Record of Decision 

Surprise Resource Management Plan 

April 2008 

Public Lands USA: Use, Share, Appreciate 

Surprise Field Office

BLM 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
 

 

 

 

United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Surprise Field Office 

602 Cressler Street 

Cedarville, California 96104 

(530) 279-6101 

FAX: (530) 279-2171 

www.ca.blm.gov/surprise 

In Reply Refer to: April 1, 2008 

CA-370 1610 

Dear Interested Party: 

I am pleased to announce that, after several years of collaborative effort, the Surprise Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) is complete. This document will provide guidance for the management of 

1,220,644 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in northeast California 

and northwest Nevada. 

The staff of the Surprise Field Office of the BLM has prepared the attached Record of Decision (ROD) 

and RMP in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The ROD links final land use plan decisions to the analysis presented 

in the Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The ROD describes one change to 

an RMP decision. In addition, minor changes and points of clarification are described in the ROD, in 

response to staff review and issues raised in the public protest process. 

The ROD serves as the final decision for Land Use Planning Decisions described in the Proposed RMP. 

The public had an opportunity to protest these decisions after the publication of the Proposed Surprise 

RMP/FEIS in June 2007. Six protests were received. Resolutions to the protests did not result in the 

necessity for more analysis or repeat publication of the Surprise Proposed RMP/ Final EIS, or for 

additional public review and protest. 

The ROD also describes a set of Implementation Level Decisions. Those decisions will authorize the 

issuance of a travel route network. An appeal opportunity for these decisions is being provided at this 

time. The process is described in the ROD and the appeal period will close 30 days from the date the 

Notice of Availability of the ROD/RMP appears in the Federal Register. This date will also be 

announced via local news releases. Please review the ROD carefully for a more detailed discussion of the 

appeal process. 

We appreciate your help in this planning effort and look forward to your continued participation as the 

plan is implemented. For additional information or clarification regarding the attached document or the 

planning process, please contact Jeff Fontana at (530) 257-5332 or Sue Noggles (530) 252-5345, or by 

e-mail at rnoggles@ca.blm.gov. 

Additional hard copies and CD-ROM versions of the RMP/ROD may be obtained at the address above. 

The document is available on the internet at http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/surprise.html. 

Sincerely, 

Shane Deforest 

Field Manager 

Surprise Field Office 

 

 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Decision 

The decision is hereby made to adopt the Surprise Resource Management Plan (RMP) as 

the land use plan for the public lands and resources managed by the Surprise Field 

Office. The Surprise RMP was developed under regulations implementing the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. An environmental impact 

statement (EIS) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 to consider this decision. The Surprise RMP adopted here is nearly 

identical to the Surprise Proposed RMP presented for public review and protest on June 

15, 2007. 

Introduction 

The Surprise Field Office includes approximately 1,220,644 acres of BLM-managed 

surface acres in northeastern California and northwest Nevada. The geographic area 

includes BLM-administered lands within the counties of Modoc and Lassen (California) 

and Humboldt and Washoe (Nevada). The BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of the public lands it manages for the use and enjoyment of 

present and future generations. The Surprise RMP was developed in coordination with 

the Alturas and Eagle Lake Field Office RMPs to provide a consistent framework for 

managing public lands and resource uses in northeast California and northwest Nevada. 

The Surprise RMP was prepared using the BLM’s planning regulations and guidance 

issued under the FLPMA. An EIS is also included in this document to meet the 

requirements of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508), and the requirements 

of the BLM’s NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1. 

The Surprise RMP includes two levels of decisions in accordance with the NEPA and 

BLM regulations. These are land use planning decisions and implementation 

decisions. Land use planning decisions were protestable during the June 15 2007 – 

July 16, 2007 protest period in accordance with BLM regulations 43 CFR 1610.5-2. Six 

protest letters were received. There are also implementation decisions made in the RMP 

(see below). These decisions may be appealed in accordance with the Department of 

Interior regulations at 43 CFR 4 and 43 CFR 2450. 

Alternatives Considered 

MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE RMP 

The underlying goal of developing alternatives was to explore the range of use options, 

protection options, and management tools that will achieve a balance between protection 

of the planning area’s natural character, and a variety of resource uses and management 

issues. Alternatives must: meet the project purpose and need; be viable and reasonable; 

provide a mix of resource protection, management use, and development; be responsive 

to issues identified in scoping; and meet the established planning criteria, federal laws 

and regulations, and BLM planning policy. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 
 

 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Five alternatives were developed for detailed analysis. The “No Action Alternative” was a 

continuation of current management, and was developed from existing planning 

decisions, policies, and guidance. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were developed with input 

from BLM internal and public scoping, public workshops, and collaborative work among 

the BLM interdisciplinary planning team. 

Of the management alternatives, Alternative 2 represented less intense management 

and/or use, emphasizing a greater utilization of natural processes wherever possible, and 

minimizing human impacts. This would result in lower levels of active involvement in 

resource restoration and management, as well as limited recreation use. In the middle of 

the spectrum, Alternative 3 provided a greater diversity of uses and approaches to 

management, with a broad mix of tools that would allow for moderate levels of use. 

Alternative 1 took a more active approach, allowing more intense management and/or 

use while still maintaining and enhancing resource conditions. It included the widest 

application of management tools and actions, and provided the highest level of 

recreation use. The Preferred Alternative and Proposed RMP were developed using 

decisions from each of the management alternatives. See the Management 

Considerations section for more detail. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

Federal regulations (40CFR 1505.02(b)) require that an agency identify the 

“environmentally preferable” alternative(s) in the Record of Decision (ROD) for an EIS. 

The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that would result in the 

greatest beneficial impacts to the identified aspects of the environment. Compared to 

the other alternatives analyzed, Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative best meet the 

national environmental goals identified above. 

Alternative 2 provides the highest level of protection of natural and cultural resources, 

however it does not allow for a wide range of beneficial uses of the environment. The 

Preferred Alternative would enhance the ability of the BLM to achieve the purpose and 

need of the RMP, as outlined in Chapter 1 of the document, as well as meet desired 

future conditions, goals and objectives of specific resources as outlined in Chapter 2. 

The No Action Alternative, as well as Alternatives 1 and 3, do not contain sufficient 

management emphasis designed to protect native plant communities and restore 

degraded sagebrush steppe habitats, when compared to the Preferred Alternative. 

Portions of the field office area that are currently in a degraded condition can only be 

improved successfully with the scope of active restoration efforts that are provided for 

within the Preferred Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in overall minor to moderate adverse impacts to 

resources, and these impacts would continue to be mitigated. Proposed management 

actions would result in moderate to major beneficial impacts to native vegetation 

communities and wildlife habitat from restoration efforts, and the removal of invasive 

juniper. Improvements to riparian areas, water bodies, and other special habitats would 

improve soil and water resources, and wildlife habitat. The designation of three areas of 

critical environmental concern (ACEC), one wild and scenic river (WSR) segment, and 

an increased emphasis on cultural resource protection and management would have 

beneficial impacts to these important and unique resources. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 
 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Management Considerations/ Decision Rationale 

The approved management actions defining the Surprise RMP were selected by the 

BLM, with input from Tribes, state and county governments, other federal agencies, the 

Northwest California Resource Advisory Council (RAC), interested organizations, and 

the public. The BLM considers the Approved Surprise RMP as the best approach to 

meeting the purpose and need of this project, addressing the planning issues, and 

providing the optimal combination of flexibility and balance in managing both resources 

and uses of the lands in the planning area. Factors considered during this selection 

process include: environmental impacts; issues raised throughout the planning process; 

specific environmental values, resources, and resource uses; conflict resolution; public 

input; and laws and regulations. 

The Approved Surprise RMP draws from the alternatives analyzed in the Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS and is identical to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The FLPMA requires 

that the BLM manage the public lands according to land use plans (43 U.S.C. 1702; 43 

U.S.C. 1732) in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, 

ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological 

values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in the 

natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic 

animals; that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use (43 

U.S.C. 1701); and that will regulate the use, occupancy, and development of public lands 

(43 U.S.C. 1732). The Approved Surprise RMP is the land use plan that provides the 

framework to accomplish these mandates. Through implementation of the RMP and 

other actions that may become necessary, the BLM will prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation of the lands it manages. 

Changing Land Use Plan Decisions 

Land use plan decisions can be changed through a plan amendment. Plan amendments 

change one or more of the terms, conditions or decisions of an approved plan including 

resource restrictions. Plan amendments are often prompted by the need to consider a 

proposal or application for a land use that does not conform to the RMP, or to respond to 

new or intensified interest in uses on public land. 

