Idaho 

Proposed Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Craters of the Moon 

National Monument and Preserve 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

July 2005 

Dear Reader: 

Enclosed for your inspection is the Proposed Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (Proposed 

Plan/FEIS) for the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve (Monument). This Proposed Plan/FEIS sets 

forth the management direction for approximately 740,000 acres of public lands located on the Snake River Plain of 

Southern Idaho that are cooperatively managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park 

Service (NPS). 

BLM and NPS published a Notice of Intent to prepare the plan and associated EIS in the April 24, 2002 Federal 

Register. The agencies then solicited public input and developed four management alternatives, including a No Action 

alternative and three action alternatives that provided different strategies for managing the Monument in the future. 

These alternatives were presented and analyzed in the Draft Plan/EIS. A Notice of Availability for the Draft Plan/EIS 

was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2004, and copies of the Draft Plan/EIS were made available to the 

public through several outlets. Alternative D was identified as the Preferred Alternative in that document. 

This document, the Proposed Plan/FEIS, presents an overview of the planning process and planning issues, describes 

all alternatives and their associated impacts, summarizes public comment received on the Draft Plan/EIS, and provides 

responses to the substantive issues raised. Alternative D, which is identified as the Proposed Plan, is largely based on 

the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D) presented in the Draft Plan/EIS. However, the Proposed Plan adopts several 

recommendations received from the public to increase the amount of Pristine Zone and reduce the amount of Passage 

Zone in the selected alternative. It also incorporates clarifications and additions recommended by reviewers regarding 

various management actions, including those relating to transportation, access, grazing allotments, and fi re history. 

Many of these recommendations incorporated select portions of Alternatives A, B, and C in the Draft Plan/EIS into the 

Proposed Plan (Alternative D) presented in this document. 

BLM and NPS appreciate the large amount and high quality of public involvement that has taken place throughout this 

planning process. We believe that this Proposed Plan/FEIS represents a collaborative effort that would not have been 

possible without the participation of the public, state and local governments, and consultation with tribal governments. 

Once adopted, the Proposed Plan/FEIS will become the Final Management Plan and will serve as the guiding 

management strategy for the Monument. It will provide a framework for proactive decision-making, including 

decisions regarding visitor use and preserving natural and cultural resources. The Final Management Plan will provide 

overall guidance under which more detailed activities are conducted or implementation plans are prepared. 

This Proposed Plan/FEIS is open for a 30-day no-action/protest period beginning with the date the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the notice of availability of the FEIS in the Federal Register. During this period, 

neither the NPS nor the BLM will take action to implement the plan. However, the portion of the Proposed Plan/FEIS 

that addresses BLM-administered lands within the Monument may be protested by any person who participated in the 

planning process and who has an interest that may be adversely affected by approval of the Proposed Plan/FEIS. A 

protest may raise only those issues that were submitted for the record during the planning process (see Code of Federal 

Regulations 1610.5-2). Protests must be filed with the Director, Bureau of Land Management. 
Regular mail protests and overnight mail should be sent to: Director, Bureau of Land Management (210) Attention 

– Brenda Hudgens-Williams, 1620 L Street, Suite 1075, Washington, D.C. 20036. Emailed and fax protests will not be 

accepted as valid protests unless the protesting party also provides the original letter by either regular or overnight mail 

postmarked by the close of the protest period. Under these conditions, BLM will consider the emailed or faxed protest 

as an advance copy and it will receive full consideration. If you wish to provide BLM with such advance notifi cation, 

please direct faxed protests to the attention of the BLM protest coordinator at 202-452-5112, and emails to Brenda_ 

Hudgens-Williams@blm.gov. 

All protests must be written and must be postmarked on or before the 30th day following publication by EPA of the 

Notice of Availability in the Federal Register and contain the following information: 

• The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing the protest; 

• A statement of the issue or issues being protested; 

• A statement of the part or parts of the document being protested; 

• A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues previously submitted during the planning process 

by the protesting party, or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the record; and 

• A concise statement explaining precisely why the decision presented in the Proposed Plan/FEIS is believed 

to be wrong. 

The Director, Bureau of Land Management, will promptly render a decision on the protest. The decision will be in 

writing and will be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The decision of the Director 

shall be fi nal. 

Although the NPS does not include a formal protest period in its procedures, anyone who wishes to communicate a 

particular concern with the Proposed Plan/FEIS before a final decision is rendered may write to the Regional Director, 

Pacific West Region, National Park Service, 1111 Jackson Street, Suite 700, Oakland, CA 94607. 

Upon resolution of any protests, the plan will be approved and a Record of Decision will be issued. The Final 

Management Plan/Record of Decision will be mailed to all individuals who participated in this planning process and all 

other interested publics upon their request. 

Sincerely, 

James A. Morris Rick Vander Voet 

Superintendent Monument Manager 

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Craters of the Moon National Monument 

National Park Service Bureau of Land Management 
SUMMARY

The purpose of this Proposed Management Plan/ 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (Proposed 

Plan/FEIS) for Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve (Monument) is to provide land 

use direction for both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS) at 

the Monument. The approved plan will provide the 

framework for making decisions about managing the 

natural and cultural resources, visitor use, development, and operations so that future opportunities 

and problems can be addressed effectively. 

On November 9, 2000, Presidential Proclamation 

7373 expanded Craters of the Moon National Monument from approximately 54,000 acres to more than 

750,000 acres. The Proclamation and subsequent 

U.S. Department of the Interior direction instructed 

the BLM and NPS to co-manage the Monument and 

jointly prepare a land use plan. A Notice of Intent for 

the Plan/EIS was published in the Federal Register 

on April 24, 2002. On August 21, 2002, Public 

Law 107-213 re-designated the NPS portion of the 

expanded Monument as a National Preserve. The 

BLM National Monument, original NPS National 

Monument, and NPS National Preserve are simply 

referred to as “the Monument.” 

Once approved, the Management Plan will replace 

portions of four existing BLM land use plans and 

entirely replace the NPS Craters of the Moon National Monument General Management Plan (GMP) 

(1992). NPS and BLM use slightly different land 

use planning processes. NPS units typically operate 

under a GMP, while BLM areas operate under a 

Resource Management Plan (RMP). This marriage 

between NPS and BLM represents a need to design 

a unique planning process, which will produce 

an effective, single, stand-alone, comprehensive 

Management Plan for the entire Monument. 

ISSUES ADDRESSED 

Five major issues were identified during public 

scoping and were subsequently used in developing 

alternatives for the Proposed Plan/FEIS. Public 

scoping included eight open houses and three 

alternative workshops, with an emphasis on gateway 

communities. Public comments also involved 

responses to the publication of three newsletters, 

tours, briefings for local and state government 

agencies, Resource Advisory Council meetings, 

both agencies’ Web sites, and presentations to a 

wide variety of interest groups. The five major issues 

addressed by the planning process include: 

1) Development: What kinds of Monument facilities and services will be provided apart from the 

existing facilities? 

This issue deals with the kind of visitor facilities 

and services the agencies will provide. 

2) Transportation and Access: What type of road 

and trail system will be needed for travel to, and 

access within, the Monument? 

This issue concerns the impacts of roads and 

access on the visitor experience and natural and 

cultural resources. 

3) Public/Visitor Use and Safety: What will be 

the extent and location of public uses within 

the Monument? What kinds of experiences do 

visitors want? 

This issue includes a variety of topics, from 

solitude and managing increased visitation to 

emergency services and interpretation. 

4) Authorized Uses: How will the different uses in 

the Monument be managed? 

This issue addresses concerns over mineral 

materials, outfitters/guides/concessioners, and 

permitted livestock use. 

5) Natural and Cultural Resources: How will 

natural and cultural resources be protected? 

This issue concerns the protection of the 

outstanding geologic features, as well as plant, 

animal, and cultural/historic resources, plus 

related issues concerning fire management, 

noxious weeds, and restoration of perennial plant 

communities. 

Summary iii
ALTERNATIVES 

Four alternatives, including the Proposed Plan, are 

analyzed in this FEIS. 

• Alternative A represents the No Action 

Alternative and continues current management at present levels of effort. 

• Alternative B emphasizes a variety of different visitor experiences within the Monument. 

• Alternative C emphasizes and enhances the 

primitive character of the Monument. 

• Alternative D (Proposed Plan) emphasizes 

protection and restoration of physical and biological resources. This alternative is a slight 

modification of Alternative D as presented in 

the Draft Plan/EIS (the Preferred Alternative). 

Modifications were made in response to public 

comments regarding the amount of various 

management zones within the alternative and 

agency review. 

The four alternatives vary by emphasis theme, 

resource management decisions, desired future 

conditions, and the application of management 

zones. Each alternative assigns various areas of 

the Monument to different management zones. 

These zones identify how different areas would be 

managed to achieve a variety of resource conditions 

and visitor experiences, including different levels of 

desired development. 

1. Frontcountry Zone areas would allow for a high 

probability of encountering other people; paved, 

improved, and maintained roads; a diverse 

non-motorized trail system; administrative and 

visitor facilities; developed campgrounds; and a 

high level of interpretive programs. 

2. Passage Zone areas would offer a medium probability of encountering other people, relatively 

high standard gravel/dirt roads, rustic designated 

campsites, limited interpretation, multiuse 

trailheads/trails, and a high probability for 

encountering livestock and associated facilities. 

3. Primitive Zone areas would prescribe a low 

probability of encountering other people, 

challenging driving conditions on low-standard 

roads, minimal on-site interpretation, low-standard multiuse trails, and a medium probability of 

encountering livestock and associated facilities. 

4. Pristine Zone areas would allow for a high 

probability of experiencing solitude, challenging 

access and no roads, no designated campsites, no 

on-site interpretation, very few trails, and a low 

probability of encountering livestock and associated facilities. 

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, proposes 

no major changes in resource management, visitor 

programs, or facilities. It depicts current management under the agencies’ five existing management 

plans, as modified by Proclamation 7373, Public 

Law 107-213, and the agencies’ Interim Management 

Guidelines. Alternative A also serves as a baseline 

for comparison with the other three alternatives. 

The management zones depicted in Alternative A 

represent the planning team’s assessment of current 

conditions. In other words, the management zones 

were mapped based on actual, existing conditions in 

2003. 

Alternative B emphasizes a broad array of visitor 

experiences within the Monument. Alternative B 

provides the largest amount of multiuse trail opportunities; improved access both inside and outside 

the Monument; and extensive educational, informational, and directional signs and interpretive support 

facilities throughout the Monument. This alternative 

also allocates large areas in the Passage Zone to 

allow for potential new developments like designated rustic campsites, high standard motorized and 

non-motorized trail networks, and a relatively high 

standard road system that provides easier access to 

many areas of the Monument. Alternative B also 

includes suggested management direction for access 

roads outside of the Monument. 

Alternative C emphasizes the Monument’s primitive character. This alternative contains the smallest 

number of visitor facilities. Management actions that 

influence resource conditions are as “light handed” 

and non-intrusive as possible, including weed 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

iv 
control and sagebrush steppe restoration. Alternative 

C allocates the largest acreage of all the alternatives 

in the Pristine Zone and the least acreage in the 

Passage Zone, and it would result in the fewest miles 

of maintained roads. Under this alternative, new 

interpretive facilities would primarily be located 

outside the Monument. This alternative includes an 

11,000-acre Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

designation in northern Laidlaw Park to provide 

special protective management for native sagebrush 

steppe. 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) emphasizes 

protection and restoration of physical and biological 

resources and processes. The Proposed Plan draws 

primarily upon the Alternative D presented in the 

Draft Plan/EIS, but includes more Pristine Zone and 

reduces Passage Zone, especially in the Laidlaw 

Park area. This was done in response to public 

and agency comments. Alternative D contains the 

largest weed treatment and prevention program 

using all available tools. It prescribes the most 

extensive fire management program. Alternative D 

places a greater emphasis than the other alternatives 

on promoting partnerships at existing facilities 

such as visitor centers, state parks, and gateway 

communities. This alternative also encourages the 

use of outfitters to meet possible future recreation 

experience demands inside the expanded portion 

of the Monument. This alternative allows for the 

upgrade of the Arco-Minidoka Road through the 

Monument should the adjacent county governments 

choose to upgrade the portions of the road outside of 

the Monument. 

The principal changes or clarifi cations that have 

been made from Alternative D in the Draft Plan/EIS 

to the Proposed Plan/FEIS are: 

• The amount of Pristine Zone is increased to 

strengthen protection of cultural and natural 

features, most commonly along the edges of 

the lava fl ows. 

• The amount of Passage Zone corridors within 

the Laidlaw Park area of the Monument has 

been reduced and additional Passage Zone 

corridors have been added outside or on the 

edge of the Monument boundary. 

• The text clarifies that no road improvements 

will be made until a Comprehensive Travel 

Management Plan, containing more detailed 

and specific guidance, is approved. 

A summary of the main features of the four 

alternatives can be found in Table 7 of the Proposed 

Plan/FEIS. All of the alternatives would provide the 

high degree of protection for the objects of interest 

identified in Proclamation 7373, while still fulfi lling 

both agencies’ land management missions. 

IMPACTS 

The potential environmental consequences of 

the alternatives are addressed for various natural 

resources, land uses (including livestock grazing), cultural resources, Native American tribal 

treaty rights, visitor uses, and regional social and 

economic conditions. Table S-1 provides a summary 

of impacts related to all four alternatives considered, 

and Chapter 4 of the Proposed Plan/FEIS contains 

detailed analyses of these impacts. 

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan) would have substantial long-term 

beneficial impacts from the completion of the 

extensive sagebrush steppe restoration program, 

with limited short-term adverse impacts during its 

implementation. The Proposed Plan also offers benefits relating to its encouragement for the agencies to 

work with partners, including several key gateway 

communities, to provide for public information 

and services outside the Monument. It would also 

provide for improved access along targeted roads for 

fire suppression and resource management, which 

provides benefits that outweigh the adverse impacts 

that could occur from any disruption of visitor uses 

or impacts on natural and cultural resources. No 

impairment of the Monument’s natural or cultural 

resources would be expected for the Proposed Plan, 

or for any of the alternatives evaluated. 

Summary v 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Table S-1. Summary of Impacts

Alternative A 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Alte

(Prop

NATURAL RESOURCES

Geological Resources

i

limitation on new mineral extraction sitesbeneficial effects on geological resources. 

il designaincrease in visitation and/or access of all the

alternatives. As a consequence, Alternative B

ith specific 

concerns about diField areas. Increased fire suppression andcontinued grazing could result in minor to 

Closures of non-essential roads and limitedvisitors. Negligible to minor adverse impactsimpacts on geologic resources of all thealternatives.

Soils

associated witrail maintenance and use, and livestock use

i

of recreation facilities, and increased visitormight increase the amount of soil area

l

localized adverse impacts. Grazing alsoadverse impacts on soils from Alternative B 

A, wi

i

Alternative A, wisuccessful restora

(No Action Alternative) 

Geological resources would be affected by continued visitor access via roads and trails, as well as by w nd erosion, fire, fire suppression, and grazing. These impacts would be mainly direct and both short- and long-term in nature, ranging from negligible to potentially major levels. Indirect impacts would result from deposition of dust and soils on geological features over time. The would result in long-term indirect negligible Although an individual geologic feature could suffer a major impact, in context of the entire Monument's geologic features/resources, the impacts would be quite localized (that is, the effect would cover only a small part of the entire Monument's land area or an individual type of geologic feature, of which there may be many). 

Alternative B would have the most improved road access and the greatest number of improved roads and additional trations, which would result in the largest could result in a slightly greater loss of geologic features or structures and a higher rate of degradation of geologic resources or damage from vandalism. Adverse impacts from increased access would range from negligible to potentially major, w

rect major damage to 

features in the Kings Bowl and Wapi Lava moderate adverse impacts, and small beneficial effects would result from limits on new mineral extraction areas. Although an individual geologic feature could suffer a major impact, in context of the entire Monument's geologic features/resources, the impacts would be quite localized (that is, the effect would cover only a small part of the entire Monument's land area or an individual type of geologic feature, of which there may be many). 

Alternative C would have the largest area of Pristine Zone, which would afford the most natural protection to geologic features through difficult or remote, foot-only access. access would lead to the smallest amount of dust-related impacts. Impacts from visitor damage, theft, or vandalism would range from negligible to potentially major locally, but the probability of major impacts would be lower because of decreased access for many from fire and grazing would continue, and there would be slight beneficial effects from limits on new mineral extraction sites. Overall, Alternative C would cause the fewest adverse Although an individual geologic feature could suffer a major impact, in context of the entire Monument's geologic features/resources, the impacts would be quite localized (that is, the effect would cover only a small part of the entire Monument's land area or an individual type of geologic feature, of which there may be many). 

Alternative D (Proaggressive restoron off-site experiebeneficial effects damage from visiof many features. Although an indivsuffer a major impMonument's geolimpacts would be effect would coveentire Monument'type of geologic fbe many). 

Soil disturbance, erosion, and compaction would be the primary adverse impacts 

th most management actions 

under Alternative A. Wildland fire and suppression, restoration activities, road and are the management activities most likely to affect soils. Overall, short- and long-term adverse impacts on soils would be minor to moderate in intensity, w th long-term moderate beneficial effects from the restoration program. 

Improved road and trail access, development use of the Monument under Alternative B directly and indirectly affected. Additional construction of unpaved roads, trails, and day use areas and more extensive use of fire suppression wou d cause direct loss of soils locally, resulting in minor to moderate would cause minor to moderate adverse impacts. Overall, short- and long-term would range from minor to moderate; the restoration program would result in long-term moderate beneficial effects. 

The effects of Alternative C on soils would be substantially the same as those of Alternative 

th slightly more short-term erosion 

potential and slightly fewer long-term soil impacts. Impacts from facility construction maintenance and fire suppression would be reduced, and adverse impacts from grazing would remain minor to moderate. Overall, short- and long-term adverse impacts would be minor to moderate in intensity, w th more long-term beneficial effects from a slightlyexpanded restoration program. 

The effects of Alteon soils would be 

th 

potential due to romaintenance, facLong- and short-tadverse impacts and fire suppressterm adverse impmoderate. Howevmoderate to majoeffects on soils in acreage under th

vi 
Alternative A 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Al

(Pro

ies and construcvegetation restoration and public education. i term negligible to minor negative impacts on

ith 

fire suppression, less active management ofalternative. Adverse impacts on vegetation

ld be minor and limited, with 

suppression, and continued grazing would 

be more access major beneficial impacts from visAlternative A, w

on individual playas could create minor to

i

 access

use, plus a possible increase in livestock 

The effects of Alternative C could bethere could be limited impacts from grazing.

i

intensities, depecould affect ice nutrient concent

(No Action Alternative) 

Vegetation and Fire Management

Alternative A would result in both short- and long-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts on vegetation from continued use and maintenance of roads and trails, plus illegal off-road use, spread of noxious weeds, fire suppression and fire, and continued grazing. Restoration activittion of facilities would cause short-term negligible to minor direct adverse impacts, but they would result in long-term indirect minor to major beneficial effects from 

Alternative B would result in a greater possibility of fragmentation, increased risk of noxious weed spread, and greater risk of human-caused fire because of increased visitation and access and more road and trail maintenance. Effects on vegetation would be both short- and long-term, ranging from negligible to moderate, but they would be more w despread than in Alternative A. Facility development would cause some longvegetation, but increased public education would result in minor to moderate long-term beneficial effects. Restoration acreage would be slightly greater than in Alternative A, wshort-term minor adverse impacts and longterm moderate to major beneficial effects. 

Alternative C would involve less opportunity for extensive visitor access, less access for noxious weeds, and a slower rate of restoration over a larger area than any other from access woufew impacts from facility development and maintenance. Restoration efforts would cause long-term minor to major beneficial effects, but these would occur more slowly because fewer herbicides and more low impact methods would be used. Fires, fire lead to minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

In Alternative D more aggressivwould result in sadverse impacts time than in the Strategically plawould increase healthy vegetatiextent of poor qsuppression, grdevelopment wominor to moderafrom increased areas of the MoPark, would be Passage Zone adesignations macomments on th

Water Resources

Implementing Alternative A would continue the current local long-term effects on water resources at intensity levels generally ranging from negligible to potentially major, although any major effects would be localized to small areas. The effects of intense recreational use of ice cave pools or from livestock watering moderate changes in nutrient concentrations, bacteria levels, and turbidity. The duration of effects would depend on the intensity of use at each site. The effects would tend to be localized to the individual water bodies, because no surface waters connect them. The overall effect of livestock use on playas would be w despread and long-term and could range from minor to potentially major intensity, depending on the location. 

The effects of Alternative B would be substantially the same as those of Alternative A, but with a somewhat higher likelihood of more indirect adverse effects on local ice caves and playas resulting fromimprovements and increased recreational developments. Impacts would generally range from negligible to potentially moderate, but they would be localized. Depending on the site-specific circumstances, the effects could be either short term or long term. 

substantially the same as those of Alternative A because there still would be a chance that recreational use could affect ice caves, and However, moderate adverse impacts would potentially be less w despread or frequent because road access would be reduced. 

The effects on wAlternative D (Pthe same as Altlong-term effect(proximity of ice concentration of Alternative D (Plocal long-term intensity levels rpotentially majowatering could acausing minor to turbidity. The eflocalized to indivno surface wate

Summary vii
Alternative A 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Alt

(Pro

Wildlife Resources

ith 

ith livestock use.

Access and roads and associated visitormajor beneficial effects over the long term,

i

i

ildlife 

resources. 

Alternative A, but the slight increase in acresadverse impacts from traffic disturbance inBowlwi

adverse impacts from traffic disturbance 

term beneficial e

(No Action Alternative) 

Under Alternative A, which would continue current conditions, effects on wildlife would continue to come primarily from conflicts whuman uses of the Monument, including disturbance by people and vehicles and conflicts and competition wrecreation would result in minor long-term adverse impacts, plus short-term moderate local adverse impacts on some species in high use areas. Sagebrush steppe restoration and weed management actions would cause some short-term minor impacts, with minor to depending on the species involved. Fire and suppression of fire would benefit some species but adversely affect others. The 50 sensitive species, which use all major habitats in the Monument and have a variety of life histories, would experience the same range of impacts as other wildlife. The bald eagle and the gray wolf, which are listed as threatened and endangered, are occasionally found in the Monument, but both are peripheral species, and the impacts on them would be negligible to minor. Current livestock use and potential new livestock developments, which would be authorized in accordance w th the Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines, could result in minor to moderate adverse impacts on sagebrush steppe habitat and/or sagebrush obligate w ldlife species. In the long-term, the restoration of 40,000 acres of degraded sagebrush steppe would mitigate a portion of any adverse effects on w

The impacts on wildlife from Alternative B would largely be the same as those of restored would result in a related increase in improved habitat for sagebrush steppe species, a long-term minor to major beneficial effect. There could be a modest increase in the larger Passage Zone area and the potential for increased or improved access to motor vehicles in that zone, as well as the development of a visitor use area in Kings 

 and multiuse trails. The effects on 

ldlife would vary from species and species, 

but most effects would be long-term, minor to moderate, and localized. 

The effects on wildlife from Alternative C would largely be the same as those described for Alternative A, but 15,000 more acres would be restored in Alternative C, resulting in more improved habitat for sagebrush steppe species. There would be fewer because the Passage Zone would be smaller in Alternative C, and the Primitive Zone would be larger. These designations would include the potential for decreased access for motor vehicles and related recreational use overall, resulting in fewer direct and indirect adverse impacts on all wildlife species. 

The effects on w(Proposed Plan) as those describas much acreage Alternative D, resfor sagebrush steadverse impacts in the Passage Zand administratiofor increased or ivehicles in that z

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE viii 
Alternative A 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Al

(Pro

i

conditions and the location and size of fires.

i

i

of negligible to minor intensity. A substantial 

i

i

CULTURAL RESOURCES

minor, adverse impact on maintaining the 

wi

l

travel, grazing, initial restoration, and 

ithin

human and vehicle traffic into the Primitive 

archaeological actions, and gra

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS AND INTERESTS

minor, beneficial impact on maintaining the

i

Monument. 

beneficial effect on maintaining the long-term 

(No Action Alternative) 

Air Resources

Prescribed fire, w ldland use fire, and fugitive dust from roads result in smoke or dust containing particles that adversely affect human health and air quality related values such as visibility. The effects on air quality from smoke and dust caused by the management activities of Alternative A typically would be short-term and local. The intensity of effects could range from negligible to moderate, depending on weather Most prescribed and wildland use fires would cause minor short-term effects. Fugitive dust from roads w th current traffic use would produce short-term local adverse effects of negligible intensity. 

The adverse effects on air quality from the management actions of Alternative B typically would be short term and limited to the local region. The intensity of effects would range from negligible to moderate, w th most prescribed and wildland use fires having minor effects. Fugitive dust from potentiallyincreased vehicle traffic use on unpaved roads would produce short-term local effects increase in traffic would be required to elevate this impact to the moderate levels. 

The adverse effects on air quality from Alternative C typically would be short term and limited to the local region. The intensity of effects would range from to negligible to moderate, w th most prescribed and wildland use fires causing minor effects. Fugitive dust from roads w th decreased traffic use and vehicle speeds would produce short-term local effects of negligible intensity. 

The adverse effactions of Alterntypically would the local regionrange from negprescribed and minor effects. Fcurrent traffic uslocal effects of addition of non-during the same more intense buthroughout the 

Alternative A would have a negligible to long-term integrity of the majority of archaeological resources within the Monument. The restoration program outcome and fire suppression would have a long-term, moderate beneficial effect, while initial restoration, suppression actions, grazing, and vehicle travel would result in short-term, minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

Alternative B would have a moderate adverse effect on maintaining the long-term integrity of the majority of archaeological resources 

thin the Monument by emphasizing 

recreational opportunities and vehicle access. The restoration program outcome and fire suppression wou d have a long-term, moderate beneficial impact, where vehicle suppression actions would result in shortterm minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

Alternative C would have a minor beneficial effect on maintaining long-term integrity of the majority of archaeological resources wthe Monument by minimizing the amount of and Pristine Zones. The restoration program outcome, fire suppression, and restricted access would all contribute to long-term, minor to moderate beneficial impacts. Vehicle traffic (limited), grazing, initial restoration, and suppression actions would result in shortterm, minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

Alternative D (Pmoderate benelong-term integ

Monument by einterpretation aemphasizing raShort-term minoimpacts would ainitial restoratio

Alternative A would have a negligible to long-term integrity of ethnographic resources and traditional use areas w thin the 

By emphasizing recreational activities and vehicle access, Alternative B would result in a minor to moderate adverse effect on maintaining the long-term integrity of ethnographic resources and traditional use areas in the Monument. 

By minimizing the amount of human and vehicle traffic into the Primitive and Pristine Zones, Alternative C would result in a minor integrity of ethnographic resources and traditional use areas in the Monument, but by limiting vehicle access it could cause some hardship for elderly tribal members. 

By emphasizing visitor services, Alternative D (Pa minor to modemaintaining the ethnographic reareas in the Moaccess it could elderly tribal me

Summary ix
Alternative A 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Alt

(Pro

LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION

impacts on travel and access in the

i

beneficial effect on the availability of accessMonument. 

Monument, Alternative C would cause minorReduced vehicle traffic could result in minor 

Monument. 

Restoration activities and restrictions in thePristine Zone in Alternative A could restrictassociated wi

i

The cumulative effects of Alternative B on

i

expandedfacilityandaccess in this area could cause minor to 

The cumulative effects of Alternative C on

ith some

additional adverse impacts from theon grazing. 

actions, and existing minerals leases in the

Monument. 

s leases 

administrative facilitiexisting minerals leases. 

Because of its eactions, and exis

Monument. 

(No Action Alternative) 

Travel and Access

Increased visitation and other actions under Alternative A would cause minor adverse Monument, w th long-term minor beneficial effects from road maintenance activities. 

By emphasizing recreational opportunities and increased access, Alternative B would cause a long term minor to moderate adverse effect on road conditions in the Monument, but it also would lead to a long-term moderate and ease of travel to many locations in the 

By closing more miles of road in the to moderate adverse impacts on access. beneficial effects on transportation safety, but there also might be minor adverse impacts on visitors using lower standard roads. 

By emphasizing visitor services, arestoration, Alterwould lead to loneffects on acces

Livestock Grazing

grazing operations and/or increase costs 

th grazing, resulting in shortand long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts. The use of the Passage Zone for potential road improvement and facility development would result in short- and longterm minor benef cial effects, but the potential increased recreational use of this area could cause minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

livestock grazing would be similar to those described for Alternative A, w th both more beneficial effects and more adverse impacts from the additional access available in the 

Passage Zone. Larger Passage 

Zone areas and the development of good access could result in road improvement and 

development, which would cause shortlong-term minor to moderate beneficial 

effects. The increased recreational use and moderate adverse impacts. 

livestock operations would be similar to those described for Alternative A, wexpanded restoration activities. The smaller number of areas in the Passage Zone would allow for some access and facility development, a negligible to minor beneficial effect, but any increased recreational use would cause minor adverse impacts on grazing operations. The large amount of Pristine Zone could increase costs and limit access, causing moderate adverse impacts 

Alternative D (Prthe largest acreathis would cause adverse impacts the long-term effCompared to AltPassage Zone cimprovement anpotentially more in minor to modeincreased accesnew facilities. Thincreased in this operations or incwith grazing, a m

Other Land Uses 

Alternative A would result in negligible impacts on administrative facilities, realty 

Alternative B would cause negligible effects on realty actions and existing mineralin the Monument and a minor adverse impact on administrative facilities. 

By minimizing the amount of human and vehicle traffic into the Primitive and Pristine Zones, Alternative C would cause long-term minor beneficial effects on the Monument’s 

es, realty actions, and 

interpretation anD (Proposed Plaimpacts on admi

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE x 
Alternative A 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Al

(Pro

purposes of special designation areas fromuse could cause negligible to moderate 

purposes of special designation areas from 

wiresult in indirect 

(No Action Alternative) 

Special Designation Areas 

The effects on the characteristics and Alternative A would be primarily negligible to minor and short term, but the effect of livestock use on natural conditions 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). Road system management and limited regulation of off-highway vehicle adverse indirect effects through the spread of invasive weeds and the creation of unauthorized routes. 

The effects on the characteristics and Alternative B would be primarily negligible to minor and short term, but the effects from livestock use on natural conditions in WSAs could be moderate in some local areas where livestock concentrate, and vegetative structure would be altered for long periods of time (5+ years). The improvements to the road system could cause higher levels of indirect adverse effects through the spread of invasive weeds and the creation of unauthorized routes. 

The adverse effects on the characteristics and purposes of special designation areas from most actions under Alternative C would be primarily negligible to minor and short term. The effect of livestock on natural conditions in WSAs could be moderate in some local areas where livestock concentrate, and vegetative structure would be altered for long periods of time (5+ years). Designating a new ACEC in North Laidlaw Park would lead to minor beneficial effects on the adjacent Craters of the Moon Wilderness and Great Rift WSA. 

The adverse effand purposes ofrom Alternative mostly negligible 

th potential fo

restoration activof the areas. Thconditions in WSsome local areaconcentrate, anbe altered for losystem manageoff-highway vehadverse effects invasive weeds unauthorized roZone and reducLaidlaw Park aras presented in that had been dcandidate during 

Summary xi
Alternative A 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Alt

(Pro

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Posting information at backcountry accesspoints and fire stations; offering school

ibits, and 

Kings Bowlminor beneficial effects on interpretation andinstitutions. 

Minidoka Roads; offering school programs atresult in long-term minor beneficial effects on

ies

l

institutions, developing a cave restoration

ithin the

l. 

Posting information at backcountry accesspoints and fire stations, offering schoolestablishing a limiminor beneficial effects from the 

development in tbeneficial effects

i

i

desired.

l 

adverse impacts. 

l

desired.roads could be closed individually to protect

resources. This continued level of access to

. 

lass II trails 

trails in the Kings Bowl

combined wibeneficial) effects from other activities andactivities.communities.

beneficial and ad

In Alternative D 

on rAlternative A, resbeneficial effects 

(No Action Alternative) 

Interpretation and Visitor Understanding

programs at the original NPS Monument; interpreting cultural resources; adding interpretive media, programs, exhwaysides; and modest development in the 

 area would cause long-term 

visitor understanding, as would agency assistance to research and educational 

Upgrading the Carey-Kimama and Arcothe original NPS Monument; interpreting cultural resources; adding interpretive media, programs, exhibits, and waysides; and developing portable interpretive media would interpretation, as would the agencassisting research and educationaprogram, and interpreting sagebrush steppe restoration and integrated weed management. Long-term minor beneficial effects on interpretation would result from adding interpretive facilities along US 20/26/93, at significant sites wPassage Zone, and at Kings Bow

programs at the original NPS Monument, developing portable interpretive media, and 

ted cave restoration 

program under Alternative C would result in long-term minor beneficial effects on interpretation. There would be cumulative 

Cooperative 

Weed Management Area programs. 

Long-term minor interpretation unPlan) would resusigns and informcorridor and at aprograms (includsite interpretatioposting interpretexhibits, and waoff-site interpretiassistance to resinstitutions and aprogram also woLong-term modecome from placinfacilities, and proMonument, in gavisitor center aloas from offering in the Monumencould cause longon people visitinMonument w tho

Recreation and Public Safety

Alternative A would result in a w de range of negligible to moderate adverse and beneficial effects on recreation and public safety, depending on the recreational experience Long-term moderate beneficial effects would result from greater protection of geological features in the original NPS Monument and indirectly from restoring sagebrush steppe communities. Keeping almost all existing roads open to motorized travel would result in long-term minor beneficial effects on certain recreational experiences, but such access also could affect other recreationaexperiences, resulting in long-term minor Long-term minor beneficial effects would result from the availability of undeveloped and 

The added access available in A ternative B would contribute both beneficial and adverse effects, depending on the type of recreation Nearly all roads would remain open to motorized use under Alternative B, but some 

Monument features and destinations would lead to long-term minor beneficial effectsHowever, this level of access, and its associated use, would result in long-term minor adverse effects on visitors seeking solitude. A few new Class I and Cmight be developed in certain areas, and 

 areas would be 

rehabilitated or maintained; these actions would result in long-term minor beneficial 

The restricted access of Alternative C would contribute beneficial and adverse effects, depending on the type of recreation desired. Overall, the cumulative effects on recreational users from the actions of Alternative C, 

th the expected (primarily

plans, would result in cumulative long-term moderate beneficial effects on recreational Long-term moderate beneficial effects would result from greater protection of geological features in the original NPS Monument, and there would be indirect long-term moderate benefits from restoring sagebrush steppe Long-term minor beneficial effects on certain recreational experiences would come from 

The added acces(Proposed Plan) the type of recre

(

ecreation from 

geologic features would be the samMonument and loeffects in the expInterpretive effortsafety, resulting iwould cause longeffects on recrea

Long-term minor recreational expe

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE xii 
Alternative A

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

Alte

(Prop

dispersed camping, but this also could affectpeople who prefer more developed, dispersed camping, resulting in long-term minor adverse impacts.Ongoing livestock operations would result inlong-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on certain recreational experiences, but this also could affect other recreationalopportunities, resulting in long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects. 

effects.

Because the Passage Zone would be large in Alternative B, this alternative would offer thegreatest opportunity of all the alternatives for motorized and mechanized recreational experiences. The entire length of both the Carey-Kimama and Arco-Minidoka roads would be designated Backcountry Byways, including an upgrade to Class B standards.This would be likely to increase visitation to the Monument, causing long-term moderate adverse impacts on visitors seeking solitude,but it would result in long-term moderate beneficial effects on people who prefer improved access for experiences like hunting, driving for pleasure, sightseeing, and going to points of interest along those routes. 

Multi-use and single-use trails would be designated under Alternative B, including both Class I and Class II designations. This would increase the opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, off-highway motorcycle riding, horseback riding, and OHV use, resulting in long-term moderate beneficial effects on visitors wanting to experience those activities. 

converting some Class D roads to nonmotorized trails, but such conversion alsowould affect other recreational experiences, causing long-term minor adverse impacts. Closing certain roads and ways in the Pristine Zone to motorized and mechanized vehicle travel would result in long-term moderate beneficial effects on certain recreational experiences, but long-term minor adverse impacts also would result from such closures,affecting other recreational experiences. These closures also would result in long-term moderate adverse impacts from reduced access. Long-term minor beneficial effectswould result from the availability of undeveloped and dispersed camping, but this also could adversely affect people who prefer more developed, dispersed camping, resulting in long-term minor adverse impacts. 

closing Class D roanon-motorized trailand Pristine Zoneswould affect other causing long-term Long-term moderaresult from the avadispersed campingpeople who prefer camping, resulting impacts. 

Summary xiii
Alternative A 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Alt

(Pro

Visual Resources

ies to the 

in Alternative A.

Several communications sites outside theMonument. 

Artificial light sources and 

i

sources of air pollution. 

restoring sagebrush steppe communities.

i

cumulative adverse impacts, and short-term

i

sources of air pollution. 

Alternative C. 

i

i

sources of air pollution. 

activiti

area.

i

sources of air po

Soundscapes

/

impacts Short-term negligible to minor 

grazing. Some increased noise would come

/

and from livestock operations. Air operationsimpacts. 

/ 

(No Action Alternative) 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on visual resources would result from greater protection of geologic features, from restoring sagebrush steppe communities, and from holding surface disturbing activitVRM management class standards that apply 

Monument are visible from inside the 

These communication sites 

would cause long-term minor adverse impacts on visual resources during the day and longterm moderate adverse impacts on visual resources at night. light pollution from neighboring towns would affect the Monument’s night sky, causing long-term negligible adverse impacts. 

Class B road use would cause short-term minor adverse impacts, and short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts would be caused by w ldland fires and prescribed fires. Short-term negligible to moderate cumulative adverse impacts would result from outside 

Rehabilitating or restoring 40,000 acres of sagebrush steppe communities and controlling weed infestations would return those vegetated areas to their natural appearance, a long-term minor beneficial effect on viewscapes in the Monument. 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on visual resources would result from greater protection of geologic features and from Long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects would come from holding surfacedisturbing activities to VRM management class standards that apply in Alternative B. As in Alternative A, efforts to protect geologic features from damage would be ncreased, and rehabilitating or restoring 45,000 acres of sagebrush steppe communities and controlling weed infestations would return those vegetated areas to their natural appearance, a long-term minor beneficial effect on viewscapes in the Monument. Road upgrades would cause short-term minor minor to moderate adverse impacts would result from Class B road use. Short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts would be caused by w ldland fires and prescribed fires. Short-term negligible to moderate cumulative adverse impacts would result from outside 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on visual resources would result from greater protection of geologic features; long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects would come from restoring sagebrush steppe communities; and long-term moderate beneficial effects would result from holding surface- disturbing activities to VRM management class standards that apply in As in Alternative A, efforts to protect geologic features from damage would be ncreased, and rehabilitating or restoring 55,000 acres of sagebrush steppe communities and controlling weed infestations would return those vegetated areas to their natural appearance, a long-term minor beneficial effect on viewscapes in the Monument. Class B road use would cause short-term minor adverse impacts, and short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts would be caused by w ldland fires and prescribed fires. Short-term negligible to moderate cumulative adverse impacts would result from outside 

Long-term minor resources would protection of geominor to moderatresult from holdin

es to VRM 

standards that ap(Proposed Plan), steppe communitmoderate benefic

As in Alternative Afeatures from damand rehabilitating sagebrush steppe controlling weed those vegetated aappearance, a loneffect on viewscaThe reduction of Park area includePlan) of the FEIS intrusion and the 

Class B road use minor adverse imto moderate advecaused by w ldlaShort-term negligadverse impacts 

The effects on natural soundscapes in the Monument would result mainly from transportation, administrative uses, and grazing. The use of the US 20/26 93 corridor would cause long-term minor adverse adverse impacts would result from the use of various vehicles in the Monument, from fire management operations, and from livestock operations. Air operations would cause shortterm minor adverse impacts. 

The effects on natural soundscapes in the Monument would result mainly from transportation, administrative uses, and from more use of the Passage Zone. The use of the US 20/26 93 corridor would cause long-term minor adverse impacts. Short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts would result from the use of various vehicles in the Monument, from fire management operations, would cause short-term minor adverse 

The effects on natural soundscapes in the Monument would result mainly from transportation, administrative uses, and grazing. The use of the US 20/26 93 corridor would cause long-term minor adverse impacts. Short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts would result from the use of various vehicles in the Monument, from fire management operations and from livestock operations. Air operations would cause shortterm minor adverse impacts. 

The effects on naMonument would transportation, adgrazing. The use would cause longimpacts. Short-teadverse impacts various vehicles management opeoperations. Air opterm minor adver

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE xiv 
Alternative A 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Al

(Pro

direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the 

i

capita income; a negligible effect on the localleases. 

negligible direct, indirect, or cumulativeeconomic or social indicator, other than theMonument. 

per capita incommineral leases. 

(No Action Alternative) 

Social and Economic Conditions 

Alternative A would result in a negligible adverse or beneficial effect on the number of annual visitors to the Monument, length of stay, or visitor spending. There would be no regional economy or any economic or social indicator, other than moderate adverse impacts related to a gradual loss of mineral leases. Alternative A would not affect the rural character around the Monument. 

Alternative B would result in a moderate increase in the annual number of visitors, would lengthen v sitors’ stay, and would increase recreational spending per visit. This moderate increase in visitors and visitor spending would result in a negligible effect on the local economy; a negligible or minor effect on local employment rates and per population, health care, education, and crime rates around the Monument; and a moderate adverse or beneficial effect on visitor satisfaction. A moderate adverse impact would result from the gradual loss of mineral 

Alternative C would result in a negligible adverse or beneficial effect on the annual number of visitors to the Monument and Preserve, the length of visitors’ stay, and the amount of visitor spending. There would be effects on the regional economy or any moderate adverse impacts from the gradual loss of mineral leases. Alternative C would not affect the rural character around the 

Alternative D (Pa moderate incvisitors, the lenamount of recreThis moderate spending would effect on the locminor effect on local populationcrime rates aromoderate advevisitor satisfactiimpact would re

Summary xv

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3

MONUMENT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................................3

History ............................................................................................................................................................................3

Monument Overview .....................................................................................................................................................4

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN ............................................................................................................................6

Purpose ...........................................................................................................................................................................6

Need ................................................................................................................................................................................6

PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................6

DIRECTION FOR THE PLAN .............................................................................................................................................7

Purpose and Significance of the Monument ..................................................................................................................7

Mission Goals ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

Planning Criteria (Including Laws, Regulations, and Policies) ........................................................................... 11

THE PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC SCOPING ...................................................................................................12

Relationship to Other Plans, Policies, and Programs ..................................................................................................13

Relationship to Current BLM Plans and Policies ................................................................................................. 14

Relationship to Current NPS Plans and Policies .................................................................................................. 15

Relationship to Other Plans and Policies .............................................................................................................. 16

Future Planning Needs ................................................................................................................................................. 16

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS ...........................................................................................................................17

Issues and Concerns Addressed by this Proposed Plan/FEIS ..................................................................................... 17

Issues Beyond the Scope of this Proposed Plan/FEIS .................................................................................................19

IMPACT TOPICS ................................................................................................................................................................20

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER EVALUATION .............................................21

Prime and Unique Farmland ........................................................................................................................................ 21

Floodplains ................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 21

Environmental Justice .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Cultural Landscapes..................................................................................................................................................... 21

Museum Collections .....................................................................................................................................................22

OTHER PLANNING ISSUES ............................................................................................................................................22

Carrying Capacity........................................................................................................................................................22

MONUMENT BOUNDARIES ...........................................................................................................................................22

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN ................................. 27

OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................................27

DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES .................................................................................................................27

ROAD AND TRAIL CLASSIFICATIONS .........................................................................................................................30

MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................30

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) ..........................................................................................................43

Alternative Concept .....................................................................................................................................................43

Management Zones ......................................................................................................................................................43

Management Guidance for Alternative A ....................................................................................................................43

ALTERNATIVE B ...............................................................................................................................................................49

Alternative Concept .....................................................................................................................................................49

Management Zones ......................................................................................................................................................49

Management Guidance for Alternative B ....................................................................................................................49

Contents xvii
ALTERNATIVE C ...............................................................................................................................................................56

Alternative Concept .....................................................................................................................................................56

Management Zones ......................................................................................................................................................56

Management Guidance for Alternative C ....................................................................................................................56

ALTERNATIVE D (PROPOSED PLAN) ...........................................................................................................................62

Alternative Concept .....................................................................................................................................................62

Management Zones ......................................................................................................................................................63

Management Guidance for Alternative D (Proposed Plan).........................................................................................63

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL..............................................69

No Livestock Grazing ..................................................................................................................................................69

No Hunting within The Monument..............................................................................................................................70

Other Alternatives........................................................................................................................................................70

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................................................................................70

Summary of Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................................70

Selection of the Preferred Alternative / Proposed Plan ............................................................................................... 71

Environmentally Preferred Alternative .......................................................................................................................73

Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................................... 74

CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................... 105

NATURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................................105

Geological Resources ................................................................................................................................................. 105

Soils ............................................................................................................................................................................ 110

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire Management ...................................................................... 112

Water Resources, Including Wetlands .......................................................................................................................129

Wildlife, Including Special Status Species ................................................................................................................ 131

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................. 141

CULTURAL RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................................................144

Archaeological and Historical Resources ..................................................................................................................144

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS AND INTERESTS ........................................................................................................146

Native American Treaty Rights and Trust Resources ............................................................................................... 146

Ethnographic Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 147

LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ..........................................................................................................................148

Travel and Access ...................................................................................................................................................... 148

Livestock Grazing ......................................................................................................................................................154

Other Land Uses......................................................................................................................................................... 160

Special Designation Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 165

VISITOR EXPERIENCE ..................................................................................................................................................169

Interpretation/Visitor Understanding ........................................................................................................................ 169

Recreation and Public Safety ..................................................................................................................................... 171

Visual Resources ........................................................................................................................................................ 170

Soundscape ................................................................................................................................................................. 179

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................179

CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................... 201

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................201

ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS AND GUIDELINES .........................................................................................................201

xviii CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
INCOMPLETE OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION ..................................................................................................201

TYPES OF IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................................................202

PROJECTS THAT MAKE UP THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT SCENARIO ..................................................................202

IMPAIRMENT OF RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................................206

NATURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................................206

Geologic Resources ....................................................................................................................................................206

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................207

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................209

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 211

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) ..................................................................................................... 212

Soils ............................................................................................................................................................................ 213

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 214

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 215

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 216

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) ..................................................................................................... 217

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire Management ...................................................................... 218

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 219

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 221

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................223

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) .....................................................................................................225

Water Resources .........................................................................................................................................................228

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................228

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................229

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................230

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) ..................................................................................................... 231

Wildlife, Including Special Status Species ................................................................................................................232

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................232

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................236

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................238

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) .....................................................................................................239

Air Resources .............................................................................................................................................................240

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 241

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................243

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................244

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) .....................................................................................................244

CULTURAL RESOURCES (ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES) .................................................245

Impacts from Alternative A ....................................................................................................................................... 247

Impacts from Alternative B .......................................................................................................................................248

Impacts from Alternative C .......................................................................................................................................250

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) ............................................................................................................252

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS AND INTERESTS ........................................................................................................254

Impacts from Alternative A ....................................................................................................................................... 255

Impacts from Alternative B .......................................................................................................................................256

Impacts from Alternative C .......................................................................................................................................257

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) ............................................................................................................258

LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ..........................................................................................................................260

Travel and Access.......................................................................................................................................................260

Contents xix
Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 261

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................262

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................264

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) .....................................................................................................265

Livestock Grazing ......................................................................................................................................................267

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................267

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................268

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................269

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) .....................................................................................................270

Other Land Uses (Administrative Facilities, Realty, and Minerals) ......................................................................... 271

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 271

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................272

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................273

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) ..................................................................................................... 274

Special Designation Areas (Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, Research Natural Area/

 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)............................................................................................................. 274

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 275

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 276

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................277

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) .....................................................................................................279

VISITOR EXPERIENCE ..................................................................................................................................................280

Interpretation and Visitor Understanding .................................................................................................................. 281

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................ 281

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................ 281

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................283

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) .....................................................................................................283

Recreation and Public Safety .....................................................................................................................................285

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................285

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................287

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................289

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) ..................................................................................................... 291

Visual Resources ........................................................................................................................................................294

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................294

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................295

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................296

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) .....................................................................................................297

Soundscapes ...............................................................................................................................................................298

Impacts from Alternative A ................................................................................................................................298

Impacts from Alternative B ................................................................................................................................298

Impacts from Alternative C ................................................................................................................................299

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) .....................................................................................................299

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................299

Impacts from Alternative A .......................................................................................................................................300

Impacts from Alternative B ....................................................................................................................................... 301

Impacts from Alternative C .......................................................................................................................................303

Impacts from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) ............................................................................................................304

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ..........................................................................................................................305

Alternative A ..............................................................................................................................................................305

xx CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Alternative B ..............................................................................................................................................................306

Alternative C ..............................................................................................................................................................308

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) ...................................................................................................................................309

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES .........................................................310

Alternative A .............................................................................................................................................................. 310

Alternative B .............................................................................................................................................................. 311

Alternative C .............................................................................................................................................................. 311

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) ................................................................................................................................... 311

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ..........312

CHAPTER 5 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS ............................ 315

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT-NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COLLABORATION .......................................315

AGENCY CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...................................................................................................315

Consultation with Native American Tribes ............................................................................................................... 316

Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ..... 316

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................................... 316

Coordination with Other Agencies, Organizations, and Groups .............................................................................. 316

BLM Resource Advisory Council ............................................................................................................................ 317

HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................................................317

Comment Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 319

Key Topics ..................................................................................................................................................................320

List of Recipients........................................................................................................................................................326

Distribution of the Proposed Plan/FEIS .............................................................................................................328

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 329

A: PROCLAMATIONS AND ENABLING LEGISLATION ..........................................................................................331

B: PLANNING CRITERIA AND INTERIM MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ............................................................347

C: PROPOSED BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS .............................................................................................................385

D: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES OCCURRING AT CRATERS OF THE MOON 

 NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE ........................................................................................................393

E: LIST OF SPECIES PROTECTED BY THE MIGRATORY BIRD SPECIES ACT AND KNOWN TO

 OCCUR AT CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE ....................................403

F: STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING .........................................................................407

G: PROPOSED LAIDLAW PARK ACEC DESIGNATION ...........................................................................................425

H: RECREATION STATISTICS - CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT, 1999-2002 ....................431

I: CONSULTATION LETTERS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DRAFT PLAN/EIS ......................................................433

J: FIRE MANAGEMENT AND VEGETATION TREATMENT (RESTORATION, FUELS REDUCTION, 

AND ESR) PROTOCOLS ........................................................................................................................................465

K: CONSULTATION AND AGENCY LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT PLAN/EIS ......................................469

L: COMMENTS ON DRAFT PLAN/EIS AND RESPONSES .......................................................................................521

GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................ 671

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................... 693

Contents xxi 
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 667

LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................711

INDEX..................................................................................................................................... 713

xxii CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 1 Location ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

FIGURE 2 Planning Area .................................................................................................................................................. 9

FIGURE 3 Planning Process ........................................................................................................................................... 12

FIGURE 4 Alternative A ................................................................................................................................................. 45

FIGURE 5 Visual Resource Management Classification - Alternative A (No Action Alternative) .............................. 48

FIGURE 6 Alternative B ................................................................................................................................................. 51

FIGURE 7 Visual Resource Management Classification - Alternatives B, C, & D ....................................................... 53

FIGURE 8 Alternative C ................................................................................................................................................. 57

FIGURE 9 Alternative D (Proposed Plan) ...................................................................................................................... 65

FIGURE 10 Management Plan Cost Of Alternatives Compared To Importance (Advantages) ...................................... 72

FIGURE 11 Regional Geological Settings ...................................................................................................................... 106

FIGURE 12 Vegetation Classifi cation ..............................................................................................................................114

FIGURE 13 Fire Frequency ............................................................................................................................................. 121

FIGURE 14 Fire Response Tests ..................................................................................................................................... 124

FIGURE 15 Biotic Integrity ............................................................................................................................................ 127

FIGURE 16 Transportation & Access ............................................................................................................................. 149

FIGURE 17 Grazing Allotments ..................................................................................................................................... 155

FIGURE 18 Range Improvement Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 157

FIGURE 19 Land Status .................................................................................................................................................. 162

FIGURE 20 Valid Existing Rights .................................................................................................................................. 164

FIGURE 21 Special Designation Areas .......................................................................................................................... 167

FIGURE 22 Game Management Units .............................................................................................................................174

FIGURE 23 Park Visitation ..............................................................................................................................................181

FIGURE 24 Change in Personal Income in Blaine County, Idaho, 1970-2000 .............................................................. 182

FIGURE 25 Change in Personal Income in Lincoln County, Idaho, 1970-2000 ............................................................ 184

FIGURE 26 Change in Personal Income in Butte County, Idaho, 1970-2000 ................................................................ 186

FIGURE 27 Change in Personal Income in Power County, Idaho, 1970-2000 .............................................................. 188

FIGURE 28 Change in Personal Income in Minidoka County, Idaho, 1970-2000 ......................................................... 190

FIGURE 29 Housing Affordability in Planning Area Communities .............................................................................. 192

FIGURE 30 Commuting Patterns in Planning Area Communities ................................................................................ 193

Contents xxiii
LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 1 Management Zones ....................................................................................................................................... 29

TABLE 2 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) – Road and Trail Distribution by Management Zone .................... 47

TABLE 3 Alternative B – Road and Trail Inventory by Management Zone ................................................................ 55

TABLE 4 Alternative C – Road and Trail Inventory by Management Zone ................................................................ 61

TABLE 5 Alternative D (Proposed Plan) – Road and Trail Inventory by Management Zone ..................................... 69

TABLE 6 Summary of Comparative Costs (FY 2003 dollars) ..................................................................................... 73

TABLE 7 Summary of Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 77

TABLE 8 Acreage and Mileage Calculations For All Alternatives .............................................................................. 90

TABLE 9 Summary of Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 91

TABLE 10 Results of Fire Response Time Exercise, Including Travel Time and Mileage by Class of Road ............. 123

TABLE 11 Results of Generalized Fire Growth Modeling for Vegetation in the Monument Using Two Fuel 

Moisture Regimes and Two Wind Speeds .................................................................................................. 125

TABLE 12 Approximate Acreage of Each Vegetation Type in the Monument and Percentage that Occurs ............... 126

TABLE 13 Vegetation Habitat Characteristics and Location Information for Special Status Plant Species 

Occuring in the Craters of the Moon National Monumnet and Preserve ................................................... 128

TABLE 14 Sagebrush-Associated Species that Occur in the Monument ..................................................................... 132

TABLE 15 Special Status Animal Species in the Monument ....................................................................................... 138

TABLE 16 Active Sage-Grouse Leks ............................................................................................................................ 139

TABLE 17 Regional Point Sources of Criteria Air Pollutants in Tons per Year ............................................................141

TABLE 18 Roads and Trails within Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve ...................................... 153

TABLE 19 Livestock Use per BLM Field Offi ce .......................................................................................................... 156

TABLE 20 Craters of the Moon Allotment Animal Unit Months ................................................................................. 158

TABLE 21 Allotment Standards & Guides Facts — Idaho Falls and Twin Falls Districts .......................................... 159

TABLE 22 Landownership .............................................................................................................................................161

TABLE 23 Valid Existing Rights .................................................................................................................................. 163

TABLE 24 Summary of Wilderness Study Areas ......................................................................................................... 168

TABLE 25 Visitation at the NPS Craters of the Moon National Monument 1990-2001 ...............................................171

TABLE 26 New Income by Type in Blaine County, Idaho, 1970-2000 ........................................................................ 182

TABLE 27 New Income by Type in Lincoln County, Idaho, 1982-2000 ...................................................................... 184

TABLE 28 New Income by Type in Butte County, Idaho, 1990-2000 ......................................................................... 186

TABLE 29 New Income by Type in Power County, Idaho, 1994-2000 ........................................................................ 188

TABLE 30 New Income by Type in Minidoka County, Idaho, 1970-2000 .................................................................. 190

TABLE 31 Population and Growth Rates for Planning Area Counties and Communities .......................................... 191

TABLE 32 Housing Affordability in Planning Area Communities .............................................................................. 193

TABLE 33 Place of Birth and Length of Residence in Planning Area Communities .................................................. 195

TABLE 34 Language, Race and Ethnicity in Planning Area Communities ................................................................. 196

TABLE 35 Aging Trends in Planning Area Counties ................................................................................................... 197

TABLE 36 Income Distribution in Planning Area Communities ................................................................................. 198

TABLE 37 Educational Attainments in Planning Area Communities ......................................................................... 198

TABLE 38 Summary of Emissions Produced from Prescribed and Wildland Use Fires by Alternative .................... 242

xxiv CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Chapter 1

Introduction 
Previous page, clockwise, from top left 

People hiking on cinder cone 

Chain of Craters 

Bitterroot 

Lava river 
CHAPTER 1

On November 9, 2000, Presidential Proclamation 

7373 expanded Craters of the Moon National 

Monument from roughly 53,400 acres to approximately 752,500 acres, including 737,700 acres of 

federal land1

. The President signed this proclamation to ensure protection of the Great Rift volcanic 

rift zone and its associated features. The Proclamation also placed the lands under the administration 

of both the National Park Service (NPS) and the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), with each 

agency having primary management authority over 

separate portions. In addition, on August 21, 2002, 

Public Law (PL) 107-213, 116 Statute [Stat.] 1052 

designated the NPS portion of the expanded Monument as a National Preserve. 

This document is the Proposed Management Plan/ 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (Proposed 

Plan/FEIS), which sets forth the future direction 

for the use and management of the Monument. This 

plan covers all expansion lands and the original 

NPS Monument. It addresses the direction set forth 

in the Proclamation and the designation of National 

Preserve status for NPS lands. It is intended to 

serve as a combined Resource Management Plan 

(RMP)/General Management Plan (GMP) to replace 

portions of four existing BLM RMPs and one NPS 

GMP. From here on, any reference to “the Monument” is intended to refer to all lands within the new 

Monument boundaries, including the 

National Preserve. 

1 Area and length figures referenced here and 

through this document are based on the best 

available GIS data at the time of publication. 

These figures are based on the Universal 

Transverse Mercator Zone 11 North projection 

referencing the North American Datum of 1927. 

For improved accuracy and in response to public 

comments, revisions to GIS data, analyses, and 

calculations have been made resulting in minor 

change to acreage and mileage fi gures between 

the Draft Plan/EIS and this Proposed Plan/Final 

EIS. 

INTRODUCTION

MONUMENT 

DESCRIPTION

HISTORY 

Craters of the Moon National Monument, the fi rst 

national monument in Idaho, was established on 

May 2, 1924 (Presidential Proclamation 1694) for the 

purpose of protecting some of the unusual landscape 

of the Craters of the Moon Lava Field. This “lunar” 

landscape was thought to resemble that of the moon 

and was described in the Proclamation as “a weird 

and scenic landscape peculiar to itself.” 

Since 1924, the Monument was expanded 

and boundary adjustments made through fi ve 

presidential proclamations issued pursuant to the 

Antiquities Act (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S. Code [USC] 

431). Presidential Proclamation 1843 of July 23, 

1928, expanded the Monument to include certain 

springs for water supply and additional features of 

scientific interest. Presidential Proclamation 1916 

of July 9, 1930; Presidential Proclamation 2499 of 

July 18, 1941; and Presidential Proclamation 3506 

of November 19, 1962, made further adjustments to 

the boundaries. In 1996, Section 205 of the Omnibus 

Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 

(PL 104-333, 110 Stat. 4093, 4106) made a minor 

boundary adjustment to the Monument. 

Spring flowers in lava 

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 3 
Presidential Proclamation 7373 of November 9, 

2000, expanded the boundary to 737,700 acres of 

federal land (from about 53,400 acres) to include 

many more of the area’s volcanic features. It also 

enlarged the Monument’s administration by adding 

the efforts of the BLM to those of the NPS, all under 

the direction of the Secretary of the Interior. Federal 

legislation (PL 107-213, 116 Stat.1052), on August 

21, 2002, made one further adjustment by 

designating the area within the expanded NPS 

boundaries of Craters of the Moon National Monument as a National Preserve, which allowed for hunting on lands that were closed to this activity by the 

November 2000 Proclamation. Appendix A provides 

copies of the proclamations and legislation related to 

creation of the current Monument and Preserve. 

MONUMENT OVERVIEW 

Craters of the Moon National Monument and 

Preserve is located in South Central Idaho (Figure 

1) in Blaine, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power 

Counties. It is within a one-hour drive of Twin 

Falls, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, and other population 

centers along the Interstate 84 (I-84), I-86, and I-15 

corridors. 

The Monument contains the youngest and most 

geologically diverse section of basaltic lava terrain 

found on the Eastern Snake River Plain, an extensive 

area of volcanic formations that reaches 

volcanic rift zones such as those found in Hawaii 

and Iceland. The Great Rift varies in width between 

one and five miles and extends for more than 50 

miles. 

Many features and structures associated with 

basaltic volcanism are represented in the Great Rift 

Zone, including various kinds of lava fl ows, volcanic 

cones, and lava tubes. There are also lava-cave 

features such as lava stalactites and curbs, explosion 

pits, lava lakes, squeeze-ups, basalt mounds, an ash 

blanket, and low shield volcanoes. Some lava fl ows 

within the Great Rift Zone 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.” In many 

instances, the expanse of rugged lava surrounding 

these small pockets of soil has protected the kipukas 

from people, animals, and even exotic plants. As 

a result, these kipukas represent some of the last 

undisturbed vegetation communities in the Snake 

River Plain. 

Young (dominantly Holocene) lava fl ows and 

other features cover about 450,000 acres of the 

Monument. The remaining 300,000 acres in the 

Monument are also volcanic in origin, but older 

in age and covered with a thicker mantle of soil. 

This older terrain supports a sagebrush steppe 

ecosystem consisting of diverse communities of 

grasses, sagebrush, and shrubs, providing habitat 

across southern Idaho east to Yellowstone National Park. It includes three 

distinct lava fields: Craters of the Moon, 

Kings Bowl, and Wapi. The Craters of 

the Moon Lava Field is signifi cant in 

that it is the largest basaltic lava fi eld of 

predominantly Holocene age (less than 

10,000 years old) in the conterminous 

United States. 

The Monument protects most of the 

Great Rift area, which includes the 

numerous lava flows and other discharge 

from the Great Rift volcanic rift zone. 

It compares in significance to other 

Kings Bowl, The Great Rift 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

4 
C A N A D A 

IDAHO 

84 

84 

15 

15 

86 

90 

S

N

A

K 

V R 

P 

A

I 

N 

L 

I E

R E 

Y 

R 

COUER D'ALENE 

LEWISTON 

BOISE 

TWIN FALLS 

POCATELLO 

FALLS 

Craters of the Moon 

National Monument & Preserve 

CRMO Lava Flows 

Shoshone Field Office Boundary 

Idaho's Interstate Highways 

US Highways 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

or National Park Service for use of the data for purposes 

not intended by these agencies. 

Map Scale = 1:4,000,000 FIGURE 1 0 25 50 100

0 20 40 80

km 

mi LOCATION 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 5 
for a variety of wildlife. This area also includes lava 

tube caves, older volcanic formations, and volcanic 

edifices locally referred to as buttes. 

Approximately 70 percent of the Monument is in 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA) status or designated 

Wilderness. The Craters of the Moon Wilderness, designated in 1970, is located south of U.S. 

Highway 20/26/93 (US 20/26/93) within the original 

Monument. A substantial portion of each of the four 

WSAs includes lava flows administered by the NPS. 

Both the Great Rift Zone and sagebrush steppe 

ecosystem contain a wealth of cultural resources 

dating back to the last volcanic eruptions, which 

were likely witnessed by the Shoshone people. 

Today, local tribes and communities, as well as 

visitors and other stakeholders, have an interest in 

the Monument. Current efforts include preserving 

cultural resources, wildlife habitat, and pristine 

wilderness qualities, while also allowing for a 

variety of resource uses. 

Most visitor and educational opportunities are 

located near US 20/26/93 between the “gateway” 

communities of Carey and Arco in the north. In 

addition to guided walks and programs offered by 

the NPS, the Monument has several self-interpreting 

trails with waysides and a 7-mile Loop Drive. Facilities include a visitor center complex, which consists 

of a campground, museum, and bookstore. 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

FOR THE PLAN 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of the Proposed Plan/FEIS is to provide 

the NPS and BLM with a comprehensive framework 

for managing public lands within the newly 

expanded Monument. Both agencies are required 

to maintain up-to-date management plans with 

an environmental impact statement level analysis. 

When approved, this plan will replace the land use 

planning decisions in the existing land use plans for 

this area. Decisions in existing plans that still have 

merit will be carried forward and incorporated into 

the planning effort. 

Once approved, this plan will become the Final 

Management Plan, which will provide a framework 

for proactive decision making, including decisions 

on visitor use and on managing and preserving 

natural and cultural resources. It will prescribe the 

resource conditions and visitor experiences that are 

to be achieved and maintained in the Monument 

over time. Where law, policy, or regulations do not 

provide clear guidance, management decisions will 

be based on the Monument’s purpose, public concerns, and analysis of social and resource impacts 

of alternative courses of action, including long-term 

operational costs. 

This document will not describe how particular 

programs or projects will be implemented or 

prioritized. Those decisions will be deferred to more 

detailed implementation planning, which will follow 

the broad, comprehensive plan presented in this 

document. 

NEED 

The Monument is currently being managed under 

four BLM land use plans, one NPS GMP and the 

Interim Management Guidelines (Appendix B). 

These five separate existing plans do not address 

current administrative boundaries and do not 

provide a comprehensive interagency framework for 

managing public lands within the new boundaries. 

They represent a fragmented approach that should 

be replaced with a single planning document that addresses both BLM and NPS policies, directives, and 

concerns. Also, the current plans do not specifi cally 

address the status of the NPS lands as a National 

Preserve. Therefore, there is a need for both BLM 

and NPS to review, update, and consolidate 

management direction for the new Monument and 

Preserve and to present relevant Monument planning 

information and decision making in one document. 

PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION 

The Craters of the Moon National Monument and 

Preserve encompasses 737,680 acres of federal land, 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

6 
8,250 acres of state land, and 6,560 acres of private 

land (see Table 22). The decisions made through 

this planning process will apply only to the 737,680 

acres of federal land within the Monument boundary, referred to as “the planning area” (see Figure 2). 

When the Monument was expanded in November 

2000, lands within the planning area managed by 

the BLM were included within three fi eld offi ces of 

the Upper Snake River District (Burley, Idaho Falls 

and Shoshone Field Offices). On October 1, 2004, 

Idaho BLM district boundaries were realigned and 

the Twin Falls District was created. As a result, 

the Craters of the Moon National Monument and 

Preserve now lies entirely within the Shoshone Field 

Office, which is now part of the Twin Falls District. 

The planning area lies within the Snake River Plain. 

The Snake River Plain was built up by repeated 

volcanic outpourings. The chief physiographic 

features of this region are the flat lava plains broken 

only by occasional volcanic cones. The Snake River 

Plain north of the Monument is bounded by the 

northernmost occurrence of the Basin and Range 

Mountains. The dominant vegetation is sagebrush 

with associated grass and forb understory species. 

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is also widespread 

as an invasive, non-native component of the plant 

community. 

DIRECTION FOR THE PLAN 

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 

MONUMENT 

Purpose statements are the foundation for all 

subsequent decisions and qualify the language 

used in the legislation to more clearly state why the 

Monument was established. They are the specifi c 

reasons why this area warrants Monument status. 

Based upon the Proclamations and Legislation 

(Appendix A), the purposes of Craters of the Moon 

National Monument and Preserve are to: 

• Safeguard the volcanic features and geologic 

processes of the Great Rift. 

• Provide scientific, educational, and interpretive opportunities for the public to foster an 

understanding and appreciation of the volcanic 

geology and associated natural phenomena. 

• Maintain the wilderness character of the 

Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area and of 

the WSAs. 

• Perpetuate the scenic vistas and great open 

western landscapes for future generations. 

• Protect kipukas (older vegetated terrain surrounded by lava flows) and remnant vegetation areas and preserve important habitat for 

sage-grouse, a BLM sensitive species. 

• Continue the historic and traditional human 

relationships with the land that have existed on 

much of this landscape for generations. 

Signifi cance statements are also drawn from the 

proclamations establishing Craters of the Moon 

National Monument, as well as other descriptive 

documents. Significance statements explain what resources and values warrant the area’s designation as 

a National Monument. Craters of the Moon National 

Monument and Preserve is signifi cant because: 

• It contains a remarkable and unusual diversity 

of exquisitely preserved volcanic features, 

including nearly all of the familiar features of 

purely basaltic volcanism – craters, cones, lava 

flows, caves, and fissures. 

• It contains most of the Great Rift area, the 

deepest known land-based open volcanic rift, 

and the longest volcanic rift in the continental 

United States. 

• Many of the more than 400 kipukas contain 

representative vegetative communities that 

have been largely undisturbed by human 

activity. These communities serve as key 

benchmarks for scientific study of long-term 

ecological changes to the plants and animals 

of sagebrush steppe communities throughout 

the Snake River Plain. 

• It contains the largest remaining land area 

within the Snake River Plain still retaining its 

wilderness character. The Craters of the Moon 

Wilderness Area and WSAs within the Monument encompass over one-half million acres of 

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 7 
This page intentionally left blank

8 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

10 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
undeveloped federal lands. 

• It is a valued western landscape of over 

750,000 acres that are characterized by a 

variety of scenery, broad open vistas, and 

pristine air quality. 

• It contains abundant sagebrush steppe communities that provide some of the best remaining 

sage-grouse habitat and healthiest rangelands 

on the Snake River Plain. 

• It contains many diverse habitats for plants 

and animals as a result of a long history of 

volcanic deposition. 

MISSION GOALS 

The following statements are general desired future 

conditions, or mission goals, for the Monument. 

These goals incorporate mandates required of 

Monument management and include input solicited 

from the public on how they would like to see this 

area managed. 

• The Monument protects, restores, and 

monitors the geological features, the native 

biological communities, and the viewscape 

that characterize the Great Rift area. 

• The public enjoys a range of recreational and 

educational opportunities compatible with 

protecting Monument resources. 

• The Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area 

and the Wilderness Study Areas retain natural 

conditions and remarkable opportunities for 

solitude. 

• The public has opportunities to learn about and 

appreciate the Monument’s diverse history, 

prehistory and important cultural resources. 

• The livestock permittees work with BLM 

to develop management actions to achieve 

sustainable, healthy rangelands. 

• The public receives efficient and coordinated 

services from the NPS and BLM. 

PLANNING CRITERIA 

(INCLUDING LAWS, 

REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES) 

BLM planning regulations (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1610) and NPS directives (Director’s 

Order #2) require preparation of planning criteria 

to guide development of all RMPs/GMPs. Planning 

criteria are the constraints, or ground rules, which 

guide and direct the development of the plan. 

They influence all aspects of the planning process, 

including inventory and data collection, formulation 

of alternatives, estimation of effects, and ultimately 

the selection of a Preferred Alternative. They ensure 

that plans 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 and regulations and agency guidance, plus consultation with 

Federally Recognized Tribes, and coordination with 

other federal, state and local agencies; input from 

the public; analysis of information pertinent to the 

planning area; and professional judgement. 

Consultation with Federally Recognized Native 

American Tribes (North American Indians or tribes) 

is mandated. The agencies have a trust responsibility 

to maintain government-to-government consultation 

and coordination with Federally Recognized tribes. 

Compliance with all federal laws regarding the 

protection of tribal cultural interests and cultural 

resource concerns will also be conducted in accordance with consultation with all affected tribes, 

in this case the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and 

the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes. This recognizes and 

upholds the off-reservation rights of the ShoshoneBannock Nation under the Fort Bridger Treaty of 

1868. 

The NPS and the BLM jointly developed the planning criteria for this planning effort, although the 

authorities of each agency differ. Each agency’s 

authorities have their origin in separate and different 

enabling legislation and proclamations. As a result, 

some planning criteria are specific to one agency or 

the other. On the other hand, some laws, such as the 

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 11
2002 

2003 

2001 

Clean Water Act, apply equally to both agencies and THE PLANNING PROCESS 

require the same planning criteria. The agencies’ AND PUBLIC SCOPING 

goal was to develop a single set of planning criteria 

to guide the development of a single management 

plan for the Craters of the Moon National Monument 

and Preserve. The BLM District Manager, Upper 

Snake River District, approved the planning criteria, 

with concurrence by the NPS Superintendent 

for Craters of the Moon National Monument and 

Preserve, in September 2002. 

Appendix B presents the planning criteria for this 

planning effort and identifies the laws, regulations, 

and policies that form the basis for these criteria and 

are relevant to each of the resource topics discussed 

in this Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

Planning provides an opportunity to create a vision 

and to define the Monument’s role in relation to its 

national, historic, and communal settings. The planning process is designed to provide decision makers 

with adequate information about resources, impacts, 

and costs. Analyzing the Monument in relation to its 

surrounding natural, historic, and communal setting, 

as well as future challenges, helps managers and 

staff understand how the Monument could interrelate with neighbors and others in systems that are 

ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable. 

Decisions made within this planning context are 

more likely to be successful over time and promote 

more efficient use of public funds. 

Figure 3

 Planning Process 

Initiate Project Project Scoping 

October 

Joint planning team 

assembled, identified 

project scope and issues, and 

customized planning project. 

Visioning Develop Alternatives 

February June July August October 

1st newsletter sent out to Public open house meeting 2nd newsletter sent out Preliminary alternatives Alternatives reviewed by 

obtain public suggestions on held with agencies and summarizing public developed by joint planning BLM state director and NPS 

qualities of Monument that interest groups. comments from June team from public comments, regional director. 

are valuable to preserve, uses workshops. resource data, and planning 

to be accommodated, and criteria. 

concerns to be addressed. 

Alternatives Evaluated and Developed Develop Draft Monument Management Plan/EIS 

January February

3rd newsletter sent out Public workshop for

for public comment on input on alternatives.

preliminary alternatives. 

March May April - December

Comments compiled and Environmental impacts of Draft Monument 

alternatives revised to alternatives assessed. Management Plan

reflect comments. written. 

- 2005

Proposed Monument Management Plan/FEIS Prepared/Distributed Final Plan Distributed

April 2004 May - July 2004 August 2004 - June 2005 July 2005 Fall 2005 

Draft Monument 90-day public comment Revisions to the Draft Plan; Proposed Plan distributed to Record of Decision Signed. 

Management Plan period; open house Proposed Plan prepared and the public; 30-day no-action Final/Presentation Plan 

distributed for public held to obtain comments on printed. period. prepared and distributed. 

review. Draft Plan. Implementation and 

Monitoring. 

12 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

2004 
The planning process begins by defi ning the 

purpose and significance of the Monument, including appropriate goals, and descriptions of resource 

conditions, visitor uses, and management actions to 

best achieve those goals. After goals are established, 

the treatment and use of Monument resources 

are considered, based on scientific and technical 

analyses that employ current scientifi c research, as 

well as applied and accepted professional practices. 

Management alternatives are generated on the basis 

of the goals and analyses. The alternatives are then 

scrutinized with respect to their consistency with 

the Monument’s purpose and goals, the planning 

criteria, the impact on Monument resources, the 

quality of the visitor experience, the short- and longterm costs, and environmental consequences that 

extend beyond Monument boundaries. The overall 

planning process is illustrated in Figure 3. 

An interdisciplinary planning team was assembled 

in the spring of 2002. It was comprised of the BLM 

Monument Manager, the NPS Monument Superintendent, and resource specialists and staff from 

both the NPS and BLM. The team also included 

representation from the Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game (IDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The 

planning team met several times during 2002 and 

2003 to gather background information, identify 

goals and objectives, examine resource issues, 

and develop alternatives. Throughout the planning 

process, public scoping efforts played a large part 

in helping to focus the plan, identify issues, and 

formulate alternatives. Public input was especially 

important in the development of the four management zones that were used to define the alternatives. 

Several Monument tours and briefi ngs were held, 

three newsletters were released, and open houses 

were conducted in eight communities throughout 

southern Idaho. A detailed account of the public 

scoping process and public input received during 

the planning process for the Monument is provided 

under the Consultation and Coordination chapter of 

this Proposed Plan/FEIS (Chapter 5). 

A Draft Plan/EIS was released in April 2004. This 

was followed by a 90-day public review period including public meetings. Over that time, comments 

were received from the public and various government agencies. These were gathered, analyzed, and 

used to complete the Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

This Proposed Plan/FEIS is being released for a 30-

day no-action and protest period. Upon resolution 

of any protests, the NPS Regional Director and the 

BLM State Director will sign a Record of Decision, 

and a Final Management Plan will be released to 

the public. The plan is then implemented, subject to 

additional environmental analysis for site-specifi c 

actions. 

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS, 

POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 

This Proposed Plan/FEIS seeks to defi ne what 

resource conditions and visitor experiences should 

be achieved and maintained over time to achieve the 

purpose of the Monument. This Proposed Plan/FEIS 

considers various approaches to use, management, 

and development, some of which may represent 

competing interests for the same resource base. 

Ultimately, the plan serves to define a series of 

desired future conditions that refl ect the concerns 

and needs of the BLM and the NPS, as well as the 

public. 

As previously described, this Proposed Plan/FEIS 

replaces the four existing BLM land use plans and 

the current NPS GMP, and serves as a combined 

RMP/GMP for the Monument. As such, it covers 

a broad area; addresses a wide range of programs, 

concerns, and resources; and must, therefore, 

function at a general level. 

The more specific actions required to attain the 

goals and outcomes defined in this Proposed 

Plan/FEIS are accomplished through implementation plans. These plans apply to specifi c program 

areas, projects, or operational and development 

strategies for specific areas of the Monument. 

Because planning is an ongoing and continuous 

process, this Proposed Plan/FEIS must be viewed 

as a dynamic document. A number of plans already 

completed would remain in effect, and this Proposed 

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 13
Plan/FEIS reflects those still deemed to be useful. 

Future implementation plans would use the goals 

and conditions defined in this Proposed Plan/FEIS 

as their starting point. Implementation plans for 

actions with potential to affect the environment 

would require formal analysis of alternatives in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and related legislation, including the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

The following explains the relationship between 

this planning effort and existing plans, policies, or 

programs of both the BLM and NPS. Other relevant 

plans, policies, or programs (e.g., state/local land 

use plans) that were considered in the preparation 

of this document are listed and discussed in the 

Environmental Consequences chapter as part of the 

cumulative impact scenario. 

RELATIONSHIP TO CURRENT BLM 

PLANS AND POLICIES 

The following current BLM land use plans and 

Environmental Impact Statements have been considered in the development of this Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

Once approved as a Management Plan, this plan will 

replace portions of the following plans that provide 

direction for the Monument. 

Fire, Fuels, and Vegetation Management 

Direction: The BLM is preparing an EIS that will 

amend 12 existing land use plans (USDI 2004). The 

area, which includes the Monument, is composed 

of public lands managed by the Burley, Pocatello, 

Shoshone, and Upper Snake River fi eld offi ces, 

which are now part of the Idaho Falls and Twin 

Falls districts. The Draft Fire, Fuels, and Vegetation 

Management Direction Amendments (FMDA) 

overlaps this Proposed Plan/FEIS direction related 

to fi re, fire-affected resources, and sagebrush-steppe 

restoration. Management direction proposed and 

analyzed for the Draft FMDA/EIS Preferred Alternative is incorporated in this Proposed Plan/FEIS as 

“Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives” (see Chapter 2). 

Monument Resource Management Plan/EIS 

and Amendments: The 1985 Monument RMP is 

the comprehensive framework for managing approximately 1,179,000 acres of public land north of 

the Snake River in south-central Idaho. RMPs make 

resource allocations, resolve confl icts between competing uses, and ensure management of the public 

lands in accordance with the principles of multiple 

use and sustained yield. The Monument RMP covers 

approximately 60 percent of the Monument. 

Big Lost Management Framework Plan, Grazing 

EIS, and Amendments: This 1983 Management 

Framework Plan (MFP) provides management 

direction for more than 300,000 acres of public land 

north of US 20/26/93 in central Idaho. MFPs predate 

RMPs in the BLM land use planning system. MFPs 

make management decisions and land use allocations by watershed-based planning units. The Big 

Lost MFP covers less than 5 percent of the 

Monument. 

Big Desert Management Framework Plan, Grazing EIS, and Amendments: This 1981 MFP covers 

an area west of Idaho Falls in southeastern Idaho 

and includes 1,162,463 acres of public land. The Big 

Desert MFP covers approximately 30 percent of the 

Monument. 

Sun Valley Management Framework Plan, Grazing EIS, and Amendments: This 1981 MFP covers 

approximately 245,000 acres of public land in the 

northern portion of the BLM Shoshone Field Offi ce. 

The Sun Valley MFP covers less than 5 percent of 

the Monument. 

Great Rift Proposed Wilderness EIS: This 1980 

EIS recommended that 341,000 acres of the Great 

Rift WSA be designated as part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. The entire Great 

Rift WSA is within the Monument. 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 

Project: The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project (ICBEMP) was based on 

Presidential direction to develop a scientifi cally 

sound, ecosystem-based strategy for managing 

the 64 million acres of public lands administered 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

14 
by the Forest Service and the BLM within the 

Columbia River Basin, and portions of the Klamath 

and Great Basins in Oregon. The project was based 

on concerns over forest and rangeland health, 

uncharacteristically intense wildland fi res, threats to 

certain fish and wildlife species, and concerns about 

local community social and economic well being. A 

Final EIS and Proposed Decision were published in 

December 2000. No basin-scale Record of Decision 

has been signed, nor is one expected. 

Public lands administered by the BLM and NPS 

within the Craters of the Moon National Monument planning area are included within the lands 

covered by the ICBEMP analysis. The BLM State 

Directors and Regional Foresters are completing 

the project through the use of the Interior Columbia 

Basin Strategy (Strategy). The BLM is guided by 

a 2003 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

to implement this Strategy in the amendment and 

revisions of RMPs and project implementation on 

public lands administered by BLM throughout the 

Interior Columbia River Basin. The Strategy directs 

BLM to use the findings of the ICBEMP science, 

new information, and the best available science 

in developing land use plans and implementing 

resource management projects, including consultation and participation in plan and project design. 

The ICBEMP analysis and fi ndings have been 

incorporated into this Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

RELATIONSHIP TO CURRENT NPS 

PLANS AND POLICIES 

NPS plans and studies used to develop this document are listed in the bibliography. The plans listed 

below directly influenced the development of this 

Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

NPS Management Policies – 2001: This volume is 

the basic policy document of the NPS and is revised 

at appropriate intervals to consolidate agency policy 

decisions or to respond to new laws and technologies, new understandings of park resources and the 

factors that affect them, or changes in American 

society. 

1992 Craters of the Moon General Management 

Plan: The 1992 GMP was the guiding document 

for the original NPS Monument. Interim Monument 

guidelines were developed in 2001 with cooperative 

input from both agencies. The additional lands 

added as a National Preserve (approximately 

410,000 acres) require the updating of this plan. 

1996 Resource Management Plan: NPS RMPs 

provide a long-range comprehensive strategy for 

natural and cultural resource management. The 

strategy describes a program of activities to achieve 

desired future conditions. The current plan does not 

incorporate any of the National Preserve resources. 

October 2000 Wildland Fire Management 

Plan: The Wildland Fire Management Plan (FMP) 

provides fire management direction for the original 

NPS Monument, not the expanded lands. 

Fiscal Year 2000 – 2005 Strategic Plan for 

Craters of the Moon National Monument and 

Preserve: NPS strategic plans contain the mission statement and goals, describe strategies to 

accomplish goals, and identify external factors that 

could significantly affect achievement of goals. The 

Strategic Plan does not reflect the 2000 expansion, 

but the Fiscal Year 2005 – 2008 Strategic Plan will. 

1993 Cave Management Program: The 1993 

Cave Management Program provides management 

guidelines for the original NPS Monument’s cave 

resources. This plan is no longer adequate, as it does 

not reflect the expanded areas of the Monument. 

1989 (revised 1996) Backcountry/Wilderness 

Management Plan: This plan provides management guidelines for basic recreation use of the 

backcountry and wilderness of the original NPS 

Monument. 

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 15
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS 

AND POLICIES 

Fire Management Planning 

The National Fire Plan is an agreement between 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior to 

help protect communities and natural resources 

as well as the lives of fi refighters and the public. 

The federal wildland fi re management agencies 

worked closely with states, tribes, local governments, and interested publics to prepare the 10-Year 

Comprehensive Strategy, completed in August 2001. 

This strategy outlines a comprehensive approach to 

the management of wildland fi re, hazardous fuels, 

and ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation on 

federal and adjacent state, tribal, and private forest 

and range lands in the United States. It emphasizes 

measures to reduce the risk to communities and the 

environment and provides an effective framework 

for collaboration to accomplish this. 

An implementation plan was signed in June 2002 to 

provide consistent and standard direction to implement the common purposes of the Strategy and the 

National Fire Plan. BLM will incorporate guidance 

from the National Fire Plan and 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy in this Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

FUTURE PLANNING NEEDS 

This Proposed Plan/FEIS is intended to describe 

resource conditions and visitor experiences to be 

achieved within the planning area at the Monument. 

The agencies will be cooperatively preparing or 

amending existing “implementation plans” to 

implement this Proposed Plan/FEIS. The implementation plans are necessarily dynamic in order to 

accommodate new information. Following is a list 

of examples of implementation plans that may be 

necessary at the Monument. 

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan: Proclamation 7373 requires that a transportation plan 

be prepared that addresses the actions, including 

closures or travel restrictions, necessary to protect 

the objects for which the Monument was established. 

The management zones, road and trail classifi cation system, and the provisions of the Proposed 

Plan/FEIS provide the framework for developing 

a Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. The 

agencies intend that this will be the fi rst implementation –level plan to be prepared for the Monument. 

In addition to identifying potential road closures 

or travel restrictions, the plan will include specifi c 

standards for road maintenance and/or improvement 

and will include a published map/brochure designed 

for public use, showing road standards, maintenance 

levels, and appropriate use. 

NPS Resources Management Plan: This plan 

establishes long-term resources management objectives, documents progress towards those objectives, 

and serves as a guideline for funding specifi c 

resource projects. 

Fire Management Plan: Management actions 

analyzed in this Proposed Plan/FEIS, FMDA, 

and Wildland FMP (USDI NPS 2000) would be 

incorporated into an implementation plan to guide 

suppression efforts and proactive fuels and restoration treatments. The FMP would detail management 

goals and constraints within specifi c fi re management areas. While these goals and constraints would 

comply with direction set forth in this Proposed 

Plan/FEIS and FMDA, the FMP would be a 

dynamic document updated regularly to best protect 

Monument resources. 

Wilderness/Wilderness Study Area Management 

Plan: This plan guides the preservation, management, and use of the designated Wilderness and 

WSAs. One of the principal purposes is to establish 

indicators, standards, conditions, and thresholds 

beyond which management actions would be taken 

to reduce human impacts to wilderness resources. 

The current Backcountry / Wilderness Management 

Plan is no longer adequate as it does not incorporate 

the WSAs within the National Preserve. 

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan: This plan 

would identify the primary stories or interpretive 

themes needed to provide each visitor with an 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

16 
opportunity to develop an understanding of the 

Monument. Interpretation is a process of education 

designed to stimulate curiosity and convey messages 

to the visiting public. This plan would guide the 

future development of interpretive facilities and 

programs such as signs, waysides, brochures, guided 

walks, and oral presentations. 

Cave Management Plan: This plan is developed 

to meet the requirements of the Federal Cave 

Resources Protection Act (FCRPA) to perpetuate 

the natural systems associated with caves. This plan 

would build upon the Cave Management Program 

(USDI NPS 1993) and the Cave Resources Management Plan (USDI BLM 1999). 

Cultural Resources Management Plan: This 

plan would guide the preservation, management, 

and use of cultural resources. The plan would also 

include a Native American Graves and Repatriation 

Act (NAGPRA) Action Plan to address inadvertent 

discovery of NAGPRA materials within the Monument. 

Integrated Pest Management Plan(s): This 

plan would provide guidance related to potential 

pests, monitoring indicators, action thresholds, and 

treatment methods to address pest issues within the 

Monument. Among these issues are invasive exotic 

plants, grasshoppers, and large predators. This 

plan would be accomplished cooperatively with the 

USDA. 

Kings Bowl Development Concept Plan: All of 

the alternatives for this Proposed Plan/FEIS identify 

some level of development in the Kings Bowl area. 

These range from the minimal needed to protect the 

resources and protect visitors from hazards in the 

area, to that of more fully accommodating visitor 

access and opportunities for exploring the unique 

features present in the area. A Development Concept 

Plan allows for the agencies to examine in greater 

detail options for protecting the area while accommodating public access and use. 

Administrative History: This is a report that 

documents the history of a unit of the National Park 

System. It records the evolution of its management 

and programs in order to familiarize new managers, 

staff, and other agency officials with the area and 

provide them with a historical basis for future 

management decisions. This report would probably 

be an addendum to the Administrative History of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument (Louter 

1992). 

Volcanic Hazards Analysis: No contingency planning has ever been done for the advent of a volcanic 

eruption. No flow routing modeling has been done 

to help predict where lava would go and how far it 

would travel based on possible eruption sites and 

volumes. Therefore, the team has recommended 

that a comprehensive volcanic hazard assessment 

be conducted. This would provide the necessary 

information for crisis and risk management contingency planning. 

PLANNING ISSUES AND 

CONCERNS 

BLM and NPS staff and the public raised several 

issues and related concerns in meetings, responses 

to newsletters, and discussions with staff from other 

agencies and organizations. This section identifi es 

those issues or concerns that were discussed and that 

are considered in development of alternatives and 

in completion of the EIS, as well as those that are 

beyond the scope of this planning process. 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

ADDRESSED BY THIS PROPOSED 

PLAN/FEIS 

The following summarizes the primary issues that 

were raised and considered in the preparation of this 

Proposed Plan/FEIS, organized by major category. 

Development 

What kinds of Monument facilities and services will 

there be apart from the existing Monument 

developments? 

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 17
• Are new public facilities needed within this Authorized Uses 

Monument within the next 20 years? 

• Are there Monument facilities desired outside 

the Monument? 

• What opportunities do surrounding “gateway” 

communities want for providing services and 

facilities to visitors? 

• Do any existing facilities need to be removed? 

Travel and Access 

What type of road and trail system will be needed 

for travel to and access within the Monument? 

• Will any existing roads within the Monument 

be closed, or will there be any restrictions on 

mechanized or motorized travel in order to 

protect Monument resources? 

• Will there be increased risks for fire and 

noxious weeds? 

• Will any existing roads be upgraded? Will 

some roads receive better maintenance? 

• Will access to portions of the Monument be 

improved? 

• Are access improvements needed outside the 

Monument? 

• How will the counties be consulted on transportation issues? 

Public Uses and Safety 

What is the extent and location of public uses within 

the Monument? 

• How will existing recreational uses of the land 

be affected? 

• Will visitation increase and how would it be 

managed? 

• What opportunities will there be for advancing 

public understanding and appreciation for the 

Great Rift area? 

• Are there new safety concerns associated with 

visitor use? 

• What level of emergency assistance is needed 

within the Monument? 

• How will grazing be managed in the Monument? 

Hill in Monument showing signs of off-road vehicle use 

• Are new range improvements needed to 

enhance rangeland health? 

• Is there a need to authorize access to private 

and state land inholdings? 

• What is the need for local material for road 

maintenance? 

• What opportunities will there be for outfitter 

and guide operations and concession activities 

within the Monument? 

• What will the criteria be for determinations on 

new requests for leases or permits? 

• What valid existing rights existed at the time 

of the Proclamation on November 9, 2000? 

Natural and Cultural Resources 

How will the natural and cultural resources be 

protected? 

• How will the more fragile and significant 

of the geological features be protected from 

visitor use impacts? 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

18 
• What protection will be offered for cultural • What public services will the federal governresources? ment and local governments provide, and 

• How will the Shoshone-Bannock and Sho- which will be provided jointly? 

shone-Paiute tribes be consulted? • Will the federal government assist local 

Sagebrush habitat 

• How can we best maintain the integrity and 

understand the scientific value of both the 

cultural and geological features, the kipukas, 

and the large tracts of sagebrush habitat in 

good condition? 

• How will the introduction and spread of 

noxious weeds be controlled? And are 

kipukas more important to target for eradication efforts? 

• Will there be new guidelines for weed, grasshopper, and predator control programs? 

• What opportunities will there be for scientific 

research? 

• How will fire management be addressed in the 

Monument? 

• How will restoration and rehabilitation efforts 

be addressed on Monument lands? 

• How will management actions protect 

intangible resources like night sky and natural 

quiet, the integrity of viewscapes, and pristine 

 air quality? 

Monument Administration 

What issues does the staff face in the day-to-day 

operation of the Monument? 

• Will new management (administrative) 

facilities be needed? 

governments with needs for emergency 

services within the Monument? 

• Will state and private property within or 

adjacent to the Monument be affected? 

• Will the Monument be identified with signs to 

distinguish it from surrounding public lands? 

Will NPS and BLM lands within the Monument be marked differently? 

Visitor Experience 

What kinds of experiences do visitors want? 

• What opportunities will there be for enhancing 

understanding and appreciation of the Great 

Rift area? 

• What kind of interpretive and educational 

services does the public want? 

• Which visitor activities are suitable and where 

can they occur? 

ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS 

PROPOSED PLAN/FEIS 

A number of public comments raised issues 

concerning laws, regulations, or actions that cannot 

be taken because they are beyond the scope of this 

Proposed Plan/FEIS; inconsistent with laws, regulations, or policy; or more appropriately addressed 

by an implementation plan. For example, a new 

road across a WSA near Bear Park was suggested, 

which would be inconsistent with BLM WSA Policy. 

Another comment asked for road improvements in 

the vicinity of Big Southern Butte. Big Southern 

Butte is outside of the planning area. Another comment suggested that the Monument be scaled back 

to include only outstanding features. Reducing the 

size of the Monument is outside the authority of the 

BLM and NPS. Several commenters called for the 

elimination of grazing on the expanded Monument 

lands. The Proclamation that expanded the Monument directs BLM to manage livestock grazing 

under existing laws, regulations, and policies. BLM 

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 19
authority is limited to administering grazing permits 

on BLM-administered lands only. 

Comments that are more appropriately addressed 

by implementation plans were often site-specifi c. 

One comment called for signed turnouts on US 93 

with trails to access Goodale’s Cutoff. While this 

comment is too site-specific to be addressed by this 

Proposed Plan/FEIS, the plan will generally address 

signing, vehicle access, and interpretation, as well 

as the management of Goodale’s Cutoff. Another 

comment called for offices in Arco or Minidoka to 

fill the need for additional public services. While 

BLM and NPS planning authority is limited to 

the lands within the Monument, the Proposed 

Plan/FEIS addresses the need for facilities as well 

as opportunities to work with local communities 

and governments to provide visitor services and 

administrative facilities. 

Some comments provided very specifi c ideas as 

to how areas should be managed. One comment 

suggested Moss Cave be monitored and visitor use 

remain light. Another suggested overnight use at 

Old Juniper Kipuka should be allowed only with a 

backcountry permit and that group size should be 

restricted to 10 persons. 

Many comments like those presented above are 

best addressed in future implementation plans. The 

agencies have saved all comments and will use 

those in future planning efforts and/or day-to-day 

management. 

IMPACT TOPICS 

Impact topics were identified from those issues that 

were within the scope of the Proposed Plan/FEIS 

and from relevant BLM and NPS policies and 

regulations. The specific topics addressed under 

the Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences chapters of this document include the 

following: 

Natural Resources 

• Geological Resources 

• Soils 

• Vegetation, including Special Status Species, 

and Fire Management 

• Water Resources 

• Wildlife, including Special Status Species 

• Air Quality 

Cultural Resources 

• Archaeological and Historical Resources 

Native American Rights and Interests 

Land Use and Transportation 

• Travel and Access 

• Livestock Grazing 

• Other Land Uses 

• Facilities 

• Lands and Realty 

• Mineral Materials 

• Special Designation Areas 

• Wilderness 

• Wilderness Study Areas 

• Research Natural Areas, National Natural 

Landmark, Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern 

Visitor Experience 

• Interpretation/Visitor Understanding 

• Recreation, including Public Health and Safety 

• Visual Resources 

• Soundscapes 

Social and Economic Conditions 

Each topic is discussed under Affected Environment 

and analyzed under Environmental Consequences. 

Also, these topics form the basis for much of the 

discussion of Management Guidance in the Alternatives chapter. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

20 
IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED 

BUT DISMISSED FROM 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

The following impact topics were discussed during 

the planning process, but were dismissed from 

further consideration for the reasons mentioned 

below. 

PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLAND 

In August 1980, the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) directed that federal agencies must 

assess the effects of their actions on farmland 

soils classified as prime or unique by the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) of USDA. 

There are no prime or unique farmlands in Craters 

of the Moon National Monument and Preserve; 

therefore, the topic of prime and unique farmland 

was dismissed as an impact topic in this document. 

FLOODPLAINS 

Floodplains within the Monument are very limited 

in extent, and none of the actions proposed in any of 

the alternatives of this Proposed Plan/FEIS adversely affect floodplains or cause substantial changes 

to the floodplains or their management. Therefore, 

floodplains are not included as an impact topic. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

The topic of public health and safety is addressed 

in the EIS as a subset of Social and Economic 

Conditions. There are no hazardous materials 

used, or disposed of, in connection with Monument 

operations other than small amounts of cleaners, 

maintenance chemicals, and fuels used in daily 

operations. Therefore, a separate topic of hazardous 

materials was not included as an impact topic in the 

document. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income 

Populations, focuses federal attention on the environment and human health condition in minority and 

low-income communities, promotes nondiscrimination in federal programs, and provides access to 

public information and an opportunity to participate 

in matters that may affect these populations. 

Local residents in communities surrounding the 

Monument include low-income and minority populations. However, no distinct areas of low-income 

or minority populations were identifi ed near the 

Monument, or any that depend upon Monument 

resources for such purposes as subsistence hunting 

or fishing. Actions proposed under the alternatives 

would not cause disproportionate adverse human 

health or environmental impacts to minority and/or 

low-income populations. 

The planned sagebrush steppe restoration program 

associated with all the alternatives would occur 

within the Monument and would not affect populations in nearby communities. Monument operations 

and permitted uses, including associated tribal 

treaty rights, would continue similar to current 

conditions, including recreational use, grazing, and 

hunting in permitted areas. In addition, the subject 

of tribal treaty rights was included in the impact 

analysis (under “American Indian Rights and Interests”) and is addressed in this Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

All areas of the Monument would remain available 

and open to all ethnic groups and income levels, and 

no action would displace users of the Monument to 

low-income or ethnically sensitive areas. For these 

reasons, environmental justice was dismissed as an 

impact topic in this document. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

Although there has never been a formal, systematic 

inventory to document the presence of any cultural 

landscapes within the Monument, none has ever 

been identified by NPS or BLM staff, and the public 

did not identify any cultural landscapes during 

scoping for the Proposed Plan/FEIS. Therefore, the 

topic was not included under Cultural Resources as 

a separate impact topic. 

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 21
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

The Monument’s museum collections include 

objects, specimens, and archival and manuscript 

collections that serve as scientific and historical 

documentation of the Monument’s purpose and 

resources. None of the alternatives considered 

would adversely affect museum collections or 

cause substantial changes to the collections or their 

management, so this topic was not included as a 

separate impact topic under Cultural Resources. 

OTHER PLANNING ISSUES 

The following planning issues relate to the 

Monument’s carrying capacity and the adequacy 

of its boundaries. These issues are common to all 

alternatives. 

CARRYING CAPACITY 

Carrying capacity is the character of use that can be 

supported over a specific time by an area developed 

at a certain level without causing excessive damage 

to either the physical environment or the experience 

of the visitor. To make sure that visitation does not 

impair resources and compromise visitor experience, NPS is required by law to determine carrying 

capacity. This determination is based on the 

purpose, significance and goal statements unique 

to the Monument. At this level of planning, carrying capacity is defined by the management zone 

prescriptions for levels of development and desired 

visitor experiences for that particular zone. 

There are three major components of carrying 

capacity: physical capacity (e.g., parking spaces, facility space, road capacity); visitor experience (such 

as congestion in the Visitor Center, opportunities 

for solitude); and resources (including natural and 

cultural resources). The carrying capacity in a given 

area could be exceeded for any of these components, 

which would trigger management action. 

The north end of the Monument is the only area that 

presently has facilities intended to invite and accommodate large numbers of visitors. Roads, parking 

areas, and related facilities have been designed and 

located to meet current visitation. This includes 

consideration of the impact of visitors upon nearby 

resources. Before any additional facilities are built 

or current facilities expanded, the agencies will 

assess whether such development might have any 

detrimental effects on natural or cultural resources 

or visitor experience. 

Part of this assessment is a visitor survey conducted 

jointly by the University of Idaho and the NPS in 

2004. Some of the information gathered as part 

of that survey was whether visitors feel there are 

any problems with crowding at existing facilities, 

infringement on opportunities for solitude, or other 

related issues with carrying capacity. The BLM 

conducted a similar survey on the backcountry 

areas of the Monument in 2004. The results of both 

surveys will alert the agencies to potential carrying 

capacity problems that will need to be addressed. 

Visitation has not reached the point where visitors 

cause unacceptable levels of resource damage. Due 

to the older design of the Visitor Center, the museum 

and bookstore can be congested during peak visitation periods. Because of the harsh terrain, use of the 

wilderness and backcountry areas is very light. 

Carrying capacity for the Craters of the Moon Wilderness is based on “Limits of Acceptable Change” 

(LAC) planning framework (USDI NPS 1992). The 

LAC System for Wilderness Planning is appropriate 

for use at the Monument, since it is a planning 

process consisting of a series of interrelated steps 

leading to the development of measurable objectives, 

defining desired backcountry and wilderness conditions. It also suggests management actions necessary 

to maintain or achieve desired conditions. Emphasis 

is placed on defining and achieving the resource 

and social conditions desired for the area rather than 

determining how many users an area can sustain. 

MONUMENT BOUNDARIES 

Monument Boundaries 

Proclamation 7373 set aside and reserved as an addition to Craters of the Moon National Monument all 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

22 
lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by 

the United States within the boundaries of the area 

described on the map entitled “Craters of the Moon 

National Monument Boundary Enlargement,” which 

is included as part of Appendix A. The previous 

National Monument was an area of 53,420 acres, 

with all federal lands administered by the NPS. 

In a memorandum from the Secretary of the Interior 

(memo from the Secretary of the Interior dated 

November 24, 2000) the BLM was instructed to 

complete a metes and bounds description of the 

Monument. BLM completed a cadastral survey of 

the external monument boundary in 2001. Based on 

that survey, the Monument and Preserve boundary 

contains 737,680 acres of federal land. The total 

acreage encompassed by the Monument and Preserve boundary is 752,490 including 8,250 acres of 

state land and 6,560 acres of private land, which are 

inholdings and not part of the Monument. 

National Preserve Boundaries 

Proclamation 7373 states that the NPS shall have 

primary management authority over the portion 

of the Monument that includes the exposed lava 

flows. This land area was described as including 

approximately 410,000 acres and designated as a 

unit of the National Park System “Craters of the 

Moon National Preserve” by PL 107-213 on August 

21, 2002. The NPS continues management authority 

over the original 53,420 acres of Craters of the Moon 

National Monument. Proclamation 7373 provides 

that the BLM has primary management authority 

over the remaining portion of the Monument. 

The boundary between the NPS- and BLM-administered lands is often difficult to describe and locate. 

In some cases, distinguishing the boundary between 

the NPS- and BLM-administered land on the ground 

would be a matter of concern to the agencies and the 

public. Surveying the entire boundary between the 

agencies would be costly and is not recommended at 

this time. When a situation requires determination 

of the National Preserve boundary within the external Monument boundary, the boundary line would 

be described by the edge of the brown-colored lava 

shown on the most recent USGS 7.5-minute series 

topographic quadrangle maps available on the date 

of the Proclamation 7373. 

Boundary Modifi cations 

Potential boundary modifications are examined in 

a management plan to identify potential additional 

lands with significant resources or opportunities, 

or which are otherwise critical to fulfi lling the 

Monument’s mission. Based on these criteria, eight 

areas have been identified for potential boundary 

modifications. These are described in detail in 

Appendix C, which contains maps relating to these 

potential modifi cations. 

In addition, the agencies referred to previous studies 

looking at boundary modifications for Craters of the 

Moon, including the Reconnaissance Survey – Expansion of Craters of the Moon National Monument 

(1989) and Management Alternatives – Expansion 

of Craters of the Moon National Monument (1990), 

and concluded no additional recommendation for 

boundary adjustments needed to be proposed in 

this plan. However, when the BLM develops the 

Shoshone Resource Management Plan, scheduled 

to begin in 2006, areas such as Sand Butte identified by the public for consideration for inclusion 

someday within the Monument will be examined to 

determine if additional protection is warranted. 

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 23

Chapter 2 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan 
Previous page, clockwise, from top left 

A’a and cinders 

Lava flow 

Cave entrance 

Ropy pahoehoe 
CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES,

INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN

OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

National Park Service (NPS) developed management alternatives for Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve (Monument) using 

public responses to newsletters and public meetings, as well as ideas from staffs of both agencies. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and BLM and NPS resource management 

planning regulations require the formulation of a 

reasonable range of alternatives that seek to address 

identified planning issues and management concerns. Each alternative must be evaluated to ensure 

that it would be consistent with the area’s purpose 

and significance; the mission goals for the Monument; and current laws, regulations, and policy. 

The four management alternatives developed for the 

Monument are detailed in this section, including: 

• Alternative A – No Action Alternative 

(required by NEPA) – retains current management of the Monument 

• Alternative B – Places emphasis on a broad 

array of visitor experiences within the Monument 

• Alternative C – Places emphasis on retention 

and enhancement of the Monument’s primitive character 

• Alternative D (Proposed Plan) – Places 

emphasis on aggressive restoration of sagebrush steppe communities 

Each alternative has a somewhat different concept, 

which is primarily defined in terms of area allocations into different management zones. Each 

alternative also varies somewhat in its desired 

future conditions and management prescriptions for 

various resource topics. All alternatives afford the 

high degree of protection for Monument resources 

required by Proclamation 7373. 

This chapter first contains a description of the four 

management zones that are apportioned differently 

in each of the alternatives. These are: 

• Frontcountry Zone 

• Passage Zone 

• Primitive Zone 

• Pristine Zone 

Next, there is a discussion of “Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives,” organized by 

resource topic. This management guidance includes 

desired future conditions and management actions 

for each resource. Desired future condition statements describe the preferred long-term condition 

for specific resources. Future decisions and actions 

by management would be judged by whether they 

further progress towards these desired conditions. 

Management actions describe specific activities that 

help to achieve the desired future conditions. 

Following the summary of “Management Guidance 

Common to All Alternatives,” each alternative is 

described, with emphasis on the concepts behind 

the alternative, management zone allocation, and 

management guidance for those topics that vary 

from alternative to alternative. Table 7, at the end of 

this chapter, contains a summary of the alternatives, 

with emphasis on the key features described below 

and those aspects that differentiate the alternatives 

from one another. 

DESCRIPTION OF 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Four management zones were developed for use in 

this plan to guide future management actions within 

the Monument: Frontcountry, Passage, Primitive, 

and Pristine. These management zones respond to 

the wide range of preferences expressed by the public. Different views were expressed about what sort 

of visitor experiences should be available and what 

facilities and accommodations should be provided 

within the Monument. While a different emphasis 

would be given to various zoned portions of the 

Monument, the intent is to always be consistent with 

the purposes for which the Monument was established and with the mission goals identified in the 

Introduction to this document. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 27
Management zones are tools that help guide decision-making on visitor uses, facility development, 

and other uses. Management zones do not address 

natural and cultural resource management. Certain 

limitations and developments in some areas may 

better provide for one user-type than another. 

Management zoning would be established throughout the planning area to provide and maintain a 

range of recreational opportunities for different 

user-types with varying interests and abilities. Each 

separate zone has distinct settings to be provided and 

maintained. Physical settings consider the degree 

of naturalness and amount and type of facilities, as 

well as proximity to roads. Social settings consider 

the number of contacts with other people, the size 

of groups, and evidence of other users. Managerial 

settings consider the amount of visitor management 

used to achieve desired social and resource conditions, the compatibility of traditional land uses with 

the recreational environment, and the type of vehicle 

use allowed in the area. 

All public lands within each alternative would be 

assigned to one of the four zones. The location and 

extent of the various zones vary among the alternatives in order to support the concept behind each 

alternative. 

Table 1 summarizes the main features of each of the 

four management zones, and photos below illustrate 

the typical setting that would be expected in each 

zone. 

Examples of typical setting in each Management Zone. 

Frontcountry Zone Passage Zone 

Primitive Zone Pristine Zone 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

28 
Chapter 2

Table 1

Management Zones

Basic 

i

ide 

l

wi

vi Wi

wi

ith 

people. i with people. 

wi

l

wi

ith 

li wi i wi

i ith 

Visitor 

Experience 

i i i

isk, and 

i

wi

i

Kinds of 

isitor 

FRONTCOUNTRY ZONE PASSAGE ZONE PRIMITIVE ZONE PRISTINE ZONE 

Concept 

The Frontcountry Zone would be 

defined by structures and grounds 

provided for v sitor support 

services such as information, 

education, and recreation. Access 

would be easy and convenient, 

and the visitor encounter rate 

would be very high. High maintenance and intervention would be 

required to accommodate concentrated visitor use. Challenge and 

adventure would be less important 

compared to other zones. Zone 

corridor would be 660 feet w

along roads. 

The Passage Zone is 

intended to accommodate 

the flow of people and 

vehicles from one p ace to 

another and to provide the 

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. Where the zone 

is only a narrow corridor 

following a road (660 feet 

de), the expectation is that 

particular road will be 

maintained to a consistent 

standard along the length of 

the corridor, normally a Class 

B or Class C road from one 

end of the corridor to the 

other. 

The Primitive Zone would 

provide an undeveloped, 

primitive and self-directed 

sitor experience, while 

accommodating motorized 

and mechanized access on 

designated routes. Facilities 

would be rare and provided 

only where essential for 

resource protection. 

The Pristine Zone would 

include mostly lava flows, 

designated Wilderness and 

lderness Study Areas. This 

zone would provide an 

undeveloped and self-directed 

visitor experience, generally 

thout motorized or 

mechanical access. Facilities 

would be non-existent. 

High chance for encounters w Medium chance for 

encounters w th people. 

Low chance for encounters High chance for solitude. 

Travel on paved, improved, or 

maintained roads. 

Travel on higher level of 

maintained roads than the 

Primitive Zone. 

Travel on low-standard roads 

th challenging driving. 

Travel invo ves challenging 

conditions and no roads. 

Developed campgrounds. Rustic, designated 

campsites. 

No developed campsites; 

dispersed primitive camping. 

No developed campsites; 

dispersed primitive camping. 

A high level of interpretation 

programs; informational exhibits. 

Limited interpretation, 

wayside exhibits. 

Minimal on-site interpretation. No on-site interpretation. 

Diverse trail system, some paved. Multiuse, maintained, and 

designated trails. 

Low-standard multiuse trails 

th little or no maintenance. 

Very few trails. 

Low chance for encounters w

vestock or associated 

developments. 

High chance for encounters 

th livestock or associated 

developments. 

Medium chance for 

encounters w th livestock or 

associated developments. 

Low chance for encounters 

th livestock or associated 

developments. 

High level of contact w th agency 

staff. 

Low to moderate level of 

contact with agency staff. 

Very low level of contact with 

agency staff. 

Essentially no contact w

agency staff. 

Typical visitor activ ties: 

sightseeing, driving, bicycling, 

walking, nature study, ranger-led 

programs, camping, picnicking. 

Typical v sitor activities would 

be driving, sightseeing, 

hiking, mountain biking, 

horseback riding, dispersed 

camping. 

Typical visitor activities would 

require self-sufficiency: 

hiking, hunting, horseback 

riding, mountain biking, 

remote camping, driving on 

unimproved roads. 

Typical v sitor activities would 

require self-sufficiency and 

involve challenge, r

adventure: dispersed 

camping, backpacking, nature 

study, and hunting. 

Paved roads and high-standard 

gravel roads. 

Class B-D roads. Some 

arterial roads would be 

regularly maintained to allow 

seasonal car, SUV, light truck 

passage. 

Class C-D roads. D rt roads, 

accessible seasonally only 

th high-clearance vehicles 

and OHVs. 

No roads. 

Hardened and maintained 

pedestrian trails. 

Trailheads; maintained 

motorized and non-motorized 

trails. 

Low standard multiuse trails. Very few trails; no motorized 

trails. 

Frequent signs for directions, 

safety, and interpretation. 

Signs for directions, safety, 

resource protection, and 

interpretation. 

Minimal signs for v sitor 

safety and resource 

protection only. 

Very few signs. 

Access and 

Development 

Offices, utilities, maintenance 

facilities, storage areas, v

center, employee housing, and 

restrooms. 

Minimal administrative 

structures, vault toilets. 

No buildings. No buildings. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 29
ROAD AND TRAIL 

CLASSIFICATIONS 

Within the Monument, a “road” is defined as an 

established route capable of accommodating travel 

by a full-sized automobile or truck. Following other 

routes or establishing new routes with motorized or 

mechanized vehicles is considered “off-road” use, 

which is not permitted in the Monument (see below). 

The agencies have described four different road 

classifications and two trail classifications within the 

Monument: 

• Class A Roads generally are paved and have 

a surface of asphalt, concrete, or similar 

continuous material. In addition to U.S. 

Highway 20/26/93 (US 20/26/93), the only 

Class A roads are the Loop Drive, spur roads, 

and associated parking areas in the original 

NPS Monument. Class A roads are only found 

in the Frontcountry Zone. 

• Class B Roads are improved roads constructed 

with a natural or aggregate surface, and they 

may have berms, ditches, or culverts. Regular 

maintenance allows passage by standard passenger and commercial vehicles such as cars, 

light trucks, and some heavy trucks. Seasonal 

conditions and lack of snow removal may 

render these roads impassable. Class B roads 

are found primarily in the Passage Zone. 

• Class C Roads have a natural surface and may 

be either constructed or established over time 

by repeated passage of vehicles. The natural 

surface may be dirt, sand, or rock. A minimal 

amount of maintenance, if any at all, is limited 

primarily to spot surface grading to allow 

vehicle passage within the original road corridor. Maintenance on these roads is performed 

only as necessary, not in accordance with any 

regular schedule. Class C roads accommodate 

a much smaller range of vehicles than Class B 

roads, usually high-clearance two-wheel-drive 

and four-wheel-drive vehicles. Seasonal 

conditions or wet weather may render these 

roads impassable at any time. Class C roads 

are found primarily in the Passage and Primitive Zones. 

• Class D Roads are primitive roads that were 

not constructed but have been established 

over time by the passage of motorized 

vehicles. These roads receive no maintenance 

or grading. However, management retains 

the authority to perform occasional emergency repairs or maintenance as necessary for 

administrative purposes and general resource 

protection. These roads are generally referred 

to as “two-tracks” or a set of two ruts with 

vegetation growing in between the wheel 

ruts. The condition of these roads varies from 

sometimes passable by a passenger car, to only 

suitable for high-clearance four-wheel-drive 

vehicles. Seasonal conditions or wet weather 

may render these roads impassable at any 

time. Class D roads are found primarily in the 

Primitive Zone. 

• Class 1 Trails are restricted to non-motorized/non-mechanized travel (wheelchairs are 

allowed). Examples of permitted forms of 

travel include foot travel, pack animal, and 

horseback. Examples of prohibited forms 

of travel on Class 1 trails include mountain 

bikes and all motorized vehicles. Class 1 trails 

may be further restricted, for example, to foot 

travel only. 

• Class 2 Trails are open to motorized/mechanized travel in addition to foot travel, pack 

animal, horseback, and other forms of passage. 

Examples of prohibited forms of travel include 

any vehicle with a footprint wider than an 

18-inch tread (all-terrain vehicles, four-wheelers, and four-wheel-drive vehicles). 

MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 

COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

The following sections describe the management 

guidance that would be applicable to all four 

alternatives. The actions described here 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 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

30 
the actual differences among alternatives. Technical 

terms used here are defined in the Glossary or are 

explained more fully in Chapter 3. 

Laws, regulations, and policies drive a large portion 

of BLM and NPS work (see Planning Criteria, 

Appendix B). The management guidance described 

in this section includes many decisions, which are 

required in a land use plan, and also brings forward 

relevant direction from existing land use plans. 

Agencies frequently do not have much latitude to 

vary proposed management across alternatives and 

still comply with laws, regulations, and policy. 

For example, at the Monument, approximately 70 

percent of the planning area is designated as Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas. Existing designations like wilderness constrain the type of actions 

the agencies can propose in this planning effort. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Natural Resources — General 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Resource inventories and surveys documenting the 

condition and extent of natural resources (including 

geologic features) and processes, kipukas, and sensitive 

species are given sufficient emphasis to enable 

completion during the life of the plan. 

�� Monitoring programs are developed and implemented to 

track changes in the condition of key resources serving as 

“vital signs” of ecosystem health or to fulfill other purposes 

of enabling proclamations and laws. 

Management Actions: 

�� Resource inventories, surveys, and monitoring programs 

would be provided for and implemented. 

�� Information gained would be disseminated to the public 

and used in management decisions. 

�� Proactive management activities would be undertaken to 

mitigate potential effects of public use. 

�� The agencies would seek opportunities with the tribes 

and state and federal agencies for partnering in longterm monitoring of Monument natural resources. 

Geological Resources 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

�� Natural processes remain the dominant agents of change �� Geologic features within the Frontcountry and Passage 

to geologic resources within the Primitive and Pristine Zones could be modified as appropriate to facilitate 

Zones. visitor access. 

�� Resource inventories and surveys that document the �� A cave management plan would be developed to meet 

condition and extent of geologic features (including caves the Federal Cave Resources and Protection Act 

and paleontological resources) and also the geologic (FCRPA) requirements. 

processes are sufficiently completed to provide �� Steps would be taken to protect geological features from 

scientifically defensible management decisions. damage presently occurring as a result of unrestricted 

�� Unique or representative geologic features within public access and/or poorly designed or constructed 

Frontcountry and Passage Zones are identified and public facilities. 

documented and have protective strategies implemented �� Prior to authorizing surface-disturbing activities, areas 

to minimize any adverse effects from improved visitor would be surveyed for unique, rare, or special geologic 

access to the areas. resources including fossils. 

�� Knowledge and understanding of geologic resources and �� Threats to unique or outstanding examples of geologic 

processes are sufficient to interpret the interrelationships features, including paleontological and cave resources, 

between geology and biotic communities. would be identified and mitigated as appropriate. 

�� Geologic knowledge and understanding are effectively 

shared with the public in order to stimulate appreciation 

and protection of the geologic resources. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 31
Chapter 2

Soils 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� Soils are stable and functional. The amount of bare 

mineral soil and cover of perennial vegetation, litter, 

and biological soil crust are within 10 percent of that 

expected for the ecological site. 

Management Actions: 

� Soils would be protected from accelerated or 

unnatural erosion from ground disturbing activities. 

For example, post-fire stabilization efforts would 

protect erosion-prone soils through natural and 

assisted revegetation. 

� The potential for, or presence, extent, and condition 

of, biological soil crusts would be investigated to 

provide specific management guidance. 

� Biological soil crusts would be considered in 

management decisions where appropriate. 

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire Management 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� Native plant communities sustain biodiversity and 

provide habitat for native wildlife. 

� There is no net loss, and preferably a net gain, of 

sagebrush steppe communities over the life of the 

plan. 

� Woodland communities (e.g., limber pine, aspen, and 

juniper) 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. 

� The areas dominated by invasive annual species 

(cheatgrass and other similar plants) are minimized. 

� All plant communities are in or making progress 

towards Fire Condition Class (FCC) 1 (see Chapter 3). 

� Preventing or limiting the spread of noxious weeds 

using Integrated Weed Management perpetuates the 

natural condition and biodiversity of the planning area. 

� Kipukas in the Pristine Zone are free of noxious 

weeds. 

� Sustainable forage is available for livestock and 

wildlife. 

� Special status species (those listed by U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service [USFWS], BLM, and/or the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game [IDFG]) remain at 

viable population levels. 

Management Actions: 

� Wildland fire would be suppressed to protect life and 

property, healthy sagebrush steppe communities, 

recent rehabilitation and restoration projects, cultural 

sites, and the Little Cottonwood Creek Watershed. 

� Existing sagebrush steppe communities would be 

protected to prevent loss of shrub cover and 

managed to promote a diverse, desirable grass and 

forb understory. 

� Annual grasslands and highly degraded sagebrush 

steppe communities would be restored to achieve a 

mosaic of shrubs, forbs, and grasses capable of 

sustaining native animal populations. 

� In the event of wildland fire, burned areas would 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. 

� National and Idaho state habitat guidelines for sagegrouse and sagebrush steppe obligates developed 

by interagency working groups regarding 

composition and structure of sagebrush habitats on 

a landscape scale would be adopted to guide 

sagebrush steppe management. 

� Only certified weed-free hay, straw, and mulch 

would be permitted within the Monument. 

� Use of native plants would be emphasized in 

rehabilitation and restoration projects, and only 

native plants would be used for rehabilitation or 

restoration projects within the Pristine Zone. 

� Integrated Weed Management principles would 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. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

32 
Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire Management (cont.) 

�� Weed infestations in wilderness areas would be 

controlled by methods consistent with minimum tool 

requirements and Integrated Weed Management 

principles, including prevention of disturbance activities; 

use of cultural and mechanical methods to control or 

physically remove noxious weeds; and application of 

herbicides and possibly biological controls. 

�� BLM and NPS would develop a joint fire management 

implementation plan for the Monument. 

�� The cooperative arrangement between BLM and NPS 

related to fire management would continue, including 

cooperative agreements with local fire departments and 

rural fire districts. 

�� All special status species in the Monument would be 

inventoried with monitoring plans established, particularly 

when and where adverse impacts may occur. 

�� Actions and stipulations necessary to protect special 

status species and their habitats would be made part of 

land use authorizations (e.g., limiting fragmentation of 

special status species populations when considering 

road maintenance) and fire planning. 

�� Current science and best available technologies and 

plant materials would 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. See Appendix J for 

specific protocols for all fire management and vegetation 

treatment activities. 

�� Areas classified as poor to fair biotic integrity would be 

highest priority for restoration treatments (see Figure 15; 

see also Jurs and Sands 2004). 

Management Actions: 

�� No additional playas would be modified or developed. 

�� Playas would be evaluated for restoration on a case-bycase basis. 

�� The agencies would work with appropriate State of Idaho 

authorities to obtain water resources needed for 

Monument purposes. 

Water Resources 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� 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. 

�� Little Cottonwood Watershed yields sufficient safe drinking 

water for current public and administrative uses in the 

visitor center complex. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 33
Wildlife, Including Special Status Species 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� 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 planning area 

to support healthy populations of resident and migrant 

species. 

�� Sage-grouse restoration habitat (R1 & R2) would achieve 

significant progress towards reclassification as Key habitat. 

�� High-quality habitats for sagebrush obligate species are 

provided. 

�� Species composition in Key sage-grouse habitat would 

reflect site potential. 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Air quality related values, particularly visibility, within the 

Class I Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area are not 

degraded and adverse impacts do not occur. 

�� Air quality parameters negatively affecting human health, 

visibility or biological diversity remain at or below current 

levels. 

Management Actions: 

�� Inventory and monitoring of wildlife would emphasize 

species that are regionally or nationally important. 

�� A monitoring program would be established to detect 

species populations in decline, species as indicators of 

the health of the ecosystem, and record the presence of 

species of special concern. 

�� NPS, in consultation with the state and tribes, would 

designate areas within the Preserve and periods of time 

when no hunting would be permitted for protection of the 

area’s resources. 

�� BLM would continue to hold annual meetings and 

coordinate closely with USDA Wildlife Services and 

livestock lessees with the purpose of reducing livestock 

losses. BLM would encourage using non-lethal methods, 

education, and the targeting of specific offending animals 

for lethal methods. These procedures would be 

implemented in order to protect both public safety and 

the natural resources for which the Monument was 

designated. 

�� On all NPS-administered lands, predator control would 

not be authorized by the NPS except on a case-by-case 

basis. 

�� Native animal species identified as pests would be 

managed in accordance with the applicable BLM or NPS 

agency management policies depending upon the 

administrative area in which the pest occurs. 

�� All special status species in the Monument would be 

inventoried with monitoring plans established, particularly 

when and where adverse impacts may occur. 

�� Actions and stipulations necessary to protect special 

status species and their habitats would be made part of 

land use authorizations (e.g., limiting fragmentation of 

special status species populations when considering 

road maintenance) and fire planning. 

Management Actions: 

�� The agencies would work proactively with surrounding 

communities, land management agencies, and the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality to limit increases of 

particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, which could reduce 

visibility, throughout the entire Monument. 

Air Quality 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

34 
Chapter 2

CULTURAL RESOURCES 


Archaeological and Historical Resources 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� 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 in or 

eligible to be listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) are protected in an 

undisturbed condition unless it is determined 

through appropriate consultation 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 in the NRHP 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. 

Management Actions: 

� The significance of known archaeological and historic 

resources, structures, and landscapes would be evaluated 

and documented, in conjunction with the Idaho State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO), for listing in the NRHP. 

� Through consultation with the Idaho SHPO, areas for Section 

110 cultural resource inventories would be prioritized. 

� Measures such as access limitations and periodic monitoring 

would be identified to proactively manage and protect 

cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties. 

� A proactive Section 110 inventory would be conducted as 

funding allows expanding the cultural resource database for 

the Monument. 

� At-risk NRHP-eligible sites would be monitored for vandalism 

or other disturbances and protected/ stabilized as necessary. 

� A comprehensive Archaeological Overview and Assessment 

of known and potential archaeological resources (baseline 

research report) within the planning area would be 

completed. 

� A Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) that 

describes how specific sites would be managed, defines 

what areas need additional inventory, and designates 

potential use categories for sites would be completed for the 

Monument. 

� Eligible properties would be monitored periodically and steps 

would be taken to stabilize any property found to be 

deteriorating and to limit access as needed. 

� Projects would be planned and designed so as to avoid 

adversely impacting cultural resources where possible. BLM 

and NPS would consult with Tribes and the Idaho SHPO to 

develop alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any 

potential adverse effects. 

� Activities that may affect the Goodale’s Cutoff of the Oregon 

Trail, the NPS headquarters/Visitor Center Mission 66-era 

area, or other properties listed or eligible for the NRHP would 

be undertaken in consultation with the Idaho SHPO. 

Museum Collections 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

� Museum collections (objects, works of art, � Monument collections would be accessible for legitimate 

historic documents, and natural history scientific research and educational purposes. 

specimens) are maintained according to NPS � All resource management records that would be directly museum management program associated with museum objects would be managed as requirements. museum property. These and other resource management 

records would be preserved as part of the archival and 

manuscript collection because they document and provide 

an information base for the continuing management of the 

Monument’s resources. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 35
NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS AND INTERESTS 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� 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 governmentto-government relationship, and the 

agencies routinely consult on matters 

involving the treaty interests and/or rights of 

the tribes. 

�� Tribal oral history would be considered and 

incorporated into interpretive materials, as 

well as resource management. 

Management Actions: 

�� Native American tribes that have expressed an interest in 

traditional cultural properties within the Monument would be 

consulted with on a regular basis regarding the management 

of those properties. 

�� Handling of Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) materials would be addressed as 

a component of a Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

�� Should any NAGPRA materials ever be inadvertently 

discovered within the Monument, the agencies would follow 

the tribal consultation procedures outlined in the NAGPRA of 

1990 regarding their treatment. 

�� The agencies in consultation with the tribes would identify 

protection measures for places of traditional cultural 

importance to Native Americans to preserve the integrity and 

use of these areas as described in National Register Bulletin 

38. 

�� Agencies would 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. 

�� Agencies would consult with Native American tribes prior to 

taking actions that would affect natural and cultural resources 

that are of interest and concern to them. 

�� Hunting, gathering, and use of certain natural resources as 

sacred objects for religious use would continue on the 

Preserve and expanded areas of the Monument. (See 

Chapter 3 for additional discussion.) 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

36 
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 

Travel and Access 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� There is no net increase in road mileage within 

the Monument. 

�� The road system within the planning area 

provides access for visitors, permittees, nonfederal 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 land within 

the Monument. 

Management Actions: 

�� The agencies would prepare guidelines and procedures for 

authorization of emergency and administrative off-road travel. 

�� The agencies would prepare an implementation-level 

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan, showing road and trail 

classifications, standards, restrictions, and closures. Current road 

standards and classifications will be maintained until the 

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan is approved. 

�� All land within the Monument other than designated roads and 

trails would be designated “Closed” for off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

and mechanized vehicle use (see Glossary). 

�� The agencies would prepare a travel map showing allowable uses, 

road and trail classifications, and standards and restrictions. 

�� No motorized vehicle roads or trails would be permitted within the 

Pristine Zone. 

�� The agencies would close and rehabilitate all routes established in 

Wilderness Study Areas that were not identified in the wilderness 

inventory as “existing ways.” 

�� All roads and trails within the BLM-administered portions of 

Monument would be designated “Limited” for OHV/motorized 

vehicle use. 

�� All authorized roads located on NPS-administered portions of the 

Monument and Preserve would be open only to bicycles and 

licensed motorized vehicle travel and would be designated as 

“Park Roads.” 

�� The agencies may close individual roads and trails temporarily or 

permanently to protect resources on a case-by-case basis. 

�� Snowmobile use on BLM-administered portions of the Monument 

would be addressed in an upcoming Comprehensive Travel 

Management Plan. 

�� The agencies would seek local jurisdiction concurrence (county or 

highway district) for any upgrade of commitment to future 

maintenance for any roadway under that entity’s jurisdiction. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 37
Livestock Grazing 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Sustainable rangeland ecosystems are healthy; 

public rangelands are maintained or restored to 

meet Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health. 

�� 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 the 

desired future conditions for natural, cultural, and 

visual resources. 

Facilities 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Visitor and administrative facilities within the 

Frontcountry Zone of the NPS Monument meet

visitors’ needs. 

�� The agencies cooperate with gateway

communities in providing information and services 

to visitors at sites outside the Monument. 

�� Location of agency facilities and staffing levels 

promotes efficiency of operations and public 

needs.

�� Principles of sustainable and universal design are 

incorporated into all facilities and operations. 

Lands and Realty 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Existing access to private lands is maintained, 

consistent with applicable laws, while minimizing

environmental impacts. 

�� Valid existing rights are protected (see Glossary). 

Management Actions: 

�� Nine allotment boundaries would be altered to accurately reflect 

the NPS/BLM boundary. There would be no change in animal unit 

month (AUM) preferences actually available for grazing. See 

Appendix F for additional details. 

�� BLM acres of land available for livestock use: total 273,000. BLM 

acres of land not available for livestock use: total 1,800. NPS 

acres of land not available for livestock use: total 462,880. 

�� Permitted livestock use: totals 36,965 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, vegetation, wildlife livestock, or resource objectives. 

�� Use of existing livestock developments in Primitive and Pristine 

Zones may continue. BLM may remove developments if they are 

no longer serving a useful purpose or resource objectives warrant 

their removal. Sites would be restored. 

�� The Brigham Point and Paddelford Flat sheep trails across NPS 

land would be evaluated for future use. See Appendix F. 

Management Actions: 

�� Existing paved road system and parking areas would be modified 

to address safety and maintenance concerns. 

�� Fire stations at Carey and Kimama would include Monument 

information. There would be informational kiosks located along 

roads leading into the Monument. 

�� Opportunities for sharing BLM and NPS facilities and staff would 

be evaluated. 

�� Signs and wayside exhibits previously approved for visitor safety 

and resources protection would be installed at Kings Bowl. 

�� Monument informational materials would be provided for display or 

distribution at non-agency sites in communities surrounding the 

Monument. 

Management Actions: 

�� The agencies would pursue acquisition or exchange for private 

inholdings within the Monument based on initiation by willing 

seller. 

�� The agencies would pursue an exchange with Idaho Department 

of Lands for state lands located in and near the Monument. 

�� Action on applications for new discretionary land use 

authorizations would be guided by existing NPS and BLM policies. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

38 
Chapter 2

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

Mineral Materials 

Management Actions: 

� Existing authorization for material sites within the Monument 

would continue for the term of the authorization. 

� New materials sites would not be developed except for 

Monument administrative purposes. 

� Information would be provided on BLM areas outside the 

Monument where casual collection is appropriate and 

permitted for materials similar to those found in the 

Monument. 

� Agencies would consult with Idaho Transportation 

Department on relinquishment of three right-of-way grants for 

material sites along US 93. 

� A Material Sites Reclamation Plan would be prepared. 

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

Management Actions: 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� Material sites (sites excavated for gravel, 

cinder, and other materials) are reclaimed 

and restored where feasible when no longer 

in use. 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� Natural conditions in Wilderness and WSA, 

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 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. 

NPS and BLM would develop a joint Wilderness/WSA 

management plan following completion of this plan. 

No additional wildlife water developments or other habitat 

manipulations would be undertaken to manage wildlife 

populations in Wilderness, WSAs, or the Preserve. 

Use of aircraft to survey and monitor wildlife populations 

could be continued, but flights would be scheduled to avoid 

high visitor use periods. Any landing of aircraft or dropping of 

supplies from aircraft in wilderness or WSA would be 

consistent with a minimum requirement and minimum tool 

analysis. 

Ways or travel routes within WSAs not identified during WSA 

inventories would be closed to motorized vehicles and 

rehabilitated. 

Minimum requirement analysis would precede all 

management activities within wilderness and WSAs. 

Should those portions of the Great Rift WSA adjacent to the 

original Monument be designated as wilderness, the 660-foot 

strip of non-wilderness between the Craters of the Moon 

Wilderness boundary and the original Monument boundary 

should be designated as Wilderness as well. 

Should Congress release any WSA from WSA status, then 

the area would be managed under the direction of this land 

use plan. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 39
Chapter 2

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Interpretation / Visitor Understanding 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� The Monument builds and maintains 

positive relationships with visitor user 

groups and educational 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. 

Management Actions: 

A Comprehensive Interpretive Plan for the Monument would be 

developed. 

Educational programs for schools would focus on programs on 

site in the original NPS-administered Monument. A number of 

programs (summer and winter) aimed at special users would be 

presented each year. 

Both agencies would coordinate services to meet the needs of 

permittees, visitors, students, educators, interest groups, and the 

general public. 

Developed facilities such as the Visitor Center at the original NPS 

Monument would continue to be provided. 

Informational/orientation materials dealing with recreation, maps, 

safety, and resource concerns would be posted on kiosks located 

at all primary backcountry access points surrounding the 

Monument and at Carey and Kimama fire stations. 

A variety of interpretive media for on- and off-site use would 

continue to be developed. Interpretive programs and the 

maintenance of exhibits and waysides would continue. 

Monument staff would continue to promote visitor safety and 

resource protection. 

Existing roads, trails, and facilities would be maintained and new 

facilities would be provided as appropriate in the Frontcountry 

Zone for resource protection and visitor enjoyment. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

40 
Chapter 2

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

Recreation 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

� Opportunities are available for diverse �

recreation experiences, consistent with 

the intent of Monument proclamations 

and applicable laws. 

� Public awareness of responsible low 

impact recreational use reduces or �

eliminates the need for restrictive 

management policies. 

� Public awareness of area hazards, along 

with an attitude of self-reliance and � personal safety, substantially reduces 

the need for restrictive management 

policies. 

� Impacts associated with recreational 

uses do not adversely affect the physical 

Idaho’s State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 


Plan (SCORTP) (2003) and the Idaho Outdoor Recreation 


Demand Assessment would be utilized in implementation-level 


planning to assist managers in understanding the recreational use 


patterns, trends, and recreation facilities needed for the area. 


Resources and areas most vulnerable to vandalism, theft, and/or 


recreation use impacts would be inventoried. 


Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly! programs would be promoted 


with staff and the public. 


Programs would promote wilderness and backcountry ethics. 


Information/orientation materials such as travel maps, safety


bulletins, resource information and recreation information would 


be conveniently available. 


The agencies, in consultation with the State of Idaho, could 


designate areas within the Preserve and periods of time when no 


hunting and/or use of firearms would be permitted for reasons of 


public safety, administration, and/or public use and enjoyment. 


Permits would be required for overnight camping in the 


Wilderness and/or biking or hiking in the original Monument area 


north of US 20/26/93. 


No wood fires would be permitted within the original Monument 


(campground sites provide grills for charcoal cooking only; wood 


fires permitted at group campsite). 


No hunting would be allowed in the original Monument. 


The agencies would continue to provide and promote cross-


country skiing and snowshoeing activities along the 7-mile Loop 


Drive in the northern end of the Monument. 


and visual integrity of geologic features. 

� NPS, BLM, and external partners 


provide the public accurate and 


consistent information on recreational 


opportunities throughout the Monument. 


� The area continues to offer a range of 


opportunities for discovery. 


� Responsible low impact recreational use 


allows for relatively unrestricted 


recreational opportunities throughout 


much of the Monument. 


� Within the Pristine Zone, public 


opportunities to experience solitude, 


natural quiet/night sky, and views of 


landscapes remain substantially free of 


human influence. 


Visual Resources 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� Existing opportunities to experience 


solitude, dark night sky, and views of


landscapes remain substantially free of 


human intrusions. 


� A primitive and natural visual setting is 


retained.


� The visual integrity of the Goodale’s 


Cutoff historic trail corridor remains 


protected.


� Management activities meet or exceed 


adopted Visual Resource Management 


(VRM) classes.


Soundscapes 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� Aircraft noise impacts are minimized. 

� Existing opportunities to experience 


solitude and natural quiet remain 


substantially free of human intrusions. 


Management Actions: 

� 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. 

� Existing waste dumps would be inventoried and cleaned up. 

Management Actions: 

� Aircraft landings associated with commercial air tours would not 

be authorized within the Pristine Zone. 

� The agencies would coordinate with the Department of Defense, 

Federal Aviation Administration, and the Idaho Department of 

Aeronautics regarding noise impacts. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 41
Chapter 2

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

� Gateway and other nearby communities � An intergovernmental coordinating group would be considered to 

benefit economically and socially from ensure consistency of this plan with other state and local plans. 

the presence of the Monument. � The agencies would participate with interested communities in 

their planning for accommodating Monument visitors through their 

communities. 

RESEARCH 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

� The findings of scientific research � In order to maintain a complete record of research activities, 

enhance management decisions and research and specimen collecting permits would be required for 

increase public appreciation, and all projects. Standard Operating Procedures for the NPS permit 

understanding of Monument resources. process would be incorporated for the entire Monument. 

� The research community and the � Varying means, including interdisciplinary and interagency 

Monument staff view the Monument as a research projects, would emphasize the use of the Monument as 

productive outdoor laboratory. an outdoor laboratory for understanding the Great Rift ecosystem. 

� BLM and NPS would facilitate the transfer of research information 

to the public. 

� To the extent they are available, NPS and BLM facilities and staff 

assistance may be made available to qualified researchers and 

educational institutions conducting authorized studies or field 

classes. 

� The agencies would coordinate the review and approval of 

research applications to confirm adherence to each agency’s 

policy and to assure compatibility with the purposes for the 

Monument. 

� The agencies would work with interested partners in sponsoring a 

symposium or similar forum for sharing information on past 

research and helping identify future research needs and 

opportunities. 

42 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
ALTERNATIVE A 

(NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) 

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 

The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) is 

required by the NEPA and provides the baseline 

against which to compare the other alternatives. 

Under this alternative, current management practices 

would continue as funding allows. Existing visitor 

facilities would be maintained to support current 

activities. 

Following the expansion of the Monument, the 

agencies were directed to follow the directives of 

Proclamation 7373 and the Interim Management 

Guidelines issued pursuant to the Proclamation. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would 

continue the current management direction, guided 

by the Proclamation, and Interim Management 

Guidelines (see Appendix B), as well as existing 

laws and policy. Current direction includes the five 

existing land use plans that were in place prior to 

Proclamation 7373: the Sun Valley Management 

Framework Plan (1981), the Monument Resource 

Management Plan (1985), the Big Desert Management Framework Plan (1981), the Craters of the 

Moon General Management Plan-NPS (1992), and 

the Big Lost Management Framework Plan (1983). 

The key components of Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) are as follows: 

• Depicts current management under the five 

existing management plans as modified by 

Proclamation 7373, Public Law 107-213, and 

the agencies’ Interim Management Guidelines. 

• Serves as a baseline for comparison with the 

other three alternatives. 

• Responds to those public comments favoring 

keeping things as they are. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Although the Monument is not currently zoned as 

depicted, management zones were established for the 

purposes of this planning process. Figure 4 depicts 

the zones based on the agencies’ best understanding 

of where the zone boundaries would be located 

under Alternative A (No Action Alternative). Figure 

4 also shows the zone allocations that would occur 

under Alternative A (No Action Alternative). 

As can be seen on Figure 4, the Frontcountry Zone 

coincides with the high-use visitor areas: the Visitor 

Center/Loop Drive area and US 20/26/93 along the 

northern boundary of the Monument. The Passage 

Zone includes a few other main access roads in 

Laidlaw Park, the portion of the Carey-Kimama 

Road that goes through the Monument, the southern 

portion of the Arco-Minidoka Road within the 

Monument, and a small area at Kings Bowl. The 

Passage Zone designation is appropriate for these 

areas since they are the primary travel and access 

routes within the Monument. They have some signs 

and facilities used by visitors who are sightseeing, 

hiking, or accessing camping or day-use areas and 

they contain many livestock-oriented facilities such 

as sheep bed grounds, fences, water troughs, and 

corrals. 

The Pristine Zone under Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) appropriately includes the undisturbed 

lava flows, while the Primitive Zone was appropriate 

for the remainder of the Monument and Preserve, 

which consists of relatively large expanses with 

few facilities located between the lava flows and 

travel corridors. The Primitive Zone includes lands 

currently used for dispersed recreation and primitive 

camping only, with mostly two-track dirt roads. 

MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE FOR 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would 

incorporate all of the “Management Guidance 

Common to All Alternatives” previously described, 

plus the following alternative-specific guidance. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 43
VEGETATION, INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Existing and potential sagebrush 

steppe communities within the 

Monument are protected and 

restored, with an emphasis on Key 

sage-grouse habitat in Laidlaw Park, 

Little Park, and Paddelford Flat. 

Management Actions: 

�� Approximately 40,000 acres would be identified for proactive restoration and/or 

post-fire rehabilitation (5 percent of the entire Monument, 15 percent of BLMadministered land). This assumes the current rate of restoration, approximately 

2,500 to 4,000 acres annually over the life of the plan. Approximately 31,000 acres 

of annual grassland and 9,000 acres of highly degraded low elevation sagebrush 

steppe (poor to fair biotic integrity; see Figure 15) would be treated to control 

cheatgrass and restore big sagebrush cover with a perennial understory. 

�� All wildland fires within the Preserve and BLM portion of the Monument would be 

managed in accordance with current BLM land use plans. 

�� Wildland fire within the original Monument would be managed according to the NPS 

Wildland Fire Management Plan (2000) that permits use of naturally ignited 

wildland fires for resource benefit (wildland fire use) in the Wilderness area under 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

specific conditions. 

Desired Future Conditions: Management Actions: 

�� Same as “Common to All.” �� A minimum of 5 percent of the Monument would be intensively inventoried (Section 

110 National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA]) for cultural resources over the life of 

the plan. 

�� Some interpretation of archaeological and historic sites would continue (e.g., 

Goodale’s Cutoff, Baker Cave, and Indian Tunnel). 

TRAVEL AND ACCESS 

Desired Future Conditions: Management Actions - The following objectives would guide the drafting of an 

�� Same as “Common to All.” (Most implementation-level Comprehensive Travel Management Plan that will follow. 

management direction for the desired �� Authorized roads and trails would continue to be maintained to current standards. 

condition for Alternative A [No Action �� New trails could be developed within the NPS-administered portion of the 

Alternative] is reflected in the Monument and within the area presently zoned as “park and interpretive 

management zone depiction – see development” in the 1992 General Management Plan. 

Table 2.) �� Trails in the Kings Bowl area would be maintained or rehabilitated to prevent further 

resource damage. 

�� All existing roads and trails within the Monument that were legally open to vehicle 

travel prior to Proclamation 7373 would remain open, although the agencies may 

close individual roads and trails temporarily to protect resources on a case-by-case 

basis. 

FACILITIES 

Desired Future Conditions: Management Actions: 

�� Administrative and visitor facilities �� The kiosks located along roads leading into the Monument and a few information 

continue to be restricted to an area of and directional signs in the interior would continue to be maintained and replaced 

approximately 92 acres in the north as necessary. 

end of the Monument adjacent to US 

20/26/93. This area includes lands �� Visitor safety and information signs would be provided in the Kings Bowl area. 

adjacent to the 7-mile paved Loop 

Drive. 

Desired Future Conditions: Management Actions: 

�� Same as “Common to All.” �� Existing authorized roads in the Pristine Zone would remain open to motorized and 

mechanical vehicle travel. 

Desired Future Conditions: Management Actions: 

�� Same as “Common to All.” �� VRM inventory classes would be designated as management classes as shown on 

Figure 5 

RECREATION 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

44 

46 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
The following are the definitions of classes of Visual remain subordinate in the existing landscape. 

Resource Management, as depicted in Figures 5 and • Class IV – The objective of this class is

7. to provide for management activities that 

• 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 

require major modification of the existing 

character of the landscape. Contrasts may 

attract attention and be a dominant feature in 

the landscape in terms of scale. However, the 

classification is applied by policy to Visual change should repeat the basic element of the 

ACECs, wilderness and WSAs, Wild and landscape. 

Scenic Rivers, and other similar situations. Table 2 summarizes where the various types of 

• 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.

roads and trails that currently exist would fall 

within the management zones as they have been 

located under Alternative A. Road and trail classification is based on the inventoried condition 

and maintenance standards for roads and trails as 

of 2003; refer to Chapter 3 for a description of the 

• Class III – The objective of this class is to 

partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. Contrasts to the basic elements 

caused by a management activity may be 

road and trail classifications. These decisions will 

be made in an implementation plan that will follow. 

Under Alternative A, the intent is to maintain the 

road network in its current condition and road 

evident and begin to attract attention in the classification. 

landscape. The changes, however, should 

Table 2 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) – Road and Trail 

Distribution by Management Zone 

Road Classification Frontcountry Pristine Total Miles 

Class A 30 0 0 0 30 

Class B 0 45 12 0 57 

Class C 2 14 344 1 361 

Class D 0 2 166 1 169 

7 0 0 7 14 

Total Miles 39 61 522 9 631 

MANAGEMENT ZONES* 

Passage Primitive 

Class I Trails 

 *Approximate miles of existing roads and trails within each zone rounded to the nearest whole number. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 47 
Arco 

20 26 93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

0 5 mi 0 5 km 

Carey 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE 5 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

P I O N E E R 

M O U N T A I N S 

A Road 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

Class 1 

Class 4 

Class 2 

Class 3 

Not Inventoried 

Monument Boundary 

Town VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION 

ALTERNATIVE A (No Action Alternative) 

B Road 

C Road 

48 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
ALTERNATIVE B 

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 

This alternative would optimize opportunities to 

experience the Monument, offer a wide range of 

recreational opportunities and experiences, and 

perpetuate historic use patterns. It would promote 

more travel and access within the Monument 

and provide for more extensive educational and 

directional signage throughout the Monument. One 

emphasis would be on maintaining a strong interpretation and education program for visitors within 

the Monument to help protect resources, maintain 

a safe visitor experience, and minimize conflicts 

with traditional uses. This alternative represents the 

highest accommodation of visitor access to, and 

within, the Monument. 

The key components of Alternative B are as follows: 

• Provides the greatest number of multiuse trail 

opportunities. 

• Provides extensive educational and directional 

signs throughout the Monument. 

• Allocates large areas in the Passage Zone 

instead of only narrow corridors. 

• Proposes travel corridors outside the Monument boundary to provide consistent road 

standards and access to and through the 

Monument, including the Carey-Kimama, 

Arco-Minidoka, and American Falls-Kings 

Bowl roads. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Figure 6 depicts the zones based on the agencies’ 

best understanding of where the zone boundaries 

would be located under Alternative B. Figure 6 also 

shows the zone allocations that would occur under 

Alternative B. 

As Figure 6 indicates, under Alternative B the 

Frontcountry Zone would remain primarily the same 

as under Alternative A (No Action Alternative). A 

small area immediately surrounding the existing 

facilities at the Crystal Ice Caves/Kings Bowl area 

would be added to the Frontcountry Zone. However, 

the biggest emphasis would be on the Passage Zone, 

which would be greatly expanded to include an area 

north of US Highway 20/26/93, all of the CareyKimama and Arco-Minidoka roads (approximately 

9,000 acres outside of the Monument), a network of 

roads leading to and through Laidlaw Park, and two 

relatively large areas in Laidlaw Park and between 

the Craters of the Moon and Wapi lava flows. These 

areas were designated as Passage Zone to facilitate 

access to several areas of the Monument, thereby 

providing for a broad range of visitor experience 

and recreation opportunities within the Monument. In cooperation with the local jurisdictions, 

primary access roads such as the Carey-Kimama 

and Arco-Minidoka roads would be designated as 

Backcountry Byways and upgraded to a consistent 

Class B standard. This would require collaboration 

with adjacent county governments. Passage Zone 

designation in these areas also allows for more new 

facilities including wayside exhibits, trailheads, 

parking areas, trail systems, day-use facilities, and 

designated campsites. 

With the increase in Passage Zone provided in 

Alternative B, there would be a corresponding 

decrease in Primitive Zone areas, with the Pristine 

Zone allocation remaining about the same as under 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative). Essentially, 

Alternative B trades Primitive Zone and associated 

primitive-type visitor uses for the opportunity to 

provide an expanded Passage Zone that would allow 

for increased and/or improved access for visitors to 

many more areas within the Monument. 

MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE FOR 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would incorporate all of the “Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives” 

previously described, plus the following alternative 

specific guidance. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 49
Chapter 2

GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

� Same as “Common to All.” � A restoration program would be initiated to remove graffiti from caves and foster 

public understanding of the need for cave resource protection. 

� Trails to key geological features would be considered to mitigate resource 

impacts from user-created trails. 

VEGETATION, INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

� Fire is allowed to function as a natural � Approximately 45,000 acres would be identified for proactive restoration and/or 

process in the Wilderness and post-fire rehabilitation treatment (6 percent of the entire Monument, 16 percent of 

Preserve. BLM-administered). Approximately 31,000 acres of annual grassland and 14,000 

acres of highly degraded low elevation sagebrush steppe (poor to fair biotic 

integrity; see Figure 15) would be treated to control cheatgrass and restore big 

sagebrush cover with a perennial understory. 

� Restoration projects would be an opportunity for interpretation on the decline of 

sagebrush steppe and efforts to restore this dwindling resource. 

� Proactive fuels management activities would be undertaken to offset the potential 

effects of increased public use as a result of improvements to roads and facilities. 

� Integrated Weed Management would have a heightened emphasis on 

treatment/containment, prevention, and education, particularly in Frontcountry 

and Passage Zones. 

� Wildland fire use would be allowed in the Wilderness and Preserve except when 

incompatible with resource management objectives or when there would be 

danger to life or property. 

� Limited prescribed fire (<500 acres) would 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. 

WILDLIFE 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

� Same as “Common to All.” � Consistent with Rangeland Health Standards & Guidelines determinations, 

livestock grazing management would be modified as necessary to ensure that 

Key sage-grouse habitat achieves site potential. 

� Roads in Key sage-grouse habitat found in the Primitive Zone would be closed to 

motor vehicles during the sage-grouse breeding season (generally March and 

April but specific dates would be modified to reflect actual use in the Preserve) 

and between 1 a.m. and 11 a.m. 

� Active leks would be protected from disturbance during the sage-grouse breeding 

season. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Desired Future Conditions: Management Actions: 

� Same as “Common to All.” � In response to increased access, public education and interpretation of cultural 

resources would be emphasized and provided at various dispersed recreation 

sites. 

� Emphasis would be on increased Section 110 inventory in the Passage Zone. 

� A minimum of 10 percent of the Monument would be intensively inventoried 

(Section 110 NHPA) for cultural resources over the life of the plan. 

� Site monitoring and site protection measures, such as physical barriers, would be 

emphasized at various dispersed recreation sites. 

50 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

52 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Arco 

20 26 93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

0 5 mi 0 5 km 

Carey 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE 7 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

P I O N E E R 

M O U N T A I N S 

A Road 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

Class 1 

Class 4 

Class 2 

Class 3 

Not Inventoried 

Monument Boundary 

Town VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

CLASSIFICATION (ALT'S B, C, & D) 

B Road 

C Road 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 53
TRAVEL AND ACCESS 

Management Actions: 

�� The Carey-Kimama and Arco-Minidoka roads would be designated as 

Backcountry Byways over their entire length including portions outside the 

Monument. 

�� The Carey-Kimama and Arco-Minidoka roads would be upgraded and maintained 

to a consistent Class B Standard over their entire length including portions 

outside the Monument. 

�� A trail system would be improved at the Kings Bowl area and to additional points 

of interest. 

�� Multiuse and single-use (e.g., ATV, equestrian, bicycling, walking) trail routes 

would be designated. 

FACILITIES 

Management Actions: 

�� New facilities at the NPS headquarters visitor center would be expanded or 

developed to enhance visitor understanding and accommodate increased 

visitation. 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� The road and trail system within the 

planning area provides a high level of 

access to a wide variety of 

destinations, recreational activities, 

and both Class 1 and Class 2 trails. 

�� Within the four Passage Zone areas, 

multiuse trail systems and associated 

educational and directional 

signs/waysides are established. 

�� The desired condition for Alternative B 

is reflected in the management zone 

allocation (see Table 3). 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Same as “Common to All.” 

INTERPRETATION / VISITOR UNDERSTANDING 

Desired Future Conditions: Management Actions: 

�� Increased opportunities for educational �� Additional interpretive facilities would be provided along the corridor of US 

opportunities are created throughout 20/26/93 and at significant sites within the Passage Zone. 

the Monument. �� Interpretive kiosks, wayside exhibits, and associated trail system and day-use 

area in the Kings Bowl area would be upgraded. 

�� A variety of portable media (maps, tapes, guidebooks, etc.) would be developed 

to interpret the expanded portion of the Monument. 

�� Educational programs for school groups visiting the Monument would be 

expanded. 

RECREATION 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

�� Diverse and accessible recreational �� Implementation-level planning would make determinations as to where specific 

opportunities and experiences are trails, trailhead facilities and/or number of rustic designated campsites would be 

available throughout the Monument. needed or desired within the Passage Zone. Up to 12 locations could be 

�� A relatively large amount and wide developed for camping within the Passage Zone. 

variety of designated motorized �� In areas in which adverse impacts on resources or the visitor experience occur, 

recreation opportunities and limits on human activities could be set. These limits could affect areas of use, 

experiences are available throughout group size, and duration of stay, number of people or vehicles, or types of 

the Monument. activities. 

�� Increased opportunities would be provided to experience a wide range of 

recreation trail uses (e.g. ATV, equestrian, bicycling, walking). 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

�� Same as “Common to All.” �� VRM inventory classes would be designated as management classes as shown 

on Figure 7. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

54 
Inside / Outside 

Table 3 summarizes the number of miles of roads 

and trails by classification under each management 

zone as proposed under Alternative B. Road and trail 

classification is based on the inventoried condition 

and maintenance standards for roads and trails as of 

2003. Because management zones are a prescription 

for desired future conditions, road classification 

would be expected to change over the life of the 

management plan to achieve the “Desired Future 

Conditions” and “Management Actions” for this 

alternative. These changes would be addressed in 

the Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. Note 

that there is an increase in Passage Zone mileage 

and a corresponding decrease in Primitive Zone 

road mileage compared to Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative). Some of the Class C and D roads now 

located within the Passage Zone areas could be 

improved to facilitate access and/or converted to 

Class I and II trails. 

Table 3 

Alternative B – Road and Trail Inventory by Management Zone 

Road Classification 

1 

Pristine 

1 

Class A 30 0 / 0 0 0 30 / 0 

Class B 0 57 / 81 0 0 57 / 81 

Class C 2 166 / 56 184 1 353 / 56 

Class D 0 39 / 1 127 1 167 / 1 

7 0 / 0 3 4 14 / 0 

MANAGEMENT ZONES* 

Frontcountry Passage 

(Inside / Outside) Primitive Total Miles

(Inside/Outside) 

Class I Trails 

Total Miles 39 262 / 138 314 6 621 / 138 

*Approximate miles of existing roads and trails within each zone rounded to the nearest whole number. 

1

Under Alternative B, portions of the Carey-Kimama and Arco-Minidoka roads that lie outside the Monument 

boundaries and provide key Monument access are included in the Passage Zone. This would require coordination 

with the surrounding county governments. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 55
ALTERNATIVE C 

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 

Under Alternative C, there would be emphasis on 

retention and enhancement of the Monument’s 

primitive character, with minimal visitor facilities 

or services outside the Frontcountry Zone, and 

less intensive management to influence resource 

conditions. More acres would be allocated to the 

Pristine Zone as compared to the other alternatives. 

This alternative would emphasize “opportunities 

for solitude” and provide a more primitive setting 

for recreational, educational, and management 

activities. It would offer protection for geologic and 

cultural resources and features by limiting access 

and development. 

The key components of Alternative C are as follows: 

• Would have the largest acreage in the Pristine 

Zone and least acreage in the Passage Zone. 

• Maintains the fewest miles of roads and least 

amount of road access to the edge of the lava 

flows. 

• Limits the amount of interpretation activities 

and number of information signs within the 

expanded Monument. 

• Relies on the least intrusive methods of 

resource management, including sagebrush 

steppe restoration. 

• Includes an ACEC designation in North 

Laidlaw Park to provide special protective 

management for native sagebrush steppe. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Figure 8 depicts the zones based on the agencies’ 

best understanding of where the zone boundaries 

would be located under Alternative C. Figure 8 also 

shows the zone allocations that would occur under 

Alternative C. 

Under Alternative C, the Frontcountry Zone would 

remain the same as under Alternative A (No Action Alternative), and the Passage Zone would be 

reduced, particularly in Laidlaw Park and along 

the Arco-Minidoka Road. The biggest change from 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would be the 

increase in Pristine Zone including Laidlaw Park and 

the vegetated portions of Wilderness Study Areas. 

The reasons for the increased Pristine Zone allocation in these areas under Alternative C are to 

provide for a more primitive visitor experience; to 

de-emphasize facilities, services, and easy access; 

and to emphasize retention and enhancement of the 

Monument’s primitive character. With the expanded 

Pristine Zone areas, there would be less access to the 

edge of the lava flows and fewer maintained roads, 

resulting in a resource protection strategy relying on 

limited access. 

MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE FOR 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would incorporate all of the “Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives” 

previously described, plus the following alternativespecific guidance. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

56 

58 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Chapter 2

GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Management Actions: 

� A limited restoration program would be initiated to remove graffiti 

from caves and foster public understanding of the need for cave 

resource protection. 

� Site development to facilitate access to caves would be limited to 

existing infrastructure and programs. Management of all other 

caves, including Crystal Ice Cave, would emphasize natural 

conditions. 

VEGETATION, INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Management Actions: 

� Approximately 55,000 acres (7 percent of the entire Monument, 

20 percent of BLM-administered) would be identified for proactive 

restoration treatment and/or post-fire rehabilitation. 

Approximately 31,000 acres of annual grassland and 24,000 

acres of highly degraded low elevation sagebrush steppe (poor to 

fair biotic integrity; see Figure 15) would be treated to control 

cheatgrass and restore big sagebrush cover with a perennial 

understory. 

� Non-chemical methods of weed control would be emphasized, 

while not ruling out herbicide use. 

� Less intensive treatment methods would be used for restoration 

and rehabilitation employing minimum tool constraints and “light 

handed” non-intrusive technology. 

� Larger, more continuous acreages would be treated for 

restoration. 

� Wildland fire use would be allowed in the Wilderness and 

Preserve except when incompatible with resource management 

objectives or danger to life or property. 

� Limited prescribed fire (<500 acres) would 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. 

WILDLIFE 

Management Actions: 

� Consistent with Rangeland Health Standards & Guidelines 

determinations, livestock grazing management would be modified 

as necessary to ensure that Key sage-grouse habitat achieves 

site potential. 

� Active and historic leks would be protected from disturbance 

during the sage-grouse breeding season. 

� All roads in Key sage-grouse habitat would be closed to the 

general public between 1 a.m. and 11 a.m. during the sagegrouse breeding season. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Management Actions: 

� A minimum of 10 percent of the Monument would be intensively 

inventoried (Section 110 NHPA) for cultural resources over the 

life of the plan. 

� The focus of the Section 110 inventory would be in the Primitive 

and Pristine Zones. 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� Same as “Common to All.” 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� Sagebrush steppe communities are protected and 

restored in Passage and Primitive Zones. 

� Greater continuity of habitat for special status species 

and general wildlife is emphasized. 

� Fire is allowed to function as a natural process in the 

Wilderness and Preserve. 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� Same as “Common to All.” 

Desired Future Conditions: 

� Same as “Common to All.” 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 59 
TRAVEL AND ACCESS 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� There is a net decrease in road mileage within the 

Monument. 

�� The road and trail system within the planning area 

provides the visitor opportunities for challenge, risk, and 

adventure with limited improved access to destinations. 

�� Most management direction related to travel and 

access is covered by management zone allocation (see 

Table 4). 

�� All roads and ways within the Pristine Zone would be closed to 

all motorized and mechanized vehicle use except authorized 

emergency and administrative use. 

�� Many Class D roads in the Primitive Zone would be converted to 

non-motorized trails. 

�� Road closures will be addressed in an implementation plan to 

follow. 

�� Many existing directional road signs would be removed or not 

replaced, promoting the idea of unsigned and self-directed 

motorized recreation opportunities. 

FACILITIES 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Same as “Common to All.” 

SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS (ACECs only) 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� The integrity of native plant communities in North Laidlaw 

Park (north of E/W pasture fence) is maintained. 

INTERPRETATION / VISITOR UNDERSTANDING 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� A minimum of visitor services is provided except in the 

existing developed area of the north end Visitor Center 

and Loop Drive. This alternative provides the most 

opportunities for a self-discovery experience. 

RECREATION 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� The public enjoys the most extensive opportunities of all 

the alternatives for self-discovery and primitive type 

recreation experiences. 

�� Unsigned and self-directed motorized recreation 

opportunities are available. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Same as “Common to All.” 

Management Actions: 

Management Actions: 

�� Any new facilities would be limited to what may be necessary for 

public safety and/or resource protection. 

�� There would be no new developments in the North Pasture of 

Laidlaw Park Allotment, unless it results in a net benefit to those 

resources identified as needing improvement or protection. 

Management Actions: 

�� North Laidlaw Park (north of E/W pasture fence) would be 

designated as an ACEC. 

Management Actions: 

�� A variety of portable interpretive media (maps, tapes, 

guidebooks, etc.) would be developed to interpret the expanded 

portion of the Monument. 

Management Actions: 

�� Implementation-level planning would make determinations as to 

where specific trails, trailhead facilities and/or number of 

primitive campsites would be needed or desired within the 

Passage Zone. Up to four locations could be developed for 

camping within the Passage Zone. 

Management Actions: 

�� VRM inventory classes would be designated as management 

classes as shown on Figure 7. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

60 
Table 4 summarizes the number of miles of roads 

and trails by classification under each management 

zone as proposed under Alternative C. Road and trail 

classification is based on the inventoried condition 

and maintenance standards for roads and trails as of 

2003. Because management zones are a prescription 

for desired future conditions, road classification 

would be expected to change over the life of the 

management plan to achieve the “Desired Future 

Conditions” and “Management Actions” described 

for this alternative. These decisions will be dealt 

with in the Comprehensive Travel Management Plan 

to follow. Note that there is a decrease in Passage 

and Primitive zone road mileage and a corresponding increase in Pristine Zone road mileage compared 

to Alternative A (No Action Alternative). Many of 

the roads now located in the Pristine Zone would be 

closed to unauthorized motorized use or converted to 

Class I trails over the life of the plan. 

Table 4 

Alternative C – Road and Trail Inventory by Management Zone 

Road 

Classification Pristine Total Miles 

Class A 30 0 0 0 30 

Class B 0 37 18 2 57 

Class C 2 2 345 12 361 

Class D 0 1 127 41 169 

7 0 0 7 14 

39 40 490 62 631 

MANAGEMENT ZONES* 

Frontcountry Passage Primitive 

Class I Trails 

Total Miles 

*Approximate miles of existing roads and trails within each zone rounded to the nearest whole number. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 61 
ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 

This alternative is a slightly modified version of 

the Alternative D presented in the Draft Plan/EIS. 

It was developed in response to public comments 

that recommended an increase in Pristine Zone and 

a decrease in Passage Zone in order to help protect 

resources and limit access to sensitive areas. The 

primary emphasis of Alternative D remains the 

same as previously described in the Draft Plan/EIS: 

aggressive restoration of the sagebrush steppe 

community lands, including noxious weed control 

and fire management. Compared to other alternatives considered, Alternative D would target the 

most acreage for restoration and utilize aggressive 

management of weeds and fire to promote restoration of sagebrush steppe communities. In addition, 

commercial services (e.g., outfitters and guides) 

would be encouraged, and off-site visitor opportunities would be emphasized in this alternative. These 

commercial services would provide opportunities 

inside the Monument for visitors to experience and 

learn about the resources of the Monument. This 

would minimize the need for development and 

agency staffing within the Monument. This alternative would also encourage more off-site visitor 

experiences, in addition to providing visitor services 

in the developed portion of the Monument around 

the existing Visitor Center and 7-mile Loop Drive. 

The modifications made to arrive at the Proposed 

Plan Alternative D included changing some previously designated Primitive Zone areas to Pristine 

Zone. This was done to address concerns about the 

protection of the interior of the lava flows, especially some specific geological and archaeological 

resources that could be accessed if Primitive Zone 

designations remained in or near these resources. 

Changing the designation to Pristine Zone near 

these resources and along the fringes of the lava 

fields would help to limit access from the main 

roads into the more sensitive interior. Therefore, the 

areas that were selected to be converted to Pristine 

Zone included those that were in good ecological 

condition, generally located along the edge of the 

lava flows, or located where they would serve as 

buffers along more heavily used roadways, where a 

change to Pristine Zone would help to limit access 

to sensitive archaeological or geological resources. 

In some locations along the edges of the lava fields, 

areas of Primitive Zone that extended into the lava 

fields under Draft Alternative D were reduced in size 

and confined to road fringes only, and the former 

extensions were changed to Pristine Zone. 

Recommendations to limit Passage Zone in 

Alternative D came mainly from concerns about the 

additional disturbance and habitat fragmentation 

that could occur in the Laidlaw Park area, given the 

number and loop configuration of the Passage Zone 

road corridors proposed in that area under the Draft 

Plan/EIS version of Alternative D. To address this 

concern, several road segments in that area were 

taken out of Passage Zone and put into the Primitive 

Zone category, to limit the amount of visitor use and 

habitat fragmentation in Laidlaw Park and to better 

protect that area’s vegetation resources. The specific 

road segments that were taken out of Passage Zone 

were selected so as to reduce the undesirable effects, 

while maintaining one main Passage Zone loop 

through the area for visitor access. The segments 

that were removed from Passage Zone designation 

were: 

• North Laidlaw Park Road 

• West Laidlaw Park Road 

• Laidlaw Butte Road 

• Road into the “Thumb” or Bear Den Butte 

area 

In addition, it was suggested that the Passage Zone 

formerly designated along the South Boundary 

Road be changed to Primitive Zone, and instead 

that additional Passage Zone be designated outside 

the Monument. This would encourage more visitor 

use in less sensitive areas, while facilitating visitor 

access to the popular recreational areas of the 

Monument. Therefore, the South Boundary Road 

was remapped as Primitive Zone, and the section 

of the Carey-Kimama Road outside the Monument 

and the Arco-Minidoka Road segment leading 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

62 
to the southern boundary of the Monument were 

added to the Passage Zone under the Proposed 

Plan. Decisions regarding any changes (upgrades, 

closures, etc.) to the existing road inventory (refer to 

Figure 16, Transportation Network) will be made in 

a subsequent, more detailed Comprehensive Travel 

Management Plan. 

Following the changes made to Alternative D, the 

key components of the Proposed Plan are as follows: 

• Promotes use of partnerships at off-site 

facilities such as visitor centers and state 

parks to provide Monument information and 

interpretation. 

• Emphasizes protection of vegetation resources 

in North Laidlaw Park. 

• Maintains a road network suitable for aggressive fire suppression and restoration activities 

within the Monument. 

• Encourages outfitter and guide services in the 

expanded portion of the Monument, instead of 

new agency-provided services and facilities. 

• Promotes the largest and most proactive 

Integrated Weed Management Program. 

• Proactively protects and restores sagebrush 

steppe communities. 

• Continues to focus visitor experience within 

the Monument on the existing lands and facilities located at the north end of the Monument. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Figure 9 depicts the zones based on the agencies’ 

best understanding of where the zone boundaries 

would be located under Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan). Figure 9 also shows the zone allocations that 

would occur under Alternative D. 

Under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), the Frontcountry Zone would remain the same as under 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative). Much of 

the increase in Passage Zone would occur from the 

additional proposed Passage Zone located outside 

the Monument boundaries. There would also be an 

increase in Pristine Zone, especially along the edges 

of the lava fields. The road system included in the 

Passage Zone would allow access for the aggressive 

restoration of physical and biological resources 

and would facilitate fire suppression, especially in 

Laidlaw Park. 

Recreational uses would continue. Road maintenance in the Passage Zone would be limited to what 

is needed for fire or resource protection. The Comprehensive Travel Management Plan will provide 

greater detail on road maintenance and a road sign 

plan. Alternative D’s zone allocations were proposed 

as a means of achieving its aggressive resource 

protection and restoration goals, while addressing 

the public’s concerns that sufficient Pristine Zone be 

designated under the selected alternative to provide 

protection for resources, especially in Laidlaw Park. 

MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE FOR 

ALTERNATIVE D (PROPOSED PLAN) 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would incorporate 

all of the “Management Guidance Common to All 

Alternatives” previously described, plus the following alternative-specific guidance. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 63
GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Disturbed or degraded geologic features 


are identified and restored when feasible. 


VEGETATION, INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Continuity of habitat for special status 


species and general wildlife will be 


emphasized. 


�� Fire is allowed to function as a natural 


process in the Wilderness and Preserve. 


�� The high ecological condition of the 


vegetation of North Laidlaw Park and 


Bowl Crater is maintained. 


WILDLIFE 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Same as “Common to All.” 

Management Actions: 

�� An intensive restoration program would be initiated to remove graffiti from 

caves and foster public understanding of the need for cave resource 

protection. 

�� Public access to caves and other geological features that are experiencing 

recreational use-related damage would be controlled, and damaged geological 

features would be restored as needed and when feasible. 

Management Actions: 

�� Approximately 80,000 acres (11 percent of the entire Monument, 29 percent of 

BLM-administered) have been identified within the Monument in need of 

proactive restoration and/or post-fire rehabilitation treatment, and these areas 

would be the focus of restoration actions. Approximately 31,000 acres of 

annual grassland and 49,000 acres of highly degraded low elevation 

sagebrush steppe (poor to fair biotic integrity; see Figure 15) would be treated 

to control cheatgrass and restore big sagebrush cover with a perennial 

understory. 

�� Aggressive protection of existing sagebrush steppe communities and proactive 

restoration of areas with poor to fair biotic integrity through both active and 

passive means (see Figure 15) would be emphasized. 

�� Integrated Weed Management (IWM) principles would be applied proactively 

throughout all zones. A Monument IWM program would emphasize protection 

of weed free areas, and aggressive detection and control of noxious or highly 

invasive exotic weeds. 

�� Restoration projects would be prioritized relative to locations of Key sagegrouse habitats and population strongholds. Emphasis would be on projects 

that restore annual grasslands and degraded sagebrush steppe communities, 

as well as enlarging and connecting existing good condition habitats. 

�� Fire would be managed to maximize protection and restoration of sagebrush 

steppe in Passage and Primitive Zones. 

�� Wildland fire use would be allowed in the Wilderness and Preserve except 

when incompatible with resource management objectives or danger to life or 

property. 

�� Limited prescribed fire (<500 acres) would 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. 

�� The network of main arterial roads would be managed to support access for 

wildland fire suppression. 

�� To protect vegetation resources, no new livestock developments would be 

permitted in North Laidlaw Park pasture and Bowl Crater allotment unless they 

result in a net benefit to those resources identified as needing improvement or 

protection. 

Management Actions: 

�� Consistent with Rangeland Health Standards & Guidelines determinations, 

livestock grazing management would be modified as necessary to ensure that 

Key sage-grouse habitat achieves site potential. 

�� Active and historic leks would be protected from disturbance during the sagegrouse breeding season. 

Note: Road closures or restrictions during the breeding season would not apply 

to agency (BLM and NPS) vehicles, including Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game vehicles and personnel who conduct necessary sage-grouse inventory 

and monitoring. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

64 

66 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Management Actions: 

�� A minimum of 10 percent of the Monument would be inventoried (Section 110 

NHPA) for cultural resources over the life of the plan. 

�� The agencies would pursue more public education and interpretation off site, 

with increased monitoring and protection for those sites at risk. 

�� The focus of the Section 110 inventory would be in the Primitive and Passage 

Zones. 

TRAVEL AND ACCESS 

Management Actions: A Comprehensive Travel Management Plan will be prepared. 

�� Existing Class B and C roads would remain open, but maintenance would be 

driven by natural resource management needs, primarily fire suppression, 

weed management, and restoration activities. 

�� Selected Class D roads in the Primitive Zone could be converted to trails or 

closed for resource protection. Class D roads in the Pristine Zone could be 

converted to Class I trails where resource protection need dictate. 

�� Allow for a Class B standard on the Arco-Minidoka Road through the 

Monument should the adjacent county governments choose to upgrade the 

roads outside the Monument. 

�� Temporary improvements to existing Class C and D roads could be authorized 

in the Passage and Primitive Zones to facilitate fire suppression and 

restoration activities or other management actions aimed at natural resource 

protection. 

�� In cooperation with the counties, the agencies would maintain the primary 

access roads to provide better access for fire management. 

�� Redundant, unnecessary, or unused roads would be closed as determined by 

management after completing a Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� Same as “Common to All.” 

