Draft EIS Appendix 1 

APPENDIX 1—WYOMING BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT (BLM) MITIGATION GUIDELINES FOR

SURFACE-DISTURBING AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES

INTRODUCTION 

Wyoming Mitigation Guidelines are a compilation of practices employed by BLM to mitigate impacts 

from surface disturbance. They apply to activities such as road or pipeline construction, range 

improvements, and permitted recreation activities. The guidelines are designed to protect resources such 

as soils and vegetation, wildlife habitat, and cultural or historic properties. The guidelines are presented 

as an appendix of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for easy 

reference as they apply to many resources and derive from many laws. All BLM RMPs have included 

these guidelines as appendices. Public comment on the guidelines, per se, has not been requested. The 

guidelines are not land use decisions, rather they are examples of mitigation measures that could be 

applied, as appropriate, based on site-specific NEPA analysis for individual proposals. Comment on the 

use and application of specific mitigation measures can be made during the NEPA process for individual 

proposals. Because mitigation measures change or are modified, based on new information, the guidelines 

are updated periodically for all Field Offices in Wyoming. 

WYOMING BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) MITIGATION 

GUIDELINES FOR SURFACE DISTURBING AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES 

Introduction 

These guidelines are primarily for the purpose of attaining statewide consistency in how requirements are 

determined for avoiding and mitigating environmental impacts and resource and land use conflicts. 

Consistency in this sense does not mean that identical requirements would be applied for all similar types 

of land use activities that may cause similar types of impacts. Nor does it mean that the requirements or 

guidelines for a single land use activity would be identical in all areas. 

There are two ways the mitigation guidelines are used in the resource management plan (RMP) and 

environmental impact statement (EIS) process: (1) as part of the planning criteria in developing the RMP 

alternatives, and (2) in the analytical processes of both developing the alternatives and analyzing the 

impacts of the alternatives. In the first case, an assumption is made that any one or more of the 

mitigations will be appropriately included as conditions of relevant actions being proposed or considered 

in each alternative. In the second case, the mitigations are used (1) to develop a baseline for measuring 

and comparing impacts among the alternatives; (2) to identify other actions and alternatives that should be 

considered, and (3) to help determine whether more stringent or less stringent mitigations should be 

considered. 

The EIS for the RMP does not decide or dictate the exact wording or inclusion of these guidelines. 

Rather, the guidelines are used in the RMP EIS process as a tool to help develop the RMP alternatives 

and to provide a baseline for comparative impact analysis in arriving at RMP decisions. These guidelines 

will be used in the same manner in analyzing activity plans and other site-specific proposals. These 

guidelines and their wording are matters of policy. As such, specific wording is subject to change 

primarily through administrative review, not through the RMP EIS process. Any further changes that 

may be made in the continuing refinement of these guidelines and any development of program-specific 

Rawlins RMP A1-1 
Appendix 1 Draft EIS 

standard stipulations will be handled in another forum, including appropriate public involvement and 

input. 

Purpose 

The purposes of the “Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines” are (1) to reserve, for the BLM, the right to 

modify the operations of all surface and other human presence disturbance activities as part of the 

statutory requirements for environmental protection, and (2) to inform a potential lessee, permittee, or 

operator of the requirements that must be met when using BLM-administered public lands. These 

guidelines have been written in a format that will allow for (1) their direct use as stipulations, and (2) the 

addition of specific or specialized mitigation following the submission of a detailed plan of development 

or other project proposal, and an environmental analysis. 

Those resource activities or programs currently without a standardized set of permit or operation 

stipulations can use the mitigation guidelines as stipulations or as conditions of approval, or as a baseline 

for developing specific stipulations for a given activity or program. 

Because use of the mitigation guidelines was integrated into the RMP EIS process and will be integrated 

into the site-specific environmental analysis process, the application of stipulations or mitigation 

requirements derived through the guidelines will provide more consistency with planning decisions and 

plan implementation than has occurred in the past. Application of the mitigation guidelines to all surface 

and other human presence disturbance activities concerning BLM-administered public lands and 

resources will provide more uniformity in mitigation than has occurred in the past. 

Mitigation Guidelines 

1. Surface Disturbance Mitigation Guideline 

Surface disturbance will be prohibited in any of the following areas or conditions. Exception, waiver, or 

modification of this limitation may be approved in writing, including documented supporting analysis, by 

the Authorized Officer. 

a. Slopes in excess of 25 percent. 

b. Within important scenic areas (Class I and II Visual Resource Management Areas). 

c. Within 500 feet of surface water and/or riparian areas. 

d. Within either one-quarter mile or the visual horizon (whichever is closer) of historic trails. 

e. Construction with frozen material or during periods when the soil material is saturated or 

when watershed damage is likely to occur. 

Guidance 

The intent of the SURFACE DISTURBANCE MITIGATION GUIDELINE is to inform interested parties 

(potential lessees, permittees, or operators) that when one or more of the five (1a through 1e) conditions 

exist, surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited unless or until a permittee or his designated 

representative and the surface management agency (SMA) arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of 

anticipated impacts. This negotiation will occur prior to development. 

