3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.4.3 2008 Order 1 Soil Survey 

The 2008 Order 1 soil survey was completed at the Plant site and MU1. A threeinch diameter hand-held soil auger was used to excavate soil pits up to a depth of 

60 inches or the C horizon (whichever was less). Thirty-two soil pits were 

excavated and described. The pit data and interpretations were then used to select 

ten larger soil profile excavations. Each profile excavation was approximately 15 

feet long, five feet deep, and four to five feet wide. 

Based on these more detailed survey results, three soil series were identified at the 

Plant Site and MU1: Pepal Sandy Loam, Poposhia Loam, and Teagulf Sandy 

Loam. Detailed soils maps were created for the Plant Site and MU1 (Figures

3.4-3 and 3.4-4, respectively). Soil samples were analyzed for six of the soil 

profiles. Laboratory samples were analyzed for WDEQ Guideline No. 1 (1994a)

soil texture and soil fertility parameters by Energy Laboratories in Casper, 

Wyoming. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 3.4-2.

All of the soil types are favorable media for plant growth. Based on the survey 

results, the Pepal Sandy Loam provides 14 to 18 inches of suitable topsoil; the 

Poposhia Loam provides about 19 to 24 inches of suitable topsoil; and the Teagulf 

Sandy Loam provides about six to 12 inches of suitable topsoil (Figure 3.4-5).

No groundwater was encountered at any of the sampling sites. The complete 

report for the Plant site is included in Attachment OP-5a in the main portion of 

the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine, and the complete report for MU1 is included in 

Attachment MU1 3-1 of the MU1 documents in the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine 

(LCI, 2011b).

3.4.4 2009 Order 1 Soil Survey 

The 2009 Order 1 soil survey was completed for the deep injection well sites and 

access corridors within the main Permit Area. A sharpshooter spade and a bucket 

auger were used to excavate soil pits and characterize the soils. Fifteen locations 

were selected for backhoe profile excavations (Figure 3.4-6 through Figure 

3.4-10). These fifteen profiles were described, documented, and sampled. 

Samples from fourteen of the soil profiles were analyzed, and the results are 

presented in Table 3.4-3.

The three soil series identified were the same as in the 2008 Order 1 soil survey: 

Pepal Sandy Loam, Teagulf Sandy Loam, and Poposhia Loam (Figure 3.4-11).

Based on the survey results, the average recommended topsoil salvage depth is 16 

inches for the Pepal Sandy Loam, 22 inches for the Poposhia Loam, and ten 

inches for the Teagulf Sandy Loam. These depths are similar to those of the 2008 

Order 1 soil survey. No groundwater was encountered at any of the sampling 

sites. The complete report for the 2009 survey is included in Attachment OP-5b 

of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 2011b).

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.4-9

July 2012 
3.4-10 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
July 2012 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.4-11
Table 3.4-2 Soil Sam

plin

g Results, 2008 Order 1 Soil Surve

y

3.4-12 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
July 2012 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.4-13 
3.4-14 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
July 2012 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.4-15
3.4-16 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
July 2012 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.4-17
3.4-18 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
Table 3.4-3 Soil Sampling Results, 2009 Order 1 Soil Survey (Page 1 of 6)

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.4-19

July 2012
3.4-20 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN Table 3.4-3 Soil Sampling Results, 2009 Order 1 Soil Survey (Page 2 of 6)

-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
Table 3.4-3 Soil Sampling Results, 2009 Order 1 Soil Survey (Page 3 of 6) 

J

F

ul

I

y

N

 20

AL

12

 EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.4-21
3.4-22 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – Table 3.4-3 Soil Sampling Results, 2009 Order 1 Soil Survey (Page 4 of 6)

Jul

VOL

y 20

UM

12

E I 
Table 3.4-3 Soil Sampling Results, 2009 Order 1 Soil Survey (Page 5 of 6)

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.4-23

July 2012 
Table 3.4-3 Soil Sampling Results, 2009 Order 1 Soil Survey (Page 6 of 6)

