.	 Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage

sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

9.	 Connelly, J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater sage-grouse

habitats and populations. University of Idaho College of Natural Resources Experiment

Station Bulletin 80. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

10.	 Doherty, K. 2008. Sage-grouse and Energy Development: Integrating Science with

Conservation Planning to Reduce Impacts. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Montana,

Missoula, Montana.

11.	 Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis of greater

sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology

13 (Supplement 1):42-50.

12.	 Holloran, M. J., and S. H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-grouse nests

in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 107:742-752.

13.	 Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. W. Karl. 2015.

Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multi-scale Habitat Assessment Tool.

Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Technical Reference 6710-1. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

14.	 Connelly, J.W., A. Moser, and D. Kemner. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse breeding habitats:

Landscape-based comparisons. Grouse News 45. Research Reports.

15.	 Some late brood habitat occurs at higher elevations outside of mapped nesting habitat and

some is embedded within nesting landscapes especially areas such as wet meadows, riparian

areas, springs and seeps.

16.	 Winter habitat metrics are a guideline but snow depths and habitat availability may vary

widely depending on winter severity, topography and elevation.

Greater Sage-Grouse Management Areas

Objective SSS 3: Maintain a resilient population of GRSG in Idaho and Southwestern Montana.

Objective SSS 4: Designate GRSG management areas and associated management to maintain a

resilient population and to designate strategically located adjacent areas to provide a buffer from

unpredictable habitat loss such as wildfire to the resilient population areas.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
326 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Objective SSS 5: Identify and strategically protect larger intact sagebrush areas and areas of

lower fragmentation to maintain GRSG population persistence.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD SSS-1: Designate five GRSG Conservation Areas (see Glossary) within the subregion to

form the geographic basis for achieving population objectives; evaluating the disturbance density

and adaptive regulatory triggers; and tailor adaptive management responses. These conservation

areas are depicted in Figure 2-13. These areas are referred to as Mountain Valleys, Desert, West

Owyhee, Southern and Southwestern Montana Conservation Areas.

Conservation Area Description

Mountain Valleys Conservation Area – generally located north of the Snake River Plain, including

GRSG habitat in the Salmon and Challis areas, and habitat in west-central population area. It

extends west from Rexburg, north and west of Highway 33 to Howe, north and west of Highway

33/22 to Arco, north and west of Highway 26/20/93 to Carey, north and west of Highway 20 west

to Hill City, north and west of Highway 20 to the Dylan Karaus Road, west to Canyon Creek.

Canyon Creek to the confluence with the Snake River form the western boundary.

Desert Conservation Area – located north of the Snake River and south of the Mountain Valleys

Conservation Area. It extends from the confluence of Canyon Creek and the Snake River,

eastward to Idaho Falls. The Snake River and Henry’s Fork form the eastern boundary.

West Owyhee Conservation Area – located south of the Snake River and west of the Bruneau

River.

Southern Conservation Area – located south of the Snake River and east of the Bruneau River,

including East Idaho uplands and Bear Lake Plateau, and the Utah portion of the Sawtooth

National Forest in Box Elder County.

Southwestern Montana – located in southwestern Montana - encompassing the Dillon Butte BLM

Field Office and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest boundaries (the Butte RMP is not being

amended and since there are limited GRSG federal GHMA, management actions do not apply

in the Butte Field Office).

In general, GRSG habitats in the Desert and West Owyhee CAs are relatively contiguous, while

those in the Mountain Valleys and Southern CAs tend to be more fragmented due to more

complex topography, and elevational differences and/or effects from wildfires, agriculture,

urbanization or other factors.

MD SSS 2: Within each Conservation Area designate GRSG Habitat Management Areas:

Priority, Important and General Habitat Management Areas (Figure 2-1). Priority Habitat

Management Areas (PHMA) focus on conserving the two key meta-populations in the subregion.

PHMA encompasses areas with the highest conservation value to GRSG, based on the presence

of larger leks, habitat extent, important movement and connectivity corridors and winter

habitat. PHMA include adequate area to accommodate continuation of existing land uses and

landowner activities. Important Habitat Management Areas (IHMA) contain additional habitat

and populations that provide a management buffer for the PHMA and to connect patches of

PHMA. IHMA encompasses areas of generally moderate to high conservation value habitat

and/or populations and in some Conservation Areas includes areas beyond those identified by

USFWS as necessary to maintain redundant, representative and resilient populations (Priority

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 327

Draft MMP Amendment

Areas for Conservation (PACs)). IHMA are typically adjacent to PHMA but generally reflect

somewhat lower GRSG population status and/or reduced habitat value due to disturbance, habitat

fragmentation or other factors. There are no IHMA designated within the Southwestern Montana

Conservation Area. General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) encompass habitat that is

outside of PHMA or IHMA. GHMA contain approximately 10 percent of the occupied leks that

are also of relatively low male attendance compared to leks in PHMA or IHMA. GHMA are

generally characterized by lower quality disturbed or patchy habitat of low lek connectivity.

MD SSS 3: In Idaho, designate PHMA and IHMA to encompass 90 percent of the breeding males

in Idaho. In Montana, designate PHMA to encompass Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 2009

Greater Sage Grouse Core Area designations.

MD SSS 4: Annually prioritize Conservation Areas at the state scale considering results of the

annual adaptive regulatory trigger evaluations relative to implementation of restoration and

mitigation activities.

MD SSS 5: Prioritize activities and mitigation to conserve, enhance and restore GRSG habitats

(i.e., fire suppression activities, fuels management activities, vegetation treatments, invasive

species treatments etc.) first by Conservation Area, if appropriate (Conservation Area under

adaptive management or at risk of meeting an adaptive management soft or hard trigger), followed

by PHMA, then IHMA then GHMA within the Conservation Areas. Local priority areas within

these areas will be further refined as a result of completing the GRSG Wildfire and Invasive

Species Habitat Assessments as described in Appendix H. This can include projects outside

GRSG habitat when those projects will provide a benefit to GRSG habitat.

MD SSS 6: The management area map and Biologically Significant Unit (BSU) baseline map

will be re- evaluated in conjunction with plan evaluation processes (i.e. approximately every 5

years). This re- evaluation can indicate the need to adjust PHMA, IHMA or GHMA or the habitat

baseline. These adjustments can occur upon completion of the appropriate analysis and process

(e.g., plan amendment) to review the allocation decisions based on the map. Results from the

Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments, such as identified focal or emphasis areas will also be

used to help inform mapping adjustments during this evaluation.

MD SSS 7: GRSG habitat within the project area will be assessed during project-level NEPA

analysis within the management area designations (PHMA, IHMA, GHMA). Project proposals

and their effects will be evaluated based on the habitat and values affected.

MD SSS 8: Idaho BLM will annually update the Key Habitat map, in order to reflect habitat

changes resulting from wildfire, succession, and vegetation treatments that occurred or were

observed since the last update. Key habitat includes areas of generally intact sagebrush that

provide sage-grouse habitat during some portion of the year. This map also identifies potential

restoration areas (perennial grassland annual grasslands, conifer encroachment and recent burns).

This map a broad scale current vegetation map that changes as habitat is lost or restored. The

Key Habitat Map is not an allocation decision such as PHMA, IHMA, and GHMA. Updates to

the map will also occur if it is determined that mapping errors or omissions have occurred, or

that radio-telemetry studies indicate that GRSG are consistently utilizing an area. Updates are

also intended to capture recommendations by the field offices, GRSG Local Working Groups, or

agency partners in GRSG conservation. Project-level evaluations of GRSG habitat during the

NEPA process can also be used to inform the annual update.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
328 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

MD SSS 9: Areas of habitat outside of delineated habitat management areas identified during

the Key habitat update process will be evaluated during site specific NEPA for project level

activities and GRSG required design features (Appendix C) and buffers (Appendix B) will be

included as part of project design. These areas will be further evaluated during plan evaluation

and the 5-year update to the management areas, to determine whether they should be included as

PHMA, IHMA, or GHMA.

MD SSS 10: Designate Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA) as shown on Figure 1-2. SFA will be

managed as PHMA, with the following additional management:

● Recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, subject to

valid existing rights.

● Managed as NSO, without waiver, exception, or modification, for fluid mineral leasing.

● Prioritized for vegetation management and conservation actions in these areas, including, but

not limited to land health assessments, wild horse and burro management actions, review of

livestock grazing permits/leases, and habitat restoration (see specific management sections).

Adaptive Management

MD SSS 11: Idaho: Use hard and soft population and habitat triggers to determine an appropriate

management response as described in MD SSS 16 to MD SSS 26. Hard and soft triggers

responses are applied at the Conservation Area (MD SSS-1) scale (Appendix E).

MD SSS 12: Utilize monitoring information collected through the Monitoring Framework

(Appendix D) to determine when adaptive regulatory triggers have been met.

MD SSS 13: Idaho: BLM will maintain GRSG habitat information, through use of the Key

Habitat map or latest sagebrush/vegetation map, which will be used to track and identify habitat

changes to assess the habitat trigger in the adaptive management approach. Key habitat map

updates are made each winter by BLM in coordination with the Forest Service and IDFG, using

the process described in Appendix F of the FEIS.

MD SSS 14: Idaho: BLM will coordinate with the IDFG regarding population information

collected and maintained by the IDFG to track and identify population changes to assess the

population trigger in the adaptive management approach.

MD SSS 15: Idaho: The hard and soft trigger data will be analyzed as soon as it becomes

available after the signing of the ROD, and twice each year thereafter the applicable monitoring

information will be reviewed to determine if any adaptive management triggers have been met.

Montana: The hard and soft trigger data will be analyzed as soon as it becomes available after the

signing of the ROD and then at a minimum, analyzed annually thereafter.

MD SSS 16: Idaho: Adaptive habitat triggers will be individually calculated across all ownerships

within the BSUs (Appendix E). The BSU is defined as the IDFG modeled nesting and wintering

habitat (IDFG 2013, unpublished data) within PHMA and IHMA within a Conservation Area.

The sagebrush component of the BSU is represented by the Key habitat within the BSU present

during the 2011 baseline and as mapped during subsequent annual Key habitat map updates.

Key habitat is defined as areas of generally intact sagebrush that provide GRSG habitat during

some portion of the year (ISAC 2006).

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 329

Draft MMP Amendment

MD SSS 17: Habitat Hard Triggers are defined as:

● A 20 percent loss of Key Habitat within the BSU of the PHMA of a Conservation Area when

compared to the 2011 baseline, inclusive of all land ownerships or

● A 20 percent loss of Key Habitat within the BSU of the IHMA of a Conservation Area when

compared to the 2011 baseline.

MD SSS 18: Habitat Soft Triggers are defined as:

● A 10 percent loss of Key Habitat within the BSU of the PHMA of a Conservation Area when

compared to the 2011 baseline; or

● A 10 percent loss of Key Habitat within the BSU of the IHMA of a Conservation Area when

compared to the 2011 baseline.

MD SSS 19: Population Hard Triggers are defined as:

● A 20 percent decline in the current 3-year average of total maximum number of males counted

compared to the 2011 maximum male baseline and a finite rate of change (λ) significantly

below 1.0 within PHMA within a Conservation Area over the same 3-year period; or

● A 20 percent decline in the current 3-year average of total maximum number of males counted

compared to the 2011 maximum male baseline and a finite rate of change (λ) significantly

below 1.0 within IHMA within a Conservation Area over the same 3-year period.

● Significance is defined by the 90 percent confidence interval around the current 3-year finite

rate of change. If the 90 percent confidence interval is less than, and does not include 1.0, then

the finite rate of change is considered significant. The finite rate of change and variance will be

calculated following Garton et al. (2011).

MD SSS 20: Population Soft Triggers are defined as:

● A 10 percent decline in the current 3-year average of total maximum number of males counted

compared to the 2011 maximum male baseline and a finite rate of change (λ) significantly

below 1.0 within PHMA within a Conservation Area over the same 3-year period; or

● A 10 percent decline in the current 3-year average of total maximum number of males counted

compared to the 2011 maximum male baseline and a finite rate of change (λ) significantly

below 1.0 within IHMA within a Conservation Area over the same 3-year period.

MD SSS 21: When any of the Criteria for Soft Triggers have been met the Implementation Team

will evaluate causal factors and recommend additional potential implementation level activities

(Appendix E).

MD SSS 22: When any of the Criteria for Hard Triggers have been met then all PHMA

management actions will be applied to the IHMA within that Conservation Area and the

Implementation Team will evaluate causal factors and recommend additional potential

implementation level activities.

MD SSS 23: If an adaptive regulatory trigger is tripped and livestock grazing is identified

as a probable limiting factor then adjustments will follow the Adaptive Grazing Management

Response described in Appendix E.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
330 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

MD SSS 24: Remove any adaptive management response when the habitat or maximum male

population count (i.e., 3-year average) returns to or exceeds the 2011 baseline levels within the

associated Conservation Area in accordance with the Adaptive Management Strategy (Appendix

E). In such a case, changes in management allocations resulting from a tripped trigger will revert

back to the original allocation (MD SSS 22).

MD SSS 25: Montana: Follow the NPT Adaptive Management Guidance and Sideboards. When

a hard trigger is hit in a BSU, the designated response will be put in place in that BSU. Triggers

and responses have been developed with local state and USFWS experts (Appendix E).

MD SSS 26: Idaho and Montana: When a hard trigger is hit in a BSU within a PAC that has

multiple BSUs, including those that cross state lines, the WAFWA Management Zone Greater

Sage-Grouse Conservation Team will convene to determine the causal factor, put project-level

responses in place, as appropriate and discuss further appropriate actions to be applied. The

team will also investigate the status of the hard triggers in other BSUs within the PAC and will

invoke the appropriate plan response.

Anthropogenic Disturbance

MD SSS 27: For Idaho and Montana, if the 3 percent anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded

on lands (regardless of land ownership) within GRSG PHMA (or IHMA in Idaho) Habitat

Management Areas in any given BSU, then no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances

(subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended,

valid existing rights, etc.) will be permitted by BLM within GRSG PHMA and IHMA in any

given BSU until the disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap, as measured according to

the Disturbance and Adaptive Management Appendix (Appendix E) for the intermediate scale.

For Idaho, if the 3 percent disturbance cap is exceeded on all lands (regardless of land ownership)

within a proposed project analysis area (Appendix E) in a PHMA (or IHMA in Idaho), then no

further anthropogenic disturbance will be permitted by BLM until disturbance in the proposed

project analysis area has been reduced to maintain the area under the cap (subject to applicable

laws and regulations, such as the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, valid existing rights,

etc.).

For Montana, if the 3 percent disturbance cap is exceeded on lands (regardless of land ownership)

or if anthropogenic disturbance and habitat loss associated with conversion to agricultural tillage

or fire exceed 5% within a project analysis area in PHMA, then no further discrete anthropogenic

disturbances (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 Mining Law, valid

existing rights, etc.) will be permitted by BLM within PHMA in a project analysis area until the

disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap. If the BLM determines that the State of Montana

has adopted a GRSG Habitat Conservation Program that contains comparable components to

those found in the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy including an all lands approach

for calculating anthropogenic disturbances, a clear methodology for measuring the density of

operations, and a fully operational Density Disturbance Calculation Tool, the 3% disturbance cap

will be converted to a 5% cap for all sources of habitat alteration within a project analysis area.

In both Idaho and Montana, within existing designated utility corridors, the 3% disturbance

cap may be exceeded at the project scale if the site specific NEPA analysis indicates that a net

conservation gain to the species will be achieved. This exception is limited to projects which

fulfill the use for which the corridors were designated (ex., transmission lines, pipelines) and the

designated width of a corridor will not be exceeded as a result of any project co-location.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 331

Draft MMP Amendment

For Idaho the BSU (Figure 2-2) is defined as the currently mapped nesting and wintering

habitat within PHMA and IHMA within a Conservation Area, inclusive of all ownerships. For

Montana the BSU is defined as the PHMA in Montana. Anthropogenic disturbance excludes

habitat disturbance from wildfire and fuels management activities and includes the following

developments (see Appendix E for further details):

● Oil and Gas Wells and Development Facilities

● Coal Mines

● Wind Towers

● Solar Fields

● Geothermal Development Facilities

● Mining (Active Locatable, Non-Energy Leasable and Saleable Developments)

● Roads

● Railroads

● Power lines

● Communication Towers

● Other Vertical Structures

● Coal bed Methane Ponds

● Meteorological Towers (e.g., wind energy testing)

● Nuclear Energy Facilities

● Airport Facilities and Infrastructure

● Military Range Facilities and Infrastructure

● Hydroelectric Plants

● Recreation Areas Facilities and infrastructure

For Idaho this disturbance is measured by direct footprint or by ROW width for linear features

(power lines, pipelines and roads). For Montana disturbance is measured similar to the Wyoming

Disturbance Density Calculation Tool process described in Appendix E.

Subject to applicable laws and regulations and valid existing rights, if the average density of one

energy and mining facility per 640 acres (the density cap) is exceeded on all lands (regardless of

land ownership) in the Priority Habitat Management Area within a proposed project analysis area,

then no further disturbance from energy or mining facilities will be permitted by BLM: (1) until

disturbance in the proposed project analysis area has been reduced to maintain the limit under the

cap; or (2) unless the energy or mining facility is co-located into an existing disturbed area.

MD SSS 28: New anthropogenic disturbances within PHMA or IHMA within a Conservation

Area where the disturbance cap is already exceeded from any source or where the proposed

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
332 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

development will result in the cap being exceeded will not be allowed in within that Conservation

Area until enough habitat has been restored within that Conservation Area to maintain the area

under this cap (subject to valid existing rights).

MD SSS 29: New anthropogenic disturbances within PHMA (Idaho only): Anthropogenic

Disturbance Screening Criteria. In order to avoid surface-disturbing activities in PHMA, priority

will be given to development (including ROWs, fluid minerals and other mineral resources

subject to applicable stipulations) outside of PHMA. When authorizing development in PHMA,

priority will be given to development in non-habitat areas first and then in the least suitable

habitat for GRSG. In addition to the PHMA and IHMA Anthropogenic Disturbance Development

Criteria (MD SSS 30), the following criteria must all be met in the project screening and

assessment process:

1.	 The population trend for the GRSG within the associated Conservation Area is stable or

increasing over a three-year period and the population levels are not currently engaging the

adaptive management triggers (this applies strictly to new authorizations; renewals and

amendments of existing authorizations will not be subject to this criteria when it can be

shown that long-term impacts from those renewals or amendments will be substantially the

same as the existing development);

2.	 The development with associated mitigation will not result in a net loss of GRSG Key habitat

and mitigation will provide a net conservation benefit to the respective PHMA;

3.	 The project and associated impacts will not result in a net loss of GRSG Key habitat or

habitat fragmentation or other impacts causing a decline in the population of the species

within the relevant Conservation Area (the project will be outside Key habitat in areas not

meeting desired habitat conditions or the project will provide a benefit to habitat areas that

are functioning in a limited way as habitat);

4.	 The development cannot be reasonably accomplished outside of the PHMA; or can be

either: 9) developed pursuant to a valid existing authorization; or 2) is co-located within the

footprint of existing infrastructure (proposed actions will not increase the 2011 authorized

footprint and associated impacts more than 50 percent, depending on industry practice).

5.	 Development will be implemented adhering to the required design features (RDF) described

in Appendix C;

6.	 The project will not exceed the disturbance cap (MD SSS 27)

7.	 The project has been reviewed by the State Implementation Team and recommended for

consideration by the Idaho Governor.

MD SSS 30: The following Anthropogenic Disturbance Development Criteria must be met in the

screening and assessment process for proposals in PHMA and IHMA to discourage additional

disturbance in PHMA and IHMA (as described in MD LR 2 and MD RE 1; applies to Idaho only):

1.	 Through coordination with the USFWS and State of Idaho (as described in MD CC 1), it

is determined that the project cannot be achieved, technically or economically, outside of

this management area; and

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 333

Draft MMP Amendment

2.	 The project siting and/or design should best reduce cumulative impacts and/or impacts on

GRSG and other high value natural, cultural, or societal resources; this may include colocation within the footprint for existing infrastructure, to the extent practicable; and

3.	 The project results in a net conservation gain to GRSG Key habitat or with beneficial

mitigation actions reduces habitat fragmentation or other threats within the Conservation

Area; and

4.	 The project design mitigates unavoidable impacts through appropriate compensatory

mitigation; and

5.	 Development will be implemented adhering to the RDFs described in Appendix C.

6.	 The project will not exceed the disturbance cap (MD SSS 27).

In Montana, the BLM will apply the project/action screen and mitigation process (Appendix J).

MD SSS 31: Co-locating new infrastructure within existing ROWs and maintaining and

upgrading ROWs is preferred over the creation of new ROWs or the construction of new facilities

in all management area. Co-location for various activities is defined as:

● Communication Sites – The installation of new equipment/facilities on or within or adjacent to

existing authorized equipment/facilities or within a communication site boundary as designated

in the Communication Site Plan.

● Electrical Lines – Installation of new ROWs adjacent to current ROWs boundaries, not

necessarily placed on the same power poles.

● Other Rights-of-Way – The installation of new ROWs within the existing footprint of an

approved ROW boundary or adjacent to an approved ROW boundary.

● Designated Corridors – The installation of new rights-of-way within the existing corridor or

adjacent to the existing corridor.

