The BLM manages more land – 253 million acres – than any other federal agency. This land, known as 

the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western States, including Alaska. The 

Bureau, with a budget of about $1 billion, also administers 700 million acres of subsurface mineral 

estate throughout the nation. The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of 

the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes 

this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and 

energy production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands.

BLM/CA/PL-2015/005+1220+1617
Record of Decision

And

Approved Resource Management Plan

For the 

Bakersfield Field Office

Prepared by

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Bakersfield Field Office

California

December 2014
<This page intentionally left blank>
Bakersfield Record of Decision

And

Approved Resource Management Plan

Lead Agency: US Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Location: California

Contacts: Requests for additional information regarding the Record of Decision and Approved 

Resource Management Plan:

Gabriel Garcia, Field Manager, Bakersfield Field Office, 661-391-6000

Requests for copies of the document:

blm_ca_bakersfield_rmp@blm.gov or call 661-391-6022

Project Web site: www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/bakersfield

Abstract: The Bakersfield Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

(ROD/Approved RMP) is a project of BLM California that supports the BLM’s Mission. 

The Approved RMP was prepared under the authority of and regulations implementing 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 Code of Federal Regulations 

1600). It includes broad land use plan decisions that provide the overall direction for 

managing resources and resource uses in the Bakersfield Decision Area. Land use plan 

decisions are expressed as goals and objectives (desired outcomes), allowable uses, 

and management actions anticipated to achieve desired outcomes. The Approved RMP 

also includes implementation-level decisions; future implementation of the ROD may 

require additional steps and analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act 

before on-the-ground activities can begin.

The Bakersfield Field Office is located in south-central California stretching from the 

coastal islands in the Pacific Ocean across the Central Valley to the crest of the Sierra 

Nevada; it falls within Kings, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, Ventura, Madera, 

eastern Fresno, and western Kern Counties. The Bakersfield Decision Area 

encompasses approximately 400,000 acres of BLM-administered public land and 1.2 

million acres of Federal mineral estate.

The decisions outlined in this document will enable the BLM to manage and protect 

resources on public lands within the Bakersfield Decision Area to achieve desired future 

conditions and management objectives. Planning decisions in this document do not 

apply to state-, county- or privately-owned lands or other federal lands not managed 

by BLM.

Land use plan decisions identified in the Approved RMP are final and become effective 

upon the California State Director’s signing of the ROD.
<This page intentionally left blank>
United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Bakersfield Field Office

3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, California 93308-6837

In reply refer to: 1610-5.G.1.4

December, 19, 2014

Dear Interested Party:

I am pleased to announce that, after several years of hard work and collaboration, the Bakersfield Field Office 

Resource Management Plan (Approved RMP) is complete. This document will provide guidance for the 

management of about 400,000 acres of public land and 1.2 million acres of Federal mineral estate

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) located in an eight county region of southerncentral California. 

The attached Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved RMP have been prepared in accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The document has 

been sent to members of the public who requested a copy and to pertinent local, State, Tribal, and Federal 

government entities. The ROD/Approved RMP finalizes the proposed decisions presented in the Proposed 

RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that was released on August 31, 2012 and subject to a 

30-day protest period that ended on September 30, 2012. Twenty-one protest letters with standing were 

received. The protests were reviewed by the BLM Director in Washington, D.C. After careful consideration 

of all points raised in these protests, the Director concluded the responsible planning team and decision 

makers followed all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and pertinent resources considerations in developing 

the Proposed Plan. Minor adjustments or points of clarification are incorporated into the Approved RMP in 

response to issues raised in the protest process and final BLM review. These minor changes are discussed in 

the ROD under the section titled Clarifications and Modifications, but the protest review did not result in any 

significant changes from the Proposed RMP.

The approval of this ROD by the BLM California State Director serves as the final decision for all land use 

plan decisions described in the attached Approved RMP. The ROD also describes a set of “Key 

Implementation Decisions” that may be implemented based on the analysis contained with the Proposed 

RMP/FEIS. Principally, these decisions relate to the concurrent Travel Management Plan included as a part 

of the RMP; however, decisions relating to minimizing the introduction and spread of weed species; issuing 

commercial filming permits, establishing supplementary rules to implement and enforce the RMPs 

allocations, restrictions, and decisions, and establishing fees for various recreation sites are also included. An 

appeal opportunity for these decisions is being provided at this time. The process is described in the ROD 

and at 43 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 4, Subpart E. The appeal period will close 30 days from the date 

the Notice of Availability for the ROD/Approved RMP appears in the Federal Register.

Notification of the approval of this ROD/Approved RMP has been announced via local news releases and 

on the BLM website at: www.blm.gov/ca/bakersfield

CD-ROM versions of the ROD/Approved RMP may be obtained at the address above; by phone at (661) 

391-6000; or by sending a request by email to blm_ca_bakersfield_rmp@blm.gov. The document is available 

to all parties through the “Planning” page of the BLM national or California website (http://blm.gov) or by 

mail upon request.
A limited number of hard copy documents will be available at a later date and may be requested from the 

same locations.

We are pleased to provide this copy of the Bakersfield Field Office ROD/Approved RMP for your reference. 

We greatly appreciate the efforts of all who contributed to the completion of this RMP, including many 

dedicated BLM employees past and present, the State of California, Kern County, tribal communities, and 

numerous Federal and State government agencies that worked with us to complete this important effort. We 

also appreciate the extensive public participation during this time by local communities, organizations, and 

individuals. Public input informed and improved this planning document. We look forward to continuing 

our work with our partners and citizens as we implement the decisions in the RMP.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Garcia

Field Manager, Bakersfield Field Office
Record of Decision

For the

Bakersfield Resource Management Plan

Prepared by

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Bakersfield Field Office

California

Gabriel Garcia

Recommended

Bureau of Land Management

Field Manager, Bakersfield CA

Date Este Stifel

Concurred

Bureau of Land Management

District Manager, Central California

Date

James G. Kenna

Approved

Bureau of Land Management

State Director, California

Date
<This page intentionally left blank>
Table of Contents

RECORD OF DECISION

Introduction...........................................................................................................................I

The Decision .........................................................................................................................I

Protest Resolution ............................................................................................................... II

Modifications & Clarifications ...........................................................................................III

Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... VI

Alternatives Considered, But Not Further Analyzed........................................................................VI

Alternatives Considered in Detail .......................................................................................................VII

Environmentally Preferable Alternative...........................................................................................VIII

Land Use Plan and Implementation Decisions, and Administrative Actions................ VIII

Land Use Plan Decisions ......................................................................................................................IX

Implementation Decisions......................................................................................................................X

Administrative Actions............................................................................................................................X

Management Considerations in Selecting the Approved RMP...........................................X

Implementation of Oil and Gas Decisions.........................................................................................XI

Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................................XVI

Plan Monitoring and Evaluation......................................................................................XVI

Public Involvement......................................................................................................... XVII

Public Scoping ................................................................................................................................... XVII

Public Review of and Comment on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS................................................ XVII

Public Review of and Protest on the PRMP/FEIS...................................................................... XVII

Agency Consultations (US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), and State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO))........................XVIII

Availability of the Plan...................................................................................................XVIII
<This page intentionally left blank> 
I

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) is an approval of the United States (US) Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposal to manage the BLM-administered lands in the Bakersfield 

Field Office (Bakersfield FO). This proposal is presented in the attached Approved Resource 

Management Plan (Approved RMP). This Approved RMP was described as Alternative B in the 

Bakersfield Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(PRMP/FEIS), which was released on August 28, 2012. 

The Bakersfield FO is located in southern-central California and encompasses about 17 million acres 

throughout Kings, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, Ventura, Madera, eastern Fresno, and western 

Kern Counties. Stretching from the coastal islands in the Pacific Ocean across the Central Valley to the 

crest of the Sierra Nevada Range, public lands are scattered across the Planning Area in numerous small 

parcels. The decisions in the Approved RMP apply only to the approximately 400,000 acres of BLMadministered public land and 1.2 million acres of Federal mineral estate (i.e., Bakersfield Decision Area). 

Planning decisions in this document do not apply to state-, county- or privately-owned lands or other 

federal lands not managed by BLM.

This ROD provides an overview of the alternatives considered, a summary of protests received and 

clarifications made in response, management considerations and rationale for the decisions, and an 

overview of public involvement in the planning process.

The Decision

The decision is hereby made to approve the attached RMP for the Bakersfield Field Office. The 

Approved RMP was prepared under the authority of and regulations implementing the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], 1600). It includes 

broad land use plan decisions that provide the overall direction for managing resources and resource 

uses in the Bakersfield Decision Area and the Piedras Blancas Light Station Outstanding Natural Area. 

Land use plan decisions are expressed as goals and objectives (desired outcomes) and management 

actions anticipated to achieve desired outcomes. The land use plan decisions identified in the Approved 

RMP are final and effective upon signing of this ROD. The Approved RMP also includes implementation 

level decisions that may be appealed in accordance with Department of the Interior regulations at 43 

CFR Part 4. These implementation level decisions are presented under the subheading “Key 

Implementation Decisions” for the following resources and resource uses: Biological Resources, 

Comprehensive Trail and Travel Management, Land Use Authorizations, and Recreation and Visitor 

Services.

The decisions in the Approved RMP apply only to BLM-administered surface and federal mineral estate. 

These decisions do not apply to private lands, State lands, tribal lands, and federal lands not 

administered by the BLM; they will not change existing rights or authority of private land owners or 

other surface management agencies.

The decisions included in this ROD and Approved RMP supersedes the 1997 Caliente RMP and its 

subsequent amendments, as well as the relevant portions of the 1984 Hollister RMP. 
II

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

Protest Resolution

An environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared for this Approved RMP, in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The Approved RMP is nearly identical to the 

Proposed RMP set forth in the Bakersfield PRMP/FEIS, published August 2012. 

Pursuant to BLM’s planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2, any person who participated in the planning 

process for the Bakersfield RMP and has an interest that may be adversely affected by the planning 

decisions may protest proposed planning decisions within 30 days from the date the Notice of 

Availability of the PRMP/FEIS is published in the Federal Register. Twenty-one letters of protest, 

summarized below, were received by the BLM’s Washington Office, the office responsible for resolving 

the protests on behalf of the BLM Director. All of the protesting parties were determined to have 

standing as participants in the planning process and are listed below: 

 Dennis Huggins, Kern County Mineral Society

 Mesonika Piecuch, ORV Watch Kern County

 Joyce Miller

 Erik Melchiorre, Geology Department, California State University San Bernardino

 Richard and Susan Snedden, Landowners

 Kenneth and Rosemary Twisselman, Landowners

 Richard Pankey, American Lands Access Association, Inc.

 Shirley Leeson, American Lands Access Association, Inc.

 Robert E. Reynolds, Member, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; President, Southern California 

Friends of Mineralogy

 L.W. Monroe, Tule Gem and Mineral Society

 Jack Caufield, Lodi Gem and Mineral Club, Fossils for Fun, Kern County Gem and Mineral Society, 

Quartzsite Roadrunners Gem and Mineral Society, Buena Vista Museum of Natural History

 Marshall Havner, American Lands Access Association; Tule Gem and Mineral Society

 Patrick Harrison, Tule Gem and Mineral Society

 George Silva, American Lands Access Association; Tule Gem and Mineral Society

 Charles Reed, Tule Gem and Mineral Society

 Tony Hart, Tule Gem and Mineral Society

 Bill Bingaman, Tule Gem and Mineral Society

 Don Vieria, American Lands Access Association

 Brendan Cummings, Center for Biological Diversity

 Jeff Kuyper, Los Padres ForestWatch

The BLM has resolved each of these protests, the results of which are provided in the Director’s Protest 

Resolution Report, Bakersfield Resource Management Plan, prepared by the Washington Office. This 

report is being distributed to each protestor and is available online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/protest_resolution.html.

The Director dismissed the protests from ORV Watch Kern County and Joyce N. Miller because the 

comments in the protest letters were not germane to the planning level decisions. The Director denied 

the protests from the remaining protestors, except Los Padres ForestWatch, and provided responses to 

their protests in the Director’s Protest Resolution Report. 
III

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

One item protested by Los Padres ForestWatch resulted in a change to the Approved RMP. The BLM 

determined that a more thorough rationale for the proposal not to continue management of the Salinas 

River area as a designated Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) was necessary in the 

PRMP/FEIS, given that the area has been managed as an ACEC since 1997 and that the area continues to 

possess relevant and important values. Therefore, this protest was granted, in part, and the Salinas 

River area is designated an ACEC in the Approved RMP, as proposed and analyzed in Alternative C of the 

PRMP/FEIS.

In summary, the Director concluded that the BLM California State Director followed the applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies and considered all relevant resource information and public input in developing 

the Proposed RMP. The BLM Director resolved all protests, with the exception of the ACEC 

determination, without making significant changes to the Proposed RMP, though minor clarifications 

were made and have been explained in the following section.

Modifications & Clarifications

In its conversion from the PRMP in the FEIS to the Approved RMP, the presentation of decisions was 

reformatted to combine and organize planning decisions. As necessary, the text was revised to reflect 

these formatting changes as well as the now approved status of the land use plan decisions. In addition, 

as the result of continued internal review, the BLM made the following corrections, modifications, and 

clarifications between the PRMP/FEIS and the Approved RMP:

Designate 946 acres of public lands and 658 acres of Federal mineral estate, within a boundary of 2,383 

acres, as the Salinas River ACEC administered with the following management: 

 Identify as open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints (CSU-priority species, 

plant communities and habitats stipulation);

 Recommend proposal of the riparian zone (approximately 10 acres) for withdrawal from 

appropriation and entry under the General Mining Law;

 Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy projects;

 Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing;

 Prohibit campfires and overnight camping;

 Prohibit cross country equestrian travel; and

 Prohibit the discharge of firearms, except the legal taking of game species.

The correct acreage figures for the Bitter Creek ACEC are 1,026 acres of public lands and 1,792 acres of 

Federal mineral estate for a total of 2,872 acres. The figures listed in the PRMP/FEIS, page 85 were in 

error.

The correct acreage figures for the Chico Martinez ACEC are 3,236 acres of public lands and 1,371 acres 

of Federal mineral estate for a total of 4,607 acres. During the update of GIS ownership data an 80 acre 

parcel of Federal mineral estate within the ACEC was discovered; however, during editing of the 

PRMP/FEIS these acres were inadvertently inconsistently updated.

The decision to designate the following 19 ACECs is based on the relevance and importance of public 

land values that range from populations or habitat for special status species to the occurrence of 

significant cultural resources. These values are threatened by various resource uses on or adjacent to 

public land, including oil and gas exploration, private property development, livestock grazing and 

recreational activities. These uses require special management attention to minimize the potential for 
IV

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

adverse impacts. This management attention, however, only applies to public lands and federal mineral 

estate administered by the BLM; therefore only decisions relating to management of federal mineral 

estate would apply where it lies beneath privately owned surface (split estate). The 19 ACECs are 

Ancient Lakeshores, Bitter Creek, Blue Ridge, Chico Martinez, Compensation Lands, Cypress Mountain, 

Cyrus Canyon, Erskine Creek, Hopper Mountain, Horse Canyon, Kaweah, Kettleman Hills, Lokern-Buena 

Vista, Los Osos, Piute Cypress, Point Sal, Salinas River, Tierra Redonda, and Upper Cuyama Valley. 

The decision to not designate the following three ACECs that possessed relevant and important values is 

based on the following reasons: 

Granite Cave is not designated as an ACEC because special management attention is not 

necessary to protect the relevant and important values. Management will be in accordance 

with BLM policy and guidelines for cave and karst resources. The cave itself has been 

determined significant and designated as Class III, meaning the cave is closed to public access 

and cave information is withheld from public requests; therefore, eliminating access and 

reducing the availability of information concerning its relevant resources. 

Irish Hills is not designated as an ACEC because special management attention is not necessary 

to protect the relevant and important values. The unique plant communities occurring within 

the Irish Hills area are designated as priority species, plant communities and habitats for 

management and protection. This is achieved through the application of appropriate actions, 

limitations on, or closures to uses that may be detrimental to these species, plant communities 

and habitats wherever they occur in the Bakersfield Decision Area. 

Rusty Peak is not designated as an ACEC because special management attention is not necessary 

to protect the relevant and important values. The unique plant communities occurring within 

the Irish Hills area are designated as priority species, plant communities and habitats for 

management and protection. This is achieved through the application of appropriate actions, 

limitations on, or closures to uses that may be detrimental to these species, plant communities 

and habitats wherever they occur in the Bakersfield Decision Area. 

The BLM’s Transportation System is a dynamic system that routinely grows and shrinks with the 

authorization, addition and decommissioning of routes. As such, route designations are continually 

evolving to represent the decisions made on the inventory of linear transportation features occurring on 

BLM-administered public lands or within easements granted to the BLM. Between the Proposed RMP 

and this, the Approved RMP, a number of changes have been made to the Transportation System to 

reflect new and/or modified route designations that have been authorized in the interim by project/site 

specific actions. In addition, the linear transportation features inventory continues to be improved as 

more field work is completed, and better, more recent, aerial photography reviewed. Improvements to 

this inventory have resulted in features previously mapped being removed where they do not occur on 

the ground and adjustments to the inventoried route alignments to reflect on-the-ground conditions –

these modifications have affected both the mileage and number of route segments designated. 

Additionally several wilderness trails, which had been inadvertently omitted from the inventory, were 

added and county roads were modified to be designated for motorized use by street-legal vehicles. 

Furthermore, a number of routes previously designated as Transportation Linear Disturbances have 

been re-designated as Primitive Roads for motorized use by authorized users only as a result of 

discovery of an existing authorization for the route. Finally, the review of the GIS mapping of the Travel 

Management Areas resulted in minor modifications in their configuration and acreages. These changes 
V

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

to the Transportation System are specifically discussed in the Travel Management Plan (Appendix 2) of 

the Approved RMP.

Public input received during preliminary planning for a Recreation Area Management Plan addressing 

Keysville Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) revealed that some designated camping areas 

are likely desirable in the Dam Recreation Management Zone (RMZ) outside of Sandy Flat. The decision

prohibiting overnight camping and use of campfires in the Dam RMZ except in limited designated areas 

on Sandy Flat was modified in the ARMP to provide the flexibility to consider designating limited 

camping areas as appropriate elsewhere in the RMZ during implementation level planning. The 

potential impacts of this change are within the scope of the analysis of the No Action alternative of the 

Bakersfield PRMP/FEIS.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) reviewed the PRMP/FEIS and based on 

the emissions estimates and information finds that this project appears to be below de minimis and 

would meet the federal general conformity requirements. The SJVAPCD noted some items in the 

PRMP/FEIS that need clarification:

There is a slight increase in lands available for livestock grazing through the incorporation of 

previously unallocated lands and adjustments in availability of lands to livestock grazing. These 

newly available lands fall mainly in the San Joaquin Valley and would increase potential grazing 

opportunity by 6,000 AUMs over the existing permitted use levels; this increase is 2,550 AUMs 

larger than that expected under the No Action alternative. Potential emissions from the 

increase in grazing opportunity would be 1.36 tons/year (tpy) of VOC and 0.06 tpy of PM10. The 

total emissions from BLM actions would be 8.14 tpy for VOC/ROG and 2.95 tpy for PM10; these 

emissions would still be below de minimis threshold values.

The following are corrections to the designations and classifications for the SJVAPCD: 

“Maintenance area” for carbon monoxide (CO); and “Extreme Nonattainment area” for ozone 

with an attainment date of June 2024.

The SJVAPCD 2008 PM2.5 Plan was adopted by the District’s Governing Board in April 2008, and 

EPA finalized its approval of this plan on November 9, 2011. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan in December 2012; this plan sets out the strategy to attain the federal 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard by 2019.

There is one error in the Fluid Mineral Leasing stipulations in the PRMP/FEIS Appendix G, page 894. In 

the description of the application of the Controlled Surface Use (CSU) -Chimineas Ranch stipulation 

should read: “Split estate land, where the surface is managed by the California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, would be subject to the CSU-Existing Surface Use/Management stipulation.” This has been 

corrected in the Approved RMP.

A mapping error was corrected regarding the Visual Resource Management classifications for Ancient 

Lakeshores, Cyrus Canyon, Kettleman Hills, Hopper Mountain, Upper Cuyama Valley ACECs. These 

ACECs will be managed as VRM Class III not VRM Class II.

Throughout the Approved RMP, other minor edits and modifications are made for clarification, to 

improve readability, or to correct grammatical mistakes.
VI

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

Four appendices that were in the PRMP/FEIS have been brought forward and renumbered for the 

Approved RMP and an additional appendix for the Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA created, as follows:

Appendix 1: Air Resource Management Plan

Appendix 2: Travel Management Plan

Appendix 3: Best Management Practices and Standard Operating Procedures

Appendix 4: Biological Resources Conservation Strategy

Appendix 5: Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA

Alternatives

NEPA requires the development and consideration of a reasonable range of management alternatives, 

including a No Action Alternative, to analyze impacts and guide decision makers in developing and 

selecting the Approved RMP. All alternatives must be viable and reasonable, must be responsive to 

issues identified by the public, stakeholders, and BLM specialists and managers during the scoping 

period, and must meet established planning criteria and applicable federal and state laws, regulations, 

and BLM policies.

Alternatives Considered, But Not Further Analyzed

The following alternatives and management options were considered as possible ways of resolving 

resource management issues and conflicts but were eliminated from detailed analysis because they 

were either unreasonable or not practical for technical, legal, or policy reasons. 

Proactive Land Disposal

The recommendation was to proactively market or offer parcels outside of designated areas (ACECs, 

Special Recreation Management Areas, Wilderness, etc.) for sale on either an individual basis or by 

grouping a number of parcels and marketing them together. While the lands identified for sale would 

not have a special designation, they may have unique biological, cultural, and/or recreation values or be 

integral to landscape conservation strategies. In any case, a land tenure adjustment program will 

continue, however, a proactive land disposal program will not be pursued.

Prohibition of Oil and Gas Development

There was a recommendation to close the entire Decision Area to oil and gas development. Oil and gas 

development is an authorized use of BLM-administered lands and encouraged by national energy policy; 

therefore, it would be arbitrary and inconsistent with existing laws to analyze this proposed closure. 

Alternatives for placing greater restriction on oil and gas development were considered in the PRMP to 

protect sensitive and important resource values, but a closure of lands with little or no oil and gas 

development potential was deemed to be unnecessary.

Restrict Solid (Non-Energy) Leasable and Salable Mineral Development

A recommendation was to further restrict the lands available to solid leasable and salable mineral 

development beyond those necessary to protect sensitive resources. Mineral developments are an 

authorized use of BLM-administered lands. Therefore, it would be arbitrary and inconsistent with 

existing laws to analyze closing the entire Decision Area to development. Generally, the Decision Area 
VII

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

has limited potential for these mineral resources. The concept of placing greater restriction (i.e., more 

closed acres) was considered; however, closure of lands with little or no potential for development of

these minerals was deemed to be unnecessary.

Livestock Grazing

During public comment, alternatives were suggested to: exclude livestock grazing from all sensitive 

areas such as Wilderness, ACECs, cultural resources, and important wildlife habitat; reduce total acreage 

grazed from 80% of the resource area to 40% of the resource area; and/or reduce grazing levels. 

Livestock grazing is an authorized use of BLM-administered lands. In development of the alternatives a 

greater range of acres allocated as Available/Unavailable (besides total elimination of this use) was 

considered; however, additional restrictions (i.e., less Available acres) were deemed to be arbitrary and 

unnecessary as resource conflicts had not been documented or could be addressed through site-specific 

use of livestock exclusions and adjustments to the permit/lease terms and conditions. The development 

of all of the alternatives considered the impact of livestock grazing on all sensitive areas and where 

resource objectives could not be achieved under any level or management of livestock use, these areas 

were made Unavailable. In addition, less restriction of livestock grazing (i.e., more Available acres) was 

deemed to not adequately address the purpose and need and issues identified in the RMP as they relate 

to biological resources.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS, Chapter 2 presented the five alternatives considered in detail. These five 

alternatives represented five management directions that could be taken in resolving the issues 

identified through the scoping process. Each alternative was intended to be consistent with law, 

regulation, and policy while providing varying levels of compatible resource uses and development 

opportunities. The alternatives developed and analyzed during the planning process reflected a

reasonable range of potential management actions. General overviews of each alternative are provided 

below. 

Alternative A, No Action Alternative, continues current management under the existing 1997 Caliente 

RMP and 1984 Hollister RMP, as amended. Management of resources and sensitive habitats would 

remain at current levels but would not address emerging issues concerning public lands. This alternative 

also would not address the use of lands acquired after the signing of these RODs, including public lands 

at Atwell Island, Piedras Blancas Light Station, and portions of the San Joaquin River Gorge. 

Alternative B (Proposed Plan) balances resource conservation and ecosystem health with the 

production of commodities and public use of the land. This alternative provides opportunities to 

produce commodities from natural resources and to use the land for public purposes on a sustainable 

basis while maintaining important ecological, cultural, and recreational values. This alternative includes 

changes made as a result of public comment and internal review on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS.

Alternative C emphasizes conserving cultural and natural resources, maintaining functioning natural 

systems, and restoring natural systems that are degraded. Management would focus on protecting 

sensitive resources through greater limitation of resource uses. 

Alternative D mimics Alternative C in all aspects except livestock grazing. This alternative eliminates 

livestock grazing from all the public lands for the life of the plan where individual pastures of allotments 
VIII

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

or entire allotments which lie primarily within the Bakersfield FO Planning Area and, therefore, the 

Bakersfield RMP provides administrative direction for the livestock grazing program.

Alternative E emphasizes the production of natural resources commodities and public use 

opportunities. Resource uses such as recreation, livestock grazing, mining, and oil/gas leasing, consistent 

with BLM guidance and constraints, would be emphasized. Potential impacts on sensitive resources 

would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The BLM considers Alternative B to be the environmentally preferable alternative when taking into 

consideration the human (social and economic) environment as well as the natural environment. The 

US Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has defined the environmentally preferable alternative as 

the one that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in Section 101 of the NEPA. 

This section lists six broad policy goals for all federal plans, programs, and policies as follows:

 Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations.

 Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings.

 Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to 

health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.

 Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our National heritage, and maintain, 

whenever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice.

 Achieve a balance between populations 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 B best meets these NEPA goals for the 

future management of the Bakersfield Decision Area. It provides long-term protection and resource 

conservation and balances current and potential resource uses and human influence with resource 

protection. 

Alternative A does not address the changing ecological, social-economic, institutional, and regulatory 

conditions that have occurred since the approval of the Caliente RMP in 1997 or the Hollister RMP in 

1984 as stated in the Purpose and Need of the FEIS. Alternative C would be more protective of natural 

and biological resources than the other alternatives. Alternative D would eliminate livestock grazing 

from the Bakersfield Decision Area and would contradict the NEPA goals listed above. Alternative E is 

the least environmentally preferable alternative because it offers the most intensive active management 

for uses of the Bakersfield Decision Area, while providing the fewest restrictions for protecting 

resources.

Land Use Plan and Implementation Decisions, and Administrative Actions

The Approved RMP provides overall direction for management of all resources on BLM-administered 

land in the Bakersfield Field Office outside of the Carrizo Plain and California Coastal National 

Monuments. Many land use plan decisions are implemented or become effective upon publication of 
IX

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

the ROD for the Approved RMP and may include desired future conditions, land use allocations 

(allowable uses) or designations, and special designations.

Land use plan decisions represent the desired outcomes and the actions needed to achieve them. Such 

decisions were attained using the planning process found in 43 CFR 1600 and guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. When presented to the 

public as proposed decisions, land use plan decisions can be protested to the BLM Director; however, 

they can be judicially challenged but cannot be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA).

Implementation decisions and management actions that require additional site-specific project 

planning, as funding becomes available, will require further environmental analysis. Administrative 

actions are not land use planning or implementation decisions but are a key component of the overall 

plan because they describe the BLM’s day-to-day actions to help meet desired future conditions. The 

BLM will continue to involve and collaborate with the public during implementation of the Approved 

Plan. Brief descriptions of the types of decisions are presented below.

It should be noted the decisions generated by the RMP only apply to BLM-administered surface and 

mineral estate. No decisions generated by the RMP would change existing rights or authority of private 

land owners or other surface management agencies.

Land Use Plan Decisions

Desired Outcomes

Land use plans identify desired outcomes expressed in terms of specific goals and objectives. Goals and 

objectives direct the BLM’s actions in most effectively meeting legal mandates, numerous regulatory 

responsibilities, national policy (including the DOI Strategic Plan goals), State Director guidance ( 43 CFR 

1610.1-4[b]), and other resource or social needs. Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes that 

are usually not quantifiable. Objectives identify more specific desired outcomes for resources and might 

include a measurable component. Objectives are generally expected to achieve the stated goals. Land 

use plans are designed to most effectively meet these desired outcomes through special designations, 

allowable uses (land use allocations), and management actions.

Special Designations

Special designations are designated by Congress for special protection, such as Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Such designations are not land use plan decisions, but recommendations for designation can be made to 

Congress at the land use plan level. Congress may then act on these recommendations at a later time.

BLM administrative designations, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), are also 

considered special designations and can be made in the land use plan (see the Approved RMP).

Allowable Uses (Land Use Allocations)

Land use plans must identify uses, or allocations, that are allowable, restricted, or prohibited on the

public lands and mineral estate. These allocations identify surface lands or subsurface mineral interests

where uses are allowed, including any restrictions that may be needed to meet goals and objectives. 

Land use plans also identify lands where specific uses are excluded to protect resource values. Certain

lands may be open or closed to specific uses, based on legislative, regulatory, or policy requirements or

criteria, to protect sensitive resource values. If land use plan decisions close areas of 100,000 acres or
X

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

greater in size to a principal or major use for two years or more, Congress must be notified of the

closure upon its implementation, as prescribed in 43 CFR 1610.6.

Management Actions

Land use plans must identify the actions anticipated to achieve desired outcomes, including actions to 

maintain, restore, or improve land health. These actions include proactive measures, limitations, or 

criteria that will be applied to guide day-to-day activities on public land. Land use plans also establish 

administrative designations, such as ACECs, recommend proposed withdrawals and land tenure zones, 

and recommend or make findings of suitability for congressional designations (such as components of 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System).

Implementation Decisions

Implementation decisions are management actions tied to a specific location that implement land use 

plan decisions. Implementation decisions generally constitute the BLM’s final approval, allowing on-theground actions to proceed, and require appropriate site-specific planning and NEPA analysis. Such 

decisions may be incorporated into implementation plans (activity or project plans) or may exist as 

stand-alone decisions.

The Approved RMP contains “Key Implementation” level decisions that would be implementable based 

on the level of analysis contained within the PRMP/FEIS. Principally, these decisions relate to the 

concurrent Travel Management Plan included as part of the RMP; however, other implementation level 

decisions are noted under the “Key Implementation Decisions” heading for Biological Resources, Land 

Use Authorizations, and Recreation and Visitor Services.

Unlike land use plan decisions, implementation decisions are not subject to protest under the planning 

regulations. Instead, implementation decisions are subject to various administrative remedies, 

particularly appeals to the IBLA (under 43 CFR 4.410). The implementation decisions made as part of 

this land use planning process are still subject to the appeals process or other administrative review, as 

prescribed by the specific resource program regulations after the BLM resolves the protests to land use 

plan decisions and decides to adopt the management plan. For example, the designation of a specific 

route is an implementation level decision, rather than a land use plan decision; consequently, individual 

route designations are subject to a separate appeals process.

Administrative Actions

Although the BLM’s intent and commitment to accomplish administrative action is generally addressed 

in an EIS, such activities are not management decisions. Administrative actions are day-to-day activities 

conducted by the BLM, often required by FLPMA, but do not require NEPA analysis or a written decision 

by a responsible official. Examples of administrative actions are mapping, surveying, conducting 

inventory or monitoring, scientific research, other studies, partnering and collaborating with partners, 

developing educational materials, and working with local communities and interest groups.

Management Considerations in Selecting the Approved RMP

In developing the Approved RMP, BLM had the discretion to select an alternative in its entirety or to 

combine aspects of the various alternatives that were presented in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS or the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS, including considering management approaches that were presented during the 
XI

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

comment period that do not result in significant changes from what the Draft RMP/Draft EIS considered. 

The NEPA handbook (H-1790-1) states, “various parts of separate alternatives that are analyzed in the 

draft can also be ‘mixed and matched’ to develop a complete alternative in the final” (see also 43 CFR 

1503.4(a)).

Based on input received during the planning process there was both support and opposition to many 

components of the Proposed RMP. The BLM, however, did not receive comments from federal or state 

agencies or from tribal governments indicating the Proposed RMP was inconsistent with other existing

plans or policies. Additionally, no inconsistencies with State plans, policies, or programs were identified 

during the governor’s consistency review of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The BLM considered all 

comments and protests received on the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and input from the Governor’s 

consistency review. This ROD serves as the final decision for the land use plan decisions for the 

Approved RMP, which will become effective on the date this ROD is signed.

Implementation of Oil and Gas Decisions

Oil and gas leasing and development on Federal mineral estate requires multiple stages of BLM 

environmental analysis and authorization. Environmental review under NEPA is required at each phase. 

The Bakersfield Approved RMP identifies areas as open or closed to fluid mineral leasing and specifies 

appropriate stipulations for those areas identified as open (see 2.14.1.1 of the ARMP). The 

environmental review for leasing parcels identifies which parcels should be offered for leasing and the 

conditions under which leasing and eventual development should occur. The environmental review for 

the development of leased parcels (including well stimulation techniques) is a site-specific analysis of 

potential impacts from the proposed project and includes specific conditions of approval to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate impacts to sensitive resources.

Information Developed Since the Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Since the publication of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM commissioned a review of the state of the 

knowledge of well stimulation technologies in California. This independent science assessment was 

published by the California Council on Science and Technology, and prepared by Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory and the Pacific Institute. This review was peer reviewed by the Council, using its 

rigorous process, as well as by the US Geological Survey to provide the BLM and the public with the best 

available science on well stimulation technologies, such as hydraulic fracturing. Entitled “An 

Independent Review of Scientific and Technical Information on Advanced Well Stimulation Technologies 

in California,” the report was published on August 28, 2014. 

The report compiles existing data and literature about the nature of well stimulation in California and 

arrives at 11 main conclusions. Key among them are:

 Well stimulation in California is different than in other states. Available data suggest that 

present-day well stimulation practices in California are different from other states such as Texas 

and North Dakota primarily due to differences in the geology of the petroleum reservoirs. 

Generally, hydraulic fracturing in California tends to be performed in shallower wells that are 

vertical as opposed to horizontal; requires much less water; but uses fluids with more 

concentrated chemicals than hydraulic fracturing in other states. Consequently, the experiences 

with hydraulic fracturing in other states do not necessarily apply to current hydraulic fracturing 

in California.
XII

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

 The most likely scenario for future oil recovery using hydraulic fracturing is expanded 

production in and near existing oil fields in the San Joaquin Basin in a manner quite similar to 

the production practices of today. Existing and likely future production in California takes place 

in reservoirs that contain oil that has migrated from the rocks where it was formed ("source 

rocks") to relatively near surface reservoirs where it can be produced. Over 85% of all well 

stimulation applications in California take place in four fields of the San Joaquin Valley in 

reservoirs that rely on hydraulic fracturing to enable production. It is highly likely that expanded 

production in similar reservoirs in the San Joaquin Valley would also use this technology. 

 Recent reports from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) have indicated there may be a new 

class of very deep unconventional reservoirs in the source rocks themselves, especially in the 

Monterey Formation. The 2011 EIA report suggested 15-billion barrels of recoverable oil in 

these source rocks but a subsequent 2014 correction by EIA reduced the estimate to 0.6 billion 

barrels. Recovering these resources would certainly require well stimulation. The study's review 

of the two resource projections from deep source rocks in the Monterey Formation developed 

by EIA concluded that both these estimates are highly uncertain.

 Current hydraulic fracturing operations in California require a small fraction of statewide 

water use. In California a hydraulic fracturing operation can consume between 130,000 to 

210,000 gallons of water per well on average, compared to about 4 million gallons per well used 

on average in the Eagle Ford Formation in Texas. The study estimates that California operators 

conduct 100 to 150 well stimulations per month, which currently requires about 150 to 400 

million gallons (450-1,200 acre-feet) of water per year. Even with the relatively low water use of 

California operations, hydraulic fracturing can contribute to local constraints on water 

availability given the extreme drought in the state.

 There are no publicly reported instances of potable water contamination from subsurface 

releases in California. More than half of the stimulated oil wells in California have shallow 

depth (less than 2,000 feet) and shallow hydraulic fracturing poses a potential risk for 

groundwater if usable aquifers are nearby. Some shallow hydraulic fracturing occurs where 

groundwater is highly saline, or non-existent; however, investigators could not determine the 

groundwater quality near many hydraulic fracturing operations and found that existing data was 

insufficient to evaluate the extent to which contamination may have occurred. The State of 

California needs to develop an accurate understanding about the location, depth and quality of 

groundwater in oil- and gas-producing regions in order to evaluate the risk of well stimulation to 

groundwater.

 The toxicity of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids warrants further review now that 

SB 4 requires disclosure. Based on the voluntary database FracFocus, most of the chemicals 

used in California well stimulations are not considered to be highly toxic. However, a few of 

these chemicals, especially the biocides and corrosion inhibitors, are acutely toxic to mammals. 

No information could be found about the toxicity of about a third of the chemicals and few of 

the chemicals have been evaluated to see if animals or plants would be harmed by chronic 

exposure. Mandatory disclosure should improve our understanding, as previous data acquired 

from FracFocus does not consistently disclose all chemicals and may not always be complete or 

accurate.

 Some chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing may become incorporated in the water that is 

produced along with the oil ("produced water"). In some cases, operators dilute produced 

water with fresh water for use in agriculture and some produced water is pumped into unlined 

pits where it could seep into the groundwater. Current practice and testing requirements do not 
XIII

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

necessarily protect against adding produced water contaminated with hydraulic fracturing fluid 

to water used in agriculture.

 Well stimulation technologies, as currently practiced in California, do not result in a significant 

increase in seismic hazard. The pressure increases from hydraulic fracturing are too small and 

too short in duration to be able to produce a felt, let alone damaging, earthquake. In California, 

only one minor, anomalous earthquake (which occurred in 1991) has been linked to hydraulic 

fracturing to date. In contrast, disposal of water produced from oil and gas operations into deep 

injection wells has caused felt seismic events in several states. Expanded oil production for any 

reason, including expanded use of hydraulic fracturing, would lead to increased volumes of 

produced water, which, if injected underground could increase seismic hazards.

 Overall, in California, for industry practice of today, the direct environmental impacts of well 

stimulation practice appear to be relatively limited. If these well stimulation technologies 

enable a significant increase in production in the future, the primary impacts on California's 

environment will likely be caused by the increase in production activities in general. Impacts of 

increased production will vary depending on whether this production occurs in existing 

production areas (both rural and urban), or in regions that have not previously been developed 

for oil and gas production - as well as on the nature of the ecosystems, geology, and 

groundwater in the vicinity.

The BLM has reviewed this report and determined that it does not warrant substantial changes to the 

Proposed Plan and does not represent significant new information for the planning decision. 

 The report confirms the analysis in the PRMP/FEIS that the most likely scenario for future oil 

recovery is expanded production in and near existing oil fields in the San Joaquin Basin in a 

manner quite similar to the production practices of today, including well stimulation techniques; 

however, the report notes a substantial increase in production of oil due to the increased use of 

well stimulation techniques is highly uncertain (ISR 2014, pp. 166-168). Over the past 10 years 

157 oil and gas leases were issued in the Bakersfield Field Office; of these leases, 21 have had at 

least one well drilled and put into production. Well stimulation technologies, specifically 

hydraulic fracturing, have been conducted on four of these leases on a total of seven wells.

 The report also supports the analysis in the PRMP/FEIS that expected emissions of criteria air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases from oil and gas production would be low in relation to the 

overall activity in the region (ISR 2014, pp. 238-251, 252-257). The Approved RMP includes an 

Air Resources Management Plan (Appendix 1) that provides specific requirements for managing 

air resources and authorizing activities that have the potential to adversely impact air resources 

including specific requirements for oil and gas development project proponents and mitigation 

measures for reducing air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gases, and fugitive dust. 

 The report discusses the potential for well stimulation technologies to impact water resources 

(surface and ground water) supply and quality. While the report indicates a lack of information 

and knowledge regarding these potential impacts and the need for monitoring, data collection, 

and a more detailed assessment by the State of California (ISR 2014, pp. 184-187, 195-201, 208-

209, 216-226, 234-237), the PRMP/FEIS acknowledges the State as the lead agency for 

groundwater protection and describes the application of Onshore Order Numbers 1, 2, and 7, as 

well as further engineering review and conditions of approval to minimize impacts to water 

resources prior to leasing and project approval when more site-specific information can be 

evaluated.

 The report notes that hydraulic fracturing, as currently practiced in California, does not present 

a risk for induced seismic events of significance. While the disposal of large volumes of produced 
XIV

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

water in deep injection wells in other states have been linked to earthquakes, water disposal 

wells in California, to date, have been relatively shallow and volumes disposed per well relatively 

small; at present, the seismic hazard posed by wastewater injection is likely to be low (ISR 2014, 

pp. 282-283). 

 The report concludes that the direct impacts of well stimulation technologies appear to be 

relatively limited for industry practice of today and will likely be limited in the future if proper 

management practices are followed (ISR 2014, pp. 290-296). The analysis in the PRMP/FEIS 

found that impacts from oil and gas development would occur at the local level and, in general, 

be located in existing oil fields; lease stipulations, best management practices, standard 

operation procedures, and conditions of approval to be applied to leases and project approvals 

are prescribed in order to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts to sensitive resources.

The Independent Science Review identifies a number of data gaps and uncertainties related to the 

effects of well stimulation technologies as practiced in California. 

 New oil and gas production in regions removed from existing fields is more uncertain than 

increased production in existing oil and gas fields. The information and understanding 

necessary to develop a meaningful forecast, or even a suite of scenarios about possible 

recoverable unconventional oil in the Monterey shale source rocks, are not available. While 

major production increases from oil shale source rock are considered highly uncertain, they are 

not impossible.

 Toxicity information of the chemicals reported for well stimulation treatments is incomplete. 

More information is needed to determine the full extent of risk to the human environment.

Such information will be available under provision of California Senate Bill 4. (See below, 

Coordination with State Regulatory Agencies)

 There is a lack of information and understanding about the location, depth, and quality of 

groundwater in oil and gas producing regions; these are needed to evaluate the risk of well 

stimulation to groundwater. The extent to which subsurface releases of contaminated fluids 

into potable groundwater may have occurred is difficult to evaluate due to lack of studies, 

consistent and transparent data collection, and reporting. 

 A more detailed assessment of wastewater (well stimulation flowback and produced water) 

disposal practices is needed to determine their levels of risk to surface water, groundwater, and 

agriculture.

This Independent Science Review is appended to the Bakersfield RMP and will be used to inform future 

leasing and development decisions. The Bakersfield Field Office will continue to apply the best available 

and most current scientific information for leasing and development decisions as new information 

becomes available in the future. As noted in the Plan Maintenance (section 4.1) and Adaptive 

Management (section 5.3) sections of the ARMP, the BLM will continue to evaluate new science as it 

becomes available, monitor implementation of the plan, and may develop new best management 

practices as necessary.

Leasing

Parcels that are nominated for leasing must be reviewed and approved by the BLM prior to leases being 

sold at an auction. BLM’s Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-117 describes the deliberate, 

interdisciplinary parcel review process that must occur before a lease sale is held. This review is 

conducted and documented in accordance with the NEPA. The purpose of lease parcel review by the 
XV

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

field office is to determine whether a parcel should be offered for leasing, and if so, the conditions 

under which leasing and eventual development should occur. 

The Independent Science Review, and future information developed about oil and gas extraction and

well stimulation technology in California, will be used at the leasing stage during the State Director 

review of parcels to offer for lease. During this review, the BLM will consider the likelihood that the 

parcels offered for sale will require the use of well stimulation technologies, and disclose the impacts 

and risks of well stimulation technology based on the best available information at the time, and how 

those risks can be avoided, minimized or mitigated through the application of Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) and Conditions of Approval (COAs). Upon completing this review, the State Director 

will determine whether to offer the parcel for lease, and if so, what stipulations, COAs, and BMPs to 

attach to the lease.

Development

Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1 requires Federal oil and gas operators to conduct operations to 

minimize impacts to surface and subsurface resources, prevent unnecessary surface disturbance, and 

conform to currently available technology and practice. Per Onshore Order Number 1, BLM may 

approve, defer, or deny an Application for Permit to Drill. Drilling and abandonment activities must 

adhere to the provisions and standards of Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 2 to protect subsurface 

resources. Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 7 provides the methods and approvals necessary to 

dispose of produced water associated with oil and gas operations.

Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts, in addition to those identified in the Onshore Oil and 

Gas Orders and the regulations in 43 CFR 3160, are incorporated in the Approved RMP as Standard 

Operating Procedures (SOPs) and BMPs. Examples of these measures include: reducing the area of 

disturbance to the smallest practical area and using previously disturbed areas to the extent practicable; 

setting and cementing surface casings to sufficient depths to protect usable water bearing zones; using a 

closed-loop drilling system to reduce water usage; and placement of production facilities and equipment 

to maximize interim reclamation. In addition, every permit approval includes a list of COAs that are 

tailored to the specific location and type of activity being approved. 

When the BLM receives applications to conduct activities on leases (e.g., applications for permits to drill 

or sundry notices of intent), additional NEPA analysis is required. During this site-specific, 

implementation-level analysis, the BLM may consider additional mitigation measures to address any 

anticipated impacts, including those from well stimulation techniques. The Independent Science 

Review, and future information developed about oil and gas extraction and well stimulation

technologies in California, will be used at the development stage to assist the BLM in identifying new 

BMPs to address the impacts of advanced well stimulation technologies. BLM California will also 

implement additional policy requirements regarding Applications for Permit to Drill and Sundry Notices 

as discussed in Instruction Memorandum No. CA-2014-031. As technologies evolve and new 

information becomes available, the BLM will continue to identify new BMPs to prevent or mitigate the 

impacts of oil and gas development. 

BLM’s National Hydraulic Fracturing Rules

The BLM is currently in the process of revising the rules that regulate hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas 

on public and Indian trust lands. The rule is expected to modernize BLM’s management of hydraulic 

fracturing operations and help to establish baseline environmental safeguards for these operations 

across all public and Indian lands. BLM will work with the State of California to develop a streamlined 
XVI

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

process to ensure that operators comply with the provisions of both Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) (see 

Coordination with State Regulatory Agencies below) and the BLM regulations in the most efficient 

manner possible. 

Coordination with State Regulatory Agencies

Since the publication of the Proposed Plan/Final EIS, the California State Legislature passed SB 4, which 

was signed into law in September 2013. SB 4 requires the State of California Department of 

Conservation to develop regulations on well stimulation. The State of California has implemented 

Interim Regulations and the Draft Final Regulations are due by July 1, 2015. The regulations have 

provisions for notification of potentially affected parties, disclosure of fluid components, approval of a 

ground water monitoring plan, and monitoring of groundwater subsequent to the completion of the 

stimulation process. BLM requires operators on Federal minerals to acquire all necessary Federal, state, 

and local permits prior to developing a lease, including meeting the requirements of SB 4, where 

applicable. Should any of the regulations promulgated by SB 4 be more stringent than the requirements 

of the Approved RMP and BLM’s National Hydraulic Fracturing Rules, they will serve as additional 

safeguards.

Mitigation Measures

In developing the alternatives, BLM used a variety of management methods and tools, including the 

identification of allowable uses, temporal, spatial, and restrictions on uses, where specific uses will be 

prohibited, and specific actions needed to achieve desired outcomes. Restrictions on uses include 

seasonal closures, limitations on surface disturbance, application of BMPs, or the use of performance 

objectives. BMPs can include structural and nonstructural controls, specific operations, and 

maintenance procedures. BMPs are dynamic and are not one-size-fits-all solutions. BMPs are selected 

and adapted, as necessary, through interdisciplinary analysis to determine which management practices 

are necessary to ensure RMP goals and objectives are being met. The best practices and mitigation 

measures for a particular site are evaluated through a site-specific NEPA process and vary to

accommodate unique, site-specific settings and local resource conditions. Additional BMPs may be

identified during an interdisciplinary process when evaluating site-specific management actions.

Implementation and effectiveness of BMPs will be monitored on a project-by-project basis to determine 

if they are achieving RMP goals and objectives.

Plan Monitoring and Evaluation

BLM planning regulations (43 CFR Part 1610.4-9) call for the monitoring of RMPs on a continual basis

with a formal evaluation done at periodic intervals. Land use plan monitoring is the process of tracking 

the implementation of land use planning decisions (implementation monitoring) and collecting data 

necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning decisions (effectiveness monitoring). 

Monitoring is the process of following up on management actions and documenting the BLM’s progress 

toward full implementation of the land use plan and the achievement of desired outcomes.

Evaluation is the process of reviewing the land use plan and any plan monitoring reports to determine

whether the Bakersfield Approved RMP decisions and NEPA analysis are still valid and whether the plan 

is being implemented. The Bakersfield Approved RMP will be evaluated to determine the following:

 If decisions remain relevant to current issues

 If decisions are effective in achieving (or making progress toward achieving) desired outcomes
XVII

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

 If any decisions need to be revised

 If any decisions need to be dropped from further consideration

 If any areas require new decisions

The Bakersfield Approved RMP will be evaluated at periodic intervals; special or unscheduled 

evaluations may be required to review unexpected management actions or significant changes in the 

related plans of Native American tribes, other federal agencies, and State and local governments or to

evaluate legislation or litigation that could trigger an RMP amendment or revision. Management actions

arising from activity plan decisions will be evaluated to ensure consistency with RMP objectives.

Public Involvement

Public Scoping

The Notice of Intent for the Bakersfield (formerly known as the Caliente Resource Area) RMP was 

published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2008 (Vol. 73, No. 43, Pages 11661-11662). The 

opportunity to comment was also publicized through news releases, mail notification, and posting on 

BLM’s web site. Seven public scoping meetings were held, and the public was invited to submit written 

comments. Overall, more than 140 comments were received during the scoping period. Following 

scoping, the BLM held additional public workshops within the Bakersfield Field Office to gather 

information on travel management planning and social and economic concerns. The Central California 

Resource Advisory Council has participated in this planning effort and receives regular updates on the 

progress at their meetings.

Public Review of and Comment on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS

The EPA published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS (DRMP/DEIS) on September 

9, 2011. The NOA initiated the 90-day public comment period required for planning actions. In 

preparing the PRMP/FEIS, the BLM considered all comments received or postmarked during the public 

comment period. The DRMP/DEIS was made available for viewing, downloading, and commenting by a 

variety of methods including as a PDF on the BLM website, on CD, and as paper copies. 

The BLM held seven public meetings throughout the Bakersfield Field Office in October 2011. Meeting 

locations were in Bakersfield, San Luis Obispo, Kern Valley, Three Rivers, Taft, and Prather. Over 100 

people attended the public meetings. 

The BLM received over 270 written comment letters from organizations, government agencies, industry 

representatives, and individuals during the comment period. Most of the written submissions contained 

multiple comments on different topics, and over 250 unique comments were made. Comments on the 

DRMP/DEIS pertained to a number of issues, including localized concerns on specific routes considered 

for travel management planning, designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), access 

for Rockhounding, locatable mineral exploration, and Wild and Scenic River suitability.

Public Review of and Protest on the PRMP/FEIS

A 30-day public protest period, beginning on August 31, 2012, was provided on the land use plan 

decisions contained in the PRMP/FEIS, in accordance with 43 CFR, Part 1610.5-2. The BLM received 21
XVIII

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

RECORD OF DECISION

protest letters that were subsequently resolved by the BLM Director, whose decision constitutes final 

agency action for the DOI. The issues raised in the protest letters covered a broad range of topics with 

differing opinions, sometimes completely opposite opinions, on how the protesting party felt that the 

BLM had erred in the planning process. 

Agency Consultations (US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), and State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO))

In accordance with the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA, the BLM consulted with the USFWS and 

the NMFS to ensure that the BLM’s proposed action would not jeopardize the continued existence of 

any listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The USFWS issued a “no jeopardy” Biological Opinion on October 23, 2014. The NMFS 

provided written concurrence that the BLM’s proposed action was “not likely to adversely impact” listed 

species or critical habitat on May 13, 2014. See RMP Section 1.7, Consultation and Collaboration for 

additional details.

In accordance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the BLM 

has consulted with the California SHPO concerning the content of this RMP. Copies of the DRMP/DEIS 

and PRMP/FEIS were provided to the SHPO for review, along with formal requests for comments. The 

SHPO responded to decline the opportunity to formally review, comment, or consult on both the 

DRMP/DEIS and the PRMP/FEIS.

Availability of the Plan

Copies of the ROD and the Bakersfield Approved RMP may be obtained by viewing or downloading the 

document from the BLM website at www.blm.gov/ca/bakersfield or by obtaining a hard copy or CD at 

the BLM Bakersfield Field Office at 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, California, 93308. 
Approved Resource Management Plan

For the

Bakersfield Field Office

Prepared by

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Bakersfield Field Office

California

December 2014
<This page intentionally left blank>
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Table of Contents

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

1 CHAPTER ONE -INTRODUCTION .............................................................................1

1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Plan ...................................................................................1

1.3 Description of the Planning Area ................................................................................2

Planning Area.............................................................................................................................................2

Decision Area.............................................................................................................................................4

1.4 Scoping and Planning Issues ......................................................................................6

Scoping Issues............................................................................................................................................6

Issues Addressed .......................................................................................................................................6

Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed.......................................................................................8

1.5 Planning Criteria and Legislative Constraints ............................................................8

Planning Criteria ........................................................................................................................................8

Legislative Constraints..............................................................................................................................9

1.6 Planning Process .......................................................................................................10

Relationship to BLM Policy, Plans and Programs..............................................................................10

1.7 Consultation and Collaboration ................................................................................ 11

Intergovernmental, Interagency and Tribal Relationships................................................................12

Other Stakeholder Relationships...........................................................................................................14

1.8 Related Plans .............................................................................................................14

Other Federal Agency Plans..................................................................................................................14

State Agency Plans ..................................................................................................................................15

County Plans............................................................................................................................................15

1.9 Policy .........................................................................................................................15

2 CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT DECISIONS..........................................................16

2.1 Air and Atmospheric Values......................................................................................18

2.2 Biological Resources .................................................................................................18

2.3 Caves and Karst Resource .........................................................................................38

2.4 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................39

2.5 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ..................................................................... 41

2.6 Paleontological Resources.........................................................................................43

2.7 Soil Resources............................................................................................................43
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.8 Visual Resources........................................................................................................44

2.9 Water Resources ........................................................................................................46

2.10 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .................................................................46

2.11 Comprehensive Trail and Travel Management ........................................................49

2.12 Lands and Realty .......................................................................................................55

2.13 Livestock Grazing......................................................................................................63

2.14 Minerals Management...............................................................................................75

2.15 Recreation and Visitor Services.................................................................................96

2.16 Interpretation and Environmental Education ........................................................ 124

2.17 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................... 125

2.18 Outstanding Natural Areas ..................................................................................... 159

2.19 Back Country Byways.............................................................................................. 160

2.20 National Trails......................................................................................................... 160

2.21 Wild and Scenic Rivers .............................................................................................161

2.22 Wilderness Study Areas ........................................................................................... 167

3 CHAPTER THREE - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION ...................... 168

4 CHAPTER FOUR - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .............. 169

4.1 Plan Maintenance .................................................................................................... 170

4.2 Changing/Amending the Plan................................................................................ 170

5 CHAPTER FIVE - PLAN EVALUATION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT .................. 172

5.1 Plan Evaluation........................................................................................................ 172

5.2 Monitoring............................................................................................................... 172

5.3 Adaptive Management ............................................................................................ 172

6 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... 174

6.1 Appendix 1 – Air Resources Management Plan...................................................... 176

6.2 Appendix 2 – Travel Management Plan.................................................................. 194

6.3 Appendix 3 – Best Management Practices/Standard Operating Procedures ........ 220

6.4 Appendix 4 – Biological Resources Conservation Strategy .................................... 266

6.5 Appendix 5 – Piedras Blancas Light Station Outstanding Natural Area ............... 274
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Land Status within the Decision Area...........................................................................................4

Table 1.2 Associated BLM Management Plans...........................................................................................10

Table 2.1 Forage Utilization and Mulch Management Requirements.....................................................70

Table 2.2 Bakersfield Field Office-Specific Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management..............71

Table 2.3 Livestock Grazing Implementation Levels.................................................................................72

Table 2.4 Fluid Minerals Allocations Summary .........................................................................................75

Table 2.5 Recreation Management Allocations Summary ........................................................................96

Table 2.6 French Gulch RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings.....................................................97

Table 2.7 Gold Fever RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings.........................................................99

Table 2.8 The Dam RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings......................................................... 100

Table 2.9 Wallow Rock RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings................................................... 102

Table 2.10 Pa’San RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings ............................................................ 104

Table 2.11 Tahoot RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings........................................................... 105

Table 2.12 Wu Ki’Oh RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings ..................................................... 106

Table 2.13 Temblor North RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings............................................. 108

Table 2.14 Urban Interface RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings............................................ 109

Table 2.15 Atwell Island ERMA Natural Resource Recreation Settings.............................................. 110

Table 2.16 Case Mountain ERMA Natural Resource Recreation Settings .......................................... 111

Table 2.17 Chimney Peak ERMA Natural Resource Recreation Settings............................................ 112

Table 2.18 Fresno River ERMA Natural Resource Recreation Settings.............................................. 113

Table 2.19 ACEC Allocations Summary ................................................................................................... 125

Table 2.20 Suitable Wild and Scenic River Summary.............................................................................. 162

List of Maps

Map 2.1 – Atwell Island..................................................................................................................................26

Map 2.2 – Caliente Creek................................................................................................................................27

Map 2.3 – Conserved Lands...........................................................................................................................28

Map 2.4 – Deer Spring....................................................................................................................................29

Map 2.5 – Frog Pond ......................................................................................................................................30

Map 2.6 – Irish Hills........................................................................................................................................31

Map 2.7 – NCLWMAs (Caliente, Monache, Temblor)..............................................................................32

Map 2.8 – Rusty Peak......................................................................................................................................34

Map 2.9 – South Fork of the Kern River.....................................................................................................35

Map 2.10 – Table Mountain and Kennedy Table .......................................................................................36

Map 2.11 – Tehachapi Linkage......................................................................................................................37

Map 2.12 – Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics .........................................................42

Map 2.13 – Visual Resource Management Objectives...............................................................................45

Map 2.14 – Areas Identified as Suitable for the Use of Wildland Fire for Resource Benefit...............48

Map 2.15 – OHV Area Designations............................................................................................................54

Map 2.16 – Travel Management Network Maps ........................................................................................55

Map 2.17 – Lands and Federal Mineral Estate Considered Available for Disposal ..............................59

Map 2.18 – Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Exclusion and Avoidance Areas.......................................60

Map 2.19 – Land Use Authorizations Exclusion and Avoidance Areas..................................................61
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.20 - Withdrawals..................................................................................................................................62

Map 2.21 – Livestock Grazing Allocations..................................................................................................75

Map 2.22 – Mineral Restrictions: Fluid Leasable Minerals........................................................................92

Map 2.23 – Mineral Restrictions: Solid (Non-Energy) Leasable Minerals..............................................93

Map 2.24 – Mineral Restrictions: Locatable Minerals ................................................................................94

Map 2.25 – Mineral Restrictions: Salable Minerals.....................................................................................95

Map 2.26 – Recreation Management Area Designations........................................................................ 115

Map 2.27 – Special Recreation Management Area: Keyesville............................................................... 116

Map 2.28 – Special Recreation Management Area: San Joaquin River Gorge ................................... 117

Map 2.29 – Special Recreation Management Area: Temblor Range.................................................... 118

Map 2.30 – Extensive Recreation Management Area: Atwell Island.................................................... 119

Map 2.31 – Extensive Recreation Management Area: Case Mountain................................................. 120

Map 2.32 – Extensive Recreation Management Area: Chimney Peak.................................................. 121

Map 2.33 – Extensive Recreation Management Area: Fresno River..................................................... 122

Map 2.34 – Public Closure Area: Heavily Developed Oil Fields........................................................... 123

Map 2.35 – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern............................................................................ 136

Map 2.36 – Ancient Lakeshores ACEC .................................................................................................... 137

Map 2.37 – Bitter Creek ACEC.................................................................................................................. 141

Map 2.38 – Blue Ridge ACEC.................................................................................................................... 142

Map 2.39 – Chico Martinez ACEC............................................................................................................ 143

Map 2.40 – Compensation Lands ACEC.................................................................................................. 144

Map 2.41 – Cypress Mountain ACEC....................................................................................................... 145

Map 2.42 – Cyrus Canyon ACEC .............................................................................................................. 146

Map 2.43 – Erskine Creek ACEC .............................................................................................................. 147

Map 2.44 – Hopper Mountain ACEC....................................................................................................... 148

Map 2.45 – Horse Canyon ACEC.............................................................................................................. 149

Map 2.46 – Kaweah ACEC......................................................................................................................... 150

Map 2.47 – Kettleman Hills ACEC ........................................................................................................... 151

Map 2.48 – Lokern-Buena Vista ACEC.................................................................................................... 152

Map 2.49 – Los Osos ACEC ...................................................................................................................... 153

Map 2.50 – Piute Cypress ACEC ............................................................................................................... 154

Map 2.51 – Point Sal ACEC ....................................................................................................................... 155

Map 2.52 – Salinas River ACEC................................................................................................................. 156

Map 2.53 – Tierra Redonda ACEC............................................................................................................ 157

Map 2.54 – Upper Cuyama Valley ACEC................................................................................................. 158

Map 2.55 – Lower Kern River Suitable Wild and Scenic River............................................................. 163

Map 2.56 – Chimney Creek Suitable Wild and Scenic River.................................................................. 164

Map 2.57 – North Fork of the Kaweah Suitable Wild and Scenic River.............................................. 165

Map 2.58 – San Joaquin River (Segment 1) Suitable Wild and Scenic River ....................................... 166
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Acronyms and Abbreviations

< less than

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AML Abandoned Mine Land

APCD Air Pollution Control District

APD Application for Permit to Drill

ARPA Archeological Resources Protection Act

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle

AUM animal unit month

BLM US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

CAA Clean Air Act

CALIPC California Invasive Plants Council

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

CARB California Air Resources Board

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CDOGGR California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CIAA cumulative impacts assessment area

COA Conditions of Approval

CPNM Carrizo Plain National Monument

CSU Controlled Surface Use

CTTM comprehensive trails and travel management

CWA Clean Water Act

CWCG California Wildfire Coordinating Group

DOD US Department of Defense

DRECP Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan

EA environmental assessment

EIS environmental impact statement

EO Executive Order

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency

ERMA extensive recreation management area

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

ESR emergency stabilization and rehabilitation

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FMP fire management plan

FMU Fire Management Unit

FRCC fire regime condition class

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

HCP habitat conservation plan

KCAPCD Kern County Air Pollution Control District
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

< less than

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

LUP Land Use Plan

MIST Minimum impact suppression tactics

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NCLWMA National Cooperative Land and Wildlife Management Area

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NHL National Historic Landmark

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NCL National Conservation Lands

NOA Naturally Occurring Asbestos

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPR Naval Petroleum Reserve

NPS US Department of the Interior, National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSO No Surface Occupancy

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems

OHV off-highway vehicle (previously ORV – Off-road vehicle)

ONA Outstanding Natural Area

ORV outstandingly remarkable value

PCNST Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail

PFC proper functioning condition

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification

PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter

RFD reasonably foreseeable development

RMA Recreation Management Area

RMIS Recreation Management Information System

RMP resource management plan

RMZ recreation management zone

ROD Record of Decision

ROW right-of-way

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP State Implementation Plan

SJRG San Joaquin River Gorge

SMA Special Management Area

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

SRP special recreation permit

TCP traditional cultural practice

T&E Threatened and Endangered

US United States

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USFS United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

USFWS US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

< less than

USGS US Geological Survey

VRI Visual Resource Inventory

VRM visual resource management

WSA wilderness study area

WSR wild and scenic river

WUI wildland urban interface
<This page intentionally left blank> 
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 1

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

1 Chapter One – Introduction

1.1 Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bakersfield Field Office (Bakersfield FO) has prepared the 

Bakersfield Resource Management Plan (RMP) to provide broad-scale direction for the future 

management of BLM-administered public lands and resources located in an eight county region of 

southern-central California. The RMP Planning Area encompasses about 17 million acres throughout 

Kings, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, Ventura, Madera, eastern Fresno, and western Kern 

Counties.

