Prepared by

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 6

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge

953 County Road 32

Walden, Colorado 80480

970 / 723 8202

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

Branch of Land Protection Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 / 236 4345

CITATION

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Draft environmental assessment and land protection plan—Proposed Wyoming Toad 

Conservation Area, Wyoming. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 92 p.

Draft Environmental Assessment and 

Land Protection Plan

Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area

Wyoming

October 2014

Contents

Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 1—Purpose of and Need for Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.4 Decisions to Be Made. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.5 Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Biological Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Socioeconomic Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.6 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.7 Related Actions and Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.8 Habitat Protection and Acquisition Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Conservation Easements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CHAPTER 2—Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1 Alternative A (No Action). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 Alternative B (Proposed Action). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

County Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Various Configurations of the Boundary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Safe Harbor Act Agreements Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Easement-Only Acquisition (Exclusion of Fee Title). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Fee-Title Acquisition (Exclusion of Easements). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHAPTER 3—Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.1 Physical Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Minerals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Water and Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2 Biological Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Species of Special Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.3 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.4 Socioeconomic Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Landownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Property Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
II Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Public Use and Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

CHAPTER 4—Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Alternative A (No Action). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.2 Effects on the Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Alternative A (No Action). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Alternative B (Proposed Action). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.3 Effects on Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Alternative A (No Action). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Alternative B (Proposed Action). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.4 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Land Ownership and Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Public Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Other Conservation Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Alternative A (No Action). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Alternative A (No Action). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.7 Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Alternative A (No Action). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Alternative B (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.8 Cumulative Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Past Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Present Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

CHAPTER 5—Coordination and Environmental Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.1 Agency Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.2 Contaminants and Hazardous Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.3 National Environmental Policy Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.4 Environmental Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.5 Distribution and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

DRAFT LAND PROTECTION PLAN

CHAPTER 1—Introduction and Project Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

1.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

1.2 Project Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

1.3 Purpose of the Wyoming Toad Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Vision for the WTCA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Purpose of the Existing National Wildlife Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1.4 Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1.5 Public Review of and Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan. . . . 50

1.6 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Contents III 

1.7 Related Actions and Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

1.8 Habitat Protection and the Easement Acquisition Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Conservation Easements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Fee-title Acquisition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

CHAPTER 2—Area Description and Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

CHAPTER 3—Threats to and Status of Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3.1 Threats to Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Fragmentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Invasive Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Water Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Adaptation, Mitigation, and Engagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Effects of the Wyoming Toad Conservation Area on the Natural and Human Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

CHAPTER 4—Project Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.1 Land Protection Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

No-action Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Conservation Easements and Limited Fee-title Acquisition (Proposed Action). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.2 Project Objectives and Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.3 Easement Terms and Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.4 Contaminants or Hazardous Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.5 Acquisition Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.6 Ecosystem Management and Landscape Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Strategic Habitat Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.7 Biological Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Protection Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Focal Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4.8 Conservation Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Focal Species Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Priority Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4.9 Integrated Conservation Delivery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Landscape Prioritization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Evaluation of Easement and Fee-title Potential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.10 Monitoring Adaptive Management and Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.11 Socioeconomic Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.12 Public Involvement and Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4.13 Distribution and Availability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

GLOSSARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

LITERATURE CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
IV Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

APPENDIXES

Appendix A

List of Preparers and Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Appendix B

Letter of Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Appendix C

Species Lists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

FIGURES

Figure EA-1. Map of the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area in Wyoming.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure EA-2. Protected lands in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure EA-3. Hydrologic units in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming and Colorado.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure EA-4. Land cover within the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure EA-5. Concentration areas for migratory wetland birds in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure EA-6. Concentration areas for migratory grassland birds in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure EA-7. Concentration areas for migratory riparian area birds in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure EA-8. Concentration areas for migratory raptors in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure EA-9. Historical range of the Wyoming toad based on Dr. George Baxter and Ronald E. Beiswenger’s paper maps

displaying locations and field notes digitized by the Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure EA-10. Change in population size in Albany County, Wyoming, from the 2000 census to the 2010 census.. . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure EA-11. Employment distribution in Albany County, Wyoming, 2010.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure LPP-1. Map of the Wyoming Toad Conservation Area in Wyoming.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure LPP-2. Protected Lands in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure LPP-3. Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure LPP-4. Wyoming toad predicted habitat and historical range based on Dr. George Baxter and Ronald E. Beiswenger’s

paper maps displaying locations and field notes digitized by the Service.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure LPP-5. Land protection priorities within the boundary of the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming. . . 71

TABLES

Table EA-1. Summary of current and proposed acreage for the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming. . . . . . . 3

Table EA-2. Social, economic, and biological effects of conservation easements and fee-title acquisitions for the

proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table EA-3. Habitat types within the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table LPP-1. Summary of current and proposed acreage for the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming. . . . . . 47

Table LPP-2. Social, economic, and biological effects of conservation easements and fee-title acquisitions

for the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Abbreviations

AWVED Assessment of Wildlife Vulnerability to Energy 

Development

EA Environmental assessment

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

LCC Landscape conservation cooperative

LPP Land protection plan

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WTCA Wyoming Toad Conservation Area

WYNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

A glossary of these and other terms follows chapter 4 of the LPP.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is 

proposing the Wyoming Toad Conservation Area to 

conserve vital wildlife habitat and migration corridors on the Laramie Plains of southeastern 

Wyoming.

The Proposed Action

The proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area 

would protect up to 43,299 acres. The footprint of the 

project would be located in south-central Albany 

County, Wyoming, and would encompass three existing refuges: Bamforth, Hutton Lake, and Mortenson 

Lake National Wildlife Refuges.

The Service would set priorities for land protection based primarily on the needs of the endangered 

Wyoming toad. The conservation area would focus on 

the protection of wetlands, riparian corridors, and 

open landscapes.

In accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, 

both a draft environmental assessment and a draft 

land protection plan have been prepared to analyze 

the potential effects of establishing the Wyoming 

Toad Conservation Area in southeastern Wyoming. 

Both documents are contained within this volume.

Draft Environmental 

Assessment

The draft environmental assessment documents 

the following:

■ purpose of the proposed conservation area

■ issues

■ two alternatives

■ analysis of the potential environmental 

effects of establishing the conservation area

The proposed action would protect habitat that is important for the future of the Wyoming toad.

Sarah Armstrong/FWS

Summary
VIII Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Alternative A is the no-action alternative. Areas 

that are not currently in some type of land protection 

status would remain in private ownership and be subject to changes in land use or habitat type.

Alternative B is the Service’s proposed action:

■ The Service would work to strategically 

protect wetland habitat for the 

establishment of up to five self-sustaining 

populations of Wyoming toad through feetitle purchase from willing sellers.

■ The Service would seek to strategically buy 

conservation easements on privately owned 

lands that provide potentially valuable habitat for the Wyoming toad. The easements 

would also provide perpetual protection of 

valuable wildlife habitat for threatened and 

endangered species and migratory birds by 

restricting some types of future 

development.

 Draft Land Protection Plan

The draft land protection plan describes the priorities for acquiring interests within the boundary of 

the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area: up 

to 33,299 acres in voluntary conservation easements 

and up to 10,000 acres in fee-title acquisition from 

willing sellers.

The Service has defined high and medium conservation priorities—based on scientific modeling 

results for the Wyoming toad, threatened and endangered species, and migratory birds—to set priorities 

for where to pursue easements and fee-title 

acquisition.
1.1 Introduction

The Laramie Plains is an isolated mountain basin 

that was once covered by wetlands, riparian corridors, meadows, shrublands, and native prairie. In the 

spring, snow melt would fill streams and waterways 

as well as many shallow depressions scattered 

throughout the valley. These wetlands provided an 

oasis of food and rest for thousands of waterfowl and 

shorebirds making their northward migration to 

their breeding grounds. Linear riparian corridors 

bordered the Big and Little Laramie Rivers and 

their tributaries, supporting scattered woodlands of 

This draft environmental assessment (EA) documents the purpose of and the issues, alternatives, and 

analysis for the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area (WTCA). The WTCA is located in the 

southern part of the Laramie Plains along a section 

of the Laramie River in Albany County, Wyoming. 

Chapter 1 provides background information and 

describes the conditions that led to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) proposal to 

create the WTCA for the protection of important 

wetland and upland habitats. These lands would be 

protected primarily through voluntary perpetual 

conservation easements and limited fee-title acquisition from willing landowners.

Draft Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for 

Action

“Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land.” 

—Aldo Leopold

View of Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge with Sheep Mountain in the background.

FWS
2 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

cottonwoods and willows. The relatively fine soils and 

low annual precipitation kept the uplands in short 

mixed-grass prairie with scattered patches of shrubland. The Wyoming toad, a species endemic to the 

Laramie Plains, was once a common sight. Waterfowl, shorebirds, and grassland birds would dominate 

the skies, with raptors following the migration. Many 

mammals that depended heavily on white-tailed prairie dogs for prey and burrow habitats also lived in the 

area, including the swift fox and the black-footed ferret. Big game herds, including the American bison, 

once occupied almost all parts of the basin.

Today, the landscape has changed. Some wetlands 

have been filled or drained, others have been altered, 

and new wetlands in the form of flood-irrigated fields 

have been created. Only 4 percent of existing wetlands within the Laramie Plains are protected (Copeland et al. 2010a). Much of the water in the area is 

managed to support various human needs such as 

residential use, hay and crop production, and recreation. The strong ranching culture in the area has 

kept many of the habitats of the basin from being 

converted to other uses and has left much of the 

region’s biodiversity intact. There are growing concerns that a significant increase in residential development threatens the remaining natural character of 

this landscape, in particular the habitats and species 

that make the Laramie Plains regionally important 

for biological diversity. Rural development on exurban lots has been growing at a rate of 10 to 15 percent a year (USDA 2006). Such development will 

likely diminish the future value of these important 

biological resources and working landscapes.

Once the western fringe of the range for many 

short mixed-grass prairie species, the Laramie 

Plains has increased in relative habitat value because 

of habitat loss, fragmentation, and conversion of 

native prairie to cropland elsewhere in the Great 

Plains. Because of the relatively large, intact ecosystem still available, the basin has become crucial habitat for many species. Without increased conservation 

measures to protect upland habitat from degradation 

and conversion to other uses, species that now 

depend on the high-elevation prairie as a last remaining refuge would be vulnerable. 

The remaining wetlands play a vital role in providing resting and feeding areas for the thousands of 

migratory birds that continue to use the central flyway each spring and fall. However, increased sedimentation, nutrient runoff, salinization, and 

decreased water runoff jeopardize the functions and 

values of these wetlands. Similarly, riparian corridors are also affected by problems such as sedimentation, nutrient runoff, decreased water runoff, and 

stream channelization, which in turn affect fisheries 

and aquatic species such as the endangered Wyoming 

toad. With decreasing water quality and natural 

water flow in the rivers and remaining wetlands, the 

recovery of the Wyoming toad could be impaired.

While increased human activity in the Laramie 

Plains has generally reduced habitat and wildlife 

populations, there have been some compensating 

effects. For example, irrigated hay meadows provide 

nesting cover for waterfowl. Some of the same floodirrigated meadows may also hold water longer during the summer months, helping to retain higher 

late-summer flows in the surrounding rivers. Large 

ranches in the basin also provide large blocks of habitat that benefit wildlife.

The proposed WTCA would contribute to bird, 

mammal, reptile, and amphibian conservation efforts, 

as described in the Wyoming Toad Draft Revised 

Recovery Plan, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, United States Shorebird Conservation 

Plan, Partners in Flight’s North American Landbird 

Conservation Plan, Wyoming Partners in Flight’s 

Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, North American 

Waterbird Conservation Plan, Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department Strategic Habitat Plan, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department State Wildlife Action 

Plan, Platte/Kansas River Ecosystem—Analysis and 

Conservation Focus Area Development Plan, Blackfooted Ferret Recovery Plan, Laramie Plains Wetland Complex—Regional Wetland Conservation Plan, 

and Wyoming Wetlands Conservation Strategy.

1.2 Proposed Action

The Service is proposing the WTCA to conserve 

vital wildlife habitat for the Wyoming toad in the 

Laramie Plains. The project would protect up to an 

additional 43,299 acres in the Wyoming Basin ecoregion (Bailey 1995) and the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) (USFWS 

2012). The entire footprint of this project would be 

located in south-central Albany County, Wyoming, 

and would encompass three existing refuges: Bamforth, Mortenson Lake, and Hutton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuges. The WTCA would focus on the 

protection of wetlands, riparian corridors, and upland 

habitat with the objective of conserving land through 

the acquisition of up to 33,299 acres of voluntary conservation easements and up to 10,000 acres in feetitle acquisition from willing sellers only (table 

EA–1).

Acquisition of fee-title and easement lands would 

be prioritized based on specific criteria that would 

help with meeting the criteria of the Wyoming Toad 

Draft Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2014). These 

criteria are meant to contribute to the recovery and 

eventual delisting of the Wyoming toad. The Wyo-
Draft EA Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action 3 

ming Toad Draft Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 

2014) calls for the establishment of five independent, 

self-sustaining populations within the toad’s historical range. Furthermore, these five populations should 

be distributed across at least two basic habitat types: 

rivers and associated floodplains (lotic habitats) and 

ponds and lakes (lentic habitats). To accomplish this 

goal, more lands need to be acquired and protected 

within the Wyoming toad’s historical range to reintroduce and conserve its populations in perpetuity. 

Management practices on fee-title lands could include 

prescribed fire, livestock grazing with periodic resting of pastures, exclusion of nonnative fish, invasive 

species control, and disease management. A compatible use study would be conducted to determine if the 

area could be opened up for public use on any property acquired in fee title.

Conservation easements would be bought from 

willing sellers on parcels that contain habitat suitable 

to support conservation efforts. Easement acquisitions would focus on the protection of the Wyoming 

toad, but would also benefit other Federal trust 

resources (threatened and endangered species and 

migratory birds). Lands protected via easements 

would remain in private ownership and could continue to be grazed, hayed, farmed, or otherwise managed in accordance with current practices. However, 

subdivision and development would be restricted and 

subject to stipulations agreed on by the landowners 

and the Service. Furthermore, easements may 

include stipulations related to exercising water rights 

that could only be changed if the proposed changes 

would be beneficial to wildlife. Easement terms 

would be negotiated with individual landowners 

interested in a conservation easement. The WTCA, 

in conjunction with other conservation efforts in the 

region, would help to keep unfragmented blocks of 

wetland, grassland, and upland habitat. The WTCA 

would complement the conservation efforts of land 

trusts and entities such as The Nature Conservancy, 

Wyoming Stock Growers Land Trust, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (see 

figure EA–1).

Table EA-1. Summary of current and proposed 

acreage for the proposed Wyoming Toad 

Conservation Area, Wyoming.

National 

wildlife 

refuge

Executive 

boundary 

acres

Acquired 

acres

In-holding 

acres

Mortenson 

Lake 2,500 1,927 573

Hutton 

Lake 1,968 1,968 0

Bamforth 1,166 1,166 0

Potential 

new acres

Proposed 

fee title 

acres

Proposed 

conservation 

easement 

acres

Proposed 

project area 43,299 Up to 10,000

Up to 

33,299

Project 

boundary 

total acres

47,200

Captive Wyoming toads at the Saratoga National Fish Hatchery in Wyoming.

FWS
4 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Figure EA-1. Map of the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area in Wyoming.
Draft EA Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action 5 

1.3 Purpose of and Need for 

Proposed Action

The purpose of this project is to provide strategic 

habitat conservation measures that are necessary to 

conserve, restore, and enhance the wetland, riparian, 

and associated upland habitats that are essential for 

the recovery of the endemic, endangered Wyoming 

toad. This habitat also is important for breeding, foraging, and nesting populations of migratory shorebirds, waterfowl, and neotropical songbirds. Other 

native habitats that make up the Laramie Plains 

include shrublands, shortgrass prairie, and mixedgrass prairie, which are important for a variety of 

wildlife species including white-tailed prairie dog, 

pronghorn, and many grassland birds such as mountain plover and McCown’s longspur. There are several goals for this project:

■ Acquire and permanently protect wetland 

and riparian habitat to support Wyoming 

toad recovery and promote the establishment of multiple viable toad populations.

■ Support the recovery and protection of 

other threatened and endangered species 

that occur in the WTCA. 

■ Protect, conserve, maintain, and enhance 

key migratory bird stopovers and breeding 

areas that serve as important feeding, resting, and nesting habitat for waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and neotropical migrants.

■ Promote ecological resiliency by conserving 

existing wildlife habitats and working with 

willing private landowners who are interested in common goals.

1.4 Decisions to Be Made

The Service’s planning team (see appendix A) will 

use this draft EA to review the environmental and 

management alternatives. Based on this EA, the Service’s Director of Region 6, with the concurrence of 

the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

will make two decisions:

■ Determine whether the Service should 

establish the WTCA, in accordance with its 

land protection planning policy.

■ If yes, determine whether the selected 

alternative could have a significant impact 

on the quality of the human environment as 

required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. If the quality of the 

human environment would not be significantly affected, a finding of no significant 

impact will be signed and made available to 

the public. If the alternative could have a 

significant impact, an environmental impact 

statement would be prepared to further 

address potential impacts.

1.5 Issues Identified and 

Selected for Analysis

During the first half of 2011, internal scoping 

meetings and several opportune conversations 

occurred between the project leader for the Arapaho 

National Wildlife Refuge and stakeholders interested 

in conserving wildlife in the Laramie Plains. 

Thoughts, concerns, issues, priorities, and values discussed during these meetings were noted and a letter 

of support was written (appendix B). The Service will 

solicit additional comments about the WTCA from 

the public through direct mailings, news releases, 

and direct contacts including a public meeting that is 

planned for fall 2014 in Laramie, Wyoming.

Topics and issues identified during the initial 

scoping process and during internal conversations 

among the WTCA planning teams that would be 

addressed by the proposed WTCA are as follows.

Biological Issues

■ The ability to successfully recover the Wyoming toad within the current configuration 

of landownership.

■ The potential negative effects on wildlife 

and other natural resources because of 

development, including residential development, oil and gas exploration and development, wind development, gravel mining, and 

water and petroleum pipelines. Threats 

include noxious weed colonization and proliferation, decreased water quantity and quality, and decreased air quality.
6 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

■ The ability to maintain habitat connectivity 

that is necessary to preserve the Wyoming 

toad and other wildlife.

Socioeconomic Issues

■ The potential impacts of more urban/exurban sprawl and energy development on 

working landscapes, rural values, tourism, 

tax revenues, cultural resources, water 

quantity and quality, and air quality.

■ The potential impacts of the Service’s acquisition of land either by fee title or conservation easement, including impacts on tax 

revenue, public access to fee-title lands, and 

future management choices for conservation 

easements.

■ The different philosophical views held by 

members of the public on landownership by 

the government.

■ The ability to protect open views and the 

ranching heritage.

1.6 National Wildlife Refuge 

System and Authorities

The WTCA would be part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System), whose mission is 

“...to preserve a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States 

for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997). National wildlife refuges 

provide important habitat for native plants and many 

species of mammals, birds, fish, insects, amphibians, 

and reptiles. Refuges also play a vital role in conserving threatened and endangered species. Refuges 

offer a wide variety of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, and many have visitor centers, 

wildlife trails, and environmental education 

programs.

Land acquisition and conservation activities 

undertaken within the WTCA would also be consistent with the following policies and management 

plans:

■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act (1934)

■ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

(1940)

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

(1965)

■ Endangered Species Act (1973)

■ North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan (1994)

■ Migratory Non-game Birds of Management 

Concern in the U.S. (2002)

The acquisition authorities for fee-title and easement lands within the proposed WTCA boundary are 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742a–j) and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–ee), as 

amended.

1.7 Related Actions and 

Activities

The Service is currently working with other public and private entities to protect wildlife habitat 

within the project area. Many organizations in Wyoming recognize the ecological significance of the 

Laramie Plains and the need to conserve this valuable landscape and the region’s ranching heritage. 

Various organizations have been working for more 

than a decade to conserve the natural resources and 

open space of the Laramie Plains. The Wyoming 

Stock Growers Association, NRCS, Audubon Wyoming, Bureau of Land Management, WGFD, Laramie 

Rivers Conservation District, City of Laramie, and 

The Nature Conservancy have all been active in preserving parts of the Laramie Plains (see figure 

EA–2). Organizations and agencies that currently 

hold conservation easements within the conservation 

boundary include The Nature Conservancy, Wyoming Stock Growers Land Trust, the City of Laramie, and WGFD.

Audubon Wyoming, which is the National Audubon Society’s State office, has been a strong, unified 

voice for an ethic of conservation in Wyoming, focusing on birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for the 

benefit of present and future generations. One of the 

National Audubon Society’s Important Bird Areas, 

the Laramie Plains Lakes Complex, overlaps the Service’s proposed project area. The National Audubon 

Society recognizes this area as an Important Bird 

Area because its habitats provide important stop-
Draft EA Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action 7 

Figure EA-2. Protected lands in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.
8 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

overs for migrating birds and breeding sites for species such as the American white pelican, American 

bittern, white-faced ibis, and black-crowned nightheron (Audubon Wyoming 2011).

Bureau of Land Management has a multiple-use 

mission and administers more public land than any 

other Federal agency, including more than 17.5 million acres in Wyoming. In the Laramie Plains, the 

Bureau of Land Management owns several sections 

of land, some of which have been set aside for wildlife 

as the Laramie Peaks Wildlife Habitat Management 

Area as identified in the Resources Management 

Plan for the district. The Laramie Peaks Wildlife 

Habitat Management Area is scheduled for management planning in the near future, and the Bureau of 

Land Management is interested in partnering with 

the Service.

Intermountain West Joint Venture strives to conserve priority bird habitats through partnershipdriven, science-based projects and programs. It 

brings people and organizations together to make the 

best use of technical and financial resources, building 

a collective capacity to achieve conservation at meaningful scales. Each state within the Intermountain 

West Joint Venture has conservation partnerships. 

The Wyoming Bird Habitat Conservation Partnership’s mission is to facilitate habitat conservation 

planning and projects that help achieve priority 

State, regional, and continental bird objectives 

through the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act and other programs.

Laramie Rivers Conservation District is one of 

34 conservation districts in Wyoming that were 

established to help landowners and resource users 

with conservation practices and provide leadership in 

natural resource management issues and efforts. 

Individual conservation districts offer a wide variety 

of programs to help anyone interested in conservation. They also play a key role in Federal land management planning processes and Federal and State 

legislative and administrative initiatives that affect 

local conservation and land use activities.

Natural Resources Conservation Service actively 

works in the Laramie Plains through its Wetlands 

Reserve Program, a voluntary easement program 

that offers landowners the opportunity to protect, 

restore, and enhance wetlands on private property. 

One property in the area is now under an easement 

agreement and is a Safe Harbor Act site for the Wyoming toad. NRCS does not own land in fee title, but 

rather provides technical and financial support to 

help landowners with wetland restoration efforts.

Partners for Fish and Wildlife is a program 

administered by the Service that works cooperatively with landowners to provide financial and technical support to voluntarily restore and enhance 

wildlife habitat on private land. Since the inception of 

the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program in 1992, 

the Service has had a successful history of working 

with private landowners in Wyoming. Areas that 

have been targeted for wetland projects include the 

Laramie Plains, Goshen Hole, Wind River Indian 

Reservation, Great Basin, and the New Fork Pothole 

Region of the Upper Green River Basin. Statewide 

goals are to restore 15,000 acres of wetlands, restore 

or enhance 5 million acres of upland habitat, restore 

1,000 miles of riparian habitat, and restore 1,000 

miles of instream habitat. Much of the wetland work 

accomplished to date has been in the upper Wind 

River Basin and the Goshen Hole Wetland Complex.

Private landowners and ranchers have been 

instrumental in working with the various organizations and agencies to carry out conservation projects. 

More than 60 percent of the project area, including 

important habitat for wildlife, is in private landownership. Landowners in the area have already placed 

easements on 22,106 acres, showing local interest in 

conserving agriculture and open space.

The Nature Conservancy recognized the biological significance of the Laramie Plains wetlands in the 

2008 Shirley Basin–Laramie Rivers Conservation 

Plan, which established a goal of protecting 125,000 

acres of mixed-grass prairie and 100,000 acres of 

sagebrush steppe or shrubland (Pocewicz and Lathrop 2008). The plan also stated that at least 10 percent of these acres should be permanently protected 

from development through threat abatement and 

improved stewardship.

USFWS Ecological Services provides biological 

advice to Federal and State agencies, industry, and 

members of the public about the conservation of fish 

and wildlife and their habitats that may be affected 

by development activities. Ecological Services determines whether plant and animal species should be 

listed under the Endangered Species Act, as well as 

plans and coordinates the recovery of listed species 

and reviews Federal projects that may affect listed 

species. The Ecological Services program has been 

instrumental in the protection and recovery of the 

Wyoming toad.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department has been a 

strong partner in the region. The WGFD manages 12 

public access areas within the Laramie Plains 

through landowner agreements, shared management, 

and fee title. The WGFD also owns and manages one 

conservation easement within the Laramie Plains.

Wyoming Stock Growers Land Trust holds conservation easements on over 201,000 acres of ranchland throughout the State. The Wyoming Stock 

Growers Land Trust is dedicated to conserving Wyoming’s working family ranches and farms as well as 

the wide-open spaces, natural habitats, and rural 

communities they support.
Draft EA Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action 9 

Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust

was created as an independent State agency by the 

Wyoming legislature in 2005. The purpose of the 

Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust is to 

enhance and conserve wildlife habitat and natural 

resource values throughout the State. The Wyoming 

Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust has funded 250 

projects in all 23 counties in the State and has 

worked with the Service on wildlife improvements on 

fee-title lands at Hutton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge.