MD SSS 32: Incorporate RDFs as described in Appendix C in the development of project or

proposal implementation, reauthorizations or new authorizations and suppression activities, as

conditions of approval (COAs) into any post-lease activities and as best management practices

for locatable minerals activities, to the extent allowable by law, unless at least one of the

following conditions can be demonstrated and documented in the NEPA analysis associated with

the specific project:

1.	 A specific RDF is not applicable to the site-specific conditions of the project or activity;

2.	 A proposed design feature or BMP is determined to provide equal or better protection for

GRSG or its habitat; or

3.	 Analysis concludes that following a specific RDF will provide no more protection to GRSG

or its habitat than not following it, for the project being proposed.

MD SSS 33: Conduct implementation and project activities, including construction and short-term

anthropogenic disturbances consistent with seasonal habitat restrictions described in Appendix C.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
334 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

MD SSS 33: Conduct implementation and project activities, including construction and short-term

anthropogenic disturbances consistent with seasonal habitat restrictions described in Appendix C.

MD SSS 34: RDFs and seasonal habitat restrictions will not be required for emergency or

short-term activities necessary to protect and preserve human life or property.

MD SSS 35: In undertaking BLM management actions, and consistent with valid and existing

rights and applicable law in authorizing third-party actions, the BLM will apply the lek

buffer-distances identified in the USGS Report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for

Greater Sage-Grouse – A Review (Open File Report 2014-1239) in accordance with Appendix B.

MD SSS 36: Incorporate appropriate conservation measures for slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium

papilliferum) as described in the 2014 Conservation Agreement (as updated, amended or

reauthorized) into implementation and project design within slickspot peppergrass habitat in the

Jarbidge and Four Rivers Field Offices to avoid and minimize impacts on slickspot peppergrass.

Monitoring

MD SSS 37: Once FIAT Assessments are complete, annually complete a review of FIAT

Assessment implementation efforts within GRSG habitat with appropriate USFWS and state

agency personnel.

MD SSS 38: Monitor the effectiveness of projects (e.g., fuel breaks. fuels treatments) until

objectives have been met or until it is determined that objectives cannot be met, according to the

monitoring schedule identified for project implementation.

MD SSS 39: Monitor invasive vegetation post vegetation management treatment.

MD SSS 40: Monitor project construction areas for noxious weed and invasive species for at

least 3 years, unless control is achieved earlier.

MD SSS 41: Use lek, nesting and winter habitat maps and key habitat map (updates) to annually

assess GRSG population and habitat status in the context of the adaptive management triggers.

MD SSS 42: Continue to support updates to the Key Habitat map to track vegetation changes in

relation to GRSG habitat on a yearly basis, until such a time this process is replaced. The process

used to update the Key Habitat Map is described in Appendix F of the FEIS.

MD SSS 43: Monitor GRSG habitat as described in the monitoring framework plan (Appendix

D) in coordination with IDFG and Montana FWP.

2.2.2 Vegetation (VEG)

Objective VEG 1: Reconnect and expand areas of higher native plant community

integrity/rangeland health to increase the extent of high quality habitat and, where possible, to

accommodate the future effects of climate change.

Objective VEG 2: Increase the amount and functionality of seasonal habitats by:

● Increasing or enhancing canopy cover and average patch size of sagebrush.

● Increasing the amount, condition, and connectivity of seasonal habitats.

● Protecting or improving GRSG migration/movement corridors.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 335

Draft MMP Amendment

● Reducing conifer encroachment within GRSG seasonal habitats.

● Improving understory (grass, forb) and/or riparian condition within breeding and late

brood-rearing habitats.

● Reducing the extent of annual grasslands within and adjacent to PHMA and IHMA.

Decadal treatment objectives by population area are identified in Table 2–3 Estimated

Acres of Treatment Needed within a 10–Year Period to Achieve Vegetation Objectives on

BLM-Administered Lands.

Objective VEG 3: In all SFA and PHMA, the desired condition is to maintain all lands

ecologically capable of producing sagebrush (but no less than 70%) with a minimum of 15%

sagebrush canopy cover or as consistent with specific ecological site conditions. The attributes

necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health

(BLM Tech Ref 1734-6).

Management Decisions (MD)

Sagebrush Steppe

MD VEG 1: Implement habitat rehabilitation or restoration projects in areas that have potential

to improve GRSG habitat using a full array of treatment activities as appropriate, including

chemical, mechanical and seeding treatments.

Table 2–3 Estimated Acres of Treatment Needed within a 10–Year Period to Achieve Vegetation

Objectives of BLM-Administered Lands.

Population Area Mechanical2 Prescribed Fire (MD

FIRE 31) 3

Grass

Restoration (MD

VEG 2) 4

Bear Lake Plateau 1,000 0 0

East Idaho Uplands 6,000 9,000 1,000

S Central Idaho/N Snake River and

Mountain Valleys

18,000 11,000 162,000

Weiser 0 0 13,000

SW Idaho 52,000 10,000 444,000

SW Montana 0 0 0

Notes:

1.	 These are estimates of treatments required to achieve and/or maintain desired habitat

conditions over a period of ten years. There are many dynamic and highly variable

disturbances that may happen over that period of time that can have a significant effect on

the amount, type, and timing of treatment needed. Those disturbances are factored into the

ten-year simulation using stochastic, not predictive, techniques. Probabilities of events such

as large wildfires are used in the model to make the simulation as realistic as possible,

given empirical data about such events in the past, but the results of the simulation cannot

be used to predict the future occurrence of such events, including their timing, size, or

location, which are essentially random.

2.	 Removal of conifers that have invaded sagebrush including phase one juniper that is 10

percent or less and reducing sagebrush cover in areas over 30 percent canopy cover

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
336 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

3.	 Acres are those that are greater than 30 percent sagebrush canopy cover and/or invaded

by 10 percent or greater conifer.

4.	 Acres presently dominated by annual grasses that can be improved by herbicide application

and seeding of perennial vegetation.

MD VEG 2: Implement vegetation rehabilitation or manipulation projects to enhance sagebrush

cover or to promote diverse and healthy grass and forb understory to achieve the greatest

improvement in GRSG habitat based on FIAT Assessments, HAF assessments, other vegetative

assessment data and local, site specific factors that indicate sagebrush canopy cover or herbaceous

conditions do not meet habitat management objectives (i.e. is minimal or exceeds optimal

characteristics). This may necessitate the use of prescribed fire as a site preparation technique to

remove annual grass residual growth prior to the use of herbicides in the restoration of certain

lower elevation sites (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush) but such efforts will be carefully planned and

coordinated to minimize impacts on GRSG seasonal habitats.

MD VEG 3: Require use of native seeds for restoration based on availability, adaptation

(ecological site potential), and probability of success (Richards et al. 1998). Non-native seeds

may be used as long as they support GRSG habitat objectives (Pyke 2011) to increase probability

of success, when adapted seed availability is low or to compete with invasive species especially

on harsher sites.

MD VEG 4: Implement management changes in restoration and rehabilitation areas, as necessary,

to maintain suitable GRSG habitat, improve unsuitable GRSG habitat and to ensure long-term

persistence of improved GRSG habitat (Eiswerth and Shonkwiler 2006). Management changes

can be considered during livestock grazing permit renewals, travel management planning, and

renewal or reauthorization of ROWs.

MD VEG 5: Consider establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production

(Armstrong 2007) to provide a reliable source of locally adapted seed to use during rehabilitation

and restoration activities.

MD VEG 6: Allocate use of native seed to GRSG or ESA listed species habitat in years when

preferred native seed is in short supply. This may require reallocation of native seed from ESR

projects outside of PHMA or IHMA to those inside it. Where probability of success or native seed

availability is low, nonnative seeds may be used as long as they meet GRSG habitat conservation

objectives (Pyke 2011). Re-establishment of appropriate sagebrush species/subspecies and

important understory plants, relative to site potential, shall be the highest priority for rehabilitation

efforts.

MD VEG 7: During land health assessments, evaluate the relative value of existing nonnative

seeding within GRSG habitat as: 1) a component of a grazing system allowing improvement of

adjacent native vegetation, 2) development of a forage reserve, 3) incorporation into a fuel break

system (Davies et al. 2011) or 4) restoration/diversification for GRSG habitat improvement.

Where appropriate and feasible, diversify seedings, or restore to native vegetation when potential

benefits to GRSG habitat outweigh the other potential uses of the non-native seeding, with

emphasis on PHMA and IHMA. Allow recolonization of seedings by sagebrush and other native

vegetation.

Conifer Encroachment

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 337

Draft MMP Amendment

MD VEG 8: Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, in a manner that considers

tribal cultural values. Prioritize treatments closest to occupied GRSG habitats and near occupied

leks, and where juniper encroachment is phase 1 or phase 2. Use of site-specific analysis and tools

like the FIAT report (Chambers et. al., 2014) will help refine the location for specific areas to

be treated.

Invasive Species

MD VEG 9: Incorporate results of the FIAT Assessments into projects and activities addressing

invasive species as appropriate.

MD VEG 10: Implement noxious weed and invasive species control using integrated vegetation

management actions per national guidance and local weed management plans for Cooperative

Weed Management Areas in cooperation with State and Federal agencies, affected counties,

and adjoining private lands owners.

MD VEG 11: Conduct integrated weed management actions for noxious and invasive weed

populations that are impacting or threatening GRSG habitat quality using a variety of eradication

and control techniques including chemical, mechanical and other appropriate means.

MD VEG 12: Require project proponent (projects described in MD SSS 27 and which are

included in the anthropogenic disturbance cap evaluation) to ensure that noxious weeds and

invasive species caused as a result of the project are treated to eliminate establishment on the

disturbed project construction areas for at least 3 years and monitored and treated during the life

of the project.

MD VEG 13: Treat areas that contain cheatgrass and other invasive or noxious species to

minimize competition and favor establishment of desired species.

2.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE)

Objective FIRE 1: Design fuel treatments to restore, enhance, or maintain GRSG habitat.

Objective FIRE 2: Manage wildfires to minimize loss of sagebrush and protect GRSG habitat.

Management Decisions (MD)

Pre-Suppression

MD FIRE 1: (Wildfire Preparedness): Support development and implementation of Rangeland

Fire Protection Associations (RFPAs) in coordination with the State of Idaho.

MD FIRE 2: Develop a consistent approach to fire restrictions within GRSG habitat through the

existing coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions based upon National Fire Danger

Rating System thresholds (fuel conditions, drought conditions, and predicted weather patterns).

MD FIRE 3: Annually incorporate into existing fire management plans results and updates

from the Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessments (FIAT Assessments) described

in Appendix H, to communicate/explain the resource value of GRSG habitat, including fire

prevention messages and actions to reduce human-caused ignitions.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
338 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

MD FIRE 4: Continue to participate with the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, a cooperative,

interagency organization dedicated to achieving consistent implementation of the goals, actions,

and policies in the National Fire Plan and the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.

MD FIRE 5: Continue annual coordination meetings held between cooperating agencies that

have fire suppression responsibilities. Incorporate Rangeland Fire Protection Associations and

other stakeholders into this coordination. Discuss priority suppression areas and distribute maps

showing priority suppression areas at both the Conservation Area and the local office levels as

based on the adaptive management strategy and FIAT Assessments.

MD FIRE 6: Ensure firefighter personnel receive annual orientation regarding GRSG habitat and

sagebrush management issues as related to wildfire suppression.

MD FIRE 7: As part of the FIAT Assessments, identify roads, trails, and recreational use areas

with high frequency of human caused fires within or adjacent to the PHMA or IHMA. Consider

these areas during annual fire restriction evaluations, and as appropriate, through site specific

management.

MD FIRE 8: Coordinate with Federal, State and local jurisdictions on fire and litter prevention

programs to reduce human caused ignitions.

MD FIRE 9: Implement activities identified within the FIAT Assessments.

Suppression

MD FIRE 10: Complete Wildland Fire and Invasive Species Assessments (FIAT Assessments) as

described within Appendix H and incorporate results into appropriate Fire Management Plans as

they are completed. FIAT Assessments are interdisciplinary evaluations of the threats posed by

wildfire and invasive species, as well as identification of focal and emphasis habitats/treatment

opportunities for fuels management, fire management, and restoration. These FIAT Assessments

identify focal and emphasis habitats and describe strategies for fuels management, suppression

and restoration activities. Focal and Emphasis Habitats identified through the FIAT Assessment

to further refine priority areas for treatments to reduce the threats posed by wildfire, invasive

annual grass and conifer expansion.

MD FIRE 11: As part of the FIAT Assessments incorporate a wildfire response time analysis

focusing on response time to identified priority areas within PHMA and IHMA or on those fires

that have the potential to impact PHMA and IHMA. Incorporate findings into Unit Initial Attack

program that determines initial attack resources.

MD FIRE 12: As part of the FIAT Assessment incorporate a water capacity analysis for

suppression purposes, including potential private water sources. Utilized the analysis to ensure

water availability for response to fire in or threatening PHMA and IHMA during initial attack.

MD FIRE 13: During high fire danger conditions, stage initial attack and secure additional

resources closer to priority areas identified in the FIAT Assessments, based on anticipated fires

and weather conditions, with particular consideration of the West Owyhee, Southern and Desert

Conservation Areas to ensure quicker response times in or near GRSG habitat after considerations

and placement of resources to protect human life and property.

MD FIRE 14: Utilize a full range of fire management strategies and tactics through strategic

wildfire suppression planning consistent with appropriate management response and within

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 339

Draft MMP Amendment

acceptable risk levels, to achieve resource objectives for GRSG habitat consistent with land use

plan direction. Utilizing both direct and indirect attack as appropriate to limit the overall amount

of GRSG habitat burned. This can include suppressing fires in intact sagebrush habitats; limiting

fire growth in GHMA when suppression resources are available or managing wildfire for resource

benefit in areas of conifer (juniper) encroachment.

MD FIRE 15: Suppression priorities: The protection of human life is the single, overriding

priority. Setting priorities among protecting human communities and community infrastructure,

other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources will be done based on the

values to be protected, human health and safety, and the costs of protection. Maintaining GRSG

habitat will be the highest natural resources priority immediately after human life and property,

commensurate with threatened and endangered species habitat or other critical habitats to be

protected.

MD FIRE 16: Ensure close coordination with federal and state firefighters including the

Rangeland Fire Protection Associations during suppression activities.

Fuels Management

MD FIRE 17: Design and implement fuels treatments that will reduce the potential start and

spread of unwanted wildfires and provide anchor points or control lines for the containment

of wildfires during suppression activities with an emphasis on maintaining, protecting, and

expanding sagebrush ecosystems and successfully rehabilitated areas and strategically and

effectively reduce wildfire threats in the greatest area.

MD FIRE 18: Enhance (or maintain/retain) sagebrush canopy cover and community structure

to match expected potential for the ecological site and consistent with GRSG habitat objectives

unless fuels management objectives requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet

strategic protection of GRSG habitat. Closely evaluate the benefits of the fuel management

treatments against the additional loss of sagebrush cover on the local landscape in the NEPA

process.

MD FIRE 19: Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing vegetation and fuels

management treatments according to the type of seasonal habitats present. Allow no treatments

in known winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk

around and/or in the winter range and will protect, maintain, increase, or enhance winter range

habitat quality. Ensure chemical applications are utilized where they will assist in success of fuels

treatments. Strategically place treatments on a landscape scale to prevent fire from spreading

into PHMA or WUI.

MD FIRE 20: Develop a fuels continuity and management strategy to expand, enhance,

maintain and protect GRSG habitat informed by the FIAT Assessments completed as described

in Appendix H.

MD FIRE 21: When developing the fuels management strategy as part of the FIAT Assessment

described in Appendix H consider up-to-date fuels profiles; land use plan direction; current

and potential habitat fragmentation; sagebrush and GRSG ecological factors; active vegetation

management steps to provide critical breaks in fuel continuity where appropriate; incorporate

a comparative risk analysis with regard to the risk of increased habitat fragmentation from a

proposed action versus the risk of large scale fragmentation posed by wildfires if the action is

not taken.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
340 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

MD FIRE 22: Fuel treatments will be designed through an interdisciplinary process to expand,

enhance, maintain, and protect GRSG habitat which considers a full range of cost effective fuel

reduction techniques, including: chemical, biological (including grazing and targeted grazing),

mechanical and prescribed fire treatments.

MD FIRE 23: Existing and proposed linear ROWs can be considered for use and maintenance

as vegetated fuel breaks in appropriate areas (this activity may or may not be part of the ROW

permit or the responsibility of the permit holder, in cases where this activity is considered part of

mitigation for project design then it will be appropriately included as part of the ROW permit and

the responsibility of the permit holder for development and maintenance).

MD FIRE 24: Fuel breaks will incorporate existing vegetation treatments (seedings), rocky areas

or other appropriate topography or features or be located adjacent to existing linear disturbance

areas where appropriate. Fuel breaks should be placed in areas with the greatest likelihood of

compartmentalizing a fire and/or to foster suppression options to protect existing intact habitat.

MD FIRE 25: Strategically pre-treat areas to reduce fine fuels consistent with areas and results

identified within the Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments.

MD FIRE 26: Protect vegetation restoration and rehabilitation efforts/projects from subsequent

fire events.

MD FIRE 27: Targeted grazing as a fuels treatment to adjust the vegetation conditions to

reduce the potential start and spread of wildfires may be implemented within existing grazing

authorizations if feasible such as through temporary non-renewable authorizations, or through

contracts, agreements or other appropriate means separate from existing grazing authorizations

and permits.

MD FIRE 28: Targeted grazing to achieve fuels management objectives should conform to

the following criteria:

● Targeted grazing should be implemented strategically on the landscape, and directly involved

the minimum footprint and grazing intensity required to meet fuels management objectives.

● Conform to the applicable Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock

Grazing Management (Idaho or Montana) at the assessment scale (pasture/watershed).

● Where feasible and applicable, coordinate with the grazing permittee to strategically reduce

fuels through livestock management within the Mandatory Terms and Conditions of the

applicable grazing authorizations.

MD FIRE 29: Prioritize the use of native seeds for fuels management treatment based on

availability, adaptation (site potential), and probability of success. Where probability of success

or native seed availability is low or non-economical, nonnative seeds may be used to meet GRSG

habitat objectives to trend toward restoring the fire regime. When reseeding, use fire resistant

native and nonnative species, as appropriate, to provide for fuel breaks.

MD FIRE 30: Maintain effectiveness of fuels projects, including fuel breaks, to ensure long-term

success, including persistence of seeded species and/or other treatment components while

maintaining the integrity of adjacent vegetation.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 341

Draft MMP Amendment

MD FIRE 31: If prescribed fire is used in GRSG habitat, the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan

will address:

● why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable options;

● how GRSG goals and objectives will be met by its use;

● how the COT Report objectives will be addressed and met;

● a risk assessment to address how potential threats to GRSG habitat will be minimized.

Allow prescribed fire as a vegetation or fuels treatment in Wyoming big sagebrush sites or other

xeric sagebrush species sites, or in areas with a potential for post-fire exotic annual dominance

only after the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets outlined above.

Prescribed fire can be used to meet specific fuels objectives that will protect Greater Sage-Grouse

habitat in PHMA (e.g., creation of fuel breaks that will disrupt the fuel continuity across the

landscape in stands where annual invasive grasses are a minor component in the understory,

burning slash piles from conifer reduction treatments, used as a component with other treatment

methods to combat annual grasses and restore native plant communities).

Allow prescribed fire in known sage-grouse winter range only after the NEPA analysis for the

Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Any prescribed fire in winter habitat will

need to be designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around and/or in the winter range and

designed to protect winter range habitat quality.

Post Fire Management

MD FIRE 32: Utilize the findings and Restoration/Rehabilitation Strategy developed as part of

the FIAT Assessment process described in Appendix H to determine if GRSG rehabilitation

actions are needed, based on ecological potential, and direct emergency stabilization and

rehabilitation (ESR) (BLM) actions after fire.

MD FIRE 33: Incorporate GRSG Habitat Management Objectives into ESR/BAER plans based

on site potential and in accordance with the Restoration/Rehabilitation Strategy developed as

a result of the FIAT Assessments.

MD FIRE 34: Provide adequate rest from livestock grazing to allow natural recovery of existing

vegetation and successful establishment of seeded species within burned/ESR areas. All new

seedings of grasses and forbs should not be grazed until at least the end of the second growing

season, and longer as needed to allow plants to mature and develop robust root systems which

will stabilize the site, compete effectively against cheatgrass and other invasive annuals, and

remain sustainable under long-term grazing management. Adjust other management activities, as

appropriate, to meet ESR objectives.

MD FIRE 35: Adjust, as appropriate, livestock management on adjacent unburned areas to

mitigate the effect of the burn on local GRSG populations.

MD FIRE 36: Following seedling establishment, modify grazing management practices if needed

to achieve long-term vegetation and habitat objectives.

2.2.4 Livestock Grazing (LG)

Management Decisions (MD)

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
342 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

MD LG 1: Maintain existing areas designated as available or unavailable for livestock grazing.

Existing active AUMs for livestock grazing within the planning area will not be changed

at the broad scale, though the number of AUMs available on an allotment may be adjusted

based on site-specific conditions to meet management objectives during term permit renewals,

AMP development, or other appropriate implementation planning. Additionally, temporary

adjustments can be made annually to livestock numbers, the number of AUMs, and season of

use in accordance with applicable regulations.

