TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3-i 

April 2012

Table of Contents 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................... 3-1

3.1 Land Use ............................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.1.1 Historic and Existing Land Use .................................................. 3.1-1

3.1.1.1 Livestock Grazing ............................................................... 3.1-1

3.1.1.2 Wildlife Habitat .................................................................. 3.1-4

3.1.1.3 Dispersed Recreation .......................................................... 3.1-7

3.1.1.4 Minerals and Energy Development .................................... 3.1-8

3.1.1.5 Infrastructure ..................................................................... 3.1-16

3.1.1.6 Wilderness Characteristics ................................................ 3.1-18

3.1.2 Planned Land Use ..................................................................... 3.1-19

3.1.2.1 Minerals and Energy Development .................................. 3.1-19

3.1.2.2 Infrastructure ..................................................................... 3.1-20

3.2 Transportation ....................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.1 Regional Transportation Corridors ............................................. 3.2-1

3.2.2 On-site Transportation Corridors ............................................... 3.2-4

3.3 Geology, Ore Mineralogy, and Seismology ......................................... 3.3-1

3.3.1 Regional Geology ....................................................................... 3.3-1

3.3.1.1 Stratigraphy ......................................................................... 3.3-1

3.3.1.2 Structure .............................................................................. 3.3-8

3.3.2 Permit Area and Mine Unit Geology ......................................... 3.3-8

3.3.2.1 Ore-Bearing and Associated Formations in the Main Permit 

Area ..................................................................................... 3.3-9

3.3.2.2 Ore-Bearing and Associated Formations in MU1 ............ 3.3-10

3.3.2.3 Deeper Formations Evaluated for UIC Class I Wells ....... 3.3-10

3.3.2.4 Stratigraphy ....................................................................... 3.3-10

3.3.2.5 Ore-Bearing and Associated Formations - Main Permit 

Area ................................................................................... 3.3-11

3.3.2.6 Deeper Formations Evaluated for UIC Class I Wells ....... 3.3-14

3.3.2.7 Structure ............................................................................ 3.3-14

3.3.3 Ore Mineralogy and Geochemistry .......................................... 3.3-15

3.3.4 Seismology ............................................................................... 3.3-17

3.3.4.1 Historic Seismicity ............................................................ 3.3-17

3.3.4.2 UBC and International Building Code .............................. 3.3-22

3.3.4.3 Deterministic Analysis of Active Fault Systems .............. 3.3-23

3.3.4.4 Maximum Tectonic Province Earthquake “Floating 

Earthquake” Seismogenic Source ..................................... 3.3-25

3.3.4.5 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and IBC ............... 3.3-25

3.4 Soils....................................................................................................... 3.4-1

3.4.1 2006 Order 3 Soil Survey ........................................................... 3.4-2

3.4.2 2008 Geotechnical Study ............................................................ 3.4-2

3.4.3 2008 Order 1 Soil Survey ........................................................... 3.4-9

3.4.4 2009 Order 1 Soil Survey ........................................................... 3.4-9

3.4.5 2009 Order 3 Soil Survey ......................................................... 3.4-26
TABLE OF CONTENTS

3-ii DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

3.4.6 Areas of Limited Reclamation Potential and Prior Surface 

Disturbance ........................................................................................... 3.4-26

3.5 Surface Waters, Wetlands and Aquatic Ecology .................................. 3.5-1

3.5.1 Surface Waters ........................................................................... 3.5-1

3.5.1.1 Surface Water Features ....................................................... 3.5-2

3.5.1.2 Streamflow .......................................................................... 3.5-7

3.5.1.3 Surface Water Quality......................................................... 3.5-8

3.5.1.4 Surface Water Uses ........................................................... 3.5-11

3.5.2 Wetlands ................................................................................... 3.5-18

3.5.3 USACE Jurisdiction ................................................................. 3.5-20

3.5.4 Aquatic Ecology ....................................................................... 3.5-20

3.6 Groundwater ......................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.1 Regional Groundwater Hydrology ............................................. 3.6-1

3.6.1.1 Lewis Shale ......................................................................... 3.6-3

3.6.1.2 Fox Hills Formation ............................................................ 3.6-3

3.6.1.3 Lance Formation ................................................................. 3.6-3

3.6.1.4 Fort Union Formation ......................................................... 3.6-4

3.6.1.5 Battle Spring Formation-Wasatch Formation ..................... 3.6-4

3.6.1.6 Undifferentiated Tertiary and Quaternary Sediments ......... 3.6-6

3.6.2 Site Groundwater Hydrology ..................................................... 3.6-8

3.6.2.1 Hydrostratigraphic Units ................................................... 3.6-15

3.6.2.2 Potentiometric Surfaces .................................................... 3.6-17

3.6.2.3 Aquifer Testing ................................................................. 3.6-24

3.6.3 Groundwater Use ...................................................................... 3.6-37

3.6.3.1 BLM Wells........................................................................ 3.6-37

3.6.3.2 LCI Wells .......................................................................... 3.6-48

3.6.4 Groundwater Quality ................................................................ 3.6-48

3.6.4.1 Regional Groundwater Quality ......................................... 3.6-48

3.6.4.2 Site Groundwater Quality, Ore-Bearing and Associated 

Aquifers 3.6-50

3.6.4.3 MU1 Groundwater Quality, Ore-Bearing and Associated 

Aquifers 3.6-78

3.6.4.4 Site Groundwater Quality, Deeper Formations Evaluated for 

UIC Class I Wells ............................................................................ 3.6-78

3.7 Vegetation ............................................................................................. 3.7-1

3.7.1 Vegetation Studies Performed .................................................... 3.7-1

3.7.2 Results of Vegetation Studies Performed ................................... 3.7-7

3.7.2.1 Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland Type .............................. 3.7-7

3.7.2.2 Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland Type ......................... 3.7-17

3.7.2.3 Endangered or Threatened Species ................................... 3.7-18

3.7.2.4 Weeds and Vegetation Communities with Limited Reclamation 

Potential ............................................................................ 3.7-22

3.8 Wildlife ................................................................................................. 3.8-1

3.8.1 Habitat Description and Wildlife Species .................................. 3.8-1

3.8.2 Methods ...................................................................................... 3.8-2

3.8.2.1 File and Data Searches ........................................................ 3.8-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3-iii 

April 2012

3.8.2.2 Field Surveys .................................................................... 3.8-21

3.8.3 Results ...................................................................................... 3.8-21

3.8.3.1 Big Game .......................................................................... 3.8-21

3.8.3.2 Greater Sage-grouse .......................................................... 3.8-26

3.8.3.3 Raptors .............................................................................. 3.8-37

3.8.3.4 Waterfowl and Shorebirds ................................................ 3.8-40

3.8.3.5 Passerine and Breeding Birds ........................................... 3.8-40

3.8.3.6 Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest ......................... 3.8-41

3.8.3.7 Other Mammals ................................................................ 3.8-42

3.8.3.8 Federal T&E Species, BLM Special Status Species, and StateListed Species of Concern ................................................ 3.8-42

3.8.3.9 Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................. 3.8-54

3.8.3.10 Fish and Aquatic Life........................................................ 3.8-54

3.9 Wild Horses .......................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.10Meteorology, Climatology and Air Quality ........................................ 3.10-1

3.10.1 Meteorology and Climatology .................................................. 3.10-1

3.10.1.1 Temperature ...................................................................... 3.10-3

3.10.1.2 Precipitation ...................................................................... 3.10-6

3.10.1.3 Humidity and Evaporation ................................................ 3.10-7

3.10.1.4 Wind, Mixing, and Stability.............................................. 3.10-8

3.10.1.5 Comparison of Local and Regional Data .......................... 3.10-8

3.10.1.6 Violent Weather .............................................................. 3.10-12

3.10.1.7 Climate Change ............................................................... 3.10-13

3.10.2 Air Quality - Non-Radiological Parameters ........................... 3.10-13

3.10.2.1 Air Quality Standards ..................................................... 3.10-13

3.10.2.2 Air Particulate Sampling ................................................. 3.10-16

3.10.2.3 Greenhouse Gases ........................................................... 3.10-18

3.11Noise ................................................................................................... 3.11-1

3.11.1 Definition .................................................................................. 3.11-1

3.11.2 Ambient Noise in the Permit Area ........................................... 3.11-1

3.12Historic and Cultural Resources ......................................................... 3.12-1

3.12.1 Overview of Historic and Cultural Setting ............................... 3.12-1

3.12.2 Archaeological Surveys ............................................................ 3.12-2

3.12.2.1 Archaeological Survey Results ......................................... 3.12-3

3.12.3 Agency and Public Consultation .............................................. 3.12-3

3.12.3.1 State Historic Preservation Office .................................... 3.12-3

3.12.3.2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...................................... 3.12-4

3.12.3.3 Bureau of Indian Affairs ................................................... 3.12-4

3.12.3.4 Tribal Governments .......................................................... 3.12-4

3.12.4 Paleontological Resources ........................................................ 3.12-5

3.13Visual and Scenic Resources .............................................................. 3.13-1

3.13.1 Visual and Scenic Classifications ............................................. 3.13-1

3.13.2 Visual and Scenic Quality of the Permit Area ......................... 3.13-3

3.14Socioeconomic Conditions ................................................................. 3.14-1

3.14.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 3.14-1

3.14.2 Study Area ................................................................................ 3.14-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

3-iv DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

3.14.3 Demographics ........................................................................... 3.14-1

3.14.4 Economic Trends and Characteristics .................................... 3.14-11

3.14.4.1 Gross Domestic Product ................................................. 3.14-11

3.14.4.2 Revenue and Taxation..................................................... 3.14-14

3.14.4.3 Labor and Employment................................................... 3.14-19

3.14.4.4 Income............................................................................. 3.14-22

3.14.4.5 Cost of Living ................................................................. 3.14-23

3.14.4.6 Housing ........................................................................... 3.14-25

3.14.5 Infrastructure and Services ..................................................... 3.14-29

3.14.5.1 Education ........................................................................ 3.14-29

3.14.5.2 Health Care ..................................................................... 3.14-30

3.14.5.3 Law Enforcement and Fire Protection ............................ 3.14-31

3.14.5.4 Communications ............................................................. 3.14-31

3.14.5.5 Utilities ............................................................................ 3.14-32

3.14.5.6 Recreation ....................................................................... 3.14-32

3.15Background Radiology ....................................................................... 3.15-1

3.15.1 Permit-Wide Gamma Radiation Survey and Initial Soil 

Sampling ................................................................................... 3.15-1

3.15.1.1 Methods............................................................................. 3.15-2

3.15.1.2 Results ............................................................................... 3.15-5

3.15.2 Radon, Passive Gamma, and Radiological Air Particulate 

Monitoring ................................................................................ 3.15-9

3.15.2.1 Radon and Passive Gamma Monitoring ........................... 3.15-9

3.15.2.2 Radiological Air Particulate Monitoring ........................ 3.15-13

3.15.3 Additional Radiological Studies ............................................. 3.15-16

3.15.3.1 Vegetation and Associated Surface Soil Sampling ......... 3.15-16

3.15.3.2 Soil Profile Sampling ...................................................... 3.15-16

3.15.3.3 Sediment Sampling ......................................................... 3.15-20

3.15.3.4 Food and Fish Sampling ................................................. 3.15-20

List of Figures 

Figure 3.1-1 Land Ownership .................................................................. 3.1-2

Figure 3.1-2 BLM Grazing Allotments ................................................... 3.1-3

Figure 3.1-3 Wildlife Habitat Areas ........................................................ 3.1-5

Figure 3.1-4 Uranium Mines and Mills of the Project Region ................ 3.1-9

Figure 3.1-5 Planned Land Use of the Project Region .......................... 3.1-11

Figure 3.1-6 Mineral Claims within the Permit Area ............................ 3.1-12

Figure 3.1-7 Oil and Gas Leases within the Permit Area ...................... 3.1-14

Figure 3.1-8 Wyoming Pipeline Infrastructure ...................................... 3.1-17

Figure 3.2-1 Regional Transportation Network....................................... 3.2-2

Figure 3.3-1 Regional Geology ............................................................... 3.3-2

Figure 3.3-2 Geologic Cross Section Schematic ..................................... 3.3-6

Figure 3.3-3 Stratigraphic Column, Upper Battle Spring Formation ...... 3.3-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3-v 

April 2012

Figure 3.3-4 Stratigraphic Illustration of Battle Spring Aquifer and 

Aquicludes ........................................................................ 3.3-12

Figure 3.3-5 Historical Seismic Activities in Wyoming ....................... 3.3-19

Figure 3.3-6 Seismic Zones in Wyoming .............................................. 3.3-23

Figure 3.3-7 Active Fault Systems in the Vicinity of the Permit Area .. 3.3-24

Figure 3.3-8 500-Year Probabilistic Acceleration Map of Wyoming ... 3.3-27

Figure 3.3-9 2,500-Year Probabilistic Acceleration Map of Wyoming 3.3-27

Figure 3.4-1 Order 3 Soil Survey ............................................................ 3.4-3

Figure 3.4-2 Photographs of 2006 Soil Survey Sampling Points ............ 3.4-8

Figure 3.4-3 Detailed Soil Survey Map, Plant Site, September 2008 ... 3.4-10

Figure 3.4-4 Detailed Soil Survey Map, Mine Unit 1, September 2008 3.4-11

Figure 3.4-5 Photographs of 2008 Soil Survey Sampling Points .......... 3.4-13

Figure 3.4-6 Sampling Locations Map - NW ........................................ 3.4-14

Figure 3.4-7 Sampling Locations Map – Center 1 ................................ 3.4-15

Figure 3.4-8 Sampling Locations Map – Center 2 ................................ 3.4-16

Figure 3.4-9 Sampling Locations Map – NE ......................................... 3.4-17

Figure 3.4-10 Sampling Locations Map - SE .......................................... 3.4-18

Figure 3.4-11 Photographs of 2009 Soil Survey Sampling Points .......... 3.4-25

Figure 3.4-12 Soil Survey Map for East Road ........................................ 3.4-28

Figure 3.4-13 Soil Survey Map for West Road ....................................... 3.4-29

Figure 3.4-14 Typical Two-Track Road within the Permit Area ............ 3.4-30

Figure 3.4-15 Existing Disturbance ......................................................... 3.4-31

Figure 3.5-1 Surface Drainages of the Main Permit Area ....................... 3.5-3

Figure 3.5-2 Surface Drainages of the East and West Roads .................. 3.5-4

Figure 3.5-3 Longitudinal Profiles of the Main Permit Area’s Principle 

Drainages ............................................................................ 3.5-5

Figure 3.5-4 Crooked Well Reservoir ..................................................... 3.5-6

Figure 3.5-5 Typical Snowmelt Runoff ................................................... 3.5-7

Figure 3.5-6 Storm Water Sampler .......................................................... 3.5-9

Figure 3.5-7 Storm Water Sampler Locations ....................................... 3.5-10

Figure 3.5-8 Potential Wetlands Delineated by NWI ............................ 3.5-19

Figure 3.5-9 NWI Potential Wetland in T25N, R93W, Section 24 ....... 3.5-21

Figure 3.5-10 NWI Potential Wetland at BLM Battle Spring Draw Well No. 

