$SSHQGL[)

5HVSRQVHVWR&RPPHQWVDQG&RPSLODWLRQ

RI&RPPHQWV5HFHLYHGIRUWKH

/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX

5HFRYHU\3URMHFW'(,6
38%/,&&200(176$1'%/05(63216(6

217+(

'5$)7(19,5210(17$/,03$&767$7(0(17

)257+(

/267&5((.,65352-(&76:((7:$7(5&2817<:<20,1*

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

Comment Review Methods..................................................................................... 1

Response to Comments ........................................................................................... 2

No Comment ....................................................................................................... 3

General ................................................................................................................ 3

General Support .............................................................................................. 3

General Concerns ............................................................................................ 4

Editorial............................................................................................................... 4

Technical ......................................................................................................... 4

Regulatory ....................................................................................................... 5

Typographical ............................................................................................... 12

Proposed Action ................................................................................................ 12

Site Facilities ................................................................................................. 12

Reclamation .................................................................................................. 12

Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 16

Environmental Protection Measures, Monitoring, and Impacts ....................... 17

General .......................................................................................................... 17

Land Use ....................................................................................................... 18

Surface Water................................................................................................ 21

Groundwater ................................................................................................. 23

Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 28

Wildlife ......................................................................................................... 29

Greater Sage-grouse .................................................................................. 29

Raptors ...................................................................................................... 39

Species of Concern ................................................................................... 39

Water Quality Impacts .............................................................................. 40

Studies and Data ....................................................................................... 41

Wild Horses .................................................................................................. 41

Air Quality .................................................................................................... 45

Socioeconomic .............................................................................................. 46

Waste Management ....................................................................................... 48

Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................... 49

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
,QWURGXFWLRQ

This appendix includes public comments and Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) responses on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 

Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ Project (Project). BLM provided the public with 45

days from the date of publication of the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the 

Project DEIS to review and submit comments. The NOA was published in the 

Federal Register on April 27, 2012. The 45-day public comment period officially 

ended on June 11, 2012. Comments received after the closing date were 

considered to the extent practicable and also addressed during preparation of the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). A total of 22 letters were received

by the BLM. 

According to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), BLM is required to 

identify and formally respond to all substantive public comments. On the basis of 

the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations, a substantive 

comment does one or more of the following: 

x Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the 

environmental impact statement;

x Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of environmental 

analysis as presented; 

x Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the DEIS 

that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and addresses 

significant issues; and/or 

x Causes changes or revisions in the proposal. 

Nonsubstantive comments simply state a position in favor of, or against, an 

alternative; merely agree or disagree with BLM policy; or otherwise express an 

unsupported personal preference or opinion. 

BLM is required to respond only to substantive comments to fully inform the 

public of concerns raised. For this FEIS comment response appendix, BLM has 

provided responses to all substantive public concerns identified during comment 

analysis. Responses to concerns considered nonsubstantive thank the commenter

for participation in the NEPA process, and response to comments considered 

outside the scope of the plan simply state that the comment is outside the scope of 

the NEPA process and contain no further explanation. Responses to substantive 

comments are more extensive, complete, and often offer an explanation of why a 

comment may or may not have resulted in a change to the Project FEIS. 

&RPPHQW5HYLHZ0HWKRGV

BLM read all public response letters in their entirety and identified comments that 

related to a particular concern or resource consideration or that proposed 

management actions. BLM looked not only for each action or change requested 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
by the public, but also for any supporting information to capture the comment in 

its entirety. In doing so, paragraphs within a response letter may have been 

divided into several comments because of multiple comments being presented, or 

alternatively, sections of a letter may have been combined to form one coherent 

statement. Once a comment was identified, BLM assigned each to a category 

associated with the overall premise of the comment. A coding structure served as 

a tool to sort comments into logical groups by topics. In this case, the coding 

structure was organized to mirror the sections of the DEIS; some additional

categories were added that included additional classification of comments. This 

appendix contains the names of the commenters, their substantive comments, and 

responses to those comments. A list of the commenters, by date the comment was 

received, and the comment letters, in their entirety, are also included in the second 

part of this appendix. 

It is important to note that during the process of identifying concerns, all 

comments were treated equally. The comments were not weighted by 

organizational affiliation or status of respondents, and the number of duplicate 

comments did not add more bias to one comment than another. The process was 

not one of counting votes, and no effort was made to tabulate the exact number of 

people for, or against, any given aspect of the DEIS. Rather, emphasis was placed 

on the content of a comment. 

5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQWV

In the case of identical or similar comments or comments from opposite points of 

view, a summary of the comments is provided rather than each individual 

comment. In the case of unique comments, each response is preceded by the 

submitted comment. As previously stated, the comments are organized according 

to the outline of the Project DEIS/FEIS and in no way indicate the significance of 

any statement. BLM’s response to the public concern follows each public 

concern. 

The abbreviation for the name of an agency, company, or organization used more 

than once in the responses are abbreviated is shown in the first response to that 

group, with one exception, and on the list of the commenters in this appendix. 

The comments received from the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (BCA) were 

a compilation of comments from several organizations, including the BCA, 

EarthWorks Action, Californians for Western Wilderness, and Western 

Watersheds Project. Comments from these organizations will be referenced as 

BCA et al.

The BLM received an extension request from the Western Watersheds Project on 

June 11, 2012. The BLM’s response to this letter is included at the end of the 

response section. 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
1R&RPPHQW

Comments: National Park Service (Page 1) 

The National Park Service has no comment on the subject project. 

Response: Thank you for your participation in the NEPA process. 

Comment: Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) (Page 1) 

“The staff of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has reviewed the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Lost Creek In Situ Recovery Project 

located in Sweetwater County. We have provided extensive comment on this 

project through our interactions with the proponent and our state permitting 

agency, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). We refer BLM to the 

DEQ permit for information pertaining to this project regarding our concerns and 

recommendations for terrestrial wildlife and aquatic resources.” 

Response: WGFD was involved throughout the writing of the DEIS, and their 

comments and concerns were addressed earlier in the writing process. 

*HQHUDO

*HQHUDO6XSSRUW

Comment: Chris Pedersen; Myron Benda; David Urasky; Carbon County 

Higher Education Center; Wyoming Business Council; Fischer-Watt Gold 

Co., Inc. (Pages 1-2) 

Several commenters wrote in to express their support of the Project. 

Response: Thank you for your comment and your interest and participation in the

development of the FEIS for the Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project

Comment: Aaron S. Howey

It is my understanding that the only permit (document) left for UR Energy to get 

on its Lost Creek project is the BLM. Is that correct? I am looking through all of 

the permits (NRC, EPA, and so on) along with the forms and documents 

submitted to your office in the last few years. Everything seems to be in 

order...do you know an expected record date? 

Response: Table 1.4-1 of the DEIS provides a list of Regulatory Requirements 

for the Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project. Nearly all of the regulatory 

requirements have been issued or approved. The BLM anticipates issuing a 

Record of Decision in late August 2012. Additional approvals, such as NRC 

approval of wellfield packages (License Condition 10.12), will still be needed 

during the life of the Project. 

Comment: Fischer-Watt Gold Co., Inc. (Page 1) 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
Sage Grouse - Page 3.8-27 second paragraph states "No active Greater sagegrouse leks have been located in the Permit Area". There are Sage grouse in the 

area, but no active breeding areas within the permit boundaries. My view is that 

the Greater Sage Grouse and wildlife in general can cohabitate with ISR mining 

operations. 

Response: The terminology "in the Permit Area" means the same as "within the 

permit boundaries", thus no change in terminology is necessary.

*HQHUDO&RQFHUQV

Comment: Robert LeFaivre 

This comment expressed general concerns (e.g., Revised Statute 2477, public 

participation opportunity) associated with the Project and the EIS process.

Response: Revised Statute (RS) 2477 was enacted as Section 8 of the Mining Act 

of 1866. It states that, “the right-of-way for the construction of highways over 

public lands not reserved for public uses is hereby granted.” RS 2477 was 

repealed by FLPMA on October 21, 1976, subject to valid, existing rights 

(FLPMA did not terminate existing RS 2477 rights-of-way (ROWs). This EIS 

does not adjudicate, analyze, or otherwise determine the validity of claimed 

ROWs. However, nothing in the FEIS extinguishes any valid ROW, or alters in 

any way the legal rights that the state and counties have to assert and protect RS 

2477 rights or to challenge in federal court or other appropriate venue any EIS 

imposed use restrictions that they believe are inconsistent with their rights.

In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.6, the comment period for the DEIS ended on 

June 11, 2012. Late comments, including the Sweetwater County Conservation 

District, were considered to the extent practicable. Additionally, the BLM will be 

accepting public comment on the FEIS within 30 days after the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the NOA in the Federal Register.

(GLWRULDO

7HFKQLFDO

Comment: Lost Creek ISR, LLC (LCI) (Pages 11-14; #s 1-5, 7-12, 14-16, 24-

28, 35, 39) 

LCI submitted several requests to change and update technical information in the 

DEIS to more accurately describe the Project.

Response: The requested changes and clarification to the text, tables, and figures 

have been completed. 

Comment: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Page 2) 

“Page 4.7-3, Fencing and Screening Measures - The first paragraph states that the 

Storage Ponds would be monitored daily for wildlife mortality. Please reword the 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
sentence as follows: "The Storage Ponds would be monitored daily for wildlife

morbidity and mortality."”

Response: Sentence was corrected as requested.

Comment: LCI (Page 15; #38) 

DEIS Page4.15-2, Section 4.15.4.1: The DEIS spends considerable time 

discussing numbers of employees and contractors during various stage of the 

project. It is unclear that these numbers are consistent with those presented in the 

Plan of Operations. Please verify that the FEIS conforms to the numbers 

presented in the Plan of Operations or provide an explanation of the differences. 

Response: The numbers of employees and contractors during various phases of 

the Proposed Action are referenced from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (NRC SEIS). The NRC SEIS 

construction phase equates to the BLM Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) Initial Construction stage. The NRC SEIS operation and aquifer 

restoration phases equate to the BLM DEIS Mine Unit Development stage, 

Operation phase, and Mine Unit Reclamation stage. The NRC SEIS 

decommissioning phase equates to the BLM DEIS Final Reclamation stage. Data 

for Table 4.15-3 of the BLM DEIS were referenced from an email and attachment

between Ur-Energy USA and NRC [LCI Email (February 21) From J. Cash (UREnergy USA) to A. Bjornsen (NRC), ML111450560. 2011]. After careful review 

of the email and attachment, the number of Plant construction contractors was 

revised from 20 employees to 40 employees in Table 4.15-3. Consequently, the 

number of employees for the Initial Construction Stage was revised from 74 to 94

throughout the BLM Environmental Impact Statement.

5HJXODWRU\

Comment: LCI (Page 12-15; #13, 18, 40) 

Project Description: LCI submitted several requests to change and update 

regulatory information in the DEIS to more accurately describe the Project. 

Response: The requested changes and clarification to the text, tables, and figures 

have been completed. 

Comments: LCI (Page 13, #21, 23) 

Carbon County Regulations: “LCI is concerned that the DEIS states that the 

Project would conform to land use regulations and develop road maintenance 

agreements with both Carbon and Sweetwater Counties. However, since none of 

the Project is in Carbon County there will be no need to comply with their land 

use regulations. Please remove Carbon County from the language.” 

Response: LCI would need to coordinate with both Sweetwater and Carbon 

County, because both counties would be impacted by the Proposed Action as 

analyzed in the DEIS. Much of the Project’s workforce (as recently demonstrated 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
by LCI advertising in Carbon County for job openings) as well as goods and 

services are anticipated to reside and be purchased, respectively, in Carbon 

County. Therefore, the commuting workforce and transportation of goods and 

services would use Carbon County roads (e.g., Sooner Road). Per Sections 3.2.2 

and 4.3.4 of the DEIS as well as Section OP 2.6 of the Operations Plan in the 

WDEQ-Land Quality Division (LQD) Permit to Mine, the Sooner Road is 

identified as a primary access road. The majority of the workforce would be 

expected to commute to the worksite through the Carbon County access roads via 

the Sooner Road and the Bairoil Road. Under Title 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations Subpart 3809.420 (b), “When commercial hauling is involved and the 

use of an existing road is required, the authorized officer may require the operator 

to make appropriate arrangements for use and maintenance.” This requirement is 

consistent with what has already been identified in the Plan of Operations 

submitted to the BLM, in the NRC SEIS and in the WDEQ-LQD Permit to 

Mine. For example, the NRC staff concluded that the Project could increase daily 

traffic by approximately 82 percent along the Bairoil Road, partially in Carbon 

County, and would increase wear and tear of the road surface (Section 4.3.1.1 of 

the NRC SEIS).

Road agreements between LCI and the counties would “address roadway 

maintenance, surfacing, dust control, weight limits, traffic, snow removal, 

improvements, and related topics” as noted in Section 4.3.1.2 of the 

DEIS. Section OP 2.6 of the Operations Plan in the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine 

states that, “If improvements to off-site roads are needed, permits will be obtained 

from the BLM or other appropriate agency, and all relevant guidelines will be 

followed.” 

Comment: LCI (Page 2) 

Purpose and Need: “In order to fully capture the basis for the DEIS’s alternatives 

analysis, the statement of BLM’s purpose and need would be strengthened if it 

explicitly noted the Energy Policy Act’s mandate that BLM “promote dependable, 

affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for 

the future”, as well as that BLM seeks to act consistent with the call for specific 

“significant incentives for the continuation and expansion of nuclear power in the 

United States.” DEIS, p. 1-4. Similarly, the standard for development and analysis 

of alternatives could incorporate BLM’s purpose and need at page 2-59, as 

follows: 

With the exception of the No Action Alternative, alternatives would need to meet: 

1) BLM’s purpose and need of implementing the EPACT’s mandate to promote 

dependable, affordable and environmentally sound production and distribution of 

energy for the future and Congress’ direction to support the continuation and 

expansion of nuclear power in the United States, as well as making federal lands 

available for the production of locatable minerals consistent with FLPMA’s 

multiple use mandate; and 2) the Project’s objective of producing six million 

pounds of uranium over an operating period of 12 years. 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
Conforming text edits should be made throughout the DEIS, including at pages 

ES-6, 1-3 and 1-8." 

Response: Comment noted. The BLM believes the purpose and need presented 

in the DEIS are adequate. Additional text was added to the Executive Summary, 

Section 1.3.1, and Section 2.3 of the EIS to state that, “The Project’s objective

would be to produce an estimated six million pounds of uranium over an 

operating period of 12 years.”

Comment: LCI (Page 11; #6) 

License Amendments and Permit Revisions: “DEIS Page 1-10, Section 1.4.3, 

Paragraph 2: The DEIS states the BLM may request a license amendment or 

permit revision. While the BLM may make such a request, the WDEQ-LQD and 

the NRC retain their authority and have no requirement to approve such a request. 

LCI recommends that the language in the DEIS be revised to clarify the NRC and 

WDEQ-LQD retain their individual authority and are not required to act upon a 

recommendation from the BLM and to clearly indicate that BLM’s impact 

analysis, and any approvals to the Plan of Operation, are not dependent on such 

further action.” 

Response: During preparation of the DEIS, clarification of BLM’s options for 

involvement in the NRC and WDEQ licensing and permitting processes was 

requested by a cooperator. Therefore, the language has been left in the EIS, 

except that the potential ‘example’ was removed as it is no longer applicable.

Comment: Sweetwater County Board of County Commissioners (SWCBCC) 

(Page 1) 

County Permit Amendments: “Even though Lost Creek ISR, LLC (Lost Creek) 

has obtained the required Development Plan and Zone Changes from Sweetwater 

County, they may have to amend these permits if they are required to move their 

plant site and other extraction facilities to accommodate existing designated Sage 

Grouse Core Areas. If amendments are required, Lost Creek should contact Eric 

Bingham, Land Use Director at 872-3916 to discuss this process.” 

Response: Comment noted. The BLM asked LCI to contact Eric Bingham, 

Sweetwater County Land Use Director, if the amendments to the Zone Change 

and Development Plan are required. 

Comment: SWCBCC (Page 2) 

“Sweetwater County Roads: The following county road issues should be 

addressed:

Road Use and Maintenance Agreement: Prior to the BLM's Authorization of the 

Lost Creek ISR Project, Sweetwater County requests that the Developer prepare 

and submit a Road Use Maintenance Agreement for County review and approval. 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
This Road Use Maintenance Agreement must meet the standards and conditions 

of the Sweetwater County Public Works Director, the Sweetwater County 

Attorney's Office and the Sweetwater County Board of County Commissioners. 

Some of the issues that must be addressed by this road use and maintenance 

agreement include: roadway maintenance, surfacing, dust control, weight limits, 

traffic, snow removal, migration measures, improvement construction, and others. 

County Road Crossing and Access Permits: Any crossing, access to, or utilization 

of a Sweetwater County Road right-of-way requires an Access Permit or License 

from the Sweetwater County Department of Engineering. Project developers are 

required to contact the Sweetwater County Public Works Director to obtain 

necessary roadway permits prior to development.” 

Response: Table 1.4-1 and Section 4.3.1.2 of the DEIS include text that addresses 

Sweetwater County Roads.

Comment: SWCBCC (Page 2) 

“Work Camps: The Sweetwater County Comprehensive Plan - 2002 encourages" 

the location of associated worker housing within existing communities where 

services are/can be provided." If a compelling need can be demonstrated, a work 

camp may be permitted through the Sweetwater County Conditional Use Permit 

process. This permitting process takes 60 to 90 days to complete and is 

administered by the Land Use Department.” 

Response: A work camp is not intended for the Project. As encouraged by the 

Sweetwater County Comprehensive Plan, workers would reside at nearby existing 

communities (e.g., Bairoil, Wamsutter, or Rawlins).

Per Section OP 3.6 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine, a Plant Operator and a 

Wellfield Operator will both be on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to monitor 

Plant and wellfield operations, maintain security surveillance, and respond to 

upset conditions, but these Operators will be working in shifts, i.e., they will not 

be living on site. In case of adverse weather conditions and other exceptional 

cases, the Office in the Plant could accommodate workers until travel conditions 

improved, but again, no on-site housing is planned. 

Comment: SWCBCC (Pages 2-3) 

“Intergovernmental Cooperation and Community Impacts: Sweetwater County 

Comprehensive Plan - 2002 encourages cooperative interaction between local, 

State and Federal agencies. With this goal in mind, Sweetwater County 

encourages the BLM and Lost Creek to continue their efforts in soliciting 

comments from the Towns of Wamsutter and Bairoil and proactively address their 

concerns with the Environmental Impact Statement process. Also important to 

Sweetwater County is consideration of project impacts to our neighbors Carbon 

County and the City of Rawlins. Community concerns that should be considered 

include: housing, school capacity, traffic patterns (especially for heavy equipment 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
and supplies being transported through communities), law enforcement, health 

service and other public services.” 

Response: Potential socioeconomic impacts (housing, school capacities, law 

enforcement, health care, and other public services) from the Project on the local 

communities and counties are discussed in Section 4.15. Transportation impacts 

are discussed in Section 4.3. 

The BLM added the City of Rawlins and the Towns of Wamsutter and Bairoil to 

the Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project’s mailing list. The City of 

Rawlins and the Towns of Wamsutter and Bairoil were provided an electronic 

copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The BLM will be 

accepting public comment on the FEIS within 30 days after the Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. 

The City of Rawlins and the Towns of Wamsutter and Bairoil will also be notified 

of the Record of Decision. 

In February 2011, the BLM announced the opening of public scoping for the Lost 

Creek Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project, and contacted Carbon County, the 

Coalition of Local Governments, Fremont County, and Sweetwater County, 

among others. In March 2011, representatives of the Town of Wamsutter, Carbon 

County, and Sweetwater County attended the public scoping meeting hosted by 

the BLM in Rawlins, Wyoming. The BLM received public scoping comments 

from the Town of Bairoil, Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce, and Carbon 

County Economic Development Corporation. The public scoping comments were 

analyzed to identify issues and concerns of the Proposed Action. As noted in 

Section 6.1 of the DEIS, the Carbon County Commissioners and Sweetwater 

County Commissioners have been participating as cooperating agencies on the 

Project’s EIS.

Comment: SWCBCC (Page 3) 

“Free on Board (FOB): Sweetwater County encourages the BLM, to the greatest 

extent possible under the BLM' s authority, to encourage Lost Creek and its 

contractors and subcontractors to deliver construction materials "Free on Board" 

(FOB) to the County in which the materials will be utilized. This will help ensure 

that the sales tax will be properly allocated and paid to the County where 

construction and related impacts will occur.” 

Response: Section 4.15.1 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement notes, 

“While there are no agency-required measures related to socioeconomic 

conditions, LCI and LCI’s contractors and subcontractors would be encouraged to 

deliver construction materials “Free on Board” to the County in which the 

materials would be used to help ensure that the sales tax would be properly 

allocated and paid to the County where construction and related impacts would 

occur.” 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
Comment: SWCBCC (Page 3) 

“Protection of Natural Features:

Historic and Cultural Sites: The Sweetwater County Comprehensive Plan - 2002 

calls for the County to "Identify and protect the County's unique cultural, 

recreational and environmental resources" and to "Encourage a balance between 

resource development and environmental protection". With these goals in mind, 

Sweetwater County appreciates the BLM's efforts in inventorying and planning 

for impacts that may occur to historical and cultural resources. Sweetwater 

County Supports these planning efforts and the protection of these important 

resources, but at the same time Sweetwater County strongly encourages the BLM 

to carefully consider and balance how the protection of Historic and Cultural Sites 

will affect the ability of Lost Creek to develop and utilize their resources for 

economic gain. Sweetwater County's economy depends on mineral extraction, 

which makes it important that the preservation of Historic and Cultural Sites 

occur in a balanced manner that also protects the viability of this project and the 

economy of Sweetwater County. 

Wildlife: Sweetwater County supports the State of Wyoming Sage Grouse Core 

Area Program, and appreciates that the BLM and Lost Creek are planning 

Alternatives that will comply with this program. Again, Sweetwater County 

strongly supports the Lost Creek ISR Uranium Project, and if you have any 

questions regarding Sweetwater County's above comments related to this project's 

Draft EIS, please contact me at 307-872-3890.” 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: EPA (Page 3) 

Storage Pond Regulations: “[T]he Draft EIS (Section 2.3.3.3) describes leak 

detection system as required under 40 CFR 192, Health and Environmental 

Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings. We would like to point out 

that regulation 40 CFR 192 is currently undergoing rulemaking and may be 

changed prior to closure and reclamation of this facility. Because of this, 

requirements for mitigation measures should be reviewed by the BLM as 

standards change. Specifically, water quality standards after restoration should 

meet the regulatory requirements under 40 CFR 192 and the restoration plan 

approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Response: Comment noted. There are provisions in the WDEQ-LQD Noncoal 

Rules (Chapter 7, Section 5(a) and Chapter 11, Section 18(b)) and Wyoming 

Statute 35-11-415(a) that require periodic review of the permit to determine if 

revisions are necessary. The NRC has similar provisions. 

Comment: WDA (Page 2) 

Meeting with Grazing Permittees: “The WDA sent previous comments pertaining 

to the Scoping Notice of the ISR Project, requesting the "BLM staff and ISR 

Project operators to work closely and consistently with affected grazing 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
permittees and agriculture producers ... "The BLM and Operator neglected to 

include any information in the DEIS regarding annual or bi-annual meetings with 

affected grazing permittees in the Project Area. Due to the Operator developing 

the ISR Project over a period of time, and impacting three different allotments, we 

strongly suggest open and transparent communication between the BLM, the 

Operator and grazing permittees.” 

Response: The BLM has provided, and will continue to provide, opportunities for 

affected parties to obtain information about the Project through public meetings 

for which notice has been given. LCI has also committed to working with grazing 

permittees through county, state, and federal public meetings for which notice has 

been given, and by providing data not otherwise available, including sampling an 

off-site supply well and obtaining cattle tissue samples from at least one local 

permittee for baseline documentation.

The BLM has routinely spoken with the grazing permittees about the Lost Creek 

Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project during meetings in the field or during 

discussions concerning permit renewals. LCI has also indicated that, as 

opportunity allows, it has visited with grazing permittees potentially affected by 

the Proposed Action at the Lost Creek Permit Area.

To facilitate transparent communication, the BLM added the grazing permittees 

that may be affected by the Proposed Action to the Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ 

Recovery Project’s mailing list. These grazing permittees were provided an 

electronic copy of the FEIS. The BLM will be accepting public comment on the 

FEIS within 30 days after the EPA publishes the NOA in the Federal Register. 

The grazing permittees will also be notified of the Record of Decision. 

Comment: WDA (Page 3)

Transportation Plan: WDA recommended the BLM “request, review and approve 

a transportation plan developed by the Operator, with specific provisions for 

carpooling and travel times to reduce dust and collisions with livestock and 

wildlife.” WDA also commented that “BLM must request the Operator 

compensate livestock grazing permittees for damages due to vehicle collisions to 

range improvements such as fences or livestock injured or killed by vehicles en 

route to or inside the Project Area.”

Response: Transportation issues are described in Section 4.3 of the EIS. 

Measures related to dust control, including transportation measures, are described 

in Section 4.11.1 of the EIS (referencing the WDEQ-AQD Permit). Measures 

related to wildlife (and livestock) protection, including road and right-of-way 

measures, are described in Section 4.9.1.1 of the EIS (referencing the Wildlife 

Protection Plan in the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine). The suggested language for 

compensation in the event of damage to range improvements or livestock would 

require a presumption that the “Operator” would be liable in all instances of 

damage, regardless of who was driving the vehicle (e.g., someone not employed 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
or contracted by the Operator) or the circumstances of the accident (e.g., a poorly 

maintained fence through which cattle could get onto a road). Therefore, the 

existing federal, state, and local laws applicable to accidents are considered 

adequate.

7\SRJUDSKLFDO

Comment: LCI (Page 12-15; #s 17, 19-20, 22, 33, 36, 41) 

LCI submitted several requests for corrections and clarifications.

Response: The requested changes and clarification to the text, tables, and figures 

have been completed. 

3URSRVHG$FWLRQ

6LWH)DFLOLWLHV

Comment: USFWS (Page 2) 

DEIS “Page 4.7-2: Storage Ponds - This section should specify the minimum 

amount of freeboard required at the storage ponds to prevent overflow and spills.” 

Response: The amount of freeboard (3 feet), as cited in the WDEQ-LQD Permit 

to Mine, Section OP 2.9.4, was added and is also now included in Section 4.9.6.5. 

Comment: WDA (Page 1) 

Fencing Cross-Reference: The WDA supports the use of wildlife friendly fencing 

to temporarily exclude cattle and wild horses from areas detrimental to the health 

of these animals. We recommend the BLM clearly specify in the DEIS, section 

2.1.2.6 the total number of acres the Operators will fence of the permitted area for 

the Proposed Action. Section 4.2.4.1 indicates "If all of the proposed disturbance 

areas of the Project were fenced at once, 345 acres (eight percent) of the 4,254-

acre Permit Area would be removed from livestock grazing." We recommend 

bringing this language forward to 2.1.2.6. 

Response: The text in Section 2.1.2.6 was modified as requested. 

5HFODPDWLRQ

Comment: Marybeth Devlin (Page 8) 

Reclamation Timing: “If the mine closes prematurely for economic reasons, 

waivers can likely be secured that would allow delays in reclamation that might 

last for years. In the meantime, the range would languish. Forage loss would

continue and erosion would worsen. If the mine were later reactivated and its 

permit extended, that could push back reclamation even further.” 

Response: As noted in Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.5 of the DEIS, to minimize erosion 

potential, weed invasion, and related problems, surface reclamation in a mine unit 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
would commence immediately upon construction completion. Vegetative cover 

would be maintained during the mine unit operation through monitoring and 

additional seedings when necessary. After completion of groundwater restoration 

in a mine unit, the subsequent well abandonment, pipeline removal, and 

demolition of surface facilities would result in surface redisturbance within the 

mine unit, which would need to be reclaimed. Prior to the commencement of this

post-mining surface reclamation, affected areas and buildings (i.e., header houses) 

would be surveyed and decontaminated, and facilities and ancillary equipment 

would be decommissioned and removed in accordance with NRC requirements. 

Other measures that would be implemented in the Proposed Action and are 

discussed in Section 2.1 of the DEIS include: stockpiling of topsoil and subsoil; 

replacement of subsoil then topsoil; and surface preparation and reseeding with 

the permanent seed mix at the next appropriate season (or if necessary to prevent 

erosion prior to the next appropriate season, with a temporary seed mix, which 

would be a rigorous certified weed free annual cover crop such as sterile rye grass 

or millet).

Section 2.1.5.2 of the DEIS notes that, “Prior to the start of the Project, LCI 

would be required to establish and maintain a reclamation performance bond, in 

an amount approved by NRC, BLM, and WDEQ-LQD, to cover the costs for a 

third party to complete groundwater restoration, radiological decontamination, 

facility decommissioning, and surface reclamation. Under order of forfeiture, the 

bond would be payable to the State of Wyoming or the US Secretary of Interior 

(under which BLM operates). The bond amount would be reviewed annually by 

NRC, BLM, and WDEQ-LQD and adjusted to reflect changes in cost and in the 

Project, including construction and operation activities planned for the next year.” 

WDEQ-LQD does have a provision for “interim stabilization” (LQD NonCoal 

Rules 3(k)(ii)); however, it has not been applied to ISR. If an operator were to 

request interim stabilization, WDEQ-LQD review and approval of the 

justification provided by the operator would be required, and if approved, public 

notice and landowner (BLM) consent would also be required. 

Comment: BCA et al. (Page 7) 

Reclamation Requirements: “Past uranium mining and exploration in the Gas 

Hills area, in the Lander Field Office approximately 50 miles north of the Project 

Area has never been fully reclaimed. There are a great number of open pits, 

diggings, and water bodies in this area that have become contaminated with 

radiation. Radiation contamination can remain for tens of thousands of years, both 

aboveground and in belowground aquifers. For these reasons, we are concerned 

that the Lost Creek project may, through spills, failures in safety systems, or 

shoddy reclamation, result in long-term contamination issues in and near the 

project site.” 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
Response: Much of the uranium mining and milling conducted in the Gas Hills 

started in the 1950s, before development of regulatory requirements for collection 

of baseline data and monitoring of operational impacts, and with only rudimentary 

(if any) requirements for reclamation and reclamation bonds. Many practices 

considered acceptable at that time are no longer allowed. One example is the 

historic practice of constructing tailings impoundments with limited, or no, liners 

or leak detection monitoring. ISR was not a standard practice in the Gas Hills, 

which is why open mine pits, post-mining pit lakes, and tailings piles are present. 

The assertion that parts of these old operations “have become contaminated with 

radiation” does not recognize the fact that the radioactive materials naturally 

occurred in the surface and subsurface, which is why the mines and mills located 

there, but the operation and reclamation practices of that era concentrated some of 

these materials with limited concern for environmental impacts. Naturally 

occurring radioactive materials, unaffected by mining and milling operations, are 

still present in some locations in the Gas Hills at concentrations which would 

require precautions before resource use, e.g., naturally elevated uranium 

concentrations in groundwater in ore zones. 

To help prevent legacy issues such as those in the Gas Hills, the regulatory 

requirements for baseline data collection, operational and reclamation practices 

and associated monitoring for all types of mining and milling, including ISR, have 

developed substantially since the 1950s. The applicable requirements for a 

project such as Lost Creek are summarized in Section 1.4.3 of the EIS. The 

licensing and permitting documents for the Lost Creek Project include 

requirements for: prevention, detection, and remediation of spills; monitoring of 

the effectiveness of safety practices; and reclamation of groundwater, facilities, 

soils and vegetation. There are also provisions for: a reclamation performance 

bond; annual (or more frequent) reporting and updating of regulatory 

requirements and the bond amount; inspections; and records maintenance. 

Regulatory provisions have also been put into place to address legacy issues, such 

as those in the Gas Hills. Federal programs such as the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act and federal and state Abandoned Mine Lands programs 

have resulted in reclamation of many sites. Funding limitations have generally 

required prioritization for reclamation of physical safety concerns and 

implementation of risk assessment and administrative controls.

Comments: Neil and Jennifer Miller (Page 2) 

Reclamation Responsibility: “Who will be left "holding the bag" if the 

groundwater is contaminated with this in situ leaching process?...the taxpayer and 

the people of Wyoming who could benefit from use of clean drinking water.” 

Response: As discussed in Section 2.1.5.2 of the DEIS and FEIS, LCI is required 

to establish and maintain a reclamation performance bond, in an amount approved 

by NRC, BLM, and WDEQ-LQD, to cover the costs for a third party to complete 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
groundwater restoration, radiological decontamination, facility decommissioning, 

and surface reclamation. Under order of forfeiture, the bond would be payable to 

the State of Wyoming or the US Secretary of Interior (under which BLM 

operates). The bond amount would be reviewed and adjusted annually. 

Additional details about the bond are provided in Section 2.1.1.1.8 of the NRC 

SEIS (2011a) and Section RP 5.0 of the Reclamation Plan in the WDEQ-LQD 

Permit to Mine (LCI, 2011b). The calculated bond amount for the first year of the 

Project is $6,151,685, as detailed in Table RP-4 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to 

Mine.

Comment: WDA (Page 3) and BCA et al. (Page 9) 

Road Reclamation: WDA recommended that the BLM and LCI “consult with the 

livestock grazing permittees before making any final decisions affecting their 

respective allotments”, including road reclamation because of the likelihood that

“the pre-project two-track roads in the Project Area existed because the grazing 

permittees used the roads to access pastures or gates, maintain stock tanks or drop 

sites for salt and minerals to livestock.”

BCA et al. expressed concern that the roads would not be reclaimed at the end of 

the Project, which would adversely affect wildlife.

Response: In order for any of the roads used and/or upgraded by LCI within the 

Permit Area to be kept, the landowner (BLM) must submit a request to keep the 

roads that will need to be approved by both the BLM and the WDEQ-LQD. If 

approved, road maintenance responsibilities will be transferred to the landowner. 

Comment: EPA (Page 3) 

Schedule: “The Draft EIS states (Section 2.1.5.1) that mine unit restoration and 

reclamation will be done concurrently with production from adjacent operating 

units. Since reclamation activities can be lengthy and could be impacted by 

facility requirements to meet production goals, we believe additional information 

should be presented in the EIS to ensure reclamation activities are completed. 

This information could include a more complete description of the reverse 

osmosis (RO) treatment capacity and associated RO production and reclamation 

operational design capacity.” 

Response: The balance between production and reclamation and the overall 

schedule were of considerable concern during review of the WDEQ-LQD Permit 

to Mine. To address these concerns, detailed water balance calculations, pore 

volume information, and schedule commitments were included in the Operations 

and Reclamation Plans of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine, which is incorporated 

by reference (Section 1.4.3 (Conformance with Other Federal, State, and County 

Requirements) of the EIS). Figures OP-5a through OP-5f from the WDEQ-LQD 

Permit to Mine, which illustrate the water balances during different stages of the 

Project, are included as Figures 2.1-9 through 2.1-14 of the EIS. The pore 

volumes and related information on which the water balance calculations were 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
made are detailed in Sections OP 3.6 (Mine Unit Control) and RP 2.3 

(Groundwater Restoration Methods) of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine. These 

details are summarized in Sections 2.1.6.2 (Operation (Production)) and 2.1.6.3 

(Reclamation) of the FEIS. The project schedule, Figure OP-4a from the WDEQLQD Permit to Mine (and the duplicate Figure RP-1), is included as Figure 2.1-8 

in the EIS. Additional discussion of the schedule from Sections OP 2.1 (Project 

Schedule) and RP 2.0 (Plans and Schedule for Groundwater Restoration) is 

summarized in Section 2.1.6 (Schedule) of the EIS.

$OWHUQDWLYHV

Comment: BCA et al. (Pages 1-3) 

Range of Alternatives: BCA et al. expressed their opinion that a full range of 

alternatives was not examined in the DEIS. 

Response: The DEIS describes several alternatives, some of which were 

considered in detail and some of which were considered but eliminated, sufficient 

to be in keeping with the type of action proposed and the scope of that action.

These alternatives address the concerns raised during the scoping process 

(Sections 1.5 and 1.6), in particular that measures in the Proposed Action conform 

to current policies and procedures. The alternatives in the DEIS include those 

evaluated during previous licensing and permitting actions related to the Project, 

including the NEPA process for NRC’s Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (NRC, 2011a) and the permitting and public hearing process for the 

WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 2011b, EQC, 2011). Any alternative 

previously considered was reevaluated to help ensure the evaluation was 

sufficiently comprehensive. The DEIS also includes alternatives not considered 

in the previous licensing and permitting actions. 

Comment: EPA (Page 3)

Phased Development Alternative: EPA suggested additional information be 

included in support of the conclusion in Section 2.3.3.4 (Phased Development of 

the Mine Units) of the EIS that the phased development alternative would "not be 

economically efficient and would constrain some of the available technical 

options for more efficient mining and groundwater restoration." 

Response: As noted in the Executive Summary, it is unlikely the Project would

even be economically viable under a schedule that required mining cease for two 

or more years between mine units. In the discussion of Schedule-Based versus 

Restoration-and/or-Reclamation-Based Phases in Section 2.3.3.4, two scenarios 

are considered, one in which groundwater restoration would need to be completed 

in a mine unit before development of another mine unit and the other in which 

revegetation would need to be completed in a mine unit before development of 

another mine unit. Under the first scenario, using the criteria in Figure 2.1-8, 

there would be a two-year hiatus between Mine Units 1 and 2 because that is the 

elapsed time for restoration of Mine Unit 1. There would be a four-year hiatus 

between Mine Units 2 and 3; the hiatus would be longer because Mine Unit 2 is 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
anticipated to be larger than Mine Unit 1. This would extend the schedule, and 

associated disturbance, from 11 years to 17 years. The income-generating portion 

of the Project, i.e., Production, would still take place during six years, less than 

one-half the Project life. Currently, Production would take place during about 

two-thirds of the Project life. (Under the second scenario, the hiatus between 

mine units would be even longer to allow for revegetation after groundwater 

restoration.) Even if some or all of the Plant, offices, disposal wells, and 

associated equipment could be ‘mothballed’ and restarted without undue 

maintenance or replacement expenses, it is unlikely that a skilled employee base 

could be retained throughout the Project life as the number of employees needed 

would vary radically. Similarly, it would be difficult to LCI to effectively 

negotiate supply or sales contracts if the need for supplies or the amount of 

yellowcake produced varied substantially over the life of the Project. The income 

to municipalities, counties, and the State would also vary, making it more difficult 

for them to effectively plan for services.

From a technical standpoint, a hiatus between mine units for completion of 

groundwater restoration or revegetation raises several concerns. First, the option 

for groundwater transfer (or exchange) between a mine unit in restoration and 

another mine unit in production is no longer available. This option, which is 

discussed in more detail in Section RP 2.3.1 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine, 

allows for some reduction in consumptive use of groundwater, a reduction which 

would no longer be available. Second, revegetation would be ‘on hold’ in some 

areas because of the overlap of facilities. As currently envisioned (Figure OP-2A 

of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine), Mine Unit 3 would share some of the same 

road and pipeline access as Mine Unit 1; therefore, some of that area would 

remain disturbed for twice as long as currently planned. This would also require 

that the associated topsoil stockpiles, erosion protection measures, and weed 

control would need to be in place for longer than currently planned. Third, the 

reclamation 'bond clock' for revegetation is a minimum of five years; however, 

circumstances beyond LCI's control, such as drought or fire, could extend this 

time frame, making it even more difficult to plan for the time lapse between mine 

units. 

In keeping with the CEQ guidance to briefly describe the reasoning for 

considering, but eliminating, an alternative, some of the above discussion has 

been added to Section 2.3.3.4. 

(QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ 0HDVXUHV 0RQLWRULQJ DQG

,PSDFWV

*HQHUDO

Comment: BCA et al. (Pages 4-5) 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
NEPA requires agencies to take a ‘hard look’ at impacts to the human 

environment. BCA et al. is concerned that the hard look and baseline information 

requirements have not been met for this EIS, particularly in regard to impacts to 

wildlife, resulting in unnecessary impacts to wildlife in violation of FLPMA.

Response: The BLM NEPA process for the Lost Creek Project has gone through 

considerable information developed over the course of the licensing and 

permitting for the Project. Prior evaluations of the impacts, mitigation measures, 

and monitoring requirements developed by other agencies were reviewed in light 

of BLM’s concerns and knowledge of the on-the-ground conditions. New 

opportunities for public input and agency discussion, that built on knowledge 

gained during the other agency actions, were provided. 

Comments: BCA et al. (Pages 5-8) 

“In this case, BLM does not provide an assessment of the adequacy of mitigation 

measures, particularly mitigation measures to protect sage grouse. As a result it 

proposes a package of permitted activities and mitigation measures that will not 

sustain healthy sage grouse populations in this part of the Core Area.” 

Response: The mitigation measures presented in Section 4.0 for all the resources, 

including wildlife (e.g., Sections 4.5.1 and 4.8.1 for Soils and Vegetation, 

respectively) are based on a variety of information and requirements, including 

mature regulatory programs and interdisciplinary and interagency efforts to 

update and improve those programs. Measures from other agencies were also 

reviewed in light of BLM’s concerns and knowledge of the on-the-ground 

conditions. Monitoring measures are also discussed for each resource to ensure 

the effectiveness of the mitigation measures is as anticipated. The information is 

sufficient to determine if impacts can be avoided or reduced and to compare the 

relative merits of the measures for different resources in evaluation of an 

alternative, such as a road location. 

/DQG8VH

Comment: WDA (Page 2) 

DEIS Section 3.1.1.1 Livestock Grazing: “The section mentions "The primary 

land use in the Permit Area is rangeland for cattle; no farms, residences, or 

population centers are present." The WDA requests the BLM provide a 

comprehensive analysis of all impacts to both cattle and sheep. The Permit Area 

includes Stewart Creek, Cyclone Rim and Green Mountain Allotments. We are 

aware of sheep grazing in Cyclone Rim, but the BLM neglects to include any 

impacts or mitigation to grazing permittees with sheep in the DEIS. We 

recommend revising the map of the Permit and Project Area (3.1-3) overlaid with 

grazing allotments, to include the type of livestock and season of use. 

Additionally, due to many permittees trailing livestock to their allotments, we 

recommend including information and maps of where permittees historically trail 

their livestock. 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
DEIS Section 4.2.4.1 Livestock Grazing: “As mentioned above, the BLM 

neglects to include a comprehensive analysis of the impacts to all livestock, 

including sheep and cattle in the DEIS. If sheep are not impacted in the Permitted 

or Project Area, the WDA requests full disclosure throughout the DEIS, including 

4.2.4.1.” 

Response: Sheep are authorized in the Cyclone Rim grazing allotment; however, 

currently no sheep are authorized to use the portion of the Cyclone Rim grazing 

allotment in which the Lost Creek Permit Area is located. Sheep use is only 

currently permitted in the area west of County Road 23 (Wamsutter-Crooks Gap 

Road). In the Lost Creek Permit Area, fall through spring cattle grazing is 

currently permitted in the Cyclone Rim grazing allotment, and summer and fall 

cattle grazing is permitted in the Stewart Creek grazing allotment. The Green 

Mountain grazing allotment is permitted primarily for cattle use; however, 

approximately 24 percent of the authorized animal unit months (AUMs) in the 

allotment are permitted for sheep. Sheep and cattle use is not separated on the 

allotment geographically, but rather by season of use. Cattle use within the Lost 

Creek Permit Area occurs between May and October, dependent on the rotation 

schedule. Sheep use in the Lost Creek Permit Area is permitted in the fall and 

winter, beginning in late October through March. Therefore, Figure 3.1-2 of the 

DEIS is sufficient. There is no trailing of livestock within the Lost Creek Permit 

Area.

The text in Section 3.1.1.1 of the DEIS was revised to, “The primary land use in 

the Permit Area is rangeland for cattle and sheep.” . . . “The total AUMs for the 

Green Mountain allotment is 66,657 AUMs (57,638 AUMs for public land). 