MD LG 2: Prioritize BLM land health assessments and processing of BLM grazing permits

consistent with management area prioritization (MD SSS 4), unless other higher priority

considerations exist (MD LG 15) or other factors such as threatened, endangered and proposed

species habitat that livestock grazing can affect. Where possible, conduct land health assessments

at the watershed, or other meaningful landscape-scale.

MD LG 3: Where opportunities exist, coordinate with other land managers to encourage livestock

operations that utilize mixed federal, private and/or state land to be managed at the landscape

scale to benefit GRSG and their habitat across land ownerships.

MD LG 4: PHMA & IHMA: During the land health assessment process, identify the type(s) of

seasonal habitat the assessed areas are capable of supporting. Utilize the habitat assessment

framework, (Stiver et al. 2015) or other BLM approved methodology, in accordance with current

policy and guidance to determine whether vegetation structure, condition and composition are

meeting GRSG habitat objectives including riparian and lentic areas (Objective SSS 2; Table 2-2).

Use appropriate Ecological Site Descriptions, reference sheets and state and transition models to

inform desired habitat conditions and expected responses to management changes for the land

unit being assessed.

MD LG 5: When modifying grazing management, analyze indirect impacts on habitat, including

changes in fuel loading and wildfire behavior.

MD LG 6: When livestock management practices are determined to not be compatible with

meeting or making progress towards achievable habitat objectives following appropriate

consultation, cooperation and coordination, implement changes in grazing management through

grazing authorization modifications, or allotment management plan implementation. Potential

modifications include, but are not limited to, changes in:

● Season or timing of use;

● Numbers of livestock;

● Distribution of livestock use;

● Duration and/or level of use;

● Kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, or goats) (Briske et al. 2011); and

● Grazing schedules (including rest or deferment).

*Not in Priority Order

MD LG 7: Where opportunities exist, establish forage reserves to facilitate restoration and

rehabilitation efforts in GRSG habitat areas. A forage reserve is an area that is set aside for use as

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 343

Draft MMP Amendment

needed by various permittees who might be displaced by wildfire, ESR, restoration efforts, etc.

rather than having a term permit issued for grazing like a regular allotment.

MD LG 8: PHMA & IHMA - Where practical, design pasture rotations to utilize non-native

perennial grass seedings and/or annual grasslands, during GRSG nesting season annually or

periodically.

MD LG 9: Evaluate the locations where salt/supplements are placed, coordinate salt/supplements

placement to reduce impacts on GRSG habitat (e.g., existing disturbed areas).

MD LG 10: Incorporate RDFs into Terms and Conditions for crossing permits to limit disturbance

of occupied leks when trailing livestock across BLM administered lands in the spring. Work

with permittees in locating over-nighting, watering and bedding locations to minimize impacts

on seasonal habitats.

MD LG 11: Design any new structural range improvements, following appropriate cooperation,

consultation and coordination, to minimize and/or mitigate impacts on GRSG habitat. Any

new structural range improvements should be placed along existing disturbance corridors or in

unsuitable habitat, to the extent practical, and are subject to RDFs (Appendix C). Structural range

improvement in this context, include, but are not limited to: fences, exclosures, corrals or other

livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks (including moveable tanks used in

livestock water hauling), windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels and spring developments.

MD LG 12: During the land health assessment and grazing permit renewal process, evaluate

existing livestock management range improvements with respect to their effect on GRSG

habitat. Consider removal of projects that are not needed for effective livestock management,

are no longer in working condition, and/or negatively affect GRSG habitat, with the exception

of functional projects needed for management of habitat for other threatened, endangered or

proposed species or other sensitive resources.

MD LG 13: Prioritize removal, modification or marking of fences or other structures in areas of

high collision risk following appropriate cooperation, consultation and coordination to reduce the

incidence of GRSG mortality due to fence strikes (Stevens et al. 2012).

MD LG 14: In response to weather conditions (i.e. drought) adjust grazing management

(i.e., delay turnout, adjust pasture rotations, adjust the amount and/or duration of grazing) as

appropriate to provide for adequate food and cover for GRSG.

MD LG 15: The BLM will prioritize (1) the review of grazing permits/leases, in particular

to determine if modification is necessary prior to renewal, and (2) the processing of grazing

permits/leases in Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA) followed by PHMA outside of the SFA. In setting

workload priorities, precedence will be given to existing permits/leases in these areas not meeting

Land Health Standards, with focus on those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows.

Management and conservation action prioritization will occur at the Conservation Area (CA) scale

and be based on GRSG population and habitat trends: Focusing management and conservation

actions first in SFA followed by areas of PHMA outside SFA. The BLM may use other criteria for

prioritization to respond to urgent natural resource concerns (e.g., fire) and legal obligations.

MD LG 16: The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases

that include lands within SFA and PHMA will include specific management thresholds, based on

GRSG Habitat Objectives Table, Land Health Standards (43 CFR 4180.2) and ecological site

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
344 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

potential, and one or more defined responses that will allow the authorizing officer to make

adjustments to livestock grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA analysis.

MD LG 17: Allotments within SFA, followed by those within PHMA, and focusing on those

containing riparian areas, including wet meadows, will be prioritized for field checks to help

ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the grazing permits. Field checks can include

monitoring for actual use, utilization, and use supervision. Management and conservation action

prioritization will occur at the Conservation Area (CA) scale and be based on GRSG population

and habitat trends: Focusing management and conservation actions first in SFA followed by

areas of PHMA outside SFA.

MD LG 18: At the time a permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes a permit or lease, the BLM

will consider whether the public lands where that permitted use was authorized should remain

available for livestock grazing or be used for other resource management objectives, such as

reserve common allotments or fire breaks. This does not apply to or impact grazing preference

transfers, which are addressed in 43 CFR 4110.2-3.

2.2.5 Wild Horses and Burros (WHB)

Management Decisions (MD)

WHB-1: Manage herd management areas (HMAs) in GRSG habitat within established AML

ranges to achieve and maintain GRSG habitat objectives (Table 2-2).

WHB-2: Complete rangeland health assessments for HMAs containing GRSG habitat using

an interdisciplinary team of specialists (e.g. range, wildlife, and riparian). The priorities for

conducting assessments are: 1) HMAs Containing SFA; 2) HMAs containing PHMA; 3) HMAs

containing IHMA; 4) HMAs containing GHMA; 5) HMAs containing sagebrush habitat outside

of PHMA, IHMA, and GHMA mapped habitat; 6) HMAs without GRSG Habitat.

WHB-3: Prioritize gathers and population growth suppression techniques in HMAs in GRSG

habitat, unless removals are necessary in other areas to address higher priority environmental

issues, including herd health impacts. Place higher priority on Herd Areas not allocated as HMAs

and occupied by wild horses and burros in SFA followed by PHMA.

WHB-4: In SFA and PHMA outside of SFA, assess and adjust AMLs through the NEPA process

within HMAs when wild horses or burros are identified as a significant causal factor in not

meeting land health standards, even if current AML is not being exceeded.

WHB-5: In SFA and PHMA outside of SFA, monitor the effects of wild horse and burro use

in relation to GRSG seasonal habitat objectives on an annual basis to help determine future

management actions.

WHB-6: Develop or amend herd management area plans (HMAPs) to incorporate GRSG habitat

objectives and management considerations for all HMAs within GRSG habitat, with emphasis

placed on SFA and other PHMA.

WHB-7: Consider removals or exclusion of wild horse and burros during or immediately

following emergency situations (such as fire, floods, and drought) to facilitate meeting GRSG

habitat objectives where HMAs overlap with GRSG habitat.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 345

Draft MMP Amendment

WHB-8: When conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities, water

developments, or other rangeland improvements for wild horses, address the direct and indirect

impacts on GRSG populations and habitat. Implement any water developments or rangeland

improvements using the criteria identified for domestic livestock.

WHB-9: Coordinate with professionals from other federal and state agencies, researchers at

universities, and others to utilize and evaluate new management tools (e.g., population growth

suppression, inventory techniques, and telemetry) for implementing the wild horse and burro

program.

2.2.6 Mineral Resources (MR)

Fluid Minerals

Objective MR 1: Priority will be given to leasing and development of fluid mineral resources,

including geothermal, outside of PHMA, IHMA, and GHMA. When analyzing leasing and

authorizing development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, in PHMA, IHMA,

and GHMA, and subject to applicable stipulations for the conservation of GRSG, priority will be

given to development in non-habitat areas first and then in the least suitable habitat for GRSG.

The implementation of these priorities will be subject to valid existing rights and any applicable

law or regulation, including, but not limited to, 30 USC 226(p) and 43 CFR 3162.3-1(h).

Objective MR 2: Where a proposed fluid mineral development project on an existing lease can

adversely affect GRSG populations or habitat, the BLM will work with the lessees, operators,

or other project proponents to avoid, minimize and apply compensatory mitigation to the extent

compatible with lessees' rights to drill and produce fluid mineral resources. The BLM will work

with the lessee, operator, or project proponent in developing an APD or Geothermal Drilling

Permit (GDP) for the lease to avoid, minimize, and apply compensatory mitigation to impacts

on GRSG or its habitat and will ensure that the best information about the GRSG and its habitat

informs and helps to guide development of such Federal leases.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD MR 1: Idaho and Montana: Areas within SFA will be open to fluid mineral leasing

and development and geophysical exploration subject to NSO without waiver, exception, or

modification. Areas within PHMA (outside SFA) and IHMA will be open to mineral leasing and

development and geophysical exploration subject to NSO with a limited exception (MD MR 3).

GHMA will be open to mineral leasing and development and geophysical exploration subject to

CSU which includes buffers and standard stipulations.

MD MR 2: In Idaho, parcels nominated for lease in PHMA or IHMA will be evaluated prior to

lease offering to determine if development is feasible. In GHMA, parcels will not be offered for

lease if buffers and restrictions (including RDFs) preclude development in the leasing area.

MD MR 3: PHMA and IHMA: No waivers or modifications to a fluid mineral lease NSO

stipulation will be granted. The Authorized Officer may grant an exception to a fluid mineral

lease NSO stipulation only where the proposed action:

● Will not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on GRSG or its habitat; or,

● Is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar action occurring on a nearby parcel,

and will provide a clear conservation gain to GRSG.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
346 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Exceptions based on conservation gain (ii) may only be considered in (a) PHMA of mixed

ownership where federal minerals underlie less than fifty percent of the total surface, or (b)

areas of the public lands where the proposed exception is an alternative to an action occurring

on a nearby parcel subject to a valid Federal fluid mineral lease existing as of the date of this

RMP amendment. Exceptions based on conservation gain must also include measures, such as

enforceable institutional controls and buffers, sufficient to allow the BLM to conclude that such

benefits will endure for the duration of the proposed action’s impacts.

Any exceptions to this lease stipulation may be approved by the Authorized Officer only with

the concurrence of the State Director. The Authorized Officer may not grant an exception

unless the applicable state wildlife agency, the USFWS, and the BLM unanimously find that the

proposed action satisfies (i) or (ii). Such finding shall initially be made by a team of one field

biologist or other GRSG expert from each respective agency. In the event the initial finding is not

unanimous, the finding may be elevated to the appropriate BLM State Director, USFWS State

Ecological Services Director, and state wildlife agency head for final resolution. In the event their

finding is not unanimous, the exception will not be granted. Approved exceptions will be made

publicly available at least quarterly.

MD MR 4: Incorporate required design features and best management practices appropriate

to the management area as COAs when post leasing activity is proposed into any post-lease

authorizations.

MD MR 5: In Montana, prior to leasing conduct a Master Leasing Plan process when all four of

the following criteria are met:

● A substantial portion of the area to be analyzed in the MLP is not currently leased.

● There is a majority Federal mineral interest.

● Additional analysis or information is needed to address likely resource or cumulative impacts if

oil and gas development were to occur where there are:

1.	 multiple-use or natural/cultural resource conflicts;

2.	 impacts on air quality;

3.	 impacts on the resources or values of any unit of the National Park System, national wildlife

refuge, or National Forest wilderness area, as determined after consultation and coordination

with the NPS, the USFWS, or the Forest Service; or

4.	 impacts on other specially designated areas. — analyzing likely development scenarios and

varying mitigation levels.

MD MR 6: In Idaho, complete a Master Development Plan, consistent with plan development

guide on leases where a producing field is proposed to be developed.

MD MR 7: Encourage unitization when deemed necessary for proper development and operation

of an area (with strong oversight and monitoring). The unitization must be designed in a manner

to minimize adverse impacts on GRSG according to the Federal Lease Form, 3100-11, Sections 4

and 6.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 347

Draft MMP Amendment

MD MR 8: Issue Written Orders of the Authorized Officer (43 CFR 3161.2) requiring reasonable

protective measures consistent with the lease terms where necessary to avoid or minimize impacts

on GRSG populations or habitat.

Locatable Minerals

MD MR 9: Apply reasonable and appropriate RDFs to locatable minerals, to the extent consistent

with applicable law to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of GRSG habitat when a Plan of

Operations is submitted for BLM approval, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.411(d)(2).

MD MR 10: Recommend SFA for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended,

subject to valid existing rights.

Salable Minerals

MD MR 11: PHMA: All PHMA will be closed to mineral materials development. However,

existing free use permits and the expansion of existing free use permits may be considered only if

the following criteria are met:

● the project area disturbance cap is not exceeded within a BSU;

● the activity is subject to the provisions set forth in the mitigation framework (Appendix F);

● all applicable required design features are applied; and

● the activity is permissible under the Idaho exception and development criteria (MD SSS 29

and MD SSS 30)

1.	 IHMA: All IHMA will be open to mineral materials development, consistent with the Idaho

Anthropogenic Disturbance Criteria (MD SSS 30), and subject to RDFs, and buffers. Sales

from existing community pits within IHMA will be subject to seasonal timing restrictions

(Appendix C).

2.	 GHMA: All GHMA will be open to mineral materials development, subject to RDFs and

buffers. Sales from existing community pits within GHMA will be subject to seasonal

timing restrictions (Appendix C).

MD MR 12: Restore salable mineral pits no longer in use to meet GRSG habitat management

objectives.

MD MR 13: Require reclamation bonding that will require restoration of GRSG habitat on new

site authorizations for mineral material pits in IHMA (this will not apply to free use permits issued

to a government entity such as a county road district, but will apply to non-profit entities).

MD MR 14: Montana: PHMA are closed to new mineral material sales. However, these areas

remain “open” to free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits, only if the following

criteria are met:

the activity is within the BSU and project area disturbance cap;

the activity is subject to the provisions set forth in the mitigation framework [Appendix F];

all applicable required design features are applied; and

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
348 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

the activity is permissible under the Montana screening criteria (MD SSS 30) Appendix J.

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

MD MR 15: PHMA are closed to leasing. IHMA and GHMA: Areas within Known Phosphate

Leasing Areas (KPLAs) will remain open to leasing subject to standard stipulations. IHMA areas

outside of KPLAs are open to prospecting and subsequent leasing provided the Anthropogenic

Disturbance Development Criteria (MD SSS 30) and the anthropogenic disturbance cap (MD SSS

27) can be met. RDFs and buffers shall be applied to prospecting permits. GHMA: Lands outside

KPLAs are available for prospecting and subsequent leasing and initial mine development subject

to RDFs, buffers, and standard stipulations.

MD MR 16: Require seasonal and daily timing restrictions (Appendix C) in undeveloped

nonenergy mineral leases when exploration activities or initial mine development is proposed

(e.g. exploration drilling, timber removal, shrub clearing, etc.) as COAs.

MD MR 17: Include RDFs as COAs to mine plans in undeveloped non-energy mineral leases for

exploration activities or initial mine development.

Coal (Montana)

MD MR 18: At the time an application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted

to the BLM, the BLM will determine whether the lease application area is "unsuitable" for all

or certain coal mining methods pursuant to 43 CFR 3461.5. PHMA is essential habitat for

maintaining GRSG for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1).

Mineral Split Estate

MD MR 19: BLM Owns Mineral Estate – non-federal surface owner: Where the federal

government owns the mineral estate in PHMA, IHMA, and GHMA, and the surface is in

non-federal ownership, apply the same stipulations, COAs, and/or conservation measures and

RDFs applied if the mineral estate is developed on BLM-administered lands in that management

area, to the maximum extent permissible under existing authorities, and in coordination with

the landowner.

MD MR 20: BLM owns surface – non-federal mineral estate owner: Where the federal

government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in non-federal ownership in PHMA,

IHMA, and GHMA, apply appropriate surface use COAs, stipulations, and mineral RDFs through

ROW grants or other surface management instruments, to the maximum extent permissible under

existing authorities, in coordination with the mineral estate owner/lessee.

2.2.7 Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar) (RE)

Management Decisions (MD)

Industrial Solar, Wind, Nuclear, and Hydropower Development

MD RE 1: PHMA: Designate and manage PHMA as exclusion areas for utility scale (20 MW)

wind and solar testing and development, nuclear and hydropower energy development. IHMA:

Designate and manage IHMA as avoidance areas for wind and solar testing and development,

nuclear and hydropower development. GHMA (Idaho): Designate and manage GHMA as open

for wind and solar testing and development and nuclear and hydropower development subject to

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 349

Draft MMP Amendment

RDFs and buffers. GHMA (Montana): Designate and manage GHMA as avoidance for wind and

solar testing and development and nuclear and hydropower development.

2.2.8 Lands and Realty (LR)

Objectives LR 1: Effects of infrastructure projects, including siting, will be minimized using the

best available science, updated as monitoring information on current infrastructure projects

becomes available.

Utility Corridors and Communication Sites

MD LR 1: Existing designated corridors, including Section 368 Corridors, will remain Open in

all habitat management areas (subject to the ongoing settlement agreement).

Also see MD LR 10 and MD SSS 31

Land Use Authorizations

MD LR 2: PHMA: Designate and manage PHMA as ROW avoidance areas, consistent with MD

SSS 29 and subject to RDFs and buffers (Appendices B and C). IHMA: Designate and manage

IHMA as ROW avoidance areas, consistent with MD SSS 30 and subject to RDFs and buffers.

GHMA (Idaho and Montana): Designate and manage GHMA as open with proposals subject

to RDFs and buffers.

MD LR 3: PHMA: Development of commercial service airports and facilities (as defined by FAA

2014 – publicly owned airports that have at least 2,500 passenger boardings each calendar year and

receive scheduled passenger service) will not be allowed within PHMA. IHMA and GHMA are

Avoidance and Open respectively for these types of ROW applications as described in MD LR 2.

MD LR 4: PHMA: Development of new or expansion of existing landfills will not be allowed

within PHMA. IHMA and GHMA are Avoidance and Open respectively for these types of ROW

applications as described in MD LR 2.

MD LR 5: Consistent with MD LR 3, MD LR 4, and MD RE 1, Rights-of-way for development

of new or amended ROWs and land use authorizations (including permits and leases) in

PHMA will only be considered when consistent with the Anthropogenic Disturbance Screening

Criteria (MD SSS 29); Rights-of-way for development of new or amended ROWs and land use

authorizations (including permits and leases) in IHMA can be considered consistent with the

IHMA Anthropogenic Disturbance Development Criteria (MD SSS 30). GHMA: New ROW

and land use authorizations can be considered.

MD LR 6: In PHMA, if a higher voltage transmission line is required adjacent to an existing

line (i.e. the project is an incremental upgrade/capacity increase of existing development (i.e.

power line capacity upgrade):

● the existing transmission line must be removed and area rehabilitated within a specified amount

of time after the new line is installed and energized; and

● the new line must be constructed in the same alignment as the existing line unless an alternate

route will benefit GRSG or GRSG habitat.

MD LR 7: Process unauthorized use. If the unauthorized use is subsequently authorized, it will

be authorized consistent with direction from this plan including RDFs and buffers. If the use is

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
350 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

not subsequently authorized the site will be reclaimed by removing these unauthorized (trespass)

features and rehabilitating the habitat.

MD LR 8: Land use authorizations that are temporary (less than 3 years) in nature and are not

otherwise excluded or restricted will be subject to seasonal or timing restrictions (Appendix C)

and mitigation requirements regarding habitat loss as needed.

MD LR 9: New ROW applications for water facilities (ditches, canals, pipelines), or amendments

to existing water facilities which include additional structures to improve fish passage or benefits

to fisheries (new diversions, fish screens) will be allowed on a case-by-case basis subject to

RDFs to reduce impacts on GRSG habitat and mitigation requirements regarding GRSG habitat

loss as needed.

MD LR 10: When a ROW grant expires and is not requested to be renewed, is relinquished, or

terminated, the lease holder will be required to reclaim the site by removing overhead lines

and other infrastructure and to eliminate avian predator nesting opportunities provided by

anthropogenic development on public lands associated with the now void ROW grant (e.g.,

remove power line and communication facilities no longer in service).

MD LR 11: As opportunities and priorities indicate work with existing ROW holders to retrofit

existing towers and structures consistent with RDFs described in Appendix C.

MD LR 12: PHMA (Idaho and Montana) and IHMA (Idaho), and GHMA (Montana only) are

designated as avoidance areas for high voltage transmission line and large pipeline ROWs, except

for Gateway West and Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Projects. All authorizations in

these areas, other than the following identified projects, must comply with the conservation

measures outlined in this proposed plan, including the RDFs and avoidance criteria presented in

MD SSS 29 and MD SSS 30 of this document. The BLM is currently processing an application

for Gateway West and Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Projects and the NEPA review for

this project is well underway. Conservation measures for GRSG are being analyzed through the

project’s NEPA review process, which should achieve a net conservation benefit for the GRSG.

