Bureau of Land Management 

Rawlins Field Office 

Lost Creek Uranium ISR Project 

Attn: Dennis J. Carpenter 

1300 North Third Street 

P.O. Box 2407 

Rawlins, WY 82301 

September 17, 2012 

Re: Lost Creek In Situ Recovery Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Mr. Carpenter: 

Please accept the following comments from the Wyoming Outdoor Council on the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Lost Creek In Situ Recovery Project (hereafter 

Lost Creek project). The Wyoming Outdoor Council has been working to protect Wyoming’s air, 

water, wildlife, and quality of life for future generations since 1967. We are disappointed that 

BLM proposed virtually no changes to the Lost Creek project based on the comments that we 

and others submitted on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Since the majority of 

the FEIS is identical to the DEIS, the concerns that we expressed in our June 11, 2012 comments 

still stand and we incorporate those comments into the record again by this reference. 

We are particularly concerned by the Lost Creek project’s potential impact on Greater SageGrouse and Wyoming pocket gopher. Neither species is accorded sufficient protections to ensure 

that it will not need the additional support that would be provided by a federal listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. The BLM is currently engaged in a national planning process to 

incorporate sage-grouse conservation measures into resource management plans in ten Western 

states. In addition, the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT), comprised principally of 

BLM’s own sage-grouse experts, has outlined important measures for protecting sage-grouse in 
2

the face of energy development.1 We therefore find it both surprising and concerning that the 

Rawlins BLM has ignored the recommendations of the NTT and its own conservation standards 

and has proceeded with a project – in designated sage-grouse core area habitat – that research has 

shown will be detrimental to sage-grouse. BLM appears to have done so based on the rationale 

that Wyoming’s Game and Fish Department and Department of Environmental Quality can 

envision worse scenarios than the one that is currently being proposed.2

 The claim that building a 

new access road through sage-grouse habitat would be worse for the area’s sage-grouse than 

upgrading a two-track and dirt road within 0.8 miles of five occupied (three active) sage-grouse 

leks and within several miles of numerous additional active leks does not justify permitting a 

project that violates the sage-grouse conservation measures outlined in the Governor’s Executive 

Order (EO-2011-5), the stipulations outlined in BLM’s own internal memorandum (BLM IM 

WY-2010-12), and the recommendations of BLM’s own sage-grouse experts.3

 If changes cannot 

be made so that potential impacts to sage-grouse are reduced, the Lost Creek project should not 

be allowed to proceed. 

In its response to our previous comments expressing concern that this project, as proposed, 

violates stipulations outlined in EO-2005-11, BLM stated that “Revising the contents of the Sage 

Grouse Executive Order and associated policies are outside the scope of this FEIS.” FEIS, 

Appendix F at F-30. We are not asking the BLM to revise the contents of EO-2011-5 and are 

aware that it has no jurisdiction to do so. Rather, we are asking the BLM to ensure that the Lost 

Creek project complies with the stipulations outlined in the EO, since the BLM adopted 

Wyoming’s state strategy (as outlined in EO-2005-11) through the issuance of BLM IM WY2012-019. In our view compliance means adhering to the stipulations outlined in EO-2011-5, 

including the following: 

 

 New development or land uses within Core Population Areas should be authorized or conducted 

only when it can be demonstrated that the activity will not cause declines in Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations. 

 Surface Occupancy: Within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks there will be 

no surface occupancy (NSO). NSO, as used in these recommendations, means no surface 

facilities including roads shall be placed within the NSO area. 

 

1

 Sage-grouse National Technical Team. 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse Conservation Measures. 

Produced for the Bureau of Land Management. 74 pp. 

2

 From FEIS at 4.9-32: “In the cases of the conflicting aspects (no surface disturbance within 0.6 miles of occupied 

leks and no main roads used to transport production and/or waste products located within 1.9 miles of an occupied 

Greater sage-grouse lek), consideration on the part of the WGFD supported exemption from these stipulations in the 

specific case of the Project, as the current road layout is anticipated to create less disturbance than if new roads 

meeting these stipulations were required.”