The BLM Bakersfield FO is directly responsible for the management of approximately 400,000 acres of 

public land and 1.2 million acres of Federal mineral estate (i.e., the Bakersfield Decision Area). 

Therefore, management decisions in the RMP apply only to the surface and subsurface estates 

administered by the BLM (described below) and recognize all valid existing rights.

The RMP was prepared in compliance with BLM’s planning regulations title 43, Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), 1600, under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 

1976 (43 US Code [USC], 1701 et seq.) and the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1. An EIS is 

incorporated into this document that meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR], 1500-1508) (CEQ 1978), and requirements of the BLM’s NEPA Handbook, H1790-1.

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Plan

The purpose of the RMP is to provide broad-scale direction for managing public lands under the 

administrative jurisdiction of the BLM’s Bakersfield FO in accordance with principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield, as mandated by the provisions of the FLPMA. The RMP presents desired outcomes –

expressed in terms of goals and objectives for resource conductions and uses, and establishes the 

allowable uses, management actions, and special designations that will enable the BLM to achieve the 

desired outcomes. The RMP guides the Bakersfield Field Office in the implementation of all its 

subsequent management actions and site-specific activities.

Before the current planning effort, public lands management within the Bakersfield Field Office was

covered under four RMPs: Caliente RMP, Hollister RMP, California Coastal National Monument (CCNM) 

RMP, and the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) RMP. The Caliente RMP, completed in 1997, 

covers public lands in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kings, Tulare, and western Kern Counties. 

The Hollister RMP, completed in 1984 by the Hollister Field Office, covers lands in Madera and eastern 

Fresno Counties, which were administratively transferred to the Bakersfield FO in October 2000. The 

CCNM RMP, completed in 2005, encompasses rocks and islands along the 1,100 mile California coastline 

of which approximately 230 miles fall within the Bakersfield FO. The CPNM RMP, completed in 2010, 

encompasses approximately 206,000 acres of public lands within the Bakersfield FO.
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

BLM regulations require that existing land use plans be revised when necessary to address current 

resource conditions, evolving demands on resources, and new and revised national-level policy (43 CFR 

1610.5-6). The need for revision of the 1997 Caliente Resource Management Plan (RMP) and 

outstanding portion of the 1984 Hollister RMP stems from several factors including: a) the recent 

completion of RMPs for the two National Monuments previously covered in the 1997 Caliente RMP, b) 

the transfer of some public lands from the Hollister Field Office to the Bakersfield Field Office that 

remained under management guidance provided by the 1984 Hollister RMP, and c) the acquisition of 

new lands, including Piedras Blancas Light Station, Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 2, and Atwell 

Island Land Retirement Project for which no specific management direction was provided in the Caliente 

RMP.

To address these issues, the Bakersfield RMP provides guidance for managing the use of BLMadministered lands and provides a framework for land management actions within the Planning Area. 

The RMP replaces the management guidance of the Caliente and Hollister RMPs and their three

amendments. It does not, however, address public land management within the CCNM or the CPNM, 

except for livestock grazing management in a small portion of the CPNM.

1.3 Description of the Planning Area

42BPlanning Area

The Bakersfield FO administrative boundary demarcates the Planning Area and encompasses about 17 

million acres of mixed ownership throughout Kings, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, Ventura, 

Madera, eastern Fresno, and western Kern Counties, in central California (Map 1.1). Stretching from the 

coastal islands in the Pacific Ocean across the Central Valley to the crest of the Sierra Nevada, this is a 

region of diverse topography and landscapes, and extraordinary biodiversity. Elevations range from sea 

level to more than 14,500 feet at Mount Whitney. Other federal land managers are the US Air Force, US 

Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), US Navy, National Park Service (NPS), US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), US Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. In addition, 

State agencies may have specialized management responsibilities, such as the California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), which manages wildlife for the state in cooperation with BLM on public lands 

(43 CFR 24.4(d)).
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA 3

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

Map 1.1 – Planning Area
4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

43BDecision Area

While the Planning Area encompasses the entire area within the boundaries of the Bakersfield FO 

regardless of jurisdiction or ownership, the Bakersfield Decision Area encompasses about 400,000 acres 

of public lands surface and minerals, and 750,000 acres of mineral estate only. These public lands and 

mineral estate are scattered across the Planning Area in numerous parcels of various size. The larger 

blocks of public land lie adjacent to the CPNM, in the Three Rivers-Kaweah River region of Tulare 

County, and in the Lake Isabella-Chimney Peak-Walker Pass region of Kern and Tulare counties. 

The Decision Area also includes subsurface minerals on approximately 550,000 acres of “split estate” 

(areas where the BLM manages federal subsurface minerals but the surface is owned by a non-federal 

entity) as well as subsurface minerals on approximately 200,000 acres where the surface is managed by 

other Federal agencies. These combined areas (about 1.2 million acres) constitute the area for which the 

BLM has authority and makes decisions (i.e. the Decision Area) under this plan revision (Map 1.2). Table 

1.1, summarizes the Decision Area.

Table 1.1

Land Status within the Decision Area

Land Status Acres0F

1 Percentage of 

Decision Area

BLM Managed1F

2

Surface Only 11,405 0.9

BLM Surface and Mineral Estate 395,745

393,179

33.5

BLM Mineral Estate with Other Federal 

Surface 219,7782F

3 18.7

Split Estate (BLM Mineral Estate with NonFederal Surface)

548,117 46.7

Total BLM Surface 404,319 -

Total BLM-Administered Mineral Estate 1,161,075 -

Total Decision Area 1,172,480 100

Source: BLM 2012a

The Bakersfield Decision Area does not include the CPNM3F

4

or the CCNM, which are managed by the 

Bakersfield FO under different, site-specific RMPs. 

The decisions in the RMP apply only to BLM-administered surface and federal mineral estate. These 

decisions do not apply to private lands, State lands, tribal lands, and federal lands not administered by 

the BLM; they would not change existing rights or authority of private land owners or other surface 

management agencies.

 

1

Acreages reflect 2012 data and include the correction of mapping errors and new acquisitions occurring since 

publication of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS.

2

Includes 254 acres owned by BOR, but managed by BLM through an MOU.

3

This acreage includes the mineral estate under DOD at San Nicholas Island which was not included in the Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS.

4

Except a small portion of the CPNM for which this RMP provides direction for livestock grazing management.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA 5

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

Map 1.2 – Decision Area
6 SCOPING AND PLANNING ISSUES

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

While the RMP decisions do not apply to lands not administered by the BLM, the RMP recognizes that

lands, communities, resource values, and uses that are nearby or interspersed with BLM-managed 

public lands could be indirectly affected by BLM management actions; in turn, their use and values may 

affect BLM management of public lands. The RMP includes recommendations for the BLM to work with 

entities that manage areas or programs that are not under its jurisdiction, but that directly affect BLM’s 

management (such as county governments, tourism information groups, and hunting organizations). 

Final decisions, however, regarding actions outside the Decision Area rest with the appropriate agency 

or community government, and are typically not decisions made by the BLM.

1.4 Scoping and Planning Issues

4BScoping Issues

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to develop the Bakersfield RMP and associated EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43, pages 11661-11662). This initiated the public 

scoping period. A news release was also submitted to local and regional media and posted on BLM’s 

Web site. 

The Bakersfield FO hosted several public scoping meetings. Agencies and the public were encouraged to 

submit oral and/or written comments regarding management of public lands in the Planning Area. One 

of the most important outcomes of the scoping process was the identification of significant issues to be 

addressed in the planning phase. Planning issues are disputes or controversies about existing and 

potential land and resource allocations, levels of resource use, production, and related management 

practices. Usually, the causal relationship between the activity or use and undesirable results are well 

defined or can be documented, and the level of controversy is high enough to merit further analysis. 

Statement of the planning issues orients the planning process so that interdisciplinary thought, analysis, 

and documentation is directed toward resolving the planning issues during preparation of the RMP.

45BIssues Addressed

Public scoping comment analysis in combination with bureau policy, directives and guidance resulted in 

the identification of six planning issues that were addressed during development of alternatives. All six 

issues center on balancing resource use and human activity with the mandated level of resource 

protection.

Issue 1: Adequately address the need for access to and continued availability of, public lands for multiple 

recreational uses and open spaces.

The enormous increase in population in the Planning Area has intensified the demand for open space 

and recreation opportunities on public land. Not only has demand increased, but the kinds of recreation 

taking place on public lands have also increased, and conflicts are developing including impacts from 

unauthorized activities. Coupled with this is the scattered nature of much of the public land parcels, 

many of which lack legal access.

Issue 2: Establish a balance between the extent of the travel network and the protection of natural and 

cultural resources, including an appropriate allocation of routes to the various modes of transport.
SCOPING AND PLANNING ISSUES 7

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

The BLM travel network is used by a wide range of users including commercial, domestic, and recreation 

users. There is some demand for new trail systems, especially from the OHV interest groups within the 

community (to increase opportunities for different skill levels and modes of travel); however, the 

ongoing proliferation of illegal routes has resulted in the damage to natural and cultural resources, and 

conflicts between the various user groups. BLM needs to coordinate with other managers of travel 

networks, such as private interests, the State, and other federal agencies and contribute toward a 

regional solution to the issue.

Issue 3: Ensure appropriate protection for Threatened and Endangered species, critical habitat, other 

biological resources, and cultural and paleontological resources in a multiple-use environment.

The diverse landscapes and the extraordinary biodiversity present within the Planning Area present a 

unique challenge in managing public lands and resources in a rapidly growing region with a diversity of 

public demands. Since the 1997 Caliente RMP was completed, the USFWS has listed as threatened or 

endangered at least an additional 11 plants and animals potentially found on public lands within the 

Bakersfield FO for a total of 86 federally listed species. Loss and degradation of natural habitat continues 

as California’s population grows, increasing the importance of BLM lands for conservation goals. The 

balance between the conservation of biological, cultural, and paleontological resources with the 

demand for other land uses is an ongoing issue. 

Issue 4: Continue to appropriately manage livestock grazing to provide for economic benefit, rural 

lifestyles and vegetation management while protecting other resources.

Livestock grazing plays an important role on the landscape in terms of rural lifestyles, local economies, 

and maintaining the legacy of the “West.” Management of livestock grazing into the future needs to 

incorporate the best science and adaptive management methods to ensure protection of other 

resources. In addition, explore the utilization of livestock grazing as a vegetation management tool to 

meet resource objectives (such as wildlife habitat and fire management). 

Issue 5: Balance the demand for energy development (including oil and gas, wind, and solar energy) and 

other land use authorizations (such as road and transmission corridor rights-of-way) with other resource 

values.

Implementing the multiple-use mandate from FLPMA includes balancing the economic use of public 

resources, while providing for appropriate stewardship of public lands and the protection of natural and 

cultural resources. The economic uses involve both renewable and nonrenewable resources and include 

energy development (primarily oil and gas, wind, and solar), other mineral extraction, and land use 

authorizations such as road and transmission corridor rights-of-way. With the increasing demand for 

sources of domestic energy from public lands, the ability to balance these immediate goals with the 

protection of public lands for the use and enjoyment of future generations becomes more challenging.

Issue 6: Address the impacts of climate change on the management of public lands, including strategies 

that will reduce impacts and incorporate appropriate monitoring.

The temperature of the planet’s atmosphere is regulated by a balance of radiation received from the 

sun and the amount of that radiation absorbed by the earth and atmosphere. Greenhouse gases (e.g. 

carbon dioxide and methane), as well as water vapor and particulate matter in the atmosphere keep the 

planet’s temperature warmer than it would be otherwise, allowing the planet to sustain life. While these 

gasses and particles have occurred naturally for millennia, there has been a marked increase in their 
8 PLANNING CRITERIA AND LEGISLATIVE CONSTRAINTS

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

atmospheric concentration since the start of the industrial age, contributing to the observed climatic 

variability beyond the historic norm. As appropriate, this plan describes (1) the effects that a changing 

climate may have on the resources in the Planning Area, and (2) how the reasonably foreseeable 

activities under each alternative would affect climate change (discussed as part of Air and Atmospheric 

Values in Chapters 3 and 4).

46BIssues Considered but Not Further Analyzed

The issues identified during public scoping (discussed above) shaped the alternatives carried forward in 

the RMP process. Several concerns/issues identified during public scoping were also considered but 

were not analyzed further in the planning process because they fell outside of BLM jurisdiction or were 

beyond the scope of the RMP planning effort. Other comments represented questions on how the BLM 

would go about conducting the planning process and implementation of land use plan decisions. 

Comments on these items are valuable and appreciated, even though they are outside the scope of an 

RMP. These comments will be considered when decisions are made on implementation plans, proposed 

projects, or day-to-day management.

Three concerns were commonly expressed:

 The need for adequate law enforcement personnel and patrols throughout the Bakersfield Field 

Office – Some members of the public expressed the desire for a resident law enforcement 

ranger or park ranger in their local area. Staffing issues are not typically addressed in land use 

plans; they are more appropriately addressed administratively.

 Increasing the use of volunteers and partnerships to assist in managing public lands and 

resources – Recruitment and opportunities for volunteers and partnerships are ongoing BLM 

activities that are a means of implementing an RMP. The RMP, however, is not the appropriate 

mechanism to establish these opportunities.

 The adequacy of budget and staffing to ensure implementation of the RMP – The RMP 

alternatives will be based on an optimal but reasonable assessment of the level of management 

needed. However, the RMP is not a budget document and alternative development is not based 

on specific funding projections. 

1.5 Planning Criteria and Legislative Constraints

47BPlanning Criteria

Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and guidelines that help to guide the RMP/EIS process, to 

ensure it is tailored to the identified issues, and to deter unnecessary data collection and analysis. The 

BLM developed planning criteria principally from FLPMA and other applicable laws and regulations, 

agency guidance, and consultation and coordination with the public, other federal, state, and local 

agencies, and Native American tribes. The planning criteria were provided to the public for review 

during the scoping process and were included in the scoping report. The following general planning 

criteria were developed to guide planning, development of management alternatives, impacts analysis, 

and the eventual selection of the Bakersfield RMP:
PLANNING CRITERIA AND LEGISLATIVE CONSTRAINTS 9

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

 The plan will establish new guidance and identify existing guidance for the BLM in managing 

public lands within the Bakersfield FO;

 The plan will be completed in compliance with FLPMA and all other applicable laws;

 The planning process will include an environmental impact statement that will comply with 

NEPA;

 The RMP/EIS will incorporate by reference the Central California Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management;

 The RMP/EIS will incorporate by reference all prior Wilderness designations and Wilderness 

Study Area findings that affect public lands in the Planning Area;

 The plan will provide determinations as required by special program and resource-specific 

guidance detailed in Appendix C of the BLM’s Planning Handbook;

 Decisions in the plan will strive to be compatible with the existing plans and policies of adjacent 

local, state, tribal, and federal agencies, as long as the decisions are in conformance with BLM 

policies on management of public lands;

 The scope of analysis will be consistent with the level of analysis in approved plans and in 

accordance with BLM-wide standards and program guidance;

 Resource allocations must be reasonable and achievable within available technological and 

budgetary constraints;

 The lifestyles and concerns of area residents will be recognized in the plan;

 All lands within the CCNM and the CPNM—both of which are addressed under separate RMPs, 

will not be included in the Bakersfield RMP, except for livestock grazing management in a small 

portion of the CPNM;

 The plan will include Piedras Blancas Light Station Outstanding Natural Area and identify goals, 

standards, and objectives for this area.

 Decisions and management actions within the existing plans will be evaluated; those that are 

determined to still be valid will be carried forward into this revised RMP; and

 Geospatial data within a geographic information system (GIS) will be used to facilitate 

discussions of the affected environment, alternative formulation, analysis of environmental 

consequences, and display of the results.

48BLegislative Constraints

The BLM administers public lands within a framework of numerous laws. The most comprehensive of 

these is the FLPMA. All BLM policies, procedures, and management actions must be consistent with 

FLPMA and the other laws that govern use of the public lands. In FLPMA, Congress established the 

principle of “multiple-use” management; defined, in part, as “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.” The planning process is intended to develop RMP decisions that 

resolve conflicts between program priorities, policies and guidelines and that meet the multiple use and 

sustained yield mandate of the FLPMA.
10 PLANNING PROCESS

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

1.6 Planning Process

As provided by FLPMA, the BLM is responsible for planning for and managing public lands. The 

Bakersfield RMP was initiated under the authority of Section 202(f) of FLPMA and guided by BLM 

planning regulations in 43 CFR 1600. Additionally, the EIS is subject to Section 202(c) of NEPA and 

guided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in 40 CFR 1500. 

The BLM uses a multistep planning process when developing RMPs, as required by 43 CFR, Part 1600, 

and illustrated in the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook. The planning process is designed to help the 

BLM identify the uses of BLM-administered lands desired by the public. The process considers these 

uses to the extent they are consistent with the laws established by Congress and the policies of the 

executive branch of the federal government. The planning process is issue-driven. The BLM used the 

public scoping process to identify planning issues (noted above) to direct the development of the 

Bakersfield RMP. The scoping process also was used to introduce the public to planning criteria.

Title II, Section 202, of FLPMA directs the BLM to coordinate planning efforts with Native American 

tribes, other federal departments, and agencies of the state and local governments as part of its 

planning process. The BLM is also directed to integrate NEPA requirements with other environmental 

review and consultation requirements to reduce paperwork and delays (40 CFR, Part 1500.4-5). The BLM 

coordinated with Native American tribes and other agencies and was consistent with other plans 

through ongoing communications, meetings, and collaboration with an interdisciplinary team.

49BRelationship to BLM Policy, Plans and Programs

The BLM has three principal levels of land use planning decisions: 1) the RMP level; 2) the activity level; 

and 3) the site-specific level. RMP focuses on establishing broad resource objectives and direction while, 

at the same time, providing some activity-level guidance and site-specific decisions. Site-specific 

decisions are usually tied to a specific location, resource, or activity and generally require their own 

NEPA. Where this RMP makes these site-specific decisions (e.g., route designations) this EIS fulfills the 

NEPA requirement. 

The Bakersfield RMP has been prepared to reflect and be consistent with current federal laws, 

regulations, plans, and guidance, as well as with local government plans and policies to the extent 

feasible. The decisions in the 1997 Caliente RMP and the relevant portions of the 1984 Hollister RMP

and subsequent amendments, as well as other more recent BLM plans, were reevaluated to determine if 

they should be carried forward in the RMP. Since 1997, some of these documents that were considered 

during the planning process are identified in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2

Associated BLM Management Plans

Document Year

Bakersfield Field Office Fire Management Plan 2008

Carrizo Plain National Monument ROD/ARMP 2010

California Coastal National Monument ROD/ARMP 2005

Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA Interpretive Plan 2008

Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA Management Plan 2007

Southern Sierra (Westside) Management Plan 

[Wilderness]

1999
CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATION 11

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

In addition to existing plans, a number of policies, national programmatic EISs, and program guidance 

documents (BLM Handbooks and Manual sections) were reviewed for consistency during the 

development of the RMP. These policies and guidance are referenced throughout the document.

Air Quality MOU: Through the Memorandum of Understanding Among the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Air 

Quality Analyses and Mitigation For Federal Oil and Gas Decisions Through the National Environmental 

Policy Act Process (effective June 23, 2011), signatories commit to a clearly defined approach to 

compliance with NEPA regarding air quality in connection with oil and gas development on Federal 

lands. This MOU applies to all NEPA analyses commencing after the effective date, June 23, 2011. The 

NEPA analysis for the Bakersfield RMP began in 2008; therefore, the provisions of the MOU are not 

directly applicable to this NEPA analysis. However, the BLM believes the air quality analysis in the EIS

meets the intent of the MOU; air resource program goals and objectives illustrate the Bakersfield FO’s 

commitment to protect air quality, particularly as it relates to oil and gas development on Federal lands. 

In lieu of implementing the MOU at this stage and in response to comment from the Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 9, the BLM developed an Air Resources Management Plan (included as 

Appendix 1) that outlines the specific requirements for managing air resources and authorizing activities 

that have the potential to adversely impact air resources in the Bakersfield Field Office and includes 

modeling, monitoring, and mitigation requirements. The BLM and other participating agencies have 

developed a Joint Agency Implementation Team. The BLM completed its agency-specific 

implementation plan in 2011 and is administering training to implement the MOU for future analyses 

that pertain to federal oil and gas development.

Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP): The DRECP, a joint planning process between the 

BLM, USFWS, California Energy Commission and CDFW, will address natural resources conservation and 

renewable energy development on both public and private lands within the California Desert, including 

a small portion (197,000 acres) of the Bakersfield FO Planning Area including approximately 22,000 acres 

of public lands. The plan, still in development, will identify appropriate locations for renewable energy 

development taking into account impacts to species and natural communities and provide for long-term 

conservation and management, other equivalent protection measures, for these species and natural 

communities, giving consideration to other resources and resources uses. The Bakersfield FO has, and 

will continue to, coordinate with the DRECP planning team to ensure resources within the Decision Area 

are adequately addressed in the DRECP. Although the Bakersfield RMP provides guidance for utility 

scale renewable energy development in a portion of the area being considered by the DRECP, this 

allocation is interim management direction pending the completion of the DRECP. 

1.7 Consultation and Collaboration

The Bakersfield FO conducts many activities that require coordination with tribes, the State, other 

agencies, and interested public. Coordination has been ongoing throughout this planning effort. 

Coordination is accomplished as a matter of course when implementing land use plan decisions through 

project development and site-specific activities. Key coordination efforts include those described below. 

Additional details about the public and agency involvement process are presented in Chapter 5 –

Consultation and Coordination.
12 CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATION

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

50BIntergovernmental, Interagency and Tribal Relationships

The formal process by which the BLM engages other governmental entities (other federal agencies, 

state agencies and local governments) in the planning process is through Cooperating Agency status. 

Cooperating agency status provides a formal framework for governmental agencies to engage in active 

collaboration with a Federal agency to implement the requirements of the NEPA. Federal and state 

agencies and local and tribal governments may qualify as cooperating agencies because of “jurisdiction 

by law or special expertise” (40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5).

In accordance with these provisions, the BLM initially informed other federal state, local, and tribal 

officials of its intent to prepare a new RMP, as detailed in the Scoping Report. Collaboration with these 

agencies continued throughout the planning and EIS process. The BLM gathered issues, ideas, and 

concerns and discussed the role of agencies in the process. A full listing of the agencies that the BLM 

coordinated with can be found in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

A letter introducing the RMP/EIS and offering agencies the opportunity to become cooperating agencies 

in the planning was sent to 15 agencies. Two of the agencies, National Park Service and California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, expressed their desire to be involved in the planning process, but 

without becoming a cooperating agency. The remainder of the invitees wished to remain abreast of the 

planning process, but declined formal cooperating agency status.

Tribal Government-to-Government Consultation

Native American tribes are formally engaged in the planning process, as with many other federal 

actions, through a process of consultation. Legislation, policy and guidance require the BLM to consult 

with federally recognized Native American tribes regarding any actions conducted by the agency which 

have the potential to affect places of traditional or religious importance to them. As such, the 

Bakersfield FO initiated contact on April 4, 2008, in conjunction with the public scoping process, with 

both federally and non-federally recognized tribes whose traditional territories are known to lie within 

the Planning Area. 

The federally recognized Native American tribes listed below were contacted again via certified letter in 

April 2011 and invited to participate in government-to-government consultation prior to the release of 

the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. Upon its release, copies were sent to each federally recognized Native 

American tribe and several non-recognized Native American tribes, groups, and individuals along with a 

package of supplemental information and maps. Follow up letters, phone calls, and emails offered to 

schedule one-on-one presentations, and again, extended the invitation to initiate formal governmentto-government consultation to the federally recognized tribes and informal coordination and 

consultation with the non-recognized tribes. Informational meetings and presentations were conducted 

with four of the federally recognized Native American tribes and six non-recognized Native American 

tribes and groups. Subsequent to the end of the public review and comment period on the Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS, one of these groups, the Tejon Indian Tribe, became federally recognized (January 1, 

2012). Prior to their formal recognition, BLM coordinated with the Tejon Indian Tribe by providing them 

with information, maps and guidance regarding review of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. In addition, a formal 

presentation was provided for the attending members at a Tribal Council meeting. None of the federally

or non-federally recognized Native American tribes chose to conduct formal government-to-government

or informal consultation.
CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATION 13

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

Upon the release of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS these federally recognized Native American tribes and 

several non-recognized Native American tribes, groups, and individuals were provided with copies of the 

document and received follow up contacts.

 Big Sandy Rancheria 

 Cold Springs Rancheria 

 North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians 

 Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi 

Indians 

 Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians 

 Table Mountain Rancheria 

 Tachi Yokut Tribe of the Santa Rosa 

Rancheria 

 Tejon Indian Tribe

 Tule River Reservation

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the BLM consulted with the USFWS and the NMFS to ensure 

that the BLM’s proposed action would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed threatened 

or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

The BLM initiated formal consultation with the USFWS on September 7, 2012. As part of the 

consultation, BLM wrote a biological assessment (BA) and held meetings with the USFWS to explain the 

proposed action and the effects determination. The BA discussed the effects on 75 listed species (39 

plants, 36 animal) and 37 critical habitats (16 plants, 21 animals) in the Bakersfield FO from the 

Proposed RMP (Alternative B in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS). Appendix 4 contains a list of the species 

and critical habitats discussed in the BA. During the consultation period, USFWS and the BLM held 

additional discussions and exchanged additional information. The USFWS considered the Proposed 

RMP, the BA and additional information and developed a biological opinion (BO). The October 23, 2014

BO (08ESMF00-2012-F-0682) concluded that the Proposed RMP was not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat.

The BLM initiated formal consultation with the NMFS on November 7, 2012. As part of the consultation, 

the BLM wrote a biological assessment and held a meeting with the NMFS to explain the proposed 

action and the effects determination. During the January 31, 2013 meeting, the NMFS advised the BLM 

to develop BMPs that would eliminate or reduce impacts to NMFS species and critical habitat. After 

reviewing the BMPs, the NMFS advised the BLM that with inclusion of the BMPs, the Proposed RMP was 

“not likely to adversely affect” listed species or critical habitat. The BLM requested written concurrence 

on December 20, 2013. On May 13, 2014, the NMFS issued a letter concurring that the BLM’s proposed 

action was not likely to adversely affect South-Central California Coast (SCCC) Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS) steelhead, Southern California (SC) DPS steelhead, black abalone, Guadalupe fur seal, fin 

whale, blue whale, or humpback whale, or critical habitat for SCCC steelhead, SC steelhead, or black 

abalone. The BMPs approved by the NMFS have been incorporated into Appendix 3.
14 RELATED PLANS

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 106 Consultation

In accordance with the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, the BLM coordinated with and 

solicited input from the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) at the initiation of the 

planning process. The SHPO was also invited to review and formally consult regarding the Bakersfield 

Draft RMP/Draft EIS. The SHPO declined to review, comment, or consult on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. An 

additional opportunity for review and consultation was afforded during the Governor’s Consistency 

review of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The SHPO declined to review, comment, or consult on the 

PRMP/FEIS.

51BOther Stakeholder Relationships

Throughout the planning process the Bakersfield FO continued to be engaged with numerous user 

groups, public land stakeholders, and interested individuals. These efforts include travel management 

oriented public meetings, recreation-focused listening sessions, Social and economic workshops, and 

various briefings, presentations, and personal communications. These stakeholder groups include 

representatives for environmental advocacy groups, commercial enterprises, community groups, and 

groups representing recreational users. In addition, regular briefings have been presented to the 

Central California Resource Advisory Council and updates provided to its various subcommittees.

1.8 Related Plans

BLM land use planning regulations (43 CFR, 1610.3), FLPMA (43 USC, 1712), and regulations for 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR, 1501.6 and 1506.2) guide the BLM in coordinating and cooperating with 

other federal and state agencies, local governments, and Native American tribes during the land use 

planning process. This collective guidance instructs the BLM, to the extent practicable, to keep informed 

of state, local, and tribal plans; assure that consideration is given to such plans; and to assist in resolving 

inconsistencies between such plans and federal planning. While the State is authorized to furnish advice 

regarding revision of land use plans for the public lands, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to 

develop land use plans consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent found consistent 

with Federal law and the purposes of FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. 1712 (c)(9). 

In keeping with these provisions and regulations, other Federal and State agencies, local, and tribal 

officials were made aware of the planning process as described above. 

52BOther Federal Agency Plans

Other federal agencies manage lands and resources in and next to the Bakersfield FO Planning Area. The 

RMP strives for consistency with plans pertaining to these lands, including the following: 

 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Oil and Gas Leasing, Los 

Padres National Forest, July 2005; 

 Sequoia National Forest Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision, December 2009; 
POLICY 15

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

 USFWS recovery plans for endangered species―Recovery Plan for the California condor (USFWS 

1996), Recovery Plan for Upland Species for the San Joaquin Valley (USFWS 1998), Recovery Plan 

for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon (USFWS 2005); and the Recovery 

Plan for the Kern Primrose Sphinx Moth (USFWS 1984).

 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR, 300) (1994, revised 

2007);

 Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (Los Padres, Sequoia, Sierra National Forests).

53BState Agency Plans

The complex land ownership pattern within the Planning Area influences BLM coordination with 

agencies administering California State lands and resources. Several agreements exist between state 

agencies and the BLM that to promote interagency cooperation to enhance natural resource 

management. For example, two large areas have been managed cooperatively with the CDFW as 

National Cooperative Land and Wildlife Management Areas (Temblor and Monache-Walker Pass) to 

benefit wildlife resources and recreation opportunities. The BLM and CDFW also coordinate in managing 

State ecological reserves within the Planning Area. The BLM and California State Parks coordinate 

management of their lands to ensure consistency for adjoining parcels.

54BCounty Plans

The BLM routinely coordinates management activities across its scattered land pattern within the eight 

counties in which there is BLM surface or mineral ownership. County supervisors, planners, fire 

personnel, and local law enforcement are the primary points of coordination. While specific planning 

efforts for the RMP and the county general plan provide an opportunity to evaluate consistency, the 

process of coordination and consistency review is ongoing.

1.9 Policy

This plan is consistent with and incorporates requirements identified in various laws, regulations and 

policies. These include Executive Orders, legislative designations, proclamations and court 

settlements/rulings. The policies and decisions that existed prior to this plan being written are outside 

the scope of the plan but have influenced the decisions, constrained the alternatives, and are needed to 

understand management of the area. 
16 INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2 Chapter Two – Management Decisions

Introduction

This chapter describes the decisions approved in the ROD for the Bakersfield RMP, otherwise known as 

the Approved RMP. It presents the Desired Future Conditions (Goals and Objectives), Land Use 

Allocations and Management Actions (Decisions) established for BLM-administered public lands in the 

Bakersfield FO that will be implemented over the life of the RMP. Most of the desired future conditions 

are long range and are assumed to require a period of time to achieve. These management decisions 

are presented by program area. Not all types of decisions were identified for each program.

Goals and objectives direct BLM actions to most effectively meet legal mandates, regulations, and 

agency policy, as well as local and regional resource needs. Goals are broad statements of desired 

outcomes that are usually not quantifiable. Objectives identify more specific desired outcomes for 

resources and might include a measurable component. Objectives are generally expected to achieve the 

stated goals.

Allowable uses identify uses that are allowed, restricted, or excluded on BLM‐administered surface 

lands and federal mineral estate. These allocations identify the surface lands or subsurface mineral 

interests where uses are allowed, including any restrictions that may be needed to meet goals and 

objectives.

Management actions are proactive measures or limitations intended to guide BLM activities in the 

Planning Area to achieve desired outcomes, including actions to maintain, restore, or improve land 

health. 

Special designations are designated by Congress for special protection, such as Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Such designations are not land use plan decisions, but recommendations for designation can be made to 

Congress at the land use plan level. Congress may then act on these recommendations at a later time. 

Additionally, BLM administrative designations, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), 

are also considered special designations and can be made in the land use plan.

Implementation decisions are management actions tied to a specific location that implement land use 

plan decisions. Implementation decisions generally constitute the BLM’s final approval, allowing on-theground actions to proceed and require appropriate site-specific planning and NEPA analysis. Such 

decisions may be incorporated into implementation plans (activity or project plans) or may exist as 

stand-alone decisions.

The RMP contains “Key Implementation” level decisions that would be implementable based on the 

level of analysis contained within the EIS. Principally, these decisions relate to the concurrent Travel 

Management Plan included as Appendix 2 of the RMP; however, other implementation level decisions 

are noted under the “Key Implementation Decisions” heading for Biological Resources and Livestock 

Grazing. It should be noted that implementation level decisions are subject to appeal to the Interior 

Board of Land Appeals under 43 CFR, 4.410. 

Administrative actions are day-to-day activities conducted by the BLM, often required by FLPMA, but 

may or may not require specific evaluation under NEPA and do not require a written decision by a 
INTRODUCTION 17

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

responsible official to be accomplished. Examples of administrative actions include, but are not limited 

to, mapping, surveying, conducting inventory or monitoring, scientific research, other studies, 

partnering and collaborating with partners, developing educational materials, and working with local 

communities and interest groups.

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) guide the day-to-day 

operations and business practices of the BLM. The SOPs and BMPs are the combined product of 

procedures developed to comply with laws, regulations, policies, and other guidance and are often 

institutionalized in manuals and handbooks. The SOPs and BMPs are described in detail (although not 

all inclusive) by program in Appendix 3. Best Management Practices and Standard Operating Procedures.

It should be noted the decisions generated by the RMP only apply to BLM-administered surface and 

mineral estate. No decisions generated by the RMP would change existing rights or authority of private 

land owners or other surface management agencies. 
18 AIR AND ATMOSPHERIC VALUES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Resources

2.1 Air and Atmospheric Values

Goal

[AAV-G-1] Contribute to the achievement of good air quality.

Objectives

[AAV-O-1] Contribute to the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

[AAV-O-2] Reduce emissions and the particulate level impacts from BLM management activities and 

BLM authorized actions in accordance with State Implementation Plans (SIPs).

Decisions

[AAV-D-1] Design BLM program and management activities and authorize projects to meet air quality 

standards in conformance with State Implementation Plans. Reduce emissions resulting from such 

actions by implementing BMPs listed in the Air Resources Management Plan (Appendix 1) and other 

control measures. 

[AAV-D-2] Prevent BLM actions from degrading Federal Class I areas including Domeland Wilderness, 

San Raphael Wilderness, and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

2.2 Biological Resources

Goals 

[BR-G-1] Contribute to maintaining the biotic diversity within the Planning Area. Ensure public lands 

provide for a diversity of native species, ecosystems, and ecosystem processes.

[BR-G-2] Promote the recovery of state and federally listed species. Promote conservation of other 

plant and animal species to prevent future listings (see Appendix 4).

[BR-G-3] Promote the success of recovery plans, conservation plans, wildlife management plans, 

vegetation and weed management plans, and other regional conservation strategies (see Appendix 4).

Objectives

[BR-O-1] Maintain or improve the quality and diversity of biological resources through the maintenance, 

enhancement, and restoration of habitats. Manage public lands to meet or exceed the Standards for

Rangeland Health (see LG-D-5).

[BR-O-2] Meet or exceed proper functioning condition of wetland or riparian habitats, maintain the 

hydrologic regime of vernal pools, and provide for riparian-dependent native species through habitat 

maintenance, restoration and enhancement.

[BR-O-3] Restore, as appropriate, native plants and animals whose populations have been depleted or 

extirpated from the local area.

[BR-O-4] Conserve and recover state and federally listed species through the maintenance, 

enhancement and restoration of their habitats. 
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 19

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

[BR-O-5] Design BLM actions and authorization to minimize impacts on biological resources, regional 

conservation strategies and essential habitat linkages.

[BR-O-6] Reduce the impact that the urban interface, recreation activities, and other public uses have on 

listed species recovery, natural community and species conservation by coordination and collaboration 

with other agencies, local communities, and user groups.

[BR-O-7] Protect additional ecologically important areas, important linkages, and scarce limited habitats 

through land tenure adjustments and partnerships with other agencies and organizations.

[BR-O-8] Retain in public ownership lands that are important for species recovery or conservation, that 

contain ecologically important areas or scarce limited habitats, or contribute to regional conservation 

strategies or habitat linkages.

[BR-O-9] Manage lands, interest in lands, or funds acquired through compensation consistent with any

applicable compensation document and to promote recovery of the target species to the extent 

consistent with federal law.

[BR-O-10] Control, decrease, or eradicate known populations of invasive nonnative plants and prevent 

new populations from becoming established. Control the spread of noxious weeds as identified by the 

California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Invasive Plants Council (Cal-IPC, 2009). 

[BR-O-11] Address at a landscape level, widespread nonnative species that displace and compete with 

the native flora through collaboration with weed management area members, state agencies, federal 

agencies, conservation organizations, and other interested parties.

[BR-O-12] Reduce the impacts, including disease transmissions, harassment, and competition, and limit 

the spread of nonnative animals.

Decisions

[BR-D-1] Designate the following species as priority species for management and protection:

(a) Special Status Species;

(b) Species of interest to CDFW, USFWS and NMFS (such as game species, furbearers, migratory 

birds, marine mammals, raptors);

(c) Species that are rare;

(d) Species with declining populations or with limited distributions; or

(e) Species with high ecological importance (such as keystone, pollinator or host species)

[BR-D-2] Designate as priority plant communities and habitats (Desired Plant Communities); examples of 

which include alkali sink, Bishop pine forest, California bay forest, central maritime chaparral, coastal 

scrub, cypress woodlands, giant sequoia forest, oak woodland, riparian communities, serpentine 

chaparral, wetland and vernal pool communities, based on the following criteria: 

(a) Designated critical habitat;

(b) Rarity, 

(c) Limited geographic distribution;

(d) High ecological importance;

(e) Unique species assemblages; or
20 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(f) At risk from climate change, pathogens, or other factors.

[BR-D-3] Implement the following specific management as appropriate in areas of ecological 

importance, ACECs, and where priority communities, habitats and species occur;

(a) Closure to mineral material disposal;

(b) Limitations on modes of travel and travel routes;

(c) Restrictions on fluid mineral leasing (CSU, NSO, Closure);

(d) Restrictions on livestock grazing;

(e) Restrictions on recreational opportunities (camping, campfires, hunting, shooting sports, 

seasonal closures);

(f) Recommend proposal for withdrawal from all or a portion of the mining laws; and/or

(g) Prohibition of the casual collection of plants or their parts without prior BLM authorization.

[BR-D-4] Administratively delineate (Map 2.1 ) and manage Atwell Island for protection of sensitive 

biological resources and to restore retired farmlands to native habitat, including wetlands.

(a) Identify as available for livestock grazing but only for the purpose of vegetation management to 

meet resource objectives other than the production of livestock forage;

(b) Prohibit campfires;

(c) Prohibit overnight camping and use except for; future specific areas identified for nocturnal 

visitation for wildlife viewing and stargazing;

(d) Prohibit cross country equestrian travel;

(e) Seasonally prohibit access to wetland areas, as needed to support restoration objectives; 

(f) Coordinate with CDFW to prohibit hunting except as allowed by Special Recreation Permit 

and/or specially organized hunt activity; 

(g) Prohibit air-soft and paintball activities, including organized games and casual use of these types 

of equipment unless authorized through a Special Recreation Permit;

(h) Prohibit pets and other domesticated animals (not including authorized livestock) from wetland 

areas;

(i) Require all pets and domestic animals (not including authorized livestock) to be on a leash. 

Special Recreation Permits may be issued for activities allowing off-leash activity, such as, dog 

trial events; and

(j) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization.

[BR-D-5] Administratively delineate (Map 2.2) and manage Caliente Creek: for protection of the riparian 

ecosystem and conservation of habitat for Tehachapi slender salamander, Yellow-blotched salamander, 

and Bakersfield cactus.

(a) Identify as available for Livestock Grazing. Livestock grazing authorizations may have specific 

livestock management guidelines applied to ensure grazing use is compatible with the objectives 

for special status species and riparian resources;

(b) Seek to acquire within the Caliente Creek area of ecological importance, lands with Tehachapi 

slender salamander and Bakersfield cactus; and

(c) Allow for the expansion of the Caliente Creek area of ecological importance to include additional 

public lands containing newly discovered populations of Tehachapi slender salamander, Yellowblotched salamander or Bakersfield cactus.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 21

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

[BR-D-6] Administratively delineate (Map 2.3) and manage Conserved Lands for protection and to 

promote the recovery of federally listed species on public lands identified as reserves or corridors in 

collaboration and coordination with the USFWS and CDFW (see Appendix 4). 

(a) Manage public lands within reserves or corridors as conserved land to promote consistency with 

the direction established by the USFWS and CDFW through the Recovery Plan for Upland Species 

of the San Joaquin Valley and other pertinent recovery or conservation plans, subject to and 

consistent with underlying statutory authority (FLPMA);

(b) Manage reserves to restrict surface disturbance on public lands in reserves to not exceed 10 

percent of any 640-acre section, aliquot section, or aggregate of adjacent aliquot sections; 

(c) Manage corridors to restrict surface disturbance on public lands in corridors to not exceed 25 

percent of any 640-acre section, aliquot section, or aggregate of adjacent aliquot sections; 

(d) Allow certain areas of high intensity oil and gas development within reserves and corridors to be 

identified and managed separately from the reserve and corridor system. These areas will not 

be subject to the 10 percent and 25 percent surface disturbance limit; and

(e) Include certain areas outside the reserve and corridor system to be managed as corridors 

including the application of corridor disturbance restrictions.

[BR-D-7] Administratively delineate (Map 2.4) and manage Deer Spring: for protection of riparian 

resources and deer habitat.

(a) Identify as closed to fluid mineral leasing;

(b) Establish, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, the area of ecological importance as an area 

requiring a 15 day notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the 

mining laws including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a notice or plan of 

operations must be submitted; and

(c) Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing.

[BR-D-8] Administratively delineate (Map 2.5) and manage Frog Pond: for protection of riparian 

ecosystems including California bay forest.

(a) Identify as open for fluid mineral leasing, subject to major constraints (CSU-Priority Species, 

Plant Communities and Habitats stipulations);

(b) Establish, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, Frog Pond as a special area requiring a 15 day 

notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws including; 

Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a notice or plan of operations must be 

submitted. 

(c) Identify as closed to mineral materials disposals;

(d) Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing;

(e) Prohibit campfires and overnight camping;

(f) Prohibit equestrian use; 

(g) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization; and

(h) Manage water resources to maintain, improve, or benefit hydrologic processes, such as instream flow requirements, needed for the riparian ecosystem.
22 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[BR-D-9] Administratively delineate (Map 2.6) and manage Irish Hills: for protection of diverse coastal 

plant communities, including Bishop pine forest, rare plant habitat, and notably large oaks and 

manzanita.

(a) Identify as open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints (CSU – Priority Species, 

Plant Communities and Habitats stipulation);

(b) Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing;

(c) Prohibit campfires;

(d) Prohibit overnight camping, except in any future developed recreation sites developed in 

partnership with California Department of Parks and Recreation or other adjacent land owners;

(e) Prohibit cross country equestrian travel; and

(f) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization.

[BR-D-10] Administratively delineate (Map 2.7) and manage the National Cooperative Land and Wildlife 

Management Areas (NCLWMAs): Caliente, Monache-Walker Pass, and Temblor: for improvement and 

maintenance of diverse assemblage of vegetative communities to benefit wildlife species, including 

raptors and game species, such as, deer, quail and chukar. 

(a) Continue the withdrawal from application under the non-mineral public land laws and from 

disposition under the homestead, desert land entry, and script selection laws; and

(b) Identify as open for fluid mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints (CSU-Raptor 

stipulations)

[BR-D-11] Administratively delineate (Map 2.8) and manage Rusty Peak: for protection of serpentine 

chaparral, coastal live oak woodland, perennial grassland, San Luis serpentine dudleya, and other 

sensitive plant species.

(a) Identify as open for fluid mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints (CSU- Priority Species, 

Plant Communities and Habitats stipulation);

(b) Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing; and

(c) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization.

[BR-D-12] Administratively delineate (Map 2.9) and manage the South Fork of the Kern River: for 

protection of the riparian forest and critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher; promote 

nesting habitat for both the southwestern willow flycatcher and the California yellow-billed cuckoo.

(a) Identify southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat as unavailable for livestock grazing.

[BR-D-13] Administratively delineate (Map 2.10) and manage the Table Mountain and Kennedy Table: 

for protection of vernal pools, listed vernal pool species and critical habitat for vernal pool species.

[BR-D-14] Administratively delineate (Map 2.11) and manage the Tehachapi Linkage: for the 

preservation of the ecological connection between the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains and foothills, 

and the transverse ranges.

(a) Identify as an avoidance area for utility scale renewable energy rights-of-way; and

(b) Retain all lands and interests in lands in federal ownership unless it is deemed that the lands do 

not contribute to a regional conservation strategy or linkage.

[BR-D-15] Manage the following areas as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) based on their 

significant biological resource values; Ancient Lakeshores ACEC; Bitter Creek ACEC; Blue Ridge ACEC;
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 23

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Chico Martinez ACEC; Compensation Lands ACEC; Cypress Mountain ACEC; Cyrus Canyon ACEC; Erskine 

Creek ACEC; Hopper Mountain ACEC; Kaweah ACEC; Kettleman Hills ACEC; Lokern-Buena Vista ACEC; Los 

Osos ACEC; Piute Cypress ACEC; Pt. Sal ACEC; Salinas River ACEC, Tierra Redonda ACEC; and Upper 

Cuyama Valley ACEC.

[BR-D-16] Apply SOPs, as appropriate to new BLM actions and authorizations (see Appendix 3).

[BR-D-17] Allow removal of dead and downed woody materials from public lands only with 

administrative approval. Except in developed recreation sites and areas, or where prohibited and 

posted (43 CFR 8365.1-5), collection of fire wood from dead and down woody material for on-site 

campfires is permissible provided woody material is less than four inches in diameter. 

[BR-D-18] Identify lands within the range of federally proposed and listed species as open to fluid 

mineral leasing unless otherwise closed, subject to major constraints including project relocation or 

exclusion, seasonal activity restriction, and extended application processing time as described in the 

Controlled Surface Use- Protected Species stipulation.

[BR-D-19] Identify lands within the range of federal candidate, state listed or bureau sensitive species as 

open to fluid mineral leasing unless otherwise closed, subject to moderate constraints as described in 

the Controlled Surface Use- Sensitive Species stipulation.

[BR-D-20] Identify designated or proposed critical habitat as open to fluid mineral leasing unless 

otherwise closed, subject to major constraints as described in the Controlled Surface Use- Critical 

Habitat stipulation.

[BR-D-21] Identify important foraging, wintering or nesting habitat for raptors as open to fluid mineral 

leasing unless otherwise closed, subject to major constraints as described in the Controlled Surface UseRaptor stipulation, such areas include, but are not limited to: Hopper Mountain, Kaweah, San Joaquin 

River Gorge, Kettleman Hills, Chico Martinez, and the Temblor and Caliente NCLWMAs.

[BR-D-22] Identify split estate with surface managed as compensation for biological resources as open 

to fluid mineral leasing subject to major constraint (CSU – Compensation Lands).

[BR-D-23] Identify the Compensation Lands ACEC as open to fluid mineral leasing subject to major 

constraints (NSO – Compensation Lands ACEC), if leasing is consistent with the document that 

established the compensation land.

[BR-D-24] Identify public lands with mineral estate adjacent to or within the boundary of the State of 

California’s Chimineas Unit of the Carrizo Plain Ecological Reserve as open to fluid mineral leasing 

subject to major constraint (CSU-Chimineas Ranch).

[BR-D-25] Identify split estate with federal mineral estate within the boundary of the State of 

California’s Chimineas Unit of the Carrizo Plain Ecological Reserve as open to fluid mineral leasing 

subject to major constraint (CSU-Existing Surface Use/Management).

[BR-D-26] Eliminate, relocate, or redesign uses, after site specific NEPA analysis, that may result or have 

resulted in unacceptable impacts on important biological resources, through actions such as, making 

seasonal closures, modifying grazing prescriptions, installing bat compatible closures, restricting 

equestrian access, relocating camping areas, and closing or realigning travel routes.
24 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[BR-D-27] Implement a variety of measures (such as controlling weeds, seeding native species,

performing prescribed burns, applying mechanical and chemical vegetation treatments, improving water 

availability, prescribed grazing, reducing raven nesting structures and the installing artificial dens or 

structures) to enhance or restore habitat conditions.

[BR-D-28] Strive to implement actions and recommendations from recovery plans for ESA listed species, 

including those to reduce mortality, provide information and education, and restore habitat to maintain, 

enhance and restore listed species habitats.

[BR-D-29] Allow transplants, augmentation, and reestablishment of native species populations in 

coordination and collaboration with CDFW or USFWS.

[BR-D-30] Complete land tenure adjustments (disposal) of designated critical habitat and essential 

habitat only in accordance with written concurrence or biological opinions issued by USFWS or NMFS.

[BR-D-31] Complete land tenure adjustments (repositioning) of compensation lands only after 

collaboration and consultation with USFWS and coordination with CDFW.

[BR-D-32] Seek and accept acquisition of biologically important lands and interest in lands including 

compensation lands to the extent consistent with federal law.

[BR-D-33] Manage lands acquired4F

5

specifically for the protection of biological resources in a manner 

consistent with the terms of acquisition to the extent consistent with federal law.

[BR-D-34] Propose all existing parcels of compensation land (including lands not specifically used for or 

credited as compensation acres within the parcel) for inclusion in the Compensation Lands ACEC (see 

Section 2.17).

[BR-D-35] Recommend any future parcels of compensation land (including lands not specifically used for 

or credited as compensation acres within the parcel) for ACEC consideration if there is evidence that the 

lands meet the relevance and importance criteria. Upon completion of NEPA, public review, and a plan 

amendment, such lands would become part of the Compensation Lands ACEC and be provided special 

management attention.

[BR-D-36] In consistent with federal law, preclude the issuance of an opening order to locatable mineral 

exploration and development in compensation lands where both surface and mineral estate are 

acquired.

[BR-D-37] Implement a variety of measures (such as fencing, planting native riparian vegetation to 

stabilize channels, installing in-stream structures, removing or redesigning spring alterations, removing 

weeds and seeding or planting appropriate native species) to restore degraded riparian areas and 

protect healthy riparian areas. 

[BR-D-38] Manage naturally occurring waters on public lands, including public water reserves, to

maintain, improve, or benefit hydrologic processes, such as in-stream flow requirements, needed for 

riparian systems.

 

5

Acquisition is subject to conformance with underlying statutory authority and DOJ title standards.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 25

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

[BR-D-39] Control and eliminate, when necessary and possible, nonnative animals, such as bullfrogs, 

feral cats, wild pigs, and wild honeybees that have negative impacts on habitats or native species.

[BR-D-40] Prohibit the release of un-retrievable nonnative animals, except for the use of approved bio 

control agents, authorized livestock, or the augmentation of naturalized species in collaboration and 

coordination with CDFW.

[BR-D-41] Implement a variety of measures (such as removal, restriction, exclusion and education) if 

pets from public land users or private lands are causing wildlife depredation or other ecological damage.

Key Implementation Decisions

[BR-I-1] Minimize the introduction and spread of weeds by BLM employees and public land users. For 

example, promote weed education, monitor corrals, promote or require weed-free hay, wash vehicles 

and equipment coming from other areas, and prohibit livestock and horse trailers from being cleaned on 

public lands.

Administrative Actions

 Partner with other agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals to improve knowledge of the 

species within the Bakersfield FO and their understanding of the natural and ecological processes 

that influence local ecosystems. With partner agencies, coordinate monitoring of special status 

species for changes in population size, distribution, habitat use, and potential and existing threats.

 Inventory species that are not well studied or understood, such as insects and other invertebrates, 

fungi, lichens, and bryophytes (such as, mosses and liverworts). Continue to improve inventories of 

other species.

 Support inventories, monitoring, and research that identifies and defines factors that influence 

species population trends, especially listed and special status species. Support other research on the 

biology of species found in the Bakersfield FO.

 Establish partnerships and collaborate with adjacent landowners, interested publics, stakeholders, 

conservation organizations, and other agencies to coordinate management and protect areas of 

ecological importance, habitat linkages, and ACECs.

 Collaborate with weed management area members, state agencies, federal agencies, conservation 

organizations, and other interested parties to control and eliminate weeds.

 Treat weed populations following integrated pest management principles (BLM 1992). Monitor to 

determine effectiveness of control measures and to ensure that known target weed populations are 

stable or diminishing.

 Eliminate founder invasive nonnative weed populations before they can spread subject to sitespecific NEPA. Survey to detect new nonnative populations and begin treatment of newly 

discovered populations within five years of discovery.
26 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.1 – Atwell Island
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 27

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.2 – Caliente Creek
28 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.3 – Conserved Lands
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 29

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.4 – Deer Spring
30 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.5 – Frog Pond
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 31

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.6 – Irish Hills
32 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.7 – NCLWMAs (Caliente, Monache, Temblor)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 33

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS
34 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.8 – Rusty Peak
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 35

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.9 – South Fork of the Kern River
36 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.10 – Table Mountain and Kennedy Table
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 37

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.11 – Tehachapi Linkage
38 CAVES AND KARST RESOURCE

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.3 Caves and Karst Resource

Goal

[CK-G-1] To secure, protect, and preserve significant caves and their associated cave resources on public 

lands for the perpetual use, enjoyment, and benefit of all people and to foster increased cooperation 

and exchange of information between the Bakersfield Field Office and those who utilize caves for 

scientific, education, or recreational purposes, in accordance with the Federal Cave Resources 

Protection Act of 1988.

Objectives

[CK-O-1] Through a designation of significance by the authorized officer and determination within the 

RMP, protect those known caves that possess significant cave resources, in accordance with 43 CFR 

37.11(c).

[CK-O-2] Provide a management framework to protect significant cave and karst resources, in 

accordance with BLM policy and guidelines.

Decisions

[CK-D-1] All newly discovered caves or sections of caves within the RMP decision area will be studied 

and inventoried for significant values. On determination of significance, the cave will be classified as 

Class I (open), Class II (restricted) or Class III (closed), described below. Interim management (until the 

determination of significance is made) shall be as Class II to protect cave resources and may be 

restricted to permitted/authorized users.

Class I: These caves possess few or no sensitive features, their locations are generally widely 

known, and interpretive information may be available. These caves require no permit or notice 

to enter, but entry is recommended only for skilled and experienced cave users. 

Class II: These caves may possess sensitive features, including cultural resources, pristine 

examples of geological formations, and sensitive biological resources. Restricted caves may be 

closed or further restricted to permitted and approved entry for a variety of reasons, including 

but not limited to: seasonal closures for the protection of sensitive biological resources, closures 

during periods of extreme public safety concerns (e.g., flooding), or restriction to 

permitted/authorized users only for scientific study, educational purpose and/or organized 

recreational experiences. 

Class III: These caves are closed to protect sensitive cave resources. Entry requires specific 

authorization and may be provided only for scientific research or education. 

[CK-D-2] Designate Granite Cave as a significant cave, based on its important and significant cave 

resources, which include both cultural and biotic resources, that are within and dependent on the cave. 

This cave will be managed as Class III to fully protect the cultural integrity of the area and its associated 

cave resources.

[CK-D-3] Designate Millerton Cave as a significant cave, based on its important and significant cave 

resources, including geological formations, resources of known cultural importance, biotic resources, 

and the potential for resource-based recreation. This cave will be managed as Class I to allow casual
CULTURAL RESOURCES 39

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

recreational use; but it shall not be interpreted or otherwise advertised, other than through general 

area and/or geological interpretation.

[CK-D-4] All caves within ACECs whose importance and significance speaks directly to the protection of 

known or potential cave and karst resources shall be determined significant, in accordance with 43 CFR 

37.11(e). The ACECs whose designation relates to cave and karst resources are Erskine Creek and 

Kaweah. Further investigation and study of these cave and karst resources may be required to assign 

management objectives and prescriptions. Interim management shall be as Class II to protect cave 

resources.

2.4 Cultural Resources

Goals

[CR-G-1] Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available 

for appropriate uses by present and future generations (FLPMA, Section 103 (c), 201(a) and (c); National 

Historic Preservation Act, Section 110(a); Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Section 14(a).

[CR-G-2] Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused 

deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses (FLPMA Sec. 103(c), NHPA 106, 110 (a) (2)) 

by ensuring that all authorizations for land use and resource use will comply with the NHPA Section 106.

[CR-G-3] Continue to provide Native Americans’ access to public lands to conduct traditional cultural 

and religious practices.

Objectives

[CR-O-1] Manage evaluated cultural resources and those projected to occur within the decision area 

within one of six cultural use allocations: scientific use; conserve for future use; traditional use; public 

use; experimental use; or discharged from use, according to current BLM guidance (e.g., regulations, 

BLM policy, Manual sections 8100, and National and State Agreements).

[CR-O-2] Design BLM actions and authorizations to minimize impacts on cultural resources including 

places of traditional cultural and religious importance to Native Americans.

[CR-O-3] Identify places of religious and cultural importance to Native Americans and facilitate access to 

these locations for traditional use.

Decisions

[CR-D-1] Allocate evaluated cultural resources within the decision area as “scientific use” for study, 

determination of eligibility and appropriate recordation, pending assignment to another use category, 

with the exception of the following:

(a) Allocate the Huasna Peak as Traditional Use.

(b) Allocate the Keysville historic sites of Walker Cabin, Keyes Mine, and Keyes Cemetery as 

Conserve for Future Use, until such time as stabilization and restoration work allows for public 

use.

(c) Allocate the Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA as Public Use.

(d) Allocate all rock art sites, known and projected to occur, as Conserve for Future Use. 

(e) Allocate the Walker Pass NHL as Public Use. 
40 CULTURAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[CR-D-2] Eliminate, relocate, or redesign uses following site specific NEPA that may result or have 

resulted in impacts on significant cultural resources including places of traditional cultural and religious 

importance to Native Americans.

[CR-D-3] Restore or stabilize cultural resources when they are damaged or deteriorating to the extent 

possible. 

[CR-D-4] Identify lands containing significant cultural resources as open to fluid mineral leasing unless 

otherwise closed, subject to major constraints as described in the Controlled Surface Use (CSU) – Known 

Cultural Resources stipulation (see MM-D-1.1.14).

[CR-D-5] Establish, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, the following Cultural Resource sites (1,170

acres) as special areas requiring a 15 day notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity 

under the mining laws including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a notice or plan of 

operations must be submitted; Granite Cave, Huasna Peak, and South Lake Cultural Area.

Administrative Actions

State Historic Preservation Office/NHPA

 Continue to regularly communicate with the SHPO to share information and obtain technical advice 

on issues related to compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA, in accordance with the BLM

California State Protocol.

Tribal Consultation and Concerns

 Continue to consult with the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, North Fork Rancheria of 

Mono Indians, Tule River Reservation, Cold Springs Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Table Mountain 

Rancheria, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tachi-Yokuts of the 

Santa Rosa Rancheria, and other interested Native American tribes to identify places of traditional 

importance and associated access needs. Develop measures for management and protection of 

such places that may be identified by tribes during the life of the RMP.

 Identify sacred areas in consultation with Native American tribes and, where practicable, limit land 

uses to those that do not conflict with ascribed values.

 Honor tribal requests to protect the confidentiality of sensitive information to the extent permitted 

by law.

 Provide opportunities for participation by Native American tribes in research and interpretation.

 Specific management prescriptions for sites allocated to the Traditional Use category will be 

developed in consultation with the Native American tribes to which they are culturally important.

 Restrict public information about the locations of sites that area not allocated to public use as 

allowed by law and regulation.

Interpretation and Education

 Seek out cooperative agreements with Native American tribes, museums, educational institutions, 

or volunteers to serve in such roles as tour guides to ensure that BLM interpretive programs provide 

accurate information on tours, signs, and brochures.
LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 41

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Travel Management Plan Monitoring and Maintenance

 Develop a cultural resources adaptive management monitoring strategy according to standards and 

process based upon intensity and type of OHV use, the density and sensitivity of cultural resources 

in the area and the potential for adverse indirect and cumulative impacts, including route 

proliferation.

 Through implementation of the Section 106 process, take measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

adverse effects to sites from route usage. Thais may include data recovery, rerouting, 

reconstruction, new construction, limitations on vehicle type and time of season of travel, or 

closure.

 In order to more effectively manage route locations where intensive Class III inventory has not 

occurred, make efforts to develop historic property identification in accordance with best available 

methodologies, including Geographic Information System predictive modeling, systematic sampling 

inventories, and landscape level sensitivity analysis.

2.5 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Goal

[LWC-G-1] Ensure that adequate consideration and protection, where appropriate, is given to lands with 

wilderness characteristics outside of designated Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas and that these 

areas are managed so as not to impair these characteristics.

Objective

[LWC-O-1] Provide a management framework to protect wilderness characteristics as an integral 

component of multiple use management of Planning Area BLM lands when it is consistent with other 

goals and objectives of the RMP.

Decisions

[LWC-D-1] Manage the following areas (3,470 acres as shown on (Map 2.12) for the protection of 

wilderness characteristics: Bear Mountain, Big Pine Meadow, Chappell D Parcel, Edgar Ranch West, 

Lamont Meadow Parcels, and Roszewska Property.

[LWC-D-2] Establish prescriptive management for the protection of wilderness characteristics as follows: 

(a) Identify as closed to mineral leasing;

(b) Identify as closed to mineral material sales;

(c) Identify as Rights-of Way avoidance areas for all ROWs;

(d) Designate as OHV Closed areas;

(e) Designate as VRM Class II, unless a more stringent overlapping designation (e.g., WSR or PCNST 

Corridor) exists. 

(f) Livestock grazing and the activities and facilities that support a grazing program may be 

permitted to continue at the same level and degree after initial authorization;

(g) Prohibit new structures unrelated to preserving wilderness characteristics; and 

(h) Retain in Federal ownership.
42 LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.12 – Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics
SOIL RESOURCES 43

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

2.6 Paleontological Resources

Goal

[PR-G-1] Identify, manage, and protect paleontological resources for scientific research, educational 

purposes, and public use.

Objective

[PR-O-1] Identify, manage, and protect important paleontological resources.

[PR-O-2] Foster public awareness and appreciation of paleontological resources through educational 

outreach programs.

Decisions

[PR-D-1] Implement measures to protect paleontological resources from inadvertent damage or 

destruction through:

(a) Avoidance,

(b) Fencing,

(c) Stabilization,

(d) Collection or excavation and deposit in a museum repository,

(e) Interpretation, or

(f) Administrative closure.

[PR-D-2] Identify areas at risk of damage from illegal activities and implement management to 

discourage those activities.

[PR-D-3] Ensure that site-specific NEPA (which may include a field inventory and fossil specimen

recovery) implements the PFYC as a standard part of review for all surface-disturbing projects

throughout the Decision Area.

