Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 54381 

comments, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

To enhance the opportunity for public 

information and commenting, public 

meetings will be hosted at the following 

Washington locations: October 19 in 

Stehekin, October 20 in Wenatchee, and 

October 21 Seattle. Confirmed meeting 

times, specific locations and other 

details will be announced via local and 

regional news media and may be 

obtained on the park’s Web site (http:// 

www.nps.gov/noca) or by phoning (360) 

856–5700 ext.351. Participants are 

strongly encouraged to review the 

document prior to attending a meeting. 

The Superintendent and planning team 

members, including personnel from the 

Technical Committee will attend all 

meetings. The format will be the same 

for each meeting, and will include a 

brief presentation on the essential 

elements of the Plan/DEIS and a 

question and answer period. Oral and 

written comments may also be 

submitted. All meeting locations will be 

accessible for disabled persons. A sign 

language interpreter may be available 

upon request with prior notice (please 

contact the park as noted above). 

Decision: Following due 

consideration of all comments received 

on the DEIS, preparation and release of 

the Final EIS/Stehekin River Corridor 

Implementation Plan is anticipated for 

late summer 2010; availability will be 

similarly announced in the Federal 

Register. The actual date will depend 

upon the degree of public interest and 

response from agencies and 

organizations. Following a minimum 30 

days ‘‘no action’’ period, a Record of 

Decision may be prepared; approval of 

the plan will be similarly announced in 

the Federal Register. This is tentatively 

anticipated for late 2010. As a delegated 

EIS the official responsible for the final 

decision is the Regional Director, Pacific 

West Region; subsequently the official 

responsible for implementation of the 

approved Stehekin River Corridor 

Implementation Plan is the 

Superintendent, North Cascades 

National Park Service Complex. 

Dated: March 12, 2010. 

Patricia L. Neubacher, 

Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received in the Office of the Federal Register 

on August 31, 2010. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22144 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–T6–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R6–R–2010–N078; 60138–1261– 

6CCP–S3] 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife 

Refuge, MT 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: Draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

draft environmental impact statement; 

announcement of public meetings; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of a draft comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and draft 

environmental impact statement (DEIS) 

for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs, 

Refuges) in Montana for public review 

and comment. In these documents, we 

describe alternatives, including our 

proposed action, to manage these 

refuges for the 15 years following 

approval of the final CCP. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, please 

send your written comments by 

November 8, 2010. We will announce 

upcoming public meetings in local news 

media, on our Web site, and by mail. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments or a request for copies (hard 

copies or a CD–ROM) or more 

information by any of the following 

methods: 

Agency Web site: Download a copy of 

the documents at http://www.fws.gov/ 

cmr/planning. 

E-mail: cmrplanning@fws.gov. Include 

‘‘Request copy of Charles M. Russell 

NWR Draft CCP/EIS’’ in the subject line 

of the message. 

Mail: Charles M. Russell NWR CCP/ 

EIS, P.O. Box 110, Lewistown, MT 

59457. 

In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call 

(406) 538–8706 to make an appointment 

during regular business hours at Charles 

M. Russell NWR Headquarters, Airport 

Road, Lewistown, MT 59457. 

Local Library or Libraries: The draft 

documents are available for review at 

the libraries listed under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barron Crawford, Project Leader, at 

(406) 538–8706, or Laurie Shannon, 

Planning Team Leader, (303) 236–4317; 

laurie_shannon@fws.gov (e-mail). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Charles M. Russell and UL 

Bend NWRs. We started this process 

through a notice in the Federal Register 

(72 FR 68174, December 4, 2007). 

Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

NWRs encompass nearly 1.1 million 

acres, including Fort Peck Reservoir in 

north central Montana. The Refuges 

extend about 125 air miles west from 

Fort Peck Dam to the western edge at 

the boundary of the Upper Missouri 

Breaks National Monument. UL Bend 

NWR lies within Charles M. Russell 

NWR. In essence, UL Bend is a refuge 

within a refuge, and the two refuges are 

managed as one unit and referred to as 

Charles M. Russell NWR. Refuge habitat 

includes native prairie, forested coulees, 

river bottoms, and badlands. Wildlife is 

as diverse as the topography and 

includes Rocky Mountain elk, mule 

deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, sharptailed grouse, prairie dogs, and more 

than 236 species of birds. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee) (Administration Act), as 

amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, requires us to develop a CCP for 

each national wildlife refuge. The 

purpose for developing a CCP is to 

provide refuge managers with a 15-year 

plan for achieving refuge purposes and 

contributing toward the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, which 

is consistent with sound principles of 

fish and wildlife management, 

conservation, legal mandates, and our 

policies. In addition to outlining broad 

management direction on conserving 

wildlife and their habitats, CCPs 

identify wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities available to the public, 

including opportunities for hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. We will 

review and update the CCP at least 

every 15 years in accordance with the 

Administration Act. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
54382 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 