When an applicant requests that the BLM amend the land use plan to allow an otherwise 

nonconforming proposal, BLM regulations (43 CFR 1600) and CEQ regulations (40 CFR 

1500) guide preparation of plan amendments. The plan amendment process involves 

and encourages meaningful public participation. This process begins with the 

publication of a Notice of Intent to amend a land use plan in the Federal Register and 

local newspapers. 

Changes Made To the Approved RMP 

This Record of Decision adopts the Surprise Proposed RMP/Final EIS (May 2007) as the 

Approved Surprise RMP, with a few minor clarifications to the decision, as listed below. 

One substantive change has been made to a land use plan decision. Based on changed 

circumstances and protests the BLM received on the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the 

following modifications were made to the Approved RMP: 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 3 
 

 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

1.	 The BLM has determined that the Fox-Hog Herd Management Area should be 

enlarged to only 127,618 acres, and not 145,244 acres as listed in the PRMP/FEIS 

(Sec. 2.21.5, pp. 2-82). The BLM will make the following corrections (shown in bold 

font) to Sec. 2.21.5 of the Approved RMP. 

The SFO would continue to protect and manage wild horses within eight Herd 

Management Areas (HMAs), and at established Appropriate Management Levels 

(AMLs), as shown in Table 2.21-1. 

Table 2.21-1 Wild Horse Herd Management Areas and Appropriate Management Levels 

Herd Management Area Name 

& No. 

Appropriate Management 

Level (Range) Acres 

Coppersmith (CA-261) 50-75 head 75,547 

Buckhorn (CA-262) 59-89 head 76,780 

Fox Hog (CA-263) 1/ 120-220 head 127,618 

Wall Canyon (CA-265) 1/ 2/ 15-25 head 41,051 

Nut Mountain (CA-266) 1/ 2/ 30-55 head 40,214 

Bitner (CA-267) 2/ 15-20 head 53,672 

Massacre Lakes (CA-268) 1/ 2/ est. 25-35 head 39,890 

Carter Reservoir (CA-269) 25-35 head 23,423 

Total 339-550 head 478,195 

 1/ These herds are partially within the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trail National Conservation 
 
 
 

Area (NCA). 
 
 
 

2/ These HMAs would be managed as a complex.
 
 
 


Note: The High Rock Herd Management Area (CA-264), administered by the Surprise Field Office is entirely within 
 
 
 

the NCA and is not considered in this RMP. 
 
 
 

HMA boundaries would be redrawn (notably, 30,600 acres would be added to 

the Fox-Hog HMA, increasing its size to 127,618 acres) and some AMLs may 

be reduced (on the basis of monitoring) to permit recovery of riparian and upland 

vegetation, wildlife habitats, water quality and soils in order to achieve BLM land 

health standards. 

2.	 The Approved RMP adopts management guidance from and tiers to the impacts 

analysis section of the Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on 

BLM Administered Lands in the Western United States (Wind Energy PEIS), BLM, 

2005, and subsequent amendments. The BLM will follow guidance from BLM 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-216, and subsequent BLM policy, in processing 

right-of-way applications for wind energy projects. In order to reduce adverse 

impacts to wildlife and habitat the BLM will implement best management practices 

for wind energy projects in accordance with the Wind Energy PEIS. 

Due to the changing energy goals at the national level and particularly here in 

California, renewable energy production on BLM public lands is growing in 

importance. While renewable energy such as geothermal and wind are already 

established uses in some parts of the State, new geothermal and wind proposals as 

well as new solar proposals are emerging new public land uses in other parts of 

California. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 4 
 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Placement of these facilities depends on a number of factors that cannot always be 

anticipated in BLM’s land use plans such as economics, relationship to the State’s 

energy grid, project design, current technology and potential resource impacts. 

However, BLM land use plans can always be amended through the public process to 

accommodate such uses when necessary. In addition to renewable energy, other 

unforeseen public needs and demands often arise outside of the planning cycle and 

plans are amended according to the process outlined in Changing Land Use Plan 

Decisions. 

3.	 The BLM has clarified the wording of a Proposed Management Action for Lands and 

Realty, Rights-of-Way, (Section 2.7.5, p. 2-32) that specifies restrictions to new rightof-way developments in sage-grouse habitat and other critical habitats for wildlife. 

The Approved RMP has been changed by deleting the following
 
 
 


paragraph:
 
 
 


“In addition, all greater sage-grouse habitat and other species critical habitat would 

be designated as ROW exclusion zones, except ROWs needed to provide reasonable 

access to non-federal inholdings.” 

The Approved RMP now states: 

"In addition, areas containing special status species habitat, and other locally 

important species habitat, may be designated as ROW avoidance zones (seasonal 

restrictions and distance buffers), in accordance with other management in this 

document." 

4.	 The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has recently been removed from the 

federal list of threatened and endangered (T&E) species. At the time of the BLM’s 

request to initiate formal consultation on T&E species with U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) for the Draft and Proposed Surprise RMP/EIS, the bald eagle was 

federally listed as threatened. On June 28, 2007, the Secretary of the Interior 

announced that the bald eagle was being removed from the federal list of T&E 

species. The final rule delisting the bald eagle was published on July 9, 2007, and 

became effective on August 8, 2007 (USFWS, 2007). After delisting, bald eagles will 

continue to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

The USFWS has encouraged the BLM to continue managing bald eagles as stated in 

the Biological Assessment (BLM 2007), which implements management actions from 

the Preferred Alternative in the Surprise PRMP/FEIS (Biological Opinion on the 

Proposed Resource Management Plan for the Surprise Field Office, Cedarville, 

California, USFWS, September 2007). The BLM has agreed to manage bald eagles as 

requested by USFWS, and according to management actions within the Surprise 

PRMP/FEIS (Sec. 2.22.3.4, p. 2-88). However, the BLM will no longer consider the 

bald eagle a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act. 

5.	 In 2007 the California State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO), in coordination 

with the California BLM, and the Nevada SHPO, revised the State Protocol 

Agreement regarding cultural resources. The revised protocol suspends the 

requirement that all unevaluated cultural resources will be allocated to “use 

categories”, as described in Section 2.2.5 (p. 2-7) of the Surprise PRMP/FEIS. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 5 
 

 

 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

The Approved RMP has been changed by deleting the following
 
 
 


paragraph:
 
 
 


“Evaluate and allocate cultural properties (including cultural landscapes) to one of 

six uses as outlined in USDI-IB No. 2002-101 “Cultural Resource Considerations in 

Resource Management Plans”, and Table 2.2-1 below, regardless of whether their 

existence is known and recorded or inferred on the basis of current data synthesis”. 

The Approved RMP now states: 

 “The BLM may allocate evaluated archaeological sites to one of six uses as outlined 

in USDI-IB No. 2002-101 “Cultural Resource Considerations in Resource 

Management Plans”, and Table 2.2-1 below. 

6.	 The Approved RMP adopts the visual resources management (VRM) classes listed for 

all lands in the Proposed RMP, Chapter 2.21 Visual Resources Management, as the 

official VRM Management Classes. 

7.	 The Draft Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy (Modoc National Forest, 

Alturas BLM, and Modoc County) was completed and published in August 2007. The 

Approved RMP will incorporate recommendations contained in this document, once 

it is final, to manage for the improved health of plant communities, and to reduce the 

encroachment of western juniper. 

8.	 The Approved RMP adopts the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement and Programmatic Environmental Report, Vegetation Treatments using 

Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States, BLM, September 2007; the 

Environmental Assessment, Integrated Weed Management Program and Record of 

Decision, BLM, Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise Field Offices, EA # CA320-07-14, 

CA350-07-07, CA370-07-04, June 2007; and the Environmental Assessment, 

Integrated Weed Management Program and Record of Decision, BLM Nevada 

Lands Portion, Eagle Lake, and Surprise Field Offices, EA # CA350-04-05, CA370-

04-05, May 2004 and DNA #CA370-07-02, February 2007. 

9.	 The BLM will designate energy corridors, perform environmental reviews required to 

complete corridor designation, and incorporate designated corridors into relevant 

agency land use plans, as defined in the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Lands in the 11 Western 

States, Department of Energy, BLM, USDA Forest Service, Department of Defense, 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, October 2007, and subsequent amendments. 

Approved RMP Executive Summary 

The Surprise RMP provides a detailed description of management actions for 25 

resource subjects. The desired future condition, goals, objectives, and management 

actions for each major resource and use are discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of the 

Proposed/Approved RMP. The highlights of management actions for each resource 

subject are listed below. Please note that this Executive Summary is designed to provide 

only an overview of some of the proposed management actions within the Surprise RMP. 

