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):
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)
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, 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.