Public Outreach 

The formal scoping period began on 

December 4, 2007, with the publication 

of a notice of intent in the Federal 

Register. Prior to this and early in the 

preplanning phase, we outlined a 

process that would be inclusive of 

diverse stakeholder interests and would 

involve a range of activities for keeping 

the public informed and ensure 

meaningful public input. This process 

was summarized in a planning update 

titled Public Involvement Summary 

(October 2007). Soon after, a project 

Web site was created, and since then the 

Public Involvement Summary, four 

additional planning updates, and other 

information have been posted to the 

Web site. We have mailed all planning 

updates to the project mailing list. 

We began the process with formal 

notification to Native American Tribes 

and other Federal and State agencies. 

Subsequently, there are a number of 

cooperating agencies participating on 

the planning project, including the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of 

Land Management; Montana Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks; Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation; Fergus, Petroleum, 

Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips 

Counties; and the Missouri River 

Council of Conservation Districts. We 

also formally consulted with the Fort 

Belknap and Fort Peck Tribes in July 

2009 and have encouraged their 

participation in the process. 

During the initial scoping period, we 

received about 24,000 written 

responses. Hundreds of people attended 

seven public meetings across Montana, 

providing many verbal comments. 

Following the comment period, we 

summarized the information we learned 

and prepared a scoping report, which 

was posted to the project Web site. In 

the fall of 2008, we again reached out to 

the public and the cooperating agencies 

and sought additional input on four 

potential draft alternatives prior to fully 

developing and analyzing them. We 

held seven additional public meetings 

during this time and consequently 

received hundreds of additional written 

and oral responses. 

We have considered all public 

comments throughout the process and 

have incorporated them in numerous 

ways. The significant issues for the 

project include a number of issues 

related to habitat and wildlife, water 

resources, public use and access, 

wilderness, socioeconomics, 

partnerships and collaboration, and 

cultural values, traditions, and 

resources. We have considered and 

evaluated all of these comments, with 

many incorporated into the various 

alternatives addressed in the draft CCP 

and draft EIS. 

CCP Alternatives We Are Considering 

During the public scoping process 

with which we started work on this 

draft CCP, we, our cooperating agencies, 

other governmental partners, Tribes, 

conservation organizations, and the 

public raised several issues. Our draft 

CCP addresses them. A full description 

of each alternative is in the draft EIS. To 

address these issues, we developed and 

evaluated four alternatives which are 

summarized below. 

Alternative A—No Action. Few 

changes would occur in the 

management of existing wildlife 

populations and habitat. Wildlifedependent public and economic uses 

would continue at current levels. Key 

actions follow: 

• There would be continued 

emphasis on big game management, 

annual livestock grazing, use of fencing 

for pastures, invasive species control, 

and water development. Habitat would 

be managed in 65 habitat units that were 

originally established by the Bureau of 

Land Management. Prescriptive grazing 

would only be implemented when units 

became available. 

• We would manage big game to 

achieve the target levels identified in an 

earlier EIS developed in 1986. There 

could be more restrictive regulations for 

rifle mule deer harvest on portions of 

the refuge as compared with State 

regulations. 

• Select stock ponds would be 

maintained and rehabilitated. Riparian 

habitat would be restored where 

possible. 

• The public would continue to 

access the Refuge on 670 miles of roads. 

About 155,288 acres of proposed 

wilderness within 15 units of the 

Charles M. Russell NWR would be 

managed in accordance with Service 

policy. 

Alternative B—Wildlife Population 

Emphasis. We would manage the 

landscape, in cooperation with our 

partners, to emphasize the abundance of 

wildlife populations using balanced 

natural ecological processes such as fire 

and grazing by wild ungulates and 

responsible synthetic methods such as 

farming and tree planting. Wildlifedependent public use would be 

encouraged, and economic uses would 

be limited when they compete for 

habitat resources. Key actions follow: 

• Habitat would be actively managed 

and manipulated, thus creating a 

diverse plant community of highly 

productive wildlife food and cover 

plants. The emphasis would be on 

habitat for targeted species of wildlife in 

separate parts of the Refuge. We would 

consolidate the 65 habitat units based 

on field station boundaries and 

subsequently write new habitat 

management plans. Former agricultural 

river bottom areas would be aggressively 

restored, and we would restore the 

functioning condition of riparian areas. 