About 76 percent of the Green Mountain allotment’s AUMs are permitted for 

cattle and about 24 percent are permitted for sheep. Sheep and cattle use is not 

separated on the allotment geographically, but rather by season of use. Cattle use 

within the Lost Creek Permit Area occurs between May and October, dependent 

on the rotation schedule. Sheep use in the Lost Creek Permit Area is permitted in 

the fall and winter, beginning in late October through March. Within the Permit 

Area, the Green Mountain allotment provides as much as 125 AUMs of grazing.” 

The text in Section 4.2.4.1 of the DEIS was revised to, “If year-round grazing 

were allowed, the Stewart Creek and Cyclone Rim allotments would provide 

year-round forage for the equivalent of 25 cattle in the Permit Area; the Green 

Mountain allotment would provide year-round forage for the equivalent of 8 cattle 

and 13 sheep in the Permit Area.” . . . “If all of the proposed disturbance areas of 

the Project were fenced at once, 345 acres (eight percent) of the 4,254-acre Permit 

Area would be removed from livestock grazing. Therefore, the AUMs of the 

Stewart Creek and Cyclone Rim allotments within the Permit Area would 

decrease by 25 cattle AUMs, from 285 cattle AUMs to 260 cattle AUMs 

(reducing the number of livestock that may be supported by year-round forage 

from 25 to 21 cattle). The AUMs of the Green Mountain allotment would 

decrease by 9 cattle AUMs and 3 sheep AUMs, from 95 cattle AUMs and 30 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
sheep AUMs to 86 cattle AUMs and 27 sheep AUMs (reducing the number of 

livestock that may be supported by year-round forage from 8 cattle and 13 sheep 

to 7 cattle and 11 sheep). However, the number of directly impacted AUMs is a 

conservative estimate because the affected acreage at any time should be less than 

345 acres due to the development and reclamation of the mine units in succession. 

The BLM calculated cattle production would produce $65.07 per AUM and sheep 

production would produce $41.16 per AUM of total economic impact, which 

includes both direct and secondary returns (BLM, 2004a). Using this figure, and 

depending on the allotment terms, livestock production on the Stewart Creek and 

Cyclone Rim grazing allotments within the Permit Area that may be impacted by 

the Project has a potential value of about $1,630 per year for cattle (25 AUMs x 

$65.07/AUM). Livestock production on the Green Mountain grazing allotment 

within the Permit Area that may be impacted by the Project has a potential value 

of about $590 per year for cattle (9 AUMs x $65.07/AUM) and about $125 per 

year for sheep (3 AUMs x $41.16/AUM). This assumes all the cattle would be 

sold; however, some of the cows are generally kept for breeding; the same applies 

for sheep.” 

Comment: WDA (Page 2) 

DEIS Section 4.2.4.1 Livestock Grazing: “The third paragraph, under 

"Construction" states "fencing would also create an obstacle to livestock 

movement." Further in the paragraph it states, "Fencing of all the pattern areas at 

once would create an oblong obstacle with the greatest length of about 2.5 miles." 

While the Project Area is relatively small at 345 acres, the fencing pattern 

proposed could cause an indirect impact for the grazing permittees. We believe 

the BLM and Operator should meet with the grazing permittees to create fencing 

alternatives to alleviate trailing livestock 2.5 miles around the Project Area.” 

Response: At this time, there is no trailing of livestock within the Lost Creek 

Permit Area. If trailing of livestock were planned in the Lost Creek Permit Area

and affected by the fencing, the BLM could facilitate a meeting with the grazing 

permittees and Lost Creek ISR, LLC to discuss options to avoid or reduce the 

fencing obstacle.

Comment: WDA (Page 2) 

“An additional concern is vandalism. Vandalism to range improvements such as 

cut fences, gates left open, damage to stock tanks, solar panels or windmills are 

costly economic impacts to grazing permittees. Vandalism can increase with 

newly developed roads by providing more access to the public in addition to ISR

Project employees. BLM and the Operator must convey how they will address 

vandalism in the DEIS.” 

Response: Per the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM 

manages public land on the basis of multiple use. Within and near the Lost Creek 

Permit Area, the BLM manages multiple public land uses (livestock grazing, 

wildlife habitat, dispersed recreation, minerals and energy development, and 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
infrastructure). As such, the BLM recognizes each public land use, including 

livestock grazing and minerals and energy development.

Improvements to the existing East and West Access Roads and the development 

of secondary access roads would improve the accessibility of the Permit Area to 

Project-related workers and the public. This improved accessibility may either 

increase the potential of vandalism due to an increase in human presence or 

decrease the potential of vandalism due to an increase in human presence that 

may deter vandalism. Section OP 2.6 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 

2011b) notes that on-site access will be restricted through roads (i.e., the East and 

West Access Roads and secondary access roads) with appropriate signage, fences, 

gates, and security.

6XUIDFH:DWHU

Comments: LCI (Page 9; #VII) and Sweetwater County Conservation 

District (SWCCD) (Page 2; #1a) 

The comments expressed concern about the definition of ‘ephemeral channel’ and 

whether the limits on surface disturbing activities were too broad (LCI) or not 

broad enough (SWCCD). LCI also notes discrepancies between DEIS language 

and the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine and between language in different parts of 

the DEIS.

Response: SWCCD requested that the ephemeral channels be regulated as 

riparian areas. However, per the provisions of 43 CFR 3809.5, ephemeral 

channels are excluded from riparian areas. 

Different minimum distances for proximity of disturbances to ephemeral channels 

were requested by LCI and SWCCD. LCI expressed concern that the current 

definition and proximity restrictions were vague and could interfere with mineral 

recovery. SWCCD expressed concern that the proximity restrictions would not 

provide for effective protection of the drainages. The historic definition of an 

ephemeral stream is one “that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and 

whose channel is at all times above the water table.” (BLM, 1998) In the RMP 

Glossary, an ephemeral channel is “[a] defined channel formed in response to 

ephemeral surface flow conditions. Defined channels typically can be identified 

by an abrupt bank along a water flow path with evidence of scouring, sorting, 

and/or vegetation removal during flood events. These channels generally form in 

concave erosional features such as gullies, ravines, and swells.” (BLM, 2008c) 

Neither definition provides specificity as to which channels in the Lost Creek 

Permit Area would be considered ephemeral channels. Figure 3.5-1 provides a 

more definitive map of the drainages to which the proximity restrictions would 

apply and could be easily used by contractors and inspectors to evaluate 

disturbances near drainages. In addition, LCI would also use best professional 

judgment to determine if the channel met the BLM guideline criteria of an

ephemeral channel. To limit interference with mineral recovery, surface 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
disturbing activities would be avoided within 20 feet of the inner gorge of the 

identified ephemeral channels. Exceptions to this would be granted by the BLM 

based on an environmental analysis and site-specific engineering and mitigation 

plan, as required per 43 CFR 3809.411(d)(2). Only those actions within areas that 

cannot be avoided and that provide protection for the resource identified would be 

approved. However, with respect to effective protection of drainages, the 

provisions of the WDEQ-LQD Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 

are designed to protect not only drainages, but all parts of the Permit Area. The 

goal of the SWPPP is to “mitigate contamination of storm water effluent; 

especially from sediment loading resulting from soil disturbance.” In addition, 

BLM and WDEQ-LQD reclamation requirements include reestablishment of the 

hydrologic function of drainages. Table 2.2-2 and the text in Section 4.6.1 have 

been revised to reflect the above considerations.

LCI questioned the difference between the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine and the 

DEIS with respect to removal of cuttings from mud pits near ephemeral channels. 

LCI noted that the material is not considered toxic or acid-forming; however, the 

concern is that the material in the backfilled pit could be more easily eroded if 

subjected to surface flows because the pit area would no longer be consolidated 

material. Over time, this concern is abated because of consolidation of the 

material in the pit and establishment of surface reclamation. This would be 

helped because LCI would only drill near ephemeral channels during the dry 

season. However, the use of Alternate Sediment Control Measures, as defined in 

the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine and SWPPP, would also alleviate concerns until 

the drill site reclamation becomes better established. Because this topic is 

addressed in the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine and the SWPPP, the bullet was 

removed from the text in Section 4.6.1.1. 

Comment: Marybeth Devlin (Pages 2-3)

Waste Management and Accidental Releases: The comment expresses concerns 

associated with the quantity of radioactive and petroleum wastes generated on site 

and the potential for leaks and spills to significantly impact the environment.

Response: Table 2.1-1 lists the estimated monthly quantities of both liquid and 

solid radioactive wastes that will be generated. The liquid waste will be disposed 

of in the permitted deep disposal UIC wells. Radioactive solid waste that cannot 

be decontaminated will be disposed of at a NRC-licensed facility. Waste 

management, for radiological and non-radiological wastes, is addressed in Section 

4.18 of the FEIS. 

The Lost Creek facilities will be designed to withstand worst case credible upset 

conditions including but not limited to wind storms, earthquakes, and sheet 

flooding. Measures to reduce the potential for accidental releases include 

appropriate engineering design, construction, maintenance; development and 

implementation of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), 

inspections, notification procedures, response actions, on-going employee training 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
and general health and safety procedures. Specifically, Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs) addressing spill prevention and mitigation will be developed 

and implemented at the site. The SOPs will address pipeline installation and 

testing, automated system monitoring and alarming, site inspections, spill 

mitigation; and employee training. If an upset condition results in the release of 

mining solutions or chemicals to the environment, the affected system(s) will be 

shut down and thoroughly inspected/tested by an individual familiar with that 

system before being restarted. Management will verbally notify BLM and 

WDEQ-LQD immediately if an upset condition results in a release to the 

environment and cannot be made safe immediately. In such cases, LC ISR, LLC 

will also submit a written report to BLM and WDEQ-LQD within one week 

detailing the nature, location and cause of the incident, what if any releases to the 

environment resulted, what efforts were made to correct the problem, and what 

will be done in the future to prevent or mitigate similar occurrences. Measures 

for preventing and remediating accidental releases are discussed in the WDEQLQD Permit to Mine (e.g., Sections OP 2.9, OP 3.5, and OP 4.4 and Attachment 

OP-2) (LCI, 2011b) and in the NRC Technical Report (e.g., Sections 4.2.5.5, 

5.7.1.4, and 5.7.6.6) (LCI, 2010).

Comment: EPA (Page 2) 

Accidental Releases – “The Draft EIS states (Sections 4.6.1.2 and 4.7.1.1) that 

procedures, training and reporting for spills or leak prevention are described in the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality - Land Quality Division's Permit 

to Mine. For full disclosure of these mitigation techniques, we recommend 

presenting a summary of these various requirements in the Final EIS.” 

Response: Additional text included in Section 2.1.8 to further describe spills and 

leaks mitigation. Although a significant portion of the information in the WDEQLQD Permit to Mine was already included in the DEIS. The Spill Prevention and 

Response Plan, to be developed, will outline specific procedures to be used. 

*URXQGZDWHU

Comment: SWCCD (Page 2) 

The DEIS “does not adequately address the potential impact on nonpotable water 

from drilling and pumping. . . . The permit area should be subject to provisions 

that ensure that drilling and pumping does not adversely affect existing water 

supplies. Careful planning and testing of the hydro-geology can avoid these 

adverse impacts.” 

Response: Section 3.6 of the DEIS and FEIS describes the regional and site 

groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water uses, and the baseline aquifer 

testing and monitoring used to establish the aquifer and water quality 

characteristics. Section 4.7.1 describes the procedures and practices that will be 

used during mine operation and reclamation to monitor, protect, and reclaim 

groundwater conditions. Sections 4.7.4 through 4.7.7 describe the changes that 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
will occur to groundwater levels and water quality during operation and 

reclamation. 

Comment: WDA (Page 3)

“The WDA appreciates BLM and the Operator's consideration of water levels on 

the four BLM stock wells within the one mile radius of the Permit Area boundary. 

It is important to have baseline data to indicate any impacts from the ISR Project. 

We strongly support gathering baseline data on water flow, but the DEIS is 

missing requiring the Operator to also gather the water quality data on these four 

wells. Water quality is an important component of in situ uranium mining. We 

request the BLM and Operator treat water quality of the four BLM stock wells as 

equally as important. 

The WDA urges BLM and the Operator meet with grazing permittees to discuss 

the current conditions of the stock wells, including water flow and chemistry. This 

meeting would create an opportunity for the Operator to discuss the frequency and 

schedule of future stock well testing. Once the project is developed, the Operator 

will continue to test water flow and quality and provide the data analysis results to 

the grazing permittees and the BLM. The Operator should contact the BLM and 

grazing permittees immediately if results indicate a reduction of flow or increase 

in water quality toxic levels. The Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, Water Quality Division should guide the BLM and Operator utilizing the 

literature review "Water Quality for Wyoming Livestock & Wildlife" (M. F. 

Raisbeck DVM).” 

Response: As discussed in Section 4.7.2.2 of the DEIS and FEIS, the four BLM 

stock wells near the Permit Area (Battle Spring Well No. 4451 and Battle Spring 

Well No. 4777, Boundary Well No. 4775, and the Eagle Nest Draw Well) shown 

on Figure 3.6-15 will be sampled to establish background conditions if the owner 

consents and the pumping systems are in working order. The four wells would 

also be sampled on a quarterly basis if the owner consents and the pumping 

systems are in working order. At a minimum, the samples would be analyzed for 

U-nat and Ra-226. Water level data would be collected before sampling if the 

wellhead design allows access. As mentioned in Section 3.6.3.1, Well No. 4451 

was sampled in 2009 and 2010. The sample results are listed in Table 3.6-7. The 

baseline concentrations indicate elevated concentrations of uranium and radium, 

which is not surprising given the occurrence of uranium mineralization 

throughout this portion of the Great Divide Basin. The text in Section 4.7.2.2 was 

changed to indicate the four off-site wells will be sampled to establish background 

conditions and will also be sampled quarterly. 

The baseline groundwater data was established under NRC and WDEQ standards, 

which BLM does not have the authority to override. The BLM has provided, and 

will continue to provide, opportunities for affected parties to obtain information 

about the Project through public meetings for which notice has been given. The 

NRC and WDEQ licensing and permitting actions have also included public 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
notice and comment (Section 1.5). LCI has also committed to working with 

grazing permittees through county, state, and federal public meetings for which 

notice has been given, and by providing data not otherwise available, including 

sampling an off-site supply well and obtaining cattle tissue samples from at least 

one local permittee for baseline documentation.

The BLM has routinely spoken with the grazing permittees about the Lost Creek 

Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project during meetings in the field or during

discussions concerning permit renewals. LCI has also indicated that, as 

opportunity allows, it has visited with grazing permittees potentially affected by 

the Proposed Action at the Lost Creek Permit Area. 

To facilitate transparent communication, the BLM added the grazing permittees 

that may be affected by the Proposed Action to the Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ 

Recovery Project’s mailing list. These grazing permittees were provided an 

electronic copy of the FEIS. The BLM will be accepting public comment on the 

FEIS within 30 days after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the 

Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The grazing permittees will also be 

notified of the Record of Decision. 

Comment: EPA (Page 2)

“The Draft EIS presents (Section 2.1.5.1) a discussion on the mine unit 

reclamation, including well plugging and capping. The discussion provides a very 

general description of permanently plugging and capping the well and well 

casings cut off below plow depth. We recommend that this discussion be 

expanded to include specific monitoring that will be conducted to determine the 

existence of unplugged wells, and the steps to be taken to ensure that they are 

plugged properly to prevent impacts to aquifers.” 

Response: Unplugged or improperly abandoned historic boreholes could provide 

pathways for vertical movement of fluids potentially impacting groundwater 

aquifers. In addition to LCI’s work to date to locate and abandon all historic 

boreholes in the Permit Area, LCI is required to attempt to locate and abandon all 

historic boreholes within the perimeter of the monitoring well ring as part of the 

NRC license and WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (Section 4.4.4.1 of the DEIS and 

FEIS). Following completion of the groundwater restoration for a given mine 

unit, all wells would be plugged and abandoned in accordance with WDEQ-LQD

requirements (Section 4.7.7.2). Beyond the stability monitoring period discussed 

in Section 4.7.1.1, no additional monitoring is required. 

Comment: Neil and Jennifer Miller (Page 2)

“We also have grave doubts about how efficient the monitoring wells will be to 

document "excursions" and how this will prevent the contamination of our state's 

groundwater.” 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
Response: The monitoring design for excursion detection, similar to the design 

for evaluation of groundwater movement for any water supply or quality project, 

is based on the aquifer characteristics and on the water quality. The aquifer 

characteristics and water quality have been evaluated for the Permit Area as a 

whole and for each mine unit before it is brought on-line. The excursion detection 

parameters are specifically selected from the most mobile, readily detectable 

constituents in the injection fluid (Section 5.2 of the WDEQ-LQD Mine Unit 1, 

Permit to Mine Application). In addition, there are several operational parameters 

that are measured to provide information on the mine unit balance as a 

preliminary indication to help prevent excursions (Section 4.7.2.1 of the DEIS and 

FEIS; Attachment OP-2 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine). If an excursion is 

detected, then several regulatory requirements are in place to control the 

excursion, up to and including, cessation of injection. 

Comments: BCA et al. (Page16)

“While there appear to be projected impacts on groundwater quality at all stages 

during the operation up to and including reclamation, there does not appear to be 

a section dedicated to assessing groundwater impacts post-reclamation, after 

project activities are completed. See DEIS at Section 4.7, and see page 4.7-34. In 

many respects, this is the most important groundwater issue that the EIS should be 

addressing, given that uranium has a half-life of thousands of years, and 

remaining impacts to groundwater after completion of reclamation activities will 

be correspondingly long-term.” 

Response: During aquifer restoration, the water quality parameters in the 

groundwater would be returned to pre-operational class of use as defined WDEQWQD and to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) 

Section RP 2.2 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit and Section 6.1.3.1 of the NRC SER. 

Groundwater restoration techniques will include sweep, reverse osmosis (RO), 

and recirculation. Restoration may also include groundwater transfer, reductant 

addition, and biorestoration to mitigate groundwater quality impacts from ISR. 

To establish that groundwater has returned to preoperational conditions, a

stabilization monitoring program would begin in which the pattern monitor wells 

used to evaluate restoration success would be sampled quarterly for a period of 12 

months. As part of the reclamation plan and associated monitoring, required per 

the BLM 3809 regulations, at least two additional stability monitoring samples 

(Section 4.7.1.1) would be collected, once every three months over a six-month 

period, after the initial stability period. The monitoring information will also 

support combined agency review of current stability monitoring requirements.

The text in Section 4.7.1.1 of the FEIS has been changed to reflect the additional 

stability monitoring.

Under the federal UIC program, the ISR production aquifer must receive an 

exemption from EPA that the aquifer, or part of the aquifer in not now and would 

not be a source of drinking water. The EPA criteria for an aquifer exemption are 

found in 40 CFR 146.4.. As discussed in Sections 3.6.4.2 and 4.7.4.2 of the DEIS 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
and FEIS, elevated concentrations of uranium and radium occur naturally in the 

groundwater in mineralized zones, such as those proposed for mining. The 

mining process mimics the geochemical (oxidation/reduction) and hydrologic 

processes that allowed transport of the uranium to the ore zone, and the 

restoration process mimics the depositional processes that created the uranium 

deposits. The implication that the half-life of uranium is somehow relevant only 

because mining occurs fails to recognize the fact that the water quality in (and 

sometimes near) the ore zones contains elevated uranium concentrations before 

mining. Because much of the uranium is removed during mining, a primary 

concern during restoration is to ensure that, during restoration, the condition in the 

ore zone returns to a condition similar to that before mining. 

Comment: LCI (Pages 13-14, #29) 

LCI commented that “it is inappropriate for the BLM to amend a sampling plan in 

a DEIS for the purpose of collecting information for another regulatory agency 

(EPA) on the basis that such additional information may be used to support a 

future rule making....”

Response: BLM included this provision in Table 2.2-2 and in Section 4.7 for two 

reasons. First, BLM believes the provision is necessary to ensure the Reclamation 

Plan and associated Monitoring Plan are effective (43 CFR 3809.401(b)(3)&(4)). 

Second, the EPA concern is whether “the existing standards, last revised by EPA 

in 1995, should be updated”, i.e., the information would be used to determine if 

future rule making is necessary, not necessarily to support the rule making. The 

text in Table 2.2-2, Sections 4.7.1 and 4.7.1.1 has been modified to reflect the 

BLM-specific concern, as well as the combined agency review of reclamation 

monitoring data. 

Comment: LCI (Page 14; #31)

“The DEIS requires sampling of four regional BLM wells as shown in Figure 3.6-

15. Of these four wells, only two wells, BLM Battle Spring Well 4451 and BLM 

Battle Spring Well No 4777, are near enough to the proposed operation and in a 

generally down-gradient direction that their water quality could be impacted. Two 

of the four wells, BLM Boundary Well No. 4774 and BLM East Eagle Nest Draw 

Well are up gradient of the wellfields and greater than a mile away. Given that the 

groundwater moves only a few feet per year in this area it would take over a 

hundred years for any undetected contamination to reach either well (and then 

only if the water can flow against the gradient). Therefore, LCI requests that the 

EIS require sampling of only two of the wells (BLM Battle Spring Well 4451 and 

BLM Battle Spring Well No 4777).” 

Response: As stated in the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine and NRC License, the 

off-site wells near the permit area (Battle Spring Well No. 4451 and Battle Spring 

Well No. 4777, Boundary Well No. 4775, and the Eagle Nest Draw Well) would 

be sampled quarterly with well owner consent and if operational. The BLM does 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
not consider it appropriate at this time to change the sampling program outlined in 

the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine and NRC License.

Comment: LCI (Page 14; #30, 32)

LCI requested changes pertaining to groundwater in the DEIS to more accurately 

describe the Project.

Response: The text has been revised. 

Comment: EPA (Page 2) 

“The Draft EIS does not present the locations of the UIC wells. We recommend 

that the Final EIS discuss the locations of the UIC wells. Also, the Draft EIS 

states that wells within and immediately outside the permit areas are not used as 

sources for human consumption, yet the Draft EIS states (Section 3.6.3.2) that 

water from the uranium target - FG horizon may be used for potable water. The 

Final EIS should provide additional information to identify USDW aquifers near 

the project area that may be used for potable water for the Lost Creek Project.” 

Response: The Project includes both UIC Class I wells and UIC Class III wells. 

The DEIS (and FEIS) show the locations of the UIC deep disposal wells on 

Figure 1.2-2. The text in Sections 1.2 and 2.1.2.4 have been revised to state that 

the UIC deep disposal well locations are shown on Figure 1.2-2. The locations of 

the UIC Class III wells, which are within the pattern areas, are only known as 

each mine unit is developed. These locations are shown in the documents 

submitted for the individual mine units (Section 2.1.3.2). 

Because of the uranium mineralization throughout the northeast portion of the 

Great Divide Basin (Section 3.3.1), it is unlikely that any of the water-bearing 

horizons in the Battle Springs Formation could be used as a source of potable 

water, unless the water were treated, because of the elevated concentrations of 

uranium and other radionuclides. For example, the water supply for the town of 

Bairoil has required treatment and development of alternate sources due to the 

presence of radionuclides. Uranium mineralization is present in the four 

shallowest aquifers in and near the Permit Area- the DE, FG, HJ, and KM 

aquifers (Table 3.6-8). If LCI decides to use a well completed in the FG Horizon 

for potable water, treatment will be necessary. Alternately, LCI may decide to 

bring drinking water into the Permit Area.

9HJHWDWLRQ

Comments: SWCCD (Page 3) and Devlin (Page 6) 

These comments express concerns that, as a result of this project, invasive plants 

and weeds will inhabit any disturbed lands. 

Response: LCI is required to control the occurrence and spread of weeds brought 

in as a result of the Project. There were very few weeds identified in the predisturbance surveys (Section 3.7.2.4); therefore, the main concentration of effort 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
by the company will be to monitor and control weeds throughout the life of the 

Project. As long as the company complies with this requirement and the 

revegetation requirements, weed expansion would not occur and there would be 

no cumulative impact of increasing weed presence in the area. The company’s 

compliance with weed control and revegetation requirements will be checked by 

periodic inspections by BLM and WDEQ-LQD and evaluation of revegetation 

success. The reclamation plan does: require site preparation prior to reseeding 

(Section 4.5.1.2); allow for planting an annual crop to facilitate plant 

reestablishment (Section 4.8.1); includes monitoring of revegetation success for at 

least five years after final reclamation (Section 4.8.2.2); and if reclamation 

progress is deemed insufficient, requires that the reason for the limited progress 

be identified and addressed (Section 4.8.2.2). 

:LOGOLIH

Greater Sage-grouse

Comments: Neil and Jennifer Miller (Page 2); BCA et al. (Pages 5, 23-24, 25-

26, 29-30, 35); and WOC (Pages 1-2, 6) 

Several comments addressed the policies for Greater sage-grouse management.

Response: Revising the contents of the Sage Grouse Executive Order and 

associated policies are outside the scope of this FEIS. BLM appreciates receipt of 

the comments as they provide insight on the basis of some of the other, related 

EIS-specific comments. These comments have been forwarded to the appropriate 

forum.

Comments: BCA et al. (Pages 25-28, 29, 30-31, 34-35) 

BCA et al. often refers to impacts from oil and gas drilling projects as a 

comparison for potential impacts from the LCI Uranium In-Situ Recovery (ISR) 

Project.

Response: To address several of the comments on the overall project, the type of 

mineral development must be kept in mind, as the applicable requirements vary to 

address concerns specific to a given type of development. In particular, the Lost 

Creek Project would mine uranium, a locatable, solid mineral. Several of the 

comments include descriptions and provisions related to leasable fluid minerals, 

specifically oil and gas. The BLM regulations for locatable and leasable minerals 

are in separate parts of Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations 

applicable to locatable minerals are in Part 3809 et seq., and regulations 

applicable to leasable minerals are in Part 3101 et seq.

The technologies and equipment necessary to extract uranium differ from those 

necessary to extract oil and gas or coal bed methane. Beginning with the 

exploration stages, the geophysical techniques used for preliminary determination 

of the presence and extent of oil and gas fluids are not as effective for solid 

minerals such as coal and uranium; so drilling is necessary. Unlike oil and gas or 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
coal bed methane, uranium could be mined by conventional means like those for 

coal, i.e. physically removing the topsoil, overburden, and ore. However, 

uranium can also be mined using less intrusive ISR, which relies on wells for 

injection of fluids to mobilize the uranium and for pumping of the production 

fluid from the ore zone. While oil, gas, coal bed methane, and uranium are 

related to energy and may be similarly extracted through the use of wells, these 

leasable and locatable minerals have different mineral deposition, areal extent of 

deposits, drilling depths, equipment sizes, methods and duration of production, 

length of pipelines, needs for compressors stations, reclamation requirements, and 

other technical differences.

With respect to most mineral deposition in Wyoming, oil and gas is the result of 

anaerobic decay of organic matter disseminated in shallow and/or deep sandstone 

or limestone deposits throughout large areas of geologic basins. Coal bed 

methane is the result of microbial action or thermal process in the extensive coal 

deposits, often found in the same geologic basins as oil and gas. In contrast, 

uranium ore is deposited at relatively shallow depths along a portion of the 

margins of a geologic basin, if a uranium source is located somewhere along or 

outside the margin of the basin. As an example of the differences in scale, the 

Jonah Field (a natural gas field in the Green River Basin of Wyoming) covers 

more than 120,000 acres, which is on the order of 30 times the size of the 4,254-

acre Lost Creek Permit Area. Well depths in the Jonah Field usually range from 

9,000 to 11,000 feet below surface, which is on the order of 20 times deeper than 

the bottom of the HJ Horizon, about 500 feet below surface, which is the horizon 

targeted in the Permit Area. All of the drilling equipment (e.g., rigs, pipe, mud 

pits) for wells in the Jonah Filed is substantially larger than that for the Lost 

Creek Project. While coal bed methane may be at similar depths as uranium 

deposits (although generally deeper in southwest Wyoming), the areas of the coal 

beds are substantially greater than the area of roll-front uranium deposits. 

Oil, gas, and coal bed methane production depend on natural and induced 

reservoir pressures and on reservoir permeabilities to move those fluids out of the 

reservoir. In general, higher production rates are considered preferable. As 

production from a reservoir declines, closer well spacings may be needed for 

more efficient production. Production may be enhanced by artificial fracturing to 

increase the size of the ‘pathways’ the fluids have to move out of the reservoirs. 

In contrast, uranium production depends on the permeability to ensure the 

lixiviant can penetrate the reservoir sufficiently to dissolve the solid uranium. 

However, higher production rates, pressures or fracturing would result in the 

lixiviant ‘bypassing’ the uranium. The engineering designs for movement of 

fluids in oil, gas, and coal bed methane production share similar fundamentals but 

are substantially different in practical application than those for dissolution of a 

mineral such as uranium. 

The differences in the mineral deposition, areas of the deposits, drilling depths, 

equipment sizes, methods and duration of production, length of pipelines, the 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
need for compressors stations, reclamation requirements, and many other 

technical aspects are reflected in the differences in engineering designs for oil, 

gas, coal bed methane, and ISR production. The differences are also taken into 

account in the regulatory programs, including leasable versus locatable minerals 

and in the stipulations for Greater sage-grouse.

Comments: BCA et al. (Page 35) and WOC (Page 12) 

These comments expressed concern for how the Greater sage-grouse will be 

impacted by the presence of fences throughout the Permit Area. 

Results: As was stated in Section 4.9.6.3 of the DEIS and now also in Section 

4.2.1 of the FEIS, in order to mitigate Greater sage-grouse collisions with fences, 

fence markers would be installed on all new fence lines to increase the visibility 

of the lines. New fences would also be monitored for evidence of Greater sagegrouse strikes. This statement has now also been added to Sections 4.9.1.2 and 

4.9.1.10 for greater clarity. Tom Christiansen stated in his 2009 fence marking 

interim report that markers reduce strikes by 70% (Christiansen, 2009). 

Christiansen, Tom. 2009. Fence Marking to reduce Greater Sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) Collisions and Mortality near Farson, Wyoming – 

Summary of Interim Results. WGFD. October 26, 2009. Available at: 

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1108/ML110830116.pdf 

Comment: BCA et al. (Page 33)

“The project will contain a number of components that generate noise pollution, 

including equipment on site and trucks using the access roads. See DEIS at 4.12-

4. The impacts of noise-generating equipment have not been analyzed either at the 

level of lek sites or nesting habitat for sage grouse. This analysis needs to be 

completed.” 

Response: The DEIS includes analysis of noise impacts in the Assessment of 

Impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse using SGIT Stipulations in Section 4.9.5.3. 

Comment: BCA et al. (Pages 8-11, 23-24, 28-29, & 34)

BCA et al. is concerned that the proposed Access Roads will negatively impact 

Greater sage-grouse in the area. Specifically, they discussed concerns regarding: 

roads being within the 0.6-mile buffer; evaluation of alternative road locations;

and upgrading of roads. BCA et al. recommended using a different set of access 

roads, the BCA Southern Alternate Access Road and the BCA SE Alternate 

Access Road; they propose that both would have fewer impacts, as they are

outside the 1.9-mile buffer surrounding leks. 

Response: Alternative road options were discussed during the EQC hearing, 

conducted as part of the WDEQ-LQD permitting process (Section 1.5), including 

roads inside and outside the 0.6-mile buffer. As discussed in the DEQ’s Closing 

Argument during the hearing, a representative from WGFD discussed the process 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
that WGFD followed to determine which, if any, road options for the LCI Project 

would comply with Executive Order (EO) 2011-5. During the WGFD’s

testimony, it was noted that the EO discourages both the development within 0.6 

miles of leks and the creation of new disturbance, further fragmenting sage-grouse 

habitat. It was also noted that past projects have had success with topography 

providing a barrier between the roads, thus minimizing the effects seen at the lek.

After thorough analysis, WGFD determined that the East and West Access Roads 

would not only be the least impactful option, but would also comply with the EO. 

In the Closing Argument, the WDEQ-LQD deferred to the WGFD analysis and 

agreed with the conclusion reached. 

Similar to the concerns noted for other alternate road locations analyzed in 

Section 2.3.3.8, the alternate road locations suggested by BCA, violates the EO by 

disturbing and fragmenting a significant amount of habitat, despite being outside 

the 1.9-mile buffer. Also, the BCA SE Alternate Access Road, which follows a 

somewhat different route than the SE Alternate Access Road shown on Figure 

2.2-3, still crosses the 1-mile buffer around two raptor nests. 

BCA et al. also characterizes some of the existing roads as “jeep trails” even 

though the roads were constructed with a crown and ditch. Although vegetation 

has regrown over parts of these roads, they were not reclaimed to remove the 

drainage modifications (the crown and ditch) or to adequately reestablish the 

vegetation. Except during inclement weather, they are passable. 

Comment: WOC (Pages 2-3, 4-5, & 6) 

The WOC would like the BLM to consider an alternative to the current access 

road plan, where only one access road is constructed rather than two. 

Response: Several agencies have reviewed the access roads, including the 

WDEQ-LQD, WGFD, and NRC. Alternate routes where examined, and although 

these routes were designed to be outside the 0.6-mile buffer surrounding leks, 

there was a significant amount of new disturbance associated with these 

alternatives. The WGFD determined that upgrading the existing two-track roads 

would have less impact to the Greater sage-grouse than creating new roads 

outside the 0.6-mile lek buffer (WDEQ, 2011a). For more information regarding 

the placement of the access roads, see Section 2.3.3.8 in the DEIS. 

The two road requirement was discussed at a Cooperating Agency Meeting on 

September 15, 2011, where it was mentioned that per Sweetwater County’s 

emergency access requirements, two roads would be necessary for safety 

purposes. 

Comment: BCA et al. (Pages 11, 32); WOC (Pages 5-8); Marybeth Devlin

(Page 3); and Neil and Jennfier Miller (Page 1) 

Several commenters expressed concerns that the increased traffic in the area 

associated with the Project would have negative impacts on the Greater sage-

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
grouse. This includes concerns over the number of vehicles, noise generation, 

and specific concerns regarding the Sooner lek, as it is the closest to any road 

potentially used by the Project. 

Response: The response is separated into specific concerns:

Number of Vehicles

The DEIS reported the maximum traffic to the Permit Area as 50 SUVs per day 

and 2-5 tractor/trailers per week. There was an error in this reporting and the text 

has been corrected to 50 SUVs per day and 2-5 tractor/trailers per day. 

Noise Generated by Vehicles

The comments reference a series of reports and studies, mostly applicable to oil 

and gas operations, coal, and other large-scale mineral operations, documenting 

the impact noise can have on lek populations. The BLM ID Team acknowledges 

that Greater sage-grouse are sensitive to noise and human disturbance that would 

be caused by increased traffic for the proposed Project operations. Noise levels, 

specific to this Project are addressed in the DEIS and FEIS Section 4.12 and noise 

impacts to Greater sage-grouse are addressed in the DEIS and FEIS Section 

4.9.5.3 and are briefly summarized below. 

According to EO 2011-5, new noise levels at the edge of a lek should not exceed 

10 dBA above ambient noise between 6:00pm and 8:00am from March 1 to May 

15. Noise generating activities would primarily occur between 7:00am and 

5:00pm, overlapping with the restricted time by an hour. Initiation of construction 

activities would comply with seasonal restrictions to limit the heavy equipment 

traveling to and from the site during more sensitive times. Section 4.12 of the 

DEIS discusses noise from traffic, specifically the heavy construction equipment, 

and concludes that noise generated would be indistinguishable from the ambient 

wind noise at distances greater than 1,000 ft. Given that the Sooner and Sooner 

Oil Leks are the only occupied leks within 1,000 feet of a road (Section 4.9.5.3), 

most leks will have negligible noise impacts. Additionally, as was noted by 

WGFD previously, local topography combined with current vegetation and 

prevailing wind directions will likely dissipate any noise generated on the road 

before it reaches the leks. 

Sooner Lek Considerations 

Given that the Sooner and Sooner Oil Leks are within 1,000 feet of Sooner Road, 

traffic increases along this road could impact lek attendance at these leks. Most of 

the heavier transports of materials and equipment into and from the Project would 

use the West Access Road and Wamsutter-Crooks Gap Road (Section 4.9.5.3). 

The final NRC SEIS states that “most construction workers would travel to the 

proposed project area from Casper and Rawlins, the two largest cities in the 

region. This travel would involve driving on US 287 to Lamont, then west to 

Bairoil approximately 10 km [6 mi] on WY 73, then about 20 km [12 mi] west on 

CR 22 to Sooner Road (BLM #3215) to the proposed project area access road 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
(SEIS Figures 4-1 and 4-2).” This path would bring workers in from the northeast 

and does not pass by the Sooner Lek (see Figures 3.2-1 and 4.9-2 of the FEIS). 

Therefore, though traffic increases may occur along Sooner Road, Project-related 

increases along Sooner Road are likely to occur mostly to the north of the East 

Access Road, which would have less of an impact on Sooner Lek and Sooner Oil 

Lek. Additionally, potential impacts on these leks will be monitored through the 

annual wildlife monitoring program (Section 4.9.2) and appropriately addressed 

through the Adaptive Management Plan (Section 4.9.1.10). 

Comment: BCA et al. (Pages 11-12); Marybeth Devlin (Page 3); and WOC 

(Pages 10-11) 

Several commenters were concerned that power lines in the Permit Area would 

provide perching locations for raptors in the area, and therefore increase predation 

of Greater sage-grouse and other small animals in the area. 

Response: Though the DEIS does state that power lines will be “placed in or 

adjacent to the access road right-of-way to help minimize habitat impacts where 

possible”, this does not mean that all access roads will have power lines adjacent 

to them. There is an existing transmission line that runs along the western 

boundary of the Project, and the Project’s main power line will be connected to 

this. The new primary power line constructed for the Project from the existing line 

will be outside the 0.6-mile buffer around Greater sage-grouse leks. Tertiary 

transmission lines within the Permit Area would be buried. Any power lines that 

are not buried will be equipped with BLM-approved anti-perch measures, which 

have been demonstrated to significantly reduce the number of raptors perched on 

the poles. (During the demonstration, a total of 249 raptors and ravens were 

observed on or near the control line, and only 3 raptors or ravens were observed 

on or near the new, anti-perch line (Oles, 2007)). Therefore, the transmissions

lines that will be constructed for the Project will comply with the sage-grouse 

stipulations outlined in EO 2011-5 (Mead, 2011). 

Comments: BCA et al. (Page 32) and WOC (Page 8)

The WOC and BCA et al. are concerned that the reliance on the adaptive 

management plan will not provide adequate or timely protection to the Greater 

sage-grouse. 

Response: BLM has based their approach on the best available data and on 

current policies and procedures, and in response to discussions with WGFD, 

considers adaptive management an appropriate tool to help ensure continued 

reliance on timely information. 

Comments: LCI (Page 9)

LCI notes that the description of the technical advisory committee (the TAC”) 

could be clarified in the following areas: 

x The substantive standards for decision making by the TAC are not clear 

regarding what constitutes a “downward trend”.

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
x A dispute resolution/appeal process should be incorporated in the event 

the TAC does not reach consensus, for example over whether an impact 

threshold has been reached or the necessity of imposing specific additional 

protective measures.

x The description of the monitoring program is not clear regarding the 

relationship of the geographic areas to be monitored, the leks to be 

monitored and the standards by which monitoring programs are to be 

evaluated by the TAC.

Response: The text in Section 4.9.1.10 discusses how significant declines will be 

determined. The text in Section 4.9.1.10 has been revised to address the requested 

clarifications regarding dispute resolution and expectations for monitoring.

Comment: BCA et al. (Page 32) 

BCA et al. questioned the effectiveness of off-site mitigation. 

Response: The comment focuses on “compensation mitigation” for oil and gas 

impacts, which presumably refers to off-site conservation easements. Although 

‘compensation mitigation’ is not precluded by the EIS, the focus of adaptive 

management for the Lost Creek Project is not solely on conservation easements, 

but also on techniques that could be used to improve conditions on-site, as well as 

in the northeast portion of the Red Desert, including vegetation and land use 

management, that would influence the populations (Section 2.2.4 of Attachment 

OP-6 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine). 

Comment: LCI (Page 9) 

Regarding the adaptive management plan, the DEIS’s discussion of habitat 

enhancement as a protective measure for the GSG is not clear with respect to 

whether off-site (i.e., outside the Permit Area) habitat enhancement may be 

considered. DEIS, p. 4.9-9. As provided for in the Permit to Mine, enhancement 

of habitat in a buffer region outside the Permit Area is specifically approved. 

Permit to Mine – Wildlife Plan, p. 28. LCI believes this degree of flexibility is 

appropriate and would, in fact, further BLM’s conservation goals for Bureau 

sensitive species, as provided for in BLM Manual 6840. As the Manual explains, 

BLM’s goals include “improv[ing] the condition of the species’ habitat on BLMadministered lands.” BLM-administered lands extend more broadly than the 

Permit Area itself. Therefore, LCI requests that the FEIS clarify that habitat 

enhancement may take place outside the Permit Area as an additional protective 

measure.

Response: As now clarified in section 4.9.1.10 and 4.9.1.12, off-site habitat 

enhancements may be considered as an additional protective measure and will be 

considered during the adaptive management program. 

Comment: BCA et al. (Page 33); WOC (Page 4) 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
The commenters believe that the Proposed Action violates the provisions of the 

EO and the BLM Instruction Memorandum 2010-12 (IM) and that BLM should 

act independently and use the IM to require additional protections for Greater 

sage-grouse.

Response: During the WDEQ-LQD permitting process, WGFD reviewed the 

Proposed Action for adherence to the stipulations developed by the Sage Grouse 

Implementation Team, including the Density Disturbance Calculation Tool 

(DDCT), road locations, and other provisions. The WGFD commented that the 

results from the DDCT indicated that the surface disturbance resulting from the 

Project was in line with state-wide stipulations for Greater sage-grouse taking 

topography and proximity to leks into account (WDEQ, 2011a). In addition, the 

Proposed Action was reviewed for consistency with the provisions of the EO 

during the notice and opportunity to participate in the Wyoming Environmental 

Quality Council (EQC) Hearing on the WDEQ-LQD Permit in August 2011 

(resulting in the EQC upholding the WDEQ-LQD decision to issue the permit) 

(EQC, 2011). 

Per the policies stated in the BLM IM 2010-12, WY, BLM will manage sagegrouse to support population objectives set by the WGFD. BLM is working with 

WGFD, for this Project and in general, on collaborative efforts for monitoring and 

adaptive management for the protection of sage grouse and to keeping the bird 

from becoming a listed species. 

Comment: BCA et al. (Page 33); LCI (Page 6) 

These comments relate to the applicability of seasonal restrictions on Project 

activities. While LCI requests clarification regarding the application of the 

seasonal restrictions, BCA et al. questions the effectiveness of enforcing timing 

stipulations for the initiation of construction and exploration, but not enforcing 

restrictions for production. 

Response: The EIS text has been revised (Section 2.1.6.4, Table 2.1-2, Table 2.2-

2, Section 4.9.1, Section 4.9.1.9, Table 4.9.1, and Section 4.9.5.3), to clarify the 

application of the seasonal timing restriction with respect to exploration, initial 

construction, and production, and activities included in each phase to be 

consistent with the WDEQ Permit to Mine. The interpretation of the applicability 

of the seasonal restrictions for this Project is in line with the SGIT EO and has 

also been verified through correspondence with the WGFD during the WDEQLQD permit development as well during development of the BLM EIS. 

Comments: BCA et al. (Pages 31-32); WOC (Page 13) 

The comments express concerns over the lack of representation of data from more 

recent Greater sage-grouse surveys (2010 and 2011 wildlife surveys) conducted in 

the Permit Area in the DEIS. 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
Response: The results from the 2010 and 2011 lek counts have been added to 

Table 3.8-3 in the FEIS. The complete 2010 and 2011 Annual Wildlife 

Monitoring Reports have also been as an appendix in the FEIS. 

Comment: BCA et al. (Page 32)

BCA et al. believes that the 3-year running average is problematic, stating that 

this method could mask decreases in Greater sage-grouse populations until it is 

too late to take corrective action.