Specific criteria (e.g., 500 feet from water) have been established based upon the best information 

available. However, such items as geographical areas and seasons must be delineated at the field level. 

A1-2 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 1 

Exception, waiver, or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based upon 

environmental analysis of proposals (e.g., activity plans, plans of development, plans of operation, 

applications for permit to drill) and, if necessary, must allow for other mitigation to be applied on a 

site-specific basis. 

2. Wildlife Mitigation Guideline 

a. To protect important big game winter habitat, activities or surface use will not be allowed from 

November 15 to April 30 within certain areas encompassed by the authorization. The same 

criteria apply to defined big game birthing areas from May 1 to June 30. 

Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed project must be based on 

environmental analysis of the operational or production aspects. 

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing, including 

documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer. 

b. To protect important raptor and/or sage and sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat, activities or 

surface use will not be allowed from February 1 to July 31 within certain areas encompassed by 

the authorization. The same criteria apply to defined raptor and game bird winter concentration 

areas from November 15 to April 30. 

Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed project must be based on 

environmental analysis of the operational or production aspects. 

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing, including 

documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer. 

c. No activities or surface use will be allowed on that portion of the authorization area identified 

within (legal description) for the purpose of protecting (e.g., sage/sharp-tailed grouse breeding 

grounds, and/or other species/activities) habitat. 

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing, including 

documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer. 

d. Portions of the authorized use area legally described as (legal description), are known or 

suspected to be essential habitat for (name) which is a threatened or endangered species. Prior to 

conducting any onsite activities, the lessee/permittee will be required to conduct inventories or 

studies in accordance with BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines to verify the 

presence or absence of this species. In the event that (name) occurrence is identified, the 

lessee/permittee will be required to modify operational plans to include the protection 

requirements of this species and its habitat (e.g., seasonal use restrictions, occupancy limitations, 

facility design modifications). 

Guidance 

The WILDLIFE MITIGATION GUIDELINE is intended to provide two basic types of protection: 

seasonal restriction (2a and 2b) and prohibition of activities or surface use (2c). Item 2d is specific to 

situations involving threatened or endangered species. Legal descriptions will ultimately be required and 

should be measurable and legally definable. There are no minimum subdivision requirements at this time. 

The area delineated can and should be defined as necessary, based upon current biological data, prior to 

Rawlins RMP A1-3 
Appendix 1 Draft EIS 

the time of processing an application and issuing the use authorization. The legal description must 

eventually become a part of the condition for approval of the permit, plan of development, and/or other 

use authorization. 

The seasonal restriction section identifies three example groups of species and delineates three similar 

time frame restrictions. The big game species including elk, moose, deer, antelope, and bighorn sheep, all 

require protection of crucial winter range between November 15 and April 30. Elk and bighorn sheep 

also require protection from disturbance from May 1 to June 30, when they typically occupy distinct 

calving and lambing areas. Raptors include eagles, accipiters, falcons (peregrine, prairie, and merlin), 

buteos (ferruginous and Swainson’s hawks), osprey, and burrowing owls. The raptors and sage and 

sharp-tailed grouse require nesting protection between February 1 and July 31. The same birds often 

require protection from disturbance from November 15 through April 30 while they occupy winter 

concentration areas. 

Item 2c, the prohibition of activity or surface use, is intended for protection of specific wildlife habitat 

areas or values within the use area that cannot be protected by using seasonal restrictions. These areas or 

values must be factors that limit life-cycle activities (e.g., sage-grouse strutting grounds, known 

threatened and endangered species habitat). 

Exception, waiver, or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based upon 

environmental analysis of proposals (e.g., activity plans, plans of development, plans of operation, 

applications for permit to drill) and, if necessary, must allow for other mitigation to be applied on a 

site-specific basis. 

3. Cultural Resource Mitigation Guideline 

When a proposed discretionary land use has potential for affecting the characteristics which qualify a 

cultural property for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), mitigation will be 

considered. In accordance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act, procedures specified in 36 

CFR 800 will be used in consultation with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in arriving at determinations regarding the need and type of 

mitigation to be required. 

Guidance 

The preferred strategy for treating potential adverse effects on cultural properties is “avoidance.” If 

avoidance involves project relocation, the new project area may also require cultural resource inventory. 

If avoidance is imprudent or unfeasible, appropriate mitigation may include excavation (data recovery), 

stabilization, monitoring, protection barriers and signs, or other physical and administrative measures. 

Reports documenting results of cultural resource inventory, evaluation, and the establishment of 

mitigation alternatives (if necessary) shall be written according to standards contained in BLM Manuals, 

the cultural resource permit stipulations, and in other policy issued by the BLM. These reports must 

provide sufficient information for Section 106 consultation. Reports shall be reviewed for adequacy by 

the appropriate BLM cultural resource specialist. If cultural properties on, or eligible for, the National 

Register are located within these areas of potential impact and cannot be avoided, the Authorized Officer 

shall begin the Section 106 consultation process in accordance with the procedures contained in 36 CFR 

800. 