1.8 Habitat Protection and 

Acquisition Process

Following the approval of a project boundary, 

habitat protection will occur through conservation 

easements and limited fee-title acquisition. It is the 

Service’s long-established policy to acquire the minimum interest in land from willing sellers that is necessary to achieve habitat protection goals.

The acquisition authorities for fee-title and easement lands within the proposed WTCA boundary are 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742a–j) and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–ee), as 

amended. Land would be acquired primarily through 

the use of Land and Water Conservation Fund monies generated primarily from oil and gas leases on the 

Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel tax revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal property. The 

Service could also buy land with Federal Duck Stamp 

revenue from the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, other funds that meet 

fish and wildlife conservation purposes as identified 

by Congress, or donations from nonprofit 

organizations.

The basic considerations in determining whether 

land should be acquired through an easement or feetitle purchase include the biological significance of 

the area, existing and anticipated threats to wildlife 

resources, and landowner interest in the project. The 

buying of fee-title lands or conservation easements 

would occur with willing sellers only and would be 

subject to available funding. The biological, social, 

and economic impacts of conservation easements and 

fee-title acquisition are shown in table EA–2.

Conservation Easements

An easement is a conservation tool that has been 

extensively employed by the Service and other organizations. Easements are bought from willing sellers 

and they involve the acquisition of specific property 

rights, such as the right to subdivide or develop certain types of new infrastructure, while all other 

rights are kept by the property owner. Easements 

tend to be a cost-effective means of habitat conservation that is acceptable to landowners, particularly in 

areas where current agricultural land use practices 

are consistent with wildlife resource protection.

Fee-Title Acquisition

Fee-title acquisition will be limited to lands that 

can be bought from willing sellers in areas that 

would facilitate Wyoming toad recovery and promote 

the reintroduction of toads onto the land. Fee-title 

acquisition could triple or quadruple the cost of land 

conservation and add significant increases to Service 

management costs compared to conservation easements. Up to 10,000 acres is targeted for potential 

fee-title acquisition. 
10 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Table EA-2. Social, economic, and biological effects of conservation easements and fee-title acquisitions for 

the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming.

Issue Conservation easements Fee-title acquisitions

Conservation 

value

■ Wyoming toad recovery efforts would 

be supported with a tool that is 

preferred over fee title by many local 

partners.

■ Used in combination with fee title, 

easements would ensure the maximum 

likelihood of achieving the recovery of 

the Wyoming toad.

■ Habitat for migratory birds, and other 

and deer would be preserved.

■ Fee-title lands are essential to meeting 

the recovery goals for the Wyoming 

toad.

■ The conservation value of fee-title lands 

may be greater than easement lands 

because the Service’s ability to control 

habitat management would be 

increased. 

Effects on local 

communities

■ The public would enjoy increased 

biodiversity, recreational quality, and 

hunting opportunities on nearby 

publicly accessible refuges and other 

public lands.

■ Neighboring property values may 

increase.

■ Traditional and historical ranching and 

farming landscapes would be 

preserved.

■ Open space would be preserved.

■ Same as for easements except 

traditional and historical ranching and 

farming practices may not be preserved 

at the same level.

■ Positive economic impacts may also 

result from increased Service habitat 

improvement expenditures injected into 

the local economy.

■ Possible increase in refuge visitation 

and associated impacts of visitor 

spending in the local economy. However, 

neighbors and other public may be 

affected by increased visitation to 

refuge lands.

■ Preservation of open space.

Landowner 

compensation

■ Landowners would be compensated for 

the fair market value of the easement.

■ Easements would reduce the fair 

market value of the property.

■ Easements would help keep land in 

agriculture.

■ Landowners would keep the majority of 

use rights, but would forfeit their right 

to develop or subdivide the land. Other 

possible restrictions include 

development of vertical structures and 

diversion or sale of water rights.

■ Landowners would be compensated for 

the fair market value of the land.

■ Landowners would forfeit all rights of 

ownership and turn ownership of the 

property over to the Service.

■ Fee-title acquisition, for willing sellers, 

would meet landowner’s long-term 

conservation objectives for their land.

Effects on local 

government net 

revenue

■ No changes to property tax revenues 

would be expected for agricultural 

lands.

■ Other government revenues, such as 

personal income tax, may be changed 

throughout the region.

■ Land protection through conservation 

easements could result in reduced 

future service costs for local 

governments and municipalities.

■ Nearby land values may increase 

because of open views.

■ The Service does not pay property 

taxes on land it owns; thus, county tax 

revenue would decline.

■ Lost property tax revenues would be 

partially replaced with Refuge Revenue 

Sharing payments.

Adapted from Thomas et al. 2012
Draft Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2—Alternatives

2.1 Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, the areas that 

are not currently protected would remain largely in 

private ownership and would be subject to changes in 

land use or habitat type. Habitat conservation and 

restoration projects on private lands would continue 

through conservation easement initiatives in the 

Laramie Plains by public and private entities such as 

the NRCS, Wyoming Stock Growers Land Trust, and 

The Nature Conservancy. Public agencies and private land trusts would continue conservation efforts 

through securing easements but landowner choices 

for easements would be reduced without the Service’s ability to offer easements or purchase fee-title 

land from willing sellers. It would be unlikely that 

the acreage amount and type of habitat required for 

the recovery of the Wyoming toad would be successfully conserved.

This chapter describes the two alternatives identified for this project: 

■ The no-action alternative

■ The proposed action, which gives the Service the authority to create the WTCA and 

the ability to use conservation easements 

and limited fee-title purchase within the 

new boundary for the purpose of wildlife 

and habitat conservation

These alternatives were developed in accordance 

with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act §102(2)(E) to “study, develop, and 

describe appropriate alternatives to recommended 

courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” The alternatives consider the effects 

of a conservation easement program and limited feetitle purchase within the project area boundary as 

shown in this draft EA.

Alternatives that were eliminated from detailed 

study are also briefly discussed.

Yellow-headed blackbirds are found at Mortenson Lake and throughout the project area.

Melanie Olds/FWS
12 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

2.2 Alternative B (Proposed 

Action)

Under the proposed action, the Service would 

establish the WTCA in south-central Albany County, 

Wyoming, with the objective of conserving up to 

43,299 acres of wetlands, riparian areas, shrubland, 

and short mixed-grass prairies through conservation 

easements as well as up to 10,000 acres in fee title 

from willing sellers only.

The Service would work to strategically acquire 

fee-title lands from willing sellers only that would 

protect and conserve wetland and riparian habitat in 

perpetuity for the reintroduction and establishment 

of up to five independent, self-sustaining populations 

of Wyoming toads. Potential fee-title lands would be 

prioritized based on specific criteria that would help 

with meeting the recovery and delisting goals that 

are outlined in the Wyoming Toad Draft Revised 

Recovery Plan (USFWS 2014). The land bought 

through fee-title agreements would be managed 

cooperatively by staff at the Arapaho Refuge near 

Walden, Colorado, and the staff at the Wyoming Ecological Services office in Cheyenne, Wyoming. They 

are now working cooperatively to manage Mortenson 

Lake Refuge to conserve the endangered Wyoming 

toad. They would be responsible for monitoring and 

administering the newly acquired lands according to 

the Service’s legal mandates and policies. Service 

staff would also continue to work with private landowners, researchers, and all other partners on the 

Wyoming toad recovery team.

The Service would also seek to strategically buy 

conservation easements from willing sellers on privately owned lands that provide potentially valuable 

habitat for the Wyoming toad and other species. The 

easements would provide perpetual protection of 

habitat for Federal trust species (migratory birds 

and threatened and endangered species) by restricting some types of future development. Development 

for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes 

such as energy and aggregate extraction; alteration 

of the natural topography; and conversion of wetlands, riparian areas, native grasslands, and shrubland to cropland would be prohibited. Conservation 

easements would also prohibit the draining, filling, or 

leveling of wetlands.

All lands that are protected by conservation easements would remain in private ownership; property 

taxes and land management, including invasive weed 

control, would remain the responsibility of the landowner. Control of public access to the land, including 

hunting, would remain under the control of the landowner. Perpetual easements may provide opportunities for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program 

and other conservation organizations to work with 

interested landowners on conservation projects.

The easement program would be managed by Service staff located at Arapaho Refuge near Walden, 

Colorado, who would be responsible for monitoring 

and administering all easements. Periodic visits and 

correspondence with landowners or their designees 

would ensure that land protection goals are being 

met. Photographs of the property would be taken 

when the easements are established to document 

baseline conditions.

The areas considered for fee-title and conservation easements within the project area would be prioritized based on the biological needs of the wildlife 

species of concern (migratory birds and threatened 

and endangered species), the threat of development, 

connectivity with other protected lands, and the 

quality of habitat for the Wyoming toad and other 

Federal trust species that occupy the same habitat. 

The acreage totals for fee-title acquisition and conservation easements are based in part on the amount 

of available habitat and the total acreage needed to 

effectively carry out desired conservation measures 

throughout the historical range of the Wyoming toad. 

The attached draft land protection plan (LPP) 

describes these priorities in detail.

2.3 Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Further 

Analysis

The five alternatives that the Service considered 

but eliminated from further consideration are 

described below.

County Zoning

In a traditional approach used by counties and 

municipalities, the local government would use zoning as a means of designating what types of development could occur in an area. According to Wyoming 

State Statutes 18–5–202(b), “the planning and zoning 

commission may prepare and amend a comprehensive 

plan including zoning for promoting the public health, 

safety, morals and general welfare of the unincorporated areas of the county.” The Albany County Comprehensive Plan (2008) has been adopted and serves 

as a guide for future land use and development in 

Albany County. It is an advisory document rather 

than a regulatory document, but is the foundation for 

land management documents such as zoning, subdivi-
Draft EA Chapter 2—Alternatives 13 

sion regulations, and other decisions made by the 

County. This alternative was not considered for further analysis because zoning would be subject to 

changing public sentiment and could result in frequent changes that would not guarantee the longterm prevention of residential or commercial 

development in the project area. 

Various Configurations of the 

Boundary

Several other configurations of the WTCA project 

boundary were considered during the initial scoping 

discussions. Some of the possible project boundaries 

contained smaller areas while others contained much 

larger areas. The discussions of the various boundary 

configurations were based on several considerations. 

The area encompassed by the boundary would need 

to provide sufficient habitat to achieve the population 

goals for Federal trust resources such as migratory 

birds and threatened and endangered species, particularly the Wyoming toad. Large watershed-scale 

boundaries would be larger than what would be necessary for the toad to meet recovery goals and would 

be difficult to manage effectively and efficiently with 

current Refuge staffing levels. Conversely, a smaller 

area would not meet the objectives outlined in the 

Wyoming Toad Draft Revised Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 2014), and would not adequately protect 

habitat required by other Federal trust species. 

Small, noncontiguous parcels would not allow toads 

to successfully migrate to new areas and establish 

new toad populations.

Safe Harbor Act Agreements Only

Reintroduction of the Wyoming toad on private 

lands is now done through Safe Harbor Act agreements with landowners. Although such agreements 

are an important species conservation tool, they may 

not provide permanent protection because landowners can opt out of these agreements at any time 

(USFWS 2013). Under current Service policy, populations reintroduced on private lands through Safe 

Harbor Act agreements may not count toward meeting recovery goals because they are not perpetually 

protected (USFWS 2013).

Easement-Only Acquisition 

(Exclusion of Fee Title)

It is the Service’s policy to acquire the minimum 

interest in lands that is necessary to meet conservation objectives. The possibility of using an easementonly approach to habitat conservation was discussed 

internally. However, it was decided that the inclusion 

of some fee-title lands was necessary to achieve the 

recovery objectives in the Wyoming Toad Draft 

Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2013) that would 

lead to the delisting of the species. Conservation 

easements on private lands may be used to supplement Wyoming toad recovery goals but are not a 

replacement for fee-title lands (USFWS 2013).

Fee-Title Acquisition (Exclusion of 

Easements)

Fee-title ownership provides the strongest habitat protection and allows the greatest flexibility for 

adaptive management in response to new data or 

changing conditions. However, the exclusive use of 

fee title without easements would not be consistent 

with Service policy to use the minimum interest necessary to meet conservation objectives. Easements 

could contribute, and may be necessary, to meeting 

the minimum amount of permanently protected habitat required to achieve the recovery objectives for 

the Wyoming toad.

Draft Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3—Affected Environment

Laramie Range. The average annual precipitation is 

11 inches, most of which falls as snow in winter. Temperature extremes range from a record high of 97 °F 

in summer to a record low of −43 °F in winter 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

2002). The area is known for persistent windy conditions and a short growing season that typically 

occurs between late May and early September. 

Geology

The physiography of the Laramie Plains has been 

influenced by shallow, warm sea water; a crustal 

uplift that affected Colorado and southeastern Wyoming; the Laramie Orogeny Mountain building episode; volcanic activity in the Yellowstone area; and 

ice ages. Most of the stable landforms in the area 

were created within the last 100,000 years by glacial 

outwash waters. Many of the valley soils are rather 

deep and alluvial in nature, having been derived from 

the surrounding granitic mountains (USDA 1998). 

Soil texture near the mountains tends to be coarse, 

This chapter describes the physical, biological, 

cultural, and socioeconomic resources of the WTCA 

that could be affected by the no-action alternative 

(alternative A) and the proposed action (alternative 

B). The WTCA consists of 43,299 acres within the 

Laramie Plains of southeastern Wyoming, which is 

part of the Wyoming Basin ecoregion (Bailey 1995) 

and the Great Northern LCC (USFWS 2012a).

3.1 Physical Environment

Below are descriptions of the climate and land 

features of the project area.

Climate

The Laramie Plains is a high, cold desert basin 

located at approximately 8,000 feet elevation between 

two mountain ranges, the Snowy Range and the 

Creighton Lake

FWS
16 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

but it becomes progressively finer toward the basin 

center. The alluvial overburden is too thick to allow 

profitable petroleum development in most of the 

basin, although limited opportunities for such development do occur. The high, flat nature of much of 

eastern Wyoming is conducive to the development of 

strong winds, and several features on the land suggest that wind has played an important role in past 

geological development as well. Data suggests that 

the Laramie Plains is a deflation hollow or blowout 

that was formed by wind action (Morrison 1991).

Minerals

Sand and gravel are the major mineral commodities in the Laramie Plains. Sand and gravel mines 

are scattered throughout the basin, with the biggest 

concentration near the southern part. Other minerals 

that are mined in the area include shale, gold, gypsum, and limestone. The potential for oil and gas 

exploration within the basin is rated as moderate, 

with scattered high potential areas outside the project area to the north. There are no active coal mining 

permits in the Laramie Plains at this time (Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality 2014).

Water and Hydrology 

Over 82 miles of the Laramie River and a 41-milelong reach of the Little Laramie River flow through 

the proposed WTCA. The Laramie River’s headwaters are in the Rawah Mountain Range in Colorado 

(figure EA–3), and the river itself ultimately empties 

into the North Platte River near Wheatland, Wyoming (USDA 1998). Smaller tributaries feed into the 

Laramie River from the Laramie Mountains to the 

east and the Medicine Bow Mountains to the west. 

The river is the primary source of water in the Laramie Plains. Because the open plains receive little 

precipitation, most surface and ground water is a 

result of snowpack runoff from the surrounding 

mountains. Historically, many of the natural wetlands were associated with riparian corridors and 

playa lakebeds. However, the number and area of 

natural wetlands in Wyoming have continued to 

decline, whereas the acreages of ponds and other 

human-created waterbodies have increased (Wyoming Joint Venture Steering Committee 2010). This 

holds true for the Laramie Plains as well. The Casper 

aquifer is an important water-bearing geological formation that underlies the entire Laramie Plains and 

supplies most of the drinking water for the city of 

Laramie and Albany County.

3.2 Biological Environment

This section describes the plant communities in 

the project area and the animals that they support. 

Table EA-3 shows the habitat types in the proposed 

WTCA.

Plant Communities 

Vegetation communities within the proposed project area vary with topography and range from wetlands (which are often alkaline or saline) and riparian 

areas to wide expanses of shortgrass prairie and 

shrubland (see figure EA–4). This section also 

describes the wildlife and species of concern found in 

these habitats.

Table EA-3. Habitat types within the proposed 

Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming.

Habitat type Acres Percent 

Barren Land 775 0.4

Forest, Deciduous and 

Evergeen 60 0.0

Developed, High Intensity 90 0.0

Developed, Low Intensity 1,990 1.1

Developed, Medium 

Intensity 1,370 0.7

Developed, Open Space 3,830 2.1

Emergent Herbaceuous 

Wetlands 21,160 11.4

Hay/Pasture 29,620 15.9

Herbaceuous 19,410 10.4

Open Water 2,360 1.3

Shrub/Scrub 101,610 54.6

Woody Wetlands 3,910 2.1

Total 186,185 100.0

Wetlands

Wyoming is an arid state and lacks the surface 

water needed to support expansive wetland complexes (Hubert 2004). Before Euro-Americans 

arrived, wetlands covered about 3.2 percent of Wyoming (Dahl 1990); however, less than 2 percent of the 

historical wetlands remain today (Wyoming Joint 

Venture Steering Committee 2010). Although wetlands cover only a small area, about 90 percent of the 

wildlife in Wyoming uses wetlands and riparian habitats during some part of their life cycles (Nicholoff 
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 17 

Figure EA-3. Hydrologic units in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming and Colorado.
18 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Figure EA-4. Land cover within the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 19 

2003, Copeland et al. 2010a). Within the Intermountain West, more than 140 bird species and 25 mammal species are either dependent on or associated 

with wetlands (Gammonley 2004, Copeland et al. 

2010a). Although wetland complexes tend to have 

greater overall use by wildlife (Wyoming Joint Ventures Steering Committee 2010), isolated wetlands in 

arid environments, such as many of the wetlands 

found on the Laramie Plains, are also extremely 

valuable for wildlife because they provide a crucial 

water source as well as needed food and cover. In 

these environments, wetlands are a hub of activity 

for the terrestrial wildlife that inhabits the surrounding area (WGFD 2010). However, Copeland et 

al. (2010a) found that wetlands within Wyoming’s 

desert shrublands and grasslands are poorly protected and therefore vulnerable, especially in the face 

of anticipated future land use changes.

Wetlands in the Laramie Plains consist of small 

ephemeral ponds, stock ponds, irrigated and nonirrigated meadows, playas, lakes, and riverine oxbows 

and floodplains. These different wetland types provide important breeding, staging, and stopover habitats for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and colonial 

waterbirds each spring and fall (Copeland et al. 

2010b). Wetlands provide food-rich habitat so that 

these species can acquire the energy and nutrients 

needed to complete the long flights from wintering 

grounds to breeding grounds and back, as well as 

places to rest. Many bird species also use the wetlands in the Laramie Plains for breeding.

Many other wildlife species are dependent on 

these wetlands as well, including amphibians and 

reptiles. Amphibians, including the Wyoming toad 

and other species of toads, frogs, and salamanders, 

need water for breeding and larval development as 

well as to prevent desiccation. Reptiles such as garter snakes also prefer wetland habitats because they 

can feed on aquatic species.

Irrigated and Nonirrigated Meadows and 

Pastures

Privately owned wet meadow habitats are some of 

the most important unprotected wetlands in the 

Intermountain West. Since the early 1900s, flood irrigation has created many wet meadows in western 

North America (Peck and Lovvorn 2001). Irrigated 

wet meadows that are hayed and grazed annually 

(hay meadows) represent a particularly important 

subset of wetland habitat. These privately owned 

wetlands typically occur at mid- to high elevations 

(4,500 to 8,500 feet) in landscapes that are dominated 

by intact wetland, grassland, and shrub habitats. 

These areas are often made up almost entirely of 

native plant communities and can support high nesting densities of wetland- and grassland-nesting birds. 

These areas provide brood habitat for waterfowl and 

other waterbirds by supplying both protective cover 

from predators and productive foraging sites for rapidly growing ducklings and chicks.

Wetlands in the Laramie Plains.

FWS
20 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Wet meadows also provide crucial foraging habitat for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds. The 

quality and availability of spring migration habitat 

has direct implication for the survival and breeding 

productivity of migratory birds. The Laramie Plains 

provides important complexes of wet meadow, 

flooded pasture, and hayfields used by many species 

of waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds, 

including northern pintail, Clark’s grebe, white-faced 

ibis, American bittern, Wilson’s phalarope, American 

avocet, marbled godwit, long-billed dowitcher, and 

sandhill crane. The irrigated meadows and floodplain 

of the river are also believed, based on Baxter’s 

observations, to be important historical habitats for 

the Wyoming toad.

Riparian Areas

Riparian areas are vegetation communities that 

are immediately adjacent to and influenced by the 

hydrology of creeks, streams, and rivers. Riparian 

plant communities can be dominated by trees, 

shrubs, herbaceous vegetation, or a combination of 

these types. Riparian areas account for less than one 

percent of the western landscape, but they can be 

relatively more productive than other ecosystems 

(Svejcar 1997). Breeding bird densities can be up to 

10 times greater in riparian areas than in adjacent, 

nonriparian habitats (Lohman 2004, Copeland et al. 

2010). It is estimated that riparian habitat covers less 

than 2 percent of the State of Wyoming (Merrill and 

Fishery 1996).

Riparian habitats support high species diversity 

and density as well as promote the exchange of 

energy, nutrients, and species between riparian, 

aquatic, and upland systems (Johnson and McCormack 1979, Gregory et al. 1991, Poff et al. 2011). It is 

estimated that about 90 percent of the total wildlife 

species in Wyoming use wetlands and riparian habitats either daily or seasonally and about 70 percent of 

Wyoming bird species depend on wetlands or riparian areas (Nicholoff 2003). Riparian areas are important migration and dispersal corridors that enable 

species to readily move through harsh grassland and 

desert environments.

Many bird species use the riparian corridors of 

the Laramie Plains during spring and fall migration, 

and many others stay through the summer to breed. 

Insect production is high in riparian communities, 

leading to locally abundant concentrations of insectivorous birds and bats. In the Laramie Plains, narrow-leaf cottonwoods and several willow species are 

adapted to the natural flow dynamics of the streams 

and rivers in the area, but throughout the west, many 

riparian areas have declined because of widespread 

damming and water diversion. Many riparian and 

wetland areas within the Laramie Plains now support a variety of exotic and invasive plants, such as 

Russian olive and Canada thistle. Both the ranching 

and wildlife conservation communities have devoted 

significant resources in efforts to control invasive 

plants in the region.

Grasslands and Shrublands

The composition and structure of grasslands are 

affected by short growing seasons as well as frequent 

and occasionally intense natural disturbances such as 

drought, fire, and herbivory (Nicholoff 2003). 

Between 1950 and 1990, the grasslands west of the 

Mississippi River declined by 27.2 million acres (Conner et al. 2001). The greatest threats to grassland 

and shrubland ecosystems are oil and gas development, increasing urban and agricultural development, and invasive species. Usually dominated by 

grazers, grasslands are known to support large numbers of wildlife and have a significant influence on the 

plant and animal composition of grassland habitats 

(WGFD 2010).

In Wyoming, prairie grasslands usually occur 

below the elevation of 7,000 feet, but the Laramie 

Plains, which is at approximately 8,000 feet, contains 

the highest elevation grasslands in Wyoming (Knight 

1996). Grasslands in Wyoming are characterized by 

interspersed short- and mixed-grass prairies and are 

typically unsuitable for farming; however, they provide an abundant grazing resource for cattle and 

sheep. Most of Wyoming’s prairie grasslands are 

privately owned (WGFD 2010).

Prairie grasslands support an impressive array of 

wildlife. White-tailed prairie dogs thrive in recently 

disturbed areas, living in large colonies, digging burrows, and keeping the surrounding vegetation short. 

Pronghorn in the uplands of the Laramie Plains.

FWS
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 21 

Their burrows and open patches of ground create 

habitat for other wildlife species, including the blackfooted ferret, long-tailed weasel, swift fox, mountain 

plover, and burrowing owl (Kotliar et al. 1999, Kotliar 2000, WGFD 2010). Prairie dogs also provide a 

prey base for species such as black-footed ferret, ferruginous hawk, and golden eagle.

Wyoming once represented the western edge of 

the range for many species such as mountain plover, 

ferruginous hawk, swift fox, and pronghorn. Intensive conversion of grassland in the Great Plains 

resulted in the loss of these habitats outside of Wyoming. Populations in Wyoming have remained largely 

intact, and the core of these species’ distributions is 

now considered to be in Wyoming (WGFD 2010).

Shrublands in the Laramie Plains are dominated 

by greasewood, saltbrush, and rabbitbrush, as well as 

some sagebrush. Shrublands are often intermixed 

with the prairie grassland community. Greasewood 

shrubland and saltgrass meadows are characteristic 

of the playas and other comparatively wet depressions (Knight 1996) that are scattered across the 

Laramie Plains. Shrubland communities provide 

habitat for a suite of wildlife species, including golden 

eagle, prairie falcon, mountain plover, Brewer’s sparrow, jackrabbit, coyote, bobcat, badger, pronghorn, 

and mule deer. Pronghorn are more common than 

deer in salt-desert shrub vegetation; however, both 

are highly mobile and use associated habitats, especially sagebrush and grasslands (Blaisdell et al. 

1984). 

Wildlife

The habitats within the Laramie Plains support a 

wide variety of wildlife. Appendix C lists the species 

that are known and suspected to occur within the 

project area.