Prescriptive livestock grazing would be 

implemented across 75 percent of the 

Refuge within 4–7 years, and interior 

fencing would be removed, if necessary. 

We would increase the use of prescribed 

fire to enhance fire-adapted plants. We 

would also implement a number of 

research projects to respond to climate 

change on the Refuge. 

• Additional habitat suitable for 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep would 

be identified, and new populations 

would be established. Wildlife 

populations would be benefited, and 

harvest experiences that are not always 

achieved on other public lands would 

be promoted. 

• About 106 miles of roads would be 

closed. The Service would work with 

partners to develop a travel plan and to 

secure access to the Refuge through 

other lands. 

• The acreage of proposed wilderness 

would be expanded by 25,037 acres in 

6 existing units. 

Alternative C—Public Use and 

Economic Uses Emphasis. We would 

manage the landscape, in cooperation 

with our partners, to emphasize and 

promote the maximum compatible 

wildlife-dependent public use and 

economic uses while protecting wildlife 

populations and habitats to the extent 

possible. Damaging effects on wildlife 

habitat would be minimized while using 

a variety of management tools to 

enhance and diversify public and 

economic opportunities. Key actions 

follow: 

• In addition to the habitat elements 

identified in Alternative A, habitats 

would be managed to provide more 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation. This could require a 

compromise between providing wildlife 

food and cover and livestock forage 

needs. Where needed, fencing and water 

gaps would be used to manage livestock 

use and prevent further degradation of 

riparian habitat. 

• There would be a gradual move to 

a prescriptive livestock grazing program 

when current grazing permits become 

available due to a change in ranch 

ownership. Prescribed fire would be 

used primarily to reduce hazardous 

fuels. An aggressive initial attack would 

be used in identified habitat units to 

minimize economic losses from 

wildfire. Research projects would be 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 54383 

implemented to respond to climate 

change on the Refuge. 

• Natural and constructed water 

sources would be allowed for livestock 

use, public fishing, and hunting. Future 

water developments would be allowed 

on a site-specific basis. 

• A balance would be maintained 

between the numbers of big game and 

livestock in order to sustain habitats and 

populations of big game and sharptailed grouse. Similar balancing might 

be needed for nongame or migratory 

birds and livestock needs. 

• Hunting opportunities would be 

expanded and maximized to include 

new species and traditional or niche 

(primitive weapon) hunting, mule deer 

season, predator hunting, trapping, and 

opportunities for young hunters. 

• We would manage Refuge access to 

benefit public and economic uses. 

Access to boat ramps would be 

improved, and roads could be improved 

or seasonally closed where needed. 

Numbers of visitors participating in 

wildlife observation and other activities 

would be increased by a moderate 

amount through increased programs and 

facilities. 

• The Service would recommend 

eliminating 4 proposed wilderness units 

for a reduction of 35,881 acres. 

Alternative D—Proposed Action— 

Ecological Processes Emphasis. In 

cooperation with our partners, we 

would use natural, dynamic, ecological 

processes and management activities in 

a balanced, responsible manner to 

restore and maintain the biological 

diversity, biological integrity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge. 

Once natural processes are restored, a 

more passive approach (less human 

assistance) would be favored. There 

would be quality wildlife-dependent 

public uses and experiences. Economic 

uses would be limited when they are 

injurious to ecological processes. Key 

actions follow: 

• Management practices that mimic 

and restore natural processes, as well as 

maintain a diversity of plant species in 

upland and riparian areas on the Refuge, 

will be applied. 

• Plant diversity and health would be 

maintained by using natural and 

prescribed fire in combination with 

wild ungulate herbivory (wildlife 

feeding on plants) or prescriptive 

livestock grazing, or both, to ensure the 

viability of sentinel plants (those plants 

that decline first when management 

practices are injurious). To achieve this 

goal, prescriptive livestock grazing, on 

up to 75 percent of the Refuge within 9 

years, would be implemented to reduce 

the number of habitat units, remove 

unnecessary fencing, and to restore 

degraded riparian areas. The Service 

would work with partners to combat 

invasive weeds. Research projects 

would be implemented to respond to 

climate change on the Refuge, and in 

particular, would focus on the resiliency 

of plants to adapt to climate change. 

