Appendix F – Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive 

Activities on Wyoming BLM Lands 

Introduction 

Wyoming Mitigation Guidelines are a compilation of practices employed by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) to mitigate impacts from surface disturbance. They apply to 

activities such as, but not limited to, 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 this Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

(ARMPA) for easy reference as they apply to many resources and derive from many laws. 

All BLM RMPs have included these guidelines as appendices. The guidelines are not land 

use decisions; rather they are examples of mitigation measures that could be applied, as 

appropriate, based on site-specific National Environmental Policy Act (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. 

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. 

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 

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

involvement and input. 

Purpose 

The purpose of the “Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines” is 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 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. 

211
 
 

 

 

 

 

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 facilitate 

consistency with planning decisions at plan implementation. 

Mitigation Guidelines 

Surface Disturbance Mitigation Guideline 

Surface disturbance will be controlled or prohibited in the following areas or conditions. 

For federal oil and gas lease operations, under 43 CFR 3101.1-2 and the terms of the lease 

(BLM Form 3100-11), the authorized officer may require reasonable measures to minimize 

adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses, and users not addressed in lease 

stipulations at the time operations are proposed. Such reasonable measures may include, 

but are not limited to, modification of siting or design of facilities, timing of operations, 

and specification of interim and final reclamation measures. At a minimum, measures shall 

be deemed consistent with lease rights granted provided they do not: require relocation of 

proposed operations by more than 200 meters; require that operations be sited off the 

leasehold; or prohibit new surface disturbing operations for a period in excess of 60 days 

in any lease year. 

•	 Slopes in excess of 25 percent. 

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

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

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

watershed damage is likely to occur. 

•	 Within 500 feet of interstate highways and 200 feet of other existing rights-of-way (i.e., U.S. 

and state highways, roads, railroads, pipelines, power lines). 

•	 Within 1⁄4-mile of occupied dwellings. 

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 above conditions 

exist, surface disturbing activities will be prohibited unless or until a permittee or the 

designated representative and the surface management agency 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, geographical areas and time periods must be delineated 

at the field level. 

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. 

212
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 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 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 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 timeframe restrictions. The big game species including elk, moose, deer, 

pronghorn, 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. 

213
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

plans of operation, and applications for permit to drill) and, if necessary, must allow for 

other mitigation to be applied on a site-specific basis. 

Cultural Resource Mitigation Guideline 

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

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

considered. In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

procedures specified in 36 Code of Federal Regulation (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 a cultural resources survey. 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 resources survey, 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 NRHP 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 specifications. Mitigation plans will be reviewed as part of Section 106 

consultation for NRHP-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 

214
 
 

 

 

not possible, appropriate mitigation may include excavation (data recovery), stabilization, 

monitoring, protection barriers and signs, or other physical and administrative protection 

measures. 

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): 

a.	 Recreation areas 

b.	 Special natural history or paleontological features 

c.	 Special management areas 

d.	 Sections of major rivers 

e.	 Prior existing rights-of-way 

f.	 Occupied dwellings 

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

plans of operation, and applications for permit to drill) and, if necessary, must allow for 

other mitigation to be applied on a site-specific basis. 

No Surface Occupancy Guideline 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO) 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): 

a.	 Recreation areas (e.g., campgrounds, historic trails, national monuments) 

b.	 Major reservoirs/dams 

c.	 Special management area (e.g., known threatened or endangered species habitat, areas 

suitable for consideration for wild and scenic rivers designation) 

215
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d. Other (specify). 

Guidance 

The No Surface Occupancy 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, 

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 on 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 to go ahead with the proposal (or accept the use authorization), 

recognizing that an NSO restriction is involved. 

Regional Mitigation Guideline 

The regional mitigation guideline provides policies, procedures, and instructions for a 

landscape-scale approach to mitigating impacts to resources and values managed by the 

BLM through preparing and conducting regional mitigation strategies, planning and 

implementation. The following sections provide a summary of the information provided in 

IM-WO-2013-142 Regional Mitigation, Manual Section 1794. The reader is referred to 

IM-WO-2013-142 for further details and explanations. 

A. Regional Mitigation Strategies 

Regional Mitigation Strategies are not decisions, but are instead assessments or studies that can inform 

subsequent BLM planning and implementation decisions. For that reason, the BLM can develop 

Regional Mitigation Strategies outside of the NEPA and planning processes. The BLM can also 

combine its development of a Regional Mitigation Strategy with a land use planning process (see 

section C below). Regional Mitigation Strategies should include: 

216
 
 

 

 

 

•	 A transparent stakeholder engagement process 

•	 A description of regional baseline conditions against which unavoidable impacts are assessed 

•	 A discussion of potential regional mitigation objectives 

•	 An evaluation of appropriate mitigation sites, projects and/or measures 

•	 A discussion of potential methods for calculating mitigation fees for unavoidable adverse 

impacts that warrant mitigation 

•	 A discussion of a potential structure to hold and apply mitigation investment funds 

•	 An evaluation of appropriate long-term monitoring and adaptive management to evaluate and 

maximize the effectiveness of mitigation projects and measures. 