[PR-D-4] Minimize or prevent human-caused damage to paleontological resources through educational 

and interpretive outreach programs focusing use on common invertebrate and plant fossils.

[PR-D-5] Accommodate permit requests for scientific research by qualified individuals or institutions.

2.7 Soil Resources

Goal

[SR-G-1] Soils exhibit functional biological and physical characteristics that are appropriate to soil type, 

climate, and land form.

Objective

[SR-O-1] Manage soils to meet or exceed the Soil Standard of Rangeland Health (LG-D-5), as indicated by 

ground or plant cover, diversity of plant species, minimal evidence of accelerated wind and water 

erosion and the presence of the biological soil crusts where appropriate.
44 VISUAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Decisions

[SR-D-1] Design BLM programs and management activities and authorize projects to minimize impacts 

on soil productivity by implementing BMPs (Appendix 3). Specifically minimize disturbance of the 

following soils types:

(a) Serpentine Soils;

(b) Soils supporting “Biological Crusts” – hosting communities of cyanobacteria, mosses, lichens and 

liverworts;

(c) Soils highly susceptible to erosion or compaction; and

(d) Soils hosting high levels of Valley Fever spores.

2.8 Visual Resources

Goal

[VR-G-1] Public lands demonstrate a range of visual resource values that allow for development and 

provide opportunities for scenic appreciation. 

Objective

[VR-O-1] Utilize visual resource management classes for all public lands within the decision area to 

preserve and enhance scenic quality for present and future generations.

[VR-O-2] Ensure that projects outside the CPNM boundary but within its viewshed comply with the 

visual resource management objectives as described in the CPNM RMP (BLM 2010b).

Decisions

[VR-D-1] Designate VRM classes for the Decision area as shown on Map 2.13 and summarized by the 

following;

(a) Class I: 175,340 acres

(b) Class II: 175,132 acres

(c) Class III: 575,738 acres 

(d) Class IV: 238,840 acres 

Administrative Actions

 For all surface-disturbing projects or activities, regardless of size of potential impact, incorporate 

visual design considerations, consistent with the Visual Resource Contrast Rating Manual H-8431-1, 

to meet VRM class objectives of the area.
VISUAL RESOURCES 45

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.13 – Visual Resource Management Objectives
46 WILDLAND FIRE ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.9 Water Resources

Goal

[WR-G-1] Federal actions promulgate the objectives of the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, 

and all other applicable water quality requirements.

Objectives

[WR-O-1] Manage water resources to meet or exceed the Standards for Rangeland Health (LG-D-5) by 

maintaining the existing quality and beneficial uses of water, protecting them where they are 

threatened, and restoring them where they are currently degraded.

[WR-O-2] Manage riparian/wetland vegetation, structure, and diversity and stream channels and 

floodplains so that they are functional and achieving physical and biological objectives.

Decisions

[WR-D-1] Design BLM program and management activities and authorize projects to meet water quality 

standards and maintain beneficial uses by implementing such measures as State approved BMPs 

(Management Measures for Polluted Runoff, see Appendix 3) within the Central Coast, South Coast and 

Tulare basins.

[WR-D-2] Implement management actions to reduce non-point source pollution contributing to 

impaired water quality in any basin or segment listed as impaired in accordance with Section 303(d) of 

the Clean Water Act (e.g., a segment of Salinas River).

[WR-D-3] Implement BMPs for riparian/wetland health for maintenance of vegetation cover and 

diversity, and the physical stability of stream banks (Appendix 3).

[WR-D-4] Applications for water developments or diversions on public lands would be approved only if 

resource objectives including wildlife, riparian, and livestock grazing needs, have been met.

[WR-D-5] Complete State water rights reporting requirements to maintain existing licenses and continue 

water diversion and use authorizations. Apply for new licenses and use authorizations as appropriate.

2.10 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Goals

[WF-G-1] Firefighter and public safety is the single, overriding priority in every fire management activity. 

[WF-G-2] Minimize suppression costs while considering firefighter and public safety, benefits, and 

human and resource values to be protected.

[WF-G-3] Recognize fire as an essential ecological process and use wildland fire (both planned and 

unplanned ignitions) to restore or sustain ecosystem health, where appropriate. 

Objectives

[WF-O-1] Maintain areas in all Fire Management Units (FMUs) that are currently in Fire Regime 

Condition Class 1 and manage to improve conditions in Class 2 and Class 3 areas.
WILDLAND FIRE ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT 47

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

[WF-O-2] Prevent, to the extent possible, the movement of wildfires from the wildlands into the 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area, and out the WUI area into the wildlands. 

Decisions

[WF-D-1] Conduct fire management planning, preparedness, prevention, suppression, fire use, 

restoration and rehabilitation, monitoring and education on an interagency basis with the involvement 

of cooperators and partners.

[WF-D-2] Identify the following three geographic areas as suitable for the use of wildland fire for 

resource benefit (see Map 2.14):

(a) South Sierra Fire Management Unit 

(b) Domeland Fire Management Unit

(c) Portion of the Three Rivers Fire Management Unit protected by the National Park Service 

[WF-D-3] Take suppression actions in the remainder of the Decision Area, commensurate with human 

and natural resource values at risk. Where possible, use existing natural and human-made fire control 

barriers, such as roads, trails, fuelbreaks and rock outcroppings rather than constructing new firelines. 

[WF-D-4] Use a decision support process to analyze and document fire suppression strategies and 

tactics. Suppression actions may not necessarily be limited to those that result in the fewest number of 

acres burned, after consideration of firefighter and public safety, values at risk, resource protection 

needs and current and expected conditions at the time of the fire. 

[WF-D-5] Use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) or other modified suppression techniques 

when suppressing fires in sensitive areas, including but not limited to: Wilderness, Wilderness Study 

Areas, lands managed for wilderness characteristics, culturally significant areas and ACECs. Fire 

managers will consult a resource advisor or archaeologist to ensure resource protection needs are 

addressed. 

[WF-D-6] Assess all wildland fire areas for post-fire Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) 

needs and submit ESR plans for funding. Implement approved activities in a timely manner. 

[WF-D-7] Participate in local Fire Safe Councils or other community organizations to develop and 

implement collaborative fire mitigation and prevention strategies with communities at risk, and 

coordinate on the preparation of Community Wildfire Protection Plans. 

[WF-D-8] Implement, as appropriate, the full range of wildland fire and fuels management practices, 

including prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, biological, and cultural treatments that will support 

hazardous fuels reduction in coordination with vegetation and habitat management objectives and 

resource protection needs.
48 WILDLAND FIRE ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.14 – Areas Identified as Suitable for the Use of Wildland Fire for Resource Benefit
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 49

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Resource Uses

2.11 Comprehensive Trail and Travel Management

Goal

[CTTM-G-1] Improve access to, and recreational opportunities on, public lands that complement the 

character of each geographic zone and the surrounding regions.

Objectives

[CTTM-O-1] Provide reasonable, safe, and environmentally sound access to visitors, local residents, 

licensed and permitted activities, and property owners through coordination and collaboration on travel 

systems with other agencies, state and local governments and interested stakeholders.

[CTTM-O-2] Reduce or halt proliferation of motorized and non-motorized routes.

[CTTM-O-3] Maintain an accurate route inventory for management purposes, and for the production of 

both general and recreation specific Transportation Management Network maps.

[CTTM-O-4] Manage OHV use to protect environmental resources, promote public safety, and provide 

OHV use opportunities where appropriate. Administratively designate the specific areas on public lands 

on which the use of OHVs is, and is not permitted.

Decisions

[CTTM-D-1] Delineate Travel Management Areas (TMAs) and associated modes of access and travel, as

follows;

(a) Primitive TMA (approximately 139,030 acres): Primarily recreational traffic, access essentially 

cross country, with few designated and maintained trails. Area is entirely restricted to nonmotorized and non-mechanized modes of transport. Aircraft take-off and landing, except 

emergency, is prohibited.

(b) Keysville TMA (approximately 10,880 acres): Primarily recreational traffic, no area-wide mode 

of transport restrictions, motorized and mechanized use is limited to routes designated for 

these uses. Over time specific routes may be redesignated to limit to specific modes of 

transport in order to maintain recreational opportunity and experience.

(c) Temblor TMA (approximately 22,870 acres): Primarily recreational traffic, no area-wide mode of 

transport restrictions, motorized and mechanized use is limited to routes designated for these 

uses. Permits for motorized and mechanized competitive events will not be issued. Over time 

specific routes may be redesignated to limit to specific modes of transport in order to maintain 

recreational opportunity and experience.

(d) Intensive TMA (approximately 40,030 acres): Primarily industrial/commercial traffic, all travel 

on designated routes. No area-wide mode of transport restrictions. Implement a program of 

route reduction addressing route construction, use, and abandonment (including restoration) 

based on a balance between industrial needs and environmental concerns. 

(e) Extensive TMA (approximately 195,740 acres): General traffic from multiple uses, motorized 

and mechanized use limited to routes designated for these uses. No area-wide mode of 

transport restrictions.
50 COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[CTTM-D-2] Designate all public lands in accordance with 43 CFR 8342 as either open, limited, or closed 

to off-road vehicles, as defined in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(f), (g), and (h) and shown on Map 2.15, the following 

OHV areas:

(a) Open: 0 acres

(b) Closed: 142,940 acres

(c) Limited: 261,140 acres

All designations are based on the protection of the resources of the public lands, the promotion of the 

safety of all the users of the public lands, and the minimization of conflicts among various uses of the 

public lands; and in accordance with the criteria listed in CTTM-D-5.

[CTTM-D-3] Close areas where off-highway vehicles are causing or will cause unacceptable adverse 

effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, 

threatened or endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or other resources to 

the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse effect until the adverse effects are eliminated and measures 

implemented to prevent recurrence.

[CTTM-D-4] Define primary route designations and limitations as follows:

(a) Motorized: a route allowing all modes of transport, motorized vehicles including, standard 

(street legal) passenger vehicles and OHVs (motorcycles, ATVs, jeeps, and specialized vehicles 

etc.). All other modes of transport may use these routes unless restricted by a secondary 

designation.

(b) Non-motorized: a route allowing modes of transport that are not motor driven (regardless of 

motor type e.g., gas, diesel, electric). Allowable modes of transport include, moving by foot, 

stock or pack animal, non-motorized boat (kayak, raft etc.), or mechanical vehicle such as a 

bicycle.

(c) Non-mechanized: a route allowing only travel by natural means, such as by foot, stock or pack 

animal, except for approved, non-motorized access devices covered under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act.

(d) Transportation Linear Disturbance: prohibiting all types and modes of transport (including all 

public, authorized and administrative uses); these linear travel features can be decommissioned 

and restored. This does not impact some modes of transport’s ability to legally travel crosscountry.

[CTTM-D-5] Apply and document the application of the following criteria in route designation including 

the criteria defined in 43 CFR 8342.1;

(a) [Designated] trails shall be located in a manner to minimize impacts to physical resources (soils, 

watershed, vegetation, air, and other resources) and to prevent impairment of wilderness 

suitability; 

(b) [Designated] trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of 

wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species 

and their habitats; and

(c) [Designated] trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other 

existing or proposed recreation uses.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 51

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

(d) [Designated] areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or 

primitive areas. Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer 

determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, 

aesthetic, scenic or other values for which the areas are established.

[CTTM-D-6] Consider, and document the application of, in addition to the previously identified criteria,

the following in all route designations (including re-designations);

(a) Environmental conditions, such as: soil stability, important wildlife habitat, special status species 

habitat, proximity to riparian areas or 303(d) streams, and visual resources.

(b) User conflicts, such as: motorized versus non-motorized and motorized or mechanized versus 

non-mechanized. Such conflicts must be actual conflicts, rather than perceived conflicts, and 

appropriately documented.

(c) Administrative purposes, such as: wildland fire suppression activities, safety, and resource 

management and permitted activities.

(d) Public purposes, such as: accessing public or private land, destinations for specific activities, and 

types of desired use (motorized, mechanized, non-motorized, or non-mechanized).

(e) Route, mode-of-transport and size limitations, such as: > 50-inch wheel base (full size vehicles), 

< 50-inch wheel base (all-terrain vehicles), single-track vehicles (motorcycles or mountain bikes), 

and equestrian or pedestrian only trails.

[CTTM-D-7] Apply and document the application of the following principles when making route 

designation modifications:

(a) Require the opportunity for public involvement throughout the travel management process ;

(b) Coordinate route designations with individual stakeholders, user groups, tribes, agencies and 

local governments;

(c) Document and record route designation changes appropriately; and

(d) Provide opportunity for public review and comment on route designation changes.

[CTTM-D-8] Implement the following guidelines for management and maintenance of the travel 

network:

(a) Designate routes within newly acquired properties, rights-of-way, and easements at the time of, 

and in conjunction with, the acquisition;

(b) Provide designations for newly constructed, modified, or realigned routes and routes missed by 

the 2009 Digital Inventory. 

(c) Designate routes associated with new authorizations in conjunction with the normal application 

process and approval. As existing authorizations are renewed, their designation may be altered 

accordingly. These redesignations would be documented in the associated NEPA 

documentation, and amended in the route database and GIS. Information on new and 

redesignations will be available to the public;

(d) Address route redesignations as physical route conditions change (erosion, washout, etc.);

(e) Allow for the redesignation of routes as a result of specific requests, subject to site specific 

analysis (NEPA) and appropriate public involvement; and
52 COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(f) Encourage authorized users to evaluate their transportation network needs and submit a 

transportation plan to address those needs at an appropriate scale (e.g. Oil Field, lease, portion 

of lease, etc.).

[CTTM-D-9] Establish protocols to effectively monitor and gather data on route usage, route condition, 

and noncompliance with designations. These protocols include:

(a) Identification of high traffic routes and areas;

(b) Annual monitoring of a random selection of routes to gauge effectiveness of travel management 

decisions and identify resource conflicts; and

(c) Annual review of a minimum of 10% of designated routes, and appropriate updates to the 

existing route inventory.

Key Implementation Decisions

[CTTM-I-1] Define secondary route designations as the following (note additional secondary route 

designations may be implemented by various activity level plans and site specific actions):

(a) Authorized Use: a route restricted to use by authorized users including: permittees, lessees,

and any other form of authorization from the BLM for a specific route. Mode of travel 

restrictions may be applied in the specific BLM authorization.

(b) Street Legal Vehicles: a route restricted to use by vehicles licensed (by any state) for use on any 

highway.

(c) Pedestrian: a route restricted to use by pedestrians (walking/hiking) only.

[CTTM-I-2] Designate roads and/or trails as identified on Travel Management Network Maps (Map 2.16) 

and described in the Route Designation Table (Table 6 in Appendix 2), as summarized by the following 

mileages:

(a) Motorized: 1,350 miles

(b) Motorized - Street Legal Only: 77 miles

(c) Motorized – Authorized: 183 miles

(d) Non-motorized: 35 miles

(e) Non-mechanized: 41 miles

(f) Non-Mechanized- Pedestrian Only: 4 miles

(g) Transportation Linear Disturbances: 285 miles

[CTTM-I-3] Ensure existing use of public lands in the Temblor area does not result from inappropriate 

travel across private property through the acquisition of legal public access routes to the Temblor area. 

These routes should be numerous enough to allow for reasonable access from the local communities 

while still facilitating management of visitors though a few key access points. Furthermore, access 

routes should give consideration to both licensed and “green sticker” vehicles. 

[CTTM-I-4] Coordinate current and future route designations/re-designations within the Temblor area 

with the Carrizo Plain National Monument to ensure appropriate connectivity across the monument 

boundary to Temblor Ridge Road.

[CTTM-I-5] Strive to acquire legal public access across private property for Rocky Gorge and Tombstone 

Ridge trails within the Keysville SRMA.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 53

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Administrative Actions

 Establish relationships and enter into agreements with local OHV groups and other groups and 

communities for long-term route maintenance and community support.

 Participate in regional or municipal transportation planning and promote appropriate legal access 

consistent with the land use plan.

 Casual and authorized recreational uses of the travel system will be addressed when authorizing 

actions. Where major arteries in the recreational route network will be truncated or considerably 

altered by the authorization, mitigation will be required.

 Develop brochures, maps, access guides, and information sheets to disseminate targeted recreation 

opportunity information to the public.
54 COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.15 – OHV Area Designations
LANDS AND REALTY 55

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

These maps are oversized and do not fit in the body of this document. They are found in the map 

packet on the back cover of the printed version and hyperlinked from the list below in the electronic 

version of this document.

Map 2.16 – Travel Management Network Maps

A – Lake Isabella

B – Madera Area

C – Kings/Tulare Area

D – Atwell Island

E – Kern Southwest

F – Ventura Area

G – Central San Luis Obispo County

H – Santa Barbara Area

I – West San Luis Obispo County

2.12 Lands and Realty

Goal

[LR-G-1] Provide lands, interests in land, and authorizations for public and private uses while 

maintaining and improving resource values and public land administration to the extent consistent with 

federal law.

Objectives

[LR-O-1] Meet other resource objectives through retention and/or land tenure adjustments.

[LR-O-2] Meet public, private, and Federal agency needs for realty-related land use authorizations and 

land withdrawals, including those authorizations necessary for wind, solar, biomass, and other forms of 

renewable energy development, to the extent consistent with federal law.

[LR-O-3] Increase public access to public lands when consistent with other resource objectives. 

[LR-O-4] Resolve unauthorized uses or occupancy to assure consistency with RMP goals and objectives.

 Land Tenure

Decisions

[LR-D-1.1] Disposal of the following areas is not deemed to serve national interest; components of the 

NCL; lands managed for wilderness characteristics; Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

acquisitions; leased fluid mineral estate; mineral estate with significant fluid mineral potential5F

6

; and 

SRMAs. 

 

6 Retention of mineral estate does not preclude disposal of public lands surface.
56 LANDS AND REALTY

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[LR-D-1.2] Retain all lands and interest in lands in federal ownership unless disposal is deemed to serve 

national interest. Disposal is deemed to serve national interest if the following criteria are determined to 

be met through site specific investigation and, therefore, would be considered available for disposal:

(a) Disposal of lands would promote effective administration; 

(b) Lands do not contain important cultural, biological, recreational, or other resource values, the 

loss of which cannot be adequately mitigated; 

(c) Lands do not contribute to a regional conservation strategy or habitat linkage;

(d) Lands do not have overriding public values or interests; and

(e) Lands do not represent substantial public investments. 

[LR-D-1.3] Lands considered available for disposal that meet the following criteria as described in 

section 203(a) of FLPMA may be sold under direct, competitive, or modified sale:

(a) such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage 

as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another department or 

agency; or

(b) such tract was acquired for specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any 

other purpose; or

(c) disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, 

expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or 

feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, 

including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by 

maintaining such tract in federal ownership.

[LR-D-1.4] Seek acquisition of lands and interest in lands meeting the following criteria from willing 

grantors;

(a) Demonstrate high cultural, biological or other natural resource values, important recreational 

opportunities or mineral potential; 

(b) Located within specially designated areas (e.g., ACECs, Components of the NCL, SRMAs);

(c) Provide access to existing parcels of public lands; and

(d) Promote effective administration. 

[LR-D-1.5] Determine the public lands (61,440 acres) and federal mineral estate (337,440 acres) shown 

on Map 2.17 as available for consideration of a disposal action (sale, exchange, or other means) in so 

much that these lands meet the “isolated, difficult or expensive to manage, or are needed for 

community expansion” disposal criteria contained in FLPMA Section 203(a). However, site-specific 

investigation to ascertain whether a specific parcel meets the disposal criteria outlined in this RMP 

would still be required prior to any disposal action being taken.

[LR-D-1.6] Manage newly acquired land6F

7

to meet the same goals and objectives, and under the same 

allocations and management decisions, as surrounding public lands or in a manner consistent with the 

terms of acquisition, to the extent consistent with federal law. 

 

7

Acquisition is subject to conformance with underlying statutory authority and DOJ title standards.
LANDS AND REALTY 57

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

 Land Use Authorizations

Decisions

[LR-D-2.1] Continue the designation of existing and potential utility corridors delineated in the Western 

Regional Utility Corridor Study of 1993 as right-of-way corridors. 

[LR-D-2.2] Identify 142,630 acres as available for utility scale renewable energy rights-of-way. In 

addition, 285,460 acres would be available for all types if rights-of-way.

[LR-D-2.3] Utility-scale renewable energy rights-of-way will be excluded on 262,340 acres, including: all 

ACECs, the Piedras Blancas ONA, SRMAs, VRM Class I and II, designated Wilderness areas and the PCNST 

corridor. Of this acreage, all other types of rights-of-way will be excluded on 118,860 acres: designated 

Wilderness and the PCNST corridor. (Map 2.18 and Map 2.19)

[LR-D-2.4] Proposed rights-of-way will be avoided on 103,510 acres, except where a specific type of 

right-of-way is excluded (LR-D-2.3): all ACECs, WSAs, lands managed for wilderness characteristics, the 

Piedras Blancas ONA, and suitable Wild and Scenic River corridors. (Map 2.18 and Map 2.19).

[LR-D-2.5] Utility-scale renewable energy rights-of-way will be avoided on a total of 31,300 acres of:

Tehachapi Linkage area of ecological importance (27,290 acres), WSAs (1,860 acres), and lands managed 

for wilderness characteristics (2,150 acres). (Map 2.18).

[LR-D-2.6] Apply resource specific, Best Management Practices (such as BMPs for VRM, air, soil, water, 

biological resources, etc., see Appendix 3) as terms and conditions to ROW authorizations based on sitespecific NEPA analysis to minimize environmental impacts.

Key Implementation Decisions

[LR-I-2.1] Commercial filming permits that are routine in nature (such as less than 14 days in duration 

and less than 50 people, use designated routes or previously disturbed areas, effect no present 

traditional cultural values) will be issued pursuant to FLPMA, where no surface disturbance is proposed, 

and where there will be minimal to no impacts on resources.

 Withdrawals

Decisions

[LR-D-3.1] Continue the existing withdrawal from application under the non-mineral public land laws 

and from disposition under the homestead, desert land entry and script selection laws for the Caliente, 

Monache-Walker Pass and Temblor National Cooperative Land and Wildlife Management Areas 

(NCLWMAs) (183,620 acres)(Public Land Order 2460).

[LR-D-3.2] Continue the existing withdrawal from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general 

land laws, including the United States mining laws, 30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1994), mineral leasing laws, 30 U.S.C. 

181 et seq. (1994) and mineral material sale laws 30 U.S.C. 601-604 (1994), of Piedras Blancas Light 

Station (20 acres) as shown on Map 2.20 (Public Land Order 7501).

[LR-D-3.3] Continue the existing withdrawal from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, 

including the mining laws, 30 U.S.C. Ch. 2, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, of the 

Piute Cypress Natural Area (760 acres) as shown on Map 2.20 (Public Land Order 3510).
58 LANDS AND REALTY

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[LR-D-3.4] Continue the existing withdrawal from location under the General Mining Law, 30 U.S.C. Ch. 

2, of the Keysville (390 acres) and San Joaquin River Gorge (3,070 acres) areas as shown on Map 2.20. 

[LR-D-3.5] Recommend the riparian zone in Salinas River ACEC (approximately 10 acres) as shown on 

Map 2.20 for proposal to be withdrawn from appropriation and entry under the General Mining Law.
LANDS AND REALTY 59

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.17 – Lands and Federal Mineral Estate Considered Available for Disposal
60 LANDS AND REALTY

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.18 – Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Exclusion and Avoidance Areas
LANDS AND REALTY 61

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.19 – Land Use Authorizations Exclusion and Avoidance Areas
62 LANDS AND REALTY

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.20 - Withdrawals
LIVESTOCK GRAZING 63

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

2.13 Livestock Grazing

Goal

[LG-G-1] Manage livestock grazing authorizations in a manner that meets or exceeds the Standards for

Rangeland Health and is consistent with other RMP goals.

Objective

[LG-O-1] Manage grazing authorizations to meet or exceed the Standards of Rangeland Health.

[LG-O-2] Provide for livestock grazing opportunities on lands in the grazing decision area in a manner 

that limits impacts on other resources and meets RMP goals.

Decisions

[LG-D-1] Allocate public lands for livestock grazing based on the following acreages (Map 2.21):

(a) Available: 328,900 acres

(b) Unavailable: 66,100 acres

[LG-D-2] Identify 7,800 acres (Atwell Island) of those acres allocated as Available for livestock grazing 

only for the purpose of vegetation management objectives other than producing livestock forage. 

[LG-D-3] Allocate newly acquired lands to match allocations given to the surrounding or adjacent lands, 

except where land is unsuitable for livestock grazing or the purpose for which the land was acquired is 

incompatible with livestock grazing based on resource conditions or in accordance with use restrictions 

contained in acquisition documents7F

8

, to the extent consistent with federal law.

[LG-D-4] Manage livestock grazing on individual pastures of allotments or entire allotments which lie 

primarily within the Bakersfield FO Planning Area in conformance with this RMP’s goals and objectives. 

Allow management of livestock grazing on individual pastures of allotments or entire allotments which 

lie primarily within other Field Office or BLM jurisdictional boundaries in conformance with the goals 

and objectives applicable to the managing office’s land use plan.

[LG-D-5] Apply the appropriate Central California Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (BLM 

1999; http://www.blm.gov/ca/pdfs/caso_pdfs/Cen-ROD.pdf) to the applicable grazing authorizations as 

needed to meet the Central California Standards for Rangeland Health as follows: 

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH

STANDARD: SOILS – Soils exhibit functional biological and physical characteristics that are 

appropriate to soil type, climate, and land form.

Meaning That: Precipitation is able to enter the soil surface at appropriate rates; the soil is 

adequately protected against accelerated erosion; and the soil fertility is maintained at 

appropriate levels.

 

8

Acquisition is subject to conformance with underlying statutory authority and DOJ title standards. 
64 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

As Indicated By: 

 Ground cover (vegetation and other types of ground cover such as rock) is sufficient to 

protect sites from accelerated erosion.

 Litter/residual dry matter is evident, in sufficient amounts to protect the soil surface.

 A diversity of plant species, with a variety of root depths, is present and plants are vigorous 

during the growing season. 

 There is minimal evidence of accelerated erosion in the form of rills, gullies, pedestaling of 

plants or rocks, flow patterns, physical soil crusts/surface sealing, or compaction layers 

below the soil surface 

 Biological (microphytic or cryptogamic) soil crusts are in place where appropriate. 

STANDARD: SPECIES – Viable, healthy, productive, and diverse populations of native and desired 

species, including special status species (Federal T&E, Federal proposed, Federal candidates, BLM 

sensitive, or Calif. State T&E) are maintained or enhanced where appropriate.

Meaning That: Native and other desirable plant and animals are diverse, vigorous, able to 

reproduce and support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycles, and energy flows over space and 

time. 

As Indicated By: 

 Wildlife habitats include seral stages, vegetation structure, and patch size to promote 

diverse and viable wildlife populations. 

 A variety of age classes are present for most perennial plant species. 

 Plant vigor is adequate to maintain desirable plants and ensure reproduction and 

recruitment of plants when favorable climatic events occur. 

 The spatial distribution and cover of plant species and their habitats allows for reproduction 

and recovery from localized catastrophic events. 

 A diversity of plant species with various phenological stages and rooting depths are present 

on sites where appropriate. 

 Appropriate natural disturbances are evident. 

 Levels of non-native plants and animals are at acceptable levels. 

 Special status species present are healthy and in numbers that appear to ensure stable to 

increasing populations; habitat areas are large enough to support viable populations or are 

connected adequately with other similar habitat areas. 

 Adequate organic matter (litter and standing dead plant material) is present for site 

protection and decomposition to replenish soil nutrients. 

 Where appropriate, biological soil crusts (also called microphytic or cryptogamic soil crusts) 

are present and not excessively fragmented. 

 Noxious and invasive species are contained at acceptable levels. 

STANDARD: RIPARIAN – Riparian/wetland vegetation, structure and diversity, and stream channels 

and floodplains are functioning properly, and meeting regional and local management objectives.

Meaning That: The vegetation and soils interact to capture and pass sediment, sustain 

infiltration, maintain the water table, stabilize the channel, sustain high water quality, and 

promote biodiversity appropriate to soils, climate, and landform.
LIVESTOCK GRAZING 65

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

As Indicated By: 

Vegetation Attributes:

 Vegetation cover is greater than 80% or the percentage that will protect banks and dissipate 

energy during high flows. 

 Age-class and structure of woody/riparian vegetation are diverse and appropriate for the 

site. 

 Where appropriate, shading is sufficient to provide adequate thermal regulation for fish and 

other riparian dependent species. 

 Where appropriate, there is adequate woody debris.

 A diversity of plant species with various phenological stages and rooting depths is present. 

Root masses are sufficient to stabilize stream banks and shorelines.

 Plant species present indicate that soil moisture characteristics are being maintained.

 There is minimal cover of invader/shallow-rooted species.

 Adequate organic matter (litter and standing dead plant material) is present to protect the 

site and to replenish soil nutrients through decomposition.

 Point bars are vegetated.

Physical Indicators:

 Streambank stability, pool frequency, substrate sediments, stream width, and bank angles 

are appropriate for the stream type.

STANDARD: WATER QUALITY – Surface and groundwater complies with objectives of the Clean 

Water Act and other applicable water quality requirements, including meeting the California State 

standards.

Management Objective: For water bodies, the primary objective is to maintain the existing quality 

and beneficial uses of water, protect them where they are threatened (and livestock grazing 

activities are a contributing factor), and restore them where they are currently degraded (and 

livestock grazing activities are a contributing factor). This objective is of even higher priority in the 

following situations: 

(a) where beneficial uses of water bodies have been listed as threatened or impaired 

pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act; 

(b) where aquatic habitat is present or has been present for Federal threatened or 

endangered, candidate, and other special status species dependent on water resources; 

and, 

(c) in designated water resource sensitive areas such as riparian and wetland areas. 

Meaning That: BLM will, pursuant to the Clean Water Act:

Maintain the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of waters flowing across or 

underlying the lands it administers; 

Protect the integrity of these waters where it is currently threatened; 
66 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Insofar as is feasible, restore the integrity of these waters where it is currently impaired; 

Not contribute to pollution and take action to remedy any pollution resulting from its 

actions that violates applicable California (including the requirements identified in 

Regional Basin Plans), or Tribal water quality standards or other applicable water quality 

requirements (e.g., requirements adopted by SWRCB or RWQCB in California, or US EPA 

pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act or the Coastal Zone Reauthorization 

Act). Where action related to grazing management is required, such action will be taken 

as soon as practicable but not later than the start of the next grazing year (in accordance 

with 43 CFR 4180.1). 

Be consistent with the non-degradation policies identified in the Regional Basin Plans in 

California. 

Work with the State (including the Regional Water Quality Control Boards) and U.S. EPA 

to establish appropriate beneficial uses for public waters, establish appropriate numeric 

targets for 303(d)-listed water bodies, and implement the applicable requirements to 

ensure that water quality on public lands meets the criteria for the designated beneficial 

uses of the water.

Develop and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) approved by the SWRCB to 

protect and restore the quality and beneficial uses of water, and monitor both 

implementation and effectiveness of the BMPs. These BMPs will be developed in full 

consultation, coordination, and cooperation with permittees and other interests.

As Indicated By: 

 The following do not exceed the applicable requirements: chemical constituents, water 

temperature, nutrient loads, fecal coliform, turbidity, suspended sediment, and dissolved 

oxygen.

 Achievement of the standards for riparian, wetlands, and water bodies.

 Aquatic organisms and plants (e.g., macro-invertebrates, fish, algae, and plants) indicate 

support for beneficial uses.

 Monitoring results or other data that show water quality is meeting the standard.

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Guideline 1: Livestock grazing operations will be conducted so that progress is made toward 

maintaining or promoting adequate amounts of vegetative ground cover, including standing plant 

material and litter to support infiltration and permeability, and maintain soil moisture storage and 

soil stability appropriate for the ecological sites within the management units. The ground cover 

should maintain soil organisms, plants, and animals to support the hydrologic and nutrient cycles, 

and energy flow.

Guideline 2: Implement grazing systems that regulate the timing and intensity of grazing. 

Continuous season-long grazing use is allowed if it has been demonstrated that it can be consistent 

with achieving a healthy, properly functioning ecosystem. Grazing systems should specify season of 

use based on plant phenology and geohydrologic processes where appropriate. On annual 

rangelands, mulch management should be used to define target forage use levels that will ensure 
LIVESTOCK GRAZING 67

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

that sufficient amounts of residual dry matter (RDM) or standing plant material will be maintained 

throughout the grazing season. Mulch levels for annual grasses should meet the requirements of 

Table 2.1, whenever feasible. Mulch levels will include a "buffer" to account for RDM loss from other 

natural processes (decomposition, animal use, etc.). Exceptions may be approved during the green 

season when substantial regrowth is expected or if lower RDM levels are required to meet particular 

rangeland health objectives, such as reducing competition for a desired species.

Guideline 3: On Annual Range, readiness will be determined by: (1) Minimum RDM levels at the 

time of turnout prior to green season growth are exceeded by 200 pounds per acre; or (2) Minimum 

RDM levels and at least 2 inches of new growth are present in the growing season.

Guideline 4: Where appropriate, use grazing systems that maintain the presence and distribution of 

microsites for seed germination.

Guideline 5: Perennial plant utilization should be limited to appropriate levels of the current year's 

growth as indicated in Table 2.1, unless it has been proven that this level of use is incompatible with 

the continued existence of the plant.

Management changes will be implemented (e.g., reductions in stocking rate or another 

management change) if utilization guidelines on the average of the upland key areas across the 

pasture (or allotment if there is only one pasture) are exceeded for 2 consecutive years or in any 2 

years out of every 5 years. In addition, at least 70% of upland key areas on the pasture (or 

allotment) are not to exceed maximum utilization guidelines in most years. Because of the potential 

long-term damage to perennial grass species associated with severe grazing, severe grazing use 

(>70% utilization) in any upland key area in any year will result in a management change the 

following year. If any particular key area fails to meet the guidelines for more than 2 consecutive 

years, then management action will be taken to remedy the problem in the area of the allotment 

that key area represents. The average (mean) utilization on key species will be estimated at each key 

area and used to determine if the guidelines have been met. There are indications that the median 

may be a better statistic to use than the mean; we will calculate both statistics from the same data

sets and make a determination on which statistic to use after examining the data over a period of a 

few years.

For allotments not meeting or making significant progress toward meeting the standards (and for 

which lower utilization levels of perennial upland species would be expected to help move these 

allotments toward the standards), utilization data already in hand will be used to determine 

whether a management change is necessary. Thus, for example, if utilization on a particular key area 

has exceeded the thresholds of Table 2.1 for the two years previous to the approval of these 

standards and guidelines, a management change will be implemented prior to the first grazing year 

following this approval. In addition to implementing management changes that are expected to 

bring utilization levels within threshold values, close monitoring will follow to ensure that the 

grazing use levels are not exceeded during the grazing period following the management changes. If 

utilization levels are exceeded or expected to be exceeded during this period, a reduction or 

curtailment of further grazing in the area represented by the key area will be required for the 

remainder of the grazing season. In addition, further management changes will be implemented 

prior to the start of the next grazing season to bring utilization levels within thresholds.
68 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Guideline 6: Implement grazing systems that permit existing native species to complete entire life 

cycles and sustain the spatial distribution of microsites necessary for seed germination at intervals 

sufficient to maintain the viability of the species.

Guideline 7: Use grazing systems that are compatible with the persistence of desired species. 

Grazing use should provide appropriate levels of plant matter that will promote the existence of 

desirable plants and animals.

Guideline 8: Native species are recommended for all revegetation and enhancement projects unless 

they are not readily available in sufficient quantities or are incapable of maintaining or achieving 

properly functioning conditions and biological health.

Guideline 9: Within identified deer concentration areas there will be no more than 20 percent 

utilization of annual growth on key browse species prior to October 1.

Guideline 10: Periods of rest from livestock grazing or other avoidable disturbances should be 

provided during/after episodic events (e.g., flood, fire, drought) and during critical times of plant 

growth needed to achieve proper functioning conditions, recovery of vegetation, or desired plant 

community.

Guideline 11: Grazing management practices will allow for the reproduction of species that will 

maintain riparian-wetland functions, including energy dissipation, sediment capture, groundwater 

recharge, streambank stability, the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow.

Guideline 12: Grazing practice should maintain a minimum herbage stubble height on all streamside, riparian and wetland areas at the end of the growing season. There should be sufficient 

residual stubble or regrowth at the end of the growing season to meet the requirements of plant 

vigor maintenance, bank protection, and sediment entrapment (Table 2.1).

Management changes will be implemented (e.g., reductions in stocking rate or another 

management change) if stubble heights on the average of the key riparian areas across the pasture 

(or allotment if there is only one pasture) fall below the guidelines for 2 consecutive years or in any 

2 years out of every 5 years. In addition, at least 70% of riparian key areas on the allotment are to 

exceed minimum stubble heights in most years. If any particular key area fails to meet the guidelines 

for more than 2 consecutive years, then management action will be taken to remedy the problem in 

the area of the allotment that key area represents. Because stream banks may be inadequately 

protected by heavy use in any one year and because stubble heights below 3 inches result in cattle 

shifting their preference to shrubs, stubble heights below 2 inches in any one year will require a 

management change in the following year.

The mean stubble height on key riparian species will be estimated at each riparian key area and 

used to determine if the guidelines have been met. There are indications that the median may be a 

better statistic to use than the mean; we will calculate both statistics from the same data sets and 

make a determination on which statistic to use after examining the data over a period of a few 

years.

For allotments not meeting or making significant progress toward meeting the standards (and for 

which higher stubble would be expected to help move these allotments toward the standards), 

stubble height data already in hand will be used to determine whether a management change is 
LIVESTOCK GRAZING 69

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

necessary. Thus, for example, if stubble heights on a particular key area have fallen below the 

thresholds of Table 2.1 for the two years previous to the approval of these standards and guidelines, 

a management change will be implemented prior to the first grazing year following this approval. In 

addition to implementing management changes that are expected to bring stubble heights within 

threshold values, close monitoring will follow to ensure the grazing use levels are not exceeded 

during the grazing period following the management changes. If utilization levels are exceeded or 

expected to be exceeded during this period, a reduction or curtailment of further grazing in the area 

represented by the key area will be required for the remainder of the grazing season. In addition, 

further management changes will be implemented prior to the start of the next grazing season to 

bring utilization levels within thresholds.

Guideline 13: Water sources, wetlands and riparian areas may be fenced to reduce impacts from 

livestock.

Guideline 14: The development of water sources will maintain ecologic and hydrologic function and 

processes.

Guideline 15: Locate salt blocks and other supplemental feed well away from riparian/wetland 

areas.

Guideline 16: Locate new livestock handling and/or management facilities outside of 

riparian/wetland areas. For existing livestock handling facilities inside riparian areas, ensure that 

facilities do not prevent attainment of standards. Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, loading, 

and other handling efforts to those areas and times that will not retard or prevent attainment of 

standards.

Guideline 17: Implement grazing systems that will promote compliance with the Water Quality 

Standards.

(a) Apply the management practices recognized and approved by the State of California as Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) for grazing related activities to protect and maintain water 

quality.

(b) In watersheds draining into water bodies that have been listed or are proposed for listing as 

having threatened or impaired beneficial uses, and where grazing activities may contribute 

to the pollutants causing such impairment, the management objective is to fully protect, 

enhance, and restore the beneficial uses of the water

Guideline 18: The plan for grazing on any allotment must consider other uses (recreation, wildlife, 

mineral resource development, etc.) and be coordinated with other users of the public lands so that 

overall use does not detract from the goal of achieving rangeland health.
70 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Table 2.1

Forage Utilization and Mulch Management Requirements (Table A from Central California Standards 

for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management ROD)

Precipitation Plant Community Slope, Elevation Minimum Residual Dry 

Matter a (lbs/ac)

Maximum 

Utilization of Key 

Perennials, c, d

4-10 inches California annual 

grassland <25% 25-45% >45% 200 250 300 30-45%

10-40 Inches

California annual 

grassland, Oak 

woodlands

<25% 25-45% >45% 400 600 800

<15% 1000-2500’ 700-900 b 30-45%

<15% >2500’ 1000-1200 b

8-30 Inches

Sagebrush grassland, 

semi-desert grass 

and shrubland, 

Pinyon-juniper 

woodland, Cool 

season pasture

NA NA 30-40%

Coniferous forest, 

mountain shrubland NA NA 30-40%

Alpine tundra NA NA 20-30%

Salt Desert 

Shrubland NA NA 25-35%

4-40 Inches Riparian areas, 

wetlands NA 4-6 inch stubble height c

35-45% herbs,

10-20% shrubs,

0-20% trees

a Minimum to be present at fall/winter green-up.

b Higher minimum is for sites that are: in unsatisfactory condition, grazed during active growth, not rested, or on 

steeper slopes.

c On sites in unsatisfactory condition and/or trend, perennial plant utilization should be no more than 15-25% current 

annual growth where less than one period of rest is provided per growing season of use.

d Stubble height and percent utilization levels are initial values that should be adjusted to consider timing of grazing use 

and plant phenology, resource conditions and a site’s resiliency at the allotment, pasture or site-specific location. 

Perennial plant utilization levels and stubble heights are based on a literature review by Holechek (1988, 1991), 

Holechek et al. (1998) and Willoughby.

[LG-D-6] Apply the appropriate Bakersfield FO-specific guidelines for livestock grazing management to 

the applicable grazing authorizations within the grazing decision area as shown in Table 2.2:
LIVESTOCK GRAZING 71

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Table 2.2

Bakersfield Field Office-Specific Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

ALLOTMENT LOCATION SPECIFIC 

RESOURCE

GUIDELINE

Within San Joaquin Valley 

listed species habitat

Mulch 

Readiness

500 lbs/ac. And 2” green growth, or 700 lbs/ac. Without green 

growth

Mulch 

Threshold

500 lbs/ac

Saltbush Scrub Dec. 1-May 31 season of use or meets form class, foliage 

density, and reproductive uniformity criteria.

Riparian Areas Poor-Fair 

condition

Nov. 1-May 31 season of use and apply the Central CA 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.

Good-Excellent 

condition

Maintain current season of use and apply the Central CA 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.

Known population 8F

9

of 

California jewelflower, 

Caulanthus californicus

No grazing unless in approved study or research show grazing 

beneficial.

Known population of San 

Joaquin woolly threads, 

Monolopia congdonii

Apply the appropriate Central CA Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management as needed to meet the Standards of 

Rangeland Health.

Known population of Kern 

mallow, Eremalche 

kernensis

No grazing unless in approved study or research shows grazing 

beneficial.

Known population of 

Hoover’s woolly star, 

Eriastrum hooveri

Apply the appropriate Central CA Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management as needed to meet the Standards of 

Rangeland Health.

Known population of 

Shevock’s monkeyflower, 

Mimulus shevockii

No grazing.

Known occurrence of Kern 

primrose sphinx moth

No grazing.

Known occurrence of 

Tehachapi slender 

salamander

Apply the appropriate Central CA Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management as needed to meet the Standards of 

Rangeland Health.

Other special status species Apply the appropriate Central CA Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management as needed to meet the Standards of 

Rangeland Health and/or develop a management guideline that 

takes into account specific species requirements.

 

9

For the purposes of applying the livestock management guidelines, known occupied habitats and/or known populations are 

areas containing the species of concern. On a case-by-case basis and dependent on the specific needs of the species, in addition 

to the area containing the species of concern, the guideline may also be applied to adjacent areas that are determined to 1) 

have similar habitat characteristics and are likely to contain the species, or 2) directly influence or affect the habitat conditions 

in the area containing the species. For example, an annual plant may be known to exist on 10 acres. The adjacent 40 acres has 

similar habitat characteristics, and even though the plant has not been documented from the adjacent 40 acres, it is expected 

to occur on the 40 acres. In this case, the management guideline for that species would be applied to all 50 acres. 

Furthermore, the 80 acres in the watershed above the known population may also have the specific management guideline 

applied if the grazing use of those 80 acres is expected to directly influence the 10 acre existing population or the habitat

suitability of the adjacent 40 acres.
72 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[LG-D-7] Authorize livestock grazing at the initial implementation levels (Table 2.3). Based on existing 

authorizations, projected new authorizations and application of the Central California and Bakersfield FO 

Specific Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management, forage authorized for livestock grazing within the 

Decision Area would total approximately 40,200 AUMs.

Table 2.3

Livestock Grazing Implementation Levels

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Public 

Acres1

Mgmt. 

Status2

Type 

Auth.3

Kind Of 

Stock

Period 

Begin 

Date

Period 

End 

Date

Public 

Aums

2 Oilfield Road 440 M 15 Sheep 12/1 5/31 73

3 Naval Pet Res. I 1,518 M 15 Sheep 12/1 5/31 253

5 Blossom Peak 80 C 15 Cattle 3/1 6/1 7

6 Cuyama 2 480 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 80

7 Freeborn Mt. 1,804 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 254

8 Pleito Hills 3,423 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 1,028

9 Badger Creek 480 C 15 Cattle 4/1 9/30 90

10 Santa Rita 160 C 15 Cattle 3/1 9/15 16

12 Live Oak Pass 280 C 15 Cattle 6/1 9/30 70

13 Temblor Creek 328 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 82

14 Case Mountain 3,903 I 15 Cattle 10/1 5/31 296

15 North Temblor434,795 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 7,733

North Temblor4- M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 -

North Temblor (Portion in 

BKFO Managed by CPNM) 137 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 30

16 Oil Field 4,270 M 15 Sheep 12/1 5/31 303

17 North Fork River 5,693 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 456

19 Buena Vista Creek 720 M 15 Sheep 12/1 5/31 107

20 Elephant Back 80 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 16

21 Frazer Valley 1,694 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 184

23 Hanning Flat West 575 C 3 Cattle 11/1 5/31 57

24 Bear Creek 405 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 10

27 Bitterwater Valley 80 C 15 12

28 Kettleman Hills 5,216 I 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 1,304

Kettleman Hills - I 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 -

30 West Klipstein 561 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 112

32 Hubbard Hill 3,080 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 418

33 Mankins Creek 476 C 15 Cattle 10/1 6/30 80

34 North Comb Rocks 230 C 15 39

35 Red Hill 160 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 3

36 Horn Mountain 1,517 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 65

37 Raven Pass 40 C 15 Cattle 9/1 5/31 12

38 North Naval Petroleum Res. 2,278 I 15 380

39 Chimineas Ranch South44,982 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 730

40 Rio Bravo 401 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 100

41 Derby Acres 530 C 15 151

42 Jack Canyon 33 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 12

45 Goldpan Canyon 470 I 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 84

47 Rankin Ranch 867 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 144

48 Mountain Creek 264 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 88

49 Loraine 678 I 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 113

50 Santa Barbara Canyon 1,734 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 118
LIVESTOCK GRAZING 73

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Public 

Acres1

Mgmt. 

Status2

Type 

Auth.3

Kind Of 

Stock

Period 

Begin 

Date

Period 

End 

Date

Public 

Aums

51 Studhorse Canyon 498 M 3 Cattle 11/1 5/31 100

52 Thompson Ridge 1,250 M 15 Cattle 5/1 7/31 63

54 Willow Spring Canyon 480 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 96

55 South Mountain 186 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 23

56 Round Mountain Road 160 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 27

57 Santiago Creek 2,723 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 545

Santiago Creek - M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 -

58 Anderson Canyon 2,120 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 311

59 Loco Bill Canyon 640 M 15 Cattle 4/1 9/30 82

60 Santa Teresa 1,883 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 400

61 Oak Grove 2,901 I 15 Cattle 4/1 9/30 235

62 Curtis Mountain 40 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 13

63 Chico Martinez 8,602 I 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 1,671

Chico Martinez - I 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 -

64 Cedar Canyon 624 C 15 Cattle 10/15 6/30 139

Cedar Canyon - C 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 -

65 Packwood 1,155 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 282

Packwood - M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 -

66 Liveoak Canyon 80 C 15 13

68 San Emigdio 650 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 191

71 Rancheria 194 C 15 49

72 Bluestone Ridge 2,673 M 15 Cattle 12/1 6/30 668

73 Chimineas Ranch North 3,949 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 759

74 Freedom Hill 2,278 M 3 Cattle 3/1 5/15 539

75 Kelso Peak 768 M 3 Cattle 2/1 5/15 154

76 Sacatar Meadow 6,320 C 3 Cattle 9/1 10/31 96

77 Walker Pass West 14,566 I 3 Cattle 1/1 6/30 781

78 Airport 917 M 3 Cattle 3/1 5/15 92

79 Fay Canyon 361 C 3 Cattle 3/1 4/30 64

80 Smith Canyon 2,760 M 3 60

81 Nellie's Nipple 3,885 M 3 Cattle 3/15 10/14 528

82 Short Canyon 3,260 M 3 Cattle 2/1 4/30 150

83 Lynch Canyon 510 C 3 Cattle 3/1 4/30 64

84 Cyrus Canyon 1,061 M 3 Cattle 10/1 5/15 106

85 Cooks Peak 2,111 C 3 Cattle 11/1 5/31 217

86 Cholla Canyon 4,572 M 3 Cattle 10/15 6/30 1,825

87 Havilah Basin 4,862 M 3 Cattle 3/1 2/28 356

Havilah Basin - M 3 Cattle 5/1 9/30 -

88 Sales Creek 40 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 50

89 Bodfish 114 C 3

Cattle &

Horses 3/1 9/30 14

90 Wagy Flat 10,138 M 3 Cattle 2/15 4/30 521

91 Sulphur Ridge 506 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 34

93 Eagle's Nest Peak 680 C 15 Cattle 11/1 5/31 182

94 South Comb Rocks 399 C 15 Cattle 10/1 6/30 100

95 Progress Gulch 480 C 15 Cattle 3/1 6/30 80

96 Maricopa45,979 I 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 939

Maricopa4- I 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 -

97 Mc Van Oil Field 200 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 34
74 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Public 

Acres1

Mgmt. 

Status2

Type 

Auth.3

Kind Of 

Stock

Period 

Begin 

Date

Period 

End 

Date

Public 

Aums

98 Fresno River 160 C 15 Cattle 5/1 10/31 36

99 Bittercreek Drainage 240 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 60

100 Dry Creek 160 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 20

102 Burnt Point 1,493 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 79

103 Milk Ranch Peak 1,652 C 15 Cattle 4/15 9/30 133

104 Wash Burn Cove 628 M 15 Cattle 10/1 4/15 118

106 Western Minerals Rd. 1,540 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 308

107 Cienaga Canyon 1,902 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 380

108 Paso Robles 20 C 15 Horses 1/1 3/31 3

111 Sand Canyon 2,702 I 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 365

113 Johns Peak 1,040 C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 168

114 East Klipstein 90 C 15 Cattle 3/1 9/30 18

115 Power Line Road 215 M 15 Sheep 1/1 5/31 36

116 Devils Gulch 600 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 120

117 Red Mountain 7,317 I 15 327

118 Scobie Meadow 6,890 M 3 Cattle 6/1 10/31 182

119 Bald Eagle Peak 2,400 M 3 Cattle 3/1 2/28 168

120 Spanish Needle Creek 3,160 M 3 Cattle 3/15 6/5 40

123 Canebrake 8,238 M 3 Cattle 1/1 6/30 952

124 Long Valley 17,687 M 3 Cattle 10/1 11/30 226

125 Kennedy Lamont 44,296 M 3 Cattle 7/1 9/30 396

126 Lower Kennedy Table 105 M 15 Cattle 9/15 5/31 30

128 Lwr Hiddenvalley Rch 1,331 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 236

129 Big Sandy 813 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 225

130 Smalley Road 540 M 15 Cattle 11/15 5/15 188

136 Fowler Mountain 280 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 120

149 South Fork Kern River 744 C 3 Cattle 11/1 6/30 19

157 Wheeler Ridge 480 C 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 144

Wheeler Ridge - C 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 -

3464 Franciscan 800 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 168

3655 Wood Canyon4204 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 5

3718 Buena Vista 311 M 15 Cattle 3/1 2/28 62

3719 Vista Del Mar 165 C 15 10

3720 Klau Mine 12 C 15 3

3750 San Joaquin River Slope 857 M 15 Cattle 12/1 5/31 240

4309

Surprise Arroyo (~ Portion in 

BKFO Managed by HFO) 1,300 I 15

Cattle &

Sheep 1/1 4/30 ~417

5008

Rudnick Common (~ Portion in 

BKFO Managed by RFO) 7,000 I 3 Cattle 3/1 2/28 ~412

34,177

Available for application 40,300 6,000

Estimated potential grazing 

opportuinity540,177

1Acreage figures in this table are approximate and may not correspond with cumulative totals elsewhere in this document.

2C=Continue, M=Moderate, I=Intensive (also see Selective Management Categories in PRMP/FEIS Appendix F-4).

3

3=Grazing permits issued on public lands within the grazing districts established under the Taylor Grazing Act; 15=Grazing leases on public 

lands outside the original grazing district boundaries.

4

Portion of this allotment lies within the Carrizo Plain National Monument.

5

Total of authorized AUMs and projected future authorized AUMs, under the assumptions that 75% of acres available for application would be 

authorized and given a stocking rate of 5 acres/AUM.
MINERALS MANAGEMENT 75

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.21 – Livestock Grazing Allocations

This map is oversized and does not fit in the body of this document. It is found in the map packet on the 

back cover of the printed version and hyperlinked here in the electronic versions of this document.

2.14 Minerals Management

Goal

[MM-G-1] Support development of mineral resources on public lands in an environmentally sound 

manner. 

 Leasable Minerals

Objective

[MM-O-1] Facilitate reasonable, economical, and environmentally sound exploration and development 

of leasable minerals while minimizing impacts to resources.

2.14.1.1 Fluid Minerals

Allocations Summary

Table 2.4

Fluid Minerals Allocations Summary

Allocation Acreage Management Action

Closed – All Fluid Mineral Leasing 149,600 MM-D-1.1.3

Closed – Geothermal Leasing 26,440 MM-D-1.1.4

Open with No Surface Occupancy (NSO) 3,880 MM-D-1.1.5

Open with standard stipulations 0 MM-D-1.1.1

Open with special stipulations - Controlled Surface Use (CSU) 1,011,470 MM-D-1.1.5

Decisions

[MM-D-1.1.1] Identify 0 acres as open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to existing regulations and formal 

orders; and the terms and conditions of the standard lease form.

[MM-D-1.1.2] Identify 0 acres as open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints.

[MM-D-1.1.3] Identify 149,600 acres (Map 2.22) as closed to fluid mineral leasing:

 Non-discretionary closures – Wilderness, WSAs, Piedras Blancas ONA, and the PCNST

o Discretionary closures – Bitter Creek ACEC, Blue Ridge ACEC, Erskine Creek ACEC, Piute 

Cypress ACEC, and Point Sal ACEC; lands with wilderness characteristics; segments of 

the Lower Kern River, North Fork of the Kaweah River, San Joaquin River, and Chimney 

Creek determined to be suitable as Wild and Scenic Rivers; and Deer Spring area of 

ecological importance.

[MM-D-1.1.4] Identify 26,440 acres, in the Kaweah ACEC (Map 2.22) as closed only to geothermal 

leasing
76 MINERALS MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[MM-D-1.1.5] Identify approximately 1,011,470 acres (Map 2.22) as open to fluid mineral leasing, 

subject to major constraints (both CSU – Protected Species and CSU – Sensitive Species). Of this at least 

3,880 acres would also be subject to a No Surface Occupancy stipulation. Additional CSU stipulations 

may be applied to all new leases in conjunction with the lease sale as determined appropriate and in 

conformance with the RMP. 

[MM-D-1.1.6] Establish the major constraint of “NSO – General” that prohibits surface disturbance on 

the entire lease for the purpose of minimizing or eliminating adverse effects on unique or significant 

natural and cultural resources that are incompatible with fluid mineral development with the following 

stipulation language:

All or a portion of this lease has been identified by the current RMP (e.g., ACECs and areas of 

ecological importance with this stipulation prescribed) as containing unique or significant natural 

or cultural values. No new surface disturbing activity is allowed on the lease. This stipulation 

may be granted exception, modified, or waived as follows:

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if after discussion with an appropriate 

agency (e.g., CDFW, SHPO, and USFWS) it decides that an environmental review determines the 

action as proposed or conditioned would not impair the values present because of temporary 

conditions. 

Modification: The Authorized Officer may modify this stipulation to allow surface use on a 

portion or even all of the lease if an environmental review determines the action as proposed or 

conditioned would not impair the values present.

Waiver: The Authorized Officer may grant a waiver if an environmental review determines the 

values for which the NSO was applied no longer exist.

Objective: To minimize or eliminate adverse effects on unique or significant natural and cultural 

resources that are incompatible with fluid mineral development.

Application: The NSO-General stipulation would be applied when adequate protection of 

surface resources cannot be provided through mitigation, and fluid mineral development of the 

lease from an off-site location is recommended. If there is no surface location available for 

directional drilling, the land would not be leased.

Review Process: Any proposed surface-disturbing activity would be reviewed to determine 

whether it is in compliance with the NSO stipulation. If the review determines the proposed 

action would not impair the values present and would be consistent with the management of 

the ACEC or area of ecological importance, exception or modification may be granted. Any 

decision to grant an exception or modification would be based on field inspection and inventory 

and the NEPA review process.

[MM-D-1.1.7] Establish the major constraint of “NSO – Compensation Lands ACEC” that prohibits 

surface disturbance on the entire lease for the purpose of minimizing or eliminating adverse effects 

associated with fluid mineral development on lands acquired as compensation lands with the following 

stipulation language:
MINERALS MANAGEMENT 77

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

All or a portion of this lease occurs within the boundaries of the Compensation Lands ACEC. 

These lands may have a governing document that prohibits certain activities. No new surface 

disturbing activity is allowed on the lease. Furthermore, access to federal minerals within the 

lease will only be allowed from off-site sources not considered to be compensation lands (e.g., 

compensation land in private ownership). This stipulation shall not be waived, however may be 

granted exception or modified as follows:

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if after discussion with an appropriate 

agency (e.g., CDFW and USFWS) it decides that environmental review determines the action as 

proposed or conditioned would not impair the values present and is consistent with the 

document that established the compensation land and with federal law.

Modification: The Authorized Officer may modify this stipulation to allow surface use on a 

portion or the entire lease if after discussion with an appropriate agency (e.g., CDFW and 

USFWS) it decides that environmental review determines the action as proposed or conditioned

would not impair the values present and is consistent with the document that established the 

compensation land and with federal law.

Objective: To minimize or eliminate adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development 

on lands acquired as compensation land.

Application: The NSO-Compensation Lands stipulation would be applied to all new leases within 

the Compensation Lands ACEC. Furthermore, access to federal minerals within the lease will 

only be allowed from off-site sources that are not Compensation Lands. If all of the surrounding 

land is also Compensation Lands, and there is no other surface location available for directional 

drilling, the land would not be leased.

Review Process: Any proposed surface-disturbing activity would be reviewed to determine 

whether it is in compliance with the NSO stipulation. If the review determines the proposed 

action would not impair the values present and would be consistent with the management of 

the ACEC; exception or modification may be granted after discussion with the USFWS. Any 

decision to grant an exception or modification would be based on field inspection and inventory 

and the NEPA review process.

[MM-D-1.1.8] Establish the major constraint “CSU – Defense” for the purpose of minimizing or 

eliminating conflict between fluid mineral development and military base operations with the following 

stipulation language: 

All or a portion of this lease contains federal mineral estate under the surface administration of 

the Department of Defense. Surface disturbing activities may be moved, modified, or prohibited 

at the discretion of the Base Commander(s) to ensure these activities do not interfere with 

military activity on the base and to ensure personnel safety. Furthermore, processing times for 

proposed actions may be delayed beyond established standards to accommodate review and 

coordination with the Base Commander(s). This stipulation shall not be modified or granted 

exception; however, it may be waived as follows:

Waiver: The Authorized Officer may grant a waiver to this stipulation if the surface 

administration changes from the Department of Defense to another entity. 
78 MINERALS MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Objective: To minimize or eliminate conflict between fluid mineral development and military 

base operations.

Application: The CSU-Defense stipulation would be applied to federal reserved mineral estate 

under the surface administration of the Department of Defense. Approximately 69,700 acres are 

affected, including Point Mugu, Port Hueneme, San Nicholas Island, Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

Camp Roberts, and Lemoore Naval Air Station. Coordination with local government agencies 

regarding the development of stipulations would be at the discretion of the base commander.

When a tract of land on a military installation is nominated for lease sale, the legal description of 

the tract of interest would be forwarded to the attention of the base commander. The base 

commander would respond to the BLM with the recommended wording of the CSU-Defense 

stipulation. The wording would vary based on the base mission and would be applied to the 

entire military installation or to a limited portion of the parcel, at the discretion of the base 

commander. The BLM may alternatively identify in advance of lease sale offerings the terms and 

conditions applicable to military installations and thus be able to offer the leases for bid with 

advance disclosure of the terms and conditions.

Review Process: Generally, the following procedure would be used to approve surfacedisturbing activities on leases with the CSU-Defense stipulation. The proposed activity would be 

reviewed to determine if the mission of the military installation would be affected. The review 

process would involve meetings coordinated by the BLM between the lessee and the 

representatives of the military base to determine impacts and potential effects.

Approval: If the review determines that the mission of the military installation would not be 

affected Bureau approval of the proposed activity would normally be granted within 30 days of 

the review. If the review determines that the mission of the military installation would be 

adversely affected, the BLM would coordinate with the Base Commander and the applicant to 

modify the proposal. Modifications may include movement of activities, seasonal restrictions, 

mitigation and/or compensation. Modified proposals would be developed cooperatively with 

the applicant to ensure that the modified project still meets the applicant's objective.

[MM-D-1.1.9] Establish the major constraint “CSU - Protected Species” for the purpose of minimizing or 

eliminating adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development on federally proposed and listed 

species with the following stipulation language: 

All or a portion of the lease occurs within the range of one or more plant or animal species that 

are either listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS. A list of such 

species will be provided at the time of leasing and updated as necessary over the term of the 

lease. To determine whether species on this list or their habitat are present, a preliminary 

environmental review will be conducted for all surface disturbing activities. Presence of habitat 

or species may result in the proposed action being moved, modified, or delayed to mitigate 

project effects. Offsite compensation that would satisfactorily offset the loss of habitat may be 

required. Prohibition of all surface disturbing activities on the lease will only occur as needed to 

avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of a listed or proposed species, or when the proposed 

action is inconsistent with the recovery needs of a species as identified in an approved USFWS 

Recovery Plan through consultation with USFWS. Furthermore, processing times for proposed 

actions may be delayed beyond established standards to accommodate species surveys, and 
MINERALS MANAGEMENT 79

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

consultation or conferencing with the USFWS. This stipulation shall not be waived; however, it 

may be modified or an exception may be granted as follows: 

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines 

the action as proposed or conditioned would have no effect on listed or proposed species. 

Modification: The Authorized Officer may modify this stipulation to reflect new information with 

regard to the range of listed or proposed species through the expansion or reduction of lands 

subject to this stipulation for a specific species.

Objective: To minimize or eliminate adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development 

on federally proposed and listed species.

Application: At the time of leasing, the CSU-Protected Species stipulation would be attached to 

all leases within the range of federally listed or proposed species. A list of protected species 

found within the Field Office boundary would be included with the stipulation for each lease at 

the time of leasing. This list may be updated at the time of APD/NOS submittal.

Review Process: Generally, the following process would be used to approve surface-disturbing 

activities on leases with the CSU-Protected Species stipulation. The proposed activity would be 

reviewed to determine if listed or proposed species would be affected. This review may involve 

site-specific surveys for plant and animal species conducted according to established methods 

that may specify certain seasons or other conditions. In some cases, this may mean that a survey 

cannot be completed until the next growing season for some plant species or after seasonal 

appearance for some animal species.