Response: The specifics surrounding the sage-grouse monitoring are outlined in 

the Wildlife Protection Plan and Wildlife Monitoring Plan (Attachment OP-6 of 

the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine). The techniques used to analyze the data during 

adaptive management have been approved by the WGFD, who currently manages 

the Greater sage-grouse. The use of a three-year running average is 

recommended for use of determining potential Project-related declines in the 

SGIT Executive Order (Mead, 2011). 

Comment: BCA et al. (Page 33)

We do not support the use of wing barrels as an index to population (DEIS at 4.9-

18), as these are too sensitive to hunter effort, which readily skews the data. 

Response: As discussed in the Wildlife Protection Plan and Wildlife Monitoring 

Plan (Attachment OP-6 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine), WGFD will work 

with LCI to establish wing-barrel locations. The several study techniques that will 

be used, including use of wing-barrel data, have been approved by the WGFD. 

Comment: WOC (Page 19-20) 

WOC expressed their opinion that the cumulative impact assessment did not 

address the additive effect of the Lost Creek Project and that a potential wind 

power project was omitted from the list of projects in the area.

Response: As noted by WOC, Item 18 of the EO does recommend co-locating 

proposed disturbances “within areas already disturbed or naturally unsuitable” but 

that “adjustments to the stipulations may be necessary based upon local 

conditions and limitations.” In this instance, an economic uranium ore deposit 

has been located and production and reclamation plans prepared in accordance 

with existing regulatory requirements. As noted in response to a previous 

comment, economic deposits of a locatable mineral, such as uranium, are 

substantially smaller in areal extent and may not coincide with reservoirs of 

leasable minerals, such as oil and gas. Also, as noted in Section 5.1.2.1 of the 

EIS, another uranium project is nearby, which is part of the reason roads, such as 

the Mineral Exploration Road (Figure 3.2-1) exist, limiting the number of new 

roads that LCI would have had to build or upgrade to access their project. 

The potential wind power project mentioned in the comment is the Whirlwind I 

Wind Project. Other than press releases in early 2012 (e.g., Casper Star Tribune 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
citation below), which indicated the “eventual size of the project will be 

determined by factors like transmission capacity and siting constraints” and 

availability of leases, little information is available. 

Citation to Casper Star Tribune 

http://trib.com/business/pathfinder-wold-plan-to-develop-large-windfarm/article_91b4e68a-facf-5ded-b7ab-695a81aa155c.html 

Comment: WOC (Page 7) 

The WGFD does not believe that the topographical visual assessment is an 

appropriate method to determine the effect the Project roads could have on 

Greater sage-grouse. 

Response: The visual assessment was added to the DEIS at the request of WGFD. 

The visual assessment showed that the topography in the area created a barrier 

between the access roads and the nearby leks. In addition, it was noted that the 

vegetation and prevailing wind direction would help dissipate the sounds of traffic 

before they reached the edge of the lek. Therefore, it was concluded by the 

WGFD that the sage-grouse leks would not be exposed to noise levels above 

those specified in the EO. 

Comment: WOC (Pages 8-9)

The WOC is concerned that the current designation of the Crooked Well lek of 

“Occupied-Inactive” is incorrect, and that the lek should instead be classified as 

“Occupied-Active.” They are also concerned that the surveying techniques might 

not have followed necessary protocol. 

Response: As mentioned in the DEIS, further explanation of the Crooked Well 

Lek designation is available in Attachment D9-4 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to 

Mine. In 2009, a letter was sent to the WGFD to verify the classification of the 

Crooked Well lek. The survey results from 2010 and 2011 also reported that no 

sage-grouse were seen in the Crooked Well lek. The text has been edited to 

reflect that the Crooked Well lek was surveyed in 2011. 

Additionally, in the wildlife reports written by LWR Consultants, Inc., there is a 

more specific outline of the monitoring techniques utilized during Greater sagegrouse surveys. LWR followed protocols outlined by the BLM and WGFD such 

as:

x conducting surveys between April 1 and May 7, from approximately 0.5 

hours before sunrise to 0.5 hours after sunrise; 

x surveying areas at least 3 times each, with surveys separated by 7-10 

days;

x examining suitable habitat for new lek locations; and 

x performing surveys both from the ground and from a fixed-wing aircraft.

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
Comment: WOC (Page 10)

The WOC claims that LCI’s exploration activity has already caused significant 

decreases in sage-grouse populations.

Response: LCI’s exploration activities have been permitted in accordance with 

applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The aerial photographs shown in 

the comments from WOC are zoomed in on one mine unit and are not 

representative of ‘before’ and ‘after’ in the Permit Area or of the area of 

exploration for LCI. As noted in the responses to other comments and as noted in 

Section 2.1.1 of the EIS, uranium ore is concentrated in roll front deposits, not 

scattered throughout a geologic basin, so as exploration progresses, the focus of 

the exploration narrows rather than continuing throughout an area. The discussion 

of declines in populations referenced in Section 3.8.3.2 is regional, not specific to 

Lost Creek. Uranium exploration in the Great Divide Basin was active until the 

late 1980s, at the latest, and did not resume until the mid-2000s. With respect to 

the Crooked Well Lek, information from as early as 1994, before any recent 

exploration, indicates the Crooked Well Lek not was active. 

Raptors

Comment: WOC (Page 13)

WOC expressed concern that the survey frequency for new raptor nest surveys 

was not sufficient. 

Response: Annual nest surveys would occur on known raptor nest locations, if 

any new nests are located during these annual nest surveys they will still be 

recorded. The text cited in Table 2.1-2 has been updated for clarification. 

Species of Concern

Comments: WOC (15-18, 18-19) and BCA et al. (Page 17-23)

Several comments discussed various species of concern in the Permit Area, 

including sagebrush-obligate passerines, the Wyoming pocket gopher, and the 

pygmy rabbit. Specific concerns pertaining to these species included monitoring 

techniques, lack of impact analysis, and presence of significant impacts.

Response: The monitoring and mitigation measures described in Sections 4.9.1 

and 4.9.2 conform with current policies and procedures for protection of these 

species in the Permit Area.

Comment: LCI (Page 14, #34)

“The DEIS, as well as the Plan of Operations, states that Type I fencing will be 

used around the holding ponds. Type I fencing is too short to preclude deer, 

antelope and elk. Therefore, LCI requests that the fencing type be upgraded to 

Type II.” 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
Response: The text has been revised to include Type II fencing around the 

holding ponds. 

Water Quality Impacts 

Comments: BCA et al. (Page 12-13); Marybeth Devlin (Page 3); and WOC 

(14-15) 

Commenters are concerned that the Storage Ponds could have significant impacts 

on wildlife.

Response: As described in Section 2.1.2.2, the primary purpose of the Storage 

Ponds is to allow for shut down of the UIC Class I wells for maintenance, such as 

Mechanical Integrity Tests (MITs), or repair while the Plant remains in operation. 

The total capacity of the Storage Ponds is designed to accommodate two weeks of 

reduced Plant operation and is redundant, allowing for maintenance of the Storage 

Ponds in the event of a liner problem. The Storage Ponds would be lined with a 

double synthetic liner, including a leak detection system, and a series of 

monitoring wells would be installed to detect leaks into the surrounding 

sediments. While the fencing around the Plant and Pattern areas would allow the 

passage of wildlife, the fencing around the Storage Ponds would be constructed to 

prevent access by wildlife, cattle, and wild horses (Type II fencing per WDEQLQD Guideline No. 10 [1994c]). As stated in Section 4.9.1.6, the water quality in 

the Storage Ponds would be monitored quarterly and whenever a process change 

may result in a significant change in water quality. The Storage Ponds would 

contain produced groundwater and process waters with a near neutral pH. Section 

4.9.6.5 has been modified to include discussion of effects at lower selenium 

concentrations due to bioaccumulation. This section also now contains 

information on where the Storage Pond water will be drained (the UIC Class I 

wells). Finally, it has been noted that the ecological risks of applying an herbicide 

to reduce or eliminate algal growth in the storage Ponds would be considered 

prior to application. As stated in Section 4.9.1.2, the Storage Ponds would be 

monitored daily for wildlife morbidity and mortality. If evidence of mortality is 

present or if selenium reaches a harmful level, additional measures would be 

taken to prevent any access. Additional deterrents would be consistent with 

agency recommendations.

Comment: USFWS (Page 2) 

The USFWS is concerned that the discussion surrounding selenium

concentrations in the Storage Ponds neglects to address potential issues associated 

with bioaccumulation and sets the goal concentration too high. There are also 

concerns associated with the use of herbicides in the ponds to prevent algae and 

plankton growth.

Response: Section 4.9.6.5 has been modified to include discussion of effects at 

lower selenium concentrations due to bioaccumulation. This section also now 

contains information on where the Storage Pond water will be drained (the UIC 

Class I wells). Finally, it has been noted that the ecological risks of applying an 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
herbicide to reduce or eliminate algal growth in the Storage Ponds would be 

considered prior to application. The BLM would require the applicant to obtain a 

Pesticide Use Proposal with associated environmental analysis and consider other 

Integrated Pest Management techniques, prior to authorizing the use of pesticides. 

Studies and Data

Comments: BCA et al. (Page 31) and WOC (Page 2) 

The commenters were questioning the lack of more recent data and the 

availability of the 2010 Wildlife Report. 

Response: The complete 2010 and 2011 Annual Wildlife Monitoring Reports 

have been added as an appendix in the FEIS. 

:LOG+RUVHV

Comments: Marybeth Devlin (Page 4) 

“The proposed Lost Creek ISR mine would take away 3,088 more acres from the 

wild horses. The EIS makes no mention of providing compensatory land of equal 

quality elsewhere in the vicinity. This pattern of taking but not giving back needs 

to end. By law, the HMAs are supposed to be managed principally for the wild 

horses. Thus, their needs must take priority and be fully met.” 

Response: The Proposed Action would not reduce the size of Herd Management 

Areas (HMAs). However, forage would not be available in the fenced areas of 

the Proposed Action. Section 4.2.4.1 of the DEIS notes, “If all of the proposed 

disturbance areas of the Project were fenced at once, 345 acres (eight percent) of 

the 4,254-acre Permit Area would be [unavailable]”. The Stewart Creek HMA 

and the Lost Creek HMA, combined, cover more than 480,000 acres. Therefore, 

0.07 percent of the combined HMA acreage would be unavailable to wild horses 

if all the proposed disturbance areas were fenced at once.

In addition, Section 3.1.1.2 of the DEIS notes that, “While there are specified 

AMLs [appropriate management levels] for the Lost Creek HMA and the Stewart 

Creek HMA, the horses are free to roam and are not confined to HMAs.” The 

HMAs were established with boundaries such as fences, topography, etc. 

Typically, if the wild horse numbers are at or near their AMLs, and forage and 

water conditions are adequate (i.e., drought conditions do not exist), the wild 

horses should remain within the HMAs. When the wild horse numbers are greater 

than their AMLs and/or during droughts, wild horses will leave the HMAs. 

Additional information regarding wild horses is also available at the following 

BLM websites of “Myths and Facts” and “The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses 

and Burros Act of 1971”, which can be found at the following websites, 

respectively: 

 http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/myths_and

_facts.html 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_R

esources/wild_horses_and_burros/sale_authority.Par.69801.File.dat/whbact_1

971.pdf 

Comment: Marybeth Devlin (Page 3-4) 

“Chapter 3, Section 3.9 of the EIS devoted just two pages to the area's wild horses 

(pdf-pages 72 and 73). Instead of providing comprehensive information, the 

narrative focused on the supposed addition of escapee domestic stock horses into 

the wild, seeming to minimize the herds' genealogical importance, while 

grudgingly acknowledging their "limited" Spanish-Mustang ancestry.” 

Response: The information presented in Section 3.9 is summarized from the 

BLM Rawlins Field Office’s Wild Horse Management Areas website: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rawlins/wh.html#stewart

and the BLM Wild Horse Herd Management Areas – Interactive Map website: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Wild_Horses/maps/interactivemap.html 

The BLM’s Environmental Assessment WY-050-EA11-78 provides additional 

information regarding the genetics of the Lost Creek Herd and the Stewart Creek 

Herd: “Genetic samples (hair samples) were taken in 2009 and these samples 

were also analyzed by Dr. E. Gus Cothran, Equine Genetics Laboratory, Texas 

A&M University.” . . . “Genetic variability of this [Lost Creek] herd is fairly high. 

The all values related to allelic diversity and heterozygosity are high. Genetic 

similarity results suggest a herd with mixed ancestry that primarily is North 

American. There is a possibility of some, although limited, Iberian ancestry.” . . . 

“Genetic variability of this [Stewart Creek] herd is generally high. The values 

related to allelic diversity are near above average while heterozygosity is high. 

The herd appears to be in genetic equilibrium despite a high percentage of alleles 

at risk of loss. Genetic similarity results suggest a herd with mixed ancestry that 

primarily is North American.” This information is available online at:

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=wy

oming_enviroassess 

Comment: Marybeth Devlin (Pages 3-4) 

“Chapter 4, Section 4.10 purported to address the potential impacts of mining 

operations on the wild horse herds. Mostly, the negatives were dismissed as 

being of "no significant impact." Any information concerning the wild horses 

that weighed against the mine was downplayed. That is not a proper analysis. 

For instance, the EIS indicates that mud pits will not be fenced because 

experience with other ISR projects showed them not to be a problem for horses. 

But the EIS notes (parenthetically) that the other projects involved mainly 

domesticated horses which, we would infer, were under the control of their 

guardians. 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
In another instance, BLM admits that the wild horses could be exposed to toxic 

chemicals around spills and leaks. But these dangers are brushed off. Collisions 

with vehicles, disturbances, loss of habitat -- you name it and the EIS discounts 

the impact on the "continued existence" of the wild horses. Thus, if an impact 

would not potentially exterminate the wild horse population, the EIS characterizes 

it as "short term" or of "no significant impact."” 

Response: To clarify, the Proposed Action would fence all mud pits to exclude 

cattle and wild horses. Many of the mud pits would be located inside the fenced 

mine unit pattern areas. The mud pits located outside of the larger fenced areas 

would be individually fenced. As Section 4.10.4.2 states, “Approximately 300 

acres within the Permit Area would be fenced to keep out cattle and wild horses. 

While this fencing may affect the movement of horses, requiring them to travel 

around the fenced areas, the fencing is not expected to increase fragmentation of 

herds, due to the relatively small area fenced. Temporary mud pits would be 

fenced if they are located outside of the fenced portion of the mine units. Inside 

the fenced portion of the mine units, mud pits would not be fenced, in part due to 

the limited time the pits are open and the level of activity around the pits while 

they are open. Temporary mud pits (within the fenced pattern area or individually 

fenced if not within the pattern area) have not been the cause of significant 

mortality to big game at other ISR operations. (Most other ISR operations are in 

areas with more domestic than wild horses.) Therefore, the mud pits are not 

anticipated to impact wild horses.”

Fencing and spill/leak prevention measures help prevent potential wild horse 

exposure to toxic chemicals. As Section 4.10.4.2 states, “During Operation, spills 

around wellheads and leaks from pipelines could expose wild horses to toxic 

chemicals. LCI's leak detection systems and SPCC plan to remove affected soils 

and capture release fluids would eliminate or reduce such impacts.” Exposure to 

toxic chemicals and collisions are unlikely, uncommon, and unexpected events 

that should not occur, but if they do occur, impacts would be to individual horses 

and would not impact the overall herd health. Potential exposure to toxic 

chemicals, potential collisions with vehicles, disturbance from increased traffic, 

and some loss of habitat occur in gas development areas such as Hay Reservoir 

and in the Adobe Town HMA with no noticeable impacts to wild horse herd 

health.

Comment: Marybeth Devlin (Page 4) 

“... for the EIS in question, BLM looked only at those HMAs directly affected by 

loss of acreage, and did not consider any of the others. Thus, the analysis is 

incomplete regarding the mine's impact to the allegedly free-roaming horses that 

BLM manages as the Red Desert Complex.” 

Response: Figure 3.9-1 of the DEIS shows the boundaries of the two Herd 

Management Areas (HMAs) that overlap the Lost Creek Permit Area (Permit 

Area) – the Lost Creek HMA and the Stewart Creek HMA. The Permit Area does 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
not overlap the boundaries of the other three HMAs of the Red Desert Complex, 

the Antelope Hills, Crooks Mountain, and Green Mountain HMAs. However, the 

lands between the HMAs of the Red Desert Complex may serve as corridors 

between the HMAs. Since many of these HMAs are not fenced, the wild horses 

of these HMAs freely move, mix, intermingle, and maintain genetic viability and 

diversity. This interchange/exchange allows the BLM to maintain the appropriate 

management levels (AMLs) of the HMAs; otherwise, there would possibly be 

concern to increase the AMLs if this mixing did not occur. This mixing and 

movement of wild horses occurs on a regular basis, but more so in some HMAs 

than in others. Wild horses of the Lost Creek HMA can freely mix with the other 

wild horses of the Red Desert Complex HMAs, except for the Stewart Creek 

HMA. The Stewart Creek HMA is fenced completely separate from the other 

four HMAs, although in certain snow conditions, wild horses have been observed 

walking over cattle guards and fences (particularly from the Green Mountain 

HMA) and moving into the Stewart Creek HMA. In addition, a let-down fence 

within the Permit Area is temporarily lowered each fall to allow southern 

pronghorn migration, and may allow wild horses of the Stewart Creek HMA to 

freely move outside of the HMA on occasion (but a large percentage is unlikely).

Comments: Marybeth Devlin (Pages 5-6) 

The commenter is concerned that Section 6.0 of the report does not list any wild 

horse advocacy organizations and that no organizations of this nature were 

consulted during the EIS writing process. 

Response: Sections 1.5 and 6.0 of the EIS document the agencies and tribes, with 

regulatory authority and/or responsibility in relation to the Proposed Action, who 

were invited to become cooperating agencies in the Project’s development 

process. Interested parties and individuals have been provided opportunity for 

input on the Proposed Action through the NEPA public scoping and notice and 

comment processes, and other permitting and licensing processes, described in 

Sections 1.5 and 6.0. 

To facilitate future communication, the BLM added Marybeth Devlin to the 

mailing list for information related to the Project and will provide her an 

electronic copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The BLM 

will be accepting public comment on the FEIS within 30 days after the 

Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the 

Federal Register.

Comment: LCI (Page 14-15, #37)

“The DEIS states, “...spills around wellheads and leaks from pipelines could 

expose wild horses to toxic chemicals.” This statement could be more accurate by 

stating spills may contain trace quantities of toxic chemicals. Sect. 4.10.5.2 

contains similar language and LCI requests that both statements be clarified.” 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
Response: The language in section 4.9 and 4.10 has been revised to reflect this 

distinction.

$LU4XDOLW\

Comments: WDA (Page 2) and Marybeth Devlin (Page 3) 

The comments discuss concerns that the fugitive dust from the Project roads and 

activities will have a significant negative impact on wildlife, wild horses, and 

livestock. 

Response: Fugitive dust calculations for the project were calculated as the total 

uncontrolled PM-10 emissions per year. While uncontrolled emissions from the 

project are estimated to be 170 tons/year, that estimate does not take into account 

the control efficiency for the use of water and chemical dust suppressants that are 

required per the facility's Air Quality Permit issued by the Wyoming Department 

of Environmental Quality. Air Quality Permit CT-7896, Condition 10 requires 

the use of water and chemical dust suppressant to control fugitive dust emissions 

on the unpaved roads in the project area. The accepted control efficiency for 

watering is 50% and 80% for chemical dust suppressant application. The vast 

majority of the 170 tons/year of fugitive dust generated is due to travel and 

commuting on the unpaved roads. Control of fugitive dust emissions is a 

requirement for the permitted activities, and the WDEQ Air Quality Division 

cannot issue an air quality permit for any activity that will violate the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards designed to protect public health. Due to the 

issuance of a federally enforceable Air Quality Permit by the state regulatory 

agency, the impacts from PM-10 emissions for the project are sufficiently 

mitigated to prevent harmful or detrimental impacts to humans, animals and the 

environment. 

Comment: BCA et al. (Page 12) 

The EIS discusses nonradioactive dust and radon gas as the primary airborne 

pollutants. DEIS at 2-22. We are concerned that dust may become contaminated 

with radiation, and then be spread by airborne means. What are the potential 

effects of airborne radioactive pollutants? 

Response: Sections 4.17.2.1 and 4.17.4.1 of the DEIS summarizes the evaluation 

of potential radiological sources and impacts and the monitoring efforts required 

by the NRC. 

Comment: EPA (Page 3) 

“The Draft EIS presents existing conditions for only PM10 near the Project area. 

We recommend providing more complete air quality information for existing 

conditions by including additional criteria pollutants for the surrounding area in 

the Final EIS. We suggest contacting the Wyoming Department of Environmental

Quality (WDEQ) for updated nearby ambient air quality summary data for the 

criteria pollutants. Table 3.10-6 Primary and Secondary Limits for NAAQS and 

the State of Wyoming, should be updated to include the recently finalized NO2

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
and SO2 1-hour NAAQS. Also, the ozone NAAQS is no longer 0.08 ppb, but is 

now 0.075 ppm.” 

Response: Table 3.10-6 was updated to reflect more recent ambient air quality 

standards in place. A summary of the 2011 Wamsutter Station Annual Report 

from the WDEQ was added.

Comment: EPA (Page 3) 

“For the Preferred Alternative, a vacuum yellowcake dryer was included in the 

project process, yet no emissions appear to be included in the emissions inventory 

(Section 4.11.4.2). We recommend emissions from the dryer be included in the 

Final EIS.” 

Response: Text has been added to Section 4.11.5.2 to clarify that emissions from 

the vacuum drier would be negligible and to cross-reference Section 4.17.5 

(Public and Occupational Health Impacts for Other Alternatives) which provides 

more information about the dryer alternative. 

6RFLRHFRQRPLF

Comment: Fischer-Watt Gold Co., Inc. (Page 1) 

“The DEIS does not evaluate the economic viability of the Lost Creek ISR 

Uranium Project and for that I reference an external document - "Preliminary 

Economic Assessment of the Lost Creek Property, Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

Prepared by Ur-Energy Inc.", dated April 30, 2012. This document anticipates a 

long lived, economically viable project that creates jobs for Wyoming Citizens 

and tax revenue for Federal, State, and local governments.” 

Response: Thank you for your comment and your interest and participation in the 

development of the FEIS for the Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project. 

Section 4.15 of the DEIS (and FEIS) evaluates the potential impacts of the 

Proposed Action with regard to socioeconomic conditions, including: 

demographics; the gross domestic product; revenue and taxation; labor, 

employment and income; cost of living and housing; and infrastructure and 

services (education, health care, law enforcement and fire protection, 

communications and utilities, and recreation).

Comment: Marybeth Devlin (Pages 6-7) 

“The proposal touts direct and indirect potential job creation -- 119 to 148 

positions -- and boasts that tax revenue will inure to the benefit of federal, state 

and local coffers. But how many of those jobs will actually materialize? How 

many will be permanent, full-time positions? Unless car-pooling is the rule in 

Wyoming, the projected traffic of 50 vehicles per day suggests a much smaller 

workforce. Moreover, the mine may never produce anywhere near the level of 

employment claimed by the applicant due to recent events and their long-term 

ramifications.” 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
Response: For clarification, Section 4.15.4 of the FEIS provides estimates of 

direct and indirect employment related to the Proposed Action, and Section 4.15.6 

of the FEIS provides estimates of independent contractors, full-time LCI 

employees, and intermittent contract employees for each phase of the Proposed 

Action. The estimated total direct and indirect employment during the Initial 

Construction Phase would range from 159 to 160 positions. From Initial 

Construction to Mine Unit Development, an additional 20 to 89 positions of direct 

and indirect employment were estimated. The employment estimates of Mine 

Unit Development are anticipated to be similar to those of Operation and Mine 

Unit Reclamation. The Final Reclamation employment estimates are anticipated 

to be similar to those of Initial Construction.

Per Section 4.3, the estimated commuting traffic was 33 trucks/vans/SUVs during 

Initial Construction, 15 trucks/vans/SUVs during Mine Unit Development, 3 

trucks/vans/SUVs during Operation, and 12 trucks/vans/SUVs during 

Reclamation. The estimated number of daily commuting vehicles is less than the 

estimated direct labor force for several reasons: 1) there would be temporal 

overlap between several of the on-site activities, and some vehicles and 

equipment would be working on more than one activity at the same time; 2) while 

carpooling would not be required, it would be a natural consequence of distance 

and would be encouraged; and 3) each laborer/employee would not commute to 

the site each day of the week.

The estimates of direct and indirect employment as well as commuting traffic are 

based on available information, and are used to analyze the potential impacts of 

the Proposed Action. Estimates are approximate calculations and are not to be 

considered actual. As noted in Section 4.15.6, similar to tax revenue, labor and 

employment would depend on the amount of U3O8 produced. 

Comment: Marybeth Devlin (Page 7)

“A representative of the applicant has been quoted saying that, although the price 

per pound of yellow cake has dropped by half, he insisted that at $60, the 

company would do just fine. “We’re in great shape at those prices.” ... 

His contention contradicts the economics. The first link below is for a recent 

article reporting that the break-even figure is now $61. The second link provides 

the current price: $51. While a company can, I suppose, choose to pursue a losing 

proposition -- possibly for tax write-offs, surely it behooves BLM to deny the 

application for a project that would disturb an area of ecological importance such 

as the Red Desert and likely be abandoned eventually anyway.” 

Response: Section 4.15.5.1 of the DEIS notes that, “Using February 2010’s 

market price of U3O8 (about $42 per pound), the Project would contribute 

$360,000,000 to the nation’s GDP [Gross Domestic Product]. The price increased 

to about $73 per pound at the beginning of 2011, and the price has been about $52 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
per pound in the first part of 2012. The Project would boost the immediate area’s 

diversity and economic health.” 

Comment: Marybeth Devlin (Page 7) 

“Prior to the Fukushima catastrophe, it was expected that demand for uranium by 

the national and/or world market would increase. This expectation must have 

prompted Ur-Energy's decision, several years ago, to pursue a mining permit and 

to establish a processing facility on site. However, post-Fukushima, the outlook 

is less favorable. ... The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has 

published its Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Early Release Report, the summary of 

which is linked below. The EIA's projections through 2035 indicate a flat or even 

declining growth curve for nuclear energy.” 

Response: According to the AEO2012 Early Release Overview published by the 

United States Energy Information Administration in January 2012 (available at 

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2012).pdf), “Electricity 

generation from nuclear power plants grows by 11 percent in the AEO2012 

Reference case, from 807 billion kilowatt-hours in 2010 to 894 billion kilowatthours in 2035, accounting for about 18 percent of total generation in 2035 

(compared with 20 percent in 2010). Nuclear generating capacity increases from 

101 gigawatts in 2010 to a high of 115 gigawatts in 2025, after which a few 

retirements result in a decline to 112 gigawatts in 2035. AEO2012 incorporates 

new information about planned nuclear plant construction, as well as an updated 

estimate of the potential for capacity uprates at existing units. A total of 10 

gigawatts of new nuclear capacity is projected through 2035, as well as an 

increase of 7 gigawatts achieved from uprates to existing nuclear units. About 6 

gigawatts of existing nuclear capacity is retired, primarily in the last few years of 

the projection, as not all owners of existing nuclear capacity apply for and receive 

license renewals to operate their plants beyond 60 years.” 

The national nuclear energy industry is expanding due to increased electricity 

demand, increased interest in energy security (most of the U3O8 used to fuel the 

nuclear power reactors in the United States is currently imported), and increased 

demand for alternative energy sources. 

:DVWH0DQDJHPHQW

Comment: Marybeth Devlin (Page 2) 

The commenter is concerned that the quantity of wastes produced is large and the 

potential for spills and leaks is of concern. 

Response: Table 2.1-1 lists the estimated monthly quantities of both liquid and 

solid radioactive wastes that will be generated. The liquid waste will be disposed 

of in the permitted deep disposal UIC wells. Radioactive solid waste that can't be 

decontaminated will be disposed of at a NRC-licensed facility.

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )
The Lost Creek facilities will be designed to withstand worst case credible upset 

conditions including but not limited to wind storms, earthquakes, and sheet 

flooding. Measures to reduce the potential for accidental releases include 

appropriate engineering design, construction, maintenance; development and 

implementation of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), 

inspections, notification procedures, response actions, on-going employee training 

and general health and safety procedures. Specifically, Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs) addressing spill prevention and mitigation will be developed 

and implemented at the site. The SOPs will address pipeline installation and 

testing, automated system monitoring and alarming, site inspections, spill 

mitigation; and employee training. If an upset condition results in the release of 

mining solutions or chemicals to the environment, the affected system(s) will be 

shut down and thoroughly inspected/tested by an individual familiar with that 

system before being restarted. Management will verbally notify BLM and 

WDEQ-LQD immediately if an upset condition results in a release to the

environment and cannot be made safe immediately. In such cases, LC ISR, LLC 

will also submit a written report to BLM and WDEQ-LQD within one week 

detailing the nature, location and cause of the incident, what if any releases to the 

environment resulted, what efforts were made to correct the problem, and what 

will be done in the future to prevent or mitigate similar occurrences. Measures 

for preventing and remediating accidental releases are discussed in the WDEQLQD Permit to Mine (e.g., Sections OP 2.9, OP 3.5, and OP 4.4 and Attachment 

OP-2) (LCI, 2011b) and in the NRC Technical Report (e.g., Sections 4.2.5.5, 

5.7.1.4, and 5.7.6.6) (LCI, 2010). 

&XPXODWLYH,PSDFWV

Comment: PCW (Page 2) 

The CCSM Project is mentioned throughout the land use analysis in the Lost 

Creek DEIS. Due to the proximity of the CCSM Project to the Lost Creek Project, 

PCW agrees that it is appropriate for the Lost Creek DEIS to consider the CCSM 

Project in its analysis. However, in the cumulative effects section (Section 5.2) of 

the Lost Creek DEIS the statement is made that "The Chokecherry-Sierra Madre 

Wind Energy Project could also impact land use due to safety considerations." 

Lost Creek DEIS p5-11. This Statement is not consistent with the analysis 

contained in the CCSM DEIS. Furthermore, PCW is unclear as to what "safety 

considerations" are of concern. The statement is simply not supported by the facts 

and appears gratuitous at best. 

Response: The text in Section 5.2 has been clarified. The intent was to note that, 

for any development project, some temporary changes in land use may be 

necessary to avoid interference, including potential safety concerns, among users 

(e.g., trailing cattle through a construction zone).

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[) )

List of DEIS Commenters and Date Received by BLM 

April 25 Aaron S. Howey 

May 11 Fischer-Watt Gold Co. Inc. 

May 16 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

May 26 Neil and Jennifer Miller 

May 30 National Park Service 

May 30 Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 

May 31 David Urasky 

June 4 Carbon County Higher Education Center 

June 6 Lost Creek ISR, LLC (LCI) 

June 6 Sweetwater County Board of County Commissioners 

(SWCBCC) 

June 6 Wyoming Business Council 

June 8 Chris Pedersen 

June 11 Ron Benda 

June 11 Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) 

June 11 Western Watersheds Project

June 11 Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, EarthWorks Action, 

Californians for Western Wilderness, and Western 

Watersheds Project (BCA et al.) 

June 11 Sweetwater County Conservation District (SWCCD) 

June 11 Wyoming Outdoor Council (WOC) 

June 11 Power Company of Wyoming LLC 

June 12 Marybeth Devlin 

June 12 Robert LeFaivre 

June 13 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
From: Howey, Aaron S. 

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 1:15 PM

To: BLM_WY_Lost_Crk_Mine

Subject: Re: Lost Creek Project

To: Whom it my concern,

It is my understanding that the only permit (document) left for UR Energy to get on its Lost Creek project 

is the BLM. Is that correct? I am looking through all of the permits (NRC,EPA, and so on) along with the 

forms and documents submitted to your office in the last few years. Everything seems to be in order...do 

you know an expected record date? Thanks





From: Neil and Jennifer Miller 

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 1:53 PM 

To: BLM_WY_Lost_Crk_Mine 

Subject: DEIS Comment 

May 26, 2012 

Neil and Jennifer Miller 

RE: DEIS Comment 

Dear BLM Decision Makers, 

Under Wyoming State policy we have designated Sage Grouse Core Areas which says that any new 

development or land use within Core Population Areas should be authorized or conducted only when it 

can be demonstrated that the activity will NOT cause declines in Greater Sage Grouse populations. 

No way can this Lost Creek uranium project that includes nine areas of 

50 wells each drilled 75-150' apart not impact the breeding success as well as survival rate of the sage 

grouse in this Core Area. Studies have shown that the activity by vehicles on roads that are close to sage 

grouse leks have a detrimental effect on the grouse's success in mating. The intermittent noise 

interferes with the way they communicate with eachother. The access roads to this mining area are 

within .6 mile of active sage grouse leks. Stress hormones identified with male sage grouse scat increase 

17% with road noise and activity at the lek decreases 50%. Road noisy leks have fewer males. In a 3 

year study there was a 29-73% decline in male activity at leks affected by road noise. Increased noise 

increases stress, increases predation, decreases sex activity and decreases communication. NOISE 

AFFECTS SAGE GROUSE POPULATIONS! Plus this mine is "in situ" in prime nesting 

habitat that occurs with 2 miles of leks. The location of this 

uranium mine will affect the success of the sage grouse in this CORE AREA! 

Sage grouse today face many challenges to successfully breed and raise their chicks. Every state's 

population is in decline. Habitat fragmentation, sagebrush health, West Nile Virus, and spring storms 

are factors to consider. With the Lost Creek Uranium Mine, the fragmentation of habitat in this Sage 

Grouse Core Area will be a major factor in the success of this population. 

Confirm my comments with Professor Alan Krakauer at the University of California Davis. He has been 

doing research on sage grouse near Hudson, Wyoming and his finding are significant. It is the BLM's 

responsibility to seek out all findings reached through sound science. 

In our view there is no way to mitigate the impacts on the sage grouse in this core area. This uranium 

mine is in a core sage grouse lekking and nesting area. Whether you consider it one well pad or 43 well 

sites; whether you reroute the roads or bury the powerlines or whatever requirements you try to place 

on this mine, it is still in the nesting area of the greater sage grouse. Are we going to protect this species 

or not? 

Sincerely, 

Neil and Jennifer Miller 
P.S. We also have grave doubts about how efficient the monitoring wells will be to document 

"excurions" and how this will prevent the contamination of our state's groundwater. Who will be left 

"holding the bag" if the groundwater is contaminated with this in situ leaching process?...the taxpayer 

and the people of Wyoming who could benefit from use of clean drinking water. 

Do Not Permit The Lost Creek Uranium Project. 
From: Crystal Salas On Behalf Of National Park Service 

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:03 PM 

To: BLM_WY_Lost_Crk_Mine 

Subject: NO COMMENT: DES-12/0019, Lost Creek Uranium In Situ Recovery Project 

Hi Dennis, 

The National Park Service has no comment on the subject project. 

Thank you and have a good day. 

- Crystal Salas 

_________________________________________ 

Environmental Quality External Review Team National Park Service Intermountain Region (AZ, CO, NM, 

MT, OK, TX, UT, WY) IMRextrev@nps.gov

From: David Urasky 

Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:46 PM

To: BLM_WY_Lost_Crk_Mine

Subject: DEIS Comment

I am writing in support of the UR Energy Lost Creek Project. I feel that this project is an 

important part of improving the Rawlins economy. This mine will also provide US 

energy resources reducing our dependency on foreign energy. I have looked at the mine 

location and the pilot operations and although I haven't been part of the impact study, I 

see very minimal impact to the environment.

Sincerely

David Urasky
C

COUNTY

David Throgmorton Ph.D.

Executive Director

Western Wyoming

Community College

Outreach Center

705 Rodeo Street

Rawlins, WY 82301

Ph. (307) 328-9204

Fax (307) 324-3338

Vocational Campus

812 East Murray Street

Rawlins, WY 82301

Ph. (307) 328-9274

Fax (307) 328-9273

LSRV Community

Education Center

360 Whippoorwill

P.O. Box416

Baggs, WY 82321

Ph. (307) 383-6861

Fax (307) 383-2131

Adult Learning Center

705 Rodeo Street

Rawlins, WY 82301

Ph. (307) 328-9204

Fax (307) 324-3338

Carbon County Higher Education Center

705 Rodeo Street

Rawlins, Wyoming 82301

(307) 328-9204 • Fax (307) 324-3338

June 4, 2012

Lost Creek ISR Project

clo Dennis Carpenter, Field Manager

Bureau ofLand Management

P.O. Box 2407

Rawlins, Woming8230l

Dear Mr. Carpenter,

Greetings from the Carbon County Higher Education Center! I am pleased

to write this letter in support ofUR-Energy's Lost Creek Project. The staff at UREnergy has been very pro-active in searching out training and educational

opportunities for the anticipated labor force and has spoken to us about developing

technical programs (instrumentation, for example) and on-going safety programs.

Many of us here at CCHEC have been impressed with the level of

professionalism displayed by the UR-Energy team. They made a presentation at a

recent Industry Roundtable sponsored by the City ofRawlins and Carbon County

Economic Development Corporation and it is apparent that they are ready to move

forward with a project that is using proven technologies.

This project will bring needed jobs to both Carbon and Sweetwater Counties

and will be a welcomed addition to our local industrial pool. There are proven and

ready markets for the DR-Energy product and we have every reason to expect this

business to be a productive member of our community for many years.

I realize that there is an established procedure fo r evaluating the

environmental and social consequences of every project and hope that this

particular project can be expedited insofar as that is possible. It presents a minimal

impact on the environment and the company has taken steps to ensure that its

workforce is professional and safety conscious. There is no down-side to this one.

G.E.D. Center

705 Rodeo

Rawlins, WY 82301

Ph. (307) 328-9204

Fax (307) 324-3338

Kids Campus

507 9th Street

Rawlins, WY 82301

Ph. (307) 324-2334

Fax (307)324-2541

Pax,

David Throgmorton, Ph.D.

Executive Director

RECEIVED

JUN 06

Bureau of Land Management

Rawlins Field Office
 Colorado Office Wyoming Office 

10758 W. Centennial Rd., Ste. 200 5880 Enterprise Dr., Ste. 200 

Littleton, CO 80127 Casper, WY 82609 

Tel: (866) 981-4588 Tel: (307) 265-2373 

Fax: (720)-981-5643 Fax: (307) 265-2801 

June 6, 2012 

Mr. John Russell 

Bureau of Land Management 

Rawlins Field Office 

P.O. Box 2407 

Rawlins, WY 82301 

Re: Submittal of Comments on the Draft EIS for the Lost Creek Project 

Dear Mr. Russell, 

Please find below Lost Creek ISR, LLC (“LCI”) comments on the Draft EIS (DEIS) that was published 

on April 27, 2012 for the proposed Lost Creek in situ uranium project located in northeastern 

Sweetwater County, WY. LCI appreciates BLM’s frequent use of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s Final EIS in their DEIS which served to significantly shorten the still voluminous 

document.

LCI’s comments are broken out into two categories: General Analysis (Attachment I) and Specific 

Comments (Attachment II). For ease of use, the Specific Comments provide the page number and 

paragraph to which the comment is directed. 

Given the technical nature of many of the comments provided herein, LCI realizes that additional 

clarification may be required. Therefore, please don’t hesitate to contact me if additional information 

or clarification is needed regarding the matters raised in this letter or other issues encountered by 

BLM staff as they continue the environmental review. 

We look forward to the conclusion of the NEPA review and encourage your office to continue to 

move through the process as efficiently as possible. 

Regards,

Lost Creek ISR, LLC 

By its Manager, Ur-Energy USA Inc. 

By: /s/ John W. Cash

 John W. Cash, V.P. of Regulatory Affairs, Exploration and Geology 

 Ur-Energy USA Inc. 
CE I 

eneral nalsis 

I Ls Purose an ee an lternaties nalsis

In order to fully capture the basis for the DEIS’s alternatives analysis, the statement of BLM’s 

purpose and need would be strengthened if it explicitly noted the Energy Policy Act’s mandate that 

BLM “promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of 

energy for the future”, as well as that BLM seeks to act consistent with the call for specific “significant 

incentives for the continuation and expansion of nuclear power in the United States.” DEIS, p. 1-4. 

Similarly, the standard for development and analysis of alternatives could incorporate BLM’s purpose 

and need at page 2-, as follows: 

With the exception of the No Action Alternative, alternatives would need to meet: 1) BLM’s 

purpose and need of implementing the EPACT’s mandate to promote dependable, 

affordable and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future 

and Congress’ direction to support the continuation and expansion of nuclear power in the 

United States, as well as making federal lands available for the production of locatable 

minerals consistent with FLPMA’s multiple use mandate and 2) the Project’s objective of 

producing six million pounds of uranium over an operating period of 12 years. 

Conforming text edits should be made throughout the DEIS, including at pages ES-6, 1-3 and 1-8. 

II Consistenc of LReuire easures ith Permit to ine

The DEIS identifies several “BLM-required measures” that BLM would incorporate into its approval. 

These “required measures” are described separately from the stipulations andor mitigation 

measures previously incorporated into the project approvals issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the “NRC”) and the Wyoming Department of Environmental uality  Land uality 

Division (the “WDE-LD”). The BLM-required measures are summarized in Table 2.2-2 on page 

2-8. Lost Creek ISR, LLC (“LCI”) is concerned that, especially with respect to the BLM-required 

measures proposed to address potential impacts to the Greater Sage-Grouse (the “GSG”), the DEIS 

text may introduce ambiguity regarding whether the BLM-required measures are inconsistent with 

those stipulations imposed by the WDE-LD’s Permit to Mine. Of most direct concern are 

stipulations related to (a) time restrictions on pre-production activities and the development of mine 

units, and (b) the geographic footprint of the lands in which habitat mitigation can occur. While LCI 

does not believe BLM intended to create inconsistency between its requirements and Wyoming’s, 

LCI does wish to avoid any confusion on this point. The record is sufficient to establish that, by 

adopting stipulations that are consistent with those imposed on the Permit to Mine, BLM can meet its 

mandate to manage for “multiple uses” in a manner that reconciles economic development and 

environmental considerations. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, LCI requests that the Final EIS 

(“FEIS”) clarify that the stipulations on the Plan of Operations will be interpreted and applied to the 

Project in the same manner as those stipulations contained in the Permit to Mine. 

It is worth first discussing BLM’s overall management mandate and also discussing the extensive 

work that BLM, and its sister agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service (the “FWS”), have already 

undertaken to examine GSG issues and to evaluate Wyoming’s overall management approach to 

the GSG. With that background, we can then turn to discussing the particular issues of concern. 
Under the General Mining Laws and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and their 

accompanying regulations, BLM regulates surface activities in connection with the mining of 

locatable minerals such as uranium under a “multiple uses” mandate that includes making minerals 

available to present-day economic development. Thus, BLM is guided by the fact that: 

Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that . . . (12) the public lands be 

managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, 

food, timber, and fiber from the public lands including implementation of the Mining and 

Minerals Policy Act of 170 . . . as it pertains to the public lands . . . . 

43 U.S.C. Section 1701 (a). BLM is charged with implementing this policy while also preventing 

undue and unnecessary degradation of federal lands. 43 U.S.C. Section 1701 (a) (8) and 43 C.F.R. 

Section 380.411 (d) (2). “Unnecessary and undue degradation” is defined in the regulations as 

“conditions, activities or practices” that: 

(1) Fail to comply with one or more of the following: the performance standards in 

 380.420, the terms and conditions of an approved plan of operations, operations 

described in a complete notice, and other Federal and state laws related to 

environmental protection and protection of cultural resources

(2) Are not “reasonably incident” to prospecting, mining, or processing operations as defined 

in  371.0 of this chapter. 