• The Service would collaborate with 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, 

and Parks and others, to maintain the 

health and diversity of all species’ 

populations, including game, nongame, 

and migratory bird species. These efforts 

will focus on restoring and maintaining 

balanced, self-sustaining populations. 

Limited hunting for predators would be 

considered only after population levels 

could be verified and sustained. The 

Service would provide for a variety of 

quality hunting opportunities, including 

those with population objectives that 

have diverse male age structures. 

• Refuge access would be managed to 

benefit natural processes and habitat. 

Permanent and seasonal road closures 

would be implemented on at least 23 

miles of roads as needed, to encourage 

free movement of animals, permit 

prescribed fire activities, harvest 

wildlife ungulates, or allow other 

activities that contribute to ecological 

health. Numbers of visitors participating 

in wildlife observation and other 

activities would be increased through 

increased quality programs and 

facilities. 

• The Service would recommend 

expanding 6 of the proposed wilderness 

units by 18,559 acres and eliminating 3 

units, for a reduction of 26,744 acres. 

This would accommodate more access 

in some areas while increasing 

protection of wilderness values in other 

areas. 

Public Availability of Documents 

You can view or obtain documents at 

the following locations: 

• Our Web site: http://www.fws.gov/ 

cmr/planning. 

• The following public libraries: 

Library Address Phone number 

Garfield County ........................................ 228 E. Main, Jordan, MT 59337 ............................................................................... (406) 557–2297 

Glasgow ................................................... 408 3rd Avenue, Glasgow, MT 59230 ...................................................................... (406) 228–2731 

Great Falls ............................................... 301 2nd Avenue, Great Falls, MT 59401 .................................................................. (406) 453–0349 

Lewistown ................................................ 701 W. Main, Lewistown, MT 59457 ......................................................................... (406) 538–5212 

McCone County ....................................... 1101 C Avenue, Circle, MT 59215 ............................................................................ (406) 485–2350 

Petroleum County .................................... 205 S. Broadway, Winnett, MT 59087 ...................................................................... (406) 429–2451 

Phillips County ......................................... 10 S. 4th Street E., Malta, MT 59538 ....................................................................... (406) 542–2407 

Montana State University-Billings ............ 1500 University Drive, Billings, MT 59101 ................................................................ (406) 657–2011 

Montana State University-Bozeman ........ Roland R. Renne Library, Centennial Mall, Bozeman, MT 59717 ........................... (406) 994–3171 

Montana State University-Havre ............. Northern Vande Bogart Library, Cowan Drive, Havre, MT 59501 ............................ (406) 265–3706 

University of Montana .............................. Mansfield Library, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812 ...................................... (406) 243–6860 

Colorado State University ........................ Morgan Library, 501 University Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80523 ............................ (970) 491–1841 

Public Meetings 

We will hold public meetings that 

will be announced through the local 

media, on our Web site, and by mailing 

out a planning update prior to the 

meetings. For more information on the 

meetings, refer to FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Submitting Comments/Issues for 

Comment 

We particularly seek comments on the 

following significant issues: 

• Issue 1—Habitat and wildlife 

management; 

• Issue 2—Water resources; 

• Issue 3—Public use and access; 

• Issue 4—Wilderness management; 

• Issue 5—Socioeconomics; 

• Issue 6—Partnerships and 

collaboration; and 

• Issue 7—Cultural values, traditions, 

and resources. 

We consider comments substantive if 

they: 

• Question, with reasonable basis, the 

accuracy of the information in the 

document; 

• Question, with reasonable basis, the 

adequacy of the environmental 

assessment; 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
54384 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 

• Present reasonable alternatives 

other than those presented in the draft 

EIS; and/or 

• Provide new or additional 

information relevant to the assessment. 

Next Steps 

After this comment period ends, we 

will analyze the comments and address 

them in the form of a final CCP and final 

EIS. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: August 24, 2010. 

Hugh Morrison, 

Acting Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22160 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLWY930000–L51100000–GN0000– 

LVEMK10CW370; WYW140590] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont 

and Natrona Counties, WY 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended, (NEPA) and in response to a 

proposal filed by Power Resources Inc., 

doing business as Cameco Resources 

(Cameco), the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), announces its 

intention to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) and to solicit 

public comments regarding issues and 

resource information for the proposed 

Gas Hills in situ recovery (ISR) Uranium 

Project (the Project), Fremont County 

and Natrona County, Wyoming. The 

project is a uranium exploration and 

development project. 