If the review determines that listed or proposed species would not be affected, an exception to 

the stipulation and approval of the application would normally be granted within 30 days of the 

review.

If the review were to determine that listed or proposed species may be affected, but in a 

beneficial, insignificant, or benign manner, and written concurrence is received from the 

USFWS, approval of the application would normally be granted within 30 days of receiving 

USFWS concurrence. There is no regulatory timeframe for USFWS to provide their written 

concurrence.

If it is determined that a listed or proposed species may be adversely affected, the BLM would 

work with the applicant to modify the proposal to minimize impacts. Modifications may include 

movement of activities, seasonal restrictions, mitigation, or compensation. Modified proposals 

would be developed with the applicant to ensure that the modified project still meets the 

applicant's objective. If the modified project would still adversely affect a listed or proposed 

species, the BLM would begin formal consultation or conference with the USFWS.

Coordination with the USFWS on Listed Species: Currently there are two options for meeting 

the formal consultation requirement. A new consultation may be initiated or a previously 

completed formal consultation may be used.
80 MINERALS MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

If a new consultation were initiated, the USFWS would issue a document, called the biological 

opinion. The USFWS has up to 135 days to complete a biological opinion, and it may request a 

60-day extension. Extensions beyond 195 days require the consent of an applicant.

A previously completed formal consultation may also be used to meet the formal consultation 

requirement. An example of previously completed consultation that may be used is the San 

Joaquin Valley Oil and Gas Programmatic Biological Opinion.

Upon completion of a new consultation or determination that a previously completed 

consultation can be used, approval of the application will normally be granted within 30 days. If 

the new consultation concludes that a listed species may be jeopardized, then surface 

disturbance will be prohibited on the lease. 

Surface disturbance will also be prohibited if the consultation concludes that the proposed 

action is inconsistent with the recovery needs of the listed species as identified in an approved 

USFWS Recovery Plan. Although Recovery Plans are not requirements, BLM has voluntarily 

chosen to apply their recommendations through the land use plan (see BR-D 28), and these 

recommendations are reflected in this stipulation.

Coordination with the USFWS on Proposed Species: BLM policy requires a conferencing with 

the USFWS on any action that may adversely affect proposed species. Depending on the 

complexity of the situation, a conference may be completed in a single telephone conversation 

or may require the time frames of a consultation. Generally, on completion of the conference, 

approval of the application will be granted within 30 days.

If the conference were to show that a proposed species may be jeopardized, surface-disturbing 

activities would be prohibited on the lease.

Final Approval: Final approval of applications that would have no effect on listed or proposed 

species would normally be granted within 30 days of the review.

Final approval for projects that may affect listed or proposed species in a beneficial, 

insignificant, or benign manner would normally be granted within 30 days of receiving USFWS 

written concurrence.

For projects that require consultation or conference with the USFWS, final approval would 

normally be granted within 30 days of consultation or conference completion. Conditions of 

approval would include any conditions specified by the BLM or USFWS for minimizing impacts.

[MM-D-1.1.10] Establish the major constraint “CSU – Critical Habitat” for the purpose of minimizing or 

eliminating adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development on habitat designated as critical, 

or is proposed for designation as critical habitat by the USFWS with the following stipulation language: 

All or a portion of this lease lies within an area that is designated as critical habitat, or is 

proposed for designation as critical habitat by the USFWS. A list of these areas affecting this 

lease will be provided at the time of leasing and will be updated as necessary over the term of 

the lease. Any proposed surface disturbing activity occurring on the affected portions of this 

lease will be reviewed to determine if the activity would affect designated or proposed critical 

habitat. Determination of effects to designated or proposed critical habitat may result in the 
MINERALS MANAGEMENT 81

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

proposed action being moved, modified, seasonally restricted, or delayed. Consultation or 

conference with the USFWS is required if designated or proposed critical habitat may be 

affected. Off-site compensation that would satisfactorily offset the loss of habitat may be 

required. Prohibition of all surface disturbing activities on the lease will only occur as needed to 

avoid destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat or proposed critical habitat, or when the 

proposed action is inconsistent with the recovery needs identified in an approved USFWS 

Recovery Plan based on consultation with USFWS. Furthermore, processing times for proposed 

actions may be delayed beyond established standards to accommodate species surveys, and 

consultation or conferencing with the USFWS. This stipulation shall not be waived; however, it 

may be granted exception or modified as follows:

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines 

the action as proposed or conditioned would have no effect on critical habitat or proposed 

critical habitat. 

Modification: The Authorized Officer may modify this stipulation to reflect new information with 

regard to the critical habitat or proposed critical habitat through the expansion or reduction of 

lands subject to this stipulation for a specific species.

Objective: To minimize or eliminate adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development 

on habitat designated as critical, or is proposed for designation as critical habitat by the USFWS.

Application: The CSU-Critical Habitat stipulation would be applied to leases in areas that are 

designated as critical habitat or that are proposed for designation as critical habitat for certain 

species. A list of species and parcels would be included with the stipulation for each lease. The 

USFWS designates or proposes critical habitat according to the regulations found in 50 CFR 424. 

Critical habitat is one of the following:

 Specific areas within the geographical area currently occupied by a species, at the time 

it is listed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features (i) essential to the conservation of the species and (ii) that 

may require special management considerations or protection, and

 Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed 

upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for conservation of 

the species (50 CFR 424.02).

Review Process: Generally, the following process would be used to approve surface-disturbing 

activities on leases with the CSU-Critical Habitat stipulation. The proposed activity would be 

reviewed to determine if designated or proposed critical habitat would be affected. This review 

may involve site-specific surveys for plant and animal species, conducted according to 

established methods, which may specify certain seasons or other conditions. In some cases this 

may mean that a survey cannot be completed until the next growing season for some plant

species or after seasonal appearance for some animal species.

If the review determines that designated or proposed critical habitat will not be affected, an 

exception to the stipulation would be granted, and approval of the application will normally be 

granted within 30 days of the review.
82 MINERALS MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

If the review determines that designated or proposed critical habitat may be affected, but in a 

beneficial, insignificant, or benign manner, and written concurrence is received from the 

USFWS, the application would normally be approved within 30 days of receiving USFWS 

concurrence. There is no regulatory timeframe for USFWS to provide their written concurrence.

If it is determined that designated or proposed critical habitat may be adversely affected, BLM 

would work with the applicant to modify the proposal to minimize impacts. Modifications may 

include relocating activities, seasonal restrictions, mitigation, and compensation. Modified 

proposals would be developed with the applicant to ensure that the modified project still meets 

the applicant's objective. If the modified project were to still adversely affect designated or 

proposed critical habitat, the BLM would initiate formal consultation or conference with the 

USFWS.

Coordination with the USFWS on Designated Critical Habitat: The BLM is required to initiate 

formal consultation with the USFWS for any action that may affect designated critical habitat. As 

a result of the consultation, the USFWS would issue a biological opinion within 135 days, and it 

may request a 60-day extension. Extensions beyond 195 days require the consent of an 

applicant.

As part of the biological opinion, the USFWS would determine if the proposed action would be 

likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include 

those adversely modifying any of the physical or biological features that were the basis for 

determining the habitat to be critical (50 CFR 402.02).

If consultation concludes that critical habitat would be destroyed or adversely modified, then 

surface disturbance would be prohibited on the affected portion of the lease. Surface 

disturbance also would be prohibited if the consultation were to conclude that the proposed 

action is inconsistent with the recovery needs of the listed species, as identified in an approved 

USFWS recovery plan.

Coordination with the USFWS on Proposed Critical Habitat: BLM policy requires conferencing 

with the USFWS on any action that may adversely affect proposed critical habitat. Depending on 

the complexity of the situation, a conference may be completed in a single telephone 

conversation or may require the time frames of a consultation. Generally, on completion of the 

conference, the application would be approved within 30 days. If the conference were to show 

that proposed critical habitat would be destroyed or adversely modified, then surface 

disturbance would be prohibited on the affected portion of the lease.

[MM-D-1.1.11] Establish the major constraint “CSU - Sensitive Species” for the purpose of minimizing or 

eliminating adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development on federal candidate, State listed 

and BLM sensitive species with the following stipulation language: 

All or a portion of this lease is within the range of one or more plant or animal species that are 

either federal candidates for listing as threatened or endangered (federal candidate), are listed 

by the State of California as threatened or endangered (state listed), or are designated by the 

BLM as sensitive (BLM sensitive). A list of species will be provided at the time of leasing and 

updated as necessary over the term of the lease. To determine whether species on this list or 
MINERALS MANAGEMENT 83

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

their habitat are present, a preliminary environmental review will be conducted for all surface 

disturbing activities. Presence of habitat or species may result in the proposed action being 

moved more than 200 meters (656 feet) but not more than a quarter-mile or off of the lease and 

prohibition of activities during seasonal use period. Furthermore, processing times for proposed 

actions may be delayed beyond established standards to accommodate species surveys, and 

coordination with the USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game. This stipulation shall 

not be waived; however, it may be granted exception or modified as follows:

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines 

the action as proposed or conditioned would have no effect on federal candidate, state listed, 

and BLM sensitive species. 

Modification: The Authorized Officer may modify the stipulation to reflect new information with 

regard to federal candidate, state listed or BLM sensitive species lists. Furthermore, the 

authorized officer may modify the maximum distance that a potential location could be moved 

to extend farther than the stated quarter-mile to maintain the sensitive species protection goals.

Objective: To minimize or eliminate adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development 

on federal candidate, state listed, and BLM sensitive species.

Application: The CSU-Sensitive Species stipulation would be attached to all leases that are 

within the range of a federal candidate, state listed or BLM sensitive species. A list of sensitive 

species within the Field Office boundary would be included with the stipulation for each lease 

when the lease is issued. 

Review Process: Generally the following process would be used to approve surface-disturbing 

activities on leases with the CSU-Sensitive Species stipulation. The proposed activity would be 

reviewed to determine if special status species would be affected. This review may involve sitespecific surveys for plant and animal species, conducted according to established methods that 

may specify certain seasons or other conditions. In some cases this may mean that a survey 

cannot be completed until the next growing season for some plants or after seasonal 

appearance for some animal species.

If the review determines that a special status species may be adversely affected, then surfacedisturbing activities may be relocated up to a quarter-mile, but not off the lease, and certain 

surface-disturbing activities may be prohibited during seasonal periods. BLM policy may also 

require coordination with the USFWS or California Department of Fish and Game.

[MM-D-1.1.12] Establish the major constraint “CSU – Priority Species, Plant Communities and Habitats” 

for the purpose of minimizing or eliminating adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development 

on rare and/or endemic vegetation, plants, and communities, including riparian and serpentine 

endemics, with the following stipulation language: 

All or a portion of the lease has been identified by the current RMP (i.e., ACECs and areas of 

ecological importance with this stipulation prescribed) as containing priority species, plant 

communities, or habitat that may be adversely affected by fluid mineral development. A list of 

affected parcels or portions of the lease will be provided at the time of leasing. To identify the 

possibility of adverse impact resulting from fluid mineral development, a preliminary 

environmental review will be conducted for all surface disturbing activities. Identification of 
84 MINERALS MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

adverse impacts may result in the proposed action being moved, modified, seasonally delayed, or 

prohibited from all or a portion of this lease. Furthermore, processing times for proposed actions 

may be delayed beyond established standards to accommodate species surveys. This stipulation 

shall not be waived, but may be granted exception or modified as follows: 

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines 

the action as proposed or conditioned would have no effect on priority species, plant 

communities, or habitats. 

Modification: The Authorized Officer may modify the stipulation to reflect new information with 

regard to the presence of priority species, plant communities, or habitat through the expansion 

or reduction of lands subject to this stipulation.

Objective: To minimize or eliminate adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development 

on priority species, plant communities, or habitat.

Application: The CSU-Priority Species, Plant Communities and Habitats stipulation would be 

applied to specific areas that contain unique or significant biological and botanical values as 

described in the RMP (i.e., ACECs and areas of ecological importance). 

Review Process: Generally the following process would be used to approve surface-disturbing 

activities on leases with the CSU- Priority Species, Plant Communities and Habitats stipulation: 

The proposed activity would be reviewed to determine if the values for which the area was 

recognized would be affected. This review may involve site-specific surveys for plant species, 

conducted according to established methods, which may specify certain seasons or other 

conditions. In some cases this may mean that a survey cannot be completed until the next 

growing season for some plants species.

If the review were to determine that the values for which the area was recognized may be 

adversely affected, then surface-disturbing activities may be moved, modified, or prohibited on 

portions of or the entire lease and certain activities may be prohibited during seasonal periods.

[MM-D-1.1.13] Establish the major constraint “CSU - Raptor” for the purpose of minimizing or 

eliminating adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development on sensitive raptor foraging 

areas, winter roosting areas, or nest sites with the following stipulation language: 

All or a portion of this lease has been identified as an important raptor foraging, wintering, or 

nesting area. Any proposed surface disturbing activity will be reviewed to determine if the 

activity would affect raptor foraging, wintering, or nesting habitat. Determination of effects to 

raptor foraging, wintering, or nesting habitat may result in the proposed action being moved 

more than 200 meters (656 feet) but not more than a half-mile and prohibition of activities 

during seasonal use period. This stipulation may be granted exception, modified, or waived as 

follows:

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that 

demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are minimal or can be adequately 

mitigated. 
MINERALS MANAGEMENT 85

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Modification: The Authorized Officer may modify the distance and other provisions of this 

stipulation based on new information and increasing or decreasing levels of the impacts 

anticipated from fluid mineral development.

Waiver: The Authorized Officer may waive the stipulation should new information show the area 

no longer contains sensitive raptor habitat for foraging, winter roosting, or nesting.

Objective: To minimize or eliminate adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development 

on sensitive raptor foraging areas, winter roosting areas, or nest sites.

Application: The CSU-Raptor stipulation would be applied to lands that have been identified as 

important raptor foraging, wintering, or nesting areas. Such lands include, but are not limited 

to, the Hopper Mountain, Kaweah, Kettleman Hills, Chico Martinez, Temblor, Caliente 

Mountain, and the San Joaquin River Gorge areas.

Review Process: Generally, the following process would be used to approve surface-disturbing 

activities on leases with the CSU-Raptor stipulation. The proposed activity would be reviewed to 

determine if sensitive raptor foraging areas, winter roosting areas, or nest sites would be 

affected. If the review were to show that sensitive raptor use areas may be adversely affected, 

then surface-disturbing activities may be relocated up to one-half mile or certain activities may 

be prohibited during seasonal periods. Modified proposals would be developed with the 

applicant to ensure that the modified project still meets the applicant's objective.

Different raptor species and different individuals vary in their sensitivity and ability to habituate 

to disturbances. Type and extent, duration and timing, and visibility of disturbance and influence 

of other environmental factors, such as topography, also affect the significance of the 

disturbance in any particular case. Often, moving an activity out of visibility, such as behind a 

topographic feature, would be sufficient. Delaying certain new activities until young birds have 

fledged is also a common tactic. Movement of surface-disturbing activities to retain roost trees 

or hunting perches may also be used.

The following species or groups of species would be eligible for protection under the CSU-Raptor 

stipulation: golden eagle, bald eagle, black-shouldered kite, northern harrier, sharp-shinned 

hawk, Cooper’s hawk, northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s 

hawk, rough-legged hawk, ferruginous hawk, osprey, American kestrel, merlin, prairie falcon, 

peregrine falcon, and all owl species.

[MM-D-1.1.14] Establish the major constraint “CSU – Known Cultural Resources” for the purpose of 

minimizing or eliminating adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development on National 

Register-listed or eligible cultural properties with the following stipulation language: 

All or a portion of the lease contains National Register-listed or potentially eligible cultural 

properties that may be adversely affected by fluid mineral development. A list of affected 

parcels or portions of the lease will be provided at the time of leasing. To identify the possibility 

of adverse impacts resulting from fluid mineral development, a preliminary cultural resource 

review/survey will be conducted for all surface disturbing activities. Identification of adverse 

impacts may result in the proposed action being moved or modified. Surface-disturbing activities 

would be prohibited on the portion of the lease where National Register-listed properties or 
86 MINERALS MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

properties potentially eligible for listing on the National Register occur. This stipulation may be 

modified, waived, or granted exception as follows:

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception, with concurrence from the California 

State Historic Preservation Office and Native American tribes, if a subsequent formal eligibility 

evaluation indicates the cultural property is ineligible. 

Modification: The Authorized Officer may modify the stipulation to reflect new information from 

formal eligibility evaluations for cultural properties through the expansion or reduction of land 

where surface disturbing activities would be prohibited. 

Waiver: The Authorized Officer may grant a waiver to the stipulation should the results of formal 

eligibility evaluation determine all cultural properties ineligible for listing on the National 

Register.

Objective: To minimize or eliminate adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development 

on known National Register-listed or potentially eligible cultural properties.

Application: The CSU–Known Cultural Resources stipulation would be applied to lands that 

contain known National Register-listed or potentially eligible cultural properties. The locations 

and number of acres affected would be determined at the leasing stage.

Review Process: Generally, the following process would be used to approve surface-disturbing 

activities on leases with the CSU-Known Cultural Resources stipulation. The proposed surface 

disturbing activity would be reviewed to determine if a known National Register- listed or 

potentially eligible cultural property would be affected. If the review were to show that the 

cultural property may be adversely affected, then surface-disturbing activities would be 

relocated or modified. Surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited on the lease only where 

the proposed action would be likely to destroy or adversely affect a known National Registerlisted property or properties found eligible for listing on the National Register.

[MM-D-1.1.15] Establish the major constraint of “CSU – Compensation Lands” for the purpose of 

minimizing or eliminating adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development on lands managed 

as compensation land with the following stipulation language:

All or a portion of this lease underlies lands managed as compensation land by the BLM or an 

entity other than the BLM that may have a governing document that prohibits certain activities. 

To allow only a compatible amount of disturbance to unique or significant biological values, no 

more than ten (10) percent of the surface within any parcel may be disturbed on the surface 

reserve lands overlaying the lease. Furthermore, access to federal minerals within the lease will 

not disturb more than ten (10) percent of the surface within any parcel from off-site sources that 

are compensation lands (e.g., compensation land in private ownership). This stipulation may be 

granted exception, modified, or waived as follows:

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if after discussion with an 

appropriate agency (e.g., CDFW and USFWS) it decides that environmental review determines 

the action as proposed or conditioned would not impair the values present and is consistent with 

the document that established the compensation land and federal law. 
MINERALS MANAGEMENT 87

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Modification: The Authorized Officer may modify this stipulation if after discussion with an 

appropriate agency (e.g., CDFW and USFWS) it decides that environmental review determines 

the action as proposed or conditioned would not impair the values present and is consistent with 

the document that established the compensation land and federal law.

Waiver: The Authorized Officer may grant a waiver to the stipulation if the lease parcel no longer 

considered as compensation land by the appropriate agency (e.g., BLM, CDFW and USFWS). 

Objective: To minimize or eliminate adverse effects associated with fluid mineral development 

on lands managed as compensation land.

Application: The CSU–Compensation Lands stipulation would be applied to mineral estate 

underlying areas managed as compensation lands by the BLM or an entity other than BLM. 

Review Process: Generally the following process would be used to approve surface-disturbing 

activities on leases with the CSU–Compensation Lands stipulation: The document governing the 

specific parcel of compensation land would be reviewed to determine if the proposed activity is 

allowed on the parcel. If the proposed activity is allowed by the governing document, the 

activity would be reviewed to determine if the proposed surface disturbance would exceed the 

10 percent threshold. If the review determines that the proposed activity would cumulatively 

exceed this threshold, actions to reduce the cumulative surface disturbance to below 10 

percent, such as restoration, would be required prior to approval of the proposed activity.

If the review resulted in a determination that the proposed activity is not allowed by the 

governing document, or that the cumulative surface disturbance cannot be kept at or below the 

10 percent threshold, then new surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited.

If lands adjacent to the lease have also been set aside as compensation lands, either by BLM or 

another entity, off-site surface-disturbing activities to access federal mineral estate will be 

subjected to the same restrictions as above. 

[MM-D-1.1.16] Establish the major constraint “CSU – Existing Surface Use/Management” for the 

purpose of minimizing or eliminating conflict between fluid mineral development and existing surface 

use on both public lands and split estate overlying federal minerals, including risk to public health and 

safety, and social and economic impacts (noise, aesthetics, etc.) with the following stipulation language: 

All or a portion of the lease contains federal mineral estate underlying surface with an 

established use or management that may be incompatible with fluid mineral development. A 

preliminary environmental review will be conducted for all surface disturbing activities to identify 

possible conflict between surface use and fluid mineral development. Surface disturbing 

activities may be moved, modified, or prohibited to accommodate the existing surface use should 

the Authorized Officer determine the incompatibility of these uses. Specifically, fluid mineral 

development shall not occur: 

(1) Closer to any development (e.g., public highway, institution, place of public assembly, or 

occupied dwelling) than allowed by the county/city regulation or statue applicable to the 

area in which the proposed action occurs (including those exceptions where closer 

spacing is allowed); 
88 MINERALS MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(2) In a manner that significantly and adversely impacts natural and/or cultural resources of 

which the surface owner/administrator is charged with the management and protection; 

or 

(3) In a manner that significantly and adversely impacts existing recreation opportunity of 

which the surface owner/administrator is charged with the management and protection. 

Furthermore, processing times for proposed actions may be delayed beyond established 

standards to accommodate review and coordination with the surface owner/administrator. This 

stipulation shall not be waived, but may be granted exception or modified as follows:

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception where a surface use agreement exists 

between the lessee and surface owner/administrator that allows for the proposed fluid mineral 

development. Furthermore, exception may be granted where the proposed action is deemed, 

following an environmental review, to have discountable or insignificant impacts on the existing 

surface use. 

Modification: The Authorized Officer may modify this stipulation to further restrict surface use 

for mineral development on a portion of or all the lease if a more stringent requirement with 

regard to the location of facilities is deemed necessary following an environmental review (e.g., 

greater than county/city restrictions on fluid mineral development).

Objective: To minimize or eliminate conflict between fluid mineral development and existing 

surface uses on both public lands and split estate over federal minerals, and to reduce impacts 

associated with fluid mineral resource development on the owners/occupants within a dwelling 

or structure on split estate lands.

Application: The CSU-Existing Surface Use/Management stipulation would be applied to areas 

where the authorized officer determines that pre-existing surface management uses/conditions 

would be incompatible with or preclude oil and gas operations from using the surface of a 

portion or even all of the leased land. The locations and number of acres affected would be 

determined at the leasing stage.

Review Process: Generally the following process would be used to approve surface-disturbing 

activities with the CSU-Existing Surface Use/Management stipulation. The proposed activity 

would be reviewed cooperatively with the surface manager to determine if it is compatible with 

the existing uses/conditions, and if not, the activity would be moved or possibly even 

denied/rejected.

[MM-D-1.1.17] Establish the major constraint of “CSU – Chimineas Ranch” for the purpose of preventing 

or reducing disturbance to unique or significant natural resources from fluid mineral development with 

the following stipulation language:

This lease is within the boundaries of, or adjacent to, the State of California’s Chimineas Unit of 

the Carrizo Plain Ecological Reserve, an area that contains unique or significant natural or 

cultural values. Prior to the authorization of any surface disturbing activities, a preliminary 

environmental review will be conducted to identify the potential presence of natural or cultural 

values. Authorizations may be delayed until completion of the necessary surveys during the 
MINERALS MANAGEMENT 89

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

appropriate time period for these resources. Surface disturbing activities may be prohibited on 

portions or the entire lease, and some activities may be prohibited during seasonal time periods. 

This stipulation shall not be waived, however may be granted exception or modified as follows:

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if, after discussion with CDFW, an 

environmental review determines that the activity, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair 

the values present and is consistent with the management of the ecological reserve. 

Modification: The Authorized Officer may modify this stipulation to further restrict surface use 

on a portion of or the entire lease if a more stringent requirement is deemed necessary to 

protect resource values following an environmental review.

Objective: To prevent or reduce disturbance to unique or significant natural or cultural values 

from fluid mineral development.

Application: The CSU–Chimineas Ranch stipulation would be applied to lands adjacent to, or 

within the boundaries of the California Department of Fish and Game’s Chimineas Unit of the 

Carrizo Plain Ecological Reserve, where the surface is managed by BLM. Split estate land, where 

the surface is management by the California Department of Fish and Game, would be subject to 

the CSU-Existing Surface Use/Management stipulation.

Review Process: Generally, the following process would be used to approve surface disturbing 

activities on leases with the CSU–Chimineas Ranch stipulation. The proposed activity would be 

reviewed to determine if the values for which the area was recognized would be affected. This 

review may involve site specific surveys for plant and animal species, conducted according to 

established methodologies which may specify certain seasons or other conditions. In some cases 

this may mean that a survey cannot be completed until the next growing season for some plants 

or after seasonal appearance for some animal species.

If the review determines that the values for which the area was recognized may be adversely 

affected, then surface disturbing activities may be prohibited on all or portions of the lease and 

certain activities may be prohibited during seasonal periods.

[MM-D-1.1.18] These stipulations and decisions do not apply to geophysical exploration conducted 

outside the rights granted by a Federal oil and gas lease. Stipulations governing geophysical exploration 

would be established in site specific NEPA documentation and incorporate appropriate protective 

measures (Appendix 3).

Administrative Actions

 Collaborate with oil, gas, and geothermal operators, surface owners, and other federal and state 

agencies to ensure that development, including off-site access when required, is conducted so as to 

minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources and surface owner objects of concern.

 Conduct regular inspections to ensure compliance with laws, regulations, and COAs that would 

affect areas, such as safety, production and royalty accountability, and the environment.

 Manage new and existing leases to ensure timely lease restoration, including interim reclamation, 

plugging uneconomic wells, eliminating redundant roads, and final reclamation when the last well is 

plugged and there is no further economic value to the lease. 
90 MINERALS MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Enforce good housekeeping requirements; for example, require operators to maintain a neat and 

orderly appearance of sites, to remove junk and trash, and otherwise to minimize landscape 

intrusions. 

 All surface estate will be treated with equal diligence, whether the surface was public land or split 

estate.

2.14.1.2 Solid (Non-Energy) Leasable Minerals

Objective

[MM-O-1.2] Provide opportunities for reasonable, economical, and environmentally sound exploration 

and development of Solid (Non-Energy) leasable minerals while minimizing impacts to resources.

Decisions

[MM-D-1.2.1] Identify 108,540 acres as closed to Solid (Non-Energy) leasable mineral development: all 

ACECs, lands managed for wilderness characteristics, and suitable segments of WSRs (Map 2.23).

[MM-D-1.2.2] Identify 906,906 acres as open to solid (non-energy) mineral leasing and development.

 Locatable Minerals

Objective

[MM-O-2] Facilitate reasonable, economical, and environmentally sound exploration and development 

of locatable minerals, while ensuring compatibility with other resources and uses including public health 

and safety.

Decisions

[MM-D-2.1] Establish the following ACECs, areas of ecological importance, cultural resource sites and 

RMZs (52,210 acres), in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, as areas requiring a 15 day notification be 

given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws including Casual Use, to allow the 

BLM to determine whether a notice or plan of operations must be submitted: Ancient Lakeshores ACEC, 

Blue Ridge ACEC, Chico Martinez ACEC, Cypress Mountain ACEC, Erskine Creek ACEC, Hopper Mountain 

ACEC, Horse Canyon ACEC, Kaweah ACEC, Point Sal ACEC, Terra Redonda ACEC, Deer Springs, Frog Pond, 

Granite Cave, Huasna Peak, South Lake Cultural Area, Gold Fever RMZ, The Dam RMZ, Wallow Rock RMZ

(Map 2.24). Furthermore, in evaluating mining Notices or Plans of Operation undue and unnecessary 

degradation will consider the values, resources and objectives for which these areas have been 

designated or identified in the RMP.

[MM-D-2.2] Interpret the definition of Casual Use provided in 43 CFR 3809.5 for the Decision Area to 

include the following stipulations, any operations not meeting these would require the filing of a notice 

or plan of operations:

(a) Casual Use does not include the disturbance to trees (DBH 4” and greater) and shrubs (taller or 

wider than 3’); including their root areas (i.e., removal or undermining of these vegetation types 

will require at a minimum a Notice);

(b) Casual Use does not include any operations on or within 30 feet of the centerline of designated 

routes and trails;
MINERALS MANAGEMENT 91

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

(c) Casual Use does not include any activity that pumps water from water courses for any purpose, 

except in association with Suction Dredging;

(d) Casual Use does not include the removal of more than one cubic yard of material from the site 

for offsite processing;

(e) Casual Use does not include activity that creates high walls in excess of 3 feet or undermines 

earthen banks, large rocks, or boulders.

(f) Casual Use does not include any high-banking, hydraulic mining, and ground sluicing;

(g) Casual Use does not include any sluices, riffle boxes, and dry washers with collecting surfaces of 

greater than ten square feet;

(h) Casual use does not include any disturbance that would result in an adverse effect, as described 

by Section 106 of the NHPA, to listed, eligible, and those sites or historic districts being treated 

as eligible until formal eligibility evaluations have been completed; and

(i) Casual Use will abide by the discovery clause; whereby all activity will cease upon discovery of 

any subsurface archaeological, historical, or paleontological remains. The discovery must be left 

intact and reported to the BLM immediately. Operations may only resume on clearance by the 

BLM and may require the filing of a Notice or Plan of Operations. 

 Salable Minerals

Objectives

[MM-O-3] Provide salable minerals needed for community and economic purposes and facilitate their 

reasonable, economical, and environmentally sound development where available and compatible with 

resource objectives.

Decisions

[MM-D-3.1] Identify 108,540 acres as closed to mineral material disposal: all ACECs, lands managed for 

wilderness characteristics and suitable segments of WSRs, unless otherwise noted for administrative 

purposes only (Map 2.25).

[MM-D-3.2] Identify 906,906 acres as open to mineral material disposal.
92 MINERALS MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.22 – Mineral Restrictions: Fluid Leasable Minerals
MINERALS MANAGEMENT 93

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.23 – Mineral Restrictions: Solid (Non-Energy) Leasable Minerals
94 MINERALS MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.24 – Mineral Restrictions: Locatable Minerals
MINERALS MANAGEMENT 95

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.25 – Mineral Restrictions: Salable Minerals
96 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.15 Recreation and Visitor Services

Goal

[RVS-G-1] Support growing demand for recreation access to public lands and maintain a diversity of 

recreation opportunities promoting a multiple use philosophy.

Objective

[RVS-O-1] Coordinate recreation management activities through an ecosystem-based management style 

that considers the landscape setting and patterns of land ownership to fully realize program goals.

Allocations Summary

Table 2.5

Recreation Management Allocations Summary

Recreation Management Area BLM Acres Management Action

Keysville SRMA 10,860 RVS-D-1

San Joaquin River Gorge SRMA 6,486 RVS-D-2

Temblor SRMA 24,247 RVS-D-3

Subtotal SRMA Acres 41,593

Atwell Island ERMA 6,796 RVS-D-4

Case Mountain ERMA 18,130 RVS-D-5

Chimney Peak ERMA 105,495 RVS-D-6

Fresno River ERMA 159 RVS-D-7

Subtotal ERMA Acres 130,581

Areas Not Managed for Recreation 191,520 RVS-D-8

See Map 2.26 Recreation Management Area Designations

Decisions

[RVS-D-1] Designate 10,860 acres (Map 2.27) as the Keysville Special Recreation Management Area, 

established with a “destination” market strategy for southern and central California, including the 

population centers of Bakersfield, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino, along with nearby rural 

communities. The SRMA is subdivided into four (4) Recreational Management Zones, each with the 

following recreation objectives, targeted activities, experiences, benefits, Natural Resource Recreation 

Settings, and management activities:

SRMA Wide Administrative Actions:

o Support competitive and commercial activities through the Special Recreation Permit 

process including maintaining the designated “Keyesville Classic” race course.

o Manage in coordination with adjacent National Forest.

o Establish collaborative partnerships with local interest/user groups.

o Promote volunteerism/friends group for the area.
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 97

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

French Gulch RMZ: In visitor assessments, 50% of respondents who participated in targeted 

activities report the ability to realize the targeted experiences and benefits.

Market Segment: Extensive trail systems for multiple users of varying experience levels.

Recreation Management Objective: Manage to provide opportunities for visitors to engage in 

dispersed camping and OHV recreation. The RMZ will also serve as a staging area for long-range 

OHV touring of both BLM and US Forest Service lands.

Targeted Activities: Trail use (motorized, mechanized and non-mechanized uses); cultural 

discovery; dispersed camping; and recreational gold prospecting

Targeted Experiences: Developing skills and abilities; testing personal endurance; gaining a 

greater sense of self-confidence; telling others about the trip; enjoying risk-taking adventure; and 

discussing equipment with others

Targeted Benefits: Personal: Improved mental well-being; greater self-reliance; improved skills for 

outdoor enjoyment. Community: Heightened sense of satisfaction with the community. Economic:

Improved local economic stability; maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation tourism 

market. Environmental: Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes; reduced 

negative human impacts such as litter, vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails.

Table 2.6

French Gulch RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Middle Country On or near motorized routes, but at least 1⁄2 mile from 

all improved roads, though they may be in sight.

Naturalness Middle Country Natural appearing landscape, except for obvious 

motorized routes.

Visitor Facilities Middle Country Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead 

developments, improved signs, and very basic toilets.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Middle Country 7-14 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., staging areas) and 15-29 encounters a day en route.

Group Size Backcountry 4-6 people per group.

Evidence of Use Front Country

Small areas of alteration prevalent. Surface vegetation 

gone with compacted soils observed. Sounds of people 

regularly heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Middle Country

Four-wheel-drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles, in addition to non-motorized mechanized 

use.

Visitor Services Middle Country Area brochures and maps, plus area personnel 

occasionally present to provide on-site assistance.

Management 

Controls Middle Country

Occasional regulatory signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use restrictions. Random enforcement 

presence.
98 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Management Activities:

o Create a versatile trail system supporting a variety of uses, skill levels and experiences 

through collaboration with user groups and partners.

o Allow specialized vehicle recreation (motorcycle and mountain bicycle trials 

experiences) at a number of sites identified for the purpose.

o Install information kiosks and disseminate information brochures at key locations within 

the RMZ

o Manage as VRM Class III (See Chapter 2 - 2.8 Visual Resources)

o Establish, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, the RMZ as an area requiring a 15 day 

notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws 

including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a notice or plan of 

operations must be submitted. Furthermore, in evaluating mining Notices or Plans of 

Operation undue and unnecessary degradation will consider unmitigatable impacts to 

the targeted activities, experiences and benefits established for the RMZ.

o Manage areas Withdrawn from the General Mining Law to accommodate the collection 

of non-renewable resources under 46 CFR 8365.1-5(c) for sale to commercial dealers 

through the establishment of a permit system for such collection. All public lands users 

wishing to collect non-renewable resources, such as mineral specimens (e.g., Gold), 

would be required to complete the permit process.

Gold Fever RMZ: In visitor assessments, 65% of respondents who participated in targeted 

activities report the ability to realize the targeted experiences and benefits.

Market Segment: Interpretation of gold mining history, and other historic resources.

Recreation Management Objective: Manage this RMZ to provide opportunities for visitors to 

engage in personal and guided (interpreted) discovery of the historical significance of the area. 

Manage this zone to provide opportunities for community residents and regional, national, and 

international visitors who use the area for sustainable day use and camping, OHV touring 

opportunities, opportunities to learn about historical mining, and to gain appreciation of the 

natural setting of the greater Keysville region through self-discovery.

Targeted Activities: Cultural/historical discovery; trail use (motorized, mechanized and nonmechanized uses); and recreational gold prospecting.

Targeted Experiences: Savoring the total sensory experience of a natural landscape; escaping 

everyday responsibilities for a while; feeling good about the way shared cultural heritage is being 

protected; learning about things; just knowing this attraction is in or near the community

Targeted Benefits: Personal: Greater respect for shared cultural heritage; closer relationship with 

the natural world. Community: Greater understanding of the community’s cultural identity; 

greater community involvement in recreation and other land use decisions. Economic: Improved 

local economic stability; maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation tourism market.

Environmental: Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes; reduced negative 

human impacts such as litter, vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails.
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 99

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Table 2.7

Gold Fever RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Front Country On or near improved gravel roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile 

from highways.

Naturalness Front Country Landscape partially modified by roads/trails, utility lines, 

etc., but none overpower natural landscape features.

Visitor Facilities Front Country Improved yet modest, rustic facilities, such as campsites, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive signs.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Front Country

15-29 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or more encounters a day en 

route.

Group Size Middle Country 7-12 people per group

Evidence of Use Front Country

Small areas of alteration prevalent. Surface vegetation 

gone, with compacted soils observed. Sounds of people 

regularly heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Front Country Two-wheel-drive vehicles predominant, but also fourwheel-drives and non-motorized mechanized use.

Visitor Services Rural

Information described to the left, plus experience and 

benefit descriptions. Area personnel do on-site 

education.

Management 

Controls Middle Country

Occasional regulatory signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use restrictions. Random enforcement 

presence.

Management Activities:

o Provide extensive opportunities for interpretation and education.

o Establish, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, the RMZ as an area requiring a 15 day 

notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws 

including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a notice or plan of 

operations must be submitted. Furthermore, in evaluating mining Notices or Plans of 

Operation undue and unnecessary degradation will consider unmitigatable (43 CFR 

3809.5) impacts to the targeted activities, experiences and benefits established for the 

RMZ.

o Manage areas Withdrawn from the General Mining Law to accommodate the collection 

of non-renewable resources under 46 CFR 8365.1-5(c) for sale to commercial dealers 

through the establishment of a permit system for such collection. All public lands users 

wishing to collect non-renewable resources, such as mineral specimens (e.g., Gold), 

would be required to complete the permit process.

o Manage as VRM Class III (See Chapter 2 - 2.8 Visual Resources)

o Stabilize and maintain historic buildings and facilities to support public use (see Chapter 

2 – 2.4 Cultural Resources).

o Establish visitor contact station to originate interpretive and educational activities from.

o Prohibit the discharge of firearms, except the legal taking of game species.
100 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Dam RMZ: In visitor assessments, 50% of respondents who participated in targeted activities 

report the ability to realize the targeted experiences and benefits.

Market Segment: River access for commercial and causal white-water kayaking and rafting.

Recreation Management Objective: Manage this RMZ in coordination with the US Forest Service 

with cooperation from local permitted outfitters and guides to provide opportunities to access the 

Lower Kern River for high-adventure activities whilst promoting visitor health and safety.

Targeted Activities: White-water boating; water-play; and fishing

Targeted Experiences: High adventure; personal challenge; self-discovery; appreciation for the 

power of the natural world

Targeted Benefits: Personal: Increase self-respect; sense of achievement. Community: Bonding 

through shared experiences. Economic: Increased draw to destination; promotion of local business 

(outfitters); improved local economic stability; maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation 

tourism market. Environmental: Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes; 

reduced negative human impacts such as litter, vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails.

Table 2.8

The Dam RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Front Country On or near improved gravel roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile 

from highways.

Naturalness Front Country Landscape partially modified by roads/trails, utility lines, 

etc., but none overpower natural landscape features.

Visitor Facilities Rural Modern facilities, such as campgrounds, group shelters, 

boat launches, and occasional exhibits.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Front Country

15-29 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or more encounters a day en 

route.

Group Size Rural 26-50 people per group.

Evidence of Use Front Country

Small areas of alteration prevalent. Surface vegetation 

gone, with compacted soils observed. Sounds of people 

regularly heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Front Country Two-wheel-drive vehicles predominant, but also fourwheel-drives and non-motorized mechanized use.

Visitor Services Front Country Information materials describe recreation areas and 

activities. Area personnel are periodically available.

Management 

Controls Front Country Rules clearly posted, with some seasonal or day-of-week use restrictions. Periodic enforcement presence.
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 101

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Management Activities:

o Manage Special Recreation Permitting for white-water boating in collaboration and 

through interagency agreement with the US Forest Service.

o Maintain existing white-water boating facilities at “Slippery Rock” and “BLM South” for 

use by both commercial and private boaters. Limit use of “Granite Launch” to 

authorized Special Recreation Permit holders. Prohibit use of the “Low-water Launch” 

by boaters upon completion of Granite Launch.

o Manage as VRM Class III (See Chapter 2 - 2.8 Visual Resources)

o Restrict motorized access to street legal vehicles only (See Chapter 2 – 2.11 

Comprehensive Trail and Travel Management).

o Prohibit overnight camping and use of campfires except in limited designated camping 

areas (including at Sandy Flat) located to protect sensitive resources.

o Prohibit the discharge of firearms and coordinate with CDFW to prohibit hunting.

o Establish, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, the RMZ as an area requiring a 15 day 

notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws 

including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a notice or plan of 

operations must be submitted. Furthermore, in evaluating mining Notices or Plans of 

Operation undue and unnecessary degradation will consider unmitigatable impacts to 

the targeted activities, experiences and benefits established for the RMZ.

o Manage areas Withdrawn from the General Mining Law to accommodate the collection 

of non-renewable resources under 46 CFR 8365.1-5(c) for sale to commercial dealers 

through the establishment of a permit system for such collection. All public lands users 

wishing to collect non-renewable resources, such as mineral specimens (e.g., Gold), 

would be required to complete the permit process.

o Cables, ropes, or tethers shall not cross the river and must not create hazards for 

boaters or other river users.

Wallow Rock RMZ: In visitor assessments, 75% of respondents who participated in targeted 

activities report the ability to realize the targeted experiences and benefits.

Market Segment: Structured developed camping with easy access to the river.

Recreation Management Objective: Manage to provide visitors with access to a wide variety of 

recreational opportunities in the area and enjoy camping in a developed setting, specifically 

tailored to larger group camping experiences.

Targeted Activities: Camping/Group Camping

Targeted Experiences: Enjoying the closeness of friends and family; relishing group affiliation and 

togetherness; enjoying meeting new people with similar interests 

Targeted Benefits: Personal: Stronger ties with family and friends; restore mind from unwanted 

stress. Community: Greater interaction with visitors from different cultures. Economic: Improved 

local economic stability; maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation tourism market.
102 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Environmental: Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes; reduced negative 

human impacts such as litter, vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails.

Table 2.9

Wallow Rock RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Rural On or near paved primary highways, but still within a 

rural area.

Naturalness Front Country Landscape partially modified by roads/trails, utility lines, 

etc., but none overpower natural landscape features

Visitor Facilities Rural Modern facilities, such as campgrounds, group shelters, 

boat launches, and occasional exhibits.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Rural People seem to be generally everywhere.

Group Size Front Country 13-25 people per group.

Evidence of Use Rural

A few large areas of alteration. Surface vegetation 

absent, with hardened soils. Sounds of people frequently 

heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Front Country Two-wheel-drive vehicles predominant, but also fourwheel-drives and non-motorized mechanized use.

Visitor Services Rural

Information described to the left, plus experience and 

benefit descriptions. Area personnel do on-site 

education.

Management 

Controls Rural Regulations prominent. Total use limited by permit, reservation, etc. Routine enforcement presence.

Management Activities:

o Identify group and individual campsites within a developed campground.

o Manage as VRM Class IV (See Chapter 2 – 2.8 Visual Resources)

o Prohibit the discharge of firearms and coordinate with CDFW to prohibit hunting.

o Establish, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, the RMZ as an area requiring a 15 day 

notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws 

including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a notice or plan of 

operations must be submitted. Furthermore, in evaluating mining Notices or Plans of 

Operation undue and unnecessary degradation will consider unmitigatable impacts to 

the developed infrastructure and consequently the targeted activities, experiences and 

benefits established for the RMZ.

o Establish, in accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-5(b)(2), the RMZ as a developed recreation 

area, where the collection of nonrenewable resources, such as rocks, mineral 

specimens, comment invertebrate fossils and semi-precious gem stones is prohibited.

[RVS-D-2] Designate 6,520 acres (Map 2.28) as the San Joaquin River Gorge Special Recreation 

Management Area, established with a “community” market strategy for local communities, nearby rural 

areas and the population centers of Fresno-Clovis and Madera. The SRMA is subdivided into three (3) 
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 103

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Recreational Management Zones, each with the following recreation objectives, targeted activities, 

experiences, benefits, Natural Resource Recreation Settings, and management activities:

SRMA Wide Administrative Actions:

o Develop community collaboration and partnerships.

o Install signs to reduce user conflict and conflict with adjacent landowners.

Pa’San RMZ: In visitor assessments, 50% of respondents who participated in targeted activities 

report the ability to realize the targeted experiences and benefits.

Market Segment: Semi-primitive directed non-motorized trail use in a natural scenic setting.

Recreation Management Objective: Manage this RMZ to provide opportunities for visitors to 

engage in a remote isolated recreational experience. Manage this RMZ to provide opportunities 

for community residents and regional visitors who use the area seasonally to engage in 

sustainable, primarily primitive day-use opportunities and gain appreciation of the natural setting 

of the San Joaquin River corridor through self-discovery and exploration.

Targeted Activities: Hiking; mountain biking; and horseback riding

Targeted Experiences: Developing skills and abilities; testing personal endurance; savoring the 

total sensory experience of a natural landscape; escaping everyday responsibilities for awhile

Targeted Benefits: Personal: Greater self-reliance; improved skills for outdoor enjoyment; closer 

relationship with the natural world. Community: Greater freedom from urban living. Economic:

More positive contributions to local and regional economies. Environmental: Increased awareness 

and protection of natural landscapes; reduced negative human impacts such as litter, vegetative 

trampling, and unplanned trails.
104 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Table 2.10

Pa’San RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Backcountry More than 1⁄2 mile from any kind of motorized route/use 

area, but not as distant as 3 miles.

Naturalness Backcountry Natural appearing landscape, having modifications not 

readily noticeable.

Visitor Facilities Backcountry

Some primitive trails made of native materials, such as 

log bridges and carved wooden signs.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Middle Country 7-14 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., staging areas) and 15-29 encounters a day en route.

Group Size Middle Country 7-12 people per group

Evidence of Use Middle Country

Small areas of alteration. Surface vegetation showing 

wear, with some bare soils. Sounds of people 

occasionally heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Backcountry Mountain bikes and perhaps other mechanized use, but 

all are non-motorized.

Visitor Services Middle Country Area brochures and maps, plus area personnel 

occasionally present to provide on-site assistance.

Management 

Controls Middle Country

Occasional regulatory signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use restrictions. Random enforcement 

presence.

Management Activities:

o Maintain, improve and expand a network of recreational trails.

o Manage as VRM Class I (See Chapter 2 – 2.8 Visual Resources)

Tahoot RMZ: In visitor assessments, 75% of respondents who participated in targeted activities 

report the ability to realize the targeted experiences and benefits.

Market Segment: Interpretation and education programs for regional community.

Recreation Management Objective: Manage this zone to provide opportunities for community 

residents and visitors to engage in sustainable personal discovery, interpretive programs, and

educational opportunities, while protecting critical resources.

Targeted Activities: Interpretation; environmental education; hiking, horseback riding; mountain 

biking and camping

Targeted Experiences: Enjoying easy access to natural landscapes; enjoying access to hands-on 

environmental learning; enjoying needed physical exercise

Targeted Benefits: Personal: Better-informed and more responsible visitor; enhanced awareness 

and understanding of nature; increased appreciation of the area’s cultural history. Community:

Greater community valuation of its ethnic diversity; greater protection of the area’s historic and 

archaeological sites. Economic: More positive contributions to local and regional economies.
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 105

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Environmental: Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes; reduced negative 

human impacts such as litter, vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails.

Table 2.11

Tahoot RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Rural On or near paved primary highways, but still within a 

rural area.

Naturalness Front Country Landscape partially modified by roads/trails, utility lines, 

etc., but none overpower natural landscape features.

Visitor Facilities Front Country Improved yet modest, rustic facilities, such as campsites, 

restrooms, trails, and interpretive signs.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Front Country

15-29 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., 

campgrounds) and 30 or more encounters a day en 

route.

Group Size Rural 26-50 people per group.

Evidence of Use Rural

A few large areas of alteration. Surface vegetation 

absent, with hardened soils. Sounds of people frequently 

heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Front Country Two-wheel-drive vehicles predominant, but also fourwheel-drives and non-motorized mechanized use.

Visitor Services Rural

Information described to the left, plus experience and 

benefit descriptions. Area personnel do on-site 

education.

Management 

Controls Rural Regulations prominent. Total use limited by permit, reservation, etc. Routine enforcement presence.

Management Activities:

o Maintain, improve and expand a network of recreational facilities including trails, 

campgrounds, parking areas, visitor contact location and outdoor classrooms; 

establishing standard and expanded amenity fees as appropriate.

o Ensure that management balances the preservation of natural and cultural resources 

with the opportunity to provide for public recreation, interpretation and education 

about the natural and cultural heritage of the area.

o Provide nature-based educational opportunities locally and regionally to include 

outdoor classrooms and interpretation of natural and cultural resources. 

o Manage as VRM Class IV (See Chapter 2 – 2.8 Visual Resources).

Wu Ki’Oh RMZ: In visitor assessments, 50% of respondents who participated in targeted activities 

report the ability to realize the targeted experiences and benefits.

Market Segment: Multiple river accesses for recreational experiences of varying complexity.

Recreation Management Objective: Manage this RMZ to provide opportunities for community 

residents and regional visitors to engage in sustainable, primarily primitive day-use opportunities 
106 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

and gain appreciation of the natural setting of the San Joaquin River through self-discovery and 

exploration.

Targeted Activities: Fishing; water play; gold panning; and kayaking

Targeted Experiences: Developing skills and abilities; testing personal endurance; enjoying risktaking adventure; savoring the total sensory experience of a natural landscape; escaping everyday 

responsibilities for awhile

Targeted Benefits: Personal: Greater self-reliance; improved skills for outdoor enjoyment; closer 

relationship with the natural world. Community: Greater freedom from urban living. Economic:

More positive contributions to local and regional economies. Environmental: Increased awareness 

and protection of natural landscapes; reduced negative human impacts such as litter, vegetative 

trampling, and unplanned trails.

Table 2.12

Wu Ki’Oh RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Front Country On or near improved gravel roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile 

from highways.

Naturalness Backcountry Natural appearing landscape, having modifications not 

readily noticeable.

Visitor Facilities Middle Country Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead 

developments, improved signs, and very basic toilets.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Middle Country 7-14 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., staging areas) and 15-29 encounters a day en route.

Group Size Middle Country 7-12 people per group

Evidence of Use Middle Country

Small areas of alteration. Surface vegetation showing 

wear, with some bare soils. Sounds of people 

occasionally heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Backcountry Mountain bikes and perhaps other mechanized use, but 

all are non-motorized.

Visitor Services Front Country Information materials describe recreation areas and 

activities. Area personnel are periodically available.

Management 

Controls Middle Country

Occasional regulatory signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use restrictions. Random enforcement 

presence.

Management Activities:

o Restrict recreational gold prospecting activities to gold panning and sluicing only in 

addition to the following;

o All mining and prospecting activity must be confined to within 25 feet of the current 

water level.

o Prohibit disturbance of the river bank vegetation. 

o Prohibit dry washing.

o Manage as VRM Class II (see Chapter 2 – 2.8 Visual Resources).
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 107

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

[RVS-D-3] Designate 24,250 acres (Map 2.29) as the Temblor Special Recreation Management Area, 

established with a “community” market strategy for local communities (Taft), nearby rural areas and the 

population center of Bakersfield. The SRMA is subdivided into two Recreational Management Zones, 

each with the following recreation objectives, targeted activities, experiences, benefits, Natural 

Resource Recreation Settings, and management activities:

SRMA Wide Administrative Actions:

o Encourage strong stewardship ethic among users through dissemination of information 

via kiosks and brochures.

o Coordinate management with local communities and user groups.

o Establish a system of grading trail experience/difficulty.

o Encourage local volunteer groups to actively monitor trail network, use, and 

compliance.

o Acquire public access.

Temblor North RMZ: In visitor assessments, 50% of respondents who participated in targeted 

activities report the ability to realize the targeted experiences and benefits.

Market Segment: Motorized recreation on designated trails.

Recreation Management Objective: Manage to provide opportunities for visitors to engage in a 

remote isolated recreation experience with opportunities for community residents and visitors 

who use the area seasonally to engage in sustainable, primarily primitive opportunities and gain 

appreciation of the natural setting of the Temblor Mountain Range though self-discovery, and 

OHV touring on designated routes.

Targeted Activities: OHV trail riding; hunting; target shooting; and dispersed camping.

Targeted Experiences: Developing skills and abilities; testing personal endurance; enjoying risktaking adventure; savoring the total sensory experience of a natural landscape; escaping everyday 

responsibilities for awhile

Targeted Benefits: Personal: Greater self-reliance; improved skills for outdoor enjoyment; Closer 

relationship with the natural world. Community: Providing a place near but outside the community 

to recreate; removing unwanted use from industrial areas; addressing health and safety concerns.

Economic: Improved local economic stability; maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation 

tourism market. Environmental: Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes; 

reduced negative human impacts such as litter, vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails.
108 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Table 2.13

Temblor North RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Middle Country On or near motorized routes, but at least 1⁄2 mile from all 

improved roads, though they may be in sight.

Naturalness Middle Country Natural appearing landscape, except for obvious 

motorized routes.

Visitor Facilities Backcountry Some primitive trails made of native materials, such as 

log bridges and carved wooden signs.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Backcountry 3-6 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., campsites) and 7-15 encounters a day on travel routes.

Group Size Backcountry 4-6 people per group.

Evidence of Use Middle Country

Small areas of alteration. Surface vegetation showing 

wear, with some bare soils. Sounds of people 

occasionally heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Middle Country

Four-wheel-drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles, in addition to non-motorized mechanized 

use.

Visitor Services Backcountry Basic maps, but area personnel seldom available to 

provide on-site assistance.

Management 

Controls Middle Country

Occasional regulatory signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use restrictions. Random enforcement 

presence.

Management Activities:

o Develop high quality trail system, including maintenance of many existing trail, creating 

additional recreation trails and closure of inappropriate routes in partnership with user 

groups and adjacent land owners.

o Limit commercial Special Recreation Permits available within the SRMA to no more than 

three (3) active permits. Special Recreation Permits for competitive events would not be 

issued.

Urban Interface RMZ: In visitor assessments, 65% of respondents who participated in targeted 

activities report the ability to realize the targeted experiences and benefits.

Market Segment: Immediate access for local communities to wild, open, unconfined space.

Recreation Management Objective: Manage this zone to provide opportunities for community 

residents and visitors who use the area seasonally to engage in sustainable urban access for 

primarily day-use opportunities and gain appreciation of the natural setting of the San Joaquin 

Valley though self-discovery and OHV touring on designated routes.

Targeted Activities: OHV trail riding; driving for pleasure; dispersed camping
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 109

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Targeted Experiences: Developing skills and abilities; testing personal endurance; enjoying risktaking adventure; savoring the total sensory experience of a natural landscape; escaping everyday 

responsibilities for awhile

Targeted Benefits: Personal: Greater self-reliance; improved skills for outdoor enjoyment; closer 

relationship with the natural world. Community: Providing a place near but outside the community 

to recreate; removing unwanted use from industrial areas; addressing health and safety concerns.

Economic: Improved local economic stability; maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation 

tourism market. Environmental: Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes; 

reduced negative human impacts such as litter, vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails.

Table 2.14

Urban Interface RMZ Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Front Country On or near improved gravel roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile 

from highways.

Naturalness Front Country Landscape partially modified by roads/trails, utility lines, 

etc., but none overpower natural landscape features.

Visitor Facilities Middle Country Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead 

developments, improved signs, and very basic toilets.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Middle Country 7-14 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., staging areas) and 15-29 encounters a day en route

Group Size Middle Country 7-12 people per group

Evidence of Use Front Country

Small areas of alteration prevalent. Surface vegetation 

gone with compacted soils observed. Sounds of people 

regularly heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Middle Country

Four-wheel-drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles, in addition to non-motorized mechanized 

use.

Visitor Services Middle Country Area brochures and maps, plus area personnel 

occasionally present to provide on-site assistance.

Management 

Controls Front Country Rules clearly posted, with some seasonal or day-of-week use restrictions. Periodic enforcement presence.

Management Activities:

o Acquire legal public access from the community of Taft.

o Establish parking/staging area in cooperation with adjacent land owners.

o Develop high quality trail system, including maintenance of many existing trails, creating 

additional recreation trails and closure of inappropriate routes in partnership with user 

groups and adjacent land owners.

o Limit commercial Special Recreation Permits available within the SRMA to no more than 

three (3) active permits. Special Recreation Permits for competitive events would not be 

issued.
110 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[RVS-D-4] Designate 22,550 acres (Map 2.30) as the Atwell Island Extensive Recreation Management 

Area with the following recreation objective, Natural Resource Recreation Settings, management 

activities and allowable use decisions;

Recreation Objective: Within the life of the RMP the Atwell Island ERMA will offer recreation 

opportunities in a front country setting (restored wetland from abandoned farmland), that focus 

on wildlife viewing and appreciation, through the non-motorized/non-mechanized exploration of 

the restored area(s).

Table 2.15

Atwell Island ERMA Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Middle Country On or near motorized routes, but at least 1⁄2 mile from all 

improved roads, though they may be in sight.

Naturalness Middle Country Natural appearing landscape, except for obvious 

motorized routes.

Visitor Facilities Middle Country Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead 

developments, improved signs, and very basic toilets.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Middle Country 7-14 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., staging areas) and 15-29 encounters a day en route.

Group Size Backcountry 4-6 people per group.

Evidence of Use Front Country

Small areas of alteration prevalent. Surface vegetation 

gone with compacted soils observed. Sounds of people 

regularly heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Middle Country

Four-wheel-drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles, in addition to non-motorized mechanized 

use.

Visitor Services Middle Country Area brochures and maps, plus area personnel 

occasionally present to provide on-site assistance.

Management 

Controls Middle Country

Occasional regulatory signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use restrictions. Random enforcement 

presence.

Management Activities:

o Prohibit overnight camping and use except for; future specific areas identified for 

nocturnal visitation for wildlife viewing and stargazing.

o Coordinate with CDFW to prohibit hunting except as allowed by Special Recreation 

Permit and/or specially organized hunt activity; Prohibit air-soft and paintball activities, 

including organized games and casual use of these types of equipment unless 

authorized through a Special Recreation Permit;

o Seasonally prohibit access to wetland areas, as needed to support restoration 

objectives.

o Prohibit pets and other domesticated animals (not including authorized livestock 

grazing) from wetland areas.
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 111

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

o Require all pets and domestic animals (not including authorized livestock grazing) to be 

on a leash. Special Recreation Permits may be issued for activities allowing off-leash 

activity, such as, dog trial events.

[RVS-D-5] Designate 21,160 acres (Map 2.31) as the Case Mountain Extensive Recreation Management 

Area with the following recreation objective, Natural Resource Recreation Settings, management 

activities and allowable use decisions;

Recreation Objective: Within the life of the RMP the Case Mountain ERMA will offer recreation 

opportunities in an unchanged middle country setting, which facilitates the visitors’ freedom to 

participate in non-motorized activities that includes; mountain bicycling, camping, hunting, 

wildlife and nature observation, photography, and picnicking.

Table 2.16

Case Mountain ERMA Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Middle Country On or near motorized routes, but at least 1⁄2 mile from all 

improved roads, though they may be in sight.

Naturalness Middle Country Natural appearing landscape, except for obvious 

motorized routes.

Visitor Facilities Backcountry Some primitive trails made of native materials, such as 

log bridges and carved wooden signs.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Backcountry 3-6 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., campsites) and 7-15 encounters a day on travel routes.

Group Size Backcountry 4-6 people per group.

Evidence of Use Middle Country

Small areas of alteration. Surface vegetation showing 

wear, with some bare soils. Sounds of people 

occasionally heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Backcountry Mountain bikes and perhaps other mechanized use, but 

all are non-motorized.

Visitor Services Backcountry Basic maps, but area personnel seldom available to 

provide on-site assistance.

Management 

Controls Backcountry Signs at key access points on basic user ethics. May have backcountry use restrictions. Enforcement presence rare.

Management Activities:

o Prohibit air-soft and paintball activities, including organized games and casual use of 

these types of equipment unless authorized through a Special Recreation Permit;

o Acquire legal public access to suitable parking/staging area.

o Develop suitable facilities to support use at parking/staging areas.

o Manage and maintain connected trails for mountain bicycling experiences.

o Limit available commercial Special Recreation Permits for guide and outfitting services 

to no more than five (5). Special Recreation Permits for competitive events would not be 

issued.
112 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[RVS-D-6] Designate 123,450 acres (Map 2.32) as the Chimney Peak Extensive Recreation Management 

Area with the following recreation objective, Natural Resource Recreation Settings, management 

activities and allowable use decisions;

Recreation Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP the Chimney Peak Extensive Recreation 

Management Area will offer recreation opportunities, in an unchanged backcountry/primitive 

physical recreation setting, that facilitate the visitors’ freedom to participate in primitive 

unconfined recreation types through easy access to designated Wilderness including 

campgrounds, trailheads and trails.

Table 2.17

Chimney Peak ERMA Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Backcountry More than 1⁄2 mile from any kind of motorized route/use 

area, but not as distant as 3 miles

Naturalness Backcountry Natural appearing landscape, having modifications not 

readily noticeable.

Visitor Facilities Backcountry Some primitive trails made of native materials, such as 

log bridges and carved wooden signs.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Backcountry 3-6 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., campsites) and 7-15 encounters a day on travel routes.

Group Size Backcountry 4-6 people per group.

Evidence of Use Backcountry Areas of alteration uncommon. Little surface vegetation 

wear observed. Sounds of people infrequent.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Primitive None whatsoever (except campgrounds, access points 

and cherry-stems).

Visitor Services Backcountry Basic maps, but area personnel seldom available to 

provide on-site assistance.

Management 

Controls Backcountry Signs at key access points on basic user ethics. May have backcountry use restrictions. Enforcement presence rare

Management Activities:

o Maintain and improve designated camping areas at Chimney Creek, Long-Valley and 

Walker Pass.

[RVS-D-7] Designate 160 acres (T 7 S, R 20 E, Section 2; Map 2.33) as the Fresno River Extensive 

Recreation Management Area with the following recreation objective, Natural Resource Recreation 

Settings, management activities and allowable use decisions;

Recreation Objective: Within the life of the RMP the Fresno River ERMA will offer limited 

recreation opportunities in a rural setting, facilitating various interpretative and educational 

opportunities.
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 113

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Table 2.18

Fresno River ERMA Natural Resource Recreation Settings

Characteristic Prescribed Setting Description

PHYSICAL – Land and Facilities: Character of the natural landscape

Remoteness Middle Country On or near motorized routes, but at least 1⁄2 mile from all 

improved roads, though they may be in sight.

Naturalness Middle Country Natural appearing landscape, except for obvious 

motorized routes.

Visitor Facilities Middle Country Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead 

developments, improved signs, and very basic toilets.

SOCIAL – Visitor Use and Users: Character of recreation tourism use

Contacts with 

Groups Middle Country 7-14 encounters a day off travel routes (e.g., staging areas) and 15-29 encounters a day en route.

Group Size Backcountry 4-6 people per group.

Evidence of Use Front Country

Small areas of alteration prevalent. Surface vegetation 

gone with compacted soils observed. Sounds of people 

regularly heard.

OPERATIONAL – Administration and Services: Character of how area/visitors are served

Mechanized Use Middle Country

Four-wheel-drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles, in addition to non-motorized mechanized 

use.

Visitor Services Middle Country Area brochures and maps, plus area personnel 

occasionally present to provide on-site assistance.

Management 

Controls Middle Country

Occasional regulatory signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use restrictions. Random enforcement 

presence.

Management Activities:

o Prohibit overnight camping.

o Require an authorization or mining notice for casual use prospecting activity, other than 

gold panning.