43 C.F.R. Section 380.. In the rulemaking notice for the definition of “unnecessary or undue 

degradation”, the Department of the Interior stated that the definition implicitly incorporates the 

concept of a “prudent operator”: 

In effect, paragraph (1) of the definition of unnecessary or undue degradation sets forth how 

a prudent operator would conduct operations. Such an operator would comply with the 

performance standards in this subpart and other environmental protection statutes, which 

describe a prudent way to conduct operations to prevent surface disturbance greater than 

necessary. 66 Fed. Reg. 4834-01, 4838. 

Thus, both through the general concept of multiple use management and through the specific 

regulatory acknowledgment that even a prudent operator’s activities will result in some necessary 

surface disturbance, BLM has long-recognized the need, within its management decisions, to 

consider a project’s commercial and operational needs before imposing environmental-related 

conditions. 

In furtherance of achieving this balance in the most efficient manner, BLM and Wyoming have 

worked cooperatively for several decades on the regulation of mining activities on federal lands, 

including a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the State Office and the Governor of 

Wyoming in November 2003 (the “MOU”). The MOU is intended to prevent “duplication of 

administration and enforcement of reclamation regulations governing the exploration for, or mining 

of, minerals locatable under the Federal mining laws described in 43 CFR 380 . . . .” MOU Section 

B.3. The MOU provides that the WDE-LD and the BLM will “have lead responsibility” each in 

different areas, including that WDE-LD will take the lead in “analyzing information regarding . . . 

soils, vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands.” MOU Section D.1.c. 

The MOU, consistent with BLM’s regulations governing memoranda of understanding between State 

Offices and states, recognizes BLM’s duty to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(“NEPA”). MOU Section D.1.d and 43 C.F.R. Section 380.200 (b). NEPA mandates that federal 

agencies “prepare a detailed environmental analysis1

 an EIS for major Federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment.” An EIS must include consideration of “the 

environmental impact of the proposed action”, “any adverse environmental effects which cannot be 

avoided should the proposal be implemented” and “alternatives to the proposed action.” 43 U.S.C. 

Section 4332 (2) (C). owever, NEPA does not mandate that a federal agency disapprove, modify 

or condition its approval of a proposed action due to the analysis in an EIS. Mineral Policy Center v. 

Norton, 22 F.Supp.2d 30, 33 (D.C. Cir. 2003).2

Moreover, both BLM and the State of Wyoming have addressed potential impacts to the GSG 

through participation in the Wyoming Governor’s Sage Grouse Implementation Team (the “SGIT”), 

culminating in the issuance of the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order 2011- (the “EO”).3

 The 

EO was developed in coordination with, and with the concurrence of, FWS.4

 The stipulations on the 

Permit to Mine issued by WDE-LD are in compliance with the EO, which includes detailed 

stipulations to be applied to new development in GSG “Core Population Areas” or “ey abitat 

Areas”.

In addition, BLM responded to FWS’s warranted but precluded finding in both national and State 

Office Instruction Memoranda, both of which specifically recognize the comprehensive and 

appropriate GSG protections set forth in the EO, and express the intent that BLM approvals for 

development in Core Population Areas be consistent with the EO. 

x National IM No. 2012-043 (the “National IM”) sets forth “Interim Management Policies and 

Procedures” for BLM Field Offices to implement until the applicable Resource Management 

Plans are updated to address potential impacts to the GSG. owever, the National IM 

specifically provides that a BLM State Office can supersede the national guidance regarding 

interim management policies: 

The BLM field offices do not need to apply the conservation policies and 

procedures described in this IM in areas in which (1) a state andor local 

regulatory mechanism has been developed for the conservation of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse in coordination and concurrence with the FWS (including the 

Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order 2011-5, Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area 

1

 An Environmental Impact Statement, or “EIS”. 

2

 We note similarly that, while FWS has found that listing of the GSG as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act is warranted, but precluded by other priorities (DEIS, p. 3.8-26.), BLM is not required 

to engage in formal consultation with FWS in connection with the Plan of Operations. (16 U.S.C. Section 136 

(a) (2) and 0 C.F.R. Section 402.14 (a)) That is especially so, given that FWS participated in developing, and 

has reviewed, approvingly, the Wyoming EO. See fn. 4, below. 

3

 The EO is the most recent iteration of Wyoming Governor Executive Orders issued as a result of the work of 

the SGIT from 2008. 

4

 Indeed, FWS cited the EO positively in its warranted but precluded finding, for example: 

Wyoming’s executive order does allow oil and gas leases on State lands within core areas, 

provided those developments adhere to required protective stipulations, which are consistent 

with the published literature (e.g. 1 well pad per section). The Service believes that the core 

area strategy proposed by the State of Wyoming in [the EO], if implemented by all landowners 

via regulatory mechanisms, would provide adequate protection for sage-grouse and their 

habitat in that State. 7 Fed. Reg. 1310, 1378 (emphasis supplied). 

 As noted in the DEIS, the State of Wyoming and BLM designate the same areas as, respectively, GSG “Core 

Population Areas” or “ey abitat Areas”. (DEIS, p. 3.8-26.)
Protection) and (2) the state sage-grouse plan has subsequently been adopted 

by the BLM through the issuance of a state-level BLM IM. (emphasis supplied) 

x Wyoming State Office IM No. WY-2012-01 (the “State IM”) provides guidance to Wyoming 

Field Offices “in place of direction provided in . . . the National IM . . . Specifically, this 

State IM addresses all BLM WY programs and provides all necessary interim program 

direction consistent with . . . the National IM.” The State IM “is consistent with guidelines 

and recommendations provided for in the Wyoming Governor’s Sage-Grouse Implementation 

Team’s Core Population Area Strategy and the most recent Wyoming Governor’s Executive 

Order . . . 2011-.” 

Thus, the State IM acts on the language in the National IM, adopting the GSG conservation 

measures in the EO in lieu of implementing the GSG interim management polices set forth in the 

National IM.6

One final point is in order as to the DEIS and its specific findings. The DEIS includes site specific 

analysis to determine if there are any unusual GSG issues requiring special attention, distinct from 

those more generally present within the GSG Core Population Area and suitably addressed through 

the EO-driven conditions in the Wyoming Permit to Mine. The DEIS did not identify any such sitespecificproject specific concerns that are not adequately addressed through the Permit to Mine 

conditions.7

In sum, as a State of Wyoming approved operator, LCI will be complying with a carefully developed 

and vetted state EO. That EO and the GSG strategy it embraces have been reviewed by, 

cooperatively developed with, and endorsed by both BLM and FWS. Thus, there is a sound 

foundation to conclude that the Wyoming-imposed conditions are sufficient to mitigate potential 

impacts of concern.8

 Moreover, nothing in the site-specific DEIS leads to a contrary conclusion, 

especially as to the conditions more fully discussed below. Thus, LCI, if subject to the Wyoming 

6

 We note that the State IM was issued on February 10, 2012 Lost Creek’s Plan of Operations was submitted 

in November 200. The State IM states that a request by BLM to amend a “submitted notice or plan of 

operations must make clear that the operator’s compliance is not mandatory and that including such measures 

is not a requirement for completeness of either the notice or a plan of operations, nor is it a condition of 

acceptance of the notice or approval of the plan of operations.” 

7

 The Project is located on BLM-managed federal lands within the jurisdiction of two Field Offices: the Rawlins 

Field Office and the Lander Field Office. The Rawlins Field Office has identified regional variations in the 

appropriate time periods for seasonal restrictions (DEIS, p. 2-8) however, these variations are based upon 

“bird behavior within the Rawlins Field Office area”, not specific characteristics of the area proposed for the 

Plan of Operations. A portion of the BLM-managed lands proposed for the Plan of Operations, however, is 

governed by the Lander Resource Management Plan, which does not contemplate such extended seasonal 

limitations. Moreover, even if the Rawlins Resource Management Plan is relevant to the Project lands not 

within the Rawlins Field Office’s territory, there is no record justification for applying such Rawlins-area 

extended seasonal restrictions based on “bird behavior within the Rawlins Field Office Area” to Project lands 

outside that area. In addition, the DEIS does not include Project-specific data and information supporting the 

extension of the seasonal restrictions based on “bird behavior within the Rawlins Field Office Area” mandated 

by the State IM provision allowing for the extension of seasonal restrictions. For these reasons, it is not clearly 

established that the extension of seasonal restrictions is appropriate.

8 We note that the Wyoming Environmental uality Council rejected an administrative challenge to the Permit 

to Mine brought by the Wyoming Outdoor Council. In doing so, it found that the Permit to Mine’s stipulations 

regarding protections for the GSG conform to the EO. (State of Wyoming, Department of Environmental 

uality, Environmental uality Council Finding of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Order filed on October 6, 

2011.) 
Permit to Mine conditions, will meet BLM’s “prudent operator” standard and BLM’s associated 

standard of avoiding “unnecessary and undue degradation.” 

With this overall background, we turn now to several items identified in the DEIS as possible BLMrequired measures for the Plan of Operations, and which are potentially inconsistent with the EOmandated stipulations on the Permit to Mine. DEIS, pp. 2-, 2-8, 4.- and 4-28  4-31. 

x First, the seasonal restrictions apply to the commencement of initial construction activities. 

owever, it is important to be clear that such activities may be continued through the period 

of the seasonal restrictions, provided that they are commenced prior to the annual beginning 

of the seasonal restrictions, as is explicitly allowed by the Permit to Mine. 

x Second, and also with respect to application of the seasonal restrictions to the Project, the 

EIS and any final agency actions approving the Plan of Operations should be further revised 

to make clear that “production” andor “production activities” are defined in the DEIS to 

include the full range of commercial operations involved in development of mine units, 

including but not limited to delineation, production, injection, monitoring and observation well 

drilling activities, exploration drilling within the mine unit area, installation of the header 

houses including well controls and distribution plumbing, construction of secondary access 

roads (and associated culverts), and construction of secondary transmission lines. The 

Permit to Mine is clear on this point, and clearly defines all surface disturbance within the 

mine unit areas as production activities that are exempt from seasonal restrictions. 

x Third, the “Adaptive Management” measures described in the DEIS do not explicitly 

contemplate the possibility of off-site habitat enhancement, as is allowed under the Permit to 

Mine. All final agency documents should clarify that such off-site habitat enhancement will be 

an acceptable adaptive management strategy. 

III onlication of Seasonal Restrictions to Initial Construction nce Commence

As to the application of the seasonal restrictions to the Project, it is important to distinguish between: 

(1) exploration activities and (2) initial facility construction. Initial facility construction includes, but is 

not limited to, construction of the processing plant, driller’s shed, maintenance building, main and 

secondary access roads, holding ponds, fencing, power lines, main trunk lines and the drilling and 

piping associated with the first mine unit. With regard to initial construction, the Permit to Mine 

provides that such initial construction may not be commenced during the period of seasonal 

restrictions (sometimes referred to in the Permit to Mine as “timing restrictions”). owever, initial 

construction commenced prior to the annual start of the seasonal restrictions period may continue 

through the seasonal restrictions period. Permit to Mine Table OP-A6-1, Stipulation 6b: “Facility 

construction will not be initiated from March 1 to June 30.” Per the August th WGFD email 

(Addendum OP-A6-A), drilling and construction activities within the monitor well ring will continue 

year-round but will not be initiated during the timing restriction. The reasoning behind this approach 

to the seasonal restrictions is simple  the purpose of the restrictions is to minimize disturbance to 

GSG nestingbrooding areas. owever, to the extent that initial construction is commenced prior to 

the annual beginning of the seasonal restrictions period, GSG will not begin nesting in the 

nestingbrooding areas sought to be protected. Thus, there would be no GSG benefit to halting 

initial construction activities already established at the beginning of the seasonal restrictions period. 

The WDE-LD has determined that this application of the seasonal restrictions is consistent with 

the EO and the Core Population Area strategy. Therefore, LCI requests that the DEIS be clarified to 
provide that construction initiated prior to the annual beginning of the seasonal restrictions may 

continue through the seasonal restrictions period. 

I onlication of Seasonal Restrictions to Prouction ctiit ine nit Deeloment

The application of the seasonal restrictions to development of the mine units is also explained in 

detail in the Wildlife Plan. The Wildlife Plan subjects Exploration Activities to the seasonal 

restrictions but does not so limit development of the mine units: “the delineation and subsequent 

installation of the mine units . . . will occur year round.” Permit to Mine  Wildlife Plan, pp. 2-3 

(emphasis in original). Wyoming has already concluded, consistent with the EO, that such activity 

accords with the Core Population Area strategy. Development of the mine units includes, but is not 

limited to, all associated delineation drilling, installation of associated wells, installation of power 

lines, installation of header houses, and installation of roads associated with a mine unit. 

Nor can the development of mine units be subject to seasonal restrictions without fundamentally 

impacting the Project. As noted in the Permit to Mine, the successive and progressive development 

of mine units along the length of the uranium deposit is analogous to the progressive removal of 

topsoil in surface mining operations. Permit to Mine  Wildlife Plan, pp. 3. In order to maintain this 

successive development program through an economically viable mining operation, it is necessary to 

lease sufficient drilling rigs from third parties, as well as their trained crews, and engage other 

personnel, to insure that progress is regularly occurring on a steady pace, not a “startstop” pace. 

The imposition of seasonal restrictions on the development of mine units would render it extremely 

difficult, if not impossible, to secure the drilling rigs, crews and other personnel needed. Such 

resources are not likely to be available, or available only at a significantly greater cost, if only sought 

for a restricted, seasonal production schedule. 

Indeed, the DEIS acknowledges this very constraint related to equipment and personnel availability. 

In discussing the “Portable Drill Pits” alternative (considered but eliminated from further analysis), the 

DEIS states “with respect to logistics, rig and driller availability have been at a premium in 

Wyoming, and the specialized equipment required for this alternative would further restrict the 

equipment and contractor availability and would increase costs.” DEIS, p. 2-80. Similarly, the DEIS 

also rejected, on grounds of economic unviability, the “Phased Development of Mine Units” 

alternative which proposed that mine unit development be suspended until “groundwater 

concentrations andor vegetation reestablishment criteria” were met for prior mine units developed. 

DEIS, pp. 2-84-2-86. In doing so, it correctly noted that 

this alternative (groundwater concentrations andor vegetation reestablishment criteria as 

the basis for the phases) would not be economically efficient and would constrain some of 

the available technical options for more efficient mining and groundwater restoration. Most 

mining projects require a relatively high initial outlay of capital. owever, subsequent 

operations are a balance of income (mining) and expense (operating, maintenance, and 

reclamation) throughout the life of the mine until the final removal of the mine facilities. With 

this groundwater andor vegetation criteria alternative, the Project would alternate between 

periods of income and expense (during mining) and just expense (during restoration), which 

would be contrary to the requirements for other mining operations, e.g., coal, in which 

contemporaneous reclamation is required, but not complete closure of one mine pit before 

starting another. In addition, this alternative would result in idling of the Plant for some 

periods of time, which would require additional expense and resources (e.g., resin 

replacement) for temporarily mothballing’ and then restarting the Plant. 
Moreover, even in the event that rigs, crews and other personnel could be secured for a partial 

production schedule, in order to maintain economically viable production levels, it would be 

necessary to develop the mine units at a greater density than currently contemplated. In turn, 

increasing the density of production activities during a constricted production schedule could 

increase the risk of production accidents for both workers and the environment. Thus, not 

surprisingly, the DEIS similarly correctly rejected an alternative that would have resulted in a larger 

number of smaller mine units operating simultaneously, concluding that (DEIS, p. 2-84): 

Based on the aquifer testing conducted by Lost Creek . . ., the ore distribution in the J 

Sand . . ., operational feasibility, and WDE-LD regulatory review, three mine units are 

currently considered the best approach to efficient mining and resource protection. Initially, 

the Project included six mine units in the same area as the three mine units. owever, as 

described in Project Development of the Adjudication File of the WDE-LD Permit to Mine 

. . ., consolidation to three mine units was considered more appropriate. 

In summary, imposing seasonal restrictions on Production Activities threatens the Project’s 

economic viability, potentially converts the Project into something other than what LCI has applied to 

do, and actually threatens to cause greater environmental impact and risk by compressing both 

chronologically and spatially the Production Activities that will occur. Accommodating such concerns 

is expressly provided for by BLM’s policies, even where GSG are concerned. The GSG has been 

designated by the Wyoming State Office as a Bureau sensitive species. IM No. WY-2010-027, 

“Update of the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming, Sensitive Species List  2010.” BLM 

Manual 6840, which governs “Special Status Species Management”, directs BLM to “prioritize

Bureau sensitive species and their habitats for conservation action based on considerations such as 

human and financial resources availability, immediacy of threats, and relationship to other BLM 

priority programs and activities.” The EO, likewise, seeks to balance conservation of the GSG with 

potential impacts on Wyoming’s economy. The balance struck in the EO, endorsed by FWS and 

imposed by Wyoming as stipulations on the Permit to Mine, does not impose seasonal restrictions 

on Production Activities, i.e., the development of mine units, and BLM ought not do so either. For 

clarity, exploration drilling outside the mine unit area, regardless of when initiated, may not continue 

during the seasonal restrictions. 

Therefore, LCI asks that the FEIS clarify that (1) the development of mine units, including 

delineation, production, injection, monitoring and observation well drilling activities, exploration 

drilling within the mine unit area, and installation of header houses with well controls and distribution 

plumbing is included within “production activities,” and (2) the seasonal restrictions do not apply to all 

surface disturbance activities within the identified mine unit areas, for example the development of 

mine units, including but not limited to delineation, production, injection, monitoring and observation 

well drilling activities, exploration drilling within the mine unit area, installation of header houses with 

well controls and distribution plumbing, construction of secondary access roads and associated 

culverts and construction of secondary transmission lines.

 Such clarifications are consistent with 

providing appropriate environmental protection while also allowing the Project to move forward in an 

economically sound fashion. 



 The clarification requested throughout the text of the DEIS, including, but not limited to, at pages ES-4, ES-

2- 2-8 2-12 2-14 2-1 2-3 2-4 2-46 table 2.1-2 4.1-1 4.3-8 4.7-17 4.8- 4.-22 4.10-2 and 4.12-2. 
 ffSite abitat Enhancement

Regarding the adaptive management plan, the DEIS’s discussion of habitat enhancement as a 

protective measure for the GSG is not clear with respect to whether off-site (i.e., outside the Permit 

Area) habitat enhancement may be considered. DEIS, p. 4.-. As provided for in the Permit to 

Mine, enhancement of habitat in a buffer region outside the Permit Area is specifically approved. 

Permit to Mine  Wildlife Plan, p. 28. LCI believes this degree of flexibility is appropriate and would, 

in fact, further BLM’s conservation goals for Bureau sensitive species, as provided for in BLM 

Manual 6840. As the Manual explains, BLM’s goals include “improving the condition of the species’ 

habitat on BLM-administered lands.” BLM-administered lands extend more broadly than the Permit 

Area itself. Therefore, LCI requests that the FEIS clarify that habitat enhancement may take place 

outside the Permit Area as an additional protective measure. 

I Deeloment of the echnical isor Committee

In addition to these areas of potential discrepancy between the Permit to Mine and the stipulations 

described in the DEIS, LCI notes that the description of the technical advisory committee (the “TAC”) 

could be clarified in the following areas: 

x The substantive standards for decision making by the TAC are not clear regarding what 

constitutes a “downward trend”. 

x A dispute resolutionappeal process should be incorporated in the event the TAC does not 

reach consensus, for example over whether an impact threshold has been reached or the 

necessity of imposing specific additional protective measures. 

x The description of the monitoring program is not clear regarding the relationship of the 

geographic areas to be monitored, the leks to be monitored and the standards by which 

monitoring programs are to be evaluated by the TAC. 

II Disturbance ear Ehemeral Drainaes

The DEIS states on page 4.6-1, “The BLM would require that surface disturbing activities be avoided 

within 100 feet of the inner gorge of ephemeral channels.” LCI is concerned about such a restriction 

since it will create a 200 foot wide buffer around all ephemeral drainages in which uranium recovery 

could not occur. Depending on what constitutes an ephemeral drainage, this restriction could 

prevent the recovery of a significant portion of the mineral resource and presents a significant 

deviation from the Plan of Operations submitted to the BLM. 

The purpose for such a restriction is unclear since there is little precipitation and therefore very little 

run-off capable of causing erosion. Further, the drainages passing through the project area 

discharge to Battle Spring Flat which is generally a dry playa with limited vegetation and wildlife. 

Even if minor sedimentation occurred in the ephemeral drainages there would be little to no impact 

on any waters of the state or associated plant life and wildlife. The DEIS lists a total of four “Impact 

Significance Criteria” in Section 4.6.3 that were used to assess the significance of surface water 

impacts. It is unlikely that drilling near or even within an ephemeral drainage would result in an 

impact to any of the four criteria listed. 

Therefore, LCI requests that the BLM do the following. First, please clarify what constitutes an 

ephemeral drainage that would fall under any restriction, mindful of the likely limited impact that any 

sedimentation would have. Second, revise the restriction to allow surface disturbance activities 

which are further than 20 feet from the inner gorge of ephemeral drainages along with adherence to 
the Best Management Practices described in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Third, 

maintain the provision for limited exemptions to the stipulated distance on a case by case basis as is 

already provided for in the DEIS. 

Also, the DEIS, on page 4.6-3, provides a bullet list of actions that will be taken if it is necessary to 

place a well in or near an ephemeral drainage. The second bullet includes removing the cuttings 

from the pit upon completion of the drilling. Since these cuttings are not toxic or acid forming it is 

unclear why it would be necessary to remove them. The pit would be backfilled as per normal 

procedure and the topsoil reapplied and revegetated. Removing the cuttings would create the 

problem of waste disposal and potentially greater disturbance. LCI recommends that this 

requirement be removed. 
CE II 

Secific Comments 

1. The BLM uses the terms exploration and delineation drilling throughout the DEIS. These two 

terms have distinctly different meanings which should be defined early in the document for the 

lay reader. Exploration drilling generally (but not always) occurs beyond the confines of the 

defined mine units with the goal of locating previously unknown mineralization or 

oxidationreduction boundaries. The spacing of exploration drilling is generally 100 to 3,000 

feet. Delineation drilling generally occurs within defined mine units with the goal of increasing 

knowledge about a known mineralized oxidationreduction front. The spacing of delineation 

drilling typically ranges from 0 to 200 feet. 

2. Pg. ES-1, Para. 2. The DEIS states the distance to a highway is about 30 miles. State 

ighway 73, which terminates in Bairoil, is only about 21 miles to the plant site by road or 17 

miles straight line distance. Please revise the distance accordingly. 

3. Pg. ES-2, Para. 2. The DEIS states the NRC issued a “Material” license. The license should 

be referred to as a “Source and Byproduct Material License.” The same item needs corrected 

at Pg. 1-3, Para. 2. The remainder of the document refers to the license in its proper context. 

4. Pg. ES-, Para. 3. The DEIS states “About 2 acres of the Plant would be fenced...” The fence 

around the plant will encompass about ten (10) acres and not 2. The same item needs 

corrected on Pg. ES-6, Para. 2. 

. Pg. 1-4, Para. 2. The DEIS states there will be no drainage diversion however, this is incorrect 

and inconsistent with the remainder of the document. There will be minor drainage diversion in 

the area of the holding ponds (see Fig. 2.1-3 and Sect. 4.6.1.1 on Pg. 4.6-3 Para. 1). Please 

revise the language to clarify there will be minor drainage diversion. 

6. Pg. 1-10, Sect. 1.4.3. Para. 2. The DEIS states the BLM may request a license amendment or 

permit revision. While the BLM may make such a request, the WDE-LD and the NRC retain 

their authority and have no requirement to approve such a request. LCI recommends that the 

language in the DEIS be revised to clarify the NRC and WDE-LD retain their individual 

authority and are not required to act upon a recommendation from the BLM and to clearly 

indicate that BLM’s impact analysis, and any approvals to the Plan of Operation, are not 

dependent on such further action. 

7. Pg. 2-, Para. 1. The DEIS states the plant would be capable of processing 6,000 ouns 

 er a. We believe the author meant to say the plant would be capable of processing 

6,000 allons er minute. Please correct the units to gallons per minute (gpm). 

8. Pg. 2-1, Para. 3 of Sect. 2.1.3.1. The DEIS states, “...a wellhouse (cumulatively requiring 

about one acre).” The well house will require less than 0.2 acres including the pullout drive. 

Please correct the language to reflect this smaller area. 

. Pg. 2-1, Para. 2. The DEIS states “Carbon dioxide would be added either at the Plant andor 

at the header houses.” Carbon dioxide may or may not be used based on the need to adjust 

p. owever, if carbon dioxide is added, it would be added at the Plant and not the header 

houses. Please revise the DEIS to clarify the carbon dioxide injection point. 
10. Pg. 2-20, Para. 2. The DEIS states “The rinse water would be collected, treated, and the waste 

discharged to the Storage Ponds and UIC Class I wells.” In fact, the rinse water would be 

100 recycled back into the process. Please revise the text to reflect that the water will be 

recycled. 

11. Pg. 2-22, Para. . The DEIS states “Production wells would be open at the surface; however, 

water levels would typically be low and radon venting would be minimal.” Production well 

heads will be sealed, especially during operation, so radon gas emission will be non-existent 

during operations and virtually non-existent during maintenance. 

12. Pg. 2-2, Para. 1. The DEIS states well abandonment will be accomplished with truck 

mounted rigs. LCI requests that hose reels and pulling units be added as viable options for 

well abandonment. 

13. Pg. 2-47, Table 2.1-2. The table states that the meteorological station will be maintained until 

the plant is decommissioned. owever, the meteorological station will be removed as soon as 

the NRC grants approval to do so. Please clarify that the station will be removed upon NRC 

approval.

14. Pg. 2-61, Para. 4. The DEIS states that the dryer packaging area will have a dust collection 

system consisting of a bag filter. owever, other types of filters may be used to collect dust 

including EPA, cyclone, etc. Please revise the DEIS to reflect that other dust collection 

systems are allowable. Also, air from the area dust collector system won’t be routed to the 

dryer off-gas line and scrubber. Instead, a stand-alone filtration system will be used to remove 

particulate from the air. Using an independent system will allow for better employee protection 

and flexibility. Please revise the DEIS to allow for the use of a stand-alone dust collector 

system. 

1. Pg. 2-7, Table 2.3-1. The row heading “Liquid 11(e)(2) Byproduct Materials” says the 

“Disposal of up to 115 gpm in UIC Class I wells permitted on site.” The flow rate of 11 gpm is 

anticipated but the actual permitted rate is 20 gpm. Please clarify that the rate is an 

anticipated rate and not a permitted rate. 

16. Pg. 2-82, Para. 1. The DEIS states, “The production bleed would generate approximately 100 

gpm.” Please revise the language to reflect that the production bleed would generate between 

30 and 0 gpm. Combined with restoration discharge, it would approximate 100 gpm. 

17. Pg. 3.2-4 refers to Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2. It appears the reference should be to Figures 2.3-2 

and 2.3-1 instead. 

18. Pg. 3.8-26, Sect. 3.8.3.2, Para. 2. The DEIS states that LCI was a member of the Sage Grouse 

Implementation Team (SGIT). LCI wishes to clarify that the company wasn’t a part of the 

SGIT. owever, on approximately two occasions, an LCI employee served as a substitute 

member when the regular member who represented the uranium industry could not attend. 

1. Pg. 3.8-48, Para. 2. The DEIS states the anticipated disturbance will be approximately 330 

acres. owever, in other locations of the DEIS the acreage total is presented as 34 acres. 

While the difference is very minor, please conform all references to the correct disturbance 

acreage. 
20. Pg. 3.14-16, Para. 2. The DEIS refers to Table 3.14-6 in regards to mineral production. This 

appears to be an incorrect reference. Please clarify which table the reader should turn to. 

21. Pg. 4.2-1, Para. 1. The DEIS states that the Project would conform to the land use regulations 

of Carbon County. owever, since none of the Project is in Carbon County there will be no 

need to comply with their land use regulations. Please remove Carbon County from the 

language. 

22. Pg. 4.2-1, Sect. 4.2.1, Para. 3. The DEIS refers to Section 4.3.11 as being about Air uality. 

owever, it appears the correct reference would have been 4.11. 

23. Pg. 4.3-1, Sect. 4.3.1.2. The DEIS states that LCI will work with both Carbon and Sweetwater 

Counties to develop road maintenance agreements. owever, LCI intends to develop a road 

maintenance agreement only with Sweetwater County. LCI anticipates that such an agreement 

will only address snow removal activities. LCI has already received the necessary Access 

Permit that will allow the connection of the West Access Road to the Wamsutter-Crooks Gap 

road. Please revise the language to reflect that LCI will only need a road maintenance 

agreement with Sweetwater County. 

24. Pg. 4.3-, Table 4.3-1. Under the column heading “To/From Site/Heavier Equipment” and the 

row heading “Equipment, Supplies, and Waste Hauling” the units on the count should be per 

day instead of per week. 

2. Pg. 4.3-8, Sect. 4.3.4.1, Para. 1. The DEIS states that some tankage will be brought in by rail 

road. The facility tankage is small enough to bring in by truck from the manufacturers. Please 

strike the sentence regarding the use of rail roads or revise it to discuss delivery by trucks. 

26. Pg. 4.4-4, Para. 3. The DEIS states the aquifer pressure will be increased during production. 

For clarification, the pressure will only be increased locally (at injection wells) and decreased 

locally (near production wells). owever, overall, the pressure of the aquifer will be decreased 

because more water is being removed than being injected (bleed). 

27. Pg. 4.-10, Para. 4. The DEIS claims that the wind erosion of roads is the source of “a

significant percentage of silt...” This seems unlikely given the paucity of roads in the area. 

Please provide a source for this statement. Did the author intend to convey that the roads are 

the source of most dust in the area 

28. Pg. 4.6-4, Sect 4.6.1.2, Para. 1. Please clarify that the perimeter and interior berms pertain to 

the Plant as per the Plan of Operations. 

2. Pg. 4.7-1, Sect 4.7-1, Para. 1. The DEIS states, “To provide additional monitoring data on 

Stabilization (Section 4.7.1.1) for on-going reviews of regulatory requirements (EPA, 2011b), at 

least two additional stability monitoring samples would be collected, once every three months 

over a six-month period, after the initial stability period.” LCI believes it is inappropriate for the 

BLM to amend a sampling plan in a DEIS for the purpose of collecting information for another 

regulatory agency (EPA) on the basis that such additional information may be used to support 

a future rule making. If the EPA desires such information, they should address this issue 

through the NRC, which utilizes EPA standards to regulate in situ facilities, or they should 

promulgate regulations addressing their concerns. The EIS process was neither intended nor 

designed to serve as a mechanism to change regulations. Therefore, LCI respectfully requests 

that all language requiring the collection of additional stability samples be removed from the 
EIS. LCI proposes to follow the long-standing requirements of the WDE-LD Division which 

are described in the Plan of Operations. It is also noteworthy that the EPA has issued an 

aquifer exemption for the mining zone at Lost Creek which, as far as EPA regulations mandate, 

does not require any groundwater restoration or subsequent stability monitoring. 

The same issue is brought up again on Pg. 4.7-7, Sect. 4.7.1.1 at the end of the second 

paragraph and should be removed from the EIS. 

30. Pg. 4.7-2, Sect. 4.7.1.1, Para. 3. The language in the second line is unclear when it refers to 

the “depth to the in the DE Horizon.” Also, impacts to the DE aquifer would not be high and 

long-term since regulations would require the immediate and complete restoration of any 

affected groundwater. LCI requests that the language be revised to make it clear that the 

impact would be limited and quickly corrected pursuant to regulation. The same issue is 

presented on Pg. 4.7-20, Sect. 4.7..2 and Pg. 4.7-33, Sect. 4.7.7.2, Para. 2 and should be 

revised.

31. Pg. 4.7-11, Sect.4.7.2.2. The DEIS requires sampling of four regional BLM wells as shown in 

Figure 3.6-1. Of these four wells, only two wells, BLM Battle Spring Well 441 and BLM 

Battle Spring Well No 4777, are near enough to the proposed operation and in a generally 

down-gradient direction that their water quality could be impacted. Two of the four wells, BLM 

Boundary Well No. 4774 and BLM East Eagle Nest Draw Well are up gradient of the wellfields 

and greater than a mile away. Given that the groundwater moves only a few feet per year in 

this area it would take over a hundred years for any undetected contamination to reach either 

well (and then only if the water can flow against the gradient). Therefore, LCI requests that the 

EIS require sampling of only two of the wells (BLM Battle Spring Well 441 and BLM Battle 

Spring Well No 4777). 

32. Pg. 4.7-21, Sect. 4.7..3. The last paragraph describes the final disposition of water generated 

from the UIC Class I Wells. LCI requests that off-site or on-site disposal of the fluid in another 

Class I Well be added to the list especially since recycling the water as drill fluid is unlikely due 

to water quality concerns. Further, the language should also contemplate the use of other 

disposal techniques that may not currently be apparent. Please add language allowing for the 

disposal of fluids using other techniques that are compliant with all applicable regulations. 

33. Pg. 4.7-28, Sect. 4.7.6.2, Para. 2. The DEIS states the liner thickness will be 41 mm thick. 

The units should be in mils which is a thousandth of an inch. 

34. Pg. 4.-2, Sect. 4..1.2, Para. 1. The DEIS, as well as the Plan of Operations, states that Type 

I fencing will be used around the holding ponds. Type I fencing is too short to preclude deer, 

antelope and elk. Therefore, LCI requests that the fencing type be upgraded to Type II. 

3. Pg. 4.-3, Sect. 4..1.3. The DEIS states the purpose for the burial of tertiary electric lines is 

for raptor protection. LCI wishes to clarify that the primary reason these lines are buried is for 

employee safety. Raptor protection is a secondary benefit. 

36. Pg. 4.-14 and 4.-1. The bulleted text describing the sage grouse monitoring moves from 

past tense to future tense. Please clarify the language. 

37. Pg. 4.10-4, Para. 3. The DEIS states, “...spills around wellheads and leaks from pipelines 

could expose wild horses to toxic chemicals.” This statement could be more accurate by 
stating spills may contain trace quantities of toxic chemicals. Sect. 4.10..2 contains similar 

language and LCI requests that both statements be clarified. 

38. Pg. 4.1-2, Sect. 4.1.4.1. The DEIS spends considerable time discussing numbers of 

employees and contractors during various stage of the project. It is unclear that these numbers 

are consistent with those presented in the Plan of Operations. Please verify that the FEIS 

conforms to the numbers presented in the Plan of Operations or provide an explanation of the 

differences. 

3. Pg. 4.17-4, Para. 4. The DEIS states that the NRC requires monitoring of mud pits. Since the 

cuttings are not considered source or byproduct material, the NRC does not require monitoring. 

Please delete the final sentence since it isn’t accurate. 

40. Pg. 4.18-7, Para. 1. The DEIS states waste will be stored in super-sacs. While this is 

generally true, NRC and Department of Transportation regulations also allow waste to be 

stored in other strong, tight containers. Please revise the EIS to allow for waste storage in 

strong, tight containers. 

41. Pg. -24, Section .18. This section seems to end mid-sentence. 





From: Chris P 

Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 9:57 AM

To: BLM_WY_Lost_Crk_Mine

Subject: support for mine proposal

To whom it may concern, 

The proposed uranium mining operation will be a positive contribution to Wyoming. I think the 

project should be approved. 

Chris Pedersen
From: Benda, Ron 

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 9:59 AM

To: BLM_WY_Lost_Crk_Mine

Subject: DEIS Comment

Dear Sirs:

I have read the Executive Summary of the Draft DEIS. It appears to me that Ur-Energy has 

complied with all rules and regulations and laws for county, state and federal Permits and has 

obtained all necessary documents to begin producing uranium with the exception of the BLM 

Plan of Operations. Ur-Energy has collected years of baseline data and provided this 

information to all state and federal agencies as part of the Permitting process. Additionally, the 

public has had many opportunities for comment dating back to 2006. The myriad requirements, 

studies, hearings, etc. boggle the imagination. 

The conclusions reached by the BLM state that:

“the Project is unlikely to have adverse effects on public health, welfare, and safety because of 

the monitoring and protections required by the NRC and other agencies. Adverse 

socioeconomic impacts, e.g., excessive housing demand, would be minimal because of the 

relatively small size of the Project. Benefits to the state, counties, and local communities would 

include tax revenues, employment opportunities, and indirect economic activity.

I strongly agree and urge the BLM to issue the one remaining Permit that will allow this project 

to go ahead now. There is absolutely no good reason that the United States Nuclear Power 

industry has to import 95% of its annual uranium fuel requirements when there exists in this 

country all the uranium that will ever be required. 

Yours truly, 

Myron N. Benda 




 

1300 North Third 

PO Box 2407 

Rawlins, WY 82301 

Dear Mr. Carpenter,

WWP has been deeply involved in the Lost Creek area and the Green Mountain Common 

allotment for a decade. We are, of course, listed as an IP for the Green Mountain Common 

allotment on which the Lost Creek proposal will take place. We have had litigation ongoing 

for this area since 2006, with a case at present, with the aims of protecting the ecosystem of 

the area.

We have conducted extensive FOIA requests on the Lost Creek Insitu proposal over the 

last 2 years. We have commented on previous BLM NEPA for the Lost Creek proposal. 

We have had extensive conversations with BLM staff about the Lost Creek proposal. 

In spite of this, we were stunned to find out indirectly over the weekend that the DEIS had 

been released a month and a half ago and the deadline is today. 

NEPA Sec.1506.6 requires the BLM to “make diligent efforts to involve the public in 

preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.” This section under (b)3 vi clearly 

applies in this case. 

Wyoming Office

PO Box 1160

Pinedale, WY 82941

Tel: (877) 746-3628

Fax: (208) 475-4702

Email: Wyoming@WesternWatersheds.org

Web site: www.WesternWatersheds.org Working to protect and restore Western Watersheds

June 11, 2012 

Dennis Carpenter 

Rawlins Field Office
 

In order to not eliminate our ability to take part in this process, we request that you please 

send us a paper and electronic copy of the EIS and related documents? Also we request that 

you grant a 45 day extension to us in order to allow us to review the DEIS and provide 

comments.

Sincerely yours,

Jonathan B Ratner 

Director, WWP –Wyoming Office
 June 11, 2012 

Dennis Carpenter 

Rawlins Field Office, BLM 

P.O. Box 2407 

Rawlins, WY 82301 

Comments on the Lost Creek ISR Draft EIS 

Dear Mr. Carpenter: 

The following are the comments of Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, EarthWorks 

Action, Californians for Western Wilderness, and Western Watersheds Project on the 

Lost Creek ISR Project. We have a number of concerns regarding this project, most 

particularly its impacts to sage grouse habitats within a designated Core Area as well as 

impacts to the very rare Wyoming pocket gopher. 

This is a very large area to commit to industrial use within a Sage Grouse Core Area. The 

permit area encompasses 4,254 acres “for adequate spacing of facilities and to encompass 

the ore trend.” DEIS at ES-2. Projected surface disturbance totals 345 acres. Ibid.

Monitoring wells would be placed at a density of one well per four acres. DEIS at 2-4. 

This level of development clearly is not compatible with maintaining sage grouse 

populations in the project area and its surroundings. 

Range of Alternatives 

The range of alternatives is “the heart of the environmental impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1502.14. NEPA requires BLM to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate” a range 

of alternatives to proposed federal actions. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(a) and 1508.25(c). 

Formulation of alternatives during the NEPA disclosure and study process is at the heart 

of Congress’ choice of NEPA as the procedural method that guides federal agencies’ 

management of the public lands. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Hodel, 865 

F.2d 288, 299 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 (1976)). 

In fact, NEPA requirements state that “no action concerning the proposal should be taken 

which would: (1) Have an adverse environmental impact; or (2) Limit the choice of 

reasonable alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. § 1506.1(a). Catron County v. U.S Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 75 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996)(partial NEPA compliance is not enough.) NEPA 

regulations also require agencies to address appropriate alternatives in Environmental 

Assessments. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9, with specific reference to section 102(2)E of NEPA. In 

addition, the law requires consideration of a range of mitigation measures. See Kootenai 

P.O. Box 1512, Laramie, WY 82073 (307) 742-7978 fax: 742-7989 

Working to Protect Native Species and Their Habitats 
2

Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1122-1123 (9th Cir. 2002) (and cases cited 

therein) (stating that agencies must develop and analyze environmentally protective 

alternatives in order to comply with NEPA).

Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires an agency to present alternatives to the proposed 

action, and Section 102(2)(E) requires the agency to “study, develop, and describe 

appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which 

involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 42 

U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) and (E) (1994); see 40 C.F.R. § 1501.2(c); Biodiversity Associates,

IBLA 2001-166 at 6; Wyoming Outdoor Council, 151 IBLA 260, 272 (1999); Howard B. 

Keck, Jr., 124 IBLA 44, 53 (1982); Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 

1228-29 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. Denied, 489 U.S. 1066 (1989).

The fact that this basic, fundamental requirement that is the touchstone of every NEPA 

document has not gone unnoticed on the federal judiciary in sending back environmental 

studies that fail to meet this requirement, is noteworthy. See e.g., Calvert Cliffs 

Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 

(D.C. Cir. 1971) (detailed EIS required to ensure that each agency decision maker has 

before him and takes into account all possible approaches to a particular project . . . 

which would alter the environmental impact and the cost-benefit balance); Natural

Resource Defense Council v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79, 93 (2d Cir. 1975); ("The duty to 

consider reasonable alternatives is independent from and of wider scope than the duty to 

file an environmental statement."); Simmons v. United States Army Corps of Engineers,

120 F.3d 664, 660 (7th Cir. 1997) (“The highly restricted range of alternatives evaluated 

and considered violates the very purpose of NEPA's alternative analysis requirement: to 

foster informed decision making and full public involvement.”); Alaska Wilderness 

Recreation & Tourism v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 729 (9th Cir. 1995) ("The existence of 

a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement 

inadequate."); Dubois v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 102 F.3d 1273, 1288 (1st Cir. 1996) (EIS 

invalid because agency did not consider alternative of using artificial water storage units 

instead of a natural pond as a source of snowmaking for a ski resort); Libby Rod & Gun 

Club v. Poteat, 457 F. Supp. 1177, 1187-88 (D. Mont. 1978), rev'd in part on other 

grounds, 594 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1979) (Army Corps of Engineers violated NEPA in an 

EIS for a hydroelectric dam by only cursorily addressing the alternatives of meeting the 

Northwest's energy needs through other sources or conservation.); Northwest Envt’l 

Defense Center v. Bonneville Power Admin., 117 F.3d 1520, 1538 (9th Cir. 1997) (“An 

agency must look at every reasonable alternative, with the range dictated by the nature 

and scope of the proposed action.”) 

The failure to look at the full range of reasonable alternatives is related to BLM’s duty in 

any environmental analysis to develop, study, analyze and adopt mitigation measures to 

protect other resources. This is particularly true given that BLM, pursuant to FLPMA, 

must manage public lands in a manner that does not cause either “undue” or 

“unnecessary” degradation. 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b). Put simply, the failure of BLM to study 

and adopt these types of mitigation measures – especially when feasible and economic – 
3

means that the agency is proposing to allow this project to go forward with unnecessary 

impacts to public lands, in violation of FLPMA.

The Tenth Circuit examined NEPA’s alternatives requirement and agreed with other 

courts that “have interpreted NEPA to preclude agencies from defining the objectives of 

their actions in terms so unreasonably narrow that they can be accomplished be only one 

alternative (i.e. the applicant’s proposed project).” Colorado Environmental Coalition v. 

Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1165 (10th Cir. 1999), at 1174 (citing Simmons v. United States 

Corps of Eng’rs, 120 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 1997)). At the same time, an agency may not 

completely ignore an applicant’s objectives. See id. at 1174-75. Taken together, these 

directives “instruct agencies to take responsibility for defining the objectives of an action 

and then provide legitimate consideration to alternatives that fall between the obvious 

extremes.” Id. at 1175. See All Indian Pueblo Council v. United States, 975 F.2d 1437, 

1444 (10th Cir. 1992) (a thorough discussion of alternatives is “imperative”). 

