The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), began a study in 2019 to complete the compilation and quality assurance of water-resource threats and needs data for the 117 National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) in the FWS Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region (LMPR) and to characterize the water-resource threats and needs of each refuge and of the LMPR itself. The LMPR encompasses the states of Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. This report includes the compilation and quality assurance of current (April 2020) water-resource threats and needs data for the refuges in the LMPR and a statistical, graphical, and spatial characterization, including the ranking and prioritization of threat types, threat causes, and needs by the number of occurrences in the LMPR as a whole and by refuges, states, and select U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level III Ecoregions.
A total of 540 unique threat occurrences were identified for 109 refuges in the LMPR. No threats were identified for eight refuges. About 43 percent of the threat occurrences, for 59 refuges, had a high-severity threat rating. Of the 10 most common threat types, 8 were also among the most common high-severity threat types. Water-resource threats had 72 different causes. About 83 percent of the overall common causes for threats and for high-severity threats were the same. The most common threat types overall and the most common high-severity threat types were compromised water management capability, habitat shifting/alteration, and altered flow regimes. The 20 water-resource threat types for Long Lake NWR were the most for refuges in the LMPR. Other refuges with the greatest number of threat types included Marais des Cygnes NWR (18) and Arapaho and Lee Metcalf NWRs (16 each). About 54 percent of refuges with threats had high-severity threats. Arapaho and Quivira NWRs each had 10 high-severity threat types, the maximum number of high-severity threat types for LMPR refuges.
A total of 637 unique need occurrences were identified for 114 refuges. No needs were reported for three refuges. The most common need type, a Water Resource Inventory and Assessment, was reported for 78 refuges. Two of the most common need types, repair and replace water management infrastructure and water supply/quantity monitoring, were the most common high-priority need types. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge had the most (39) unique water-resource need types for refuges in the LMPR. Other refuges with the greatest number of need types were Baca (38), Alamosa (36), and Monte Vista (36) NWRs. The most high-priority need types for a refuge was 23, at Monte Vista NWR. Alamosa (22), Baca (22), and Lake Andes (19) NWRs were also among the top 4 refuges with the greatest number of high-priority need types.
An overall ranking scheme was developed to identify refuges that have the highest-ranking priority for conservation efforts to fulfill refuges’ statutory purposes. The count of occurrences of high-severity threats and high-priority needs were summed to determine the overall ranking value for a refuge. The 10 refuges with the highest overall ranking values, in order of ranking from higher to lower, were Alamosa, Baca, and Monte Vista NWRs (tied for highest); Lake Andes NWR, Ouray and Quivira NWRs, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge and Flint Hills NWR, Cokeville Meadows NWR, and Arapaho NWR.
About 33 percent of overall threat occurrences were reported as under the control of the FWS to mitigate, as were 37 percent of all threat occurrences with a high-severity rating. The most common overall threat types and high-severity threat types under FWS control were compromised water management capability; habitat shifting/alteration; altered flow regimes; loss/alteration of wetland habitat; and legal challenges or fines for non-compliance with water policy, law, or regulation. A total of 68 percent of overall need occurrences and 67 percent of all high-priority need occurrences were under the control of the FWS. The most common overall need types and high-priority needs types under control were repair or replace water management infrastructure, water supply/quantity monitoring, water quality baseline monitoring, and protect habitat from invasive species. A Water Resource Inventory and Assessment was also a common overall need under FWS control, as was the high-priority need of water level monitoring.
For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit
For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.
Covers. (Front) Grus canadensis (sandhill crane) at Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge in southern Colorado with Sangre de Christo Mountains in the background [Photograph by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. (Back) Sunrise at Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge in Denver, Colorado [Photograph by Peter Ismert, November 20, 2016]. Construction of sluice gate (left) and headgate (right) for the New Ditch diversion at Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge in southern Colorado [Photograph by Gabriel Martinez, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, November 2020]. Chen caerulescens (snow goose) at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge in central Kansas where hundreds of thousands of ducks and geese stop annually [Photograph by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. Water from Lake Darling, located near Minot, North Dakota, released through Lake Darling Dam flooded the Souris River [Photograph by Joel Galloway, U.S. Geological Survey, June 2011].