MD LR 13: Consider the likelihood of development of not-yet-constructed surface disturbing

activities

– as defined in Table 2 of the Monitoring Framework (Appendix D) – under valid existing rights.

Land Tenure

MD LR 14: Lands classified as PHMA, IHMA, and GHMA for GRSG will be retained in federal

management unless: (1) the agency can demonstrate that disposal of the lands, including land

exchanges, will provide a net conservation gain to the GRSG or (2) the agency can demonstrate

that the disposal, including land exchanges, of the lands will have no direct or indirect adverse

impact on conservation of the GRSG. Land tenure adjustments will be subject to the following

disposal, exchange, and acquisition criteria, which include retaining lands with GRSG habitat.

Retention of areas with GRSG will reduce the likelihood of habitat conversion to agriculture,

urbanization, or other uses that will remove sagebrush habitat and potentially impact sensitive

plants. Criteria:

● Acquire habitat within PHMA and IHMA, when possible (i.e. willing landowner), and retain

ownership of habitat within all Areas, except if disposal will allow for additional or more

contiguous federal ownership patterns.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 351

Draft MMP Amendment

● Lands within PHMA, IHMA and GHMA will be retained unless disposal of those lands will

increase the extent or provide for connectivity of PHMA, IHMA or GHMA.

● Evaluate potential land exchanges containing historically low-quality GRSG habitat that may

be too costly to restore in exchange for lands of higher quality habitat, lands that connect

seasonal GRSG habitats or lands providing for threatened and endangered species. These

potential exchanges should lead to an increase in the extent or continuity of or provide for

● Identify lands for acquisition that increase the extent of or provide for connectivity of PHMA.

Withdrawals

See MD SS 10 regarding Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA).

2.2.9 Recreation and Visitor Services (REC)

Management Decisions (MD)

REC-1: Manage existing recreation uses and sites to minimize adverse effects on GRSG or their

habitat through incorporation of RDFs, buffers and seasonal restrictions.

REC-2: In PHMA and IHMA, do not construct new recreation facilities (e.g., campgrounds,

trails, trailheads, staging areas) unless the development will have a net conservation gain to

GRSG habitat (such as concentrating recreation, diverting use away from critical areas, etc.), or

unless the development is required for visitor health and safety or resource protection.

2.2.10 Travel and Transportation (TTM)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD TTM 1: Limit off-highway vehicle travel within Idaho BLM Field Offices to existing roads,

primitive roads, and trails in areas where travel management planning has not been completed or

is in progress. This excludes areas previously designated as open through a land use plan decision

or currently under review for designation as open, currently being analyzed in ongoing RMP

revision efforts in the Four Rivers, Jarbidge and Upper Snake Field Offices.

MD TTM 2: In PHMA, IHMA, and GHMA, temporary closures will be considered in accordance

with 43 CFR subpart 8364 (Closures and Restrictions); 43 CFR subpart 8351 (Designated

National Area); 43 CFR subpart 6302 (Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties);

43 CFR subpart 8341 (Conditions of Use) and other applicable law and policy.

MD TTM 3: Develop Travel Management Plans for each Field Office as described in the

BLM Travel Management Handbook 8342.1 and according to the travel management planning

guidelines (Appendix L of FEIS).

MD TTM 4: During subsequent travel management planning design and designate a travel system

to minimize adverse effects on GRSG. Locate areas and trails to minimize disturbance of GRSG

and/or to have a neural or positive effect on GRSG habitat and populations. Give special attention

to protect endangered or threatened species and their habitats. Allow for route upgrade, closure of

existing routes, timing restrictions, seasonal closures, and creation of new routes to help protect

habitat and meet user group needs, thereby reducing the potential for pioneering unauthorized

routes. The emphasis of the comprehensive travel and transportation planning within PHMA will

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
352 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

be placed on having a neutral or positive effect on GRSG habitat. Individual route designations

will occur during subsequent travel management planning efforts.

2.2.11 Mitigation (Montana)

(Also see Appendix F and J)

Management Decisions (MD)

Montana 1: BLM will establish an inter-agency State GRSG Conservation Team at the state level

(both Idaho and Montana) to help guide conservation of GRSG through compensatory mitigation,

within 90 days of the issuance of the Record of Decision.

Montana 2: The BLM, in coordination with the GRSG Conservation Team will develop a

Mitigation Strategy within one year of the issuance of the Record of Decision. In Idaho this

strategy will be consistent with the Idaho Mitigation Framework (Appendix F).

Montana 3: In all GRSG habitat, in undertaking BLM management actions, and, consistent with

valid existing rights and applicable law, in authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat

loss and degradation (Appendix E, Table E-1), the BLM will require and ensure mitigation that

provides a net conservation gain to the species including accounting for any uncertainty associated

with the effectiveness of such mitigation. This will be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, and

compensating for impacts by applying beneficial mitigation actions.

Montana 4: Mitigate anthropogenic development (Appendix E, Table E-1) impacts on GRSG

habitat through application of appropriate mitigation in accordance with the Mitigation

Framework (Appendix F and L).

Montana 5: Consistent with regulations for minerals activities, require a full reclamation bond

specific to the site when surface disturbing activities are proposed. Ensure reclamation bonds are

sufficient to cover costs to fully rehabilitate lost GRSG habitat. Base the reclamation costs on

the assumption that contractors for the BLM will perform the work. Areas are considered fully

rehabilitated when they meet the conditions described in Table 2-2.

2.2.12 Coordination (CC)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD CC 1: Collaborate, coordinate and utilize cooperative planning efforts to implement and

monitor activities to achieve desired conditions and to maximize the utilization of available

funding opportunities. Coordination efforts can include: adjacent landowners, federal and state

agencies, local governments, tribes, communities, other agencies, resource advisory groups,

public lands permit holders and non- governmental organizations.

MD CC 2: Develop a cooperative MOU between the BLM, Forest Service and State of Idaho to

establish the State of Idaho as a cooperating agency during implementation of the final decision.

The MOU will identify responsibilities, role and interaction of the BLM, Forest Service and State

of Idaho. Montana BLM will participate as appropriate on Montana’s Sage-grouse Oversight

Team to facilitate coordination and implementation of BLM’s final decision and Montana’s

Executive Order No. 10-2014.

MD CC 3: The BLM will consider any recommendations from the Governor of Idaho as a result

of evaluation completed by the Sage-Grouse Implementation Task Force.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 353

Draft MMP Amendment

MD CC 4: Idaho: The BLM will coordinate with the State of Idaho and the Idaho Sage-Grouse

Implementation Task Force regarding proposed management changes, the implementation of

conservation measures, mitigation, and site-specific monitoring, related to adaptive management,

anthropogenic disturbance and livestock grazing.

MD CC 5: Montana: The BLM will coordinate with the State of Montana and the Montana

Sage-grouse Oversight Team regarding proposed management changes, the implementation of

conservation measures, mitigation, and site-specific monitoring, related to adaptive management

and anthropogenic disturbance.

MD CC 6: Upon completion of the Record of Decision the BLM will develop an initial

Implementation Guide for BLM District and Field Offices within a year of issuance of the Record

of Decision. This Guide will define and describe consistent application of the allocations,

management actions, required design features, and etc. that are contained within the final plan and

will be updated and expanded as needed to respond to issues and concerns.

MD CC 7: At the state level, BLM will coordinate with IDFG, MFWP, USFWS, and other

conservation partners in collaborative efforts with adjacent states (Oregon, Nevada, Utah,

Montana, Wyoming) in GRSG MZs IV and II to evaluate GRSG habitat and population status and

trends and make appropriate regional recommendations for GRSG conservation at broader scales.

MD CC 8: At the state level, BLM will coordinate with the appropriate WAFWA Sage-grouse

Technical Committee to develop consistent population and habitat monitoring approaches that

facilitate GRSG conservation at the MZ scale.

MD CC 9: All prescribed burning will be coordinated with state and local air quality agencies to

ensure that local air quality is not significantly impacted by BLM activities.

2.2.13 RDFs Defined

RDFs are means, measures, or practices intended to reduce or avoid adverse environmental

impacts. This LUPA/EIS proposes a suite of design features that will establish the minimum

specifications for water developments, certain mineral development, and fire and fuels

management and will mitigate adverse impacts. These design features will be required to provide

a greater level of regulatory certainty than through implementing BMPs.

In general, the design features are accepted practices that are known to be effective when

implemented properly at the project level. However, their applicability and overall effectiveness

cannot be fully assessed except at the project-specific level when the project location and design

are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some features may not apply to some projects

(e.g., when a resource is not present on a given site) or may require slight variations from what is

described in the LUPA/EIS (e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All variations in design

features will require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of future project authorizations.

Additional mitigation measures may be identified and required during individual project

development and environmental review. The proposed RDFs are presented in Appendix C.

Required Design Features

Required Design Features (RDFs) are required for certain activities in all GRSG habitat. RDFs

establish the minimum specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts.

However, the applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully assessed until

the project level when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
354 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

circumstances, some RDFs may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a

given site) and/or may require slight variations (e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). RDFs

are continuously improving as new science and technology become available and therefore are

subject to change. All variations in RDFs would require that at least one of the following be

demonstrated in the NEPA analysis associated with the project/activity:

● A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the site-specific conditions of the

project/activity (e.g. due to site limitations or engineering considerations). Economic

considerations, such as increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be varied

or rendered inapplicable;

● An alternative RDF, a state-implemented conservation measure or plan-level protection is

determined to provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat.

● A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to GRSG or its habitat.

The following required design features (RDFs) are included for consideration and use based upon

review of current science and effects analysis (circa 2014) (Table C-1). These may be reviewed

during project evaluation and updated through plan maintenance as new information and updated

scientific findings become available.

The table is organized by program area grouping the RDFs most relevant to that program. All

relevant RDFs, regardless of which program they are grouped under, should be considered during

project evaluation and applicable RDFs should be applied during implementation. The following

measures would be applied as RDFs for all solid minerals. They would also apply to locatable

minerals consistent with applicable law. In some cases the RDFs may not all be appropriate based

on local conditions and would be assessed in the appropriate site specific NEPA analysis, these all

should be considered and where determined to be beneficial to achieving GRSG habitat objectives

included as part of the site specific project. In other cases additional project design criteria or best

management practices could be incorporated into project implementation to address site specific

concerns not fully addressed by the RDFs described here.

Table C-1 Required Design Features

Required Design Feature

General

1. Solicit and consider expertise and ideas from local landowners, working groups, and other federal, state,

county, and private organizations during development of projects.

2. No repeated or sustained behavioral disturbance (e.g., visual, noise over 10 dbA at lek, etc.) to lekking birds

from 6:00 pm to 9:00 am within 2 miles (3.2 km) of leks during the lekking season.

3. Avoid mechanized anthropogenic disturbance, in nesting habitat during the nesting season when implementing:

1) fuels/vegetation/habitat restoration management projects, 2) infrastructure construction or maintenance, 3)

geophysical exploration activities; 4) organized motorized recreational events.

4. Avoid mechanized anthropogenic disturbance during the winter, in wintering areas when implementing: 1)

fuels/vegetation/habitat restoration management projects, 2) infrastructure construction or maintenance, 3)

geophysical exploration activities; 4) organized motorized recreational events.

Wildfire Suppression

5. Compile district-level information into state-wide sage-grouse tool boxes. Tool boxes will contain maps,

listing of resource advisors, contact information, local guidance, and other relevant information for each district,

which will be aggregated into a state-wide document.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 355

Draft MMP Amendment

6. Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident commanders for use in prioritizing

wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression tactics. The Fire Planning and Fuels Management

Division (FA-600) hosts a webpage containing up- to-date maps, instruction memoranda, conservation measures,

BMPs, and spatial data specific to fire operations and fuels management/sage-grouse interactions. These

resources can be accessed at: http://web.blm.gov/internal/fire/fpfm/sg/index.html . Additional BLM sage-grouse

information can be found

at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/fish wildlife_and/sage-grouse-conservation.html .

7. Assign a resource advisor with sage-grouse expertise, or who has access to sage-grouse expertise, to all

extended attack fires in or near sage-grouse habitat areas. Prior to the fire season, provide training to sage-grouse

resource advisors on wildfire suppression organization, objectives, tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre of

qualified individuals. Involve state wildlife agency expertise in fire operations through:

● instructing resource advisors during preseason trainings;

● qualification as resource advisors;

● coordination with resource advisors during fire incidents;

● contributing to incident planning with information such as habitat features or other key data useful in fire

decision making

Required Design Feature

8. At the onset of an emerging wildland fire the Agency Administrators and Fire Management Officers will an

engage a local Resource Advisor to assess sage-grouse habitat that may be affected by the fire or suppression

activities.

9. If complexity of the wildland fire warrants the activation of an Incident Management Team, locally refined

information regarding important sage-grouse habitat will be relayed during in brief and continually throughout

the incident.

10. On critical fire weather days, pre-position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a quick and

efficient response in sage-grouse habitat areas.

11. As appropriate, utilize existing fuel breaks, such as roads or discrete changes in fuel type, as control lines in

order to minimize fire spread.

12. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities.

13. To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, drop points,

staging areas, heli-bases, etc.) in areas where physical disturbance to sage- grouse habitat can be minimized.

These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or in other areas where there is existing disturbance or

minimal sagebrush cover.

14. Power-wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including engines, water tenders, personnel

vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) prior to deploying in or near sage-grouse habitat areas to minimize

noxious weed spread.

15. Minimize cross-country vehicle travel during fire operations in sage-grouse habitat.

16. Minimize burnout operations in key sage-grouse habitat areas by constructing direct fireline whenever safe

and practical to do so.

17. Utilize retardant, mechanized equipment, and other available resources to minimize burned acreage during

initial attack.

18. As safety allows, conduct mop-up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or other habitat

features to minimize sagebrush loss.

19. Adequately document fire operation activities in sage-grouse habitat for potential follow- up coordination

activities.

Fuels Management

Unless otherwise specified as part of the land use plan consider the full array of fuels management treatment types

(prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical and biological) when implementing the following RDFs.

20. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objectives to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify fire

behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns which most benefit sage-grouse habitat.

21. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on sage-grouse biology, habitat requirements, and identification

of areas utilized locally.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
356 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Required Design Feature

22. Use burning prescriptions which minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize mortality

of desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of annual grass invasion).

23. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with full interdisciplinary input pursuant to NEPA and

coordination with state fish and wildlife agencies, and that treatment acreage is conservative in the context of

surrounding sage-grouse seasonal habitats and landscape.

24. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner that promotes use by sage-grouse.

25. Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel break design.

26. Power-wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels management activities, prior to entering the area, to

minimize the introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species.

27. Design vegetation treatments in areas of high fire frequency which facilitate firefighter safety, reduce the

potential acres burned, and reduce the fire risk to sage-grouse habitat. Additionally, develop maps for sage-grouse

habitat which spatially display existing fuels treatments that can be used to assist suppression activities.

28. As funding and logistics permit, restore annual grasslands to a species composition characterized by perennial

grasses, forbs, and shrubs or one of that referenced in land use planning documentation.

29. Emphasize the use of native plant species, especially those from a warmer area of the species’ current

range, recognizing that non-native species may be necessary depending on the availability of native seed and

prevailing site conditions.

30. Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 110 yards of occupied sage-grouse leks and other

habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering and brood rearing) to reduce the availability of perch sites for avian predators, as

resources permit.

31. Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors, and recreational

areas.

32. Reduce the risk of vehicle- or human-caused wildfires and the spread of invasive species by installing fuel

breaks and/or planting perennial vegetation (e.g., green-strips) paralleling road rights-of-way.

33. Strategically place and maintain pre-treated strips/areas (e.g., mowing, herbicide application, etc.) to aid in

controlling wildfire, should wildfire occur near PHMA or priority restoration areas (such as where investments

in restoration have already been made).

Required Design Feature

34. Design treatments to provide a break in fuel continuity in large, at-risk, expanses of continuous sagebrush.

Use local knowledge of fire occurrence, spread patterns, and habitat values at risk to determine the proper

placement and size of the fuel break.

35. Use existing agreements with local, county, and state road departments to improve and maintain existing

fuel breaks during routine road maintenance. Examples include: blading, mowing, disking, grading, and

spraying roadside vegetation.

36. Form partnerships with linear right-of-way holders to maintain fuel breaks, which reduce fuel continuity

and serve to protect at-risk landscapes.

37. Use existing NEPA documentation and authorities, where possible, when conducting road right-of-way

maintenance. In many instances, existing authorizations for roads or linear rights-of-way contain provisions for

maintenance activities that could be implemented and incorporated into a vegetation and habitat protection strategy

without requiring additional NEPA analysis. Document this with a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA).

38. Enter into agreements with road departments which may help fund the construction and maintenance of fuel

breaks adjacent to roads, as funding permits.

39. Spatially depict the locations of existing and planned fuel breaks in a landscape fuel break map and label

each vegetation polygon for reference. Offices will make these maps available to suppression resources for use

in fire operations.

Vegetation Treatment

40. Utilize available plant species based on their adaptation to the site when developing seed mixes. (Lambert

2005; VegSpec).

41. Utilizing the warmer component of a species' current range when selecting native species for restoration

when available (Kramer and Havens 2009).

42. Reduce annual grass densities and competition through herbicide, targeted grazing, tillage, prescribed fire,

etc. (Pyke 2011).

43. Reduce density and competition of introduced perennial grasses using appropriate techniques to accomplish

this reduction (Pellant and Lysne 2005).

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 357

Draft MMP Amendment

44. Utilize techniques to introduce desired species to the site such as drill seeding, broadcast seeding followed

by a seed coverage technique, such as harrowing, chaining or livestock trampling, and transplanting container

or bare-root seedlings.

45. Assess existing on-site vegetation to ascertain if enough desirable perennial vegetation exists to consider

techniques to increase on-site seed production to facilitate an increase in density of desired species.

46. Use site preparation techniques that retain existing desirable vegetation.

47. Use "mother plant" techniques or planting of satellite populations of desirable plants to serve as seed sources.

48. Utilize post-treatment control of annual grass and other invasive species.

Required Design Feature

49. Utilize new tools and use of new science and research as it becomes available.

50. Give higher priority to vegetation rehabilitation or manipulation projects that include:

● Sites where environmental variables contribute to improved chances for project success (Meinke et al. 2009).

● Areas where seasonal habitat is limiting GRSG distribution and/or abundance (wintering areas, wet meadows

and riparian areas, nesting areas, leks, etc.).

● Re-establish sagebrush cover in otherwise suitable GRSG with consideration to local needs and conditions

using the general priorities in the following order:

● Recently burned native areas

● Native grassland with suitable forb component

● Nonnative grassland with suitable forb component

● Recently converted annual grass areas

● Native grassland

● Nonnative grassland

● Where desirable perennial bunchgrasses and/or forbs are deficient in existing sagebrush stands, use appropriate

mechanical, aerial or other techniques to re-establish them. Examples include but are not limited to, use

of a Lawson aerator with seeding, harrow or chain with seeding, drill seeding, hand planting plugs, aerial

seeding or other appropriate technique.

● Cooperative efforts that may improve GRSG habitat quality over multiple ownerships.

● Projects that may provide connectivity between suitable habitats or expand existing good quality habitats.

● Projects that address conifer encroachment into important GRSG habitats. In general the priority for treatment

is 1) Phase 1 (≤10% conifer cover), 2) Phase 2 (10-30%), and 3) Phase 3 (>30%).

● Replacing stands of annual grasses within otherwise good quality habitats with desirable perennial species.

Other factors that contribute to the importance of the restoration project in maintaining or improving GRSG

habitat.

51. When conducting vegetation treatments in areas inhabited or potentially inhabited by slickspot peppergrass

(Lepidium papilliferum) follow the conservation measures in the applicable conservation agreement between

Idaho BLM and US Fish and Wildlife Service (most recent version dated September 2014).

Lands and Realty

52. Where technically and financially feasible, bury distribution powerlines and communication lines within

existing disturbance.

53. Above-ground disturbance areas would be seeded with perennial vegetation as per vegetation management.

54. Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been fully restored.

Required Design Feature

55. Cluster disturbances, operations (fracturing stimulation, liquids gathering, etc.) and facilities as close

as possible.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
358 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

56. Co-locate linear facilities within one mile of existing linear facilities.

57. Micro-site linear facilities to reduce impacts to sage-grouse habitats.

58. Locate staging areas outside the Priority Habitat Management Areas to the extent possible.

59. Consider colocating powerlines, flowlines and pipelines under or immediately adjacent to a road or adjacent

to other pipelines first, before considering co-locating with other ROW.

60. Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed.

61. Use free standing structures where possible, to limit the use of guy wires. Where guy wires are necessary and

appropriate bird collision diverters would be used, if doing so would not cause a human safety risk.

62. Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in existing utility or

transportation corridors.

63. Construction and development activities should conform to seasonal restrictions.

Fluid Mineral Leasing

64. Use directional drilling and/or multi well-pads to reduce surface disturbance.

65. Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation.

66. Place liquid gathering facilities outside of PHMAs. Have no tanks at well locations within PHMAs to

minimize truck traffic and perching and nesting sites for ravens and raptors.

67. Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce the frequency of

vehicle use (Lyon and Anderson 2003).