4451................................................................................... 3.5-22

Figure 3.6-1 Regional Hydrostratigraphic Units of Interest .................... 3.6-2

Figure 3.6-2 Potentiometric Surface, Tertiary Aquifer System ............... 3.6-5

Figure 3.6-3 Potentiometric Surface, Wasatch/Battle Spring Aquifers ... 3.6-7

Figure 3.6-4 Early Lost Creek Monitor Well Locations.......................... 3.6-9

Figure 3.6-5 Mine Unit 1 Monitor, Observation and Trend Well 

Locations ........................................................................... 3.6-14

Figure 3.6-6 DE Potentiometric Surface, 12/08/08 ............................... 3.6-18

Figure 3.6-7 LFG Potentiometric Surface, 12/08/08 ............................. 3.6-19

Figure 3.6-8 HJ Potentiometric Surface, 12/08/08 ................................ 3.6-20

Figure 3.6-9 UKM Potentiometric Surface, 12/08/08 ........................... 3.6-21

Figure 3.6-10 Potentiometric Surface, HJ Production Zone, August 1982 and 

October 2006 ..................................................................... 3.6-23
TABLE OF CONTENTS

3-vi DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Figure 3.6-11 Location of LC19M Pump Test and Monitoring Wells, 

2007................................................................................... 3.6-31

Figure 3.6-12 Drawdown in the HJ Aquifer at the End of the LC19M 

Pumping Test, 2007 .......................................................... 3.6-32

Figure 3.6-13 Location of LC16M Wells ................................................ 3.6-35

Figure 3.6-14 Drawdown in the HJ Aquifer Near the End of the LC16M 

Pump Test ......................................................................... 3.6-36

Figure 3.6-15 Groundwater-Use Permits within 3 Miles of the Permit 

Area ................................................................................... 3.6-44

Figure 3.6-16 BLM Boundary Well No. 4775 ........................................ 3.6-46

Figure 3.6-17 BLM Battle Spring Well No. 4777 ................................... 3.6-47

Figure 3.6-18 BLM East Eagle Nest Draw Well ..................................... 3.6-47

Figure 3.6-19 Distribution of Radium-226, August 1982 ....................... 3.6-51

Figure 3.6-20 Distribution of Uranium, August 1982 ............................. 3.6-52

Figure 3.6-21 Piper Diagram – Average Water Quality at Individual Monitor 

Wells ................................................................................. 3.6-72

Figure 3.6-22 Piper Diagram – Average Water Quality in Aquifer of 

Interest............................................................................... 3.6-73

Figure 3.6-23 Distribution of Average Radium-226 +228, September 2006 to 

July 2010 ........................................................................... 3.6-74

Figure 3.6-24 Distribution of Average Uranium, September 2006 to July 

2010................................................................................... 3.6-75

Figure 3.7-1 Vegetation of the Main Permit Area ................................... 3.7-2

Figure 3.7-2 Vegetation Communities Along the East Road .................. 3.7-3

Figure 3.7-3 Vegetation Communities Along the West Road ................. 3.7-4

Figure 3.7-4 Photo of the Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland ................ 3.7-12

Figure 3.7-5 Photo of the Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland .............. 3.7-17

Figure 3.8-1 Elk Ranges ........................................................................ 3.8-23

Figure 3.8-2 Mule Deer Range .............................................................. 3.8-24

Figure 3.8-3 Moose Ranges ................................................................... 3.8-25

Figure 3.8-4 State-Wide Greater Sage-Grouse Core Management 

Areas ................................................................................. 3.8-28

Figure 3.8-5 Regional Sage Grouse Core Management Areas .............. 3.8-29

Figure 3.8-6 Sage Grouse Study Areas.................................................. 3.8-30

Figure 3.8-7 Sage Grouse Leks ............................................................. 3.8-31

Figure 3.8-8 Raptor Nests, 2007 Status ................................................. 3.8-38

Figure 3.8-9 Raptor Nests near the Permit Area, 2011.......................... 3.8-39

Figure 3.8-10 Location of Pygmy Rabbit Burrows and Pellets ............... 3.8-47

Figure 3.8-11 Wyoming Pocket Gopher Distribution ............................. 3.8-49

Figure 3.8-12 Wyoming Pocket Gopher Survey ..................................... 3.8-50

Figure 3.9-1 Wild Horse Management Areas of the Permit Area ........... 3.9-2

Figure 3.10-1 Meteorological Stations within 50 Miles of the Permit 

Area ................................................................................... 3.10-2

Figure 3.10-2 Lost Creek Meteorological Station, May 2007 ................. 3.10-4

Figure 3.10-3 Total Monthly Precipitation .............................................. 3.10-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3-vii 

April 2012

Figure 3.10-4 Wind Speed and Direction at the LC Meteorological 

Station ............................................................................... 3.10-9

Figure 3.10-5 Stability Class Distribution at the LC Meteorological 

Station ............................................................................. 3.10-10

Figure 3.10-6 Comparison of Average Daily Temperatures ................. 3.10-10

Figure 3.10-7 MiniVol Air Particulate Sampler, February 2007 ........... 3.10-16

Figure 3.10-8 Non-Radiological Air Particulate Sampling Locations .. 3.10-17

Figure 3.13-1 Flow chart of the BLM Visual Resource Management process 

(From BLM Manual 8400) ............................................... 3.13-2

Figure 3.13-2 Visual Resources Map ...................................................... 3.13-4

Figure 3.13-3 View from Center of Permit Area, October 2011 

(Page 1 of 2) ...................................................................... 3.13-5

Figure 3.14-1 Socioeconomic Study Area ............................................... 3.14-2

Figure 3.14-2 Historic and Projected Decennial Population, .................. 3.14-3

Figure 3.14-3 Population Change Factors, 1971 to 2008 ........................ 3.14-5

Figure 3.14-4 Population Change, 1971 to 2008 ..................................... 3.14-6

Figure 3.14-5 Population by Age and Gender, 2009 ............................... 3.14-7

Figure 3.14-6 GDP by Industry, 1977 to 1997 ...................................... 3.14-12

Figure 3.14-7 GDP by Industry, 1997 to 2008 ...................................... 3.14-13

Figure 3.14-8 Full-Time and Part-Time Employment, 1969 to 2008 .... 3.14-21

Figure 3.14-9 Wyoming Cost of Living Categories and their Weights, 

4Q09 ................................................................................ 3.14-23

Figure 3.14-10 House Values, 2000 ........................................................ 3.14-27

Figure 3.14-11 Annual Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits, 1987 

to 2009 ............................................................................ 3.14-28

Figure 3.15-1 Equipment Used for the Gamma Survey .......................... 3.15-2

Figure 3.15-2 Gamma Survey Results and Initial Soil Sampling Locations 

and Results ........................................................................ 3.15-6

Figure 3.15-3 Correlation of Gamma Scan and Soil Sampling Results .. 3.15-8

Figure 3.15-4 Equipment for Radon and Gamma Monitoring (Location PR-2) 

and HiVol Particulate Sampling (Location HV-3) ........... 3.15-9

Figure 3.15-5 Radon, Passive Gamma and Radiological Air Particulate 

Sampling Locations, 2010 to 2011 ................................. 3.15-10

Figure 3.15-6 Locations of 2009 Vegetation and Soil Sampling for 

Radiological Parameters ................................................. 3.15-17

Figure 3.15-7 Soil Profile Sampling Locations ..................................... 3.15-19

Figure 3.15-8 Sediment Sampling Locations ........................................ 3.15-21

List of Tables 

Table 3.2-1 Local and Regional Roads .................................................. 3.2-3

Table 3.2-2 Traffic Safety Data .............................................................. 3.2-4

Table 3.3-1 Permit Area Stratigraphy (Page 1 of 3) ............................... 3.3-3

Table 3.3-2 Leach Amenability ............................................................ 3.3-17

Table 3.4-1 Soil Sampling Results, 2006 Order 3 Soil Survey .............. 3.4-4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

3-viii DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.4-2 Soil Sampling Results, 2008 Order 1 Soil Survey ............ 3.4-12

Table 3.4-3 Soil Sampling Results, 2009 Order 1 Soil Survey ............ 3.4-19

Table 3.5-1 Historic Surface Water Data – Battle Spring Draw ............ 3.5-9

Table 3.5-2 Surface Water Quality Data (Page 1 of 5) ........................ 3.5-12

Table 3.5-3 Surface Water Rights within Three Miles of the Main Permit 

Area ................................................................................... 3.5-17

Table 3.6-1 Permit Area Monitor Well Data (Page 1 of 4) ................. 3.6-10

Table 3.6-2 Mine Unit 1 Monitor, Observation and Trend Wells ........ 3.6-15

Table 3.6-3 Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients ........................................ 3.6-24

Table 3.6-4 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients (Page 1 of 4) ...................... 3.6-25

Table 3.6-5 Summary of Aquifer Characteristics ................................ 3.6-29

Table 3.6-6 Groundwater-Use Permits within a 3-Mile Radius, WSEO 

Records, December 2008 (Page 1 of 6) ............................ 3.6-38

Table 3.6-7 BLM Battle Springs Draw Well No. 4451 Laboratory Results 

(Page 1 of 2) ...................................................................... 3.6-45

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 1 of 17)3.6-54

Table 3.6-9 State and Federal Groundwater Quality Criteria for Specified 

Parameters ......................................................................... 3.6-71

Table 3.6-10 Summary of Stratigraphy and Water Quality ................... 3.6-79

Table 3.7-1 Vegetation Sampling Locations and Site Information 

(Page 1 of 2) ........................................................................ 3.7-5

Table 3.7-2 Rare Plant Species in Sweetwater County .......................... 3.7-8

Table 3.7-3 List of Vegetation Species Observed (Page 1 of 2) .......... 3.7-10

Table 3.7-4 Cover Parameters of the Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

(Page 1 of 3) ...................................................................... 3.7-13

Table 3.7-5 Shrub, Semi-Shrub, and Cactus Densities of the Upland Big 

Sagebrush Shrubland ........................................................ 3.7-16

Table 3.7-6 Cover Parameters of the Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

(Page 1 of 3) ...................................................................... 3.7-19

Table 3.8-1 Wildlife Species Observed or Potentially Occurring in the 

Permit Area (Page 1 of 18) ................................................. 3.8-3

Table 3.8-2 Relative Abundance of Big Game Observations .............. 3.8-22

Table 3.8-3 Greater Sage-grouse Lek Counts (Page 1 of 5) ................ 3.8-32

Table 3.8-4 Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the 

Permit Area (Page 1 of 3) ................................................. 3.8-44

Table 3.8-5 Wildlife Species of Special Concern (Page 1 of 2) ........... 3.8-52

Table 3.10-1 Temperature Data, Degrees Fahrenheit ............................ 3.10-5

Table 3.10-2 Humidity (Percent) at the LC Meteorological Station ...... 3.10-7

Table 3.10-3 Monthly Estimated Pan Evaporation (Inches) at Seminoe Dam, 

1948 to 2005 ..................................................................... 3.10-7

Table 3.10-4 Comparison of Average Total Monthly Precipitation 

(Inches) ........................................................................... 3.10-11

Table 3.10-5 Comparison of Wind Speed and Direction ..................... 3.10-12

Table 3.10-6 Primary and Secondary Limits for NAAQS and the State of 

Wyoming......................................................................... 3.10-14
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3-ix 

April 2012

Table 3.10-7 Allowable Increments for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality............................................ 3.10-15

Table 3.10-8 PM10 Concentrations ....................................................... 3.10-18

Table 3.10-9 Estimated Annual Emissions from Current Activities 

(tons/year) ....................................................................... 3.10-19

Table 3.11-1 Ambient Noise Field Measurements at the Plant Site ...... 3.11-2

Table 3.14-1 Population, 1990 to 2030 .................................................. 3.14-4

Table 3.14-2 Population by Race, 2000 ................................................. 3.14-8

Table 3.14-3 School Enrollment, 2002 ................................................ 3.14-10

Table 3.14-4 State General Fund Revenue, 2004 to 2009.................... 3.14-17

Table 3.14-5 County Sales and Use Tax Distribution, 2008 ................ 3.14-17

Table 3.14-6 Percentage of State Mineral Taxable Value by County, 

2008................................................................................. 3.14-18

Table 3.14-7 Wyoming State Investment, 2005 to 2009 ...................... 3.14-18

Table 3.14-8 Employment by Industry, 2000....................................... 3.14-20

Table 3.14-9 Household Income, 1999 ................................................ 3.14-22

Table 3.14-10 Wyoming Comparative Cost of Living Index, 4Q09 

Prices ............................................................................... 3.14-24

Table 3.14-11 Percent Annual Inflation Rates by Category, 2003 to 

2009................................................................................. 3.14-24

Table 3.14-12 General Housing Characteristics, 2000 ........................... 3.14-26

Table 3.15-1 Soil and Sediment Sampling Results ................................ 3.15-7

Table 3.15-2 Radon and Gamma Results ............................................ 3.15-11

Table 3.15-3 Air Particulate Results .................................................... 3.15-14

Table 3.15-4 Vegetation Sampling Results .......................................... 3.15-18

Table 3.15-5 Tissue Sampling Results ................................................. 3.15-22
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-1 

April 2012

3.6 Groundwater 

This section summarizes the regional and local groundwater hydrology, including 

hydrostratigraphy, groundwater flow patterns, hydraulic gradient and aquifer 

parameters. Data for this section of the report were obtained from the NRC 

Technical Report (LCI, 2010) and the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 2011b). 