The authors thank the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region National Wildlife Refuges and the Division of Water Resources for their assistance in the compilation and quality assurance of the water-resource threats and needs. Alisa Mast (U.S. Geological Survey) and Mike Higgins (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) provided technical reviews of the manuscript. Will McDermott of the U.S. Geological Survey compiled early drafts of maps used in this report.
Multiply | By | To obtain |
Area | ||
---|---|---|
acre | 0.4047 | hectare (ha) |
mile (mi) | 1.609 | Kilometer (km) |
Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
Division of Water Resources
Environmental Conservation Online System
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region
Migratory Bird Refuge
National Wildlife Refuge
total dissolved solids
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resource Inventory and Assessment
The mission of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge System is to manage a network of National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) for the conservation, management, and restoration of wildlife, fish, and plants and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (FWS, 2019a). Water is a critical natural resource of NWRs and is integral to ecosystems and landscapes that provide critical habitat for numerous native threatened and endangered bird, fish, plant, and other aquatic and terrestrial species. Threats to water resources at NWRs can negatively affect the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System as a whole and at individual refuges.
Water resources are particularly critical for the ecosystems and landscapes in the FWS Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region (LMPR) (formerly Region 6) in the central and western United States, which mostly has a semi-arid climate and has limited water resources in areas. The LMPR contains 117 refuges in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (
In the LMRP, refuges report numerous threats to water resources such as a compromised ability to manage water, habitat degradation, insufficient water supply, poor water quality, sedimentation, and water infrastructure deterioration. These types of threats can negatively affect the water resources needed for wildlife, aquatic biota, and plants (Higgins, 2012). Management needs to address the threats to water resources are also numerous. Necessary management actions can include aquatic habitat mapping, monitoring of water quality, exercising water rights, restoring habitat, and repairing or replacing water management infrastructure. Although water is a known critical resource, the quantification or evaluation of water-resource threats and needs for refuges in the LMPR has not been completed on a regional basis; nor have the threats, needs, and refuges been prioritized for effective conservation efforts. Knowledge of specific threats and needs data can facilitate prioritization of conservation efforts among refuges nationally or regionally as well as within individual refuges. The evaluation of threats and needs throughout the region can facilitate an understanding of water resources on an ecosystem level for protection of fish and wildlife.
The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the FWS, began a study in 2019 to compile, quality assure, and characterize water-resource threats and needs data for the 117 refuges in the LMPR. Specific objectives of the study were (1) to quality assure existing threats and needs data for 86 LMPR refuges and compile additional threats and needs data; (2) to compile and quality assure threats and needs data for an additional 31 LMPR refuges with no existing threats and needs data; (3) to characterize the threats and needs data using statistical, graphical, and mapping techniques; (4) to rank and prioritize overall threats and needs for the LMPR and by refuges throughout the region; and (5) to upload new and revised quality assured threats and needs data for the LMPR refuges to the FWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Water Resource Inventory and Assessment (WRIA) application. This study was initiated to characterize the water-resource threats and needs, provide a status report of the water resources for the region, and potentially identify areas where further investigation may be needed to study environmental factors that contribute to the presence of threats. Knowledge of water-resource threats and needs also aids refuge staff and regional and national FWS management in identifying and prioritizing steps to address current threats, identify future threats, and to direct human and financial resources to critical needs (Higgins, 2012).