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Due to the cold, arid climate, amphibian and reptile diversity within the Laramie Plains is low compared with other areas of the country, but there are 

several species that thrive here. The shrublands are 

home to the short-horned lizard as well as several 

species of snakes. Because of the arid nature of the 

region, amphibians are restricted to the riparian and 

wetland areas; these areas provide habitat for the 

tiger salamander, boreal chorus frog, Wyoming toad, 

and northern leopard frog. Although the northern 

leopard frog was once abundant throughout its range, 

it has experienced significant declines in the west 

(Smith and Keinath 2004a). A variety of factors, 

including habitat loss, disease, chemical contamination, introduced predators, and general environmental degradation have been linked to observed 

population declines, but no one primary factor has 

emerged as the cause of the decline, and most likely it 

is caused by multiple factors that can vary from site 

to site (Smith and Keinath 2004a). This species is 

listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need by 

the WGFD (2010). See the discussion of Wyoming 

toad under species of special concern below.

Birds 

The Laramie Plains provides migratory and 

breeding habitat for many bird species, many of 

which are not found in any other area of Wyoming. 

Audubon Wyoming (2011) has designated the Laramie Plains Lakes Complex as an Important Bird 

Area because of the diversity of birds found within 

the basin, which highlights the regional and continental significance of the area. Thirty-eight of the 55 

birds on the WGFD Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need List and 59 of 97 birds on the Intermountain 

West Joint Venture priority species list occur in the 

Laramie Plains. More than 146 species of birds have 

been documented on the refuges. Some of these birds 

are year-round residents, but many migrate through 

the basin on their way to and from breeding and wintering grounds. Others come to the basin to breed or 

spend the winter.

Given the scarcity of water in the semi-arid landscape of the Laramie Plains, it is not surprising that 

wetlands within the basin are regionally important to 

both resident and migrant waterbirds (Nicholoff 

2003). The marshes and open water of the basin support 26 species of waterfowl, including canvasback, 

northern pintail, Barrow’s goldeneye, lesser scaup, 

and redhead, all of which are Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need in Wyoming (WGFD 2010). Many 

Northern pintail

FWS
22 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

waterfowl species are also known to breed in the 

basin, including American wigeon, blue-winged teal, 

cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, canvasback, northern pintail, green-winged teal, lesser scaup, gadwall, 

ruddy duck, common merganser, and Canada goose. 

American avocet and Wilson’s phalarope are shorebirds that migrate from their winter ranges in Mexico and Central and South America to breed in the 

wetlands of the Laramie Plains. At least 22 other 

species of shorebirds use these wetlands as either 

stopover or breeding habitat. Two shorebird species 

that migrate through the basin, the long-billed curlew and the marbled godwit, are focal species for the 

USFWS Migratory Bird Program and are USFWS 

Region 6 Birds of Conservation Concern. Seventy 

percent of Wyoming bird species are wetland or 

riparian obligates (Nicholoff 2003).

The upland areas in the Laramie Plains provide 

essential habitat for many bird species. Shrub and 

grassland habitats support species such as golden 

eagle, burrowing owl, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. Prairie falcon is a 

common resident and uses the upland areas for feeding and resting. The mountain plover, a tier I Species 

of Greatest Conservation Need within the State of 

Wyoming, breeds in at least five concentrated areas 

in Wyoming, one of which is the Laramie Plains. The 

mountain plover is affected by the loss of breeding 

habitat as a result of fire suppression, conversion of 

native grasslands to croplands, and habitat loss to 

urbanization (WGFD 2010). Figures EA–5 through 

EA–8 show migratory bird concentrations for wetland birds, grassland birds, riparian birds, and raptors (Pocewicz et al. 2013). Pocewicz et al. (2013) used 

current migration literature and expert conservationists to get a clearer picture of where important 

bird migration habitat is throughout the region.

Mammals

Many species of small mammals live in the region, 

including the white-tailed prairie dog, muskrat, and 

American beaver, as well as multiple species of 

ground squirrel, mouse, vole, and shrew. The whitetailed prairie dog is considered a keystone species 

because species including black-footed ferret, swift 

fox, American badger, ferruginous hawk, and several 

other large raptors depend on prairie dogs as prey; 

species including black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, 

and swift fox depend on prairie dogs to provide burrows as cover and den substrate; and species including mountain plover and McCown’s longspur depend 

on prairie dogs for shortgrass and semibarren habitats. Black-footed ferrets, in particular, depend so 

strongly on prairie dogs that ferret recovery and 

management is, in effect, prairie dog management.

Four of Wyoming’s seven big game species, mule 

deer, white-tailed deer, elk, and pronghorn, are 

known to reside in or migrate through the project 

area.

Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

Fish and aquatic invertebrate populations that 

were present before Euro-American settlement are 

not well known in much of the west, and the North 

Platte River basin, which contains the Laramie 

Plains, is no exception. The list of aquatic species in 

appendix C is short and likely incomplete, especially 

in regards to aquatic invertebrates. It is well 

accepted that there were no sport fish in the Laramie 

Plains, or elsewhere in the entire North Platte River 

basin, before Euro-American settlement (WGFD 

2010). Small fish such as hornyhead chub and Iowa 

darter probably dominated fish assemblages, but 

these species were greatly affected by the deliberate 

introduction of various trout species and other exotic 

taxa, including carp, beginning during early EuroAmerican settlement and continuing until the present. It is believed that hornyhead chub is found only 

in the North Laramie River and the Lower Laramie 

River, and it is believed to be extinct in Montana, 

Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, 

and Kansas (WGFD 2010). Populations of native 

aquatic invertebrates were probably also dramatically changed by the introduction of nonnative fish.

Species of Special Concern

Several federally listed species live in, or have 

home ranges that overlap, the conservation area.

Wyoming Toad 

The project area now supports one endangered 

species, the Wyoming toad (Anaxyrus (Bufo) baxteri). First described in 1946 by Dr. George T. Baxter, it is thought to be a glacial relict. The toad once 

flourished in the Laramie Plains, but in the 1970s the 

population dramatically declined, and by the 1980s, 

individuals were extremely rare (Baxter and Stromberg 1980, Stromberg 1981, Vankirk 1980, Baxter 

and Meyer 1982, Baxter and Stone 1985, Lewis et al. 

1985). The species was federally listed as endangered 

in 1984 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). In 1993, under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act, Mortenson 

Lake Refuge was established for the protection of the 

last known Wyoming toad population. It is considered 

the most endangered amphibian in North America 

(IUCN 2012).
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 23 

Figure EA-5. Concentration areas for migratory wetland birds in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.
24 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Figure EA-6. Concentration areas for migratory grassland birds in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 25 

Figure EA-7. Concentration areas for migratory riparian area birds in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.
26 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Figure EA-8. Concentration areas for migratory raptors in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 27 

The historical distribution of the Wyoming toad, 

based on scientific records from Dr. George Baxter 

and Ronald Beiswenger’s research, includes the 

floodplain ponds and small seepage lakes associated 

with the Big and Little Laramie Rivers as well as 

other wetlands within the shortgrass communities of 

the Laramie Plains in Albany County, Wyoming (figure EA–9). Current distribution is limited to Mortenson Lake Refuge and one nearby Safe Harbor Act 

site. There are very few Wyoming toads thought to 

be in the wild and approximately 500 in captivity. 

The small number of individuals is considered one of 

the severe threats to the toad. Another major threat 

to the Wyoming toad is infectious disease, including 

the amphibian fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) which has been linked to amphibian 

declines worldwide (Berger et al. 1998). Bd was documented in wild Wyoming toads from Mortenson Lake 

in 2000 and in 2001 (USFWS 2013). The other severe 

threat to the Wyoming toad that is discussed in the 

draft recovery plan is the lack of perpetually protected habitat. The proposed action directly 

addresses this severe threat to the Wyoming toad by 

protecting habitat that is needed for the next step of 

recovery and which is important for the future of 

Wyoming toad conservation.

Little is known about the habitat requirements for 

the Wyoming toad but the current thought is that the 

toad historically occurred in rivers and associated 

floodplains (lotic habitats) of the Big and Little Laramie Rivers and ponds and lakes (lentic habitats). 

Ongoing research, supported by the Service and a 

multitude of public and private partners on the Wyoming toad recovery team, is focused on practical 

aspects of Wyoming toad recovery, such as defining 

optimal habitat for the early stages (egg, tadpole, and 

metamorph) of the toad’s life cycle in terms of thermal regimes, and devising optimal early stage rearing pens that will optimize the survival of released 

tadpoles.

Black-footed Ferret

The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is a 

nocturnal predator that is an extreme habitat-prey 

specialist, meaning that it lives only in prairie dog 

burrows and it eats mostly prairie dogs. First 

described in 1851 by Audubon and Bachman, the ferret was listed in 1967 under the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act and was listed in 1973 under the 

current Endangered Species Act (Esch et al. 2005). 

In 1981, a small population was discovered near 

Meeteetse, Wyoming (USFWS 1988), and captive 

breeding and reintroduction efforts began that continue today.

Although the species does not now live in the project area, there are black-footed ferret colonies to the 

north that could expand to the Laramie Plains within 

the next few years from the original reintroduction 

center in the Shirley Basin. The project area is 

within the historical range of the black-footed ferret, 

and Albany County has been identified as a possible 

reintroduction area by the Black-Footed Ferret 

Recovery Team. While all of the colonies in the Laramie Plains have not been formally surveyed and 

monitored, an informal assessment of the area in 2010 

noted that most prairie dog colonies were active. On 

Hutton Lake Refuge alone, 541 acres of white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies have been mapped.

Greater Sage-Grouse

The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) occupies northern and extreme southern 

Albany County, but is not known to occupy the proposed project area because of a lack of extensive 

sagebrush-dominated habitat. Individuals and small 

groups may occasionally use the project area during 

periods when birds are dispersing to new areas or 

migrating to different seasonal ranges. It is recognized that riparian margins and wet meadows, which 

are prevalent in the project area, are important components of sage-grouse habitat when near expanses 

of sagebrush.

Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse

The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) is a small rodent in the Dipodidae 

family and is one of 12 recognized subspecies of 

Zapus hudsonius, the meadow jumping mouse. The 

range of the Preble’s subspecies in the Laramie 

Black-footed ferret

FWS
28 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Figure EA-9. Historical range of the Wyoming toad based on Dr. George Baxter and Ronald E. Beiswenger’s 

paper maps displaying locations and field notes digitized by the Service. 
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 29 

Plains of Wyoming has not been documented with 

certainty, but there is some chance that it co-occupies 

the basin with the closely related and physically 

indistinguishable western jumping mouse (Zapus 

princeps). Preble’s meadow jumping mouse lives in 

areas of lush riparian vegetation, usually with some 

woody overstory in the form of trees or shrubs, 

immediately next to streams, ditches, ponds, or 

lakes. The subspecies will range occasionally into 

upland habitats, but always returns to and centers its 

activities in dense vegetation near water. In Wyoming, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has been 

definitively documented east of the Laramie Mountains in eastern Albany, western Laramie and Platte, 

and southern Converse Counties. If Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse is documented in the future, the proposed action will have direct and positive effects on 

the subspecies’ recovery by providing and maintaining high-quality riparian habitat.

Little Brown Bat

The little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), which is 

one of the most common bats in southeastern Wyoming, may use the project area. The species roosts 

during the day in cavities and other sheltered areas 

in a wide variety of substrates—buildings, caves, 

cliffs, boulders, trees (both live and dead), downed 

logs, and similar habitats—and feeds at night on a 

variety of insects over wetlands and riparian corridors. The little brown bat does not migrate, but 

rather hibernates through the winter in secure cavities. The species is now being reviewed for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act due primarily to 

huge losses in little brown bat populations in the 

eastern United States that have been caused by an 

exotic fungus, termed “white-nose syndrome.” The 

fungus and associated syndrome have been moving 

steadily westward over the past 6 years, but have not 

yet reached Wyoming or affected Wyoming bat populations (Griscom et al. 2012). However, there is reason 

to assume that this fungus will eventually threaten 

bats in the region. Preservation of wooded riparian 

corridors that provide roosting and feeding habitat, 

as well as wetlands and wet meadows that provide 

feeding habitat, would help alleviate the possible 

negative effects of “white-nose syndrome.”

Mountain Plover

The mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) is a 

migratory shorebird that is native to shortgrass prairie and shrub-steppe habitat of the western Great 

Plains and Colorado Plateau. The plover nests in 

regions that were historically affected by a variety of 

herbivores, including prairie dogs, bison, and pronghorn. Breeding and wintering habitats for the species 

often reflect some measure of disturbance, be it 

through fire, grazing, or the presence of digging or 

burrowing mammals such as prairie dogs (Smith and 

Keinath 2004b). In Wyoming, five mountain plover 

breeding areas have been identified, including one in 

the Laramie Plains. 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

Archeological remains representing 12,000 years 

of human occupation have been found in the Laramie 

Plains. Although there have been few formal investigations completed in the area, evidence from the 

earliest Paleo-Indian occupation through the advent 

of rural and agricultural development by EuroAmericans in the early 20th century has been documented in a variety of geographical settings. 

Although these sites exhibit a wide range of artifacts 

and features, definite trends in site types and 

changes through time are clear.

Current archaeological evidence shows that the 

earliest humans, called the Paleo-Indians, migrated 

to the region at the close of the last Ice Age approximately 12,000 years ago, and, although the record is 

thin, there was probably significant use of the area 

Little brown bat

FWS
30 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

by indigenous people (Larson and Letts 2003). These 

people had a highly mobile lifestyle that depended on 

big game hunting, including for such now-extinct species as mammoths and ancient bison. The hallmarks 

of most Paleo-Indian sites are the spear points that 

are generally recovered from animal kill and butchering sites and small temporary camps. Evidence of 

the Paleo-Indian occupation of the Laramie Plains 

area is sparse and most often consists of isolated 

spear points.

There was a gradual but definite shift in the pattern of human use of the region beginning about 

9,000 years ago. These changes were because of 

regional climatic fluctuations and an increasing 

human population, coupled with tremendous social 

change and technological innovation. Although this 

stage, which is referred to as the Archaic stage, 

lasted until about 2,000 years ago, it is better represented in the archaeological record than the preceding Paleo-Indian stage. The interpretation of the 

remains is difficult. On many sites, evidence of a 

greater diversity of tools and increased use of native 

plants is found, but the remains also suggest a more 

localized and less mobile population.

Approximately 1,500 years ago, the use of the bow 

and arrow marked the beginning of the Late Prehistoric Period. The increase in the number of known 

archaeological sites for this period may show a growing human population or the influx of peoples from 

other regions, or it may just reflect our ability to 

locate these more recent sites. Remains of these 

early occupations include fire hearths, lithic scatters 

(stone tools and the byproducts from making them), 

quarry sites, and stone circles that are probably tipi 

rings. Fewer than 20 of these sites have been formally recorded in the Laramie Plains.

Euro-American diseases such as smallpox and 

influenza probably affected Native American populations in the region far in advance of direct contact 

with Euro-Americans themselves, possibly as early 

as 1600. Similar dynamics may have occurred with 

Eurasian livestock diseases and native ungulates. 

Rocky Mountain tribes adopted the horse, imported 

by early Spanish colonists, as a central advancement 

by approximately 1750. By the early 1800s, EuroAmericans were becoming more common in the area 

and evidence of trade with the Native Americans in 

horses, firearms, and ornamental items is increasingly evident in the archaeological record. Native 

American tribes, including the Crow, Cheyenne, 

Sioux, and Arapaho, lost their lands with the Fort 

Laramie Treaty of 1868, and many were relocated to 

reservations outside Wyoming.

As is the case with much of the West, the early 

Euro-American exploration of the Laramie Plains 

owes much of its beginnings to the fur-trapping 

trade. In 1820, Jacques Laramie trapped along the 

river that now bears his name. Although thousands 

of Euro-Americans traveled through what is now the 

State of Wyoming in the 1840s and 1850s, most were 

heading farther west on the nearby Oregon, California, Overland, and Mormon trails, and few of them 

settled in what would become Wyoming. From 1862 

to 1868, approximately 20,000 people per year traveled along the Overland Trail, which ran approximately 3 miles north of what is now Hutton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge. The stage stations established by the Overland Stage Company became the 

first permanent Euro-American structures in the 

area (Larson and Letts 2003).

The first homestead in the basin was built in 1864 

by Phillip Mandel along the Little Laramie River. It 

also served as a stage station for the Overland Trail. 

Mandel sold replacement stock to travelers and later 

cut and sold hay to soldiers at Fort Sanders, which 

was established in 1866 just south of present-day 

Laramie and about 10 miles northeast of Hutton 

Lake Refuge. Until 1882, when the fort closed, it 

helped protect the early settlers and travelers in the 

basin during the many conflicts with Native Americans. The construction of the Union Pacific Railroad 

through the area in the late 1860s was one of the 

most influential events in the history of the region. 

The development of the railroad lead to the growth of 

Laramie and was the catalyst for expanding the cattle and sheep ranching industries that are still present today.

The Service has a trust responsibility to Native 

American tribes that includes protection of tribal 

sovereignty and preservation of tribal culture and 

other trust resources. The Service does not now propose any project, activity, or program that would 

result in changes in the character of, or adversely 

affect, any historical cultural resource or archaeological site. When such undertakings are considered, 

the Service takes all necessary steps to comply with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966, as amended. The Service complies with Section 110 of the act by surveying, inventorying, and 

evaluating cultural resources

3.4 Socioeconomic 

Environment

Landownership, property taxes, public use, and 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities of the 

Laramie Plains are discussed in this section.

The proposed project area is located in Albany 

County, Wyoming, which has a population of 36,299 

(U.S. Department of Commerce 2011). Most of the 
Draft EA Chapter 3—Affected Environment 31 

population (30,816) lives in Laramie, the largest city 

in Albany County. Wyoming has a population of 

563,626 (U.S. Department of Commerce 2011). Over a 

10-year period (2000–2010), the population of Wyoming increased by 14.1 percent and the population of 

Albany County increased by 13.4 percent. In 2010, 

the county’s population rose 6.8 percent or by 2,320 

persons. Within this 10-year span, 84 percent of the 

growth was within the boundaries of the city of 

Laramie (see figure EA–10).

The economy of the project area is tied to the city 

of Laramie. The presence of the University of Wyoming strongly influences Albany County’s occupational demographics, with 41 percent of the 2010 

population working in management, professional, and 

related occupations (including education) see figure 

EA-11. Farming, fishing, and forestry account for 

0.13 percent of the workforce, a reduction from 1.4 

percent in 2006 (Wyoming Department of Workforce 

Services 2012) (see figure EA–11).

Landownership 

The agricultural trend within the Laramie Plains 

follows statewide trends. From 2002 to 2007, the 

number of farms in Albany County increased from 

320 to 448, a 40-percent increase. Although the number of farms increased, the acreage being farmed 

decreased by 22 percent, indicating that while there 

are more farms, they are smaller in size (USDA 

2007).

Wyoming ranks eighth among States in total 

acres (42.3 percent) owned by the Federal government (U.S. General Services Administration 2010). 

The State government owns 6 percent (3,854,800 

acres) of all Wyoming lands.

Property Taxes

Property taxes constitute the largest source of 

local government revenue (Urban Institute and 

Brookings Institution 2008) and are not expected to 

be substantially affected by conservation easements 

in the proposed WTCA. Property taxes are assessed 

based on the value of property. For most types of 

properties, county assessors use fair market value to 

calculate property tax liabilities; however, agricultural land is often assessed differently. In many 

States, the assessed value of agricultural land is calculated based on the productive value of the land 

rather than on the fair market value of the property.

The fair market value of a property is calculated 

by an appraisal. This value includes both the productive value of the land and any speculative value associated with the possibility of developing the land. 

Conservation easements reduce the fair market value 

of property by removing the speculative value associated with possible development; however, conservation easements generally do not affect the productive 

value of agricultural land.

Wyoming landowners now pay property taxes on 

their private lands to the counties. These taxes are 

based on a fair market value, and agricultural land is 

taxed based on the land’s productive capability under 

normal conditions. Since most of the properties 

within the proposed project area are classified as 

agricultural land and any easements would allow private landowners to keep ownership, there will be 

little effect on the current property tax base for 

Albany County.

The buying of any fee-title lands will reduce the 

amount of property tax revenue collected by local 

governments because the Service is exempt from 

taxation on its property holdings. However, counties 

would qualify for reimbursement of some property 

Figure EA-10. Change in population size in Albany County, Wyoming, from the 2000 census to the 2010 census.
32 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

tax revenue through the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, which allows the Service to make annual 

payments to local governments in areas where feetitle purchases have removed land from the tax rolls. 

Payments are based on the greater of 75 cents per 

acre or 0.75 percent of the fair market value. The 

exact amount of the annual payment depends on Congressional appropriations, which in recent years 

have tended to be substantially less than the amount 

needed to fully provide the authorized level of payments. In fiscal year 2010, actual payments were 22 

percent of authorized levels.

Public Use and Wildlifedependent Recreational Activities 

Residents of and visitors to the Laramie Plains 

are attracted to the area, in part, by the abundance 

of wildlife. This area offers many wildlife-dependent 

activities, including hunting, fishing, birding, and 

wildlife photography, which generate millions of dollars for the State’s economy (Hulme et al. 2009).

In 2006, the WGFD estimated expenditures of 

$107.7 million by resident and nonresident hunters 

pursing the six big game species in the State: whitetailed deer, mule deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, and 

pronghorn. Resident hunters accounted for 67 percent of the total (Hulme et al. 2009). The National 

Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 

Recreation (USFWS 2008) found that in 2006, $137.3 

million was spent in Wyoming by both resident and 

nonresident hunters. Wildlife watchers, both residents and visitors, spent a total of $394.9 million in 

the State of Wyoming that year as well (USFWS 

2008).

Figure EA-11. Employment distribution in Albany County, Wyoming, 2010.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Chapter 4—Environmental 

Consequences

4.1 Effects on the Physical 

Environment

The estimated effects of each alternative on mineral, soil, and water resources as well as on the Service’s ability to address climate change are described 

below.

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, future protection 

of lands that are not currently protected by the SerThis chapter assesses the environmental impacts 

that are expected to occur from the implementation 

of each of the alternatives described in chapter 2. 

Environmental impacts are analyzed for each alternative and the issues are discussed in the same order 

as in chapter 2. Several aspects of environmental 

effects are evaluated, including whether the impacts 

are negative or beneficial, direct or indirect, or cumulative with actions independent of the proposed 

action. The duration of the effect, whether it is a 

short- or long-term effect, is also used in the evaluation of the environmental consequences. The amount 

of time that project implementation would require 

would depend on the availability of funding and the 

level of landowner interest. Alternative B would 

likely be a long-term process to fully implement.

Rush Lake in winter at Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

Melanie Olds/FWS
34 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

vice would be limited to the efforts of other agencies 

and organizations in the area. The Service’s role 

would be limited to programs, such as Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife, that provide financial and technical 

assistance to willing landowners interested in 

improving their lands for wildlife. No Land and 

Water Conservation Fund monies would be expended 

in the project area by the Service for further land 

protection other than within the approved acquisition 

boundaries of the existing refuge units. Some partnership opportunities would be lost because the Service would not have the ability to fully work 

cooperatively within the area. Development and associated habitat loss could continue on lands outside of 

existing protected areas. Environmental benefits 

provided by wetlands and other natural vegetation 

such as water filtration, sediment reduction, and carbon sequestration would be reduced in the long term. 

Water quality and quantity could decline over time in 

areas with the increase in various types of 

development.

Aquifers would receive more demand, resulting in 

potential degradation of the hydrology of some wetland areas. Important wildlife habitat would remain 

vulnerable to degradation through reallocation of 

surface water offsite that may change existing water 

management practices.

This alternative could also negatively affect local 

mitigation efforts by reducing options for conserving 

and storing carbon through land protection and habitat restoration. Carbon sequestration capabilities 

would be reduced with the increased development 

and disturbance of native vegetation that is likely to 

occur under the no-action alternative.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Under the proposed action, the WTCA would provide additional protection of water resources in the 

Laramie Plains from increased nonpoint source pollution from residential subdivision, commercial development, and increased erosion as well as prevent the 

draining of wetlands on up to 33,299 acres of conservation easements and up to 10,000 acres of fee-title 

acquisition. Habitats that depend on the continuation 

of current water availability and management would 

receive some protection from degradation caused by 

substantial changes to water use.

The WTCA would not supersede existing thirdparty mineral rights and is therefore unlikely to 

affect mineral resources. If the mineral estate has 

not been severed from the surface estate, the easement may include restrictions on surface occupancy, 

but the Service would not, and cannot, prevent a mineral owner from accessing minerals on the property. 

It is unlikely that the Service would pursue acquisition of interests in lands with outstanding surface 

mineral leases or rights because the associated 

destruction of surface vegetation and need for reclamation would diminish the wildlife value of such land.

4.2 Effects on the Biological 

Environment 

This section describes the likely effects of the 

project on species and their habitats under alternatives A and B.

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, the Service’s 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife program would continue to work cooperatively with landowners to voluntarily improve habitat on private land within the 

project area. Furthermore, habitat for wildlife would 

continue to be protected and restored through the 

ongoing efforts of agency partners and nongovernmental organizations, primarily through easement 

programs. However, because of the limited resources 

of these partners and nongovernmental organizations, available funding may not be enough to address 

the amount of landowner interest and need for habitat conservation in the area. Decreases in habitat 

quality and ecological resiliency because of land cover 

changes and associated fragmentation, introduction 

of exotic species, and construction of structures that 

are incompatible with habitat use by some wildlife 

would likely continue under the no-action 

alternative.