B.	 Regional Mitigation Planning 

The BLM may use the land use planning process to identify potential mitigation sites and measures 

on BLM-managed lands. When addressing regional mitigation opportunities through the land use 

planning process, the BLM should: 

•	 Describe regional baseline conditions against which unavoidable impacts are assessed 

•	 Establish and prioritize regional mitigation objectives for the planning area 

•	 Identify appropriate land-use allocations or areas for landscape-level conservation and 

management actions to achieve regional mitigation objectives (e.g., Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) or sage-grouse priority habitat) 

•	 Develop long-term monitoring and adaptive management requirements to evaluate and 

maximize the effectiveness of mitigation projects and measures. 

C.	 Mitigation Implementation 

Mitigation implementation involves identifying and implementing appropriate mitigation for specific 

land use authorizations, and should consider the following, as appropriate for the project: 

•	 Types of Mitigation. When a resource or value will be degraded or lost due to a land-use 

authorization, the BLM may need to consider whether restoration, enhancement, creation, 

and/or preservation outside the area of impact may be appropriate. 

•	 Mitigation as a Project Condition. The BLM may expressly condition its approval of the landuse authorization on an applicant’s commitment to perform or cover the costs of mitigation, 

both onsite and outside the area of impact. 

•	 Mitigating Onsite vs. Mitigating Outside the Area of Impact. BLM policy is to place a priority 

on mitigating impacts to an acceptable level onsite, to the extent practical, through avoidance, 

minimization, rectification, or reduction of impacts over time. However, in situations where 

onsite mitigation alone may not be sufficient to adequately mitigate impacts and achieve BLM 

resource and value objectives, it may be appropriate to consider mitigation outside the area of 

impact. 

•	 Mitigation Priority Order. The priority order for mitigating resource impacts is to 1) avoid, 2) 

minimize, 3) rectify, or 4) reduce the impact over time, and if necessary, 5) mitigate outside 

the area of impact, preferably at regionally selected mitigation sites. In some cases, mitigation 

sites near where the resource or value impact is occurring (but still outside the area of impact), 

will be the most appropriate location for performing mitigation activities. 

•	 Mitigation on Federal and Non-Federal Lands. Mitigation sites, projects, and measures should 

be focused where the impacts of the use authorization can be best mitigated and the BLM can 

achieve the most benefit to its resource and value objectives, regardless of land ownership. The 

most appropriate area for mitigation projects may be on federal lands (the BLM or another 

agency) or on non-federal lands. 

•	 Non-BLM Impacts – Mitigated on BLM-managed Lands. Consistent with a regional approach, 

mitigation projects may also occur on BLM-managed lands, when the site of the impact is 

217
 
 

 

 

 

located on lands not managed by the BLM. The BLM may authorize these mitigation projects 

and measures through a land-use authorization, which may include a cooperative agreement. 

•	 Determining Whether Mitigation Outside the Area of Impact is Appropriate. Mitigation outside 

the area of impact may be appropriate when: 1) it is expected that the direct and indirect impacts 

of the proposal would not be mitigated to an acceptable level onsite; and 2) mitigation outside 

the area of impact can successfully mitigate the remaining unavoidable impacts to an 

acceptable level. Mitigation outside the area of impact may also be an appropriate consideration 

for the BLM when other land management agencies or landowners identify indirect impacts to 

lands they own and/or manage from a project on BLM-managed lands and the impacts cannot 

be adequately mitigated onsite. 

•	 Identifying Levels of Acceptable and Unacceptable Impacts. Not all adverse or unavoidable 

impacts can or must be fully mitigated, either onsite or outside the area of impact. A certain 

level of adverse or unavoidable impact may be acceptable, and the BLM will identify these 

impacts during the NEPA analysis and acknowledge them in the decision document (such as a 

decision record or record of decision). 

•	 Direct Benefit to the Resource, Not Another Authorized Resource User. Mitigation should 

focus on the benefits to the resources impacted; the BLM should not design mitigation 

measures with the primary intent of providing direct benefits to other authorized uses or users 

of a resource that may be adversely affected by the action. 

•	 Types of Mitigation – In-kind and Out-of-kind. In-kind mitigation is generally preferred to outof-kind, although there may be exceptions. In-kind mitigation is the replacement or substitution 

of resources or values that are of the same type and kind as those impacted. Out-of-kind 

mitigation is the replacement or substitution of resources or values that are not the same type 

and kind as those impacted, but are related or similar. 

•	 Degree of Impact and the Importance of the Affected Resource. It is important to weigh the 

degree to which a resource or value is affected and the relative importance of the affected 

resource or value. 

•	 Long-term Durability. The BLM should ensure that mitigation conducted outside the area of 

impact will, at a minimum, be effective for as long as the land-use authorization affects the 

resources and values. This would include the time it takes to appropriately restore the affected 

onsite resources and values after the expiration of the land-use authorization. 