The purpose of this report is to characterize water-resource threats and needs for the 117 FWS refuges in the LMPR. The report includes (1) the compilation and quality assurance of current (April 2020) water-resource threats and needs data for the refuges in the LMPR and (2) the statistical, graphical, and spatial characterization of the threats and needs dataset. The characterization includes the ranking and prioritizing of water-resource threat types, threat causes, and needs by the number of occurrences in the LMPR as a whole and by refuges, states, and select U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Level III Ecoregions.
The FWS LMPR is a geographically diverse region of the Great Plains and western United States (
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Level III Ecoregion boundaries and locations of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wildlife Refuges in the Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region. (On the map, the Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge [#9] is in the Central Irregular Plains Level III Ecoregion. The refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan [FWS, 2000] reports that the refuge is in the Flint Hills Level III Ecoregion.)
The management of refuge land and water resources for wildlife conservation is dependent on the statutory purpose for which each refuge was established. Ouray NWR in northeast Utah, for example, was established in 1960 to provide prime breeding, resting, and feeding area for migratory waterfowl. Its management goals include the restoration and enhancement of riparian and wetland habitats along the Green River and the creation of opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (Striffler and Shafer, 2016). About 66 percent (77 of 117) of refuges in the LMPR are fee-title refuges (
Water-resource threats and needs for the LMPR refuges were compiled from several sources and quality assured. Statistical, graphical, and mapping techniques were used to characterize the threats and needs presented in this report.
The FWS ECOS website (
Threat parameter1 | Domain value2 |
Region | 8 domain values |
Refuge | About 730 domain values3 |
Threat Type | 32 domain values4 |
Threat Cause | 89 domain values related to climate, landscape alteration, water management capability, water quality, water rights/legal causes, water supply/quantity |
Threat Status | Current, future, mitigated |
Threat Severity | High, moderate, low, unknown |
Threat Time Frame | Existing, medium-term, long-term |
Can FWS Handle This Alone | Yes, no |
Origin of Threat Information | 13 domain values |
Quality/Reliability of Information | High, medium, low/unknown |
Each threat parameter can be filtered for specific domain values.
Domain values are restricted to specific selections in dropdown menus in the WRIA application. Count of domain values are for threats nationally.
Includes National Wildlife Refuges, Conservation Areas, National Fish Hatcheries, Wetland Management Districts, and Wildlife Management Areas.
The 32 domain values for threat types are grouped into the categories of aquatic habitat (10 threat types), water quality (15 threat types), or water quantity (7 threat types) for purposes of this report. These categories are not included in the WRIA application.
Need parameter1 | Domain value2 |
Region | 8 domain values nationally |
Refuge | About 730 domain values3 |
Need Level 1 Type | 8 domain values |
Need Level 2 Type | 67 domain values |
Need Status | Current, future, initiated, mitigated |
Need Priority | High, moderate, low/unknown |
Need Effort | Major, minor |
Need Time Line | Short-term, medium, long-term |
Can FWS Handle This Alone | Yes, no |
Origin of Need Information | 13 domain values |
Quality/Reliability of Information | High, medium, low/unknown |
Each need parameter can be filtered for specific domain values.
Domain values are restricted to specific selections in dropdown menus in the WRIA application. Count of domain values are for needs nationally.
Includes National Wildlife Refuges, Conservation Areas, National Fish Hatcheries, Wetland Management Districts, and Wildlife Management Areas.
Domain values of needs include “Need Level 1 Type” and “Need Level 2 Type.” The “Need Level 1 Type” (henceforth, “need category”) are categories of needs and include the domain values of Coordination/Support, Mapping and Geospatial Data/Analysis, Modeling/Research/Assessment, Monitoring/Measurement, Water Quality Mitigation/Habitat Improvement, Water-Related Infrastructure, Water Rights/Water Entitlements, and Water Supply/Management. The “Need Level 2 Type” (henceforth “need type”) are specific refuge needs. For example, domain values of need type include aquatic habitat mapping, groundwater modeling, water level monitoring, protect habitat from invasive species, remove infrastructure, exercise water rights, and seek legislative relief/assistance (such as for insufficient staffing levels at refuges). Domain values of origin of threat and need information include management plan, on-site observation, and personal communication with refuge staff, for example (FWS, 2017a).