Accordingly:

Agency compliance vel non with the requirement to consider alternatives 

is evaluated under the “rule of reason,” meaning that “the concept of 

alternatives must be bounded by some notion of feasibility,” and that 

agencies are required to deal with circumstances “as they exist and are 

likely to exist,” but are not required to consider alternatives that are 

“remote and speculative.” Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. 

Hodel, 865 F.2d 288, 294095 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted). 

However, in examining alternatives to the proposed action, an agency’s 

consideration of environmental concerns must be more than a pro forma

ritual. Considering environmental costs means seriously considering 

alternative actions to avoid them. 

Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm., 449 F.2d 1109, 

1128 (D.C. Cir. 1971); see also Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 237 F.Supp.2d 48, 

51; see also Mineral Policy Center v. Norton, 292 F.Supp.2d 30, 51 (D. D.C. 2003) 

(agency “not entitled to deference” where agency operates under erroneous assumption). 

The failure to look at the full range of reasonable alternatives is related to BLM’s duty in 

any environmental analysis to develop, study, analyze and adopt mitigation measures to 

protect other resources. The ability to adopt post-leasing mitigation measures – see 43 

C.F.R. § 3101.1-2 – is quite broad, as all reasonable measures not inconsistent with a 

given lease may be imposed by BLM. This is particularly true given that BLM, pursuant 

to FLPMA, must manage public lands in a manner that does not cause either “undue” or 

“unnecessary” degradation. 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b). Put simply, the failure of BLM to study 

and adopt these types of mitigation measures – especially when feasible and economic – 

means that the agency is proposing to allow this project to go forward with unnecessary 

impacts to public lands, in violation of FLPMA. 
4

NEPA requires agencies to take a ‘hard look’ at impacts to the human environment 

NEPA’s purpose is to maintain a national “look before you leap” policy in regard to all 

major federal actions. Congress’ intent in establishing this objective was to avoid 

uninformed agency decisions that could have serious environmental consequences. Thus, 

NEPA’s mandate is that all federal agencies analyze the likely effects of their actions, as 

well as address the potential alternatives. “Agencies are to perform this hard look before

committing themselves irretrievably to a given course of action so that the action can be 

shaped to account for environmental values. NEPA § 102(2)(c) requires the agency to 

consider numerous factors [including] irreversible commitments of resources called for 

by the proposal.” Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068 (10th Cir. 1988) (rev’d on other 

grounds)(emphasis added). NEPA provides procedural protections for resources at risk 

by requiring analysis of impacts before substantial decisions are made that set 

development in motion. See Conservation Law Foundation v. Watt, 560 F. Supp. 561, 

581 (D. Mass. 1983), aff’d by Massachusetts v. Watt, 716 F. 2d 946 (1st Cir. 1983).

Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that the responsible federal agency prepare a 

detailed statement on the environmental impacts of the proposed action and any adverse 

environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. The 

regulations implementing NEPA provide that “[t]o determine the scope of environmental 

impact statements, agencies shall consider . . . (1) Connected actions, which means that 

they are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement. . 

. . (2) Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have 

cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact 

statement. . . . [and] (3) Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably 

foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for 

evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or 

geography.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25. A cumulative impact is defined as “the impact on the 

environment which results from the incremental impact of the actions when added to 

other past, present, and foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency ...or person 

undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. 

Because of the importance of cumulative impacts, “the consistent position of the case law 

is that ... the agency’s EA must give a realistic evaluation of the total impacts and cannot 

isolate a proposed project, viewing it in a vacuum.” Grand Canyon Trust, 290 F.3d 339, 

342 (citations omitted). To satisfy NEPA’s hard look requirement, the cumulative 

impacts assessment must do two things. First, BLM must catalogue the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable projects in the area that might impact the environment. 

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. USFS, 177 F.3d 800, 809-810 (9th Cir. 1999). Second, BLM 

must analyze these impacts in light of the proposed action. Id. If BLM determines that 

certain actions are not relevant to the cumulative impacts analysis, it must “demonstrat[e] 

the scientific basis for this assertion.” Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 199 F.Supp.2d 971, 983 

(N.D. Ca. 2002). In Wyoming Outdoor Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the 

court ruled, 

The Court cannot defer to an EA/FONSI which has neglected, by its own 

terms, to even attempt to assess the extent of cumulative impacts that 
5

might be attributed to the agency action....The Corps must assess 

cumulative impacts to such a degree as to assure this Court that its 

issuance of a FONSI was not arbitrary and capricious. 

351 F.Supp.2d 1232, 1243 (D. Wyoming 2005). The standard for an Environmental 

Impact Statement is even higher. 

Importantly, 40 C.F.R. §1502.15 requires agencies to “describe the environment of the 

areas to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration.” Establishment of 

baseline conditions is a requirement of NEPA. In Half Moon Bay Fisherman’s 

Marketing Ass’n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit states 

that “without establishing . . . baseline conditions . . . there is simply no way to determine 

what effect [an action] will have on the environment, and consequently, no way to 

comply with NEPA.” The court further held that, “The concept of a baseline against 

which to compare predictions of the effects of the proposed action and reasonable 

alternatives is critical to the NEPA process.” We are concerned that the hard look and 

baseline information requirements have not been met for this EIS, particularly in regard 

to impacts to wildlife, resulting in unnecessary impacts to wildlife in violation of 

FLPMA.

The Draft EIS Fails to Assess the Effectiveness of Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Simply listing and not analyzing the effectiveness of these measures also results in 

violation of NEPA. See Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Peterson,

764 F.2d 581, 588 (9th Cir. 1985), rev'd on other grounds. 485 U.S. 439 (1988) (where 

the court determined that NEPA requires agencies to "analyze the mitigation measures in 

detail [and] explain how effective the measure would be. ... A mere listing of mitigation 

measures is insufficient to qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA."). In a 

case where the Corps of Engineers attempted to rely on untested mitigation measures, the 

Wyoming District Court ruled, “the Court holds that the Corps’ reliance on mitigation 

measures that were unsupported by any evidence in the record cannot be given deference 

under NEPA. The Court remands to the Corps for further findings on cumulative impacts, 

impacts to ranchlands, and the efficacy of mitigation measures.” Wyoming Outdoor 

Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 351 F.Supp.2d 1232, 1238. (D. Wyoming 

2005).

Second, the mitigation measures relied upon must “’constitute an adequate buffer’ ...so 

as to ‘render such impacts so minor as to not warrant an EIS.’” Greater Yellowstone 

Coalition, 359 F.3d at 1276 (quoting Wetlands Action Network, 222 F.3d 1105, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2000)). In other words, “When the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is 

supported by substantial evidence, the agency may use those measures as a mechanism to 

reduce environmental impacts below the level of significance that would require an EIS.” 

National Audubon Soc. v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 17 (2d Cir. 1997). “In practice, 

mitigation measures have been found to be sufficiently supported when based on studies 

conducted by the agency,...or when they are likely to be adequately policed.” Id.
6

The courts have had little patience with agencies’ failure to provide sounds scientific 

evidence to support the efficacy of their mitigation measures. In Wyoming Outdoor 

Council, the Court ruled 

In short, the mitigation measures relied upon by the Corps, while mandatory, are 

not supported by a single scientific study, paper, or even a comment. This Court 

does not expect the Corps to conduct extensive research on the efficacy of 

wetland replacement. Neither can the Court defer to the Corps' bald assertions 

that mitigation will be successful. ... As such, the Corps was arbitrary and 

capricious in relying on mitigation to conclude that there would be no significant 

impact to wetlands. The Court remands to the Corps to support its reliance on 

mitigation. 

351 F.Supp.2d 1232, 1252, footnote omitted. The court concluded, “This Court will not 

rubberstamp an agency determination that fails to consider cumulative impacts, fails to 

realistically assess impacts to ranchlands, and relies on unsupported, unmonitored 

mitigation measures. NEPA and the CWA require more.” 351 F.Supp.2d 1232, 1260. 

In this case, BLM does not provide an assessment of the adequacy of mitigation 

measures, particularly mitigation measures to protect sage grouse. As a result it proposes 

a package of permitted activities and mitigation measures that will not sustain healthy 

sage grouse populations in this part of the Core Area. 

BLM Sensitive Species Obligations 

According to the BLM Sensitive Species manual, “BLM special status species are: (1) 

species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and (2) 

species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and 

reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA, which are designated as 

Bureau sensitive by the State Director(s).” BLM Manual 6840.01. In addition, for special 

status species, including sensitive species, BLM must: 

Identify strategies and decisions to conserve and recover special status 

species. Given the legal mandate to conserve threatened or endangered 

species and BLM’s policy to conserve all Special Status Species, land use 

planning strategies and decisions should result in a reasonable 

conservation strategy for these species. Land use plan decisions should be 

clear and sufficiently detailed to enhance habitat or prevent avoidable loss 

of habitat pending the development and implementation of 

implementation-level plans. This may include identifying stipulations or 

criteria that would be applied to implementation actions. Land use plan 

decisions should be consistent with BLM’s mandate to recover listed 

species and should be consistent with objectives and recommended actions 

in approved recovery plans, conservation agreements and strategies, 

MOUs, and applicable biological opinions for threatened and endangered 

species.
7

BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Appendix C at 5, emphasis added. The 

State Director’s responsibilities include the following: “Ensuring that when BLM 

engages in the planning process, land use plans and subsequent implementation-level 

plans identify appropriate outcomes, strategies, restoration opportunities, use restrictions, 

and management actions necessary to conserve and/or recover listed species, as well as 

provisions for the conservation of Bureau sensitive species.” BLM Manual 

6840.04(D)(5), emphasis added. In addition to the responsibility to monitor population 

trends of Sensitive Species, the Field Manager is tasked with “Ensuring that land use and 

implementation plans fully address appropriate conservation of BLM special status 

species.” BLM manual 6840.04(E)(6). Finally, “Bureau sensitive species will be 

managed consistent with species and habitat management objectives in land use and 

implementation plans to promote their conservation and to minimize the likelihood and 

need for listing under the ESA.” BLM Manual 6840.06, emphasis added, and see BLM 

Manual 6840.2. Specifically, “On BLM-administered lands, the BLM shall manage 

Bureau sensitive species and their habitats to minimize or eliminate threats affecting the 

status of the species or to improve the condition of the species habitat, by:

1. Determining, to the extent practicable, the distribution, abundance, population 

condition, current threats, and habitat needs for sensitive species, and evaluating 

the significance of BLM-administered lands and actions undertaken by the BLM 

in conserving those species.

2. Ensuring that BLM activities affecting Bureau sensitive species are carried out 

in a way that is consistent with its objectives for managing those species and their 

habitats at the appropriate spatial scale. 

3. Monitoring populations and habitats of Bureau sensitive species to determine 

whether species management objectives are being met. 

4. Working with partners and stakeholders to develop species-specific or 

ecosystem-based conservation strategies (see .2D Agreements, Assessments and 

Cooperative Strategies for Conservation). 

5. Prioritizing Bureau sensitive species and their habitats for conservation action 

based on considerations such as human and financial resource availability, 

immediacy of threats, and relationship to other BLM priority programs and 

activities. 

6. Using Land and Water Conservation Funds, as well as other land tenure 

adjustment tools, to acquire habitats for Bureau sensitive species, as appropriate. 

7. Considering ecosystem management and the conservation of native biodiversity 

to reduce the likelihood that any native species will require Bureau sensitive 

species status. 
8

8. In the absence of conservation strategies, incorporate best management 

practices, standard operating procedures, conservation measures, and design 

criteria to mitigate specific threats to Bureau sensitive species during the planning 

of activities and projects. Land Health Standards should be used for managing 

Bureau sensitive species habitats until range-wide or site-specific management 

plans or conservation strategies are developed. Off-site mitigation may be used to 

reduce potential effects on Bureau sensitive species.” 

BLM Manual 6840.2(C). Clearly, the BLM must survey for special status species before 

allowing any ground disturbance for this project, must develop site-specific management 

plans for these species, and must monitor special status species populations within and 

near the proposed wind farm project area to ensure that the agency is promoting their 

recovery. The BLM must acquire baseline data and analyze the impacts of the 

alternatives on these species. In cases where special status species obligations are 

flouted, this safety net becomes less meaningful and increases the need for Endangered 

Species Act protection.

Roads

Two Occupied-Inactive Leks and one occupied, active lek are located with 0.6 mile of 

two-tracks slated to be upgraded to improved gravel roads. DEIS at 2-68. In addition, one 

Occupied-Inactive lek and two occupied, active leks are within 1.9 miles of roads used to 

transport produced uranium and waste. Id. Under SGIT stipulations, BLM concedes, 

surface occupancy is not permitted within 0.6 miles of leks in Core Areas. DEIS at 4.9-

28. It is notable that this measure is a woefully inadequate level of protection, and has the 

SGIT based their lek buffers on available science rather than political expediency, the 

NSO lek buffers would have been at least 1.9 miles (after Holloran 2005). Yet both the 

East Access Road and West Access Road are within 0.6 mile of occupied leks. Id.

BLM argues that the Crooked Well Lek, which is Occupied-Inactive and within 0.6 mile 

of the East Access Road, has not been used by sage grouse for years. DEIS at 4.9-28. 

This argument is unavailing because an occupied lek is defined for the purpose of BLM 

policy as “A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the prior 

ten years.” IM 2010-12 Attachment 1 at unnumbered 3. In addition, According to BLM, 

“Within these cycles, sage-grouse populations decline and some leks become temporarily 

inactive for a period of years. Once environmental conditions improve, these leks may 

become active again. These cycles appear to be approximately 10 years.” IM 2010-12, 

Attachment 3 at unnumbered 1. All occupied leks are protected through prescribed 

management actions during surface disturbing activities. 

According to presentations made at the Western Landscape Conservation Initiative in 

Rock Springs in Spring 2012, lek counts in the vicinity of the Lost Creek access roads 

have dropped precipitously due to the increasing level of vehicle traffic in the project area 

as a result of preliminary activity associated with the Lost Creek project. This 

underscores the importance of relocating access roads well away from sage grouse leks to 

prevent extirpation of lek populations or displacement to less suitable or alreadyoccupied habitats. 
9

Access roads approaching the project sites from both east and west would be upgraded to 

crown-and-ditch gravel road standards prior to the project. DEIS at 2-12. These are 

currently two-track jeep trails. DEIS at 4.9-28. Project roads are supposed to be reclaimed 

at the project’s end. DEIS at 2-31. However, it is possible that these roads will not be 

decommissioned and reclaimed to their original state at the end of the active life of the 

operation. DEIS at 2-30.

According to the DEIS, “BLM and the State require that the impacts of roads on wildlife 

be identified and mitigated. In particular, impacts on Greater sage-grouse and raptors are 

of concern.” DEIS at 2-89. The impacts of roads have not been adequately mitigated 

under the Proposed Action. 

The Southern Alternate Access Road avoids lands within 1.9 miles of sage grouse leks as 

well as lands within 1 mile of active raptor nests. See Figure 2.2-3. DEIS at 2-93. We 

would recommending straightening this route while still avoiding the 19.-mile lek buffers 

and 1-mile raptor nest buffers. It would also be possible to establish a new access route, 

beginning just east of the Southern Alternate Access Road and traveling southeast for 

approximately 3⁄4 mile before swinging due east to intersect the Sooner Road and then 

continuing southeast to avoid 1.9-mile lek buffers to reach Mineral Exploration Road. 

See Figure 2.2-3 and Attachment 1. For the purposes of these comments, we will call this 

the Eastern Alternate Access Road. It has not to date been considered by the BLM 

according to the DEIS. 

While we respect the BLM’s desire to align new or upgraded access roads on existing 

primitive routes, the lower-impact option is to route the access roads outside the lek and 

nest buffers for sensitive wildlife to the greatest extent possible, even if it means adding 

vehicle route mileage. This would meet Sweetwater County access requirements while 

minimizing impacts to sage grouse and raptors. Avoiding impacts to sensitive wildlife 

needs to be the overriding priority in choosing alignments for access roads to this facility, 

as traffic is likely to be significant. We concur with WGFD that creating new roads has a 

greater negative impact on sage grouse populations than upgrading existing two-tracks; 

however, upgrading existing jeep trails inside the more sensitive habitats within sage 

grouse lek buffers has greater impacts than creating new roads outside those lek buffers. 

The question of context of the road in terms of sensitive habitat overrides the increase in 

habitat fragmentation in less-sensitive habitats for both sage grouse and raptors. BLM 

should require the use of the Southern Alternate Access Road and Eastern Alternate 

Access Road as lower-impact alternatives to the east and west access roads in the 

Proposed Action. Because it is physically possible to minimize intrusions into lek and 

raptor nest buffers, and it is BLM policy to do so, it would be arbitrary and capricious 

and an abuse of discretion (in violation of the APA), not to mention unnecessary and 

undue degradation of raptor and sage grouse habitat (pursuant to FLPMA) to choose 

access road alignments that have higher impacts on wildlife than these. 
10

Viewshed analyses at 1 and 2 meter heights from the Discover, Discover 2, and Crooked 

Well Leks show that parts of the access roads would be visible from the leks.1

 BLM 

ultimately concedes, 

“As discussed above, three occupied leks (Discover 2 Lek and Crooked 

Well Lek) and one occupied, active lek (Discover) are within 0.6 miles of 

the access roads, which would be upgraded. This surface occupancy could 

impact the status of Greater sage-grouse occupation of these leks. This is 

contrary to the stipulations set forth in the SGIT; however the executive 

order does allow for exceptions to be considered on a case-by-case basis.” 

DEIS at 4.9-28. BLM goes on to argue that upgrading jeep trails within 0.6 mile of 

occupied leks would have less impact that creating new roads outside the 0.6-mile buffer. 

Id. Bosh and nonsense; this is an unsupportable statement. Jeep trails have very little 

impact on sage grouse, less still if they are administratively closed, as they should be in 

this case. If the Discover lek has active breeding activity on it presently, this 

demonstrates that the jeep trail is having limited impact, while the anticipated significant 

impacts from upgrading the jeep trails to high-standard gravel roads suggests that the 

upgrading would cause major problems for sage grouse. Conversely, if impacts are being 

seen from increased traffic on this jeep road, the appropriate action would be to close it to 

vehicle traffic rather than upgrading it to a gravel road. BLM references DEQ 

proceedings arguing that creating “new” roads would have greater impact. DEIS at 4.9-

28. But the DEQ was never presented with the option of re-aligning the roads farther than 

2 miles from the occupied leks, as BCA recommends in these comments. Because nesting 

activity is concentrated within 2 miles of leks (see Wallestad and Pyrah 1974, Holloran 

2005), shifting roads farther than 2 miles away would reduce the impacts to nesting sage 

grouse versus upgrading the existing roads, which would place a substantial mileage of 

the access roads within 2 miles of an occupied lek. Thus, the Proposed Action would 

demonstrably have a much higher impact on nesting sage grouse than re-siting the roads 

more than 2 miles away from leks, negating the argument elucidated by the Wyoming 

DEQ in its permitting hearing, as referenced by BLM in its EIS. 

Let’s be clear: As jeep trail, particularly when closed, should have a negligible effect on 

sage grouse (especially if receiving negligible traffic), and since high-standard gravel 

roads have a significant impact, the “upgrading” of the access roads as envisioned under 

this project essentially has the same impact as creating a similar mileage of new roads. 

Relocating the access roads to avoid all lands within 2 miles of an occupied lek would 

indeed require a greater mileage of road, but the road would be traveling through much 

less sensitive habitat, with a much smaller percentage of nesting sage grouse occupying 

that habitat. Thus, the impacts of the alternate access roads as recommended by BCA 

would be much less than the impact of upgrading existing jeep trails into gravel roads as 

recommended by BLM in its Proposed Action, in addition to putting this aspect of the 

Project into compliance with IM 2010-12 and the Governor’s Executive Order. These 

1

 These analyses are available online at http://deq.state.wy.us/eqc/orders/Land%20Closed%20Cases/11-

4803%20Lost%20Creek%20ISR,%20LLC/11-4803%20Lost%20Creek%20ISR,%20LLC.html; site last 

visited 6/6/12. 
11

facts become even more compelling when one considers that BLM plans to approve 

overhead powerlines to be sited along the access roads, causing further impacts to sage 

grouse commensurate with the sensitivity of the sage grouse habitat they traverse. 

One additional mitigation measure that should be considered, but which apparently has 

not been considered to date by BLM, is the option of requiring the project proponent to 

close and restore previously existing roads in the general vicinity of the Project Area to at 

least partially compensate for the mileage of new roads constructed and attendant habitat 

fragmentation and wildlife disturbance due to vehicle traffic. See DEIS at 4.9-2. BLM 

has considered gating and signing existing two-tracks, but not closing and revegetating 

them. Id. Apparently the Project Proponent would be willing to close and gate such twotracks. LCI Wildlife Protection Plan, Attachment OP 6 at 5.2

 And BLM has not disclosed 

to what extent such gating and signing would take place, leaving the reader to guess 

whether and how much of this compensatory mitigation would occur. NEPA requires full 

disclosure of this, so that net impacts can be accurately assessed. 

BLM argues that the increase of one 18-wheeler truck on main haul roads will have no 

significant impact on sage grouse. DEIS at 4.9-29. This assertion is unsupported by any 

scientific finding or even anecdotal guesswork. BLM makes no attempt at all in this 

section to analyze the impacts of the scores of light-truck trips that will be occurring on 

these roads on sage grouse. Id. Given that the amount of vehicle traffic currently using 

the jeep trails that are planned for upgrade is essentially nil, even one 18-wheeler makes a 

major difference, let alone the level of traffic outlined in the DEIS’s Table 4.3-1. In 

failing to analyze the impact of this level of traffic on sage grouse, BLM has failed 

NEPA’s hard look requirement, a deficiency that must be address before the project can 

legally be approved.

Transmission Lines 

Transmission lines and other utilities would be placed in or adjacent to the access road 

right-of-way where possible to minimize habitat impacts. Unfortunately, the access roads 

both run within 0.6 mile of sage grouse leks. This puts overhead transmission lines within 

close proximity of sage grouse leks in violation of the Governor’s Executive Order on 

Core Areas as well as BLM’s own guidance. Under the Governor’s Executive Order, 

“New distribution, gathering, and transmission lines sited outside established corridors 

within Core Population Areas should be authorized or conducted only when it can be 

demonstrated by the state agency that the activity will not cause declines in Greater SageGrouse populations.” Exec. Order 2011-5 at 4. Furthermore, the Governor’s Executive 

Order states, 

Overhead Lines: Bury lines when possible, if not; locate overhead lines at 

least 0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. New lines 

should be raptor proofed if not buried. 

2

 Online at http://deq.state.wy.us/eqc/orders/Land%20Closed%20Cases/11-

4803%20Lost%20Creek%20ISR,%20LLC/AttOP_6_Wildlife_Sep10.pdf; site last checked 6/6/12. 
12

Executive Order at 9. It is not possible for WGFD to determine that siting transmission 

lines within 0.6 miles of active sage grouse leks will not cause population declines. 

Furthermore, no one has made any representation that burial of power lines is not 

possible. Eeven if powerlines are allowed overhead within 5 miles of leks, significant 

impacts are likely to nesting sage grouse even if the lines are sufficiently distant to 

avboid impacts to lekking behavior. Raptor perch inhibitors of the type referenced by 

BLM (DEIS at 4.9-3) are not effective at preventing raptor perching. It is certainly 

possible for BLM to require burial of powerlines within 0.6 mile of sage grouse leks. But 

the agency has failed to require this measure. It is also possible for BLM to site 

powerlines along access roads that have been shifted at least 2 miles away from occupied 

sage grouse leks. This is a distinct possibility and a reasonable alternative as our 

comments demonstrate. See Attachment 1. Yet BLM has failed to consider this 

alternative so far; to ignore it would violate NEPA’s range of alternatives requirements. 

Even if powerlines are sited at least 0.6 mile from occupied leks (as suggested at page 

4.9-30), they will still be crossing occupied nesting habitat that is of increasing 

importance with closer proximity to the lek. All powerlines within 5 miles of occupied 

leks should be buried regardless of the alignment chosen, to protect not only breeding but 

also nesting sage grouse.

Air Quality 

The EIS discusses nonradioactive dust and radon gas as the primary airborne pollutants. 

DEIS at 2-22. We are concerned that dust may become contaminated with radiation, and 

then be spread by airborne means. What are the potential effects of airborne radioactive 

pollutants? 

Detention Ponds 

The proposal includes two large storage ponds. DEIS at 2-6. The ponds would be fenced 

to exclude big game. DEIS at 2-14. However, small mammals and birds would 

potentially be exposed to storage pond water, potentially leading to chronic exposures of 

toxicity concern. DEIS at 2-69, and see DEIS at 4.9-40, 4.9-43. In the “On-Site Required 

Measures,” there is no reference to any measures to keep waterfowl, shorebirds, and other 

wildlife out of storage ponds; all of the mitigation measures focus on preventing or 

ameliorating the negative results of a rupture in the liner system. See DEIS at 4.7-2, 4.7-

9. Indeed, waterfowl and shorebirds would appear to have full access. Sensu DEIS at 4.9-

40. Based on the consequences of a release of this water from the storage ponds, it 

appears to be quite toxic. See DEIS at 4.7-20, “If a release does occur and if the 11(e)(2) 

byproduct material does migrate to the groundwater in the DE Horizon the impact would 

be high and long-term.” Assertions that storage ponds pose little or no risk to birds seem 

inconsistent with the previous description. DEIS at 4.9-4. Please explain why the storage 

pond water is a major threat to groundwater in the event of a breached liner, yet is of no 

concern with regard to birds and other wildlife. For sage grouse, BLM states, “If Greater 

sage-grouse use the ponds as a regular water source there is an exposure potential.” DEIS 

at 4.9-39. This appears to be a problem that remains unresolved by current mitigation 

measures. 
13

Given the number of waterfowl and shorebirds that use the nearby Chain Lakes Wildlife 

Habitat Management Area, some of them rare and sensitive species, it is likely that some 

birds would be attracted by the availability of open water at storage ponds and become 

exposed to radiation and other toxic compounds. The ponds are expected to contain 

Radium 226. LCI Wildlife Protection Plan, Attachment OP 6 at 7.3 Concentration of 

selenium in waterfowl feeding on plankton or algae is also a concern. Id. BLM has not 

undertaken an adequate analysis of the impacts of potential poisoning of waterfowl, 

grouse, passerine birds, and smaller mammals, nor have adequate mitigation measures 

been required that would prevent significant problems with wildlife poisoning from the 

project. Those measures outlined at DEIS page 4.9-41 are inadequate inasmuch as they 

rely on the hope that wildlife will be deterred from using these ponds as water sources 

rather than requiring netting of ponds and other measures to actively preclude access. 

Hope is not a strategy, nor does it constitute adequate stewardship in the context of a 

project with the potential for extreme levels of toxicity. 

Fencing

On a related note, fences restricting livestock and wild horses from project facilities 

would be wildlife-friendly to be permeable to pronghorns and smaller wildlife. DEIS at 

4.9.2. What are the impacts to the wildlife that would be able to access project facilities 

in terms of radiation exposure and potential to drink from contaminated water sources? It 

appears that while larger ungulates may be excluded from the detention ponds by fences, 

smaller wildlife will not. This raises potential problems, since surface water is a rare 

commodity in the Red Desert and would be expected to attract birds and mammals. 

Groundwater and Springs 

We are concerned that contamination of groundwater as a result of project operations will 

result in contaminated springs outside the Permit Area. The ore deposits are 300 to 700 

feet belowground. DEIS at ES-3. The wells will be completed between 350 and 500 feet 

belowground. DEIS at 2-4. Groundwater quality in the Battle Springs aquifer is relatively 

high, with less than 500 mg/l Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the Project Area, with 

“some of the best overall quality of those studied in Sweetwater County.” DEIS at 3.6 -

49. The same is true for the ore-bearing sands. DEIS at 3.6-50. However, this aquifer 

does test relatively high for radioactive elements. DEIS at 3.6 -49. BLM has yet to take 

the legally required hard look at this type of impact. 

The lixiviant injection process mobilizes not only uranium, but also heavy metals such as 

selenium and arsenic. DEIS at 2-19. There is a protocol for documenting radioactive 

releases from the site, and notifying the Wyoming DEQ and the NRC. DEIS at 2-21. But 

there does not seems to be a reliable method for retrieving “excursions” once they got 

outside the monitoring well perimeter. Thus there appears to be nothing preventing an 

excusion from contaminating Battle Spring or other spring features. 

Tests for the injection strata indicate that water quality between 6,100 and 10,000 feet of 

depth is Class IV and exceeds groundwater quality standards for a number of 

3

 Online at http://deq.state.wy.us/eqc/orders/Land%20Closed%20Cases/11-

4803%20Lost%20Creek%20ISR,%20LLC/AttOP_6_Wildlife_Sep10.pdf; site last checked 6/6/12. 
14

constituents. DEIS at 2-11. So injection of chemicals does not seem to be a principal 

issue. But contamination of the aquifer in the target zone could result in groundwater 

contact with surface springs in addition to livestock watering wells. 

We are also concerned about long-term impacts of spills and leaks, and contamination 

on-site that may exist after reclamation is complete. Spills and leaks could impact the 

quality of surface water runoff under the Proposed Action. DEIS at 2-65. According to 

BLM, decontamination of the project site and facilities materials will be a fairly complex 

and difficult process. See DEIS at 2-30. What will happen if leaks permeate the soil and 

get into shallow aquifers? 

Faults and drill holes could allow leakage of lixiviant and/or uranium into neighboring 

strata. The EIS notes the presence of the Lost Creek Fault in the project area, with a 

vertical displacement of up to 80 feet. DEIS at 3.3-10, 3.3-11, 3.3-14. The North Fault 

also occurs within the project area, with a displacement of 70 feet. EIS at 3.3-15. The 

South Fault also occurs here, with a displacement of approximately 40 feet. Id. There are 

also a great many historic drill holes in the area that might allow communication of 

pregnant lixiviant and other hazardous substances among rock layers and aquifers. DEIS 

at 3.4-31, 3.6-33. The potential for excursions is elevated by the presence of faults and/or 

abandoned exploratory wells, among other factors. DEIS at 4.7-29. What measures will 

be required to stabilize or seal faults or known abandoned wellbores prior to the project 

to prevent them from becoming avenues for excursion of pregnant lixiviant from the 

target zone? 

The northeast portion of the project area intersects Battle Springs Draw. DEIS at 3.5-3. 

Springs are located near the terminus of this drainage at Battle Springs Flat which is 

located 9 miles southwest of the Project Area. Importantly, groundwater flow is westsouthwest from the Project Area (DEIS at 3.6-17), toward these springs. BLM states that 

the proposed mine units are in confined aquifers several hundred feet underground, and 

there is no know hydrological connection between the surface of the Permit Area and this 

aquifer. DEIS at 4.6-1, emphasis added. However, there is every likelihood that these 

“confined aquifers” communicate with and supply water to springs in places where the 

Battle Springs formation crops out at the surface. We are concerned about groundwater 

contamination becoming surface water contamination outside the Project Area, i.e. 

approximately 9 miles to the southwest where springs occur that originate in this 

formation. But the Surface Water impacts analysis makes no mention of potential 

contamination of surface water emerging outside the Project Area that results from 

project operations. 

The upper Battle Spring formation contains the uranium mineralization in the Project 

Area. DEIS at 3.3-1. According to potentiometry, groundwater flow moves from the 

Project Area toward the center of the Basin. DEIS at 3.6-4. According to BLM, “The 

main discharge area for the Battle Spring/Wasatch aquifer system is to a series of lakes, 

springs, and playa lake beds near the center of the Basin.” DEIS at 3.6-1. BLM has 

baseline water quality data for Battle Spring available to the agency at the time the DEIS 
15

was written.4 The BLM analysis does not include estimates of flow rates from the Project 

Area to the springs, playas, and lakes at the center of the Basin. Therefore it remains 

unknown how long radiation-contaminated water resulting from project-related problems 

would take to emerge at the surface, nine miles away. 

BLM describes in brief the procedures that would be undertaken in the event of an 

excursion, in which uranium impregnated water is documented by monitoring wells to 

have left the project perimeter. DEIS at 4.7-4. However, there is no description 

concerning what the groundwater impacts would be, both short- and long-term, what 

consequences that might have for groundwater in the surrounding area, and what 

potential that has to contaminate down-gradient springs. This is also not addressed in the 

Cumulative Impacts section. DEIS at 5-14. What is the effectiveness of generating a “net 

process bleed” to attempt to attract the escaped contaminates back toward the project 

site? What are the consequences if the net process bleed fails or is incompletely 

effective? NEPA’s hard look analysis is supposed to answer these questions, yet in this 

case the BLM has apparently made no attempt to undertake the necessary research and/or 

analysis.

BLM discusses in the context of restoration the horizontal and vertical “flare” of the 

lixiviant during mining. DEIS at 4.7-5. How is this flare monitored by the monitoring 

wells? These wells are designed to detect lateral movement, but not necessarily vertical 

movement. DEIS at 4.7-10. Are the monitoring wells open holes, capable of registering 

contaminant presence throughout the stratigraphic column? Or are they cased and then 

perforated only into the zones that are being actively mined? If there is vertical flare of 

lixiviant, which then leaks upward and/or downward from the target formation, then 

groundwater will carry the plume downgradient and potentially out of the Project Area. If 

the monitoring wells are cased and perforated only in the target formation or a narrow 

subset of formations adjoining it, then excursions due to vertical flare could be missed. 

The DEIS mentions casing in the context of monitoring wells (DEIS at 4.7-10), 

indicating that this scenario is a distinct possibility. 

BLM discusses water being removed during sweep operations and treated down to 

baseline quality. 4.7-4. The water would then be reinjected back into the target formation. 

DEIS at 2-28. But clearly the sweep will not be able to get all of the contaminated water 

out of the target formation to be purified to baseline conditions, so the post-mine 

groundwater will begin with a mix of injected water of baseline quality mixed with 

degraded water that was left behind. What is the projected net decrease in water quality 

for operations such as these. There must have been other in situ recovery operations using 

the same methodology as is proposed for Lost Creek that have been reclaimed. What was 

the net groundwater degradation (or lack thereof) for these operations? A hard look 

demands that the agency do its homework and bring to bear all of the information 

available concerning the net change in groundwater quality. Yet in the Draft EIS, BLM 

provides no estimate as to the magnitude of groundwater quality change. 

4 http://deq.state.wy.us/eqc/orders/Land%20Closed%20Cases/11-

4803%20Lost%20Creek%20ISR,%20LLC/TabD6_3_Historic_Battle_Spring_WQ.pdf, site last visited 

6/6/12. 
16

While there appear to be projected impacts on groundwater quality at all stages during the 

operation up to and including reclamation, there does not appear to be a section dedicated 

to assessing groundwater impacts post-reclamation, after project activities are completed. 

See DEIS at Section 4.7, and see page 4.7-34. In many respects, this is the most 

important groundwater issue that the EIS should be addressing, given that uranium has a 

half-life of thousands of years, and remaining impacts to groundwater after completion of 

reclamation activities will be correspondingly long-term. 

Range of Alternatives 

Phased development of mine units was eliminated from detailed consideration as an 

alternative. DEIS at 2-60. Mine units would be constructed in a progressive manner. 

DEIS at 2-46. According to the DEIS, each mine unit would require two years for 

groundwater restoration. DEIS at 2-38. BLM considers this a ‘schedule-based approach’ 

which “is effective and is economically practicable.” DEIS at 2-86. The project would 

proceed unit-by-unit, with each unit ringed by a series of monitoring wells to prevent 

excursions from the unit. DEIS at 2-83. BLM states that six mine units were inintially 

proposed, but this was consolidated to three as this was deemed “more appropriate.” 

DEIS at 2-84. No explanation for this consolidation is provided; initially the Proponent 

clearly believed six units to be more appropriate. However, it appears that phased 

development, unit by unit, will be taking place in any case. Why not limit the project to 

operating only one mine unit at a time, and opening the next unit when the previous unit 

has completed final reclamation activities? 

BLM states, “Regardless of the number of mine units in the Permit Area, the total 

disturbance area does not change because the footprint of the mine unit follows the ore 

trend. Therefore, this alternative was not evaluated in detail.” DEIS at 2-84. BLM points 

to a “relatively short timeframe of the project” as a related factor. Id. However, the 

timeframe does not have to be relatively short. The BLM could require that six mine units 

be undertaken, as originally proposed, and that the first mine unit be fully reclaimed 

before construction on the second mine unit could begin. This would result in one-sixth 

the area under industrial use at any one time verses the Proposed Action, with a 

concomitant reduction in wildlife displacement by project facilities and wildlife 

disturbance as a result of project activities. The BLM has full authority under its FLPMA 

multiple-use mandate to require such concessions of the project proponent in order to 

mitigate the impacts on wildlife. This approach would necessarily stretch out the 

timeframe of the project. 

The project would entail “occasional light use at night for safety and security.” DEIS at 

2-71. There would be 119 to 148 employee positions created as a result of the project. 

DEIS at 2-72. Even if all of these workers are not present at the project site at any one 

time, this is a lot of human activity. It will magnify disturbance to wildlife in surrounding 

habitats. The responsible option would be to limit the disturbance level by phasing the 

mine units so that only one is in operation at any one time. 
17

Reclamation

Past uranium mining and exploration in the Gas Hills area, in the Lander Field Office 

approximately 50 miles north of the Project Area has never been fully reclaimed. There 

are a great number of open pits, diggings, and water bodies in this area that have become 

contaminated with radiation. Radiation contamination can remain for tens of thousands of 

years, both aboveground and in belowground aquifers. For these reasons, we are 

concerned that the Lost Creek project may, through spills, failures in safety systems, or 

shoddy reclamation, result in long-term contamination issues in and near the project site. 

Pygmy Rabbits 

A literature review of pygmy rabbit habitat requirements and potential impacts, which 

BLM should have undertaken in fulfillment of its NEPA baseline information 

requirements, would have revealed some very salient information. Pygmy rabbits are 

obligate residents of sagebrush stands that are tall with dense canopy cover (Green and 

Flinders 1980, Katzner 1994). Fragmentation of tall sage habitats can reduce the size, 

stability and success of pygmy rabbit populations because these animals are reluctant to 

cross open habitats (Katzner 1994).

Pygmy rabbits are limited to lowland big sagebrush in the Project Area. DEIS at 4.9-20. 

This habitat type is typically confined to draw and drainage bottoms. Pygmy rabbit signs 

were recorded in a handful of draw bottoms;5 the extent of search effort is not known. 

Where roads can represent impassable barriers to pygmy rabbit dispersal, we recommend 

the emplacement of oversized culverts (perhaps 6 feet in diameter) that could serve as 

pygmy rabbit underpasses to maintain habitat connectivity along draws in prime pygmy 

rabbit habitat. We also recommend avoiding the siting of facilities in these habitats, 

which tend to be fairly narrowly constricted. If 85 percent of the disturbance I projected 

for upland big sagebrush habitat types and 15% is projected for lowland big sagebrush, 

this seems like a fairly random distribution that does not particularly indicate avoidance 

of lowland big sagebrush, especially given the 85% of land cover represented in upland 

big sagebrush in the habitat transects for the Project Area. DEIS at 3.7-7. It does not 

appear that BLM has taken a hard look at impacts to pygmy rabbits, nor has the agency 

taken pains to ensure that facilities are located outside the draw bottoms that are occupied 

pygmy rabbit habitat according to site-specific surveys. 

Wyoming pocket gopher 

We are concerned that the Lost Creek ISR Project will have major impacts on this BLM 

Sensitive Species, which is extremely rare. BLM’s Draft EIS lists the Wyoming pocket 

gopher as “confirmed on site.” DEIS at 3.8-17. Based on trapping effort, Wyoming 

pocket gophers were found throughout the project area. DEIS at 3.8-48, and see Figure at 

3.8-50. Impacts would likely be heavy. According to BLM, “Project Construction would 

result in long-term direct impacts to the Wyoming pocket gophers in the Permit Area. 

DEIS at 4.9-36. Conditions would remain unfavorable for Wyoming pocket gophers in 

the Project Area throughout the Operational phase. DEIS at 4.9-43. “Wyoming pocket 

5 http://deq.state.wy.us/eqc/orders/Land%20Closed%20Cases/11-

4803%20Lost%20Creek%20ISR,%20LLC/FigD9_8_Pygmy_Rabbit_Signs.pdf; site last visited 6/6/12. 
18

gopher burrow complexes can be expected to disappear in the dispturbed areas for the life 

of the Project.” DEIS at 4.9-37.

Wyoming pocket gophers are one of the rarest mammals in North America, if not the 

rarest. The Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius) is the only known vertebrate 

species endemic to Wyoming—apparently only in south-central Wyoming and in 

specifically Sweetwater and Carbon counties.6

 One of our petitions primary rationales for 

the species’ listing under the Endangered Species Act is the potential negative effects of 

energy development taking place within their known range.7 Energy development is also 

named as a “more likely” threat than even agriculture to the Wyoming pocket gopher in 

the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database Wyoming pocket gopher Conservation 

Assessments.8

This naturally uncommon species is extremely vulnerable to habitat loss due to mining 

and energy development and associated roads, and to habitat fragmentation due to roads 

and well fields. Oil and gas development poses perhaps the greatest threat to Wyoming 

pocket gopher viability. Both breeding and foraging activities of Wyoming pocket gopher 

populations are impacted by above- and below-ground disturbances associated with 

energy exploration, drilling and associated activities. Impacts of uranium development to 

Wyoming pocket gopher include (1) direct habitat loss from new construction, (2) 

increased human activity and pumping noise causing generally known and unknown 

behavioral changes, (3) direct mortality associated with reserve pits, crushing due to 

vehicular movements and construction activities, and (4) lowered water tables resulting in 

herbaceous vegetation loss. These impacts have not been thoroughly evaluated with full 

NEPA analysis. 

More information is needed about Wyoming pocket gophers to confidently assess the 

spatial dynamics of populations. Factors such as low dispersal ability, high inbreeding, 

and high variation over small geographic areas suggest that Wyoming pocket gopher 

meta-population structures could easily be disrupted when local populations are isolated 

over relatively short distances.9

 The continuity of suitable habitat thus becomes an 

important component in the conservation of Wyoming pocket gopher populations. Very 

little is known regarding survivorship and mortality in Wyoming pocket gophers.10 Most 

6 Clark, T.W. and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, 

Kansas. 

7

 Biodiversity Conservation Alliance. Petition to List Wyoming Pocket Gopher as Threatened or 

Endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Submitted to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: August 7, 

2007. 

8 Wyoming Pocket Gopher (Thomomys clusius): *A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project August 31, 2006 Douglas 

A. Keinath and Gary P. Beauvais, Ph.D. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 

1000 E. University Ave. — Dept. 3381, Laramie, Wyoming 82071. *Peer Review Administered by 

Society for Conservation Biology

9

 Patton, J.L. and R.E. Dingman. 1968. Chromosome studies of pocket gophers, genus Thomomys. I. The 

specific status of Thomomys umbrinus (Richardson) in Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy 49:1-13. 10 Keinath, D.A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/wyomingpocketgopher.pdf.
19

do not live more than two breeding season, but they are capable of living longer under 

favorable circumstances.11 Climate may be a factor in T. clusius survival and 

recruitment.12 Researchers also stated that sub-adult pocket gophers appeared to 

experience unusually heavy mortality when forced to live in marginal habitats.13

Mammologists and other wildlife and soil scientists recognize pocket gophers for their 

positive impacts on the ecosystems they inhabit. These effects primarily result from 

extensive tunneling activity, which can affect soil formation, hydrology, and nutrient 

flows. In addition, pocket gophers’ consumption of below-ground plant biomass can 

alter the competitive interactions of plants and thereby influence above-ground 

vegetation.14 Like other “ecosystem engineers” (e.g., ants, beavers, prairie dogs), pocket 

gopher activities can drive ecosystem function, making them important to native 

ecosystems. The extensive burrow systems provide habitat for numerous other 

burrowing and opportunistic species. Abandoned pocket gopher burrow systems provide 

habitat for salamanders, snakes, insects, and other rodents.15

In addition, pocket gophers serve as prey for a number of birds and mammals, but it is 

suspected that natural predation is not a factor limiting pocket gopher distribution and 

abundance.16 Since gophers evolved with natural predators, it is unlikely such predation 

would play a role in population declines unless accompanied by other extenuating 

circumstances.17 Such extenuating circumstances might include increased predation from 

generalist predators whose distributional expansion has been facilitated by human 

alteration of the landscape (e.g., feral cats, coyotes, raccoons).18 Three-dimensional 

structures associated with oil and gas development, like power lines and buildings, create 

raptor perches.19 Such development has transformed pocket gopher habitat from a 

11 Reid 1973. “Population biology of the northern pocket gopher.” In Pocket Gophers and Colorado 

Mountain Rangeland. Experiment Station Bulletin. Fort Collins, CO:Colorado State University. Pp. 21-41. 