Habitat loss and fragmentation caused by development of land for commercial and residential use 

would negatively affect riverine, riparian, grassland, 

and shrubland habitat that many wildlife species use. 

Changes from natural land cover to agricultural 

crops, the spread of invasive species, or significant 

changes to irrigation regimes would likely further 

fragment wildlife habitat. The effects of fragmentation on wildlife have been well documented (Collinge 

2009). Davies et al. (2011) found that exurban growth 

decreases native plant and animal diversity; 

increases the number of exotic species, including nonnative predators; and restricts ecosystem management options, such as using fire, which is a historical 

disturbance.

All of these potential impacts, whether alone or in 

combination, could result in the further decline of 
Draft EA Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences 35 

migratory birds, resident wildlife, and listed species. 

In particular, the no-action alternative would negatively affect the likelihood of recovery and potential 

delisting of the Wyoming toad. It is anticipated that 

recovery efforts would continue, but habitat protection and the success achieved with recent reintroduction efforts would be limited. Given that land 

conservation and protection are the primary actions 

identified in the recovery plan, it is unlikely that 

recovery of the Wyoming toad could occur if additional parcels of suitable riparian and wetland habitat 

are not protected and dedicated to the reintroduction 

and establishment of sustainable populations of the 

toad within its historical range.

Similarly, migratory birds that depend on available wetland and riparian habitats, such as canvasback, northern pintail, white-faced ibis, and black 

tern, would likely decline with the anticipated 

increase in land use change and reduction in water 

quality. The Laramie Plains is designated as an 

Important Bird Area by The National Audubon Society (2011) because of the number and variety of 

spring and fall migrant species; although this designation would probably not change, the Service would 

not be able to provide any further protection.

Although scientific predictions of future climate in 

the region differ, almost all indicate that water will 

become increasingly limited in the future (Arnell 

1999). Therefore, increasing water conservation 

efforts now is a prudent investment toward preserving future wildlife and native habitats. One of the 

greatest ecological concerns about climate change is 

that species that are now adapted to specific environmental conditions will need to either shift their geographic ranges or adapt to new conditions. If these 

species become isolated from their preferred habitats, they could potentially become regionally extirpated or extinct (Loss et al. 2011). This alternative 

would likely result in negative effects on connectivity 

of wildlife habitat, the resiliency of the watershed, 

and the ability of the ecosystem to adapt to a changing climate and changing land uses.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Under the proposed action, the establishment of 

the WTCA would enable the Service to permanently 

protect up to 43,299 acres of vital wildlife habitat in 

addition to that which is already held in the Mortenson Lake and Hutton Lake Refuges. While there are 

several conservation initiatives by other agencies and 

private land trusts underway in the project area, the 

WTCA would strategically target habitats that are 

necessary for recovery of the Wyoming toad and 

other federally listed species such as migratory birds 

and the black-footed ferret.

This alternative would allow Wyoming toad populations to be reintroduced in areas with suitable habitat that would supplement earlier reintroduction 

efforts at Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

The establishment of distinct populations would 

increase the chance of toads surviving the occurrence of a disease outbreak or other unpredictable 

event. Priority would be given to wetland areas, 

including riverine and riparian areas, that historically were the preferred habitat of the toad. Protection of riverine and riparian areas would benefit 

other species that depend on this habitat type, including little brown bat, willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, and deer. Riparian areas also provide travel 

corridors for a wide variety of other wildlife species.

The authority to purchase conservation easements and fee-title lands from willing sellers within 

the WTCA would help to make sure that several conservation goals, such as those listed in the Shirley 

Basin–Laramie Rivers Conservation Plan (Pocewicz 

and Lathrop 2008), could be met. Permanently protecting lands that link existing public and private 

conservation areas would significantly enhance the 

ecology of the Laramie Plains as a whole.

Species that are sensitive to vertical structures 

would be provided with greater protection through 

development restrictions that would make sure that 

intact habitats would continue to be available. Conservation through easements or fee-title purchases 

would lessen the negative impacts of the existing 

threats to wildlife populations by maintaining larger 

tracts of undeveloped land. This would have longterm positive effects on the connectivity and quality 

of wildlife habitat and ecological resiliency, which 

would benefit migratory birds, threatened and 

endangered species, and native plants within this 

area of the Laramie Plains.

By protecting habitat, reducing habitat fragmentation, and increasing connectivity between habitats, 

the proposed action would also help native species 

and ecosystems to adapt to a changing climate. Climate change mitigation efforts would be positively 

affected by this alternative because carbon sequestration that is now provided by native vegetation 

would be retained.
36 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

4.3 Effects on Cultural 

Resources

This section describes the likely effects of the 

project on the cultural resources in the area under 

alternatives A and B.

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, cultural 

resources on the lands within the proposed WTCA 

boundary would remain subject to State and local 

regulation and permitting. Some cultural resources 

could be adversely affected by activities such as 

development and road construction on lands that are 

outside of existing public and private conservation 

lands. Activities that do not require permits could 

contribute to the loss or damage of cultural 

resources, especially if resources have not yet been 

discovered.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

As a Federal agency, the Service must comply 

with many laws pertaining to cultural resources, 

including the National Historical Preservation Act 

(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.; Public Law 89–665), the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1970 (16 

USC 470aa–mm; Public Law 96–95) as amended, and 

the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.; Public 

Law 101–601). Although conservation easements 

would preclude or limit most forms of surface disturbance, these requirements would not apply to or be 

fully effective in protecting cultural resources on 

private lands with easements. However, the proposed 

action provides benefits to cultural resources when 

compared to the no-action alternative because easements would limit surface disturbance. On Federal 

fee-title lands, cultural resources would be fully 

protected.

4.4 Effects on the 

Socioeconomic Environment

This section describes the estimated effects of 

alternatives A and B on landownership, land use, 

public use, development (including oil and gas, wind 

energy, and residential), and intact ecosystem 

values.

Land Ownership and Land Use

Alternative A (No Action)

Landownership would not be affected by the noaction alternative and land use would likely continue 

to follow observed patterns of increased residential 

and commercial development, resulting in further 

fragmentation of the landscape. Sustainable ranching 

opportunities would continue to be reduced if landowners begin to split tracts into smaller lots for 

development. However, landowners who subdivide 

could increase their revenue in the short-term by 

developing residential home sites or by selling land 

for commercial development, such as oil and gas.

The community would continue to lose open space, 

and the stunning views in the area would be 

diminished.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

There are many variables to consider when 

assessing the social and economic effects of buying 

conservation easements and fee-title lands because 

acquisition may span decades. The social and economic effects of the easements cannot be quantified 

in this analysis because of the uncertainty of such 

factors as the likelihood and timing of gaining easements or fee-title purchases, the availability of Service money, population growth, land values, and 

agricultural commodity prices. However, a qualitative assessment of some effects can be provided.

Under alternative B, the easement and fee-title 

programs would help preserve the aesthetics and 

open landscape of the Laramie Plains, as well as provide another option for landowners who want to 

maintain open space and historical land use. These 

programs would also conserve wildlife habitat and 

protect the land from surface disturbance, development, and fragmentation on lands within the WTCA 

boundary.

Conservation easements provide financial benefits 

for landowners that may enable them to preserve the 

natural and historical value of their ranch and open 

space lands, and to pass this legacy on to future generations. Besides keeping a cultural heritage, the 

preservation of farming and ranching operations can 

result in economic benefits to the local economy. Conservation easements can protect values associated 

with biodiversity and wildlife abundance, maintain 
Draft EA Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences 37 

aesthetic beauty, and protect socially and culturally 

significant features of landscapes and livelihoods 

(Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment 2005, 

Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1992, Daily et al. 1997).

Up to 10,000 acres could be purchased in fee title, 

which would then be removed from the Albany 

County tax rolls. Under Federal fee-title ownership, 

counties would qualify for reimbursement of some 

foregone property tax revenue through the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, which allows the Service to make annual payments to local governments 

in areas where fee-title purchases have removed land 

from the tax rolls. Under provisions of the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act, payments are based on the 

greater of 75 cents per acre or 0.75 percent of the fair 

market value. The exact amount of the annual payment depends on Congressional appropriations, 

which in recent years have tended to be substantially 

less than the amount needed to fully provide the 

authorized level of payments. In fiscal year 2013, 

actual Refuge Revenue Sharing payments were 25 

percent of authorized levels on average.

Refuge lands could also provide grazing or haying 

opportunities, or both, which could be used as habitat 

management tools and which could provide an economic benefit to cooperators. Positive effects may 

occur from increased tourism, public wildlife viewing, fishing, and hunting opportunities on the areas 

near the existing refuges. Open space may also 

enhance property values on lands near the conservation area.

Public Use

This section describes the likely effects of the 

project on public use in the area under alternatives A 

and B.

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, landowners 

would continue to control all access and public use on 

their lands.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Under the proposed action, landowners who enter 

into conservation easement agreements would continue to manage public access, including hunting 

access, to their property. Properties acquired in fee 

title would be closed to public access unless deemed 

compatible with Wyoming toad population recovery 

objectives. Upon achievement of recovery objectives 

and delisting of the toad, the management strategy 

would be reevaluated. Public access could be allowed 

for wildlife-dependent uses that the Service determines to be compatible with the refuges’ wildlife 

management objectives.

Development

This section describes the likely effects of the 

project on development in the area under alternatives 

A and B.

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, increased infrastructure related to residential, oil, gas, and wind 

development in the Laramie Plains would likely 

result in the fragmentation of habitat now used by 

wildlife. Over the long term, these activities would 

likely result in the continuation, and possibly the 

acceleration, of the decline in wildlife populations in 

the project area.

Over time, subdivision and development would 

reduce tourism, hunting, and wildlife observation 

opportunities, resulting in diminished economic benefits associated with these activities to local 

communities.

With the anticipated increase in development, 

landowners and the surrounding communities would 

lose open space, and the wide-open views would be 

diminished.

Residential Development

Rural development on exurban/rural lots (1.7 to 40 

acres) has been growing at a rate of 10 to 15 percent 

per year, exceeding urban and suburban expansion 

rates (USDA 2006). This trend started in the 1960s, 

when demographers documented that for the first 

time in American history more people were leaving 

cities for rural areas than were making the return 

trip (Fuguitt 1985). Residential development and 

subdivisions not only fragment wildlife habitat, but 

they generally increase the costs to county governments that have to provide services to rural 

subdivisions.

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development

Oil and gas development would continue to occur 

on private lands in the Laramie Plains. Protection of 

the surface estate would be governed by existing 

State regulations.

Wind Energy Development

The lands within the project area would remain in 

private ownership and have no further Service 

restrictions. Landowners could potentially profit by 

allowing wind energy to be developed on their land.
38 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Under the proposed action, up to 43,299 acres 

could be protected by keeping various forms of development from fragmenting the habitat. Ongoing traditional agricultural uses such as livestock grazing and 

ranching would continue. This alternative would help 

protect open space and the rural lifestyle in the 

Laramie Plains.

Residential Development

Preventing subdivision and residential development could decrease future tax revenues in a defined 

market area. However, protecting open space could 

actually provide a net savings to Albany County citizens when compared to the revenues generated and 

costs of services associated with residential development (Haggerty 1996). Not only could open space 

lands themselves increase in value, but nearby developed areas could also increase in value due to the 

recreational opportunities and views associated with 

nearby protected lands.

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development

The proposed easement and fee-title programs 

would preclude oil and gas exploration and any other 

type of development requiring surface occupancy 

from occurring. Typically, conservation easements do 

not affect subsurface estates, such as oil and gas 

deposits, because the Service only acquires rights 

associated with surface ownership. In many places 

where the subsurface estate has been severed from 

surface ownership, the landowner does not own the 

subsurface rights and the easement or fee-title lands 

that the Service would acquire from the landowner 

would be junior to the subsurface rights.

For easements that have been put in place on land 

where the owner has not sold or leased the mineral or 

subsurface estate, the Service easement would be 

senior to any subsurface interests later acquired by a 

developer. Since development of the mineral estate 

could significantly affect the resources that the Service is attempting to protect, the Service would prohibit surface development and any minerals, oil, or 

gas would have to be accessed from off of the 

property.

Wind Energy Development

The proposed easement and fee-title programs 

would enhance the protection of wildlife habitat from 

surface disturbance and development of wind energy 

infrastructure. Easement payments made to landowners would offset some of the potential revenue 

loss from the sale of wind energy development leases. 

The development of wind energy on neighboring 

lands that are not fee-title lands or do not have Service conservation easements would not be affected. 

The potential for wind development within the Laramie Plains is rated moderate.

Other Conservation Impacts

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, the threat of 

fragmentation and lowered water quality will continue unabated. Landowners may continue to face 

economic pressures to subdivide their ranches and 

lease or sell parts of their property rights. Residential development will further fragment the Laramie 

Plains region, leaving fewer large parcels of intact 

habitat.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Under the proposed action, existing wetland, 

riparian, grassland, and shrubland habitat would 

remain intact through fee title and conservation easement purchases. Because conservation easements 

would keep wildlife habitat intact on working lands, 

ecosystem services would be available for local residents (Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment 

2005). Ecosystem services such as pollination, water 

purification, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, 

soil conservation, and control of pest insects by birds 

are often unrecognized or are considered “free.” 

These services would not be provided in areas that 

have undergone residential or commercial 

development.

Conservation easements on private lands would 

strengthen habitat resiliency and provide opportunities for wildlife movement and adaptation for years to 

come.

4.5 Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Any adverse effects that may be unavoidable 

while carrying out alternatives A and B are 

described below.

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, habitat degradation and fragmentation would be expected to become 
Draft EA Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences 39 

more widespread in the project area. Some habitat 

protection would continue through existing authorities and funding.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

No direct or indirect unavoidable adverse impacts 

to the biological or physical environment would result 

from the proposed action. The selection of an 

approved boundary and the concurrent authorization 

to obtain easements would not, by themselves, affect 

landownership or management activities by other 

agencies or organizations, or other aspects of the 

socioeconomic environment.

Fee-title acquisition would reduce taxes paid to 

the county by landowners. However, this would be 

partially offset by the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

program.

4.6 Irreversible and 

Irretrievable Commitments of 

Resources

Any commitments of resources that may be irreversible or irretrievable as a result of carrying out 

alternatives A and B are described below.

Alternative A (No Action)

There would be no commitment of resources by 

the Service if the no-action alternative is selected. 

The Service could still exercise its authority to 

acquire inholdings or other lands that would result in 

minor expansion of existing refuges, but it would not 

be obligated to do so.

The continued introduction of new residential and 

commercial infrastructure to the Laramie Plains 

would result in an irretrievable loss of habitat that 

may eventually lead to an irreversible loss or population decline of some wildlife species.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

The establishment of the WTCA would not, in 

itself, constitute an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. However, if interests in land 

were acquired through the use of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund or donations, the administration of the easement provisions or donated property would result in an irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources. The monitoring of easements would represent a minor increase in overall 

Service costs borne by the Arapaho National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex.

4.7 Short-term Use versus 

Long-term Productivity

This section describes the short-term effects versus long-term productivity from the expected actions 

in alternatives A and B.

Alternative A (No Action)

Some habitat would be conserved through ongoing efforts of Service programs like Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife along with the efforts of other 

agencies and nonprofit partners. Loss of important 

wetland and upland habitats would be expected to 

continue at the current rates of development, resulting in long-term negative implications for the habitats in and the ecology of the Laramie Plains.

Ranches and agricultural lands could be sold to 

developers for short-term monetary gains, but the 

expected rates of development would have an adverse 

effect on the long-term biological and agricultural 

productivity of the area.

Over the long term, the costs to counties to sustain development in rural areas could be significant 

(see the “Landownership and Land Use” section 

above). Development of wind energy and oil and gas 

resources would provide short-term income gains, 

but would have a long-term adverse impact on the 

Laramie Plains ecosystem.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Under the proposed action, the ability of the Service to acquire perpetual conservation easements 

and limited fee-title acquisition would conserve 

important wetland and upland areas and reduce the 

long-term loss and fragmentation of important habitats that the Wyoming toad and a variety of wildlife 

species depend on for survival.

The proposed conservation area would help to 

preserve the long-term biological productivity of the 
40 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Laramie Plains wetland, riparian, and upland habitats; increase protection of endangered and threatened species; and maintain biological diversity.

The ability to sell conservation easements would 

provide an immediate short-term economic benefit to 

landowners who take part in the program while 

keeping the long-term agricultural heritage and productivity of the area.

These habitat types would be protected, both for 

the wildlife species that depend on them and so that 

future generations of Americans may enjoy them.

4.8 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are defined by the National 

Environmental Policy Act as the impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impacts 

of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions (40 CFR § 1508.7)

This section describes the cumulative impacts 

that could result from the combination of reasonably 

foreseeable actions with other biological and socioeconomic conditions, events, and developments.

Past Actions 

Past land protection efforts within the Laramie 

Plains have included the establishment of three 

national wildlife refuges: Bamforth (1,166 acres), 

Hutton Lake (1,928 acres), and Mortenson Lake 

(1,968 acres). The Partners for Fish and Wildlife program has worked with private landowners to restore 

or enhance habitat for wildlife. Organizations such as 

The Nature Conservancy and Wyoming Stock Growers Land Trust have also worked to conserve land in 

the area.

Present Actions 

The Service’s proposed action to expand the number of acres in the Laramie Plains in fee title or in 

conservation easements would expand land acquisition authority in the area to 43,299 acres, and would 

potentially add another 10,000 acres to the Refuge 

System in fee title, and 33,299 acres in the form of 

conservation easements. Once approved, it would 

take some years for the program to begin to have a 

noticeable effect because the acquisition of fee title 

and easements would depend on available funding 

and willing sellers.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future 

Actions 

Reasonably foreseeable actions are activities that 

are independent of the proposed action but could 

result in cumulative or additive effects when combined with the alternatives under consideration. Reasonably foreseeable actions are expected to occur 

regardless of which alternative is selected. Residential, oil and gas, and wind development; increased 

water demands; and future conservation efforts by a 

variety of organizations are the primary reasonably 

foreseeable actions that are anticipated in the Laramie Plains.

Development

Population growth in the State of Wyoming is 

expected to continue to increase. Between 2000 and 

2005, Wyoming ranked 31st in population growth, 

but from 2006 to 2007, Wyoming jumped to 9th in 

population growth (Hulme et al. 2009). From 1978 to 

2007, total land in agriculture in Wyoming declined 

from 33.6 million acres to 30.2 million acres, a 

decrease of more than 10 percent. Albany County 

alone saw a 6-percent decrease in farm lands from 

2002 to 2007 (USDA 2007). However, much of the 

residential growth in Wyoming is considered rural, 

with a housing density of one unit per 40 acres 

(Hulme et al. 2009). Increasingly, these exurban 

homes are often second homes. From 1990 to 2000, 

Wyoming saw a 30-percent increase in second home 

buying; 7.2 percent of total housing units in Albany 

County are second homes. People are drawn to the 

open space, abundant wildlife, and recreational 

opportunities that are available, but exurbanization 

leads to increased habitat fragmentation and a shift 

from traditional agriculture practices. 

Wyoming ranked seventh in production of crude 

oil and second in the production of natural gas in 

2010, with production occurring throughout the State 

(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2012). Also, 

Wyoming ranks 10th in the nation in proven reserves 

of crude oil and second in proven reserves of natural 

gas. Proven reserves are the amount estimated to be 

recoverable from well-established or known reservoirs. Because of high proven reserves within the 

State and the increased nationwide need for oil and 

gas, development is likely to continue throughout the 

State.
Draft EA Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences 41 

Over 43 percent of Wyoming has the potential for 

development of wind energy (U.S. Department of 

Energy 2011). Wyoming ranks 10th in potential wind 

energy development, with 27.3 million acres 

(110,414.5 km2) of available land with an installed 

capacity of 552,072.6 megawatts and an annual generation of 1.9 million gigawatt-hours. Most of this 

potential is within the southeastern part of the State. 

Most of the land with potential for wind development 

would still be available under the proposed action.

Alternative A (No Action)

Increased residential, oil and gas, and wind development in the Laramie Plains would likely result in 

the fragmentation of wetland, riparian, grassland, 

and shrubland habitats now used by wildlife. Over 

the long term, the combined effects of these activities 

would likely result in the continuation, and possibly 

the acceleration, of the decline in wildlife populations 

and may seriously affect the possible recovery of the 

Wyoming toad.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

The proposed action would provide long-term protection of up to 43,299 acres of wildlife habitat from 

the combined effects of various future development 

activities by precluding surface occupancy and the 

resultant habitat fragmentation and infrastructure 

for the benefit of the public and wildlife.

Other Conservation Efforts

Ongoing efforts by a variety of organizations and 

agencies including The Nature Conservancy, Wyoming Stock Growers Land Trust, WGFD, and Partners for Fish and Wildlife have led to conservation of 

lands within the Laramie Plains. All these agencies 

and nongovernmental organizations have expressed 

interest in continuing conservation efforts. The 

Nature Conservancy has named the wetlands of the 

Laramie Plains as a conservation priority because of 

the large intact expanses of mixed-grass prairie and 

sagebrush steppe (Copeland et al. 2010).

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no-action alternative, current Service 

programs such as Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

would continue within the Laramie Plains region. 

The Service would continue to work cooperatively 

with landowners to voluntarily improve habitat on 

private land through various conservation means 

such as prescribed fire, range management systems, 

or native plantings. Besides Service programs, landowners also can work with various nongovernmental 

organizations and other government conservation 

initiatives. Under the no-action alternative, landowners would have fewer choices for protecting their 

lands through conservation easements. It would be 

unlikely that the acreage amount and type of habitat 

required for the recovery of the Wyoming toad would 

be successfully conserved. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

This action is important for the Service to meet 

several conservation objectives and is essential for 

meeting the Service’s recovery objectives for the 

Wyoming toad (USFWS 2013). Ecological Services 

may pursue the development of a 10(j) rulemaking for 

the historic range of the Wyoming toad. Section 10(j) 

allows reintroduced “experimental non-essential 

populations” of endangered species to be managed as 

if they were threatened. Landowners can engage in 

lawful activities, such as recreation, forestry, and 

agriculture, and are relieved from liability for the 

unintentional take of a Wyoming toad. This would 

allow private landowners to continue to manage their 

lands with reintroduced toads. Federal lands and fee 

title lands acquired as part of the WTCA will be designated as essential populations, with full protection 

of an endangered species, and will not be subject to 

the 10(j) exemptions. The 10(j) rule would encompass 

only the toad’s historic range within Albany County.

Draft Environmental Assessment

Chapter 5—Coordination and 

Environmental Review

At the Congressional level, Service staff has 

briefed Senators Enzi and Barasso and Representative Lummis’s office in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The 

Service has also provided information about this 

project to four tribes.

Nongovernmental conservation groups are vital 

to the success of the proposed project. Service staff 

has coordinated with partner organizations such as 

The Nature Conservancy, Wyoming Stock Growers 

Land Trust, and Audubon Wyoming.

5.2 Contaminants and 

Hazardous Materials

The Service is required to invest in healthy lands. 

Surveys for contaminants would be conducted before 

any land interests are acquired. A level 1 pre-acquisition site assessment would be conducted on each 

individual tract before purchase of any land interests. Any suspected contaminant problems that 

This chapter describes how the Service coordinated with other entities and conducted environmental reviews of various aspects of the project proposal 

and analysis. If the proposed action is selected, further coordination and review will be needed.

5.1 Agency Coordination

The Service has discussed the proposal to establish the WTCA with interested stakeholders; landowners; conservation organizations; other Federal 

agencies; tribal, State, and county governments; and 

other interested groups and individuals.

The Service held internal scoping meetings and 

also had several informal conversations with landowners and other interested citizens to provide information and discuss the proposal. Information on the 

WTCA was made available to Albany County commissioners, and the commissioners signed a letter of 

support (appendix B) for the area identified in the 

preliminary project proposal.

White-tailed prairie dog at Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

FWS
44 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

would require further surveys would be referred to a 

contaminants specialist located in the Service’s Ecological Services office in Cheyenne, Wyoming

5.3 National Environmental 

Policy Act

The Service conducted this environmental analysis under the authority of and in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, which requires 

an evaluation of all reasonable alternatives that will 

meet stated objectives, and an assessment of the possible effects on the natural and human environment.

5.4 Environmental Assessment

This EA will be the basis for determining 

whether the implementation of the proposed project 

constitutes a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the natural and human 

environments. National Environmental Policy Act 

planning for this EA involved other government 

agencies and the public in the identification of the 

issues and alternatives for the proposed project.

5.5 Distribution and 

Availability 

Copies of the draft EA (with the associated draft 

LPP in the same volume) were sent to Federal and 

State legislative delegations, tribes, agencies, landowners, private groups, and other interested individuals. Copies of the document are available from 

the following offices and contacts:

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex

953 County Road 32

Walden, CO 80480

970 / 723 8202

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning

Branch of Land Protection Planning

P.O. Box 25486–DFC

Denver, CO 80225 

303 / 236 4345

303 / 236 4792 fax

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/planning/lpp/wy/

htl_mrl/htl_mrl.html
Draft Land Protection Plan

Chapter 1—Introduction and Project 

Description

making their northward migration to their breeding 

grounds. Linear riparian corridors bordered the Big 

and Little Laramie Rivers and their tributaries, supporting scattered woodlands of cottonwoods and willows. The relatively fine soils and low annual 

precipitation kept the uplands in short mixed-grass 

prairie with scattered patches of shrubland. The 

Wyoming toad, a species endemic to the Laramie 

Plains, was once a common sight. Waterfowl, shorebirds, and grassland birds would dominate the skies, 

with raptors following the migration. Many mammals 

that depended heavily on white-tailed prairie dogs 

for prey and burrow habitats also lived in the area, 

including the swift fox and the black-footed ferret. 