•	 Phasing-in Mitigation. It may be appropriate to compensate for the expected slow decline in an 

onsite resource or value by restoring or improving lands outside the area of impact over a period 

of several years. This phased-in mitigation may be appropriate where the onsite resource is 

important, but is not a critical or protected resource or value or is not critical to the overall 

functioning of that resource or value in the local area or region. In addition, if an applicant 

phases in a construction project over time, and it may be appropriate to phase-in mitigation 

over time. 

•	 Mitigating Post-Approval, but Prior to Development. It may be appropriate to compensate for 

the impacts of a land-use authorization after approval and in advance of those impacts 

occurring. Where any impacts would have an immediate and substantial negative impact on the 

achievement of BLM resource and value objectives, the use-authorization may need to require 

implementation of the mitigation prior to beginning the authorized land use. 

•	 Quality and Quantity. One unit of mitigation outside the area of impact may not necessarily be 

sufficient to compensate for one unit of direct onsite surface impact. The BLM will identify 

mitigation ratios through the NEPA process. Mitigation must be roughly proportional to the 

impact caused by the regulated activity and reasonably related to the impact. 

•	 Co-Benefits or Layering Mitigation. Consider how mitigation for one resource or value may 

also have the co-benefit of mitigating for other resources or values. Consider, as a part of the 

218
 
 

 

 

 

selection criteria, sites where impacts to several resources or values can be mitigated at one 

location outside the area of impact. 

•	 Identifying Mitigation through the NEPA Analysis and Decision Process. The BLM will 

consider and analyze proposals for mitigation through the NEPA process, and may condition 

approval of a project on the applicant’s commitment to address avoidable impacts through 

onsite mitigation and unavoidable impacts through mitigation conducted outside the area of 

impact. 

•	 Managing Mitigation Outside of the Area of Impact. Mitigation management responsibilities 

include the following: 1) implementation monitoring, 2) implementation tracking, 3) 

identifying the responsible party for conducting oversight, 4) securing performance bonding, 

5) requiring an implementation and monitoring plan, and 6) enforcement. 

•	 Contributions. In addition to onsite mitigation, the applicant may agree to perform mitigation 

outside the area of impact by implementing mitigation projects and measures directly (labor), 

purchasing private land or conservation easements, and/or contributing financially to a 

mitigation fund. The BLM may accept monetary contributions from an applicant to fund 

specific mitigation projects, either on or off BLM-managed lands. Mitigation or financial 

contribution agreements must address specific requirements as identified in detail in the 

Regional Mitigation Manual Section 1794 (see IM-WO-2013-142). 

•	 Agency Cooperators. It may be appropriate to involve cooperating agencies and other 

interested parties in planning and implementing mitigation. The BLM must retain decisionmaking authority for projects conducted on BLM-managed public lands. In undertaking 

cooperative efforts, the authorized officer must ensure compliance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), if applicable. 

•	 Non-Federal Parties Managing Mitigation on Non-Federal Lands. Non-Federal parties may 

manage mitigation on non-Federal lands when the resource impact is on lands managed by the 

BLM. The BLM’s role here is to consider the proposed mitigation in its authorization decision, 

as well as to ensure the non-federal party informs the BLM on the progress and/or completion 

of proposed mitigation measures and the effectiveness of the measures over the life of the 

project. 

Guidance 

Regional mitigation is a landscape-scale approach to mitigating impacts to resources and 

values managed by the BLM, in order to provide for sustained yield of resources on the 

Public Lands. This regional approach involves anticipating future mitigation needs and 

strategically identifying mitigation sites and measures that can help the BLM achieve its 

resource and value objectives. The BLM may accomplish this through the development of 

regional mitigation strategies, land use planning, and implementation decisions. A regional 

approach to mitigation occurs across the landscape and focuses on attaining the highest 

mitigation benefit, regardless of land ownership. A regional mitigation approach also shifts 

the BLM’s mitigation focus from a permit-by-permit perspective to a proactive regionalscale mitigation planning perspective. 

The BLM cannot always mitigate the direct and indirect impacts from land-use 

authorizations to an acceptable level at the location of the impacts (onsite mitigation). To 

achieve and sustain BLM resource and value objectives, it may be appropriate to 

compensate for the direct and indirect impacts of a BLM authorization by conditioning that 

authorization on the performance of mitigation outside the area of impact. Mitigation 

outside the area of impact occurs by replacing or providing similar or substitute resources 

or values through restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation. The BLM’s policy 

219
 
 

 

 

is to consider mitigation outside the area of impact when it is not feasible or practical to 

mitigate impacts to an acceptable level in the same area as the use-authorization. 

In addition to the guidance provided above, the BLM must consider individual projects or 

authorizations in the context of the particular law, regulation, and policy applicable to that 

project or authorization. The applicable law, regulation, or policy may provide additional 

or different authority for the consideration and use of mitigation. This guidance may 

supplement, but does not replace, mitigation requirements that may result from formal 

consultation under law or regulation, such as Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the 

National Historic Preservation Act, or wetlands mitigation requirements available to other 

agencies under the Clean Water Act. 

220