 Clark, T.W. and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, 

KS.

12 Vaughan, T.A. 1967. Food habits of the northern pocket gopher on shortgrass prairie. The American 

Midland Naturalist 77:176-189. 

13 Howard, W.E. and H.E. Childs. 1959. Ecology of pocket gophers with emphasis on Thomomys bottae 

mewa. Hilgardia 29:277-358. 14 Keinath, D.A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/wyomingpocketgopher.pdf. 15 Center for Native Ecosystems, Forest Guardians, Michael C. McGowan, and Jacob Smith. 2003. Petition 

for a Rule to List Thomomys talpoides macrotis (Northern Pocket Gopher, subspecies macrotis) as 

Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (1973 as amended) 

and for the Designation of Critical Habitat. March 20, 2003; Armstrong, D.M. 1987. Rocky Mountain 

Mammals. Colorado Associated University Press. 

16 Chase, J.D., W.E. Howard, and J.T. Roseberry. 1982. Pocket Gophers. In: Wild Mammals of North 

America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 

17 Keinath, D.A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/wyomingpocketgopher.pdf. 18 Id.

19 Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Scoping Notice, Continental Divide - Creston, Carbon County, 

Wyoming.. 
20

largely flat plane to a world with increased opportunities for raptor predation. In the 

event that Wyoming pocket gopher populations become small and/or isolated, even 

natural predation events could cause a marked population decline.20

Pocket gophers are strongly fossorial, living most of their lives in burrow systems and 

underground tunnels.21 Based on the very limited information base, the Wyoming pocket 

gopher appears to segregate from northern pocket gophers by preferentially occupying 

dry, gravelly, shallow-soil ridge tops rather than deeper soiled swales and valley 

bottoms,22 but this information is tenuous and useful mainly to inform further 

investigation. The long distance movement and dispersal capabilities of Wyoming 

pocket gophers are limited since they stay underground most of the time, foraging aboveground only at night or on overcast days.23 Plus, the energetic costs of burrowing are 

high enough to be a physiological limitation to movement.24

Other species of pocket gophers may have longer-distance dispersals beneath snow, but 

this is unlikely for Wyoming pocket gophers because the species’ preferred habitat is 

presumed to be dry ridges with low snow accumulation and wind scouring that tends to 

deposit existing snow in depressions. 

A suitable landscape for Wyoming pocket gophers may be loosely defined as a dry 

upland with gravelly, yet still tractable, soils and relatively high productivity of grasses 

and forbs (high food availability). Given the species’ small home ranges, the continuous 

area of such habitat capable of supporting a local population of Wyoming pocket gophers 

may be relatively small. However, long-term persistence of the gophers would likely 

depend on larger areas of such habitat arranged in patches of sufficient proximity to allow 

dispersal between patches. Other than coarse scale habitat availability, it is unclear what 

limits the structure and growth of populations. The extremely varied diets of various 

pocket gopher species have led to the conclusion that food is seldom a limiting factor in 

pocket gopher distribution, but the nature and amount of vegetation may affect local 

population densities.25

The Wyoming pocket gopher is known to occur only in Sweetwater and Carbon Counties 

in Wyoming. As its range is currently defined, the Wyoming pocket gopher appears to 

occur primarily on multiple-use lands managed by the BLM. These lands are extensively 

intermixed with parcels of private land. A variety of biological factors can make animals 

20Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 

66:1211-1214; Sinclair, A.R.E., R.P. Pech, C.R. Dickman, D. Hik, P. Mahon, and A.E. Newsome. 1998. 

Predicting Effects of Predation on Conservation of Endangered Prey. Conservation Biology 12:564. 21 Keinath, D.A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/wyomingpocketgopher.pdf. 22 Clark, T.W. and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, 

KS.

23Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1999. Thomomys talpoides. Mammalian Species 618:1-11. 24Vleck, D. 1979. The energy cost of burrowing by the pocket gopher Thomomys bottae. Physiological 

Zoology 52:122-136. 

25 Miller, R.S. and R.A. Ward. 1964. Ectoparasites of pocket gophers from Colorado. The American 

Midland Naturalist 64:382-391. 
21

intrinsically susceptible to disturbance, including narrow distribution, habitat specificity, 

restrictive territoriality and area requirements, susceptibility to disease, low dispersal 

capability, high site fidelity, and low reproductive capability. After reviewing available 

information, researchers considered the intrinsic vulnerability of Wyoming pocket 

gophers to be moderate due to highly limited distribution, limited dispersal ability, and 

the uncertainty surrounding many aspects of their biology.26

Small mammals with restricted distributions and/or narrow habitat requirements are more 

vulnerable than others to habitat loss.27 The paucity of information regarding Wyoming 

pocket gophers requires extreme caution when proposing to disturb potential habitat. 

Habitat destruction is the primary threat to T. clusius. Habitat fragmentation and 

isolation also threaten T. clusius. Continued oil and gas development creates increasingly 

dense road networks, diminishes corridors for dispersal, and further separates 

populations. Roads act as barriers to finding mates, leading to inbreeding and loss of 

gene flow within individual populations. Habitat fragmentation results in shrinking 

islands of intact habitat with increased exposure to edge effects. The impacts of 

disturbances associated with oil and gas development will only increase under the 

February sale of parcels containing Wyoming pocket gophers and habitat. 

Development is not just destroying and fragmenting habitat, it is also degrading it. Soil 

disturbances typical of oil and gas development projects, motorized vehicle impacts, and 

other activities are known to exacerbate the introduction and subsequent spread of 

noxious weeds. Noxious weeds limit population density in fossorial mammals.28 In 

addition, herbicide use that invariably precedes and follows most forms of development 

also degrades pocket gopher habitat.29 Finally, individual pocket gophers are killed in the 

pursuit of commercial and industrial development. 

26 Keinath, D.A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/wyomingpocketgopher.pdf

27 Hafner, D.J. 1998. Rodents of Southwestern North America. In: D.J. Hafner, E. Yensen, and G.L. 

Kirkland, Jr., editors. North American rodents: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC 

Rodent Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. 

 Hafner, David J., Eric Yensen, Gordon L. Kirkland, Jr., Joseph G. Hall, Joseph A. Cook, and David W. 

Nagorsen. 1998. “Executive Summary.” In North American rodents: status survey and conservation action 

plan. D. J. Hafner, E. Yensen, and G. L. Kirkland, Jr., eds. IUCN/SSC Rodent Specialist Group, IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K., x + 171 pp. Pp. 66-67. Pp.vii. 

Hafner, David J. 1998. “Rodents of Southwestern North America.” Ch. 3. In North American rodents: 

status survey and conservation action plan. D. J. Hafner, E. Yensen, and G. L. Kirkland, Jr., eds. 

IUCN/SSC Rodent Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K., x + 171 pp. Pp. 66-

67. Pp. 10-17. 

 Hafner, David J. 2001. New Mexico Natural Heritage Program, pers. comm., 5 December 2001. 

28 Slobodchikoff, C.N., A. Robinson, and C. Schaack. 1988. Habitat use by Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Pp. 

403-408 in R.C. Szaro, K.E. Severson, and D.R. Patton, technical coordinators. Management of 

amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. Proceedings of the symposium. 19-21 July 

1988, Flagstaff, Arizona. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166. November 1988. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins. 458. 

29 Reid 1973. “Population biology of the northern pocket gopher.” In Pocket Gophers and Colorado 

Mountain Rangeland. Experiment Station Bulletin. Fort Collins, CO:Colorado State University. Pp. 21-41; 
22

The Wyoming BLM assigned the Wyoming pocket gopher to its sensitive species list. 

The BLM developed the list to “ensure that any actions on public lands consider the 

overall welfare of these sensitive species and do not contribute to their decline”. In 

addition, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department includes the Wyoming pocket gopher 

on a long list of species of concern under Wyoming’s Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy.30 The BLM’s sensitive species management includes “developing 

conservation strategies” and “prioritizing what conservation work is needed.” BLM’s 

proposed approval of the Lost Creek ISR project in what has come to be identified 

through agency surveys as prime habitat does not indicate the agency is adhering to its 

own management standards. 

The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database has assigned the Wyoming pocket gopher a 

rank of G2/S2.31 The G2 refers to a relatively high probability of global extinction, based 

primarily on the species’ extremely small global range. The S2 refers to a relatively high 

probability of extinction from Wyoming, based largely on range restriction, but also 

considering apparently low range occupation, uncertain abundance trends, and moderate 

biological vulnerability. Further, the Database assigned a Wyoming Significance Rank 

of Very High to the Wyoming pocket gopher, which reflects the extremely high 

contribution of Wyoming population segments to continental persistence of the species.32

To date, there are no management plans or conservation strategies pertaining explicitly to 

the Wyoming pocket gopher, although one status assessment has been drafted with 

support of the Wyoming BLM State Office and the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database.33 There appear to be insufficiently described mechanisms by which 

conservation of Wyoming pocket gophers could be achieved should oil and gas 

development occur within their known and potential range. However, the primary 

Hansen, R.M. and A.L. Ward. 1966. Some relations of pocket gophers to rangelands on Grand Mesa, 

Colorado. Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 88:1-22; Tietjen, H.P. 1973 

Control of pocket gophers. Pp. 73-81 in Pocket Gophers and Colorado Mountain Rangeland; Chase, J.D., 

W.E. Howard, and J.T. Roseberry. 1982. Pocket Gophers. In: Wild Mammals of North America. Johns 

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD; Miller, R.S. 1964. Ecology and distribution of pocket gophers 

(Geomyidae) in Colorado. Ecology 45:256-272; Tietjen, H.P., C.H. Halvoran, P.L. Hegdal, and A.M. 

Johnson. 1967. 2,4-D herbicide, vegetation, and pocket gopher relationships: Black Mesa, Colorado. 

Ecology 48(4):634-643. 

30 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2005. A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for 

Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. Approved July 12, 2005.32 

S.P. 1958. The bobcat of North America: its history, life habitats, economic status and control, with lists of 

currently recognized subspecies. The Stackpole Company Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and The Wildlife 

Management Institute, Washington, D.C., 193 pp. 

31 http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/; Keinath et al. 2003. 32 Keinath, D.A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2003a

. Wyoming Animal Element Ranking Guidelines. The Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 

 Keinath, D.A., B.H. Heidel, and G.P. Beauvais. 2003b

. Wyoming Plant and Animal Species of Concern: 

November 2003. The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 33 Beauvais, G.P. and D. Dark-Smiley. 2005. Species assessment for Wyoming Pocket Gopher (Thomomys 

clusius) in Wyoming. Report prepared for the Wyoming State Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 
23

concern stated by most studies of the species is the lack of information on its biology and 

ecology. Without gathering the needed information, conservation mechanisms’ efficacy 

cannot be determined. 

Negative impacts of energy extraction operations on Wyoming pocket gopher and their 

implications for the species are named in virtually every scientific Wyoming pocket 

gopher (Thomomys clusius) conservation assessment and survey. Wyoming pocket 

gopher mitigation measures are essentially non-existent due to their extremely limited 

range and a paucity of scientific knowledge concerning its ability or inability to adapt to 

changing habitat conditions. BLM has failed to provide any analysis, whether field 

experiments or literature reviews, that describes if and how disturbance to T. clusius

habitat would be “avoided.” There is substantial new information in recent studies to 

warrant supplemental NEPA analysis of the impacts of oil and gas development to 

Wyoming pocket gopher. It is incumbent upon BLM to consider the most recent 

scientific evidence regarding the status of this species and to develop mitigation 

measures, if possible, which will ensure the species is not moved toward listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. It is clear from the scientific evidence and a total absence of 

meaningful BLM (state and federal levels), Wyoming Game and Fish, and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service conservation measures for the Wyoming pocket gopher that current 

protections are non-existent, thereby allowing if not encouraging habitat degradation and 

destruction. New and continuing Wyoming pocket gopher survey information constitutes 

significant new information that requires amendment of the Resource Management Plans 

before additional oil and gas leasing can move forward.34

The Wyoming pocket gopher is at risk of extinction, and deserves protection under the 

Endangered Species Act. It may well be that the concentration of Wyoming pocket 

gophers documented in the Lost Creek project area is the greatest concentration of this 

species remaining in the world. Under the Lost Creek project, “Wyoming pocket gopher 

burrow complexes cane be expected to disappear in the disturbed areas for the life of the 

project.” DEIS at 4.9-37. This is an unacceptable outcome because this will contribute to 

the need to list this BLM Sensitive Species under the ESA. BLM should identify all lands 

occupied by the Wyoming pocket gopher, buffer them by at least 1⁄4 mile, and place them 

off-limits to surface disturbing or disruptive activities. This would fulfill BLM’s 

obligations under its Sensitive Species policy. 

Sage grouse 

It is important to bear in mind that the present depressed population numbers for sagegrouse have led to the bird to its current predicament, teetering on the edge of 

Endangered Species listing. It is not sufficient merely to maintain sage grouse 

34 Keinath, D.A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/wyomingpocketgopher.pdf.

 Keinath, D.A., H. Griscom, and A. Redder. 2008. Survey for Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys 

clusius) in central Wyoming. Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy - Wyoming Field Office by the 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, available online at 

ftp://ftp.wygisc.uwyo.edu/pub/gis/wyndd/THCLReport07_15Feb07.pdf.
24

populations at their present low levels, or (worse yet) to allow additional population 

decreases resulting from agency-permitted projects or activities. Instead, the goal should 

be to recover sage-grouse populations to levels where populations are secure throughout 

Wyoming, and expanding populations and suitable habitats in regions of the nation where 

current populations are at risk. 

All stakeholders throughout the West, whether their goal is sage-grouse recovery or 

merely avoidance of additional regulations, should be able to agree that sage-grouse 

recovery is an outcome that best provides certainty for both sage-grouse persistence and 

for industries that do business and communities who live within its range. At the same 

time, a strong sage-grouse conservation plan, founded in establishing core habitats where 

land uses are made compatible with maintaining healthy habitat, is the cornerstone for 

protecting not only the grouse itself but also a broad diversity of other sagebrushdependent wildlife. Many of these species are also declining and may soon become 

candidates for ESA listing in the absence of a comprehensive conservation strategy.

Wyoming is the last remaining stronghold for the greater sage grouse, and clearly the 

Wyoming population, having become the core of the rangewide sage grouse population, 

offers the last best hope of preventing sage grouse extinction. GIS analysis shows that 

Wyoming has the largest expanse of least fragmented sagebrush habitat remaining in 

North America (Knick et al. 2003). According to Rowland et al. (2006:v), “Concomitant 

with the amount of sagebrush habitat, the Wyoming Basins area harbors some of the 

largest extant populations of sagebrush-obligate species, such as greater sagegrouse and 

pronghorn. Future persistence of these sagebrush-obligate species therefore is closely 

linked to effective management of sagebrush habitats in the Wyoming Basins.” These 

researchers mapped sagebrush habitats versus fragmentation in relation to sage grouse in 

the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion (see p. 5-31), and found that the Red Desert is one of the 

remaining major hotspots. But sage grouse populations in the state have been on a longterm downward trend, still cycling upward and downward but both the peaks and the 

troughs in population are steadily being reduced over the past 50 years. 

Sound science should drive conservation measures 

When the State of Wyoming embarked upon its groundbreaking sage-grouse Core Area 

policy, it started with the right idea, identifying core habitats that supported the most 

abundant populations of sage grouse, and prioritizing these areas for protection. 

However, because a consensus-based collaborative group (the Sage-Grouse 

Implementation Team or “SGIT”) was appointed by Governor Freudenthal to identify 

Core Areas and prescribe the conservation measures that applied there, representatives 

from the oil industry appointed to the SGIT were able to extract inappropriate 

concessions, both in terms of removing key habitats from Core Areas and in creating 

loopholes and lowering protection levels that apply both within and outside the Core 

Areas.

As a result, the Core Areas designated in the Powder River Basin likely are inadequate to 

prevent the extirpation of the species in this key linkage between populations in Montana 

and the Dakotas and the heart of the sage-grouse range. Populations elsewhere within 
25

Core Areas are likely to decline or even disappear if industrial development proceeds 

there under current guidelines. These crippling weaknesses in the Wyoming plan render it 

unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny as an adequate conservation measure. The federal 

government can and must do better for federal lands. At present, the Lost Creek project 

represents a glaring example of the failures of the Core area policy as it is currently being 

implemented, and provides evidence that this policy, and related BLM sage grouse 

conservation efforts, do not constitute “adequate regulatory mechanisms” in the context 

of Endangered Species consideration. BLM must shore up the level of sage grouse 

protection for the Lost Creek project lest this project speed the sage grouse toward the 

Endangered Species list. 

In his original 2008 Executive Order, Governor Freudenthal got it right: “New 

development or land uses within Core Population Areas should be authorized or 

conducted only when it can be demonstrated by the state agency that the activity will not 

cause declines in Greater Sage-Grouse populations.”35 This provision essentially required 

that the best available science be consulted, and if levels of proposed development 

exceeded science-based thresholds at which sage-grouse declines begin to occur, the 

development would not be allowable. This provision was removed in Governor 

Freudenthal’s 2010 Executive Order, and was reinstated by Governor Mead in his own 

2011 Sage Grouse Executive Order only in the context of defining a series of loopholefilled mitigation measures as not causing declines by definition (regardless of the actual 

population trend of the affected grouse). The BLM has the opportunity to redress this 

weakness of policy by ensuring that protections reflecting the biological needs of the 

species (rather than the interests of developers) will apply in Core Areas on BLM lands. 

Science-based standards for energy development 

Energy development poses perhaps the greatest single threat to sage-grouse persistence 

across the eastern half of its range. To date, most of the science developed has focused on 

oil and gas drilling and production. But in situ uranium production has similar, if not 

identical, impacts. In each case, wells are drilled to pump fluids into and out of the 

ground. Each well has a wellsite, unless directional drilling and well clustering is 

employed, for both uranium ISR and oil and gas development. A network of roads and 

pipelines connects the wellsites in the case of both energy sources, fragmenting habitats. 

Construction-phase disturbance provides elevated levels of impacts and noise in both 

cases. Throughout the production life of the operation, vehicle traffic and human 

presence throughout the wellfield are required for both gas fields and uranium ISL 

projects, driving grouse and other wildlife away from developed areas and access roads. 

The chief differences between a gas field and an ISR field is that the ISR field has a much 

greater density of well sites, and the well sites are smaller in area with less associated 

equipment. Given the well density of ISR being greater and more intense, it is reasonable 

to project that impacts from ISR operations will be at least as great or greater than those 

of conventional gas production, and that the distances of disturbance and avoidance from 

roads and facilities will be at least as great if not greater for uranium ISR fields. 

35 State of Wyoming Executive Order 2008-2, ¶ 3. 
26

Walker et al. (2007) found that sage-grouse habitat within 4 miles of a lek site was 

important to the persistence of the lek. Conversely, Walker et al. (2007) concluded that 

leks heavily impacted by oil and gas development “typically became inactive within 3-4 

years.” Harju et al. (2008) found a time lag of 2-10 years post-development, at which 

point negative effects became evident. The same is true for winter habitats. Indeed, 

Naugle et al. (2006) found that a model using habitat variables and coalbed methane 

development provided a near perfect fit for grouse distribution data. In the Powder River 

Basin, CBM well density within a 4 km2 area provided the best fit for modeling sagegrouse habitat use (Doherty et al. 2008). Holloran (2005) found that well densities greater 

than one well per 699 acres were correlated with lek declines. Doherty et al. (2010) did a 

statewide analysis in Wyoming and found that well densities greater than 1 well per 

square mile were correlated with sage-grouse declines. 

Walker et al. (2007) found that coalbed methane development within 2 miles of a sagegrouse lek had a negative effect on lek attendance. Holloran (2005) found that active 

drilling within 3.1 miles of a lek reduced breeding populations, while wells already 

constructed and drilled within 1.9 miles of the lek reduced breeding populations. In 

Canada, Carpenter et al. (2010) found that sage-grouse strongly avoided oil and gas 

infrastructure to a distance of 1.9 km, and avoided two-track vehicle trails more weakly 

to a distance of 1.5 km; the closest that a grouse was located to a coalbed methane well in 

this study was 1,293m. Harju et al (2008) found that negative impacts of development on 

lek populations extended 4.8 km (3 miles) from the development. Both Holloran (2005) 

and Walker et al. (2007) documented the extirpation of breeding populations at active 

leks as a result of oil and gas development in the Upper Green River Valley and Powder 

River Basin, respectively. Rowland et al. (2006: A4-3 through A4-7) provide a useful 

literature review of the distance that impacts spread beyond the edge of disturbed areas 

into adjacent habitats. Males use shrubs <1 km (0.6 mi) from a lek for foraging, loafing, 

and shelter (Rothenmaier 1979, Emmons and Braun 1984, Autenrieth 1981). In 

Wyoming, State and BLM policies erroneously use this as a basis for an 0.6-mile No 

Surface Occupancy buffer around leks. However, there is no science to indicate that 

preventing wells within 0.6 mile of a lek will eliminate negative population impacts on 

sage grouse. In fact, the 1.9-mile buffer is the minimum amount found to be needed to 

avoid negative impacts to breeding grouse by Holloran (2005), and indeed, to protect the 

nesting hens that site their nests within 5 miles of a lek, an even larger buffer is needed. 

The area closest to a sage grouse lek is crucial to both the breeding activities and nesting 

success of local sage grouse populations. One scientist described the lek site as “the hub 

from which nesting occurs” (Autenreith 1985). Grouse exhibit strong fidelity to 

individual lek sites from year to year (Dunn and Braun 1986). During the spring period, 

male habitat use is concentrated within 2 km of lek site (Benson et al. 1991). A Montana 

study found that no male sage grouse traveled farther than 1.8 km from a lek during the 

breeding season (Wallestad and Schladweiler 1974). Other researchers found that 10 of 

13 hens nested within 1.9 miles of the lek site during the first year of their southern Idaho 

study, with an average distance of 1.7 miles from the lek site; 100% of hens nested within 

2 miles of the lek site during the second year of this study, with an average distance from 

lek of 0.5 mile (Hulet et al. 1986). In Montana, Wallestad and Pyrah (1974) found that 
27

73% of nests were built within 2 miles of the lek, but only one nest occurred within 0.5 

mile of the lek site. Holloran (2005) found that 64% of sage grouse nested within 3.1 

miles of a lek in western Wyoming, and Walker et al. (2007) found that sage grouse 

habitat within 4 miles of a lek site was important to the persistence of the lek. Doherty 

(2008) found that 97% of sage grouse nests were within 10 km (6.21 miles) of a lek. 

Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found a curvilinear relationship in which 90% of nests were 

predicted within 10 km of a lek. This is significant because Dzialek et al. (2011) found 

that nests closer to wells were at greater risk of nest failure, likely due to increased 

predation associated with anthropomorphic disturbance, and recommended that new oil 

and gas well be sited at least 1.6 km from the nearest nesting habitat. 

According to Doherty (2008:51-52),

“Impacts of energy development to sage-grouse populations are well 

documented (Naugle et al. in press) but nesting response to full 

development could not be thoroughly investigated here because severity of 

CBNG development to leks in the PRB (Walker et al. 2007:52) left too 

few birds to monitor inside gas fields. The best energy development 

predictor for birds that nested on the edge or within low levels of CBNG 

development increased model fit (-16.72 units) of my AIC best habitat 

model (Table 4). This finding is equivocal because an independent test of 

this model did not support inclusion of distance to road to the AIC best 

habitat model. My inability to validate findings or capture large samples of 

sage-grouse in fully developed fields is not surprising because Holloran et 

al. (2007) reported high female nest site fidelity, but lower survival of 

nesting adult sage-grouse in gas fields combined with avoidance of 

infrastructure by yearlings resulted in a time lag of 3-4 years between the 

onset of development activities and lek loss (Holloran 2005). The time lag 

observed by Holloran (2005) in the Pinedale Anticline in southwest 

Wyoming matched that for leks that became inactive 3-4 years following 

CBNG development in the PRB (Walker et al. 2007).” 

It is therefore critical to protect not just the lek itself, but a substantial amount of the 

nesting habitat surrounding the lek, through No Surface Occupancy buffers. We 

recommend, based on the findings of Holloran, NSO buffers of 2 miles around the lek 

with additional Timing Limitation Stipulations extending 3 miles from the lek during the 

breeding and nesting season. 

Nesting activities can also be impacted. In a study near Pinedale, sage grouse from 

disturbed leks where gas development occurred within 3 km of the lek site showed lower 

nesting rates (and hence lower reproduction), traveled farther to nest, and selected greater 

shrub cover than grouse from undisturbed leks (Lyon 2000). According to this study, 

impacts of oil and gas development to sage grouse include (1) direct habitat loss from 

new construction, (2) increased human activity and pumping noise causing displacement, 

(3) increased legal and illegal harvest, (4) direct mortality associated with reserve pits, 

and (5) lowered water tables resulting in herbaceous vegetation loss. Pump and 
28

compressor noise from oil and gas development may reduce the effective range of grouse 

vocalizations; low-frequency noise from wind turbines could have a similar effect. A 

consortium of eminent sage grouse biologists recommended, “Energy-related facilities 

should be located >3.2 km from active leks” (Connelly et al. 2000). And Dr. Clait Braun, 

one of the world’s most eminent experts on sage grouse, has recommended even larger 

NSO buffers of 3 miles from lek sites, based on the uncertainty of protecting sage grouse 

nesting habitat with smaller buffers. 

Holloran (2005) found that active drilling of a well within 3.1 miles of a lek had a 

negative impact on lek attendance, while the presence of a producing well (absent 

construction/drilling activity) within 1.9 miles of a lek had a significant negative effect on 

lek attendance. Walker et al. (2007) found that sage grouse habitat within 4 miles of a lek 

site was important to the persistence of the lek. Conversely, Walker et al. (2007) 

concluded that leks heavily impacted by oil and gas development “typically became 

inactive within 3-4 years.” Harju et al. (2010) examined effect of distance from well(s) on 

lek attendance and found variable results in different study areas. According to Harju et 

al. (2010), in the Moxa area, significant negative impacts extended out to 1⁄4 mile from 

leks; in the Wamsutter area, negative impacts of wells extended out to 3⁄4 mile from leks; 

in the Pinedale area, negative impacts extended out to 1 mile; in the Bighorn Basin and 

Powder River areas, significant effects extended all the way out to 23⁄4 miles, which was 

the maximum distance studied. Meanwhile, in the Sage Hen (Wind River Basin) and 

Shirley (Basin) sites, no significant effects were found, with no leks within 1⁄4 mile of 

development for Sage Hen or within 3⁄4 mile of leks for Shirley. Holloran et al. (2010) 

found that yearling females avoided nesting within 950m of wells, while yearling males 

avoided leks near energy infrastructure, and those that did lek near oil and gas wells had a 

higher mortality rate and lower probability of establishing a breeding territory. 

Road construction related to energy development is a primary impact on sage-grouse 

habitat from habitat fragmentation and direct disturbance perspectives. Rowland et al. 

(2006) modeled sage-grouse distribution, and reached the following conclusions: 

“The secondary road network is a highly significant factor influencing 

processes in this landscape and is being developed and expanded rapidly 

across much of the WBEA (Thomson et al. 2005). Secondary roads are 

being built as part of the infrastructure to support non-renewable energy 

extraction (Chapters 2, 4). For example, within the Jonah Field in the 

Upper Green River Valley, >95% of the area had road densities >2 mi/mi2

(Thomson et al. 2005).” 

p. 5-10. Furthermore, 

“The dominant feature affecting output of the sage-grouse disturbance 

model was secondary roads, which occupy nearly 8% of the study area 

(Table 5.2) and are presumed to negatively influence an even larger 

extent.”
29

Pp. 6-15 through 16. Holloran (2005) found significant impacts of road traffic on sagegrouse habitat use, concluding that habitat effectiveness declined in areas adjacent to 

roads with increasing vehicle traffic, documenting the secondary effect referenced by 

Rowland et al. 

In winter, sage grouse select large expanses of sagebrush with gentle topography and 

avoided conifer, riparian, and energy development (Doherty 2008). Well density had an 

additional effect in this study (id.). Sage grouse were 30% more likely to use winter 

habitat if CBM development was not present (id.). There was a landscape-scale effect of 

habitat selection, with areas with greater sagebrush at a 4 km2 scale receiving greater 

winter use (id.). Carpenter et al. (2010) found a similar relationship in Alberta, and found 

that grouse avoided oil and gas wells by 1.9 km. Bruce et al. (2011) found that sage 

grouse moved widely across winter habitats, using an area of 1,480 km2, and 

recommended setting aside large reserves for winter habitats. 

A number of researchers have noted a time lag between initiation of mineral development 

and sage-grouse population declines. Holloran et al. (2010) noted that yearling males 

avoided lekking near oil and gas infrastructure, and that yearling females avoided nesting 

within 950m of oil and gas infrastructure. Thus, the time lag in populations appears to be 

driven by the exodus of yearlings from affected areas, while older birds persist close to 

development until they die off. These researchers stated, “Our results...suggest to land 

managers that current stipulations on development may not provide management 

solutions.” 

As a rule, breeding and nesting activity are concentrated in the habitats surrounding the 

lek site. In a Montana study, Wallestad and Schladweiler (1974) found that no male sage 

grouse traveled farther than 1.8 km from a lek during the breeding season. But following 

breeding, males may make long migrations to distant summer ranges (Connelly et al. 

1988). Hulet et al. (1986) found that 10 of 13 hens nested within 1.9 miles of the lek site 

during the first year of their southern Idaho study, with an average distance of 1.7 miles 

from the lek site; 100% of hens nested within 2 miles of the lek site during the second 

year of this study, with an average distance from lek of 0.5 mile. In Montana, Wallestad 

and Pyrah (1974) found that 73% of nests were built within 2 miles of the lek, but only 

one nest occurred within 0.5 mile of the lek site. But in Bates Hole, Wyoming, Holloran 

(1999) found that average nesting distance from lek site was 3.25 km for adults and 5.27 

km for yearlings. Wakkinen et al. (1992) cautioned that leks were poor predictors of 

sage-grouse nest sites; although 92% of sage-grouse nested within 3.2 km of a lek in this 

study, sage-grouse did not necessarily nest near the same lek where breeding took place. 

Lyon (2000) pointed out that quarter-mile lek buffers were insufficient to maintain the 

viability of grouse populations. Several years ago, a multi-state group of fish and game 

biologists evaluated the standard BLM mitigation measures for grouse, and found them 

wholly inadequate (Christiansen and Bohne 2007). Connelly et al. (2000) recommended 

that sage-grouse habitat should be protected within 3.2 km of lek sites under ideal habitat 

conditions, within 5 km when habitat conditions are not ideal, and within 18 km where 

sage grouse populations are migratory. Furthermore, these researchers stated that in areas 
30

where 40% or more of the original breeding habitat has been lost, all remaining habitat 

should be protected. Holloran (2005) provided a critical test of BLM’s lek buffers’ 

effectiveness in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline fields, and found that in the face of fullfield gas development, finding that extirpation was expected for sage-grouse in both 

fields within 19 years if conditions remained the same (and, of course, conditions have 

become much worse for grouse under the continued intensification of drilling and road 

construction in these two fields). 

Wellsite Densities 

Holloran (2005) found that when wellfields reached densities greater than one well per 

699 acres reduced the breeding populations of males at lek sites. Doherty (2008) 

determined that there was a significant decline in lek populations statewide once wells 

exceeded 1 well per square mile, but was unable to detect a statistically significant 

difference at well densities below 1 per square mile. Specifically, the analysis showed a 

17% increase in lek inactivity at the 4-year time lag state, but this increase was 

statistically insignificant when the data from Zones I and II were pooled. Notably, when 

the analysis was restricted to Zone II (southwestern Wyoming), a statistically significant 

14% increase in lek inactivity with the 4-year time lag was detected at low densities of 

wells (1-12 wells per 32 km2). It is notable that when leks that switched from low-well 

density (1-12/30 ha) to medium or higher (13+), there was no longer a statistically 

significant difference. Doherty acknowledged (at p. 77) that low sample sizes in all 

categories other than control lead to a higher likelihood of a Type II error, in which 

differences exist but are not identified as statistically significant. This analysis did not test 

the impact of distance to wells or distance to roads at all, and thus no conclusions can be 

inferred about the impacts of wells and roads sited close to leks at low densities of wells. 

These findings were later published as Doherty et al. (2010). Harju et al. (2010) found 

that lek population declines ranged from 13% to 79% at 4 to 8 wellpads per square mile, 

depending on locale. 

Holloran (2005) found that well densities greater than one well per 699 acres were 

correlated with lek declines. Doherty et al. (2010) did a statewide analysis in Wyoming 

and found that well densities greater than 1 well per square mile were correlated with 

sage grouse declines. Modeling by Taylor et al. (2012) determined that drilling a 

previously undeveloped landscape to a density of 4 to 8 wells per square mile would be 

predicted to cut sage grouse populations in half. Well densities can also interact with 

West Nile virus to accelerate sage grouse declines. Taylor et al. (2010) modeled sage 

grouse population dynamics and determined that increasing well densities from current 

levels (almost none) to 160-acre spacing in the Carter unit could result in a 97% decline 

of sage grouse populations and the loss of all leks with more than 10 males in the face of 

a West Nile virus outbreak. Notably, the increase of well density to 640 acre spacing in 

this area would be predicted to decrease populations by 11 percent in the absence of West 

Nile virus, so allowing well densities at 640-acre spacing is not harmless to sage grous 

populations (id.). Similarly Taylor et al. (2012) found that as well densities increase to 8 

wells per square mile in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, a single West Nile virus 

outbreak is likely to reduce active sage grouse leks from 360 to 6. Importantly, Schrag et 
31

al. (2011) examined climate models and predicted increased risk of major West Nile 

outbreaks over current risk levels.

Under current state and BLM Core Area standards in Wyoming, disturbance thresholds 

are set at five percent of the land area within a DDCT zone, beyond which additional 

surface disturbance is not permitted. However, the five percent disturbance threshold 

corresponds with oil and gas well densities that are far beyond the point where sagegrouse declines occur. For example, under the Continental Divide-Wamsutter Project, 

3,000 wells were initially proposed with 22,400 acres of new surface disturbance, 

representing 2.1 percent of the planning area with an average well density of 4 wellsites 

per square mile (BLM 2000); today, sage-grouse are virtually extirpated in this field, 

although more than 50 leks existed prior to the project. In the Atlantic Rim coalbed 

methane field, 2,000 wells were permitted at a density of eight wells per square mile, far 

above the threshold known to cause sage grouse declines. The projected surface 

disturbance for this project is 15,800 acres, or 5.85% of the project area (BLM 2005). 

Clearly, a threshold of five percent is too high to sustain sage-grouse. Assuming a 10-acre 

multi-well wellpad and 0.75 miles of road per square mile – a generous figure (at 9.85 

acres per mile of road), the estimated surface disturbance for a wellfield at one well per 

square mile would be 2.7 percent. Thus, a one- to three-percent disturbance threshold is 

more reasonable. Thus, even if the percentage of surface disturbance, watered down 

through the use of the DDCT, is below the 5 percent threshold in the Governor’s 

Executive Order and IM 2010-12, impacts to sage grouse populations remain likely. 

The Lost Creek Project and sage grouse 

BLM points to lek and raptor surveys being conducted in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 

2010. DEIS at 3.8-21. The EIS also references baseline data collected from 2007-2011 

“providing a reference to compare future population trends and habitat use.” DEIS at 4.9-

7. The results of these lek counts do not appear in the Draft EIS. Yet IM 2010-12 clearly 

spells out that BLM must gather these data: 

BLM and WGFD will meet at least annually to coordinate and review the 

accuracy of data and incorporate the most up-to-date information. For data 

to be included in the database, it must be collected using techniques and 

accuracy standards agreed upon by WGFD and BLM. Annual lek surveys 

and lek counts will be coordinated between WGFD and the BLM to 

reduce duplicated efforts and minimize disturbance in accordance with the 

Umbrella MOU. 

IM 2010-12 at 10. Data should have been available to BLM, as it was posted online as 

part of the project file for the mine permit.36 This is critically important baseline 

information that is needed to adequately satisfy NEPA’s ‘hard look requirements. It is our 

understanding that due to elevated traffic levels associated with the preliminary stages of 

this project, sage grouse lek counts have already declined precipitously in the vicinity of 

the Project Area. BLM needs to disclose this important information in the EIS. 

36 http://deq.state.wy.us/eqc/orders/Land%20Closed%20Cases/11-

4803%20Lost%20Creek%20ISR,%20LLC/AttD9_4_CrkdWellLek_Oct09.pdf, site last visited 6/6/12. 
32

BLM has also failed to identify the wintering habitat used by sage grouse inhabiting the 

project area. According to BLM, “Locations from 30 individual radio-equipped females 

were documented during the winter of 2010; however, no detailed on-the-ground surveys 

for winter Greater sage-grouse use have been completed in the Permit Area.” DEIS at 

4.9-39. Nevermind the surrounding lands that will be affected by disturbances originating 

inside the Permit Area or resulting from traffic along the access roads. BLM has not 

determined whether this is a migratory or non-migratory population, and whether the 

Project Area contains wintering habitats crucial to the survival of either grouse on 

resident leks within 2 miles of the permit area or migratory grouse that move in from 

other parts of the red desert to winter here. This failure to survey for wintering habitat 

violates NEPA’s baseline information requirements and prevents BLM from making 

informed decisions on whether, where, or how to site the project and what mitigation 

measures are needed to minimize impacts. 

The truck traffic associated with this project is substantial. BLM forecasts 339 to 349 

light trucks or SUVs per week and 6 to 15 tractor-trailer rigs driving to and from the site 

each week, in addition to the 124 vehicles to be stationed at the site for more than a week 

at a time. Table 4.3-1, Draft EIS at 4.3-4. 

Reliance on adaptive management (DEIS at 4.9-7) offers cold comfort. Once statistically 

significant declines are finally recorded (watered down as they are with a three-year 

weighted average), the available options for correcting the problem are limited to 

relatively toothless and minor adjustments to traffic and noise that will likely not address 

the root of the problem: the industrialization of sage grouse habitats. And at that stage, 

removing roads, wells, and pipeline infrastructure will not be considered. And off-site 

“compensation mitigation” proposed in the EIS has no demonstrable positive effect. The 

BLM has overseen the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars of offsite mitigation 

monies tied to the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline Fields. The agency’s reliance on this 

mitigation measure demands that its effectiveness be evaluated based on past 

performance. There is a track record to be mined from oil and gas development in the 

Upper Green River Valley. Please disclose in the Final EIS the off-site mitigation 

projects involving sage grouse habitat, the sage grouse population changes resulting from 

such projects, and the relative success rate based on number and degree of instrances 

where sage grouse populations increased in a statistically significant manner as a result of 

an off-site mitigation project. 

The three-year weighted average is also potentially problematic. Sage grouse population 

responses to negative impacts can take 4 years to manifest themselves. By the time a 

three-year weighted average records a change (because the first two years of data in 

which there is no change may swamp the one year of decline, causing a year in which a 

decline is recognizable but as a pooled average is statistically insignificant) paired with 

the delay in seeing a numerical response, the tipping point where remedial action will do 

much good may long be past. 
33

We do not support the use of wing barrels as an index to population (DEIS at 4.9-18), as 

these are too sensitive to hunter effort, which readily skews the data. A handful of hunters 

who hunt aggressively in either the treatment or control area would give the appearance 

of a population change where none existed, or mask the existence of an actual population 

change. Also, the expected hunter avoidance of the project facilities (just as sage grouse 

do) may be problematic. 

The project will contain a number of components that generate noise pollution, including 

equipment on site and trucks using the access roads. See DEIS at 4.12-4. The impacts of 

noise-generating equipment have not been analyzed either at the level of lek sites or 

nesting habitat for sage grouse. This analysis needs to be completed. 

BLM argues that project activity, including initial exploration and construction, would 

occur outside the breeding and nesting season. DEIS at 4.9-28. Yet “Production and 

maintenance activity (Project operation) would be exempted from this timing restriction.” 

Id. Referencing the earlier NRC EIS, BLM itself admits that “the Operation phase could 

disrupt the reproductive stage of Greater sage-grouse nesting near the Project 

infrastructure” DEIS at 4.9-39. This would result in “localized significant impacts.” Id. It 

is all very well to have a moratorium on construction and exploration activity within the 

breeding and nesting season, but experience with oil and gas development, which is 

directly comparable to ISR uranium mining (beyond the obvious comparison that 

intensity of road and wellsite development is even greater for ISR uranium than for oil 

and gas) has proven definitively that these timing limitations that affect 

construction/exploration but not production are essentially useless for the conservation of 

sage grouse. If the sage grouse are going to return to breeding and nesting habitat in the 

spring to find high-density industrial development replete with human activity and 

vehicle traffic, the habitat effectiveness for breeding and nesting is destroyed and 

breeding and nesting populations disappear, as predicted in BLM’s DEIS. It insults the 

intelligence of the reader for BLM to continue to cling to the outright falsehood that 

timing limitations that bind initial construction, but not production operations throughout 

the life of the project, will preserve habitat effectiveness for sage grouse. BLM 

undermines its credibility by trotting out this scientifically disproven and completely 

discredited assertion in the context of the Lost Creek ISR Project. 

Failure to comply with IM 2010-12 

BLM takes pains to assert that this project is in compliance with the Governor’s 

Executive Order 2011-5 governing sage grouse Core Areas. DEIS at 4.9-7. 

The Governor’s sage grouse Executive Order grants a loophole for mining operations in 

some cases; the BLM instruction Memorandum does not. This policy clearly includes 

uranium in situ mining: “The policy applies to all programs and activities occurring on 

public lands and Federal mineral estate in Wyoming, except for livestock grazing 

management within the range management program, because recommendations and 

policy regarding grazing patterns will be issued separately.” IM 2010-12 at 1, emphasis 

added. Under this policy,
34

Sage-grouse leks inside Core Areas: Surface disturbing activity or 

surface occupancy is prohibited or restricted on or within a six tenths (0.6) 

mile radius of the perimeter of occupied or undetermined sage-grouse leks.

IM 2010-12 at 2; and see Surface Activity Restrictions for the Protection of Wildlife, 

DEIS at 4.9-6. The construction or upgrading of access roads certainly counts as “surface 

occupancy” under this IM, and thus the siting of access roads within 0.6 miles of access 

leks is not permitted. BLM argues on the one hand that main hauling roads would not be 

located within 1.9 miles of active sage grouse leks, but then makes the case that 

reconstructing haul roads that existed prior to the 2008 Executive Order is allowable as 

such roads would be “grandfathered.” DEIS at 4.9-7. Upgrading two-track jeep trails to 

high-standard gravel roads suitable for heavy hauling use does not meet this definition of 

“grandfathering.”

Furthermore the project does not comply with federal restrictions on the density of 

energy faciluities: 

Inside Core Areas, the density goal includes:

xmaintenance of sagebrush communities by maintaining or 

reducing the existing level of density of energy production and/or 

transmission structures on the landscape, or 

xto not exceed one energy production location and/or transmission 

structure per 640 acres. The one location and cumulative value of existing 

disturbances in the area will not exceed 5 percent of sagebrush habitat 

within those same 640 acres. 

IM 2010-12 at 4. Clearly, this project entails far more than one energy production 

location per square mile; the density of production wells will exceed one every 200 feet. 