Big game herds, including the American bison, once 

occupied almost all parts of the basin.

Today, the landscape has changed. Some wetlands 

have been filled or drained, others have been altered, 

and new wetlands in the form of flood-irrigated fields 

have been created. Only 4 percent of existing wetlands within the Laramie Plains are protected (Copeland et al. 2010a). Much of the water in the area is 

managed to support various human needs such as 

residential use, hay and crop production, and recreation. The strong ranching culture in the area has 

kept many of the habitats of the basin from being 

converted to other uses and left much of the region’s 

biodiversity intact. There are growing concerns that 

1.1 Introduction

The draft EA that was completed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service or USFWS) 

during the planning process considered several alternatives, and two of them were selected for further 

analysis. Alternative A, the no-action alternative, 

considers the consequences of not doing anything 

beyond current actions at Mortenson Lake and Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuges. Alternative B 

considers the positive and negative consequences of 

purchasing limited fee-title land and conservation 

easements and establishing the WTCA (see figure 

LPP–1 for a map of the proposed project area).

1.2 Project Description

The Laramie Plains is an isolated mountain basin 

once covered by wetlands, riparian corridors, meadows, shrublands, and native prairie. In the spring, 

snow melt would fill streams and waterways as well 

as many shallow depressions scattered throughout 

the valley. These wetlands provided an oasis of food 

and rest for thousands of waterfowl and shorebirds 

FWS

A prairie dog colony in the uplands at Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 
46 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Figure LPP-1. Map of the Wyoming Toad Conservation Area in Wyoming.
Draft LPP Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description 47 

a significant increase in residential development 

threatens the remaining natural character of this 

landscape, in particular the habitats and species that 

make the Laramie Plains regionally important for 

biological diversity. Rural development on exurban 

lots has been growing at a rate of 10 to 15 percent a 

year (USDA 2006). Such development will likely 

diminish the future value of these important biological resources and working landscapes.

Once the western fringe of the range for many 

short mixed-grass prairie species, the Laramie 

Plains has increased in relative habitat value because 

of habitat loss, fragmentation, and conversion of 

native prairie to cropland elsewhere in the Great 

Plains. Because of the relatively large, intact ecosystem still available, the basin has become crucial habitat for many species. Without increased conservation 

measures to protect upland habitat from degradation 

and conversion to other uses, species that now 

depend on the high-elevation prairie as a last remaining refuge would be vulnerable. The remaining wetlands play a vital role in providing resting and 

feeding areas for the thousands of migratory birds 

that continue to use the central flyway each spring 

and fall. However, increased sedimentation, nutrient 

runoff, salinization, and decreased water runoff jeopardize the functions and values of these wetlands. 

Similarly, riparian corridors are also affected by 

sedimentation, nutrient runoff, decreased water runoff, and stream channelization, which affect fisheries 

and other aquatic species, such as the endangered 

Wyoming toad. With decreasing water quality and 

natural water flow in the rivers and remaining wetlands, the recovery of the Wyoming toad could be 

impaired.

While increased human activity in the Laramie 

Plains has generally reduced habitat and wildlife 

populations, there have been some compensating 

effects. For example, irrigated hay meadows provide 

nesting cover for waterfowl. Some of the same floodirrigated meadows may also hold water longer during the summer months, helping to retain higher 

late-summer flows in the surrounding rivers. Large 

ranches in the basin also provide large blocks of habitat that benefit wildlife.

The entire footprint of this project would be 

located in south-central Albany County, Wyoming, 

and would encompass three existing refuges: Bamforth, Mortenson Lake, and Hutton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuges. The WTCA would focus on the 

protection of wetlands, riparian corridors, and open 

landscapes with the objective of conserving land 

through the acquisition of up to 33,299 acres of voluntary conservation easements and up to 10,000 acres 

in fee-title acquisition from willing sellers only (table 

LPP–1).

Table LPP-1. Summary of current and proposed 

acreage for the proposed Wyoming Toad 

Conservation Area, Wyoming.

National 

wildlife 

refuge

Executive 

boundary 

acres

Acquired 

acres

In-holding 

acres

Mortenson 

Lake 2,500 1,927 573

Hutton 

Lake 1,968 1,968 0

Bamforth 1,166 1,166 0

Potential 

new acres

Proposed 

fee title 

acres

Proposed 

conservation 

easement 

acres

Proposed 

project area 43,299 Up to 10,000

Up to 

33,299

Project 

boundary 

total acres

47,200

Acquisition of fee-title lands from willing sellers 

would be prioritized based on specific criteria that 

would help with meeting the criteria of the Wyoming 

Toad Draft Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2014). 

These criteria are meant to contribute to the recovery and eventual delisting of the Wyoming toad. The 

Wyoming Toad Draft Revised Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 2014) calls for the establishment of five 

independent, self-sustaining populations, all within 

the toad’s historical range. Furthermore, these five 

populations should be distributed across at least two 

basic habitat types: rivers and associated floodplains 

(lotic habitats) and ponds and lakes (lentic habitats). 

To accomplish this goal, other lands need to be 

acquired within the Wyoming toad’s historical range 

to reintroduce and conserve its populations in perpetuity. Management practices on fee-title lands could 

include prescribed fire, livestock grazing with periodic resting of pastures, exclusion of nonnative fish, 

invasive species control, and disease management. A 

compatible use study would be conducted to determine if any property acquired in fee title could be 

opened up for public use.

Conservation easements would be bought from 

willing sellers on parcels that contain habitat suitable 

to support conservation efforts. Easement acquisitions would focus on the protection of wetlands and 

riparian corridors for Federal trust species (migratory birds and threatened and endangered species). 

Lands protected via easements would remain in private ownership and could continue to be grazed, 
48 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

hayed, farmed, or otherwise managed in accordance 

with current practices. However, subdivision and 

development would be restricted and subject to stipulations agreed on by the landowners and the Service. 

Furthermore, easements may include stipulations 

related to exercising water rights, which could be 

changed only if the proposed changes would be beneficial to wildlife. Easement terms would be negotiated with each individual landowner interested in a 

conservation easement. The WTCA project, in conjunction with other conservation efforts in the region, 

would help to keep unfragmented blocks of wetland, 

grassland, and shrubland habitat. The WTCA would 

complement the conservation efforts of land trusts 

and entities such as The Nature Conservancy, Wyoming Stock Growers Land Trust, WGFD, and NRCS 

(see figure LPP–2).

1.3 Purpose of the Wyoming 

Toad Conservation Area

The purpose of the WTCA is to protect the endangered Wyoming toad and other Federal trust species 

and provide strategic habitat conservation measures 

that are necessary to maintain, conserve, restore, 

protect, and enhance the native ecological communities within the Laramie Plains. Native habitats that 

make up the Laramie Plains, including wetlands, 

riparian areas, shrublands, and short mixed-grass 

prairie, are important for a variety of wildlife species. The wetlands and riparian habitats function as 

important breeding, foraging, and nesting areas for 

large populations of migratory shorebirds, waterfowl, and neotropical passerines, and is also the historical range of the endemic endangered Wyoming 

toad. The uplands, which are covered with shrubs 

and short mixed-grass prairie, are home to whitetailed prairie dogs, pronghorn, and many grassland 

birds, such as mountain plover and McCown’s longspur. Land acquisition (fee-title and easement) and 

management of the WTCA will focus on protecting 

those habitats that complement and connect to existing protected areas, along with protecting lands in 

perpetuity for the recovery of the Wyoming toad.

Vision for the WTCA

Nestled between the Snowy and Laramie mountain ranges, the Laramie Plains is a semiarid, highelevation basin that was once the western fringe of 

many species’ ranges; due to habitat loss on the Great 

Plains and the largely intact ecosystem still available 

within the basin, the Laramie Plains has become crucial habitat for many species. 

Among them, the endemic Wyoming toad, found 

only in the Laramie Plains, now stands at the precipice of extinction. With additional research and habitat protection, the toad has the ability to once again 

become a common sight. The mosaic landscape of 

wetlands, grasslands, and shrublands will continue to 

support a multitude of diverse wildlife species as well 

as provide abundant outdoor recreation opportunities 

to visitors. The WTCA fosters a collaborative effort 

between numerous partners to conserve the valuable 

natural resources of the Laramie Plains into the 

future and will be a model of cooperative conservation between private, State, and Federal partners 

shaping a common vision for the area related to conservation, agriculture, and open space. 

Purpose of the Existing National 

Wildlife Refuges

Bamforth National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1932 by Executive Order 5783 to provide 

breeding grounds for birds and other wildlife. 

Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge was established by Executive order 5782 in 1932. The purpose 

of the refuge is to provide “a refuge and breeding 

ground for birds and wild animals.” 

Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in 1993 to protect the Wyoming toad’s 

last known population. The Wyoming toad was listed 

as an endangered species in 1984. The population at 

Mortenson Lake was found in 1987. The purpose of 

the refuge is “to conserve fish or wildlife which are 

listed as endangered species or threatened species.”

1.4 Issues Identified and 

Selected for Analysis

Please see discussion of Issues Identified and 

Selected for Analysis in section 1 of the draft EA in 

this volume.
Draft LPP Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description 49 

Figure LPP-2. Protected Lands in the Laramie Plains in Wyoming.
50 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

1.5 Public Review of and 

Comments on the Draft 

Environmental Assessment 

and Land Protection Plan

This section will be provided following analysis of 

public comments on the draft EA and LPP.

1.6 National Wildlife Refuge 

System and Authorities

Please see a discussion of the Refuge System and 

authorities in section 1 of the draft EA in this 

volume.

1.7 Related Actions and 

Activities

Please see a discussion of Related Actions and 

Activities in section 1 of the draft EA in this 

volume.

1.8 Habitat Protection and the 

Easement Acquisition Process

Following the approval of a project boundary, 

habitat protection will occur through conservation 

easements and limited fee-title acquisition. It is the 

Service’s long-established policy to acquire the minimum interest in land from willing sellers that is necessary to achieve habitat protection goals.

The acquisition authorities for fee-title and easement lands within the proposed WTCA boundary are 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742a–j) and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–ee), as 

amended. Land would be acquired primarily through 

Land and Water Conservation Fund monies generated primarily from oil and gas leases on the Outer 

Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel tax revenues, and 

the sale of surplus Federal property. The Service 

could also buy land with Federal Duck Stamp revenue from the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, other funds that meet fish 

and wildlife conservation purposes as identified by 

Congress, or donations from nonprofit 

organizations.

The basic considerations in determining whether 

land should be acquired through an easement or feetitle purchase include the biological significance of 

the area, existing and anticipated threats to wildlife 

resources, and landowner interest in the project. The 

buying of fee-title lands or conservation easements 

would occur with willing sellers only and would be 

subject to available funding. The social and economic 

impacts of conservation easements and fee-title 

acquisition are shown in table LPP–2.

Conservation Easements

An easement is a conservation tool that has been 

extensively employed by the Service and other organizations. Easements are bought from willing sellers 

and they involve the acquisition of specific property 

rights, such as the right to subdivide or develop certain types of new infrastructure, while all other 

rights are kept by the property owner. Easements 

tend to be a cost-effective means of habitat conservation that is acceptable to landowners, particularly in 

areas where current agricultural land use practices 

are consistent with wildlife resource protection.

Fee-title Acquisition

Fee-title acquisition will be limited to lands that 

can be bought from willing sellers in areas that 

would facilitate Wyoming toad recovery and promote 

the reintroduction of toads onto the land. Fee-title 

acquisition could triple or quadruple the cost of land 

conservation and add significant increases to Service 

management costs compared to conservation easements. Up to 10,000 acres is targeted for potential 

fee-title acquisition because this is the estimated 

acreage necessary to help meet the recovery objectives for the Wyoming toad that are outlined in the 

recovery plan (USFWS 2013).
Draft LPP Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description 51 

Table LPP-2. Social, economic, and biological effects of conservation easements and fee-title acquisitions for 

the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming.

Issue Conservation easements Fee-title acquisitions

Conservation 

value

■ Wyoming toad recovery efforts would 

be supported with a tool that is 

preferred over fee title by many local 

partners.

■ Used in combination with fee title, 

easements would ensure the maximum 

likelihood of achieving the recovery of 

the Wyoming toad.

■ Habitat for migratory birds, pronghorn, 

and deer would be preserved.

■ Fee-title lands are essential to meeting 

the recovery goals for the Wyoming 

toad.

■ The conservation value of fee-title lands 

may be greater than easement lands 

because the Service’s ability to control 

habitat management would be 

increased. 

Effects on local 

communities

■ The public would enjoy increased 

biodiversity, recreational quality, and 

hunting opportunities on nearby 

publicly accessible refuges and other 

public lands.

■ Neighboring property values may 

increase.

■ Traditional and historical ranching and 

farming landscapes would be 

preserved.

■ Open space would be preserved.

■ Same as for easements except 

traditional and historical ranching and 

farming practices may not be preserved 

at the same level.

■ Positive economic impacts may also 

result from increased Service habitat 

improvement expenditures injected into 

the local economy.

■ Possible increase in refuge visitation 

and associated impacts of visitor 

spending in the local economy. However, 

neighbors and other public may be 

affected by increased visitation to 

refuge lands.

■ Preservation of open space.

Landowner 

compensation

■ Landowners would be compensated for 

the fair market value of the easement.

■ Easements would reduce the fair 

market value of the property.

■ Easements would help keep land in 

agriculture.

■ Landowners would keep the majority of 

use rights, but would forfeit their right 

to develop or subdivide the land. Other 

possible restrictions include 

development of vertical structures and 

diversion or sale of water rights.

■ Landowners would be compensated for 

the fair market value of the land.

■ Landowners would forfeit all rights of 

ownership and turn ownership of the 

property over to the Service.

■ Fee-title acquisition, for willing sellers, 

would meet landowner’s long-term 

conservation objectives for their land.

Effects on local 

government net 

revenue

■ No changes to property tax revenues 

would be expected for agricultural 

lands.

■ Other government revenues, such as 

personal income tax, may be changed 

throughout the region.

■ Land protection through conservation 

easements could result in reduced 

future service costs for local 

governments and municipalities.

■ Nearby land values may increase 

because of open views.

■ The Service does not pay property 

taxes on land it owns; thus, county tax 

revenue would decline.

■ Lost property tax revenues would be 

partially replaced with Refuge Revenue 

Sharing payments.

Source: Adapted from Thomas et al. 2012

Draft Land Protection Plan

Chapter 2—Area Description and 

Resources

Please see a detailed description of the WTCA 

and the resources that could potentially be affected 

by its establishment in chapter 3 of the draft EA in 

this volume.

Draft Land Protection Plan

Chapter 3—Threats to and Status of 

Resources

6-percent decrease in farm lands from 2002 to 2007 

(USDA 2007). However, much of the residential 

growth in Wyoming is considered rural, with a 

housing density of 1 unit per 40 acres (Hulme et al. 

2009). Increasingly, these exurban homes are often 

second homes. From 1990 to 2000, Wyoming saw a 

30-percent increase in second home buying, and 7.2 

percent of total housing units in Albany County are 

second homes. People are drawn to the open space, 

abundant wildlife, and recreational opportunities 

that are available, but exurbanization leads to 

increased habitat fragmentation and a shift from 

traditional agriculture practices.

Wyoming ranked seventh in production of crude 

oil and second in the production of natural gas in 

2010, with production occurring throughout the State 

(Petroleum Association of Wyoming 2012). Also, 

Wyoming ranks 10th in the nation in proven reserves 

of crude oil and second in proven reserves of natural 

gas. Proven reserves are the amount estimated to be 

recoverable from well-established or known reservoirs. Because of high proven reserves within the 

State and the increased nationwide need for energy, 

oil and gas development is likely to continue throughout the State.

3.1 Threats to Resources

In the Laramie Plains, as with much of the West, 

communities tend to be located near riparian areas. 

Planning for expected development and other land 

use changes is needed for conserving wildlife habitat 

in the area. The Wyoming toad, along with an estimated 90 percent of the total wildlife species and 70 

percent of bird species in Wyoming (Nicholoff 2003), 

uses wetlands and riparian habitats either daily or 

seasonally.

Development

Population growth in the State of Wyoming is 

expected to continue. Between 2000 and 2005, 

Wyoming ranked 31st in population growth, but from 

2006 to 2007, Wyoming jumped to ninth in population 

growth (Hulme et al. 2009). From 1978 to 2007, total 

land in agriculture in Wyoming declined from 33.6 

million acres to 30.2 million acres, a decrease of more 

than 10 percent. Albany County alone saw a 

© Bob Gress

Prairie dog burrows and open patches of ground create habitat for several species, including mountain plover. 
56 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Over 43 percent of Wyoming has the potential for 

development of wind energy (U.S. Department of 

Energy 2011). Wyoming ranks 10th in potential wind 

energy development, with 27.3 million acres 

(42,631.28 square miles) of available land with an 

installed capacity of 552,072.6 megawatts and an 

annual generation of 1.9 million gigawatt-hours. Most 

of this potential is within the southeast part of the 

State. Most of the land with potential for wind development would still be available under the proposed 

action.

Fragmentation

Changes in land cover resulting from residential 

development, energy development, and roads not only 

cause a loss of habitat, they also fragment remaining 

habitat. There is a robust body of literature on the 

effects of habitat fragmentation that has been summarized by Collinge (2009). Countless manipulative 

and observational studies have shown that habitat 

area and connectivity between similar habitats are 

important at all trophic levels ranging from soil 

decomposers (Rantalainen et al. 2005) to passerine 

birds (Telleria and Santos 1995). Corridors between 

fragments promote use of, and persistence in, those 

habitats by migratory birds (Haas 2002), large carnivores (Shepherd and Whittington 2006, Tremblay 

2001), and ungulates (Tremblay 2001) that are native 

to the WTCA. Perhaps the most obvious way to protect migration routes as well as valuable habitat in 

the WTCA is to focus on the conservation of the 

riparian corridors that cross and connect existing 

protected areas. This action would protect wildlife 

movement corridors for seasonal migration as well as 

colonization following large-scale disturbances or 

environmental change.

Invasive Species

Increased human disturbance associated with 

development has also been shown to negatively affect 

adjoining habitat because of the introduction and 

establishment of invasive plant species. Invasive 

plants can have many detrimental effects, including 

displacement of native vegetation, alteration of nutrient cycling and soil chemistry, alteration of hydrology, increased erosion, and changes in fire regimes 

(Dukes and Mooney 2004). Collectively, such changes 

can have severe negative effects on wildlife habitat, 

such as reducing the quality of nesting and foraging 

areas.

Another invasive species that is threatening the 

Wyoming toad and other amphibian populations in 

the Laramie Plains is chytrid fungus. Mortality 

caused by this fungus has been documented in the 

Wyoming toad population at Mortenson Lake Refuge 

and is generally thought to be one of the main causes 

of the toad’s decline. Other diseases such as “whitenose syndrome” in bats and chronic wasting disease 

in cervids may also threaten the wildlife in the Laramie Plains, although these diseases have not been 

documented in the area to date.

High flow event on the Big Laramie River.

FWS
Draft LPP Chapter 3—Threats to and Status of Resources 57 

Water Use

The Laramie River and its tributaries are the 

primary source of water in the area. Because the 

open plains receive little precipitation, most surface 

and ground water is a result of snowpack runoff from 

the surrounding mountains. The potential for wetland management, creation, and restoration is constrained by the applicable provisions of State water 

law. Water can be appropriated and applied only to a 

beneficial use recognized by the State of Wyoming, 

and though a considerable number of water rights 

have been approved by the Wyoming State Engineers Office, there is no formal list of approved or 

defined beneficial uses in Wyoming (Wyoming Joint 

Venture Steering Committee 2010). Without formal 

recognition of wildlife habitat creation, maintenance, 

enhancement, or management as a beneficial use in 

the State of Wyoming, the rulings for water appropriation can be inconsistent and can lead to wetland 

habitat loss that would directly affect wetland-dependent wildlife populations. As fragmentation 

increases, remaining habitats become geographically 

isolated and wildlife populations with limited dispersal abilities may potentially become genetically and 

spatially isolated.

Climate Change

Climate change has become one of the paramount 

conservation issues and management challenges. The 

term “climate” refers to the mean and variability of 

different types of weather conditions over time, with 

30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may 

be used (Parry et al. 2007). The term “climate 

change” refers to a change in the mean or variability 

of one or more measures of climate (such as temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended 

period, typically decades or longer, whether the 

change is because of natural variability, human activity, or both (Parry et al. 2007). Various types of climate change can have direct or indirect effects on 

species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or 

negative, and may change over time, resulting in different effects on species and associated habitats 

(Parry et al. 2007).

Mountain ecosystems in the western United 

States are expected to be especially sensitive to climate change. Data shows that many places in the 

Rocky Mountains have experienced three times the 

global average temperature increase over the past 

century. The magnitude of warming in the northern 

Rocky Mountains has been particularly significant, 

as shown by an 8-day advance in the appearance of 

spring phenological indicators since the 1930s (Cayan 

et al. 2001). The hydrologic regime in the northern 

Rockies has also changed in response to the shift in 

global climate, and is projected to experience further 

changes (Bartlein et al. 1997, Cayan et al. 2001, Stewart et al. 2004). Under global climate change scenarios, the mountainous areas of northwest Wyoming 

may eventually experience milder, warmer, wetter 

winters and drier summers (Bartlein et al. 1997). 

Furthermore, the pattern of snowmelt runoff may 

change, with a reduction in spring snowmelt (Cayan 

et al. 2001) and an earlier peak runoff (Stewart et al. 

2004), resulting in relatively lower annual discharge 

during spring and summer.

There is no available information on the potential 

threats of climate change on the Wyoming toad, and 

there is no evidence of direct effects to the species at 

this time (USFWS 2013). Many species that are 

already listed as endangered or threatened may be 

particularly vulnerable to changes in climate; it is 

also recognized that, for some listed species, the 

likely effects may be positive or neutral. However, 

some studies have predicted that amphibians will be 

even more susceptible to climate change than bird or 

mammal populations because of their physiology; 

dependence on microhabitats and predictable hydrological regimes; limited dispersal abilities (Blaustein 

et al. 1994); and susceptibility to diseases that may be 

intensified by climate change (Pounds et al. 2006). 

Some models predict substantially larger changes in 

amphibian populations than in birds or mammals, 

based primarily on potential future range contractions and expansions. This multitude of projected 

impacts could exacerbate the current population 

declines of many amphibian species (Stuart et al. 

2004). Many wetland and riparian habitats, such as 

those found within the proposed boundary of the conservation area, are dependent on snowmelt from surrounding high-mountain ecosystems and are 

therefore expected to be more acutely affected by 

changes in runoff amount, timing, and quality than 

other habitats (Parry et al. 2007). Because the snowpack in high-elevation montane ecosystems directly 

affects the phenology of lower elevation watersheds, 

species associated with these systems may be more 

acutely affected than species in more temperate 

ecotypes.

For amphibians and reptiles, the timing of key 

ecological events is influenced by environmental conditions such as air and water temperatures and precipitation patterns. The timing of breeding, egg 

laying, metamorphosis, dispersal, and migration may 

shift in response to higher temperatures and changes 

in rainfall (Beebee 1995). As temperatures warm and 

the water in aquatic habitats becomes more variable, 

amphibians are likely to experience lower rates of 
58 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

survival to metamorphosis. Temperatures outside of 

their thermal optima can also cause physiological 

stresses (Gibbons et al. 2000). Because of their affinities to aquatic habitats and their small size, amphibians typically have relatively small home ranges and 

low dispersal rates (Duellman and Trueb 1994, Wells 

2007), making them more vulnerable to changes in 

their environment. The Wyoming toad, in particular, 

is a glacial relict that is adapted to a cool montane 

climate with a reliably high spring runoff. As climate 

change shifts temperature and hydrologic profiles 

beyond their historical ranges of variability, it is reasonable to assume that the Wyoming toad will experience population stress.

Migratory waterbirds are similarly adapted to a 

particular range of climate-related habitat conditions, including the timing and amount of water provided by runoff as well as the phenology of plant 

emergence and growth. Again, as climate change 

causes these conditions to shift outside of their historical ranges of variability, populations of wetland 

and riparian birds are likely to be stressed in novel 

ways.

Adaptation, Mitigation, and 

Engagement

The Service’s strategic response to climate 

change involves three core strategies: adaptation, 

mitigation, and engagement (USFWS 2009). As the 

climate changes, the abundance and distribution of 

wildlife and fish will also change in response to 

changing habitat conditions. Some species will adapt 

successfully to a warming world, many will struggle, 

and others will disappear.

The exact changes in temperature and precipitation that the Laramie Plains will experience are 

unknown. Equally unknown are the responses of 

wildlife and habitats to these changes. For example, 

some species will be more vulnerable to climate 

change than others. To help fish and other wildlife 

species adapt, keeping large areas of intact wetlands, 

robust riparian corridors, and open spaces will 

become increasingly important. The project area provides an anticipatory, rather than a reactive, 

response.

Forests, grasslands, wetlands, and soils have a 

large influence on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration forms one of the key elements of mitigation. The World Resources Institute 

estimates that, of the global stock of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems, grasslands store approximately 

34 percent, forests store approximately 39 percent, 

and agro-ecosystems store approximately 17 percent 

of the total (White et al. 2000). It is as important to 

protect existing carbon stores from further degradation as it is to sequester atmospheric carbon.