68. Site and/or minimize linear ROWs or SUAs to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

69. Design or site permanent structures which create movement (e.g. pump jack) to minimize impacts to GRSG.

70. Equip tanks and other above-ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of raptors

and corvids.

71. Control the spread and effects of non-native plant species (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, Bergquist et al. 2007,

Evangelista et al. 2011). (E.g. by washing vehicles and equipment.)

72. Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus (Doherty 2007).

Required Design Feature

73. Remove or re-inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If

surface disposal of produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir design to limit favorable

mosquito habitat:

● Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non-vegetated shorelines.

● Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions.

● Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas.

● Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow.

● Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock.

● Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed rock.

● Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on the surface

74. Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or wintering season.

75. The BLM/Forest Service would work with proponents to limit project related noise where it would be

expected to reduce functionality of habitats in Priority and Important Habitat Management Areas.

76. The BLM/Forest Service would evaluate the potential for limitation of new noise sources on a case-by-case

basis as appropriate.

77. Limit noise sources that would be expected to negatively impact populations in Priority and Important Habitat

Management Areas and continue to support the establishment of ambient baseline noise levels for occupied leks

in Priority Habitat Management Areas.

78. As additional research and information emerges, specific new limitations appropriate to the type of projects

being considered would be evaluated and appropriate limitations would be implemented where necessary to

minimize potential for noise impacts on sage- grouse core population behavioral cycles.

79. As new research is completed, new specific limitations would be coordinated with the IDFG and MT FWP

and partners.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 359

Draft MMP Amendment

80. Fit transmission towers with anti-perch devices (Lammers and Collopy 2007).

81. Require sage-grouse-safe fences.

82. Locate new compressor stations outside Priority Habitat Management Areas and design them to reduce noise

that may be directed towards Priority Habitat Management Areas.

83. Clean up refuse (Bui et al. 2011).

84. Locate man camps outside of priority sage-grouse habitats.

Required Design Feature

85. Consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities to reduce vegetation disturbance and for

roads between closely spaced wells to reduce soil compaction and maintain soil structure to increase likelihood of

vegetation reestablishment following drilling.

86. Use only closed-loop systems for drilling operations and no reserve pits.

87. Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all drilling and production pits and tanks

regardless of size to reduce sage-grouse mortality.

Roads

88. Utilize existing roads, or realignments of existing routes to the extent possible.

89. Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended purpose.

90. Do not issue ROWs or SUAs to counties on newly constructed energy or mineral development roads, unless

for a temporary use consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document.

91. Establish speed limits on BLM and FS system roads to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads

to be driven at slower speeds.

92. Coordinate road construction and use among ROW or SUA holders.

93. Construct road crossings at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

94. Use dust abatement on roads and pads.

95. Close and reclaim duplicate roads by restoring original landform and establishing desired vegetation.

Roads Specific to Priority and Important Habitat Management Areas

96. Locate roads to avoid priority areas and habitats as described in the Wildfire and Invasive Species

Assessments.

97. Establish trip restrictions (Lyon and Anderson 2003) or minimization through use of telemetry and remote

well control (e.g., Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition).

98. Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (using signage, gates, etc.)

Reclamation Activities

99. Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet sage-grouse habitat needs in reclamation

practices/sites (Pyke 2011).

100. Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to protect

and improve sage-grouse habitat needs.

101. Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads and well pads, including reshaping,

topsoiling and revegetating cut-and-fill slopes.

Required Design Feature

102. Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre-disturbance landforms and desired plant community.

103. Irrigate interim reclamation if necessary for establishing seedlings more quickly.

104. Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation and to protect soils.

Grazing

105. Avoid building new wire fences within 2 km of occupied leks (Stevens 2011). If this is not feasible, ensure

that high risk segments are marked with collision diverter devices or as latest science indicates.

106. Place new, taller structures, including corrals, loading facilities, water storage tanks, windmills, out of line of

sight or at least one kilometer (preferably 3 km) from occupied leks, where such structures would increase the

risk of avian predation.

107. Utilize temporary fencing (e.g., ESR, drop down fencing) where feasible and appropriate to meet

management objectives.

108. Fence wetlands (e.g., springs, seeps, wet meadows and/or riparian areas) where appropriate, to maintain

or foster progress toward Proper Functioning Condition and to facilitate management of sage-grouse habitat

objectives. Where constructing fences or exclosures to improve riparian and/or upland management, incorporate

fence marking or other BMPs/RDFs as appropriate.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
360 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

109. During lekking periods, as determined locally (approximately March 15-May 1 in lower elevations and

March 25-May 15 in higher elevations), livestock trailing will be avoided to the extent possible within 1 km (0.62

mile) of occupied leks between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00

a.m. to avoid disturbance to lekking and roosting sage-grouse. Over-nighting, watering and sheep bedding

locations on public lands must be at least 1 km from occupied leks during the lekking season to reduce disturbance

from sheep, human activity and guard animals.

110. Work with permittees in locating sheep over-nighting, watering and sheep bedding locations to minimize

impacts to sage-grouse seasonal habitats.

111. When trailing livestock during the lekking or nesting season, use roads or existing trails, to the extent

possible to reduce disturbance to roosting, lekking or nesting sage-grouse.

112. Design new spring developments in GRSG habitat to maintain or enhance the free flowing characteristics of

springs and wet meadows. Modify developed springs, seeps and associated pipelines to maintain the continuity of

the predevelopment riparian area within priority GRSG habitat where necessary.

113. Install ramps in new and existing livestock troughs and open water storage tanks to facilitate the use of and

escape from troughs by GRSG and other wildlife.

Required Design Feature

West Nile Virus

114. Construct water return features and maintain functioning float valves to prohibit water from being spilled

on the ground surrounding the trough and/or tank and return water to the original water source, to the extent

practicable.

115. Minimize the construction of new ponds or reservoirs except as needed to meet important resource

management and/or restoration objectives.

116. Develop and maintain non-pond/reservoir watering facilities, such as troughs and bottomless tanks, to

provide livestock water.

117. For most spring developments or wells, mosquito breeding habitat usually is not an issue. Flowing cold

(less than 50° Fahrenheit) water and steep sides of the stock tanks are not conducive for egg laying or larvae

production. If flows are low, the water is warm, or moss production is an issue in the tank, mosquito breeding

habitat could exist in the tank.

118. Maintenance of healthy wetlands at spring sources helps control mosquitoes and their larvae by providing

habitat for natural predators such as birds, dragonflies and amphibians. Protecting the wetland at the spring

source with a fence is an option to consider.

119. Clean and drain stock tanks before the season starts. If never cleaned or drained, many tanks will fill with

silt or debris causing warmer water and heavy vegetation growth conducive to mosquito reproduction.

120. Draining tanks after the period of use is completed, particularly in warmer weather, also reduces potential

habitat by eliminating stagnant standing water.

121. Maintain a properly functioning overflow to prevent water from flowing onto the pad and surrounding area,

to eliminate or minimize pooling of water that is attractive to breeding mosquitoes.

122. Clean or deepen overflow ponds to maintain colder temperatures to reduce mosquito habitat.

123. Install and maintain float valves on stock tank fill pipes to minimize overflow

124. Harden stock tank pads to reduce tracks that can potentially hold water where mosquitoes may breed.

125. Build ponds with steep shorelines to reduce shallow water (>60 cm) and aquatic vegetation around the

perimeter of impoundments to deter colonizing by mosquitos (Knight et al. 2003, cited in NTT report page 61).

126. Consider removing and controlling trees and shrubs to reduce shade and wind barriers on pit and reservoir

shorelines if not needed for wildlife, fish, or recreational values.

127. Impoundments that remain accessible to livestock and wildlife can cause tracking and nutrient enrichment

from manure which can create favorable mosquito breeding habitat. Where this is a concern, it may be desirable

to fence the reservoir and pipe the water to a tank.

Required Design Feature

128. Construct dams or impoundments that minimize down-slope seepage or overflow. Seepage and overflow

results in down-grade accumulation of vegetated shallow water areas that support breeding mosquitoes.

129. On ponds and reservoirs with enough depth and volume, introduce native fish species, which feed on

mosquito larvae.

130. Line the overflow of a dam’s spillway with crushed rock and constructing the spillway with steep sides to

preclude the accumulation of shallow water and vegetation to reduce mosquito habitat.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
Craters of the Moon National Monument 361

Draft MMP Amendment

131. Where an existing reservoir has filled with silt, consider cleaning to reduce shallow water habitat conducive

to mosquito reproduction.

132. During confirmed West Nile virus outbreaks in sage-grouse habitat, consider larvicide applications.

Travel Management

133. Designate or design routes to direct use away from priority areas identified in Wildfire and Invasive

Species Assessments and still provide for high-quality and sustainable travel routes and administrative access,

legislatively mandated requirements, and commercial needs

Recreation

134. Direct use away from GRSG priority areas as described in the Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments.

135. Eliminate or minimize external food sources for corvids.

136. Avoid development of new campgrounds or recreation facilities in nesting habitat.

Appendix C Idaho and Southwestern Montana

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Amendment Attachment 1–

Chapter 2, and Required Design Features
This page intentionally

left blank
Craters of the Moon National Monument 363

Draft MMP Amendment

Appendix D. Forage Production Estimation
 Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) provide estimates of above-ground annual dry matter

production of common species on a pounds per acre basis. It is important to note that these

estimates are based on the “reference state” of an average community, and there could be variation

within the reference state based on precipitation, elevation, slope, and other factors that can

vary within a particular ESD. These production estimates are provided as a range that could

occur due to climatic factors or inherent site characteristics. While there may be variation within

an ecological site, as a group, they are capable of producing a distinctive kind and amount of

vegetation [Range and Pasture Handbook].

Each ESD also provides a state and transition model describing possible departures from the

reference plant community. These departures can vary depending on past disturbance and

vegetation responses. States include continuous and reversible vegetation dynamics, while

“discontinuous and nonreversible dynamics occur when thresholds are surpassed and one stable

state replaces another,” [Briske, Fuhlendorf, & Smeins, 2005].

A typical reference state community found on the Monument is a Loamy 8-12 Wyoming big

sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass community. In this community total production averages about

750 pounds per acre on an average year. Grasses provide about 60% of the production, shrubs

about 25%, and forbs about 15%. However, the majority of the Monument is not in the reference

state. Following a wildfire, typically the shrub component would be absent, and grass and forb

production would increase, but total production would remain near the 750 pounds per acre mark.

This would translate into increased potential forage compared to the reference state.

Within the same ecological site, historic overgrazing may have occurred, resulting in an increase

in the shrub component and reduced production and vigor of the grass species. Again, the total

production would remain close to 750 pounds per acre, but grasses could provide 30% and shrubs

55% of the total production. This would translate to decreased potential forage compared to the

reference state.

Data collected through the HAF for greater sage-grouse were used to determine the percent

composition of vegetation species for each ecological site evaluated in the Monument. This

composition data was then used to determine in what “state” each area was within each model.

Many areas of the Monument have been seeded to either a crested wheatgrass or native cultivars

after wildfires. Generally, these areas crossed a threshold where the native grass and forb species

were reduced to the point where natural recovery was not possible. After seeding, these areas

would provide similar grass production as indicated in the first wildfire scenario. Total production

of the site will likely remain close to that indicated by the ESD, but the relative proportions

of shrubs, grasses, and forbs can vary, depending on where the site falls within the state and

transition model.

To estimate the potential forage production in the Monument, acreage of each ecological site was

multiplied by the annual production values of perennial grasses provided by the NRCS in the

ESDs. Therefore total grass production in the Monument based on the ESDs, is 8,6788,388

pounds. This production was then divided by 790, because that is the total pounds required for an

Animal Unit Month (AUM) and yields 111,267 AUMs [Range and Pasture Handbook].

There are several characteristics in this number that must be considered. First, this is total

production and does not consider use levels that can be sustained without causing harm to the

Appendix D Forage Production Estimation
364 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

plant community or whether sufficient infrastructure is present to allow livestock access to the

forage. Proper use levels depend on species present, and generally range from 20% for some

native species to 60% for crested wheatgrass. Second, this figure is based on the low end of

the production range. At the high end of the range, production would be about 177,751,822

pounds (227,887 AUMs).

The final consideration is that not all of the Monument is in the reference state. Figure D.1,

“Existing Ecological State in Craters of the Moon” shows the relative proportions of the

Monument in each state within the state and transition models. State 1 would be the reference

community and would average about the same as is represented in the models. Areas in State

2A have crossed a threshold and would be expected to produce less forage than represented

in the models. State 3 represents rangeland seedings and would be expected to produce more

forage than represented in the models.

Appendix D Forage Production Estimation
Craters of the Moon National Monument 365

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure D.1. Existing Ecological State in Craters of the Moon

Appendix D Forage Production Estimation
366 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure D.2. Proportions of Ecological States in Craters of the Moon

Appendix D Forage Production Estimation
Craters of the Moon National Monument 367

Draft MMP Amendment

Appendix E. Common and Scientific Names
 

of Plant and Animal Species Occurring at
 

Craters of the Moon National Monument
 

& Preserve
 Table E.1. Common and Scientific Names of Plant and Animal Species Occurring at Craters

of the Moon National Monument & Preserve

Type Common Name Scientific Name

Trees Alder Alnus spp.

Juniper Juniperus spp.

Limber Pine Pinus flexilis

Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii

Willow Salix spp.

Shrubs Low sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula

Basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Mountain big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Threetip sagebrush Artemisia tripartita

Desert sweet Chamaebatiaria millefolium

Green rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus

Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa

Rockspirea Holodiscus dumosus

Lewis’ mock orange Philadelphus lewisii

Antelope bitterbrush Purshia tridentata

Mountain snowberry Symphoricarpos oreophilus

Grasses and Grasslike Plants Needlegrasses Achnaterum/Hesperostipa spp.

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum

Siberian wheatgrass Agropyron fragile

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum

Snake River wheatgrass Elymus wawawaiensis

Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis

Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii

Sherman's big bluegrass Poa ampla

Sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda

Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata

tall wheatgrass Thinopyrum ponticum

sixweeks fescue Vulpia octiflora

Forbs Russian knapweed* Acroptilon repens

Meadow pussytoes° Antennaria arcuata

Milkvetch Astragalus spp.

Goose Creek milkvetch Astragalus anserinus

Mourning milkvetch° Astragalus atratus var. inseptus

Basalt milkvetch Astragalus filipes

Picabo milkvetch° Astragalus oniciformis

Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata

Musk thistle* Carduus nutans

Appendix E Common and Scientific Names of Plant

and Animal Species Occurring at Craters of the

Moon National Monument & Preserve
368 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Type Common Name Scientific Name

Diffuse knapweed* Centaurea diffusa

Spotted knapweed* Centaurea stoebe

Rush skeletonweed* Chondrilla juncea

Canada thistle* Cirsium arvense

Field bindweed* Convolvulus arvensis

Buckwheats Eriogonum spp.

Leafy spurge* Euphorbia esula

Dyer's woad* Isatis tinctoria

Dalmation toadflax* Linaria dalmatica

Flax Linum spp.

Lupine Lupinus spp.

Alfalfa Medicago sativa

False dandelion Nothocalais troximoides

Sainfoin Onobrychis viciifolia

Scotch thistle* Onopordum acanthium

Penstemon Penstemon spp.

Idaho Penstemon Penstemon montanus var. Idahoensis

Obscure phacelia° Phacelia inconspicua

Phlox Phlox spp.

Sticky cinquefoil Potentilla glandulosa

Scarlet globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea

Amphibians Western toad Anaxyrus boreas

Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris maculate

Pacific tree frog Pseudacris regilla

Great Basin spadefoot Spea intermontana

Birds Cooper’s hawk + Accipiter cooperii

Northern goshawk + Accipiter gentilis

Sharp-shinned hawk + Accipiter striatus

Spotted sandpiper + Acitis macularia

Western grebe + Aechmophorus occidentalis

Northern saw-whet owl + Aegolius acadicus

White-throated swift + Aeronautes saxatalis

Red-winged blackbird + Agelaius phoeniceus

Chukar Alectoris chukar

Grasshopper sparrow + Ammodramus savannarum

Sagebrush sparrow + Artemisiospiza nevadensis

Black-throated sparrow + Amphispiza bilineata

Northern pintail + Anas acuta

American wigeon + Anas americana

Northern shoveler + Anas clypeata

Green-winged teal + Anas crecca

Cinnamon teal + Anas cyanoptera

Blue-winged teal + Anas discors

Mallard + Anas platyrhynchos

Gadwall + Anas strepera

American pipet + Anthus rubescens

Golden eagle + Aquila chrysaetos

Black-chinned hummingbird + Archilochus alexandri

Great blue heron + Ardea herodias

Short-eared owl + Asio flammeus

Long-eared owl + Asio otus

Western burrowing owl + Athene cunicularia

Lesser scaup + Aythya affinis

Appendix E Common and Scientific Names of Plant

and Animal Species Occurring at Craters of the

Moon National Monument & Preserve
Craters of the Moon National Monument 369

Draft MMP Amendment

Type Common Name Scientific Name

Redhead + Aythya americana

Ring-necked duck + Aythya collaris

Canvasback + Aythya valisineria

Cedar waxwing + Bombycilla cedrorum

Bohemian waxwing + Bombycilla garrulus

Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus

Canada goose + Branta canadensis

Great horned owl + Bubo virginianus

Bufflehead + Bucephala albeola

Common goldeneye + Bucephala clangula

Red-tailed hawk + Buteo jamaicensis

Rough-legged hawk + Buteo lagopus

Ferruginous hawk + Buteo regalis

Swainson’s hawk + Buteo swainsonii

Lark bunting + Calamospiza melanocorys

Common redpoll + Carduelis flammea

Hoary redpoll + Carduelis hornemanni

Pine siskin + Carduelis pinus

American goldfinch + Carduelis tristis

Cassin’s finch + Carpodacus cassinii

House finch + Carpodacus mexicanus

Turkey vulture + Cathartes aura

Hermit thrush + Catharus guttas

Swainson’s thrush + Catharus ustulatus

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Brown creeper + Certhia americana

Belted kingfisher + Ceryle alcyon

Killdeer + Charadrius vociferus

Snow goose + Chen caerulescens

Black tern + Chlidonias niger

Lark sparrow + Chondestes grammacus

Common nighthawk + Chordeiles minor

American dipper + Cinclus mexicanus

Northern harrier + Circus cyaneus

Marsh wren + Cistothorus palustris

Evening grosbeak + Coccothraustes vespertinus

Northern flicker + Coloptes auratus

Band-tailed pigeon + Columba fasciata

Rock pigeon Columba livia

Olive-sided flycatcher + Contopus cooperi

Western wood-pewee + Contopus sordidulus

American crow + Corvus brachyrhynchos

Common raven + Corvus corax

Stellar’s jay + Cyanocitta stelleri

Tundra swan + Cygnus columbianus

Blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus

Yellow-rumped warbler + Dendroica coronata

Yellow warbler + Dendroica petechia

Townsend’s warbler + Dendroica townsendii

Bobolink + Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Gray catbird + Dumetella carolinensis

Hammond’s flycatcher + Empidonax hammondii

Dusky flycatcher + Empidonax oberholseri

Appendix E Common and Scientific Names of Plant

and Animal Species Occurring at Craters of the

Moon National Monument & Preserve
370 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Type Common Name Scientific Name

Cordilleran flycatcher + Empidonax occidentallis

Willow flycatcher + Empidonax traillii

Gray flycatcher + Empidonax wrighti

Horned lark + Eremophilla alpestris

Brewer’s blackbird + Euphagus cyanocephalus

Merlin + Falco columbarius

Prairie falcon + Falco mexicanus

Peregrine falcon + Falco pergrinus

Gyr falcon + Falco rusticolus

American kestrel + Falco sparverius

American coot + Filica americana

Wilson’s snipe + Gallinago gallinago

Sandhill crane + Grus canadensis

Pinyon jay + Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus

Bald eagle + Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Barn swallow + Hirunda rustica

Yellow-breasted chat + Icteria virens

Bullock’s oriole + Icterus bullockii

Varied thrush + Ixoreus naevius

Dark-eyed junco + Junco hyemalis

Northern shrike + Lanius excubitot

Loggerhead shrike + Lanius ludovicianus

Herring gull + Larus argentatus

California gull + Larus californicus

Ring-billed gull + Larus delawarensis

Franklin’s gull + Larus pipixan

Black rosy-finch + Leucosticte atrata

Gray-crowned rosy-finch + Leucosticte tephrocotis

Long-billed dowitcher + Limnodromus scolopaceus

Red crossbill + Loxia curvirostra

Western screech owl + Megascops kennicottii

Red-headed woodpecker + Melenerpes erythrocephalus

Lewis’s woodpecker + Melenerpes lewis

Lincoln’s sparrow + Melospiza lincolnii

Song sparrow + Melospiza melodia

Brown-headed cowbird + Molothrus ater

Townsend’s solitaire + Myadestes townsendi

Ash-throated flycatcher + Myiarchus cinerascens

Clark’s nutcracker + Nucifraga columbiana

Long-billed curlew + Numenius americanus

Whimbrel + Numenius phaeopus

Snowy owl + Nyctea scandiaca

MacGillivray’s warbler + Oporornis tolmiei

Sage thrasher + Orreoscoptes montanus

Ruddy duck + Oxyura jamaicensis

Osprey + Pandion haliaetus

House sparrow Passer domesticus

Savannah sparrow + Passerculus sandwichensis

Lazuli bunting + Passerina amoena

Fox sparrow + Passerlla iliaca

American white pelican + Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Gray partridge + Perdix perdix