3

 For example the NTT recommends not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within priority habitats, 

including winter concentration areas (which to our knowledge BLM has not mapped for the Lost Creek Area) during 

any time of the year. As an exception to this recommendation, the NTT suggests that if the lease is entirely within 

priority habitats, the BLM should apply a 4‐mile NSO around the lek, and limit permitted disturbances to 1 per 

section with no more than 3% surface disturbance in that section. (Italics added). 
3

 Locate main roads used to transport production and/or waste products >1 .9 miles from the 

perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. Locate other roads used to provide facility site access 

and maintenance > 0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. 

 Any exceptions to these general or specific stipulations will be considered on a case by case basis 

and must show that the exception will not cause declines in sage grouse populations. 

(Italics added). 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) has determined that the Lost Creek project 

is in compliance with EO-2011-5 by capitalizing on the “exceptions” clause listed above since 

otherwise the project clearly violates stipulations related to no surface occupancy and main haul 

road locations. However, the WGFD has not shown that these exceptions will not cause declines 

in sage-grouse populations and it therefore falls to BLM, as the agency tasked with permitting 

the project on public land, to do so or risk violating both its management mandates and 

Wyoming’s EO 2011-5. 

BLM Should Conduct a Comprehensive Analysis on the Impact of Roads on Greater SageGrouse 

The BLM should rely on its own analysis of the most current scientific research in determining 

whether this project should proceed as proposed and follow the recommendations of its NTT, 

rather than relying exclusively and unquestioningly on the WGFD’s stated approval of the 

project. The WGFD conducted a “viewshed analysis” and determined that the access roads will 

mainly be out of view of lekking sage-grouse so should not pose a problem to the area’s grouse. 

FEIS at 4.9-29. To our knowledge, there is no scientific research to support the conclusion that 

roads that cannot be seen by lekking sage-grouse do not have an adverse impact on sage-grouse. 

The BLM intimates that the WGFD has anecdotal evidence supporting this claim. If so, this 

information should be provided in detail to the public to support the WGFD and BLM’s 

arguments that the Lost Creek roads will not adversely impact sage-grouse. 

The WGFD’s conclusion that the proposed Lost Creek access roads will not be visible to lekking 

sage-grouse and therefore will not adversely affect project area sage-grouse fails to acknowledge 

the abundant scientific research that has documented sage-grouse declines as a result of access 

roads related to energy development,4 much of which we detailed in our previous comments. It 

fails to acknowledge recent findings by Blickley and others (2012) that suggest that it is the 

 

4

 For example: Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to 

natural gas field development in western Wyoming. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

Wyoming. Lyon, A. G. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse initiation and 

movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491. Braun, C. E. 1986. Changes in sage-grouse lek counts with advent 

of surface coal mining. Proceedings of Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife 

2:227-231.
4

intermittent noise associated with traffic that is so disruptive to sage-grouse.5 Furthermore, this 

conclusion fails to acknowledge other impacts associated with roads, such as vehicular 

collisions, habitat fragmentation, and fugitive dust. It also fails to acknowledge that roads and 

other anthropogenic changes to landscapes facilitate the incursion of ravens – a sage-grouse nest 

predator – into pristine sagebrush habitat.6

 Likewise, it fails to acknowledge that roads can serve 

as conduits for predators, particularly synanthropic predators that could prey on both sage-grouse 

and their nests. It also fails to recognize that both male and female sage-grouse walk and fly to 

leks and so are quite likely to “see” the roads even if they can’t see them when on the leks. And 

finally, and perhaps most importantly, it fails to recognize that a significant proportion of female 

sage-grouse nest within four miles of the leks on which they breed,7

 so the proposed roads are 

likely to adversely impact nesting females and reduce their reproductive success. Lower 

reproductive success will lead to lower recruitment on the leks and therefore fewer males 

lekking, regardless of whether or not male grouse can see or are disturbed by the nearby roads 

while displaying. 

In summarizing our concerns with the WGFD’s reliance on its viewshed analysis to dismiss 

concerns of adverse impacts to sage-grouse from the proposed access roads, we stated in our 

comments on the DEIS that: 

“The WFGD has also erred in determining that based on a “topographical visual assessments of 

 the West Access Road, the topography creates a barrier between the West Access Road and the 

 nearby leks, reducing the impact this road could have on neighboring leks.” DEIS at 2-94. The 

 BLM should not support this disingenuous analysis that presumes that sage-grouse will not be 

adversely impacted by roads if they cannot see them.”