[RVS-D-8] Identify 191,520 acres as lands not designated within a Recreation Management Area (Map 

2.26). Close 4,110 of these acres (Map 2.34) to public access located within producing oilfields, with 

well densities averaging higher than 20 wells per 40 acres (or 0.5 wells per acre).

[RVS-D-9] Limit dispersed camping within the Decision Area; unless otherwise noted, to 14 days within a 

90 day period. After the 14th day, campers must move beyond a 25-mile radius of their previous camp. 

In addition:

 Prohibit dispersed camping within 100ft of any fresh water source

 Prohibit dispersed camping within 300ft of any suitable or designated WSR categorized as wild 

or scenic.

 Prohibit dispersed camping within 100ft of any suitable or designated WSR categorized as 

recreational.

[RVS-D-10] Limit parking for dispersed camping (including cars, trucks, recreation vehicles, and trailers 

[“fifth wheels”]) to one vehicle width from the edge of the designated route.
114 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[RVS-D-11] Limit Specialized Vehicle Recreation to those areas, trails, and routes designated for that 

purpose within the Decision Area. Through a Special Recreation Permit, this activity could be allowed on 

a case-by-case basis, pending the NEPA process on each application.

[RVS-D-12] Establish and identify (3,125 acres), in accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-5(b)(2), the Wallow 

Rock RMZ and Horse Canyon ACEC as areas where the collection of nonrenewable resources, such as 

rocks, mineral specimens, comment invertebrate fossils and semi-precious gem stones is prohibited.

Key Implementation Decisions

[RVS-I-1] Establish Supplementary Rules to implement and enforce allocations, management 

restrictions, and decisions within the RMP.

[RVS-I-1] Establishment of fees for various recreation sites including; Case Mountain and Chimney Peak 

ERMAs, and Urban Interface, Temblor North, Wallow Rock and Gold Fever RMZs will be fully addressed 

in area specific activity level plans and in accordance with the current regulation guiding the 

establishment of recreational use fees.

Administrative Actions

 When practical, participate in partnerships and cooperative agreements to provide for opportunities 

and outcomes beyond the scope of the agencies’ abilities.

 Encourage efforts to establish multijurisdictional recreation areas to provide for motorized 

recreation experiences, including participation with other stakeholders, user groups, and interested 

parties in identifying potential areas and collaborating in management efforts.

 Maintain efforts with user groups, neighboring field offices, other federal, state, and local agencies 

to provide diverse contiguous recreation opportunities for non-mechanized, mechanized, and 

motorized trails and routes for recreation, including developing regional multijurisdictional 

information; continue the Adopt-a-Trail program; support friends groups, associations, and 

organized private entities, and continue to use and support BLM volunteers.

 Incorporate federal accessibility standards in the design and construction of new and renovated 

facilities, appropriate trails, and signs, including the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) 

and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility guidelines.

 Management responses to unacceptable resource and social conditions would range from least 

restrictive methods (e.g., information and education) to most restrictive (e.g., visitor limits, 

supplemental rules, or restrictions). Where feasible, the least restrictive methods would be the first 

priority.
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 115

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.26 – Recreation Management Area Designations
116 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.27 – Special Recreation Management Area: Keysville
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 117

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.28 – Special Recreation Management Area: San Joaquin River Gorge
118 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.29 – Special Recreation Management Area: Temblor Range
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 119

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.30 – Extensive Recreation Management Area: Atwell Island
120 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.31 – Extensive Recreation Management Area: Case Mountain
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 121

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.32 – Extensive Recreation Management Area: Chimney Peak
122 RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.33 – Extensive Recreation Management Area: Fresno River
RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 123

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.34 – Public Closure Area: Heavily Developed Oil Fields
124 INTERPRETATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.16 Interpretation and Environmental Education

Goals

[IE-G-1] Instill a public stewardship ethic of natural and cultural resources, and foster an appreciation of 

multiple-use public lands. 

[IE-G-2] Establish an emotional connection to the landscape and its natural and cultural resources.

Objectives

[IE-O-1] Incorporate “Tread Lightly” and “Leave No Trace”, into BLM interpretive and education 

programs and visitor information media. 

[IE-O-2] Provide interpretive and educational opportunities to allow all visitors to explore public lands 

and learn about the natural and cultural environment and reduce their impacts on biological and 

cultural resources. 

[IE-O-3] Educate public land users and affected communities on the role of wildland fire in ecosystems, 

its risk to public health and safety, and the safe use of fire in the recreational environment.

Decisions

[IE-D-1] Identify San Joaquin River Gorge, Piedras Blancas Light Station, and Keysville Historic Mining 

District as important cultural and historic resources available for interpretation and educational 

programs.

[IE-D-2] Identify Atwell Island and Piedras Blancas Light Station as important biological resource areas 

available for interpretation and educational programs.

[IE-D-3] Identify wildland fire as important resource requiring interpretation and education programs.

[IE-D-4] Identify SRMAs as suitable locations to conduct and promote “Take It Outside” and “Hands on 

the Land” interpretive and education programs.

[IE-D-5] Accommodate permit requests for, scientific research by qualified individuals or institutions and 

educational uses of public lands by academic entities. Authorization may be given for any resource 

program and provide for appropriate access.
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 125

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Special Designations

2.17 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Allocations Summary

Table 2.19

ACEC Allocations Summary

ACEC Name BLM Acres

(decision area)

Management 

Action

Ancient Lakeshores 1,985 AC-1

Bitter Creek 2,872 AC-2

Blue Ridge 4,759 AC-3

Chico Martinez 4,607 AC-4

Compensation Lands 283 AC-5

Cypress Mountain 1,080 AC-6

Cyrus Canyon 4,299 AC-7

Erskine Creek 4,019 AC-8

Hopper Mountain 4,514 AC-9

Horse Canyon 2,830 AC-10

Kaweah 27,037 AC-11

Kettleman Hills 13,695 AC-12

Lokern-Buena Vista 15,492 AC-13

Los Osos 5 AC-14

Piute Cypress 2,517 AC-15

Point Sal 76 AC-16

Salinas River 1,604 AC-17

Tierra Redonda 412 AC-18

Upper Cuyama Valley 9,025 AC-19

Total ACEC Acres 101,111

See Map 2.35 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Additional information for each ACEC can be found in the Evaluation of Proposed Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (Draft RMP/Draft EIS, Appendix I).

Goals

[AC-1] Ancient Lakeshores ACEC:

[Goal] Protect and preserve important cultural resources, natural systems and processes, and 

habitat for listed species.

[Objective] Protect significant cultural resources from degradation. Maintain rare alkali sink plant 

communities and ensure no net loss of associated habitat for state and federally listed plants and 

animals.

[AC-D-1] Designate 1,985 acres of public lands; within a boundary of 2,041 acres (encompassing 

the existing Alkali Sink and Goose Lake ACECs with the expansion to include the Sand Ridge 
126 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

portion of Atwell Island), as the Ancient Lakeshores ACEC (Map 2.36) administered with the 

following special management:

(a) Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulation (NSO) within the ACEC;

(b) Require a 15 day notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the

mining laws, including Casual Use, within the ACEC, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, to 

allow the BLM to determine whether a plan of operations must be submitted. 

(c) Exclude the authorization of rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy projects 

(i.e., those producing electricity for the national grid);

(d) Allocate as unavailable for livestock grazing, except for the Sand Ridge unit which is available 

for livestock grazing but only for the purpose of vegetation management to meet resource 

objectives other than the production of livestock forage;

(e) Prohibit campfires and overnight camping;

(f) Prohibit cross country equestrian travel; and

(g) Prohibit air-soft and paintball activities, including organized games and casual use of these 

types of equipment. 

[AC-2] Bitter Creek ACEC: 

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for federally listed species.

[Objective] Provide suitable foraging and roosting habitat for California condor in support of the 

California Condor Recovery Program and Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge.

[AC-D-2] Designate 1,026 acres of public lands and 1,792 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 2,872 acres, as the Bitter Creek ACEC (Map 2.37) administered with the following 

special management:

(a) Closed to fluid mineral leasing;

(b) Exclude the authorization of rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy projects;

(c) Prohibit public access to lands adjacent to USFWS surface (434 acres);

(d) Prohibit campfires and overnight camping; and

(e) Prohibit the discharge of firearms for shooting sports activities; except for the legal taking of 

game species.

[AC-3] Blue Ridge ACEC: 

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for federally listed species.

[Objective] Provide suitable roosting habitat for California condor.

[AC-D-3] Designate 3,177 acres of public lands and 2,104 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 11,051 acres as the Blue Ridge ACEC (Map 2.38) administered with the following 

special management:

(a) Closed to fluid mineral leasing;
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 127

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

(b) Require a 15 day notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the 

mining laws, including Casual Use, within the ACEC, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, to 

allow the BLM to determine whether a plan of operations must be submitted.

(c) Exclude authorization of rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy projects;

(d) Restrict public access through temporary emergency closure or in coordination with 

adjacent land managers, as needed for Condor protection; and

(e) Prohibit the discharge of firearms for shooting sports activities; except for the legal taking of 

game species.

[AC-4] Chico Martinez ACEC: 

[Goal] Protect cultural resources, geologic formations, and various natural processes.

[Objective] Protect important cultural, paleontological resources, and the Zemorrian stage 

geologic formations. Provide habitat for the San Joaquin Suite of listed species.

[AC-D-4] Designate 3,235 acres of public lands and 1,371 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 4,607 acres, as the Chico Martinez ACEC (Map 2.39) administered with the following 

special management:

(a) Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulations (CSU-Protected Species, CSU-Sensitive Species and 

CSU-Raptor stipulations) within the ACEC; 

(b) Require a 15 day notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the 

mining laws, including Casual Use, within the ACEC, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, to 

allow the BLM to determine whether a plan of operations must be submitted.

(c) Closed to mineral materials disposals, except for administrative purposes; and

(d) Exclude authorization of rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy projects.

[AC-5] Compensation Lands ACEC: 

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for listed species, and protection for various natural systems. 

[Objective] Manage habitat for the benefit the species identified in the applicable compensation 

document to promote recovery of the target species.

[AC-D-5] Designate 283 acres of public lands and any future parcels of compensation land as the 

Compensation Lands ACEC (Map 2.40) administered with the following special management:

(a) Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulation (MM-D-1.1.7 NSO-Compensation Lands) within the 

ACEC;

(b) Exclude authorization of rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy projects;

(c) Recommend any future parcels of compensation land, including any non-habitat acres that 

may be included in the acquisition, for ACEC consideration if there is evidence that the lands 

meet the relevance and importance criteria of the regulations. Upon completion of NEPA, 

public review, and a plan amendment, such lands would become part of the Compensation 

Lands ACEC;

(d) Prohibit campfires and overnight camping;
128 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(e) Prohibit cross country equestrian travel in areas that are not grazed by livestock;

(f) Prohibit air-soft and paintball activities, including organized games and casual use of these 

types of equipment; and

(g) Require all pets to be leashed (maximum eight-foot length) at all times. Require removal of 

pet fecal matter by owners or handlers.

[AC-6] Cypress Mountain ACEC:

[Goal] Protect and preserve natural systems and processes.

[Objective] Preserve unique plant communities of serpentine chaparral and northern interior 

cypress forest dominated by Sargent cypress.

[AC-D-6] Designate 1,080 acres of public lands; within a boundary of 3,035 acres, as the Cypress 

Mountain ACEC (Map 2.41) administered with the following special management:

(a) Identify as open for fluid mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints (CSU- Priority 

Species, Plant Communities and Habitats stipulations);

(b) Establish the ACEC, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, as a special area requiring a 15 day 

notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws 

including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a plan of operations must be 

submitted. 

(c) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects;

(d) Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing;

(e) Prohibit campfires and overnight camping;

(f) Prohibit cross county equestrian travel; and

(g) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization.

[AC-7] Cyrus Canyon ACEC: 

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for sensitive species and protection for natural systems.

[Objective] Protect sensitive biological resources including Kelso Creek monkeyflower and riparian 

values.

[AC-D-7] Designate 3,757 acres of public lands and 542 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 4,299 acres, as the Cyrus Canyon ACEC (Map 2.42) administered with the following 

special management:

(a) Identify as closed to mineral materials disposals, except for administrative purposes;

(b) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects;

(c) Identify the Cyrus Canyon Kelso Creek Monkeyflower Unit as unavailable for livestock 

grazing;

(d) Prohibit campfires and overnight camping;
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 129

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

(e) Prohibit equestrian use;

(f) Prohibit air-soft and paintball activities, including organized games and casual use of these 

types of equipment;

(g) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization; and

(h) No new apiary permits will be authorized. The existing apiary permit may be renewed but 

not transferred. The existing apiary site will be retired when the current holder does not 

renew the permit.

[AC-8] Erskine Creek ACEC: 

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for sensitive species and protection for various natural processes 

and geologic formations.

[Objective] Protect the limestone caves, riparian areas, manage habitat to support populations of 

Kern County larkspur and Piute Mountain jewelflower.

[AC-D-8] Designate 3,015 acres of public lands and 1,004 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 4,141 acres, as the Erskine Creek ACEC (Map 2.43) administered with the following 

special management:

(a) Identify as closed to fluid mineral leasing;

(b) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects (i.e., those producing electricity for the national grid);

(c) Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing; and

(d) Establish the ACEC, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, as a special area requiring a 15 day 

notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws 

including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a plan of operations must be 

submitted. 

[AC-9] Hopper Mountain ACEC: 

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for federally listed species.

[Objective] Provide suitable roosting and nesting habitat for California condor in support of the 

California Condor Recovery Program.

[AC-D-9] Designate 2,027 acres of public lands and 2,948 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 4,976 acres, as the Hopper Mountain ACEC (Map 2.44) administered with the 

following special management:

(a) Identify as open for fluid mineral leasing, subject to major constraints (CSU-Protected 

Species and CSU-Raptor stipulations)

(b) Establish the ACEC, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, as a special area requiring a 15 day 

notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws 

including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a plan of operations must be 

submitted; 
130 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(c) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects;

(d) Identify portions as unavailable for livestock grazing;

(e) Restrict public access through temporary emergency closure or in coordination with 

adjacent land managers, as needed for Condor protection;

(f) Implement Best Management Practices to minimize impacts on condors from public use and 

oil field activities; and

(g) Prohibit campfires and overnight camping.

(h) Prohibit the discharge of firearms for shooting sports activities; except for the legal taking of 

game species.

[AC-10] Horse Canyon ACEC: 

[Goal] Protect cultural resources, and various natural processes.

[Objective] Protect significant cultural sites, including traditional cultural properties associated 

with Native American values and important paleontological resources.

[AC-D-10] Designate 1,491 acres of public lands and 1,339 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 6,897 acres, as the Horse Canyon ACEC (Map 2.45) administered with the following 

special management:

(a) Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulation (NSO) within the ACEC;

(b) Require a 15 day notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the 

mining laws including Casual Use within the ACEC, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, to 

allow the BLM to determine whether a plan of operations must be submitted. 

(c) ) Prohibit the collection of nonrenewable resources, such as rocks, mineral specimens, 

comment invertebrate fossils and semi-precious gem stones within the ACEC, in accordance 

with 43 CFR 8365.1-5(b)(2).

(d) Exclude the authorization of rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy projects;

and

(e) Unavailable for livestock grazing.

[AC-11] Kaweah ACEC: 

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for sensitive species and protection for various natural processes, 

geologic formations, and cultural resources.

[Objective] Protect the Case Mountain giant sequoia groves, limestone caves and other karst 

features, riparian areas, and cultural resources. Manage habitat to support populations of 

California spotted owl, Pacific fisher, and Kaweah monkey flower.
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 131

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

[AC-D-11] Designate 26,891 acres of public lands and 150 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 33,559 acres (expanding the existing Case Mountain ACEC), as the Kaweah ACEC 

(Map 2.46) administered with the following special management:

(a) Identify as open for leasing oil and gas resources, subject to moderate constraints (CSURaptor stipulations);

(b) Identify as closed to geothermal leasing;

(c) Establish, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, the ACEC as a special area requiring a 15 day 

notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws 

including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a plan of operations must be 

submitted. 

(d) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects;

(e) Identify the giant sequoia groves as unavailable for livestock grazing; 

(f) Prohibit public access to recreation sites along the North Fork of the Kaweah River.

(g) Prohibit air-soft and paintball activities, including organized games and casual use of these 

types of equipment unless authorized through a Special Recreation Permit;

(h) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization; and

(i) Protect the giant sequoia groves and mixed conifer forest through implementation of fuels 

reduction techniques including prescribed burning and vegetation thinning, and removal of 

ladder fuels.

[AC-12] Kettleman Hills ACEC: 

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for federal and state listed species and protection for natural 

systems and processes.

[Objective] Protect significant paleontological resources and provide habitat for the suite of San 

Joaquin Valley listed species including ecologically functioning valley upland habitats.

[AC-D-12] Designate 6,726 acres of public lands and 6,969 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 28,874 acres (expanding the existing 9,794-acre ACEC), as the Kettleman Hills ACEC 

(Map 2.47) administered with the following special management:

(a) Identify as open for fluid mineral leasing, subject to major constraints (CSU-Protected 

Species, CSU-Sensitive Species, and CSU-Raptor stipulations);

(b) Identify as closed to mineral materials disposals, except for administrative purposes; 

(c) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects; and

(d) Prohibit campfires.
132 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[AC-13] Lokern-Buena Vista ACEC: 

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for federal and state listed species and protection for natural 

systems and processes.

[Objective] Provide habitat for the suite of San Joaquin Valley listed species including ecologically 

functioning valley upland habitats.

[AC-D-13] Designate 11,330 acres of public lands and 4,162 acres of federal mineral estate; within 

a boundary of 69,624 acres (combining the existing Lokern ACEC with the expansion to include the 

Buena Vista Hills and Valley), as the Lokern-Buena Vista ACEC (Map 2.48) administered with the 

following special management:

(a) Identify as open for fluid mineral leasing, subject to major constraints (CSU-Protected 

Species and CSU-Sensitive Species stipulations; 

(b) Identify as closed to mineral materials disposals, except for administrative purposes;

(c) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects; and

(d) Prohibit campfires.

[AC-14] Los Osos ACEC: 

[Goal] Protect and preserve important cultural resources, natural systems and processes, and 

habitat for listed species.

[Objective] Protect significant cultural resources from damage and degradation. Maintain rare 

and endemic plant communities including coastal dune scrub, central maritime chaparral, and 

pygmy oak forest. Ensure no net loss of associated habitat for special status plants and animals.

[AC-D-14] Designate 5 acres of public lands; within a boundary of 32 acres, as the Los Osos ACEC 

(Map 2.49) administered with the following special management:

(a) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects;

(b) Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing;

(c) Prohibit campfires and overnight camping;

(d) Designate as OHV Closed area; 

(e) Prohibit mechanized use, equestrian use, and cross-country travel by pedestrians;

(f) Require all pets to be leashed (maximum eight-foot length) at all times. Require removal of 

pet fecal matter by owners or handlers;

(g) Prohibit air-soft and paintball activities, including organized games and casual use the these 

types of equipment; and

(h) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization.
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 133

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

[AC-15] Piute Cypress ACEC: 

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for sensitive species and protection for natural systems.

[Objective] Ensure no net loss of Piute Cypress groves and associated habitat for special status 

plants.

[AC-D-15] Designate 2,305 acres of public lands and 212 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 2,544 acres (expanding the existing 1,104-acre ACEC), as the Piute Cypress ACEC 

(Map 2.50) administered with the following special management:

(a) Identify as closed to fluid mineral leasing;

(b) Identify as closed to mineral materials disposals, except for administrative purposes; 

(c) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects;

(d) Protect Piute cypress communities from livestock grazing if deemed necessary through 

appropriate studies;

(e) Prohibit campfires; and

(f) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization.

[AC-16] Point Sal ACEC: 

[Goal] Protect and preserve important cultural resources, natural systems and processes, and 

habitat for listed species. 

[Objective] Preserve significant cultural resources and maintain habitat for sensitive and listed 

species and unique plant species assemblages.

[AC-D-16] Designate 77 acres of public lands, as the Point Sal ACEC (Map 2.51) administered with 

the following special management:

(a) Collaborate with adjacent land owners (California State Parks and Santa Barbara County) for 

cohesive management of the region;

(b) Identify as closed to fluid mineral leasing;

(c) Establish, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, the ACEC as a special area requiring a 15 day 

notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws 

including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a plan of operations must be 

submitted. 

(d) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects;

(e) Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing; 

(f) Prohibit campfires and overnight camping;

(g) Prohibit all cross-country travel;

(h) Designate as OHV Closed area;

(i) Prohibit mechanized and equestrian use; and

(j) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization.
134 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[AC-17] Salinas River ACEC:

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for special status species and protection for natural systems.

[Objective] Maintain rare plant communities including central coast live oak riparian forest, 

central coast arroyo willow riparian forest, sycamore alluvial woodland, and central coast riparian 

scrub. Ensure no net loss of associated habitat for special status plants and animals.

[AC-D-17] Designate 946 acres of public lands and 658 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 2,383 acres, as the Salinas River ACEC (Map 2.52) administered with the following 

special management:

(a) Identify as open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints (CSU-priority 

species, plant communities and habitats stipulation);

(b) Recommend proposal of the riparian zone (approximately 10 acres) for withdrawal from 

appropriation and entry under the General Mining Law;

(c) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects;

(d) Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing;

(e) Prohibit campfires and overnight camping;

(f) Prohibit cross country equestrian travel; and

(g) Prohibit the discharge of firearms, except the legal taking of game species.

[AC-18] Tierra Redonda ACEC:

[Goal] Protect geologic formations, and various natural processes.

[Objective] Preserve significant paleontological resources, unique sand dune formation and coast 

live oak woodland.

[AC-D-18] Designate 331 acres of public lands and 81 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 1,311 acres, as the Tierra Redonda ACEC (Map 2.53) administered with the following 

special management:

(a) Identify as open for fluid mineral leasing, subject to major constraints (NSO);

(b) Establish, in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.31, the ACEC as a special area requiring a 15 day 

notification be given to the BLM prior to beginning any activity under the mining laws 

including; Casual Use, to allow the BLM to determine whether a plan of operations must be 

submitted. 

(c) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects;

(d) Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing;

(e) Prohibit campfires and overnight camping;

(f) Prohibit cross country equestrian travel; and

(g) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization.
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 135

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

[AC-19] Upper Cuyama Valley ACEC:

[Goal] Provide suitable habitat for sensitive and listed species and protection for natural systems.

[Objective] Protect habitat for blunt-nosed leopard lizard and its hybrid zone, Kern primrose 

sphinx moth, and California jewelflower. Maintain the link between the Sierra Madre and the San 

Emigdio Mountains.

[AC-D-19] Designate 6,351 acres of public lands and 2,584 acres of federal mineral estate; within a 

boundary of 15,247 acres, as the Upper Cuyama Valley ACEC (Map 2.54) administered with the 

following special management:

(a) Identify as open for fluid mineral leasing subject to major constraints (CSU-Protected 

Species and CSU-Sensitive Species) stipulations;

(b) Identify as an exclusion area for rights-of-way related to utility scale renewable energy 

projects;

(c) Identify as unavailable for livestock grazing habitat containing California jewelflower or Kern 

primrose sphinx moth;

(d) Prohibit equestrian use in habitat containing California jewelflower or Kern primrose sphinx 

moth;

(e) Prohibit cross country equestrian travel outside of livestock grazing allotments; and 

(f) Prohibit the casual collection of plants or their parts without BLM authorization.
136 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.35 – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 137

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.36 – Ancient Lakeshores ACEC
138 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 139

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS
140 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 141

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.37 – Bitter Creek ACEC
142 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.38 – Blue Ridge ACEC
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 143

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.39 – Chico Martinez ACEC
144 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.40 – Compensation Lands ACEC
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 145

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.41 – Cypress Mountain ACEC
146 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.42 – Cyrus Canyon ACEC
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 147

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.43 – Erskine Creek ACEC
148 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.44 – Hopper Mountain ACEC
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 149

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.45 – Horse Canyon ACEC
150 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.46 – Kaweah ACEC
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 151

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.47 – Kettleman Hills ACEC
152 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.48 – Lokern-Buena Vista ACEC
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 153

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.49 – Los Osos ACEC
154 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.50 – Piute Cypress ACEC
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 155

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.51 – Point Sal ACEC
156 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.52 – Salinas River ACEC
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 157

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.53 – Tierra Redonda ACEC
158 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.54 – Upper Cuyama Valley ACEC
OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREAS 159

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

2.18 Outstanding Natural Areas

Goal

[ONA-G-1] Protect, conserve, and enhance, for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future 

generations, the Piedras Blancas Light Station Outstanding Natural Area for its unique and nationally 

important historical, natural, cultural, scientific, educational, scenic, and recreational values.

Objective

[ONA-O-1] Reconstruct, preserve and interpret the Piedras Blancas Light Station to during the period of 

its greatest historic significance (1875 and 1940), while providing for resource protection and managed 

use by the visiting public.

[ONA-O-2] Provide support for international research of coastal ecosystems surrounding the Piedras 

Blancas Light Station.

[ONA-O-3] Protect and coordinate the interpretation of the important archaeological sites with the 

affected Native American communities.

[ONA-O-4] Coordinate and collaborate management of the Piedras Blancas Light Station with California 

Department of Parks and Recreation, San Luis Obispo County, local communities, and other interested 

entities.

Decisions

[ONA-D-1] The following features and structures would be restored or reconstructed to provide an 

accurate representation of what Piedras Blancas looked like in its early years:

(a) Lighthouse 

(b) Fog Signal Building

(c) Fuel/Oil House

(d) Tank Storage Building

(e) Fuel and Storage Building

(f) Laundry

(g) Watchroom

(h) Keeper’s Triplex

(i) Head Keeper’s Residence

(j) Barn

(k) Historic Landscape

[ONA-D-2] Close, prohibit, or otherwise make unavailable the Piedras Blancas Light Station to the 

following:

(a) All forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; 

(b) Operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws and the mineral materials 

laws;

(c) Livestock grazing;

(d) Public access except for BLM tours, permits, and other specific authorizations;

(e) Equestrian use; and
160 NATIONAL TRAILS

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(f) Authorization of commercial communications transmission equipment.

[ONA-D-3] Continue the withdrawal of the Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA from location, entry, and 

patent under the public land mining laws beyond the legislatively provided 20-year withdrawal to 

extend for the life of this RMP.

[ONA-D-4] Manage the Piedras Blancas Outstanding Natural Area as VRM Class I, in accordance with its 

special designation, with special consideration of the importance of the cultural modifications and to 

restoring the historic lighthouse and facilities. This VRM Class I is adjusted to consider these cultural 

artifacts as an important facet of the visual landscape and to allow for the maintenance, repair, and 

continued restoration to preserve the outstanding visual landscape of the area.

[ONA-D-5] Provide access to Native Americans for traditional cultural and religious purposes. The site 

may be closed to the general public to protect the privacy of traditional cultural and religious activities in 

such areas by the Native American religious community.

[ONA-D-6] Acquire water supply conveyance rights on a corridor between the Light Station boundary 

and a nearby spring or water source and acquire an appropriative water right from the State of 

California for all water use.

[ONA-D-7] Acquire access rights on a corridor between the Light Station boundary and the nearest 

public road. Add and administer as part of the Outstanding Natural Area any additional lands or interest 

in lands next to the Outstanding Natural Area acquired by the United States.

2.19 Back Country Byways

Goal

[BCB-G-1] Where appropriate and feasible, highlight the spectacular nature of the western landscapes 

through education and interpretation along linear travel routes which provide recreational driving 

opportunities that allow for the experiences of solitude and isolation.

Objectives

[BCB-O-1] Provide an appropriate level of driving opportunity commensurate with route conditions.

Decision

[BCB-D-1] Revoke the Back Country Byway designation of Canebrake and Long Valley Loop Roads as the 

Chimney Peak Back Country Byway.

2.20 National Trails

Goal

[NT-G-1] Provide continued protection and support for national trails, to preserve, improve and restore 

the character for which they we designated.

Objectives

[NT-O-1] Coordinate and collaboration on the management of the PCNST to maintain its integrity, 

continue maintenance, and enforce allowable uses, while providing appropriate access and facilities for 

users and maintaining the scenic character and quality of the trail.
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 161

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

[NT-O-2] Provide for the ever-increasing outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population, 

promoting the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment of the outdoor areas 

through the support of National Recreation Trails.

Decisions

[NT-D-1] Acknowledge the BLM Ridgecrest Field Office managing role on the PCNST Dove Springs and 

Cache Peak segments where the trail crosses in the Decision Area. Support management on these 

segments of the trail in accordance with the management prescriptions in effect for the trail on adjacent 

lands within the California Desert District. 

[NT-D-2] Establish a 0.25-mile wide corridor along the PCNST (Owens Peak segment) to apply specific 

management incorporating and amended by the comprehensive PCNST Management Plan (Pacific Crest 

Trail Management Options Plan, BLM 1980), as follows:

(a) Close to fluid mineral and geothermal leasing;

(b) Close to the mineral material disposal;

(c) Designate as VRM Class I;

(d) Identify the corridor as a ROW exclusion area; and 

(e) Identify the corridor as lands to be retained.

[NT-D-3] Continue designation and management of the Wu Ki' Oh Trail (formerly named the Squaw Leap 

Trail) as a National Recreation Trail.

[NT-D-4] Recommend for designation the San Joaquin River Trail as a National Recreation Trail in 

coordination with other affected entities.

2.21 Wild and Scenic Rivers

The suitability evaluation for each eligible river segment can be found in the Wild and Scenic River 

Suitability Report for Bakersfield Field Office, California (Draft RMP/Draft EIS, Appendix J).

Goal

[WSR-G-1] River segments suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) 

would be free-flowing in nature, meet water quality standards, and continue to possess outstandingly 

remarkable values (ORVs) that make them eligible.

Objectives

[WSR-O-1] Determine suitable river segments for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System (NWSRS). Manage those suitable river segments so to maintain their free-flowing nature, water 

quality, ORVs, and tentative classification, pending congressional action or for the duration of the RMP.
162 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Decisions

[WSR-D-1] Determine as suitable and recommended for congressional designation in the NWSRS for the 

classifications identified:

Table 2.20

Suitable Wild and Scenic River Summary

River Segment Classification Outstandingly Remarkable Value(s) Mileage Map

Lower Kern River Recreational Recreational, Wildlife, Historic 3.2 Map 2.55

Chimney Creek Wild/Recreational Scenic, Wildlife, Botanical 15.5 Map 2.56

North Fork of the Kaweah River Scenic Wildlife, Cultural, Visual 2.5 Map 2.57

San Joaquin River Segment 1 Wild/Scenic Scenic, Cultural 8.0 Map 2.58

[WSR-D-2] Establish a corridor extending 0.25 miles from each edge suitable river segment, in which the 

following interim protective management guidelines would apply:

(a) Approve no actions altering the free-flowing nature of the suitable segment through 

impoundments, diversions, channeling, or riprapping;

(b) Approve no actions that would measurably diminish the stream segment’s identified 

outstandingly remarkable value(s); and

(c) Approve no actions that would modify the setting or level of development of the suitable 

river segment to a degree that would change its identified classification.
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 163

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.55 – Lower Kern River Suitable Wild and Scenic River
164 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.56 – Chimney Creek Suitable Wild and Scenic River
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 165

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

Map 2.57 – North Fork of the Kaweah Suitable Wild and Scenic River
166 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 2.58 – San Joaquin River (Segment 1) Suitable Wild and Scenic River
WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 167

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER TWO – MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS

2.22 Wilderness Study Areas

Goal

[WSA-G-1] WSAs would continue to be suitable for future designation as wilderness until such time that 

congress either designates as wilderness or releases the area.

Objective

[WSA-O-1] Manage WSAs in a manner that does not impair the suitability of the area for the future 

designation as wilderness until such time that Congress releases them from study status. 

[WSA-O-2] If released by Congress from study status, maintain wilderness character, where present, 

within WSAs. 

Decision

[WSA-D-1] Manage WSAs in accordance with BLM Interim Management Policy for Lands under 

Wilderness Review (IMP) (BLM Handbook H-8550-1 [BLM 1995])

[WSA-D-2] Manage for wilderness characteristics the following WSAs if released from study status by 

Congress, unless congressional release language provides other specific management guidance;

(d) Machesna WSA (adjacent to USFS Machesna Mountain Wilderness);

(e) Owens Peak WSA;

(f) Rockhouse WSA;

(g) Sacatar Meadows WSA;

(h) Scodie WSA; and

(i) Garcia Mountain WSA (adjacent to USFS Garcia Mountain Wilderness).

[WSA-D-2] Manage the Milk Ranch/Case Mountain WSA and Sheep Ridge WSA if released from study 

status by Congress, in accordance with the Kaweah ACEC, unless congressional release language 

provides other specific management guidance

[WSA-D-3] Manage portions of the Piute Cypress WSA in accordance with both the Erskine Creek ACEC 

and Piute Cypress ACEC if released from study status by Congress, unless congressional release language 

provides other specific management guidance. The portion not within either ACEC would be managed as 

multiple-use dispersed public lands.

[WSA-D-4] Manage the Black Mountain WSA and Moses WSA multiple-use dispersed public lands.
168

CHAPTER THREE - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

IN IMPLEMENTATION

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

3 Chapter Three - Public Involvement in Implementation

Plan implementation is a continuous process that will occur throughout the life of the Approved RMP. 

The public can be involved in RMP implementation through a variety of venues. Some of the 

management decisions contained in this document will require preparation of detailed, site-specific 

NEPA analyses prior to implementation. This type of analysis often requires public input during the 

initial scoping period, and provides further protest or appeal opportunities. 

After issuing the Approved RMP and ROD, an Implementation Strategy will be developed. The regular 

coordination associated with that document will include an update on implementation of the plan, 

foreseeable activities for the upcoming year, and opportunities for continued collaboration with the 

numerous federal and state agencies, Native American tribes, local agencies, elected officials, existing 

partners, stakeholders, and members of the public interested and involved in the management of public 

lands in the Bakersfield Field Office. Additional coordination and collaboration meetings could be held 

as needed.

Some of the decisions contained in this document will require preparation of detailed project-level NEPA 

analyses prior to implementation. Tribal consultation and public involvement opportunities, including 

further protest or appeal opportunities, may be provided. Other decisions have been addressed to a 

sufficient level of detail to be implemented over time without further public involvement opportunities.
169

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER FOUR - RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

4 Chapter Four - Resource Management Plan Implementation

The RMP will be implemented as funding and workforce allow. Most of the land use plan decisions are 

effective on approval of this document, but some decisions will take a number of years to implement on 

the ground. Implementation monitoring will track which decisions have been implemented and when.

After issuing the ROD/Approved RMP, BLM will prepare an Implementation Plan that establishes 

tentative timeframes for completion of “one-time” actions identified in the Approved RMP. Most of 

these actions require additional analysis and site specific activity planning. This schedule does not 

include the decisions which are effective immediately upon approval of the plan (usually allocations), or 

the actions which describe the ongoing management that will be incorporated and applied as sitespecific proposals are analyzed on an ongoing basis. This schedule will assist BLM managers and staff in

preparing budget requests and in scheduling work. The proposed schedule, however, must be 

considered tentative and will be affected by future funding, changing program priorities, nondiscretionary workloads, and cooperation by partners and external publics. Periodic review of the plan 

will provide consistent tracking of accomplishments and provide information that can be used to 

develop annual budget requests to continue implementation.

Plan implementation is a continuous and active process. Decisions presented in the Chapter 2 of this

Approved RMP are of three types: Immediate, One-Time, and Long- Term.

Immediate Decisions: These decisions go into effect upon signature of the ROD and Approved RMP. 

These include decisions such as the allocation of lands as available or unavailable for oil and gas leasing,

ACEC designations, and OHV designations. Immediate decisions require no additional analysis and

provide the framework for any subsequent activities proposed in the planning area. Proposals for 

actions such as oil and gas leasing, land adjustments, and other allocation-based actions will be 

reviewed against these decisions/allocations to determine if the proposal is in conformance with the 

plan.

One-Time Decisions: These types of decisions include those that are implemented after additional sitespecific analysis is completed. Examples are implementation of the recommendations to withdraw 

lands from locatable mineral entry or development of a habitat management plan or a special recreation

management area plan. One-time decisions usually require additional analysis and are prioritized as 

part of BLM’s budget process. Priorities for implementation of "one-time" RMP decisions will be based 

on several criteria, including:

 Current and projected resource needs and demands,

 National and Statewide BLM management direction and program emphasis, and

 Funding.

Long-Term Guidance/Life of Plan Direction: These decisions include the goals, objectives, and

management actions established by the plan that are applied during site-specific analyses and activity

planning. This guidance is applied whether the action is initiated by BLM or by a non-BLM project

proponent. Long-term guidance and plan direction is incorporated into BLM management as

implementation level planning and project analysis occurs (for example, as a result of the watershed

assessment process or receipt of a land use application).
170

CHAPTER FOUR - RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Interdisciplinary impact analysis will be based on this RMP/EIS and other applicable EISs. If the analysis 

prepared for site-specific projects finds potential for significant impacts not already described in an 

existing EIS, another EIS or a supplement to an existing EIS may be warranted.

Site-specific environmental analyses and documentation (including the use of categorical exclusions and

determinations of NEPA adequacy where appropriate) may be prepared for one or more individual 

projects in accordance with management objectives and decisions established in the approved land use

plan. In addition, BLM will ensure that the environmental review process includes evaluation of all

critical elements, including cultural resources and threatened and endangered species, and completes

required USFWS Section 7 consultations and coordination with the SHPO.

4.1 37BPlan Maintenance

Land use plan decisions and supporting information can be maintained to reflect minor changes in data,

but maintenance is limited to refining, documenting, and/or clarifying previously approved decisions.

Some examples of maintenance actions include:

 Correcting minor data, typographical, mapping, or tabular data errors

 Refining baseline information as a result of new inventory data (e.g., changing the boundary 

of an archaeological district, refining the known habitat of special status species, or 

adjusting the boundary of a fire management unit based on updated fire regime condition 

class inventory, fire occurrence, monitoring data, and/or demographic changes)

 Applying an existing oil and gas lease stipulation to a new area prior to the lease sale based 

on new inventory data (e.g., apply an existing protective stipulation for cultural resources to 

a newly discovered cultural site.)

BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, research, other

agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data and/or support new management 

techniques, best management practices, and scientific principles (for example, the annual review of 

scientific information regarding oil and gas development). Adaptive management strategies may be 

used when monitoring data is available as long as the goals and objectives of the plan are met. Where 

monitoring shows land use plan actions or best management practices are not effective or otherwise do 

not meet public land goals and objectives, or new information indicates that additional land use plan 

actions or best management practices are needed, modifications or adjustments may occur without 

amendment or revision of the plan as long as assumptions and impacts disclosed in the analysis remain 

valid and broad-scale goals and objectives are not changed.

Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records. Plan maintenance does not require formal

public involvement, interagency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making new land use

plan decisions.

4.2 38BChanging/Amending the Plan

The Approved RMP may be changed, should conditions warrant, through a plan amendment or plan

revision process. A plan amendment may become necessary if major changes are needed or to consider 

a proposal or action that is not in conformance with the plan or for other reasons. The results of 

monitoring, evaluation of new data, or policy changes and changing public needs might also provide the 

impetus for an amendment. Generally, an amendment is issue-specific. If several areas of the plan 
171

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER FOUR - RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

become outdated or otherwise obsolete, a plan revision may become necessary. Plan amendments and 

revisions are accomplished with public input and the appropriate level of environmental analysis.
172

CHAPTER FIVE - PLAN EVALUATION AND 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

5 Chapter Five - Plan Evaluation and Adaptive Management

5.1 39BPlan Evaluation

Evaluation is a process in which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to determine if management 

goals and objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. Land use plan evaluations

determine if decisions are being implemented, if mitigation measures are satisfactory, if there are

significant changes in the related plans of other entities, if there is new data of significance, and if

decisions should change through amendment or revision. Monitoring data gathered over time is 

examined and used to determine whether management actions are meeting objectives. Conclusions are 

then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current management or to identify what 

changes need to be made in management practices to meet RMP objectives.

BLM will use land use plan evaluations to determine if the decisions in the RMP, supported by the

accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid in light of new information and monitoring data. Evaluation

of the RMP will generally be conducted every five years, unless unexpected actions, new information, or

significant changes in other plans, legislation, or litigation triggers an evaluation. Evaluations will follow 

the protocols established by BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) and 43 CFR Part 1610.4-9 or 

other appropriate guidance in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated

5.2 40BMonitoring

Monitoring is the process of following up on management actions and documenting the BLM’s progress 

toward full implementation of the land use plan and the achievement of desired outcomes. Monitoring 

the Approved RMP involves tracking the implementation and effectiveness of land use plan decisions 

identified in Chapter 2. Implementation monitoring tracks the completion of land use plan decisions 

whereas effectiveness monitoring helps determine whether completion of land use plan decisions 

achieves anticipated desired outcomes. If implementation of land use plans does not achieve 

anticipated desired outcomes, adaptive management may be necessary.

Management actions identified for the Bakersfield RMP are based on studies and the best scientific and 

commercial information available; however, conditions may change over time. Experience has shown 

that implemented management actions can be improved as new technology and new information 

become available. It is also possible that changes in land use will require a different management action 

to protect the resources. To address the changing conditions and provide management flexibility using 

BMPs, the Bakersfield FO will monitor and evaluate the Approved RMP.

5.3 41BAdaptive Management

Adaptive management is a system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes, 

monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating 

management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or to re-evaluate the outcomes. 

When land use plan actions or best management practices are found to be ineffective or new 

information indicates that new land use plan actions or best management practices are needed, 

modifications may occur without amendment of the plan as long as assumptions and impacts disclosed 
173

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER FIVE - PLAN EVALUATION AND 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

in the analysis remain valid and broad-scale goals and objectives are not changed. This approach will 

use on-the-ground monitoring, review of scientific information, and consideration of practical 

experience to adjust management and modify implementation of the plan to reach the desired 

outcome.
174

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6 Appendices

Appendix 1: Air Resource Management Plan

Appendix 2: Travel Management Plan

Appendix 3: Best Management Practices and Standard Operating Procedures

Appendix 4: Biological Resources Conservation Strategy

Appendix 5: Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA
175

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

Appendix One

Air Resources Management Plan
176

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.1 Appendix 1 – Air Resources Management Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.1 Appendix 1 – Air Resources Management Plan...................................................... 176

6.1.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................. 177

6.1.2 Air Quality Issues................................................................................................................. 177

6.1.3 Field Office Air Resource Management Requirements ................................................. 184

6.1.4 Project Specific Requirements ........................................................................................... 186
APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 177

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

6.1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this air resources management plan is to address air quality issues identified by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in its analysis of potential impacts to air resources for the 

Bakersfield Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP). This plan outlines the specific requirements 

for managing air resources and authorizing activities that have the potential to adversely impact air 

resources within the Bakersfield Field Office Planning Area. The plan also outlines specific requirements 

for proponents of projects that have the potential to generate air emissions and adversely impact air 

resources within the Planning Area.

6.1.2 Air Quality Issues

The BLM based its identification of air quality issues on the following information:

 Current ambient air quality in portions of the Planning Area exceeds National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM2.5. 

 Designated nonattainment areas for ozone and PM2.5 occur within the Planning Area.

 The majority of the Planning Area is a designated maintenance area for PM10.

 The Bakersfield Metropolitan Area and Fresno Urbanized Area are designated maintenance 

areas for CO.

 Historic and continued development of fluid mineral resources, based on the Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil and Gas (Proposed RMP/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS), Appendix M), and projected levels and locations of development 

identified in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Proposed RMP/ Final EIS.

6.1.2.1 Magnitude of Emissions

Existing emissions inventories, maintained by regional air pollution control districts, and the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) statewide emissions inventory were compiled for the Planning Area. These 

largely model-derived emissions inventories are categorized by region and source on the CARB web site, 

providing a snap-shot of a variety of dynamic and variable processes. In conjunction with Public Land 

Statistics (PLS) well and production data and the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal

Resources (CDOGGR) state well inventory, these emissions inventories were used to determine the 

extent and magnitude of BLM’s total air pollutant emissions and to compare emissions between 

alternatives. Emissions were calculated using conservative assumptions; air emissions from oil and gas 

activities assume that all of the potential development identified in the RFD will occur. The RFD is based 

upon known geologic conditions, current development technology, and industry-provided data about 

future planned development. Future pricing and economic or technical viability of geologic plays were 

not taken into account. Assumptions regarding the use of air emission control technologies were also 

very conservative. For example, air emissions from drilling activities assume a mixture of Tier 1 – Tier 3 

diesel engines. However, it is likely that significant emissions reductions will occur over the life of the 

plan as a result of existing regulatory measures and controls, and may be further reduced through the 

use of alternative drilling technologies.

As a result, the compiled air emissions inventory represents the emission of air pollutants based upon 

best available information at the time of writing, but actual emissions increases over the life of the plan 

are expected to be much lower. Given the conservative assumptions used in generating the emissions 
178 APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

inventory, it is suitable for contrasting the impact of management actions and strategies on air 

resources among alternatives. It is also useful for identifying those activities that are likely to be major 

contributors to increased air emissions and developing management actions to minimize their impact to 

air resources.

Despite the limitations of the air emissions inventory, it supports the following conclusions:

1. For the management actions and activities analyzed, oil and gas development activities are the 

major contributor to total air emissions; 

2. Comprehensive trails and travel management activities (vehicle use on unpaved roads) are a 

major contributor to particulate emissions; and

3. There is not a substantial difference in total air emissions among alternatives. 

The reason there is not a substantial difference in total air emissions among alternatives is the result of 

several factors:

 The RFD scenario for oil and gas does not vary by alternative.

 Oil and gas development in the Planning Area is primarily focused in discrete areas, mainly in 

existing oil and gas fields that have been developed and produced for 50-100 years. The 

constraints placed on oil and gas development under all alternatives to protect other resources 

do not vary greatly; therefore, the projected emissions do not vary greatly. 

 Under all alternatives, existing sources of emissions are assumed to continue to comprise a 

substantial portion of total projected emissions.

 The air quality analysis focuses on impacts that result from a change in current management. 

BLM has discretion to limit the impacts of future development on air resources, primarily though 

mitigation measures that are applied during project approval. This entails the cooperative development 

of project-specific measures to minimize impacts to air resources as outlined in the plan and compliance 

with existing air regulatory agency and permitting requirements. 

6.1.2.2 Pollutants of Concern

The emissions inventory compiled for each alternative shows that estimated emissions from BLM 

authorized activities such as oil and gas development have the potential to cause or contribute to 

increased levels of ozone and suspended particulate matter, thereby contributing to exceedances of 

ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the BLM has identified ozone and its precursors (nitrogen 

oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds/reactive organic gases (VOCs/ROG)) and particulate 

matter (PM10 and PM2.5) as pollutants of concern to be addressed through specific management actions 

described in this plan.

6.1.2.3 65BAir Emission Generating Activities

Air emissions were considered for four (4) broad categories of activities that BLM authorizes, allows, or 

performs and that have the potential to emit regulated air pollutants. These categories include energy 

development, vehicle use on unpaved roads, fire and fuels management, and livestock grazing. For 

activities that have the potential to contribute to increases (or decreases) in concentrations of regulated 

air pollutants, the estimated emissions were used to determine those activities that warrant specific 

management strategies for minimizing air quality impacts. 
APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 179

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

Under each alternative, oil and gas development activities were identified as the major contributor to 

increases in emissions of NOx and VOC/ROG. Although Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management 

designations generally reduce the number of routes available for vehicle use over current management, 

vehicle use on unpaved roads was identified as the major contributor to particulate matter emissions. 

6.1.2.4 Geographic Areas of High Potential for Development

The decision area (acres) for minerals management varies by the specific mineral or mineral group and is 

therefore addressed separately by mineral program. Fluid minerals include oil, gas, and geothermal 

resources. Solid (non-energy) minerals include leasable, locatable, and salable mineral resources. 

Mineral occurrence and development potential in the Planning Area is based on past exploration and 

development, particularly for oil and gas. The RFD Scenarios (Proposed RMP/Final EIS, Appendix M) 

identified geographic areas of high, moderate, and low development potential for conventional oil and 

gas, geothermal, solid (non-energy) leasable minerals, locatable minerals, and salable minerals. 

Areas identified within the Planning Area as high potential for conventional oil and gas development are 

located in the southern San Joaquin Valley, mainly in Kern County. This area has been explored and 

developed since the 1870’s and is comprised of numerous existing oil and gas fields and development 

units. Moderate to high potential for fluid minerals occurs outside the San Joaquin Valley region 

throughout the Coast Range; however, the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains (in the eastern portion of 

the planning area) are considered to have little to no potential for oil and gas. 

Based on the RFD scenario, oil and gas development is anticipated to occur mainly in Kern and Ventura 

counties. The fact that future development is expected to occur in areas that are already developed and 

producing provides the following benefits to air resources:

 Future oil and gas development in areas of existing production reduces impacts to air quality 

from new construction, new production facilities, and new sources that would be required in 

undeveloped fields.

 Based on low mineral potential in the eastern portion of the Planning Area and the RFD 

Scenario, oil and gas development is not likely to occur in proximity to federally designated Class 

I areas (Map 6.1 and Map 6.2).

 
180 APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Map 6.1 Mandatory Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class 1 Areas
APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 181

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

Map 6.2 Areas with Oil and Gas Potential
182 APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The geothermal resources in the Planning Area occur throughout the southern Sierra Nevada south of 

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and in coastal regions west of Sespe Hot Springs in the 

Transverse Range (Map 6.3). An area with high potential for development of geothermal resources 

occurs in the Kern River Valley of Kern County extending south and west to Democrat Hot Springs. A 

broad area of moderate potential surrounds the Kern River Valley, extending from California Hot Springs 

on the northwest to Walker Pass on the south east. Furthermore, an area extending from Springville on 

the west nearly to Coso Hot Springs on the east also has moderate potential. In the Transverse Range, 

an area with several hot springs, extending west from Sespe Hot Springs for over thirty miles, has 

moderate potential. Although there is known potential, there are currently no federal geothermal 

leases and historically little interest in geothermal energy development in the Decision Area. Therefore, 

it is projected that no direct use or indirect use geothermal development will occur on public lands 

within the Planning Area over the next 10 years.

6.1.2.5 67BSummary of Air Quality Issues

 Concentrations of ozone precursor emissions (NOX and VOCs/ROG) and PM2.5 within the Planning 

Area have exceeded current NAAQS (primary).

 The geography of the San Joaquin Valley, the majority of the Planning Area, is highly conducive 

to the formation of air pollutants. 

 A majority of the Planning Area is a designated non-attainment area for ozone.

 Portions of the San Joaquin Valley are designated nonattainment for PM2.5.

 The San Joaquin Valley is a designated PM10 maintenance area.

 The Bakersfield Metropolitan Area and Fresno Urbanized Area are designated maintenance 

areas for carbon monoxide (CO).

 Emissions calculations showed potentially substantial increases in estimated emissions of ozone 

forming pollutants (NOX and VOCs/ROG) which could result in increased concentrations of ozone 

based on the RFD scenario.

 The air analysis for the RMP showed that oil and gas development activities have the potential 

to be a major contributor to estimated NOX, VOCs, and particulate emissions. Vehicle use on 

unpaved roads is also a major contributor to particulate emissions.
APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 183

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

Map 6.3 Areas with Geothermal Potential

68B
184 APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.1.3 Field Office Air Resource Management Requirements

The Bakersfield Field Office has the responsibility to implement the decisions of the RMP in a manner 

that protects air quality while recognizing valid and existing leasing rights. Within the Planning Area, 

most areas with high and moderate oil and gas development potential are already leased. While the 

BLM has limited ability to alter the conditions of existing leases, it can require specific actions and 

measures necessary to protect air quality in response to identified or anticipated adverse impacts at the 

project level stage.

Development and implementation of appropriate protection measures is most effective at the project 

approval stage, because the proposed action has been defined and impacts to air quality are better able 

to be identified through National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. As part of the project 

approval process the BLM will identify project-specific measures in response to identified impacts to air 

resources, as outlined in this air resources management plan.

6.1.3.1 Authorization of Air Emission Generating Activities

1.3.1.1 BLM has the authority and responsibility under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) to manage public lands in a manner that will protect the quality of air and atmospheric values. 

Therefore, the BLM may manage the pace, place, density, and intensity of leasing and development to 

meet air quality goals.

1.3.1.2 BLM will, prior to authorization of any activity that has the potential to emit any regulated air 

pollutant, consider the magnitude of potential air emissions from the project or activity, existing air 

quality conditions, geographic location, and issues identified during project scoping to identify pollutants 

of concern and to determine the appropriate level of air analysis to be conducted for the project. In 

addition to any applicable regulatory requirements, standards, or emission limits, this analysis would 

include mitigation measures and may include obtaining additional air monitoring data, air dispersion 

modeling, and/or photochemical grid modeling.

1.3.1.3 BLM will require project proponents to comply with the requirements under Project Specific 

Requirements of this air resources management plan. BLM will review any project specific emissions 

inventory submitted as required under Emissions Inventory to determine its completeness and accuracy.

1.3.1.4 For projects that have the potential to exceed de minimis levels for criteria pollutant(s) under 40 

CFR Part 93, BLM will require the proponent to demonstrate conformity with relevant SIP(s) in one of 

four ways:

a) Demonstrate that the project will result in no net increase in area annual emissions of the 

pollutant for the life of the project (e.g. through the application of emission control 

technologies, offsets, or other air emission reducing strategies),

b) Demonstrate that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of the ambient air 

quality standard through a quantitative air quality analysis (e.g. air dispersion modeling, 

photochemical grid modeling or an equivalent level of air analysis),

c) Show that the emission increases caused by the project are included in the SIP(s), or

d) Demonstrate that the State agrees to include the emission increases in the SIP(s).
APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 185

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

1.3.1.5 Prescribed fire projects will be required to minimize impacts to air quality and will comply with 

local and State smoke management plans and regulations. Prior to prescribed burning activities, the 

BLM will submit a smoke management plan to the applicable air district for approval. The BLM will 

coordinate with the air district to schedule burning activities when meteorological conditions will 

promote dispersal of emissions, not contribute to poor air quality, and will be in conformance with 

applicable state implementation plans. The air district is the final regulatory authority on approving 

planned ignitions based on smoke management concerns.

6.1.3.2 Monitoring

As part of this comprehensive air management plan for the Planning Area, BLM commits to the 

following measures with regards to ambient air monitoring:

 BLM may require project proponents to conduct pre-construction and/or project air modeling as 

described in Monitoring.

 BLM will work cooperatively with federal, state, and local air regulatory agencies to determine 

the best mechanism to submit, track, and approve project-specific monitoring data required in a 

project-specific NEPA decision document.

6.1.3.3 Modeling

BLM recognizes that air dispersion and photochemical grid models are useful tools in predicting project 

specific impacts to air quality, predicting the potential effectiveness of control measures and strategies, 

and for predicting trends in regional concentrations of some air pollutants. As part of this 

comprehensive air management plan for the Planning Area, BLM commits to the following with regards 

to air quality modeling:

 BLM will require project specific air quality modeling as outlined in Project Specific 

Requirements, consistent with the requirements of the NEPA Air Quality MOU for Federal Oil 

and Gas Decisions.

 BLM will ensure that project specific modeling is carried out in accordance with US EPA 

modeling guidelines and in cooperation with the air quality interagency review team.

 BLM will support and participate in regional modeling efforts through multi-state and/or multiagency organizations such as the Western Governors Association – Western Regional Air 

Partnership and the Federal Leadership Forum.

6.1.3.4 Mitigation

BLM recognizes that many of the activities that it authorizes, permits, or allows generate air 

pollutant emissions that have the potential to adversely impact air quality. The primary mechanism 

to reduce air quality impacts is to reduce emissions (mitigation). As part of this comprehensive air 

management plan for the Planning Area, the BLM commits to the following with regards to reducing 

emissions:

 BLM will require project proponents to include measures for reducing air pollutant 

emissions in project proposals.
186 APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 BLM will require project proponents to comply with air regulatory agency rules, regulations, 

and permits and reporting requirements; operators are responsible for obtaining necessary 

air permits prior to project implementation.

 BLM will require additional air emission control measures and strategies within its 

regulatory authority and in consultation with the US EPA, the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB), and pertinent local air pollution control districts. 

 BLM will ensure that air pollution control measures and strategies (both operator 

committed and required mitigation) are enforceable by including specific conditions in 

permit approvals.

6.1.4 Project Specific Requirements

BLM has identified activities and pollutants of concern for the Planning Area and this section 

contains specific requirements for project proponents. Mineral development activities, specifically 

oil and gas development, have been identified as having the potential to contribute to increases in 

ambient concentrations of ozone, and slight increases in PM10 and PM2.5. Proponents of mineral 

development projects are required to comply with Emissions Inventory and 1.4.4.1 at a minimum.

6.1.4.1 Emissions Inventory

The proponent of a mineral development project will be required to provide the BLM with an 

emissions inventory per 40 CFR Part 93 that quantifies the emission of regulated air pollutants from 

all applicable sources related to the proposed project, including all reasonably foreseeable direct 

and indirect emissions. Additionally, the project proponent will provide an estimate of greenhouse 

gas emissions for all sources included in the aforementioned emissions inventory. BLM will use the 

estimated emissions inventory to identify pollutants of concern and to determine the appropriate 

level of air analysis to be conducted for the proposed project.

The BLM may require an emissions inventory for other actions depending on the magnitude of 

potential air emissions from the project or activity, proximity to federally mandated Class I area, 

sensitive Class II area, population center, location within a non-attainment or maintenance area, 

meteorological or geographic conditions, existing air quality conditions, magnitude of existing 

development in the area, or issues identified during project scoping.

6.1.4.2 Monitoring

The BLM may require the proponent of a mineral development project to conduct baseline or life of 

the project monitoring depending on the magnitude of potential air emissions from the project or 

activity, proximity to a federally mandated Class I area, sensitive Class II area, or population center, 

location within a non-attainment or maintenance area, meteorological or geographic conditions, 

existing air quality conditions, magnitude of existing development in the area, or issues identified 

during scoping.

6.1.4.3 Modeling

1.4.3.1 The proponent of a mineral development project may be required to conduct air quality 

modeling for any pollutant(s) of concern, as determined by the BLM, unless the project proponent 

can demonstrate that the project will result in no net increase in emissions of the pollutant(s) of 
APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 187

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

concern. BLM, in cooperation with the interagency review team, will determine the parameters for 

modeling analysis through the development of a project specific modeling protocol.

1.4.3.2 BLM may require air quality modeling if other criteria that warrant an air dispersion or 

photochemical modeling analysis are identified for purposes of analyzing project direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts to air quality. Such criteria may include the magnitude of potential air emissions 

from the project or activity, proximity to a federally mandated Class I area, sensitive Class II area, or 

population center, location within a non-attainment or maintenance area, meteorologic or 

geographic conditions, existing air quality conditions, magnitude of existing development in the area 

or issues identified during scoping.

6.1.4.4 Mitigation

1.4.4.1 The proponent of a mineral development project will be required to minimize air pollutant 

emissions by complying with all applicable state and federal regulations and may be required to 

apply mitigation including but not limited to Best Available Control Technology, Best Management 

Practices, emissions offsets, and other control technologies or strategies identified by the BLM 

and/or federal, state and local air regulatory agencies with delegated regulatory authority.

1.4.4.2 The proponent of a mineral development project that has the potential to emit any 

regulated air pollutant will be required to provide a detailed description of operator committed 

measures to reduce project related air pollutant emissions, including greenhouse gases and fugitive 

dust. Project proponents for oil and gas development projects should refer to the mitigation 

measures included in Appendix 3: Best Management Practices (BMPs)/Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs) of the Approved RMP and in Table 1.1 below as a reference for potential control 

technologies and strategies. The list is not intended to preclude the use of other effective air 

pollution control technologies that may be proposed. 
188 APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Table 1.1: Mitigation for Oil and Gas Development Activities

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Control Strategies for Drilling and Compression

Directional Drilling Reduces construction 

related emissions (dust 

and vehicle and 

construction equipment 

emissions). Decreases 

surface disturbance and 

vegetation impacts 

(dust and CO2 and 

nitrogen flux). Reduces 

habitat fragmentation.

Could result in higher air 

impacts in one area with 

longer sustained drilling 

times.

Depends on 

geological strata.

Improved engine 

technology (Tier 2 or 

better) for diesel drill 

rig engines

Reduced NOx, PM, CO, 

and VOC emissions

-- Dependent on 

availability of 

technology from 

engine 

manufacturers.

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) for 

drill rig engines and/or 

compressors

NOx emissions 

reduction, decreased 

formation of visibility 

impairing compounds, 

decreased formation of 

ozone. NOx control 

efficiency of 95 percent 

achieved on drill rig 

engines. NOx emission 

rate of 0.1 grams per 

horsepower achieved 

for compressors

Potential NH3 emissions 

and formation of visibility 

impairing ammonium 

sulfate. 

Regeneration/disposal of 

catalyst can produce 

hazardous waste.

Not applicable to 

2-stroke engines.

Non-selective catalytic 

reduction (NSCR) for 

drill rig engines and/or 

compressors

NOx emissions 

reduction, decreased 

formation of visibility 

impairing compounds, 

decreased formation of 

ozone. NOx control 

efficiency of 80-90 

percent achieved for 

drill rig engines. NOx 

emission rate of 0.7 

grams per horsepower 

hour achieved for 

compressor engines 

greater than 100 

horsepower.

-- Not applicable to 

lean burn or 2-

stroke engines.
APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 189

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Natural Gas fired drill 

rig engines

NOx emissions 

reduction, decreased 

formation of visibility 

impairing compounds, 

decreased formation of 

ozone.

-- Requires onsite 

processing of field 

gas.

Electrification of drill 

rig engines and/or 

compressors

Decreased emissions at 

the source. Transfers 

emissions to more 

efficiently controlled 

source (EGU)

Displaces emissions to 

EGU.

Depends on 

availability of 

power and 

transmission lines.

Improved engine 

technology (Tier 2 or 

better) for all mobile 

and non-road diesel 

engines.

Reduced NOX, PM, CO, 

and VOC emissions.

-- Dependent on 

availability of 

technology from 

engine 

manufacturers.

Green (also known as 

closed loop or 

flareless) completions

Reduction in VOC and 

CH4 emissions. Reduces 

or eliminate flaring and 

venting and associated 

emissions. Reduces or 

eliminates open pits 

and associated 

evaporative emissions. 

Increased recovery of 

gas to pipeline rather 

than atmosphere.

Temporary increase in 

truck traffic and 

associated emissions.

Need adequate 

pressure and flow. 

Need onsite 

infrastructure 

(tanks/dehydrator

). Availability of 

sales line.

Green workovers Same as above. Same as above. Same as above.

Minimize venting 

and/or use closed loop 

process where possible 

during “blow downs”

Same as above. --

Reclaim/remediate 

existing open pits, no 

new pits

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions. Reduces 

potential for soil and 

water contamination. 

Reduces odors.

May increase truck traffic 

and associated 

emissions.

Requires tank 

and/or pipeline 

infrastructure.

Electrification of 

wellhead 

compression/pumping

Reduces local emissions 

of fossil fuel 

combustion and 

transfers to more easily 

controlled source.

Displaces emissions to 

EGU

Depends on 

availability of 

power and 

transmission lines.

Renewable power 

(solar or wind) for 

compressors

Low or no emissions. May require construction 

of infrastructure. 

Potential visual and/or 

wildlife impacts.

Depends on 

availability of 

power and 

transmission lines.
190 APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Control Strategies Utilizing Centralized Systems

Centralization (or 

consolidation) of 

processing facilities 

(separation, 

dehydration, etc.)