Desired Future Conditions: 

�� There is a net decrease in road mileage 

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 (see Table 

5). 

FACILITIES 

Desired Future Conditions: Management Actions: 

�� Off-site facilities for new visitor services �� Partnerships would be encouraged in developing new visitor information 

are emphasized. facilities in gateway communities. 

�� The BLM and NPS would become involved other agencies and the private 

sector in seeking opportunities for visitor information centers in communities 

along the interstate corridor. 

�� There would be no new livestock developments permitted in North Laidlaw 

Park pasture and Bowl Crater allotment unless they result in a net benefit to 

those resources identified as needing improvement or protection. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 67 
INTERPRETATION / VISITOR UNDERSTANDING 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

� Same as “Common to All.” � Interpretive signs would be provided along the US 20/26/93 corridor. 

� Informational/orientation materials dealing with recreation, maps, safety, and 

resource concerns would be available in gateway communities. A visitor 

center(s) operated in cooperation with local partners would be proposed within 

the I-84 corridor. Emphasis on providing new interpretive and educational 

materials and programs outside the expanded portion of the Monument and in 

partnering communities and facilities. 

� Educational programs would be expanded to off-site locations. 

� A variety of portable media (maps, tapes, guidebooks, etc.), would be 

developed to interpret the expanded portion of the Monument. 

� Commercial outfitters and guides would 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 

would then have a viable option that would not require a lot of the road, trail, 

and facility improvement associated with Alternative B. 

� Interpretation outside the Frontcountry Zone would emphasize publications, 

websites, exhibits, and other off-site interpretive media. 

� Safety and resource protection would be emphasized at access points. 

RECREATION 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

� The public enjoys opportunities for self- � Implementation-level planning would make determinations as to where specific 

discovery and primitive type recreation trails, trailhead facilities, and/or number of primitive campsites would be 

experiences. needed or desired within the Passage Zone. Up to six locations could be 

� Unsigned and self-directed motorized developed for camping within the Passage Zone. 

recreation opportunities are available. � Applications for permitted outfitters and guide services would be encouraged 

� Commercial outfitters and guide services within the Monument for a variety of recreational experiences, such as geology 

provide opportunities for visitors to tours, nature walks, bird/wildlife watching, or horseback riding. 

experience and learn about the resources � Should permitted outfitter, guide, or similar NPS concession use numbers 

of the Monument, reducing the need for reach 2,000 annual user days in the expanded portion of the Monument, BLM 

development and agency staffing. and/or NPS would prepare an implementation level plan for the management of 

� Partnerships with off-site facilities, such these services. This plan would include use allocations and limits. 

as visitor centers and state parks, provide � The BLM and NPS would actively seek potential partnerships with off-site 

Monument information and interpretation. communities and state agencies to provide Monument information and 

interpretation. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Desired Future Conditions: 	 Management Actions: 

� Same as “Common to All.” � VRM inventory classes would be designated as management classes as 


shown on Figure 7. 


Table 5 summarizes where the various types of 

roads that currently exist would fall within the 

management zones as they would be located under 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan). Road and trail 

classification is based on the inventoried condition 

and maintenance standards for roads and trails as of 

2003. This alternative allows for Passage Zone roads 

to serve as access for resource management and 

protection and also allows for more Pristine Zone 

protection. 

68 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Table 5

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) – 

Road and Trail Inventory by Management Zone

Road Classification Frontcountry 1 

Pristine 

1 

Class A 30 0 / 0 0 0 30 

Class B 0 46 / 52 11 0 57 / 52 

Class C 2 34 / 11 321 2 359 / 11 

Class D 0 2 / 0 141 26 169 / 0 

7 0 / 0 1 6 14 / 0 

39 82 / 63 474 629 / 63 

MANAGEMENT ZONES* 

Passage 

(Inside / Outside) Primitive Total Miles

(Inside / Outside) 

Class I Trails 

Total Miles 34** 

*Approximate miles of existing roads and trails within each zone rounded to the nearest whole number. 

**To be closed. 

1

Under Alternative D, portions of the Carey-Kimama and Arco-Minidoka roads that lie outside the Monument 

boundaries and provide key Monument access are included in the Passage Zone. This would require 

coordination with the surrounding county governments. 

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS 

CONSIDERED BUT NOT 

ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

guidelines for implementing NEPA requires federal 

agencies to analyze all “reasonable” alternatives 

that substantially meet the purpose and need for 

the proposed action. The purpose of the Proposed 

Monument Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (Proposed Plan/FEIS) is to provide 

for management of the Craters of the Moon National 

Monument and Preserve within the provisions of 

the Proclamation, and to meet the requirements 

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) and other laws and regulations. Because 

the Proclamation states that certain uses will not 

continue, and that other uses will continue consistent 

with federal laws and regulations, actions that do not 

comply with the Proclamation would not meet the 

purpose and need for the plan and therefore were not 

included in alternatives that were analyzed in this 

EIS. 

The following specific alternatives, or actions that 

could be components of alternatives, were suggested 

but not analyzed: 

NO LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

During the summer of 2000, of the Secretary of the 

Interior published Consensus Management Points 

(May 19, 2000) stating: 

“Sheep and cattle grazing will continue in the shrub 

steppe of the Great Rift area to be managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 

Laidlaw Park, consistent with the laws, regulations, 

and policies followed by the BLM in issuing and 

administering grazing permits or leases on all lands 

under its jurisdiction.” 

Proclamation 7373 states: “Laws, regulations, 

and policies followed by the Bureau of Land 

Management in issuing and administering grazing 

permits or leases on all lands under the jurisdiction 

shall continue to apply with regard to the lands 

in the Monument administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management.” Based on this language, a “no 

livestock grazing” alternative would not meet the 

purpose and need and would not be consistent with 

the Proclamation. The BLM’s authority to manage 

grazing under existing laws, regulations, and 

policies would continue under all the alternatives 

considered. Lands available for grazing would be 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 69
limited to those under BLM authority and where 

BLM’s process allows grazing to continue. With the 

exception of the lava lands now within the Preserve, 

all of the lands have been found to be suitable for 

livestock grazing, with certain management restrictions in some areas to meet standards. 

NO HUNTING WITHIN THE 

MONUMENT 

Comments supporting a ban on hunting within the 

Monument or limiting hunting to game species were 

expressed. Proclamation 7373 states: “Nothing 

in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or 

diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Idaho with 

respect to fish and wildlife management,” as well 

as “...the National Park Service shall have primary 

management authority over the portion of the Monument that includes the exposed lava flows, and shall 

manage the area under the same laws and regulations 

that apply to the current monument.” Hunting is 

prohibited under the NPS Organic Act and that 

act applied to the “current monument.” Therefore, 

hunting was prohibited within the NPS-administered 

portions of the expanded Monument until Public 

Law (PL) 107-213 (August 2002) designated the 

NPS-administered lands within the new areas of the 

Monument as a Preserve and directed the Secretary 

of the Interior to allow hunting within the Preserve. 

PL 107-213 provides that the Secretary of the 

Interior, after consultation with the State of Idaho, 

“may designate zones where, and establish periods 

when, no hunting may be permitted for reasons of 

public safety, protection of the area’s resources, 

administration, or public use and enjoyment”. 

An alternative proposing zones within the Preserve 

closed to hunting was not analyzed in detail. 

However, it is expected in implementing this plan 

that the NPS will consult with the State of Idaho 

and the tribes on options for closing the developed 

areas of Preserve lands to hunting for reasons of 

public safety. In addition to consulting with the State 

of Idaho, that process will require publication as a 

rulemaking in the Federal Register for public review 

and comment. While no specific circumstances were 

identified in the public scoping process, the area 

and timing of hunting activities could be modified 

in a like manner for the other purposes identified in 

PL 107-213 should such a need be identified in the 

future. 

OTHER ALTERNATIVES 

No comprehensive alternatives were submitted by 

outside interests, including tribes, state and local 

governments, or other groups. 

The planning team has considered recommendations 

for adjustments to the boundary of the Monument. In 

looking at possible boundary adjustments, previous 

studies including the Reconnaissance Survey – Expansion of Craters of the Moon National Monument 

(1989) and Management Alternatives – Expansion 

of Craters of the Moon National Monument (1990) 

were examined. It was determined that a recommendation for substantial changes to the boundary 

of the Monument was not needed as part of any of 

the alternatives. However, a few minor changes 

to address operational concerns were identified. 

As a result, minor boundary adjustments are being 

recommended for future action and those, along with 

the reasons, are described in Appendix C. 

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 

Table 7, at the end of this chapter, contains a 

summary of the major features and management 

actions that would be associated with each of the 

four alternatives. The table shows actions that are 

common to all the alternatives, as well as the alternative-specific actions for each. Also provided is Table 

8, which summarizes acreages and mileages within 

each management zone, by road classification, for 

all four alternatives. 

SUMMARY OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

Table 9, at the end of this chapter, contains a 

comparative summary of the key environmental 

consequences for each of the four alternatives. A 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

70 
detailed description of these impacts can be found in 

the Environmental Consequences chapter. 

SELECTION OF THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE / 

PROPOSED PLAN 

To select the Preferred Alternative, all of the alternatives were evaluated with regard to the planning 

objectives and other criteria deemed important 

to the planning team. To minimize the influence 

of individual biases and opinions, a team used an 

objective analysis process called “Choosing by 

Advantages” (CBA). This process, which has been 

used extensively by government agencies and the 

private sector, evaluates the different alternatives by 

identifying and comparing the relative advantages of 

each according to a set of criteria. 

One of the greatest strengths of the CBA process is 

the fundamental philosophy that decisions must be 

anchored in relevant facts and in the purpose and 

significance of the resources and lands involved. 

The CBA process asks which alternative gives 

the greatest advantages. To answer this question, 

relevant facts were used to determine the advantages 

the alternatives provide. To ensure a logical and 

traceable process, evaluation criteria were based on 

impact topics where there were differences in the 

alternatives. 

The following categories were further broken down 

to better assess the alternatives. Alternatives were 

evaluated to see how well they: 

• Protect Natural and Cultural Resources 

- Prevent loss of, or damage to, geologic

 resources 

- Restore degraded sagebrush steppe 

vegetation 

- Prevent introduction and spread of noxious 

weeds 

- Prevent loss of, and damage to, cultural 

resources 

• Provide a Quality Visitor Experience 

- Availability of visitor facilities, interpretive 

programs and other visitor services 

- Variety of driving experiences 

- Opportunities for solitude and 

self-discovery

- Availability of travel assistance (signage and 

maps) 

- Variety of non-motorized trails (hiking, 

pack stock, and bicycling) 

• Protect Public Health, Safety, and Welfare 

• Maintain and Enhance Relationships with 

Local Governments and Local Communities 

- Impacts on local government – emergency 

service providers (e.g., sheriff) 

- Fiscal impact on county facilities (e.g., 

roads) 

- Impacts on “grazing” permittees 

In addition, the CBA Team considered but dismissed 

the following topics, since there were no substantial 

differences among the alternatives and the management actions were essentially the same for all: 

• Air Quality 

• Grazing 

• Predator Control 

• Wilderness 

• Opportunities for Research and Science 

The next step was to assess and rank the alternatives based on the advantages they provided. The 

advantages were assessed by evaluating how well 

each alternative would meet (or not meet) the 

criteria listed above. Protecting natural and cultural 

resources was determined to be the most important 

evaluation criterion by the CBA Team. 

Each alternative was assigned an “importance” value 

that reflected its rank; a higher importance value 

indicated that the alternative would meet more of the 

evaluation criteria and/or more of the ones deemed 

most important to the CBA Team. Alternative D 

ranked the highest in advantages for the resources of 

the Monument. Major advantages of Alternative D 

identified during the CBA process included accelerated sagebrush steppe restoration and increased 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 71
efforts to partner for interpretation and orientation 

information outside the Monument boundary. 

Costs for each alternative versus the advantages 

provided were also compared and analyzed. These 

costs were developed for comparative purposes 

and operations. Annual operational costs consider 

the annual costs of each alternative over the life of 

the plan. For example, annual costs would include 

staffing required, costs of operating a building, 

ongoing rehabilitation and restoration projects, and 

replacement and maintenance costs of elements

only. Because the Plan/EIS costs are estimated such as roadways in an alternative. Not included

well in advance of a project, the numbers will need here under initial development costs is the possible

to be re-examined and refined as BLM and NPS federal shared cost for new facilities outside the 

move forward with implementation planning. Costs Monument, such as a jointly operated visitor center

identified in the Plan/EIS are not intended to be used within the I-84 corridor suggested under Alternative

as a basis for funding until further analysis has been D (Proposed Plan).

completed.

Selection of the Preferred Alternative considers the 

Comparative costs for the alternatives, as shown advantages provided by each alternative (reflected in

in Table 6, include initial development costs and the importance scores), as compared to the costs of

annual operational costs. Initial development costs the alternative. Figure 10 summarizes the results of

include labor and materials for construction of new the CBA analysis.

facilities, annualized over the life of the plan. For the 

purposes of cost estimating, general assumptions are Based on the CBA importance rankings and cost 

made regarding amounts and sizes of development analyses, the CBA Team recommended Alternative 

Figure 10 

Management Plan Cost of Alternatives 

Compared to Importance (Advantages) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

Alternative A

Alternative CAlternative DAlternative B

50 

165 

215 

170 

IMPORTANCE 

$2,500,000 $2,600,000 $2,700,000 $2,800,000 $2,900,000 $3,000,000 $3,100,000 $3,200,000 $3,300,000 $3,400,000 $3,500,000 

COST (Annual) 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

72 
Table 6

Summary of Comparative Costs (FY 2003 dollars)

C (Proposed Plan) 

$0 

l 

Alternative 

Alternative A 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative Alternative D 

Annual Operating $2,754,000 $3,389,000 $2,906,000 $3,352,000 

Initial Development $30,000 $6,000 $9,000 

Tota $2,754,000 $3,419,000 $2,912,000 $3,362,000 

D as the Preferred Alternative, and thus the Proposed 

Plan. Alternative D scored the highest in advantages 

(215 importance value) and was not the highest cost 

alternative. Alternative B had the highest cost and a 

lower importance value compared to Alternative D. 

Although Alternative C had a lower cost than Alternative D ($450,000 less), it also had a substantially 

lower importance value. Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) had a low cost, but a considerably lower 

importance value. Overall, Alternative D represented 

the best choice in that it provided high importance 

(many advantages) at a relatively reasonable cost. 

Based on this analysis and recommendation of the 

CBA Team, the Idaho BLM State Director and 

the NPS Pacific West Regional Director selected 

Alternative D as the Preferred Alternative in the 

Draft Plan/EIS, and thus the Proposed Plan. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative is 

defined as “the alternative that will promote the 

national environmental policy as expressed in §101 

of the National Environmental Policy Act.” Section 

101 states, “...it is the continuing responsibility of 

the federal government to... 

• Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation 

as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations. 

• Ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and esthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings. 

• Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of 

the environment without degradation, risk 

of health or safety, or other undesirable and 

unintended consequences. 

• Preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage and 

maintain, wherever possible, an environment 

that supports diversity and variety of individual choice. 

• Achieve a balance between population and 

resource use that will permit high standards of 

living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. 

• Enhance the quality of renewable resources 

and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.” 

In comparison with the other alternatives analyzed, 

Alternative D, also selected as the Preferred Alternative, best meets the national environmental goals 

identified above. Alternative D provides a high level 

of protection of natural and cultural resources, while 

providing for a wide range of beneficial uses of the 

environment. 

Alternative D (Preferred Alternative/Proposed Plan) 

would enhance the ability of BLM and the NPS 

to achieve the purposes of the enabling laws and 

proclamations, as well as those goals outlined in 

Chapter 1 of this document. Alternatives A, B, and 

C lack the degree of management emphasis required 

to protect benchmark native vegetative communities 

and restore degraded sagebrush steppe habitat found 

in Alternative D. Substantial portions of the new 

Monument lands are currently in a degraded condition that can only be improved with the scope of 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 73
active restoration efforts provided for in Alternative 

D. 

Alternative D (Preferred Alternative/Proposed Plan) 

would maintain most existing public facilities and 

access routes, but does not expand or substantially 

upgrade these. Alternative D allows for largely 

self-directed dispersed recreational use throughout 

most of the lands recently added to the Monument, 

while recognizing that site-specific use restrictions 

may be required in some areas to protect natural and 

cultural resources. 

Goals related to public understanding and appreciation of the Monument resources would be achieved 

through existing on-site programs and facilities, as 

well as expanded programs and facilities located 

off site and through authorized licensed guide 

operations. Livestock grazing, a traditional land use 

on BLM lands prior to Monument expansion, would 

continue in all the alternatives considered with only 

minor changes among alternatives. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

The identification of mitigating measures is required 

by NPS in general management planning documents, 

as well as by the Council on Environmental Quality 

in its requirements for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act. These measures would 

be used to avoid or minimize potential impacts on 

natural and cultural resources on NPS lands from 

construction activities, use by visitors, and Monument operations. Similar actions would be taken 

on BLM lands to protect resources following the 

“Management Actions” previously described and the 

Planning Criteria (Appendix B). 

Natural Resources 

Geological Resources and Caves 

Significant cave resources in the Monument would 

be identified and protected. Prior to any ground disturbing activity, areas would be surveyed for unique, 

rare, or special geologic resources, including fossils. 

BLM would identify significant caves on federal 

land and restrict or regulate use according to the 

FCRPA of 1988. All caves on NPS-managed land 

are considered “significant” and in accordance with 

NPS policies and procedures would be protected to 

the greatest extent possible with current funding and 

staffing levels. Threats to unique or representative 

geologic resources would be identified and mitigated 

according to NPS and BLM management policies. 

Soils and Water 

Whenever possible, new development would be carried out on previously disturbed sites or in carefully 

selected sites with as small a footprint as possible. 

During design and construction, Monument staff 

would identify areas to be avoided. 

Soil erosion and associated water quality impacts 

would be minimized by limiting the time that soil 

would be left exposed and by using various erosion 

control measures such as the placement of silt 

fencing, retention and replacement of topsoil, revegetation of sites with native species, and selective 

scheduling of construction activities. Conserving 

topsoil would minimize potential compaction and 

erosion of bare soil. The use of conserved topsoil 

would help preserve the microorganisms and seeds 

of native plants. Topsoil should be re-spread as close 

to the original location as possible and supplemented 

with scarification, mulching, seeding, and/or planting with species native to the immediate area. This 

would reduce construction scars and erosion. In an 

effort to control the spread of exotic plant species, 

only certified weed-free hay, straw, or mulch would 

be used. 

All new construction would be completed using 

sustainable practices, such as the use of environmentally friendly materials and efficient utility systems. 

Components of such projects would be assessed for 

visual quality. Utilities and support functions such as 

water, sewer, electricity, and roads would be evaluated and designed to mitigate visual impact. 

Vegetation, including Special Status Species, 

and Fire Management 

Monument staff would survey proposed development sites for sensitive species and would relocate 

new development if those populations were present. 

Similarly, trails, roads, and campsites would be 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

74 
located to avoid impact on sensitive species. 

Damage to natural and cultural resources by 

fire suppression, prescribed fire, or restoration 

treatment operations will be avoided by following 

the operational protocols in Appendix J. Areas 

burned by wildland fire will be examined and the 

need for treatment under Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation (ESR) will be determined. The 

Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan will be used to 

guide ESR treatments on BLM-administered lands 

for the Shoshone and Burley Field offices (USDI 

BLM 2005). Revegetation efforts would emulate 

the natural form, spacing, abundance, and diversity 

of native plant communities and would use native 

species whenever feasible. 

To help minimize the spread of non-native plants, 

Monument managers would allow only the use of 

weed-free materials and equipment for operations. A 

variety of measures to prevent weed introduction and 

spread within the Monument would be implemented. 

These measures would include: cleaning vehicles 

and equipment that may have been used in weedinfested areas prior to entry into the Monument; 

identifying treating and posting weed locations; and 

educating staff, livestock permittees, visitors, and 

contractors. 

Trails in the NPS-managed portion of the Monument 

would be monitored for signs of disturbance of 

native vegetation. To control potential impacts on 

plants from trail erosion or social trails, sustainable, 

low-impact barriers would be used, and disturbed 

areas would be revegetated with native plants. Also, 

interpretive signs would educate the public on the 

effects of soil erosion. 

Inventory and monitoring of all natural resources 

would be undertaken to provide a comprehensive 

understanding of the Monument’s wildlife, vegetation, and habitat. 

Wildlife and Special Status Species 

A variety of techniques would be employed to 

reduce the impacts on wildlife, such as visitor 

education programs and restrictions on visitor 

activities. NPS, in conjunction with the State of 

Idaho, would designate areas within the Preserve and 

periods of time when no hunting would be permitted 

for reasons of public safety, protection of the areas’ 

resources, administration, or public use and enjoyment. 

All special status species in the Monument and 

Preserve would be inventoried with monitoring 

plans established. Actions and stipulations necessary 

to protect special status species and their habitats 

would be made part of land use authorizations (e.g., 

limiting fragmentation of special status species 

populations when considering development of road 

network) and fire planning. 

Air Quality 

Dust control during construction activities would be 

required, and all construction machinery would be 

required to meet air emission standards. 

Cultural Resources 

In accordance with agency policies and procedures, 

the Monument and Preserve would continue to 

protect cultural resources to the greatest extent 

possible with available funding and staff levels. 

Disturbing significant resources would be avoided 

whenever possible. Where avoidance or preservation 

cannot be achieved, mitigation would be carried 

out under the guidance of the procedures of the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 Code 

of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800). 

Before any land-modifying activity, a professional 

archaeologist would inspect the present ground 

surface of the proposed development site and the 

immediate vicinity for the presence of cultural 

remains, both prehistoric and historic. Should 

newly discovered or previously unrecorded cultural 

remains be located, additional investigations would 

be accomplished prior to earth-disturbing activities. 

Through consultation with the tribes and the Idaho 

SHPO, areas for Section 110 cultural resource inventories would be prioritized. At-risk sites eligible 

for the NRHP would be monitored for vandalism. 

A Cultural Resources Management Plan, which 

describes how specific sites would be managed, 

defines what areas need additional inventory, and 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 75
designates potential-use categories for sites, would 

be completed for the Monument. Should NAGPRA 

materials be inadvertently discovered within the 

Monument, the agencies would follow the tribal 

consultation procedures outlined in the NAGPRA of 

1990. All preservation, rehabilitation and restoration 

efforts for historic structures would be carried out 

in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, 

with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, 

Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. 

76 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Table 7

Summary of Alternatives

 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTER

Provide the opportunity for a Retain and enhance the Aggressivebroad array of visitor Monument’s primitive character No major changes in resource communitiexperiences; represents the with minimal visitor facilities or GENERAL CONCEPTS management, visitor programs, and fire mhighest accommodation of services and less intensive or facilities. partnershivisitor access to, and within, the management action to influence Monumen

Monument. resource conditions. 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 77 ALLOCATION OF ZONES Frontcountry Zone Acreage (% of Monument) Passage Zone Acreage (% of Monument) Primitive Zone Acreage (% of Monument) Pristine Zone Acreage (% of Monument) 2,300 acres (0.3%) 4,700 acres (0.6%) 290,200 acres (38.6%) 448,800 acres (59.6%) 2,300 acres (0.3%) 68,900 acres (9.2%) 9,000 acres Outside Monument 226,900 acres (30.1%) 447,900 acres (59.5%) 2,300 acres (0.3%) 3,200 acres (0.4%) 201,000 acres (26.7%) 539,500 acres (71.7%) 

4,10

NATURAL RESOURCES General (*) Provide for and implement resource (*) (*) (*) 

inventories, surveys, and monitoring programs; disseminate information to the public; mitigate threats to resources utilizing proactive management activities. NOTE: An (*) appearing in a column means the description under the Common to All Alternatives for the topic also applies to this alternative. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTER

Geological Resources (*) Protect geological features from damage presently occurring; designate and implement resource inventoriesand monitoring strategies appropriate for resource protection; complete surveys prior to any surface disturbance; identify and mitigate threats to resources. 

(*) (*)

Initiate a restoration program to remove cave graffiti and foster public understanding of theneed to protect cave resources;consider implementing trails tomitigate impacts from usercreated trails. 

(*)

Initiate a limited restorationprogram to remove cave graffiti and foster public understandingof the need to protect cave resources; no further site development to facilitate caveaccess; emphasize currentnatural conditions. 

Initiate interemove caunderstanresourcesother geolexperiencdamage; rneeded an

Soils

(*) Protect soils from accelerated and (*) (*) (*) 

unnatural erosion; investigate biological soil crusts to provide specific management guidance. 

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species and Fire Management (*) Suppress wildland fire to protect life (*) (*) (*) and property, recent rehabilitation, and Manage all wildland fires within Implement proactive fuels Allow wildland fire use in the Manage fi

restoration projects; develop a joint fire the Preserve and BLM portion management activities to offset Wilderness and Preserve when restoration 

management plan; continue of the Monument according to the potential effects of compatible. Allow wild

cooperative fire management current BLM land use plans. increased public use. Limited prescribed fire would Preserve w

arrangements. Manage wildland fire within the Allow wildland fire use in the be used in the aspen, conifer, Limited p

Restore annual grasslands and highly original Monument according to Wilderness and Preserve when and mountain shrub the aspendegraded sagebrush steppe NPS Wildland Fire Management compatible. vegetation types to improve vegetatiocommunities to achieve a mosaic of Plan. Limited prescribed fire would wildlife habitat and invigorate and invigoshrubs, forbs, and grasses capable of be used in the aspen, conifer, plant communities while protecting sustaining native animal populations. and mountain shrub protecting the Little WatersheRestoration treatments may be active vegetation types to improve Cottonwood Watershed. Manage th

or passive and may include but are not wildlife habitat and invigorate access for 

limited to the following: prescribed fire, plant communities while response thinning, mowing, herbicide treatment, protecting the Little

seeding, temporary removal of Cottonwood Watershed. 

livestock and/or changes in grazingregimes or facilities, and roadclosures. 

78 
 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTER

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 79

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species and Fire Management (continued) (*) Protect and restore sagebrush (*) (*) (*) 

steppe communities; restore annual Target 40,000 acres for Target 45,000 acres for Target 55,000 acres for Target 80,

grasslands and highly degraded restoration (5% of Monument; restoration (6% of Monument; restoration (7% of Monument; Monumentsagebrush steppe communities; 15% of BLM land); assumes 16% of BLM land). 20% of BLM land). emphasize use of native plants. current rate of restoration – 

2,500 to 4,000 acres/year. 

(*) Rehabilitate wildland fire burned (*) (*) (*) 

areas when necessary to restore Treat areas to control Utilize Integrated Weed Employ less intrusive treatment Proactively 

sagebrush steppe species and cheatgrass and restore Management with emphasis on methods for restoration and as possibl

suppress noxious weeds; permit only sagebrush cover. treatment/containment, rehabilitation.certified weed-free hay, straw, and prevention, and education, Utilize non-chemical weed mulch within the Monument; utilize particularly in Frontcountry and control methods, while not ruling 

Integrated Weed Management to Passage Zones. out herbicide use.control and prevent noxious weeds. 

(*) Adopt interagency habitat (*) (*) (*) 

guidelines for sage-grouse and Restore existing and potential Create an opportunity for Treat larger, more continuous Restore ansagebrush steppe obligates to guide sagebrush steppe communities interpreting the decline of acreages for restoration. sagebrush sagebrush steppe management; within the Monument, sagebrush steppe and efforts to enlarging ainventory all special status species in emphasizing Key sage-grouse restore this dwindling resource. condition hthe Monument; authorize actions and habitat in Laidlaw Park, Little Prioritize rstipulations to protect special status Park, and Paddelford Flat. sage-grouspecies and their habitats. stronghold

Protect vepermitting North Laidallotment. 

Water Resources, Including Wetlands 

(*) Maintain, restore, and enhance (*) (*) (*) 

riparian areas and wetlands; no additional playas are modified ordeveloped; work with appropriate authorities to obtain water resources needed for Monument purposes. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTER

Wildlife, Including Special Status Species and Their Habitat (*) Inventory and monitor target (*) (*) (*) 

species; designate no hunting areas as needed for safety and protection of area resources; protect special status species in the Monument; work with various agencies to control predators and pests.

Air Quality (*) Work proactively with surrounding (*) (*) (*) 

communities, land management agencies, and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to limit increases in particulate matter and sulfur dioxide throughout the Monument. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archaeological and Historic Resources (*) Inventory, evaluate, and document (*) (*) (*) cultural resources of known Intensively inventory a minimum Intensively inventory a minimum Intensively inventory a minimum Intensively archaeological and historic resources; of 5 percent of the Monument of 10 percent of the Monument of 10 percent of the Monument percent of prioritize Section 110 inventories in for cultural resources. for cultural resources; increase for cultural resources; focus resources; 

consultation with the Idaho SHPO; Section 110 inventory in Section 110 inventory in the Primitive a

complete a baseline research report of Passage Zone. Primitive and Pristine Zones.

archaeological resources within the Monument; prepare a Cultural Resource Management Plan that defines what areas need additional inventory. 

(*) Proactively manage and protect (*) (*) (*) 

cultural resources; monitor and Continue some interpretation of Emphasize public education Pursue mo

stabilize at-risk NRHP-eligible sites archaeological and historic and interpretation of cultural interpretat

found to be deteriorating and sites. resources in response to and protec

protect/stabilize as needed. increased access.

Monitor sites and implementprotection measures at various recreation sites. 

80 
 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTER

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 81

Museum Collections (*) Allow access to Monument collec- (*) (*) (*) 

tions for legitimate research andeducational purposes; manage all resource management records directly associated with museum objects as 

museum property. 

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS AND INTERESTS 

(*) Consult with interested tribes on a (*) (*) (*) regular basis regarding the management of traditional cultural properties.Identify with the tribes protection measures for places of traditional cultural importance to Native Americans to preserve the integrity and use of these areas as described in National Register Bulletin 38.Take measures to identify traditional cultural places of importance to preserve the integrity and use of these areas.Allow continued traditional tribal hunting, gathering, and use of natural resources on the Preserve and BLM portions of the Monument. 

LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 

Travel and Access (*) Prepare a Comprehensive Travel (*) (*) (*) Management Plan; prepare a travel map showing allowable uses, road and trail classifications, closures, andstandards and restrictions; prepare guidelines and procedures for emergency and administrative off-road travel.
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTE

Travel and Access (cont.) (*) On an interim basis and until a detailed Comprehensive Travel Management Plan is completed, roads are limited to those designated as Class A-D roads (displayed on Figure 16, “Transportation Network”), excluding any segments falling within the Pristine Zone boundaries. All other lands are off-road and closed to motorized or mechanized vehicle recreation use.Class A roads found in theFrontcountry Zone. Class B roads found in theFrontcountry and Passage Zones.Class C&D roads found in thePassage and Primitive Zones.(*) Designate all roads and trails on BLM-administered lands as “Limited” off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (i.e., allow OHV on these roads in a restricted manner; no OHV off roads); designate all land within the Monument other than designated roads and trails as “Closed” for OHV use; close and rehabilitate all routes established inWSAs not identified as “existing ways”; authorized NPS “Park roads” are open only to licensed vehicles. Close redundant, unneeded, or unused routes as determined by management. 

(*)(*)

Legal roads in existence prior toProclamation 7373 remainopen, but roads can be closed on a case-by-case basis to protect resources. 

(*) (*) 

(*) (*)

Designate the Carey-Kimama Close or convert many Class D and Arco-Minidoka roads as roads in the Primitive Zone to “Backcountry Byways” over their non-motorized trails. entire length outside the Monument.Designate multiuse and singleuse trail routes.Upgrade and maintain the Carey-Kimama and ArcoMinidoka roads to a consistentClass B standard. 

Existing but mainfire/weed activitiesSelect CZones cofor resouPossibly Arco-MinClose all Zone to ause exceadminist

82 
 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTER

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 83

Travel and Access (cont.) (*) No new motorized vehicle roads or (*) 

trails will be developed in the Pristine New trails could be developed Zone; individual roads and trails may in certain areas; maintain or be temporarily or permanently closed rehabilitate trails in the Kingsto protect resources. Bowl area to prevent further 

resource damage. 

Frontcountry road and trail mileage 39 miles Passage Zone road and trail mileage 61 miles 

Primitive Zone road and trail mileage 522 miles Pristine Zone road and trail mileage 9 miles ** See Table 8 (at the end of this table) 

for summary of acreage/mileage in each management zone by road classification, for all four alternatives

(*)

Improve a trail system at the Kings Bowl area and to additional nearby points of interest. 

39 miles

262 miles 

(138 miles Outside Monument) 

314 miles

6 miles 

(*)

Close all roads and ways within the Pristine Zone to all motorized and mechanized vehicle use except foremergency and administrative use. 

39 miles

40 miles

490 miles

62 miles 

Authorize tC and D roZones to faaimed at nClose unneroutes as dCooperate access for 

(63 

Livestock Grazing (*) Alter nine allotment boundaries to (*) (*) (*) accurately reflect NPS/BLM boundary No new liv(no change in AUMs): 273,000 BLM permitted iacres available for livestock use, 1,800 Bowl CrateBLM acres not available for livestock net benefit use, and 462,880 NPS acres not needing imavailable for livestock use; 36,965AUMs permitted.Continue using existing livestock developments in Primitive and PristineZones; evaluate Brigham Point and Paddelford Flat sheep trails across NPS land for future use. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTE

OTHER LAND USES 

Facilities 
(*) Enlarge and reconstruct existing (*) (*) (*) Visitor Center/Administration Building, Expand and develop new Become as approved; evaluate sharing facilities at the Visitor Center to private seBLM/NPS facilities and staff; install accommodate increased visitor infpreviously approved signs and visitation. along the wayside exhibits at Kings Bowl. 

(*) Include Monument information at (*) (*) (*) 

BLM fire stations in Carey and Maintain existing informational Potential to increase visitor Encourag

Kimama. and directional kiosks located services for the Monument at visitor inf

along and within the Monument. Carey and Kimama Fire commun

Stations. 

(*) Modify existing paved road system (*) (*) (*) and parking areas to address safety Provide visitor safety and Centralized office space for Limit any new facilities to what Centralizand maintenance concerns at NPS information signs in the Kings BLM and NPS staff would be may be necessary for public staff wouVisitor Center at the original Bowl area. considered. safety and/or resource Monument. protection.

No new livestock developments are permitted in the nominated North Laidlaw Park ACEC. Centralized office space forBLM and NPS staff would be considered. 

Lands and Realty (*) Pursue with willing landowners (*) (*) (*) 

acquisition or exchange of privateinholdings within the Monument;pursue an exchange for state lands located in and near the Monument; use existing policies to guide action onapplications for new discretionary land use authorizations.

Inventory all rights of way, easements, land use permits, and otherauthorizations in effect as of the date of the Proclamation. 

84 
 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTER

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 85

Mineral Materials (*) Continue existing authorization for (*) (*) (*) mineral sites within the Monument for the term of the authorization; no new material sites will be developed except for administrative purposes; provide information on BLM areas outside the Monument where casual collection is appropriate and permitted. Consult with Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) on relinquishment of three right-of-way grants for material sites along US 93.Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas (*) Develop a joint BLM/NPS (*) (*) (*) Wilderness/ WSA Plan; no additional water development or other habitat manipulations are undertaken to manage wildlife populations; continue aircraft surveillance and monitoring of wildlife population accordingly. Close and rehabilitate ways or travel routes within WSAs not identified during WSA inventories to motorized vehicles.Should those portions of the Great Rift Wilderness Study Area adjacent to the original Monument be designated as wilderness, designate the 660-foot strip of non-wilderness between the Craters of the Moon Wilderness boundary and the original Monument boundary as Wilderness. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) (*) Could consider new ACEC (*)nominations in next land use planning None designated cycle. 

(*) (*) 

None designated Designate North Laidlaw Park 

as an ACEC. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTER

Interpretation/Visitor Understanding (*) Develop a Comprehensive Interpretive Plan; coordinate services to meet the needs of permittees, visitors, students, educators, interestgroups, and the general public; encourage partnerships at existing facilities outside the Monument; promote visitor safety and resource protection.

(*) Focus educational programs for schools on programs on site in theoriginal NPS Monument.(*) Continue developing a variety of interpretive media for on- and off-site use; continue interpretive programs and maintaining exhibits andwaysides. 

(*) Post informational/orientation materials at all primary backcountry access points surrounding the Monument and at proposed fire stations at Carey and Kimama. (*) Provide developed facilities such as the Visitor Center at the original NPS Monument. 

(*) (*) 

(*) (*)

Expand educational programs for school groups in the Monument. 

(*) (*)

Develop a variety of portable media to interpret the expanded portion of the Monument. 

(*) (*)

Upgrade interpretive kiosks, wayside exhibits, and associated trail system and dayuse area in the Kings Bowl area. 

(*) (*)

Provide additional interpretivefacilities along the US 20/26/93 corridor and at significant sites within the Passage Zone. 

(*)

(*)(*)

Develop a variety of portable media to interpret the expanded portion of the Monument. 

(*)

(*) 

Allow comoffer a ranEmphasizaccess po

Expand edlocations. 

Develop a interpret thMonumen

InterpretatPreserve, publicationmethods. 

Provide adthe US 20Provide inregarding communitinterpretivprograms Monumenand faciliti

86 
 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTER

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 87

Recreation 
(*) Utilize Idaho State Comprehensive (*) (*) (*) 

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan Keep existing roads open to Make implementation-level Make implementation-level Make imp

(SCORTP) and Outdoor Recreation motorized and mechanical planning determinations as to planning determinations as to determinaDemand Assessment in vehicle travel. where specific trails, trailhead where specific trails, trailhead trailhead fimplementation-level planning to assist facilities, and/or number of facilities, and/or number of campsites managers in understanding the primitive campsites could be primitive campsites could be Zone; devrecreational use patterns, trends, and located in the Passage Zone; located in the Passage Zone; in the Pasrecreation facilities needed. develop up to 12 locations for develop up to 4 locations for Close all r

Require permits for overnight camping camping in the Passage Zone. camping in the Passage Zone. and mechin the Wilderness and/or biking or Provide increased opportunities Close all roads to unauthorized Zone.

hiking in the original Monument area to experience a wide range of motorized and mechanized 

north of US 20/26/93; no wood fires recreation trail uses. vehicle use in the Pristine Zone. are permitted within the original Keep existing roads open to Monument. motorized and mechanical 

vehicle travel.

(*) Inventory resources and areas most (*) (*) (*) 

vulnerable to vandalism, theft, and/orrecreation use impacts. 

Designate areas within the Monument and periods of time when there will be no hunting and/or firearm use for reasons of public safety, administration, and/or public use and enjoyment. 

(*) Promote Leave No Trace and (*) (*) (*) Tread Lightly! Programs with staff and the public; provideinformation/orientation materials. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTER

Visual Resources (*) Monument managers seek cooper- (*) (*) (*) ation of visitors, neighbors, and local VRM classification – currently 3 Wilderness and WSAs are Wilderness and WSAs are Wildernes

governments to prevent or minimize Class IV, 2 Class II; Wilderness Class I; all other areas are Class I; all other areas are areas are 

impacts to Western landscape vistas – Class I. Class II. Class II. and natural dark conditions. 

Soundscapes 

(*) Coordinate with Dept. of Defense, (*) (*) (*) 

FAA, and Idaho Dept. of Aeronautics to minimize aircraft noise impacts. No aircraft landings associated withcommercial air tours are authorized in Pristine Zone (emergency air strips are state managed and are not included in this guidance). 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

(*) Consider developing intergovern- (*) (*) (*) 

mental coordinating group to ensure consistency with state and local plans. 

Participate with interested gatewaycommunities in jointly meeting visitor needs.

88 
 (*)COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTER

RESEARCH 

(*) Require research and specimen collecting permits; emphasize the use of the Monument as an outdoor laboratory for understanding the Great Rift ecosystem; coordinate the reviewand approval of research applications to confirm adherence to applicablepolicies and compatibility with thepurposes of the Monument. Facilitate the transfer of research information to the public.Assist qualified researchers andeducational institutions in conducting authorized studies or field classes as feasible. 

(*) (*) (*) 

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 89
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Table 8 

Acreage and Mileage Calculations For All Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE AALTERNATIVE BALTERNATIVE CALTERNATIVE D 

Front Country Passage Pristine 

) 4,700Acres (.6% CRMO) ) 

 A B C D  A B C D  A B C D  A B 39 30 0 2 0 7 61 0 45 14 2 0 0 12 0 9 0 0 

Primitive 

2,300 Acres (.3% CRMO 290,200 Acres (38.6% CRMO 448,800 Acr

Trails Trails Trails 

522 344 166 

Front Country Passage Pristine 2,300Acres (.3% CRMO) )  A B C D  A B C D  A B C D  A B 39 30 0 2 0 7 0 57 39 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 

 A B C D 

0 81 56 1 0 

Primitive 

68,9 00 Acres (9.2% CRMO) 226,900 Acres (30.1% CRMO 447,900 Ac

Trails Trails Trails 

262 166 314 184 127 Passage Zone Outside CRMO 9,000 Acres Outside CRMO 

Trails 

138 

Front Country Passage Pristine 

) ) ) 

 A B C D  A B C D  A B C D  A B 39 30 0 2 0 7 40 0 37 2 1 0 0 18 0 62 0 2 

Primitive 

2,300 Acres (.3% CRMO 3,200 Acres (.4% CRMO 201,000 Acres (26.7% CRMO 539,500 Acr

Trails Trails Trails 

490 345 127 

Front Country Passage Pristine 

) ) ) 

 A B C D  A B C D  A B C D  A B 39 30 0 2 0 7 82 0 46 34 2 0 0 11 1 34 0 0 

 A B C D 63 0 52 11 0 0 

Primitive 

2,300 Acres (.3% CRMO 6,700 Acres (.9% CRMO 218,700 Acres (29.1% 518,300 Acr

Trails Trails Trails 

474 321 141 

Passage Zone Outside CRMO 4,100 Acres Outside CRMO 

Trails 

CRMO = Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve These figures summarize the existing inventory of land, roads, and trails on public land for which there was a management zone prescription. State lands are included lands are not included. Total private land makes up approximately 0.9% of the Monument. Acreage and mileage figures have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres an

90 
Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 91

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) 

Geological Resources

Geological resources would be affected by continued visitor access via roads and trails, as well as by wind erosion, fire, fire suppression, and grazing. These impacts would be mainly direct and both short- and long-term in nature, ranging from negligible to potentially major levels. Indirect impacts would result from deposition of dust and soils on geological features over time. The limitation on new mineral extraction siteswould result in long-term indirect negligible beneficial effects on geological resources.Although an individual geologic feature could suffer a major impact, in context of the entire Monument's geologic features/resources, the impacts would be quite localized (that is, the effect would cover only a small part of the entire Monument's land area or an individual type of geologic feature, of which there may be many). 

Table 9 

Summary of Impacts 

Alternative B Alternative C 

NATURAL RESOURCES

Alternative B would have the most improved Alternative C would have the largest area of 

road access and the greatest number of Pristine Zone, which would afford the most improved roads and additional trail designa- natural protection to geologic features tions, which would result in the largest through difficult or remote, foot-only access. increase in visitation and/or access of all the Closures of non-essential roads and limitedalternatives. As a consequence, Alternative B access would lead to the smallest amount of could result in a slightly greater loss of dust-related impacts. Impacts from visitor geologic features or structures and a higher damage, theft, or vandalism would range rate of degradation of geologic resources or from negligible to potentially major locally, but damage from vandalism. Adverse impacts the probability of major impacts would be from increased access would range from lower because of decreased access for many negligible to potentially major, with specific visitors. Negligible to minor adverse impacts concerns about direct major damage to from fire and grazing would continue, and features in the Kings Bowl and Wapi Lava there would be slight beneficial effects from Field areas. Increased fire suppression and limits on new mineral extraction sites. Overall, continued grazing could result in minor to Alternative C would cause the fewest adverse moderate adverse impacts, and small impacts on geologic resources of all thebeneficial effects would result from limits on alternatives.new mineral extraction areas. Although an individual geologic feature could Although an individual geologic feature could suffer a major impact, in context of the entire suffer a major impact, in context of the entire Monument's geologic features/resources, the Monument's geologic features/resources, the impacts would be quite localized (that is, the impacts would be quite localized (that is, the effect would cover only a small part of the effect would cover only a small part of the entire Monument's land area or an individual entire Monument's land area or an individual type of geologic feature, of which there may type of geologic feature, of which there may be many). be many). 

Alternativaggressivon off-site beneficiadamage fof many ffire supprsite-specimpacts.Although suffer a mMonumenimpacts weffect woentire Motype of gebe many)
92 

Soils

associated witrail maintenance and use, and livestock use

i

of recreation facilities, and increased visitormight increase the amount of soil area

l

localized adverse impacts. Grazing alsoadverse impacts on soils from Alternative B 

A, wi

i

Alternativpotential 

vegetation restoration and public education. 

i

term negligible to minor negative impacts on

ith 

fire suppression, less active management ofalternative. Adverse impacts on vegetation

ld be minor and limited, with 

suppression, and continued grazing would 

be more amajor benimpacts fAlternativ

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

Soil disturbance, erosion, and compaction would be the primary adverse impacts 

th most management actions 

under Alternative A. Wildland fire and suppression, restoration activities, road and are the management activities most likely to affect soils. Overall, short- and long-term adverse impacts on soils would be minor to moderate in intensity, w th long-term moderate beneficial effects from the restoration program. 

Improved road and trail access, development use of the Monument under Alternative B directly and indirectly affected. Improvementsto unpaved roads, trails, and day use areas and more extensive use of fire suppression wou d cause direct loss of soils locally, resulting in minor to moderate would cause minor to moderate adverse impacts. Overall, short- and long-term would range from minor to moderate; the restoration program would result in long-term moderate beneficial effects. 

The effects of Alternative C on soils would be substantially the same as those of Alternative 

th slightly more short-term erosion 

potential and slightly fewer long-term soil impacts. Impacts from facility construction maintenance and fire suppression would be reduced, and adverse impacts from grazing would remain minor to moderate. Overall, short- and long-term adverse impacts would be minor to moderate in intensity, w th more long-term beneficial effects from a slightlyexpanded restoration program. 

The effecon soils wmaintenaLong- and adverse iand fire sterm advemoderatemoderate effects on successfuacreage u

Vegetation and Fire Management

Alternative A would result in both short- and long-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts on vegetation from continued use and maintenance of roads and trails, plus illegal off-road use, spread of noxious weeds, fire suppression and fire, and continued grazing. Restoration activities and construction of facilities would cause short-term negligible to minor direct adverse impacts, but they would result in long-term indirect minor to major beneficial effects from 

Alternative B would result in a greater possibility of fragmentation, increased risk of noxious weed spread, and greater risk of human-caused fire because of increased visitation and access and more road and trail maintenance. Effects on vegetation would be both short- and long-term, ranging from negligible to moderate, but they would be more w despread than in Alternative A. Facility development would cause some longvegetation, but increased public education would result in minor to moderate long-term beneficial effects. Restoration acreage would be slightly greater than in Alternative A, wshort-term minor adverse impacts and longterm moderate to major beneficial effects. 

Alternative C would involve less opportunity for extensive visitor access, less access for noxious weeds, and a slower rate of restoration over a larger area than any other from access woufew impacts from facility development and maintenance. Restoration efforts would cause long-term minor to major beneficial effects, but these would occur more slowly because fewer herbicides and more low impact methods would be used. Fires, fire lead to minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

In Alternamore aggwould resadverse itime than Strategicawould inchealthy vextent of suppressdevelopm

minor to mfrom increareas of tPark, wouPassage designaticomment

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 
Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 93

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) 

Water Resources

Implementing Alternative A would continue the current local long-term effects on water resources at intensity levels generally ranging from negligible to potentially major, although any major effects would be localized to small areas. The effects of intense recreational use of ice cave pools or from livestock watering on individual playas could create minor tomoderate changes in nutrient concentrations, bacteria levels, and turbidity. The duration of effects would depend on the intensity of recreational use at each site. The effects would tend to be localized to the individual water bodies, because no surface waters connect them. The overall effect of livestockuse on playas would be widespread and longterm and could range from minor to potentially major intensity, depending on the location. 

Alternative B Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative B would be The effects of Alternative C could be

substantially the same as those of Alternative substantially the same as those of Alternative A, but with a somewhat higher likelihood of A because there still would be a chance that more indirect adverse effects on local ice recreational use could affect ice caves, and caves and playas resulting from road there could be limited impacts from grazing.improvements and increased recreational However, moderate adverse impacts would use, plus a possible increase in livestock potentially be less widespread or frequent developments. Impacts would generally because road access would be reduced. range from negligible to potentially moderate, but they would be localized. Depending on the site-specific circumstances, the effects could be either short term or long term. 

The effecAlternativthe same long-term intensities(proximity concentraAlternativlocal longintensity lpotentiallcould affewatering causing mnutrient cturbidity. localized no surfac
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) 

Wildlife Resources

Under Alternative A, which would continue current conditions, effects on wildlife would continue to come primarily from conflicts with human uses of the Monument, including disturbance by people and vehicles and conflicts and competition with livestock use.Access and roads and associated visitorrecreation would result in minor long-term adverse impacts, plus short-term moderate local adverse impacts on some species in high use areas. Sagebrush steppe restoration and weed management actions would cause some short-term minor impacts, with minor to major beneficial effects over the long term,depending on the species involved. Fire and suppression of fire would benefit some species but adversely affect others. The 50 sensitive species, which use all major habitats in the Monument and have a variety of life histories, would experience the same range of impacts as other wildlife.The bald eagle and the gray wolf, which are listed as threatened and endangered, are occasionally found in the Monument, but both are peripheral species, and the impacts on them would be negligible to minor. Current livestock use and potential new livestock developments, which would be authorized in accordance with the Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines, could result in minor to moderate adverse impacts on sagebrush steppe habitat and/or sagebrush obligate wildlife species. In the long-term, the restoration of 40,000 acres of degraded sagebrush steppe would mitigate a portion of any adverse effects on wildlife resources. 

Alternative B 

The impacts on wildlife from Alternative B would largely be the same as those of Alternative A, but the slight increase in acresrestored would result in a related increase in improved habitat for sagebrush steppe species, a long-term minor to major beneficial effect. There could be a modest increase in adverse impacts from traffic disturbance inthe larger Passage Zone area and the potential for increased or improved access to motor vehicles in that zone, as well as the development of a visitor use area in Kings Bowl and multiuse trails. The effects on wildlife would vary from species and species, but most effects would be long-term, minor to moderate, and localized. 

Alternative C 

The effects on wildlife from Alternative Cwould largely be the same as those described for Alternative A, but 15,000 more acres would be restored in Alternative C, resulting in more improved habitat for sagebrush steppe species. There would be fewer adverse impacts from traffic disturbancebecause the Passage Zone would be smaller in Alternative C, and the Primitive Zone would be larger. These designations would include the potential for decreased access for motor vehicles and related recreational use overall, resulting in fewer direct and indirect adverse impacts on all wildlife species. 

The effec(Proposeas those as much Alternativfor sagebterm benadverse in the Paand admfor increavehicles 

94 
Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 95

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) 

Air Resources

Prescribed fire, wildland use fire, and fugitive dust from roads result in smoke or dust containing particles that adversely affect human health and air quality related values such as visibility. The effects on air quality from smoke and dust caused by the management activities of Alternative A typically would be short-term and local. The intensity of effects could range from negligible to moderate, depending on weather conditions and the location and size of fires.Most prescribed and wildland use fires would cause minor short-term effects. Fugitive dust from roads with current traffic use would produce short-term local adverse effects of negligible intensity. Alternative A would have a negligible to minor, adverse impact on maintaining thelong-term integrity of the majority of archaeological resources within the Monument. The restoration program outcome and fire suppression would have a long-term, moderate beneficial effect, while initial restoration, suppression actions, grazing, and vehicle travel would result in short-term, minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

Alternative B Alternative C 

The adverse effects on air quality from the The adverse effects on air quality from 

management actions of Alternative B typically Alternative C typically would be short term would be short term and limited to the local and limited to the local region. The intensity region. The intensity of effects would range of effects would range from to negligible to from negligible to moderate, with most moderate, with most prescribed and wildland prescribed and wildland use fires having use fires causing minor effects. Fugitive dust minor effects. Fugitive dust from roads with from roads with decreased traffic use and potentially increased vehicle traffic use on vehicle speeds would produce short-term unpaved roads would produce short-term local effects of negligible intensity. local effects of negligible to minor intensity. A substantial increase in traffic would berequired to elevate this impact to the moderate levels. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Alternative B would have a moderate adverse Alternative C would have a minor beneficial 

effect on maintaining the long-term integrity of effect on maintaining long-term integrity of the the majority of archaeological resources majority of archaeological resources within within the Monument by emphasizing the Monument by minimizing the amount of recreational opportunities and vehicle access. human and vehicle traffic into the PrimitiveThe restoration program outcome and fire and Pristine Zones. The restoration program suppression would have a long-term, outcome, fire suppression, and restricted moderate beneficial impact, where vehicle access would all contribute to long-term, travel, grazing, initial restoration, and minor to moderate beneficial impacts. Vehicle suppression actions would result in short- traffic (limited), grazing, initial restoration, and term minor to moderate adverse impacts. suppression actions would result in shortterm, minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

The adveactions of typically wthe local rrange from prescribeminor effecurrent tralocal effecaddition oduring the more intethroughouAlternativmoderate long-term archaeoloMonumeninterpretaemphasizShort-term impacts winitial restactions, a
96 

i

minor, beneficial impact on maintaining the

i

Monument. 

beneficial effect on maintaining the long-term 

minor adverse impacts on travel and access

i

Monument. 

Monument, Alternative C would cause minorReduced vehicle traffic could result in minor 

Monument

Restoration activities and restrictions in thePristine Zone in Alternative A could restrictassociated wi

i

ith grazing. 

Restoration activities and restrictions in therestrict or increase costs associated with impacts. 

Restoration activities and restrictions in the

ith 

on grazing. 

increase th

Proposed Management Plan and Final Env ronmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS AND INTERESTS 

Alternative A would have a negligible to long-term integrity of ethnographic resources and traditional use areas w thin the 

By emphasizing recreational activities and vehicle access, Alternative B would result in a minor to moderate adverse effect on maintaining the long-term integrity of ethnographic resources and traditional use areas in the Monument. 

By minimizing the amount of human and vehicle traffic into the Primitive and Pristine Zones, Alternative C would result in a minor integrity of ethnographic resources and traditional use areas in the Monument, but by limiting vehicle access it could cause some hardship for elderly tribal members. 

By emphasvisitor servAlternative a minor to maintaininethnograpareas in thaccess it celderly trib

LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 

Travel and Access

Actions under Alternative A would cause in the Monument, w th long-term minor beneficial effects from completed restoration and road maintenance activities. 

By emphasizing recreational opportunities and increased access, Alternative B would cause a long term minor to moderate adverse effect on road conditions in the Monument, but it also would lead to a long-term moderate beneficial effect on the availability of access and ease of travel to many locations in the 

By closing more miles of road in the to moderate adverse impacts on access. beneficial effects on transportation safety, but there also might be minor adverse impacts on travel safety from visitors using lower standard roads. 

By emphasvisitor servrestorationwould lead effects on 

Livestock Grazing

grazing operations and/or increase costs 

th grazing, resulting in shortand long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts. The use of the Passage Zone for potential road improvement and facility development would result in short- and longterm minor benef cial effects, but the potential increased recreational use of this area could cause minor to moderate adverse impacts. Alternative A would have the third largest Pristine Zone, which could restrict or increase the costs associated w

Pristine Zone under Alternative B could grazing, resulting in short- and long-term moderate adverse impacts on grazing, but larger Passage Zone areas and the development of good access could result in road improvement and facility development, which would cause short- and long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects. The increased recreational use and access in this area could cause minor to moderate adverse 

Pristine Zone under Alternative C could restrict or increase the costs associated wgrazing, resulting in moderate short- and long-term adverse impacts on grazing. The smaller number of areas in the Passage Zone would allow for some access and facilitydevelopment, a negligible to minor beneficial effect, but any increased recreational use would cause minor adverse impacts on grazing operations. The large amount of Pristine Zone could increase costs and limit access, causing moderate adverse impacts 

Alternative the largest this would adverse imthe long-teuse of an epotential rodevelopmerecreationamoderate access and facilities Thmoderate a
Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 97

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) 

Other Land Uses 

Alternative A would result in negligible impacts on administrative facilities, realty, and minerals in the Monument.

Special Designation Areas 

The effects on the characteristics and purposes of special designation areas fromAlternative A would be primarily negligible to minor and short term, but the effect of livestock use on natural conditions 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). Road system management and limited regulation of off-highway vehicle use could cause negligible to moderateadverse indirect effects through the spread of invasive weeds and the creation of unauthorized routes. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would cause negligible effects on realty and minerals in the Monument and a minor adverse impact on administrative facilities. The effects on the characteristics and purposes of special designation areas fromAlternative B would be primarily negligible to minor and short term, but the effects from livestock use on natural conditions in WSAs could be moderate in some local areas where livestock concentrate, and vegetative structure would be altered for long periods of time (5+ years). The improvements to the road system could cause higher levels of indirect adverse effects through the spread of invasive weeds and the creation of unauthorized routes. 

Alternative C 

By minimizing the amount of human and vehicle traffic into the Primitive and Pristine Zones, Alternative C would cause long-term minor beneficial effects on the Monument’s administrative facilities, realty, and minerals. The adverse effects on the characteristics and purposes of special designation areas from most actions under Alternative C would be primarily negligible to minor and short term. The effect of livestock on natural conditions in WSAs could be moderate in some local areas where livestock concentrate, and vegetative structure would be altered for long periods of time (5+ years). The lack of access and limited Passage Zone acreage could cause indirect adverse effects if grazing was expanded to certain areas, withpotential indirect adverse effects through the spread of invasive weeds and the creation of unauthorized routes. Designating a new ACEC in North Laidlaw Park would lead to minor beneficial effects on the adjacentCraters of the Moon Wilderness and Great Rift WSA. 

Because ointerpretaD (Proposimpacts oand minerThe adveand purpofrom Altermostly newith potenrestoratioof the areconditions some locaconcentrabe altered system moff-highwaadverse einvasive wunauthorizZone and Laidlaw Pas presenprovide inthat had bcandidate 
VISITOR EXPERIENCE

points and fire stations; offering schoolminor beneficial effects on interpretation and 

Minidoka Roads; offering school programs atthe original NPS Monument; interpretingresult in long-term minor beneficial effects on

ithin the

l

points and fire stations, offering schoolestablishing a limivisitor center. 

i

desired.

l

desired.

communities, limi

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

Interpretation and Visitor Understanding

Posting information at backcountry access programs at the original NPS Monument; interpreting cultural resources; adding interpretive media, programs, exhibits, and waysides; and modest development in the Kings Bowl area would cause long-term visitor understanding, as would agency assistance to research and educational institutions. In addition, long-term major benefits would result from expanding the existing Monument Visitor Center. 

Upgrading the Carey-Kimama and Arcocultural resources; adding interpretive media, programs, exhibits, and waysides; and developing portable interpretive media would interpretation, as would agencies assisting research and educational institutions, developing a cave restoration program, and interpreting sagebrush steppe restoration and integrated weed management. Short-term negligible adverse impacts would result from upgrading the Carey-Kimama and ArcoMinidoka Roads. Long-term minor beneficial effects on interpretation would result from adding interpretive facilities along US 20/26/93, at significant sites wPassage Zone, and at Kings Bow . Long-term major beneficial effects would come from expanding and developing new facilities at the existing Visitor Center. 

Posting information at backcountry access programs at the original NPS Monument, developing portable interpretive media, and 

ted cave restoration 

program under Alternative C would result in long-term minor beneficial effects on interpretation. There would be cumulative effects from Cooperative Weed Management Area programs. Long-term, major benefits would result from expanding the existing 

Recreation and Public Safety 

Alternative A would result in a w de range of negligible to moderate adverse and beneficial effects on recreation and public safety, depending on the recreational experience Acquiring private inholdings would result in long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects, as would greater protection of geological features in the expanded part of the Monument; safety emphasis through 

The added access available in A ternative B would contribute both beneficial and adverse effects, depending on the type of recreation Acquiring private inholdings would result in long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects, as would greater protection of geological features in the expanded part of the Monument, safety emphasis through interpretation, restoring sagebrush steppe 

The restricted access of Alternative C would contribute beneficial and adverse effects, depending on the type of recreation desired. Acquiring private inholdings would result in long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects, as would greater protection of geological features in the expanded part of the Monument, safety emphasis through interpretation, restoring sagebrush steppe 

ted facility developments 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Long-term interpretaPlan) wousigns and corridor aprograms site interpposting inexhibits, off-site indevelopmassistancinstitutionprogram beneficiaLong-term come from facilities, Monumenvisitor ceas from oin the Mowould acVisitor Cecould cauon people Monumen

The adde(Proposebeneficiathe type oAcquiring long-term effects, ageologicathe Monuinterpreta

98 
Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

interpretation, restoring sagebrush steppe communities, trail development andrehabilitation in the Kings Bowl area, developing or improving facilities, closing certain ways in Wilderness areas and WSAs; and authorizing commercial outfitters and guides. Short-term minor beneficial effects would result from wildland fire suppression. Long-term moderate beneficial effects would result from greater protection of geological features in the original NPS Monument and indirectly from restoring sagebrush steppe communities. Keeping almost all existing roads open to motorized travel would result in long-term minor beneficial effects on certain recreational experiences, but such access also could affect other recreationalexperiences, resulting in long-term minor adverse impacts.Long-term minor beneficial effects would result from the availability of undeveloped and dispersed camping, but this also could affectpeople who prefer more developed, dispersed camping, resulting in long-term minor adverse impacts.Ongoing livestock operations would result inlong-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on certain recreational experiences, but this also could affect other recreationalopportunities, resulting in long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects. 

communities, developing and rehabilitating trails in the Kings Bowl area, developing or improving facilities, closing certain ways in Wilderness areas and WSAs, and authorizingcommercial outfitters and guides. Short-term minor beneficial effects would result from wildland fire suppression, and short-term negligible adverse impacts would result from wildland fire use.Long-term moderate beneficial effects would result from greater protection of geological features in the original NPS Monument, from designating multiuse and single-use trails,and developing or improving facilities. There would be indirect long-term moderate benefits from restoring sagebrush steppe communities.Improving motorized access would result in long-term moderate beneficial effects on certain recreational experiences, but it also could result in long-term moderate adverse impacts on other recreational experiences. Long-term moderate beneficial effects would result from the availability of undeveloped and dispersed camping, but this also could resultin minor long-term adverse effects on people who prefer more developed, dispersed camping.Ongoing livestock operations would result inlong-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on certain recreational experiences, but this also could affect other recreationalopportunities, resulting in long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects. 

and improvements, closing certain ways in Wilderness areas and WSAs, and authorizingcommercial outfitters and guides. Short-term minor beneficial effects would result from wildland fire suppression, and short-term negligible adverse impacts would result from wildland fire use.Long-term moderate beneficial effects would result from greater protection of geological features in the original NPS Monument, and there would be indirect long-term moderate benefits from restoring sagebrush steppe communities.Long-term minor beneficial effects on certain recreational experiences would come from converting many Class D roads to nonmotorized trails, but such conversion alsowould affect other recreational experiences, causing long-term minor adverse impacts. Closing certain roads and ways in the Pristine Zone to motorized and mechanized vehicle travel would result in long-term moderate beneficial effects on certain recreational experiences, but long-term minor adverse impacts also would result from such closures,affecting other recreational experiences. These closures also would result in long-term moderate adverse impacts from reduced access. Long-term minor beneficial effectswould result from the availability of undeveloped and dispersed camping, but this also could adversely affect people who prefer more developed, dispersed camping, resulting in long-term minor adverse impacts. Ongoing livestock operations would result inlong-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on certain recreational experiences, but this also could affect other recreationalopportunities, resulting in long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects. 

facilities, WildernesShort-term effects woimprovemcould accactivities, suppressiimpacts wand shortresult from Long-term effects womercial oumoderate greater proriginal NsagebrusLong-term recreationclosing Cnon-motoand Pristiwould affecausing loLong-term result from dispersed people whcamping, impacts.Ongoing llong-term on certain also could opportunito minor b

Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 99
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) 

Visual Resources

Long-term minor beneficial effects on visual resources would result from greater protection of geologic features, from restoring sagebrush steppe communities, and from holding surface disturbing activities to theVRM management class standards that apply in Alternative A.Artificial light sources would cause long-term negligible cumulative adverse impacts. Longterm minor adverse impacts would result from existing livestock facilities and, cumulatively, from communications sites during the day. Long- and short-term minor adverse impacts would result from the use of existing mineral material sites. Long-term moderate adverse impacts would result from communications sites at night.Class B road use would cause short-term minor adverse impacts, and short-term minorto moderate adverse impacts would be caused by wildland fires and prescribed fires. Short-term negligible to moderate cumulative adverse impacts would result from outside sources of air pollution. 

Alternative B 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on visual resources would result from greater protection of geologic features and from restoring sagebrush steppe communities.Long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects would come from holding surfacedisturbing activities to VRM management class standards that apply in Alternative B. Artificial light sources would cause long-term negligible cumulative adverse impacts. Longterm minor adverse impacts would result from existing livestock facilities and, cumulatively, from communications sites during the day. Long- and short-term minor adverse impacts would be caused by the use of existing mineral material sites. Long-term moderate adverse impacts would result fromcommunications sites at night. Road upgrades would cause short-term minor cumulative adverse impacts, and short-termminor to moderate adverse impacts would result from Class B road use. Short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts would be caused by wildland fires and prescribed fires. Short-term negligible to moderate cumulative adverse impacts would result from outside sources of air pollution. 

Alternative C 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on visual resources would result from greater protection of geologic features; long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects would come from restoring sagebrush steppe communities; and long-term moderate beneficial effects would result from holding surface- disturbing activities to VRM management class standards that apply in Alternative C.Artificial light sources would cause long-term negligible cumulative adverse impacts. Longterm minor adverse impacts would result from existing livestock facilities and, cumulatively, from communications sites during the day. Long- and short-term minor adverse impacts would result from the use of existing mineral material sites. Long-term moderate adverse impacts would result from communications sites at night.Class B road use would cause short-term minor adverse impacts, and short-term minorto moderate adverse impacts would be caused by wildland fires and prescribed fires. Short-term negligible to moderate cumulative adverse impacts would result from outside sources of air pollution. 

Long-term resources protection minor to mresult from activities standards (Proposesteppe comoderate Artificial linegligible term minoexisting lifrom comLong- and would resmaterial simpacts wsites at niClass B rminor advto moderacaused by Short-term adverse isources o

100 
Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 101

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) 

Soundscapes

The effects on natural soundscapes in the Monument would result mainly from transportation, administrative uses, and grazing. The use of the US 20/26/93 corridorwould cause long-term minor adverse impacts Short-term negligible to minoradverse impacts would result from the use of various vehicles in the Monument, from fire management operations, and from livestock operations. Air operations would cause shortterm minor adverse impacts. 

Social and Economic Conditions 

Alternative A would result in a negligible adverse or beneficial effect on the number of annual visitors to the Monument, length of stay, or visitor spending. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on theregional economy or any economic or social indicator, other than moderate adverse impacts related to a gradual loss of mineral leases. Alternative A would not affect the rural character around the Monument. 

Alternative B 

The effects on natural soundscapes in the Monument would result mainly from transportation, administrative uses, and grazing. Some increased noise would comefrom more use of the Passage Zone. The use of the US 20/26/93 corridor would cause long-term minor adverse impacts. Short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts would result from the use of various vehicles in the Monument, from fire management operations, and from livestock operations. Air operationswould cause short-term minor adverse impacts.Alternative B would result in a moderate increase in the annual number of visitors, would lengthen visitors’ stay, and would increase recreational spending per visit. This moderate increase in visitors and visitor spending would result in a negligible effect on the local economy; a negligible or minor effect on local employment rates and per capita income; a negligible effect on the localpopulation, health care, education, and crime rates around the Monument; and a moderate adverse or beneficial effect on visitor satisfaction. A moderate adverse impact would result from the gradual loss of mineral leases. 

Alternative C 

The effects on natural soundscapes in the Monument would result mainly from transportation, administrative uses, and grazing. The use of the US 20/26/93 corridor would cause long-term minor adverse impacts. Short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts would result from the use of various vehicles in the Monument, from fire management operations and from livestock operations. Air operations would cause shortterm minor adverse impacts. Alternative C would result in a negligible adverse or beneficial effect on the annual number of visitors to the Monument and Preserve, the length of visitors’ stay, and the amount of visitor spending. There would be negligible direct, indirect, or cumulativeeffects on the regional economy or any economic or social indicator, other than themoderate adverse impacts from the gradual loss of mineral leases. Alternative C would not affect the rural character around the Monument. 

The effecMonumetransportgrazing. Twould caimpacts. adverse ivarious vmanagemoperationterm minoAlternativa moderavisitors, tamount oThis modspending effect on minor effeper capita local popcrime ratemoderate visitor saimpact wmineral le

Chapter 3 

Affected Environment 
Previous page, clockwise, from top left 

Hornito 

Dwarf buckwheat 

Lava lichen 

Lava bombs 
CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the 

physical, biological, cultural, and social environments of the Craters of the Moon National 

Monument and Preserve (the Monument), including 

human uses, that could be affected from implementing any of the alternatives described in Chapter 

2. The topics discussed in this chapter are those 

identified as important issues by the public and the 

agencies during scoping. The discussion generally 

follows the order of the topics addressed in Chapter 

2 under “Management Guidance Common to All 

Alternatives.” The scientific names for species mentioned in the text are listed in Appendix D. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The purpose and significance of the Monument 

tie directly to its unique geology. Volcanism has 

generated an array of features and habitats that make 

the Monument a recognized outdoor laboratory. As 

a result, the Monument draws scientists and visitors 

from around the world to study and experience the 

diverse volcanic terrain. 

Geologic Setting 

The Monument is in the Snake River Basin-High 

Desert (Omernik 1986) and is primarily comprised 

of three geologically young (Late PleistoceneHolocene) lava fields that lie along the Great Rift 

(see Figure 11 for regional setting and location). The 

Great Rift volcanic rift zone is a belt of open cracks, 

eruptive fissures, shield volcanoes, and cinder 

cones, which varies in width between approximately 

1 and 5 miles. It begins north of the Monument, 

approximately 6 miles from the topographic edge of 

the Snake River Plain, in the vent area of the Lava 

Creek flows located in the southern Pioneer Mountains (Kuntz et al. 1992). The Great Rift extends 

southeasterly from the Lava Creek vents for more 

than 50 miles to somewhere beneath the Wapi Lava 

Field (Kuntz et al. 1982). 

The Craters of the Moon Lava Field is the 

northernmost and largest of the three young lava 

fields. Kings Bowl Lava Field is the smallest and 

lies between Craters of the Moon Lava Field and 

the Wapi Lava Field. The rest of the Monument is 

composed of Pleistocene age pahoehoe and a’a fl ows, 

near-vent tephra deposits, cinder cones, lava cones, 

and shield volcanoes (Kuntz et al. 1988). These older 

areas are mantled with loess deposits (windblown 

silt) and in some places by windblown sand. During 

the Holocene (last 10,000 years), the most volcanic 

activity of any of the Eastern Snake River Plain 

(ESRP) basaltic rift systems was exhibited by these 

three lava fields associated with the Great Rift 

(Hughes et al. 1999). 

The Craters of the Moon Lava Field covers 618 

square miles and is the largest dominantly Holocene 

basaltic lava field in the lower 48 states (Kuntz et al. 

1992). It contains a tremendous diversity of volcanic 

features, with nearly every type of feature associated with basaltic systems (Hughes et al. 1999). 

Contained within the Craters of the Moon Lava Field 

are at least 60 lava flows, 25 tephra cones, and eight 

eruptive fissure systems aligned along the northern 

part of the Great Rift (Kuntz et al. 1992). 

Kings Bowl Lava Field formed approximately 2,200 

years ago during a single burst of eruptive activity 

that may have lasted as little as six hours (Kuntz et 

al. 1992). Kings Bowl has a central eruptive fi ssure 

approximately 4 miles long, flanked by two sets 

of non-eruptive fissures. The dominant feature is 

a bowl, 280 feet long, 100 feet wide, and 100 feet 

deep, produced when lava came into contact with 

groundwater, causing a steam or phreatic explosion. 

Adjacent to the bowl is an outstanding example of 

a lava lake with well-developed levees. The crust of 

the lake was broken by many of the blocks ejected 

by the phreatic explosion. The interior of this lake 

was still molten and oozed up through the holes 

punched in its crust, resulting in a large number of 

squeeze-up mounds of gas-charged lava (Hughes 

et al. 1999). Fissure caves, such as Crystal Ice Cave 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 105
Note: L.F. = Lava Field 

106 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 
and Creons Cave, lie along the Great Rift at Kings 

Bowl. At South Grotto, the rift may be passable to 

a depth of 650 feet below the surface (Earl 2001). 

Feeder dikes and spatter cones can be seen along the 

Great Rift at Kings Bowl. 

The Wapi Lava Field, approximately 2,200 years 

old (Hughes et al. 1999), is a classic shield volcano 

with a flattened dome shape. Kuntz et al. (1992) 

believe that the Wapi Lava Field began as a fi ssure 

eruption, but developed a sustained eruption from 

a central vent complex, which produced the low 

shield volcano seen today. Rising approximately 60 

feet above the south side of the largest vent is Pillar 

Butte. Greeley (1971) reported that the only known 

dribblet spires in the continental United States occur 

on the flows associated with Pillar Butte. Now, 

Candy Kiss 

King’s Bowl 

however, dribblet spires are known to also occur in 

Diamond Craters in Oregon. 

Potential for Future Eruptions 

The Craters of the Moon Lava Field formed during 

eight eruptive periods with a recurrence interval 

averaging 2,000 years, and it has been more than 

2,000 years since the last eruption. The constancy 

of the most recent eruptive periods suggests that 

slightly more than one cubic mile of lava will be 

erupted during the next eruption period. 

In the past, eruptions in the Craters of the Moon 

Lava Field have generally shifted to the segment of 

the Great Rift with the longest repose interval. The 

next eruptive period should begin along the central 

portion of the Great Rift in the Craters of the Moon 

Lava Field, but may include the northern part of the 

Monument (Kuntz et al. 1986). Initial fl ows, based 

on past performance, will probably be relatively 

non-explosive and produce large-volume pahoehoe 

flows. Eruptions from potential vents on the northern part of the Great Rift may be comparatively 

explosive and may produce signifi cant amounts of 

tephra, destroy cinder cones and build new ones 

(Kuntz et al. 1986). 

Geologic Features 

The lava is described by its physical appearance, 

which is largely determined by its composition, 

temperature, fluid and crystal content, and the 

Pahoehoe 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 107
influence exerted on it by the surface and slope it 

flowed down. Block lava has a surface of angular 

blocks and forms from very dense lava. A’a has a 

rough, jagged, or clinkery surface. Pahoehoe has a 

smooth, ropy, or billowy surface. 

There are several types of pahoehoe. Shelly 

pahoehoe forms from highly gas-charged lava, often 

near vents or tube skylights, and contains small 

open tubes, blisters, and thin crusts. Some shelly 

pahoehoe crusts are so thin and fragile that they 

are easily broken by foot traffic; much of the shelly 

pahoehoe that surrounds Pillar Butte is like this. 

Spiny pahoehoe forms from very thick and pasty 

of their small size and unusual shapes, many of the 

squeeze-ups associated with the Kings Bowl Lava 

Field are vulnerable to theft. 

When lava comes to the surface, highly charged 

with gas, and is ejected from one or a few vents, it 

can spray high into the air forming a fi re fountain(s). 

The highly gas-charged molten rock cools and 

solidifies during flight and rains down to form 

cinder cones. Loose cinders are particularly vulnerable to compaction and wind and water erosion. 

Cinders displaying a play of colors, caused by a 

thin layer of glass, also make a tempting target for 

souvenir gatherers. 

lava and contains elongated gas bubbles on the 

surface that form spines. Spiny pahoehoe is the 

dominant type of pahoehoe found in the Monument. Slabby pahoehoe is made up of jumbled up 

plates or slabs of broken pahoehoe crust. Many of 

the pahoehoe crusts are glassy and may exhibit 

various shades of blue or green prized by collectors. These glassy crusts are also prone to damage 

from foot traffi c. 

Lava tubes are hollow spaces beneath the surface 

of solidifi ed lava flows, formed by the withdrawal 

of molten lava after the formation of the surface 

crust. Within lava tubes, various formations such 

as lava stalactites occur that are vulnerable to Spatter Cone 

damage or theft. 

Most of the lava flows in the 

Monument are pahoehoe and were 

fed through tubes and tube systems. 

Some lava fl ows produce tumuli 

(small mounds) or pressure ridges 

(elongate ridges) on their crusts. 

There are also pressure plateaus that 

were produced by the sill-like injection of new lava beneath the crust 

of an earlier sheet flow that had not 

completely solidified. In some places, 

squeeze-ups formed when pressure 

was sufficient to force molten lava up 

through tension fractures in the top 

of pressure ridges or cracks in the 

solidified crust of lava ponds. Because Pressure Plateau 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

108 
Other lava features include spatter cones that 

formed when fluid globs (spatter) were ejected short 

distances (generally less than 200 feet) from some 

of the vents and accumulated right around the vent, 

forming short steep-sided cones. Along eruptive 

fissures where a whole segment erupted, spatter 

accumulated to produce low ridges called spatter 

ramparts. Hornitos, also known as rootless vents, are 

similar in appearance to spatter cones, but formed 

from spatter ejected from holes in the crust of a lava 

tube instead of directly from a feeding fi ssure. The 

individual globs that comprise the spatter cones, 

spatter ramparts, and hornitos are frequently not 

very well adhered to one another and are easily 

dislodged, making them very vulnerable to human 

damage. 

Four kinds of volcanic “bombs” are found in the 

Monument; all of which started off as globs of 

molten rock thrown or ejected into the air. The 

smaller bombs (backpack size or less) are frequently 

a target for collection and are now rare in proximity 

to roads and high-use trails in the Monument. The 

photo below depicts one type of bomb known as a 

“bread crust bomb.” 

Caves 

There are many different kinds of caves in the 

Monument. Shelly pahoehoe areas contain 

many small open tubes and blisters. There are 

thousands of these small open tubes and blisters 

within the Monument. Pahoehoe flows can travel 

more than 20 miles because the ceilings of lava 

tube insulate them from heat loss and some of 

the tubes are greater than 30 feet in height. The 

photo below depicts one cave known as Indian 

Tunnel. 

Some fissure caves associated with the Great 

Rift can be passable to hundreds of feet below Breadcrust Bomb 

the surface. Earl (2001) reported at South Grotto 

in the Kings Bowl Lava Field that 

the Great Rift can be passable to a 

depth of at least 650 feet, depending 

on the internal ice conditions. Bears 

Den Waterhole, another fi ssure cave 

located in cracks of the Great Rift, 

is ice floored and usually a source of 

water even in a drought year. 

The nature of fl owing lava can 

produce shallow caves and overhangs 

at flow fronts as a result of infl ation 

processes. Differential weathering of 

cinder layers on some cinder cones 

has also generated a few shallow 

caves. Some of these small caves are 

more than 10 feet deep. 

Indian Tunnel Lava Tube These various types of caves in 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 109 
Photo above: Vertical tree mold on left 

is 8 feet deep and over 1 foot wide; 

horizontal tree mold on right is almost 

2 feet wide. Photo on right: mold of 

charred wood: hiking staff for scale. 

the Monument can also be associated with archaeological and 

paleontological features, and they 

can harbor wildlife such as the 

blind lava-tube beetle, bushy-tailed 

woodrats, and Townsend’s big-eared bats. Deep 

cracks and fissures, including cracks with likely 

connections to lava tubes beneath, and the entrances 

to caves often create or provide microenvironments 

or microhabitats. Some of these microenvironments 

support impressive moss, algal, or lichen communities and even ferns. 

People are attracted to caves, and some of the easily 

accessed caves in the Monument now contain 

considerable graffiti (e.g., Lariat Cave), litter, and 

other forms of vandalism. 

Paleontology 

Tree molds are impressions in the solidifi ed lava 

that form as trees are enveloped by the lava fl ows, 

begin to burn, release water and other vapors that 

quickly cool the surrounding lava, and leave behind 

a mold of the charred tree and occasionally some 

carbon residue (see photos). Generally, tree molds 

preserve impressions of the cracked, partly burnt 

wood, but do not preserve bark or other textures that 

would aid in the identification of tree species. In the 

northern end of the Monument, more than 100 tree 

molds have been identified. Of the more than 100 

inventoried tree molds, 11 showed minor damage 

from humans, and these were at developed sites. 

Animal bones accumulate in lava tubes as inhabitants die naturally and are also introduced into 

the caves as a result of human or animal disposal. 

Exploration of such deposits in the lava tubes of 

the Snake River Plain has revealed bones of extinct 

animals such as mammoth and camel and modern 

large animals such as grizzly bear, gray wolf, bison, 

elk, and pronghorn (Miller 1989). In addition to lava 

tubes, lava blisters have also accumulated a faunal 

record. The openings create an excellent trap for 

larger animals. Carnivores found in these blister 

traps on the ESRP include the now extinct noble 

marten and animals no longer found in the area such 

as bison, wolverine, and Canada lynx (Miller 1989). 

A third type of unaltered fossil accumulation occurs 

in packrat nests. These nests, or middens, are an 

important contributor to the fossil record because of 

the ability to date the pollen and bone assemblages 

and relate that information to the paleoecology of 

the area. 

SOILS 

The soils of the Monument area are variable, 

reflecting the differences and interactions between 

parent material, topography, vegetation, climate, and 

time. The most significant differences involve the 

presence or absence of lava flows and the degree of 

soil development on volcanic substrates. The lava 

flows, which occupy two-thirds of the Monument, 

are made up of basalt lava rock. The soils on the 

younger basalt flows and cinder beds are limited to 

the initial decomposition of rock and cinders and 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

110 
deposition of windblown loess within crevices, 

cracks, and fissures. 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. The high desert environment results in lighter 

colored soils with low organic matter content. Most 

of the soils in the Monument area are silt loam to 

sandy loam in texture and vary in depth. They are 

moderately drained to well drained, except where 

clay horizons are present. Soils that are disturbed, 

not properly vegetated, or located on steep slopes are 

susceptible to water and wind erosion. 

Soil Origins 

The soils in the Monument and surrounding area 

have developed from rocks deposited during a 

sequence of geologic events that began almost 600 

million years ago, during the Cambrian Period. 

For approximately 500 million years, ancient seas 

intermittently covered the region, depositing limestone and other sedimentary rocks typical of ocean 

floors (Shallat and Burke 1994). Beginning about 17 

million years ago, fault block mountain building has 

pushed up the rocks, exposing them to weathering 

and soil development processes. The many mountain 

ranges in the Basin and Range Province have 

developed in this way. Recent earthquake activity 

is evidence that these mountain-building processes 

continue today. 

During the latter part of the Tertiary Period, from 

about 16 million years ago, until recently in the 

Yellowstone area, explosive volcanic activity across 

the Snake River Plain deposited layers of pyroclastic 

tuffs and silica rich lavas. More recent basalt lava 

flows and windblown loess have subsequently 

covered these rhyolite rocks. The basalt fl ows that 

are visible on the surface of the majority of the 

Snake River Plain began approximately 2 million 

years ago, during the Pleistocene, and continued 

until very recent times. 

The lava flows on the Snake River Floodplain are 

approximately 1 million years old (Anderson et al. 

1996). This volcanic activity built up the central part 

of the plain, forming some internally drained basins 

within, such as Big and Little Lost River sinks. 

During recent times, the region has periodically 

received layers of windblown dust from sources 

further west. These loess deposits have mantled 

the local geology and have resulted in many of the 

deeper soils on the eastern Idaho foothills and the 

leeward sides of lava flows within the Snake River 

Plain. 

Soil Types 

Soil surveys have been completed and published by 

the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

for most of the Monument outside of the recent 

lava. Other portions of the area have been partially 

mapped at different times by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) in the late 1980s and 1990s. 

Many of the soils surveys are now in Geographic 

Information System (GIS) form, where they can be 

viewed in Arcview and other GIS software. 

Soil types in the Monument fall into the following 

categories: 

• Soils of the Mountains and Foothills – These 

soils are located primarily in northern part of 

the Monument. They have developed in mixed 

metamorphic and/or volcanic shallow, rocky 

material and have carbonate accumulations at 

depth. Typical vegetation includes sagebrush, 

mountain shrubs, and trees found native to 

eastern and southern Idaho. 

• Soils of Alluvium from the Mountains and 

Streams – These soils have developed in 

lime-rich alluvial materials eroded from the 

mountains on the Snake River Floodplain and 

streams. Typical shrub vegetation includes 

mountain or Wyoming big sagebrush, low 

sagebrush, and occasionally some basin big 

sagebrush. 

• Shallow Basalt Soils – This is a complex of 

soils developed on the recent basalt flows. 

Due to the uneven, broken surface of the 

basalt, soil depths range from a few inches 

on exposed ridges to 6 or 8 feet on the lee 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 111
sides of the ridges and in low-lying areas. The 

type of vegetation varies depending on soil 

depth and may include various types of shrubs 

including fern-bush, syringa, and mountain big 

sagebrush, with some low and Wyoming big 

sagebrush. 

• Loess Soils – The loess soils are from glacial 

Snake River silts and lacustrine materials 

that have been windblown out of the Snake 

River drainage. Typical shrub vegetation 

includes mountain big sagebrush, Wyoming 

big sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, or some 

threetip sagebrush. 

• Sandy Soils and Playa Lake Bottoms – These 

soils have formed in alluvial and eolian 

accumulations usually near dry lake bottoms. 

The sands have weathered from quartzite, 

basalt, and sedimentary rocks, generally of 

local origin (Nace et al. 1975). Typical shrub 

vegetation includes basin big sagebrush or 

Wyoming big sagebrush. 

• Cinder Soils – This is a complex of soils 

mapped by NRCS and particular to cinder 

cones and deposits located within the Monument. Soils within this complex consist of 

varying ratios of cinder and eolian loess 

accumulations. Typical vegetation includes 

dwarf buckwheat, antelope bitterbrush, 

mountain big sagebrush, and limber pine. 

Biological Soil Crusts 

Biological soil crusts are a feature common to nearly 

all plant communities in arid and semiarid regions 

throughout the world (Belnap et al. 2001). The 

development of biological soil crusts is dependent 

on a number of factors, including soil texture and 

chemistry, annual precipitation amount and timing, 

associated vegetation, and disturbance history. 

Biological soil crusts have not been observed as a 

highly conspicuous element in the Monument, which 

could be due to any one of these factors. 

Soil textures in the Monument range from fi ne- to 

coarse-textured, with silt loams and sandy loams 

being predominant in areas where biological soil 

crusts are most likely to occur. Coarse-textured soils 

are more difficult for biological crusts organisms 

to stabilize due to the size of the particles. While 

crusts occur on soils with a variety of chemical 

natures, they tend to be highly developed on soils 

with basic pH and that are more saline or calcareous. 

Mosses are often a dominant organism on soils with 

neutral to acidic pH. Annual precipitation in the 

Monument averages from 8 to 16 inches. Areas with 

approximately 14 inches of annual precipitation have 

vegetation of a density where crusts are no longer 

needed to stabilize the soil surface. 

The presence or absence of biological soil crusts on 

the Monument landscape depends on a variety of 

environmental factors as well as land use and fi re 

history. While several BLM-administered areas 

and some kipukas in the Monument do not show 

good development of biological soil crusts, more 

areas, particularly in the drier southern portions, 

need to be investigated to determine the potential 

for crusts development. For example, areas with 

non-sprouting basin and Wyoming big sagebrush 

need to be compared with similar areas supporting 

the re-sprouting threetip sagebrush to determine if 

areas with a naturally shorter fire cycle (as indicated 

by the re-sprouting shrub) might have less potential 

for crust development than areas with longer historic 

fire return intervals. 

VEGETATION, INCLUDING 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, 

AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Although some of the younger lava flows are devoid 

of vegetation, there is a surprising diversity of plants 

and plant communities in the Monument (see Appendix D). The type and density of vegetation varies 

widely, depending on the availability of soil. The 

lavas and kipukas (islands of vegetation surrounded 

by younger lava flows) show a full range of ecological succession – from pioneer plants, such as lichens 

and mosses on the basalt surfaces, to complex plant 

communities in the kipukas and rangelands bordering the lava flows. The rough topography of the 

lava flows creates numerous microsites where soil 

and water accumulate to support plants that would 

normally occur in higher precipitation zones. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

112 
Limber pine stands occur on the cinder cones and 

lava flows in the northern part of the Monument. 

The transition between limber pine and juniper 

vegetation types occurs between Blacktail Butte and 

the original Monument. This ecotone normally occurs only in montane regions and is thus an unusual 

feature for the lava fl ows (USDI BLM 1980b). 

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 the geology, 

topography, and climate of the area. 

Early successional plant communities on the cinder 

cones produce stunning spring wildfl ower displays. 

Areas with greater soil development support 

the sagebrush steppe vegetation that typifi es the 

Snake River Plain. Sagebrush steppe is found on 

approximately 60 percent of the Monument and 

covers the more developed soils of the rangelands, 

kipukas, cinder cones, older lava fl ows, and the 

foothills of the Pioneer Mountains. This once was 

the most common vegetation throughout the Snake 

River Plain, as well as in the Intermountain West 

and Upper Columbia River Basin. However, fi re, 

agriculture, and livestock grazing have modifi ed 

composition and reduced the extent of this vegetation type throughout these regions (Blaisdell et al. 

1982; Whisenant 1990; Bunting et al. 2002). 

Some of the kipukas and portions of the original 

Monument have not been grazed by domestic 

livestock and have seen little in the way of other 

human-related disturbances. Thus, these areas, 

which are protected by new, rough lavas, offer 

some of the best remaining examples of native 

sagebrush steppe for the Snake River Plain. They 

are valuable as examples of range conditions before 

European-American settlement and the introduction 

of domestic livestock, and they offer an opportunity 

to observe climax vegetation, as well as successional 

processes associated with natural disturbances such 

as fi re. 

Vegetation in the original Monument and parts of 

the expanded Monument has been inventoried and 

mapped through various efforts (Day and Wright 

1985; Whipple 1992; Jurs and Sands 2004). A 

recent vascular plant inventory effort estimates 

the presence of more than 600 species and at least 

35 vegetation communities within the Monument 

(NPS, unpubl. data). The current vegetation map of 

the Monument was created with the use of LandSat 

imagery. 

Data from the various vegetation studies, as well 

as inventory and monitoring points, were used to 

define spectral signatures. 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 on the 

map (Figure 12). 

Vegetation Types in the Monument 

• Vegetated Lava Complex 

Exposed lava flows are the newest lava flows 

or rough A’a flows that are mostly devoid of 

vascular plants; however, lichens and mosses 

are frequently present. Based on statewide 

Gap Analysis of Idaho Land Cover from 1996, 

approximately 20 percent of the Monument is 

exposed lava flows and 33 percent is vegetated lava (Landscape Dynamics Lab 1999). 

Vegetated lava is defined as lava fields with 

greater than 5 percent total vegetative cover, 

with plants occurring as islands, pockets, or 

clustered individuals in the lava flow. The 

vegetated lava complex mainly consists of 

early successional and adaptable plants that 

grow in the 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 gland cinquefoil grow in 

shallow soils, while fern-bush, rock spirea, 

and syringa are present in deeper crevices. 

Trees, such as limber pine in the north end 

of the Monument and juniper in the south 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 113
Arco 

20 26 93 

20 

93 

26 

0 5 mi 0 5 km 

24 

ir 

l

l

i

ine 

i

l 

Ri ian / 

l

Mi l i

i i l

These vegetation data were derived from 30m satelite imagery and is intended to provide 

a general frame of reference for vegetation distribution and diversity for the Monument. 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park Service for 

use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Carey 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE 12 

VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

P I O N E E R 

M O U N T A I N S 

Aspen 

Douglas-F

Annual Grass and 

Exposed Lava F ows 

Water 

Jun per 

Limber P

Mounta n Shrub 

Perennia Grassland 

par Wetland 

Vegetated Lava 

Low-E evation Sagebrush Steppe 

d to High-E evat on Sagebrush Steppe 

Monument Boundary 

Irr gated Agr cu ture 

Town 

A Road 

114 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
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 percent vegetative 

cover) where more soil development or 

deposition has occurred. 

• Sagebrush Steppe Complex 

Sagebrush steppe, which is the 

dominant vegetation in the Monument, 

includes all areas where adequate 

soil deposition or development has 

occurred to allow sagebrush taxa and 

associated shrubs with a bunchgrass 

understory to dominate. Due to the 

drastic reduction of sagebrush steppe in 

southern Idaho by cultivation, fire, and 

weed invasion (Hironaka et al. 1983), 

some of the sagebrush communities in 

the Monument are the best remaining 

examples of this vegetation type on the 

Snake River Plain. 

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, including 

differences in soil depth and development; the precipitation gradient ranging 

from 8 to 16 inches; the 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; Top photo: Lava vegetated with sagebrush and fern-bush. Center

its susceptibility to, as well as recovery photo: vegetated lava complex. Bottom photo: Low-elevation 

from, fire; and land management goals, sagebrush steppe 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 115
decisions, and practices imposed upon the 

landscape 

Sagebrush steppe vegetation in the Monument 

occurs over an elevation gradient and is 

dominated largely by three subspecies of big 

sagebrush – mountain big sagebrush, basin big 

sagebrush, and Wyoming big sagebrush – as 

well as threetip sagebrush. The Mid- to HighElevation Sagebrush Steppe vegetation type is 

generally defined by the presence of mountain 

big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush, which 

occur in the higher elevation areas of the 

northern Monument that are colder and receive 

more precipitation. Low sagebrush is also 

found in this vegetation type, occurring in a 

mosaic with mountain big sagebrush. 

The Low-Elevation Sagebrush Steppe vegetation type is defined by basin and Wyoming 

big sagebrush and threetip sagebrush, although 

these may overlap to some extent with the 

mid-elevations. Both basin and Wyoming big 

sagebrush are adapted to the hot, seasonally 

dry conditions of the Snake River Plain. Basin 

big sagebrush communities occur in pockets 

of deeper, more fertile soils. Wyoming big 

sagebrush communities tend to be found in 

shallower soils and can be found intermixed 

with basin big sagebrush. 

Threetip sagebrush is widespread throughout 

the Monument, particularly in areas burned 

within the last 20 years. Threetip sagebrush 

is the only sagebrush found in the Monument 

that re-sprouts following fire. Both the 

Low- and Mid- to High-Elevation Sagebrush 

Steppe vegetation 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, needlegrasses, 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 increasing elevation and moisture in 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 such 

as sage-grouse, important watersheds, sources 

of forage for livestock, and enjoyable recreational sites. There is a range of conditions, 

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 has 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 these 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

116 
kipukas is undocumented and relatively 

unknown. However, for those kipukas that 

have been documented and studied, it is clear 

that these unique islands of nearly pristine 

native vegetation are important rangeland and 

scientific benchmarks (Henderson and Murie 

1958; Yingst and Handy 1961; Tisdale et 

al. 1965; Caicco and Wellner 1983a, 1983b, 

1983c). 

The Monument also includes parks. Laidlaw 

Park, Paddelford Flat, and Little Park technically meet the definition of a kipuka, but are 

referred to as “parks” due to their larger size, 

accessibility, and land use. There is road 

access to and within these parks, and livestock 

grazing is a current and historical use. All 

three parks contain the Low-Elevation 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 have not been overgrazed; retain 

sufficient native understory and sagebrush; 

and support big game as well as sage-grouse. 

However, historic overgrazing, frequent 

Perennial grassland in Sand Kipuka. 

wildfires, Aroga moth infestations, cheatgrass 

invasion, and noxious weeds have negatively 

affected the southern portions of Laidlaw 

Park. In addition, the southern part of the park 

receives slightly less rainfall than the northern 

part, making it less resilient to disturbance 

(Jurs and Sands 2004). 

• Grasslands Complex 

The Perennial Grassland vegetation type is 

dominated by native or introduced perennial 

grasses. Historically, these grasslands were 

part of the sagebrush steppe complex and 

formed as a result of disturbance, primarily through fire. Shrubs would eventually 

reinvade perennial grasslands if they remained 

unburned for several decades. In most cases, 

fire is the main cause of shrub removal. Some 

shrubs such as mountain big sagebrush, 

threetip sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, and 

green rabbitbrush are able to re-sprout or 

reestablish within a short time (10 years). 

However, Wyoming and basin big sagebrush 

must regenerate from seed and can be slow to 

reestablish after fire. The Annual Grassland 

vegetation type is the result of altered disturbance regimes, such as soil surface disturbance 

or frequent fires in areas with long natural fire 

return intervals. The primary component is 

cheatgrass, 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, managers revegetate burned areas 

by seeding perennial vegetation to prevent the 

establishment of annual grasslands. In areas 

where altered site conditions and high compeChapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 117
tition from exotic species exist, select cultivars 

of introduced and native perennial grasses and 

forbs are used to rehabilitate burned areas. 

Some of the species seeded in rehabilitated 

areas are crested or Siberian wheatgrass, 

Snake River wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, big 

bluegrass, and Sandberg bluegrass. Forbs such 

as blue flax, sainfoin, and alfalfa have also 

been seeded. Exclusively native plant seedings 

have also been conducted to a limited extent. 

Both the NPS and BLM encourage the use of 

native species for restoration and rehabilitation 

efforts. 

• Mountain Complex 

The complex of mountain vegetation occurs 

at the far north end of the Monument in the 

foothills of the Pioneer Mountains. This 

complex covers less than 1 percent of the 

Monument, but it includes vastly different and 

important habitat types that contribute to its 

diversity. 

Five vegetation types are included in this 

complex. The Douglas fir type is found on 

relatively steep, north-facing slopes of older 

cinder cones and along Little Cottonwood 

Creek. The Aspen type is predominantly found 

in upland sites away from permanent stream 

courses. The Riparian type is characterized 

by dense woody vegetation such as black 

Dwarf Monkeyflower 

cottonwood, chokecherry, willow, alder, and 

a dense layer of tall forbs close to permanent 

watercourses. The Mountain Shrub vegetation 

type includes communities dominated by 

mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and 

mountain snowberry that occupy slopes and 

ridges of the Pioneer Mountains. The Wetland 

type predominantly occurs along the periphery 

of the Monument where this vegetation is 

supported by cold water and Mountain vegetation complex north of the highway. 

Human-based activities (e.g., water right 

diversions, livestock grazing, thermal spring 

recreation), in the past and present, have 

degraded the Riparian and Wetland types. For 

example, early 20th century mining, fire suppression, and NPS spring diversions in Little 

Cottonwood Creek, facility development, 

and maintenance activities may have altered 

the plant species composition and influenced 

the spread of Canada thistle. NPS facilities 

recently converted to well water and reinstated 

full spring flow to Little Cottonwood Creek. 

• Cinder Cone Complex 

This complex is located in the north end of the 

Monument, south of the highway, where many 

cinder cones are present. This area is mapped 

primarily as the Vegetated Lava, Limber Pine, 

and Mid- to High-Elevation Sagebrush Steppe 

Mountain vegetation complex north of the highway types. The cinder cone complex includes three 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

118 
different plant communities, depending on 

aspect, soil development, and successional 

stage. Less than 1 percent of the Monument 

is cinder 

gardens. 

Cinder 

gardens occur on cinder 

deposits with 

little to no 

soil development. These Cinder Cone Complex

communities 

produce spectacular spring wildflower 

displays and are dominated by dwarf buckwheat, scorpion weed, Douglas chaenactis, 

dwarf monkeyflower, and bitterroot. As soils 

develop on the cinders, antelope bitterbrush 

dominates newly establishing mid- to highelevation sagebrush steppe communities.

The Limber Pine type is present on northfacing slopes where sufficient moisture is 

available. Limber pine stands with antelope 

bitterbrush understory provide valuable 

wildlife habitat and are used by mule deer for 

fawning. Attempts were made in the 1950s 

to eradicate native dwarf mistletoe from the 

limber pine population. More than 6,000 trees 

were cut or poisoned until managers realized 

that limber pine and mistletoe had coexisted 

for thousands of years. The effects of this 

action have not been studied and are not 

understood; however, there was a change 

in the population and age structure of the 

limber pine forest (Blakesley and Wright 

1988). 

• Nonvascular Plants 

Mosses, liverworts, lichens, and fungi 

are vegetative life forms that have been 

historically overlooked in the Monument 

flora due to their inconspicuous nature. 

These organisms occur to some extent 

in every vegetation type occurring in the 

Monument and are commonly observed 

on exposed lava. This large group of organisms has been studied to some degree in other 

areas, but limited information exists for the 

Monument area specifically. Nonvascular 

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 

also serve as environmental quality indicators. 

Diffuse knapweed, a state-listed noxious weed 

occurring in the Monument 

Noxious and Exotic Species 

Ten species of weeds designated as noxious by Idaho 

State Law (State of Idaho 2001) have been identified in the Monument: spotted knapweed, diffuse 

knapweed, Russian knapweed, rush skeletonweed, 

leafy spurge, Canada thistle, musk thistle, Scotch 

thistle, dalmatian toadflax, and field bindweed. Disturbed areas such as road rights-of-way, intensively 

grazed areas, and burns are particularly susceptible 

to invasion by exotics; consequently, most of the 

noxious weeds are found specifically in these areas. 

No noxious weed infestations have currently been 

documented on the few inventoried kipukas in the 

Monument. 

Spotted knapweed and diffuse knapweed have 

been documented extensively along U.S. Highway 

Diffuse knapweed, a state-listed noxious weed occurring in the 

Monument 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 119
20/26/93 (US 20/26/93) along the northern extent 

of the Monument. More than 200 infestations of 

these knapweeds occur along the highway within 

Monument boundaries. NPS mapped and treated 

these locations in 2001 and 2003 as a partner in the 

Lost Rivers and Blaine County Cooperative Weed 

Management Areas. 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 approximately 10 locations in Laidlaw Park and the west 

side of the Monument; approximately 18 locations 

have been documented in the Bear Trap Cave and 

Kings Bowl vicinities along the east side of the 

Monument. Many observations of this species 

have not been documented. This weed also takes 

advantage of disturbed soil and spreads primarily by 

seed. It is reported to be the most invasive (rapidly 

spreading) noxious weed in recent years within the 

Monument. 

Leafy spurge has been documented in the west part 

of the Monument as small, scattered sites within the 

sagebrush steppe and vegetated lava (Carey Lava 

Field). It has also been recently documented in the 

group campsite north of the highway. Large infestations are known to exist along the west edge of the 

Monument in the Carey area and in the Monument 

Butte and Sand Butte vicinities. These large 

infestations have increased the potential for further 

introduction and spread onto the Monument via bird, 

deer, livestock, and vehicles. BLM is continuing 

a successful 10-year control program specifi cally 

developed to address infestations on lava-based 

terrain. 

Thistles are found in scattered locations in the North 

Unit, Laidlaw Park, and along the west and east 

edges of the Monument. Approximately 75 total 

infestations have been documented for all three 

noxious thistles. 

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, was introduced in the early 

1900s when domestic sheep grazed the area. Cheatgrass 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 80,000 acres 

of annual grassland and low-elevation sagebrush 

steppe dominated by cheatgrass have been identifi ed 

in the Monument as needing management intervention to restore functional sagebrush communities. 

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 or control. 

Fire and Vegetation Management 

Between 1970 and 2002, approximately 330,000 

acres have burned in wildfires within the boundary 

of the expanded Monument, primarily on BLMadministered land. About a third of this acreage has 

burned two or more times (Figure 13). 

Peak fire years occurred in 1971 (29,000 acres), 1981 

(22,000 acres), 1992 (61,000 acres), 1996 (31,000 

acres), and 1999 (87,000 acres). Extensive acreages 

outside of and adjacent to the Monument also 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

120 
Arco 

20 26 93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

0 5 mi 0 5 km 

Carey 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE 13 

FIRE FREQUENCY 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

P I O N E E R 

M O U N T A I N S 

Lava 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

Burned 1 X 

Burned 2 X 

Burned 3 X 

Burned 4 X 

Monument Boundary 

No Fire Occurence 

Town 

B Road 

C Road 

A Road 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 121
Fire in low-elevation sagebrush steppe dominated by 

cheatgrass. 

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) and Echo Crater in 2000 (632 acres). Overall, 

fires within the original NPS Monument boundaries 

represent only 8 percent of the total area burned 

since 1970. 

As previously noted, 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 fi res have 

perpetuated exotic annual grasslands. However, 

fire also plays an important role in the maintenance 

of some vegetation types, including aspen and 

mountain shrub. 

Native Americans historically used fi re to 

manipulate vegetation and wildlife (Williams 2001). 

Since the mid-1800s, sheepherders used fire in the 

Monument to reduce shrub cover and encourage 

herbaceous plant growth. Good fire records prior to 

1950 are not available; however, traditional practices 

throughout southern Idaho are known to have 

included the use of fire to eliminate sagebrush and 

promote grass growth. In 1982, the BLM proposed 

to burn approximately 19,000 acres to break up 

continuous tracts of sagebrush; create more diverse 

wildlife habitat; reduce fuel loads; and improve 

forage for domestic livestock and wildlife (Saras 

1982). 

The burning of approximately half of this acreage 

was accomplished by 1992, at which time large 

wildfires occurred in the area and the use of prescribed fire was curtailed. The use of prescribed fi re 

was re-initiated in 2001, when small areas within the 

Monument (part of larger projects near the southern 

boundary) were burned to reduce cheatgrass, in 

conjunction with herbicide and seeding treatments. 

The length and timing of the fire season is highly 

dependent on annual weather and fuel conditions. 

Generally, the season can extend from mid-May 

through mid-October. Warm, dry, and windy 

weather associated with thunderstorm cells can 

result in lightning activity with or without rain. Ignition of vegetation can occur from natural sources, 

primarily lightning, or from human sources such as 

vehicles, campfi res, or cigarettes. 

Areas most at risk for large, destructive wildfi res are 

the rangelands in the southern part of the Monument 

where fuel loading is high due to an abundance of 

cheatgrass in the understory. Ignitions on vegetated 

lava are rare; however, there is a risk that fi res 

near the edge of the lava can lie low for a period of 

time and then ignite adjacent rangelands if weather 

conditions become hot or windy. Fires in kipukas 

remain localized and small, because the surrounding 

lava limits spread. 

The northern end of Laidlaw Park, in particular, and 

other isolated areas in the Monument contain good 

examples of sagebrush steppe vegetation, which 

could potentially be lost or degraded by invasive 

or noxious weeds following a fire. In areas of the 

Monument north of the highway, mountain shrub, 

aspen, and Douglas fir communities might benefi t 

somewhat from fire; however, watershed protection 

in Little Cottonwood Creek (which provides potable 

water in the Monument) and the protection of 

research and group campsite facilities necessitate 

aggressive suppression. 

Fire management in the Monument is directed by 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

122 
the current BLM Land Use Plans, the Fire Management Plan for South Central Idaho (USDI 2004), and 

the NPS Craters of the Moon National Monument 

Wildland Fire Plan within the original Monument 

boundaries (USDI NPS 2000a). Under these plans, 

all wildfires are suppressed except for naturally 

ignited fires in designated wilderness, which may 

be managed for resource benefi t (also known as 

wildland fi re use). 

Fire suppression response in the Monument varies 

depending on the location of the fire, terrain (roughness and slope), weather (especially wind speed and 

direction), fuel type and moisture, and potential resource damage. While suppression response usually 

includes both aerial and ground support, this can 

vary if there are multiple incidents at the same time. 

In summer/fall 2005, fire personnel performed an 

exercise which determined travel times to selected 

areas in the Monument for fire response. Two-person 

teams drove heavy engines from the Carey and 

Kimama Guard Stations to predetermined sites 

within the Monument. Table 10 summarizes travel 

time, as well as the miles of road by class for each 

route. Figure 14 shows the site locations relative 

to the road network. In general, average speed on 

paved highways is approximately 60 mph, on Class 

B roads is 40 mph, on Class C roads is 25 mph, and 

Class D roads is 15 mph. Average speed, especially 

on Class C and D roads, will vary depending on 

roughness of terrain. 

Rate of fire spread is dependent on numerous 

variables, including fuel type and moisture, wind 

speed and direction, and slope. The Behave fi re 

modeling system was used to estimate potential 

fire growth in the general area encompassing 

the selected geographic points. Type of fuel, fuel 

moisture, and wind speed were the parameters 

included in the model. The vegetation at the selected 

points is generally represented by two fuel models. 

Fuel Model 2 represents a grass community with 

a shrub component; Fuel Model 5 represents a low 

to moderate height shrub community. The dry fuel 

moisture regime represents conditions during the 

peak of the fire season (mid-July through early 

October) with temperatures of 90-100 degrees 

Fahrenheit and relative humidity of 10-19%. The 

moderate fuel moisture regime represents conditions 

that are more typical early in the fire season (May 

through early July) with temperatures of approximately 75-85 Fahrenheit and relative humidity in 

the mid-20s. Table 11 summarizes the results of the 

modeling exercise. Wind speeds of 10 and 20 mph 

are presented for comparison. Wind speed of 10 mph 

represents relatively typical conditions, while 20 

Table 10 

Results of Fire Response Time Exercise, Including 

Travel Time and Mileage by Class of Road 

LOCATION 

END 

TIME IN 

MINUTES 

TRAVEL 

Carey Guard Station to Location 

A B C 

MILEAGE BY ROAD CLASS 

1 

D 

Laidlaw 

Butte 

Little Park 

57 

34 

4 

4 

14 

9 

0 

12 

3 

0 

Cream Can 

Junction 

Lava Butte 

120 

97 

Kimama Guard Station to Location 

4 

4 

32 

25 

20 0 

0 

Laidlaw 

Butte 

Little Park 

56 

51 

0 

0 

29 

39 

3 

1 

2 

0 

Cream Can 

Junction 

Lava Butte 

60 

57 

17 

0 

16 

24 

0 

12 

0 

0 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 123
Arco 

20 26 

93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

0 5 mi 

0 5 km 

K I M

A M A 

-

R D. C A 

R

E Y 

A

R

CO - MI NI D

O

K

A

RD. 

Carey 

This map illustrates 8 routes taken by BLM fire crews for documenting fire response 

times to four separate locations as described in the fire management section of 

chapter three. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National 

Park Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

From Carey To: 

Lava 

Monument Boundary 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

From Kimama To: 

Little Park 

Laidlaw Butte 

Lava Butte 

Cream Can Jxn 

Little Park 

Laidlaw Butte 

Lava Butte 

Cream Can Jxn 

Little Park 

Laidlaw Lava Butte 

Butte 

Cream Can 

Junction 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

P I O N E E R 

M O U N T A I N S 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

FIGURE 14 

FIRE RESPONSE TESTS 

B Road 

C Road 

A Road 

Fire Guard Stations 

Fire Response Targets 

Town 

124 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Table 11 

Results of Generalized Fire Growth Modeling for Vegetation in the 

Monument Using Two Fuel Models, Two Fuel Moisture Regimes 

(See the Text for Definitions of Each), and Two Wind Speeds 

Dry 

10 mph 

MODELING 

PARAMETERS 

Fuel Model 2 

159 

0.5 

634 

1 

1,427 2,537 

ELAPSED TIME (HOURS) 

1.5 2 

Fire size in acres 

3,964 

2.5 

5,708 

3 

Dry 

20 mph 

1,107 4,428 9,962 17,710 27,673 39,849 

Moderate 

10 mph 

74 296 666 1,184 1,850 2,664 

Moderate 

20 mph 

517 2,067 4,650 8,266 12,916 18,599 

Dry 

10 mph 

Fuel Model 5 

52 210 472 839 1,311 1,887 

Dry 

20 mph 

201 804 1,809 3,216 5,025 7,236 

Moderate 

10 mph 

6 25 55 98 153 221 

Moderate 

20 mph 

18 71 159 282 441 635 

mph represents extreme conditions. 

Although the fire growth models are simplifi ed 

compared to the conditions that actually occur 

during a fire incident, they demonstrate the high 

level of variability resulting from differences in fuel 

type, fuel moisture, and wind speed. This variability 

is a consideration for both fi re management and 

Fire Condition Classes (FCC1 through 3) have 

been identified to help clarify the degree to which 

a particular vegetation community departs from its 

historic fire regime, as described below: 

• FCC1 represents low departure from 

the historic fire regime. Key ecosystem 

components include a healthy mosaic of 

transportation/access planning. 

Fire and Related Vegetation Management 

Federal wildland fire policy (USDI and USDA 1995; 

USDI et al. 2001; USDI 2003) focuses on protecting 

sensitive resources while using fi re along with 

other treatments (such as herbicides and seeding) 

to achieve desired future conditions for vegetation 

resources. Currently all federal land management 

agencies are implementing, or preparing to implement, this policy through a Cohesive Strategy 

(Laverty and Williams 2000). This strategy presents 

guidelines for reducing wildland fire risk to human 

communities and to restore and maintain ecosystem 

health within fire-prone areas. The Cohesive Strategy is based on the concept of restoring vegetation 

composition and structure (and thus fi re regimes) 

to historical levels. As part of this process, three 

various successional stages for each vegetation 

type. For example, these components would 

include sagebrush steppe communities with 

native perennial grass and forb understories, 

or aspen or Douglas fir communities with 

trees of variable age, openings to allow tree 

regeneration, and an abundance of understory 

grasses and forbs. 

• FCC2 represents moderate departure from 

the historic fire regime, resulting in some risk 

of more frequent fire return intervals and/or 

greater levels of severity. 

• FCC3 represents high departure from the 

historic fire regime, resulting in high risk 

of resource loss due to frequent fi re return 

intervals and/or high levels of severity. 

An example of FCC3 is an area that was 

formerly low-elevation sagebrush steppe that 

is currently dominated by an understory or 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 125 
Table 12

Approximate Acreage of each Vegetation Type in the Monument

and Percentage that occurs in each Fire Condition Class

VEGETATION TYPE 

APPROXIMATE 

ACREAGE IN 

MONUMENT 

% FCC1 % 

FCC2 % FCC3 

Low-Elevation Sagebrush Steppe 157,000 40 20 40 

Annual Grassland (exotic) 31,000 0 0 100 

Perennial Grassland (seeding and 

native) 153,000 10 90 0 

Mid-Elevation Sagebrush Steppe 9,400 0 100 0 

Lava (bare and vegetated) 399,000 100 0 0 

Mountain Shrub 400 50 50 0 

Aspen 60 0 100 0 

Conifer (Douglas fir) 140 50 50 0 

Riparian 670 90 10 0 

monoculture of cheatgrass. 

Currently, several vegetation types within the 

Monument are in FCC2 or FCC3, with the exception 

of plant communities on lava (Table 12). 

The Cohesive Strategy seeks to restore fire to its 

historic role in ecosystems through managing 

fire, fuels, and vegetation in order to return areas 

that are in FCC2 and FCC3 to the FCC1 class. It 

encourages proactive treatments to reduce fuels and 

restore plant community structure. These treatments 

can include prescribed fire, thinning, mowing, 

herbicides, seeding, temporary removal of livestock, 

and/or changes in grazing regimes. Current science 

and best available technologies and plant materials 

are considered in analysis and implementation of 

all fuels reduction and restoration projects. Recent 

inventories (Jurs and Sands 2004) categorized BLMadministered lands within the Monument according 

to their biotic integrity. In general, areas with poor 

biotic integrity are in FCC3, areas with fair biotic 

integrity are in FCC2, and areas with good biotic 

integrity are in FCC1 (see Figure 15). 

Similar efforts may also follow unplanned wildland 

fires through emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR) treatments, which can stabilize burned 

areas against erosion by wind or water, prevent 

the dominance of invasive or noxious weeds, and 

reestablish desirable perennial vegetation. ESR 

treatments are most commonly required on sites 

with highly erosive soils and areas in FCC3, and 

such treatments may be needed in areas in FCC2. 

The need for post-fire ESR is determined case by 

case, and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plans are prepared in accordance with the 

Interagency Burned Area Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation Handbook, Department of the 

Interior Manual, and supplemental guidance by the 

BLM and NPS (http://fi re.r9.fws.gov/ ifcc/Esr/Handbook/Default.htm). 

Special Status Plants 

The Monument also provides habitat for two 

state- and BLM-designated special status plants. 

Special status plants are those listed under the 

federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), plus 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 Idaho Native Plant Society (INPS) and Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) Conservation Data Center (ICDC) meet annually with state 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

126 
Arco 

0 5 mi 

0 5 km 

20 26 93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

Carey 

This map illustrates the approximate range of biotic integrity for BLM lands within the 

Monument. These polygons are based on 2004 Jurs & Sands assessment and unpublished BLM data. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or 

National Park Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Poor 

Fair 

Good 

Biotic Integrity 

Not Evaluated 

Lava 

Monument Boundary 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

P I O N E E R 

M O U N T A I N S 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

FIGURE 15 

BIOTIC INTEGRITY Town 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 127
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, if 

they lack federal protection under ESA, require or 

would benefit from protection at a local or regional 

level. 

Some of the plant communities in the Monument 

have undisturbed, relict, or pristine conditions or are 

excellent examples of a specific or even rare habitat 

type. The areas designated as Research Natural 

Areas (RNAs) are discussed later in this chapter. 

There are no proposed or listed threatened or 

endangered plants known within the Monument. 

Potential habitat for Ute ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes 

diluvialis), a federally listed threatened plant species, may exist throughout Idaho. Ute ladies’ tresses, 

an orchid, occurs in moist to mesic sites associated 

with wetland and riparian areas, including springs, 

Table 13 

Vegetation Habitat Characteristics and Location Information for Special Status Plant 

Species Occurring in the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve 

NAME HABITAT SOILS COMMUNITIES 

Obscure 

phacelia 

(Phacelia 

) 

or foothill ridgetops. Slopes are 

above. Phacelia grows in the 

depressions between boulders. 

m2

native ungulate trails, and gopher 

(quaking aspen), 

Lymus cinereus

by ssp. vaseyana 

(bitterbrush), 

(bluebunch 

wheatgrass), and 

sagittata

Eastern side of the 

Great Rift of the 

upper Snake River 

Plain and in the 

Pioneer 

Mountains. 

gravel, cobble, stone, and 

boulder colluvium 

relatively loose or 

and lack dense perennial 

vegetation. The soil depth 

deep. 

cinereus 

ssp. 

cinereus 

4) Populus tremuloides/ 

ssp. 

spicata 

Picabo 

(Astragalus 

oniciformis) 

Alexander 

2001) 

rolling basalt on the northern edge of 

A. oniciformis 

patches within shrubland) 

of late seral stands. 

At the northern 

edge of the upper 

Snake River Plain 

and at the base of 

the foothills of the 

Pioneer Mountains 

and Picabo Hills. 

A. 

oniciformis

Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. 

Stipa 

comata (needle-and-threadgrass) 

Artemisia 

spicata

tridentata ssp. tridentata, and 

sp. 

LOCATION 

inconspicua

(Murphy 

2002b) 

Northeast- to east-facing aspects on 

basaltic and rhyolitic buttes and 

foothills. Elevation ranges from 5,390 

to 6,200 feet. Concave, lower to midslopes below the rimrock of butte tops 

generally moderately steep (averaging 

about 32 percent), although some 

populations occur on nearly flat, 

sheltered terraces. The micro 

topography is often undulating due to 

numerous large boulders and stones 

deposited from the rimrock or ridges 

Typically grows in small gaps (1 to 5 

) within shrubby vegetation in 

partially shaded microsites to full 

sunlight. Often grows on disturbed 

soil associated with older cattle trails, 

diggings. Subpopulations occupy 

transitional areas between mesic, 

dense vegetation dominated by 

Populus tremuloides

Prunus virginiana (chokecherry), or 

 (Great Basin wildrye), 

and open, xeric vegetation dominated 

Artemisia tridentata

(mountain big sagebrush) with 

Purshia tridentata

Pseuoroegneria spicata

Balsamorhiza 

 (arrowleaf balsamroot). 

foothills of the 

Dark-colored, welldrained silt-loams with 

varying amounts of sand, 

intermixed. Most 

microsites are not cindery 

or extremely gravelly. 

Soils are derived from 

and overlay volcanic 

substrates. Areas 

supporting Phacelia 

usually lack litter 

accumulation, are always 

scarified (due to animal 

and erosion disturbance), 

varies from shallow (over 

boulders) to moderately 

1) Prunus virginiana/Leymus 

2) Artemisia tridentata 

vaseyana-Symphoricarpos 

oreophilus (snowberry)/ Leymus 

3) Prunus virginianaSymphoricarpos oreophilus 

Symphoricarpos oreophilus 

5) Prunus virginianaSymphoricarpos oreophilus/ 

Pseudoroegneria spicata 

6) Artemisia tridentata 

vaseyana/Pseudoroegneria 

milkvetch 

(Moseley and 

Popovich 1995; 

Sandy basins, bowls, and flats within 

the Snake River Plain. 

is frequently found in open grassy 

areas (often in previously burned 

Artemisia

and is rarely found in the understory 

Artemisia

Sandy loams or 

uniformly, highly 

calcareous silt loams 

overlying basalt plains. 

 prefers 

stabilized sandy soils and 

is never found on 

unstabilized sand dunes. 

Primarily found in the 

wyomingensis 

(Wyoming big sagebrush) / 

habitat type, but also 

tripartita/Pseudoroegneria 

. Common associates are 

Oryzopsis hymenoides, A. 

Chrysothamnus

128 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
wet meadows, and river meanders. The plant is 

known to occur at sites ranging from 1,500 to 7,000 

feet in elevation. This species generally fl owers 

from mid-August through September in the Intermountain Region and can be identifi ed defi nitively 

only at that time. Marginal, potential habitat for Ute 

ladies’ tresses is limited to very small wet meadows 

associated with creeks and springs in the north part 

of the Monument. 

Surveys for Ute ladies’ tresses have been conducted 

in the past by ICDC botanists (Murphy 2002a) and 

were again performed in September 2002 by NPS 

and BLM botanists. No orchids were located as a 

result of these surveys. Although potential habitat is 

marginal, these areas will be revisited in the future, 

because the orchid can remain dormant for several 

years. 

Two BLM sensitive plants are known to occur 

within the Monument. These species and their 

associated habitats are summarized in Table 13. 

Obscure phacelia (Phacelia inconspicua) is one of 

Idaho’s most rare plants, with only six occurrences 

(population areas) known statewide. This species 

is also listed as endangered in Nevada. It occurs 

on north- and east-facing slopes of volcanic-based 

mountains and buttes. Picabo milkvetch (Astragalus 

oniciformis) is narrowly endemic to stable, sandy 

soils in the north-central portion of the ESRP, near 

the foothills of the Pioneer Mountains. 

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 and Popovich 1995; Murphy 

2002b). One location for meadow pussytoes (Antennaria arcuata), which is rare in Idaho but not a BLM 

sensitive species, has been documented directly 

outside of Monument boundaries in moist meadows 

associated with Huff Creek. There is a small 

amount of potential habitat at the northern edge of 

the Monument. Mourning milkvetch (Astragalus 

atratus var. inseptus), a BLM sensitive species, was 

recorded in a plant inventory of Brass Cap Kipuka 

RNA (Caicco and Wellner 1983b). However, a 

plant survey conducted by ICDC and BLM in the 

late 1980s did not confirm the occurrence of the 

milkvetch (Popovich 2003). 

WATER RESOURCES, INCLUDING 

WETLANDS 

Surface water resources are limited in the 

Monument. Stream channels are largely nonexistent 

within the exposed lava flows, and streams draining 

the Pioneer Mountains rapidly become subterranean 

once they encounter the lava fl ows. There are several 

small perennial streams in the Pioneer Mountains 

at the north end of the Monument. The entire 

watersheds of Little Cottonwood and Leech Creeks 

lie within the Monument. Very short segments of the 

Little Wood River, Big Cottonwood Creek, and Fish 

Creek fall just within the Monument boundaries. 

The slopes of the Pioneer Mountains contain numerous perennial and ephemeral springs that feed small 

creeks and marsh wetlands. Just north of the Craters 

of the Moon Lava Field is a small hot springs 

complex. Parts of Lava Lake, Huff Lake, and Carey 

Lake Marsh also lie within Monument boundaries. 

Seasonal playa lakes are scattered throughout the 

sagebrush steppe desert. Many of these playas have 

been developed by BLM to create reservoirs, which 

increases their water holding capacity and longevity. 

Numerous caves within the Monument lava fl ows 

contain year-round ice deposits, which produce melt 

water during the summer. 

Wetlands and Riparian Communities 

Wetland and riparian communities are somewhat 

rare in the Monument. The cold-water springs, 

creeks, lakes, and marshes on the 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 129
(NWI) are limited to the northwest corner of the 

Monument. Most wetlands and wetland habitat are 

palustrine (non-tidal, inland wetlands dominated 

by terrestrial and emergent vegetation) and are only 

seasonally or temporarily fl ooded. 

The Monument is mostly composed of a semiarid 

sagebrush steppe ecosystem. These areas generally 

receive 8 to 14 inches of precipitation a year. With 

such little precipitation, snow runoff is the primary 

source of water for the few wetland areas in the 

Monument. The snow runoff accumulates in the 

fl at-floored bottom of an undrained desert basin that 

sometimes becomes shallow lakes called playas. 

They 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 because most of the playas dry up by July 

and August. 

Fairy shrimp, a scarce freshwater crustacean, can be 

found in almost every seasonal pool (Bratton 1990). 

Fairy shrimp serve as a valuable food source for 

migratory waterfowl that use the playas as resting 

areas along their long trek north in spring and early 

summer. 

Water Quality 

Steep-sided canyons with high gradient channels 

and a narrow floodplain characterize the watershed 

of Little Cottonwood and Leech Creeks. Mean 

discharge rates for both streams are less than 1 cubic 

foot per second. Since the 1930s, NPS has diverted 

water from four springs in the upper Little Cottonwood Creek Watershed for a public drinking water 

supply. During dry years, these diversions accelerate 

the dewatering of stream channels throughout the 

middle and lower reaches of Little Cottonwood 

Creek. However, the lower reach of Leech Creek has 

also run dry with no diversions in place. 

To meet new drinking water standards, efforts were 

initiated in 2000 to replace the existing surface 

drinking water sources with groundwater sources. 

Shallow water wells have been developed at the 

bottom of Leech and Little Cottonwood drainages. 

Surface water from the two streams disappears 

below the surface in this vicinity even during wet 

years. Once the wells are fully operational in 2004, 

upstream diversions will cease. 

Mining activities in the Little Cottonwood Creek 

drainage predate the establishment of the Monument in the 1920s. Open adits and tailings material 

remained along the stream until an NPS reclamation 

project was completed in the mid-1990s. Before this 

reclamation work, copper and zinc concentrations 

had exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) water quality criteria (USDI NPS 

1998). 

Streamwater quality in Little Cottonwood and Leech 

creeks has been monitored and has generally been 

found to be good, with no violations of Idaho State 

standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and 

turbidity (Falter and Freitag 1996). Total dissolved 

solids content of the water, as indicated by electrical 

conductivity, has been found to be moderate to 

low. 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. 

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 balanced, with the 

exception of the middle reach of Little Cottonwood 

Creek, where Dipteran (true fl ies) dominance 

suggests metals impact from the Martin Mine site 

(Falter 1996). Stream bank and channel stability is 

good, with little indication of eroding or collapsing 

banks. 

Ice caves easily accessible to the public have been 

found to have much higher levels of nutrients than 

caves located in remote areas. This may be attributable to human waste (Falter and Freitag 1996). 

Water Rights/Water Use 

The State of Idaho granted NPS federal reserved 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

130 
water rights within the Monument 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 within the 1998 Monument 

boundaries. The rights provide for domestic, irrigation, or industrial use within the Monument, as well 

as in-streamflow rights on areas including Little 

Cottonwood and Leech Creeks (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 filed water right claims on 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 de minimus amount of 0.02 cubic feet 

per second on each source. Priority dates of the 

water rights claims are as early as 1926. 

Many of the water resources in the Monument are 

used in a variety of ways: drinking water for the 

Monument Visitor Center, irrigation water for farms, 

livestock watering sites, and recreational opportunities like bird watching. 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. 

The aquatic and wetland habitat supported by the 

only thermal spring complex in the Monument has 

historically been altered by concentrated livestock 

use and human recreation. Efforts are underway 

to protect the unique Monument habitat and allow 

recovery of the biological resources present. 

WILDLIFE, INCLUDING SPECIAL 

STATUS SPECIES 

During some portion of each year, about 200 species 

of birds, 60 mammals, 10 reptiles, and at least three 

amphibians occupy the Monument (see Appendices 

D and E). Surveys in the late 1960s in a very small 

portion of the northernmost area identifi ed more 

than 2,000 species of insects (Horning and Barr 

1970). 

Wildlife Habitats and Common Monument 

Wildlife 

Sagebrush steppe communities comprise much of 

the wildlife habitat within the Monument. Numerous 

species are found in sagebrush habitats (Braun et al. 

1976, Trimbel 1989). Some of these are sagebrush 

obligates (restricted to sagebrush habitats during 

the breeding season or year-round) or near obligates 

(occurring in both sagebrush and grassland habitats; 

Paige and Ritter 1999). 

Sagebrush obligates that occur in the Monument 

include the sage sparrow, black-throated sparrow, 

Brewer’s sparrow, sage thrasher, greater sagegrouse, pygmy rabbit, sagebrush vole, and sagebrush 

lizard. Some species, such as Brewer’s sparrows, 

are at their highest densities statewide in ungrazed 

portions of the Monument (Bart 2001). Table 14 lists 

some sagebrush-associated species that can be found 

in the Monument. 

Sagebrush itself and the native perennial grasses and 

forbs of the shrub-steppe are important sources of 

food and cover for wildlife (Dealy et al. 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 

eat exclusively sagebrush in winter, and sagebrush 

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, sage sparrow, 

and greater sage-grouse most frequently nest in or 

beneath sagebrush. 

The Monument contains portions of the lower 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 131
Table 14

Sagebrush-Associated Species that Occur in the Monument

BIRDS 

Chukar Grasshopper sparrow Sage sparrow 

Black-throated 

sparrow 

Golden eagle Short-eared owl 

Burrowing owl Great horned owl Ferruginous hawk 

Red-tailed hawk Swainson’s hawk Rough-legged hawk 

Turkey vulture Greater sage-grouse 

Common nighthawk Northern harrier Common raven 

Bobolink Gray flycatcher 

Horned lark Brewer’s blackbird Gyr falcon 

Peregrine falcon 

Loggerhead shrike Brown-headed cowbird Ash-throated flycatcher 

Long-billed curlew Sage thrasher Savannah sparrow 

Lazuli bunting Common poorwill 

Vesper sparrow Say’s phoebe 

Mourning dove 

MAMMALS 

Pronghorn Coyote 

Elk Ord’s kangaroo rat Bobcat 

Sagebrush vole 

Yellow-bellied Montane vole Long-tailed vole 

Mule deer Great Basin pocket 

mouse 

Raccoon 

Piute ground squirrel Nutall’s cottontail Least chipmunk 

Badger Northern pocket gopher Red fox 

Kit fox Long-eared bat 

Long-legged bat 

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat 

Spotted bat 

REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS 

Lark sparrow 

American crow 

Prairie falcon American kestrel 

Gray partridge 

Ring-necked pheasant Green-tailed towhee Spotted towhee 

Brewer’s sparrow 

Western meadowlark White-crowned sparrow 

Pygmy rabbit 

Black-tailed jackrabbit White-tailed jackrabbit 

marmot 

Northern grasshopper mouse 

Deer mouse Merriam’s shrew 

Yuma bat 

Small-footed myotis Fringed myotis 

Rubber boa Western yellow-bellied racer Western rattlesnake 

Western skink Long-nosed leopard lizard Night snake 

Short-horned lizard Desert horned lizard Gopher snake 

Sagebrush lizard Western terrestrial garter snake Great Basin spadefoot 

toad 

132 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
slopes of the Pioneer Mountains, which contain both 

perennial and ephemeral springs. Several of these 

springs feed small creeks and marshes, and several 

species of waterfowl and marsh birds, two frog 

species, several small mammals, beaver, and moose 

use these habitats exclusively, along with several 

other species. Numerous species of birds use these 

areas exclusively or as primary habitat in the area. 

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 cinderbased stands of limber pine and junipers. These 

forested sites are used by more than 110 species of 

birds, at least four species of reptiles, and at least 

37 mammals (USDI NPS 2003). These coniferous 

stands are widely scattered throughout the Monument. The open shrub-steppe and agricultural lands 

of the Snake River Basin surround these small 

islands of trees. 

Migrant forest birds are highly selective of resting 

habitat (Kerlinger 1995), and these forest stands are 

important to forest birds migrating from the Northern Rocky Mountains, needing to cross the open 

habitat of the basin. Dozens of species of migratory 

birds use the conifer stands. 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 (Griffi th 1983). 

Extensive lava flows also 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 also are 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. Two of the three known bat 

maternity colonies of Townsend’s big-eared bat in 

Idaho are in the Monument (Pierson et al. 1999). 

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. Known primarily as residents 

of high-elevation alpine regions, pikas living on 

the Craters of the Moon Lava Field occupy lower 

elevations and the highest mean temperatures within 

the species‚ range (Bever 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 fl ows. Chickadees and 

swallows are typically associated with woodlands 

but will use rock crevices when near limber pine 

or juniper stands. Mountain bluebirds and violetgreen 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 

1985; USDI NPS 2003). 

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 

northern part of the Monument but are seen far less 

frequently in the southern areas, where substantial 

flocks of starlings now breed. 

Fox 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 133 
Numerous bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (USC Title 16, Chapter 7, 

Subchapter II; Appendix E) 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 fi ve 

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 use primarily 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 not been detected in 

recent inventory work, but it can remain dormant 

for several years and is not readily detected while 

in burrows. These toads are well documented in the 

Snake River Plain, and it is likely that they occupy 

the Monument as well. Western toads have not been 

detected in surveys since 1987; they may have been 

extirpated. 

Six species of large mammals are known to inhabit 

the Monument: mule deer, pronghorn, elk, cougar, 

black bear, and moose. Most are widespread 

throughout the Snake River Plain, and Pioneer 

Mountains and regularly can be found in the Monument. 

Mule deer occupy the northern parts of the area as 

spring and summer range, 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. 

Mule deer are scattered throughout the most of the 

vegetated areas. Few studies have been conducted 

outside of the northwest portion (Griffith 1983). 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). The south 

part of the Monument contains substantial winter 

range for deer and pronghorn (IDFG 2003). Since 

1999, moose have been regularly seen in both the 

Big and Little Cottonwood Creek watersheds of the 

Pioneer Mountains. 

Elk summer in the riparian areas of the northwest 

part of the Monument (USDI NPS 2003). Elk 

occupy widely scattered areas, with records from 

both immediately east and west of the Craters of the 

Moon Lava Field and in larger kipukas like Laidlaw 

Park. Larger numbers of elk winter in the Pioneer 

Mountains along the northwestern part of the 

Monument. Two distinct groups of more than of 100 

animals each were recorded moving back and forth 

across the west boundary during early 2003 (IDFG 

Mule deer 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

134 
2003). In summer, most of these elk move to summer range west and north of the Monument, with 

only a few animals remaining in the Monument. 

Pronghorn are found within much of the Monument 

and are common throughout the year in Laidlaw 

Park (IDFG 2003; USDI NPS 2003). A migratory 

herd of pronghorn uses the western part of the 

Monument as a migratory corridor and birthing 

area (IDFG 2003; USDI NPS 2003). Occasional use 

during winter has also been recorded in this area 

(USDI NPS 2003). Smaller numbers of animals can 

be found along the east boundary and in the rift 

crack area. Winter range has been identified in the 

southern areas and the rift crack area (IDFG 2003). 

Both cougar and black bear are found in the Pioneer 

Mountains area of the Monument. In recent decades, 

documented observations have been confined to the 

northern 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. 

Moose colonized the riparian areas of the Monument 

in 1999 and continue to be present. Suitable habitat 

is limited in the Monument, so that further expansion is not likely. 

Four species of large mammals and one small 

mammal were extirpated from the Monument 

during the twentieth century. The North American 

bison, bighorn sheep, wolf, and grizzly bear were 

last documented in the early twentieth century 

(Smithsonian Institution 2003). Some wolves 

from the reintroduced Central Idaho packs occupy 

territory immediately north of the area. One previously extirpated species, the porcupine, has recently 

reoccupied historic habitat within the Monument 

(USDI NPS 2003). 

Pest Control – Grasshoppers 

The BLM currently implements an integrated 

grasshopper/Mormon cricket control program in 

cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS). Extreme grasshopper population 

increases can occur during years favorable to their 

survival. High numbers of grasshoppers have caused 

and will continue to cause damage to agricultural 

crops adjacent to public lands. 

There are areas of the Monument adjacent to agricultural crops. One is the private land that borders 

the Monument south and east of Carey, another is 

the private land that borders the Monument east of 

the Wapi Lava Flow, and a third is located along the 

northeast tip of the Monument near Arco. These agricultural cropland interface areas potentially could 

be grasshopper treatment areas. These cropland 

interface areas have traditionally grown crops such 

as potatoes, beets, corn, barley, alfalfa, and beans, 

which may be fertilized and treated with pesticides 

and herbicides. 

The USDA, APHIS, and BLM have worked together 

since the 1960s to control grasshoppers and Mormon 

crickets on public lands. In 1985, the Secretary of 

Agriculture issued Instruction Memorandum No. 

ID-85-242, approving application for applying 

pesticides by APHIS on more than 6.4 million acres 

of BLM-managed public land to control grasshoppers. That year, the southern one-fourth to one-third 

of what is now the Monument was aerially sprayed 

with malathion to control grasshoppers. 

In 1986, APHIS and BLM conducted the Nosema 

Locustae Project along the Little Wood River 

northeast of Richfield, which is now part of the 

Monument. Nosema is a biological control agent 

that affects the grasshoppers’ reproductive organs. It 

was aerially applied to 10,279 BLM acres, 956 state 

acres, and 673 private acres. 

The state directors have issued Final Decisions for 

the Environmental Assessments (EA) completed for 

Site-Specific Environmental Assessment Rangeland 

Grasshopper Suppression Program (USDA 2004) 

and Site-Specific Environmental Assessment Rangeland Mormon Cricket Suppression Program (USDA 

2004) These final decisions have a concise version 

of APHIS and BLM standard operating procedures 

and application guidelines. The USDA and APHIS 

are working on new BLM policy that allows some 

control of insect outbreaks in WSAs and Areas of 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 135
Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) as related 

in Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 

87-408. 

NPS policies address the management of native 

species, such as grasshoppers, which may become 

pests. Chapter 4 of the NPS Management Policies 

(USDI NPS 2001) addresses Management of Native 

Plants and Animals (4.4.2.1) and Pest Management 

(4.4.5), including the use of pesticides. According 

to NPS policy, native pests will be allowed to 

function unimpeded, except that native pests may be 

controlled to: 

• Conserve threatened, rare, or endangered 

species or unique specimens or communities; 

• Preserve, maintain, or restore the historical 

integrity of cultural resources; 

• Conserve and protect plants, animals, and 

facilities in developed areas; 

• Prevent outbreaks of a pest from invading 

uninfested areas outside the Monument; or 

• Manage a human health hazard when advised 

to do so by the U.S. Public Health Program, 

or to otherwise protect against a signifi cant 

threat to human safety. 

The NPS follows an integrated pest management 

process to address all pest issues on a case-by-case 

basis. Controversial issues, or those with potential to 

negatively impact the environment, must be assessed 

according to the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). Intervention to control pests may not be 

undertaken if the pest control actions would cause 

unacceptable impacts on the populations of other 

species or other components and process of the 

ecosystem that support them. 

Wildlife Damage Control 

The Wildlife Services (WS) branch of USDA 

APHIS is authorized by the U.S. Congress to protect 

American resources and human health and safety 

from damage associated with wildlife (Animal 

Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, as amended 

[46 Stat. 1486: 7 USC 426-426c] and the Rural 

Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act of 1988 [PL 100-102, Dec. 27, 

1987; Stat. 1329-1331 7 USC 426C]). A 1995 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between APHIS 

WS and BLM is the basis for an annual APHIS WS 

plan covering those APHIS WS wildlife damage 

control activities on public (BLM) lands within 

BLM’s Twin Falls District. 

APHIS WS conducts wildlife damage control 

activities in response to requests for assistance, 

when and where there is a demonstrated need, and 

after review of the available evidence. Assistance 

includes providing technical assistance and direct 

control by APHIS WS wildlife damage specialists. 

Direct control includes the use of traps, snares and 

other devices, as well as aerial gunning (shooting 

animals from aircraft). Most animal damage control 

activities in the Monument have been directed at 

controlling coyote depredation on sheep. 

The state authorizes animal damage activities on 

BLM-administered land; therefore, wildlife damage 

control will continue to be implemented during 

the planning process. For BLM-administered land, 

wildlife damage control, including any necessary 

preemptive strategies, will continue to be governed 

by applicable laws. The BLM will continue to 

coordinate with Wildlife Services as described in 

existing national MOUs, BLM state policy, and Twin 

Falls District annual meetings with APHIS WS. 

Aerial gunning over WSAs requires approval of the 

BLM State Director. 

Within the original Monument and Preserve, NPS 

management policy limits the management of 

native animals to specifi c circumstances, including 

unnaturally high populations resulting from human 

influences or to protect property. The NPS Superintendent has the authority to authorize removal of 

native pest animals (animals that interfere with the 

purposes or management objectives of a specifi c 

area or that jeopardize human health) on NPS-administered land when needed to: 

• Conserve threatened, rare, or endangered 

species or unique specimens or communities; 

• Preserve, maintain, or restore the historical 

integrity of cultural resources; 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

136 
• Conserve and protect plants, animals, and 

facilities in developed areas; 

• Prevent outbreaks of a pest from invading 

uninfested areas outside the NPS lands; or 

• Manage a human health hazard. 

Nothing in this section should be construed as 

authorizing Wildlife Services or any other entity to 

take a species formally listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. For example, although the gray wolf 

is currently classified as experimental/nonessential 

throughout Idaho south of Interstate 90, Section 10 

of the ESA specifies that such populations should be 

treated as threatened species on NPS-administered 

lands. The entire Monument, both NPS- and BLMadministered lands, will be treated as if it were an 

NPS unit for the purposes of ESA Section 10. 

NPS actions to remove or control native pests 

require appropriate compliance with NEPA. 

Special Status Animals 

Special status species are those listed as endangered 

or threatened under the ESA; candidates or species 

proposed for listing under the ESA; species listed 

by IDFG as endangered, threatened, or species of 

special concern; and/or species listed by BLM as 

sensitive. The BLM manages all species identifi ed 

as sensitive to minimize the need for future listing 

as threatened or endangered under the ESA. NPS 

strives to manage its lands to protect any federally 

listed, state-listed, or BLM listed species. 

The USFWS has provided a list of endangered, 

threatened, proposed, and/or candidate species 

that may be present in the area of the Monument 

(Table 15). According to this list, threatened and 

endangered animal species that could potentially 

occur in the Monument area are Canada lynx (Lynx 

canadensis), gray wolf (Canis lupus), bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), bull trout (Salvelinus 

confl uentus), Bliss Rapids snail (Taylorconcha 

serpenticola), Utah valvata snail (Valvata utahensis), 

and Snake River physa (Physa natricina). However, 

sufficient habitat for Canada lynx, bull trout, and 

the snails is not available. The Monument area is 

not in a Lynx Analysis Unit because it lacks suitable 

habitat for the species. There is not adequate surface 

water present in the Monument area for the survival 

of bull trout or the snails, all of which require 

substantial riverine habitat. 

Gray wolves are known to occur in the vicinity of 

the Monument (Williams 2002). In the spring and 

winter of 2001, a pack was observed and tracked just 

north of the Monument. The pack was thought to 

have followed migrating elk and deer. In addition, 

individual wolves have been observed near the 

boundary of the Monument, with several confi rmed 

sightings in this area since 2000. 

There is a bald eagle breeding territory just west of 

the Monument near Carey Lake. Transient, wintering bald eagles might be found anywhere throughout 

Blaine, Butte, Minidoka, and Power Counties, 

including parts of the Monument. 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

has been petitioned for federal listing and is a BLM 

sensitive species. Since 1950, 148 sage-grouse leks 

have been documented on BLM-administered land 

within the Monument. Between 1979 and 1983, 83 

leks were active, and between 1999 and 2003, there 

were 53 active leks. These observations (made by 

the Idaho Department of Fish and Game) indicate a 

36 percent decrease in sage-grouse leks over the past 

25 years. 

Three sub-units of the Monument were also 

analyzed both for total number of leks and possible 

influence of wildfire. The results are presented 

below in Table 16. Note that these sub-units do not 

represent the entire Monument. 

The percent change in number of leks between 

burned and unburned areas is relatively similar, 

except in southern Laidlaw Park where cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum) has become dominant. In that 

particular area, seven leks were lost, while one new 

lek was established. In all cases, current active leks 

are within 2 miles of an unburned area suitable for 

nesting and early brood rearing. 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 137
Table 15

Special Status Animal Species in the Monument

SPECIES STATUS 

FEDERAL BLM IDAHO 

MAMMALS 

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) T 

Townsends's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) I S S 

Western small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum) I W 

Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) W 

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) S S 

Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) I W 

Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) I W 

Western pipistrelle (Pipstrellus hesperus) I W S 

Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) I S S 

Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) I S 

Piute ground squirrel (Spermophilis mollis) S 

BIRDS 

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi) I S 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) T 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) I S S 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) I S 

Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) W 

Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) S 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) E 

Blue grouse (Dendrogapus obscurus) W 

Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) I S 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) I S S 

Wilsons’s phalarope (Phalaropus bicolor) W 

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) I W 

Black tern (Chlidonias niger) S 

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) W 

Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) I W S 

Calliope hummingbird (Stellula calliope) S 

Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) S 

Red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis) W 

Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thryoideus) S 

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus borealis) S 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanias ludovicianus) I S SA 

Cordilleran flycatcher (Empidonax occidentalis) W 

Hammond’s flycatcher (Empidonax hammondii) S 

Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) S 

Pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) W 

Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) W 

Green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus) W 

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) W 

Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri) S 

Sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) S 

Black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilincata) S 

Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) W 

Cassin’s finch (Carposdacus cassinii) W 

138 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Table 15, Continued

Special Status Animal Species in the Monument

SPECIES 

REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS 

Western night snake (Hypsiglena torquata) 

Western toad (Bufo boreas) 

Short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi) 

INVERTEBRATES 

Idaho dunes tiger beetle (Cicindela arenicola) 

Blind cave leiodid beetle (Glacicavicola bathysciodes) 

Idaho pointheaded grasshopper (Arolophitus pulchellus) 

FEDERAL 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

STATUS 

BLM 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

IDAHO 

S 

Federal Designations: 

E = Federally Endangered 

T = Federally Threatened 

C = Federal Candidates for listing as T or E 

I = Species of concern to USF&WS but without formal federal status 

BLM 

S = Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species: in this listing, all species without other current status but formerly federal 

candidates or state species of concern; additionally all species with either federal or state status should also be considered BLM 

Sensitive Species. 

W = Watch list species: Species that are not BLM sensitive species but current population or habitat information suggests that the 

species may warrant sensitive species status in the future 

Idaho Species of Special Concern: (Native species that are either low in numbers, limited in distribution, or have suffered 

significant habitat losses) 

E = Endangered, S = Special concern 

Three conclusions may be drawn from these and The concurrent decline in the health of native 

related observations: plant communities, as indicated by Rangeland 

• 

• 

Sage-grouse show a high affinity for lek sites, 

even after they are burned, if cheatgrass 

does not become dominant (this hypothesis 

deserves further study). 

The overall downward trend in the number 

of sage-grouse leks is not due entirely to 

wildfire. The major land use affecting sagegrouse habitat is historic livestock grazing. 

Health Standards and Guidelines assessments, 

points to livestock grazing as a major contributing factor in the decline of sage-grouse 

populations within the Monument. Decreased 

cover by native perennial grasses and forbs 

(relative to the appropriate range site descriptions) is likely responsible for decreased 

sage-grouse production as indicated by the 

decrease in number of leks. 

Table 16

Active Sage-Grouse Leks

AREA 1979-1983 1999-2003 COMMENT 

Paddelford Flat 8 9 (+12%) 1 lek lost on private land and 2 new leks in burred 

and seeded area. 

Little Park 9 6 (-33%) No leks impacted by fire. 

Laidlaw Park 47 23 (-51%) In areas that burned during the 20-year period, 

there were 18 leks in 1979-83 and 8 leks in 1999-

2003. 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 139
• Regardless of the initial cause (fi re, livestock, 

or some other vector), the dominance of 

cheatgrass significantly degrades the quality 

of sage-grouse habitat. 

Additionally, the BLM and IDFG have classifi ed 

sage-grouse habitat in southern Idaho into four 

groups: Key, Restoration 1 (R1), Restoration 2 (R2), 

and Restoration 3 (R3). 

• 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 

grass species composition. 

• R2 lands are areas with existing sagebrush 

cover that may or may not be adequate to meet 

the needs of sage-grouse, but the understory 

herbaceous conditions are poor. 

• R3 lands are areas where junipers are

encroaching into sage-grouse habitat.

Within the Monument, there are approximately 

340,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat, of which 65 

percent is Key habitat, 25 percent is R1 habitat, and 

10 percent is R2 habitat. 

IDFG has also identified some areas as stronghold or 

source habitat. These are generally the most important remnants of sage-grouse habitat and have the 

potential to produce birds that could then populate 

non-stronghold areas. In the Monument, 43 percent 

of the sage-grouse habitat is classifi ed as stronghold. 

Pygmy rabbits have been documented in several 

areas of the Monument. Records ranging from 

the 1930s through 2003 indicate locations from 

the southernmost areas to the original Monument 

lands (Hoffman 1988; USDI NPS 2003). Pygmy 

rabbit populations have experienced severe declines 

throughout their range, including in Idaho. The rabbits generally prefer mature sagebrush stands with 

a dense canopy cover (Gabler et al. 2001). 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 hundreds of caves and 

several cave-related species of concern, including 

seven species of bats that are USFWS species of 

concern, Idaho species of special concern, or BLM 

sensitive species. As of 1999, three maternity 

colonies of Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii) have been identified in Idaho (Pierson 

et al. 1999), with two occurring in the Monument. 

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 Monument (Table 15; 

Keller 1996). In addition to bats, other cave species 

are of concern, including the blind cave leiodid 

beetle (Glavcicavicola bathyscioides). Two of the 

four known worldwide sites for this species are in 

the Monument (ICDC 2002a). 

Two additional insects listed as sensitive by BLM 

and as USFWS species of concern have been documented on lands adjacent to the Monument. One, 

the Idaho point-headed grasshopper (Acrolophitus 

pulchellus), is found in the Lost River drainage adjacent to the Monument. Two of the fi ve known sites 

are near the northeast perimeter of the Monument 

(ICDC 2002b). The preferred habitat is relatively 

level or rolling terrain with gravelly to rocky soil 

having low sparse vegetative cover between 4,800 

and 7,000 feet elevation (ICDC 2002b). 

The Idaho dunes tiger beetle (Cicindela arenicota) 

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 with 

the Monument. 

Table 15 lists the special status animal species that 

are known or reported in the Monument, including 

all those mentioned above. In addition, the table lists 

42 sensitive species that are either migratory birds or 

sagebrush related species that have been discussed 

in this section. Table 15 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. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

140 
AIR QUALITY 

The Monument and Preserve lie within one of the 

cleanest air regions of the country. While generally 

below the national average for most pollutants, the 

area’s relative ranking varies, depending on the 

specific pollutant. Air quality also varies, depending 

on the location within the unit, the pollutant being 

measured, the season and time of day, wind direction, and climatic factors. Clean air enhances the 

understanding and appreciation of the Monument’s 

geologic resources by allowing clear views of distant 

landscape features. 

Sources of air pollutants are both local and regional 

(Table 17). Emission sources within the Monument 

are limited to automobile exhaust, smoke from wood 

stoves and campfi res, smoke from wildfi res, and 

windblown dust. Smoke from forest and rangeland 

fires, as well as agricultural burning, are seasonal 

sources of fine particulate matter, carbon monoxide, 

and volatile organic compounds. Industrial point 

sources are located at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), which 

is 12 miles east of the Monument, and Bonneville, 

Bingham, and Bannock Counties to the east. Population densities in the four counties surrounding the 

Monument range from 1.3 to 26.6 people per square 

mile, with a total population of 50,000 people across 

7,043 square miles (Idaho Department of Commerce 

2000). 

The air quality management of fire and roads is 

the primary activity affecting resources in the 

Monument. Both naturally ignited wildland fi res and 

prescribed fires produce smoke emissions over the 

life of the fire. The amount of smoke produced and 

the rate at which it disperses will vary, depending 

on weather conditions existing during the fi re, the 

amount and type of vegetation burned, and the 

moisture content of the vegetation consumed. As 

actively managed events, prescribed fi res burn at 

a controlled size, intensity, and time; therefore, 

smoke emissions can be minimized and dispersal 

rates maximized. While wildland fires result from 

natural, unplanned ignitions, decisions to manage 

the fire for resource benefits or extinguish it are 

based in part on the potential impacts of the smoke 

generated over the life of the fi re. 

The major pollutant of concern in smoke from fi re is 

fine particulate matter (PM), both PM10 and PM2.5. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

for PM are established for two aerodynamic diamTable 17

Regional Point Sources of Criteria Air Pollutants in Tons per Year

SOURCE COUNTY 

(IDAHO) 

CARBON 

DIOXIDE 

NITROGEN 

OXIDES 

PM2.5 PM10 SULFUR 

DIOXIDE 

VOLATILE 

ORGANIC 

COMPOUNDS 

Amalgamated 

Sugar Minidoka 131 431 214 630 511 1.76 

FMC Power 2 9 1,391 1,657 2,935 0 

JR Simplot Bannock 11 1,011 244 307 7,133 0 

Ash Grove 

Cement Bannock 0 124 184 288 488 0 

Idaho Supreme 

Potato Bingham 2 64 70 243 67 0 

INEEL-DOE Butte 8 518 3 5 657 0 

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Emissions Trend Database 1999, via 

http://scorecard.org/index.tcl 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 141 
eter classes: PM10 is particulate matter less than 

10 microns in diameter, and PM2.5 is less than 2.5 

microns in diameter. Studies indicate that 90 percent 

of all smoke particles emitted during wildland 

burning is PM10, and 90 percent of PM10 is PM2.5 

(Ward et al. 1991). In 2001, the PM2.5 annual 

average within the Monument was 2.8 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3; Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System: http://vista.cira. colostate. 

edu/views/Default.htm), compared with the national 

health-based standard of 15 μg/m3. 

Fugitive dust consists of PM suspended in the air 

by the wind and human activities. It originates 

primarily from the soil and is not emitted from 

vents, chimneys, or stacks. Soils on burned lands or 

bare agricultural lands lacking vegetative cover are 

subject to wind erosion of soil particles until vegetative cover is restored. Fugitive dust can also be 

generated by wind blowing across unpaved roadbeds 

and by the passage of vehicles along the same roads. 

Estimates of the quantity of fugitive dust generated 

are imprecise and difficult to calculate. The amount 

of dust produced and its effects vary seasonally 

with weather conditions (soil moisture, wind speed, 

and direction) and the amount and speed of motor 

vehicle traffic. The best indicator of fugitive dust 

potential is fugitive dust sources, including unpaved 

roads and lands burned to remove vegetative cover. 

The Craters of the Moon National Wilderness 

Area (“43,243” acres) within the Monument is a 

mandatory Class I area, as defined in Clean Air 

Act (42 USC Sections 7401-7671q; as amended in 

1990, PL 101-549). Congress created a Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) section, the purpose 

of which is “to preserve, protect, and enhance the 

air quality in national parks, national wilderness 

areas and other areas of special national or regional 

natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value.” 

Specifically, the PSD section reflected the law’s 

intention that, among the clean air regions of the 

country, certain areas – the Class I areas – deserve 

the highest level of air quality protection. The 

impairment of visibility within Class I areas was 

a major concern addressed in the Clean Air Act. 

Integral vistas include those views perceived from 

within Class I areas of landmarks or panoramas 

located outside the boundary of a Class I area. 

The rest of the Monument is a Class II area (including the WSAs). Class II areas also have limits on 

increases of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide 

above baseline concentrations. The allowable 

increases for Class II areas are higher than those 

established for Class I areas. Other Class I areas 

in the region are the Sawtooth Wilderness (70 

miles northwest) and Yellowstone and Grand Teton 

National Parks (140 miles east). 

Air quality monitoring in the Monument has recorded concentrations of ozone, PM, visibility, acid 

deposition, and radionuclides (gross alpha, gross 

beta, and gamma spec). These monitoring programs 

have been conducted as part of NPS responsibilities 

under the Clean Air Act, as well as part of the 

INEEL off-site environmental surveillance program. 

All the monitoring sites have been at the north end 

of the Monument. 

Ozone is a widespread air pollutant formed in the 

atmosphere from emissions of nitrogen oxides and 

volatile organic compounds. High levels of ozone 

can injure vegetation and affect human health. 

Ozone concentrations monitored in the Monument 

have not exceeded the primary national ambient 

air quality standard for ozone. The primary ozone 

standard is exceeded when the annual fourth-highest 

maximum 8-hour ozone concentration averaged over 

three years exceeds 80 parts per billion (ppb) (USDI 

NPS 2002a). 

The annual fourth-highest maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentration averaged from 1994 to 2000 was 

63 ppb (USDI NPS 1994-2000). The peak ozone 

concentration (the second-highest 1-hour average) 

measured at the northern end of the Monument 

in 2000 was 77 ppb, which was comparable to 

concentrations in Yellowstone National Park (73 

ppb) the same year. The peak ozone ranged from 

63 to 89 ppb and averaged 73 ppb during the 1994 

to 2000 period. Peak ozone concentrations in 2000 

at other NPS units in the Western United States 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

142 
ranged from 123 ppb at Joshua Tree National Park in 

Southern California to 56 ppb at North Cascades in 

Washington (USDI NPS 1994-2000). 

The SUM06 statistic (the sum of hourly average 

ozone concentrations greater than 0.06 parts per 

million) calculated over a 3-month period is used 

to correlate with vegetation impacts. The recommended SUM06 value is no more than 8 to 12 parts 

per million per hour (ppm/hr) to prevent foliar 

injury to vegetation, which compares to a maximum 

three-month ozone SUM06 of 12 ppm/hr in the 

Monument between 1995 and 1999. While at or well 

below the average for other NPS-monitored units, 

the trend in ozone concentrations from 1992 through 

1999 indicates a statistically signifi cant degradation 

in ozone-related air quality (USDI NPS 2002a). 

The scattering and absorption of light by particles 

and gases emitted by, or formed as a result of, 

natural and human-caused activities degrades the 

visibility of distant features of the landscape. On the 

clearest days, visibility at the northern end of the 

Monument is much better than the national average 

(Visibility Information Exchange Web System: 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/Default.htm), 

compared with 28 other Class 1 areas scattered 

across the country (USDI NPS 2002a). In 2001, the 

best visibility days (upper 20 percent) at the Monument averaged 5 deciviews (a haziness index, lower 

= clearer) compared with a 7.2 deciview national 

average between 1990 and 1999. For the worst 

visibility days (lowest 20 percent), the Monument 

averaged 14.5 deciviews in 2001, which is comparable with the national average of 16.9 deciviews. 

In 2001, the Monument’s annual average visibility 

range was 106 miles as compared to the 1996 to 

1999 annual average at Yellowstone National Park of 

102 miles (USDI NPS 2002a). 

Trends from 1990 to 1999 in nearby national parks 

(Yellowstone and Great Basin) indicate improvement 

in visibility during the clearest days of the year, but 

the haziest days have improved only slightly or even 

gotten worse (USDI NPS 2002a). Fine particulates 

(less than 2.5 micrometers) have been monitored at 

the Monument as part of the Interagency Monitoring 

of Protected Environments Program (IMPROVE) 

since 2000. 

EPA has designated portions of Power and Bannock 

Counties (located 50 miles east of the Monument) as 

non-attainment areas for the national PM standard 

(EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ oar/oaqps/ 

greenbk/pnp.html#16078). The standard is defi ned 

as PM that is smaller than 10 micron (PM10). 

A National Atmospheric Deposition Program/ 

National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) site has 

been operated at the north end of the Monument 

since 1980. The network measures the chemistry of 

precipitation to monitor the graphical and temporal 

long-term trends of hydrogen (acidity as pH), sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, chloride, and base cations 

(such as calcium, magnesium, potassium, and 

sodium). In 2000, pH levels of Monument samples 

ranged from 4.6 to 6.7 with an annual mean of 5.5 

(NADP/NTN 2002). This compares with a similar 

result (5.4) at the NADP/NTN site in Yellowstone 

National Park. 

Ammonium and nitrate ion concentrations are generally higher at the Monument. In 2000, the annual 

mean concentration of ammonium at the Monument 

was 0.32 milligrams per liter (mg/L) compared to 

0.19 mg/L at Yellowstone and 0.20 mg/L in Owyhee 

County in southwest Idaho. 

Both the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and 

the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality’s 

INEEL Oversight Program (INEEL OP) have 

operated environmental monitoring programs to 

determine whether activities on Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL) lands have affected off-site 

locations. Similar monitoring occurs on the INL 

lands, at the edge of the INL lands, and at several 

distant locations surrounding the INL. One of the 

co-located distant sites is located at the Monument’s 

Visitor Center 18 miles west of Arco. At this site, 

radiochemistry analysis of airborne particulates for 

alpha, beta, gamma, americium-241, cesium-137, 

plutonium-238, and plutonium-239/240 radionuclides have been independently conducted by DOE 

and the state’s INEEL OP since 1990. DOE and 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 143
INEEL also conduct weekly analysis for iodine-131 

and quarterly analysis for tritium at this site. In 

2002, both monitoring programs concluded that no 

off-site environmental impacts from INL operations 

were evident based on the results of particulate air 

sampling (Stoller 2003; Idaho INEEL Oversight 

Program 2003). 

Statistical comparison of on-site and off-site gross 

alpha and beta results indicate that the INEEL is 

not a significant source of off-site contamination. 

All results were well below applicable regulatory 

standards and guidelines and were within the range 

of values measured in previous years. In 2002, 

annual median gross alpha and beta activity in the 

air at the Monument site were 1.41 and 2.54 (10-15 

μCi/mL), respectively, compared to an annual 

median value of 1.53 and 2.62, respectively, for the 

site in Jackson, Wyoming (Stoller 2003). 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Both the NPS and the BLM are responsible for 

identifying, protecting, managing, and enhancing archaeological, historic, architectural, and 

traditional lifeway values located on their lands, 

as well as those that might be affected by BLM or 

NPS undertakings on non-federal lands. BLM and 

NPS both manage archaeological remains, historic 

values, and traditional cultural properties important 

to Federally Recognized Native American tribes. 

Cultural resources are generally identifi ed through 

field inventories conducted by qualifi ed professionals in compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 

Interviews and historical records can also be used 

to identify archaeological, historical, and traditional 

lifeway values. David Louter (1992) completed 

a Historic Context Statement for Craters of the 

Moon National Monument in 1992. This document 

provides a broad historical overview for the area. 

During scoping for this Proposed Plan/FEIS, ethnographic resources of importance were identifi ed by 

the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes. 

Further discussion of Native American ethnographic 

resources is included in the section entitled “Native 

Americans Rights and Interests,” following this 

section. 

There has been no systematic, formal inventory 

to document the presence of any potential cultural 

landscapes within the Monument to date, such as 

historic mining districts or historic sheep herding 

use areas. The general public did not identify any 

cultural landscapes of concern during scoping 

for this Proposed Plan/FEIS, and this topic was 

therefore dismissed as an impact topic. Museum 

collections would not be affected by any of the 

alternatives considered and were also dismissed as 

an impact topic. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND 

HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

Three types of inventories – Class I, II, and III – are 

conducted to identify and assess cultural values on 

BLM lands. A Class I inventory, a literature review, 

was completed for the BLM portion of the Monument in 1982, as part of a larger study that included 

the Boise and Shoshone management areas. Since 

then, several smaller Class III intensive inventories 

have been completed in the Monument to fulfi ll 

Section 106 responsibilities. These inventories 

were associated with project activities where sites 

needed to be identified and evaluated in order to 

protect significant values and minimize effects on 

these values. No formal inventories for traditional 

cultural properties of importance to tribes have been 

completed for the Monument. 

Over the years, several different universities have 

also conducted Class III inventories on the Monument, unassociated with any specifi c development 

project, expanding the information base. It is 

estimated that less than 5 percent of the Monument has been intensively inventoried for cultural 

resources. No systematic inventory of the caves 

associated with the lava flows has been completed. 

There may be many important cultural resources 

associated with the lava tubes, as well as the harder 

to reach kipukas, which have not been recorded by 

archaeologists because of their remote nature. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

144 
Early NPS surveys in the 1960s suggested that 

there was not a great deal of prehistoric use in this 

area, but more recent surveys on the adjacent BLM 

lands would seem to indicate otherwise. These early 

surveys were concentrated in areas archaeologists 

deemed likely because they contained known water 

sources. We now know that Native Americans used 

this area much more than archaeologists originally 

believed. Data from recent nearby fi re rehabilitation 

surveys indicate a rather high density of prehistoric 

sites in association with the lava fl ows. Therefore, 

it is believed that there is a signifi cant prehistoric 

cultural component associated with the Monument 

area, in addition to the well-documented historic 

component. 

While these inventories have identifi ed many 

cultural resource sites, little work has been done to 

synthesize the results and provide a comprehensive 

framework for assessing cultural resource function, 

significance, variability, and distributional patterns. 

There are also many previously recorded cultural 

resources that should be revisited so that the present 

condition of these sites can be assessed. Older 

records are in need of informational details and 

require updating. Consultation and communication 

with tribes would improve the agencies’ knowledge 

of traditional cultural properties within the Monument as well. The synthesis of this data will be 

necessary to identify cultural resources that may 

be suitable for public education or interpretation, as 

well as resources that will require special preservation measures. Patterns of anticipated visitor use 

will guide these decisions as well. Most recorded 

sites in the Monument are considered eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). Presently, however, only Goodale’s Cutoff 

is listed on the NRHP. 

Cultural resources condition and trend within the 

Monument varies considerably because of the 

variability of terrain and geomorphology, access and 

visibility, and past and current land use. Exposed 

artifacts and features on the ground surface can 

be disturbed by elements such as wind and water 

erosion, animal and human intrusion, and development and maintenance activities. Based on limited 

site visitation and site form documentation, the trend 

of site condition within the Monument is considered 

stable in most areas. Vandalism and unauthorized 

collection at sites constitutes the main source of 

cultural resource degradation. 

Looting of archaeological sites has been occurring 

in the Monument for some time, especially in the 

remote, hard to reach kipukas. With the advent 

of Internet auctions, illegal artifact collection is 

becoming more profitable than ever. As long as there 

is a market, looting will continue to be a problem. 

It is likely there are many sites in the interior of 

the lavas that are unknown at present, and they 

might lead to clues needed to understand just what 

prehistoric people were doing in this area thousands 

of years ago. Undisturbed caves also may hold a 

fascinating record of the Monument’s early natural 

history in the form of fossilized skeletal material 

of Pleistocene mammals. Other caves on the Snake 

River Plain have produced fossil remains of mammoth, grizzly bear, bison, musk ox, and camel. 

Prehistoric and Historic Sites 

There are more than 500 known, recorded cultural 

resources sites in the Monument, representing a 

variety of types and chronological periods, dating 

from at least 8,000 years old to the present. Only 

one site in the Monument has ever been radiocarbon 

dated. Identified prehistoric sites include lithic 

scatters, rock shelters, rock structures and piles, and 

pictographs. Near the north end of the Monument 

there may be stone tool quarry sites yet undocumented. These remains mainly represent activities in 

the area before European contact in the 1800s. 

Although there is no evidence of earlier occupation 

at the Monument, there is certainly evidence to 

suggest an earlier PaleoIndian occupation elsewhere 

on the Snake River Plain. Sites that are relatively 

nearby with definite PaleoIndian artifacts are Wilson 

Butte Cave (Gruhn 1961), the Buhl Burial, and the 

Simon Site (Butler 1963). The recent discovery of 

the Buhl Burial in 1991 provided researchers with 

an undisputable carbon date of 9,600 years ago. The 

oldest carbon dates recovered from Wilson Butte 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 145
Cave (14,500 years ago) were not in clear association 

with cultural material, and there is some doubt 

among scholars as to whether the cultural deposits 

themselves are older than 9,000 years. 

The Monument contains portions of an NRHP-listed 

historic trail. Goodale’s Cutoff was an alternate 

route of the Oregon Trail that skirted the northern 

edge of the Craters of the Moon Lava Field. These 

portions of Goodale’s Cutoff from US 20/26/93 

in Butte County west to Blaine County are on the 

NRHP. Historic sites in the Monument include 

portions of historic trails, as well as sheepherder 

camps, cairns, and dumps. A few stock-raising 

homestead claims were filed within the Monument 

in the 1890s and early 1900s, but the environment 

proved too harsh for them to succeed, and most were 

canceled. Virtually no visible physical evidence 

of these endeavors remains (Louter 1992). During 

the early days of Euro-American settlement in 

southern Idaho, sheep and cattle grazing were the 

predominant economic pursuit in this area. During 

the late 19th and 20th centuries, silver, gold, and 

lead mining also took place in the mountains just 

north of the Monument. 

The Monument headquarters complex, including 

the Visitor Center, employee residences, and 

maintenance buildings, was recently determined to 

be eligible for nomination to the NRHP (USDI NPS 

2000b). A nomination has not yet been forwarded to 

the keeper of the NRHP for approval. The eligibility 

is based on the continued integrity of the modern 

architectural design with grouping of public and 

administrative facilities in a headquarters area. This 

approach typified the NPS Mission 66 Program of 

the late 1950s and early 1960s (Allaback 2000). 

Mission 66 was a 10-year development program designed to upgrade facilities throughout the National 

Park System. The National Park Visitor Center, as 

it is known today, is from the Mission 66 era. The 

concept of a single building incorporating public 

facilities, interpretive programs, and administrative 

functions originated during the Mission 66 Program. 

NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS 

AND INTERESTS 

NATIVE AMERICAN TREATY RIGHTS 

AND TRUST RESOURCES 

Native Americans inhabited southern Idaho, including the present day Monument lands, for thousands 

of years prior to European contact. Ethnographic 

information suggests that aboriginal populations 

constantly traversed the Snake River Plain during 

their season subsistence rounds, moving to the 

Camas Prairie in the spring and then further into the 

mountains for the summer. In the fall, they would 

return to the Snake River for the winter (Steward 

1938, Liljeblad 1957, 1960, Murphy and Murphy 

1960). According to Shoshone-Bannock tribal 

legends and information, Indians traveled through 

out the Salmon River Basin and the Snake River 

Basin, following subsistence resources based on 

the seasons. Some bands traveled to the Camas 

Prairie area to gather plants, others traveled to 

buffalo country, and others went to the Salmon 

and Snake Rivers for fish. The different bands of 

Shoshone, Bannock and Paiute all have their place 

names for specific areas and locations within this 

region, which includes the Great Rift area. Indians 

have always used the unique features of the Great 

Rift area for various uses, and continue to hold 

this area sacred and important. 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 part to acquire Indian 

lands for homesteading. 

On July 3, 1868, the Eastern Band of Shoshone 

and Bannock Tribes and the United States signed 

the Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and 

Bannock, 1868, commonly referred to as the Fort 

Bridger Treaty (15 Stat. 673). In the Fort Bridger 

Treaty, the tribes relinquished claims to approximately 20 million acres to the United States. The 

treaty retains the tribes’ rights to hunt, fi sh, and 

gather natural resources, and provides other associative rights necessary to effectuate these rights on 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

146 
open and unoccupied lands of the United States. The 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have a long, rich, historical association with the Monument, and their use of 

those trust resources continues today. 

The agencies also maintain a trust relationship 

with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe of the Duck Valley 

Reservation, which was established by Executive 

Order in 1877. Western Shoshone, Northern Paiute 

and some Northern Shoshone people were relocated 

to the remote Duck Valley Reservation, which lies in 

northeastern Nevada and southwestern Idaho. These 

people once roamed much of Nevada, Oregon and 

southern Idaho. The Shoshone-Paiute never formally ceded any of their territory to the U.S. government through treaty. Today, agency consultation and 

coordination with the Shoshone-Paiute takes place in 

monthly meetings with tribal representatives using a 

process known as Wing and Roots. 

The BLM and NPS have a unique relationship with 

federally recognized Native American tribes and are 

responsible for maintaining a formal governmentto-government relationship with tribal leadership. 

As outlined in treaties, executive orders, legislation, 

and federal policies, this relationship focuses on 

ensuring that the rights and/or interests of tribes are 

considered and protected. This includes consulting 

with tribal representatives and identifying and protecting important archaeological, religious, and/or 

sacred sites, as well as providing tribal members 

appropriate access to these sites. Also included are 

provisions for reasonable access for tribal members 

to gather and harvest plant, animal, and aquatic 

resources on certain state and federal lands where 

these activities are not otherwise prohibited. 

Members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes exercise 

their hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on 

certain state and federal lands outside the boundaries of their reservations. Tribal treaty rights pursued 

on public lands within the Preserve and BLMadministered portions of the Monument include 

hunting of large and small game and gathering 

various natural resources for both subsistence and 

medicinal purposes. Game identified by the tribe 

as having importance includes elk, deer, antelope, 

moose, sharp tailed grouse, sage-grouse, rabbits, 

marmots, squirrels, partridges and other associated 

small game. 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is 

charged with enforcement of fish and game regulations within the state of Idaho. However, the IDFG 

recognizes the authority of the 1975 Tribal Fish and 

Game Code of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of 

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation to regulate tribal 

members residing on the reservation when hunting 

or fishing on federal and state-owned lands outside 

the reservation, the exception being when those 

lands have been specifically closed to hunting by 

state or federal statute. 

As a rule, NPS does not allow consumptive uses of 

natural resources such as plants, rocks, and wildlife 

from NPS-administered lands (36 CFR 2.1). However, as a matter of policy, NPS generally supports 

limited and controlled acquisition and use of natural 

resources for traditional religious and ceremonial 

purposes (NPS Management Policies, Chapter 8.9). 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Native American ethnographic resources within the 

Monument have not been characterized in detail to 

date, but include traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites. The existence and importance of these 

resources can only be determined through consultation with knowledgeable tribal members, and study 

of existing ethnographic research. 