Cliff swallow + Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Appendix E Common and Scientific Names of Plant

and Animal Species Occurring at Craters of the

Moon National Monument & Preserve
Craters of the Moon National Monument 371

Draft MMP Amendment

Type Common Name Scientific Name

Common poorwill + Phalaenoptilus

Wilson’s phalarope + Phalaropus tricolor

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Black-headed grosbeak + Pheucticus melanocephalus

Black-billed magpie + Pica hudsonia

Downy woodpecker + Picoides pubescens

Hairy woodpecker + Picoides villosus

Pine grosbeak + Pinicola enucleator

Green-tailed towhee + Pipilo chlorurus

Spotted towhee + Pipilo maculatus

Western tanager + Piranga ludoviciana

Snow bunting + Plectrophenax nivalis

White-faced ibis + Plegadis chihi

Eared grebe + Podiceps nigricollis

Pied-billed grebe + Podilymbus podiceps

Black-capped chickadee + Poecile atricapilla

Mountain chickadee + Poecile gambeli

Blue-gray gnatcatcher + Polioptila caerula

Vesper sparrow + Pooecetes gramineus

Sora + Porzana carolina

Common grackle + Quiscalus quiscula

Virginia rail + Rallus limicola

American avocet + Recurvirostra americana

Ruby-crowned kinglet + Regulus calendula

Golden-crowned kinglet + Regulus satrapa

Rock wren + Salpinctes obsoletus

Say’s phoebe + Sayornis saya

Northern waterthrush + Seiurus noveboracensis

Broad-tailed hummingbird + Selasphorus platycercus

Rufous hummingbird + Selasphorus rufus

American redstart + Setophaga ruuticilla

Mountain bluebird + Sialia currucoides

Western bluebird + Sialia mexicana

Red-breasted nuthatch + Sitta canadensis

White-breasted nuthatch + Sitta carolinensis

Red-naped sapsucker + Sphyrapicus nuchallis

Williamson’s sapsucker + Sphyrapicus thryoideus

Brewer’s sparrow + Spizella breweri

Chipping sparrow + Spizella passerina

Northern rough-winged swallow + Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Calliope hummingbird + Selasphorus calliope

Forster’s tern + Sterna forsteri

Western meadowlark + Sturnella neglecta

European starling Sturnus vulgaris

Tree swallow + Tachycineta bicolor

Violet-green swallow + Tachycineta thalassina

Brown thrasher + Toxostoma rufum

House wren + Troglodytes aedon

Winter wren + Troglodytes troglodytes

American robin + Turdus migratorius

Eastern kingbird + Tyrannus tyrannus

Western kingbird + Tyrannus verticalis

Orange-crowned warbler + Vermivora celata

Appendix E Common and Scientific Names of Plant

and Animal Species Occurring at Craters of the

Moon National Monument & Preserve
372 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Type Common Name Scientific Name

Tennessee warbler + Vermivora pergrina

Nashville warbler + Vermivora ruficapilla

Cassin’s vireo + Vireo cassinii

Warbling vireo + Vireo gilvus

Plumbeous vireo + Vireo plumbeus

Wilson’s warbler + Wilsonia pusilla

Yellow-headed blackbird + Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Mourning dove + Zenaida macroura

White-throated sparrow + Zonotrichia albicollis

Golden-crowned sparrow + Zonotrichia atricapilla

White-crowned sparrow + Zonotrichia leucophrys

Mammals Moose Alces alces

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis

Coyote Canis latrans

Gray wolf Canis lupus

Beaver Castor canadensis

Elk Cervus elephas

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

Ord’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Mountain lion Felis concolor

Sagebrush vole Lagurus curtatus

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus

White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis

Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudis

Montane vole Microtus montanus

Short-tailed weasel Mustela ermina

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata

California myotis Myotis califonicus

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis

Small-footed myotis Myotis leibii

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans

Bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea

Pika Ochotona princeps

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Great Basin pocket mouse Perognathus parvus

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Heather vole Phenacomys intermedius

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami

Dusky shrew Sorex monticolus

Vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans

Appendix E Common and Scientific Names of Plant

and Animal Species Occurring at Craters of the

Moon National Monument & Preserve
Craters of the Moon National Monument 373

Draft MMP Amendment

Type Common Name Scientific Name

Columbian ground squirrel Spermophilus columibianus

Golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis

Piute ground squirrel Spermophilus mollis

Western spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis

Mountain cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii

Yellow-pine chipmunk Tamias amoenus

Least chipmunk Tamias minimus

Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

Badger Taxidea taxus

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides

Black bear Ursus americanus

Kit fox Vulpes macrotis

Red fox Vulpes vulpes

Western jumping mouse Zapus princeps

Reptiles Rubber boa Charina bottae

Western yellow-bellied racer Coluber constrictor

Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis

Western skink Eumeces skiltonianus

Longnose leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii

Short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglasii

Desert horned lizard Phrynosoma platyrhinos

Gopher snake Pituophis catenifer

Sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus

Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans

*Noxious Weeds

° Rare Plants

+Species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Appendix E Common and Scientific Names of Plant

and Animal Species Occurring at Craters of the

Moon National Monument & Preserve
This page intentionally

left blank
Craters of the Moon National Monument 375

Draft MMP Amendment

Appendix F. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat
 

Assessment Framework
 Assessing Site-Scale Habitat Suitability in the Craters of the Moon National Monument &

Preserve 1

Overview

Habitat assessments for greater sage-grouse were conducted on BLM lands in the Craters of the

Moon National Monument and Preserve (the Monument) during the summers of 2012 and 2013.

These data were used to characterize the suitability of areas for breeding, summer, and winter use

by sage-grouse. Information regarding the protocols and project design can be reviewed in the

text and appendices of the BLM Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework Manual [Stiver et

al., 2010];[ Stiver et al., 2015]

Based on extensive research in many western states, Connelly et al. (2000) developed and Hagen,

Connelly, and Schroeder (2007) refined habitat criteria or indicators required by sage-grouse for

specific seasonal needs. Generalized seasonal habitats are characterized as occurring during

breeding, summer, and winter. Breeding habitat provides for the life-cycle activities of lekking,

pre-laying, nesting, and early brood-rearing. Summer habitat includes areas used by sage-grouse

during late brood-rearing. Winter habitat describes areas used from late fall through winter, when

sagebrush becomes increasingly important for food and cover. Connelly et al. (2000) provides

extensive treatment of each of these seasonal ranges.

Seasonal habitat suitability matrices were based primarily on Connelly et al. (2000) because they

used data collected across the species’ range. Habitat indicators for sage-grouse within seasonal

habitats included sagebrush canopy cover, sagebrush height, sagebrush shape, perennial grass

and forb heights, perennial grass and forb canopy cover, and preferred forb availability. For

the purpose of standardizing habitat descriptions, discrete ranges of numeric values or other

measurements (e.g., visual site guides) were used to describe seasonal habitat indicators as

suitable, marginal, or unsuitable [Sather-Blair, Makela, Carrigan, & Anderson, 2000].

There is a tendency to review each indicator and its suitability category independently, but site

suitability is determined by the relationship among indicator values. The suitability expectations

for these matrices are based on range-wide data, and the term “suitable” is not synonymous with

“optimum.” Although general criteria were recommended, Connelly et al. (2000) recognized that

ecological site potential should also be considered at the site scale.

In general, suitable habitats provided the appropriate protective cover (sagebrush and herbaceous

plants), food (forbs and sagebrush), and security (proximity of trees and tall structures for

predators) needs for sage-grouse to survive and reproduce [Connelly et al., 2000]; [Sather-Blair

et al., 2000]. Marginal habitats included habitat components to support sage-grouse but habitat

conditions were lower in quality compared to suitable habitats. It was assumed that survival rates

and reproduction were lower in marginal habitats compared to suitable habitats [Cooperrider,

Boyd, & Stuart, 1986]; [Morrison, Marcot, & Mannan, 1998]. Unsuitable habitats were currently

missing one or more of the basic life requisites of food or shelter, though they may have the

potential to provide these life requisites in the future [Stiver et al., 2010].

Breeding Habitat

1Distilled from Stiver et al. (2010)

Appendix F Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Assessment Framework
376 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

In the Monument, breeding activities generally occur from March 15 to June 15. Leks can be

found at a variety of locations but are generally located in relatively open areas adjacent to denser

sagebrush cover. Such sites include meadows, openings created by fires or roads, areas of low

sagebrush, windswept ridges, exposed knolls, or dry lake beds. Most leks are traditional and are

used year after year [Patterson, 1952]; [Connelly et al., 2004].

Productive nesting areas are typically characterized by sagebrush with an understory of native

grasses and forbs, with horizontal and vertical structural diversity that provides an insect prey

base, herbaceous forage for pre-laying and nesting hens, and cover for the hen while she is

incubating [Gregg, 1991]; [Connelly et al., 2000]; [Connelly et al., 2004]. Sage-grouse also may

use other shrub or bunchgrass species for nest sites [Klebenow, 1969]; [Connelly et al., 2000];

[Connelly et al., 2004]; however, nests under shrubs other than sagebrush are generally less

successful [Connelly, Wakkinen, Apa, & Reese, 1991].

Shrub canopy and grass cover provide concealment for sage-grouse nests and chicks, which is

critical for reproductive success [Gregg et al., 1994]; [DeLong, Crawford, & DeLong, 1995];

[Connelly et al., 2004]. Published vegetation characteristics of successful nest sites include a

sagebrush canopy cover of 15-25%, sagebrush heights of 12-32 in (30-80 cm), and grass/forb

cover of at least 7 in (18 cm) ([Connelly et al., 2000]; Table D–1). Cover values for Sandberg

bluegrass are not included in the cover estimate for perennial grasses due to the relatively

low contribution the plant provides as concealment cover for sage-grouse nesting and early

brood-rearing [Stiver et al., 2015].

Table F.1. Breeding habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories for site-scale

habitat descriptions (adapted from Connelly et al. (2000), Sather-Blair et al. (2000), and

Hagen et al. (2007)).

Life Requisite Habitat Indicator Suitable Marginal Unsuitable

Cover Sagebrush Canopy

Cover (%)

15 to 25 5 to < 15 or > 25 < 5

Sagebrush Height:

Mesic Site1 (in)

16 to 32 8 to < 16 or > 32 < 8

Sagebrush Height:

Arid Site (in)

12 to 32 8 to < 12 or > 32 < 8

Sagebrush Shape Spreading Mix of spreading and

columnar

Columnar

Herbaceous Height

(in)

≥ 7 4 to < 7 < 4

Perennial Grass

Cover: Mesic Site

(%)

≥ 15 5 to < 15 < 5

Perennial Grass

Cover: Arid Site

(%)

≥ 10 5 to < 10 < 5

Cover and Food Forb Canopy Cover:

Mesic Site (%)

≥ 10 5 to < 10 < 5

Forb Canopy Cover:

Arid Site (%)

≥ 5 3 to < 5 < 3

Food Preferred Forb

Availability2

Preferred forbs are

common with several

species present

Preferred forbs are

common but only a

few preferred species

are present

Preferred forbs are

rare

Appendix F Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment

Framework
Craters of the Moon National Monument 377

Draft MMP Amendment

Note

1 Mesic and arid sites were defined on a local basis; annual precipitation, herbaceous understory,
 

and soils were considered [Connelly et al., 2000].
 

2 Relative to ecological site potential.
 

The numeric values described for productive habitat by Connelly et al. (2000) are guidelines

and are not intended to be used as strict prescriptions [Stiver et al., 2010]. Although sagebrush

canopy cover is a crucial habitat indicator, the composition and percent cover of shrubs other

than sagebrush can positively affect site suitability in certain circumstances. For example,

sagebrush may only provide 10% canopy cover in a particular location, but antelope bitterbrush

is also present with a canopy cover of 5%. Here, the density of bitterbrush positively affects

the overall site suitability [Stiver et al., 2010]. Conversely, areas with an excess canopy cover

(25-35%) of three-tip sagebrush can also provide suitable nesting habitat, provided that forb

abundance and grass cover are adequate relative to the site potential [Klebenow, 1969]; [Dobkin,

1995]. Slopes > 40% generally do not provide suitable nesting habitat for sage-grouse [Idaho

Sage-grouse Advisory Committee (ISAC), 2006], regardless of their vegetative characteristics.

However, low sagebrush communities present on these sites provide important foraging habitat

for adult sage-grouse year-round.

Summer Habitat

As sagebrush areas desiccate during late June and July, sage-grouse move to more mesic sites

with succulent forbs [Connelly, Browers, & Gates, 1988]. Late summer brood-rearing habitat

may include sagebrush, relatively small burned areas within sagebrush, wet meadows, farmland,

and other irrigated areas adjacent to sagebrush communities. Proximity to taller sagebrush

communities may be an important habitat indicator in some situations. For instance, some

brood-rearing habitat occurs in forb-rich low sagebrush communities adjacent to big sagebrush

communities. In other cases, the available forbs such as arrowleaf balsamroot may be providing

additional cover in low sagebrush communities, especially for very young broods (< 21 days old).

In the Monument, summer habitats are generally used by sage-grouse from June 16 to October

15. Late summer brood-rearing habitat generally overlaps early summer brood-rearing habitat,

especially during years of above-average summer precipitation.

The indicators for upland summer habitats are similar to those described for breeding habitat, but

the ranges for the suitability categories differ (Table D–2). Here, the percent cover of sagebrush is

less important than the total amount of cover provided by sagebrush and other shrubs, as well as

mid-sized perennial bunchgrasses. The abundance and diversity of late-season upland forbs also

contributes significantly to the value of summer habitats for sage-grouse.

Table F.2. Summer habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories for upland

sagebrush site-scale habitat descriptions (adapted from Connelly et al. (2000), Sather-Blair

et al. (2000), and Hagen et al. (2007)).

Life Requisite Habitat Indicator Suitable Marginal Unsuitable

Cover Sagebrush Canopy

Cover (%)

10 to 25 5 to < 10 or > 25 < 5

Sagebrush Height (in) 16 to 32 8 to < 16 or > 32 < 8

Appendix F Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Assessment Framework
378 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Cover and Food Perennial Grass and

Forb Canopy Cover

(%)

≥ 15 5 to < 15 < 5

Food Preferred Forb

Availability1

Preferred forbs are

common with several

species present

Preferred forbs are

common but only a

few preferred species

are present

Preferred forbs are

rare

Note
 

1 Relative to ecological site potential.
 

Winter Habitat

Characteristics of wintering areas used by sage-grouse are relatively similar throughout the

species’ range [ISAC, 2006]. Sage-grouse generally select winter habitats based on topography,

snow depth, and the availability of sagebrush above snow level (Table D–3). Sage-grouse are

known to forage on windblown ridges and south- and west-facing aspects during late fall and

winter, in addition to lower-elevation areas of dense sagebrush [ISAC, 2006] with heights of

10-12 in (25-30 cm) above the snow. Big sagebrush dominates the diet in most portions of the

range [Patterson, 1952]; [Welch, Pederson, & Rodriquez, 1988]; [Welch, Wagstaff, & Roberson,

1991], although low sagebrush and black sagebrush are consumed in many areas depending on

availability. In the Monument, late fall and winter habitats are generally used by sage-grouse

from October 16 to March 14.

Table F.3. Winter habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories for site-scale

habitat descriptions (adapted from Connelly et al. (2000), Sather-Blair et al. (2000), and

Hagen et al. (2007)).

Life Requisite Habitat Indicator Suitable Marginal Unsuitable

Cover and Food Sagebrush Canopy

Cover (%)

≥ 10 5 to < 10 < 5

Sagebrush Height

Above Snow (in)

> 10 > 4 to < 10 ≤ 4

Appendix F Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment

Framework
Craters of the Moon National Monument 379

Draft MMP Amendment

Appendix G. Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied
 

Seasonal Habitat Methodology on Craters of
 

the Moon BLM National Monument Lands
 Overview

Greater sage-grouse select seasonal habitats within their home ranges during breeding, summer,

fall, and winter periods [Johnson, 1980]; [Connelly et al., 2004]. For many wildlife species with

large home ranges, including sage-grouse, seasonal life requisite needs differ and movement is

required to acquire shelter and forage. Their diet shifts from insects and forbs during breeding

and summer to sagebrush during late fall and winter [Connelly et al., 2004]. Sage-grouse

are generally traditional in their seasonal movement patterns [Connelly et al., 2004]. Some

sage-grouse may move long distances (>18 mi) between breeding and summer and summer and

winter habitats; others are non-migratory and tend to use areas year-round, although use areas

may differ at finer scales.

Occupied seasonal habitats for sage-grouse in the Craters of the Moon National Monument and

Preserve (the Monument) were mapped by the BLM in cooperation with the Idaho Department

of Fish and Game (IDFG). Historic and current data as well as local knowledge of sage-grouse

experts were used to help identify seasonal use areas and to determine the migratory status of the

local sage-grouse population. Three main sage-grouse seasonal use areas (breeding, summer, and

late fall-winter) were identified. In many areas of the Monument, seasonal habitats overlapped

or were occupied by sage-grouse year-round.

Future information from winter flights, telemetry, and observation data would be beneficial to

further refine the occupied habitat maps for the Monument. The products from this effort are

meant to be “working drafts” and should be updated as new information is presented.

Breeding Habitat

The breeding period for sage-grouse in the Monument typically occurs from March 15 to June 15

[North Magic Valley Sage-grouse Local Working Group (NMVLWG), 2009]. During this time,

sage-grouse attend leks to breed, prepare nutritionally for nesting, nest, and raise young chicks

[Connelly et al., 2000]. Breeding habitat is not just nesting habitat but includes all areas the birds

may use during this time. Sagebrush cover types within 11 miles (18 km) of a lek for migratory

populations and 3.1 miles (5 km) for non-migratory populations generally provide breeding

habitat for sage-grouse [Stiver et al., 2010]. The Monument appears to support both migratory

and non-migratory sage-grouse populations [NMVLWG, 2009].

Sources used to identify occupied breeding areas included: sage-grouse observations and breeding

habitat maps provided by the NMV LWG, observations in land management and wildlife agency

files, telemetry data, lek survey data, and vegetation maps (i.e., existing vegetation, Key habitat,

and field data points of ≥ 5% shrub cover collected utilizing the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment

Framework as described in Stiver et al. (2010)). Occupied breeding habitats were delineated based

largely on the presence of sagebrush, occupied leks, and/or breeding sage-grouse observation

data (primarily from telemetry studies). In general, areas within 3.1 miles of occupied leks were

mapped as occupied breeding habitat. Occupied breeding habitat was also delineated in areas

highly suspected of supporting sage-grouse breeding activities outside of the 3.1–mile lek buffer.

Appendix G Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied

Seasonal Habitat Methodology on Craters of the

Moon BLM National Monument Lands
380 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Specifically, we used GIS to overlay spatial data of sage-grouse occurrence and sagebrush

communities in and adjacent to the Monument. We used the NMVLWG spatial data, which

delineates breeding habitat across the west half of the Monument [NMVLWG, 2009]. We

combined this data with existing sagebrush communities and areas within 3.1 miles of occupied

leks (IDFG state-wide lek database, 2012) in and adjacent to the Monument. GIS shapefiles of

sage-grouse observations were also compiled from IDFG telemetry studies (Palmer, 1991-1995;

Lowe, 2004-2006; IDFG/BLM, 2012-2014), falconer GPS locations (King, 2000-2008; Skinner,

2007-2008; Greene, 2008), and BLM and other agency observation data (BLM, 1991-2013).

Finally, any remaining areas that were not already included from the ARMPA greater sage-grouse

nesting and brood-rearing GIS layer was included. Approximately 248,900 acres of BLM

Monument lands were mapped as occupied breeding habitat.

Observation and telemetry data points of sage-grouse were generally captured within the

NMVLWG breeding habitat and the occupied lek buffers. Outlying areas containing sage-grouse

observation data were also included in the occupied breeding habitat if the data was ≤ 10 years

old [Stiver et al., 2010]. Areas containing sage-grouse observation data > 10 years old remained

identified as occupied breeding habitat if sagebrush cover was ≥ 5% (considered marginal

to suitable habitat, [Stiver et al., 2010]). In addition, sagebrush and associated vegetation

communities contiguous with areas of recent known use (≤ 10 years old), which did not have

effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, were considered occupied

unless specific information existed that documented the lack of sage-grouse use [Stiver et al.,

2010]. Some of the mapped, occupied breeding areas do not currently provide suitable breeding

habitat (e.g., [Stiver et al., 2010]) for sage-grouse due to plant structure characteristics, edaphic

conditions, slope, aspect, or other factors. However, at the scale of the seasonal home range, these

areas likely provide for the life-cycle activities of the local sage-grouse population.

Areas that were not delineated as occupied breeding habitat did not contain verified sage-grouse

observations or recent lek activity. In addition, the non-delineated areas have burned numerous

times over the past 20 years and generally do not provide suitable sagebrush cover for breeding

activities. For example, portions of the NMVLWG breeding habitat map were removed from the

map of occupied breeding habitat because these areas were not contiguous with areas of recent

known use and sagebrush cover was < 5%. These areas may be incidentally used by sage-grouse

during the breeding period and could provide adequate breeding habitat in the future; however,

they likely do not currently support the local breeding population of sage-grouse.

