Appendix D

Regional Mitigation Strategy

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS D-1

APPENDIX D

REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY

Mitigation strategies, which take into account the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, 

minimize, restore, offset), are an important tool for ensuring the BLM/FS meet 

their GRSG resource objectives while continuing to honor our multiple-use 

mission. The BLM and FS priority is to mitigate impacts to an acceptable level 

onsite, to the extent practical, through avoidance (not taking a certain action or 

parts of an action), minimization (limiting the degree or magnitude of the action 

and its implementation), rectification (repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the 

affected environment), or reduction of impacts over time (preservation and 

maintenance operations during the life of the action). While mitigating impacts 

for proposed projects to an acceptable level onsite is typically analyzed and 

determined through site-specific, implementation-level NEPA documents and 

their commensurate decision documents, the analysis and mitigation for project 

level activities will be tiered to the analysis and mitigation proposed throughout 

each of the action alternatives in this Amendment.

For those impacts that cannot be sufficiently avoided or minimized onsite, the 

BLM/FS must ensure implementation of effective measures to offset (or 

compensate for) such impacts and to maintain or improve the viability of GRSG

habitat and populations over time, as described in the Service’s Conservation 

Objectives Team Report. Regional mitigation may be a necessary component for 

many large renewable and nonrenewable energy development projects as well

as many smaller projects with cumulative effects on the greater GRSG and its 

habitat.

Any regional mitigation strategy for BLM managed lands will comply with BLM’s 

Regional Mitigation Manual Section (MS) 1794, which provides policies, 

procedures, and instructions for:
Appendix D. Regional Mitigation Strategy

D-2 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

1. Adopting a regional approach to planning and implementing 

mitigation, including pre-identifying potential mitigation sites, 

projects, and measures; and 

2. Identifying the type of mitigation that is needed to compensate for 

impacts to resources or values caused by a land use authorization. 

It is important to note that any mitigation strategy must include the cooperation 

and coordination of appropriate and pertinent federal, state and local land and 

resource management agencies across the landscape. The final strategy adopted 

and implemented within a landscape will be dependent on the unique resources 

and values of the regional landscape and the mitigation strategies and resources 

contributed by the regional partners. It is important to acknowledge that the 

State government working with the BLM/FS as a Cooperating Agency on this 

land use plan amendment may have already completed, or is currently working 

on, statewide mitigation strategies. The BLM/FS will continue to work with and 

support those State government efforts. 

The BLM will establish a Mitigation Implementation Team for each of the six 

WAFWA Management Zones in the West, following the completion of each of 

the 15 sub-regional EISs that are associated with the National Greater SageGrouse Planning Strategy. The planning area presented in this sub-regional EIS 

lies within WAFWA Management Zones III, IV, and IV. The teams are 

responsible for developing a Mitigation Strategy consistent with BLM MS 1794, 

as appropriate. The teams will coordinate recommended mitigation strategies 

between LUP planning areas, WAFWA management zones, and local and state 

jurisdictions for mitigation consistency, where appropriate.

These implementation teams will be responsible for implementing BLM MS 

1794, and making recommendations regarding the following items related to 

compensatory mitigation:

1. A structure for determining appropriate mitigation, including impact 

(debit) and benefit (credit) calculation methods, mitigation ratios, 

mitigation “currency” (i.e., numbers of birds, acres, etc.), location, 

and performance standards options by considering local and regional, 

mitigation options,

2. How to resolve mitigation oriented discrepancies that arise within 

the WAFWA Management Zone or between Zones, 

3. the application and the holding and disposition of any mitigation 

funds,

4. the most appropriate mitigation for impacts from a given land use 

authorization and type of seasonal habitat impacted,
Appendix D. Regional Mitigation Strategy

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS D-3

5. Prioritization of potential mitigation sites, projects, and measures, as 

guided by conservation strategies (e.g., PACs, priority habitat areas), 

and

6. Reviewing mitigation monitoring reports and analyzing and reporting 

on project effectiveness, corrective measures / adaptive management 

(where required), and cumulative effects of mitigation actions at the 

PAC and the WAFWA zone.

These WAFWA Management Zone Implementation Teams will function as 

inter-disciplinary teams (IDTs) composed of BLM, FS, FWS and state fish and 

game agencies. The Mitigation Implementation Team will make 

recommendations to the BLM Authorized Officer. If the recommendations are 

rejected for any reason, the Mitigation Implementation Team will be reconvened to develop additional recommendations.
Appendix D. Regional Mitigation Strategy

D-4 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.