No specific sacred sites or traditional cultural properties within the Monument have been identifi ed by 

the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes or Shoshone-Paiute 

Tribes, but there are oral histories documenting 

the use of the area by tribal members. It is possible 

tribal members still visit the isolated areas of the 

Monument for spiritual purposes today. The local 

tribes generally do not disclose sacred site locations 

to federal agencies. Not knowing the location of 

these sacred areas makes it difficult for land managers to assess the impacts of federal actions on them. 

Continued consultation with tribes is the best way 

to maintain an open dialog so tribal members can 

voice their concerns should a federal action threaten 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 147
a sacred site or traditional use area. 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 

1978 (42 USC 1996) states United States policy to 

recognize and protect Native American religion. 

In part, the law states that the policy of the United 

States is to protect and preserve the right of Native 

Americans to access sites, as well as use and possess 

sacred objects for ceremonial and traditional practices. Accordingly, the agencies will accommodate 

access to and ceremonial use of Native American 

sacred sites, consistent with the purposes of the 

Monument (Executive Order 13007). 

There are no Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) materials in the 

existing museum collections from the Monument 

and Preserve. In the event that materials are inadvertently discovered or encountered during authorized 

archaeological excavations, the affi liated tribes 

would be contacted immediately and the procedures 

outlined in NAGPRA would be followed. 

LAND USE AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

TRAVEL AND ACCESS 

One of the most important issues to be considered in 

this planning effort is the amount and type of access 

to and within the Monument. This plan characterizes the existing road and trail network using the 

best available data on current condition and historical maintenance practices. Figure 16 depicts the 

current road network in the planning area. 

With the exception of road closures implicit in the 

application of Pristine Zone areas (see management 

zone descriptions in Chapter 2), decisions affecting the status or condition of all roads and trails 

within the Monument will be made in a follow-up 

implementation plan (see Chapter 1 Future Planning 

Needs). As stated in the Desired Future Conditions, 

there will be no net increase in road mileage within 

the Monument. All travel and access will be limited 

to the existing roads and trails as shown in Figure 

16. This map represents the best available information at the time of publication and was compiled 

using USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic maps BLM 

and NPS roads information including a 2002 survey 

of roads, ways, and trails in and around existing 

Wilderness Study Areas. These roads and trails 

were evaluated by agency staff and organized into 

the following classification system to provide for a 

reasonable baseline data set to be used within the 

context of a more specifi c Comprehensive Travel 

Management Plan to follow. 

Major Transportation Routes 

Interstate Highways 15, 86, and 84 on the south and 

east, US 20/26/93 on the west and north, and US 26 

on the northeast connect population centers and constitute primary access to the planning area. Idaho 

State Highway (SH) 24 (parallel with the Union 

Pacific Railroad) connects Shoshone with Rupert by 

way of Minidoka, and to the east, SH 39 connects 

Blackfoot and American Falls by Aberdeen. 

US 20/26/93 traverses the north end of the Monument, and in the developed area of the Monument 

around the Visitor Center, there is a paved 7-mile 

Loop Drive and developed trails. No public transportation is available to the Monument. While paved 

roads surround the Monument, the roads within the 

Monument are either gravel or dirt, and very few 

roads cross the lava flows. There is no vehicle access 

to most of the interior of the Monument in winter or 

spring because of snow and wet road conditions. 

On the east side of the Craters of the Moon Lava 

Flow, a 69-mile dirt/gravel road connects Arco 

and Minidoka. The Arco-Minidoka Road has a 

wide variety of road conditions. The north and 

south ends of the road, maintained by Butte and 

Minidoka Counties, are relatively well-maintained 

gravel roads. The middle part of the Arco-Minidoka 

Road, within the Monument, is a diffi cult to follow 

dirt, two-track road that receives relatively little 

maintenance. The main travel way on the west side 

of the Monument is the 39-mile Carey-Kimama 

Road, of which 11 miles are within the Monument. 

Carey-Kimama Road is a continuous gravel road 

that receives regular maintenance. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

148 

150 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
The southern part of the Monument, including 

Crystal Ice Cave and Kings Bowl, is accessed 

by paved and gravel county roads, which lead to 

dirt/gravel BLM and county roads near and within 

the Monument. 

Road Classifi cation 

Within the Monument, a “road” is defined as an 

established route capable of accommodating travel 

by a full-sized automobile or truck. Following other 

routes or establishing new routes with motorized or 

mechanized vehicles is considered “off-road” use, 

which is not permitted in the Monument (see below). 

There are four different types of roads within 

the Monument: These conditions were arrived at 

using the best available resource base data (USGS 

1:24,000 scale GIS layers) while incorporating 

institutional knowledge among agency experts for 

verification and revision. 

Class A Roads generally are paved and have a 

surface of asphalt, concrete, or similar continuous 

material. In addition to US 20/26/93, the only Class 

A roads are Loop Drive, spur roads, and associated 

parking areas in the original NPS Monument. Class 

A roads are only found in the Frontcountry Zone. 

Class B Roads are improved roads constructed with 

a natural or aggregate surface, and they may have 

berms, ditches, or culverts. Regular maintenance 

allows passage by standard passenger and commercial vehicles such as cars, light trucks, and some 

heavy trucks. Seasonal conditions and lack of snow 

removal may render these roads impassable. Class B 

roads are found primarily in the Passage Zone. 

Class C Roads have a natural surface and may 

be either constructed or established over time by 

repeated passage of vehicles. The natural surface 

may be dirt, sand, or rock. A minimal amount of 

maintenance, if any at all, is limited primarily to 

surface grading to allow vehicle passage within the 

original road corridor. Maintenance on these roads 

is performed only as necessary, not in accordance 

with any regular schedule. Class C roads accommodate a much smaller range of vehicles than Class 

B roads, usually high-clearance two-wheel-drive 

and four-wheel-drive vehicles. Seasonal conditions 

or wet weather may render these roads impassable at 

any time. Class C roads are found primarily in the 

Passage and Primitive Zones. 

Class D Roads are primitive roads that were not 

constructed but have been established over time 

by the passage of motorized vehicles. These roads 

receive no maintenance or grading. These roads 

are generally referred to as “two-tracks” or a set of 

two ruts with vegetation growing in between the 

wheel ruts. The condition of these roads varies from 

sometimes passable by a passenger car, to only suitable for high-clearance four-wheel-drive vehicles, to 

passable only by adventurous off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) enthusiasts with special equipment. Seasonal 

conditions or wet weather may render these roads 

impassable at any time. Class D roads are found 

primarily in the Primitive Zone. 

Ways are defined in the BLM Handbook 8550-1 

Interim Management Policy for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review (USDI BLM 1995) as a “trace 

maintained solely by the passage of vehicles which 

has not been improved and/or maintained by 

mechanical means to ensure relatively regular and 

continuous use.” The BLM identifi ed all ways inside 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) as part of the wilderness inventory process. Ways are generally open 

to motorized and mechanical use until Congress 

designates a WSA as Wilderness or releases it from 

wilderness consideration. Technically, ways fall into 

the Class D road classification in this plan. However, 

this does not imply that roads would be permitted in 

WSAs, rather it is simply a way of fi tting what we 

have already inventoried and identified as ways into 

one comprehensive classification system in an effort 

to characterize all access and transportation within 

the Monument. 

Trail Classifi cation 

A “trail” is a constructed (or established by past use) 

linear feature, with a single tread designated, designed, and intended for travel by hikers, horses, and 

two-wheeled vehicles (for example, mountain bikes 

and motorcycles). Trails are sometimes referred to 

as “single track.” Trails within the Monument are 

classified into two types based on use. 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 151
Class 1 Trails are restricted to non-motorized/nonmechanized travel (wheelchairs are allowed). 

Examples of permitted forms of travel include 

foot travel, pack animal, and horseback. Examples 

of prohibited forms of travel on Type 1 trails are 

mountain bikes and all motorized vehicles. Class 1 

trails may be further restricted; for example, to foot 

travel only. 

Class 2 Trails are open to motorized/mechanized 

travel in addition to foot travel, pack animal, 

horseback, and other forms of passage. Examples 

of prohibited forms of travel are any vehicle with 

a footprint wider than an 18-inch tread (all-terrain 

vehicles, four-wheelers, and four-wheel-drive 

vehicles). 

Class A Road 

Table 18 summarizes the current status of roads and 

their designated classes in the Monument. 

Costs vary tremendously for road maintenance, 

whether performed by BLM or by the counties. The 

counties and local highway districts receive funding 

from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

at a fixed dollar per mile cost for the number of 

miles of road they maintain. For example, costs associated with annual maintenance of a Class C road 

can be relatively low, between $200 and $400 per 

mile. This would involve smoothing the road surface 

with a road grader. One-time deferred maintenance 

(every 10 to 15 years) such as reshaping the road, 

cleaning ditches, and adding aggregate material on a 

Class B standard road can cost $10,000 per mile. To 

completely rebuild a road, or to bring a road from a 

Class D standard to a Class B standard, can cost as 

Class C Road 

Class B Road Class D Road 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

152 
much as $50,000 per mile. These maintenance costs “limited” designation means that all off-road vehicle 

apply to roads leading to the Monument as well as use will be limited to existing roads and trails. On 

roads within the Monument. NPS-administered lands, operating a motorized 

vehicle is permitted only on Park Roads, in parkBLM policy requires land use plans to make OHV ing areas, and on routes and areas designated for 

(also referred to as “off-road vehicle”) designations 

for all BLM lands within the planning area in the 

land use planning process (Land Use Planning 

Handbook H1601-1). The three OHV designations 

are “open”, “limited”, and “closed”. Open means an 

area where all types of vehicle use are permitted at 

off-road motor vehicle use. No routes or areas are 

presently designated for off-road vehicle use, nor 

are they permitted on lands that have been classifi ed 

as eligible for wilderness designation. Similar 

restrictions apply to bicycle use. The Comprehensive 

Travel Management Plan completed following the 

all times, and closed means an area where off-road finalization of this plan will identify seasonal limita- vehicle use is prohibited (43 CFR 8340-0-5(f)(g)(h). tions and closures, vehicle type and size restrictions, 

All lands within the planning area have been road construction, and maintenance standards for 

designated by the Proclamation as “limited.” A all roads and trails within the Monument. The Idaho 

Table 18 

Roads and Trails within Craters of the Moon 

National Monument and Preserve 

ROADS WITHIN 

THE MONUMENT MILES 

30 maintains 9 miles. 

58 

367 County maintains 1 mile. 

173 Not maintained. 

69 

Counties. 

40 

MAINTENANCE 

Class A Idaho Transportation Department maintains 21 miles; NPS 

Class B BLM maintains 28 miles; remaining 30 miles maintained by 

Blaine (28) and Butte (2) Counties. 

Class C BLM maintains 365 miles, NPS maintains 1 mile, Blaine 

Class D 

Arco-Minidoka Road 

BLM maintains 15 Class B miles and 25 Class C miles; 

remaining 29 miles maintained by Butte (24) and Blaine (5) 

Carey-Kimama 

Road 

BLM maintains 15 miles (all Class B); remaining 25 miles 

maintained by Blaine (12) and Lincoln (13) Counties. 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 153
Transportation Department (ITD), counties, and 

local highway districts manage roads leading to and 

passing through the Monument under the terms of 

right-of-way grants. 

Off-Road Access 

Except for emergency or authorized administrative purposes, the operation of motorized and 

mechanized vehicles off-road is prohibited within 

the Monument (Proclamation 7373). A common use 

on much of the public lands within the Monument 

is operation of OHVs. The operation of OHVs is currently permitted on all existing inventoried roads, 

with the exception of the restrictions noted above on 

NPS-administered lands. 

Administrative purposes include the authorized 

activities of the agencies; permit holders (e.g., livestock permittees), and other agencies. In all cases, 

off-road travel must be specifi cally authorized by 

the agencies. The agencies coordinate with livestock 

permittees, USDA WS, IDFG, and others who may 

require authorizations for off-road vehicle use. 

Existing BLM land use plans address off-road 

(cross-country) travel on public lands outside of the 

Monument. Generally, the public lands outside the 

Monument are designated “open” to OHV use. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Livestock use at the Monument 

The Proclamation expanding the Monument 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 Monument is cooperatively managed by NPS and BLM. 

NPS administers 462,880 acres, or 61 percent, of the 

Monument, and that area is not available for livestock use. These areas consist primarily of exposed 

lava flows, which are mostly devoid of available 

forage and/or inaccessible to livestock; therefore, 

prohibiting grazing in these areas has little to no 

impact on the livestock industry. 

Three BLM fi eld offices (Idaho Falls, Burley, and 

Shoshone) in the Idaho Falls and Twin Falls Districts 

administer livestock use on the 285,700 acres 

(including BLM, Private and State Lands) in the 

Monument. Sheep and/or cattle graze these lands, 

which are divided into management units known as 

allotments. Grazing permits are awarded to permittees by allotment. These permits, or leases, convey 

no right, title, or interest in the land or resources. 

Although the Proclamation specifi cally mentions 

livestock grazing, it does not establish the practice 

as a “right” or convey to it any new status. There are 

an additional 1,800 acres of BLM-administered land 

adjacent to privately owned agriculture fi elds and 

NPS-administered lava, which are designated not 

available for grazing. Figure 17 shows all grazing 

allotments in the Monument. 

Table 19 shows the breakdown of allotment acres, 

animal unit months (AUMs), and permittees by fi eld 

offi ce. 

Table 20 shows the current individual allotment 

information within the Monument, including AUM 

figures, which are estimates based on the percentages 

of each allotment that lies within the Monument. 

Grazing systems, or acceptable grazing practices, 

for allotments are detailed in Allotment Management Plans (AMPs). Grazing systems result from 

certain decisions and agreements and are subject to 

standards and guidelines, as are adjustments made 

to stocking rates. AUMs, shown in Tables 19 and 20, 

reflect current authorizations and are not a mandated 

level of use. 

Livestock use at the Monument 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

154 
Arco 

20 26 93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

Lava 

Lake 

Lake 

j

MOUNTAI 

0 5 mi 0 5 km 

Carey 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

Wildhorse 

Laidlaw 

Park 

Timber 

Butte 

Quaking Aspen 

Sunset 

Smith 

Cox's Well 

Big Desert Sheep 

Rudeen 

East 

Minidoka 

Sand 

Crater 

Bowl Crater 

Pagari 

Wildhorse 

Poison 

Kimama 

Minidoka 

Schodde 

Huddle's 

Hole 

Blizzard Mtn 

Laidlaw Park 

Only those allotments which are either inside or immediately ad acent to the 

Monument have been labeled here. No warranty is made by the Bureau of 

Land Management or National Park Service for use of the data for purposes 

not intended by these agencies. 

P I O N E E R 

N S 

Lake Channel Walcott 

Craters 

Lava 

Town 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

Monument Boundary 

A Road 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE 17 

GRAZING ALLOTMENTS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Allotment Boundary 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

Unalloted 

C Road 

B Road 

Cottonwood 

Lava Creek 

Dry Canyon 

Champagne Creek 

Bliss 

Nichols 

Shale 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 155
Standards and guidelines have been applied to 

18 out of 23 allotments, as is shown in Table 21. 

This analysis begins with consultation between an 

authorized officer, interested publics, and resource 

users. Field assessments and evaluations are then 

conducted to determine the achievement or nonachievement for each standard. A plan to reach 

uniform achievement, when needed, is typically 

developed through an environmental assessment 

(EA). EAs identify changes necessary for allotments 

to meet, or to make significant progress toward 

meeting, all standards. EAs also require follow-up 

monitoring and the reporting of results. Appendix 

F contains the handbook, “Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management.” 

ing the Proclamation, these corridors were designated for primary management by the BLM to allow 

for continued livestock trailing and other authorized 

uses in these corridors. However, there are two 

known areas in the Monument where historic 

livestock trails do not follow designated roads and 

cross lava flows that are now administered by the 

NPS. These two much less obvious trails historically 

used for trailing livestock were not identifi ed on the 

Proclamation map. While not in use at the time of 

Proclamation 7373, the question of their future use 

has been raised during the preparation of this plan. 

Both were once used for trailing sheep. One leads 

between US 93 and Paddelford Flat and the other 

across Brigham Point in the southern portion of the 

Craters of the Moon Lava Flow. 

Grazing preference is not expected to decrease as a 

result of standards and guidelines analysis because 

most allotments are attaining, or are making significant progress toward attaining, uniform achievement. 

Rangeland developments are used in the Monument 

to improve livestock distribution, provide livestock 

forage, restore degraded areas, protect sensitive 

sites, improve wildlife habitat, and facilitate 

intensive management of livestock through the 

implementation of grazing systems. Many of these 

are also closely associated with the road system in 

the Monument. See Figure 18. 

Proclamation 7373 recognized existing roads and 

two-tracks across narrow strips of exposed lava that 

are used to trail livestock from one grazing area to 

another. Trailing of livestock between allotments is 

another common practice in the livestock industry, 

and historic trail routes are still used today in many 

areas of the Monument. The majority of this trailing 

occurs along existing roads. In the map accompanyThe Paddelford Flat Trail, in the northern part of the 

Monument (T.1S, R.23E, Sec. 5,8), allows the passage of livestock from the north end of Paddelford 

Flat to US 20/26/93, about 1 mile west of Lava Lake. 

Without this trail, it would take about 13 miles to 

trail out around the lava and along the highway back 

to Lava Lake. This trail, which is approximately 

1.5 to 2 miles long, is passable by foot traffi c only 

because it is narrow and goes through rugged lava. 

The photo below depicts a traditional sheep camp 

that is used in today’s sheep herding operations. 

The Brigham Point Trail, in the southern part of the 

Monument (T.5S, R.25E, Sec.15), is at the north end 

of the Brigham Point Lava Flow. This trail, which is 

less than 0.25-mile long, has similar characteristics 

to the Paddelford Flat Trail, and therefore it is passable only by foot traffic. This trail allows passage 

between the east and west sides of Brigham Point 

without having to go around the entire fl ow, which 

would be approximately 9 miles. 

Table 19 

Livestock Use per BLM Field Offi ce 

INFORMATION SHOSHONE BURLEY TOTALS 

Number of Allotments 10 9 4 23 

l

Number of AUMs 9,095 8,827 36,965 

Number of Permittees 30 35 14 79 

IDAHO FALLS 

Tota Acres 154,300 77,400 54,000 285,700 

19,043 

156 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Arco 

0 5 mi 0 5 km 

20 26 93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

PIONEER 

MOUNTAINS 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE 18 

RANGE IMPROVEMENT FACILITIES 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

Carey 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

Range Improvements data displayed here is sufficient for illustrating the 

approximate quantity and distribution of facilities inside the Monument. 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

Lava 

Monument Boundary 

Water Development 

Corral 

Cattle Guard 

Fence 

B Road 

A Road 

C Road 

Town 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 157
Table 20

Craters of the Moon Allotment Animal Unit Months

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 158 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FIELD

OFFICE Monument in Monument Cattle

Suspended

Cattle Sheep 

Suspende

Sheep 

3,500 0 0 - - - - 

2,300 2,300 100 24 20 - - 

Sunset 1,600 13 197 9 - - 

2,900 4 241 18 - - 

Smith 2,800 14 352 - - - 

Coxes Well 6,700 31 659 - - - 

236,000 23 - - 6,710 - 

6,400 42 369 411 - - 

Craters 2,200 700 34 - - 85 - 

Idaho Falls 

20 1,842 458 6,795 - 

East Minidoka 5,100 24 1,117 - - - 

Minidoka 43,500 44 - - 6,021 1,046 

Sand 8,800 1,800 20 96 - - - 

Schodde 21,100 3,600 17 547 - - - 

Burley 

36 1,760 - 6,021 1,046 

l 2,900 2,900 100 133 - - - 

6,900 700 10 - - 18 - 

Crater 2,500 1,600 65 - - 85 - 

Kimama 800 2 - - 115 - 

94,600 100 - 2,924 - 

Lava Lake 14,500 1,900 13 95 - - - 

Pagari 1,900 7 159 21 - - 

18,600 100 2,856 - 406 - 

Timber Butte 7,900 500 6 33 21 - - 

30,800 13 51 - 3,617 - 

34 42 7,165 - 

29 500 1,046 

ALLOTMENT ESTIMATED AUMS WITHIN THE 

ALLOTMENTS Total Acres Acres in % of acres Active

AUMs AUMs 

Active

AUMs AUMs 

Blizzard Mountain Huddles Hole 

12,700 

Quaking Aspen 81,500 

19,800 

21,500 

Big Desert 54,000 Rudeen 15,000 

TOTAL 394,500 77,400 

21,300 

99,800 

TOTAL 151,000 54,000 

Bow Crater Cottonwood 

33,100 

Laidlaw Park 94,600 8,507 

26,700 

Poison Lake 18,600 Wildhorse 241,000 

Shoshone 

TOTAL 448,700 154,300 11,834 

GRAND TOTAL 994,200 285,700 15,436 19,981 

These acreage calculations are based on allotment boundaries which include BLM, State, and Private lands. 
Table 21

Allotment Standards & Guides Facts — 

Idaho Falls and Twin Falls Districts

ALLOTMENT 

IDAHO FALLS 

Blizzard 

Mountain 

Craters 

Huddles Hole 

Sunset 

Quaking Aspen 

Smith 

Coxes Well 

Big Desert 

Rudeen 

BURLEY 

East Minidoka 

Minidoka 

Sand 

Schodde 

SHOSHONE 

Bowl Crater 

Cottonwood

Crater 

Kimama 

Laidlaw Park 

Lava Lake 

Pagari 

Poison Lake 

Timber Butte 

Wildhorse 

% OF 

ALLOTMENT 

AFFECTED 

4 

35 

100 

13 

4 

14 

31 

23 

43 

23 

43 

19 

17 

100 

11 

65 

2 

100 

12 

7 

100 

7 

13 

AUMS IN 

PROPOSAL 

26 

88 

44 

206 

259 

352 

659 

6,710 

799 

1,025 

6,845 

86 

547 

133 

20 

85 

117 

11,431 

88 

180 

3,262 

63 

3,668 

NUMBER OF 

PERMITTEES 

1 

1 

1 

1 

11 

1 

1 

18 

1 

1 

9 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

6 

14 

1 

3 

1 

1 

22 

YEAR 

STANDARDS & 

GUIDELINES 

COMPLETE 

1999 

1999 

1999 

1999 

1999 

2008 

2005 

1999 

2005 

1999 

2002 

2006 

2000 

2004 

1999 

1999 

1999 

2003 

2004 

2004 

2005 

2006 

1999 

PERMIT 

EXPIRATION 

DATE 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2008 

2005 

2009 

2005 

2005 

2/05, 4/07, 1/08, 

2/09 

2007 

1/06, 2/09 

2/28/15 

2/28/09 

2/28/09 

Varies 

Varies 

2/28/15 

Varies 

2/28/05 

2/28/12 

Varies 

STANDARDS 

MET 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

In Progress 

In Progress 

Yes 

In Progress 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

In Progress 

In Progress 

No 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 159
OTHER LAND USES 

Administrative and Visitor Facilities 

Existing administrative and visitor facilities in the 

Monument are concentrated in an area of approximately 90 acres adjacent to US 20/26/93 in the 

north area of the Monument. These are the Visitor 

Center/Administrative Building, maintenance shop, 

five residential buildings, the entrance station, paved 

parking areas and roads, a 51-unit campground, 

a campsite, and related sites. The Visitor Center 

(which also serves as the NPS administrative 

headquarters), the maintenance building, and fi ve 

residential buildings were built in the late 1950s as 

part of the NPS Mission 66 Program. 

The Visitor Center building contains a lobby with 

book displays, sales, and an information desk; a 

small exhibit room; and public restrooms. The 

administrative office area of the building consists of 

six rooms serving as offices and shared work areas. 

Renovation of the building and additions of 1,800 

square feet for staff work area and 450 square feet 

for a multipurpose audiovisual room are in progress. 

The six-bay maintenance building provides 

limited area for its intended purposes, since parts 

of the building have been converted to offi ces for 

maintenance staff, administrative staff, and storage 

of park supplies. One of the residential buildings 

has been converted to staff offices and museum 

collections storage. Sewage is handled by separate 

septic tanks and leaching wells for the Visitor 

Traditional sheep camp 

Center/maintenance building and for the residential 

area. Each of the campground restrooms is served a 

separate system. 

The 51-unit campground contains a 130-seat 

amphitheater and two restrooms. An entrance 

station where visitors are contacted before entering 

the paved loop drive is located adjacent to the 

campground. North of the highway is a public group 

campsite. In this vicinity is also a modest research 

camp, the park’s potable water wells and delivery 

systems, and underground water storage reservoirs. 

A 7-mile paved loop drive with short spur roads, 

pullouts, and parking areas gives visitors access 

to scenic vistas, hiking trailheads, and other attractions. Vault toilets are available at three of the 

parking areas. 

Kings Bowl was once a developed site. From the 

mid-1960s to late-1980s, private operators under 

permits from the BLM operated a concession at the 

site with a developed trail/tunnel system into Crystal 

Ice Cave, a parking and picnicking area, a trailer 

pad, a generator building, and a small concession 

stand. All of the aboveground facilities have been 

removed because of safety concerns. A small 

parking area and remnants of footpaths and vehicle 

trails remain. NPS and BLM are in the process of 

installing a series of waysides and signs in the area 

to convey important safety and resources protection 

messages to people who might visit this site. 

Lands and Realty 

The planning area encompasses approximately 

752,490 acres. Figure 19 shows land status, and land 

ownership is detailed in Table 22. 

Private and state land within the Monument boundary is not part of the Monument and is not subject 

to the direction in this plan. Most of the private land 

holdings in the planning area were obtained through 

agricultural entries such as the Desert Land Act, the 

Carey Act, the Reclamation Homestead Act, and 

the Stock Raising Homestead Act. There were no 

pending agricultural entries in the Monument on 

the date of Proclamation 7373. The private and state 

land inholdings are used for grazing and contain 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

160 
related developments such as fences, wells, corrals, 

camp trailers, and seedings. There are no houses, 

cabins, or other permanent human dwellings on the 

private or state land. 

The agencies will consider acquiring private and 

Proclamation 7373 withdrew all federal land within 

the Monument and Preserve from all forms of entry, 

location, selection, sale, and other forms of disposition. Therefore, the agencies cannot exchange, sell, 

or dispose of any federal land in the Monument 

except for extremely rare situations that would 

state land in the Monument through exchange, further the protective purposes of the Monument. 

purchase, or donation. Acquisitions of private land This withdrawal includes the disposal of land to lomust be initiated by the private landowner as a cal governments for public purposes and community 

willing seller. The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) expansion. 

has initiated a proposal to exchange state land in the 

Monument for BLM land outside of the Monument The Monument contains multiple land use 

(see letter from IDL in Appendix I). Private or state authorizations for a wide variety of purposes. 

land acquired by the agencies would automatically Lands and realty authorizations fall into two broad 

become part of the Monument and subject to the categories, valid existing rights and other valid but 

direction in this plan. lesser interests. Proclamation 7373 states that: “The 

establishment of this monument is subject to valid 

Proclamation 7373 transferred 409,460 acres in the existing rights.” Land use authorizations that give 

Monument from BLM to NPS administration. In “rights” to the holder under various laws, leases, and 

2002, Congress changed the designation of this land filings under federal law, such as some rights-of-way 

from National Monument to the Craters of the Moon (ROWs), are listed in Table 23 and shown on Figure 

National Preserve. 20. 

Table 22 

Landownership 

LAND STATUS 

NPS Lands 

Original Monument 

 National Preserve 

BLM Lands 

Federal Total 

State Total 

Private Total 

ACRES 

462,880 

53,420 

409,460 

274,800 

737,680 

8,250 

6,560 

% OF 

MONUMENT 

61

7 

54 

37

98 

1 

1 

Grand Total 752,490 100 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 161 
Arco 

20 26 

93 

20 

93 

26 

0 5 mi 0 5 km 

24 

NPS 

DOE 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Carey 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE 19 

LAND STATUS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

Class I Trail 

A Road 

B Road 

C Road 

D Road 

Private 

Water 

BLM 

US Forest Service 

State 

NWR 

Monument Boundary 

Streams 

Original Monument 

Boundary 

PIONEER 

MOUNTAINS 

Town 

162 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Other existing authorizations in the Monument are 

three Free Use Permits for mineral materials (see 

the “Minerals” section, below) and 14 easements 

held by BLM across state and private land. Only 

one pending authorization/application for a land 

use authorization within the Monument existed on 

November 9, 2000. This is a proposed cooperative 

agreement for a groundwater recharge area along the 

Little Wood River, approximately 5 miles south of 

Carey. At the time of Proclamation 7373, there were 

no other pending lands and realty cases or applications such as ROWs, Land Use Permits, exchange or 

sale proposals, or trespass cases. 

Minerals 

The Proclamation expanding the Monument withdrew all federal lands and interests in lands within 

the Monument from entry, location, selection, sale, 

leasing, or other dispositions (except for exchanges 

that would further the protective purposes of the 

Monument) under the public land laws, including the 

mineral leasing and mining laws. Thus, new federal 

mineral leases or prospecting permits may not 

be issued, nor may new mining claims be located 

within the Monument. No mining claims existed in 

the Monument on the date of Proclamation 7373. 

A potential powerline corridor was identifi ed in 

1984, running southwest to northeast between the 

Craters of the Moon and Wapi lava fields in the 

Monument (Montgomery 1984). However, because 

of conflicts with the Great Rift WSA, this corridor 

has not been carried forward in other regional 

powerline and utility corridor studies (Western 

Regional Corridor Study 1992). A utility corridor, 

an existing 500-kilovolt-transmission line, and a 

railroad ROW border the Monument on its southern 

extremity near the Wapi Lava Field. 

There are no known natural gas, oil, or mineral 

deposits within the Monument boundaries. The 

general area has moderate potential for developable 

geothermal resources (Kuntz et al. 1979, Ridenour 

1979). Active mining claims for locatable minerals, 

primarily gold, exist just to north of the Monument in the Pioneer Mountain foothills. NPS has 

rehabilitated two old abandoned gold mine adits 

in the northern portion of the original Monument. 

BLM processed several applications for geothermal 

leases in the 1970s and issued one lease, which was 

relinquished in 1982. 

Table 23 

Valid Existing Rights 

ON FIGURE 

20 

CASE FILE 

NUMBER 

SIZE IN 

ACRES 

1 94 

2 19 12/16/2019 

3 ROW Observation Well USGS 10 

4 6 08/08/2012 

5 ROW Seismic Station <1 

6 14 09/09/2017 

7 ite 109 

8 ROW Observation Wells BOR 4 

9 i Idaho Di 43 

10 i Idaho Di 40 09/19/2013 

11 Federal 87 

12 ites IDBL-0047852 156 

13 Federal 373 

14 ite IDBL-0052624 40 

15 Federal 141 

16 IDBL-0053778 28 

LOCATION 

CASE TYPE CUSTOMER NAME EXPIRATION 

DATE 

Federal Aid Highway 93 ITD IDI-001314 Perpetuity 

ROW Powerline Lost River Electric Cooperative IDI-002855 

IDI-012671 12/02/2009 

ROW Telephone Line ATC Communications IDI-020118 

DOE IDI-028657 04/16/2012 

ROW Snow Fence ITD IDI-032380 

ROW Mineral Material S ITD IDI-006614 Perpetuity 

IDI-0008954 Perpetuity 

Emergency A rstrip Lease vision of Aeronautics IDI-0010307 03/05/2013 

Emergency A rstrip Lease vision of Aeronautics IDI-0010310 

Aid Highway 93 ITD IDBL-0047476 Perpetuity 

ROW Mineral Material S ITD Perpetuity 

Aid Highway 93 ITD IDBL-0049776 Perpetuity 

ROW Mineral Material S ITD Perpetuity 

Aid Highway 93 ITD IDBL-0052700 Perpetuity 

Federal Aid Highway 93 ITD Perpetuity 

17 ROW Mineral Material Sites ITD IDBL-0053709 7 Perpetuity 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 163 
Arco 

0 5 mi 0 5 km 

20 26 93 

20 

93 

26 

14 

7 

6 

12 

17 5 

10 

9 3 

8 

1 

11 

13 15 

16 

2 4 

24 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

PIONEER 

MOUNTAINS 

Carey 

Numbers associated with each feature are a reference to further descriptions 

found in Table 18 - Valid Existing Rights. No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management or National Park Service for use of the data for purposes 

not intended by these agencies. 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

Lava 

B Road 

C Road 

D Road 

Class I Trail 

A Road 

Monument Boundary 

Telephone Line ROW 

Powerline ROW 

Highway ROW 

Seismic Station 

Snow Fence 

Material Site 

Airstrip 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE 20 

VALID EXISTING RIGHTS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Town 

Observation Well 

164 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
The Monument contains three Free Use Permits for 

pumice/cinders; Butte County and Blaine County 

use these sites as a material source for gravel road 

maintenance. Free Use Permits authorize use only 

by state or local governments. These material sites 

are not available to the general public or commercial 

parties. 

The amount of suitable road surface material available within the Monument is essentially unlimited. 

However, Proclamation 7373 and agency policy 

restricts extraction of mineral materials to valid 

existing rights and administrative uses only. Cinders 

are generally considered to be an undesirable material for road maintenance because they are not very 

durable compared to gravel. Cinders are very light, 

which reduces transportation costs. High quality 

crushed gravel is available outside of the Monument, 

but at a substantially higher cost than the readily 

available cinders. 

ITD also holds three ROW grants for fi ve pumice/ 

cinder material sites in the Monument. These ROWs 

are valid existing rights unaffected by Proclamation 

7373. The former General Land Offi ce granted these 

ROWs in the 1930s during the construction of US 

20/26/93. ITD has used only two of these material 

sites during the last 10 years. 

The Monument contains no known industrial 

minerals, gems, semiprecious stones, or petrifi ed 

wood. The collection of any lava rock features in 

the Monument is authorized only under a scientifi c 

collecting permit issued to institutions. Public 

collecting is illegal. Many public and commercial 

sources exist throughout southern Idaho for lavabased materials used in landscaping, barbecue grills, 

and saunas. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS 

Wilderness 

Congressional designation of the 43,243-acre Craters 

of the Moon National Wilderness Area was enacted 

on October 23, 1970, making the Monument and 

Petrified Forest National Park the first units within 

the National Park System with designated wilderness areas (PL 91-504). 

The Craters of the Moon Wilderness is south of US 

93 entirely within the original Monument (Figure 

21). All but the north end of the wilderness boundary is adjacent to lands inventoried by BLM as the 

Great Rift WSA in 1980 (USDI BLM 1980). When 

designated, the wilderness boundary was offset 

one-eighth of a mile (660 feet) inside the Monument 

boundary. Thus, a narrow non-wilderness strip of 

the Monument separates the Great Rift WSA and 

the designated wilderness. This “buffer” area was 

intended to permit administrative vehicle access 

for fi refighting and other management needs (U.S. 

House of Representatives 1970). Since the narrow 

buffer area does not contain roads and consists 

largely of impassable lava fl ows, it never has been 

used for such purposes. 

Much of the scenic 7-mile Loop Drive developed 

by NPS in the 1930s and 1950s lies close to the 

northern edge of the wilderness area. At two points, 

the wilderness boundary lies within 2,000 feet of US 

20/26/93. The openness of the terrain results in the 

sights and sounds of traffic on the highway and the 

7-mile Loop Drive being perceivable from some of 

the northernmost areas of the wilderness. 

Human-made facilities in the wilderness area are 

limited to the Wilderness and Tree Molds trails, a 

small concrete watering trough that predates the 

Monument, and numerous rock cairns and rock 

rings of historic or prehistoric origin. Initially 

developed as a primitive wagon trail to serve pre1924 livestock use on Little Prairie, the 5.1-mile 

Wilderness Trail later served as a primitive vehicle 

route until 1970. At some point, perhaps as early as 

the 1950s, the route was closed to the public, and 

only administrative use was permitted. The extent 

of construction or maintenance on the route up 

until 1970 is poorly documented, but no evidence 

of grading exists. There has been no documented 

maintenance of the route since 1970. The trail to 

Echo Crater remains distinct, but south of Echo 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 165
Crater, the trail has faded in some areas. 

Before the wilderness was designated, the 1.5-mile 

Tree Molds Trail was developed to gain access to 

numerous tree mold features. The Tree Molds Trail 

is the only maintained trail listed in the 1996 NPS 

Wilderness Management Plan (USDI NPS 1996). 

A spur trail leading from the Tree Molds Trail to 

Great Owl Cavern was closed following wilderness 

designation, and a large metal stairway leading into 

the cavern was removed. 

NPS management activities have been limited to 

monitoring air quality, vegetation, wildlife, and 

recreational impacts and fire suppression. In 2000, a 

fire management plan was completed that provided 

for managing natural fires for resource benefi ts 

under certain conditions (USDI NPS 2000a). 

Wilderness Study Areas 

WSAs are lands identified through the BLM wilderness inventory process as possessing wilderness 

characteristics (defined by the Wilderness Act of 

September 3, 1964, 16 USC 1131). WSA lands are 

designated in BLM land use plans and managed 

under the BLM Interim Management Policy (IMP) 

for Lands Under Wilderness Review, Handbook 

H8550-1, so as not to impair their suitability for 

wilderness designation (USDI BLM 1995). 

Four WSAs have been designated within the 

boundaries of the Monument (Table 24, Figure 21). 

Eighty-four percent of the WSAs lie within the 

National Preserve; the rest is managed by BLM. 

The 381,800-acre Great Rift WSA was designated 

in 1980 (USDI BLM 1980). The Great Rift WSA 

encompasses most of the Craters of the Moon and 

Wapi lava fields, along with parts of the surrounding 

sagebrush grasslands. The Raven’s Eye WSA covers 

68,300 acres of the western part of the Craters of 

the Moon Lava Field, with 66 percent of the area 

within the Monument. The Little Deer WSA takes 

in 35,200 acres of a narrow extension of the Craters 

of the Moon Lava Field and adjacent sagebrush 

grasslands. The 9,700-acre Bear’s Den Butte WSA 

is centered on a narrow finger of the Craters of the 

Moon Lava Field, which extends into Laidlaw Park. 

The Raven’s Eye, Little Deer, and Bear’s Den Butte 

WSAs were designated in 1986 (USDI BLM 1987). 

BLM land use plans indicated that parts of the WSA 

were suitable for preservation as wilderness. Designation of the WSA as wilderness requires a recommendation by the President and an Act of Congress. 

The lands remain in WSA status until Congress 

acts either to designate the land as wilderness or to 

release it for other uses. In 1985, President Reagan 

recommended that Congress designate 322,450 acres 

of the Great Rift WSA as wilderness (Reagan 1985). 

Presidential Proclamation 7373 transferred portions 

of the four WSA to NPS in 2000. The proclamation 

directed the following: 

Wilderness Study Areas included in the Monument 

will continue to be managed under Section 603(c) 

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (43 USC 17011782). 

Section 603(c) requires that WSAs be managed to 

maintain their suitability for wilderness designation 

and prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. The 

BLM and NPS will follow the BLM WSA IMP in 

guiding management decisions within the WSA 

until completion of this Plan/EIS (USDI BLM/NPS 

2001). 

There are no roads within the WSA boundaries. 

BLM wilderness inventory procedures (USDI BLM 

2001) define roads as routes improved and maintained by mechanical means to ensure relatively 

regular and continuous use. A route maintained 

solely by the passage of vehicles is defined as a 

vehicle way. Numerous vehicle ways exist within the 

WSA. The BLM IMP for WSAs permit continued 

motorized travel on those ways recorded during 

the wilderness inventory. Additional vehicle routes 

created since the inventory were not authorized, and 

motorized vehicle use of such routes is prohibited. 

Wilderness inventories recorded 20 miles of vehicle 

ways in the Raven’s Eye WSA, 5.1 miles in the Little 

Deer WSA, and 2 miles in the Bear Den Butte WSA 

(USDI BLM 1987). Current inventories of the Great 

Rift WSA indicate that it contains approximately 29 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

166 
Arco 

0 2 4 8 mi 

0 9 km 

20 26 

93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

G o o d a l e s

C u t o f f 

' 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

4.5 18 

P I O N E E R 

M O U N T A I N S 

Carey 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

Freidman Creek 

WSA 

Little 

Wood 

River 

WSA 

Craters of the Moon 

Wilderness 

Brass Cap 

RNA 

Carey 

Kipuka 

RNA 

Big Juniper 

RNA 

Sand Kipuka 

RNA 

Great Rift 

WSA 

Great Rift 

WSA 

Bear Den 

Butte 

WSA 

Raven's Eye 

WSA 

Sand 

Butte WSA 

Little Deer 

WSA Great Rift NNL 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Lava 

Research Natural Areas 

National Natural Landmark 

Town 

Great Rift Crack System 

Goodale's Cutoff 

of the Oregon Trail 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Wilderness 

Monument Boundary 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE 21 

SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 167
miles of vehicle ways (Class D roads). Unauthorized 

vehicle ways may have been created since the 

inventories were completed, but the numbers are 

unknown. New vehicle ways may have also been 

created during authorized fire suppression and 

restoration activities. 

Other 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 

and Moseley 1991). The fourth, Carey Kipuka, 

was nominated and designated by NPS in 

1993. All four RNAs feature kipukas, an 

area of older vegetated landscape surrounded 

by recent lava flows. Isolation, difficulty of 

access, and a lack of surface water made these 

areas unsuitable for livestock, and little or no 

grazing has been recorded. Isolation has also 

limited recreational access to the kipukas. 

Carey Kipuka RNA is a 170-acre kipuka in the 

Craters of the Moon Lava Field, 14 miles east 

of Carey, Idaho. The kipuka and surrounding 

area was added to the Monument in 1961 and 

Great Rift WSA. became designated wilderness in 1970. The 

Research Natural Areas, National area has also been nominated as a National 

Natural Landmark, Areas of Critical Natural Landmark (NNL). 

Environmental Concern 

The entire kipuka is dominated by 

• Research Natural Areas

NPS policies define RNAs as areas with prime 

examples of natural ecosystems or significant 

genetic resources with value for long-term 

research. Activities within RNAs are restricted 

to non-manipulative research, education, and 

other activities that will not detract from the 

area’s research value.

Four RNAs have been designated within the 

Monument: Carey Kipuka RNA, Big Juniper 

Kipuka RNA, Brass Cap RNA, and Sand 

Kipuka RNA. Three of the four were nominated and designated by BLM before 1991 (Hilty 

sagebrush vegetation represented by three 

distinct vegetative communities. The area 

is a particularly good representative of the 

Low Sagebrush Theme, Low Sagebrush/ 

Idaho Fescue Subtheme. Cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum), an aggressive invader of areas 

disturbed by fire, is widespread throughout 

much of the kipuka. No other invasive exotic 

plants or noxious weeds have been recorded. 

Scientific investigation of the area dates to 

1956, and its value for basic and applied study 

of sagebrush-grassland ecosystems has long 

been recognized (Tisdale 1965). Long-term 

Table 24 

Summary of Wilderness Study Areas 

WILDERNESS 

AREA 

MONUMENT 

(ACRES) 

NPS AREA 

(ACRES) 

BLM AREA 

(ACRES) AREA 

(ACRES) 

MONUMENT 

(ACRES) 

Great Rift 335,000 

8,400 

0 

Bear Den Butte 9,700 4,300 5,400 9,700 0

STUDY AREA 

WITHIN TOTAL WSA 

AREA WITHIN 

RECOMMENDED 

SUITABLE BY BLM 

381,100 46,000 381,800 322,450 

Raven’s Eye 45,400 37,000 68,300 67,110 

Little Deer 35,100 21,300 13,800 35,200 

* Acreage values have been rounded to the nearest hundred acres. 

168 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
monitoring of vegetation and breeding birds in 

the area continues to be conducted by NPS. 

Big Juniper Kipuka RNA is a 320-acre area 

within the Wapi Lava Field, 14 miles northeast 

of Minidoka, Idaho. This RNA contains 

undisturbed examples of several habitat types 

that occur on the ESRP, including Wyoming 

big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass, Wyoming big sagebrush/Thurber’s needlegrass, 

and threetip sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass. 

Surrounding lavas contain a sparse cover of 

Utah juniper woodland with a mixed shrub 

later (Caicco and Wellner 1983b). 

Brass Cap Kipuka RNA is an 860-acre area 

surrounding the Brass Cap Kipuka on the 

Craters of the Moon Lava Field, 11 miles east 

of Carey, Idaho. This area is an undisturbed 

example of a major habitat type. Alkali 

sagebrush and Idaho fescue are the dominant 

species, covering nearly 100 acres of the 

kipuka (Caicco and Wellner 1983a). 

Sand Kipuka RNA is a 320-acre area surrounding Sand Kipuka, 12 miles east of 

Minidoka within the Wapi Lava Field. The 

kipuka is dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush or basin big sagebrush and needle-andthread grass. Utah juniper woodlands are well 

developed on the lava surfaces surrounding the 

kipuka (Wellner and Moseley 1983). 

• National Natural Landmarks 

NNLs are areas of national significant designated by the Secretary of the Interior as being 

outstanding representatives of a region’s biotic 

or geologic features (U.S. Government Printing Office 2001). The Monument encompasses 

most of the 252,000-acre Great Rift NNL, 

which was designated by the Secretary of the 

Interior in 1968 for its geological significance 

and enlarged in 1980 in recognition of its 

biological significance. 

The low sagebrush/Idaho fescue habitat of the 

north unit and the early low sagebrush/Idaho 

fescue habitat in Carey Kipuka have been 

evaluated and found to meet the criteria for 

NNL status. They are outstanding representatives of the Low Sagebrush/Idaho Fescue 

Subtheme in the Low Sagebrush Theme within 

the Columbia Plateau Natural Region (Rust 

2002). Part of the north unit of the proposed 

NNL extends outside of the Monument onto 

BLM lands. 

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACECs are certain areas designated by 

BLM because of their unique or significant 

environmental qualities or features. The three 

RNAs (Old Juniper Kipuka, Sand Kipuka, and 

Brass Cap Kipuka) in the National Preserve 

were BLM ACECs before the Monument was 

expanded. The BLM Baker Cave ACEC was 

also transferred to the NPS by the proclamation and will continue to be managed for its 

cultural resource values. The Laidlaw Park 

area would be considered for ACEC designation under Alternative C (see Appendix G, 

Proposed Laidlaw Park ACEC evaluation). 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

INTERPRETATION/ 

VISITOR UNDERSTANDING 

Through interpretive and educational programs, 

NPS and BLM strive to instill in visitors an 

understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment of the 

significance of the Monument. Interpretive and 

educational programs encourage the development 

of a personal stewardship ethic and broaden public 

support for preserving our nation’s natural and 

cultural resources. 

The interpretive program at the Monument focuses 

on providing an educational experience to the widest 

possible variety of visitors. Major target audiences 

are summer visitors, school students, visitors from 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 169
local communities, and winter visitors. Other 

groups are backcountry travelers, hunters, and 

people planning visits to the Monument. Programs 

to best meet the needs of these groups are regularly 

scheduled walks and talks during summer; school 

group orientations and teacher workshops in spring 

and fall; special topic weekend programs; and winter 

ecology workshops. 

Informational kiosks, press releases, and the 

development of Web sites have been implemented 

recently to address the needs of more users. Visitors 

unable to attend or take advantage of these activities 

have an excellent opportunity to learn about the 

Monument through a broad range of educational opportunities, including a museum, wayside exhibits, 

self-guided trails, and publications. 

Interpretive themes are important ideas, stories, and 

concepts that are presented to visitors in exhibits, 

publications, and programs. With the development of 

a Comprehensive Interpretative Plan for the Monument, the following themes will be addressed: 

• An extraordinary example of the creation of a 

volcanic landscape. 

• A place with a diverse population of plants 

and animals associated with a wide variety of 

volcanic habitats. 

• A resource associated with thousands of years 

of human history, giving insight into a variety 

of people, cultures, and times. 

• A laboratory that supports a diverse natural 

and cultural history, which provides important 

opportunities for research and education. 

• A landscape of lava and sagebrush — one 

of the few remaining examples of what is 

“natural.” 

The primary theme of the interpretive program at 

the Monument is the significance of the awesome 

effects of volcanism on this landscape. Other themes 

stress the incredible diversity of plants and animals 

that have adapted to this harsh environment and the 

unique cultural history that refl ects the interactions 

between people and the rugged volcanic terrain. 

An ongoing effort to make visitors aware of their 

relationship to this environment and their role in 

preserving and protecting this area is also an integral component of all interpretive activities. Visitor 

safety, orientation, and trip-planning information 

are available through a variety of media. See the 

“Social and Economic Conditions” section for more 

information about public health and safety, including 

visitor health and safety. 

Making visitors aware of the need to avoid certain 

behaviors that may have a detrimental impact on 

Monument resources is the first step in the protection of fragile natural and cultural features. The 

need for visitors to stay on trails, avoid walking 

in sensitive areas, and leaving the rocks in place 

is stressed. This approach is believed to have a 

positive effect in protecting such features as spatter 

cones, cinder cones, and ropy lava fl ows. The need 

to protect plants, animals, and archaeological and 

historic sites is also a part of a diverse interpretive 

program. 

A visitor survey done at the Monument in 1989 

indicates that interpretive programs were considered 

important by at least 74 percent of Monument 

visitors (Machlis et al. 1989). More specifi cally, 

the percentage of those visitors using non-personal 

services such as NPS folder and map (91 percent), 

wayside exhibits (58 percent), self-guided trails (75 

percent), and Visitor Center exhibits (77 percent) 

indicates wide use among visitors (Machlis et al. 

1989). The percentage of all visitors using personal 

services such as evening programs (10 percent) and 

guided walks (17 percent) indicates that a much 

smaller number of visitors attend these types of 

programs. Such visitor statistical information is not 

available on the expanded part of the Monument. 

Nearly all interpretive efforts take place in the 

developed section of the Monument adjacent to US 

20/26/93. Along what is known as the 7-mile Loop 

Drive, visitors have access to a visitor center with 

accompanying exhibits and audiovisual programs, a 

series of self-guided trails, and a system of wayside 

exhibits at roadside pullouts and along several trails. 

Interpretive walks and activities, available primarily 

during the peak season, are also conducted from 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

170 
this site. Although not all interpretive activities or 

sites are considered accessible to all visitors, a few 

recently developed sites offer a higher level of access. 

The Monument’s interpretive facilities are in good 

to excellent condition. Visitor Center exhibits done 

in the 1950s have been completely redone in recent 

years. A few wayside exhibits are dated, but most 

have been installed within the past 15 years. 

The interpretive program also has several other 

components, including publications, educational 

programs, winter ecology walks, a Junior Ranger 

Program, and off-site programs that offer interpretive opportunities to a much larger, diverse 

audience. Both the NPS and BLM Web sites contain 

information about the Monument. 

Interpretation in the recently expanded Monument 

is limited, consisting primarily of informational 

signs at key attractions like Crystal Ice Cave, Kings 

Bowl, Baker Caves, and Bear Trap Cave. A detailed 

map of the area published several years ago offers 

orientation and interpretation. A series of signs is 

being developed for use in the Kings Bowl/Crystal 

Ice Cave area to convey critical safety messages 

and site information. This project, which predates 

the Monument expansion, is being carried out in 

connection with the rehabilitation of a defunct 

commercial operation site that left behind numerous 

deteriorating structures and unsafe conditions. 

Kiosks containing orientation, safety, and user 

information have been installed at key access 

points. An extensive self-guiding trail system has 

been developed at Hell’s Half Acre on I-15, which, 

although not in the Monument, interprets many 

related subjects. 

RECREATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

General Visitation 

Visitation to the original Monument averages 

200,000 people per year, with peak visitation on 

summer weekends. Many visitors are on vacations 

that include Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 

Parks to the east and Sun Valley and the Sawtooth 

National Recreation Area to the west (USDI NPS 

1990). Table 25 presents visitation statistics for the 

original Monument for 1990 through 2001, and 

Appendix H presents various recreational statistics 

for 1999 to 2002. 

Table 25 

Visitation at the NPS 

Craters of the Moon 

National Monument 1990-2001 

YEAR PERCENT 

CHANGE 

2001 -14.31% 

2000 0.86% 

1999 7.83% 

1998 -10.66% 

1997 -0.44% 

1996 -9.09% 

1995 2.28% 

1994 -1.99% 

1993 -2.17% 

1992 9.60% 

1991 5.50% 

1990 -

TOTAL VISITS * 

186,993 

213,758 

211,929 

195,328 

216,145 

217,087 

236,827 

231,427 

236,027 

241,160 

218,000 

206,000 

Total visits are the total of recreation and non-visits. 

To view a detailed breakdown, visit the 


Public Use Statistics Office Web site. 


Commonly, visitors spend less than 3 hours at the 

Monument; 5 percent remain overnight. The typical 

visitor will stop and tour the Visitor Center, then 

sight-see along the 7-mile paved loop drive, taking 

advantage of photographic opportunities and often 

having a picnic before leaving. 

Within the original Monument, nearly 80 percent of 

visitors are in family groups, with the most common 

Visitor Center 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 171
visitors in age groups over 62 and under 11. For 

nearly 80 percent of visitors, this is their fi rst visit to 

Craters of the Moon, and 19 percent of all visitors in 

the 1988 survey were from foreign countries. Most 

U.S. visitors originated from the states around the 

Monument – Idaho, Wyoming, California, Colorado, 

Oregon, and Washington (Machlis et al. 1989). 

School groups represent an important visitor group. 

More than 100 school groups comprising more 

than 3,000 students visit the Monument each year. 

Teachers who have attended one of the Monumentprovided teacher orientation workshops lead many 

of these groups. 

Commercial tours also come to the Monument 

through the primary visitation season. Commercial 

tour numbers vary from year to year, but the average 

is between 30 and 40 tour buses each year. 

Winter visitation is low, but winter attracts local and 

regional visitors familiar with the quality crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing opportunities. The 

Loop Drive is closed to vehicle traffi c and groomed 

for skiing in winter. The NPS has also offered 

winter ecology programs for the past few years; 

these are always well attended. 

Visitation to the expanded parts of the Monument 

over the last 10 years averages approximately 20,000 

visits per year, according to BLM’s Recreation 

Management Information System (RMIS). Some 

popular sites are Pillar Butte, Wood Road Kipuka, 

Bear Park, Snowdrift Crater, Kings Bowl, and Bear 

Trap Cave. No visitor facilities are available at any 

of the sites, but all receive day use and occasional 

overnight camping. Recreational activities in the expanded part of the Monument, in order of popularity, 

are hunting; driving for pleasure; geologic exploration including caving, lava hiking, and sightseeing; 

hiking; primitive camping; photography; horseback 

riding; and mountain biking. 

Commercial Outfitters and Guide Services 

There is currently one temporary special use permit 

issued for guided tours within the Monument. In 

2004, there were no tours conducted under this 

two existing hunting outfitter permits issued for 

Hunting Units 52A and 68 (one in each unit) within 

the Monument, but past use of these permits has 

been quite low as well. While some interest in 

commercial outfitter and guide permits has been 

expressed, the agencies do not foresee a dramatic 

increase in demand for these permits over the life of 

the plan. 

Hunting 

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission sets hunting 

seasons and other regulations for hunting in Idaho. 

Most of the Monument and Preserve is within Idaho 

Fish and Game Hunting Unit 52A (Figure 22). The 

southern part of the area, including all of the Wapi 

Lava Field, is included in Unit 68. A very small 

portion of the northern edge of the Monument and 

Preserve fall within Units 49 and 50. The length of 

season and number of available controlled-hunt tags 

vary annually on the basis of wildlife population 

levels and other factors. 

RMIS and IDFG estimates indicate that sage-grouse 

hunting and open mule deer hunting attract the 

highest number of hunters in the Monument. The 

open seasons for archery (antelope, elk, and deer), 

other small game (rabbits, upland birds), predators, 

and unprotected species, along with the controlled 

seasons (draw tags) for antelope, elk, and deer, 

account for a much smaller portion of hunting use. 

Almost all hunting has historically been in the BLM 

portions of the Monument. A very small amount of 

permit and past use has been minimal. There are Cross-country skiing in the Monument 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

172 
hunting occurs in what is now the NPS Preserve. 

The exposed lava flows in the NPS Preserve can be 

used for a quality hunt for a few hunters who seek 

the challenge. Hunting has never been authorized in 

the original NPS Monument. 

The very small amount of hunting by members of 

the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes that takes place in 

the Monument is considered a treaty right and is not 

considered a recreational hunting experience. 

Motorized and Mechanized Recreation 

OHV use in the Monument includes off-highway 

motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and 

snowmobiles. Most OHV use in the Monument 

takes place during hunting seasons or in association 

with other land uses like livestock operations. The 

amount of OHV-specific recreation activity in the 

Monument is quite small (RMIS estimates less than 

5,000 visits per year). Most OHV activity takes 

place on the existing road network, since no trails 

have been designated for motorized use. 

A small amount of mountain biking takes place in 

the expanded part of the Monument. This small but 

growing recreational use is confined primarily to the 

existing road network, because no designated trails 

for mountain biking exist. In the area of the original 

Monument, mountain bike permits are available for 

riding along portions of Goodale’s Cutoff. Bicycle 

use occurs on the 7-mile Loop Drive and other 

areas. No OHV use is permitted within the original 

Monument. 

Hiking and Horseback Riding 

Most hikers hike on designated trails in the original 

Monument. Hiking trails to features of interest 

in the original Monument are the North Crater 

Flow, Devils Orchard, Inferno Cone, the Big 

Craters/Spatter Cones area, Tree Molds, and the 

Cave Area. Hikers in the non-Wilderness part of 

the original Monument regularly see other visitors, 

because the area is highly used. Opportunities for 

solitude are limited; however, the Craters of the 

Moon Wilderness offers outstanding opportunities 

for self-directed hiking, with an excellent chance to 

experience solitude. 

Wilderness use is extremely light, with an average 

of 130 overnight backpackers per year (based on 

backcountry permits issued 1990 through 2002). 

Backpacking parties usually consist of fewer than 

four persons, and they seldom stay out more than 

two nights (USDI NPS 1990). All water must be 

packed into the backcountry. Exact numbers of day 

users are unavailable. 

Hiking in the expanded part of the Monument offers 

outstanding opportunities to experience a high 

degree of solitude. Since no designated hiking trails 

exist within the expanded portion of the Monument, 

most hiking experiences are cross-country and 

self-directed. Some constructed hiking trails exist 

at the Crystal Ice Caves/ Kings Bowl area (RMIS 

estimates 1,000 visits). 

Horseback riding in the original Monument is 

limited to the Craters of the Moon Wilderness Trail 

by permit only. In the expanded part of the Monument, most stock animals and horseback riders work 

in association with livestock operations and in other 

non-recreation activities, but there is a small amount 

of recreational horseback riding and pack-stock use 

in this area. Hunters also regularly use horses. The 

few recreational users enjoy outstanding opportunities for solitude and a self-directed experience. 

Riders and pack-stock users travel cross-country or 

along the existing road network. No designated trails 

currently exist for horseback riding. 

Camping 

In the original Monument, 51 developed campsites 

with water, restrooms, charcoal grills, and picnic 

tables are available on a fi rst-come-fi rst-serve basis. 

Most campers stay only one night and are usually 

gone by 10 a.m. The campground is rarely full, 

with the exception of several weekends during the 

summer season, generally around holidays. 

Recreational overnight use of the Wilderness area 

is light. The NPS issues fewer than 100 overnight 

camping permits per year in the Wilderness. The 

entire area is snow-covered and accessible by 

snowshoe and ski for at least one-third of the year. 

Most overnight Wilderness users hike the WilderChapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 173
Arco 

0 5 mi 0 5 km 

20 26 93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

68 

53 

49 50

52 

63 

A R C O - M I N I D O K 

A

R

D. 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE 22 

GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

PIONEER 

MOUNTAINS 

Carey 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

Game Managment Unit data provided by Idaho Fish & Game. No warranty 

is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park Service for 

use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

52A 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

Lava 

Game Management 

Unit Boundaries 

Monument Boundary 

Town 

A Road 

C Road 

B Road 

174 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Hiking in Craters of the Moon National Monument 

ness Trail and camp in or near Echo Crater. Stock 

use is restricted to day use by groups of 12 or less 

on the Wilderness Trail. No overnight camping with 

stock is permitted (USDI NPS 2002b). 

The expanded part of the Monument does not 

contain any developed campgrounds. Currently, 

dispersed camping is available throughout the entire 

expanded portion. Many use-established primitive 

campsites near crossroads, access points, and major 

features of interest are available throughout the 

Monument. 

Caving 

Caving does not draw large numbers of visitors; 

however, caving is an important and unique recreation opportunity at Craters of the Moon National 

Monument. Opportunities exist for recreational cave 

experiences ranging from hiking a paved trail to an 

easily accessible lava tube such as Indian Tunnel, 

to visiting a remote wild cave somewhere in the 

expanded portion of the Monument, to the potential 

to actually discover a previously unknown cave. 

Monument caves differ from limestone caves in that 

they are lava tubes once formed by flowing lava. Although they exhibit flowstones and other speleothem 

and erosion features, those features are primarily 

associated with volcanism and lava transport. 

Many easily accessible caves in the area have been 

known locally for a long and are frequently visited. 

Over time, some caves show signs of irresponsible 

use such as graffiti and vandalism, which can detract 

from the caving experience. 

Cave exploration, discovery, survey, and mapping 

are important activities for local caving organizations. The local and regional chapters (Grottos) of 

the National Speleological Society play an important 

role in conserving the cave recreation resource. The 

groups engage in cleanup projects and other cave 

conservation activities, in addition to mapping, 

surveying, exploring, and educating users about 

caves and cave conservation. 

Most caves do not appear on maps but can be 

explored upon discovery. Other caves require a 

permit for access. Some cave locations that appear 

on maps are the 15-mile-long Bear Trap Lava Tube 

along the Arco-Minidoka Road and the Lariat Cave 

near Kings Bowl. 

Recreational camping in Cinder Butte 

The best-known cave in the region is Crystal Ice 

Cave, which is a fissure cave rather than a lava tube 

cave. In 1964 a concessionaire, under permit from 

the Idaho Falls BLM District Offi ce, developed the 

cave. When the cave was open, annual visitation was 

5,000 to 10,000 people. Improvements at the cave 

included buildings, restrooms, and trails. Generators 

provided electricity to light the cave and run a refrigeration unit used to maintain the ice formations. 

Prompted by safety concerns and vandalism, BLM 

removed most outside facilities and signs, sealed the 

tunnel doors, and installed signs to inform the public 

of safety concerns entering the cave. 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 175
Health and Safety 

Several factors are involved in health and safety 

concerns for Monument visitors and surrounding 

communities. These are discussed below. 

Road connects the town of Carey, along US 93 

to SH 24 on the south end of the Monument 

near the town of Kimama. US 20/26/93 runs 

along the northern edge of the Monument. 

• Access in and Near the Monument

The Monument contains several hundred 

miles of roads of various qualities and levels 

of maintenance. Most of these roads and 

• Weather 

South Central Idaho and the Monument 

experience various degrees and extremes of 

ways are not maintained at all. In addition to 

different types of roads, road conditions vary 

seasonally from impassable snow in winter to 

deep-rutted mud in spring and late autumn to 

dry and very dusty in summer. Nearly all the 

weather for all four seasons. Winter can bring 

high winds, subzero temperatures, and deep 

snow. Generally, the undeveloped portions of 

the Monument are inaccessible during winter 

to all but snowmobile and ski/snowshoe travel, 

roads in the interior of the Monument require and cross-country travel over lava fields in 

a high-clearance four-wheel drive vehicle winter is discouraged for safety reasons. It is 

equipped with good tires. At any time of year, 

rain can render the roads impassable to any 

vehicle.

inadvisable to drive a wheeled vehicle in the 

Monument in winter because deep snow and 

fast-changing weather conditions can leave 

travelers stranded. 

Due to the size of the Monument and the 

complexity of the road system, navigation can In spring, high winds, cold temperatures, rain, 

be confusing. The BLM maintains a limited and thunderstorms can present safety hazards 

system of directional signs on the Monument; 

however, many roads and ways are not signed, 

making map-based navigation difficult. It is 

recommended that travelers in unfamiliar parts 

of the Monument use a good map and use 

automobile odometers to count mileage from 

to Monument visitors. A sudden rain at any 

time of year can render the roads impassable 

to vehicles outside the Frontcountry Zone. 

In contrast, summer months can be very hot 

and dry. The average annual rainfall in southcentral Idaho is below 14 inches, and it is not 

landmark to landmark. The iron-rich nature of 

the lava and rocks underlying the sagebrush 

steppe of the Monument can cause compasses 

uncommon for areas of the Monument area 

to receive no rainfall at all in summer. The 

temperatures are typically dangerously hot, 

to give incorrect readings by as much as 40 often exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit for 

degrees. days or weeks on end. 

In many remote areas of the Monument, Visitors to areas outside the Frontcountry 

emergency services can be anywhere from 

hours to days away. It is advisable to carry a 

reliable form of emergency communication in 

these areas at all times.

Zone are advised to come prepared for 

extreme hot weather and carry the necessary 

general and emergency supplies, including 

plenty of water, extra vehicle fuel, a first 

aid kit, food, navigation equipment such as 

Two main roads bisect the Monument, and a maps, compasses, and Global Positioning 

U.S. highway runs along its northern border. 

The Arco-Minidoka Road starts near the town 

of Arco, on the north side of the Monument, 

and runs to Minidoka on the south side. 

Farther to the west, the Carey-Kimama Desert 

System (GPS) units, and a reliable form of 

communication. Because there are few, if any, 

sources of potable water in the Monument, all 

water must be carried in. Livestock well water 

is usually not safe to drink. Dehydration from 

176 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
exposure to extreme desert conditions is a 

serious hazard in the Monument. 

• Caves, Fissures, and Lava

Both the open lava areas and the sagebrush 

steppe of the Monument area contain lava 

tube-type caves. These caves range in size 

and complexity from small rock shelters to 

several-miles-long convoluted tube systems 

with ice formations and steep vertical drops. 

People who want to enter and explore caves 

should be experienced and familiar with all the 

provisions and contingencies of safe caving, 

and they should follow the Monument’s cave 

plan. • 

Along the Great Rift are many open cracks 

and fissures, which can expose vertical drops 

varying from a few feet to an unknown depth. 

The basalt rock, of which these features are 

composed, is notoriously friable and can 

collapse without warning, leading to a serious 

or deadly fall. 

Exposed lava features in the Monument are 

very rough and difficult to traverse, and in 

summer the surface temperatures of the lavas 

can reach 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Hiking 

over lava surfaces, particularly a’a flows, can 

be arduous and can present tripping, falling, 

and joint-twisting hazards. Long hikes over 

the lava can result in fatigue, dehydration, • 

and disorientation. People hiking on the lava 

are advised to wear sturdy boots, protective 

gloves, and carry plenty of water and a reliable 

emergency form of communication. 

• Wildfire

During the annual wildfire season, approximately late-June through September, 

the Monument area receives little or no 

rainfall. Very dry vegetation and high wind 

contribute to hot, fast-moving wildfires that 

can present serious safety hazards to visitors 

and surrounding communities. Wildfires are 

primarily confined to the sagebrush steppe of 

the Monument. However, at times wildfire can 

“creep” through colonizing vegetation on the 

exposed lava flows. Visitors should familiarize 

themselves with the fire danger level and any 

warnings or restrictions currently in place. 

It is also very easy to start a wildfire on 

the Monument through the careless use of 

fire, smoking materials, and many other 

means. Fires are often started by the catalytic 

converter on vehicles coming into contact with 

dry vegetation. 

Livestock 

Many areas of the sagebrush steppe in the 

Monument are in cattle and sheep livestock 

use allotments. While generally not aggressive, cattle and sheep can be unpredictable 

and present a safety hazard to visitors. 

Sheepherders often keep large sheep-guarding 

dogs with their bands of sheep. These animals 

are not human-friendly and may have little or 

no experience with humans or being treated as 

pets. 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 or the sheep. 

Snakes 

Rattlesnakes inhabit the Monument area and 

are usually active between mid-spring and 

late-fall. They are most commonly found 

on the sagebrush steppe, but they can also 

be found on the open lava. They often hide 

near cave entrances where there is shade and 

cool temperatures, which attract prey species. 

They represent a serious safety issue in that 

any rattlesnake bite should be treated as an 

emergency. 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 177
VISUAL RESOURCES 

Viewscape 

Perpetuating scenic vistas and open western 

landscapes for future generations is one of the 

purposes identified for the Monument. The visual 

resources of the Monument 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 in 1924 

Presidential Proclamation originally establishing the 

Monument as a “weird lunar landscape ... peculiar 

to itself.” This creates a viewscape unique in North 

America. 

The gray-green sagebrush steppe and black lava 

fields ride up against the high Pioneer Mountains to 

the north. Across the Monument, 3,500 feet of vertical relief present 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 fl ows, cinder 

cones, spatter ramparts, and enormous lava fi elds. 

Low shield volcanoes and cinder cones (known 

locally as “buttes”) rise up throughout the entire 

Monument landscape. The exposed lava varies in 

color, while shapes and textures of the fl ows add 

scenic variety on a smaller scale. Nearly barren of 

vegetation, the most recent lavas at times fl owed 

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 

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). A VRM inventory of 

the Monument area was completed in 1989, including an evaluation of scenic quality, identifi cation of 

viewsheds, and key observation points for visitors. 

This inventory data was analyzed and presented 

as visual resource classes. This Plan/EIS places 

all public land into one of four VRM management 

classes. VRM classes provide standards for planning, designing, and evaluating future management 

projects. 

The four VRM management class designations 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. 

• Class III – The objective of this class is to 

partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. Contrasts to the basic elements 

caused by a management activity may be 

evident and begin to attract attention in the 

landscape. The changes, however, should 

remain subordinate in the existing landscape. 

• Class IV – The objective of this class is to 

provide for management activities that require 

major modification of the existing character of 

the landscape. Contrasts may attract attention 

and be a dominant feature in the landscape in 

terms of scale. However, the change should 

repeat the basic element of the landscape. 

Night Sky 

Night sky is considered an important resource 

within the Monument. The night sky at the Monument is generally free of artificial light sources and 

related light pollution. As with daytime viewing of 

expansive vistas, one of the nation’s clearest airsheds 

creates conditions favorable for stargazing. Astronomy groups have been coming to the Monument 

for many years to take advantage of dark night skies. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

178 
SOUNDSCAPE 

Natural Quiet 

The Monument is a quiet place. “Natural quiet” 

refers to the state of having only natural sources of 

sound; for example, wind, rustling leaves, water, 

and animal calls. Most of the Monument is not 

subject to many modern sources of unnatural sound 

intrusion, or noise. The only major noise producers 

are highway traffic from outside the Monument, the 

railroad near the southern edge of the Monument, 

and aircraft over fl ights. 

The area around the Visitor Center and the 

campground is adjacent to US 93 and subject to 

highway noise. Occasional noise from OHVs, ATVs, 

snowmobiles, and other vehicles occurs in the 

road portions of the expanded Monument. These 

noise intrusions are most prevalent during high-use 

periods, such as hunting season, and least prevalent 

during low-use periods, such as during winter. 

Aircraft over flights create a small amount of 

unnatural sound intrusion year-round. The Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) has established an 

advisory ceiling of 2,000 feet above ground level 

over the Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area. 

Nonetheless, many over flights occur above 2,000 

feet, including commercial aircraft from the airports 

in Idaho Falls and Hailey, Idaho. There are also 

small airports in Arco, Picabo, and Burley that 

support smaller private aircraft that may operate 

over the Monument. Perhaps the noisiest aircraft 

over flights are associated with the two military 

flight-training corridors that cross the Monument. 

Helicopter use associated with public land 

management activities such as wildlife population 

inventories, livestock monitoring, and fi refi ghting 

also contribute a small amount of noise. The two 

emergency airstrips in the Monument receive no 

regular use. 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

Economic Change in the Planning Area 

A look at economic change in each of the fi ve 

counties within the planning area shows that the 

economies of even adjacent counties can be very 

different. While some typify changes that are 

occurring in many areas of the western United 

States, others retain high levels of more traditional 

economic sectors or reflect unique histories. Blaine 

and Minidoka Counties, for example, follow 

widespread patterns of economic change in that 

the services and professional and non-labor income 

(income derived from investments, retirement, 

social security, etc.) categories have shown the most 

significant growth. Despite this similarity, these two 

counties are at the high (Blaine) and low (Minidoka) 

ends of the spectrum in terms of per capita income, 

housing values, and educational attainment. 

Lincoln County has also experienced strong growth 

in the non-labor income and services and professional sectors, although government and agriculture 

continue to be key elements of the county’s 

economy. Power and Butte Counties are unusual 

in their dependence on a single employer – in the 

case of Power County, the American Falls Electrical 

Generating Station, and in Butte County, the Idaho 

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Both per capita income and average 

earnings per job in Power County are declining. 

Despite the relatively high wages paid by INEEL, 

few employees actually live in Butte County, which 

decreases the amount of income and spending that 

remain in the local economy. 

This section will discuss changes in sectors known 

to be directly impacted by tourism in general and 

the Monument in particular, such as recreation and 

accommodation. It will also take a broader perspective in considering the Monument an important 

element of enhancing the setting that helps communities to retain long-term residents and businesses 

and to attract new ones. 

Growth in the services and professional and nonlabor income sectors has particularly important 

bearing on the management of public lands. 

Although the services and professional sector 

includes relatively low-paying jobs associated with 

tourism-based economies, such as hotel maids and 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 179
restaurant workers, it also includes small business 

owners and entrepreneurs, who generate most of the 

economic growth in the western United States. This 

group usually has choices about where it will locate, 

and natural amenities and protected areas are known 

to draw them to particular areas. This seems to be 

the case in Blaine County and in other parts of the 

study area to varying degrees. 

Non-labor income is another key element of 

economic growth in the western United States. 

Those who contribute the most non-labor income in 

the forms of investment income, retirement, social 

security, etc. are another group that has fl exibility 

in where to locate, since they tend not to be tied 

to particular employers. While many are drawn to 

scenic areas, they are also looking for the affordable 

housing and the slower pace of life offered by 

smaller towns such as those in the planning area. 

Local economic changes are closely linked to the 

area’s natural amenities and protected areas, such 

as Craters of the Moon National Monument, as well 

as other factors. As is the case across the western 

United States, the counties and communities in the 

planning area that are experiencing the greatest 

economic prosperity are those like Blaine County. 

In addition to the ski areas and mountain scenery, 

it has a diverse mix of businesses, a well-educated 

population with many newcomers who have moved 

in within the past decade, an easily accessible 

airport in Hailey, and fairly easy access from the 

more populous areas of Idaho. Counties that are less 

prosperous, such as Lincoln County, are more reliant 

on traditional industries, are relatively isolated from 

larger population centers by long drives and the lack 

of an airport, and have less well-educated populations comprised largely of long-time residents. 

Direct Monument Economic Impacts 

The Monument contributes to the local economy 

through its employment of 15 part- or full-time 

workers and approximately 10 to 20 seasonal employees who live in various communities around the 

Monument. The NPS also uses concession contracts 

and commercial use licenses (formerly incidental 

business permits) to manage commercial activities 

within its units. Currently, the only concession 

contract is issued to the non-profit Craters of the 

Moon Natural History Association. This contract 

allows the association to offer convenience items 

such as sunscreen, film, and soft drinks, as well 

as books and educational materials, for purchase 

by visitors in the NPS Visitor Center. There are 

no current commercial use licenses or incidental 

business permits issued for activities on NPS lands 

in the Monument. The Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game (IDFG) offers commercial use licenses on 

BLM-administered lands. 

Under the National Parks Air Tour Management Act 

of 2000 and FAA regulations, NPS, as a cooperating 

agency, will assist the FAA in developing an air 

tour management plan for parks with existing or 

proposed air tours. No air tours currently take place 

over NPS-administered lands in the Monument on 

any regular or frequent basis. There has been one 

inquiry, but no proposals. 

As Figure 23 illustrates, the Monument receives 

approximately 200,000 visitors per year, with peak 

visitation occurring from mid-May through September. The principal visitor activities are touring 

the Visitor Center/Museum, taking the self-guided 

driving tour, and hiking the many trails off the 

7-mile Loop Drive. Visitation to the Monument has 

been relatively stable over the past 35 years, with 

fluctuations in the 1970s and 1980s, possibly due 

to increases in gasoline prices and weakness in the 

national and regional economy. 

The Monument is an integral part of central 

Idaho’s rich and varied network of protected lands, 

which offer boundless recreational opportunities 

and attract visitors and residents from around the 

world. However, the changing economy is affecting 

the various counties and communities within the 

planning area in different ways. In addition to skiing 

at the renowned Sun Valley ski area, winter visitors 

to Blaine County may enjoy snowmobiling, crosscountry skiing, and ice-skating. Summer tourists 

may golf, play tennis, fish, river raft, and enjoy music and arts festivals. The nearby Sawtooth National 

Recreation Area, the largest national recreation area 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

180 
Figure 23

Park Visitation

Visitors 

500,000 

400,000 

300,000 

200,000 

100,000 

0 

1950

19551960

19651970197519801985199019952000 

in the National Forest System, averages more than 

one million visitor days per year. The Idaho Division 

of Tourism Development estimated in its 1997 

Tourism Impacts Study that total tourism spending 

for Blaine County was $98.8 million (http://www. 

idoc.state.id.us/trvdiv/pdfs/travelspendingbycounty. 

xls). 

This is in contrast to total tourism spending in 

adjacent Lincoln County, which the same study estimated at $741,000, the lowest for any Idaho County. 

Despite the fact that the BLM Shoshone Field Offi ce, 

located in Lincoln County, records an average of 

900,000 visitors per year, most are passing through 

on their way to better-known tourism destinations. 

Throughout the planning region, residents of counties and communities that continue to depend more 

on traditional economic activities such as agriculture are not seeing the same increases in population, 

per capita income, or average earnings per job. 

However, as property values rise in the Sun Valley 

area, the search for affordable housing, along with 

the appeal of more traditional small town life, are 

pushing increasing numbers of residents into other 

communities in the Monument planning area. The 

Monument, and the recreational and environmental 

amenities it offers, may provide these communities 

with an important advantage over other Idaho towns 

in shaping themselves as appealing, unique places to 

retire, or locate new businesses. 

Year 

The following section includes a summary of 

major changes in personal income and employment 

for each of the five counties of the planning area. 

Later sections will explore demographic and social 

distinctions between the counties and communities. 

The largest portion of the Monument, 51 percent, is 

located within Blaine County, which includes the 

towns of Sun Valley, Ketchum, Hailey, Bellevue, 

and Carey. Blaine County, more so than the other 

counties in the planning area, has what might be 

called an “amenity-driven” economy. The linchpin 

of economic and population growth, especially in 

the Sun Valley/Ketchum/Hailey area, is the desire 

to live in a picturesque rural setting with ample 

recreational opportunities. As a result, Blaine 

County has in effect created a diverse, almost urban 

economy in a rural setting. 

The major economic changes in Blaine County 

mirror those occurring in most of the western 

United States. Since 1970, overall personal income 

in real terms (adjusted for inflation) in the county 

has increased by $684 million, to $797 million. 

Employment in all sectors has grown by 13,929 jobs 

over the same time frame, to a total of 17,443. Much 

of the growth in both income and employment has 

been in the Services and Professional category, accounting for 42 percent of the new income and 9,570 

new jobs. Within this sector, hotels and lodging have 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 181
Figure 24

Change in Personal Income in Blaine County, Idaho, 1970-2000

i

i l 

(i

i

) 

i

i

l

i

Serv ces and 

Profess ona

Non-Labor 

Sources 

nvest ment s, 

ret rement , 

et c.

Construct on 

Government 

Farm and A g. 

Services 

M anufactur ng 

(inc . forest 

product s) 

M in ng 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Personal Income 

(Millions of 2000 dollars) 

72

1

6

8

19 0

2

19 4

6

0

2

19 4

6

19

0

4

8

0

19

8

19

7

8

8

9

9

9

97

9

97

97

98

98

98

99

99

00

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

Source: BEA REIS 2002 CD Table CA05 Note: Data is in real terms (adjusted for inflation). 

Table 26 

New Income by Type in Blaine County, Idaho, 1970-2000 

All figures in millions of 2000 dollars 1970 

% of 

Total in 

1970 2000 

% of 

Total in 

2000 

New 

Income 

1970 to 

2000 

% of New 

Income 

Total Personal Income* 114 

11 9.9% 

797 

25 3.2% 

684 

14 2%

 Farm 

Farm and Agricultural Services 

10 8.9% 6 0.7% -4 NA

 Ag. Services 1 1.1% 19 2.4% 18 3% 

Mining 1 1.1% 7 0.9% 6 1% 

Manufacturing (incl. forest products) 2 1.5% 15 1.9% 14 2% 

Services and Professional 53 46.6% 338 42.4% 285 42%

 Transportation & Public Utilities 2 1.6% 13 1.7% 11 2%

 Wholesale Trade 2 1.5% 21 2.7% 20 3%

 Retail Trade 15 13.0% 61 7.7% 47 7%

 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 3 2.4% 58 7.3% 55 8%

 Services (Health, Legal, Business, Others 32 28.1% 184 23.1% 152 22% 

Construction 11 9.4% 103 12.9% 92 14% 

Government 10 9.0% 47 5.9% 37 5% 

Non-Labor Income 30 26.1% 311 39.1% 282 41%

 Dividends, Interest & Rent 22 19.0% 275 34.5% 253 37%

 Transfer Payments 8 7.0% 37 4.6% 29 4% 

*The sum of the above categories do not add to total due to adjustments made for place of residence and personal contributions for social 

insurance made by the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

182 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
grown from $15.5 million in 1990 to $26.6 million. 

Amusements and recreation has increased from $2.3 

million to $34.1 million in the same time frame. It is 

likely that the majority of increases in these sectors 

are due to the ski resort economy, but some may be 

tied to the Monument. 

Non-labor income, including investment and retirement income, has increased nearly as much in real 

terms, accounting for 41 percent of new income in 

the county. Blaine County’s rapid population growth 

(see the next section) has fueled strong growth 

in construction as well, adding 14 percent of the 

county’s new income and 2,441 jobs over the past 

30 years. Government has grown more modestly, 

contributing 5 percent of the county’s new income 

and 836 new jobs. 

Sectors that were traditionally more important to 

the area’s economy and identity, such as agriculture 

and forest products (included in the manufacturing 

category), have increased only slightly, each adding 

2 percent of the county’s new income. Agriculture 

added 685 new jobs, while manufacturing added 362 

over the past 30 years. The relatively modest growth 

in agricultural income is related to the subdivision 

of working ranches into smaller “ranchettes” that 

engage in little agricultural production. Mining has 

also increased very slightly, contributing about 1 

percent of the county’s new income and 35 new jobs. 

In Blaine County, per capita income in real terms 

from 1990 to 2000 increased by 27 percent, from 

$32,883 to $41,734, the highest by far of the counties 

within the planning area. Average earnings per 

job in real terms (adjusted for infl ation) have risen 

from $25,062 in 1970 to $30,709 in 2000, and are 

higher than the state average of $28,302, but lower 

than the national average of $36,311. The average 

annual unemployment rate in Blaine County was 2.9 

percent in 2001, compared to 5 percent for the state 

and 4.8 percent for the nation. 

Despite Blaine County’s prosperity, it should be 

noted that most of the new business growth, along 

with higher income residents, is centered on the Sun 

Valley/Ketchum area, and decreases heading toward 

the Big Wood River Valley to Hailey, Bellevue, and 

Carey. 

Lincoln County’s economy is unusual compared 

to many in the western United States in that the 

Services and Professional sector plays a relatively 

minor role, while agriculture accounts for a larger 

share of both jobs and income. Lincoln County had a 

2002 population of 4,057, approximately 25 percent 

less than Blaine County. The city of Shoshone is 

the county’s largest population center, with 1,398 

residents. Although only 2 percent of the Monument 

lies within Lincoln County, US 93 passes through 

the county before following the Monument’s northwestern boundary, and connects the area to the more 

populous Snake River Valley. 

Data on personal income for all categories was not 

available until 1982; therefore, this section considers 

changes from 1982-2000. From 1982-2000, total 

personal income in Lincoln County increased by 

$26 million, to a total of $81 million in real terms 

(adjusted for inflation). New employment increased 

by 125 jobs among all sectors, reflecting the balance 

of gains and losses in various sectors. Non-labor 

income was the largest source of income in the 

county around 1980, contributing 33 percent of the 

total new income since 1982. Farm and agricultural 

services was the county’s second most important 

source of income in 2000, contributing 17.8 percent 

of the county’s total income and 16 percent of the 

new income since 1982, but losing 138 jobs over 

that time frame. This reflects the volatile nature of 

earnings from this sector. Government is the third 

most important sector, accounting for 16.9 percent 

of total county income, but adding only 3 percent of 

the county’s new income and 36 jobs. 

Although Services and Professional is the fourth 

most important source of income in the county, 

it is the fastest growing source of employment; 

this sector contributed 17 percent of the county’s 

new income since 1982, and added 150 new jobs. 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 183
Figure 25

Change in Personal Income in Lincoln County, Idaho, 1982-2000

(i

i

) 

i

i

f i

f i

l

i

i

Non-Labor 

Sources 

nvest ment s, 

ret rement , 

et c.

Farm and A g. 

Serv ces 

Government 

Serv ces and 

Pro ess onal 

M anu act ur ng 

(inc . forest 

products) 

Const ruct on 

M in ng 

35.0 

30.0 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

0.0 

Personal Income 

(Millions of 2000 dollars) 

2

6

19 8

19

4

19 6

0

19

0

8

19

4

19

0

2

19

8

19

2

19 4

6

19

0

7

7

7

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

97

97

98

98

99

00

1

1

1

1

1

2

Source: BEA REIS 2002 CD Table CA05 Note: Data is in real terms (adjusted for inflation). 

 Data for all sectors was not available prior to 1982. 

Table 27 

New Income by Type in Lincoln County, Idaho, 1982-2000 

All figures in millions of 2000 dollars 1982 

% of 

Total in 

1982 2000 

% of 

Total in 

2000 

New 

Income 

1982 to 

2000 

% of New 

Income 

Total Personal Income* 54 81 26 

Farm and Agricultural Services 10 18.8% 14 17.8% 4 16% 

Farm 9 17.4% 12 15.5% 3 12% 

Ag. Services 1 1.4% 2 2.3% 1 4% 

Mining 2 4.4% 1 1.8% -1 NA 

Manufacturing (incl. forest products) 2 4.2% 4 4.8% 2 6% 

Services and Professional 7 12.9% 11 14.2% 4 17% 

Transportation & Public Utilities 3 5.5% 2 2.5% -1 NA 

Wholesale Trade 0 0.7% 1 1.7% 1 4% 

Retail Trade 2 3.1% 1 1.7% 0 NA 

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 1 1.2% 2 2.5% 1 5% 

Services (Health, Legal, Business, Others 1 2.4% 5 5.8% 3 13% 

Construction 0 0.7% 4 4.6% 3 13% 

Government 13 23.6% 14 16.9% 1 3% 

Non-Labor Income 18 34.0% 27 33.8% 9 33%

 Dividends, Interest & Rent 11 19.6% 14 17.8% 4 14%

 Transfer Payments 8 14.3% 13 16.0% 5 19% 

*The sum of the above categories do not add to total due to adjustments made for place of residence and personal contributions for social 

insurance made by the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

184 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
If trends across the West (and the rest of planning 

area) are indicative, continued growth can be 

expected for this sector. However, the subcategories 

within the sector that may be most influenced by an 

increase in Monument visitors have not fared well 

recently. From 1990 to 2000, personal income from 

hotels and other lodging decreased by $7,900, while 

amusements and recreation grew from $176,500 in 

1990 to $251,000 in 2000. 

While still a relatively minor income source, 

construction added 117 new jobs to the county’s 

economy and 13 percent of the new income, and has 

grown steadily over the past decade. Manufacturing 

contributed 6 percent of the new income and added 

31 new jobs. Mining declines subtracted 1 percent 

from county’s income and accounted for 72 lost 

jobs. 

Per capita income in Lincoln County increased in 

real terms by 2 percent from 1990 to 2000, from 

$19,465 to $19,843. Average earnings per job (adjusted for inflation) have risen from $22,932 in 1970 to 

$23,371 in 2000. However, average earnings in this 

county are lower than the state average ($28,103) 

and the nation ($36,316). The average unemployment rate in 2001 was 3.9 percent, compared to 5 

percent for the state and 4.8 percent for the nation. 

The northern portion of the Monument is located 

within Butte County, which accounts for 18 percent 

of the Monument. Arco is the largest Butte County 

town within the planning area and home to 1,026 

of the county’s 2,896 people. As the graph above 

suggests, gaps in government data reporting, along 

with the reclassification of some jobs at the county’s 

largest employer (INEEL) from Manufacturing 

and Government to Services and Professional, 

make analysis of economic change in Butte County 

challenging. In some cases, the disclosure estimation 

system of the Economic Profi le System (see www. 

sonoran.org/eps) was used to estimate data gaps. 

Data for all sectors was not available until 1990; 

thus changes over the decade from 1990-2000 are 

described below. 

Total personal income in Butte County was $373 

million in 2000. The income mix in Butte County 

is unusual due to relatively low contributions of 

non-labor income, the reclassification by the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, and actual job losses 

from the manufacturing and government sectors. 

Even considering the reclassification of sectors for 

INEEL jobs, the county lost a total of 1,228 jobs 

over the past 30 years. 

Despite the job losses, combined personal income 

in Butte County increased by $15 million, to $66 

million, from 1990 to 2000 in real terms (adjusted 

for inflation). Non-labor income was the only other 

sector that expanded significantly from 1970 to 

2000, by $6 million in real terms, compared to a 

$282 million increase in Blaine County. 

Construction added $3 million in personal income 

and 38 jobs from 1990-2000, while mining income 

increased by $1 million and added fi ve jobs. 

Although farm and agricultural services added four 

jobs, personal income from this sector declined by 

$4 million. The West-wide decline in agricultural 

income is often linked to the sale of working ranches 

to non-working “ranchettes” or subdivisions; but 

these factors seem to be less prevalent in Butte 

County, which does not attract the same level of 

“amenity buyers” that Blaine County does. Instead, 

the decline appears to be caused by international 

competition and the changing agricultural market. 

An important feature of the Butte County economy 

is that despite the relatively high numbers of 

well-paying Engineering and Management Service 

jobs, almost four times as much money leaves the 

county as is generated in total personal income. 

INEEL is the county’s major employer; of the total 

$334 million generated by employment in Services, 

$332 million is subcategorized as Engineering and 

Management Services, most of which is linked to 

INEEL. However, many of its employees choose to 

live in Idaho Falls or other area towns, rather than 

in Arco, and take their income with them. In 2000, 

more than $282 million in personal earnings left 

the county. This also accounts for the relatively low 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 185
t

Figure 26

Change in Personal Income in Butte County, Idaho, 1990-2000

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

70

1972

1974

19761978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000 

i

i l 

(i

i

i

i

i

(i l f 

Serv ces and 

Prof ess ona

Non-Labor 

So urces 

nvest ment s, 

ret rement , 

et c.) 

Go vernment 

Construction 

Farm and Ag. 

Serv ces 

M in ng 

M anuf act ur ng 

Personal Income 

(Millions of 2000 dollars) 

19

Source: BEA REIS 2002 CD Table CA05 Note: Data is in real terms (adjusted for inflation). 

Data for all sectors was not available prior to 1990. 

Table 28 

New Income by Type in Butte County, Idaho, 1990-2000 

All figures in millions of 2000 dollars 1990 

% of 

Total in 

1990 2000 

% of 

Total in 

2000 

New 

Income 

1990 to 

2000 

% of Lost 

Income 

Total Personal Income* 422 373 -50 

Farm and Agricultural Services 6 1.5% 3 0.8% -3 6% 

Farm 6 1.4% 3 0.7% -3 6% 

Ag. Services 0 0.1% 0 0.1% 0 0% 

Mining 0 0.1% 1 0.4% 1 NA 

Manufacturing (incl. forest products) 90 21.4% 0 0.1% -90 181% 

Services and Professional 244 57.8% 334 89.6% 90 NA 

Transportation & Public Utilities 1 0.2% 2 0.4% 1 NA 

Wholesale Trade 1 0.1% 1 0.2% 0 NA 

Retail Trade 3 0.7% 2 0.5% -1 2% 

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 0 0.1% 1 0.2% 0 NA 

Services (Health, Legal, Business, Others 239 56.6% 329 88.3% 90 NA 

Construction 1 0.1% 3 0.9% 3 NA 

Government 63 14.9% 7 1.9% -56 112% 

Non-Labor Income 18 4.3% 24 6.3% 6 NA 

Dividends, Interest & Rent 10 2.4% 12 3.3% 2 NA

 Transfer Payments 8 1.9% 12 3.1% 4 NA 

*The sum of the above categories do not add to total due to adjustments made for place of residence and personal contributions for social 

insurance made by the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

186 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
portion of non-labor income found here. One factor 

may be that when INEEL was founded, Bonneville 

County provided bus service to INEEL employees 

who wished to live there rather than in Butte 

County. 

Services income within the subcategories of hotels 

and other lodging and amusements and recreation 

do not appear to be benefiting from Monument 

expansion. From 1990 to 2000, personal income 

from hotels and other lodging declined from $35,000 

to $30,000, while no personal income from amusements and other recreation was recorded in either 

1990 or 2000. The area is attempting to diversify 

its economy further through initiatives such as the 

Arco/Butte Business Incubation Center. 

Despite the changes to the Butte County economy 

over the past 30 years, per capita income in real 

terms increased by 32 percent, from $17,202 to 

$22,625 from 1990 to 2000. Average earnings per 

job (adjusted for inflation) have increased from 

$40,103 in 1970 to $50,512 in 2000, the highest 

among the counties in the planning region. In 

1999, average earnings per job in Butte County 

were higher than the average for the state of Idaho 

($28,103) and higher than the national average 

($36,316). The average unemployment rate in the 

county was 3.9 percent in 2001, compared to the 

state average of 5 percent and the national average of 

4.8 percent. 

Power County encompasses the southwestern corner 

of the Monument, accounting for 7 percent of the 

Monument, and had a total population of 7,515 

in 2000. There are no communities within Power 

County that are considered part of the planning 

area, although the city of American Falls, where the 

American Falls Reservoir and hydroelectric generating plant are located, lies approximately 10 miles to 

the east of the Monument. In 2000, total personal 

income in the county was $164 million and 5,604 

people were employed. 

Power County has a high level of manufacturing 

income, due largely to jobs at the American Falls 

Electrical Generating Station (the county’s major 

employer) being classified in this sector. Employment in this sector has fluctuated, but declined by 

209 jobs over the past three decades and accounted 

for 45.5 percent of earnings in real terms in the 

county in 2000. Non-labor income accounted for 

$46 million, or 28.3 percent, of county personal 

income in 2000. Although farm and agricultural 

income increased by $1 million to a total of $32 

million between 1970 and 2000 and added 50 jobs, 

its share of total personal income declined from 31.7 

percent to 19.6 percent over the same time span. 

Its share of employment declined from 28.9 to 21.4 

percent of all jobs. 

Missing data for the services and professional and 

mining sectors make long-term analysis of economic 

change in Power County challenging. However, it is 

possible to say that from 1994 to 2000, income from 

the services and professional sector contributed 48 

percent of new income to the county for a total of 

$33 million, or 20 percent of total personal income 

adjusted for inflation. This sector added 37 jobs 

during that time frame to account for a total of 

1,499 positions. The services subcategories of hotels 

and other lodging and amusements and recreation 

grew substantially in the county from 1990 to 2000. 

Hotels and other lodging increased from $36,600 in 

1990 to $116,500, while amusements and recreation 

grew from $109,400 to $191,000. Construction has 

been the fastest growing sector from 1994-2000, 

contributing 53 percent of new income in the 

county and adding 139 jobs. Government jobs have 

steadily increased over the past three decades, 

and now account for 11.7 percent, or $19 million, 

in personal income in 2000, along with 735 jobs. 

Mining accounted for five jobs and 0.2 percent of 

total personal income in 2000. 

From 1990 to 2000, per capita income in Power 

County decreased in real terms by 9 percent, from 

$23,825 to $21,782. Average earnings per job (in 

real terms) fell from $31,662 in 1970 to $30,113 in 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 187
Figure 27

Change in Personal Income in Power County, Idaho, 1970-2000

120.0 

100.0 

80.0 

60.0 

40.0 

20.0 

0.0 

70

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000 

i

l

(i

i

) 

i

i

i l 

i

M anuf act ur ng 

(inc . f orest 

product s) 

Non-Labor 

So urces 

nvest ment s, 

ret rement , 

et c.

Farm and Ag. 

Serv ces 

Serv ces and 

Prof ess ona

Go vernment 

Construction 

M in ng 

Personal Income 

(Millions of 2000 dollars) 

19

Source: BEA REIS 2002 CD Table CA05 Note:	 Data is in real terms (adjusted for inflation). 

Data for all sectors was not available prior to 1994. 

Table 29 

New Income by Type in Power County, Idaho, 1994-2000 

All figures in millions of 2000 dollars 1994 

% of 

Total in 

1994 2000 

% of 

Total in 

2000 

New 

Income 

1994 to 

2000 

% of New 

Income 

Farm and Agricultural Services 

Total Personal Income* 

37 

155 

23.9% 33 

164 

20.3% -4 

8 

NA

 Farm 35 22.8% 30 18.6% -5 NA

 Ag. Services 2 1.1% 3 1.7% 1 14% 

Mining 1 0.5% 0 0.2% 0 NA 

Manufacturing (incl. forest products) 79 51.2% 74 45.5% -5 NA 

Services and Professional 29 18.5% 33 20.0% 4 48%

 Transportation & Public Utilities 11 7.0% 11 7.0% 1 6%

 Wholesale Trade 6 3.7% 7 4.1% 1 11%

 Retail Trade 5 3.1% 4 2.4% -1 NA

 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 1 0.9% 1 0.8% 0 NA

 Services (Health, Legal, Business, Others 6 3.6% 9 5.7% 4 44% 

Construction 4 2.8% 9 5.3% 4 53% 

Government 17 11.1% 19 11.7% 2 23% 

Non-Labor Income 38 24.8% 46 28.3% 8 93%

 Dividends, Interest & Rent 21 13.2% 24 14.9% 4 46%

 Transfer Payments 18 11.5% 22 13.3% 4 47% 

*The sum of the above categories do not add to total due to adjustments made for place of residence and personal contributions for social 

insurance made by the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

188 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
2000. Average earnings here are higher than the 

state average ($28,103) but lower than the national 

average ($36,113). In 2001, the unemployment rate 

in Power County was 7.2 percent, compared to 5.0 

percent for the state and 4.8 percent for the nation. 

The south-central portion of the Monument, a total 

of 22 percent, lies within Minidoka County. The 

town of Minidoka (population 142) is within the 

planning area. Although non-labor and services are 

the most important sources of income in Minidoka 

County, and the service sector is the largest source 

of employment, this county depends on a more 

diverse range of economic sectors than many 

counties in the western United States. The county 

added 3,370 jobs between 1970 and 2000, bringing 

the total number to 11,033. Total personal income 

was $345 million in 2000. Non-labor income 

accounts for 32 percent of personal income in the 

county, and 60 percent of the new income generated 

between 1970 and 2000 in real terms (adjusted for 

inflation). Services is the second most important 

sector economically, accounting for 25 percent of 

income in the county, 28 percent of the new income, 

and 2,391, or 71 percent of new jobs. From 1990 to 

2000, personal income within the hotels and other 

lodging subcategory for Minidoka County increased 

from $1.69 million in 1990 to $1.74 million in 2000. 

During that time frame, amusements and recreation 

increased by $99,000. 

Manufacturing remains the third most important 

source of income and jobs in the county, although its 

share of total income has declined slightly from 18.5 

to 17.9 percent. Although this sector contributed to 

17 percent of the new income in the county, it only 

added 61 jobs, or 1.8 percent of the total, from 1970 

to 2000. 

Agriculture has been a key sector of the county’s 

economy over the past 30 years and is currently the 

fourth most important source of income and the 

second largest employer. However, the share that 

agriculture contributes to new personal income from 

1970 to 2000 fell by $16 million in real terms, while 

121 jobs were added. 

Government and construction have shown steady 

increases in both personal income and jobs in the 

county over the past 30 years. Income from the 

government sector added 17 percent of the total 

new income, and it generated 544 new jobs, or 16.1 

percent of the total. Construction contributed $1 

million, or 1 percent, of the county’s new income, 

and 180, or 5.3 percent, of the new jobs. Mining has 

not been an important economic sector in Minidoka 

County over the past 30 years, comprising only 0.1 

percent of personal income in the county; however, 

73 jobs were added in this sector during that time 

frame. 

Per capita income for Minidoka County in real 

terms held steady from 1990 to 2000 at $17,589. 

Average earnings per job (in real terms) have 

declined from $25,231 in 1970 to $22,823 in 2000, 

and are lower than the state ($28,301) and national 

($36,311) averages. Unemployment for 2001 was 6.4 

percent, compared to 5.0 percent for the state and 

4.8 percent for the nation. Although the economic 

profile of Minidoka County is common throughout 

the western United States, the county has the lowest 

income of any in the planning area; and the town of 

Minidoka magnifies this trend. The county and town 

also have some demographic features that differ 

from the rest of the planning area, as discussed in 

the following section. 

Population Growth, Housing Values and Commuting Patterns 

Some of the most notable distinctions among 

the communities within the planning area are in 

population growth rates and housing values. These 

factors have important implications for land use and 

planning in the vicinity of the Monument. 

Between 1990 and 1999, the populations of Idaho 

and the Mountain West grew at more than twice the 

United States average. According to the U.S. Census 

Bureau, the fastest growing populations in the 

nation are intermountain western states: Nevada (1), 

Arizona (2), Idaho (3), Utah (4), and Colorado (5). 

Nevada and Idaho are predicted to be the two fastest 

growing states in the nation until at least 2005. Since 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 189
Figure 28

Changes in Personal Income in Minidoka County, Idaho, 1970 - 2000

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

-20 

70

1972

1974

19761978

1980

19821984

19861988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000 

(i

i

) 

i

i l 

i

l

i

i

Non-Labor 

So urces 

nvest ment s, 

ret rement , 

et c.

Serv ces and 

Prof ess ona

M anuf act ur ng 

(inc . f orest 

product s) 

Farm and Ag. 

Serv ces 

Go vernment 

Construction 

M in ng 

Personal Income 

(Millions of 2000 dollars) 

19

Source: BEA REIS 2002 CD Table CA05 Note: Data is in real terms (adjusted for inflation). 

Table 30 

New Income by Type in Minidoka County, Idaho, 1970-2000 

All figures in millions of 2000 dollars 1970 

% of 

Total in 

1970 2000 

% of 

Total in 

2000 

New 

Income 

1970 to 

2000 

% of New 

Income 

Farm and Agricultural Services 

Total Personal Income* 

65 

233 

28.0% 49 

354 

13.8% -16 

121 

NA

 Farm 62 26.5% 40 11.4% -21 NA

 Ag. Services 3 1.5% 8 2.4% 5 4% 

Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.1% 0 0% 

Manufacturing (incl. forest products) 43 18.5% 63 17.9% 20 17% 

Services and Professional 55 23.7% 89 25.0% 33 28%

 Transportation & Public Utilities 8 3.3% 26 7.3% 18 15%

 Wholesale Trade 9 3.8% 23 6.6% 14 12%

 Retail Trade 18 7.9% 13 3.8% -5 NA

 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 2 1.0% 3 0.8% 1 0%

 Services (Health, Legal, Business, Others) 18 7.8% 23 6.6% 5 4% 

Construction 10 4.1% 10 2.9% 1 1% 

Government 20 8.6% 41 11.5% 20 17% 

Non-Labor Income 40 17.2% 113 31.9% 73 60%

 Dividends, Interest & Rent 23 9.8% 50 14.1% 27 22%

 Transfer Payments 17 7.4% 63 17.8% 46 38% 

*The sum of the above categories do not add to total due to adjustments made for place of residence and personal contributions for social 

insurance made by the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

190 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
1990, Idaho’s statewide population has increased 

by more than 27,000 people per year. Two-thirds of 

these additional people have moved to the cities and 

towns of Idaho (Cooke 2000). 

In the more than 200 cities and towns in Idaho, more 

than one-half of the towns have increased slightly in 

population size. Roughly 24 cities and towns have 

lost population since 1990. At the other extreme, 

approximately 24 cities have increased by more than 

100 persons per year. 

Table 31 summarizes population growth rates and 

current residents for the counties and communities 

within the Craters of the Moon National Monument 

planning area. 

As the table shows, Blaine County has experienced 

the most rapid growth among the five counties in the 

planning area, adding 14,543 people and growing 

by 250 percent from 1970 to 2002. During this time 

frame, population growth has been steady, and has 

outpaced both the state of Idaho (87 percent) and the 

nation (41 percent). Blaine County is the most populous county in the planning area, just slightly larger 

than Minidoka County, and is likely to continue to 

grow at a much faster rate. Blaine County contains 

the largest community in the planning area, Hailey, 

which had 6,002 residents in 2000. It is also the 

location of Sun Valley (population 1,427), Ketchum 

(population 3,003), Bellevue (population 1,876) and 

Carey (population 513). 

Power County had the second-fastest growth rate, 

although its 7,419 residents in 2000 and 55 percent 

growth rate are dwarfed by Blaine County’s fi gures. 

Power County has grown slower than the state (an 

87 percent increase) but faster than the nation (41 

percent) during this time frame. Much of the population growth occurred from 1970 to 1980, has slowed 

since then, and actually began declining in 1999. 

Lincoln County grew by 1,143 people, or 37 percent, 

from 1970 to 2002, bringing its population to 4,057, 

or about one-fifth of Blaine County. This rate was 

slower than both the state and the nation. The 

county’s population was fairly stable from 1970 to 

1990, and has been trending steadily upward since 

then. The town of Shoshone (population 1,398) is in 

Lincoln County. 

Table 31

Population and Growth Rates for Planning Area 

Counties and Communities

COUNTY 

Blaine 

Lincoln 

Butte 

Power 

Minidoka 

COMMUNITY 1970 

POPULATION 

2000 

POPULATION 

5,815 20,358 

Sun Valley 1,427 

Ketchum 3,003 

Hailey 6,002 

Bellevue 1,876 

Carey 513 

3,083 4,057 

Shoshone 1,398 

2,918 2,921 

Arco 1,026 

4,848 7,419 

15,873 19,444 

Minidoka 129 

TOTAL 

PERCENT 

CHANGE 

1970-2002 

250% 

37% 

0% 

53% 

22% 

ANNUAL 

PERCENT 

CHANGE 

1970-2000 

4% 

1% 

0% 

1.3% 

0.6% 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 191
Minidoka County, where the town of Minidoka 

(population 142) is located, grew by 22 percent, or 

3,571 people, from 1970 to 2002, which is considerably slower than both the state at 87 percent and the 

nation at 41 percent. Most of this growth occurred 

between 1970 and 1980, and the population has been 

fairly stable since then. Minidoka County is the most 

populous county in the planning area, with 19,444 

residents in 2002. 

Butte County has experienced virtually no population growth over the past 32 years, adding only 

three residents to its population of 2,921. The town 

of Arco (population 1,029) accounts for more than 

one-third of the county’s population. Butte County’s 

population grew at a moderate rate from around 

1978 to 1983, peaking at around 3,500 residents, and 

then began gradually declining. 

Housing Affordability and Commuting Patterns 

It is important to consider housing affordability 

in planning for Craters of the Moon because it 

will have significant impacts on future population 

growth (and potentially resource use) for the towns 

in the planning area. Housing values and affordability vary considerably among the communities of 

the planning area, as Figure 29 shows. 

Table 32 shows where each community lies on the 

Housing Affordability Index (HFI), which is another 

means of illustrating the differences in housing 

affordability between communities. This measure 

considers median home value and median household 

income, and assumes a 20 percent down payment 

and that no more than 25 percent of a family’s 

income goes to paying the mortgage. It is based on 

an interest rate of 10.01 percent in 1990 and 8.03 

percent in 2000. This statistic is most useful as a 

comparative, rather than absolute, measure. By this 

measure, a score of 100 or above means that the 

median family can afford the median house. 

Sun Valley, Ketchum, and Hailey are experiencing 

one of the downsides of rapid economic and population growth: a serious lack of affordable housing. 

The problem is most severe in Sun Valley, where the 

median home value was $798,400 in 2000, and the 

income required to quality to buy the median home 

was $225,603; but the median household income 

was only one-third of the income needed to qualify, 

or $71,000. 

The situation is similar in Ketchum, where buying 

the $500,000 median value home requires an income 

of $142,217; but again, the median household income 

of $45,457 is only one-third of what would be 

Figure 29

Housing Affordability in Planning Area Communities

$0 $200,000 $400,000 

Mi

Hail

ll

Val

$600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 

nidoka 

Arco 

Shoshone 

Carey 

Bellevue 

ey 

Ketchum 

Sun Va ey 

Median 

Household 

Income 

Income Required 

to Qualif y f or 

Median Home 

Median Home 

ue 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

192 
Table 32

Housing Affordability Index for Planning Area Communities

COMMUNITY SUN 

VALLEY KETCHUM HAILEY BELLEVUE CAREY SHOSHONE ARCO MINIDOKA 

HFI 38 52 100 110 157 175 240 173 

required to qualify. The gap is narrower in Hailey, 

where the median-value $203,000 home requires 

an income of $56,599, and the median household 

income is $51,347. 

Place of work and commuting patterns are valuable 

indicators of the various economic roles played by 

different communities within the study area, and 

are closely related to housing affordability. Ketchum 

had the highest percentage of residents (72 percent) 

who said they work in town, compared to 55 percent 

of Sun Valley residents and 39 percent of Hailey 

residents. As Figure 30 indicates, residents of Sun 

Valley and Ketchum are unlikely to commute more 

than 20 minutes to their jobs, which are presumably 

in these towns. Hailey lies approximately 13 miles, 

or about 20 minutes, from Sun Valley, and many of 

its residents are likely to work there or in Ketchum. 

Figure 30

Commuting Patterns in Planning Area 

Communities

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

Sun Valley 

Ketchum

Hailey 

Bellevue

Carey 

Shoshone

Arco 

Minidoka 

Communte <20 minutes Commute >45 minutes 

A few more miles down the Big Wood River Valley 

to Bellevue brings housing into the affordable range 

for more people and is a major reason for its population growth in recent years. In this community, the 

median value home of $159,200 requires an annual 

income of $44,985, while the median household 

income is $45,438. Bellevue lies 19 miles, or a 27-

minute drive, from Sun Valley, which may explain 

why 39 percent of its residents commute for 20 to 45 

minutes each way. Only 7 percent have commutes of 

longer than 45 minutes, while 51 percent commute 

for less than 20 minutes. Sixteen percent of residents 

said that they worked in town in 2000. 

Some households with lower-than-median incomes 

that are employed in Sun Valley, Ketchum, or 

Hailey are looking to Carey, 42 miles or nearly a 

one-hour drive from Sun Valley, for more affordable 

housing. In 2000, 39 percent of residents said that 

they worked in town. The median home in Carey is 

valued at $95,000, requiring an income of $26,884 

to qualify to purchase it; while median household 

income is $39,861. New subdivisions are being built 

in Carey to meet the demand for affordable housing. 

Commuting data for Carey illustrates its residents’ 

ties to other areas for work: 44 percent have commutes of less than 20 minutes, while 23 percent 

commute longer than 45 minutes. This traditional 

community is likely to grow quickly over the next 

several years, which may have implications for the 

Monument. Carey is adjacent to the western side of 

the Monument, and only 24 miles from the Visitor’s 

Center. 

Shoshone is a larger community located 57 miles 

or one hour and 15 minutes from Sun Valley, and 

offers even more affordable housing options to 

those employed in the Sun Valley/Ketchum/Hailey 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 193
area, as well as those who work closer to home. 

The median home value in Shoshone is $72,500, 

which requires an income of $20,486 to qualify for, 

compared to the median income of $31,036. Forty 

percent of residents said that they work in town. 

Commuting patterns for Shoshone indicate that it 

is a “bedroom community” for both the Sun Valley 

and Twin Falls (27 miles to the south) areas: only 40 

percent of its residents over age 16 have a commute 

time of under 20 minutes, while 28 percent commute 

for more than 45 minutes each way. The residents of 

Shoshone are more likely to have longer commutes 

than others in the planning area. 

As Figure 30 indicates, residents of Arco and 

Minidoka are more likely to work within 20 minutes 

of home and less likely to engage in long commutes 

to other towns. Most residents of Arco (59 percent) 

say that they work in town. Arco lies just north of 

the Monument, at least a 90-minute drive from Sun 

Valley/Ketchum, although some of its residents 

may commute to jobs at INEEL. The Monument’s 

Visitor Center is 18 miles from Arco, making this 

town geographically the closest to being a gateway 

community for the Monument. Housing is affordable 

in Arco: the median home value is $51,200, requiring an income of only $14,486 to qualify, while the 

median household income is nearly twice that, at 

$27,998. 

Minidoka, on the southern side of the Monument, 

has the most affordable housing of the communities 

in the planning area. The median home value is 

$33,100, which requires an income of $9,353 to 

qualify for purchase; the median household income 

is $21,250. It lies more than 100 miles from Sun 

Valley and Ketchum, making commutes to those 

areas unlikely. No Minidoka residents reported that 

they work in town. Instead, they are more likely to 

commute to American Falls or the Rupert/Burley 

area to work. 

There are three airports in the general area of the 

Monument –Hailey, Idaho Falls, and Twin Falls (60, 

84, and 90 miles from Park Headquarters, respectively). From the nearest towns by vehicle, travel 

to the Monument is 18 miles west of Arco via US 

20/26/93; 24 miles east of Carey via US 20/26/93; 

84 miles from Idaho Falls; and 90 miles from Twin 

Falls. 

Demographic Change in the Planning Area 

In addition to differences in terms of economic 

changes, population growth, housing affordability, 

and commuting patterns, demographic shifts 

are also affecting the communities. This section 

examines some of these factors for each community, 

including length of time in the community, age of 

residents, race and ethnicity, and languages spoken. 

Length of Time in the Area 

Length of time in the community can indicate how 

quickly a community is changing and provide some 

insight into the perspectives of community members 

from different areas. Trends in aging among residents have important implications for communities 

as well. This section discusses these issues within 

the planning area communities. Table 33 summarizes information about long-term residents and 

more recent arrivals. 

Most residents of the communities in the planning 

area were born in the United States – but there are 

important differences within this broad category. 

Carey and Arco have the highest percentages of 

people born in the United States (97 percent and 98 

percent, respectively). These are also the locations 

with the largest proportion of people born in Idaho 

(71 percent and 56 percent, respectively). These 

communities are among the more stable, with 67 

percent of Carey residents living in the same house 

as they did in 1995, and 82 percent living in the 

same county. Half of the population of Arco lives in 

the same house as in 1995, and 73 percent live in the 

same county. 

These trends are in contrast to those seen in 

the wealthier, faster-growing communities of 

the planning area. Residents of Sun Valley and 

Ketchum, and to a lesser extent Hailey and Bellevue, 

are less likely to have been born in Idaho and more 

likely to have moved to these towns within the past 

decade. Only 13 percent of Sun Valley residents 

and 16 percent of Ketchum residents were born in 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

194 
Idaho. In 1995, 14 percent of Sun Valley residents 

lived outside the United States. This is likely to be 

due to the fact that Sun Valley is an internationally 

renowned resort community, meaning that it draws 

both more wealthy international homeowners and 

more immigrant hotel and restaurant workers. Sun 

Valley also had the third-lowest percentage (84 

These trends indicate that Carey and Arco are more 

traditional towns with many long-term residents 

whose views on the use of Monument resources may 

reflect more traditional land uses. 

The town of Minidoka has by the lowest percentage 

of residents born in the United States at 65 percent. 

percent) among towns in the planning area of people Despite the high number of foreign-born residents, 

born in the United States. Bellevue had a similar the town appears to be fairly stable, with many 

percentage of foreign-born residents, presumably residents living in the same house and county since 

for the same reasons. These communities had the 

lowest proportions of residents who had lived in the 

same house or state in 1995, indicating that there are 

more residents who chose to move to these areas for 

1995. 

Race, Ethnicity, and Language 

Another primary way that the communities of the 

planning area differ is in their racial and ethnic natural or recreational amenities or for employment composition. Table 34 summarizes 2000 Census opportunities. data for each community. 

Shoshone has a mix of factors that indicate that Data on language and ethnicity are in keeping with both long-time residents and newcomers live in the the data on place of birth and length of time in the community; it falls in the middle among the plan- same state, county, and house discussed above. ning area communities for the factors listed below. Sun Valley has few residents who are not fl uent in 

For Carey, only 3 percent of its residents were not English, but also a fairly high number of residents born in the United States, none of its residents lived who speak a language in addition to English. Most outside of the United States in 1995, a majority of residents are white and few are Hispanic, indicating its residents live in the same house as in 1995, and it that relatively few immigrant service workers has the highest number of residents that were born actually live in the town. Ketchum follows a similar in Idaho. The situation is similar in Arco, which pattern, although it has fewer residents who speak had the highest percentage of U.S.-born residents, a a language in addition to English, and more white majority of whom were born in Idaho and many of and fewer Hispanic and/or “some other race” whom lived in the same state and county in 1995. 

Table 33 

Place of Birth and Length of Residence in Planning Area Communities 

BORN IN 

THE U.S. 

BORN IN 

IDAHO 

LIVED 

IN 

SAME 

STATE 

IN 1995 

LIVED IN 

SAME 

COUNTY 

IN 1995 

LIVED IN 

SAME 

HOUSE 

IN 1995 

LIVED 

OUTSIDE 

THE U.S. 

IN 1995 

Sun Valley 86% 13% 76% 73% 42% 14% 

Ketchum 89% 16% 71% 67% 39% 3% 

Hailey 89% 33% 79% 68% 40% 3% 

Bellevue 84% 37% 88% 83% 50% 4% 

Carey 97% 71% 89% 82% 67% 0% 

Shoshone 88% 52% 86% 70% 53% 1% 

Arco 98% 56% 92% 73% 50% 0% 

Minidoka 65% 58% 100% 91% 72% 3% 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 195
Table 34

Language, Race and Ethnicity in Planning Area Communities

Sun Valley 

Ketchum 

Hailey 

Bellevue 

Carey 

Shoshone 

Arco 

Minidoka 

SPEAK 

ONLY 

ENGLISH 

84% 

90% 

87% 

80% 

95% 

83 % 

96% 

24% 

SPEAK 

ENGLISH 

“NOT WELL” 

OR “NOT AT 

ALL” 

1% 

3% 

4% 

9% 

2% 

4% 

0% 

19% 

HISPANIC 

7.1% 

4.9% 

12% 

19.3% 

10.1% 

11.3% 

3.6% 

77.5% 

WHITE 

92.4% 

94.7% 

89.7% 

86.6% 

92.8% 

88.9% 

95.1% 

31% 

SOME 

OTHER 

RACE* 

7.6% 

5.3% 

10.3% 

13.4% 

7.2% 

11.1% 

4.9% 

13.4% 

Note: Figures for Hispanic, White and Some Other Race may add to more than 100 percent because the U.S. Census 

Bureau considers “Hispanic” to be an ethnicity, rather than a race; Hispanics can be of any race (white, black, 

American Indian, etc.) 

residents. Hailey is similar in terms of languages 

spoken, although it does have a more ethnically and 

racially diverse population. The fact that 9 percent 

of Bellevue’s residents are not fluent in English, 

nearly 20 percent of residents are Hispanic, and 

13.4 percent are of a race other than English may 

indicate that lower-paid immigrant service workers 

who work in Sun Valley, Ketchum, or Hailey choose 

to live in Bellevue, perhaps to take advantage of the 

town’s lower housing costs. 

Carey and Arco’s high percentages of English-only 

speakers and relatively low ethnic and cultural 

diversity highlight their status as more traditional 

towns with relatively few immigrants. Both towns 

are too far from the service-worker hubs of Sun 

Valley, Ketchum, and Hailey to be viable housing 

options for lower-paid employees who work in those 

towns. The mix of factors in Shoshone indicates 

that it is home to both long-term residents and some 

immigrant workers. 

In Minidoka, 25 percent of its population speaks 

only English, 19 percent are not fluent in English, 

and more than 75 percent are Hispanic. This town 

is home to many immigrant workers who fi nd 

jobs in the agricultural areas beyond the southern 

boundaries of the Monument, as well as some who 

are employed by the American Falls Electrical 

Generating Station. 

Trends in Aging 

One of the key demographic trends in the western 

United States, including the Craters of the Moon 

National Monument planning area, is the aging of 

the baby boomers. This trend is relevant for resource 

management planning in that retiring baby boomers 

may be drawn to the recreational opportunities, 

lower cost of living, affordable housing and slower 

pace of life afforded by rural communities near 

protected areas, and can thus be a signifi cant source 

of new residents. Providing services to these new 

residents, such as health care, arts and entertainment, and home-related services such as architects, 

builders, and maintenance can be a source of 

economic growth for the area. On the other hand, 

young adults and those with young children may 

choose to leave an area if they find limited higherwage employment opportunities. The loss of such 

workers, particularly educated ones, can make it 

more difficult to attract well-paid jobs to the area. 

Both of these trends are occurring to varying 

degrees in all counties of the planning area. As 

Table 35 indicates Blaine County has experienced 

the fastest growth of baby boomers (a 7 percent 

increase from 1990 to 2000), which is not surprising 

given its reputation as a desirable retirement and 

second-home destination. The increase in this age 

group for the other counties ranged from 3 to 6 

percent. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

196 
Table 35

Aging Trends in Planning Area Counties

COUNTY 

(COMMUNITIES) 

MEDIAN AGE 

U.S. MEDIAN = 

35.3 

STATE MEDIAN = 

33.2 

BABY 

BOOMERS 

(AGED 40-54 

IN 2000) 

PERCENT 

OVER 

AGE 65 

PERCENT 

UNDER AGE 

20 

Blaine (Sun 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 

Valley, Ketchum, 

Hailey, Carey) 33.3 37.4 21% 28% 7% 8% 28% 26% 

Lincoln 

(Shoshone) 34.2 34.3 16% 20% 14% 13% 34% 22% 

Butte (Arco) 33.2 38.3 17% 22% 13% 15% 37% 32% 

Power 29.8 31.6 16% 22% 10% 10% 38% 37% 

Minidoka 

(Minidoka) 30.3 33.5 16% 19% 12% 13% 38% 35% 

Butte County has experienced the most rapid 

increase in median age, along with increases in its 

baby boomer and over-65 residents and a decrease 

in residents under-20 years of age. In keeping with 

this trend, several of the new businesses spawned 

with the help of the Arco/Butte Business Incubation 

Center relate to health care, such as hospice services 

and medical supplies. Although Lincoln County is 

not aging overall, it experienced a 12 percent decline 

in its under-20 population from 1990 to 2000. All 

other counties in the planning area experienced 

declines in the under-20 age group, ranging from 1 

to 5 percent. 

Income Distribution and Education Levels 

Income levels are closely tied to educational attainment in the emerging Western economy, and 

as Tables 36 and 37 indicate, this holds true in the 

Monument planning area. While income distribution 

figures provide insight into current social conditions 

in the communities of the planning area, educational 

attainment is an important factor to consider for 

future economic planning. Having a well-educated 

workforce makes communities more appealing to 

businesses considering locating in them, and can 

thus be a key factor in economic prosperity. 

Sun Valley has the highest median income, largest percentage of households earning more than 

$100,000 per year, smallest percentage of people 

with less than a high school diploma, and highest 

number of well-educated residents. However, it also 

has a fairly high number of individuals with incomes 

below the poverty level – most likely lower paid 

service workers. 

Minidoka has the lowest median household income, 

the highest percentage of households earning under 

$30,000 per year, and the highest proportion of 

individuals with incomes below the poverty level. 

In addition, 88 percent of its residents lack a high 

school diploma, and none reported having a college 

degree in the 2000 Census. 

The other communities fall at various points along 

the range. Those in the Big Wood River Valley 

(Sun Valley, Ketchum, Hailey, and Bellevue) tend 

to have median higher incomes, fewer households 

earning under $30,000, and fewer individuals in 

poverty. They also have better-educated residents. 

Carey residents have mid-range incomes and a fair 

number of households earning less than $30,000 per 

year, but very few residents in poverty. Shoshone 

and Arco residents have high percentages of total 

households earning less than $30,000 per year and 

relatively high proportions of individuals living in 

poverty (particularly Arco). About 25 percent of 

the residents of these communities did not graduate 

from high school, and a modest proportion are 

college graduates. 

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 197
Table 36

Income Distribution in Planning Area Communities

COMMUNITY 

MEDIAN 

HOUSEHOLD 

INCOME 

HOUSEHOLDS 

UNDER 30K 

HOUSEHOLDS 

OVER 100K 

WITH INCOME 

BELOW 

POVERTY LEVEL 

INDIVIDUALS 

Sun Valley $71,000 21% 36% 15% 

Ketchum $45,457 31% 20% 9% 

Hailey $51,347 29% 9% 6% 

Bellevue $45,438 30% 6% 8% 

Carey $39,861 33% 4% 2% 

Shoshone $31,036 47% 4% 14% 

Arco $27,993 57% 3% 23% 

Minidoka $21,250 78% 0% 32% 

Table 37

Educational Attainments in Planning Area Communities

COMMUNITY 

LESS 

THAN 

HIGH 

SCHOOL 

COLLEGE 

DEGREE OR 

GREATER 

ADVANCED 

COLLEGE 

DEGREE 

Sun Valley 3% 60% 24% 

Ketchum 5% 52% 14% 

Hailey 10% 39% 10% 

Bellevue 23% 19% 4% 

Carey 17% 16% 2% 

Shoshone 23% 14% 5% 

Arco 24% 13% 4% 

Minidoka 88% 0% 0% 

198 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Chapter 4 

Environmental Consequences 
Previous page, clockwise, from top left 

Cinder garden 

Lava tube 

Devil’s Orchard walk 

Blue dragon lava 
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION used to guide and direct the analysis of environmental consequences: This chapter describes the environmental consequences of implementing any of the four • The alternatives would be implemented planning alternatives previously described. Each substantially, including “Management Guid- program or management action that could impact 

resources or resource uses has been analyzed, and 

the conclusions of those analyses are described by 

resource topic below. Where data are limited, professional judgment has been used to project environmental impacts. Professional judgment was based, 

in part, on observation, analysis of conditions, and 

responses in similar areas. 

ance Common to All Alternatives.” 

• The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and National Park Service (NPS) would have 

sufficient funding and personnel to implement 

any one of the alternatives. 

• The planning period for the analysis is the next 

15 to 20 years. 

• The planning area for the analysis of impacts 

for each alternative is the area including the

ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS BLM and NPS lands included in Proclamation 

AND GUIDELINES 7373 (see Figure 2). The area of analysis for 

cumulative impacts is described separately for This document assesses the management actions 

proposed for implementing the proclamation and 

legislation creating the Craters of the Moon National 

Monument and Preserve (the Monument). The 

each resource type. 

• Specific actions to protect human life would 

be taken regardless of the management criteria 

analysis is bounded by decisions identified in the 

proclamation or legislation and does not include 

alternatives to these decisions. These decisions are 

as follows: 

in the plan alternatives. 

• Livestock use on the BLM-managed portion of 

the Monument would continue to be governed 

by applicable laws and regulations, including 

• Land area included in or excluded from the Standards of Rangeland Health and Guidelines 

Monument, Preserve, Wilderness Area, or for Livestock Grazing Management, across all 

alternatives. Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). 

• Uses restricted or limited by the proclamations, legislation, federal regulations, or 

agency policy.

• Motorized and mechanized cross-country 

travel is prohibited. 

• Recreational use of the planning area will 

• Providing ongoing reasonable access to state continue to be similar to use in the past. 

and private land or interests. • Appendix B contains a list of the planning 

• Continued grazing where currently permitted criteria used to develop the alternatives, 

including regulations and policies that can on BLM-administered lands. limit the range of actions. • Regulation of hunting, fishing, and trapping by 

the State of Idaho, except that the Secretary of 

the Interior, in consultation with the state, may INCOMPLETE OR 

take certain steps to regulate hunting in the UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION 

National Preserve for reasons such as public 

safety and protection of resources. As mandated by 43 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 1502.22, agencies evaluating reasonably 

The following assumptions and guidelines were foreseeable significant adverse effects of the human 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 201
environment in an EIS must identify incomplete 

or unavailable information, if that information is 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. 

This Proposed Plan/FEIS is based on the best available data for each resource. However, data for many 

resource areas are limited. For the resources listed 

below, information was incomplete or unavailable. 

Cultural Resources: Most of the planning area has 

not been surveyed for cultural resources. Estimates 

of the number, type, and significance of archaeological and historic sites were based on cultural resource 

inventories for approximately 5 percent of the 

planning area. 

Paleontological Resources: Most of the planning 

area has not been surveyed for paleontological 

resources. 

Cave Resources: Complete data are not available 

for cave resources, including location. 

Vegetation: Complete data are not available for 

vegetation composition and condition. 

Wildlife: Complete data are not available for 

wildlife species occurrence, habitat use, or habitat 

condition. 

Water Quality: Detailed water quality data are 

available for Little Cottonwood Creek and Leech 

Creek. Limited data are available for most springs, 

playas, and reservoirs in the Monument. 

Noxious Weeds: Most of the Monument has not 

been completely surveyed for noxious weeds. 

Visitor Use Data: Data about visitor use are available for the original Monument, but such information for the remaining area is limited. 

TYPES OF IMPACTS 

Effects (impacts) can be benefi cial or adverse, direct 

or indirect, or cumulative. Benefi cial effects are 

those that involve a positive change in the condition 

or appearance of a resource or a change that moves 

the resource toward a desired condition. Adverse 

impacts involve a change that moves the resource 

away from a desired condition or detract from its 

appearance or condition. Direct effects are caused 

by an action and occur at the same time and place as 

the action. Indirect effects are caused by the action 

and occur later or farther away but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative effects are the impacts 

on the environment that result from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or 

person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

effects can result from individually minor, but 

collectively significant, actions taking place over a 

period of time. 

Impacts are also described as to their context, 

intensity, and duration. Context generally refers to 

the geographic extent of impact (e.g., localized or 

widespread). Impact intensity is the magnitude or 

degree to which a resource would be benefi cially or 

adversely affected. The criteria that were used to 

rate the intensity of the impacts for each resource 

topic are presented later in this section under each 

topic heading. Impact duration refers to how long an 

impact would last. For the purposes of this Proposed 

Plan/FEIS, the planning team used the following 

terms to describe the duration of the impacts (unless 

otherwise stated for any particular resource area). 

Short-term: Impacts that would occur within 5 

years, often during construction and 

recovery. 

Long-term: Impacts that would occur beyond 5 

years, often from operations. 

Cumulative impacts are described at the end of the 

analysis for each resource by alternative. The period 

of potential cumulative impact is defined as the life 

of the plan. 

PROJECTS THAT MAKE UP 

THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT 

SCENARIO 

To determine potential cumulative impacts, projects 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

202 
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 fi ve-county 

area, however, are also considered if they have the 

potential to affect resources with broad regional 

importance. Projects included in this analysis were 

identified by examining other existing plans and by 

telephone calls to local governments and to state and 

federal land managers. Projects identified for the 

purposes of cumulative impact analyses are past actions, plans 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 do 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. 

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. The ICBEMP has coordinated an 

extensive study of the Interior Columbia Basin. This 

study has determined that the sagebrush steppe 

ecosystem is at risk due to several past and existing 

impacts. These include grazing, road construction, 

human development, and disturbance-related 

invasions of exotic plant species. These disturbances 

will likely continue to contribute cumulatively to 

the impacts on vegetation communities in southern 

Idaho. 

To address these risks to key ecosystem components, the BLM entered into a 2003 Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) to implement the ICBEMP. 

The implementation strategy includes direction to 

federal agencies to update or develop land use plans 

to provide direction to address the following: 

• Maintain and promote a healthy, productive, 

and diverse ecosystem and restore, through 

a system of prioritization, areas that are 

degraded. 

• Develop an integrated mix of restoration 

activities to provide for re-patterning succession and disturbance regimes and achievement 

of sustainable landscape conditions, thereby 

contributing to the reduction of events such as 

uncharacteristically large and severe wildland 

fires. 

• Restore natural disturbance patterns in watersheds and hydrologic process to help restore 

and maintain riparian, aquatic, and wetland 

habitat. 

• Develop integrated weed management strategies. 

• Develop a coordinated multiscale and 

interagency approach to planning and decision-making. 

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 fi re prevention 

and suppression, hazardous fuels reduction, restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems, and the promotion 

of community assistance in fi re management (IDL 

2002). 

During 2002, IDL, in cooperation with federal 

agencies, disbursed $1.9 million to wildland-urban 

interface projects and development of defensible 

space. Additional money was used for hazardous 

fuels reduction programs for several communities. 

The development of risk assessments and mitigation 

plans would allow counties and communities in the 

district to determine their current fire hazard risk 

and to develop effective mitigation to minimize 

wildland-urban risks to persons and property. In 

addition, implementing community-based fuels 

reduction programs gives private landowners 

opportunities to work with public land management 

agencies to manage the wildland-urban interface. 

National Forest Plan Revisions. In July 2003, 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 203
the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup, composed of the 

Sawtooth, Boise, and Payette National Forests, 

completed their revised Land Management Plans 

and the accompanying EIS. These Forest Plans set 

the course for future management of publicly owned 

lands within the National Forest System. Although 

they do not make site-specific decisions, the plans 

supply a path for all individual projects to follow. 

The revised forest management direction responds 

to new initiatives such as the National Fire Plan 

and Healthy Forest Initiative and to concerns about 

listed species, habitat restoration, and commodity 

production. The revised Forest Plans differ from the 

original plans in that they emphasize restoring or 

maintaining vegetation and watershed conditions 

and focus on the condition of the forests rather than 

what they can produce. 

More specifically, the Revised Sawtooth National 

Forest Plan affords direction for a strongly integrated noxious weed management program across 

the forest, in cooperation with other federal, state, 

and local agencies. The plan supports fi re prevention and suppression and gives direction to reduce 

hazardous fuels, emphasizing actions in wildlandurban interface areas. 

Livestock Grazing. Forty grazing allotments 

extend into the Monument. Much of the surrounding 

BLM and state lands has been and will continue to 

be grazed. 

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 town of Carey near the west end of the Monument, and north of the Monument near the town of 

Arco. 

Arco-Minidoka Road. In its comprehensive plan, 

Blaine County stipulates that the part of the ArcoMinidoka Road within its jurisdiction will continue 

to be maintained at its current level. Furthermore, 

the Blaine County Commissioners have specifi cally 

stated that this part of the road will be maintained in 

its current condition. 

Shoshone Field Office Land Tenure Adjustment. 

In June 2002, the BLM prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) for the Draft Amendments to 

Shoshone Field Office Land Use Plans for Land 

Tenure Adjustment and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. These land tenure adjustments 

sought to facilitate a watershed approach to natural 

resource management, in order to improve effi ciencies in the management of public lands. Under 

these amendments, the BLM sought to acquire high 

resource value lands made available by willing 

landowners. Acquisition priorities are established 

to reconnect habitats within priority watersheds. 

With these amendments, the BLM also proposed 

three previously nominated areas for designation as 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). 

These areas — King Hill Creek, McKinney Butte, 

and Tee-Maze — support scenic values, wildlife or 

fish resources, and values associated with natural 

systems or processes. These plan amendments have 

been approved, and the three ACECs have been 

designated. 

Fire Management Direction Amendments. Idaho 

BLM is proposing to amend 12 existing land use 

plans with direction to manage fire, fuels, and 

related vegetation. The area, which includes the 

Monument, is composed of public lands managed by 

the Burley, Shoshone, Upper Snake River, and Pocatello fi eld offices, which are now part of the Twin 

Falls and Idaho Falls districts. The proposed land 

use plan amendments would form the foundation 

for district fire management plans and normal fi re 

rehabilitation plans, and it would provide guidance 

for fuels treatments and vegetation management. 

Amending the land use plans would promote a more 

effective and economical approach to improving the 

health of public lands. 

Pocatello Resource Management Plan Revisions. 

The BLM is revising the Pocatello Resource 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

204 
Management Plan (1988) and the Malad Management Framework Plan (1981). These revisions will 

incorporate the fire, fuels, and related vegetation 

management direction resulting from the Fire 

Management Direction Amendment (above). It is 

likely that the land-use plan revisions would result in 

more aggressive treatment of noxious weeds (including cheatgrass and medusahead), with associated 

positive effects on low- and mid-elevation shrub 

communities. 

South Central Idaho Visitor Center. It has been 

proposed that an expanded, multi-agency regional 

visitor center be developed along Interstate 84 near 

Twin Falls. 

Little Wood River Irrigation District. The Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced 

its intention to prepare an EIS for the Little Wood 

River Irrigation District Gravity Pressurized 

Irrigation Delivery System. The objectives of this 

project, which is in Blaine County, are to save water 

and energy, promote public safety, and generate 

energy. The project, which includes a hydroelectric 

generating facility, would convert the open canal 

irrigation delivery system to a closed gravity 

pressurized delivery system. The alternatives under 

consideration to reach these objectives are No 

Action, Concrete-Lined Canals, Gravity Pressurized 

Irrigation Delivery System, and Gravity Pressurized 

Irrigation Delivery System with Hydroelectric 

Generation. 

U.S. Highway 93 (US 93) Realignment. The Idaho 

Transportation Department (ITD) plans to realign 

and upgrade the part of US 93 that passes through 

and along the boundary of the Monument. 

Idaho Standards 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 and guidelines 

are being met or if signifi cant 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. 

Minidoka Internment National Monument. Minidoka Internment National Monument was established as the 385th unit of the National Park System 

on January 17, 2001. The Monument commemorates 

the hardships and sacrifices of the 120,000 people of 

Japanese ancestry, most of them American citizens, 

who were interned by the government during World 

War II. The 73-acre Monument, which is in Jerome 

County about 20 miles northeast of Twin Falls, 

preserves building foundations and remnant features 

such as the entry guard station and rock garden from 

the original camp. The National Park Service is in 

the process of developing a General Management 

Plan (GMP) to guide the management of the new 

Monument over the next 15 years. Although this 

management direction has not been established 

yet, it is anticipated the new Monument will draw 

increasing numbers of visitors to the area. 

Lost River Off-Highway Vehicle Management 

Demonstration Project. The Idaho Department 

of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) has proposed a 

475-mile loop ATV trail on both sides of US 93 in 

the Lost River Valley. The trail, which would follow 

existing Forest Service, BLM, and county roads, 

would connect the communities of Challis, Mackey, 

and Arco. No new road construction is proposed. 

As part of the proposal, IDPR is seeking exemptions 

from licensing requirements for off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) travel on the county roads and for crossing 

of US 93. The project is envisioned as a cooperative 

effort between IDPR, Salmon-Challis National 

Forest, BLM, and the Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game (IDFG). IDPR is interested in designating the 

route (with signs and maps) to provide a legitimate 

route for legal use of OHVs. In addition, the trail 

is seen as a way to increase tourism to the area, 

benefiting the local economy. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 205
IMPAIRMENT OF RESOURCES 

In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the alternatives, NPS policy (USDI NPS 

2001) requires that potential effects be analyzed to 

determine whether or not proposed actions would 

impair the resources or values of the Monument. 

The fundamental purpose of the National Park System, established by the Organic Act and reaffi rmed 

by the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins 

with a mandate to conserve resources and values. 

NPS managers always must seek ways to avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts on the resources and 

values to the greatest degree practicable. However, 

the laws do give the NPS the management discretion 

to allow impacts on the resources and values when 

necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes 

of a unit, as long as the impact does not constitute 

impairment of the affected resources and values. 

Although Congress has given the NPS this management discretion, that discretion is limited by the 

statutory requirement that the NPS must leave the 

resources and values unimpaired unless a particular 

law directly and specifically provides otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the 

professional judgment of the responsible manager, 

would harm the integrity of the resources and 

values, including the opportunities that otherwise 

would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. An impact on any resource or value 

may constitute impairment. An impact would be 

most likely to constitute an impairment if it affected 

a resource or value whose conservation would be 

(a) necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

the Monument, (b) key to the natural or cultural 

integrity of the unit or to opportunities to enjoy it, 

or (c) identified as a goal in the general management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Impairment might result from NPS activities in 

managing a unit (in this case, the Monument), visitor 

activities, or activities undertaken by concessionary, 

contractors, and others operating in the Monument. 

In this chapter, a determination about impairment 

is made in the conclusion section for each natural 

resource and cultural resource impact topic. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

Information used in this assessment of effects on 

geologic resources was obtained from relevant 

literature, geologic maps, and consultation with 

other geologists, as well as from interdisciplinary 

team meetings, field trips, and site visits. Impacts 

were identified with the use of best professional 

judgment and were assessed according to the impact 

intensity criteria listed below. 

Geologic Features 

Negligible: Impacts on geologic features would not 

be detectable through standard observation. 

Minor: Actions could result in a change to a 

geologic feature or natural physical 

resource, but the change would be local 

or small; that is, the total volume of 

disturbance would be nearly indiscernible. Monitoring probably would detect 

changes or loss of the features, and the 

loss of associated contextual information would be minimal. 

Moderate: Actions would result in a measurable change to a geologic feature or 

natural physical resource that would 

be of consequence. The total volume 

of disturbance could still be small, 

but quite noticeable in a local area, 

or it would involve a unique or rare 

feature. Monitoring would identify 

most affected geologic features, but 

some features or associated contextual 

information would be lost. 

Major: Actions would result in a dramatic 

change to a geologic feature or natural 

physical resource. The change would 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

206 
be measurable, and the amount of 

disturbance would be large. Even with 

monitoring, many features would be 

significantly altered, or associated 

contextual information likely lost. 

Geologic Processes 

The following impact thresholds are based on the 

frequency and magnitude of changes to geologic 

processes in comparison to the natural range of 

variability (NRV). 

Negligible: The effects on geologic processes would 

not be detectable based on standard 

scientifi c methodologies. Actions would 

result in frequencies and magnitudes of 

disruption that would be well within the 

NRV. 

Minor: Effects would be detectable. Frequencies and magnitudes of disruption 

would be expected to remain within the 

NRV. 

Moderate: Impacts would be detectable. The 

frequencies and magnitudes of disruption would be outside the NRV for short 

periods of time but would return to the 

NRV. 

Major: Impacts would be detectable. The 

frequencies and magnitudes of disruption would be outside the NRV for 

short to long periods of time or even 

permanent. Disruptions within the NRV 

may be long-term. Disruptions of key 

geologic processes or ecosystems might 

be long term or permanent. 

Because almost all of the Eastern Snake River 

Plain (ESRP) is covered by basaltic volcanism, the 

area of analysis for cumulative impacts on geologic 

resources was defined as the ESRP. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Roads and trails provide access to geologic features. 

Experience in the original NPS Monument for more 

than 75 years has shown that damage, theft, and 

vandalism are usually concentrated near roads and 

trails. Such impacts would occur under Alternative 

A, in which roads and trails would continue to be 

maintained per current standards. 

Geologic resources would be subject to removal 

(theft), destruction, vandalism, graffiti, and trash. 

Resources affected could include lava fl ows, lava 

tubes, spatter cones, and cinder cones, as well as 

smaller scale features such as squeeze-ups, lava 

ropes, glassy crusts, and volcanic bombs. Vandalism 

already has caused moderate to major impacts to 

some caves near roads. For example, Lariat Cave 

has graffiti and large numbers of spent fi reworks 

and other trash. Under Alternative A, such impacts 

would be site-specific, ranging broadly in intensity, 

depending on the attraction and ease of access to the 

geologic feature. Consequently, these actions would 

result in site-specific, long-term, and negligible to 

potentially major adverse impacts on individual 

features. 

Experience has shown that foot traffi c affects 

geologic processes such as downslope movement 

of unconsolidated or poorly consolidated material 

on cinder cones, spatter cones, hornitos, and spatter 

ramparts. Foot traffic also causes compaction and 

the formation of social trails. Comparisons of Robert 

Limbert photographs from the early 1900s with the 

present day view suggests that the spatter cones in 

the developed part of the original NPS Monument 

have lost at least 2 feet in elevation because of 

human disturbance (Clark 2003). This is deemed a 

direct long-term, major impact at these locations. 

Effects on geologic processes would be expected 

to occur under Alternative A. These site-specifi c, 

short- to long-term adverse impacts would range 

from negligible to potentially major. 

Unpaved roads and parking lots are more vulnerable 

to eolian processes (wind erosion, transport, and 

deposition) than surrounding areas anchored by 

vegetation. Alternative A has 585 miles of Class B, 

C, and D roads inside the Monument that would be 

subject to eolian processes. Dust could coat geologic 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 207
formations, infiltrate into cinders, and be deposited 

in or fill cracks. In comparison to the aftermath 

of fire, these impacts would fall within the range 

of normal variability and therefore would cause a 

negligible impact on geologic processes. 

The removal of vegetative cover by fi re accelerates 

eolian processes. Erosion, transport, and deposition 

of sediment can be site-specific to regional in context, depending on the acreage burned. Fire, either 

natural or human-caused, can affect eolian processes 

for two or more years. Because fires can be a natural 

process, the effects of fire then fall within the 

natural range of variability. Under Alternative A, all 

fires except those in designated Wilderness would 

be suppressed, thereby limiting the area affected 

by fire. However, suppression involves the use of 

heavy equipment and the construction of fi re lines, 

which would affect geological features locally. The 

acceleration of eolian processes by fire would result 

in a negligible adverse impact on geologic processes, 

but fire suppression activities could cause limited 

direct minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

Grazing can also affect geological resources. 

Fencing is often lacking where young lava fl ows 

form the boundaries of Monument grazing allotments. However, experience indicates that because 

of limited forage and lack of water, livestock do not 

frequently wander onto young lava flows or features 

adjacent to grazing allotments. In addition, livestock 

may occasionally stray onto young lava fl ows or 

features during trailing, especially where the trail 

corridor is narrow. Under Alternative A, direct effects on lava features would be site-specifi c, adverse, 

long-term, and range from negligible to minor. 

Trailing livestock would also affect eolian processes 

(wind erosion, transport, and deposition), but in 

comparison to fire, such effects would fall within the 

range of natural variability. Therefore, the trailing of 

livestock would result in negligible long-term effects 

on geologic processes. 

Removing cinders from materials sites in the 

Monument for road construction and maintenance 

would directly affect the geologic features from 

which they would be removed. Extraction would be 

site-specific and could result in minor to moderate 

adverse impacts in the short term. With long-term 

use of a material site (i.e., more than 50 years), the 

total loss of the feature (e.g., a small cinder cone) 

could result, constituting a potential site-specifi c 

major adverse impact. However, under all alternatives, new material sites would be limited to those 

required for administrative purposes only, and any 

closed sites would be reclaimed. This would result 

in a long-term indirect negligible benefi cial effect on 

the Monument’s geological features. 

Sagebrush steppe restoration activities would be 

conducted on the older soil dominated areas of the 

Monument and not on the exposed lava. With the 

exception of occasional and very limited deposition 

of dust during high winds, restoration activities 

would cause minimal impact on geologic resources. 

Cumulative Impacts 

There are no known past or future projects outside 

the Monument that would affect geologic resources 

in the Monument. However, over the life of the plan, 

Southern Idaho’s population could increase substantially. A visitor center also may be built in the 

future in the Twin Falls area, which could increase 

visitation and consequently increase the likelihood 

of impacts on geologic features in the Monument. 

The effects, which would be site-specifi c or even 

feature-specific, could cover a broad range from 

negligible to potentially major adverse impacts. 

The effect of the Monument expansion on the 

geology of the ESRP would be benefi cial and would 

vary little by alternative. Monument expansion has 

withdrawn approximately 1,100 square miles or 

750,000 acres of the area surrounding the Great Rift 

from extractive operations (with the exception of existing authorized materials sites in the Monument). 

Mechanized travel in the Monument is limited to 

roads. Outside the Monument, rock collecting and 

other extractive operations are permitted and travel 

is not as restricted; this is not expected to change. 

Further, as population grows, the demand for 

aggregate, landscape rock, etc., is likely to increase, 

leading to more and more loss of ESRP geologic 

resources outside of the Monument. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

208 
In contrast, almost all of the Great Rift, which is 

the best-developed example of a volcanic rift zone 

on the ESRP, lies in the Monument. In addition, of 

the eight geologically young lava fi elds found on 

the ESRP, the Monument encompasses the three 

youngest and therefore the least altered by natural 

processes, making them the best for observing 

geologic features. The Monument now includes 

almost all of the Craters of the Moon Lava Field, 

the largest young basaltic lava field in the lower 48 

states. 

Monument designation has resulted in a long-term 

major cumulative beneficial effect not only by 

protecting and preserving a sizeable chunk of the 

ESRP geology for future generations to enjoy, but 

also by preserving and protecting the best geologic 

examples. Therefore, this action, added to the negligible to potentially major adverse impacts associated 

with specific uses and locations in the Monument 

and the surrounding lands in the ESRP, would result 

in an overall long-term moderate benefi cial effect on 

geological resources in the ESRP region. 

Conclusion 

Under Alternative A, geological resources would be 

affected by continued visitor access via roads and 

trails, as well as by wind erosion, fi re, fi re suppression, and grazing. These effects would be mainly 

direct and both short- and long-term in nature, 

ranging from negligible to potentially major levels. 

Indirect impacts would result from the deposition of 

dust and soils on geological features over time. The 

limitation on new mineral extraction sites would 

result in indirect long-term negligible benefi cial 

effects on geological resources. 

Although an individual geologic feature could suffer 

a major impact, in context of the entire Monument’s 

geologic features/resources, the impacts would be 

quite localized (that is, the effect would cover only a 

small part of the entire Monument’s land area or an 

individual type of geologic feature, of which there 

may be many). 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s geologic 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Under Alternative B, improved roads and trails 

would result in greater access, development, and 

visitation than would occur under Alternative 

A. Adverse impacts such as direct damage to 

or removal of features caused by these changes 

would also be greater. Intensities, which would be 

site-specific (e.g., a lava tube near a road or trail) 

or feature-specific (e.g., a hornito) and cover the 

same broad range of negligible to potentially major 

adverse impacts, would have a greater likelihood of 

more severe impacts from increased visitation and 

access. Areas of specific concern in Alternative B 

would include the following: 

• South Grotto already has been moderately 

affected under existing and past management; 

there are several obvious social trails that 

mar the landform. The increased access under 

Alternative B could exacerbate this degradation, resulting in a long-term, potentially major 

adverse impact on the spatter cone or spatter 

rampart feature. Squeeze-ups present in Kings 

Bowl Lava Field are vulnerable to collection 

because of their small size. Increased ease of 

access and higher visitation under Alternative 

B could increase this vulnerability, representing a direct moderate to potentially major 

adverse impact over time. 

• The shelly pahoehoe surrounding the Pillar 

Butte area of the Wapi Lava Field is extremely 

vulnerable to damage from foot traffic. 

Improved access into the Wapi Park area 

could increase visitation and resultant impacts 

on the shelly pahoehoe. Without estimates 

of how much visitation would increase, it is 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 209
not possible to predict the exact intensity of 

such impacts, but moderate to possibly major 

impacts could occur because of the feature's 

vulnerability to breaking under the weight of 

a hiker. 

• Road improvements would be likely to 

facilitate increased visitation to caves that are 

shown on maps to be close to the improved 

roads. This could lead to in direct and indirect 

minor to potentially major long-term adverse 

impacts on the caves due to damage, vandalism, speleothem collection, and poor caving 

practices. 

As mentioned under Alternative A, unpaved roads 

and parking lots are more vulnerable to eolian 

processes than surrounding areas anchored by 

vegetation. Alternative B has 575 miles of Class B, 

C, and D roads inside the Monument that would be 

subject to eolian processes. Increased motorized 

traffic under Alternative B would exacerbate sediment erosion, transport, and, ultimately, deposition. 

In comparison to the aftermath of fire, these impacts 

would fall within the range of normal variability 

and therefore would result in a negligible effect on 

geologic processes. 

As with Alternative A, accelerated erosion, 

transport, and deposition of sediment would result 

from the removal of vegetative cover by fi re. 

Alternative B would include a greater potential for 

human-caused fire associated with improved access 

or more widespread visitation and a greater potential 

for suppression activities involving heavy equipment 

and fire line construction. The acceleration of eolian 

processes by fire and the potential direct damage 

to features caused by suppression activities would 

result in a negligible to moderate direct adverse 

impact on geologic resources. 

Livestock use would be managed the same under all 

the alternatives. However, the area in the Passage 

Zone would be larger in Alternative B. This could 

lead to more livestock developments, which could 

cause impacts to nearby geologic features through 

deposition of dust or direct damage. The resulting 

adverse impacts would be negligible to minor and 

long-term. 

Short-term effects on materials sites would be the 

same as those of Alternative A: adverse impacts 

would be minor to moderate and site-specifi c. 

However, the possibility of maintaining more roads 

to a higher standard in Alternative B could accelerate long-term effects at individual sites, constituting 

a potentially major site-specifi c adverse impact. 

As with Alternative A, the limits on new mineral 

sites would result in long-term negligible benefi cial 

effects on geological resources. 

Alternative B would involve the use of more informational, interpretive, and educational materials. 

These could increase public understanding and appreciation of geologic resources, leading indirectly 

to their protection. This could be a long-term minor 

to moderate beneficial effect on geologic resources 

throughout the ESRP. 

Developing visitor use facilities would attract more 

people to the Kings Bowl area. This additional visitation could result in more vandalism and unauthorized collection of geologic features and the development of social trails. Long-term direct and indirect 

adverse impacts on geologic resources would range 

from minor to potentially major, depending on 

site-specific conditions and accessibility. However, 

the informational and educational emphasis might 

help to mitigate these impacts, keeping impact levels 

to less than major in most cases. 

Designating primitive campsites in the Passage 

Zone under Alternative B could cause direct, 

site-specific long-term, minor adverse impacts on 

geologic resources from construction or clearing. 

Encouraging more people to stay in the Monument 

overnight could cause site-specifi c long-term minor 

to moderate adverse impacts on geologic resources 

from theft and vandalism. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts on geologic resources from 

Alternative B would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A. Although Alternative B would 

involve more visitor access compared to the No 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

210 
Action Alternative, the related increased effects 

would not be substantially different. Therefore, the 

overall cumulative effects, considering all ESRP 

related actions and the protection provided by the 

Monument designation, would be long-term, moderate and benefi cial. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would have the most improved road 

access and the greatest number of improved roads 

and additional trail designations, which would result 

in the largest increase in visitation and/or access 

of all the alternatives. As a consequence, Alternative B could result in a slightly greater loss of 

geologic features or structures and a higher rate of 

degradation of geologic resources or damage from 

vandalism. Adverse impacts from increased access 

would range from negligible to potentially major, 

with specific concerns about direct major damage 

to features in the Kings Bowl and Wapi Lava Field 

areas. Increased fire suppression and continued 

grazing could result in minor to moderate adverse 

impacts, and small beneficial effects would result 

from the limits on new mineral extraction areas. 

Although an individual geologic feature could suffer 

a major impact, in context of the entire Monument’s 

geologic features/resources, the impacts would be 

quite localized (that is, the effect would cover only a 

small part of the entire Monument’s land area or an 

individual type of geologic feature, of which there 

may be many). 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s geologic 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative C would have the 

largest area of Pristine Zone, the fewest improved 

roads, and the greatest chance of road closures for 

resource protection. Therefore, it would result in 

slightly fewer adverse impacts on geologic resources 

than Alternative A. Impacts still could be caused 

by damage, vandalism, or theft. They would be 

site-specifi c or feature-specific and could range from 

negligible to potentially major. However, less access 

in this alternative would reduce the potential for 

major impacts. 

There would be fewer impacts from eolian processes 

under Alternative C because this alternative would 

include fewer Class B, C, and D roads (532 total 

miles of B, C, and D roads inside the Monument). 

Impacts on geologic processes from wind erosion, 

transport, and deposition would be negligible and 

adverse. 

The potential for human-caused fire would be less 

because of reduced access and presumably fewer 

visitations than in Alternative A. If fi re occurred, 

wildland fire would occur in the Pristine Zone, 

which would minimize the amount of heavy equipment, fire line construction for suppression, and less 

damage overall related to fire. Overall, the adverse 

impacts on geologic resources from fire would be 

negligible. 

Because grazing would not be managed any differently under this alternative, the same negligible to 

minor adverse impacts as described for Alternative 

A would result from the trampling of features and 

the development of trails. 

The effects on materials sites under Alternative 

C would be the same as those of Alternative A: 

minor to moderate site-specifi c adverse impacts in 

the short term, with long-term negligible benefi cial 

effects. However, because of fewer miles of roads 

and less maintenance of roads in Alternative C, 

there would be fewer long-term adverse impacts 

at individual sites; they would be only moderate 

because less material would be needed for road 

maintenance. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts on geologic resources from 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 211
Alternative C would be similar to those described IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

for the No Action Alternative, but in Alternative C, (PROPOSED PLAN) 

limited access would slightly decrease the potential 

for major impacts compared to the No Action 

Alternative. Therefore, the overall cumulative 

effects from Alternative C (considering all ESRP 

related actions and the protection afforded by the 

Monument designation) would be long-term, moderate, and benefi cial. 

Conclusion 

Alternative C would have the largest area of 

Pristine Zone, which would afford the most natural 

protection to geologic features through diffi cult or 

remote, foot-only access. The closure of non-essential roads and limited access would lead to the 

smallest amount of dust-related impacts. Impacts 

from visitor damage, theft, or vandalism would 

range from negligible to potentially major locally, 

but the probability of major impacts would be lower 

because of decreased visitor access. Negligible to 

minor adverse impacts from fire and grazing would 

continue, and there would be slight benefi cial effects 

from limits on new mineral extraction sites. Overall, 

Alternative C would cause the fewest adverse 

impacts on geologic resources of all the alternatives. 

Although an individual geologic feature could suffer 

a major impact, in context of the entire Monument’s 

geologic features/resources, the impacts would be 

quite localized (that is, the effect would cover only a 

small part of the entire Monument’s land area or an 

individual type of geologic feature, of which there 

may be many). 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s geologic 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

Analysis 

Under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), roads would 

be maintained as needed to enable access for 

restoration and fi re management activities. Visitors 

could continue to use these roads, as in Alternative 

A, and impacts from damage, theft, and vandalism 

near roads and trails would be likely to be similar 

to those of Alternative A. Some modifi cations were 

made to Alternative D as presented in this FEIS to 

reduce Passage Zone in the Laidlaw Park area and 

to change some zoning along the edges of lava fl ows 

from Primitive to Pristine Zone. These changes 

would help limit access in those areas, thus reducing 

the potential for damage to geologic features. Any 

adverse impacts from visitor use would be sitespecifi c or feature-specific and impacts would range 

from negligible to potentially major if an individual 

feature were to be irreparably damaged. 

Under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), 557 miles of 

Class B, C, and D roads inside the Monument would 

be subject to wind erosion, transport, and deposition onto geological features. The unpaved roads 

in Alternative D would cause the same negligible 

adverse impacts on geologic processes that were 

described for Alternative A. 

The potential for human-caused fi res under 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) could be less than in 

Alternative A because Alternative D would involve 

less accommodation of visitors in the expanded 

areas of the Monument through signs, developed 

recreation sites, and information. However, there 

would be more wildland fire use, thereby reducing 

certain impacts of wide-scale suppression activities. 

Prescribed burns under Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan) for resource management would result in 

negligible effects on geologic resources. Overall, 

negligible to minor adverse impacts would occur, 

similar to Alternative A. 

Grazing and associated trailing would result in the 

same negligible to minor adverse impacts described 

for the other alternatives, since grazing would not be 

managed any differently under this alternative. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

212 
The use of materials sites under Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan) would also result in the same 

impacts as described for previous alternatives: 

minor to moderate site-specifi c adverse impacts in 

the short term and slight long-term benefi cial effects 

from limits on new sites. 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would include more 

emphasis on encouraging visitors to seek licensed 

guides and outfitters to lead them on ventures in 

the Monument. Properly trained outfi tters and 

guides might reduce impacts to geologic resources 

through instruction and monitoring of their clientele, 

resulting in regional minor to moderate long-term 

beneficial effects on geologic resources in the ESRP. 

Emphasizing off-site education under Alternative 

D (Proposed Plan) could decrease visitation to the 

Monument, thus reducing the effects on geologic 

resources. This could result in a long-term, site-specific to regional minor beneficial effect on geologic 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on geologic resources from 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would be similar to 

those described for the No Action Alternative. Although there would be some access improvements, 

generally these would not cause a great increase in 

visitor use, since the improvements would be limited 

to those needed for administrative uses. Therefore, 

the overall cumulative effects from Alternative 

D (considering all ESRP-related actions and the 

protection afforded by the Monument designation) 

would be long-term, moderate, and benefi cial. 

Conclusion 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan), because of its 

aggressive restoration goals and emphasis on off-site 

experience, would result in benefi cial effects because it would limit damage from visitors and result 

in the restoration of many features. The erosion of 

roads, fi res, fire suppression, and grazing would 

result in site-specific, negligible to minor adverse 

impacts. 

Although an individual geologic feature could suffer 

a major impact, in context of the entire Monument’s 

geologic features/resources, the impacts would be 

quite localized (that is, the effect would cover only a 

small part of the entire Monument’s land area or an 

individual type of geologic feature, of which there 

may be many). 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s geologic 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

SOILS 

METHODOLOGY AND 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. General 

soil types, erosion potential, structure, and function were discussed and impacts were analyzed. 

The analysis was based on reference information, 

anticipated effects of management prescriptions by 

alternative, and professional judgment. 

The following threshold criteria to indicate intensity 

of potential impacts were established: 

Negligible: The effects on soil productivity or 

fertility would be at or below the level 

of detection. 

Minor: The effects on soil productivity or 

fertility would be small, as would the 

area affected. If mitigation was needed 

to offset adverse effects, it would be 

relatively simple to implement and 

would likely be successful. 

Moderate: The effect on soil productivity or 

fertility would be readily apparent and 

result in a change in the soil character 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 213
over a relatively wide area. Mitigating 

measures probably would be necessary 

to offset adverse effects and would 

likely be successful. 

Major: The effect on soil productivity or 

fertility would be readily apparent 

and long-term and would substantially 

change the character of the soils over a 

large area in and outside of the Monument. Extensive mitigating measures to 

offset adverse effects would be needed, 

and their success could not be guaranteed. 

The area of analysis for cumulative effects on 

soils, which was defined as approximately 50 miles 

beyond the Monument boundary, is referred to as 

South-Central Idaho. This incorporates areas of soil 

loss and deposition that would affect the Monument. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Under Alternative A, roads would be maintained at 

current standards. Direct adverse impacts on soils 

from road maintenance and use would include road 

edge disturbance, isolated erosion, and compaction. 

The effects on soils from soil displacement and dust 

production would be local, minor, and long-term. 

Trail maintenance and construction, as well as 

recreational use, would involve some soil loss, 

compaction, and erosion, resulting in site-specifi c 

negligible to minor long-term adverse impacts on 

soils. 

Wildland fires would be suppressed in all areas 

except in designated wilderness, where some 

fires might be allowed for resource benefi t. Direct 

impacts on soils from wildland fires would vary, 

depending on soil types and fire severity, but localized major impacts would occur from suppression 

activities, including fire line construction. Erosion 

resulting from decreased vegetation cover and 

wildland fire suppression activities would be likely 

to occur on most soil types until erosion control 

measures or revegetation could take place. Soil 

fertility could be positively affected by fi re, which 

often increases nutrient cycling. High-intensity 

wildland fires in localized places could sterilize soil 

and reduce overall productivity; however, the overall 

adverse impacts would be minor. 

Weed control by herbicides or by mechanical means, 

along with the active restoration of 40,000 acres 

of degraded sagebrush steppe areas, would cause 

negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts on 

soil chemistry, structure, productivity, and abundance through herbicide applications, equipment 

disturbance and compaction, and wind erosion. The 

long-term benefits of weed control and a restored 

sagebrush steppe community would include stabilized soils and improved or restored natural fertility, 

productivity, and function. Such benefi cial effects 

would be long-term and moderate in intensity. 

With continued livestock use under Alternative A, it 

is assumed that guidelines would be used to achieve 

rangeland health standards. Under this scenario, the 

effects on soils would include compaction, erosion, 

and changes to soil fertility and production. Soil 

compaction or soil erosion, or both, would occur 

in areas where livestock concentrate (e.g., watering areas, salt licks, fence lines, and corrals) and 

vegetation has been reduced or removed. Additional 

livestock developments could increase such impacts. 

However, some of these developments might mitigate more widespread adverse impacts on soils by 

concentrating livestock use in specifi c areas. 

Livestock use could result in negative or positive 

effects on soil fertility and production. The nature 

of the effects would depend on changes in nutrient 

cycling (e.g., reduced litter accumulation; incorporation of manure), seedbed characteristics, abundance 

and type of soil biota or soil biological crusts, and 

soil moisture. Overall, livestock use would result 

in short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on soils. 

Facility development, including expanding the 

Visitor Center, installing waysides at Kings Bowl, 

and maintaining kiosks, signs, and wayside exhibits 

would be site-specific and would cause localized 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

214 
long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts 

on soil. Wherever distinct soil disturbance and 

excavation would occur, best management practices 

(BMPs) such as those listed under “Mitigating 

Measures” in Chapter 2 would be implemented. For 

example, topsoil would be set aside and replaced 

to help retain the structure and fertility of soils and 

minimize impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In the area surrounding the Monument, agricultural 

practices, including dryland farming, grazing, and 

ranching, have led to the erosion of soils by removing native vegetation and replacing it with plants 

not always suited to the local environment. This, 

along with tilling of the soil, periodic drought, and 

frequent wildfires, has left soils in the vicinity of the 

Monument exposed to erosion by wind. Agricultural 

and other land use activities, as well as development 

of homes, roads, and other developments, alter soil 

structure, productivity, and function. 

Soil loss and movement resulting from the effects of 

these land management activities are the most notable 

adverse impacts inside and outside of the Monument. 

Stabilization and revegetation efforts by land management agencies and some private individuals help 

mitigate what could otherwise be described as major 

cumulative impacts for South Central Idaho during 

drought and wildfire years. Typically, however, such 

impacts, along with the effects of Alternative A, 

would be regional, moderate, adverse and long-term. 

Conclusion 

Soil disturbance, erosion, and compaction would be 

the primary adverse impacts associated with most 

management actions under Alternative A. Wildland 

fire and suppression, restoration activities, road 

and trail maintenance and use, and livestock use 

are the management activities most likely to affect 

soils. Overall, short- and long-term adverse impacts 

on soils would be minor to moderate in intensity, 

with long-term moderate benefi cial effects from the 

restoration program. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s soil 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

In addition to the effects discussed for Alternative A, improved road and trail access and more 

recreational and interpretation facilities or structures 

in Alternative B could result in increased direct 

adverse impacts on site-specific soils. It is assumed 

that improved roads, trails, and facilities would lead 

to increased public use and recreation. The adverse 

effects would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A; predominantly, they would comprise 

minor increases in soil disturbance, erosion, and 

compaction. Off-trailing due to more public use 

probably would affect additional areas. 

The extent of the effects would vary, and quantifying the impacts exactly is not possible because the 

specific roads to be improved and the number of 

recreational facilities have not yet been specifi ed. 

However, under Alternative B, Class B (gravel 

surface) roads in the Passage Zone would increase 

from 45 miles in Alternative A to 67 miles in 

Alternative B. Class C roads would increase from 14 

miles to 156 miles inside the Monument. The resulting road improvements and use in the Passage Zone 

would result in direct long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts and indirect adverse impacts related 

to greater access to areas along roadways. 

Restoring 45,000 acres in the Monument would be 

5,000 acres more than in Alternative A. This would 

not result in a substantial change in the characterization of the impacts described for Alternative A. 

Mechanical disturbance, compaction, herbicide use, 

and wind erosion would negatively affect soils in the 

short term at minor levels; however, weed management and restoration activities would improve 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 215
and restore soil conditions, resulting in moderate 

long-term beneficial effects. Under Alternative B, 

suppression activities would likely increase, causing 

minor to potentially major localized short-term 

adverse impacts on soils. 

Because livestock management use would be similar 

in all alternatives, the effects on soils would be the 

same as those described for Alternative A. However, 

in Alternative B there would be a potential for more 

livestock developments in the Passage Zone due to 

the increase in access, and this would likely increase 

the magnitude of soils disturbance. This would 

result in short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on soils from grazing. 

Facility development would be enhanced under 

this alternative, with a trail system and day use 

area in Kings Bowl and the potential to add to the 

Visitor Center facility. These actions would result in 

minor to moderate short-term construction-related 

adverse impacts, with the removal of soils and/or 

soil productivity in very limited areas, resulting in 

long-term localized moderate impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

As in Alternative A, the most notable long-term 

cumulative impact on soils from Alternative B 

would be soil erosion and displacement from the 

area in and around the Monument. There also would 

be a potential for more impacts from increased 

public use of the area, but the intensity of impacts 

still would be moderate. 

Similar to Alternative A, in the area surrounding 

the Monument, agricultural practices, periodic 

drought, and frequent wildfires have left soils in 

the vicinity of the Monument exposed to erosion by 

wind. Agricultural and other land use activities, as 

well as the development of homes, roads, and other 

developments, can alter soil structure, productivity, 

and function and contribute to adverse soil impacts. 

The cumulative effects of these land management 

activities, in conjunction with the impacts of 

Alternative B, would be regional, moderate, adverse 

and long term. 

Conclusion 

Improved road and trail access, the development of 

recreation facilities, and increased visitor use of the 

Monument might increase the amount of soil area 

directly and indirectly affected. Additional construction of unpaved roads, trails, and day use areas and 

more extensive use of fire suppression would cause 

direct loss of soils locally, resulting in minor to 

moderate local adverse impacts. Grazing also would 

cause additional minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

Overall, the short- and long-term adverse impacts 

on soils from Alternative B would range from minor 

to moderate; the restoration program would result in 

long-term moderate benefi cial effects. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s soil 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

An increase in short-term adverse impacts and 

long-term beneficial effects on soils would result 

from Alternative C from a larger proposed restoration area (55,000 total acres, compared to 40,000 

acres in Alternative A). Mechanical disturbance, 

compaction, herbicide, and wind erosion all would 

negatively affect soils in the short term at minor 

levels. However, the weed management and restoration activities would stabilize soils and improve 

their structure and function, resulting in moderate 

long-term benefi ts. 

There would be potential for more wildfi re-influenced acreage under Alternative C because of 

reduced road access and increased response time 

on fewer miles of maintained roads. There would 

be less use of suppression and more emphasis on 

the use of fire for resource benefi t, with fewer direct 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

216 
impacts from these activities. More soils could 

potentially be exposed to the effects of wildfi re, 

including adverse impacts such as the erosion of 

exposed soil and sterilization in hot spots. There 

also could be typically beneficial effects such as 

increased soil fertility and nutrient cycling. Direct 

soil disturbance from roads and access would be 

reduced by a reduction in road maintenance, less 

recreation and other visitor uses, and potential road 

closures. 

Effects from livestock use such as compaction and 

soil nutrient alteration would be similar to those 

of Alternative A: short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on soils. Developments 

in Alternative C would be minimal, so short-term 

adverse impacts on soil from construction and 

long-term adverse impacts from the removal of soil 

would be negligible to minor. 

Cumulative Impacts 

As with Alternative A, cumulative soil erosion and 

displacement in and around the Monument would be 

the most notable long-term impacts. There is potential for increased cumulative impact intensity from 

increased restoration acreage and wildfi re potential, 

but the intensity level would still be considered 

moderate. 

Periodic drought, frequent wildfi res, agricultural 

practices, and development have left soils in the 

vicinity of the Monument exposed to erosion by 

wind and have affected structure, productivity, and 

function. The cumulative effect of these activities, 

in conjunction with affects of Alternative C, would 

result in regional moderate adverse long-term 

impacts on soils. 

Conclusion 

The effects of Alternative C on soils would be 

substantially the same as those of Alternative A, 

with slightly more short-term erosion potential and 

slightly fewer long-term soil impacts. Impacts from 

facility construction maintenance and fi re suppression would be reduced, and adverse impacts from 

grazing would remain minor to moderate. Overall, 

the intensity of the short- and long-term adverse 

impacts would be minor to moderate, with more 

long-term beneficial effects from a slightly expanded 

restoration program. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s soil 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

The effects on soils from Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan) would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A, with the exception of the effects from 

doubling the proposed restoration acreage (from 

40,000 acres in Alternative A to 80,000 acres in 

Alternative D). The exposure of the soils over this 

acreage would result in increased wind erosion and 

potential nutrient loss, resulting in short-term minor 

to moderate adverse impacts. However, as described 

for Alternative A, the long-term effects on soils 

would be beneficial at a moderate to potentially 

major level under this alternative. 

Roads would mostly be maintained at current 

standards in Alternative D (Proposed Plan), but 

improvements could be made to allow access for 

resource management. The effects would be similar 

to those of Alternative A, in that direct adverse 

impacts on soils from road maintenance and use 

would include road edge disturbance, isolated 

erosion, and compaction. These impacts would 

be minor and long-term. Trail maintenance and 

construction would involve site-specifi c negligible 

to minor long-term adverse impacts on soils such 

as compaction and altered fertility. Emphasis on 

off-site programs and commercial outfi tters would 

help limit the impacts on soils. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 217
Adverse impacts such as soil loss resulting from 

wildland fi re, wildfire use, and any suppression 

activities under Alternative D (Proposed Plan) 

would be minor because suffi cient road access 

would be available in all areas, which would 

minimize response time and burned acreage. With 

wildland fire use in the Pristine Zone, the effects on 

soils exposed to fire typically would be benefi cial 

- increased soil fertility and nutrient cycling. 

As in Alternative A, livestock use under Alternative 

D (Proposed Plan) would cause short- and long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on soils. Developments under Alternative D would include a possible center run by multiple agencies at the southern 

end of the Monument. Expanding the Visitor Center, 

adding interpretation and trails in Kings Bowl, and 

installing wayside exhibits and signs would result in 

local minor to moderate long-term adverse impacts 

on soils, including direct soil loss, soil erosion, and 

local compaction. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts on soils from Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan) would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A. Agricultural practices, periodic 

drought, frequent wildfires, and development in 

the area would leave soils exposed to wind erosion, 

altering soil structure, productivity, and function. 