Reduces vehicle miles 

traveled (truck traffic) 

and associated 

emissions. Reduced 

VOC and GHG emissions 

from individual 

dehydrator/separator 

units.

Temporary increase in 

construction associated 

emissions. Higher 

potential for pipe 

leaks/groundwater 

impacts.

Requires pipeline

infrastructure.

Liquids Gathering 

Systems (for 

condensate and 

produced water) and 

water delivery systems

Reduces vehicle miles 

traveled and associated 

emissions. Reduced 

VOC and GHG emissions 

from tanks, truck 

loading/unloading, and 

multiple production 

facilities.

Temporary increase in 

construction associated 

emissions. Higher 

potential for pipe 

leaks/groundwater 

impacts.

Requires pipeline 

infrastructure.

Control Strategies for Tanks, Separators, and Dehydrators

Eliminate use of open 

top tanks

Reduced VOC and GHG 

emissions.

-- Required by local 

Air Districts as a 

BACT for 

produced water in 

some areas.

Capture and control of 

flashing emissions 

from all storage tanks 

and separation vessels 

with vapor recovery 

and/or thermal 

combustion units

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

Pressure build up on 

older tanks can lead to 

uncontrolled rupture.

Capture and control of 

produced water tank 

emissions

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

--

Capture and control of 

dehydration 

equipment emissions 

with condensers, 

vapor recovery, and/or 

thermal combustion

Reduces VOC, HAP, and 

GHG emissions.

--

Control Strategies for Misc. Fugitive VOC Emissions

Install and maintain 

low VOC emitting 

seals, valves, hatches, 

etc. on production 

equipment

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

-- --
APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 191

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Initiate equipment leak 

detection and repair 

program (including use 

of FLIR cameras, grab 

samples, organic vapor 

detection devices, 

visual inspection, etc.)

Reduction in VOC and 

GHG emissions.

--

Install or convert gas 

operated pneumatic 

pumps and/or devices 

to electric, solar, or 

instrument (or 

compressed) air driven 

pumps and/or 

devices/controllers.

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

Electric or compressed 

air driven operations can 

displace or increase 

combustion emissions.

Use “low” or “no 

bleed” gas operated 

pneumatic 

devices/controllers.

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

--

Use closed loop system 

or thermal combustion 

for gas operated 

pneumatic pump 

emissions.

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

--

Install vapor recovery 

on truck 

loading/unloading 

operations at tanks.

Reduces emissions of 

VOC and GHG 

emissions.

Pressure build up on 

older tanks can lead to 

uncontrolled rupture.

Control Strategies for Fugitive Dust and Vehicle Emissions

Unpaved surface 

treatments including 

watering, chemical 

suppressants, and 

gravel

20 – 80 percent control 

of fugitive dust 

(particulates) from 

vehicle traffic.

Potential impacts to 

water and vegetation 

from runoff of 

suppressants.

--

Use remote telemetry 

and automation of 

wellhead equipment

Reduces vehicle traffic 

and associated 

emissions.

-- --

Speed limit control and 

enforcement on 

unpaved roads

Reduction of fugitive 

dust emissions.

-- --

Reduce commuter 

vehicle trips through 

car pools, commuter 

vans or buses, or 

innovative work 

schedules.

Reduced combustion 

emission, reduced 

fugitive dust emissions, 

reduced ozone 

formation, reduced 

impacts to visibility.

-- --
192 APPENDIX 1 – AIR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Miscellaneous Control Strategies

Use of ultra-low sulfur 

diesel in engines, 

compressors, 

construction 

equipment, etc.

Reduces emissions of 

particulates and 

sulfates.

-- --

Reduce unnecessary 

vehicle idling

Reduced combustion 

emissions, reduced 

ozone formation, 

reduced impacts to 

visibility.

-- --

Reduced pace of 

(phased) development

Peak emissions of all 

pollutants reduced.

Emissions generated at a 

lower rate but duration 

of impacts is longer.

May not be 

economically 

viable or feasible 

if multiple mineral 

interests.

Definitions

CO2 Carbon Dioxide NH3 Ammonia

NOx Nitrous Oxides BACT Best Available Control Technology

CO Carbon Monoxide GHG Greenhouse Gas

EGU Electrical Generating Unit HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

VOC Volatile Organic Compound CH4 Methane
193

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

Appendix Two

Travel Management Plan
194 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.2 Appendix 2 – Travel Management Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.2 Appendix 2 – Travel Management Plan.................................................................. 194

6.2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 195

6.2.2 Authority ............................................................................................................................... 195

6.2.3 Transportation System ........................................................................................................ 196

6.2.4 Travel and Transportation Management Decisions ....................................................... 205

6.2.5 Travel and Transportation Management Guidance........................................................ 212
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 195

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

6.2.1 Introduction

Comprehensive travel and transportation management addresses all resource use aspects, including 

recreational, traditional, casual, agricultural, commercial, and educational; and the accompanying 

modes and conditions of travel on public lands (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Appendix 

C). As such, it involves more than motorized or off-highway vehicle activities, and includes the travel 

needs for all BLM-administered resource management programs for such purposes as mineral 

extraction, energy production, livestock grazing, wildlife enhancement projects, and recreation.

The commencement of travel and transportation management are Travel Management Plans (TMPs), 

which represent the initial effort to actively consider and apply management to the on-the-ground 

network of linear travel features occurring on public lands9F

10. These plans depict the principle 

transportation structure (roads and trail systems) needed to properly manage public lands and its uses, 

how this structure will be managed (i.e., the Transportation System), and existing inadequacies of the 

system – ranging from needed Rights-of-Way or Easements to setting maintenance deficiencies.

TMPs are considered implementation level planning – that tier from, and are directed by, Land Use Plan 

decisions in the respective Resource Management Plan. These plans may occur as activity level plans 

associated with a specific area (e.g., a TMP as part of a Special Recreation Management Area Plan or a 

TMP as part of an ACEC Plan) or, as in the case of the Bakersfield RMP, concurrent with an RMP revision 

and or amendment – these decisions, however, are still considered to be implementation decisions and 

can change over time based on, and with, other new implementation decisions. In this regard, travel 

and transportation management is therefore dynamic. Although a TMP provides initial decisions over 

route designations these can, and most likely will, be modified over time to reflect changing 

requirements of route users and interfacing resources.

6.2.2 Authority

The key authorities on which the TMP and Approved RMP have been developed are listed below: 

 Executive Order No. 11644, February 8, 1972 (37 Federal Register 2877) – This order established 

criteria by which federal agencies were to develop regulations for the management of OHVs on 

lands under their management. Agencies are to "monitor the effects" of OHV use on their public 

lands and, "on the basis of the information gathered, they shall from time to time amend or 

rescind designation of areas for OHV use "as necessary to further" its policy.

 Executive Order No. 11989, May 25, 1977 (42 Federal Register 26959) – This order amended 

Executive Order 11644 and authorized agencies to adopt a policy that particular lands can be 

considered closed to OHVs once it is determined that OHV use "will cause or is causing 

considerable adverse effects" to particular resources.

 43 CFR Part 8342 – OHV Regulations that establish criteria for designating lands as Open, 

Limited, or Closed to the use of OHVs.

 Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-173, Implementation of Roads and Trails Terminology 

Report (BLM 2006).

 

10 Site specific route management may have previously occurred, but the TMP attempts to provide guidance and 

management for a larger area and a network of routes – considered to be the BLM’s Transportation System.
196 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-014, Clarification of Guidance and Integration of 

Comprehensive Travel Transportation Management Planning into the Land Use Planning (BLM 

2007).

 Instruction memorandum No. 2012-067, Clarification of Cultural Resource Considerations for 

Off-Highway Vehicle Designations and Travel management (BLM 2012).

 National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands (BLM 

2001).

 Travel and Transportation Management Handbook H8342-1 (BLM, 2011).

6.2.3 Transportation System

The BLMs Transportation System is a dynamic system that routinely grows and shrinks with the 

authorization, addition and decommissioning of routes. From a purely policy (H8342-1) standpoint the 

Transportation System itself is those linear travel features classified as Roads, Primitive Roads and Trails 

– and subsequently recorded in the BLM’s Facility Asset Management System (FAMS). These asset

classifications are defined in Travel Management Handbook H8342-1 and presented below (note: 

additional information and clarification is provided below each definition in italics);

Road: A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles having 

four or more wheels, and maintained for regular and continuous use.

Roads are typically improved travel features (e.g., surfaced), or intensively/routinely maintained routes. 

The classification of a feature as a road implies that routine and regular maintenance of that feature 

could, and is expected to occur – and any NEPA compliance document authorizing or designating the 

feature has considered and disclosed this level maintenance. Often these routes are specifically 

authorized through a Right-of-Way or similar, and the maintenance the responsibility of a third party. As 

a rule of thumb, these routes should be designed and engineered to meet certain standards – this is not 

always the case.

Primitive Road: A linear route managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. These 

routes do not normally meet any BLM road design standards.

Primitive Roads – which make up the majority of routes in the Transportation System – are typically 

unimproved routes, or routes that are maintained on an “as needed” basis. Although the definition 

states they are managed for use by four-wheel drive or high clearance vehicles – often they are 

maintained with sufficient frequency to allow regular use by two wheel drive and low-clearance vehicles. 

Many of these routes are either historic (e.g., old mining or logging roads) or more recent user created 

routes that see sufficient use to keep vegetation from colonizing the road bed.

Trail: A linear route managed for human-powered, stock, or off-highway vehicle forms of transportation 

or for historical or heritage values. Trails are not generally managed for use by four-wheel drive or highclearance vehicles.

Unlike Primitive Roads and Roads the primary use of trails tends to be recreational in nature. With the 

onset of larger OHV equipment (side-by-sides) the definition above probably does not hold true, in that 

trails may not always accommodate all OHVs or may indeed sometimes accommodate or be managed 

for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. This classification is really most useful when 
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 197

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

specifically identifying routes with recreational purposes and where the management direction is to limit 

use to a smaller trail bed e.g., single track, hiking, mountain biking etc.

This limited definition of a Transportation Network is insufficient to cover the range of linear travel 

features managed by the BLM’s Bakersfield Field Office. As such, Temporary Roads and Primitive Routes 

are also considered to be part of the BLMs Transportation System (although would not be recorded in 

FAMS). 

Temporary Route: Short-term roads, primitive roads or trails authorized or acquired for the 

development, construction or staging of a project or event that has a finite lifespan.

The first term (short-term) in the definition should be ignored. Although routes may be short-term in 

nature, the more important artifact of the definition is “has a finite lifespan”. Much of the authorized 

activities in the Bakersfield Field Offices have long, but finite lifespans e.g., 30-year Rights-of-way, 100-

year active Oil and Gas Lease. As such, the definition is expanded to include not only short-term roads, 

primitive roads and trails but also any route associated with a project of a finite lifespan for which a 

third-party will be responsible for the decommissioning, reclamation and restoration of the route upon 

completion of the project – at the terminus of the project during the termination, revocation or 

abandonment process the BLM will specifically address whether the route has public purpose and if so 

redesignate the route accordingly and absolve the third-party of any maintenance and restoration 

responsibility. While these routes are specifically authorized, they may be designated for used by a 

variety of users or as “authorized use only” for all or certain modes-of-transport.

Primitive Route: Any motorized/mechanized linear transportation feature located within Wilderness 

Study Area (WSA) – remains unclassified until Congressional action occurs on WSA.

This classification applies both to Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness characteristics. 

Should Congressional Action release a Wilderness Study Area from its study status or a Land Use Plan 

revision or amendment decided not to manage lands with wilderness characteristics for those resource 

values, the routes should be reclassified and designated appropriately to one of the other designations. 

If the routes are no longer of public value they should be identified as Transportation Linear Disturbances 

and decommissioned and restored. 

Of final note, “Transportation Linear Disturbances” (TLD) by very definition are not part of the 

Transportation System – they are however managed concurrently (e.g., following the same guiding 

principles, on the same data sets etc.) with the Transportation System until such time that no evidence 

exists of the feature exists on the ground.

6.2.3.1 7BTransportation System Decisions

There are a number of decisions related to the Transportation System made in the RMP and TMP. Some 

of these decisions are related to the continuing process of Travel Management; while others are 

decisions that affect the use of actual on the ground acres and features. The two most critical of these 

decisions are the OHV Area Designations (decision [CTTM D-2]) which are land use planning level 

decisions and the Route Designations themselves (decision [CTTM I-2]) which are implementation level

decisions. The full text of these decisions are included in Section 6.2.4 below for reference – however 

understanding what these decisions actually are (or what the decision to be made was) is critical to 

understanding how Travel Management is implemented in to the future, and as such discussed here.
198 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The OHV Area Designation was historically the only decision actually required by regulations and BLM 

policy – this changed with the publication of the Travel and Transportation Management Handbook 

H8342-1 in 2011. This decision was the allocation of all acres of BLM-administered public land as either 

“open”, “closed” or “limited”. These categories were defined in 43 CFR 8430 and read as follows:

Open – Areas "open" for intensive OHV use where there are no compelling resource protection 

needs, user conflicts, or public safety issues to warrant limiting cross-country travel. However, 

motor vehicles may not be operated in a manner causing or likely to cause significant, undue 

damage to or disturbance of the soil, wildlife, wildlife habitat improvements, cultural or 

vegetative resources or other authorized uses of the public lands (See 43 CFR 8341).

Limited – The "limited" designation is used in areas where OHV use must be restricted to meet 

specific resource management objectives. In the current guidance context, this means limited to 

designated roads and trails, i.e., a route network designated by the BLM in its RMP. These 

routes may also be limited to: (1) A time or season of use depending on the resources in the 

area (i.e., Threatened and Endangered Species’ habitat or nesting areas, crucial winter ranges, 

etc.); and/or (2) Type of vehicle use (ATV, Motorcycle, four-wheel vehicle, etc.) 

Closed – The BLM designates areas as "closed" if closure to vehicular use is necessary to protect 

resources, ensure visitor safety, or reduce resource or use conflicts. Access by means other than 

motor vehicle access is generally allowed. The Field Office Manager may allow OHV use on a 

case-by-case basis or for emergencies.

These OHV Area Designation decisions only apply to OHVs as defined by the 43 CFR 8340 – and so do 

not manage all mode-of-transport or all users, which are critical components of a comprehensive 

approach to travel management. As such, although still required, these decisions serve a lesser purpose 

than they have historically as managing at this scale often left the BLM without knowledge of the true 

extent of its Transportation System and the impacts resulting from its existence and use.

By contrast, the Route Designation decision is the site specific (route specific) decision that fully 

considers and, as appropriate, addresses the existence, use, maintenance and impact of each individual

travel feature. All routes within the “limited” OHV Area designation are required by policy to have a 

Route Specific Designation. There is also value in designating routes in “Closed” and “Open” areas for 

the purposes of recording specific decisions and ensuring the Transportation System is truly 

comprehensive and complete. The Route Designation decisions are not fixed in regulation or even 

policy – thus allowing each Field Office or management unit to determine how routes will be designated. 

The Bakersfield specific Route Designation decisions include the two components of a route designation 

required by policy; an Asset Classification – as described above – and an OHV Route Designation (which 

is essentially an “Open”, “Limited” or “Closed” designation mimicking definitions used for OHV Area 

Designations as it relates to the public OHV user). In addition to these, the decision also includes a 

“Primary Designation” (or mode-of-transport designation) and a “Secondary Designation” (or restriction) 

– the definitions of these are established in the Approved RMP (decisions [CTTM D-4] and [CTTM I-1]). 

The Primary Designation essentially controls the mode-of-transport permissible on any route and the 

Secondary Designation applies additional limitations, e.g., the type of vehicle or user (note that

secondary designations are an optional component of the decision). As displayed in the table below, the

final route designation decision typically includes the route’s asset classification, primary designation, 

secondary designation (if applicable), and OHV route designation. 
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 199

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

Asset Classification Primary Designation Secondary Designation Public OHV Route 

Designation

Road Motorized Street Legal Vehicles Limited

Primitive Road Motorized Authorized Use Closed

Trail Motorized - Open

Trail Non-Motorized Pedestrian Closed

As a standard, when the Route Designation decisions are written in narrative form they should read: XX 

route is/would be “designated as a Primitive Road for Motorized use by Authorized Users Only; OHV 

Closed”.

6.2.3.2 78BModifications to Proposed Decisions

The proposed route designations were published on August 31, 2012 with the Bakersfield Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. Since that time a number of modifications to those proposed decisions have occurred to 

reflect: (1) new and/or modified route designations that have been authorized in the interim by 

project/site specific actions; (2) improved inventory - as more field work is complete, and better, more 

recent, aerial photography reviewed; (3) addition of existing system routes (Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail, Long Valley and Lamont Peak Trails) that were inadvertently omitted; and (4) a number of routes 

incorrectly designated as Transportation Linear Disturbances have been re-designated as Primitive 

Roads for Motorized use by Authorized Users as a result of discovery of an existing authorization for the 

route. The Modifications to Proposed Decisions Table summarizes these changes and is presented in full 

as an Attachment due to its size (over 300 records). The table below (TMP Table 1) is an excerpt from 

this Attachment to provide reference and guidance on how to read this table. The complete table is 

available in electronic versions of this document here, or downloadable at the following website: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/bakersfield/Programs/planning/caliente_rmp_revision.html
200 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

TMP Table 1

Modifications to Proposed Decisions

RMP 

Route 

Number

Notes

1914 Changed from “Trail Non-Motorized” to “Primitive Road, Motorized, Authorized Use” 

due to existing ROW (CACA 26507 8.5’)

29 Changed from “TLD” to “Primitive Road, Motorized, Authorized Use” due to existing 

authorization (FPC Proj 298 50’)

30 Changed from “TLD” to “Primitive Road, Motorized, Authorized Use” due to existing 

authorization (FPC Proj 298 50’)

1282 Route not on Public Land

1246 Route not on Public Land

33 Changed from “TLD” to “Primitive Road, Motorized, Authorized Use” due to existing 

ROW (CAS 0066451)

1257 Route does not exist on the ground

1281 Route does not exist on the ground

1262 Route does not exist on the ground

1293 Route does not exist on the ground

1250 Route does not exist on the ground

1331 Route does not exist on the ground

876 Route does not exist on the ground

32 Route does not exist on the ground

1295 Changed from “TLD” to “Primitive Road, Motorized, Authorized Use” due to existing 

ROW (CAS 0019079 10’)

21 Aqueduct (not a Linear Transport Feature)

1908 Aqueduct (not a Linear Transport Feature)

1916 Aqueduct (not a Linear Transport Feature)

18 Combined with 17 to make one route

36 Combined with 24 to make one route

40 Combined with 24 to make one route

1898 Combined with 24 to make one route

35 Combined with 24 to make one route

16 Changed from “TLD” to “Primitive Road, Motorized, Authorized Use” due to existing 

authorization (CAC 23726-FD)

1626

Changed from Motorized Primitive Road to “TLD” to minimize impacts on sensitive Alkali 

Sink Vegetation community and provide an opportunity to recover the disturbance 

created by the route.

1627

Changed from Motorized Primitive Road to “TLD” to minimize impacts on sensitive Alkali 

Sink Vegetation community and provide an opportunity to recover the disturbance 

created by the route.

* TLD: Transportation Linear Disturbance
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 201

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

6.2.3.3 79BSummaries of Designation Decisions

As previously indicated the Transportation System is dynamic and route designations are a continually 

evolving to represent the decisions made on the inventory of linear transportation features occurring on 

BLM-administered public lands or within easements granted to the BLM. These decisions may occur in 

many different forms from Grazing Authorizations to Oil and Gas development approvals. With that in 

mind the designation decisions on each route presented within the Approved RMP and this TMP are 

considered to be accurate only at the time of writing (August 2014) and the Transportation System may 

have been modified by subsequent authorizations actions between writing and publication and will 

continue to be modified on into the future. These modifications would normally only affect a small 

number of routes or routes within a specific project area – and would follow all the guidance for public 

participation and considerations for designation presented in the Approved RMP decisions.

The designation decisions in the RMP are route specific, i.e., a designation has been provided for each of 

the inventoried linear travel features. These are documented in the Route Designation Table –

Electronic Attachment to this document. There are several different ways these decisions can be 

summarized and continue to be summarized for various purposes in the future. The method of 

summation very much depends on the need, but the following serves as some primary examples of how 

the Final Decisions for this TMP can be summarized;

TMP Table 2

Transportation System by Asset Classification

Asset Classification Mileage

Road 16

Primitive Road 1220

Trail 285

Temporary Road 0

Primitive Route 91

Transportation Linear Disturbance 285

The above table (Table 2) is useful for explaining the extent of the Transportation System. It does 

however have significant limitations, especially to the public, as it does not distinguish the features or 

assets from their allowable uses (i.e., mode-of-transport or specific user restrictions) – presenting only 

this data could be misleading.

TMP Table 3

Transportation System by Mode-of-Transport (Primary) Designation

Mode-of-Transport (Primary) 

Designation Mileage

Motorized 1576

Non-Motorized 28

Non-Mechanized 8

Transportation Linear Disturbance 285
202 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Table 3 again is useful as an overview of the current designations and provides, to a certain extent,

additional information on allowable mode-of-transports. The data, however, is also somewhat 

misleading in that a Motorized designation actually allows all subsequent modes-of-transport (e.g., the 

number of routes available for non-mechanized use is actually the sum of each from for Motorized, NonMotorized and Non-Mechanized).

TMP Table 4

Transportation System by Mode-of-Transport Allowable Uses

Allowable Use Mileage

Motorized 1350

Motorized – Street Legal Only 77

Motorized – Authorized Use Only 183

Non-Motorized 35

Non-Mechanized 41

Non-Mechanized – Pedestrian Only 4

Transportation Linear Disturbance 285

The above table (Table 4) is the most descriptive of the Transportation System in terms of allowable 

uses but does not allude to Asset Classification in any way. This again can be misleading in that totaling 

the number of features and/or mileage gives totals that exceed the extent of the system. This is because

each designation affords the ability for subsequent mode-of-transport to use the route (e.g., both nonmotorized and non-mechanized modes-of-transport are permitted on motorized routes), therefore the 

number of available features and mileage for non-motorized and non-mechanized include those 

available for motorized as well. As a side note, this table should never be totaled; totals from the actual 

Transportation System, however, could be added and then percentages calculated to answer such 

questions as “What percentage of the Transportation system is available for Mountain Bike Use?”

TMP Table 5

Transportation System by OHV Designation

Route OHV Designation Mileage

Open 1349

Limited 256

Closed 365

The final example above (Table 5) serves to summarize the requirements set forth in 43 CFR 8340, but is 

of limited usefulness beyond that since the OHV Designations apply only to motorized vehicles and 

excludes authorized and permitted motorized users from the definition of an OHV. As such, many of the 

routes available to the public would, under this regulation, essentially be considered “closed” (i.e., any 

route prohibiting motorized use by the public), and only those routes designated motorized with no 

further restriction would be considered open. The presentation of information like this should always 

be explained fully as the terminology is confusing and has, and in some cases continues, to be 

incorrectly used.
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 203

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

In addition to the above tables, the electronic Route Designation table (discussed below), and the 

Approved ARMP decision itself – these final decisions are represented on Travel Management Maps 

produced and published with the RMP. These maps are not reproduced as part of the TMP. The most 

current status of the Transportation System is recorded in the National Ground Transportation Linear 

Features (GTLF) dataset.

6.2.3.4 80BRoute Designation Table and Justifications

The Route Designation Table is presented in full only as an Electronic Attachment due to its size (over 

6000 records). The table below (TMP Table 6) is an excerpt from this Electronic Attachment to provide 

reference and guidance on how to read this table. The complete table is available in electronic versions 

of this document here, or downloadable at the following website: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/bakersfield/Programs/planning/caliente_rmp_revision.html. 

The complete table identifies each specific route by a unique number (Route Segment Number) and 

provides a summary of the rationale supporting the designation.. These rationales have been broken 

down into categories to simplify the process. These categories are as follows;

OHV Closed Area – Non-Discretionary

This category is used to capture all routes in non-discretionary OHV closed areas (e.g., designated 

Wilderness). Within these areas there are “Transportation Linear Disturbances” (trespass routes), 

“Authorized” (grandfathered-in or valid existing rights routes) and “Non-Mechanized” (hiking/horseback 

riding trails). 

OHV Closed Area – Discretionary

This category is used to capture all routes in discretionary OHV closed areas (e.g., some ACECs). Slightly 

different from above, there are non-motorized, non-mechanized, and authorized routes, and 

Transportation Linear Disturbances within this category. This category is only use for those areas 

designated as OHV Closed areas by an RMP (or similar Land Use Planning level document).

Resource Concern – Biology

This category is used when the justification for a route limitation hinges on a biological resource. 

Examples are; route closures to reduce habitat fragmentation or limited seasonal use for breeding 

seasons. This justification has also been used when a route has been designated as authorized use only 

specifically for the benefit of biological resources (e.g., authorized access to a wildlife guzzler).

Resource Concern – Cultural

This category is used when the justification for a route limitation hinges on a cultural resource. Examples 

are route closures due to proximity to an “eligible” archeological site.

Resource Concern – Air, Soil, Water

This category is used when the justification for a route limitation hinges on Air, Soil or Water. Examples 

are route restriction associated with riparian crossing, route closures or restrictions to reduce erosion, 

or route restrictions to reduce particulate (PM10/PM2.5) matter emissions.
204 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Resource Use Concern – Access

This category is used when the justification for a route designation is based on a desire or need for

continued access to public lands or to restricted access to authorized users only. 

Resource Use Concern – Recreation

This category is used when the justification for a route designation hinges on a recreation value 

(experience/opportunity). Routes with every designation appear within this category, for example; a 

Transportation Linear Disturbance designation may be justified under this category when the restoration 

of the route is related to maintaining the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum’s “Primitive Setting”; a nonmotorized designation may be justified as enhancing mountain-bike opportunities; an authorized only 

route may be justified if it is only usable by SRP holders. 

Resource Use Concern – Safety

This category is used when the justification for a route limitation hinges on public safety.

TMP Table 6

Excerpt from Route Designation Table

Route 

Segment 

Number

Length 

(Miles)

Proposed 

Primary 

Designation

Proposed 

Secondary 

Designation

Route 

Classification

OHV 

Designation

Justification 

Category

Designation Notes

871 0.10 Linear 

Transportati

on 

Disturbance

To Be 

Restored

Closed OHV Closed 

Area -

Discretionary

Route enters Moses 

WSA.

1101 0.10 Motorized Primitive Road Open Resource Use 

Concern -

Access

Route required for 

access to, from and 

across public lands

2144 2.06 NonMechanizedPedestrian 

Only

Trail Closed Resource Use 

Concern -

Recreation

Closed to 

motorized/mechaniz

ed to promote 

recreation 

opportunity (wildlife 

watching).

2212 0.12 Linear 

Transportati

on 

Disturbance

To Be 

Restored

Closed Resource 

Concern - Air, 

Soil, Water

Route steepness 

results in 

unsustainable route.

2224 0.10 Motorized Trail Open Resource Use 

Concern -

Recreation

Route within Special 

Recreation 

Management Area 

primarily used for 

recreation.

2336 0.12 Motorized Street Legal 

Only

Primitive Road Limited Resource Use 

Concern -

Recreation

Restricted to 'Street 

Legal' vehicles only to

meet recreation 

objectives.
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 205

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

6.2.4 Travel and Transportation Management Decisions

The Approved RMP makes a number of decisions regarding travel and transportation management. 

Some of these decisions, such as the OHV area designations, are considered Land Use Planning level 

decisions, and as such require a Land Use Plan amendment or revision to change – including the public 

involvement associated with these processes. The Approved RMP also makes some implementation 

decisions that govern on-the-ground activity; these decisions do not require a Land Use Plan 

amendment or revision to change, and can, and over the life of the plan will, in fact, be modified by 

subsequent implementation level activities. The following section serves to clearly identify these 

decisions and, as necessary, provide additional explanation of their intent.

6.2.4.1 81BLand Use Plan Level Decision

Land Use Planning level decisions, as previously stated, are those decisions made which would require 

an amendment or revision, and the associated public procedures, to change. These decisions include 

the OHV area designations, overarching program goal and objectives and some structured guidance for 

the future management of the Transportation Network, including the identification of Travel 

Management Areas. The text of these decisions is presented here for reference. Additional discussion, 

explanation and clarification of Land Use Planning level decisions [CTTM-D-3] through [CTTM-D-9] is 

provided in the italicized text titled “Clarification” below the text for each decision.

Goal

[CTTM-G-1] Improve access to, and recreational opportunities on, public lands that complement the 

character of each geographic zone and the surrounding regions.

Objectives

[CTTM-O-1] Provide reasonable, safe, and environmentally sound access to visitors, local residents, 

licensed and permitted activities, and property owners through coordination and collaboration on travel 

systems with other agencies, state and local governments and interested stakeholders.

[CTTM-O-2] Reduce or halt proliferation of motorized and non-motorized routes.

[CTTM-O-3] Maintain an accurate route inventory for management purposes, and for the production of 

both general and recreation specific Transportation Management Network maps.

[CTTM-O-4] Manage OHV use to protect environmental resources, promote public safety, and provide 

OHV use opportunities where appropriate. Administratively designate the specific areas on public lands 

on which the use of OHVs is, and is not permitted.

Decisions

[CTTM-D-1] Delineate Travel Management Areas (TMAs) and associated modes of access and travel, as 

follows;

(f) Primitive TMA (approximately 139,030 acres): Primarily recreational traffic, access essentially 

cross country, with few designated and maintained trails. Area is entirely restricted to nonmotorized and non-mechanized modes of transport. Aircraft take-off and landing, except 

emergency, is prohibited.

(g) Keysville TMA (approximately 10,880 acres): Primarily recreational traffic, no area-wide mode 

of transport restrictions, motorized and mechanized use is limited to routes designated for 
206 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

these uses. Over time specific routes may be redesignated to limit to specific modes of 

transport in order to maintain recreational opportunity and experience.

(h) Temblor TMA (approximately 22,870 acres): Primarily recreational traffic, no area-wide mode of 

transport restrictions, motorized and mechanized use is limited to routes designated for these 

uses. Permits for motorized and mechanized competitive events will not be issued. Over time 

specific routes may be redesignated to limit to specific modes of transport in order to maintain 

recreational opportunity and experience.

(i) Intensive TMA (approximately 40,030 acres): Primarily industrial/commercial traffic, all travel 

on designated routes. No area-wide mode of transport restrictions. Implement a program of 

route reduction addressing route construction, use, and abandonment (including restoration) 

based on a balance between industrial needs and environmental concerns. 

(j) Extensive TMA (approximately 195,740 acres): General traffic from multiple uses, motorized 

and mechanized use limited to routes designated for these uses. No area-wide mode of 

transport restrictions.

[CTTM-D-2] Designate all public lands in accordance with 43 CFR 8342 as either open, limited, or closed 

to off-road vehicles, as defined in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(f), (g), and (h), the following OHV areas:

(d) Open: 0 acres

(e) Closed: 142,940 acres

(f) Limited: 261,140 acres

All designations are based on the protection of the resources of the public lands, the promotion of the 

safety of all the users of the public lands, and the minimization of conflicts among various uses of the 

public lands; and in accordance with the criteria listed in CTTM-D-5.

[CTTM-D-3] Close areas where off-highway vehicles are causing or will cause unacceptable adverse 

effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, 

threatened or endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or other resources to 

the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse effect until the adverse effects are eliminated and measures 

implemented to prevent recurrence.

[CTTM-D-3 Clarification] – The decision to close areas where OHVs are causing or have the potential to 

cause unacceptable adverse effects on natural and cultural resources, authorized uses or other 

resources, is in itself a fairly self-explanatory decision. There is room however, for interpretation of 

unacceptable adverse impacts and need for clarification as to how the closure would be implemented.

This TMP itself cannot set thresholds for the listed resources as to acceptable or unacceptable adverse 

impacts; however, in order to implement this decision these adverse impacts should be well documented, 

e.g. descriptive narrative and photos in field notes of the issues. Beyond the identification and 

documentation of the adverse impact, the following guidance provided by 43 CFR Subpart 8341 and BLM 

Instruction Memorandum 2013-035, will be used:

 All closures implemented as a result of this decision will be temporary in nature, implementing 

the shortest period possible on the smallest area necessary to address the identified impacts. 

Corrective action prior to the need for closure is greatly encouraged. 

 Closures must generally be limited to a 24 month period or less. Should adverse impacts require 

longer than 24-months to resolve, a subsequent closure will be issued prior to the expiration of 

the original closure. 
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 207

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

 If it is known that adverse impacts will require a period longer than 24 months to resolve the 

Field Manager must provide a rationale and justification for the alternative duration in the 

Federal Register Notice and associated briefing package submitted to the Washington Office for 

review.

 If the intent is long-term closure a land use plan amendment must be issued to implement the 

closure.

 NEPA compliance is generally required prior to closure; closure of roads or trails can be achieved 

with a Categorical Exclusion if appropriate. Emergency actions may establish “alternative 

arrangements” for NEPA compliance – however, closures imposed in response to known and 

long-occurring activities are not considered emergencies.

 In order for a temporary closure to be effective and fully enforceable a Federal Register Notice 

must be prepared, including a briefing package (briefing paper, maps, aerial and other types of 

photography and supporting documentation) for the Washington Office. These documents must 

be approved by the State Director prior to Washington Office review.

[CTTM-D-4] Define primary route designations and limitations as follows:

(a) Motorized: a route allowing all modes of transport, motorized vehicles including, standard 

(street legal) passenger vehicles and OHVs (motorcycles, ATVs, jeeps, and specialized vehicles 

etc.). All other modes of transport may use these routes unless restricted by a secondary 

designation.

(b) Non-motorized: a route allowing modes of transport that are not motor driven (regardless of 

motor type, e.g., gas, diesel, electric). Allowable modes of transport include, moving by foot, 

stock or pack animal, non-motorized boat (kayak, raft, etc.), or mechanical vehicle such as a 

bicycle.

(c) Non-mechanized: a route allowing only travel by natural means, such as by foot, stock or pack 

animal, except for approved, non-motorized access devices covered under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act.

(d) Transportation Linear Disturbance: prohibiting all types and modes of transport (including all 

public, authorized and administrative uses); these linear travel features can be decommissioned 

and restored. This does not impact some modes of transport’s ability to legally travel crosscountry.

[CTTM-D-4 Clarification] – The definition of “primary” route designations serves to identify the allowable 

mode(s) of transport on a route regardless of any restriction on the type of user. The three categories 

are presented in hierarchal order: Motorized, Non-motorized, Non-mechanized, and each is inclusive of 

the modes of transport in the subsequent categories (e.g., a route designated as motorized is also 

available for non-motorized and non-mechanized modes of transport). The category of Transportation 

Linear Disturbance is used for any linear travel features that have all modes of transport restricted so 

that the disturbance may be restored. All inventoried linear travel features have been designated as one 

of these categories, at a minimum. Any subsequent designations, i.e., for new route or newly discovered 

routes, will receive a primary designation generally in conjunction with the decision authorizing the 

activity associated with the route (e.g., creation, restoration or use) and added to the route attributes in 

the National Ground Transportation Linear Features (GTLF) dataset.

[CTTM-D-5] Apply and document the application of the following criteria in route designation including 

the criteria defined in 43 CFR 8342.1;
208 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(a) [Designated] trails shall be located in a manner to minimize impacts to physical resources (soils, 

watershed, vegetation, air, and other resources) and to prevent impairment of wilderness 

suitability; 

(b) [Designated] trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of 

wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species 

and their habitats; and

(c) [Designated] trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other 

existing or proposed recreation uses.

(d) [Designated] areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or 

primitive areas. Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer 

determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, 

aesthetic, scenic or other values for which the areas are established.

[CTTM-D-5 Clarification] – The application and documentation of the designation criteria, as defined in 

43 CFR 8342.1, has occurred for each route designated by the Approved RMP and TMP. Any 

modifications to these route designations and any new designations will continue to consider these 

designation criteria as they apply to the public lands and resources on BLM-administered public lands 

within the Bakersfield Field Office. The documentation of the consideration of these criteria shall occur 

within any decision document pertaining to these routes. For example, the NEPA compliance document 

for a new right-of-way for a road will include documentation of consideration of the designation criteria.

[CTTM-D-6] Consider, and document the application of, in addition to the previously identified criteria,

the following in all route designations (including re-designations);

(a) Environmental conditions, such as: soil stability, important wildlife habitat, special status species 

habitat, proximity to riparian areas or 303(d) streams, and visual resources.

(b) User conflicts, such as: motorized versus non-motorized and motorized or mechanized versus 

non-mechanized. Such conflicts must be actual conflicts, rather than perceived conflicts, and 

appropriately documented.

(c) Administrative purposes, such as: wildland fire suppression activities, safety, and resource 

management and permitted activities.

(d) Public purposes, such as: accessing public or private land, destinations for specific activities, and 

types of desired use (motorized, mechanized, non-motorized, or non-mechanized).

(e) Route, mode-of-transport and size limitations, such as: > 50-inch wheel base (full size vehicles), 

< 50-inch wheel base (all-terrain vehicles), single-track vehicles (motorcycles or mountain bikes), 

and equestrian or pedestrian only trails.

[CTTM-D-6 Clarification] - Similarly to [CTTM-D-5] the additional criteria presented in the decision must 

be considered and that consideration documented in the associated decision document for any action 

that either redesignates or newly designates a linear travel feature. 

[CTTM-D-7] Apply and document the application of the following principles when making route 

designation modifications:

(a) Require the opportunity for public involvement throughout the travel management process ;

(b) Coordinate route designations with individual stakeholders, user groups, tribes, agencies and 

local governments;
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 209

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

(c) Document and record route designation changes appropriately; and

(d) Provide opportunity for public review and comment on route designation changes.

[CTTM-D-7 Clarification] – The establishment of some basic principles for public involvement is 

representative of the commitment to involve the public in the route designations process as it pertains to 

modification of the Transportation System developed during the RMP process and decided upon in the 

ROD. As such, any changes to routes already designated, i.e., redesignation and not new designations, 

will require opportunities for public involvement. 

This decision essentially means that during the development of any proposed activity that redesignates a 

route, the general public, along with other interested parties, will be provided an opportunity to 

participate in the process at every step. This will also include a specific opportunity for review and 

comment prior to the final decision. The scope and level of the public involvement is not specifically set, 

but should be representative of the action at issue and the level of public interest. For example, 

redesignation of routes within an SRMA would require a more extensive level of public involvement than

those within an isolated parcel of public land.

A portion of this decision relates to the recordation and documentation of route redesignations, in 

meeting the intent of this decision the clarification of decisions [CTTM-D-5] and [CTTM-D-6] should be 

considered. 

[CTTM-D-8] Implement the following guidelines for management and maintenance of the travel 

network:

(a) Designate routes within newly acquired properties, rights-of-way, and easements at the time of, 

and in conjunction with, the acquisition;

(b) Provide designations for newly constructed, modified, or realigned routes and routes missed by 

the 2009 Digital Inventory. 

(c) Designate routes associated with new authorizations in conjunction with the normal application 

process and approval. As existing authorizations are renewed, their designation may be altered 

accordingly. These redesignations would be documented in the associated NEPA 

documentation, and amended in the route database and GIS. Information on new and 

redesignations will be available to the public;

(d) Address route redesignations as physical route conditions change (erosion, washout, etc.);

(e) Allow for the redesignation of routes as a result of specific requests, subject to site specific 

analysis (NEPA) and appropriate public involvement; and

(f) Encourage authorized users to evaluate their transportation network needs and submit a 

transportation plan to address those needs at an appropriate scale (e.g. Oil Field, lease, portion 

of lease, etc.).

[CTTM-D-8 Clarification] – The decision establishing guidelines for management and maintenance of the 

Transportation System specifically address the triggers for when route designation or redesignation 

would occur; in summary, new actions and acquisitions, modification or changes to the physical 

properties of the route, or as a result of a specific request. Many of these actions would require a site 

specific NEPA compliance document; in these cases the route redesignation should be recorded in these 

documents and include the application of decisions [CTTM-D-5], [CTTM-D-6] and [CTTM-D-7].
210 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The final element of this decision (f) encourages authorized users to address their own Transportation 

System needs. It specifically allows for authorized users to propose to the BLM their travel and 

transportation needs and make recommendations for the BLM to consider in designating or redesignating routes within these authorized users’ area of interest. This consideration would occur and be 

documented in an appropriate NEPA compliance document following all the procedures outlined by this 

and other decisions.

[CTTM-D-9] Establish protocols to effectively monitor and gather data on route usage, route condition, 

and noncompliance with designations. These protocols include:

(a) Identification of high traffic routes and areas;

(b) Annual monitoring of a random selection of routes to gauge effectiveness of travel management 

decisions and identify resource conflicts; and

(c) Annual review of a minimum of 10% of designated routes, and appropriate updates to the 

existing route inventory.

[CTTM-D-9 Clarification] - The decision establishing protocols to effectively monitor and gather data on 

routes is covered and expanded upon throughout the document and more specifically in the section titled 

Travel and Transportation Guidance.

6.2.4.2 82BImplementation Level Decisions

Implementation level decisions are those decisions that generally result in on-the-ground action without 

the need for subsequent planning or NEPA compliance documentation. These decisions can be modified 

though other activity or implementation level processes and do not require a land use plan amendment 

or revision. These decisions include additional guidance for travel and transportation management and 

the specific route designations decided upon for each linear transport feature in the current inventory. 

The text of these decisions is presented here for reference. Additional discussion, explanation and 

clarification of Land Use Planning level decisions [CTTM-I-1] through [CTTM-I-2] is provided in the 

italicized text titled “Clarification.”

Key Implementation Decisions

[CTTM-I-1] Define secondary route designations as the following (note additional secondary route 

designations may be implemented by various activity level plans and site specific actions):

(a) Authorized Use: a route restricted to use by authorized users including: permittees, lessees,

and any other form of authorization from the BLM for a specific route. Mode of travel 

restrictions may be applied in the specific BLM authorization.

(b) Street Legal Vehicles: a route restricted to use by vehicles licensed (by any state) for use on any 

highway.

(c) Pedestrian: a route restricted to use by pedestrians (walking/hiking) only.

[CTTM-I-1 Clarification] - The definition of “secondary” route designations serves to identify and further 

refine allowable uses. Unlike primary designations which only affect mode(s) of transport the secondary 

designation apply restrictions to the type of vehicle, type of users, or any other factor determined 

necessary for management. Often the secondary designation further refines the designation to ensure 

impacts are minimized to the greatest extent practicable. The decision provides only three secondary 

designations, but notes that additional secondary designations may be created as needed. These would 

be defined in the NEPA compliance decision document associated with their creation. It should also be 
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 211

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

noted that a secondary designation, unlike a primary designation, is not a required component of any 

decision.

[CTTM-I-2] Designate roads and/or trails as identified on Travel Management Network Map 2.16 A 

through I and described in the Route Designation Table (Table 6), as summarized by the following 

mileages:

(a) Motorized: 1,350 miles

(b) Motorized - Street Legal Only: 77 miles

(c) Motorized – Authorized: 183 miles

(d) Non-motorized: 35 miles

(e) Non-mechanized: 41 miles

(f) Non-Mechanized- Pedestrian Only: 4 miles

(g) Transportation Linear Disturbance: 285 miles

[CTTM-I-2 Clarification] – This decision is the actual implementation decision providing designations to 

every linear travel feature documented in the inventory used. The designation for each linear travel 

feature is provided in the Route Designation Table (Attachment One) and has been recorded in the 

National GTLF dataset. 

The mileages presented in this decision differ from those provided in previous versions of the RMP. These 

differences result from improvement of GIS line work from improved aerial photography, changes to 

incorrectly designated routes – where a previous authorization was discovered, and removal of features 

determined through field investigation to not be associated with human travel (e.g., fence lines, cattle 

trails etc.). A summary of these changes is provided in this document under the heading “Modifications 

to Proposed Decision” above.

Of final note, these mileages and information provided in the Route Designation Table (Attachment One) 

are correct as of time of writing – but due to the dynamic nature of the Transportation System changes 

may have occurred between writing and publication, and will continue to change as time progresses. 

The up-to-date information for route designations will be captured in the National GTLF dataset, 

although the supporting documentation of each decision may come from a variety of documents. When 

possible the decision document will be referenced within the National GTLF dataset.

[CTTM-I-3] Ensure existing use of public lands in the Temblor area does not result from inappropriate 

travel across private property through the acquisition of legal public access routes to the Temblor area. 

These routes should be numerous enough to allow for reasonable access from the local communities 

while still facilitating management of visitors though a few key access points. Furthermore, access 

routes should give consideration to both licensed and “green sticker” vehicles. 

[CTTM-I-4] Coordinate current and future route designations/re-designations within the Temblor area 

with the Carrizo Plain National Monument to ensure appropriate connectivity across the monument 

boundary to Temblor Ridge Road.

[CTTM-I-5] Strive to acquire legal public access across private property for Rocky Gorge and Tombstone 

Ridge trails within the Keysville SRMA.
212 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.2.5 Travel and Transportation Management Guidance

This section provides general guidance on the implementation of the TMP and the continued 

management of Travel and Transportation in the Bakersfield Field Office Planning Area10F

11

.

6.2.5.1 83BData / Inventory Management

All data pertaining to linear transportation features would be stored in the National Ground 

Transportation Linear Features (GTLF) dataset. This dataset would be the daily, up-to-date working 

version of the BLM Bakersfield’s Transportation System.

As changes to the Transportation System occur it will be the responsibility of the authorizing 

division/program to ensure the GTLF dataset is updated in a timely fashion with new information and/or 

decisions regarding the linear travel feature. At a minimum these updates should occur quarterly,

however, the preferred timeline would be immediately after the decision document is signed. The NEPA 

compliance decision document’s number should be entered or updated as new decisions or changes to 

decisions are made.

For those features decommissioned and restored, data would remain in GTLF until such time as the 

evidence of a linear transportation feature could no longer be seen on the ground. At that time, the 

feature would be moved to a propriety Bakersfield Field Office dataset of restored travel features.

As much of the data for remote parts of the Field Office was collected by interpretation of aerial 

photography, efforts would be made to populate any incomplete or unknown attributes (e.g., surface 

type, drivability) in the GTLF through field investigation. In an effort to build a complete and accurate 

inventory of these features approximately 10% of the Transportation System with missing information 

would be ground-verified each year; this may also include cultural resource inventory of previously 

unsurveyed locations. This workload should be completed during routine site visits and patrols, but may 

also be conducted with more formal Facility Asset Management System (FAMS) condition assessments 

or with site specific projects.

6.2.5.2 84BDecommissioning and Restoration

All routes designated by the RMP/TMP as Transportation Linear Disturbances would be scheduled to be 

decommissioned and restored. Those Transportation Linear Disturbances actively impairing other 

resource values (through continued regular use) would be the highest priority, followed by any new 

Transportation Linear Disturbances discovered through routine patrol and monitoring. Beyond this, 

Transportation Linear Disturbances would be decommissioned and restored based on the following 

priority list – although advantage will be taken of opportunities for restoration in conjunction with other 

projects or authorizations. Furthermore, funding for Decommissioning and Restoration would be sought 

based on this priority list:

1) Transportation Linear Disturbances crossing into or adjacent to Congressionally Designated 

Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, Lands Managed for Wilderness Characteristics, or where 

has been determined that an adverse effect to an eligible historic property or place of 

traditional importance to tribes has the potential to occur from use;

 

11 There is a separate TMP for the Carrizo Plain National Monument.
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 213

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

2) Transportation Linear Disturbances within SRMAs and other areas of intensive public 

recreational use;

3) Transportation Linear Disturbances within ACECs or other Special Designations (WSR, ONA, etc.);

4) Transportation Linear Disturbances within ERMAs; and

5) Transportation Linear Disturbances on other BLM-administered public lands.

The standard method of decommissioning would be to remove the route from public access maps 

(including geographic data, e.g., shape files, KML files) and sign the decommissioned route on the 

ground using one or more “Red” Fiberglass Markers with “Route Closed” vinyl stickers. The marker(s)

would be placed where the Transportation Linear Disturbance intersects with other designated routes; 

specifically within the disturbed area at sufficient spacing to block passage. The route would then be 

left to restore naturally over time. 

If monitoring of a signed Transportation Linear Disturbances finds the signage insufficient to eliminate 

use a natural physical barrier (brush, logs, rocks etc.) would be used to block the route – this step may 

be used initially, in addition to signing, in intensively visited areas. If the natural barrier fails to eliminate 

use, a separate site specific analysis would be completed identifying alternative methods for 

decommissioning and restoring the route that at a minimum would explore the use of man-made 

barricades and active restoration.

Active restoration of any Transportation Linear Disturbance will require development of a specific 

proposed action and a site specific analysis addressing the restoration activities including 

implementation of the NHPA Section 106 process, which may require Class III cultural resource 

inventory and SHPO and tribal consultation. In these cases the proposed action must consider the 

appropriateness of the restoration technique given the environmental setting (e.g., not appropriate to 

use heavy-equipment in Wilderness) and specifically identify a monitoring plan for the project. This type 

of decommissioning and restoration would only be explored for projects where funds exists, or the 

opportunity for funding exists (e.g., OHMVR Grants). 

6.2.5.3 85BRoute Numbering

Currently the Routes in the Travel System have a myriad of names and numbers – most critically, routes 

have a planning number to distinguish each feature from the next for planning purposes. That said,

however, these planning numbers do not always make sense; for instance, linear travel feature number 

10 could intersected by linear travel feature number 5836 simply as a result of them being added to the 

inventory at different times. In order to aid in Education, Outreach, Signing, and Enforcement each 

route should be given a meaningful number. The following numbering protocol will be used for all 

routes:

Each Road, Primitive Road, or Trail will be number based on the township in which the most 

northeasterly point of the route occurs – this number will continue along the route even if it changes 

township. Beyond this, multiple routes originating with the same township will be originally numbered

sequentially from the northeastern most point of the township – numbering sequentially from right to 

left. After the original numbering is completed any new additions will be number sequentially on from 

the last number. The numbering format will appear as follows: BLM 26S003, where the middle potion

(e.g. 26S) serves to identify the originating township and the end (e.g. 003) the sequential number of the 

route.
214 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

As needed Temporary Roads will be numbered in an identical fashion as Roads, Primitive Roads, and 

Trails except that a “T” will be appended to the end of the Route Number (e.g., BLM 24S012T).

The following exception to this numbering technique may be used when a route originates from U.S 

Forest Service with a Forest Service route number: the Forest Service route number would continue 

onto the BLM with the replacement of the “FS” with “BLM” to indicate the change in jurisdiction.

Transportation Linear Disturbance will not receive a route number. They will continue to be identified 

by their planning number.

Route numbers will be recorded in GTLF and associated with planning numbers to ensure they can be 

traced back to this TMP. However, in general, once route numbering as described here is completed, 

only route numbers will be used to refer to routes on maps, signs, and in other official publications.

6.2.5.4 86BEducation and Outreach

Education and outreach would primarily be achieved through on-the-ground signing (described 

individually below) and maps. Additional effort would be put into ensuring all appropriate publications 

and the relevant BLM Bakersfield webpages carried “Tread Lightly”, “Leave No Trace” and/or “Stay on 

Trails” interpretive information. Furthermore, within SRMAs kiosks with maps and routine BLM patrols 

(Park Rangers, Volunteers and Law Enforcement Rangers) would serve to educate visitors with regard to

the Transportation System.

The planning maps associated with the TMP label the routes with the planning number. Once all routes 

have been officially numbered these numbers should no longer be used on publically distributed maps –

unless this is specifically needed to serve the purpose of the map. 

All new maps created for the purpose of identifying routes of travel, if labeling routes, will use the route 

number at a minimum to identify each route. Maps may include a route name (if produced at sufficient 

scale) or some other identifying symbols but should also include the route number in parenthesis. 

Transportation Linear Disturbances would generally not be mapped on public access maps, but may be 

mapped on publically available documents created for the purpose of identifying decommissioned and 

restored routes, or documents relating to projects implementing the decommissioning and restoration 

of routes.

6.2.5.5 87BEnforcement

Enforcement for travel management can be broken down into two discrete but interrelated sections:

law enforcement and administrative enforcement. Law enforcement primarily deals with the public use 

of the Transportation Network and, when needed, the authorized uses; whereas administrative 

enforcement generally deals with only those authorized users.

Law Enforcement over an almost 2,000-mile network of linear travel features spread over a 17-million 

acre area is a challenge, and it is impractical to believe that enforcement could occur everywhere. As 

such, although opportune patrols would always (as the officer’s discretion) deal with travel management 

issues, the following priorities for law enforcement are established;
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 215

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

1) Routine patrol and response to issues of decommissioned and restored linear transportation 

disturbances.

2) Routine patrol of Keysville and Temblor SRMAs to monitor public use and swiftly respond to 

route proliferation issues that arise.

3) Routine patrol of easily accessible (adjacent to designated routes) Wilderness, Wilderness Study 

Areas and Lands Managed for Wilderness Characteristics.

Beyond the three priorities outlined above, and the opportunistic enforcement during other patrol 

activities, law enforcement will respond as needed to travel management issues and concerns identified 

during monitoring or by resource specialists.

Administrative enforcement would principally focus on the transportation system within oil fields, 

ensuring route proliferation from authorized users does not occur – or when found through monitoring, 

is swiftly dealt with (decommissioned and restored or specifically added to an authorization). Other 

administrative enforcement would include review, monitoring, and enforcement of rights-of-way and 

other authorizations as routine monitoring identified issues.

6.2.5.6 8BMaintenance

Maintenance of routes would reflect the type (asset classification) to which the route is designated (i.e., 

Roads would be maintained to allow for the continual use by all vehicles and Primitive Roads would be 

maintained as needed) and the setting in which the road occurs (i.e., limited use of heavy equipment in 

primitive settings). 

Routine maintenance would occur on Roads and Primitive Roads without further site specific review so 

long as maintenance was limited to the existing roadbed and considered not to be ground disturbing 

(e.g., dragging and blading to a minimal depth (1”) would not be considered ground disturbing, however 

removal of a culvert, ditching or trenching would). Any maintenance that would result in a change in 

character of the road (e.g., surfacing, widening etc.) would require further site specific review that may 

include implementation of the NHPA Section 106 process and Class III survey in areas identified as 

potentially sensitive for cultural resources.

The trimming, brushing and/or masticating of roadside vegetation to maintain clearance would occur on 

both Roads and Primitive Roads to the minimum level needed to keep free passage of the roadway 

open, eliminate safety hazards, and reduce the risk of fire.

Trails would generally be maintained when needed after an initial site specific review including other 

resources (unless such a review already exists), and in-partnership with an interested stakeholder group. 

Exceptions to this are the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, and the designated Recreational Trails 

within the San Joaquin River Gorge SRMA – which would be routinely maintained without further site 

specific analysis.

Maintenance on any authorized route would occur in conformance with the authorization.

6.2.5.7 89BMonitoring

The Transportation System would be monitored for usage, route condition, and noncompliance with 

designations including unauthorized route creation/proliferation. As with other elements of the TMP, 

monitoring would focus on intensively used areas, SRMAs, and Wilderness boundaries; with incidental 
216 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

monitoring occurring with all other field visits. As previously mentioned in the Data / Inventory 

Management section, populating missing route attributes in GTLF would be considered monitoring.

As new aerial photography becomes available monitoring for route proliferation should focus on areas 

of intensive public use, SRMAs, and Wilderness boundaries (other areas as time allows). Review of new 

aerial photography is considered monitoring and should be documented appropriately with new 

information added to GTLF as appropriate – any new linear transportation features added to GTLF as a 

result of this monitoring should be labeled “Undesignated” until the following monitoring feedback loop 

has been completed.

With specific regard to monitoring for new unauthorized routes (or route proliferation), no matter the 

method of monitoring making the discovery, the following procedure should ensue: 

 Determine if the route is truly new, or was simply missed in the previous inventories. This 

determination would be made based on three factors: 

a. does the linear travel show evidence of prolonged use (i.e., little to no vegetation, 

heavily compacted soils etc.)? 

b. does linear travel feature the map appear on old aerial photographs? 

c. does the route linear travel feature appear on any USGS map for the area? 

 If the answer to any of the previous question is “yes” the route should be considered “missed by 

the previous inventory” and included in a project specific analysis including public participation 

to determine the course of action for the route (i.e., its designation). 

 If the answer to all three of the previous questions is “no” the route would be automatically 

designated a “Linear Transportation Disturbance” and signed as such – should addition methods 

of decommissioning and restoration be needed beyond the standard described previously in this 

document a site specific NEPA compliance analysis and documentation would be needed.

Monitoring for route condition would specifically identify areas where designated routes need 

maintenance work – this information could be added or updated in GTLF and may be included in FAMS. 

Route condition monitoring would aid in the development of site specific projects and lists of 

maintenance needs.

Monitoring for use and non-compliance would specifically target decommissioned and restored routes 

(see below) and SRMAs or other areas of intensive public use. This monitoring would provide 

information to be used in establishing or adapting enforcement procedures to attempt to curtail these 

issues.

Monitoring for cultural resource impacts would be conducted through:

 Development of a cultural resource adaptive management monitoring strategy according to 

standards and processes based upon the intensity and type of OHV use, the density and 

sensitivity of cultural resources in the area, and the potential for adverse indirect and 

cumulative impacts, including route proliferation.

 Identification measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effect to sites from route 

usage, and when they should be applied. These measures may include data recovery, rerouting, 

reconstruction, new construction, limitations on vehicle type and time of season of travel, or 

closure.
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 217

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

 In areas where intensive Class III inventory has not occurred, develop historic property 

identification in accordance with best available methodologies including GIS predictive 

modeling, systematic sampling, inventories, and landscape level sensitivity analysis.

Transportation Linear Disturbances that have been decommissioned using the standard 

decommissioning and restoration method as described above would be specifically monitored for 

unauthorized use annually – incidental monitoring of these disturbances may occur during routine 

patrol or the monitoring of other resources. Should a natural barrier need to be installed the frequency 

of monitoring will increase to a minimum of twice a year – more frequently if evidence of use dictates 

necessity. Monitoring would continue until there are no easily detectable physical signs of the route onthe-ground.

Transportation Linear Disturbances that have man-made barriers and/or have been actively restored will 

be monitored in the fashion described in the separate decision authorizing the project. 

6.2.5.8 90BSigning

Transportation Linear Disturbances would be the first priority for signing based on the priorities listed in 

the Decommissioning and Restoration section above. The next priority would be routes in SRMAs and

other intensively visited areas. Beyond this signing would occur related to specific projects or resource 

concerns, and would therefore be a consideration in any project proposals that potentially impact 

routes and/or access. 

As previously mentioned Transportation Linear Disturbances would be signed with Red Fiberglass 

Markers, placed at the intersection of the Transportation Linear Disturbance with other routes. These 

markers would be placed within the disturbed area at sufficient spacing to block/impede passage by 

vehicles.

Routes within SRMAs would be signed in a manner consistent with the desired setting for the area (e.g., 

the frequency of signing is lower in backcountry areas than in front country areas). The materials and 

methods of signing may vary based on subsequent activity level planning, but the standard would be a 

Brown Fiberglass Marker placed on the right-hand-side of the route indicating the allowable uses and 

the route name and a route number (or just route number for unnamed routes).

Routes outside of SRMAs would be signed with the standard method of a Brown Fiberglass Marker 

placed on the right-hand-side of the route indicating the allowable uses and route number. These signs 

would be installed in association with or as part of other projects in the areas in which the route occurs.

Roads, Primitive Roads, or Temporary Routes designated as “Motorized – Authorized Use Only” would 

be signed at their intersection with routes available for general public use. The standard signing method 

would be one Brown Fiberglass Marker placed on the right-hand-side of the road with an “Authorized 

Use Only – [Route Number]” vinyl sticker. The responsibility for this signing may rest with the BLM, or 

may rest with the authorized user depending the type and fashion of authorization provided. Should 

access along these routes be restricted with a gate, the gate will also be signed “Authorized Use Only” 

and provide at a minimum the telephone number to the BLM office, but may include a telephone 

number for the authorized user. There would be no specific priority order for signing these routes, 

other than as funding becomes available or as authorizations to use the routes were given.
218 APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

<This page intentionally left blank>
APPENDIX 2 – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN 219

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

Appendix Three

Best Management Practices / Standard Operating Procedures
220

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.3 Appendix 3 – Best Management Practices/Standard Operating

Procedures

Table of Contents

6.3 Appendix 3 – Best Management Practices/Standard Operating Procedures ........ 220

6.3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 221

6.3.2 General .................................................................................................................................. 222

6.3.3 Air Quality............................................................................................................................. 222

6.3.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................................ 224

6.3.5 Soils........................................................................................................................................ 245

6.3.6 Water Resources................................................................................................................... 247

6.3.7 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................... 250

6.3.8 Oil and Gas Standard Operating Procedures, Implementation Guidelines and 

Conditions of Approval...................................................................................................... 252

6.3.9 Visual Resources.................................................................................................................. 264
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 221

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.3.1 Introduction

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are those land and resource management techniques designed to 

maximize beneficial results and minimize negative impacts of management actions. BMPs are defined as 

methods, measures, or practices selected on the basis of site-specific conditions to provide the most 

effective, environmentally sound, and economically feasible means of managing an activity and 

mitigating its impacts. Interdisciplinary site-specific analysis is necessary to determine which 

management practices would be necessary to meet specific goals. BMPs include, but are not limited to, 

structural and nonstructural controls, operations, and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied 

before, during, and after pollution-producing or surface disturbing activities to reduce or eliminate the 

introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 Code of Federal Regulation 130.2(m), Environmental 

Protection Agency Water Quality Standards Regulation) or to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation 

of public land resources. 

BMPs are identified as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process, with interdisciplinary 

involvement. Because the control of nonpoint sources of pollution and prevention of damage to other 

resources is an ongoing process, continual refinement of BMP design is necessary. This process can be 

described in five steps, which are: (1) selection of design of a specific BMP; (2) application of BMP; (3) 

monitoring; (4) evaluation; and (5) feedback. Data gathered through monitoring is evaluated and used 

to identify changes needed in BMP design, application, or in the monitoring program.

BMPs described in this appendix are a compilation of existing policies and guidelines and commonlyemployed practices designed to assist in achieving the objectives for maintaining or minimizing water 

quality degradation from nonpoint sources, loss of soil productivity, providing guidelines for aesthetic 

conditions within watersheds, and mitigating impacts to soil, vegetation, or wildlife habitat from surface 

disturbing activities. BMPs are selected and implemented as necessary, based on site-specific 

conditions, to meet a variety of resource objectives for specific management actions. Therefore, this 

document does not provide an exhaustive list of BMPs, as additional BMPs or modifications may be 

identified to minimize the potential for negative impacts when evaluating site-specific management 

actions through an interdisciplinary process. 

In addition, implementation and effectiveness of BMPs need to be monitored to determine whether the 

practices are achieving resource objectives and accomplishing desired goals. Adjustments will be made 

as necessary. 

Each of the following BMPs are a part of the coordinated development of this Resource Management 

Plan and may be updated as new information becomes available to ensure objectives are met and to 

conform to changes in BLM regulations, policy, direction, or new scientific information. Applicants also 

may suggest alternate procedures that could accomplish the same result. These guidelines will apply, 

where appropriate, to all use authorizations, including BLM-initiated projects. Any BMP listed may be 

used in any program wherever it may be effective
222 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.3.2 General

These measures will be applied to all BLM undertakings and authorizations:

 No construction or surface disturbing activities shall occur without prior written authorization of

the authorized BLM officer. 

 Surface disturbance will be minimized. Project applicants will be encouraged to utilize previously 

disturbed sites when feasible. 