The table below contains an abbreviated version of the management actions for each 

subject, and is not a complete listing of all management actions within the RMP. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 6 
 

 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Air Quality 

• Manage prescribed fires (500 – 5,000 acres per year) to reduce impacts to air quality. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

•	 Develop three on-site cultural interpretive areas. 

•	 Designate three archeological areas of critical environmental concern. 

•	 Develop two cultural resource management areas. 

Energy & Minerals 

•	 Manage 980,442 acres as ‘Open’ to mineral leasing under standard terms and conditions. 

•	 Manage 1,220,644 acres as ‘Open’ to locatable minerals. 

•	 Manage 1,037,063 acres as ‘Open’ to saleable minerals. 

•	 Manage 1,035,142 acres as ‘Open’ to renewable energy. Manage WSAs (183,581 acres) 

and the Bitner ACEC (1,921 acres) as renewable energy exclusion zones. Designate two 

areas of critical environmental concern (45,827 acres) as renewable energy avoidance 

areas. 

•	 Adopt management guidance for wind energy development from the Final Programmatic 

EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM Administered Lands in the Western United 

States (Wind Energy PEIS), 2005, and subsequent amendments. Environmental analyses 

for wind energy development will tier to the impacts analysis section of the Wind Energy 

PEIS. 

•	 Implement best management practices for wind energy projects in accordance with the 

Wind Energy PEIS in order to reduce adverse impacts to wildlife and habitat. 

Fire Management 

•	 The NorCal Fire Management Plan identifies aggressive, full suppression as the 

appropriate management response (AMR) under conditions of severe fire intensity, 

especially in the wildland urban interface. However, exceptions may be made where 

resource objectives could safely be achieved. 

•	 Under conditions of low fire intensity, a less aggressive AMR, such as containment/ 

confinement, would be implemented in previously identified areas likely to benefit from 

wildland fire use. 

•	 Manage wildland fires using the Appropriate Management Response (AMR): 

o	 Full suppression AMR 891,695 acres 

o	 Full range of AMR suppression options 328,949 acres 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 7 
 

 

 

 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Forestry Resources 

•	 Manage all forests for improved forestland health and do not authorize timber production 

and harvest of commercial forestlands. 

•	 Restore forestland health on commercial forestlands through fuels reduction treatments 

using mechanical and prescribed fire treatments at a rate of 25 to 150 acres per year. 

•	 Implement reforestation projects on commercial forestlands and allow post-fire timber 

salvage sales. 

•	 Manage low-site forestlands and woodlands for fuelwood removal, removal of invasive 

juniper to improve land health, and for biomass production. 

•	 Allow public woodcutting on 119,426 acres of commercial and non-commercial forest and 

woodlands. Target locations with invasive western juniper to aid in fuels reduction work. 

•	 Commercial, non-commercial and free-use firewood cutting would be conducted on level or 

gently sloping locations with stable soils. 

•	 Close sensitive resource areas to public woodcutting of invasive juniper, e.g. wilderness 

study areas (WSAs), research natural areas (RNAs), and areas of critical environmental 

concern (ACECs), and areas of special status and special interest species. 

•	 Allow temporary road construction, on a case-by-case basis, where deemed necessary for 

the management of commercial and low-site forests and juniper woodlands. 

Fuels Management 

•	 Implement fuels treatments through mechanical, prescribed fire, and biological methods to 

reduce build-up of hazardous fuels, provide fuel breaks, and create defensible space in 

communities at risk. 

•	 Teach classes in local schools and fire safety council meetings regarding fire protection and 

hazard reduction, and the natural role of fire in the ecosystem. 

•	 Implement hazardous fuels reduction treatments using various methods: 

o	 Prescribed fire and mechanical treatments: 500 – 5,000 acres/year 

o	 Biological treatments: 0 – 25 acres/year 

o	 Chemical treatments: 0 – 500 acres/year 

Lands and Realty 

•	 Prioritize acquisition of lands within and adjacent to wilderness study areas, wild and scenic 

rivers, areas of critical environmental concern, and conservation and scenic easements. 

Also acquire lands with high resource values. 

•	 Prioritize retention of BLM lands that have high public resource values. Allow exchanges 

when private parcels have higher resource values than BLM lands. 

•	 Prioritize potential disposal of BLM administered lands that are small tracts, difficult to 

manage, or do not contain high resource values. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 8 
 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Rights-of-Way 

•	 Wilderness study areas would be designated as rights-of-way exclusion zones. All 

proposals must meet non-impairment criteria, which prohibit permanent facilities unless 

they are grandfathered, they have valid existing rights, or they provide access to private 

inholdings. 

•	 Manage the Bitner ACEC as a right-of-way exclusion zone. 

•	 Create rights-of-way avoidance zones in the Massacre Rim and Rahilly-Gravelly ACECs 

(45,827 acres) and important wildlife habitat areas. 

•	 Allow development of existing utility corridors for expanded use up to 1 mile wide. 

•	 Restrict development of existing communication sites to areas previously disturbed, except 

where needed for BLM management and upgrade. 

Livestock Grazing 

•	 Maintain livestock grazing within 49 allotments on 1,445,443 acres. 

•	 Authorize 92,465 animal unit months annually. 

•	 Comply with the Approved Northeastern California and Northwestern Nevada Standards 

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing. 

•	 Areas burned by wild or prescribed fire would be rested from livestock grazing for a 

minimum of two growing seasons. 

•	 Livestock salting would not be allowed within 1⁄4 mile of springs, meadows, NRHP-quality 

archaeological sites, streams, and aspen areas. Location of salting stations would be 

determined by the BLM in consultation with livestock permittees. 

•	 Maintain 5,500 acres of existing livestock exclosures. Meadows and aspen stands of 

significant value to wildlife will receive priority for additional livestock exclusion. When 

fencing natural water sources, water would be provided outside fences for livestock, wildlife, 

and wild horses. 

•	 The needs of wildlife and wild horses would be considered in water developments for 

livestock grazing. Water would be retained and provided at ground level in all livestock 

water developments. Natural riparian habitat, and a substantial portion of the surrounding 

cover, would be protected for wildlife use where water is developed from natural sources. 

•	 Utilization levels will not exceed 40%–60% on key species of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Guideline number 16 of the Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing would be 

implemented on allotments not meeting Standards for Rangeland Health at current forage 

utilization levels. 

•	 Maintain domestic sheep permits in specific grazing allotments (Tuledad, Selic-Alaska, and 

Red Rock Lake), unless operator elects to convert or vacate allotment. 

•	 Allow trailing of domestic sheep on a case-by-case basis. 

Recreation and Visitor Services 

•	 All areas not managed under a special designation would be managed as the extensive 
 
 


recreation management area, and managed for low impact activities. 
 
 


•	 Special recreation permits would be allowed for events provided there is adequate resource 

protection. 

•	 Develop three seasonal wild horse viewing sites at Buckhorn Road, near SOB Lake; Lost 

Creek Road, near Cottonwood Creek; and HWY 299/8A near the Nevada California Border. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 9 
 

 

 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Recreation and Visitor Services (continued) 

•	 Throughout the Surprise Field Office area, recreational camping is limited to 14 consecutive 

days. Campfires are allowed on all lands except when fire restrictions are in effect. 

Campfire permits are required on public lands in California, but not in Nevada. 

•	 The existing Barrel Springs and Buckhorn scenic byway designations would remain 

unaltered. Designation of additional scenic byways or vehicle routes would be considered 

provided they are consistent with OHV designations and resource concerns are addressed. 

•	 Collection of petrified wood would be managed under existing policy. 

•	 Assign Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes to all lands to provide a diversity of 

recreational experiences: 

o	 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 450,636 acres 

o	 Semi-Primitive Motorized 636,018 acres 

o	 Roaded Natural 127,038 acres 
 
 


o	 Rural 6,952 acres 
 
 


Soil Resources 

•	 Implement management practices to promote recovery of 49,894 acres of upland soils not 

meeting Standards for Rangeland Health. 

•	 Ensure all management activities result in no net loss of soil mass or productivity within the 

management area. 

•	 Consumptive uses and developments would be restricted to soils which are considered 

unproductive or most suitable for construction purposes. 

•	 Livestock grazing would be managed to promote healthy watersheds as evident by 

productive soils, natural hydrologic function, biological integrity, and the preservation of 

biological crusts. 

•	 Employ bio-engineering projects to improve soil condition and achieve ‘Proper Functioning 

Condition’ (PFC). 

•	 Apply sediment intrusion buffer zones around sensitive resources on a case-by-case basis. 