However, the greatly expanded restoration efforts 

of Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would contribute 

substantial benefits in the long run, helping to 

balance the many smaller-scale adverse impacts in 

the area of analysis. Overall, the cumulative effects 

of all actions outside the Monument, in conjunction 

with the actions of Alternative D, would result 

in regional minor to moderate long-term adverse 

impacts. 

Conclusion 

The effects of Alternative D (Proposed Plan) on 

soils would be similar to those of Alternative A, 

with more short-term erosion potential from road 

and trail use and maintenance, facility development, 

and fire. Long- and short-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts could result from grazing and 

fire suppression. Overall, the short- and long-term 

adverse impacts would be minor to moderate. 

However, there would be moderate to major longterm beneficial effects on soils in the Monument, 

assuming successful restoration of the entire 

proposed acreage under this alternative. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s soil 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

VEGETATION, INCLUDING 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, 

AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Vegetation is a fundamental and vitally important element among the Monument’s biological resources. 

The effects on vegetation resulting from any of the 

alternatives under consideration would also affect 

other resources. Adverse impacts can result in weed 

invasion and soil surface disturbance and can lead to 

changes in the composition of vegetation communities. These changes, in turn, can infl uence animal 

populations. Where vegetation cover is reduced and 

soil erosion results, archaeological, paleontological, 

and historic resources, as well as water and air 

quality, could be adversely affected. 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

Effects on vegetation were assessed with the use of 

data about vegetation communities in the Monument 

and professional judgment. Effects on special status 

plants would be limited to BLM sensitive species, 

as there are no federally listed plants present in the 

Monument. The following categories were used to 

evaluate the potential impacts on vegetation: 

Negligible: No native vegetation would be affected, 

or some individual native plants could 

be affected as a result of the alternative, 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

218 
but there would be no effect on native 

plant communities. The effects would 

be on a small scale. No special status 

plants would be affected. 

The action would affect some individual 

native plants and would also affect a 

relatively minor portion of the plant 

community. The use of standard 

operating procedures to offset adverse 

impacts, including special measures to 

avoid affecting special status plants, 

would be required and would be effective. 

The action would affect numerous 

individual native plants and would also 

affect a sizeable segment of the plant 

community over a relatively large area. 

The use of standard operating procedures to offset adverse effects could be 

extensive but the procedures probably 

would be successful. Special status 

plants could be affected. 

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 of the Monument. The extensive use of standard 

operating procedures to offset the 

adverse effects would be necessary, and 

their success would not be guaranteed. 

Direct effects on vegetation generally are caused by 

any construction activities; by the establishment, 

use, maintenance, closing, or removal of roads and 

trails; by livestock trampling and herbivory; and 

by fire ignitions and suppression actions, including 

blading of fire lines, herbicide treatments, as well as 

by seeding treatments and the introduction, spread, 

and treatment of noxious and invasive weeds. 

Indirect impacts can be lowered vigor or death of 

plants immediately adjacent to roads from dust 

accumulation; changes in plant abundance and/or 

species composition resulting from modifi ed nutriMinor: 

Moderate: 

Major: 

ent cycling due to soil compaction; the accumulation 

of urine and feces; erosion associated with livestock; 

and nutrient modification and soil loss or deposition 

associated with fi re. 

The area of analysis for cumulative effects on 

vegetation was 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 fi re-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. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Under Alternative A, no new roads or trails would 

be constructed, and maintenance would continue 

at current standards. Maintenance would result 

in minor adverse impacts resulting from dust 

deposition and occasional plant removal, with only 

the vegetation immediately adjacent to roads being 

affected. The maintenance of 585 miles of unpaved 

roads (Class B, C, and D) would continue. 

The use of roads and trails would result primarily in 

short-term seasonal indirect minor adverse impacts 

on vegetation (which could include special status 

plants) primarily from the deposition of dust. This 

could cause a decrease in vigor and possibly result 

in the mortality of the affected plants. Trail users 

veering off the trail to avoid obstacles could cause 

long-term negligible to minor impacts by trampling 

vegetation and widening the trail. Long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts could result 

from soil compaction and erosion caused by illegal 

off-trail use. Road and trail use and maintenance 

could spread noxious weeds, with minor to moderate 

short- and long-term adverse impacts on native plant 

communities. 

About 40,000 acres of degraded rangeland (31,000 

acres of annual grassland and 9,000 acres of lowelevation sagebrush steppe, all currently in Fire 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 219
Condition Class [FCC] 2 or FCC3) would be treated 

for proactive sagebrush steppe restoration and/or 

post-fire rehabilitation following wildland fi re. This 

process involves a combination of methods, usually 

herbicides, prescribed fire, and drill-seeding or 

aerial or broadcast seeding with chaining or harrowing, to control invasive and noxious weeds and then 

re-establish shrubs, perennial grasses, and forbs 

through seeding. The management goal would be to 

move the treated areas from FCC2 or FCC3 towards 

FCC1. 

Sagebrush steppe restoration activities would result 

in a short-term minor adverse effect on some native 

plants and special status species due to mortality 

from prescribed burning, herbicide, or seeding treatments. Successful projects would lead to long-term 

moderate to major benefi cial effects. Project-level 

design would help limit off-site impacts such as 

effects on non-target vegetation. Herbicides would 

be selected for specific target species and applied in 

limited areas by certified applicators. Prescribed fi re 

operations would follow pre-approved burn plans 

that would restrict when and where fire could be 

used. 

Livestock use would not vary by alternative. There 

would be no change in the management of livestock 

use from the current situation. Livestock developments such as fences and watering troughs guide 

the movement of livestock and result in long-term 

minor to moderate adverse effects, including localized removal and trampling of vegetation and the 

spread of invasive and noxious weeds. Indirectly, 

soil erosion and compaction and the deposition of 

urine and feces result in alteration of nutrient cycles 

and negatively affect vegetation causing a minor 

long-term impact. 

Impacts caused by livestock use can include the 

mortality of long-lived native plants due to changes 

in the soil environment and the enhancement of 

conditions that support exotic annual species such 

as cheatgrass, the removal of native species, and 

an abundance of excess nitrogen. However, all 

allotments must meet or be making progress toward 

meeting Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health, 

which would minimize these impacts by ensuring 

that the effects on vegetation and soils would not 

result in a downward trend. Livestock management 

in any allotment not meeting the standards would 

have to be changed to improve the health of soils 

and vegetation. 

Wildland fire management under Alternative A 

would consist of full suppression in all parts of the 

Monument except in the designated Wilderness. 

The existing NPS Monument Fire Management Plan 

(USDI NPS 2000) allows for limited wildland fi re 

use. Aggressive suppression would minimize the 

loss of key sagebrush communities and vegetation 

that protects the Little Cottonwood Creek watershed, 

but it would result in short-term moderate local 

impacts from fire line construction, including the 

use of heavy equipment. 

Visitor facilities would remain in the current condition, except that the existing Visitor Center would 

be expanded and some modest trail rehabilitation 

would be carried out, and safety information would 

be posted in the Crystal Ice Cave and Kings Bowl 

area. Expanding the Visitor Center would result in 

negligible adverse impacts on native vegetation, 

because the area has already been altered from the 

natural state. However, plans to convert existing 

exotic lawn to landscaping with the use of native, 

drought-tolerant plants (xeriscaping) would result 

in a long-term indirect minor benefi cial effect 

by educating the public on the values of water 

conservation and native vegetation and the hazards 

of invasive and noxious weeds. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Activities affecting vegetation outside the Monument could negatively affect vegetation resources 

both in and outside of the Monument. Noxious weed 

populations, including rush skeletonweed, diffuse 

knapweed, Russian knapweed, and leafy spurge 

are well established to the west of the Monument. 

Increased visitor use could increase the migration 

of noxious and invasive weeds into the Monument. 

This would necessitate extensive cooperation 

with county weed cooperatives and IDL, as well 

as educating users about noxious weed manageCRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

220 
ment. Aggressive weed management outside the 

Monument, in addition to the actions proposed in 

Alternative A, would result in a long-term negligible 

to moderate beneficial effect on vegetation by 

controlling the spread of noxious weeds. 

Areas surrounding the Monument are affected 

by agricultural practices, including irrigated and 

dryland crop farming and livestock ranching. The 

primary impacts associated with agricultural use are 

(1) eliminating native vegetation through livestock 

grazing or by replacement by crops, (2) the drift of 

weeds; and (3) agricultural trespass, including the 

deposition of garbage or the removal of vegetation 

and planting crops on public lands adjacent to the 

Monument. The effects on vegetation from all the 

actions of Alternative A would be relatively minor, 

and overall, these actions would result in short- to 

long-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts. 

Under Alternative A, direction from the Fire Management Direction Amendments (FMDA) would 

be used to guide treatment of lands both inside and 

outside of the Monument to convert areas dominated 

by cheatgrass to sagebrush with a perennial grass 

and forb understory. The restoration/rehabilitation 

treatments proposed in Alternative A could result 

in short-term negligible to moderate adverse effects 

from herbicide, prescribed fire, and seeding treatments. This would result in the loss of some native 

vegetation and possibly increased erosion. However, 

successful projects placed strategically over the 

landscape to protect and enhance vegetation in the 

Monument would result in a healthier, more resilient 

ecosystem, constituting long-term, large scale minor 

to major benefi cial effects. 

Overall, the benefits of the FMDA initiative, 

combined with the adverse impacts from various 

actions outside the Monument and all actions 

associated with Alternative A, would result in minor 

long-term cumulative adverse impacts on vegetation. 

The restoration program under Alternative A would 

contribute a sizeable amount to regional benefi cial 

effects that would help offset various long-term 

adverse impacts. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would result in both short- and 

long-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts 

on vegetation from continued use and maintenance 

of roads and trails, plus illegal off-road use, spread 

of noxious weeds, fire suppression and fi re, and 

continued grazing. Restoration activities and 

construction of facilities would cause short-term 

negligible to minor direct adverse impacts, but they 

would result in long-term indirect minor to major 

beneficial effects as a result of vegetation restoration 

and public education. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s vegetation resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Under Alternative B, Passage Zone acreage would 

increase from 4,700 to 68,900 acres and Primitive 

Zone acreage would decrease from 290,200 to 

226,900 acres. There would be a corresponding 

increase in the mileage of roads that would be 

upgraded or maintained. Road and trail maintenance 

in the enlarged Passage Zone north of U. S. Highway 

20/26/93 (US 20/26/93), in Laidlaw Park, and in 

the vicinity of the Wapi Lava Field could cause the 

fragmentation of vegetation communities, including 

special status plant populations. 

Depending on the density of roads, road and trail 

improvements under Alternative B would cause 

direct long-term minor to moderate adverse effects 

from the removal of vegetation. Maintenance would 

cause negligible to minor adverse impacts on vegetation adjacent to roads. Depending on the density of 

roads and the number of users, the use of roads and 

trails would result primarily in seasonal indirect 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 221
short-term minor to moderate impacts on vegetation, 

including special status plants, primarily from the 

deposition of dust. This could cause a decrease in 

vigor and possibly result in mortality of the affected 

plants. Trail users that might veer off trails to avoid 

obstacles could trample vegetation and widen trails, 

causing long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts. Such impacts would be exacerbated by the 

use of trails by motorized vehicles such as OHVs. 

Long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

vegetation could result from soil compaction and 

erosion caused by illegal off-trail use. Increased road 

and trail construction could result in the spread of 

noxious weeds, with minor to moderate short- and 

long-term adverse impacts on native plants. 

Under Alternative B, about 45,000 acres of degraded 

rangeland (31,000 acres of annual grassland and 

14,000 acres of low-elevation sagebrush steppe, 

all currently in FCC2 or FCC3) would be treated 

for proactive sagebrush steppe restoration and/or 

post-fire rehabilitation following wildland fi re, a 

5,000-acre increase over Alternative A. This process 

involves a combination of methods, usually herbicides, prescribed fire, and drill-seeding or aerial or 

broadcast seeding with chaining or harrowing, to 

control invasive and noxious weeds and then re-establish shrubs, perennial grasses, and forbs through 

seeding. The management goal would be to move 

the treated areas from FCC2 or FCC3 towards FCC1. 

Fragmentation due to the greater density of roads 

and trails and increased access and maintenance 

would result in smaller blocks of restored vegetation 

than in Alternative A. 

Sagebrush steppe restoration activities would result 

in some vegetation mortality from prescribed 

burning, herbicide, or seeding treatments, a shortterm minor adverse effect on some native plants 

and special status species. Successful projects 

would lead to long-term moderate to possibly major 

beneficial effects. Project-level design, as described 

for Alternative A, would minimize adverse impacts. 

Limited prescribed fire (less than 500 acres over the 

life of the plan) would be used to improve areas in 

FCC2 or maintain areas in FCC1 in aspen, conifer, 

and mountain shrub vegetation types north of US 

20/26/93. These projects would cause short-term 

minor effects consisting of vegetation removal by 

fire. The long-term results of this action would be a 

lower fuel load and plant communities with a greater 

diversity relative to structure and species composition, a moderate to major effect. 

Since livestock use would not vary by alternative, 

there would be no change in the management of livestock use from the current situation under Alternative B. Having the Passage Zone larger could lead to 

more livestock developments, which would result in 

long-term minor to moderate adverse effects, including localized removal and trampling of vegetation 

and the spread of invasive and noxious weeds. Other 

effects, including soil erosion and compaction, the 

alteration of nutrient cycles, and the enhancement of 

conditions that support exotic annual species would 

be the same as described for Alternative A, generally minor to long-term. As previously discussed, all 

allotments must meet or be making progress toward 

meeting the Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health, 

which would minimize these impacts. 

Wildland fire management under Alternative B 

would consist of full suppression in all parts of the 

Monument except in the Wilderness and Preserve. 

Aggressive suppression would minimize the loss 

of key sagebrush communities and vegetation that 

protects the Little Cottonwood Creek watershed. 

The larger Passage Zone, which would allow better 

access to the interior of the Monument, could result 

in more visitors, which in turn could increase the 

risk of fire from the ignition of vegetation adjacent 

to roads or in the center of two-track roads. This 

could be mitigated by education and by patrols 

during high-risk periods. The greater level of suppression under Alternative B would result in direct 

minor to moderate local adverse impacts from fi re 

line construction and the use of heavy equipment. 

Expanding the Visitor Center would cause negligible 

effects on native vegetation because the area already 

has been altered from the natural state, and converting the existing exotic lawn to native xeriscaping 

would educate the public about the value of water 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

222 
conservation and native vegetation and the hazards 

of invasive and noxious weeds, resulting in an 

indirect beneficial effect. Adding kiosks and signs 

would cause little disturbance or removal of vegetation, resulting in negligible effects. Interpretive 

signs could cause a minor to moderate long-term 

beneficial effect by minimizing visitor impacts, 

including the trampling or removal of vegetation and 

the frequency of human-caused fi res. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on vegetation from Alternative B would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A. Impacts related to the agricultural 

practices in areas surrounding the Monument would 

be the same as those described for Alternative A, 

including the elimination of native vegetation, the 

drift of weeds, and agricultural trespass. These 

actions would result in short- to long-term negligible 

to moderate adverse impacts. The movement of 

soil due to wind would have negligible cumulative 

long-term effects. 

As in Alternative A, under Alternative B the 

direction from the FMDA would be used to guide 

the treatment of lands outside of the Monument to 

convert areas dominated by cheatgrass to sagebrush 

with a perennial grass and forb understory. This 

would result in associated short-term negligible to 

moderate adverse effects and long-term large scale 

minor to major benefi cial effects. Overall, all the 

above-described actions, combined with the effects 

of actions specific to Alternative B, would result in 

minor long-term cumulative adverse impacts. The 

restoration program would contribute a sizeable 

amount to cumulative benefits that would offset the 

various adverse impacts on vegetation in the region. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would result in a greater possibility 

of fragmentation, increased risk of noxious weed 

spread, and greater risk of human-caused fi re 

because of increased visitation and access and more 

road and trail maintenance. The effects on vegetation would be both short- and long-term, ranging 

from negligible to moderate, but they would be more 

widespread than in Alternative A. Facility development would cause some long-term negligible to 

minor negative impacts on vegetation, but increased 

public education would result in minor to moderate 

long-term benefi cial effects. Restoration acreage 

would be slightly greater than in Alternative A, with 

short-term minor adverse impacts and long-term 

moderate to major benefi cial effects. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s vegetation resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

The Passage Zone acreage in Alternative C would 

decrease from 4,700 to 3,200 acres; the Primitive 

Zone would decrease from 290,200 to 201,000 acres; 

and the Pristine Zone would increase from 448,800 

to 539,500 acres. There would be a corresponding 

decrease in access due to expansion of the Pristine 

Zone, with a higher potential for road closures and a 

reduced number of better-maintained roads. 

Road and trail maintenance would cause negligible 

to minor impacts on vegetation adjacent to roads. 

The deposition of dust from the use of roads and 

trails would result in short-term, seasonal indirect 

minor to moderate impacts on vegetation, including 

special status plants. This could cause a decrease in 

vigor and possibly result in the mortality of the affected plants adjacent to roads and trails. The roads 

that are open to travel might be used more because 

there would be fewer opportunities for dispersal. 

Trail users might veer off the trail to avoid obstacles, 

possibly trampling vegetation and widening the trail, 

causing long-term negligible to minor impacts. Such 

impacts would be exacerbated by motorized vehicles 

such as OHVs being used on trails. Long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts could result 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 223
from soil compaction and erosion caused by illegal 

off-trail use. Decreased road density would reduce 

the opportunity for noxious weed dispersal, but it 

also would reduce the probability of detection and 

treatment by Monument staff. This would result 

in a minor to moderate adverse impact on the 

Monument’s vegetation. 

Under Alternative C, about 55,000 acres of degraded 

rangeland (31,000 acres of annual grassland and 

24,000 acres of low-elevation sagebrush steppe, all 

currently in FCC2 or FCC3) would be treated for 

proactive sagebrush steppe restoration and/or postfire rehabilitation, an increase of about 38 percent 

over the area targeted under Alternative A. This 

process involves a combination of methods, usually 

herbicides, prescribed fire, and drill-seeding or 

aerial or broadcast seeding with chaining or harrowing, to control invasive and noxious weeds and then 

re-establish shrubs, perennial grasses, and forbs 

through seeding. The management goal would be to 

move the treated areas from FCC2 or FCC3 towards 

FCC1. Under this alternative the restoration would 

occur more slowly than in the other alternatives 

because lower-impact methods (such as reduced use 

of herbicides and seeding methods that reduce soil 

surface disturbance) would be used. 

Sagebrush steppe restoration activities could cause 

mortality from prescribed burning, herbicide, or 

seeding treatments, resulting in short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on some native plants 

and special status species. Successful projects would 

cause long-term minor to major benefi cial effects. It 

is unlikely that all acreage would reach FCC1 within 

the 15- to 20-year life of the plan because of slower 

implementation of projects and use of lower impact 

methods. Project-level design, as described for 

Alternative A, would minimize impacts. 

Limited prescribed fire (less than 500 acres over the 

life of the plan) would be used to improve areas in 

FCC2 or maintain areas in FCC1 in aspen, conifer, 

and mountain shrub vegetation types north of US 

20/26/93. These projects would cause short-term 

minor effects consisting of vegetation removal by 

fire. The long-term results of this action would be a 

lower fuel load and plant communities with a greater 

diversity relative to structure and species composition, a moderate to major effect. 

Since livestock use would not vary by alternative, 

there would be no change in the management of 

livestock use from the current situation under 

Alternative C. Because developments such as 

fences and watering troughs guide the movement of 

livestock, such developments could result in longterm minor to moderate adverse effects, including 

localized removal and trampling of vegetation and 

the spread of invasive and noxious weeds. Other 

effects, including soil erosion and compaction, the 

alteration of nutrient cycles, and the enhancement 

of conditions that support exotic annual species also 

would occur. However, new facilities in Alternative 

C would be limited to those necessary for resource 

protection; therefore, the impacts from concentrations of livestock would be less widespread than 

in Alternative B. All allotments must meet or be 

making progress toward meeting Idaho Standards 

for Rangeland Health, which would minimize these 

impacts. 

Wildland fire management under Alternative C 

would consist of full suppression in all parts of the 

Monument except in the Wilderness and Preserve. 

Aggressive suppression would minimize loss of key 

sagebrush communities and vegetation that protects 

the Little Cottonwood Creek Watershed. However, 

with more Pristine Zone acreage and less access, the 

chance of larger wildland fires would be greater in 

Alternative C. 

In this alternative the enhancement of visitor 

facilities would be limited to expanding the Visitor 

Center. This would cause negligible impacts on 

native vegetation because the area has already 

been altered from the natural state. However, as 

in Alternative A, plans to convert existing exotic 

lawn to native xeriscaping would educate the public 

on the values of water conservation and native 

vegetation and the hazards of invasive and noxious 

weeds, an indirect beneficial effect. The interpretive 

displays in the Visitor Center, along with brochures 

and off-site signs, could help to minimize visitor 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

224 
impacts, including trampling or the removal of 

vegetation and the frequency of human-caused fi re. 

This would be in a minor to moderate long-term 

benefi cial effect. 

Designating a 10,500-acre ACEC in North Laidlaw 

Park would eliminate future livestock water developments in that area, thus maintaining livestock 

use at a low level (Appendix F). This would be a 

long-term negligible to minor benefi cial effect. 

An implementation-level management plan would 

have to be prepared following designation of the 

ACEC. Such a plan would specifically guide proactive management for the vegetative community. 

This could offer a greater level of protection than 

imposing the same management without the ACEC 

designation. Livestock management associated with 

the ACEC could result in the use of new or existing 

water facilities elsewhere in the Monument, thus 

concentrating that use in areas other than North 

Laidlaw Park, resulting in a negligible to minor 

negative effect on vegetation in those areas. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts on vegetation from 

Alternative C would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A, but the adverse impacts would 

be fewer because accessibility and visitation would 

be less and there would be more restoration efforts. 

Impacts related to agricultural practices in areas surrounding the Monument would be the same as those 

described for Alternatives A and B, including the 

elimination of native vegetation, the drift of weeds, 

and agricultural trespass. These actions would result 

in short- to long-term negligible to moderate adverse 

impacts. The movement of soil by wind would cause 

negligible cumulative long-term adverse impacts. 

As in Alternatives A and B, under Alternative C the 

direction from the FMDA would be used to guide 

the treatment of lands outside of the Monument to 

convert areas dominated by cheatgrass to sagebrush 

with a perennial grass and forb understory. This 

would result in associated short-term negligible to 

moderate adverse impacts and long-term large-scale 

minor to major benefi cial effects. Overall, the 

benefits of the FMDA initiative, combined with 

other impacts of actions inside and outside the 

Monument and the expanded restoration program 

in the Monument under Alternative C, would result 

in long-term cumulative negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on vegetation. The restoration program 

described for Alternative C plus the limits on access 

to more areas would contribute a sizeable amount to 

regional benefi cial effects. 

Conclusion 

Alternative C would involve less opportunity for 

extensive visitor access, less access for fi re suppression, less active management of noxious weeds, and 

a slower rate of restoration over a larger area than 

any other alternative. Adverse impacts on vegetation 

from access would be minor and limited, with few 

impacts from facility development and maintenance. 

Restoration efforts would cause long-term minor to 

major beneficial effects, but these would occur more 

slowly because fewer herbicides and low-impact 

methods would be used. Fires, fire suppression, and 

continued grazing would lead to minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s vegetation resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

The size of the Passage Zone in Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan) would increase from 4,700 to 6,700 

acres; the Primitive Zone would decrease from 

290,200 to 218,700 acres; and the Pristine Zone 

would increase from 448,800 acres to 518,300 acres, 

as compared to Alternative A. There would be a 

slight increase in access from some expansion of 

the Passage Zone; however, the modifi cations made 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 225
to Alternative D in the FEIS would reduce Passage 

Zone and add more Pristine Zone in some of the 

more sensitive areas of the Monument, such as 

the Laidlaw Park area and edges of the lava fi elds. 

Removal of vegetation for road and trail construction that could occur under the designated zoning in 

Alternative D would cause direct minor to moderate 

adverse effects, depending on the density of roads. 

Road and trail maintenance would cause negligible 

to minor impacts on vegetation adjacent to roads. 

The deposition of dust from road and trail use would 

result primarily in short-term, seasonal indirect 

minor to moderate impacts on vegetation, including 

special status plants. This could cause a decrease in 

vigor and possibly result in mortality of the affected 

plants. Trail users might veer off trails to avoid 

obstacles, trampling vegetation and widening the 

trial; this could cause long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts. The use of motorized vehicles 

on trails, such as OHVs, would exacerbate these 

adverse impacts. Long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts could result from soil compaction 

and erosion from illegal off-trail use. Greater road 

density would increase the potential for the dispersal 

of noxious weeds, but this also would increase the 

probability of detection and treatment by Monument 

staff. This would result in minor to moderate shortand long-term negative impacts on native plants. 

Under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), approximately 

80,000 acres of degraded rangeland (31,000 acres of 

annual grassland and 49,000 acres of low-elevation 

sagebrush steppe, all currently in FCC2 or FCC3) 

would be treated for proactive sagebrush steppe restoration and/or post-fire rehabilitation, a 100 percent 

increase over the area targeted under Alternative A. 

This is the most proactive restoration program of 

all the alternatives - all available methods would be 

used, and large areas would be treated within short 

timeframes. This process involves a combination 

of methods, usually herbicides, prescribed fi re, 

and drill-seeding or aerial or broadcast seeding 

with chaining or harrowing, to control invasive 

and noxious weeds and then re-establish shrubs, 

perennial grasses, and forbs through seeding. The 

management goal would be to move the treated 

areas from FCC2 or FCC3 towards FCC1. Sagebrush 

steppe restoration activities could cause mortality 

from prescribed burning, herbicide, or seeding 

treatments, resulting in short-term minor adverse 

impacts on some native plants and special status 

species. Successful projects would lead to long-term 

moderate to major benefi cial effects. Project-level 

design, as described for Alternative A, would 

minimize impacts. 

Limited prescribed fire (less than 500 acres over the 

life of the plan) would be used to improve areas in 

FCC2 or maintain areas in FCC1 in aspen, conifer, 

and mountain shrub vegetation types north of US 

20/26/93. These projects would cause short-term 

minor effects consisting of vegetation removal by 

fire. The long-term results of this action would be a 

lower fuel load and plant communities with a greater 

diversity relative to structure and species composition, a moderate to major benefi cial effect. 

Since livestock use would not vary by alternative, 

there would be no change in the management of livestock use from the current situation under Alternative D (Proposed Plan). Because developments such 

as fences and watering troughs guide the movement 

of livestock, such developments could result in longterm minor to moderate adverse effects, including 

localized removal and trampling of vegetation and 

the spread of invasive and noxious weeds. Other 

effects, including soil erosion and compaction, the 

alteration of nutrient cycles, and the enhancement 

of conditions that support exotic annual species also 

would be the same as those described for Alternative 

A, generally minor and long term. 

In Alternative D (Proposed Plan), future livestock 

water developments would not be permitted in North 

Laidlaw Park or Bowl Crater; thus, livestock use 

would be maintained at a low level in those areas. 

This could result in the placement of new facilities 

or increased use of existing watering facilities 

elsewhere in the Monument, thus concentrating 

that use in other areas. However, all allotments 

must meet or be making progress toward meeting 

Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health, which would 

minimize grazing-related impacts. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

226 
Wildland fire management under Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan) would consist of full suppression in 

all parts of the Monument except in the Wilderness 

and Preserve. Aggressive suppression would minimize the loss of key sagebrush communities and the 

vegetation that protects the Little Cottonwood Creek 

Watershed. Good access, particularly in remote 

areas, would reduce the response time and keep fi res 

small to the highest degree in this alternative. 

In Alternative D (Proposed Plan), the enhancement 

of visitor facilities would be limited to expanding 

the Visitor Center and some minor development 

in the Kings Bowl and Crystal Ice Caves areas. 

Expanding the Visitor Center would result in 

negligible effects on native vegetation because 

the area has already been altered from the natural 

state. However, as in Alternatives A and C, plans to 

convert existing exotic lawn to native xeriscaping 

would educate the public on the values of water 

conservation and native vegetation and the hazards 

of invasive and noxious weeds, an indirect benefi cial 

effect. 

The interpretive displays in the Visitor Center, along 

with brochures and off-site signs, could help to 

minimize visitor impacts, including trampling or the 

removal of vegetation and the frequency of humancaused fire. This would be a minor to moderate 

long-term beneficial effect. Constructing trails and 

installing a vault toilet and other primitive visitor 

facilities in the Kings Bowl area would cause minor 

adverse impacts. Increased visitor use could have 

minor adverse effects that could be mitigated by 

interpretive signs focused on resource protection. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts from Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan) would be similar to these described 

for Alternative A, but with a much greater benefi cial 

effect from the expanded restoration program 

(80,000 acres). As with the other alternatives, there 

would be impacts related to agricultural practices in 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan), including the elimination of native vegetation, the drift of weeds, and 

agricultural trespass. The long-term effects from the 

movement of soil by wind would be negligible. 

As in the other alternatives, the direction from the 

FMDA would be used to guide the treatment of 

lands outside of the Monument to convert areas 

dominated by cheatgrass to sagebrush with a perennial grass and forb understory. This would result in 

short-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts 

and long-term large-scale minor to major benefi cial 

effects. Overall, the benefits of the FMDA initiative, 

plus the impacts from various actions outside the 

Monument combined with the restoration program 

and all other actions under Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan), would result in long-term cumulative minor 

beneficial effects on vegetation in the region. The 

restoration program, plus the educational emphasis 

that would accompany the program, would contribute a large part to the overall cumulative benefi cial 

effects. 

Conclusion 

In Alternative D (Proposed Plan), there would be 

more access for fire suppression and more aggressive noxious weed control programs. This would 

result in short-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts but long-term moderate to major benefi cial 

effects, occurring in a shorter time than in the 

other alternatives. Strategically placed restoration 

projects would increase the size and continuity of 

healthy vegetation patches and reduce the extent 

of poor quality vegetation. Adverse impacts from 

visitor access, fire and fire suppression, grazing, 

and facility development would be similar to those 

described for Alternative A, with both short- and 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

Impacts from increased access in more sensitive 

areas of the Monument, including Laidlaw Park, 

would be limited by the reduction in Passage Zone 

and increase in Pristine Zone designations made in 

response to public comments on the Draft Plan/EIS. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 227
NPS planning documents, the Monument’s vegetation resources or values would not be impaired. 

WATER RESOURCES 

Methodology and Assumptions 

To assess the magnitude of water quality impacts 

on Monument waters under the various alternatives, 

state water quality standards governing the waters 

of the Monument were examined and baseline water 

quality data (where available) were examined. The 

effects on water resources were assessed with the 

use of available data and best professional judgment. 

The impact intensity thresholds used are as follows: 

Negligible: Any chemical, physical, or biological 

effects would not be detectable, would 

be well below water quality standards or 

criteria, and would be within historical 

or desired water quality conditions. 

Minor: Chemical, physical, or biological effects 

would be detectable but would be well 

below water quality standards or criteria 

and within historical or desired water 

quality conditions. 

Moderate: Chemical, physical, or biological effects 

would be detectable but would be at 

or below water quality standards or 

criteria; however, historical baseline or 

desired water quality conditions would 

be altered on a short-term basis. 

Major: Chemical, physical, or biological effects 

would be detectable and would be 

frequently altered from the historical 

baseline or desired water quality 

conditions and/or chemical, physical, 

or biological water quality standards or 

criteria would be slightly and singularly 

exceeded on a short-term basis. 

For water resources, impact duration was defi ned as 

follows: 

Short-term: An effect that occurs in a short period of 

time (generally one or two days but no 

more than seven days). 

Long-term: A change in a resource or its condition 

that lasts longer than seven days. 

The area of analysis for cumulative impacts on water 

resources was defined as the surface water bodies 

both in the Monument and extending into or out of 

the Monument. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

The relative scarcity of surface water in the Monument means the effects of management actions 

would usually be localized to individual water 

bodies. Where surface waters do exist, recreational 

uses, livestock use, and facility developments would 

be the primary management activities affecting 

water resources in the Monument. Alternative A 

represents a continuation of most existing management activities that could affect water resources. 

Maintaining access and facilities in the current 

condition would not be likely to substantially 

increase recreational use or its effects on water 

resources beyond current levels, and new construction or maintenance would include measures to limit 

erosion and protect water quality where appropriate. 

Recreational uses could contaminate waters or 

compete with wildlife at water sources found in ice 

caves. Easily accessible ice caves have been found 

to have higher levels of nutrients than caves located 

in remote areas. Fecal coliform bacteria and nutrient 

contamination of ice caves has been documented in 

heavily visited caves located in the original Monument (Falter and Freitag 1996). However few ice 

caves are accessible to this degree, and recreational 

use of the vast majority appears to be very limited. 

Maintaining access and facilities in the current condition would not be likely to substantially increase 

recreational use or its effects on water resources 

beyond current levels. The effects on water quality 

from recreational use would be expected to remain 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

228 
short-term and range from negligible to moderate 

intensity in localized circumstances. 

Livestock often concentrate in the vicinity of water 

sources. Livestock would contaminate surface water 

bodies with fecal coliform bacteria and nutrients 

from manure deposited in or near water bodies. 

Smaller water bodies have little capacity to dilute 

added nutrients. Most water bodies affected by 

livestock in the Monument would be ephemeral 

water bodies known as playa lakes located on BLMadministered areas. Many of the naturally formed 

playas have been modified to increase their storage 

capacity for livestock watering. 

Effects on water quality from livestock use would 

be expected to be long-term with intensity ranging 

from negligible to potentially major in local sites, 

depending on the concentration and duration of 

livestock use. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Past actions to divert portions of Little Cottonwood 

Creek to provide potable water for the development 

of recreational facilities, diversions of water from 

the Little Wood River, and modifications of many of 

the playas to enhance stock watering opportunities 

all have affected water resources up to the present 

time. In some instances, such as the Little Wood 

River, the effects of upstream water diversions are 

major and long-term. However, the limited extent 

of this surface stream in the Monument results in 

impacts that are localized to very small segments 

(total less than 400 yards) of the stream on the edge 

of the Monument boundary. 

A future action that may affect Monument water 

resources is a proposed project to replace irrigation 

channels that carry water from the Little Wood 

River to agricultural fields near Carey with an 

enclosed pipeline delivery system. The effect this 

action would have on wetlands or water resources 

just inside the western boundary of the Monument 

(parallel and in some cases including portions of the 

Little Wood River channel) is unknown. 

The past, present, and future actions relating to 

water diversions, grazing and agricultural areas 

continue to result in adverse impacts on water 

quality. Impacts on the water quality in creeks and 

playas in the Monument that are related to these 

actions, in conjunction with the actions of Alternative A, would result in long-term minor adverse 

cumulative impacts. The actions of Alternative 

A would contribute a minuscule increment to the 

overall adverse impacts. 

Conclusion 

Implementing Alternative A would continue the 

current local long-term effects on water resources at 

intensity levels generally ranging from negligible to 

potentially major, although any major effects would 

be localized to small areas. The effects of intense 

recreational use of ice cave pools or from livestock 

watering on individual playas could create minor 

to moderate changes in nutrient concentrations, 

bacteria levels, and turbidity. The duration of effects 

would depend on the intensity of recreational use 

at each site. The effects would tend to be localized 

to the individual water bodies, because no surface 

waters connect them. The overall effect of livestock 

use on playas would be widespread and long-term 

and could range from minor to potentially major 

intensity, depending on the location. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s water 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

The effects on water quality from Alternative B 

would be similar to those described for Alternative 

A, with localized effects at negligible to potentially 

major intensities depending on the location and 

concentration of activity and livestock. The relative 

scarcity of surface water in the Monument means 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 229
the effects of management actions would be limited 

to certain areas. Where surface waters do exist, 

recreational uses, livestock use, and facility developments would be the primary management activities 

affecting the Monument’s water resources. 

In addition to the effects discussed for Alternative 

A, improved road and trail access and potential 

new recreational facilities in Alternative B could 

result in an increase in recreational use of the area, 

which would lead to higher intensity impacts on ice 

cave water resources. These effects would be most 

likely to occur at ice caves more easily reached 

by improved roads. Class B (gravel surface) roads 

in the Passage Zone would be increased from 45 

miles inside the Monument in Alternative A to 67 

miles in Alternative B. Depending the numbers of 

people coming to ice caves and other water bodies 

via newly improved roads, the impacts would be 

likely to be short-term and of negligible to moderate 

intensity. 

Because the management of livestock use would 

not vary among alternatives, the effects on water 

resources from Alternative B would be similar to 

those from Alternative A; that is, minor to moderate 

local impacts on ephemeral ponds and playas from 

trampling of shorelines and aquatic vegetation and 

from contaminants from fecal coliform and nutrients 

from manure. The larger area in the Passage Zone 

in Alternative B might accommodate new livestock 

developments. If developed, these water sources 

could distribute livestock to areas currently too 

remote from water to be grazed substantially, 

adversely affecting the water quality of any nearby 

playas. Proposed road improvements in this alternative (intended to facilitate recreation) could also 

facilitate recreational access or water hauling for 

livestock. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on water quality from 

Alternative B would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A. The offsite actions related to 

diversions and agricultural use, combined with the 

impacts expected from the actions of Alternative B, 

would result in long-term minor adverse impacts on 

water quality. The actions of Alternative B would 

contribute slightly more to the cumulative impact 

than under the No Action Alternative because this 

alternative would lead to increased visitation and 

possibly to more livestock development. 

Conclusion 

The effects of Alternative B would be substantially 

the same as those of Alternative A, but with a 

somewhat higher likelihood of more indirect adverse 

effects on local ice caves and playas resulting from 

road improvements and increased recreational use, 

plus a possible increase in livestock developments. 

Impacts would generally range from negligible to 

potentially moderate, but they would be localized. 

Depending on the site-specifi c circumstances, the 

effects could be either short term or long term. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s water 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Alternative C, which would involve fewer maintained access roads and less facility development 

than Alternative B, could limit recreational use. The 

effects on water resources from recreational use and 

livestock use in this alternative would be similar 

to those described for Alternative A (negligible to 

potentially moderate adverse impacts from bacterial 

and nutrient contamination and from trampling of 

wetland/water resources). However, because of the 

reduced recreational access, moderate impacts could 

be less frequent. Class B (gravel surface) roads 

inside the Monument in Alternative B would total 

37 miles, compared to 45 for Alternative A. With 

much less scheduled maintenance and reduced road 

standards, the indirect impact of recreational uses on 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

230 
water resources in the immediate vicinity of those 

roads might increase under Alternative C. 

The larger area zoned as Primitive could affect the 

number and type of new livestock developments 

allowed in the Primitive and Pristine Zones. Within 

these zones, the tendency of livestock to concentrate 

near livestock developments would reduce the 

adverse effects on nearby surface waters. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on water quality from 

Alternative C would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A. The offsite actions related to 

diversions and agricultural use, combined with the 

effects caused by the actions of Alternative C, would 

result in long-term minor adverse impacts on water 

quality. The reduced road access under Alternative 

C possibly would limit the direct impacts on ice 

caves and other water bodies. 

Conclusion 

The effects of Alternative C could be substantially 

the same as those of Alternative A because there 

still would be a chance that recreational use could 

affect ice caves, and there could be limited impacts 

from grazing. However, moderate adverse impacts 

would potentially be less widespread or frequent 

because road access would be reduced. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s water 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

The effects on water resources from recreational use 

and livestock use under Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan) would be similar to those of Alternative A. 

Road improvements intended to facilitate response 

to wildfires and vegetative restoration projects in 

this alternative also could facilitate recreational 

access or water hauling for livestock. Increased 

recreational use would not be as likely in this 

alternative as in Alternative B because few other 

recreational facilities would be added in this alternative. Improved access roads could facilitate water 

hauling for livestock, indirectly leading to a greater 

percentage of allowable AUMs than the current 

number. 

Having a larger area of Passage Zone than in 

Alternatives A and C could accommodate more 

livestock water developments. If developed, these 

water sources could distribute livestock to areas currently too remote from water to receive substantial 

livestock grazing; this would adversely affect water 

quality in any nearby playas. The reduction in Passage Zone in the Laidlaw park area done in response 

to public comment on the Draft Plan/EIS would help 

to limit indirect adverse impacts on water resources 

in that area, since livestock development occurs 

mainly along Passage Zone corridors. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts on water quality from 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would be similar 

to those described for Alternative A. The off-site 

actions related to diversions and agricultural use, 

combined with the impacts from Alternative D, 

would result in long-term minor adverse impacts 

on water quality. The actions under Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan) would contribute slightly more to 

the cumulative adverse impacts than would those 

of the No Action Alternative because the road 

maintenance for administrative purposes would also 

allow visitor access to many areas, and livestock 

development could be greater in the Passage Zone. 

Conclusion 

The effects on water resources from Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan) would be much the same as Alternative A, with localized long-term effects at negligible to major intensities, depending on site location 

(proximity of ice caves to roads) or concentration of 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 231
livestock. Implementing Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan) could cause local long-term effects on water 

resources at intensity levels ranging from negligible 

to potentially major. Intense recreational use could 

affect ice cave pools, and livestock watering could 

affect individual playas, causing minor to moderate 

changes in nutrient concentrations, bacteria levels, 

and turbidity. The effects would tend to be localized 

to individual water bodies because no surface waters 

connect them. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s water 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

WILDLIFE, INCLUDING 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

The available information used in this analysis was 

obtained from relevant scientific literature, wildlife 

databases, consultation with other biologists, 

interdisciplinary team meetings, and site visits. The 

impacts were assessed with the use of this information, knowledge of the Monument, and professional 

judgment. 

The following impact thresholds were used for 

analyzing the intensity of effects on wildlife-related 

resources: 

Negligible: Wildlife 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 

to the population of any wildlife species. 

Minor: The effects on wildlife would be detectable but localized, small, and of little 

consequence to the population of any 

species. Mitigating measures, if needed 

to offset adverse effects, would be 

simple and successful. 

Moderate: The effects on wildlife would be 

readily detectable and localized, with 

consequences at the population level. 

Mitigating measures, if needed to offset 

adverse effects, would be extensive and 

probably would be successful. 

Major: The effects on wildlife would be 

obvious and would result in substantial 

consequences to the populations in the 

region. Extensive mitigating measures 

would be needed to offset adverse 

effects, and their success would not be 

guaranteed. 

For wildlife, impact duration was defined as follows: 

Short-term: An effect that generally would last less 

than a single year or season. 

Long-term: A change in a resource or its condition 

that would last longer than a single year 

or season. 

The area of analysis for cumulative effects on wildlife 

was defined as the Monument and the fi ve-county 

area surrounding the Monument, which contains 

habitat that may be used by Monument wildlife and 

may also support the same species of special concern. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Four classes of roads would be maintained in the 

Monument under Alternative A. This use and related 

maintenance activities could continue to disturb 

wildlife species. The use of some higher standard 

roads such as US 20/26/93 would continue to result 

in road-killed animals and could adversely affect 

migration corridors for some species, including 

mule deer, pronghorn, and sage-grouse. The use of 

secondary roads, especially Class B roads adjacent 

to sensitive wildlife areas, could cause periodic 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

232 
disturbance ranging from minor to moderate intensity. 

Substantial vehicle traffic in mornings in April 

and early May could continue to adversely affect 

sage-grouse through disturbance and road kill. 

Many large mammals, including cougar, deer, elk, 

pronghorn, and bears, respond negatively to vehicle 

traffic. The presence of higher standard roads could 

lead to increased use and disturbance. There could 

be higher losses of some species, including marmots, near these roads. Better access could also lead 

to greater hunting pressure on animal populations 

in those areas. Most of these adverse impacts would 

be seasonal and of negligible to minor intensity. 

There is a potential for short-term moderate adverse 

impacts on some species in high use areas. Under 

the current management scenario, sage-grouse leks, 

and presumably sage-grouse populations, have 

declined 36 percent over the past 25 years. Sagegrouse are generally considered an indicator species 

for sagebrush steppe habitat and sagebrush-obligate 

species health. The decline of sage-grouse indicates 

management that is not only detrimental to sagegrouse, but also to their habitat and the other species 

which also use that habitat. 

While there are numerous factors contributing to the 

range-wide decline of sage-grouse and sagebrush 

steppe habitat throughout the western United States, 

there are two primary contributing factors within 

the Monument. The first is livestock grazing. Heavy 

historical use by sheep and consistent early-season 

(pre-July) grazing use are primarily responsible 

for the declines in forb production and declines in 

native perennial grass production and composition. 

Additionally, the use of sage-grouse leks as sheep 

bedding grounds (as observed by IDFG) contributes 

to decreased sage-grouse recruitment. These issues 

are major contributors to much of the area not 

meeting BLM Rangeland Health Standards. The 

second primary factor affecting the health of the 

Monument’s sagebrush steppe is wildfire and the 

invasion of cheatgrass. While it is diffi cult to determine which of these (fire or cheatgrass) originally 

preceded the other, it is clear that the combination 

is self-perpetuating in the absence of substantial 

intervention. Fire creates ideal conditions for 

cheatgrass establishment, and cheatgrass is a highly 

flammable fuel. The spread of cheatgrass is also 

exacerbated when the native perennial grass and 

forb community is weakened as a result of excessive 

livestock grazing. These issues are addressed in the 

Desired Future Conditions statements applicable to 

all alternatives. 

The goals of establishing and maintaining a plant 

community that reflects site potential and protecting 

sage-grouse leks from disturbance will each assist 

in improving habitat conditions for sage-grouse and 

sagebrush steppe obligates. Additionally, the goal 

of rehabilitating 40,000 acres (under Alternative A) 

of degraded habitat (mostly cheatgrass) will provide 

for the long-term improvement of habitat conditions. 

Habitat restoration depends on the successful 

implementation of Rangeland Health Standards and 

Guidelines as well as this plan’s Desired Future 

Conditions. 

This alternative would involve the implementation of 

statewide sage-grouse habitat guidelines for vegetation management. The State of Idaho’s sage-grouse 

guidelines have been implemented throughout the 

state, and their implementation should improve the 

habitat in the Monument. These guidelines include 

protecting quality grouse habitat and restoring 

potential habitat where feasible. Existing high-quality habitat would be a priority for protection. 

To achieve a mosaic of shrubs, forbs, and grasses 

capable of sustaining native animal populations, 

40,000 acres of degraded sagebrush steppe habitats 

would be restored. Although there would be shortterm minor adverse impacts on certain species 

from the clearing and burning associated with the 

initial stages, sagebrush steppe restoration should 

eventually provide an increase in forage and cover 

for many wildlife species. Shrub steppe-associated 

animal populations should eventually increase in 

areas of habitat restoration. This would be especially 

beneficial for 19 sensitive sagebrush steppe species 

that are declining throughout the region. The 

long-term effect of habitat restoration would be 

the re-establishment of a healthy native perennial 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 233
herbaceous understory under a canopy of sagebrush. 

Sagebrush obligate species in general, and sagegrouse in particular will benefit from achieving this 

desired result. Pygmy rabbits may also benefi t from 

such restoration where other habitat factors, such 

as soil depth and friability, are also present. Under 

optimal conditions, benefits to pygmy rabbits would 

take 20 to 40 years to be realized because of their 

unique habitat requirements. 

Alternative A would use Integrated Weed Management principles to control or eradicate existing 

populations and to prevent the establishment of 

new populations of exotic and invasive plants. 

Communities of such plants are generally used by a 

significantly smaller complement of animal species 

than are native habitats. Eliminating invasive plant 

species would have a negligible short-term adverse 

affect on a few animal species, but would benefi t 

most animal species found in the Monument. The 

long-term effects of invasive species control would 

be a reduction or elimination of competition with 

native plant species thereby allowing the later to 

achieve higher levels of vigor and ultimately providing increased amounts of wildlife forage and cover. 

Fire management under this alternative would 

involve suppression of wildland fires in most areas, 

with wildland fire use limited to the Wilderness and 

Preserve Areas. Outside of Wilderness, fi re would 

be managed to maintain vegetative communities 

in their current successional state. Suppression 

would protect habitat for species that occupy climax 

habitats, including most shrub steppe species. 

Allowing wildland fire use would supply habitat for 

species that need early successional habitat and species that use burned habitats. Regardless of whether 

a fire was suppressed or allowed to burn for resource 

benefit, some species would be affected adversely 

and others would benefi t. 

Many sensitive sagebrush steppe species (pygmy 

rabbits, sage-grouse, sage sparrow, and others) would 

benefit from fire suppression in sagebrush steppe 

(Welch 2002). Some sensitive woodland species 

(Lewis’ woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, and others) would be adversely affected by the same activity 

in aspen or pine habitats. Some sensitive species 

that use grasslands (grasshopper sparrow, longbilled curlew, and others) might also be negatively 

affected by suppression if open grasslands were not 

created or maintained (Welch 2002). The degree 

of the adverse effects can range from negligible to 

moderate, depending the size of fires in a given year. 

Rehabilitating burned sagebrush steppe should result 

in long-term beneficial effects in a manner similar to 

the restoration efforts discussed previously. 

Riparian areas and wetlands in the planning area 

would be maintained, restored, or enhanced. Riparian 

woodlands, shrubs, and wetland vegetation used by 

animals for food and shelter would be maintained or 

increased, increasing forage and cover for riparian 

and wetland species. This would result in minor 

to moderate long-term beneficial effects on many 

riparian/wetland species, including 11 BLM sensitive 

species and many species of migratory birds. 

Livestock use would continue, but the distribution of 

livestock could change, depending on the distribution of any new livestock developments. Where 

livestock developments encourage use in areas 

previously not used or rarely used by livestock, like 

the edges of Laidlaw Park, 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. 

Another impact of livestock to wildlife is the use 

of ephemeral spring water. There are numerous 

natural playas across the area that capture winter 

water. These are used as water sources by the 

spring grazing sheep flocks. The herders use these 

waters as bedding areas and often do not move until 

the water is substantially used. Although this water 

would dry up naturally each year, it would be available for longer periods without the sheep use. This 

is perhaps most important to species like pronghorn 

that could use the water at fawning times. 

Water development associated with livestock 

grazing might also affect wildlife. New water 

developments would increase animal density around 

the water source. Increased density would change 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

234 
the normal distribution of desert animals. Birds and 

bats might suffer direct mortality from drowning 

in developments with open water troughs and open 

tanks. The migration routes of large animals might 

be altered if the animals used the artifi cial water 

sources. These adverse impacts would be minor to 

moderate and long-term. 

Livestock use would be managed in accordance 

with the Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for grazing management. Adverse effects 

on wildlife resulting from competition for forage 

would be long-term. Many species of migratory 

birds and small mammals would be adversely 

affected by the removal of cover and forage, and 

grazing could remove nesting cover for sage-grouse 

(Connelly et al. 2000). Several ground-nesting 

species could be trampled when grazing coincides 

with the breeding season. 

Wildlife habitat would continue to be fragmented by 

roads, trails, and facilities, and wildlife habits and 

movements would continue to be altered by employees and visitors. People concentrate at the developed 

area in the original Monument, disturbing wildlife 

by their physical presence and associated noise. 

These intermittent adverse impacts would continue 

to be minor, but long-term. Visitors to less-used 

sites, such as Carey Kipuka Trail, Wapi Park, Wood 

Road Trail, and backcountry areas, would continue 

to cause intermittent minor disruption of wildlife. 

If the increases in visitation were only modest, this 

intermittent adverse impact would be long-term but 

of negligible intensity. The intensity of this impact 

would increase if the increases in visitation were 

greater. 

The adverse impacts on wildlife from the management of geologic features would be negligible. For 

many species, the disturbance would be negligible 

to minor and short-term. For other species, including five species of bats and the blind cave beetle 

(which are sensitive species and regionally or 

nationally declining), the effects could be moderate 

to potentially major if the disturbance occurred at a 

sensitive time or place, such as during hibernation 

or at maternity sites, disrupting breeding or other 

life-cycle functions. However, the adverse impacts 

would be reduced or eliminated by restricting 

access to certain important caves either permanently 

or seasonally during the times of the year when 

particular sites are important. This could reduce the 

adverse impacts to minor levels, at most. 

Two species listed as threatened or endangered 

are in the Monument area. Both the bald eagle and 

the gray wolf, which are occasionally found in the 

Monument, are peripheral species, and the impacts 

on them from any actions of Alternative A probably 

would involve short-term minor disruption of their 

activities in the Monument, resulting in negligible to 

minor adverse effects. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Agriculture, including both irrigated and dryland 

farming and ranching, has greatly reduced native 

animals in the area around the Monument. Animals 

perceived as pests have been displaced or killed, 

and habitat has been lost through agriculture and the 

introduction of nonnative animals. 

Future development of private lands such as those 

near Carey for residential, tourist-related, or other 

uses could alter wildlife habitat and habits and cause 

a loss of wildlife in areas adjacent to the Monument. 

Habitat loss due to conversion to agriculture or residential and urban development has been identifi ed 

as one of the leading causes of declines in sagebrush 

steppe wildlife in the region (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

Such habitat modifications are expected to continue 

at a regional level. Water use in these developments 

(or for other purposes) could reduce the amount 

of water available to wildlife, particularly in the 

Little Wood River or Huff Creek. Road kill of small 

mammals, large mammals, and birds would increase 

because the expected development of private lands 

would increase traffi c. 

Under direction from the ICBEMP and the BLM 

Sagebrush Steppe Restoration Program, lands 

both inside and outside of the Monument would be 

treated to convert areas dominated by cheatgrass 

to sagebrush with a perennial grass and forb 

understory. This could cause short-term negligible to 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 235
moderate adverse effects from herbicide, prescribed 

fire, and seeding treatments, which could cause 

the loss of some native habitat. Successful projects 

placed strategically over the landscape, resulting in a 

healthier, more resilient ecosystem, would constitute 

long-term, large scale, minor to major benefi cial 

effects on many sagebrush steppe species. BLM 

is developing a national and an Idaho Sage-grouse 

Habitat Conservation Strategy. When these plans 

are finalized and implemented, they should lead to 

a long-term beneficial effect on grouse throughout 

the region, including the Monument. Many other 

sagebrush steppe species, including several sensitive 

species, should benefit from these strategies. 

Agriculture and ranching can adversely affect 

wildlife in large areas of the Monument. Competition for forage from domestic livestock and past 

and continuing use of water from Lava Lake, Huff 

Creek, and the Little Wood River have contributed 

to adverse impacts on wildlife. Many habitats for 

native species have been lost or highly fragmented 

as lands have been converted to agricultural or 

other uses. The effects on wildlife from current and 

anticipated future actions outside the Monument, 

along with the actions of Alternative A, would 

be moderate, long-term, and adverse. Most of the 

impacts would result from development outside 

the Monument, and the impacts might or might not 

be mitigated. The actions of Alternative A would 

contribute a small increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Under Alternative A, which would continue current 

conditions, the effects on wildlife would continue 

to result primarily from conflicts with human uses 

of the Monument, including disturbance by people 

and vehicles and conflicts and competition with 

livestock use. Access and roads and associated 

visitor recreation would result in minor long-term 

adverse impacts, plus short-term moderate local 

adverse impacts on some species in high use areas. 

Sagebrush steppe restoration and weed management 

actions would cause some short-term minor impacts, 

with minor to major benefi cial impacts over the 

long-term, depending on the species involved. 

Similarly, fire and suppression of fire would benefi t 

some species but adversely affect others. The 50 

sensitive species, which all use major habitats in 

the Monument and have a variety of life histories, 

would experience the same range of impacts as other 

wildlife. 

The bald eagle and the gray wolf, which are listed 

as threatened and endangered, are occasionally 

found in the area of the Monument, but both are 

peripheral species, and the impacts on them would 

be negligible to minor. 

Current livestock use and potential new livestock 

developments, which would be authorized in accordance with the Idaho Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines, could result in minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on sagebrush steppe 

habitat and/or sagebrush obligate wildlife species. 

In the long term, the restoration of 40,000 acres of 

degraded sagebrush steppe would mitigate a portion 

of any adverse effects on wildlife resources. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s wildlife 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Anticipated increased use in the Passage Zone, 

which includes prime quality Key sage-grouse 

habitat in North Laidlaw Park, would (1) increase 

disturbance near lek sites which could depress 

sage-grouse breeding success resulting in decreased 

sage-grouse population levels, (2) increase disturbance in sage-grouse nesting habitat which could decrease nesting success directly as well as indirectly 

through increased predation of nests (it is common 

for predators to observe and/or track humans to 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

236 
nest sites), and (3) increase the likelihood of human 

caused fires which would degrade sagebrush steppe 

habitat for all sagebrush obligate species, including 

sage-grouse. 

Protection of active leks would assist in maintaining 

sage-grouse populations; however, it would not assist in enlarging sage-grouse populations to historic 

levels. Additionally, this level of protection would be 

minimized in North Laidlaw Park as a result of the 

expanded Passage Zone and increased use. 

The effects on wildlife from Alternative B generally 

would be similar to those from Alternative A. Some 

activities, such as transportation and vegetation 

management, would take place at different levels in 

this alternative, leading to corresponding changes in 

the impacts. 

More roads in the Monument would be maintained 

under Alternative B, which would result in 

greater use and more visitor access. This use would 

continue to disturb wildlife species in the manner 

described for Alternative A. There would potentially 

be high numbers of road-killed animals along highuse highway corridors. Secondary roads, especially 

Class B roads adjacent to sensitive wildlife areas, 

could cause periodic minor to moderate disturbance. 

The presence of more high quality roads would 

increase disturbances not directly resulting from 

motor vehicles, and there probably would be greater 

hunting pressure on animal populations in those 

areas under this alternative. These effects would be 

seasonal and negligible to minor, with a potential 

for moderate impacts on some species in high use 

areas. A larger Passage Zone and the possibility of 

improved access and more motor vehicles in that 

zone could result in more adverse impacts than those 

described for Alternative A. 

The effects of shrub steppe restoration should be 

similar to those described for Alternative A. With 

about 5,000 more acres targeted for restoration 

under Alternative B, there would be a corresponding 

increase in beneficial effects on wildlife habitat. 

Fire management under this alternative would 

involve suppression of fires in most areas, with 

fire for resource benefit in the Pristine Zone. The 

greater emphasis on suppression to ensure public 

safety would protect existing habitat for species 

that occupy climax sagebrush habitats. Allowing 

burning for resource benefit would provide habitat 

for species that need early successional habitat and 

species that use burned habitats. 

As described under Alternative A, regardless of 

whether a fire would be suppressed or allowed to 

burn for resource benefit, there would be adverse 

effects on some species and benefi cial effects 

on others. Greater emphasis on rehabilitating 

burned sagebrush steppe would result in long-term 

benefi cial effects, as was discussed previously. 

The possibility of burns for resource benefit in the 

Pristine Zone would allow greater flexibility for case 

by case habitat improvement than in Alternative A. 

Livestock use would be managed in accordance 

with the Idaho Standards for Rangeland health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management, as described 

under Alternative A, but a larger Passage Zone in 

Alternative B could lead to more concentrated livestock developments. The effects from competition 

for forage, removal of cover, and water distribution 

would be minor to moderate, long term, and limited 

to areas heavily used for grazing. 

As in Alternative A, wildlife habitat would continue 

to be fragmented by roads, trails, and facilities, and 

wildlife habits and movements would continue to 

be altered by employees and visitors. People would 

concentrate at the developed area in the original 

Monument, disturbing wildlife and degrading 

habitat. Newly developed areas in Kings Bowl and 

at designated primitive campsites would cause 

more disturbances. These adverse impacts would 

be minor and generally long-term, with short-term 

minor to moderate impacts during the construction 

and development of new visitor use areas. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects from Alternative B would 

be essentially the same as those from Alternative A, 

with a slightly higher possibility of visitor-related 

disturbances and road kills. The cumulative effects 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 237
of agricultural use and ranching and other actions 

outside the Monument, along with the actions of 

Alternative B, would be moderate, long-term, and 

adverse. Most of the impacts would result from 

development actions outside the Monument, which 

might or might not be mitigated. The actions of 

Alternative B would contribute a small increment to 

the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

The impacts on wildlife from Alternative B would 

largely be the same as those of Alternative A, but 

the slight increase in acres restored would result in 

a related increase in improved habitat for sagebrush 

steppe species, a long-term minor to major benefi cial 

effect. There could be a modest increase in adverse 

impacts from traffic disturbance in the larger Passage 

Zone area and the potential for increased or improved 

access to motor vehicles in that zone, as well as the 

development of a visitor use area in Kings Bowl and 

multiuse trails. The effects on wildlife would vary 

from species and species, but most effects would be 

long-term, minor to moderate, and localized. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s wildlife 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

The protection of both active and historic leks from 

disturbance during the breeding season as well as 

the closure of all roads in Key habitat during this 

same period would have a maximum effect (of 

all alternatives) leading to increasing sage-grouse 

breeding success and subsequent expansion of 

sage-grouse population levels. When combined with 

other management actions that assist in achieving 

site potential in Key sage-grouse habitat, this 

alternative could have a significant effect on regional 

sage-grouse populations by increasing the number 

of birds available for expansion into nearby habitats 

(the basic definition of source or stronghold habitat). 

The effects on wildlife from Alternative C would 

generally be similar to those described for Alternative A. Some activities, including transportation and 

vegetation management, would occur at different 

levels, with corresponding changes to the impacts. 

Alternative C would involve the fewest miles of 

maintained roads, with most in the Primitive Zone. 

Any use of roads and trails would continue to disturb wildlife species, but the disturbance from road 

use and associated visitor access would be less than 

in Alternative A. Hunting pressure might decline in 

certain areas not served by highly maintained roads. 

These effects would be seasonal and negligible to 

minor, with the potential for moderate impacts on 

some species in high use areas and with a modest 

decrease in adverse impacts from those described 

for Alternative A because the Primitive Zone would 

be larger in Alternative C, with a corresponding 

decrease in the potential for more motor vehicle 

access in that zone. 

About 55,000 acres would be targeted for restoration 

in Alternative C (15,000 more acres than in Alternative A), with less intrusive methods being used than 

in Alternative A. Thus, there could be fewer initial 

adverse impacts from site clearing and preparation; 

they could be reduced to minor levels. The greater 

acreage to be restored in Alternative C would lead to 

a related increase in improved habitat for sagebrush 

steppe species, but the time in which the benefi cial 

effect would be achieved might be extended. 

Fire management in Alternative C would involve 

suppressing wildfires in all areas except the Pristine 

Zone, where fire might be used for resource benefi t. 

This is the same policy as in Alternative B, so the 

effects should be similar. As with Alternative A, 

wildlife habitat would continue to be fragmented 

by roads, trails, and facilities, and wildlife habits 

and movements would continue to be altered by 

employees and visitors. However, this impact would 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

238 
be less under Alternative C because it would have 

the fewest maintained roads, with a corresponding 

decrease in visitor use. People would continue to 

concentrate at the developed area in the original 

Monument, disturbing wildlife somewhat. These 

intermittent adverse impacts would be minor and 

long-term. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts from Alternative C would 

be similar to those from Alternative A, with slightly 

more beneficial effects from the expanded reclamation program and the limited access to many areas. 

The cumulative impacts on wildlife from current 

and anticipated future actions outside the Monument, along with the actions under Alternative C, 

would be moderate, long-term, and adverse. Most of 

the impacts would result from development actions 

outside the Monument, which might or might not 

be mitigated. The actions of Alternative C would 

contribute a small increment to the overall cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

The effects on wildlife from Alternative C would 

largely be the same as those described for Alternative A, but 15,000 more acres would be restored in 

Alternative C, resulting in more improved habitat 

for sagebrush steppe species. There would be fewer 

adverse impacts from traffi c disturbance because the 

Passage Zone would be smaller in Alternative C, and 

the Primitive Zone would be larger. These designations would include the potential for decreased 

access for motor vehicles and related recreational 

use overall, resulting in fewer direct and indirect 

adverse impacts on all wildlife species. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s wildlife 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

The effects to sage-grouse would be only slightly 

reduced from those described in Alternative C. 

The exact amount of different would depend on 

the number of permits issued for morning road 

use (effectively sage-grouse breeding observation) 

during the sage-grouse breeding season. 

The effects on wildlife from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would generally be similar to those of 

the other alternatives, but an expanded restoration 

program in Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would 

lead to a greater benefi t. Some activities, including 

transportation and vegetation management, would 

occur at different levels, with corresponding changes 

in the effects. 

Selected roads in the Passage Zone would be 

upgraded and maintained for restoration and administration use under Alternative D (Proposed Plan). 

Minor rerouting of roads could lessen site-specifi c 

known wildlife impacts. The use of these roads 

would continue to disturb wildlife species, possibly 

severing some migration corridors for some species, 

including mule deer, pronghorn, and sage-grouse, 

and there would be road kill along high use corridors. Better access would lead to greater hunting 

pressure on animal populations in those areas. These 

seasonal impacts would be negligible to minor with 

a potential for moderate impacts on some species 

in high-use areas. Modest changes in the adverse 

impacts should result from changes in the Passage 

Zone and in the potential for increased or improved 

access for motor vehicles in that zone. 

An aggressive program to restore 80,000 acres 

of sagebrush steppe habitat would be carried out 

in Alternative D (Proposed Plan). The effects on 

wildlife from this program would be similar to those 

from Alternative A, but with a substantially larger 

acreage slated for restoration, there also would be 

more improved habitat for sagebrush steppe species, 

a major long-term beneficial effect. Fire management under this alternative would involve suppressing fires in all areas except the Pristine Zone, 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 239
where fires might be allowed to continue burning 

for resource benefit. This is the largely the same as 

Alternative B, and the effects should be similar. 

As in Alternative A, wildlife habitat would continue 

to be fragmented by roads, trails, and facilities, and 

wildlife habits and movements would continue to 

be altered by employees and visitors. People would 

concentrate at the developed area in the original 

Monument, disturbing wildlife and degrading habitat. However, emphasizing the use of outfi tters and 

guides might educate visitors, reducing widespread 

human-caused impacts, a benefi cial effect. Adverse 

impacts would be minor but long-term. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects of Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan) would be similar to those described for Alternative A, but the overall intensity would be slightly 

lower because the effects of the restoration would be 

highly beneficial. The cumulative effects on wildlife 

from current and anticipated future actions outside 

the Monument, along with the actions of Alternative 

D (Proposed Plan), would be minor, long-term, and 

adverse. Most of the impacts would result from 

development actions outside the Monument, which 

might or might not be mitigated. The actions of 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would contribute 

a substantial amount to the benefi cial cumulative 

effects. 

Conclusion 

The effects on wildlife from Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan) would be largely the same as those 

described for Alternative A, but twice as much acreage would be restored in Alternative D, resulting 

more improved habitat for sagebrush steppe species, 

a major long-term beneficial effect. Modest changes 

in the adverse impacts could result from increases in 

the Passage Zone roads for restoration and administration uses and in the potential for increased or 

improved access for motor vehicles in that zone. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s wildlife 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

AIR RESOURCES 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

To assess air quality impacts, air quality standards 

and designations for the surrounding area were 

determined, and the results from nearby air monitoring sites were examined. Any reductions in pollutants resulting from implementing control strategies 

were taken into account. The effects on air quality 

from each alternative were assessed by considering 

existing air quality levels and the air quality related 

values present, with the use of available data and 

best professional judgment, and with modeling 

where possible. 

For assessing emissions from fi res, the quantity 

of particulate matter was based on the First Order 

Fire Effects Model. The annual area treated with 

prescribed fire was based on an annual average of 

total area targeted for restoration over a period of 

15 years and an assumption that burning sagebrush 

produces 62.5 pounds per acre (lbs/acre) of PM10 

particles and 53.0 lbs/acre of PM2.5 particles (First 

Order Fire Effects Model 5.1 2002). 

The following impact thresholds were used for 

analyzing the intensity of effects on human health 

and air quality related values. 

Negligible: No changes would occur, or changes 

in air quality would be below or at the 

level of detection and if detected, the 

effects would be considered slight. 

Minor: Changes in air quality would be measurable, although the changes would be 

small and local. No air quality mitigating measures would be necessary. 

Moderate: Changes in air quality would be 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

240 
measurable and would have appreciable 

consequences, although the effect would 

be relatively local. Air quality mitigating measures would be necessary, and 

they probably would be successful. 

Major: Changes in air quality would be 

measurable, would have substantial 

consequences, and would be noticed 

regionally. Air quality mitigating 

measures would be necessary, and their 

success would be uncertain. 

For air quality, the duration of impacts was defi ned 

as follows: 

Short-term: An effect that would last a short period 

of time (generally one or two days but 

no more than seven days). 

Long-term: A change in a resource or its condition 

that would last longer than seven 

consecutive days. 

The area of analysis for the cumulative effects on 

air quality was defined as the Monument and BLM’s 

Twin Falls District, including Southeast and South 

Central Idaho. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Under Alternative A, the primary air pollutants 

would come from fires and from vehicles using roads 

and trails. The continued use and management of 

roads at current standards would result in the creation 

of fugitive dust. There would be 585 miles of unpaved 

roads inside the Monument, and road disturbance 

would result in soil displacement and dust production, 

which could adversely affect air quality and selected 

air quality related values such as visibility. 

The amount of particulate matter emissions (smoke) 

produced from both prescribed fire and wildland fi re 

use was predicted for Alternative A. The prediction 

was based on an annual average area burned with 

prescribed fire over the previous 15 years and the 

estimated number of acres in Craters of the Moon 

Wilderness burned in the previous 15 years (Table 

38). The actual amount of PM10 and PM2.5 particles 

produced from fire would be higher in areas where 

limber pine or junipers are interspersed with brush. 

This applies only to wildland use fi res because no 

restoration treatments are proposed in areas with 

limber pine or juniper. The actual acreage burned 

annually would vary depending on the severity of 

wildland fire conditions and available funding. Fugitive dust could be generated from burned areas until 

sufficient vegetation recovered to hold the soil in 

place. Fugitive dust from wildland use fi re probably 

would be negligible because soil development in the 

lava fields is limited to small areas such as those 

found within kipukas. 

As shown in Table 38, Alternative A would produce 

the fewest emissions of smoke from prescribed and 

wildland use fires of all the alternatives considered. 

With the exception of the Wilderness Area, wildfi res 

would be suppressed through the Monument. 

Prescribed fires to meet restoration objectives would 

continue, but at the lowest acreage level of all the 

alternatives. 

The effects from road-related fugitive dust would 

be short-term, negligible, and limited to areas near 

roads and vehicle traffic. Impacts due to smoke from 

planned burns for restoration would be short-term (1 

to 2 days) but could be of moderate intensity in areas 

in the immediate vicinity of the fi re, diminishing 

rapidly downwind. The effects on air quality from 

wildland use fires would potentially be of longer 

duration (up to 7 days) than planned ignitions, 

depending on the vegetation types involved. Smoke 

impacts would be an important factor in decisions 

to initiate or terminate a wildland use fi re; therefore, 

the effects on air quality would also be of moderate 

to potentially major intensity in areas in the immediate vicinity of the fire, but diminishing rapidly 

downwind. In Alternative A, wildland fi re use 

could be used only for natural fire ignitions (such as 

lightning) in the designated Wilderness Area, which 

would limit potential major impacts. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 241
Table 38

Summary of Emissions Produced from

Prescribed and Wildland Use Fires by Alternative

Type of Fire Burning in Sagebrush 

Average Area 

Burned/year (acres) 

PM10 Emissions 

Produced (lbs) 

PM2.5 Emissions 

Produced (lbs) 

Prescribed Fire (maximum potential) 

Alternative A 

2,666 166,666 141,333 

Wildland Use Fire 

Alternative B 

200 12,500 10,600 

Prescribed Fire (maximum potential) 3,000 187,500 159,000 

Wildland Use Fire (maximum potential 

should all fires within Pristine Zone be 

managed for resource benefit) 

1,250 78,125 66,250 

Prescribed Fire (maximum potential) 

Alternative C 

3,666 229,166 194,298 

Wildland Use Fire (maximum potential 

should all fires within Pristine Zone be 

managed for resource benefit) 

1,250 78,125 66,250 

Prescribed Fire (maximum potential) 

Alternative D 

5,333 333,333 282,649 

Wildland Use Fire (maximum potential 

should all fires within Pristine Zone be 

managed for resource benefit) 

1,250 78,125 66,250 

Cumulative Impacts 

Other sources of smoke and dust in the region are 

wildfires and prescribed fires on public and private 

lands, fugitive dust from nearby roads, recently 

burned lands, and agricultural fi elds after tilling. 

Wildfires have burned a total of 730,800 acres 

in the Twin Falls District since 1996. BLM fi re 

management activities (fire for resource benefi t and 

prescribed fire) alone could produce up to 52,512 

tons of PM10 particulate matter in the Twin Falls 

District over a 10-year period (BLM FMDA 2004). 

Other haze-causing pollutants (mostly fi ne particles) 

are emitted into the atmosphere by activities such 

as electric power generation; various industrial and 

manufacturing processes; truck and auto emissions; 

forest fires’ and construction at considerable distances from the Monument. Off-site sources, added 

to the sources of air pollution caused by the actions 

of Alternative A, would create negligible to minor 

long-term adverse effects and moderate short-term 

adverse effects over the entire area. This would be 

similar for all alternatives. 

Conclusion 

Prescribed fire, wildland use fire, and fugitive 

dust from roads result in smoke or dust containing 

particles that adversely affect human health and air 

quality related values such as visibility. The effects 

on air quality from smoke and dust caused by the 

management activities of Alternative A typically 

would be short-term and local. The intensity of 

effects could range from negligible to moderate, 

depending on weather conditions and the location 

and size of fires. Most prescribed and wildland 

use fires would cause minor short-term effects. 

Fugitive dust from roads with current traffi c use 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

242 
would produce short-term local adverse effects of 

negligible intensity. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of Craters 

of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or to 

opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed as 

a goal in its management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, the Monument’s air resources 

or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

The effects on air quality from Alternative B would 

be similar to those described for Alternative A, but 

with somewhat greater intensity. Under Alternative 

B, higher standard roads would be added to the 

expanded the Passage Zone. Therefore, vehicle 

traffic and vehicle speed could increase, resulting in 

a proportional increase in fugitive dust, a negligible 

to minor short-term local adverse impact. 

The particulates (smoke) that would be produced 

by prescribed fire and wildland fire use was 

predicted for Alternative B with the use of the same 

assumptions as were described for Alternative A. 

More emissions of smoke would be produced under 

Alternative B than in Alternative A because a 

slightly larger area would be burned in Alternative 

B (see Table 29). Some naturally ignited fi res in 

the Pristine Zone would be managed for resource 

benefit; these would be more likely to generate 

smoke over a longer period of time than if the fi re 

was suppressed aggressively. Prescribed fi res to 

meet restoration objectives could increase to a 

maximum of 45,000 acres over the life of the plan. 

The effects from road-related fugitive dust could be 

higher in Alternative B than in Alternative A, but 

those effects still would be short-term, negligible, 

and localized to areas near road traffic. The effects 

from planned burns for restoration would be shortterm (1 to 2 days) and of moderate intensity in areas 

in the immediate vicinity of the fi re, diminishing 

rapidly downwind. The effects on air quality from 

wildland use fires would potentially last longer (up 

to 7 days) than planned ignitions, depending on the 

vegetation types involved. Smoke impacts would 

be an important factor in decisions to initiate or 

terminate a wildland use fire; therefore, the impacts 

on air quality would be moderate to major in areas 

in the immediate vicinity of the fire but diminishing 

rapidly downwind. In Alternative B, potential 

wildland fire use could be expanded to most of the 

Preserve (409,460 acres). 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on air quality from other 

sources of smoke and dust in the area would be 

the same as those described for Alternative A: 

particulates from wildfires and prescribed fi res on 

public and private lands in the region, fugitive dust 

from nearby roads, recently burned lands, agricultural fields following tilling, and industrial and 

construction activities plus regional truck and auto 

emissions. Off-site sources, added to the sources 

of air pollution from the actions of Alternative B, 

would create negligible to minor long-term effects 

and moderate short-term effects over the entire area; 

this would be similar for all the alternatives. 

Conclusion 

The adverse effects on air quality from the management actions of Alternative B typically would be 

short term and limited to the local region. The 

intensity of effects would range from negligible 

to moderate, with most prescribed and wildland 

use fires having minor effects. Fugitive dust from 

roads with potentially increased vehicle traffi c use 

on unpaved roads would produce short-term local 

effects of negligible to minor intensity. A substantial 

increase in traffic would be required to elevate this 

impact to the moderate levels. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of Craters 

of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or to 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 243
opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed as 

a goal in its management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, the Monument’s air resources 

or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Alternative C would involve fewer high standard 

roads that Alternative B; therefore, vehicle traffi c 

and speed would remain the same as in Alternative 

A or possibly decrease, with a proportional decrease 

in fugitive dust from this source, resulting in 

negligible short-term local impacts on air quality 

and visibility. 

The particulates (smoke) that would be produced 

by prescribed fire and wildland fire use was 

predicted for Alternative C with the use of the same 

assumptions as were described for Alternative A. 

More emissions of smoke would be produced under 

Alternative C than in Alternatives A or B because 

a there would a slightly larger area of prescribed 

fires (see Table 29). Some naturally ignited fi res in 

the Pristine Zone would be managed for resource 

benefit; these would be more likely to generate 

smoke over a longer period of time than if the fi re 

was suppressed aggressively. Prescribed fi res to 

meet restoration objectives could increase to a 

maximum of 55,000 acres over the life of the plan. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on air quality from other 

sources of smoke and dust in the area would be 

the same under Alternative C as those described 

for Alternative A: particulates from wildfi res and 

prescribed fires on public and private lands in the 

region, fugitive dust from nearby roads, recently 

burned lands, agricultural fields following tilling, and 

industrial and construction activities plus regional 

truck and auto emissions. Off-site sources, added 

to the sources of air pollution from the actions of 

Alternative C, would create negligible to minor 

long-term effects and moderate short-term effects 

over the entire area; this would be similar for all the 

alternatives. 

Conclusion 

The adverse effects on air quality from Alternative 

C typically would be short term and limited to the 

local region. The intensity of effects would range 

from to negligible to moderate, with most prescribed 

and wildland use fires causing minor effects. 

Fugitive dust from roads with decreased traffi c use 

and vehicle speeds would produce short-term local 

effects of negligible intensity. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of Craters 

of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or to 

opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed as 

a goal in its management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, the Monument’s air resources 

or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

Unpaved roads would be maintained to a high 

standard under Alternative D (Proposed Plan) to 

facilitate restoration and fi re-related activities. 

Overall, increases in vehicle traffi c and speed 

could be similar to those described for Alternative 

B, resulting in more road-related fugitive dust. 

Short-term increases in local areas could result 

from vehicle traffic from restoration projects. The 

adverse effects on air quality would be short-term, 

negligible, and localized. 

The particulates (smoke) that would be produced by 

prescribed fire and wildland fire use was predicted 

for Alternative D (Proposed Plan) with the use of the 

same assumptions as were described for Alternative 

A. More emissions of smoke would be produced 

under Alternative D (Proposed Plan) than in any 

of the other alternatives because there would more 

prescribed fires (see Table 29). Some naturally 

ignited fires in the Pristine Zone would be managed 

for resource benefit; these would be more likely to 

generate smoke over a longer period of time than if 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

244 
the fire was suppressed aggressively. Prescribed fi res 

to meet restoration objectives could increase to a 

maximum of 80,000 acres over the life of the plan. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on air quality from other 

sources of smoke and dust in the area would be 

the same under Alternative C as those described 

for Alternative A: particulates from wildfi res and 

prescribed fires on public and private lands in the 

region, fugitive dust from nearby roads, recently 

burned lands, agricultural fi elds following tilling, 

and industrial and construction activities plus 

regional truck and auto emissions. Off-site sources, 

added to the slightly increased sources of air pollution from the actions of Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan), would create negligible to minor long-term 

effects and moderate short-term effects over the 

entire area; this would be similar for all the alternatives. 

Conclusion 

The adverse effects on air quality from the actions 

of Alternative D (Proposed Plan) typically would 

be short term and limited to the local region. The 

intensity of effects would range from negligible to 

moderate, with most prescribed and wildland use 

fires causing minor effects. Fugitive dust from roads 

with current traffic use would produce short-term 

local effects of negligible intensity. The addition of 

non-Monument sources occurring during the same 

time period could produce more intense but still 

moderate effects throughout the Monument. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of Craters 

of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or to 

opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed as 

a goal in its management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, the Monument’s air resources 

or values would not be impaired. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

(ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND 

HISTORIC RESOURCES) 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

The impact analysis for cultural resources is 

limited to the effects on archaeological and historic 

resources, since other cultural resource areas were 

dismissed from detailed analysis (see Chapter 1); 

also, effects on Native American treaty rights, trust 

resources, and ethnographic resources are addressed 

in a separate section. The NHPA requires agencies 

to take into account the effects of their actions 

on properties listed or eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The 

process begins with identification and evaluation of 

cultural resources for NRHP eligibility, followed by 

an assessment of effect on those eligible resources, 

and concludes after a consultation process. If an 

action could change in any way the characteristics 

that qualify the resource for inclusion on the NRHP, 

it is considered to have an effect. No adverse effect 

means there could be an effect, but the effect would 

not be harmful to those characteristics that qualify 

the resource for inclusion on the NRHP. Adverse 

effect means the effect could diminish the integrity 

of the characteristics that qualify the resource for 

the NRHP. 

Section 110 of the NHPA also provides direction 

to agencies to ensure that properties under agency 

jurisdiction are identified, evaluated and nominated 

to the National Register of Historic Places. In 

addition, eligible properties are to be managed and 

maintained for their historic preservation values. 

Preservation of these properties is to be given full 

consideration in planning. 

In order to analyze the effects of the plan alternatives on archaeological resources, all available 

information on known archaeological sites was 

compiled. Map locations of archaeological sites were 

compared with locations of proposed developments 

and modifications to existing facilities. Certain 

assumptions were made regarding management of 

cultural resources in the future. These assumptions 

include: 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 245
• Some proactive Section 110 inventory (i.e., 

non-project-related inventory) would be 

completed within the Monument each year. 

• Section 106 inventory would be conducted for 

all proposed development projects as required 

by FLPMA under each of these alternatives. 

• NRHP listed and eligible sites would be 

monitored for vandalism and protected/stabilized as necessary. 

Archaeological sites are continually deteriorating 

due primarily to the effects of weather and gravity. 

Left alone, sites will inevitably degrade over time. 

Impacts from concentrated human and livestock 

visitation and use can contribute to the effects 

to natural agents of deteriorations, and they can 

substantially increase the rate of site deterioration, 

in areas such as parking lots, livestock water 

troughs, trailheads, and corrals. Although it is 

impossible to entirely eliminate deterioration caused 

by natural elements, actions such as restoration, 

protection, and stabilization measures may be used 

to slow deterioration. In contrast, it is possible to 

control the effects of human impacts through careful 

planning of activities and new developments, by 

educating visitors and agency staff, and by limiting 

or directing locations of human activity in and 

around archaeological sites. 

If impacts caused by deliberate vandalism or artifact 

collection are excluded, most impacts resulting from 

visitor use are relatively minor when considered on 

an individual basis. However, for the purpose of this 

plan, it is necessary to consider the effects caused 

by large amounts of visitors at a given location over 

the life of this plan. For example, while a single 

hiker may have a negligible effect on site integrity, 

the cumulative impact of many hikers over 15 to 20 

years can be substantial. In the following section, 

impacts are analyzed for each alternative based 

on the numbers of sites that would be affected in 

conjunction with the effects of various types of 

activities over the life of the plan. For the purposes 

of this analysis, levels of impacts to archaeological 

resources were defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact on archaeological sites is at 

the lowest levels of detection – barely 

measurable with any perceptible 

consequences, either benefi cial or 

adverse, to archaeological resources. 

For purposes of Section 106, the site’s 

NRHP eligibility is not threatened and 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Minor: The adverse minor impact on archaeological sites is measurable or perceptible, but it is slight and localized within 

a relatively small area for a site or group 

of sites. The impact does not affect the 

character diminish features of an NRHP 

eligible or listed archaeological site 

and would not have a permanent effect 

on the integrity of any archaeological 

sites. For the purposes of Section 106, 

the site’s NRHP eligibility is intact and 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

 The beneficial minor impact involves 

maintenance and preservation of sites. 

For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. 

Moderate: The adverse moderate impact is 

measurable and perceptible. The impact 

changes one or more character-defi ning 

features of an archaeological resource, 

but does not diminish the integrity of 

the resource to the extent that its NRHP 

eligibility is entirely lost. For purposes 

of Section 106, the site’s NRHP eligibility is threatened and the determination 

of effect would be adverse effect.

 The beneficial moderate impact involves 

site stabilization. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect. 

Major: The adverse major impact on archaeological sites is substantial, noticeable, 

and permanent. For NRHP-eligible or 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

246 
-listed archaeological sites, the impact 

changes one or more character-defi ning 

features of an archaeological resource, 

diminishing the integrity of the resource 

to the extent that it is no longer eligible 

for listing in the NRHP. For purposes of 

Section 106, the site’s NRHP eligibility 

is lost and the determination of effect 

would be adverse effect.

 The beneficial major impact involves 

active intervention to preserve and 

improve sites. For purposes of Section 

106, the determination of effect would 

be no adverse effect. 

The area of analysis for cumulative impacts to 

Cultural Resources was defined as south central and 

eastern Idaho. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Cultural resource management within the Monument would continue under current laws, policies, 

and regulations under Alternative A. The cultural 

resource database for this area would expand slowly 

each year as data are collected from Section 106 

projects and Section 110 inventory, a moderate 

beneficial impact to cultural resources. 

Roads within the Monument would remain in their 

current condition at current maintenance levels. 

Remote areas of the Monument would remain 

difficult to access by vehicle, and most areas would 

be inaccessible by sedan. The broad network of 

repetitive, two-track Class D roads would remain 

open. Travel on poorly maintained Class D roads 

could increase erosion that could impact nearby 

sites. Difficult travel would keep the majority of 

visitors out of the most remote areas and away from 

many cultural resources. There could be long-term, 

minor adverse impacts to cultural resources from 

erosion due to vehicle traffic. There would be a longterm, minor beneficial impact in keeping cultural 

resources inaccessible. 

Under this alternative, 40,000 acres are targeted for 

sagebrush steppe restoration, which 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 as they arise to 

ensure that 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 

adverse effect on cultural resources resulting from 

flagging, but the long-term stabilization of the soils 

and the reduced potential for wildfire would have a 

long-term, moderate benefi cial effect. 

Wildfire management under this alternative consists 

of full suppression on all lands outside designated 

wilderness. Full suppression reduces the number 

of acres that burn, which limits the acres of ground 

surface exposed, thereby protecting cultural 

resources from increased risk of unauthorized 

collection. Cultural resources may receive intense, 

short-term vehicle traffic during active fi re suppression activities, as well as possible heavy equipment 

impacts as a result of fire line construction. This 

could constitute a short-term, moderate adverse 

impact during suppression activities. Overall, full 

suppression of wildfire would have a long-term, 

major beneficial impact on cultural resources. 

There would be no change in livestock use management under Alternative A. Currently, livestock 

cause some erosion at playa sites and water trough 

locations, which may impact cultural resources. 

Fence construction could cause livestock congregation in certain areas. Livestock can create trails and 

denude areas of vegetation where they congregate, 

which adds to surface soil erosion and can damage 

cultural resources in the area. Livestock use could 

have a short-term, site-specific (at a temporary water 

trough, for example), minor to moderate adverse 

effect on cultural resources. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 247
Visitor facilities would remain the way they currently are, with cultural resource interpretation at 

specific locations at the north end of the Monument, 

some minor trail maintenance of existing trails and 

some safety information posted on waysides at the 

Crystal Ice Cave/Kings Bowl area. Keeping the 

majority of visitors on developed trails and providing interpretative materials at specifi c locations 

minimizes the amount of foot traffi c, unauthorized 

collection, and vandalism at the majority of cultural 

resource sites within the Monument. For those 

locations with interpretive materials, there would be 

a long-term, minor adverse effect from foot traffi c, 

unauthorized collection and vandalism. Interpretive 

materials may stress resource protection, which may 

reduce the amount of damage to cultural resources. 

There would be a long-term, minor benefi cial effect 

for cultural resources away from trails without 

interpretive waysides because visitors would not be 

drawn to those areas. 

The Monument currently includes all four Visual 

Resource Management (VRM) classifi cations 

(Classes I through IV). This allows for a relatively 

wide range of developments outside WSAs and 

Wilderness areas. A Section 106 inventory would 

be required to prevent adverse impacts to sites on a 

case-by-case basis, but over time more developments 

within the Monument could increase the amount 

of visual intrusion, which can have an indirect 

impact on cultural resources. Class III and IV 

VRM designations within the Monument would 

have a long-term, minor adverse impact to cultural 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts 

For the most part, use of adjacent federal lands 

outside the Monument would contribute similar 

impacts to cultural resources as described above. 

At current staffing levels, the amount of proactive 

cultural resource inventory and monitoring would be 

limited, and site looting could go undetected in the 

backcountry areas. 

Adjacent private land development, including use of 

land for agriculture and grazing, can severely affect 

cultural resources, since there is no federal oversight 

or regulation of these activities. This makes the 

preservation of sites on public lands more urgent, 

as the overall number of undisturbed archaeological 

resources is dwindling. 

It is possible that information distributed in visitor 

centers in the neighboring communities, such as 

Twin Falls and Idaho Falls, may draw increased 

visitors to the Monument, although it seems 

unlikely given the current visitation levels. This 

could increase pressure on cultural resources from 

foot and vehicle traffic, as well as unauthorized 

collection and vandalism. This increased visitation, 

in conjunction with the impacts already occurring, 

may have a long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impact on cultural resources. Overall, cumulative 

impacts to cultural resources from actions outside 

the Monument boundary, plus those of this alternative, would be long term and generally adverse, 

ranging from minor to moderate in intensity. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would have a negligible to minor, 

adverse impact on maintaining the long-term 

integrity of the majority of archaeological resources 

within the Monument. The restoration program 

outcome and fire suppression would have a 

long-term, moderate beneficial effect, while initial 

restoration, suppression actions, grazing, and vehicle 

travel would result in short-term, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s cultural 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Cultural resource management within the MonuCRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

248 
ment would continue under current laws, policies, 

and regulations. The cultural resource database for 

this area would expand each year as data is collected 

from Section 106 projects and Section 110 inventory, 

a moderate beneficial impact to cultural resources. 

Increased recreation use would require more intense 

monitoring of cultural resources in the Passage Zone 

to prevent or minimize damage. 

Under Alternative B, the road and trail system 

would provide a high level of access to a wide 

variety of destinations, recreation activities, and 

both motorized and non-motorized trails. Improved 

access to the more remote regions of the Monument 

could increase the visitor use of those areas, as well 

as increasing the impacts of vehicle and foot traffi c, 

unauthorized collections and vandalism to cultural 

resources. Increased vehicle access may lead to an 

increase in wildfires, leaving cultural resources exposed to vandalism, illegal collection, and excessive 

erosion. This alternative includes the largest number 

of acres within the Passage Zone, which provides 

more opportunities for trail development within that 

zone. There would be a long-term, moderate adverse 

effect to cultural resources under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, 45,000 acres are targeted for 

sagebrush steppe restoration, which 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 a 

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 adverse effect on 

cultural resources resulting from flagging, but the 

long-term stabilization of the soils and the reduced 

potential for wildfire would have a long-term, 

moderate benefi cial effect. 

Wildfire management under this alternative consists 

of full suppression on all lands outside the Pristine 

Zone, especially those with existing, healthy 

sagebrush steppe. Full suppression reduces the 

number of acres that burn, which limits the acres of 

ground surface exposed, thereby protecting cultural 

resources from increased risk of unauthorized 

collection. Cultural resources may receive intense, 

short-term vehicle traffic during active fi re suppression activities, as well as possible heavy equipment 

impacts as a result of fire line construction. This 

could constitute a short-term, moderate adverse 

impact during suppression activities. Overall, full 

suppression of wildfire would have a long-term, 

major beneficial impact on cultural resources. 

In Alternatives B, C, and D, any new livestock water 

facilities would be more likely in the Passage Zone, 

although few new developments are anticipated. 

Since livestock tend to congregate around water 

sources, there could be long term, site specifi c, 

minor to moderate adverse effects on cultural 

resources located near water sources. 

Visitor facilities would be expanded under 

Alternative B, with cultural resource interpretation 

at specific locations, new trail designations and 

interpretive/safety information posted on waysides 

at the Crystal Ice Cave/Kings Bowl area. Increasing 

the number of designated, developed trails and 

providing more interpretative materials at specifi c 

locations, increases the potential for vehicle and 

foot traffic, unauthorized collection and vandalism 

at cultural resource sites within the Passage Zone. 

For those locations with interpretive materials, there 

would be a long-term, minor adverse effect from 

vehicle and foot traffic, unauthorized collection 

and vandalism. Interpretive materials may stress 

resource protection, which may reduce the amount 

of damage to cultural resources. There would be 

a long-term, minor beneficial effect for cultural 

resources away from trails without interpretive 

waysides because visitors would not be drawn to 

those areas. 

This alternative would designate all lands within the 

Monument as VRM Class I or II. This minimizes 

the visual intrusion of possible developments outside 

WSAs and Wilderness areas. A Section 106 invenChapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 249
tory would be required to prevent adverse impacts 

to development sites on a case-by-case basis. Over 

time, less intrusive developments resulting from 

more restrictive VRM classes within the Monument 

would have a long-term, negligible to minor beneficial impact on cultural resources. 

Cumulative Impacts 

For the most part, use of adjacent federal lands 

outside the Monument would contribute similar 

impacts to cultural resources as described above. 

Adjacent private land development, including use of 

land for agriculture and grazing, can severely affect 

cultural resources, since there is no federal oversight 

or regulation of these activities. This makes the 

preservation of sites on public lands more urgent, 

as the overall number of undisturbed archaeological 

resources is dwindling. 

It is possible that information distributed in visitor 

centers in the neighboring communities, such as 

Twin Falls and Idaho Falls, may draw increased visitors to the Monument. This could increase pressure 

on cultural resources from foot and vehicle traffi c, 

as well as unauthorized collection and vandalism. 

This increased visitation, in conjunction with the 

impacts already occurring, may have a long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impact on cultural 

resources. Increased proactive cultural resource 

inventory, interpretation and monitoring under 

this alternative would help minimize that impact. 

Overall, cumulative impacts to cultural resources 

from actions outside the Monument boundary, plus 

those of this alternative, would be long term and 

generally adverse, ranging from minor to moderate 

in intensity. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would have a moderate adverse 

effect on maintaining the long-term integrity of 

the majority of archaeological resources within the 

Monument by emphasizing recreational opportunities and vehicle access. The restoration program 

outcome and fire suppression would have a longterm, moderate beneficial impact, where vehicle 

travel, grazing, initial restoration, and suppression 

actions would result in short-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s cultural 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Cultural resource management within the Monument would continue under current laws, policies 

and regulations. The cultural resource database for 

this area would expand each year as data is collected 

from Section 106 projects and Section 110 inventory, 

a moderate beneficial impact to cultural resources. 

Under Alternative C, fewer roads within the Monument would be maintained to a high standard and 

more roads would be closed. Decreased access to 

the more remote regions of the Monument would 

decrease the visitor use of those areas, and concurrently decrease the impacts of vehicle and foot 

traffic, unauthorized collections, and vandalism to 

cultural resources. Decreased vehicle access may 

lead to a decrease in human caused wildfi res, which 

would protect cultural resources from exposure and 

erosion. This alternative includes the largest number 

of acres within the Pristine Zone, which provides 

fewer opportunities for trail development within 

the Monument. There would be a long-term, minor 

beneficial effect to cultural resources under this 

alternative. 

Under this alternative, 55,000 acres are targeted for 

sagebrush steppe restoration, which 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 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

250 
risk for unauthorized collection and increased soil 

erosion. Any restoration projects would be subject to 

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 adverse effect on 

cultural resources resulting from flagging, but the 

long-term stabilization of the soils and the reduced 

potential for wildfire would have a long-term, 

moderate benefi cial effect. 

Wildfire management under this alternative consists 

of full suppression on all lands outside the Pristine 

Zone, especially those with existing, healthy 

sagebrush steppe. Full suppression reduces the 

number of acres that burn, which limits the acres of 

ground surface exposed, thereby protecting cultural 

resources from increased risk of unauthorized 

collection. Cultural resources may receive intense, 

short-term vehicle traffic during active fi re suppression activities, as well as possible heavy equipment 

impacts as a result of fire line construction. This 

could constitute a short-term, moderate adverse 

impact during suppression activities. Overall, full 

suppression of wildfire would have a long-term, 

major beneficial impact on cultural resources. 

In Alternatives B, C, and D, any new livestock water 

facilities would be more likely in the Passage Zone, 

although few new developments are anticipated. 

Since livestock tend to congregate around water 

sources, there could be long-term, site-specifi c, 

and minor to moderate adverse effects on cultural 

resources located near water sources. 

Visitor facilities would be minimal under Alternative C, with cultural resource interpretation at a few 

specific locations, no new trail designations and 

interpretive/safety information posted on waysides 

at the Crystal Ice Cave/Kings Bowl area. For those 

locations with interpretive materials, there would be 

a long-term, minor adverse effect from vehicle and 

foot traffic, unauthorized collection, and vandalism. 

Interpretive materials may stress resource protection, which may reduce the amount of damage to 

cultural resources. There would be a long-term, 

minor beneficial effect for cultural resources away 

from trails without interpretive waysides because 

visitors would not be drawn to those areas. 

This alternative would designate all lands within the 

Monument as VRM Class I or II. This minimizes 

the visual intrusion of possible developments outside 

WSAs and Wilderness areas. A Section 106 inventory would be required to prevent adverse impacts 

to development sites on a case-by-case basis. Less 

intrusive developments resulting from more restrictive VRM classes within the Monument would have 

a long-term, negligible to minor benefi cial impact on 

cultural resources. 

Cumulative Impacts 

For the most part, use of adjacent federal lands 

outside the Monument would contribute similar 

impacts to cultural resources as described above. 

Adjacent private land development, including use of 

land for agriculture and grazing, can severely affect 

cultural resources, since there is no federal oversight 

or regulation of these activities. This makes the 

preservation of sites on public lands more urgent, 

as the overall number of undisturbed archaeological 

resources is dwindling. 

It is possible that information distributed in visitor 

centers in the neighboring communities, such as 

Twin Falls and Idaho Falls, may draw increased 

visitors to the Monument. This could increase 

pressure on cultural resources from foot and 

vehicle traffic, as well as unauthorized collection 

and vandalism. This increased visitation, in 

conjunction with the impacts already occurring, 

may have a long-term, negligible to minor adverse 

impact on cultural resources. Increased proactive 

cultural resource inventory and monitoring under 

this alternative would help minimize that impact. 

Overall, cumulative impacts to cultural resources 

from actions outside the Monument boundary, plus 

those of this alternative, would be long-term and 

generally adverse, ranging from minor to moderate 

in intensity. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 251
Conclusion 

Alternative C would have a minor benefi cial effect 

on maintaining long-term integrity of the majority 

of archaeological resources within the Monument 

by minimizing the amount of human and vehicle 

traffic into the Primitive and Pristine Zones. The 

restoration program outcome, fire suppression, and 

restricted access would all contribute to long-term, 

minor to moderate benefi cial impacts. Vehicle traffi c 

(limited), grazing, initial restoration, and suppression actions would result in short-term, minor to 

moderate adverse impacts. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s cultural 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

Cultural resource management within the Monument would continue under current laws, policies 

and regulations. The cultural resource database for 

this area would expand each year as data is collected 

from Section 106 projects and Section 110 inventory, 

a moderate beneficial impact to cultural resources. 

Under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), existing Class 

B and C roads in the Primitive Zone would remain 

open, their maintenance driven by natural resource 

management needs, primarily fi re suppression, 

weed management, and restoration activities. Many 

Class D roads in the Primitive and Pristine Zones 

would be converted to trails or closed for resource 

protection. The restrictions proposed on Class D 

roads could decrease visitor use in the Primitive 

and Pristine Zones, thereby decreasing the risk of 

cultural resource vandalism and illegal collection. 

The occurrence of human caused wildfi res may 

also decrease, lowering the risk of cultural resource 

site erosion. Upgrading the primary access routes 

outside the Monument (south end of Arco-Minidoka 

Road and the Carey-Kimama Road,) to a consistent 

B classification may encourage more visitors in the 

Passage Zone and may increase pressure on cultural 

resources within the Passage Zone, but overall this 

alternative would have a long-term, minor benefi cial 

effect to cultural. 

Under this alternative, the largest amount of land 

(80,000 acres) is targeted for sagebrush steppe 

restoration, a substantial increase over the other 

three alternatives. This involves the use of prescribed fire and drill seeding to return the vegetation 

to a mix of perennial plants and shrubs. Any fi re, 

wild or prescribed, exposes cultural resources on the 

ground surface placing them at risk for unauthorized collection and increased soil erosion. Any 

restoration project would be subject to 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 adverse 

effect on cultural resources due to the amount of 

area and aggressive program, which would expose 

more area at any one time. However, the long-term 

stabilization of the soils and the reduced potential 

for wildfire would have a long-term, moderate 

benefi cial effect. 

Wildfire management under this alternative consists 

of full suppression on all lands outside the Pristine 

Zone, especially those with existing, healthy 

sagebrush steppe. Full suppression reduces the 

number of acres that burn, which limits the acres of 

ground surface exposed, thereby protecting cultural 

resources from increased risk of unauthorized 

collection. Cultural resources may receive intense, 

short-term vehicle traffic during active fi re suppression activities, as well as possible heavy equipment 

impacts as a result of fire line construction. This 

could constitute a short-term, moderate adverse 

impact during suppression activities. Overall, full 

suppression of wildfire would have a long-term, 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

252 
major beneficial impact on cultural resources. 

In Alternatives B, C, and D, any new livestock water 

facilities would be more likely in the Passage Zone, 

although few new developments are anticipated. 

Since livestock tend to congregate around water 

sources, there could be long-term, site-specifi c, 

and minor to moderate adverse effects on cultural 

resources located near water sources. The modifi cations made in the FEIS to Alternative D reduce 

Passage Zone in the Laidlaw Park area compared 

to the Draft Alternative D. This would likely limit 

some development of livestock facilities and reduce 

the potential for associated adverse impacts to 

cultural resources in or near these areas. 

Visitor facilities would be focused outside the 

Monument under Alternative D (Proposed Plan). 

For those few cultural resource locations with 

on-site interpretive materials, there would be a 

long-term, minor adverse effect from vehicle and 

foot traffic, unauthorized collection, and vandalism. Interpretive materials would stress resource 

protection, which may reduce the amount of damage 

to cultural resources. There would be a long-term, 

minor beneficial effect for cultural resources away 

from roads and trails without interpretive waysides 

because visitors would not be drawn to those areas. 

This alternative would designate all lands within the 

Monument as VRM Class I or II. This minimizes 

the visual intrusion of possible developments outside 

WSAs and Wilderness areas. A Section 106 inventory would be required to prevent adverse impacts 

to development sites on a case-by-case basis. Less 

intrusive developments resulting from more restrictive VRM classes within the Monument would have 

a long-term, negligible to minor benefi cial impact on 

cultural resources. 

Cumulative Impacts 

For the most part, use of adjacent federal lands 

outside the Monument would contribute similar 

impacts to cultural resources as described above. 

Adjacent private land development, including use of 

land for agriculture and grazing, can severely affect 

cultural resources, since there is no federal oversight 

or regulation of these activities. This makes the 

preservation of sites on public lands more urgent, 

as the overall number of undisturbed archaeological 

resources is dwindling. 

It is possible that information distributed in visitor 

centers in the neighboring communities, such as 

Twin Falls and Idaho Falls, may draw increased visitors to the Monument. This could increase pressure 

on cultural resources from foot and vehicle traffi c, 

as well as unauthorized collection and vandalism. 

This increased visitation, in conjunction with the 

impacts already occurring, may have a long-term, 

negligible to minor adverse impact on cultural 

resources. Increased proactive cultural resource 

inventory, interpretation and monitoring under 

this alternative would help minimize that impact. 

Overall, cumulative impacts to cultural resources 

from actions outside the Monument boundary, 

plus those of this alternative, would be long-term, 

negligible to minor adverse impacts. 

Conclusion 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would have a moderate beneficial effect on maintaining the long-term 

integrity of the majority of archaeological resources 

within the Monument by emphasizing off-site 

interpretation and visitor services, and by emphasizing aggressive range restoration. Short-term minor 

to moderate adverse impacts would also occur from 

vehicle travel, initial restoration activities, suppression actions, and grazing. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, the Monument’s cultural 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 253
NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS 

AND INTERESTS 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

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. 

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. 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 National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) under each of 

these alternatives. As part of the agencies’ 

mandated tribal consultation responsibilities, 

any proposed development determined to 

have impacts to cultural resources or Native 

American values would be discussed with the 

tribes to develop alternatives and/or mitigation 

measures. 

• Tribes regulate their own members’ hunting 

on the Preserve and the expanded areas of the 

Monument. 

• In addition to the agencies’ mandated tribal 

consultation responsibilities, 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. 

For the purposes of this analysis, levels of impacts to 

Native American values were defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact to Native American values 

is at the lowest levels of detection 

- barely measurable, without perceptible 

consequences, either benefi cial or 

adverse. 

Minor: A minor adverse impact on Native 

American values is measurable or 

perceptible, but it is slight and localized 

within a relatively small area. The 

impact does not diminish the character 

of trust resources, ethnographic 

resources, traditional use areas or the 

exercise of treaty rights and would not 

have a permanent effect on the integrity 

of any ethnographic resource, traditional 

use area, or treaty right.

 A minor benefi cial impact involves 

maintenance and preservation of 

traditional use areas, trust resources, 

ethnographic resources and/or habitat 

for treaty species. 

Moderate: A moderate adverse impact is measurable and perceptible. The impact 

changes 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.

 A moderate benefi cial impact involves 

stabilization of trust resources, ethnographic resources, traditional use areas, 

and/or habitat for treaty species. 

Major: A major adverse impact on Native 

American values is substantial, 

noticeable, and permanent. The impact 

changes one or more character-defi ning 

features of trust resources, ethnographic 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

254 
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. 

 A major benefi cial impact involves 

active intervention to preserve trust 

resources, ethnographic resources, 

traditional use areas, and/or habitat for 

treaty species. 

The area of analysis for cumulative impacts to 

Native American Values was defined as the Eastern 

Snake River Plain. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Under Alternative A, 40,000 acres are planned for 

sagebrush steppe restoration, which involves the 

use of prescribed fire and drill seeding to return 

the vegetation to a mix of native plants and shrubs. 

Any fire, wild or prescribed, temporarily displaces 

wildlife and may change the character of traditional 

use areas. Sagebrush steppe restoration activities 

could have a short term, minor adverse effect on 

ethnographic resources, traditional use areas and the 

exercise of treaty rights, but the long term improvement in habitat and the reduced potential for wildfi re 

would have a long term, moderate benefi cial effect 

on Native American values. 

Wildfire management under this alternative consists 

of full suppression on all lands outside the Pristine 

Zone. Full suppression reduces the number of acres 

that burn, thereby protecting traditional use areas 

from loss of habitat for treaty species. Traditional 

use areas may receive intense, short-term vehicle 

traffi c during active fire suppression activities, as 

well as possible heavy equipment impacts as a result 

of firebreak construction. This could constitute 

a short-term, moderate adverse impact during 

suppression activities. Overall, full suppression of 

wildfire would have a long-term, minor benefi cial 

impact on ethnographic resources, traditional use 

areas and habitat for treaty species. 

The Monument currently includes all four Visual 

Resource Management (VRM) classifi cations 

(Classes I – IV). This allows for a wide range of 

developments outside WSAs and Wilderness areas. 

Over time, Class III and IV area developments 

within the Monument could increase the amount of 

visual intrusion, which could have an indirect impact on the character and integrity of ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas. Class III and IV 

VRM designations within the Monument could have 

a long-term, negligible to minor adverse impact to 

Native American values. 

Under Alternative A, roads within the Monument 

would remain in their current condition at current 

maintenance levels. Remote areas of the Monument 

would remain difficult to access by vehicle and most 

areas would be inaccessible by sedan. The broad 

network of two-track Class D roads would remain 

open. Because tribal members have not identifi ed 

any access concerns, for the purpose of this analysis 

the agencies assume the existing road network is 

adequate for tribal access to traditional use areas. 

There would be a long-term, negligible to minor 

beneficial impact to Native American values. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Tribal treaty rights exercised on adjacent federal 

lands outside the Monument are consistent with 

those exercised within the expanded Monument and 

Preserve. It is possible that information distributed 

in existing visitor centers in the neighboring communities, such as Twin Falls and Idaho Falls, 

may draw increased visitors to the Monument, 

but it seems unlikely given the current visitation 

levels. Increased visitation, in conjunction with the 

impacts already occurring, could have a long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impact on ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would have a negligible to minor, 

beneficial impact on maintaining the long-term 

integrity of ethnographic resources and traditional 

use areas within the Monument. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 255
Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of Native American rights and interests. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Under Alternative B, 45,000 acres are planned for 

sagebrush steppe restoration, which involves the 

use of prescribed fire and drill seeding to return 

the vegetation to a mix of native plants and shrubs. 

Any fire, wild or prescribed, temporarily displaces 

wildlife and may change the character of traditional 

use areas. Sagebrush steppe restoration activities 

could have a short-term, minor adverse effect on 

ethnographic resources, traditional use areas and the 

exercise of treaty rights, but the long term improvement in habitat and the reduced potential for wildfi re 

would have a long-term, moderate benefi cial effect 

on Native American values. 

Wildfire management under this alternative consists 

of full suppression on all lands outside the Pristine 

Zone, especially those with existing, healthy sagebrush steppe. Full suppression reduces the number 

of acres that burn, thereby protecting traditional 

use areas from loss of habitat for treaty species. 

Traditional use areas may receive intense, short-term 

vehicle traffic during active fire suppression activities, as well as possible heavy equipment impacts as 

a result of firebreak construction. This could constitute a short term, moderate adverse impact during 

suppression activities. Overall, full suppression of 

wildfire would have a long-term, minor benefi cial 

impact on ethnographic resources, traditional use 

areas and habitat for treaty species. 

This alternative would designate all lands within the 

Monument as VRM Class I or II. This minimizes 

the visual intrusion of potential developments 

outside WSAs and Wilderness areas. Over time, less 

intrusive developments resulting from more restrictive VRM classes within the Monument would have 

a long term, negligible to minor, benefi cial impact 

on the character and integrity of ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas. 

Under Alternative B, the road and trail system 

would provide a high level of access to a wide 

variety of destinations and recreation activities. 

Improved access to the more remote regions of the 

Monument could increase the visitor use of those 

areas, as well as increasing the impacts of vehicle 

and foot traffic, unauthorized collections and 

vandalism to cultural and/or ethnographic resources. 

Increased vehicle access may lead to an increase 

in wildfires. This alternative includes the largest 

number of acres within the Passage Zone, which 

provides more opportunities for trail development 

within that zone. As a result, there could be a longterm, minor adverse effect to ethnographic resources 

and traditional use areas under this alternative. 

With the increased acres in the Passage Zone under 

Alternative B, there would be an increased area of 

potential livestock facility development. Livestockcaused erosion at water trough locations and water 

pipeline developments would be confined to the 

Passage Zone. The concentration of livestock within 

the Passage Zone could increase pressure on any 

ethnographic resources and traditional use areas 

within that zone. Under Alternative B, livestock 

grazing would have a long-term, site specifi c, 

minor adverse effect on ethnographic resources and 

traditional use areas within the Passage Zone. Livestock grazing would have a short-term, negligible 

to minor adverse effect on ethnographic resources 

and traditional use areas within the Frontcountry, 

Primitive, and Pristine Zones. 

Visitor facilities would be expanded under Alternative B, with natural and cultural resource interpretation at specific locations, new trail designations 

and interpretive/safety information posted on 

waysides at recreation areas. Increasing the number 

of designated, developed trails and providing 

more interpretative materials at specifi c locations, 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

256 
increases the potential for vehicle and foot traffi c 

within the Passage Zone. For those locations with 

increased recreation use, there could be a long-term, 

minor adverse effect from vehicle and foot traffi c, 

unauthorized collection, and vandalism. Interpretive 

materials may stress resource protection, which 

may reduce the amount of damage to natural and 

cultural/ethnographic resources in traditional use 

areas. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Tribal treaty rights exercised on adjacent federal 

lands outside the Monument are consistent with 

those exercised within the expanded Monument and 

Preserve. It is possible that information distributed 

in existing visitor centers in the neighboring communities, such as Twin Falls and Idaho Falls, and the 

proposed road improvements may draw increased 

visitors to the Monument. This could increase pressure on traditional use areas from foot and vehicle 

traffic and possibly result in confl icts between tribal 

members and the public. This increased visitation, 

in conjunction with the impacts already occurring, 

may have a long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impact on ethnographic resources, traditional use 

areas and the exercise of tribal treaty rights. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would have a minor to moderate adverse effect on maintaining the long-term integrity 

of ethnographic resources and traditional use areas 

within the Monument by emphasizing recreational 

opportunities and vehicle access. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of Native American rights and interests. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Under Alternative C, 55,000 acres are planned for 

sagebrush steppe restoration, which involves the 

use of prescribed fire and drill seeding to return the 

vegetation to a mix of native plants and shrubs. Any 

fire, wild or prescribed, temporarily displaces wildlife and may change the character of ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas. Sagebrush 

steppe restoration activities could have a short-term, 

minor adverse effect on traditional use areas and the 

exercise of treaty rights, but the long-term improvement in habitat and the reduced potential for wildfi re 

would have a long-term, moderate benefi cial effect 

on Native American values. 

Wildfire management under this alternative consists 

of full suppression on all lands outside the Pristine 

Zone, especially those with existing, healthy sagebrush steppe. Full suppression reduces the number 

of acres that burn, thereby protecting ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas from loss of 

habitat for treaty species. Traditional use areas 

may receive intense, short-term vehicle traffi c 

during active fire suppression activities, as well as 

possible heavy equipment impacts as a result of 

firebreak construction. This could constitute a short 

term, moderate adverse impact during suppression 

activities. Overall, full suppression of wildfi re 

would have a long-term, minor benefi cial impact on 

ethnographic resources, traditional use areas and 

habitat for treaty species. 

This alternative would designate all lands within the 

Monument as VRM Class I or II. This minimizes 

the visual intrusion of potential developments 

outside WSAs and Wilderness areas. Over time, less 

intrusive developments resulting from more restrictive VRM classes within the Monument would have 

a long-term, negligible to minor, benefi cial impact 

on the character and integrity of ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas. 

Under Alternative C, fewer roads within the Monument would be maintained to a high standard and 

more roads would be closed. Decreased access to the 

more remote regions of the Monument may decrease 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 257
the amount of visitor use of those areas. Decreased 

vehicle access may lead to a decrease in humancaused wildfires, which would protect traditional use 

areas. Road closures may make access to ethnographic resources, traditional use areas or sacred 

sites difficult for tribal elders who may not be able to 

walk long distances over rough terrain. This alternative includes the largest number of acres within the 

Pristine Zone, which provides fewer opportunities 

for trail development within the Monument. There 

would be a long-term, minor benefi cial effect to 

traditional use areas and habitat for treaty species 

under this alternative, but there may also be a minor 

adverse impact to Native Americans resulting from 

decreased vehicle access. 

With the increased acres in the Pristine Zone under 

Alternative C, there would be a decreased area of 

potential livestock facility development. Livestockcaused erosion at water trough locations and water 

pipeline developments would be confined to the 

relatively small Passage Zone. The concentration of 

livestock within the Passage Zone could increase 

pressure on traditional use areas within that zone, 

as well as decrease pressure on traditional use 

areas in the Primitive and Pristine Zones. Under 

Alternative C, livestock grazing would have a 

long-term, site-specific, minor to moderate adverse 

effect on traditional use areas within the Passage 

Zone. Livestock grazing would have a short-term, 

negligible to minor adverse effect on ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas within the 

Frontcountry, Primitive, and Pristine Zones. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Tribal treaty rights exercised on adjacent federal 

lands outside the Monument are consistent with 

those exercised within the expanded Monument and 

Preserve. It is possible that information distributed 

in existing visitor centers in the neighboring communities, such as Twin Falls and Idaho Falls, may 

draw increased visitors to the Monument, but the 

decrease in visitor facilities and the road network 

would confine most visitors to the Passage Zone. 

This increased visitation, in conjunction with the 

impacts already occurring, may have a long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse impact on ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas within the 

Passage Zone. 

Conclusion 

Alternative C would have a minor benefi cial effect 

on maintaining long-term integrity of ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas within the 

Monument by minimizing the amount of human and 

vehicle traffic in the Primitive and Pristine Zones, 

but may also cause some hardship for elderly tribal 

members due to lack of vehicle access. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of Native American rights and interests. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

Under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), 80,000 acres 

are planned for sagebrush steppe restoration, which 

involves the use of prescribed fire and drill seeding 

to return the vegetation to a mix of native plants and 

shrubs. Any fire, wild or prescribed, temporarily 

displaces wildlife and may change the character of 

traditional use areas. Sagebrush steppe restoration 

activities could have a short-term, minor adverse effect on ethnographic resources, traditional use areas 

and the exercise of treaty rights, but the long-term 

improvement in habitat, and the reduced potential 

for wildfire would have a long-term, moderate 

beneficial effect on Native American values. 

Wildfire management under this alternative consists 

of full suppression on all lands outside the Pristine 

Zone, especially those with existing, healthy sagebrush steppe. Full suppression reduces the number 

of acres that burn, thereby protecting ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas from loss of 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

258 
habitat for treaty species. Traditional use areas may 

receive intense, short-term vehicle traffi c during 

active fire suppression activities, as well as possible 

heavy equipment impacts as a result of fi rebreak 

construction. This could constitute a short-term, 

moderate adverse impact during suppression 

activities. Overall, full suppression of wildfi re 

would have a long-term, minor benefi cial impact on 

ethnographic resources, traditional use areas and 

habitat for treaty species. 

This alternative would designate all lands within the 

Monument as VRM Class I or II. This minimizes 

the visual intrusion of potential developments 

outside WSAs and Wilderness areas. Over time, less 

intrusive developments resulting from more restrictive VRM classes within the Monument would have 

a long-term, negligible to minor, benefi cial impact 

on the character and integrity of ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas. 

Under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), existing Class 

B and C roads would remain open in the Primitive 

Zone, their maintenance driven by natural resource 

management needs, primarily fi re suppression, 

weed management, and restoration activities. Many 

Class D roads in the Primitive and Pristine Zones 

would be converted to trails or closed for resource 

protection. The restrictions proposed on Class D 

roads could decrease visitor use in the Primitive 

and Pristine Zones, thereby decreasing impacts to 

ethnographic resources and traditional use areas. 

The occurrence of vehicle-caused wildfires may also 

decrease, lowering the risk of habitat loss. Upgrading the primary access routes outside the Monument 

(south end of the Arco-Minidoka Road, and the 

Carey-Kimama Road) to a consistent B classifi cation 

may encourage more visitors in the Passage Zone 

and may increase pressure on ethnographic resources and traditional use areas within the Passage 

Zone; but overall, this alternative would have a 

long-term, minor beneficial effect on ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas. 

In Alternatives B, C and D, any new livestock water 

facilities would be more likely in the Passage Zone, 

although few new developments are anticipated. 

Since livestock tend to congregate around water 

sources, there could be long-term, site-specifi c, and 

minor to moderate adverse effects on ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas near water 

sources in the Passage Zone. The modifi cations 

made in the FEIS to Alternative D reduce Passage 

Zone in the Laidlaw Park area compared to the 

Draft Alternative D. This would likely limit some 

development of livestock facilities and reduce the 

potential for associated adverse impacts to cultural 

resources in or near these areas. 

With the increased acres in the Passage Zone under 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan), there would be an 

increased area of potential livestock facility development. Livestock-caused erosion at water trough 

locations and water pipeline developments would 

be confined to the Passage Zone. The concentration 

of livestock within the Passage Zone could increase 

pressure on ethnographic resources and traditional 

use areas within that zone. Under Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan), livestock grazing would have a 

long-term, site-specific, minor to moderate adverse 

effect on traditional use areas within the Passage 

Zone. Livestock grazing would have a short-term, 

negligible to minor adverse effect on ethnographic 

resources and traditional use areas within the 

Frontcountry, Primitive, and Pristine Zones. 

Also emphasized under this alternative would be 

more visitor facilities and information located 

outside the Monument boundary, near highways. 

There is the potential to educate a large public 

audience about Monument resources and preservation without having the increased visitor pressure on 

the Monument resources. The increased visibility 

is likely to increase the amount of visitors to the 

Monument to some degree, but the majority of 

the public would be satisfied with a short stop at a 

convenient visitor center outside the Monument. 

This alternative would provide a long-term, minor 

beneficial impact on maintaining the character and 

integrity of ethnographic resources and traditional 

use areas by satisfying the public’s interest with 

off-site visitor facilities. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 259
Cumulative Impacts 

Tribal treaty rights exercised on adjacent federal 

lands outside the Monument are consistent with 

those exercised within the expanded Monument and 

Preserve. It is possible that information distributed 

in proposed off-site visitor centers along major 

highways could draw increased visitors to the 

Monument, but the majority of the public probably 

would not visit the actual Monument. This could 

decrease pressure on ethnographic resources and 

traditional use areas from foot/vehicle traffi c and 

potential conflicts between tribal members and the 

public. This emphasis on off-site visitor services, 

in conjunction with the impacts already occurring, 

may have a long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impact on ethnographic resources, traditional use 

areas and the exercise of tribal treaty rights. 

Conclusion 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would have a minor 

to moderate beneficial effect on maintaining the 

long-term integrity of ethnographic resources 

and traditional use areas within the Monument 

by emphasizing off-site interpretation and visitor 

services, and by emphasizing range restoration. 

Lack of vehicle access in Pristine Zone could cause 

some hardship for elderly tribal members who are 

not able to physically reach certain areas on foot. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the Monument or 

to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identifi ed 

as a goal in its management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of Native American rights and interests. 

LAND USE AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

TRAVEL AND ACCESS 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

Road system standards and maintenance infl uence 

the amount and type of access to a given area. Use 

generally increases when road conditions improve 

and decreases as conditions degrade. 

To analyze the effects of the alternatives on travel 

and access, available information on existing roads 

and trails in the Monument was compiled. Certain 

assumptions were made regarding the management 

of travel and access in the future, as follows: 

• A Comprehensive Travel Management Plan 

would be prepared for the Monument and 

made available to the public. This would 

provide specific guidance to Monument 

managers, local road and bridge cooperators, 

and the general public of the standards for 

improvement and/or maintenance of the 

various classes of roads described in this 

Proposed Plan/FEIS or potential road closures. 

It would also include a road map/brochure 

of the Monument for public use. This would 

show road standards, maintenance levels and 

appropriate uses. 

• There would be no net increase in road 

mileage in the Monument. 

• The road system in the planning area would 

provide access for visitors, permittees, nonfederal landowners, and administrative needs 

without adversely affecting the resources and 

values that the Monument was established to 

preserve. 

• The agencies would coordinate road management inside and outside of the Monument 

cooperatively with local government agencies 

so that the transportation system would be 

managed in a comprehensive, logical manner. 

• The agencies also would work cooperatively 

with local government agencies to provide 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

260 
appropriate access to the Monument and 

private land within the Monument. 

The road standard classifi cations that were developed for the purpose of identifying and defi ning 

roads at Craters of the Moon National Monument 

and Preserve are described in the Affected Environment section. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the intensity of 

impacts on travel and access were defined as follows: 

Negligible: The effects would not be detectable and 

would have no discernible effect on 

traffi c flow and/or road conditions. 

Minor: The effects would be slightly detectable 

but there would not be an overall effect 

on traffi c flow and/or road conditions. 

Moderate: The effects would be clearly detectable, 

and the action could have an appreciable 

effect on traffi c flow and/or road conditions. 

Major: The effects would be substantial, with 

a highly noticeable influence, and the 

traffi c flow and/or road conditions could 

be permanently altered. 

The area of analysis for cumulative impacts was 

defined as the Monument and the surrounding 

50-mile radius. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Under Alternative A, the roads in the Monument 

would remain in their current condition at current 

maintenance levels. The majority of the road network consists of Class C and D roads in the Primitive Zone, with some higher standard Class B roads 

in the Passage Zone. Class A roads are restricted to 

the Frontcountry Zone, and Class 1 (non-motorized) 

trails are mainly found in the Primitive Zone (see 

Table 3 for mileage). Remote areas of the Monument 

would remain difficult to reach by vehicle, and most 

areas would be accessible only to high clearance 

vehicles. The broad network of two-track roads 

would remain open. Difficult travel would keep most 

visitors out of the most remote areas. Vehicle traffi c 

could cause erosion on access routes, a long-term 

minor adverse impact on visitors desiring better 

access. 

Under this alternative, 40,000 acres of degraded 

rangeland would be proactively treated for sagebrush 

steppe restoration, which would involve the use of 

herbicides, prescribed fire, drill seeding, and other 

methods. These activities could cause short-term 

minor disruptions to travel and access in the Monument if certain areas or roads were restricted during 

the activities. However, the reduced potential for 

large wildfires would result in a long-term moderate 

beneficial effect by reducing the amount of road use 

by fi refi ghting equipment. 

Wildfire management in Alternative A would 

consist of full suppression on all lands outside the 

designated wilderness. There could be intense, 

short-term vehicle traffic on access routes during 

active fire suppression activities, and the use of 

heavy equipment to construct fi rebreaks also might 

affect such routes. Fire management impacts on 

roads, whether from suppression or prescribed 

burning, would include heavy use of roads by large 

fire engines, small fire engines, pickup trucks and 

SUVs, equipment transport (low-boys) and bulldozers, as well as bulldozing and widening existing 

roads for use as fuel breaks. Suppression activities 

could cause a short-term moderate adverse impact. 

This could constitute a short-term moderate adverse 

impact during and immediately after suppression 

activities. 

There would be no change in the management 

of livestock use under Alternative A. Permittees 

would continue to haul water to troughs on the 

existing road network and to trail livestock along 

road corridors. This would result in a long-term 

minor adverse effect on access roads, and periodic 

maintenance would be necessary to retain existing 

conditions. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 261
Visitor facilities would remain as they are at 

present, with interpretation at specifi c locations 

at the original NPS Monument, some minor trail 

maintenance of existing trails, and some safety 

information posted on waysides at the Crystal Ice 

Cave/Kings Bowl area. Visitor use would cause a 

negligible effect on access and transportation routes 

with interpretive waysides. 

New mineral material permits would be authorized 

inside the Monument only for administrative use, 

but the existing pits would continue to be used until 

expended. 

Road maintenance efforts would cause minor shortterm adverse impacts on road conditions but would 

result in a long-term minor beneficial effect on road 

conditions. When mineral material pits were closed, 

reclamation efforts would cause minor short-term 

adverse impacts from heavy equipment and work on 

the ground. Obliterating short material-site access 

roads during reclamation efforts would cause a 

negligible to minor adverse impact on access. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Access and transportation management on adjoining 

federal lands outside the Monument would affect 

the numbers of visitors able to reach the expanded 

portion of the Monument. The planned realignment 

of US 93 would straighten some curves in the Highway, making this access route safer for motorists. 

It is possible that information distributed in visitor 

centers in neighboring communities such as Twin 

Falls and Idaho Falls would attract more visitors to 

the Monument. Informational kiosks at access points 

to the Monument also could increase visitation. All 

these factors could potentially increase the pressure 

on access routes in the Monument, necessitating 

more road maintenance. Increased visitation, in 

conjunction with the impacts already occurring 

under Alternative A, would result in a long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impact on access and 

transportation. 

Conclusion 

Actions under Alternative A would cause minor adverse impacts on travel and access in the Monument, 

with long-term minor benefi cial effects resulting 

from completed restoration and road maintenance 

activities. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Alternative B would involve more opportunities 

over the life of the plan for improving access to the 

Monument both inside and outside of the Monument 

boundary. With emphasis on providing greater 

access for recreation, the subsequent increase 

in Passage Zone acreage could result in higher 

maintenance costs, as could the expense of converting some Class D roads to Class 1 and 2 trails. The 

recommended improvement of the Arco-Minidoka 

Road could result in an upgrade of approximately 

25 miles from Class C to Class B inside the Passage 

Zone (see Table 8 for mileage). This improved 

access would cause minor to moderate long-term 

adverse impacts on travel and access by attracting 

more visitors and increasing the frequency and level 

of needed maintenance. Alternative B would result 

in substantial increases in road upgrade/reconstruction costs for the agencies, counties, and local 

highway districts, as well as increasing annual road 

maintenance costs. 

Improved access and more emphasis on road signs 

and interpretive signs in the Passage Zone would 

result in moderate long- and short-term benefi cial 

effects by increasing visitor access to the Monument 

and by offering visitors more orientation and direction. Remote areas of the Monument still would be 

difficult to reach by vehicle, but some areas might 

become more accessible for lower clearance type 

vehicles. The broad network of existing Class D roads 

would remain, providing access to the Pristine Zone. 

Multiple use trails developed under this alternative 

could improve access for forms of travel other 

than cars and trucks, leading to minor to moderate 

beneficial effects. However, erosion and more use 

of multiple use trails would degrade such trails, 

necessitating more maintenance. This would result 

in minor to moderate short- and long-term adverse 

impacts. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

262 
Designating the Carey-Kimama and Arco-Minidoka 

roads as Backcountry Byways would cause moderate long-term adverse impacts from more visitor use 

and related increases in maintenance expenses. 

Treating about 45,000 acres of degraded rangeland 

would be treated for proactive sagebrush steppe 

restoration under Alternative B would be a 5,000-

acre increase over Alternative A. As in Alternative 

A, the sagebrush steppe restoration process would 

cause a short-term minor disruption of access and 

transportation. However, the reduced potential for 

large wildfires would reduce the amount of road use 

by fi refighting equipment, a long-term moderate 

benefi cial effect. 

Wildfire management in Alternative B would consist 

of full suppression on all lands outside the Pristine 

Zone. During active fire suppression activities, 

access routes might be subject to intense short-term 

vehicle traffic and possible impacts from the use 

of heavy equipment to construct fire lines. The 

effects on roads from fire management, whether 

suppression or prescribed burning, would be caused 

by heavy use of roads by large fire engines, small 

fire engines, pickup trucks, SUVs, equipment 

transporters, and bulldozers, as well as bulldozing 

and widening existing roads for use as fuel breaks. 

Active fire suppression would result in temporary 

road closures, a short-term moderate adverse effect 

on access and transportation. 

More livestock developments (such as water 

troughs) in the expanded Passage Zone could 

increase the use of the road network to reach these 

sites, causing minor to moderate short- and longterm adverse impacts on transportation and access. 

More water-truck traffic would create the potential 

for road congestion and could create dusty conditions on roads during the grazing season, resulting 

in a long-term minor to moderate adverse effect on 

access routes. 

Placing interpretive waysides in the Passage Zone 

under Alternative B would cause negligible effects 

on travel and access. Constructing designated primitive campsites would increase visitor use, leading to 

increased needs for road maintenance. This would 

be a negligible to minor long-term adverse impact. 

Designating dispersed campsites would concentrate 

visitation in specific areas, relieving pressure on the 

overall transportation system, a long-term negligible 

to minor benefi cial effect. 

Improved access to destination sites in the Monument such as Baker Caves and Kings Bowl would 

lead to increased visitation, resulting in a long-term 

minor beneficial effect on visitor access. Increased 

road maintenance and traffic could create short-term 

minor adverse impacts on transportation safety. 

New mineral material sites could be authorized 

inside the Monument for administrative use only, 

but the existing pits would continue to be used 

until expended. New mineral material pits might 

be necessary to complete the road upgrades and 

resulting maintenance in this alternative. Using 

heavy equipment to maintain Monument roads 

would cause minor short-term adverse impacts on 

transportation safety, but there would be a long-term 

minor beneficial effect from such maintenance 

efforts. When mineral material pits were closed, 

reclamation efforts would result in minor short-term 

adverse impacts from heavy equipment and work 

on the ground. Obliterating short material-site 

access roads during reclamation efforts would cause 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on access. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The principal access routes outside the Monument 

would be upgraded and maintained in conjunction 

with counties and other BLM offi ces, causing minor 

to moderate long-term benefits by improving access 

to and from gateway sites around the Monument. 

The planned realignment of US 93 would straighten 

some curves in the Highway, making this access 

route safer for motorists. This realignment would 

increase visitation to the Monument, necessitating 

more road maintenance. This would cause minor to 

moderate long-term adverse impacts on transportation safety in the Monument. All these factors, along 

with the emphasis on visitor use of the Monument 

under this alternative, would result in a long-term 

minor beneficial effect on visitor access. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 263
Conclusion 

By emphasizing recreational opportunities and 

increased access, Alternative B would cause a long 

term minor to moderate adverse effect on road 

conditions in the Monument, but it also would lead 

to a long-term moderate beneficial effect on the 

availability of access and ease of travel to many 

locations in the Monument. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Alternative C would involve reducing access to 

and within the Monument over the life of the plan 

because the Pristine Zone would be larger. By 

definition, the Pristine Zone does not allow any 

roads, and this would result in closing or converting 

to trails approximately 50 miles of Class C and D 

roads. Fewer miles of roads with limited Passage 

Zone areas would be maintained to Class B and 

C standards (see Table 8 for mileage). The road 

closures and possible road removal would be a 

potential loss of access, a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impact. Having fewer miles of 

roads maintained under Alternative C would cause 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on Monument 

access because a smaller range of vehicles would be 

accommodated by the transportation system. Over 

time, this alternative would result in a reduction in 

road maintenance expenses for the agencies, counties, and local Highway Districts. 

Placing interpretive facilities off-site would reduce 

the number of visitors to the Monument, resulting in 

long-term minor beneficial effects on transportation 

safety. Less visitation would result in less erosion, 

degradation, and other forms of damage to roads, 

thereby reducing the need for road maintenance. 

The large land area in the Pristine Zone in this 

alternative would include some roads along lava 

edges and in sagebrush steppe areas. Alternative 

C would close the two-track roads by signing and 

blocking, ripping and seeding, or converting them 

to Class 1 trails. This would result in moderate 

long-term adverse impacts on motorized access and 

a moderate long-term beneficial effect on foot/horse 

access. 

A total of 55,000 acres of degraded rangeland would 

be proactively treated for sagebrush steppe restoration under Alternative C, 15,000 acres more than in 

Alternative A. As in Alternative A, the restoration 

activities would result in a short-term minor adverse 

effect on travel and access, but in this alternative the 

effects would be evident possibly over a larger area 

or for a longer time. However, the reduced potential 

for large wildfires would reduce the amount of road 

used by fi refighting equipment, a long-term moderate 

benefi cial effect. 

As in Alternative B, wildfi re management under 

Alternative C would consist of full suppression on 

all lands outside the Pristine Zone. During active 

fire suppression activities, access routes might be 

subject to intense short-term vehicle traffi c and 

possible impacts from the use of heavy equipment 

to construct fire lines. The effects on roads from 

fire management, whether suppression or prescribed 

burning, would be caused by heavy use of roads by 

large fire engines, small fire engines, pickup trucks, 

SUVs, equipment transporters, and bulldozers, as 

well as bulldozing and widening existing roads for 

use as fuel breaks. Active fire suppression would 

result in temporary road closures, a short-term 

moderate adverse effect on access and transportation. 

Existing livestock developments would remain, with 

the possibility of some closures. Closing livestock 

facilities would cause long-term minor benefi cial 

effects on access and transportation safety. Fewer 

water-hauling vehicles would use the transportation 

system, reducing traffic, damage to roads, and the 

frequency of needed maintenance. 

Using heavy equipment to maintain Monument 

roads would cause minor short-term adverse impacts 

on transportation safety, but there would be a longterm minor beneficial effect from such maintenance 

efforts. When mineral material pits were closed, 

reclamation efforts would result in minor short-term 

adverse impacts from heavy equipment and work 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

264 
on the ground. Obliterating short material-site 

access roads during reclamation efforts would cause 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on access. 

Existing mineral material sites in the Monument 

would be used until expended, and no new material 

sites would be developed. Having fewer miles of 

maintained road under this alternative would reduce 

the presence of heavy equipment on roads and 

congestion in the transportation system, resulting 

in minor to moderate long-term benefi cial effects 

on travel safety in the Monument. Travel on lower 

standard roads in the Monument could cause long 

term minor to moderate adverse impacts on travel 

safety. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Access and transportation management on adjoining 

federal lands outside the Monument would affect the 

numbers of visitors who could reach the Primitive 

and Pristine Zones of the Monument. The planned 

realignment of US 93 would straighten some curves 

in the highway, making this route safer for motorists. 

Visitor travel on roads maintained to a lower standard would result in minor to moderate long-term 

adverse impacts the road network in the Monument. 

Placing interpretive materials such as waysides and 

printed products outside the Monument boundaries 

would cause minor to moderate benefi cial effects 

because fewer visitors would actually enter the 

Monument and use the transportation network. 

Overall, the effects of these actions, along with the 

effects from the actions of Alternative C, would 

result in long-term minor adverse impacts on travel 

and access. 

Conclusion 

By closing more miles of road in the Monument, 

Alternative C would cause minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on access. Reduced vehicle traffi c 

could result in minor beneficial effects on transportation safety, but there also might be minor adverse 

impacts on travel safety from visitors using lower 

standard roads. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

Under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), the main 

purposes of the road network would be to protect 

resources and to facilitate fire suppression. This 

alternative would allow opportunities for modest 

improvements in existing Monument access over 

the life of the plan by providing needed road 

maintenance in the Passage and Primitive Zones 

(see Table 8 for mileage). This would improve public 

access and road quality, creating a long-term minor 

beneficial effect on access and transportation. Some 

reduction was made to Passage Zone in the Laidlaw 

Park area in the FEIS Alternative D, in response to 

public comment on the Draft Plan/EIS. However, 

a main loop drive in designated Passage Zone was 

retained to serve the needs of visitors and park staff 

for access, while reducing the potential for adverse 

impacts to resources in the Laidlaw Park area 

Other modifications to Alternative D were done to 

change some areas from Primitive to Pristine Zone 

that were intruding from roads into the interior of 

the Monument along the edges of the lava fi elds 

Although this would limit access beyond the immediate road corridors, it would not cause adverse 

conditions for most visitor or park staff access, 

and would serve to further protect the Monument’s 

interior resources. Some Class C and D roads in the 

Primitive Zone could also be closed for resource 

benefit, resulting in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on access. There would be modest 

increases in road maintenance costs for the agencies, 

the counties, and the Highway Districts. 

Most Monument roads would be maintained at 

current levels, with some minor improvements to 

protect resources and improve the response time 

for fire suppression. In places where maintenance is 

currently lacking, this could result in minor adverse 

impacts from continued degradation of the roadways 

and access. In areas where roads are currently well 

maintained, this would prevent the degradation of 

roadways and access from possible higher levels 

of use, a minor beneficial effect. The use of heavy 

equipment for temporary road improvements, 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 265
along with short-term road closures associated with 

restoration efforts, would cause minor short-term 

impacts on access and transportation. 

A total of 80,000 acres of degraded rangeland would 

be proactively treated for sagebrush steppe restoration under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), double 

the acreage planned for Alternative A. These more 

extensive sagebrush steppe restoration activities 

would cause a short-term minor to moderate adverse 

effect on travel and access. However, the reduced 

potential for large wildfires in this alternative 

(stemming from the provision of additional fi re 

stations and adequate access to reach wildfi res at 

their initial stages) would reduce the amount of road 

used by fi refighting equipment, a long-term moderate beneficial effect. As in Alternatives B and C, 

wildfire management under Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan) would consist of full suppression on all lands 

outside the Pristine Zone. Naturally ignited fi res in 

the Pristine Zone could be allowed to burn when and 

where suitable conditions and planning exist. During 

active fire suppression activities, access routes might 

be subject to intense short-term vehicle traffi c and 

possible impacts from the use of heavy equipment 

to construct fire lines. The effects on roads from 

fire management, whether suppression or prescribed 

burning, would be caused by heavy use of roads by 

large fire engines, small fire engines, pickup trucks, 

SUVs, equipment transporters, and bulldozers, as 

well as bulldozing and widening existing roads for 

use as fuel breaks. Access roads in the Monument 

would be maintained under this alternative for fi re 

suppression, a minor long-term benefi cial effect on 

Monument access. 

Offering off-site interpretation would reduce 

the number of visitors using the Monument’s 

transportation network, a long-term minor benefi cial 

effect. Placing some visitor facilities outside the 

Monument would reduce pressure on the transportation network, a long-term minor benefi cial effect. 

Rehabilitating Kings Bowl could involve temporary 

road closures and the use of heavy equipment, 

resulting in a negligible to minor short-term adverse 

impact. 

New mineral material sites could be authorized 

inside the Monument for administrative use only, 

but the existing pits would continue to be used until 

expended. New mineral material pits might be necessary to complete the road maintenance required in 

this alternative. Using heavy equipment to maintain 

Monument roads would cause minor short-term 

adverse impacts on transportation safety, but there 

would be a long-term minor benefi cial effect from 

such maintenance efforts. When mineral material pits 

are closed, reclamation efforts would result in minor 

short-term adverse impacts from heavy equipment 

and work on the ground. Obliterating short materialsite access roads during reclamation efforts would 

cause negligible to minor adverse impacts on access. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Access and transportation management on adjoining 

federal lands outside the Monument could affect 

the numbers of visitors who are directed toward the 

Monument entrances and use existing roads and 

trails to access Monument features and recreational 

facilities. The planned realignment of US 93 would 

straighten some curves in the highway, making this 

route safer for motorists. Distributing information 

in visitor centers in neighboring communities such 

as Twin Falls and Idaho Falls might attract more 

visitors to the Monument. Informational kiosks now 

at access points to the Monument also could attract 

more visitors, increasing the pressure on access 

routes within the Monument. Placing interpretive 

materials such as waysides and printed products 

outside the Monument boundaries would cause 

minor to moderate benefi cial effects because fewer 

visitors would actually enter the Monument and use 

the transportation network. Overall, the effects of 

these actions, along with the effects from the actions 

of Alternative D (Proposed Plan), would result in 

long-term negligible to minor benefi cial effects on 

travel and access. 

Conclusion 

By emphasizing off-site interpretation, visitor 

services, and long-term range restoration, Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would cause long-term minor 

beneficial effects on access and road conditions in 

the Monument. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

266 
LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

Available information was obtained through relevant 

literature, Best Management Practices, standards 

and guidelines assessments, monitoring, existing 

land use plans, and consultation with the public, 

permittees, and interdisciplinary teams. Impacts 

were assessed using best professional judgment and 

the following criteria to define impact intensities: 

Negligible Grazing operations would not be 

appreciably affected. 

Minor The effect would be perceptible, and the 

action would result in a slight change 

in grazing operations, but the change 

would be localized. 

Moderate The effects would be apparent, and the 

action would result in a limited change 

in grazing operations. 

Major The effects would be readily apparent 

or widespread, and the action would 

result in a substantial change in grazing 

operations. 

The area of analysis for cumulative impacts was 

defined as Craters of the Moon National Monument 

and Preserve and the surrounding communities 

within approximately 50 miles. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Under this alternative about 40,000 acres of 

degraded rangeland would be targeted for proactive 

sagebrush steppe restoration. The restoration would 

involve a combination of manipulation techniques 

such as herbicides, prescribed fires, and seeding to 

return the plant communities to proper functioning 

condition. Natural wildfires generally would be 

suppressed, but some fires would occur throughout 

the Monument, disrupting grazing. The restoration 

and fire-related activities could result in closure to 

grazing for two years or more. Such a substantial 

change in grazing operations would result in a 

short-term moderate adverse impact. In addition 

to the allotment directly affected by the closure, 

adjacent allotments might be indirectly affected 

by the redistribution of displaced livestock. Such 

changes might include altering the number of 

grazing livestock, the season of use, or the duration 

of grazing. However, the long-term effects would be 

moderate and beneficial because restoration would 

improve rangeland health. 

In this alternative the Frontcountry Zone would 

cover approximately 2,300 acres; the Passage Zone, 

4,700 acres; the Primitive Zone, 290,200 acres; and 

the Pristine Zone, 448,800 acres. Road upgrading 

and facility development would be allowed in the 

Passage Zone. This would cause short- and longterm minor beneficial effects on livestock use. Road 

improvements would benefi t livestock permittees 

by facilitating and reducing the cost of water 

hauling, facility development, and maintenance. 

New livestock developments in the Passage Zone 

could improve livestock distribution. The size of the 

Pristine Zone could result in short- and long-term 

moderate adverse impacts on permittees by increasing the cost of grazing and limiting access through 

potential road closures, a lack of road maintenance, 

and not allowing new livestock developments. 

Over time, increased recreational use in the 

Frontcountry and Passage Zones could cause minor 

to moderate adverse impacts on livestock operations. 

More recreational use could create confl icts with 

livestock or livestock-associated equipment on the 

roads, at camping or parking locations, at livestock 

watering sites, and at popular recreation locations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The BLM would continue to assess all livestock 

use allotments in Idaho, using 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 

allotments are evaluated to determine if standards 

and guidelines are being met or if signifi cant 

progress is being made toward meeting them. If the 

standards are not being met, the BLM is required to 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 267
make changes that would help achieve these standards in the future. Required changes could affect 

allotments both inside and adjacent to the Monument 

by reducing or increasing livestock numbers, season 

of use, allocated AUMs, and livestock-associated 

developments. 

The ICBEMP has coordinated an extensive 

study of the Interior Columbia Basin, including 

District lands. This study has determined that 

the sagebrush steppe ecosystem is at risk due to 

several past and existing impacts. These include 

grazing, road construction, human development, 

and disturbance-related invasion of exotic plant 

species. These disturbances would be likely to 

continue to contribute cumulatively to the impacts 

on vegetation communities in southern Idaho. The 

BLM has entered into a 2003 MOU to implement 

the ICBEMP. The implementation strategy includes 

direction to federal agencies to update or develop 

land-use plans to provide direction to address the 

major issues. 

The economic status of surrounding local communities directly impacts livestock use within the 50-mile 

radius. Economic changes can affect the livelihood 

of the livestock permittees and their employees. 

Dramatic economic changes could potentially 

increase the number of people and available jobs 

or force people in the surrounding communities to 

find employment elsewhere or even move out of the 

area. Overall, the effects of the actions that would 

or could occur on adjacent lands, combined with the 

actions of Alternative A, would result in negligible 

to minor adverse impacts on grazing. 

Conclusion 

Restoration activities and restrictions in the Pristine 

Zone in Alternative A could restrict grazing operations and/or increase costs associated with grazing, 

resulting in short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. The use of the Passage Zone for 

potential road improvement and facility development 

would result in short- and long-term minor benefi cial 

effects, but the potential increased recreational use 

of this area could cause minor to moderate adverse 

impacts. Alternative A would have the third largest 

Pristine Zone, which could restrict or increase the 

costs associated with grazing. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Under this alternative about 45,000 acres of 

degraded rangeland would be treated for sagebrush 

steppe restoration, a 5,000-acre increase from 

Alternative A. Wildfires would be suppressed in all 

areas except in the Pristine Zone, where wildland 

fire use would be prescribed. As in Alternative A, 

the restoration and actions for fire suppression and 

the recovery of burned areas could result in closure 

to grazing for two years or more, which could 

result in a substantial change in grazing operations, 

causing a short-term moderate adverse impact. In 

addition to the allotment directly affected by the 

closure, adjacent allotments might be indirectly 

affected by the redistribution of displaced livestock. 

Such changes might include altering the number of 

grazing livestock, the season of use, or the duration 

of grazing. However, the long-term effects would be 

moderate and beneficial because restoration would 

improve rangeland health. 

In this alternative the Frontcountry Zone would 

cover approximately 2,300 acres; the Passage 

Zone, 68,900 acres inside the Monument and 9,000 

acres outside the Monument; the Primitive Zone, 

226,900 acres; and the Pristine Zone, 447,900 

acres. Road upgrading and facility development 

would be allowed in the Passage Zone. This would 

cause short- and long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effects on livestock use because the 

acreage in the Passage Zone would be greater in this 

alternative than in all the other alternatives. Road 

improvements would benefit livestock permittees by 

facilitating and reducing the cost of water hauling, 

facility development, and maintenance, but there 

could be conflicts between road users and livestock. 

New livestock developments in the Passage Zone 

could improve livestock distribution. The size of the 

Pristine Zone, although it would be slightly smaller 

than in Alternative A, could result in short- and 

long-term moderate adverse impacts on permittees 

by increasing the cost of grazing and limiting 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

268 
access through potential road closures, a lack of 

road maintenance, and not allowing new livestock 

developments. 

Over time, increased recreation use in the Frontcountry and adjacent Passage Zone areas could cause 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on livestock 

operations. More recreation could create confl icts 

with livestock or livestock-associated equipment on 

the roads, at camping or parking places, at livestock 

watering sites, and at popular recreation settings. 

The larger Passage and Frontcountry Zones probably 

would increase the amount of recreational use. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects of Alternative B on livestock 

grazing would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A, with both more benefi cial effects and 

more adverse impacts from the additional access 

available in the expanded Passage Zone. Overall, the 

effects of the actions that would occur on adjacent 

lands, combined with the actions of Alternative B, 

would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts 

on grazing. 

Conclusion 

Restoration activities and restrictions in the Pristine 

Zone under Alternative B could restrict or increase 

the costs of grazing operations, resulting in shortand long-term moderate adverse impacts in grazing, 

but larger Passage Zone areas and the development 

of good access could result in road improvement and 

facility development, which would cause short- and 

long-term minor to moderate benefi cial effects. The 

increased recreational use and access in this area 

could cause minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

A total of 55,000 acres of degraded rangeland 

would be proactively treated for sagebrush steppe 

restoration under Alternative C, 15,000 more acres 

than in Alternative A. Natural wildfires would be 

managed for resource benefit in the Pristine Zone, 

which would be much larger in this alternative than 

in Alternatives A or B. As in Alternative A, the 

restoration and related actions could result in closure 

to grazing for two years or more, which could 

result in a substantial change in grazing operations, 

causing a short-term moderate adverse impact. In 

addition to the allotment directly affected by the 

closure, adjacent allotments might be indirectly 

affected by redistribution of displaced livestock. 

Such changes might include altering the number of 

grazing livestock, the season of use, or the duration 

of grazing. The long-term effects would be moderate 

and beneficial because restoration would improve 

rangeland health. 

In this alternative the Frontcountry Zone would 

cover approximately 2,300 acres; the Passage Zone, 

3,200 acres; the Primitive Zone, 201,000 acres; and 

the Pristine Zone, 539,500 acres. Road upgrading 

and facility development would be allowed in 

the Passage Zone. The Passage Zone would be 

smaller than in Alternative A, but road upgrading 

and facility development still would be possible. 

Having a somewhat reduced Passage Zone would 

result in negligible to minor benefi cial effects on 

livestock use. Road improvements would benefi t 

livestock permittees by facilitating and reducing 

the cost of water hauling, facility development, and 

maintenance, but there could be confl icts between 

road users and livestock. New livestock developments in the Passage Zone could improve livestock 

distribution. The large Pristine Zone could result 

in could result in short- and long-term moderate 

adverse impacts on permittees by increasing the 

cost of grazing and limiting access through potential 

road closures, a lack of road maintenance, and not 

allowing new livestock developments. 

Over time, increased recreational use could cause 

minor adverse impacts on livestock operations. 

More recreation could create confl icts with livestock 

or livestock-associated equipment on the roads, at 

camping or parking places, at livestock watering 

sites, and at popular recreation settings. Because of 

the smaller amount of Passage Zone in Alternative 

C, there would not be a large increase in the amount 

of recreational use. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 269
Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects of Alternative C on livestock 

operations would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A, with some additional adverse impacts 

from the expanded restoration activities. Overall, the 

effects from the actions that could occur on adjacent 

lands, combined with the actions of Alternative C, 

would result in minor adverse impacts on grazing. 

Conclusion 

Restoration activities and restrictions in the Pristine 

Zone under Alternative C could restrict or increase 

the costs associated with grazing, resulting an 

moderate short- and long-term adverse impacts on 

grazing. The smaller number of areas in the Passage 

Zone would allow for some access and facility 

development, a negligible to minor benefi cial effect, 

but any increased recreational use would cause 

minor adverse impacts on grazing operations. The 

large amount of Pristine Zone could increase costs 

and limit access, causing moderate adverse impacts 

on grazing. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

A total of 80,000 acres of degraded rangeland 

would be proactively treated for sagebrush steppe 

restoration under Alternative D (Proposed Plan). 

This is twice as much acreage as in Alternative A 

and the largest amount proposed for restoration 

in any alternative. As in Alternative C, natural 

wildfires would be managed for resource benefi t in 

the Pristine Zone, and various land use treatments 

would be similar. The restoration and fi re-related 

actions could result in closure to grazing for two 

years or more, and the restoration program would 

be accelerated in this alternative. Closure to grazing 

could cause a short-term moderate adverse impact. 

In addition to the allotment directly affected by the 

closure, adjacent allotments might be indirectly affected because livestock numbers could be reduced, 

or they might go to adjacent allotments to graze. 

Such a substantial change in grazing operations 

would cause a short-term moderate adverse impact. 

There could be changes in livestock numbers, 

the season of use, or the duration of grazing. The 

long-term effects would be substantial and benefi cial 

because restoration would improve rangeland health 

over a large acreage. 

In this alternative the Frontcountry Zone would cover 

about 2,300 acres; the Passage Zone, 6,700 acres 

inside the Monument and 4,100 acres outside the 

Monument; the Primitive Zone, 218,700 acres; and 

the Pristine Zone, 518,300 acres. A larger Passage 

Zone (compared to Alternative A)and emphasis on 

maintaining good access for restoration and resource 

management in that zone would allow for road 

upgrading and facility development, which would 

result in short- and long-term benefi cial effects on 

livestock operations. Some reduction in Passage Zone 

and an increase in Pristine Zone was included in this 

FEIS in certain areas such as Laidlaw Park and on the 

fringes of the lava flows, in response to public comment to provide for resource protection and reduce 

fragmentation of habitat. These designations may 

limit some grazing and livestock development along 

some roads, but not signifi cantly. Road improvements 

would benefit livestock permittees by facilitating 

and reducing the cost of water hauling, facility 

development, and maintenance, but there could be 

conflicts between road users and livestock. New 

livestock developments in the Passage Zone could 

improve livestock distribution. As in Alternative A, 

the large Pristine Zone could result in could result 

in short- and long-term moderate adverse impacts 

on permittees by increasing the cost of grazing and 

limiting access through potential road closures, a lack 

of road maintenance, and not allowing new livestock 

developments. 

The additional Passage Zone provided in this 

alternative (compared to Alternative A) probably 

would result in slightly more recreational use, which 

could cause minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

livestock operations. More recreation could result 

in conflicts with livestock or livestock-associated 

equipment on the roads, at camping or parking 

places, at livestock watering sites, and at popular 

recreation settings. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

270 
Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects of Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan) on livestock operations would be similar 

to those described for Alternative A. The most 

long-term beneficial effects would result from the 

eventual restoration of rangeland and the improved 

access for administrative purposes. Overall, the 

effects from the actions that could occur on adjacent 

lands, combined with the actions of Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan), would result in negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on grazing. 

Conclusion 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would involve the 

largest acreage identified for restoration; this would 

cause short-term moderate adverse impacts on grazing operations, but the long-term effects would be 

beneficial. Compared to Alternative A, the increase 

in Passage Zone could result in more road improvement and facility development, and potentially more 

recreation use would result in minor to moderate 

beneficial effects from increased access and more 

ability to create new facilities. The Pristine Zone, 

which was increased in this FEIS, could restrict or 

increase the costs associated with grazing, a moderate adverse impact. 

OTHER LAND USES 

(ADMINISTRATIVE 

FACILITIES, REALTY, AND 

MINERALS) 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

To analyze the effects of the alternatives on various 

land uses, such as the existing NPS Visitor Center 

facility, realty actions, and mineral material sites, 

all available information on these land uses in 

the Monument was compiled, and the following 

assumptions were made about the management of 

these land uses in the future: 

• The existing NPS Visitor Center, including the 

previously approved expansion and renovation, would continue to offer visitor services to 

the public. 

• No new mineral material sites would be 

authorized except for administrative use 

within the Monument because Proclamation 

7373 withdrew all Monument lands from 

location, entry, and patent under the mining 

laws, mineral leasing laws, and mineral 

material laws. 

• The agencies would seek to exchange lands 

with or purchase private and state inholdings 

in the Monument from willing sellers. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the levels of effects 

on administrative facilities, realty, and minerals 

were defined as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be barely detectable, 

and/or the public would not be affected. 

Minor: The effect would be slight, but 

detectable, and/or the public might be 

affected. 

Moderate: The effect would be readily apparent 

and/or the public would be affected. 

Major: The effect would be severely adverse 

or exceptionally benefi cial and/or the 

public would be affected. 

The area of analysis for cumulative impacts is 

defined as the Monument boundary and the surrounding 50-mile radius. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Under Alternative A, the existing administrative 

facilities would undergo some enlargement and 

reconstruction as planned, and the costs of doing 

day-to-day business would not change from what is 

currently budgeted. This alternative would result in 

a negligible impact on administrative facilities. 

Realty actions would continue to be processed 

on demand, as they are now. There would be no 

effects on valid existing rights such as the existing 

emergency airstrips and county road rights-of-way. 

Retaining the existing utility corridors would 

accommodate existing utilities and encourage the 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 271
placement of future utilities within them. Granting 

utility rights-of-way where in conformance with 

constraints would accommodate the demand for 

such services along the US 93 corridor. Considering 

the acquisition of private lands in the Monument 

would improve the ability of private property 

owners to dispose of their property with appropriate 

compensation and would reduce the number of 

inholdings. For Monument lands outside WSAs, 

considering and granting rights-of-way case by case 

would accommodate the limited demand on public 

lands while allowing for reasonable access and 

services on private lands. This alternative would 

result in a negligible effect on realty. 

Proclamation 7373 closed Monument lands to new 

mineral material leases. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) currently holds several 

old rights-of-way for material sources along US 

93. The agencies would work with ITD on the 

relinquishment of those rights-of-way. The agencies 

would continue to use existing mineral sources for 

maintaining Monument roads at current levels as 

necessary. This alternative would cause long-term 

minor beneficial effects on mineral materials. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Few actions within the area of analysis would 

affect Monument facilities, realty, and minerals. 

Per Proclamation 7373, agencies or private entities 

without prior existing rights would have to look 

elsewhere for mineral materials. ITD might or might 

not feel the need to use its existing mineral rightsof-way in the Monument, depending on proposed 

highway improvements in the area. This would not 

affect Monument minerals because ITD normally 

needs higher quality gravel than is available from 

Monument sources. The agencies also might have to 

look outside the Monument for higher quality gravel. 

Given the remote nature of the area, few realty 

actions are foreseeable within the area of analysis. 

Overall, these limited actions, along with the effects 

of Alternative A, would result in long-term negligible cumulative adverse impacts on administrative 

facilities, realty, and minerals. 

Conclusion 

The No Action Alternative would result in negligible 

impacts on administrative facilities, realty, and 

minerals in the Monument. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Under Alternative B, the existing administrative 

facilities might have to be expanded to serve more 

visitors, which would increase the day-to-day cost 

of doing business and maintenance. This alternative 

would cause a long-term minor adverse impact on 

administrative facilities. 

As in Alternative A, this alternative would not affect 

valid existing rights. Retaining the existing utility 

corridors would accommodate existing utilities and 

encourage placing utilities within those corridors 

in the future. Granting utility rights-of-way (where 

in conformance with constraints) would accommodate the demand for such services along US 93. 

Considering the acquisition of private lands in the 

Monument would improve the ability of private 

property owners to dispose of their property with 

appropriate compensation and would reduce the 

number of inholdings. For Monument lands outside 

WSAs, considering and granting rights-of-way case 

by case would accommodate the limited demand on 

public lands while allowing for reasonable access 

and services on private lands. 

An improved transportation system might lead to a 

slight increase in unauthorized use and a potential 

for conflicts between leaseholders and recreational 

visitors. Increased potential for wildfi res might 

cause short-term adverse impacts on existing rightsof-way. This alternative would cause a negligible 

impact, with the possibility of some short-term 

minor adverse impacts on realty. 

Proclamation 7373 closed Monument lands to new 

mineral material leases. The ITD holds several 

old rights-of-way for material sources along US 

93. The agencies would work with ITD on the 

relinquishment of those rights-of-way. The agencies 

would continue to use existing mineral sources for 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

272 
maintaining Monument roads as necessary. Because 

there would be more high-standard, maintained 

miles of road in the Monument in this alternative, 

the use of more mineral materials would be necessary, and new cinder pits might be required to meet 

that need. The Monument contains a high volume 

of cinder material; therefore, this alternative would 

result in negligible impacts on mineral materials. 

If higher quality gravel were needed for Monument 

road maintenance, it would have to be obtained from 

a source outside the Monument. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects from Alternative B on 

administrative facilities, realty, and minerals would 

be similar to those described for Alternative A. The 

maintenance of more high-standard roads in the 

Monument would increase the administrative use of 

existing mineral material sites. The limited actions 

that would affect these other land uses, plus the 

actions of Alternative B, would result in cumulative 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

administrative facilities, realty, and minerals. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would cause negligible effects on 

realty and minerals in the Monument and a minor 

adverse impact on administrative facilities. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Under Alternative C, the existing administrative 

facilities would be unchanged, and the day-to-day 

cost of doing business would be unchanged because 

there would be no added expenses beyond the current foreseeable levels. This alternative would result 

in negligible effects on administrative facilities. 

Realty actions would continue to be processed on 

demand, as at present. There would be no effects on 

valid existing rights such as the existing emergency 

airstrips and county road rights-of-way. Retaining 

the existing utility corridors would accommodate 

existing utilities and encourage the placement of future utilities within them. Granting utility rights-ofway where in conformance with constraints would 

accommodate the demand for such services along 

the US 93 corridor. Considering the acquisition of 

private lands in the Monument would improve the 

ability of private property owners to dispose of their 

property with appropriate compensation and would 

reduce the number of inholdings. For Monument 

lands outside WSAs, considering and granting 

rights-of-way case by case would accommodate the 

limited demand on public lands while allowing for 

reasonable access and services on private lands. 

Having fewer miles of high-standard, maintained 

roads in the Monument could result in less unauthorized use. This alternative would result in a negligible 

to minor long-term beneficial effect on realty. 

Proclamation 7373 closed Monument lands to new 

mineral material leases. The ITD holds several old 

rights-of-way for material sources along US 93. The 

agencies would work with ITD on the relinquishment 

of those rights-of-way. The agencies would continue 

to use existing mineral sources for maintaining 

Monument roads as necessary. Maintaining fewer 

miles of high-standard roads might decrease the use 

of mineral materials. This alternative would result in 

long-term minor beneficial effects on mineral materials. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects from Alternative C on 

administrative facilities, realty, and minerals would 

be similar to those described for Alternative A, but 

the demand for minerals would be slightly reduced 

because less road maintenance would be needed. 

Overall, the limited actions that would affect other 

land uses, plus the actions of Alternative C, would 

result in negligible cumulative effects on administrative facilities, realty, and minerals. 

Conclusion 

By minimizing the amount of human and vehicle 

traffic into the Primitive and Pristine Zones, Alternative C would cause long-term minor benefi cial 

effects on administrative facilities, realty, and 

minerals in the Monument. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 273
IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

Under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), the existing 

administrative facilities would remain, and a new 

multi-agency/private sector visitor center would be 

built along the I-84 corridor outside the Monument. 

The agencies would actively promote public education about the Monument at this new visitor center, 

possibly alleviating some visitor pressure on the 

Monument itself. This alternative would result in a 

negligible effect on administrative facilities in the 

Monument. 

Realty actions would continue to be processed on 

demand, as at present. There would be no effects on 

valid existing rights such as the existing emergency 

airstrips and county road rights-of-way. Retaining 

the existing utility corridors would accommodate 

existing utilities and encourage the placement of future utilities within them. Granting utility rights-ofway where in conformance with constraints would 

accommodate the demand for such services along 

the US 93 corridor. Considering the acquisition of 

private lands in the Monument would improve the 

ability of private property owners to dispose of their 

property with appropriate compensation and would 

reduce the number of inholdings. For Monument 

lands outside WSAs, considering and granting 

rights-of-way case by case would accommodate the 

limited demand on public lands while allowing for 

reasonable access and services on private lands. 

This alternative would result in negligible effects on 

realty. 

Proclamation 7373 closed Monument lands to new 

mineral material leases. The ITD holds several 

old rights-of-way for material sources along US 

93. The agencies would work with ITD on the 

relinquishment of those rights-of-way. The agencies 

would continue to use existing mineral sources 

for maintaining Monument roads as necessary. 

Maintaining fewer miles of high-standard roads 

might decrease the use of mineral materials. This 

alternative would result in long-term minor beneficial effects on mineral materials. Because there 

would be more high-standard, maintained miles of 

road in the Monument in this alternative, the use 

of more mineral materials would be necessary, and 

new cinder pits might be required to meet that need. 

The Monument contains a high volume of cinder 

material; therefore, this alternative would result in 

negligible impacts on mineral materials. If higher 

quality gravel were needed for Monument road 

maintenance, it would have to be obtained from a 

source outside the Monument. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) on administrative facilities, realty, and 

minerals would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A, with administrative facility impacts 

occurring both inside and outside the Monument. 

Overall, the actions that would affect these other 

land uses, plus the actions of Alternative D (Proposed Plan), would result in cumulative long-term 

negligible impacts on administrative facilities, 

realty, and minerals. 

Conclusion 

Because of its emphasis on off-site interpretation 

and visitor services, Alternative D (Proposed Plan) 

would result in negligible effects on administrative 

facilities, realty, and minerals in the Monument. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATION 

AREAS (WILDERNESS, 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS, 

RESEARCH NATURAL AREA/ 

AREAS OF CRITICAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN) 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

The characteristics of each area that qualified it to 

receive a special designation and the purpose of the 

designation were examined. The locations of areas 

with special designations were compared to the 

locations of proposed actions, when possible. The 

potential impacts of each alternative on the areas 

were then evaluated, including pertinent issues 

identified during the scoping process. Predictions 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

274 
about short- and long-term impacts were based on 

past studies of land use and visitor impacts on the 

regional ecosystem, including some studies at the 

Monument. The predicted intensity of impacts was 

assessed according to the following criteria: 

Negligible: A change to the characteristics of the 

area that supported its designation could 

occur, but the change would be so small 

that it would not be of any measurable 

or perceptible consequence. 

Minor: Changes to the characteristics of the 

area that supported its designation 

would occur, but they would be small 

and, if measurable, would be very 

localized. 

Moderate: Changes to the characteristics of the 

area that supported its designation 

would occur. The changes would be 

measurable but would remain localized. 

Major: Changes to the characteristics of the 

area that supported its designation 

would occur. The changes would be 

perceptible, measurable, and widespread. 

The area of analysis for cumulative impacts was 

defined as the specially designated area and all 

surrounding lands affecting the special designation, 

including those beyond the Monument boundary. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Special designation areas are affected primarily 

by the continuation of current management actions 

related to off-highway vehicle use, road system 

maintenance, and livestock use. These primarily 

affect portions of WSAs that are near roads and, in 

some cases, where they are allotted for livestock use. 

The wilderness area and the RNAs are isolated from 

most roads. 

Off-highway vehicles, by design, have greater 

capability than standard highway vehicles to leave 

existing routes and create new routes. Unauthorized 

vehicle use could lead to the creation of new travel 

routes in WSAs emanating from existing routes or 

ways. Vehicle use of both authorized and unauthorized ways could spread invasive weeds from infested 

areas into currently uninfested areas, altering 

natural conditions if not controlled. The direct effect 

of illegal vehicle use on natural conditions would 

be local, with the intensity and duration varying 

depending on the frequency of use. In general, the 

level of illegal off-road use would be higher near 

existing roads. Depending on the site, these impacts 

would vary from negligible to moderate and from 

short term to long term, but they could potentially 

be widespread in the vicinity of roads. 

Road system maintenance influences the amount 

and type of access to a given area. Road use 

generally increases as road standards improve and 

decreases if road standards degrade. The level of use 

and any associated effects decrease with distance 

from roads. Road standards, use levels, and effects 

on WSAs in this alternative would remain the same. 

Existing recreational use in the WSA would remain 

low and would not require substantial management 

restrictions that would limit opportunities for 

unconfined primitive recreation. Dust plumes from 

vehicles traveling on roads through Little Park and 

the northern end of Laidlaw Park and the sight and 

sounds of truck traffic on US 93 would continue to 

be noticeable from many locations in the wilderness 

area. The amount of traffic through Little Park and 

Laidlaw Park would remain light, resulting in shortterm negligible effects on opportunities for solitude. 

Livestock use affects wilderness characteristics 

in WSAs by altering natural animal and plant 

communities. These characteristics also are affected by the continued maintenance of livestock 

developments (such as fences and watering sites) 

and motor vehicle routes to manage livestock and 

related developments. Natural animal populations 

and distribution are altered when livestock compete 

with native wildlife for forage and when predator 

control activities are undertaken to protect livestock. 

The effects vary, since livestock do not use the WSA 

lands uniformly. Livestock use is authorized only on 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 275
the WSA lands administered by BLM (16 percent of 

the total WSA acreage). Even within that 16 percent, 

the use of the lands by livestock is not uniform. 

Vegetative cover 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 adverse effects 

would range 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 diffi cult 

to reverse. The presence of temporary roads and 

livestock developments would not disqualify the 

area from potential legislative designation as wilderness. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Changes in the county or state road standards in 

or adjacent to the Monument could infl uence the 

use patterns, increasing or decreasing use, depending on the location and nature of each change. 

Improvements to the Arco-Minidoka Road would 

be likely to increase the use of Great Rift WSA 

portions just west of the road. Population growth 

in Blaine County would include growth in the area 

in and around the city of Carey. This could result 

in increased use of the Raven’s Eye WSA just east 

of Carey. The impact of illegal off-road vehicle use 

emanating from state, county, and private roads inside and outside of the Monument would be similar 

to the effects resulting from the management of NPS 

and BLM roads within the Monument boundaries. 

In general, the level of illegal off-road use would 

be higher near access roads. These adverse impacts 

would vary from negligible to moderate and from 

short term to long term, depending on the site, but 

they could be widespread near roads. 

Existing or future development of communication 

towers could affect the views of natural conditions 

and the perceptions of solitude within the wilderness 

area by adding constructed structures to the skyline. 

Outdoor lights on these and other structures would 

alter natural night sky conditions. The effects of 

such developments on opportunities for solitude and 

natural conditions in the wilderness area could be 

negligible to minor, but their duration could be long 

term over large areas. 

The effects of the actions outside the Monument 

described above would be adverse. These impacts, 

in conjunction with the impacts from the actions of 

Alternative A, would result in cumulative long-term 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts on special 

designation areas, primarily WSAs. 

Conclusion 

The effects on the characteristics and purposes of 

special designation areas from Alternative A would 

be primarily negligible to minor and short term, but 

the effect of livestock use on natural conditions 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). 

Road system management and limited regulation of 

off-highway vehicle use could cause negligible to 

moderate adverse indirect effects through the spread 

of invasive weeds and the creation of unauthorized 

routes. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of Craters of 

the Moon National Monument; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning documents, 

the resources or values of the Monument’s special 

designation areas would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Improvements to the road system through Paddelford Flat, Little Park, Laidlaw Park, and the Kings 

Bowl area could result in more use and a higher 

level of indirect effects on WSA lands than would 

occur in Alternative A. Since the specifi c road 

segments that would be improved are not identifi ed 

at the current level of planning, detailed effects cannot be described accurately; however, the impacts 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

276 
probably would vary from negligible to moderate 

and from short term to long term, depending on the 

site, but they could be widespread in the vicinity of 

roads. 

Livestock use would affect the wilderness characteristics of WSAs, as described for Alternative A. 

However, Alternative B would have more acreage in 

the Passage Zone, and there would be more opportunities to develop livestock facilities. This could 

result in beneficial effects on special designation 

areas because grazing might be concentrated in a 

limited area outside of WSAs. However, there might 

be more adverse impacts on WSA areas bordering 

Passage Zone areas with new livestock developments, leading to minor adverse long-term impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts on special designation 

areas from Alternative B would be similar to those 

described for Alternative A relating to changes in 

the county or state road standards undertaken in or 

adjacent to the Monument, including improvements 

to the Arco-Minidoka Road. The effects from population growth in Blaine County and the effect of 

illegal off-road vehicle use from the management of 

state, county, and private roads inside and outside of 

the Monument would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A. In general, the level of illegal offroad use would be higher near access roads. These 

effects would vary from negligible to moderate and 

from short term to long term, depending on the site, 

but they could be widespread near roads. 

As in Alternative A, existing or future development 

of communication towers would affect views of 

natural conditions and perceptions of solitude from 

within the wilderness area. This could result in 

effects of negligible to minor intensity, but with 

long-term duration and affecting large areas. 

The effects of the actions outside the Monument 

described above would be adverse. Current and 

future outside actions, in conjunction with the 

actions of Alternative B, would result in cumulative 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

special designation areas, primarily WSAs. 

Conclusion 

The effects on the characteristics and purposes of 

special designation areas from Alternative B would 

be primarily negligible to minor and short term, 

but the effects from livestock use on natural conditions in WSAs could be moderate in some local 

areas where livestock concentrate, and vegetative 

structure would be altered for long periods of time 

(5+ years). The improvements to the road system 

could cause higher levels of indirect adverse effects 

through the spread of invasive weeds and the 

creation of unauthorized routes. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of Craters of 

the Moon National Monument; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning documents, 

the resources or values of the Monument’s special 

designation areas would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

In the Primitive and Pristine Zones, some spur 

roads adjacent to or inside WSAs could be closed to 

motorized vehicles under Alternative C. This could 

decrease the incidence of unauthorized OHV routes 

and the spread of invasive weeds in those specifi c 

areas. Because the specific road segments that might 

be closed under this alternative have not been identified at the current level of planning, detailed effects 

cannot be described, but the effects probably would 

vary from negligible to moderate and from short 

term to long term, depending on the site. They could 

potentially be widespread near roads. The effects 

of livestock use would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A, but in Alternative C the Passage 

Zone would be smaller and the Pristine Zone would 

be larger, and there would be fewer opportunities for 

adding livestock developments in the vicinity of the 

WSAs. 

As part of this management plan, the potential for an 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 277
ACEC designation in Laidlaw Park was investigated. 