Identifying causes of water-resource threats is considered necessary to determine mitigation strategies, as each cause could necessitate a different mitigation technique or method. Threats are rated for severity (high, moderate, low, unknown) and needs for priority (high, moderate, low/unknown) (
When the data were retrieved from the WRIA application in June 2019, threats and needs were available for 86 of 117 refuges (
[Na, not applicable]
Threat1 | Need1 | ||
Title2 | Urban runoff | Title2 | Seasonal water quality changes |
Threat Type | Nutrient pollution | Need Level 1 Type | Monitoring/Measurement |
Threat Cause | Urban runoff | Need Level 2 Type | Target water quality monitoring |
Threats Status | Current | Need Status | Current |
Threat Severity | Moderate | Need Priority | High |
Threat Time Frame | Existing | Need Effort | Minor |
Can FWS Handle This Alone | No | Need Time Line | Short-term |
Description2 | Development along the Bear River floodplain and adjacent valley floors has led to several locations where urban runoff and its associated pollutants enters the watershed | Can FWS Handle This Alone | Yes |
Origin of Threat Information | Personal communication with refuge staff | Description2 | The refuge needs monitoring to determine how water quality changes over the year and how that affect water management. |
Quality/Reliability of Information | High | Origin of Need Information | Personal communication with refuge staff |
Na | Na | Quality/Reliability of Information | High |
Except for title and description of a threat or need, all other information for threats and need parameters is restricted to specific domain values on dropdown menus in the WRIA application.
Title and description are included in a data retrieval from the WRIA application. They are not specific threat or need parameters on dropdown menus in the WRIA application.
For the 31 refuges with no threats and needs data in the WRIA application, similar steps as those taken for refuges with data in the application were used to identify, compile, and quality assure threats and needs. Publications and websites were searched, and the newly compiled threats and needs dataset was sent to appropriate refuge staff for review and quality assurance. Additional threats and needs data identified by refuge and DWR staff were added to the initial compilation for the 31 refuges, following the standardization system in the WRIA application (
The threats and needs data for the 86 refuges compiled from the WRIA application and subsequently quality assured were combined with the newly compiled and quality assured data for the 31 refuges originally without threats and needs information. The resulting threats and needs dataset is considered to be correct as of April 2020 and is presented in this report. The new and revised data were subsequently uploaded to the ECOS database.
In the WRIA application, differences exist in how threats and needs are interpreted and reported among refuges. For example, the threat type of altered flow regime is listed multiple times with multiple causes for some refuges and is listed once with a single cause for other refuges. To minimize potential bias in reporting for this report, multiple occurrences of a particular threat type, threat cause, and need type within a single refuge were counted as one unique occurrence. This provides for a count of unique threat types, causes, and need types for a refuge rather than a total count of threat types, causes, and need types.
The threats and needs data were characterized using statistical, graphical, and mapping techniques. Summary statistics and bar graphs were generated using the R software environment version 3.6.1 (R Core Team, 2020). Counts and bar graphs were made for the most common threat and high-severity threat types and their causes. This was also done for the most common aquatic habitat, water quality, and water quantity threat types and causes; the most common needs and high-priority needs; and for refuges, states, and select ecoregions with the most threat types, causes, and need types. A ranking scheme was developed to identify refuges that have the highest-ranking priority for conservation efforts based on threats and needs data in the WRIA application. Each refuge was ranked by count of occurrences of high-severity threats and high-priority needs. A higher overall ranking value can correspond to a greater need for conservation than a lower overall ranking value.
Maps displaying various threats and needs data for the LMPR were developed using ArcGIS software (Esri, 2020). Counts of threats and high-severity threat types, needs, and high-priority needs were developed spatially for each refuge. The severity rating of the most common threat types and threat causes for each refuge and the total count of each severity rating for the LMPR also were developed spatially. This mapping was also done for the most common need types for each refuge.