•	 Implement mitigation actions to offset soil and productivity losses within the same fifth-level 

watershed area (conceptually 40,000 – 250,000 acres). 

Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

•	 Designate and manage 957 acres of the Rahilly-Gravelly ACEC to conform to the Lakeview 

Resource Management Plan, 2004. 

•	 Designate the Massacre Rim ACEC, 44,870 acres. 

•	 Designate the Bitner ACEC, 1,921 acres. 

•	 New rights-of-way would be excluded in the Bitner ACEC and avoided in Rahilly-Gravelly 
 
 

and Massacre Rim ACECs. 
 
 

•	 Livestock grazing would continue according to permit stipulations and allotment 
 
 


management plans. 
 
 


•	 Noxious weeds would be aggressively controlled in all ACECs. 

•	 Firewood, post, or pole cutting for commercial or domestic use will not be allowed in any 
 
 

ACEC. 
 
 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 
 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Special Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) (continued) 

•	 An approved plan of operation is required for locatable minerals in an ACEC; other 

restrictions may apply for salable minerals. The Bitner and Rahilly-Gravelly ACECs would 

be managed under no surface occupancy restrictions for leasable minerals. Where ACECs 

overlap WSAs, further constraints on mineral activities apply under the Wilderness IMP. 

•	 Traditional uses by Native Americans would be protected and tribal collecting of plants 

allowed within ACECs. 

Special Designations: Wild & Scenic Rivers (WSR) 

•	 A 2.2 mile section (457 acres) of Twelvemile Creek would be recommended as suitable for 

designation as a wild and scenic river. 

•	 Manage this section of Twelvemile Creek as VRM Class II to protect the scenic quality of 

the area. 

•	 Pursue acquisition of non-federal lands along Twelvemile Creek to enlarge the eligible and 

suitable portion of this stream. This would be done on a voluntarily basis from willing sellers 

and/or exchange proponents. 

Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) 

•	 The existing wilderness study areas (WSAs) would be managed under the "Interim 

Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review” (Wilderness IMP) (USDI BLM 

1995, as amended): 

Sheldon Contiguous 23,700 acres 
 
 
 

South Warner Contiguous 4,500 acres 
 
 
 

Massacre Rim 101,290 acres 
 
 
 

Wall Canyon 46,305 acres 
 
 
 

Buffalo Hill 47,315 acres 
 
 
 

•	 Prioritize acquisition of land parcels within and adjacent to WSAs (on a willing-seller basis). 

•	 Existing and new mining operations under the 1872 mining law would be regulated under 

43 CFR 3802 only. 

•	 Any new roads or trails that have been created or discovered would be closed to vehicle 

use, with the exception of authorized rights-of-way. 

•	 All proposals for uses and/or facilities within WSAs would be reviewed to determine whether 

the proposal meets the nonimpairment criteria or a permitted exception. 

•	 Assign off-highway vehicle designations in WSAs: Four WSAs: Limited to Designated 

Routes; One WSA: Closed 

Travel Management 

•	 Manage off-highway vehicle (OHV) use to protect resource values, promote public safety, 

provide OHV use opportunities where appropriate, and minimize conflicts among various 

users. 

•	 Manage 1,809 miles of routes as the designated route network for access to BLMadministered lands. 

•	 Vehicular travel would conform to the Northeast California Resource Advisory Council 

Recommended Off-Highway-Vehicle Management Guidelines, 2000 (Appendix C). 

•	 Implement closures on 92 miles of routes within WSAs. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 11 
 

 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Travel Management (continued) 

•	 Assign OHV use area designations: 

o Open 	 0 acres 

o Limited to designated routes 1,208,670 acres 

o Closed 11,994 acres 

•	 An OHV special recreation management area would be developed if the need arises. 

• Commercial, competitive, and other organized OHV activities would be managed with 

special recreation permits. 

•	 Road maintenance would continue at a rate of 30 to 75 miles per year. 

Vegetation 

•	 Vegetation manipulation would be prioritized to sagebrush-steppe communities with juniper 

encroachment, decadent big sagebrush and greasewood stands, and low elevation brush 

communities dominated by exotic annual grasses. 

•	 Vegetation manipulation will seek to restore natural ecosystems, establish wildfire fuel 

breaks, and increase forage production for livestock, wildlife and wild horses. 

•	 Native juniper woodlands would be maintained on approximately 17,500 acres. 

•	 Quaking aspen woodlands would be maintained on at least 1,800 acres. Restore 20 acres 

of historic aspen stands using seeds, roots, or saplings. Construct 20 acres of new 

livestock exclosures to protect quaking aspen stands and mountain mahogany. 

•	 Remove invasive juniper within quaking aspen, bitterbrush, and mountain mahogany 

communities on 10 – 100 acres/year. 

•	 Prioritize restoration of sagebrush–steppe communities on 500 – 4,000 acres/year. 

•	 Restoration of communities encroached by invasive juniper would be treated using 

prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, and manual treatments. 

•	 Restore native grassland communities on 50 – 100 acres/year. 

•	 Prioritize restoration treatment methods for removal of invasive juniper within riparian areas 

on 50 – 100 acres/year. 

•	 Maintain 36,740 acres of existing crested wheatgrass seedings in good condition. Restore 

8,400 acres of existing crested wheatgrass seedings in poor condition to native species. 

Noxious Weeds & Invasive Species 

•	 Integrated Weed Management (IWM) will continue to promote education and prevention as 

well as cultural, physical, biological, and chemical treatments. 

•	 All hay, straw, or mulch used on BLM-administered lands must be certified as free from 

noxious weed seed. 

•	 Cooperative weed control programs will continue on the Upper Alkali Lake restoration 

project, the Snake Lake experimental medusahead project and on watershed restoration 

projects in Wall Canyon. 

•	 Conduct IWM inventories in coordination with adjacent weed management areas for early 

detection of new infestations. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 12 
 

 

 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Special Status Plants 

•	 Manage all special status species habitats or populations so that BLM actions do not 

contribute to the need to list these species as federally threatened or endangered. 

•	 Allow for no more than 20% (by plant species) elimination of occupied habitat and no 

greater than 20% total decrease in any plant species occurrence, except as directed in 

biological assessments, biological evaluations, habitat management plans, and 

conservation strategies/species management guides for specific species. 

•	 Require stipulations during surface disturbing activities (e.g., road construction, trails) to 

protect special status plant habitat. 

•	 Acquire lands from willing sellers that support unprotected populations of special status 

plants. 

•	 Special management considerations and permit stipulations that would be applied to protect 

populations of special status plants would apply equally for special interest species to 

prevent them from becoming listed as special status plants. 

•	 Manage off-highway vehicle use as ‘Limited to Designated Routes’ to protect special status 

plant habitat. 

Visual Resources 

•	 Manage all wilderness study areas as VRM Class I. 

•	 Assign VRM Class designations to all BLM-administered lands, and manage lands 

according to these class requirements, to protect scenic quality: 

o	 VRM Class I 183,587 acres 

o	 VRM Class II 437,553 acres 

o	 VRM Class III 227,134 acres 
 
 


o	 VRM Class IV 372,390 acres 
 
 


•	 Manage the (proposed) Twelvemile Creek Wild and Scenic River under VRM Class II 

criteria. The Massacre Rim, Bitner, and Rahilly-Gravelly ACECs would also be managed 

for VRM Class II, in order to preserve the existing character of the landscape. 

Water Resources 

•	 Achieve measurable progress toward proper functioning condition (PFC) or desired future 
 
 

condition (DFC) on 53 miles of perennial and intermittent streams and 2,500 acres of 
 
 

riparian/wetland areas. 
 
 

•	 Apply restoration treatments to improve hydrologic function and water quality, including bioengineering treatments, improved livestock grazing strategies, planting woody riparian 

vegetation, and installing in-stream structures. 

•	 Maintain existing water sources and manage to promote wildlife habitat, improve distribution 

of livestock and wild horses, and provide for recreational uses. 

•	 Prioritize development of new water sources to extend seasonal water availability for wildlife 

and to benefit desired ecosystems. 

•	 Withdraw state-appropriated water rights on waters that are not ‘waters of the state’. 

•	 Assert in-stream flow rights in Nevada and riparian rights in California on all perennial and 
 

important intermittent streams. 
 

•	 Projects that involve inter-basin transfer of water would be coordinated with local and 
 
 


regional governments. 
 
 


SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 13 
RECORD OF DECISION 

Wild Horses and Burros 

•	 Manage wild horses within 8 established herd management areas (HMAs), on 478,195 

acres. 