Quite bafflingly, the BLM summarized our comment by claiming that we stated that “The 

WGFD does not believe that the topographical visual assessment is an appropriate method to 

determine the effect the Project roads could have on Greater sage-grouse.” In response to this 

alleged statement by the Wyoming Outdoor Council, the BLM assured us that “ The visual 

assessment was added to the DEIS at the request of WGFD.” FEIS, Appendix F at F-39. We are 

 

5

 Blickley, J. L., D. Blackwood, and G. L. Patricelli. 2012. Experimental evidence for the effects of chronic 

anthropogenic noise on abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse at leks. Conservation Biology 26(3):461–471.

6

Bui, T.-V. D., J. M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in relation to land use in western 

Wyoming: Implications for greater sage-grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65-78. Coates, P. S., and D. J. 

Delehanty. 2010. Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 74:240-248.

7 Moynahan, B. 2004. Landscape-scale factors affecting population dynamics of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) in north-central Montana, 2001-2004. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Montana. Missoula, MT. 

Holloran, M. J. and S. H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial distribution of greater sage-grouse nests in relatively contiguous 

sagebrush habitats. Condor 107:742-752. Sage-grouse National Technical Team. 2011. A Report on National 

Greater Sage‐Grouse Conservation Measures. Produced for the Bureau of Land Management. 74 pp.
5

aware of that the viewshed analysis was initiated by the WGFD; it is the conclusions that they 

drew from this analysis that we dispute. 

BLM further states that the WGFD claimed “that the vegetation and prevailing wind direction 

would help dissipate the sounds of traffic before they reached the edge of the lek. Therefore, it 

was concluded by the WGFD that the sage-grouse leks would not be exposed to noise levels 

above those specified in the EO.” As far as we are aware, the WGFD has no data to support these 

claims. Moreover, Blickley and others showed that it was the intermittent nature of the traffic 

noise, not the volume of the traffic noise that was disruptive to sage-grouse. And, as we have 

underscored, the roads are most likely to adversely affect nesting female sage-grouse and the 

existence of a hill between the roads that fragment the nesting habitat associated with these 

nearby leks is unlikely to mitigate this impact. We suspect that the 50 SUVs and 2-5 

tractor/trailers per day that are projected to travel along the access roads will be heard by sagegrouse – if not on nearby leks then certainly by sage-grouse that are dispersed in adjacent nesting 

habitat. And we remind the BLM that even light traffic of 1-12 vehicles per day has been shown 

to adversely affect sage-grouse by reducing female nest-initiation rates and increasing the 

distances that females move from leks when selecting their nest sites.8

The core area strategy outlines conservation measures based on a wealth of scientific research to 

better protect core area grouse. Core area stipulations were developed to counteract development 

and other pressures on sage-grouse in non-core areas. In addition, EO-2011-5 states that 

protective measures were to be re-evaluated on a yearly basis to accommodate new scientific 

research findings,9 such as those outlined by Blickley and others.10 By allowing Lost Creek ISR, 

LLC (hereafter LCI) to build main haul roads in close proximity to active sage-grouse leks and in 

sage-grouse nesting habitat, BLM is failing to adhere to recommendations laid out by the 

Governor’s Sage-Grouse Implementation Team and endorsed by two Wyoming governors. Just 

because state agencies are willing to do so does not mean that the BLM should follow in their 

footsteps and risk undermining the main regulatory mechanism that stands between continued 

energy development in Wyoming and a listing of the sage-grouse under the ESA. Nor should 

BLM ignore the management directives laid out in its own policy guidance (IM 2012-43), which 

requires that the agency “seek[s] to maintain, enhance, or restore conditions for Greater SageGrouse and its habitat.”

 

8

 Lyon, A. G. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse initiation and 

movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491. 

9 EO-2011-5 at 4: “The protective stipulations outlined in this Executive Order should be reevaluated on a

continuous basis and at a minimum annually, as new science, information and data emerge regarding 

Core Population Areas and the habitats and behaviors of the Greater Sage-Grouse.”