DATES: This notice initiates the public 

scoping process. The BLM can best 

consider public input if comments and 

resource information are submitted 

within 45 days of publication of this 

notice. To provide the public with an 

opportunity to review the proposal and 

project information, the BLM will host 

public meetings in Lander, Riverton, 

and Casper, Wyoming. The BLM will 

announce the dates, times, and locations 

for these meetings at least 15 days prior 

to each event. Announcements will be 

made by news release to the media, 

individual letter mailings, and posting 

on the project Web site listed below. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments or 

resource information may be mailed to: 

Bureau of Land Management, Lander 

Field Office, Attn: Kristin Yannone, 

Project Manager, P.O. Box 589, Lander, 

Wyoming 82520. Comments may be 

submitted electronically at: 

Gas_Hills_Uranium_EIS_WY@BLM.gov. 

Project information and documents will 

be available on the project Web site at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/ 

NEPA/lfodocs/gashills.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For 

information or to add your name to the 

project mailing list, contact Kristin 

Yannone, Project Leader, at 307–332– 

8448. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gas 

Hills Uranium Project is generally 

located in: 

Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming 

T. 32 N., R. 80 and 90 W. 

T. 33 N., R. 80 and 90 W. 

This is an area of historic uranium 

mining development, the earliest of 

which dates back to the 1950s. This area 

lies in the eastern part of Fremont 

County and the western part of Natrona 

County, approximately 50 road miles 

east of Riverton, Wyoming, and 

approximately 85 road miles west of 

Casper, Wyoming, in the Gas Hills 

Mining District, in which little to no 

actual mining activity has taken place 

since the 1980s. 

The Project area covers approximately 

8,538 surface acres (approximately 13 

square miles) of mixed ownership 

including 7,940 acres of Federal surface, 

161 acres under State ownership, and 

394 acres of private lands. 

Approximately 8,006 acres of Federal 

mineral estate is included in the Project 

area. While the Project area contains 

Federal surface and mineral estate 

under the jurisdiction of both the BLM 

Lander and BLM Casper field offices, 

the Lander Field Office will serve as the 

lead office for coordinating the 

environmental analysis. The Project is 

permitted by the Wyoming Department 

of Environmental Quality—Land 

Quality Division (LQD) under Permit to 

Mine No. 687 and is licensed by the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

under Source Materials License SUQ– 

1548. Cameco also controls mining 

claims outside of the approved mining 

permit boundary for which future 

exploration and development are 

planned. 

In August 2008, as required by the 

surface management regulations 

contained in 43 CFR subpart 3809, 

Cameco submitted a Plan of Operations 

to the BLM describing their intent to 

develop their claims in the area with an 

ISR mining operation, which would 

affect more than a total of 640 acres over 

the life of the mine. For more 

information about the ISR process, the 

reader is referred to the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s Generic EIS of 

In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities (2009) available at: http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1910/; 

particularly Chapter 2. The BLM 

anticipates impacts from the ISR 

mining. The environmental analysis 

will consider the activities conducted 

under the Plan of Operations submitted 

to the BLM. 

The purpose of the proposed Project 

is to explore for and identify mining 

reserves and extract approximately 1 

million to 2.5 million pounds of 

uranium per year over an anticipated 

project life of 25 years. The Project will 

use ISR mining methods and will be 

operated as a satellite facility to the 

Cameco Smith Ranch-Highland uranium 

ISR mine operating in Converse County, 

Wyoming. An existing large building 

will house the site’s central processing 

facilities. The surface disturbance will 

be limited to the construction of water 

wells, buried water pipelines, singlelane gravel access roads, and small 

buildings for well-head manifold 

control equipment known as header 

houses. 

The ISR mining recovery method uses 

chemicals to remove the uranium 

minerals from the host rock in place and 

does not require physically removing 

and crushing ore-bearing rock. It does 

not use large earth-moving equipment 

and does not create large volumes of 

waste rock or tailings. The ISR 

methodology utilizes a solution 

consisting of oxygen and carbon dioxide 

or bicarbonate mixed with water, which 

is injected via conventional water wells 

into uranium ore-bearing rock 

formations in the subsurface. The 

solution dissolves the uranium minerals 

from the rock formations into the 

circulating groundwater and the 

resultant uranium-bearing groundwater 

is recovered by pumping at recovery 

wells located adjacent to the injection 

wells. Before ISR operations can begin, 

the portion of the aquifer designated for 

uranium recovery must be exempted as 

an underground source of drinking 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1