•	 Enlarge the Fox-Hog HMA boundary to 127,618 acres. (See note under Changes Made to 

the Approved RMP). 

•	 Manage Nut Mountain, Bitner, Wall Canyon and Massacre Lakes HMAs as a complex. 

•	 Prioritize selection of animals returned to BLM-administered lands after gathers based on 

traits desirable by public for adoption (color, size and conformance) and for historical traits 

in the Carter Reservoir HMA only. 

•	 Develop three seasonal wild horse viewing sites at Buckhorn Road, near SOB Lake; Lost 

Creek Road, near Cottonwood Creek; and Hwy. 299/8A near the Nevada California Border. 

•	 Maintain herd management area (HMA) populations within established appropriate 

management levels (AMLs) by conducting periodic gathers. 

•	 Eliminate unnecessary fences and minimize construction of new fences in HMAs that 

prevent seasonal wild horse movement or migration. 

•	 Implement fertility control in some or all of the HMAs (based on funding) to assist in 

maintaining populations at AMLs. 

•	 Adjust AMLs when monitoring data indicates wild horse populations are not achieving a 

thriving natural ecological balance. Remove wild horses found outside HMAs. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Federally Listed Species 

•	 Follow management guidelines within applicable biological opinions and conservation 

strategies. 

Carson wandering skipper 

•	 Conduct surveys to determine habitat suitability and cooperate as a partner in recovery 

plans. 

Bald eagle – see note under Changes Made to the Approved RMP 

•	 Conduct population surveys and implement seasonal protection measures. 

•	 Develop GIS information system for nesting, roosting, and foraging areas. 

• Follow the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan and BLM Manual 6840 for management 

guidance. 

Warner sucker 

•	 Manage habitat according to current guidelines, conservation strategies, and biological 

opinion. 

State- and BLM-Listed Sensitive Species 

•	 Limited operating periods (LOPs) and buffer zones would be implemented as necessary to 

reduce disturbances to wildlife. 

•	 Acquire lands from willing sellers that contain important habitat for special status and 

special interest species. Retain lands with important breeding habitats. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 14 
RECORD OF DECISION 

Ungulates 

•	 Implement treatments to remove invasive juniper from important wildlife habitats on 250 – 

2,500 acres/year. Reduce invasive juniper where it threatens meadow systems and 

quaking aspen stands, to improve ungulate habitat. 

•	 Remove invasive juniper from bighorn lambing habitat. 

•	 Coordinate augmentation and reintroduction of native wild ungulates, in cooperation with 

state wildlife agencies, where habitats are suitable or when adequately restored (with the 

exception of bighorn in the Warner Mountains and Coppersmith Hills). 

• BLM’s Guidelines for Managing Domestic Sheep and Goats in Wild Sheep Habitats, 1998, 

and subsequent amendments, would provide operational guidance for domestic sheep and 

goat management in the Surprise Field Office. 

•	 Cooperate with state wildlife agencies to build and maintain additional guzzlers east of 

Surprise Valley to discourage bighorn sheep from crossing to the Warner Mountains and 

Coppersmith Hills. 

•	 If Rocky Mountain elk become established within the field office area, coordinate with state 

wildlife agencies and other cooperators, including livestock operators, to develop and 

implement management plans. 

Sagebrush Ecosystems and Sagebrush Obligate/Associated Species 

•	 Locally developed conservation strategies or plans developed for sage-grouse, pygmy 

rabbit, burrowing owl and other special status species would be used to identify high-priority 

treatment and fire suppression areas. 

• Implement the Conservation Strategy for Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and 

Sagebrush Ecosystems within the Buffalo-Skedaddle Population Management Unit (PMU) 

(Northeast California Sage-Grouse Working Group, 2006). 

• Implement the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California, 

First Edition (2004), including the Vya and Massacre Conservation Strategies. 

•	 Implement juniper reduction to enhance sagebrush ecosystems; focus on providing diverse 

composition and age classes of shrubs and healthy understory vegetation. 

Other Native Wildlife Species 

•	 Retain and protect caves identified as important to bats. Limit disturbances near identified 
 

bat hibernacula and maternity colonies. 
 

•	 Maintain existing waterfowl nesting islands and structures. 

•	 Protect known raptor nesting trees from removal during project activities. 

•	 Manage migratory birds in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird 

Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

•	 Coordinate with game agencies in maintenance and construction of wildlife guzzlers. 

•	 Continue cooperative efforts to reintroduce native fauna back into the planning area and do 

not encourage non-native species introductions. 

•	 Design and locate new livestock water developments to avoid dewatering natural springs or 

wetland areas. Outfit all livestock troughs with wildlife access ramps. Strive to provide 

water at ground level for wildlife at all developments, as feasible. 

•	 Retain vegetation buffers for wildlife cover at water sources, wetlands, and riparian sites. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 15 
 

 

 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Native and Non-Native Fish and Aquatic Species 

•	 Improve fishing opportunities and fish habitat along the east slope of the Warner Mountains 

(20-25 miles). 

•	 Manage for both native and non-native game fish where they coexist—except where a nonnative game fish is highly detrimental to any species of native fish. In such cases, work with 

the appropriate state agency to eliminate the non-native fish. 

•	 Use riparian functional assessments and BMPs to repair eroded streambanks, restore 
 
 

streamside vegetation and shade, lower water temperature, and improve water quality to 
 
 

achieve healthy and productive fish habitats. 
 
 

•	 Use only native fish and strains for transplantation, when degraded streams (or stream 
 
 
 

segments) are sufficiently restored to support viable fish populations.
 
 
 


Protest and Appeal 

The Surprise Proposed RMP decisions were available for protest to the BLM Director for 

a 30 day period, between June 15, 2007, and July 16, 2007, in accordance with 43 CFR 

1610.5-2. Six protests were received. Resolutions to the protests did not result in the 

necessity for more analysis or repeat publication of the Proposed Plan/FEIS for 

additional public review and protest. 

The decisions designating routes of travel for motorized vehicles, as described in Chapter 

2.14 Travel Management of the RMP, are implementation decisions and are 

appealable under 43 CFR Part 4. The appeal procedures are summarized below. These 

travel management decisions are effective upon issuance of this Record of Decision, 

unless a stay of the decision is granted. 

Public notice was provided for the land use plan in accordance with 43 CFR 8342.3(b) 

through publication of a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register for the 

Surprise Proposed RMP/FEIS (Volume 72, Number 115, June 15, 2007) and for the 

Surprise Record of Decision and Approved RMP. 

APPEAL PROCEDURES 

Any party adversely affected by the proposed route designations may appeal within 30 

days of receipt of this decision in accordance with the provisions of 43 CFR Part 4.4. The 

publication of the Notice of Availability of this ROD and approved RMP will be 

considered the date the decision is received. The appeal should state the specific 

route(s), as identified in Chapter 2.14 Travel Management of the RMP, on which the 

decision is being appealed. The appeal must be filed with the Field Manager, at the 

following address: 

Bureau of Land Management 

Surprise Field Office 

602 Cressler Street 

Cedarville, California 96104 

You may include a statement of reasons when the notice of appeal is filed, or you may file 

the statement of reasons within 30 days after filing the appeal. A copy of the appeal, 

statement of reasons, and all other supporting documents must also be sent to the 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 16 
 

 

 

 

 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite E-1712, Sacramento, 

CA, 95825. 

If the statement of reasons is filed separately, it must be sent to the Interior Board of 

Land Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 801 N. Quincy Street, Suite 300, 

Arlington, VA 22203. It is suggested that any appeal be sent certified mail, return 

receipt requested. 

REQUEST FOR STAY 

If you wish to request a stay of the decision pending the outcome of the appeal, the 

motion for stay must be filed in the office of the authorized officer at the time the appeal 

is filed and must show sufficient justification based on the following standards under 43 

CFR 4.21: 

1. The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied. 

2. The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits. 

3. The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. 

4. Whether the public interest favors granting the stay. 

Mitigation and Monitoring 

The BLM has incorporated design features into proposed management actions that will 

avoid or reduce adverse impacts to resources. Design features include standard 

operating procedures and best management practices. For many resources, the 

environmental analysis has indicated that significant adverse impacts would not occur, 

or that their magnitude would be negligible. The BLM will employ all practicable means 

to avoid or minimize environmental harm while still meeting the goals, purpose and 

need requirements of the Surprise RMP. In addition, all implementation level projects 

will undergo a site specific environmental analysis. Mitigation measures will be 

incorporated as necessary to reduce adverse impacts identified in the environmental 

analysis. 