Historically, the destruction of wetlands through 

land use changes has had the largest effects on carbon fluxes and the resulting radiative forcing of 

North American wetlands. Radiative forcing is the 

measure of the amount that the Earth’s energy budget is out of balance. The primary effects have been a 

reduction in the ability of the wetlands to sequester 

carbon (a small to moderate increase in radiative 

forcing), oxidation of their soil carbon reserves on 

drainage (a small increase in radiative forcing), and 

reduction in methane emissions (a small to large 

decrease in radiative forcing). It is uncertain how 

global changes will affect the carbon pools and fluxes 

of North American wetlands (Bridgham et al. 2006). 

The WTCA project could secure the carbon already 

stored within the soils of the Laramie Plains by preventing the conversion of native vegetation to various 

types of development and thus preventing the carbon 

liberation that accompanies ground-disturbing 

development.

Engagement involves cooperation, communication, and partnerships to address the conservation 

challenges presented by climate change (USFWS 

2009). The WTCA serves as a model for engagement 

by working with landowners, nongovernmental organizations, State agencies, and Federal agencies.

One of the key recommendations that came from a 

climate change workshop that was held by The 

Nature Conservancy was to coordinate management 

of shared resources. Given that some regions are 

experiencing warming more rapidly than others, 

natural resource managers would benefit by coordinating their activities with others who are managing 

common resources. Regional and coordinated management of shared habitat may be the only way to 

make sure that some habitat can be kept in a resilient 

state while other habitat transitions to a different 

state (Robles and Enquist 2010).

Taking action on these recommendations will be 

crucial for achieving conservation and management 

goals in the face of a changing climate. Reduced 

snowpack in the mountains combined with earlier 

seasonal melting caused by rising temperatures may 

increase the intensity and length of late summer 

droughts and reduce the availability of water, especially in the western United States. Finding enough 

water is becoming an increasingly difficult challenge 

for western fish and wildlife species. Spring is arriving earlier, and plants and animals are being found 

farther and farther north of their historical ranges in 

the U.S. Wildlife biologists are concerned that this 

will mean some migratory species may not arrive in 

their breeding habitats when, or where, their particular food sources are available.
Draft LPP Chapter 3—Threats to and Status of Resources 59 

Effects of the Wyoming Toad 

Conservation Area on the Natural 

and Human Environment

For a thorough discussion of the effects of the proposed easement and fee-title acquisition program, 

see section 4 of the draft EA in this volume.

Draft Land Protection Plan

Chapter 4—Project Implementation

No-action Alternative

Under the no-action alternative, Refuge System 

conservation efforts would continue on existing refuge units according to establishment purposes and as 

outlined in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Habitat and species management and restoration 

would continue on lands owned by the Service to help 

meet the needs of migratory birds and endangered 

species. Existing habitat enhancement and restoration projects on private lands such as water developments, grazing systems, wetland protection, and 

grassland management would continue through cooperative efforts between private landowners and various conservation programs administered by the 

Service or other nongovernmental organizations like 

The Nature Conservancy and Wyoming Stock Growers Land Trust.

4.1 Land Protection Options

During development of the alternatives for this 

project, the Service considered the following land 

protection options:

■ county zoning

■ various configurations of project boundaries 

(much larger or smaller areas)

■ Safe Harbor Act agreements only

■ easements only

■ fee title only

The above protection options were found to be 

unable to meet the purpose, need, or objectives of the 

proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, and 

therefore were not considered further in the draft 

EA.

Wyoming toad

Sarah Armstrong/FWS
62 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Southern Laramie River Conservation Area, Wyoming

Under this alternative, management tools (easements or fee title) that landowners within the boundary could have chosen to carry out on their land to 

help them with habitat preservation would not be 

available from the Service. This could lead to further 

fragmentation of the landscape, residential and commercial development, and other uses of the land that 

are not compatible with wildlife conservation.

The no-action alternative would likely cause further declines in the quality and health of local natural 

resources and the overall ecosystem. It would negatively affect the recovery and eventual delisting of 

the Wyoming toad. It would be anticipated that 

recovery efforts would continue at the limited pace 

and minimal success of recent efforts. Without multiple parcels of suitable habitat dedicated to the 

establishment of sustainable populations of the toad 

within its historical range, it would be unlikely that 

the Wyoming toad would ever fully recover.

Conservation Easements and 

Limited Fee-title Acquisition 

(Proposed Action)

It is the Service’s long-established policy to 

acquire the minimum interest in land from willing 

sellers that is necessary to achieve habitat protection 

goals. Under the proposed action, the Service seeks 

to protect up to 33,299 acres through conservation 

easements within the Laramie Plains. The Service 

would seek to strategically buy conservation easements on privately owned lands that provide potentially valuable wildlife habitat. The easements would 

provide perpetual protection of habitat for Federal 

trust species (migratory birds and threatened and 

endangered species) by restricting some types of 

future development. Development for residential, 

commercial, or industrial purposes such as energy 

and aggregate extraction; alteration of the natural 

topography; and conversion of native wetlands, riparian areas, shrublands, and grasslands to cropland 

would be prohibited. Conservation easements would 

also prohibit the draining, filling, or leveling of 

wetlands.

The Service would also work to strategically protect wetland habitat for the reintroduction and establishment of up to five independent, self-sustaining 

populations of Wyoming toads that would be perpetually protected through fee-title purchase from willing sellers.

Acquisition of fee-title lands, from willing sellers 

only, would be prioritized based on specific criteria 

that would help with meeting the criteria of the Wyoming Toad Draft Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 

2014). These criteria are meant to contribute to the 

recovery and delisting of the Wyoming toad. The 

Wyoming Toad Draft Revised Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 2014) calls for the establishment of five 

independent, self-sustaining populations within the 

historical range of the Wyoming toad for the toad to 

be delisted. Furthermore, these five populations 

should be distributed across at least two basic habitat 

types: rivers and associated floodplains (lotic habitats) and ponds and lakes (lentic habitats). To accomplish this goal, more lands that are managed to 

conserve the species within its historical range will 

be necessary to secure habitat for toad reintroduction and to protect established Wyoming toad populations in perpetuity. Management practices on 

fee-title lands could include using prescribed fire, 

livestock grazing with periodic resting of pastures, 

nonnative fish exclusions, invasive species control, 

and disease management. Using a combination of 

conservation easements and up to 10,000 acres of feetitle lands would ensure the maximum likelihood of 

achieving the recovery of the Wyoming toad. A compatible use study would be conducted to determine if 

the area could be opened up for public use on any 

property acquired in fee title.

Priority Areas

Areas considered for fee-title and conservation 

easements within the project area will be prioritized 

based on the biological needs of the Wyoming toad, 

habitat quality , the threat of development, and connectivity with other protected lands (see figure 

LPP-2 in chapter 1 of this draft LPP). Other Federal 

trust species (migratory birds as well as threatened 

and endangered species) and resident species may 

also benefit from habitat conservation in the project 

area.

The acreage totals for fee-title acquisition and 

conservation easements are based in part on the 

amount of available habitat and the land needed to 

effectively carry out desired conservation efforts 

throughout the historical range of the Wyoming toad.

Management

All land enrolled in conservation easements would 

remain in private ownership, so property taxes and 

land management, within the guidelines of the easements, would remain the responsibility of the landowner. Public access would remain under the control 

of the landowner. Service staff from Arapaho NWR, 

which is near Walden, Colorado, would be responsible 

for monitoring and administering all easements. 

Monitoring would include periodically reviewing 

compliance with easement requirements through site 

visits and correspondence with landowners or their 
Draft LLP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 63 

designees. Photographs of the property would be 

taken at the time the easements are established to 

document baseline conditions. 

The land bought through fee-title agreements 

would be managed cooperatively by staff at the 

Arapaho NWR near Walden, Colorado, and the staff 

at the Wyoming Ecological Services Office in Cheyenne, Wyoming. They now cooperatively manage 

Mortenson Lake NWR for the benefit of the endangered Wyoming toad. They would be responsible for 

monitoring and administering the newly acquired 

lands according to the Service’s legal mandates and 

policies. They will also continue to work with private 

landowners, researchers, and all other partners on 

the recovery team for the Wyoming toad.

4.2 Project Objectives and 

Actions

The objectives of establishing the WTCA are to:

■ acquire and permanently protect wetland 

and riparian habitat to support Wyoming 

toad recovery and promote the establishment of multiple viable toad populations;

■ support the recovery and conservation of 

other Federal trust species that may occur 

in the WTCA;

■ protect, conserve, maintain, and enhance 

key migratory bird stopovers and breeding 

areas that serve as important feeding, resting, and nesting habitat for waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and neotropical migrants; and

■ promote ecological resiliency by connecting 

public and private conservation lands, conserving existing habitats, and working with 

willing private landowners who are interested in common goals.

4.3 Easement Terms and 

Requirements

The Service has successfully used easements in 

many projects, and the language and guidelines that 

have been written for previous projects would contribute substantially to the drafting of the WTCA 

easement language. Given the Service’s conservation 

goals in the WTCA, the easements will be drafted 

with standard language to preclude subdivision and 

development, as well as to protect existing wetlands 

from being drained or filled.

In addition, because of the scarcity of water 

resources on the Laramie Plains, there may be additional provisions about water use. The types of wetland and associated upland habitats in which the 

Service is interested are largely supported by current water use practices. Easements may include a 

stipulation that changes in water use cannot 

adversely affect the quality of habitats or species that 

the WTCA seeks to protect, and that water rights 

now used on a property under easement could not be 

sold or transferred for use on other properties unless 

such a transfer was deemed to be beneficial to 

wildlife.

All the land under easement remains in private 

ownership. Property taxes and land management, 

including control of noxious weeds and other invasive 

plants, remain the responsibility of the landowner. 

Control of public access to the land also remains 

under control of the landowner.

4.4 Contaminants or Hazardous 

Materials

The Service is required to invest in healthy lands. 

Surveys for contaminants would be conducted before 

any land interests are acquired. A level 1 pre-acquisition site assessment would be conducted on each 

individual tract before the purchase of any land interests. Any suspected contaminant problems that 

would require further surveys would be referred to a 

contaminant specialist located in the Service’s Ecological Services office in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

4.5 Acquisition Funding

The Service would acquire fee-title and conservation easement lands in the WTCA primarily through 

the use of Land and Water Conservation Fund monies generated primarily from oil and gas leases on the 

Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel tax revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal property. The 

Service could also buy land through the use of Federal Duck Stamp revenue from the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, other 

monies that meet fish and wildlife conservation pur-
64 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Southern Laramie River Conservation Area, Wyoming

poses as identified by Congress, or donations from 

nonprofit organizations.

The WTCA project area has several other government and nongovernmental organizations with overlapping conservation objectives. In the development 

of the WTCA, we have set priorities for land acquisition by the Service, but this document may also guide 

acquisitions for conservation by the NRCS’s Wetland 

Reserve Program, The Nature Conservancy, and 

Wyoming Stock Growers Land Trust, among others.

4.6 Ecosystem Management 

and Landscape Conservation 

To help with carrying out the project, the Service 

will use the expertise of the landscape conservation 

cooperative (LCC), which is responsible for delivering applied science to inform resource management 

decisions on landscape-scale issues such as climate 

change. Each landscape conservation cooperative is a 

partnership that has individuals from State and Federal governments, nongovernmental organizations, 

and universities. Planning across agency jurisdictions and boundaries is necessary to make sure that 

conservation happens at the scale necessary to 

ensure that wildlife can adapt, migrate, and colonize 

new areas in response to environmental change.

The proposed conservation area is located within 

the Great Northern LCC, which includes portions of 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming in the 

United States and parts of Alberta and British 

Columbia in Canada (figure LPP–3). While the scale 

of the proposed conservation area is relatively small 

compared to extent of the Great Northern LCC, the 

proposed project fits with three of the conservation 

goals in the Great Northern LCC Strategic ConserFigure LPP-3. Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative.
Draft LLP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 65 

vation Framework (2012). These goals are to maintain large, intact landscapes or naturally functioning 

terrestrial and aquatic community assemblages; to 

conserve a permeable landscape with connectivity 

across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including 

species movement, migration, dispersal, life history, 

and biophysical process; and to maintain hydrologic 

regimes that support native or desirable aquatic 

plant and animal communities in still and moving 

water systems.

The existing conservation partnerships and earlier conservation efforts in this region of Wyoming 

have greatly contributed to the sustainability of 

imperiled species such as Wyoming toad, greater 

sage-grouse, and Canada lynx as well as migratory 

birds throughout the region. For example, the Service has collaborated with other Federal agencies 

including the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service and the NRCS, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Geological Survey; State agencies including WGFD; and 

nongovernmental organizations including the Laramie Rivers Conservation District, The Nature Conservancy, and The Aquarium and Zoo Association, to 

keep, protect, or restore habitats and populations of 

the Wyoming toad within the proposed WTCA. 

These science and management partnerships could 

provide the necessary framework for designing and 

carrying out future conservation strategies to 

achieve population and habitat goals for the restoration of the Wyoming toad. Ultimately, the Great 

Northern LCC will contribute to strategic habitat 

conservation, land acquisition prioritization, partnership development, and landscape-level planning 

within one of the most intact and functional ecosystems in the United States.

The Secretary of the Interior recently outlined 

the importance of LCCs as a response to climate 

change (USFWS 2010). The WTCA would link existing protected land held by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and the State of 

Wyoming.

These cooperatives will continue to grow as a 

means of delivering strategic habitat conservation. 

The Service and the U.S. Geological Survey signed a 

memorandum of understanding to strengthen the 

relationship between science and management in 

landscape-level conservation.

Strategic Habitat Conservation

The WTCA would apply the strategic habitat conservation framework as outlined in the National Ecological Assessment Team Report (2006). Strategic 

habitat conservation involves an ongoing cycle of 

biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, outcome-based monitoring, and 

assumption-based research. It is also the process by 

which the Service continues to develop and apply 

science-based management to improve the capability 

of ecosystems to support populations of priority species at desired levels. Also, strategic habitat conservation provides the framework by which the Service 

develops and applies science to address landscapelevel factors that limit populations.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 Refuges Program has and will continue to coordinate 

with the Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office 

and the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

located at University of Wyoming, the Zone Biologist 

and Region 6 Inventory and Monitoring Coordinator, 

and science support staff in Fort Collins, Colorado, to 

provide support for the biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, and monitoring 

and research elements of strategic habitat conservation necessary to carry out the WTCA project. This 

LPP addresses the five key elements of strategic 

habitat conservation:

■ biological planning (setting targets)

■ conservation design (developing a plan to 

meet the goals)

■ conservation delivery (implementing the 

plan)

■ monitoring and adaptive management (measuring success and improving results)

■ research (increasing our understanding)

4.7 Biological Planning

Biological planning requires the identification of 

priority species, development of population objectives, and identification of landscape-level limiting 

factors that keep the populations of priority trust 

species below desired levels. To decide which habitat 

resources are the most important to conserve for the 

long-term sustainability of wildlife populations, a 

prioritization strategy is needed. The Service has 

evaluated the conservation priorities and concerns in 

a number of regional plans, including the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Intermountain West Joint Venture’s Waterbird and Shorebird Plans, the Partners in Flight plans, the 

Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan, the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Laramie Plains 

refuges, and the Wyoming Toad Draft Revised 

Recovery Plan. Based on these plans and input from 

other partners, initial biological planning uses one 
66 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Southern Laramie River Conservation Area, Wyoming

focal species to model the distribution and habitat 

needs of a larger group of wildlife species with similar needs. This information would also be used to set 

priorities for Service conservation efforts within the 

proposed project area.

Protection Priorities

The Service and its partners recognize the tremendous opportunity within the Laramie Plains to 

expand existing blocks of conservation lands, including lands protected under fee-title or easement ownership by the Federal government and 

conservation-oriented nongovernmental organizations. There is considerable interest by landowners in 

an additional conservation effort within the proposed 

conservation area.

In applying conservation ecology, focal species 

have been used as a practical bridge between singleand multiple-species approaches to wildlife conservation and management prioritization. By focusing our 

limited resources on a species that represents a host 

of other species or habitat, we can achieve maximum 

conservation impact. The Service, in consultation 

with nongovernmental organization partners, will 

use the Wyoming toad to model the distribution and 

habitat needs of a larger group of wildlife species 

with similar requirements. This focal species was 

chosen with the knowledge that there are gaps in the 

existing data and that the habitat in the project area 

is likely to evolve over time in the face of both natural 

and human-caused change. As new data becomes 

available or conditions change to the point that this 

conservation strategy is no longer effective, biological planning will be revisited and adaptive management applied.

Focal Species

The Wyoming toad, Anaxyrus (Bufo) baxteri, 

which is the focal species for the project, has already 

been the subject of detailed habitat mapping within 

the State of Wyoming by the Wyoming Natural 

Diversity Database in a collaborative project to help 

the WGFD refine estimates of range and distribution 

for the State Wildlife Action Plan. The procedures 

used in generating these models are commonly used 

within wildlife modeling studies. The environmental 

characteristics of locations where species have been 

documented to occur were then statistically extrapolated to identify other areas that are potentially suitable for occupation (Keinath et al. 2010).

The Wyoming toad, Anaxyrus (Bufo) baxteri, 

was first described in 1946 by Dr. George T. Baxter. 

The toad is thought to be a glacial relict. The toad 

once flourished in the Laramie Plains, but in the 

1970s the population dramatically declined, and by 

the 1980s, individuals were extremely rare (Baxter 

and Stromberg 1980, Stromberg 1981, Vankirk 1980, 

Baxter and Meyer 1982, Baxter and Stone 1985, 

Lewis et al. 1985). The species was federally listed as 

endangered in 1984 under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). In 

1993, under the authority of the Endangered Species 

Act, the Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

was established for the protection of the species’ last 

known population.

The historical distribution of the Wyoming toad, 

based on scientific records from Dr. George Baxter 

and Ronald Beiswenger’s research, includes the 

floodplain ponds and small seepage lakes associated 

with the Big and Little Laramie Rivers as well as 

other wetlands within the shortgrass communities of 

the Laramie Plains in Albany County, Wyoming. 

Current distribution is limited to Mortenson Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge and one nearby Safe Harbor Act site. There are very few Wyoming toads 

thought to be in the wild and approximately 500 in 

captivity, and the low population alone makes the 

species vulnerable. Another major threat to the Wyoming toad is infectious disease, including the amphibian Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) fungus, 

which has been linked to amphibian declines worldwide (Berger et al. 1998). Bd was documented in wild 

Wyoming toads from Mortenson Lake in 2000 and in 

2001 (USFWS 2013). The other severe threat to the 

Wyoming toad discussed in the draft recovery plan is 

the lack of perpetually protected habitat. The proposed action directly addresses this severe threat to 

the Wyoming toad by protecting habitat that is 

needed for recovery goals to be met and that is 

important for the future of Wyoming toad 

conservation.

Little is known about the habitat requirements for 

the Wyoming toad, but the current thought is that 

the toad historically occurred in rivers and associated floodplains (lotic habitats) of the Big and Little 

Laramie Rivers and nearby ponds and lakes (lentic 

habitats). Ongoing research supported by the Service 

and a multitude of public and private partners on the 

Wyoming toad recovery team is focused on practical 

aspects of Wyoming toad recovery, such as defining 

optimal habitat for the early stages (egg, tadpole, and 

metamorph) of the toad’s life cycle in terms of thermal regimes, and devising optimal early stage rearing pens that will optimize the survival of released 

tadpoles. As well as conducting research on Bd and 

the use of outdoor microcosms to prepare toads for 

release into the wild, all of the previous and ongoing 
Draft LLP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 67 

research went into the biological planning for this 

proposed project.

The goal for the Wyoming toad is to restore multiple self-sustaining populations within the historical 

range and habitat and subsequently downlist and 

eventually delist the toad. The Wyoming Toad Draft 

Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2014) outlines the 

population objectives that must be met for the toad to 

be downlisted from endangered to threatened and 

the additional criteria that must be met for the toad 

to be delisted entirely.

The Wyoming toad represents a larger group of 

species that occupy wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

habitat. These species include waterbirds, such as 

Wilson’s phalarope, white-faced ibis, canvasback, and 

northern pintail, as well as riparian species, such as 

little brown bat and willow flycatcher (Nicholoff 2003, 

Griscom et al. 2012).

4.8 Conservation Design

Conceptual and quantitative models have been 

developed to help predict key habitat for the Wyoming toad and to aid in the initial conservation 

design and delivery efforts. As new information 

becomes available, the models would be updated 

throughout the implementation of this project. 

The Wyoming toad, like many species, requires 

more than one type of habitat during its life history. 

Although historically the toad has lived in close association with rivers and floodplains near Laramie, 

some specific information about the toad’s life history 

is still unknown. It has been found that different 

habitats around Mortenson Lake are associated with 

breeding, tadpole production, toadlet growth, and 

hibernation during early summer and in winter. The 

WTCA would help maintain connectivity between 

the different types of habitat required by the Wyoming toad.

Focal Species Model

Prior to the 1950s and 1960s, the Wyoming toad 

was dispersed throughout the entire Big and Little 

Laramie floodplains. A variety of information and 

data sources were used to determine a project boundary for the WTCA that could meet the objectives for 

recovery of the Wyoming toad. Formal documentation of this historical range is limited to verbal 

accounts by area residents.

Occurrence data (from 1939 to present day) were 

made available through the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) at the University of Wyoming. The data are derived from a combination of 

population observations, specimen sampling information, surveys, and paper maps from a wide variety of 

researchers and Wyoming toad observers (WYNDD 

2013). A large amount of the information, known as 

the “Baxter Historic Area Polygons,” came from 

George Baxter, Ron Beiswenger, and Bill Gern. The 

information for the polygons was collected after a 

noticeable decline in the Wyoming toad population in 

the early 1970s. Archival data were documented as 

either hand-drawn polygons or individual researchercollected points on reference maps which were digitized into an electronic format. When converting the 

paper data to digitized data, WYNDD established a 

precision error determination to account for historic 

map quality or potential scale errors on these 

archived maps. All data with a precision error over 

800 meters (0.5 mile) were eliminated from inclusion 

in the project area development.

Modern data were plotted using GPS coordinates 

collected by observers. The occurrence information 

typically represents spring and summer observations 

associated with the presence of egg masses, tadpoles, 

young of the year, observed adults, or breeding vocalization. In order to ensure that Wyoming toads’ yearround habitat needs were being met, including the 

need for upland hibernacula, the occurrence data 

were buffered by 1 mile (see figure LPP-4). The basis 

for the 1-mile buffer on both polygons and points is 

supported by a 2011 telemetry study conducted by 

the Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office that 

tracked several toads originating at Mortenson Lake; 

at least one individual migrated just over 1 mile from 

breeding habitat to its chosen hibernaculum 

(USFWS 2012b).

The Wyoming toad was never observed upstream 

from Sodergreen Lake on the Big Laramie River. 

The upper limit of Wyoming toad habitat on the Little Laramie River is less precisely located somewhere below Highway 130 and the lower end of the 

Vee Bar Ranch. Upstream from these locations, the 

shape, pattern, and profile of the two rivers suggests 

a change in stream type and habitat that is undesirable to the Wyoming toad. Upstream habitat has a 

higher gradient, lower water temperatures, higher 

bed load transport capability, and a narrower floodplain. The Baxter Historic Area Polygons (buffered 

by 1 mile) were used to generate the upper reach 

limitations on both rivers (see figure LPP-4). Upper 

reaches on the rivers were clipped to the Baxter Historic Area Polygons (buffered by 1 mile).

The downstream extent of the historic Wyoming 

toad range below the confluence of the two rivers has 

not been determined. Changes in stream classification are also limited but available data could potentially be explored in the future. The buffered Baxter 
68 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Southern Laramie River Conservation Area, Wyoming

Figure LPP-4. Wyoming toad predicted habitat and historical range based on Dr. George Baxter and Ronald E. 

Beiswenger’s paper maps displaying locations and field notes digitized by the Service.
Draft LLP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 69 

Historic Area Polygons, which are the best available 

source of information, were selected to represent the 

downstream extent of WTCA project boundary.

These locations, in combination with historical 

location records and field notes, were used to create a 

digital map. The second mapping layer is a model 

produced by the WYNDD based on geo-referenced 

records of documented field observations that were 

collected, quality-checked, and compiled into a central database. Each observation record was then 

attributed with the values of multiple environmental 

variables such as elevation, mean annual precipitation, and landcover type as measured at the observation site. The measurements for all observation 

records were then summarized by a multivariate 

modeling algorithm (Phillips et al. 2006) that predicted the subset of environments out of all of the 

multivariate environments in the study area that 

were potentially occupied by the Wyoming toad. The 

model presented here is the spatial expressions of 

those models; that is, it shows all environments similar to the environments at points of known occurrence. This gives the predicted distribution based on 

the current known toad distribution. Because this 

model is based on the current distribution, there are 

limitations in the range of values for the model predicting the probability of occurrence. The predicted 

areas with a medium and high probability of occurrence are represented in figure LPP–4 along with the 

results from the Wyoming Gap Analysis (Merrill 

1996) for the Wyoming toad.

Priority Categories

The proposed WTCA has been classified into conservation priority categories based on the expected 

importance of habitat in providing for the recovery of 

the Wyoming toad using modeling results from 

WYNDD data and historical Wyoming toad habitat 

(see figure LPP–5).