3.4-24 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
July 2012 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.4-25
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.4.5 2009 Order 3 Soil Survey 

The 2009 Order 3 soil survey was conducted along the East and West Access 

Roads. Because the study area for the Order 3 survey of the East and West Roads 

was narrow, the survey was conducted by driving and walking along the existing 

two-track that bisects the study area. All soils within five feet of each side of the 

centerline of the two-track were classified as disturbed. Survey results indicated 

the remainder of the 100-foot-wide corridor Pepal Sandy Loam, Poposhia Loam, 

or Teagulf Sandy Loam, the three soil types that had previously been identified 

within the main Permit Area. A soil map was created and is presented in Figures

3.4-12 and 3.4-13. Detailed descriptions of the three soil types are presented with 

the Order 1 survey results. 

3.4.6 Areas of Limited Reclamation Potential and Prior 

Surface Disturbance 

No areas of Limited Reclamation Potential, as defined in the Wyoming 

Reclamation Policy (BLM, 2009b), have been identified in the areas to be 

disturbed. As discussed in Section 3.7, slopes are gentle, and no cliffs or rock 

outcrops are present. The geological substrates do not change abruptly across the 

site (Section 3.3), and topsoil and subsoil depths are sufficient to support 

vegetation. The weather conditions, with the potential for wind scour and 

freezing and thawing cycles, require careful soil protection and reclamation 

practices. 

The soil sample results were within the WDEQ-LQD topsoil suitability guidelines 

(WDEQ-LQD, 1994a), with a few exceptions that were close to the criteria. No

areas of seleniferous soils were found, as evidenced by the lack of selenium 

indicator vegetation species (Section 3.7.6) and low selenium concentrations in 

the soil samples (Tables 3.4-1 through 3.4-3), which were all below the WDEQLQD topsoil suitability limit (0.1 parts per million [ppm]). Boron concentrations 

were also all below the suitability limit (5 ppm). None of the pH results for the 

topsoil samples were outside the suitability range (5.5 to 8.5). Of the subsoil 

samples, six were above the pH range with the highest value at 8.8, but these were 

at disperse locations. None of the electrical conductivity results for the topsoil or 

subsoil samples were outside the suitability range (0 to 8 millimhos per centimeter 

[mmhos/cm]). Six topsoil and seven subsoil samples were below the suitability 

range for saturation (25 to 85 percent), with the lowest value at 20%. No topsoil 

samples were outside the Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) suitability range (0 to 

10), and three subsoil samples had SAR values up to 12.1. 

3.4-26 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
July 2012 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.4-27
3.4-28 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

There was surface disturbance prior to LCI exploration within the Permit Area. 

Most of this disturbance was due to historical exploration activities for oil and 

gas, as well as for uranium, and to livestock and wildlife grazing. The primary 

historic surface disturbance activities included vehicle traffic and drilling-related 

actions. These activities compacted the soils along two-track roads and at drilling 

sites, resulting in limited infiltration rates and decreased the vegetation regrowth 

in those areas. The road surfaces have little to no organic matter, and most of the 

topsoil has been eroded from them. Approximately 26 miles of existing roads 

rea (Figure 3.4-14 and 

t the roads range from 

were delineated from the 2002 aerial photo of the Permit A

Figure 3.4-15). 

6.9 to 9.4 feet w

 Field measurements in 2007 indicate tha

ide. Using a default width of ten feet, the disturbance associated 

with the existing two-track roads is on the order of 31 acres. A few of these roads 

may still be used by grazing lessees, hunters, and for on-going exploration 

activities. Evidence of abandoned drill sites is more difficult to delineate, but 

numerous small areas are evident on the aerial photograph. The extent of the 

historic disturbance in areas to be redisturbed and then reclaimed as part of the 

proposed action is limited and is not anticipated to interfere with the reclamation. 

Figure 3.4-14 Typical Two-Track Road within the Permit Area 

* prior to LCI activities 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.4-29

July 2012 
3.4-30 FINAL EIS 

– LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT –

Jul

VOL

y 20

UM

12

E I