Appendix B 

Responses to Comments and 

Compilation of Comments Received 

for the Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ

Recovery Project FEIS 
i 

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND BLM RESPONSES 

ON THE 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE 

LOST CREEK Uranium In-Situ Recovery PROJECT 

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on the BLM DEIS and NRC Draft SEIS .......................................... 3

Regulatory Conformance .................................................................................... 4

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

Groundwater and Surface Water ......................................................................... 5

Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 9

Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................... 16
1 

Introduction 

This appendix includes public comments and Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) responses on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the 

Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project (Project). The Notice of 

Availability (NOA) for the Project FEIS was published in the Federal Register on 

August 17, 2012. The BLM accepted public comment on the FEIS within the 30-

day waiting period between publication of the NOA and issuance of the Record of 

Decision. A total of 7 letters were received by the BLM during this 30-day 

period. 

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

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

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

comment does one or more of the following: 

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

environmental impact statement; 

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

analysis as presented; 

• Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the DEIS 

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

significant issues; and/or 

• Causes changes or revisions in the proposal. 

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

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

unsupported personal preference or opinion. 

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

public of concerns raised. For this ROD comment - response appendix, the BLM 

has provided responses to all substantive public concerns identified during 

comment analysis. Responses to concerns considered nonsubstantive thank the 

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

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

the scope of the NEPA process and contain no further explanation. Responses to 

substantive comments are more extensive, complete, and often offer an 

explanation of why a comment may or may not have resulted in a change to the 

Project FEIS. 

Comment Review Methods 

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

that related to a particular concern or resource consideration or that proposed 

management actions. The BLM looked not only for each action or change 
2

requested by the public, but also for any supporting information to capture the 

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

been divided into several comments because of multiple comments being 

presented, or alternatively, sections of a letter may have been combined to form 

one coherent statement. Once a comment was identified, the BLM assigned each 

to a category associated with the overall premise of the comment. A coding 

structure served as a tool to sort comments into logical groups by topics. In this 

case, the coding structure was organized to mirror the sections of the FEIS; some 

additional categories were added that included additional classification of 

comments. If a comment on the FEIS was a repetition or clarification of a 

comment submitted on the DEIS, the comment was addressed under the same 

section in this document as it was in Appendix F of the FEIS. 

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

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

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

second part of this appendix. 

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

comments were treated equally. The comments were not weighted by 

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

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

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

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

on the content of a comment. 

Response to Comments 

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

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

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

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

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

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

concern. 

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

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

group and on the list of the commenters in this appendix. The one exception to 

this scheme is the set of comments received from the Biodiversity Conservation 

Alliance (BCA), which were a compilation of comments from several 

organizations, including: the BCA, Californians for Western Wilderness, and 

Western Watersheds Project. Comments from these organizations were 

referenced as BCA et al. 
3 

No Comment 

Comment: Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 

WGFD referred to their letter of May 30, 2012, submitted in reference to the 

DEIS, which notes that their comments were addressed through the WDEQ 

permitting processes. 

Response: The BLM thanks WGFD for their continued attention to this Project. 

General 

General Support 

Comment: Office of the Governor of the State of Wyoming; Rock Springs 

Chamber of Commerce; Sweetwater County Board of County 

Commissioners (SWCBCC) 

These commenters expressed their support of the Project. 

Response: The BLM thanks you for your comment, your interest, and 

participation in the NEPA process for this Project. 

Comments on the BLM DEIS and NRC Draft SEIS 

Comment: BCA et al. (Page 1); WOC (Page 13): 

BCA et al. requested that BLM respond to the BCA et al. comments on the BLM 

DEIS and on the NRC Draft SEIS, "to the extent that the agency has not already 

done so." The WOC also indicated that their wildlife comments on the BLM 

DEIS "still stand". 