For example, injection wells will be spaced 75 to 150 feet apart. DEIS at ES-5. The NRC 

EIS shows an example Mine Unit with 43 wells in less than a half a square mile; there 

will be 9 mine units planned for the project. Figure 1.2-3 appears to show 59 production 

well sites in a single mine unit, covering a similar land area. DEIS at 1-7. Under 

Conservation Objectives, the policy notes, “In Core Areas, the goal is to maintain or 

enhance sage-grouse populations.” IM 2010-12 at 7. The Lost Creek project cannot meet 

this objective. In fact, BLM concedes, “Based on available information, it can be 

conservatively anticipated that at least some Project activities within the Permit Area 

would negatively influence populations [of sage grouse].” DEIS at 4.9-9. The IM also 

includes the following direction: “Field Offices will work with project proponents 

(including those within BLM) to site their projects in locations that meet the purpose and 

need for their project, but have been determined to contain the least sensitive habitats 

whether inside or outside of Core Areas.” IM 2010-12 at 8. With regard to access roads, 

the BLM has clearly missed the mark in choosing the location, while BCA’s proposed 

routes in these comments actually conform to the policy direction therein. 

BLM attempts to circumvent the one location per 640 acres limit with several “Specific 

Stipulations” that rationalize the high density of locations by delineating the “area of 
35

disturbance” collectively, and reclassifying multiple energy production locations as a 

single one “delineated by the external limits of the development area.” DEIS at 4.9-31. 

This is not a valid methodology, is dishonest, and attempts to circumvent the very 

purpose of the site density limit, which is to ensure that sage grouse habitat in the area 

being developed continues to remain fully functional. Thus, BLM’s Stipulation that these 

clusters of energy production locations will count as a single one for the purpose of 

meeting requirements in IM 2010-12 and the Governor’s Executive Order (see DEIS at 

4.9-31) fails.

Variances to this policy are provided for in the IM, but only in circumstances where 

locally available science justifies them: 

Because Wyoming is such a diverse State, there may be occasional, 

special circumstances which could justify deviation from the policies 

stated herein. Field Offices may vary from this policy where locally 

collected scientific data supported by comprehensive, objective NEPA 

analysis of a proposed action presents compelling justification for 

variance.

IM 2010-12 at 11, emphasis in original. No such special circumstances or compelling 

scientific justification have been presented in the EIS to justify a deviation from BLM 

policy in this case. 

Fences associated with the project are likely to be an additional source of mortality for 

sage grouse throughout the life of the project. DEIS at 4.9-39. And while these fences are 

not likely to be constructed within the 0.6-mile lek buffer that is the loafing habitat for 

male grouse using the lek for breeding purposes, they are likely to be constructed inside 

the 2-mile buffer of most intense nesting activity and the 5-mile buffer of nesting habitat 

use that surround each occupied lek. Thus, this adds to the severity of impact of a project 

already to high-impact to be sited within a sage grouse Core Area. 

BLM asserts that although the Proposed Action “may impact Greater sage-grouse leks 

near the Permit Area, the currently proposed approach is considered to cause the least 

impact.” DEIS at 4.9-31. This conclusion is false on several counts. First of all, the No 

Action alternative does not allow the upgrading of jeep trails to roads within 0.6 or 1.9 

miles of leks, does not place overhead powerlines in proximity to leks and nesting 

habitat, and does not permit the construction of energy production locations at a density 

far greater than one per 640 acres not only within sage grouse Core Areas, but also within 

2 miles of occupied leks within Core Areas. This alternative clearly is of lower impact. 

Secondarily, BLM has the option to relocate the access roads to alignments that remain 2 

miles or more from all occupied leks, as recommended by BCA, which would be a lowerimpact alternative to constructing roads that not only run within 0.6 mile of occupied leks 

but are located within 2 miles of occupied leks along practically their entire lengths. See 

Figure 2.2-3. Finally, requiring underground burial of powerlines within 5 miles of leks 

to protect not only the lek but also associated nesting habitat from raptors that perch on 

powerline poles, even in the presence of perch inhibitors, would have a lower impact than 
36

allowing overhead powerlines in these areas, particularly if they follow access rods which 

currently (as mentioned above) are located almost entirely in the key nesting habitat 

within 2 miles of the occupied leks. 

Conclusion

Based on the characteristics of this in-situ uranium project, in terms of wellsite density, 

proximity of roads to the 0.6-mile lek buffer and proximity of primary haul roads to the 

1.9-mile lek buffer, and failure to bury powerlines absent a finding that this action would 

not be possible, the Proposed Action cannot be approved because it conflicts with the 

Governor’s Executive Order 2011-5 and Wyoming BLM IM 2010-12, both of which 

purport to guide Core Area habitat protections for sage grouse. It is important for BLM to 

bear in mind that by violating the principles and absolute terms of these policies, it would 

show that the state and federal agencies have no intention to actually apply the prescribed 

protections for Core Areas, thereby undermining the assertion that these selfsame 

protections constitute adequate conservation measures than can be relied upon to avert 

Endangered Species listing for the grouse. Additional measures are also necessary to 

protect pygmy rabbits and Wyoming pocket gophers, which have not been envisaged to 

this point. For these reasons, BLM must at this point approve the No Action Alternative 

in order to remain legally compliant. 

Respectfully yours, 

Erik Molvar 

signing on behalf of 

Bruce Baizel 

P.O. Box 1102 

Durango, Colorado 81302 

EarthWorks Action 

970-903-5326

Mike Painter 

Californians for Western Wilderness 

P.O. Box 210474 

San Francisco, CA 94121-0474 

415-752-3911

Jonathan B Ratner 

WWP – Wyoming Office 

PO Box 1160 

Pinedale, WY 82941 

Tel: 877-746-3628 
37
38

Literature Cited 

Aldridge, C.L., and M.S. Boyce. 2007. Linking occurrences and fitness to persistence: A 

habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse. Ecol. Appl. 17:508-526.

Autenrieth, R.E. 1981. Sage-grouse management in Idaho. Id. Dept. Fish and Game 

Wildl. Bull. 9.

Autenreith, R., W. Molini, and C. Braun, eds. 1982. Sage grouse management practices. 

Western States Sage Grouse Committee Tech. Bull. No. 1, Twin Falls, ID, 42 pp.

Benson, L.A., C.E. Braun, and W.C. Leininger. 1991. Sage-grouse response to burning in. 8 the 

big sagebrush type. Proc. Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Wildlife, 

Thorne Ecol. Inst. 5:97-104. 

BLM. 2000. Record of Decision, Continental Divide/Wamsutter II Natural Gas Project, Sweetwater and 

Carbon Counties, Wyoming. Rawlins Field Office, 242 pp. 

BLM. 2005. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Development 

Project. Rawlins Field Office, 403 pp. 

Bruce, J.R., W.D. Robinson, S.L. Peterson, and R.F. Miller. 2011. Greater sage-grouse 

movements and habitat use in winter in central Oregon. W. N. Am. Nat. 71: 418-424. 

Carpenter, J., Aldridge, C. and Boyce, M. S. 2010. Sage-grouse habitat selection during winter in Alberta. 

J. Wildl. Manage., 74: 1806–1814. 

Christiansen, T., and J. Bohne. 2008. Multi-state sage-grouse coordination and research-based 

recommendations. Memorandum to WGFD Director Terry Cleveland and Assistant Director John 

Emmerich, January 29, 2008, 11 pp. 

Connelly, J.W., H.W. Browers, and R.J. Gates. 1988. Seasonal movements of sage grouse in southeastern 

Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 52:116-122. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:967-985. 

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, B.L. Walker, and J.M. Graham. 2008. Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat 

Selection and Energy Development. J. Wildl. Manage. 72: 187-195. 

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, and B.L. Walker. 2010. Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat: The importance 

of managing at multiple scales. J. Wildlife Manage. 74:1544-1554. 

Dunn, P.O., and C.E. Braun. 1986. Summer habitat use by adult female and juvenile sage grouse. 

J. Wildl. Manage. 50:228-235. 
39

Dzialek, M.R., C.V. Olson, S.M. Harju, S.L. Webb, J.P. Mudd, J.B. Winstead, and L.D. HaydenWing. 2011. Identifying and prioritizing greater sage-grouse nesting and broodrearing habitat for 

conservation in human-modified landscapes. PLoS ONE 6(10): e26273; 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026273 .

Emmons, S. R. and C. E. Braun. 1984. Lek attendance of male sage-grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 

48:1023-1028.

Green, J.S., and J.T. Flinders. 1980. Habitat and dietary relationships of the pygmy rabbit. J. Range 

Manage. 33:136-142. 

Harju, S.M., M.R. Dzialak, R.C. Taylor, L.D. Hayden-Wing, and J.B. Winstead. 2008. Thresholds and 

Time Lags in Effects of Energy Development on Greater Sage-Grouse Populations. J. Wildl. Manage. 74: 

427-448. 

Holloran, M.J. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) seasonal habitat use near Casper, 

Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, 130 pp. 

Holloran, M.J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural gas 

field development in western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation, Univ. of Wyoming, 221 pp. 

Hulet, B.V., J.T. Flinders, J.S. Green, and R.B. Murray. 1986. Seasonal movements and habitat selection 

of sage grouse in southern Idaho. Pp. 168-175 in Proceedings--Symposium on the biology of Artemesia

and Chrysothamnus, USDA Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-200. 

Katzner, T.E. 1994. Winter ecology of the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) in Wyoming. M.S. 

Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, 125 pp. 

Knick, S. T., D. S. Dobkin, J. T. Rotenberry, M. A. Schroeder, W. M. Vander Haegen, C. van 

Riper. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of 

sagebrush habitats. Condor 105(4): 611-634. 

Lyon, A.G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas development on sage grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) near Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, 121 pp. 

Naugle, D.E., K.E. Doherty, and B.L. Walker. 2006. Sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy 

development in the Powder River Basin: Completion report. Report to the Miles City Field Office, BLM, 

23 pp. 

Rothenmaier, D. 1979. Sage-grouse reproductive ecology: breeding season movements, strutting 

ground attendance and site characteristics, and nesting. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Wyoming, Laramie. 

Rowland, M. M., M. Leu, S. Hanser, S. P. Finn, C. A. Aldridge, S. T. Knick, L. H. Suring, J. M. Boyd, M. 

J. Wisdom, and C. W. Meinke. 2006. Assessment of threats to sagebrush habitats and associated species 

of concern in the Wyoming Basins. Version 2.0, March 2006, unpublished report on file at USGS 

Biological Resources Discipline, Snake River Field Station, 970 Lusk St., Boise, ID 83706. 
40

Wakkinen, W.L., K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 1992. Sage grouse nest locations in relation to leks. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 56:381-383. 

Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle, and K.E. Doherty. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse Population Response to Energy 

Development and Habitat Loss. J. Wildl. Manage. 71(8):2644–2654.

Wallestad, R., and D. Pyrah. 1974. Movement and nesting of sage grouse hens in Montana. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 38:630-633. 

Wallestad, R., and P. Schladweiler. 1974. Breeding season movements and habitat selection of male sage 

grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:634-637. 

 Mary Thoman, Chairman Tom Burris, Vice Chairman Jean Dickinson, Secretary Henry Bliss, Treasurer Bob Slagowski, Member

79 Winston Drive, Suite 110 website: http://www.swccd.us

Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901 email: admin@swccd.us

Off. (307) 362-3062 ext. 4

Fax. (307) 362-1459

CONSERVATION z DEVELOPMENT z SELF-GOVERNMENT 

SWEETWATER COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT

June 11, 2012 

VIA E-MAIL Lost_Crk_Mine_WY@blm.gov

Dennis J. Carpenter 

Lost Creek ISR Project Field Manager

Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins Field Office 

1300 North Third Street 

P.O. Box 2407 

Rawlins, Wyoming 82301 

 Re: Comments on Lost Creek In Situ Recovery Project’s Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement by the Sweetwater County Conservation District 

Dear Mr. Carpenter,

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Sweetwater County Conservation District 

(SWCCD or the District). The District appreciates the opportunity to comment. It is the goal of 

SWCCD to encourage mineral and energy resource exploration and development in the County. 

SWCCD LRUPP at p.32, Goal 1 (Feb. 2011). Since mineral development does provide for 

approximately 75 percent of Sweetwater County’s economic base, the District supports the Lost 

Creek In Situ Recovery (ISR) Project. See SWCCD LRUPP at p.33, Goal 6 (“Support the 

beneficial mining efforts and their economic impacts or effects and encourage mining and 

milling efforts on private and public lands.”). These comments identify the significant issues and 

points of disagreement or concern with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 

Lost Creek ISR, LLC is proposing the construction, commercial operation and reclamation of 

facilities for ISR operations within the Lost Creek Permit Area (4,254 acres), which is in the 

northeast portion of Sweetwater County. Under the proposed action, about six million pounds of 

uranium would be produced over seven years. The total project would extend over a 12-year 

period, including about seven months for initial construction, seven years for production, and the 

remaining time for reclamation. The project surface disturbance is about 345 acres, with the 

majority of which will be on federal land. 

1. Potential Impacts on Water Resources

The SWCCD land plan supports protection and use of water rights and water resources. 

SWCCD LRUPP at p.37, Goal 1 and 2. The plan adopts equally strong support for protection of 

water quality and protection of water resource development. Id. at p.39, Objective 2A (“Ensure 

that land use inventory, planning or management activities affecting point or nonpoint sources 
Dennis J. Carpenter 

June 11, 2012 

Page 2

CONSERVATION • DEVELOPMENT • SELF-GOVERNMENT

and water quality in Sweetwater County, either directly or indirectly, are coordinated through the 

District and are consistent with the Plan.”). 

a. Potential Impacts on Existing Ephemeral Channels

The permit area provides rangeland for several county ranches and includes portions of the 

Stewart Creek, Cyclone Rim and Green Mountain allotments. The ranches depend on water for 

their livestock. The area is very much a high desert, where water sources may be relatively small 

in the form of ephemeral drainage but are nevertheless very important for livestock. 

BLM policy manages riparian areas under the same policies as for floodplain and wetland 

protection. See e.g. Rawlins RMP at 2-42, 2-50 (“Surface disturbing activities will avoid 

identified 100-year floodplains, 500 feet from perennial surface water and/or wetland and 

riparian areas. . . .”). Thus potential impacts on springs, seeps, and water resources should be 

treated the same. The DEIS indicates that BLM would apply a 100-foot instead of a 500-foot 

buffer from the core of ephemeral channels. DEIS at 2-58, 4.6-1. The District questions this 

stipulation, because ephemeral channels are managed as riparian areas for purposes of rangeland 

health and are ephemeral due largely to the lack of precipitation in the region, rather than the 

lack of hydrologic connection. See e.g. Rawlins RMP, Glossary-6 Definition of Ephemeral 

Channels (“A defined channel formed in response to ephemeral surface flow conditions. 

Defined channels typically can be defined by an abrupt bank along a water flow path with 

evidence of scouring, sorting, and/or vegetation removal during flood events.”). Riparian areas 

are also defined by vegetation. Id. If riparian areas are subject to a 500-foot buffer then similar 

vegetation in an ephemeral area should be subject to the same buffer. 

b. Nonpotable Water Impacts

The permit area should be subject to stipulation that will protect other nonpotable water, which 

may be used for other mineral and energy development such as for oil and gas, from adverse 

impacts. While current stipulations put in protections for the BLM stock wells outside the permit 

area, DEIS at 4.7-8, the DEIS does not adequately address the potential impacts on nonpotable 

water from drilling and pumping. In situ uranium mining depends on access to water and the 

drilling and pumping may adversely affect wells and/or aquifers providing nonpotable water for 

other mineral and energy development surrounding the permit area. The permit area should be 

subject to provisions that ensure that drilling and pumping does not adversely affect existing 

water supplies. Careful planning and testing of the hydro-geology can avoid these adverse 

impacts.
Dennis Carpenter 

June 11, 2012 

Page 3

CONSERVATION • DEVELOPMENT • SELF-GOVERNMENT

2. Reclamation and Control of Invasive Plants

With respect to the proposed parcels for sale, the District supports effective reclamation and 

aggressive control of invasive plants. By way of example, the SWCCD land plan provides as its 

first vegetation goal: “Goal 1: Encourage and facilitate restoration of the forage resource that 

comes as a result of surface disturbance from oil and gas, utilities, and recreation.” SWCCD 

LRUPP at p.55. Under the plan, vegetation is to be managed by identifying desired plant 

communities, conducting Level III soil surveys to determine capacity of site, and managing soils 

“to maintain productivity, minimize erosion, protect private and public water reserves, water 

quality, limit severe and critical erosion by restricting or mitigating surface disturbance so as to 

minimize soil erosion, and to restore degraded areas.” Id. Control and eradication of invasive 

species and noxious weeds are equally important. Id. at p.57 (“Support eradication, to the extent 

possible, of noxious weeds within Sweetwater County. [See Appendix Tab J, 2003 Declared List 

of Weeds and Pests, Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Board, as amended.]”). This policy 

extends to undesirable species, such as halogeton and cheatgrass and similar invasive plants. Id. 

Weeds and other non-native invasive species are carried by a number of vectors, including wind, 

wildlife, and birds. The project area is not heavily vegetated and native vegetation continues to 

reflect the impacts of an extended drought. Thus, even minor surface disturbance will create 

opportunities for expansion of non-native invasive species and noxious weeds. There is already 

a serious problem of halogeton expansion in Sweetwater County. Its ingestion kills both sheep 

and cattle. Halogeton and cheat grass spread aggressively, crowding out desirable vegetation 

needed for both wildlife and livestock. 

While the DEIS requires that seed mixing for reclamation be adequate to support the postoperational land uses, DEIS at 2-29, the District recommends modifying the mitigation plan for 

mine unit reclamation to require site preparation and allow for a sterile mix of non-native and 

native seeds to facilitate plant establishment, and then require monitoring of reclamation success 

and reseeding if needed. Much of the soils in the project area are alkaline and reclamation can 

be very difficult. Native plants found in alkaline soils grow very slowly and there is no 

assurance that seeding one time will be sufficient for successful reclamation.

Thank you for the consideration of these comments. 

Sincerely,

/s/ Mary Thoman

Mary Thoman, Chairman 

Sweetwater County Conservation District 
Bureau of Land Management 

Rawlins Field Office 

Lost Creek ISR Project 

Attn: Dennis J. Carpenter 

1300 North Third Street 

P.O. Box 2407 

Rawlins, WY 82301 

June 11, 2012 

Re: Lost Creek In Situ Uranium Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Mr. Carpenter: 

Please accept the following comments from the Wyoming Outdoor Council for consideration 

during the environmental review for the Lost Creek In Situ Uranium Project (hereafter Lost 

Creek) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Wyoming Outdoor Council has 

worked since 1967 to protect Wyoming’s public lands and wildlife. We have expressed 

significant and ongoing concerns about the Lost Creek project over the last several years, 

particularly with regard to its potential impact on the area’s Greater Sage-Grouse populations. 

We provided comments (along with the Powder River Basin Resource Council) on the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for in situ recovery (ISR) uranium mining, NUREG1910, Supplement 3, for the proposed Lost Creek ISR project on March 3, 2010. And we 

formally protested the issuance of a permit to mine to Lost Creek ISR , LLC (LCI) by 

Wyoming’s Environmental Quality Council – Land Quality Division (EQC-LQD) on August 3-

4, 2011. We incorporate both our SEIS comments and the transcript of the EQC-LQD Lost 

Creek hearing in these comments by these references. 

Regrettably, the BLM has not incorporated changes to the proposed project that would alleviate 

our concerns about potential impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. LCI has been unwilling to 

materially change its project design to reduce threats to area sage-grouse and, in our view, the 

project is still in clear violation of the Governor’s Executive Order (EO 2011-5) and the BLM’s 

own sage-grouse conservation policies (IM WY-2010-12). Despite concerns over some of its 
2

limitations, the Wyoming Outdoor Council has been a strong supporter of the sage-grouse core 

area conservation strategy. Like many others, we would like to see this strategy succeed so that 

listing Greater Sage-Grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) becomes unnecessary. 

However, as the U. S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) has stressed, the strategy’s success depends 

on its careful implementation and on its adherence to science-based stipulations. As currently 

proposed, the Lost Creek project would violate key core area stipulations, place area sage-grouse 

populations at risk, set a dangerous precedent for other development projects, and undermine the 

very conservation strategy that Wyoming has worked so commendably to develop. 

The BLM’s NEPA analysis of potential sage-grouse and other wildlife impacts appears scarcely 

to go beyond the analysis conducted by the NRC in its SEIS and, as we indicated in our earlier 

(March 3, 2010) comments to the NRC, we found this analysis and associated proposed 

mitigation measures to be inadequate. We also are concerned about the lack of transparency 

inherent in BLM’s DEIS analysis. For example, BLM repeatedly references a wildlife document 

[LWR Consultants, Inc. and Wyoming Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (in association with AATA 

International, Inc). 2011. Lost Creek Project. 2010 Wildlife Monitoring Report. April 2011] that 

cannot be easily accessed by the public. I requested this document by phone and then e-mail 

(May 31, 2012) from the lead consulting firm/author of the document – LWR consultants – who 

said they would contact the BLM to see if they had permission to disseminate the document. I

wrote back to them a week later (on June 7, 2012), after not receiving a response. The consultant, 

Eric Berg, said he had forwarded my request to the BLM and had not received a response. I

requested the document directly from BLM on June 7. On June 11, I was informed by the BLM 

that it was working to put the document on their website to allow public access, yet I was still not 

provided a copy of the document. As a result, I was unable to view the information contained in 

this report before the June 2011 Lost Creek public comment deadline, despite having asked for 

this document nearly two weeks ahead of that deadline. 

The BLM Must Consider a One-Access-Road Alternative to Comply with NEPA’S 

Reasonable Range of Alternatives Requirement 

BLM fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives as is required by the National 

Environmental Policy Analysis (NEPA). Council on Environmental Quality regulations and 

court decisions make clear that the discussion of alternatives is "the heart" of the NEPA process. 

Environmental analysis must "[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). Although the BLM states that the Wyoming Outdoor 

Council offered an alternative to the east access road that would include a newly developed road 

that accesses the project from the southeast and does not pass as closely to active sage-grouse 

leks (EIS at 2.94), the agency fails to address another alternative offered by the Outdoor Council: 

that of having only one access road. Having only one access road and reclaiming the additional 
3

access “road” (two track) if necessary would reduce (though not eliminate) the project’s potential 

impact on active sage-grouse leks, while still allowing the proponent to meet its stated objective 

of producing six million pounds of uranium over an operating period of 12 years. EIS at ES-6. 

Such an alternative also would bolster the currently inadequate range of alternatives, one of 

which necessitates an unspecified increase in development and infrastructure (no dimensions or 

details are provided) that may result in an unspecified reduction in traffic, and the other of which 

is unrealistic since the proponent is unlikely to place its operations at risk by allowing cattle and 

horses to move through the project area at will. The BLM should consider the one-access road 

alternative as a means of preventing the “unnecessary or undue degradation” (per 43 CFR 

3809.411(d)) that is projected to occur because of the known impacts of energy development on 

sage-grouse. As the BLM has clearly outlined, the proposed project access roads violate EO 

2011-5 and BLM IM WY-2010-12 because of their proximity to occupied sage-grouse leks. 

During meetings with LCI and the hearing of our protest of LCI’s permit to mine from the EQC, 

LCI stated repeatedly that it wanted two access roads as a convenience to allow workers to travel 

more easily from both Casper and Rawlins. When the Outdoor Council argued for one access 

road as a compromise to allow development to proceed while offering more protection for sagegrouse, the company claimed that the county required two access roads for safety purposes. The 

BLM reiterates this claim, stating that “For emergency purposes, Sweetwater County requires 

two access roads for ingress and egress (LCI, 2011a)”. The LCI reference is from LCI’s closing 

argument before the EQC. Thus far we have seen no county statutes to this effect, nor any letter 

from the county claiming that this must be so. We encourage BLM to discuss this issue more 

extensively with representatives from Sweetwater County. Perhaps county commissioners would 

consider allowing the project to proceed with only one access road if they understood that 

approving development projects in core sage-grouse habitat that run counter to EO-2011-5 and 

the BLM’s sage-grouse conservation directives (WY-IM-2010-12) could precipitate a listing of 

the species under the ESA that ultimately would result in far greater restrictions on other 

development projects statewide. We do not believe the BLM has fully explored this option with 

the county and encourage the agency to do so prior to approving the current project. If two 

access roads for all development projects is indeed a safety requirement of Sweetwater County, 

we believe that the BLM should provide the relevant statutes or letters from County 

Commissioners to that effect. We believe the one-access road alternative should be thoroughly 

discussed, reviewed, and evaluated, particularly if the BLM decides to proceed with undermining 

the critical regulatory mechanisms that Wyoming has established to protect its Greater SageGrouse populations by approving the Lost Creek project. 
4

Greater Sage-Grouse Concerns

The Lost Creek DEIS states that “LCI would follow the stipulations and management principles 

provided by the Wyoming Governor’s SGIT [Sage-Grouse Implementation Team] while 

conducting the Proposed Action.” DEIS at 3.8-26. It further states that the “Project [is] in line 

with state-wide stipulations for Greater sage-grouse taking topography and proximity to leks into 

account.” DEIS at ES-11 to 12. In actuality, the proposed action violates the No Surface 

Occupancy (NSO) within 0.6 miles of leks stipulation, the no major haul/access roads within 1.9 

miles of leks stipulation, and the stipulation that power lines should be buried if possible. In 

addition, LCI has failed to show that its activities will not have an adverse impact on grouse. 

This is the core principle of EO 2011-5, which states unequivocally that “New development or 

land uses within Core Population Areas should be authorized or conducted only when it can be 

demonstrated that the activity will not cause declines in Greater Sage-Grouse populations”.

(Emphasis added). In fact, scientific research suggests the opposite: that the planned 

infrastructure will cause declines to sage-grouse populations. The BLM itself admits that 

“[b]ased on available information, it can be conservatively anticipated that at least some Project 

activities within the Permit Area would negatively influence [sage-grouse] populations.” DEIS at 

4.9-9. Furthermore, the BLM has provided inadequate mitigation measures to address the 

expected declines in sage-grouse populations. 

East and West Access Roads Are Likely to Cause Unacceptable Impacts to Sage-Grouse 

LCI has shown an unwillingness to reduce its proposed impacts by having only one access road 

rather than two, and has offered no mitigation to compensate for the likely declines in the area’s 

sage-grouse populations as a result of having two major access roads in close proximity to leks. 

LCI has argued repeatedly that impacts to sage-grouse from the proposed east and west access 

roads would be minimal because these are already existing roads. And although the BLM 

appears to concur with this assessment, it also states repeatedly that these roads are “two-track” 

roads, which have not been shown to adversely affect sage-grouse. For example the BLM states 

that the “road network in the Permit Area is comprised of unmaintained two-track roads, 

passable year-round by four-wheel-drive vehicles. The East and West Access Roads, ... are 

existing two-track roads that would be upgraded by LCI for the Project.” DEIS at 1-4. Upgraded 

roads, on the other hand, would be all-season, gravel-surfaced, crowned-and-ditched roads with a 

6-m (20-ft) wide driving surface that clearly would support a great deal more traffic than is 

currently experienced by the existing two-tracks. The access roads will be located within 0.6 mi 

of three leks, only one of which LCI considers occupied but inactive. Based on a significant 

body of scientific research on the impacts of roads on Greater Sage-Grouse, the Governor in EO 

2011-5, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) in its recommendations for 
5

developing oil and gas resources in sensitive wildlife habitats,1 and the BLM in its IM WY-2010-

12 universally recommend no surface occupancy within 0.6 mi of sage-grouse leks and no major 

haul/access roads within 1.9 miles of sage-grouse leks. Indeed, given the documented impact of 

roads and vehicular activity on sage-grouse, the WGFD’s specifically recommends “[l]ocat[ing] 

main haul roads used to transport production and/or wastes to a centralized facility or market 

point ≥1.9 miles from the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks” and “[l]ocat[ing] other roads 

used to provide facility site access and maintenance ≥ 0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied 

sage-grouse leks” in core sage-grouse areas subjected to in-situ uranium development.2

The BLM further errs in trying to make the argument that the proposed access roads are 

exempted from stipulations in EO 2011-5 because “existing roads are exempt through the [EO’s] 

grandfather clause.” DEIS at 4.9-7. The EO’s grandfather clause applies to existing land uses 

within Core Population Areas prior to August 1, 2008. The existing roads are two-track roads 

that received little use until exploration activities by LCI. These two-track “roads” are hardly 

equivalent to the major upgraded haul roads that LCI is proposing. Furthermore, since the 

BLM’s IM WY-2010-12 prohibits surface disturbing activity or surface occupancy within 0.6 mi 

of occupied or undetermined leks, the proposed haul roads violate BLM policy, regardless of any 

loopholes that may exist in EO 2011-5. 

Research has shown that traffic during the sage-grouse strutting period results in declining lek 

attendance by breeding males when road-related disturbances are within 0.8 miles of a lek.3

 Five 

occupied leks occur within 0.8 miles of proposed roads in the Lost Creek area. Vehicular activity

also has been shown to negatively affect female grouse. In a study in Pinedale, Wyoming, only 

65 percent of sage-grouse hens from leks disturbed by roads and oil and gas development 

initiated nests, whereas 89 percent of hens from leks in undisturbed areas did so.4

 Lyons and 

Anderson’s (2003) study further suggest that light traffic disturbance (1-12 vehicles/day) during 

the breeding season might reduce female nest-initiation rates and increase the distances that 

females move from leks when selecting their nest sites. An upgrade of haul roads associated with 

surface coal mining in Colorado, resulted in a lek that was 50 meters (164 feet) from a road 

becoming inactive and led to an 83 percent reduction in strutting males on another lek located 

500 meters (1,640 feet) from a road within three years of the upgrade.5

 

1 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2009a. Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources 

within Important Wildlife Habitats. Revised September 2009. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne, 

WY. 

2

 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2009a. Page 114, Appendix C. 

3 Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural gas field 

development in western Wyoming. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 4 Lyon, A. G. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse initiation and 

movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491.

5 Braun, C. E. 1986. Changes in sage-grouse lek counts with advent of surface coal mining. Proceedings of Issues 

and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife 2:227-231.
6

LCI has consistently claimed that the light traffic volume necessary to construct and operate an 

in situ uranium facility will result in minimal impacts to sage-grouse. The BLM echoes the tenor 

of these claims by stating in its DEIS (at 2-64) that “[a]t most, during construction, traffic going 

to and from the site could increase by approximately 50 SUVs per day and 2-5 tractor/trailers per 

week.” However, the NRC SEIS states that: 

 “LCI estimates that vehicle traffic would commence at 30-35 light trucks and 2 to 5 

 heavy trucks per day entering and leaving the site during the construction phase. During 

 operation, light truck traffic would diminish slightly to about 20 light trucks with heavy 

 truck traffic remaining constant (and including 1 to 2 trucks per week carrying 

 yellowcake slurry offsite). Within the Project area, there would be about 15 light trucks 

 traveling to and from the mine units for monitoring and maintenance, and 10 drill rigs 

operating for well installation and ore delineation.” NRC DEIS at 2-28. (Emphasis 

 added). 

The BLM also fails to address additional traffic, such as the twelve 80-100-barrel water trucks 

that will be operating on site, presumably to minimize dust on project area roads. We highly 

recommend that the BLM resolve the discrepancies between the NRC and the BLM’s 

assessments of vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project, given the detrimental impact 

that even light traffic of 1-12 vehicles per day has been shown to have on sage-grouse. 

Furthermore, BLM should evaluate the predicted impacts of increased vehicle traffic on the 

project area’s sage-grouse, rather than simply minimizing projected traffic estimates presumably 

to avoid alarming the public about likely impacts to sage-grouse. 

The BLM also should seriously reconsider the WGFD’s flawed assessment that the proposed 

access roads are in compliance with EO 2011-5. While the WGFD and the BLM are correct that 

the EO 2011-5 states that “exceptions to these general or specific stipulations will be considered 

on a case by case basis,” they ignore the attached caveat that proponents “must show that the 

exception will not cause declines in sage-grouse populations. EO 2011-5 at12. (Emphasis 

added.) The WGFD has repeatedly stated that the proposed access roads will be less detrimental 

to sage-grouse than building a new access road would be. However, the WGFD should be 

evaluating the impacts of the proposed roads to see if they will adversely impact the area’s 

grouse population, rather than supporting Lost Creek’s infrastructure plans because perceived 

worse alternatives exist, such as building a new road through pristine sagebrush habitat. 

Development projects should not be permitted simply because a different project layout would 

be even more detrimental when research suggests that the proposed development will adversely 

affect sage-grouse populations. Wind energy development projects have (rightfully) not been 

able to proceed in sage-grouse core areas because of their anticipated adverse impacts on sagegrouse. There is no reason why in situ uranium projects should not be held to the same standards. 
7

The WFGD has also erred in determining that based on a “topographical visual assessments of 

the West Access Road, the topography creates a barrier between the West Access Road and the 

nearby leks, reducing the impact this road could have on neighboring leks.” DEIS at 2-94. The 

BLM should not support this disingenuous analysis that presumes that sage-grouse will not be 

adversely impacted by roads if they cannot see them. We know of no science that supports such a 

hypothesis. The analysis looked only at the viewshed from the viewpoint of sage-grouse standing 

on the lek. It did not address the fact that birds fly to and from the lek, nor did it address the 

concern that 74-80 percent of female sage-grouse nest within four miles of the lek on which they 

breed.6 The proposed roads would intersect breeding habitat, placing female grouse and their 

broods at greater risk of collisions with vehicles, depredation by synanthropic predators, 

anthropogenic disturbance, and other factors that negatively impact sage-grouse survival. 

The WGFD also ignores the potential adverse impact of traffic noise on sage-grouse. Recent 

research on energy impacts on sage-grouse in Wyoming showed a 73 percent decline in peak 

male attendance at leks that were experimentally treated with road noise. Researchers further 

showed that intermittent anthropogenic noise, such as traffic, had a greater adverse effect on lek 

attendance than continuous noise.7 As a result, it is quite likely that the 50 SUVs that are 

projected to use the access roads daily during project construction and the 30-35 SUVs 

(including those that will transport workers to the facility during project operation for early 

morning shifts while sage-grouse are lekking) are likely to adversely impact project area sagegrouse, despite the WGFD’s assurances that these vehicles will not disturb grouse because they 

will be hidden by hills. 

Although abundant scientific research has documented the adverse impacts that roads and their 

associated traffic have on Greater Sage-Grouse, BLM has not made a meaningful attempt to 

evaluate the potential impact of this additional traffic on area sage-grouse and has thereby failed 

to accord this project the “hard look” required by NEPA. Nor has BLM proposed any measures 

to mitigate these impacts or to compensate for likely declines in the area’s sage-grouse 

population. BLM states that in the event of sage-grouse declines it would institute “protective 

practices” such as “setting vehicle speed limits, traffic timing, reducing traffic, or sound 

reduction techniques.” DEIS at 4.9-8. Considering these measures are supposed to have been 

instituted throughout construction and operation of the project, particularly given that this project 

is in a sage-grouse core area, and considering that these sorts of measures were surely in place in 

 

6 Moynahan, B. 2004. Landscape-scale factors affecting population dynamics of Greater Sage-Grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus) in north-central Montana, 2001-2004. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Montana. 

Missoula, MT. Holloran, M. J. and S. H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial distribution of greater sage grouse nests in 

relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 107:742-752.

7 Blickley, J. L., D. Blackwood, and G. L. Patricelli. 2012. Experimental evidence for the effects of chronic 

anthropogenic noise on abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse at leks. Conservation Biology 26(3):461–471. 
8

the coalbed natural gas and oil and gas project areas where research documented sage-grouse 

declines following anthropogenic disturbances and energy infrastructure, BLM’s plan to 

implement “protective practices” in the event of Lost Creek sage-grouse population declines is 

hardly reassuring. BLM’s plan to implement “protective practices” once an impact threshold has 

been reached, monitor their effectiveness, and apply additional “protective practices” “until all 

possible protection measures have been applied or the impacted leks show a positive effect from 

the applied measures,” essentially comprises a plan to make a plan when no known mitigation 

measures for reducing impacts of roads on grouse are in fact known. 

Increased Traffic on Sooner Road is Likely to Adversely Affect Sage-Grouse 

Although the Sooner lek is located approximately 300 feet from the existing Sooner Road, the 

NRC SEIS readily and rightfully concedes that “[t]he increased traffic adjacent to the Sooner lek 

... could result in lower lek attendance.” NRC SEIS at 4-47 – 4-48. This is likely to be 

particularly true during the construction phase since “[m]ost construction workers are expected 

to travel to the project area from Casper and Rawlins. They would travel US 287 to Lamont, then 

west to Bairoil approximately 10 km (6 mi) on WY 73, then about 20 km (12 mi) west on CR 22 

to Sooner Road (BLM #3215) to the project area access road.” NRC SEIS at 4-6. As a result, the 

Sooner Lek, which historically has been one of the area’s most successful sage-grouse leks, 

would be at increased risk if the East Access Road was upgraded and used as a main access road 

as LCI has proposed. Placing the most successful leks in a core area at risk either as a 

convenience to a company that wants to facilitate employee travel or because of undocumented 

county safety requirements is unlikely to help the core area conservation strategy achieve its goal 

of maintaining the state’s grouse populations, nor is it likely to adhere to the cautions offered by 

the USFWS that the core area strategy will succeed only if implemented by all landholders, 

based on the best available science. 

Discrepancies Regarding Crooked Well Lek

We are concerned about the classification of the Crooked Well lek and believe that concerns 

about its persistence have been undermined by its classification as an “Occupied-Inactive” lek. 

Our concerns are based in part on the discrepancies regarding male sage-grouse activity on this 

lek. The NRC SEIS states that the lek was inactive during three site visits in April 2006. 

However, it goes on to say that “[f]our males were observed on the lek on April 4, 2007, but no 

sage-grouse were present in two additional lek surveys; therefore it is considered inactive.”NRC 

SEIS at 3-36-37. (Emphasis added). The Wyoming Outdoor Council raised concerns about this 

classification in its March 3, 2010 comments to the NRC, based on the WGFD definition of an 

active lek as “any lek that has been attended by male sage-grouse during the strutting season. 

Acceptable documentation of grouse presence includes observation of birds using the site or 
9

signs of strutting activity.”8 The WGFD concurs with the NRC and lists the peak number of 

males on the Crooked Well lek as four for 2007. However, the BLM states in its DEIS that male 

sage-grouse were “observed in the vicinity of the Crooked Well lek, no displaying was 

observed.” DEIS at 3.8-33. (Emphasis added). This information appears to come from the 

WGFD database, but given that LWR Consultants, who did the lek surveys for LCI, did not 

include times for their surveys, it is difficult to know if the male sage-grouse had been displaying 

on the lek or not. These sorts of discrepancies and incomplete information reduce the public’s 

trust in the data that are being evaluated to determine impacts to sensitive resources. (The public 

should not have to spend time, as we did, trying to resolve these discrepancies and determine 

which information was correct). Neither the BLM nor LCI provided any survey methodologies 

for lek surveys and counts, so the public is unable to determine whether surveys were conducted 

appropriately and whether leks have been appropriately classified. LWR Consultants apparently 

took over from the WGFD (Greg Hiatt) and conducted lek surveys at the Crooked Well lek for 

LCI between 2006 and 2010. With the exception of one survey time provided in 2010, none of 

their survey times are included in the WGFD database. We also have no idea about the weather 

conditions during the surveys. LWR Consultants only checked for signs of activity 

(feathers/droppings) twice in its five years of checking the Crooked Well lek: once after a snow 

in 2009 and once on the only occasion on which this lek was checked in 2010. The lek does not 

appear to have been checked in 2011. Regardless of the discrepancies and the incompleteness of 

the data for the Crooked Well lek, based on WGFD definitions and requirements for leks 

“occupied leks are protected through prescribed management actions during surface disturbing 

activities.” Therefore, the BLM should not dismiss potential impacts to this particular lek, nor 

should stipulations that might afford it continued protection be ignored. 

In general, the BLM appears to be unnecessarily vague in its depictions of the Lost Creek area’s

leks. The agency states that there are four occupied and active leks within two-miles of the main 

Permit Area. In addition, it states that three additional occupied and active leks “were located 

not far north of the two-mile buffer.” DEIS at 3.8-27. (Emphasis added). In this age of precise 

GPS measurements, a description of “not far north” as a distance between sensitive resources 

and a proposed development project is inadequate for a NEPA analysis and does not allow the 

public to properly evaluate potential impacts to sage-grouse. The BLM describes eight additional 

“nearby” leks as being between two and five miles of the Permit Area boundary. The BLM 

should provide specific distances between lek perimeters and the Permit Area boundary, 

distances between leks and proposed infrastructure such as roads, and provide maps of all of the 

leks discussed in the analysis. BLM’s vagueness in describing lek locations and lek status is not 

reassuring, particularly given that this information should be readily available if appropriate 

analyses had been conducted on the potential impacts of the proposed project on sage-grouse. 

 

8

 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2009. Wyoming Sage-Grouse Definitions (Revised 12/16/09). Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 
10

Finally, we also are unclear why BLM does not present sage-grouse lek survey and count data 

for 2010 and 2011, despite assurances that baseline wildlife surveys were conducted during these 

years. 

We are concerned that LCI’s exploratory activities (which may or may not have been permitted 

activities), including associated increases in levels of traffic and human activity over the last few 

years already have caused significant disturbance to the area’s grouse, particularly given some 

of the population declines seen in the Lost Creek area (see photos of the project area pre- and 

post-exploration activities below). Such potential disturbances should be taken into consideration 

before dismissing potential future impacts to leks that currently are considered occupied but 

inactive, such as the Crooked Well Lek. In addition, the level of disturbance that the Lost Creek 

area already has experienced as a result of initiation of the Lost Creek project merit further 

investigation and disclosure in the DEIS. 

Power Lines and Project Infrastructure 

EO 2011-5 states that “[n]ew distribution, gathering, and transmission lines sited outside 

established corridors within Core Population Areas should be authorized or conducted only 

when it can be demonstrated by the state agency that the activity will not cause declines in 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations.’ EO 2011-5 at 4. BLM has made no attempt to evaluate the 

potential impact of proposed power lines on area sage-grouse leks. We appreciate the BLM’s 

commitment to place perch deterrents on all power poles associated with the project. However, 

raptor deterrents may not be entirely effective, particularly given the proximity of the proposed 

power lines to sage-grouse leks, since some perch deterrents reduce but do not eliminate raptor 

perching. Raptors that perch for only brief periods because power poles are outfitted with perch 

deterrents still will have easy access to lekking grouse given the proximity of the proposed 

power lines to sage-grouse leks. Proposed power lines also will intersect habitat used by nesting 

females, making sage-grouse nests more vulnerable to depredation by ravens, and females and 

broods more vulnerable to depredation by raptors. We urge the BLM to require that power lines 

within five miles of sage-grouse leks be buried to protect both lekking and nesting grouse. 

Although research on power line impacts to grouse is currently inconclusive, we are concerned 

that the power line that was built along the west side of the Lost Creek Permit Area may have 

caused grouse population declines (including the possible extirpation of the Discover 2 lek). We 

recommend that the WGFD and the BLM examine grouse numbers at area leks before this power 

line was constructed and use those data to help inform power line construction in the Lost Creek 

project. At a minimum we recommend that LCI work with the company that is responsible for 

this power line to place perch deterrents on the existing power poles as a sage-grouse mitigation 

measure for LCI’s development activities. 
11

We also urge the BLM to work with LCI to ensure that perch and nesting deterrents are placed 

on all existing structures (such as water wells that have already become substrates for nesting 

ravens in the project area) and all planned infrastructure to prevent ravens from nesting in the 

project area. 
12

Fencing 

The adverse impact of rangeland fences on Greater Sage-Grouse is well-documented.9

 We 

appreciate that the BLM has improved on the NRC’s lack of commitment to implementing 

protective measures for Greater Sage-Grouse by stating that fence markers will be placed on new 

fence lines to reduce potential sage-grouse collisions with fences. DEIS at 4.9-39. However, the 

BLM should provide more details about this commitment. Will fence markers be placed on all 

new fences? At what densities? Despite claiming that fence markers would be installed on new 

fence lines, the BLM also states that “fences would not be within a quarter mile of the leks nor 

would they be adjacent to riparian areas” implying that the fences therefore would pose a low 

risk to sage-grouse and would not need fence markers. DEIS at 4.9-39. We urge the BLM to 

ensure that LCI places fence markers at recommended densities to protect grouse and other birds 

on all new fences constructed in the project area. These types of bird diverters are relatively 

inexpensive and the company should implement this measure to minimize collisions with fences 

by federally protected birds. We also urge the BLM to ensure that LCI equip existing fences with 

markers as a compensation measure for the inevitable adverse impacts its project will have on 

sage-grouse and other birds. 