3.6.1 Regional Groundwater Hydrology 

The Permit Area is located in the northeastern portion of the Great Divide Basin, 

a closed basin with all surface water flows toward the interior of the basin. 

Existing data suggest that groundwater flow within the Basin is also 

predominately toward the interior of the basin (Collentine et al., 1981; Welder and 

McGreevy, 1966; and Mason and Miller, 2005). The Green Mountains located to 

the northeast, the Rawlins Uplift, Rock Springs Uplift, and Creston Junction, 

located east, southwest, and southeast, respectively, from the Permit Area, were 

identified as major recharge areas for aquifers within the basin (Fisk, 1967). 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. 

Hydrologic units of interest within the northeast portion of the Basin are shown 

on the stratigraphic column in Figure 3.6-1 and further described below, from 

deepest to shallowest: 

x Lewis Shale (aquitard between Tertiary and Mesaverde aquifer systems); 

x Fox Hills Formation (Cretaceous); 

x Lance Formation (Tertiary aquifer system); 

x Fort Union Formation (Tertiary aquifer system); 

x Battle Spring Formation-Wasatch Formation (Tertiary aquifer system); 

x Undifferentiated Tertiary Formations (Upper Tertiary aquifer system, 

including Bridger, Uinta, Bishop Conglomerate, Browns Park, and South 

Pass); and 

x Undifferentiated Quaternary Deposits (Tertiary aquifer system). 

The Tertiary aquifer system has been identified as “the most important and most 

extensively distributed and accessible groundwater source in the study area” 

(Collentine et al., 1981). The term Tertiary aquifer system is used herein as the 

shallow Undifferentiated Quaternary Deposits through the Lance Formation. 

Although the Lance Formation is Cretaceous in age, Collentine et al. included it 

with the Tertiary aquifer system in the 1981 report, “Occurrence and 

Characteristics of Ground Water in the Great Divide and Washakie Basins, 

Wyoming”, and that convention was adopted by LCI for the Project. 

 
3.6-2 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-3 

April 2012

The Battle Spring Formation of the Tertiary aquifer system crops out over most of 

the northeast portion of the Basin; and the Quaternary deposits and Upper Tertiary 

aquifer systems are absent or minimal in extent. In the northeast portion of the 

Basin, the shallower aquifer systems (Quaternary and Upper Tertiary) are 

typically found along the margins of the Basin where the Battle Springs 

Formation is absent, and in localized areas can be a source of groundwater. 

Aquifers in formations deeper than the Lewis Shale are generally too deep to 

economically develop for water supply or have elevated total dissolved solid 

(TDS) concentrations that render them unusable for human consumption. 

However in the northeast portion of the Basin, near structural highs such as the 

Rawlins Uplift, these aquifer systems can be sources of groundwater in the 

vicinity of outcrops. 

3.6.1.1 Lewis Shale 

The Lewis Shale a regionally extensive aquitard in the Basin underlies the Fox 

Hills Formation (Collentine et al., 1981). This unit is described by Welder and 

McGreevey (1966) as light to dark gray, carbonaceous shale with beds of siltstone 

and very fine-grained sandstone. The Lewis Shale is up to 2,700 feet thick, 

generally increasing in thickness toward the east side of the Basin. In the Permit 

Area, the Lewis Shale is 1,200 feet thick. Small quantities of water may be 

available from the thin sandstone beds within this unit near the margins of the 

Basin. The Lewis Shale acts as the confining unit between the Tertiary and 

Mesaverde aquifer systems (Collentine et al., 1981). 

3.6.1.2 Fox Hills Formation 

The Fox Hills Formation overlies the Lewis Shale and consists of very finegrained sandstone, siltstone and coal beds. It is not considered to be an important 

aquifer in the Permit Area. 

3.6.1.3 Lance Formation 

Overlying the Fox Hills Formation is the Lance Formation, consisting 

predominately of very fine-to fine-grained lenticular, clayey, calcareous 

sandstone. Shale, coal and lignite beds are present within the formation, which 

reaches a maximum thickness of approximately 4,500 feet (Welder and 

McGreevy, 1966). In the Permit Area, the Lance Formation is approximately 

3,000 feet thick. 

Collentine et al. (1981) include the Lance Formation (Aquifer) as the lower-most 

aquifer within the Tertiary aquifer system. However, the Lance Aquifer is 

included as part of the Mesaverde aquifer system by Freethey and Cordy (1991). 

Several stock wells, located along the eastern outcrop area of the Basin, are 

completed in the Lance Aquifer. The stock wells have estimated yields of five to 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-4 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

30 gpm. Hydraulic conductivity for the Mesaverde aquifer system reported by 

Freethey and Cordy (1991) (which, by the authors’ designation, includes the Fox 

Hills Sandstone, Lewis Shale, and Mesaverde Group, in addition to the Lance 

Aquifer) is reported to range from 0.0003 to 2.2 feet per day (ft/d). 

3.6.1.4 Fort Union Formation 

The Paleocene-age Fort Union Formation is between the Lance Formation and the 

overlying Wasatch and Battle Spring Formations, reaching a maximum thickness 

of approximately 6,000 feet within the Great Divide/Washakie Basin area. In the 

Permit Area, it is approximately 4,650 feet thick. The Fort Union Formation is 

present at or near land surface in a band around the Rock Springs Uplift and in the 

northeastern corner of the Basin (Mason and Miller, 2005). The Fort Union 

Formation is described as fine- to coarse-grained sandstone with coal and 

carbonaceous shale. Siltstone and claystone are present in the upper part of the 

formation (Welder and McGreevy, 1966). 

A potentiometric surface map, prepared by Natfz (1996) that groups the Fort 

Union aquifer with the Battle Spring/Wasatch aquifers, shows inferred movement 

of groundwater toward the Basin’s center (Figure 3.6-2). 

The Fort Union aquifer is largely undeveloped and unknown as a source of 

groundwater supply except in areas where it occurs at shallow depths along the 

margins of the Basin. Well yields from the Fort Union aquifer within the Great 

Divide and Washakie Basins range from 3 to 300 gpm. Estimates of 

transmissivity for the Fort Union aquifer are highly variable, ranging from less 

than 3 square feet per day (ft2

/d) to325 ft2/d (Ahern et al., 1981) and (Collentine et 

al., 1981). 

3.6.1.5 Battle Spring Formation-Wasatch Formation 

The most important water-bearing aquifers within the Basin are in the Wasatch 

Formation and the Battle Spring Formation. The Wasatch and Green River 

Formations grade into the Battle Spring Formation in the northeastern portion of 

the Basin. The Battle Spring Formation is absent along the eastern margin of the 

Basin, near the county line between Sweetwater and Carbon Counties. The 

termination of the Battle Spring Formation to the east and north is abrupt, 

controlled largely by structural features, including the Rawlins Uplift to the east 

and the Green Mountains to the north. A dry oil test in Section 14, Township 24 

North, Range 90 West, located within a few miles of the eastern limit of the Battle 

Spring Formation, had a reported thickness of over 6,000 feet of fine- to coarsegrained sandstone that was interpreted by the American Stratigraphic Company as 

the Battle Spring Formation. Within the Permit Area, the Battle Spring Formation 

is over 6,200 feet thick. Figure 3.3-1 shows the regional geology of the area. 

 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-5 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-6 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

The Battle Spring Formation is described as an arkosic fine- to coarse-grained 

sandstone with claystone and minor conglomerates. There are typically several 

water-bearing sands within the Battle Spring Formation. The Battle Spring 

aquifers are included in the Tertiary aquifer system, as defined by Collentine et al. 

(1981). 

Groundwater within the Battle Spring aquifers is typically under confined 

conditions, although locally unconfined conditions exist. The potentiometric 

surface within the Battle Spring aquifers is usually within 200 feet of the ground 

surface (Welder and McGreevy, 1966). Most wells drilled for water supply in 

this unit are less than 1,000 feet deep. The potentiometric surface map of 

Wasatch and Battle Spring aquifers (Figure 3.6-3) indicates groundwater 

movement toward the center of the Basin (Welder and McGreevy, 1966). From 

the Permit Area, the potentiometric surface dips to the southwest at approximately 

50 feet per mile (ft/mile) (a hydraulic gradient of 0.01 feet per foot [ft/ft]). The 

hydraulic gradient becomes steeper near the margins of the Basin, where recharge 

to the aquifer is occurring. 

Wells completed in the Battle Spring aquifers typically yield 30 to 40 gpm; but 

yields as high as 150 gpm are possible. Pump tests conducted on 26 wells 

completed within the Battle Spring aquifers resulted in transmissivity values 

ranging from 3.9 to 423 ft2

/d, although most wells were less than 67 ft2/d. 

Specific capacity was less than one gallon per minute per foot for 23 of the 26 

wells tested (Collentine, et al., 1981). 

3.6.1.6 Undifferentiated Tertiary and Quaternary Sediments 

Undifferentiated Tertiary and Quaternary units above the Battle Spring/Wasatch 

Formations can be sources of water supply; but wells in the northeastern portion 

of the Basin are rare and generally limited to the margins of the Basin, where the 

Battle Spring Formation is not present. Commonly, along the margins of the 

Basin, hydrostratigraphic units younger than the Battle Spring/Wasatch have been 

deposited on rocks of Cretaceous age or older. Water supply wells along the 

margins of the Basin are often completed in both the older hydrostratigraphic 

units and Tertiary and Quaternary sediments. Water quality within these units 

tends to be variable and available resources of good quality water are limited. 

The undifferentiated Tertiary units consist of interbedded claystone, sandstone 

and conglomerate, with the coarser grained facies providing suitable groundwater 

resources where present. The undifferentiated Tertiary units are absent within the 

Permit Area and are not discussed further. 

 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-7 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-8 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

The undifferentiated Quaternary units consist of clay, silt, sand, gravel and 

conglomerates that are poorly consolidated to unconsolidated (Welder and 

McGreevy, 1966). These units represent windblown, alluvial and lake deposits. 

Where present, these deposits can provide acceptable yields of groundwater of 

relatively good quality. Thin deposits of Quaternary sediments are present within 

surface drainages in the Permit Area but are usually above the water table and 

unsaturated. Therefore, Quaternary sediments are not an important groundwater 

source in the vicinity of the Project and are not described further. 

3.6.2 Site Groundwater Hydrology 

LCI has collected lithologic, water level, water quality, and pump test data as part 

of its ongoing evaluation of hydrologic conditions for the Permit Area and, most 

recently, for MU1. In addition to LCI’s data, historic data collected for Conoco 

were used to support this evaluation (Hydro-Search, Inc., 1982). Drilling and 

installation of borings and monitor wells would continue to provide additional 

data to further refine the site hydrologic conceptual model and provide detailed 

operating information for each mine unit. Water level measurements, both 

historic and recent, provide data to assess potentiometric surface, hydraulic 

gradients and inferred groundwater flow directions for the aquifers of interest at 

the Permit Area. Long-term pump test data conducted by LCI and several 

shorter-term pump tests (Hydro-Engineering, 2007), as well as the pump tests 

conducted for Conoco (Hydro-Search, Inc., 1982), were used to evaluate 

hydrologic properties of the aquifers of interest. The pump test data were used to 

assess hydraulic characteristics of the confining units, and to evaluate impacts to 

the hydrologic system of the Fault through the Permit Area. 

Figure 3.6-4 shows the locations of the historic Conoco (or Texasgulf) monitor 

wells (the M-25-92 series), and it shows the locations of the existing monitor 

wells that were used for baseline data collection and in the LC16M and LC19M 

pump tests. Table 3.6-1 provides completion data for the monitor wells currently 

in use. Attachment D6-3 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 2011b) 

includes well completion logs for those wells. Plate D5-3 in Appendix D5 of the 

WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine shows the locations of all the existing monitor wells 

in the Permit Area. Figure 3.6-5 shows the monitor well locations for MU1; and 

Table 3.6-2 is a list of those wells. 

 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-9 

April 2012
3.6-10 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-1 Permit Area Monitor Well Data (Page 1 of 4)
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-11 

April 2012 Table 3.6-1 Permit Area Monitor Well Data (Page 2 of 4)
3.6-12 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

3Table 3.6-1 Permit Area Monitor Well Data (Page 3 of 4)
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-13 

April 2012

DRATable 3.6-1 Permit Area Monitor Well Data (Page 4 of 4)
3.6-14 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-15 

April 2012

Table 3.6-2 Mine Unit 1 Monitor, Observation and Trend Wells 

Monitor Ring 

(M) Wells and 

Trend Well (TW) 1

Overlying 

Aquifer 

Monitor 

(MO) 

Wells 

Underlying 

Aquifer 

Monitor (MU) 

Wells and 

Observation 

Well (OW) 

Production 

Zone Monitor 

(MP) Wells 

M-101 M-116 MO-101 MU-101 MP-101 

M-102 M-117 MO-102 MU-102 MP-102 

M-103 M-118 MO-103 MU-103 MP-103 

M-104 M-119 MO-104 MU-104 MP-104 

M-105 M-120A 2 MO-105 MU-105 MP-105 

M-106 M-121 MO-106 MU-106 MP-106 

M-107 M-122 MO-107 MU-107 MP-107 

M-108 M-123 MO-108 KPW-2 4 MP-108 

M-109 M-124 MO-109 MU-109 MP-109 

M-110 M-125 MO-110 MU-110 MP-110 

M-111 M-126 MO-111 MU-111 MP-111 

M-112 M-127 MO-112 MU-112 MP-112 

M-113 M-128 MO-113 MU-113 MP-113 

M-114 TW1-1 MO-114 3 OW1-1 --- 

M-115 --- --- --- --- 

1

 Detailed monitor well information (e.g., well depths, screened intervals) provided in 

Attachment MU1 2-1 of the WDEQ-LQD MU1 documents (LCI, 2011b). 2

 Well M-120 failed the MIT, was properly abandoned and was replaced with well M120A. 3

 Well MO-114 was added to this list to ensure adequate monitoring near the Fault and 

associated splinter fault. 4

 Well MU-108 failed the MIT, was properly abandoned and replaced with well KPW-2, 

which was originally used as a pump test well within the same horizon as and 17 feet 

from well MU-108. 