Response: The BLM responded to comments on the BLM's April 2012 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Project in Appendix F of the 

BLM's July 2012 FEIS. As noted in the responses to more specific comments on 

the FEIS that were repeated from the DEIS comments, the BLM appreciates the 

reviewer’s additional discussion; however, based on review of the DEIS, the 

original comment and response, and the FEIS, the BLM still considers the 

previous responses applicable. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) responded to the BCA et al. and 

other organizations’ comments on the December 2009 Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Project in Appendix B of the June 

2011 Final SEIS. Given the differences in the scoping comments, agency 

concerns, and updates in technical and regulatory information, the BLM refers the 

commenter to the relevant NRC SEIS documents for responses. 
4

Regulatory Conformance 

Comment: Office of the Governor of the State of Wyoming

The Office of the Governor requested that the Record of Decision (ROD) conform 

with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division 

(WDEQ-LQD) Permit to Mine and the application conditions and timing 

stipulation provided by Lost Creek ISR, LLC (LCI). The Office of the Governor 

also reiterated that the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine has been found to be in 

compliance with the Governor’s Executive Order 2011-5 (EO 2011-5). 

Response: The BLM has worked with WDEQ and other State agencies 

throughout the NEPA process, and the approved WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine is 

incorporated by reference in the FEIS. The BLM also appreciates the 

confirmation that the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine is in compliance with EO 

2011-5. 

Editorial 

Regulatory 

Comment: SWCBCC 

SWBCC requested changes and additions to Table 1.4-1, List of Regulatory 

Requirements, to help ensure compliance with the County regulations.

Response: The requested changes and additions to Table 1.4-1, with one 

exception, are included in Table 1 of the ROD. The exception is the addition of a 

table entry for a Work Camp Conditional Use Permit, which is omitted because 

the Plan of Operations does not include a proposal to develop any work camps. 

Comment: SWCBCC 

SWCBCC reiterated their encouragement of cooperative interaction between 

local, state and federal agencies, and emphasized soliciting comments from the 

communities of Wamsutter, Baroil, Rawlins, and neighboring Carbon County.

Response: As noted in the response to the comment on the DEIS, the BLM added 

the communities to the Project mailing list to help ensure their continued 

participation in the NEPA process. Community representatives have previously 

participated in public meetings and submitted comments during the NEPA 

process. Carbon County has been on the mailing list and participated in the 

NEPA process as a cooperating agency. 

Comment: SWCBCC 

SWCBCC reiterated their request that the BLM encourage LCI to deliver Project 

materials "free on board" to help ensure sales tax are properly allocated and paid. 

Response: As noted in the response to the comment on the DEIS, the BLM added 

a request in Section 4.15.1 of the FEIS, that materials be delivered "free on 
5 

board." 

Comment: SWCBCC 

SWCBCC reiterated their appreciation of BLM's efforts to protect historic and 

cultural sites and their encouragement of BLM's efforts to balance of site 

protection with resource development. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: SWCBCC 

SWCBCC reiterated their support for the State of Wyoming Sage Grouse Core 

Area Program and their appreciation of BLM's and LCI's efforts to comply with 

this program. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: LCI 

LCI again requested that the reference to Carbon County land use regulations be 

removed. LCI also requested removal of the reference to accrual of maintenance 

costs to Carbon County. The requests are based on the Project location 

(Sweetwater County) and current maintenance responsibilities. 

Response: The BLM appreciates the reviewer’s additional discussion of this 

comment. Based on additional review and the assertion that LCI will not be using 

any Carbon County maintained roads, the requirement for LCI to obtain a Road 

Use and Maintenance Agreement with Carbon County was removed. However, 

the additional review resulted in the requirement that LCI pursue a Road Use and 

Maintenance agreement with BLM for use of BLM-controlled roads outside of 

the permit area boundaries. 

Typographical 

Comment: LCI 

LCI noted three corrections: 

• The liner thickness is still in error; 

• The discussion of solid waste containment does not list all the acceptable 

containers; and 

• The reference to Table 3.8-3 on Page F-39 of the FEIS should be to Table 

3.8-4. 

Response: The corrections have been noted in Appendix A (Updates and Errata 

to the Final Environmental Impact Statement) of this document. 

Groundwater and Surface Water 

Comment: Lost Creek ISR, LLC (LCI) 
6

LCI has again requested that the additional stability water quality sampling 

requirement, detailed in Section 4.7.1 of the FEIS, be removed. 

Response: The BLM appreciates the reviewer’s additional discussion of this 

comment. Based on review of the DEIS, the original comment and response, and 

the FEIS, the BLM still considers this requirement appropriate for this Project to 

ensure the Reclamation Plan and associated monitoring are effective (43 CFR 

3809.401(b)(3)&(4)). Additionally, the BLM reviewed literature and professional 

speakers and found that stability monitoring may be necessary for the protection 

of BLM resources including rangeland health, wild horse herd management areas 

and wildlife habitat. This included: 

Hall, Susan, 2009, Groundwater restoration at uranium in-situ recovery mines, 

south Texas coastal plain: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1143, 

32 p. 

Davis, J.A. and Curtis, G.P, 2007, Consideration of geochemical issues in 

groundwater restoration at uranium in-situ leach mining facilities: NUREG/CR6870. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2009: Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for in-situ leach uranium milling facilities: NUREG 1910. 

Susan Hall, USGS, statement in ISL workshop – September 2010. 

Bill von Till, NRC, statement in ISL workshop– September 2010. 

Comment: BCA et al. (Pages 5 through 7)

BCA et al. has again expressed concern about the completeness of the analysis 

and evaluation of: 

• Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring; 

• Lixiviant Toxicity; 

• Excursion Control; 

• Historic Boreholes; 

• Well Construction; and 

• Drawdown Impacts. 

Response: Analysis and evaluation of the above topics has been provided in the 

NRC License, Safety Evaluation Report, and SEIS for the Project, the NRC 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities, the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine, and the BLM DEIS and FEIS. The 

references for these topics are: 

• Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring 

The concerns about surface water monitoring include the reference to the 

NRC SEIS and the evaluation of spills from wells in ephemeral channels. 

As discussed in Section 4.1 of the DEIS and FEIS, the findings from the 

NRC SEIS are included in the respective sections for each resource to 

provide for easier comparison of the BLM and NRC documents. The 

NRC cross-reference cited on Page 4.6-6 is for that purpose. The BLM 
7 

finding is discussed at the beginning of Section 4.6.4 (Page 4.6-5) based 

on the impact significance criteria in Section 4.6.3. The protection and 

monitoring measures related to spills and leaks apply regardless of the 

type of source, e.g., a truck accident could occur in an ephemeral drainage 

channel. Therefore, a separate of assessment of spills from wells versus 

spills from another source is not considered necessary. 

The concerns about groundwater monitoring relate to surface water and 

groundwater interactions (which would include hyporheic flows) several 

miles from the Project, excursion detection and control, and the quality of 

water in the Battle Spring Formation. The presumption of a direct 

connection between the production zone (the HJ Sand) and the surface is 

counter to the interlayered nature of the formation [Sections 3.3.1.1 and 

3.3.2.5 of the DEIS and FEIS]). In addition, the assessments of 

groundwater movement in the Battle Spring Formation and the ability to 

detect and control excursions indicate flow rates that would preclude 

contaminant movement over the distances to the features noted in the 

comment. These assessments are discussed in more detail below. The 

comment notes that the water quality in the “target formations” is low; 

however, the water quality elsewhere in the Battle Springs Formation is 

affected by the presence of uranium minerals (Section 3.6.4.1). 

• Lixiviant Toxicity 

The potential environmental impacts for the individual chemicals used in 

lixiviant, as well as the lixiviant, are evaluated throughout the BLM DEIS 

and FEIS in the assessments of the Project impacts on specific resources 

(e.g., Soils [Section 4.5.1.4] and Public and Occupational Health and 

Safety [Section 4.17.4.2]) and cross-reference the detailed requirements in 

WDEQ-LQD and NRC documents (e.g., Section OP 2.9 of the WDEQLQD Permit to Mine). 

• Excursion Control 

BCA states that it will not be possible "to determine the geographic extent 

of the excursion once in gets past the ring of monitoring wells because 

there will be no system to track such groundwater excursion beyond the 

monitoring well ring." However, several additional requirements are 

available for excursion detection and control, including installation of 

additional wells (WDEQ-LQD, NonCoal Rules and Regulations, Chapter 

11, Section 12(d)(ii)). In addition, evaluation of the effectiveness of 

measures to control excursions is required for the mine units (e.g., 

Attachment MU1 5-1 to the WDEQ-LQD Mine Unit One Permit). 

Section 4.7.1.1 of the BLM DEIS and FEIS discuss the primary excursion 

control methods, and cross-references Section OP 3.6.4 of the WDEQLQD Permit to Mine, which provides more detail on excursion detection 

and control. 
8

• Well Construction 

The comment does not differentiate between the mine unit wells and the 

UIC Class I wells; however, different construction requirements apply: 

Mine Unit Wells. Details on well construction, including figures, are 

provided in Section OP 3.3 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine, which is 

referenced in Section OP 2.1.3.2. As discussed in Section OP 3.3 of the 

WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine, the wells are not “open hole” completions; 

rather, casing is set through all overlying formations to isolate those 

formations from the ore zone and then the hole for the well is drilled into 

the ore zone. The interval in the ore zone may be left open or screened, 

depending on the hole stability. 

UIC Class I Wells. Details on well construction for these wells are 

included in Attachment ADJ-2 (Attachment G to the UIC Class I 

Underground Injection Control Permit) of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to 

Mine. These wells are also not “open hole” completions; rather a series of 

protective casings are set in overlying formations and injection tubing is 

used in the injection zone. 

The reference to “mud filter cake” is in the discussion of the drilling of the 

UIC Class I wells not in the discussion of the final construction of the 

wells. During drilling for each of the protective casings, the “mud filter 

cake” reduces the potential for introduction of drilling mud and fluids as 

the drill hole is advanced through the interval to be cased. Once the well 

is cased, the casing and annular seal provide protection from introduction 

of fluids into unauthorized zones. Periodic testing of the well integrity is 

required. 

• Historic Boreholes 

Historic boreholes, that were either not plugged properly or plugged in 

accordance with requirements that are no longer considered sufficient, are 

a chronic problem in western states. They present not only environmental 

and health and safety concerns (e.g., the WDEQ had an Abandoned Drill 

Hole Program at one time, similar to the Abandoned Mine Lands 

Program), but an operational concern for companies conducting 

subsurface activities. Therefore, it is in the best interest of companies, 

such as LCI, to be diligent in finding and properly abandoning historic 

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

historic boreholes in the Permit Area (e.g., Appendix D-5, Section D5.2.4 

of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine, referenced in Sections 4.4.1 and 

4.4.4.1 of the BLM DEIS and FEIS), LCI is required to attempt to locate 

and abandon all historic boreholes within the perimeter of the monitoring 

well ring as part of the NRC License (License Condition 10.10) and 

WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (Section OP 3.2). 

• Drawdown Impacts 

The groundwater consumption (the volume of water removed from the 

aquifer) is discussed in Section 4.7.4.1 of the DEIS and FEIS, and the 
9 

drawdown recovery (how quickly the water levels recover after cessation 

of pumping) is discussed in Section 4.7.7.1. The groundwater 

consumption of the waters of the State of Wyoming is regulated by the 

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, and LCI has obtained (and will 

continue to obtain) the appropriate WSEO permits. As noted by the 

commenter, the Battle Springs Formation is laterally extensive, covering 

many square miles, and as discussed in Section 3.3.3.1 of the DEIS and 

FEIS, the formation thickness is on the order of several thousand feet. 

The production zone is a very small portion of the formation, and the 

quantity of water that will be removed from the formation during the 

Project is a very small percentage of the volume of water in the aquifer. 

The ability to detect any influence from the Project on spring flows, even 

presuming the HJ Sand is directly connected to the sands supply the 

springs (which is highly unlikely given the interlayered nature of the 

formation [Sections 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.2.5 of the DEIS and FEIS]), would be 

outside the accuracy of spring flow measurements. Water level recoveries 

after pumping are projected to recover within ten to 15 years, with most of 

the recovery occurring within the first few years (Section 4.7.6.1 of the 

DEIS and FEIS). 

Wildlife 

Analysis of Sage Grouse Impacts 

Comment: BCA et al. (Pages 2 through 4) 

BCA et al. expressed several concerns regarding the analysis of impacts on 

Greater Sage-Grouse, including: 

• Lack of consideration for alternative access road routes presented in BCA 

et al. comments to the DEIS, 

• Lack of compliance with noise restrictions in EO 2011-5, 

• Lack of compliance with development density restrictions presented in 

WY IM 2012-019, and 

• Lack of clarity regarding specifications of the mine unit development. 

Response: 

The BLM not only considered alternative access route presented prior to the BLM 

EIS process (FEIS, Section 2.3.3.8), but also considered the additional alternative 

routes presented by BCA et al. in their comments on the DEIS (FEIS, Appendix 

F, F-32 and F-33). 

Regarding the lack of compliance with restrictions in EO 2011-5, the potential 

impacts have been appropriately analyzed and documented. Additionally, 

Wyoming Governor Matthew Meade, wrote a letter to the BLM dated July 18, 

2012, reaffirming that the project proposal has been found to be in compliance 

with Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection (Executive Order 2011-5). 

Additionally, annual wildlife monitoring will occur and be reviewed by a 
10

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to implement the adaptive management 

process. 

Pertaining to the comment regarding the lack of compliance with development 

density restrictions presented in WY IM 2012-019, impacts from density 

disturbance on Greater Sage-Grouse are assessed through the DDCT tool, as 

designated by EO 2011-5. As noted in the letter received from Wyoming 

Governor Matthew Meade, dated July 18, 2012, “the project proposal has been 

found to be in compliance with Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection 

(Executive Order 2011-5). The proponent completed the project impact analysis 

area (PIAA) process and determined that the maximum disturbance resulting from 

the proposed project will equate to 0.92 percent of the defined PIAA, which is 

less than the Sage Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) maximum disturbance 

stipulation of five percent.” BCA et al.’s commentary that the DDCT (formerly 

referred to as the PIAA) is not an adequate tool or is not being applied correctly is 

beyond the scope of this EIS. 

Specifications of the mine unit development are summarized in Section 2.1.2.3 of 

the FEIS; more detailed information is available in WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine 

(LCI, 2011b) Operations Plan, Section 3.2. The logistical reasons for the exact 

layout of mine units being unable to be supplied at this stage in the Project 

consideration is explained in the Adjudication Files (Permit Development) of the 

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

Impact of Roads 

Comment: WOC (Pages 3-5) 

The WOC has again expressed concern about the BLM’s acceptance of the 

WGFD’s analysis of the impact of the proposed access roads on Greater SageGrouse, with particular emphasis on the conclusions obtained from the viewshed 

analysis regarding impacts from noise. 

Response: The BLM appreciates the reviewer’s additional discussion of this 

comment. Based on review of the DEIS, the original comment and response, and 

the FEIS, the BLM still considers the analyses of the road impacts, including 

visibility, noise, and other factors, on Greater Sage-Grouse appropriate for this 

Project. 

One-Access-Road Alternative 

Comment: WOC (Page 6) 

The WOC has again expressed concern about the BLM’s acceptance of the 

current plan for the Project access roads. The current plan includes upgrade of an 

East and West access road, rather than upgrade of one or the other, but not both. 

The WOC requests that the one-access-road alternative be considered. 
11 

Response: The BLM appreciates the reviewer’s additional discussion of this 

comment. Based on review of the DEIS, the original comment and response, and 

the FEIS, the BLM still considers the proposed use of two access roads for this 

Project appropriate, considering factors such as surface disturbance and traffic 

volumes (and associated concerns such as noise, dust, wildlife collisions, and 

accident rates). 

Analysis of Traffic Impacts 

Comment: BCA et al. (Pages 1 and 2): 

BCA et al. stated that the analysis of "traffic impacts" in the FEIS is invalid 

because, in a comment response on Page F-34, the number of tractor-trailers 

changed from the DEIS to the FEIS. In addition, BCA et al. stated that BLM 

cannot rely on the WGFD analysis because the alternate roads proposed by BCA 

were not considered. 

Response: Clarification of the original response is needed; however, the analysis 

of traffic impacts is valid and the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the 

same: 

• The change referenced by BCA et al. was in Table 4.3-1, under Initial 

Construction, on Page 1 of 2, in the last column (Heavier Equipment 

To/From Site). As noted in the original response, the change was from 2 

to 5 tractor/trailers per week to 2 to 5 tractor/trailers per day during the 7 

months of Initial Construction. The estimated number of tractor-trailers 

during the years of Operation (Production) and Reclamation, which is 1 to 

2 tractor/trailers per week, did not change. 

• The change was implemented for consistency with the NRC SEIS, which 

is incorporated by reference into the FEIS. When regulatory discussion 

and review of this Project started in the mid-2000s, the evaluations were 

generally over the life of the Project. Over time, the evaluations have 

been refined by phase of the Project, but the average over the life of the 

Project has not changed substantially. 

• Because of uncertainties in the volume of traffic on the public, unpaved 

roads, LCI is installing traffic counters to determine actual traffic volumes. 

This will include assessment of both LCI's traffic and public traffic, over 

which LCI does not have control. 

• The BLM has worked with WGFD throughout the NEPA process and 

WGFD reviewed both the DEIS and FEIS; therefore, WGFD has had the 

opportunity to consider the BCA's proposed alternate routes, as well as 

BLM concerns about those routes. 

Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) 

Comment: WOC (Pages 6-7) 

The WOC requested an additional type of analysis (a habitat equivalency 

analysis) of the Project impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse.
12

Response: The analyses in the FEIS are considered sufficient to determine if 

impacts can be avoided or reduced and to compare the relative merits of the 

measures for losses and benefits. 

Exploration Activities 

Comment: WOC (Pages 7-9) 

The WOC presents several comments about the monitoring and presentation of 

results from monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Leks. They also comment on the 

potential impacts of exploration activities on Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Response: 

Note: For clarification, the table number for the lek count data is Table 3.8-4 and 

the 2010 data in the table starts on Page 3.8-40. 

Stinking Springs North and Stratton Camp Leks were newly discovered leks as of 

2010. They were incorporated into the ongoing monitoring scheme as reference 

leks. Table 3.8-4, primarily shows “affected” leks (versus reference leks); 

however, the two newly discovered leks were noted in the table as of 2010. More 

information on these two leks and the rest of the reference leks can be found in 

Appendix C of the FEIS. 

Lek count surveys for the reference leks are coordinated by WGFD and are a 

shared responsibility between the wildlife biologist hired by the proponent, the 

BLM and WGFD. In 2011, WGFD was responsible for counting the Stratton 

Camp lek, and there may be several reasons for the completion of only one count 

at this lek in 2011. For instance, WGFD may have determined that they had 

representatively counted peak males on the lek during the single count in 2011, or 

site conditions did not allow for further visits. In addition, weather and road 

conditions may have precluded access. However, the number captured is similar 

to the number counted in 2010, during which the site was visited three times 

(FEIS, Appendix C). This lek will be surveyed ongoing as well.

The WOC questions why the Osborne Draw, Little Osborne, Eagle’s Nest 

Reservoir, Eagle Nest Draw, and Sand Gully leks are not mentioned though they may 

be impacted by the proposed project. The Eagle Nest Draw and Sand Gully; however, 

are shown on Figure 3.8-8, Table 3.8-4, and discussed on Page 3.8-29 in the FEIS. 

The remaining leks in question are outside of the scale of Figure 3.8-8, which 

shows the leks nearest to the Project area in relation to proposed Project 

infrastructure; however, lek counts from these, slightly further away, leks are 

presented in Table 3.8-4. Furthermore, additional information on all “affected” 

leks near the Project area as well as information on all “reference” leks is 

available in Appendix C of the FEIS. 

Pertaining to the comment that LCI’s exploratory activities may have already had 

an impact on sage-grouse lek numbers in the Project area, sage-grouse lek count 

results have been collected prior to and throughout the duration of exploration 
13 

(2006-2010). These results are clearly documented in the FEIS (Table 3.8-4) and 

in Appendix C. These results will be considered in the adaptive management 

process in which trends will be determined across 3-yr running averages, 

comparing impacted leks to control area (reference) leks. If a decline is observed 

at impacted leks as compared to control leks (using a 3-yr running average during 

any 5 year period), the trends will be analyzed to determine if they are statistically 

significant and if likely attributable to Lost Creek Mine Activity. If so, this will 

indicate that a mitigation threshold has been reached. The TAC will discuss an 

appropriate mitigation (or mitigations) response to apply in an attempt to reverse 

or minimize the impact(s). In the event that an impact has been determined but 

the cause of the impact cannot be determined the TAC will discuss and implement 

mitigations in the assumption that the in situ mining project has some relation to 

the determined impact. All additional mitigation will be monitored and its 

effectiveness analyzed during the annual meeting. If after a two year period the 

additional mitigation shows no positive effect on the impacted leks additional 

mitigation will be applied. This cycle will occur until all possible mitigation has 

been applied or the impacted leks show a positive effect from the applied 

mitigation (FEIS 4.9-8 thru 4.9-9). 

The Density Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) and the 0.6 

Mile Buffer for Sage Grouse Leks 

Comment: BCA et al. (Pages 2 thorugh 4) 

BCA et al. reiterated their opinion that the BLM should proceed independently of 

EO 2011-5 because, in their opinion, several aspects of the EO and its associated 

policies are flawed or unsupported, including: the method for calculation of the 

surface disturbance (the DDCT); the 'allowable' disturbance percentage; the 

provisions for exceptions; and the 0.6 mile buffer requirement.

Response: The BLM appreciates the reviewer’s additional discussion of this 

comment. As noted in the Response to Comments on the DEIS, revising the 

contents of the Sage Grouse Executive Order and associated policies are outside 

the scope of this FEIS. In addition, numerous agencies and organizations have 

worked cooperatively to develop (and improve) a viable approach to addressing 

issues related to the protection of Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming. Therefore, 

the BLM does not consider it effective or appropriate to ignore this cooperative 

effort. 

Compliance with EO-2011-5 

Comment: Office of the Governor of the State of Wyoming

The Office of the Governor reiterated that the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine has 

been found to be in compliance with the Governor’s Executive Order 2011-5 (EO 

2011-5). 

Response: The BLM appreciates the confirmation that the WDEQ-LQD Permit 

to Mine is in compliance with EO 2011-5. 
14

Comment: WOC (Pages 9-10): 

The WOC reiterated their contention that the Project is not in compliance with EO 

2011-5. 

Response: As noted above in the above comment and response, Wyoming 

Governor Matthew Meade, wrote a letter to the BLM dated July 18, 2012, 

reaffirming that the Project proposal has been found to be in compliance with 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection (Executive Order 2011-5). The 

proponent completed the project impact analysis area (PIAA) process and 

determined that the maximum disturbance resulting from the proposed Project 

will equate to 0.92 percent of the defined PIAA, which is less than the Sage 

Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) maximum disturbance stipulation of five 

percent. Additionally, annual wildlife monitoring will occur and be reviewed by a 

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to implement the adaptive management 

process. 

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures 

Comment: BCA et al. (Pages 2 and 3) 

BCA et al. again expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the required 

mitigation measures. 

Response: The BLM appreciates the reviewer’s additional discussion of this 

comment. As noted in the response to this comment on the DEIS, the mitigation 

measures presented in Section 4.0 for all the resources, including wildlife (e.g., 

Sections 4.5.1 and 4.8.1 for Soils and Vegetation, respectively) are based on a 

variety of information and requirements, including mature regulatory programs 

and interdisciplinary and interagency efforts to update and improve those 

programs. Measures from other agencies were also reviewed in light of the 

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

measures are also discussed for each resource to ensure the effectiveness of the 

mitigation measures is as anticipated. The information analyzed and presented in 

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

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

of an alternative, such as a road location. 

With respect to Greater Sage-Grouse, the approach used by federal and state 

agencies to regulate activities potentially affecting the birds in the State of 

Wyoming has evolved considerably over the last five years. This evolution is due 

in part to the delineation of Greater Sage-Grouse Core Areas and project review 

procedures and stipulations, per EO 2011-5 and the preceding EO 2010-4. The 

BLM has been part of these efforts to develop consistent, effective mitigation and 

monitoring measures, including participation in work groups responsible for 

developing the measures. These work groups are comprised of representatives 

from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, in recognition of the need for a 

comprehensive, rather than piecemeal approach, to addressing the variety of 
15 

factors affecting Greater Sage-Grouse. 

The mitigation and monitoring measures implemented for the protection of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse include techniques proven for other species, as well as new 

or adaptable techniques. Because some of these measures are relatively new to 

Greater Sage-Grouse monitoring, the adaptive management approach has been 

specifically agreed to and the Proponent has provided data and evaluation that 

would not have been available otherwise. 

Wyoming Pocket Gopher 

Comment: WOC (Pages 10-12): The WOC again expressed concern about the 

projected impacts to the Wyoming Pocket Gopher. 

Response: The BLM appreciates the reviewer’s additional discussion of this 

comment. Based on review of the DEIS, the original comment and response, and 

the FEIS, the BLM still considers the mitigation measures for this locatable 

mineral project appropriate. 

Surveys and trapping efforts for Wyoming Pocket Gopher were conducted within 

the Project area during the summer of 2010. The surveys and trapping efforts 

showed that Wyoming pocket gophers do occupy open and grassy areas within 

the sagebrush shrub land habitats within the proposed Permit area. The BLM 

discloses in the EIS that the proposed Project would have direct impacts to 

Wyoming pocket gopher. Wyoming pocket gophers are expected to be impacted 

in areas that are disturbed. At most, 8 percent of the Permit area will be disturbed. 

It is anticipated that this would not result in a population level impact to 

Wyoming pocket gophers. It is also expected that Wyoming pocket gophers that 

are not disturbed both from within the Permit area and outside the Permit area 

would be capable of recolonizing disturbed areas once reclaimed ( FEIS 4.9-38). 

Furthermore, this action is a non-discretionary action under CFR 3809 that limits 

Bureau of Land Management's authority to mitigate impacts to wildlife including 

our sensitive species. Impacts associated with the plan of development described 

within the mining permit have been analyzed appropriately.

BLM Sensitive Species 

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

BCA et al. again asserted that impacts analysis for BLM sensitive species, such as 

the Pygmy rabbit and Wyoming pocket gopher are not adequate.

Response: 

Based on review of the DEIS, the original comment and response, and the FEIS, 

the BLM concludes that baseline monitoring and impact analysis associated with 

the plan of development described within the mining permit for these species have 

been appropriate (see also the response to comment for “Wyoming Pocket 
16

Gopher”). Furthermore, it should be noted that this action is a non-discretionary 

action under CFR 3809 that limits the BLM's authority to mitigate impacts to 

wildlife including our sensitive species. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Whirlwind I Project 

Comment: WOC (Pages 12-13): The WOC again requested inclusion of the 

Whirlwind I Project into the Cumulative Impacts Analysis, based on meetings of 

that project's proponent with the BLM and the WOC. 

Response: The BLM appreciates the reviewer’s additional discussion of this 

comment. Based on review of the DEIS, the original comment and response, and 

the FEIS, the BLM still does not consider it appropriate to include the Whirlwind 

I Project in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis given that the project timeline has 

not progressed as planned and the project information is still in development. 

Lost Creek North and South 

Comment: WOC (Page 12): 

The WOC expressed concern that LCI’s intentions to develop Lost Creek North 

and South provide a disincentive to maintain Greater Sage-Grouse populations in 

the area. 

Response: There are incentives in place to protect and maintain the Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations in the impact area leks. The Adaptive Management 

Plan will monitor population levels and apply additional protection measures if a 

decrease in population is observed at impact area leks. If, after a two-year period, 

the additional protection measures show no positive effect, additional impact 

measures will be applied (Section 4.9.1.10 of the FEIS). Finally, if additional 

measures continue to show no positive effects, then the EO 2011-05 states in 

Appendix B, General Stipulation No. 9: 

“If the operator cannot demonstrate a restoration of bird numbers to 

baseline levels (established by pre-disturbance surveys, reference surveys 

and taking into account regional and statewide trends) within three years, 

operations will cease until such numbers are achieved.” 

Therefore, the cost of additional protective measures and the potential financial 

loss associated with a cease in operations provide the incentive to maintain 

population levels.