Summer Habitat

Summer encompasses the late brood-rearing (older chicks) period when the diet of sage-grouse

includes insects and forbs in addition to sagebrush. Late brood-rearing for sage-grouse in the

Monument typically occurs from June 16 to October 15 [NMV LWG, 2009]. Sage-grouse can

occur in a variety of habitat during this time. Hens with broods are often found in mesic habitats

such as alfalfa fields, riparian meadows, and grasslands in addition to sagebrush communities

[Connelly et al., 2000]. Males can be found at higher elevations, including non-traditional habitats

such as non-forested alpine areas [NMVLWG, 2009].

Occupied summer habitats were delineated based largely on the presence of sagebrush,

brood-rearing habitat maps, and/or sage-grouse observation data ≤ 10 years old (primarily from

telemetry studies). Sources used to identify summer use areas included: sage-grouse observations

and brood-rearing habitat maps provided by the NMVLWG and the Upper Snake BLM Field

Office, observations in land management and wildlife agency files, telemetry data, and vegetation

Appendix G Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Seasonal

Habitat Methodology on Craters of the Moon BLM

National Monument Lands
Craters of the Moon National Monument 381

Draft MMP Amendment

maps (i.e., existing vegetation, Key habitat, and field data points of ≥ 5% shrub cover collected

utilizing the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework as described in Stiver et al. (2010)).

Specifically, we used GIS to overlay spatial data delineating brood-rearing habitat across the west

half of the Monument [NMVLWG, 2009] with known use areas on the east side of the Monument

(Upper Snake BLM Field Office, 2014). We combined this data with existing sagebrush

communities and areas within 1 mile of verified sage-grouse observations in and adjacent to the

Monument. GIS shapefiles of sage-grouse observations were compiled from IDFG telemetry

studies (Palmer, 1991-1995; Lowe, 2004-2006; IDFG/BLM, 2012-2014), falconer GPS locations

(King, 2000-2008; Skinner, 2007-2008; Greene, 2008), and BLM and other agency observation

data (BLM, 1991–2013). Sagebrush and associated vegetation communities contiguous with

areas of recent known use (sage-grouse locations ≤ 10 years old), which did not have effective

barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, were considered occupied unless

specific information existed that documented the lack of sage-grouse use [Stiver et al., 2010].

Areas that were not delineated as occupied summer habitat did not contain verified sage-grouse

observations. These areas may be incidentally used by sage-grouse during the brood-rearing

period and could provide adequate habitat in the future; however, they likely do not currently

support the local population of sage-grouse. Approximately 248,900 acres of BLM Monument

lands were mapped as occupied summer habitat.

Late Fall-Winter Habitat

During late fall and winter, sage-grouse are dependent on sagebrush for food and cover. Sagebrush

communities exposed above the snow or on wind-swept ridges are used by sage-grouse.

Sage-grouse typically congregate in groups and are traditional in their use of wintering areas

[Berry & Eng, 1985], although these may vary somewhat based upon weather. The late

fall-winter period for sage-grouse in the Monument typically occurs from October 16 to March 14

[NMVLWG, 2009].

The extent of occupied late fall-winter habitat was delineated based largely on the presence of

sagebrush and sage-grouse observation data ≤ 10 years old (primarily from telemetry studies).

Sources used to identify late fall-winter use areas included: sage-grouse observations and late

fall-winter habitat maps provided by the NMVLWG, observations in land management and

wildlife agency files, telemetry data, and vegetation maps (i.e., existing vegetation, Key habitat,

and field data points of ≥ 5% shrub cover collected utilizing the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment

Framework as described in Stiver et al. (2010)). Specifically, we used GIS to overlay spatial

data delineating late fall-winter habitat across the west half of the Monument [NMVLWG,

2009] with sagebrush communities in and adjacent to the Monument. We combined this data

with areas within 1 mile of verified sage-grouse observations in and adjacent to the Monument.

GIS shapefiles of sage-grouse observations were compiled from IDFG telemetry studies

(Palmer, 1991-1995; Lowe, 2004-2006; IDFG/BLM, 2012-2014), falconer GPS locations (King,

2000-2008; Skinner, 2007-2008; Greene, 2008), and BLM and other agency observation data

(BLM, 1991-2013). Approximately 204,000 acres of BLM Monument lands were mapped as

occupied late fall-winter habitat.

Areas delineated as late fall-winter habitat were comprised largely of sagebrush communities.

Perennial and annual grasslands were also included if recent late fall-winter grouse observations

(≤ 10 years old) occurred and/or pockets of sagebrush existed. For example, the area north of

the Wapi Lava Field is generally mapped as perennial grassland; however, the area contains

patches of sagebrush as well as recent late fall-winter observations of sage-grouse. Thus, portions

of this area were included in the late fall-winter habitat polygon. Areas containing sage-grouse

Appendix G Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied

Seasonal Habitat Methodology on Craters of the

Moon BLM National Monument Lands
382 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

observation data > 10 years old remained identified as occupied late fall-winter habitat if

sagebrush cover was ≥ 5%. In addition, sagebrush and associated vegetation communities

contiguous with areas of recent known use (sage-grouse locations ≤ 10 years old), which did not

have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, were considered occupied

unless specific information existed that documented the lack of sage-grouse use [Stiver et al.,

2010]. Some of the mapped, occupied late fall-winter areas do not currently provide suitable

habitat (e.g., [Stiver et al., 2010]) for sage-grouse due to plant structure characteristics, edaphic

conditions, slope, aspect, or other factors. However, at the scale of the seasonal home range, these

areas likely provide for the life-cycle activities of the local sage-grouse population. Areas that

were not delineated as occupied late fall-winter habitat did not contain verified sage-grouse

observations. These areas may be incidentally used by sage-grouse during the late fall-winter

period and could provide adequate habitat in the future; however, they likely do not currently

support the local population of sage-grouse.

Appendix G Greater Sage-Grouse Occupied Seasonal

Habitat Methodology on Craters of the Moon BLM

National Monument Lands
Craters of the Moon National Monument 383

Draft MMP Amendment

Appendix H.Idaho Standardsfor Rangeland
 

Health and Guidelinesfor Livestock Grazing
 

Management [USDI BLM, 1997]
 Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health

● Standard 1 (Watersheds)

Watersheds provide for the proper infiltration, retention, and release of water appropriate to

soil type, vegetation, climate, and landform to provide for proper nutrient cycling, hydrologic

cycling, and energy flow.

● Standard 2 (Riparian Areas and Wetlands)

Riparian-wetland areas are in proper functioning condition appropriate to soil type, climate,

geology, and landform to provide for proper nutrient cycling, hydrologic cycling, and energy

flow.

● Standard 3 (Stream Channel/Floodplain)

Stream channels and floodplains are properly functioning relative to the geomorphology (e.g.

gradient, size, shape, roughness, confinement, and sinuosity) and climate to provide for proper

nutrient cycling, hydrologic cycling, and energy flow.

● Standard 4 (Native Plant Communities)

Healthy, productive, and diverse native animal habitat and populations of native plants are

maintained or promoted as appropriate to soil type, climate, and landform to provide for proper

nutrient cycling, hydrologic cycling, and energy flow.

● Standard 5 (Seedings)

Rangelands seeded with mixtures, including predominately non-native plants, are functioning

to maintain life form diversity, production, native animal habitat, nutrient cycling, energy flow,

and the hydrologic cycle.

● Standard 6 (Exotic Plant Communities, other than Seedings)

Exotic plant communities, other than seedings, will meet minimum requirements of soil

stability and maintenance of existing native and seeded plants. These communities will be

rehabilitated to perennial communities when feasible cost effective methods are developed.

● Standard 7 (Water Quality)

Surface and ground water on public lands comply with Idaho Water Quality Standards.

● Standard 8 (Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals)

Habitats are suitable to maintain viable populations of threatened and endangered, sensitive,

and other special status species.

Appendix H Idaho Standards for Rangeland

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing

Management [USDI BLM, 1997]
384 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

● Use grazing management practices and/or facilities to maintain or promote significant progress

towards adequate amounts of ground cover (determined on an ecological site basis) to support

infiltration, maintain soil moisture storage, and stabilize soils.

● Locate livestock management facilities away from riparian areas wherever they conflict with

achieving or maintaining riparian-wetland functions.

● Use grazing management practices and/or facilities to maintain or promote soil conditions that

support water infiltration, plant vigor, and permeability rates and minimize soil compaction

appropriate to site potential.

● Implement grazing management practices that provide periodic rest or deferment during

critical growth stages to allow sufficient regrowth to achieve and maintain healthy, proper

functioning conditions, including good plant vigor and adequate vegetative cover appropriate

to site potential.

● Maintain or promote grazing management practices that provide sufficient residual vegetation

to improve, restore, or maintain healthy riparian-wetland functions and structure for energy

dissipation, sediment capture, ground water recharge, streambank stability, and wildlife habitat

appropriate to site potential.

● The development of springs, seeps, or other projects affecting water and associated resources

shall be designed to protect the ecological functions, wildlife habitat, and significant cultural

and historical/archaeological/paleontological values associated with the water source.

● Apply grazing management practices to maintain, promote, or progress toward appropriate

stream channel and streambank morphology and functions. Adverse impacts due to livestock

grazing will be addressed.

● Apply grazing management practices that maintain or promote the interaction of the hydrologic

cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow that will support the appropriate types and amounts of

soil organisms, plants, and animals appropriate to soil type, climate, and landform.

● Apply grazing management practices to maintain adequate plant vigor for seed production, seed

dispersal, and seedling survival of desired species relative to soil type, climate, and landform.

● Implement grazing management practices and/or facilities that provide for complying with

the Idaho Water Quality Standards.

● Use grazing management practices developed in recovery plans, conservation agreements, and

ESA, Section 7 consultations to maintain or improve habitat for federally listed threatened,

endangered, and sensitive plants and animals.

● Apply grazing management practices and/or facilities that maintain or promote the physical

and biological conditions necessary to sustain native plant populations and wildlife habitats in

native plant communities.

● On areas seeded predominantly with non-native plants, use grazing management practices to

maintain or promote the physical and biological conditions to achieve healthy rangelands.

Appendix H Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

[USDI BLM, 1997]
Craters of the Moon National Monument 385

Draft MMP Amendment

● Where native communities exist, the conversion to exotic communities after disturbance will

be minimized. Native species are emphasized for rehabilitating disturbed rangelands. Evaluate

whether native plants are adapted, available, and able to compete with weeds or seeded exotics.

● Use non-native plant species for rehabilitation only in those situations where:

1. native species are not readily available in sufficient quantities;

2. native plant species cannot maintain or achieve the standards; or

3. non-native plant species provide for management and protection of native rangelands.

● Include a diversity of appropriate grasses, forbs, and shrubs in rehabilitation efforts.

● On burned areas, allow natural regeneration when it is determined that populations of native

perennial shrubs, grasses, and forbs are sufficient to revegetate the site. Rest burned or

rehabilitated areas to allow recovery or establishment of perennial plant species.

● Carefully consider the effects of new management facilities (e.g., water developments, fences)

on healthy and properly functioning rangeland prior to implementation.

● Use grazing management practices, where feasible, for wildlife control and to reduce the spread

of targeted undesirable plants (e.g., cheatgrass, medusa head, wild rye, and noxious weeds)

while enhancing vigor and abundance of desirable native or seeded species.

● Employ grazing management practices that promote natural forest regeneration and protect

reforestation projects until the Idaho Forest Practices Act requirements for timber stand

replacement are met.

● Design management fences to minimize adverse impacts, such as habitat fragmentation, to

maintain habitat integrity and connectivity for native plants and animals.

Appendix H Idaho Standards for Rangeland

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing

Management [USDI BLM, 1997]
This page intentionally

left blank
Craters of the Moon National Monument 387

Draft MMP Amendment

Appendix I. Socioeconomic Reference and
 

Data Tables
 

I.1. Economic Model

The model used in calculating the regional economic effects of changes in permitted range

AUMs implements a partial-budgeting, marginal analysis approach to economic analysis of an

agricultural enterprise. The model is based on a series of assumptions related to both market

conditions and how the affected ranches might respond to changes in AUMs given those

conditions, as outlined below.

The AUMs used as the baseline for comparison in the model are taken from current active AUMs

listed in the descriptions of the alternatives. AUMs and months of use for each alternative were

plugged into the model to evaluate the economic effects of the increase or decrease in AUMs

that would occur if a specific alternative were implemented.

In the analysis, it is assumed that the maximum AUMs permitted in any given month on the

allotment serve as the limiting factor in determining the maximum size of the herd from which

annual production can be obtained. The total supported number of animal units (AUs) is set by

the number of range AUMs divided by the number of months on the allotment. In other words, an

allotment with 180 permitted AUMs spread over 6 months would be able to support no more than

30 animal units, and the size of the herd is assumed to be constant throughout the year, regardless

of how many months the herd grazes on the allotment being evaluated. For the purposes of this

analysis, it is assumed that cattle are grazed on the Monument for an average of 7 months each

year. For cattle, each animal unit is assumed to be equal to one cow-calf pair. For sheep, each

animal unit is assumed to be equal to five ewes, with or without lambs.

Under each alternative, if the total number of AUs decreases it is assumed that the rancher will sell

the excess livestock (either internally within the overall ranch operation, or externally at auction)

at a sale weight of 1100 pounds and a sale price of $0.64 per pound for cattle, and at a price of

$7.81 each for sheep. It is also assumed that the rancher will invest or save the proceeds from the

sale at a rate of return or interest rate of 2%. Although under current financial market conditions

a rancher might be able to realize a much higher rate of return, 2% is a reasonable rate to use

under the assumption that ranchers would prefer to put revenue into relatively safe, conservative

investments. In the model, the proceeds from selling excess cattle are annualized as a stream of

revenue over ten years. This revenue stream is added to the overall net revenue associated with

the allotment. The mathematical model includes a provision for evaluating cases in which rather

than selling excess animals, a rancher chooses to retain them and feed them elsewhere. Because of

limited information and complexities regarding assumptions about the actual business decisions

that ranchers might make, this type of case was not included in the completed analyses.

If the total number of AUs increases under an alternative, it is assumed that the rancher will

purchase additional cattle under the same conditions as outlined above for excessed cattle. The

cost of additional cattle is annualized over ten years as a stream of costs, added to overall

operating costs for the allotment.

In the model, it is assumed that ranchers will realize a 90% success rate in taking calves to market.

In other words, 90% of cow-calf pairs will result in a calf being sold at the end of the summer

Appendix I Socioeconomic Reference and Data Tables

Economic Model
388 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

season. Sold animals are equal to total AUs x 0.9. This calculation assumes that bulls are not

included in the total number of AUs on range. The model assumes that calf sale weights will

average 490 lbs. The market price for calves is an estimate based on recent regional cattle market

data and is assumed to be $2.35, based on samples from various recent prices for feeder steers.1

This is a somewhat high market price which has likely been caused by drought, blizzard, and

other unusual conditions in cattle-producing regions of the U.S.

Returns data for sheep were taken from University of Idaho Extension enterprise budget data. It is

assumed that ranchers will realize a 92% success rate in taking lambs to market.

The annual herd maintenance costs used in the model are derived from standard national cost

figures for grazing on public land and include veterinary bills, anticipated mortality losses,

vaccination supplies, etc.2On public land, the standard cost of herd maintenance is estimated at

$18.54 per AUM. The annual cost of moving the herd is also derived from the standard national

cost figures for grazing on public land and includes the cost of trailing and/or trucking animals

between pastures, allotments, and/or ranch headquarters as well as herding costs. It also includes

the value of the rancher's time plus all herding-related wages and expenses. Current typical costs

for trucking range from $2.50 to $3.00 per mile per truck, regardless of the number of animals in

the load. On public land, the standard cost of herd moving is estimated at $14.69 per AUM.

The grazing permit cost used in the model is $1.69 per AUM. Expected annual revenue includes

proceeds from calf sales and any revenue stream derived from the sale of excess cattle or

sheep. Expected annual costs include herd maintenance costs, herd moving costs, and grazing

permit costs. The model does not include ranch operations’ fixed costs, costs or returns on land

investments, or depreciation. The mathematical model provides the ability to include investments

in fixed infrastructure on range allotments as part of the overall economic analysis. Infrastructure

costs were not, however, included in the completed economic analysis for this document. Total

expected annual net revenue in the model equals expected annual revenue minus expected annual

costs. Ten-year net revenue equals expected annual net revenue over ten years, discounted at 3%

to determine a present value.

1Source: www.cattle.com, accessed on 11/19/2015.
 2Source: Grazing Costs: What’s the Current Situation? Neil Rimbey and L. Allen Torell, University of Idaho, 2011.
 

http://web.cals.uidaho.edu/idahoagbiz/files/2013/01/GrazingCost2011.pdf
 

Appendix I Socioeconomic Reference and Data

Tables

Economic Model
Craters of the Moon National Monument 389

Draft MMP Amendment

Figure I.1. Sample illustration showing a portion of Excel-based grazing economics marginal

impact calculation worksheet. (Full spreadsheet available upon request.)

I.2. AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage

The “cost” of forage on public land is not $1.69. This is a misconception that is widely shared

among people who are unaware of how the grazing fee is determined. It is not a proxy for

the value per AUM of public forage. It is actually a means of leveling the economic playing

field between those who have access to public grazing and those who don’t within the livestock

industry. It is just slightly less expensive to operate on public land when all inputs are taken into

consideration. In order to prevent operators who hold public land allotments from enjoying

a market advantage over those operators who do not have access to public grazing, a fee (our

grazing fee) is calculated and levied to make approximate total costs equal between public and

private land operations. The fee is calculated in AUMs for convenience, but it actually has nothing

to do, on a direct basis, with the value of an AUM of forage. It’s unfortunate that there is such a

widespread misunderstanding about this issue. It leads many people to believe that somehow

operators who hold public land allotments are getting a special deal. In reality, other costs are

much larger for them than those faced by operators on private pasture.

Please read more about this in the published source by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Extension, Corn Husker Economics, June 27, 2012. Corn Husker Economics

Appendix I Socioeconomic Reference and Data Tables

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
This page intentionally

left blank
Craters of the Moon National Monument 391

Draft MMP Amendment

Appendix J. Glossary
 

Actual Use:	 Where, how many, what kind or class of livestock, and how long

livestock graze on an allotment, or a portion or pasture of an

allotment.

Allotment:	 An area of land designated and managed for grazing of livestock

(43 CFR 4100.0–5, 2005).

Allotment Management	 A documented program developed as an activity plan, that focuses

Plan (AMP):	 on and contains the necessary instructions for the management

of livestock grazing on specified public lands to meet resource

condition, sustained yield, multiple use, economic and other

objectives (43 CFR 4100.0–5, 2005).

Animal Unit Month	 The amount of forage required to sustain one mature cow or the

(AUM):	 equivalent (e.g., five sheep or five goats), for a period of one month

(43 CFR 4100.0–5, 2005).

Area of Critical	 An area of public lands where special management attention is

Environmental Concern	 required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important

(ACEC):	 historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources; or

other natural systems or processes, or to protect humans from

natural hazards.

a’a:	 A Hawaiian term for basaltic lava flows that are typically rough and

jagged with a clinkery surface.

Biological Soil Crust:	 A complex mosaic of mosses, lichens, algae, cyanobacteria, and

fungi that occupies the soil surface in arid and semiarid plant

communities. These organisms weave through the soil and

essentially glue the surface particles together, forming a protective

coating against erosive forces.

Breeding Habitat:	 Leks and the sagebrush habitat surrounding leks that are collectively

used for pre-laying, breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing,

from approximately March through June.

Candidate Species:	 Species not protected under the Endangered Species Act but under

consideration by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for inclusion on

the list of federally threatened or endangered species.

Carbon Sequestration:	 The removal and storage of carbon from the atmosphere in

carbon sinks (such as oceans, forests or soils) through physical or

biological processes, such as photosynthesis.

Climax Vegetation:	 The final vegetation community and highest ecological development

of a plant community that emerges after a series of successive

vegetational stages. The climax community perpetuates itself

indefinitely unless disturbed by outside forces.

Appendix J Glossary

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
392 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Cultural Resource:

Desired Future

Condition:

Diversity (Species):

Early Brood-Rearing

Habitat:

Ecological Succession:

Endangered Species:

Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS):

Ethnographic Resource:

Exotic Species:

Fall Habitat:

Fire Suppression:

Appendix J Glossary

Draft MMP Amendment

The fragile and nonrenewable remains of human activity that are

found in historic districts, sites, buildings, and artifacts and that are

important in past and present human events.

Used to describe the future condition of resources to meet

management objectives. Desired future condition is based on

ecological, social, and economic considerations during the land and

resource management planning process.

(1) The absolute number of species in a community, species

richness; and (2) a measure of the number of species and their

relative abundance in a community; low diversity refers to few

species or unequal abundance, high diversity to many species, or

equal abundance.

Upland sagebrush sites relatively close to nest sites, typically

characterized by high species richness with an abundance of forbs

and insects, where sage-grouse hens raise young chicks (<21 days

old).

An ecosystem’s gradual evolution to a stable state or climax. If

through the ability of its populations and elements, an ecosystem

can absorb changes, it tends to persist and become stable through

time.