This ROD approves monitoring programs that aid in managing and protecting the 

resource values of the planning area. The BLM will monitor biological resources in order 

to evaluate if desired outcomes (goals and objectives) as described in the RMP are being 

met as management actions are implemented. The Surprise RMP Monitoring Plan is 

included in the ROD under Appendix A. 

Public Involvement 

SCOPING AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS 

The BLM officially initiated the planning process for the Surprise Draft RMP/DEIS with 

publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on July 22, 2003 (Volume 68, 

Number 140). The BLM hosted six public scoping meetings in August and September 

2003, with a total of 205 people attending these meetings. Four meetings were held 

within the planning area. Two others were held in Redding, California, and Reno, 

Nevada, to ensure that the BLM heard the concerns of user groups residing outside the 

planning area. The BLM also conducted a scoping meeting in the field in August 2003. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 17 
 

RECORD OF DECISION 

A community workshop was conducted to discuss economics and social values in 

December 2003. 

Issues related to resource management in the Surprise planning area were assembled 

during the scoping process, which consisted of public scoping meetings, field tours, 

socioeconomic workshops, and interactions with federal, state, tribal, and county 

collaborators. The scoping process generated 15 key issues to be addressed in the 

Surprise RMP. These issues were used to develop alternatives and are addressed in 

other sections of the RMP (for example, effects on local economies). 

DRAFT RMP/DRAFT EIS AND PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS 

The public comment period for the Surprise Draft RMP/Draft EIS opened with 

publication of the NOA in the Federal Register on April 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 

82). This NOA announced the publication of the Draft RMP/DEIS, and also solicited 

public comments and participation. The BLM distributed approximately 250 copies of 

the Draft Surprise RMP/DEIS. The public had 90 days (until July 27, 2006) to submit 

comments on the Draft RMP/DEIS. To facilitate this process, the BLM held seven public 

comment meetings. 

The public comment period generated approximately 36 unique comment letters from 

individuals and groups. The number of comments that the BLM analyzed and responded 

to was approximately 547. These comments and the BLM’s responses to them are 

summarized in Appendix K of the RMP. Based on the comments and feedback received, 

the BLM prepared the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The BLM made several edits and 

clarifications regarding management decisions in the Proposed RMP. In addition, two 

substantive changes were made to management decisions: 

1.	 Change of language related to domestic sheep grazing near bighorn sheep 

habitat, in accordance with BLM’s “Guidelines for Managing Domestic Sheep 

and Goats in Wild Sheep Habitats” (BLM 1998). 

2.	 Designation of the potential California-Nevada (east-west) utility corridor as a 

right of way corridor as defined in the Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Lands in the 11 

Western States, Department of Energy, BLM, USDA Forest Service, Department 

of Defense, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, October 2007, and subsequent 

amendments. 

Public notice was provided for the Surprise Proposed RMP/FEIS through publication of 

a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register (Volume 72, Number 115, June 15, 

2007). The NOA also described public protest procedures. The BLM distributed 

approximately 200 paper copies and CDs of the Surprise Proposed RMP/Final EIS to 

interested parties and made the document available on the web, at BLM offices, and at 

the Cedarville public library. 

TRIBAL CONSULTATION 

The Surprise Field Office interacts with 6 federally recognized tribes. Consultation with 

tribes regarding the Surprise RMP began in July, 2003. On July 24, 2003, certified 

letters were sent to tribal offices containing a packet of information about resource 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 18 
 

RECORD OF DECISION 

management plans and the BLM planning process. The tribes were also formally invited 

to attend a scoping meeting set up especially to address their concerns and involvement 

with the Surprise RMP. Consultation meetings were held during which the tribes 

provided input into plan development. 

Tribal consultation continued during the alternative formulation process in 2004 to 

2005. The Draft Surprise RMP/DEIS was made available for public review in April of 

2006, and copies of the document were sent to the tribes along with a letter informing 

the tribes to provide their written comments to the BLM by September 27, 2006. Each 

of the tribes provided comments on the Draft RMP/DEIS either in letters or during 

consultation meetings. 

A briefing was held on the Surprise Draft RMP/DEIS with the California State Historical 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) on April 5, 2006 and with the Nevada SHPO on March 30, 

2006. Planning and process procedures were discussed in addition to discussions about 

outreach and coordination efforts of the Surprise Field Office. Each of the tribes was 

also consulted with on the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

COUNTY, STATE, AND FEDERAL PARTICIPATION 

During the planning process Modoc, Lassen and Washoe Counties requested more 

specific information regarding certain aspects of the RMP of interest to them such as 

land tenure, special designations, recreation management, access, and energy 

development. In each instance, the Surprise Field Manager and representatives from the 

Surprise staff met personally and or talked by telephone with local county officials and 

discussed their issues and how the RMP would address their concerns. 

The following state agencies have been provided with information and have participated 

in the RMP process: California and Nevada SHPO, California Department of Fish and 

Game, California Department of Water Resources, and Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

The Surprise Proposed RMP was submitted to the California Office of Planning and 

Research, State Clearinghouse, for review by appropriate agencies. The Surprise Field 

Manager received a notification of consistency with the State of California for the RMP 

on September 17, 2007. The BLM initiated formal consultation on the Proposed RMP by 

submitting a Biological Assessment to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as 

described below. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) CONSULTATION 

The BLM has determined that three federally threatened and endangered wildlife 

species, Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis), (threatened); bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), (threatened); and the Carson wandering skipper (Psuedocopaeodes 

eunus obscurus), (endangered) are of concern in the SFO planning area. Pursuant to 

Section 7 of the ESA, the BLM initiated formal consultation on the effects of the 

Proposed RMP by submitting a Biological Assessment to the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service on these three species. The USFWS issued a Biological Opinion for the Surprise 

Proposed RMP on September 11, 2007, which concurs with the BLM’s effects analysis. 

At the time of the BLM’s request to initiate formal consultation, the bald eagle was 

federally listed as threatened. For additional information, see Changes Made to the 

Approved RMP. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 19 
 

RECORD OF DECISION 

NORTHEAST CALIFORNIA RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCIL (RAC) 

The Northeast California RAC members were kept involved with the process through 

briefings provided during the regular council meetings, and through workshops designed 

to gather and disseminate key information and data. 

ADVERTISEMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 

News media press releases were issued or posted to notify the public of the project, to 

announce public meetings and workshops, to request public comments, and to provide 

contact information. Press releases were sent to local and major northern California and 

Nevada newspapers, radio stations and TV stations, and meeting announcements were 

published in several local and regional newspapers. These include the Lassen County 

Times, Susanville; the Reno Gazette Journal, Reno; the Modoc County Record, Alturas; 

Mountain Echo, Fall River Mills; Inter Mountain News, Burney; Butte Valley Star, 

Dorris; Herald and News, Klamath Falls; and the Modoc Independent News, Cedarville. 

Announcements were also broadcast by the news department at Sierra Radio Network, 

Susanville, which airs news on two regional radio stations. All announcements were 

posted on the BLM’s news release website, and carried in the BLM’s News.bytes 

electronic newsletter, which circulates to more than 30,000 readers inside and outside of 

the BLM. Stories were printed in at least two local newspapers on the RMP 

development at different points in the process. 

PROJECT WEBSITE 

An informational website, http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/surprise.html has been 

available to the public throughout the planning process. It provides background 

information on the Surprise Field Office, downloadable version of documents including 

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and Record of Decision. 

PLANNING UPDATE MAILERS 

The BLM produced four special Planning Update mailers: one to announce public 

scoping and alternative development meetings, and to announce the publication of the 

Draft RMP/DEIS. These were sent via direct mail to the Surprise RMP mailing list and 

were also distributed at public meetings. The Planning Updates included background 

information on the Surprise Field Office’s lands, a description and timeline for the 

upcoming planning process, dates and locations of the public scoping meetings, and 

contact information for getting public comments to the BLM. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 20 
RECORD OF DECISION 

APPENDIX A 
 
 
 

SURPRISE FIELD 
 
 
 

OFFICE 
 
 
 

MONITORING PLAN
 
 
 


SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN A-1 
 

Surprise RMP – Monitoring Plan Resource RMP Goal/Objective Suggested Methodology Cultural and The BLM Surprise Field Office would seek to Continue on-the-ground monitoring of identified sites to dePaleontological protect and preserve significant cultural and impacts, deterioration, and use of such sites. Priority for sitResources paleontological resources and ensure that these resources are available to present and future based on: 1) site significance or site’s potential to yield sig

determine its eligibility to the National Register, 2) the seve

generations for appropriate uses. Manage 3) the immediacy of threat to a site. legitimate activities in a manner that will ensure preservation and provide public benefits through education, interpretation, research, public uses and conservation for future generations. Locate, evaluate and classify paleontological resources and protect them where appropriate. Visit cultural resource sites within the planning area on a p

minimum of 10 sites annually. Monitor the condition of the disturbance or deterioration of the site, and enter informatresource database. If a disturbed site is considered eligible Register of Historic Places initiate appropriate consultation appropriate action to stop site deterioration or apply mitigaWhen able, coordinate with BLM Law Enforcement to monitresource areas. Meet with communities, groups, and educational institutioneffectiveness of educational and interpretive information. Inventory newly identified geographic areas for cultural and resources. Record and document new sites and any disturb

Fire Rehabilitation and Stabilization 

Burned areas would be stabilized and rehabilitated to minimize threats to life and property and to mitigate the adverse effects of wildland fires on soils, vegetation, and waterways. 