 Authorizations for new surface-disturbing activities will place priority on avoiding impacts to 

biological, cultural, and paleontological resources. Avoidance will employ measures such as 

relocation of project sites, modifying construction techniques, and altering project timing.

 Civil engineering studies or geotechnical studies may be required to determine feasibility prior 

to road or other construction. Construction in areas of extremely unstable bedrock formations 

and active landslides will not be permitted or would require special design criteria. 

 Delineate work area boundaries with flagging, temporary fencing, or other marking to minimize 

surface disturbance or impacts on sensitive biological, cultural, or other important resources. 

 When necessary to protect sensitive biological, cultural, or other important resources, 

monitoring by BLM approved biologists and archaeologists shall be required during construction 

activities.

 Avoid soil-disturbing activities during periods of runoff or when soils are wet and muddy, in 

order to minimize damage.

6.3.3 Air Quality 

6.3.3.1 91BRoads

 Vehicle speed limits may be applied to reduce fugitive dust emissions from road use.

 Watering, graveling, paving, or the application of surfactant may be used to reduce fugitive 

dust from road use.

6.3.3.2 92BOil and Gas Production 

 Projects and activities on BLM lands shall meet applicable Federal, State, Regional Air 

Quality Control Boards, and other local emissions standards for air quality.

 Operators will be encouraged to directionally drill multiple wells from a single pad to 

minimize roads, travel, dust, and vehicle emissions. 

 Plan road systems to increase efficiency, reduce surface disturbance, which contributes to 

fugitive dust emissions, and save in construction and maintenance costs.

 Apply water along unpaved access roads and during trenching and earth-moving 

construction activities.

 Install vapor recovery units to reduce VOC emissions, which contribute to ozone formation.

 Reduce emissions from leaking gas on reciprocating compressor rod packing systems by 

replacing compressor packing rods at frequent intervals.
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 223

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Use solar power at tank setting or facility locations to reduce the number of vehicle trips 

and methane emissions from the use of pneumatic pumps.

 Replace high-bleed devices with low-bleed devices or retrofit bleed reduction kits on highbleed devices. This reduces methane and VOCs from pneumatic devices (liquid level 

controllers, pressure regulators, and valve controllers). 

 Use “green completions” to recover product, while reducing methane and VOC emissions 

that would otherwise result from venting or flaring during well completions.

 Vanpool to reduce the number of vehicles and associated combustion emissions.

 Use enclosed tanks instead of open pits to reduce fugitive VOC emissions.

 Use vapor recovery units on oil, condensate, and produced water storage tanks to reduce 

fugitive VOCs and recover BTU-rich vapors for sale or use on-site.

 Consider a BLM-approved dust suppressant to control fugitive dust emissions.

 Use cleaner diesel engine power (shift from Tier 1 to Tier 4) as manufacturers phase in 

newer engines between 2011 and 2014.

 To reduce NOx, SOx, CO, and CO2, use controls for compressor engines, including closed 

loop engine control, controlled engines, selective catalytic reduction, system-installed 

power supply (solar or battery powered), and ultra-low sulfur diesel.

 Complete interim reclamation (post-drilling) and final reclamation of well sites and 

roadways during abandonment; recontour and revegetate unused or unnecessary areas to 

reduce fugitive dust emissions from bare or eroded soils and combustion emissions from 

vehicle travel.

 Reduce emissions that result from glycol over-circulation in glycol dehydrators by optimizing 

the circulation rate. 

 Reduce GHG emissions (CH4) by installing and using a flash tank separator to capture and 

recycle methane that flashes from rich glycol in an energy exchange pump.

 Reduce centrifugal wet seal compressor emissions from the seal oil degassing vent by 

replacing of wet seals with dry seals, which emit less methane and have lower power 

requirements.

 Install plunger lifts and smart automation systems, which monitor well production 

parameters to reduce methane emissions from well blowdowns.

 Reduce fugitive gas leaks by implementing a Directed Inspection and Maintenance program, 

which identifies and cost effectively fixes fugitive gas leaks using leak detection (infrared 

camera, organic vapor analyzer, soap solution, ultrasonic leak detectors) and measurement 

(calibrated bagging, rotameters, high volume samplers). 

6.3.3.3 Prescribed Burning 

 Burn on permissive burn days and coordinate closely with applicable air pollution control 

district(s) to obtain necessary permits and authorizations prior to ignition.

 Burn when weather conditions will provide good dispersion of emissions; utilize ignition 

techniques to encourage clean burns to reduce the amount of smoldering.
224 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Utilize alternatives to burning, such as chipping or masticating, where applicable, to reduce 

smoke emissions. 

 Construct slash or brush piles using the following techniques to encourage a cleaner, hotter, 

and shorter burn that will minimize overall smoke production:

 Pile vegetation loosely to facilitate air movement between fuel pieces; 

 Cover a portion of the pile to provide a dry ignition point following rain events;

 Minimize the amount of dirt in the pile;

 Ensure fuels are sufficiently dried; and

 Use proper lighting techniques when igniting the pile to encourage a clean burn. 

 Where possible, split larger burn units into several smaller blocks to have more control over 

the amount of area burned in one operational period to better control smoke production on 

marginal burn days. 

6.3.3.4 Additional Information on BMPs for Air Quality

 BLM Washington Office BMP Web site: http://www.blm.gov/bmp

 EPA Natural Gas STAR Program: http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

 California Air Resources Board Clearinghouse: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/non-co2-

clearinghouse/non-co2-clearinghouse.htm

 Four Corners Air Quality Group: http://www.nmev.state.nm.us.aqb/4C/

 Intermountain BMP Web Site/Database: http://www.oilandgasbmps.org

 Fugitive Dust Control: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cap/handbooks/fugitivedust_large.pdf

 Forest Management Burning Handbook: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cap/handbooks/forestmngtburnlg.pdf

 Oil Field Production Handbook: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cap/handbooks/oilfieldproductionlarge.pdf

 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Control: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cap/handbooks/asbestosnoafinal.pdf

6.3.4 Biological Resources

The following measures are Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) typically applied to BLM undertakings 

or authorizations that are implemented to avoid or mitigate impacts to biological resources. 

6.3.4.1 Biological Resource Protection

 No destruction, cutting, or clearing of trees or other vegetation shall occur without prior 

written approval from the authorized BLM officer. 

 Biological surveys will be required prior to any disturbance, unless given project- specific, 

written clearance from BLM officers. 

 Surveys will be conducted at the appropriate time of year to detect sensitive species and 

important biological resources. 

 Surveys will comply with current BLM, USFWS, NMFS and CDFW protocols, to the extent 

consistent with federal law. 
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 225

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 If it has been longer than 30 days between the last biological survey and the proposed start 

of construction, BLM biologists may require additional surveys for sensitive species. 

 All biological survey data and reports will be sent from the biologist conducting the survey 

directly to the BLM biology staff. All survey biologists are required to have an updated CV 

on file in the Bakersfield Field Office. Prior to undertaking a survey, BLM will certify that 

survey biologists have appropriate training, experience, and permits. 

 Exploration, construction, and development activities may have seasonal restrictions 

imposed within a half- mile radius around raptor nest sites. Seasonal restrictions would 

allow for undisturbed courtship, nest building, incubation and fledging. This seasonal 

restriction could last as long as six months, depending upon species. Restrictions could be 

imposed around high-use areas during other seasons.

 Facilities and structures such as power lines, wind towers and turbines, solar arrays, and 

communication facilities will conform to BLM-, USFWS- and CDFW-approved wildlife 

protection guidelines, to the extent consistent with federal law. Such guidelines include, 

flight diverters, night ambient lighting, tower beacon lights, wind tower design and 

avoidance measures, raptor protections for power poles, perimeter fencing, and vegetation 

management.

 Trenches and holes shall be provided with animal escape ramps and not be open longer 

than one week.

 Pipe ends two inches or greater will be covered.

 Power lines will be constructed to meet raptor protection protocols. Existing power lines will 

be modified to meet raptor protection protocols where electrocutions occur.

 All troughs shall have an escape ramp. Ensure that troughs allow wildlife access to water 

and that they are in good repair and function properly.

 Claim stakes made of pipe shall be two inches or less in diameter with sealed tops. 

 Vehicles will remain on existing legal roads unless given specific written approval by the 

authorized BLM officer. Off-road travel will be discouraged.

 In appropriate sites, constraints will be placed on vehicle speeds to reduce potential for 

roadkill, to minimize dust, and to protect sensitive animals and habitats. 

6.3.4.2 Wetland-Riparian Habitats

 Wetlands and riparian areas affected by livestock would be fenced or otherwise protected. 

Water diversions would divert the minimum volume necessary to maintain livestock or 

wildlife surface water. Float valves or other devices would be installed to control diversion. 

To protect riparian areas, water withdrawn for livestock would be piped as far as necessary 

or would be reconsidered on a case-by-case basis. 

 Livestock water sources would be made available for wildlife year-round, as needed and to 

the greatest extent practicable.

 Stream crossings, if necessary, would be designed to minimize adverse impacts to soils, 

water quality, and riparian vegetation and provide for fish passage as appropriate.
226 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.3.4.3 Rehabilitation/ Restoration

 Disturbed sites will be restored to natural conditions using site-appropriate measures and 

timelines developed in consultation/coordination with BLM resource specialists. 

Restoration plans and requirements will be developed on a case-by-case basis and include 

post-project monitoring. 

 All unnecessary roads, vehicle paths, and other disturbed areas will be restored to natural 

conditions. 

 Match local genotypes, as close as practical, when choosing seeds and other materials for 

habitat restoration.

 Adjust grazing prescriptions or eliminate grazing following restoration if necessary to protect 

populations of vulnerable species and facilitate establishment of newly planted sites.

6.3.4.4 Threatened and Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Many measures to protect threatened and endangered species have been developed as a result of 

formal consultations between the BLM and USFWS on a variety of BLM actions. BLM has also developed 

best management practices, standard operating procedures, and conservation measures and design 

criteria to mitigate specific threats to sensitive species. As additional measures are developed to 

minimize the adverse effects from future management activities, they are likely to become additional 

SOPs.

Special status species survey, avoidance, take minimization, mitigation measures, compensation, and 

monitoring measures required in biological opinions (programmatic and site-specific) will be 

incorporated into project design, attached as conditions of approval, grant, or lease terms and 

conditions, or otherwise implemented in all BLM projects and authorizations that may affect listed 

species. These measures may change due to new information new biological requirements. Current 

practices are found below. 

General Guidelines for Conserving Habitat and Minimizing Project Impacts

 Habitat disturbance will be minimized and conducted in a manner that reduces, as much as 

possible, the potential for take of individuals of a listed species. Existing roads and routes of 

travel will be used, to the greatest extent practicable. Natural drainage patterns will be 

maintained to the greatest extent practicable.

 Avoid large draws and drainages with saltbush to the greatest extent practicable.

 The area of disturbance will be reduced to the smallest practical area, considering topography, 

placement of facilities, location of burrows, nesting sites or dens, public health and safety, and 

other limiting factors.

 Work area boundaries will be delineated with flagging, temporary fencing or other marking to 

minimize surface disturbance associated with vehicle straying.

 To the extent practicable, use previously disturbed areas to stockpile excavated materials, store 

equipment, dig slurry and borrow pits, locate trailers, park vehicles, and performing other 

surface-disturbing actions.
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 227

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 All oil spills will be contained closest to the source site as possible. The USFWS will be notified 

within 48 hours of any oil spill. The NMFS will be notified within 48 hours if there is potential to 

impact coastal areas or waters, or steelhead habitats.

 Project employees will be directed to exercise caution when commuting within listed species 

habitats. The speed limit on unpaved roads not maintained by the county shall be a maximum 

of 20 MPH, in order to minimize wildlife casualties.

 Cross-country travel by vehicles is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by BLM for the 

project. The use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) may be considered for projects that require crosscountry travel (such as project survey staking, geophone placement and retrieval).

 Project employees will be provided with written guidance governing vehicle use restrictions, 

speed limits on unpaved roads, and fire prevention and hazards.

 A worker education program will be conducted for all employees working on the project sites in 

listed species habitats. The education program will include identification of listed species and 

their habitats, project mitigation measures and stipulations, reporting requirements, and 

penalties for failure of compliance.

 Take measures to prevent the diffuse or point discharge of potential biological toxicants onto 

the ground surface.

 All spills of hazardous materials within endangered species habitats shall be cleaned up 

immediately. The NMFS will be notified within 48 hours of hazardous materials spills in known 

or potential black abalone habitat.

 Unless specified for reducing impacts to blunt-nosed leopard lizards, actions during evening 

hours when some listed species are active and vulnerable to vehicle or equipment-induced 

injury or mortality will be minimized.

 Trash and food items will be contained in closed containers and removed daily.

 Firearms will be prohibited from project sites.

 Trenches or holes should have at least one escape ramp for each 1,000 feet of open trench. 

Escape ramps should be earthen and at a slope no steeper than 1:1. Trenches will be checked in 

the morning before beginning work and at the end of the work day. Any entrapped animals will 

be allowed to escape unharmed.

 Pets will not be permitted on construction project sites.

 Listed species shall be protected from the hazards posed by oil sumps. All hazardous exposed 

oil sumps shall be screened or eliminated (see California Laws for Conservation of Oil and Gas 

1995). All screening of sumps shall meet the following specifications: (1) be not greater than 2 

inch nominal mesh, (2) be of sufficient strength to restrain entry of wildlife, and (3) be 

supported in such a manner so as to prevent contact with the sump fluid. Oil sumps shall be 

designed, constructed, and maintained as to not be a hazard to people, livestock, or wildlife, 

including birdlife. Oil sumps shall be filled with earth after removal of harmful materials (see 

California Code of Regulations 1982). 

 Biologists and law enforcement personnel from the CDFW and the USFWS shall be given 

complete access to the project area to review monitoring and mitigation activities. 
228 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Project activities that are likely to cause the amount or extent of take to be exceeded shall cease 

immediately.

 The protective measures being implemented for listed species shall be extended to candidate 

and proposed species in the project area to the maximum extent practicable.

 Restoration will be required on unused portions of the project area, or oil and gas lease when 

deemed necessary by the BLM to maintain or improve habitat values. Restoration will be 

required when a project or lease is abandoned. The BLM will be contacted for specific 

restoration requirements upon project completion.

Disturbance Levels

 Surface disturbance on public lands in Reserves (Red Zones) will not exceed 10% of any 640-acre 

section, aliquot section, or aggregate of adjacent aliquot sections.

 Surface disturbance on public lands in Corridors (Green Zones) will not exceed 25% of any 640-

acre section, aliquot section, or aggregate of adjacent aliquot sections.

Survey Requirements

 The Conserved Lands area of ecological importance (Reserves and Corridors) will be presumed 

to be occupied habitat for listed animal species. Wildlife surveys will determine listed species 

presence and/or important habitat features for listed species. Surveys will be conducted within 

30 days prior to the onset of ground breaking actions and will include daytime line transect 

surveys which will be conducted by walking the project area and appropriate buffer at 30 to 90 

feet intervals. Transect width will be adjusted based on vegetation height, topography, etc. 

Surveys will include areas of surface disturbance, appropriate buffers, access routes, and 

cross-country travel routes. Surveys will be designed to identify habitat features such as 

burrows, dens, and precincts, and not species presence or absence.

 If non-BLM lands are also involved in a project, an applicant may choose to comply with some 

other USFWS- and CDFW-approved program (such as the Metro Bakersfield HCP or the 

proposed Kern County Valley Floor HCP). If an alternative program were selected, the survey 

requirements for the alternative program may be substituted at the USFWS’s and BLM’s 

discretion.

San Joaquin Kit Fox – Survey for natal, known, occupied, and potential dens in the project area 

and a 200-foot buffer.

Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard – Survey for burrows that may be used by blunt-nosed leopard 

lizards in the area to be disturbed by the project and a 50-foot buffer.

Giant Kangaroo Rat – Survey for precincts in the area to be disturbed by the project and a 50-

foot buffer.
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 229

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Tipton Kangaroo Rat – Survey for burrows in the area to be disturbed by the project and a 50-

foot buffer.

Federal Proposed and Federal Candidate and State Listed Animal Species – Survey for 

important habitat features in the area to be disturbed by the project and a 50-foot buffer. 

Kern Mallow, California Jewelflower, and San Joaquin Woolly-Threads – Survey during the 

appropriate season in the area to be disturbed by the project and a 50-foot buffer. Conduct 

reconnaissance-level surveys to determine habitat suitability using meandering walk-over 

surveys. Conduct site-specific surveys in appropriate habitat by walking transacts with 50-foot 

spacing.

At the discretion of an approved BLM botanist, existing information may be used to conclude 

that the site is not occupied and surveys are not required or that project impacts are acceptable 

without detailed surveys.

Hoover's Woolly-Star – Survey for species in the area to be disturbed by the project and a 50-

foot buffer, if season is appropriate. If season is inappropriate to detect species or skeletons, use 

surveys to evaluate potential of a site to support the species. Reconnaissance level surveys to 

determine habitat suitability will be conducted using meandering walk-over surveys. Sitespecific surveys in appropriate habitat will be conducted by walking transects at 50-foot 

intervals.

At the discretion of an approved BLM botanist, existing information may be used to conclude 

that the site is not occupied and surveys are not required or that project impacts are acceptable 

without detailed surveys.

Bakersfield Cactus – Bakersfield cactus is known to occur on one section of split estate land 

within the Green Zone. Bakersfield cactus is not known to occur elsewhere in either the Red or 

Green Zone. Survey project sites in potential habitat using meandering walk-over surveys.

State-Listed and Federally Proposed and Candidate Plant Species – Survey in the area to be 

disturbed by the project and a 50-foot buffer, if season is appropriate. If extant populations or 

high potential habitat is known to occur in the project area, the BLM may require surveys during 

the appropriate season. At the USFWS/BLM’s discretion, existing information may be used to 

conclude that the site is not occupied and surveys are not required.

Measures for Minimizing Take

San Joaquin Kit Fox

San Joaquin kit fox dens will be protected, to the maximum extent practicable. Known, 

occupied, and potential non-natal dens will be buffered by 100 feet. Unoccupied natal dens will 

be buffered by 200 feet to protect the physical den site. If an active natal den is encountered, 

the USFWS will be contacted immediately, before any action is taken.

The project construction area will be delineated with a temporary fence, flagging, or other 

barrier. Actions within the buffer zone shall be limited to vehicle and equipment operation on 

existing roads. 
230 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Non-fatal disturbance, such as above ground blasting, vibroseis, and shothole, shall not occur 

within 500 feet of an active San Joaquin kit fox natal den between November 1 and August 15 to 

reduce disruption of kit fox breeding.

Potential dens will be monitored and temporarily blocked. Den monitoring will follow the 

guidelines described below. In the event that a den is encountered that needs to be excavated, 

the following will apply:

Non-natal dens within a construction area may be carefully excavated at any time of the year by 

USFWS-approved biologists or under the supervision of a USFWS-approved biologist. Prior to 

the destruction of the den, the den will be monitored for at least three consecutive days to 

determine its current status. Activity at the den will be monitored by placing tracking medium 

at the entrance and by spotlighting. If no kit fox activity is observed during this period, the den 

will be destroyed immediately to preclude subsequent use. If kit fox activity is observed at the 

den during this period, the den will be monitored for at least five consecutive days from the 

time of observation to allow any resident animal to move to another den during its normal 

activities. Use of the den can be discouraged during this period by partially plugging the 

entrance(s) with soil in such a manner that any resident animal can escape easily. Destruction 

of the den may begin when, in the judgment of the USFWS-approved biologist, the animal has 

moved to a different den. If the animal is still present after five or more consecutive days of 

plugging and monitoring, the project biologist shall contact the BLM or the USFWS to obtain 

permission to excavate the den when it is temporarily vacant, for example, during the animal's 

normal foraging activities.

Destruction of the den will be accomplished by careful excavation until it is certain that no kit 

foxes are inside. The den will be fully excavated and then filled with dirt and compacted to 

ensure that kit foxes cannot reenter or use the den during the construction period. If, at any 

point during excavation a kit fox is discovered inside the den, the excavation activity will cease 

immediately and monitoring of the den will be resumed. The BLM and the USFWS will be 

notified immediately. Destruction of the den may be resumed, when in the judgment of the 

USFWS-approved biologist, the animal has escaped from the partially destroyed den.

If an unoccupied natal den cannot be avoided, the den will be carefully excavated by a USFWSapproved biologist with permission from the USFWS or the BLM. Excavation of unoccupied 

natal dens will be allowed only between August 15 and November 1. 

Pipes and culverts will be searched for kit fox prior to being moved or sealed, to ensure that kit 

foxes are not being entrapped. Any kit fox found will be allowed to escape unimpeded. Pipes 

and culverts with a diameter greater than 4 inches will be capped or taped closed after 

searching them.

Occupied pipe dens will be protected to the maximum extent practicable. Pipe dens will be 

buffered to protect the physical den site and kit fox activity. Removal of pipe dens will follow 

the monitoring and plugging procedure described above for natural dens. 
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 231

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard

If a blunt-nosed leopard lizard is observed in the project area or along the access route BLM will 

be immediately contacted. BLM will provide additional measures that must be complied with to 

avoid impacts to blunt-nosed leopard lizards.

Avoid burrows that may be used by blunt-nosed leopard lizards, to the greatest extent 

practicable. 

The biological monitor shall check the project area and access route daily during the blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard active season to determine the presence or absence of lizards in the work area. If 

blunt-nosed leopard lizards are observed in the project area or along the access route BLM will 

be immediately contacted. BLM will provide additional measures that must be complied with to 

avoid impacts to blunt-nosed leopard lizards. As part of the post-construction report, a map 

showing the location, date and time of the observation will be submitted.

If blunt-nosed leopard lizards are known or likely to occur in the general project area:

Avoid burrows that may be used by blunt-nosed leopard lizards.

Locations of activities with potential to collapse or block burrows (sleeper placement, stockpile, 

storage and parking areas, trenching) will be approved by the biological monitor.

The biological monitor may allow certain activities in burrow areas if, in his or her judgment, the 

combination of soil hardness and activity impact is not expected to collapse burrows. Activities 

authorized by the biological monitor in burrow areas will be documented and included in any 

report.

Roadway sections where blunt-nosed leopard lizards have been observed or are likely to occur 

should be clearly marked to prevent workers from driving off the road and over burrows. 

Barriers, such as fencing, may also be installed.

A brief description of measures taken to avoid burrow collapse will be included in any report, 

including the post-construction report.

In addition, for project activities that occur during the blunt-nosed leopard lizard active season 

(approximately April 15 to October 15) the following will apply:

 Notify the BLM that blunt-nosed leopard lizard active season measures are being 

implemented;

 When possible, conduct project activities at night or during blunt-nosed leopard lizard 

inactivity periods (generally when temperatures are below 77 degrees F and above 99 

degrees F);

 All personnel will be advised to reduce speeds on sections of the access/egress route with 

potential to support blunt-nosed leopard lizards. 

 All vehicle operators will check under vehicles and equipment prior to operation.
232 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Any trenches or pits will be inspected by the biological monitor in the morning, late 

afternoon, at the end of the work day and prior to backfilling to free any blunt-nosed 

leopard lizards that may become entrapped. Trenches or holes should have at least one 

escape ramp for each 1,000 feet of open trench. Escape ramps should be earthen and at a 

slope no steeper than 1:1.

A flashing barrier may be installed around the work area to prevent blunt-nosed leopard lizards 

from entering the work area. The flashing barrier will be constructed of 18-inch or wider 

flashing, buried 6-inches in depth and reinforced with rebar or fence posts. Silt fencing will be 

used to isolate areas inside the exclusion fence. If a blunt-nosed leopard lizard is subsequently 

found within the fenced area, the fence will be removed (in that area) and the lizard will be 

allowed to leave the exclusion zone. Surveys will continue until blunt-nosed leopard lizards are 

no longer observed inside the flashing barrier (i.e. no evidence for one to two weeks dependent 

upon the discretion of the biologist). Barrier installation should occur prior to emergence of 

blunt-nosed leopard lizards or by April 15. Locate flashing so that no burrows are destroyed 

and avoid burrows during barrier construction. Surveys will occur when temperatures are 

sufficient for leopard lizards to be above ground. The flashing barrier will remain in place until 

drilling and sump closure activities have been completed. 

Burrows that cannot be avoided may be destroyed under the following circumstances:

 Burrows inside a barrier may be destroyed after the survey and monitoring requirements 

described above for flashing barriers has been met. Burrows should be carefully excavated 

under the supervision of a qualified biologist to verify that is it unoccupied and then 

destroyed.

 If any burrows are destroyed, the following information will be included in the post 

construction compliance report: the dimensions of the of the area impacted by burrow 

destruction/excavation; number of burrows destroyed/excavated; results of burrow 

excavation, including any observations of wildlife in excavated burrows; and any other 

information deemed useful by the consulting biologist. 

 If a blunt-nosed leopard lizard were observed exiting a burrow, the burrow should be 

carefully excavated, under the supervision of a qualified biologist to verify that is it 

unoccupied and immediately destroyed.

The biological monitor shall check the project area and access route daily during the blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard active season to determine the presence or absence of lizards in the work area. If 

blunt-nosed leopard lizards are observed in the project area or along the access route, the 

biological monitor will take action to avoid impacts on lizards.

If a blunt-nosed leopard lizard is observed at the project site or along the access/egress route, 

the biological monitor will notify the BLM of the actions being undertaken. Initial notification 

may be by phone message. Written documentation, including GPS coordinates of lizard 

observations, will be included in any reports. The post-construction report will include a map 

showing the location, date, and time of any blunt-nosed leopard lizard observations.
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 233

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Roadway sections where blunt-nosed leopard lizards have been observed should be clearly 

marked to prevent workers from driving off the road into blunt-nosed leopard lizard habitat or 

over burrows. Barriers, such as fencing, may also be installed.

The biological monitor must be on-site during appropriate temperatures for blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard activity. The biological monitor will escort all traffic through any area where bluntnosed leopard lizards have been observed. Biological monitors will complete daily compliance 

reports, which will be summarized and included in the weekly report sent to the BLM.

Large vehicles (tankers, water trucks, drilling rigs) must be escorted to and from the worksite by 

a biological monitor during appropriate temperatures for blunt-nosed leopard lizard activity.

The biological monitor will provide the BLM with a brief weekly report describing any actions 

taken to avoid blunt-nosed leopard lizard impacts. This report may be submitted by e-mail to 

the BLM.

All reports must be submitted by the biological monitor conducting the work in the field or be 

reviewed by the field biological monitor. Alternately, the original report prepared by the field 

biological monitor may be attached to the report.

When the biological monitor determines that temperature patterns at the project site no longer 

support blunt-nosed leopard lizard activity for the season and with receipt of the BLM’s 

concurrence, these active season measures may be discontinued.

If blunt-nosed leopard lizards have been observed in the project area or along the access route, 

and operations and maintenance will continue into the next blunt-nosed leopard lizard active 

season, an operations and maintenance plan (O&M Plan) will be submitted to BLM. The O&M 

Plan will outline the practices and mitigation measures that will be implemented to avoid 

impacts on blunt-nosed leopard lizards.

Giant Kangaroo Rat and Tipton Kangaroo Rat

Avoid active precincts by a buffer of 50 feet. Actions within the buffer zone will be limited to 

vehicle and equipment operation on existing roads. Actions within buffer zones will be confined 

to daylight hours.

Annually, the USFWS will advise the BLM if applicants should be required to implement the 

following capture and release program:

 If active precincts cannot be avoided, the area will be trapped no greater than seven days 

before ground-disturbing activities for five consecutive nights. On the day following the 

fifth trap night, burrows will be carefully excavated. Captured animals will be marked and 

may be released into enclosed artificial burrow systems outside the work area the 

following night. All work will be supervised by a USFWS-qualified biologist. At any time 

during the year, the USFWS and the BLM may adjust or decide to discontinue the capture 

and release program.
234 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Kern Mallow, California Jewelflower, San Joaquin Woolly-Threads, and Hoover's Woolly-Star

Extant populations will be avoided, to the greatest extent practicable. The locations of listed 

plants will be avoided and temporarily fenced or prominently flagged to prevent inadvertent 

encroachment by vehicles and equipment during the activity. If California jewelflower 

populations and individuals are discovered in the Kern or Kings counties, they will be avoided by 

a 50-foot buffer.

If extant populations of Kern mallow, San Joaquin woolly-threads or Hoover's woolly-star cannot 

be avoided, surface disturbance should be scheduled after seed set and before germination. 

Collection of seed, with reseeding undertaken at the site following the activity, during seasonal 

time-frames and weather conditions favorable for germination and growth, may also be 

required. Topsoil may be stockpiled and replaced after project completion. Topsoil will not be 

required to be stockpiled for greater than one year.

Impacts on extant populations may be considered minimized when (a) the number of plants lost 

is cumulatively less than 3 percent of the impacted population and disturbance is temporary, or 

(b) the amount of habitat lost is less than 3 percent of the occupied habitat for the impacted 

population.

Plants that are considered waifs or incidental, biologically marginal occurrences due to their 

presence on chronically disturbed habitat and a small population size (less than 50 individuals) 

may be disturbed at the USFWS/BLM's discretion.

The following guidelines shall be used to determine thresholds for facilities operation and 

maintenance activities that are within the scope of certain programmatic biological opinions: 

 Estimated loss of individuals of plants from project activities will amount to no more than 

3 percent of the individuals of the impacted population;

 Estimated extent of habitat disturbance amounts to no more than 3 percent of the 

estimated acreage of occupied habitat for the impacted population;

 Formal consultation shall be reinitiated if chronic and cumulative habitat loss and 

disturbance adversely affects a population that does not qualify as a waif or an incidental, 

biologically marginal occurrence by virtue of its presence on chronically disturbed habitat 

or small population size (less than 50 individuals);

 Herbicide use will not be permitted within 300 feet of listed plant populations identified 

during pre-project surveys.

Kern Mallow

The BLM and the USFWS may delineate a Kern Mallow Specialty Preserve, where special 

measures to conserve Kern mallow will be required. Delineation will include mapping the 

current distribution of Kern mallow, particularly the outer boundaries of core and satellite 

populations. Special measures may include:

 Completely avoiding areas occupied by Kern mallow;
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 235

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Conducting all surface-disturbing work after seed set and before germination, regardless 

of the presence or absence of Kern mallow;

 Compensating impacts with lands inside the specialty preserve;

 Stockpiling topsoil and replacing after project completion; and

 Using modified compensation ratios. 

Bakersfield Cactus

Bakersfield cactus populations or individuals will be avoided by a 50-foot buffer in all areas 

where they are located.

San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel

To the maximum extent practicable, the measures described above for blunt-nosed leopard 

lizards will be applied to San Joaquin antelope squirrel in the project area and along the 

access/egress route.

In areas where antelope squirrels are suspected to occur and when temperatures are suitable 

for antelope squirrel activity, all personnel will be advised to check below parked vehicles and 

equipment before moving such vehicles or equipment. Caution will be taken when driving 

through areas where antelope squirrels may occur.

The applicant should refer to CDFW and CDFW-approved San Joaquin antelope squirrel take 

avoidance measures to minimize or eliminate the likelihood “take” of San Joaquin antelope

squirrel in order to comply with the California Endangered Species Act.

California Condor Best Management Practices for Oil and Gas Operations

The following measures have been developed by BLM and USFWS and applied to past oil and 

gas projects near condor roosting and nesting areas.

 Drilling and well completion activities may be restricted to certain time periods to reduce 

impacts to condors. For example, activities near the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

may be restricted to the period between mid-October and early May when condors make 

less use of the general area. Alternately, activities near the Hopper Mountain Wildlife 

Refuge may be restricted to the period between March 1 and September 30, to avoid the 

period when chicks would be fledging. The specific dates may be modified to reflect 

actual conditions for a given year. the general time periods may be modified should the 

USFWS recommend a different time period.

 Operators will designate a representative (Designated Representative) who will be

responsible for overseeing compliance with the California Condor Protection Measures. 

The operator will provide BLM with the name, phone number and email of the Designated 

Representative. The operator will promptly notify BLM of any changes to the Designated 

Representative.
236 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Prior to conducting work on-site, employees and contractors shall be made aware of the 

protected species, and how to avoid and minimize impacts to them. Special emphasis will 

be placed on keeping the well pad site free of “microtrash” and other hazards.

 Direct contact with California condors shall be avoided. 

 All work areas shall be kept free of trash and debris. Particular attention shall be paid to 

“microtrash.” All construction debris and trash (including such small items as screws, 

nuts, washers, nails, coins, rags, small electrical components, small pieces of plastic, glass 

or wire, and any debris or trash that is colorful or shiny) shall be covered, kept in closed 

containers, or otherwise removed from the project site at the end of each day or prior to 

periods when workers are not present at the site. 

 All food items and associated trash shall be placed in covered containers. This would 

include small bits of trash and debris, such as soda can pull tabs, electrical connectors, 

broken glass, and pieces of rubber, plastic and metal.

 All equipment and work-related materials (including loose-wires, open containers or other 

supplies or materials) shall be contained in closed containers either in the work area or 

placed inside vehicles. Loose items (e.g., rags, hose, etc.) shall be stored within closed 

containers or enclosed in vehicles. 

 All hoses or cords that must be placed on the ground due to drilling operations that are 

outside of the primary work area (immediate vicinity of the drilling rig) shall be covered to 

prevent California condor access. Covering may take the form of burying or covering with 

heavy mats, planks, or grating that would preclude access by California condors. 

 All liquids shall be in closed, covered containers. Any spills of hydrocarbon/hazardous 

liquids shall not be left unattended until clean-up has been completed. No open drilling 

mud, water, oil or other liquid storage or retention structures will be allowed. All such 

structures will be required to have some sort of netting or other covering that precludes 

entry or other use by condors or other listed avian species.

 Where practical, ethylene glycol based anti-freeze or other ethylene glycol based liquid 

substances will be avoided, and propylene glycol based antifreeze will be encouraged. 

Equipment or vehicles that use ethylene glycol based anti-freeze or other ethylene glycol 

based liquid substances shall be inspected daily for leaks. While at the site, areas below 

vehicles and equipment using ethylene glycol based substances will be checked for leaks 

and puddles. Standing fluid (i.e., a puddle of anti-freeze) shall be remediated (e.g., 

cleaned-up, absorbed, or covered) without unnecessary delay. Vehicles using ethylene 

glycol based substances will be inspected before and after field use for obvious leaks and 

puddles. Leaks will be repaired before the vehicle is allowed back into the general area. 

No changing of antifreeze of any type will be allowed within the oil and gas development 

area. 

 A not-to-exceed 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be implemented and enforced during 

all activities. 

 All construction equipment, staging areas, materials, and personnel shall be restricted to 

disturbed areas that are not habitat for listed species. 
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 237

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 To prevent injury to wildlife, habitat degradation, erosion, and fires, driving off of 

disturbed areas without a pre-activity survey and implementation of appropriate 

measures is prohibited, except in the case of an emergency.

 Firearms and pets are prohibited.

 No feeding of wildlife shall be permitted. 

 The potential for human-caused wildfires should be minimized by use of shields, mats, or 

other fire-prevention methods when grinding or welding. Fire watch, including water, 

extinguishers, and shovels shall be available for fire suppression.

 Approval from the FWS will be obtained prior to 1) the use of any aircraft in the drilling, 

operation or monitoring of the wells, and 2) flaring of natural gas or other flammable 

gases or substances at the project site.

 Any use (perching, landing) of a well site and its associated facilities by California condors 

shall be recorded and reported to the operator’s Designated Representative and BLM. 

 Any take (harm, harassment, injury, killing, etc., or any attempt to engage in these 

activities) shall be reported to the operator’s Designated Representative. The Designated 

Representative shall immediately notify BLM and USFWS as appropriate. The activity that 

caused the take to occur shall be ceased immediately. 

 Should a well prove productive, the following additional measures will be implemented:

o Barriers (such as welded wire fabric or hardware cloth) will be installed around well 

cellars and on secondary containment pans to prevent condor access.

o Stainless steel lines, rather than poly chemical lines will be used to preclude condors 

from obtaining and ingesting pieces of poly lines.

o Landing deterrents, such as Daddi Long Legs or porcupine wire, will be attached to the 

walking beams on pumping units.

o Should condors continue to make use of the ground near the proposed pad, perimeter 

fence will be installed to discourage condor access.

o Information signs regarding micro-trash will be posted. 

o Power lines will not span canyons or be located on ridgelines. The distance between 

power lines will be sufficient to prevent electrocution of condors and other raptors. 

Bird deflectors will be installed.

Guadalupe Fur Seal Best Management Practices for Oil and Gas Operations

The following measures have been developed by BLM and NMFS to be applied to all oil and gas 

operations occurring in or near areas used by Guadalupe fur seals (i.e.: intertidal areas and 

haulouts). NMFS will be consulted on all projects occurring in or near areas of Guadalupe fur 

seals prior to project authorization. 

 No ocean going vessels may be used, either along the shoreline or in intertidal areas, for 

onshore oil and gas operations (such as drilling, producing, and well abandonment). 

Ocean going vessels may be used for the transportation of equipment, personnel, and 

produced oil and gas using established ports and piers.
238 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Proposed project areas requiring new construction will be sited inland to the greatest 

extent practical, particularly in areas near potential or known haulouts.

 No new construction, where the nearest edge of disturbance is within 150-ft of a 

drainage, stream bed or bank, or riparian area that drains to known or potential haulouts.

 Containment berms will be constructed on the perimeter of all pad locations to ensure no 

materials or liquids (such as hydrocarbons or hazardous liquids) with the potential for 

contamination of streams, ocean, rookeries and/or haulouts (leaks, spills, contaminated 

rainwater, etc.) leave the pad location.

 Operators will designate a representative (Designated Representative) who will be 

responsible for overseeing compliance with the Pinniped Protection Measures. The 

operator will make provide BLM with the name, phone number, and email of the 

Designated Representative. The operator will promptly notify BLM of changes to the 

Designated Representative.

 Operators will create an environmental education program/pamphlet that shall be 

distributed to all project personnel entering the work area. The educational program will 

include illustrations, habitat (habitat illustrations; spawning beds), and what to do if the 

species is observed. This pamphlet must be approved by BLM.

 Drilling, well completion, work-overs, and abandonment activities may be restricted to 

certain time periods to reduce impacts to pinnipeds (i.e.: vehicle & equipment traffic, 

vibrations/noise/light pollution due to drilling, spills, etc.). The specific dates may be 

modified to reflect a given year. In addition, the time periods may also be modified 

should NMFS recommend a different time period.

 An operations plan will be required outlining measures in place during all phases of 

operations (drilling, well completion, work-overs, maintenance, production, and 

abandonment activities) in areas near known haulouts. This plan will specifically outline 

measures to reduce noise and nighttime light pollution.

 A spill revention plan must be submitted to BLM prior to project approval for new wells, 

well completion or work-overs, installation of new facilities (buildings, tanks, pipelines, 

production equipment, etc.), routine maintenance activities and well abandonments. The 

prevention plan must identify a Spill Response Team, comprised of state and federal 

emergency response agencies and provides contact numbers for each representative or 

representative agency. An Incident Commander will be identified and designated 

promptly after spill notification. The Incident Commander must be a representative of a 

state or federal agency. The Designated Representative will promptly notify BLM of 

changes to the Spill Response Team.

 All liquids shall be in closed, covered containers. Any spills of hydrocarbons/hazardous 

liquids shall not be left unattended until clean-up has been completed. No earthen sumps 

or pits will be allowed for drilling, completion, workover, or abandonment activities. No 

open drilling mud, water, oil, or other liquid storage or retention structures will be 

allowed. Secondary containment will be required around all liquid storage containers and 

have a plastic membrane/liner to prevent leaking from leaving the secondary 

containment.

Black Abalone Best Management Practices for Oil and Gas Operations

The following measures have been developed by BLM and NMFS to be applied to all oil and gas 

operations occurring on San Nicholas Island or along the California coastline where offshore 
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 239

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

vessels would be required. NMFS will be consulted on all projects occurring on San Nicholas 

Island and along the California coastline in areas of known or potential black abalone habitat 

prior to project authorization. 

 Proposed project areas requiring new construction will be sited inland to the greatest 

extent practical, particularly in areas near black abalone habitat.

 In areas of known or potential black abalone habitat a monitoring plan will be developed 

in coordination with NMFS. The monitoring plan will include provisions for pre-project, 

as-needed, and post-project monitoring to be completed.

 Transportation of supplies related to drilling, well completion, work-overs, and 

abandonment activities will be restricted to the use of existing piers and ports.

 All vessel traffic and equipment would be required to avoid intertidal areas along the 

California coast line as well as that of San Nicholas Island.

 No vessels are permitted to dump ballast water while in port. To prevent the spread of 

invasive species, all dumping and/or exchange of ballast water shall occur in open ocean.

 Containment berms will be constructed on the perimeter of all pad locations to ensure no 

materials or liquids (such as hydrocarbons or hazardous liquids) with the potential for 

contamination of streams, ocean, and intertidal areas (leaks, spills, contaminated 

rainwater, etc.), leave the pad location.

 A spill prevention plan must be submitted to BLM prior to project approval for new wells, 

well completion or work-overs, installation of new facilities (buildings, tanks, pipelines, 

production equipment, etc.), routine maintenance activities and well abandonments. The 

prevention plan must identify a Spill Response Team, comprised of state and federal 

emergency response agencies and provides contact numbers for each representative or 

representative agency. An Incident Commander will be identified and designated 

promptly after spill notification. The Incident Commander must be a representative of a 

state or federal agency. The Designated Representative will promptly notify BLM of 

changes to the Spill Response Team.

Blue Whale, Fin Whale, and Humpback Whale Best Management Practices for Oil and Gas 

Operations

The following measures have been developed by the BLM and NMFS to be applied to all oil and 

gas operations occurring on San Nicholas Island or along the California coastline. NMFS will be 

consulted on all projects occurring on San Nicholas Island and along the California coastline 

where off-shore vessels would be required. 

 Vessels shall use caution and consider reducing speeds when whales are sited in an area, 

as well as adhere to the National Marine Fisheries Service Whalewatching Guidelines.

 Vessels should always attempt to stay at least 100 yards away from a whale

 If vessels cannot avoid a whale or whales by 100 yards, they should not:

 Move into the path of a whale;

 Move faster than a whale (operate at no wake speed)

 Make rapid speed or erratic directional changes UNLESS to avoid 

collision with a whale

 Get between two whales, particularly a cow and her calf

 Vessels should do nothing the cause a whale to change directions.
240 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Aircraft should not fly lower than 1,000 feet while within a horizontal distance 

of 100 yards from a whale.

 Marine mammal observers are required to be posted on all vessels. All whale sightings 

will be documented and a report summarizing sightings submitted BLM and to NOAA by 

emailing: whales@NOAA.gov. All reports must be submitted with-in 60-days of project 

completion. Any projects lasting longer than 1 year will require an annual report.

 The operator will provide education and outreach to ship personnel specifically 

addressing the threat of ship strikes to whales. Any whales struck by the ship will be 

immediately reported to BLM and NOAA. 

 If possible, any pictures or videos of the whale shall be submitted to NOAA. 

 If possible, a sample of sloughed skin floating in nearby waters should be 

collected and sent to NOAA.

 Prior to project approval the operator (their contractors) will provide BLM an overlay of 

their proposed routes with whale sightings, and plot alternative routes where vessels 

could expect to encounter fewer whales. Vessels may be required to re-route to reduce 

the co-occurrence of ships and whales to reduce the risk of strikes. 

 The shipping industry provides NOAA with maps of whale distributions during 

times of high use. The operator shall work with BLM and NOAA to receive 

weekly plots.

 While vessel lighting is required for navigational and aeronautical safety, all deck lighting 

may be down-shielded to illuminate the deck, and not intentionally illuminating the 

surrounding water.

 A spill response plan must be submitted to BLM prior to project approval. The plan will 

identify a Spill Response Team, comprised of state and federal emergency response 

agencies and provides contact numbers for each representative or representative agency. 

Steelhead Best Management Practices for Oil and Gas Operations

The following measures have been developed by BLM and NMFS to be applied to all oil and gas 

operations occurring in or near areas used by steelhead or containing their critical habitat. 

NMFS will be consulted on all projects occurring in or near steelhead critical habitat prior to 

project authorization.

 Operators will designate a third party biological monitor who will be responsible for 

overseeing compliance with the Steelhead Protection Measures. The operator will 

provide BLM with the name, phone number, email, and resume of the third party 

salmonid biological monitor for BLM approval. The biologist must be knowledgeable on 

salmonid life history and ecology, and have experience monitoring impacts to salmonids. 

The operator will promptly notify BLM of changes to the third party biological monitor.

 The third party biologist is responsible for providing a pre-project environmental 

education training to all personnel working in the project area focusing on steelhead and 

their critical habitat. The biological monitor will be onsite during the construction process 

and available throughout the entire project.

 The pre-project education training will include a pamphlet that shall be 

distributed to all project personnel entering the work area. The educational 

program will be site specific and include steelhead illustrations, habitat (habitat 

illustrations; spawning beds), extent of critical habitat, and what to do if the 

species is observed. This pamphlet must be approved by BLM.
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 241

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Drilling, well completion, work-overs, and abandonment activities may be restricted to 

certain time periods to reduce impacts to steelhead (i.e.: vehicle & equipment traffic, 

vibrations/noise/light pollution due to drilling, spills, etc.). Drilling and well completion 

work will be restricted to the period from between June 1st to November 30th. The 

specific dates restricting construction activities may be modified to reflect a given year 

(i.e.: wet years with higher flows later in the season). In addition, the time periods may 

also be modified should NMFS recommend a different time period.

 A spill prevention plan must be submitted to BLM prior to project approval for new wells, 

well completion or work-overs, installation of new facilities (buildings, tanks, pipelines, 

production equipment, etc.), routine maintenance activities and well abandonments. The 

prevention plan must identify a Spill Response Team, comprised of state and federal 

emergency response agencies and provides contact numbers for each representative or 

representative agency. 

 The Incident Commander will be identified and designated promptly after spill 

notification. The Incident Commander is responsible for coordinating with all 

federal, state, and local agencies throughout the spill clean-up. 

 The Incident Commander must be a representative of a state or federal agency. 

The Designated Representative will promptly notify BLM of changes to the Spill 

Response Team.

 The spill prevention plan must also identify spill response materials, locations of 

materials, containment protocols, and containment/clean-up strategy.

 In the unlikely event of an oil spill within 500-ft of steelhead critical habitat BLM must be 

notified immediately. Any spill with potential to enter a stream within steelhead CH shall 

require immediate response from the spill response team.

 All liquids shall be in closed, covered containers. Any spills of hydrocarbons/hazardous 

liquids shall not be left unattended until clean-up has been completed. No earthen sumps 

or pits will be allowed for drilling, completion, workover, or abandonment activities. No 

open drilling mud, water, oil, or other liquid storage (such as acids, KCL solution, or other 

chemical solutions for well drilling and completions activities) or retention structures will 

be allowed. Secondary containment will be required around all liquid storage containers 

and have a plastic membrane/liner to prevent leaks from leaving the secondary 

containment.

 For projects that require earthen stream crossings for site access, all stream crossings 

must be identified and an estimate of use (types of vehicles, number of trips, etc.) during 

the lifetime of the entire project prior to project approval. Prior to start of any drilling or 

well-completion projects where site access has earthen stream crossing with water 

present, the third party salmonid biologist is required to survey for the presence of active 

redds or juvenile salmonids. No work may proceed if active redds or juvenile salmonids 

are observed.

 Temporary structures (steel plates, concrete bridges, wooden platforms, etc.) may be 

required to span stream crossings in areas to protect waterways with steelhead presence 

and/or spawning gravels were practical. These temporary structures would allow vehicles 

and equipment to cross streams without impacts to salmonid CH.

 No new construction where the nearest edge of disturbance is below the 100 year flood 

line within steelhead critical habitat.

 Existing pad locations within steelhead critical habitat may be used as long as certain 

criteria are met
242 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 The surface of the pad location is above the 100 year flood line, and

 Any portions of the pad below the 100 year flood line have established 

vegetation on both cut and fill slopes, and no apparent signs of erosion.

 Containment berms will be constructed on the perimeter of all new pad locations and 

new authorizations to ensure no materials or liquids (such as hydrocarbons or hazardous 

liquids) with the potential for contamination of streams (leaks, spills, contaminated 

rainwater, etc.) leave the pad location and enter steelhead critical habitat or a tributary 

with potential to enter steelhead critical habitat.

 Work areas will be kept free of trash and debris. All chemicals, spoils, equipment, and 

wastes will be removed from the well pad at the completion of drilling, workover, and 

maintenance operations and prior to November 30th.

 Any structures, chemicals, and materials with potential to discharge pollutants if the 

facility were inundated will not be allowed to remain on the pad location during periods 

of potential high flows, during the salmonid spawning run and juvenile out-migration 

(December 1st thru May 31st), or during unseasonably high flows.

 All new pipelines needing to cross streams within steelhead critical habitat will be 

suspended above the 100 year flood line.

 Spoils remaining after the completion of the well pad shall not be stored below the 100 

year flood level and in a location where spoils cannot be washed into a stream, where it 

could cover aquatic vegetation or spawning areas.

 No materials shall be stored in seasonally dry portions of streams that could be washed 

downstream.

 A not-to-exceed speed limit of 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be implemented and 

enforced for all roads. A not-to-exceed speed limit of 5 mile-per-hour will be 

implemented and enforced for all earthen stream crossings to reduce the potential for 

increased sedimentation.

 All construction equipment, staging areas, materials, and personnel shall be restricted to 

disturbed areas, and no storage shall occur in drainages and stream channels. 

 To prevent injury to wildlife, habitat degradation, erosion, and fires, driving off of 

disturbed areas without a pre-activity survey and implementation of appropriate 

measures is prohibited, except in the case of an emergency. In addition, no driving in 

stream channels is authorized except at existing approved road crossings.

 The potential for human-caused wildfires should be minimized to the greatest extent 

practicable by using shields, mats, or other fire prevention methods when grinding or 

welding. Fire watch including: water, extinguishers, and shovels shall be available for fire 

suppression.

 Firearms and pets are prohibited.

 No feeding of wildlife shall be permitted.

Project Monitoring

Each project will have a field contact representative (FCR), who will be responsible for overseeing 

compliance with protective stipulations for listed species. The FCR may be a project manager, project 

representative, BLM employee, or contract biologist. The FCR will have the authority to halt all actions 

that are in violation of the stipulations. The FCR will have a copy of all appropriate stipulations when 

surface-disturbing actions are being conducted on the site. The BLM and USFWS will be notified of the 
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 243

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

name and telephone number of the FCR prior to project construction. The NMFS will also be notified 

when projects involve NMFS species or habitats.

Biological monitoring will be accomplished by a USFWS-qualified biologist. Black abalone surveys and 

monitoring will be accomplished by a NMFS-qualified biologist. The biologist will be responsible for field 

crews to be in compliance with protection measures, performing surveys in front of crews as needed to 

locate and avoid sensitive species and habitat features, and monitoring project mitigation compliance. 

The biological monitor will have the authority to halt all non-emergency actions should danger to a 

listed species arise. Work will proceed only after hazards to the listed species are removed, the 

individual(s) is no longer at risk, or the individual(s) has been removed by the biologist.

The BLM will be provided with the name, phone number, and e-mail of the field biological monitor prior 

to construction. If not already on file at the Bakersfield FO, a copy of the field biological monitor’s 

resume or curriculum vitae will be submitted to the BLM prior to the commencement of construction. 

Biological monitors will be required to be on-site during initial surface-disturbing actions to minimize 

direct take of listed species. Subsequent to initial surface disturbing activities, biological monitors are 

not required to be present but must be available within 24-hour notice from the applicant, the BLM, or 

the USFWS in order to troubleshoot potential take situations.

Biological monitors will be required to be on-site during placement of sleepers and pipe to minimize 

direct take of listed species.

At the BLM’s/USFWS’s discretion, on-site biological monitors may not be required if exclusion zones or 

surface disturbance areas are prominently marked with lath, flagging, or fencing, as necessary.

Biological monitors are required for kit fox den excavations.

In previously unsurveyed areas, biological monitors are required for routing cross-country travel to 

minimize impacts on habitat features.

Biological monitors may be required, if, on project inspection by the BLM or USFWS, noncompliance of 

project stipulations are observed and documented.

All reports must:

 Be signed and submitted by the biological monitor conducting work in the field, OR

 Be reviewed and signed by the biological monitor conducting work in the field, OR

 Include, as an attachment, the original report prepared and signed by the field biological 

monitor.

An e-mail report originating from the field biological monitor may be accepted as a signature.

Within 60 days of completion of construction, a brief post-construction compliance report will be 

provided to the BLM that addresses:

 Any revisions to habitat disturbance estimates;

 Any observed impacts on listed species, including take;
244 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 A brief description of significant actions taken to comply with the provisions listed above;

 An overall evaluation of compliance with the provisions and any suggestions for changes to the 

provisions;

 Any information required due to the sighting of an additional species, such as a blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard.

Compensation

The compensation ratio for San Joaquin Valley species will be 3:1 for permanent impacts and 1.1:1 for 

temporary impacts except as follows:

 The compensation ratio for Kern mallow will be 9:1 for permanent impacts and 6:1 for 

temporary impacts on known populations.

 Within the western Kern County kit fox core area the compensation ratio will be 4:1 for 

permanent impacts.

 The compensation ratio for vernal pool habitat will be 5:1 with a replacement element.

If a new compensation ratio becomes established for a county or species, the BLM and USFWS may 

decide to modify compensation ratios.

For protected lands (such as federal lands, state wildlife areas, conservation banks, Lokern area) a 

replacement component will be added to the compensation ratio.

Compensation of habitat must be in kind. Land used for compensation must be of equal value or better 

than the land impacted. The same species must be present and habitat must be of an equal of greater 

value. Lands used for compensation for project impacts on Kern mallow, San Joaquin woolly-threads, 

blunt-nosed leopard lizards, and the kangaroo rats must support these species or be approved by the 

USFWS for these species. Lands used to compensate for impacts on a kit fox natal den must support 

breeding populations of kit foxes.

If compensation is required for a project involving federal land or mineral estate, ownership of 

compensation lands will be transferred prior to any surface disturbance to one of the following: the 

BLM; an entity acceptable to the BLM, USFWS, and CDFW that can effectively manage listed species and 

their habitats; the CDFW; or the USFWS for dedication to listed species habitat management. The 

USFWS will be informed before the actual transfer when land is transferred. 

Areas preapproved to serve as compensation areas are the Lokern Road area, Buena Vista 

Valley, Semitropic Ridge, Allensworth, Kettleman Hills, Kern Water Bank, Carrizo Plain Natural 

area, or any Specialty Preserve agreed to by the BLM and the USFWS. Habitat linkage areas and 

small specialty preserves determined by the BLM, CDFW, and USFWS to be important for 

species conservation and to promote recovery of species will be acceptable as compensation 

habitat. 

As an alternative to the above standard compensation method, applicants may provide a letter 

agreeing to dedicate existing mitigation credits or purchase additional mitigation credits at a 

USFWS-approved mitigation bank to compensate for any impacts. 
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 245

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The final compensation acreage will be adjusted on completion of construction, based on the actual 

amount of acreage temporarily and permanently disturbed.

The applicant may propose to conduct construction in a manner that results in no surface disturbance. 

The biological monitor will document surface conditions before and after construction to verify the lack 

of disturbance. The biological monitor will take before and after photographs of the construction 

corridor every 1,000 feet or as necessary to document the lack of disturbance. The same photo point 

locations and directions will be used for the before and after photos. GPS coordinates for each photo 

point will be provided to the BLM.

The USFWS, NMFS and CDFW protocols will be employed to conduct special status species surveys.

6.3.4.5 Control of Non-native Species

 Projects and activities on BLM lands will include measures to minimize the introduction and 

spread of weeds.

 Weed control methods will follow integrated pest management principles. 

 Use of pesticides shall comply with applicable federal and state laws. BLM policy requires 

project-specific NEPA analysis and the issuance of a pesticide use permit before the use of 

pesticides. Only products on the California BLM’s list of approved pesticides may be used. 

 The release of nonnative animal species will be prohibited, other than those legally 

introduced for biological control, or those released during legal hunts as regulated by CDFW. 

6.3.5 Soils

 Minimize soil disturbance by limiting developments to the smallest area possible and by using 

previously disturbed areas and existing roads to the extent practicable. 

 Minimize surface disturbance and design disturbed areas on steep slopes to prevent surface 

water from concentrating to reduce erosion and sedimentation. 

 Restrict access and suspend authorized projects during wet weather when soil resources will be 

detrimentally affected by rutting, compaction, and increased erosion. 

 Minimize fire control lines, both handline and dozerline, to the width necessary to effectively 

stop fire spread. Rehabilitate lines by smoothing out berms and installing waterbars prior to the 

rainy season. 

 Assess the need for soil stabilization following wildfires. Use the Emergency Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation process to determine and implement needed actions. 

 Follow guidelines for site reclamation in the Oil and Gas BMP section to protect soils, including 

topsoil conservation, scarifying or disking soil, recontouring the area, redistributing topsoil and 

providing ground cover through seeding or other methods. 

 Actively patrol public lands to prevent unauthorized off-road travel. If unauthorized routes are 

found, block access to minimize further soil disturbance and reduce the potential for erosion 

through rehabilitation action. 

6. 3. 5. 1 10B
246 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.3.5.2 Additional Information on BMPs for Soils

 Erosion and sediment control: http://www.cabmphandbooks.org

 OHV BMP Manual for erosion and sediment control: 

http://www.watchyourdirt.com/erosion-control-files/
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 247

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.3.6 Water Resources 

California’s Non-Point Source (NPS) Program Plan (adopted by SWRCB in December 1999) identifies 61 

Management Measures (MMs) which constitute the State’s BMPs for controlling NPS pollution. MMs 

applicable to BLM program and management actions include, but are not limited to, those that pertain 

to livestock grazing management, chemical management (pesticide and herbicide use), road 

construction and management, erosion and sediment control, hydro-modification, wetlands, and 

riparian areas. The BLM demonstrates compliance with the Clean Water Act and state water quality 

objectives by implementing BMPs that are consistent with the State’s MMs. A suite of BMPs have been 

developed by various agencies, including the BLM, to address non-point source pollution on federal 

lands. These include, but are not limited to: those found in various RAC-approved rangeland health 

standards, BLM developed BMPs for renewable energy development, BMPs identified in the “Gold 

Book” for oil and gas development, and BMPs developed by the Forest Service Region 5 for various land 

management activities and authorized activities for lands in California. BLM activities authorized under 

this RMP will implement those most applicable for the local situation.

6.3.6.1 10BWater Resources Protection

 Employ erosion and sediment control measures during watershed restoration activities to 

reduce or eliminate erosion and sediment transport or incidental sediment discharge.

 Erosion control measures include mulching, placement of hay bales and other drainage 

control features, construction of rolling dips, and seasonal limits on operations.

 Protect the existing water quality improvement functions of wetlands and riparian areas as a 

component of NPS programs. Damaged wetlands or riparian areas should be restored where 

restoration of such systems will abate polluted runoff.

 Protect sensitive areas (including streambanks, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and riparian 

zones) by reducing direct loadings of animal wastes and sediment. This may include 

restricting or rotationally grazing livestock in sensitive areas by providing fencing, livestock 

stream crossings, and by locating salt, shade, and alternative drinking sources away from 

sensitive areas. 

 Take measures to prevent the diffuse or point discharge of potential water pollutants onto 

the ground surface.

 Upland erosion can be reduced by, among other methods: (1) maintaining the land 

consistent with the California Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan or Bureau of Land 

Management and Forest Service activity plans or (2) applying the range and pasture 

components of a Resource Management System (NRCS FOTG). This may include prescribed 

grazing, seeding, gully erosion control, such as grade stabilization structures and ponds, and 

other critical area treatment.

 Road construction/reconstruction shall be conducted so as to reduce sediment generation 

and delivery. This can be accomplished by, among other means, following designs for road 

systems, incorporating adequate drainage structures, properly installing stream crossings, 

avoiding road construction in streamside management areas, removing debris from streams, 

and stabilizing areas of disturbed soil such as road fills.
248 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Manage roads to prevent sedimentation, minimize erosion, maintain stability, and reduce 

the risk that drainage structures and stream crossings will fail or become less effective. 

Components of this measure include inspections and maintenance actions to prevent 

erosion of road surfaces and to ensure the effectiveness of stream-crossing structures. This 

measure also addresses appropriate methods for closing roads that are no longer in use.

 Confine runoff onsite to reduce impacts of mechanical site preparation and revegetation 

operationsparticularly in areas that have steep slopes or highly erodible soils, or where 

the site is located in close proximity to a water body.

 Conduct prescribed fire practices for site preparation and methods to suppress wildfires in a 

manner that limits loss of soil organic matter and litter and that reduces the potential for 

runoff and erosion. 

 Addresses the rapid revegetation of areas disturbed during road constructionparticularly 

road systems where mineral soil is exposed or agitated (e.g., road cuts, fill slopes, landing 

surfaces, etc.).

 Do not apply chemicals within 100 feet of perennial streams or channels with beneficial 

use(s) recognized by the state.

 Do not apply chemicals directly into intermittent streams or channels with beneficial use(s) 

recognized by the state.

 Avoid aerial application of chemicals when wind speeds would cause drift. 

 Avoid aerial application of wildland fire chemicals within 300 feet of waterways and any 

ground application of wildland fire chemicals into waterways.

 To minimize water quality degradation and maintain soil productivity while achieving rapid 

and safe suppression of wildfire, limit use of heavy equipment near streams and on steep 

slopes when possible. Where fire trail entry into a riparian area is essential, angle the 

approach rather than have it perpendicular to the stream.

 Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of soil or less than one acre but are 

part of a larger common plan of development or sale having the potential to disturb one or 

more acres (includes clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as stockpiling or 

excavation) are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of 

Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, Order 

2009-0009-DWQ) and manage construction in accordance with permit requirements. 

6.3.6.2 102BMineral Exploration and Development

 Require that operators obtain all required state and federal permits for the protection of 

groundwater and surface water quality. Additional measures to protect water resources 

that may be included as Conditions of Approval (COAs) are described in Section 3.8.2 below. 

COAs specifically designed to protect groundwater include zone isolation, general casing 

depth and cement requirements, pressure testing, casing integrity testing, fluid surveys, 

and/or wellhead monitoring.

 Design roads, well pads, and facilities for exploratory wells to impact and fragment the least 

acreage practicable. New facilities shall be designed to maintain natural drainage and runoff 
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 249

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

patterns. Noncommercial wells shall be restored as soon as appropriate using BLM 

restoration methods.

 Prevent and repair soils subject to water erosion.

 Timely plugging and abandonment of depleted wells will be required. This includes plugging 

the well bore with cement, removing all materials and equipment, and recontouring/ 

revegetation as specified in the conditions of approval. 

 Sufficiently impervious secondary containment, such as containment dikes, containment 

walls, and drip pans, should be constructed and maintained around all qualifying petroleum 

facilities, including tank batteries and separation and treating areas consistent with the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 

regulation (40 CFR 112). 

 The appropriate containment and/or diversionary structure would be sufficiently impervious 

to oil, glycol, produced water, or other fluid and would be installed so that any spill or 

leakage would not drain, infiltrate, or otherwise escape to the ground, surface, or navigable 

waters before clean-up is completed.

 Proper containment of oil and produced water in tanks, drilling fluids in reserve pits, and 

locating staging areas away from drainages would prevent potential contaminants from 

entering surface waters.

 Chemical containers should not be stored on bare ground or exposed to the sun and 

moisture. Labels must be readable. Chemical containers should be maintained in good 

condition and placed within secondary containment in case of a spill or high velocity 

puncture. All secondary containment must be designed to preclude entry from wildlife and

livestock.

 Set and cement surface casings to sufficient depths to protect water bearing zones outside 

of the production zone(s).