■ High Conservation Rank—First Priority 

Area: The area of highest priority includes 

any area that falls within the Baxter Polygons (without a buffer) and each point of 

occurrence (buffered to 800 meters). Individual observation points were buffered by 

800 meters, which is the limit of precision 

error determined by WYNDD. These areas 

could provide the year-round habitat 

required by toads including lentic and lotic 

wetlands, as well as upland areas used for 

hibernation.

■ Medium Conservation Rank—Second Priority Area: The area of second-highest priority includes key wetland and riparian 

habitat and associated uplands, identified as 

predicted habitat for the Wyoming toad by 

WYNDD’s Model for the Assessment of 

Wildlife Vulnerability to Energy Development (AWVED) which was developed by 

WYNDD for terrestrial vertebrate Species 

of Conservation Need, as identified in Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s State 

Wildlife Action Plan (WGFD 2010). This 

area has been identified as having a medium 

to high “probability of occurrence” according to the AWVED.

The remaining habitats within the Area of Interest Boundary are included to ease the delineation of 

the Area of Interest. The remaining areas may also 

include habitats associated with other Federal trust 

species. The historic habitat requirements of the toad 

in and around river floodplains are poorly understood 

today. As specific knowledge about the toad’s life history, impacts of climate change, and disease management increases, prioritization of habitat conservation 

areas within the WTCA will change.

4.9 Integrated Conservation 

Delivery

Staff members from Arapaho Refuge Complex 

and the Ecological Services Office in Cheyenne have 

worked with a wide variety of agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private landowners on 

wildlife conservation issues and opportunities. Partners for Fish and Wildlife biologists have worked 

with landowners on habitat restoration projects and 

in developing partnerships that provide the foundation for a successful easement program. The ongoing 

involvement of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

program as well as the many partner organizations 

and agencies will be essential for the effective delivery of a sustainable conservation program. Application of the strategic habitat conservation framework 

will build on existing partnerships while also supporting the development of new partnerships for 

conserving habitats throughout the Laramie Plains. 

The proposed WTCA would serve as a model for 

engagement in that it would work with landowners, 

nongovernmental organizations, State agencies, and 

Federal agencies.
70 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Southern Laramie River Conservation Area, Wyoming

Landscape Prioritization

The land protection priorities map (figure LPP–5) 

is useful for deciding where in the landscape the key 

habitats are for the Wyoming toad. This map informs 

decision makers about which areas would provide the 

most effective conservation returns overall. Besides 

the presence or absence of habitat for the Wyoming 

toad, it is important to take into account issues such 

as connectivity, cost, and unequal conservation need.

Evaluation of Easement and Feetitle Potential

The relative importance of any potential easement 

or fee-title purchase will be decided by the amount 

and quality of Wyoming toad habitat on the parcel. 

The prioritization modeling and ranking criteria 

described above will be used by Service staff and 

realty specialists to objectively evaluate and prioritize individual tracts of land.

4.10 Monitoring Adaptive 

Management and Research

Strategic habitat conservation requires an effective monitoring program to make sure that conservation efforts are resulting in net positive benefit for 

the Wyoming toad. The land protection prioritization 

map (figure LPP-5) is primarily a guide for effective 

fee-title and easement acquisition from interested 

landowners. Population monitoring will help to guarantee the efficacy of the program; if populations of 

Wyoming toad continue to decline within the project 

area, then further literature review, targeted 

research, or both can be applied to adjust conservation planning for the WTCA. As understanding of the 

functional relationships between the priority species 

and habitat increases, the Service would adapt its 

land acquisition strategies to better meet the needs 

of the Wyoming toad. Some of the monitoring phase 

of strategic habitat conservation can be carried out 

by Refuge staff with help from the Service Inventory 

and Monitoring Initiative, as well as the Ecological 

Services Office in Cheyenne, Wyoming. However, it is 

important to recognize that similar monitoring will 

be carried out by partner agencies, and communication among these agencies is crucial for effective 

monitoring in the face of limited staff and financial 

resources. Furthermore, Service staff should work 

with regional academic institutions to facilitate basic 

and applied research while addressing research gaps. 

Specifically, monitoring and research should include:

■ developing, improving, and assessing models 

for the Wyoming toad. Existing models have 

a great degree of uncertainty regarding 

limiting factors. Data from continuing surveys will be evaluated and incorporated into 

spatial models. Further data will be collected to evaluate assumptions used in the 

modeling process and assessments will be 

adjusted accordingly. These methods will 

provide an estimate of the population 

response of the Wyoming toad on project 

and non-project lands;

■ evaluating assumptions and addressing 

uncertainties found through the biological 

planning, conservation design, and conservation delivery elements of strategic habitat 

conservation will be conducted by the Service in cooperation with partners such as 

nongovernmental organizations and 

universities;

■ assessing the contribution of land protection 

toward meeting the Wyoming toad population recovery goals. This will allow the Service and conservation partners to evaluate 

the contribution of the WTCA to meeting 

population goals and refine conservation 

delivery to guarantee maximum 

effectiveness;

■ determining how changing environmental 

conditions may influence the effectiveness of 

this conservation design as increased evaporation, socially and economically driven 

changes in water use, and evolution of the 

type and timing of precipitation and runoff 

influence the hydrology of the WTCA.

4.11 Socioeconomic 

Considerations

Please see the discussion of socioeconomic considerations in section 3.4 of the draft EA in this 

volume.
Draft LLP Chapter 4—Project Implementation 71 

Figure LPP-5. Land protection priorities within the boundary of the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, 

Wyoming. 
72 Draft EA and LPP—Proposed Southern Laramie River Conservation Area, Wyoming

4.12 Public Involvement and 

Coordination

Public scoping meetings are to be held in Laramie, Wyoming, in fall 2014 to discuss the draft EA 

and LPP for this project.

4.13 Distribution and 

Availability

Copies of the draft EA and LPP were sent to Federal and State legislative delegations, tribes, agencies, landowners, private groups, and other 

interested individuals. Copies of the document are 

available from the following offices and contacts:

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex

953 County Road 32

Walden, CO 80480

970 / 723 8202

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning

Branch of Land Protection Planning

P.O. Box 25486–DFC

Denver, CO 80225 

303 / 236 4345

303 / 236 4792 fax

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/planning/lpp/wy/

htl_mrl/htl_mrl.html
Glossary

alternative—A reasonable way to solve a problem or 

satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 1500.2); one of 

several different means of accomplishing refuge 

purposes and goals and contributing to the Refuge System mission (The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5).

amphibian—A class of cold-blooded vertebrates, 

including frogs, toads, and salamanders.

biological diversity, also biodiversity—The variety of 

life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among 

them, and the communities and ecosystems in 

which they occur (The Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual, 052 FW 1.12B). The National Wildlife 

Refuge System’s focus is on indigenous species, 

biotic communities, and ecological processes.

cervid—All members of the family Cervidae and 

hybrids, including deer, elk, moose, caribou, reindeer, and related species.

comprehensive conservation plan—A document that 

describes the desired future conditions of the refuge and guides long-range management direction 

for the refuge manager to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of 

the Refuge System, and to meet other relevant 

mandates (The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 

602 FW 1.5).

conservation easement—A legally enforceable 

encumbrance or transfer of property rights to a 

government agency or land trust for the purposes 

of conservation. Rights transferred could include 

discretion to subdivide or develop land, to change 

current land use practices, and to sever water 

rights, or other rights, and are specified by a contract between the landowner and the conservation 

entity.

cultural resources—The remains of sites, structures, 

or objects used by people in the past.

ecological resiliency—The ability to absorb disturbances, to be changed, and then to reorganize and 

still have the same identity, that is, keep the same 

basic structure and ways of functioning. A resilient system is forgiving of external shocks; a disturbance is unlikely to affect the whole. A 

resilient habitat (1) sustains many species of 

plants and animals and a highly variable structural composition; (2) is asymmetric; (3) exemplifies biological integrity, biological diversity, and 

environmental health; and (4) adapts to climate 

ecosystem—A dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated nonliving environment; a biological community, with its environment, functioning as a unit. 

For administrative purposes, the Service has 

designated 53 ecosystems covering the United 

States and its possessions. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and 

their sizes and ecological complexity vary.

endangered species—A plant or animal species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range.

Endangered Species Act—A U.S. law passed by Congress in 1973 with the purpose of protecting and 

recovering imperiled species and the ecosystems 

on which they depend.

endemic species—Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited.

environmental assessment (EA)—A concise public 

document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly 

discusses the purpose of and need for an action 

and alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact 

statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9).

extinction—The complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing.

Federal trust species—All species for which the Federal Government has primary jurisdiction, including species Federally listed as endangered or 

threatened, migratory birds, anadromous fish, 

and certain marine mammals.

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original habitat that are interspersed with a variety of 

other habitat types; the process of reducing the 

size and connectivity of habitat patches, making 

movement of individuals or genetic information 

between parcels difficult or impossible.

focal species—A single species that is used as a representative of many species which occupy a simi-
74 Draft EA and LPP, Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

lar habitat and which are vulnerable to similar 

threats.

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

needed by an organism for survival and reproduction; the place where an organism typically lives 

and grows.

inholding—Non-Service land owned by private parties, other agencies, or other groups that is within 

the executive boundary of a National Wildlife 

Refuge.

invasive plant—A species that is nonnative to the 

ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health.

land protection plan (LPP)—A document needed by 

USFWS policy before the establishment of new 

units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, or 

major expansions of existing units.

landscape conservation cooperative (LCC)—A publicprivate partnership intended to facilitate crosspolitical boundary conservation in the face of a 

changing environment through application of 

science.

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of animals between their breeding regions and 

their wintering regions; to travel from one region 

or climate to another for feeding, breeding, or 

wintering.

migratory birds—Birds that follow a seasonal movement from their breeding grounds to their wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and 

songbirds are all migratory birds.

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason 

for being.

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an environmental impact or to make an impact less 

severe.

monitoring—The process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time. 

national wildlife refuge—A designated area of 

land or water, or an interest in land or water 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System, but 

not including coordination areas; a complete listing of all units of the Refuge System is in the current Annual Report of Lands Under Control of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)— 

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of 

fish and wildlife, including species threatened 

with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests 

therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife 

refuges; areas for the protection and conservation 

of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; and wildlife ranges, game ranges, 

wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997—Sets the mission and the administrative 

policy for all refuges in the Refuge System; 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and fitness of the six 

priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining appropriateness, fitness, and compatibility; establishes the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System; and 

requires a comprehensive conservation plan for 

each refuge by the year 2012. This act amended 

parts of the Refuge Recreation Act and National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966.

nongovernmental organization—Any group that is not 

made up of Federal, State, tribal, county, city, 

town, local, or other governmental entities.

objective—An objective is a concise target statement 

of what will be achieved, how much will be 

achieved, when and where it will be achieved, and 

who is responsible for the work, derived from 

goals and providing the basis for selecting management strategies. Objectives should be able to 

be achieved and time specific and should be stated 

quantitatively to the extent possible. If objectives 

cannot be stated quantitatively, they may be 

stated qualitatively (The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5).

proposed action—The alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

(contributes to the Refuge System mission, 

addresses the significant issues, and is consistent 

with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management).

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; Native American tribes; and foreign 

nations. It may include anyone outside the core 

planning team. It includes those who may or may 

not have shown an interest in Service issues and 

those who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them.

public involvement—A process that offers affected 

and interested individuals and organizations an 

opportunity to become informed about, and to 

express their opinions on, Service actions and 

policies. In the process, these views are studied 

thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management.

purpose of the refuge—The purpose of a refuge is 

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, 

donation document, or administrative memoran-
Glossary 75 

dum establishing authorization or expanding a 

refuge, a refuge unit, or a refuge subunit (The 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5).

raptor—A carnivorous bird such as a hawk, a falcon, 

or a vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on meat 

taken by hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses).

Region 6—An administrative unit of the Service 

known as the Mountain-Prairie Region, which 

covers eight States: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 

and Wyoming

restoration—Management emphasis designed to 

move ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, such as healthy upland habitats and 

aquatic systems.

Service—United States Fish and Wildlife Service

shorebird—Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds 

which includes plovers and sandpipers.

strategic habitat conservation—An iterative adaptive 

management framework designed to make sure 

that decision making and management within the 

Service is science-based. Consists of four stages: 

biological planning, conservation design, delivery 

of conservation action, and monitoring and 

research.

threatened species—Species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that are 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of 

their range.

vision statement—A concise statement of the desired 

future condition of the planning unit, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, specific 

refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates 

(The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 

1.5).

waterfowl—A category of birds that consists of 

ducks, geese, and swans.

watershed—The region draining into a river, a river 

system, or a body of water.

Author’s name Position Work unit

Tyler Abbott Deputy field supervisor USFWS, Region 6, Wyoming Ecological Services Office, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Mead Klavetter Former deputy project leader USFWS, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Walden, 

Colorado

Mindy Meade Partners wildlife biologist USFWS, Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Laramie, Wyoming

Linda Moeder Cartographer USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Melanie Olds Former satellite refuge 

manager

USFWS, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Walden, 

Colorado

Mark Sattelberg Field supervisor USFWS, Region 6, Wyoming Ecological Services Office, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Amy Thornburg Land protection planning 

team leader

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Ann Timberman Project leader USFWS, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Walden, 

Colorado

Meg Van Ness Regional archaeologist USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Contributor’s 

name Project leader Work unit

Elizabeth Berkley Former wildlife biologist USFWS, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, Colorado

Barbara Boyle Refuge supervisor CO KS 

NE USFWS, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, Colorado

Michael Dixon Deputy project leader USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning,

Lakewood, Colorado

Toni Griffin Acting chief, Division of 

Refuge Planning

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning,

Lakewood, Colorado

Murray Laubhan Wildlife biologist USFWS, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Stafford, Kansas

David Lucas Former chief, Division of 

Refuge Planning

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning,

Lakewood, Colorado

Charles Mathis Former deputy project leader USFWS, Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge, Walden, Colorado

Jan McKee Former fish and wildlife 

biologist

USFWS, Region 6, Wyoming Ecological Services Office, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Paul Santavy Deputy assistant regional 

director

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning,

Lakewood, Colorado

Sylvia Cantu Desktop publisher North State Resources, Inc., Redding, California

Brooke McDonald Technical editor North State Resources, Inc., Redding, California

Kathryn McDonald Managing editor North State Resources, Inc., Redding, California

Appendix A

List of Preparers and Contributors

Appendix B 

Letter of Support

Appendix C

Species Lists

Scientific name Common name

AMARANTHACEAE PIGWEED FAMILY

Atriplex gardneri Gardner’s saltbush

Atriplex micrantha Two-scale saltbush

Kochia scoparia Fireweed

Krascheninnikovia 

lanata

Winterfat

Salicornia rubra Red swampfire

Salsola australis Common Russian thistle

Salsola collina Slender Russian thistle

Salsola kali Prickly Russian thistle

Suaeda calceoliformis Pursh seepweed

Suaeda nigra Bush seepweed

AMARYLLIDACEAE AMARYLLIS FAMILY

Allium textile Textile onion

APIACEAE PARSLEY FAMILY

Cicuta douglasii Western water hemlock

Lomatium orientale Northern Idaho 

biscuitroot

Musineon divaricatum Leafy wildparsley

Sium suave Hemlock waterparsnip

Asclepiadaceae Milkweed family

Asclepias hallii Hall’s milkweed

Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed

ASPARAGACEAE ASPARAGUS FAMILY

Yucca glauca Soapweed yucca

ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY

Achillea millefolium Common yarrow

Agoseris glauca Pale agoseris

Scientific name Common name

Almutaster pauciflorus Alkali marsh aster

Antennaria microphylla Rocky mountain pussytoes

Antennaria rosea Rosy pussytoes

Artemisia cana Silver sagebrush

Artemisia frigida Prairie sagewort

Artemisia ludoviciana White sagebrush

Artemisia tridentata 

vaseyana

Mountain big sagebrush

Artemisia tridentata 

wyomingensis

Wyoming big sagebrush

Carduus nutans Musk thistle

Chrysothamnus 

viscidiflorus

Douglas rabbitbrush

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle

Cirsium canescens Prairie thistle

Conyza canadensis Canada horseweed

Crepis runcinata Fiddleleaf hawksbeard

Dieteria bigelovii Bigelow tansyaster

Dieteria canescens Hoary tansyaster

Ericameria nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush

Erigeron lonchophyllus Spearleaf fleabane

Erigeron nematophyllus Needleleaf fleabane

Erigeron pumilus Shaggy fleabane

Grindelia squarrosa Curlycup gumweed

Grindelia subalpina Subalpine gumweed

Gutierrezia sarothrae Broom snakeweed

Helenium autumnale Mountain sneezeweed

Helianthus nuttallii Nuttall’s sunflower

Heterotheca subaxillaris Camphorweed

Heterotheca villosa Hairy false goldaster

Iva axillaris Povertyweed

Lygodesmia juncea Rush skeletonplant

Packera pauciflora Alpine groundsel

Pyrrocoma lanceolata Lanceleaf goldenweed

Senecio hydrophiloides Tall groundsel

Senecio spartioides Broom groundsel

Seneio integerrimus Lambstongue ragwort

Sonchus arvensis Field sowthistle

Sonchus palustris Marsh sowthistle

The following species have been documented, or 

potentially occur, within the proposed Wyoming 

Toad Conservation Area.

C.1 List of Plant Species

These are the plant species found within the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area.
82 Draft EA and LPP, Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Scientific name Common name

Stenotus armerioides Thrift mock goldenweed

Symphyotrichum 

ascendens

Western aster

Symphyotrichum 

falcatum

White prairie aster

Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion

Tetradymia canescens Spineless horsebrush

Tetraneuris acaulis Stemless four-nerve daisy

Townsendia hookeri Hooker’s townsend daisy

Tragopogon dubius Yellow salsify

Xanthisma spinulosum Lacy tansyaster

Xylorhiza glabriuscula Smooth woodyaster

BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY

Cryptantha thyrsiflora Calcareous cryptantha

Cryptantha virgata Miner’s candle

Heliotropium 

curassavicum

Seaside heliotrope

Lappula occidentalis Flatspine stickseed

Lappula squarrosa European stickseed

Lithospermum incisum Narrowleaf stoneseed

BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY

Alyssum desertorum Desert madwort

Boechera retrofracta Second rockcress

Camelina microcarpa Littlepod false flax

Chorispora tenella Crossflower

Descurainia pinnata Western tansymustard

Descurainia sophia Flaxweed tansymustard

Erysimum asperum Western wallflower

Erysimum capitatum Sand dune wallflower

Erysimum inconspicuum Shy wallflower

Erysimum repandum Spreading wallflower

Lepidium alyssoides Mesa pepperwort

Lepidium appelianum Hairy whitetop

Lepidium densiflorum Common pepperweed

Lepidium montanum Mountain pepperweed

Lepidium perfoliatum Clasping pepperweed

Physaria ludoviciana Foothill bladderpod

Physaria montana Mountain bladderpod

Rorippa sinuata Spreading yellowcress

Sisymbrium linifolium Flaxleaf plainsmustard

Thelypodium 

integrifolium

Entireleaved thelypody

Thlaspi arvense Field pennycress

CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY

Escobaria vivipara Spinystar

Opuntia polyacantha Plains pricklypear

Scientific name Common name

Pediocactus simpsonii Simpson hedgehog cactus

CARYOPHYLLACEAE PINK FAMILY

Eremogone hookeri Hooker’s sandwort

Paronychia sessiliflora Creeping nailwort

CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY

Chenopodium atrovirens Dark goosefoot

Chenopodium rubrum Red goosefoot

CLEOMACEAE CLEOME FAMILY

Peritoma serrulata Rocky Mountain beeplant

CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY

Amphiscirpus nevadensis Nevada bulrush

Bolboschoenus maritimus Cosmopolitan bulrush

Carex duriuscula Needleleaf sedge

Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge

Carex praegracilis Clustered field sedge

Eleocharis fallax Creeping spikerush

Eleocharis macrostachya Pale spikerush

Schoenoplectus 

americanus

American bulrush

Schoenoplectus lacustris Lakeshore bulrush

Schoenoplectus pungens Common threesquare

Schoenoplectus 

tabernaemontani

Softstem bulrush

EQUISETACEAE HORESETAIL FAMILY

Equisetum laevigatum Smooth horsetail

FABACEAE PEA FAMILY

Astragalus agrestis Purple milkvetch

Astragalus bisulcatus Two-grooved milkvetch

Astragalus bodinii Bodin’s milkvetch

Astragalus crassicarpus Groundplum milkvetch

Astragalus missouriensis Missouri milkvetch

Astragalus pectinatus Narrowleaf milkvetch

Astragalus spatulatus Tufted milkvetch

Astragalus tridactylicus Foothill milkvetch

Glycyrrhiza lepidota American licorice

Melilotus albus White sweetclover

Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweetclover

Oxytropis deflexa Nodding locoweed

Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover

Trifolium repens White clover

GENTIANACEAE GENTIAN FAMILY

Gentianella amarella Autumn dwarf gentian

Lomatogonium rotatum Marsh felwort

GROSSULARIACEAE GOOSEBERRY FAMILY

Ribes aureum Golden currant
Appendix C—Species List 83 

Scientific name Common name

IRDACEAE IRIS FAMILY

Iris missouriensis Rocky mountain iris

Sisyrinchium implicatum Blue-eyed grass

Sisyrinchium pallidum Pale blue-eyed grass

JUNCACEAE RUSH FAMILY

Juncus arcticus Arctic rush

Juncus balticus Baltic rush

Juncus bufonius Toad rush

Juncus compressus Roundfruit rush

Juncus longistylis Longstyle rush

Juncus nevadensis Sierra rush

Juncus nodosus Knotted rush

Juncus torreyi Torrey rush

JUNCAGINACEAE ARROWGRASS FAMILY

Triglochin maritima Common bog arrowgrass

Triglochin palustris Marsh arrowgrass

LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY

Mentha arvensis Wild mint

Scutellaria galericulata Marsh skullcap

LINACEAE FLAX FAMILY

Linum lewisii Prairie flax

MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY

Sphaeralcea coccinea Scarlet globemallow

MELANTHIACEAE FALSE HELLEBORE FAMILY

Toxicoscordion 

venenosum

Meadow deathcamas

NYCTAGINACEAE FOUR O’CLOCK FAMILY

Mirabilis linearis Narrowleaf four o’clock

ONAGRACEAE EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY

Epilobium ciliatum Fringed willowherb

Epilobium palustre Marsh willowherb

Gaura coccinea Scarlet beeblossom

Oenothera coronopifolia Crownleaf evening 

primrose

ORCHIDACEAE ORCHID FAMILY

Platanthera hyperborea Northern bogorchild

OROBANCHACEAE BROOMRAPE FAMILY

Orobanche fasciculata Clustered broomrape

Orobanche ludoviciana Louisiana broomrape

Orthocarpus luteus Yellow owl’s-clover

Pedicularis crenulata Meadow lousewort

PHRYMACEAE PHRYMAS FAMILY

Mimulus glabratus Roundleaf monkeyflower

Mimulus guttatus Common monkeyflower

PLANTAGINACEAE PLANTAIN FAMILY

Scientific name Common name

Hippuris vulgaris Common mare’s tail

Penstemon angustifolius Broadbeard beardtongue

Penstemon laricifolius Larchleaf beardtongue

Plantago eriopoda Redwool plantain

POACEAE GRASS FAMILY

Achnatherum 

hymenoides

Indian ricegrass

Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass

Agropyron desertorum Desert wheatgrass

Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bentgrass

Alopecurus arundinaceus Creeping meadow foxtail

Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass

Calamagrostis stricta Narrowspike reedgrass

Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted hairgrass

Distichlis spicata Saltgrass

Elymus elymoides Squirreltail

Elymus macrourus Thickspike wheatgrass

Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass

Hesperostipa comata Needle and thread

Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley

Koeleria macrantha Prairie junegrass

Leymus cinereus Basin wildrye

Leymus simplex Alkali wildrye

Muhlenbergia filiformis Pullup muhly

Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass

Phleum pratense Common timothy

Poa cusickii Cusick’s bluegrass

Poa fendleriana Muttongrass

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass

Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass

Poa trivialis Rough bluegrass

Psathyrostachys juncea Russian wildrye

Pseudoroegneria spicata Bluebunch wheatgrass

Puccinellia nuttalliana Nuttall’s alkaligrass

Sporobolus airoides Alkali sacaton

Sporobolus cryptandrus Sand dropseed

POLEMONIACEAE PHLOX FAMILY

Ipomopsis spicata Spiked ipomopsis

Leptodactylon pungens Granite prickly phlox

Phlox hoodii Hood’s phlox

POLYGONACEAE KNOTWEED FAMILY

Eriogonum brevicaule Shortstem buckwheat

Eriogonum effusum Spreading buckwheat

Eriogonum flavum Alpine golden buckwheat
84 Draft EA and LPP, Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Scientific name Common name

Eriogonum ovalifolium Cushion buckwheat

Eriogonum umbellatum Sulphur flower buckwheat

Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed

Polygonum 

ramosissimum

Bushy knotweed

Rumex crispus Curly dock

Rumex hymenosepalus Canaigre dock

Rumex maritimus Golden dock

Rumex triangulivalvis White willow dock

POTAMOGETONACEAE PONDWEED FAMILY

Stuckenia filiformis Fineleaf pondweed

Stuckenia pectinata Sago pondweed

PRIMULACEAE PRIMROSE FAMILY

Glaux maritima Sea milkwort

Primula incana Silvery primrose

RANUNCULACEAE BUTTERCUP FAMILY

Delphinium geyeri Geyer’s larkspur

Ranunculus cymbalaria Alkali buttercup

ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY

Amelanchier utahensis Utah serviceberry

Argentina anserina Silverweed cinquefoil

Potentilla bipinnatifida Tansy cinquefoil

Potentilla pensylvanica Pennsylvania cinquefoil

Potentilla plattensis Platte cinquefoil

Rosa woodsii Wood’s rose

SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY

Populus angustifolia Narrowleaf cottonwood

Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen

Salix planifolia Plainleaf willow

SANTALACEAE SANDALWOOD FAMILY

Comandra umbellata Bastard toadflax

SARCOBATACEAE GREASEWOOD FAMILY

Sarcobatus vermiculatus Greasewood

SAXIFRAGACEAE SAXIFRAGE FAMILY

Parnassia palustris Marsh grass of Parnassus

TAMARICACEAE TAMARISK FAMILY

Tamarix ramosissima Saltcedar

VALERIANACEAE VALERIAN FAMILY

Valeriana edulis Tobacco root

VIOLACEAE VIOLET FAMILY

Viola nuttallii Nuttall violet

C.2 List of Bird Species

These are the bird species found within the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area.