Monitoring is required on all Emergency Stabilization and Rplans. Monitoring and evaluation to determine the effectivestabilization and rehabilitation treatments will be funded fofollowing containment of a wildfire. The monitoring plan wilmonitoring and evaluation of treatments and activities (incmeasuring a successful treatment or activity), techniques, collecting, archiving, and disseminating results. The monitoclearly stated and measurable goals and objectives. Photogencouraged at all monitoring sites. Monitoring methods may include photo points, density, cov

frequency plots, ocular estimates, and soil erosion within eplant community. The elements of a defensible monitoring ES&R and Burned Area Rehabilitation Plan (BAER) projects manuals have in common are objectives, stratification, consampling, data quality, and statistical analysis. 

Provide appropriate levels of rest or deferment from grazing after a wildfire to meet emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation goals and objectives. 

Livestock are to be excluded from burned areas until monitdocumented in writing, show emergency stabilization and rhave been met. Objectives must be clearly defined in the E

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN A-2 
 

Resource RMP Goal/Objective Suggested Methodology Forestry Control hazardous fuels on commercial and low- site forests where there is significant risk of stand destruction by fire, insect infestation, or Using the FORVIS database (Forest Vegetation Stand Healt

trends in vegetative production, structure, and compositionwatershed function, and integrity of biotic community. disease. Achieve significant timber stand improvement on commercial and low-site forestlands—chiefly by removing invasive juniper and other non- marketable timber. Document trends in availability of forest and woodland prod

offered (i.e. post /pole / woodcutting permits). Record accproviding wood products in the Timber Sale Information SyMIS reporting. Fuels Management Fuel treatments would prioritize wildland/urban interface areas of communities situated in the midst of juniper-invaded sagebrush-steppe. Measure density of fuel loads (biomass) before and after tr

NWCG (National Wildfire Coordinating Group) Stereo Photo Natural Fuels and other fuel load density methods. Projects would also be designed to enhance important wildlife habitats and protect cultural resources. Conduct photo trend monitoring before and immediately afand then at periodic intervals after completion. 

Livestock Adequate forage would be produced to support Collect actual use reports from grazing permittees (report iGrazing sustainable levels of livestock grazing where compatible with objectives for other resources 

and resource users. Work cooperatively with ranchers and other stakeholders to implement treatments to reduce juniper encroachment in sagebrush/grassland communities, with the goal of restoring sagebrush communities to a healthy condition, and thereby maintaining (or potentially increasing) forage production of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

numbers, pasture use, turnout and gather dates). Use the rangeland health assessment process prescribed in versions of Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, RaStandards and Guidelines, and BLM Manual 4180 and Handimplementation of the rangeland health standards. Conduct periodic measurements of plant composition, vigorwell as measurement of the amount and distribution of plan

Monitor herbaceous or woody utilization, actual use, and cl

determine the effectiveness of established tools in meeting of existing condition of vegetation would consist of identifydetermining ecological status, determining soil types, vegebaseline inventory, and assembling existing basic informati(and frequency of use) would be primarily those in BLM Tec1734-7 and 4400-5. Continuous, long-term monitoring will be conducted on priolong-term data will be incorporated with compliance data agauging the effectiveness of current management and in thfuture management objectives. Allotment management plabased upon analysis of all monitoring data and future manaIn “I” category allotments, examine trend plots every five yutilization data (Landscape Appearance Method, USDI BLM the AMP or applicable activity plan. In “M” allotments, deteutilization on periodic basis. Monitoring in “C” allotments is inventories and observations to measure long-term resourc

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN A-3 
 

Resource RMP Goal/Objective Suggested Methodology Livestock Measure trend by noting changes in composition, density, c

Grazing vigor, age class, and frequency of the vegetation and relate(continued) resources. Use step-point, nearest plant, nested frequency

plots, Parker three-step, and other methods as appropriateOn a periodic basis, evaluate every allotment using the “HeStandards and Guidelines” (see Vegetation monitoring, aboexpected to occur about once every 10 years. Recreation and Ensure that a wide range of developed and Conduct monitoring, including periodic patrols to check bou

Visitor Services undeveloped recreational opportunities are sustained or created on lands administered by the Surprise Field Office. visitor use; to ensure visitor compliance with rules and reg

baseline data and observation points to determine current recreational use; and to develop studies to help determine patterns of recreational use and the influences of other resFocus field monitoring on visitation levels, compliance with 

permit stipulations for specific sites, dispersed uses, and prguidelines. Use visitor surveys, traffic counters, surveillancrecreation sites, documentation of user conflicts, and photo changes in resource conditions over time. Monitoring may also include collection of data from visitor c

complaint or information request calls or emails. Use monitvisitor use, develop plans and projects to reduce visitor impappropriate facility or transportation system design. Special Recreation Permits will be monitored for compliance permit. 

Soil Resources Maintain areas that currently meet the land 

health standard for soils. Improve (or mitigate where this is not feasible) the productivity and/or stability of soils not meeting this standard to such a degree that soil health is achievable. Prevent or eliminate erosion and sedimentation in sensitive aquatic (or other sensitive) environments to ensure there is no threat to property or human health. 

Use the rangeland health assessment process, particularly soil, prescribed in the most current versions of Interpreting Rangeland Health, Rangeland Health Standards and Guidel4180 and Handbook H-4180-1 guiding implementation of thstandards. Use Photo Points, Line-Point Intercept, Canopy and Basal GStability Test will be used as outlined in “Monitoring ManuaShrubland and Savanna Ecosystems, 2005”. The above mobe used to monitor three rangeland attributes: soil and site 

function and biotic integrity. Soil health will be monitored by conducting site specific revdisturbing projects for implementation and effectiveness of is no threat to property or human health. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN A-4 
 

Resource RMP Goal/Objective Suggested Methodology Special The outstanding natural and cultural resources Monitor ACECs for impacts according to ACEC management 

Designations – contained in three areas would be preserved by Area of Critical Environmental protecting them as areas of critical environmental concern. Concern (ACEC) Special A 2.2 mile section (457 acres) of Twelvemile Annually monitor Twelvemile Creek to ensure the outstandDesignations – Creek will be managed to protect and enhance are protected and the free-flowing condition of the river is Wild and Scenic its suitability for wild and scenic river designation. with the “National Wild and Scenic River Act.” Monitoring m

field surveillance, user contact, permit review and photo do

Rivers (WSR) Monitoring will be coordinated with the Lakeview BLM. Special WSAs will be managed under the Interim Follow direction within the existing policy for WSAs (USDI-BDesignations – Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness WSAs during the months the area is accessible by the publWilderness Review (Wilderness IMP). necessary because of potential use activities or other resou

surveillance, on-the-ground surveillance, visitor contact, pe

Study Areas checks, and other methods as appropriate. (WSA) Travel Manage off-highway vehicle use to protect Conduct monitoring, including periodic patrols to check bouManagement environmental resources, promote public safety, and provide OHV use opportunities where 

appropriate. Minimizing conflict between various user groups must also be addressed. 

visitor use; to ensure visitor compliance with rules and regPeriodically check that developed roads are available to all routes are planned to public and private lands where the rolands. Periodically check for newly created unauthorized roads. Minsure compliance. 

Vegetation – Ensure that the natural distribution, variety, and Measure trends in vegetative production, structure, and coNative Plant Communities 

abundance of native plants, plant communities and associations are restored and native plants and ecosystems remain healthy throughout their 

stability, watershed function, and integrity of biotic commuhealth assessment process prescribed in the most current v

Indicators of Rangeland Health, Rangeland Health Standard

range. Restore degraded landscapes—especially shrublands dominated by exotic annual grasses, perennial grasslands choked with brush, and decadent mountain big sagebrush. Eliminate encroachment and significantly reduce invasive juniper in order to restore shrub-steppe, aspen, riparian, and mountain mahogany plant associations. However, maintain ecosystem integrity in natural juniper woodlands. 