Critical Seasonal Sage-Grouse Habitats 

Aside from ignoring standard mitigation measures to protect core area sage-grouse, the BLM and 

LCI do not appear to have acquired the necessary biological information to protect the project 

area’s sage-grouse. As a result, LCI cannot adhere to recommended mitigation measures and 

BLM fails to even mention them. For example, LCI gives no indication of having mapped any 

nesting and brood-rearing habitat in the project area and the BLM does not mention these critical 

seasonal grouse habitats in its DEIS. Furthermore, the BLM does not mention whether it expects 

LCI to adhere to the WGFD’s recommendation regarding avoiding surface-disturbing activities 

and/or disruptive activities in nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within three miles of the 

perimeter of occupied leks and in mapped nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the 

three-mile perimeter from March 15 – June 30.10 Indeed, maps in the DEIS do not even depict 

the project area’s sage-grouse leks with three-mile buffers. Given that research has shown that 

74-80 percent of females nest within four miles of leks, such stipulations are critical to protecting 

nesting females and their young, and ensuring successful future juvenile recruitment into local 

sage-grouse populations.11

 

9

 E.g., Christiansen, T. 2009. Fence marking to reduce Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) collisions 

and mortality near Farson, Wyoming – Summary of interim results. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Cheyenne, WY. Danvir, R. E. 2002. Sage grouse ecology and management in Northern Utah sagebrush-steppe. 

Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch and the Foundation for Quality Research Management, Woodruff, UT. 

10 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2009a. Page 110, Appendix B. 

11 Moynahan, B. 2004. Holloran, M. J. and S. H. Anderson. 2005.
13

Similarly, BLM makes no mention of LCI’s intent to adhere to any stipulations involving sagegrouse winter concentration areas. These areas do not appear to have been surveyed and mapped 

in the LCI project area (unless this information is included in the consultant’s wildlife report, 

which has been unavailable to the public). The WGFD recommends avoiding the placement of 

roads ... and other structures that may require human presence in winter concentration areas in 

both sage-grouse core and non-core areas.12 In addition the WGFD recommends avoiding human 

and equipment activity within winter concentration areas from 15 November through 14 March 

in core and non-core areas. Given the number of leks in the vicinity of the proposed project area, 

the likelihood of disturbing grouse winter concentrations areas could be a significant concern. 

These areas should be identified and mapped and adequate mitigation measures instituted to 

protect key seasonal habitats. As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated in its November 12, 

2008 letter to the project proponent, “No project activities that may exacerbate habitat loss or 

degradation should be permitted in important habitats.” NRC SEIS at A-12. LCI must first 

identify these important habitats and then institute the requisite mitigation measures to ensure 

that these habitats are not threatened by the projected development. Until it does so, the project’s 

potential impact on this core area sage-grouse population cannot be comprehensively evaluated. 

Raptor Concerns 

LCI has stated that it would survey for new raptor nests every five years as part of its proposed 

monitoring program. DEIS at 2-51 (Table 2.1-2). This survey schedule is inadequate to 

document changes in raptor nesting locations and could place raptors at risk by subjecting them 

to anthropogenic disturbance during construction and operation of the proposed project. Raptors 

frequently change nest locations from one year to the next, particularly if they have been subject 

to disturbance during a nesting cycle. In addition, new nests often are not found in the first year, 

especially if they failed early. To ensure that all active nests are found, surveys should be 

conducted for known and new nests both within the project area and within the 1.6 km (1 mi) 

buffer around the project area on a yearly basis. Yearly surveys would ensure that necessary 

avoidance and disturbance buffers are applied to limit the project’s impacts on the area’s raptors. 

Failure to provide adequate protections to project area raptors during the breeding season could 

result in violations to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712). 

 

12 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2009a. Page 109, Appendix B. 
14

Other Avian Concerns 

Storage Ponds 

The BLM does not adequately address the potential impacts that the proposed project poses to 

migratory birds, which are protected under the MBTA. Nor does it provide suitable mitigation 

measures to ensure that the project’s impact on these birds is minimized and that unnecessary 

fatalities are avoided. We are concerned about the potential negative impact on migratory birds 

from exposure to constituents in the proposed evaporation ponds. The BLM states that “the water

quality in the Storage Ponds is not expected to pose a risk to birds. However, if mortalities or 

frequent habitation of the Storage Ponds are noted, LCI will work with WGFD to develop 

additional protective measures to ensure the protection of birds.” DEIS at 4.9-4. The BLM does 

not state how LCI has determined that the storage pond contents are not expected to pose a risk 

to birds and it contradicts itself by stating that “[c]hronic exposure may be of toxicity concern” to 

small mammals and birds. DEIS at 2-69. Statements regarding the risk (or lack thereof) posed by 

storage pond water to birds should be supported by data on the contents of the storage ponds and 

the known level of each constituent’s toxicity to birds. The BLM also fails to state how a

determination that the fluids in the storage ponds are harmful to birds might be made even 

though it states that such an assessment would trigger additional protective measures. Would 

ponds be tested regularly for contaminants? Would systematic surveys be conducted to document 

bird fatalities (or the lack of fatalities). And what if birds ingested harmful fluids and died off 

site, providing no indication that the storage fluids were harmful? How many birds would have 

to be found dead before LCI implemented “additional protective measures to ensure the 

protection of birds”? Knowing that these waste fluids can contain high selenium 

concentrations13 that are harmful to birds14 and because of the difficulty of documenting the 

threat that these fluids may pose to wildlife, the project proponents should proactively place 

netting and/or other appropriate deterrents over the ponds as a matter of course. Given that the 

vast majority of bird species in the project area are protected under the MBTA, LCI should take 

every precaution necessary to ensure that its development activities do not cause preventable bird 

fatalities and that the company remains in compliance with the MBTA. The use of netting and 

deterrents on the proposed evaporation ponds also would have the added benefit of preventing 

the ingestion of toxic water by sage-grouse, big game, and other animals. The efficacy of the 

 

13 Boon, D. Y. 1989. Potential selenium problems in Great Plains soils. Pages 107-121 in L. W. Jacobs, ed. 

Selenium in agriculture and the environment. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., and Soil Science Society of 

America. SSSA Special Publication No. 23. Madison, WI. 

14 Skorupa, J. P. and H. M. Ohlendorf. 1991. Contaminants in drainage water and avian risk thresholds. Pages 345-

368 in A. Dinar and D. Zilberman, eds. The economics and management of water and drainage in agriculture. 

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. See, R. B., D. L. Naftz, D. A. Peterson, J. G. Crock, J. A. Erdman, R. C. 

Severson, P. Ramirez, Jr., and J. A. Armstrong. 1992. Detailed study of selenium in soil, representative plants, 

water, bottom sediment, and biota in the Kendrick Reclamation Project Area, Wyoming, 1988-90, U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4131. Ohlendorf, H. M. 2002. Ecotoxicology of selenium. Pages 

465-500 in D. J. Hoffman, B. A. Rattner, G. A. Burton Jr., and J. Cairns, Jr. eds. Handbook of ecotoxicology,

Second edition. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
15

netting and deterrents should be monitored on a regular basis and upgraded as needed to ensure 

that they are achieving their intended purpose. 

Sagebrush Obligate Passerines

The BLM provides no analysis of the project’s potential impact on sagebrush obligate passerines, 

several of which are considered Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest (MBHFI) and BLM 

Sensitive Species (e.g., Brewer’s Sparrow and Sage Sparrow). The BLM states that “breeding 

Brewer’s Sparrow and Sage Sparrow were found throughout the Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

habitats of the Permit Area,” but then instead of discussing impacts to this type of habitat, offers 

reassurances that “Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland vegetation provided the greatest species 

diversity for MBHFI species use [and o]nly a small portion of this habitat would be disturbed.” 

DEIS 4.9-34. It then concludes that “[t]herefore, population level effects due to habitat loss for 

MBHFI species are not expected” during construction, despite making no further mention of 

impacts to big sagebrush shrubland habitat. DEIS at4.9-34. With no additional “analysis” BLM 

also concludes that “population level effects due to habitat loss or increased competition are not 

expected for MBHFI species” during project operation since there would “little, if any, new 

habitat disturbance.” DEIS 4.9-42. BLM’s complete dismissal of potential impacts from the Lost 

Creek project to MBHFI and BLM Sensitive Species like the Brewer’s Sparrow and Sage 

Sparrow is unacceptable, given that the agency is tasked with conserving these species. The 

BLM makes no mention whatsoever of scientific research on the impacts of roads, 

fragmentation, and anthropogenic disturbance on sagebrush obligate passerines. Nor does it offer 

any mitigation for potential impacts incurred on sagebrush obligate passerines by the Lost Creek 

project. 

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has listed sagebrush as the most threatened bird habitat 

in the continental United States, claiming that “there is no system as vast as this one in such free 

fall.”

15 Approximately 45 percent of the West’s potential sagebrush habitat has been converted to

other habitat types, including agriculture and urban areas.16 The remaining portion is threatened 

by habitat destruction, fragmentation, invasive species, altered fire regimes, livestock grazing, 

energy development, and other stressors that may reduce its effectiveness for the more than 350 

species of flora and fauna that depend on sagebrush habitats for all or part of their existence. 

Populations of all sagebrush obligate songbirds are in decline and face an uncertain future even 

though numbers of some species are still fairly robust.17 For example, Brewer’s Sparrow, Sage 

Sparrow, and Sage Thrasher – all of which are considered sagebrush obligate passerines during 

 

15 American Bird Conservancy. 2007. Twenty most threatened bird habitats. American Bird Conservancy: The 

Plains, VA. 48 pp.

16 North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee, 2009. The State of the Birds, United States of 

America, 2009. U.S. Department of Interior: Washington, DC. 36 pages. 

17 ABC 2007. 
16

the breeding season – showed average annual population declines nationwide of 1.5 percent, 0.2 

percent, and 1.1 percent respectively between 1980 and 2007.18 Given the declining national and 

regional population trends of sagebrush obligate birds, with Brewer’s Sparrow populations in 

particular showing declines of over 50 percent during the last 25 years based on the Breeding 

Bird Survey,19 the adverse impact that the proposed project might have on sagebrush passerine 

distribution and productivity merits more serious consideration and analysis by the BLM. 

Energy development across the Intermountain West has occurred primarily within sagebrushdominated landscapes.20 As a result, the BLM must view the potential impacts of the proposed 

project within the context of region-wide energy development when evaluating cumulative 

impacts on the area’s sagebrush habitats and their attendant species. Statements by the NRC and 

the BLM to the effect that there is plenty of available surrounding habitat so project area birds 

can go elsewhere are indefensible. Such statements fail to acknowledge such fundamental 

ecological concepts as territoriality, intra- and inter-specific competition, and micro-habitat 

selection. Furthermore, the BLM cannot assume that sagebrush obligate songbird populations 

will recover once project area drilling is complete. Research in the Upper Green River Basin 

suggests that affected species may not acclimate or recover after initial disturbances. Instead, 

adverse effects of energy development on these species may compound over time.21

Research suggests that energy development may exacerbate regional declines of some sagebrush 

obligate passerine species.22 For example, increased well density was associated with a 

decreased abundance of Brewer’s Sparrows and Sage Sparrows in three oil and gas fields in 

western Wyoming’s Upper Green River Basin during 2008 and 2009.23 In addition, the 

probability of daily nest survival for Brewer’s Sparrow and Sage Sparrow decreased with greater 

well densities and increased proximity to well pads.24 Avian nest predator (Common Raven) 

abundance increased slightly across energy development gradients and shrub vigor decreased 

(suggesting concomitant decreases in insect prey availability) with increasing energy 

development, so both an increased susceptibility to nest predation and changes in the availability 

of food resources may have played a role in the adverse impacts of intensive energy 

 

18 Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 

1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA.

19 Holmes, J. A and M. J. Johnson. 2005. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri): A technical conservation 

assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

20 Knick, S. T., D. S. Dobkin, J. T. Rotenberry, M. A. Schroeder, W. M. Vander Haegen, and C. van Riper. 2003. 

Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. Condor 

105:611-634.

21 Gilbert M. 2010. Demographic responses of sagebrush-obligate songbirds to oil and natural gas development in 

western Wyoming. Master’s thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

22 Ingelfinger, F. and S. Anderson. 2004. Passerine response to roads associated with natural gas extraction in a 

sagebrush steppe habitat. Western North American Naturalist 64:385-395. Gilbert, M. 2011. Demographic 

responses of sagebrush-obligate songbirds to oil and natural gas development in western Wyoming. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 75:816–824. 23 Gilbert 2011. 

24 Gilbert 2011. 
17

development on sagebrush obligate passerines.25 Both of these types of impacts could be 

expected with in situ uranium development. 

In addition to experiencing lower productivity as a result of increased nest predation and limited 

food resources associated with energy development, sagebrush obligate songbirds, such as the 

Brewer’s Sparrow, also may be particularly sensitive to the anthropogenic disturbances and 

habitat fragmentation that accompany energy development.26 Researchers examining the impact 

of roads associated with natural gas extraction on sagebrush obligate passerines found that the 

density of Brewer’s Sparrows and Sage Sparrows was reduced by 39 to 60 percent within a 100-

m buffer around dirt roads with low traffic volumes (10-700 vehicles per day).27 The tendency 

of sagebrush obligate songbirds to avoid roads and habitat edges is likely to have a profound 

influence on the distribution of the project area’s sagebrush passerines. Given the vulnerability 

of BLM Sensitive Species such as Brewer’s Sparrow and Sage Sparrow to edge effects, roads, 

and traffic levels on those roads, the BLM should provide a more substantive analysis of the 

possible impact of the project’s roads on sagebrush obligate songbirds as well as offering 

mitigation or compensation measures if sagebrush obligate passerine population declines are 

detected following project development. 

Even if project mitigation measures include timing stipulations to ensure that construction occurs 

outside of the songbird nesting season, the Lost Creek project may adversely affect sagebrush 

obligates by intensifying edge effects,28 fragmenting habitat, and increasing populations of other 

passerine species (such as Horned Lark) that may compete with or displace sagebrush 

obligates.29 Increased numbers of corvids and raptors associated with power lines and other 

anthropogenic structures also may increase the potential impact of predation on sagebrush 

obligate songbirds.30

When addressing the Lost Creek project’s potential impact on migratory birds and sagebrush 

obligate passerines such as Brewer’s Sparrow, the BLM focuses only on direct habitat loss and 

fails entirely to address indirect impacts that may reduce habitat effectiveness such as increased 

road densities, the construction of other anthropogenic structures, increased traffic and 

disturbance, increased predation, and reduced resource availability. By failing to address these 

concerns, neither the BLM nor the public can adequately evaluate the project’s potential costs to 

valued resources. 

 

25 Gilbert 2010. Gilbert 2011. 

26 Ingelfinger and Anderson 2004. 

27 Ingelfinger and Anderson 2004. 

28 Fletcher, R. J. 2005. Multiple edge effects and their implications in fragmented landscapes. Journal of Animal 

Ecology 74:342-352. Ingelfinger and Anderson 2004. 

29 Ingelfinger and Anderson 2004. Gilbert 2011. 

30 Holmes and Johsnson 2005.Gilbert 2011. 
18

 Finally, the BLM states that it will monitor for MBHFIs using techniques recommended by the 

WDEQ-LQD’s 1994 guidelines. We recommend basing surveys on best available, peer-reviewed 

methodologies, such as avian point counts. 

Other Wildlife Concerns 

Wyoming Pocket Gopher 

The USFWS concluded that listing the Wyoming pocket gopher under the Endangered Species 

Act was not warranted when it completed its status review in 2008. Nevertheless, given this 

species’ extremely limited distribution, its small population size, the intensive energy 

development that is occurring throughout its range, and the limited regulatory mechanisms 

currently in place to protect the species in the face of such development, it is likely that either 

the USFWS’s decision will be contested or that the USFWS will be asked to reconsider its listing 

decision in the future. As a result, it would behoove LCI to be particularly careful about siting its 

infrastructure so that it avoids Wyoming pocket gopher burrows. Astonishingly, the BLM makes 

no attempt whatsoever to provide any protection for this highly vulnerable BLM Sensitive 

Species, stating unequivocally that “Wyoming pocket gopher burrow complexes can be expected 

to disappear in the disturbed areas for the life of the Project.” DEIS at 4.9-37. (Emphasis added). 

The Wyoming pocket gopher is unlikely to persist if energy development results in losses of its 

burrow complexes given its already limited and fragmented population. The BLM’s assurances 

that Wyoming pocket gophers can move into similar surrounding habitat is disingenuous given 

the species’ narrow ecological niche, its limited dispersal capabilities, and the likelihood that 

appropriate habitat is already colonized given the numbers and distribution of Wyoming pocket 

gopher found during trapping efforts in the Lost Creek area. 

The Wyoming pocket gopher is a BLM Sensitive Species. BLM Manual MS-6840.06.E requires 

that “protection provided by the policy for candidate species shall be used as the minimum level

of protection for BLM sensitive species”—that is: “Consistent with existing laws, the BLM shall 

implement management plans that conserve candidate species and their habitats and shall ensure 

that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM do not contribute to the need for the 

species to become listed.” BLM Manual MS-6840.06.C & .06.E. (Emphasis added). BLM 

Manual MS-6840.06.C.2 also directs the BLM to ensure that “activities affecting the habitat of 

candidate [and sensitive] species are carried out in a manner that is consistent with the objectives 

for managing those species.” Furthermore, based on the directives of the BLM Manual, the 

agency must seek to conserve BLM Sensitive Species in a manner that contributes to their 

removal from BLM’s sensitive species list. 
19

The WGFD considers the Wyoming pocket gopher a state Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need. Keinath et al. (2012)31 developed an exposure index that examined the vulnerability to 

development of each of these species. The Wyoming pocket gopher was ranked fifth of 156 

species, primarily because of projected oil and gas development in its limited range. Given the 

vulnerability of this endemic Wyoming species and the existing threats to its persistence, the 

BLM’s dismissal of the impacts to Wyoming pocket gophers that would result from development 

of the Lost Creek project are extremely troubling. BLM has provided no evaluation of potential 

impacts to Wyoming pocket gophers, no recommendations for avoidance of its burrow 

complexes, and no mitigation measures to compensate for potential losses. Such disregard for a 

species that was so recently considered as a candidate for listing under the ESA is concerning. 

At a minimum, the BLM should ensure that LCI strives for a no-net-loss of Wyoming pocket 

gophers or their burrow complexes in the proposed project area, even if doing so necessitates 

shifting project infrastructure. The BLM should provide a protective buffer around Wyoming 

pocket gopher colonies and prohibit surface disturbing activities within these buffers. Despite 

much recent searching by biologists, only a few Wyoming pocket gopher locations have been 

confirmed. The number of pocket gophers found in the Lost Creek area could make this among 

the densest known concentrations of Wyoming pocket gophers in the species’ range. As a result, 

the extent to which the BLM protects these little known Wyoming endemics in the Lost Creek 

area is likely to inform conservationists and the USFWS about the extent to which the BLM’s 

“regulatory mechanisms” can legitimately protect this imperiled species in the face of intensive 

energy development. Failure to do so likely would be an important consideration for the USFWS 

the next time it considers whether the beleaguered Wyoming pocket gopher merits listing under 

the ESA. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Projected energy development (including the Whirlwind I wind project which is not included in 

BLM’s list of foreseeable future development projects) does not bode well for Great Divide 

Basin wildlife, particularly those that are dependent on sagebrush habitats. And yet BLM largely 

dismisses cumulative impacts with the claim that “[t]he proposed Lost Creek ISR Project would 

not contribute perceptibly to cumulative impacts, due to: the dispersed locations of the actions in 

the north-central portion of the Great Divide Basin.” DEIS at ES-14. The dispersed nature of the 

actions is precisely why additional actions in this area are such a concern. As the WGFD and 

others continually emphasize, co-locating disturbances minimizes impacts to wildlife. Indeed, 

EO 2011-5 explicitly states that although “it should be recognized that adjustments to the 

 

31 Keinath, D., M. Kauffman, D. Doak, H. Copeland, and A. Pocewicz. 2012. Assessing the relative exposure to 

development for Wyoming’s Species of Greatest Conservation need. Presentation given by D. Keinath at the 

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative 2012 Science Workshop. 
20

stipulations may be necessary based upon local conditions and limitations[, t]he goal is to 

minimize future disturbance by co-locating proposed disturbances within areas already disturbed 

or naturally unsuitable.” EO 2011-5 at 4. The dispersed nature of a large number of development 

projects scattered throughout what was formerly intact, high-quality sagebrush habitat is likely to 

result in widespread habitat fragmentation, which is deemed one of the principle threats to sagegrouse. It is precisely this type of fragmentation of formerly intact sagebrush landscapes that has 

led to serious declines in sagebrush obligate species and will necessitate increasingly rigorous 

conservation efforts in the future if we are to maintain the integrity of sagebrush ecosystems and 

the organisms they sustain. The BLM’s reliance on “planned revegetation” (DEIS at 5-18) to 

minimize long-term cumulative effects may be overly optimistic given the decades it can take 

sagebrush to regenerate and the unknown effects of climate change on sagebrush ecosystems. 

And again, we take issue with the BLM’s disingenuous statement that “due to the mobility of 

wildlife, impacts are still expected to be small.” DEIS at 5-18. The ability of wildlife to move 

certainly has not resulted in robust remnant sage-grouse populations in the Powder River Basin 

or abundant mule deer in the Pinedale Anticline post intensive energy development. BLM’s 

reliance on such antiquated and unsupported reassurances, particularly given the extensive body 

of scientific literature documenting the adverse impacts of energy development and habitat loss 

and fragmentation on a wide range of wildlife taxa, wholly undermines its cumulative effects 

“analysis”. 

With the intensity of LCI’s exploratory activities, which may already have led to declines in the 

area’s sage-grouse populations, and the almost certain declines of remaining grouse populations 

given Lost Creek’s planned roads, disturbance, and infrastructure, it seems quite possible that 

sage-grouse will not long be an impediment to the three additional mine sites (and 5,000 wells) 

that Lost Creek plans to develop in the next 20 years. Given the company’s future development 

plans, which certainly would overlap with current sage-grouse lek locations, there appears to be 

little incentive for LCI to protect the area’s sage-grouse once the company is given the go-ahead 

to proceed with its initial development plans. It would be far easier to ensure future development 

of its mine units if no sage-grouse were present to inconvenience expansion plans. Given LCI’s 

lack of incentive to protect sage-grouse, it is therefore incumbent on the BLM to consider factors 

like the potential listing of sage-grouse as an endangered species if Wyoming’s core area sagegrouse conservation plan fails to protect the state’s remaining grouse. Allowing a project to 

proceed in core sage-grouse habitat that inevitably will have adverse impacts on the area’s sagegrouse populations undermines the statewide strategy to maintain existing grouse numbers and 

threatens all other development projects that would legitimately be developed in ways that were 

compatible with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation. 
21

CONCLUSION 

EO 2011-5 clearly states that “[n]ew development or land uses within Core Population Areas 

should be authorized or conducted only when it can be demonstrated that the activity will not 

cause declines in Greater Sage-Grouse populations.” EO 2011-5 at 3 (emphasis added). If 

accommodations to the LCI project (such as eliminating one of the proposed access roads or 

constructing an access road that will have a less adverse impact on sage-grouse) cannot be 

implemented to reduce predicted impacts to the area’s sage grouse, then the BLM should not 

permit this project. We believe that the BLM (and the WGFD)’s excessive reliance on the 

exceptions provided for by EO 2011-5 (e.g., Provision 18 on p. 4 of the EO) sets a dangerous 

precedent since it will be difficult not to accord similar exceptions to other companies that apply 

for development permits, particularly if they point to the egregious exceptions granted to LCI. 

Why should any company have to adhere to NSO stipulations or stipulations to build roads 

farther than 1.9 miles from sage-grouse leks if LCI did not have to? Wyoming’s core area 

strategy will succeed only if development projects adhere to provisions outlined in EO 2011-5 

and the scientific research on which these provisions and the conservation strategy are based. 

Other states are modeling their own Greater Sage-Grouse conservation efforts on Wyoming’s 

core-area example. If Wyoming cannot and will not obey its own core area conservation strategy 

“rules”, it is unlikely that other states will feel the need to do so and region wide conservation 

efforts will be undermined, increasing the likelihood of a “warranted” listing of the species under 

the ESA. 

Although LCI, BLM, and the WGFD have stated that declines in sage-grouse populations postproject development will trigger an adaptive management response, this strategy is problematic 

considering mitigation measures for road-related impacts have not been developed. Furthermore, 

the fact that development impacts on sage-grouse populations typically are not seen until an 

average of three to four years post-development32 is particularly problematic since the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service will be reviewing the species’ status to make a final determination on 

whether or not it warrants listing in 2015 (i.e., in just over three years), before mitigation 

measures can be implemented and their potential effects realized.

The USFWS, which will determine whether or not the Greater Sage-Grouse warrants listing 

under the ESA, has said that Wyoming’s core area strategy as outlined in EO 2011-5 will serve 

as an adequate regulatory mechanism for maintaining viable populations of Greater Sage-Grouse 

only if it is adequately implemented by all State, Federal, and private landowners.33 Furthermore 

the USFWS has said that implementation of EO 2011-5 must be based on the best available 

science and it has encouraged the State and project proponents to consider all alternatives that 

 

32 Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse population response to energy 

development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2644-2654. 

33 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Letter from Mark Sattleberg, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, to Governor Mead, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor, June 24, 2011.
22

minimize or remove impacts to the sagebrush ecosystem.34 Should the Lost Creek project 

proceed as proposed, implementation of EO 2011-5 will be severely compromised, peerreviewed scientific research will be ignored, and appropriate alternatives to reduce impacts to 

grouse (such as building only one access road) will be disregarded. A listing of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse under the ESA would impact all future energy development projects in Wyoming. 

We do not believe that accommodating this one project’s needs, as proposed, is worth such a 

risk.

Sincerely, 

Sophie Osborn 

Wildlife Program Director/Wildlife Biologist 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

cc: Governor Matt Mead 

 Don Simpson, Bureau of Land Management 

 Mark Sattelberg, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Pat Deibert, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Scott Talbott, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

 

34 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. 


From: MARYBETH DEVLIN 

Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:42 AM 

To: BLM_WY_Lost_Crk_Mine

Cc: Russell, John D

Subject: Lost Creek ISR Project

I sent this email yesterday, but received a "mailer-daemon" failure notice. So I am trying again, 

and copying Project Manager John Russell.

June 11, 2012 

Bureau of Land Management 

Rawlins Field Office

1300 North Third Street 

Rawlins, WY 82301 

Attn: Dennis J. Carpenter, Field Manager

Subject: Lost Creek ISR Project

Dear Mr. Carpenter:

These comments address the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Lost Creek InSitu Recovery (ISR) Uranium Mine Project that is proposed on land in the Red Desert region 

of Wyoming. The applicant -- Lost Creek ISR, LLC -- (a subsidiary of Ur-Energy) also proposes 

a yellow-cake processing plant, storage ponds, wells, roads, fences, and various other facilities 

associated with the project. Already, the applicant is pursuing amendments that would permit a 

yellow-cake drying-packing facility on site. 

The Project

The Lost Creek project would employ the in-situ recovery technique of extracting the 

uranium. The ISR method -- "solution" mining -- involves injecting a liquid leaching agent, 

called a lixiviant, through a series of wells installed in the ore body. The lixiviant dissolves the 

uranium. The resultant slurry is brought to the surface via production wells, then piped to a 

processing plant for recovery. The add-on drying-packing unit would save the operator from 

having to transport the product for that purpose. 

The project area would cover approximately 4,250 acres, but only about 345 acres would be 

subjected to actual surface disturbance, mostly related to construction of pads for wells used to 

extract uranium in solution from the site.

Recommend: The No Action Alternative

BLM should deny the application for this mine, end further mining activities in the Red Desert, 

and proceed at once with reclamation. The overriding considerations for No Action include the 
likelihood of:

x Contamination and degradation of the immediate and surrounding environment, 

x Potential harm to people -- specifically, mine and processing workers,

x Hazardous conditions affecting resident and visiting wildlife, and 

x Flat or reduced demand for uranium. 

Instead of mining new uranium, recycling of nuclear waste should be the indicated direction of 

the government's energy policy.

Surface-Water and Ground-Water Impacts

The EIS acknowledges the risk of spills and leaks, which could pollute both surface-waters and 

ground-waters. For certain, the mining operations would contaminate groundwater with lixiviant, 

uranium, and other metals. Consider the under-stated, yearly quantities below: 

x 47,000,000 gallons of liquid waste. 

x 18,000,000 gallons of ground water used in construction, dust control, operations. 

x 60,000,000 gallons of "liquid byproduct materials" 

Then there's the thousands of cubic yards of solid wastes, some hazardous, that must be disposed 

of properly. 

BLM should reject this profligate consumption of scarce fresh-water sources in the Red Desert, 

along with the production of so much toxic waste and byproducts, both liquid and solid. Deny 

the permit.

Radioactive Wastes

The ISR mine would generate "Section 11e.(2) materials." These are radioactive wastes --

discrete sources of radium-226. The subject mine is projected to produce over 55,000,000 

gallons of such waste every year, or more than 4,415,000,000 gallons of radioactive material 

over the life of the project.

From the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Website: 

Section 11e.(2) byproduct material is regulated by the NRC under 10 CFR Part 40. In Part 40, 

the NRC clarified the definition of byproduct material by adding the clause "including discrete 

surface wastes resulting from uranium solution extraction processes." In simpler terms, it is the 

waste and tailings generated by the processing of ore for its uranium or thorium content. Most of 

this material is created by uranium recovery and is primarily mill tailings. Examples of milling 

wastes are broken pipe from in situ recovery facilities and contaminated mill equipment that is to 

be discarded. Byproduct material is disposed of in uranium mill tailings impoundments.
x http://www.nrc.gov/materials/byproduct-mat.html

The Red Desert should not be subjected to the risk of spills or leaks of such wastes.

Toxic Petroleum Wastes

The EIS predicts that up to 960 gallons of "waste petroleum products" and up to 10 gallons of 

"waste chemicals" will have to be managed every year if the mine starts up operations. Spills are 

inevitable, and unacceptable.

Dust -- An Insidious Hazard

Dust is always a concern with regard to mining operations. It impacts air quality. The Lost 

Creek ISR project is anticipated to generate 180 tons of "fugitive dust" every year during its 

eight-year operation. The dust in question consists of particulate matter that is ten micrometers 

or less in diameter. Hence, it is abbreviated "PM10." Being so small, PM10 can invade the 

natural defense mechanisms of the respiratory tract and lodge deep in lung tissue. PM10 is 

harmful to humans as well as wildlife. Further, the EIS notes that wind is a factor in the project 

area. Inhalation and ingestion hazards, affecting the health of mine workers and indigenous 

wildlife, are increased in a relatively high-wind conditions, which spread particulate matter far 

and wide.

Further, Chapter 4, Section 4.10, notes that the dust generated by mining operations is expected 

to settle on vegetation. Thus, it will be ingested by wildlife and wild horses, while foraging and 

while merely breathing. The dust could potentially cause digestive and dental complications in 

addition to respiratory and cardiovascular problems for the horses. This potential impact was not 

fully addressed.

Disturbances to Wildlife

The subject mine would be sited in a Sage Grouse Core Area. If BLM is serious about 

preventing this candidate species from being listed, then why would the agency even entertain 

the idea of a uranium mine invading a core area? Further, traffic in and out of the project 

grounds is expected to be 50 sport-utility vehicles a day plus up to five tractor-trailers a 

week. These intrusions will take place on the improved roads that the mine operator plans to 

construct through the area. Certainly the shy sage grouse will be negatively affected by such 

disturbances and by the fragmentation of their core habitat. 

Further, the project will inadvertently provide local raptors more perches from which to swoop 

down on their quarry. The sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, and pocket gophers would surely be 

picked off. That is, if they're not poisoned first in the mine's toxic storage ponds. 

Reduction of Wild Horse Herd Management Areas
Chapter 3, Section 3.1, pdf-SDJHVĺRIWKH(,6GLVFXVVODQGXVHLQWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFW

area, including the impact on resident wild horse herds. We learn that the mine would encroach 

on two herd management areas (HMAs). The HMAs directly impacted are:

Lost Creek ĺ 1.969 acres 

Stewart Creek ĺ 1,119 acres 

-----------------------------------------------

Total ĺ 3,088 acres 

Across Wyoming, BLM has drastically reduced the original wild-horse herd areas (HAs) and 

renamed the remnants "herd management areas" (HMAs). For comparison, 

Wyoming's HAs ĺDFUHV

Wyoming's HMAs ĺ 4,768,682 acres 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Loss of Land ĺ DFUHVĺ4 percent 

The proposed Lost Creek ISR mine would take away 3,088 more acres from the wild 

horses. The EIS makes no mention of providing compensatory land of equal quality elsewhere 

in the vicinity. This pattern of taking but not giving back needs to end. By law, the HMAs are 

supposed to be managed principally for the wild horses. Thus, their needs must take priority and 

be fully met.

Insufficient Analysis Devoted to the Mine's Impact on the Resident Wild Horses

Chapter 3, Section 3.9 of the EIS devoted just two pages to the area's wild horses (pdf-pages 72 

and 73). Instead of providing comprehensive information, the narrative focused on the supposed 

addition of escapee domestic stock horses into the wild, seeming to minimize the herds' 

genealogical importance, while grudgingly acknowledging their "limited" Spanish-Mustang 

ancestry. 

Chapter 4, Section 4.10 purported to address the potential impacts of mining operations on the 

wild horse herds. Mostly, the negatives were dismissed as being of "no significant impact." Any 

information concerning the wild horses that weighed against the mine was downplayed. That is 

not a proper analysis. 

For instance, the EIS indicates that mud pits will not be fenced because experience with other 

ISR projects showed them not to be a problem for horses. But the EIS notes (parenthetically) 

that the other projects involved mainly domesticated horses which, we would infer, were under 

the control of their guardians.

In another instance, BLM admits that the wild horses could be exposed to toxic chemicals around

spills and leaks. But these dangers are brushed off.

Collisions with vehicles, disturbances, loss of habitat -- you name it and the EIS discounts the 

impact on the "continued existence" of the wild horses. Thus, if an impact would not potentially 
exterminate the wild horse population, the EIS characterizes it as "short term" or of "no 

significant impact."

What is called for is a thorough study of the project's immediate and long-term likely adverse 

effects on the wild horses, whether those impacts can be mitigated, and if so, how. Superficial 

consideration of potential hazards, such as fencing around certain parts of the project, does not 

begin to address potential adverse effects.

Analysis Must Consider All the Herds of the Red Desert Complex

BLM has elsewhere declared the herds of the Lost Creek and Stewart Creek HMAs, along with 

the herds of three other HMAs, to constitute a meta-population. BLM has designated this area 

the "Red Desert Complex." The HMAs composing the Complex are: 

x Antelope Hills

x Crooks Mountain 

x Green Mountain 

x Lost Creek

x Stewart Creek

BLM has claimed that the geographical contiguity or proximity of the five HMAs enables the 

horses of these herds to migrate freely into each other's territory and inter-breed. On this basis, 

BLM has argued that the herds' gene-pool diversity is maintained despite the agency's policy of 

keeping most of them below the minimum scientifically-accepted threshold for genetic viability. 

However, for the EIS in question, BLM looked only at those HMAs directly affected by loss of 

acreage, and did not consider any of the others. Thus, the analysis is incomplete regarding the 

mine's impact to the allegedly free-roaming horses that BLM manages as the Red Desert 

Complex. That BLM was aware of this discrepancy was evident by its reference to one of the 

HMAs -- Green Mountain. The EIS states that the Green Mountain herd did not need to be 

considered. While maintaining that the horses still "interchange," BLM claimed the Green 

Mountain horses were "unlikely" to enter the project area due to the distance involved. BLM is, 

in essence, arguing against its own position. Documentation supporting this new claim? Chapter 

3, Section 3.9, pdf-page 72: "Personal correspondence with Roy Packer, Range Specialist of the 

BLM Lander Field Office, November 2011." Nothing more. If the Red Desert Complex truly 

exists, then all the herds that are alleged to freely roam therein must be considered. Unless they 

really don't. In any case, personal correspondence cannot substitute for thorough analysis. 

No Wild Horse Advocacy Organizations Consulted

Chapter 6 of the draft EIS identifies the various individuals and organizations with whom BLM 

staff consulted in the preparation of the analysis. However, no wild-horse advocacy groups were 

among them. This omission reflects nonexistent partnerships with wild-horse stakeholders. 

Personally, I just happened to come across an article about the EIS that mentioned the potential 
impact of the proposed Lost Creek mine on the wild horses of the area. Despite my having sent a 

letter to the Rawlins Field Office on April 7, 2011 formally requesting to be placed on the 

mailing list concerning matters affecting wild horses, I was not notified of the EIS.

RFO should correct these deficiencies in the planning and evaluation process for this EIS and all 

other projects that impact the wild horse herds. RFO needs to implement coordinated resource 

management (CRM) with regard to its wild horse stakeholders. Doing so will admittedly be 

challenging because mustang advocates come from across the country. The good news is that, 

with modern communication technologies, previous barriers to such partnerships have 

fallen. BLM needs to cooperate, consult, and coordinate with mustang advocates, just as the 

Agency does with its grazing permittees. The CRM approach will result in consensus-based 

decisions and the development of best management practices concerning wild horses.

BLM should re-open the EIS after establishing a wild-horse advocacy stakeholders committee.

Vegetation -- Less Variety, More Weeds

A mining project can be expected to introduce weeds -- exotic propagules -- as a result of 

disturbances. Weed-seeds will hitch a ride on the many vehicles entering the area as well as on 

the shoes and clothing of the workers. Wind will spread the infestation. Weeds crowd out and 

replace the native vegetation, and they increase the risk of wildfires. 

The EIS' focus on reclamation activities around the immediate site does not prevent the problem 

or truly solve it. This mine would, therefore, have widespread impact on the Red Desert 

vegetation. The Wyoming 2010 State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) cites invasive species --

particularly cheatgrass -- as a leading conservation challenge. BLM should properly consider the 

impact of weeds on the greater surrounding area, not just the relatively limited area of active 

mine operations. Protect the range. Deny the permit. 

The Mine's Economic Benefits May Be Overstated

The proposal touts direct and indirect potential job creation -- 119 to 148 positions -- and boasts 

that tax revenue will inure to the benefit of federal, state and local coffers. But how many of 

those jobs will actually materialize? How many will be permanent, full-time positions? Unless 

car-pooling is the rule in Wyoming, the projected traffic of 50 vehicles per day suggests a much 

smaller workforce. Moreover, the mine may never produce anywhere near the level of 

employment claimed by the applicant due to recent events and their long-term ramifications.

Uranium Market -- No Longer Expected to Boom as Earlier Anticipated

Prior to the Fukushima catastrophe, it was expected that demand for uranium by the national 

and/or world market would increase. This expectation must have prompted Ur-Energy's 

decision, several years ago, to pursue a mining permit and to establish a processing facility on 

site. However, post-Fukushima, the outlook is less favorable. For instance, Germany has 

shuttered eight reactors permanently, with nine others having definite closure dates. Six 

Japanese reactors are shut down for good and most others are not operating. Countries with 
seismic issues and/or tsunami vulnerability are unlikely to move forward with reactors. The 

market price for uranium has, in fact, declined significantly. Please refer to the article provided 

at the link below from Nuclear Engineering International Magazine.

x http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2060844

Break-Even Price: $61. Current Price: $51.

A representative of the applicant has been quoted saying that, although the price per pound of 

yellow cake has dropped by half, he insisted that at $60, the company would do just 

fine. “We’re in great shape at those prices.” 

x http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/uranium-mine-proposed-for-wyoming-s-reddesert/article_3998820a-4e3d-5093-8925-d02c7a69ef5d.html#ixzz1xKhXtySP

His contention contradicts the economics. The first link below is for a recent article reporting 

that the break-even figure is now $61. The second link provides the current price: $51. While a 

company can, I suppose, choose to pursue a losing proposition -- possibly for tax write-offs, 

surely it behooves BLM to deny the application for a project that would disturb an area of 

ecological importance such as the Red Desert and likely be abandoned eventually anyway.

x http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/13390362/no-sweeteners-for-yellowcakeplayers/

x http://www.uranium.info/

Long-Range Outlook for Nuclear Energy: Flat or Declining

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has published its Annual Energy Outlook 

2012 Early Release Report, the summary of which is linked below. The EIA's projections 

through 2035 indicate a flat or even declining growth curve for nuclear energy. The market for 

uranium is almost entirely tied to nuclear power generation. BLM should make the tough 

decision to turn down the application for a mine whose construction will disturb the Red Desert 

environment but whose activity may end shortly thereafter, leaving behind an ugly scar on the 

land.

x http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/executive_summary.cfm

Reclamation -- Promises, Promises
If the mine closes prematurely for economic reasons, waivers can likely be secured that would 

allow delays in reclamation that might last for years. In the meantime, the range would 

languish. Forage loss would continue and erosion would worsen. If the mine were later 

reactivated and its permit extended, that could push back reclamation even further. 

Conclusions

BLM should select the No Action alternative and deny a permit for the Lost Creek ISR uranium 

mine. The mine, processing plant, and drying-packing facility would bring contamination and 

unacceptable risks to people, the environment, and to wildlife. BLM should reject the mine, 

embark at once on reclamation of the previous disturbances, and let the land heal.

Sincerely,

Marybeth Devlin



June 11, 2012

Comments on the Lost Creek In Situ Uranium Recovery Project

Conservation District County of Sweetwater as promulgates prevent rights-of-way of R.S. 2477

authority of traces, trails, and/or roads of primarily unimproved routes of travel of citizens

right/entitlement to one from public land/mineral and/or surface estates in local jurisdiction is

asserted of District prerogative.

Of such prerogative is associated need to know more details, findings of authority of mining

claim/General Mining Law, Act of 1872 (as amended) concerning permitted authority of mineral

extraction and refinement in Sweetwater County per se. BLM bifurcation of operational

authorities, in contrast with essentially Sweetwater County base authority origin, is envisioned

avoidance of local autonomy in overview of permissible development of mineral values of local

economic concern. Review of Draft EIS document has been of insufficient time and public avail

in Federal Depository Library (especially necessary in timely review opportunity of local need)

prerequisite to closure of review of so vast a document as Lost Creek ISR, LLC/Applicant

supplied copy (via Mr. Tim Morrison liaison from the Little Snake River Conservation District) -

post forty-five (45) day scheduled examination period on May 3, 2012 - during regular scheduled

Sweetwater County Conservation District meeting, whereby insufficient review thereof has been

of local District conservation initiative in public record to facilitate appropriate perusal of

permissible mineral development as of required public scrutiny in District parameters.

Request is made to cause a special review discussion and evaluation of permitting processes at

issue. District of Sweetwater County is not of appropriate public record in examination of so vast

a local enterprise in privacy as centered in local district authority as may establish precedent in

mineral exploitation under local dominion. Recall of closure of comments period designated June

11, 2102 is of demand of need of District evaluation of mining law as is subject to local

governments as the source of origin of private rights established in valuable mineral discovery

under mining law as well as local origin of entitlement of mining claim. 

Robert LeFaivre