10 Blickley, J. L., D. Blackwood, and G. L. Patricelli. 2012. Experimental evidence for the effects of chronic 

anthropogenic noise on abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse at leks. Conservation Biology 26(3):461–471. 
6

The BLM Should Reconsider the One-Access-Road Alternative 

 The BLM claims in the FEIS, as it did in the DEIS, that Sweetwater County requires two access 

roads for ingress and ingress as justification for why potential impacts to sage-grouse may not be 

reduced through the use of one instead of two access roads. Once again BLM cites 

LCI 2011a – Lost Creek ISR, LLC’s closing arguments before the Environmental Quality 

Council – as the source for this information. This reference is hardly unbiased given that it is 

based entirely on a claim made by the proponent. If this county rule does indeed exist, BLM 

should either cite the county legislation that states this requirement or it should provide a letter 

from Sweetwater County Commissioners validating this claim. 

Interestingly, in their comments on the DEIS, Sweetwater County Commissioners stated that: 

“Even though Lost Creek ISR, LLC (Lost Creek) has obtained the required Development Plan 

 and Zone Changes from Sweetwater County, they may have to amend these permits if they are 

 required to move their plant site and other extraction facilities to accommodate existing 

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

 Bingham, Land Use Director ... to discuss this process.” (Italics and emphasis added). FEIS, 

 Appendix F at F-8. 

These statements show a willingness by the County Commissioners to remain flexible and work 

with the BLM to reduce the project’s impact on sage-grouse. The County Commissioners appear 

to recognize the importance of adhering to the stipulations governing sage-grouse protection in 

EO 2011-5 in order to prevent a listing of sage-grouse that would have a significant effect on 

other energy projects in Sweetwater County. We believe that the Sweetwater County 

Commissioners’ stated willingness to be flexible and accommodate necessary adjustments in the 

project’s footprint in order for the project to remain in compliance with the EO should precipitate 

a meeting between the commissioners and the BLM to further discuss the one road option, which 

could reduce the project’s proposed impact on sage-grouse. We urge the BLM to address this 

issue directly and we would appreciate hearing about the outcome of any such correspondence or 

meeting. If two roads are indeed required, the BLM should consider designating one road as 

emergency-use-only to minimize traffic impacts on the area’s sage-grouse and construct it as a 

lower level (local or resource) road. 

The BLM Should Conduct a Habitat Equivalency Analysis for the Lost Creek Project 

Given the serious impact the Lost Creek project could have on local sage-grouse if the project 

proceeds as proposed and the unwillingness of permitting agencies to reduce potential impacts 

by redesigning the project footprint, we urge the BLM to conduct a Habitat Equivalency 

Analysis (HEA) so that proposed losses to habitat services and associated costs can be 
7

adequately measured and suitable compensatory mitigation can be developed. The Lost Creek 

project is being proposed at a critical juncture for both the Greater Sage-Grouse, for which a 

final listing decision is expected by 2015, and for Wyoming, whose sage-grouse core area 

conservation strategy is being closely watched to monitor its effectiveness. It would behoove 

both the proponent and the BLM to conduct a quantitatively robust and scientifically defensible 

analysis of both project impacts and proposed mitigation. 

BLM claims that “particular attention was given to protection measures for Greater sagegrouse.” FEIS at 4.9-1. Nevertheless, the project is in clear violation of Wyoming and the BLM’s 

stipulations regarding no surface occupancy and the location of main haul roads in core sagegrouse areas. Conducting an HEA would allow the BLM to quantitatively analyze the predicted 

impacts from the access roads and other project infrastructure and develop suitable mitigation 

and compensation measures as the project is developed, rather than waiting to document sagegrouse declines and then trying to develop measures to reverse those declines. 

The BLM states that project monitoring “would lead to and guide effective protection actions.”

FEIS 4.9-13, though it provides limited examples of what might comprise such actions. BLM 

plans to mitigate any documented sage-grouse population declines that result from the 

development of the Lost Creek project by enacting “additional protective measures” if an impact 

threshold is reached. FEIS at 4.9-9. Nevertheless, BLM is unspecific about what such protective 

actions might consist of other than instituting speed limits, watering the road to reduce fugitive 

dust, and putting markers on fences – all of which are measures that the BLM presumably would 

implement from the project’s outset. Once roads and facilities have been constructed, measures 

such as reducing speed limits and watering roads are unlikely to reverse downward population 

trajectories. However, conducting an HEA would ensure that mitigation measures were 

implemented prior to project development and adequate compensatory measures were developed 

to counteract any development components that could not be adequately mitigated. 