The purpose of an ACEC designation would be to 

focus management attention on special resources in 

the area. The BLM used a screening process - the 

ACEC Criteria Review Checklist (see Appendix G) 

- as an initial evaluation to determine if the nominated area met the basic relevance and importance 

criteria for designation. The BLM considered the 

appropriate amount of land needed to protect the 

resource values reflected in the nomination. The 

ACEC evaluation was based on guidance provided 

by 43 CFR 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual Section 1613, 

which state that potential ACECs must meet specified criteria for relevance and importance. Relevance 

is based on the presence of a signifi cant 

• Historic, cultural, or scenic value; 

• Fish or wildlife resource or other natural 

system or process; or 

• Natural hazard. 

• Upon meeting the relevance criteria, a 

nominated site must then have substantial 

significance and values that meet one or more 

of the following "importance" criteria: 

• Has more than locally significant qualities that 

give it special worth, consequence, meaning, 

distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource. 

• Has qualities or circumstances that make 

it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or 

vulnerable to adverse change. 

• Has been recognized as warranting protection 

in order to satisfy national priority concerns or 

to carry out the mandates of FLPMA. 

• Has qualities that warrant highlighting in order 

to satisfy public or management concerns 

about safety and public welfare. 

• Poses a significant threat to human life and 

safety or to property. 

North Laidlaw Park met the relevance criteria 

for scenic values, wildlife resources, and natural 

processes or systems and importance criteria for 

scenic values and wildlife resources. In Alternative 

C, 10,500 acres encompassing North Laidlaw Park, 

north of the Turnbull Fence, would be designated as 

an ACEC. The following actions would be implemented to protect the high quality native vegetation, 

wildlife habitat, and scenic values of the area: 

a) Develop standards and indicators for vegetation 

health that would allow for natural disturbance 

and processes while ensuring that degradation 

due to invasion of invasive or noxious weeds 

would not occur. 

b) Develop a low-use transportation network with 

no new routes, trails, or signs. 

c) Limit new development of livestock watering 

facilities to ensure that the existing light use of 

the area would continue. 

d) Use off-site interpretive resources such as 

brochures and displays in the Visitor Center 

to highlight the grazing management, native 

vegetation, and scenic qualities of the area. 

The ACEC designation under Alternative C would 

constitute a long-term minor benefi cial effect. 

It is uncertain that ACEC designation would be 

necessary to provide special management for the 

identified resources or values because current 

management, regulation, and law provide suffi cient 

protection for the values identifi ed. Therefore, 

ACEC designation may not be necessary. In any 

case, other actions under Alternative C, including 

grazing and road use/access, would result in minor 

adverse impacts on the ACEC, similar to effects 

noted for other special designated areas. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on special designation 

areas from Alternative C would be similar to those 

described for Alternative A relating to changes in 

the county or state road standards undertaken in or 

adjacent to the Monument, including improvements 

to the Arco-Minidoka Road. The effects from population growth in Blaine County and the effect of 

illegal off-road vehicle use from the management of 

state, county, and private roads inside and outside of 

the Monument would be similar to those described 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

278 
for Alternative A. In general, the level of illegal offroad use would be higher near access roads. These 

effects would vary from negligible to moderate and 

from short term to long term, depending on the site, 

but they could be widespread near roads. 

As in Alternative A, existing or future development 

of communication towers would affect views of 

natural conditions and perceptions of solitude from 

within the wilderness area. This could result in 

effects of negligible to minor intensity, but with 

long-term duration and affecting large areas. 

The effects of the actions outside the Monument 

described above would be adverse. Current and 

future outside actions, in conjunction with the 

actions of Alternative C, would result in cumulative 

long-term minor adverse impacts on special designation areas, primarily WSAs. 

Conclusion 

The adverse effects on the characteristics and purposes of special designation areas from most actions 

under Alternative C would be primarily negligible 

to minor and short term. The effect of livestock on 

natural conditions in WSAs could be moderate in 

some local areas where livestock concentrate, and 

vegetative structure would be altered for long periods 

of time (5+ years). The lack of access and limited 

Passage Zone acreage could cause indirect adverse 

effects if grazing was expanded to certain areas, with 

potential indirect adverse effects through the spread 

of invasive weeds and the creation of unauthorized 

routes. Designating a new ACEC in North Laidlaw 

Park would lead to minor beneficial effects on the 

adjacent Craters of the Moon Wilderness and Great 

Rift WSA. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of Craters of 

the Moon National Monument; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning documents, 

the resources or values of the Monument’s special 

designation areas would not be impaired. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

In Alternative D (Proposed Plan), some roads in the 

Passage Zone might be improved to speed up the 

response time for wildland fire suppression. Such 

road improvements might lead to more recreational 

use and indirectly to more use of adjacent WSAs. 

Because the specific road segments that would be 

improved would not be identified at the current 

stage of planning, the effects cannot be described 

in more detail. Vegetative restoration projects could 

improve the natural conditions in the WSA, but it 

is not indicated where the projects would occur in 

this alternative, so the exact impacts that would 

result are not known. Aggressive noxious weed 

control could prevent the spread of weeds into the 

WSA, thereby preserving natural conditions. Under 

the modified Alternative D presented in this FEIS, 

several areas in and around the Laidlaw Park area 

were changed from Passage to Primitive Zone, and 

more Pristine Zone was added around the lava fi eld 

edges. This was done in response to public comment 

and concerns about potential fragmentation of the 

Laidlaw Park area by looping roads and protection 

of sensitive resources. Therefore, although Alternative D would not officially designate the North 

Laidlaw Park area as an ACEC, it would provide 

many of the same benefits by limiting access and 

visitor use in this and other sensitive areas of the 

Monument, a minor benefi cial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on special designation areas 

from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would be 

similar to those described for Alternative A relating 

to changes in the county or state road standards 

undertaken in or adjacent to the Monument, including improvements to the Arco-Minidoka Road. The 

effects from population growth in Blaine County 

and the effect of illegal off-road vehicle use from 

the management of state, county, and private roads 

inside and outside of the Monument also would 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 279
be similar to those described for Alternative A. In 

general, the level of illegal off-road use would be 

higher near access roads. These effects would vary 

from negligible to moderate and from short term to 

long term, depending on the site, but they could be 

widespread near roads. 

As in Alternative A, existing or future development 

of communication towers would affect views of 

natural conditions and perceptions of solitude from 

within the wilderness area. This could result in 

effects of negligible to minor intensity, but with 

long-term duration and affecting large areas. 

The effects of the actions outside the Monument 

described above would be adverse. Current and 

future outside actions, in conjunction with the actions of Alternative D (Proposed Plan), would result 

in cumulative long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on special designation areas, primarily 

WSAs. 

Conclusion 

The adverse effects on the characteristics and 

purposes of special designation areas from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would be mostly negligible 

to minor and short-term, with potential for more 

intense effects if restoration activities took place 

in or near any of the areas. The effect of livestock 

on natural conditions in WSAs could be moderate 

in some local areas where livestock concentrate, 

and vegetative structure would be altered for long 

periods (5+ years). Road system management and 

limited regulation of off-highway vehicle use could 

cause indirect adverse effects through the spread 

of invasive weeds and the creation of unauthorized 

routes. The additional Pristine Zone and reduction 

of Passage Zone in the Laidlaw Park area, compared 

to Alternative D as presented in the Draft Plan/EIS, 

would provide indirect beneficial impacts to an 

area that had been discussed as an ACEC candidate 

during the scoping for this project. 

Because there would be no major adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of Craters of 

the Moon National Monument; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning documents, 

the resources or values of the Monument’s special 

designation areas would not be impaired. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

The following discussions of effects on the visitor 

experience cover the effects on visitor understanding of the Monument’s resources (interpretation), 

recreation, visual resources, and soundscape. 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

To evaluate the potential impacts on the visitor 

experience from each alternative, information 

gathered from the Visitor Services Project Report 

(USDI NPS 1989) was used, along with public input 

during the planning process. For analysis purposes, 

impact intensities for all visitor experience topics 

were defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact would be barely detectable, 

affecting the experience of few visitors 

in the applicable setting. 

Minor: The impact would be detectable, affecting the experience of many visitors in 

the applicable setting. 

Moderate: The impact would be readily apparent, 

affecting the experience of the majority 

of visitors in the applicable setting. 

Major: The impact would be severely adverse 

or exceptionally beneficial, affecting the 

experience of nearly all visitors in the 

applicable setting. 

The area of analysis for cumulative impacts was 

defined as the Monument and approximately 50 

miles beyond the Monument boundary, considering 

other nearby areas that could affect or contribute to 

visitor experience within the Monument. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

280 
INTERPRETATION AND VISITOR 

UNDERSTANDING 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Under Alternative A, posting information and orientation materials at all primary backcountry access 

points and at proposed fire stations in Carey and 

Kimama would mean that visitors would be exposed 

to this interpretive information before entering the 

Monument and when leaving; this would result in a 

long-term minor benefi cial effect. 

Continuing to focus educational programs for 

schools and other groups on site at the original NPS 

Monument would result in continued long-term 

minor benefi cial effects. 

In addition, in Alternative A, a variety of interpretive media would continue to be developed for 

on- and off-site use, interpretive programs still 

would be offered, and exhibits and waysides would 

be available. Visitor safety and resource protection 

still would be emphasized, and some interpretation 

of archaeological and historic sites would continue. 

All these actions would result in long-term minor 

benefi cial effects. 

Modest development of the Kings Bowl area, with 

the installation of previously approved signs and 

wayside exhibits, would emphasize safety and 

resource protection. This would result in long-term 

minor benefi cial effects. 

The existing Visitor Center and administrative 

building would be enlarged and undergo reconstruction, as previously approved. This would enable 

Monument visitors to benefit from a greater variety 

of interpretive materials and programs, a long-term 

major beneficial effect on visitors’ understanding of 

the Monument. 

When practicable, NPS and BLM facilities and staff 

would help qualified researchers and educational 

institutions to conduct authorized studies or fi eld 

classes. Both agencies would facilitate the transfer 

of research information to the public. These actions 

would result in long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The five Cooperative Weed Management Areas 

that include lands in the Monument facilitate weed 

management activities cooperatively among counties, private landowners, and government agencies, 

including the BLM and NPS. An important component of those activities is educating the public about 

the threats posed by invasive weeds. Typically, the 

Cooperative Weed Management Areas use a variety 

of print and other media to disseminate information 

about identifying and controlling the spread of 

weeds. These educational materials and programs, 

combined with the interpretive media, programs, 

exhibits, and waysides in Alternative A that would 

emphasize resource protection, would result in 

cumulative long-term minor benefi cial effects on 

interpretation. 

Conclusion 

Posting information at backcountry access points 

and fire stations; offering school programs at the 

original NPS Monument; interpreting cultural 

resources; adding interpretive media, programs, 

exhibits, and waysides; and modest development 

in the Kings Bowl area would cause long-term 

minor beneficial effects on interpretation and visitor 

understanding, as would agency assistance to 

research and educational institutions. In addition, 

long-term major benefits would result from expanding the existing Monument Visitor Center. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Adding interpretive facilities along the corridor of 

US 20/26/93 and at sites in the Passage Zone and 

upgrading interpretive kiosks, wayside exhibits, and 

the associated trail system and day-use area at Kings 

Bowl under Alternative B would result in long-term 

moderate beneficial effects on interpretation and 

visitor understanding. 

Designating the Carey-Kimama and Arco-Minidoka 

roads as “Backcountry Byways” under Alternative 

B would upgrade the maintenance of these roadChapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 281
ways. Designating single-use and multiuse trails and 

improving the trail system at Kings Bowl also would 

constitute transportation system upgrades. Increased 

visitation resulting from these improvements would 

enlarge the target audience for gateway and on-site 

interpretive materials, resulting in long-term minor 

beneficial effects. More visitation could cause 

proportional increases in vandalism of interpretive 

resources, resulting in short-term negligible adverse 

impacts. 

Continuing to focus educational programs for 

schools and other groups on site at the original 

NPS Monument and expanding these programs 

under Alternative B would help to increase public 

education. Greater public understanding of cultural 

resources would result from offering interpretation 

of such resources at various dispersed recreation 

sites. These actions would result in continued 

long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

As in Alternative A, continuing to develop a variety 

of interpretive media for on- and off-site use and 

continuing to offer interpretive programs and to 

display exhibits and waysides emphasizing visitor 

safety and resource protection would result in 

long-term minor benefi cial effects. Developing a 

variety of portable media to interpret the expanded 

portion of the Monument (such as maps, tapes, and 

guidebooks) also would result in long-term minor 

benefi cial effects. 

Expanding the NPS Headquarters Visitor Center 

under Alternative B or developing new facilities 

beyond the previously approved plan (to accommodate more visitation) would give Monument visitors 

access to an even greater variety of interpretive 

materials and programs, resulting in long-term 

major benefi cial effects. 

Help offered by NPS and BLM staff to qualifi ed 

researchers and educational institutions (when 

practicable) in conducting authorized studies or fi eld 

classes would result in long-term minor benefi cial 

effects, as would facilitating the transfer of research 

information to the public by both agencies. 

Initiating a restoration program to remove cave 

graffiti and foster public understanding of the need 

to protect these resources under Alternative B would 

result in long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

Restoration projects would give staffs the opportunity to interpret the decline of sagebrush steppe 

and the efforts to restore this dwindling resource. 

In addition, integrated weed management would 

include an education and interpretation component 

to increase visitor understanding of the treatment, 

containment, and prevention of weed infestations in 

the Monument. These efforts would result in longterm minor benefi cial effects. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on interpretation and visitor 

understanding from Alternative B would be similar 

to those described for Alternative A. The fi ve Cooperative Weed Management Areas that include lands 

in the Monument would disseminate educational 

materials to the public. These educational materials 

and programs, combined with additional interpretive 

media, programs, exhibits, and waysides in Alternative B, would result in cumulative long-term minor 

beneficial effects on interpretation. 

Conclusion 

Upgrading the Carey-Kimama and Arco-Minidoka 

Roads; offering school programs at the original 

NPS Monument; interpreting cultural resources; 

adding interpretive media, programs, exhibits, and 

waysides; and developing portable interpretive 

media would result in long-term minor benefi cial 

effects on interpretation, as would agencies assisting 

research and educational institutions, developing a 

cave restoration program, and interpreting sagebrush 

steppe restoration and integrated weed management. 

Short-term negligible adverse impacts would result 

from upgrading the Carey-Kimama and Arco-Minidoka Roads. Long-term minor benefi cial effects on 

interpretation would result from adding interpretive 

facilities along US 20/26/93, at signifi cant sites 

within the Passage Zone, and at Kings Bowl. 

Long-term major beneficial effects would come 

from expanding and developing new facilities at the 

existing Visitor Center. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

282 
IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Posting information and orientation materials at all 

primary backcountry access points and at proposed 

fire stations in Carey and Kimama would mean 

that visitors would be exposed to this interpretive 

information before entering the Monument and 

when leaving. This would result in long-term minor 

beneficial effects on interpretation and visitor 

understanding. 

Continuing to focus educational programs for 

schools and other groups on site at the original NPS 

Monument would result in continued long-term 

minor benefi cial effects. 

Developing a variety of portable media such as 

maps, tapes, and guidebooks to interpret the 

expanded part of the Monument would result in 

long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

As in Alternative A, the existing Visitor Center and 

Administrative Building would be enlarged and 

undergo reconstruction, as previously approved. 

This would enable Monument visitors to benefi t 

from a greater variety of interpretive materials and 

programs, a long-term major benefi cial effect on 

visitors’ understanding of the Monument. 

Help offered by NPS and BLM staff to qualifi ed 

researchers and educational institutions (when 

practicable) in conducting authorized studies or fi eld 

classes would result in long-term minor benefi cial 

effects, as would facilitating the transfer of research 

information to the public by both agencies. 

Initiating a restoration program to remove cave 

graffiti and foster public understanding of the need 

to protect these resources under Alternative C would 

result in long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on interpretation and visitor 

understanding from Alternative C would be similar 

to those described for Alternative A. The fi ve Cooperative Weed Management Areas that include lands 

in the Monument would disseminate educational 

materials to the public. These educational materials 

and programs, combined with additional interpretive 

media, programs, exhibits, and waysides in Alternative C, would result in cumulative long-term minor 

beneficial effects on interpretation. 

Conclusion 

Posting information at backcountry access points 

and fire stations, offering school programs at the 

original NPS Monument, developing portable 

interpretive media, and establishing a limited cave 

restoration program under Alternative C would 

result in long-term minor benefi cial effects on 

interpretation. There would be cumulative effects 

from Cooperative Weed Management Area programs. Long-term, major benefits would result from 

expanding the existing visitor center. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

Adding interpretive signs along the corridor of US 

20/26/93 and placing safety and resource protection 

information at Monument access points under 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would result in 

long-term minor beneficial effects on interpretation 

and visitor understanding. 

To facilitate dispersing information and orientation 

materials about recreation, safety, and resource 

concerns in gateway communities around the 

Monument, one or more proposed visitor centers 

would be operated in cooperation with local partners 

within the I-84 corridor. Forming partnerships with 

communities and organizations to develop new 

interpretive and educational materials and programs, 

along with the materials and programs mentioned 

above, would give many more people interpretive 

information about the Monument, resulting in 

long-term moderate benefi cial effects. 

In addition to the programs provided at the original 

NPS Monument, educational programs for schools 

and other groups would be expanded to include 

off-site locations, and public education and understanding of cultural resources would be increased 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 283
through various interpretation methods at several 

sites. These actions would result in long-term minor 

benefi cial effects. 

As in Alternative A, a variety of interpretive 

media would be developed for on- and off-site use, 

interpretive programs would be offered, and exhibits 

and waysides would be available. Visitor safety 

and resource protection would be emphasized, and 

a variety of portable media (such as maps, tapes, 

and guidebooks) would be developed to interpret 

the expanded part of the Monument. Interpretive 

publications, web sites, and other off-site media also 

would be used. All these actions would result in 

long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

As in Alternative A, modest development of the 

Kings Bowl area, with the installation of previously 

approved signs and wayside exhibits, would emphasize safety and resource protection. This would 

result in long-term minor benefi cial effects. The 

existing Visitor Center and Administrative Building 

would be enlarged and undergo reconstruction, as 

previously approved. As in Alternative A, this would 

enable Monument visitors to benefit from a greater 

variety of interpretive materials and programs, a 

long-term major beneficial effect on visitors’ understanding of the Monument. 

When practicable, NPS and BLM facilities and staff 

would help qualified researchers and educational 

institutions to conduct authorized studies or fi eld 

classes. Both agencies would facilitate the transfer 

of research information to the public. These actions 

would result in long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

Initiating an intensive restoration program to remove 

cave graffiti and foster public understanding of the 

need to protect these resources under Alternative 

D (Proposed Plan) would result in long-term minor 

benefi cial effects. 

Encouraging commercial outfitters and guides to 

offer a range of guided experiences would enable 

visitors who otherwise might not have appropriate 

knowledge, vehicles, or preparation to experience 

the interior of the Monument, gaining fi rst-hand 

knowledge of its resources. Such activities would be 

readily apparent, affecting not only the experience 

of the people engaged in the guided services, but 

also the experience of those visiting the interior of 

the Monument without a guide. The resulting effects 

would be minor and either benefi cial or adverse, 

depending on the expectations of the visitor. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on interpretation and visitor 

understanding from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) 

would be similar to those described for Alternative 

A. The five Cooperative Weed Management Areas 

that include lands in the Monument would disseminate educational materials to the public. These 

educational materials and programs, combined with 

additional interpretive media, programs, exhibits, 

and waysides in Alternative C, would result in 

cumulative long-term minor beneficial effects on interpretation. Proposals for two multi-agency visitor 

centers in south central Idaho, one near Twin Falls 

and another near the junction of I-84 and I-86, would 

enable chambers of commerce, tourism development 

organizations, and other government agencies to 

contact and provide information to area visitors. The 

multi-agency visitor centers would reach a broad 

audience of potential Monument visitors. The effect 

of information made available outside of the Monument, combined with the interpretive media and 

programs of Alternative D (Proposed Plan), would 

result in cumulative long-term moderate benefi cial 

effects on interpretation. 

Conclusion 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on interpretation 

under Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would result 

from placing interpretive signs and information 

along the US 20/26/93 corridor and at access points; 

offering school programs (including off-site efforts) 

and off-site interpretation of cultural resources; 

posting interpretive media, programs, exhibits, and 

waysides; developing portable off-site interpretive 

media; and modest development in the Kings Bowl 

area. Agency assistance to research and educational 

institutions and an intensive cave restoration program also would cause long-term minor benefi cial 

effects. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

284 
Long-term moderate beneficial effects would come 

from placing interpretive materials, facilities, 

and programs outside the Monument, in gateway 

communities and at a visitor center along the I-84 

corridor, as well as from offering commercially 

guided services in the Monument. Long-term major 

benefits would accrue from expanding the existing 

Visitor Center. 

Commercial guide services could cause long-term 

minor adverse impacts on people visiting the interior 

of the Monument without a guide. 

RECREATION AND 

PUBLIC SAFETY 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Under Alternative A, efforts to protect geologic 

features would increase, in part, through interpretation efforts. Curbing vandalism and other forms of 

resource damage would improve recreational experiences associated with geologic formations such as 

viewing, nature study, hiking, and photography. This 

would result in long-term moderate benefi cial effects 

in the original NPS Monument and long-term minor 

beneficial effects in the expanded part of the Monument. Interpretation efforts would also emphasize 

safety, resulting in improvements in safety, a longterm minor beneficial effect on recreational visitors. 

Rehabilitating or restoring 40,000 acres of sagebrush steppe communities and controlling weed 

infestations would return vegetated areas to a more 

natural, healthy state, contributing to improved 

photography, nature study, and other experiences. 

The restoration activities also would contribute to 

better opportunities for primitive and unconfi ned 

experiences free of human infl uence. This would 

result in long-term minor benefi cial effects, but 

initial restoration treatment might cause short-term 

major adverse impacts on recreational users if 

certain areas were closed or restricted. These 

restoration efforts would improve habitat for game 

species, resulting in indirect long-term moderate 

beneficial effects on hunting experiences. 

The suppression of wildland fire would continue in 

almost all areas under Alternative A. This would 

result in short-term minor benefi cial effects. Fast 

and effective response to wildland fire would cause 

less fire-related interference with recreation opportunities. Reduced smoke and fewer area closures 

(which can interfere with recreational users’ experiences) would result in short-term minor benefi cial 

effects in or near burned areas. 

Nearly all roads would remain open to motorized 

use under Alternative A, but some roads could 

be closed individually to protect resources. This 

continued level of access to Monument features 

and destinations would lead to long-term minor 

beneficial effects. However, this level of access, and 

its associated use, would result in long-term minor 

adverse effects on visitors seeking solitude. A few 

new Class I and Class II trails might be developed 

in certain areas, and trails in the Kings Bowl area 

would be rehabilitated or maintained; these actions 

would result in long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

Continuing livestock operations in the BLM part of 

the Monument would result in the presence of cattle 

and sheep and the attendant facilities and equipment. 

This could interfere with many types of recreational 

experiences such as driving (cars and OHVs) for 

pleasure, hunting, solitude, or sightseeing. Ongoing 

livestock operations would cause long-term minor 

to moderate adverse impacts on these experiences, 

particularly in locations where livestock operations 

and recreation activities occur in the same area at 

the same time. 

Livestock operations and the concept of “open 

range” appeal to some Monument visitors. 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 benefi cial effects. 

Facility developments and improvements related to 

recreation in Alternative A would include enlarging 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 285
and improving the visitor center at the original NPS minor adverse impacts on people who prefer a more 

Monument. Fire stations at Carey and Kimama developed camping experience.

would offer visitor information. Portal kiosks would 

be established at key access points to the Monument, 

and signs and wayside exhibits would be installed 

at Kings Bowl. These facility improvements would 

offer recreational users maps, information, and some 

direction/safety messages for people who value 

such materials as part of a high-quality experience. 

These improvements would lead to long-term minor 

beneficial effects for many recreational users. 

The agencies would pursue the purchase or 

exchange of private inholdings in the Monument 

on the basis of initiation by a willing seller. Such 

acquisitions would result in long-term negligible to 

minor beneficial effects by increasing the amount of 

land available for recreation. 

No additional water developments or other habitat 

manipulations would be allowed in Wilderness 

areas or WSAs, and ways in WSAs not identifi ed 

during the wilderness inventory would be closed and 

rehabilitated. These actions would improve primitive 

and unconfined experiences and opportunities for 

solitude, a long-term minor benefi cial effect. 

Continuing to authorize commercial outfi tters and 

guides would add to the overall range of opportunities by offering a variety of backcountry and other 

remote experiences for recreational users who 

otherwise might not be able to enter the area. It also 

would improve monitoring at sensitive locations in 

the Monument. These authorizations would result in 

continuing long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

Programs such as Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly! emphasize responsible conservation-oriented 

recreation experiences. These programs would be 

promoted to encourage visitors to use the resources 

in a more responsible and sustainable way, resulting 

in long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

Opportunities for camping in the expanded part of 

the Monument would remain undeveloped and dispersed, with no designated sites. This would result 

in long-term minor beneficial effects on visitors 

who prefer this type of experience and long-term 

Cumulative Impacts 

Poor air quality caused by activities originating 

outside of the Monument could hinder recreational 

experiences. Under Alternative A, the agencies 

would work proactively with the Idaho Department 

of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), businesses, and 

other relevant organizations to protect and preserve 

the excellent air quality in the Monument, resulting 

in long-term moderate benefi cial effects. 

Other local, state, and federal agencies and private 

organizations have developed promotional materials 

that include information about the Monument. The 

agencies would continue consultation with outside 

public and private organizations to coordinate these 

programs with recreational needs. This would result 

in long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

According to the State Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation and Tourism Plan (2003), statewide 

and regional visitation is expected to increase at a 

slow pace over the life of the plan due to general 

demographic trends. When combined with expected 

visitation increases for the Monument, these regional 

increases would result in long-term minor benefi cial 

effects on recreation but also result in long-term 

minor adverse impacts on people seeking solitude. 

Overall, the cumulative effects on recreational users 

from the actions of Alternative A, combined with 

the expected (primarily beneficial) effects from 

other activities and plans, would result in cumulative 

long-term minor to moderate benefi cial effects on 

recreation. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would result in a wide range of 

negligible to moderate adverse and benefi cial effects 

on recreation and public safety, depending on the 

recreational experience desired. 

Acquiring private inholdings would result in 

long-term negligible to minor benefi cial effects, as 

would greater protection of geological features in 

the expanded part of the Monument; safety emphasis 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

286 
through interpretation; restoring sagebrush steppe 

communities; trail development and rehabilitation 

in the Kings Bowl area; developing or improving 

facilities; closing certain ways in Wilderness areas 

and WSAs; and authorizing commercial outfi tters 

and guides. Short-term minor benefi cial effects 

would result from wildland fi re suppression. 

Long-term moderate beneficial effects would result 

from greater protection of geological features in 

the original NPS Monument and indirectly from 

restoring of sagebrush steppe communities. Keeping 

almost all existing roads open to motorized travel 

would result in long-term minor benefi cial effects 

on certain recreational experiences, but such access 

also could affect other recreational experiences, 

resulting in long-term minor adverse impacts. 

Long-term minor beneficial effects would result 

from the availability of undeveloped and dispersed 

camping, but this also could affect people who 

prefer more developed, dispersed camping, resulting 

in long-term minor adverse impacts. 

Ongoing livestock operations would result in 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

certain recreational experiences, but this also could 

affect other recreational opportunities, resulting in 

long-term negligible to minor benefi cial effects. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

In Alternative B, the effects on recreation from 

increased efforts to protect geologic features would 

be the same as those described for Alternative A, 

resulting in long-term moderate benefi cial effects 

in the original NPS Monument and long-term 

minor beneficial effects in the expanded part of 

the Monument. Interpretation efforts would also 

emphasize safety, resulting in safety improvements 

that would cause long-term minor benefi cial effects 

on recreational visitors. 

Rehabilitating or restoring 45,000 acres of sagebrush 

steppe communities in the expanded part of the 

Monument, 5,000 acres more than in Alternative A, 

would cause about the same effects as the No Action 

Alternative - long-term minor benefi cial effects, 

as well as indirect long-term moderate benefi cial 

effects on hunting experiences. 

Reduced smoke and fewer area closures (which can 

interfere with recreational users’ experiences) would 

result in short-term minor beneficial effects in or 

near burned areas. 

Nearly all roads would remain open to motorized 

use under Alternative B, but some roads could 

be closed individually to protect resources. This 

continued level of access to Monument features 

and destinations would lead to long-term minor 

beneficial effects. However, this level of access, and 

its associated use, would result in long-term minor 

adverse effects on visitors seeking solitude. A few 

new Class I and Class II trails might be developed 

in certain areas, and trails in the Kings Bowl area 

would be rehabilitated or maintained; these actions 

would result in long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

As in Alternative A, continuing to suppress wildland 

fire in most areas in Alternative B would result in 

short-term minor beneficial effects. Fast and effective 

response to wildland fire would cause less fi re-related 

interference with recreation opportunities, resulting 

in short-term minor beneficial effects in or near 

burned areas. Some wildland fire use would be allowed in the Wilderness and Preserve in Alternative 

B, resulting in short-term negligible adverse impacts. 

Because the Passage Zone would be large in Alternative B, this alternative would offer the greatest 

opportunity of all the alternatives for motorized 

and mechanized recreational experiences. The 

entire length of both the Carey-Kimama and ArcoMinidoka roads would be designated Backcountry 

Byways, including an upgrade to Class B standards. 

This would be likely to increase visitation to the 

Monument, causing long-term moderate adverse 

impacts on visitors seeking solitude, but it would 

result in long-term moderate benefi cial effects on 

people who prefer improved access for experiences 

like hunting, driving for pleasure, sightseeing, and 

going to points of interest along those routes. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 287
Multiuse and single-use trails would be designated 

under Alternative B, including both Class I and 

Class II designations. This would increase the opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, off-highway 

motorcycle riding, horseback riding, and OHV use, 

resulting in long-term moderate benefi cial effects on 

visitors wanting experiences in those activities. 

Continuing livestock operations in the BLM part 

of the Monument would result in the presence of 

cattle and sheep and the attendant facilities and 

equipment. This could interfere with many types of 

recreational experiences, causing long-term minor 

to moderate adverse impacts on these experiences, 

particularly in locations where livestock operations 

and recreation activities occur in the same area at 

the same time. However, 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 benefi cial effects. 

Alternative B would involve the highest level of 

facility development and improvements related to 

recreation, including additional enlargement and improvement of the Visitor Center at the original NPS 

Monument. The fire stations at Carey and Kimama 

would offer agency staff assistance and visitor 

information. Portal kiosks would be established at 

key access points to the Monument, and more facilities, signs, and wayside exhibits would be installed 

at Kings Bowl. These facility improvements would 

offer recreational users maps, information, and some 

direction/safety messages for people who value such 

materials as part of a high-quality experience. These 

improvements would lead to long-term moderate 

beneficial effects for many recreational users. 

As in Alternative A, acquiring private inholdings 

would increase the amount of land available for 

recreation, resulting in long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial effects. Not allowing added water developments or other habitat manipulations in Wilder-ness 

areas or WSAs and closing and rehabilitating ways in 

WSAs that were not identified during the wilderness 

inventory would result in long-term minor benefi cial 

effects by improving primitive and unconfi ned 

experiences and opportunities for solitude. 

Continuing to authorize commercial outfi tters and 

guides would add to the overall range of opportunities by offering a variety of backcountry and other 

remote experiences for recreational users who 

otherwise might not be able to enter the area. It also 

would improve monitoring at sensitive locations in 

the Monument. These authorizations would result in 

continuing long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

As in Alternative A, programs such as Leave No 

Trace and Tread Lightly! would be promoted to 

encourage visitors to use the resources in a more 

responsible and sustainable way, resulting in longterm minor benefi cial effects. 

Opportunities for camping in the expanded part 

of the Monument would increase in Alternative 

B’s larger Passage Zone, but camping would 

remain generally undeveloped and dispersed, with 

the potential development of only 12 designated 

campsites. This would result in long-term minor 

beneficial effects on visitors who prefer this type of 

experience and long-term minor adverse impacts 

on people who prefer more developed, dispersed 

camping experiences. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on recreational users under 

Alternative B would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A. There would be minor to moderate beneficial effects from cooperative efforts to 

limit air quality impacts and to supply promotional 

materials with information about the Monument. 

The agencies would continue to consult with outside 

public and private organizations to coordinate these 

programs with recreational needs. This would result 

in long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

According to the State Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation and Tourism Plan (2003), general 

demographic trends indicate that statewide and 

regional visitation will increase at a slow pace over 

the life of the plan. The expected slow growth, 

combined with expected visitation increases for 

the Monument, would result in long-term moderate 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

288 
beneficial effects on recreation but also would result 

in long-term moderate adverse impacts on people 

seeking solitude. 

Overall, the cumulative effects on recreational users 

from the actions of Alternative B, combined with 

the expected (primarily beneficial) effects from 

other activities and plans, would result in cumulative 

long-term moderate beneficial effects on recreational 

activities. 

Conclusion 

The added access available in Alternative B would 

contribute both beneficial and adverse effects, 

depending on the type of recreation desired. 

Acquiring private inholdings would result in 

long-term negligible to minor benefi cial effects, as 

would greater protection of geological features in 

the expanded part of the Monument, safety emphasis 

through interpretation, restoring sagebrush steppe 

communities, developing and rehabilitating trails 

in the Kings Bowl area, developing or improving 

facilities, closing certain ways in Wilderness areas 

and WSAs, and authorizing of commercial outfi tters 

and guides. Short-term minor benefi cial effects 

would result from wildland fi re suppression, and 

short-term negligible adverse impacts would result 

from wildland fi re use. 

Long-term moderate beneficial effects would result 

from greater protection of geological features in the 

original NPS Monument, from designating multiuse 

and single-use trails, and from developing or improving facilities. There would be indirect long-term 

moderate benefits from restoring sagebrush steppe 

communities. 

Improving motorized access would result in 

long-term moderate beneficial effects on certain 

recreational experiences, but it also could result 

in long-term moderate adverse impacts on other 

recreational experiences. 

Long-term moderate beneficial effects would result 

from the availability of undeveloped and dispersed 

camping, but this also could result in long-term 

minor adverse impacts on people who prefer more 

developed, dispersed camping. 

Ongoing livestock operations would result in 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

certain recreational experiences, but this also could 

affect other recreational opportunities, resulting in 

long-term negligible to minor benefi cial effects. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

In Alternative C, the effects on recreation from 

increased efforts to protect geologic features would 

be the same as those described for Alternative A, 

resulting in long-term moderate benefi cial effects 

in the original NPS Monument and long-term 

minor beneficial effects in the expanded part of 

the Monument. Interpretation efforts would also 

emphasize safety, resulting in safety improvements 

that would cause long-term minor benefi cial effects 

on recreational visitors. 

Rehabilitating or restoring 55,000 acres of sagebrush steppe communities and controlling weed 

infestations would result in slightly more effects, 

both beneficial and adverse, than in Alternative A, 

because the area would be 10,000 acres larger. The 

restoration would result in long-term minor beneficial effects, and these efforts also would improve 

the habitat for game species, resulting in indirect 

long-term moderate beneficial effects on hunting 

experiences. 

As in Alternative A, continuing to suppress wildland 

fire in most areas in Alternative C would result 

in short-term minor benefi cial effects. Fast and 

effective response to wildland fire would cause less 

fire-related interference with recreation opportunities, resulting in short-term minor benefi cial effects 

in or near burned areas. Some wildland fi re use 

would be allowed in the Wilderness and Preserve 

in Alternative C, resulting in short-term negligible 

adverse impacts. 

Alternative C would involve the least opportunity 

for motorized and mechanized travel. Many Class 

D roads in the Primitive Zone would be converted 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 289
to non-motorized trails. This would result in longterm minor beneficial effects on experiences like 

hiking, mountain biking, and solitude and long-term 

minor adverse impacts on motorized experiences. 

The Pristine Zone would be larger in Alternative 

C than in the other alternatives, and all roads and 

ways in that zone would be closed to motorized 

and mechanized vehicle use. This would result in 

long-term minor adverse impacts on motorized and 

mechanized vehicle experiences; long-term moderate beneficial effects on visitors seeking a specifically non-motorized experience, solitude, and self 

discovery; and long-term moderate adverse impacts 

on people seeking access to certain destinations in 

the Primitive and Pristine Zones. 

As in Alternative B, continuing livestock operations 

in the BLM part of the Monument would result in 

the presence of cattle and sheep and the attendant 

facilities and equipment. This could interfere with 

many types of recreational experiences, causing 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

these experiences, particularly in locations where 

livestock operations and recreation activities occur 

in the same area at the same time. However, 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 benefi cial effects. 

In Alternative C facility development and improvements related to recreation would be kept to a 

minimum, but the Visitor Center at the original 

NPS Monument would be enlarged and improved. 

The fire stations at Carey and Kimama would 

offer visitor information. Portal kiosks would be 

established at key access points to the Monument, 

and more facilities, signs, and wayside exhibits 

would be installed at Kings Bowl. These facility 

improvements would offer recreational users maps, 

information, and some direction/safety messages for 

people who value such materials as part of a highquality experience. These improvements would lead 

to long-term minor benefi cial effects 

As in Alternatives A and B, acquiring private 

inholdings would result in long-term negligible to 

minor beneficial effects by increasing the amount of 

land available for recreation. Allowing no additional 

water developments or other habitat manipulations 

in Wilderness areas or in WSAs, closing certain 

ways in Wilderness areas and WSAs, and authorizing commercial outfitters and guides would result 

in long-term minor beneficial effects by improving 

primitive and unconfined experiences and opportunities for solitude. 

Continuing to authorize commercial outfi tters and 

guides would add to the overall range of opportunities by offering a variety of backcountry and other 

remote experiences for recreational users who 

otherwise might not be able to enter the area. It also 

would improve monitoring at sensitive locations in 

the Monument. These authorizations would result in 

long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

As in Alternatives A and B, programs such as Leave 

No Trace and Tread Lightly! would be promoted to 

encourage visitors to use the resources in a more 

responsible and sustainable way, resulting in longterm minor benefi cial effects. 

Opportunities for camping in the expanded part 

of the Monument would increase in Alternative C, 

but camping would remain generally undeveloped 

and dispersed, with the potential development of 

only four designated campsites. This would result 

in long-term minor beneficial effects on visitors 

who prefer this type of experience and long-term 

minor adverse impacts on people who prefer more 

developed, dispersed camping experiences. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on recreational users under 

Alternative C would be similar to those described 

for Alternatives A and B. There would be minor to 

moderate benefi cial effects from cooperative efforts 

to limit air quality impacts and to supply promotional materials with information about the Monument. 

The agencies would continue to consult with outside 

public and private organizations to coordinate these 

programs with recreational needs. This would result 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

290 
in long-term minor benefi cial effects. 

The expected slow growth in regional visitation 

over the life of the plan, combined with expected 

visitation increases for the Monument, would result 

in long-term minor beneficial effects on recreation 

but also would result in long-term minor adverse 

impacts on people seeking solitude. 

Overall, the cumulative effects on recreational users 

from the actions of Alternative C, combined with 

the expected (primarily beneficial) effects from 

other activities and plans, would result in cumulative 

long-term moderate beneficial effects on recreational 

activities. 

Conclusion 

The restricted access of Alternative C would 

contribute both beneficial and adverse effects, 

depending on the type of recreation desired. 

Acquiring private inholdings would result in 

long-term negligible to minor benefi cial effects, as 

would greater protection of geological features in 

the expanded part of the Monument; safety emphasis 

through interpretation; restoring sagebrush steppe 

communities; limited facility developments and 

improvements; closing certain ways in Wilderness 

areas and WSAs; and authorizing commercial 

outfitters and guides. Short-term minor benefi cial 

effects would result from wildland fi re suppression, 

and short-term negligible adverse impacts would 

result from wildland fi re use. 

Long-term moderate beneficial effects would result 

from greater protection of geological features in 

the original NPS Monument, and there would be 

indirect long-term moderate benefi ts from restoring 

sagebrush steppe communities. 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on certain 

recreational experiences would come from converting many Class D roads to non-motorized trails, but 

such conversion also would affect other recreational 

experiences, causing long-term minor adverse 

impacts. Closing certain roads and ways in the 

Pristine Zone to motorized and mechanized vehicle 

travel would result in long-term moderate benefi cial 

effects on certain recreational experiences, but 

long-term minor adverse impacts also would result 

from such closures, affecting other recreational 

experiences. These closures also would result in 

long-term moderate adverse impacts from reduced 

access. 

Long-term minor beneficial effects would result 

from the availability of undeveloped and dispersed 

camping, but this also could adversely affect people 

who prefer more developed, dispersed camping, 

resulting in long-term minor adverse impacts. 

Ongoing livestock operations would result in 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

certain recreational experiences, but this also could 

affect other recreational opportunities, resulting in 

long-term negligible to minor benefi cial effects. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

In Alternative D (Proposed Plan), the effects on 

recreation from increased efforts to protect geologic 

features through interpretation efforts would be 

the same as those described for Alternative A, 

resulting in long-term moderate benefi cial effects 

in the original NPS Monument and long-term 

minor beneficial effects in the expanded part of 

the Monument. Interpretation efforts would also 

emphasize safety, resulting in safety improvements 

that would cause long-term minor benefi cial effects 

on recreational visitors. 

Rehabilitating or restoring 80,000 acres of sagebrush 

steppe communities and controlling weed infestations would result in more effects, both benefi cial 

and adverse, than in Alternative A, because the area 

would be twice as large. The restoration could cause 

minor to moderate short-term adverse effects during 

the treatments, but in the long term there would be 

moderate beneficial effects. These efforts also would 

improve the habitat for game species, resulting in 

indirect long-term moderate benefi cial effects on 

hunting experiences. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 291
Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would involve the 

most aggressive fire suppression and rehabilitation 

program of all the alternatives. Wildland fi re would 

continue to be suppressed in almost all areas, 

resulting in short-term minor benefi cial effects. Fast, 

effective response to wildland fire would result in 

less fire-related interference with recreation opportunities. A reduced amount of smoke and fewer area 

closures that might interfere with recreational users’ 

experiences would lead to short-term minor beneficial effects in or near burned areas, but aggressive 

rehabilitation would result in short-term minor 

adverse impacts on recreational experiences in these 

areas. Some wildland fire use would be allowed in 

the Wilderness and Preserve under Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan), resulting in short-term negligible 

adverse impacts. 

Existing Class B and C roads would remain open 

to motorized use under Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan), and select Class D roads in the Primitive 

and Pristine Zones could be converted to trails or 

closed for resource protection. This reduced level 

of access to Monument features and destinations 

in the Primitive and Pristine Zones would result 

in long-term minor adverse impacts on motorized 

experiences and long-term minor benefi cial effects 

on remote backcountry trail experiences, solitude, 

and self-discovery. Upgrading primary access roads 

leading to the Monument to facilitate fi re management (subject to county government approval and 

coordination) would result in long-term moderate 

beneficial effects. Select, limited improvements of 

Class C and D roads in the Primitive and Pristine 

Zones could be authorized to accommodate fi re 

suppression, restoration, or other natural resource 

protection activities; this would result in improved 

access to remote areas, a short-term negligible to 

minor benefi cial effect. 

As in Alternatives B and C, continuing livestock 

operations in the BLM part of the Monument 

would result in the presence of cattle and sheep 

and the attendant facilities and equipment. This 

could interfere with many types of recreational 

experiences, causing long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on these experiences, particularly in 

locations where livestock operations and recreation 

activities occur in the same area at the same time. 

However, 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 benefi cial effects. 

Under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), partnerships 

would be encouraged to develop new information 

facilities in gateway communities. Facility development and improvements related to recreation would 

include enlarging and improving the Visitor Center 

at the original NPS Monument. The fire stations at 

Carey and Kimama would offer visitor information. 

Portal kiosks would be established at key access 

points to the Monument, and more facilities, signs, 

and wayside exhibits would be installed at Kings 

Bowl. These facility improvements would offer 

recreational users maps, information, and some 

direction/safety messages for people who value 

such materials as part of a high-quality experience. 

These improvements would lead to long-term minor 

benefi cial effects. 

Acquiring private inholdings would result in 

long-term negligible to minor benefi cial effects by 

increasing the amount of land available for recreation. Allowing no additional water developments or 

other habitat manipulations in Wilderness areas or in 

WSAs and closing and rehabilitating certain ways in 

Wilderness areas and WSAs would result in longterm minor beneficial effects by improving primitive 

and unconfined experiences and opportunities for 

solitude. 

Increasing the authorizations for commercial 

outfitters and guides would add to the overall range 

of opportunities by offering a variety of backcountry 

and other remote experiences for recreational users 

who otherwise might not be able to enter the area. It 

also would improve monitoring at sensitive locations 

in the Monument. These authorizations would result 

in long-term moderate benefi cial effects. 

As in Alternative A, programs such as Leave No 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

292 
Trace and Tread Lightly! would be promoted to 

encourage visitors to use the resources in a more 

responsible and sustainable way, resulting in longterm minor benefi cial effects. 

Opportunities for camping in the expanded part 

of the Monument would increase in Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan), but camping would remain generally undeveloped and dispersed, with the potential 

development of only six designated campsites. This 

would result in long-term minor benefi cial effects on 

visitors who prefer this type of experience and longterm minor adverse impacts on people who prefer 

more developed, dispersed camping experiences. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on recreational users under 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would be similar to 

those described for the other alternatives. There 

would be minor to moderate benefi cial effects from 

cooperative efforts to limit air quality impacts and 

to supply promotional materials with information about the Monument. The agencies would 

work proactively with outside public and private 

organizations, as well as continuing to consult with 

local, state, and other federal agencies and private 

organizations to coordinate these programs with 

recreational needs. This would result in long-term 

minor benefi cial effects. 

The expected slow growth in regional visitation over 

the life of the plan, combined with expected visitation increases for the Monument under Alternative 

D (Proposed Plan), would result in long-term minor 

beneficial effects on recreation but also would result 

in long-term minor adverse impacts on people 

seeking solitude. 

Overall, the cumulative effects on recreational users 

from the actions of Alternative D (Proposed Plan), 

combined with the expected (primarily benefi cial) 

effects from other activities and plans, would result 

in cumulative long-term moderate benefi cial effects 

on recreational activities. 

Conclusion 

The added access related to administrative needs 

and the aggressive restoration program in Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would contribute both 

beneficial and adverse effects, depending on the 

type of recreation desired. 

Acquiring private inholdings would result in 

long-term negligible to minor benefi cial effects, as 

would greater protection of geological features in 

the expanded part of the Monument, safety emphasis 

through interpretation, developing or improving 

facilities, and closing certain ways in Wilderness 

areas and WSAs. 

Short-term negligible to minor benefi cial effects 

would result from temporary improvements to Class 

C and D roads that could accommodate certain 

authorized activities, as well as from wildland fi re 

suppression. Short-term negligible adverse impacts 

would result from wildland fire use, and short-term 

minor adverse impacts would result from aggressive 

rehabilitation. 

Long-term minor to moderate benefi cial effects 

would result from authorizing commercial outfi tters 

and guides, and long-term moderate benefi cial 

effects would come from greater protection of 

geological features in the original NPS Monument 

and from restoring sagebrush steppe communities. 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on certain recreational experiences would result from closing Class 

D roads or converting them to trails in the Primitive 

and Pristine Zones, but such conversion also would 

affect other recreational experiences, causing longterm minor adverse impacts. Long-term moderate 

beneficial effects would result from the availability 

of undeveloped and dispersed camping, but this also 

could affect people who prefer more developed, 

dispersed camping, resulting in long-term minor 

adverse impacts. 

Ongoing livestock operations would result in 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

certain recreational experiences, but this also could 

affect other recreational opportunities, resulting in 

long-term negligible to minor benefi cial effects. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 293
VISUAL RESOURCES 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Any new surface disturbing activities proposed in 

the Monument would be subject to NEPA analysis, 

including a Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

Contrast Rating. New facilities and developments 

that could be allowed in the Frontcountry and 

Passage Zones are livestock facilities, recreation 

sites, and interpretive facilities. Surface-disturbing activities would have to comply with VRM 

management class standards, which include several 

Class III and IV areas in Alternative A. This would 

result in long-term minor beneficial effects on the 

Monument’s visual resources. 

Efforts to protect geologic features from damage 

would be increased. Stopping vandalism and other 

forms of damage to frequently viewed geologic 

resources would lead to long-term minor benefi cial 

effects. 

Rehabilitating or restoring 40,000 acres of sagebrush steppe communities and controlling weed 

infestations would return those vegetated areas to 

their natural appearance, a long-term minor beneficial effect on viewscapes in the Monument. 

Wildland fires and prescribed fires would result 

in smoke, causing short-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on visual resources, including the 

night sky. Other visual impacts would result from 

increased vehicle traffi c, fire lines, and the contrast 

between burned and unburned areas. Burned areas 

could vary in size from a few acres to tens of 

thousands of acres. 

Vehicles and dust plumes caused by the use of Class 

B roads would cause short-term minor adverse 

impacts. Existing livestock facilities, which are 

primarily in the Passage Zone, would result in 

minor visual contrasts and long-term minor adverse 

impacts. Continued use of the three existing mineral 

material sites would cause long- and short-term 

minor adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Visibility in the Monument can be affected by regional haze, dust from agricultural activities, smoke 

from western wildland fires, and other outside 

sources of air pollution. These things would cause 

short-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts 

on the Monument’s viewscapes and night sky. 

Several communication sites outside the Monument 

are visible from inside the Monument. These 

communication sites would cause long-term minor 

adverse impacts on visual resources during the day 

and long-term moderate adverse impacts on visual 

resources at night. Artificial light sources and light 

pollution from neighboring towns would affect the 

Monument’s night sky, causing long-term negligible 

adverse impacts. 

Overall, the beneficial and adverse effects from the 

actions of Alternative A, plus the adverse impacts 

from regional or neighboring sources, would 

result in cumulative minor adverse impacts on the 

Monument’s visual resources. 

Conclusion 

Long-term minor beneficial effects would result 

from greater protection of geological features, 

from restoring sagebrush steppe communities, and 

from holding surface disturbing activities to the 

VRM management class standards that apply under 

Alternative A. 

Artificial light sources would cause long-term 

negligible cumulative adverse impacts. Long-term 

minor adverse impacts would result from existing 

livestock facilities and, cumulatively, from communications sites during the day. Long- and short-term 

minor adverse impacts would result from the use of 

existing mineral material sites. Long-term moderate 

adverse impacts would result from communications 

sites at night. 

Class B road use would cause short-term minor 

adverse impacts, and short-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts would be caused by wildland 

fires and prescribed fi res. Short-term negligible to 

moderate cumulative adverse impacts would result 

from outside sources of air pollution. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

294 
IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Any new surface disturbing activities proposed in 

the Monument under Alternative B would be subject 

to NEPA analysis, including a VRM Contrast 

Rating. Under this alternative, all of the Monument 

would be designated VRM Class I or Class II. New 

facilities and developments that could be allowed in 

the Frontcountry and Passage Zones are livestock 

facilities, mineral material sites for administrative 

use, recreation sites, and interpretive facilities. 

Surface-disturbing activities would have to comply 

with VRM management class standards, which 

would result in long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects on the Monument’s visual resources. 

As in Alternative A, efforts to protect geologic 

features from damage would be increased, and 

rehabilitating or restoring 45,000 acres of sagebrush 

steppe communities and controlling weed infestations would return those vegetated areas to their 

natural appearance, a long-term minor benefi cial 

effect on viewscapes in the Monument. 

Short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

visual resources, including the night sky, would 

result from wildland fires and prescribed fi res 

(smoke), increased vehicle traffi c, fire lines, and 

the contrast between burned and unburned areas. 

Burned areas could vary in size from a few acres 

to tens of thousands of acres. Increased suppression activities in this alternative would result in 

short-term impacts on the landscape from fi re line 

construction, but these effects would be temporary. 

Vehicles and dust plumes caused by the use of Class 

B roads would cause short-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. Existing livestock facilities, which 

are primarily in the Passage Zone, would result in 

minor visual contrasts and long-term minor adverse 

impacts. Continued use of the three existing mineral 

material sites would cause long- and short-term 

minor adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on visibility in the 

Monument would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A. Visibility can be affected by regional 

haze, dust from agricultural activities, smoke from 

western wildland fires, and other outside sources of 

air pollution, including communication sites near 

the Monument. These things would cause long-term 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts on the 

Monument’s viewscapes and night sky. Artifi cial 

light sources and light pollution from neighboring 

towns would affect the Monument’s night sky, 

causing long-term negligible adverse impacts. 

The use of vehicles, and the resultant dust plumes, 

would affect visibility in the Monument. Upgrades 

to the Arco-Minidoka and Carey-Kimama roads 

outside the Monument by county governments, as 

well as upgrades to certain roads within the Monument, would result in short-term minor adverse 

impacts on visibility from vehicles and the resultant 

dust plumes. 

Several communication sites outside the Monument 

are visible from inside the Monument. These 

communication sites would cause long-term minor 

adverse impacts on visual resources during the day 

and long-term moderate adverse impacts on visual 

resources at night. 

Overall, the beneficial and adverse effects from the 

actions of Alternative B, plus the adverse impacts 

from regional or neighboring sources, would result 

in long-term cumulative minor adverse impacts on 

the Monument’s visual resources. 

Conclusion 

Long-term minor beneficial impacts on visual 

resources would result from greater protection of 

geological features and from restoring sagebrush 

steppe communities. Long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effects would result from holding surfacedisturbing activities to VRM management class 

standards that apply in Alternative B. 

Artificial light sources would cause long-term negligible adverse cumulative impacts. Long-term minor 

adverse impacts would result from existing livestock 

facilities and, cumulatively, from communications 

sites during the day. Long- and short-term minor 

adverse impacts would be caused by the use of 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 295
existing mineral material sites. Long-term moderate, 

adverse impacts would result from communications 

sites at night. 

Road upgrades would cause short-term minor 

cumulative adverse impacts, and short-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts would result from Class 

B road use, Short-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts would be caused by wildland fi res and 

prescribed fi res. Short-term negligible to moderate 

cumulative adverse impacts would result from 

outside sources of air pollution. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Any new surface disturbing activities proposed in 

the Monument under Alternative C would be subject 

to NEPA analysis, including a VRM Contrast 

Rating. Under this alternative, all of the Monument 

would be designated VRM Class I or Class II. New 

facilities and developments that could be allowed in 

the Frontcountry and Passage Zones are livestock 

facilities, recreation sites, and interpretive facilities. 

Surface-disturbing activities would have to comply 

with VRM management class standards, which 

would result in long-term moderate benefi cial effects 

on the Monument’s visual resources. 

As in Alternative A, efforts to protect geologic 

features from damage would be increased, and 

rehabilitating or restoring 55,000 acres of sagebrush 

steppe communities and controlling weed infestations would return those vegetated areas to their 

natural appearance, a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effect on viewscapes in the Monument. 

Wildland fires and prescribed fires would result 

in smoke, causing short-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on visual resources, including the 

night sky. Other visual impacts would result from 

increased vehicle traffi c, fire lines, and the contrast 

between burned and unburned areas. Burned areas 

could vary in size from a few acres to tens of 

thousands of acres. 

Vehicles and dust plumes caused by the use of Class 

B roads would cause short-term minor adverse 

impacts. Existing livestock facilities, which are 

primarily in the Passage Zone, would create minor 

visual contrasts and long-term minor adverse 

impacts. Continued use of the three existing mineral 

material sites would cause long- and short-term 

minor adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on visibility in the 

Monument would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A. Visibility can be affected by regional 

haze, dust from agricultural activities, smoke from 

western wildland fi res, several communication 

sites that are near the Monument, and other outside 

sources of air pollution. These things would cause 

long-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts on 

the Monument’s viewscapes and night sky. Artifi cial 

light sources and light pollution from neighboring 

towns would affect the Monument’s night sky, 

causing long-term negligible adverse impacts. 

Overall, the cumulative impacts on visual resources 

from the actions outside the Monument, added to the 

effects of Alternative C, would result in long-term 

minor adverse impacts on visual resources. 

Conclusion 

Long-term minor beneficial effects would result 

from greater protection of geological features. Longterm minor to moderate benefi cial effects would 

result from restoring sagebrush steppe communities. 

Long-term moderate beneficial effects would come 

from holding surface disturbing activities to VRM 

class standards that apply under Alternative C. 

Artificial light sources would cause long-term negligible cumulative adverse impacts. Long-term minor 

adverse impacts would result from existing livestock 

facilities and, cumulatively, from communications 

sites during the day. Long- and short-term minor 

adverse impacts would result from the use of existing 

mineral material sites. Long-term moderate adverse 

impacts would result from communications sites at 

night. 

Class B road use would cause short-term minor 

adverse impacts, and short-term minor to moderate 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

296 
adverse impacts would be caused by wildland 

fires and prescribed fi res. Short-term negligible to 

moderate cumulative adverse impacts would result 

from outside sources of air pollution. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

Any new surface disturbing activities proposed 

in the Monument under Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan) would be subject to NEPA analysis, including 

a VRM Contrast Rating. Under this alternative, all 

of the Monument would be designated VRM Class 

I or Class II. New facilities and developments that 

could be allowed in the Frontcountry and Passage 

Zones are livestock facilities, mineral material 

sites for administrative use, recreation sites, and 

interpretive facilities. Surface-disturbing activities 

would have to comply with VRM management class 

standards, which would result in long-term minor 

to moderate beneficial effects on the Monument’s 

visual resources. 

As in Alternative A, efforts to protect geologic 

features from damage would be increased, and 

rehabilitating or restoring 80,000 acres of sagebrush 

steppe communities and controlling weed infestations would return those vegetated areas to their 

natural appearance. This more aggressive restoration 

program would cause long-term moderate benefi cial 

effect on viewscapes in the Monument. 

Wildland fires and prescribed fires would result 

in smoke, causing short-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on visual resources, including the 

night sky. Other visual impacts would result from 

increased vehicle traffi c, fire lines, and the contrast 

between burned and unburned areas. Burned areas 

could vary in size from a few acres to tens of 

thousands of acres. 

Vehicles and dust plumes caused by the use of Class 

B roads would cause short-term minor adverse impacts. Existing livestock facilities, which are primarily in the Passage Zone, would create minor visual 

contrasts and long-term minor adverse impacts. 

The reduction of passage Zone in the Laidlaw Park 

area included in the FEIS version of Alternative 

D would help to limit this visual intrusion and the 

visual fragmentation of that area. Continued use of 

the three existing mineral material sites would cause 

long- and short-term minor adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on visibility in the 

Monument would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A. Visibility can be affected by regional 

haze, dust from agricultural activities, smoke from 

western wildland fi res, several communication 

sites that are near the Monument, and other outside 

sources of air pollution. These things would cause 

long-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts on 

the Monument’s viewscapes and night sky. Artifi cial 

light sources and light pollution from neighboring 

towns would affect the Monument’s night sky, 

causing long-term negligible adverse impacts. 

Overall, the cumulative impacts on visual resources 

from the actions outside the Monument, added to 

the effects of Alternative D (Proposed Plan), would 

result in long-term minor adverse impacts on visual 

resources. 

Conclusion 

Long-term minor beneficial effects on visual 

resources would result from greater protection of 

geological features; long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effects would come from holding surface 

disturbing activities to VRM management class 

standards, and restoring sagebrush steppe communities would cause long-term moderate benefi cial 

effects. 

Artificial light sources would cause long-term 

negligible cumulative adverse impacts. Long-term 

minor adverse impacts would result from existing 

livestock facilities and, cumulatively, from communications sites during the day. Long- and short-term 

minor adverse impacts would result from the use of 

existing mineral material sites. Long-term moderate 

adverse impacts would result from communications 

sites at night. 

Class B road use would cause short-term minor 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 297
adverse impacts, and short-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts would be caused by wildland 

fires and prescribed fi res. Short-term negligible to 

moderate cumulative adverse impacts would result 

from outside sources of air pollution. 

SOUNDSCAPES 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Natural soundscapes in the Monument would 

be affected by a number of sources. Vehicle and 

road noise from the US 20/26/93 corridor, which 

passes though the Monument on the north side, 

would cause long-term minor adverse impacts, 

particularly affecting campers at the original NPS 

Monument. Areas of the expanded Monument along 

this corridor also would incur similar long-term 

minor adverse impacts from the noise. The sounds 

associated with car, truck, motorcycle, OHV, and 

snowmobile use in the Monument would cause 

short-term adverse impacts on natural soundscapes 

in a number of areas in the Monument that would be 

mostly negligible to minor. 

The noise from regular grazing operations and 

fi refi ghting/fire suppression actions would cause 

short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts. 

For example, administrative and fi re suppression 

air operations, using both fixed-wing aircraft and 

helicopters over the Monument, would cause shortterm minor adverse impacts in the area in which 

they were used for the duration of the fi re. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Trains using railroad lines outside the southern 

boundary of the Monument can be heard from 

some locations in the Monument, causing long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts. Occasional 

over flights of commercial jets at cruising altitudes, 

small private aircraft, and military jets using training flyways at both high and low altitudes might 

be heard. Combined with the various sources of 

noise from the actions of Alternative A, these noise 

intrusions would result in cumulative long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts. 

Conclusion 

The effects on natural soundscapes in the Monument would result mainly from transportation, 

administrative uses, and grazing. The use of the 

US 20/26/93 corridor would cause long-term minor 

adverse impacts. Short-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts would result from the use of various 

vehicles in the Monument, from fi re management 

operations, and from livestock operations. Air 

operations would cause short-term minor adverse 

impacts. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

The effects on natural soundscapes in Alternative 

B would be almost the same as those described for 

Alternative A. There probably would be a higher 

incidence of short-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts from vehicle use in the expanded Passage 

Zone because the roads would be maintained to 

a higher degree, allowing better access for more 

vehicles. 

Activities associated with fi re management and 

livestock operations would be the same as those 

described for Alternative A, resulting in short-term 

minor adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on soundscapes in the 

Monument from Alternative B would be the same as 

those described for Alternative A, with slightly more 

noise caused by the increased access and associated 

transportation, more visitation, and more grazing 

in the Passage Zone. Overall, combined with the 

various sources of noise from the actions of Alternative B, the outside noise intrusions would result in 

cumulative long-term minor adverse impacts. 

Conclusion 

The effects on natural soundscapes in the Monument would result mainly from transportation, 

administrative uses, and grazing. Some increased 

noise would come from more use of the Passage 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

298 
Zone. The use of the US 20/26/93 corridor would 

cause long-term minor adverse impacts. Short-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts would result 

from the use of various vehicles in the Monument, 

from fire management operations, and from 

livestock operations. Air operations would cause 

short-term minor adverse impacts. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

The effects on natural soundscapes in Alternative 

C would be almost the same as those described for 

Alternative A, but there would be less road-related 

noise and therefore fewer impacts from vehicle use. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on soundscapes in the 

Monument from Alternative C would be the same as 

those described for Alternative A, but slightly less 

noise would be expected in the Passage Zone areas. 

Overall, combined with the various sources of noise 

from the actions of Alternative C, the outside noise 

intrusions would result in cumulative long-term 

minor adverse impacts on soundscapes. 

Conclusion 

The effects on natural soundscapes in the Monument from Alternative C would result mainly from 

transportation, administrative uses, and grazing. 

The use of the US 20/26/93 corridor would cause 

long-term minor adverse impacts. Short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts would result from 

the use of various vehicles in the Monument, from 

fire management operations, and from livestock 

operations. Air operations would cause short-term 

minor adverse impacts. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

The effects on natural soundscapes in Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan) would be similar to those described 

for Alternative A, but some roads would be 

maintained to a higher degree, and the maintenance 

of others would be decreased. This would mean that 

there probably would be a slightly higher incidence 

of short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

from vehicle use in the Monument. 

The fire management and livestock operations would 

be the same in this alternative as in Alternative A, 

resulting in short-term minor adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects on soundscapes in the Monument from Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would be 

the same as those described for Alternative A, but 

with slightly more short-term noise from restoration, 

road improvement, and fi re management activities. 

Overall, the outside noise intrusions, combined 

with the various sources of noise from the actions 

of Alternative D (Proposed Plan), would result in 

cumulative long-term minor adverse impacts on 

soundscapes. 

Conclusion 

The effects on natural soundscapes in the Monument would result mainly from transportation, 

administrative uses, and grazing. The use of the 

US 20/26/93 corridor would cause long-term minor 

adverse impacts. Short-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts would result from the use of various 

vehicles in the Monument, from fi re management 

operations, and from livestock operations. Air 

operations would cause short-term minor adverse 

impacts. 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 

This section identifies the potential impacts on the 

population, housing, social conditions, employment, 

and regional economy that might result from implementing each alternative. To assess socioeconomic 

impacts of each alternative, the following methods 

and assumptions were used: 

• For the baseline condition, it is assumed that 

the Monument's annual operating budget and 

number of employees would not increase more 

than 10 percent over the next 10 years. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 299
• Effects on economic conditions would result IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A

primarily from a long-term (more than 10 

years) increase in the number of visitors to the 

Monument, an increase in the average time 

visitors stay at the Monument or at gateway 

communities, and/or more visitor spending, 

as well as an increase in the number of new 

permanent residents drawn to the area by 

a wider range of recreational opportunities 

and greater appreciation of the Monument’s 

resources. 

The following impact thresholds were defi ned for 

analyzing impacts to socioeconomic conditions. 

Negligible: No changes would occur, or changes to 

socioeconomic indicators (population, 

employment/unemployment rate, per 

capita income, property values, poverty level, crime rates, characteristics, 

quality and satisfaction of visitors’ 

experience, or effects on the rural 

character around the Monument and 

Preserve) would be below or at the level 

of statistical error (about 3 percent) 

and, if detected, the effects would be 

considered slight and short term. 

Minor: There would be increases in the 

number of visitors to the Monument and 

Preserve or changes in socioeconomic 

indicators between 4 and 10 percent. 

Moderate: There would be increases in the 

number of visitors to the Monument and 

Preserve or changes in socioeconomic 

indicators by 10 to 20 percent. 

Major: There would be increases in the 

number of visitors to the Monument and 

Preserve or changes in socioeconomic 

indicators by more than 20 percent. 

The area of analysis for all impacts was defi ned as 

the county census tracts in the five counties surrounding Craters of the Moon National Monument 

and Preserve. 

Analysis 

Economic Conditions 

Under Alternative A, continuation of present 

interim management actions, the number of annual 

visitors would remain consistent at about 200,000. 

Alternative A would not substantially change the 

number of annual visitors, the length of stay, or 

visitor spending, nor would substantial new facilities be developed. Other than changes related to 

minerals development (see below), there would be 

no direct effects on the regional economy, population, employment/ unemployment rates, per capita 

income for workers in the counties surrounding the 

Monument, change in property values, or the need 

for additional services. Although this alternative 

is unlikely to draw additional residents to nearby 

communities, existing population growth in the 

area will probably continue at similar rates, which 

could increase pressure on Monument resources and 

gradually increase local property values as available 

land becomes more scarce. 

Existing mineral permits are valued at approximately $5 per ton. Replacement costs for the Monument 

mineral permits are estimated to be about $25 per 

ton, plus transportation costs of $1 to $2 per mile at 

distances of up to 100 miles to sites where needed. 

As mineral leases expired and could not be renewed, 

there would be long-term moderate adverse 

economic impacts on county leaseholders, who 

would have to obtain minerals from other sources. 

However, given that employment and income from 

mining total no more than one percent in any of the 

five counties in the planning area, this would be a 

negligible effect on the local economy. 

Social Conditions 

No activities under Alternative A would affect the 

social value (characteristics, quality, satisfaction) 

of local resident or visitor experiences at the Monument or substantially change the number of visitors 

to the Monument, nor would there be any changes 

to Monument management. None of the actions of 

this alternative would directly or indirectly affect 

the rural character around the Monument or affect 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

300 
local residents’ use and appreciation of Monument 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The Minidoka Internment National Monument was 

designated in January 2001. An administrative facility for the Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge has 

been proposed, as has the development of a multiagency South Central Idaho Visitor Center along 

I-84 near Twin Falls. These actions would have 

the potential to minimally increase the number of 

visitors to Craters of the Moon National Monument 

and Preserve. Blaine County’s comprehensive plan 

stipulates that the portion of the Arco-Minidoka 

Road within its jurisdiction would continue to be 

maintained at its current level. No other regional 

economic activities were identifi ed that would 

contribute to the cumulative effects on economic 

conditions under this alternative (i.e., any activities 

that would further stimulate increased visitation 

or draw additional new residents to the Monument 

area). However, current population growth rates in 

some of the communities near the Monument are 

likely to increase pressure on Monument resources 

even without changes in resource management. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would result in a negligible adverse or 

beneficial effect on local communities, the number 

of annual visitors to the Monument, length of stay, 

or visitor spending. There would be no direct, 

indirect, or cumulative effects on the regional 

economy or any economic or social indicator, other 

than negligible adverse impacts related to a gradual 

loss of mineral leases. Alternative A would not 

affect the rural character around the Monument. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Economic Conditions 

Alternative B, which would involve the highest 

level of visitor recreational opportunities, would 

entail more public education and interpretation of 

cultural resource sites, more designated primitive 

campsites, interpretation of select caves, Kings Bowl 

Frontcountry Zone development, expansion and 

development of new facilities, and more travel and 

access in the Monument. Under this alternative a 

range of recreational opportunities would be available, including commercial helicopter landings. This 

alternative also would produce the highest level of 

Monument development. 

The state of Idaho’s 2002 “Outdoor Recreation 

Demand Assessment” found that 52 percent of 

residents were willing to travel 1 to 2 hours to 

engage in recreational activities, and the top three 

recreational activities for adults were walking, 

hiking, or watching wildlife - activities that would 

be available at the Monument. More opportunities 

for recreational activities would directly result 

in a moderate increase in the annual number of 

visitors, a longer visitor’s stay in the area, and more 

recreational spending per visit. Such development 

could also have a minor impact in attracting additional permanent residents and businesses to the 

area, although it is difficult to estimate how many. 

Beyond those who would be directly employed by 

such new activities, a greater range of recreational 

opportunities and an enhanced appreciation of 

Monument resources might draw more retirees, 

commuters and entrepreneurs to the area. This could 

increase population and economic growth rates in 

nearby communities, which may increase pressure 

on Monument resources. 

A moderate increase in visitors and visitor spending 

would result in the addition of about 100 new jobs 

directly or indirectly to the local economy, a negligible increase of about 1 percent of the workforce 

in the five-county/census tract region surrounding 

the Monument. These new jobs would be dispersed 

throughout the region in a wide variety of visitor 

support services such as hotels, restaurants, auto 

service stations, and recreational outfitters and in 

services that would support increased business at 

these facilities. However, such services would likely 

be concentrated in the communities closest to the 

Monument, such as Carey and Arco, which could 

result in minor to moderate impacts in these communities. 

This increased economic stimulus would be 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 301
long-term and permanent. Although important, 

this increased stimulus would cause a negligible 

to minor impact on local employment rates and 

per capita income. However, it could have a more 

substantial impact on the local economy due to 

an increase in personal income brought by new 

residents circulating in the community. It could 

also increase population growth rates and property 

values in nearby communities, and the use of 

Monument resources by local residents. 

As in Alternative A, mineral material site permits in 

the Monument would be terminated upon expiration, 

and those areas would be closed to further use 

except as needed administratively. This would cause 

moderate long-term beneficial effects on access and 

transportation by reducing heavy equipment damage 

to roads and related maintenance, as well as reducing congestion in the Monument’s transportation 

system. However, as mineral leases expired and 

could not be renewed, there would be long-term 

moderate adverse economic impacts on county 

leaseholders, who would have to obtain minerals 

from other sources. Given that employment and 

income from mining total no more than 1 percent 

in any of the five counties in the planning area, this 

would be a negligible effect on the local economy. 

Social Conditions 

As was discussed above, this alternative would 

involve management actions that would result in 

more visitation to the Monument and more revenue 

from tourism, which would stimulate the need for 

approximately 100 new jobs. It might also attract 

larger numbers of permanent residents to the area 

than would occur otherwise, which could have a 

minor impact on population growth rates in local 

communities. Although important, this level of 

economic stimulation would result in a negligible to 

minor effect on, health care, education, and crime 

rates around the Monument. These effects could be 

concentrated in nearby communities. 

More visitors and more recreational activities 

could result in both positive and negative effects 

on the visitor experience, based on each visitor’s 

recreational objectives. For some visitors, more 

recreational opportunities would mean a moderate 

decline in satisfaction for those who want to see the 

Monument protected from recreational impacts on 

the land. Other visitors could experience a moderate 

increase in satisfaction as a result of having a wide 

variety of recreational opportunities. 

Likewise, more visitors and recreational activities 

could have both positive and negative effects on 

the quality of life of permanent residents and 

its attractiveness to newcomers. Although some 

residents value the area’s quiet, rural atmosphere, 

others might prefer a wider range of recreational 

opportunities. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Population growth in southern Blaine County (U.S. 

Census Tract 9601) increased by 31 percent between 

1990 and 2000. Similarly, the population in the town 

of Carey in Blaine County has increased greatly, and 

the town is currently undergoing a building boom. 

If new Monument-oriented recreational businesses 

should locate around Carey and southern Blaine 

County, they could exacerbate existing trends that 

are leading to more rapid population and economic 

growth. 

As was described for Alternative A, the Minidoka 

Internment National Monument was designated 

in January 2001. An administrative facility for 

the Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge has been 

proposed, as has the development of a multi-agency 

South Central Idaho Visitor Center along I-84 near 

Twin Falls. These actions would have the potential 

to minimally increase the number of visitors to 

Craters of the Moon National Monument and 

Preserve. No other regional economic activities were 

identified that would contribute to the cumulative 

effects on economic conditions under this alternative 

(i.e., any activities that would further stimulate 

increased visitation or attract new residents to the 

Monument area). 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would result in a moderate increase 

in the annual number of visitors, would lengthen 

visitor’s stay, and would increase recreational spendCRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

302 
ing per visit. It could also cause a larger proportion 

of the region’s rapidly growing population to locate 

in communities near the Monument, such as Carey 

and Arco. This moderate increase in local residents, 

visitors and visitor spending would result in a 

negligible to minor effect on the local economy, a 

negligible or minor effect on local employment rates 

and per capita income, a negligible to minor effect 

on the local population, health care, education, and 

crime rates around the Monument, and a moderate 

adverse or beneficial effect on local resident and 

visitor satisfaction. A negligible adverse impact 

would result from the gradual loss of mineral leases, 

given that employment and income from mining 

total no more than one percent in any of the fi ve 

counties in the planning area. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Economic Conditions 

Alternative C would create a visitor experience 

that would be similar to Alternative A, except that 

off-site interpretation would be emphasized and 

livestock developments might be reduced because 

there would be fewer acres in the Passage Zone. 

Alternative C would not entail any new opportunities for visitor recreation that would stimulate 

additional Monument visitation or increase the 

length of visitors’ stay or visitor spending, nor 

offer greater incentives to newcomers to locate to 

the area. Substantial new facilities would not be 

developed. The effects on the regional economy or 

population would be negligible. The annual number 

of visitors would remain consistent at about 200,000. 

There would be negligible direct and indirect effects 

on the regional economy, population, employment/unemployment rates, per capita income for 

workers in the counties surrounding the Monument, 

change in property values, or the need for additional 

services. 

As in Alternative A, mineral material site permits 

in the Monument would be terminated upon expiration, and those areas would be closed to further 

use except as needed administratively. This would 

cause moderate long-term benefi cial effects on 

access and transportation by reducing heavy equipment damage to roads and related maintenance, 

as well as reducing congestion in the Monument’s 

transportation system. However, as mineral leases 

expired and could not be renewed, there would be 

long-term moderate adverse economic impacts 

on county leaseholders, who would have to obtain 

minerals from other sources. However, given that 

employment and income from mining total no more 

than one percent in any of the five counties in the 

planning area, this would be a negligible effect on 

the local economy. 

Social Conditions 

Alternative C would be similar to Alternative A in 

its development of new opportunities for visitor and 

local resident recreation. No actions of this alternative would affect the social value (characteristics, 

quality, satisfaction) of visitor or local resident 

experiences at the Monument or substantially 

change the number of visitors to the Monument, 

nor would there be any changes to Monument 

management. None of the actions of this alternative 

would directly or indirectly affect the rural character 

around the Monument or population or economic 

growth rates. 

Cumulative Impacts 

As was described previously, the Minidoka Internment National Monument was designated in January 

2001. An administrative facility for the Minidoka 

National Wildlife Refuge has been proposed, 

as has the development of a multi-agency South 

Central Idaho Visitor Center along I-84 near Twin 

Falls. These actions would have the potential to 

minimally increase the number of visitors to Craters 

of the Moon National Monument and Preserve. No 

other regional economic activities were identifi ed 

that would contribute to the cumulative effects on 

economic conditions under this alternative (i.e., any 

activities that would further stimulate increased 

visitation or attract new residents to the Monument 

area). 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 303
Conclusion 

Alternative C would result in a negligible adverse or 

beneficial effect on the annual number of visitors to 

the Monument and Preserve, the length of visitors’ 

stay, and the amount of visitor spending. There 

would be negligible direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effects on the regional economy or any economic 

or social indicator, other than the negligible adverse 

impacts from the gradual loss of mineral leases. 

Alternative C would not affect the rural character 

around the Monument. 

IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE D 

(PROPOSED PLAN) 

Analysis 

Economic Conditions 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan), which would involve 

a moderate amount of public education, also would 

entail interpretation of cultural resource sites, 

expanding and developing new facilities as well as 

new visitor facilities outside the Monument, a high 

level of recreation and visitor opportunities, a high 

level of visitor service development in the gateway 

communities, and the authorization of commercial 

outfitters and guides (ecotourism emphasis). This 

alternative also offers opportunities for partnering with local communities to increase resource 

interpretation and restoration, which is likely to 

increase the local communities’ appreciation of the 

Monument and make the area more attractive to 

new residents and businesses. This could increase 

local population and economic growth rates. More 

opportunities for visitor recreation would result in a 

moderate increase in the annual number of visitors, 

a longer stay for visitors, and more recreational 

spending per visit. 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would be similar 

to Alternative B in its potential for new visitor 

and local resident recreation opportunities and the 

stimulation of more Monument visitations. A moderate increase in visitors and visitor spending would 

result in the addition of about 100 new jobs directly 

or indirectly to the local economy, a negligible 

increase of about 1 percent of the workforce in the 

region surrounding the Monument and Preserve. 

This would be a negligible or minor effect on local 

employment rates and per capita income. 

Alternative D could have more substantial effects on 

local population growth rates and personal income 

from non-labor (primarily retirement) income. This 

alternative could attract additional permanent residents to the area, although it is diffi cult to estimate 

how many. Beyond those who would be directly 

employed by such new activities, more retirees, 

commuters and entrepreneurs might be drawn to the 

area by the greater range of recreational opportunities. It could also increase property values in nearby 

communities, particularly since the emphasis on 

restoration could enhance scenic values and wildlife 

watching opportunities. This increased economic 

stimulus would be long-term and permanent. 

As in Alternative A, mineral material site permits in 

the Monument would be terminated upon expiration, 

and those areas would be closed to further use 

except as needed administratively. This would cause 

moderate long-term beneficial effects on access and 

transportation by reducing heavy equipment damage 

to roads and related maintenance, as well as reducing congestion in the Monument’s transportation 

system. However, as mineral leases expired and 

could not be renewed, there would be long-term 

moderate adverse economic impacts on county 

leaseholders, who would have to obtain minerals 

from other sources. Given that employment and 

income from mining total no more than one percent 

in any of the five counties in the planning area, this 

would be a negligible effect on the local economy. 

Social Conditions 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would be similar to 

Alternative B in actions that would stimulate more 

visitation to the Monument, increasing revenue 

from tourism and new jobs, and increasing the 

number of new residents who choose to settle in the 

area. Economic stimulation under Alternative D 

(Proposed Plan) would result in minor effects on the 

local population, health care, education, and crime 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

304 
rates around the Monument. More visitors and more 

recreational activities would result in both adverse 

and beneficial moderate effects on the visitor and 

local resident experience, based on each visitor or 

resident’s recreational objectives. For some visitors 

and residents, more recreational opportunities would 

mean a moderate decline in visitor satisfaction for 

those who want to see the Monument protected from 

recreational impacts on the land. Other visitors and 

residents could experience a moderate increase in 

satisfaction as a result of having a wide variety of 

recreational opportunities. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Population growth in southern Blaine County (U.S. 

Census Tract 9601) increased by 31 percent between 

1990 and 2000. Similarly, the population in the town 

of Carey in Blaine County has increased greatly. If 

new Monument and Preserve-oriented recreational 

businesses should locate around Carey and southern 

Blaine County, they would cause a minor effect 

on the area’s population and economic growth. An 

increase in local awareness and appreciation of 

the Monument’s resources and recreational opportunities could cause potential new residents and 

businesses to decide to settle in communities near 

the Monument rather than elsewhere. 

As was described for Alternative A, the Minidoka 

Internment National Monument was designated 

in January 2001. An administrative facility for 

the Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge has been 

proposed, as has the development of a multi-agency 

South Central Idaho Visitor Center along I-84 near 

Twin Falls. These actions would have the potential 

to minimally increase the number of visitors to Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve. 

Blaine County’s comprehensive plan stipulates 

that the portion of the Arco-Minidoka Road within 

its jurisdiction would continue to be maintained 

at its current level. No other regional economic 

activities were identified that would contribute to the 

cumulative effects on economic conditions under 

this alternative (i.e., any activities that would further 

stimulate increased visitation at the Monument). 

Conclusion 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would result in a 

moderate increase in the annual number of visitors, 

the length of visitors’ stay, and the amount of 

recreational spending per visit. It could also have a 

minor impact on the number of new residents drawn 

to nearby communities. This would result in a minor 

effect on the local economy, a negligible or minor 

effect on local employment rates and per capita 

income, a minor effect on the local population, 

health care, education, and crime rates around the 

Monument, and a moderate adverse or benefi cial 

effect on quality of life for local residents and visitor 

satisfaction. A negligible adverse impact would 

result from the gradual loss of mineral leases. 

UNAVOIDABLE 

ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following paragraphs describe the more important (moderate and major intensity) adverse impacts 

that would unavoidably result from implementing 

the alternatives described above. These are residual 

impacts that would remain after mitigation was 

complete. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Natural Resources 

Damage, theft, vandalism, foot traffic, and other 

human-caused disturbances to geologic resources, 

although site-specific, could reach moderate to major intensity in some instances, depending, among 

other things, on their proximity to roads and trails. 

Removing cinders from materials sites in the Monument for road construction and maintenance could 

result in moderate to major adverse impacts on 

geologic resources. Fire suppression activities could 

result in moderate adverse impacts on geologic 

processes. 

Localized major impacts to soils would result 

from fire suppression activities under Alternative 

A, including fire line construction. Livestock use, 

especially in areas where livestock concentrate, 

could cause moderate adverse impacts, including 

compaction, erosion, and changes in soil fertility 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 305
and production. Facility development, including 

expanding the Visitor Center, creating interpretation 

and trails in Kings Bowl, and installing kiosks, 

signs, and wayside exhibits, would also cause 

moderate adverse impacts on soils. Soil loss and 

movement resulting from the actions of Alternative 

A, along with the cumulative effects of agricultural 

and other land uses in the vicinity of the Monument, 

would constitute moderate adverse impacts. 

Road and trail use and maintenance could result 

in the spread of noxious weeds, causing moderate 

short- and long-term adverse impacts on native plant 

communities. Livestock would trample vegetation, 

causing the removal of vegetation and the spread 

of invasive and noxious weeds. Areas surrounding 

the Monument would be affected by agricultural 

practices, including irrigated and dryland crop 

farming and livestock ranching. Associated impacts 

that could reach moderate intensity are (a) the 

elimination of native vegetation by heavy livestock 

use or by its replacement by crops, (b) drift of 

weeds, (c) drift of herbicides, and (d) agricultural 

trespass, including the deposition of garbage or the 

removal of vegetation and planting crops on public 

lands adjacent to the Monument. 

Intense recreational use of ice cave pools could 

create moderate changes in nutrient concentrations 

and bacteria levels. The duration of these local 

effects would depend on the specifi c site. 

Under Alternative A, fires could result in major 

adverse impacts on some sensitive woodland and 

grassland wildlife species. Secondary roads and 

associated visitor use adjacent to sensitive wildlife 

areas could cause moderate disturbances of wildlife. 

Moderate long-term adverse impacts on wildlife 

from livestock use would result from competition 

for forage, trampling, loss of habitat, and disruption 

of migration corridors. The cumulative effects of 

agriculture and ranching on adjacent lands could 

adversely affect wildlife over large areas of the 

Monument through long-term competition for 

resources and habitat conversion. 

Cultural Resources 

Livestock use under Alternative A would cause 

erosion, create trails, and denude areas of vegetation, 

which could damage cultural resources in the area. 

Land Use and Transportation 

Livestock permittees would haul water to Laidlaw 

Park on the existing road network. This practice 

could cause a long-term moderate adverse effect on 

access routes. 

The restoration and other actions associated with 

fire suppression and recovery of burned areas could 

result in closure to grazing for up to three years, 

a moderate adverse impact. Over time, increased 

recreation, especially in the Passage Zone, could 

result in conflicts, a moderate adverse impact on 

livestock operations. 

Visitor Experience 

VRM inventory classifications outside the Monument boundary that would allow visual intrusions 

such as cell towers could cause long-term moderate 

adverse impacts on the natural night sky. 

Social and Economic Conditions 

As mineral leases expired and could not be renewed, 

there would be moderate long-term adverse 

economic impacts on county leaseholders, who 

would have to obtain minerals from other sources. 

However, given that employment and income from 

mining total no more than 1 percent in any of the 

five counties in the planning area, this would be a 

negligible effect on the local economy. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Natural Resources 

Improved roads and trails and the resultant increased 

access and visitation to geologic features would lead 

to greater damage, theft, vandalism, foot traffi c, and 

other human-caused disturbances that would reach 

moderate to major intensities at some sites. Removing cinders from materials sites in the Monument for 

road construction and maintenance could result in 

moderate to major adverse impacts on geologic resources. Fire suppression activities also could cause 

moderate adverse impacts on geologic processes. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

306 
Better road and trail access in Alternative B and 

the associated increase in public use could result in 

long-term moderate adverse impacts on soils. As 

in Alternative A, local major adverse impacts on 

soils would result from fire suppression activities 

in Alternative B, including fi re line construction. 

Livestock use, especially in areas where livestock 

concentrate, would result in moderate adverse 

impacts, including compaction, erosion, and changes 

in soil fertility and production. Facility development, 

including the expansion of the Visitor Center, the 

creation of interpretation and trails in Kings Bowl, 

and the installation of kiosks, signs, and wayside 

exhibits, also would cause moderate adverse impacts 

on soils. Soil loss and movement resulting from the 

actions of Alternative B, along with the cumulative 

effects of agricultural and other land uses in the 

vicinity of the Monument, would constitute moderate adverse impacts. 

More road and trail construction under Alternative 

B would remove vegetation and could result in 

spread of noxious weeds, with moderate short- and 

long-term negative impacts on native plants. Livestock would trample vegetation, causing its removal 

and the spread of invasive and noxious weeds. More 

fire suppression under Alternative B could result 

in moderate adverse local impacts from fi re line 

construction and heavy equipment. Areas around 

the Monument would be affected by agricultural 

practices, including irrigated and dryland crop 

farming and livestock ranching. Associated impacts 

that could reach moderate intensity are (a) the 

elimination of native vegetation by heavy livestock 

use or by its replacement by crops, (b) drift of 

weeds, (c) drift of herbicides, and (d) agricultural 

trespass, including the deposition of garbage or the 

removal of vegetation and planting crops on public 

lands adjacent to the Monument. 

Intense recreational use of ice cave pools could 

create moderate changes in nutrient concentrations 

and bacteria levels. The duration of these local 

effects would depend on the specifi c site. 

Under Alternative B, fires could result in major 

adverse impacts on some sensitive woodland and 

grassland wildlife species. Secondary roads and 

associated visitor use adjacent to sensitive wildlife 

areas could cause moderate disturbances of wildlife. 

Moderate long-term adverse impacts on wildlife 

from livestock use would result from competition 

for forage, trampling, loss of habitat, and disruption 

of migration corridors. The cumulative effects of 

agriculture and ranching on adjacent lands could 

adversely affect wildlife over large areas of the 

Monument through long-term competition for 

resources and habitat conversion. 

Cultural Resources 

Under Alternative B, improved access to the more 

remote regions of the Monument could increase 

visitation to those areas, as well as increasing the 

impacts of vehicle and foot traffi c, unauthorized 

collections, and vandalism of cultural resources. 

Livestock use under Alternative B would cause 

erosion, create trails, and denude areas of vegetation, 

which could damage cultural resources in the area. 

Land Use and Transportation 

Under Alternative B, the Carey-Kimama and 

Arco-Minidoka roads would be designated as 

Backcountry Byways, which would cause moderate 

to major long-term adverse impacts from more 

visitation and related increases in maintenance and 

road degradation caused by erosion or overuse. In 

addition, roads and trails in the Monument would 

be improved, causing minor to moderate long-term 

adverse impacts on travel and access by attracting 

more visitors and increasing the frequency of needed 

maintenance. More livestock developments (such 

as water troughs) in the expanded Passage Zone 

under this alternative could cause moderate adverse 

impacts on transportation and access associated with 

more use of the road network. 

The restoration and other actions associated with 

fire suppression and recovery of burned areas could 

result in closure to grazing for up to three years, 

a moderate adverse impact. Over time, increased 

recreation, especially in the Passage Zone, could 

result in conflicts, a moderate adverse impact on 

livestock operations. 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 307
Visitor Experience 

VRM Inventory classifications outside the Monument boundary that would allow visual intrusions 

such as cell towers could cause long-term moderate 

adverse impacts on the natural night sky. 

Social and Economic Conditions 

As mineral leases expired and could not be not 

renewed, there would be moderate long-term adverse 

economic impacts on county leaseholders, who 

would have to obtain minerals from other sources. 

However, given that employment and income from 

mining total no more than 1 percent in any of the 

five counties in the planning area, this would be a 

negligible effect on the local economy. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Natural Resources 

Damage, theft, vandalism, foot traffic, and other 

human-caused disturbances of geologic resources, 

although site-specific, could reach moderate to 

major intensity in some instances, depending on 

their nearness to roads and trails. However, with less 

availability of maintained access under Alternative 

C, these impacts would be less likely. Removing cinders from materials sites in the Monument for road 

construction and maintenance could result in moderate to major adverse impacts on geologic resources. 

Fire suppression activities also could cause moderate 

adverse impacts on geologic processes. 

Under Alternative C, livestock use could cause 

moderate adverse impacts on soils, including 

compaction, erosion, and changes in soil fertility 

and production, especially in areas where livestock 

congregate. Soil loss and movement resulting from 

the actions of Alternative C, along with agricultural 

and other land uses near the Monument, would 

result in cumulative moderate adverse impacts on 

soils. 

Decreased road density under Alternative C would 

reduce the opportunity for noxious weeds to be 

dispersed, but this would also reduce the probability 

of detection and treatment by Monument staff. 

This could result in a moderate adverse impact on 

Monument vegetation. Livestock would trample 

vegetation, causing its removal and the spread of 

invasive and noxious weeds. 

Fire suppression activities under Alternative C could 

result in moderate adverse local impacts on vegetation. Areas around the Monument would be affected 

by agricultural practices, including irrigated and 

dryland crop farming and livestock ranching. 

Associated impacts that could reach moderate 

intensity are (a) the elimination of native vegetation 

by heavy livestock use, (b) drift of weeds, (c) drift 

of herbicides, and (d) agricultural trespass, including 

the deposition of garbage or the removal of vegetation and planting crops on public lands adjacent to 

the Monument. 

Intense recreational use of ice cave pools could 

create moderate changes in nutrient concentrations 

and bacteria levels. The duration of these local 

effects would depend on the specifi c site. 

Under Alternative C, fires could result in major 

adverse impacts on some sensitive woodland and 

grassland wildlife species. Secondary roads and 

associated visitor use adjacent to sensitive wildlife 

areas could cause moderate disturbances of wildlife. 

Moderate long-term adverse impacts on wildlife 

from livestock use would result from competition 

for forage, trampling, loss of habitat, and disruption 

of migration corridors. The cumulative effects of 

agriculture and ranching on adjacent lands could 

adversely affect wildlife over large areas of the 

Monument through long-term competition for 

resources and habitat conversion. 

Cultural Resources 

Livestock use under Alternative C would cause 

erosion, create trails, and denude areas of vegetation, 

which could damage cultural resources in the area. 

Land Use and Transportation 

Fewer miles of roads would be maintained under 

Alternative C, which would cause minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on Monument access because a 

smaller range of vehicles would be accommodated 

by the transportation system. In this alternative, the 

WSA boundaries would serve as the boundaries 

for the Pristine Zone. Two-track roads in this area 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

308 
would be either closed or obliterated, resulting in 

moderate long-term adverse effects on access. 

The restoration and other actions associated with 

fire suppression and recovery of burned areas could 

result in closure to grazing for up to three years, 

a moderate adverse impact. Over time, increased 

recreation, especially in the Passage Zone, could 

result in conflicts, a moderate adverse impact on 

livestock operations. 

Visitor Experience 

VRM Inventory classifications outside the Monument boundary that would allow visual intrusions 

such as cell towers could cause long-term moderate 

adverse impacts on the natural night sky. 

Social and Economic Conditions 

As mineral leases expired and could not be renewed, 

there would be moderate long-term adverse 

economic impacts on county leaseholders, who 

would have to obtain minerals from other sources. 

However, given that employment and income from 

mining total no more than 1 percent in any of the 

five counties in the planning area, this would be a 

negligible effect on the local economy. 

ALTERNATIVE D (PROPOSED PLAN) 

Natural Resources 

Damage, theft, vandalism, foot traffic, and other 

human-caused disturbances of geologic resources, 

although site-specific, could reach moderate to major intensity in some instances, depending on their 

closeness to roads and trails, among other things. 

Removing cinders from materials sites in the Monument for road construction and maintenance could 

result in moderate to major adverse impacts on 

geologic resources. Fire suppression activities also 

could cause moderate adverse impacts on geologic 

processes. 

Restoring 80,000 acres of sagebrush steppe communities under Alternative D (Proposed Plan) would 

lead to the exposure of the soils over this acreage, 

which would result in more wind erosion and potential nutrient loss, resulting in short-term moderate 

adverse impacts. Livestock would cause compaction, 

erosion, and changes in soil fertility and production, 

especially in areas where livestock congregate. This 

would cause moderate adverse impacts. 

Facility development, including expanding the 

Visitor Center, adding interpretation and trails 

in Kings Bowl, and installing kiosks, signs, and 

wayside exhibits, would cause moderate adverse 

impacts on soils. Soil loss and movement resulting 

from the actions of Alternative D (Proposed Plan), 

along with the cumulative effects of agricultural 

and other land uses in the vicinity of the Monument, 

would constitute moderate adverse impacts. 

More road density in Alternative D (Proposed 

Plan) would increase the potential for noxious weed 

dispersal, but it also would increase the probability 

of detection and treatment by Monument staff. 

This could result in moderate short- and long-term 

negative impacts on native plants. Livestock would 

trample vegetation, causing its removal and the 

spread of invasive and noxious weeds. Fire suppression activities could result in moderate local impacts 

from fire line construction and the use of heavy 

equipment. 

Areas around the Monument would be affected 

by agricultural practices, including irrigated and 

dryland crop farming and livestock ranching. Associated impacts that could reach moderate intensity 

are (a) the elimination of native vegetation by heavy 

livestock use or by its replacement by crops, (b) drift 

of weeds, (c) drift of herbicides, and (d) agricultural 

trespass, including the deposition of garbage or the 

removal of vegetation and planting crops on public 

lands adjacent to the Monument. 

Intense recreational use of ice cave pools could 

create moderate changes in nutrient concentrations 

and bacteria levels. The duration of these local 

effects would depend on the specifi c site. 

Under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), fi res could 

result in major adverse impacts on some sensitive 

woodland and grassland wildlife species. Secondary 

roads and associated visitor use adjacent to sensitive 

wildlife areas could cause moderate disturbances 

of wildlife. Moderate long-term adverse impacts 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 309
on wildlife from livestock use would result from 

competition for forage, trampling, loss of habitat, 

and disruption of migration corridors. The cumulative effects of agriculture and ranching on adjacent 

lands could adversely affect wildlife over large areas 

of the Monument through long-term competition for 

resources and habitat conversion. 

Cultural Resources 

Livestock use under Alternative D (Proposed Plan) 

would cause erosion, create trails, and denude 

areas of vegetation, which could damage cultural 

resources in the area. 

Land Use and Transportation 

Access to many routes would be limited to administrative use under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), 

which would cause moderate adverse impacts on 

access and transportation. 

The restoration and other actions associated with 

fire suppression and recovery of burned areas could 

result in closure to grazing for up to three years, 

a moderate adverse impact. Over time, increased 

recreation, especially in the Passage Zone, could 

result in conflicts, a moderate adverse impact on 

livestock operations. 

Visitor Experience 

VRM inventory classifications outside the Monument boundary that would allow visual intrusions 

such as cell towers could cause long-term moderate 

adverse impacts on the natural night sky. 

Social and Economic Conditions 

As mineral leases expired and could not be renewed, 

there would be moderate long-term adverse 

economic impacts on county leaseholders, who 

would have to obtain minerals from other sources. 

However, given that employment and income from 

mining total no more than 1 percent in any of the 

five counties in the planning area, this would be a 

negligible effect on the local economy. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND 

IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES 

ALTERNATIVE A 

If roads or trails are improved, the resultant increased access and visitation would lead to greater 

damage, theft, or vandalism of geologic features. 

In most cases, such changes would be irreversible 

and the resources lost would be irretrievable. The 

possibility of this occurring would be greatest in the 

Passage Zone, 4,700 acres under this alternative. 

Cinders removed from materials sites in the Monument for road construction and maintenance also 

would be irretrievable. 

Soil loss resulting from the cumulative effects of 

Alternative A and agricultural and other land uses in 

the vicinity of the Monument would be irreversible 

and irretrievable. 

In some circumstances, the loss of sagebrush steppe 

habitat either by direct disruption or by the spread 

of noxious weeds or other invasive species would 

be irreversible. In other instances, reversing the loss 

of this habitat would take many years to complete. 

Wildlife that depend on habitats irreversibly lost 

would be similarly affected. 

Irreversible and irretrievable losses of resources 

would result from unauthorized collection and 

vandalism of cultural resources and from the 

disruption of cultural resource sites by livestock or 

vehicles. It is anticipated that such losses would be 

commensurate with the level of access and visitation 

to the Monument, which is low under this alternative. 

For all alternatives, the materials and energy used 

for habitat restoration and facility improvements 

or maintenance would be irretrievably lost. The 

funds expended for labor and materials for habitat 

restoration, facility improvements and maintenance, 

and Monument operations would be irreversibly and 

irretrievably committed. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

310 
ALTERNATIVE B 

If roads or trails are improved, the resultant increased access and visitation would lead to greater 

damage, theft, or vandalism of geologic features. 

In most cases, such changes would be irreversible 

and the resources lost would be irretrievable. The 

possibility of this occurring would be greatest in the 

Passage Zone (68,900 acres inside the Monument 

and 9,000 acres outside the Monument) in Alternative B. Cinders removed from materials sites in the 

Monument for road construction and maintenance 

also would be irretrievable. 

Soil loss resulting from the cumulative effects of 

Alternative B and agricultural and other land uses in 

the vicinity of the Monument would be irreversible 

and irretrievable. 

In some circumstances, the loss of sagebrush steppe 

habitat either by direct disruption or by the spread 

of noxious weeds or other invasive species would 

be irreversible. In other instances, reversing the loss 

of this habitat would take many years to complete. 

Wildlife that depend on habitats irreversibly lost 

would be similarly affected. 

Irreversible and irretrievable losses of resources 

would result from unauthorized collection and 

vandalism of cultural resources and from the 

disruption of cultural resource sites by livestock or 

vehicles. It is anticipated that such losses would be 

commensurate with the level of access and visitation 

to the Monument, which is greatest under Alternative B. 

For all alternatives, the materials and energy used 

for habitat restoration and facility improvements 

or maintenance would be irretrievably lost. The 

funds expended for labor and materials for habitat 

restoration, facility improvements and maintenance, 

and Monument operations would be irreversibly and 

irretrievably committed. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Even though few roads or trails would be improved 

under this alternative, some damage, theft, or vandalism of geologic features would occur. In most 

cases, such changes would be irreversible and the 

resources lost would be irretrievable. The possibility 

of this occurring would be greatest in the Passage 

Zone, 3,200 acres under this alternative. Cinders 

removed from materials sites in the Monument for 

road construction and maintenance also would be 

irretrievable. 

Soil loss resulting from the cumulative effects of 

Alternative C and agricultural and other land uses in 

the vicinity of the Monument would be irreversible 

and irretrievable. 

In some circumstances, the loss of sagebrush steppe 

habitat either by direct disruption or by the spread 

of noxious weeds or other invasive species would 

be irreversible. In other instances, reversing the loss 

of this habitat would take many years to complete. 

Wildlife that depend on habitats irreversibly lost 

would be similarly affected. 

Irreversible and irretrievable losses of resources 

would result from unauthorized collection and 

vandalism of cultural resources and from the 

disruption of cultural resource sites by livestock or 

vehicles. It is anticipated that such losses would be 

commensurate with the level of access and visitation 

to the Monument, minimal under this alternative. 

For all alternatives, the materials and energy used 

for habitat restoration and facility improvements 

or maintenance would be irretrievably lost. The 

funds expended for labor and materials for habitat 

restoration, facility improvements and maintenance, 

and Monument operations would be irreversibly and 

irretrievably committed. 

ALTERNATIVE D (PROPOSED PLAN) 

If roads or trails are improved, the resultant increased access and visitation would lead to greater 

damage, theft, or vandalism of geologic features. 

In most cases, such changes would be irreversible 

and the resources lost would be irretrievable. The 

possibility of this occurring would be greatest in the 

Passage Zone, 6,700 acres inside the Monument and 

4,100 acres outside the Monument, under this alternative. Cinders removed from materials sites in the 

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 311
Monument for road construction and maintenance 

also would be irretrievable. 

Soil loss resulting from the cumulative effects of 

Alternative D (Proposed Plan) and agricultural and 

other land uses in the vicinity of the Monument 

would be irreversible and irretrievable. 

In some circumstances, the loss of sagebrush steppe 

habitat either by direct disruption or by the spread 

of noxious weeds or other invasive species would 

be irreversible. In other instances, reversing the loss 

of this habitat would take many years to complete. 

Wildlife that depend on habitats irreversibly lost 

would be similarly affected. 

Irreversible and irretrievable losses of resources 

would result from unauthorized collection and 

vandalism of cultural resources and from the 

disruption of cultural resource sites by livestock or 

vehicles. It is anticipated that such losses would be 

commensurate with the level of access and visitation 

to the Monument, moderate under this alternative. 

For all alternatives, the materials and energy used 

for habitat restoration and facility improvements 

or maintenance would be irretrievably lost. The 

funds expended for labor and materials for habitat 

restoration, facility improvements and maintenance, 

and Monument operations would be irreversibly and 

irretrievably committed. This commitment would 

be largest under Alternative D (Proposed Plan), with 

80,000 acres slated for restoration. 

RELATIONSHIP OF 

SHORT-TERM USES OF 

THE ENVIRONMENT TO 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Under all alternatives, the short-term disturbances of 

soils, vegetation, wildlife habitat, and possibly visitor enjoyment of the Monument from the restoration 

efforts and limited facility construction would be 

more than offset by the long-term productivity of the 

restored sagebrush-steppe habitat and the enhanced 

facilities available for visitor use. This would be 

particularly true for Alternative D (Proposed Plan), 

with its greater emphasis on long-term restoration 

of habitat. Developing and constructing improved 

roads and facilities, especially under Alternative B, 

would result in short-term socioeconomic benefi ts. 

After construction work was fi nished, long-term 

benefits would result from the improved facilities, 

access, and programs. 

Under all alternatives, grazing and mineral 

extraction would constitute short-term uses of the 

environment in various locations. These short-term 

uses would be balanced by the long-term productivity of these industries overall. The disturbance of 

soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat from these 

uses and from visitor use would reduce the longterm productivity of the environment in local areas 

where revegetation or the restoration of the natural 

environment could not be fully realized over time. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

312 
Chapter 5 

Consultation and Coordination with Others 
Previous page, clockwise, from top left 

Blazing star 

Devil’s Orchard blocks 

Blocky a’a 

Crater 

Big Cinder Butte 
CONSULTATION AND 

CHAPTER 5 COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 

Public involvement, consultation, and coordination have been integral parts of the planning 

process leading to this Proposed Plan/Final EIS. A 

public participation plan and schedule were prepared and implemented during the preparation of 

the Plan. Methods to inform and involve the public 

included Federal Register notices, news releases, 

public meetings and workshops, invited presentations at special interest group meetings, individual 

meetings with interested publics, newsletter mailings, and website postings. 

BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT-NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE 

COLLABORATION 

Proclamation 7373, which enlarged the boundaries 

of the Monument, directed that the “National Park 

Service and the Bureau of Land Management manage the Monument cooperatively and shall prepare 

an agreement to share, consistent with applicable 

laws, whatever resources are necessary to properly 

manage the Monument.” Further direction from the 

Secretary of the Interior tasked both agencies to 

complete a single, combined RMP/GMP and EIS 

that would meet the legal, regulatory, and policy 

requirements of both agencies. 

In the spirit of this collaboration, a planning team 

was formed to complete the Management Plan for 

the enlarged Monument. Staffed by specialists 

from both the BLM and NPS, this team has worked 

cooperatively to compile and release the Draft 

Plan/EIS, analyze public comments, and prepare this 

Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

Planning Consistency 

NEPA regulations require the NPS and BLM to try 

to achieve consistency between management plans 

and the following: 

a. The officially approved or adopted resourcerelated plans, policies, and programs of Native 

American tribes, other federal agencies, state 

and local governments. 

b. In the absence of officially approved or adopted 

resource-related plans of Native American 

tribes, other federal agencies, state and local 

governments, then the officially approved and 

adopted resource-related policies and programs 

of Native American tribes, other federal 

agencies, state and local governments, and, so 

long as the guidance and resource management 

plans are consistent with the policies, programs, 

and provisions of federal laws and regulations 

applicable to public lands. 

Many other plans were reviewed and considered 

in the development of the Draft Plan/EIS. This 

document was made available to Native American 

tribes, the Governor of Idaho, other federal agencies, 

state and local governments for comment. The 

resulting comments were addressed in the Proposed 

Plan/FEIS. A formal 60-day consistency review 

by the Governor occurs after the Proposed Plan is 

published (USDI.BLM.2000). 

AGENCY CONSULTATION 

AND COORDINATION 

Title II, Section 202, of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act, provides guidance for coordinating planning efforts with Native American tribes, 

other federal departments and agencies of the state 

and local governments. The following sections 

document the consultation and coordination efforts 

undertaken by BLM and NPS during the planning 

process. Appendix I contains copies of letters 

exchanged during the agency consultation process 

leading up to preparation of the Draft Plan/EIS. 

Appendix K contains copies of consultation letters 

received following release of the Draft Plan/EIS. 

In May 2002, the Secretary of the Interior contacted 

Chapter 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 315
the Idaho Governor’s Office about the planning 

process for the Craters of the Moon National 

Monument. In addition, a letter to the Governor, 

signed by the Director of the BLM and the BLM 

Idaho State Director, invited the State to become a 

full cooperating agency in this and other planning 

efforts scheduled for completion no later than 2007. 

Letters were also sent to tribal, county, city and 

local governments with an invitation to partner with 

the BLM and NPS in a cooperating agency relationship. Although these governments declined to 

formalize a legal Cooperating Agency (CA) position 

with the federal government, they were contacted 

and consulted extensively throughout the planning 

process. 

CONSULTATION WITH 

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES 

Formal government to government consultation has 

been initiated with the Shoshone-Bannock tribes, 

has been on-going through out the planning process 

and will be completed when the Plan is fi nal (see 

Shoshone-Bannock tribal letters in Appendices I and 

K). In addition to formal consultation, staff to staff 

meetings have been held through out the planning 

process to solicit and incorporate the suggestions of 

tribal staff. 

Formal government to government consultation 

through the Wings and Roots process with the Shoshone-Paiute was initiated late in 2004 pursuant to 

the creation of the new Twin Falls District within the 

BLM. Shoshone-Paiute comments and suggestions 

resulting from the Wings and Roots process have 

been incorporated into this Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

CONSULTATION WITH THE STATE 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 

AND THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

The State Historic Preservation Officer (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. Consultation with SHPO has been ongoing 

throughout the planning process. Letters received 

from SHPO are included in Appendices I and K. 

CONSULTATION WITH THE 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as 

amended, directs every federal agency to ensure 

that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is 

not likely to jeopardize the existence of any federally-listed species or destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat (50 CFR 400). The ESA authorizes 

federal agencies to enter into early consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to 

make those determinations. A USFWS biologist is a 

consultant on the planning team. Informal consultation with USFWS under Section 7b of the ESA 

was initiated on April 25, 2002. In August 2004, 

members of the planning team met with USFWS 

biologists to discuss their comments on the Draft 

Plan/EIS. 

In December 2004, the USFWS concurred that the 

proposed Craters of the Moon National Monument 

Land Use Plan may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect gray wolves (Canis lupus), a listed 

species. This determination is documented in 

the Biological Assessment (BA) of the Effects of 

the Craters of the Moon National Monument and 

Preserve Land Use Plan. The BA is available for 

review in the administrative record at the BLM 

Shoshone Field Office, Shoshone, Idaho. The 

USFWS concurrence letter is included in Appendix 

K of this document. 

COORDINATION WITH OTHER 

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, 

AND GROUPS 

The FLPMA, Title II, Section 202, provides guidance for coordinating planning efforts with Native 

American tribes, other federal departments, and 

agencies of the state and local governments. All 

tribal governments and local governments, and 

federal and state agencies with resource management responsibilities or interests in the planning 

area were informed of the planning effort and 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

316 
encouraged to participate. Representatives from 

the U.S. Geologic Survey, USFWS, and the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game served as consultants 

on the planning team. Throughout the planning 

process, tribal, federal, state and local agencies and 

other organizations were updated with newsletter 

mailings and briefings to keep them informed of the 

status of the planning effort. 

Congressional officials were kept updated throughout the planning process at regularly scheduled 

quarterly meetings. The open houses of June 2002 

and alternative workshops held in February 2003 

were attended by local Congressional staffers. 

BLM RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCIL 

The Idaho Upper Snake River District Resource 

Advisory Council (RAC) received regular updates 

on the planning process as the two agencies began 

working on a joint Management Plan. A subgroup 

of the RAC was authorized to follow Craters of the 

Moon issues and bring recommendations back to 

the full RAC. Members of the subgroup attended 

public meetings and also participated in meetings 

of the ID Team. A RAC member participated in the 

Choosing by Advantages process to recommend a 

preferred alternative for the Draft Plan/EIS. With 

the realigning of Idaho BLM Districts in October 

2004, a new RAC was created for the Twin Falls 

District which has carried forward the Craters of 

the Moon subgroup. The Twin Falls RAC is now 

receiving briefings on the release of the Proposed 

Plan/FEIS. A letter of support from the Twin Falls 

RAC is included in Appendix K. 

HISTORY OF 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Scoping is the early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed during the 

planning process. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

jointly prepare a land use plan and the associated 

EIS for the Craters of the Moon National Monument 

was published in the Federal Register on April 24, 

2002. The NOI initiated the public scoping process 

by inviting participation in identifying planning 

issues and developing planning criteria. 

Information about the Monument planning process 

and opportunities for involvement were posted on 

websites for the National Park Service (www.nps. 

gov/crmo) and the Bureau of Land Management 

(www.id.blm.gov/planning/index.htm). Comments 

were accepted by mail and via e-mail submitted to 

the project Inbox: IDCraters_Plan@blm.gov. 

Local and regional newspapers and radio stations 

throughout the planning area were used to disseminate information on the Management Plan process. 

Press releases, announcing scoping meetings and 

inviting the public to provide input, were prepared 

and distributed on April 24, 2002, to print and 

broadcast media. 

The first of a series of three newsletters was developed to inform the public about the planning process 

and to solicit input. Approximately 1,500 copies of 

Newsletter No.1 were distributed in April 2002, with 

an insert identifying the schedule and locations for 

six public meetings in Idaho communities during the 

60-day scoping period. 

Open houses were held in June, 2002, at Arco, 

Carey, Shoshone, American Falls, Rupert, Fort Hall, 

Hailey, and Boise. More than 166 people attended 

the meetings. The following list shows the dates 

and the number of registered attendees at the open 

houses: 

Scoping Open Houses, June 2002 

Location - Date Attendance 

Arco – 6/04/02 25 

Carey – 6/05/02 15 

Shoshone – 6/06/02 16 

American Falls – 6/11/02 18 

Rupert – 6/27/02 27 

Fort Hall – 6/13/02 31 

Hailey – 6/18/02 22 

Boise – 6/19/02 12 

TOTAL 166 

During the 60-day public scoping period, 169 letters 

were received with 536 comments. Letters were 

received from 29 states, with more than 40 percent 

Chapter 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 317
coming from Idaho. Of the 169 letters received, 148 

came from individuals; 9 from federal, state, and 

local agencies; and 12 from interest groups. Comments were received from 26 different communities 

in Idaho, with the majority originating in Boise. 

Issues identified through the scoping process were 

considered in the development and analysis of the 

planning alternatives. Comments were grouped into 

the following six categories: 

• General (56 comments) 

• Development (52 comments) 

• Transportation and Access (139 comments) 

• Visitor Use and Public Safety (77 comments) 

• Authorized Uses (80 comments) 

• Natural and Cultural Resources 

(132 comments)

Newsletter No. 2 was sent out in August 2002 to 

approximately 850 individuals and organizations on 

the mailing list. Copies were also made available at 

BLM and NPS offices and in gateway communities 

adjacent to the planning area. This newsletter summarized the comments received at the open houses 

and in writing throughout the scoping period. It also 

identified the next steps in the planning process. 

Throughout the autumn of 2002, the planning 

team met and analyzed the comments received. 

The team developed four conceptual alternatives 

representing different management strategies that 

could be considered in planning the future of the 

Monument. These preliminary alternatives were 

explained in Newsletter No. 3, which was mailed out 

and made available in January 2003. A postage-paid 

card was included in the newsletter, with a request 

that comments be returned by March 14, 2003. The 

newsletter also gave the dates and locations of three 

public workshops to be held in February 2003 for 

people to come and work with the planning team 

to provide input and assistance on the conceptual 

alternatives. A total of 86 people attended the three 

workshops held in Arco, Carey, and Rupert, on 

February 8, 15 and 22. 

More than 160 letters or comment cards were 

received. The planning team also received a 

response developed as a Wilderness Society Alert 

from more than 2,500 individuals. These comments 

were again compiled into categories and analyzed by 

the planning team. Team members used information 

in the comments as they fi nalized the four alternatives presented in the Draft Plan/EIS. 

Public Comment on the Draft Plan/EIS 

The Draft Plan/EIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 2004. The 

EPA announced the availability of the Draft Plan/ 

EIS for public review and comment in the Federal 

Register on April 30, 2004 (Federal Register, Vol. 

69, No. 84, Friday, April 30, pp. 23809-23811). This 

announcement began a 90-day comment period, 

which ended on July 29, 2004. 

The Draft Plan/EIS was sent to agencies, organizations and people who had participated in the planning process and requested a copy. Copies of the 

Draft Plan/EIS were also available for review online 

at the website for the NPS (www.nps.gov/crmo) 

and the BLM (www.id.blm.gov/planning/index. 

htm). Copies of the Draft Plan/EIS were placed in 

the following Idaho libraries: 

• American Falls 

• Arco 

• Burley 

• Carey 

• Hailey 

• Idaho Falls 

• Rupert 

• Shoshone 

• Twin Falls 

Copies of the Draft Plan/EIS could also be requested 

in either a printed copy or on a compact disc (CD) 

by contacting the agencies through e-mail, phone, or 

fax. 

Government agencies and the public were invited 

to submit comments by regular mail, through the 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

318 
project website, electronic mail (e-mail), facsimile 

transmission (fax), at public meetings held at four 

locations in May 2004, or hand delivered to the 

agency offices. The public comment meetings took 

place in an “open house” format to provide members 

of the public an opportunity to interact with 

resource specialists from the NPS and BLM. Four 

public comment meetings were held in May 2004: 

Public Meetings, May 2004 

Location - Date Attendance 

Arco – 5/4/04 7 

American Falls – 5/6/04 9 

Rupert – 5/13/04 51 

Carey – 5/18/04 8 

TOTAL 75 

All meetings were open to the public and held 

in large, single rooms. NPS and BLM resource 

specialists were present to answer any questions that 

attendees had on the Draft Plan/EIS or to clarify 

issues on a particular resource. Poster-sized maps 

depicting the resources as they would be managed 

within the different alternatives were arranged 

around the room to illustrate the management 

options being considered. Hard copy comments 

were collected from participants during the public 

comment meetings, and additional comments on 

the Draft Plan/EIS were received via mail, fax, or 

e-mail. 

During the 90-day comment period (from April 30 

to July 29, 2004), 153 letters were received which 

contained 570 substantive comments. Substantive 

comments are those which challenge the accuracy 

of the analysis, dispute the accuracy of information 

presented, suggest different viable alternatives, or 

provide new information that makes a change in 

the proposal. In other words, they raise, debate, 

or question a point of fact or policy. Comments in 

favor or against the proposed action or alternatives 

or comments that only agree or disagree with policy, 

while valuable, are not considered substantive. 

In addition, 975 form letters were received by 

e-mail, in response to three alerts, one from The 

Wilderness Society (611 total), one from the Idaho 

Conservation League (354 total) and one from 

Western Watersheds (10 total). 

Letters came from: 

1. Twenty-five federal, state, city and county 

organizations 

2. Twelve groups: 

• Gem State Grotto 

• Republicans for Environmental Protection 

• Power County Historical Society 

• Western Watersheds Project 

• Wilderness River Outfitters 

• Great Old Broads for Wilderness 

• Idaho Conservation League 

• The Wilderness Society 

• Idaho Wool Growers 

• Northern Rockies Chapter Sierra Club 

• Lava Lake Land and Livestock 

• Blue Ribbon Coalition 

3. 116 individuals 

Thirty late form letters were also received, plus 

one late letter from the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation. 

All correspondence, including representative 

examples of each form letter and letters received 

late, were read in their entirety by all members of 

the ID Team. Both substantive comments and nonsubstantive comments were reviewed and noted by 

the ID Team and were considered in developing the 

Proposed Plan/FEIS. All correspondence is retained 

in the administrative record. 

COMMENT ANALYSIS 

This section presents a synopsis of the comments 

received on the Draft Plan/EIS. Comments in 

response to the Draft Plan/EIS were organized 

and summarized to allow decision-makers and 

agency specialists to understand the principal 

issues of concern. The purpose of this analysis 

Chapter 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 319
was to objectively identify and display the nature 

and extent of the public input received on the Draft 

Plan/EIS. All comments were reviewed. Comments 

were categorized based on resource areas. 

Substantive comments were identified for response, 

as required by NEPA (40 CFR 1503.4), the BLM 

NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), and the NPS Director’s Order 12 guidance. Substantive comments are 

those which challenge the accuracy of the analysis, 

dispute the accuracy of information presented, 

suggest different viable alternatives, or provide new 

information that makes a change in the proposal. In 

other words, they raise, debate, or question a point of 

fact or policy. 

 As mentioned above, 570 substantive comments 

were received. Each substantive comment was 

entered into a database. Because of the large 

number of submittals (letters, e-mails, faxes, comment forms) received during the public comment 

period, NPS and BLM elected to extract and categorize comments and, as appropriate, group the same 

or similar comments for response. This approach 

enabled the agencies to more effi ciently consider, 

individually and collectively, all comments received 

and to respond to those comments. Substantive 

comments received are presented in Appendix L, 

along with specifi c responses. 

The following list highlights key aspects of the approach used for capturing, tracking, and responding 

to public comments on the Draft Plan/EIS: 

• The ID Team read all comment documents 

and their attachments to identify and extract 

comments. After comment identifi cation, 

individual substantive comments were 

grouped by categories and each was assigned 

to a specialist in the appropriate discipline to 

prepare a response. The ID Team reviewed 

each response to ensure technical and 

scientific accuracy, clarity, and consistency, 

and to ensure that the response fully answered 

the comment. The specialists referred to the 

original letters, as necessary, to better understand the context surrounding the comments. 

• Frequently, more than one commenter submitted identical or similar substantive comments. 

In such cases, the comments were grouped 

and a single summary response was prepared 

for each group. Summarization of comments 

enabled the BLM and NPS to appropriately 

respond to the large number of comments 

received. To the extent practicable, substantive comments were grouped by topic 

• BLM and NPS made every effort to be fully 

responsive to every substantive comment on 

the Draft Plan/EIS. When the meaning of a 

comment was not clear, a reasonable attempt 

was made to interpret the comment and 

respond based on that interpretation. In such 

cases, a statement of the interpretation of the 

comment precedes the response. 

KEY TOPICS 

This section provides short summaries of questions 

raised by those commenting during the public comment period following release of the Draft Plan/EIS. 

It also provides agency responses to those questions. 

BLM and NPS identified the topics as “key” based 

on factors such as: 

• The prevalence of a particular topic in the 

comments received on the DEIS. 

• The extent to which a topic concerned fundamental aspects of the Preferred Alternative. 

• The extent to which the agencies changed 

the Proposed Plan/FEIS in response to the 

question. 

Topic: Cultural Resources 

Comments questioned the agencies’ plans to 

inventory only 10% of the Monument under 

Section 110 of NHPA, if roads are to be upgraded 

in some alternatives. 

The plan proposes Section 110 inventory on 10% 

of the Monument (Draft Plan/EIS p. 186). Section 

110 of the National Historic Preservation Act refers 

to non-project related inventory. Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act refers to project 

related inventory, and would always be completed 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

320 
for federal actions, such as road construction or 

improvement. 

Several comments questioned how the agencies 

would fulfill Cultural Resource commitments of 

Alternative D with such limited staff. 

A discussion of staffing is outside the scope of the 

Draft Plan/EIS. The draft plan seeks to set the 

future management direction and goals for the 

Monument. Once this direction is in place, it will 

support future managers’ requests for additional 

funding and staff to accomplish these goals. 

Topic: Water Resources 

Comments stated concerns about grazing effects 

on water resources, such as playas. 

BLM does not identify playas as riparian areas 

according to the riparian area definition in the 

Bureau of Land Management Technical References 

TR 1737-9 and 11. BLM presently has no data or 

standards to evaluate playas. Therefore, BLM will 

use their professional judgment to determine if the 

standards for rangeland health are being met or we 

are moving towards meeting them, so that the health 

of the playas will also be met. The plan does not 

directly alter grazing management, so the impacts of 

grazing on water quality are substantially the same 

for all alternatives. 

Comments requested that the adopted plan include 

provisions to restore damaged playas. 

Playas would be considered for restoration on a 

case-by-case basis. The Draft Plan/EIS (p. 29, 

Management Actions Common to All Alternatives: 

Livestock Grazing) states, “BLM may remove 

developments if they are no longer serving a useful purpose or resource objectives warrant their 

removal. Sites would be restored.” In addition, no 

additional playas would be modified or developed 

(Draft Plan/EIS p. 26, Management Actions 

Common to All Alternatives: Water Resources). 

Language regarding the restoration of playas has 

been added to the Proposed Plan/FEIS (See Chapter 

2 of the Proposed Plan/FEIS, Management Actions 

Common to All Alternatives: Water Resources). 

Topic: Geological Resources 

Several comments voiced concerns over the fear 

of Monument degradation from use and maintenance of roads and from livestock trampling and 

associated transport of dust and weed seed, which 

can obscure surfaces of lava formations and alter 

surface lava features. 

Dust can coat geologic formations until a precipitation event removes it. Dust can also infi ltrate into 

cinders and be deposited in or fill cracks providing 

more growth medium for plants. In comparison to 

the aftermath of fire where huge volumes of dust/soil 

are liberated (eroded and re-deposited elsewhere), 

these impacts would fall within the range of normal 

variability and are, therefore, considered to have 

a negligible impact on geological processes and 

features. Short of keeping people out entirely, it is 

not possible to eliminate all anthrogenic-induced 

degradation. 

Topic: Soils 

Many comments expressed concern over the 

effects of disturbed soils transporting herbicide 

particles. 

Impacts of the proposed alternatives on soil resources are analyzed in Draft Plan/EIS Ch. 4. Effects of 

herbicides being transported via soil particles would 

be analyzed in the Integrated Weed Management 

Plan and project-level vegetation treatment environmental assessments. The Proposed Plan expands the 

Pristine Zone (as compared to the Draft Alternative 

D), which will result in reduced access for recreation 

and livestock developments in certain areas containing sensitive vegetation. 

Some comments indicated the assessment of soils 

is narrowly constrained, as it assesses no alternative that alters livestock soil disturbance. 

The ID Team felt the level of detail and accuracy of 

impacts analysis, on the topic of soils, was adequate 

to make informed decisions at the RMP/GMP level 

of analysis. The plan does not directly alter grazing 

management, so the impacts of grazing on soils are 

substantially the same for all alternatives. Additional information found in the NRCS Soil Survey 

Chapter 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 321
will be used for implementation and project-level 

planning. 

Comments were concerned about adequate data to 

afford protection of soils and especially biological 

soils crusts. 

More detailed data on soils found in the NRCS 

Soil Survey will be used for implementation level 

planning. Impacts to biological crusts have been 

analyzed in Chapter 4 and will be further analyzed 

in site-specifi c analyses. 

Topic: Vegetation 

A number of comments emphasized using native 

species in vegetation restoration and an assessment of the potential impact from future noxious 

weed infestation. 

BLM and NPS are currently funded and have applied for additional funding to increase native seed 

specifically for plants found within the Monument. 

BLM is working with the USFS Rocky Mountain 

Research Station and private growers to collect and 

increase native plant seed to be used in large-scaled 

restoration and post-wildland fi re rehabilitation 

projects; NPS is working with the NRCS to increase 

native plants specific to the Monument and Preserve. 

Every effort is being made to utilize the best available science and plant materials in restoration and 

rehabilitation projects. 

In Management Common to All Alternatives, 

integrated Weed Management principles would 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. 

Concerns were expressed over the limited data 

provided in the vegetation map and the lack of 

inventory performed. 

The vegetation map included in the Draft Plan/EIS 

was produced from satellite imagery and is intended 

to give a general idea of vegetation distribution 

within the Monument. Refer to Draft Plan/EIS, p. 

86, third paragraph in the right-hand column (Data 

from various vegetation studies...) for a discussion 

of the limitations of the vegetation map. Sitespecific, project-level inventories and assessments 

of impacts to vegetation will be done as needed for 

individual projects conducted in the future. 

Several comments indicated the acres of lands 

to be treated under all alternatives appear to be 

completely arbitrary, and could be changed under 

any alternative. 

A vegetation inventory and assessment for Laidlaw 

Park, Little Park, and Paddelford Flat was performed 

by the BLM in cooperation with The Nature 

Conservancy in 2002/2003 (Jurs and Sands 2004). 

A map showing the general areas proposed for 

various levels of restoration treatment based on this 

assessment is included in the Proposed Plan. These 

are rounded estimates based on proposed restoration 

acreages in the Monument. Field condition assessment and vegetation inventories are included for 

other parts of the Monument. 

Numerous comments voiced concern over the need 

to protect and restore sage-steppe habitats and the 

effects on grazing on these habitats. 

All alternatives contain specifi c management 

guidance for wildlife protection, particularly 

sagebrush steppe obligates. Measures are in place 

to protect the sagebrush steppe in the Monument 

(Draft Plan/EIS pp. 25-26, Management Guidance 

Common to All Alternatives: Vegetation, Including 

Special Status Species, and Fire Management; and 

Wildlife, Including Special Status Species). In 

addition, all allotments must meet or be progressing 

towards meeting Idaho Standards and Guidelines, 

including Standard 4 (Native Plant Communities) 

and Standard 8 (Special Status Species) (Draft 

Plan/EIS p. 29, Management Guidance Common to 

All Alternatives: Livestock Grazing). All restoration methods, including passive methods, will be 

considered for future projects. If monitoring shows 

that grazing is impacting the restoration process, 

temporary removal of livestock is a legitimate 

response. See Draft Plan/EIS p. 25, Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives for 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

322 
Vegetation, regarding protection and restoration of 

sagebrush steppe habitats. 

Commenters were concerned that a Fire Management Plan should be part of the comprehensive 

planning process, which would identify a goal of 

restoration and maintenance of native vegetation 

on all lands altered by fire or other disturbance. 

A Fire Management Plan (FMP) would be prepared 

as part of the implementation of the RMP/GMP 

(Draft Plan/EIS p. 12, Future Planning Needs, 

Fire Management Plan). Currently the Monument 

operates under two FMPs: the 2004 South Central 

Idaho FMP covers BLM-administered lands and the 

Preserve; and the 2000 NPS Wildland FMP covers 

the original Monument. The updated FMP would 

guide suppression efforts as well as pro-active fuels 

reduction and restoration treatments, and would 

detail goals and constraints in specifi c fi re management areas based on resource objectives outlined in 

the RMP/GMP. In addition, post-fi re rehabilitation 

on BLM-administered lands within the Monument is 

guided currently by the Shoshone and Burley Field 

Office Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plans (scheduled 

for decision Spring of 2005). In all cases, the use of 

native plants is emphasized and only native species 

would be used on projects in the Pristine Zone. 

Topic: Access and Transportation 

Several comments expressed concern that the 

document did not adequately address transportation planning issues. 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportation Planning. In the Proposed Plan, we describe 

desired future conditions and management actions 

for the type of roads and access that is appropriate 

within each of four management zones. The plan 

also classifies and inventories the type of roads and 

trails currently in existence within the Monument. 

Specific decisions on access and transportation 

beyond those already defined in the management 

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming 

implementation-level Comprehensive Travel 

Management Plan. This implementation plan will 

include a detailed map including all designations for 

travel and access within the Monument, including 

road travel restrictions and road closures to meet 

resource management objectives, such as protection 

of special status species habitat, defined in the 

Proposed Plan. 

Several comments requested more discussion on 

impacts of road enhancements and building for 

delivery of administrative and fire services, and 

expressed concerns about the effects of roads, 

including fragmentation, access to sensitive areas, 

and weed dispersal. 

The existing roads support a variety of administrative activities, such as weed control and fi re fi ghting, 

and have since before the new Monument was 

designated. These administrative uses may increase 

for short periods of time, such as during restoration 

activity, but the long-term impacts of that administrative use are expected to increase only slightly. 

The impact assessment is described separately and 

somewhat differently for different resources. For 

example, under Geologic Resources, it is recognized 

that road improvements could have potentially major 

long-term adverse impacts on resources such as caves 

due to increased numbers of visitors. However, in 

selecting the Proposed Plan, the agencies have taken 

into consideration the expected impacts on resources 

and the agencies’ future management capabilities 

to deal with such impacts. See Chapter One, Future 

Planning Needs, Transportation Planning. 

Comments were received regarding increasing/decreasing the Passage Zone in the Monument. 

In response to these comments, the agencies 

modified the areas contained in the Passage Zone 

in Alternative D as presented in the Proposed Plan. 

See Chapter 2, Alternative D Description and Map. 

In the Proposed Plan, the Passage Zone was reduced 

in response to public comment and agency review. 

Creating Passage Zone corridors does not mandate 

an increase in the number or current standard of 

roads. See Chapter 2, Description of Management 

Zones. 

Chapter 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 323
Several comments supported including the entire 

Arco-Minidoka Road as a “passage” route with 

improvements. 

While not specifically proposing any improvement 

to the Arco-Minidoka Road, the agencies, in the 

Proposed Plan, allow for accommodating improvement to the section of the road within the Monument 

if, at a future time, the local authorities decide to 

improve the section of the Arco-Minidoka Road to 

the north of the Monument boundary. 

Comments expressed concern over the spread of 

noxious weeds as a result of increased human 

activity in the Monument related to increased 

access. 

The Draft Plan/EIS acknowledges that roads, 

vehicles, humans, and animals are known vectors to 

the spread of noxious weeds (Draft Plan/EIS p. 92 

Ch. 3, Discussion on Noxious and Exotic Species). 

A full Integrated Weed Management Program addressed a broad range of prevention, education, and 

control activities to combat noxious weeds (Draft 

Plan/EIS p. 25, Management Guidelines Common 

to All Alternatives: Vegetation, Including Special 

Status Species, and Fire Management). 

Several comments expressed concern over how the 

document defined roads, indicating that unauthorized or unplanned roads should not be considered 

“roads” and upgrading would result in increased 

impacts and OHV use. 

See Draft Plan/EIS p. 112 Chapter 3, Land Use, 

Transportation/Travel and Access. In response to 

public comment concerning a lack of clarity in 

road definitions in the Draft Plan/EIS, road and 

trail defi nitions have been refined (See Proposed 

Plan/FEIS, Chapter 3, Land Use and Transportation/Travel and Access, Road and Trail Defi nitions). 

These definitions apply to a road and trail inventory 

based on best available data at the time of this 

draft which includes 1:24000 USGS topographic 

maps, BLM 1:100,000 topographic maps and a 

2002 survey of roads, ways and trails in and around 

existing wilderness study areas. 

Topic: Recreation 

Comments requested a monitoring plan to ensure 

primitive camping and recreation does not damage 

Monument resources. 

On pp. 12-13 of the Draft Plan/EIS, future planning 

needs are discussed. Many of the implementation 

plans described, such as the Wilderness/Wilderness 

Study Area Plan, the Cave Management Plan, and 

the Cultural Resources Management Plan, would 

provide for periodic monitoring and protection of 

resources from adverse impacts associated with 

primitive camping and recreation. 

Topic: Special Designations/Management Zones 

Many comments suggested designation of North 

Laidlaw Park as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

The comments did not provide any new information 

or studies updating the analysis of relevance and 

importance criteria that would result in a determination that ACEC status is warranted. Management 

direction to protect the high-quality vegetation 

resources in North Laidlaw Park, similar to that 

proposed for the nominated ACEC, was included in 

Alternative D (See Draft Plan/EIS p. 49, Vegetation, 

Including Special Status Species, and Fire Management for Alternative D; and p. 340, Appendix G). 

Analysis of the relevance and importance criteria for 

establishment of North Laidlaw Park as an ACEC 

did not indicate that ACEC status is required for 

protection of the area. The Preferred Alternative 

was modified to increase the acreage of Pristine 

Zone and decrease the acreage of Passage Zone in 

North Laidlaw Park. Management direction under 

Alternative D (p. 49 of the DEIS) states that the high 

ecological condition of North Laidlaw Park would 

be maintained and no new livestock water developments would be allowed. 

Topic: Wilderness 

Comments indicated the management plan for 

the Monument should identify a process by which 

WSAs not currently recommended for wilderness 

designation are reevaluated for their wilderness 

characteristics and suitability for wilderness 

designation. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

324 
The agencies previously inventoried lands within 

the current monument boundaries to determine 

areas with wilderness qualities. These inventories 

began in the 1960s and continued through the 

1980s. These studies resulted in designation of the 

“43,243” acre Craters of the Moon Wilderness in 

1970, and 469,009 acres of WSAs (of which 408,110 

acres have been recommended to the U.S. Congress 

for designation). Existing law and agency policy 

require management of WSAs to protect the wilderness qualities until Congress determines whether 

or not to designate the lands as wilderness. The 

agencies do not believe the land use situation within 

or adjacent to the Monument warrants re-inventory 

of lands for wilderness suitability. 

Comments suggested the Wilderness Management 

actions should include removal of livestock projects that may be impairing wilderness values. 

Under the Proposed Plan/FEIS, managers would 

continue to have the authority to remove livestock 

or livestock facilities for resource benefit, if needed. 

Livestock projects within WSAs are managed according to BLM’s Interim Management Policies for 

Lands under Wilderness Review, Handbook H8550-

1, to prevent impairment of wilderness values. 

Topic: Grazing 

Comments indicated concern over the role of 

livestock grazing in loss of sagebrush steppe, and 

lack of analysis in the Draft Plan/EIS. 

Monument-wide management actions and cumulative impacts of livestock facilities on Monument 

resources were analyzed and characterized at an 

appropriate level of intensity for the Draft Plan/EIS 

(See Draft Plan/EIS Chapter 4, pp. 158-162). Specific, project-level analysis of cumulative impacts will 

be provided in individual range improvement project 

Environmental Assessments. Impacts of livestock 

facilities and developments on natural resources 

were specifically and cumulatively analyzed at the 

Monument level. 

Comments requested terminating grazing from 

certain areas of the Monument and looking at 

temporary removal of livestock as a management 

tool to avoid negative impacts to the restoration 

process. 

If monitoring shows that grazing is impacting the 

restoration process, temporary removal of livestock 

is a legitimate response to correct the problem. According to policy requirements, restoration projects 

always include removal of livestock for a minimum 

of two growing seasons following treatment to 

allow for vegetation recovery and establishment of 

seeded species. Idaho Standards and Guidelines for 

Rangeland Health guide adjustments in livestock 

grazing regimes (numbers, seasons of use) in 

response to problems identified through evaluation 

and monitoring. The historical impacts of livestock 

grazing on the sagebrush steppe were discussed in 

the Draft Plan/EIS (p. 86, Affected Environment: 

Vegetation, including Special Status Species, and 

Fire Management). 

Topic: Wildlife 

Several comments indicated concern that the 

Monument Management Plan failed to take the 

actions necessary to protect sagebrush and Sagegrouse ecosystems. 

The Proposed Plan does call for an increase in 

rehabilitation of areas to functional sagebrush 

systems as well as the protection of existing 

healthy and functional habitats. In response to 

this and similar comments, additional and updated 

protections for sage-grouse have been incorporated 

into the Proposed Plan. These can be found in the 

Wildlife section and Management Actions section of 

the Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

Topic: Socioeconomics 

Comments requested further analysis regarding 

how the Proposed Plan will contribute to the 

health of local economies as well as positive and 

negative socioeconomic impacts. 

The NPS and BLM proactively involved local 

county and community officials in scoping of the 

Chapter 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 325
Draft Management Plan and development of the 

management alternatives analyzed. Through this 

process, several economic issues were identifi ed 

and included in the alternatives. These include 

provisions for locating Monument facilities outside 

the Monument; opportunities for surrounding 

“gateway” communities to provide services and 

facilities to visitors; and opportunities for outfi tter, 

guide operations and concession activities within the 

Monument, among others. A more thorough analysis of the potential economic and social impacts of 

the management alternatives has been included in 

the Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

Topic: General 

Comments supported the City of Arco as the 

“Gateway to the Craters of Moon” city. 

The support of communities adjacent to the Craters 

of the Moon National Monument and Preserve is an 

important link for visitors to the area. We expect 

this relationship to become stronger. The agencies 

do not designate one particular community as 

the official “Gateway” to the Monument. Ideally, 

several communities strategically located near the 

Monument associate in a positive way with the 

Monument. The agencies intend to work closely 

with all communities surrounding the Monument. 

Responses to Comments 

As stated earlier, over 570 substantive comments 

were received during the 90-day public comment 

period. In order to reduce the cost and volume 

of this document, only Tribal, agency and other 

government letters have been reprinted in their 

entirely. All other substantive comments received 

have been summarized or have been synthesized 

into a representative comment capturing the main 

points of several similar comments. The administrative record contains all original letters received. 

Public comments received have been documented, 

analyzed and considered in decision-making and 

incorporated into the Proposed Plan/FEIS as 

appropriate. Comments that presented new data 

or addressed the adequacy of the document, the 

alternatives or the analysis were responded to pursuant to NEPA regulations. Comments expressing 

personal opinion or that had no specifi c relevance to 

the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft Plan/EIS were 

considered in the decision-making process, but not 

responded to directly. 

Consultation and agency letters on the Draft 

Plan/EIS are included in Appendix K. Appendix 

L contains substantive comments received and 

responses to those comments. A number of comments provided valuable suggestions on improving 

the Draft Plan/EIS. Some comments led to changes 

reflected in the Proposed Plan/FEIS. Other comments resulted in a response to explain BLM or NPS 

policy, to refer readers to information in the EIS, 

to answer technical questions, to further explain 

technical issues, or to provide clarifi cation. 

Appendices K and L, plus all other appendices 

referenced in this document, are printed after this 

chapter. 

LIST OF RECIPIENTS 

Shown below is a partial list of the many agencies, 

organizations, and individuals who expressed interest in the Plan during the planning process. Each of 

these groups or individuals was sent a copy of the 

Draft Plan/EIS, or notification of where documents 

could be viewed on a website. 

Native American Tribes 

• Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

• Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 

Government Agencies and Representatives 

• Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, 

Washington 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• U.S. Geologic Survey 

• USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services 

• USDA/Forest Service – Sawtooth National 

Forest 

• U.S. Senator Larry Craig 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

326 
• U.S. Senator Mike Crapo 

• U.S. Representative Mike Simpson 

• Office of the Governor of Idaho 

• Idaho Department of Agriculture 

• Idaho Department of Commerce 

• Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

• Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

• Idaho Department of Lands 

• Idaho Parks and Recreation Department 

• Idaho Department of Education 

• Idaho Fish and Game Commission 

• Idaho Geological Survey 

• Idaho Migrant Council 

• Idaho National Guard 

• Idaho State Historical Society 

• Idaho State Library 

• Blaine, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power 

County Commissioners 

• Blaine, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power 

County Planning and Zoning 

• Cassia County 

• Jerome County 

• Mini-Cassia Transportation Committee 

• City of Aberdeen 

• City of Arco 

• City of Burley 

• City of Carey 

• City of Heyburn 

• City of Twin Falls 

• City of Jerome 

• City of Ketchum 

• City of Hailey 

• City of Shoshone 

• City of Rupert 

• City of Minidoka 

• Upper Snake River District RAC 

• Twin Falls District RAC 

Businesses, Organizations and Other Groups 

In addition to the specifi c businesses, interest 

groups, and other organizations listed below, numerous individuals expressed an interest in the Plan 

and requested to be notified of the availability of the 

draft document. 

• Audubon Society, Prairie Falcon Chapter 

• Blue Ribbon Coalition 

• Committee for Idaho's High Desert 

• Craters of the Moon Natural History 

Association

• Flat Top Sheep Company 

• Gem State Grotto 

• Idaho Cattle Association 

• Idaho Cave Survey Grotto 

• Idaho Conservation League 

• Idaho Environmental Council 

• Idaho Native Plant Society, Loasa Chapter 

• Idaho Outfitter and Guides Association 

• Idaho Snowmobile Association 

• Idaho State Historical Society 

• Idaho Watershed Project (Western Watershed 

Project) 

• Idaho Wool Growers 

• IMBA (International Mountain Biking Association) 

• Izaak Walton League 

• Lava Lake Land and Livestock 

• National Parks and Conservation Association 

• National Wildlife Federation 

• Sierra Club of Idaho 

• Sun Valley-Ketchum Chamber of Commerce 

• The Nature Conservancy 

• The Wilderness Society of Idaho 

• Twin Falls Chamber of Commerce 

• Wilderness Watch 

Chapter 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 327
Distribution of the Proposed Plan/FEIS 

Copies of the Proposed Plan will be sent to those 

people and organizations who have participated 

in the planning process and those who indicated 

interest in the Proposed Plan/FEIS. The mailing 

list is located in the administrative record of the 

Shoshone Field Offi ce, BLM. 

328 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Appendices, Glossary, Abbreviations and Acronyms, 

Bibliography, List of Preparers, and Index 
Previous page, clockwise, from top left 

Lava arch 

Big Craters view 

Sprouts 
APPENDIX A

PROCLAMATIONS AND ENABLING LEGISLATION 

Proclamation 1694 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

A PROCLAMATION 

[No. 1694—May 2, 1924—43 Stat. 1947] 

WHEREAS, there is located in townships one south, one and two north, ranges twenty-four 

and twenty-five east of the Boise Meridian in Butte and Blaine Counties, Idaho, an area which 

contains are markable 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; and 

WHEREAS, this area contains many curious and unusual phenomena of great educational 

value and has a weird and scenic landscape peculiar to itself; and 

WHEREAS, it appears that the public interest would be promoted by reserving these volcanic 

features as a National Monument, together with as much land as may be needed for the 

protection there of. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States of America, by 

authority of the power in me vested by section two of the act of Congress entitled, “An Act 

for the preservation of American antiquities,” approved June eighth, nineteen hundred and 

six (34 Stat., 225) do proclaim that there is here by reserved from all forms of appropriation 

under the public land laws, subject to all valid existing claims, and set apart as a National 

Monument all that piece or parcel of land in the Counties of Butte and Blaine, State of Idaho, 

shown as the Craters of the Moon National Monument upon the diagram hereto annexed and 

made a part hereof. 

Warning is hereby expressly given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, 

destroy or remove any feature of this Monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the 

lands thereof. 

The Director of the National Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, 

shall have the supervision, management and control of this Monument as provided in the act 

of Congress entitled “An Act to establish a National Park Service and for other purposes,” 

approved August twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and sixteen (39 Stat., 535) and Acts 

additional thereto or amendatory there of. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United 

States to be affi xed. 

[SEAL] 

DONE in the City of Washington this 2d day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand 

nine hundred and twenty-four and of the Independence of the United States of America the 

one hundred and forty-eighth. 

By the President: 

CHARLES E. HUGHES, CALVIN COOLIDGE 

Secretary of State. 

Appendices: APPENDIX A 331 
Proclamation 1843

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

A PROCLAMATION 

[No. 1843—July 23, 1928—45 Stat. 2959] 

WHEREAS, it appears that the public interest would be promoted by adding to the Craters of the Moon 

National Monument in the State of Idaho, certain adjoining lands for the purpose of including within 

said monument certain springs for water supply and additional features of scientific interest located 

thereon. 

332 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States of America, by 

authority of the power in me vested by section two of the act of Congress entitled, “An Act for 

the Preservation of American antiquities”, approved June eighth, nineteen hundred and six (34 

Stat, 225), do proclaim that Sections sixteen, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-fi ve, twenty-six, 

twenty-seven, and thirty-four in Township two North, Range twenty-four East; Unsurveyed 

Sections twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-two, thirty-three and thirty-four 

in Township two North, Range twenty-five East; Unsurveyed Sections three, ten, fi fteen, twentytwo, twenty-six, twenty-seven, thirty-four, thirty-five and thirty-six in Township one North, 

Appendices: APPENDIX A 333
 ` 

Range twenty-four East; Unsurveyed Sections three, four, nineteen, fi fteen, sixteen, 

twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven and 

thirty-six in Township one North, Range twenty-five East; Unsurveyed Sections one, 

twelve, thirteen and the north half of Sections twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three 

and twenty-four in Township one South, Range twenty-five East; all Boise Meridian, 

Idaho; are hereby reserved from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, 

subject to all valid existing claims, and set apart as an addition to the Craters of the 

Moon National Monument and that the boundaries of the said National Monument are 

now as shown on the diagram hereto annexed and made a part hereof. 

Warning is hereby expressly given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, 

injure, destroy or remove any feature of this Monument and not to locate or settle 

upon any of the lands there of. 

The Director of the National Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of the 

Interior, shall have the supervision, management, and control of this Monument as 

provided in the Act of Congress entitled “An Act to establish a National Park Service 

and for other purposes,” approved August twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and sixteen 

(39 Stat., 535) and Acts additional thereto or amendatory there of. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the 

United States to be affi xed. 

[SEAL] 

DONE at the City of Washington this 23 day of July in the year of our Lord one 

thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight and of the Independence of the United States 

of America the one hundred and fi fty-third. 

CALVIN COOLIDGE. 

By the President:

 FRANK B. KELLOGG, 

Secretary of State. 

334 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
 `

Proclamation 1916 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

A PROCLAMATION 

[No. 1916—July 9, 1930—46 Stat. 3029] 

WHEREAS lot 1, section 28, township 2 north, range 24 east, Boise meridian, Idaho, 

is bounded on the north and east by the Craters of the Moon National Monument; and 

WHEREAS said lot 1, Section 28, contains a spring which is needed to furnish the 

said monument with an adequate water supply ; and 

WHEREAS said lot 1, section 28, is vacant unappropriated public land of the United 

States; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Herbert Hoover, President of the United States of America, 

do proclaim that the lands herein after described shall be, and are hereby, added to 

and included within the Craters of the Moon National Monument, and as part of 

said monument shall be, and are hereby, made subject to the provisions of the act of 

August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), entitled “An act to establish a national park service, 

and for other purposes and all acts supplementary there to and amendatory thereof 

and all other laws and rules and regulations applicable to, and extending over, the said 

monument: 

BOISE MERIDIAN 

In township 2 north, range 24 east, lot 1, section 28. 

Nothing herein shall affect any existing valid claim, location, or entry on said lands 

made under the land laws of the United States whether for homestead, mineral, 

right of way, or any other purposes whatsoever, or shall affect the right of any such 

claimant, locator, or entryman to the full use and enjoyment of his land. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the 

United States to be affi xed. 

[SEAL] 

DONE at the City of Washington this 9th day of July, in the year of our Lord nineteen 

hundred and thirty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one 

hundred and fi fty-fi fth. 

HERBERT HOOVER. 

By the President:

 HENRY L. STIMSON, 

Secretary of State. 

Appendices: APPENDIX A 335 
Proclamation 2499 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

A PROCLAMATION 

[No. 2499—July 18, 1941—55 Stat. 1660] 

WHEREAS it appears that certain public land which is now a part of the Craters of the Moon 

National Monument in the State of Idaho, established by proclamation of May 2, 1924, 43 Stat. 

1947, and enlarged by proclamations of July 23, 1928, 45 Stat. 2959, and July 9,1930, 46 Stat. 

3029, is not necessary for the proper care and management of the objects of scientifi c interest 

situated on the lands within the said monument; and 

WHEREAS it appears that such land is needed for the construction of Idaho State Highway No. 

22, by the State of Idaho: 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, 

under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 2 of the act of June 8, 1906, c. 

3060, 34 Stat. 225, U. S. C., title 16, sec. 431, do proclaim that a strip of land situated in section 

3, Township 1 North, Range 24 East, and sections 25,34, 35 and 36, Township 2 North. Range 

24 East, Boise Meridian, Butte County, Idaho, as shown on a map prepared by the Department 

of Public Works, Bureau of Highways, State of Idaho, on file in the General Land Offi ce, 

Department of the Interior, bearing the title 

“FAP 128-E(1) 

Map showing right-of-way across 

Craters of the Moon National 

Monument – Butte County – Idaho 

February 1941 – Scale 1 in = 400 ft” 

Is hereby excluded from the Craters of the Moon National Monument. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United Stated 

to be affi xed. 

DONE at the City of Washington this 18th day of July in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred 

and forty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred sixty-sixth. 

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT 

By the President:

 SUMNER WELLES, 

Acting Secretary of State. 

336 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Proclamation 3506 

Presidential Documents

From Federal Register of Nov. 22, 1962 

Title 3—THE PRESIDENT 

Proclamation 3506 

ADDITION TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL 

MONUMENT, IDAHO 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

WHEREAS the Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho, established by Proclamation No. 1694 

of May 2, 1924, was reserved and set apart as an area that contains a remarkable fissure eruption together 

with its associated volcanic cones, craters, rifts, lava flows, caves, natural bridges, and other phenomena 

characteristic of volcanic action that are of unusual scientific value; and 

WHEREAS it appears that it would be in the public interest to add to the Craters o the Moon National 

Monument a 180-acre kipuka, a term of Hawaiian origin for an island of vegetation completely surrounded 

by lava, that is scientifically valuable for ecological studies because it contains a mature, native sagebrushgrassland association which has been undisturbed by man or domestic livestock; and to add to the 

monument the intervening lands between the kipuka and the present monument boundaries: 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOHN F. KENNEDY, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the 

authority vested in me by Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431), and subject to 

valid existing rights do proclaim that the following-described lands are hereby added to and reserved as a 

part of the Craters of the Moon National Monument: 

BOISE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 

T. 1 S., R. 24 E.

 sec. 3, W-1/2

 All of section 4, 5, 8, 9, 17, 18 and 19

 sec. 10, W-1/2

 sec. 20, W-1/2 and W-1/2 E-1/2

 sec. 29, NW-1/4 and W-1/2 NE-1/4

 sec. 30, NE-1/4; 

comprising 5,360 acres, more or less. 

Warning is hereby expressly given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy 

or remove any of the features or objects of this monument and not to locate or settle upon any of 

the lands thereof. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States 

of America to be affi xed. 

[SEAL] DONE at the City of Washington this nineteenth day of November in the year 

of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the 

United States of America the one hundred and eighty-seventh. 

JOHN F. KENNEDY 

By the President: 

DEAN RUSK,

 Secretary of State. 

Appendices: APPENDIX A 337 
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 

Public Law 104-333 

104th Congress 

An Act 

To provide for the administration of certain Presidio properties at 

 minimal cost to <<NOTE: Nov. 12, 1996 - [H.R. 4236]>> the Federal 

 taxpayer, and for other purposes.

 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Omnibus Parks 

and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. 16 USC 1 note.>> 

SEC. 205. CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL

 MONUMENT BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

 (a) Boundary Revision.--The boundary of Craters of the Moon National 

Monument, Idaho, is revised to add approximately 210 acres and to delete 

approximately 315 acres as generally depicted on the map entitled 

``Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho, Proposed 1987 Boundary 

Adjustment’’, numbered 131-80,008, and dated October 1987, which map 

shall be on file and available for public inspection in the offi ce of 

the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

 (b) Administration and Acquisition.--Federal lands and interests 

therein deleted from the boundary of the national monument by this 

section shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior through 

the Bureau of Land Management in accordance with the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Federal lands 

and interests therein added to the national monument by this section 

shall be administered by the Secretary as part of the national monument, 

subject to the laws and regulations applicable thereto. The Secretary is 

authorized to acquire private lands and interests therein within the 

boundary of the national monument by donation, purchase with donated or 

appropriated funds, or exchange, and when acquired they shall be 

administered by the Secretary as part of the national monument, subject 

to the laws and regulations applicable thereto. 

338 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Proclamation 7373 

Appendices: APPENDIX A 339
340 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Appendices: APPENDIX A 341
342 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Appendices: APPENDIX A 343
Federal Legislation PL 107-213 

Public Law 107-213 

107th Congress 

An Act 

To redesignate certain lands within the Craters of the Moon National 

Monument, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Aug. 21, 2002 - [H.R. 601]>> 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 16 USC 431 note, 698w.>> SPECIAL MANAGEMENT

 REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL LANDS RECENTLY ADDED TO CRATERS OF 

THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT, IDAHO.

 (a) Redesignation.--The approximately 410,000 acres of land added to 

the Craters of the Moon National Monument by Presidential Proclamation 

7373 of November 9, 2000, and identified on the map accompanying the 

Proclamation for administration by the National Park Service, shall, on 

and after the date of enactment of this Act, be known as the ``Craters 

of the Moon National Preserve’’.

 (b) Administration.--

(1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the 

Craters of the Moon National Preserve shall be administered in 

accordance with--

(A) Presidential Proclamation 7373 of November 9, 

2000;

 (B) the Act of June 8, 1906, (commonly referred to 

 as the ``Antiquities Act’’; 34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 

431); and

 (C) the laws generally applicable to units of the 

 National Park System, including the Act entitled ``An 

Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other 

 purposes’’, approved August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et 

344 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 seq.).

 (2) Hunting.--The Secretary of the Interior shall permit 

hunting on lands within the Craters of the Moon National 

Preserve in accordance with the applicable laws of the United 

 States and the State of Idaho. The Secretary, in consultation 

with the State of Idaho, may designate zones where, and 

establish periods when, no hunting may be permitted for reasons 

 of public safety, protection of the area’s resources, 

administration, or public use and enjoyment. Except in 

 emergencies, any regulations prescribing such restrictions 

 relating to hunting shall be put into effect only after 

consultation with the State of Idaho. 

Approved August 21, 2002. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 601: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-34 (Comm. on Resources). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107-181 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 147 (2001):

 May 1, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 148 (2002): 

Aug. 1, considered and passed 

Senate. 

Appendices: APPENDIX A 345
Wilderness Designation 

Public Law 91-504 

An Act to designate certain lands as wilderness. (84 Stat. 1104) 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 

of America in Congress assembled, 

* * * * * * * 

DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS WITHIN NATIONAL PARKS 

AND MONUMENTS 

SEC. 2. In accordance with Section 3(c) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890; 

16 U.S.C. 1132(c)), the following lands are hereby designated as wilderness: 

(a) certain lands in the Craters of the Moon National 

Monument, which comprise about forty-three thousand two 

hundred and forty-three acres and which are depicted on a 

map entitled “Wilderness Plan, Craters of the Moon National 

Monument, Idaho”, numbered 131-91,000 and dated March 

1970, which shall be known as the “Craters of the Moon 

National Wilderness Area”; 

SEC. 4. As soon as practicable after this Act takes effect, a map and a legal 

description of each wilderness area shall be filed with the Interior and 

Insular Affairs Committees of the United States Senate and the House of 

Representatives, and such description shall have the same force and effect 

as if included in this Act: Provided however, That correction of clerical and 

typographical errors in such legal description and map may be made. 

SEC. 5. Wilderness areas designated by or pursuant to this Act shall be 

administered in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act 

governing areas designated by that Act as wilderness areas, except that 

any reference in such provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness Act 

shall be deemed to be a reference to the effective date of this Act, and any 

reference to the Secretary of Agriculture shall be deemed to be a reference to 

the Secretary who has administrative jurisdiction over the area. 

Approved October 23, 1970. 

346 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
APPENDIX B

PLANNING CRITERIA AND 

INTERIM MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 

GENERAL PLANNING CRITERIA 

“Planning area” or use of the “Monument” refers to the original NPS Monument, expanded 

Monument, and Preserve as a whole. The following General Planning Criteria will be considered in 

developing the Management Plan for the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve: 

GENERAL PLANNING CRITERIA 

Presidential Proclamations 1694 and 7373 

Compatibility of proposed uses with the purposes for which the Monument was established 

Existing laws, regulations, and agency policies 

Plans, programs, and policies of North American Indian tribes and other federal, state, and local 

governments 

Public input 

Quantity and quality of non-commodity resource values 

Future needs and demands for existing or potential resource commodities and values 

Past and present use of public and adjacent lands 

Public benefits of providing goods and services relative to costs 

Environmental impacts 

Social and economic values 

Public welfare and safety 

Appropriate scientific findings 

PROGRAM PLANNING CRITERIA 

Section II of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (the Act) directs the NPS 

to inventory and monitor resources to establish baseline conditions and provide information on 

long-term trends in the condition of resources. The Act also provides a clear mandate to encourage 

scientific studies to benefit both park management and broader scientific understanding. The Act 

further directs that the information gained from resource inventories, monitoring, and research be 

disseminated to the public and utilized in management decisions. 

In addition to the General Planning Criteria, the following program-specific criteria will apply to 

individual program decisions. Planning criteria are listed on the left; the laws, regulations, and 

policies that guide or mandate the criteria are referenced on the right. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 347
PROGRAM PLANNING CRITERIA 


Impairment 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Law and NPS management policies require the analysis of NPS Organic Act, Proclamation 7373, NPS 

potential effects to determine whether or not actions would impair and BLM Management Policies 

Monument resources. Managers must always seek ways to avoid, 

or to minimize to the greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts 

on resources and values. Although management discretion may 

allow certain impacts within NPS units, impairment of Monument 

resources and values is not permitted unless specifically authorized 

by federal law. A determination on impairment is made in the 

Environmental Consequences section for each impact topic. 

Archaeological Resources 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Laws and policies, including the National Historic Preservation 

Act, require that both agencies achieve the following desired 

conditions for archaeological resources within the Monument: 

 Archaeological sites are identified and inventoried, and their 

significance is determined and documented. 

 Sites are protected in an undisturbed condition unless it is 

determined through formal processes that disturbance or 

natural deterioration is unavoidable. 

 Where disturbance or deterioration is unavoidable, sites are 

professionally documented and salvaged. 

National Historic Preservation Act; Executive 

Order 11593; Archaeological and Historic 

Preservation Act; Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act; Federal Land Policy 

Management Act; the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation; 

Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement 

among the NPS, Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Council of 

State Historic Preservation Officers (1995); 

BLM and NPS Management Policies; National 

Environmental Policy Act; NPS Organic Act 

Historic Properties 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Under the National Historic Preservation Act and other laws, National Historic Preservation Act; Executive 

historic properties within the Monument will be inventoried and Order 11593; Archaeological and Historic 

evaluated under National Register criteria. The qualities that 

contribute to the eligibility for listing of properties on the Register 

Preservation Act; Federal Land Policy 

Management Act; the Secretary of the 

will be protected in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Standards (unless it is determined through a formal process that 

disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable). 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation; 

Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement 

among the NPS, Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Council of 

State Historic Preservation Officers (1995); 

BLM and NPS Management Policies; National 

Environmental Policy Act; NPS Organic Act 

348 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Native American Trust Resources/Tribal Treaty Rights 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts to 

Indian Trust Resources from a proposed project or action by 

Department of Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in 

environmental documents. The Federal Indian Trust responsibility 

is a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the 

United States to protect tribal lands, assets, resources, and treaty 

rights; and it represents a duty to carry out the mandates of federal 

law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. 

Secretarial Order 3175; Department of Interior 

ECM 95-2, NPS and BLM Management 

Policies 

Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and 

Bannock, 1868, commonly known as the Fort 

Bridger Treaty (15 Stat. 673) 

Ethnographic Resources 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Certain contemporary American Indian and other communities are National Historic Preservation Act; 

permitted by law, regulation, or policy to pursue customary Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement 

religious, subsistence, and other cultural uses of resources with among the NPS, Advisory Council on Historic 

which they have traditionally associated. Both agencies plan and Preservation, and the National Council of 

execute programs in ways that safeguard cultural and natural State Historic Preservation Officers (1995); 

resources, while reflecting informed concern for the contemporary Executive Order 11593; American Indian 

peoples and cultures traditionally associated with those resources. Religious Freedom Act, Native American 

Ethnographic information will be collected through collaborative Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 

research that recognizes the sensitive nature of such information. Executive Order 13007 on American Indian 

Certain research data may be withheld from public disclosure to Sacred Sites; Presidential Memorandum of 

protect sensitive or confidential information about archaeological, April 29, 1994, on Government-tohistoric, or other resources when doing so would be consistent Government Relations with Tribal 

with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In many Governments; BLM and NPS Management 

circumstances, this will allow the agencies to withhold information Policies; NPS Organic Act; National Register 

about ethnographic resources. Bulletin 38 

Collections 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

NPS and BLM policies and other laws require that the qualities National Historic Preservation Act; American 

that contribute to the significance of collections be protected in Indian Religious Freedom Act; Archaeological 

accordance with established standards. All museum objects and and Historic Preservation Act; Archaeological 

manuscripts will be identified and inventoried with their Resources Protection Act; Native American 

significance determined and documented. Federal regulations Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; NPS 

(CFR Title 36, Section 2.5) prohibit collection of animal, plant, and BLM Management Policies; NPS Organic 

and mineral specimens on NPS lands without a permit. Specimen Act 

collection is limited to scientific or educational purposes, and all 

such specimens must be labeled as NPS property and recorded in 

the NPS museum catalog. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 349
Air Quality 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Under the federal Clean Air Act, the Craters of the Moon Clean Air Act; BLM and NPS Management 

Wilderness is designated a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Policies; National Parks Omnibus 

(PSD) Class I area. The goal for Class I areas is to remedy existing Management Act of 1998; NPS Organic Act 

visibility impairment and prevent future visibility impairment. 

Only small increases from new sources of air pollutants above 

established baseline levels of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter 

are permitted. The non-wilderness lands within the Monument are 

classified as Class II. Class II allows larger but still moderate 

increases above baseline levels. All lands within the planning unit 

will be managed in compliance with applicable local, state, tribal, 

and federal air quality laws, regulations, standards and 

implementation plans, including the Idaho DEQ regulations and 

the Montana/Idaho Smoke Management Program. Current laws 

and policies require that air quality in the Monument meets 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for specified 

pollutants and that Monument activities do not contribute to the 

deterioration of air quality. 

Water and Soil Resources 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act obligates federal agencies to Clean Water Act; Executive Order 11514; 

be consistent with state nonpoint source management program Executive Order 12088; Executive Order 

plans. Section 313 requires compliance with the state water quality 11988 (Floodplain Values); Executive Order 

standards. Both agencies will coordinate with the IDEQ regarding 11990 (Wetland Values); Rivers and Harbors 

their total maximum daily load program and other relevant water Act; BLM and NPS Management Policies; 

quality programs. Water quality will be maintained or improved in National Environmental Policy Act; National 

accordance with state and federal standards. Water resources Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998; 

within the Monument are ephemeral and relatively rare, with the NPS Organic Act 

exception of the northernmost end, which contains small springfed streams. The plan will describe the desired future condition of 

those types of water sources that occur within the Monument. 

The plan will also identify any Best Management Practices 

necessary, or desirable, to protect watersheds or to maintain or 

enhance soil conditions in order to maintain long-term productivity 

of soils. 

350 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Vegetation 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Vegetation will be managed to achieve desired plant communities NPS and BLM Management Policies; Idaho 

or desired future condition. Ecological site potential will be Standards for Rangeland Health; National 

considered, providing for biodiversity; protection and restoration Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998; 

of native species; and nonconsumption uses, including plant NPS Organic Act 

protection, visual quality, and watershed protection. The desired 

plant communities will provide both wildlife habitat and forage for 

livestock and native wildlife. Plant maintenance, watershed 

protection and stability, and wildlife habitat needs will be a 

primary goal. The plan will identify and describe desired plant 

communities and those actions necessary to achieve that desired 

future condition. 

Domestic livestock will use forage on BLM rangeland. The BLM 

will manage grazing according to Idaho’s Standards for Rangeland 

Health and ecological site potential. Prescribed fire and other 

treatment methods, consistent with approved fire management 

plans, will be considered as management tools to manipulate and 

restore native vegetation. 

Geologic Resources 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

The natural soil resources and geologic processes in the Monument Monument’s enabling legislation; NPS and 

should function in as natural condition as possible, except where BLM Management Policies; National Parks 

special management considerations are allowable under policy. Omnibus Management Act of 1998; NPS 

These areas of special management considerations will be Organic Act; Proclamation 1694 

determined through the management zoning decisions in the plan. 

Caves and Paleontology 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Significant cave resources in the Monument will be identified and Federal Caves Resources Protection Act of 

protected pursuant to 43 CFR, Part 37. Cultural sites within caves 1988; NPS Organic Act; NPS and BLM 

that meet the National Register criteria will be protected and Management Policies; National Parks 

nominated for inclusion on the register. Both agencies will Omnibus Management Act of 1998; 

coordinate with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer and Proclamation 1694 

Tribal State Historic Preservation Officers on issues dealing with 

historic or cultural resources. BLM will identify significant caves 

on federal lands and regulate, or restrict use of, significant caves 

under the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. The 

policy of the NPS, pursuant to its Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1, 

et seq.) and Management Policies (Chapter 4:20, Dec. 1988), is 

that all caves are afforded protection and will be managed in 

compliance with approved resource management plans. 

Accordingly, all caves on NPS-administered lands are deemed to 

fall within the definition of "significant cave." 

Paleontological resources will be considered and management 

recommendations will be developed, as appropriate. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 351
Special Designations: Wilderness, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Approximately 70 percent of the Monument is either in WSA 

status or designated Wilderness. Proclamation 7373 directs both 

agencies to manage WSAs under Section 603(c) of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 USC 

1701-1782). 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are areas 

within the public lands where special management attention may 

be required to protect important historic, cultural, or scenic values, 

fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, 

or to protect human life and safety from natural hazards. The BLM 

is required to consider designating ACECs as part of the planning 

process. FLPMA provides for ACEC designation and establishes 

national policy for the protection of public land ACECs. Section 

202(c)(3) of FLPMA requires the agency to give priority to the 

designation and protection of ACECs in the development and 

revision of land use plans. One ACEC is proposed in north 

Laidlaw Park for its undisturbed native plant communities. A 

planning decision will be made as to whether or not new ACEC 

designations are necessary or desirable. 

Four Research Natural Areas (RNAs) have been designated within 

the Monument: Carey Kipuka, Sand Kipuka, Big Juniper Kipuka, 

and Brass Cap Kipuka. The Great Rift System Natural Landmark 

was designated by the Secretary of the Interior in 1968 for its 

geological significance and enlarged in 1980 in recognition of its 

biological significance. The Idaho Conservation Data Center has 

nominated two areas in the northern portion of the Monument, 

representing nationally significant vegetation communities, for 

National Natural Landmark status. There are no Wild and Scenic 

Rivers within the Monument. 

Proclamation 7373; Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976; BLM 

and NPS Management Policies; BLM “Interim 

Management Policy for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review”; Wilderness Act of 1964 

352 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Species of Special Concern 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Management actions authorized, funded, or implemented by BLM Endangered Species Act; Executive Order 

or NPS will be conducted in a manner that will not jeopardize the 13112, Invasive Species; BLM and NPS 

continued existence of federally listed, threatened, or endangered Management Policies; National Environmental 

plant or animal species. The agencies will consult with the U.S. Policy Act; Monument’s enabling legislation; 

Fish and Wildlife Service in preparing the plan. Management National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 

actions should not result in the destruction or modification of 1998; NPS Organic Act 

habitat for state-, BLM- and NPS-designated sensitive species. 

Species proposed, or candidates for, federal listing will be given 

the same consideration as listed species. 

Planning criteria will protect and maintain the intrinsic and 

recreational values associated with native and appropriate nonnative species; identify habitat needs in consultation with the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game; integrate Biological Opinions, 

Conservation Agreements, and Strategy Plans; protect federally 

listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species, including 

protection of critical habitat; and protect BLM sensitive species. 

For example, for a sensitive species, the following guidance would 

be considered: BLM 1640 Manual, 684 Manual on Special Status, 

Idaho BLM Sensitive Species List, Idaho BLM Standards and 

Guidelines for Rangeland Health, and 50 CFR Chapter IV (Fish 

and Wildlife Service Draft Policy for Evaluation of Conservation 

Efforts When Making Listing Decisions). 

Fish and Wildlife 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

There are no fisheries within the Monument, although some vernal NPS and BLM Management Policies; National 

ponds support fairy shrimp. Terrestrial wildlife species are a Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998; 

diverse and important part of the ecosystem. The plan will NPS Organic Act 

acknowledge the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s role in 

managing fish and wildlife populations. The plan will closely 

coordinate goals and objectives for wildlife management with 

those developed for vegetation management, livestock 

management, fire management, wetlands, and recreation 

(including guides and outfitters). 

Fire Management 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Fire management on the Monument will be in accordance with the BLM and NPS Management Policies; National 

BLM Upper Snake River District Fire, Fuels and Related Fire Plan; BLM/NPS Fire Management Plans; 

Vegetation Management Direction Plan Amendment, the new National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 

Monument Management Plan, and the agencies’ Fire Management 1998 

Plans. The planning criteria will include enforcing standards for 

the public and firefighters while protecting natural resources, 

historic properties, and private property; implementing current and 

future fire management activity plans; coordinating with other 

local cooperators in developing plans; and implementing the 

National Fire Plan DOI/USDA Cohesive Strategy. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 353
Viewscape/Night Sky Management 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Large expanses of lands with little human intrusion and night skies Proclamation 7373; Proclamation 1694; NPS 

where human caused light remains at minimum levels are and BLM Management Policies; National 

considered important natural resources and have a high value Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998; 

because of their increasing rarity. The agencies will protect NPS Organic Act 

expansive, panoramic viewscapes that provide unobstructed views 

for up to 100 miles as an integral resource within the Monument. 

They will also recognize the importance that a light/dark cycle 

plays in the natural environment as well as the value of the 

opportunity to view a night sky without the interference of 

artificial light sources. To prevent the loss of western landscape 

vistas and natural dark conditions, the agencies will seek the 

cooperation of visitors, neighbors, and local government agencies 

to prevent or minimize the intrusion of human intrusion on the 

ecosystems of the Monument. 

Natural Soundscape/Natural Quiet 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Both BLM and NPS will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, Proclamation 7373; Proclamation 1694; NPS 

the natural soundscapes of the Monument. The agencies will Management Policies; National Parks 

restore degraded soundscapes to the natural condition wherever Omnibus Management Act of 1998; NPS 

possible, and will protect natural soundscapes from degradation Organic Act 

due to noise (undesirable human-caused sound). Using appropriate 

management planning, managers will identify what levels of 

human-caused sound can be accepted. The frequencies, 

magnitudes, and durations of human-caused sound considered 

acceptable will vary throughout the Monument, being generally 

greater in developed areas and generally lesser in undeveloped 

areas. In and adjacent to the Monument, the agencies will monitor 

human activities that generate noise that adversely affects 

Monument soundscapes, including noise caused by mechanical or 

electronic devices. The agencies will take action to prevent, or 

minimize, all noise that, through frequency, magnitude or duration, 

adversely affects the natural soundscape or other Monument 

resources or values, or that exceeds levels that have been identified 

as being acceptable to or appropriate for visitor uses at the sites 

being monitored. 

354 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Visitor Experience, Visual Resources, and Monument Use Requirements 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Public lands will be managed to enhance appropriate recreation 

opportunities and visual resources. Either agency may identify 

special recreation management areas within a Development or 

Special Use Planning Zone as part of the planning process. Some 

areas may be subject to special measures to protect resources or 

reduce conflicts among uses. Recreation planning will follow the 

principles and guidance in NPS Management Policies (2000), the 

BLM National OHV Strategic Action Plan, and the draft National 

Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan. 

According to BLM policy, all Wilderness Study Areas are 

designated as Visual Resources Management Class I. The plan will 

contain Visual Resource Management designations for the 

remainder of the Monument. All reasonable effort will be made to 

make NPS and BLM facilities, programs, and services accessible 

to and usable by all people, including those with disabilities. 

The NPS-administered portion of the Monument was a pilot site 

for the National Fee Demonstration Program. Entry fees will 

continue to be charged for entry into the north end of the 

Monument via the “Monument Loop Drive.” 