Mitigation measures shall be implemented according to the mitigation plan approved by the BLM 

Authorized Officer. Such plans are usually prepared by the land use applicant according to BLM 

A1-4 Rawlins RMP 
Draft EIS Appendix 1 

specifications. Mitigation plans will be reviewed as part of Section 106 consultation for National Register 

eligible or listed properties. The extent and nature of recommended mitigation shall be commensurate 

with the significance of the cultural resource involved and the anticipated extent of damage. Reasonable 

costs for mitigation will be borne by the land use applicant. Mitigation must be cost effective and 

realistic. It must consider project requirements and limitations, input from concerned parties, and be 

BLM approved or BLM formulated. 

Mitigation of paleontological and natural history sites will be treated on a case-by-case basis. Factors 

such as site significance, economics, safety, and project urgency must be taken into account when making 

a decision to mitigate. Authority to protect (through mitigation) such values is provided for in FLPMA, 

Section 102(a)(8). When avoidance is not possible, appropriate mitigation may include excavation (data 

recovery), stabilization, monitoring, protection barriers and signs, or other physical and administrative 

protection measures. 

4. Special Resource Mitigation Guideline 

• To protect (resource value), activities or surface use will not be allowed (i.e., within a specific 

distance of the resource value or between date to date) in (legal description). 

• Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed project must be based 

on environmental analysis of the operational or production aspects. 

• Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing, 

including documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer. 

• Example Resource Categories (Select or identify category and specific resource value): 

• Recreation areas. 

• Special natural history or paleontological features. 

• Special management areas. 

• Sections of major rivers. 

• Prior existing rights-of-way. 

• Occupied dwellings. 

• Other (specify). 

Guidance 

The SPECIAL RESOURCE MITIGATION GUIDELINE is intended for use only in site-specific 

situations where one of the first three general mitigation guidelines will not adequately address the 

concern. The resource value, location, and specific restrictions must be clearly identified. A detailed plan 

addressing specific mitigation and special restrictions will be required prior to disturbance or 

development and will become a condition for approval of the permit, plan of development, or other use 

authorization. 

Exception, waiver, or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based upon 

environmental analysis of proposals (e.g., activity plans, plans of development, plans of operation, 

applications for permit to drill) and, if necessary, must allow for other mitigation to be applied on a 

site-specific basis. 

Rawlins RMP A1-5 
Appendix 1 Draft EIS 

5. No Surface Occupancy Guideline 

• No Surface Occupancy will be allowed on the following described lands (legal description) 

because of (resource value). 

• Example Resource Categories (Select or identify category and specific resource value): 

• Recreation Areas (e.g., campgrounds, historic trails, national monuments). 

• Major reservoirs/dams. 

• Special management area (e.g., known threatened or endangered species habitat, areas suitable for 

consideration for wild and scenic rivers designation). 

• Other (specify). 

Guidance 

The NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY (NSO) MITIGATION GUIDELINE is intended for use only when 

other mitigation is determined insufficient to adequately protect the public interest and is the only 

alternative to “no development” or “no leasing.” The legal description and resource value of concern 

must be identified and be tied to an NSO land use planning decision. 

Waiver of, or exception(s) to, the NSO requirement will be subject to the same test used to initially justify 

its imposition. If, upon evaluation of a site-specific proposal, it is found that less restrictive mitigation 

would adequately protect the public interest or value of concern, then a waiver or exception to the NSO 

requirement is possible. The record must show that because conditions or uses have changed, less 

restrictive requirements will protect the public interest. An environmental analysis must be conducted 

and documented (e.g., environmental assessment, environmental impact statement, etc., as necessary) in 

order to provide the basis for a waiver or exception to an NSO planning decision. Modification of the 

NSO requirement will pertain only to refinement or correction of the location(s) to which it applied. If 

the waiver, exception, or modification is found to be consistent with the intent of the planning decision, it 

may be granted. If found inconsistent with the intent of the planning decision, a plan amendment would 

be required before the waiver, exception, or modification could be granted. 

When considering the “no development” or “no leasing” option, a rigorous test must be met and fully 

documented in the record. This test must be based upon stringent standards described in the land use 

planning document. Since rejection of all development rights is more severe than the most restrictive 

mitigation requirement, the record must show that consideration was given to development subject to 

reasonable mitigation, including “no surface occupancy.” The record must also show that other 

mitigation was determined to be insufficient to adequately protect the public interest. A “no 

development” or “no leasing” decision should not be made solely because it appears that conventional 

methods of development would be unfeasible, especially where an NSO restriction may be acceptable to a 

potential permittee. In such cases, the potential permittee should have the opportunity to decide whether 

or not to go ahead with the proposal (or accept the use authorization), recognizing that an NSO restriction 

is involved. 

A1-6 Rawlins RMP