Scientific name Common name

GEESE, DUCKS, and SWANS

Chen caerulescens Snow goose

Branta canadensis Canada goose

Cygnus columbianus Tundra swan

Aix sponsa Wood duck

Anas strepera Gadwall

Anas americana American wigeon

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard

Anas discors Blue-winged teal

Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon teal

Anas clypeata Northern shoveler

Anas acuta Northern pintail

Anas carolinensis Green-winged teal

Aythya valisineria Canvasback

Aythya americana Redhead

Aythya collaris Ring-necked duck

Aythya marila Greater scaup

Aythya affinis Lesser scaup

Melanitta perspicillate Surf scoter

Melanitta deglandi White-winged scoter

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead

Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye

Bucephala islandica Barrow’s goldeneye

Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded merganser

Mergus merganser Common merganser

Mergus serrator Red-breasted merganser

Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy duck

LOONS

Gavia immer Common loon

GREBES

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe

Podiceps auritus Horned grebe

Podiceps grisegena Red-necked grebe

Podiceps nigricollis Eared grebe

Aechmophorus 

occidentalis

Western grebe

Aechmophorus clarkii Clark’s grebe

PELICANS

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

American white pelican
Appendix C—Species List 85 

Scientific name Common name

CORMORANTS

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant

BITTERNS, HERONS, and EGRETS

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern

Ardea herodias Great blue heron

Egretta thula Snowy egret

Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned nightheron

IBISES

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis

NEW WORLD VULTURES

Cathartes aura Turkey vulture

HAWKS, KITES, and EAGLES

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle

Circus cyaneus Northern harrier

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk

Buteo lagopus Rough-legged hawk

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle

FALCONS

Falco sparverius American kestrel

Falco columbarius Merlin

Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon

Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon

RAILS, GALLINULES, and COOTS

Rallus limicola Virginia rail

Porzana carolina Sora

Fulica americana American coot

CRANES

Grus canadensis Sandhill crane

PLOVERS

Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated plover

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover

STILTS and AVOCETS

Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked stilt

Recurvirostra americana American avocet

SANDPIPERS and PHALAROPES

Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellowlegs

Tringa flavipes Lesser yellowlegs

Scientific name Common name

Tringa solitaria Solitary sandpiper

Tringa semipalmata Willet

Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel

Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew

Limosa fedoa Marbled godwit

Calidris alba Sanderling

Calidris pusilla Semipalmated sandpiper

Calidris mauri Western sandpiper

Calidris minutilla Least sandpiper

Calidris bairdii Baird’s sandpiper

Calidris melanotos Pectoral sandpiper

Calidris alpina Dunlin

Calidris himantopus Stilt sandpiper

Limnodromus 

scolopaceus

Long-billed dowitcher

Gallinago delicata Wilson’s snipe

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s phalarope

Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked phalarope

GULLS and TERNS

Larus pipixcan Franklin’s gull

Larus philadelphia Bonaparte’s gull

Larus delawarensis Ring-billed gull

Larus californicus California gull

Larus argentatus Herring gull

Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern

Sterna hirundo Common tern

Sterna forsteri Forster’s tern

Chlidonias niger Black tern

PIGEONS and DOVES

Columba livia Rock pigeon

Zenaida macroura Mourning dove

CUCKOOS

Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus

Black-billed cuckoo

TYPICAL OWLS

Bubo virginianus Great horned owl

Bubo scandiacus Snowy owl

Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl

Asio otus Long-eared owl

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl

NIGHTHAWKS and NIGHTJARS

Chordeiles minor Common nighthawk

Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Common poorwill

HUMMINGBIRDS
86 Draft EA and LPP, Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Scientific name Common name

Selasphorus platycercus Broad-tailed hummingbird

Selasphorus rufus Rufous hummingbird

KINGFISHERS

Megaceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher

WOODPECKERS

Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker

Colaptes auratus Northern flicker

TYRANT FLYCATCHERS

Empidonax traillii Willow flycatcher

Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe

Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird

SHRIKES

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike

Lanius excubitor Northern shrike

CROWS, JAYS, and MAGPIES

Pica hudsonia Black-billed magpie

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow

Corvus corax Common raven

LARKS

Eremophila alpestris Horned lark

SWALLOWS

Tachycineta bicolor Tree swallow

Tachycineta thalassina Violet-green swallow

Stelgidopteryx 

serripennis

Northern rough-winged 

swallow

Riparia riparia Bank swallow

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swallow

Hirundo rustica Barn swallow

CHICKADEES and TITMICE

Poecile atricapilla Black-capped chickadee

Poecile gambeli Mountain chickadee

NUTHATCHES and CREEPERS

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted nuthatch

Sitta carolinensis White-breasted nuthatch

Certhia americana Brown creeper

WRENS

Salpinctes obsoletus Rock wren

Troglodytes aedon House wren

Cistothorus palustris Marsh wren

THRUSHES

Sialia currucoides Mountain bluebird

Catharus guttatus Hermit thrush

Turdus migratorius American robin

MIMIC THRUSHES

Scientific name Common name

Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird

Oreoscoptes montanus Sage thrasher

Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher

STARLINGS

Sturnus vulgaris European starling

PIPITS

Anthus rubescens American pipit

WAXWINGS

Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian waxwing

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing

WOOD WARBLERS

Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler

Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped warbler

Dendroica nigrescens Black-throated gray 

warbler

Oporomis tolmiei MacGillivray’s warbler

Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat

TANAGERS

Piranga ludoviciana Western tanager

SPARROWS and TOWHEES

Pipilo chlorurus Green-tailed towhee

Pipilo maculatus Spotted towhee

Spizella arborea American tree sparrow

Spizella passerina Chipping sparrow

Spizella pallid Clay-colored sparrow

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow

Spizella pusilla Field sparrow

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow

Chondestes grammacus Lark sparrow

Amphispiza belli Sage sparrow

Calamospiza melanocorys Lark bunting

Passerculus 

sandwichensis

Savannah sparrow

Ammodramus 

savannarum

Grasshopper sparrow

Melospiza melodia Song sparrow

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow

Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow

Calcarius mccownii McCown’s longspur

Calcarius lapponicus Lapland longspur

Calcarius ornatus Chestnut-collared 

longspur

Plectrophenax nivalis Snow bunting

CARDINALS, GROSBEAKS, and ALLIES

Spiza americana Dickcissel

BLACKBIRDS and ORIOLES
Appendix C—Species List 87 

Scientific name Common name

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird

Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark

Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus

Yellow-headed blackbird

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird

Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle

Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird

Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole

FINCHES

Leucosticte tephrocotis Gray-crowned rosy finch

Leucosticte atrata Black rosy finch

Leucosticte australis Brown-capped rosy finch

Carpodacus mexicanus House finch

Acanthis flammea Common redpoll

Spinus pinus Pine siskin

Carduelis psaltria Lesser goldfinch

Carduelis tristis American goldfinch

Coccothraustes 

vespertinus

Evening grosbeak

OLD WORLD SPARROWS

Passer domesticus House sparrow

C.3 List of Amphibian and 

Reptile Species

These are the amphibian and reptile species found 

within the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation 

Area.

Scientific name Common name

ORDER ARTIODACTYLA HOOVED ANIMALS

Antilocapra americana Pronghorn

Cervus elaphus Elk

Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer

ORDER CARNIVORA PREDATORS

Canis latrans Coyote

Lutra canadensis River otter

Lynx rufus Bobcat

Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk

Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel

Mustela nigripes Black-footed ferret

Mustela vison Mink

Procyon lotor Raccoon

Puma concolor Mountain lion

Taxidea taxus American badger

Ursus americanus Black bear

Vulpes velox Swift fox

Vulpes vulpes Red fox

ORDER CHIROPTERA BATS

Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat

Myotis ciliolabrum Western Small-footed 

myotis

Myotis lucifugus Little brown bat

ORDER INSECTIVORA SHREWS and MOLES

Sorex cinereus Masked shrew

Sorex palustris Water shrew

ORDER LAGOMORPHA PIKA, RABBITS, and HARES

Lepus townsendii White-tailed jack rabbit

Sylvilagus audubonii Desert cottontail

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail

ORDER RODENTIA RODENTS

Castor canadensis Beaver

Cynomys leucurus White-tailed prairie dog

Dipodomys ordii Ord’s kangaroo rat

Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine

Lemmiscus curtatus Sagebrush vole

Microtus longicaudus Long-tailed vole

Microtus montanus Montane vole

Microtus ochrogaster Prairie vole

Scientific name Common name

Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger salamander

Anaxyrus baxteri Wyoming toad

Pseudacris maculata Boreal chorus frog

Lithobates pipiens Northern leopard frog

Phrynosoma hernandesi Short-horned lizard

Pituophis catenifer Gopher snake

Thamnophis elegans 

vagrans

Intermountain wandering 

gartersnake

Crotalus viridis Prairie rattlesnake

C.4 List of Mammal Species

These are the mammal species found within the 

proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area.
88 Draft EA and LPP, Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Scientific name Common name

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole

Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat

Onychomys leucogaster Northern grasshopper 

mouse

Perognathus fasciatus Olive-backed pocket 

mouse

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse

Reithrodontomys 

megalotis

Western harvest mouse

Reithrodontomys 

montanus

Plains harvest mouse

Spermophilus elegans Wyoming ground squirrel

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus

Thirteen-lined ground 

squirrel

Tamias minimus Least chipmunk

Thomomys talpoides Northern pocket gopher

Zapus hudsonius preblei Preble’s meadow jumping 

mouse

C.5 List of Fish Species

These are the fish species found within the proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area.

Scientific name Common name

Etheostoma exile Iowa darter

Luxilus cornutus Common shiner

Nocomis biguttatus Hornyhead chub

Phenacobious mirabilis Suckermouth minnow
Literature Cited

Albany County. 2008. Albany County Comprehensive Plan. Laramie, WY. [pages unknown].

Arnell, N.W. 1999. Climate change and global water 

resources. Global Environmental Change 

9:S31–49.

Audubon Society. 2011. Wyoming chapter. <http:// 

wy.audubon.org>.

Bailey, R.G. 2009. Ecoregions of the United States. 

In: Ecosystem Geography 93–114.

Bartlein, P.J.; Whitlock, C.W.; Shafer, S.L. 1997. 

Future climate in the Yellowstone National Park 

region and its potential impact on vegetation. 

Conservation Biology 11(3):782–92.

Baxter, G.T.; Meyer, J.S. 1982. Progress report: an 

investigation of the status of the Wyoming toad in 

Albany County, Wyoming, and possible causes of 

the decline in numbers of Wyoming populations of 

Anurans. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 

[pages unknown].

Baxter, G.T.; Stone, M.D. 1985. Amphibians and reptiles of Wyoming. 2nd edition. Cheyenne,WY: 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. [pages 

unknown].

Baxter, G.T.; Stromberg, M.D. 1980. Status report. 

Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[pages unknown].

Beebee, T.J. 2009. Amphibian breeding and climate. 

Nature 374(6519):219–20.

Berger, L.; Speare, R.; Daszak, P.; [and others]. 1998. 

Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality 

associated with population declines in the rain 

forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 

9031–36.

Blaisdell, J.P.; Holmgren, R.C.; Forest, I. 1984. Managing intermountain rangelands: salt-desert 

shrub ranges. [Publisher location unknown]: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. [pages unknown].

Blaustein, A.R., Hokit, D.G.; O’Hara, R.K.; Holt, 

R.A. 1994. Pathogenic fungus contributes to 

amphibian losses in the Pacific Northwest. Biological Conservation 67(3):251.

Bridgham, S.D.; Megonigal, J.P.; Keller, J.K.; [and 

others]. 2006. The carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands. The Society of Wetland 

Scientists. 26(4): 889–916.

Cayan, D.; Kammerdiener, S.; Dettinger, M.; [and 

others]. 2001. Changes in the onset of spring in 

the western United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82(3):399–415.

Collinge, S.K. 2009. Ecology of fragmented landscapes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University 

Press. [pages unknown].

Conner, R.; Siedl, A.; VanTassell, L; Wilkins, N. 

2001. United States grasslands and related 

resources: an economic and biological trends 

assessment. [Publisher location unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [pages unknown].

Copeland, H.E., Tessman, S.A.; Girvetz, E.H.; [and 

others]. 2010. A geospatial assessment on the distribution, condition, and vulnerability of Wyoming’s wetlands. Ecological Indicators 

10(4):869–79. Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in 

the United States, 1780’s to 1980’s. Report to the 

Congress. [pages unknown].

Dahl, T.E.; Johnson, C.E. 1991. Status and trends of 

wetlands in the conterminous United States, mid1970’s to mid-1980’s. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 28 p.

Daily, G.C., Alexander, S.; Ehrlich, P.R.; [and others]. 

Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human 

societies by natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: 

Ecological Society of America. [pages unknown].

Davies, K.W.; Boyd, C.S.; Beck, J.L.; [and others]. 

2011. Saving the sagebrush sea: an ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities. Biological Conservation 144(11):2573–84.

Duellman, W.E.; Trueb, L. 1994. Biology of amphibians. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University 

Press. [pages unknown].

Dukes, J.S.; Mooney, H.A. 2004. Disruption of ecosystem processes in western North America by 

invasive species. Revista Chilena de Historia 

Natural 77(3):411–37.

Ehrlich, P.R.; Ehrlich, A.H. 1992. The value of biodiversity. Ambio.Stockholm 21(3):219–26.

Esch, K.L.; Beauvais, G.P.; Keinath, D.A. 2005. Species conservation assessment for black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) in Wyoming. Cheyenne, 

WY: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Wyoming State Office. [pages 

unknown].
90 Draft EA and LPP, Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

Fuguitt, G.V. 1985. The nonmetropolitan population 

turnaround. Annual Review of Sociology [volume 

(issue) unknown]:259–80.

Gammonley, J.H. 2004. Wildlife of natural palustrine 

wetlands. In: McKinstry, M.C.; Hubert, W.A.; 

Anderson, S.H.; editors. Wetland and riparian 

areas of the intermountain west: ecology and 

management. Austin, TX: University of Texas 

Press. [pages unknown].

Gibbons, J.W.; Scott, D.E.; Ryan, T.J.; [and others]. 

2000. The global decline of reptiles: déjà vu 

amphibians. Bioscience 50(8):653.

Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J.; McKee, W.A.; Cummins, K.W. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of 

riparian zones. Bioscience [volume (issue) 

unknown]:540–51.

Griscom, H.R., Andersen, M.D.; Keinath, D.A. 2012. 

Bats of southern Wyoming: distribution and 

migration—year 1 report. Prepared for the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, by the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 

[pages unknown].

Haas, C.A. 2002. Dispersal and use of corridors by 

birds in wooded patches on an agricultural landscape. Conservation Biology 9(4):845–54.

Haggerty, M. 1996. Costs of county and education 

services in Gallatin County, Montana. Montana 

Policy Review 6(1):13–21.

Hubert, W.A. 2004. Ecological processes of riverine 

wetland habitats. In: McKinstry, M.C.; Hubert, 

W.A.; Anderson, S.H.; editors. Wetland and riparian areas of the intermountain west: ecology and 

management. Austin, TX: University of Texas 

Press. [pages unknown].

Hulme, D.; Andersen, C.; Parady, K.; [and others]. 

2009. Wyoming’s state of the space: a comprehensive review of land use trends in Wyoming. Laramie, WY: William D. Ruckelshaus Institute, 

University of Wyoming. [pages unknown].

Huntsinger, L.; Hopkinson, P. 1996. Sustaining 

rangeland landscapes: a social and ecological process. Journal of Range Management 49(2):167–73. 

Johnson, R.R. 1979. Strategies for protection and 

management of floodplain wetlands and other 

riparian ecosystems. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [pages unknown].

Keinath, D.A.; Andersen, M.D.; Beauvais, G.P. 2010. 

Range and modeled distribution of Wyoming’s 

species of greatest conservation need. Report prepared for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY, and the U.S. Geological 

Survey, Fort Collins, CO. Laramie, WY: Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database.

Knight, D.H. 1996. Mountains and plains: the ecology 

of Wyoming landscapes. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University Press. [pages unknown].

Kotliar, N.B. 2000. Application of the new keystone 

species concept to prairie dogs: how well does it 

work? Conservation Biology 14(6):1715–21.

Kotliar, N.B.; Baker, B.W.; Whicker, A.D.; Plumb, G. 

1999. A critical review of assumptions about the 

prairie dog as a keystone species. Environmental 

Management 24(2):177–92.

Larson, M.L.; Letts, R. 2003. Cultural resource 

overview of the Laramie Basin and Pathfinder 

Reservoir, Wyoming, and North Park, Colorado. 

Laramie, Wyoming: George C. Frinson Institute 

of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of 

Wyoming. [pages unknown].

Lewis, D.L.; Baxter, G.T.; Johnson, K.M.; Stone, 

M.D. 1985. Possible extinction of the Wyoming 

toad, Bufo hemiophrys baxteri. Journal of Herpetology 19(1):166–68.

Lohman, K. 2004. Wildlife use of riverine wetland 

habitats. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 

[pages unknown].

Loss, S.R.; Terwilliger, L.A.; A.C. Peterson. 2011. 

Assisted colonization: integrating conservation 

strategies in the face of climate change. Biological 

Conservation 144(1):92–100.

Merrill, E.H.; Fishery, W.C. 1996. The Wyoming gap 

analysis project: final report. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. [pages unknown].

Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment. 2005. 

Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, 

DC: Island Press Washington. [pages unknown].

Morrison, R.B.; editor. 1991. Quaternary nonglacial 

geology: conterminous U.S. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. [pages unknown].

National Ecological Assessment Team. 2006. Strategic habitat conservation: final report of the 

National Ecological Assessment Team. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. [pages unknown].

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

2002. Climatography of the United States No. 

81—monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days, 

1971–2000: Wyoming. Asheville, NC: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 

Information Service, National Climatic Data Center. [pages unknown].

Nicholoff, S. 2003. Wyoming bird conservation plan. 

Lander, WY: Wyoming Partners in Flight. [pages 

unknown].

Parry, M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, J.P.; [and others]. 2007. IPCC, 2007: climate change 2007— 

impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. 

Contribution of working group II to the fourth 

assessment report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United 
Literature Cited 91 

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. [pages 

unknown].

Peck, D.E.; J.R. Lovvorn. 2001. The importance of 

flood irrigation in water supply to wetlands in the 

Laramie Basin, Wyoming, USA. Wetlands 

21(3):370–78.

Petroleum Association of Wyoming. 2012. [Title 

unknown]. <www.pawyo.org>.

Phillips, S.J.; Anderson, R.P.; Schapire, R.E. 2006. 

Maximum entropy modeling of species’ geographic distributions. Ecological Modeling 

190(3):231–59.

Pocewicz, A.; Lathrop, B. 2008. Shirley Basin–Laramie Rivers Conservation Plan. Lander, WY: The 

Nature Conservancy, Wyoming Chapter. [pages 

unknown].

Poff, B.; Koestner, K.A.; Neary, D.G.; Henderson, V. 

2011. Threats to riparian ecosystems in western 

North America: an analysis of existing literature1. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association 47(6):1241–54.

Pounds, J.A.; Crump, M.L. 1994. Amphibian declines 

and climate disturbance: the case of the golden 

toad and the harlequin frog. Conservation Biology 

8(1):72–85.

Rantalainen, M.L.; Fritze, H.; Haimi, J.; [and others]. 

2005. Species richness and food web structure of 

soil decomposer community as affected by the size 

of habitat fragment and habitat corridors. Global 

Change Biology 11(10):1614–27.

Robles, M.D.; Enquist, C.E.F. 2010: Managing 

changing landscapes in the southwestern United 

States. The Nature Conservancy, Southwest Climate Change Initiative. 26 p.

Shepherd, B.; Whittington, J. 2006. Response of 

wolves to corridor restoration and human use 

management. Ecology and Society 11(2):1.

Smith, B.E.; Keinath, D. January 2004. Species 

assessment for the northern leopard frog (Rana 

pipiens) in Wyoming. Report prepared for U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, WY. 

[pages unknown].

Smith, H.; Keinath, D.A. November 2004. Species 

assessment for mountain plover (Charadrius 

montanus) in Wyoming. Report prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, WY. 

[pages unknown].

Stewart, I.T.; Cayan, D.A.; Dettinger, M.D. 2004. 

Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western 

North America under a “business as usual” climate change scenario. Climate Change 

62(1–3):217–32.

Stromberg, M.D. 1981. Wyoming toad (Bufo hemiophrys baxteri) endangered. Journal of Colorado– 

Wyoming Academic Science 13(1):47.

Stuart, S.N.; Chanson, J.S.; Cox, N.A.; [and others]. 

2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and 

extinctions worldwide. Science, New Series 

306(5702):1783–86.

Svejcar, T. 1997. Riparian zones: (1) What are they 

and how do they work? Rangelands 19(4):4–7.

Taylor, D.T.; Lieske, S.N. 2002. Second home growth 

in Wyoming, 1990–2000. [Publisher location 

unknown]: Wyoming Open Spaces Research 

Group. [pages unknown].

Telleria, J.L.; Santos, T. 1995. Effects of forest fragmentation on a guild of wintering passerines: the 

role of habitat selection. Biological Conservation 

71(1):61–67.

Thomas, C.C.; Huber, C.; Gascoigne, W.; Koontz, L. 

2012. Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River 

Watershed Conservation Area Land Protection 

Plan. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Geological Survey. 

[pages unknown].

Tremblay, M.A. 2001. Modeling and management of 

potential movement corridors for elk (Cervus elaphus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) in the Radium Hot 

Springs area, British Columbia. [Publisher location unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [pages 

unknown].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. [Title unknown]. <www. 

census.gov>.

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006. 

Cooperative across boundaries: partnerships to 

conserve open space in rural American. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. [pages unknown].

—. 2007. Census of agriculture. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. [pages 

unknown].

U.S. Department of Energy. 2011. Energy efficiency 

and renewable energy: wind. <www.eere.energy. 

gov/topics/wind.html>.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. 

Black-footed ferret recovery plan. Denver, CO:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 154p.

—. 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program: Mountain 

Prairie Region Strategic Plan, 2007–2011. Denver, 

CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6. 

[pages unknown].

—. 2009. Strategic habitat conservation handbook: a guide to implementing the technical elements of strategic habitat conservation (version 

1.0). Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington. [pages unknown].

—. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge: strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Refuges. [pages unknown].

—. 2012a. Strategic habitat conservation: landscape conservation cooperatives. <www.fws.gov/

landscape-conservation/lcc.html>.
92 Draft EA and LPP, Proposed Wyoming Toad Conservation Area, Wyoming

—. 2012b. Draft Report. Pilot Radio-Tracking 

Study of Captive-Reared Wyoming Toads 

(Anaxyrus baxteri) Released at Mortenson Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge. Wyoming Ecological 

Services Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

—. 2014. Wyoming toad Anaxyrus baxteri draft

revised recovery plan. Original approved September 11, 1991. Cheyenne, WY. [pages unknown].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Department of 

Commerce; U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. National 

Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC. [pages 

unknown].

U.S. General Services Administration. 2010. Federal 

Real Property Profile. Washington, DC: U.S. General Services Administration. [pages unknown].

Urban Institute; Brookings Institution. 2008. The 

tax policy briefing book: a citizens’ guide for the 

2008 election and Beyond. Washington, DC: The 

Tax Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. [pages unknown].

Vankirk, E.A. 1980. Report on the population of Bufo 

hemiophrys on Laramie Plain, Albany County, 

Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: The Nature Conservancy. [pages unknown].

Wells, K.D. 2007. The ecology and behavior of 

amphibians. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 

Press. [pages unknown].

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 

2012. Land Quality Division. <http://deq.state.

wy.us/lqd/>.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services. 2012. 

Wyoming labor market information. <http://doe.

state.wy.us/lmi/>.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2005. A comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy for 

Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and 

Fish Commission. [pages unknown].

—. 2010. State Wildlife Action Plan. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 

910pp. <http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SWAP_2012_FULL0001898.

pdf>

—. Unpublished. Laramie Plains wetland complex: regional wetland conservation plan. Laramie, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

[pages unknown].

Wyoming Joint Venture Steering Committee. 2010. 

Wyoming wetlands conservation strategy. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

[pages unknown].

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 

2013. Personal Communication with Doug Keineth, Lead Vertebrate Zoologist, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 

Berry Center, Laramie, WY.

Wyoming Partners in Flight. 2003. Wyoming Bird 

Conservation Plan. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [pages 

unknown].