 Consider the use of a closed loop drilling system. In the absence of a closed loop system, 

tanks and pits must be designed to preclude the entry of wildlife and livestock.

 Produced water from oil and gas operations would be disposed of in accordance with the 

requirements of Onshore Oil and Gas Order #7.

6.3.6.3 Additional Information on BMPs for Water Resources

 BLM Water Quality Law Summary: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/Chap5.html

 Example BMPs from Pinedale, WY BLM Field Office:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/pinedale/feis_prmp.html

 Proposed Grazing Management Practices for Water Quality in California, from Rangeland 

Health Standards and Guidelines for California and Northwestern Nevada Final EIS: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib//blm/ca/pdf/pa/rangeland_management/final_rangela

nd_health.Par.537ebc11.File.pdf/APPENDIX_10.pdf

 Policy for Aerial Delivery of Wildland Fire Chemicals near Waterways: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wfcs/Application_Policy-MultiAgency_042209-UPDATE.pdf. 
250 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 USDA Forest Service Water Quality Management BMPs: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/publications/water_resources/waterquality/water-best-mgmt.pdf

 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/bmp_database.shtml

 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/cammpr.shtml

 http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/

6.3.7 Cultural Resources

 Prior to the implementation of all proposed actions, cultural resource compliance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 and 110, will be coordinated pursuant to the 

current and any subsequent versions, supplemental procedures and amendments of the National

Programmatic Agreement Among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers 

Regarding the Manner in Which the BLM Will Meet its Responsibilities Under the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the State Protocol Agreement Among the California State Director of the 

Bureau of Land Management and the California State Historic Preservation Officer and the Nevada 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding the Manner in Which the Bureau of Land Management Will

Meet its Responsibilities Under the National Historic Preservation Act and the National

Programmatic Agreement Among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation. Should the either 

of these agreements be terminated, the BLM would comply with requirements under Sections 106 

and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) through the implementation of 

procedures put forth in 36 CFR 800.

 Archaeologists, law enforcement rangers, resource staff specialists, Native Americans, or 

designated volunteer stewards will patrol and monitor selected significant cultural resources on 

public lands in the Bakersfield FO to reduce threats from human and natural disturbances. 

 The BLM will coordinate with Native Americans, cultural resource specialists, interdisciplinary 

specialists, conservationists, and interested public, as appropriate, to apply the best available 

science to determine the amount and type of maintenance desired at cultural sites that are 

threatened by human or natural causes and how best to mitigate identified problems.

 The Bakersfield FO will continue to support access by the Native Americans to traditional material 

collecting and gathering locations and ceremonial places. It is a federal policy to protect and 

preserve for the American Indian, the inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise 

their traditional religions, including access to religious sites, use and possession of sacred objects, 

and freedom to worship through ceremonies and traditional rites (American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978). Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996), directs federal agencies 

to manage federal lands in a manner that accommodates Indian religious practitioners’ access to 

and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites and that avoids adversely affecting the physical integrity 

of such sacred sites, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with 

essential agency functions.

 Continue open dialogue and share information with Native Americans and ethnic groups that have 

cultural ties to lands managed by the Bakersfield FO.
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 251

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Conduct cultural resource inventory and evaluations for all projects that require soil disturbance 

or cause a visual intrusion on a historic property. The presence or absence of cultural properties 

would be determined prior to the approval of any surface-disturbing activity. When cultural 

properties are present, the project would be redesigned or modified to safely avoid impacting 

cultural sites or steps would be taken to adequately mitigate impacts through project redesign or 

data recovery.

 Soil erosion can severely impact surface and subsurface cultural resource integrity. Potential 

secondary impacts on cultural resources caused by erosion would be analyzed during project 

planning. Residual impacts on cultural resources outside the project area would be carefully 

considered in surface-disturbing projects.

 Identification, safe avoidance, or mitigation of potential adverse effect on cultural properties shall 

be required as a condition of a lease, permit, license, and other federal undertakings for both 

external and internal projects.

 Any late discovery of a cultural or paleontological resource during a project would be reported to 

the authorized officer. All activity in the immediate discovery area associated with the project 

would be suspended until an evaluation of the discovery is made by the archaeologist to 

determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural, paleontological, or 

scientific values. A written authorization to resume the project, or to take appropriate mitigation 

action, would be issued by the authorized officer.

 Sensitive cultural resource records, site location information, and traditional cultural properties 

and values would be held confidential from the public as deemed appropriate to protect historic 

properties (NHPA, Section 304 [a], Archaeological Resource Protection Act [ARPA], Section 9[a]).

 It is the policy of the BLM to 1) avoid impacts on significant cultural resources and traditional 

properties and values whenever possible; 2) to retain a representative example of the full array of 

cultural resource site types; and 3) to avoid inadvertent loss or destruction of cultural and 

paleontological resources by BLM actions or authorizations.

 Additional archaeological surveys would be required in the event a proposed project or its location 

were changed or modified after the initial survey is completed. This survey, associated 

documentation, and necessary compliance would be completed prior to project approval.

 Apply necessary measures to protect and preserve National Register-eligible historic and 

prehistoric resources by sustaining integrity, physical form, and materials associated with cultural 

resources. This could include installation of protective barriers, fences, or site capping; using 

regulatory and informational signs, kiosks, and brochures; limiting visitor access to sensitive sites; 

taking preventive measures to reduce erosion and other natural disturbances to sites, conducting 

data recovery to preserve a site’s informational potential; providing visitor educational and 

awareness information by various means, such as interpretive exhibits, workshops, and tours; 

patrolling and monitoring the condition of historic properties; and identifying cultural resources 

through proactive field inventory, oral history, and archival records data compilation.

 Pursue identification and nomination of cultural properties to the NRHP.
252 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.3.8 Oil and Gas Standard Operating Procedures, Implementation Guidelines 

and Conditions of Approval

Leasing fluid mineral resources does not confer on the lessee the right to conduct any ground disturbing 

activities related to exploring for or developing the resources until a subsequent environmental analysis 

of the actual proposed operations for the site is conducted. There are various stages of fluid minerals 

resource development within a lease, such as exploration, development, production, and 

reclamation/closeout. These activities all require additional BLM authorization. All proposed drilling or 

production operations for fluid minerals production proposed to be conducted on an existing lease must 

be approved before surface disturbance is allowed. Surface disturbance is proposed in APDs, ROWs, and 

Sundry Notices. During BLM NEPA review of these applications, site specific appropriate 

mitigation/environmental protection measures are developed and approved prior to conducting ground 

disturbing activities. 

This sequential approval process (leasing, operations plan approval, etc.) allows BLM to consider 

application of restrictions at the appropriate action level. Restrictions are formulated at the proper 

stage when site specific information is available. This ensures that restrictions are not applied 

prematurely to avoid “potential” effects that might unnecessarily identify areas as being off-limits to 

leasing.

The following SOPs and implementation guidelines will be employed on all existing federal leases and 

private mineral developments, subject to the limits of BLM authority and the right of the owners/lessees 

to have reasonable access and development.

6.3.8.1 104BImplementation Guidelines

 All oil field activities that occur on land where the BLM has an interest, whether mineral or 

surface estate, should be conducted with the least impact practicable to sensitive resources.

 Wells that are not commercially developed should be reclaimed to natural contours and 

revegetated as soon as appropriate; i.e., restoration methods should consider timing of 

planting, acceptable species and evaluation criteria, and should be tailored to area-specific 

resource conditions and be compatible with the monument proclamation. 

 Applications for permit to drill (APDs), sundry notices (leasehold activities requiring surface 

disturbance), and final abandonment notices will be reviewed using the existing NEPA 

approval process. 

 Timely plugging and abandonment of depleted wells will be required. This includes plugging 

the well bore with cement, removing all materials and equipment, and recontouring/ 

revegetation as specified in the conditions of approval. 

 Design roads, well pads, and facilities for exploratory wells to impact and fragment the least 

acreage practicable. New facilities shall be designed to maintain natural drainage and runoff 

patterns, reduce visual impacts, and reduce hazards to wildlife, especially California 

condors. Noncommercial wells shall be restored as soon as appropriate using BLM 

restoration methods.
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 253

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Good housekeeping requirements will be enforced (i.e., operators will be required to 

maintain a neat and orderly appearance of sites, remove junk and trash, and otherwise 

minimize landscape intrusions).

 Sufficiently impervious secondary containment, such as containment dikes, containment 

walls, and drip pans, should be constructed and maintained around all qualifying petroleum 

facilities, including tank batteries and separation and treating areas consistent with the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 

regulation (40 CFR 112). 

 Chemical containers should not be stored on bare ground or exposed to the sun and 

moisture. Labels must be readable. Chemical containers should be maintained in good 

condition and placed within secondary containment in case of a spill or high velocity 

puncture. The secondary containment must preclude entry from wildlife.

 Pipelines should be placed within existing disturbed rights-of-way, such as road shoulders, 

whenever possible.

 Roads shall be designed to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to 

accommodate their intended functions.

 New wells and roads should be located in areas where cut and fill shall be minimized to the 

extent practicable.

 Operators will be encouraged or required to place multiple wells on a single pad where 

feasible in order to minimize unnecessary disturbance.

 Operators shall be required to maintain clean well locations and to remove trash, junk, and 

other materials not in current use. 

6.3.8.2 105BConditions of Approval

Conditions of Approval (COAs) are site-specific requirements included in an approved Application for a 

Permit to Drill (APD) or Sundry Notice that may limit or amend the specific actions proposed by the 

operator. COAs minimize, mitigate, or prevent impacts to public lands or other resources. Best 

Management Practices may be incorporated as a COA.

The standard fluid minerals lease is used to provide an overall framework for regulation of operations. 

This framework is built upon by adding stipulations to the lease and, later if operations are proposed, by 

adding site appropriate COAs. These additional protection and mitigation measures are developed and 

applied during BLM’s review and approval of individual APDs, rights-of-way, Sundry Notices, etc. The 

measures are developed and assessed in a site-specific NEPA document and are made conditions of 

approval of any subsequent operational approvals.

6.3.8.3 106BBakersfield Field Office Specific SOPs and COAs

The BLM will inspect and monitor oil field activity in the following phases of oil and gas development:

 Geophysical/Seismic Operations;

 Drilling a New Well;

 Interim Reclamation of a Producing Well;
254 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Regular Production and Environmental Surface inspections;

 Temporary Abandonment of a Producing Well (idle well);

 Plugging and Abandonment of a Well;

 Surface Reclamation.

The following describes the SOPs and COAs applicable to each of the oil and gas development phases on 

existing federal oil and gas leases.

6.3.8.3.1 10BGeophysical Exploration 

There are two primary methods of generating seismic data. The first involves a group of several large 

vehicles (vibroseis, or “thumper trucks”) traveling along specific paths both on and off-road throughout 

the study area, frequently stopping to place a metal pad in contact with the ground, and then vibrating 

the pad to send soundwaves down into the earth. The second involves placing a small explosive charge 

in a series of shallow holes a few inches in diameter. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, 

sending soundwaves into the ground. Regardless of which method is used (and sometimes a 

combination is used), the soundwaves reflect off of underground strata and return to the surface. At 

the surface, the signals are received by an array of very sensitive microphones that are laid on the 

surface in pre-designated areas. The electronic signals are processed by proprietary programs, and the 

resulting data can be interpreted by geophysicists, geologists, and engineers, providing an idea of where 

zones may be that could contain oil or gas. Historically, there were many 2-D seismic shoots, where only 

a single line of data is gathered. During the past few years, however, the trend is towards large scale 3-

D seismic surveys. These surveys are comprised of a series of closely spaced lines in one direction, 

followed by another series of lines perpendicular to the first set. These large 3-D projects can involve 

thousands of miles of surveys.

Project Reconnaissance

A general reconnaissance of the project area will be conducted to describe the project area and to 

determine the extent of listed species presence and habitat. This information will used to identify areas 

where listed species are likely to occur, land uses that preclude listed species use, topography that may 

preclude listed species use, habitat types that support listed species, and the extent of small mammal 

burrowing activity along source lines, receiver lines, travel routes, and staging areas. Reconnaissance 

surveys will be supplemented by conducting general field visits of the project area, obtaining aerial 

images of the project area, land ownership, slope and topographic features, general habitat or 

vegetation mapping, and land use maps using GIS, California Natural Diversity Data Base, and other 

information for the project area.

Avoidance Criteria

Source Points: Vibroseis, Shot Hole, and Staging Areas

Vibroseis and shothole drilling and vehicle staging avoidance criteria for off-road locations (minimum 

exclusion zone radius):

 200 feet from occupied San Joaquin kit fox natal or pupping dens;

 150 feet from known San Joaquin kit fox natal or pupping dens;

 100 feet from occupied San Joaquin kit fox dens;
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 255

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 100 feet from known San Joaquin kit fox dens;

 50 feet from potential San Joaquin kit fox dens;

 50 feet from giant kangaroo rat burrow systems;

 30 feet from potential or known San Joaquin antelope squirrel burrows;

 30 feet from potential or known blunt-nosed leopard lizard burrows;

 50 feet from badger dens;

 50 feet from burrowing owl burrows;

 50 feet from populations of listed plants; and

 Natural vernal pools and natural ponded waters will be avoided by 300 feet (Table 1 – above).

Travel Routes

 Where seismic lines cross natural areas, the survey corridor within which testing and ancillary 

vehicles operate shall be limited to a maximum width of 25 feet (12.5 feet on either side of the 

centerline).

Receiver Lines

 Receiver lines will be walked if necessary to avoid direct impacts on features such as dens or 

burrows, vernal pool areas, or listed plants.

 Where receiver lines are driven by ATVs/UTVs, avoidance buffers will be enforced.

Geodetic Surveys

Geodetic surveys of the source and receiver points in listed species habitat shall be completed in a 

manner to avoid impacts on listed species.

 Surveys may be conducted without biological monitors where all cross-country activities in listed 

species habitat will be conducted on foot, with ATVs/UTVs confined to existing roads and twotrack trails. 

 Where ATVs/UTVs are used traveling cross-country in potential listed species habitat, biological 

surveys to identify travel routes and avoidance zones shall be completed before, or concurrent 

with, conducting the geodetic surveys.

 ATVs/UTVs may be used outside of potential listed species habitat without biological surveys 

where speeds are not in excess of 10 miles per hour in cross-country travel. All habitat features 

(e.g., burrows, dens, listed plant populations) shall be avoided. If this is not possible, biological 

monitors shall accompany survey crews using ATVs/UTVs.

 If ATVs/UTVs are observed to collapse burrows, compact or disturb soil, uproot plants, or cause 

mortality to native shrub species, activities shall be conducted on foot.

Source Point Activities

Geophysical surveys of the source points and all associated travel in listed species habitats shall be 

completed in a manner to avoid impacts on listed species.
256 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Before commencement of seismic testing activities, an agency-approved biologist shall conduct 

pre-activity surveys of proposed vibrator, shot hole, source point travel paths, and staging areas 

in listed species habitats. 

 Where seismic lines cross threatened or endangered species habitat, the survey corridor within 

which testing and ancillary vehicles operate shall be limited to a maximum width of 25 feet (12.5 

feet on either side of the centerline). These activity zones shall be reduced, where possible, to 

avoid endangered species sites such as occupied kit fox dens or kangaroo rat burrows.

 All cross country vehicle travel will remain on the flagged routes and will avoid marked burrows. 

 Small shot hole drilling vehicles, such as tractor-mounted drill rigs or ATV/UTV-pulled drill 

trailers, are suggested for use on conserved lands (CDFW, some BLM, CNLM, other lands with 

threatened and endangered conservation easements, HCP conservation management areas, 

etc.) and in likely blunt-nosed leopard lizard habitat.

 San Joaquin kit fox dens and giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, and blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard burrows shall be flagged for avoidance. As necessary to protect these species, 

additional habitat features shall be identified and flagged for avoidance.

 Project effects will be monitored for species impacts as work progresses at source points, along 

travel routes, and at staging areas. 

 Biological monitors will work with equipment operators to avoid burrows, dens, and features 

where biological surveys were conducted before seismic survey activities.

 If biological surveys are conducted within 14 days of source point activities, survey routes do not 

need to be resurveyed ahead of source point vehicle travel. 

 If biological surveys were conducted greater than 14 days before source point activities, 

biological monitors will be required to actively monitor and resurvey as necessary travel routes 

and point locations to ensure that avoidance buffers are applied to any new listed species 

occurrences.

 Pre-activity surveys will be conducted immediately ahead of seismic vehicle and drill rig 

deployment where previous surveys were not completed, providing that all avoidance buffers 

will be met. 

 All project vehicles shall observe travel avoidance routes described in the biological pre-activity 

survey notes that provide for avoidance of sensitive wildlife and special status plant resources.

 If avoidance distances cannot be met, a qualified biologist may request permission to flag a 

rerouted travel corridor that avoids direct damage to burrows, dens, shrubs, or other habitat 

features.

 Source points may be skipped or moved to meet avoidance buffer criteria.

 The applicant shall make every reasonable effort to prevent collapse of dens and burrows by 

relocating source points to avoid dens and burrows or other means such as establishing 

exclusion zones as described above.

 Damage to shrubs will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

 Project related vehicles will be confined to existing primary or secondary roads or to specifically 

delineated project areas that have had biological surveys to avoid listed species.
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 257

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Vibroseis vehicles may be used on existing roads within avoidance buffer distances provided 

that biological monitors shall accompany vibroseis crews to avoid direct impacts on listed 

species in roads where disturbance will occur. 

Receiver Line Activities

Geophysical surveys of the receiver points and all associated travel in listed species habitats shall be 

completed in a manner to avoid impacts on listed species.

 Before deployment of receiver lines, geophones, and related equipment, a qualified biologist 

shall conduct pre-activity surveys of proposed geophone travel paths and receiver points. This 

may be done after the geodetic survey, but before the receiver line deployment. 

 All San Joaquin kit fox dens, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard burrows, and listed plant populations within the immediate vicinity of receiver 

lines, and points shall be prominently staked or flagged to alert project personnel to their 

presence. 

 All project-related flagging shall be collected and removed after completion of the project.

 Damage to shrubs will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

 Vehicles traveling cross-country will remain on flagged routes and will avoid marked burrows. A 

biologist will assist project-related receiver line cross-country travel, geophone placement, and 

staging areas to avoid listed species and their habitat features.

Habitat Mitigation Measures

Geophysical surveys of the source and receiver points and all associated travel in listed species habitats 

shall be completed in a manner that minimizes impacts to listed species habitats.

 During geophone deployment, work crews shall make every reasonable effort to avoid 

damaging shrubs, washes, drainage banks, and cryptogamic crusts. 

 Small shothole drilling vehicles, such as tractor-mounted drill rigs or ATV/UTV-pulled drill 

trailers, are suggested for use in listed species habitats.

 Off-road travel corridors shall be clearly delineated to contain project-related vehicles within 

marked travel routes to reduce impacts on large shrubs and washes.

 Damage to shrubs will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

 Project-related vehicles shall be restricted to approved travel routes and paths/roads. 

 Large shrubs shall be avoided by carefully selecting travel paths/roads to avoid crushing shrubs. 

 Washes shall be avoided by all vehicular activity to the maximum extent practicable. Washes will 

be crossed to minimize project impacts. Washes shall not be used as travel routes.

Additional Species-Specific Mitigation Measures

Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard

When the project area is within the known range of blunt-nosed leopard lizards, the following measures 

will be implemented:
258 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Shrubs will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 

 All potential burrows that may be used by blunt-nosed leopard lizards will be avoided. 

 Project activities will be conducted during daylight when lizard activity is likely, but no daytime 

temperature criteria are required. 

 Small shothole drilling vehicles, such as tractor-mounted drill rigs or ATV/UTV/UTV-pulled drill 

trailers, are suggested for use in likely blunt-nosed leopard lizard habitats. 

 ATVs/UTVs may be used where avoidance criteria can be met. 

 Vibroseis vehicles may be used on existing roads within buffer distances provided that biological 

monitors shall accompany vibroseis crews to avoid direct impacts on blunt-nosed leopard 

lizards. 

 Biological monitors will look for active leopard lizards aboveground within and directly adjacent 

to the seismic cross-country travel corridors. 

 Vehicles parked in blunt-nosed leopard habitat for greater than one hour shall be inspected 

under and around the vehicle for BNLL. Vehicles will not be moved until any BNLL observed have 

moved a safe distance to avoid being crushed. 

 All potential burrows of this species will be flagged for avoidance within avoidance buffer zones. 

 Potential habitat will be considered suitable for blunt-nosed leopard lizards within the range of 

the species by the following criteria: 

o Slope is less than 30%, most favorable less than 10%,

o Vegetation density is open to allow blunt-nosed lizard movements, and

o Burrows are available and suitable for BNLL use.

San Joaquin kit fox

If damage or destruction to a known or occupied San Joaquin kit fox den cannot be avoided during 

project activities, the BLM and USFWS shall be contacted immediately for guidance.

Listed Plant Species

 Vibroseis units and drill buggies/tractors/ATV/UTV/UTV-trailers will follow flagged routes 

around areas of listed plants. A 50-foot avoidance zone for special-status plant species will be 

enforced.

 Avoid populations of Hoover’s woolly-star to the maximum extent practicable in the growing 

season. Populations of special-status plants will be avoided by relocating and/or reconfiguring 

source points, receiver points and travel routes. If it becomes necessary to locate a project in an 

area where Hoover's woolly-star is known or thought to be present, every reasonable effort 

shall be made to wait until after seed set before beginning ground disturbances. 

 Seismic surveys may be delayed until after seed set of listed plant species (generally after May 

1).

 Avoid special-status plant species by relocating source points, travel routes, and receiver points 

to avoid listed plant populations by 50 feet. 
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 259

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Other Mitigation Measures 

 Before the onset of ground disturbing project activities, a qualified wildlife biologist shall 

provide an employee orientation program to project personnel on the occurrence and 

distribution of listed species in the project area, measures being implemented to protect these 

species during project actions, reporting requirements should incidental take occur, and 

applicable definitions and prohibitions under the Endangered Species Act.

 Qualified biologists shall accompany seismic survey vehicles and crews in areas with the 

potential to affect listed species.

 At least one qualified biologist shall accompany each vibrator set or drill rig crew working within 

endangered species habitat. 

 Qualified biologists will be responsible to implement survey, take avoidance, monitoring, and 

reporting activities and shall perform the following:

o Aid seismic crews in satisfying avoidance criteria and implementing project mitigation.

o Aid seismic crews in relocating source points and receiver lines as necessary.

o Observe and note all pertinent information concerning project effects on listed species.

o Avoid the take of blunt-nosed leopard lizards and destruction of associated burrows.

o Assist the seismic contractor in conducting the proposed project in such a manner as to 

avoid adverse effects on endangered and threatened species. 

 Biological monitors are expressly empowered to order cessation of seismic activities if take 

avoidance and mitigation measures are violated. 

 Biological monitors or the project environmental representative shall notify the BLM and USFWS 

before or as soon as possible after biological compliance measures are violated. 

 At least one biological monitor shall accompany vibroseis and shot hole crews while working 

within endangered species habitat.

 Project biologists shall keep an accurate running tally of the number of dens and burrows 

damaged, destroyed, or otherwise affected by project activities. Such tallies shall be combined 

and totaled at the end of each workday to determine proximity to take limits and the need for 

subsequent project modifications to prevent impacts upon dens and burrows in excess of take 

limits. Total number of dens and burrows affected by the project shall be reported in the postactivity compliance report.

 One biologist exclusive of biologists observing vibrator crew activities shall oversee activities of 

receiver line deployment crews where cross country vehicle travel occurs in listed species 

habitat. 

 Pets shall not be permitted on the project site during project activities.

 All food-related trash such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in 

closed containers only and regularly removed from the project site.

 Although highly unlikely to occur, all spills of hazardous materials within endangered species 

habitats shall be cleaned up immediately according to applicable federal, state, and local laws 

and regulations.
260 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Daily preparation and end of day maintenance will be conducted no earlier than two hours 

before sunrise and not later than two hours after sunset. These activities include refueling of 

vibroseis and other project related vehicles, moving some vehicles to staging areas, etc. These 

activities, however, will not include significant vehicle travel in listed species habitat. No off-road 

vehicle travel shall be conducted within sensitive species habitat until there is sufficient natural 

light for resource avoidance. 

 All project-related vehicles shall observe a speed limit of 10 mph or less on all routes that 

traverse endangered species habitat, except on State and County highways and roads.

 To prevent the inadvertent entrapment of vertebrates, all project-related open steep-walled 

holes, or trenches more than 2 feet deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by 

plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth 

fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly 

inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the BLM 

and USFWS shall be contacted immediately for guidance.

 If during any phase of the seismic operation any oil or other pollutant is discharged from project 

related vehicles or from containers, the control, cleanup, and disposal of such oil or other 

pollutant shall be the responsibility of the permit holder, regardless of fault. Upon failure of 

permit holder to control, cleanup, or dispose of such discharge on or affecting federal lands or 

to repair all damages to federal lands resulting from, the authorized officer may take such 

measures as he/she deems necessary to control and cleanup the discharge and restore the area, 

including, where appropriate, the aquatic environment and fish and wildlife habitats, at the full 

expense of the permit holder. Such action by the authorized officer shall not relieve the permit 

holder of any liability or responsibility.

Vegetation and Habitat Types

Project related vehicles should be restricted to approved travel routes and paths/roads. Large shrubs 

shall be avoided in an effort to minimize impact on wildlife habitat. Large shrubs shall be avoided by 

carefully selecting travel paths/roads to avoid crushing individuals. In addition, washes represent a 

fragile habitat type and function as seasonally productive sources of annual vegetation for animals, as 

dispersal corridors, and as areas affording favorable burrow construction habitat. Washes shall be 

avoided by all vehicular activity as feasible.

Post-Project Reporting

 Within 45 calendar days after completion of the project, the seismic contractor shall submit to the 

USFWS and BLM a post-activity compliance report that details the following information: 

o Dates that seismic testing occurred.

o Pertinent data concerning the seismic contractor's success in meeting project mitigation 

measures.

o Known project effects on San Joaquin kit foxes, blunt-nosed leopard lizards, giant 

kangaroo rats and San Joaquin antelope squirrels, if any (including specific number of 

dens and small mammal burrows damaged or destroyed).

o Occurrences of incidental take of state or federally listed species.
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 261

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

o An assessment of the extent and severity of project impacts on all sensitive wildlife 

habitats, a summary of rehabilitation plans, if any; and other pertinent information.

 BLM, USFWS and CDFW shall be notified in writing within three (3) working days in the event of an 

accident death or injury of a San Joaquin kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, or blunt-nosed leopard lizard, or 

of the finding of any dead or injured kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, or leopard lizard during the 

proposed seismic survey. Notification shall include the date, time, and location of the incident or of 

the finding of a dead or injured animal, and any other pertinent information. The USFWS contact for 

this information is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, Sacramento Field Office, 3310 El 

Camino Avenue, Suite 130, Sacramento, CA 95821-6340, (916) 979-2725. The CDFW contact 

information is the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fresno Regional Headquarters, 

Environmental USFWSs Division, 1234 E. Shaw Ave., Fresno, CA (559) 243-4014. Any dead or injured 

kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, or blunt-nosed leopard lizard shall be turned over to the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife.

6.3.8.3.2 1BDrilling A New Well

After an APD has been received by the Bakersfield FO, a review of engineering design and potential 

effects on sensitive resources will be undertaken. During the review stage of an APD, either the 

operator or the BLM will note site-specific concerns on the application. Modified proposals will be 

developed cooperatively with the applicant to ensure that the modified project still meets the 

applicant's objective. The applicant will be informed within ten days of receipt of the APD if there are 

deficiencies that need to be corrected. Any special conditions will be attached to the APD by the BLM as 

COAs. In addition to BLM-wide regulations, the Bakersfield FO has developed its own local procedures, 

as follows:

Pits. The BLM encourages the use of closed-loop or semi closed-loop mud systems whenever 

possible. If pits are utilized, they must remain free of any hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons should be 

removed from pits upon discovery. If the natural topography is sloping, the pit will be constructed 

on the cut side of the well pad. Pits must preclude wildlife entry after all boring wastes have been 

discharged. Netting or other effective methods will be utilized to preclude wildlife entry. Flagging 

of pits is no longer considered an effective means to prevent wildlife entry to pits.

Steam Injectors. All steam injection wells within a 300-foot radius of a new location must be shut in 

a minimum of three days before the spudding (beginning drilling operations) of a new well.

Conductor Pipe. A minimum of 50 feet of conductor pipe is to be set and cemented to the surface. 

The conductor pipe must be equivalent to or exceed the properties of A-25-grade line pipe.

Diverter. Before spud, a diverter system will be installed on the conductor pipe and function tested. 

The test shall be recorded in the drilling log. The diverter system, at a minimum, shall consist of an 

annular type preventer (minimum working pressure 1,000 psi), 2-inch (minimum ID) kill lines, and 6-

inch (minimum ID) diverter lines with no internal restrictions or turns. A full opening, hydraulically 

controlled valve shall be installed in the diverter line that will automatically open when the annular 

preventer is closed. The accumulator system should have sufficient capacity to close the annular 

preventer and open the hydraulically controlled valve.

Remote controls for the diverter system shall be located on the rig floor and readily accessible to the 

driller. Remote controls shall be capable of closing the annular preventer and opening the 
262 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

hydraulically controlled valve. Master controls shall be located at the accumulator and should be 

capable of closing and opening the annular preventer and opening the hydraulically controlled valve. 

The diverter system shall be function-tested daily and the test recorded in the drilling log.

General Casing and Cementing. A Subsequent Report (Form 3160-5) detailing the size, weight, and 

grade of the casing; the amount and type of cement, including additives; and a copy of the service 

company's materials ticket and job log shall be submitted to the BLM within five business days 

following the cementing of the casing string. Each casing string (except conductor pipe) shall be 

pressure tested, before drilling out the casing shoe, to 0.22 psi/ft of casing string length or 1,000 psi, 

whichever is greater, but not to exceed 70% of the internal yield pressure of the casing. The casing 

pressure test shall be recorded in the drilling log. The wait-on-cement time for each casing string 

shall be adequate to achieve a minimum of 500 psi compressive strength at the casing shoe before 

drilling out.

Drilling Fluids. Sufficient quantities of drilling fluid (mud and water) shall be maintained at the well 

site, at all times, for the purpose of controlling steam kicks.

6.3.8.3.3 12BTemporary Abandonment of a Producing Well (Idle Well)

Oil and gas exploration and development are cyclical businesses, with periods of high and low levels of 

activities. On occasion, an operator may decide to temporarily “shut in” producing wells and wait for 

conditions to improve. The highly viscous nature of most Kern County crude oil, typical low well head 

pressures, and the relatively low corrosive properties of the fluids (low sulfur crude) make the known 

dangers of shutting in a well for long periods and then bringing it back online less of a mechanical 

problem in the Bakersfield FO than in other producing regions of the country. Monitoring and correcting 

the problem has been successfully undertaken by the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

Resources and the Bakersfield FO. 

The following additional conditions may be required before the temporary abandonment of a producing 

oil/gas well, service well, or an injection well.

Zone Isolation. The requirement to isolate the producing interval (General Requirement #4) is

waived. This waiver is based on the information submitted with the application and the geologic 

data in Volume II - California Oil and Gas Fields, (field name) which indicates the absence of usable 

water aquifers above the producing horizon in (section in which well is located).

Mechanical Integrity of Casing. The mechanical integrity of the casing may be determined using the 

ADA pressure test method.

Fluid Surveys. In accordance with the requirements of the State of California Idle Well Program, a 

fluid level survey will be performed at two- to five-year intervals while the well is temporarily 

abandoned. A copy of the survey will be submitted to the BLM within five business days of the 

survey.

Monitoring of Wellhead Pressures and Temperatures. Wellhead pressure and temperature will be 

continuously monitored while the well is temporarily abandoned. Any pressure/temperature change 

will be promptly reported to the BLM.
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 263

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Isolation of the Producing Interval. The producing interval shall be isolated by setting a plug in the 

casing within 100 feet above the producing interval if a rising fluid level, an increasing wellhead 

pressure, or an increasing wellhead temperature is detected. The plug could be either a retrievable 

or drillable-type bridge plug or a cement plug of at least 100 feet in length.

6.3.8.3.4 13BPlugging and Abandonment of a Well

Onshore orders describe the plugging procedure. Final abandonment would normally be witnessed by 

the BLM. No final surface site marker is required by the Bakersfield FO, but a permanent buried marker 

is required.

6.3.8.3.5 14BSurface Reclamation (Interim or Final)

Reclamation is required of any disturbed surface that is not necessary for continued production 

operations. Conditions for the recovery of an oil well site are unique to each area's ecosystem and 

habitat. The following examples of COAs have been developed for use within the Bakersfield FO. The 

applicability of any or all of these COAs will be determined based on site-specific conditions.

General:

 The operator (or holder) shall prepare a seedbed by scarifying the disturbed area, distributing 

topsoil uniformly, and possibly disking the topsoil, as directed by the BLM authorized officer.

 The operator shall recontour the disturbed area and obliterate all earthworks by removing 

embankments, backfilling excavations, and grading to reestablish the approximate original 

contours of the land in the area of operation.

 The operator shall uniformly spread all topsoil over all unoccupied disturbed area. Spreading 

should not be done when the ground or topsoil is frozen or wet.

 The operator shall seed all disturbed area, using an agreed on method suitable for the location.

Locally collected seed should be used. Additional restoration efforts will be required if a 

satisfactory stand is not obtained, as determined by the BLM authorized officer upon evaluation 

after the first growing season.

 The operator shall arrange to have a biologist available to assist the construction workers in the 

identification and avoidance of endangered species.

Producing Wells:

 Interim site reclamation for producing wells shall be accomplished for portions of the site not 

required for continued operation of the well. The following measures are typical reclamation 

requirements:

o Production facilities and equipment placed to maximize room for interim reclamation;

o Closing drilling fluid pit (mud pit) if present;

o Recontouring the pad, leaving only enough level ground for possible future workover 

operations;

o Cut and fill slope vegetation;

o Interim reclamation of access roads;

o Site fencing;

o Berm removal and site grading;

o Polluting substances and contaminated materials disposed of properly.
264 APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 The Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

“The Gold Book” (Current Edition) should be referenced for more detailed information.

Non-producing Wells.

 Rehabilitation on the entire site shall be required and should begin as soon as practical, 

depending on prevailing weather conditions. Cut and fill slopes shall be reduced and graded to 

blend to the adjacent terrain.

 Drilling fluids held within pits may be allowed to dry for up to six months. Fluids that will not dry 

must be removed. All polluting substances or contaminated materials, such as oil, oil-saturated 

soils, and gravels, shall be removed to an approved site.

 Drainages shall be reestablished, and temporary measures will be required to prevent site 

erosion until vegetation is established.

 After final grading and before replacement of topsoil, the entire surface of the site shall be 

scarified to eliminate slippage surfaces and to promote root penetration. Topsoil should then be 

spread over the site to achieve an approximate, uniform stable thickness consistent with the 

established contours.

Final Reclamation:

 Plug the well and remove all associated infrastructure.

 Recontour the well site to the original contour or a contour blend with the surrounding 

landform; evenly redistribute stockpiled topsoil; and revegetate the site. 

 If roads are not needed for other purposes, recontour the road back to the original contour and 

seed to promote revegetation. 

6.3.9 Visual Resources

Visual Resource BMPs provide a variety of tools to address the visual impacts of projects on the 

landscape. They are applied to reduce or eliminate visual contrast in order to maintain or achieve Visual 

Resource Management (VRM) objectives. BMPs for visual resources include a variety of techniques from 

proper site selection for projects, to minimizing long-term surface disturbance and correct color 

selection for painting structures. Not all techniques are appropriate for all locations and would be 

implemented as appropriate. As with all BMPs the science and technology; specifically camouflaging 

techniques, behind the management is continually evolving as such new BMPs are developed and 

replace other concepts. More information on BMPs for visual resource management can be found in 

several BLM publications and websites including the 2007 Visual Resource Management for Fluid 

Minerals self-study guide found at:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/technical_infor

mation.html.
APPENDIX 3 – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 265

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Appendix Four

Biological Resources Conservation Strategy
266

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.4 Appendix 4 – Biological Resources Conservation Strategy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.4 Appendix 4 – Biological Resources Conservation Strategy .................................... 266

6.4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 267

6.4.2 Conservation Strategy.......................................................................................................... 267

6.4.3 Species and Habitats addressed in BA provided to USFWS......................................... 271
APPENDIX 4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION STRATEGY 267

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.4.1 Introduction

This appendix contains a strategy for how BLM intends to manage public lands in order to contribute to 

the conservation of special status species in the Bakersfield Field Office (FO) Decision Area in general 

and in the Southern San Joaquin Valley specifically. Also, a list of the species and critical habitats 

addressed in the BA provided to USFWS is included.

6.4.2 Conservation Strategy

The scattered pattern of public lands in the Decision Area provides numerous opportunities for public 

lands to contribute to local and regional conservation programs. The BLM will seek out partnerships 

with other public and private entities to conserve and recover landscapes, natural communities, special 

status species, and other important biological resources as appropriate. Examples of focal areas for 

specific special status species and their habitats are Los Osos, Hopper Mountain, Bitter Creek, South 

Fork of the Kern River, Table Mountain and Kennedy Table, Atwell Island, Lokern-Buena Vista Valley, 

Kettleman Hills, Caliente Creek, and Cyrus Canyon. Other efforts focus on natural landscapes, 

assemblages of species and communities, and biological resources of regional importance. Areas with 

these focuses are the Irish Hills, the Tulare Lake Basin, the Salinas River, and the Tehachapi Linkage. The 

BLM will manage public lands to contribute to the objectives of local and regional conservation plans, 

where external objectives are consistent with the management objectives of this plan. 

6.4.2.1 Background

Public land in the San Joaquin Valley portion of the Bakersfield FO constitutes a substantial amount of 

the remaining natural land in the southern San Joaquin Valley. These natural lands provide important 

habitat for several federal and state listed plant and animal species, as well as many other species that 

are endemic to the region.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 mandates that federal agencies, including the BLM, utilize their 

authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out programs for the conservation and 

recovery of threatened and endangered species. BLM policy, as stated in the BLM Manual 6840, and 

policy statements, such as BLM’s Fish and Wildlife 2000, further guides how BLM will manage public 

lands to meet the mandate for conservation programs and multiple uses of public land resources.

The Endangered Species Act also directs the USFWS to develop recovery plans for threatened and 

endangered species. These recovery plans provide the strategy that all agencies and organizations can 

implement to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive approach to species conservation and recovery. 

In 1998 the USFWS completed the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. 

This multispecies recovery plan provides a framework for recovery efforts within the San Joaquin Valley. 

Local governments, industry, private landowners and local offices of state and federal agencies 

determine how the regional recovery and conservation framework could be implemented for their 

jurisdiction. Part of the concept is to develop local plans, such as for the Southern San Joaquin Valley, for 

consistent application by local, state, and federal governments within the local planning area. BLM 

managed public land in the Southern San Joaquin Valley plays a key role in the promotion of recovery 

efforts for species in many of these recovery and conservation plans. This section describes the San 

Joaquin Valley recovery plan strategy and addresses how BLM will strive to implement the regional 

recovery and conservation framework in coordination with these local plans. 
268 APPENDIX 4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION STRATEGY

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.4.2.2 San Joaquin Valley Recovery Plan Conservation Strategy

The Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, uses an ecosystem-level 

strategy to address recovery and conservation of 11 listed species and 23 additional special status 

species. The discretionary strategy includes several elements that relate to the management of public 

land:

 The primary focus of recovery should be on publically owned lands;

 Conservation efforts should focus on fewer larger blocks of land rather than smaller more 

numerous parcels;

 Blocks of conservation lands should be connected by natural land or land with compatible uses 

that allow for movement between blocks;

 Emphasis should be placed on the San Joaquin kit fox as an umbrella species. Since most other 

species require less habitat, fulfilling the management and habitat needs of the San Joaquin kit 

fox will also meet the needs of many other species;

 The giant kangaroo rat and San Joaquin kangaroo rat are keystone species in their communities. 

Protection of these keystone species should be a high priority since they provide an important 

or essential function for many other listed and special status species;

 Uses and actions on public land, such as livestock grazing, oil, gas, and mineral exploration and 

extraction, hunting, and recreation should occur so as to minimize degradation of habitat for 

special status species;

 Use specialty preserves or small reserves to manage species with highly restricted geographic 

ranges or specialized habitat requirements or that are vulnerable to traditional land uses;

 Target existing natural lands occupied by special status species over unoccupied natural land 

and retired farm land for conservation;

 Coordinate carefully agricultural land retirement with endangered species recovery for species 

where sufficient occupied natural land does not exist, but where it is needed to increase 

population size or promote movement between populations;

 Enhance landscape features that allow successful survival and movement from population 

centers on the valley floor to the valley perimeter for species such as the kit fox that can live in 

or move through the farmland matrix; and

 Implementing the recovery plan should be complementary to existing and future habitat 

conservation plans.

The foundation of the regional conservation strategy is a system of reserves and connecting corridors. 

Through assessments of remaining natural land habitats, a reserve system concept was developed to 

conserve the best remaining habitats of the San Joaquin Valley natural communities. Several large 

keystone reserves, several small specialty reserves, and connecting corridors linking many of the 

reserves have been established or proposed. The large reserves are intended to maintain and conserve 

multiple plant and animal listed species as a natural community, while the small reserves are designed 

to conserve a particular species or unique natural feature. These reserves would be managed for longterm conservation of the listed plants and animals and the natural communities on which they depend, 

but would allow for a variety of land uses managed in a compatible manner. Both large and small 

reserves are necessary to conserve the valley’s biological resources.
APPENDIX 4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION STRATEGY 269

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Reserves include both large multispecies reserves and small specialty reserves that would be managed 

primarily for listed plants and animals. While other compatible resource uses could occur, habitat 

quality and species’ populations would be maintained through implementing specific design features for 

these resource uses. Management of the reserves would be assured by fee acquisition by federal, state, 

or local agencies, chartered conservation organizations, conservation easements under state law for 

private lands, or long-term cooperative agreements with landowners. The goal is to maintain a certain 

percentage of the native lands as high quality habitat and to rehabilitate lands with nonnative species as 

they become available for purchase, easement, or agreement. A threshold for habitat disturbance from 

energy mineral development, roads, and facilities would be established. Reserves and connecting 

corridors would have different thresholds for habitat disturbance. Compensation for new habitat 

disturbance within the threshold would be at a standard rate for uses that are considered permanent 

habitat loss and at another standard rate for temporary habitat loss. Compensation is generally in the 

form of preserving additional habitat to make up for the loss of habitat associated with approved 

projects. 

Connecting corridors are composed of native and agricultural lands to be managed for maintaining 

interchange and gene flow between the primary reserves and for maintaining supplemental populations 

between reserves. Emphasis is to maintain a certain percentage of native lands as moderate- to highquality habitat and to maintain a certain percentage of the agricultural lands in agricultural production 

or fallow. A certain percentage of these lands would be available for urban, industrial, or other land uses 

that are considered permanent or long-term habitat loss. Land use design would maintain corridor 

integrity as extant habitat and for wildlife movements. Permanent of long-term habitat loss from urbanindustrial uses would not sever wildlife corridors. Compensation for habitat loss in corridors would be 

directed to the reserve areas; however, limited compensation could be directed back to the corridor. 

The compensation ratio is the same as for reserves. Corridors would not normally involve purchase but 

would be secured through conservation easements and agreements. However, some parcels essential to 

maintain corridors or buffers may need to be purchased.

As part of the recovery plan, a generalized reserve system map has been developed that identifies the 

keystone reserves, small specialty reserves, and connecting corridors. A number of reserves and 

connecting corridors are targeted for protection in the recovery plan; several of which contain or are 

next to public lands within the Decision Area: Elk Hills and Buena Vista Valley, Western Kern County 

(including Lokern), Pixley National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)/Allensworth Natural Area, Kettleman Hills, 

Kern NWR/Semitropic Ridge Natural Area, Upper Cuyama Valley/Santa Barbara Canyon, Bitter Creek 

NWR, Devil’s Den, Lost Hills-Buena Vista Slough, and Caliente Creek. 

On native lands outside the reserve and corridor system, management for the retention of habitat 

values has not been the focus. Most of these lands have some habitat value, and many of these areas 

may be valuable sources of plant and animal populations in the short term. Most of these values will 

continue to exist, unless there are dramatic changes in current land uses.

6.4.2.3 Bakersfield FO Conservation Program

Land use plan decisions in this RMP are designed to be consistent with BLM’s mandate to utilize its 

authorities to conserve and promote the recovery of listed species, and to be consistent with the 

objectives and recommended actions in approved recovery plans (including the Recovery Plan for 

Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley), conservation strategies, MOUs, and applicable biological 

opinions to the extent consistent with federal law. To promote consistency, BLM has taken into 
270 APPENDIX 4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION STRATEGY

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

consideration and adopted certain terms and concepts from the San Joaquin Valley recovery plan and its 

regional conservation strategy.

Within the landscape of the San Joaquin Valley regional conservation strategy, some BLM-administered 

lands are located within the boundary of a number of reserve areas, habitat corridors, and specialty 

preserves. While BLM land management authorities do not recognize these terms, based on direction in 

the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1610-1, Appendix C), the BLM-administered lands currently 

found within the boundaries of reserves and corridors are identified as ecologically important areas in 

this RMP (labeled “Conserved Lands”). In addition, some of these areas are proposed for designation as 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs): Ancient Lakeshores, Compensation Lands, Kettleman 

Hills, Lokern-Buena Vista, and Upper Cuyama Valley, based on the relevance and importance values of 

public land resources and need for special management attention.

The BLM will manage its public lands in the reserves and corridors (Map 2.3) for the long-term 

conservation of listed plants and animals and the natural communities on which they depend, while still 

allowing compatible land uses, to the extent consistent with federal law. Also, the BLM will retain and 

manage additional lands acquired for conservation, whether by appropriations, donation, exchange, 

transfer, or compensation in a manner consistent with the terms of the acquisition or consistent with 

surrounding BLM land management, again to the extent consistent with federal law. If compensation 

lands are acquired by BLM, such as through donation or transfer, they would be recommended for ACEC 

consideration if there is evidence that the area meets the relevance and importance criteria expressed 

by regulation. Upon completion of NEPA, public review and a plan amendment, they would become 

part of the Compensation Lands ACEC. 

A key component of the reserve and corridor linkage strategy is to maintain suitable amounts of habitat 

that are largely undisturbed by development activities. Habitat disturbance thresholds are criteria for 

maintaining long-term suitability of reserve areas (red zones) and habitat corridors (green zones). 

Limiting the amount of habitat (and ground) disturbance will allow sufficient habitat to remain intact, 

keep ecosystem processes functioning properly, and connect viable species populations across the 

landscape. Within the reserve areas (generally Lokern-Buena Vista ACEC and portions of Compensation 

Lands and Upper Cuyama Valley ACECs), habitat disturbance is limited to 10% of the surface area of 

individual BLM parcels or 10% of adjoining BLM parcels. Parcels that adjoin only at one corner are 

considered separate parcels. Most remaining public lands within the southern San Joaquin Valley have 

been identified in the regional conservation strategy as connecting corridors. The BLM would manage 

public lands in these corridors as links between reserve areas. In the corridor areas, habitat disturbance 

is limited to 25% of the surface area of individual BLM parcels or 25% of adjoining BLM parcels.

In addition to limiting habitat disturbance, BLM’s goal is to maintain or add to the amount of lands 

within the reserve or corridor system so that species can be downlisted or delisted. In order to meet 

this goal, the BLM requires the following compensation ratios:

 Permanent or long-term habitat loss = 3:1

 Temporary habitat loss = 1.1:1 

 Within the western Kern County kit fox core area = an additional 1:1

 Vernal pool habitat = 5:1, with a replacement element

In addition to compensation, BLM requires an additional 1:1 replacement of habitat when ground 

disturbance occurs on public land within reserves or corridors. This replacement is in addition to any 
APPENDIX 4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION STRATEGY 271

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

compensation that is required as a result of permanent, long-term, or temporary habitat loss. BLM’s 

compensation ratios are consistent with compensation ratios established by USFWS and CDFW for the 

San Joaquin Valley listed species. BLM may modify compensation ratios and requirements in 

coordination with USFWS and CDFW.

Over time, BLM, in collaboration and cooperation with the wildlife agencies, may need to reconfigure 

the reserve and corridor design and boundaries based on new information or changing environmental 

conditions. This new information or these changing environmental conditions and any potential 

resulting reconfiguration may require additional land use planning and RMP amendment. BLM may also 

identify certain areas of high intensity oil and gas development within reserves and corridors and 

manage them separately. The Bakersfield FO’s policy is to conserve lands outside the reserve and 

corridor system because they serve as important remnants of listed species habitat and natural 

communities and, therefore, may manage areas outside the reserve and corridor system as corridors. 

The BLM has been an active partner in striving to implement the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the 

San Joaquin Valley, California. The BLM has contributed toward inventorying and monitoring, 

conducting research, enhancing habitat, acquiring and restoring land, and protecting habitat. When 

authorizing, funding or carrying out activities, BLM’s policy is to first apply on-site mitigation to avoid or 

minimize project impacts to biological resources, especially special status species. When on-site 

mitigation alone is insufficient, off-site mitigation, such as compensation, is also required. The BLM has 

been responsible for over fifteen hundred acres of off-site habitat that has been acquired and protected. 

In collaboration with the USFWS, CDFW, species experts, and other biologists, BLM has cooperatively 

developed a number of survey, avoidance, mitigation, compensation, monitoring, and reporting 

protocols. BLM has determined that implementation of these protocols is in the best interest of public 

land management.

6.4.3 Species and Habitats addressed in BA provided to USFWS

Listed Species and Critical Habitat addressed in the Biological Assessment provided to FWS

Listed Plant Species & Critical Habitat Listed Animal Species and Critical Habitat 

1. Morro manzanita

2. Marsh sandwort

3. Braunton's milk-vetch & Critical Habitat

4. Ventura Marsh milk-vetch & Critical Habitat 

5. Mariposa pussy-paws

6. Succulent owl's-clover & Critical Habitat

7. California jewelflower

8. Hoover's spurge & Critical Habitat

9. Purple amole & Critical Habitat

10. Camatta Canyon amole & Critical Habitat

11. Salt marsh bird's-beak

12. Chorro Creek bog thistle

13. La Graciosa thistle & Critical Habitat

14. Pismo clarkia

15. Springville clarkia

16. Gaviota tarplant & Critical Habitat

17. Santa Monica Mountains live-forever

18. Marcescent dudleya

1. Morro shoulderband snail & Critical Habitat

2. Conservancy fairy shrimp & Critical Habitat

3. Longhorn fairy shrimp & Critical Habitat

4. Vernal pool fairy shrimp & Critical Habitat

5. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp & Critical Habitat

6. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle & Critical Habitat

7. Kern primrose sphinx moth

8. Tidewater goby & Critical Habitat

9. Unarmored threespine stickleback

10. Lahontan cutthroat trout

11. Paiute cutthroat trout

12. Little Kern golden trout & Critical Habitat

13. California tiger salamander

- Santa Barbara DPS & Critical Habitat

- Central CA DPS & Critical Habitat

14. Arroyo toad & Critical Habitat

15. California red-legged frog & Critical Habitat

16. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
272 APPENDIX 4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION STRATEGY

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Listed Plant Species & Critical Habitat Listed Animal Species and Critical Habitat 

19. Conejo dudleya

20. Verity's dudleya

21. Kern mallow

22. Indian Knob mountainbalm

23. Lompoc yerba santa & Critical Habitat

24. Southern mountain buckwheat & Critical 

Habitat

25. Contra Costa goldfields & Critical Habitat

26. Beach layia

27. Nipomo Mesa lupine

28. San Joaquin woolly-threads

29. Gambel's watercress

30. Spreading navarretia & Critical Habitat

31. Bakersfield cactus

32. San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass & Critical 

Habitat

33. Hairy Orcutt grass & Critical Habitat

34. Lyon's pentachaeta

35. Hartweg's golden sunburst

36. San Joaquin adobe sunburst

37. Keck's checkerbloom & Critical Habitat

38. California seablite

39. Greene's tuctoria & Critical Habitat

17. Island night lizard

18. Giant garter snake

19. California condor & Critical Habitat

20. Light-footed clapper rail

21. California clapper rail

22. Western snowy plover (Pacific coastal population) & 

Critical Habitat

23. California least tern

24. Marbled murrelet & Critical Habitat

25. Southwestern willow flycatcher & Critical Habitat

26. Least Bell's vireo & Critical Habitat

27. Coastal California gnatcatcher & Critical Habitat

28. Buena Vista Lake shrew & Critical Habitat

29. Morro Bay kangaroo rat & Critical Habitat

30. Giant kangaroo rat

31. Fresno kangaroo rat & Critical Habitat

32. Tipton kangaroo rat

33. Island fox

34. San Joaquin kit fox

35. Southern sea otter (Threatened and Experimental 

Population)

36. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep & Critical Habitat

Species with Re-Proposed Critical Habitat:

1. Tidewater goby

2. Western snowy plover (Pacific coastal population)

3. Southwestern willow flycatcher

4. Buena Vista Lake shrew

Two additional species, El Segundo blue butterfly and yellow-billed cuckoo (western distinct population 

segment), and proposed critical habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo, were added to the Endangered 

Species Act consultation during the consultation period.
APPENDIX 4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION STRATEGY 273

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Appendix Five

Piedras Blancas Light Station Outstanding Natural Area
274 APPENDIX 5 – PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHT STATION OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREA

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.5 Appendix 5 – Piedras Blancas Light Station Outstanding Natural Area

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.5 Appendix 5 – Piedras Blancas Light Station Outstanding Natural Area ............... 274

6.5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 275

6.5.2 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................... 276

6.5.3 Lands and Realty.................................................................................................................. 276

6.5.4 Minerals Management ......................................................................................................... 277

6.5.5 Interpretation and Environmental Education................................................................. 277

6.5.6 Outstanding Natural Areas................................................................................................. 277
APPENDIX 5 – PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHT STATION OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREA 275

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.5.1 Introduction

The Bakersfield Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes the Piedras Blancas Light Station

Outstanding Natural Area (ONA), designated by Congress under the Consolidated Natural Resources Act 

and signed by the President on May 8, 2008. With this designation, Congress also added the Piedras 

Blancas Light Station to the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System. Furthermore, the following 

eight congressional findings were made to guide future management of the ONA:

(1) The publicly owned Piedras Blancas Light Station has nationally recognized historical structures that 

should be preserved for present and future generations.

(2) The coastline adjacent to the Light Station is internationally recognized as having significant wildlife 

and marine habitat that provides critical information to research institutions throughout the world.

(3) The Light Station tells an important story about California's coastal prehistory and history in the 

context of the surrounding region and communities.

(4) The coastal area surrounding the Light Station was traditionally used by Indian people, including the 

Chumash and Salinan Indian tribes.

(5) The Light Station is historically associated with the nearby world-famous Hearst Castle (Hearst San 

Simeon State Historical Monument), now administered by the State of California.

(6) The Light Station represents a model partnership where future management can be successfully 

accomplished among the Federal Government, the State of California, San Luis Obispo County, local 

communities, and private groups.

(7) Piedras Blancas Historic Light Station Outstanding Natural Area would make a significant addition to 

the National Landscape Conservation System administered by the Department of the Interior's Bureau 

of Land Management.

(8) Statutory protection is needed for the Light Station and its surrounding Federal lands to ensure that 

it remains a part of our historic, cultural, and natural heritage and to be a source of inspiration for the 

people of the United States.

Piedras Blancas is on California’s central coast, north of San Simeon. The area is named for white rock 

outcrops just off the end of the point. In the early 1870s, this location was chosen to fill the gap 

between the lighthouses at Point Conception and Point Sur. Prior to the construction of the lighthouse, 

Piedras Blancas had cultural significance to Native Americans; these values are present in the form of 

archaeological sites and the desire for access from Native American communities for traditional cultural 

and religious purposes.

The lighthouse and a two-story Victorian dwelling were completed in 1875. The original tower was 110 

feet tall and housed a first-order Fresnel lens. A fog signal building and an additional keeper’s dwelling 

were added in 1906. Employees of the US Lighthouse Service operated the facility until 1939, when the 

Coast Guard assumed control. New automated technology eventually replaced many of the functions of 

the lighthouse keepers. The Coast Guard relinquished control and management of the Piedras Blancas 

Light Station to the BLM on October 12, 2001.
276 APPENDIX 5 – PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHT STATION OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREA

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The light station is currently managed in accordance with several activity level plans: the Piedras Blancas 

Light Station Management Plan (BLM 2007c), the Piedras Blancas Business Plan 2009-2013 (BLM 2008d), 

and the Piedras Blancas Interpretative Plan (BLM 2008e); however this RMP will serve as the land use 

plan for this area. Through these plans the Light Station historic structures are being restored, 

repurposed, and rebuilt with the goal of presenting the area in its early twentieth century appearance. 

All work is subject to SHPO concurrence through an existing Memorandum of Agreement (2007).

The interpretive program provides routine public access through guided tours of the Light Station. These 

tours currently run three times a week with annual attendance of approximately 5,000 visitors. In 

addition to the educational experiences provided by the historic setting, an accessible trail circumvents 

the site providing wildlife viewing opportunities.

The Light Station is adjacent to lands managed by California State Parks whom through an agreement 

provide access for administrative purposes and public tours.

The land use plan decisions for the Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA are contained throughout the 

Bakersfield Approved RMP. They are listed below to provide a consolidated reference for BLM 

managers and the public of the RMP decisions applying directly to this area. Broader landscape 

resource goals, objectives, and decisions may also apply to resources at the Piedras Blancas Light Station 

ONA, and the approved RMP should be used as the comprehensive RMP for the Bakersfield plan area, 

including the Piedras Blancas ONA.

6.5.2 Cultural Resources

Decisions

[CR-D-1] Allocate evaluated cultural resources within the decision area as “scientific use” for study, 

determination of eligibility and appropriate recordation, pending assignment to another use category, 

with the exception of the following:

(a) Allocate the Huasna Peak as Traditional Use.

(b) Allocate the Keyesville historic sites of Walker Cabin, Keyes Mine, and Keyes Cemetery as 

Conserve for Future Use, until such time as stabilization and restoration work allows for public 

use.

(c) Allocate the Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA as Public Use.

(d) Allocate all rock art sites, known and projected to occur, as Conserve for Future Use. 

(e) Allocate the Walker Pass NHL as Public Use. 

6.5.3 Lands and Realty

Decisions

[LR-D-2.3] Utility-scale renewable energy rights-of-way will be excluded on 262,340 acres, including: all 

ACECs, the Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA, SRMAs, VRM Class I and II, designated Wilderness areas 

and the PCNST corridor. Of this acreage, all other types of rights-of-way will be excluded on 118,860 

acres: designated Wilderness and the PCNST corridor. (Map 2.18 and Map 2.19)
APPENDIX 5 – PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHT STATION OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREA 277

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[LR-D-2.4] Proposed rights-of-way will be avoided on 103,510 acres, except where a specific type of 

right-of-way is excluded (LR-D-2.3): all ACECs, WSAs, lands managed for wilderness characteristics, the 

Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA, and suitable Wild and Scenic River corridors. (Map 2.18 and Map 

2.19)

Decisions

[LR-D-3.2] Continue the existing withdrawal from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general 

land laws, including the United States mining laws, 30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1994), mineral leasing laws, 30 U.S.C. 

181 et seq. (1994) and mineral material sale laws 30 U.S.C. 601-604 (1994), of Piedras Blancas Light 

Station (20 acres) as shown on Map 2.20 (Public Land Order 7501). 

6.5.4 Minerals Management

Decisions

[MM-D-1.1.3] Identify 149,600 acres (Map 2.22) as closed to fluid mineral leasing:

 Non-discretionary closures – Wilderness, WSAs, Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA, and the 

PCNST

o Discretionary closures – Bitter Creek ACEC, Blue Ridge ACEC, Erskine Creek ACEC, Piute 

Cypress ACEC, and Point Sal ACEC; lands with wilderness characteristics; segments of 

the Lower Kern River, North Fork of the Kaweah River, San Joaquin River, and Chimney 

Creek determined to be suitable as Wild and Scenic Rivers; and Deer Spring area of 

ecological importance.

6.5.5 Interpretation and Environmental Education

Decisions

[IE-D-1] Identify San Joaquin River Gorge, Piedras Blancas Light Station, and Keyesville Historic Mining 

District as important cultural and historic resources available for interpretation and educational 

programs.

[IE-D-2] Identify Atwell Island and Piedras Blancas Light Station as important biological resource areas 

available for interpretation and educational programs.

6.5.6 Outstanding Natural Areas

Goal

[ONA-G-1] Protect, conserve, and enhance, for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future 

generations, the Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA for its unique and nationally important historical, 

natural, cultural, scientific, educational, scenic, and recreational values.

Objectives

[ONA-O-1] Reconstruct, preserve and interpret the Piedras Blancas Light Station to during the period of 

its greatest historic significance (1875 and 1940), while providing for resource protection and managed 

use by the visiting public.
278 APPENDIX 5 – PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHT STATION OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREA

APPENDICES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[ONA-O-2] Provide support for international research of coastal ecosystems surrounding the Piedras 

Blancas Light Station.

[ONA-O-3] Protect and coordinate the interpretation of the important archaeological sites with the 

affected Native American communities.

[ONA-O-4] Coordinate and collaborate management of the Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA with 

California Department of Parks and Recreation, San Luis Obispo County, local communities, and other 

interested entities.

Decisions

[ONA-D-1] The following features and structures would be restored or reconstructed to provide an 

accurate representation of what Piedras Blancas looked like in its early years:

(a) Lighthouse 

(b) Fog Signal Building

(c) Fuel/Oil House

(d) Tank Storage Building

(e) Fuel and Storage Building

(f) Laundry

(g) Watchroom

(h) Keeper’s Triplex

(i) Head Keeper’s Residence

(j) Barn

(k) Historic Landscape

[ONA-D-2] Close, prohibit, or otherwise make unavailable the Piedras Blancas Light Station to the 

following:

(a) All forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; 

(b) Operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws and the mineral materials laws;

(c) Livestock grazing;

(d) Public access except for BLM tours, permits, and other specific authorizations;

(e) Equestrian use; and

(f) Authorization of commercial communications transmission equipment.

[ONA-D-3] Continue the withdrawal of the Piedras Blancas Light Station ONA from location, entry, and 

patent under the public land mining laws beyond the legislatively provided 20-year withdrawal to 

extend for the life of this RMP.

[ONA-D-4] Manage the Piedras Blancas ONA as VRM Class I, in accordance with its special designation, 

with special consideration of the importance of the cultural modifications and to restoring the historic 

lighthouse and facilities. This VRM Class I is adjusted to consider these cultural artifacts as an important 

facet of the visual landscape and to allow for the maintenance, repair, and continued restoration to 

preserve the outstanding visual landscape of the area.

[ONA-D-5] Provide access to Native Americans for traditional cultural and religious purposes. The site 

may be closed to the general public to protect the privacy of traditional cultural and religious activities in 

such areas by the Native American religious community.
APPENDIX 5 – PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHT STATION OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREA 279

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

[ONA-D-6] Acquire water supply conveyance rights on a corridor between the Light Station boundary 

and a nearby spring or water source and acquire an appropriative water right from the State of 

California for all water use. 

[ONA-D-7] Acquire access rights on a corridor between the Light Station boundary and the nearest 

public road. Add and administer as part of the ONA any additional lands or interest in lands next to the 

O acquired by the United States. 
<This page intentionally left blank> 

UNITED STATES

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bakersfield Field Office

3801 Pegasus Drive 

Bakersfield, CA 93308 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300