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

Lost Creek Project, 2010 Wildlife Monitoring Report

Attachment B

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

AttachmentB. Wildlife Species Observed or Potentially Occurring in the Permit Area (Page 1 of 6) 

Common Name Scientific Name Abundance Code Status Confirmed on Site 

BIRDS 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Fairly Common 

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Uncommon

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Fairly Common NSS3

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Uncommon NSS4

Snowy Egret Egretta thula Rare NSS3

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Uncommon

Canada Goose Branta canadensis Uncommon x

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Uncommon

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Fairly Common x

Northern Pintail Anas acuta Uncommon NSS3

Gadwall Ana strepera Uncommon

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Fairly Common 

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera Fairly Common 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Uncommon

American Wigeon Anas americana Uncommon

Canvasback Aythya valisineria Rare NSS3

Redhead Aythya americana Rare NSS3

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Uncommon

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Uncommon

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Uncommon

Common Merganser Mergus merganser Fairly Common 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Uncommon

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Common x

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Rare 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Unknown MBHFI, FT, NSS2

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Common x

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Uncommon x

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Uncommon

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Uncommon SSS, NSS4 

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Common BCC, MBHFI, NSS4 x

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Common x

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Common BCC, MBHFI, SSS, 

NSS3 x

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Common x

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Common BCC x

American Kestrel Falco sparverius Common x

Merlin Falco columbarius Unknown MBHFI, NSS3 

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Uncommon BCC x

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Unknown BCC, MBHFI, SSS, 

NSS3

Sage Grouse Centrocercus 

urophasianus Common MBHFI, SSS, NSS2 x

Sora Porzana carolina Uncommon

American Coot Fulica americana Uncommon

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Rare NSS3

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Common x

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus Unknown BCC, MBHFI, SSS,

NSS4

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Uncommon

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Uncommon

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Uncommon

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Fairly Common 

/RVW &UHHN 3URMHFW

Attachment B: Table B-1, Updated

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

AttachmentB. Wildlife Species Observed or Potentially Occurring in the Permit Area (Page 2 of 6) 

&

Common Name Scientific Name Abundance Code Status Confirmed on Site 

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Rare BCC, MBHFI, NSS4

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Uncommon BCC, MBHFI, SSS, 

NSS3

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa Rare BCC 

Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata Fairly Common 

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Uncommon BCC 

Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan Uncommon 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Uncommon 

California Gull Larus californicus Uncommon 

Rock Dove Columba livia Common 

Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata Unknown 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Abundant x

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Rare MBHFI 

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Fairly Common 

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca Unknown 

Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Uncommon MBHFI, SSS, NSS4 

Long-eared Owl Asio otus Uncommon 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Uncommon MBHFI, NSS4 

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Common 

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Uncommon 

White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis Uncommon 

Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus Rare 

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Rare 

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Uncommon 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Rare 

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Uncommon 

Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus Fairly Common 

Empidonax Species Empidonax spp. Common 

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Fairly Common NSS3

Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Uncommon 

Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii Common 

Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri Common 

Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya Common 

Cassin's Kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Uncommon MBHFI 

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Common 

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Fairly Common 

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Abundant x

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Fairly Common 

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Fairly Common 

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Fairly Common 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Common 

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Common 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Fairly Common 

Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri Uncommon 

Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus Rare 

Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Fairly Common 

Black-billed Magpie Pica pica Abundant 

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Fairly Common x

Common Raven Corvus corax Abundant x

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Uncommon 

Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli Uncommon 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Fairly Common 

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

AttachmentB. Wildlife Species Observed or Potentially Occurring in the Permit Area (Page 3 of 6) 

&

Common Name Scientific Name Abundance Code Status Confirmed on Site 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Rare 

Brown Creeper Certhia americana Uncommon 

Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus Common 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon Uncommon 

Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Rare 

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Common x

Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi Uncommon 

Veery Catharus fuscescens Uncommon 

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Uncommon 

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Uncommon 

American Robin Turdus migratorius Common x

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Uncommon 

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Uncommon 

Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Common MBHFI, SSS, NSS4 x

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Fairly Common 

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus Uncommon 

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Uncommon 

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor Uncommon 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Common BCC, MBHFI, SSS x

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Uncommon 

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Fairly Common 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Fairly Common 

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Uncommon 

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis Rare 

MacGillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei Uncommon 

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Uncommon 

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens Uncommon 

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Uncommon 

Black-headed Grosbeak 

Pheucticus 

melanocephalus Rare 

Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea Rare 

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena Uncommon 

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Unknown 

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Common

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Fairly Common 

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Uncommon x

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Uncommon x

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida Rare x

Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri Common BCC, MBHFI, SSS, 

NSS4 x

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gram ineus Common MBHFI x

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Common MBHFI x

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli Fairly Common MBHFI, SSS, NSS4 x

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Common MBHFI, NSS4 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Uncommon 

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Uncommon MBHFI, NSS4 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Uncommon 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Uncommon 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Common 

McCown's Longspur Calcarius mccownii Uncommon BCC, MBHFI, NSS4

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus Unknown MBHFI, NSS4 

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Unknown 

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

AttachmentB. Wildlife Species Observed or Potentially Occurring in the Permit Area (Page 4 of 6) 

&

Common Name Scientific Name Abundance Code Status Confirmed on Site 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Rare MBHFI, NSS4 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Abundant 

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Abundant x

Yellow-headed Blackbird

Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus Rare 

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Abundant 

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Fairly Common 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Fairly Common 

Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii Rare 

Gray-crowned Rosy Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis Fairly Common 

Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii Uncommon 

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Uncommon 

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Uncommon 

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Uncommon 

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Fairly Common 

House Sparrow Passer domesticus Uncommon 

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

AttachmentB. Wildlife Species Observed or Potentially Occurring in t he Permit Area (Page 5 of 6) 

&

Common Name Scientific Name Abundance Code Status Confirmed on Site 

MAMMALS 

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Fairly Common 

Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Rare 

Dusky Shrew Sorex monticolus Fairly Common 

Dwarf Shrew Sorex nanus Rare NSS3

Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans Rare NSS3

Western Small-footed Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum Uncommon NSS3

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis Uncommon SSS 

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Fairly Common NSS3

Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans Unknown NSS2

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Rare NSS4

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Uncommon NSS4

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Fairly Common NSS3

Townsend's Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii Rare SSS, NSS2 

Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus Rare NSS2

Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis Common SSS, NSS3 x

Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Common x

Mountain Cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii Fairly Common 

White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii Common x

Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus Common x

Wyoming Ground Squirrel Spermophilus elegans Common x

Thirteen-lined Ground 

Squirrel

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus Common x

White-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys leucurus Uncommon SSS, NSS4 

Wyoming Pocket Gopher Thomomys clusius Uncommon SSL, NSS4 x

Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides Common x

American Beaver Castor canadensis Common 

Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Perognathus fasciatus Common NSS3

Ord's Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ordii Common x

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis Uncommon 

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Abundant x

Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster Fairly Common x

Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea Fairly Common 

House Mouse Mus musculus Uncommon 

Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus Fairly Common 

Montane Vole Microtus montanus Common 

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster Fairly Common NSS3

Sagebrush Vole Lemmiscus curtatus Fairly Common 

Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps Uncommon 

Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Uncommon 

Coyote Canis latrans Abundant x

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Common x

Raccoon Procyon lotor Rare x

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Fairly Common x

Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes Unknown FE/NSS1 

American Badger Taxidea taxus Common x

Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilis Unknown 

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Common x

Mountain Lion Felis concolor Uncommon 

Bobcat Lynx rufus Fairly Common x

American Elk Cervus elaphus Common x

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Abundant x

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana Common x

Feral Horse Equus caballus Common x

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

AttachmentB. Wildlife Species Observed or Potentially Occurring in t he Permit Area (Page 6 of 6) 

Common Name Scientific Name Abundance Code Status 

AMPHIBIANS 

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Fairly Common 

Great Basin Spadefoot Toad Spea intermontana Unknown SSS 

Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata Unknown 

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens Rare SSS 

REPTILES 

Northern Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporus graciosus Common 

Greater Short-horned Lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi Common x

Great Basin Gopher Snake Pituophis catenifer Rare 

Western Terrestrial Garter Thamnophis elegans Fairly Common x Snake 

Prairie Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis Uncommon x

Notes: 

Abundance Code

Abundant - A species that inhabits much of the preferred habitat within its range. The species or its sign is typically encountered while using survey 

techniques that could be expected to indicate its presence. 

Common - A species that inhabits much of the preferred habitat within its range. The species or its sign is usually encountered while using survey 

techniques that could be expected to indicate its presence. 

Uncommon - A species that is common only in limited areas within its range or is found throughout its range in relatively low densities. Intensive 

surveying is usually required to locate the species or its sign. 

Rare - A species that occupies only a small percentage of the preferred habitat within its range or is found throughout its range in extremely low 

densities. The species or its sign is seldom encountered while using survey techniques that could be expected to indicate its presence. 

Unknown - Insufficient information is available to determine abundance. Species is difficult to observe without specialized survey techniques. 

Status

Federal – Endangered Species Act

FT - Federally listed threatened species 

Federal – Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

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. 

Federal – Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest in Wyoming 

MBHFI - Listed utilized by the USFWS, Wyoming Field Office for reviews concerning existing or proposed coal mine leased land. 

BLM – Special Status Species

SSS - BLM Special Status Species are species protected under the Endangered Species Act and those designated by the State Director as Sensitive. 

Sensitive species are those under status review by the FWS/National Marine and Fisheries Service (NMFS), or whose numbers are declining so rapidly 

that Federal listing may become necessary, or with typically small or widely dispersed populations, or those inhabiting ecological refugia or other 

specialized or unique habitats. The minimum level of policy protection for these designated sensitive species will be the same as policy for candidate 

SSL - Warranting special attention on BLM lands. 

State – Native Species Status

NSS1 - Native Species Status 1 - Populations are greatly restricted or declining, extirpation appears possible and on-going significant loss of habitat. 

NSS2 - Native Species Status 2 - Populations are declining, extirpation appears possible; habitat is restricted or vulnerable but no recent or on-going 

significant loss; species may be sensitive to human disturbance. 

NSS3 - Native Species Status 3 - Populations are greatly restricted or declining, extirpation appears possible; habitat is not restricted, vulnerable but no 

loss; species is not sensitive to human disturbance. 

NSS4 - Native Species Status 4 - Populations are greatly restricted or declining, extirpation appears possible; habitat is stable and not restricted. 

&

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

Lost Creek Project, 2010 Wildlife Monitoring Report

Attachment B

DDCT
)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[& &
)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[& &
)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[& &
)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[& 
Lost Creek ISR, LLC 

5880 Enterprise, STE 200 

Casper, WY 82609 

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

Lost Creek Project, 2011 Wildlife Monitoring Report

Prepared For: 

&

Prepared By: 

LWR Consultants, Inc.

1001 Jefferson Drive

Berthoud, CO 80513

and

Wyoming Wildlife Consultants, Inc.

P.O. Box 893 

Pinedale, WY 82941 

March 2012 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2.0 Lost Creek 2011 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 ....................................................................................................... 6

2.1.3 Range Conversion.......................................................................................................... 6

2.1.4 Mortality and Concentration Buildups........................................................................... 6

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

2.2.1 Populations..................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1.1 Lek Counts.............................................................................................................. 8

2.2.1.2 Lek Searches ......................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1.3 Analysis of Lek Data ............................................................................................ 12

2.2.2 Habitat Selection.......................................................................................................... 15

2.2.2.1 Trapping ................................................................................................................ 15

2.2.2.2. Nesting Habitat Selection .................................................................................... 15

2.2.2.3 Early Brood-Rearing Habitat Selection ................................................................ 15

2.2.2.4 Mid Brood-Rearing Habitat Selection .................................................................. 16

2.2.2.5 Late Brood-Rearing Habitat Selection.................................................................. 16

2.2.2.6 Barren Female Spring and Barren Female Summer Habitat Selection................. 16

2.2.2.7 Fall and Winter Habitat Selection......................................................................... 16

2.2.3 Demographics .............................................................................................................. 17

2.2.3.1 Nest Propensity ..................................................................................................... 17

2.2.3.2 Nest Success.......................................................................................................... 18

2.2.3.3 Early Brood-Rearing Chick Survival.................................................................... 18

2.2.3.4 Chick Production .................................................................................................. 18

2.2.3.5 Adult Survival....................................................................................................... 21

2.3 Raptors ................................................................................................................................ 21

2.3.1 Nest Status and Production Success ............................................................................ 21

2.3.2 Measures of Disturbance.............................................................................................. 23

2.3.3 Prey Abundance........................................................................................................... 24

2.3.3.1 Lagomorphs .......................................................................................................... 24

2.3.3.2 Small Mammals .................................................................................................... 26

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
2.4 Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest (MBHFI) ........................................................... 26

2.5 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................... 27

2.6 Non-Game Mammals.......................................................................................................... 27

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

2.8 Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................................................... 27

3.0 Evaluation of Wildlife Protection Measures Utilized and Wildlife Mortality in 2011........... 28

4.0 Recommended Modifications for 2012 Wildlife Monitoring, Protection Measures .............. 30

5.0 References............................................................................................................................... 32

Table 1A. 2011 Wildlife monitoring schedule .............................................................................. 3 

Table 2.1A. Summary of big game counts conducted during 2011 in the Lost Creek project area.

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

Table 2.1B. Climate data for Rawlins, WY (NCDC) & Lost Creek, ISR from December 2010 

through March 2011.................................................................................................. 6 

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

Table 2.2D. Female sage-grouse demographic results from radio-equipped individuals in southTable 3.0A. Surface activity restrictions for protection of wildlife in the Lost Creek Permit area

Table 2.2A. Sage-grouse lek count data summary for 2011 in project SG Monitoring Areas...... 8 

Table 2.2B. New leks found during lek searches in south-central Wyoming April 2010 ........... 11 

males, 2004-11........................................................................................................ 14 

central Wyoming, 2011........................................................................................... 17 

Table 2.2E. Lost Creek sage-grouse brood survey results (2011) ............................................... 19 

Table 2.2F. Wing barrel information from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department .............. 20 

Table 2.3A. Lost Creek raptor nest locations (2011)................................................................ 22 

Table 2.3B. Lagomorph spotlight survey results summary (2011) ............................................. 23 

Table 2.3C. Pygmy rabbit transect results summary (2011)........................................................ 24 

Table 2.4A. MBHFI 2011 transect results, Lost Creek Permit Area........................................... 25 

Table 2.8A. Great Basin spadefoot toad, 2011 survey summary................................................. 27 

(2011)............................................................................................................................... 28 

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

List of Tables 
)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 permit in 

south-central Wyoming, 2011(LC ISR, LLC 2010: updated Figure 4.0A. Lost 

Creek ISR 2011 DDCT Analysis with 2011 Affected and Reference Leks), 

Figure 2.2A-1. Graph of the 3-year average population trends of affected and reference leks for 

the DDCT 

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

Creek permit area in south-central Wyoming, 2011. 

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

captured from leks surrounding UR-Energy’s Lost Creek permit area in southcentral Wyoming, 2011. 

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

surrounding UR-Energy’s Lost Creek permit area in south-central Wyoming, 

2011. 

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

surrounding UR-Energy’s Lost Creek permit area in south-central Wyoming, 

2011. 

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

surrounding UR-Energy’s Lost Creek permit area in south-central Wyoming, 

2011. 

Figure 2.2G. Sage-grouse brood rearing transects.

Figure 2.2H. Sage-grouse wing barrels locations.

Figure 2.2I. Wyoming Game and Fish Department small and upland game management units. 

Figure 2.2J. Graph of 3-year average of chicks per female in the fall harvest for affected and

reference leks. 

Figure 2.3A Raptor nest survey and measures of nearest disturbance. 

Figure 2.3B Pygmy rabbit and lagomorph survey 

Figure 2.4A MBHFI transects. 

Figure 2.8A Great Basin spadefoot toad survey routes. 

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

2011 

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

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, LWR and WWC 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 to 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). The first 

year of wildlife monitoring (as outlined in the Plan) was completed during 2010 (LWR and 

WWC 2010). 

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 2011 

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 by the LC ISR, LLC EHS Department 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 

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

Monitoring methods that were used in 2011 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 2011. The same 

wildlife monitoring schedule is planned for the project in 2012. Results of the 2011 Monitoring 

Effort are described in Section 2.0. 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Table 1A. 2011 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 & Aerial 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[& 
Table 2.1A. Summary of big game counts conducted during 2011 in the Lost Creek project area. 

Survey Date Survey Time Location (UTM) 

Antelope Elk 

Male Female Male Female 

1/27/11 0800-0900 hrs 0 0 0 0 

3/14/11 269575E 

4665907N 

4 8 0 0 

264187E 3 12 

4664718N 

258744E 

4664834N 

2 8 

4/6/11 263842E 

4669201N 

3 6 0 0 

263173E 1 2 

4667625N 

266716E 2 5 

4668532N 

4/7/11 261506E 3 6 

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

2.0 Lost Creek 2011 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. 

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

the locations of big game observations. 
Survey Date Survey Time Location (UTM) 

Antelope Elk 

Male Female Male Female 

4666958N 

06/15/11 262747 E 

4668179 N 

1 3 

2 fawns 

0 0 

264903 E 

4668179 N 

2 2 

2 fawns 

0 0 

267114 E 

4667068 N 

1 1 0 0 

06/16/11 260844 E 

4662925 N 

1 2 0 0 

264535 E 

4668069 N 

0 1 0 0 

265603 E 

4668293 N 

0 2 

1 fawn 

0 0 

268378 E 

4668195 N 

1 5 

3 fawn 

0 0 

08/06/11 265511 E 

4668297 N 

1 1 

1fawn 

0 0 

264809 E 

4667738 N 

0 1 

1 fawn 

0 0 

261398 E 

4669328 N 

4 0 0 0 

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

Pronghorn use appeared to be highest during the late winter and early spring. No pronghorn were 

observed during an aerial survey in late January. The June survey was completed just after 

fawning. 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. 

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 2011, although 7 mule deer were 

observed in early May near Sooner Reservoir (outside the permit area and big game survey area). 
Month Average 

Temperature (F) 

Maximum 

Temperature (F) 

Minimum 

Temperature (F) 

Total Precipitation 

(in.) 

Rawlins Lost Creek Rawlins Lost Creek Rawlins Lost Creek Rawlins Lost Creek 

December 24.9 23.0 43 43 -11 -11 2.87 0.62 

January 20.9 11.7 40 28 -9 -7 0.84 0 

February 17.3 17.2 46 38 -29 0 0.54 0.03 

March 32.4 26.9 56 49 15 1 0.9 0.22 

* Lost Creek precipitation gauge is not heated, so winter precipitation data is questionable. 

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, per 2011 Density Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) Analysis, 

LWR and WWC 2010). Selection of study area boundaries was described in the 2010 Wildlife 

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

recommendations of the Lost Creek Project, 2010 Wildlife Monitoring Report (LWR and WWC 

2010), the original small study area of the LC ISR, LLC Wildlife Protection Plan and the 

Wildlife Monitoring Plan (LC ISR, LLC 2010) was replaced by the Total Affected Area 

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

2.1.2 Climate Information 

No big game winter concentrations or winter mortality were noted during 2011. Climate data for 

the winter period is summarized in Table 2.1B. Snow depth data was not available. However, 

based on site visits snow depths were over 1 foot through the winter until early April. 

Table 2.1B. Climate data for Rawlins, WY, (NCDC 2011) & Lost Creek, ISR from DEC 2010 through MAR 

2011. 

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 2011 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 2011 within the Lost Creek South and 

Lost Creek North areas, and within WY State Section 16. Disturbance associated with these 

activities was very small (less than 10 acres). The 2011 disturbances will be reseeded in Spring 

2012 as soon after ground thaw as is practical. 

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 2011. There were no instances of 

concentrated or large-scale big game mortality observed during 2011. 

2.2 Sage-grouse/Upland Birds 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

established by the DDCT as mandated by the Wyoming State Governor’s executive order 2010-4 

(Freudenthal 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. Per Executive Order 2010-4, the Total Affected Area 

conservatively establishes the area where nesting and early brood-rearing females may be 

influenced by ISR activities on the Lost Creek permit area, and the leks with in the Total 

Affected Area are considered the Affected Leks. 

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 Total Affected 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 Total Affected 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 Total 

Affected Area (Attachment A, Figure 2.2A, study areas) as established from the DDCT analysis 

(formerly PIAA; Freudenthal 2010) conducted by LC ISR, LLC. 
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 2011 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 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 threeyear cycle based on lek search flight results (Section 2.2.1.2). LC ISR, LLC coordinated 2011 

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 for 2011 in project SG Monitoring Areas. 

Lek Name/ Complex Count 

DATE 

ƃ-Ƃ-U 

TIME 

Count 1 Count 2 Count 3 Count 4 Count 5 Count 6 Count 7 

Peak 

Males 

Arapahoe 

4/7 

31-6-0 

0700 

4/15 

34-7-0 

0615 

5/4 

31-2-0 

0635 

34 

Bare Ring Butte 

4/14 

46-10-0 

0630 

4/20 

55-6-0 

0635 

4/28 

49-24-0 

0555 

55 

Bull Springs 

4/11 

15-4-0 

0621 

4/12 

17-1-0 

0718 

4/23 

18-0-0 

0600 

4/24 

4-0-0 

0712 

5/1 

22-1-0 

0548 

5/8 

19-2-0 

0538 

22 

Chain Lakes Rim 

4/1 

1-0-0 

0813 

1 

Chicken Springs 

4/7 

74-28-0 

0713 

4/11 

87-66-0 

0713 

4/23 

91-10-0 

0651 

5/1 

109-1-0 

0632 

5/8 

89-3-0 

0618 

109 

Crooked Well 

4/6 

0-0-0 

0720 

4/15 

0-0-0 

0636 

4/22 

0-0-0 

0645 

5/2 

0-0-0 

0558 

0 

Cyclone Rim 

4/13 

80-17-0 

0650 

4/28 

80-0-0 

0635 

5/4 

69-1-0 

0620 

80 

Discover 

4/6 

10-4-0 

0700 

4/13 

11-9-0 

0640 

4/22 

10-1-0 

0600 

11 

Discover East 

4/6 

0-0-0 

0655 

4/22 

0-0-0 

0559 

4/28 

0-0-0 

0628 

5/2 

0-0-0 

0622 

0 

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

2.2.1 Populations 
DATE 

ƃ-Ƃ-U 

TIME 

Peak 

Lek Name/ Complex Count Count 1 Count 2 Count 3 Count 4 Count 5 Count 6 Count 7 Males 

4/6 

18-5-0 

4/13 

19-4-0 

4/22 

14-0-0 19 

Discover South 0720 0656 0630 

4/14 

4-0-0 

4/15 

0-0-0 

4/27 

3-0-0 

5/5 

3-0-0 4 

Eagles Nest 0620 0700 0530 0610 

4/7 

59-100-0 

4/12 

48-12-0 

4/22 

11-0-0 

5/4 

57-2-0 59 

Eagles Nest Draw 0655 0645 0655 0605 

4/8 

46-8-0 

4/20 

39-0-0 

4/25 

44-0-5 

5/2 

3-0-0 

5/6 

29-0-0 46 

Eagles Nest Fence 0730 0645 0630 0640 0640 

4/14 

0-0-0 

4/21 

0-0-0 

4/28 

0-0-0 0 

Eagles Nest Reservoir 0658 0640 0623 

4/12 

13-2-0 

4/21 

11-0-0 

5/3 

13-0-0 13 

East Alkali 0645 0630 0610 

4/13 

30-7-0 

4/21 

32-18-0 

4/28 

30-8-0 

5/3 

22-2-0 32 

East Antelope 0700 0645 0635 0715 

4/6 

44-11-0 

4/14 

28-4-0 

4/22 

18-8-0 44 

Green Ridge 0655 0620 0620 

4/7 

31-20-0 

4/15 

32-2-0 

4/28 

26-0-0 

5/4 

23-0-0 31 

Hadsell Crossing 0620 0640 0700 0640 

Hadsell Road 

3/30 

0-0-0 

4/8 

0-0-0 

0650 

4/20 

0-0-0 

0725 

4/25 

0-0-0 

0735 

5/2 

0-0-0 

0720 

0 

4/13 

60-12-0 

4/21 

42-10-0 

4/27 

27-11-0 

5/3 

24-1-0 60 

Harrier 0630 0618 0740 0645 

4/7 

0-0-0 

4/11 

19-1-0 

4/12 

23-7-0 

4/23 

13-0-0 

4/24 

12-0-0 

5/1 

21-0-0 

5/8 

9-0-0 23 

Larsen North Well 0739 0745 0658 0711 0641 0655 0641 

4/7 

0-0-0 

4/14 

0-0-0 

4/21 

0-0-0 

4/28 

0-0-0 0 

Little Osborne 0740 0629 0614 0601 

4/12 

0-0-0 

4/21 

0-0-0 

5/3 

0-0-0 0 

Lost Alkali 0635 0720 0630 

4/12 

9-0-0 

4/21 

8-0-0 

5/3 

12-1-0 12 

Lost Arapahoe 0625 0615 0645 

4/12 

0-0-0 

4/21 

0-0-0 

5/3 

0-0-0 0 

Lost Creek 0655 0635 0620 

4/12 

53-22-0 

4/21 

24-0-0 

5/3 

54-0-0 54 

Lost Creek Basin 0710 0655 0555 

4/6 

8-4-0 

4/13 

6-2-0 

4/27 

0-0-0 

5/5 

0-0-0 8 

Minex West 0640 0620 0705 0640 

Monument Lake 

Not 

checked 

4/12 

0-0-0 

4/13 

0-0-0 

5/5 

0-0-0 0 

Mud Lake 0802 0713 0620 

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

9 

Lost Creek Project 

2011 Wildlife Monitoring Report 
DATE 

ƃ-Ƃ-U 

TIME 

Peak 

Lek Name/ Complex Count Count 1 Count 2 Count 3 Count 4 Count 5 Count 6 Count 7 Males 

4/12 

25-0-0 

4/13 

33-9-1 

4/20 

34-1-0 

4/28 

31-2-0 

5/5 

31-1-0 34 

Mud Lake North 0752 0651 0627 0615 0553 

Mud Springs 

Not 

checked 

4/7 

0-0-0 

4/14 

0-0-0 

4/21 

0-0-0 

4/28 

0-0-0 0 

Osborne Draw 0745 0616 0604 0611 

4/14 

27-4-0 

4/22 

26-12-0 

5/3 

30-2-0 30 

Prospects 0650 0640 0550 

4/14 

0-0-0 

4/22 

2-1-0 

5/3 

3-2-0 3 

Prospects South 0700 0645 0600 

4/14 

16-0-0 

4/15 

33-0-0 

4/27 

30-1-0 

5/5 

6-0-0 33 

Red Creek Well 0650 0720 0605 0555 

Ruby Knolls North 

Not 

checked 

4/8 

55-38-0 

4/15 

48-21-0 

4/22 

3-0-0 55 

Rubby Knolls South 0641 0650 0723 

4/1 

2-0-0 2 

Ruby Knolls West 0643 

4/12 

5-1-0 

4/22 

2-0-0 

5/4 

2-1-0 5 

Sand Gully 0635 0705 0550 

4/13 

0-0-0 

4/20 

0-0-0. 

4/27 

0-0-0 0 

SK Well 0620 0644 0638 

4/13 

41-6-0 

4/28 

34-0-0 

5/4 

41-0-0 41 

Smiley Springs 0625 0600 0555 

4/6 

17-11-0 

4/14 

0-0-0 

4/22 

18-10-0 

4/27 

24-10-0 24 

Sooner 0620 0625 0600 0550 

4/6 

0-0-0 

4/21 

7-3-0 

4/28 

1-1-0 

5/2 

0-0-0 7 

Sooner Oil 0630 0600 0600 0540 

4/1 

11-2-0 

4/20 

2-0-0 

4/27 

6-0-0 

5/5 

12-0-0 12 

Sourdough Mine 0840 0620 0614 0603 

4/7 

40-14-0 

4/11 

22-1-0 

4/12 

42-49-0 

4/23 

21-2-14 

4/24 

42-2-0 

5/1 

49-6-0 

5/8 

42-1-0 49 

Southland Well 0751 0801 0634 0725 0604 0712 0657 

4/7 

47-77-0 

4/11 

52-62-0 

4/23 

51-0-0 

5/1 

49-3-0 

5/8 

29-0-0 52 

Stewart Creek 0655 0649 0635 0607 0559 

4/11 

70-54-0 

4/20 

38-2-0 

5/2 

52-0-0 70 

Stinking Springs 0620 0615 0605 

4/11 

0-0-0 

4/20 

1-0-0 

5/2 

0-0-0 1 

Stinking Springs North 0630 0630 0610 

4/12 

1-0-0 

4/13 

27-5-0 

4/20 

27-0-0 

4/28 

29-1-0 

5/5 

29-1-0 29 

Stratton 0810 0612 0646 0553 0634 

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

ƃ-Ƃ-U 

TIME 

Peak 

Lek Name/ Complex Count Count 1 Count 2 Count 3 Count 4 Count 5 Count 6 Count 7 Males 

4/1 

20-6-0 20 

Stratton Camp 0717 

4/13 

0-0-0 

4/20 

0-0-0 

4/27 

0-0-0 0 

Stratton Lake 0657 0602 0555 

4/8 

0-0-0 

4/20 

0-0-0 

4/25 

0-0-0 

5/2 

0-0-0 0 

Texas Oil 0805 0615 0715 0740 

4/13 

24-3-0 

4/20 

23-4-0 

4/27 

31-17-0 

5/2 

27-2-0 31 

Upper Osborne 0620 0610 0750 0630 

4/12 

0-0-0 

4/26 

0-0-0 

4/28 

0-0-0 

5/30 

0-0-0 0 

White Water 0645 0600 0600 0600 

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[& &

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 

2010 (LWR and WWC 2010). During 2011, ground-based lek searches were completed in 

concert with lek counts, but no systematic search for new leks was completed. 

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. 

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

(see Table 2.2B and Figure 2.2A). No new leks were located during 2011. 
)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 - Anthropogenic energy development data will be compiled within the SG 

Monitoring Areas plus a 6-km (3.7-mi) 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 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). 

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 from analysis 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 effects of traffic will be used to estimate distance to a road with a 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) influenced 

by traffic and, therefore, needing to be removed from analysis of impacts of ISR activities. 
The Wyoming State Governor’s executive order 2010-4 (Freudenthal 2010) 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. 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 preceding 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 Permit area 

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. 

We used data presented in Table 2.2C to follow the process; note that we added data from 2004 

and 2005 from the WGFD sage-grouse database. Table 2.2C establishes the 3-year running 

averages from 2007 for the leks within the Lost Creek monitoring area where these estimates 

could be generated; Figure 2.2A-1 is a graphical representation of these count estimates. 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Table 2.2C: Maximum number of males counted on sage-grouse leks in the Lost Creek area 

2004-2011 and 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. 

Lek Name 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 12 Status

3-year running average 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Discover/Discover East/Discover South 

Eagles Nest Draw 

Green Ridge 

Minex West 

Prospects/Prospects South 

Sand Gully 

Sooner/Sooner Oil 

Southland Well 

Crooked Well 

28 

0 

42 

11 

22 

14 

12 

40 

0 

28 

0 

34 

18 

37 

14 

17 

57 

0 

91 

57 

63 

22 

64 

126 

34 

81 

0 

49 

22 

87 

24 

78 

108 

37 

69 

4 

109 

52 

58 

13 

75 

72 

28 

57 

0 

22 

47 

56 

10 

54 

36 

26 

54 

0 

34 

42 

46 

11 

36 

15 

16 

49 

0 

30 

59 

44 

8 

33 

5 

31 

49 

0 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

Affected 

56.0 

26.3 

61.3 

21.3 

59.7 

82.7 

29.3 

69.0 

1.3 

83.0 

43.7 

69.3 

19.7 

72.3 

102.0 

33.0 

69.0 

1.3 

60.0 

40.3 

67.0 

15.7 

69.0 

72.0 

30.3 

60.0 

1.3 

55.0 

47.0 

53.3 

11.3 

55.0 

41.0 

23.3 

53.3 

0.0 

28.7 

49.3 

48.7 

9.7 

41.0 

18.7 

24.3 

50.7 

0.0 

Arapahoe 

Bull Springs 

Chain Lakes Rim 

Chicken Spring 

Eagles Nest 

Eagles Nest Fence 

East Alkali 

East Antelope 

Hadsell Crossing 

Hadsell Road 

71 

23 

29 

94 

4 

45 

0 

30 

38 

0 

103 

33 

47 

190 

24 

59 

37 

31 

48 

0 

134 

25 

65 

184 

23 

146 

47 

58 

24 

0 

109 

16 

61 

181 

17 

132 

35 

64 

53 

0 

91 

11 

46 

146 

0 

108 

19 

43 

0 

29 

16 

33 

135 

14 

66 

8 

39 

10 

0 

38 

22 

49 

111 

7 

59 

14 

29 

42 

0 

34 

22 

109 

4 

46 

13 

32 

31 

0 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

115.3 

24.7 

57.7 

185.0 

21.3 

112.3 

39.7 

51.0 

41.7 

0.0 

111.3 

17.3 

57.3 

170.3 

13.3 

128.7 

39.7 

47.0 

40.0 

0.0 

76.3 

14.3 

46.7 

154.0 

10.3 

102.0 

30.0 

40.7 

35.3 

0.0 

52.7 

16.3 

42.7 

130.7 

7.0 

77.7 

19.0 

29.0 

31.7 

0.0 

33.7 

20.0 

42.7 

118.3 

8.3 

57.0 

11.7 

33.3 

27.7 

0.0 

Harrier 

Larsen North Well 

Lost Alkali 

Lost Arapahoe 

Lost Creek 

Lost Creek Basin 

Monument Lake 

Mud Lake 

Mud Lake North 

Mud Springs 

47 

10 

0 

30 

0 

0 

14 

0 

9 

0 

68 

30 

0 

46 

0 

71 

16 

80 

42 

0 

93 

0 

110 

23 

0 

38 

29 

79 

34 

0 

60 

0 

69 

20 

0 

34 

0 

67 

20 

0 

9 

0 

25 

22 

77 

29 

0 

42 

0 

9 

8 

0 

35 

15 

42 

26 

0 

24 

0 

65 

8 

40 

60 

23 

0 

12 

0 

54 

0 

34 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

75.7 

35.3 

0.0 

66.3 

0.0 

83.3 

19.7 

0.0 

27.0 

9.7 

75.3 

32.0 

0.0 

51.0 

0.0 

83.3 

17.3 

0.0 

32.3 

17.0 

74.3 

27.7 

0.0 

34.0 

0.0 

62.7 

12.3 

0.0 

31.3 

12.3 

62.0 

25.0 

0.0 

22.0 

0.0 

47.7 

8.3 

0.0 

31.3 

25.7 

59.7 

26.0 

0.0 

26.0 

0.0 

42.7 

8.3 

0.0 

31.3 

25.7 

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 

20 

18 

13 

0 

43 

7 

36 

26 

0 

0 

27 

85 

33 

34 

0 

94 

20 

56 

34 

0 

0 

45 

80 

43 

29 

0 

100 

26 

68 

92 

72 

0 

0 

37 

79 

47 

22 

91 

22 

59 

11 

60 

0 

72 

49 

19 

21 

0 

57 

22 

50 

57 

53 

21 

0 

58 

55 

35 

65 

25 

0 

43 

18 

68 

60 

0 

0 

14 

33 

55 

0 

41 

12 

52 

71 

29 

0 

0 

31 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

Reference 

81.3 

41.0 

28.3 

0.0 

95.0 

22.7 

61.0 

45.7 

52.7 

0.0 

0.0 

51.3 

69.3 

36.3 

24.0 

0.0 

82.7 

23.3 

59.0 

45.7 

56.0 

0.0 

0.0 

56.7 

61.7 

39.7 

21.3 

0.0 

68.7 

23.3 

54.7 

45.7 

44.0 

0.0 

0.0 

66.3 

47.0 

45.7 

22.3 

0.0 

52.7 

20.7 

57.7 

54.3 

44.0 

0.0 

0.0 

47.0 

41.7 

57.7 

22.3 

0.0 

47.3 

17.3 

58.3 

47.3 

33.7 

0.0 

0.0 

37.0 

36 

0 

0 

61 

36 

0 

0 

66 

Sums Affected 

Reference 

2007 

407.0 

1444.7 

2008 

493.3 

1386.3 

2009 

415.7 

1189.7 

2010 

339.3 

1020.0 

2011 

271.0 

935.0 

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

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 Total Affected Area) around the Lost Creek Permit Area. 

2.2.2.1 Trapping 

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

female sage-grouse from 9 leks situated in or near the Total Affected Area; we radio-tagged 30 

females from 7 leks in April 2011 (Figure 2.2B). In 2011, one lek was added to those trapped in 

2010 (Eagles Nest Fence) and 3 leks that were trapped in 2010 were not trapped in 2011 

(Harrier, Upper Osborne, and Southland Well). In 2010 we radio-tracked an additional 11 

females tagged 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. 

We tracked a total of 47 grouse in 2011 as some of the females radio-tracked in 2010 had 

working transmitters in 2011. We captured female sage-grouse on and near leks by spot-lighting 

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

FDSWXUHGDVD\HDUOLQJILUVWEUHHGLQJVHDVRQRUDGXOWVHFRQGEUHHGLQJVHDVRQEDVHGRQWKH

shape of the outermost wing primaries (Eng 1955). Radio transmitters were secured to females 

with a PVC-covered 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. 

We documented 54 sage-grouse nests (7 re-nests) in 2010 and 2011 (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). 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

We documented 55 sage-grouse early brood-rearing locations from 40 individual females in 

2010 and 2011 (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. 

We documented 33 sage-grouse mid brood-rearing locations from 23 individual females in 2010 

and 2011 (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. 

We documented 92 sage-grouse late brood-rearing locations (including fledge points) from 49 

individual females in 2010 and 2011 (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. 

We documented 229 sage-grouse barren female spring locations from 58 individual females, and 

146 barren female summer locations from 50 individual females in 2010 and 2011 (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. Flights were conducted at least bi-monthly. Fall was established as 

September 1 to November 30; winter was established as December 1 to March 31. 

We documented 121 sage-grouse fall locations from 58 individual females in 2010 and 2011 

(Figure 2.2E); 91 sage-grouse winter locations from 55 individual females were documented in 

2010 and 2011 (Figure 2.2F). 

Results from two flights during the last quarter of 2011 located 40 of the Lost Creek collared 

females (collars still transmitting). Seventeen (17) of the 36 females collared in April 2010 were 

located (still transmitting), as were 23 of the 30 females collared in April 2011. 
Table 2.2D. Female sage-grouse demographic results from radio-equipped individuals in southcentral Wyoming, 2010-11 (Lost Creek update, December 1, 2011). 

Numbers 

April 1, 2011 

Percentages Numbers 

December 1, 2011 

Percentages 

Total Females Radio-monitored 47 47 

A Nesting Propensity 15/22 68.2% 23/28 82.1% (7.0 [SE])K 

Nesting Success (apparent)B 8/20 40.0% 12/28 42.9% (1.4 [SE])K 

Nesting Success (adjusted)C 23.0% (4.0 [SE]) 35.0% (3.2 [SE]) 

Early Brood Success (apparent)D 6/10 60.0% 10/13 76.9% (8.5 [SE])K 

Late Brood Success (apparent)E 4/4 100% 9/10 90% (5.0 [SE])K 

Number of Females Known to Fledge Chicks 7 7 

Total Number of Chicks FledgedF 27 26 

G Average Brood Size 3.86 3.71 

H Number of Chicks per Female

Seasonal SurvivalJ 

0.95 0.84 

Spring (Apr-June) 79.5% (61-98 [95%CI]) 89.7% (75-100 [95%CI]) 

Summer (July-Aug) 96.8% (73-100 [95%CI]) 93.9% (82-100 [95%CI]) 

Fall (Sept-Nov) 97.1% (71-100 [95%CI]) 87.2% (72-100 [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 (2010) and 5/29/11 (2011). 

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). 

K

 Standard error estimates established using annual variation. 

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 (through mid- to 

late June). We did not include females found for the first time after 19 May, 2010 and 29 May, 

2011 in nesting propensity estimates (these dates represented the latest date of incubation 

initiation based on mean latest hatch date annually and 26 days to incubate a clutch [Schroeder et 

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

2.2.3 Demographics 

Demographic results are summarized in Table 2.2D. 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

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 was established using 

annual variation. 

2.2.3.2 Nest Success 

After nest identification, incubating females were mRQLWRUHGIURPDGLVWDQFHRIm 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. 

Nests were identified as successfuOLIHJJKDWFKHGLQGLFDWHGE\SUHVHQFHRIGHWDFKHGHJJVKHOO

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. 

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 that were monitored consistently through early brooding phases. 

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\WKHWRWDOQXPEHURIIHPDOHVZLWKFKLFNDWWLPHRIVSRWlight survey; females that lost their 

entire brood during any brooding stage were not included in chick per brood estimates. Annual 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

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

number of radio-equipped females known alive on August 1. Standard error estimates for early 

and late brood-rearing success were 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 sagegrouse use by sex and numbers of chicks per female. Table 2.2E summarizes the results of the 

brood transects. 
Table 2.2E. Lost Creek sage-grouse brood survey results (2011). 

Date Transect ID Start Time End Time Males Females Young of 

Year Unknown 

08/03/11 A&M #1 06:15 06:40 1 3 4 0 

08/03/11 A&M #2 1 06:50 07:15 0 0 0 0 

08/02/11 Crooks #1 2 06:00 06:25 4 10. 3 0 

08/02/11 Crooks #2 07:05 007:30 1 4 6 0 

08/01/11 Lost Creek #1 07:15 07:40 2 3 2 0 

08/01/11 Lost Creek #2 06:10 06:35 1 4 1 0 

07/31/11 Stewart Creek #1 3 06:05 06:28 2 4 2 0 

07/31/11 Stewart Creek #2 06:45 07:15 2 4 2 0 

08/10/11 A&M #1 06:20 06:40 1 4 10 0 

08/10/11 A&M #2 06:45 07:15 3 7 6 0 

08/09/11 Crooks #1 4 06:10 06:42 1 4 0 12 

08/09/11 Crooks #2 07:05 07:25 1 1 0 0 

08/08/10 Lost Creek #1 06:10 06:35 0 6 0 0 

08/08/10 Lost Creek #2 07:15 07:40 0 1 0 0 

08/07/11 Stewart Creek #1 06:10 06:35 0 3 0 0 

08/07/11 Stewart Creek #2 5 06:50 07:17 1 2 0 0 

1 

One sage grouse carcass observed. 

2 Seven unknown (females and YOY) observed 50 meter north of end of transect. One sage grouse carcass obser

3 

Two sage grouse carcasses observed along transect. 

4 

An additional 4 males, 9 females, and 2 YOY were observed 100 meters east of the south end of transect. 

5 

One female and 4 YOY observed near small water hole 200 meters north of the north end of transect. One hou

grouse observed in area of transect. 

Heavy cattle grazing was observed along all transects 

ved along transect. 

r after count, 25-30 sage 

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

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

productivity relative to ISR activities. Sage-grouse wings collected by the Wyoming Game and 

Fish department in barrels situated to collect wings from upland game management area 9 were 

compared to barrels situated to collect wings from upland game management areas 8 and 45 (see 

Table 2.2F and Figures 2.2H and 2.2I). We estimated annually the number of chicks per female 

in the harvest by dividing the total number of male, female, and unknown chick wings by the 

total number of adult and yearling female wings. We generated a 3-year running average of 

chicks per females in the fall harvest. We plotted trends in the 3-year running averages through 

time (Figure 2.2J); a potential effect of Lost Creek mining operations on sage-grouse 

productivity may be indicated by diverging lines. It is important to note that results of this 

investigation will be suggestive because of potential biases associated with wing collection (e.g., 

unknown location of harvest for a wing deposited in a given barrel). More intensive monitoring 

of sage-grouse demographics will be necessary if this analysis suggests productivity in upland 
Table 2.2F. Wing barrel information from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Total Chicks Control 351 156 181 257 270 222 

Total Chicks Lost Creek 47 47 18 57 54 52 

Total Females Control 205 126 138 168 208 184 

Total Females Lost Creek 33 36 41 33 40 49 

Chicks/Hen Control 1.71 1.24 1.31 1.53 1.30 1.21 

Chicks/Hen Lost Creek 1.42 1.31 0.44 1.73 1.35 1.06 

3-yr running average Control 1.42 1.36 1.38 1.34 

3-yr running average Lost Creek 1.06 1.16 1.17 1.38 

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

game management area 9 is consistently below that of surrounding areas as this decline may be 

due to Lost Creek mining operations. 

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 weekly from 3 weeks postnest 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. 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. 

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 

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

determine nest success. During 2011 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 2011 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: 2 nests are just outside the 1-mile boundary). The ferruginous 

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

Three active nests are located on nesting platforms (AFH25921004, FH25922801, FH25923201) 

and one active nest was located on a transmission line pole(FH25932502). Nest FH24930201 

located on a platform on transmission line post in 2010 was not active in 2011; the nest platform 

was blown or fell down. Nests AFH25921004, FH25922801, and FH25923201, all active in 

2011, were also active in 2010. Nest FH25932502 is a new active nest located on a transmission 

line post (not on a platform). During mid-April 2011 this nest was 1st observed being built by a 

pair of ravens. A pair of ferruginous hawks took over this nest and was observed in the nest in 

May and June. The nest was no longer present during September of 2011. Nest materials 

(sagebrush twigs and branches) were observed downwind of the nest. Nest FH25921601 is an 

inactive nest that is located in a large sagebrush. This nest has not been active within the last 5 

years and is dilapidated. 
Table 2.3A. Lost Creek raptor nest locations (2011). 

Nest ID # Species PLSS 

Location 

UTM 

Location 

2011 Nest 

Status 

Nest 

Substrate 

2011 

Nest 

Fate 

Notes 

AFH25921004 

Ferruginou 

s 

Hawk 

T25N 

R92W 

NWSE 

Sec. 10 

0268595E 

4670503N Active 

Artificial 

Nest 

Structure 

2 

fledged 

Within 1-mile 

buffer 

FH25921601 

Ferruginou 

s 

Hawk 

T25N 

R92W 

SESW 

Sec. 16 

0266480E 

4668397N 

Inactive, 

Dilapidated Sagebrush ---

Old stick nest, 

in Permit 

Area 

FH25922801 

Ferruginou 

s 

Hawk 

T25N 

R92W 

SENE 

Sec. 28 

0267066E 

4665882N Active 

Artificial 

Nest 

Structure 

1 

fledged 

Just outside 

1-mile buffer 

FH25923201 

Ferruginou 

s 

Hawk 

T25N 

R92W 

SWNW 

Sec. 32 

0264483E 

4664481N Active 

Artificial 

Nest 

Structure 

2 

fledged 

Just outside 

1-mile buffer 

FH24930201 

Ferruginou 

s 

Hawk 

T25N 

R92W 

SWNW 

Sec. 2 

0260861E 

4663028N Inactive 

Artificial 

Nest 

Structure 

T-Line 

Post 

--

Platform 

blown down 

before 

nesting 

season 

Established 

FH25932502 Ferruginou 

s Hawk 

T25N, 

R93W 

SWNW 

Sec. 25 

0260949E 

466620N Active 

T-Line Post 

(no 

platform) 

1 

fledged 

by pair of 

ravens early 

spring 2011, 

taken over by 

hawks. Nest 

has been 

blown down 

(fall 2011) 

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

2.3.2 Measures of Disturbance 

Attachment A, Figure 2.3A shows 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 2.3A. 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. 
Table 2.3B. Lagomorph spotlight survey results summary (Lost Creek Permit Area, 2011). 

Transect Date Results and Comments 

#1 6/15 1 White-tailed Jackrabbits 

#2 6/15 1 White-tailed Jackrabbits 

#3 6/15 2 White-tailed Jackrabbits, 1 Cottontail 

#1 8/25 6 White-tailed Jackrabbits 

#2 8/25 8 White-tailed Jackrabbits 

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

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

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 2011. Three transects were established along 

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

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

sensitive species, were completed during the fall of 2011. Survey methods followed BLM 

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

Creek disturbance area. These transects were completed in the same reaches of lowland 

sagebrush as the 2010 transects. 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 7 and 8, 2011. 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 44 locations of burrows, other indicators, or possible indicators of pygmy rabbits were 

recorded. Evidence of pygmy rabbit use was present along all 4 transects. Two pygmy rabbits 

were sighted during the surveys. Table 2.3C provides a summary of burrow locations and burrow 

status and Attachment A, Figure 2.3B shows the locations of transects, burrows, and other 

indicators that were identified during the survey effort. 
Table 2.3C. Pygmy rabbit transect results summary (Lost Creek Permit Area, 2011). 

Transect UTM UTM Northing 1 Status Comment 

No. Easting 

1 266409 4668301 start transect 1 

266415 4668310 COL 2 entrances 

266425 4668329 COL+t 

266433 4668383 POSS+COL 

266449 4668366 FP+ts 

266475 4668386 B+FP+E 

266485 4668406 ts Pygmy rabbit 

observed 

266492 4668412 UB+FP+deb+b 

266495 4668421 B+FP+dig 

266520 4668470 POSS+deb snow covering 

entrance 

266521 4668477 B+FP 

466528 4668485 B+FP+E 2 entrances 

266577 4668617 UB+deb 

266737 4668903 end transect 1 

2 264014 4668356 start transect 2 

263988 4668328 B+deb 

263841 4668290 UB+FP+deb 

263831 4668272 B+FP+b 

263827 4668263 POSS 

263798 4668243 POSS 

263785 4668235 B+FP+ts 

263786 4668235 B+FP+t 

263782 4668228 B+FP+ts 

263756 4668194 B+E 

263698 4668091 POSS+deb 

263695 4667998 FP+ts 

263705 4667957 end transect 2 

3 263283 4668713 start transect 3 

263367 4668655 FP 

263392 4668625 B+FP+b 3 entrances 

263394 4668599 FP 

263381 4668589 FP+ts 

263378 46685+62 B+FP+b 

263370 4668528 Pygmy rabbit 

observed 

263371 4668518 COL 

263372 4668438 FP+ts 

263375 4668389 FP+ts 

263371 4668354 B+FP+dig 2 entrances 

263461 4668123 end transect 3 

4 261455 4667890 OP start transect 4 

261497 4668016 OP 

261533 4668068 FP+ts 

261544 4668094 FP+ts 

261565 4668123 FP+ts 

261568 4668129 B+OP+b 

261578 4668163 B+OP+deb 

261578 4668177 FP+ts 

261586 4668211 FP 

261581 4668216 FP+ts 

261514 4668530 FP+ts 

261506 4668558 FP+ts end transect 4 1 B=burrow; FP=fresh pellets only; E=burrow enlarged by predator; OP= old pellets; UB=unused burrow; COL=collapsed burrow; 

POSS=possible burrow; t=clean trail; ts=tracks in snow; deb=debris filled; b=at base of bush; dig=fresh diggin 

)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &
Table 2.4A. MBHFI 2011 transect results, Lost Creek Permit Area. 

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

Brewer’s Sparrow MBHFI, 8 9 (Spizella breweri) BLM, BCC 

Sage Sparrow MBHFI, 4 3 (Amphispiza belli) BLM 

Vesper Sparrow MBHFI 1 (Pooecetes gramineus) 

Sage Thrasher MBHFI. 4 1 (Oreoscoptes montanus) BLM 

Horned Lark - 1 4 (Eremophila alpestris) 

Total # Birds - 21 18 

Upland SB, 

Transect #1, 

No. Birds 

3 

2 

7 

12 

Upland SB, Transect 

#2, No. Birds 

3 

1 

8 

12 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[& &

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 and 2010. Prior surveys 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 

2011, except as noted 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). In 2010, two transects were established in each vegetation type of the 

Permit Area. The same transects were surveyed in 2011. Transects are 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 early June (surveys were completed on 6/14 and 6/15). 

Surveys were completed from 0.5 hours before sunrise to 9:30 a.m. All birds (including nongame and non-MBHFI birds) observed or heard while walking the transects were recorded 

(Table 2.4A). 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. 
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 2011 included: ferruginous 

hawk (see Section 2.3), and the loggerhead shrike (several sightings along lowland sagebrush 

swales). 

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

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 2011. 

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

Sage-grouse studies completed during 2011 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 were completed on 

the site during 2010 (LWR and WWC 2010) and the species was located throughout the Permit 

Area. 

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. 

2.7 Non-Game Birds 

Specific surveys for non-game birds were not completed during 2011 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. 

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 2011. The Great Basin spadefoot toad is a 

BLM Sensitive species. 
Table 2.8A. Great Basin spadefoot toad, 2011 survey results summary (Lost Creek Permit Area). 

Date Start Time Stop Time Results 

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

5/25 7:30pm 10:00pm No amphibians heard. 

6/15 7:45pm 11:30pm No amphibians heard. 

7/6 7:45pm 11:00pm No amphibians heard. 

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

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 

and completed again in 2011. 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 2011. Negative surveys for this species were also completed on site during 

2010 (LWR and WWC 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. 

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

incidental observations are summarized in Attachment B, Table B-1. Attachment A Table B-2 

summarizes incidental sighting locations for reptiles in the permit area during the last few years 

of study. The only reptiles noted during incidental observations in 2011 were the greater shorthorned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi) and the prairie rattlesnake (Crotalis viridis viridis). 

No amphibians were observed within the Permit Area during 2011 (no amphibians have been 

documented in the Permit Area during any studies from 2006 to present). 

3.0 Evaluation of Wildlife Protection Measures Utilized and Wildlife 

Mortality in 2010 

Table 3.0A summarizes the timing restrictions used during 2011 to protect sage-grouse and 

raptors. 
Table 3.0A. Surface activity restrictions for protection of wildlife in the Lost Creek permit area (2011. 

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

Additional wildlife protection measures utilized in 2011 included: 

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

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 

2011. 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 

2011 because no mining activities have been started. 

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

mortality observed during 2011. 

4.0 Recommended Modifications for 2012 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 2012 (including timing restriction shown in Table 3.0A). The monitoring 

schedule shown in Table 1A will be followed during 2012. 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: Pre-development monitoring of radio-equipped sage-grouse as established in the 

Lost Creek Wildlife Protection and Monitoring Plan (LC ISR, LLC 2010) will continue through 

fledge 2012 for sage-grouse still transmitting (This will further augment thedata for a very 

predator sensitive portion of the life cycle.).. Both the University of Wyoming and Utah State 

University conducted research on radio-equipped sage-grouse in the general area of the Lost 

Creek permit area 2008-2011. We are currently coordinating with both these entities to combine 

data for generating seasonal resource selection functions (RSF) throughout the area. Data from 

the three efforts will be incorporated to establish extant seasonal sage-grouse habitats. 

We recommend initiating implementation of the Mitigation Measures outlined in the Lost Creek 

Wildlife Protection and Monitoring Plan (LC ISR, LLC 2010 Section 2.2.6) in 2012. The 

Wildlife Protection and Monitoring Plan (LC ISR, LLC 2010) was written assuming sage-grouse 

population-level response to development of the Lost Creek permit area would be similar to 

those established in natural gas developments (see Holloran 2005 and Holloran et al. 2010). 

These publications established avoidance distances of sage-grouse to the infrastructure of natural 

gas fields and we assumed that the habitat within that avoidance distance would be functionally 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

lost to sage-grouse through the life of the Lost Creek Project. The Wildlife Protection and 

Monitoring Plan proposed to implement mitigation measures to counteract this assumed affect. 

This approach has the benefit of implementing mitigation as quickly as possible from the 

initiation of development, which is important in Lost Creek, given the predicted slow response to 

proactive habitat management of the xeric sagebrush systems present throughout the area. If 

development of the Lost Creek permit area has less of an effect than natural gas development, or 

no effect, on sage-grouse populations, then implemented mitigation measures will still have been 

beneficial to populations. However, if there is an effect of development, efforts to counteract that 

effect would already be implemented upon documentation of impact. Given the fidelity of adult 

grouse to seasonal ranges, it could be several years before impacts of development of the Lost 

Creek permit area could be reliably assessed. 

The Wildlife Protection and Monitoring Plan (LC ISR, LLC 2010) proposed to mitigate assumed 

consequences of development of the Lost Creek permit area by enhancing habitats within a 

buffered region around development where lek numbers could potentially increase due to 

displacement of juvenile sage-grouse (see Holloran et al. 2010). We will use the results from the 

RSF analyses to focus enhancement efforts towards the seasonal habitat(s) present within the 

predicted impacted area. This focus will dictate the objectives of enhancement projects. For 

example, if suitable nesting habitat is influenced by activities on the Lost Creek permit area, 

habitat enhancement projects will focus on increasing nesting habitat quality and counteracting 

the effects of functionally lost nesting habitat. This may be accomplished by increasing grass 

height and cover within relatively dense sagebrush stands, and maintaining that height and cover 

to the following nesting season as residual grass (see Holloran et al. 2005). 

Upon identification of the spatial buffer to which grouse may be displaced, we will initially use 

the RSFs established from telemetry data to map the seasonal habitats in this buffer. We will 

conduct vegetation surveys of the focus seasonal habitat(s). Surveys will be designed to 

establish current vegetative condition(s) at the patch scale and to gather the data necessary to 

estimate a patch’s potential (e.g., soil and environmental characteristics). Using this information, 

we will be able to identify suitable patches of habitat that are of low quality relative to the 

conditions that could occur within that patch. Once these patches are identified, we will develop 

proactive enhancement options on a patch-by-patch basis. We will use published information to 

develop management options that have been shown to result in the desired changes. Unless 

conditions of a site are such that no other options are feasible, we will not suggest shrub 

manipulating management (e.g., prescribed fire, herbicide application), but will focus on 

alternative forms of habitat enhancement (e.g., interseeding native cool-season bunchgrasses, 

livestock management modifications). 

We will develop our habitat enhancement plan at a relatively large spatial scale to increase the 

probability that actions taken will have a population-level effect. Vegetation and sage-grouse 

post-treatment monitoring protocol will be established, and these activities will be continued for 

at least 5 years post-treatment, and at regular intervals (e.g., every 3 to 5 years) while Ur-Energy 
5.0 References 

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

is active within the general region. This enhancement plan will be developed and implemented 

with the assistance of BLM, NRCS, and WGFD rangeland specialists. 

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

required for 2012 (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 and 2011 did not locate this 

species. If requested by the BLM or WGFD, surveys will be completed again during the spring 

and summer 2012, 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 2011. Only those measures that 

dealt with species monitoring as outlined in Section 2.0, 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 (anticipated for summer 

of 2012) 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 2012 annual wildlife monitoring 

report. 

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. 

Freudenthal, D. 2010. Greater sage-grouse core area protection. State of Wyoming Executive 

Department, Executive Order number 2010-4 (Replaces 2008-2): 18-August, 2010. 
)LQDO(,6/RVW&UHHN8UDQLXP,Q6LWX5HFRYHU\3URMHFW9ROXPH,, $SSHQGL[& &

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. 

LWR Consultants, Inc. and Wyoming Wildlife Consultants, Inc. 2010. Lost Creek Project, 

2010 Wildlife Monitoring Report. Prepared For: Lost Creek ISR, LLC, Casper, WY. 

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. 2011. 

http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html Downloaded Wed Nov 02 17:54:07 

EDT 2011 

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. 

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

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.