3.6.2.1 Hydrostratigraphic Units 

As previously discussed in Section 3.3, the primary uranium production zone is 

identified as the HJ Horizon in the Battle Springs Formation. The HJ Horizon is 

subdivided into the Upper (UHJ), Middle (MHJ) and Lower (LHJ) Sands. The HJ 

Horizon is bounded above and below by aerially extensive confining units 

identified as the Lost Creek Shale and the Sage Brush Shale, respectively. 

Overlying the Lost Creek Shale is the FG Horizon. The deepest sand in the FG 

Horizon, the Lower FG (LFG) Sand, is the overlying aquifer to the HJ Horizon. 

Beneath the Sage Brush Shale is the KM Horizon. The uppermost sand within the 

KM Horizon, designated the Upper KM (UKM) sand, is a secondary production 

zone and also the underlying aquifer to the HJ Horizon. The No Name Shale unit 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-16 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

separates the UKM and Middle KM (MKM) Sand. The shallowest occurrence of 

groundwater within the Permit Area occurs within the DE Horizon, which is 

above the FG Horizon. A brief description of each hydrostratigraphic unit, from 

deepest to shallowest, is provided below and illustrated on a geophysical log on 

Figure 3.3-3. 

DE Horizon 

The DE Horizon is the shallowest occurrence of groundwater within the Permit 

Area, although the horizon is not saturated in all portions of the Permit Area. The 

depth to groundwater in the DE horizon has been measured from approximately 

155 feet to 257 feet below ground surface; however some of the monitor wells 

were occasionally dry during the monitoring events. The DE Horizon consists of a 

sequence of sands and discontinuous clay/shale units. In the southern portion of 

the Permit Area, sands of the DE Horizon coalesce with sands of the FG Horizon. 

The top of the unit ranges from 100 to 200 ft bgs (Figure 3.3-3). 

FG Horizon 

The top of the FG Horizon occurs at depths of approximately 250 to 300 ft bgs on 

the north side of the Fault and 275 to 350 ft bgs on the south side of the Fault 

within the Permit Area. The FG Horizon is subdivided into the Upper (UFG), 

Middle (MFG) and Lower (LFG) Sands (Figure 3.3-3). The total thickness of the 

FG Horizon is approximately 100 feet. The basal unit in the FG Horizon, the 

LFG Sand, ranges from 20 to 50 feet thick within the Permit Area. The LFG 

Sand is designated as the overlying aquifer for the HJ Horizon. 

Lost Creek Shale 

Underlying the FG Sands is the Lost Creek Shale. The Lost Creek Shale appears 

continuous across the Permit Area, ranging from five to 45 feet in thickness. 

Typically, this unit has a thickness of ten to 25 feet. The Lost Creek Shale is the 

confining unit between the overlying aquifer (LFG Sand) and the HJ Horizon 

(Figure 3.3-3). An isopach of the shale thickness is included as Plate D5-2a in 

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

the Lost Creek Shale have been demonstrated with a pump test. 

HJ Horizon 

The HJ Horizon is the primary target for uranium production at the Project. For 

purposes of uranium ISR operations, the HJ Horizon has been subdivided into 

three Sands: the Upper HJ (UHJ), Middle HJ (MHJ) and the Lower (LHJ) Sand 

(Figure 3.3-3). These sands are generally composed of coarse-grained arkosic 

sands with thin lenticular intervals of fine sand, mudstone and siltstone. The bulk 

of the uranium mineralization is present in the MHJ Sand. The total thickness of 

the HJ Horizon ranges from 100 to 160 feet, averaging approximately 120 feet. 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-17 

April 2012

The top of the HJ Horizon ranges from approximately 300 to 450 ft bgs within the 

Permit Area. The three sands are generally separated by thin clayey units that are 

not laterally extensive and, based on pump test results, do not act as confining 

units to prevent groundwater movement vertically between the HJ Sands. The 

underlying aquifer to the HJ Horizon is the UKM Sand. An isopach of the shale 

thickness is included as Plate D5-2b in the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 

2011b). 

Sage Brush Shale 

Beneath the HJ Horizon is the Sage Brush Shale, at depths ranging from 450 to 

550 ft bgs. The Sage Brush Shale is laterally extensive and ranges from five to 75 

feet in thickness (Figure 3.3-3). An isopach of the shale thickness is included as 

Plate D5-2c in the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 2011b). The Sage Brush 

Shale is the lower confining unit to the HJ Production Zone. The confining 

characteristics of this unit have been demonstrated through pump tests. 

UKM Sand 

The UKM Sand is present beneath the Sage Brush Shale. The UKM Sand is the 

upper member of the KM Horizon and is generally a massive coarse sandstone 

with lenticular fine sandstone intervals. The UKM Sand is the underlying aquifer 

to the HJ Horizon but is also a potential production zone within the Permit Area. 

The UKM Sand is typically 30 to 60 feet thick but can reach over 75 feet in 

thickness (Figure 3.3-3). An isopach of the shale thickness is included as Plate 

D5-2d in the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 2011b). The top of the UKM 

Sand is usually between 450 and 600 ft bgs within the Permit Area. 

No Name Shale 

The No Name Shale at the base of the UKM Sand has not yet been fully 

characterized. The top of the unit is approximately 480 to 650 ft bgs. This unit is 

generally 10 to 30 feet thick (Figure 3.3-3). 

3.6.2.2 Potentiometric Surfaces 

Potentiometric surfaces for the DE, LFG, HJ, and UKM Horizons in 2008 are 

illustrated as contour maps in Figure 3.6-6 through Figure 3.6-9. Table D6-6 in 

Appendix D6 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 2011b) lists static water 

level data recorded in 1982, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Based on the potentiometric 

surface maps, groundwater flow is to the west-southwest within the Permit Area, 

generally consistent with the regional flow system. 

 
3.6-18 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-19 

April 2012
3.6-20 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-21 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-22 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Based on the water level data collected for the HJ Horizon in the vicinity of the 

Fault, it is evident that the Fault provides a significant hydraulic barrier to 

groundwater flow. The potentiometric surface on the north side of the Fault is 5 

to 15 feet higher than on the south side. The difference in hydraulic head across 

the Fault becomes less to the northeast. HJ Horizon water level data from 1982 

and 2006 are shown on Figure 3.6-10. There are an insufficient number of data 

points to accurately represent the potentiometric surface for both those 

measurement periods. However, the data illustrate the difference in water levels 

within the HJ Horizon across the Fault. 

The steep gradient observed in the potentiometric surface from the north to the 

south side of the Fault is most likely a manifestation of a lower permeability 

transition area associated with a fault smear zone and/or secondary faulting and 

fracturing near the Fault. This is consistent with regional groundwater flow 

impacted by lower permeability zones studied and modeled by Freeze (1969). 

Although limited groundwater leakage occurs across the Fault (as demonstrated 

during the long-term pump tests), the majority of groundwater flow on both sides 

of the Fault appears to be generally parallel to the Fault, to the west-southwest. 

Based on the potentiometric surface map, groundwater is inferred to flow to the 

west-southwest, generally consistent with the regional flow system. 

The potentiometric surface for the overlying (LFG) aquifer indicates a similar 

groundwater flow direction as in the HJ aquifer, towards the west-southwest 

(Figure 3.6-7). The barrier effect of the Fault is also evident within this 

shallower hydrostratigraphic unit, with an observed difference of six to eight feet 

of hydraulic head across the Fault. Potentiometric surface data for the underlying 

(UKM) aquifer also indicate a generally west-southwest direction of groundwater 

flow (Figure 3.6-9). However, the impacts of the Fault are not as evident in this 

hydrostratigraphic unit, with little, if any, difference in hydraulic head across the 

Fault. 

Hydraulic Gradients 

The horizontal hydraulic gradients across the Permit Area were estimated from 

the December 2008 potentiometric surface maps and are summarized in Table 

3.6-3. The gradients are similar in all the aquifers and range from about 0.003 to 

0.007 ft/ft on both sides of the Fault. 

 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-23 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-24 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-3 Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients 

Vertical hydraulic gradients were determined in December 2008 by measuring 

water levels in closely grouped wells completed in different hydrostratigraphic 

units, and the results are summarized in Table 3.6-4. Vertical hydraulic gradients 

range from -0.04 to 0.37 ft/ft between the DE, LFG, HJ and UKM aquifers and 

consistently indicate decreasing hydraulic head with depth. The vertical gradients 

indicate the potential for groundwater flow is downward. A downward potential 

is indicative of an area of recharge, as opposed to an upward potential that is 

normally indicative of an area of groundwater discharge. A downward gradient is 

consistent with the structural and stratigraphic location of the Project with regard 

to Great Divide Basin. 

3.6.2.3 Aquifer Testing 

Aquifer properties for the Battle Spring aquifers within the Permit Area have been 

calculated from tests conducted for Conoco in the early 1980s and more extensive 

tests conducted for LCI in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The aquifer characteristics 

calculated from these tests are summarized in Table 3.6-5. The primary purpose 

of the tests conducted prior to 2008 was to determine aquifer characteristics, 

including transmissivity, storativity, hydraulic conductivity, and the potential for 

communication between aquifers. In addition to determining aquifer 

characteristics, the 2008 test collected information specific to operation of MU1, 

including: hydrologic communication between the HJ pumping well and the 

surrounding HJ monitor wells; the influence of the Fault within MU1, and the 

degree of hydrologic communication between the production zone and the 

overlying and underlying aquifers in MU1. Testing similar to that conducted in 

2008 for MU1 would be conducted for each of the other mine units. 

 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-25 

April 2012 Table 3.6-4 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients (Page 1 of 4) 
3.6-26 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-4 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients (Page 2 of 4) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-27 

April 2012Table 3.6-4 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients (Page 3 of 4) 
3.6-28 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

28

Table 3.6-4 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients (Page 4 of 4) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-29 

April 2012

Table 3.6-5 Summary of Aquifer Characteristics 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-30 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

1982 Testing 

In 1982, Hydro-Search, Inc. conducted two 25-hour tests within the HJ Horizon. 

Both pump tests were conducted at a rate of 30 gpm and on the south side of the 

Fault. There was no reported response in the HJ aquifer north of the Fault. 

Monitor wells in the overlying (LFG) and underlying (UKM) aquifers did not 

show any effects from the pump test. The monitor well locations are shown on 

Figure 3.6-4. 

2006 Testing 

Hydro-Engineering (2007) conducted several short-term single-well pump tests 

and three longer multi-well pump tests in October 2006. The single-well tests 

ranged from 30 minutes to five hours in duration at rates from 0.67 to 14 gpm. 

The long-term tests were from 20 to 45 hours long at rates of 15 to 19 gpm. Each 

of the long-term tests was conducted in HJ well completions. The monitor well 

locations are shown on Figure 3.6-4. None of the HJ tests indicated significant 

communication (less than 0.2 feet draw down) with the overlying or underlying 

aquifers. The slope inflection point at approximately 150 minutes after the pump 

start indicated that a boundary (the Fault) was encountered and that the Fault is 

generally acting as a barrier to flow. There was also no indication of hydraulic 

communication across the Fault in any of the pump tests. Hydro-Engineering 

concluded that the Fault acts as a hydraulic barrier. 

2007 Testing 

In 2007, Petrotek Engineering Corporation conducted two long-term pump tests 

in the HJ aquifer at Wells LC19M and LC16M, one located on each side of the 

Fault. Pre-pumping monitoring was performed several days in advance of the 

tests to establish baseline conditions and to evaluate barometric effects. HJ 

monitor wells on both sides of the Fault and within distances likely to be impacted 

by the pump tests were included as observation wells. Observation wells in the 

overlying (LFG) and underlying (UKM) aquifers near the pumping wells and 

across the Fault were also monitored during the tests. 

LC19M Test 

The first pump test, with LC19M as the pumping well, was conducted to evaluate 

aquifer properties on the north side of the Fault. The locations of the wells 

monitored during the test are shown on Figure 3.6-11. The average pumping rate 

during the test was 42.9 gpm. Maximum drawdown in the pumping well was 

93.3 feet. Monitoring was continued after pump shut-in to record recovery from 

the LC19M test. Drawdown at the end of the test in the HJ aquifer is shown on 

Figure 3.6-12. A detailed discussion of the LC19M test is included in 

Attachment D6-2a of Appendix D6 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 

2011b). 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-31 

April 2012
3.6-32 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-33 

April 2012

The response of the overlying and underlying aquifers during the pump test was 

small (e.g., on the order of 0.2 to 0.5 feet); but the water level responses did 

correspond to the start and stop of pumping from LC19M in the HJ Horizon. The 

underlying/overlying responses appear to be relatively consistent, regardless of 

distance from the pumping well, the hydrostratigraphic interval monitored, or the 

location relative to the Fault. These water level changes suggest potential impacts 

from off-site pumping or background trends that, because of distance from the 

monitor wells, are manifested at multiple locations at the same or similar times. 

As previously stated, a declining trend in water level elevations was observed 

prior to the start of the test. Most of the wells showed an initial inverted response 

(increase in water level) at the start of the test and then resumed a gradual 

downward trend during the test. This phenomenon was also observed and noted 

by Hydro-Engineering during the 2006 pump tests. It is possible that some of the 

drawdown response could be caused by: 1) pumping in the drilling water well 

(LC1) that is completed in both the DE and FG Horizons; 2) communication 

across multiple sands due to the nature of the Fault distance from the pumping 

well location; 3) communication due to juxtapositioning of hydrostratigraphic 

units across the Fault; or 4) leakage through the confining shale, or any 

combination of these. While LCI has aggressively pursued re-plugging of historic 

wells and continues to do so, it is also possible that some of the communication 

could be related to abandoned wells. 

Responses in observation wells across the Fault were negligible relative to the 

magnitude of drawdown observed in monitor wells located on the same side of 

the Fault as the pumping well. The impact of the Fault on groundwater flow can 

be clearly seen from the responses recorded in a pair of observation wells that 

were placed on either side of the Fault, within 100 feet of each other. Well 

HJT104, located on the north side of the Fault and completed in the HJ Horizon, 

had a maximum drawdown of 40.5 feet at the end of the LC19M test. Well 

HJMP107 (south of the Fault) in the HJ Horizon had a net decrease of 1.4 feet 

from the beginning of the test to the end of pumping at LC19M. At least a portion 

of that change is attributable to a declining trend in water levels that was observed 

in all monitor wells prior to the start of the test. The reason for the background 

trend observed has not been identified; however, it might be a result of offset 

pumping (e.g., LCI’s first two water supply wells that are screened over multiple 

sands). 

