3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.8.2.2 Field Surveys 

Field surveys for breeding birds were completed in the Permit Area during spring 

2006, 2010, and 2011; Greater sage-grouse lek and nesting raptor surveys were 

completed during spring 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Pygmy rabbit 

surveys were completed during June and July 2007 and August 2010. Big game 

surveys were completed during 2006, 2010 and 2011. The presence of other 

wildlife species or their identifying signs was also recorded, and all observed 

species are included in Table 3.8-1. Breeding bird surveys were conducted 

within the Permit Area; surveys for raptor nests included the Permit Area and a 

surrounding one-mile buffer; surveys for Greater sage-grouse leks included a twomile buffer from 2006 through 2009, and a much larger study area in 2010 and 

2011. Surveys for big game also included a two-mile buffer from 2006 through 

2011.

General field surveys were completed by traversing the Permit Area and the 

surrounding area in a high-wing aircraft, four-wheel drive vehicles, and on foot. 

Binoculars and spotting scopes were used for observations. Specific survey 

methods for individual species or groups of species are presented in Attachment 

D9-2 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 2011b). The field survey 

protocols were consistent with recommendations from both the BLM and WGFD 

as provided in Attachment D9-3 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI,

2011b). As mentioned above, during the spring of 2010, LCI began a long-term 

program of wildlife monitoring. Details of this monitoring are described in 

Attachment OP-6 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 2011b). Additional 

information is included in the Project’s 2010 and 2011 Annual Wildlife 

Monitoring Report (LWR Consultants, Inc. and Wyoming Wildlife Consultants, 

Inc., 2011 and 2012, respectively [Appendix C]). This annual wildlife 

monitoring program expands upon and continues the baseline wildlife inventories. 

3.8.3 Results

3.8.3.1 Big Game 

The 2012 WGFD data define the Permit Area as seasonal range for elk, mule 

deer, and pronghorn (Figure 3.8-1, Figure 3.8-2, and Figure 3.8-4 respectively). 

The Permit Area is outside of WGFD mapped moose range (Figure 3.8-3). Areas 

described as “out of range” contain few animals or the available habitat is of 

limited importance to the species. No moose or signs of moose have been 

observed. No crucial range for big game is present in the Permit area according to 

the WGFD 2012 data. 

The WGFD WOS indicates that pronghorn are the most abundant big game 

species in the Permit Area. WGFD and BLM GIS data show that the Permit Area 

and surrounding areas are classified as Winter/Yearlong Pronghorn Range. 

Winter/Yearlong Range includes range where a population of animals makes 

3.8-21 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

general use of the habitat on a year-round basis, and there is a significant influx of 

animals between December and April. The Permit Area comprises a portion of 

the Red Desert Antelope Herd Unit (WGFD Hunt Area 61). Based on the most 

current Annual Big Game Herd Unit Job Completion Reports (WGFD, 2006), the 

Red Desert Antelope Herd had an average population of 14,454 pronghorns from 

2000 to 2005. 

The 2007 WGFD Herd Unit Data describe two elk herds, the Shamrock Herd Unit 

(#643) and the Steamboat Herd Unit (#426), as being situated on or near the 

Permit Area. Elk and mule deer have been infrequently spotted in low numbers in 

the Permit Area. 

The relative abundance of big game observed during the course of field work 

during 2006 and 2007 was recorded and is presented in Table 3.8-2. Table 3.8-3 

shows the summary of results from big game counts conducted during 2010 and 

2011. Pronghorn, mule deer, and elk were the only big game animals recorded in 

the Permit Area during field observations in 2006 to 2011. Pronghorn and elk 

were observed in the survey area during 2010 and 2011 surveys. No mule deer 

were observed in the survey area during 2010 and 2011 surveys. 

Table 3.8-2 Relative Abundance of Big Game Observations 2006 

and 2007 

Month Species 

Habitat Type 

Upland 

Sagebrush 

Lowland 

Sagebrush 

March Pronghorn High High 

March Elk Low Low 

April Pronghorn High High 

June Pronghorn Medium Medium

July Mule Deer Low --

July Elk Low --

July Pronghorn Medium Medium

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.8-22

July 2012 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3.8-3 Summary of Big Game Counts Conducted During 