Under the 1978 National Parks and Recreation Act (PL 95-625), 

NPS is required to address the issue of carrying capacity in its 

general management plans. The concept of carrying capacity is 

intended to safeguard the quality of park resources and visitor 

experiences. Identifying desired resource conditions and visitor 

experience by zone is part of general management planning. At 

this level of decision-making, the desired resource conditions and 

experiences describe carrying capacity in qualitative terms. These 

qualitative terms are then translated into quantitative standards 

over time during implementation planning. 

BLM OHV Strategic Action Plan; National 

Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan 

(Draft); National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978; NPS Organic Act; Monument’s 

enabling legislation; BLM Manual Section 

8400, Visual Resource Management; 

Americans with Disabilities Act; Architectural 

Barriers Act; Rehabilitation Act; 1998 

Executive Summary to Congress, Recreational 

Fee Demonstration Program, Progress Report 

to Congress, Volume I – Overview and 

Summary (U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Bureau of Land Management; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service); 

NPS and BLM Management Policies; National 

Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 

Relations with Monument Neighbors and Other Agencies 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Public participation in planning and decision-making will ensure 

that both agencies fully understand and consider the public’s 

interests in the Monument, which is part of their national heritage, 

cultural traditions, and community surroundings. The agencies will 

actively seek out, and consult with, existing and potential visitors, 

neighbors, people with traditional cultural ties to Monument lands, 

scientists and scholars, concessionaires, cooperating associations, 

gateway communities, other partners, and government agencies. 

The agencies will work cooperatively with others to improve the 

condition of the Monument, to enhance public service, and to 

integrate the Monument into sustainable ecological, cultural, and 

socioeconomic systems. 

BLM and NPS Management Policies; National 

Environmental Policy Act 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 355
Sustainable Design/Development 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Sustainability can be described as the result achieved by doing BLM and NPS Management Policies 

things in ways that do not compromise the environment or its 

capacity to provide for present and future generations. Sustainable 

practices minimize the short- and long-term environmental impacts 

of development and other activities through resource conservation, 

recycling, waste minimization, and the use of energy efficient and 

ecologically responsible materials and techniques. Facilities will 

be integrated into the Monument landscape and environs with 

sustainable designs and systems to minimize environmental 

impact. Development will not compete with, or dominate, 

Monument features, or interfere with natural processes, such as the 

seasonal migration of wildlife or hydrologic activity associated 

with wetlands. 

Environmental Justice 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

NPS and BLM will incorporate environmental justice into the Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to 

plan. Identifying and addressing any disproportionately high or Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs Populations and Low-Income Populations” 

and policies on minorities and low-income populations and 

communities will accomplish this. 

Socioeconomics 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Both agencies understand the need to promote social and economic NPS and BLM Management Policies 

diversification and resiliency in southeastern Idaho and recognize 

the increasing demand for outdoor recreational opportunities and 

the dependency of local community economies on goods and 

services from public lands. Livestock production on public lands 

also makes a contribution to the health of local and rural 

economies. Population growth continues to increase and shift the 

demand on public lands for many uses including recreation 

opportunities. This demand and shift in the kinds and uses of 

public lands may contribute to changes in the economies of the 

counties and communities within the Monument area. 

356 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Land Protection/Land Tenure Adjustments 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Proclamation 7373 prohibits all forms of land disposal except 

exchanges that further the purposes of the Monument. The 

Proclamation also acknowledges that state or private lands may be 

acquired. Plans will be developed and periodically reviewed and 

updated, for the Monument containing lands that may be subject to 

acquisition. The plans will identify the alternative methods that 

will provide for the protection of resources, for visitor use, and for 

development; identify the minimum interests necessary for those 

purposes; and establish priorities for acquisition of land or 

interests in land. 

NPS Management Policies; NPS Land 

Acquisition Policy Implementation Guideline 

(NPS-25); the Department of the Interior’s 

“Policy for the Federal Portion of the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund” (FR 

47:19784); the NPS “Land Protection Plan 

Instructions” (FR 48:21121); the Uniform 

Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act (42 USC 4601 et 

seq.); Executive Order 12630, “Governmental 

Actions and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights”; Proclamation 

7373, FLPMA Sec. 205 and 206, 43 CFR 

2100 and 2200 and FLTFA 

Rights-of-Way and Telecommunication Infrastructure 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

BLM-administered lands are generally available for transportation 16 USC 5; 16 USC 79; 23 USC 317; 36 CFR 

and utility rights-of-way (ROWs) subject to Monument 14; BLM and NPS Management Policies; 

compatibility determinations and NEPA evaluation, except where Director’s Order 53A, Wireless 

specifically prohibited by law or regulation or in areas specifically Telecommunications 

identified for avoidance and exclusion to protect significant 

resource values. Other types of ROW may be restricted. Major 

differences in ROW authority exist between BLM and NPS and 

the Plan will establish how potential conflicts might be resolved. 

Telecommunication structures are permitted in the Monument 

(outside of wilderness and wilderness study areas) to the extent 

that they do not jeopardize the Monument’s mission and resources. 

Minerals and Energy 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Presidential Proclamation 7373 withdrew lands within the Proclamation 7373 

Monument from location under the general mining laws, and the 

operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, and from the 

mineral material disposal law, other than by exchange that furthers 

the protective purposes of the Monument. 

Noxious Weed Control 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Both agencies will work with state and county governments and Executive Order 11312, Invasive Species 

Cooperative Weed Management Areas to monitor the location and (February 1999); NPS Management Policies; 

spread of noxious weeds. The agencies will control the occurrence the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control 

and spread of noxious weeds on public lands where economically Program EIS of 1985 and the USDI-BLM 

feasible, and to the extent funds are available, to comply with Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Executive Order 11312. Noxious weed control is conducted in Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 13 

accordance with the integrated weed management guidelines and Western States (May 1999); National Parks 

design features identified in current policies and programs. Omnibus Management Act of 1998 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 357
Livestock Management 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Proclamation 7373 provides for continued livestock use on that Proclamation 7373; Idaho Standards for 

portion of the Monument administered by the BLM under 43 CFR Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

4100, which addresses rangeland health and grazing Livestock Grazing Management; Federal Land 

administration. The Idaho State Director of the BLM, in Policy Management Act; Public Range 

consultation with the Resource Advisory Council, established Improvement Act; BLM Planning Regulations 

under 43 CFR Part 1780, Subpart 1784, developed standards and 

guidelines to be applied to livestock use. On Monument lands 

administered by the BLM, livestock will be managed in 

accordance with Idaho’s Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management in reference to 

ecological site potentials. Rangeland health assessments presented 

in the plan will guide issuance of grazing decisions in accordance 

with applicable BLM regulations and policy. 

Transportation 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Proclamation 7373 specifically directs the agencies to prepare a Proclamation 7373; Proclamation 1694; BLM 

transportation plan that addresses any actions, including road and NPS Management Policies 

closures or travel restrictions, necessary to protect monument 

resources. Except for emergency or authorized administrative 

purposes, the Proclamation prohibits all motorized and 

mechanized vehicle use off road. In consultation with the 

respective county and transportation districts, the planning team 

will incorporate transportation planning in the Monument 

management plan by providing broad guidance on travel within the 

Monument. Any specific long-term road closures or travel 

restrictions will be carried out after completion of the management 

plan. The agencies will inform the public of travel opportunities 

and restrictions within the Monument by providing a Monument 

travel map, road signing as appropriate, and by other means. The 

BLM and NPS will follow existing agency policies in determining 

and describing road and trail definitions and standards. The 

planning team will develop the criteria for use in determining how 

roads and trails of different standards will fit into a comprehensive 

transportation system. 

358 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Water Rights 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

Proclamation 7373 does not reserve water as a matter of Federal Idaho Code 42-202; Fish & Wildlife 

law. Nothing in this reservation shall be construed as a Coordination Act of March 10, 1934 (16 USC 

relinquishment or reduction of any water use or rights reserved or 661); Federal Land Management Policy Act 

appropriated by the United States on or before the date of this (43 USC 666); 43 CFR 4120.3-9; Idaho Code 

proclamation. The Secretary shall work with appropriate State 42-1503 

authorities to ensure that water resources needed for monument 

purposes are available. The agencies will continue to participate in 

the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) pursuant to the 

McCarran Amendment (43 U.S.C. 666) and the Commencement 

Order for the SRBA (Case No. 39576, 5th District Court of Idaho), 

to secure historical priority to stock water under state and /or 

federal law. 

Forestry 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

There are no commercial forest resources within the Monument. N/A 

Wild Horses and Burros 

Planning Criteria Laws, Regulations, Policies 

There are no wild horses or burros or herd management plans N/A 

within or near the Monument. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 359
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE # GA9280001002 

BLM MOU ID # 399 

GENERAL AGREEMENT AND 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT

 between the 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Craters of the Moon National Monument

 and the 

United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management

 Upper Snake River District 

This General Agreement (NPS) and Memorandum of Understanding (BLM), hereinafter called 

Agreement, is between two field units of two agencies within the Department of Interior. The National 

Park Service’s Craters of the Moon National Monument (NPS) and Bureau of Land Management’s 

Upper Snake River District (BLM) jointly manage the recently expanded Craters of the Moon National 

Monument. 

I. Purpose: 

Presidential Proclamation 7373 of November 9, 2000 - Boundary Enlargement of the Craters of the 

Moon National Monument (attached), gave the following direction to the National Park Service and 

Bureau of Land Management: 

“The National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management shall manage the monument 

cooperatively and shall prepare an agreement to share, consistent with applicable laws, 

whatever resources are necessary to manage properly the monument . . . ”. 

In addition, the Secretary of Interior instructed the Director, Bureau of Land Management and 

the Director, National Park Service, in a Memorandum dated November 24, 2000 to prepare a 

360 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
shared resources agreement to, “ . . . provide seamless service to the public and use their resources 

accordingly.” The Directors of the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service further 

refined these instructions in a Memorandum to the District Manager, BLM Upper Snake River District 

and the Park Superintendent, Craters of the Moon National Monument, dated February 15, 2001 stating 

in part, “The joint management of the Craters of the Moon National Monument represents a new chapter 

in a continuing partnership between BLM and NPS.” 

The purpose of this Agreement is to implement the direction contained in the Proclamation by describing 

the cooperative working relationship between NPS and BLM. This Agreement is intended to form a 

framework for joint agency management of a single National Monument. Such interagency cooperation 

is in the interest of the American public. Both the NPS and BLM have unique abilities and strengths 

which can be jointly applied for efficient management of the Monument. While both agencies are 

part of the Department of Interior, cooperative management as described by this Agreement provides 

the agencies with a high visibility opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities in natural resource 

stewardship and management effectiveness. 

II. Background: 

Since the 1924 Presidential Proclamation that created the original National Monument, several 

expansion proposals, National Park designations, National Conservation Area designations, and other 

proposals have been made. The Monument has now been expanded through five separate Presidential 

Proclamations and one legislative initiative. Over the past few years, both BLM and NPS staff have 

developed a close working relationship, partially in response to these many initiatives for Monument 

expansion. 

The BLM and NPS have formally cooperated for many years in managing the Great Rift - Craters of 

the Moon area. The agencies have signed several agreement instruments, including a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MU928095001) in 1999 that also included the U.S. Geological Survey. 

At a January 2001 Workshop, staff and managers from both agencies wrote the following vision 

statement to help guide the development of this Agreement: 

The NPS and BLM will cooperatively manage Craters of the Moon National Monument. 

Cooperative management means providing seamless public service and extensive public 

participation opportunities. Working together, both agencies will manage a wide variety of 

uses, promote education and enjoyment of the Monument’s significant natural resources, 

while retaining appropriate traditional human uses and practices associated with the land. 

Cooperative management will follow the Proclamations that created the Monument. Cooperative 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 361
management will recognize the diverse assemblage of geologic features, high desert plant and 

animal communities, and the rich traditions of human use and interaction within this uniquely 

Western landscape. 

III. Authority: 

The BLM is delegated authority of the Secretary of the Interior which is contained in the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., as amended). The 

NPS is delegated authority of the Secretary of the Interior which is contained in the National Park 

Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 g, as amended) and Presidential Proclamation 1694 which originally 

established the Monument as a unit of the National Park System. 

President Clinton enlarged the Craters of the Moon National Monument, through Proclamation, by 

the authority vested in him by Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. 431). 

Proclamation 7373 instructed both agencies to follow their respective legal authorities on the land each 

agency administers within the Monument, subject to the overriding purpose of protecting the scientifi c 

and historic objects described in the Proclamation. 

IV. Commitments: 

The NPS and BLM will: 

* Support one another in activities within the Monument irrespective of the interior boundaries 

between the agency administered lands. 

* Share the expertise each agency possesses to the maximum extent feasible. 

* Acknowledge and incorporate the particular strengths and abilities of each agency. 

* Strive to develop an integrated budget that outlines all the needs for the Monument. 

* Promote the Monument as a model of effective interagency coordination and cooperation. 

* Make decisions on discretionary uses and authorizations only after consultation with each other. 

* Coordinate public information releases that pertain to matters involving both agencies in the 

management of the Monument. 

* Provide a diversity of opportunities for high quality, safe, educational and enjoyable visitor 

362 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
experiences. 

* Insure full public understanding of agency actions and seamless service to the public in a way 

that is both clear and easily understandable. 

* Actively seek the involvement of all stakeholders and a range of views on all Monument 

management issues, particularly during the planning process. 

* Work in close cooperation with local governments including five Boards of County 

Commissioners, Sheriffs, search and rescue organizations, and community development 

associations. 

* Complete a single, combined Resource Management Plan - General Management Plan 

- Environmental Impact Statement that meets both agency’s legal, regulatory, and policy 

requirements. 

* Work in close cooperation with the Craters of the Moon Natural History Association to support 

interpretive and research programs at the Monument. 

* Partner with the U. S. Geological Survey to foster the scientific understanding of the Monument 

which serves as a natural laboratory for the study and interpretation of the processes and 

products of basaltic volcanism and of volcanic rift zones. 

Interim Management Guidelines are attached to this Agreement as an addendum. Both parties expect 

to develop several additional addendums following the execution of this instrument, including a Project 

Agreement/Preparation Plan to guide the Monument’s planning effort. 

V. Duration and Limitations: 

A. This Agreement becomes effective on the date of its signature by both parties. 

B. The need for this Agreement is perpetual because a Presidential Proclamation ordered the 

preparation of an agreement. Both parties expect to propose modifications to the Agreement. 

Generally, either party will propose modifications in writing at least sixty days prior to the 

proposed date of the modification. Both parties will update and review the contents of this 

Agreement, including modifications and subservient instruments, at least annually. 

C. Nothing in this Agreement may be construed to obligate the Department of the Interior or the 

United States to any current or future expenditures of resources in advance of the availability of 

appropriations from Congress. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 363
D. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed as affecting the authorities of the participants or 

as binding beyond their respective authorities. 

E. Specific work projects or activities that involve the transfer of funds, services, or property 

between the parties to this Agreement will require the execution of a separate Intra-Agency 

Agreement(s). Each subsequent agreement or arrangement involving the transfer of funds, 

services, or property must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations. 

F. No member of, or delegate to Congress, or resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any 

share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise there from, but these provisions 

shall not be construed to extend to this Agreement if made with a corporation for its general 

benefi ts. 

G. During the performance of this Agreement, the participants agree to abide by the terms of 

USDI-Civil Rights Assurance Certification, non-discrimination, and will not discriminate against 

any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The participants will take 

affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, color, 

sexual orientation, national origin, disabilities, religion, age, or sex. 

H. The existing MOU (MU928095001) with the U.S. Geological Survey remains in effect. 

I. This Agreement is coordinated with other existing agreements related to fire and emergency 

services. 

VI. Authorizing Signatures:

 /s/ 9/06/01 /s/ 8/24/01 

John Reynolds, date Martha Hahn, date 

Regional Director State Director 

Pacific West Region Idaho 

National Park Service Bureau of Land Management 

364 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Upper Snake River District 

1405 Hollipark Drive 

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401-2100 

In Reply Refer To: 

1511 (ID-070) P 

November 29, 2001 

Memorandum 

To: Acting Director, Bureau of Land Management 

Director, National Park Service 

Through: State Director, Idaho, BLM 

Regional Director, Pacifi c West Region, NPS 

From: District Manager, Upper Snake River District, BLM 

Park Superintendent, Craters of the Moon National Monument, NPS 

Subject: Joint Agency Recommendations for Craters of the Moon National Monument 

Attached is our proposed agreement for the sharing of resources and joint management of Craters of the 

Moon National Monument that you requested. The agreement has two components: 

An umbrella General Agreement (NPS) and Memorandum of Understanding (BLM) which broadly 

frames the cooperative relationship between the National Park Service and Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Interim Management Guidelines which are an Addendum to the Agreement. These Guidelines describe 

how the two agencies intend to manage the Monument during a three year planning process. 

We are working on a Project Agreement (NPS) and Preparation Plan (BLM) to provide structure and 

focus for our interagency planning process. We anticipate submitting this product for your review by 

August 31. BLM will complete a metes and bounds description of the Monument this Fall and will 

publish the description as soon as possible. 

We appreciate your interest in our unique interagency partnership. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 365 
ADDENDUM # 1 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT 

INTERIM MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 

Introduction: Presidential Proclamation 7373 expanded Craters of the Moon National Monument and 

instructed the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service to prepare a joint management 

plan for the Monument. The agencies anticipate completing this plan by January 2004. In a Memorandum 

dated November 24, 2000 the Secretary of Interior instructed the Bureau of Land Management and the 

National Park Service to, “. . . issue interim management guidance for managing the Craters of the Moon 

National Monument”. Furthermore, in a Memorandum dated February 15, 2001 the Acting Directors of 

the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management instructed the Park Superintendent, Craters of 

the Moon National Monument and District Manager, Upper Snake River District to, “. . . provide us with 

a proposal as to how the agencies can best coordinate management of the Monument”. Until the agencies 

complete the Monument Plan, these Interim Management Guidelines will provide direction specifi c to 

Craters of the Moon National Monument. 

These Guidelines are an Addendum to the Agreement between the NPS and BLM for cooperative 

management of Craters of the Moon National Monument. These Guidelines constitute a more specifi c level 

of direction than the commitments outlined in the umbrella Agreement. For BLM, these Guidelines are 

tiered to the National Interim Management Policy for Newly Created National Monuments. NPS will follow 

the National Park Service Management Policies. 

These Guidelines only apply to the expanded portion of the Monument created by Presidential Proclamation 

7373. A 1992 General Management Plan is currently in place for lands administered by the NPS prior to 

Proclamation 7373. 

General Guidelines: The overall theme of this interim management strategy is to maintain existing 

management policies, designations, and allocations except where changes are necessary to comply with the 

Proclamation and protect the objects of scientific and historic interest within the Monument. 

Proclamation 7373 did not change much of the agencies’ regular and routine work within the Monument. 

Over the next three years, regular, on-going, base work will continue, albeit with a higher agency priority and 

a higher level of public interest. 

366 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
However, all project level work within the expanded portion of the Monument, whether approved prior to 

the Proclamation or a new proposal, will be “screened” to insure no conflicts exist with the Proclamation. 

In most cases this will involve a quick, simple review and documentation in the appropriate project file. If 

conflicts or concerns with the project surface during the Proclamation screening, then the project should 

either undergo additional analysis using National Environmental Policy Act procedures, or be put on hold 

until completion of the Monument plan. 

All BLM designations, restrictions, authorizations, and use limitations in effect on November 9, 2000, on 

lands now under NPS administration, remain in effect unless specifically addressed in the Proclamation, or in 

Park Service legal authorities. All NPS designations, restrictions, authorizations, and use limitations in effect 

on the portion of the Monument established prior to 2000 also remain in effect. 

Both agencies expect to discover minor conflicts between NPS and BLM legal authorities, regulations, 

and policies during the interim management period. These conflicts should be interpreted based on the 

Monument Proclamation(s) and resolved to the benefit of the Monument’s resources at the lowest possible 

level within the agencies. 

Public outreach and the involvement of local communities, users, and the Tribes are perhaps the most 

critical tasks facing the agencies. The agencies will communicate the contents of the Agreement and Interim 

Guidelines as widely as possible. It is important that staff from both agencies communicate the same 

message to the public. 

Discussion of Specifi c Activities 

Planning and NEPA: Both agencies have their own planning guidance. Development of the Craters of the 

Moon General Management Plan - Resource Management Plan - Environmental Impact Statement will 

require a unique mixing of both agencies procedures and guidance. A forthcoming Project Agreement (NPS) 

and Preparation Plan will outline the proposed Craters of the Moon planning process. 

Evaluation of the five current BLM land use plans and NPS General Management Plan in effect at the 

Monument will be an interdisciplinary as well as interagency effort. The agencies view evaluation of these 

current plans as an excellent opportunity for staff from both agencies to become familiar with each other’s 

planning systems. 

With limited exceptions, most “mid-level” planning for the expanded area will be placed on hold until 

completion of the Monument plan. BLM’s mid-level plans are generally referred to as Activity Plans. NPS 

mid-level plans are part of Implementation Planning. Individual project level planning and NEPA analysis 

will continue. Environmental Assessments are an important tool for involving the public in Monument 

management during this interim period. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 367
Budget and Staffing: The agencies intend to function under a completely coordinated budget by Fiscal 

Year 2004. For Fiscal Year 2001, spending will be coordinated as closely as possible. Staff have already 

submitted Fiscal Year 2002 budget requests. Fiscal Year 2003 requests will provide the first opportunity for 

development of a consolidated budget. 

The agencies will need to complete an Intra-Agency Agreement(s), Economy Act Determination(s), task 

orders, administrative and overhead fee waivers to share funding beginning in Fiscal Year 2002. The 

capability of the agencies to provide financial assistance to each other will be determined on a year-byyear, project-by-project basis, subject to the availability of funds. Intra-Agency Agreements also require a 

financial plan and reports documenting the completion of projects and funds expended. 

The agencies will prepare an integrated Operations Plan for the Monument by Fiscal Year. The Operations 

Plan will facilitate interagency coordination at the project and specific task level. The Operations Plan will 

assign staff responsibility for specific work items, display the multi-fiscal year nature of some work, and 

provide documentation of accomplishments. 

NPS line authority will continue through the Monument Superintendent. The BLM Interim Monument 

Manager will have authority as a point of contact, for day to day decisions, and to coordinate activities 

between the three affected BLM Field Office Managers in Shoshone, Burley, and Idaho Falls. Because the 

Monument includes three BLM Field Offices, authority for decisions that affect the entire Monument resides 

with the Upper Snake River District Manager. 

The agencies will discuss opportunities to combine staff under the authority of a single line manager during 

the planning process. The agencies anticipate Monument plan decisions regarding facility and offi ce 

locations. The staff and table of organization required to implement the Monument plan will likely differ 

from the staff and tables of organization in place during the interim planning period. 

The agencies will encourage opportunities for details and informal cross assignments between staffs. 

Employees of both agencies will have access to training opportunities under the same terms as employees of 

the agency offering the training. 

Travel and Transportation System Management: Within the expanded Monument, all of the existing 

transportation network is on BLM administered land. A few primitive routes (ways) are located within 

Wilderness Study Areas on NPS administered land. All existing roads and trails within the Monument that 

were open to vehicle travel prior to the Proclamation will remain open during the interim planning period. 

The agencies may close individual roads and trails to protect resources on a case by case basis. An example 

of such a closure would be roads within a fire rehabilitation project. 

368 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
The Proclamation closed the Monument to cross-country travel by motorized or mechanical vehicles. 

Mechanical vehicles include mountain bikes. On-the-ground, this closure only affects land outside of 

Wilderness Study Areas because cross-country vehicle travel was already prohibited in Wilderness Study 

Areas. BLM administers most of the land affected by this Proclamation restriction. BLM will coordinate 

with livestock permittees, USDA Wildlife Services, Idaho Department of Fish of Game and others who may 

require authorizations for cross-country vehicle use. Due to the rugged, roadless nature of NPS administered 

lava flows, authorizations for cross-country vehicle travel are neither desired nor necessary. 

BLM will continue to maintain, inventory, and coordinate with County Governments in managing the roads 

historically and regularly used by motorized and mechanical vehicles. Existing County Road rights-of-way 

are considered a Valid Existing Right and are not affected by the Proclamation. 

The Proclamation mandated preparation of a transportation system plan. The agencies will include a 

transportation plan as an important component of the Monument plan. 

Recreation: The Proclamation did not affect most recreation uses such as camping and hiking. Historically, 

the recent addition to the Monument received very small amounts of recreation use. BLM estimates from 

the Recreation Management Information System indicate less than 10,000 visits per year. The vast majority 

of this use was hunting for sage grouse and mule deer. BLM estimates that the NPS portion of the expanded 

Monument received less than 300 visits a year, most of which were hunters and hikers along the edge of lava 

fl ows. 

The area has attracted increasing numbers of mountain bikers, hikers, cavers and other adventure oriented 

recreationists in recent years. The agencies anticipate additional increases in non-hunting recreation use. 

The agencies will improve the quantity and quality of visitor use measurements as well as the monitoring of 

biophysical and social impacts of recreation use. 

The proclamation did not affect hunting on BLM administered portions of the Monument, other than the 

prohibition on cross-country vehicle use. Hunting or the use of firearms on the NPS administered portion of 

the Monument is prohibited. 

Outfitter and Guide Operations: BLM and NPS will coordinate all outfitter and guide authorizations with 

the Idaho State Outfitter and Guide Licensing Board. The NPS will explore the possibility of signing onto 

the statewide agreement between all of the Federal land management agencies and the Board. Both agencies 

will work with the Board to develop additional, temporary guidelines for outfitter activities in the Monument 

during the interim planning period. The agencies anticipate that decisions in the Monument Plan will address 

outfitter activities and perhaps use allocation. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 369
All existing outfitter activities within the Monument will be “screened” to insure compliance with the 

Proclamation. The agencies will perform a NEPA analysis of all proposed changes to existing Outfi tter 

Plans of Operation. Any approved changes will be temporary authorizations pending completion of the 

Monument plan. Temporary authorizations will not grant an outfitter any preference in future authorizations 

or allocations which may be made in the Monument plan. 

Both agencies believe that new outfitter services may be appropriate in the expanded portion of the 

Monument. Desired activities in portions of the Monument might include: guided hiking, geologic 

interpretation, jeep tours, backpacking, wildlife viewing, and mountain biking. Until the agencies complete 

the Monument plan, BLM will accept Special Recreation Permit Applications for outfitted services. BLM 

will prepare an environmental assessment for each application. The applicant must pursue the concurrent 

authorization process with the State Board. If the application is approved, the Special Recreation Permit 

will be issued for a term of one year. An acceptable annual performance evaluation will be required prior 

to renewal of the permit for another year. Annual authorizations will be required until completion of 

the Monument plan. These temporary authorizations will not grant an outfitter any preference in future 

authorizations or allocations which may be made in the Monument plan. 

The agencies will work closely with all authorized hunting outfitters to insure they are aware of NPS 

restrictions regarding firearms and hunting on NPS administered portions of the Monument. The 

Proclamation did not change hunting and firearm use on BLM administered portions of the Monument. 

Information, Education and Interpretation: NPS will have the lead in these program areas. All products and 

materials should include both agencies’ logos. All products will comply with the intent of BLM’s Interim 

Printing and Signing Guidelines for National Landscape Conservation System Units (IM-2001-083) and 

NPS Sign Standards (draft Director’s Order # 52 C). During the interim planning period, most products 

will be temporary. Both agencies will monitor public demand for different types of products and evaluate 

the effectiveness of the available temporary products. The first initial priority is to provide visitor safety 

information related to the expanded portion of the Monument. The second initial priority is to reach out to 

local communities, schools, and historic users of the Monument. 

It is critical that visitors seeking a developed recreation setting and experience receive information directing 

them to existing NPS facilities. This theme will be emphasized in all information materials including web 

sites, informational signs, kiosks, responses to inquiries, press releases, and hard copy handouts and sale 

items. 

Visitors intentionally seeking a remote, primitive, dispersed experience will be provided with information 

containing a strong “Leave-No-Trace” message. Information on current conditions, hazards, and 

recommended equipment for backcountry travel will also be provided. 

370 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Publication and distribution of maps, educational materials, interpretive brochures and guides, will normally 

involve the Craters of the Moon Natural History Association. The three BLM Field Offices and Interagency 

Visitor Center in Idaho Falls will explore opportunities for working with the Natural History Association. 

Wilderness Study Areas: Approximately 90 percent of the land transferred from BLM to NPS by the 

Proclamation is in Wilderness Study Area status. In many areas, BLM administered land lies between the 

WSA boundary and the NPS administered lava flows within the WSA. The Proclamation instructed NPS 

to manage WSA’s according to Section 603 of FLPMA. NPS has national policy guidance for management 

of areas recommended suitable for wilderness designation. However, at Craters of the Moon, NPS will 

generally use BLM’s handbook, “Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness 

Review” (IMP, Handbook 8550-1). BLM’s IMP is directly tiered to Section 603 of FLPMA. This will also 

facilitate seamless service and avoid contrasts between the two agencies’ management of the same WSA 

within the same Monument. 

Every effort will be made to coordinate WSA IMP work with ongoing transportation network inventory, 

visitor use measurement, and cadastral survey. For example, the transportation system inventory will involve 

looking for any new ways established in WSA’s since 1980 as well as documenting the condition of all 

existing ways. 

The Proclamation had no effect on the existing, designated, NPS Craters of the Moon Wilderness. 

Water Rights: The Proclamation does not reserve water as a matter of Federal law. However, the agencies 

will file for water rights under Idaho State Statute and within the procedures of the Snake River Basin 

General Water Adjudication. BLM has submitted several filings within the Monument, primarily for 

purposes of livestock and wildlife water. 

Mineral Materials: The Proclamation prohibits casual rock collection on all land within the Monument. The 

agencies will provide information on BLM areas outside the Monument where casual collection of materials 

similar to those found in the Monument is appropriate and permitted. 

No mining claims or mineral leases exist within the boundaries of the Monument. Existing authorizations 

for material sites within the Monument will continue during the interim planning period. Applications for 

new free use sites, community pits, common variety mineral material sales, or other discretionary mineral 

material disposals will not be accepted until completion of the Monument plan. 

Lands and Realty: The Monument’s external boundary is over 260 miles long. Within the boundary are 

approximately 8,000 acres of State land and 7,000 acres of private land. The Monument does not contain 

any Recreation and Public Purpose Act leases; active land exchanges, land sales or other land disposal 

actions. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 371
BLM will perform an inventory of all rights-of-way, easements, land use permits, and other authorizations in 

effect as of the date of the proclamation. The agencies will make determinations on Valid Existing Rights as 

part of the planning process. At this time, the agencies are not aware of any conflicts between existing lands 

and realty program actions and the Proclamation. Action on applications for new, discretionary land use 

authorizations will be guided by existing NPS and BLM policies until completion of the Monument plan. 

The agencies will accept proposals for the acquisition of the private and state land within the Monument 

boundary during the interim planning period. The agencies will emphasize that all acquisition proposals, 

whether through easement, fee title, or exchange involve a willing seller who initiates the proposal. The 

agencies will identify acquisition priorities as part of the Monument plan. 

BLM will prepare a written description of the Monument boundary and perform a meets and bounds survey 

of the external Monument boundary. Both agencies will approve the final boundary description. Minor 

boundary corrections based on the survey require the approval of both agencies. The agencies will consider 

maps showing the Monument boundary as preliminary and draft, until the description and survey are 

complete, approved, and filed with the Secretary of Interior. 

In many places, the boundary between NPS and BLM administered land is extremely difficult to describe and 

locate. In most cases, distinguishing the boundary between BLM and NPS administered land, on the ground, 

is not a matter of concern to the agencies or the public. Surveying the boundary between the agencies is not 

a high priority. If a specific situation requires determination of the BLM - NPS boundary, then the boundary 

line will be described by the Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates which correspond to the edge line of 

the brown colored lava shown on USGS 7.5 minute series topographic maps. 

Government to Government Tribal Coordination: Federal agencies are responsible for maintaining a 

formal government to government relationship with American Indian tribes. Federal agencies protect and 

maintain treaty rights on public land. Regarding cultural resources, this relationship focuses on identifying 

and protecting archaeological sites possessing traditional and religious values. BLM generally provides 

access for tribal members to gather traditional plant and animal resources from public lands, including 

National Monuments. Both agencies will facilitate access for tribal members to sacred sites. BLM and 

NPS will incorporate the concerns of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes into the Monument plan through formal 

coordination. The agencies will also regularly coordinate with the Tribes and Tribal staff concerning 

management activities at the Monument. 

Coordination with State and Local Governments: Most state and local government coordination will 

involve both agencies. Whenever possible, BLM and NPS will cooperatively conduct communication and 

coordination as the “Monument” rather than as an individual agency. 

372 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Law Enforcement Coordination: Law enforcement staff will work together in a cooperative and coordinated 

manner within the Monument. Both agencies intend to emphasize education over enforcement during the 

interim management period. 

Coordination with County Sheriffs will be conducted jointly. County deputization of BLM or NPS law 

enforcement staff is entirely at the discretion of the individual County Sheriff. BLM will enter into 

separate agreements with each of the five County Sheriffs affected by the Monument. During the interim 

management period, these agreements will provide financial assistance to the County Sheriffs so that they 

can manage an expected increase in people accessing the Monument as well as search and rescue activities. 

Fire Management: BLM has traditionally functioned as the lead agency for most fire management activities 

in the Monument area. The agencies have established a long standing cooperative relationship prior to the 

expansion Proclamation. Both agencies have also entered into a variety of agreements with nearby local 

fire departments and rural Fire Districts. The agencies intend to continue, if not improve, these existing 

partnerships. 

The Monument contains a complete spectrum of fire management activities. Fire suppression ranges from 

highest priority immediate response aimed at protecting remnant stands of sagebrush to low level monitoring 

of lightening caused fires within the Craters of the Moon Wilderness. BLM has scheduled several fuel 

management projects and range restoration projects which are partially within the Monument. Existing 

vegetation studies related to fire effects and fire rehabilitation will continue. 

During the interim planning period, adequate fire management guidance exists under the agencies’ existing 

plans and agreements. For example, existing fire management guidance requires a Resource Advisor 

for all wildfires within or near the Monument. Both agencies will continue to operate under existing fi re 

management plans and Interagency Agreements which are reviewed and updated on an annual basis. The 

Monument plan will address fire management and the relationship between fire management and other 

resources. 

Weed and Grasshopper Control Programs: The Proclamation will result in the agencies placing a higher 

priority on weed management over a large area. The focus on stopping the spread of new invaders will 

continue. The agencies will explore opportunities to increase cooperation and logistical coordination with 

local governments and weed control districts. The ongoing, nationally recognized, Raven’s Eye WSA leafy 

spurge program will continue on both agencies’ jurisdictions. Weeds are recognized to be an important 

element of transportation system management. 

Historically, grasshoppers control activities have occurred within the Monument boundary where there is an 

agricultural interface. The agencies will work with USDA APHIS to address the additional constraints of 

Monument designation in the NEPA process for proposed grasshopper control activities. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 373
USDA Wildlife Service’s Operations: The Proclamation did not specifically address predator control. 

However, predator control activities are addressed in the Background Materials document, the Secretary’s 

Memorandum, the Director’s Memorandum, and BLM’s National Interim Management Policy for Newly 

Created National Monuments. For BLM administered land, predator control, including any necessary 

preemptive strategies, will continue to be governed under applicable laws. BLM will continue to coordinate 

with Wildlife Services as described in existing national MOU’s, BLM State policy, and Upper Snake River 

District annual meetings. 

The NPS Superintendent has the authority to authorize predator control on NPS administered land for 

individual offending animals on a case-by-case basis. 

Livestock Grazing: Both agencies will emphasize that the Proclamation affirms BLM’s continued 

management of livestock grazing consistent with existing policies. Both agencies recognize that livestock 

grazing is an important component of the landscape described in the Proclamation. BLM will continue to 

follow the same laws, regulations, and policies for administering grazing as it did prior to the Proclamation. 

Scientific Study: All of the Proclamations associated with Craters of the Moon National Monument focus on 

the unique geologic resources of the Monument. The protection, study, and appreciation of the Monument’s 

unique geologic features are perhaps the over-riding purpose of the Monument. Both agencies acknowledge 

the challenge of scientific study in the Monument’s remote and often harsh environment. In addition, 

restrictions on surface disturbance and cross-country travel can constrain geologic research. Nonetheless, the 

agencies recognize the potential exists for signifi cant scientific discoveries. In addition, basic research plays 

an important role in the identification, characterization and interpretation of the Monument’s resources. 

The existing MOU between the agencies and the U.S. Geological Survey remains in effect. BLM and NPS 

will continue to encourage the U. S. Geological Survey to pursue ongoing research involving geologic 

mapping, geochemistry, geophysics, geomorphology, seismology, geomagnetism, geodesy, tectonics, 

earthquake hazards, volcanic hazards, and climate change. 

The agencies will encourage partnerships with a variety of academic organizations, professional societies, 

clubs and hobby organizations who have expressed interest in the Monument’s unique geologic resources. 

These organizations include three separate Grottos associated with the National Speleological Society. 

The existing NPS unit has a long term air quality monitoring program in place. Both agencies intend 

to continue and expand climatic and air quality research and monitoring. The Idaho National Energy 

and Environmental Laboratory has cooperatively participated in these activities and is expected to be an 

important partner in the future. 

374 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
The Monument contains several ongoing archeologic scientific studies. The agencies will continue 

established relationships with academic institutions for these challenge cost share research projects. 

Inventory, characterization, and protection of cultural resources is a high priority for both agencies. 

The potential for additional discoveries of significant cultural and paleontological resources is high. 

Investigations must conform with policy guidelines for surface disturbance within Wilderness Study Areas 

and minimize surface disturbance elsewhere.

The lava flows at Craters of the Moon create many unique opportunities for the study of isolated, relatively 

undisturbed native plant communities. The Proclamation describes kipukas as important comparative 

benchmarks relative to human altered plant communities in the Snake River Plain. The Monument has been 

the site of many vegetative studies and research projects. Several studies involving rare plants, natural fi re, 

fire rehabilitation, and grazing are in progress. The agencies intend to continue ongoing studies without 

regard to the Proclamation’s transfer of administration of some study sites.

The Monument is also a remnant stronghold for sage grouse. The Monument is particularly suited for the 

study of healthy sage grouse populations. The agencies intend to encourage both population and habitat 

research in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Several potential partners have expressed an interest in biological science at the Monument including 

Idaho’s Conservation Data Center, the Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission, universities, and the 

Biological Division of the U.S. Geological Survey. Both agencies will actively encourage appropriate and 

needed biological research in cooperation with these partners to fulfill this important aspect of Monument 

designation.

The agencies hope to sponsor and host a Science Symposium in Fiscal Year 2002 with the intent of 

cataloging existing scientific information and fostering future research within the Monument.

Recommended by:

 /s/ 10/24/01 /s/ 

10/26/01 

Jim May, date 

James A. Morris, date 

District Manager 

Superintendent 

BLM 

NPS 

Upper Snake River District Craters of the 

Moon National Monument 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 375 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Upper Snake River District 

1405 Hollipark Drive 

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401-2100 

In Reply Refer To: 

6210 (ID-079) P 

November 29, 2001 

EMS 

Instruction Memorandum No. ID-070-2002-001 

Expires: 9/30/03 

To: All Employees 

From: District Manager 

Subject: Interim Management Guidelines for Craters of the Moon National Monument 

Program Area: National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). 

Purpose: This Instruction Memorandum transmits the attached Interim Management Guidelines for 

Craters of the Moon National Monument. The Guidelines provide a management strategy for the 

Monument while BLM and the National Park Service (NPS) cooperatively prepare a land use plan. 

Policy/Action: These Interim Guidelines are an Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding 

(BLM-ID-MOU-399) between BLM and NPS for the Craters of the Moon National Monument. The 

Memorandum of Understanding was recently signed by the BLM Idaho State Director and NPS 

Pacific West Regional Director. The MOU broadly frames the cooperative relationship between the 

NPS and BLM. The Interim Management Guidelines describe how BLM and NPS will manage the 

National Monument during the land use planning process. The Guidelines apply to all BLM and NPS 

management actions and activities at the expanded National Monument. The NPS unit at Craters of the 

Moon National Monument will publish the Guidelines as part of the Compendium of Superintendents 

Orders. 

Timeframe: This IM is effective immediately. 

376 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Background: Presidential Proclamation 7373 of November 9, 2000 expanded Craters of the Moon 

National Monument and instructed BLM and NPS to prepare a joint management plan for the 

Monument. Subsequently, the Secretary of Interior instructed the agencies to issue interim management 

guidance for the expanded Monument. For BLM, NLCS national policy requires the development 

of unit specific interim management guidelines which are tiered to the National Interim Management 

Policy for Newly Created National Monuments. 

Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: None. 

Coordination: The following Offices have provided input to, and reviewed draft versions of the 

attached Interim Management Guidelines: BLM Shoshone Field Office, Upper Snake River District, 

Idaho State Office Resource Services and Support Services Divisions, Headquarters NLCS Offi ce; 

NPS Craters of the Moon National Monument, Columbia Cascades Support Office and the Pacifi c West 

Regional Offi ce. 

Contact: If you have questions regarding this IM or the Interim Management Guidelines, please contact 

Rick VanderVoet, BLM Monument Manager, at 208-886-7288, or Jim Morris, NPS Superintendent, at 

208-527-3257. 

Signed by: Authenticated by: 

Jim May Sandy Hoffer 

USRD, District Manager Secretary 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 377
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 

October 4, 2001 

In Reply Refer To: 

2071 (WO-171) N 

EMS TRANSMISSION 10/11/01 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-008 

Expires: 09/30/2003 

To: State Directors and Assistant Directors 

From: Director 

Subject: Interim Management Policy for Bureau of Land Management National 

Monuments and National Conservation Areas 

Program Area: National Landscape Conservation System; National Monuments; National Conservation 

Areas 

Purpose: This Instruction Memorandum issues interim management guidelines for newly designated 

BLM national monuments and national conservation areas and supercedes IM No. 2000-62. The 

guidelines in this policy are designed to provide direction to State Directors responsible for the proper 

care of new national conservation areas or national monuments, pending the completion of the required 

planning processes. 

Policy/Action: See Attachment 1. 

Time Frame: This guidance is in effect immediately. 

Background: IM No. 2000-62, which provides interim management guidance for newly designated 

BLM national monuments expired on September 30, 2001. This Instruction Memorandum updates the 

guidance to include national conservation areas with input from the fi eld. 

Budget Impact: n/a 

Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: n/a 

378 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Coordination: n/a 

Contact: If you have any questions or concerns regarding this policy, you may contact Elaine MarquisBrong, Director, National Landscape Conservation System, at (202) 208-3516. 

Signed by: Authenticated by: 

Nina Rose Hatfield Vincent C. Chapman Jr 

Acting Director Policy & Records Group, WO-560 

1 Attachment

 1 Interim Management Policy (4 pp) 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 379
Interim Management Policy 

BLM National Monuments 

BLM National Conservation Areas 

Adhere to direction in the legislation or the President’s Proclamation 

• Federal lands and interests in lands within the national conservation area or monument are withdrawn 

from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public land laws, 

including among others the mineral leasing and mining laws unless otherwise specified in legislation or 

the Proclamation. 

• Valid existing rights will be recognized. 

• The States responsibilities and authorities regarding wildlife management, including fishing and hunting, 

within the national conservation area or the monument are unaffected by legislation or the Proclamation. 

• Grazing activities shall continue to be governed by applicable laws and regulations other than specifi ed 

in legislation or the Proclamation. 

• Existing withdrawals, reservations, or appropriations are not revoked, but the national conservation area 

or monument is the dominant reservation. 

Maintain existing management policies, designations, and allocations except where changes are necessary to 

comply with the legislation or Proclamation and protect the objects of scientific and historic interest within 

the national conservation area or monument. 

Provide the public with prompt and accessible information on questions regarding the use of federal lands 

within the national conservation area or monument. 

Coordinate with the local, State, Tribal, and other governmental entities (under existing agreements and 

any new arrangements deemed necessary) to disseminate and exchange information and cooperate in 

management actions, consistent with applicable legal authorities and other directives. 

Assure the applications, proposals, and future use requests pending when the legislation or Proclamation was 

issued are subject to the terms of the legislation or Proclamation, including its recognition of valid existing 

rights, and other management directives and decisions relate to the national conservation area or monument. 

Consider land or easement acquisitions and land exchanges that will enhance the values of the national 

conservation area or monument. 

All existing planning documents related to the monument lands should be reviewed for consistency with 

the legislation or Proclamation. Consistent with NEPA and FLPMA, the plans should be modified or a 

380 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
new plan created for the monument that addresses all resource issues in the legislation or Proclamation. A 

separate planning document for the national conservation area or monument is recommended, as opposed to 

combining the national conservation area or monument with an adjacent administrative resource area. 

Discussion of Specifi c Activities 

In general, actions that are not precluded by the Proclamation or legislation and which do not confl ict with 

the established purposes of the monument or national conservation area may continue. Allowed activities 

can be restricted only where (1) the BLM, through processes required by existing law, identifi es places 

where such uses ought to be restricted or prohibited as necessary to protect the federal lands and resources, 

including the objects protected by the monument or national conservation designation; or (2) where the BLM 

finds a clear threat from such a use to the federal lands and resources, including the objects protected by the 

national conservation area or monument designation and the circumstances call for swift protective action. 

Livestock Grazing: Where applicable and consistent with the designation, livestock grazing within 

the national conservation area or monument is permitted, pursuant to the terms of permits and leases. 

Appropriate grazing management practices (as in all properly managed grazing pastures) should be followed 

to protect rangeland resources. Implementation of Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Improvement 

should continue. Actions should be taken to assist permits in assuring compliance with existing requirements. 

Enforcement actions against trespassers or other violators continue to be authorized under policy. 

Animal Damage Control: Coordinate closely with State Game and Fish Department and Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) on animal damage control issues. 

Camping: Dispersed recreational camping may continue consistent with current policies and practices and 

the Proclamation. Developed BLM camping facilities should be maintained and rehabilitated as appropriate, 

consistent with monument purposes. 

Facilities: Maintenance of existing facilities should be permitted, subject to compliance with current 

policies and practices, provided monument resources are protected. Applications for new facilities may be 

considered, if they will protect or enhance monument resources. 

Hunting and Fishing: Coordinate with the State to ensure public safety, specifically if there are areas of 

increased visitor use. 

Mineral Activities (including Hard rock, Oil, Gas, and Coal): Unless otherwise specified in legislation or 

proclamation all valid existing rights will be recognized in accordance with policy. 

Noxious Weeds/Exotic Species: Existing noxious weed control activities should continue. Exotic species 

should not be introduced, unless doing so is essential to control noxious weeds or other undesirable species. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 381
Off-Road Vehicles: No areas in the national conservation area or monument should be authorized for crosscountry, off-road vehicular use, except for authorized administrative and emergency purposes. For routes, 

including washes, where motorized and mechanical vehicular use has been authorized by past planning 

decisions, management discretion should be exercised where necessary, through emergency closures or other 

actions, to protect the national conservation area or monument resources. Wheeled game carriers are exempt. 

Paleontological Resources and Rock Collection: The collection of any objects, including vegetation, 

paleontological resources, or rock specimens, should not be permitted, except where intended for legitimate 

scientific uses for which documentation is provided to the satisfaction of the responsible management 

official. Where limited wood gathering for uses including fire wood and fence maintenance occurred 

prior to designation, this activity could be permitted. In such cases the manager must assure that national 

conservation area or monument resources are not affected. 

Rights-of-Way: No new rights-of-way or ancillary public facilities should be processed, except for rights-ofway pursuant to existing policies and practices and necessary for access and/or maintenance needs to private 

or state in holdings, public facilities or administrative sites. In addition, rights-of-way may be permitted 

within the boundary of existing rights-of-way or designated rights-of-way corridors established by previous 

land use planning, and where site specific NEPA analysis determines that impact to the objects or values for 

which the national conservation area or monument was designated would be negligible. 

Roads: Road improvements should be minimal and designed solely to correct those conditions that are 

unsafe or hazardous. Activities that maintain, as opposed to enhance, existing roads may be permissible. 

Scientific, Archeological, and Historical Investigations: Scientific, archeological, and historical 

investigations that increase our understanding of the national conservation area’s or monument’s resources 

are important and scientific use for surveys and reconnaissance may be allowed but surface disturbance 

should be avoided. 

Signs and Interpretation: Appropriate signs at the national conservation areas or monuments boundaries 

should be provided. Other relevant information should be posted as needed. Actions should be initiated to 

interpret the resources and values and provide environmental education to visitors on important topics (i.e., 

visitor safety and resource protection). 

Surface Disturbance and Reclamation Activities under Current Permits: Surface disturbance and 

reclamation activities under current permits should proceed consistent with those permits. Permit extensions 

will be considered subject to consistency with applicable policies, laws and proclamation. 

Vegetation Manipulation: Vegetation manipulation should proceed only when consistent with conservation 

and protection of the national conservation area or monument’s resources. Chaining and other vegetation 

manipulation methods that cause substantial surface disturbance shall not be permitted. 

382 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Wilderness Study Areas: Where applicable, maintain the non-impairment standard for wilderness study 

areas, per FLPMA, to prevent undue and unnecessary degradation of resources. 

Appendices: APPENDIX B 383

APPENDIX C

PROPOSED BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

The boundary of a national monument may be modified only as authorized by law. This appendix 

describes four minor proposed changes to the external boundary of the Monument and three 

proposed changes to the boundary between NPS and BLM within the Monument. The agencies are 

recommending these boundary modifications for the reasons described below. Congress would have to 

pass legislation authorizing a modification and the President would need to sign that legislation for the 

modification to be authorized by law. 

As part of the planning process, the Agencies have identified and evaluated boundary adjustments that 

may be necessary or desirable in order to carry out the purposes of the Craters of the Moon National 

Monument and Preserve. Boundary adjustments have been recommended to: 

• Protect significant resources and values, or to enhance opportunities for public enjoyment related 

to Monument purposes; 

• Address operational and management issues, such as the need for access or the need for 

boundaries to correspond to logical boundary delineations such as topographic or other natural 

features or roads; or 

• Otherwise protect Monument resources that are critical to fulfilling Monument purposes. 

All recommendations for boundary changes have met the following two criteria: 

• The added lands will be feasible to administer, considering their size, confi guration, and 

ownership, and hazardous substances, costs, the views of and impacts on local communities and 

surrounding jurisdictions, and other factors such as the presence of exotic species; and 

• Other alternatives for management and resource protection are not adequate. 

These criteria apply conversely to recommendations for the deletion of lands from the authorized 

boundaries of the Monument. For example, before recommending the deletion of land, a fi nding was 

made that the land did not include a significant resource, value, or opportunity for public enjoyment 

related to the purposes of the Monument. Full consideration was given to present and future needs 

before a recommendation was made to delete lands from the authorized boundaries of the Monument. 

Boundary adjustments essentially fall into three distinct categories: (1) technical revisions; (2) minor 

revisions based upon statutorily defined criteria; and (3) revisions to include adjacent real property 

acquired by donation, purchased with donated funds, transferred from any other federal agency, or 

obtained by exchange. Adjacent real property is considered to be land located contiguous to, but outside 

the boundary of the Monument. The modifications proposed here are technical and minor. 

The following is a list of recommended boundary modifications including legal description, approximate 

acreage, and a brief summary of the justification for each proposed change. See Figure C-1 (A through 

E) for specifi c locations. 

Appendices: APPENDIX C 385
1) Township 2 North, Range 24 East, Section 24 – Approximately 90 acres 

a. Recommended transfer of management from NPS to BLM to provide for the continuation 

of historic grazing. With the expansion of the Monument, the NPS has assumed 

management of all lava covered lands within the Monument (indicated by the dark brown 

coloring on 7.5 minute USGS color maps). The NPS management boundary would 

be moved eastward from the lava edge illustrated on the USGS 7.5 minute map to the 

first road. This adjustment would be bounded at the southern end by the Craters of the 

Moon Wilderness area. A closer evaluation of this particular site revealed relatively low 

evidence of lava and/or unique features. As such, this land can be more closely identifi ed 

with most other BLM managed portions of the Monument and should be managed 

accordingly. 

2) T2N, R24E, Sec11 – Approximately 120 acres 

a. Recommended transfer of management from NPS to BLM to provide for the continuation 

of historic grazing. With the expansion of the Monument, the NPS has assumed 

management of all lava covered lands within the Monument (indicated by the dark brown 

coloring on 7.5 minute USGS color maps). The NPS management boundary would be 

moved eastward from the lava edge illustrated on the USGS 7.5 minute map to the fi rst 

road. A closer evaluation of this particular site revealed relatively low evidence of lava 

and/or unique features. As such, this land can be more closely identified with most other 

BLM managed portions of the Monument and should be managed accordingly. 

3) T2N, R25E, Sec5 – Approximately 1 acre 

a. Recommended inclusion of land in the Monument from the BLM to expand the 

Monument boundary from a legal subdivision to meet the southern edge of the highway 

right of way. This would provide for a more consistent and manageable boundary. 

4) T2N, R25E, Sec5 – Approximately 60 acres 

a. Recommended deletion of land from the Monument to adjust the Monument boundary 

from a legal subdivision to meet the southern edge of the highway right of way. This 

would provide for a more consistent and manageable boundary. This land does not 

provide exceptional opportunities for public enjoyment, nor does it contain features for 

which the Monument was established to protect. 

b. It would also eliminate a mineral material site from the Monument. 

5) T3N, R25E, Sec27 – Approximately 2 acres 

a. Recommended deletion of land from the Monument to adjust the Monument boundary 

from a legal subdivision to meet the southern edge of the highway right of way. This 

386 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
would provide for a more consistent and manageable boundary. 

6) T3N, R25E, Sec27 – Approximately 3 acres 

a. Recommended deletion of land from the Monument to adjust the Monument boundary 

from a legal subdivision to meet the southern edge of the highway right of way. This 

would provide for a more consistent and manageable boundary. 

7) T5S, R28E, Sec36 – Approximately 230 acres 

a. Recommended transfer of management from NPS to BLM to provide for the continuation 

of historic grazing. With the expansion of the Monument, the NPS has assumed 

management of all lava covered lands within the Monument (indicated by the dark brown 

coloring on 7.5 minute USGS color maps). A closer evaluation of this particular site 

revealed relatively low evidence of lava and/or unique features. As such, this land can be 

more closely identified with most other BLM managed portions of the Monument and 

should be managed accordingly. 

8) T1S, R22E, Sec 5 – Approximately 2 acres 

a. Recommended adjustment of the Monument boundary from a legal subdivision to meet 

the southern edge of the highway right of way. This would provide for a more consistent 

and manageable boundary. 

The agencies have consulted with the relative interests to arrive at these proposals which are consistent 

with enabling Legislation, the Proclamations, and current management guidelines. The agencies received 

no other proposals for boundary modifications during the scoping for the Draft Plan/DEIS. 

Appendices: APPENDIX C 387
Arco 

20 26 93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

= 0 5 mi 0 9 km 

Carey 

Proposed boundary modifications have been oversized for graphic presentation and 

are not to scale. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National 

Park Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE C1-A 

PROPOSED BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Map Scale 1:500,000 2.5 10 

4.5 18 

P I O N E E R 

M O U N T A I N S 

Monument Boundary 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

Original Monument 

Boundary 

Lava 

Proposed 

Boundary Modifications 

Town 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

388 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
0 Kil

1 

1 

2 

= 

0 mi 

0 1 km 

0.2 0.4 0.8 ometers 

Map Area 

Map Scale 1:24,000 

0.125 0.25 0.5 

0.25 0.5 

Monument Boundary 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Original Monument 

Boundary 

Lava 

Proposed 

Boundary Modifications 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE C1-B 

PROPOSED BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Appendices: APPENDIX C 389
1 

3 

4 

5 

6 

= 

0 mi 

0 1 km 

Map Area 

Map Scale 1:24,000 

0.125 0.25 0.5 

0.25 0.5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Monument Boundary 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Lava 

Proposed 

Boundary Modifications 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE C1-C 

PROPOSED BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

390 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
1 

7 

= 

0 mi 

0 1 km 

Map Area 

Map Scale 1:24,000 

0.125 0.25 0.5 

0.25 0.5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Monument Boundary 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Lava 

Proposed 

Boundary Modifications 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE C1-D 

PROPOSED BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Appendices: APPENDIX C 391 
1 

8 

= 

0 mi 

0 1 km 

Map Area 

Map Scale 1:24,000 

0.125 0.25 0.5 

0.25 0.5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Monument Boundary 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Lava 

Proposed 

Boundary Modifications 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE C1-E 

PROPOSED BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

392 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
APPENDIX D

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF 

SPECIES OCCURRING AT CRATERS OF THE MOON 

NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Amphibians 

Western toad Bufo boreas 

Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris maculate 

Pacific tree frog Pseudacris regilla 

Great Basin spadefoot Spea intermontana 

Birds 

Copper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilit 

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 Ammodrmus savannarum 

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli 

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 pipit 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 

Appendices: APPENDIX D 393
Birds 

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 

394 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Birds 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Common raven Corvus corax 

Steller’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 

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 

Appendices: APPENDIX D 395
Birds 

Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra 

Western screech owl Megascops kennicottii 

Red-headed woodpecker Melenerpes erythrocephalus 

Lewis’ 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 

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 

396 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Birds 

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 Stellula 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 

Tennessee warbler Vermivora pergrina 

Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 

Cassin’s vireo Vireo cassinii 

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 

Plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus 

Appendices: APPENDIX D 397
Birds 

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 

398 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Mammals 

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 

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 

Appendices: APPENDIX D 399
Common and Scientific Names of Plant Species Referenced in 

this Document 

Trees 

Utah juniper Juniperus osteosperma 

Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum 

Limber pine Pinus flexilis 

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides 

Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 

Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Shrubs 

Alder Alnus incana 

Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 

Low sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula 

Early low (alkali) sagebrush Artemisia longiloba 

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 

Fern-bush (tansy bush) Chamaebatiaria millefolium 

Green rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 

Rubber rabbitbrush Chrysothanus nauseosus 

Rock spirea Holodiscus dumosus 

Syringa Philadelphus lewisii 

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana 

Antelope bitterbrush Purshia tridentata 

Golden current Ribes aureum 

Wax current Ribes cereum 

Willow Salix spp. 

Mountain snowberry Symphoricarpos oreophilus 

Gray horsebrush Tetradymia canescens 

400 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Grasses and Grasslike Plants 

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum 

Tall wheatgrass Agropyron elongata 

Siberian wheatgrass Agropyron fragile 

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum 

Great Basin wildrye Elymus cinereus 

Snake River wheatgrass Elymus wawaensis 

Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 

Prairie junegrass Koeleria cristata 

Onion grass Melica bulbosa 

Indian ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides 

Big bluegrass Poa ampla 

Sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda 

Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata 

Threesquare bulrush Scirpus americanus 

Needle-and-thread grass Stipa comata 

Western needlegrass Stipa occidentalis 

Thurber needlegrass Stipa thurberiana 

Forbs 

Dwarf mistletoe Arceuthobium campylopodum 

Picabo milkvetch Astragalus oniciformis 

Milkvetch Astragalus spp. 

Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata 

Douglas chaenactis Chaenactis douglasii 

Oval-leaved buckwheat Eriogonum ovalifolium 

Dwarf buckwheat Eriogonum ovalifolium var. depressum 

Buckwheat Eriogonum spp. 

Bitterroot Lewisia rediviva 

Blue flax Linum perenne 

Lupine Lupinus spp. 

Alfalfa Medicago sativa 

Dwarf monkeyflower Mimulus nanus 

Sainfoin Onobrychis viciaefolia 

Penstemon Penstemon spp. 

Scorpion weed Phacelia hastata 

Obscure phacelia Phacelia inconspicua 

Phlox Phlox spp. 

Gland cinquefoil Potentilla glandulosa 

Appendices: APPENDIX D 401
Noxious Weeds 

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans 

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa 

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa 

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula 

Dalmation toadflax Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica 

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium 

402 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
APPENDIX E

LIST OF SPECIES PROTECTED BY THE MIGRATORY BIRD 

SPECIES ACT AND KNOWN TO OCCUR AT CRATERS OF 

THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Pied-billed grebe Copper’s hawk 

Eared grebe Northern goshawk 

Western grebe Swainson’s hawk 

American white pelican Red-tailed hawk 

Great blue heron Rough-legged hawk 

White-faced ibis Ferruginous hawk 

Turkey vulture Golden eagle 

Snow goose American kestrel 

Canada goose Merlin 

Tundra swan Gyr falcon 

Gadwall Peregrine falcon 

American wigeon Prairie falcon 

Mallard American coot 

Northern shoveler Virginia rail 

Cinnamon teal Sora 

Northern pintail Sandhill crane 

Blue-winged teal Killdeer 

Green-winged teal American avocet 

Ruddy duck Spotted sandpiper 

Canvasback Whimbrel 

Redhead Long-billed curlew 

Ring-necked duck Wilson’s snipe 

Lesser scaup Wilson’s phalarope 

Common goldeneye Long-billed dowitcher 

Buffl ehead Ring-billed gull 

Osprey Herring gull 

Bald eagle California gull 

Northern harrier Franklin’s gull 

Sharp-shinned hawk Forster’s tern 

Appendices: APPENDIX E 403
Black tern Ash-throated fl ycatcher 

Band-tailed pigeon Western kingbird 

Mourning dove Eastern kingbird 

Great horned owl Loggerhead shrike 

Snowy owl Northern shrike 

Western burrowing owl Plumbeous vireo 

Long-eared owl Cassin’s vireo 

Short-eared owl Warbling vireo 

Western screech owl Steller’s jay 

Northern saw-whet owl Pinyon jay 

Common nighthawk Clark’s nutcracker 

Common poorwill Black-billed magpie 

White-throated swift American crow 

Black-chinned hummingbird Common raven 

Calliope hummingbird Horned lark 

Broad-tailed hummingbird Tree swallow 

Rufous hummingbird Violet-green swallow 

Belted kingfi sher Cliff swallow 

Lewis’ woodpecker Northern rough-winged swallow 

Red-headed woodpecker Barn swallow 

Red-naped sapsucker Black-capped chickadee 

Williamson’s sapsucker Mountain chickadee 

Downy woodpecker Red-breasted nuthatch 

Hairy woodpecker White-breasted nuthatch 

Northern fl icker Brown creeper 

Olive-sided fl ycatcher Rock wren 

Western wood-pewee Winter wren 

Willow fl ycatcher Marsh wren 

Hammond’s fl ycatcher American dipper 

Gray fl ycatcher Golden-crowned kinglet 

Dusky fl ycatcher Ruby-crowned kinglet 

Cordilleran fl ycatcher Blue-gray gnatcatcher 

Say’s phoebe Western bluebird 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

404 
Mountain bluebird Savannah sparrow 

Townsend’s solitaire Grasshopper sparrow 

Swainson’s thrush Fox sparrow 

Hermit thrush Song sparrow 

American robin Lincoln’s sparrow 

Varied thrush White-throated sparrow 

Gray catbird White-crowned sparrow 

Sage thrasher Golden-crowned sparrow 

Brown thrasher Dark-eyed junco 

American pipit Snow bunting 

Bohemian waxwing Black-headed grosbeak 

Cedar waxwing Lazuli bunting 

Tennessee warbler Bobolink 

Orange-crowned warbler Red-winged blackbird 

Nashville warbler Western meadowlark 

Yellow warbler Yellow-headed blackbird 

Yellow-rumped warbler Brewer’s blackbird 

Townsend’s warbler Common grackle 

American redstart Brown-headed cowbird 

Northern waterthrush Bullock’s oriole 

MacGillivray’s warbler Baltimore oriole 

Wilson’s warbler Gray-crowned rosy-fi nch 

Yellow-breasted chat Black rosy-fi nch 

Western tanager Pine grosbeak 

Green-tailed towhee Cassin’s fi nch 

Spotted towhee House fi nch 

Chipping sparrow Red crossbill 

Brewer’s sparrow Hoary redpoll 

Vesper sparrow Common redpoll 

Lark sparrow Pine siskin 

Black-throated sparrow American goldfi nch 

Sage sparrow Evening grosbeak 

Lark bunting Weaver fi nches 

Appendices: APPENDIX E 405

APPENDIX F

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

I. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 

Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health & 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

Standards for Rangeland Health 

The Standards for Rangeland Health, as applied in the State of Idaho, are to be used as the Bureau of 

Land Management’s management goals for the betterment of the environment, protection of cultural 

resources, and sustained productivity of the range. They are developed with the specific intent of 

providing for the multiple uses of the public lands. Application of the standards should involve 

collaboration between the authorized officer, interested publics, and resource users. 

Rangelands should be meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health or making signifi cant progress 

toward meeting the standards. Meeting the standards provides for proper nutrient cycling, hydrologic 

cycling, and energy fl ow. 

Monitoring of all uses is necessary to determine if the standards are being met. It is the primary tool for 

determining rangeland health, condition, and trend. It will be performed on representative sites. 

Appropriate to soil type, climate, and landform, indicators are a list of typical physical and biological 

factors and processes that can be measured and/or observed (e.g., photographic monitoring). They are 

used in combination to provide information necessary to determine the health and condition of the 

rangelands. Usually, no single indicator provides sufficient information to determine rangeland health. 

Only those indicators appropriate to a particular site are to be used. The indicators listed below each 

standard are not intended to be all inclusive. 

The issue of scale must be kept in mind in evaluating the indicators listed after each standard. It is 

recognized that individual isolated sites within a landscape may not be meeting the standards; however, 

broader areas must be in proper functioning condition. Furthermore, fragmentation of habitat that 

reduces the effective size of large areas must also be evaluated for its consequences. 

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 

fl ow. 

Appendices: APPENDIX F 407
Indicators may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. The amount and distribution of ground cover, including litter, for identified ecological site(s) or soilplant associations are appropriate for site stability. 

2. Evidence of accelerated erosion in the form of rills and/or gullies, erosional pedestals, fl ow patterns, 

physical soil crusts/surface sealing, and compaction layers below the soil surface is minimal for soil 

type and landform. 

Standard 2 (Riparian Areas and Wetlands) 

Riparian-wetland areas are in properly functioning condition appropriate to soil type, climate, geology, 

and landform to provide for proper nutrient cycling, hydrologic cycling, and energy fl ow. 

Indicators may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. The riparian/wetland vegetation is controlling erosion, stabilizing stream banks, shading water 

areas to reduce water temperature, stabilizing shorelines, filtering sediment, aiding in fl oodplain 

development, dissipating energy, delaying flood water, and increasing recharge of groundwater 

appropriate to site potential. 

2. Riparian/wetland vegetation with deep strong binding roots is sufficient to stabilize stream banks 

and shorelines. Invader and shallow rooted species are a minor component of the fl oodplain. 

3. Age class and structural diversity of riparian/wetland vegetation is appropriate for the site. 

4. Noxious weeds are not increasing. 

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 fl ow. 

Indicators may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. Stream channels and floodplains dissipate energy of high water flows and transport sediment. Soils 

support appropriate riparian-wetland species, allowing water movement, sediment fi ltration, and 

water storage. Stream channels are not entrenching. 

2. Stream width/depth ratio, gradient, sinuosity, and pool, riffle and run frequency are appropriate for 

the valley bottom type, geology, hydrology, and soils. 

408 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
3. Streams have access to their floodplains and sediment deposition is evident. 

4. There is little evidence of excessive soil compaction on the floodplain due to human activities. 

5. Stream banks are within an appropriate range of stability according to site potential. 

6. Noxious weeds are not increasing. 

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. Indicators may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. Native plant communities (flora and microbiotic crusts) are maintained or improved to ensure the 

proper functioning of ecological processes and continued productivity and diversity of native plant 

species. 

2. The diversity of native species is maintained. 

3. Plant vigor (total plant production, seed and seedstalk production, cover, etc.) is adequate to enable 

reproduction and recruitment of plants when favorable climatic events occur. 

4. Noxious weeds are not increasing. 

5. Adequate litter and standing dead plant material are present for site protection and for decomposition 

to replenish soil nutrients relative to site potential. 

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. 

Indicators may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. In established seedings, the diversity of perennial species is not diminishing over time. 

2. Plant production, seed production, and cover are adequate to enable recruitment when favorable 

climatic events occur. 

3. Noxious weeds are not increasing. 

4. Adequate litter and standing dead plant material are present for site protection and for decomposition 

Appendices: APPENDIX F 409 
to replenish soil nutrients relative to site potential. 

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. 

Indicators may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. Noxious weeds are not increasing. 

2. The number of perennial species is not diminishing over time. 

3. Plant vigor (production, seed and seedstalk production, cover, etc.) of remnant native or seeded 

(introduced) plants is maintained to enable reproduction and recruitment when favorable climatic or 

other environmental events occur. 

4. Adequate litter and standing dead plant material is present for site protection and for decomposition 

to replenish soil nutrients relative to site potential. 

Standard 7 (Water Quality) 

Surface and ground water on public lands comply with the Idaho Water Quality Standards. 

Indicators may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. Physical, chemical, and biologic parameters described in the 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. 

Indicators may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. Parameters described in the Idaho Water Quality Standards. 

2. Riparian/wetland vegetation with deep, strong, binding roots is sufficient to stabilize stream banks 

and shorelines. Invader and shallow rooted species are a minor component of the fl oodplain. 

3. Age class and structural diversity of riparian/wetland vegetation are appropriate for the site. 

410 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
4. Native plant communities (flora and microbiotic crusts) are maintained or improved to ensure the 

proper functioning of ecological processes and continued productivity and diversity of native plant 

species. 

5. The diversity of native species is maintained. 

6. The amount and distribution of ground cover, including litter, for identified ecological site(s) or soilplant associations are appropriate for site stability. 

7. Noxious weeds are not increasing. 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

Guidelines direct the selection of grazing management practices, and where appropriate, livestock 

management facilities to promote significant progress toward, or the attainment and maintenance of, 

the standards. Grazing management practices are livestock management techniques. They include the 

manipulation of season, duration (time), and intensity of use, as well as numbers, distribution, and 

kind of livestock. Livestock management facilities are structures such as fences, corrals, and water 

developments (ponds, springs, pipelines, troughs, etc.) used to facilitate the application of grazing 

management practices. Livestock grazing management practices and guidelines will be consistent with 

the Idaho Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan. 

Grazing management practices and facilities are implemented locally, usually on an allotment or 

watershed basis. Grazing management programs are based on a combination of appropriate grazing 

management practices and facilities developed through consultation, coordination, and cooperation with 

the Bureau of Land Management, permittees, other agencies, Native American tribes, and interested 

publics. These guidelines were prepared under the assumption that regulations and policies regarding 

grazing on the public lands will be implemented and will be adhered to by the grazing permittees 

and agency personnel. Anything not covered in these guidelines will be addressed by existing laws, 

regulations, Indian treaties, and policies. 

The BLM will identify and document within the local watershed all impacts that affect the ability to 

meet the standards. If a standard is not being met due to livestock grazing, then allotment management 

will be adjusted unless it can be demonstrated that significant progress toward the standard is being 

achieved. This applies to all subsequent guidelines. 

Guidelines 

1. Use grazing management practices and/or facilities to maintain or promote signifi cant progress 

Appendices: APPENDIX F 411 
toward adequate amounts of ground cover (determined on an ecological site basis) to support 

infiltration, maintain soil moisture storage, and stabilize soils.

2. Locate livestock management facilities away from riparian areas wherever they confl ict with 

achieving or maintaining riparian-wetland functions. 

3. 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. 

4. Implement grazing management practices that provide periodic rest or deferment during critical 

growth stages to allow sufficient regrowth to achieve and maintain healthy, properly functioning 

conditions, including good plant vigor and adequate vegetative cover appropriate to site potential. 

5. 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, stream bank stability, and wildlife habitat appropriate to 

site potential. 

6. 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. 

7. Apply grazing management practices to maintain, promote, or progress toward appropriate stream 

channel and stream bank morphology and functions. Adverse impacts due to livestock grazing will 

be addressed. 

8. 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. 

9. 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. 

10. Implement grazing management practices and/or facilities that provide for complying with the Idaho 

Water Quality Standards. 

11. Use grazing management practices developed in recovery plans, conservation agreements, and 

Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultations to maintain or improve habitat for federally listed 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animals. 

412 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
12. 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. 

13. 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. 

14. 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. 

15. Use non-native plant species for rehabilitation only in those situations where:

a. native species are not readily available in suffi cient quantities; 

b. native plant species cannot maintain or achieve the standards; or

c. non-native plant species provide for management and protection of native rangelands.

d. include a diversity of appropriate grasses, forbs, and shrubs in rehabilitation efforts. 

16. 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. 

17. Carefully consider the effects of new management facilities (e.g., water developments, fences) on 

healthy and properly functioning rangelands prior to implementation. 

18. Use grazing management practices, where feasible, for wildfire 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. 

19. 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. 

20. Design management fences to minimize adverse impacts, such as habitat fragmentation, to maintain 

habitat integrity and connectivity for native plants and animals. 

Appendices: APPENDIX F 413
II. ALLOTMENT BOUNDARY 

ADJUSTMENTS 

When the Monument was expanded in 2000, some portions of new lava included in allotment 

boundaries were transferred to the NPS. Since federal regulations do not authorize livestock grazing on 

NPS lands, the affected allotment boundaries would be revised to exclude these portions of lava. These 

areas consist primarily of exposed lava flows, which are mostly devoid of available forage and/or are 

inaccessible to livestock; therefore, prohibiting grazing in these areas would have little to no impact 

on the livestock industry. There would be no change in forage allocation or reduction in these affected 

allotments, and no boundary fences or border would be built. 

Table F-1 and Figure F-1 (A through G) show the revised allotment acres and boundaries. The map 

legends show affected allotments, which are the allotments within the Monument that are impacted with 

the adjustments from BLM- to NPS-administered land. Affected area represents the area of land that 

was previously BLM and is now administered by NPS. 

Table F-1 

Revised Allotment Acres 

Allotment Total Acres NPS Acres Removed 

from Allotment 

Adjusted Allotment 

Total Acres 

Craters 10,800 8,600 2,200 

Blizzard Mountain 4,900 1,400 3,500 

Big Desert 236,200 200 236,000 

Rudeen 15,600 600 15,000 

Minidoka 100,800 1,000 99,800 

Schodde 22,000 900 21,100 

Crater 4,200 1,700 2,500 

Lava Lake 15,500 1,000 14,500 

Timber Butte 8,700 800 7,900 

414 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Arco 

20 26 93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

Lava 

Lake 

Sunset 

Lake 

Schodde 

j

MOUNTAI 

= 

0 5 mi 0 5 km 

Unalloted 

Carey 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

Wildhorse 

Laidlaw 

Park 

Timber 

Butte 

Cottonwood Quaking Aspen 

Smith 

Cox's Well 

Big Desert Sheep 

Rudeen 

East 

Minidoka 

Sand 

Crater 

Bowl Crater 

Pagari 

Wildhorse 

Poison 

Kimama 

Minidoka 

Huddle's 

Hole 

Blizzard Mtn 

Laidlaw Park 

Only those allotments which are either inside or immediately ad acent to the 

Monument have been labeled here. No warranty is made by the Bureau of 

Land Management or National Park Service for use of the data for purposes 

not intended by these agencies. 

P I O N E E R 

N S 

Lake Channel 

Walcott 

Craters 

Lava 

Town 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

Monument Boundary 

Allotment Boundary 

Map Scale 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

Affected Areas 

Historic Livestock Trails 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE F1-A 

ADJUSTED ALLOTMENTS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

B Road 

C Road 

A Road 

Lava Creek 

Dry Canyon 

Champagne Creek 

Bliss 

Nichols 

Shale 

Appendices: APPENDIX F 415
isi

0 1 2 

Kil

= 

0 mi 

0 1 2 km 

NPS V tor Center 

AFFECTED AREA 

CRATERS ALLOTMENT 

AFFECTED AREA 

BLIZZARD MTN ALLOTMENT 

BLIZZARD MTN 

ALLOTMENT 

CRATERS 

ALLOTMENT 

LAVA CREEK 

ALLOTMENT 

DRY CANYON 

ALLOTMENT 

CHAMPAGNE CREEK 

ALLOTMENT 

NICHOLS 

ALLOTMENT 

BLISS 

ALLOTMENT 

HAMMOND CANYON 

ALLOTMENT 

BLIZZARD MTN ALLOTMENT 

Map Area 

0.5 ometers 

Map Scale 1:75,000 

0.4 0.8 1.6 

0.5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE F1-B 

ADJUSTED ALLOTMENTS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Lava 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Affected Areas 

Monument Boundary 

Original Monument 

Boundary 

Unalloted 

Allotment Boundary 

416 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
0 Kil

= 

0 1 mi 

0 km 

Unalloted 

COTTONWOOD 

ALLOTMENT 

CRATER 

ALLOTMENT 

NICHOLS 

ALLOTMENT 

AFFECTED AREA 

CRATER ALLOTMENT 

AFFECTED AREA 

LAVA LAKE ALLOTMENT 

AFFECTED AREA 

CRATER ALLOTMENT 

CRATER ALLOTMENT 

LAVA LAKE ALLOTMENT 

Map Area 

0.35 0.7 1.4 ometers 

Map Scale 1:50,000 

0.25 0.5 

0.35 0.7 1.4 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE F1-C 

ADJUSTED ALLOTMENTS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Lava 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Affected Areas 

Monument Boundary 

Original Monument 

Boundary 

Allotment Boundary 

Appendices: APPENDIX F 417
0 1 2 

= 

0 mi 

0 1 2 km 

Unalloted 

TIMBER BUTTE 

ALLOTMENT 

CRATER 

ALLOTMENT 

COTTONWOOD 

ALLOTMENT 

AFFECTED AREA 

LAVA LAKE ALLOTMENT 

AFFECTED AREA 

TIMBER BUTTE ALLOTMENT 

LAVA LAKE ALLOTMENT 

Map Area 

LAIDLAW PARK 

ALLOTMENT 

WILDHORSE 

ALLOTMENT 

0.5 Kilometers 

Map Scale 1:75,000 

0.375 0.75 1.5 

0.5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE F1-D 

ADJUSTED ALLOTMENTS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Lava 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Affected Areas 

Monument Boundary 

Original Monument 

Boundary 

Allotment Boundary 

418 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
0 1 2 

= 

0 mi 0 1 2 km 

AFFECTED AREAS 

MINIDOKA ALLOTMENT 

MINIDOKA ALLOTMENT 

Map Area 

0.5 Kilometers 

Map Scale 1:75,000 

0.35 0.7 1.4 

0.5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE F1-E 

ADJUSTED ALLOTMENTS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Lava 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Affected Areas 

Monument Boundary 

Unalloted 

Allotment Boundary 

Appendices: APPENDIX F 419
0 Kil

= 

0 1 mi 0 km 

Unalloted 

AFFECTED AREAS 

SCHODDE ALLOTMENT 

SCHODDE 

ALLOTMENT 

Map Area 

SAND 

ALLOTMENT 

LAKE CHANNEL 

ALLOTMENT 

0.35 0.7 1.4 ometers 

Map Scale 1:50,000 

0.25 0.5 

0.4 0.8 1.6 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Lava 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Affected Areas 

Monument Boundary 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE F1-F 

ADJUSTED ALLOTMENTS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Allotment Boundary 

420 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
0 Kil

= 

0 1 mi 0 km 

Unalloted 

AFFECTED AREAS 

BIG DESERT ALLOTMENT 

BIG DESERT SHEEP ALLOTMENT 

Map Area 

RUDEEN ALLOTMENT 

AFFECTED AREAS 

RUDEEN ALLOTMENT 

0.35 0.7 1.4 ometers 

Map Scale 1:50,000 

0.25 0.5 

0.35 0.7 1.4 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Lava 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Affected Areas 

Monument Boundary 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE F1-G 

ADJUSTED ALLOTMENTS 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Allotment Boundary 

Appendices: APPENDIX F 421
III. LIVESTOCK ADMINISTRATION 

ADJUSTMENTS 

In this plan, there is no change in AUM preference. Adjustments to stocking rates, if needed, would 

be addressed during the standards and guidelines process, or similar NEPA-compliant decisions. 

The standards and guidelines process would be used to accurately address the specific needs of each 

allotment. 

Any changes in livestock management and AUM allocations (a grazing increase or decrease) would 

conform to the grazing regulations (43 CFR 4130) and this land use plan. Monitoring, fi eld observations, 

ecological site inventories, or other BLM acceptable data must support management changes. 

If grazing preference is reduced through relinquishment, which could occur when a permittee voluntarily 

gives up all or part of their preference, or through cancellation, then that preference may be used to 

provide management flexibility to conduct vegetation treatments, rehabilitation or other natural resource 

management actions. The preference may also be allocated to a different permittee in that Allotment. 

In addition, the pasture or allotment that held the reduced grazing preference may be combined with an 

existing allotment/pasture to allow additional management fl exibility. BLM may reduce grazing use if 

that would facilitate progress toward meeting land use plan objectives. 

Proposals to reduce or increase grazing use will be analyzed and documented in a NEPA compliant 

grazing decision. Completely removing grazing from an area identified in this plan as “available for 

livestock grazing” requires NEPA analysis as well as a Land Use Plan Amendment. 

The trailing of livestock from one allotment to another is a common practice in the livestock industry. 

Historic trail routes are still used today in many areas of the Monument. The majority of this trailing 

occurs along existing roads. There are two historic livestock trails in the Monument that do not follow 

designated roads and cross lava flows now administered by the NPS. Federal regulations and NPS 

policy strictly limit authorized livestock use on National Park System lands. If livestock permittees 

should request trailing of livestock across NPS-administered lands on either of these two trails, the NPS 

would consider granting a special use permit after first determining whether legal authority exists and 

completing an environmental analysis to assure no unacceptable impacts to the Monument’s resources, 

values, or purposes occur. Figure F-1 shows the location of the two existing trails. 

IV. ISSUING LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

PERMIT AND LEASE SUMMARY 

The procedures for issuing livestock grazing permits and leases usually follow a logical progression. 

Certain steps are followed in order to issue livestock grazing permits and leases. In some instances, steps 

are conducted concurrently. Below is a progression of these steps: 

422 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Step 1 — Notify the permittees that their allotment(s) are being assessed and evaluated in 

preparation for renewing their livestock grazing permit(s)/lease(s). Appropriate state agencies, 

tribes, and interested publics are also notified. Provide an opportunity for all of these entities to 

submit data and information they feel are important to consider in the Rangeland Health Assessment 

and Evaluation (RHAE). 

Step 2 — Field managers (FMs) assemble an interdisciplinary (ID) team to complete the Initial 

Allotment and Permit/Lease Review and RHAE. The ID team recommends to the fi eld manager 

allotments that need additional field data. The RHAE is completed when no additional data is 

needed. 

Step 3 — Provide opportunities for the permittees, appropriate state agencies, tribes, and interested 

publics to participate in the training for field data collection, analysis, and evaluation and the actual 

collection of field data and information. 

Step 4 — When necessary, collect field data and information needed to make a determination 

of whether the allotment is meeting or making progress toward meeting the Idaho Standard for 

Rangeland Health (ISRH). 

Step 5 — Complete the Rangeland Health Assessment (RHA). When Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) proposed and/or listed species or designated critical habitat is an issue in the allotment, the 

ESA Level 1 Team may be involved. FMs may elect to provide the permittees, state agencies, and 

interested publics an opportunity to review and provide comment on a draft RHA. 

Step 6 — FM completes and signs the Evaluation and Determination at least 30 days prior to 

completing the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and 

issuing the proposed decision. 

Step 7 — Send the Determination to permittees, state agencies, tribes, and interested publics. 

Step 8 — Send the permittee(s) an application to renew a livestock grazing permit. Field staff works 

with the permittee(s) during field data gathering and the RHA to develop management proposals, and 

to add known issues. The permittee should be instructed to describe the grazing management they 

propose in order to address the issues described in the determination. BLM will offer to assist the 

permittee in completing the application. 

Step 9 — BLM develops alternatives to be considered in the EA. The management proposed in 

the application for livestock grazing will be the proposed action. When the applicant’s proposed 

management is not likely to begin making progress toward meeting the ISRH, BLM will develop 

Appendices: APPENDIX F 423
an alternative that would likely begin to make progress. The “no livestock grazing” alternative 

generally will not be included in the EA. Other grazing management proposals may be analyzed in 

detail, or they may be considered without being analyzed in detail. 

Step 10 — When ESA Section 7 consultation or conferencing is required, the Level 1 team should 

be brought into the process when developing the alternatives, including working with the applicant. 

This will help ensure timely consultation. 

Step 11 — Carefully prepare the Purpose and Need statement for the EA. 

Step 12 — Prepare the EA. 

Step 13 — When ESA Section 7 consultation or conferencing is required, prepare the Biological 

Assessment (BA). The preferred alternative in the EA is the proposed action in the BA. The 

permittee must be consulted regarding the proposed action in the BA. Therefore the analysis 

in the EA will provide much of the analysis in the BA. At the conclusion of the consultation, a 

concurrence letter or biological opinion must be incorporated into the EA. 

Step 14 — A copy of the EA may be sent to the public for review and comment. The review period 

is generally 30 days. 

Step 15 — Complete the FONSI. 

Step 16 — Prepare the proposed decision with appropriate protest periods. 

Step 17 — Respond to protests and prepare the final decision with the appropriate appeal procedures. 

424 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
APPENDIXG

PROPOSED LAIDLAW PARK ACEC DESIGNATION 

The purpose of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designation is to focus management 

attention on special resources located in the area. The potential ACEC designation was brought to 

the attention of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which then used a screening process – the 

ACEC Criteria Review Checklist – as an initial evaluation to determine if the nominated area met basic 

relevance and importance criteria for designation. The BLM considered the appropriate amount of 

land needed to protect the resource values reflected in the nomination. The designation of this ACEC in 

Laidlaw Park is proposed in Alternative C of this document (See Chapter 2, Alternative C). 

The ACEC evaluation was based on guidance provided by 43 CFR 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual Section 

1613, which state that potential ACECs must meet specified criteria for relevance and importance. 

Relevance is based on the presence of a signifi cant 

• Historic, cultural, or scenic value; 

• Fish or wildlife resource or other natural system or process; or 

• Natural hazard. 

Upon meeting the relevance criteria, a nominated site must then have substantial significance and values 

that meet one or more of the “importance” criteria: 

• Has more than locally significant qualities which give it special worth, consequence, meaning, 

distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource. 

• Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, 

unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change. 

• Has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to 

carry out the mandates of Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA). 

• Has qualities which warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or management concerns 

about safety and public welfare. 

• Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property. 

North Laidlaw Park met the relevance criteria for scenic values, wildlife resources, and natural 

process or system and importance criteria for scenic values and wildlife resources. The Laidlaw 

Park ACEC (10,500 acres of public land) is proposed in Alternative C. However, it is uncertain that 

ACEC designation is needed to provide special management for the identified resources or values, 

because current management, regulation, and law provide sufficient protection for the values identifi ed; 

therefore, ACEC designation may not be necessary. The ACEC criteria review checklist follows: 

Appendices: APPENDIX G 425
Relevance: Does the area contain a significant historic, cultural or scenic Yes/No 

value; fish or wildlife resource; natural process or system; or natural hazard? 

Historic: There are no recorded historical resources that contribute to the ACEC. No 

Cultural: There are no recorded cultural resources that contribute to the ACEC. No 

Scenic: Laidlaw Park is the world’s largest kipuka and contains unobstructed Yes 

views of the volcanic landscapes for which the Monument was established, as well 

as the Pioneer Mountains to the north. Because of the isolated nature of the area it 

provides excellent night-sky viewing. Air quality monitoring from the nearby NPS 

Monument headquarters indicates that the airshed is among the cleanest in the 

nation. 

Fish or Wildlife Resource: There are no fish resources in the area. North Laidlaw Yes 

Park contains one of the last remaining large contiguous blocks of low elevation 

sagebrush habitat found in the central Snake River Plain. The area provides critical 

breeding, brood rearing, and winter habitat for sage grouse and other sagebrush 

dependent wildlife. In addition, the area provides important seasonal habitat for 

pronghorn and elk and important transition range for migrating mule deer. North 

Laidlaw Park contains 7 active and historical leks. 

Natural Process or System: The natural system in Laidlaw Park is classified as Yes 

cool shrub, with communities dominated by basin big sagebrush, Wyoming big 

sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, and threetip sagebrush in association with 

bluebunch wheatgrass, Thurber’s needlegrass, and Idaho fescue. Communities 

within the park are in a variety of seral stages, ranging from early seral grassland 

post-fire to early- and late-seral shrub-dominated stands. There is currently little 

known about the ecology of threetip sagebrush communities, which are common 

throughout the area. In particular, it is unknown if these communities are a longterm seral stage of a big sagebrush association, or climax communities unto 

themselves. Laidlaw Park has only been grazed for approximately 70 years, as 

compared to surrounding areas that have been grazed for over 100 years. Recent 

livestock use in North Laidlaw has been light due to lack of water. This area is in 

good to excellent ecological condition without large areas dominated by exotic 

species and with considerable forb diversity. Therefore the area serves as a 

reference site for ecologically comparable, more heavily grazed sites. North 

Laidlaw also contains an aspen grove at Snowdrift Crater, a plant community that 

is rare in this desert environment. Habitat is present for the BLM Sensitive species, 

Picabo milkvetch (Astragalus oniciformis), which is endemic to this area of the 

central Snake River Plain. 

Natural Hazard: There are no known natural hazards within the area. No 

426 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Importance: Does the value, resource system, process, or hazard meet one Yes/No 

or more of the following importance factors: (1) has more than locally 

significant qualities and special worth or cause for concern; (2) has qualities/circumstances making it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change; (3) is 

recognized as warranting protection to satisfy national priority concerns or 

carry out FLPMA’s mandates; (4) warrants highlighting to satisfy concerns 

about safety and public welfare? 

Historic: N/A 

Cultural: N/A 

Scenic: The scenic qualities found within the area are unique on a national Yes 

level. Bordered on the north side by the National Park Service’s fi rst federally 

designated Wilderness area, North Laidlaw Park offers the viewer a striking 

visual progression. Looking north across the vast sagebrush steppe landscape, 

the view from North Laidlaw Park climbs abruptly into the black austerity of the 

Craters of the Moon lava fields, then high into the Pioneer Mountains. To the 

south lies Laidlaw Butte, representing one of the most outstanding examples of 

a low shield volcano in the world outside of Hawaii. The shallow-angled slopes 

of Laidlaw Butte typify the unique volcanic character of the Snake River Plain. 

Snowdrift Crater is the summit caldera of another discrete shield volcano. Over 

one mile long and nearly a half-mile across, Snowdrift Crater is geologically 

comparable to Kilauea Caldera in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, offering 

views into the giant cinder cones and fresh multi-colored lavas of the Craters of 

the Moon Wilderness. In the southern part of the Crater, a rare stand of aspen 

offers shade to both visitors and a large herd of migrating elk. The spectacular 

seasonal color changes combined with the unique variety of disparate ecosystems and landforms earned published photographs in both Sunset Magazine and 

Sierra Club Calendars. 

Fish or Wildlife Resource: There are no fish resources within the area. The Yes 

area contains key habitat for sage grouse and other sagebrush steppe obligates 

(Terrestrial Family 11 as defined by ICBEMP). This habitat, particularly big 

sagebrush vegetation types, has declined substantially from historical to current 

on a regional level. ICBEMP identified areas such as this as being signifi cant 

regionally due to this decline. The Proclamation for the expansion of the Monument highlighted the importance of the area as habitat for sagebrush steppe 

obligates and its protection. 

Natural Process or System: North Laidlaw Park is not vulnerable to adverse No 

change under existing management. Current fire management direction is for 

full fire suppression, especially for the protection of sage grouse “strongholds,” 

which includes the entire park. Current post-fire rehabilitation policy directs the 

use of native species where it is appropriate. 

Natural Hazard: N/A 

Appendices: APPENDIX G 427
Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

The nominated Laidlaw Park ACEC would not be designated. Existing management for the area would 

continue to be implemented (see the appropriate resource sections in this chapter for management 

direction). 

Alternative B 

The nominated Laidlaw Park ACEC would not be designated. 

Alternative C 

In this alternative, 10,517 acres of public land encompassing North Laidlaw Park, north of the Turnbull 

Fence, would be designated as an ACEC (see Figure G-1). The following actions would be implemented 

to protect the high quality native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and scenic values of the area: 

a) Develop standards and indicators for vegetation health that allow for natural disturbance and 

processes while ensuring that degradation due to invasion of invasive or noxious weeds does not 

occur. 

b) Develop a low-use transportation network with no new routes, trails, or signs. 

c) No new development of permanent livestock watering facilities to ensure that the existing, 

light use of the area continues. The two existing watering facilities will be maintained, but not 

expanded. Water hauling to temporary sites will remain at the current level. 

d) Use off-site interpretive resources (e.g., brochures and displays in the Visitor Center) to highlight 

grazing management, native vegetation, and scenic qualities of the area. 

Alternative D 

The nominated Laidlaw Park ACEC would not be designated. 

428 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Arco 

0 5 mi 0 5 km 

20 26 

93 

20 

93 

26 

24 

Map Scale = 1:500,000 

2.5 10 

10 20 

PIONEER 

MOUNTAINS 

Carey 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management or National Park 

Service for use of the data for purposes not intended by these agencies. 

Minidoka 

Kimama 

Craters of the Moon National Monument & Preserve 

FIGURE G1 

PROPOSED LAIDLAW PARK ACEC 

U.S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service * Bureau of Land Management 

Monument Boundary 

Class I Trail 

D Road 

Lava 

Proposed ACEC 

C Road 

B Road 

A Road 

Town 

Appendices: APPENDIX G 429

RECREATION STATISTICS — CRATERS OF THE MOON 

APPENDIXH

NATIONAL MONUMENT, 1999-2002 

Month Year Recreation Total Tent RV Total Back- Misc. Total 

Visits Visits Campers Campers RV/Tent country Campers Over night 

Campers Campers Stays 

January 1999 2,691 2,691 0 0 0 0 0 0 

February 1999 2,040 2,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 

March 1999 6,495 6,495 0 0 0 0 0 0 

April 1999 6,900 6,900 0 19 19 0 0 19 

May 1999 21,926 21,926 558 896 1,454 25 20 1,499 

June 1999 35,507 35,507 1,206 2,003 3,209 41 270 3,520 

July 1999 46,843 46,843 1,590 1,779 3,369 19 180 3,568 

August 1999 42,100 42,100 1,482 1,724 3,206 15 219 3,440 

September 1999 29,442 29,442 905 1,643 2,548 20 0 2,568 

October 1999 13,848 13,848 254 391 645 1 0 646 

November 1999 5,860 5,860 47 62 109 0 0 109 

December 1999 1,915 1,915 0 0 0 0 0 0 

January 2000 1,431 1,431 0 0 0 0 0 0 

February 2000 1,719 1,719 0 0 0 4 0 4 

March 2000 5,065 5,065 0 0 0 6 0 6 

April 2000 9,131 9,131 152 198 350 36 0 386 

May 2000 20,574 20,574 555 952 1,507 32 60 1,599 

June 2000 59,573 59,573 1,234 1,547 2,781 18 270 3,069 

July 2000 39,358 39,358 1,435 1,339 2,774 8 120 2,902 

August 2000 29,013 29,013 1,104 1,020 2,124 12 120 2,256 

September 2000 26,271 26,271 608 862 1,470 8 0 1,478 

October 2000 14,262 14,262 254 322 576 19 0 595 

November 2000 3,475 3,475 19 31 50 0 0 50 

December 2000 1,770 1,770 3 6 9 0 0 9 

January 2001 2,368 2,368 0 0 0 0 0 0 

February 2001 1,290 1,290 0 0 0 0 0 0 

March 2001 5,726 5,726 0 0 0 1 0 1 

April 2001 7,660 7,660 121 81 202 8 0 210 

May 2001 21,338 21,338 490 725 1,215 38 270 1,523 

June 2001 30,394 30,394 1,110 1,451 2,561 37 240 2,838 

July 2001 40,769 40,769 992 1,026 2,018 12 180 2,210 

August 2001 33,133 33,133 1,215 1,141 2,356 10 0 2,366 

September 2001 24,808 24,808 840 1,150 1,990 11 0 2,001 

October 2001 13,161 13,161 177 239 416 16 0 432 

November 2001 4,991 4,991 71 28 99 12 0 111 

December 2001 161 161 3 0 3 0 0 3 

January 2002 1,897 1,897 0 0 0 0 0 0 

February 2002 1,141 1,141 0 0 0 0 0 0 

March 2002 4,495 4,495 0 0 0 0 0 0 

April 2002 6,181 6,181 90 62 152 2 0 154 

May 2002 20,968 20,968 496 741 1,237 20 0 1,257 

June 2002 30,346 30,346 1,073 1,547 2,620 24 90 2,734 

July 2002 37,447 37,447 1,308 1,265 2,573 8 210 2,791 

August 2002 36,173 36,173 1,538 1,460 2,998 16 90 3,104 

September 2002 25,833 25,833 756 1,237 1,993 9 90 2,092 

October 2002 13,103 13,103 220 279 499 13 0 512 

November 2002 3,565 3,565 6 0 6 0 0 6 

December 2002 2,424 2,424 0 0 0 2 0 2 

TOTALS 796,581 796,581 21,912 27,226 49,138 503 2,429 52,070 

Appendices: APPENDIX H 431

APPENDIX I

CONSULTATION LETTERS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DRAFT PLAN EIS /

Appendices: APPENDIX I 433
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

434 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 435
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

436 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 437
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

438 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 439
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

440 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 441
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

442 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 443
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

444 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 445
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

446 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 447
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

448 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 449
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

450 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 451
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

452 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 453
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

454 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 455
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

456 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 457
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

458 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 459
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

460 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 461
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

462 
Appendices: APPENDIX I 463
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

464 
APPENDIX J

FIRE MANAGEMENT AND VEGETATION 

TREATMENT PROTOCOLS 

Wildland fire suppression and vegetation treatment protocols would be implemented under all 

alternatives. These protocols would be applied to fire suppression and vegetation treatment activities 

with the intent of protecting sensitive resources. However, wildland fire suppression is generally an 

emergency activity and the Monument Manager or Park Superintendent could choose to override 

the protocols to protect life, property, or valuable resources. Suppression protocols would be further 

defined within the Monument FMP. Treatment protocols would be addressed in project-specifi c NEPA 

documents. All protocols are intended to prevent significant impacts to natural and human resources. 

Wildland Fire Suppression Protocols Common to All Alternatives 

• Dozer blading should not occur within 300 feet of playas or dry lakebeds to protect cultural 

resources. Buffer zones greater than 300 feet from playas and dry lakebeds are preferable. 

• Dozer blading should not occur within 300 feet of known historic trails and cultural sites. 

• Dozer blading should not occur within 300 feet of perennial streams unless approved by 

the authorized officer. Buffer zones greater than 300 feet from riparian areas are preferable. 

Exceptions would be made to protect lives and property when safety is an immediate concern, or 

under the direction of a Resource Advisor when an escape would cause more long-term damage 

to resources. 

• Within the NPS Monument and Preserve, dozers shall not be used for line construction or driven 

off-road across NPS lands unless a fire poses an immediate threat to life or property and with the 

approval of the NPS Monument Superintendent. 

• Within Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and the Pristine Zone, wildland fi re management 

activities should follow BLM Manual H-8550-1, Interim Policy for Lands Under Wilderness 

Review. The use of earth-moving equipment within these areas requires approval of the 

authorized offi cer. 

• Within the Craters of the Moon Wilderness, motorized equipment or mechanized transportation 

shall not be used unless emergency conditions threaten life or property. 

• Fire camps and staging areas shall be placed outside of the Pristine Zone. 

• Use of natural firebreaks and existing roads and trails to contain a wildland fi re will be 

encouraged.

• Establishment of control lines, base camps, and support facilities should be avoided in known 

habitat for special status species unless life and property are threatened. 

• When a wildland fire escapes initial attack, BLM and/or NPS Resource Advisors will be assigned 

to ensure that resource management concerns are adequately addressed and that necessary 

mitigation occurs. 

• The Resource Advisor(s) will ensure emergency consultation is initiated with the USFWS 

whenever suppression activities impact listed species habitat.

Appendices: APPENDIX J 465
• Application of retardant or foam will be avoided within 300 feet of waterways. Exceptions would 

be made to protect lives and property when safety is an immediate imperative, or under the 

direction of a Resource Advisor when an escape would cause more long-term damage to aquatic 

resources. 

• To minimize spread of noxious and invasive plant species, equipment used for extended attack or 

Type I or II incidents should be cleaned before arriving on site and prior to leaving the incident. 

Staging areas and fire camps should avoid sites with noxious weed infestations. 

• Developed recreation sites and structures on public lands will be protected. 

• Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) guidelines will be followed where appropriate. 

• Prior to fire season, potential areas of conflict between archaeological resources and fi re 

suppression activities should be identifi ed. 

• An archaeologist will be notified of any cultural resources encountered during suppression 

activities. Where feasible, line construction will be preceded by assessment by an archaeologist. 

Restoration Treatment Protocols Common to All Alternatives 

• Noxious/invasive species inventory, and pre- and post-burn treatments will be utilized to reduce 

the overall threat of noxious and invasive species establishment and spread. 

• All herbicides will be applied by certified applicators following label directions. 

• Prescribed fire treatments and wildland fire for resource use will follow pre-approved fi re 

management plans or project-specific burn plans that restrict when, where, and the conditions 

under which fire can be used. 

• Plant materials used in vegetation treatments would be predominately native. However, nonnative species may be used in vegetation treatments in the BLM portion of the Monument on 

harsh or degraded sites where they are needed to structurally mimic the natural plant community 

and prevent soil loss and invasion by exotic annual grasses and noxious weeds. The species used 

would be those that have the highest probability of establishment on these sites without invading 

surrounding areas. These “placeholders” would maintain the area for future native restoration. 

Native seed would be used more frequently and at larger scales as species adapted to the local 

area become available. 

• All prescribed fire treatment areas would be rested from livestock grazing for a minimum of 

two growing seasons or until vegetation establishment and resource objectives are achieved, 

including soil stability and desired vegetation cover, or as defined in site-specifi c plans. 

• Cultural resource inventories/surveys will be completed prior to implementing site-specifi c 

restoration projects. 

• Dozer blading should not occur within 300 feet of known historic trails and cultural sites. 

• No dozer blading should occur within 300 feet of perennial streams. Buffer zones greater than 

300 feet are preferable. 

• Within WSAs and the Pristine Zone, vegetation treatment activities should follow BLM Manual 

H-8550-1, Interim Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review. 

• All restoration treatments in areas supporting threatened and endangered species would be 

466 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
conducted in consultation with the USFWS. 

• From February 1 through August 15, restrictions may be imposed on restoration treatments in 

areas supporting nesting raptors. Treatment proposals would be coordinated with IDFG. 

• Restoration treatments proposed in areas supporting sage-grouse would be coordinated with 

IDFG. 

• Restoration treatments in areas supporting sage-grouse breeding habitat would be limited from 

March 1 through April 30, and grouse nesting habitat April 30 through June 15. 

• Restoration treatments in areas supporting sage-grouse wintering habitats would be limited from 

December 1 through March 1. 

• Sage-grouse Key and Source habitats would be maintained and enhanced when possible within 

Low- and Mid-Elevation Shrub types. Restoration treatments would generally be limited in 

habitats supporting live sagebrush communities. Treatments to enhance and restore habitat would 

be focused in areas where the sagebrush component is lost or dead and the understory degraded. 

• Seasonal guidelines may be applied if needed to mitigate the impacts to big game species from 

planned restoration treatments (Table J-1). 

Table J-1 

Seasonal Big Game Guidelines for Restoration Treatments. 

Habitat Restricted Period 

Crucial big game 

winter range 

Limited activities from November 15 through April 30. Pile burning 

permitted on a case-by-case basis. Treatments occurring on crucial 

winter range would be coordinated with IDFG. 

Elk calving area Limited activities from May 15 through June 30. Treatments 

occurring in elk calving areas would be coordinated with IDFG. 

Pronghorn and mule 

deer fawning ground 

Treatments occurring in fawning areas would be coordinated with 

IDFG with limited activities occurring from May 15 through June 30. 

• Treatments would consider visual qualities to preserve the landscape character. Wherever possible, 

landscape modifications would replicate a natural line, form, color and texture found in the 

surrounding area. Treatments that result in long-term disruption of natural visual qualities (e.g., drill 

seeding that establishes vegetation rows) should be avoided or hidden by design. 

• Treatments in developed or high-use recreation areas would be designed to minimize impacts to the 

recreational resource or users. 

• All prescribed fire would be done in coordination with the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group Smoke 

Management Program. 

• The economic effects of alternative fuels management practices should be considered. Local 

involvement and economic benefits from restoration projects will be promoted. 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Protocols Common to All Alternatives 

• When conducting ESR actions on BLM lands, standard operating procedures outlined in the Normal 

Year Fire Rehabilitation Plan for the Shoshone and Burley Field offices (USDI BLM 2005) will be 

followed. 

Appendices: APPENDIX J 467

CONSULTATION AND AGENCY LETTERS RECEIVED 

APPENDIXK

ON THE DRAFT PLAN/EIS 

This appendix includes copies of letters received as a result of government-to-government consultation with 

Tribes, consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

Resource Advisory Council, as well as other letters received from state and local governments. 

Appendices: APPENDIX K 469
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

470 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 471
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

472 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 473
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

474 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 475
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

476 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 477
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

478 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 479
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

480 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 481
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

482 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 483
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

484 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 485
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

486 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 487
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

488 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 489
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

490 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 491
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

492 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 493
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

494 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 495
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

496 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 497
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

498 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 499
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

500 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 501
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

502 
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

504 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 503
Appendices: APPENDIX K 505
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

506 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 507
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

508 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 509
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

510 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 511
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

512 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 513
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

514 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 515
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

516 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 517
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

518 
Appendices: APPENDIX K 519
CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

520 
COMMENTS ON DRAFT PLAN/EIS AND RESPONSES 

APPENDIX L

This appendix contains all 570 substantive comments received on the Draft Management Plan/EIS during the 90-

day comment period (April 30 to July 29, 2004). Specific responses to those comments, prepared by the NPS and 

BLM, are also shown. If the text of the Draft Plan/EIS was changed in response to a comment, this is also noted. 

The reader is also referred to Chapter 5 of this document, where the public involvement and comment analysis 

process is described in greater detail. Additionally, comments and responses (individually listed in this appendix) 

are summarized in Chapter 5 by resource topic, providing a more concise analysis of the public input received 

on the Draft Plan/EIS. Information in that chapter also describes consultation with Native American Tribes and 

coordination with other government agencies. 

During the comment period, the BLM and NPS received 153 individual letters and 975 form letters commenting 

on the Draft Plan/EIS. The 570 substantive comments from those letters were identified, as required by NEPA 

(40 CFR 1503.4), the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), and the NPS Director’s Order 12 Handbook. Substantive 

comments are those which challenge the accuracy of the analysis, dispute the accuracy of information, suggest 

different viable alternatives, or provide new information that makes a change in the proposal. In other words, 

they raise, debate, or question a point of fact or policy. Comments in favor of or against one or more alternatives 

or comments that only agree or disagree with policy are not considered substantive, although they often provide 

important and valuable information or opinion. 

This appendix lists each individual substantive comment received along with the specific response to that comment and references to any text changes made as a result. In the column to the left of the comment and response 

is a reference to the number of the comment letter and the corresponding comment in that letter. Comments and 

responses are grouped by resource topic, as analyzed in the EIS. Unless otherwise noted, page numbers cited in 

the comments and responses refer to the Draft Plan/EIS, not the Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

Appendices: APPENDIX L 521
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

4 / 001

28 / 001

4 / 002

126 / 002 

Cultural Resources

Comment 

On page 110, Prehistoric and Historic Sites: The first sentence in

this section states that there are 346 known, recorded culturalresources in the Monument. According to our records, 1149 archaeological sites have been recorded within the Monument. 

The Power County Historical Society met on the 23rd of June. 

We discussed your management plans. We are in favor of 

Alternative D, which is your preferred. We wish to express 

our interest in being a gateway facility at our new museum. 

Pp. 193-194: While we are not opposed to Alternative #4, we 

question the statement at the bottom of p. 193 that begins with: "Because there would be no major adverse impacts on a resource or value whose conservation is..." We wonder how the NPS and BLM can make this statement when so little is known about the number and nature of sites within the Monument (only 5% of the Monument has been surveyed), and the effects of increased visitor 

use. This, coupled with insufficient professional staff to monitor 

effects and identify historic properties, leaves much to be learned about the fate of Monument's cultural resources. 

The document provides sufficient information regarding issues of 

concern brought up during scoping and clear figures 

related to each alternative. However, EPA recommends including additional information in the EIS regarding cultural resources and water resources impacts. The EIS discusses cultural resources and the consultation that occurred and that long term cultural resource impacts would not occur. EPA recommends further discussing specific issues that were identified by tribes in the consultation process and how any issues would be addressed. This will assist the publicin understanding how the consultation process affects management decisions for not only Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act identified resources, but also tribal resources related to traditional sites, sacred sites, travel routes, and traditional hunting. 

Response 

The agencies conferred with the State Historic Preserva

and agency GIS specialists to calculate the number of re

within the Monument given the most current informatio

The text on page 110 has been edited as a result. It now 

500 known, recorded cultural resources...”

Thank you for your comment. 

The section on Pages 193-194 refers to “impairment” of 

cultural resources. From the information we presently h

extrapolate that the vast majority of cultural resources w

Monument lie within the least accessible areas of the M

are naturally protected to some extent by their remotene

understood that Section 106 review would be required f

implementation actions pursuant to this DEIS and majo

effects would be avoided where at all possible. 

Issues of tribal concern are addressed in the Native Am

Rights, Trust Resources and Ethnographic Resources se

document p. 111-112 and 194-200. In addition, the gov

government relationship with Tribes is expressed in lett

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, printed in Appendix K.

522 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 523

Topic	 Cultural Resources

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


107 / 003	 All historic signs identifying historic locations should be erected in 

order to identify those points as established from prior use. For instance, Little Blowout is now identified as Big Blowout, this is incorrect. All those places should be identified ashistoric. For instance, some playas are identified by names of BLM personnel, this is not historic. 

4 / 003	 Outfitters and guides should receive some training in cultural 

resource laws and ethics. 

4 / 004	 Finally, we are pleased to learn that, under Alternative 4, the 

National Park Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plan to support a Section 110 program at the Monument that will include on-going Section 110 survey, public education, interpretation, monitoring, and the preparation of a Cultural Resource Management Plan. As you know, however, the BLM has two archaeologists for the entire Shoshone, Idaho Falls, and Pocatello districts; the National Park Service has no archaeologists is southern Idaho. With such limited staff and so many acres, we question how your agencies can fulfill the cultural resource commitments of Alternative 4 without additional professional staff. We urge you to include as part of this GMP and EIS a parallel commitment to hire the professional staff needed to implement this program and fulfill the obligations outlined in this document. 

123 / 034	 The DEIS discussion of ongoing activities fails to mention the 

array of livestock impacts to cultural sites that must be addressed 

– trampling, disturbing site stratigraphy, breaking artifacts, causing soil erosion exposing artifacts to surface looting, introducing weeds and altering fire cycles so archaeological sites are damaged 

by intense fires. 

123 / 065	 Why are you proposing to inventory only 10% of the Monument 

for cultural resources? How can you decide which roads to not 

upgrade if you have not conducted these inventories? 

Response 

A Comprehensive Interpretive Plan would be developed 

Monument after this Proposed Plan/FEIS is put in place 

will be addressed at that time. 

Thank you for your suggestion.

A discussion of staffing is outside the scope of the DEIS

DEIS seeks to set the future management direction and g

the Monument, achievements to strive for. Once this dir

in place, it will support future managers’ requests for add

funding and staff to accomplish these goals.

The Impacts to Cultural Resources section discusses the 

livestock and wildfires/wildfire suppression on archaeolo

pages 188-193. 

The plan proposes Section 110 inventory on 10% of the 

(p. 186). Section 110 of the National Historic Preservatio

refers to non-project related inventory. Section 106 of th

National Historic Preservation Act refers to project relateand is always completed for federal actions, as mentioneAny road construction project would be subject to Sectioand review. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

11 / 001

2 / 002

126 / 003

123 / 132

123 / 176 

Water Resources 

Comment 

This document states that because of the short seasonal periods 

during which standing water is present in playas, the impacts of livestock use-- contamination with fecal coliform and nutrients from manure deposits-- are negated by the eventual disappearance of surface water. Disappearance of water does not negate the problem, because although the water may not be present year-round, nutrient sources (deposited feces) could remain until the following wet season allows them to remobilize. The USGSrecommends the statement be modified to remove the word "negated.” 

On page 242, you mention that "intense recreational use of ice 

cave pools could create moderate changes in nutrient concentrations and bacteria levels.” Could you expand what you 

mean by 'ice cave pools?’ The draft refers to the same text for 

each alternative. Are there known ice cave pools and what givesthe impression that they will be visited recreationally? 

The Monument area is inherently dry and the limited supply of 

water and water quality are critical elements for sustainability of wildlife and other natural resources, which is a component of the carrying capacity (a character used by the NPS for ensuring no excessive damage to the environment) of the area as discussed in the EIS. The EIS discusses how Alternative D "could accommodate more livestock water developments," and that if these are developed than water quality in playas could be impacted. EPA supports long term 

water quality and protection of playas and all other water resources 

 in the area. EPA recommends further discussing what measures

 will be taken to ensure that grazing will not adversely impact water 

 resources, how this will be monitored, and how management 

direction will be adapted.

BLM’s proposed grazing regulation changes would hand over much 

of the control of public lands to permittees. Under these changes,permittees would be granted partial ownership of water projects. The DEIS must analyze these foreseeable impacts. 

DEIS at 282. Have water rights filings been made on all waters 

within the Monument? If not, when will this occur, and why has it  not been done? Please provide a list of all water rights filings, with geographic locators. How will the waters of the Monument be protected from aquifer depletion? 

Response 

We agree. The word negated has been deleted from this 

Ice cave pools are pools of water melted from ice depos

floor of caves. The ice deposits prevent the melted wate

draining away through the fractured basalt. There are do

ice caves with pools of water during the warm seasons o

of these caves are on developed trails and are visited rec

by many people each year. Other ice caves are more rem

recreational use could lead to increases in nutrient and b

BLM does not identify playas as riparian areas accordin

riparian area definition in the BLM Technical 

Reference TR 1737-9 and 11. TLM presently has no da

standards to evaluate playas. Therefore, BLM will use t

professional judgment to determine if the standards for 

health are being met or we are moving towards meeting 

the health of the playas will also be met. The Draft EIS 

grazing management so the impacts of grazing on water 

substantially the same for all alternatives. The Draft EIS 

 concludes that livestock grazing is expected to be long t

 intensity ranging from negligible to potentially major in 

 depending upon the concentration and duration of livest

The new regulations are not in effect at this time. It is 

 BLM EIS follow the Code of Federal Regulations. The 

regulations do not change BLM’s authority to manage p

A summary of the status of water rights within the Mon

found on page 99 of the Draft EIS.

524 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 525

Topic	 Geological Resources 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


104 / 003	 ... It is difficult to comprehend why the impacts associated 

with this alternative are noted as ranging from “negligible to potentially major” when this is the same designation ascribed to Alternative D, even though it offers no road closures and increases 

the Passage Zone. Either the impacts associated with Alternative 

 C should be downgraded, or the impacts associated with Alternative D should be upgraded to highlight the significant differences between these alternatives. 

165 / 018	 Page 67 -Table 8; Summary of Impacts; Geological Resources: 

The Service believes that the maintenance and improvement of roads, along with the reduction of acres in the Pristine Zone, would result in an increase of damage from visitors and would compromise restoration efforts, contrary to the statement made 

herein. 

123 / 068	 This is deeply flawed, especially the analysis of Alt. D. Livestock 

trampling displaces and alters surface lava features, causes windblown weeds to obscure surfaces of lava formations, increases dust coating on lava surfaces. There is no basis for Alt. D to be claimed “beneficial” to geological resources because of its “aggressive” restoration – while livestock disturbance continues to

 be maximized. Plus, Alt. D does not emphasize off-site recreation  experience as it leaves almost all roads open, thus encouraging motorized use through nearly all sagebrush habitats.

123 / 139	 How does wind-blown livestock water in dust affect geologic

surfaces? How does being covered by windblown livestock-caused weds affect geologic surfaces, lichen covering, weathering, etc.?How do windblown herbicides (including transported on soils) affect lichens, and appearance of geologic surfaces? The analysis of grazing effects and road effects on geologic resources ids greatly 

 under-estimated in the analysis. 

Response 

As noted on page 157 in the geology section of Chapter 

4, “Alternative C would cause the fewest impacts on geo

resources of all the alternatives.” In any of the alternativ

however, individual features could have impacts ranging 

negligible to major. In the Proposed Plan/FEIS we have 

expanded Pristine Zone similar to Alternative C, which 

most passive protection through limited access. 

Road improvements have never been mandated by fallin

particular zone description; any improvements will be d

management, restoration, and resource protection needs

the Proposed Plan/FEIS the amount of Passage Zone ha

over what was in the original Alternative D and the Pris

been expanded to be closer to Alternative C. Off-site in

will still be emphasized in the Proposed Plan/FEIS for athe developed portion of the Monument. 

As noted on page 157 in the geology section of Chapter 

 and associated trailing would result in the same negligib

adverse impacts described for other alternatives, since g

not be managed any differently under this alternative.” 

 can not be characterized as maximized under Alternativ

causing more damage to geologic features. Contrary to 

statement, Alternative D does emphasize off-site interpr

not attracting people into the expanded Monument. In t

 Plan Alternative D incorporates a Pristine Zone similar 

Alternative C and there will be some miles of road closuthe zone description.

Dust can coat geologic formations until a precipitation e

removes it. Dust can also infiltrate into cinders and be d

 fill cracks providing more growth medium for plants. N

available as to rates of deposition in the Monument. In 

to the aftermath of fire where huge volumes of dust/soil 

(eroded and re-deposited elsewhere), these impacts wou

the range of normal variability and are, therefore, consid

a negligible impact on geologic processes and features. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 143

123 / 177 

Topic 

123 / 030123 / 069 

Geological Resources 

Comment 

The DEIS admits that “an individual geologic feature could suffer 

a major impact,” yet claims that the impacts would be localized. This is essentially saying it is ok to irreparably harm an area, as the impacts are “localized” to the particular feature or area that is

 ruined. This is not management that is compatible with the Monument Proclamation. As the DEIS finds that Alternative C would provide the MOST protection to geologic features, it is impossible to understand why you would not choose the protections of this Alternative as your course of action, given the prominence of geologic features in Monument designation. Plus, please provide a detailed rationale for claiming that Alt. C would only have “slightly” fewer adverse impacts. We believe you have exhibited bias throughout the analysis of Alt. C in underestimating any beneficial impacts related to it. 

DEIS at 285 claims that geologic features may perhaps be the 

over-riding purpose of the Monument, yet in the DEIS analysis of

 environmental effects, it allows for degradation of geological 

resources as part of its Preferred Alternative, and all Alternatives assessed.

Soils

The DEIS claims that soils would be protected from accelerated or 

 unnatural erosion – yet no data on soil erosion hazard, current soil conditions, zones of active erosion, etc. has been presented. No data has been collected and presented on livestock impacts causing soil compaction, loss of microbiotic crusts, or accelerated and unnatural erosion.

The assessment of soils is narrowly constrained, as it assesses no 

alternative that alters livestock soil disturbance. Likewise, Alt. D on soils is deeply flawed, and it fails to recognize the degree of disturbance associated with grazing and even more livestock developments that would be permitted in many of the sagebrush 

areas. 

Response 

As noted on page157 in the geology section of Chapter 

4, “Alternative C would cause the fewest impacts on geo

resources of all the alternatives.” In any of the alternativ

 individual features could have impacts ranging from ne

major. In the Proposed Plan/FEIS we have adopted an e

Zone similar to Alternative C, which will afford the mos

protection through limited access. 

Short of keeping people out entirely, it is not possible to 

anthropogenic induced degradation. With 1,100 square 

Monument it would not be possible, even with a vastly i

ranger presence, to stop all adverse activity. In the Prop

 have adopted an expanded Pristine Zone similar to Alte

which will afford the most passive protection through lim

The ID Team felt that the level of detail regarding soils 

adequate to make informed decisions at the RMP/GMP 

analysis. Additional information found in the NRCS Soi

be used for implementation- and project-level planning.

The ID Team felt that the level of detail and accuracy of 

analysis, on the topic of soils, was adequate to make info

decisions at the RMP/GMP level of analysis. Additional 

found in the NRCS Soil Surveys will be used for implem

project-level planning. 

526 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 527

Topic	 Soils 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 071	 The mix of status quo grazing and extensive treatment disturbance 

 plus use of herbicides or fire on unknown acreages will harm air quality. For example, in the Idaho Falls BLM Big DesertFuelbreaks project currently underway along the Arco-Minidoka road, BLM is using a long-term persistent herbicide to kill big sagebrush. This is not “short term”. There are no efforts to address the destruction of microbiotic crusts, which help protect the soil form both wind and water-caused erosion. Plus, as the “restoration” alt. proposes shifting livestock use to other portions of grazed lands while its “treatments” are carried out, the impacts on nearby lands could be significant, and lead to further de-stabilization of soils and dust pollution. 

123 / 076	 The DEIS fails to adequately characterize the Affected 

Environment. For example, the DEIS discussion of Soils fails to assess the impacts of livestock disturbance on soils – including estimates of soil erosion with or without livestock grazing, health 

or condition of microbiotic crusts; impacts of livestock trampling 

on playa soils, etc. It fails to assess impacts of livestock projects 

 on soils. 

123 / 098	 The Laidlaw Determination found that Standard 4 (Native Plant 

Communities) and 8 (T&E Species) were not met. EA at 6 described areas of severe wind erosion potential, and severe water erosion potential. Yet, the DEIS ignores erosion assessment, and development of goals, objectives and management actions to 

 protect soils. 

123 / 146	 DEIS flaws related to soils correspond to those of the road 

analysis. Plus, the displacement of soils above the no action Alt. 

A would be increased dramatically by more improved roads and bladed rights-of-way, more livestock projects in “passage” areas, and much more “restoration” disturbance. Effects of disturbed soils transporting herbicide particles must also be assessed. This 

could significantly harm adjacent sagebrush-steppe vegetation, kill 

scenic lichens on lava, etc.

123 / 190	 Biological crusts must be maintained as a partial shield preventing 

establishment or spread of invasive exotic species; implement a plan to restore damaged biological crusts; prohibit livestock grazing for at least five years following a fire in areas capable of maintaining biological crusts. Delay return of livestock past five years if significant recovery of the biological crust or native vegetation components has not occurred. More natural fire 

Response 

Impacts to soils and biological crusts have been analyze

4. Impacts of projects on soils and biological crusts will 

 site-specific environmental analyses. See also the discu

 the occurrence (or lack of) biological crusts in the Mon

The ID Team felt that the level of detail regarding soils 

adequate to make informed decisions at the RMP/GMP 

analysis. General impacts of livestock on soils are analy

Ch. 4. Additional information found in the NRCS Soil S

used for implementation- and project-level planning.

See DEIS Ch. 4 for analysis of impacts to soils. Manage

and actions are defined in DEIS p. 25, Management Act

 to All Alternatives: Soils. 

Thank you for your comments. Impacts of the proposed 

on soil resources were analyzed in DEIS Ch. 4. Effects o

being transported via soil particles would be analyzed in 

 Weed Management Plan and project-level vegetation tr

environmental assessments. 

The Proposed Plan/FEIS expands the Pristine Zone (as c

draft Alternative D) to include almost all of the WSA. T

would be closed to motorized vehicle use. 

Thank you for your comment. We will consider these po

appropriate implementation- and project-level plans.
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

Topic 

39 / 001 

62 / 001

82 / 001

95 / 001 

Soils

Comment 

conditions must be promoted: reduce or eliminate livestock grazing where historical understory necessary to carry cooler fires has been or could be diminished by grazing; or where historical grass and forb competition to tree and shrub seedling density has been or can be diminished by grazing. 

Vegetation

We feel that the emphasis of Alternative D, protection and 

restoration, is appropriate for the Monument. However, we would 

like to see a more "light-handed" approach, as mentioned in Alternative C, in regards to restoration. 

While I support aggressive weed control, fire management, and 

restoration, the proposal to further develop roads will actually increase the threat of noxious weeds and fire risk, as well as accelerate damage to wilderness values and geologic features. 

The EIS offers little or nothing in the way of an action plan that 

would conserve and/or improve sagebrush habitat and the species dependant upon it in Craters. The preferred alternative would 

actually lead to further degradation of this important ecosystem because it continues destructive grazing practices and allows existing, roads and trails to remain open. 

I would strongly urge that there be a supplemental EIS to 

re-examine reduction in livestock grazing and closure of current unnecessary roads to naturally prevent the spread of weed infestations, plus the use of reseeding with ONLY native plants where any restoration is carried out. 

Response 

All restoration methodologies, including “light-handed” 

restoration, will be considered for future projects. Envir

Assessments for specific restoration projects will analyz

relative to zoning within the Monument, as well as exist

vegetation condition and desired future conditions (see DGuidelines Common To All Alternatives: Management Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

Analysis in the DEIS (Ch. 4) acknowledges the risk of i

improvement relative to weed infestation, fire risk, wild

and geologic features. In response to comments such as 

team reduced the amount of Passage Zone in the Propos

particularly in Laidlaw Park. The implementation plan ftransportation will address road maintenance and improvspecific areas and zones of the Monument, with consideand other issues.

The preferred alternative was designed specifically to fo

restoration and protection of sagebrush steppe habitats w

Monument, and to balance public access and other resou

this goal. Management actions included in the alternativ

proactive restoration of approximately 80,000 acres of d

rangeland, are listed on p. 49 of the DEIS. Additional m

direction common to all alternatives for vegetation, wildand travel, and livestock grazing can be found on pp. 25DEIS. 

The DEIS acknowledges that roads, vehicles, humans, a

 known vectors to the spread of noxious weeds (DEIS C

Discussion on Noxious and Exotic Species, p. 92). A ful

Weed Management Program addresses a broad range of 

education, and control activities to combat noxious weed

p. 25 under Management Guidelines Common to All AlVegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire MThe use of native plants is emphasized in all restoration 

528 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 529

Topic	 Vegetation 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


162 / 001	 In general, the IDFG supports the management direction outlined 

in the DEIS. The preferred alternative calls for aggressive restoration efforts on degraded sagebrush,. steppe communities. As the document correctly states, there has been substantial loss and degradation of these communities throughout southern Idaho and we believe the restoration efforts promulgated under the preferred alternative will significantly improve the condition of the targetedareas. In addition, the restoration efforts will provide for large-scale testing of restoration methods, which will allow evaluation of the most effective methods/techniques to use under a variety of circumstances. 

This, in turn, will improve the efficacy of future restoration efforts on degraded sage-steppe habitats throughout southern Idaho. 

37 / 001	 Plus, after reading the DEIS, it now appears that IF BLM's Big 

Desert Fuelbreaks Project is really implementing part of Alt. B -before the EIS project is anywhere near completion. See, for example, DEIS at 41" proactive fuels mgmt. activities would be undertaken to offset potential effects of increased public use...” 

100 / 002	 There should not be any crested wheat grass planted anyplace, 

especially here. Only native herbage should be replanted. Laidlaw Park should be completely restored with native grasses. 

89 / 002	 The Preferred Alternative promotes aggressive herbicide, 

mechanical and fire treatments and seedings without anyrequirement to address the root causes of ecosystem problems -grazing and roads. Conduct real restoration, relying on passive restoration techniques wherever possible (limit livestock grazing, close roads, remove livestock facilities that are causing weed spread). 

Response 

pursuant to BLM policy and Executive Order 13112, InvSpecies, February 3, 1999, and only native species woulprojects in the Pristine Zone. 

Thank you for your comment. 

The Big Desert Fuelbreaks Project is outside of the boun

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve a

is not implementing any aspect of the Draft EIS. Future 

management projects within the Monument boundary w

through project-level environmental assessments and wi

for public review. 

See DEIS p. 25, Management Actions Common To All 

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

Restoration treatments are not necessarily active and can 

passive methods, such as temporary rest from livestock depending on the current condition of the vegetation and future conditions. The use of native plants is emphasized restoration projects and only native species would be usin the Pristine Zone. 

Same response as previous comment. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

102 / 002

88 / 002

129 / 002113 / 002 

Vegetation

Comment 

The Preferred Alternative is misleadingly dubbed a "restoration" 

alternative by the agencies. It promotes aggressive herbicide, mechanical and fire treatments and seedings without anyrequirement to address the root causes of ecosystem problems -grazing and roads. There is not even a requirement to seed native plant species following a treatment! Conduct real restoration,relying on passive restoration techniques wherever possible (limit livestock grazing, close roads, remove livestock facilities that arecausing weed spread). *** Use only native plants in all seedlings. 

The Preferred Alternative is misleadingly dubbed a "restoration" 

alternative by the agencies. It promotes aggressive herbicide, mechanical and fire treatments and seedings without anyrequirement to address the root causes of ecosystem problems -grazing and roads. There is not even a requirement to seed native plant species following a treatment. Conduct real restoration, relying on passive restoration techniques wherever possible use 

only native plants in all seedlings.

ISDA appreciates the planning teams recognition of the 

importance of noxious weed management. Noxious weeds are one of the most devastating forces occurring on our rangelands today. The aggressive stance the team is taking on noxious weed control will pay dividends well into the future. Invasive annual plants are also a very destructive force found in this area. The planning team has also done a good job at recognizing the need to focus efforts to control

 the spread of these species throughout the Monument. We encourage the team and subsequent managers to maintain a full spectrum of treatment options including prescriptive grazing as a part 

of the ongoing fight against these invaders. 

The preferred alternative calls for aggressive noxious weed control 

and fire management. The plan should recognize grazing as a management tool in obtaining these objectives. Research has been completed that show sheep as an excellent tool for noxious weed control and reducing the fuel load wildfires depend on. 

Response 

Same response as previous comment. Same response as previous comment. 

Thank you for your comment. 

The targeted use of livestock as a cultural or biological t

noxious weed control is recognized under the Proposed 

viable option within a fully implemented Integrated We

Management Program. See DEIS p. 25, Management A

Common To All Alternatives: Vegetation, Including Sp

Species, and Fire Management. 

530 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 531

Topic	 Vegetation 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 002	 The West’s sagebrush wild lands have long been viewed as a 

throwaway landscape, and managed for commodity production. Sagebrush species and subspecies of the genus Artemisia are often complexly interspersed across the landscape, varying with elevation, soils and other factors. Anti-sagebrush myth-based management has been pervasive (Welch and Criddle 2003). Virtually all sagebrush wild lands are grazed (Knick 2003), with resultant alteration of species composition and structure, and disruption of ecosystem functioning (Fleischner 1994). There is now widespread recognition of the spiraling loss, fragmentation and endangerment of sagebrush habitats (Ricketts et al. 1999, Knick et al. 2003). A conservation assessment of North American

 ecoregions found the Snake/Columbia Shrub Steppe bioregionallyOutstanding and Endangered, “requiring protection of remaining habitat and extensive restoration.” Livestock degradation is setting the stage for irreversible changes, which may have already occurred in the Monument in areas of cheatgrass-infested lands. 

37 / 002 However, it is admittedly hard to understand how the Big Desert 

project could really do anything other than increase fire danger by  killing sagebrush and ultimately leading to increases in cheatgrass under the dead shrubs. 

165 / 003	 We believe that implementation of Alternative C will result in 

more acreage of restored sagebrush steppe community than is reported, and perhaps as much as Alternative D. The removal of 

trails and roads, and other limitations on disturbance in the pristine areas should result in passive restoration of those areas. The Service recommends that the final document estimate the 

number of acres that will be improved in all alternatives. 

37 / 003	 I ask that Monument planners find out just what exactly is going 

on, if any Tebuthiruon has yet been placed, and if so where. As you know, Tebuthiuron persists in soils for long periods of time, 

as it kills shrubs over a period of 10 years or more. Any 

chemical-sensitive visitors to the eastern side of Craters may be exposed to chemical-containing dust from this project over the next 

decade. 

Response 

The decline of the sagebrush steppe in the western Unite

acknowledged in the DEIS (pp. 86-98, Affected Environ

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

The Big Desert Fuelbreaks Project is outside of the boun

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve a

is not implementing any aspect of the Draft EIS. Future 

management projects within the Monument boundary w

through project-level environmental assessments and wifor public review.

Potential restoration acreage in Alternative C was estim

than D due to reduction of acres that would receive a ful

restoration treatments under the increased Pristine Zone 

Additional passive restoration through future changes in 

regimes, or road and trail removal, is possible under any 

alternatives; however, is not guaranteed and therefore w

analyzed. Removal of livestock grazing, roads, trails, et

guarantee restoration by passive means if the area is domcheatgrass and/or noxious weeds, and does not have an on-site seed source for passive revegetation.

The Big Desert Fuelbreaks Project is outside of the boun

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve a

is not implementing any aspect of the Draft EIS. Future 

management projects within the Monument boundary w

through project-level environmental assessments and wi

for public review. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

82 / 00482 / 004

107 / 004

129 / 004

129 / 005 

Vegetation

Comment 

The Preferred Alternative, so-called, a "restoration" alternative, 

would promote aggressive herbicide, mechanical and fire treatments and plant seedings with no requirement to address the root causes of ecosystem problems -livestock grazing and roads. 

There is not even a requirement to seed native plant species following a treatment! Conduct real restoration, relying on passive restoration techniques wherever possible (limit livestock grazing, close roads, remove livestock facilities that are causing weed spread). Use only native plants in all seedings. 

There is not even a requirement to seed native plant species 

following a treatment! Conduct real restoration, relying on passive restoration techniques wherever possible (limit livestock grazing, close roads, remove livestock facilities that are causing weed spread). Use only native plants in all seedings. 

More forbes should be planted in burned areas rather than 

excessive non-palatable crested wheat grasses and intermediate 

wheat grasses. This would be more beneficial to sage grouseand domestic sheep grazing. 

The Draft EIS emphasizes the need to maintain soil protection to 

prevent "accelerated and unnatural erosion.” While native species are important for a number of ecological reasons, including soil 

protection, many non-native perennial species are just as effective and much easier to establish in the face of annual grass competition in xeric soil types. ISDA strongly suggests that the team place a heavier emphasis on utilizing those plantsthat will afford the most soil stability and place less emphasis on whether the plants are native or non-native.

The aggressive restoration goals identified in the vegetation 

portion of Alterative D (pg 49) are very good goals, but these restoration activities should be closely coordinated with the affected permittees. One of the most environmentally sensitive methods of vegetation manipulation is the use of closely controlled prescriptive grazing. ISDA strongly suggests the team reword restrictive language in the document and maintain prescriptive grazingas a tool to achieve desired future conditions. 

Response 

See DEIS p. 25, Management Actions Common To All 

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

Restoration treatments are not necessarily active and can 

passive methods, such as temporary rest from livestock 

depending on the current condition of the vegetation and 

future conditions. The use of native plants is emphasized 

restoration projects and only native species would be us

in the Pristine Zone.


Same response as previous comment. 


See DEIS p. 25, Management Actions Common To All 

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

The use of native plants is emphasized in all rehabilitati

restoration projects, as required by BLM policy and Exe

13112, Invasive Species, February 3, 1999. However, th

maintained language in the document that would allow u

non-native species if they are the best plant materials av

specific site conditions.


Restoration activities will be addressed under project-lev

environmental assessments, which are available for publ

These activities are closely coordinated with all affected 

including the permittees. There is no language in the DE

Proposed Plan/FEIS prohibiting the use of prescriptive g

resource management goals.


532 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 533

Topic	 Vegetation 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


122 / 005	 Based on data in the Draft EIS and vegetation assessments 

conducted by Jurs and Sands (2004) on the vegetation of northern portions of the Monument, it is apparent that between 30-40% of 

 the vegetation in the surveyed areas is in poor condition and will require either active restoration measures or a multi-decades long recovery period (Anderson and Inouye, 2001). Lava Lake believes 

 that it is imperative to conduct active restoration of areas in 

poor condition, especially those areas that have high levels of cheatgrass and are adjacent to areas in good ecological condition. Because a catastrophic fire could originate in these cheatgrass-infested areas and damage adjacent good condition plant communities, NPS/BLM should, as they have proposed, conduct an active restoration program in Laidlaw Park, in particular. 

123 / 005	 Ecological change in sagebrush communities happens rapidly. 

Once thresholds are crossed, recovery does not occur, and restoration is extraordinarily difficult, if possible at all. The demise of sagebrush-steppe vegetation in special management areas where agencies fail to take strong action to stop disturbance 

is vividly apparent in the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (SRBOPA).Yesterday’s bright hopes for the 

SRBOPA, now face the cold reality of ever-expanding monocultures of cheatgrass, with some areas burning every 3-5 years. Here the synergistic and cumulative impacts of disturbance ­

 livestock grazing, fire and military training - have wreaked havoc. This has drastic effects on the ground squirrel and jackrabbit prey of raptor populations, sagebrush-obligate songbirds and other native biota (BLM/IDARNG 1996). The BOP demonstrates the 

fate of the sagebrush lands of the Monument if BLM fails to act in

 the EIS to control and change livestock grazing practices, decrease effects of roading, emphasize passive restoration and act to protect remaining native vegetation communities. 

104 / 006	 The EIS should provide a map of the proposed restoration 

acreage. This information is crucial to understanding the scope of 

 the problem, the need for new read construction, and how restoration efforts will affect the surrounding area. Allalternatives should require the use of native plant species or describe the preferences if sufficient seeds of non-native species 

 are not available. 

Response 

The vegetation inventory and assessment performed by 

Sands (2004) was utilized in estimating proposed restora

in the Monument. A map based on this assessment (Figu

biotic integrity of Monument lands is included in the Pro

Those areas identified as being in poor ecological condi

those in Laidlaw Park, have been identified as highest p

restoration treatment. Specific restoration treatment met

defined in an Environmental Assessment for restoration 

Areas targeted for restoration within the Monument hav

advantage over areas in the Snake River Birds of Prey N

Conservation Area (SRBOPA) in that they receive great

precipitation and have soils with greater potential for veproduction compared to many areas in the SRBOPA. Th

pertaining to vegetation treatments in that area are not e

applicable to the Monument. However, we will consider 

current science when planning treatments.

A restoration map (Figure 15) is included in the Propose

targeted for proactive vegetation treatments were identif

vegetation inventory (Jurs and Sands 2004) as being in a 

degraded condition. Other areas, identified as fair condit

considered for more passive means of restoration, includ

temporary removal of livestock or removal of livestock 

BLM believes that not attempting restoration on 

cheatgrass-dominated ranges will only increase the risk catastrophic wildland fire and potential loss of intact sagcommunities adjacent to degraded areas. More informat
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

104 / 007

104 / 007 

Vegetation

Comment 

What models and methodology suggest restoration within ten 

years is reasonable, considering that Jay Anderson concluded that it took nearly fifty years of data to begin to see trends in the sage-steppe at INNEL? P. 170: Restoration methodology is briefly outlined as using "all available methods" but there is nothing that demonstrates landscape scale success anywhere in the 

 west. An honest discussion would need to recognize that only 

partial restoration is possible and the long term analysis would call for weed control. “All available methods" is a wide open opportunity to use the quick and dirtiest method. We need to emphasize native plants in the restoration. "All available methods" needs to includeremoval of grazing, which is acknowledged as a primary contributor to weeds, soil disturbance, fire potential and loss of diversity. 

Zone shift discussed in Zone Characterizations. The BLM should

clarify what models and methodology suggest restoration within ten years is reasonable (as noted under Alternative D, P.49), 

considering that Jay Anderson concluded that it took nearly fifty 

years of data to begin to see trends in the sage-steppe INEEL. Restoration methodology is briefly outlined as using “all available methods” (P. 170) but there is nothing that demonstrates landscape scale success anywhere in the west. An honestdiscussion would need to recognize that only partial restoration is 

possible and the long-range impact of weeds will be considerable and require constant management. 

Response 

restoration methods will be included in EAs for individuprojects.See also DEIS p. 25, Management Actions Common To Alternatives: Vegetation, Including Special Status SpecManagement. The use of native plants is emphasized in restoration projects and only native species would be usin the Pristine Zone. 

The alternatives describe the acreage that would be trea

life of the plan with the goal of moving the treated areas 

more functional community (Fire Condition Classes 2 a

 aware that full restoration is complicated – methodolog

materials available for restoration are in an evolving sta

for at least the term of this plan, and likely longer. How

use the best tools and science available over this period 

dysfunctional, cheatgrass-dominated communities and m

toward sagebrush-steppe. Restoration goals always inclu

long-term control of noxious weeds. 

Shoshone BLM has been a proactive leader in sagebrush 

restoration in the western US and has several projects sh

 in the early stages. BLM believes that not attempting recheatgrass-dominated ranges will only increase the risk catastrophic wildland fire and potential loss of intact sagcommunities. It is our intent to treat those areas identifi2004 vegetation inventory and assessment conducted by and The Nature Conservancy (see Jurs and Sands 2004) highly degraded condition to reduce this risk and to procondition areas, as well as those that can be improved b

means, including temporary removal of livestock. More 

regarding restoration methods will be included in enviroassessments for individual restoration projects.

The alternatives describe the acreage that would be trea

life of the plan with the goal of moving the treated areas 

more functional community (Fire Condition Classes 2 a

aware that full restoration is complicated – methodologi

materials available for restoration are in an evolving sta

for at least the term of this plan, and likely longer. How

use the best tools and science available over this period 

dysfunctional, cheatgrass-dominated communities and m

toward sagebrush-steppe. Restoration goals always inclu

long-term control of noxious weeds. Shoshone BLM ha

proactive leader in sagebrush steppe restoration in the w

534 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 535

Topic	 Vegetation 

Letter No./ Comment 

 Comment No.

123 / 007	 There is a great urgency to take strong and decisive steps to limit 

livestock disturbance of soils and vegetation, and try to slow the spread of exotic species. We have just reviewed a Shoshone BLM EA that describes trying to rehab an OHV hill-claim area in the Sand Butte WSA. This EA states “rush skeletonweed is common in the general area” – which is just upwind of Laidlaw Park! The livestock-disturbed lands of the Monument are at great risk of rapid spread of this highly invasive exotic whose small seeds are transported on wind. 

111 / 008	 Where restoration work involves seedings, only native plants 

should be used. 

104 / 008	 The plan should contain an assessment of the potential impact 

from future noxious weed infestation resulting from a significant expansion of Passage Zone. The plan seems to ignore the strong correlation between roads/vehicular traffic and noxious weed 

infestations. According to the numerous sources and studies, roads 

 and trails, and their accompanying motorized users are the primary conduits for noxious weed species transport and establishment. In addition, recent studies show that improved roads accelerate noxious weed expansion significantly more than primitive ones while unroaded areas act as strongholds for nativespecies against invasions. The DEIS fails to analyze how each level of road improvement will expose an increasing area of native vegetation to invasion by exotic weeds. The study found 

Response 

 has several projects showing success in the early stages that not attempting restoration on cheatgrass-dominated only increase the risk of catastrophic wildland fire and pof intact sagebrush communities. It is our intent to treat identified in the 2004 vegetation inventory and assessme by the BLM and The Nature Conservancy (see Jurs and as being in a highly degraded condition to reduce this riprotect good condition areas, as well as those that can be  less invasive means, including temporary removal of liv information regarding restoration methods will be incluenvironmental assessments for individual restoration pro

The DEIS acknowledges that livestock are known vecto

spread of noxious weeds (Ch. 3, Discussion on Noxious 

Species, p. 92). A full Integrated Weed Management Pro

addresses a broad range of prevention, education, and co

activities to combat noxious weeds (see DEIS p. 25, Ma

Guidelines Common To All Alternatives: Vegetation, In

 Special Status Species and Fire Management. 

See DEIS p. 25, Management Actions Common To All 

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

Restoration treatments are not necessarily active and can passive methods, such as temporary rest from livestock depending on the current condition of the vegetation and future conditions. The use of native plants is emphasized restoration projects and only native species would be usin the Pristine Zone. 

Analysis in the DEIS (Ch. 4) acknowledges the risk of in

development relative to weed infestation. In response to 

such as this the ID team reduced the amount of Passage 

Proposed Plan/FEIS, particularly in Laidlaw Park. The i

plan for transportation will address road development w

areas and zones of the Monument, with consideration to 

other issues.

The DEIS acknowledges that roads, vehicles, humans, a

 known vectors to the spread of noxious weeds (Ch. 3, D

Noxious and Exotic Species, p. 92). A full Integrated W

Management Program addresses a broad range of preven

education, and control activities to combat noxious weed
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

70 / 009

123 / 010

105 / 011 

Vegetation

Comment 

significantly greater numbers of non-native weeds adjacent to 

paved roads than four wheel drive...

No restoration should proceed without a long term monitoring and 

 response protocol mandated and funded as a part of the initial restoration. We need a map showing restoration acreage. 

There are no provisions to restore damaged playas. For example, 

all playas should be assessed for potential for restoration, and those with potential should have stock ponds removed. 

Development of a fire plan for the Monument lands must be part 

of the comprehensive planning process. Protection of existing native habitat, especially sagebrush, should be identified as a top priority in fire situations. Whether a wild fire or a prescribed burn, 

all areas should be reseeded with native plants and adequately

rested from livestock grazing and recreation use to allow native plant establishment and lessen the spread of weeds. No new crested 

wheat grass seedlings or other exotic species should be used to

restore native habitat. The BLM and NPS should work to establish  their own, local seed sources from within the Monument. Areas should be identified (possibly Laidlaw Park) where select removal 

of a desired species seed will not impact the current location, but will provide native seed to another location if none is availablefrom the usual DOI sources. The Monument plan should identify as one of its primary goals, restoration and maintenance of native 

 vegetation on all lands altered by fire or other disturbance. Restoration should be conducted using only native species. Specific  timelines for restoration, revegetation and rest should be included in the management plan. The management plan should also include a timeline for revegetation and/or restoration to natural conditions of all “user-created” motorized routes in the 

Monument. 

Response 

p. 25, Management Actions Common to All Alternative

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

A map of proposed restoration acreages has been added 

Proposed Plan/FEIS. Monitoring protocols for all restor

be addressed in project-level environmental assessments

Playas would be considered for restoration on a case-by

The DEIS (p. 29, Management Actions Common to All

Grazing) states “BLM may remove developments if they 

longer serving a useful purpose or resource objectives wremoval. Sites would be restored.” In addition, no additiwould be modified or developed (DEIS p. 26, ManagemCommon to All: Water Resources). Language regarding restoration of playas has been added to the Proposed Pla

A Fire Management Plan would be prepared as part of th

implementation of the Proposed Plan (DEIS p. 12, Futur

Needs, Fire Management Plan). Currently the Monumen

under two Fire Management Plans: the 2004 South Cent

FMP covers BLM-administered lands and the Preserve; 

 Wildland FMP covers the original Monument. The upd

would guide suppression efforts as well as pro-active fu

and restoration treatments, and would detail goals and c

specific fire management areas based on resource object

in the RMP/GMP. In addition, post-fire rehabilitation on 

BLM-administered lands within the Monument is guide

the Shoshone and Burley Field Office Normal Fire Reha

Plans. In all cases, the use of native plants is emphasized 

native species would be used on projects in the Pristine 

BLM and NPS are currently funded and have applied fo

funding for native seed increase projects specifically for 

within the Monument. BLM is working with the USFS R

Mountain Research Station and private growers to colle

increase plants to be used in large-scale restoration and 

fire rehabilitation projects; NPS is working with NRCS 

Resources Conservation Service to increase plants speci

Monument and Preserve. Every effort is being made to u

best available science and plant materials in restoration rehabilitation projects.

Restoration of user-created or closed routes would be adcompletion of the Transportation Plan. 

536 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 537

Topic	 Vegetation 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


165 / 011	 Page 49 -Alternative D, Vegetation; Management Actions, 6th 

bullet: The statement suggests that there are objectives that would 

conflict with wildland fire other than life and property protection and that these objectives are known and prioritized. We recommend these be identified and their priority justified in the final document. The reader cannot judge the applicability or utility of a 

management action without this knowledge. 

165 / 017	 Page 59 -Natural Resources; Alternative B, C, and D: The 

rationale for different target acreages between alternatives is unclear. In addition, it is unclear what the differences are between Alternative C and D in the last row of the table. 

165 / 019	 Page 68 -Table 8; Summary of Impacts; Vegetation and Fire 

Management: Although less active restoration (in acres) would be realized in Alternative C, more passive restoration would berealized by the reduction of access and motorized activities. The rate of restoration may be slower in some areas but higher in others because of the lack of disturbances such as mechanizedactivities, planting of non-native forage species, and reduced probability of human-induced fire. This would result in a larger area of restored ecosystem, even if it takes a longer period of time.There would be less opportunity for noxious weed management in Alternative C, but there should be less need for it as well. Many of the restoration activities outlined in Alternative D will need to be applied repeatedly because of ongoing activities that facilitate weed introduction. 

123 / 019	 Restoration (DEIS at 8, 17). The DEIS provides a flawed, 

unscientific and commodity-use biased definition of “restoration”. 

 See DEIS at 387: “Actions that proactively treat degraded vegetation with the intent of meeting resource management objectives. Restoration treatments can include prescribed fire, herbicide use to control weeds, and seeding with desirablevegetation”. This is not restoration. “Resource management objectives” may be providing cattle food. This has nothing to do with ensuring ecological integrity. The DEIS actions are better described as “treatment”. Why don’t you just call it treatment, 

Response 

Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit is a site-specific 

requiring a project-specific burn plan for implementatio

management objectives which are broadly outlined in th

Proposed Plan/FEIS guide implementation- and project-

More site-specific objectives can be dynamic and are the

updated periodically in the Fire Management Plans, and 

specifically in burn plans. Current resource consideratio

Craters of the Moon Wilderness can be found in the NPS Management Plan (2000). Resource considerations for t(Craters Fire Management Unit) can be found in the 200

 Central Idaho Fire Management Plan. 

Table 7 is a summary of the proposed alternatives. The f

description of each alternative is found in DEIS Ch. 2. 

Thank you for your comment. We will consider these po

appropriate implementation- and project-level plans.

The DEIS explicitly states (DEIS p. 25, Management Ac

Common to All Alternatives: Vegetation, Including Spe

Species, and Fire Management, and p. 49, Management 

 Alternative D for Vegetation) that the goal of restoratio

 is to restore sagebrush steppe and wildlife habitat. Addi

information regarding restoration treatment methods and 

included in the Proposed Plan/FEIS.
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

165 / 021

123 / 026

123 / 032 

Vegetation

Comment 

instead of contriving a non-ecologically based, circular definition. A restoration action that is “desired” is something that the agency (with bias towards continued commodity production) describes. 

Page 70-Land Use and Transportation; Livestock Grazing: It 

states that Alternative D would involve the largest acreageidentified for restoration. This may not be true if the acreage passively restored by Pristine Zone designation in Alternative C. 

DEIS at 17 claims that sagebrush-steppe restoration is common to 

 all alternatives. Yet, there is no incorporation of passive restoration, no grappling with the futility of undertaking restoration while without any overarching livestock grazing management, etc.

Instead of use of native plants would be emphasized, use of native 

plants in post-fire and rehab, must be mandatory. 

Response 

Many of the impacts mentioned will be addressed later i

implementation-level plans including Transportation, Fi

Wilderness Management Plans. Each of these plans, as w

documents for individual projects, will address pygmy r

 other sensitive or rare species. Specific project planning address the needs of these species. Inventory work for racontinue and the agencies will take appropriate actions wor quality habitat are. We agree that consideration of the rabbit is important. BLM and NPS policy insures that apmeasures will be taken to reduce or eliminate negative impygmy rabbit and its habitat. Additionally, our goal of redegraded sagebrush steppe habitat will provide additionpygmy rabbit habitat over the current situation. 

See DEIS p. 25, Management Actions Common To All 

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

Restoration treatments are not necessarily active and can 

passive methods depending on the current condition of t

 and desired future conditions. Additional information re

restoration treatment methods and protocols is included Proposed Plan/FEIS.

See DEIS p. 25, Management Actions Common To All 

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire MRestoration treatments are not necessarily active and can passive methods, such as temporary rest from livestock depending on the current condition of the vegetation and future conditions. The use of native plants is emphasized restoration projects and only native species would be usin the Pristine Zone. Additional information regarding rtreatment methods and protocols is included in the Prop

538 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 539

Topic Vegetation 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 063 DEIS at 59. The acres of lands to be treated under all alternatives 

appear to be completely arbitrary, and so the numbers could be easily changed under any alternative. These acreages should not be 

 the basis for saying one alternative is better or worse than the other. What exactly is the basis of the land area acreage targeted for treatment under all Alternatives? The EIS fails to present an 

up-to-date assessment or other information on the ecological condition of all Monument lands. Which are in poor, fair, good, or excellent condition? Have you revisited the old SVIM sites and compared past vs. present condition? If so, what are the results? What do current inventories – as of sagebrush-steppe species - tell you about the ecological condition? 

123 / 077 Map DEIS at 87 shows “perennial grassland”. These areas are the 

exotic crested wheatgrass or intermediate wheatgrass, but also may  contain a significant amount of cheatgrass and other weeds. There is no assessment of the condition of interspaces. The Map shows that almost half the sagebrush-steppe habitats in the Monument have been converted to crested wheatgrass or cheatgrass. This map fails to show areas where cheatgrass dominated the understory of sagebrush communities. 

123 / 080 The DEIS provides no assessment of the probability of success of 

any treatments that it would conduct. The Plan must assess risks, and likelihood of success of treatments. There is also no requirement to use native vegetation its so-called restoration. 

What else, besides just rehabilitating by seeding, must managers do to effectively “treat” cheatgrass-infested interspaces? While it is nice that BLM and NPS “encourage” the use of native species, no requirement under any Alternative to actually use native species in  treatments. 

Response 

A vegetation inventory and assessment for Laidlaw Park

 and Paddelford Flat was performed by the BLM in coop

The Nature Conservancy in 2002/2003 (Jurs and Sands 

assessment was utilized in estimating proposed restorati

the Monument. A map based on this assessment (Figure 

biotic integrity of Monument lands is included in the Pro

Those areas identified as being in poor ecological condi

in Laidlaw Park, have been identified as highest priority 

Specific restoration treatment methods and locations wo

environmental assessments for restoration in Laidlaw Pa

areas of the Monument, which would be available for pu

The vegetation map included in the DEIS was produced 

imagery and is intended to give a general idea of vegeta

distribution within the Monument. Please refer to DEIS 

paragraph in the right-hand column (Data from various v

studies . . .) for a discussion of the limitation of the vege

See p. 25 Management Actions Common To All Alterna

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

Restoration treatments are not necessarily active and can 

passive methods, such as rest from grazing, depending o

condition of the vegetation and desired future conditions

information regarding restoration treatment methods and 

 included in the Proposed Plan/FEIS. Specific methods, 

treatment effects, and criteria for determining success of 

will be addressed in environmental assessments for indi

restoration projects. The use of native plants is emphasizrestoration projects, pursuant to BLM policy and Execut13112, Invasive Species, February 3, 1999, and only natwould be used on projects in the Pristine Zone. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 081

123 / 086

123 / 097 

Vegetation

Comment 

Which areas, specifically, are dominated by native perennial 

grasslands? Does your statement on DEIS at 86 mean that you plan to burn kipukas? We believe this would be a big mistake. 

As part of all alternatives, playas that have been damaged by 

gouging livestock ponds into them should be assessed for 

restoration potential.

In its Laidlaw EA as in the DEIS, BLM failed to consider any 

alternatives that maximize wildlife habitat protections, removed 

livestock use from sensitive areas, undertakes actions necessary to  protect sagebrush communities threatened by weed invasion, etc. Laidlaw EA at 13-14 describes surveys for migratory birds, and widespread declines between 1980 and 2002. EA at 13. The 2002 

migratory bird data showed widespread declines of sage thrashers and sage sparrows, declines which are most likely correlated to declines in sagebrush and native grass cover. Response to Protest at 16 describes Aroga moth-caused mortality of sagebrush. EA at 

7: “fires, livestock grazing practices and road maintenance have created disturbances which have allowed ... weeds to spread”. Laidlaw EA at 8 “portions of this allotment are currently experiencing large amounts of Wyoming and Basin big sagebrush mortality” reasons –include “grazing pressure”. Laidlaw EA at 189: “much of the native plant community in the southern portion of Laidlaw Park has been replaced with cheatgrass” . This all highlights the need for strong, decisive action to protect remaining habitats from causes of degradation an – action completely cast aside in the EA and DEIS. 

Response 

The vegetation map included in the DEIS was produced 

imagery and is intended to give a general idea of vegeta

distribution within the Monument. Please refer to DEIS 

paragraph in the right-hand column (Data from various vstudies . . .) for a discussion of the limitation of the vegePrescribed burning of kipukas is not being considered at 

Playas would be considered for restoration on a case-by

The DEIS (p. 29, Management Actions Common to All: 

Grazing) states “BLM may remove developments if they 

longer serving a useful purpose or resource objectives wremoval. Sites would be restored.” In addition, no additiwould be modified or developed (DEIS p. 26, ManagemCommon to All: Water Resources). Language regarding restoration of playas has been added to the Proposed Pla

All alternatives contain specific management guidance f

protection, particularly sagebrush steppe obligates. Mea

place to protect the sagebrush steppe in the Monument (

Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives: Ve

Including Special Status Species, and Fire Management

Including Special Status Species; DEIS pp. 25-26.) In ad

allotments must meet or be progressing towards meeting 

Standards and Guidelines, including Standard 4 (Native 

Communities), and Standard 8 (Special Status Species) 

Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives: Li

Grazing). 

540 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 541

Topic	 Vegetation 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 102	 The Laidlaw EA stated that Laidlaw Park is an isolated ecological 

community 58, 618 acres native vegetation, 28,000 acres annual grasses, 

6,960 acres seeding. Its isolation “makes it well suited for the study of native plants and potential natural vegetative communities”. We have been trying to obtain a copy of this survey for months, and have been told by BLM that it is complete, and that we needed to contact TNC. We have done so, 

and they have not provided us with a copy in time for use in these comments. It appears that BLM is purposefully not incorporating this study’s results into the DEIS. We request to be able to submit additional comments when we finally obtain this document. 

123 / 151	 The evaluation of Vegetation, including special status species,

completely limits assessment of the impacts on vegetation of livestock use and disturbance across nearly all sagebrush lands of the Monument. As DEIS maps of allotments show, nearly all of 

these sagebrush lands are located inside a confusion of grazing allotments. This must be addressed in a Supplemental EIS. 

123 / 152	 What are vegetation conditions inside exclosures in the 

Monument and surrounding increase livestock grazing and trampling impacts – all unassessed. 

123 / 157 As the EIS has failed to study and assess the impacts of passive 

restoration, it cannot conclude that restoration under Alt. C would  occur more slowly. 

123 / 164 The DEIS can not claim it is using “integrated weed management” 

 if it fails to employ passive restoration techniques – i.e. take action to prevent infestations to protect expensively treated areas  when grazing again resumes, specify limitations n livestock grazing of infested areas, etc. 

Response 

The vegetation inventory and assessment performed by 

Sands (2004) was utilized in estimating proposed restora

in the DEIS. A map based on this assessment (Figure 15

biotic integrity of Monument lands is included in the Pro

Those areas identified as being in poor ecological condi

those in Laidlaw Park, have been identified as highest p

restoration treatment. Specific restoration treatment met

on recommendations from the Jurs and Sands (2004) rep

defined in an environmental assessment for restoration i

Potential impacts of livestock use as it varies by alternat

analyzed in the DEIS, Ch. 4. Specific effects of allotme

management decisions will be addressed in project- or a

environmental assessments. 

The agencies used the most current data available to the

preparation of the DEIS. 

The intent under alternative C was that treatments would 

applied more slowly as less intrusive technology becom

See p. 25, Management Actions Common To All Altern

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire MRestoration treatments are not necessarily active and can passive methods, e.g. rest from livestock grazing, depencurrent condition of the vegetation and desired future coAdditional information regarding restoration treatment mprotocols is included in the Proposed Plan/FEIS.

Restoration goals always include short- and long-term m

 noxious weeds utilizing both passive and active method

associated with an Integrated Weed Management progra

monitoring shows that grazing is impacting the restorati

temporary removal of livestock is a legitimate response 

the problem. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 168

123 / 185 

Vegetation

Comment 

While the DEIS uses ICBEMP guidance as an excuse to treat large 

areas, it ignores guidance in ICBEMP, such as Wisdom et. al. 

(2000), that emphasizes protection of sagebrush steppe habitats - instead of the accelerated disturbance and more roads, more livestock projects, likely more AUMs actually grazed and more fragmentation that will occur under the Preferred Alternative of 

this myopic EIS. 

Prevent conditions that favor vegetation problems, i.e. protect 

the good or better ecological condition communities that remain. Restore ecological integrity on sites with vegetation problems. Restoration must be performed in a precautionary manner. BLM has countless examples of the failure of aggressive pseudo-restoration/treatment scattered across the Snake River 

Plain and the interior West. Indeed, the “aggressive” techniques proposed by BLM resemble the livestock forage projects undertaken in the Vale Project – herbiciding, disking, seeding exotics. It is appalling that BLM does not even commit to using native plant species in its aggressive restoration efforts. While such false restoration may produce more cattle and sheep forage, it should be called “treatment”, and not “restoration”. Emphasis must be placed on the use of passive restoration techniques, and protection of remaining sagebrush lands. Economics alone dictates, this, as aggressive restoration may costs over $100 per acre, with no guarantee of success. Failure is common – due to dry winters or springs, insects, livestock trespass devouring new seedlings and transporting weed seeds, etc. Passive restoration includes: * Area, road and OHV route closures. * Voluntary livestock permit retirement. * Retirement of vacant grazing allotments. This EIS must authorize grazing permit retirement, so that complicated (and costly) Land Use Plan amendments are not necessary when this inevitably arises during the life of the plan. * Excluding livestock from areas with aggressive weed infestations, uplands “at risk” of weed infestation, special status species habitats, etc. * Restrictions on livestock activities such as salt placement, herding, location of sheep camps. * Removal of livestock facilities that are causing damage, fostering weed spread, etc. Vegetation Treatments are Actions, based on scientific evidence, that will: Affect the conservation and restoration of native vegetation communities, watersheds and wildlife habitats. 

Response 

To protect sagebrush steppe communities and reduce fra

acreage of Pristine Zone was increased and acreage of P

decreased in the Proposed Plan. See DEIS p. 25, Manag

Guidance Common to All Alternatives for Vegetation re

protection and restoration of sagebrush steppe habitats.

See p. 25 Management Actions Common To All Alterna

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

Restoration treatments are not necessarily active and can 

passive methods, such as rest from grazing, depending o

condition of the vegetation and desired future conditions

information regarding restoration treatment methods and 

 included in the Proposed Plan/FEIS. Specific methods, 

treatment effects, and criteria for determining success of 

will be addressed in environmental assessments for indi

restoration projects. The use of native plants is emphasiz

restoration projects, pursuant to BLM policy and Execut

13112, Invasive Species, February 3, 1999, and only nat

would be used on projects in the Pristine Zone. 

542 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 543

Topic	 Vegetation 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


These include: prevention treatments that will result in measurable soil, hydrological, and vegetation changes that resist invasive exotic species; active and passive restoration treatments that restore native vegetation and/or conditions favorable to native communities. Any treatments must be based on assessments of: 1) The condition of vegetation; 2) Major human causes of disturbance 3) Opportunities for conservation of native vegetation and prevention of soil disturbance and vegetation problems; 4) Results of past vegetation treatments. For example, BLM has disastrously applied herbicides on the Snake River Plain (the Oust fiasco), and this should make the agency very wary about herbicide use in unpredictable wild land settings; 5) Likelihood

of treatment options for achieving long-term restoration. 

123 / 186	 In order to determine current conditions and identify actions in 

alternatives, the DEIS must: Map and Identify (collecting new 

baseline information where necessary): 1) Key areas of native vegetation (in Craters – all) and high ecological integrity. 2) 

Suitable and critical habitat for habitat-specialist species. 3) Suitable habitat for wide-ranging species such as sage grouse thatrequire use of extensive and temporally diverse (winter, summer habitats) within the ecoregion. 4) Hotspots of diversity. 5) Habitats “at risk” of further fragmentation or degradation. 6) Areas where restoration will increase potential for habitat connectivity. 7) Areas that could benefit from improved management or restoration to maintain or enhance ecological integrity.

123 / 187	 It must also: * Collect information on current ecological 

condition and special status species occurrence and habitats * Identify spatial and temporal association of vegetation problems and compare and contrast with the spatial and temporal occurrence of past and continuing human activities. * Identify key 

 areas to phase out grazing – key habitats, areas where grazing is clearly incompatible with vegetation and habitat recovery. * Conduct a road and off-road vehicle routes assessment with the goal of closing roads and routes in ecologically sensitive areas * Identify invasive exotic species and exotic species plantings to restore. Cheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass and crested wheatgrass areas must be restored. A key component of plant communities that is altered by physical damage due to livestock grazing (and sheep browsing) is the structural diversity of 

Response 

Inventory of vegetation and wildlife resources of the Mo

ongoing through cooperative efforts with Idaho State Un

Idaho Bird Observatory, and The Nature Conservancy (J

2004). Some of this information was integrated into the 

Proposed Plan/FEIS and future results will be integrated 

implementation-level planning efforts.


Thank you for your comment. Implementation relative t

and restoration of routes will be addressed in a Travel M

Plan (DEIS p. 12, Future Planning Needs and p. 28 Man

Guidelines Common to All Alternatives: Land Use and 

Transportation). Implementation of restoration and fuels 

projects will be guided by the final Monument Proposed 

Project-level environmental assessments would apply cu

inventory and evaluation of vegetation conditions (e.g. J

 2004), best available science and plant materials, Desire 

Conditions and Management Actions outlined in the Pro

and all applicable law and policy. See also DEIS p. 25-2

Management Actions Common To All Alternatives: Ve

Including Special Status Species, and Fire Management

including Special Status Species.

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

Vegetation

Comment 

sagebrush, bitterbrush and other native shrubs. Livestock impacts simplify structure – a particular concern in lands grazed by both sheep and cattle. Restoration of structural diversity of native shrubs must be part of the goal any “treatment”. Plans must include honest assessment of: current site conditions, vulnerable wildlife and plant species habitats, habitat connectivity for special status species and species of concern, past and present (ongoing) activities leading to vegetation problems, passive and active restoration needs; feasible restoration goals. Treatments should be prioritized based on cessation of activities that impede natural recovery, i.e. passive restoration, active restoration treatments that incorporate passive restoration, and last -active restoration treatments to restore ecological integrity, Use a precautionary approach that incorporates the best available science, least intrusive techniques to restore ecological integrity, least risky intervention techniques, recovery plans for species of concern, prevention strategies to reduce the need for chemical and mechanical treatments or prescribed fire, so that the number of acres treated annually will decline over the life of the EIS. Invasive species must be minimized through conservation and restoration of native vegetation communities, watersheds, and wildlife habitats. Executive Order No. 13112, “Invasive Species” describes two facets of invasive species control: prevent the spread of invasive species, and restore native species and habitats to reduce the effects of invasive species and to prevent further spread. The long-term DEIS management must: Identify and lessen the conditions that cause or favor the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive species - and identifymethods to ameliorate those conditions. Due to large-scale loss of sagebrush-steppe, and the continuing structural alteration and understory alteration and degradation of remaining grazed sagebrush-steppe lands, the DEIS must avoid roadless areas, old growth, special status species habitats, ecologically sensitive areas, and areas of high ecological integrity (non-fragmented). Any treatments should not: increase motorized vehicle use or access, increase fire risk through invasion of exotic plants or accumulation of activity fuels, limit native pant recovery through chipping orground disturbing activities. Science-based protocols must be designed to prevent the spread of invasive species in relation to all activities that have been identified in the scientific literature to as primary facilitators of the establishment and spread of invasivespecies, watershed degradation, and loss of native species. 

Response 

544 
Topic	 Vegetation 

Letter No./ Comment Response 


 Comment No.


123 / 191	 Treatments of Vegetation must be undertaken as follows: 1) Use Thank you for your comment. We will consider these po

the least intrusive/extensive/risky methods. Methods must aim to appropriate implementation- and project-level plans.enhance wildlife habitats and populations. 2) Analyze potential effects of site-specific treatments on an array of species; reliance on assessment of effects only on umbrella species is not sufficient.

 An example of the insufficiency of analysis of effects solely on 
umbrella species involves sagebrush canopy “thinning” for sage 
grouse. This may negatively impact nesting cover for migratory
bird species of concern, pygmy rabbit and other species. 3) Be part
 of an over-all ecologically based restoration plan and may
include: biological control, cultural practices, mechanical 
treatments, chemical treatments, prescribed fire. 4) Base selection
 on ecological priorities for restoration rather than economic
benefits; size of the proposed treatment area, its location, and the 
biology of the target invasive species. 5) Except for treatment of 
small infestations without motorized equipment, use direct 
treatments within designated wilderness or WSAs only in 
conjunction with efforts to halt avoidable spread of invasives into 
wilderness from outside areas. 6) Prioritize non-chemical methods 
over chemical methods. 7) Small infestations must have higher 
priority than larger infestations, i.e. there might still be some hope
 of stopping smaller infestations in wild lands. 8) Plant and seed 
appropriate native species to compete with exotics. 9) Use 
cultural treatments that have been shown to be effective in 
restoring native vegetation in scientific studies. 10) Use mechanical
treatments that have been shown to be effective in restoring native
vegetation in scientific studies (mowing, spot fire, mastication, weed
eaters, mulching hand pulling). 11) Chemical treatments should
use application methods that minimize exposure to people, wildlife,
native plants, Spot treatments are preferred over broadcast. Follow-up
with technique to get native vegetation to grow again. Don’t just spray
and walk away. 12) No use of broadcast herbicides near rare plant, 
amphibian and other chemical-sensitive species habitats. Avoid use
of broadcast herbicides as much as possible. 13) Avoid application
of herbicides (atrazine) that may affect aquatic species, i.e. near playas. 
14) Only use herbicides that minimize adverse effects on environmental
and human health, based on knowledge of all ingredients in the
formulation, should be used. 15) Prohibit all use of sulfonylurea
herbicides and other acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides
due to their demonstrated ability to damage off-site native or crop species. 


Appendices: APPENDIX L 545
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

Topic 

152 / 001

81 / 002

104 / 010

70 / 013 

Vegetation

Comment 

16) Design any treatments to account for wildlife habitat needs, for example, timing and location of activities. No treatments during nesting season, wintering season or other sensitive periods. Herbicidescan have numerous toxic effects on workers, nearby residents, beneficial soil organisms, and native plant species. Herbicides simplify the vegetation community. They may render the treated site more vulnerable to return of invasive species. Herbicides (and other 

aggressive treatments) alone do not address the conditions that favor 

the introduction, establishment, spread of exotic species. 

Fire Management 

While I support aggressive weed control, fire management, and 

restoration, the proposal to further develop roads will actually increase the threat of noxious weeds and fire risk, as well as accelerate damage to wilderness values and geologic features. 

Passive restoration methods should be included, such as removal of 

 unnecessary water developments that injure wildlife and spread weeds, and seeding with native plants only, in the restoration of cheatgrass infested areas.

...should be an increased risk of human-caused fires. The FEIS

should include data on the location and source of past fires in this area and analyze how each alternative will affect the probability of these ignitions.

What is the basis for suggesting that "the potential for human 

caused fires under Alternative D could be less than in Alternative A because D would involve less accommodations of visitors in the including increased weed spread and fire ignition? comes with improved 

access (roads)? 

Response 

Analysis in the DEIS (Ch. 4) acknowledges the risk of i

improvement relative to weed infestation, fire risk, wild

and geologic features. In response to comments such as 

team reduced the amount of Passage Zone in the Propos

particularly in Laidlaw Park. The implementation plan ftransportation will address road maintenance and improvspecific areas and zones of the Monument, with consideother issues.

See DEIS p. 25, Management Actions Common To All 

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

A fire history map is included in the Proposed Plan/FEIS

impacts of each alternative on potential for fire ignition 

 included in the DEIS (Ch. 4). Statistics on the cause of 

the Monument are included in the 2004 South Central Id

Management Plan, which is available through the Shosh

Alternative D emphasizes a higher level of vegetation re

treatments to reduce flammable fuels and the concurrent 

catastrophic wildland fire. This was included in Alternat

restore degraded sagebrush steppe communities and b) r

human-ignited fire associated with potential increased v

546 
Topic	 Fire Management 

Letter No./ Comment Response 


 Comment No.


123 / 111	 All BLM lands, including Laidlaw Park, are threatened by the Cumulative impacts of fuels reduction/restoration projec

aggressive fire arm of BLM, and the actions it has been known to Monument on Monument resources were addressed in C

take in Idaho to ramrod spurious projects forward. For example, the Inside Desert fuelbreaks EA is a harebrained plan to kill sagebrush to, ostensibly, try to prevent more fires from burning the Inside Desert. Sagebrush is to be killed with the persistent herbicide Tebuthiuron along the main access road to the east side of Craters. Yet, Monument staff were not even told that Idaho Falls BLM was doing this. In order to limit the ability of citizens to stop a project for which inadequate analysis had been conducted, and which very likely through killing sagebrush and other disturbance will result in MORE cheatgrass and fire danger, BLM issued a Full Force and Effect Decision. As a result, chemical-sensitive visitors to the east side of the Monument will be subject to dust containing an herbicide known to persist in soils for a decade or more. Throughout this analysis, the cumulative impact of the aggressive fire arm of BLM, operating under the cover of the Healthy Forests Initiative, must be considered in assessing cumulative impacts. 

123 / 158	 There is no need to burn aspen to improve condition/stimulate 


sucker growth. Please see the work of Dr. Charles Kay on the 
impacts of livestock on aspen herbivory, and incorporate this into


 the SEIS.


Pertinent literature would be reviewed for any projects a

aspen communities and incorporated into the site-specif

environmental analysis. 