Any animal or plant species that is in danger of extinction

throughout all of a significant portion of its range. These species

are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under provisions

of the Endangered Species Act.

A detailed written statement that is required by the National

Environmental Policy Act for a proposed major federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The

findings from the document are published in a Record of Decision.

A site, structure, object, landscape, or natural resource feature

assigned traditional, legendary, religious, subsistence, or other

significance in the cultural system of a group traditionally

associated with it.

An animal or plant species that is not a part of an area’s original

fauna or flora.

The matrix of sagebrush habitat areas that sage-grouse slowly

move through from September through November, transitioning

from summer habitat to winter habitat, and shifting their diet

from including large amounts of forbs to feeding exclusively on

sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2000).

All work and activities associated with fire extinguishing

operations, beginning with the discovery and continuing until the

fire is completely extinguished.

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
Craters of the Moon National Monument 393

Draft MMP Amendment

Forb:

Functional At-Risk:

Governmentto-Government

Consultation:

Grazing Permit:

Habitat Suitability:

Important Wildlife

Habitat:

Indicator:

Inholding:

Integrated Weed

Management (IWM):

A broad-leaved plant (herb) whose stem does not produce woody,

persistent tissue and generally dies back at the end of each growing

season, such as arrowleaf balsamroot.

A riparian-wetland area that is in functional condition, but has

at least one attribute or process that makes it susceptible to

degradation.

The active, affirmative process between agencies of the federal

government and tribal governments under the laws of the United

States. Tribal governments are considered domestic sovereignties

with primary and independent jurisdictions over tribal lands.

Consultation consists of: (1) identifying and seeking input from

appropriate Native American governing bodies, community

groups and individuals; and (2) considering their interests as a

necessary and integral part of the decision-making process. The

aim of consultation is to involve affected Native Americans in the

identification of issues and the definition of the range of acceptable

management options.

A document authorizing use of the public lands within an

established grazing district. Grazing permits specify all authorized

use including livestock grazing, suspended use, and conservation

use. Permits specify the total number of AUMs apportioned, the

area authorized for grazing use, or both (43 CFR 4100.0–5, 2005).

The relative appropriateness of a certain ecological area for meeting

the life requirements of an organism (i.e., food, shelter, water,

space).

Big game crucial winter range, big game parturition areas,

designated critical migration corridors, sage-grouse breeding and

nesting areas, raptor concentration areas, and critical fish spawning

areas.

Components or attributes of an ecosystem that can be observed

and/or measured that provides evidence of the function,

productivity, health and/or condition of the ecosystem.

A non-Federal parcel of land that is completely surrounded by

Federal land.

A balanced approach to managing resources including the following

processes: prevention, inventory, control, monitoring, and

reporting. With IWM the actions include preventing weeds from

invading; proper identification and knowledge of invasive weed

species; inventory, mapping, and monitoring of weed populations

and damage. Weed control decisions are based on knowing

potential damage, cost of control method, and environmental

impact of the weed and control decision; using control strategies

that may include a combination of methods to reduce the weed

Appendix J Glossary

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
394 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Invasive Species:

Isolated Habitat:

Key Habitats:

Kipuka:

Late Brood-Rearing

Habitat:

Lava Tube:

Lek:

Lithic Scatter:

Litter:

Livestock

Developments:

Livestock or Kind of

Livestock:

Marginal Habitat :

Appendix J Glossary

Draft MMP Amendment

population to an acceptable level; and, evaluating the effectiveness

and effects of management decisions.

In this document, the definition for this term is “a plant or animal

species (typically non-native) that rapidly spreads into or displaces

a desirable native species or community.” [Exception: An “invasive

species,” as defined in Executive Order 13112, is a species that is

(1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration, and

(2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or

environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive species can

be plants, animals, and other organisms (e.g., microbes)].

Isolated habitats are a subset of Key habitat that support relatively

small sage-grouse populations. Isolated habitats are separated from

other Key habitat by developed land or unsuitable habitat, such as

farmland, forests, or grassland.

Key habitats contain generally large-scale, intact sagebrush steppe

areas that provide sage-grouse habitat during some portion of the

year.

< kee’ poo ka > Hawaiian word meaning “key”, or opening such as

for a door. A mound of older land, usually covered by vegetation,

which is surrounded by a younger lava flow.

Variety of habitats used by sage-grouse from July through

September. Habitats used include, but not limited to, meadows,

farmland, riparian areas, dry lakebeds, and sagebrush areas.

Subterranean openings that form when the surface of flowing lava

congeals forming a crust. Insulated from the cooling air, the lava

underneath the solidified crust continues to flow. As the lava

eruption ceases, the tube drains, and a large tubular cave may be left.

An assembly area where birds, especially sage-grouse, carry on

display and courtship behavior.

Pertaining to or composed of stone tool scatter; a form of an

archeological resource.

Dead plant or animal material on the soil surface.

See Range Improvements.

Species of domestic livestock-cattle, sheep horses, burros, and

goats (43 CFR 4100.0–5, 2005).

Area supports the species, but survival rates and reproductive

success are generally lower by comparison, and the area may

or may not have the potential to become suitable in the future

(Cooperrider et al. 1986).

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
Craters of the Moon National Monument 395

Draft MMP Amendment

Multiple Use

Management:

The definition of multiple use is defined in the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act of 1976 as follows: The management of

the public lands and their various resource values so that they

are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present

and future needs of the American people; making the most

judicious use of the land for some or all of these resource or

related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient

latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform with changing

needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the

resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses

that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations

for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not

limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife

and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historic values; and

harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources

without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and

the quality of the environment with consideration being given

to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the

combination of the uses that will give the greatest economic return

or the greatest output.

National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA):

National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP):

The federal law that established a national policy for the

environment and requires federal agencies to (1) become aware

of the environmental ramifications of their proposed actions, (2)

fully disclose to the public proposed federal actions and provide a

mechanism for public input to federal decision-making, and (3)

prepare environmental impact statements for every major action that

would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

The official list, established by the National Historic Preservation

Act, of the nation’s cultural resources worthy of preservation. The

national register lists archeological, historic, and architectural

properties (districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects)

nominated for their local, state, or national significance by state and

federal agencies and approved by the national register staff.

Native American Requires Federal Agencies to inventory human remains and

Graves Protection associated funerary objects in existing federal museum collections

and Repatriation Act and to provide culturally affiliated tribes with the inventory of

(NAGPRA): collections. The act also requires repatriation, on request, to the

culturally affiliated tribes.

Native American Tribe:	 Any indigenous cultural group in the conterminous United States

that the Secretary of the Interior recognizes as possessing tribal

status, i.e. federally recognized (listed annually in the Federal

Register).

Native Species:	 Plants or animals indigenous to the area.

Nesting Habitat:	 Area with protective grass and high lateral shrub cover where hens

nest, typically under sagebrush shrubs (Connelly et al., 2000).

Appendix J Glossary

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
396 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Nonfunctional :

Non-habitat:

Noxious Weeds:

Occupied Habitat

(Greater Sage-Grouse) :

Pahoehoe:

Perennial Stream:

Permitted Use:

Permittee:

Pictograph:

Pioneer Plants:

Playa:

Pleistocene Age:

Population :

Appendix J Glossary

Draft MMP Amendment

A riparian-wetland area that clearly does not provide adequate

vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate energies

associated with high flow, and thus does not reduce erosion,

improve water quality, etc.

Area within the historical distribution of sage-grouse that is

unoccupied, does not currently provide habitat, and does not have

the potential to provide habitat in the foreseeable future (<100

years).

According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Public Law 93-629),

a weed that causes adverse effects on humans and their environment

and is therefore detrimental to public health and the agriculture and

commerce of the United States.

All sagebrush and associated plant communities known to be used

by sage-grouse within the last 10 years. Sagebrush areas contiguous

with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to

sage-grouse movement from known use areas, are considered

occupied unless specific information exists that documents the lack

of sage-grouse use (Stiver et. al., 2010).

A Hawaiian term for a basaltic lava flow that has a smooth, billowy,

or ropy surface.

A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams generally are

associated with a water table in the localities through which they

flow.

The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable

land use plan for livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or

lease and is expressed in AUMs (43 CFR 4100.0–5, 2005).

A person or organization legally permitted to graze a specific

number and class of livestock on designated areas of public land

during specified seasons each year.

Aboriginally painted designs on natural rock surfaces.

Plants that establish themselves first on disturbed areas or bare soil.

An area of flat, dried-up land, especially a desert basin from which

water evaporates quickly.

The latest major geological epoch from 11,000 to 2 million years

ago, the time of human evolution. Also known as the “Ice Age” due

to the multiple expansion and retreat of glaciers.

A collection of organisms of the same species that freely share

genetic material (i.e., breed).

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
Craters of the Moon National Monument 397

Draft MMP Amendment

Potential Habitat :

Prescribed Fire:

Proper Functioning

Condition (PFC) :

Public Land:

Range Improvements:

Rangeland:

Raptor:

Record of Decision
 

(ROD):
 

Reference State:
 

Area is currently unoccupied, but has the potential for occupancy

in the foreseeable future (<100 years), through succession or

restoration.

A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific

objectives identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan

for which NEPA requirements (where applicable) have been met

prior to ignition.

A riparian-wetland area in which adequate vegetation or other

structure components are present to dissipate energy, reduce erosion

and improve water quality, filter sediment and aid in floodplain

development, improve flood-water retention and ground-water

recharge, stabilize streambanks and shorelines, develop diverse

ponding and channel characteristics for fish and wildlife habitat

among other things, and support greater biodiversity.

Any land or interest in land owned by the United States and

administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau

of Land Management, without regard to how the United States

acquired ownership, except for (1) land located on the Outer

Continental Shelf and (2) land held for the benefit of American

Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.

An authorized physical modification or treatment which is designed

to improve production of forage; change vegetation composition;

control patterns of use; provide water; stabilize soil and water

conditions; restore, protect, and improve the condition of rangeland

ecosystems to benefit livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish

and wildlife. The term includes, but is not limited to structures,

treatment projects, and use of mechanical devices or modifications

achieved through mechanical means (43 CFR 4100.0–5, 2005).

Land on which the potential natural vegetation is predominantly

grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or

browsing. It includes natural grasslands, savannas, many wetlands,

some deserts, tundra, and areas that support certain forb and shrub

communities.

Bird of prey with sharp talons and a strongly curved beak, such as

hawks, falcons, owls, vultures, and eagles.

A document signed by a responsible official recording a decision

that was preceded by the preparation of an environment impact

statement.

The state where the functional capacities represented by soil/site

stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity are performing at

an optimum level under the natural disturbance regime. This state

usually includes, but is not limited to, what is often referred to as

the potential natural plant community (NTT, 2011).

Appendix J Glossary

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
398 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Restoration Habitats

(R1, R2, and R3):

Rift Zone:

Right-of-Way (ROW):

Riparian Areas:

Sacred Site:

Sagebrush Obligates:

Sagebrush Steppe

Community:

Section 106

Consultation:

Restoration habitats have the potential to provide sage-grouse

habitat in the future. These are sagebrush steppe areas that have

been converted to grassland or woodland or are in the successional

process of converting to woodland. These areas are located in

close proximity to Key or Source habitats. Data indicate that

sage-grouse historically occupied these areas and may still utilize

some sporadically, such as during migrations. Restoration habitats

have a high likelihood of being reoccupied if habitat suitability

improves. Specifically, R1 lands are sagebrush-limited areas

with acceptable understory conditions in terms of grass species

composition. R2 lands are areas dominated or strongly influenced

by invasive annuals such as cheatgrass, medusahead rye, or similar

species. Areas with sagebrush may or may not be present, but in

general, understories are not suitable for sage-grouse. R3 lands are

areas where junipers and/or other conifers are encroaching into

sage-grouse habitat areas.

Area characterized by an open volcanic fissure.

A permit or an easement that authorizes the use of public land

for certain specified purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads,

telephone lines, electric lines, and reservoirs. It is also the reference

to the land covered by such an easement or permit.

An area that is saturated or inundated at a frequency and duration

sufficient to produce vegetation typically adapted for life in

saturated soil conditions.

Any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on federal

land that is identified by a Native American tribe, or Native

American individual determined to be appropriately authoritative

representative of a Native American religion, as sacred by virtue

of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, a

Native American religion.

Species restricted to sagebrush habitats during the breeding season

or year round.

A semi-arid plant community that is characterized by a

predominance of big sagebrush and other sagebrush species, plus

grasses and forbs.

Also known as the 36 CFR 800 process. Discussions between

a federal agency official and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officer, and other

interested parties concerning historic properties that could be

affected by a specific undertaking. Section 106 is the portion of the

National Historic Preservation Act that outlines the procedure. The

procedure is codified in 36 CFR 800.

Appendix J Glossary

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
Craters of the Moon National Monument 399

Draft MMP Amendment

Section 110:

Sensitive Species:

Source Habitat:

Special Status Species:

State and Transition

Models:

Subpopulation:

Successional Stage:

Suitable Habitat:

Summer Habitat:

The section of the National Historic Preservation Act that requires

federal agencies to complete cultural resources surveys and reports

for all its lands and existing projects.

Species requiring special management consideration to promote

their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future

listing under the ESA, which are designated as Bureau sensitive

by the State Director(s). All Federal candidate species, proposed

species, and delisted species in the 5 years following delisting will

be conserved as Bureau sensitive species.

Source habitats are a subset of Key habitat that support concentrated

sage-grouse populations. Source habitats are also commonly

referred to as population strongholds. Data indicate that sage-grouse

populations in Source habitats have been generally stable or

increasing since the drought of the early 1990s.

Wildlife and plant species that are either federally listed as

threatened or endangered, proposed threatened or endangered,

candidate species, state-listed as threatened or endangered, listed

by a Bureau of Land Management State Director as sensitive or

determined priority, or listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

as a focal species or bird species of conservation concern.

State and transition models are a component of Ecological Site

Descriptions available from the NRCS. These include a departure

from the reference plant community described for each ecological

site, and vary depending on past disturbance and vegetation

responses. States include continuous and reversible vegetation

dynamics, while “discontinuous and nonreversible dynamics

occur when thresholds are surpassed and one stable state replaces

another.” (Briske, Fuhlendorf, & Smeins, 2005)

A portion of a population in a specific geographic location.

A stage of development of a plant community with another.

Conditions of the prior plant community (or successional stage)

create conditions that are favorable for the establishment of the

next stage.

Area provides environmental conditions necessary for successful

survival and reproduction to sustain stable populations (Cooperrider

et al. 1986, Morrison et al. 1998).

The summer or late brood-rearing period from July through August,

when hens and chicks use a variety of moist and mesic habitats

where succulent forbs and insects are found in close proximity to

sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2000).

Appendix J Glossary

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
400 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

Threatened and

Endangered Species:

Traditional Cultural

Properties:

Traditional Lifeway

Values:

Treaty:

Trust Responsibility

(also referred to as

fiduciary responsibility):

Understory:

Unsuitable Habitat:

Upland Habitat:

Utilization:

Valid Existing Rights:

Appendix J Glossary

As defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(Public Law 93-205; 87 Stat. 884), an endangered species means

“any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or

a significant portion of its range” and threatened species means

“any species which is likely to become an endangered species

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion

of its range.” Whether a species is threatened or endangered is

determined by the following factors: (1) present or threatened

destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)

over-utilization for commercial, sporting, scientific, or educational

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors.

A cultural property that is eligible for inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places because of its association with a living

community’s cultural practices or beliefs that (a) are rooted in

that community’s history and (b) are important in maintaining the

community’s continuing cultural identity.

Values that are important for maintaining a group’s traditional

system of religious belief, cultural practice, or social interaction.

A formal agreement between the United States and one or more

Native American tribes. Typically, these arrangements ceded lands

to the United States, reserving certain rights, privileges, and/or

lands to the Native American signatories.

The trust responsibility of the United States, executed through

the Secretary of the Interior, to uphold obligations of the federal

government to federally recognized Native American tribes.

Herbaceous plant components, including grasses and forbs, which

grow beneath the overstory in a stand of woody shrubs; or the

herbaceous and woody shrubs growing beneath the overstory in a

stand of trees.

Area does not currently provide one or more of the life requisites,

and therefore does not provide habitat, but may provide habitat

some time in the foreseeable future (<100 years), through

succession or restoration.

An area that is not inundated with water and typically supports

vegetation types adapted to life in non-saturated soil conditions.

The proportion or degree of the current year’s forage production

that is consumed or destroyed by animals (including insects). The

term may refer either to a single plant species, a group of species,

or to the vegetation community as a whole..

Locatable mineral development rights that existed when the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) was enacted on

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
Craters of the Moon National Monument 401

Draft MMP Amendment

Way:

Wetland:

Wilderness Area:

Wilderness Inventory:

Wilderness Study Area

(WSA):

Wildfire:

Wildland Fire Use:

Winter Habitat:

Withdrawal:

October 21, 1976. Some areas are segregated from entry and

location under the Mining Law to protect certain values or allow

certain uses. Mining claims that existed as of the effective date

of the segregation may still be valid if they can meet the test of

discovery of a valuable mineral required under the Mining Law.

Determining the validity of mining claims located in segregated

lands requires the Bureau of Land Management to conduct a validity

examination and is called a “valid existing right” determination.

A road-like feature created and used by vehicles having four or

more wheels, but not declared a road by the owner and that receives

no maintenance to guarantee regular and continuous use.

Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at

a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and which under

normal circumstances support a prevalence of vegetation typically

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

An area of federal land designated by the United States Congress

and defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964 as a place “where the

earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where

man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Designation is

aimed at ensuring that these lands are preserved and protected in

their natural condition. Wilderness areas, which are generally at

least 5,000 acres or more in size, offer outstanding opportunities for

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; such areas

may also contain ecological, geological, or other features that have

scientific, scenic, or historical value.

A written description of resource information and accompanying

map of those public lands that meet the wilderness criteria as

established under Section 603(a) of the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act and Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act.

An area designated by a federal agency as having wilderness

characteristics, thus making it worthy of consideration by Congress

for wilderness designation.

Unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such as a fire caused by

lightning, volcanoes, unauthorized and accidental human-caused

fires) and escaped prescribed fires.

A naturally ignited fire allowed to burn under designated conditions

to meet resource management objectives.

Sagebrush habitats that provide access to sagebrush above the snow

for all food and cover requisite needs (Connelly et al. 2000).

Removal or “withholding” of public lands from operation of some

or all of the public land laws (settlement, sale, mining, and or

mineral leasing). An action that restricts the use or disposal of

Appendix J Glossary

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
402 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

public lands, segregating the land from the operation of some or

all of the public land and/or mineral laws and holding it for a

specific public purpose. Withdrawals may also be used to transfer

jurisdiction of management to other federal agencies

Appendix J Glossary

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
Craters of the Moon National Monument 403

Draft MMP Amendment

Appendix K. Abbreviations and Acronyms
 ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AMP: Allotment Management Plan

ARMPA: Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

ATV: All Terrain Vehicle

AUM: Animal Unit Month

BLM: Bureau of Land Management

BMP: Best Management Practice

BSU: Biologically Significant Unit

CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality

CFR: Code of Federal Regulation

CHHR: Core Herd Home Range

CRMP: Cultural Resource Management Plan

DFC: Desired Future Condition

EA: Environmental Assessment

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

ERMA: Extensive Recreation Management Area

ES & BAR: Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation

ESA: Endangered Species Act

ESD: Ecological Site Description

FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement

FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FMDA: Fire Management Direction Amendment

FMP: Fire Management Plan

FY: fiscal year

GHG: Greenhouse Gas

GHMA: General Habitat Management Area

Appendix K Abbreviations and Acronyms

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
404 Craters of the Moon National Monument

Draft MMP Amendment

GIS: Geographic Information System

GPS: Global Positioning System

GRSG: Greater Sage-Grouse

IDEQ: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

IDFG: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

IDL: Idaho Department of Lands

IDPR: Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation

IHMA: Important Habitat Management Area

IMP: Interim Management Policy

INHP: Idaho Natural Heritage Program

LHA: Land Health Assessment

MBTA: Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MMP: Monument Management Plan

Monument: Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding

NAGPRA: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act

NMVLWG: North Magic Valley Local Working Group

NOI: Notice of Intent

NPA: National Programmatic Agreement

NPS: National Park Service

NRCS: National Resource Conservation Service

NWI: National Wetlands Inventory

NWIPS: Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Species

OHV: Off Highway Vehicle

PESRP: Programmatic Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan

PFC: Proper Functioning Condition

PHMA: Priority Habitat Management Area

Appendix K Abbreviations and Acronyms

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage
Craters of the Moon National Monument 405

Draft MMP Amendment

PILT: Payment in Lieu of Taxes

R&VS: Recreation and Visitor Services

RAC: Resource Advisory Council

RMP: Resource Management Plan

ROW: Right-of-way

RV: Recreational Vehicle

SFA: Sagebrush Focal Area

SHPO: State Historic Preservation Office

SPA: State Protocol Agreement

SRMA: Special Recreation Management Area

TFD: Twin Falls District

US: United States

USC: United States Code

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture

USDI: United States Department of the Interior

USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS: United States Geological Survey

VRM: Visual Resource Management

WAFWA: Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

WNv: West Nile virus

WSA: Wilderness Study Area

Appendix K Abbreviations and Acronyms

AUMs and Concept of Cost of Forage