2010 and 20111

Survey Date Pronghorn Elk

Male Female Male Female 

2010

02/19/2010 5 3 0 0

03/28/2010 22 51 0 0

06/03/2010

06/04/2010

8 23 0 3

7

08/23/2010 1 2 0 0

2011

01/27/2011 0 0 0 0

03/14/2011 9 28 0 0

04/06/2011

04/07/2011

6 13 0

3

0

6

06/15/2011

06/16/2011

4

2

6

10

0

0

0

0

08/06/2011 5 2 0 0

1

Data from LWR, 2011 and 2012, respectively (Appendix C)

3.8-23 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
–

-–-
-

–-–
–

-–-
-

–-–
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.8.3.2 Greater Sage-Grouse 

Greater sage-grouse and mourning doves were the only upland game birds noted 

in the study area. Greater sage-grouse inhabit the area all year, but mourning 

doves are migrants present during spring through early fall. The USFWS recently 

found that the Greater sage-grouse was warranted but precluded for listing as a 

T&E species (USFWS, 2010c). This designation means the USFWS has 

determined that, based on current status, the Greater sage-grouse warrants listing 

but listing is precluded because of the need to address other higher priority 

species. 

The Wyoming Governor's SGIT was created in 2008 to develop and coordinate 

Greater sage-grouse conservation efforts in Wyoming. The original group 

included stakeholders from agriculture, conservation organizations, oil and gas, 

wildlife and land management agencies. SGIT then added representatives from 

county governments, WDEQ, Wyoming BLM, and the mining industry (LCI 

participated as a substitute organization when the regular industry representative 

could not attend). The SGIT has designated ‘core population areas’ throughout 

the state (Figure 3.8-5) and developed stipulations for the conservation of Greater 

sage-grouse in those areas (Mead, 2011 and Wyoming Interagency, 2011). As 

shown in Figure 3.8-6, the Permit Area is located within the Greater sage-grouse 

Core Area. The BLM designation of Key Habitat Areas corresponds directly with 

the State of Wyoming’s Core Population Area (Core Area) (BLM, 2010). LCI 

would follow the stipulations and management principles provided by the 

Wyoming Governor's SGIT while conducting the Proposed Action. Additionally, 

LCI has consulted extensively with WGFD during the WDEQ permit process on 

various wildlife protection issues, including the protection of Greater sage-grouse 

in the Project area (Attachment D9-4 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine, 2011b 

and Hiatt, 2011). 

Field surveys of upland game birds have focused on Greater sage-grouse leks 

(also known as strutting grounds). All known leks were inventoried, and the 

entire study area within two miles of the Permit Area was searched for additional 

leks during the period of 2006 to 2009. Three aerial surveys were completed for 

new leks from April of 2006 through 2009. In addition, ground surveys of new 

leks were completed by driving on roads within the study area and listening for 

booming Greater sage-grouse. Lek attendance surveys, which document the 

number of male Greater sage-grouse observed at each lek, were completed on the 

ground three times for each known lek during April and May of 2006 to 2009. 

Starting in the spring of 2010, the study area for Greater sage-grouse 

surveys/monitoring was expanded to include a Small Sage Grouse Monitoring 

Area and a Large Sage Grouse Monitoring Area (Figure 3.8-7). The Small Sage 

Grouse Monitoring Area includes the area where nesting and early brood-rearing 

females may be influenced by Project activities. The Large Sage Grouse 

Monitoring Area includes a much larger area with leks that can be considered 

control leks (leks outside of the influence zone of the Project). During the springs 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.8-28

July 2012 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

of 2010 and 2011, lek counts were completed in both the Large and Small Greater 

Sage-grouse Monitoring Areas. During the 2011 surveys, the original Small 

Monitoring Area was replaced by the Total Affected Area established by the 

DDCT as mandated by the Wyoming State Governor’s Executive Order 2010-4 

(see Section 4.9 for discussion of the DDCT). The 2010 Large Greater Sagegrouse Monitoring Area was delineated to maximize the probability that control 

leks were included within the monitoring area. Concentrated ground surveys for 

searching for new leks were also completed in both areas. Thirty-six Greater 

sage-grouse hens from nine leks were trapped and radio-tagged during April 

2010, and 30 hens from seven leks were tagged during April 2011 within the 

Small Greater Sage-grouse Monitoring Area. Ongoing radio-telemetry studies are 

being completed on these birds as part of a detailed Habitat Selection Study. The 

Habitat Selection Study is being completed to determine nest location, nest 

productivity, and seasonal habitat affinities. Detailed methods of these 

investigations are included in Attachment OP-6 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to 

Mine (LCI, 2011b). Detailed results of the 2010 and 2011 investigations are 

included in the Project’s 2010 and 2011 Annual Wildlife Monitoring Report 

(LWR Consultants, Inc. and Wyoming Wildlife Consultants, Inc., 2011 and 2012, 

respectively [Appendix C]).