123 / 192	 Extreme caution must be used in any application of prescribed Thank you for your comment. We will consider these po

fire. The Snake River Plain is full of examples of disastrous appropriate implementation- and project-level plans.post-prescribed fire cheatgrass invasions. Fire should NOT be used 

to “thin” sagebrush. In fact, almost the only prescribed burning that should be allowed is to kill cheatgrass seed - in areas that have

 become cheatgrass monocultures due to the combined effects of 
grazing and fire. Any proposal to “thin” sagebrush must be 
examined for effects on habitats on a broad spectrum of 
sagebrush-obligate species. Given the large-scale loss of big 
sagebrush through fire and through purposeful agency projects of 
the past, continued sagebrush die-off, the unwillingness of the 
DEIS to address grazing changes at all, and the presence of 
intermediate wheatgrass and other purposefully seeded exotics that
 would increase with sagebrush removal, it is hard to envision 
circumstances in the Monument that would warrant sagebrush 
thinning here. For example, the pygmy rabbit requires dense and 


Appendices: APPENDIX L 547
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

Fire Management 

Comment 

structurally diverse canopy cover of big sagebrush – BLM, in the 

name of trying to promote forb diversity, is foolishly is thinning big sagebrush in the Upper Pahsimeroi by beating it. This is the dead opposite of what is required by the pygmy rabbit, and the 

DEIS must recognize the need for species-specific analysis. All of 

the following must be documented and assessed prior to prescribed burns or any other treatment, and an overall examination provided in the SEIS: * Long-term damage to biological soil crusts.

* Soil erosion through wind and runoff events. * Long-term loss 

of nutrients from already nutrient-deficient soils. * Loss of populations and habitat of special status species. * Loss of populations and habitat of special status species. * Risk of invasive species. * Any radionuclides in the soil or vegetation of the area. * Interrelation between treatment projects on Monument and other state, private and federal lands in the surrounding area. * Indigenous uses of plants that may be impacted. * Impacts on air quality. * Lethal effects of treatment on native vegetation within treatment area (for example, fire may kill Idaho fescue). * Likelihood that “treatment” may give competitive advantage to aggressive exotics. For example, intermediate wheatgrass has been seeded in large areas in the northern part of the Monument following 1992 fires. IWG is an aggressive rhizomatous exotic species that may increase following fire. Its rhizomes/tillers cover the ground, precluding the establishment of native species. IWG is known to be invading the margins of slickspots that provide habitat for a rare plant, slickspot peppergrass. * Assessment of amount of existing fragmentation. Any treatment should: * Use existing roads wherever possible. * Commit to restoration of any routes created. * Limit ground disturbance. * Contain the treatment (fire, chemical) within the area targeted. As part of any treatment or following wildfire, to restore natural processes, comprehensive restoration assessments with clear objectives, in conjunction with other active or passive methods must occur and must include: * Minimize introduction of invasive species during and after fire suppression operations * Clean equipment of invasive species seeds before moving equipment off road to build any firebreaks. * Seal all firebreaks to prevent vehicle access. * Minimize post-fire disturbance to burned areas to allow natural recovery. * Measurable recovery criteria to be established, monitored and met 

Response 

548 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 549

Topic	 Fire Management 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


before livestock grazing can resume on any sites. * Changes in 

livestock use, stocking rates and other grazing management must be undertaken to protect (as best as possible) the * Revegetation. All planned treatments must use only native species. The seed must be acquired in advance of undertaking any treatment. Locally

 adapted ecotypes must be used if at all possible. Focus must be on plants that will actually grow (such as small native Poas), and not large cattle forage-producing species. * Following fire or other 

disturbance, do not propose reseeding unless it can be shown that 

natural regeneration is unlikely. In post-wildfire situations, place highest priority on re-seeding native species. Only use exotics if alternatives are not available. Then, use exotic bunchgrasses – that mimic structure of native plant community. Do NOT seed intermediate wheatgrass. It is virtually impossible to remove from a site once established. Any sites seeded to exotics on an emergency basis must be prioritized for ultimate removal of exotics and re-seeding with native species. Availability of native seeds should be assured by establishing a contract system that will provide growers (local?) the necessary assurance that native, locally-adapted seed/plants will be purchased if grown. Determine, in landscape, and watershed assessments, the feasibility of providing habitat for wildlife or plant species that have been extirpated. 

Topic	 Travel and Access 

18 / 001	 Roads: The DEIS recognizes as "roads" too many old vehicle 

tracks that have not been built or maintained, and that serve no public purpose. We urge BLM and NPS to distinguish between legitimate reads and jeep tracks out in the sagebrush. 

Response 

See Chapter 3 (DEIS Pg. 112) Land Use and Transporta

and Access. In response to public comment concerning 

in the Draft Management Plan / Environmental Impact S

road and trail definitions have been refined (See Propose

Chapter 3, Land Use and Transportation/Travel and Acc

Trail Definitions). These definitions apply to a road and 

based on best available data at the time of this draft whi

USGS topographic maps, BLM 1:100,000 topographic m

survey of roads, ways and trails in and around existing w areas. See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, TranspPlanning. In the proposed Management Plan we describ
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

142 / 001

101 / 001 

Travel and Access

Comment 

Although the DEIS appears to meet the requirements set 

forth by the National Environmental Policy Act, I believe it needs a stronger definition of a road to more clearly state which routes will permit motorized travel. I would also like to urge the agencies to adopt Alternative C as the preferred alternative for management of the Monument and preserve over the next 15-20 

years. 

I support leaving existing trails and roads open for public access. I 

strongly support the Minidoka/Arco road as a passage route. I believe that the best multiple use is Plan B. although some minor modifications outlined in Plan D may be appropriate. It is inconceivable that access would be denied to 750,000 acres. I am opposed to 

degradation of the Monument but think the public needs to be able to see all the features available. A sound plan that has good signage and improved roads would be appropriate. Access from the south is important due to the natural attraction of the Monument. A loop including the Minidoka/Arco and Kimimah/Carey roads should be included and was supported by then Interior Secretary Babbitt at the original hearings. Hunting in the Preserve can not be utilized without access. The road improvements would enhance the safety of visitors and others and provide better fire and emergency protection. 

Response 

future conditions and management actions for the type oaccess that is appropriate within each of four managemeThe plan also classifies and inventories the type of roads currently in existence within the Monument. Specific dAccess and Transportation beyond those already defined management zone descriptions will be made in the upcoimplementation level Comprehensive Travel ManagemeThis implementation plan will include a detailed map indesignations for Travel and Access within the Monumenroad travel restrictions and road closures to meet resourcmanagement objectives, such as protection of special stahabitat, defined in the Proposed Plan/FEIS. There will broad mileage under this planSee Chapter 3 (DEIS Pg. 112) Land Use and Transporta

and Access. In response to public comment concerning 

of clarity in the Draft Management Plan / Environmenta

Statement, road and trail definitions have been refined

(See Chapter 3, Land Use and Transportation/Travel and 

Road and Trail Definitions). These definitions apply to a 

and trail inventory based on best available data at the tim

which includes 1:24000 USGS topographic maps, BLM topographic maps and a 2002 survey of roads, ways and around existing wilderness study areas. 

Upgrading or maintaining the Arco-Minidoka Road to a 

standard is not a management recommendation in the Pr

however the dashed Passage Zone within the Monumen

for improvements should the responsible county govern

to upgrade the Arco-Minidoka Road in the future. See D

of Chapter 2, Alternative D, Travel and Access. See Cha

Future Planning Needs, Transportation Planning. In the 

Plan/FEIS we describe desired future conditions and 

management actions for the type of roads and access tha

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

550 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 551

Topic	 Travel and Access

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


137 / 001	 Hunting should be allowed in the BLM managed areas within the 

Monument, but roads or trails should not be developed in the more Pristine regions where special geological features need to be preserved and protected. 

116 / 001	 I feel strongly disappointed in having the preferred management 

option to be designated be Alternative O. This option allows an unacceptable level of aggressive restoration, weed control, and fire 

management. Worst of all, Alternative 0 contains a vague 

definition of roads that will most certainly lead to increased off-road vehicle (OHV) use. That use damages the wilderness values and special geologic features which were intended to be protected.I want to point out that what disappoints me about the Alternative O road classifications and definitions used in the analysis, is that they appear to be arbitrary, and worst of all, even 

contrary to the intent of the Clinton Presidential Proclamation. I find it unacceptable that under Alternative O there is egregious classification of unauthorized, unmaintained, user-created "two tracks" as roads. These unauthorized and unplanned routes are not 

"roads," and it is important that they be eradicated and restored to 

 natural conditions. 

142 / 001	 Although the DEIS appears to meet the requirements set 

forth by the National Environmental Policy Act, I believe it needs a stronger definition of a road to more clearly state which routes will permit motorized travel. 

Response 

will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

In the Proposed Plan/FEIS we have adopted an expande

similar to Alternative C, which will afford the most pass

protection to geologic resources through limited access. 

portions of the Monument, which makes up the majority 

Pristine Zone will still allow hunting, the only part of thclosed to hunting is the old original Monument. 

See Chapter 3 (DEIS Pg. 112) Land Use and Transporta

and Access. In response to public comment concerning 

in the Draft Management Plan / Environmental Impact S

road and trail definitions have been refined (See Chapte

and Transportation/Travel and Access, Road and Trail D

These definitions apply to a road and trail inventory bas

available data at the time of this draft which includes 1:2

topographic maps, BLM 1:100,000 topographic maps an

survey of roads, ways and trails in and around existing w

areas. See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transp

Planning. In the proposed Management Plan we describ

future conditions and management actions for the type o

access that is appropriate within each of four manageme

The plan also classifies and inventories the type of roads 

currently in existence within the Monument. Specific d

Access and Transportation beyond those already defined 

management zone descriptions will be made in the upco

implementation level Comprehensive Travel ManagemeThis implementation plan will include a detailed map indesignations for Travel and Access within the Monumenroad travel restrictions and road closures to meet resourcmanagement objectives, such as protection of special stahabitat, defined in the Proposed Plan/FEIS. There will broad mileage under this plan.

See Chapter 3 (DEIS Pg. 112) Land Use and Transporta

Access. In response to public comment concerning a lac

in the Draft Management Plan / Environmental Impact S

road and trail definitions have been refined (See Chapte
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

14 / 001

70 / 001

15 / 001

26 / 001 

Travel and Access

Comment 

In analyzing impacts, the EIS should reflect that any type of 

structure or road in this type of terrain can be seen from a long way off, so their impacts affect visitors in the pristine areas, many miles away from the actual site. 

the selected alternative will increase roads and road maintenance 

while at the same time acknowledging that roads are primary contributors to wildfire, weed transportation and increased visitor use. The use of corridor Passage Zones in the pristine areas has the 

 same effect as treating the whole pristine area as a roading opportunity. 

In regard to your study of the craters of the moon lava flow. 

Concerning access of existing trails, and roads, as was stated at your meeting of 5/13/04. After reading and hearing the discussion 

 of the three proposals, I feel that all exciting trails, and roads, should be left open to motorized vehicles as they are now. Theseroads were built by my grandfather George Pfnister, and other neighbors in the area in the early 1900's. They did this as an access to harvest cedar posts for fencing their farms. They had just homesteaded these farms. The roads have been in use from then until now. It has been many years since cedar posts have...

The City of Heyburn supports the Arco-Minidoka Road 

improvements. We believe this road will offer many economic opportunities for this area. 

Response 

and Transportation/Travel and Access, Road and Trail DThese definitions apply to a road and trail inventory basavailable data at the time of this draft which includes 1:2topographic maps, BLM 1:100,000 topographic maps ansurvey of roads, ways and trails in and around existing wareas.

Please refer to DEIS, Chapter 2, page 41, Definition of V

Resource Management Classes. 

In response to this comment and many others expressing 

support for increasing or decreasing the amount of area 

the Passage Zone, as well as additional consideration of 

environmental consequences, the agencies modified the 

contained in the Passage Zone in Alternative D as prese

the Proposed Plan.

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

Upgrading or maintaining the Arco-Minidoka Road to a 

standard is not a management recommendation in the Pr

however the dashed Passage Zone within the Monument 

for improvements should the responsible county governto upgrade the Arco-Minidoka Road in the future. See Dof Chapter 2, Alternative D, Travel and Access. 

552 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 553

Topic	 Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


1 / 001	 I believe that the only way to prevent the damage from becoming 

even more extensive is to close the Wood Road Kipuka trail to all 

motorized traffic, from the trailhead beyond. To allow

motorized traffic past that point is almost to invite abuse through either ignorance of the law or a disregard for it. Given the present

 evidence of illegal traffic, past the trailhead it is almost impossible to control off-highway vehicle in any sort of meaningful way, especially given the sparse resources available to you for enforcement of this and other laws and regulations in managing the Monument. 

92 / 001	 The current development already gives the general public enough 

access to the Monument. The recent additions to the Monument must remain undeveloped and people who wish to explore these areas must be able to experience a pristine wilderness. No new roads should be developed and many of the existing roads should 

be closed. Any remaining roads should also have restrictions to minimize motorized recreation. 

120 / 001	 While the National Park/BLM preferred alternative, Alternative 

D, supports aggressive weed control, fire management, and restoration, this proposal would further develop roads. Roads, asyou know, will actually increase the threat of noxious weeds and fire risk and will accelerate development for visitor use and 

recreation. 

Response 

The Wood Road Kipuka trail is closed to motorized veh

been since 1980 when this area was included in the Grea

Wilderness Study Area designation. In two of the draft a

including the Preferred Alternative, this area would be z

and no roads or motorized vehicle trails would be permi

agencies acknowledge that enforcement of this particula

vehicle closure has been lacking.

See Chapter 2, Alternative D Description and Map. In th

Alternative, Passage Zone was significantly reduced in r

public comment and after additional consideration of the 

impacts to resources. Creating Passage Zone corridors d

mandate an increase in the number or current standard o

chapter 2, Description of Management Zones). See Chap

Future Planning Needs, Transportation Planning. In the 

Management Plan we describe desired future conditions management actions for the type of roads and access thaappropriate within each of four management zones. The classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails curexistence within the Monument. Specific decisions on ATransportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

42 / 001

10 / 001

27 / 001 

Travel and Access

Comment 

I am writing in support of the improvement of the 

Minidoka-Arco Road. I feel it is important to have a good road" 

so searches can be conduced. I also feel the road needs to be in good order for not only S&R, but law enforcement, fire, and EMS. 

 For the general public I also believe that there should be access to 

existing roads and trails. 

We understand that the designation of the Monument/Preserve 

has, and will continue to, create demand for public access. We believe it is the obligation of responsive government and the clarion call of orderly planning to provide for the essential needs 

of the public. We see the need for adequate, appropriate and safe 

access to such significant places of public interest and history, which the Monument/Preserve constitutes, as the type of need deserving the utmost attention. We have also been advised by the Mini-Cassia Transportation Committee in this matter. Weheartily agree with the Committee's recommendations that Alternative (D) is the preferred option, and should include limited options in Alternative (B), to-wit: 1) including the entire Arco-Minidoka Road as a "passage" route; and 2) including the entire Carey-Kamima Road as a "passage" route. By adopting this Alternative, with designated options, we are confident that you would be serving the best interests of all citizens especially those seeking access to view our interesting and historic landscape.

We would urge that you include the entire Arco-Minidoka Road as 

a "passage" route and that you include the entire Carey-Kimama Road as a "passage" route. The recent change to the area makes it a much more desirable destination as a NPS Visitor Center. We often hear of people that drive the present route and have trouble because they do not realize how poor the route is. We also have been made aware that the better route would facilitate safety and fire suppression and that is a major reason for the improvement. 

Response 

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

Upgrading or maintaining the Arco-Minidoka Road to a 

standard is not a management recommendation in the Pr

however the dashed Passage Zone within the Monument 

for improvements should the responsible county govern

to upgrade the Arco-Minidoka Road in the future. See D

of Chapter 2, Alternative D, Travel and Access. 

Upgrading or maintaining the Arco-Minidoka Road to a 

standard is not a management recommendation in the Pr

however the dashed Passage Zone within the Monument 

for improvements should the responsible county govern

to upgrade the Arco-Minidoka Road in the future. See D

of Chapter 2, Alternative D, Travel and Access. 

Upgrading or maintaining the Arco-Minidoka Road to a 

standard is not a management recommendation in the Pr

however the dashed Passage Zone within the Monumen

for improvements should the responsible county govern

to upgrade the Arco-Minidoka Road in the future. See D

of Chapter 2, Alternative D, Travel and Access. 

554 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 555

Topic	 Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


29 / 001 The City of Minidoka would like to express our support and desire 

 to have the road from Minidoka to Arco improved. We would 

very much like to see the road suitable for all vehicles, as we have numerous tourists stopping for directions to Arco and we have to turn them around and discourage desert travel. We truly feel this road would benefit not only travelers, but 

 destinations on both ends. 

9 / 001	 It is proposed that the following items from Alternative B be 

included in Alternative D: 1.) Include the entire Arco-Minidoka 

Road as a "passage" route. 2.) Include the entire Carey-Kimama Road as a "passage" route. We are adamant in our support for the 

Arco-Minidoka route. The Monument/Preserve designation has created a demand by the public for access. The road from Minidoka will become an attractive alternative to those wanting to go through the Monument/Preserve and to have that as an alternative to reaching the NPS Visitor Center. People will attempt to use the existing road with potential catastrophic results so it must be adequate. 

8 / 001	 After reviewing your DEIS, it would appear to be important 

that the Alternative (D) should include parts of options in Alternative (B). The entire Arco-Minidoka road as a "passage" route and Carey-Kimama as a "passage" route are important to the people wanting to go through the Monument/Preserve and to have that as an alternative to reaching the NPS 

 Visitor Center. 

104 / 001	 A map should be provided that shows the Pristine Zone roads and 

trails as well as a map for Class II Trails open to single-track motorized use. The specific purpose and need for each road also 

needs to be descried in the FEIS, along with the risks associated with each road. Examples of use include administrative use for restoration, recreational two-track use, recreational gravel use, recreational paved use. Examples of risk for each segment include 

 wildlife habitat fragmentation, noxious weed spread, increased grazing developments, vandalism of cultural and geological resources, and incompatibility with pristine recreationalexperiences. 

Response 

Upgrading or maintaining the Arco-Minidoka Road to a 

standard is not a management recommendation in the Pr

however the dashed Passage Zone within the Monument 

for improvements should the responsible county govern

to upgrade the Arco-Minidoka Road in the future. See D

of Chapter 2, Alternative D, Travel and Access.

Upgrading or maintaining the Arco-Minidoka Road to a 

standard is not a management recommendation in the Pr

however the dashed Passage Zone within the Monument 

for improvements should the responsible county govern

to upgrade the Arco-Minidoka Road in the future. See D

of Chapter 2, Alternative D, Travel and Access. 

In response to this comment and many others expressing 

support for increasing or decreasing the amount of area 

the Passage Zone, as well as additional consideration of 

environmental consequences, the agencies modified the 

contained in the Passage Zone in Alternative D as prese

the Proposed Plan.

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restri
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

122 / 001

38 / 001

121 / 001 

Travel and Access

Comment 

We urge NPS/BLM to develop a Management Plan that blends 

Alternatives C and D, one that places a greater emphasis on non-motorized access and protection of the primitive character of 

 the Monument while still pursuing an active and effective restoration program. The Preferred Alternative does not adequately protect the primitive character of the Monument. The  presence of unique geological and biological features, extensive road-free or relatively road-free areas, and the lack of easy 

motorized access are what make the Monument nationally-significant. While we applaud the agencies’ recognition

 of the need for conducting restoration work in degraded areas, this work cannot be done at the risk of inadvertently encouraging rising levels of motorized use in the Monument. The real long-term legacy of the Monument expansion will be the preservation of large areas of sagebrush steppe and lava flows that 

are both ecologically healthy and allow for primitive recreational and hunting experiences. We are in opposition to the approach to roads and motorized trails embodied in the Preferred Alternative. There is simply too much risk that there will be an increase in motorized use of trails and roads that currently seevery seasonal and limited vehicular use. The quantity of access appears to be more of a concern than providing high quality experiences. While we support active restoration measures, BLM/NPS must find ways to minimize and reduce, not maintain or

 even increase, the number of roads available for motorized use. 

The Mini-Cassia Economic Development Commission supports 

the proposed extension of a highway from Minidoka to Arco. 

This addition will provide an economic impact to the community of Minidoka and provide a safe and more economical means for locals and tourists to travel from our area to the National Monument. 

...and trails and begun its planning process from there. We believe 

 this, coupled with the policy of defining any obviously-traveled vehicular path as a road, will inevitable result in unnecessarily 

Response 

road closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restri

road closures to meet resource management objectives, 

protection of special status species habitat, defined in th

Plan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

addition, the Proposed Management Plan is in fact a com

Alternatives C and D. The Passage Zone is decreased, w

Zone increased. We have incorporated your comments, 

to Alternative D. 

Upgrading or maintaining the Arco-Minidoka Road to a 

standard is not a management recommendation in the Pr

however the dashed Passage Zone within the Monument 

for improvements should the responsible county govern

to upgrade the Arco-Minidoka Road in the future. See D

of Chapter 2, Alternative D, Travel and Access. 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

556 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 557

Topic 	 Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


excessive roads and motorized travel, roads and travel which will 

almost inevitably function as vectors for and causes of such undesirable events as human-caused fire and the introduction of exotic species. We encourage the team instead to start with a blank map, and then to determine which roads are necessary for providing visitor access to specific sites or for other desirable visitor opportunities. Routes which are not necessary to provide general public access should be closed to the public while allowing 

individuals with specific needs to utilize normally-closed routes to 

do so by administrative permission. We believe... 

64 / 001	 While I support aggressive weed control, fire management, and 

restoration, the proposal to further develop roads will actually increase the threat of noxious weeds and fire risk, as well as accelerate damage to wilderness values and geologic features. 

63 / 002	 Worst of all, Alternative D contains a vague definition of roads 

that will most certainly lead to increased off-road vehicle (OHV) use. That use damages the wilderness values and special geologic features which were intended to be protected. I want to point out that what disappoints me about the Alternative D road classifications and definitions used in the analysis, is that they appear to be arbitrary, and worst of all, even contrary to the 

intent of the Clinton Presidential Proclamation. I find it unacceptable that under Alternative D there is egregious classification of unauthorized, unmaintained, user-created "two tracks" as roads. These unauthorized and unplanned routes are not "roads," and it is important that they be eradicated and restored to  natural conditions. 

Response 

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations 

travel within the Monument, including road travel restri

road closures to meet resource management objectives, 

protection of special status species habitat, defined in th

Plan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

Analysis in the DEIS (Ch. 4) acknowledges the risk of i

improvement relative to weed infestation, fire risk, wild

and geologic features. In response to comments such as 

team reduced the amount of Passage Zone in the Propos

particularly in Laidlaw Park. The implementation plan ftransportation will address road maintenance and improv specific areas and zones of the Monument, with conside

See Chapter 3 (DEIS Pg. 112) Land Use and Transporta

Access. In response to public comment concerning a lac

in the Draft Management Plan / Environmental Impact S

road and trail definitions have been refined (See Chapte

and Transportation/Travel and Access, Road and Trail D

These definitions apply to a road and trail inventory bas

available data at the time of this draft which includes 1:2

topographic maps, BLM 1:100,000 topographic maps an

survey of roads, ways and trails in and around existing w

areas. See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transp

Planning. In the proposed Management Plan we describ

future conditions and management actions for the type o

access that is appropriate within each of four manageme

The plan also classifies and inventories the type of roads currently in existence within the Monument. Specific dAccess and Transportation beyond those already defined management zone descriptions will be made in the upcoimplementation level Comprehensive Travel ManagemeThis implementation plan will include a detailed map in
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

18 / 002

15 / 002 

Travel and Access

Comment 

The plan should cut back on vehicle access through the 

Monument, retaining only routes that serve a purpose consistent with the Monument mandate, and closing and rehabilitating all other vehicle tracks. We urge that the Arco-Minidoka road not be 

 upgraded or paved, as it introduces vehicle traffic too close to the  primitive and Pristine Zones. 

...they carved out this precious way of life that we enjoy today. I 

have some concerns about the wilderness study that brought about these three proposals. After talking to the Monument manager Jim Morris, and the director of the B.L.M. office I discovered that 

 they had located very few of the exciting roads and trails. This leads me to believe that the study was not very thorough. I would like our heritage that we have in this area to remain available for 

many years to come. 

Response 

designations for Travel and Access within the Monumenroad travel restrictions and road closures to meet resourcmanagement objectives, such as protection of special stahabitat, defined in the Proposed Plan/FEIS. There will broad mileage under this plan. 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage undeUpgrading or maintaining the Arco-Minidoka Road to a standard is not a management recommendation in the Prhowever the dashed Passage Zone within the Monument for improvements should the responsible county governto upgrade the Arco-Minidoka Road in the future. See Dof Chapter 2, Alternative D, Travel and Access. 

See Chapter 3 (DEIS Pg. 112) Land Use and Transporta

Access. In response to public comment concerning a lac

in the Draft Management Plan / Environmental Impact S

road and trail definitions have been refined (See Chapte

and Transportation/Travel and Access, Road and Trail D

These definitions apply to a road and trail inventory bas

available data at the time of this draft which includes 1:2

topographic maps, BLM 1:100,000 topographic maps an

survey of roads, ways and trails in and around existing w

areas. 

558 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 559

Topic	 Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


70 / 002	 We need a map showing the Pristine Zone roads and trails. In 

general roads in the Pristine area should be restricted or eliminated

P. 116: Class II Trails open to single track motorized use needs a 

map so we can see where they are and make appropriate comments. 

14 / 002	 ...have not been considered roads at all. We ask BLM and NPS to 

modify the plan to close and revegetate all vehicle routes that do not serve the purposes for which the Monument was established. We would favor the approach NPS has taken in other national monuments and national parks, strictly controlling vehicle access to protect the resource. The time has long passed when a spiderweb of jeep tracks can be allowed to mar this wonderful 

Monument area. 

Response 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails curexistence within the Monument. Specific decisions on ATransportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage undeaddition: See alternative maps for transportation networwithin Pristine Zone will be closed by this plan. No Clascurrently exist in the Monument. 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

120 / 002

104 / 002 

Travel and Access

Comment 

...then maintain Primitive Zones, with a minimum of passage and 

use. Management goals should include road closure and rehabilitation.

It seems highly contradictory to propose increasing the Passage 

Zone in Alternative D from 4800 acres to 9900 acres for the sake 

 of restoration efforts, when the very problems that are targeted for remediation are due in large part to the introduction of roads in previously unroaded areas. This historical problem is noted in the discussion of noxious weeds. The increase in vehicular traffic as well as grazing from increased access to remote areas provided by this alternative would exacerbate this problem further. Itseems particularly misleading to suggest that “...impacts from 

damage, theft, and vandalism near roads and trails would be likely 

to be similar to those of Alternative A” when access increases significantly under Alternative D (P. 157). There seems to be a presumption that there will be no increased use of roads in spite of 

 the fact the roads will be improved to enhance delivery of administrative (weed control/restoration) and fire services. Yet in  the discussion on WSA’s, the plan states “the level of illegal off-road use would be higher near access roads.” The impacts from this expansion of access should be classified as major instead of “negligible to potentially major”. 

Response 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails curexistence within the Monument. Specific decisions on ATransportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

See Chapter 3 (DEIS Pg. 112) Land Use and Transporta

Access. In response to public comment concerning a lac

in the Draft Management Plan / Environmental Impact S

road and trail definitions have been refined (See Chapte

and Transportation/Travel and Access, Road and Trail D

These definitions apply to a road and trail inventory bas

available data at the time of this draft which includes 1:2

topographic maps, BLM 1:100,000 topographic maps an

survey of roads, ways and trails in and around existing w

areas. See Chapter 2, Alternative D Description and Ma

Proposed Alternative, Passage Zone was significantly re

response to public comment and after additional conside

potential impacts to resources. Creating Passage Zone co

not mandate an increase in the number or current standa

(See chapter 2, Description of Management Zones).

560 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 561

Topic Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


21 / 002 Unnecessary roads identified during the planning process should be 

marked for closure and restoration to natural conditions. Under 

no circumstances should unofficial, user-created roads be designated as official roads, provided and maintained, or marked in any way with signs or on Monument maps provided to visitors. Such unofficial roads should be marked for closure and restoration. 

121 / 002 ...purposes. We believe that the planning team should reconsider 

its definition of a “road,” as the majority of the roads identified as  roads are not roads in any sort of common-sense definition, and 

do not correspond with the intent of the presidential proclamation. We wish to strongly emphasize that we believe that only those roads which have been constructed and maintained 

 by means other than simple vehicular travel merit the definition 

of the term “road.” 

Response 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

Upgrading or maintaining the Arco-Minidoka Road to a 

standard is not a management recommendation in the Pr

however the dashed Passage Zone within the Monument 

for improvements should the responsible county govern

to upgrade the Arco-Minidoka Road in the future. See D

of Chapter 2, Alternative D, Travel and Access. See Cha

Pg. 112) Changes to Land Use and Transportation/Trave

In response to public comment concerning a lack of clar

definitions in the Draft Management Plan / EnvironmenStatement, road and trail definitions have been refined (3, Land Use and Transportation/Travel and Access, RoaDefinitions). These definitions apply to a road and trail ibased on best available data at the time of this draft whi1:24000 USGS topographic maps, BLM 1:100,000 topoand a 2002 survey of roads, ways and trails in and arounwilderness study areas. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

105 / 002

106 / 003 

Travel and Access

Comment 

The DEIS analysis is lacking in sound science and professional 

judgment to back up the conclusions reached in alternatives B 

and D. Predictions that increased access will have minimal negative impacts to Monument resources and values are based on an ideal situation where the agencies have huge budgets to provide for signs, staff, enforcement and monitoring. With the majority 

of road improvements located on BLM lands, one would think that the BLM would have the resources to pay for all of the necessary enforcement and monitoring. However, current management points to a problem of shared resources between the two agencies. This is likely to continue and the resources found on 

 NPS managed lands are likely to suffer significant negative impacts due to increased access to BLM managed lands. NPS is not  likely to get increased funding for monitoring and enforcement. 

BLM appears to want to spend money that is available on aggressive restoration, not on monitoring and enforcement throughout the Monument. To be clear, the management and budget decisions that are influencing these processes do not seemto be made by the staff of the Monument but are being made by state, regional and national agency staff as well as Congress. 

I feel that there are already too many roads and access trails in 

and around the Monument. There is almost no difference inClass C and Class D roads and trails between Alternative C and D (637 versus 634 miles, respectively). I strongly prefer Alternative C, but with more emphasis in closing unimproved roads/trails and requiring access by foot only. 

Response 

The impact assessment is described separately and some

differently for different resources. For example, under G

Resources, it is recognized that road improvements coul

potentially major long-term adverse impacts on resource

caves due to increased numbers of visitors. However, in 

Proposed Plan/FEIS, the agencies have taken into consid

expected impacts on resources and the agencies’ future m

capabilities to deal with such impacts. See Chapter One, 

Planning Needs, Transportation Planning. In the propose

Management Plan we describe desired future conditions 

management actions for the type of roads and access tha

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restri

road closures to meet resource management objectives, 

protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

562 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 563

Topic	 Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


95 / 003	 An aggressive herbicide program may not be the answer, when the 

spread of noxious weeds can be attributed directly to grazing procedures and roads. Upgrading roads in primitive areas will only increase this. 

127 / 003	 We also recognize access to the Monument is an issue with the 

development of the Arco- Minidoka road but with limited budgets, 

this would be our third priority. 

2 / 003	 The draft states that the NPS and BLM prefer Alternative D. 

This alternative supports road enhancements and building. In an effort to "safeguard the volcanic features and geologic processes for the Great Rift", it would seem that the preferred alternative D, 

 opens up the Monument's land to commercial services and motor vehicles/ease of transporting to the... 

122 / 003 We urge NPS/BLM to adopt an alternative that would include a 

detailed travel plan with specific designations for those routes that would be available to motorized use. The travel plan should specifically articulate that all non-designated roads would be closed 

 to motorized use, with the exception of specifically permitted management or administrative uses. The plan also should include details regarding how vehicles will be managed to ensure that non-motorized regulations are followed. 

Response 

The DEIS acknowledges that roads, vehicles, humans, a

known vectors to the spread of noxious weeds (DEIS C

Discussion on Noxious and Exotic Species, p. 92). A ful

Weed Management Program addresses a broad range of 

education, and control activities to combat noxious weed

p. 25 Management Guidelines Common to All AlternatiVegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

While not specifically proposing any improvement to th

Arco-Minidoka Road, the agencies, in the Proposed Plan

accommodating improvement to the section of the road 

Monument if, at a future time, the local authorities decidthe section of the Arco-Minidoka Road to the north of thboundary. 

See Chapter 2, Alternative D Description and Map. In th

Alternative, Passage Zone was significantly reduced in r

public comment and after additional consideration of the 

impacts to resources. Creating Passage Zone corridors d

mandate an increase in the number or current standard o

chapter 2, Description of Management Zones). In additi

environmental analysis (Chapter 4) has been amended to more discussion of the expected impact on these resourcimproved access roads. 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

121 / 003

105 / 003 

Travel and Access

Comment 

All alternatives must include a transportation plan and 

implementation timeline that identifies the actions, including road

 closures or travel restrictions, necessary to protect the resources identified in the establishment of the Monument. All alternatives must include an analysis of how the proposed management actions  will protect or threaten sensitive natural, cultural, biological, or geological resources. The plan should provide for a comprehensive inventory, with timeline, of the resources to be protected by the management plan. 

The proclamation provides the agencies with a mandate to - • 

manage the area to preserve the Monument objects; • prohibit all motorized and mechanized vehicle use off road (except for emergency or authorized administrative purposes); and • prepare a 

transportation plan that addresses the actions, including road

closures or travel restrictions, necessary to protect the objects The agencies’ failure to present more detailed alternatives as proposed transportation networks in the DEIS is a failure to comply with the proclamation, as well as with obligations under applicable regulations. The proclamation requires the agencies to prepare a transportation plan that addresses actions needed to protect Monument objects, which includes determining roads to be  closed and other travel restrictions. We urge the agencies to conduct a more comprehensive and specific recommendations to start travel management planning as part of this broad planning effort. 

Response 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restri

road closures to meet resource management objectives, 

protection of special status species habitat, defined in th

Plan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

564 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 565

Topic	 Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


103 / 004	 The road classifications and definitions used in the analysis appear 

 to be arbitrary and contrary to the intent of the presidential Proclamation -for example, classification of unauthorized, unmaintained, user-created "two tracks" as roads. 

70 / 004 ..roads in spite of the fact the roads will be improved to enhanced 

delivery of administrative (weed control/restoration) and fire services. Yet in the discussion on WSA's the plan states "the level of illegal off-road use would be higher near access roads." P. 217: same as above.. .i.e., illegal use would occur with improved

 access. The impact of the preferred alternative will be an increase and improved maintenance of roads and with that increase more visitor use and consequent impact. This needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. 

120 / 004	 Secondly, Blaine County is not interested in accepting 

responsibility for any more road maintenance in that region. Toput it bluntly, the road issue is terribly overdone in Alternative D. 

 Apparently much thought has been given to the idea... 

104 / 004	 All motorized travel should be restricted to roads designated 

through a planning process that considers natural and historical 

objects of interest in need of protection. Unnecessary reads identified during the planning process should be marked for closure 

 and restored to natural conditions. The road classifications and definitions used in the analysis appear to be arbitrary and contrary  to the purpose of the Presidential Proclamation. It is particularly  troubling that unauthorized, unmaintained, user-created “two-track” trails are classified as roads. Under no circumstances should unofficial or user-created roads be designated as official roads, provided any maintenance, or marked in any way on maps provided for visitors. Such unofficial roads should be closed and restored. 

Response 

See Chapter 3 (DEIS Pg. 112) Land Use and Transporta

Access. In response to public comment concerning a lac

in the Draft Management Plan / Environmental Impact S

road and trail definitions have been refined (See Chapte

and Transportation/Travel and Access, Road and Trail DThese definitions apply to a road and trail inventory basavailable data at the time of this draft which includes 1:2topographic maps, BLM 1:100,000 topographic maps ansurvey of roads, ways and trails in and around existing w

areas.

Alternative D has been adjusted to decrease the miles of 

the Passage Zone. The impacts of that adjustment have b

analyzed throughout the document. 

Thank you for the comment. The plan, under “Managem

Common to All Alternatives” has been modified to clari

road upgrades or commitments to future maintenance of 

the jurisdiction of county or highway districts would occ

that county or highway district concurrence. 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restri

road closures to meet resource management objectives, 

protection of special status species habitat, defined in th

Plan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

73 / 004

122 / 004121 / 004 

Travel and Access

Comment 

In Chapter 4, Page 151 the draft covers the Lost River

Off-Highway Vehicle Management Demonstration Project. The draft states "IDPR is seeking exemptions from licensing and insurance requirements for off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel on county roads and for crossing US 93." We are not seeking an exemption from insurance requirements under this proposal. Idaho Code 49-426 allows counties and highway district to exempt certain roads from the license plate requirements. It does not allow those counties to exempt roads from insurance requirements. The sentence needs to be reworded to read "IDPR is seeking an exemption from licensing requirements for off-highway (OHV) travel on county roads and for crossing US 93." 

We strongly believe that NPS/BLM should adopt an alternative 

that emphasizes foot and horseback travel, facilitated through the use of licensed outfitters and guides who can help provide high quality experiences and would assist the agencies in protecting the Monument. These guiding services would also help bring additional  sources of revenues to the local communities near the Monument. 

...should not seek to undermine its intent. All user-created roads, 

trails, ways and routes should be considered unauthorized and illegal intrusions into the landscape and should be immediately and 

 permanently closed to motorized use. No new... 

Response 

A text change was made to Proposed Plan/FEIS as sugg

The Proposed Management Plan will emphasize outfitte

visitor experience and resource protection. Your comme

been considered, see changes to Alternative D. While A

does not specifically emphasize foot and horse travel, it 

exclude these travel activities. Specific outfitting and gu

outside the scope of this overall Management Plan. 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails curexistence within the Monument. Specific decisions on ATransportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

566 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 567

Topic	 Travel and Access

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


105 / 004	 The agencies are also obligated to address off-road vehicle usage. 

Executive Order No. 11644 (1972) (as amended by Executive Order No. 11989 (1977)) required the agencies to make 

designations as to use of routes by off-road vehicles. BLM promulgated regulations that require the agency to “designate all public lands as either open, limited or closed to off road vehicles.” 43 C.F.R. §8342.1. BLM is specifically obligated to make such designations in its RMP process, with public participation. 43 

C.F.R. §8342.2. As explicitly stated by BLM regulations (43 C.F.R. § 8342.2(a)): The designation and redesignation of trails is 

accomplished through the resource management planning process described in Part 1600 of this Title. Current and potential impacts 

 of specific vehicle types on all resources and uses in the planning area shall be considered in the process of preparing resource management plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments. In making designations, the agencies are obligated by both the Executive Orders and BLM’s regulations (43 C.F.R. § 8342.1) to ensure that areas and trails are located: The agencies are also obligated to address off-road vehicle usage. Executive Order No. 11644 (1972) (as amended by Executive Order No. 11989 (1977)) required the agencies to make designations as to use of routes by off-road vehicles. BLM promulgated regulations that require the agency to “designate all public lands as either open, limited or closed to off road vehicles.” 43 C.F.R. §8342.1. BLM is 

 specifically obligated to make such designations in its RMP 

process, with public participation. 43 C.F.R. §8342.2. As 

explicitly stated by BLM regulations (43 C.F.R. § 8342.2(a)): The

 designation and redesignation of trails is accomplished through the resource management planning process described in Part 1600 of this Title. Current and potential impacts of specific vehicle types on all resources and uses in the planning area shall be considered in the process of preparing resource management plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments. In making designations, the agencies are obligated by both the Executive Orders and BLM’s regulations (43 C.F.R. § 8342.1) to ensure that areas and trails are located: collection, and excessive erosion.” (DEIS, p. 189). And, in the alternative, “keeping many cultural resources inaccessible” would provide a “beneficial effect.” (DEIS, p. 188). In light of the agencies’ obligation to protect theMonument and conduct travel planning, as well as their separate legal obligations to designate routes, the agencies should provide 

Response 

See Chapter 3 (DEIS Pg. 112) Land Use and Transporta

Access. In response to public comment concerning a lac

in the Draft Management Plan / Environmental Impact S

road and trail definitions have been refined (See Chapte

and Transportation/Travel and Access, Road and Trail D

These definitions apply to a road and trail inventory bas

available data at the time of this draft which includes 1:2

topographic maps, BLM 1:100,000 topographic maps an

survey of roads, ways and trails in and around existing w

areas. See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transp

Planning. In the proposed Management Plan we describ

future conditions and management actions for the type o

access that is appropriate within each of four manageme

The plan also classifies and inventories the type of roads 

currently in existence within the Monument. Specific d

Access and Transportation beyond those already defined 

management zone descriptions will be made in the upco

implementation level Comprehensive Travel Manageme

This implementation plan will include a detailed map in

designations for Travel and Access within the Monumen

road travel restrictions and road closures to meet resourc

management objectives, such as protection of special sta

habitat, defined in the Proposed Plan/FEIS. There will b

road mileage under this plan. Additionally see page 28 D

Land Use and Transportation Common to All. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

Travel and Access

Comment 

more specifics as part of this plan and begin to identify routes, specify closures, and provide a range of route densityexpectations. Further, the agencies are well aware of the existing and ongoing damage to the Monument objects that they are bound to protect from motorized use. Delay in the enforcement and monitoring of these known illegal routes and in the immediate emergency closure of roads and routes would allow this damage to continue and is unacceptable. As noted above, the proclamation (as well as interim management) closed the entirety of the Monument lands to all types of mechanized and motorized use “off road.” The management plan cannot undo this restriction and should not seek to undermine its intent. As an initial matter, the agencies should distinguish routes or trails that are not roads. The legislative history of FLPMA provides a definition of a road, by providing a definition of “roadless” (H.R. Rep. No. 94-1163 at 17 (1976)): The word “roadless” refers to the absence of roads, which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road. In addition, the Code of Federal Regulations (43 C.F.R. § 19.2(e)) establishes the following definition: An improved road that is suitable for public travel by means of four wheeled, motorized vehicles intended primarily for highway use. Any route not meeting these definitions is not a “road” and, under the proclamation, must not be open to motorized and mechanized travel. Based on these definitions, all user-created roads, trails,ways and routes should be considered unauthorized and illegal intrusions into the landscape and should be immediately and permanently closed to mechanized and/or motorized use under all alternatives. Under the road classification system used in the DEIS, Class 2 trails are open to motorized/mechanized travel in addition to other non-motorized/non-mechanized forms of travel. This use is prohibited by the proclamation, because it permits motorized use of trails, which do not meet the legal definition of a road. All Class 2 trails should be closed to motorized/mechanized use (except for limited emergency or administrative use as necessary) and converted to Class 1 trails through modification of the routes to prevent such improper uses. Class D roads are defined as “primitive roads that were not constructed, but established over time by the passage of motorized vehicles.” Based 

Response 

568 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 569

Topic	 Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


on the legal definitions of a road, the Class D routes (which are user-created) are not roads and permitting vehicles to use these routes would violate the proclamations. All Class D roads should be closed to motorized/mechanized use (except for limited emergency or administrative use as necessary) and converted to Class 1 Trails. Class C roads are defined as unimproved, with a natural surface, which “may be either constructed or established over time by repeated passage of vehicles.” Based on the legal definitions of a road, Class C routes that are user-created are not roads, so permitting vehicles to use these routes would violate the proclamations. All user-created Class C roads should be closed to motorized/mechanized use (except for limited emergency or administrative use as necessary) and converted to Class 1 Trails. 

165 / 004	 Alternative D's proposed maintenance and reclassification of 

roads, and the planting of nonnative forage could retard recovery 

of native plant communities needed by sage grouse and other sage-obligate species. The DEIS has identified improved roads and the establishment and spread of non-native plant species as impacts to the system and yet has chosen an alternative that facilitates these actions more than other alternative(s). The maintenance of roads for the purposes of administrative and fire suppression will only facilitate the use of these roads by the public. 

 This is a reoccurring process throughout the west that has shown to expedite the spread of noxious weeds and increase the frequency of man-made fires.

Response 

Analysis in the DEIS (Ch. 4) acknowledges the risk of i

development relative to weed infestation. See Chapter 2

D Description and Map. In the Proposed Alternative, Pa

was significantly reduced in response to public commen

additional consideration of the potential impacts to resou

Creating Passage Zone corridors does not mandate an in

number or current standard of roads (See chapter 2, Des

Management Zones). In response to comments such as t

team reduced the amount of Passage Zone in the Propos

particularly in Laidlaw Park. The implementation plan f

transportation will address road development within spe

 zones of the Monument, with consideration to these and 

There is no guidance in the plan for “the planting of nonforage.” Overarching management guidance directing rethe Monument can be found on DEIS p. 25, ManagemeCommon To All Alternatives: Vegetation, Including SpSpecies, and Fire Management. The use of native plants  in all restoration projects, pursuant to BLM policy and Order 13112, Invasive Species, February 3, 1999, and ospecies would be used on projects in the Pristine Zone. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

121 / 005

105 / 005 

Travel and Access

Comment 

Depending on the risk posed to surrounding resources, an 

administrative use designation of certain existing roads may be an option for access limited to the permittee and the managing agencies. The terms and conditions of such special use and access must be clearly spelled out in the management plan. 

In creating a transportation plan, the agencies should also 

incorporate the following: 1. Focus on Monument objects: We believe that the BLM and NPS must first inventory the objects of historic and scientific interest and other resources for which the 

Monument was created or which may be legally protected. The agencies’ first priority is to protect the Monument objects and they are also bound to protect sensitive species, so identifying the location of Monument objects and sensitive species is the key to planning for their protection. Once the inventory is complete, the agencies can identify those objects or other resources that should be accessible to the public and at which levels, as well aswhich areas of the Monument require more extensive protection from motorized or mechanized vehicle use. A transportation system is important to allow for use and enjoyment of the Monument. However, to achieve the protective purposes of the Monument, the BLM and the NPS must establish a transportation 

system for use and enjoyment that permits visitors to get to specific destinations if vehicle use will not damage the area. The 

proclamation makes the Monument, and thus the objects it was designated to protect the dominant reservation. The BLM and NPS are required to protect these resources above other uses and, where possible, find lower impact ways to move visitors through

Response 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on ATransportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage undeAdditionally, limited use designations will be added to ttransportation plan. 

Thank you for your comments. They will be taken into c

when the agencies develop a transportation plan for the 

This plan is expected to be developed in the first phase o

 implementation-level plans. See Chapter One, Future P

Needs, Transportation Planning. In the proposed Manag

we describe desired future conditions and management a

type of roads and access that is appropriate within each 

management zones. The plan also classifies and invento

of roads and trails currently in existence within the Mon

Specific decisions on Access and Transportation beyond 

 defined in the management zone descriptions will be m

upcoming implementation level Comprehensive Travel 

Plan. This implementation plan will include a detailed m

all designations for Travel and Access within the Monum

road travel restrictions and road closures to meet resourc

management objectives, such as protection of special sta

habitat, defined in the Proposed Plan/FEIS. There will b

road mileage under this plan. See Chapter 3 (DEIS Pg. 1

Land Use and Transportation/Travel and Access. In resp

public comment concerning a lack of clarity in the Prop

road and trail definitions have been refined

 (See Chapter 3, Land Use and Transportation/Travel 

570 
Topic Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment Response 


 Comment No.


more sensitive areas. 2. Only roads with a “destination” or other and Access, Road and Trail Definitions). These definitio

necessary use, should remain open: The agencies should determine to a road and trail inventory based on best available data 

what roads are necessary for access to appropriate Monument of this draft which includes 1:24000 USGS topographic objects, where they should be located and the restrictions needed 1:100,000 topographic maps and a 2002 survey of roads

on timing and levels of use. The legal definition of a road, as and around existing wilderness study areas. discussed above, specifically excludes roads created solely by the passage of vehicles. The agencies should adopt this definition and use it as the basis for compliance with the proclamation’s prohibition against motorized and mechanized vehicle use “off-road.” For any road that the agencies are considering maintaining, the agencies should also inspect the condition of the road to ensure that it does not harm the Monument objects, landscape, natural and cultural resources, wildlife, wildlife habitat, wilderness, and other visitor experiences. Road density due to casual use has become a major problem in the Monument, in that numerous roads, ways, trails, and two-tracks that have developed from casual use. Many of these routes or trails must be closed immediately. If the agencies determine that any route meets the definition of a road, then they must evaluate it to determine whether the road can exist without harming the Monument objects and other resources. Also, duplicative roads, ways and trails

 should be evaluated, and if identified as a necessary access route, 
should be limited to the least environmentally damaging road. All 
other routes leading to the same place should be closed and 
revegetated, as well as posted, blocked or otherwise modified by
the agencies to discourage continued use. Since over 70 percent of 
the Monument lands are Wilderness Study Areas, it is imperative 
that the agencies prohibit construction or creation of new routes 
in these areas. New roads, trails, ways or other routes are illegal as 
of the date that the Wilderness Study Area was established and 
cannot be developed as part of the planning process. User created 
roads, trails, ways and other routes must be considered an illegal 
incursion into the Monument. No new routes across the lava fields
 should be allowed. The management plan should designate specific
 roads as open or closed to motorized use. Some trails should be 
specifically designated for non-motorized use. Some of these trails
 should be outside of the WSAs to allow visitors the opportunity
to visit some areas through a non-motorized experience. 
Non-motorized access should also be encouraged if any historical, 
cultural, biological, geological, paleontological or other significant


Appendices: APPENDIX L 571
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

Travel and Access

Comment 

resources are at risk of vandalism and damage from motorized use. Consideration should also be given to limited use of roads if they are deemed critical access routes for a small number of livestock permittees. Depending on the risk posed to surrounding resources, an administrative use designation may be an option for access limited to the permittee and the managing agencies. Theterms and conditions of such special use and access should be clearly spelled out in the management plan and should become a term and condition upon which the allotment is evaluated for compliance with the BLM’s Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines as developed through the RACs. Once critical and agreed upon access roads and trails are identified and a transportation network established through the planning process, the NPS and BLM should develop a travel map. This map should identify roads available for motorized vehicles and trails available for non-motorized uses. The map and additional visitor information should make it clear that off-road motorized use is prohibited to protect the resources in the Monument. This information should be readily available on user maps, kiosks or signs, and on the BLM and NPS web sites. The transportation plan, as part of the resource management plan, must mandate road closures when necessary to prevent the spread of invasive plant species and to protect cultural and geological resources and natural resources and wildlife habitats. Road closures may also be necessary at certain times to protect vegetation from fire caused by vehicles (e.g., catalytic converters). Overall, road, way and trail 

management should strive to eliminate unnecessary and little used

 routes. Any road improvements or developments should be analyzed for their potential significant impacts to the resources of the Monument. New roads should not be built and existing roads should not be significantly improved. Road maintenance should be minimal and conducted only when necessary for specific access or safety, but in no case should roads be upgraded or widened without proper analysis of potential environmental consequences. This is consistent with current BLM Interim Management Policy for National Monuments and NCAs, “Road improvements should be minimal and designed solely to correct those conditions that are unsafe or hazardous. Activities that maintain, as opposed to enhance, existing roads may be permissible.” (DEIS p. 293) 3. Road classifications should be based on use of roads and not solelyon manner of construction: Once the agencies identify roads 

Response 

572 
Topic Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment Response 

 Comment No. 

(using the legal definition of roads), they should classify the roads by use. The classifications included in the current DEIS are based on the way that roads are constructed and, to some extent, maintained. In determining those roads that should be kept open, the agencies should classify the roads based on whether they are needed for long-term access or temporary uses. Roads with onlytemporary uses can then be targeted for closure or restricted use. Roads needed for long-term access can be further assessed as to their specific needs (servicing an important public destination or only needed for limited activities), and a complementary maintenance program and other limitations on use implemented. 

Based on the proclamation, the agencies’ primary obligation is to 

protect Monument objects, including through prohibiting off-road 

use of vehicles. Therefore, the agencies must justify their decision to keep roads open based on a necessary destination or use, in conjunction with the agencies’ assessment that keeping the road open will not pose an avoidable risk of damage to Monument objects. 4. Travel management decisions should be based on a scientific assessment of road densities and effects: Certain decisions to sanction, build, or maintain roads can impose detrimental and long-lasting effects on the landscape. Roads and other transportation features have numerous effects on wildlife, including mortality from collisions, modification of animal behavior, disruption of the physical environment, alteration of the chemical environment, spread of exotic species, and changes in human use of the lands and water (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Specific examples include habitat loss and fragmentation; diminished animal use of habitats because of noise, dust emissions, and the presence of humans; loss of forage for herbivores; interference with wildlife life-history functions (for example, courtship, nesting, and migration); spread of non-native species carried by vehicles and along disturbed corridors created by road establishment and maintenance; increased poaching or unethical hunting practices; increased recreation by off-road vehicles and associated impacts; and degradation of aquatic habitats. Road access also increases vandalism, theft, and damage to archeological

 and cultural sites. management plan and should become a term and condition upon which the allotment is evaluated for compliance with the BLM’s Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines as developed through the RACs. Once critical and agreed upon access roads and trails are identified and a transportation network 

Appendices: APPENDIX L 573
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

Travel and Access

Comment 

established through the planning process, the NPS and BLM should develop a travel map. This map should identify roads available for motorized vehicles and trails available for non-motorized uses. The map and additional visitor information should make it clear that off-road motorized use is prohibited to protect the resources in the Monument. This information should be readily available on user maps, kiosks or signs, and on the BLM

and NPS web sites. The transportation plan, as part of the

resource management plan, must mandate road closures when necessary to prevent the spread of invasive plant species and to protect cultural and geological resources and natural resources and wildlife habitats. Road closures may also be necessary at certain times to protect vegetation from fire caused by vehicles (e.g., catalytic converters). Overall, road, way and trail management should strive to eliminate unnecessary and little used routes. Any 

road improvements or developments should be analyzed for their 

potential significant impacts to the resources of the Monument. 

New roads should not be built and existing roads should not be significantly improved. Road maintenance should be minimal and conducted only when necessary for specific access or safety, but in

 no case should roads be upgraded or widened without proper analysis of potential environmental consequences. This is consistent with current BLM Interim Management Policy for 

National Monuments and NCAs, “Road improvements should be 

minimal and designed solely to correct those conditions that are unsafe or hazardous. Activities that maintain, as opposed to enhance, existing roads may be permissible.” (DEIS p. 293) 3. Road classifications should be based on use of roads and not solelyon manner of construction: Once the agencies identify roads (using the legal definition of roads), they should classify the roads by use. The classifications included in the current DEIS are based on the way that roads are constructed and, to some extent, maintained. In determining those roads that should be kept open, the agencies should classify the roads based on whether they are needed for long-term access or temporary uses. Roads with onlytemporary uses can then be targeted for closure or restricted use. Roads needed for long-term access can be further assessed as to their specific needs (servicing an important public destination or only needed for limited activities), and a complementary maintenance program and other limitations on use implemented. Based on the proclamation, the agencies’ primary obligation is to 

Response 

574 
Topic Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment Response 

 Comment No. 

protect Monument objects, including through prohibiting off-road 

use of vehicles. Therefore, the agencies must justify their decision to keep roads open based on a necessary destination or use, in conjunction with the agencies’ assessment that keeping the road open will not pose an avoidable risk of damage to Monument objects. 4. Travel management decisions should be based on a scientific assessment of road densities and effects: Certain decisions to sanction, build, or maintain roads can impose detrimental and long-lasting effects on the landscape. Roads and other transportation features have numerous effects on wildlife, including mortality from collisions, modification of animal behavior, disruption of the physical environment, alteration of the chemical environment, spread of exotic species, and changes in human use of the lands and water (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Specific examples include habitat loss and fragmentation; diminished animal use of habitats because of noise, dust emissions, and the presence of humans; loss of forage for herbivores; interference with wildlife life-history functions (for example, 

courtship, nesting, and migration); spread of non-native species 

carried by vehicles and along disturbed corridors created by road 

establishment and maintenance; increased poaching or unethical hunting practices; increased recreation by off-road vehicles and associated impacts; and degradation of aquatic habitats. Road access also increases vandalism, theft, and damage to archeological

and cultural sites. impact of a proposed action, taking a “hard 

look” at environmental consequences,1 and the scope of the analysis “must be appropriate to the action in question.” Spatial analysis is the appropriate way to take this “hard look” at the impacts of routes on the Monument objects and the agencies should apply these techniques in order to meet the requirements of NEPA. In addition to NEPA’s “hard look,” the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that, in managing the public lands, the BLM “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.”2 FLPMA also requires that the BLM “minimize adverse impacts on the natural, environmental, scientific, cultural, and other resources and values (including fish and wildlife habitat) of the public lands involved.” 3 Further, when conducting land use planning, agencies must give priority to designating and protecting ACECs and consider physical, biological, economic and other sciences.4 The agencies 

Appendices: APPENDIX L 575
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

Travel and Access

Comment 

cannot evaluate consequences to the environment, determine avoidable or excessive degradation or assess how best to designate and protect ACECs without adequate data and analysis. Therefore, NEPA also requires that the “hard look” at environmental consequences be based on “accurate scientific information” of “high quality.”5 Essentially, NEPA “ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts.”6 We recommend that the agencies use information from a thorough inventory of the Monument and the spatial analysis techniques summarized above to carefully evaluate the impacts of alternative transportation systems on Monument objects. 5. Firm schedule for closures: Where the agencies identify roads and trails for closure or imposition of other restrictions on time and manner of use, the plan should include a firm schedule for completing closures and imposing other restrictions. 6. Overview of travel management planning process: We recommend that the agencies conduct travel management planning in accordance with the following steps: We recommend a process that includes the following steps: (1) Classify existing 

routes according to previous designations, destination, access to 

valid and existing rights, and route conditions (and specify 

whether the route meets the legal definitions of a road cited above). (2) Identify the presence and assess the condition of 

Monument objects and other on-the-ground resources, for example wildlife, soil types, slope, geologic features, roadless areas, and archeological or historic sites. (3) Assess present and predicted future fiscal and personnel resources.(4) Summarize public recreation desires and current recreational opportunities. 

(5) Assess route density and distribution in comparison to on-the-ground resources assessed in Step 2. (6) Identify the overall recreational and travel goals for the entire area, based on the proclamation. (7) Identify geographic subunits and, for each subunit, develop desired future conditions and indicators and standards needed to achieve the desired future conditions. [Please note that this is the step where the range of alternatives is created.] (8) Assess and designate routes at the site-level, considering each route’s classification, reasonable access to valid and existing rights, goals and objectives, agency management capability, and impacts to high priority resources. Except for routes subject to valid existing rights or necessary for 

Response 

576 
Topic Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment Response 

 Comment No. 

administrative or emergency access, routes that do not meet the legal definition of a road should be closed. (9) Review route assessment at the landscape level, considering goals and objectives, landscape health, agency management capacity, and protection and high priority biological, physical and cultural resources. (10) Develop and implement a monitoring plan, including hiring sufficient enforcement personnel to protect the Monument and specifying required changes to management to implement further protections where desired future conditions are not being met. Using this approach, route designation (Step 8) is conducted in the appropriate context to allow assessment of the multiple uses and values of an area, development of a reasonable range of alternatives and thorough assessment of potential environmental consequences, while considering existing planning decisions and management capability. As a general approach to route designation within the Monument, we would propose the following general methodology: (1) Site-level road/route assessment. If any of the answers are “no,” the route should be closed. a. Is the route a Class A road, Class B road or constructed Class C road? [Essentially, does the route meet the legal definition of a “road” discussed above?] b. If so, does the road have a destination? c. If so, does it contribute to the goals and objectives of the subunit? d. If so, is it consistent with the purposes of the Monument (e.g., avoid impacts to Monument objects)? e. If so, are the agencies 

reasonably capable of managing visitors on and near the road? f. If

 so, does the road avoid impacts to other high priority resources identified? g. If so, keep the road. If not, consider options to ensure that other high priority resources are protected. Options include rerouting, seasonal closure, permanent closure, enhanced ranger presence and/or education. (2) Supplemental road/route assessment for roads classified as reasonable access to valid and existing rights, or as necessary for “emergency or authorized administrative purposes”: a. Is the route the only reasonable access to valid and existing rights, or is it critical for “emergency or authorized administrative purposes”? b. If no, and if the route would 

be closed or subject to limitations under Step (1), then close the route. 

If yes, were any of the answers in Step (1) “no”? c. If no, keep the route open. If yes, then limit access to administrative or authorized purposes only, and consider seasonal closures or rerouting to protect high priority resources. 

Appendices: APPENDIX L 577
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

116 / 006

125 / 006 

Travel and Access

Comment 

There must be a comprehensive road inventory that is conducted 

with a management goal of maximizing the miles of roadsdesignated for closure and restoration to natural conditions. 

BRC has received information from members living in surrounding 

 communities about specific roads on the south end of the Wapi flowand in the Great Rift WSA. These roads provide a very valuable recreational experience. We strongly urge the BLM to work with our members to identify the specific roads and trails that appropriate to remain open, and designate them 

Response 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails curexistence within the Monument. Specific decisions on ATransportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

are open either in the Final Management Plan or in subsequent travel planning. Transportation beyond those already defined in the ma

105 / 006	 Since the agencies are not including a travel plan as part of this 

RMP, then the agencies should make a threat of noxious weeds, wildlife disturbances, and impacts to the natural setting and 

solitude. 

descriptions will be made in the upcoming implementatiTravel Management Plan. This implementation plan wi detailed map including all designations for Travel and AMonument, including road travel restrictions and road cmanagement objectives, such as protection of special staProposed Plan/FEIS. There will be no net increase in roThank you for your comments. We look forward to wor and other interested groups and individuals when we crTransportation Plan that will build on the provisions in tplan.

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails curexistence within the Monument. Specific decisions on ATransportation beyond those already defined in the man

578 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 579

Topic	 Travel and Access

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


103 / 007	 Signage, development, road maintenance, and motorized travel 

should be kept to a minimum throughout the Monument and preserve. The general public should be encouraged and directed to the "old," developed portion of the Monument for most visitor experiences. Use and visitation to the lands recently added to the Monument and Preserve should be for those people seeking solitude and a remote and primitive wilderness experience, and "at your own risk." front country zones. Road inventory should be comprehensive with a management goal of road closure and rehabilitation.

121 / 007	 ...order to protect the natural and cultural objects identified in the 

proclamation, the designation of roads and trails and travel restrictions must be dine as part of the current planning process. The transportation plan should be completed during this planning process and integrated into the comprehensive management plan, not deferred to a later date. The transportation plan should not 

only close roads and impose travel restrictions, as appropriate, immediately upon completion of the plan, but also outline the conditions that will trigger future road closures and travel restrictions.

122 / 008 We urge NPS/BLM to allow use of the historic sheep trailing route 

 from Paddelford Flat to Highway 20. This trail is of significant historical and cultural value and its use should be preserved. The 

Response 

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restricroad closures to meet resource management objectives, sprotection of special status species habitat, defined in the Plan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportation 

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired futu

and management actions for the type of roads and access 

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the mana

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restricroad closures to meet resource management objectives, sprotection of special status species habitat, defined in the Plan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportation 

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired futu

and management actions for the type of roads and access 

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the mana

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restricroad closures to meet resource management objectives, sprotection of special status species habitat, defined in the Plan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

Future sheep trail use on NPS lands requires further anal

Ultimately, the status of the historic sheep trail will be an

implementation-level decision. See Appendix F of the P
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

121 / 008

104 / 009 

Travel and Access

Comment 

periodic use of this trailing route would have no significant environmental impact and would provide a much safer and efficient route to our home base at Lava Lake Ranch. 

The transportation plan should seek to use only existing roads and 

 should analyze the current condition of these roads. A very important part of the transportation plan is the definitions of what legally constitutes a road. The legal definition of a road is derived from the definition of “roadless” in the legislative history of FLPMA: “The word “roadless” refers to the absence of roads which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road.” Anaccurate and precise definition of a road is necessary to meet the obligations articulate by the proclamation, especially in the context of the prohibition against motorized and mechanized vehicle use “off-road.” 

...restrictions and high standards to prevent the spread of seeds. 

The most effective way to deal with this problem would be to implement an alternative that emphasized Pristine Zone designations. In the event that roaded access is imperative for restoration efforts, the BLM and NPS should limit access to administrative use only through a series of gates and closures and maintain these roads in their current condition.

Response 

See Chapter 3 (DEIS Pg. 112) Land Use and Transporta

and Access. In response to public comment concerning 

in the Draft Management Plan / Environmental Impact S

road and trail definitions have been refined (See Chapte

and Transportation/Travel and Access, Road and Trail D

 These definitions apply to a road and trail inventory bas

 available data at the time of this draft which includes 1:

 topographic maps, BLM 1:100,000 topographic maps a

 survey of roads, ways and trails in and around existing 

areas.

Analysis in the DEIS (Ch. 4) acknowledges the risk of i

improvement relative to weed infestation, fire risk, wild

and geologic features. In response to comments such as 

team reduced the amount of Passage Zone in the Propos

particularly in Laidlaw Park. The implementation plan f

transportation will address road maintenance and improv

 specific areas and zones of the Monument, with conside

these and other issues. See Chapter One, Future PlanninTransportation Planning. In the proposed Management Pdescribe desired future conditions and management actiotype of roads and access that is appropriate within each management zones. The plan also classifies and inventoof roads and trails currently in existence within the MonSpecific decisions on Access and Transportation beyond 

 defined in the management zone descriptions will be mupcoming implementation level Comprehensive Travel Plan. This implementation plan will include a detailed mall designations for Travel and Access within the Monumroad travel restrictions and road closures to meet resourcmanagement objectives, such as protection of special stahabitat, defined in the Proposed Plan/FEIS. There will b road mileage under this plan. 

580 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 581

Topic	 Travel and Access

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


70 / 012	 There seems to be a presumption that there will be no increased 

use of roads in spite of the fact the roads will be improved to enhanced delivery of administrative (weed controVrestoration) 

and fire services. 

165 / 012	 Page 50 -Alternative D; Travel and Access; Management Actions: 

 bullets 1,3, and 5: These actions will facilitate habitat degradation, fire frequency, noxious weed infestation, vandalism and theft of cultural and geological resources by allowing better and more frequent motorized access to these areas. Proclamation 7373 specifically sets aside these lands "for the purpose of protecting the objects identified above (lava flows, kipukas, natural landscapes)." The Service believes that access should not take precedence over the integrity and health of lands identified in the proclamation. We suggest that Class C and D roads and temporary roads could accommodate the management activities proposed in all alternatives. 

121 / 013	 Laidlaw Park has several hundred miles of existing roads, ways, 

two tracks, and other routes. One of the best ways to protect the 

biological diversity of northern Laidlaw Park would be to rehabilitate and close many of these routes. The reduction ofopen routes in this area will also reduce the risk of human-caused fires. We support and encourage the efforts of the BLM and livestock permittees to reduce the use of motorized equipment to support grazing, thus reducing the miles of roads and trails in use, especially in the Laidlaw Park area. 

165 / 020	 Page 70- Land use and Transportation: Travel and Access: 

Alternative C identifies “minor adverse Impacts on travel fromvisitors using lower standard roads”. Alternative D carries this same potential yet it is not identified there. 

Response 

The existing roads support a variety of administrative ac

as weed control and fire fighting, and have since before 

Monument was designated. These administrative uses m

for short periods of time, such as during restoration activ

long-term impacts of that administrative use is expected only slightly. 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restri

road closures to meet resource management objectives, 

protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

See the revised Travel and Access section of Chapter 4, 

 Consequences, in the Proposed Plan/FEIS.
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 020165 / 025

123 / 042

123 / 043 

Travel and Access

Comment 

The relationship between transportation and access and past, 

ongoing and proposed livestock grazing is not described. DEIS at 13-14 addresses livestock grazing under “Authorized Uses”. 

Page 167-Affected Environment; Impacts from Alternative C: It 

is stated that a decrease in access would occur under this alternative. We do not believe that this is entirely accurate. There would be a decrease in motorized access, but access from foot or pack animal would remain the same. Legal access to a given area is not being altered, only the means by which an area can be accessed.

In the description of “Passage Zones”, the DEIS should describe 

the link between road upgrades and livestock facilities. When a Supplemental DEIS is undertaken to examine the impacts of livestock projects and associated roading, evaluation of road closures should be part of this process, and thus revision of the 

Passage Zone area under a new range of alternatives. 

There has been no rationale provided for including all of the many 

 roads shown on the map of Alt. D as “passage” roads. This is a dramatic increase in Upgraded roads from Alt, A, the current situation. There is no recreational justification for the large network of roads and upgraded roads in Laidlaw Park. There has been no study undertaken or information that shows that these roads are necessary for livestock purposes, either. Designation of a “Passage” Zone here will doom these areas to even more livestock project and other developments. In fact, structuring alternatives in this plan in this way can be interpreted as a move to facilitate and expand livestock use and all its weed-spreading and habitat fragmenting effects in the heart of the World’s largest kipuka. The definition of “Passage Zone” must be changed to prohibit new livestock facilities or expanded water hauling. 

Response 

The Livestock grazing section on page 121 describes so

relationships associated with grazing and existing roads

Yes, there would be a decrease in motorized and mechan

under Alternative C, which may have a slight impact on 

foot traffic in areas further from established roads. The a

pack animal access would probably remain the same. 

See Chapter 2, Alternative D Description and Map. In th

Alternative, Passage Zone was significantly reduced in r

public comment and after additional consideration of the 

impacts to resources. Creating Passage Zone corridors d

mandate an increase in the number or current standard o

chapter 2, Description of Management Zones). In additi

chapter 4 Environmental Consequences on page 205-20

 for impacts of road upgrades and livestock facilities.

See Chapter 2, Alternative D Description and Map. In th

Alternative, Passage Zone was significantly reduced in r

public comment and after additional consideration of the 

impacts to resources. Creating Passage Zone corridors d

mandate an increase in the number or current standard o

chapter 2, Description of Management Zones. In additio

future condition on page 29 of the DEIS states "Livestoc

consistent with the desired future condition for natural, c

visual resources."

582 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 583

Topic	 Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 044	 The roads of Alt. D directly conflict with many of the DEIS 

DFCs, such as “continuity of habitat for special status species and general wildlife will be emphasized” –as roads serve as conduits for weed spread that will thwart any “restoration” projects, lead to increased fires and fragmentation, etc. 

123 / 045	 The present situation –where many of the roads are not “front 

country” allows fire response time just fine – as vehicles can readily traverse jeep trails. If fire access is needed, the plan should provide for use of the road corridors on an “emergency only” basis. 

123 / 047	 The network of “passage” areas and roads and likely new livestock 

 developments under Alt. D conflicts with Map Figure 7 VRM classifications. Please explain how livestock facilities arecompatible with “Class 2” VRM categories. 

123 / 049	 DEIS at 51, Table 5 shows that Alt. D would allow 287 miles of 

Class C roads in “primitive” areas, and 158 miles of Class D roads in “primitive” areas. This is a wildly excessive number, and is simply not needed for fire suppression or any other purposes. 

Agency fire people have aerial abilities to suppress fire. You vastly increase the risk of human-caused fire by having so many 

roads to entice driving by visitors who are often little aware of the 

 dangers of driving over cheatgrass, tumblemustards and other dried vegetation in the center of two tracks, or growing on road and trail margins. Keeping this many miles of roads open while upgrading many access roads will ensure the maximum number of human-caused fires are started, and will greatly increase fire danger  here. Plus, the more roads that are open to be driven, the greater likelihood that the public will become confused and disoriented, and lost far from water. Each road will serve as a jumping-off point for OHV intrusions into unroaded lands. Also, by leaving 

Response 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on ATransportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

Zoning does not guarantee that roads would be improve

provides for guidance and flexibility based on resource v

management needs. 

Thank you for your comment. It will be considered in th

the travel implementation plan. 

Refer to page 137 for detailed VRM classifications. All 

facilities in the Passage Zone will be subject to Class Tw

In response to this comment and many others expressing 

support for increasing or decreasing the amount of area 

the Passage Zone, as well as additional consideration of 

environmental consequences, the agencies modified the 

contained in the Passage Zone in Alternative D as presen

 the Proposed Plan. Analysis in the DEIS (Ch. 4) acknow

risk of increased road improvement relative to weed infe

risk, wilderness values and geologic features. In respons

 such as this the ID team reduced the amount of Passage 

Proposed Plan/FEIS, particularly in Laidlaw Park. The i

plan for transportation will address road maintenance an

improvement within specific areas and zones of the Mon

consideration to these and other issues. See Chapter One

Planning Needs, Transportation Planning. In the propose

Management Plan we describe desired future conditions 

management actions for the type of roads and access tha
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

123 / 056123 / 073

123 / 091

123 / 093 

Travel and Access

Comment 

this many roads open, you essentially condemn the lands of the “primitive” zone to become an OHV enforcement nightmare. These roads, and their location, have absolutely nothing to do with a strategic placement for fire access/suppression. The only reason many of these roads exist is because of livestock projects and permittee driving to place salt, park sheep wagons, etc. The road network (much of it unnecessary) simply grew in association withlivestock activities and was not regulated by BLM. 

DEIS at 53 wrongly claims that “air quality” will remain the same 

under all alternatives. That is not the case – more roads = more dusty, bare erosion surfaces to produce wind-borne dust. Depending 

 on just how many and what type of chemicals BLM plans on using in its treatments, Alt. D may add significant chemical pollutants in the air and roadside dust, may infiltrating waters flowing into seasonal playas, etc. 

By keeping all existing minor roads and two tracks open, Alt. D 

maximizes chances for ill-prepared visitors to become disoriented and lost; to set fires by parking catalytic converters on top of cheatgrass, etc. The status quo livestock grazing, high road densities in sagebrush and cheatgrass and weed infested lands; anduse of herbicide must be considered here. Plus, the chance of prescribed fire escaping from “treatments” Must be assessed. Improving more roads will result in higher speeds on loose gravel Thus, it decreases public safety and health. 

How might the intensive restoration, many roads, upgraded gravel 

roads and livestock grazing here contribute to fugitive dust? 

DEIS at 115-116. There seems to be some discrepancy between 

the description of the Class C road, and the photo. If Class C roads 

 have an “unimproved, natural surface”, why do you claim that maintenance costs are $200-$400/mile. Class C roads aren’t 

improved – are they? 

Response 

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restri

road closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thThere will be no net increase in road mileage under this 

The section referenced indicated that for the purposes of 

preferred alternative, air quality was not a factor in the “

Advantages” process. The DEIS did not state that air qu

remain the same under all alternatives. The DEIS stated 

differences in air quality impacts between the four altern

not “substantial” enough to include air quality as a facto

process. The air resource section of Chapter 4 of the DE

the differences in air quality impacts of the four alternatfugitive dust from vehicle traffic on roads and smoke frofires were predicted to be higher under Alternative D. 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

These impacts to air resources were addressed in the DE

182-186. 

A class C road is defined as a road that has been constru

over time by repeated use. The definition goes on to say 

maintenance is limited primarily to surface grading to al

within the original road corridor. See Travel and Access

Plan/FEIS. 

584 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 585

Topic	 Travel and Access 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 108	 DEIS at 128 describes the number of miles of vehicle ways in the 

WSA at the time of inventory. However, many more miles may now exist due to unauthorized activity, fire suppression, etc. How many more miles now exist, and where are they located? Please present a map for comparative purposes. As part of the DEIS, closure and restoration of all unauthorized ways, fire equipment scars, etc. must be undertaken. 

123 / 141	 The impacts analysis for roads for other Alternatives is NOT the 

same as Alternative A. The DEIS plans to improve more roads, thus facilitating access to remote areas, especially near the lava edges, and increasing potential for vandalism of cultural and other sites associated with these margins. 

123 / 144	 From review of the maps, it does not really appear that there will 

be many more road developments under Alt. B than D. The DEIS 

provides no rationale for identifying the various roads to be Upgraded under the various alternatives. The DEIS has failed to 

reveal the areas where restoration is planned, or which roads are deemed necessary for fire activities. As this is the basis of this alternative, you must clearly identify and provide maps of all of this. Analysis of Alt. D and roads is flawed, as grazing would potentially increase dramatically, since upgrading roads allows new 

 livestock projects since the area then becomes classified as “passage” zone. DEIS Map of Alt. D roads shows upgraded roads along/near to large areas of lava, including right next to the Bear Den Butte WSA, compare Map Figure 9 (DEIS at 48), and Map Figure 18, (DEIS at 129). Yet, the DEIS fails to analyze these impacts on WSA values of solitude, naturalness, primitive recreation and special features.

123 / 155	 DEIS at 167 fails to assess the role of vehicles in transporting 

weed seeds. More roads = more surfaces with weeds. It does acknowledge that more fragmentation would occur, but does not consider the synergistic, linked and cumulative impacts of fragmentation by roads, expanded or existing livestock facilities, and aggressive vegetation. treatments. 

Response 

The WSA inventory data is the most recent data availab

within WSAs. 

Not all alternatives considered in the draft DEIS involve 

upgrading of roads and, consequently, improving access 

areas. The impacts of improved access to cultural resou

been analyzed on pages 89-90 of the draft DEIS. The im

reduced access to cultural resources have been analyzed 

191-192 pf the draft EIS. 

See Chapter 2, Alternative D Description and Map. In th

Alternative, Passage Zone was significantly reduced in r

public comment and after additional consideration of the 

impacts to resources. Creating Passage Zone corridors d

mandate an increase in the number or current standard o

chapter 2, Description of Management Zones). See Cha

Future Planning Needs, Transportation Planning. In the 

Management Plan we describe desired future conditions 

management actions for the type of roads and access tha

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage undeaddition, we have included additional maps detailing priareas in the Proposed Plan/FEIS.

The analysis for vegetation, including special status spec

management, (DEIS pp. 162-171) acknowledges the pot

weed spread by vehicles, as well as road maintenance ac
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 167

123 / 189 

Travel and Access

Comment 

DEIS at 177 admits that fragmentation from roads, trails, 

facilities, exists. Yet, under the Preferred Alternative, this fragmentation would be expanded as road upgrades and livestock 

projects expand.

Minimize the introduction, establishment and spread of invasive 

species due to roads and OHVs by the following methods: Roads,vehicle route construction, use and maintenance must be addressed 

 by: 1) Develop maps and databases of all systems; 2) Precede all road or route reconstruction, and any consideration of adding existing illegal or user-created roads and off-road vehicle routes to the transportation system, by NEPA analysis of their impact, including potential to facilitate the spread of invasive species into native ecosystems 3) Close or restrict non-essential, designated 

routes for motorized travel in areas at high risk for spread of invasive species; 4) Implement measures that reduce the likelihood of weed seed dispersal. 5) Consider restricting road grading activities in areas with high populations of invasive species; 6) Implement full area closures that prohibit all motorized 

 travel on lands outside of designated NEPA analyzed transportation systems 7) Identify and designate for obliteration non-essential system and non-system roads and off-road vehicle routes that do not comply with native vegetation protection goals; 8) Reclaim obliterated roads to native vegetation. 

Response 

See Chapter 2, Alternative D Description and Map. In th

Alternative, Passage Zone was significantly reduced in r

public comment and after additional consideration of the 

impacts to resources. Creating Passage Zone corridors d

mandate an increase in the number or current standard ochapter 2, Description of Management Zones). See ChapFuture Planning Needs, Transportation Planning. In the Management Plan we describe desired future conditions management actions for the type of roads and access thaappropriate within each of four management zones. The classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails curexistence within the Monument. Specific decisions on ATransportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restri

road closures to meet resource management objectives, 

protection of special status species habitat, defined in th

Plan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

Thank you for your comments. We will consider these p

Travel Management and Integrated Weed Management 

implementation plans.

586 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 587

Topic	 Recreation 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


2 / 001 ...the BLM and NPS, can you explain to me what philosophy both 

 parties have or foresee on Cave Management within the Monument? 

41 / 001 I am writing to express my support for the concept of an upgraded 

 and realigned road connecting the Idaho cities of Minidoka and Arco. I see this as an important step which would benefit the communities of Arco, Mackay, Minidoka, Rupert, Heyburn, Burley in the Cassia, Minidoka and 

Butte counties. An adequate road upgrade and realignment would provide for recreation, tourism, farm to market, desert access and viewing, INEEL access, fire suppression, hunting, search and rescue access and a very beneficial north south route. 

125 / 004	 The decision to be made regarding the level of use of motorized 

vehicles in the Monument is one of the most contentiousissues in this planning process. Based on the very restrictive prescriptions on motorized vehicle use in most of the alternatives, I know the great majority of resident public land users in Idaho will feel a strong sense of outrage if any of those alternatives were selected. This would be unfortunate in light of the fact that the many assumptions made regarding these proposed restrictions are not supportable by adequate scientific information, useof available factual data, deductive reasoning, sound recreation management principles and holistic analysis. BLM should provide vehicle assisted public land visitors a full range of recreational opportunity. BLM should formulate a complete and 

accurate inventory of currently used travelways. 

BLM should realize that there is extensive opportunity for "Pristine" 

recreational pursuits already provided in current management and there is no 

need to provide additional "primitive" or "pristine" opportunity. Conversely, there is a need to provide more designated motorized trails. 

Response 

As stated on page 13 of the DEIS, a Cave Management 

developed pursuant to the Final EIS to meet the requirem

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act.

Upgrading or maintaining the Arco-Minidoka Road to a 

standard is not a management recommendation in the Pr

however the dashed Passage Zone within the Monument 

for improvements should the responsible county govern

to upgrade the Arco-Minidoka Road in the future. See D

of Chapter 2, Alternative D, Travel and Access. 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restri

road closures to meet resource management objectives, 

protection of special status species habitat, defined in th

Plan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Recreation

Comment 

Topic

Letter No./


 Comment No.


125 / 005	 This [growing OHV] popularity is evidenced by the fact that 

recreational enthusiasts are buying OHV's at the rate of 1,500 

units per day nationwide, with nearly one-third of them doing so as first-time buyers."1 "[BLM's OHV] Strategy recognizes, as does 

policy outlined in BLM Manual 8340 (May 25, 1982), that off-road vehicle use is an 'acceptable use of public land wherever it 

 is compatible with established resource management objectives.' As established by the Federal land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FlPMA), the BLM is required to manage public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield, while protecting natural values. ...Motorized OHV use is now firmly established as a major recreational activity on BLM-administered public lands".2 Unwisely, rather than work to accommodate the increased demand  for OHV recreation, BLM has frequently reacted by restricting OHV opportunities. But more importantly, opportunities to manage OHV use by marking roads and trails, providing usable maps, identifying OHV trails and systems and entering into cooperative management agreements with OHV user groups have, 

by and large, been ignored by the BLM. BLM cannot legitimately 

address increasing legitimate OHV demand by refusing to accommodate 

such demand. BLM planning must provide for the dramatic increasing demand for OHV recreation opportunities and anticipate even more 

demand in future years. The Final Management Plan must prudently provide for increased OHV recreation opportunities to meet current and anticipated demand. The planning team should look to Countyand Local Governments as well as individuals and user groups for 

assistance in identifying opportunities for OHV recreation. The planningteam should develop management alternatives that allow for proactive OHV 

management. The Final Management Plan should include specific provisions to mark. map and maintain existing OHV opportunities. The Final Plan shouldinclude instructions to engage in cooperative management with OHV Groups and individuals. The planning team should give serious consideration to provisions in the Final Management Plan that allow full implementation of the agencies OHV policy and even direct land managers to identify and develop OHV travel systems in appropriate areas. 

Response 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fo

travel within the Monument, including road travel restri

road closures to meet resource management objectives, 

protection of special status species habitat, defined in th

Plan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

588 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 589

Topic	 Recreation 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


121 / 009	 The management plan should include a monitoring plan to ensure 

primitive camping and recreation does not damage resources. Steps that will be taken to relocate or close and rehabilitate areas with conflicts between visitors and resource protection should be 

identified. 

104 / 017	 The plan seems to imply that irresponsible OHV use is currently a 

problem and/or will be in the future by noting, “Most OHV activity takes place on the existing road network...” (P. 133). Information should be provided about OHV use that is occurring elsewhere besides the existing road network in order to provide an understanding of the scope of the problem as well as the potential for increased risk from greater user-access to various parts of the Monument. The FEIS should describe the illegal OHV use in the southern end of the Monument and ways to address this issue. 

104 / 018	 The plan should provide more information comparing the 

potential impacts from OHV’s associated with each alternative. The DEIS notes that increased access from expansion of Passage Zone would increase the risk of illegal off-road use. As a preventative measure, administrative roads should be gates and closed to all other motorized use. 

123 / 039 DEIS at 31 describes two programs. Are these part of the Idaho 

Parks and Recreation. If so, we are concerned that these programs 

may have a strong bias towards motorized use, at the expense of 

other uses. Why are you not developing a plan tailored for Craters? 

123 / 041	 Recreation (DEIS at 31) fails to describe the possible negative 

impacts on back country recreation of relying on extensive guide 

services, as proposed here. We have encountered lands in the Bennett Hills where guided therapy groups frequently take clients, and they are becoming beat out and heavily impacted by human use. Do you anticipate both guided recreation and therapy groups here? What upper cap or limit will you place on permits for commercial recreational or therapy on Craters lands? Who is operating here at present? What is the current number of guided trips per year, visitors using these services, etc.? What impacts are

occurring? 

Response 

On pages 12-13 of the DEIS, future planning needs are d

Many of the implementation plans describe, such as the 

Wilderness/Wilderness Study Area Plan, the Cave Mana

and the Cultural Resources Plan, would provide for peri

monitoring and protection of resources from adverse im

primitive camping and recreation. 

On page 148, under "Incomplete or Unavailable Informa

DEIS states "data about visitor use is available for the or

Monument, but such information for the remaining area 

On page 148, under "Incomplete or Unavailable Informa

DEIS states "data about visitor use is available for the or

Monument, but such information for the remaining area 

As stated on page 12 of the EIS, a Travel Management P

developed pursuant to the Final EIS to address these issu

Idaho's State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and T

and the Idaho Outdoor Recreation Demand Assessment 

available to the agencies to provide information on recre

patterns, trends and facilities that may be required. They 

agency policy for federal lands. 

There is currently one permitted guide service in the Mo

conducting less than three guided trips a year. The agenc

foresee a dramatic increase in the number and types of g

within the Monument. Additional information has been 

Final EIS to clarify the potential impacts of outfitters an
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 075123 / 114123 / 118

123 / 127 

Topic 

 147 / 001 

Recreation

Comment 

The DEIS completely fails to address the intrusive impacts and 

degradation of Alt. D livestock and roads on visitors seeking a primitive or pristine recreation experience. Please explain how any aspect of livestock grazing would result in beneficial recreational impacts. 

The DEIS claims that hiking in the expanded part of the 

Monument allows visitors to experience a high degree of solitude. Please assess how the upgraded roads (and likely new livestock facilities or water haul sites in the expanded “Passage Zones”) will decrease solitude under the Preferred Alternative. How will all alternatives affect solitude? How do peak livestock grazing times correspond to peak visitor times? How do ranching activities (including guard dogs, noise, weeds, dust, stench, disease organisms)

 affect recreational visits? 

Since the DEIS does not describe otherwise, and hunting is allowed 

on all BLM lands, and ranchers are allowed to use aggressive guard 

dogs, we assume that dogs are also allowed to accompany visitors. What risks do WS activities pose for dogs accompanying recreationalists here? 

This EIS provides no guidance whatsoever on livestock grazing. 

You cannot assume that recreational use will be the same as in the past. Ever-more sophisticated OHV equipment, and especially snowmobiles, are louder, faster, etc. What about other new types of motorized equipment? Are motorized and crosscountry travel prohibited for ranching activities? As more four-wheelers are being used, the plan should expressly prohibit use of OHVs or any motorized equipment off exiting roads. 

Special Designation Areas

Designate North Laidlaw Park as an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern. 

Response 

The impacts of livestock on visitor experience have been 

on pages 222, 224, 226, and 228.

Please see pages 222-229 of the DEIS for a discussion o

visitor experience.

NPS policy does not allow unrestrained dogs on Park Se

BLM has no policy regarding dogs. The risk to recreatio

dogs is relatively minor. 

The agencies do not foresee a dramatic increase in recre

under the Proposed Plan/FEIS. The Proclamation expres

motorized off-road travel within the Monument. 

The commenter did not provide any new information or 

would update the analysis of relevance and importance c

resulting in a determination that ACEC status is warrantManagement direction to protect the high quality vegetaresources in North Laidlaw Park, similar to that proposenominated ACEC, was included in Alternative D (See DVegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

 Alternative D; and pp. 340, Appendix G). Analysis of tand importance criteria for establishment of North Laidlan ACEC did not indicate that ACEC status is required fof the area. To further protect the area, the preferred alte

590 
Topic	 Special Designation Areas

Letter No./ Comment Response 


 Comment No.


modified to increase the acreage of Pristine Zone and deacreage of Passage Zone in North Laidlaw Park. Managdirection under Alternative D (p. 49) states that the high condition of North Laidlaw Park would be maintained awater developments would be allowed. 

130 / 002	 The preferred alternative should include designation of North Same response as previous comment. 

Laidlaw Park, one of the least disturbed, large areas of sagebrush 

142 / 004	 All Wilderness Study Areas should be managed under National Same response as previous comment. 

Park Service guidelines and regulations. The preferred alternativeshould include designation of North Laidlaw Park, one of the least disturbed, large areas of sagebrush steppe, as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

165 / 008 The Service recommends that the preferred alternative include the Same response as previous comment.

 designation of Laidlaw Park as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). ACECs include public lands where special 

management attention and direction is needed to protect and 
prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, and 
scenic values, fish, or wildlife resources or other natural systems or
 processes; or to protect human life and safety from natural 
hazards. ACEC designation indicates that the management agency 
recognizes the significant values of the area and intends to 


implement management to protect and enhance the resource values. 
We understand that all ACEC's are considered land use authorization 
avoidance areas as they are known to contain resource values that 


will pose special constraints for and possibly denial of applications for land


uses that can not be designed to be compatible with the 
management objectives and prescriptions for the ACEC. If the 
preferred alternative does include designation of Laidlaw Park as 
an ACEC, then the Service recommends the final document include management 
objectives and prescriptions to implement a resource management regime for 


Laidlaw Park’s unique vegetative features.


Appendices: APPENDIX L 591
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

105 / 009 

Special Designation Areas

Comment 

The EIS discusses the proposed designation of an ACEC for North 

 Laidlaw Park. However, the conclusions reached regarding the need to designate the area as an ACEC or not should be reevaluated. While current management has left the area in good condition, it is hard to say what the next 15 to 20 years will bring.  The area certainly qualifies for ACEC designation. But it is not 

safe to assume that current management, regulation, and law will remain the same and will stay in place for the life of this plan. Therefore, it is both necessary and wise to designate a place as special as Laidlaw Park as an ACEC. It is the best and only way to recognize and be certain that management actions will, in fact, 

protect the special resources and values for the future. The need to designate the area as an ACEC is also evident in the treatment of the issue in the planning process and planning documents. The section discussing the ACEC designation is relegated to an appendix in the back of the planning document. And, only one alternative looks at designating the area as an ACEC. It is not clear as to why alternatives B and/or D did not also look at ACEC designation. The fact that only 1 out of 4 alternatives even considers such designation and the associated actions shows a lack of understanding and commitment to take such actions if the ACEC were not designated. The designation of an ACEC and the related management actions for the area should be part of each alternative in the plan as a way to recognize and protect the high quality native vegetation, wildlife habitat and scenic values of this irreplaceable treasure. Laidlaw Park has a unique aspen stand, key habitat for sage grouse and other sagebrush steppe obligates and many other distinctions enumerated on pages 338 and 339 in the DEIS. It is the world’s largest kipuka, has extraordinary scenic values and serves as a very important reference site for ecologically comparable, more heavily grazed sites. Additionally, the proclamation highlighted the importance of this area. The proposed actions should be changed to reflect a change to point c)

 “Water hauling to temporary sites will remain at the current level.” This management direction should be revised. It is presumptive to conclude that grazing will continue in this area at current levels and for the life of the plan. It would be better to say “water hauling to temporary sites may remain at the current level or may be decreased, but it will not be increased.” This provides more management flexibility. All alternatives, especially the agency-preferred alternative, should reflect designation of North Laidlaw Park as an ACEC and the management actions describes 

Response 

Please refer to DEIS Appendix G, pp. 337-341. The ID 

followed the appropriate process in analyzing the values 

Laidlaw Park to determine if the area qualified for ACE

proposed ACEC was included and analyzed in Alternati

logical alternative to include the potential protection pro

 proposed ACEC. Further, to demonstrate a commitmen

maintaining the high ecological condition of the area, pr

measures were included in Alternative D, the preferred a

that limit livestock developments, specifically to mainta

use that the area has received for years and that has resu

current condition (DEIS p. 49). Additional protective m

been included in the Proposed Plan/FEIS, including dec

of Passage Zone and increasing the acreage of Pristine Z

Laidlaw Park. By comparing the effects of managing the 

ACEC in Alternative C with the effects of managing the 

 protective measures in Alternative D we found no adva

designating the area an ACEC and that we can achieve t

results with the protective measures in Alternative D. Th

concluded that it is unnecessary to designate the area as 

592 
Topic	 Special Designation Areas

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


under alternative C in the DEIS should be a part of those alternative with the changes as suggested above. There is no reason to exclude the area from the protection it deserves and needs.

128 / 010	 Please create ACECs for Cinder Gardens on Ant Butte and for key 

spring- and rare- systems in the Monument. 

104 / 019	 ...standards. In all alternatives, North Laidlaw Park should be 

designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern to ensure protection of the sagebrush steppe habitat. This would be far more effective than simply instituting restoration plans to mitigate impacts from the past and those that will occur in the 

future. The FEIS could vary the size of this ACEC in each alternative, but significant portions should be included in each 

alternative to protect the values at risk. 

Response 

Blaine County has a free use permit at Ant Butte and ha

mined cinder from the butte. Therefore, Ant butte does 

to meet the relevance and criteria for an ACEC as descriAppendix G. Most of the cinder cones within the Monuwithin the Pristine Management Zone in all Alternativesserves to provide protection to the cones and attendant cgardens through limited access. 

The commenter did not provide any new information or 

would update the analysis of relevance and importance c

resulting in a determination that ACEC status is warrant

Management direction to protect the high quality vegeta

resources in North Laidlaw Park, similar to that propose

nominated ACEC, was included in Alternative D (See D

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

Alternative D; and pp. 340, Appendix G). Analysis of th

and importance criteria for establishment of North Laidlan ACEC did not indicate that ACEC status is required fof the area. To further protect the area, the preferred altemodified to increase the acreage of Pristine Zone and deacreage of Passage Zone in North Laidlaw Park. Managdirection under Alternative D (p. 49) states that the high condition of North Laidlaw Park would be maintained a

Appendices: livestock water developments would be allowed. APPENDIX L 593
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

103 / 002

12 / 002

116 / 003

18 / 00321 / 003

142 / 004 

Wilderness Study Areas

Comment 

This leads to a major complaint I have, which is the absolute lack 

of consideration of the wilderness quality lands included in the expanded boundaries. The current Craters of the Moon Wilderness 

 Area must be substantially expanded beyond the current core area. 

 Please revise the Plan with concrete steps to analyze, inventory,and to recommend to Congress ALL qualifying wilderness-quality lands in the Monument and Preserve. Complementary to this, the Plan must outline the requirement that all wilderness quality lands are managed consistent with their being designated as such by Congress in the future. The management must not allow any degradation of these areas to occur.

All Wilderness Study Areas should be managed under National 

Park Service guidelines and regulations.

Make certain that the Plan will manage all Wilderness Study Areas 

 under the more protective NPS guidelinesand regulations. The preferred alternative should include designation of North Laidlaw Park, one of the least disturbed,large areas of sagebrush steppe, as an Areaof Critical Environmental Concern. 

Wilderness and ACEE: We urge that the wilderness study areas be 

managed under NPS policies and regulations, rather than the weaker BLM interim management policy. 

Wildlands Management- All Wilderness Study Areas should be 

managed consistent with the NPS's WSA standards. Designate North Laidlaw Park as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, to ensure protection of sagebrush steppe 

habitat.

All Wilderness Study Areas should be managed under National 

Park Service guidelines and regulations. The preferred alternative should include designation of North Laidlaw Park, one of the least disturbed, large areas of sagebrush st.eppe, as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

Response 

Both agencies inventoried all lands within the current M

boundaries to determine areas with wilderness qualities. 

inventories began in the 1960s and continued through th

These studies resulted in designation of the 43,243 acre 

 Moon Wilderness in 1970 and 469,009 acres of Wildern

Areas of which 408,110 acres have been recommended 

Congress for designation. Existing law and agency polic

management of Wilderness Study Areas to protect the w

qualities until Congress determines whether or not to de

lands as wilderness. 

NPS and BLM are required follow their individual agen

policies including the management of WSA. Changes to 

policies are beyond the scope of this plan. 

NPS and BLM are required follow their individual agen

 policies including the management of WSA. Changes to 

policies are beyond the scope of this plan. 

NPS and BLM are required follow their individual agen

 policies including the management of WSA. Changes to 

policies are beyond the scope of this plan. 

NPS and BLM are required follow their individual agen

 policies including the management of WSA. Changes to 

policies are beyond the scope of this plan. 

NPS and BLM are required follow their individual agen

 policies including the management of WSA. Changes to 

policies are beyond the scope of this plan. 

594 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 595

Topic	 Wilderness Study Areas

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


122 / 009	 NPS/BLM must work to protect all roadless areas and WSAs 

within the expanded Monument. In fact, NPS/BLM must adopt an 

 Alternative that restores the integrity of WSAs that have suffered incursions by motorized vehicles since the original designation of those WSAs. As we have stated above, these areas represent one of the greatest attributes of the Monument and represent the core of the Monument expansion’s long term legacy 

to the American people. 

128 / 010	 The NPS should expand and propose WSAs for wilderness 

protection then manage them to strictly protect these proposals. 

121 / 010	 The management plan for the Monument should identify a 

process by which Wilderness Study Areas not currently recommended for wilderness designation are reevaluated for their wilderness characteristics and suitability for wilderness designation. 

 These BLM and NPS lands were evaluated users and decades ago for their eligibility to be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Today many of these lands still provide 

solitude, naturalness, scenic beauty and other wilderness characteristics that may have been overlooked and would make them eligible for wilderness designation. We also ask you to evaluate and inventory any lands that may qualify for Wilderness Study Area status, but were not inventoried during the original 

process. 

105 / 010	 NPS management of WSAs calls for management as if the area 

were designated wilderness. BLM management of portions of WSAs should be coordinated w/ NPS management and should rise to a higher standard – equivalent w/ NPS standards, in order to help prevent confusion and resource damage and degradation. 

There is nothing in BLM’s IMP re: WSAs that prohibits or discourages management to a higher standard – especially on discretionary issues such as roads. We appreciate the recognition, common to all alternates, of our comments regarding the 660-foot strip of non-wilderness between the Craters of the Moon

 Wilderness boundary and the original Monument boundary. (DEIS

p. 30). 

Response 

The Proposed Plan/FEIS classifies most WSAs in the Pr

any existing vehicle routes would be closed to unauthor

use.

Almost 440,000 acres (94%) of NPS lands in the Monum

either designated wilderness or wilderness study areas. E

 policy require protection of the wilderness character of 

The agencies previously inventoried lands within the cu

Monument boundaries to determine areas with wilderne

These inventories began in the 1960s and continued thro

1980s. These studies resulted in designation of the 43,24

Craters of the Moon Wilderness in 1970 and 469,009 ac

Wilderness Study Areas of which 408,110 acres have be

recommended to the U.S. Congress for designation. Exi

agency policy require management of Wilderness Study 

protect the wilderness qualities until Congress determine

not to designate the lands as wilderness.

The agencies do not believe the land use situation within 

to the Monument warrants re-inventory of lands for wild

The Proposed Plan/FIS includes direction for NPS and B

joint Wilderness Management Plan for all wilderness an

study areas within the Monument. Both agencies must f

individual agency policies which include making detaile

decisions in an implementation plan. The Proposed Plan

most WSA lands, including those on BLM portions of th

 as Pristine Zone which is closed to non-administrative m

mechanized vehicle use.

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

121 / 011

123 / 040

123 / 057 

Wilderness Study Areas

Comment 

Wilderness Study Area status should be granted to any eligible 

areas left out of the wilderness designation in the “old” NPS national Monument because of the idea that a “buffer-strip” was needed between designated wilderness and non-wilderness. Thiswilderness designation was, along with the wilderness on Petrified

Forest Nation Park, one of the first two wilderness designations within the NPS. The then-director was not friendly toward wilderness, so there were all sorts of bad policies that sought to minimize wilderness came out to the outer Monument or Monument boundary, there would have to be a non-wilderness “buffer-strip.” That idea has since been proven to be false and the policy was changed a few years later. However, we are not aware that this issue was ever corrected for the Craters of the Moon Wilderness Area.

Wilderness Management actions should include removal of 

livestock projects that may be impairing Wilderness values. The DEIS should provide a summary of monitoring data for WSAs that

 examines any livestock impacts. 

In addition, the DEIS could take this opportunity to expand 

Wilderness recommendations – but unfortunately has not done so. 

 We ask that an expanded analysis of additional roadless lands suitable for Wilderness be included as part of the SEIS. Plus, the 

effects of (and intrusions into) Wilderness vary under Alternatives, even without any analysis of grazing changes. For 

example, herbicide dust may blow into Wilderness under the treatment Alt. (D), killing or weakening plants inside Wilderness. As Alt. D maximizes the number of Open roads leading to and even bordering WSAs, the likelihood of human-caused fires is increased under Alt. D. Noise from vehicles, which travels for several miles in clear desert air will be greater under Alt. D. Likelihood of weed invasion form vehicle-transported weeds areasnear WSAs, and ultimately into WSAs is increased under Alt. D. 

Response 

In the event that portions of the Great Rift WSA adjacen

Craters of the Moon Wilderness are designated as wilde

 plan/EIS (page 30) recommends that the non-wildernes

within the NPS Monument be designated wilderness as 

management action has been retained in the Proposed Pl

WSA’s have specific regulations which already guide ac

associated impacts. Under the DEIS managers would co

 the authority to remove livestock or livestock facilities 

benefit if needed.

Livestock projects within WSA are managed according Interim Management Policies for Lands under WilderneHandbook H8550-1 to prevent impairment of wildernes

The agencies do not believe the land use situation within 

to the Monument warrants re-inventory of lands for wild

suitability. The general nature of this type of broad plan 

analysis of the potential impacts from “herbicide dust” b

into Wilderness nearly impossible. Analysis of such pot

impacts will be conducted for site specific restoration pr

The Proposed Plan/FEIS expands the Pristine Zone (as c

draft Alternative D) to include almost all of the WSA. T

would be closed to motorized vehicle use. The potential 

weeds and creation of unauthorized vehicle routes is not

page 217 of the Draft EIS(second to last paragraph).

596 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 597

Topic	 Wilderness Study Areas

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 107	 As part of this process, an inventory of all lands should be 

conducted to determine if additional roadless acreages lying outside 

 WSAs exist, and if closing minor two tracks or ways would result in expanded wilderness-potential acreage. If so, where are they?How will Alt. D (and all alternatives) affect the possible future expansion of WSAs/Wilderness? What is the condition of all roads, ways, trails that currently bound WSAs? 

Topic	 Budget 

39 / 003	 We would also like to mention that the BLM and National Park 

Services must be realistic in their expectations based on budgets available for staffing, monitoring, enforcement, interpretation, facilities, maintenance, and resource protection and restoration. There must be appropriate funding available to carry out the actions that will be described in the future management plan. 

142 / 005	 The agencies should be realistic in their expectations and 

projections based on budgets available for staffing, monitoring, 

enforcement, interpretation, facilities, maintenance, and resource protection. 

Signage, development, road maintenance, and motorized travel should be kept to a minimum. Only signs necessary for safe orientation 

within the Monument and to direct visitors to designated motorized 

routes should be erected.

142 / 005	 The agencies should be realistic in their expectations and 

projections based on budgets available for staffing, monitoring, enforcement, interpretation, facilities, maintenance, and resource protection. Signage, development, road maintenance, and motorized travel should be kept to a minimum. Only signs necessary for safe orientation within the Monument and to direct visitors to designated motorized routes should be erected. 

Response 

The agencies do not believe the land use situation within 

to the Monument warrants re-inventory of lands for wild

suitability. The wilderness inventory and recommendati

 BLM lands is summarized pages 127 and 128 of the Dr

The Proposed Plan/FEIS expands the Pristine Zone (as c

draft Alternative D) to include almost all of the WSA. T

would be closed to motorized vehicle use. None of the a

propose developments or activities which would precludwilderness designation of WSA lands. The status of roads, ways, and trails which bound WSAFigure 13 on page 113 of the Draft EIS. 

Comment noted. 

Comment noted. 

Comment noted. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

103 / 006123 / 054 

Topic 

2 / 004 

Budget

Comment 

The agencies should be realistic in its expectations and projections 

 based on budgets available for staffing, monitoring, enforcement, 

interpretation, facilities, maintenance and resource protection. 

As part of the cost for all alternatives, you must calculate the 

costs of “restoration” – both the pseudo-restoration you propose under the DEIS definition, and true restoration, with and without continued livestock grazing. Please also calculate the annual costs (including agency staff) of livestock grazing administration, monitoring and facilities to the public on these lands. Here are some questions to be addressed: What will the annual weed suppression costs be over the life of the plan with status quo grazing practices? With significantly reduced livestock numbers? With passive restoration? How long will any of the DEIS’pseudo-restoration projects persist with continued livestock grazing? With significantly reduced livestock grazing? How much will it later cost to restore lands where you plan to shift livestock use as you undertake restoration/treatment? A Supplemental DEIS must be prepared that accurately portrays grazing costs (ecological and economic) and that takes a “hard look” at a broad range of alternatives that significantly address grazing impacts to soils, native vegetation, microbiotic crusts, weed infestation and spread, recreation, native animals, playas, cultural sites, recreational uses, etc. The DEIS must also assess the probability of

 success (or failure) of any plantings – particularly any plantings employing native vegetation with status quo grazing. 

Level of Development

...Monument's outer limits. The draft says that this alternative 

would minimize the need for development and staffing within Monument. However, on page vi, this same Alternative reflects 'largest weed treatment and prevention of all tools available'. 

Response 

Comment noted.

Costs were considered by the agencies in the Choosing b

process used to select the preferred alternative. 

The minimized need for development and staffing withi

Monument would result from the use of partnerships at 

facilities, under Alternative D.

598 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 599

Topic	 Management Zones 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


124 / 001	 I would like to encourage you to designate North Laidlaw Park as 

an ACEC in the plan you are developing. 

71 / 001	 Designate N, Laidlaw Park as ACEC. 46 / 001	 I oppose the BLM's adoption of 

Alternative D as the preferred alternative and urge the adoption of Alternative C as the alternative that best preserves theMonument's primitive character. Alternative C provides greater 

protection for the Monument's natural resources and wildlife by

limiting motorized vehicle use and routes. However, I urge the 

BLM to increase protections for

wilderness areas by designating North Laidlaw Park an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and by further restricting road development and maintenance as well as off-road vehicles.

39 / 002	 We also would like to see the Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) designation for northern Laidlaw Park that is 

mentioned in Alternative C to be added to Alternative D. We believe this ACEC is an important component in the future 

 management plans. 

Response 

The commenter did not provide any new information or 

would update the analysis of relevance and importance c

resulting in a determination that ACEC status is warrantManagement direction to protect the high quality vegetaresources in North Laidlaw Park, similar to that proposenominated ACEC, was included in Alternative D (See DVegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

 Alternative D; and pp. 340, Appendix G). Analysis of tand importance criteria for establishment of North Laidlan ACEC did not indicate that ACEC status is required fof the area. To further protect the area, the preferred altemodified to increase the acreage of Pristine Zone and deacreage of Passage Zone in North Laidlaw Park. Managdirection under Alternative D (p. 49) states that the high condition of North Laidlaw Park would be maintained alivestock water developments would be allowed.


Same response as previous comment.


Same response as previous comment.


Same response as previous comment.

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

44 / 002

111 / 002

106 / 002

95 / 00244 / 002 

Management Zones 

Comment 

Designate North Laidlaw Park as an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern. 

I further object to the agency's refusal to designate an Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern in Laidlaw Park. Sagebrush steppe is one of the most degraded and endangered habitat types in the West, perhaps particularly on the Snake River Plain. ACEC

 designation and proper management of Laidlaw Park, including elimination of livestock grazing, would help protect an important, 

 relatively high-quality sagebrush community. 

I have not visited the North Laidlaw Park, but would highly 

recommend that it be designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, so as to contrast with any improvements

 in the Laidlaw Park proper. 

I would also urge that Laidlaw Park be designated an Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern to help better protect the sagebrush communities there. 

Designate North Laidlaw Park as an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern. 

Response 

The commenter did not provide any new information or 

would update the analysis of relevance and importance c

resulting in a determination that ACEC status is warrantManagement direction to protect the high quality vegetaresources in North Laidlaw Park, similar to that proposenominated ACEC, was included in Alternative D (See DVegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

 Alternative D; and pp. 340, Appendix G). Analysis of tand importance criteria for establishment of North Laidlan ACEC did not indicate that ACEC status is required fof the area. To further protect the area, the preferred altemodified to increase the acreage of Pristine Zone and deacreage of Passage Zone in North Laidlaw Park. Managdirection under Alternative D (p. 49) states that the high condition of North Laidlaw Park would be maintained alivestock water developments would be allowed.


Same response as previous comment.


Same response as previous comment.


Same response as previous comment.


Same response as previous comment.


600 
Management Zones 

Comment 

Appendices: APPENDIX L 601

Topic

Letter No./


 Comment No.


63 / 003	 Preservation of natural and cultural resources must take 

precedence over all development, whether for visitor use or for recreation. Visitors should be encouraged and first directed to the original and more developed portion of the Monument for most interpretation and recreational experiences. Use and visitation to the lands recently added should be for those people seeking... '" solitude and a remote and primitive wilderness experience. Thepreferred alternative should include designation of North Laidlaw Park, one of the least disturbed, large areas of sagebrush steppe, as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

89 / 003	 There is not even a requirement to seed native plant species 

following a treatment! Plus, the Preferred Alternative rejects designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern in Laidlaw Park. An ACEC designation would help protect one of the

 last remaining better condition sagebrush communities on the entire 

Snake River Plain. 

81 / 003	 An ACEC designation should be considered for Laidlaw Park, and 

native plant species reseeded there. 

73 / 003	 In Alternative E, in Chapter 2, Page 30, one of the management 

actions states, "Selected Class D roads in the Primitive and Pristine Zones could be converted to trails or closed for resource 

protection." Table 5 identifies that 167 miles of these roads are within primitive and Pristine Zones. The Pristine Zone concept is inconsistent with roads in these areas, so 9 miles of roads within the Pristine Zone can be either closed or converted to non-motorized trails. The public should clearly understand the 

Response 

Same response as previous comment. 

Same response as previous comment. 

Same response as previous comment. 

See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the man

zone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implem

inconsistency between pristine areas and roads in the Final Management Plan. If Comprehensive Travel Management Plan. a primitive road in pristine area needs to remain on the system will include a detailed map including all designations fo

because of management access or public access, then the area travel within the Monument, including road travel restrisurrounding the road should be reclassified to primitive status to road closures to meet resource management objectives, 

resolve the inconsistency. protection of special status species habitat, defined in th

Plan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

102 / 004

88 / 00463 / 005

103 / 005 

Management Zones 

Comment 

Designate an ACEC in Laidlaw Park that encompasses all 

remaining sagebrush communities. 

Designate an ACEC in Laidlaw Park that encompasses all 

remaining sagebrush communities. 

Management zoning (i.e. level of development) should maximize 

the amount of pristine, and then Primitive Zones, with a minimum

 of passage and even less front country zones. There must be a comprehensive road inventory that is conducted with a management goal of maximizing the miles of roads designated for closure and restoration to natural conditions.

The preferred alternative should include designation of North 

Laidlaw Park, one of the least disturbed, large areas of sagebrush steppe, as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

Response 

The commenter did not provide any new information or 

would update the analysis of relevance and importance c

resulting in a determination that ACEC status is warrantManagement direction to protect the high quality vegetaresources in North Laidlaw Park, similar to that proposenominated ACEC, was included in Alternative D (See DVegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

 Alternative D; and pp. 340, Appendix G). Analysis of tand importance criteria for establishment of North Laidlan ACEC did not indicate that ACEC status is required fof the area. To further protect the area, the preferred altemodified to increase the acreage of Pristine Zone and deacreage of Passage Zone in North Laidlaw Park. Managdirection under Alternative D (p. 49) states that the high condition of North Laidlaw Park would be maintained alivestock water developments would be allowed.


Same response as previous comment.


See Chapter One, Future Planning Needs, Transportatio

 the proposed Management Plan we describe desired fut

and management actions for the type of roads and acces

appropriate within each of four management zones. The 

classifies and inventories the type of roads and trails cur

existence within the Monument. Specific decisions on A

Transportation beyond those already defined in the manzone descriptions will be made in the upcoming implemComprehensive Travel Management Plan. This implem

 will include a detailed map including all designations fotravel within the Monument, including road travel restriroad closures to meet resource management objectives, protection of special status species habitat, defined in thPlan. There will be no net increase in road mileage unde

Same response as previous comment.


602 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 603

Topic	 Management Zones 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


111 / 005	 The agencies should designate a Laidlaw Park ACEC that

encompasses and protects all remaining sagebrush communities. 

128 / 005	 Also, please designate North Laidlaw Butte as part of the unique 

ACEC (if you need me to more formally propose it, I will if you would contact me), or establish a similar NPS designation if that 

is needed (after all, you guys are supposed to talk to each other 

despite your different mandates). Laidlaw Park shares some 

of the vegetative values with North Laidlaw Butte but with the 

greater remoteness of the Butte they are less damaged. This could 

provide a no-livestock grazing study to compare it to Laidlaw Park 

management. North Laidlaw Butte also has the benefit of providing a beautiful view from above the floor of lava. Please leave this area as 

undisturbed as possible. 

159 / 005	 Plus, the Preferred Alternative rejects designation of an Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern in Laidlaw Park. An ACEC designation would help protect one of the last remaining better condition sagebrush communities on the entire Snake River Plain. 

Response 

Same response as previous comment. 

Thank you for your comment. 

The commenter did not provide any new information or 

would update the analysis of relevance and importance c

resulting in a determination that ACEC status is warrant

Management direction to protect the high quality vegeta

resources in North Laidlaw Park, similar to that proposenominated ACEC, was included in Alternative D (See DVegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

 Alternative D; and pp. 340, Appendix G). Analysis of tand importance criteria for establishment of North Laidlan ACEC did not indicate that ACEC status is required fof the area. To further protect the area, the preferred altemodified to increase the acreage of Pristine Zone and deacreage of Passage Zone in North Laidlaw Park. Managdirection under Alternative D (p. 49) states that the high condition of North Laidlaw Park would be maintained alivestock water developments would be allowed.

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

70 / 00682 / 006

125 / 007 

Management Zones 

Comment 

Why is the Pristine Zone reduced in Alt. D by some 90,000 acres 

from Alt C? If the area considered in C is eligible for pristine classification, it should also be so in D. The areas affected seem to 

 be the lava edges which typically contain the greatest biological diversity, frequent cultural areas and no critical roads necessary for  administration. Reconfigure Alt D to include the larger Pristine acreage and in Alternative C 

Designate an ACEC in Laidlaw Park that encompasses all 

remaining sagebrush communities. 

BLM is apparently attempting a zone management concept, 

which is not authorized by law or regulation. BLM must 

formulate management plans that reflect the policy of the

United States regarding all public lands, including NationalMonuments. 

Response 

See Chapter 2, Alternative D Description and Map. In th

Alternative, Passage Zone was significantly reduced in r

public comment and after additional consideration of the 

impacts to resources. Creating Passage Zone corridors d

mandate an increase in the number or current standard o

chapter 2, Description of Management Zones). 


The commenter did not provide any new information or 

would update the analysis of relevance and importance c

resulting in a determination that ACEC status is warrantManagement direction to protect the high quality vegetaresources in North Laidlaw Park, similar to that proposenominated ACEC, was included in Alternative D (See DVegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

 Alternative D; and pp. 340, Appendix G). Analysis of tand importance criteria for establishment of North Laidlan ACEC did not indicate that ACEC status is required fof the area. To further protect the area, the preferred altemodified to increase the acreage of Pristine Zone and deacreage of Passage Zone in North Laidlaw Park. Managdirection under Alternative D (p. 49) states that the high condition of North Laidlaw Park would be maintained alivestock water developments would be allowed.


Thank you for your comment.


604 
Topic	 Management Zones 

Letter No./ Comment Response 


 Comment No.


125 / 008	 The effort to designate "Primitive Zones" within the Monument The DEIS does not violate FLMPA.

Plan process violates FLPMA. "Pristine Zones" are. in essence. de-facto Wilderness management. This violates law and regulation. Section 201 of FLPMA places a general requirement on BLM to inventory all public lands for various resource values. Section 202 contains general planning provisions. Both require BLM to manage using the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Neither mention wilderness specifically nor do they suggest any justification for the approach suggested in this planning effort – 

i.e. designation of "Wilderness/Primitive/Pristine Lands". 

The planning team may not like it, but Congress has established a policy for managing public lands. The development of preliminary

 alternatives that include designating "Management Areas" is an attempt to subvert BLM's policy mandate. FLPMA Title II, particularly subsection (c)(1) that specifically requires development and revision of land use plans on the basis of "principles of multiple use and sustained yield," FLPMA section102(a)(7) also specifically requires that "goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law. Attempting to exclude lands from multiple use mandate via the designation of "Management Areas" or "Management Zones" also subverts the implementing regulations found at 43 C.F.R. 1600 et seq. that require planning based upon multiple use and sustained yield, including subsection 1601.0-2: "The objective of resource management planning by the BLM is to maximize resource values for the public through a rational, consistently applied set of regulations and procedures which promote the concept of multiple use management and ensure participation by the public, state and local governments, Indian tribes and appropriate Federal agencies. ..." For the most part, the BLM has totally ignored the FLPMA Section 603 wildernessinventories, studies, and decisions. It also completely ignores the extensive data and public input collected during the 603 process. It also ignores the fact that all BLM lands (except in Alaska) have been previously inventoried for wilderness values under Section 603 and formal recommendations made to the Congress by the President of the United States, as required. The BLM is totally ignoring decades of prior wilderness policy, procedures and guidance on wilderness inventories, existing inventory records, 

Appendices: APPENDIX L 605
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

Management Zones 

Comment 

official determinations of wilderness suitability and unsuitability. There is no justification, no mandate in FLPMA and no process requirement for managing lands in management zones that resemble wilderness management, or are de-facto Wilderness management. Under FLPMA §603, the Secretary of the Interior was directed to review the public lands and identify those areas that meet the wilderness criteria contained in sec. 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1131 (c). Those areas that have wilderness characteristics were then to be studied to determine their suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness

Preservation System. The Secretary was required to 

make recommendations on their suitability or nonsuitability to the President by Oct. 21, 1991. That date has expired. Congress clearly set its deadline. Congress did not authorize a never ending wilderness inventory and review process outside FLPMA §603.Additionally, and importantly, the Federal Courts have weighed in on management paradigms that resemble or are de-facto Wilderness Areas. In "State of Wyoming v United States Department of Agriculture" (01-CV-86-B) Judge Clarence Brimmer ruled: In establishing the NWPS [National Wilderness Preservation System], Congress unambiguously provided that "no 

Federal lands shall be designated as 'wilderness areas' except as 

provided for in [the Wilderness Act] or by a subsequent Act." 

Brimmer goes on to note: In fact, the primary purpose of the Wilderness Act was to provide: [a] statutory framework for the 

preservation of wilderness [that] would permit long-range 

planning and assure no further administrator could arbitrarily

or capriciously either abolish wilderness areas that should be 

retained or make wholesale designations of additional areas in which use would be limited. (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 88-1538). 

Response 

606 
Topic	 Management Zones 

Letter No./ Comment Response 


 Comment No.


125 / 009	 Creating "Pristine Zones" pursuant to FLPMA .&202 is an The DEIS does not violate FLMPA.

attempt to subvert Congressional directives found throughout 

Title II of FLPMA. The planning team is unlawfully attempting 

to make wilderness the priority way to protect the resources identified in 102(a)(8) instead of ACECs. The use of Pristine Areas or an attempt to substitute the Congressional directive found at Section 201 (a) of FLPMA calling for the Secretary to "prepare and maintain on a continuing

 basis an inventory of all public lands and their resources and other values (including, but not limited to, outdoor recreation and scenic values), giving priority to areas of critical environmental concern [ACEC] (emphasis added). This is contrary to Congressional directive found in Title II and Title VI of FLPMA. The Congressional directive found at Section 201 (a) of FLPMA calls for the Secretary to "prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resources and other values (including, but not limited to, outdoor recreation and 

 scenic values), giving priority to areas of critical environmental 

concern [ACEC] (emphasis added), not wilderness 

or "Pristine Zones" or other such de-facto WSA. Naturally, BLM may formulate management plans that protect Monument resources, but it must do so lawfully, using site specific use allocations 

or the ACEC. BLM may not use the Zone Management concept. BLM

should abandon the concept of establishing "Pristine Zones", BLM

 should abandon the concept of managing for "wilderness character", by designating "Management Zones" are de-facto WSAs (such as Pristine Management Areas) that are not authorized by law. 

When attempting to manage for "Pristine" and/or "unconfined 

recreation" BLM must use sound and valid principles of recreation

management and legally authorized designations such as those 

contained in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. BLM shouldseek to manage for sensitive resources by developing site specific management plans formulated pursuant to the designation of Areas of 

 Critical Environmental Concern. 

Appendices: APPENDIX L 607
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

70 / 010

105 / 013

123 / 014 

Management Zones 

Comment 

How does the restoration acreage correlate with the 90,000 acres 

of Pristine Zone shift discussed in Zone Characterizations?

We encourage expansion of the Pristine Zone beyond even 

alternative C’s recommendations. Pristine zoning should not be excluded from an area just because there currently exists a medium

 probability of encountering livestock and associated facilities. We also encourage expansion of the Primitive Zone beyond the amount called for in any of the alternatives. Primitive Zoning should be the second most common amount of land in the 

 preferred alternative. 

The ACEC should be part of ALL Alternatives analyzed. Extreme 

 political bias has been introduced into this process- basically, the livestock industry and Bush administration despises land protection. Since ACEC provides an opportunity for special management. The sad thing here is how much the ACEC lands are 

currently being impacted (and community condition eroded) due to livestock grazing and especially associated spread of exotic 

species.

Response 

The intent of the increase in restoration acreage in Alt. D 

 was to treat as much of the area in the Monument that h

identified as having poor ecological integrity as possible of the plan. (See Jurs and Sands 2004 and map of potentrestoration acreages, included in the Proposed Plan/FEISarea is in Wilderness Study Area. In Alternative C, the b

the Pristine Zone were synonymous with the WSA bounregardless of ecological condition (See DEIS, p. 23, for descriptions). Zoning, or WSA status, does not exclude for restoration treatment -- it simply prescribes the range treatment methods that should be used given the designaintent of Alt. C was to have more focus on preservation to proactive restoration. The proposed restoration acreagestimated with that intent in mind.


Thank you for your suggestions.


The commenter did not provide any new information or 

would update the analysis of relevance and importance c

resulting in a determination that ACEC status is warrant

Management direction to protect the high quality vegeta

resources in North Laidlaw Park, similar to that propose

nominated ACEC, was included in Alternative D (See D

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

 Alternative D; and pp. 340, Appendix G). Analysis of t

and importance criteria for establishment of North Laidlan ACEC did not indicate that ACEC status is required fof the area. To further protect the area, the preferred altemodified to increase the acreage of Pristine Zone and deacreage of Passage Zone in North Laidlaw Park. Managdirection under Alternative D (p. 49) states that the high condition of North Laidlaw Park would be maintained alivestock water developments would be allowed.


608 
Topic	 Management Zones 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


70 / 017	 there is a general agreement that we need to guide visitors towards 

the main visitor facilities along the Frontcountry Zone and in the Kings Bowl area, but there is no discussion of how that area is to be redeveloped to encourage visitors. 

165 / 027	 Page 337-Appendix G Proposed Laidlaw Park ACEC: The

document states that ACEC designation may not be necessary because “current management, regulation, and law provide sufficient protection for the values identified.” Given thatLaidlaw Park is unique and valuable because of its plant community, the Service recommends it be provided the protection 

 given by ACEC designation and the prioritization of resource 

conservation it affords.

Response 

This plan is intended to provide a general framework fo

Monument in general will be managed, and a little more 

what to expect within the different zones, such as the Fr

Zone. This is the “what”. The “how” will be developed 

with public input in later implementation level planningthe visitor center, reconstructing roads and parking areaimprovements are already underway or planned for the nwithin the existing Frontcountry zoned area managed by adjacent to U.S. Highway 20/26/93.


The commenter did not provide any new information or 

would update the analysis of relevance and importance c

resulting in a determination that ACEC status is warrant

Management direction to protect the high quality vegeta

resources in North Laidlaw Park, similar to that propose

nominated ACEC, was included in Alternative D (See D

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

 Alternative D; and pp. 340, Appendix G). Analysis of t

and importance criteria for establishment of North Laidlan ACEC did not indicate that ACEC status is required fof the area. To further protect the area, the preferred altemodified to increase the acreage of Pristine Zone and deacreage of Passage Zone in North Laidlaw Park. Managdirection under Alternative D (p. 49) states that the high condition of North Laidlaw Park would be maintained alivestock water developments would be allowed.


Appendices: APPENDIX L 609
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 110123 / 183 

Management Zones 

Comment 

DEIS at 130. We are deeply disappointed at the inclusion of the 

Laidlaw ACEC only under Alt. C. You have provided no legitimate

 rationale, science-based or otherwise, for not recognizing it as an ACEC under all Alternatives. How is designation of an ACEC incompatible with any of the alternatives? How can designation of an ACEC not significantly help you to attain your goals? You cannot claim that it will prohibit restoration. In fact, it will significantly help all forms of passive restoration. Plus, your extreme aggressive pseudorestoration is not going to occur in the northern part of Laidlaw Park anyway - unless through continued abusive livestock grazing and overstocking, BLM succeeds in turning what in the early 1990s was described as one of the best remaining the sagebrush-steppe communities still extant in the Snake River Plain into a cheatgrass wasteland. 

Laidlaw Park requires Special Management Attention because it is 

a remnant court ruling on Laidlaw Park S&G EA and Determination deficiencies and flaws. 

Response 

Same response as previous comment. 

Please refer to DEIS Appendix G, pp. 337-341. The ID 

followed the appropriate process in analyzing the values 

Laidlaw Park to determine if the area qualified for ACE

proposed ACEC was included and analyzed in Alternatilogical alternative to include the potential protection pro proposed ACEC. Further, to demonstrate a commitmenmaintaining the high ecological condition of the area, prmeasures were included in Alternative D, the preferred athat limit livestock developments, specifically to maintause that the area has received for years and that has resucurrent condition (DEIS p. 49). Additional protective mbeen included in the Proposed Plan/FEIS, including decof Passage Zone and increasing the acreage of Pristine ZLaidlaw Park. By comparing the effects of managing the ACEC in Alternative C with the effects of managing the  protective measures in Alternative D we found no advadesignating the area an ACEC and that we can achieve tresults with the protective measures in Alternative D. Thconcluded that it is unnecessary to designate the area as 

610 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 611

Topic	 Soundscape 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


104 / 011	 Regarding the visitor experience, there needs to be a stronger 

statement under desired future conditions and management actions. There should be two additions including: (1) “no commercial air tour landing within the Monument” and (2) “no commercial over flight of Pristine Zones.”

104 / 012	 Cumulative impacts of Alternative D from roads, commercial 

flights and landings, and radio tower locations should be considered 

major, not minor. Vehicular traffic would increase significantly 

due to the increase in designated Passage Zone, which would degrade the soundscape further than the status quo. Thus it isdifficult to comprehend why the impacts would be listed as similar to those of Alternative A. Additionally, given that commercial services are emphasized in this alternative with a focus on outfitter and guide services, it seems likely that the soundscape would be adversely affected more from this alternative than from any other offered alternatives. It also seems likely that this emphasis would further increase air traffic in the area. 

123 / 123	 How much noisier will these lands be with more upgraded roads, 

more livestock facilities or more water hauling? How much noise do livestock facilities or water hauling currently generate? For example, sounds from generators at wells can carry for several miles in arid desert air. 

123 / 174	 Upgraded roads would mean more livestock water hauling, and thus 

 increased loud vehicle noise (likely diesel truck). More livestock grazed with more facilities, or shifted use, will result in more unnatural livestock sounds disturbing wild land settings. 

Response 

Neither BLM nor NPS have authority to regulate aircraf

over-flights. Non-emergency and non-administrative air

 are not authorized on 65% of the Monument (NPS land

The cumulative impacts of Alternative D from roads, co

flights, outfitters and guides, and radio towers is expecte

because none are expected to increase substantially in th

years. The miles of road in the Passage Zone has been re

Alternative D of the Final EIS, thus reducing the impact 

The agencies do not foresee a dramatic increase in noise 

the alternatives.

Once again the DEIS does not mandate upgrading roads 

facilities. BLM does not anticipate an increase in livesto

hauling activities. In fact there are proposals which wou

water hauling in the Monument. New facility impacts w

evaluated and would conform with resource objectives. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

70 / 005

104 / 013 

Topic 

159 / 001 

Viewscape 

Comment 

In a landscape that features a night viewscape without any light 

intrusion, p. 02- it is hard to understand or justify the conclusion that the effects of lighted towers, "on solitude and natural conditions in wilderness areas (and anywhere else in the Monument) could be negligible to minor." The effects of night light from towers will be both long term and major

 and needs to acknowledge in the plan by not allowing such construction.

In a landscape that features a night viewscape without any light 

intrusion, it is hard to understand or justify the conclusion that the 

 effects of lighted towers “...on solitude and natural conditions in wilderness areas could be negligible to minor...” (P. 214). Unimpeded night views are an increasingly rare natural resource which should be protected through adherence to dark shy principles. The adverse effects of night light from towers will be both long term and major and needs to be acknowledged when discussing future plans for constructing new structures in the area.

Grazing 

The EIS, jointly prepared by BLM and the NPS, 


fails to take actions necessary to protect the vanishing Craters 
sagebrush ecosystem and its plummeting sage grouse, pygmy rabbit 


 and migratory songbird populations. 30% of the BLM-managed lands 
(these are the lands that are grazed by livestock-NPS manages the ungrazed 


lava) are in such poor condition that BLM proposes massive "treatments" 


.Instead of analyzing alternatives that change cattle and sheep 
grazing disturbance, a primary cause of the weed infestations and 
altered fire cycles that plague the Monument, all four agency 
alternatives keep livestock grazing constant, and make no
significant changes in grazing at all.


Response 

Currently lighted towers do not exist within Craters of th

National Monument and this Plan neither proposes nor e

construction of lighted towers within the Monument. W

does provide guidance to help prevent lighted tower inst

within the Monument, the Plan also can not specifically 

 installations because previously existing federal law, re

policy governing the siting and installation of communic

facilities could, under certain circumstances, trump the mdirection in this Plan. In such cases, appropriate NEPA aBLM and NPS policies designed to minimize contrasts tcharacteristic natural landscapes would be applied. 

A few lighted towers, located outside the Monument can  within the Monument in certain areas, particularly on th Lighted towers would not be allowed in Wilderness are

Refer to the Management Action under Visual Resource

Management Guidance common to All Alternatives. Th

intrusion from lighted towers is considered minor becau

locations of present towers and potential future towers a

from the majority of the Monument. 

This EIS has identified which lands are available for liv

(See page 117, chapter 3, under Livestock Grazing). Th

Land Use Planning Appendix C requirements for decisi

to Livestock Grazing. 

612 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 613

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


107 / 001	 It is strongly proposed that all fences should be taken out of 

Laidlaw Park allotment and that livestock shall be free to graze without fenced pastures. Fenced pastures were erected for cattle grazing in order to practice rest rotation but positive results have not materialized. Rest rotation absolutely is not a good practice for domestic sheep and wildlife use. Fenced-in rest rotation has not contributed positively in Laidlaw Park allotment. Cattle permittees in Laidlaw Park did not license for the year 2004 grazing season because it was not economical, since fencing of the pastures added to their demise with limited water availability. Cattlemen believe that the Laidlaw Park cattle grazing has become

 too expensive and does not provide for sufficient gains for meat production under present conditions. 

111 / 001	 The Craters sagebrush ecosystem is at risk, as are native animal 

species, especially sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, and migratory songbirds, 

that it supports. The BLM and the NPS each has an obligation to take steps to conserve these species. Yet the Plan and DEIS ignore the most obvious first step of any solution to the Preserve's weed and altered fire regime problems-removing cattle and sheep from these areas. The "treatments" (use of herbicides, mechanical and fire treatments, and seedings) that BLM proposes instead would be expensive, wasteful, and/or destructive. Because the DEIS wholly fails to consider reducing or eliminating livestock grazing, it is plainly inadequate. The DEIS and plan are also flawed for failing to consider closing roadsand for actually proposing to upgrade roads in "primitive" zones. 

Response 

Thank you for your comment. We will consider these p

appropriate implementation ad project-level plans.

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternatives manda

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding 

Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies follo

BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or lea

under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard 

the Monument administered by the BLM.” Therefore, a 

alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does haadjust livestock grazing management to help achieve deobjectives. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

106 / 001 

Grazing 

Comment 

There is far too much emphasis on increasing roads in the 

Monument (read more fragmentation) and I see no attempt to reduce grazing by cattle and sheep. I have conducted two Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) Routes in the Craters area for the last 15+ years. These are twenty-five mile routes with

 three-minute stops every half mile, starting at a half-hour before dawn, and run each June. One runs from US 93 near Carey and runs through Paddleford Flats and on down toward Kamima. The other starts at the Craters headquarters and ends in Arco. I have noticed in both BBS routes that sagebrush obligate birds, such as Brewer's sparrows, sage sparrows, and sage thrashers are found in far greater numbers in ungrazed portions, such as near the headquarters area, and in inaccessible areas of rugged lava/sage interface. 

I have encountered sage grouse also in these areas, but not on an annual 

Response 

In response to this and similar comments, modifications 

the Proposed Plan/FEIS to reduce the number and size o

zoned as Passage within the Monument. Sheep are occa

basis. As I get into more degraded areas, or those with more introduced grasses, 

such as crested wheatgrass, I find only generalist species of birds, such as vesper sparrows, homed larks or western meadowlarks. There seems to be an abrupt transition in both routes, and it is associated with grazing of domestic livestock and conversion of native shrub-steppe to grasslands. I noted in the DMP/EIS that there -, are plans to plant hybrid perennial grasses for rehabilitation of depleted areas, and I caution you not to do this to

 large areas, as native wildlife populations remained reduced for extensive time periods (Reynolds and Trost, 1979, 1980, &1981). Both the Paddleford Flats and Laidlaw Park areas seem quite depleted of sagebrush obligate birds, despite the fact that sage is the most abundant vegetation. This year I had to wait for a large flock of sheep that were being trailed north on the Carey-Kamima Road towards Paddleford Flats. Detection of birds in the wake of the sheep was almost nil for several miles. This was 

in June, the breeding season for these birds, and the area looked like a war zone after the sheep had passed -almost none were detected. I would bet that avian productivity was reduced to near zero for at least one hundred meters on each side of the road. My 

question is, why can't these sheep be trucked to summer pastures the way it is done in much of the Arco Desert? 

614 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 615

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


161 / 001	 There is a conflict of interest written into this plan that I find 

confusing. At the same time that you intend "no net loss" of sagebrush steppe communities, you also intend sustainable forage for livestock, yet you also plan "minimizing of invasive species" 

by the use of herbicides. Forgive me for feeling like I have to point out something so obvious, but livestock IS AN INVASIVE SPECIES. The historical overgrazing by livestock is directly 

linked to the decline in sagebrush areas and the increase in invasive species. Thousands of acres of cheatgrass and crested wheatgrass currently existing inside the Monument are also all INVASIVE SPECIES. So I strongly suggest that you go back to the 

 drawing board and come up with an alternative which drastically reduces livestock thus limiting the spread of weeds, thereby INCREASING the sagebrush communities and wildlife habitat. "No  net loss" of sage habitat is one sad goal. In tons, how much herbicide do you intend to use within the Monument over the next  decade? What a catastrophe. Please just get to the correct solution immediately. Get rid of the livestock and let the biologists guide a return to a healthy natural state. It will cost us all a lot less in dollars, destroyed ecosystems, lost habitat, lost species, herbicidal health effects, time and stress. No cows or sheep, no rolling acres of wheat lined by invasive species, no extra roads serving livestock facilities, restored sage communities, watersheds functioning naturally... That's a Craters of the Moon Monument that I want to visit. Thank you for listening to me. 

88 / 001	 The EIS, jointly prepared by BLM and the NPS, 

fails to take actions necessary to protect the vanishing Craterssagebrush ecosystem and its plummeting sage grouse, pygmy rabbit 

 and migratory songbird populations. 30% of the BLM-managed lands (these are the lands that are grazed by livestock- NPS manages the ungrazed lava) are in such poor condition that BLM proposes massive "treatments". Instead of analyzing alternatives that change cattle and sheep grazing disturbance, a primary cause of the weed infestations and altered fire cycles that plague the Monument, all four agency alternatives keep livestock grazing constant, and make no significant changes in grazing at all. 

Response 

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate 

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding 

Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies follo

BLM in issuing and administering grazing 

permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall 

apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminis

BLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative 

was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibili

temporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired res

objectives.

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate 

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding 

Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies follo

BLM in issuing and administering grazing 

permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall 

apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

89 / 001

127 / 001

81 / 001

129 / 001 

Grazing 

Comment 

The Draft Management Plan and EIS for Craters of the Moon 

National Monument and Preserve fails to takeactions necessary to protect the vanishing Craters sagebrushecosystem and its plummeting sage grouse, pygmy rabbit and migratory songbird populations. Instead of analyzing alternatives that change cattle and sheep grazing disturbance, a primary cause of the weedinfestations and altered fire cycles that plague the Monument, all four agency alternatives keep livestock grazingconstant, and make no significant changes in grazing at all.

As to the continued management of the Craters, Butte County 

first priority is expecting the multiple use policy will be followed which allows for continued grazing and hunting on the parts of the Monument as was promised at the time the Craters was expanded. 

It is clear that all of the Alternatives offered are heavily weighted 

toward livestock production, with little regard for wildlife habitat, native vegetation, and biodiversity. None of the four Alternatives seriously addresses grazing impacts, leaving livestock levels 

basically unchanged. In the interest of true multiple use, I strongly 

 urge you to prepare a Supplemental EIS which would include a science based assessment of grazing suitability of the lands in question. The supplemental EIS should consider changes to and reduction of grazing, especially as they would relate to weed spread, habitat destruction and water quality issues. 

The number of grazing permits and active AUMs has remained in 

tact in the area managed by the BLM (BLM). While this is critical to the continued viability of the livestock operations that depend on these areas for a portion of the yearlong forage requirements, it is just as critical that the permittees be able to access these areas for administrative purposes. Areas key to the success of rangeland grazing operations

 include water sources, salt and mineral distribution sites, and other facilities used throughout the grazing season. Access to these areas must be included as an distractive term of the grazing permit. 

Response 

Same response as previous comment. 

The Draft Plan/EIS did not propose any new closures to 

or the elimination of livestock grazing.

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G p

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate 

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding 

Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies follo

BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibiltemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives.

The Management Plan maintains access to permittees fo

purposes. See page 116 of the DEIS.

616 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 617

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 001	 The DEIS not present a reasonable range of alternatives related to 

 livestock grazing. We request that a Supplemental EIS be prepared that addresses a wide range of DEIS deficiencies, especially in relation to livestock grazing and its current and future effects, as described throughout the following comments. 

Livestock grazing is the overwhelmingly dominant land use on 

almost every acre of the Monument that is not solid lava. It is leading to rapid deterioration and alteration of the native sagebrush vegetation and associated wildlife species. 

159 / 002	 Instead of analyzing alternatives that change cattle and sheep 

grazing disturbance, a primary cause of the weed infestations and altered fire cycles that plague the Monument, all four agency alternatives keep livestock grazing constant, and make no significant changes in grazing at all. 

82 / 002 even allows upgrading of roads in "primitive" zones. Effects of 

grazing and roads upon weed dispersal, erosion, and wildlife habitat 

 are well documented in the literature. All alternatives considered would continue grazing at the same level as is currently in effect. 

Response 

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate 

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding 

Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies folloBLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives.

Same response as previous comment 

Temporary removal of livestock is a viable action taken 

areas from impacts associated with livestock grazing. T

commonly done during restoration efforts. None of the 

mandate grazing to continue at the current levels. Chap

description not a mandated prescription/alternative of exconditions. It allows grazing to continue at present leveindividual allotment assessments determine the need to adjustments to meet standards as stated on page 120 par
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

162 / 002 

Grazing 

Comment 

We are however, concerned regarding the status of livestock 

grazing management within the Monument and the lack of analysis in the DEIS. The Laidlaw Park portion of the Monument maintains one of the last remaining large, contiguous blocks of low elevation sagebrush habitat in the area administered by the BLM's Shoshone Field Office. This area provides critical breeding, brood rearing, and winter habitat for sage-grouse and other sagebrush dependent wildlife. In addition, the allotment provides important seasonal habitat for pronghorn and elk and important transition range for migrating mule deer. Improper grazing management can constitute a significant impact to vegetation resources and subsequent wildlife habitat. Alteration of plantcommunity structure, species diversity, and plant abundance can impact the availability of food and cover resources for wildlife. In addition, grazing livestock and associated operations can displace wildlife from seasonally important habitats including breeding and nesting habitat and winter range. We recognize grazing has historically occurred within the Monument expansion since post settlement by pioneers. Further, we acknowledge the administrative rationale to address grazing management on the Monument through the BLM's. Standards and Guidelines process. However, analysis relative to impacts of livestock grazing on wildlife resources and other features common to a visitor’s expectation should be reviewed in this EIS. In technicalcorrespondence to BLM regarding the standards and guidelines assessment of the Laidlaw Park Allotment, we identified several wildlife related issues and provided management recommendations to address the needs of wildlife on the allotment (see attached). The assessment noted a general lack of species and structural diversity (forbs and large, perennial bunchgrasses) throughout the Laidlaw Park Allotment coupled with a widespread distribution and

 abundance of cheatgrass. To our knowledge, only one management guideline identified by the IDFG was incorporated in the final decision—prohibiting sheep bedding on active sage-grouse leks during the breeding season. As demonstrated in the assessment. Livestock grazing has had a significant impact on vegetation resources within the Monument—Monument provides an opportunity to examine past grazing practices and evaluate new alternative grazing management strategies that address the needs of important wildlife resources and better fit the Monument. 

Response 

This issue is dealt with under separate NEPA document

with the Laidlaw Park Grazing Plan. 

618 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 619

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


165 / 002	 Restoration of native plant communities, protection of soils, and 

protection and restoration of sage grouse habitat have all been 

identified as objectives in this DEIS. Even though livestock grazing and its associated activities (road development, introduction of invasive species, plantings of non-native forage, habitat fragmentation due to fencing) have been consistently identified as impacts in the DEIS, no alternative provides BLM the tools to reduce the numbers and/or change the timing and movement of livestock within the Monument in order to meet the goals presented in this document. On page 52, the DEIS states that elimination of livestock was not considered in any of the alternatives because a "no grazing" alternative would not be consistent with the language in Proclamation 7373 (Federal Register, v.65 pp 69221). Nonetheless, the proclamation states that livestock grazing will continue to be managed in a way that is consistent with BLM regulations and policy. BLM policy and regulations certainly allow for removal and/or reduction of livestock to meet management objectives. The Service is specifically identifying grazing as a concern because a number of allotments within the Monument are not meeting standards at this

 time. The Service is not necessarily endorsing an alternative that proposes the elimination of livestock grazing, we are merely stating that as a document of disclosure and public review, the range of alternatives should include possible modifications to a land use (grazing) that can have profound impacts on the very resources the BLM and NPS have identified as priorities. We strongly recommend that an alternative be developed and considered that would provide the BLM with the tool of modifying livestock numbers and distribution, as necessary, to 

 meet management objectives. 

128 / 003	 This brings me to my most vehement point: establish a no-grazing 

 area within Snowdrift Crater and covering the land to the Northeast of it to the lava. One fence should be constructed from the southeast side of Snowdrift Crater (by the "parking area") to the lava directly east; in addition, another short fence should be constructed from the north side of Snowdrift to the lava on the north. 

(Another possibility would be to fence an additional part of Little Laidlaw 

Park with a short fence at its narrowest point, and closing this land to livestock grazing. But that is not my proposal.) Only by eliminating of animals and Rlants be made. I can only conclude that you don't want to study the possibility of being wrong; that is no way to do science. Only by eliminating livestock grazing could 

Response 

This Draft Plan/EIS has identified which lands are avail

for livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Liv

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate 

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding 

Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies follo

BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or le

lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with r

in the Monument administered by the BLM.” Therefore 

 was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibil

 temporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired re

objectives.

This would be considered in implementation level decis
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

111 / 003

88 / 003 

Grazing 

Comment 

the grasses, forbs, and sagebrush come back enough for sage grouse and other nearly-threatened animals and more common species to exist. In addition, the cover would allow more prey species to survive so that raptors, foxes, coyotes, raccoons, skunks, snakes, and other carnivores could occasionally catch pikas, rabbits, and squirrels while these prey can occasionally escape and reproduce. If the comparison for livestock gazing practices needs to be in an areawith similar rainfall [which I doubt, as rainfall is virtually the same throughout the kipuka], BLM could also monitor Little Laidlaw Park as 

a comparison. Payment for the fence by Snowdrift Crater ought to be 

extracted from the abundant money out of the fire suppression funds. 

There are many ways that the money could be found in the 

 Monument/Preserve. 

I refer BLM to its governing mandates in FLPMA. Section 

202(c)(3) requires that BLM "give priority to the designation and 

protection of [ACECs]." Section 202(c)(6) directs the agency to "consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative means. ..and sites for realization of those values." In any situation where the "values involved" include

 livestock production, roaded recreation opportunities, and preservation of healthy sagebrush communities, the latter must take precedence. There is simply no "scarcity" of either livestock pasture (private or public) or roaded recreation areas, and there exist many readily available alternative means for  providing or producing these commodities elsewhere, at less risk to irreplaceable natural, publicly owned resources. Further, section 202(c)(7) requires weighing "long-term benefits to the public against short-term [private] benefits." The long-term benefits of 

sustaining healthy sagebrush communities vastly outweigh the minimal economic benefits that inure to those few persons permitted to graze livestock on these lands and the benefits 

of convenience or pleasure derived by road users. 

Prepare a Supplemental EIS. This EIS must examine a broad range 

of alternatives including changes and reductions in livestock use 

necessary to limit weed spread, protect remaining sagebrush communities 

and wildlife habitat, and allow real restoration of tens of thousands of 

acres of cheatgrass and crested wheatgrass wastelands that currently 

exist inside the Monument. *** Conduct a science-based assessment of the 

suitability of these lands for grazing. *** 

Response 

Please refer to Appendix G of the Proposed Plan/FEIS. T

followed the appropriate process in analyzing the values 

Laidlaw Park to determine if the area qualified for ACE

proposed ACEC was included and analyzed in Alternati

logical alternative to include the potential protection pro

 proposed ACEC. Further, to demonstrate a commitmen

maintaining the high ecological condition of the area, pr

measures were included in Alternative D, the preferred a

that limit livestock developments, specifically to mainta

use that the area has received for years and that has resu

current condition (DEIS p. 49). Additional protective m

been included in the Proposed Plan/FEIS, including dec

of Passage Zone and increasing the acreage of Pristine Z

Laidlaw Park. By comparing the effects of managing the 

ACEC in Alternative C with the effects of managing the 

 protective measures in Alternative D we found no adva

designating the area an ACEC and that we can achieve t

results with the protective measures in Alternative D. Th

concluded that it is unnecessary to designate the area as 

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Lives

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requ

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pr

 chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows man

each grazing allotment individually and determine if ad

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate 

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies follo

620 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 621

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment 

 Comment No. 

102 / 003	 Prepare a Supplemental EIS. This EIS must examine a broad range 

 of alternatives including changes and reductions in livestock use necessary to limit weed spread, protect remaining sagebrush communities and wildlife habitat, and allow real restoration of tens  of thousands of acres of cheatgrass and crested wheatgrass wastelands that currently exist inside the Monument. *** Conduct a science-based assessment of the suitability of these lands for grazing. 

113 / 003	 The preferred alternative states "to protect vegetation resources, 

no new livestock developments would be permitted in North Laidlaw Park pasture and Bowl Crater allotment". This Association does not agree with this management directive. A new well needs to drilled in North Laidlaw Park which would not only be of benefit to livestock permittes but to the wildlife in this area as well. As stated above, the plan needs to be flexible.There may be a time when a specific livestock improvement (either permanent or temporary) is needed for the benefit of not only the livestock grazing operation but for the overall betterment 

of the area as well. Keep that flexibility. 

Response 

BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leits jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the Monument administered by the BLM.” Therefore a No Gwas not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives. BLM will continue to monitor and use all avwhich could include utilization pattern mapping, trend dallotment assessments to determine suitability for grazin

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate 

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies folloBLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives. BLM will continue to monitor and use all avwhich could include utilization pattern mapping, trend dallotment assessments to determine suitability for grazin

The high ecological condition of North Laidlaw Park ha

maintained with light livestock use, primarily due limite

developments in that area. The ID Team felt that restrict

developments in North Laidlaw Park would be the most 

way to maintain the existing light livestock use in that a

of planning. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 003 

Grazing 

Comment 

Characterized by bunchgrasses, forbs and shrubs with soil 

interspaces of microbiotic crusts, the sagebrush ecosystem did not evolve with herds of large, hoofed ungulates (Mack and Thompson 1982). The current vegetation originated in the Pleistocene, with little grazing by large native herbivores, and bison scarce in the intermountain region. “The vegetation of the pristine sagebrush/grasslands was relatively simple and extraordinarily susceptible to disturbance ... the native vegetation lacked the resilience, depth, and plasticity to cope with concentrations of large herbivores. The plant communities did not bend to adapt; they shattered. This tends to make the review of grazing in the sagebrush/grasslands a horror story, resplendent with examples of what should not have been done ” (Young and Sparks 1985 in Young 1994). Native bunchgrasses are weakened and killed by the chronic effects of livestock grazing. Microbiotic crusts that fix nitrogen, protect against erosion and help exclude weeds are destroyed by trampling.

 Alien annual cheatgrass and other weeds invade depleted understories and clog the now bare interspaces. Cheatgrassproduces continuous fine fuels so fires flash across the landscape. Larger areas burn more frequently and uniformly, and few unburned patches remain. This phenomenon accelerates, with conversion to annual grassland the end result. As remaining habitat patches become smaller, species disappear. As fires become larger, more uniform and more frequent, the landscape changes from a species-rich matrix to a species-poor matrix dominated by exotic, annual species (Whisenant 1991). Plant communities set on this trajectory with repeated disturbance cross thresholds from which they can not recover, and restoration is not possible (Knick et al. 2003). In contrast to uplands, most riparian systems will exhibit recovery following livestock removal. Highest elevation sagebrush communities are more resilient than lower elevation communities. Unfortunately, cheatgrass and other weeds are now evolving to grow at higher elevations. “The end results could be the conversion of these native ecosystems to unproductive and simplistic annual grasslands lacking not only native vertebrates but also those invertebrates involved in the operation of the ecosystem including energy flow, water cycling and nutrient balance”. (Billings 1994). The horror story continues to this day in the Monument, with livestock disturbing soil surfaces, and nipping bunchgrasses to levels far too low. Weeds invade, and 

Response 

The decline of the sagebrush steppe in the western Unite

acknowledged in the DEIS (pp. 86-98, Affected Environ

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

622 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 623

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


livestock act as their vectors of dispersal, transporting weeds in fur, mud, and dung (Belsky and Gelbard 2000). Fragmentation proceeds at multiple levels – while a veneer of sagebrush may remain, livestock may have removed or simplified critical habitat components. For example, sagebrush broken and battered by livestock converging on water loses the structural complexity required by the pygmy rabbit. 

95 / 004	 problem. To achieve any permanent positive results, I believe 

that there should be a science-based assessment of the suitability of these lands for grazing before any management plan is put into place, rather than starting with the objective of keeping current grazing practices as they are currently. 

89 / 004	 Prepare a Supplemental EIS. This EIS must examine a broad range 

 of alternatives including changes and reductions in livestock use necessary to limit weed spread, protect remaining sagebrush communities and wildlife habitat, and allow real restoration of tens 

of thousands of acres of cheatgrass and crested wheatgrass

wastelands that currently exist inside the Monument. Conduct a science-based assessment of the suitability of these lands for grazing. 

Response 

BLM will continue to monitor and use all available data 

include utilization pattern mapping, trend data, and S&G 

assessments to determine suitability for grazing. This EI

identified which lands are available and unavailable for 

grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livestock Grazi

fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requiremedecisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G prochosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather the board reductions or increases because it allows manaeach grazing allotment individually and determine if adjneeded in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies folloBLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives.

Same response as previous comment.
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

111 / 004

113 / 004

82 / 005 

Grazing 

Comment 

In sum, I urge the agencies to revise the DEIS or prepare a 

supplemental EIS, which considers an acceptable range of reasonable alternatives, including reducing oreliminating livestock use as necessary to protect existing sagebrush 

communities, and measures to begin the long process of restoring areas now dominated by cheatgrass, crested 

wheatgrass, and other nonnative plants. Before livestock grazing 

is authorized on any Monument/Preserve lands, their suitability for grazing must be assessed. This assessment must employ accepted ecological measures. 

A key factor in the proper management of a livestock operation 

is accessibility to the in regards to road closures should be part of the plan.

Prepare a Supplemental EIS. This EIS must examine a broad range 

of alternatives including changes and reductions in livestock usenecessary to limit weed spread, protect remaining sagebrush communities and wildlife habitat, and allow real restoration of tens of thousands of acres of cheatgrass and crested wheatgrass wastelands that currently exist inside the Monument. Conduct a science-based assessment of the suitability of these lands for grazing. 

Response 

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate 

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding 

Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies follo

BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives.

On page 116 of the Travel and Access section states tha

“Proclamation 7373 prohibits all motorized and mechan

use off road except for emergency or authorized admini

purposes. Administrative purposes include permit holdelivestock permitees). 

BLM will continue to monitor and use all available data 

include utilization pattern mapping, trend data, and S&G 

assessments to determine suitability for grazing. This E

identified which lands are available and unavailable for 

grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livestock Grazi

fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requireme

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather the board reductions or increases because it allows manaeach grazing allotment individually and determine if adjneeded in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies folloBLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives. 

624 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 625

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


159 / 006	 Prepare a Supplemental EIS. This EIS must examine a broad range 

of alternatives including changes and reductions in livestock usenecessary to limit weed spread, protect remaining sagebrush communities and wildlife habitat, and allow real restoration of tensof thousands of acres of cheatgrass and crested wheatgrass wastelands that currently exist inside the Monument. Conduct a science-based assessment of the suitability of these lands for grazing.

106 / 006	 One of the stated purposes for the expansion of the Monument 

was to benefit greater sage grouse, which are currently being considered for listing under the ESA. On page 169 of theDMP/EIS it states that in the Laidlaw Park area there are 79 known grouse leks with only 184 birds when last surveyed. Of these 79 leks, only 29, or 37% were active. I submit to you that 

such a low number of active leks with relatively few birds is already 

a sign of a population that is in trouble. I think this calls for drastic action, such as removing cattle and sheep grazing in the entire area. 

Grouse require sage and grasslands in a healthy mixture, as the DMP/EIS 

noted, but they also require native succulent forbs, especially in the 

spring when the females have to lay eggs. They can't lay eggs on a sage diet 

alone, and there are few insects available in April. Domestic livestock preferentially remove these plants, and are thus in direct

 competition with grouse at this critical season. Since when does the NPS allow commercial alien grazers on their lands? I feel that the DMP/EIS should accept Alternative C as the preferred alternative and use the nearly half-million dollar ($446,000/year) difference between it and Alternative D to buyout grazing allotments and private in-holdings in these areas 

critical for sage grouse. 

129 / 006	 While livestock may impact resources, the impacts portrayed in 

the "Unavoidable Adverse Impacts" section (pg239) unnecessarily 

 concentrate on those associated with livestock. The "damage, 

theft, vandalism, foot-traffic, and other caused disturbances"associated with geologic resources also impact many other facets of the Monument that are currently only attributed to livestock. Cultural resources are a prime example of finite resources damaged more extensively by direct human activity (theft or vandalism) than by livestock. ISDA strongly suggests that the team make a complete assessment of current and potential impacts to these resources by direct human activity in addition to those caused by livestock. 

Response 

See response to previous comment. 

Current federal regulations prevent buyouts of grazing a

The unavoidable adverse impacts of theft and vandalism 

mentioned for Alternative B on p. 241 because of the int

recreational use expected under that alternative. The imp

 and vandalism were deemed to be of lesser intensity un

Alternatives A, C and D comparatively, but the DEIS do

assess the impacts of theft and vandalism to cultural reso

all alternatives on pages 188-193. 

On page 239 of the DEIS, adverse impacts have been an

are attributed to humans as well as to livestock: for exam

“Damage, theft, vandalism, foot traffic, and other human

disturbances to geologic resources...” 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

122 / 006

128 / 007

129 / 007 

Grazing 

Comment 

There is solid scientific evidence, developed by the U.S. Sheep 

Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho, that carefully implemented fall sheep grazing can be a useful tool for restoring forb and grass levels in sagebrush steppe. The University of Idaho currently is developing weed control programs using sheep and goats. We urge 

NPS/BLM to carefully and thoroughly assess the feasibility of using sheep as a management tool for achieving restoration of sagebrush steppe where appropriate. 

Please consider assessment of plant types and seed production, 

plant growth, seedling survival in hard soils, and percent bareground in your grazing assessments relative to soil types, climate, 

and landforms. Please also write into your grazing Guidelines a condition that habitat for endangered or threatened species must be 

improved. Similarly, please apply management practices that 12romote 

habitat for physical and biological conditions to sustain native plant populations and wildlife habitats in plant communities. In places dominated by non-native plants and grasses, turn these lands into having native plants and grasses; again reduce grazing and

 then seed the areas with native seeds. Please stand by your Guidelines # 6 and #7 that you haven't in the past. Always 

maintain better than viable numbers of T&E species within the 

 Monument. 

While it is true that removal of exposed lava flows will not 

appreciably reduce the available forage base for grazing permits, care should be taken to ensure that only those lands of trulyexposed lava are removed from the grazing permits. ISDA supports 

the recommended adjustments to the boundary and jurisdictional 

changes proposed within Appendix C. 

Response 

The targeted use of livestock as a cultural or biological t

noxious weed control is recognized under the Proposed 

viable option within a fully implemented Integrated We

Management Program. See FEIS Chapter 2, Managemen

Common To All Alternatives: Vegetation, Including Sp

Species, and Fire Management. 

Thank you for your comment. 

The planning team has been working with those permitt

by the boundary adjustments to make the transition accu

626 
Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment Response 


 Comment No.


122 / 007	 NPS/BLM must adopt an alternative that permits continued Thank you for your comment. This will be considered in 

livestock grazing in BLM-managed portions of the Monument. As appropriate implementation-level plans.

 an active and direct participant in the field meetings that 
occurred with Secretary Babbitt preceding the proclamation that 
led to the Monument’s expansion, Lava Lake firmly believes that 
it was fully and clearly within the intent of the Proclamation that 
livestock grazing be continued within the Monument consistent 
with the regulations governing BLM. Efforts to use language in 
the Proclamation to advocate for wholesale removal of all 
livestock grazing from the Monument are inconsistent with the 
intent and the letter of the Proclamation and undermine the 
collaborative spirit that supported the Clinton Administration’s 
efforts to bring greater levels of protection to this remarkable 
area. We believe that sheep grazing can be compatible with the 
preservation and restoration of the primitive nature of the 
Monument and the improvement of their ecological condition. 
Clearly, sheep grazing levels have to be set at a level supported by
up-to-date field assessments and evaluated through quantitative 
field monitoring. BLM’s proposed grazing decision for Laidlaw 
Park Allotment is currently under appeal but that decision will 
obviously need to be integrated with the final management plan 
for the Monument. While Lava Lake has commented extensively
on the BLM’s standards and guidelines process and the proposed 
and final grazing decisions for Laidlaw Park, several points merit 
emphasis in these comments. First, Lava Lake supports a grazing 
program that takes place in the context of the restoration of 
native plant communities in Laidlaw Park and which does not 
significantly detract from the primitive character of the Monument. 
Second, we also have consistently advocated for the 
implementation of a quantitative monitoring program that will 
allow BLM and permittees to objectively and accurately evaluate 
year-to-year impacts of sheep grazing. Finally, we continue to be 
concerned about the artificial constraints imposed by current 
fencing in Laidlaw Park on sheep grazing patterns and the
rest-rotation program proposed by BLM. We believe that the 
fences reduce our collective ability to implement a sound grazing 
strategy, create artificial and unnecessary trailing and grazing 
bottlenecks, impede wildlife movements, and detract from the 
primitive character of Laidlaw Park. Lava Lake supports the 
removal, over a period of time, of the fencing in Laidlaw Park and
 promotes the reliance on active or abandoned roads to delineate 
pasture boundaries and guide livestock movements. There is no 


Appendices: APPENDIX L 627
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

128 / 008

129 / 008

123 / 009 

Grazing 

Comment 

doubt that this approach will greatly facilitate a common sense approach to restoration, will minimize livestock impacts and will allow for efficient grazing patterns.

Identifying 36,963 AUMs in table 15 (and particularly the 11,431 

AUMs in Laidlaw Park allotment) of the EIS is absolutely absurd! This fails to consider potential future decreases in use(voluntary or mandatory), seasonal drought, closuresfor fire management, or other management prescriptionsand unforeseen consequences. This sort of figure should only be set in site-specific documents, if there. They are preciseand specific in contrast to virtually all other directions in aprogrammatic land use plan like this one. Delete this specific information which could be taken for accurate by ranchers and BLM, which, of course, you wouldn’t want. They should be 

mentioned in the Future Planning Needs portion of the plan. It is notable that the 11,431 AMUs in Laidlaw Park Allotment fail to meet standards. 

The nominated Laidlaw Park ACEC, as shown in Appendix G, is 

not appropriate. The BLM has Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Management that provide for theattainment of rangeland health while still providing for utilization to benefit the operations of local ranchers. The designation ofthis area calls for additional protection that is not necessary and would limit the availability of many management tools currently 

used by resource managers and users. 

For example, an Alternative that terminates livestock grazing 

across remaining sagebrush habitats in Laidlaw Park (where there is still some hope of keeping the land from turning into a complete Weed Hell), while allowing some grazing to continue in the cheatgrass-infested southern areas, should be assessed as part of a reasonable alternatives range. It would protect the significant values of the Monument. Another example is development of an alternative that addresses the role of livestock in the infestation and spread of weeds as well as alteration of fire cycles. 

Response 

See Table 20 and revised Livestock Grazing text in Cha

Proposed Plan/FEIS.

The proposed ACEC is included in Alternative C. It is n

in the Preferred Alternative at this time. Thank you for 

Thank you for your comment. We will consider these po

appropriate implementation- and project-level plans.

628 
Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment Response 


 Comment No.


165 / 010	 Page 49 -Alternative D; Vegetation; Management Actions, 2nd Livestock management following restoration treatment a

bullet: It is unclear how active restoration/rehabilitation of 80,000 specific project-level resource management issues and o

 acres of annual grassland and low elevation sagebrush steppe will including criteria for success or treatment, are addressed impact use of livestock allotments in those areas being treated. project-level environmental assessments. Livestock allotted to areas being treated by fire and other mechanisms (mechanical, chemical) will need to go elsewhere in many cases. The Service recommends that the final document disclose the destination of displaced livestock, what success criteria 

will need to be met before they can be placed back on the treated 

allotment, whether or not other BLM allotments will be used to support the displaced livestock, or what contingency plans will be in

place if the treated areas do not meet success criteria within the predicted 

time frame. These nuances are very important when assessing the 

utility of an action or an alternative that calls for a particular prescription. 

165 / 010	 Page 46 -Alternative C; We suggest that "no new livestock Thank you for your comment. The recommended chang

developments in the proposed Laidlaw Park ACEC" may be too made to the text. 

restrictive. If this alternative were chosen and the BLMsubsequently finds that moving livestock facilities to a new location within the proposed ACEC would be beneficial to wildlife and native plant communities, they would be unable proceed because of this restriction. If the absolute number of developments

 in the proposed ACEC is the issue, we recommend that the 
statement read "no net increase of livestock developments or the 
acreage they impact and no new developments unless it results in a
 net benefit to those resources identified as needing improvement 
or protection." This would allow moving fence and water 
developments to new locations if it resulted in a net gain in 
overall plant community health in Laidlaw Park.


123 / 011	 As grazing permit retirement is a very foreseeable during the life Appendix F in the Proposed Plan/FEIS, addresses livest

of this plan, this plan should examine and authorize it. adjustments, which includes suspending a permit for res

Appendices: APPENDIX L 629
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 012

123 / 013 

Grazing 

Comment 

Analysis of the current ecological condition of the land and the 

impacts of livestock grazing is absent. Plus, the effects of the various alternatives on extending livestock grazing are not analyzed. A Supplemental EIS must be prepared to address these 

many deficiencies. Passive restoration, as described in Appendix A 

 of our comments, must be incorporated as part of all action alternatives. 

The DEIS presents information on livestock stocking rates (as in 

Table 15, DEIS at 119) that has no relation to the much-reduced actual use that now occurs under depleted vegetation conditions. It 

 provides no data on actual use, changes with drought, high utilization levels, weed infestations associated with livestock projects, etc. Such information is necessary to provide a foundation and historical context so that the levels and impacts of  public lands ranching and its implications to Monument resources and values can be understood. The DEIS team cannot cast this off 

onto future allotment-level decisions. That would result in no foundation for livestock management being laid out in the EIS, as well as no current inventory of livestock-related activities and impacts on these lands. It would also mean that analysis of indirect, cumulative and synergistic impacts analyses of livestock grazing would be deficient. 

Response 

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adjneeded in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies folloBLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives.

Actual Use information was not individually summarize

 in this DEIS primarily because there are only four allotm

are completely within the Monument boundary. If actua

information was extrapolated for all allotments it would 

estimate based on the percent of each allotment within th

Monument boundary and may or may not accurately ref

amount of use which has actually occurred. Actual use 

accurately figured for those four allotments which have 

acres within the Monument boundary. This information 

at the Shoshone and Idaho Falls Field Offices. 

630 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 631

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


70 / 014	 Grazing discussions in the entire plan seem to focus on the impact 

of the plan on grazing and not the impact of grazing on the land.

Considering that grazing is recognized as the largest major disturbance historically leading to soil disturbance, plant diversity 

loss and the consequent introduction of weeds and subsequent fire regime changes, it would be appropriate to have a discussion of that historical impact. If monitoring shows that grazing is impacting the restoration process, removal needs to be a 

legitimate response. 

104 / 014	 Grazing discussions in the entire plan seem to focus on the impact 

of the plan on grazing and not the impact of grazing on the land. 

Considering that grazing is recognized as the largest major disturbance historically leading to soil disturbance, plant diversityloss and the consequent introduction of weeds and subsequent fire regime changes, it would be appropriate to have a discussion of the

 historical impact. Suggesting that it would only result in some “negligible to minor adverse impacts” seems to ignore the devastating affect grazing has had on western landscapes. Theconclusions seem to acknowledge the potential for major impacts by noting, “effects on the natural soundscape would result mainly from transportation, administrative uses, and grazing” (P. 235). 

165 / 014	 Several allotments, including the proposed ACEC in Laidlaw Park, 

 are not meeting rangeland health standards. All of the alternatives, including Alternative D, do not provide the tool of reducing or eliminating livestock grazing, whether temporary or permanent, in areas not attaining standards. 

Response 

If monitoring shows that grazing is impacting the restor

 temporary removal of livestock is a legitimate response 

the problem. According to policy requirements, restorat

always include removal of livestock for a minimum of t

seasons following treatment to allow for vegetation reco

establishment of seeded species. Idaho Standards and G

Rangeland Health guide adjustments in livestock grazin

(numbers, season of use) in response to problems identif

evaluation and monitoring. The historical impacts of liv

grazing on the sagebrush steppe were discussed in the DAffected Environment: Vegetation, including Special Stand Fire Management). 

Impacts associated with livestock grazing are described 

 Environmental Consequences chapter of the DEIS, and 

impacts to soils, vegetation, water, wildlife, and livestoc

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows manaeach grazing allotment individually and determine if adjneeded in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies folloBLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 014

70 / 015

104 / 015123 / 015 

Grazing 

Comment 

The DEIS fails to lay out the link between livestock and the 

proliferation of roads. The primary cause of the large network of 

roads that penetrate so much of the non-lava land (and even some of the lava land!) in the Monument is activities associated with public lands ranching, and/or attempts to patch the damage done by grazing. As part of this EIS process, you must address 

livestock-ranching activity related roading. As part of this, examine the purpose of the road, road redundancy, etc. The DEIS, for example, does not even address practices like parking sheepwagons in inappropriate locations. 

In light of the above, the plan needs to justify the conclusion on P. 

157 that, "Grazing and associated trailing would result in the same negligible to minor adverse impacts described for the other alternatives, since grazing would not be managed any differently.” Grazing has had and will have a major impact on the landscape. 

P. 235: The conclusion: "effects on the natural soundscape would result mainly from transportation, administrative uses, and grazing,” indicates that grazing would be a major source of impact and conflicts with the note above.

Additionally, the plan should justify the conclusion that the 

impacts associated with grazing would be the same as those associated with any other impact because they are managed differently. It seems likely that expansion of the Passage Zone would affect trailing of livestock and thus have an impact on surrounding areas. The plan acknowledges the likelihood of different impacts (or the intensity of those impacts) by noting on page 70, “...and expanded Passage Zone...would result in minor to 

moderate beneficial effects from increased access and more ability

 to create new facilities. The Pristine Zone could restrict or increase the costs associated with grazing, a moderate adverse impact.” This implies that increasing the Passage Zone or Pristine Zone would have a direct effect on grazing. Thus the impacts expected from each alternative should be analyzed accordingly.

The DEIS also fails to identify the link between livestock grazing 

disturbance and weed infestation and spread. As a result, actions 

necessary to control weed spread by livestock are lacking from the 

 DEIS. For example, there are no provisions to cleanse/purge livestock of weed seeds before moving into the lands of the Monument. Under all alternatives, livestock should be quarantined  for the period of time necessary to cleanse systems of weeds 

Response 

Table 1 is Management Zone descriptions on page 23; C

All description of Livestock Grazing on page 29, and th

Travel section of the Affected Environment on page 116 

 some of the access and developments associated with li

grazing. The implementation level Travel and Access p

further address the purpose of roads, road redundancy an

livestock grazing interactions.

Livestock impacts to geologic resources are considered 

minor because (1) livestock trailing generally occurs alo

improved roads, (2) historic uses have not proven to be 

impact to geologic resources, and (3) livestock use and t

expected to increase. The conclusion on page 235 of the 

to impacts to soundscapes from livestock operations as w

vehicle and fire management operations. The two impa

separately.

See page 205-209 of the DEIS for a more detailed descr

environmental consequences pertaining to livestock graz

The DEIS acknowledges that roads, vehicles, humans, a

 known vectors to the spread of noxious weeds (Ch. 3, D

Noxious and Exotic Species, p. 92). A full Integrated W

Management Program addresses a broad range of preven

education, and control activities to combat noxious weed

p. 25, Management Guidelines Common To All Alterna

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

632 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 633

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


consumed, cleaned of mud or burs/seeds in fur before being transported onto the Monument. 

70 / 016	 This section acknowledges the role neighboring agriculture 

contributes to the littering and deposits of solid waste in remote areas, but I do not see any management action notes on reduction and removal. We need a waste reduction and removal action note. 

104 / 016	 The two livestock trails that do not follow designated roads and 

cross lava flows should be addressed under the plan. Information should be provided regarding the previous and future impact of these operations. This information is relevant considering the 

plan is aimed at restoring natural resources and grazing can have significant negative impacts. 

123 / 016	 Livestock grazing affects and/or degrades all components listed 

under the “”Purpose and Significance” of the Monument (DEIS at 6-7). Components include: Safeguard volcanic features, scientific, educational and interpretive activities, maintain wilderness character, perpetuate scenic vistas, protect kipukas. Laidlaw Park is the world’s largest kipuka, and it is NOT protected under the 

Preferred or other Alternatives. 

123 / 018	 Neither the confusion of old, out-dated Land Use Plans listed in 

DEIS at 11, or the DEIS, provides no modern-day inventory of 

any kind or current-day analysis of grazing and roading. Thus, it is 

 critical that a SEIS be developed to do this. As written, the Alternatives provide no concrete guidance - including goals, objectives and management actions for livestock activity plans (such as the Laidlaw Park livestock grazing decision). 

Response 

This is an implementation level comment. The Craters 

National Monument and Preserve has historically and w

 promote waste removal projects.

The primary impacts from livestock trailing typically af

vegetation. These impacts have been discussed in the E

Consequences chapter of the DEIS. Historic impacts to 

discussed in the Affected Environment chapter of the D

on existing roads minimizes impacts. Trailing off the de

roads increases impacts caused from repeated hoof alter

vegetation, and rocks. This can leave visible ruts on the 

The DEIS does place restrictions on livestock grazing to 

natural resources. Examples of restrictions include excl

livestock from areas, identifying areas available and not 

grazing, allotment management plan conformance with 

 allotment boundary adjustments, allotment conformanc

Standards for rangeland Health and Guidelines for Live

Management which requires all allotment to be meeting 

significant progress towards meeting applicable standarspecific protections to natural resource conditions are inManagement Guidance Common to All Alternatives LivGrazing section, and the Summary of Alternatives in tabAlternative C specifically prohibits new livestock facilitnorth pasture of Laidlaw Park.

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandatcontinue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies folloBLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

123 / 021

165 / 022123 / 022165 / 023 

Grazing 

Comment 

While the DEIS describes “increased risks” in relation to other 

uses (fire, safety, etc.), there are many “risks” associated with livestock grazing, especially the overlapping sheep and cattle grazing conducted on many areas of the Monument. Risks include cheatgrass invasion, weed invasion, diseases such as Q fever, water-borne pathogens, etc. that affect public uses and safety.