BLM Should Provide Additional Information About Sage-Grouse Leks and Lost Creek’s 

Exploration Activities 

The BLM provides data (lek counts for 2010 and 2011) about two leks in the FEIS that are not 

mentioned in the FEIS: Stinking Springs North and Stratton Camp. FEIS Table 3.8-40. The 

accompanying text makes no mention of these leks. Nor does it explain why additional leks were 

included in the table. According to the “Lost Creek Project, 2010 Wildlife Monitoring Report”, 

the Stinking Springs North and Stratton Camp are “reference area” leks (newly located in 2010) 

rather than “affected area” leks. FEIS Appendix C, Table 2.2C. If that is indeed the case then 

BLM should explain why it has included these reference area leks in the FEIS and not all of the 

other reference area leks that were monitored. 
8

BLM also should explain why only one count was conducted for the Stratton Camp lek in 2011 

compared, for example, to seven counts for the Southland Well Lek. The Stratton Camp had a 

maximum male count of 26 males in 2010 and 22 males in 2011, so it is not an insignificant lek. 

Finally, in its discussion of leks that are likely to be affected by the proposed project BLM lists 

the leks that occur within two to five miles of the permit area boundary. However, we are unclear 

why the BLM does not list all of the leks that occur within this distance. Other nearby leks such 

as Osborne Draw, Little Osborne, Eagle’s Nest Reservoir, Eagle Nest Draw, and Sand Gully are 

not mentioned and yet they may well be impacted by the proposed project. As we mentioned in 

our previous comments, the BLM should provide a table that lists the distances between each lek 

and the permit area, as well as the distances between each lek and the closest proposed project 

infrastructure. 

Finally, we suggested in our comments on the DEIS that LCI’s exploratory activities may 

already have had an impact on sage-grouse lek numbers in the project area, stating that: 

We are concerned that LCI’s exploratory activities ... including associated increases in levels of 

 traffic and human activity over the last few years already have caused significant disturbance to 

the area’s grouse, particularly given some of the population declines seen in the Lost Creek area 

 ... [T]he level of disturbance that the Lost Creek area already has experienced as a result of 

 initiation of the Lost Creek project merit further investigation and disclosure in the [F]EIS. 

The BLM dismissed these concerns by stating that “The discussion of declines in populations

referenced in Section 3.8.3.2 is regional, not specific to Lost Creek.” FEIS, Appendix F at F-40. 

However, the “Lost Creek Project, 2010 Wildlife Monitoring Report” states that:

 Population trends estimated as the slope of the line through annual counts on leks throughout the 

 [sage-grouse] monitoring areas cumulatively suggest populations decreased 15% on average 

 annually throughout the monitoring areas over the last 5 years (2006-2010). Leks within 4 miles of 

 the Lost Creek lease area boundaries decreased on average 20% annually, as compared to leks 

 >4 miles from the lease boundary and within the Large [Sage-Grouse] Monitoring Area that 

 decreased on average 14% annually over the last 5 years.” FEIS, Appendix C at C-16 to C-17. 

 (Italics added).

While the authors of the report do not state whether the difference in population declines within 

and outside four miles of the Lost Creek lease boundary is statistically significant, we still 

believe that this information is important and should be made more readily accessible to the 

general public. We therefore urge the BLM to address the issue of Lost Creek’s exploration 

activities and their potential impacts on the area’s sage-grouse population in its Record of 

Decision and other documents related to Lost Creek. Given that current sage-grouse numbers 

will be used as a baseline when evaluating the future impact of the Lost Creek project, it is 

important for the public to be aware that sage-grouse numbers may already have declined prior 

to the project’s inception because of exploratory activities in the area and other anthropogenic 
9

disturbances associated with the initiation of the Lost Creek project. 

BLM Should Eliminate Language Stating that the Lost Creek Project is in Compliance with 

EO-2011-5 

As we mentioned previously, the BLM made remarkably few changes to the DEIS, copying it 

almost verbatim for the FEIS. However, the BLM did remove the sentence: “In an effort to 

mitigate [vehicular] strikes and comply with the Executive Order, main hauling roads would be 

located farther than 1.9 miles away from occupied leks” (DEIS at 4.9-7). We view this deletion 

as tacit acknowledgement that the agency realized this statement was inaccurate. Not only will 

main haul roads be located within 1.9 miles of at least five occupied sage-grouse leks, but such a 

stipulation clearly runs counter to the EO-2011-05 which states that energy development projects 

in designated sage-grouse core areas must “Locate main roads used to transport production 

and/or waste products >1 .9 miles from the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks.” 

Unfortunately, the BLM did not correct these inaccuracies throughout the FEIS. For example, the 

BLM states that “LCI would follow the stipulations and management principles provided by the 

Wyoming Governor’s SGIT [Sage-Grouse Implementation Team] while conducting the 

Proposed Action.” FEIS at 3.8-28. It later states that “the Proposed Action would include 

adherence to the SGIT stipulations.” FEIS at 4.9-26. In actuality, however, LCI will not be 

adhering to the EO stipulations of no surface occupancy within 0.6 miles of leks and no main 

haul roads within 1.9 miles of leks. The BLM states more explicitly in Table 4.9.1 that it will 

allow “No surface disturbing or disruptive activities within 0.6 mile of an occupied lek” and yet 

it intends to allow main access or haul roads within one active lek (Discover) and one Occupied 

Inactive lek (Discover 2). Two other active leks (Green Ridge and Sooner) also occur within 0.6 

miles of an access road. Although this is an existing road, traffic will increase significantly once 

this project is initiated which could have an adverse impact on sage-grouse, particularly on those 

females which visit these leks and subsequently nest in their vicinity. 

Statements about LCI’s compliance with the EO should be eliminated in subsequent projectrelated documents (such as the Record of Decision). The BLM should state more accurately that 

exceptions are being made for the Lost Creek project and that LCI is not being required to adhere 

to the protective sage-grouse stipulations that are outlined in EO-2011-5 and form the basis of 

Wyoming’s core area conservation strategy. It is important for the BLM to be transparent in its 

decision-making and the public, other development projects, and state and federal agencies 

should be aware of how Wyoming’s sage-grouse core area strategy is being implemented and 

which energy development projects are being required to adhere to its stipulations.

Despite its many claims that the project is in compliance with EO-2011-5, the BLM appears to 
10

recognize that the Lost Creek project is likely to adversely impact the area’s sage-grouse. For 

example, it states that “given the potential reaction of females to Project activities, the 

probability of maintaining a sample of radio-equipped birds in areas affected by Project activities 

throughout the life of the Project may be low.” The BLM continues by stating that “Therefore, 

for the purposes of designing the monitoring program, it has been assumed that uranium 

extraction in the Permit Area would have an influence on nesting and early brood-rearing 

females similar to the influence of natural gas development.” This statement runs counter to 

LCI’s repeated claims that uranium is a low impact type of energy development compared to oil 

and gas. BLM cannot have it both ways. It cannot recognize the likely impacts of the project on 

sage-grouse and state that they are likely to be similar to other types of development and then 

allow the company to claim that its impacts on sage-grouse will be minimal and it should not 

have to adhere to the same protective stipulations as other types of energy development projects. 

The BLM Must Institute Protective Measures for Wyoming Pocket Gopher 

Despite the extensive concerns that we (and others) expressed about the Wyoming pocket 

gopher, the likelihood that it will be petitioned again for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act, and the BLM’s responsibility for managing its designated sensitive species, BLM made no 

changes to the sections regarding pocket gophers in the FEIS. We are disappointed that the BLM 

opted not to provide any protections whatsoever for the Wyoming pocket gopher, a rare and 

little-studied species that is endemic to Carbon and Sweetwater Counties. Instead the BLM 

simply and unabashedly repeated that “Wyoming pocket gopher burrow complexes can be 

expected to disappear in the disturbed areas for the life of the Project.” FEIS at 4.9-38. 

BLM responded to our previously expressed concerns by stating that “the monitoring and 

mitigation measures described in Sections 4.9.1 and 4.9.2 conform with current policies and 

procedures for protection of these species in the Permit Area.” We fail to see how the complete 

disappearance of a species of concern from a proposed project area conforms to BLM’s 

management policies, particularly given BLM’s mandate to “implement management plans that 

conserve [sensitive] species and their habitats.” BLM Manual MS-6840.06.C & .06.E. 