No active Greater sage-grouse leks have been located in the Permit Area. The 

Crooked Well Lek, located along the northeast boundary of the Permit Area 

(Township 25 North, Range 92 West, Section 16) is classified by WGFD as 

occupied but surveys completed from 2006 to 2011 have found it to be inactive 

(Figure 3.8-8). Informal surveys before 2006 also indicated that birds had not 

been using the lek since 1994. A letter requesting a check of the official status of 

this lek was sent to WGFD in June 2009. Per the WGFD response, the lek is 

considered Occupied - Inactive. The request, which includes a summary of the 

formal and informal survey results, and response are included in Attachment D9-4 

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

Four occupied and active leks were located within the two-mile buffer zone of the 

main Permit Area based on the 2006 through 2010 surveys. These include the 

Green Ridge Lek, Prospect South Lek, Discover Lek, and Discover South Lek. 

The active Discover South Lek was found during 2010 surveys. Recent surveys 

(2008 to 2011) have found the Discover East Lek to be inactive, it is considered to 

be Occupied- Inactive. Three occupied and active leks were located not far north 

of the two-mile buffer zone of the Permit Area based on the 2006 through 2011 

surveys: the Prospects Lek; the Eagles Nest Draw Lek; and the Sand Gully Lek. 

The locations of the aforementioned leks are presented in Figure 3.8-8 and Table 

3.8-4. Table 3.8-4 also displays observed lek attendance. The Green Ridge 

Satellite Lek was observed on only two occasions in 2007, as shown in Table 

3.8-4. The number of birds observed and the frequency of the observances did 

not meet the criteria to be classified as a lek (Hiatt, 2011). As a result, this lek is 

not included in the WGFD Greater sage-grouse database. Other nearby (between 

two and five miles of the Permit Area boundary) active leks include: Sooner, 

3.8-29 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Minex West, Southland Well, which are within the area shown on Figure 3.8-8;

and Harrier and Upper Osborne, which are outside the area shown on the figure. 

The locations are shown in the 2011 Annual Wildlife Monitoring Report (LWR 

Consultants, Inc. and Wyoming Wildlife Consultants, Inc., 2012 [Appendix C]). 

Lek attendance has generally declined since 2006 at all active leks (Table 3.8-4).

This trend is consistent with a regional decline in lek attendance numbers 

(WGFD, 2008c). The Greater sage-grouse leks occurred in the Upland Big 

Sagebrush Shrubland community in areas with cushion plants, blowouts and bare 

ground. 

Data on seasonal habitat use and preferences of Greater sage-grouse in the area 

were collected as part of the ongoing annual Greater sage-grouse monitoring 

studies. Detailed methods of these investigations are included in Attachment OP6 of the WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine (LCI, 2011b). Detailed results of these 

investigations are included in the Project’s 2010 and 2011 Annual Wildlife 

Monitoring Report (LWR Consultants, Inc. and Wyoming Wildlife Consultants, 

Inc., 2011 and 2012, respectively [Appendix C]).

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.8-30

July 2012 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Figure 3.8-5 State-Wide Greater Sage-Grouse Core Management 

Areas 

Source: Governor of Wyoming Executive Order 2010-4

3.8-31 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I

July 2012
–

-–-
-

–-–
–

-–-
Table 3.8-4 Greater sage-grouse Lek Counts (Page 1 of 9) 

3.8-35 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
Table 3.8-4 Greater sage-grouse Lek Counts (Page 2 of 9) 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.8-36

July 2012 
Table 3.8-4 Greater sage-grouse Lek Counts (Page 3 of 9) 

3.8-37 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
Table 3.8-4 Greater sage-grouse Lek Counts (Page 4 of 9) 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.8-38

July 2012
Table 3.8-4 Greater sage-grouse Lek Counts (Page 5 of 9) 

3.8-39 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
Table 3.8-4 Greater sage-grouse Lek Counts (Page 6 of 9) 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.8-40

July 2012
Table 3.8-4 Greater sage-grouse Lek Counts (Page 7 of 9) 

3.8-41 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012 
Table 3.8-4 Greater sage-grouse Lek Counts (Page 8 of 9) 

FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 3.8-42

July 2012
Table 3.8-4 Greater sage-grouse Lek Counts (Page 9 of 9) 

3.8-43 FINAL EIS – LOST CREEK URANIUM IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT – VOLUME I 

July 2012