Page 71- Special Designation Areas: Under Alternatives C and D, 

it is stated that livestock impacts “could be moderate in some local areas where livestock concentrate”. This statement is inaccurate. The DEIS identifies Laidlaw Park as being an area where grazing standards are not being met (DEIS Page 120). This conveys more than a “moderate impact” and if monitoring is being done correctly, the failure to meet standards is indicative of the whole allotment and not just “where livestock concentrate”.

14. Photo caption is not ATV use – but pickup tracks. Many hills 

across SW Idaho have tracks just like this –associated with the parking of sheep camps parked without control nearly anywhere across the landscape. Please review letters of 2002-3 on the Bennett Hills sheep wagons and knapweed infestations, cross-country driving of water haul trucks, etc. We have walked sheep camp-road after sheep camp road in the Bennett Hills, and found knapweed associated with every one, and sheep water haul trucks driving crosscountry, including in WSAs. 

Page 73- Visitor Experience; Recreation and Public Safety; All 

Alternatives: It is unclear how ongoing livestock operations can result in “long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects”. The 

Response 

was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired reobjectives.

The DEIS acknowledges that roads, vehicles, humans, a

 known vectors to the spread of noxious weeds (Ch. 3 D

 Noxious and Exotic species, p. 92). A full Integrated W

 Management Program addresses a broad range of preve

 and control activities to combat noxious weeds (See DE

 Management Actions Common to All Alternatives: Veg

Including Special Status Species and Fire Management)

The danger of Q fever is considered to be very minimal in Idaho. There are only four known cases of Q fever reIdaho since 1990. The risk on public lands to the users limited, since Q fever have been directly correlated to oexposure involving veterinarians, meat processing plant sheep and dairy workers, livestock farmers and research housing sheep. The important fact of the Q fever bacteduring the birthing, the organisms are shed in high numb amniotic fluids and placenta, birthing generally occurs 

Please read the Environmental Consequences section on 

213-217 of the DEIS for a more detailed definition of th

methodology and assumptions. 

Photo caption has been changed.

Please read the Environmental Consequences section on 

the DEIS for a more detailed definition of the methodol

634 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 635

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


document does not describe how livestock grazing can be 

beneficial to recreation and public safety, it merely states it. Werecommend thy final document provide the information to support 

 this statement. 

123 / 023	 While the DEIS asks if there will be new guidelines for weed, 

grasshopper and other management, it fails to ask, “will there be new guidelines for livestock grazing?” Likewise, Visitor Experience. 

165 / 024	 Page 120-Affected Environment; Livestock Grazing: It is stated 

that grazing preference is not expected to change because most allotments are attaining or making progress toward uniformachievement. Table 16 indicates otherwise. Standards andguidelines have been applied to 14 of the 23 allotments. Table 16

 indicates that standards were not meant for 5 out of the 13 allotments or, one out of three allotments is not meeting standards. In addition, the allotments that are not meeting standards (376,000 acres) contain 40,000 more acres than those meeting standards (336,000 acres). The Service recommends that the final document address whether the allotments not meeting standards were in areas important of sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, and neo-tropical migrants. We also recommend that, if grazing preference is not expected to change, the rationale for this decision 

 be described. 

Response 

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Lives

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G p

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rathethe board reductions or increases because it allows maneach grazing allotment individually and determine if adjneeded in the allotment. None of the alternative mandatcontinue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies folloBLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibiltemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired reobjectives.

There are changes other than AUM adjustments which w

 promote meeting standards. The number of AUMs in th

 in the Proposed Plan/FEIS) may reflect adjustments. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 027

123 / 028 

Grazing 

Comment 

Why is there no discussion of “carrying capacity” or suitability 

for livestock, and “limits of acceptable change” as they relate to 

Livestock? 

DEIS at 21 states that “each separate zone has distinct settings to 

be provided and maintained”, and “physical settings consider the degree of naturalness and amount and type of facilities ...”. Yet, the DEIS has provided no map of livestock facilities, sheep bed sites, water haul sites and other facilities that would allow it to determine these zones, or the visual qualities associated with them.

 Livestock facilities and disturbance affect visual quality, ecological integrity and visitor use and enjoyment. It appears that BLM is allowing the location of livestock facilities to be a primary influence on how it defines zones. Is that the case? Please describe how you have taken this into account? ”Passage” Zone has “high” degree of livestock encounters and maintained roads, primitive has “medium” degree of livestock encounters and 2-track or high clearance roads. Pristine has a “low”? Yet, you have failed to provide maps that show the location of projects. Aren’t there currently livestock projects and zones of livestock concentration in the Primitive Zone. Does this mean that you plant to shift cattle out of the Primitive Zone into the passage zone? With livestock grazing, sheep wagons, salt lick or mineral site placement, sheep bedding wastelands, etc. how can lands be considered “pristine”? 

Response 

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G prochosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather the board reductions or increases because it allows manaeach grazing allotment individually and determine if adjneeded in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies folloBLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives.

Please see Figure 18 in the Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

636 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 637

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 031	 DEIS vegetation goals common to all alternatives are protecting 

existing sagebrush steppe communities, restoring degraded areas, post-fire rehab, sagebrush management. If that is the case, current 

on livestock impacts and the role of livestock in retarding attainment of these goals must be fully assessed. 

123 / 035	 Where are the 5000 acres of BLM land NOT available for 

livestock use? The DEIS provides no guidance for the S&G Determinations. The EIS should provide for removal of livestock facilities in Primitive and Pristine Zones, and any locations where they are causing harm to soils, waters, vegetation, leading to weed 

increases/invasion, fragmenting/altering wildlife habitats, etc. 

123 / 036	 There is no real guidance provided in this plan for managing or 

changing livestock grazing to protect or enhance Monument values. The DEIS brushes aside any guidance or control, and only 

providing for Standards and Guidelines review. Yet, in the Laidlaw Park allotment, BLM referred to amending the Laidlaw grazing plan in the future - based on finalization of the Craters RMP. As 

there is no guidance in the DEIS (not even to protect cultural sites 

 from livestock damage), we can expect NO changes to protect Monument values to be applied as part of S&G livestock grazing 

determinations. The DEIS perpetuates harmful grazing practices 

and degradation. 

Response 

The ID Team felt that the level of detail regarding soils 

adequate to make informed decisions at the RMP/GMP 

analysis. Additional information found in the NRCS Soi

be used for implementation- and project-level planning.

The Livestock Grazing section of the Affected Environm

describes the lands not available to grazing as “...acres 

administered land adjacent to privately owned agricultur

-administered lava, which are not within a grazing allotm

these areas are southeast of Cary and on the east side of 

for S & G determinations are on page 120 and Appendix 

improved accuracy and in response to public comments

analysis and calculations have been made resulting in ch

figures between the DEIS and the Proposed Plan/FEIS. 

are 1,800 acres of BLM-administered lands designated n

All Allotment Management Plans for allotments within 

Monument will be amended to follow guidance by this E

specifically provides guidance and restrictions which ap

livestock grazing by closing areas to grazing, removing 

allotments, and provides restrictions/guidance by implem

management zones. This EIS has identified which lands 

and unavailable for livestock grazing (See page 117, Ch

Livestock Grazing). This fulfills BLM Land Use Planni

 requirements for decisions pertaining to Livestock Graz

 process is the chosen method to address livestock stock

rather than across the board reductions or increases beca

managers to assess each grazing allotment individually if adjustments are needed in the allotment. None of the amandate grazing to continue at existing levels. The Procexpanding the Monument states: “Laws, regulations, anfollowed by the BLM in issuing and administering grazior leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall continuto apply with regard to the lands in the Monument admiby the BLM.”Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered vBLM does have flexibility to temporarily remove livestoachieve desired resource objectives. The DEIS does placon livestock grazing to protect natural resources. Examprestrictions include excluding livestock from areas, idenavailable and not available to grazing, allotment manageconformance with the new Plan, allotment boundary adjallotment conformance with Idaho Standards for rangelaand Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management whi

allotment to be meeting or making significant progress t
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

123 / 037

123 / 038

123 / 051

123 / 052 

Grazing 

Comment 

We remind the DEIS preparers that the Monument Proclamation 

did not say that livestock grazing was sacred and immutable. 

Rather, it provides for continued livestock use on BLM lands – at unspecified levels, and management under existing regulations, including FLPMA. FLPMA allows for some lands to be used for less than all purposes. The Proclamation in no way constrains development of clear and necessary livestock grazing goals, objectives and management actions to protect important Monument resources and values.

While BLM (DEIS at 29) refers to livestock developments being 

consistent with desired future conditions, nothing in this plan 

scientifically presents vegetation, soils, cultural, weed infestation site or other data, or an analysis of impacts of livestock projects on these factors, that would allow BLM to determine desired future condition. 

Not only did the DEIS not analyze a “no livestock grazing 

alternative”, it failed to analyze any alternative that would significantly reduce livestock numbers. As livestock use and spread 

 of weeds are inextricably tied to the very serious degradation of 

native vegetation and invasion of rush skeletonweed and other species here, it is imperative that BLM analyze a range of alternatives that significantly alters and reduces livestock disturbance; provides for long periods of post-treatment rest, etc. Elsewhere, the DEIS outrageously describes shifting livestock use to other and unknown areas while “restoration” occurs without any analysis of the impacts of these shifts. 

All restoration activities should be done with minimal new 

structures - use existing pasture boundary fences under all circumstances. Electric fences are notorious for failing – one-time

 grazing inundation of newly treated sites can destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars of re-seeding effort. 

Response 

meeting applicable standards. Some specific protections resource conditions are included in the Management GuCommon to All Alternatives Livestock Grazing section, Summary of Alternatives in table 7. Alternative C specinew livestock facilities in the north pasture of Laidlaw P

Grazing practices must conform to resource managemen

 and Standards and Guidelines. The Standards and Guide

changes to grazing systems if Standards are not being 

The DEIS states on page 29, “BLM may remove develo

they are no longer serving a useful purpose or resource o

warrant their removal. Sites would be restored.” Thank 

your comment. 

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livest

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate 

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding 

Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies follo

BLM in issuing and administering grazing 

permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminisBLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives.

Thank you for your comment. This has been considered 

638 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 639

Topic Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 053 While BLM claims to have evaluated alternatives (53) to see how 

well they protect natural and cultural resources (including restoring  degraded sagebrush vegetation, and prevent introduction of weeds and damage to cultural resources, provide a quality visitor experience, allow opportunities for solitude) it has provided no rationale for essentially ignoring assessment of an alternative range of livestock grazing and restoration actions. Instead, theDEIS here claims that the alternatives and the management actions were essentially the same for grazing! This is arbitrary and 

 biased. In doing this, the DEIS failed to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of the MOST WIDESPREAD AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AND DAMAGING ACTIVITY that occurs across nearly all non-lava lands. 

123 / 055 The DEIS claims its CBA process was “anchored in relevant 

facts”. Yet, any analysis process was not anchored in relevant facts if it did not consider a range of livestock grazing alternatives and actions, and overlay that with the cumulative and synergistic effects of roads under the various alternatives. Example: Grazing largely unchanged cows and sheep and more open roads under Alt. D = more weeds than Alt. C.. 

123 / 061 The “Mitigation Measures” (DEIS at 55-57) do not in any way 

adequately mitigate the effects of livestock grazing (status quo practices continued, no effort to limit livestock and rancher/herder weed spread, no protection for vegetation – such as 

modern-day limits on utilization, removal of harmful structures, 

etc., no protection of cultural sites from livestock impacts, no minimization of livestock grazing and trampling effects on soil and water resources – not even restoring any playas. The Preferred Alternative makes no effort to address the root cause of

 vegetation problems and altered fire ecology (i.e. livestock grazing). It opens the door to expanded livestock facilities, water hauling, etc. The vast array of roads that will remain open and the increased risk of fire danger, weed spread, etc., there can be no mitigation claimed for the preferred alt. As open roads are maximized, human-caused disturbance of wildlife is maximized. While claiming there would be areas with no hunting for public safety, it fails to provide areas that are now grazed that will not be 

Response 

This EIS has identified which lands are available and un

livestock grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Lives

This fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requi

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rathe

the board reductions or increases because it allows man

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandat

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding 

Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies follo

BLM in issuing and administering grazing 

permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall 

apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminis

BLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibiltemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired reobjectives.

See response to previous comment. 

See response to previous comment. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 064

123 / 070123 / 074

123 / 078123 / 079 

Grazing 

Comment 

 grazed so that the public can enjoy ungrazed lands free of livestock pathogens. As previously discussed, the many open and improved roads and status quo livestock plus aggressive treatment of Alternative D will maximize air quality problems. Status quo livestock and maximum open and upgraded roads will lead to maximum erosion, disruption of site stratigraphy, exposure of artifacts to the surface and subsequent looting, maximum difficulty in controlling vandalism, etc. 

Why is “not permit any new livestock developments in North 

Laidlaw Park and Bowl Crater” not part of all alternatives? Why is there no Alternative that emphasizes no new livestock 

Developments – period? 

As previously stated, the DEIS fails provide an alternative that 

examines minimized livestock disturbance, and thus decreased flammable weed infestation and spread. Then, its assessment of major long-term beneficial impacts from keeping roads open and upgrading many roads while continuing status quo grazing while at the same time opening the lands up to large-scale “restoration” disturbance, is deeply flawed. 

We request that the BLM and NPS analyze soils and test sheep 

currently grazed in the Monument for Q fever. Please see CDC data on Q fever and its implications, Attached. 

DEIS at 88 fails to mention the role of livestock grazing in loss of 

 sagebrush steppe, i.e. setting the stage for altered fire frequencies 

and casing weed infestation and spread. Throughout the discussion 

of sagebrush communities, complexly interspersed across the landscape, the DEIS fails to provide any information on their current condition, and the role of livestock grazing and livestockprojects in altering site condition. 

The DEIS at 89 claims “the northern part of Laidlaw Park has 

not been overgrazed. However, “historic” overgrazing, frequent 

Response 

The Proposed Plan/FEIS prohibits new livestock develo

Laidlaw Park pasture and Bowl Crater allotment unless 

a net benefit to those resources identified as needing imp

Protection. If analysis contained in a project-level EA fo

livestock development indicates or shows a need for pro

sites, rare plants, or improvement to wilderness or resouthen the development could be considered. 

The DEIS does not mandate keeping livestock levels the 

does it mandate upgrading many roads. 

The danger of Q fever is considered to be very minimal 

in Idaho. There are only four known cases of Q fever rec

Idaho since 1990. The risk on public lands to the users i

 since Q fever have been directly correlated to occupatioinvolving veterinarians, meat processing plant workers, dairy workers, livestock farmers and researchers at facilsheep. The important fact of the Q fever bacteria is that birthing, the organisms are shed in high numbers within fluids and placenta, birthing generally occurs on private 

The discussion on DEIS pp. 86-98 regarding the current 

vegetation within the Monument addresses the role of li

well as other disturbance factors, in the loss of sagebrus

The grazing management in the North pasture has not be

different than the management in the South areas, this ar

640 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 641

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


wildfires, Aroga moth infestations, cheatgrass invasion, and noxious weeds have negatively affected the southern portions ...”. What, exactly, is “overgrazing”, and how dies it differ from current and ongoing grazing practices? 

123 / 082	 Please review references such as Anderson and Holte (1982) which 

 describes increasing canopy cover and increasing understory grasses on areas on the Snake River Plain where grazing has been removed. Many of the processes that you blame for causing loss of native understory grasses are set in motion or caused by livestock. 

123 / 089	 Instead of just allowing status quo predator killing, we request that 

you analyze an alternative that focuses on killing identified problem animals, and not blanket or non-specific aerial gunning in

 advance of sheep moving into an area and other such methods. As part of this plan, you should assess alternatives that minimize conflicts with predators - and require permittees to use a broad range of non-lethal methods before resorting to APHIS predator killing. Sheep should not be allowed to graze in areas where there are chronic conflicts with predators. Please identify such areas. 

123 / 094	 As part of this process, we ask that prepare grazing suitability and 

capability studies. You must describe how grazing affects the costs and outcome of all alternatives. Please also provide data on the number of livestock actually grazed, and time when they are grazed. What is the basis for the statement (DEIS at 120) that 

grazing preference is not expected to decrease as a result of S&G analysis because most allotments are attaining, or making significant progress toward, attaining uniform achievement? The recent Laidlaw Park FRH and assessment shows this is not true. In fact, here BLM even cut some “paper” cows and sheep, but continued stocking levels well above the number of livestock that had actually been grazed in Laidlaw Park over the past decade or more, i.e. above actual use. BLM’s own internal appeals court recognized the absurdity of the proposal to continue grazing livestock in excess of the average actual use that had occurred, and 

 issued a Stay on the warped and livestock-industry-biased decision. 

123 / 096 Also, in Laidlaw Response to Protest at 5, BLM stated in response 

 to WWP’s Protest that BLM had failed to conduct a current suitability and capability study and determine the appropriateness 

Response 

received less disturbances like wildfire, and is simply m

a result of increased precipitation and different species p

Thank you for your comment. This has been considered 

You can find guiding policies pertaining to predator con

104. Thank you for your comment. 

BLM will continue to monitor and use all available data 

include utilization pattern mapping, trend data, and S&G 

assessments to determine suitability for grazing. This EI

identified which lands are available and unavailable for 

grazing (See page 117, Chapter 3 under Livestock Grazi

fulfills BLM Land Use Planning Appendix C requireme

decisions pertaining to Livestock Grazing. The S&G pro

chosen method to address livestock stocking rates rather 

the board reductions or increases because it allows mana

each grazing allotment individually and determine if adj

needed in the allotment. None of the alternative mandate 

continue at existing levels. The Proclamation expanding 

Monument states: “Laws, regulations, and policies follo

BLM in issuing and administering grazing 

permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall 

apply with regard to the lands in the Monument adminis

BLM.” Therefore a No Grazing alternative was not considered viable. The BLM does have flexibilitemporarily remove livestock to help achieve desired resobjectives.

See response to previous comment.
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

123 / 113

123 / 126123 / 128

123 / 134 

Grazing 

Comment 

of livestock grazing: “this Protest is outside the scope of this document. Suitability studies are conducted at the Land Use Plan Level Analysis”. So, why has no suitability or capability study been presented as part of the Craters DEIS? 

While the DEIS proposes that all visitors remain on trials, it does 

nothing to address the livestock grazing and trampling damage that occurs here. How does visitor trampling in Laidlaw Park compare to livestock trampling? Please quantify the relative 

 disturbance caused. 

While the DEIS assumes continued livestock grazing, there is 

nothing at all in the Proclamation that limits the DEIS from providing goals, objectives and management actions to control it. Unless you do that here, livestock grazing will be conducted without any guidance from a Land Use Plan. Sadly, the reality is that the old Land Use Plans documents actually control grazing more than this DEIS. Something is better than NOTHING, which is what the DEIS does. By stating that livestock grazing will governed by applicable laws and regulations and the Standards of Rangeland health, and taking no action here to address or control it, you are leaving management free-floating, with no overarching

 guidance. FRH assessments occur on an allotment-by-allotment basis. There is no broad or landscape-level look taken at the effects. The DEIS is the document that must do that, and it has not. While livestock grazing is subject to the S&G, it is the role of this RMP to set Goals and Objectives and Management Actions. You have failed to do so.

Specific locations must be identified for sheep camps – as they 

concentrate use, spread weeds (witness the knapweed infestations in nearly all sheep camp locations in the Bennett Hills) and camps 

 limited to only those areas. Areas identified must minimize conflicts with recreational visitor use.

Please explain how failing to address and provide goals, objectives 

and management actions for livestock grazing is compatible with avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts on resources. Livestock grazing impairs sagebrush ecosystems, whose integrity is necessary

 to fulfill specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation. Its regulation and amelioration or curtailment of its impacts are critical to protecting both the natural and prehistoric cultural integrity of the 

 Monument. 

Response 

Neither the Proclamation nor the DEIS restricts visitor u

On page 29 the DEIS states desired future conditions pe

livestock grazing.

Sheep herders would continue to use traditional sheep b

of new camp sites would be unlikely. BLM makes recom

use of existing sheep bed grounds and discourages the u

meetings with the grazing permittees. If a specific nee

would close sheep bed grounds on a case-by-case basi

On page 29 the DEIS states desired future conditions pe

livestock grazing.

642 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 643

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 140	 Please provide science supporting the conclusion that impacts of 

new livestock developments – such as water troughs or wells, would be minor. 

123 / 142	 The analysis for livestock trailing is only made on the basis of a 

comparison between alternatives, and no assessment of the real damage caused by trailing livestock, especially across lava, through 

 areas of sensitive species habitat, etc., is made. This masks impacts. The whole reason for not analyzing a range of livestock grazing alternative actions appears to be purposeful avoidance of analysis of the honest impacts of grazing, and the science that showsgrazing harms. 

123 / 149	 DEIS at 160 claims new livestock facilities would only create 

“moderate” impacts, but the Smith allotment fiasco. DEIS at 161 

 fails to assess the cumulative impacts of livestock facilities (including new pipelines, troughs, water hauling in “passage” zones) on disturbance of soils. 

123 / 153	 DEIS at 164 errs in claiming there would be no change in livestock 

 use. By allowing more livestock facilities in upgraded “Passage one” areas under Alt. D, livestock grazing would be increased and/or significantly shifted with new epicenters of damage, and this would allow likely increases in actual use by livestock, as water allows extensive use of new areas, increased water hauling on “improved” roads extends degradation, etc. 

123 / 161	 Existing livestock projects and livestock use have severe impacts 

on playas and water for Q fever. Here again, the DEIS pawns off assessment of impacts of livestock impacts on playas standards for livestock grazing. 

Response 

Two livestock trails that cross lava flows now administ

 are specifically identified on page 121 of the DEIS. App

Proposed Plan/FEIS addresses potential future uses of t

The Proclamation recognized existing roads and two-tra

narrow strips of exposed lava for trailing livestock. The

additional livestock trails specifically identified on page 

will be further evaluated for impacts as stated in Append

Monument-wide management actions and cumulative im

livestock facilities on soil resources were analyzed and c

at an appropriate level of intensity for the DEIS (See Ch

the DEIS, pp. 158 – 162). Specific, project-level analys

cumulative impacts will be provided in individual range 

project Environmental Assessments. 

The placement of livestock facilities within an allotmen

analyzed in planning documents appropriate for the scop

project. The designation of Passage Zone does not guar

installation or improvement of any facilities or roads tha

 by the zone description, but simply allows for a greater 

flexibility based on anticipated management needs. How

response to public concerns, the ID team reduced the am

Passage Zone that was originally proposed in AlternativProposed Plan/FEIS, particularly in Laidlaw Park.

BLM does not identify playas as riparian areas accordin

riparian area definition in the BLM Technical 

Reference TR 1737-9 and 11. TLM presently has no da

standards to evaluate playas. Therefore, BLM will use t

professional judgment to determine if the standards for rhealth are being met or we are moving towards meeting the health of the playas will also be met. The DEIS does not alter grazing management so the impgrazing on water quality are substantially the same for a

The Draft EIS page 172) concludes that livestock grazin

to be long term with intensity ranging from negligible to major in local sites depending upon the concentration anlivestock use. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 166

123 / 169123 / 170

123 / 172

123 / 173

123 / 175 

Grazing 

Comment 

Here, too, the DEIS admits that livestock distribution may change 

 with new developments, but fails to analyze the impacts of existing or potential new developments. There is no analysis of the impacts of current grazing standards on wildlife – for example, what effect will 50% or greater livestock utilization have onsage grouse nesting cover? 

See previous discussions of air pollution from soil displaced by 

livestock and containing possible livestock-harbored pathogens such as Q fever, road upgrades, herbicides, restoration projects, etc. In particular, airborne livestock pollutants must be considered 

here.

The DEIS admits (at 206) ICBEMP directs BLM to update Land 

Use plans to address major issues. Livestock grazing is a major issue. You have not prepared a plan that addresses its impacts, in violation of the MOU. 

DEIS at 209 describes shifting livestock use to other allotments as 

 treatments are done. It appropriate stocking rates, and identify how this use will occur. Please evaluate all the harmful impacts of “improved” livestock distribution. 

Please evaluate all the harmful impacts of grazing both sheep and 

cattle on the same lands. 

The DEIS has failed to assess the irreversible harms caused by new 

or shifted livestock facilities and use, an Upgraded road network and myriad open roads leading to more human-caused fires and more irreversible weed invasions, etc. The EIS has also failed to assess the ongoing irreversible changes to native plant communities being caused by status quo livestock grazing practices. 

Response 

Additional analysis (specific to livestock developments) 

added to the wildlife sections of the FEIS.

The danger of Q fever is considered to be very minimal 

in Idaho. There are only four known cases of Q fever rec

Idaho since 1990. The risk on public lands to the users i

since Q fever have been directly correlated to occupatio

involving veterinarians, meat processing plant workers, 

dairy workers, livestock farmers and researchers at facilsheep. The important fact of the Q fever bacteria is that birthing, the organisms are shed in high numbers within fluids and placenta, birthing generally occurs on private 

The DEIS is not in violation of the MOU and does addre

associated with grazing. 

Page 209 of the DEIS is describing potential impacts to 

grazing under alternative D. This is simply a range of p

scenarios which could occur. The planning team has tri

identify site specific locations of implementation level d

this time. Please read the resource specific Environmensection for impacts to those resources resulting from live

The Standard and Guideline process will evaluate the im

grazing both cattle and sheep on the same land, or has al

evaluated the impacts and made appropriate change if nestandards.

The Preferred Alternative does not mandate expanded ro

and livestock projects, however the potential impacts as

a greater proportion of Passage Zone were analyzed. Po

impacts of livestock use and road development as they v

alternative were analyzed in the DEIS, Ch. 4. Specific e

allotment or travel management decisions will be addres

appropriate implementation-level plan. 

644 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 645

Topic	 Grazing 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 181	 DEIS at 334 describes “livestock administration and states that 

under the DEIS, “there is no change in AUM preference, acres 

available for grazing, acres not available for grazing, or allotment 

size from one alternative to another. 

123 / 188 The introduction, establishment and spread of invasive species due 

 to livestock grazing must be minimized by the following methods:  1) Retire domestic livestock grazing permits at earliest 

opportunity where grazing has been found to promote invasive species invasion or persistence; 2) Prioritize invasives prevention 

and restoration activities for areas where domestic livestock grazing has been permanently ended 3) Manage livestock movement patterns to insure animals are not moving seeds of invasive species from infested to non-infested areas; 4) Manage livestock grazing to favor native species (set use/utilization standards that protect plants, allow no critical growing period grazing); 5) Remove livestock facilities that are fostering invasive

 species invasion, or leading to degradation of native communities or key wildlife habitats. 6) Avoid grazing in systems that still contain a strong component of native perennials, biological soil crusts, or other features known to act as natural barriers to invasion or increase of invasive exotic species. 

123 / 193	 Livestock Control Post- Treatment or Post-Fire * Clear and 

measurable standards of recovery must be established and be met post-treatment or post-fire, before any livestock grazing disturbance can again resume on a site. * Monitoring must be used to inventory baseline conditions at the landscape and local levels. Measure whether positive goals for native ecosystem recovery, conservation and integrity are being attained. Track biodiversityand health using an increaser/decrease species procedure (including biological crusts, wildlife, and endemic/sensitive species). Practice precaution retain, flexibility, and respond to change, unforeseen harm, failure to reach objectives, and/or new information. Quantify invasive species population changes Monitoring of vegetation treatments must relate the clearly stated objectives of al restoration projects, be an integral component of each project, be incorporated in to the initial costs of each project. Use scientific principles of experimental design including replication and measurements from untreated areas for comparison with treated locations, use a process responsive to all-party and scientific input, outline clear procedures for responding to monitoring and evaluation results. Monitoring 

Response 

The DEIS does allow suspension of livestock permits fo

benefit, temporary removal of livestock from areas, and 

in livestock management. 

The DEIS acknowledges that livestock are known vecto

spread of noxious weeds (Ch. 3, Discussion on Noxious 

Species, p. 92). A full Integrated Weed Management Pro

addresses a broad range of prevention, education, and co

activities to combat noxious weeds (see DEIS p. 25, Ma

Guidelines Common To All Alternatives: Vegetation, In

Special Status Species, and Fire Management). Thank y

comments. We will consider them in the appropriate 

implementation level planning efforts. 

Thank you for your comment. We will consider these po

appropriate implementation- and project-level plans.
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

Topic 

125 / 010

104 / 020 

Grazing 

Comment 

methods for treatments, livestock grazing, all actions must be: Relevant, sensitive, available, measurable, defensible, verifiable, inclusive, scheduled. All proposals must contain a description of the monitoring that will be necessary, and an annual report prepared and presented to the public. An over-all assessment of “risk” associated with any treatment must be prepared. Risk includes failure of any seeded species, chances of exotic invasion, human health effects, etc. Monitoring needs to be documented so that it can be independently reviewed by non-BLM/agency scientists, the scientifically-literate public, and others who are concerned 

about the ecological health of federal public lands. 

NEPA Process

Impacts should be evaluated and disclosed in a fair and unbiased 

manner and with a relative sense of magnitude. Analysis of vehicle use should be compared and contrasted to analysis of the environmental effects of natural events including floods, wildfires, drought etc. The absence of a rational connectionbetween the facts found and the choice made has been defined by the courts as arbitrary and capricious (Natural Resources. v. U.S., 966 F.2d 1292,97, (9th Cir.'92». A clear 

error of judgment; an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors and so is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or

otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was taken without observance of procedure required by law (5 USC. 706(2)(A) 

BLM's environmental analysis of alternatives must not be pre-occupied 

With documenting what can be presently observed on the ground (at 

various points in time) while ignoring the legally relevant issue of whether on-the-ground conditions constitute significant impacts to the human environment. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of ResourcesInformation should be provided that compares the irreversible and 

 irretrievable commitments of resources in each Alternative. This information is important considering that most of the irreversible impacts are associated with increases in the acreage of Passage Zone. 

Response 

The DEIS includes discussion of the methodologies use

assumptions made in analyzing the potential impacts of 

alternatives on Monument resources. Thus, for each res

the sources of data are identified, the basis of the analys

 and the levels of impact intensities are defined. The typ

impacts, including cumulative impacts, examined in the 

described in detail on page 148.

The "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Reso

section of the Final EIS discusses the irreversible and

irretrievable impacts to various resources under each alt

646 
Topic	 Wildlife 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


160 / 001	 I am writing to express my great disappointment with the 

proposed management plan for the Craters of the Moon National Monument (CMNM). The plan in its present state does nothing to address the needs of vanishing wildlife and plant species in the CMNM, nor does it allow for recovery of the area from years of overgrazing and ecosystem degradation due to excessive road-building. Please consider this as an earnest request to go back to the drawing board and prepare a plan that truly addresses theneeds of the wild creatures and native plant species that inhabit Craters of the Moon. This unique ecosystem must not be allowed to become just another dead landscape!

159 / 001	 The Draft Management Plan and EIS for Craters of the Moon 

National Monument and Preserve fails to take actions necessary to protect the vanishing Craters sagebrush ecosystem and its plummeting sage grouse, pygmy rabbit and migratory songbird populations.

128 / 002	 The values of the ACEC area should include the ecology of 

animals and their interactions in the ACEC area such as among grouse, pygmy rabbits, prairie or peregrinefalcons, antelope, deer, elk, and other species including birds andreptiles. The NPS notes that there are 300 species in this area. Have you reported half that number? The interactions of these species have never been adequately studied on Idaho's BLM landand they certainly should. It would be better to do this sort of study on land that was ungrazed by livestock, but that does not seem possible on BLM land because of your intransigence, no matter how unique that land may be. 

Response 

The agencies believe that the restoration objectives will 

habitat for many wildlife species. The closure of roads i

Zone will also improve habitat and reduce fragmentation 

Thank you for your comment. The Proposed Plan/FEIS 

increase in rehabilitation of areas back to functional sag

systems as well as the protection of existing habitats. In this and similar comments additional protections for sag

 been incorporated into the Proposed Plan/FEIS. These c

Wildlife Section and Management Actions in the plan.

The proposed management actions call for an increase in 

(collection of baseline data) and monitoring of several sp

Appendices: APPENDIX L 647
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

103 / 003106 / 004165 / 005

88 / 00689 / 006 

Wildlife

Comment 

I also am disappointed that the management of these park lands as 

 prime wildlife habitat is not made a higher priority. There should be plans made to reintroduce species that are threatened or endangered in other parts of the West, back into this very large and therefore prime wildlife acreage. This Monument provides an opportunity for an ecosystem approach to these lands and the restoration of the wildlife so heavily impacted by development and human activities in the West.

Roads create fragmented habitats, and with the proposed increase 

under Alternative D, they will result in increased road kill. This is especially true for ~..," ~ sage grouse that often forage or have their leks along open areas.

The Service recommends that pygmy rabbit populations and their 

potential habitat within the Monument be identified and each alternative be assessed for its potential impact on pygmy rabbit populations. This sagebrush obligate species is identified by the BLM as a sensitive species and by the Idaho Fish and Game as a game species of special concern. Many public lands activities could have negative impacts on pygmy rabbits and their habitat, including off highway travel, hunting, fire (both prescribed and wildfire), livestock grazing, and pesticide use. In particular, we 

suggest that proposed fire projects be scrutinized carefully with 

regard to the potential for impacts to this species. Pygmy rabbits are reluctant dispersers and do not do well over large fragmented 

habitats. The timing, shape, size and juxtaposition of a fire footprint on the landscape are important considerations when managing for pygmy rabbits. 

developments. Existing water developments in Craters are not 

only epicenters of weed infestation and spread, the troughs have 

been documented to drown migratory birds, Inhabitants including antelope and even prairie falcons.

water developments. Existing water developments in Craters are 

not only epicenters of weed infestation and spread, the troughs have been documented to drown migratory birds, mammals including antelope and even prairie falcons. 

Response 

The re-establishment of bison, grizzly bear, and bighorn 

only three species know to previously occur in this regio

studied. The conclusions were that there is insufficient h

the Monument to support either bison or grizzly bears. B

sheep re-establishment is not feasible as long as domesti

grazing occurs where the two species may interact. 

In response to this and similar comments, modifications 

 the preferred alternative to reduce the number and size o

zoned as Passage within the Monument. 

Many of the impacts mentioned will be addressed later in 

implementation-level plans including Transportation, Fir

Wilderness Management Plans. Each of these plans, as w

documents for individual projects, will address pygmy ra

 other sensitive or rare species. Specific project planning 

address the needs of these species. Inventory work for ra

continue and the agencies will take appropriate actions w

or quality habitat are identified.

We agree that consideration of the pygmy rabbit is impo

and NPS policy insures that appropriate measures will be 

reduce or eliminate negative impacts to the pygmy rabbi

habitat. Additionally, our goal of restoring degraded sag

habitat will provide additional quality pygmy rabbit habi

situation.

It is already BLM policy to require escape ramps on all l

water troughs and tanks.

Same response as previous comment. 

648 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 649

Topic	 Wildlife 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


102 / 006	 developments. Existing water developments in Craters are not 

only epicenters of weed infestation and spread, thetroughs have been documented to drown migratory birds, mammals including antelope and even prairie falcons.

165 / 006	 The Service recommends that the final document identify where 

the areas to be restored are located in relation to areas of sage grouse habitat, cattle allotments that are or are not meeting standards, healthy seed source areas for sagebrush and associated 

native vegetation, pygmy rabbit habitat, and habitat for neo-tropical migrant birds that are obligate to certain stand densities (often different from sage grouse needs) such as sage sparrow, Brewer's sparrow, and sage thrasher. This is necessary information to disclose in order for the public and interested agencies to assess the impacts the different alternatives may have on "public trust" resources. 

111 / 007	 Existing livestock water developments, which promote the spread 

of weeds and drown migratory birds and other animals, should be closed or, where wildlife are shown to depend on the water source, redesigned to prevent drowning.

159 / 008	 Existing water developments in Craters are not only epicenters of 

weed infestation and spread, the~ troughs have been documented to drown migratory birds, mammals including antelope and even prairie falcons. Conduct real restoration, relying on passive restoration techniques wherever possible (limit livestock grazing, close roads, remove livestock facilities that are causing weed spread).

Use only native plants in all seedings. 

Response 

Same response as previous comment. 

A vegetation inventory and assessment for Laidlaw Park

and Paddelford Flat, which considered habitat needs for

sagebrush-steppe obligate wildlife, was performed by th

The Nature Conservancy in 2002/2003 (Jurs and Sands 

evaluation was utilized in estimating proposed restoratio

the Monument. A map based on this assessment (Figure 

biotic integrity of Monument lands is included in the Pro

Those areas identified as being in poor ecological condi

those in Laidlaw Park, have been identified as highest p

restoration treatment. As directed by Management Guid

All Alternatives (DEIS p. 25) and Management Guidanc

preferred alternative (DEIS p. 49), restoration treatmentto protect existing sagebrush steppe, restore degraded coand enlarge and connect fragmented stands. Specific resmethods and locations would be defined in environmentfor restoration in Laidlaw Park and other areas of the Mwould be available for public review.

It is already BLM policy to require escape ramps on all 

water troughs and tanks.

It is already BLM policy to require escape ramps on all 

water troughs and tanks.
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

82 / 008

128 / 011

70 / 011

128 / 013121 / 015 

Wildlife

Comment 

Existing water developments in Craters are not only epicenters of 

weed infestation and spread, the troughs have been documented to drown migratory birds, mammals including antelope and even prairie falcons.

Use no poisonous control of invertebrates, as for Mormon 

Crickets, in Laidlaw Park Kipuka. This is especially critical in light of the occurrence of what I'm told is a rare variety of 

grasshopper-the Idaho point-headed grasshopper-as well as 

other invertebrates that would be killed by the poison. Spraying 

 in the North Laidlaw ACEC is not appropriate in any event. 

Arial gunning does create major short term impact to the 

soundscape without specifically treating direct predator control on  offending animals. "Demonstrated need" should not include general population reduction on the Monument or preserve. Arial gunning should not be allowed. 

Protect fairy shrimp in all playas in the Monument. 

We understand that Wildlife Services currently conducts annual 

aerial gunning of coyotes and other predators prior to the turn out 

 of livestock over the non-WSA lands in the Monument. We believe destruction of natural predators and other parts of a natural ecosystem are inconsistent with the purposes of the Monument. We ask the NPS and the BLM to discontinue this practice within the Monument and exempt the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve from predator control projects that do not specifically target an individual aggressor. An exemption also makes sense because less than 30 percent of the Monument qualifies for aerial gunning predator control without environmental analysis. The use of poisons, traps, and othermethods for predator control in the Monument should not be allowed either. Poisons, traps, and other mechanisms can cause significant harm to other wildlife species, as well as people and pets visiting the Monument. 

Response 

It is already BLM policy to require escape ramps on all 

water troughs and tanks.

This issue is dealt with under separate NEPA document

with the statewide agreement with USDA. 

Thank you for your comment, we have made appropriat

responsive changes to Chapter 2.

Protection of playas is provided for in management dire

common to all, Water resources, p. 26 in the DEIS. Addprotection has been added to the Proposed Plan/FEIS (SFire Management and Vegetation Treatment Protocols). 

Thank you for your comment. We have made appropria

responsive changes to Chapter 2.

650 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 651

Topic	 Wildlife 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


104 / 021	 The FEIS needs to detail the degree to which each alternative will 

benefit wildlife within the Monument. Specifically, the REIS should expand its analyses of sage grouse, pygmy rabbit and migratory songbird populations. 

165 / 026	 Page 249-Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

We recommend the last sentence of the paragraph be changed to read: “Informal consultation with USFWS...” Informal consultation is an optional process that includes all discussions, etc., between the agencies to assist the Federal action agency in determining whether formal consultation is required.

123 / 033	 DEIS at 26 describes Actions and stipulations necessary to protect 

 special status species would be made part of monitoring plans (limiting fragmentation of special status species populations with road networks). What about fragmentation caused by sheep bed grounds, salting, water hauling, etc.??? Plus, without conducting necessary baseline inventories for special status species as part of the DEIS process, you cannot have an understanding of habitat components that must be protected. Important information on current populations of special status species and species of concern must be collected. How are their habitats fragmented? What is a viable population level? How will you address sagebrush-die-off, livestock structural alteration of shrubs and other factors? 

123 / 066	 While the DEIS claims it will adopt interagency habitat guidelines 

for sage grouse and sagebrush steppe obligates and that it will authorize actions and stipulations to protect special status species habitats, it provides no management goals, objectives or guidance

to minimize or control livestock impacts to these species. It even fails to identify important and critical habitats for special status species, an essential component of a land management plan. 

Response 

NEPA requires the EIS to disclose the effects of the alte

believe the analysis is sufficient. No rational is provided 

the need to expand the analysis. We have however, iden

information on some species and have incorporated it in

The recommended text change was made. 

We agree with this comment. The DEIS was prepared w

information available to the agencies. The proposed man

actions call for increased inventory (collection of baselin

monitoring of both Special Status plant and animal spec

of the DEIS.

The DEIS specifies that Rangeland Health Standards an

will be used to guide livestock management. Rangelan

Standards and Guidelines (which dictate habitat goals) r

 diverse, and productive native animal habitats and nativ

populations be maintained or achieved. This process als

agencies in identifying important habitat. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 087

123 / 088123 / 116 

Wildlife

Comment 

While DEIS at 101 discusses the occurrence of pygmy rabbit and 

sage grouse, the DEIS fails to describe and assess the impacts of current land use activities on these species. How is livestock grazing affecting these species? As part of our comments, we are attaching a copy of the pygmy rabbit petition that details livestock impacts to burrows, herbaceous vegetation and sagebrush

 structure required by the pygmy rabbit, and its impacts to sagebrush ecosystems. Please incorporate this and information found in the Literature Cited into the Supplemental EIS so that you can better describe the Affected Environment, and understand the environmental impacts of any alternatives. 

While you discuss the potential for grasshoppers to be pests, you 

do not describe the link between disturbed lands and higher population levels of these species.

Please also detail all hazards to recreationalists from Wildlife 

Services, as a subsidy to the livestock industry, killing predators in or surrounding the Monument. What are the hazards associated with use of M-44s, traps, aerial gunning and other WS activities? Which of these activities are currently carried out on Monument lands? As part of this process, you must limit WS activities to killing target animals only, not broadscale aerial slaughter and trapping as has occurred in the past. Plus, there must be limitations on WS activities and associated disturbance of wintering big game, lekking sage grouse, etc. In which allotments, and where, has WS operated in the past? How many coyotes, bobcats, badgers, etc. are killed by WS inside the Monument, and where, on an annual basis? What methods are used? This DEIS must forbid involvement of WS in “research” on Monument lands. WS in southern Idaho has a history of seeking to expand its activities by engaging in what it terms “research” to kill sage grouse predators. This involves the use of the arsenal of lethal methods previously described as well as poisons to kill corvids – and who knows what new chemicals may be proposed for use over the life of this plan. The DEIS must forbid WS conducting lethal research on Monument lands. As you may be aware, a federal court found that environmental analysis of a 2003 sage grouse predator killing plan was insufficient – lack of analysis, and a scorched earth approach characterizes such proposals from WS, and this plan must prohibit such activities. 

Response 

The effects of current management are found in Chapter 

alternative a (pages 176-178 of the DEIS). The agencie

the pygmy rabbit petition and incorporate appropriate in

Comment is noted.

Thank you for your comment. We have made appropria

responsive changes to Chapter 2.

652 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 653

Topic	 Wildlife 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 159	 As you have failed to conduct necessary baseline inventories for 

special status species, you can not conclude that impacts of either ongoing activities or new actions will be minor under any alternatives (DEIS at 168, for example). 

123 / 162	 In this Laidlaw assessment, BLM relied on old, stale data that did 

not reflect the true current degraded state of the land after severalyears of drought. BLM also tried to extend big game and other species. 

123 / 163 DEIS at 176 to 182. The DEIS grossly under-represents the 

impacts to wildlife and How will you monitor populations? Please  note that many species that are declining do not require a disturbance “mosaic” game? 

123 / 165	 We believe your assertion that Lewis’ woodpecker, red-naped 

sapsucker and other species would be adversely affected by fire suppression is nonsense. These species also use trees that succumb to natural mortality. The more aspen suckers that escapedevouring by livestock, the greater potential habitat for aspen-dependent cavity nesters. 

123 / 180	 While the DEIS provides lists of special status species and 

migratory species on the Monument, it provides scant analysis of impacts of current activities, or alternatives, to these species. The 

 number of species on these lists show how essential baseline surveys are to allow a “hard look” to be taken in the DEIS (SEIS). 

Response 

We utilized the best available information in conducting 

 Funding and personnel limitations precluded doing inte

 every species. We did contract for the most recent data 

sage grouse and pygmy rabbit. Since you have not prov

that would question our analysis we must conclude that information we used is correct and adequate.

This comment is outside the scope of the DEIS.

We agree with this comment. The DEIS was prepared w

information available to the agencies. The proposed man

actions call for increased inventory (collection of baselin

monitoring of both Special Status plant and animal spec

26 of DEIS. The effects of current management are foun4 under alternative a (pages 176-178 of the DEIS). The review the pygmy rabbit petition and incorporate approp

Comment is noted by the agencies.

We agree with this comment. The DEIS was prepared w

information available to the agencies. The proposed man

actions call for increased inventory (collection of baselin

monitoring of both Special Status plant and animal spec

26 of the DEIS. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

120 / 003

125 / 003

123 / 059

123 / 124 

Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Most of the Craters of the Moon National Monument is located 

within Blaine County. It will be local law enforcement paid by 

Blaine County taxpayers who will be responsible for problems resulting from the increase use of the Monument. More visitors, 

and more problems will arise from Alternative D than our 

 Preferred Alternative C. 

Socio-economic effects of each alternative must be properly 

analyzed. Economic effects on rural development are oftenseen as a peripheral consequence instead of as a valid issue or even documented need in Alternative formulation. It is essential, that an Alternative be formulated that makes some attempt at developing rangeland and forest management projects and uses that will proactively stimulate local, rural economic growth. This is extremely important to community leaders, both in and out of government, in order for them to judge the effectiveness of alternatives in aiding rural development. It is also required by NEPA, in order to portray a sound range of alternatives based on the identified issues. Economics has equalstanding with other factors in that law and deserves equal attention. 

Please provide the costs to taxpayers of components of 

alternatives, such as treatment costs per acre under Alternative D actions that are contemplated. 

The discussion of economics fails to provide information on the 

limited economic value of livestock grazing associated with the Monument. You cannot point to Ag. Statistics – as “farming” has ranching subsumed within it. How much does the grazing programon Monument lands cost to administer? What is the estimated value of recreational opportunities lost due to livestock grazing?What are the costs to wildlife populations, and thus to wildlife-viewing, photography, hunting and other recreation? 

Response 

The agencies acknowledge the valuable services includi

enforcement, search and rescue, and structural fire provi

counties in which the Monument is located. The agenci

continue to cooperate closely with the counties through 

agreements to minimize impact upon these rural countie

The NPS and BLM proactively involved local county an

 officials in scoping of the Draft Management Plan and d

of the management alternatives analyzed. Through this 

several economic issues were identified and included in 

alternatives. These include provisions for locating Mon

facilities outside the Monument, opportunities for surrou

“gateway” communities to provide services and facilitie

and opportunities for outfitter and guide operations and 

activities within the Monument, among others. 

A more thorough analysis of the potential economic and 

impacts of the management alternatives has been includ

The estimated costs of the alternatives, described on pag

 the DEIS, were developed for comparative purposes on

precision of this level of estimation is not sufficient to a

identify costs of specific projects or costs per acre. 

Additional information on Socioeconomic impacts has b

the FEIS. 

654 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 655

Topic	 Socioeconomics 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 171	 There is no evidence that anything in this EIS will cause 

“dramatic economic changes” economic importance of livestock 

grazing here. 

123 / 179	 DEIS at 303 claims that livestock grazing contributes to the 

health of local economies, but fails to quantify the economic impacts (positive and especially negative) of public lands livestock 

grazing. 

Topic	 General 

152 / 001	 While I support aggressive weed control, fire management, and 

restoration, this proposal to further develops roads and will 

actually increase the threat of noxious weeds and fire risk, as well as accelerate damage to wilderness values and geologic features. I support the adoption of Alternative C, which actively restores primitive and pristine areas and ensures the strongest conservation protections for the Monument in the future. 

154 / 001	 While the need for weed control, fire management, and 

restoration, are very important the proposal to further develop roads will more than likely increase the threat of noxious weeds and fire risk. 

34 / 001	 I am writing in support of the City of Arco continuing to be the 

Gateway for the Crater's of the Moon National Monument. Arco is the closest town and has always supported the families, employees and visitors of the Crater's of the Moon. 

Response 

The Cumulative Impacts analysis in the DEIS includes a 

 reasonably foreseeable projects and actions whose impa

cumulative with the management alternatives. 

Additional Socioeconomic information has been added t

Analysis in the DEIS (Ch. 4) acknowledges the risk of i

improvement relative to weed infestation, fire risk, wild

and geologic features. In response to comments such as 

team reduced the amount of Passage Zone in the Propos

particularly in Laidlaw Park. The implementation plan f

transportation will address road maintenance and improv

specific areas and zones of the Monument, with conside

and other issues.

Analysis in the DEIS (Ch. 4) acknowledges the risk of i

improvement relative to weed infestation, fire risk, wild

and geologic features. In response to comments such as 

team reduced the amount of Passage Zone in the Propos

particularly in Laidlaw Park. The implementation plan ftransportation will address road maintenance and improvspecific areas and zones of the Monument, with consideand other issues.

The support of communities adjacent to the Craters of th

National Monument and Preserve is an important link fo

the area. We expect this relationship to become stronger

agencies do not designate a community as the official “G

the Monument, but ideally one or more communities strlocated near the Monument will determine for itself to apositive way with the Monument. The agencies intend to closely with all communities surrounding the Monumen
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

24 / 00123 / 001

25 / 00130 / 00132 / 00173 / 001 

General

Comment 

I am writing this letter in support of Butte County and the city of 

Arco becoming the Gateway for the Crater's of the Moon National Monument. My reasons are that the City of Arco has two major state highways joining together so that many tourists use to go to the Crater's of the Moon.

It has come to our attention that there is a question as to what 

city will have the 'Gateway to the Craters of the Moon' designation. The city of Arco has long had that designation and we sincerely wish to keep it. As the President of the Butte County Chamber of Commerce, I pledge our support of that continued designation. As a Chamber we will do all that is in our 

power to lend our support to the Monument and to keeping the 

‘Gateway’ designation for the City of Arco. 

This letter is written on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the 

Butte County Joint School District #111 in support of Arco as the 

 "Gateway To The Craters Of The Moon National Monument." 

On behalf of the Arco City Council and the residents of Arco, I 

am writing to you concerning the Visitor Centers and the Gateway to the Craters of the Moon. We would encourage you to retain this honor in Butte County. 

I am proud of the title of Arco as the Gateway to the Craters of 

the Moon. I sincerely hope that we will be able to retain this title where it has been proudly represented. 

In the Introduction on Page 3, the plan states that Craters of the 

Moon National Monument was the first national park site in Idaho. According to BLM Land Status records approximately 37,130 acres of Yellowstone National Park is in Idaho. We recommend that the sentence be rewritten to "Craters of the Moon National Monument, the first national Monument in Idaho, 

Was established on May 2, 1924.” 

Response 

Same response as previous comment. 

The support of communities adjacent to the Craters of th

National Monument and Preserve is an important link fo

the area. We expect this relationship to become stronger

agencies do not designate a community as the official “G

the Monument, but ideally one or more communities str

located near the Monument will determine for itself to a

positive way with the Monument. The agencies intend to 

closely with all communities surrounding the Monumen

The support of communities adjacent to the Craters of th

National Monument and Preserve is an important link fo

the area. We expect this relationship to become stronger

agencies do not designate a community as the official “Gthe Monument, but ideally one or more communities strlocated near the Monument will determine for itself to apositive way with the Monument. The agencies intend to closely with all communities surrounding the Monumen

Same response as previous comment. 

Same response as previous comment. 

Thank you for pointing this out. The text has been corre

656 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 657

Topic	 General 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


31 / 001	 I would like to see Arco Idaho claim the title of "Gateway to the 

Craters" simply because, Arco is the Gateway to the Craters. 

33 / 001	 I am writing this letter in support of Arco remaining the "Gateway 

 to the Craters of the Moon". We have two major state highways joining together that give many tourists access to the Craters of the Moon. We need the designation of "Gateway to the Craters of the Moon" in order to help our community continue, on the flip side of the coin the Craters of the Moon needs us in order to give the tourists the most easily accessible and affordable route to the Craters with amenities as stated above, which in turn helps the entire State of Idaho. 

126 / 001	 EP A supports the revision of current management to encourage 

desired conditions in the Monument and better collaboration among agencies and partnerships outside the Monument in order to facilitate education for visitors. Consequently, EPA has rated the Preferred Alternative LO -Lack of Objections. This rating 

and a summary of our comments will be published in the 

Federal Register. A summary of the rating system we used in our evaluation of the Draft EIS is enclosed. 

125 / 002	 All of the Alternatives focus on "restoration" and preservation. 

BLM should formulate an alternative that works toward protecting Monument resources as well as meeting policygoals outlined in FLPMA Section 201 by focusing on the use of active, hands-on methods of resource management. Assuming that 

the BLM will forgo the policy goals outlined in FLPMA Section 201

and instead manage for "wilderness values", "desired future conditions" and "restoration", then the BLM should formulate an 

alternative that does so by focusing on the use of active, hands-on 

methods of resource management. 

127 / 002	 Our seconded priority is in regard to maintaining and improving 

the facilities on the Monument. We believe it is important with limited budgets to concentrate on those improvements to the facilities 

at the existing entrance west of Arco. Arco has been and 

Response 

The support of communities adjacent to the Craters of th

National Monument and Preserve is an important link fo

the area. We expect this relationship to become strongeragencies do not designate a community as the official “Gthe Monument, but ideally one or more communities strlocated near the Monument will determine for itself to apositive way with the Monument. The agencies intend to closely with all communities surrounding the Monumen

Same response as previous comment.

Thank you for your review and comment. 

How resources management is achieved will be dealt wi

implementation-level planning.

Thank you for your comment. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

73 / 002

82 / 003 

General

Comment 

should continue to be the gateway to the Craters and the improvements should be directed towards the headquarters.

In Chapter 2, Page 32, another Management Action states that an 

 intergovernmental coordinating group would be considered to ensure consistency of this plan with other state and local plans. Section 202 (f) and Section 309 (e) of the Federal Lands PolicyManagement Act (FLPMA) provides that Federal, State, and local governments and the public be given adequate public notice and opportunity to comment on the formulation of standards and criteria for, and to participate in, the preparation and execution of plans and programs for the management of public lands. The establishment of such a group would help with this requirement. 

truly an ecologically unacceptable range of choices. The resulting 

EIS and Management Plan are thus fatally flawed, and most likely invalid at the outset. Under NEP A rules I believe, you must consider the FULL range of alternatives, and this plan certainly 

does not do that. 

Response 

Comment noted.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guideline

implementing NEPA requires federal agencies to analyz

“reasonable” alternatives that substantially meet the pur

need for the proposed action. The purpose of the Monu

Management Plan (Plan/EIS) is to provide for managem

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve wprovisions of the Proclamation, and to meet the requiremFederal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) anand regulations. Because the Proclamation states that cewill not continue, and that other uses will continue consfederal laws and regulations, actions that do not comply Proclamation would not meet the purpose and need for ttherefore were not included in alternatives that were anaEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

Proclamation 7373 states: “Laws, regulations, and policby the BLM in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under the jurisdictcontinue to apply with regard to the lands in the Monumadministered by the BLM.” Based on thislanguage, a “no livestock grazing” alternative would not purpose and need and would not be consistent with the P The BLM’s authority to manage grazing under existing regulations, and policies would continue under all the alconsidered. Livestock use authorizations, under any of alternatives, would be adjusted consistent with evaluatiothe need for changes in livestock use to meet the Idaho SRangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

658 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 659

Topic	 General 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


128 / 004	 The stand of aspen that grows in Snowdrift Crater should be 

protected from livestock grazing and be interpreted with a sign explaining how the aspen got to growingthere and about the historic gathering of ranchers which Secretary Babbitt convened to create the Monument. Despite all the times I 

have gone to Snowdrift Crater I have never 

heard how the aspens got there-was it only shade or is there moisture in the ground there? 

113 / 005	 An explanation of the importance of the area to the livestock 

industry should be part of any interpretation/visitor understanding efforts. The Idaho Rangeland ResourceCommission should be consulted in regards to various educational tools available that would tell folks the history of grazing in the area as well as the importance of the area to the industry. 

123 / 008	 The EIS fails to address a broad range of alternatives that will 

fulfill the stated purpose and need “a comprehensive framework for managing public lands within the newly expanded Monument over the next 15 to 20 years”, and to replace the fragmented plans. The DEIS also fails to identify what must be included as a key part of the Purpose and Need: to protect the significant values of the public lands identified in the Monument Proclamation. 

105 / 012	 As with state and private land issues that require legislative 

solutions, so does any boundary adjustment to the Monument. Boundary adjustments should only be allowed when they are necessary to achieve a specific Monument management goal. The DEIS fails to identify any areas outside of the boundary that would 

 add significant resources to the Monument as suggested in our scoping comments. For example, we would like to see the Monument boundary adjusted westward to include Sand Butte. Whether the entire boundary is elongated around Sand Butte, or whether Sand Butte is an island of Monument managed land should be evaluated. We respectfully request that this option be looked at during the next step in the Monument planning process with the intent of making a recommendation to Congress in the future. 

Response 

A fence to protect the aspen stand in Snowdrift Crater w

in an Environmental Assessment prepared in 2004. Thi

be constructed in late 2004/early 2005. Interpretation of 

Crater will be considered in future planning. Thank you 

Thank you for your comment. We will consider these po

appropriate implementation- and project-level plans.

As described on page 21, the four management alternati

in the DEIS were developed base on public input. As re

NEPA, they represent a reasonable range of alternatives 

address identified planning issues and management conc

Protection of the Monument’s values, a key element of t

Management Plan, is specifically addressed on page 6 (P

Significance of the Monument) and page 8 (Mission Go

The agencies acknowledge that as part of the process to 

management plan they need to consider boundary adjust

However, during the time the planning team was gatheri

from the public on issues that should be addressed in thi

process, this suggestion for adjusting the boundary to in

Butte was the only one submitted, other than for minor a

between NPS administered lands and BLM administered 

 reflect grazing allotments. Refer to Appendix C for the 

recommendations on the latter. In considering boundary 

 the planning team referred to previous studies, includin

Reconnaissance Survey – Expansion of Craters of the M

 Monument (1989) and Management Alternatives - Exp

Craters of the Moon National Monument (1990). The p

team concluded that it would be appropriate to consider additional protection might be needed for Sand Butte dupreparation of the Shoshone Resources Management Pla2006 and will assure this information is passed along to 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No. 

165 / 013

165 / 016

123 / 025 

General

Comment 

Page 55 -Environmentally Preferred Alternative: The Service has 

concerns with the statement that Alternative D best meets the definition of the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Theproposed reclassification and maintenance of roads conflicts with Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) 

which burdens the federal government to "Preserve important 4 historical, cultural and natural aspects of our natural heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice." 

It is our opinion that the alternative identified to best meet 

national environmental goals would be the one that maintains and protects the integrity of the largest section of landscape. As currently written, Alternative C provides this best. However, we see the opportunity to modify either Alternative C or D to incorporate the best actions under both alternatives.

The Planning Team should revisit its failure to address hazardous 

materials. We ask that the BLM review and enter into the record the letters, and photos of the Smith allotment livestock well oil spill, junk petroleum product jugs, and other debris left littering and polluting public lands very near the east side of the Monument

 as a result of permittee well-related activities. Please also include the Appeal of this Decision in the record. Plus, sheep in particular

may be coated with toxic pesticides used to kill vermin. Do these 

materials then accumulate in sheep bedding sites, or elsewhere? Do they become airborne in wind, or dust, and thus have the potential to become inhaled by visitors? Also here, a discussion of herbicide use, transport and application in the Monument, especially as it relates to the large-scale vegetation treatments that are proposed, is essential. Will the public be exposed to long-lasting and persistent chemicals like Tebuthiuron? Carcinogens like Tordon? 

Response 

responsible for the development of that plan. Another c is that Sand Butte is included within the Sand Butte WiArea and does receive a degree of administrative protectthis status.

The selection of the environmentally preferred alternativ

combination of factors outlined in Section 101 of NEPA 

 on page 55 of the DEIS. The Proposed Plan/FEIS reduc

 660 foot Passage Zone corridors by over 30% and freez

system at current maintenance standards. No new roads 

 existing roads will be done until a detailed transportatio

Modifications have been made to Alternative D since it 

 in the Draft EIS as the preferred alternative. See Chapte

Proposed Plan/FEIS.

Although unsightly and unhealthy, the amounts of petro

products at the Smith Well are not categorized as "hazar

materials" and do not lie within the Monument boundary

agencies have no concrete data produced by scientific st

 pesticides used on livestock contaminate soils within th

to dangerous levels. Agency use of herbicide is subject t

 review and would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

660 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 661

Topic	 General 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 029	 Part of the management guidance must be undertaken as part of 

the DEIS process is conducting resource inventories and surveys. 

This is necessary to provide a baseline of information, as in many 

cases (livestock, cultural, vegetation condition, etc.) you have provided no information that allows a reasoned analysis of impacts of alternatives. For example, to determine how many acres need to be “restored” – as specified under various alternatives, you must know the condition and extent of degraded 

communities, where any projects may best focus on connectivity, etc. This is essential to determine if you have a reasonable range of alternatives. 

132 / 058	 Please explain in detail what is meant by “partnering” for 

interpretation and orientation outside the Monument. Are you planning on outsourcing or privatizing any government functions 

in the process? If so, please explain what these are, and what impacts this may have on the resources of the Monument, recreation for the general public, etc. What would costs be? 

Response 

The estimated restoration acreages were based on invent

conducted by BLM and The Nature Conservancy (see Ju

2004). These inventories identified areas with poor, fair

ecological integrity. Areas identified as having poor eco

integrity, particularly those in Laidlaw Park, were identi

 priority for restoration treatment. A generalized restorat

included in the Proposed Plan/FEIS.


The DEIS (p. 24, Desired Future Conditions and Manag

 for Natural Resources common to all alternatives) recog

provides for resource inventory and monitoring to provi

management decisions.


The agencies believe that the baseline information preseDraft Management Plan/Environmental Impact Stateme

 and appropriate to the level of detail called for in the anThese analyses are necessarily broad to encompass the vgeographic extent of the Monument and the time period over which the Plan will be applied. Many of the managactions identified in the DEIS would be subject to 
additional impact analyses with the preparation of futureimplementation-level plans, for example site restoration implementation-level projects and plans would include aNEPA analysis and baseline information of sufficient desupport identification and analysis of reasonably foreseeimpacts on the human environment. If this information available at the time such plans are proposed, appropriatinventories and surveys would then be conducted by the obtain the necessary data.


Simply stated, this “management action” calls for the ag

proactive in seeking opportunities with local communiti

agencies for providing interpretation and visitor orientat

the boundaries of the Monument, minimizing the need t

 facilities within the Monument.

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 060

123 / 090

123 / 092 

General

Comment 

Dubbing Alt. D “the environmentally preferred Alternative” is 

deceptive and misleading. The DEIS has both failed to conduct essential baseline information, undertake essential analysis, 

develop a reasonable range of alternative actions (ignoring anychanges in grazing, distorting “benefits” of Alt. D, downplaying risks and harms). It makes no sense to “restore” if you don’t address the root cause of ecological problems. Alternatives only evaluate a limited range of actions, and the Alternatives contain “poison pills” components. For example – the maze of roads that are falsely claimed necessary for fire suppression under all Alternatives, including Alt. C. There is no way the DEIS can determine that it is fulfilling responsibilities as trustees, ensuring safe, healthful, productive, aesthetic and culturally pleasing surroundings; attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health 

or safety, or other undesirable or unintended consequences; preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of the natural environment and support diversity and choice; achievea balance between population and resource use; enhance the quality 

of renewable resources and “approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources”, while failing to provide any 

controls of any kind on livestock grazing, which is the dominant land use. 

What are the industrial point sources of pollution at INEEL, and 

what pollutants do they produce? 

What radionuclides have been monitored here? When? How do 

their levels compare with background amounts of the radioactive elements? Please provide this data for public review in the SEIS. Please present the visibility and haze data, the radioactivity data, and other information on air pollution in more detail. 

Response 

The DEIS (p. 24, Desired Future Conditions and Manag

 for Natural Resources common to all alternatives) recog

provides for resource inventory and monitoring to provi

management decisions.

The estimated restoration acreages were based on invent

conducted by BLM and The Nature Conservancy (see Ju2004). These inventories identified areas with poor, fair

ecological integrity. Areas identified as having poor eco

integrity, particularly those in Laidlaw Park, were identi

 priority for restoration treatment. A generalized restorat

included in the Proposed Plan/FEIS.

Land uses and environmental factors that lead to ecolog

degradation were addressed in the DEIS. Management g

designed to avoid future problems is outlined in the “Co

Alternatives” section (DEIS pp. 24-32) and in the descri

alternatives. Additional management guidance, in respo

comments, has been added to the Proposed Plan/FEIS.

A table indicating industrial point sources from the coun

surrounding the Monument has been included in the air 

 of Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. 

Additional information regarding radionuclides which h

monitored and a brief summary the results of that monit

been included in the air quality section (Chapter 3) of th

Detailed summaries of these monitoring programs are av

the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

(http://www.oversight.state.id.us) and the U.S. Departm(http://www.stoller-eser.com/index.htm). A summary of 

 is presented in the air quality section of Chapter 3 of the Detailed visibility information is available on the interne(http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/). 

662 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 663

Topic	 General 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 105	 As part of this process, the DEIS must place a cap on the acreage 

that may be mined for gravel or other materials under the Free 

Use Permits. Where are these located, and how much gravel remains at them? How will more upgraded roads increase gravel 

demand? 

123 / 106	 As part of this DEIS, the 2000 DEIS fire management plan should 

be reviewed and updated to reflect the ever-increasing loss of sagebrush (die-off). 

123 / 112	 The aggressive pseudo-restoration theme of the DEIS, the failure 

to designate the Laidlaw ACEC, and the profound failure to address and provide goals and objectives to alter livestock grazing will guarantee that “interpretive themes” for visitor experience (DEIS at 131) of a “diverse population of plants and animals associated with a wide variety of volcanic habitats, a laboratory for diverse natural history, and especially – a “landscape of lava 

and sagebrush – one of the few remaining examples of what is natural” are not able to be met. If these are indeed what is intended, then designation of ALL remaining sagebrush habitats as ACECs, controls on grazing damage, and passive restoration must 

be part of all Alternatives. As part of the interpretation, under all alternatives, please provide visitor displays that describe the 

unraveling of the sagebrush ecosystem under livestock grazing (continuing to the present day) and fire.

Response 

Please see pages 124-126 of the DEIS for information o

materials within the Monument. On page 124, the DEIS 

that the Proclamation withdrew all federal lands and inte

within the Monument from entry, location, selection, sal

other dispositions. It goes on to state, new federal miner

prospecting permits may not be issued, nor may new milocated within the Monument. Please see pages 209-212 for a discussion of the impacts to mineral materials undealternatives.

Protocols for fire management have been included in the 

plan. These protocols, as well as management direction 

(p. 25), discuss protection of sagebrush steppe as a fire s

priority. The protocols are consistent with those outlined South Central Idaho Fire Management Plan, which furthresource protection within the Monument. 

Restoration efforts and livestock grazing would follow t

management objectives defined in the DEIS. The comm

provide any new information or studies that would upda

 of relevance and importance criteria, resulting in a dete

that ACEC status is warranted. Management direction to 

high quality vegetation resources in North Laidlaw Park

that proposed for the nominated ACEC, was included in 

D (See DEIS p. 49, Vegetation, Including Special Status 

Fire Management for Alternative D; and pp. 340, Appen

Analysis of the relevance and importance criteria for est

of North Laidlaw Park as an ACEC did not indicate that 

is required for protection of the area. To further protect 

Preferred alternative was modified to increase the acrea

 and decrease the acreage of Passage Zone in North Laid

 Management direction under Alternative D (p. 49) state

high ecological condition of North Laidlaw Park would  and no new livestock water developments would be allo
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 115123 / 122

123 / 125 

General

Comment 

DEIS at 135 and 136 fails to address the health risks associated 

with too many and confusing roads, use of chemical herbicides (more herbicide use accompanies status quo grazing, more upgraded roads and aggressive treatments), use of guard dogs by 

permittees, use of other chemicals on public lands in livestock operations (please review our letters and Appeal of the Smith allotment pipeline and the mess of oil and other chemicals polluting and littering BLM lands in association with a livestock watering operation in this allotment that includes portions of the east side of the Monument. 

We are glad to see you have incorporated darkness provisions. 

However, there are no limitations or guidance for lighting of facilities provided here.

Why have you decided to define the cumulative impacts analysis 

area separately under each “resource type”? What is meant by resource type? How is livestock grazing a “resource type”? 

Response 

Page 135 specifically states that “Due to the size of the M

and the complexity of the road system, navigation can b

The BLM maintains a system of directional signs on the 

however many roads and ways have appeared through-o

making map-based navigation difficult.” Guard dog int

visitors has not been considered a frequent problem influ

safety. Page 136 refers to guard dog safety hazards to v

spills, chemical pollutants, and litter associated with live

operations or any other use is prohibited and typically m

reported. We would appreciate reports of any such activ

future. 

Detailed guidance for lighting of facilities is beyond the 

plan. Such guidance will be incorporated into each spec

implementation plan for any new facilities or upgrades t

facilities. Effects of such lighting will be examined in thdocuments accompanying such plans. 

As described on page 148 of the DEIS, the area for anal

cumulative impacts changes by resource topic because p

make up the cumulative impact scenario do not affect al

664 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 665

Topic	 General 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 129	 The DEIS can not constrain your analysis of impacts for each 

alternative to the land area included in the Proclamation. For example, the grazing allotments that impinge on the Monument also cover vast surrounding areas. Fuels projects (like the Big Desert Fuelsbreak EA) have the potential to accelerate weed spread (on visitor tires, livestock) on the eastern edge of the Monument – including into Monument lands. Other developments, such as the huge new livestock pipeline constructed 

on contiguous lands must be examined for the likelihood of increasing weed infestations, accelerating degradation of remaining sagebrush habitats, and loss of wildlife populations shard with the 

Monument. How do such activities elevate the importance of 

taking strong and decisive management actions to protect Monument lands? Likewise, the importance of the values of lands 

in the proposed Laidlaw Park ACEC (and indeed all sagebrush lands remaining in the Monument) must be viewed and evaluated in a regional light. Relative scarcity must be examined.

123 / 130	 A July 12, 2004 Shoshone BLM EA describes “the area southwest 

of Sand Butte Crater has relatively few shrubs and a history of large wildfires... cheatgrass .. rush skeletonweed ..., a state-listed noxious weed is common ...”. This area is located just west of Craters – wind typically blows from this direction, and will readily transport the small, light wind-dispersal-adapted rush skeletonweed seeds into livestock or road disturbed areas of the Monument. Cumulative impacts of degradation of neighboring lands must be 

assessed. Interestingly, this small EA describes mule deer migration corridors, sage grouse lek locations, etc. All of this type of basic information must be presented in the DEIS – and it is not. That is the only way an integrated, comprehensive look at indirect, cumulative or synergistic impacts of Alternatives and management actions can be taken. Under cumulative impacts, the DEIS must also consider any potential energy projects, fire project or other actions or developments that may affect Monument lands or wildlife populations. 

Response 

All implementation- and project-level plans will comply 

guided by the Final EIS. Restoration efforts and livesto

would follow the resource management objectives defin

DEIS. The commenter did not provide any new informa

studies that would update the analysis of relevance and i

criteria, resulting in a determination that ACEC status is 

Management direction to protect the high quality vegeta

resources in North Laidlaw Park, similar to that propose

nominated ACEC, was included in Alternative D (See D

Vegetation, Including Special Status Species, and Fire M

Alternative D; and pp. 340, Appendix G). Analysis of th

and importance criteria for establishment of North Laidl

an ACEC did not indicate that ACEC status is required f

of the area. To further protect the area, the preferred alte

modified to increase the acreage of Pristine Zone and d

 acreage of Passage Zone in North Laidlaw Park. Manag

 direction under Alternative D (p. 49) states that the high 

condition of North Laidlaw Park would be maintained alivestock water developments would be allowed. 

Numerous projects make up the cumulative impact scen

described on pages 148 – 151 of the DEIS. These proje

analyzed in conjunction with the impacts of each alterna

DEIS to determine if they would have any additive or in

effects on a particular resource.

The DEIS acknowledges that roads, vehicles, human, an

known vectors to the spread of noxious weeds (DEIS Ch

Discussion on Noxious and Exotic Species, p. 92). Cum

of known or foreseeable impacts on vegetation resource

50 miles radius of the Monument were analyzed for veg

resources can be found in the DEIS, pp. 162-171. 
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 131123 / 135

123 / 145

123 / 148 

General

Comment 

DEIS at 148. If data is not available for wildlife, vegetation, 

weeds, etc. it must be collected as part of the DEIS process. Otherwise, you will never be able to understand the amount of fragmentation that may result from activities under this plan. This further demonstrates the need for preparation of a Supplemental EIS. What in the world have agencies been doing over the course of several years. As previously described, even basic information like mule deer migration corridor location is omitted from the DEIS. Impacts of past agency projects that have affected lands –for example, the disastrous prescribed fire and sagebrush control projects of the past – must be assessed. Estimate how much land in the five-county areas is now dominated by cheatgrass or crested wheatgrass. 

It is unclear whether the “Impairment of Resources” section 

applies only to NPS lands or to all lands. Please explain clearly. 

This same type of minimizing impacts, myopically constraining 

analysis to a narrow, confined and inadequate range of alternatives, and then deeming impacts only “minor” or “moderate”, without any science-based analysis or rationale, pervades the analysis of all elements of the environment in the DEIS, and further demonstrates the need for preparation of a 

 Supplemental EIS. 

Alternative A is essentially the no action alternative. DEIS at 160 

claims it would have no major adverse impacts on a resource or value whose conservation is necessary to fulfill the purposesidentified in the legislation, or key to natural or cultural integrity. Yet, status quo livestock grazing, trampling and livestock facilitieshave resulted in widespread fire and large-scale weed invasion, lossof sage grouse leks and migratory bird population declines (see Laidlaw EA), drowning of migratory birds, mammals and even prairie falcons, and many other adverse impacts. You have failed to assess the serious environmental effects of these ongoing activities. 

Response 

Collecting all the data that is currently unavailable is co

As described on page 151 of the DEIS, the prohibition o

applies to the resources and values of the Monument. T

supporting statute, the Organic Act (16 USC 1), as amento the NPS, but it does not specifically address lands by ownership.

Thank you for your comments 

The effects of continued livestock grazing under Alterna

addressed on pages 159, 164, 172, 177, 213, and elsewh

666 
Appendices: APPENDIX L 667

Topic	 General 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 178	 BLM’s “planning criteria” for vegetation and several other 

elements ignores mention of FLPMA, which provides for designation of ACECs, and specifically allows for lands not to all be abused at the same level. The agency “planning criteria” fails to address livestock grazing in any substantive way whatsoever. DEIS at 299 admits that BLM is required to give priority to 

designation and protection of ACECs as part of land use planning. Instead, here, BLM buries the ACEC in only one Alternative, and 

provides little analysis at all of the ACEC and how it may help protect the values of the Monument.303. The failure to address livestock grazing violates BLM’s planning criteria for sustainability. 

123 / 184	 We request that NPS withdraw from a joint EIS venture with 

BLM, as BLM’s recent examples of this. A Supplemental EIS must be prepared that contains essential baseline data and that can 

 be obtained. 

Topic	 Administration 

63 / 001	 The current preferred alternative, Alternative D, should be 

abandoned. If not, Alternative D requires substantial revisions in order to meet the Proclamation goals set forth by President 

Clinton's action under the Antiquities Act to expand the Craters of the Moon National Monument. 

Response 

Please refer to DEIS Appendix G, pp. 337-341. The ID 

followed the appropriate process in analyzing the values 

Laidlaw Park to determine if the area qualified for ACE

proposed ACEC was included and analyzed in Alternati

logical alternative to include the potential protection pro

proposed ACEC. Further, to demonstrate a commitment 

maintaining the high ecological condition of the area, pr

measures were included in Alternative D, the preferred a

that limit livestock developments, specifically to mainta

use that the area has received for years and that has resu

current condition (DEIS p. 49). Additional protective m

been included in the Proposed Plan/FEIS, including dec

of Passage Zone and increasing the acreage of Pristine ZLaidlaw Park. By comparing the effects of managing the ACEC in Alternative C with the effects of managing the 

 protective measures in Alternative D we found no advadesignating the area an ACEC and that we can achieve tresults with the protective measures in Alternative D. Thconcluded that it is unnecessary to designate the area as 

The Proclamation directed the NPS and BLM to work to

manage the Monument. 

Each of the alternatives affords the high degree of prote

Monument resources required by Proclamation 7373. A

preferred alternative in the DEIS, and now the proposed 

alternative in the Final Management Plan, Alternative D 

many of the comments received from the public during t
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Topic

Letter No./

 Comment No.

123 / 120123 / 173 

Topic 

123 / 136 

Visual

Comment 

Upgrading roads plus leaving nearly all other roads open will 

ensure that the goal “to perpetuate scenic vistas and open landscape for future generations is not met. Roads are not part of scenic vistas. Plus, upgrading roads means more places for livestock facilities – as livestock and infrastructure are permitted in the “passage” zone that will result fork upgrading. How does livestock grazing and livestock facilities alter the visual landscape? Please describe the current environment, and compare between Alternatives in a Supplemental EIS. How do existing “treatments” mar the visual landscape? How do they otherwise affect recreational experiences? 

Visual Resources. DEIS at 230-235. You can not claim that 

pseudo-restoration using pipelines, fences, etc.), and not part of 

the natural landscape. would significantly mar the visual lands. 

Grazing & Recreation 

If human visitors have so drastically affected spatter cones (loss 

of 2 feet in elevation), how much have livestock affected geologic resources and soil erosion in the Monument? How much greater are livestock impacts in the sagebrush lands than visitor impacts to these resources/values? 

Response 

A supplemental EIS is not warranted. Please see Chapte

discussion of impacts. 

In the case of restoration efforts, structures such as fence

protect the areas being restored. While fences may not m

characteristic natural landscape, they are a necessary too

restoration effort, a main purpose of which is to restore to its characteristic natural landscape. 

The spatter cones are in the developed NPS portion of th

Monument which is closed to grazing. Most of the geol

in the Monument are void of vegetation therefore the lik

livestock affecting the geologic resources is low.

668 
Topic	 Grazing & Access/Travel 

Letter No./ Comment


 Comment No.


123 / 138	 While the analysis claims that grazing use of some areas may be 

limited, under the Preferred Alternative and upgraded road and MORE “passage” areas, more livestock grazing may be extended close to geologic features, resulting in significantly greater 

impacts. The analysis here of soils impacts overlooks the link 

between grazing disturbance, cheatgrass and weed spread, and fire – thus grazing is an indirect cause of fire-caused erosion anddeposition of soils. More upgraded roads would mean larger disturbed rights-of-way, more wind-blown soil, and keeping all roads open along with upgrades will increase fire danger, with the result being more wind erosion. More upgraded roads would mean less control on looting of geological surface features. 

Response 

There is not a mandate to upgrade roads in Alternative D 

future conditions and management actions as listed for A

on page 50). In the Proposed Plan/FEIS, Alternative D w

additional miles of road closure because of adopting a la

Zone and the amount of Passage Zone within the Monum

been reduced.

The DEIS dose not mandate upgrading roads for more p

does it mean more livestock grazing may be extended cl

geologic features. In fact roads could closed to prevent 

to geologic features.

Appendices: APPENDIX L 669

GLOSSARY

a′a: A Hawaiian term for basaltic lava fl ows that are 

typically rough and jagged with a clinkery surface. 

Acre-Foot: Amount of water that will cover 1 acre 

to a depth of 1 foot. 

Active Preference (grazing): Current authorized 

use including livestock grazing and conservation 

use. Active use may constitute a portion, or all, of 

permitted use. Active use does not include temporary non-use or suspended use of forage within all or 

a portion of an allotment. 

Adaptive Management: A type of natural resource 

management that implies making decisions as part 

of an ongoing process. It is a continuous process 

of planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluating, 

and incorporating new information into strategies to 

meet goals and objectives. It also provides a model 

for adjusting goals and objectives as new information develops and public desires change. 

Adit: A nearly horizontal passage in an underground mine, driven from the surface, by which a 

mine may be entered, ventilated, or dewatered. 

Age Class: An age grouping of trees according to 

an interval of years, usually 20 years. A single age 

class would have trees that are within 20 years of the 

same age, such as 1-20 years or 21-40 years. 

Aggradation: The building up of land surfaces by 

sedimentation or deposition of mineral matter. 

Air Quality: Class I Area – Areas designated 

under the Clean Air Act that are afforded this 

highest level of protection from air pollutants; 

generally consist of wilderness areas, national parks, 

and wildlife refuges. 

Class II Area: Areas not designated included 

as Class I; additional air pollutant inputs may be 

permitted up to certain limits. 

Airshed: A geographic area that shares the 

same air. 

Allotment: An area allocated for livestock use by 

one or more qualified grazing permittees including 

prescribed numbers and kinds of livestock under 

one plan of management. 

Allotment Management Plan (AMP): A documented program that applies to livestock grazing on 

public lands, prepared by consulting, cooperating, 

and coordinating with the permittee(s), lessee(s), or 

other interested publics. 

All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV): Small three-wheel and 

four-wheel recreational motor vehicles capable of 

operating in rugged terrain. 

Alluvium: Any sediment deposited by fl owing 

water, as in a river bed, floodplain, or delta. 

Animal Unit: One cow, one wild horse, two 

burros, or fi ve sheep. 

Animal Unit Month (AUM): The amount of 

forage required to sustain one mature cow or the 

equivalent (e.g., five sheep or five goats), based on 

an average daily forage consumption of 26 pounds 

of dry matter per day. The equivalent animal 

units for other ungulate species, based on a weight 

conversion (3 percent body weight per day), are: 

10.5 for antelope; 7.6, deer; 2.1, elk; 1.2, moose; 0.9, 

wild horses; and 5.2, sheep. 

Annual Vegetation: Plants that complete their life 

cycles and die in 1 year or less. 

Appropriate Management Response (AMR): 

Specific actions taken in response to a wildland fi re 

to implement protection and fire use objectives. 

Category A: private lands, BLM facilities, and 

other areas with values where fire would not be 

desired. 

Category B: areas where a variety of appropriate fire suppression techniques would be applied 

to meet the resource objectives specified in the 

Plan/EIS and other site-specifi c activity plans. 

Aquifer: A saturated, permeable sediment or rock 

that can transmit signifi cant quantities of water 

under hydraulic gradients. 

Glossary 671
Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC): An area of public lands where special 

management attention is required to protect 

and prevent irreparable damage to important 

historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife 

resources; or other natural systems or processes; or 

to protect humans from natural hazards. 

Basalt: Fine-grained, dark-colored igneous rocks 

that are either intrusive or extrusive. 

Benefi cial Use: A use of water, such as domestic, 

municipal, agricultural, mining, stock watering, 

recreation, wildlife, or power generation, that 

provides a benefi t. 

Best Management Practice (BMP): Practices 

based on current scientific information and technology which, when applied during implementation of 

management actions, ensure that adverse impacts 

are minimized. BMPs are applied based on sitespecific evaluation and represent the most effective 

and practical means to achieve management goals 

for a given site. 

Biological Diversity (Biodiversity): The variety 

of life and its processes, and the interrelationships 

within and among various levels of ecological 

organization. Federal resource management agencies must examine the implications of management 

actions and development decisions on regional and 

local biodiversity. 

Biological Integrity: The ability to support and 

maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, 

diversity, and functional organization comparable to 

that of the natural habitat of the region. 

Biological Soil Crust: A complex mosaic of 

mosses, lichens, algai, 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. 

Blister: A blister is formed by the swelling of the 

crust that occurs as a result of the expansion of gas 

or vapor beneath a flow; typically about 1 meter (3.3 

feet) in diameter and hollow. 

Block Lava: Lava with a surface of angular blocks 

and forms from very dense lava. 

Bomb: Pyroclastic fragments greater than 64 millimeters (2.5 inches) in diameter that were molten 

or plastic at the time of ejection. The shape of a 

bomb is determined by the viscosity of the magma, 

velocity and length of flight, the rate at which the 

lava cooled, the rate of expansion of gases, and the 

type of deformation that occurred upon impact. 

Breadcrust Bomb: A crust that cooled during 

flight such that as gases within it continued to 

expand, the crust cracked much like bread rising in 

an oven. 

Broadcast Burn: A prescribed fi re that burns a 

designated area. These controlled fires can reduce 

wildfire hazards, improve forage for wildlife and 

livestock, or encourage successful regeneration of 

trees. 

Brood Rearing: Caring for young birds hatched at 

one time. 

Butte: A detached low mountain or high mound 

rising abruptly from the general level of the surrounding plain; applied to peculiar elevations in the 

Rocky Mountain Region. 

Cairns: Stones intentionally piled by humans. 

Cambrian Period: From 500 million to about 544 

million years ago, in which marine invertebrates 

were common. 

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. 

Carbonate: A salt or carbonic acid, like limestone. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

672 
Carrying Capacity: The character of use that can 

be supported over a specific time by an area developed at a certain level without causing excessive 

damage to either the physical environment or the 

experience of the visitor. 

Cation: An electrically charged particle (ion) with a 

positive charge. 

Cheatgrass: (Bromus tectorum L, downy brome) 

An exotic annual grass, native to Eurasia and the 

Mediterranean, which can dominate disturbed 

ground in shrub-steppe ecosystems of the western 

United States and Canada. 

Chemical Control: The use of pesticides and 

herbicides to control pests and undesirable plant 

species. 

Cenozoic: The most recent era of geologic history 

(65 million years ago until the present) during which 

the earth’s modern landforms, animals, and plants 

came into being. 

Cinder: Uncemented, glassy, vesicular (holes created by escaping gas bubbles), pyroclastic material. 

Cinder can be thought of as “volcanic froth.” 

Cinder Cone: A steep, conical hill that is formed 

by the accumulation of cinders, spatter, and other 

pyroclastic material. 

Cinder Garden: Gardens that occur on cinder 

deposits with little to no soil development. 

Class of Livestock: The species of domestic 

livestock – cattle and sheep. 

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. 

Collector Roads: These roads serve small land 

areas and are usually connected to a larger road or 

state highway. 

Community: An assemblage of plant and animal 

populations in a common spatial arrangement. 

Consultation, Coordination, and Cooperation: 

A process prescribed by the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act of involving the permittee(s), 

lessee(s), federally recognized Native American 

tribes, and interested publics in the development of 

allotment management plans and other management 

programs on public lands. The process also includes 

trust responsibilities to federally recognized Native 

American tribes. 

Consumptive Use: Recreation activities which 

consume natural resources. Hunting and fi shing 

are regarding as consumptive recreation because 

wildlife species are consumed. Rockhounding is 

consumptive because nonrenewable resources are 

removed. 

Cow-pie Bombs: Cow-pie bombs, also known as 

cow-dung and pancake bombs, form from very fl uid 

lava that is still plastic when it lands, causing it to 

flatten upon impact; some still have a liquid core 

upon impact. 

Crater: A circular depression in a volcano that 

formed from a gradual accumulation of pyroclastic 

material around the vent, an explosive eruption, or 

collapse. 

Critical Habitat, Designated: Specifi c parts of 

an area occupied by a federally listed threatened or 

endangered plant or animal at the time it is listed 

that contain physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species or that may 

require special management or protection. Critical 

habitat may also include specific areas outside an 

area occupied by a federally listed species if the 

Secretary of the Interior determines that these areas 

are essential for the conservation of the species. 

Cultivar: A race or variety of a plant that has been 

created or selected intentionally and maintained 

through cultivation. 

Cultural Landscape: A geographic area, including 

both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife 

Glossary 673
or domestic animals therein, associated with a 

historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other 

cultural or aesthetic values. 

Cultural Property: The definite location of a 

past human activity, occupation, or use identifi able 

through field inventory, historic documentation, 

or oral evidence. Cultural properties include 

prehistoric and historic archaeological remains, or 

architectural sites, structures, objects, or places with 

important public and scientifi c uses. 

Cultural Resource: 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. 

Cultural Resource Inventory: Section 110 

inventories – surveys done in response to the federal 

proactive responsibility to protect cultural resources 

Section 106 inventories: done in response to 

requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act – 3 types: 

Class I: literature review and fi le search 

Class II: intensive pedestrian survey of a 

sample of an area 

Class III: intensive pedestrian survey of entire 

area 

Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP): 

A brief activity plan in which the broad determinations (management objectives) made in a resource 

management plan (RMP) are developed into specifi c 

management decisions. CRMP development has 

two decision products: 1) the allocation of all of 

the planning area’s cultural resources to categories 

(BLM Manual Section 8111.2); and 2) the establishment of related protection and information gathering 

priorities. 

Cumulative Impacts: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what 

agency or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor but collectively signifi cant actions taking 

place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts 

can result from similar projects or actions, as well 

as from projects or actions that have similar impacts 

(40 CFR 1508.7). 

Current Annual Growth: The amount of forage 

produced by a plant in one growing season. 

Deferment: Nongrazing, either by delay or discontinuance of grazing, from the beginning of plant 

growth until the seed is set or the equivalent stage of 

vegetative reproduction. 

Desired Future Condition: 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. 

Desired Plant Community: The plant community 

which provides the vegetation attributes required for 

meeting or exceeding RMP vegetation objectives. 

The desired plant community must be within an ecological site’s capability to produce these attributes 

through natural succession, management action, or 

both. 

Developed Recreation: Recreation that requires 

facilities that, in turn, result in concentrated use 

of the area. For example, skiing requires ski lifts, 

parking lots, buildings, and roads. Campgrounds 

require roads, picnic tables, and toilet facilities. 

Dipteran: Insects having usually a single pair of 

functional wings (anterior pair) with the posterior 

pair reduced to small knobbed structures and mouth 

parts adapted for sucking or lapping or piercing (i.e., 

true fl ies). 

Dispersed Recreation: Recreation that does not 

occur in a developed recreation site, such as hunting, 

backpacking, and scenic driving. 

Diversity (Species): (1) The absolute number of 

species in a community, species richness; and (2) a 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

674 
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. 

Easement: A right or privilege one may have on 

another’s land. 

Ecological Succession: 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. 

Ecosystem: A functioning system comprised of a 

community of animals, plants, and bacteria and its 

interrelated physical and chemical environment. 

Ecotone: A transition area between two distinct 

habitats, where the ranges of the organisms in each 

bordering habitat overlap, and where there are 

organisms unique to the transition area. 

Endangered Species: Any animal or plant species 

in danger of extinction throughout all of a signifi cant 

portion of its range. These species are listed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under provisions of 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Endemic: Having a natural distribution confi ned to 

a particular geographical region. 

Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise 

public document that a federal agency prepares 

under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) to provide sufficient evidence and analysis 

to determine whether a proposed agency action 

would require preparation of an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact. A federal agency may also prepare an 

EA to aid its compliance with NEPA when no EIS is 

necessary or to facilitate preparation of an EIS when 

one is necessary. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A 

detailed written statement that is required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a 

proposed major federal action signifi cantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment. The fi ndings 

from the document are published in a Record of 

Decision (ROD). 

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and 

meaningful involvement of all people regardless 

of race, color, national origin, or income with 

respect to the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, 

and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of 

people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic 

groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the 

negative environmental consequences resulting 

from operation or the execution of federal programs 

and policies. Executive Order 12898 directs federal 

agencies to make achieving environmental justice 

part of their missions by identifying and addressing 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of 

agency programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. 

Eolian Processes: Wind erosion, transport, and 

deposition. 

Ephemeral: Short-lived; usually only one day. 

Erosion: The wearing away of land surface either 

by natural weathering processes (including water, 

wind, or ice) or human or animal activities. 

Erosion Blanket: Material such as straw, jute 

matting, or rock that is applied to the land surface 

to minimize erosion of soil particles caused by the 

impact of rain drop splash and by fl owing water. 

Ethnographic Resource: 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. 

Exotic Plant Communities: Assemblages of 

plants that are not indigenous to the area, such as 

cheatgrass, spotted knapweed, and leafy spurge. 

Exotic Species: An animal or plant species that is 

not a part of an area’s original fauna or fl ora. 

Glossary 675
Extirpated: Completely gone from an area; 

destroyed completely. 

Fault: A fracture or fissure in the earth’s surface. 

Fauna: The animal life of an area. 

Fecal Coliform/Fecal Streptococcus: Types of 

bacteria found in animal waste. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A 

public document issued by a federal agency briefl y 

presenting the reasons why an action for which the 

agency has prepared an Environmental Assessment 

does not have potential for a signifi cant effect on 

the human environment and, thus, will not require 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 

Fire Condition Class (FCC): A classifi cation for 

vegetation communities relative to the departure of 

the fire regime (frequency and severity of fi re) from 

historic conditions. There are three fi re condition 

classes ranging from FCC1 (low departure) to FCC3 

(high departure). 

FCC1 represents low departure from the 

historic fire regime. Key ecosystem components 

include a healthy mosaic of various successional 

stages for each vegetation type. For example, 

these components would include sagebrush 

steppe communities with native perennial grass 

and forb understories, or aspen or Douglas 

fir communities with trees of variable age, 

openings to allow tree regeneration, and an 

abundance of understory grasses and forbs. 

FCC2 represents moderate departure from 

the historic fire regime, resulting in some risk 

of more frequent fire return intervals and/or 

greater levels of severity. 

FCC3 represents high departure from the 

historic fire regime, resulting in high risk of 

resource loss due to frequent fire return intervals 

and/or high levels of severity. An example of 

FCC3 is an area that was formerly low-elevation 

sagebrush steppe that is currently dominated by 

an understory or monoculture of cheatgrass. 

Fire Cycle: The average time between fires in a 

given area. 

Fire Fountain: A rhythmic vertical fountain-like 

eruption of lava. 

Fire Suppression: All work and activities associated with fire extinguishing operations, beginning 

with the discovery and continuing until the fi re is 

completely extinguished. 

Fissure Caves: A cave formed from a fi ssure, i.e., 

an elongated fracture or crack related to volcanic 

action. 

Fissure/Vent: An elongate fracture or crack at the 

surface from which molten rock and volcanic gases 

escape onto surface. 

Floodplain: Level streamside land that may be 

subject to fl ooding. 

Flora: The plant life of an area. 

Forage: Vegetation of all forms available and of a 

type used for animal consumption. 

Forb: 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. 

Four-Wheel Drive (4WD): Trucks, cars, or sport 

utility vehicles with high clearance and the ability to 

operate off pavement, on rugged terrain, as well as 

on highways. 

Fragmentation: The process of dividing habitats 

into smaller and smaller units until their utility, as 

habitat is lost. 

Fuel Loading: Accumulation of natural combustible materials (fuel) that could burn in a fi re. 

Fugitive Dust: Particulate matter emissions that 

do not pass through a stack, chimney, vent, pipe, or 

similar opening. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

676 
Gateway Communities: Towns in the areas surrounding the monument, that often serve as entrance 

points for visitors to the monument. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): GIS is 

both a database designed to handle geographic data 

as well as a set of computer operations that can be 

used to analyze the data. In a sense, GIS can be 

thought of as a higher order map. 

Geomorphic Processes: Processes that change the 

form of the earth, such as volcanic activity, running 

water, and glacial action. 

Geomorphology: A subdiscipline of geography, 

concerned with the study of the form and development of the landscape, includes such specializations 

as sedimentology. 

Government-to-Government Consultation: 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 defi nition of 

the range of acceptable management options. 

Grazing Management Practices: Techniques used 

to manage livestock and include season, duration 

(amount of the time grazing occurs), intensity 

of use, numbers of livestock, kind of livestock, 

and distribution (e.g., salting, herding, and water 

development). 

Grazing Plan or Program: A combination of 

grazing management and/or facilities used to ensure 

an expectation of meeting or making signifi cant 

progress toward meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Great Rift: The Great Rift volcanic rift zone 

is a belt of open cracks, eruptive fi ssures, shield 

volcanoes, and cinder cones, which varies in width 

between approximately 1 and 5 miles. It begins 

north of the Monument, approximately 6 miles from 

the topographic edge of the Snake River Plain, in 

the vent area of the Lava Creek fl ows located in 

the southern Pioneer Mountains. The Great Rift 

extends southeasterly from the Lava Creek vents for 

more than 50 miles to somewhere beneath the Wapi 

Lava Field. 

Ground Fire: A fire that burns along the forest 

floor and does not affect trees with thick bark or 

high crowns. 

Groundwater: Water that has percolated downward 

from the ground surface through the soil pores. 

Habitat: The natural abode of a plant or animal, 

including all biotic, climatic, and soil factors affecting life. 

Herbaceous: Pertaining to or characteristic of an 

herb (fleshy-stem plant) as distinguished from the 

woody tissue of shrubs and trees. 

Hornito: A rootless spatter cone (fed by lava from 

within an underlying lava tube) that has a steep 

sided, inverted cone shape and is formed from an 

accumulation of pyroclastic materials. 

Hydrologic Cycle: The circulation of water in the 

atmosphere, on the surface of the earth, in the soil, 

and in the underlying rocks. 

Hydrology: The science of dealing with the study 

of water on the surface of the land, in the soil and 

underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere. 

Igneous Rock: Rock, such as granite and basalt, 

that has solidified from a molten or partially molten 

state. 

Indicator: Components or attributes of a rangeland 

ecosystem that can be observed and/or measured 

that provides evidence of the function, productivity, 

health and/or condition of the ecosystem. 

Glossary 677
Indigenous (species): Any species of wildlife 

native to a given land or water area by natural 

occurrence. 

Infl ation Structure: An inflation structure occurs 

along a crack where swelling of underlying lava 

causes one side to become uplifted relative to the 

other, whether due to degassing or influx of more 

lava. 

Inholding: A non-federal parcel of land that is 

completely surrounded by federal land. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): The use 

of all appropriate technologies and management 

techniques to bring about an effective degree of pest 

prevention and suppression in a cost-effective and 

environmentally sound manner (as defined by the 

World Health Organization Conference, Geneva, 

1985). This definition also applies to Integrated 

Weed Management (IWM). 

Invasive Species: In this document, the defi nition 

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)]. 

Irretrievable: One of the categories of impacts 

mentioned in the National Environmental Policy 

Act to be included in statements of environmental 

impacts. An irretrievable effect applies to losses 

of production or commitment of renewable natural 

resources. For example, while an area is used as a 

ski area, some or all of the timber production there 

is irretrievably lost. If the ski area closes, timber 

production could resume; the loss of timber production during the time that the area was devoted to 

winter sports is irretrievable. However, the loss of 

timber production during that time is not irreversible, because it is possible for timber production to 

resume if the area is no longer used as a ski area. 

Irreversible: A category of impacts mentioned in 

statements of environmental impacts that applies 

to non-renewable resources, such as minerals and 

archaeological sites. Irreversible effects can also 

refer to effects of actions that can be renewed only 

after a very long period of time, such as the loss of 

soil productivity. 

Karst: An area underlain by limestone in which 

erosion has formed sinkholes, fissures, caverns, and 

underground streams. 

Key Habitats: Key habitats contain generally 

large-scale, intact sagebrush steppe arrears that 

provide sage grouse habitat during some portion of 

the year. 

Source Habitat: 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. 

Isolated Habitat: 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. 

Kiosks: A stall set up in a public place where one 

can obtain information, e.g., tourist information. 

Kipuka: < 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 fl ow. 

Lacustrine: Relating to or living near lakes. 

Landscape: A large land area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated due to factors 

such as geology, soils, climate, and human impacts. 

Late Pleistocene-Holocene: Beginning about 

11,000 years ago, the end of the glacial period (“Ice 

Age”) due to the multiple expansion and retreat of 

glaciers. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

678 
Lava: Lava is magma (molten rock) that has 

erupted onto the earth’s surface; also used to refer to 

magma after it has solidifi ed. 

Lava Curb: Lava curbs form when blobs of lava 

floating in a river of lava accumulate on the edges 

of the flow and begin to build out. If the curbs build 

out far enough on either side to connect to each 

other and create a crust, they create a new lava tube 

roof. 

Lava Field: A large contiguous area of lava formed 

from a lava fl ow. 

Lava Flow: A lava flow can be described as an 

outpouring of molten rock onto the earth’s surface 

forming a river or sheet. 

Lava Fountains: A vertical eruption of lava from a 

vent or along a fissure. Lava fountains can reach a 

height of 2000 ft. 

Lava Lake: A lake of molten lava, usually basaltic, 

contained in a vent, crater, or broad depression of a 

shield volcano. 

Lava Toe: Small, bulbous extensions of lava that 

form at the front of pahoehoe fl ows by breaking 

through crusts on the fl ow front. 

Lava Tube: Lava tubes form when the surface of 

flowing lava congeals forming a crust. The lava 

underneath the solidified crust continues to fl ow, 

now insulated from the cooling air. When the 

lava eruption ceases, and if the tube drains, a large 

tubular cave may be left behind. 

Leasable Mineral: A mineral such as oil shale, 

oil and gas, phosphate, potash, sodium, geothermal 

resources, and all other minerals that may be 

developed under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 

amended. 

Lee (or Leeward) Side: The side of something that 

is sheltered from the wind. 

Lek: An assembly area where birds, especially sage 

grouse, carry on display and courtship behavior. 

Levee: A natural or manmade feature of the 

landscape that restricts movement of water into or 

through an area. 

Licensed Vehicle: A motor vehicle operating under 

a current state registration. 

Lichen: A mutualistic association of a fungus and 

photosynthetic organism. 

Limited Designation (motorized travel): BLM 

designation meaning that some restrictions apply to 

motorized travel on a specified route or in a specifi ed area. 

Lithic Scatter: Pertaining to or composed of stone 

scatter; a form of an archaeological resource. 

Litter: Dead plant or animal material on the soil 

surface. 

Livestock Developments; Livestock Management 

Facilities: Physical facilities, such as fences, water 

developments, and corrals that are used to handle 

and control livestock. 

Loess: Unconsolidated, silt-sized particles with 

accessory clay and sand particles that are deposited 

primarily by the wind. Loess that has fi ltered down 

into cracks in the lava and between the cinders 

provides the growth medium for vegetation. 

Magma: Molten rock beneath the earth’s surface. 

Management Framework Plan (MFP): Bureau of 

Land Management land use plan, predecessor to the 

Resource Management Plan (RMP). 

Mechanical Treatment: Use of mechanical equipment for seeding, brush management, and other 

management practices. 

Mechanized Vehicle: Mechanical transport 

designed to replace human labor and/or human 

physical capabilities. Mechanized vehicles include 

mountain bikes, horse drawn wagons, big game 

carriers, handcarts, and hang gliders. 

Glossary 679
Mesic: Conditioned by a temperate moist climate; 

neither dry nor wet; pertaining to conditions of 

medium moisture supply. 

Metamorphic: Pertaining to, produced by, or 

exhibiting certain changes that minerals or rocks 

may have undergone since their original deposition, 

especially applied to the recyrstallization which 

sedimentary rocks have undergone through the 

influence of heat and pressure, after which they are 

called metamorphic rocks. 

Microbiotic Crust: Community of non-vascular 

primary producers that occur as a “crust” on the 

surface of soils and made up of a mixture of algae, 

lichens, mosses, and cyanobacteria (bluegreen 

algae). 

Midden: The accumulation of debris and domestic 

waste products resulting from human use, especially 

an accumulation of shells or of cinders, bones, and 

other refuse on the supposed site of the dwelling 

places of prehistoric tribes. The long-term disposal 

of refuse can result in stratified deposits, which are 

useful for relative dating. 

Mineral Materials: Materials such as common 

varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, 

and clay, that are not obtainable under the mining 

or leasing laws but that can be acquired under the 

Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended. 

Mineral Rights: Ownership of all minerals, 

including all rights needed for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation. 

Mineral Soil: Soil that consists mainly of inorganic 

material, such as weathered rock, rather than organic 

matter. 

Mineral Withdrawal: A withdrawal of public 

lands that are potentially valuable for leasable 

minerals. This precludes the disposal of the lands 

except with a mineral reservation, or unless the 

lands are found to not be valuable for minerals. 

Minority: Defined by the U.S. Census as individuals who are members of the following population 

groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian 

or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or 

Hispanic. 

Mitigation Measures: Constraints, requirements, 

or conditions imposed to reduce or eliminate an 

anticipated impact to environmental, socioeconomic, 

or other resource value from a proposed action. 

Modifi cation: A fundamental change in the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for 

the term of the lease. A modification may include 

an exemption from or alteration to a stipulated 

requirement. The modification may or may not 

apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which 

the restrictive criteria apply. 

Motorized Vehicle: Vehicle powered by an engine, 

usually internal combustion. 

Multiple Use Management: The defi nition of 

multiple use is defined in the Federal 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 fi sh, 

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.” 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

680 
Museum Collections: Objects, specimens, and 

archival and manuscript collections that are important resources providing valuable information about 

processes, events, and interactions among people 

and the environment. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS): The allowable concentrations of air 

pollutants in the ambient (public outdoor) air specified in 40 CFR 50. NAAQS are based on the air 

quality criteria and divided into primary standards 

(allowing an adequate margin of safety to protect 

the public health) and secondary standards (allowing 

an adequate margin of safety to protect the public 

welfare). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA): 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. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): 

The official list, established by the National 

Historic Preservation Act, of the nation’s cultural 

resources worthy of preservation. The NRHP lists 

archaeological, 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. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: Established by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1958 

to protect rivers and their immediate environments 

that have outstanding scenic, recreation, geologic, 

fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similar 

values and are preserved in free-fl owing conditions. 

The system provides for the designation of three 

types of rivers: Recreation, Scenic, and Wild. 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA): Requires Federal 

Agencies to inventory human remains and associated funerary objects in existing Federal Museum 

collections and to provide culturally affi liated tribes 

with the inventory of collections. NAGPRA also 

requires repatriation, on request, to the culturally 

affi liated 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. 

Natural Quiet: Refers to the state of having only 

natural sources of sound: wind, rustling leaves, 

water, and animal calls, for example. 

Naturalness: In Section 2(c) of the Wilderness 

Act, the wilderness characteristic in which an area 

“generally appears to have been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature, with the imprint of people’s 

work substantially unnoticeable.” 

Night Sky: A sky free of artifi cial light sources and 

related light pollution. 

Non-native Species: Plants or animals that are not 

indigenous to the area. (See also “Exotic Species.”) 

Nonpoint Source Pollution: Pollution whose 

source is not specific in location. The sources of 

the discharge are dispersed, not well defi ned, or 

constant. Rainstorms and snowmelt often make 

this type of pollution worse. Examples include 

sediments from logging activities and runoff from 

agricultural chemicals. 

Non-renewable Resource: A resource whose total 

quantity does not increase measurably over time, so 

that each use of the resource diminishes the supply. 

Nonvascular Plant: Plants that do not have specialized tissues for conducting water and synthesized 

foods, such as a moss or liverwort. 

Glossary 681
Notice of Intent: A notice in the Federal Register 

of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement on a proposed action. 

Noxious Weeds: According to the Federal Noxious 

Weed Act (Public Law 93-629), a weed that causes 

disease or has other adverse effects on humans and 

their environment and is therefore detrimental to 

public health and the agriculture and commerce of 

the United States. This is a legal designation by the 

state of Idaho. 

Nutrient Cycle: The cyclical process by which 

plants and animals use chemical compounds and 

elements in the soil, water, and atmosphere to 

produce plants and animals and the decomposition 

of plants and animals to return chemical compounds 

and elements to the soil, water, and air for future 

use. 

Obligate: Essential, necessary, unable to exist in 

any other state, mode, or relationship. See “Sagebrush Obligate.” 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV): Any motorized 

vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country 

travel over lands, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, 

swampland, or other terrain. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Management Designations: Designations apply to all off-road vehicles 

regardless of the purposes for which they are being 

used. Emergency vehicles are excluded. The OHV 

designation definitions have been developed in 

cooperation with representatives of the U.S. Forest 

Service, National Park Service, and BLM state and 

district personnel. 

Open: Designated areas and trails where OHVs 

may be operated. The BLM designation meaning that motorized travel on a specifi c route or in 

a specific area is permitted. 

Limited: Designated areas and trails where the 

use of an OHV is subject to restrictions, such 

as limiting the dates and times of use (seasonal 

restrictions); limiting use to designated roads 

and trails; and limiting use to existing roads and 

trails. Combinations of restrictions are possible. 

Closed: Designated areas, roads, and trails 

where the use of an OHV is permanently or 

temporarily prohibited. Emergency use of 

vehicles is allowed. 

Pahoehoe: A Hawaiian term for a basaltic lava fl ow 

that has a smooth, billowy, or ropy surface. 

Paleoecology: The study of the relationship of 

extinct organisms or groups of organisms to their 

environments. 

Paleontological Resources (Fossils): The physical 

remains of plants and animals preserved in soils 

and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological 

resources are important for understanding past 

environments, environmental change, and the 

evolution of life. 

Paleontology: The study of the fossil record of past 

geological periods and of the phylogenetic relationships between ancient and contemporary plant and 

animal specials. 

Palustrine: Non-tidal inland wetlands dominated 

by terrestrial and emergent vegetation. 

Particulate Matter: Fine liquid or solid particles 

suspended in the air and consisting of dust, smoke, 

mist, fumes, and compounds containing sulfur, 

nitrogen, and metals, typically averaging one micron 

or smaller in diameter. 

Perennial Vegetation: Plants that have life cycle of 

3 or more years. 

Permitted Use: 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 animal unit months 

(AUMs). 

Permittee: 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. 

pH: A measure of acidity or hydrogen ion activity. 

Neutral is pH 7.0. All values below 7.0 are acidic, 

and all values above 7.0 are alkaline. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

682 
Phreatic: Of or relating to groundwater. 

Pictograph: Aboriginally painted designs on 

natural rock surfaces. Red ochre is the most frequently used pigment and natural or abstract motifs 

may be represented. 

Pioneer Plants: Those that establish themselves 

first on disturbed areas or bare soil. 

Pit Crater: Also known as a volcanic sink, is a 

circular-shaped depression with steep to vertical 

walls that formed by collapse of the ground that 

results from the removal of support such as from the 

withdrawal of the underlying magma. 

Playa: A dried-up, fl at-floored area representing the 

bottom of a shallow, undrained lake basin in which 

water accumulates and is often quickly evaporated. 

Pleistocene Age: 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. 

Pre-existing Use: Land use that may not conform 

to a zoning ordinance but existed prior to the 

enactment of the ordinance. 

Prescribed Burning: Controlled application of fi re 

to wildland fuels in either their natural or modifi ed 

state, under specifi ed environmental conditions 

which allow the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and at the same time to produce the fi re 

line intensity and rate of spread required to attain 

planned resource management objectives. 

Prescribed Fire: Controlled application of fi re 

to natural fuels under conditions of weather, fuel 

moisture, and soil moisture that would allow 

confinement of the fire to a predetermined area and, 

at the same time, would produce the intensity of heat 

and rate of spread required to accomplish certain 

planned benefits to one or more objectives to wildlife, livestock, and watershed values. The overall 

objectives are to employ fi re scientifically to realize 

maximum net benefits at minimum environmental 

damage and acceptable cost. 

Prescribed Natural Fire: Same as “Wildlife Fire 

Use.” 

Pressure Plateau: A pressure plateau forms from a 

sill-like injection of new lava beneath the crust of an 

earlier flow that has not completely solidifi ed. 

Pressure Ridge: Elongated uplift of the congealing 

crust of a lava flow believed to be caused by the 

pressure of the underlying, still fl owing, lava. 

Public Land: 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. 

Pumice: Pumice is a light colored, frothy volcanic 

rock having the composition of rhyolite. It is often 

buoyant enough to float on water. 

Pyroclastic: Pyroclastic is a term that refers to 

volcanic rock material that is formed by a volcanic 

explosion or by ejection from a volcanic vent. 

Quartzite: A granular stone formed of fused quartz 

grains. Commonly white, yellow or red. Used as a 

raw material, for flaked stone tools. 

Radiocarbon Dating: An absolute dating method 

based on the radioactive decay of Carbon-14 contained in organic materials. 

Rafted Block: Volcanic fragment that was caught 

up in a lava flow and detached from its source, such 

as a piece of crater-wall carried off much like an 

iceberg. 

Range Management: The art and science of 

planning an directing range use intended to yield the 

sustained maximum animal production and perpetuation of the natural resources. 

Rangeland: Land on which the potential natural 

vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like 

plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or 

Glossary 683
browsing. It includes natural grasslands, savannas, 

many wetlands, some deserts, tundra, and areas that 

support certain forb and shrub communities. 

Rangeland Condition: The present status of a unit 

in terms of specific values or potential. 

Rangeland Health: The degree to which the 

integrity of the soil and ecological processes of 

rangeland ecosystems is maintained. 

Rangeland Improvements: Any activity or 

program on or relating to rangelands that is designed 

to improve forage production, change vegetation 

composition, control patterns of use, provide water, 

stabilize soil and water conditions, and enhance 

habitat for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses and 

burros. Rangeland improvements include land 

treatments (e.g., chaining, seeding, burning, etc.), 

water developments, fences, and trails. 

Raptor: Bird of prey, such as the eagle, falcon, 

hawk, owl, or vulture. 

Record of Decision (ROD): A document signed 

by a responsible official recording a decision that 

was preceded by the preparing of an Environment 

Impact Statement. 

Reclamation: The reconstruction of disturbed 

ecosystems by returning the land to a condition 

approximate or equal to that which existed prior to 

disturbance, or to a stable and productive condition 

compatible with the land use plan. The immediate 

goal of reclamation is to stabilize disturbed areas 

and protect both disturbed and adjacent undisturbed 

areas from unnecessary degradation. 

Recreation Visitor Day: Any recreational activity 

taking place within a 24-hour period, or portion 

thereof, for each individual recreating on public 

lands. 

Rehabilitation: The activities necessary to repair 

damage or disturbance caused by wildfire or the fi re 

suppression activity. Rehabilitation treatments can 

include herbicide use to control weeds and seeding 

with desirable vegetation. 

Residual Vegetation: Amount, cover, and species 

composition of the vegetation on a site after it has 

been grazed for a period of time. 

Resource Advisory Councils (RACs): Advisory 

councils appointed by the Secretary of the Interior 

and consisting of representatives of major public 

land interest groups (commodity industries, recreation, environmental, and local area interests) in 

a state or smaller area. RACs advise the Bureau 

of Land Management, focusing on a full array o 

f multiple use public land issues. RACs also help 

develop fundamentals for rangeland health and 

guidelines for livestock grazing. 

Resource Management Plan (RMP): A land use 

plan as described by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act to guide resource management 

and use allocation on public lands and resources 

administered by the BLM. 

Rest: Nongrazing for a specified period of time, 

generally a full growing season up to one full year. 

Restoration: Actions that proactively treat degraded vegetation with the intent of meeting resource 

management objectives. Restoration treatments 

can include prescribed fire, herbicide use to control 

weeds, and seeding with desirable vegetation. 

Restoration Habitats: Potential restoration habitats 

have the potential to provide sage grouse habitat 

in the future. These are sagebrush steppe 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. The 

following are potential restoration habitats: 

Restoration Type 1 (R1): Sagebrush-limited 

areas with acceptable understory conditions in 

terms of perennial grass species composition 

and may include native and seeded grass rangelands. These are important areas to protect from 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

684 
wildfire and encourage sagebrush establishment 

and retention. Inexpensive management treatments may be needed (e.g., sagebrush and/or 

forb seedings). 

Restoration Type 2 (R2): Existing sagebrush 

cover in these areas may or may not be adequate 

to meet the needs of sage grouse, but understory 

herbaceous conditions are poor. Undesirable 

plants such as cheatgrass, medusa head rye, or 

other exotics are common to dominant. 

Restoration Type 3 (R3): Key or Source 

habitat with juniper or other conifer encroachment. Sagebrush is usually present but is being 

threatened or reduced by conifer expansion. 

Opportunities exist for improving habitat 

through appropriate fi re management response, 

prescribed fire, or chemical or mechanical 

means. 

Revegetation: The reestablishment and development of a plant cover by either natural or artifi cial 

means, such as re-seeding. 

Ribbon Bombs: Ribbon bombs are strands of fl uid 

lava ejected from a vent that takes the shape of thin 

twisted “ribbons.” 

Rift Zone: Area characterized by an open volcanic 

fi ssure. 

Right-of-Way (ROW): 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. 

Right-of-Way Corridor: A parcel of land that has 

been identified by law, Secretarial Order, through a 

land use plan, or by other management decision as 

being the preferred location for existing and future 

right-of-way grants and suitable to accommodate 

one type of right-of-way or one or more rights-ofway which are similar, identical, or compatible. 

Riparian Area/Habitat: A form of wetland 

transition between permanently saturated wetlands 

and uplands. The areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect permanent surface or 

subsurface water infl uence. 

Riparian Habitat: Riparian habitat is defi ned as 

an area of land directly infl uenced by permanent 

(surface or subsurface) water and has visible 

vegetation or physical characteristics refl ective of 

permanent water infl uence. 

Riparian Vegetation: Plants adapted to moist 

growing conditions along streams, waterways, 

ponds, or other permanent water body. 

Road: A transportation facility used primarily by 

vehicles having four or more wheels, documented as 

such by the owner and maintained for regular and 

continuous use. Includes the following classes: 

Class A Roads are generally are paved and have 

a surface of asphalt, concrete, or similar continuous material. In addition to U.S. Highway 

20/26/93, the only Class A roads are the loop 

drive, spur roads and associated parking areas in 

the original NPS Monument. Class A roads are 

only found in the Frontcountry Zone. 

Class B Roads are improved roads constructed 

with a natural or aggregate surface, and they 

may have berms, ditches or culverts. Regular 

maintenance allows passage by standard passenger and commercial vehicles such as cars, 

light trucks and some heavy trucks. Within 

the Monument, seasonal conditions and lack of 

snow removal may render these roads impassable. Class B roads are found primarily in the 

Passage Zone. 

Class C Roads have an unimproved natural 

surface and may be either constructed or 

established over time by repeated passage of 

vehicles. The natural surface may be dirt, sand, 

or rock. A minimal amount of maintenance, if 

any at all, is limited primarily to spot surface 

grading to allow vehicle passage within the 

original road corridor. Class C roads accommodate a much smaller range of vehicles than Class 

B roads, usually high clearance two-wheel drive 

Glossary 685
and four-wheel drive vehicles. Seasonal conditions or wet weather may render these roads 

impassable at any time. Class C roads are found 

primarily in the Passage and Primitive zones. 

Class D Roads are primitive roads that were 

not constructed, but established over time by 

the passage of motorized vehicles. These roads 

receive no maintenance or grading. Occasional 

emergency repairs or limited maintenance 

may be performed for resource protection and 

administrative purposes. These roads are generally referred to as “two-tracks.” The condition 

of these roads varies from sometimes passable 

by a passenger car, to only suitable for high 

clearance four-wheel drives vehicles. Seasonal 

conditions or wet weather may render these 

roads impassable at any time. Class D roads are 

found primarily in the Primitive Zone. 

Rootless Vent: See Hornito. 

Route: A road-like feature by vehicles having two, 

three, four, or more wheels, but not declared a road 

by the owner and which receives no maintenance to 

guarantee regular and continuous use. 

Sacred Site: Any specific, discrete, narrowly 

delineated location on Federal land that is identifi ed 

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. 

Sagebrush Obligates: Restricted to sagebrush 

habitats during the breeding season or year round. 

Sagebrush Steppe Community: A semi-arid plant 

community that is characterized by a predominance 

of big sagebrush and other sagebrush species, plus 

grasses and forbs. 

Saleable Minerals: Minerals that may be sold 

under the Material Sale Act of 1947, as amended. 

Included are common varieties of sand, stone, 

gravel, and clay. 

Scoping: The ongoing process to determine public 

opinion, receive comments and suggestions, and 

determine issues during the environmental analysis 

process. It may involve public meetings, telephone 

conversations, and/or letters. 

Scenic River: A river or section of a river that is 

free of impoundments and whose shorelines are 

largely undeveloped but accessible in places by 

roads. 

Seasonal Utilization: The amount of utilization 

that has occurred before the end of the growing 

season. 

Season-Long Use: The term season-long use or 

passive, continuous grazing means grazing throughout the growing period, with little or no effort to 

control the amount of distribution of livestock use in 

area/pasture/allotments. 

Section 7 Consultation: The requirement of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act that all federal 

agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service 

if a proposed action might affect a federally listed 

species or its critical habitat. 

Section 106 Consultation: Also known as the 36 

CFR 800 process. Discussions between a federal 

agency official and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, State Historic Preservation Offi cer, 

and other interested parties concerning historic 

properties that could be affected by a specifi c 

undertaking. Section 106 is the portion of the 

National Historic Preservation Act that outlines the 

procedure. The procedure is codified in 36 CFR 

800. 

Section 110: The section of NHPA that requires 

Federal Agencies to complete cultural resources 

surveys and reports for all its lands and existing 

projects. 

Sedimentary Rocks: Rocks, such as sandstone, 

limestone, and shale, that are formed from sediments or from transported fragments deposited in 

water. 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

686 
Seedlings: A tree grown from seed that has not 

reached a height of 3 feet or a diameter of 2 inches. 

Sensitive Species: Plant and animal species not yet 

officially listed but that are undergoing status review 

for listing on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

official threatened and endangered list; species 

whose populations are small and widely dispersed 

or restricted to a few localities; and species whose 

numbers are declining so rapidly that offi cial listing 

may be necessary. Sensitive species are listed by the 

Bureau of Land Management State Directors. 

Shelly Pahoehoe: A type of pahoehoe lava that 

forms from highly gas-charged lava, often near 

vents or tube skylights, with a surface that consists 

of broken blisters, small open lava tubes, and thin 

crusts. In the Craters of the Moon Lava Field, 

surface crusts are typically about 10 centimeters (3.9 

inches) thick. 

Shield Volcano: A broad, gently sloping volcano 

that has a flattened dome shape, not unlike that of 

a knight’s shield. Shield volcanoes usually cover a 

large area and form from overlapping and interfi ngering, low viscosity lava fl ows. 

Signifi cant Progress: Measurable and/or observable (i.e., photography, use of approved qualitative 

procedures) changes in the indicators that demonstrate improved rangeland health. 

Silt: Earthy sediment of fine particles of rock and 

soil suspended in and carried by water. 

Slabby Pahoehoe: A type of pahoehoe with a 

surface that consists of a jumbled arrangement of 

jagged plates, or slabs, of pahoehoe that were rafted, 

sheared, tilted, upturned, overturned, and heaped on 

each other. 

Spatter: An accumulation of very fl uid pyroclasts 

(ejected material). 

Spatter Cone: A spatter cone is a low, steep sided 

cone formed from the accumulation of spatter 

ejected from a vent or fi ssure. 

Spatter Rampart: A broad, elongate embankment 

of spatter that is built by a curtain of fire and forms 

along either side of a fi ssure. 

Special Management Areas: An area containing 

one or a combination of unique resources or values 

that receive more intensive management (e.g., 

ACECs, Special Recreation Management Areas, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, etc.). 

Special Status Species: 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, 

or listed by a Bureau of Land Management State 

Director as sensitive or determined priority. 

Speleothem: A mineral deposit of calcium carbonate that precipitates from solution in a cave. 

Spindle Bomb: Volcanic bombs with a twisted 

shape; spindle bombs form from blobs of fl uid lava 

that often take on a smooth stoss side (front side), 

a rougher lee side (backside) marked by ribs and 

fluting caused by frictional resistance to air, and 

have prominent, usually twisted, projections on 

either side that form as ribbon bombs separate. 

Spiny Pahoehoe: A type of pahoehoe with a 

surface that consists of elongate vesicles that formed 

from stretching of very viscous lava, giving it a 

surface texture of small ridges or spines. 

Squeeze Up: A bulbous blob of viscous, molten 

lava that was forced, by pressure, up through a 

fracture or opening in solidifi ed lava. 

Subsistence Use: The customary and traditional use 

by Native Americans of renewable resources on the 

public lands. 

Successional Stage: 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. 

Glossary 687
SUM06 Statistic: The sum of hourly average ozone 

concentrations greater than 0.06 parts per million; 

used to assess potential air quality impacts relating 

to ozone levels. 

Sustainable: The yield of a natural resource that 

can be produced continually at a given intensity of 

management is said to be sustainable. 

Sustainability: The ability of an ecosystem to 

maintain ecological processes and functions, 

biological diversity, and productivity over time. 

Suspended Animal Unit Months (AUMs): Temporary withholding from active use, through a decision 

issued by the authorized officer or by agreement, of 

part or all of the permitted use in a grazing permit 

or lease. 

Sustained Productivity of the Range: Maintaining the production capability of the rangeland for 

long periods of time (100 years or more). 

Tachylyte: A black, green or brown volcanic glass 

that forms when basaltic magma is rapidly chilled. 

Tailings: The waste matter from ore after the 

extraction of economically recoverable metals and 

minerals. 

Taxa: A group of organisms sharing common 

characteristics in varying degrees of distinction 

and constituting one of the categories in taxonomic 

classification, such as a phylum, order, family, 

genus, or species. 

Take: As defined by the Endangered Species Act, 

“to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such 

conduct.” 

Tension Fractures: Tension fractures result from 

stresses that pull rocks apart. 

Tephra: Volcanic ash. 

Tertiary Period: The earlier (5 million to 12 

million years ago) of the two geologic periods in the 

Cenozoic era of geologic time. 

Threatened and Endangered Species: As defi ned 

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 signifi cant 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) overutilization 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. 

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): Total concentration 

of salts in solution. High TDS solutions can change 

the chemical nature of water, exert varying degrees 

of osmotic pressure, and often become lethal to 

aquatic life. 

Traditional Lifeway Values: Values that are 

important for maintaining a group’s traditional 

system of religious belief, cultural practice, or social 

interaction. A group’s shared traditional lifeway 

values are abstract, nonmaterial, ascribed ideas that 

cannot be discovered except through discussions 

with members of the group. These values may or 

may not be closely associated with defi nite locations. 

Traditional Cultural Properties: 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. 

Trail: A linear feature constructed (or established 

by past use), with a single tread designated, 

designed, and intended for travel primarily by 

foot, beasts of burden, two-wheeled vehicles (e.g., 

mountain bikes and motorcycles), and various 

special equipment or machinery generally used for 

individual travel. Facilities used by jeep or fourCRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

688 
wheel drive are typically classified as “roads” or 

“ways.” Trails are sometimes referred to as “single 

track.” 

Class 1 Trails are restricted to non-motorized/non-mechanized travel (wheelchairs are 

allowed). Examples of permitted forms of travel 

include foot travel, pack animal, and horseback. 

Examples of prohibited forms of travel on Type 

1 trails include mountain bikes and all motorized vehicles. Class 1 trails may be further 

restricted, for example, to foot travel only. 

Class 2 Trails are open to motorized/mechanized travel in addition to foot travel, pack 

animal, horseback, and other forms of passage. 

Examples of prohibited forms of travel include 

any vehicle with a footprint wider than an 

18-inch tread (all-terrain vehicles, four-wheelers, 

and four-wheel-drive vehicles). 

Treaty: 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. 

Treaty Right: Rights of land use retained by Native 

American tribes through treaty with the United 

States; such rights commonly include, but may not 

be limited to, hunting, fishing and gathering. 

Tree Mold: A tree mold or lava tree forms when 

lava flows around a tree and chills, leaving behind a 

“mold” of the space occupied by the tree, or impression of the charred wood. Tree molds can also be 

horizontal if the tree was knocked down by the lava 

fl ow. 

Trust Responsibility (as so referred to as 

fi duciary responsibility): 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. Court decisions have interpreted this 

responsibility to extend to all Federal agencies. This 

obligation requires a reasonable and good faith effort 

to identify and consider, and to carry out programs 

in a manner sensitive to and consistent with, Native 

American concerns and tribal government planning 

and resource management programs. 

Trust Resource: Refers to those resources such as 

plants, animals and fi sh that Federally Recognized 

Tribes make use of when exercising their treaty 

rights on public lands; not to be confused with trust 

assets, which are those things held in trust by the 

federal government and managed solely for the 

benefit of tribes, such as trust lands, mineral estate 

on reservation, or grazing receipts. 

Tuff: A compacted pyroclastic deposit of volcanic 

ash and dust that may contain up to 50 percent 

sediments such as sand or clay. 

Tumulus/Tamuli: A tumulus is a dome or mound 

shaped structure on the crust of a lava fl ow caused 

by pressure from the difference in rates of fl ow 

beneath the crust. Unlike a volcanic blister a 

tumulus is a solid structure. 

Turbidity: Muddiness created by stirring up 

sediment or having foreign particles suspended. 

Two-Wheel Drive (2WD): Vehicle clearance 

generally lower than with a 4WD and not designed 

to travel off pavement. 

Understory: Herbaceous plant components, 

including grasses and forbs, that grow beneath 

the overstory in stand of woody shrubs; or the 

herbaceous and woody shrubs growing beneath the 

overstory in a stand of trees. 

Ungulates: Hoofed animals, including ruminants 

but also deer and elk. 

Untrammeled: Not subject to human controls and 

manipulations that hamper the free play of natural 

forces. A word describing desired wilderness 

conditions used in the Wilderness Act. 

Utilization: The portion of forage that has been 

consumed (or destroyed) by livestock, wild horses, 

wildlife, and insects during a specified period. The 

term is also used to refer to a pattern of such use (43 

CFR 4100.0-5). 

Glossary 689
Valid Existing Rights: Locatable mineral development rights that existed when the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) was enacted 

on 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 

BLM to conduct a validity examination and is called 

a “valid existing right” determination. 

Vascular: Having vessels for circulating or transmitting plant or animals fl uids. 

Variety Class: A way to classify landscapes 

according to their visual features. This system is 

based on the premise that landscapes with the greatest variety or diversity have the greatest potential for 

scenic value. 

Vegetation Treatment: Changing the characteristics of an established vegetation type for the purpose 

of improving rangeland forage or wildlife habitat 

resources. Treatments are designed for specifi c 

areas and differ according to the area’s suitability 

and potential. The most common land treatment 

methods alter the vegetation by chaining, spraying 

with pesticides, burning, and plowing, followed by 

seeding with well-adapted desirable plant species. 

Vesicle: A cavity or variable space in lava formed 

by the entrapment of a gas bubble while the lava was 

solidifying. 

Visitor Day: Twelve visitor hours which one or 

more persons may aggregate continuously, intermittently, or simultaneously. 

Visitor Use: Passive or active recreational activity 

on public land, which may involve either consumptive or non-consumptive use of the resources. 

Visual Resource: A part of the landscape important for its scenic quality. It may include a composite of terrain, geologic features, or vegetation. 

Visual Resource Management (VRM): A tool 

used by the Bureau of Land Management to help 

characterize and preserve the quality of visual 

resources. VRM classes are determined on the basis 

of overall scenic quality, distance from travel routes, 

and sensitivity to change: 

Class I: Provides primarily for natural ecological changes only. It is applied to wilderness 

areas, some natural areas, and similar situations where management activities are to be 

restricted. 

Class II: Changes in the basic elements caused 

by a management activity may be evident in the 

characteristic landscape, but the changes should 

remain subordinate to the visual strength of the 

existing character. 

Class III: Contrasts to the basic elements 

caused by management activity may be evident 

and begin to attract attention in the landscape, 

but the changes should remain subordinate in 

the existing landscape. 

Class IV: Contrasts may attract attention and 

be a dominant feature in the landscape in terms 

of scale, but the change should repeat the basic 

element of the characteristic landscape. 

Volcanic Rift Zone: An elongate system of 

crustal fractures associated with underlying dike 

complexes. 

Volcano: A vent in the earth’s surface through 

which magma, gases, or ash may erupt. The structure produced by ejected material. 

Watershed: An area that collects and discharges 

runoff to a given point. It is often used synonymously with drainage basin or catchment. 

Way: A road-like feature used by vehicles having 

four or more wheels, but not declared a road by 

the owner and which receives no maintenance to 

guarantee regular and continuous use. 

Wayside: The edge of a road, path, or way (e.g., 

roadside). 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

690 
Wetland: Areas that are inundated or saturated by 

surface or ground water 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. 

Typical wetlands include marshes, shallow swamps, 

sloughs, lakeshores, bogs, wet meadows, river 

overflows, mud flats, and riparian areas. 

Wilderness Area: An area of federal land designated by the United States Congress and defi ned 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. 

Wilderness Inventory: 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. 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA): An area 

designated by a federal agency as having wilderness 

characteristics, thus making it worthy of consideration by congress for wilderness designation. While 

congress considers whether to designate a WSA as 

a permanent wilderness, the federal agency managing the WSA does so in a manner as to prevent 

impairment of the area’s suitability for wilderness 

designation. 

Wildfi re: An unwanted wildland fi re, regardless 

of ignition source, which is unplanned, has escaped 

control, or does not meet management objectives 

and therefore requires a suppression response. 

Wildland Fire: Any nonstructure fire, other than 

prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland. 

Wildland Fire Use (also called “Wildland Fire 

for Resource Benefi t”): A naturally ignited fi re 

allowed to burn under designated conditions to meet 

resource management objectives. 

Withdrawal: 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 which restricts the use or 

disposal of 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 specifi c public 

purpose. Withdrawals may also be used to transfer 

jurisdiction of management to other federal agencies. 

Xenolith: An inclusion of a foreign body of rock in 

an igneous rock. 

Xeriscaping: Landscaping with drought-tolerant 

vegetation. 

Glossary 691

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

oF degrees Fahrenheit 

μg/m3 micograms per cubic meter 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

AGI Areas of Geologic Interest 

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

ATV all-terrain vehicle 

AUM animal unit month 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CBA Choosing by Advantages 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DOE United States Department of Energy 

EA Environmental Analysis 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESR emergency stabilization or rehabilitation 

ESRP Eastern Snake River Plain 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCC Fire Condition Class 

FCRPA Federal Cave Resources and Protection Act 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 693 
FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FMDA Fire Management Direction Amendment 

FMP Fire Management Plan 

FY fi scal year 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GMP General Management Plan 

GPS Global Positioning System 

I Interstate 

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

ICDC Idaho Conservation Data Center 

IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

IDL Idaho Department of Lands 

IDPR Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation 

IMBA International Mountain Biking Association 

IMP Interim Management Policy 

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Environments Program 

INEEL Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory 

INPS Idaho Native Plant Society 

ITD Idaho Transportation Department 

LAC Limits of Acceptable Change 

lbs/acre pounds per acre 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MFP Management Framework Plan 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MGM2 Money Generation Model (NPS cost estimating software) 

Monument Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

694 
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

NAGPRA National American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NNL National Natural Landmark 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRV natural range of variability 

NTN National Trends Network 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

PL Public Law 

Plan/EIS Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Management Plan/

 Environmental Impact Statement 

PM particulate matter (PM10 = PM less than 10 microns in diameter; 

PM2.5 = PM less than 2.5 microns in diameter) 

ppb parts per billion 

ppm parts per million 

ppm/hr parts per million per hour 

PSD Prevention of Signifi cant Deterioration 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

RAC Resource Advisory Committee 

RMIS Recreation Management Information System 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

RNA Reserved Natural Area 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 695
ROW right-of-way 

RV recreational vehicle 

SCORTP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan 

SH State Highway 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Offi cer 

Stat. Statute 

Strategy Interior Columbia Basin Strategy 

SUM06 the sum of hourly average ozone concentrations greater than 

0.06 parts per million 

U.S. United States 

US United States Highway ## 

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 

USRD Upper Snake River District 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WS Wildlife Services of the United States Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

696 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, J.A. 2001. Genetic diversity of populations of Astragalus oniciformis using inter-simple 

sequence repeat (ISSR) markers. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 90 pp. 

Allaback, Sarah. 2000. Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type. United States 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 

Anderson, J.E., K.T. Ruppel, J.M. Glennon, K.E. Holte, and R.C. Rope. 1996. Plant Communities, 

Ethnoecology, and Flora of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Environmental Science and 

Research Foundation, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Idaho Wildlife Services Program Annual Summary Report 

of Management Activities Conducted During FY 2001 on the Upper Snake River District Bureau of 

Land Management. Unpublished report on file at the BLM Shoshone Field Offi ce. 

Association of Idaho Cities. 2003. Incorporated Cities of Idaho Data – 2003. <http://www.idahocities.org>. 

Bart, John. 2001. Personal communication. USGS Wildlife Section. 

Belnap, J., J.H. Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological 

Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference TR-1730-2. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. 110 pp. 

Berger, A. and W. Iams. 1996. Geoindicators, Assessing Rapid Environmental Changes in Earth 

Systems. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. 

Bever, E.A. 2002. Persistence of pikas in two low-elevation national monuments in the western United 

States. Park Science 21(2):23-29. 

Blaisdell, J.P., R.B. Murray, and E.D. McArthur. 1982. Managing Intermountain Rangelands 

– Sagebrush-Grass Ranges. USDA Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General 

Technical Report INT-134. 41pp. 

Blakesley, J.A. and R.G. Wright. 1988. A Review of Scientifi c Research at Craters of the Moon National 

Monument. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 

Station Bulletin 50. 

Boggs, Bill. 2002. Telephone conversation with Boggs, Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM Idaho Falls 

Field Office, on May 21, 2002, and reference to Desert Area Fact Sheet (Crystal Ice Caves/Kings 

Bowl Area Development History). 

Bratton, J.H. 1990. British Wildlife. Seasonal Pools – An overlooked invertebrate habitat. pp 22-29. 

Braun, C.E., M.F. Baker, R.L. Eng, J.S. Gashwiler, and M.H. Schroeder. 1976. Conservation Committee 

Report on effects of alteration of sagebrush communities on the associated avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 

88:165-171. 

Bibliography 697
Bunting, S.C., J.L. Kingery, M.A. Hemstrom, M.A. Schroeder, R.A. Gravenmier, and W.J. Hann. 2002. 

Altered Rangeland Ecosystems in the Interior Columbia Basin. USDA, Forest Service Pacifi c 

Research Station General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-553. 20pp. 

Butler, B.R. 1963. An Early Man Site at Big Camas Prairie, South-central Idaho. Tebiwa: Journal of the 

Idaho State University Museum 6(1):22-33. 

Caicco, S.L. 1987. National Natural Landmark Evaluation, Great Rift System (Idaho), Columbia Plateau 

Province, Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush) Steppe Theme. Unpublished report prepared for 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Idaho Natural Heritage Program, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game. 39 pp. plus appendices. 

Caicco, S.L. and C.A. Wellner. 1983a. Research Natural Area Recommendation for Big Juniper 

Kipuka. Unpublished report on file at U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Shoshone Field Office, Shoshone, Idaho. 15 pp. 

Caicco, S.L. and C.A. Wellner. 1983b. Research Natural Area Recommendation for Brass Cap Kipuka. 

Unpublished report on file at U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Shoshone Field Office, Shoshone, Idaho. 15 pp. 

Caicco, S.L. and C.A. Wellner. 1983c. Research Natural Area Recommendation for Sand Kipuka. 

Unpublished report on file at U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Shoshone Field Office, Shoshone, Idaho. 14 pp. 

Clark, David. 2003. Personal communication with David Clark, Chief of Interpretation, Craters of the 

Moon National Monument, and Scott Earl, Idaho Cave Survey Director. 

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(4):967-985. 

Cooke, Stephen. 2000. “Twelve Indicators of the Financial Health of Local Governments.” Idaho 

Economics Newsletter. May. 

Day, T.A. and R.G. Wright. 1985. The vegetation types of Craters of the Moon National Monument. 

Bulletin Number 38, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow. 6 

pp. plus map. 

Dealy, J.E., D.A. Leckenby, and D.M. Concannon. 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. 

Dockery, D.W., C.A. Pope III, X. Xu, J.D. Spengler, J.H. Ware, M.E. Fay, B.G. Ferris Jr., F.E. Speizer. 

1993. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. New England Journal of 

Medicine. 329:1753-1759. 

698 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Drut, M.S., W.H. Pyle, and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Technical note: diets and food selection of sage grouse 

chicks in Oregon. J. of Range Management 47(1):90-93. 

Earl, Scott. 2001. Written communication, Idaho Cave Survey. 1965 Van Circle, Idaho Falls, ID 83404. 

Falter, M.C. and R.J. Freitag. 1996. Baseline Study of Water Resources on Craters of the Moon National 

Monument, Idaho. Technical Report NPS/CCSOUI/NRTR-96/06. 

Gabler. K.L., L.T. Heady, and J.W. Laundre. 2001. A habitat suitability model for pygmy rabbits 

(Brachylagus idahoensis) in southeastern Idaho. Western North American Naturalist 61(4):480-489. 

Gelbard, J.L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. 

Conservation Biology 17: 420-432. 

Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group. 1996. Greater Yellowstone bald eagle management 

plan: 1995 update. Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group, Wyoming Game & Fish Dept., 

Lander, WY 82520. 47 pp. 

Greeley, R. 1971. Note on the Occurrence of Dribblet Spires in the Snake River Plain, Idaho: Northwest 

Science, 45(3):145-148. 

Greeley, R. and J.S. King, eds. 1977. Volcanism of the Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho: A Comparative 

Planetary Geology Guidebook: National Aeronautics and Space Administration CR-154621, 308 p. 

Griffith, B. 1983. Ecological Characteristics of Mule Deer: Craters of the Moon N.M., ID. Thesis. 

University of Idaho College of Forestry, Moscow, ID. 

Gruhn, R. 1961 The Archaeology of Wilson Butte Cave, South-central Idaho. Occasional Papers of the 

Idaho State University Museum 6, Pocatello. 

Guffanti, M., S.R. Brantley, and L. McClelland, eds. 2001. Volcanism in National Parks: Summary of 

the Workshop Convened by the U.S. Geological Survey and National Park Service, 26-29 September 

2000, Redding California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-435, 43 p. 

Hendee, J.C. and C.P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management Stewardship and Protection of Resources 

and Values, 3rd edition. International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation. 

Henderson, F.A. and A. Murie. 1958. Proposed addition to Craters of the Moon National Monument. 

Unpublished report, Craters of the Moon National Monument Library. 9pp. 

Hilty, J. and B. Moseley. 1991. Idaho Natural Areas Directory. Conservation Data Center, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 

Bibliography 699
Hironaka, M., M.A. Fosberg, A.H. Winward. 1983. Sagebrush-grass Habitat Types of Southern Idaho. 

Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. Bulletin No. 35. 

Hoffman, Roger 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. 

Horning, D.S., Jr., and W.F. Barr. 1970. Insects of Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho. 

University of Idaho College of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Series No. 8. 118 pp. 

Hughes, S.S., R.P. Smith, W.R. Hackett, and S.R. Anderson. 1999. Mafi c Volcanism and Environmental 

Geology of the Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho, in Hughes, S.S. and G.D. Thackray, eds., 

Guidebook to the Geology of Eastern Idaho: Idaho Museum of Natural History, p. 143-168. 

Humphreys, E.D. et al. 2000. Beneath Yellowstone: Evaluating Plume and Nonplume Models Using 

Teleseismic Images of the Upper Mantle, in GSA Today, 10(12). 

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, 36-

15345, and 36-15346, Presiding Judge, Snake River Basin Adjudication, Fifth Judicial District for 

the State of Idaho. 

Idaho Conservation Data Center. 2002a. Glacicvicola bathysciodes species account. <http:// 

fi shandgame.idaho.gov/tech/CDC/spp_accounts_invertebrates/glabat.cfm>. 

Idaho Conservation Data Center. 2002b. Acrolophitus pulchellus species account. <http://fi shandgame. 

idaho.gov/tech/CDC/spp_accounts_invertebrates/acrpul.cfm>.

Idaho Conservation Data Center. 2002c. National Natural Landmark Evaluation, Craters of the Moon 

National Monument, Idaho, Columbia Plateau Natural Region Low Sagebrush Theme, Low 

sagebrush/Idaho Fescue Subtheme. Unpublished Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

Boise, Idaho. pp. 24. 

Idaho Department of Commerce. 2003. County profi les of Idaho. <http://www.idoc.state.id.us/idcomm/ 

profi les/index.html>.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Idaho Grouse Management Plan. Idaho Dept. of Fish and 

Game, Boise, ID. 33pp. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2002a. Sage grouse statewide habitat maps. Unpublished data. 

Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2002b. Sage grouse statewide survey data. Unpublished data. 

Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 

700 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2003. Unpublished survey or observation data from Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

Idaho Department of Lands. 2002. Idaho Statewide Implementation Strategy for the National Fire Plan. 

Idaho Department of Lands. Boise, Idaho. 

Idaho State Conservation Effort. 1996. Habitat conservation assessment and conservation strategy for 

the Idaho Dunes Tiger Beetle. Report No. 7 Boise, Idaho. 

Interagency Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook 2001. <http://fi re. 

r9.fws.gov/ifcc/Esr/Handbook/Default.htm>.

Jurs, L.P. and A.R. Sands. 2004. An inventory, assessment, and recommended management of shrub 

steppe vegetation in Laidlaw Park, Little Park, and Paddelford Flat, Craters of the Moon National 

Monument and Preserve. Unpublished report on file, BLM Shoshone Field Office, Shoshone, Idaho. 

45 pp. plus appendices. 

Keller, B. 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. 

Kuntz M.A., D.E. Champion, R.H. Lefebvre, et al. 1979. Geological and Geophysical Investigations 

and Evaluation of Potential Resources of the Proposed Great Rift Wilderness Area, Idaho. U.S. 

Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines. 

Kuntz, M.A., D.E. Champion, E.C. Spiker, and R.H. Lefebvre. 1986. Contrasting magma types and 

steady-state, volume predictable, basaltic volcanism along the Great Rift, Idaho: Geological Society 

of America Bulletin, 97:579-594. 

Kuntz, M.A., D.E. Champion, E.C. Spiker, R.H. Lefebvre, and L.A. McBroome. 1982. The Great Rift 

and the evolution of the Craters of the Moon lava fi eld, Idaho, in Bonnichsen, B. and Breckenridge, 

eds., Ceonozoic Geology of Idaho: Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 26, p. 423-437. 

Kuntz, M.A., D.E. Champion, R.H. Lefebvre, and H.R. Covington. 1988. Geologic Map of the Craters 

of the Moon, Kings Bowl, and Wapi lava fields, and the Great Rift volcanic rift zone, south-central 

Idaho: United States Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1632. 

Kuntz, M.A., H.R. Covington, and L.J. Schorr. 1992. An overview of basaltic volcanism of the eastern 

Snake River Plain, Idaho, in Link, P.K., M.A. Kuntz, and L.B. Platt, eds., Regional Geology of 

Eastern Idaho and Western Wyoming: Geological Society of America Memoir 179. 

Bibliography 701
Landscape Dynamics Lab. 1999. Idaho Land Cover. Spatial data in ArcInfo grid format. Version 2.1. 

Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. <http://www. 

wildlife.uidaho.edu/idgap/idgap_data.asp>.

Laverty, L. and J. Williams. 2000. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted 

Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy. The Forest Service Management Response to the General 

Accounting Office Report GAO/RCED-99-65. October 13. 

Lee, John. 2002. Personal communication. 

Liljeblad, Sven. 1957. Indian Peoples in Idaho. Idaho State College, Pocatello, Idaho. 

Liljeblad, Sven. 1960. Indians of Idaho: A Condensed History of Peoples who lived here for more than 

a Hundred Centuries, Idaho Historical Series 3, Idaho Historical Society, Boise, Idaho. 

Louter, D. 1992. Craters of the Moon National Monument: An Administrative History. National Park 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Seattle, Washington. 

Machlis, G.E., D.E. Dolsen, and D.L. Madison. 1989. Visitor Services Project Report 20, Craters of the 

Moon National Monument. University of Idaho, Cooperative Studies Unit, 1(42). February. 

Miller, S.J. 1989. Paleontology of the Eastern Snake River Plain: Unpublished manuscript. 

Moates, Dwayne. 2002. Personnel communication. NPS Facility Manager. 

Montgomery, Judith H. 1984. “Interim Corridor Evaluation Report.” Prepared for the Corridor 

Evaluation Wide Group and the Interregional Marketing Transmission Subcommittee. 

Morse, L.E. 1996. Plant rarity and endangerment in North America. Pages 7-22 in Falk, D.A., C.I. 

Millar, and M. Olwell (eds.). Restoring Diversity - Strategies for Reintroduction of Endangered 

Plants. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 505 pp. 

Moseley, R.K. 1989. National Natural Landmark Evaluation, Craters of the Moon National Monument, 

Idaho, Columbia Plateau Natural Region Low Sagebrush Theme, Low sagebrush/Idaho Fescue 

Subtheme. Unpublished Report provided by Idaho Natural Heritage Program, Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game. Boise, ID. pp. 34. 

Moseley, R.K. and S.J. Popovich. 1995. The conservation status of Picabo milkvetch (Astragalus 

oniciformis Barneby). Idaho Bureau of Land Management Technical Bulletin No. 95-9. Unpublished 

report on file at USDI Bureau of Land Management, Shoshone Field Office. 21 pp. plus appendices. 

Murphy, Chris. 2002a. Personal communication. Botanist, Idaho Conservation Center. 

702 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Murphy, Chris. 2002b. The conservation status of Phacelia inconspicua (obscure scorpion plant) in 

Idaho—an update. Challenge Cost-Share Project, Upper Snake River District, Bureau of Land 

Management, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Unpublished report on file at USDI Bureau 

of Land Management, Shoshone Field Office. 20 pp. plus appendices. 

Murphy, Robert F. and Yolanda Murphy. 1960. Shoshone-Bannock Subsistence and Society, University 

of California Anthropological Records 16(7): 293-338. Berkeley, California. 

Nace, R L., P.T. Voegeli, J.R. Jones, and M. Deutsch. 1975. Generalized Geologic Framework of the 

National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 725-B. 

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NRSP-3)/National Trends Network. 2002. NADP Program 

Office, Illinois State Water Survey, 2204 Griffith Drive, Champaign, IL 61820. 

National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland Health: New Methods to Classify, Inventory, and Monitor 

Rangelands. 

Omernik, J.M. 1986. Map-Ecoregions of the United States, Corvallis Environmental Research 

Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Paige, C. and S.A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea. Partners in Flight, Western Working Group. p 

5. 

Peterson, Charles. 2003. Personal communication. 

Peterson, J.G. 1995. Sagebrush: ecological implications of sagebrush manipulation. Montana 

Department of Fish, wildlife and Parks, Helena. 

Pierson, E.D., M.C. Wackenhut, J.S. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, et al. 1999. Species conservation 

assessment strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). Idaho Conservation 

Effort, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 

Popovich, S. 2003. Personal communication. Former Shoshone Field Office, BLM, Botanist. 

Reagan, R. 1985. Message to the Congress Proposing Additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

and National Wilderness Preservation Systems. April 26. 

Rich, Terrell. 1984. Mountain Bluebird Use of Treeless Lava Flows for Nest Sites. Western Birds 15: 

39-40. 

Ridenour. 1979. Mineral Resources of the Wapi Lava Flow, Addition to the Grassland Kipuka Instant 

Wilderness Study Area, Blaine and Power Counties, Idaho. Bureau of Mines. 

Bibliography 703
Rogers, J. and J. Sovick. 2001. Let There Be Dark: The National Park Service and the New Mexico 

Night Sky Protection Act. The George Wright Forum, V 18, 2001, Number 4, Protecting Dark Skies, 

Guest Editor: Joe Sovick 

Rust, Steve. 2002. National Natural Landmark Evaluation, Columbia Plateau Natural Region, Low 

Sagebrush Theme, Low Sagebrush/Idaho Fescue Subtheme. Unpublished report prepared for 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Boise Idaho, 27 pp. 

Sandberg, D.V. and F.N. Dost. 1990. Effects of prescribed fire on air quality and human health. In: 

Wasltad, J.W., S.R. Radosevich, and D.V. Sandberg, eds. Natural and prescribed fi re in Pacifi c 

Northwest forests. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press: 191-218. 

Saras, M. 1982. Laidlaw Park Allotment Controlled Burn Environmental Assessment. EA# ID-050-2-

041 on file at Bureau of Land Management, Shoshone Field Office, Shoshone, Idaho. 12 pp. 

Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). In The 

Birds of North America, No.425 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Shallat, T. and L. Burke. 1994. Snake, The Plain and its People. Boise State University, Boise, Idaho. 

Smith, R.B., and L.J. Siegel. 2000. Windows into the Earth, The Geologic Story of Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton National Parks, Oxford University Press, 242 p. 

Smithsonian Institute. 2003. Museum Records of the National Museum of Natural History at the 

Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C. 

State of Idaho, Department of Agriculture. 2001. Noxious Weed Rules. Section 22-2403, Idaho Code. 

IDAPA, Title 06, Chapter 22. 

State of Idaho, INEEL Oversight Program. 2003. 2002 Environmental Surveillance Report – A 

compilation and explanation of data collected by the INEEL Oversight Program during 2002. INEEL 

Oversight Program, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

Steward, J.H. 1938. Basin-Plateau Aborigial Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology 

Bulletin 120. Washington. Reprinted: 1970, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Stoller, S.M. 2003. INEEL Annual Site Environmental Report – 2002. Report prepared under contract 

for the U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Offi ce, DOE/ID-12082(02). 

Tisdale, E.W., M. Hironka, and M.A. Fosberg. 1965. An area of pristine vegetation in Craters of the 

Moon National Monument, Idaho. Ecology, 46(3):349-352. 

704 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock 1868, commonly referred to as the Fort Bridger 

Treaty (15 Statute 673). 

Trijonis, J., R. Charlson, R. Husar, W.C. Malm, M. Pitchford, and W. White. 1991. Visibility: existing 

and historical conditions— causes and effects. In: Acid deposition: state of science and technology: 

Report 24. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Offi ce. 

Trimbel, S. 1989. The Sagebrush Ocean. University of Nevada Press, Reno. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2003. Projections of the total population of states: 1995-2005 <http://www. 

census.gov/population/projections/state/stpjpop.txt>. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. Environmental Assessment. Predator Damage Management in 

Southern Idaho. February. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2004. Site-specifi c 

environmental assessment rangeland Mormon cricket suppression program. ID-PPQ-MC-2004-001. 

UDDA-APHIS, Boise, Idaho. 83 pp. March. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2004. Site-specifi c 

environmental assessment rangeland grasshopper suppression program. ID-PPQ-GH-2004-003. 

UDDA-APHIS, Boise, Idaho. 73 pp. March. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1996. Comprehensive Facility and Land Use Plan, Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory, DOE/ID-10514. 

U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy & Program Review. 1995. Final Report. December 18. 45p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Technical Reference TR 1737-9 and 11. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980a. Great Rift Proposed Wilderness, 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980b. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement: Great Rift Wilderness. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Falls District, Idaho Falls, 

Idaho. pp. 83. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 1981a. Big desert management 

framework plan. Shoshone, Idaho. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 1981b. Malad management framework 

plan. Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

Bibliography 705
U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 1981c. Sun Valley management 

framework plan. Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Big Lost management framework 

plan. Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Monument resource management 

plan. Shoshone, Idaho. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Monument Wilderness Study, Shoshone District Offi ce, Shoshone Idaho. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 1988. Pocatello proposed (fi nal) 

resource management plan and final environmental impact statement. Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1993; Revised 1995. Riparian Area 

Management, Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition, Technical Report 1737-9, p. 4. 

BLM/SC/ST-93/ 003+1737+REV95, Service Center, Colorado. 51 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Riparian Area Management, 

Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas. Technical 

report 1737-11. BLM/SC/ST-94/008+1737, Service Center, Colorado. 37 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1995. H-8550-1-Interim Management 

Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review. BLM Manual. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Cave resources management plan. 

Upper Snake River District, Idaho. 42 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000a. BLM Facts: payment in lieu of 

taxes (PILT) to Idaho counties. <http://www.id.blm.gov/blmfacts/data/pilt_2000.htm>. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 2000b. BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook H-1601-1. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001a. BLM Facts: grazing fee receipts 

distributed to Idaho counties. <http://www.id.blm.gov/blmfacts/data/grazing_receipts.htm>. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001b. H-6310-1-Wilderness Inventory 

and Study Procedures. BLM Manual. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001c. Surface Management Status 

1:100,000-scale topographic maps, Craters of the Moon (2001) and Lake Walcott (2000) quads. 

706 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2002a. Craters of the Moon Nation 

Monument Interim Management Plan. Instruction Memorandum #ID 070-2002-001. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2002b. Idaho Bureau of Land 

Management: Road Management and Maintenance Guidelines for Public Lands in Idaho. Idaho State 

Office, Boise, Idaho. November. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Instruction Memorandum No. 2003 

regarding Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan Interim Guidance for Wildland Fire Management. 

Washington D.C. 6 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Fire Management Plan for the 

Upper Snake River District, South Central Idaho Area. 190 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Normal fire rehabilitation plan 

and environmental assessment ID-077-2004-008. Burley and Shoshone Field Offices, Idaho. 190 

pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management/National Park Service. 2001. 

Memorandum of Agreement. Craters of the Moon National Monument, Addendum #1 Interim 

Management Guidelines. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department 

of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, and National Association of State Foresters. 2001. Review and Update of the 

1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. January. 45p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1989. Reconnaissance Survey/Expansion of 

Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho. NPS Study Team, Denver Service Center (DSC), p. 

31. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1990. Management Alternatives and 

Reconnaissance Survey/Expansion of Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho. NPS Study 

Team, Denver Service Center (DSC), 49 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1991. Resource Management Plan. CRMO-N210.00. December. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1992. General Management Plan (GMP), Craters 

of the Moon National Monument, Idaho. NPS Study Team, Denver Service Center (DSC), 87pp. 

June. 

Bibliography 707
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1994-2000. Annual Data Summary, Craters of 

the Moon National Monument, 1994-2000. National Park Service Gaseous Air Pollutant Monitoring 

Network, Air Resources Division, Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1996. Craters of the Moon National Monument 

Wilderness Management Plan. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1998. Baseline Water Quality Data Inventory 

and Analysis, Craters of the Moon National Monument. Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR98/178, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2000a. Craters of the Moon National Monument 

Wildland Fire Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. 86 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2000b. National Register of Historic Places 

Registration Form – Headquarters Area Craters of the Moon National Monument. Columbia 

Cascades Support Offi ce, Seattle Washington. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2001a. Geologic Processes Scoping Meeting 

Report for Craters of the Moon. October 24. <http://www2.nature.nps.gov/grd/geology/monitoring/ 

ib4/crmo_ib4_report.pdf>. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2001b. Management Policies. Washington, D.C. 

Available on the Internet at <http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/mp>. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2002a. Air Quality in the National Parks, Second 

Edition. Air Resources Division, Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2002b. Superintendent’s Compendium, Craters 

of the Moon National Monument and Preserve. 14 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2003. Interim Final Guidance on Assessing 

Impacts and Impairment to Natural Resources. Natural Resource Program. April. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000. News Release: “Babbitt Releases Craters of the Moon Expansion 

Map,” including Consensus Management Points for Craters of the Moon National Monument 

Proposed Expansion. May 23. 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 2001. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36 – Parks, Forests, and 

Public Property, Chapter I – National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Park 62 – National 

Natural Landmarks Program. 

708 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
U.S. House of Representatives. 1970. Hearings before the Subcommittees on Public Lands and National 

Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 

Ninety-first Congress, HR 16821, HR 16822, and SB 1732, Bills to Designate Certain Lands in 

Craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho as Wilderness. pp 508-509. June 26. 

Ward, D.E., C.C. Hardy, D.V. Sandberg, and T.E. Reinhardt. 1989. Part III-emissions characterization. 

In Sandberg, D.V., D.E. Ward, R.D. Ottmar, comp. eds. Mitigation of prescribed fi re atmospheric 

pollution through increased utilization of hardwoods, piled residues, and long-needled conifers. 

Final report. U.S. DOE, EPA. Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacifi c 

Northwest Research Station. 

Welch, B. 2002. Bird counts of burned versus unburned big sagebrush sites. USDA Forest Service 

Research Note, RMRS-RN-16. 

Wellner, C.A. and R.K. Moseley. 1983. Research Natural Area Recommendation for Sand Kipuka, 

Bureau of Land Management, Shoshone District, Idaho. 14 pp. 

Western Utility Group. 1992. Western regional corridor study. Sierra Pacific Power Company. 

Whipple, J. 1992. Review of Herbarium/plant list. Unpublished memo/report. 

Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and 

management implications. Pages 4-10 in McArthur, E.D., E.M. Romney, S.D. Smith, and P.T. 

Tueller, Comps. Proceedings – Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, Shrub die-off, and other 

aspects of shrub biology and management. General Technical Report INT-276. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ogden, Utah. 

Williams, G.W. 2001. References on American Indian use of fire in ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, 

Washington, D.C. 34 pp. 

Williams, R. 2002. USDA Wildlife Services, Arco, ID. Personal communication. 

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, et al. 2000. Source habitats for 

terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and management 

implications. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report GTR-PNW-485, 529 pp. 

Yingst, D., and H.M. Handy. 1961. Our Public Lands 11:8-9, 14pp. 

Bibliography 709 

LIST OF PREPARERS

The Craters of the Moon National Monument Planning Team 

Jim Morris, NPS, Monument Superintendent 

Rick VanderVoet, BLM, Monument Manager, Shoshone Field Offi ce 

Adrienne A. Anderson, NPS, Planning Team Captain 

Barbara Bassler, BLM, Planner 

John Apel, NPS, Resources Program Manager 

Marny Apel, NPS, Planner 

David Clark, NPS, Chief of Interpretation 

Lisa Cresswell, BLM, Archaeologist 

Jesse German, BLM, GIS Specialist 

Dave Freiberg, BLM, Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Julie Hilty, BLM, Botanist/Fire Ecologist 

Paul McClain, BLM, Wildlife Biologist 

Codie Martin, BLM, Rangeland Management Specialist 

Mike Munts, NPS, Wildlife Biologist 

Doug Owen, NPS, Geologist/Acting Chief of Interpretation 

Mike Saras, BLM, GIS Specialist 

Mike Wissenbach, NPS, NEPA Coordinator 

Paige Wolken, NPS, Vegetation Ecologist 

Consultants 

Sandi Arena, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Pocatello, Idaho 

Terry Gregory, Wildlife Biologist, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Fairfi eld, Idaho 

Terry Heslin, BLM, Idaho State Office, Boise, Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Paul Oakes, BLM, Planner, Pocatello Field Offi ce 

Mitch Werner, BLM, Writer-Editor, Pocatello Field Offi ce 

Mel Kuntz, USGS, Geologist, Denver, CO 

Mike McDonald, Wildlife Manager, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Jerome, Idaho 

Rebecca Carter, Socioeconomic Consultant, Sonoran Institute, Tuscon, AZ 

Nancy Van Dyke, Senior Consultant, URS Corporation, Denver, CO 

Lisa Pine, Environmental Planner, URS Corporation , Denver, CO 

Brenda Miller, Editor, URS Corporation, Denver, CO 

Andy Richardson, Editor, URS Corporation, Denver, CO 

Jody Glennon, Staff Assistant, URS Corporation, Denver, CO 

Susan Pella, Technical Typist, URS Corporation, Denver, CO 

Aileen Torres, Technical Typist, URS Corporation, Denver, CO 

Glossary 711

INDEX

access 17, 18, 20, 21, 29, 37, 43, 44, 49, 54-56, 60, 62, 63, 67, 68, 74, 81-83, 96, 110, 116-117, 125, 130, 134, 145, 

147, 148, 151, 154, 160, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 179, 180, 201, 207, 209-213, 215-218, 222-225, 227, 

228, 230, 231, 233, 235, 236-240, 247, 249, 250, 252, 254-267, 269-273, 275-293, 298, 301-304, 306-312, 318, 321, 

323, 324 

ACEC (Area of Critical Environmental Concern) 47, 56, 60, 85, 136, 169, 178, 204, 225, 278-280, 324, Appendix G

air quality 11, 19, 20, 34, 71, 75, 141-143, 166, 218, 240-245, 286, 288, 290, 293

American Indians - see Native Americans

animal unit month (AUM) 154, 158, 231, 268

Arco 6, 20, 43, 49, 56, 62, 134, 143, 148, 166, 168, 175, 176, 179, 185, 187, 192, 194-197, 204, 205, 252, 259, 262,

263, 276-279, 281, 282, 287, 295, 300, 301, 303, 305, 307, 316, 318, 324, 326, 327

authorized uses 18, 156, 318 

Bellevue 181, 183, 191, 193, 194-197 

bicycling 71 

Blaine County 120, 137, 146, 165, 179, 180-183, 185, 191, 196, 202, 204, 205, 276-279, 300, 302, 305, 327 

boundary adjustments 3, 23, 70 

Butte County 4, 137, 146, 148, 165, 179, 185-187, 192, 197, 203, 327 

camping 43, 172, 173, 175, 267, 269, 270, 286-291, 293, 324 

Carey 6, 43, 49, 62, 120, 123, 129, 135, 137, 148, 160, 163, 168, 169, 176, 181, 183, 191, 193-197, 204, 229, 235, 252, 

259, 263, 276, 281-283, 286-288, 290, 292, 317, 318, 327 

carrying capacity 22 

Index 713
cave(s) 4, 6, 7, 15, 17, 20, 48, 74, 105, 109, 110, 120, 129, 130, 133, 140, 144, 146, 151, 160, 166, 169, 171, 172, 173,

175, 177, 202, 207, 210, 220, 227-232, 235, 248, 249, 251, 262, 263, 282, 300, 306-309, 323, 324, 327

cave management 15, 17, 324

concession/concessioner(s) 18, 160, 175, 180, 206, 326

cumulative impact scenario 14, 202, 203

endangered species 126, 129, 136, 137, 235, 236, 278, 316

environmental justice 21

erosion 74, 75, 108, 111, 126, 142, 145, 175, 207-222, 224, 226, 228, 247, 249-252, 256, 256, 259, 261, 262, 264,

305-310

ethnographic resources 144, 146, 147, 245, 254-260 

fi re management 15, 16, 19, 20, 32, 44, 50, 59, 62, 64, 74, 78, 92, 113, 122, 123, 125, 166, 202, 204, 205, 212, 218, 

220-222, 224, 227, 234, 237-239, 242, 247, 249, 251, 252, 254, 256-258, 260, 263, 264, 266, 292, 298, 299, 322-325 

Appendix J 

fl oodplains 21, 111, 130 

gateway communities 6, 18, 194, 283, 284, 292, 300, 304, 318, 326 

grazing 14, 18-21, 38, 69-71, 74, 83, 96, 111, 116-118, 120, 126, 140, 146, 153, 155, 160, 167, 201, 203-205, 208, 

209, 211-213, 215-218, 221, 225-227, 229, 231, 233-235, 237, 248, 250-253, 256, 258, 259, 263, 267-271, 277-279, 

298, 299, 3069, 307, 309, 310, 312, 321, 322, 325, Appendix F 

Great Rift 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14, 18, 19, 69, 105, 107, 109, 133, 146, 163, 165, 166, 168, 169, 177, 208, 209, 278, 279 

Hailey 178-181, 183, 191-197, 317, 318, 327 

hiking 43, 71, 110, 160, 172, 173, 175, 177, 284, 288, 290, 301 

hunting 4, 21, 70, 75, 147, 172, 173, 178, 201, 233, 237-239, 254, 285, 287, 289, 291 

714 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Idaho Transportation Department 154, 205, 272

interpretation 17, 20, 49, 56, 63, 72, 145, 169-171, 215, 218, 248-251, 253, 256, 260, 262, 266, 274, 280-285, 287,

289, 291, 293, 301, 303, 304, 306, 307, 309, 320

interim management guidelines 6, 43, 325, Appendix B

Ketchum 181, 183, 191-197, 327

Kimama 43, 49, 62, 123, 148, 176, 252, 259, 263, 281-283, 286-288, 290, 292, 295, 307

Kings Bowl 4, 17, 43, 49, 105, 107-109, 120, 151, 160, 171-173, 175, 209-211, 214, 216, 218, 220, 227, 237, 238, 248, 

249, 251, 262, 263, 266, 276, 281, 282, 284-290, 292, 301, 306, 307, 309

kipuka(s) 4, 7, 19, 20, 111-113, 116, 117, 119, 120, 129, 134, 145, 168, 169, 172, 178, 235, 241 

lava 3, 4, 6, 7, 17, 23, 43, 49, 56, 62, 63, 70, 105, 107-113, 115, 116, 118-120, 126, 129, 133-135, 140, 144-146, 148, 

154, 156, 163, 165, 166, 168-170, 172, 173, 175-178, 204, 207-209, 211, 212, 221, 226, 236, 241, 264, 265, 270, 276, 

279, 319, 321, 327

Lincoln County 4, 178, 180, 181, 183, 190, 197, 203, 327

livestock 10, 19, 20, 38, 43, 69, 70, 74, 75, 83, 96, 113,116-118, 120, 122, 126, 131, 139, 140, 154, 156, 164, 168, 

172, 173, 176, 177-179, 204, 205, 208, 210, 214-222, 224-226, 228-237, 246, 247, 249, 251, 253, 256, 258, 259, 261,

263, 264, 267-271, 275-280, 285, 287-299, 303, 305-312, 319, 321, 322, 325, 327, Appendix F

Minidoka 4, 20, 43, 49, 56, 62, 137, 148, 169, 175, 176, 179, 189-192, 19-197, 203-205, 250, 257, 260, 261, 274-277,

279, 280, 285, 293, 299-301, 303, 305, 324, 327

Minidoka County 4, 137, 148, 179, 189-192, 194-197, 203, 327 

mitigation 74, 75, 203, 213, 254, 305 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 14, 25, 43, 69, 136, 137, 294-297, 315, 320, 326 

Index 715 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 14, 144, 245, 254, 320 

National Register of Historic Places 145, 245, 316 

Native Americans 11, 122, 144-148, 245, 254-258, 260, 315, 316, 326 

noxious weeds 62, 117, 119, 120, 122, 126, 168, 202, 204, 205, 219-227, 278, 279, 306-312, 322, 324 

noise 179, 235, 298, 299 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) 151, 154, 173, 179, 205, 222, 223, 226, 275-277, 280, 285, 288, 298, 324 

off-road vehicle (ORV) 30, 151, 153, 154, 276-280 

outfi tters/guides 62, 63, 172, 207, 210, 246, 267, 269, 270, 319, 326, 327 

parking 22, 30, 49, 150, 153, 160, 211, 214, 250, 271, 273, 274 

permit(s) 18, 20, 21, 151-154, 160, 163, 165, 166, 172, 173, 175, 180, 201, 208, 239, 260-262, 267-270, 300, 302-

304, 306 

Power County 4, 137, 143, 179, 187-189, 191, 203, 242, 319, 327 

predator control 19, 71, 275 

proclamation/Proclamation 7373/Presidental Proclamation 3, 4, 7, 11, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 27, 43, 69, 70, 73, 

152, 154, 156, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 169, 178, 209, 211-213, 215-218, 221, 223, 225, 227, 229-232, 236, 238-240,

243-245, 248, 250, 252, 253, 256-258, 260, 271-274, 315, Appendix A

public scoping/involvement 12, 13, 70, 315, 317

purpose and need 6, 69

rangeland 11, 15, 18, 112, 113, 117, 122, 135, 139, 141, 156, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 222, 224, 226, 233, 235-237,

261, 263, 264, 266-271, 321, 325

716 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Resource Advisory Committee 317 

road and trail classifi cations 16, 47, 55, 61, 68, 151, 178, 252, 259, 261 

sage-grouse 7, 11, 116, 117, 131, 137, 139, 140, 147, 172, 232-239, 325 

Section 106 144, 246-254, 320 

Shoshone 6, 7, 11, 14, 19, 23, 75, 144, 146-148, 154, 173, 181, 183, 191, 193-197, 204, 316-318, 323, 326, 328 

soils 4, 20, 21, 74, 75, 78, 92, 110-113, 115-117, 120, 126, 129, 140, 142, 208, 209, 213-220, 222-227, 234, 241, 247, 

249, 251, 252, 305-312, 321, 322 

sustainable 11, 12, 74, 75, 203, 286, 288, 290, 293 

Sun Valley 14, 41, 43, 171, 180, 181, 183, 192-196, 327 

threatened and endangered species (special status species) 137, 141, 218-226, 232, 235, 236, 246, 278 

tourism/ecotourism 179, 181, 205, 284, 286, 288, 302, 304 

transportation plan 16, 323 

treaty rights 21, 146, 147, 245, 254-260 

trail/trails 6, 16, 18, 20, 30, 47, 49, 55, 61, 68, 69, 71, 74, 75, 108, 146, 148, 151-153, 156, 160, 161, 165, 170, 171, 

173, 175, 180, 207-212, 214-224, 226, 227, 231, 237, 238, 240, 246-253, 256, 258-262, 264, 266, 278, 281, 282, 285, 

287-293, 305-311, 323, 324 

valid existing rights 18, 161, 163, 164, 271-274 

viewshed/viewscape 11, 19, 178, 294-297 

visitor center 6, 22, 43, 62, 63, 72, 131, 143, 146, 148, 160, 170, 171, 179, 180, 194, 205, 208, 214, 216, 218, 220, 

Index 717
222, 224, 227, 248, 250, 251, 253, 255, 257-260, 262, 266, 271, 274, 278, 281-286, 288, 290, 292, 301-303, 305-309 

visual resource management 47, 48, 53, 178, 248, 255, 294 

volcanic 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 17, 105, 109-111, 129, 170, 178, 207, 209 

water quality 74, 130, 202, 228-231, 321 

weed management 63, 120, 203, 204, 215, 216, 220, 221, 234, 236, 252, 259, 281-284, 321, 322, 324 

wetlands 79, 129, 130, 229, 234 

wildlife 6, 13, 15, 20, 34, 50, 59, 64, 70, 75, 80, 94, 110, 116, 119, 122, 129, 131, 136, 137, 147, 156, 166, 168, 172, 

179, 202, 204, 228, 232-240, 255-258, 275, 278, 301-312, 317, 322, 325-327

Wilderness Study Area 6, 11, 16, 20, 31, 39, 56, 85, 148, 151, 166, 168, 201, 248-251, 253, 255, 256, 257, 259,

272-277, 279, 278, 286-293, 308, 324, 325

718 CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE 

Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 
As the nation’s conservation agency, the Department of Interior has the responsibility for most of our 

nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land 

and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environment 

and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life 

through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to 

ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and 

citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

NPS D-75A / PMIS-63374 / July 2005 / Printed on recycled paper 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT