$SSHQGL[&

/RVW&UHHN3URMHFW:LOGOLIH

0RQLWRULQJ5HSRUW

/RVW&UHHN3URMHFW:LOGOLIH

0RQLWRULQJ5HSRUW
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[&

Lost Creek Project, 2010 Wildlife Monitoring Report

&

Prepared For: 

Lost Creek ISR, LLC 

5880 Enterprise, STE 200 

Casper, WY 82609 

Prepared By: 

LWR Consultants, Inc. 

1001 Jefferson Drive 

Berthoud, CO 80513 

and 

Wyoming Wildlife Consultants, Inc. 

P.O. Box 893 

Pinedale, WY 82941 

In association with: 

AATA International, Inc. 

300 East Boardwalk Drive 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

April 2011 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[&

TABLE OF CONTENTS

&

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 

2.0 Lost Creek 2010 Wildlife Monitoring Results and Discussion ................................................ 4 

2.1 Big Game .............................................................................................................................. 4 

2.1.1 Seasonal Distribution and Habitat Affinity.................................................................... 4 

2.1.2 Climate Information....................................................................................................... 5 

2.1.3 Range Conversion.......................................................................................................... 5 

2.1.4 Mortality and Concentration Buildups........................................................................... 5 

2.2 Sage-grouse/Upland Birds .................................................................................................... 6 

2.2.1 Populations..................................................................................................................... 7 

2.2.1.1 Lek Counts.............................................................................................................. 7 

2.2.1.2 Lek Searches ........................................................................................................... 9 

2.2.1.3 Analysis of Lek Data ............................................................................................ 11 

2.2.2 Habitat Selection.......................................................................................................... 13 

2.2.2.1 Trapping................................................................................................................ 13 

2.2.2.2. Nesting Habitat Selection .................................................................................... 13 

2.2.2.3 Early Brood-Rearing Habitat Selection ................................................................ 14 

2.2.2.4 Mid Brood-Rearing Habitat Selection .................................................................. 14 

2.2.2.5 Late Brood-Rearing Habitat Selection.................................................................. 14 

2.2.2.6 Barren Female Spring and Barren Female Summer Habitat Selection................. 14 

2.2.2.7 Fall and Winter Habitat Selection......................................................................... 14 

2.2.3 Demographics .............................................................................................................. 15 

2.2.3.1 Nest Propensity ..................................................................................................... 15

2.2.3.2 Nest Success.......................................................................................................... 15 

2.2.3.3 Early Brood-Rearing Chick Survival.................................................................... 16 

2.2.3.4 Chick Production .................................................................................................. 16 

2.2.3.5 Adult Survival....................................................................................................... 17

2.3 Raptors ................................................................................................................................ 19 

2.3.1 Nest Status and Production Success ............................................................................ 19 

2.3.2 Measures of Disturbance.............................................................................................. 20 

2.3.3 Prey Abundance........................................................................................................... 21 

2.3.3.1 Lagomorphs .......................................................................................................... 21
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

2.3.3.2 Small Mammals .................................................................................................... 23 

2.4 Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest (MBHFI) ........................................................... 23 

2.5 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................... 24 

2.6 Non-Game Mammals.......................................................................................................... 24 

2.6.1 Wyoming Pocket Gopher Surveys............................................................................... 24 

2.6.1.1 Methods................................................................................................................. 25 

2.6.1.2 Results................................................................................................................... 25 

2.7 Non-Game Birds ................................................................................................................. 27 

2.8 Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................................................... 28 

3.0 Evaluation of Wildlife Protection Measures Utilized and Wildlife Mortality in 2010........... 29 

4.0 Recommendations for 2011 Wildlife Monitoring, Protection Measures................................ 31 

5.0 References............................................................................................................................. 355 

List of Tables 

Table 1A. 2010 Wildlife monitoring schedule .............................................................................. 3 

Table 2.1A. Summary of big game counts conducted during 2010 in the Lost Creek project area. 

........................................................................................................................................................ 4 

Table 2.1B. Climate data for Rawlins, Wyoming, from December 2009 through March 2010 

(NCDC 2010). ........................................................................................................... 5 

Table 2.2A. Sage-grouse lek count data summary in project SG Monitoring Areas..................... 7 

Table 2.2B. New leks found during lek searches in south-central Wyoming April 2010 ........... 10 

Table 2.2C. Sage-grouse leks in southcentral Wyoming: counts of the maximum number of 

males, 2006-10........................................................................................................ 10 

Table 2.2D. Female sage-grouse demographic results from radio-equipped individuals in southcentral Wyoming, 2010........................................................................................... 17 

Table 4.0A: 3-year running averages by Affected and Reference leks for the DDCT Area 

established by LC ISR, LLC. 

Table 2.2E. Lost Creek sage-grouse brood survey results........................................................... 18 

Table 2.3A. Lost Creek raptor nest locations............................................................................ 19 

Table 2.3B. 2010 Lagomorph spotlight survey results summary................................................ 20 

Table 2.3C. Pygmy rabbit transect results summary ................................................................... 21 

Table 2.4A. MBHFI 2010 transect results, Lost Creek Permit Area........................................... 22 

Table 2.6A. Wyoming pocket gopher survey results................................................................... 25 

Table 2.8A. Great Basin spadefoot toad, 2010 survey summary................................................. 27 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

Attachment A – Figures 

Figure 2.1A. Locations of Big Game Survey. 

Figure 2.2A . Greater sage-grouse study areas established for Ur-Energy’s Lost Creek lease in 

south-central Wyoming, 2010. 

Figure 2.2B. Capture locations of greater sage-grouse from leks surrounding UR-Energy’s Lost 

Creek lease in south-central Wyoming, 2010. 

Figure 2.2C. Locations for radio-equipped reproductively active greater sage-grouse females 

captured from leks surrounding UR-Energy’s Lost Creek lease in south-central 

Wyoming, 2010. 

Figure 2.2D. Locations for radio-equipped barren greater sage-grouse females captured from leks 

surrounding UR-Energy’s Lost Creek lease in south-central Wyoming, 2010. 

Figure 2.2E. Fall locations for radio-equipped greater sage-grouse females captured from leks 

surrounding UR-Energy’s Lost Creek lease in south-central Wyoming, 2010. 

Figure 2.2F. Winter locations for radio-equipped greater sage-grouse females captured from leks 

surrounding UR-Energy’s Lost Creek lease in south-central Wyoming, 2010. 

Figure 2.2G Sage-grouse brood rearing transects. 

Figure 2.2H Sage-grouse wing barrels locations. 

Figure 2.3A Raptor Nest Survey. 

Figure 2.3B Raptor Nests Measures of Nearest Disturbance. 

Figure 2.3C Pygmy Rabbit Survey 

Figure 2.4A MBHFI transects. 

Figure 2.6A Wyoming Pocket Gopher Surveys. 

Figure 2.8A Great Basin Spadefoot Toad Survey Routes. 

Figure 4.0A. Lost Creek ISR 2011 DDCT Analysis with 2011 Affected and Reference Leks 

Attachment B –Lost Creek Wildlife Species List Table, Incidental Wildlife Observations 

2010

The Attachment B Table B-1 provides a summary of species that have the potential to occur 

within the Permit Area and those that are known to occur within the Permit Area. Those known 

to occur have been confirmed within the permit area during wildlife surveys completed between 

2006 and 2010. New species documented in the Permit Area during 2010 included: 

Northern Pocket Gopher 

Wyoming Pocket Gopher 

Chestnut Collared Longspur 

Attachment C- Project Impact Analysis Area (PIAA) Renamed Density/Disturbance 

Calculation Tool (DDCT) Documents 
1.0 Introduction 

Lost Creek ISR, LLC (LC ISR, LLC) has completed extensive baseline wildlife surveys to 

evaluate existing wildlife resources in and adjacent to the Permit Area (LC ISR, LLC Appendix 

D9 WDEQ Application 2010). In addition, LC ISR, LLC has implemented protection measures 

as appropriate to the on-going exploration activities at the site, such as drilling restrictions based 

on location or timing for wildlife activities, and use of appropriate fencing around activity areas. 

LC ISR, LLC will continue a combination of protection measures and monitoring to improve the 

current understanding of in situ recovery (ISR) impacts on wildlife and minimize the impacts. 

LC ISR, LLC recognizes that ISR activities have the potential to impact wildlife, including: loss 

of habitat; changes in habitat usage due to increased human presence, reductions in food sources, 

displacement to new areas; and collisions with structures and vehicles. 

LC ISR, LLC developed a Wildlife Protection Plan and the Wildlife Monitoring Plan to prevent 

and minimize impacts to wildlife (LC ISR, LLC 2010). The Plan also included an extensive 

wildlife monitoring program designed to gather information regarding wildlife use of the Permit 

Area and surrounding habitats. The Plan was developed to be consistent with recommendations 

and requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD). The results and conclusions from 

each year’s wildlife protection and monitoring measures will be included in LC ISR, LLC’s 

Annual Report to WDEQ-LQD, BLM, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

Wildlife monitoring in and near the Permit Area will be completed on an annual basis through 

the life of the Project. Consultation with BLM, WGFD, and USFWS will be conducted as needed 

prior to completing any annual survey work. An annual monitoring report will be prepared and 

submitted to the WDEQ-LQD, BLM, and NRC each year. The report will include: survey 

methods; results; any trends; an assessment of protection measures implemented during the past 

year; recommendations for protection measures for the coming year; recommended 

modifications to monitoring or surveying; and any recommendations for additional species to be 

monitored (e.g., a newly listed species). The Annual Wildlife Monitoring Report, data and 

mapping will be formatted to meet WDEQ-LQD requirements. Only qualified wildlife biologists

or ecologists completed the wildlife monitoring. This report summarizes the results of the 2010 

Wildlife Monitoring Effort. 

In addition to the specific annual monitoring for wildlife, LC ISR, LLC will document all known 

instances where Project activities may have impacted wildlife (such as wildlife/vehicle collisions 

on roads, or other mortality within the Permit Area). Any large die-offs or other evidence of 

possible wildlife exposure to toxic chemicals will be reported immediately to WDEQ-LQD (and 

other WDEQ divisions as necessary), BLM, USFWS, and WGFD. A record of wildlife mortality 

will be kept at the mine site and included in the Annual Report. 

Monitoring and survey methods were designed to be consistent with standard protocol used by 

the WGFD (WGFD 2007), and also to follow monitoring requirements and recommendations 

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

from WDEQ-LQD (Wildlife Monitoring Requirements for Surface Coal Mining Operations). 

Monitoring methods that were used in 2010 were described in detail in the LC ISR, LLC 

Wildlife Protection Plan and the Wildlife Monitoring Plan (LC ISR, LLC 2010). 

Table 1A provides the wildlife monitoring schedule that was followed during 2010. The same 

wildlife monitoring schedule is planned for the project in 2011. Results of the 2010 Monitoring 

Effort are described in Section 2.0. 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& 

Table 1A. 2010 Wildlife monitoring schedule1. 

Species2 Purpose of Monitoring2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Se

Big Game 

Winter habitat Use 1 Aerial Survey Spring & Summer Habitat use 

1 Ground Survey 1 Ground Survey 1 Ground Survey 1 Ground Survey 

SageGrouse 

Lek Counts 3 Ground Surveys Search for New Leks 

Ground Survey 2010 & Every 3rd Year After 2010 

Ground Survey 2010 & Each Year After 2010 

Habitat Selection Survey 

Aerial Tracking Ground Tracking Aer

Measure Disturbance 

Traffic Axle Counters Grazing & Energy Development 

Review of Plans 

Productivity 

Brood Transects 

Ground Survey 

Wing Barrels Hun

Raptors 

Nest Location 1 Ground or Aerial Survey 

Production Success 1+ ground or aerial survey3 

Lagomorphs Prey Abundance 1 Ground Survey 1 Ground Survey 

Non-game Birds 

Breeding Numbers 

1 Ground Survey 

All Occurrence Incidental Observations 

1Details of the monitoring timing and protocols are described in section 2.0 of Attachment OP-6 of the WDEQ application (LC ISR, LLC. 2010).2Species selection is based on observed wildlife within and near the Lost Creek Permit Area (Appendix D9 of WDEQ Application; LC ISR, LLC. 3At least one survey will be performed from mid-May through mid-June to locate new nests and check status of all known nests. Number and 

depend on whether nesting is observed.
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

2.0 Lost Creek 2010 Wildlife Monitoring Results and Discussion 

Wildlife monitoring methods are outlined in detail in the Wildlife Protection Plan and Wildlife 

Monitoring Plan (LC ISR LLC 2010). Methods are briefly summarized below as appropriate. 

Methods are described in more detail for studies that varied from the 2010 Wildlife Protection 

Plan and Wildlife Monitoring Plan. 

2.1 Big Game 

2.1.1 Seasonal Distribution and Habitat Affinity 

Based on current WGFD GIS mapping, the Permit Area is mapped as winter/yearlong range for 

pronghorn (Antilocapra americana). The Permit Area is outside of mapped range for mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus canadensis), and moose (Alces alces). Both elk and mule 

deer have been observed on the site during baseline studies. The survey area for big game 

included the Permit Area and a surrounding 2-mile buffer. 

Big game surveys were conducted at the Lost Creek project area on the following dates: 

February 19, 2010; March 28, 2010; June 3, 2010; August 23, 2010. 

Table 2.1A summarizes the results of the big game surveys. Attachment A, Figure 2.1A shows 

the locations of big game observations. 

Table 2.1A. Summary of big game counts conducted during 2010 in the Lost Creek project area. 

Survey Date Survey Time Pronghorn Elk 

Male Female Male Female 

02/19/10 1000-1530 hr 5 3 0 0 

03/28/10 1000-1530 hr 22 51 0 0 

06/03/10 

06/04/10 1100-1530 hr 8 23 0 3 7 

08/23/10 1200-1530 hr 1 2 (2 fawns) 0 0 

Pronghorn use appeared to be highest during the late winter and early spring. Summer use was 

higher in June. The June survey was completed just prior to fawning. Few pronghorn were 

observed on the site during late summer. Pronghorn use appears to be spread throughout the site. 

Pronghorn were observed using the stock tank located along Battle Springs Draw (in Section 22 

just south of the main access road) several times during the summer and fall periods 

(observations made while completing other survey work). Pronghorn habitat use was highest in 

the upland big sagebrush vegetation type. 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

Elk use was only recorded during the June period. However, other elk herds were observed 

nearby (although outside of the Permit Area and 2-mile buffer big game study area) in late May 

and early June. Elk have also been observed within the Permit area (2006, 2007, 2009) during 

late May. Evidence of elk use (pellet groups) was observed within lowland sagebrush zones 

within the Permit Area. This use appears to occur occasionally during the winter and early spring 

periods. 

No mule deer were observed within the big game survey area in 2010. 

2.1.2 Climate Information 

No big game winter concentrations or winter mortality were noted during 2010. Climate data for 

the winter period is summarized below. Snow depth data was not available. 

Table 2.1B. Climate data for Rawlins, Wyoming, from December 2009 through March 2010 (NCDC 

2010). 

Month Average 

Temperature (F) 

Maximum 

Temperature (F) 

Minimum 

Temperature (F) 

Total Precipitation 

(in.) 

December 16.2 41 -11.9 0.12 

January 21.9 43 -2.7 0.02 

February 22.5 44.1 -8 0.14 

March 33.8 62.1 -4 0.68 

2.1.3 Range Conversion 

The entire Permit Area is within winter/yearlong pronghorn range; no other mapped big game 

ranges are present. Range conversion during 2010 was very limited within the Permit Area. A 

small area of disturbance was associated with ongoing exploration activities within the proposed 

Permit Area. Exploration drilling was completed during 2010 within the Lost Creek South area. 

Disturbance associated with these activities was very small (less than 10 acres). Nearly all

disturbed areas have already been reseeded. 

2.1.4 Mortality and Concentration Buildups 

There were no observed concentrations of pronghorn or potential migration blocks (fences, snow 

drifts along roads, or other blocks) observed during 2010. There were no instances of 

concentrated or large-scale big game mortality observed during 2010. 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

2.2 Sage-grouse/Upland Birds 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter sage-grouse) monitoring protocols 

were designed to assess the effects of ISR activities on: sage-grouse populations, seasonal habitat 

selection, and productivity within the Sage-grouse (SG) Monitoring Areas (Attachment A, 

Figure 2.2A study areas). Selection of study area boundaries was described in the 2010 Wildlife 

Monitoring and Wildlife Protection Plan (LC ISR, LLC 2010). The 2010 Large SG Monitoring 

Area (outlined in pink) was delineated to maximize the probability that reference leks were 

included within the monitoring area. Reference leks are considered to be leks within or near Core 

Area boundaries (outlined in green) which are not influenced by ISR activities, major highways, 

or other anthropogenic activities except livestock grazing and public recreation. The Small SG 

Monitoring Area (outlined in blue) was delineated to conservatively establish the area where 

nesting and early brood-rearing females may be influenced by ISR activities on the Lost Creek 

lease. 

LC ISR, LLC used lek search and lek count protocols to assess potential impacts of ISR 

activities on sage-grouse populations. The objective of lek counts was to track male breeding 

population size within the SG Monitoring Areas through the life of the Project. The objective of 

lek searches was to determine if new leks become active within the SG Monitoring Areas during 

the life of the Project. Lek counts were conducted following protocol outlined by the WGFD 

Sage-grouse Technical Committee, and lek searches were conducted from the ground following 

protocol outlined in Connelly et al. (2003). 

To determine the potential effects of ISR activities on habitat selection, LC ISR, LLC will use 

seasonal habitat selection data collected from radio-equipped individuals to model the seasonal 

habitats existing within the Small SG Monitoring Area. The objectives of these models are to 

quantify the amount of habitat that may conservatively be assumed to be functionally influenced 

by ISR activities on a seasonal basis (e.g., nesting, early brood-rearing, summering, and 

wintering habitats). 

LC ISR, LLC used brood survey routes and wing surveys to assess potential impacts of ISR 

activities on sage-grouse productivity (e.g., juvenile recruitment). Because suitable summering 

habitats are not abundant throughout the potential impact area (e.g., the Small SG Monitoring 

Area), surveys were designed to monitor summer habitats where females potentially influenced 

by activity during the breeding, nesting, and/or early brood-rearing seasons chose to summer. 

These selected summer habitats were established from movement patterns of radio-equipped 

individuals. 

This comprehensive sage-grouse monitoring plan is designed to accomplish definitive 

monitoring of the effects of ISR activities on populations. Monitoring will lead to and guide 

mitigation actions. However, it is a cost-intensive, long-term commitment and is timed to 

establish baseline conditions. Should a situation arise which prohibits or significantly delays LC 

ISR, LLC’s activities (before or after regulatory approvals for the Project are issued), the 

commitment may be curtailed and may be limited to only annual lek counts within the Small SG 

Monitoring Area or within the total Affected Area (Figure 4.0A) as established from a 

Density/Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) analysis (formerly PIAA); see 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

http://psc.state.wy.us/htdocs/Dwnload/SageGrouseExecOrder2010-4.pdf; Wyoming State 

Governor’s executive order 2010-4 and Attachment C) analysis conducted by LC ISR, LLC (see 

section 4.0 Modifications for 2011 Wildlife Monitoring, Protection Measures in this report for 

further discussion on 2011 modifications to field protocol). LC ISR, LLC will inform WGFD, 

BLM, WDEQ-LQD, and NRC should this monitoring change be necessary. 

2.2.1 Populations 

2.2.1.1 Lek Counts 

Lek count data will be the primary data used to assess the population-level effects of developing 

the Lost Creek uranium deposits. The lek monitoring methods are therefore as comprehensive as 

possible. The objective of lek count monitoring is to track through the life of the project, as 

inclusively as possible, male breeding populations on leks potentially influenced by ISR 

activities, concurrent with monitoring leks not influenced by such activities, but similar in other 

respects. 

Counts in 2010 were conducted at all known leks within the SG Monitoring Areas starting with a 

2010 baseline list of known leks (Table 2.2A). The 2010 counts also included new leks that were 

found during 2010. The 2010 baseline list was established from existing data (e.g., the WGFD 

sage-grouse database) and a comprehensive lek search of the SG Monitoring Areas conducted in 

April 2010. The list of known leks will be updated on a three-year cycle based on lek search 

flight results (Section 2.2.1.2). LC ISR, LLC coordinated 2010 monitoring efforts with the BLM 

and WGFD to avoid duplicative efforts that could result in undue disturbance of the leks. Lek 

count methods followed standard BLM and WGFD methods as described in the 2010 Wildlife 

Monitoring and Wildlife Protection Plan (LC ISR, LLC 2010). 

Table 2.2A. Sage-grouse lek count data summary in project SG Monitoring Areas. 

Lek Name Early Count 1 Count 2 Count 3 Count 4 Peak 

Males 

DATE -ƃ-Ƃ-U 

TIME 

Arapahoe 4/11-36-12-3 

0635 

4/20-38-1-0 

0625 

4/27-16-0-0 

0655 38 

Bare Ring 

Butte 

4/13-33-4-3 

0630 

4/21-55-2-0 

0616 

4/28-43-2-0 

0558 55 

Bull Springs* 4/9-12 4/16-21 4/17-18 4/26-22 5/8-14 22 

Chain Lakes 

Rim* 4/13-49 4/21-29 4/22-40 4/29-36 49 

Chicken 

Spring* 4/9-93 4/16-84 4/17-111 

4/26-101 

4/27-87 5/8-49 111 

Crooked Well 4/15-0-0-0 

0640 

4/21-0-0-0 

0635 

5/5-0-0-0 

0537 0 

Cyclone Rim 4/16-85-32-0 

0645 

4/27-37-23-0 

0555 

5/5-46-1-0 

0620 85 

Discover 4/13-15-4-0 

0655 

4/21-12-2-0 

0653 

4/28-0-0-0 

0630 

5/7-14-0-2 

0615 15 
Table 2.2A. Sage-grouse lek count data summary in project SG Monitoring Areas. 

Peak Lek Name Early Count 1 Count 2 Count 3 Count 4 Males 

DATE -ƃ-Ƃ-U 

TIME 

4/13-0-0-0 4/21-0-0-0 4/28-0-0-0 5/7-0-0-0 Discover East 0 0705 0705 0620 0620 

Discover 4/13-4-5-0 4/21-11-0-0 4/28-16-1-1 5/7-19-2-0 19 South 0710 0655 0555 0555 

3/31-6-0-0 4/9-7-8-0 4/14-6-2-0 4/22-0-0-0 Eagles Nest 7 0730 0655 0650 0640 

Eagles Nest 4/13-19-11-0 4/21-42-6-0 4/29-26-0-5 42 Draw 0645 0645 0600 

Eagles Nest 4/12-51 4/19-59 4/26-23 5/7-3 59 Fence* 

Eagles Nest 4/11-0-0-0 4/20-0-0-0 4/2 0-0-0 0 Reservoir 0729 0700 0630 

4/15-14-20-0 4/20-13-0-0 4/27-13-0-0 5/5-13-0-0 East Alkali 14 0620 0625 0625 0615 

3/30-17-2-1 4/13-20-0-2 4/2-29-1-0 4/29-21-1-1 East Antelope 29 0730 0730 0710 0630 

4/14-45-4-0 4/22-43-5-0 4/2 46-4-0 Green Ridge 46 0640 0635 0551 

Hadsell 4/11-42-12-0 4/20-10-0-0 4/27-15-2-0 42 Crossing 0707 0645 0625 

Hadsell Road* 4/9-0 4/19-0 4/26-0 5/7-0 0 

3/30-37-4-1 4/10-35-8-0 4/20-20-4-0 4/21-42-0-0 Harrier 42 0645 0630 0615 0640 

Larsen North 4/16-5 4/26-3 

Well* 4/9-20 5/8-0 26 4/17-26 4/27-0 

3/30-0-0-0 4/10-0-0-0 4/20-0-0-0 4/28-0-0-0 Little Osborne 0 0715 0705 0645 0650 

4/15-0-0-0 4/20-0-0-0 4/27-0-0-0 5/5-0-0-0 Lost Alkali 0 0615 0630 0615 

-8-0 5/5-24-0

600 00645 

0625 

4/20-16-1- 4/27 Lost Arapahoe 24 00648 00

4/20-0-0-0 4/27-0-0-0 5/5-0-0-0 Lost Creek 0 0700 0635 0615 

Lost Creek 4/15-32-6-0 4/20-65-2-3 4/27-8-0-0 5/5-32-0-0 65 Basin 0705 0615 0650 0600 

3/31-4-2-0 4/9-10-2-0 4/14-11-2-0 4/28-7-0-0 Minex West 11 0645 0628 0620 0640 

Monument 4/21-0 3/13-8 4/13-5 4/29-5 8 Lake* 4/22-5 

* Mud Lake NC NC NC NC NC NC 

Mud Lake* 4/8-33-19-22 5/5-34-4 34 North 

* Mud Springs 4/10-40 40 

3/30-0-0-0 4/10-0-0-0 4/20-0-0-0 4/28-0-0-0 Osborne Draw 0 0700 0640 0700 0700 

4/14-36-11-0 4/22-34-10-0 4/29- 31-6-0 Prospects 36 0617 0555 0623 

Prospects 4/14-0-0-0 4/15-0-0-0 4/22-0-0-0 4/2 0-0-0 0 South 0605 0655 0610 0638 

Red Creek 3/31-4-0-0 4/9- 32-5-0 4/14/-35-2-0 4/22-24-1-0 35 Well 0810 0720 0635 0615 

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

- -
Table 2.2A. Sage-grouse lek count data summary in project SG Monitoring Areas. 

Lek Name Early Count 1 Count 2 Count 3 Count 4 Peak 

Males 

DATE -ƃ-Ƃ-U 

TIME 

* Ruby Knolls

North NC NC NC NC NC NC 

Ruby Knolls 

South* 3/21-39 4/19-65 65 

Ruby Knolls 

West1 4/21-25 31 

Sand Gully 4/13-15-4-0 

0620 

4/21-11-4-0 

0620 

4/2- 8-0-0 

0605 15 

SK Well 3/31-0-0-0 

0720 

4/9- 0-0-0 

0645 

4/14-0-0-0 

0640 

4/22-0-0-0 

0700 0 

Smiley Springs 4/12-43-6-0 

0700 

4/14-19-2-0 

0825 

4/22-38-4-0 

0620 

5/5-41-1-0 

0550 43 

Sooner 4/14-12-7-0 

0700 

4/15-16-11-0 

0602 

4/21-13-9-0 

0600 

5/5-12-3-0 

0609 16 

Sooner Oil 4/14-0-0-0 

0655 

4/15-0-0-0 

0620 

4/21-0-0-0 

0615 

5/5-0-0-0 

0558 0 

Sourdough 1 Mine 3/13-18 4/21-12 18 

Southland 

Well 

4/9-40 

4/10-49 

4/16-22 

4/17-46 

4/26-37 

4/27-40 5/8-33 49 

Stewart Creek* 3/22-43 4/9-50 4/16

614/17-64 

4/26

314/27

685/8-39 

68 

Stinking 

Springs 

4/16-54-8-0 

0640 

4/26-30-2-0 

0610 

5/4-21-0-0 

0610 54 

Stinking 

Springs North 

4/16-6-1-0 

0705 

4/26-5-0-0 

0620 

5/4-2-0-0 

0600 6 

Stratton 4/8-21-26 5/5-39-3 39 

Stratton Camp 4/21-22-0-0 

0630 

4/28-20-2-0 

0650 

5/6-0-0-0 

0600 

5/7-26-0-0 

0550 26 

Stratton Lake 4/12-0-0-0 

0800 

4/14-0-0-0 

0730 

4/22-0-0-0 

0650 0 

Texas Oil* 4/12-0 4/19-0 4/26-0 5/7-0 0 

Upper * Osborne 4/9-14 14 

White Water 4/13-0-0-0 

0630 

4/22-0-0-0 

0630 

4/30-0-0-0 

0550 0 

*Incomplete count data (Data Pending) 

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

- -

-

2.2.1.2 Lek Searches 

Breeding sage-grouse may be displaced by some ISR activities and thereby occupy other active 

leks or form new leks farther from those activities. Thus, periodic lek searches will be required to 

document new leks and thereby accurately assess the population-level response of sage-grouse to 

ISR activities. 

Ground-based lek searches were conducted throughout the Large SG Monitoring Area in spring 
Table 2.2B. New sage-grouse leks found during lek searches in south-central Wyoming, April 2010. 

1 Lek Name UTME UTMN Zone 

Discover South2 259204 4667207 13 

3 Stratton Camp 267602 4654900 13 

Stinking Springs North4 735005 4692372 12 

5 Cyclone Rim 735688 4679517 12 

1

Lek names were established as part of this report and are not yet adopted by WGFD.

2

Lek is located about 0.5 miles south of the known Discover lek.

3

Lek is located south of Chain Lakes near the old Stratton Sheep Camp.

4

Small lek, located about 0.6 miles north of the known Stinking Springs lek.

5

Large new lek, located near the east end of Cyclone Ridge.

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

2010. Areas within 0.6 miles of known leks were searched during lek count procedures to 

document the existence of previously unknown satellite leks; the remainder of the monitoring 

area was systematically searched by 3 biologists between April 6 and April 18, 2010. Ground 

searches were conducted by vehicles from 0.5 hours prior to sunrise, to 1.5 hours after sunrise. 

Strutting sage-grouse were located by sight and sound. The ground at all potential leks was 

searched once the birds had left the site for evidence of consistent use (e.g., fecal droppings and 

feathers). Areas that needed additional effort were searched for sage-grouse with trained pointing 

dogs during non-crepuscular periods. These efforts were focused on finding groups of males, 

thereby spatially focusing subsequent morning searches. 

LC ISR, LLC will conduct lek searches of the SG Monitoring Areas as amended (see Section 4.0 

in this report) from fixed-wing aircraft every third year from 2010 (e.g., establishment of lek 

location baseline) through the life of the project. 

Results 
Table 2.2C. Baseline sage-grouse leks (54 leks) in south-central Wyoming to be included in future 

monitoring: results of counts of the maximum number of males, 2006-10. 

0D[LPXP0DOHV&RXQWHG ,PSDFW 0D[LPXP0DOHV&RXQWHG ,PSDFW

  /HN1DPH      6WDWXV /HN1DPH      6WDWXV

Arapahoe 134 109 91 29 38 Reference Mud Springs 29 0 22 15 40 Reference 

Bare Ring Butte 125 76 75 55 Reference Osborne Draw 0 0 0 Reference 

Bull Springs 25 16 11 16 22 Reference Prospects 64 68 66 52 36 Affected 

Chain Lakes Rim 65 61 46 33 49 Reference Prospects South 10 9 2 0 Affected 

Chicken Spring 184 181 146 135 111 Reference Red Creek Well 80 79 49 57 35 Reference 

Crooked Well3 0 4 0 0 0 Affected Ruby Knolls North 0 NC Reference 

Cyclone Rim 85 Reference Ruby Knolls South 43 47 19 53 65 Reference 

Discover 69 37 104 22 15 Affected Ruby Knolls West 29 22 21 21 25 Reference 

Discover East 22 12 5 0 0 Affected Sand Gully 126 108 72 36 15 Affected 

Discover South 19 Affected SK Well 0 0 0 0 Reference 

Eagles Nest 23 17 0 14 7 Reference Smiley Springs 100 91 57 58 43 Reference 

Eagles Nest Draw 57 22 52 47 42 Affected Sooner 34 37 28 23 16 Affected 

Eagles Nest Fence 146 132 108 66 59 Reference Sooner Oil 0 0 0 3 0 Affected 

Eagles Nest Reservoir 0 Affected Sourdough Mine 26 22 22 18 Reference 

East Alkali 47 35 8 14 Reference Southland Well 81 69 57 54 49 Affected 

East Antelope 58 64 19 39 29 Reference Stewart Creek 68 59 50 55 68 Reference 

Green Ridge 63 87 58 56 46 Affected Stinking Springs 92 11 54 Reference 

Hadsell Crossing 24 53 43 10 42 Reference Stinking Springs North 6 Reference 

Hadsell Road 0 0 0 0 0 Reference Stratton 72 60 36 36 NC Reference 

Harrier 80 79 67 77 42 Reference Stratton Camp 26 Reference 

Larsen North Well 42 34 20 29 26 Reference Stratton Lake 0 0 0 0 Reference 

Little Osborne 0 Affected Texas Oil 0 0 0 0 0 Reference 

Lost Alkali 0 0 0 0 Reference Upper Osborne 37 72 61 66 14 Reference 

Lost Arapahoe 93 60 0 42 24 Reference White Water 0 Reference 

Lost Creek 0 0 0 0 Reference 

Lost Creek Basin 110 69 9 65 Reference 

Minex West 22 24 13 10 11 Affected 

Monument Lake 23 20 9 8 8 Reference 

Mud Lake 0 0 0 0 NC Reference 

Mud Lake North 38 34 25 35 NC Reference 

1

 Reference leks are those within the Large SG Monitoring area but not within the Total Affected Area (see Section 4.0 in this report). 2

 Affected leks are those within the Total Affected Area (see Section 4.0 in this report). 3

 Crooked Well was designated as "U" in the WGFD sage-grouse database for 2007; this lek is either unoccupied or undetermined based on WGFD definitions;

 this lek was therefore removed from analyses. 

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

2.2.1.3 Analysis of Lek Data 

LC ISR, LLC is interested in investigating the effects of the Lost Creek Project on sage-grouse 

populations, and as such, needs to account for other potential impacts to populations, particularly 

other energy development, grazing, and traffic. Given the size of the Large SG Monitoring Area, 

natural factors influencing populations at large spatial scales (e.g., weather) should be 

standardized across the area. The measures that will be taken to identify other potential impacts 

and the subsequent data analysis methods are described below. 

Energy Development - Energy Development - Anthropogenic energy development data will be 

compiled within the SG Monitoring Areas plus a 6-km buffer around the Large SG Monitoring 

area. The 6-km buffer region is included to ensure that the potential cumulative effects of 

anthropogenic activity not associated with Lost Creek are accounted for during analyses. 

Research has established that lek occupation by male sage-grouse may be negatively influenced 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

by natural gas development within 6 km of the lek (see Naugle et al. 2010); therefore, the 6-km 

buffer ensures that we are taking into account potential impacts to the chosen sample of leks that 

may occur outside the Large SG Monitoring area boundary. These data will be updated annually 

to reflect the conditions encountered by sage-grouse during each breeding season. All energy 

developments (e.g., uranium, gas, oil) will be mapped in a GIS.

ISR activities within this area will be quantified over a distinct spatial area. Due to the nature of 

ISR, mapping of mine units or groups of wells within mine units, rather than single well 

locations, is more representative of ISR activities (mine units or groups of wells within mine 

units are referred to as ‘ISR polygons’ in the data analysis). Gas and oil development will be 

mapped to individual well pads. Development data will be compiled from publicly available 

records and will be spatially verified in the field. Undeveloped gas and oil leases within the SG 

Monitoring Areas exist; if these leases are developed, any lek within 6-km of a pad being drilled 

during the breeding season (March 15 – May 1), or within 3-km of a producing pad, will be 

monitored but removed from the subsequent data analyses (3- and 6-km impact distances of gas 

or oil development are estimated in Holloran 2005). 

Grazing - LC ISR, LLC will use BLM grazing records to determine if livestock management in 

any particular grazing allotment differs dramatically; this assessment will be made subjectively.

If LC ISR, LLC finds such a lease, any lek where at least 20% of a 5-km buffer around that lek 

includes that grazing allotment will be removed from analyses (the 20% is from Connelly et al. 

2000, and the 5-km buffer is from Holloran and Anderson 2005). 

Traffic - Traffic will be quantified on all improved surface roads within the monitoring area,

using pneumatic axle counters. Axle counter data will be recorded at least weekly during the 

breeding season; all counters will be checked the day following a snow storm to ensure plowing 

has not damaged or pushed the counter tubing from roadway. Although traffic volume changes 

will be directly related to the Lost Creek Project, to assess the effects of traffic on breeding sagegrouse, LC ISR, LLC will need to standardize for activities associated with uranium recovery. 

LC ISR, LLC will remove any lek within 6-km of developed uranium polygons (Lost Creek plus 

other companies), and investigate annual changes in the number of males (response variable) on 

the remaining leks in terms of distance to the closest point along an improved surface road and 

traffic levels (predictor variables). 

Models assessing the effects of traffic will be used to estimate distance to a road with a given 

level of traffic where impacts to grouse activity are minimized. These estimates will be used to 

identify leks greater than 6-km from the Lost Creek Permit Area (e.g., potential control leks) that 

are influenced by traffic and, therefore, need to be removed from analysis of the impacts of ISR 

activities. 

Lek Discussion - The maximum number of males counted on known leks throughout the SG 

monitoring areas cumulatively decreased 9% between 2009 and 2010, which is less than 

statewide declines of 20% during the same time period (statewide information is from the 

WGFD sage-grouse database and is an estimated decline of all leks counted both in 2009 and 

2010). Population trends estimated as the slope of the line through annual counts on leks 

throughout the SG monitoring areas cumulatively suggest populations decreased 15% on average 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

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 SG Monitoring Area that decreased on 

average 14% annually over the last 5 years (see Table 2.2C). 

2010 lek searches established the baseline number of leks within the SG monitoring areas as 54 

(see Table 2.2C and Figure 2.2A). 

Anthropogenic attributes of the landscape described above are currently being compiled. These 

data are required prior to implementing lek count analysis methods as described in the 2010 

Wildlife Monitoring and Wildlife Protection Plan (LC ISR, LLC 2010). 

2.2.2 Habitat Selection 

Because of potential difficulty maintaining a sample of radio-equipped birds near energy 

development through the life of the project, for the purposes of designing the monitoring 

program LC ISR, LLC has assumed that uranium extraction in the Lost Creek Permit Area will 

have an influence on sage-grouse similar to the influence of natural gas development. Radioequipped females captured from leks surrounding proposed development are being used to 

establish seasonal habitats occurring within what has been assumed will be the zone of influence 

(e.g., the Small SG Monitoring Area) around the Lost Creek Permit Area. 

2.2.2.1 Trapping 

Sage-grouse fieldwork was initiated in April 2010 with the capture and radio-tagging of 36 

female sage-grouse from 9 leks situated in or near the Small SG Monitoring Area. We radiotracked an additional 11 females trapped in 2008-09 on leks situated in the southeastern portions 

of the Large SG Monitoring Area for a research project being conducted through the University 

of Wyoming (Figure 2.2B). We captured female grouse on and near leks by spot-lighting and 

hoop-netting (Giesen et al. 1982, Wakkinen et al. 1992), and we classified each female captured 

DVD\HDUOLQJILUVWEUHHGLQJVHDVRQRUDGXOWVHFRQGEUHHGLQJVHDVRQEDVHGRQWKHVKDSHRIWKH

outermost wing primaries (Eng 1955). Radio transmitters were secured to females with a PVCcovered wire necklace (Advanced Telemetry Systems Inc. [ATS], Isanti, MN, USA). 

Transmitters weighed 19.5 g, had a battery life expectancy of 530 days, and were equipped with 

motion-sensors (i.e., radio-transmitter pulse rate changed to indicate mortality). 

2.2.2.2. Nesting Habitat Selection 

We used hand-held receivers and 3-element Yagi antennas (ATS) to monitor radio-equipped 

females at least twice weekly through pre-laying (April) and nesting (May-June). Nests of radioequipped birds were located by circling the signal source until females could be directly 

observed. Locations near nests were marked with GPS to facilitate relocation of the site 

following females’ departure from nesting areas. 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

Twenty sage-grouse nests were documented from radio-equipped individuals (Figure 2.2C). 

2.2.2.3 Early Brood-Rearing Habitat Selection 

We located females that nested successfully at least twice between hatch and 14 days post-hatch; 

this period was considered early brood-rearing due to chick reliance on insects during this stage 

(Johnson and Boyce 1990). 

Eleven early brood-rearing locations from 7 individual radio-equipped females were documented 

(Figure 2.2C). 

2.2.2.4 Mid Brood-Rearing Habitat Selection 

Females maintaining broods through early brood-rearing were located at least bi-weekly between 

14 days post-hatch and July 15; these locations were considered mid brood-rearing. 

Ten mid brood-rearing locations from 6 individual radio-equipped females were documented 

(Figure 2.2C). 

2.2.2.5 Late Brood-Rearing Habitat Selection 

Females maintaining broods through mid-brood-rearing were located at least bi-weekly between 

July 15 and August 31; these locations were considered late brood-rearing. 

Seventeen late brood-rearing locations from 11 individual radio-equipped females were 

documented (Figure 2.2C). 

2.2.2.6 Barren Female Spring and Barren Female Summer Habitat Selection 

Barren (i.e., non-nesting or non-brooding) females were located at least monthly between nest or 

brood loss and July 15; these locations were considered barren female spring locations. Barren 

females were located at least monthly between July 15 and August 31; these locations were 

considered barren female summer locations. 

Ninety-five barren female spring locations from 31 individual radio-equipped females, and 40 

barren female summer locations from 21 individual radio-equipped females were documented 

(Figure 2.2D). 

2.2.2.7 Fall and Winter Habitat Selection 

Fall and winter habitat selection for brood and unsuccessful females was documented from 

fixed-wing aircraft (Sky Aviation, Dubois, WY, USA). Flights were conducted at least bimonthly. Fall was established as September 1 to November 30; winter was established as 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

December 1 to March 31. 

Eighty-two fall locations from 36 individual radio-equipped females were documented (Figure 

2.2E). 

Fifty-seven winter locations from 30 individual radio-equipped females were documented 

(Figure 2.2F).

2.2.3 Demographics 

Demographic results are summarized in Table 2.2D at the end of this section. 

2.2.3.1 Nest Propensity 

Nesting propensity was estimated as the number of females initiating a nest divided by the total 

number of females intensively monitored throughout the entire nesting season. We did not 

include females found for the first time after 19 May in nesting propensity estimates (19 May 

represented the latest date of incubation initiation based on mean latest hatch date and 26 days to 

incubate a clutch [Schroeder et al. 1999]). The date of nest establishment was the first day 

females were documented on a nest. A variance estimate (i.e., standard error) for overall nesting 

propensity will be established using annual variation. 

2.2.3.2 Nest Success 

After nest identification, incubating females were monitored fURPDGLVWDQFHRIm to 

minimize chances of human-induced nest predation or nest abandonment. Nest fate (successful 

or unsuccessful) was assigned when radio monitoring indicated the female had left the area. 

1HVWVZHUHLGHQWLILHGDVVXFFHVVIXOLIHJg hatched, indicated by presence of detached eggshell 

membranes (Wallestad and Pyrah 1974). The area around depredated nests was searched for hair, 

scat, tracks, or other signs left by the predatory species, and condition of the nest area and 

eggshell fragments were noted. Sargeant et al. (1998) describe nest conditions following 

depredation by several species; we used their descriptions to assist in nest predator identification. 

Apparent nest success was estimated as the number of successfully hatched nests divided by the 

number of confirmed nesting attempts. Apparent nest success probability estimates were adjusted 

following Mayfield (1975). For this adjustment, we estimated length of the laying and incubation 

period at 32.5 days (Schroeder et al. 1999). A standard error estimate for apparent nest success 

was established using annual variation; standard error estimates for adjusted nest success were 

calculated following Hensler and Nichols (1981). Because of small sample sizes, re-nests were 

not considered independently and were grouped with initial nests for nest success estimates. 

Because we typically identified a nest following the initiation of incubation (i.e., following 

clutch completion) and we potentially missed nests destroyed during the egg-laying or early 

incubation stages (females classified as non-nesters), apparent nesting propensity was a

minimum and apparent nest success could be overestimated. 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

2.2.3.3 Early Brood-Rearing Chick Survival 

Chick existence during the early brooding stages (i.e., hatch through 2 weeks post-hatch) was 

based on either visual confirmation of chick(s) or the reaction of females to the presence of a

potential predator (i.e., the researcher; Schroeder et al. 1999). Early brood success rates were 

estimated by dividing the number of females with chicks 2 weeks post-hatch by the total number 

of successfully hatching females. 

2.2.3.4 Chick Production 

During the late brooding stage we conducted spotlight surveys on consecutive nights 35 and 36 

days post-hatch; fledge estimates were obtained during these spotlight surveys, and were an 

estimate of the number of chicks produced per brood. We relocated females found without live 

chicks during any brooding stage (e.g., early, mid, or late) 2 to 4 days following the initial 

location to confirm brood loss. 

Fledge rates (chicks per brood) were estimated by dividing the total number of chicks produced 

E\WKHWRWDOQXPEHURIIHPDOHVZLWKFKLFNDWWLPHRIVSRWOLJKWVXUYH\IHPDOHVWKDWORVWWKHLU

entire brood during any brooding stage were not included in chick per brood estimates. Annual 

population productivity was estimated as the total number of chicks fledged divided by the total 

number of females known alive on August 1. Standard error estimates for early and late broodrearing success will be established using annual variation. The fate of a brood was unknown if 

the brooding female was killed or could not be located during any brooding stage; thus, these 

individuals were discounted when estimating apparent success during brooding stages. 

Late brood-rearing and barren female summer locations from radio-equipped birds were used to 

identify areas where birds using nesting or early brood-rearing habitats closely associated with 

the Lost Creek Permit Area concentrate during the summer. Brood-rearing transects were located 

based on this telemetry data. Eight permanent walking transects 1000-m in length were 

established in each of these areas. Attachment A, Figure 2.2G shows the locations, start and stop 

points, dominant vegetation, and maps of these transects. Transects were surveyed twice during a 

one-week period in late July from sunrise to two hours after sunrise to ensure feeding times were 

captured in monitoring efforts. All grouse observed were counted and classified (adult male, 

adult female, young of the year). These 2010 established transects will be surveyed annually 

through the life of the Project. Data collected from these efforts will be compared by total grouse 

use by sex and numbers of chicks per female. Table 2.2E summarizes the results of the brood

transects. 

LC ISR, LLC used wing-barrel information to further investigate annual differences in 

productivity relative to ISR activities. Wings collected from barrels situated near the project area 

(see Figure 2.2H) will be compared as the number of chicks per female in the harvest to a group 

of barrels situated farther from the project area but in the same general region. 

Wing data are currently being compiled. 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

2.2.3.5 Adult Survival 

Annual survival was estimated for females from 1 April through March. All females were 

located twice weekly between 1 April and hatch (~15 June) or 3 weeks post-nest failure. Brood 

females were located weekly from hatch through August. Survival was assessed visually during 

these periods. We monitored unsuccessful females from long-range distance weekly from 3 

weeks post-nest loss through June, and bi-weekly from July 1 through August; motion sensors 

were used to evaluate survival of unsuccessful females during these stages. Survival was 

estimated from 1 September through March for brood and unsuccessful females from fixed-wing 

aircraft (Sky Aviation, Dubois, WY, USA). Flights were conducted at least bi-monthly and 

motion sensors were used to evaluate whether individuals were dead or alive. 

Female annual survival (April-March) estimates and standard errors, and monthly survival 

estimates and standard errors combined into seasonal periods were estimated using the staggered 

entry Kaplan-Meier estimator (Pollock et al. 1989). The seasonal periods investigated included 

spring (April and June), summer (July and August), fall (September through December), and 

winter (January through March). Months included in the analysis consisted of all months with 

survival information; any month with no survival information was censored (i.e., no telemetry 

flight was conducted). Additionally, birds that were not found during any monthly period were 

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

Table 2.2D. Female sage-grouse demographic results from radio-equipped individuals in southcentral Wyoming, 2010 (Lost Creek update, April 1, 2011). 

&

Numbers 

$SULO

Percentages 

Total Females Radio-monitored 47

Nesting PropensityA 15/22 68.2% 

Nesting Success (apparent)B 8/20 40.0% 

Nesting Success (adjusted)C 23.0% (4.0 [SE]) 

Early Brood Success (apparent)D 6/10 60.0% 

Late Brood Success (apparent)E 4/4 100%

Number of Females Known to Fledge Chicks 7

Total Number of Chicks FledgedF 27

Average Brood SizeG 3.86 

Number of Chicks per FemaleH

Seasonal SurvivalJ

0.95 

Spring (Apr-June) 79.5% (61-98 [95%CI]) 

Summer (July-Aug) 96.8% (73-100 [95%CI]) 

Fall (Sept-Nov) 97.1% (71-100 [95%CI]) 

Winter (Dec-Mar) 78.3% (45-100 [95%CI]) 

Annual (Apr-Mar) 56.9% (39-75 [95%CI]) 

A

 Number of females initiating a nest divided by total number females surviving nesting season; 

excludes females located after 5/19/10. 

B

 Number of successfully hatched nests divided by total number of nests with known fate; includes renests. 

C Estimated following Mayfield 1975 and Hensler and Nichols 1981; includes renests (Mayfield, H. F. 1975. 

Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bulletin 87:456-466; Hensler, G. L., and J. D. 

Nichols. 1981. The Mayfield method of estimating nesting success: a model, estimators and 

simulation results. Wilson Bulletin 93:42-53). 

D

 Number of females with chicks 2 weeks post-hatch divided by total number of successful nests; excludes 

missing and non-checked (landowner access denied) females. 

E

 Number of females fledging chicks (based on spotlight surveys) divided by total number of successful 

early brooding females; excludes missing and non-checked (landowner access denied) females. 

F

 Based on spotlight surveys conducted 35 and 36 days post-hatch. 

G Total chicks fledged divided by number of females known to fledge chicks. 

H

 Total chicks fledged divided by number of females known alive August 1. 

J Kaplan-Meier estimator (Pollock, K. H., S. R. Winterstein, C. M. Bunck, and P. D. Curtis. 1989. Survival 

analysis in telemetry studies: The staggered entry design. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:7-15). 
Table 2.2E. Lost Creek sage-grouse brood survey results. 

Date Transect ID Start Time End Time Males Females Young of 

Year Unknown 

07/29/10 Crooks #1 1 06:00 06:22 3 4 3 7 

07/29/10 Crooks #2 06:49 07:07 0 4 0 0 

07/29/10 A&M #1 2 08:00 08:15 0 4 2 0 

07/29/10 A&M #2 08:25 08:45 1 3 0 0 

07/30/10 Lost Creek #1 3 06:05 06:28 0 10 4 0 

07/30/10 Lost Creek #2 06:56 07:15 2 3 0 0 

08/03/10 Stewart Creek #1 06:28 06:47 0 2 2 0 

08/03/10 Stewart Creek #2 07:12 07:31 0 0 0 0 

08/04/10 A&M #2 06:06 06:22 0 0 0 0 

08/04/10 A&M #1 06:38 06:51 0 0 0 0 

08/04/10 Crooks #2 07:28 07:45 0 5 0 0 

08/04/10 Crooks #1 08:18 08:36 9 6 6 1 

08/05/10 Lost Creek #2 06:15 06:35 0 0 0 0 

08/05/10 Lost Creek #1 07:07 07:27 0 0 0 0 

08/06/10 Stewart Creek #2 06:17 06:36 0 1 0 0 

08/06/10 Stewart Creek #1 06:57 07:17 0 1 0 0 

1 8 unknowns flushed within 200 meters of south end of transect at 0605 hrs. 2 7 females were observed along reservoir shoreline 100 meters west of west end of transect on 7/26 at approximately 1300hrs 3 3 females were observed towards the south end of transect on 7/29 at approximately 1800 hrs.

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

2.3 Raptors 

2.3.1 Nest Status and Production Success 

Four nesting raptor surveys were completed on the permit area and surrounding 1-mile radius in 

2010. These included: one early February survey looking for signs of golden eagle (Aquila 

chrysaetos) and great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) nesting and courtship; one late March 

survey to locate any great-horned owl or golden eagle nests; one late April survey to locate 

active raptor nests (all species), and one late June survey to locate any new nests and to 

determine nest success. During 2010 all nest surveys were completed from the ground. Nest 

checks were as brief as possible and conducted in ways to avoid flushing incubating raptors. 
Table 2.3A summarizes the results of the 2010 nesting raptor survey for Lost Creek. Nest 

locations are shown on Attachment A, Figure 2.3A. No golden eagles or great-horned owl nests 

or breeding activity were found during the February and March surveys. The April and June 

surveys documented 4 active ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) nests within or near the 1-mile of 

the permit area boundary (note: 3 nests are just outside the 1-mile boundary). The ferruginous 

hawk is a BLM sensitive species and Migratory Bird of High Federal Interest (MBHFI).

All active nests are located on nesting platforms. Nest FH24930201 is located on a new 

transmission line post located along an existing transmission line that runs along the west edge of 

the permit area. Activity was not observed on this nest in 2009. Nests AFH25921004, 

FH25922801, and FH25923201 were also active in 2009. Nest FH25921601 is an inactive nest 

that is located in a large sagebrush. This nest has not been active within the last 4 years and is 

almost gone. 

Table 2.3A. Lost Creek raptor nest locations. 

Nest ID # Species PLSS 

Location 

UTM 

Location Nest Status Nest 

Substrate 

2010 

Nest 

Fate 

Notes 

AFH25921004 Ferruginous 

Hawk 

T25N 

R92W 

NWSE 

Sec. 10 

0268595E

4670503N Active 

Artificial 

Nest 

Structure 

2

fledged 

Within 1-

mile buffer 

FH25921601 Ferruginous 

Hawk 

T25N 

R92W 

SESW 

Sec. 16 

0266480E

4668397N

Inactive, 

Dilapidated Sagebrush ---

Old stick nest, 

in Permit 

Area 

FH25922801 Ferruginous 

Hawk 

T25N 

R92W 

SENE 

Sec. 28 

0267066E

4665882N Active 

Artificial 

Nest 

Structure 

1

fledged 

Just outside 

1-mile buffer 

FH25923201 Ferruginous 

Hawk 

T25N 

R92W 

SWNW 

Sec. 32 

0264483E

4664481N Active 

Artificial 

Nest 

Structure 

2

fledged 

Just outside 

1-mile buffer 

FH24930201 Ferruginous 

Hawk 

T25N 

R92W 

SWNW 

Sec. 2

0260861E

4663028N Active 

Artificial 

Nest 

Structure 

on New TLine Post 

2

fledged 

Just outside 

1-mile buffer 

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

2.3.2 Measures of Disturbance 

Attachment A, Figures 2.3A and 2.3B show the locations of active raptor nests within the study 

area. The nearest known human activity observed during the breeding season (March 1 to July 

31st) is also shown on Figure 2.3B. Lost Creek ISR, LLC did not complete any drilling or 

exploration activity during the spring or early summer raptor nesting period on the Permit Area 

or other nearby exploration areas. The closest known nearby human disturbance was associated 

with activities at the existing Sweetwater Uranium mill and local BLM and county roads. 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, &

2.3.3 Prey Abundance 

2.3.3.1 Lagomorphs

Jackrabbit and Desert Cottontail Surveys - Desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and whitetailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii) populations were evaluated using spotlight surveys 

completed within native habitat in the Permit Area. Surveys were completed in the early evening 

(after nightfall) using a 1,000,000-candlepower spotlight. One survey was completed in June and 

another survey was completed in late August of 2010. Three transects were established along 

approximately 1.5 miles of road within the Permit Area. Attachment A, Figure 2.3C shows the 

transect locations. These transects will continue to be used in annual wildlife monitoring surveys. 

Table 2.3B summarizes the results of the surveys. 

Table 2.3B. 2010 Lagomorph spotlight survey results summary (Lost Creek 

Permit Area). 

Transect Date Results and Comments 

#1 6/3 4 White-tailed Jackrabbits 

#2 6/3 4 White-tailed Jackrabbits 

#3 6/3 3 White-tailed Jackrabbits, 1 Cottontail 

#1 8/25 7 White-tailed Jackrabbits 

#2 8/25 8 White-tailed Jackrabbits 

#3 8/25 4 White-tailed Jackrabbits, 2 Cottontail 

Pygmy Rabbit Surveys - Surveys for the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), a BLM 

sensitive species, were completed during the fall of 2010. Survey methods followed BLM 

guidelines (Ulmschneider 2004). Four 0.5-mile long survey transects were completed in the Lost 

Creek disturbance area. The survey transects were chosen based on vegetation mapping, aerial 

photos, and on the ground conditions. Transects were located within areas of thicker lowland 

sagebrush cover in swales and ravines. Meandering transects were walked in these corridors and 

transect routes were recorded by GPS. 

Surveys were conducted on October 11 and 12, 2010. Indicators of pygmy rabbit presence 

included tracks, pellets, burrows, and rabbit observations. All burrow locations were located by 

GPS and recorded (UTMs, NAD83, zone 13). Where several active burrows were present in the 

same area (one burrow complex) one GPS reading was taken for the complex. Data were 

recorded on standard data forms, and photographs were taken to illustrate representative habitat. 

A total of 43 locations of burrows, other indicators, or possible indicators of pygmy rabbits were 

recorded. Some burrow locations were part of larger burrow complexes with several burrows 

located in the same sagebrush patch. One pygmy rabbit was sighted during the surveys. Table 

2.3C provides a summary of burrow locations and burrow status and Attachment A, Figure 2.3C 

shows the locations of transects, burrows, and other indicators that were identified during the 
a). 

sect 

Table 2.3C. Pygmy rabbit transect results summary (Lost Creek Permit Are

Tran UTME UTMN Status1 

1 266410 4668310 C+OP/START T1 

2 266419 4668331 FP 

3 266425 4668342 B+FP 

4 

5 

266431 4668355 FP 

266446 4668372 B+FP 

6 266496 4668423 VISUAL 

7 266503 4668436 B+OP 

8 266520 4998470 FP 

9 266665 4668824 END T1 

1 264014 4668356 START T2 

2 263829 4668275 B+FP 

3 263790 4668241 FP 

4 263778 4668227 FP 

5 263756 4668501 B+FP 

6 263698 4668109 FP 

7 263700 4668097 B+FP 

8 263685 4668085 FP 

9 263672 4667950 FP 

10 263715 4667918 FP 

11 263738 4667893 FP /END T2 

1 263283 4668713 START T3 

2 263342 4668679 FP 

3 263382 4668637 FP 

4 263377 4668579 B+FP 

5 263373 4668567 B+FP 

6 263368 4668555 B+OP 

7 263380 4668429 FP 

8 263370 4668317 FP 

9 263386 4668313 FP 

10 263513 4668063 FP /END T3 

1 261455 4667890 START T4 

2 261460 4667916 FP 

3 261493 4668001 FP 

4 261505 4668022 B+FP 

5 261527 4668079 FP 

6 261574 4668131 UB 

7 261581 4668167 B+FP 

8 261567 4668277 UB 

9 261507 4668550 UB 

10 261494 4668558 FP 

11 261474 4668568 FP 

12 261389 4668599 UB 

13 261277 4668699 FP 

14 261200 4668749 END T4 1 B=burrow; FP=fresh pellets only; B+FB=burrow and fresh pellets; B+OP=burrow and old pellets; UB=unused burrow; 

C+OP=collapsed burrow and old pellets. 

survey effort. 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Table 2.4A. MBHFI 2010 transect results, Lost Creek Permit Area. 

Species Observed Species 

1 Status

Lowland SB, 

Transect #1, 

No. Birds 

Lowland SB, 

Transect #2, 

No. Birds 

Upland SB, 

Transect #1, 

No. Birds 

Upland SB, 

Transect #2, No. 

Birds 

Brewer’s 

(Spizella 

Sparrow 

breweri)

MBHFI, 

BLM, BCC 11 12 2 2

Sage Sparrow 

(Amphispiza belli)

MBHFI, 

BLM 53 1 1

Vesper Sparrow 

(Pooecetes gramineus) MBHFI 1

Sage Thrasher 

(Oreoscoptes montanus)

MBHFI. 

BLM 3 1

Loggerhead Shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus)

MBHFI, 

BLM, BCC 1

Horned Lark 

(Eremophila alpestris) -5 3 7 6

Pygmy rabbits are restricted to lowland sagebrush habitat areas within the Lost Creek Permit 

Area. Survey results were similar to those from an earlier pygmy rabbit survey completed within 

the Permit Area in 2006. The 2006 survey also found lowland sagebrush habitats within the 

Permit Area occupied by pygmy rabbits. 

2.3.3.2 Small Mammals 

Surveys for other small mammals are not proposed at this time and were not completed during 

2010, except as noted below for the Wyoming pocket gopher and above for the pygmy rabbit. 

2.4 Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest (MBHFI) 

Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest (MBHFI) are species identified by the Wyoming Field 

Office of the USFWS in the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan as having high conservation 

interest due to potential or known population declines (USFWS 2002). Nesting non-game bird 

surveys were conducted in representative vegetation/habitat types (upland and lowland sagebrush 

habitats) within the Permit Area. Surveys followed techniques recommended by the WDEQ 

(WDEQ-LQD 1994). Two transects were established in each vegetation type of the Permit Area. 

Transects were 1,000-meters in length (2,000-meters per habitat type). The two vegetation types 

in the Permit Area are Upland Big Sagebrush (Upland SB) and Lowland Big Sagebrush 

(Lowland SB). Surveys were completed in the peak of the nesting season during the 1st week of 

June (surveys were completed on 6/3 and 6/4). Surveys were completed from 0.5 hours before 

sunrise to 9:30 am. All birds (including non-game and non-MBHFI birds) observed or heard 

while walking the transects were recorded. Transect start and stop points were located by GPS. 

The same transects will be completed annually as part of the project wildlife monitoring. 

Transect locations are shown on Attachment A, Figure 2.4A. These transects will continue to be 

used in future annual monitoring efforts. 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Table 2.4A. MBHFI 2010 transect results, Lost Creek Permit Area. 

Lowland SB, Lowland SB, Upland SB, Upland SB, Species Species Observed 1 Transect #1, Transect #2, Transect #1, Transect #2, No. Status No. Birds No. Birds No. Birds Birds 

Total # Birds - 24 20 10 9 1

MBHFI- Migratory Bird of High Federal Interest; BLM-BLM Sensitive Species; BCC - Birds of Conservation Concern species identified by the 

USFWS as those migratory non-game birds that without additional conservation actions are likely to become candidates for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

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

Because the survey was completed during the peak of the breeding season it is assumed that all 

of these species are nesting on the site. The most common breeding birds within the lowland 

sagebrush habitat were Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher. In upland sagebrush 

habitat the horned lark was the most common breeding bird. 

Other MBHFI that were observed within the Permit Area during 2010 included: ferruginous 

hawk (see Section 2.3), and one sighting of a chestnut-collared longspur (incidental sighting 

along Battle Springs Draw). 

2.5 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

No Federally listed species (species listed as threatened or endangered) were observed within or 

near the Permit Area during 2010. 

The greater sage-grouse has recently been classified as a Candidate Species for Federal Listing. 

Sage-grouse studies completed during 2010 are summarized in Section 2.2. 

The Wyoming pocket gopher was petitioned to be listed in 2010. The USFWS found that the 

species did not qualify for listing in 2010. Wyoming pocket gopher surveys completed on the site 

are summarized in Section 2.6. 

2.6 Non-Game Mammals 

Specific monitoring surveys of non-game mammals are not proposed to be completed on an 

annual basis. Incidental observations of non-game mammals will be made while completing 

other wildlife surveys. These incidental observations will be summarized in a table in the Annual 

Report. 

2.6.1 Wyoming Pocket Gopher Surveys 

During the summer of 2010 surveys were completed on the Lost Creek Permit Area for the 

Wyoming Pocket Gopher (Thomomys clusius), within the proposed disturbance area for the Lost 

Creek Project. The Wyoming pocket gopher (WPG) is a BLM and FS sensitive species, a State 

imperiled species (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database [WNDD] G2/S2 rank) and was 

petitioned to be listed as a Threatened or Endangered Species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) recently determined that Federal listing for the species was unwarranted. The 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

species has a very limited/isolated range that overlaps with the northern pocket gopher 

(Thomomys talpoides) and Idaho pocket gopher (Thomomys idahoensis). Predictive models show 

the Lost Creek Permit Area is within potential habitat areas (WNDD 2010). The BLM Rawlins 

office requested that surveys for the Wyoming pocket gopher be completed to support data 

gathering for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for the project. 

2.6.1.1 Methods 

LWR completed transects within the disturbance zone of the permit area (approximately 330 

acres) searching for pocket gopher mounds. Transects were completed in late August 2010. A 

visual search of the entire disturbance zone was completed while doing transects. Pocket gopher 

mounds are distinct from other mammal diggings in that they are pushed out from underground 

and generally have no external entrances. Once a gopher mound was observed, a 100-m radius 

search was completed to determine the center, size, and extent of the gopher “complex”. The 

complex was assigned a number, GPS located, photographed, and the number of fresh and old 

mounds was tallied. All transect data were recorded on the standard BLM/WNDD transect data 

form. 

Trapping was completed in mid-September 2010. Traps were set for at least 3-4 nights in each 

active complex. The number of traps per complex varied according to the activity level of the 

complex. Typically 3-6 traps were placed within each complex. 

Sherman live traps were used for the trapping. The traps were placed by digging down into 

lateral tunnels only near mounds with fresh gopher activity. Traps were set flush to the tunnel 

opening. If possible, traps were set going both directions along a tunnel. Traps were covered with 

black plastic trash bags. At least 5-6 inches of dirt was placed on top of the trash bags. Traps 

were baited with carrots and cilantro, and polyester bedding material was added to each trap. Set 

traps were covered by excavated soil to mimic tunnel conditions and to insulate captured 

animals. 

2.6.1.2 Results

A total of 27 active (shown as F-D in Table 2.6A) and 23 inactive (shown as W-M in Table 

2.6A) rodent complexes were located within the survey area while completing transects. 
Table 2.6A. Wyoming pocket gopher survey results. 

)' :0

&RPSOH[

1R

:D\3RLQW

1R (DVWLQJ 1RUWKLQJ

0RXQG

&RXQW

0RXQG

&RXQW 7UDSSHG &DWFK

1 18 263312 4668148 7 3

2 20 263107 4668093 16 7 Yes 1 WPG 

3 21 263040 4668065 14 14

4 22 262923 4667994 12 7 Yes 1 WPG 

5 23 262830 4667965 10 7 Yes 3 NGHM 

6 26 262843 4667765 12 4

7 27 263013 4667765 9 5 Yes 1 WPG 

7.1 47 262745 4667735 5 4 Yes 1 NPG, 1 NGHM 

8 28 262574 4668086 7 5

9 29 262628 4667797 5 9 Yes 1 WPG 

10 30 262644 4667624 3 5 Yes 1 WPG 

11 31 262444 4667834 6 10 Yes NONE 

12 32 262414 4667954 3 2

13 33 262129 4667942 4 6

14 34 262019 4667835 8 2 Yes 1 WPG 

15 35 262108 4667652 0 7

16 36 262209 4667771 0 8

17 37 265406 4668338 9 4 Yes 1 WPG 

18 38 265461 4668278 4 3

19 39 265492 4668488 6 8

20 40 265573 4668545 3 4

21 41 265194 4668388 4 6

22 42 264832 4668568 4 8

23 43 264822 4668301 4 6 Yes NONE 

24 44 264912 4668323 3 5 Yes 1 WPG 

25 45 264850 4668104 7 7

26 46 264637 4668497 5 4

28 48 261262 4665519 0 7

29 49 261226 4665671 0 7

30 50 261411 4665612 0 5 Yes 1 WPG 

31 51 261349 4668886 0 10

32 52 261375 4668789 0 5

33 53 261369 4668680 0 9

34 54 261254 4668702 0 8

35 55 263539 4668723 1 24 Yes 1 NPG 

36 56 263781 4669211 0 15

37 57 263346 4669121 0 7

38 58 260974 4668337 0 5

39 46A 263984 4668547 4 6 Yes NONE 

40 59 262946 4668527 0 11

41 60 266259 4668295 0 6

42 61 267318 4668252 0 11

43 62 262278 4668449 0 4

44 63 262520 4668450 4 0

45 64 262361 4668493 0 8

46 65 262292 4668473 0 12

47 66 262132 4668466 0 6

48 67 261636 4668451 0 5

49 68 261197 4668460 6 5

1

F-D= Fresh or days old mounds; W-M=Weeks or months old mounds

2

WPG= Wyoming Pocket Gopher; NPG= Northern Pocket Gopher; NGHM= Northern Grasshopper Mouse (Onychomys leucogaster)

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

Table 2.6A summarizes location and trapping information for the 49 WPG complexes located in 

the survey area. Fifteen complexes were trapped during the period of September 27 to October 1. 

Based on consultation with the BLM, we trapped the complexes that showed the best 

characteristics for Wyoming pocket gophers. Trapping was stopped in a complex if a Wyoming 

pocket gopher or northern pocket gopher was captured. Nine Wyoming pocket gophers, 2 

northern pocket gophers, and 4 northern grasshopper mice were captured during the trapping 

effort.

All captured Wyoming pocket gophers, northern pocket gophers, and northern grasshopper mice 

were returned into the burrows where they were captured. There was no capture mortality. 

Attachment A, Figure 2.6A shows the locations of Wyoming pocket gopher captures and burrow 

complexes. Wyoming pocket gophers were located throughout the Lost Creek disturbance area 

where active complexes were located. Based on surrounding habitat conditions it can be 

expected that Wyoming pocket gophers also occur in similar sagebrush habitats surrounding the 

Permit Area. Wyoming pocket gophers on site were located within very small open areas 

surrounded by sagebrush. After completing many transects it became apparent that the majority 

of the complexes could be located by looking for very small grassy openings within the 

sagebrush plant community. Based on 2010 surveys it can be assumed that Wyoming pocket 

gophers may be present within suitable habitat throughout the entire Permit Area. 

Northern grasshopper mice were found living within several Wyoming pocket gopher burrow 

complexes. Based on visual observance of many small open tunnels within complexes it is likely 

that northern grasshopper mice are present in a majority of the Wyoming pocket gopher 

complexes. 

2.7 Non-Game Birds 

Specific surveys for non-game birds were not completed during 2010 except as noted for nesting 

raptors and MBHFI. During MBHFI surveys all birds observed or heard were recorded. In

addition, incidental observations of non-game birds not previously observed on the site during 

past studies were made while completing other wildlife surveys. These incidental observations 

are summarized in Attachment B, Table B1. 
Table 2.8A. Great Basin spadefoot toad, 2010 survey results summary (Lost Creek Permit Area). 

Date Start Time Stop Time Results 

5/6 7:30pm 10:00pm No amphibians heard. 

5/20 7:30pm 10:00pm No amphibians heard. 

6/3 7:45pm 10:30pm No amphibians heard. 

7/8 7:20pm 10:00pm No amphibians heard. 

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

2.8 Reptiles and Amphibians 

Specific surveys for the Great Basin spadefoot toad (Spea intermontana) were completed within 

the Permit Area during the spring and early summer of 2010. The Great Basin spadefoot toad is a 

BLM Sensitive species. 

Four auditory surveys for spadefoot toads were completed during the period of May through 

July. Surveys were completed in the evening and continued until after dark. Surveys were 

completed by driving area roads, stopping at 0.5-mile intervals, and listening for amphibian 

vocalizations. Survey routes were established to cover the permit area and also cover the best 

potential breeding habitat (intermittent streams, stock ponds, potential wetlands) within the 

Permit Area. Standard survey routes were established within the Permit Area. These included: 

x The Lost Creek east/west road 

x Battle Springs and Stratton Draws (including Crooked Well Reservoir and existing stock 

pond along Battle Springs Draw) 

x Other potential wet areas or areas with occasional standing water 

Attachment A, Figure 2.8A shows the spadefoot toad survey routes that were completed in 2010. 

Table 2.8A summarizes the survey dates, times and results. 

No observations of Great Basin spadefoot toads were made within the Permit Area during the 

spring/summer of 2010. Dry conditions during the survey period were not ideal for locating 

breeding toads. However, toads were also not located within perennial wet areas associated with 

the existing stock pond. The last survey was completed approximately 3 days after a heavy 

thunderstorm. Standing water was present within several areas of the Permit Area. No spadefoot 

toad vocalizations were heard. 

Incidental observations of reptiles were made while completing other wildlife surveys. These 

incidental observations are summarized in Attachment B, Table B-1. The only reptile noted 

during incidental observations was the greater short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi). 

This species was located 11 times in a number of locales within the Permit Area. No

amphibians were observed within the Permit Area during 2010. 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

3.0 Evaluation of Wildlife Protection Measures Utilized and Wildlife 

Mortality in 2010 

Table 3.0A summarizes the timing restrictions used during 2010 to protect sage-grouse and 

raptors. 
Table 3.0A. Surface activity restrictions for protection of wildlife in the Lost Creek permit area. 

Species Exclusion Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Se

No surface disturbance or 

Occupied Leks 

occupancy within 1⁄4-mile of lek. 

No human activity between 6 pm 

Sage-grouse 

and 9 am from March 1st through 

May 20th within 1⁄4-mile of lek. 

Active Lek No surface disturbance or other in Suitable Nesting 

disruptive activity from March 1st 

through July 15th within 2 miles of 

Habitat lek. 

Raptors Avoid disturbance within 1-mile nest buffer from February 1st to July 31st . 

Notes: 

(1) Includes species, observed at the site, for which timing restrictions are in place per the Rawlins BLM 2007 Draft Resou

Plan (RMP). If additional species, listed in the RMP, are observed, then BLM will be consulted to determine applicable 

distance restrictions for those species. 

(2) The timing and distance restrictions are based on the most conservative alternative in the Draft RMP. If the Final RM

restrictions, those will be adopted after consultation with the BLM. 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& 
Additional wildlife protection measures utilized in 2010 included: 

x Restoration/reseeding of the small disturbed areas associated with exploration wells 

x Speed limits for personnel working on the site 

x Other appropriate measures as outlined in the Wildlife Protection and Monitoring Plan 

(LC, ISR, LLC 2010). 

Note: Because the project has not been constructed, not all of the wildlife protection and 

monitoring measures outlined in the Wildlife Protection and Monitoring Plan were followed in 

2010. Only those measures that dealt with species monitoring, as outlined in Section 2.0 above, 

were completed. Only protection measures dealing with exploration activities were followed in 

2010 because no mining activities have been started. 

There were no instances of wildlife-related poisoning, large scale die-offs, or other large scale 

mortality during 2010. 

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

4.0 Modifications for 2011 Wildlife Monitoring, Protection Measures 

The wildlife monitoring methods and protocols and wildlife protection measures established in 

the Wildlife Protection Plan and the Wildlife Monitoring Plan (LC ISR, LLC 2010) will continue 

to be followed during 2011 (including timing restriction shown in Table 3.0A). The monitoring 

schedule shown in Table 1.0A will be followed during 2011. The following discusses 

recommendations for additional protection measures; recommended modifications to monitoring 

or surveying; and any recommendations for additional species to be monitored (e.g., a newly 

listed species) for 2011. 

Sage-grouse: We will follow the field protocol implemented in 2010 (LC ISR, LLC 2010) at 

least through 2011. The radio-transmitters deployed in 2010 have a battery life-expectancy of 2 

years. Thus, females radio-tracked in 2010 will continue to be “on the air” through 2011. Radiotransmitters retrieved from mortalities will be redeployed during spring, 2011. 

LC ISR, LLC conducted a Project Impact Analysis Area (PIAA) analysis for Ur-Energy’s Lost 

Creek lease following procedures outlined by the Wyoming State Governor’s Sage-grouse 

Implementation Team (SGIT). On March 28, 2011, the SGIT submitted a new draft Executive 

Order with the PIAA renamed to Density/Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) and the new 

terminology has been incorporated into this report. The SGIT also approved a Manual for 

implementing the DDCT. The DDCT analysis included in this report was rerun utilizing the 

Manual procedure and was approved by the WGFD (Attachment C) on March 3, 2011. This 

analysis established a Total Affected Area as all area within 4 miles of the total disturbance 

footprint proposed on Lost Creek leases (see Figure 4.0A). We recommend modifying the 

boundaries of the Small SG Study Area to match the Total Affected Area boundaries. This 

change will not change field protocol other than Eagles Nest Fence lek will be included in spring 

2011 capture efforts (see Figures 2.2B and 4.0A). 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

The Wyoming State Governor’s executive order 2010-4 mandated using a 3-year running 

average of lek counts during any 5-year period to establish trends in population sizes to compare 

between Affected and Reference areas. The current draft Executive Order awaiting release as of 

April 2011, continues to mandate the 3-year running average. Lek counts do not provide the data 

necessary to accurately track populations given small numbers of leks (see Beck and Braun 

1980); however, over larger spatial areas lek counts can be used as a good indicator of 

population trends (see Connelly et al. 2003). Because of the potential bias associated with lek 

count indices, LC ISR, LLC will implement the following steps to track population size within 

Reference and Affected areas: (1) combine counts on leks within 0.6 miles of one another as 

these are probably a main lek with satellites; (2) generate a 3-year running average by lek with at 

least 3 years of counts from 2006; (3) add the 3-year averages to generate an estimated 

population by Reference and Affected by year; (4) graph these population estimates through time 

and visually assess whether the population trend lines are diverging; (5) if lines appear to be 

diverging, calculate the slope of each line across 3-year averages (e.g., a slope estimate is 

calculated each year from the 2 points proceeding the year in question and the point for the year 

in question); and (6) use the differences through time of the slope to quantify differences in 

population trends for Affected and Reference populations. The calculation of a 3-year average 

given missing data points over a 5-year period would occur as follows: the 3-year average for 

the year with missing data would be equal to the estimate from the proceeding year; the 3-year 

average for the year after the missing data (if that year has data) would be calculated from that 

year and the proceeding 2 years (of 3) with data. If more than 2 data points are missing for a lek 

during a given 5-year period, then that lek should not be considered in the analysis; we discuss 

techniques for possibly including these leks in future analyses below. We do not recommend 

analyzing trends in average lek sizes by population for 2 reasons: (1) this statistic would be 

generated as an average of an average, thus compounding any errors; and (2) the DDCT analysis 

is interested in investigating impacts to the trends in populations in the Affected area relative to a 

Reference area, not trends in lek size. 

Lek monitoring on the DDCT Area established by LC ISR, LLC has 2 issues that are currently 

apparent: (1) the number of leks counted from 2006 changes annually (see Table 2.2C) and at 

least 2 relatively substantial leks (Cyclone Rim and Stratton Camp; see Table 2.2B) were 

discovered in 2010; and (2) the activities associated with developing the Lost Creek Lease will 

shift spatially through time, thus the Total Affected Area may shift to include leks that are 

currently considered reference or vice-versa. We recommend that in these situations, the 

analysis be re-initiated given 5 years of data for these leks (either the newly discovered leks, or 

the leks shifting category). This could be accomplished retroactively for the situation where leks 

shift from Reference to Affected (or vice-versa). To accomplish this for the newly discovered 

leks, the analysis will have to be initiated from 2010 starting in 2014. 

As an example of the process, we will use the data presented in Table 2.2C; NOTE that we added 

data from 2004 and 2005 from the WGFD sage-grouse database to complete this example. Table 

4.0A establishes the 3-year running averages from 2007 for the leks where these estimates could 

be generated; a graphical representation of these count estimates is included in Figure 4.0B. 
Table 4.0A: 3-year running averages by Affected and Reference leks for the DDCT Area 

established by LC ISR, LLC. Missing data points are highlighted in grey. Note that leks 

included in this example (46 leks) are those listed in Table 2.2C with at least 3 counts from 2006. 

\HDUUXQQLQJDYHUDJH

/HN1DPH

Discover/Discover East/Discover South 

Eagles Nest Draw 

Green Ridge 

Minex West 

Prospects/Prospects South 

Sand Gully 

Sooner/Sooner Oil 

Southland Well 

Crooked Well 

Arapahoe 

Bull Springs 

Chain Lakes Rim 

Chicken Spring 

Eagles Nest 

Eagles Nest Fence 

East Alkali 

East Antelope 

Hadsell Crossing 

Hadsell Road 

Harrier 

Larsen North Well 

Lost Alkali 

Lost Arapahoe 

Lost Creek 

Lost Creek Basin 

Monument Lake 

Mud Lake 

Mud Lake North 

Mud Springs 

Red Creek Well 

Ruby Knolls South 

Ruby Knolls West 

SK Well 

Smiley Springs 

Sourdough Mine 

Stewart Creek 

Stinking Springs/Stinking Springs North 

Stratton 

Stratton Lake 

Texas Oil 

Upper Osborne 



28

0

42

11

22

14

12

40

0

71

23

29

94

4

45

0

30

38

0

47

10

0

30

0

0

14

0

9

0

20

18

13

0

43

7

36

26

0

0

27



28

0

34

18

37

14

17

57

0

103

33

47

190

24

59

37

31

48

0

68

30

0

46

0

71

16

85

33

34

0

94

20

56

34

0

0

45



91

57

63

22

64

126

34

81

0

134

25

65

184

23

146

47

58

24

0

80

42

0

93

0

110

23

0

38

29

80

43

29

0

100

26

68

92

72

0

0

37



49

22

87

24

78

108

37

69

4

109

16

61

181

17

132

35

64

53

0

79

34

0

60

0

69

20

0

34

0

79

47

22

91

22

59

11

60

0

72



109

52

58

13

75

72

28

57

0

91

11

46

146

0

108

19

43

0

67

20

0

9

0

25

22

49

19

21

0

57

22

50

36

0

0

61



22

47

56

10

54

36

26

54

0

29

16

33

135

14

66

8

39

10

0

77

29

0

42

0

9

8

0

35

15

57

53

21

0

58

55

36

0

0

66



34

42

46

11

36

15

16

49

0

38

22

49

111

7

59

14

29

42

0

42

26

0

24

0

65

8

40

35

65

25

0

43

18

68

60

0

0

14

Sums 

 6WDWXV

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Affected 

Reference 

   

56.0 83.0 60.0 55.0 

26.3 43.7 40.3 47.0 

61.3 69.3 67.0 53.3 

21.3 19.7 15.7 11.3 

59.7 72.3 69.0 55.0 

82.7 102.0 72.0 41.0 

29.3 33.0 30.3 23.3 

69.0 69.0 60.0 53.3 

1.3 1.3 1.3 0.0 

115.3 111.3 76.3 52.7 

24.7 17.3 14.3 16.3 

57.7 57.3 46.7 42.7 

185.0 170.3 154.0 130.7 

21.3 13.3 10.3 7.0 

112.3 128.7 102.0 77.7 

39.7 39.7 30.0 19.0 

51.0 47.0 40.7 29.0 

41.7 40.0 35.3 31.7 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

75.7 75.3 74.3 62.0 

35.3 32.0 27.7 25.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

66.3 51.0 34.0 22.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

83.3 83.3 62.7 47.7 

19.7 17.3 12.3 8.3 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

27.0 32.3 31.3 31.3 

9.7 17.0 12.3 25.7 

81.3 69.3 61.7 47.0 

41.0 36.3 39.7 45.7 

28.3 24.0 21.3 22.3 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

95.0 82.7 68.7 52.7 

22.7 23.3 23.3 20.7 

61.0 59.0 54.7 57.7 

45.7 45.7 45.7 54.3 

52.7 56.0 44.0 44.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

51.3 56.7 66.3 47.0 

   

407.0 493.3 415.7 339.3 

1444.7 1386.3 1189.7 1020.0 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
1600.0 

HV DO

P1400.0 I R1200.0 HU E PX

1000.0 

Q H

800.0 

DJ DYHU

600.0 

400.0 

\HDU O

200.0 

WD WR

0.0 

Affected 

Figure 4.0B. Graph of 3-year average population trends of Affected and Reference leks for the 

DDCT Area established by LC ISR, LLC; numbers represent summed averages by year (see 

Sums columns in Table 4.0A above). Note that the lines are not diverging, thus slopes of the 

lines were not calculated. 

Reference 

2007 2008 2009 2010

\HDU UXQQLQJDYHUDJH

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

Wyoming Pocket Gophers: Additional surveys for Wyoming pocket gophers should not be 

required for 2011 (unless specifically required by a reviewing agency). Surveys completed in 

2010 documented the species within the Permit Area and disturbance areas. 

Great Basin Spadefoot Toad: Surveys completed during 2010 did not locate this species. 

However, dry weather conditions were not ideal for locating this species. Surveys will be 

completed again during the spring and summer 2011, following the protocol in this report. 

Project Construction and Mining: Because the project has not received final agency approvals 

and has not been constructed, not all of the wildlife protection and monitoring measures outlined 

in the Wildlife Protection and Monitoring Plan were followed in 2010. Only those measures that 

dealt with species monitoring as outlined in Section 2.0 above, timing restriction for wildlife 

protection related to exploration and drilling, and minor restoration/reclamation for drill sites 

were completed. Once the project has been approved and construction begins all measures 

outlined in the Wildlife Protection and Monitoring Plan will be followed. 

Additional Agency Requirements: Additional requirements for wildlife monitoring, surveys, or 

protection measures could result from ongoing agency reviews and permit approvals. In addition, 

requirements for additional wildlife protection stipulations could result from changes in species 

status or regulatory requirements. Lost Creek ISR, LLC will change or adapt the wildlife 

monitoring, survey and protection measures as needed to meet the changing permit and 

regulatory environment. All changes will be summarized in the 2011 annual wildlife monitoring 

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

5.0 References 

Beck, T. D. I., and C. E. Braun. 1980. The strutting ground count: variation, traditionalism, 

management needs. Proceedings of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies 60:558–566. 

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, and M.A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of greater sage grouse 

habitats and populations. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station publication 

No. 979, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage 

grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:1-19. 

Eng, R. L. 1955. A method for obtaining sage grouse age and sex ratios from wings. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 19:267-272. 

Giesen, K.M., T.J. Schoenberg, and C.E Braun. 1982. Methods for trapping Sage Grouse in 

Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:224-231. 

Hensler, G.L., and J.D. Nichols. 1981. The Mayfield method of estimating nesting success: a 

model, estimators and simulation results. Wilson Bulletin 93:42-53. 

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

natural gas field development in western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation, University of 

Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA. 

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

relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 107:742-752. 

Johnson, G.D., and M.S. Boyce. 1990. Feeding trials with insects in the diet of sage grouse 

chicks. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:89-91. 

LC ISR, LLC. 2010. Lost Creek Lost Creek Project WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine Application,

Original Dec 07; Rev 6 Feb10; Attachment OP-6 Wildlife Protection and Wildlife 

Monitoring Plan. 

Mayfield, H. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bulletin 87:456–466. 

Naugle, D.E., K.E. Doherty, B.L. Walker, M.J. Holloran, and H.E. Copeland. 2010. Energy 

development and greater sage-grouse. Studies in Avian Biology: In Press.

(NCDC) National Climatic Data Center Climate Data Online. 2010. 

http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdoselect.cmd Downloaded Mon Dec 13 2010. 

Pollock, K.H., S.R. Winterstein, C.M. Bunck, and P.D. Curtis. 1989. Survival analysis in 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

telemetry studies: the staggered entry design. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53: 7-15. 

Sargeant, A. B., M. A. Sovada, and R. J. Greenwood. 1998. Interpreting evidence of depredation 

of duck nests in the prairie pothole region. U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND and Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Memphis, TN. 

72pp.

Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, and C. E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocereus 

urophasianus). No. 425 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The 

Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Ulmschneider, H., D. Hays, R. Hadley, J. Rachlow, T. Forbes, J. Himes, E. Sequin, M. Haworth, 

T. Katzner, A. Kozlowski, R. Rauscher and P. Lauridson. 2004. Surveying for pygmy 

rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis). 4th draft. Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho. 

20 pp. plus appendices. 

Wakkinen, W. L., K. P. Reese, J. W. Connelly, and R. A Fischer. 1992. An improved 

spotlighting technique for capturing sage grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 425-426. 

Wallestad, R.O., and Pyrah, D. 1974. Movement and nesting of Sage Grouse hens in central 

Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:630-633. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2007. Handbook of Biological Techniques 

(WDEQ-LQD) Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 1994. 

Guideline No. 5- Wildlife. Cheyenne (WY). Available from: 

http://deq.state.wy.us/lqd/guidelns/Guideline5.pdf 

(WNDD) Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2010. POCKET GOPHER SURVEYS IN 

SOUTHWESTERN WYOMING DRAFT PROJECT REPORT. Prepared by: Hannah 

Griscom, Zoologist; Doug Keinath, Senior Zoologist; Mark Andersen, GIS Specialist. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 

82071.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Migratory birds of high Federal interest in Wyoming, 

Coal Mine List. Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne WY. 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

Lost Creek Project, 2010 Wildlife Monitoring Report

Attachment A

Figures
A

A A A A

A

A

A A A A A 

A A

5 Mile 3 Mile 1 Mile 

A

AE

A

A A A

Survey observations of Antelope (A) and Elk (E) 

Mid-February Survey 

Late March Survey

Early June Survey 

Late August Survey 

Big G

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

	

	



		  !
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,,

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

$SSHQGL[& 
	

	



		 

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

	



		 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& 
Figure 2.2G. Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing Transects (Page 1 of 8) 

Lost Creek Sage Grouse Brood Survey 2010 

Transect ID Crooks Creek #1 USGS Quad Crooks Peak 

Bank Side / Direction Left / West Legal Description NE1/4 Sec 20, SE1/4 Sec17 T27N, R92W 

NAD 83 East North Comments 

Start/End Point 265468 4687245 Straight down slope from buck-rail fence 

Start/End Point 265680 4688202 Upstream end of lower willow patch 

Dominant Hordeum brachyantherum, Carex nebrascensis, Agrostis stolonifera, Poa pratensis, 

Vegetation Cirsium canescens 

Notes Transect walking path stays in sage fringe above channel. Transect crosses buck-rail 

fence. Some broad areas in bottom (100 meters wide). Transect can be approached 

from two track road several hundred meters below lower end of transect 

Maps 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Figure 2.2G. Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing Transects (Page 2 of 8) 

Lost Creek Sage Grouse Brood Survey 2010 

Transect ID Crooks Creek #2 USGS QUAD Crooks Peak, Wyoming 

Bank Side / Direction Right / North Legal Description NE1/4 Sec17, NW1/4 Sec16, T26N, R92W 

NAD 83 East North Comments 

Start/End Point 266523 4688391 Straight down slope yellow steel post in sage 

Start/End Point 265659 468870 Barbed wire fence line crossing creek 

Dominant Carex nebrascensis, Poa pratensis, Salix sp. 

Vegetation 

Notes Transect walking path stays in sage fringe above channel. Transect can be 

approached from lesser two track road branching off main two track 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Figure 2.2G. Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing Transects (Page 3 of 8) 

Lost Creek Sage Grouse Brood Survey 2010 

Transect ID A&M Reservoir #1 USGS QUAD Hadsell Spring 

Bank Side/ Direction Left/South Legal Description SW1/4 Sec10, T26N, R91W 

NAD 83 East North Comments 

Start/End Point 277396 4679362 First dam above reservior 

Start/End Point 278446 4679331 Rock pile at beginning of creek 

Dominant Juncus balticus, Carex nebrascensis, Poa pratensis, Epilobium sp. 

Vegetation 

Notes Riparian area is narrow and grouse occupying both sides of channel would 

likely be flushed 

Maps 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Figure 2.2G. Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing Transects (Page 4 of 8) 

Lost Creek Sage Grouse Brood Survey 2010 

Transect ID A&M Reservoir #2 USGS Quad Hadsell Spring 

Bank Side / Direction Right / South Legal Description SE1/4 Sec10, SW1/4 Sec11, T26N, R91W 

NAD 83 East North Comments 

Start/End Point 278760 4679529 Fence line 

Start/End Point 279772 4679181 Small lone willow on left bank 

Dominant Carex nebrascensis, Poa pratensis, Agrostis stolonifera, Lupinus sp. 

Vegetation 

Notes Riparian area is narrow and grouse occupying both sides of channel would 

likely be flushed 

Maps 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Figure 2.2G. Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing Transects (Page 5 of 8) 

Lost Creek Sage Grouse Brood Survey 2010 

Transect ID Lost Creek #1 USGS Quad Osborne Draw 

Bank Side / Direction Right / West Legal Description NE1/4 Sec 1, T27N, R95W and SE1/4 

Sec36, T27N, R95W 

NAD 83 East North Comments 

Start/End Point 739057 4673700 Stop on road at / and walk straight to creek 

Start/End Point 738531 4672887 Tall white/red mud cliff on left bank 

Dominant Poa pratensis, Carex nebrascensis, Agrostis stolonifera, Thermopsis divaricarpa 

Vegetation 

Notes Transect walking path stays in sage fringe above channel. 

Maps 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Figure 2.2G. Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing Transects (Page 6 of 8) 

Lost Creek Sage Grouse Brood Survey 2010 

Transect ID Lost Creek #2 USGS Quad Osborne Draw 

Bank Side / Direction Right / West Legal Description SE1/4Sec 25, T26N, R95W and SW1/4 

Sec30, T26N, R94W 

NAD 83 East North Comments 

Start/End Point 738492 4675582 Where two track road intersects creek 

Start/End Point 739267 4674969 Mail BLM road at culvert 

Dominant Carex nebrascensis, Agrostis stoloniofera, Eleocharis palustris, Junucus 

Vegetation balticus, unknown composite 

Notes Transect walking path stays in sage fringe above channel. 

Maps 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Figure 2.2G. Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing Transects (Page 7 of 8) 

Lost Creek Sage Grouse Brood Survey 2010 

Transect ID Stewart Creek #1 USGS Quad Bull Springs and Baroil 

Bank Side / Direction Right / West Legal Description NW1/4 Sec29, T25N, R90W 

NAD 83 East North Comments 

Start/End Point 284162 4666307 Just below dam 

Start/End Point 284281 4665194 Very close to two track road 

Dominant Carex nebrascensis, Agrostis stolonifera 

Vegetation 

Notes Transect walking path stays in sage fringe above channel. 

Maps 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Figure 2.2G. Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing Transects (Page 8 of 8) 

Lost Creek Sage Grouse Brood Survey 2010 

Transect ID Stewart Creek #2 USGS Quad Bull Springs and Baroil 

Bank Side / Direction Right / west Legal Description NW1/4 Sec20, T25N, R92W 

NAD 83 East North Comments 

Start/End Point 284165 4666592 Single tee-post just above tailwater of 

reservoir and just below a four tee-post 

exclusion cage in riparian area 

Start/End Point 284129 4667583 At the end of the moist riparian area where 

rabbit brush narrows into channel 

Dominant Carex nebrascensis, Agrostis stolonifera 

Vegetation 

Notes Transect walking path stays in sage fringe above channel. Some broad areas in 

riparian bottom (100 meters wide). 

Maps 

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

	



 
	


  

 


	







 ! Rawlins 

"#$ "%!


"&




Figure 2.2HRegional Sage-GWing Barrel Loc
R

Lost Creek Permit Boundary 

Raptor NestsNestStatus 

! Active! Inactive/Dilapidated 

! 

AFH

! 

FH25921601 

! 

FH25922801 

! 

FH25923201 

! 

FH24930201 

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

Ferruginous Hawk Nests
1 

AFH25

! 

921004 

1.83 miles 

23 FH25921601 5 oad ! 12 R 3 ty da

5 Mile n o Cou 3 Mile 1 Mile R

FH259

MLB

! 

22801 

FH25923201 1.72 miles 

! 

FH249

! 

30201 2.63 miles 

0.75 miles 

Sweetwater 

Mill Mineral Exploration Road 

Lost Creek Permit Boundary Disturbance Features Analyzed 

NestStatus 

! 

Active 

! Inactive/Dilapidated Measure o

ding and 

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

Bree

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

!!!!!!! !!! ! 

! !!

!! 

!!

! !!

! 

!! 

! 

! 

!!!!!

! 

!!! !

! 

0 

5 Mile 3 Mile 1 Mile 

Transect B+FP !

!!!!!

B+OPC+OPFP 

Pygmy R

UB VISUAL 

Lagomorph SpotlightSurvey Transects Pygmy

Rabbit 
Lowland Sagebrus

Upland Sagebrush #1 Start UTM 267082Start UTM 265802, 4669468 

Upland Sagebrush #2 Start UTM 262622, 4668170 

Lowland Sagebrush #2 Start UTM 261426, 4667315 

Lost Creek Permit Boundary SurveyTransects 

Migratory Birds of H

Su

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

Figure 
! ! 

! ! !! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! 

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! 

/RVW&UHHN3HUPLW$UHD

:\RPLQJ3RFNHW*RSKHU6XUYH\

0 0.5 1 Miles 

Figure 2.6AWyoming PocketGopher Surveys
5 Mile 3 Mile 1 Mile 

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

Driving Transects Figure 2.8A. Great Basin Spadefoot T
$SSHQGL[&