LC16M Test 

A second long-term pump test was conducted to evaluate aquifer properties on the 

south side of the Fault. The locations of the wells monitored during the test are 

shown on Figure 3.6-13. The average pumping rate during the test was 37.4 

gpm. Maximum drawdown in the pumping well was 69.3 feet. Monitoring was 

continued after pump shut-in to record recovery from the test. Drawdown near 

the end of the test in the HJ aquifer is shown on Figure 3.6-14. A detailed 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-34 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

discussion of the LC16M test is included in Attachment D6-2b of Appendix D6 of 

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

As in the LC19M pump test, the response of the overlying and underlying 

aquifers during the LC16M pump test was small (e.g., less than one foot in the 

LFG and less than two feet in the UKM); but the water level responses were 

coincident with the start and stop of pumping from LC16M. The response was 

slightly more pronounced in the UKM and occurred on both sides of the Fault. 

The data from this test appear consistent with the first pump test, showing that the 

Fault, while not impermeable, is a significant barrier to groundwater flow. The 

same wells, located about 100 feet apart and across the Fault from one another 

(HJMP107 and HJT104), that were evaluated during the LC19M test were 

evaluated during the LC16M test. Well HJMP107, located on the same side of 

the Fault as the pumping well, had nearly 25 feet of drawdown near the end of the 

test. Well HJT104, located approximately 100 feet north of Well HJMP107 and 

north of the Fault, had approximately 2.2 feet of drawdown at the end of 

pumping. 

2008 Testing 

Two pump tests were conducted within MU1 due to the faulting that bisects the 

mine unit from west-southwest to east-northeast. The north pump test was 

conducted on the north side of the Fault (and associated splinter fault) in 

November 2008, and the south pump test was conducted on the south side of the 

Fault (and associated splinter fault) in December 2008. Both pump tests were 

conducted in the HJ Horizon, with monitoring of the overlying and underlying 

aquifers as well. The locations of the wells monitored during the 2008 testing are 

shown on Figure 3.6-5. The additional information collected from the two pump 

tests did not significantly alter the information on the aquifer characteristics 

attained from previous pump tests. This information is discussed in detail in 

Attachment MU1 2-1 of the WDEQ-LQD MU1 documents (LCI, 2011b). 

 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-35 

April 2012
3.6-36 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-37 

April 2012

3.6.3 Groundwater Use 

The majority of the groundwater-use permits filed in the vicinity of the Permit 

Area is for monitoring or miscellaneous mining-related purposes. Many of those 

permits are associated with the Kennecott Sweetwater Mine (formerly owned by 

Minerals Exploration Co.), which has been reclaimed (Section 3.1.2.4). 

Groundwater permits with legal descriptions inside and within three miles of the 

Permit Area were queried using the WSEO Water Rights Database (WSEO, 

2010). Table 3.6-6 list permits within one-half mile and three miles of the Permit 

Area, respectively, and the locations are shown on Figure 3.6-15. The lists 

include potentially active permits as well as abandoned and cancelled permits, 

which were issued by WSEO to parties other than LCI or its affiliates. The permit 

information includes, but is not limited to, location, uses, priority dates, status, 

yield, total depth, and static water depth. 

3.6.3.1 BLM Wells 

The groundwater permits within one mile unrelated to mining are those of the 

BLM. In 1968 and 1980, the BLM Rawlins District was granted three permits by 

the WSEO. Each of these permits is associated with a well that supplies a stock 

pond or tank (Figure 3.6-15). These wells and associated stock ponds are located 

outside of the Permit Area. The permit numbers and names of these BLM wells 

are: 

x WSEO Permit 13834, Battle Spring Draw Well No. 4451; 

x WSEO Permit 55112, Boundary Well No. 4775; and 

x WSEO Permit 55113, Battle Spring Well No. 4777. 

In addition, there is a fourth BLM well (East Eagle Nest Draw Well), also 

supplying a stock pond, for which no water-use permit was found. 

Battle Spring Draw Well No. 4451 pumps water into a stock tank east of the 

Permit Area. The well depth is 900 feet deep, with a static water level of 104 feet. 

A yield of 19 gpm is permitted. The screened interval is unknown, but given the 

well depth, it may be significantly deeper than the sands targeted by LCI. Figure 

3.6-10 shows photographs of this well and associated stock tank. Although Well 

No. 4451 is outside of the Permit Area, two groundwater samples, one pond water 

sample, one algae sample, and one soil sample were collected and analyzed 

(Table 3.6-7). The results indicate that the water, algae, and soil all have high 

levels of radionuclides. In addition, the algae sample had a high selenium 

concentration. 

 
3.6-38 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-6 Groundwater-Use Permits within a 3-Mile Radius, WSEO Records, December 2
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-39 

April 2012 Table 3.6-6 Groundwater-Use Permits within a 3-Mile Radius, WSEO Records, December 200
3.6-40 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-6 Groundwater-Use Permits within a 3-Mile Radius, WSEO Records, December 200
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-41 

April 2012 Table 3.6-6 Groundwater-Use Permits within a 3-Mile Radius, WSEO Records, December 20
3.6-42 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-6 Groundwater-Use Permits within a 3-Mile Radius, WSEO Records, December 2
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-43 

April 2012

Table 3.6-6 Groundwater-Use Permits within a 3-Mile Radius, WSEO Records, December 20
3.6-44 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-45 

April 2012

Table 3.6-7 BLM Battle Springs Draw Well No. 4451 Laboratory 

Results (Page 1 of 2) 

Parameter 

(mg/L unless otherwise noted) Well Water 

Pond 

Water 

Algae 

(mg/kg)

Soil 

(mg/kg)

 8/27/2009 6/29/2010 7/13/2010 7/13/2010 7/13/2010 

Major Cations and Anions 

Na (mg/L) 30 31 36 - - 

K (mg/L) 3 3 8 - - 

Ca (mgL) 167 170 166 - - 

Mg (mg/L) 8 8 10 - - 

Cl (mg/L) 7 7 9 - - 

HCO3 (mg/L) 206 200 200 - - 

CO3 (mg/L) ND ND ND - - 

SO4 (mg/L) 340 353 379 - - 

SiO2 (mg/L) 16.9 16.5 18.7 - - 

NO3+NO2 (mg/L) 0.01 ND ND - - 

General 

Water 

Quality 

TDS (mg/L) 698 694 786 - - 

Specific Conductivity 929 948 983 - - 

Lab pH (SU) 7.94 8 7.61 - - 

Alkalinity (mg/L) 169 164 164 - - 

Trace Parameters (Dissolved unless otherwise noted.) 

Al (mg/L) ND ND ND - - 

NH3-N (mg/L) 0.1 ND 0.13 - - 

As (mg/L) ND ND 0.003 - - 

Ba (mg/L) ND ND ND - - 

B (mg/L) ND ND ND - - 

Cd (mg/L) ND ND ND - - 

Cr (mg/L) ND ND ND - - 

Cu (mg/L) ND ND ND - - 

F (mg/L) 0.1 ND 0.1 - - 

Fe (mg/L) 

Dissolved ND ND ND - - 

Total 0.11 0.11 1.45 - - 

Hg (mg/L) ND N ND - - 

Mn (mg/L) 

Dissolved 0.02 0.01 0.27 - - 

Total 0.02 0.01 0.36 - - 

Mo (mg/L) ND ND ND - - 

Ni (mg/L) ND ND ND - - 

Pb (mg/L) ND ND ND - - 

Se (mg/L) 0.015 0.025 0.008 2.3 ND 

V (mg/L) ND ND ND - - 

Zn (mg/L) 0.02 0.03 ND - - 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-46 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-7 BLM Battle Springs Draw Well No. 4451 Laboratory Results 

(Page 2 of 2) 

Parameter 

(mg/L unless otherwise noted) Well Water 

Pond 

Water 

Algae 

(mg/kg)

Soil 

(mg/kg)

 8/27/2009 6/29/2010 7/13/2010 7/13/2010 7/13/2010 

Radionuclides 

Gross Alpha (pCi/L) 1230 1190 932 - - 

Gross Beta (pCi/L) 313 249 239 - - 

Ra-226 (pCi/L) 11 7.9 1.9 - - 

Ra-228 (pCi/L) 8.0 5.4 1.6 - - 

Ra-226 + Ra-228 (pCi/L) 19.0 13.3 3.5 - - 

Uranium (mg/L) 0.91 1.10 1.02 112 11.8 

ND – Concentration was below the laboratory detection limit. 

(-) Not analyzed

Boundary Well No. 4775 and Battle Spring Well No. 4777 were drilled as stock 

wells to a depth of approximately 280 feet and 220 feet, respectively. These wells 

are shallower than the sands targeted by LCI. A water use of 25 gpm is permitted 

at each of these wells. Boundary Well No. 4775 apparently is not being used 

every year, but water has been pumped in the last few years. The electrical cord 

for the pump and the pipe to deliver water to the troughs are shown in the photos 

(Figure 3.6-16). 

Figure 3.6-16 BLM Boundary Well No. 4775 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-47 

April 2012

The windmill on Battle Spring Well No. 4777 was not in working order in June 

2007, but it was removed and replaced with an electrical submersible pump

(Figure 3.6-17). 

Figure 3.6-17 BLM Battle Spring Well No. 4777 

The East Eagle Nest Draw Well is located north of the Permit Area, in the NW1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4 of Section 13, Township 25 North and Range 93 West. From midMay through mid-September, an electric submersible pump in the well is used to 

pump water into a livestock watering pond at an average rate of five gpm for six 

to eight hours each day. The total depth of this well is 370 feet, with a static 

water level of 269 feet. Figure 3.6-18 shows the East Eagle Nest Draw Well in 

June 2007 and in October 2011. 

Figure 3.6-18 BLM East Eagle Nest Draw Well 

June 2007 October 2011
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-48 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

3.6.3.2 LCI Wells 

There are seven existing or planned water supply wells and numerous monitor 

wells permitted and bonded by WSEO and WDEQ, respectively, to LCI and its 

affiliates. The existing and planned water supply wells and their completion 

horizons include: 

x In the FG horizon, well LC1W would be used for dust suppression and 

drill water. An additional potable water well (not yet named) is planned 

for the FG also. 

x Well LC28M is completed in the middle HJ horizon and would be used 

for drill water and dust suppression. The M horizon has three drill water 

and dust suppression wells completed in it; they are LC32W, LC229W 

and LC606W. 

x The final on-site well for drill water and dust suppression is LC33W, 

which is completed in the N horizon. 

The existing monitor wells include 27 wells that were used to establish baseline 

conditions in the Permit Area and 63 wells that were used for aquifer testing and 

water quality sampling for MU1. All of these wells are completed in the DE, FG, 

HJ, and KM Horizons. 

Five deep UIC Class I wells are planned for injection of waste water from the 

Plant (Section 2.1.4), and one of the five was installed in the southwest portion of 

the Permit Area to obtain subsurface information to ensure the feasibility of this 

disposal option. The well was completed in the Fort Union Formation. 

3.6.4 Groundwater Quality 

This section summarizes the regional and Permit Area groundwater quality. The 

groundwater quality in the Permit Area is separated on the basis of: site-wide 

characteristics of the ore-bearing and associated aquifers; characteristics within 

MU1 in the ore-bearing and associated aquifers; and characteristics of the deeper 

formations evaluated for the UIC Class I wells. 

3.6.4.1 Regional Groundwater Quality 

Water quality within the Basin ranges from very poor to excellent. Groundwater 

in the near surface, more permeable aquifers is generally of better quality than 

groundwater in deeper and less permeable aquifers. Groundwater with TDS less 

than 3,000 mg/L can generally be found at depths less than 1,500 feet within the 

Tertiary aquifer system, which includes the Battle Spring/Wasatch, Fort Union 

and Lance aquifers (Collentine et al., 1981). 

Water quality within the shallow Tertiary aquifers generally represents sodiumbicarbonate to sodium-sulfate water types. TDS levels within the Wasatch aquifer 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-49 

April 2012

in the west and south parts of the Basin tend to be high relative to the EPA’s 

Secondary Drinking Water Standard (SDWS) of 500 mg/L, even at shallower 

depth. TDS levels within the Battle Spring/Wasatch aquifers are generally below 

500 mg/L along the northern flank of the Basin (which includes the Permit Area). 

Elevated TDS levels (greater than 3,000 mg/L) are present within the Wasatch 

aquifer along the eastern edge of the Washakie Basin and within the Fort Union 

and Lance aquifers along the east side of the Rock Springs uplift. Elsewhere 

within the Great Divide and Washakie Basins, TDS levels in the Tertiary aquifer 

system are typically between 1,000 and 3,000 mg/L (Collentine et al., 1981). 

Low-TDS waters within the Battle Spring aquifer are predominately sodiumbicarbonate type waters. With increasing salinity, the water type tends to become 

more calcium-sulfate dominated. However, this trend is not exhibited in the 

Wasatch, Fort Union and Lance aquifers within the Great Divide and Washakie 

Basins. The Wasatch and Lance aquifers are characterized by predominately 

sodium-sulfate type waters, particularly near outcrop areas. The Fort Union is 

more variable in composition. 

Water quality within the Battle Spring aquifer is generally good in the northeast 

portion of the Basin, with TDS levels usually less than 1,000 mg/L and frequently 

less than 200 mg/L. The water type of the Battle Spring aquifer is typically 

sodium-bicarbonate to sodium-sulfate. Mason and Miller (2005) reviewed 

eighteen groundwater samples collected from the Battle Spring aquifer and 

observed that those samples represented some of the best overall quality of those 

studied in Sweetwater County. Sulfate levels can be elevated in Tertiary aquifers, 

but are generally low in the shallow aquifers of the Battle Spring Formation. Out 

of 18 samples included in the Mason and Miller (2005) study, only one sample 

exceeded the WDEQ Class I Drinking Water Standard for sulfate of 250 mg/L. 

Most of the samples were also below the WDEQ TDS Class I Drinking Water 

Standard of 500 mg/L. Nitrate, fluoride and arsenic levels were below WDEQ 

and EPA standards for all of the samples. 

Notable exceptions to the relatively good water quality included waters with 

elevated radionuclides. Uranium and radium-226 (Ra-226) concentrations 

exceeded their respective EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of 0.03 

mg/L and 5 pCi/L in some samples; radon-222 (Rn-222) concentrations were also 

relatively high in some samples (Mason and Miller, 2005). The presence of high 

levels of uranium in Tertiary sediments and groundwater of the Basin has been 

well documented. The Lost Creek Shroeckingerite deposit located northwest of 

the Permit Area is noted for high uranium levels in groundwater. Uraniumbearing coals are also present in the Basin. Sediments of the Battle Spring 

Formation were derived from the Granite Mountains and contain from 0.0005 to 

0.001 percent uranium (Masursky, 1962). Based on historical exploration results, 

certain areas of the Battle Spring Formation (e.g., Lost Creek) contain much 

higher uranium concentrations. The BLM Battle Spring Draw Well No. 4551 is 

an example of the higher radium and uranium concentrations (Table 3.6-7). 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-50 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

3.6.4.2 Site Groundwater Quality, Ore-Bearing and Associated 

Aquifers 

Information on the Permit Area groundwater quality is primarily derived from 

reconnaissance studies conducted by Conoco (Hydro-Search, Inc., 1982) and 

more detailed studies by LCI. The historical well locations were generally closer 

to the ore trend (Figure 3.6-4), while the wells installed by LCI include locations 

close to and well away from the ore trend. 

Historical Data 

Conoco installed 12 wells, separated into four groups, to evaluate aquifer 

properties and water quality of the uranium ore-bearing sands and overlying and 

underlying aquifers within the Permit Area. Three of the groups included wells 

completed within the HJ Horizon aquifer and the overlying (LFG) and underlying 

(UKM) aquifers. The fourth group included three wells completed within the HJ 

Horizon aquifer. The location of the wells is shown on Figure 3.6-4. These 12 

wells were installed as part of a joint venture between Conoco and Texasgulf Inc. 

The twelve wells were abandoned as documented in a September 16, 1987 letter 

from Texasgulf Inc. to WSEO. 

Ten of the 12 monitor wells installed by Conoco were sampled in August 1982. 

Hydro-Search, Inc. reported that there were no major differences in water quality 

between the HJ Horizon aquifer and the overlying and underlying aquifers (1982). 

The predominant ions were calcium and sulfate. TDS values were all below the 

WDEQ Class I Standard of 500 mg/L, ranging from 200 to 490 mg/L. The pH of 

the waters ranged from 7.1 to 8.5, indicating slightly alkaline conditions. 

Chloride levels were very low, ranging from seven to 18 mg/L. 

Most trace constituents were below the detection limits. Selenium was present in 

two samples at 0.023 mg/L, which was above the WDEQ and EPA drinking water 

standards at that time (0.01 mg/L). The WDEQ Class I Standard and the EPA 

MCL are currently 0.05 mg/L. Ra-226 was detected in all of the samples, with a 

range of 2.5 to 300 pCi/L. Only two samples, one collected from the overlying 

aquifer and one from the underlying aquifer, were below the WDEQ Class I 

Standard and EPA MCL of 5.0 pCi/L for Ra-226 (Figure 3.6-19). Uranium 

levels ranged from below detection (less than 0.005 mg/L) to 0.48 mg/L. Six of 

the ten samples exceeded the current EPA MCL for uranium of 0.03 mg/L 

(Figure 3.6-20). 

 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-51 

April 2012
3.6-52 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-53 

April 2012

Current Data 

LCI has conducted baseline sampling since September 2006. Per WDEQ-LQD 

requirements, at least four quarters of baseline data are required to determine 

variability and if there are any trends in the variability fluctuations (e.g., seasonal 

changes). The baseline sampling locations, which cover all portions of the Permit 

Area and are completed in different Sands, are shown in Figure 3.6-4, and the 

sampling results are summarized in Table 3.6-8. The raw laboratory data are 

presented in Attachment D6-4 of Appendix D6, of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to 

Mine (LCI, 2011b). 

In Table 3.6-8, those analytical results which exceed specific WDEQ or EPA 

criteria are highlighted, and the WDEQ and EPA criteria used for the comparison 

are included in Table 3.6-9. The table shows that the WDEQ TDS Class I 

standard is exceeded at one well in each of the DE, HJ and UKM aquifers, Wells 

LC31M, LC26M, and LC23M, respectively. Twenty-two out of the 25 wells have 

TDS levels below the Class I Standard. Sulfate exceeds the WDEQ Class I 

Standard (250 mg/L) in one DE monitor well (LC31M) and one HJ monitor well 

(LC26M). As with the Conoco monitoring results, chloride values are low with 

all but five samples at 10 mg/L or lower. 

Piper diagrams have been developed to compare groundwater quality between 

individual wells (Figure 3.6-21) and between different aquifers (Figure 3.6-22). 

The individual well comparison plots the average value for each of the wells for 

all of the samples analyzed. The Piper diagram comparing different aquifers 

represents the average water quality for all wells sampled within individual 

aquifers (DE, LFG, HJ and UKM). Groundwater within the shallow Battle 

Springs aquifers beneath the Permit Area is a calcium sulfate to calcium 

bicarbonate type water. There is some variability in water chemistry when the 

wells are compared individually. 

With the exception of four UKM monitor wells (LC17M, LC23M, LC27M, and 

LC28M), one LFG monitor well (MB-5), and one HJ monitor well (MB-6), every 

well exceeded the EPA uranium MCL of 0.03 mg/L in at least one quarter. 

Similarly, with the exception of one DE monitor well (MB-1), one LFG monitor 

well (MB-2), one HJ monitor well (MB-3B), and one UKM monitor well (MB-4), 

every well exceeded the WDEQ Class I Standard and EPA MCL for radium226+228 of 5.0 pCi/L. The distributions of radium and uranium in the DE, FG, 

HJ, and UKM Horizons are shown on Figures 3.6-23 and 3.6-24. 

 
3.6-54 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 1 of 17) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-41 

April 2012 Table 3.6-6 Groundwater-Use Permits within a 3-Mile Radius, WSEO Records, December 20
3.6-42 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-6 Groundwater-Use Permits within a 3-Mile Radius, WSEO Records, December 2
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-43 

April 2012

Table 3.6-6 Groundwater-Use Permits within a 3-Mile Radius, WSEO Records, December 20
3.6-44 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-51 

April 2012
3.6-52 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
3.6-54 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 1 of 17) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-55 

April 2012

RAFT ETable 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 2 of 17) 
3.6-56 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 3 of 17) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-51 

April 2012
3.6-52 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
3.6-54 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 1 of 17) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-55 

April 2012

RAFT ETable 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 2 of 17) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-57 

April 2012 FT EI

S

2012Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 4 of 17) 
3.6-58 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 5 of 17) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-59 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 6 of 17) 
3.6-60 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 7 of 17) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-61 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 8 of 17) 
3.6-62 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 9 of 17) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-63 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 10 of 17) 
3.6-64 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 11 of 17) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-65 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 12 of 17) 
3.6-66 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

3.6

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 13 of 17)
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-67 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 14 of 17)
3.6-68 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 15 of 17) 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-69 

April 2012 RAFT E il 2012 Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 16 of 17) 
3.6-70 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

-70 Table 3.6-8 Analytical Results of Baseline Monitoring (Page 17 of 17) 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-71 

April 2012

Table 3.6-9 State and Federal Groundwater Quality Criteria for 

Specified Parameters 

Parameter 

WQD Class-of-Use Criteria 

 

EPA Drinking Water Criteria 

Domestic 

(Class I) 

Agriculture 

(Class II) 

Livestock 

(Class 

III) 

MCL 

Treatment 

Action 

Level 

Secondary 

Standard 

Aluminum -- 5.0 5.0 -- -- 0.05 to 0.2 

Ammonia 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- 

Arsenic 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.010 -- -- 

Barium 2.0 -- -- 2.0 -- -- 

Boron 0.75 0.75 5.0 -- -- -- 

Cadmium 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.005 -- -- 

Chloride 250.0 100.0 2000.0 -- -- 250.0 

Chromium 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.005 -- -- 

Copper 1.0 0.2 0.5 -- 1.0 -- 

Fluoride 4.0 -- -- 4.0 -- 2.0 

Gross Alpha 

(pCi/L, 

including Ra226, excluding 

Radon and 

Uranium) 

15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 -- -- 

Lead 0.015 5.0 0.1 -- 0.015 -- 

Manganese 0.05 0.2 -- 0.05 -- -- 

Mercury 0.002 -- 0.00005 0.002 -- -- 

Nickel -- 0.2 -- -- -- -- 

Nitrate 10.0 -- -- 10.0 -- -- 

pH (SU) 6.5 - 8.5 4.5 - 9.0 6.5 - 8.5 -- -- 6.5 - 8.5 

Ra-226+Ra228 (pCi/L) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 -- -- 

Selenium 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.05 -- -- 

Sulfate 250.0 200.0 3000.0 -- -- 250.0 

TDS 500.0 2000.0 5000.0 -- -- 500.0 

Uranium -- -- -- 0.03 -- -- 

Vanadium -- 0.1 0.1 -- -- -- 

Zinc 5.0 2.0 25.0 -- -- 5.0 

All concentrations are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. Dashes indicate no criteria have been established. 

WQD Class-of-Use criteria are from Table I in Chapter 8 (Quality Standards for Wyoming Groundwater) of 

the WQD Rules and Regulations, available at http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/WQDrules/Chapter_08.pdf, 

accessed on November 3, 2008. 

EPA Drinking Water Criteria are from http://www.epa.gov/safewater/consumer/pdf/mcl.pdf, accessed on 

November 3, 2008. 

 
3.6-72 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-73 

April 2012
3.6-74 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-75 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-76 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

A summary of the water quality for each of the four hydrostratigraphic units of 

interest (DE, LFG, HJ and UKM) is presented below. All metal concentrations 

are reported as dissolved. 

DE Sand 

Six wells completed in the DE Sand were included in the baseline sampling 

program (LC29M, LC30M, LC31M, MB-1, MB-7, and MB-10). Both MB-7 and 

MB-10 had insufficient water to sample and therefore were not included in the 

analyses. Sample results from the existing baseline monitor wells are included in 

Table 3.6-9. 

Results of the baseline sampling indicate that three of the DE monitor wells 

(LC29M, LC30M, and MB-1) are calcium bicarbonate water, whereas well 

LC31M is a calcium sulfate type. Both sulfate and TDS levels in LC31M exceed 

the WDEQ Class I Standards (250 mg/L and 500 mg/L, respectively). Chloride 

levels in all four wells are low (12 mg/L or less). 

Manganese exceeded the WDEQ Class I Standard (0.05 mg/L) in seven of the 16 

samples collected from DE monitor wells. The average detectable manganese 

value was 0.10 mg/L for the DE monitor wells. The average selenium 

concentration at well LC31M was 0.172 mg/L, exceeding the WDEQ Class I 

Standard of 0.05 mg/L. 

Iron exceeded the WDEQ Class I Standard (0.3 mg/L) in two of the four samples 

from LC29M and one of the four samples from MB-1. The average values for the 

four samples from LC29M and MB-1 were below the standard. Similarly, the 

average ammonia concentration was below the WDEQ Class I Standard (0.5 

mg/L) at well LC29M, although two of the four samples exceeded the standard. 

Uranium levels exceeded the EPA MCL in every sample collected from the DE 

monitor wells except one MB-1 sample collected in August 2009. The average 

uranium concentration for the 16 samples collected was 0.577 mg/L. Ra-226 

exceeded the EPA Radium 226+228 MCL of 5.0 pCi/L in two samples. 

Combined radium 226+228 exceeded the standard in four of the samples. 

However, the average radium 226+228 activity for each of the DE monitor wells 

was below the WDEQ Class I Standard. 

LFG Sand 

Seven wells completed in the LFG Sand were included in the baseline sampling 

program (LC15M, LC18M, LC21M, LC25M, MB-2, MB-5, and MB-8). Sample 

results from the existing baseline monitor wells are included in Table 3.6-9. 

Results of the baseline sampling indicate that the LFG monitor wells are calciumbicarbonate to calcium-sulfate water. TDS and sulfate levels are below the 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-77 

April 2012

WDEQ Class I Standards (500 mg/L and 250 mg/L, respectively) and chloride 

levels in all seven wells are low (10 mg/L or less). 

Manganese and selenium were below the respective WDEQ Class I Standards in 

all the LFG samples. Iron exceeded the WDEQ Class I Standard in three out of 

four samples at LC18M, one out of four samples at LC25M, and in one sample at 

MB-8 for total iron. 

Uranium levels exceeded the EPA MCL in every sample collected from the LFG 

monitor wells except for samples taken at MB-5. The average uranium 

concentration for the LFG samples was 0.289 mg/L. Radium levels were widely 

distributed. At least one sample from all LFG wells exceeded the WDEQ Class I 

Standard for radium 226+228 except for MB-2. 

HJ Horizon 

Seven wells completed in the HJ Horizon were included in the baseline sampling 

program (LC16M, LC19M, LC22M, LC26M, MB-3B, MB-6, and MB-9). 

Sample results from the existing baseline monitor wells are included in Table 

3.6-9. 

Results of the baseline sampling indicate that the HJ monitor wells are calciumbicarbonate to calcium-sulfate water. Both sulfate and TDS levels in LC26M 

exceed the WDEQ Class I Standards (250 mg/L and 500 mg/L, respectively). 

Chloride levels in all four wells are low (11 mg/L or less). 

Manganese and selenium were below the respective WDEQ Class I Standards in 

all the HJ samples. 

Uranium levels exceeded the EPA MCL in every sample collected from the 

LC16M, LC19M, LC22M, LC26M, and MB-3B monitor wells. Only one sample 

from MB-9 and no samples from MB-6 exceeded the EPA MCL. The average 

uranium concentration for the HJ samples was 0.160 mg/L. 

UKM Sand 

Seven wells completed in the UKM Sand were included in the baseline sampling 

program (LC17M, LC20M, LC23M, LC24M, LC27M, LC28M, and MB-4). Two 

of the wells were originally thought to be completed in the HJ Horizon (LC27M 

and LC28M) but were later reinterpreted as UKM completions. Sample results 

from the existing baseline monitor wells are included in Table 3.6-9. 

Results of the baseline sampling indicate that the UKM monitor wells are 

calcium-bicarbonate to calcium-sulfate water. TDS and sulfate levels are below 

the WDEQ Class I Standards (500 mg/L and 250 mg/L, respectively) in all but 

one sample and chloride levels in all seven wells are low (32 mg/L or less). 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.6-78 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Manganese and selenium were below the respective WDEQ Class I Standards in 

all the UKM samples. 

Uranium levels exceeded the EPA MCL in some samples collected at LC20M, 

LC24M, and MB-4. LC17M, LC23M, LC27M, and LC28M did not have any 

samples that exceeded the uranium EPA MCL. The average uranium 

concentration for the UKM samples was 0.028 mg/L. 

Average radium 226+228 levels exceeded the WDEQ Class I Standard in at least 

one sample for each of the UKM monitor wells except MB-4. 

3.6.4.3 MU1 Groundwater Quality, Ore-Bearing and Associated 

Aquifers 

LCI conducted pre-operational sampling in MU1 in 2009 and 2010. The monitor 

well locations include the monitor well ring and locations within the pattern area 

(Section 2.1.3). During Mine Unit Production, these wells are used to monitor for 

excursions, i.e., conditions that indicate the production and injection is out of 

balance, and during Mine Unit Restoration, these wells are used to monitor 

restoration success. The monitor ring wells are completed in the same sand as the 

ore zone, and the wells within the pattern area are completed in overlying and 

underlying aquifers. The locations of the monitor wells are shown on Figure 

3.6-5. 

Per WDEQ-LQD requirements, at least four samples were collected, with at least 

two weeks between each sampling. The sampling results and associated 

calculation of Upper Control Limits are included in Attachments MU1 4-1 and 4-

2 of the WDEQ-LQD MU1 documents (LCI, 2011b), and the results are analyzed 

in detail in Section 4.2.2 of the WDEQ-LQD MU1 documents (LCI, 2011b). 

None of the results indicate that conditions in MU1 are different than what would 

be anticipated from the site-wide baseline sampling. 

3.6.4.4 Site Groundwater Quality, Deeper Formations Evaluated 

for UIC Class I Wells 

Information on the water quality in the deeper formations that were evaluated for 

UIC Class I wells was obtained by a variety of methods, including sampling and 

evaluation of geophysical logs. In addition, the Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission website and USGS Produced Waters Database were 

reviewed for pertinent information. The results are summarized below and are 

described in more detail in the WDEQ-WQD application for the UIC Class I 

wells, which is included as Attachment ADJ-2 to the WDEQ-LQD Permit to 

Mine (LCI, 2011b). 

In the target formation, the Fort Union Formation, samples were collected at 

multiple intervals in the test well, which is the deep well in the southwest corner 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.6-79 

April 2012

of the Permit Area (Figure 1.2-3). The samples were collected by cased-hole 

formation sampling at discrete intervals within the Fort Union Formation, and 

after casing perforation, samples of water produced from the well were collected, 

which are representative of the composite fluid from the perforated intervals. The 

sample results indicated an average TDS concentration just under 14,000 mg/L; 

concentrations of several inorganic parameters (mercury, manganese, barium, 

lead, arsenic, and iron) exceeded groundwater quality standards; and gross alpha 

and radium-226+228 concentrations exceeded groundwater quality standards. 

Volatile organic compounds were also detected, which was not unexpected as 

there is hydrocarbon production from this formation elsewhere in the Basin. 

Information from the databases was limited in the vicinity of the Permit Area. 

Most of the data were from distant parts of the Basin, e.g., from areas proximate 

to oil and gas production or from the Basin margins, representing a wide range of 

formation depths and hydrogeologic conditions. Therefore, the water quality in 

the deeper formations was estimated using data from geophysical logs from two 

wells within about four miles of the Permit Area. These estimates are included in 

Table 3.6-10. 

Table 3.6-10 Summary of Stratigraphy and Water Quality 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.7-1 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

3.7 Vegetation 

3.7.1 Vegetation Studies Performed 

A vegetation survey was conducted within the area originally planned for the 

Permit Area during the 2006 growing season. Two vegetation types were 

identified and delineated: Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland and Lowland Big 

Sagebrush Shrubland. The southern and southeastern Permit Area boundaries 

were changed in early 2007, resulting in the addition of about 160 acres to the 

planned Permit Area. In 2009, the East and West Access Roads were added to the 

Permit Area at the request of WDEQ-LQD. When the changes were made, a 

vegetation map was prepared based on aerial photos, and then checked in the 

field. The vegetation types in the added areas were the same as those in the 

original Permit Area. No additional cover sampling was conducted in these areas, 

but information on species present and rare plant habitat was collected. The 

distribution of the two vegetation types, Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland and 

Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland, is shown on Figure 3.7-1 for the main Permit 

Area and on Figures 3.7-2 and 3.7-3 for the East and West Access Roads, 

respectively. 

Each of the two vegetation types was sampled with 20 transects (a total of 40 

transects) using a point-intercept approach to obtain vegetation cover and species 

diversity data. Vegetation cover observations were made on a species basis. 

Observations were also made for cover by litter and bare soil. The sampling 

locations are shown on Figure 3.7-1. Specific information about each of the 

sampling locations at the Permit Area is presented in Table 3.7-1. 

Shrub and semi-shrub density data were obtained by counting all of the individual 

plants that occurred within one meter on either side of the transect line that was 

used for collecting cover data. This approach consisted of establishing a belt 

transect that was two meters wide and 25 meters long (a total of 50 square 

meters). The data from the transects were used to compute the mean number of 

shrubs and semi-shrubs per square meter and the number per acre. In addition to 

shrubs and semi-shrubs, density counts were also made for prickly pear cactus. 

No trees occurred on the Permit Area. 

 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.7-2 

April 2012
3.7-3 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.7-4 

April 2012
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.7-5 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.7-1 Vegetation Sampling Locations and Site Information 

(Page 1 of 2) 

Transect 

Number Location Transect Bearing 

Slope 

(percent) Aspect Sampling Date 

Upland Big Sagebrush 

1 N42° 07’ 11.0”; 

W107° 53’ 27.5” 300° 2 South June 10, 2006 

2 N42° 06’ 31.8”; 

W107° 52’ 40.1” 187° 0 Flat June 10, 2006 

3 N42° 06’ 22.1”; 

W107° 52’ 19.7” 278° 0 Flat June 10, 2006 

4 N42° 06’ 19.0”; 

W107° 52’ 23.6” 95° 3 East June 10, 2006 

5 N42° 06’ 48.2”; 

W107° 53’ 00.7” 280° 2 Northeast June 10, 2006 

6 N42° 07’ 26.7”; 

W107° 53’ 16.2” 48° 4 Southwest June 10, 2006 

7 N42° 07’ 24.1”; 

W107° 52’ 57.8” 12° 2 South June 10, 2006 

8 N42° 07’ 43.2”; 

W107° 52’ 46.0” 280° 3 Southeast June 10, 2006 

9 N42° 08’ 09.4”; 

W107° 53’ 16.7” 290° 4 Southwest June 11, 2006 

10 N42° 08’ 00.7”; 

W107° 52’ 36.2” 355° 0 Flat June 11, 2006 

11 N42° 08’ 11.3”; 

W107° 52’ 39.7” 170° 6 South June 11, 2006 

12 N42° 07’ 31.6”; 

W107° 51’ 51.1” 225° 3 South June 11, 2006 

13 N42° 08’ 12.6”; 

W107° 52’ 01.1” 274° 0 Flat June 11, 2006 

14 N42° 07’ 41.9”; 

W107° 51’ 11.8” 325° 3 Northwest June 11, 2006 

15 N42° 08’ 25.8”; 

W107° 49’ 24.9” 229° 1 South June 12, 2006 

16 N42° 07’ 56.8”; 

W107° 49’ 37.6” 97° 1 South June 12, 2006 

17 N42° 08’ 11.5”; 

W107° 50’ 22.9” 358° 0 Flat June 12, 2006 

18 N42° 08’ 10.9”; 

W107° 50’ 47.2” 86° 2 Southwest June 12, 2006 

19 N42° 08’ 27.3”; 

W107° 51’ 03.9” 206° 5 South June 12, 2006 

20 N42° 08’ 32.3”; 

W107° 50’ 52.1” 171° 5 West June 12, 2006 

 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.7-6 

April 2012

Table 3.7-1 Vegetation Sampling Locations and Site Information

(Page 2 of 2) 

Transect 

Number Location Transect Bearing 

Slope 

(percent) Aspect Sampling Date 

Lowland Big Sagebrush 

1 N42° 06’ 12.8”; 

W107° 52’ 18.2” 30° 0 Flat June 10, 2006 

2 N42° 06’ 55.4”; 

W107° 52’ 55.3” 5° 0 Flat June 10, 2006 

3 N42° 07’ 06.4”; 

W107° 52’ 50.0” 355° 1 South June 10, 2006 

4 N42° 07’ 24.4”; 

W107° 53’ 03.7” 170° 1 South June 10, 2006 

5 N42° 08’ 13.4”; 

W107° 52’ 38.2” 319° 3 Southeast June 11, 2006

6 N42° 07’ 48.3”; 

W107° 52’ 17.3” 158° 2 Southeast June 11, 2006 

7 N42° 07’ 33.1”; 

W107° 52’ 22.2” 351° 2 South June 11, 2006 

8 N42° 07’ 19.4”; 

W107° 52’ 20.1” 18° 1 South June 11, 2006 

9 N42° 08’ 01.9”; 

W107° 52’ 05.6” 360° 0 Flat June 11, 2006 

10 N42° 07’ 52.9”; 

W107° 51’ 46.8” 109° 0 Flat June 11, 2006 

11 N42° 08’ 07.6”; 

W107° 51’ 54.4” 135° 2 Southeast June 11, 2006 

12 N42° 07’ 59.0”; 

W107° 51’ 12.9” 232° 1 Southwest June 11, 2006 

13 N42° 08’ 10.5”; 

W107° 49’ 25.6” 72° 1 South June 12, 2006 

14 N42° 08’ 11.3”; 

W107° 50’ 30.4” 251° 2 Southwest June 12, 2006 

15 N42° 08’ 20.3”; 

W107° 50’ 29.4” 191° 1 South June 12, 2006 

16 N42° 07’ 50.5”; 

W107° 50’ 57.6” 195° 0 Flat June 12, 2006 

17 N42° 08’ 17.1”; 

W107° 51’ 02.0” 355° 1 South June 12, 2006 

18 N42° 07’ 43.4”; 

W107° 51’ 39.7” 285° 1 Southeast June 12, 2006 

19 N42° 07’ 37.8”; 

W107° 51’ 33.1” 95° 3 East June 12, 2006 

20 N42° 07’ 58.5”; 

W107° 53’ 09.4” 89° 2 Southeast June 12, 2006 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.7-7 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Prior to conducting field work on the Permit Area, a literature review was 

conducted to determine what species of special concern might occur within the 

Permit Area. The review identified several species of special concern that occur 

within the general region (Table 3.7-2). As part of the field work, observations 

were made on the overall species composition of the area and special attention 

was paid to examining any unusual micro-environments where rare plant species 

might occur. Also, WDEQ-LQD Guideline No. 2 (1997) provides lists of 

prohibited and restricted noxious weeds, selenium indicators and plant species of 

special concern. These lists were reviewed and compared with the observed 

species composition at the Permit Area. 

3.7.2 Results of Vegetation Studies Performed 

As part of all field work, observations were made regarding the species 

composition in each of the vegetation types (Table 3.7-3). In all, 58 species were 

observed on the Permit Area. In the Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland vegetation 

type, 36 species were noted; and in the Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

vegetation type, 43 species were noted, indicating a large overlap of species 

diversity in the two vegetation types. The relatively low number of species is a 

reflection of the overall homogeneity of the environmental conditions on the site. 

The Permit Area has limited topographic variability and no wetland environments 

(Section 3.5). 

In the sections that follow, each of the vegetation types is described based on data 

collected and on general observations made during the site visits. 

3.7.2.1 Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland Type 

The Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland type covers most of the Permit Area 

(Figure 3.7-1). Figure 3.7-4 is a photograph of an area typical of this vegetation 

type. Overall, this type covers approximately 85 percent of the main Permit Area 

and 96 percent of the area along the East and West Access Roads. It covers flat 

areas and the gently sloping south-facing slopes. The slope at the sampled 

transects in this type ranged between zero to six percent (Table 3.7-1). Soils 

throughout the upland areas are mostly shallow and coarse textured. The only 

environmental settings on the Permit Area that do not support the Upland Big 

Sagebrush Shrubland type are the areas along the drainages where the Lowland 

Big Sagebrush Shrubland type grows. 

 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.7-8 

April 2012

Table 3.7-2 Rare Plant Species in Sweetwater County 

Scientific Name Common Name Distribution in 

Sweetwater County 

Heritage 

Rank 

Federal 

Status 

Artemisia biennis var 

diffusa 

Mystery 

Wormwood Central G5T1Q/S1 C2 

Asclepias uncialis Dwarf 

Milkweed Northwestern G3/SH C2, S-R2 

Astragalus jejunus var. 

jejunus 

Starveling 

Milkvetch 

Eastern & Western 

Edges G3T1/S1 C2 

Astragalus 

proimanthus 

Precocious 

Milkvetch 

Extreme 

Southwestern G1/S1 C2 

Cirsium ownbeyi Ownbey’s 

Thistle South-Central G3/S1 C2 

Descurainia torulosa Wyoming 

Tansy Mustard South-Central G1/S1 C2, S-R2, S-R4 

Lesquerella 

macrocarpa 

Large-fruited 

Bladderpod North-Central G2/S2 C2 

Oryzopsis contracta 

Contracted 

Indian 

Ricegrass 

Northeast, 

Northwest & 

Southwest 

G3/S3 C2 

Penstemon acaulis var 

acaulis 

Stemless 

Beardtongue 

Extreme 

Southwestern G3/S1 C2, S-R4 

Penstemon gibbensii Gibben’s 

Beardtongue 

Extreme 

Southeastern G1/S1 C2 

Phlox opalensis Opal Phlox West-Central G1/S1 C2 

Thelesperma 

caespitosum 

Green River 

Greenthread Southwestern G1/S1 C2, S-R4 

Heritage Rank Codes: 

G1: Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences, or very 

few remaining individuals), or because of some factor of its biology making it especially 

vulnerable to extinction (Critically endangered throughout its range). 

G2: Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences) or because of other factors 

demonstrably making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. (Endangered 

throughout its range). 

G3: Very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 

occurrences. (Threatened throughout its range). 

G4: Apparently secure globally, though it might be quite rare in parts of range, especially at 

periphery. 

G5: Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of range, especially at 

periphery. 

T1: The variety is critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer 

occurrences, or very few remaining individuals), or because of some factor of its biology 

making it especially vulnerable to extinction (Critically endangered throughout its range). 

Q: Indicates uncertainty about taxonomic status. 

State Rank Codes: 

S1: Critically imperiled in state because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences, or very few 

remaining individuals), or because of some factor of its biology making it especially 

vulnerable to extirpation from the state. (Critically endangered in state). 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.7-9 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

S2: Imperiled in state because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences) or because of other factors 

demonstrably making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state (Endangered or 

threatened in state). 

S3: Rare in state (21 to 100 occurrences) 

SH: Of historical occurrence, not documented in Wyoming since 1920. 

Federal Status Codes: 

C2: Notice of Review, Category 2: taxa for which current information indicates that 

proposing to list as endangered or threatened is possible, but appropriate or substantial 

biological information is not on file to support an immediate rulemaking. 

S: Sensitive: those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which 

population viability is a concern as evidenced by: 

a) Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or 

density. 

b) Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would 

reduce a species’ existing distribution. 

R: Forest Region 

 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.7-10 

April 2012

Table 3.7-3 List of Vegetation Species Observed (Page 1 of 2) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Upland 

Big 

Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Lowland 

Big 

Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

COOL SEASON PERENNIAL GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS 

Agropyron dasystachyum Thickspike Wheatgrass x x 

Agropyron smithii Western Wheatgrass x 

Agropyron spicatum Bluebunch Wheatgrass x x 

Carex douglasii Douglas Sedge x 

Carex eleocharis Spikerush Sedge x 

Elymus cinereus Great Basin Wildrye x 

Hordeum jubatum Foxtail Barley x 

Koeleria macrantha Prairie Junegrass x x 

Muhlenbergia richardsonis Mat Muhly x 

Oryzopsis hymenoides Indian Ricegrass x x 

Poa secunda Sandberg Bluegrass x x 

Sitanion longifolium Squirreltail Grass x x 

Stipa comata Needle-and-thread Grass x x 

Stipa lettermannii Lettermann Needlegrass x 

PERENNIAL FORBS 

Allium textile Prairie Onion x x 

Antennaria rosea Pussytoes x 

Arabis sp. Rockcress x x 

Astragalus mollissimus Woolly Milkvetch x 

Astragalus sericoleucus Silky Milkvetch x 

Crepis occidentalis Hawksbeard x 

Cryptantha thrysiflora Cryptantha x 

Erigeron pumilus Fleabane x 

Hymenoxis acaulis Stemless Actinea x 

Lomatium orientale Bisquitroot x 

Machaeranthera canescens Machaeranthera x 

Sedum lanceolatum Stonecrop x 

Senecio integerrimus Groundsel x 

Trifolium gymnocarpon Hollyleaf Clover x x 

CUSHION PLANTS 

Arenaria hookeri Hooker's Sandwort x x 

Astragalus spatulatus Spatulate Leaf Milkvetch x 

Eriogonum acaule Stemless Buckwheat x x 

Eriogonum ovalifolium Oval Leaved Buckwheat x x 

Haplopappus acaulis Stemless Goldenweed x 

Paronychia sessiliflora Nailwort x 

Phlox hoodii Hood's Phlox x x 

 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.7-11 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.7-3 List of Vegetation Species Observed (Page 2 of 2) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Upland 

Big 

Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Lowland 

Big 

Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

ANNUAL FORBS 

Alyssum desertorum Desert Alyssum x 

Chenopodium album Goosefoot x 

Chenopodium leptophyllum Narrowleaf Goosefoot x 

Cordylanthus ramosus Cordylanthus x 

Cryptantha minima Small Cryptantha x 

Descurainia pinnata Tansy Mustard x 

Gayophytum ramossissimum Gaywings x 

Lupinus kingii Annual Lupine x 

Microsteris micrantha Microsteris x 

Navarettia breweri Navarettia x 

Polygonum aviculare Devil's Shoestrings x 

Polygonum sawatchense Sawatch Knotweed x 

Sisymbrium altissimum Tumbling Hedge 

Mustard x 

SEMI-SHRUBS 

Artemisia frigida Fringed Sagewort x 

Artemisia spinescens Bud Sage x 

Ceratoides lanata Winterfat x x 

Gutierrezia sarothrae Broom Snakeweed x 

Leptodactylon pungens Leptodactylon x x 

CACTI 

Opuntia polyacantha Plains Prickly Pear 

Cactus x x 

SHRUBS 

Artemisia tridentata Big Sagebrush x x 

Chrysothamnus nauseosus Rubber Rabbitbrush x x 

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Rabbitbrush x x 

LICHENS 

Parmelia chlorochroa 

(lichen) Parmelia x x 

Total Species in Each Vegetation Type 36 43 

Total Number of Species = 58 

 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.7-12 

April 2012

Figure 3.7-4 Photo of the Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

* Photo taken at N42° 07’ 04.2”; W107° 53’ 10.7”, looking south, September 2006

The major species in the Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland type is big sagebrush, 

which occurs at a mean absolute cover of 14 percent, and accounts for 54 percent 

of the cover by all species. Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), needle-and-thread 

grass (Stipa comata), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), and thickspike 

wheatgrass (Agropyron dasystachyum) occur as the most prevalent perennial 

grass species. Together, these four species had a mean cover of eight percent and 

accounted for 31 percent of the cover by all species. Cushion plants are common 

in this vegetation type, but collectively accounted for only six percent of the cover 

by all species (Table 3.7-4). Even though the mean cover values for these species 

are low, they were commonly encountered along all the sample transects. The 

mean total vegetation cover in this type was 26 percent, the cover by litter and 

rock combined was 22 percent, the bare soil category was 52 percent, and the total 

ground cover (vegetation plus litter and rock) was 48 percent. The percent cover 

by bare soil is a reflection of the sparseness of the vegetation in the Upland Big 

Sagebrush Shrubland type. Even though there is a considerable amount of bare 

soil, the vegetation development is very homogeneous across the upland parts of 

the Permit Area. In general, vegetation development in the region is restricted 

because of the limited amount of annual precipitation. 
3.7-13 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.7-4 Cover Parameters of the Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland (Page 1 o
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.7-14 

April 2012

Table 3.7-4 Cover Parameters of the Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland (Pa
3.7-15 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.7-4 Cover Parameters of the Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland (Page 3 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.7-16 

April 2012

Shrubs are abundant in this vegetation type. Big sagebrush occurred at a density 

of 12,332 individuals per acre (about three individuals per square meter) and 

rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) occurred at a density of 1,490 

individuals per acre (0.4 individuals per square meter). While these shrub species 

occur at high densities, none of the plants are tall. In general, most of the plants 

are less than 0.5 meters in height and many are less than 0.25 meters in height. 

Semi-shrubs are also common in these upland areas. The total density for semishrub species was 2,583 individuals per acre (0.64 individuals per square meter), 

with winterfat (Ceratoides lanata) and prickly gilia (Leptodactylon pungens) 

occurring as the most prevalent of the semi-shrub species (Table 3.7-5). 

In all, 36 species were observed in the Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland type 

(Table 3.7-2), with a mean density of about 15 species per 50 square meters. 

Table 3.7-5 Shrub, Semi-Shrub, and Cactus Densities of the 

Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

Species 

Upland Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Lowland Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Frequency 

(percent) 

Mean 

# per 

square 

meter 

Mean 

# per 

acre 

Frequency 

(percent) 

Mean 

# per 

square 

meter 

Mean 

# per 

acre 

SHRUBS

Artemisia 

tridentata 100 3.046 12,332 100 3.561 14,417 

Chrysothamnus 

nauseosus 

0 0 0 35 0.027 109 

Chrysothamnus 

viscidiflorus 95 0.368 1490 95 0.64 2,591 

Total Shrubs 3.414 13,822 4.228 17,117 

SEMI-SHRUBS

Artemisia frigida 30 0.048 194 0 0 0

Artemisia 

spinescens 5 0.003 12 0 0 0

Ceratoides lanata 55 0.467 1,891 15 0.003 12 

Leptodactylon 

pungens 

40 0.120 486 35 0.055 223 

Total Semi-Shrubs 0.638 2,583 0.058 235 

CACTI

Opuntia 

polyacantha 95 0.09 364 50 0.069 279 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.7-17 DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

3.7.2.2 Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland Type 

The Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland type on the Permit Area occurs along and 

immediately adjacent to the ephemeral drainages that cross the Permit Area from 

north to south (Figure 3.7-1). Figure 3.7-5 is a photograph of an area typical of 

this vegetation type. Overall this type covers approximately 15 percent of the 

main Permit Area and four percent of the area along the East and West Access 

Roads. The soils along the drainages have the potential for holding more 

moisture than the upland areas. The increased potential soil moisture allows for 

more growth by big sagebrush so that the individual shrubs growing along the 

drainages tend to be much larger than the shrubs growing on the upland areas. 

Along some of the drainages, there are individual big sagebrush plants that are 

more than two meters tall that have stem diameters greater than 20 centimeters. 

Slope measurements along the sampled transects in this type ranged between zero 

and three percent; and all of the transects were either flat or had a southerly aspect 

component (Table 3.7-1).

Figure 3.7-5 Photo of the Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

* Photo taken at N42° 08’ 27.2”; W107° 49’ 13.7”, looking south, September, 2006 

The major species in the Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland type is big sagebrush, 

which occurred at a mean cover of 31 percent and accounted for 72 percent of the 

cover by all species. Rabbitbrush had a mean cover of three percent and 

accounted for eight percent of the total vegetation cover. These two dominant 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.7-18 

April 2012

shrub species tend to overwhelm the vegetation to the degree that herbaceous 

species account for only limited amounts of cover in this type. All native 

perennial grasses combined had a mean cover of seven percent (16 percent of the 

total vegetation cover), with Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), thickspike 

wheatgrass (Agropyron dasystachyum), and squirreltail grass (Sitanion 

longifolium) occurring as the most prevalent perennial grass species. Forb species 

occur throughout this type, but all occurred at mean cover values that were less 

than one percent. As a group, all forbs and cushion plants accounted for 

approximately three percent of the total vegetation cover. The mean total 

vegetation cover in this type was 43 percent, the cover by litter and rock 

combined was 34 percent, the bare soil category was 23 percent, and the total 

ground cover (vegetation plus litter and rock) was 77 percent (Table 3.7-6). 

Overall, the vegetation cover in the Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland type was 

17 percent greater than the cover in the Upland Big Sagebrush Shrubland type. 

Shrubs are abundant in this vegetation type. Big sagebrush occurred at a density 

of 14,417 individuals per acre (3.6 individuals per square meter), and rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) occurred at a density of 2,591 individuals per acre 

(0.6 individuals per square meter). Semi-shrubs occur in this type, but the overall 

densities are lower than the densities for semi-shrubs in the upland areas. The 

total density for semi-shrub species was 235 individuals per acre (0.1 individuals 

per square meter), with prickly gilia (Leptodactylon pungens) occurring as the 

most common of the semi-shrub species (Table 3.7-5). 

In all, 43 species were observed in this type (Table 3.7-2) with a mean density of 

about 13 species per 50 square meters. All of the raw data for vegetation cover 

and shrub density in this vegetation type are presented in Appendix D8 of the 

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

3.7.2.3 Endangered or Threatened Species 

Threatened and endangered species known to the region include the blowout 

penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) and the desert yellowhead (Yermo 

xanthocephalus). An additional 12 rare plant species are known to occur in 

Sweetwater County (Table 3.7-2). No threatened, endangered, or plant species of 

special concern were observed on the Permit Area; and no rare plants or 

appropriate habitat for them were found along the roadways. 

 
3.7-19 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.7-6 Cover Parameters of the Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland (Page 1 
DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.7-20 

April 2012 Table 3.7-6 Cover Parameters of the Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland (Page 2 o
3.7-21 

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 

April 2012

Table 3.7-6 Cover Parameters of the Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland (Page 3 of 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DRAFT EIS – LOST CREEK IN SITU URANIUM PROJECT 3.7-22 

April 2012

3.7.2.4 Weeds and Vegetation Communities with Limited 

Reclamation Potential 

Overall, the Permit Area has very few weeds. In reference to the List of 

Prohibited and Restricted Noxious (Designated) Weeds in WDEQ-LQD 

Guideline No. 2 (1997), only one noxious weed species, tansy mustard 

(Descurainia pinnata), was noted on the Permit Area (Table 3.7-3). Tansy 

mustard is designated as a restricted noxious weed and was observed as scattered 

individuals in the Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland. Tansy mustard was not 

actually encountered as part of the cover sampling; however, it did occur within 

one meter of either side of five of the 20 Lowland Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

transects and has a relative frequency of 1.97 percent. No areas dominated by 

weedy species were observed on the Permit Area. 

No vegetation communities with limited reclamation potential (LRP) or plant 

species indicative of soils with LPR were found on the Permit Area. Halophytes 

and salt-tolerant herbaceous species were among the vegetation species observed 

(e.g., Narrowleaf Goosefoot [Chenopodium leptophyllum] and Western 

Wheatgrass [Agrophyron smithii]), but the vegetation communities are dominated 

by Big Sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) rather than Greasewood (Sarcobatus

spp.) or Saltbush (Atriplex spp.). No selenium indicator species, such as Prince’s 

Plume (Stanleya pinnata), were observed on the site, and none of the soils on the 

Permit Area are considered to be seleniferous (Section 3.4.6). As noted in the 

discussion of the soil data, 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. In general, there were no reclamation requirements historically, so the 

areas of prior disturbance may be bare or some vegetation has naturally 

established. However, 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 future reclamation.