BLM Manual 4180 and Handbook H-4180-1 guiding implemrangeland health standards. Conduct periodic measurements of plant composition, vigorwell as measurement of the amount and distribution of planMonitor herbaceous or woody utilization, actual use, and cldetermine the effectiveness of established tools in meeting of existing condition of vegetation would consist of identifydetermining ecological status, determining soil types, vegebaseline inventory, and assembling existing basic informati(and frequency of use) would be primarily those in BLM Tec1734-7 and 4400-5. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN A-5 
 

Resource RMP Goal/Objective Suggested Methodology 

Vegetation – Achieve healthy and productive wetland and Conduct periodic measurements of plant composition, vigorNative Plant Communities 

riparian habitats through measures that will restore and protect riparian vegetation, and achieve habitat diversity and hydrologic stability. 

well as measurement of the amount and distribution of plan

Monitor herbaceous or woody utilization, actual use, and cl

determine the effectiveness of established tools in meeting 

(continued) Produce healthy aspen stands (upland and 

riparian) through measures that will promote regeneration and growth, and create size and age class diversity. Restore and maintain ecosystem integrity and productivity in natural mountain mahogany woodlands. 

Noxious Weeds Integrated weed management will succeed in Continue to manage the SFO Integrated Noxious Weed Manand Invasive curtailing introductions and limiting the partnership with the local working groups, counties, states, Species proliferation of noxious weeds and other invasive plants throughout the management area. As a 

result, native ecosystems will be rejuvenated or (eventually) reestablished, in areas now dominated by noxious weeds. 

in cooperation with adjacent weed management areas. Inventories to identify new introductions, distribution and dpopulations will be conducted annually on a 3 - 5 year rotaplanning area. All burned areas (natural or prescribed) wilnoxious weeds for 3 years following the burn. Any new site

using a global positioning system unit with the SFO NoxiouDictionary, photographed and a determination of the need will be made. Known noxious weed sites which are identified as priority fovisited each year and evaluated for effectiveness of controlidentified for priority treatments will be visited on a rotationyear period. All known sites visited will be relocated with a system unit with the SFO Noxious Weed Data Dictionary, p

determination of the need for future treatment will be madEvaluation of treatments would continue in cooperation witCalifornia and Nevada, Modoc County Department of AgricuDepartment of Agriculture, Counties of Modoc, Lassen, WasUSFWS, USFS, private landowners and adjoining Weed Man

Special Status Take action to maintain reproductive viability Long-term monitoring would be conducted using permanenPlants and ensure that BLM management actions, and read according to the method chosen. Visual reconnaissanc

those of its permittees, do not contribute to the obtain general information on the habitats of special status decline of any special status plant. special status plant species populations and habitats would 

or bi-annually and a CDFG native species field survey form 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN A-6 
 

Resource RMP Goal/Objective Suggested Methodology 

Water Resources 

On a priority basis, take action to improve hydrologic function and/or water quality in areas not meeting State standards – especially where hydrologic function and/or water quality problems are major factors inhibiting the success of other resource programs. Ensure that hydrologic function and water quality are preserved in areas where standards have been met. 

Use the rangeland health assessment process, particularly stream health, 3 water quality and 4 riparian and wetland smost current versions of Interpreting Indicators of Rangela2000b), Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines (USDIManual 4180 and Handbook H-4180-1 guiding implementathealth standards. Water quality monitoring would be conducted at the establisampling stations on a priority basis using the following indchosen based on the standards contained in the NortheasteNorthwestern Nevada Standards for Rangeland Health and Grazing Management (BLM 1999). These indicators are temfecal coliform, turbidity, sediment, dissolved oxygen, and s

condition. The protocol is outlined in the USDI - BLM Natio

Collection of Water Quality Data and the Susanville District Assessment Water Quality Inventory Statement of Work. Best Management Practices are developed and implementethe quality and beneficial uses of water at the project level

monitored and evaluated on implementation and effectivenproject or activity plan. 

Determine minimum seasonal flow requirements Conduct Proper Functioning Condition Assessment TR 1737to support diverse and healthy populations of (assessment for lotic systems) and TR 1737-11 and TR 173riparian and aquatic vegetation and aquatic lentic systems) to assess the functionality of riparian and w

wildlife species in watersheds throughout the management area. Additional stream Habitat Condition Surveys and macro-inv

would be conducted as needed to assess functionality of str

Acquire and maintain water rights necessary to aquatic resources. protect federal investment and ensure a reliable water supply for BLM programs. Completion of the Water Source Inventory and maintenanc

base would provide needed information to assert federal wa

Public Water Reserves to protect federal investments and twater supply for beneficial uses of public lands. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN A-7 
 

Resource RMP Goal/Objective Suggested Methodology Wild Horses Achieve ecological stability so that healthy herds On a periodic basis, evaluate every herd management area 

and Burros of wild horses can be maintained while making significant progress in achieving BLM land health standards within the life of this RMP. Toward this end, ensure that wild horses are limited to established herd management areas and maintained at appropriate management levels so that vegetation, native wildlife, soils, and archaeological sites are not degraded, but maintained. Rangelands Standards and Guidelines”. Field data collection 

rangeland health and riparian functional assessment procesmost current versions of Interpreting Indicators of RangelaHealth Standards and Guidelines, and BLM Manual 4180 anguiding implementation of the rangeland health standards. 

evaluate is expected to occur about once every 10 years, oresource conditions are apparent. In coordination with livestock grazing activities, conduct peplant composition, vigor, and productivity, as well as meas

Promote and manage wild horses in a manner that will encourage tourism and boost economic development. and distribution of plant cover and litter. Monitor herbaceou

actual use (population data), and climatic conditions to deteffectiveness of established tools in meeting objectives. Mocondition of vegetation would consist of identifying ecologicecological status, determining soil types, vegetation mappiand assembling existing basic information. The analysis of monitoring data maybe conducted on herd 

or can be implemented in a multiple-use context with livestpopulation monitoring and distribution data collection would 

Aerial census would be completed at 3-year intervals. 

Wildlife and Habitats of federally listed (endangered, In conjunction with other federal, state, or private agenciesFisheries threatened, or candidate), state-listed and BLM 

sensitive wildlife will be protected, restored, and maintained so that species populations increase in size and stability, and occupy available habitats. Habitat for native wildlife species will be managed in such a manner that forage, water, and cover--of appropriate diversity and structure--will be present and sufficient to meet their life-cycle requirements. 

wildlife populations in the planning area. Do this for individand golden eagles, sage-grouse, deer, and pronghorn; and associated with source habitats such as sagebrush-steppe, conifer forest. Priority will be given to federally listed specie

aerial and ground monitoring of sage-grouse leks, eagle negame counts and university or NGO data for birds and smaPeriodically determine the adequacy of existing data for sup

decisions. Periodically assess the effectiveness of a samplinvegetation treatments and disturbance actions to determinmanagement decisions. This may include both vegetation acomposition and trend data. Assess quality and quantity of key habitats such as riparian aspen woodlands, bitterbrush and mountain mahogany sta

measurements of stems/acre, horizontal and vertical canopbrowse condition, residual stubble height of grasses, and G

fragmentation. Periodically assess conditions of natural and artificial waterneeds. This includes assessing the needs for additional gamthe condition of livestock troughs. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN A-8 
 

Resource RMP Goal/Objective Suggested Methodology 

Wildlife and Cooperate with state and federal agencies to In conjunction with other federal, state, or private agenciesFisheries monitor fish and other aquatic fauna, as well as fish populations in the planning area. Concentrate efforts o(continued) riparian and in-stream conditions. Improve degraded upland, riparian, and aquatic 

habitats in order to re-create suitable habitat conditions for fish and wildlife. 

species, BLM sensitive species and recreationally important include electro-shocking of streams and dip-netting. 

Measure bank stability, stream cover/shading, stream crosssubstrates to determine habitat suitability. Measure water quality via parameters such as temperaturemacro-invertebrate abundance and diversity. Measure % sediment in pools and riffles as well as pool to Monitor riparian habitat condition on an allotment basis durevaluations or during rangeland health assessments. Deterfunctioning condition (PFC) as well as other approved methSee other suggested methodology in the livestock grazing aabove. 

SURPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN A-9 
UNITED STATES
 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300
 

Po

Burea


 
 



 
 


 
 

SURPRISE FIELD OFFICE 

602 Cressler Street 

Cedarville, CA 96104