As mentioned in our comments on the DEIS, the BLM also must ensure that “activities affecting 

the habitat of candidate [and sensitive] species are carried out in a manner that is consistent with 

the objectives for managing those species.” BLM Manual MS-6840.06.C.2. We are baffled that 

BLM can reconcile allowing the complete disappearance of a rare species in a designated project 

area with its supposed management objectives. We ask that the BLM address these concerns 

more explicitly than it did in its response in the FEIS to our previous comments. 
11

BLM attempts to excuse its abrogation of its management responsibilities for the Wyoming 

pocket gopher by claiming that “[b]ecause of the very similar surrounding habitat conditions, 

Wyoming pocket gophers are expected to exist throughout the Permit Area and outside the 

Permit Area; thus, a population-level effect is not expected for the surrounding areas.” FEIS at 

4.9-38. Considering that “similar surrounding habitat conditions exist in much of the state, yet 

the Wyoming pocket gopher does not occur outside a very limited range argue against this claim. 

Given the species’ narrow ecological niche and limited dispersal capabilities (WYNDD 2010),

the BLM’s assumptions lack any scientific basis. Indeed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) states that “[b]ased on the characterization of the Wyoming pocket gopher's size and 

habitat, it appears to fit the island model of isolation displayed by other species of pocket 

gophers specifically adapted to the soils of an area.”

11 Before dismissing concerns about the Lost 

Creek project’s potential impacts on area pocket gopher populations because of the assumed 

occurrence of the species in and around the project area, the BLM must conduct significantly 

more extensive surveys to ensure that these claims have any scientific merit and to guarantee that 

a core population of this sensitive species is not carelessly eliminated. 

The BLM has a unique responsibility to manage the Wyoming pocket gopher to conserve its 

scattered and vulnerable population. The agency administers approximately half of the lands 

within the species’ range12 and the Lost Creek project area contains the densest-known 

concentration of Wyoming pocket gophers in the state (Personal communication with Gary 

Beauvais, Director, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, June 18, 2012). The species is a State 

imperiled species with a G2/S2 rank, with the G2 indicating a relatively high probability of 

global extinction based primarily on the species’ extremely small global range and the S2 

referring to the species relatively high probability of extinction from Wyoming based on the 

species’ restricted range, its low range occupation, uncertain abundance trends, and biological 

vulnerability.13 The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission restricts take of Wyoming pocket 

gophers in its regulations.14 As part of the basis for its decision not to list the Wyoming pocket 

gopher under the Endangered Species Act in 2010, the USFWS argued that despite the fact that 

proposed oil and gas development covered much of the species known range, “[b]ased on our 

current understanding of the Wyoming pocket gopher, energy development, at levels that we can 

detect or anticipate, is as likely to benefit Wyoming pocket gophers as it is to harm them.” 75 FR 

19599. No one could argue, however, that the complete “disappearance” of the Lost Creek 

 

11 From Miller, R. S. 1964. Ecology and distribution of pocket gophers (Geomyidae) in Colorado. Ecology 

45(2):256-272. Referenced in 75 FR 19594. 

12 75 FR 19599 (April 15, 2010). 

13 Keinath, D.A. and G. P. Beauvais. 2003. Wyoming Animal Element Ranking Guidelines. The Wyoming Natural 

Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Keinath, D. A. and G. P. Beauvais. 2006. Wyoming 

pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. <http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/wyomingpocketgopher.pdf.>. Accessed September 13, 

2012. 

14 W.S. §23-1-103 and §23-1-302. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Regulations. 1998. Chapter 52 –

Nongame wildlife. Section 11. 
12

Wyoming pocket gopher burrow complexes could be “beneficial” to this vulnerable species. A 

small geographic range has been identified as the single most important indicator of elevated 

extinction risk in mammals (references in 75 FR 19604). Conservative and protective 

management activities therefore are critical to prevent such geographically constrained species 

from succumbing to stochastic events. What occurs in the range of a geographically constrained 

species is therefore critical and the BLM must live up to its mandate and “ensure that actions 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM do not contribute to the need for the species to 

become listed.” BLM Manual MS-6840.06.C & .06.E. (Empasis added). 

BLM Should Include Information about the Proposed Whirlwind I Project in its Cumulative 

Impact Analysis and Provide Critical Oversight in the Development of the Lost Creek Project 

In response to our comment that the BLM did not include the proposed 65,000-acre, 500-800 

MW Whirlwind I project in its cumulative effects analysis, the BLM responded by stating that 

“Other than press releases in early 2012 (e.g., Casper Star Tribune ...), which indicated the 

“eventual size of the project will be determined by factors like transmission capacity and siting 

constraints” and availability of leases, little information is available.” FEIS, Attachment F-38 to 

F-39. We find this statement particularly surprising given that the project proponents have had 

two pre-scoping meetings with the BLM in which they provided a map and details of the 

proposed project. According to Wold Companies, which met with the Wyoming Outdoor 

Council in March 2012 after one of its pre-scoping meetings with the BLM, the proponents 

planned to complete Plan of Development and Cost Recovery agreements in March 2012 and 

initiate the NEPA process in April 2012. They have installed three meteorological towers and 

have been collecting wind data since 2009. They planned to install seven more meteorological 

towers in 2012. BLM cannot dismiss this project in its cumulative impact section by claiming 

ignorance of the project’s details, given the level of engagement it has had with this proposed 

project. 

BLM’s oversight is critical to protecting the many sage-grouse that occur in the Lost Creek area 

and ensuring that Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse will not need the additional protection that 

would be accorded to them by a listing under the Endangered Species Act. If the project 

proponent, Lost Creek ISR, LLC (LCI) intends to develop the projected Lost Creek North and 

Lost Creek South projects as outlined in the FEIS’s cumulative impact analysis, it has a 

disincentive to maintain sage-grouse in these areas (which are immediately adjacent – north and 

south – to the current project) since the presence of sage-grouse and the abundant leks in these 

areas will only impede project development. The easiest path to development for these projects 

will be if the sage-grouse in and around the proposed Lost Creek project are displaced or 

exterminated. BLM should be aware of this quandary and provide the necessary oversight to 

ensure that sage-grouse populations do not decline as a result of the Lost Creek project. 
13

Conclusion 

Although we have focused these comments on Greater Sage-Grouse and Wyoming pocket 

gopher issues, the concerns and recommendations we expressed regarding other wildlife in our 

DEIS comments still stand. For example, we believe that waste storage ponds should be covered 

with netting to provide adequate protection for birds and to ensure compliance with the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, we do not believe that the BLM adequately addressed 

our specific questions and concerns regarding the project’s potential impact on sagebrush 

obligate passerines and other migratory birds. We are disturbed by the BLM’s repeated claims 

that similar habitat exists adjacent to the project area so species that are displaced by the project 

can just go elsewhere. Such claims are indefensible and show a fundamental lack of 

understanding about ecological concepts such as territoriality, intra- and inter-specific 

competition, and micro-habitat selection. If animals could just go elsewhere whenever their 

current habitat were threatened by development, the sagebrush ecosystem surely would not have 

been highlighted as a system in “free fall” and categorized as the most threatened bird habitat in 

the continental United States.15

 

BLM is mandated to provide adequate protections for sensitive species such as sage-grouse and 

Wyoming pocket gopher so that they don’t require the additional protections that would be 

provided by a federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, the USFWS has 

cautioned that Wyoming’s core area conservation strategy (as outlined in EO-2011-5) must be 

appropriately implemented if the strategy is to serve as an adequate regulatory mechanism for 

conserving the state’s sage-grouse.

16 Allowing companies to violate the EO’s protective 

stipulations by capitalizing on a portion of an exception clause surely will not be viewed as 

successful implementation of the strategy. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent for other 

development projects that likely will have equally compelling reasons for wanting to ignore the 

EO’s science-based provisions. We urge the BLM to take a more critical look at the Lost Creek 

project and require adjustments that better protect sensitive species such as sage-grouse and 

Wyoming pocket gopher. Without such adjustments, the Lost Creek project is likely to exact an 

unacceptable toll on the area’s wildlife for which there could be significant repercussions. 

 

15 American Bird Conservancy. 2007. Twenty most threatened bird habitats. American Bird Conservancy: The 

Plains, VA. 48 pp. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee, 2009. The State of the Birds, 

United States of America, 2009. U.S. Department of Interior: Washington, DC. 36 pages.

16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Letter from Mark Sattelberg, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, to Governor Mead, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor, June 24, 2011.
14

Sincerely, 

Sophie Osborn 

Wildlife Program Director/Wildlife Biologist 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

cc: Governor Matt Mead 

 Don Simpson, Bureau of Land Management 

 Mark Sattelberg, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Pat Deibert, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Scott Talbott, Wyoming Game and Fish Department