The compiled threats and needs dataset resulted in the identification of 540 threat occurrences (unique threat type/refuge combination) for 109 refuges and 29 threat types (
[No., Number; na, not applicable]
All threat types (29) | 540 | 177 | 109 | 72 |
High-severity threat type (25) | 230 | 84 | 59 | 59 |
Aquatic-habitat threat type (9) | 177 | 76 | 71 | 46 |
High-severity threat type (8) | 84 | 40 | 38 | 32 |
Water-quality threat type (13) | 174 | 26 | 67 | 47 |
High-severity threat type (10) | 56 | 10 | 22 | 31 |
Water-quantity threat type (7) | 189 | 75 | 93 | 53 |
High-severity threat type (7) | 90 | 34 | 36 | 43 |
All need types (62) | 637 | 434 | 114 | na |
High-priority need type (54) | 248 | 166 | 46 | na |
[fig., figure; EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; No., Number; ECOS, Environmental Conservation Online System; CO, Colorado; RS, personal communication with National Wildlife Refuge staff; T, threats and needs assessment; W, Water Resources Investigation and Assessment recommendation; LS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region Division of Water Resources staff; C, Comprehensive Conservation Plan; nc, no change; KS, Kansas; P, peer-reviewed report or journal article; MT, Montana; nd, no data; ND, North Dakota; O, on-site investigation; I, internet-published data; CAP, Containment Assessment Process or on-site investigation; NE, Nebraska; M, management plan; SD, South Dakota; WY, Wyoming; NWR, National Wildlife Refuge. Designations for origins of data are from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017a. See Omernik (1987) for Level III Ecoregion information]
Site identi-fier |
National Wildlife Refuge | State | Size (acres) | EPA Level III Ecoregion ( |
No. of unique threat types | Origin of threats data | No. of unique Level 2 Type needs (need types) | Origin of needs data | ||
ECOS (April 2019) | New or revised threats data (after April 2019) | ECOS (April 2019) | New or revised needs data (after April 2019) | |||||||
1 | Alamosa | CO | 11,169 | Arizona/New Mexico Plateau | 8 | Yes | RS | 36 | Yes | RS, T, W |
2 | Arapaho | CO | 23,464 | Southern Rockies | 16 | Yes | LS, T, W | 10 | Yes | C |
3 | Baca | CO | 92,500 | Arizona/New Mexico Plateau | 8 | Yes | RS, W | 38 | Yes | RS, T, W |
4 | Browns Park | CO | 12,150 | Wyoming Basin | 7 | Yes | RS, W | 7 | Yes | RS, W |
5 | Monte Vista | CO | 14,804 | Arizona/New Mexico Plateau | 7 | Yes | RS | 36 | Yes | RS, T, W |
6 | Rocky Flats | CO | 5,237 | High Plains | 5 | Yes | LS, T | 5 | Yes | C, LS, T |
7 | Rocky Mountain Arsenal | CO | 15,000 | High Plains | 6 | Yes | nc | 6 | Yes | nc |
8 | Two Ponds | CO | 72 | High Plains | 8 | Yes | LS | 4 | Yes | C, LS |
9 | Flint Hills | KS | 18,463 | Central Irregular Plains1 | 7 | Yes | P, RS | 12 | Yes | nc |
10 | Kirwin | KS | 10,778 | Central Great Plains | 9 | Yes | C, P, RS | 3 | Yes | RS |
11 | Marais des Cygnes | KS | 7,500 | Central Irregular Plains | 18 | Yes | LS, P | 13 | Yes | LS |
12 | Quivira | KS | 22,135 | Central Great Plains | 10 | Yes | LS, T, W | 11 | Yes | LS, T, W |
13 | Benton Lake | MT | 12,383 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 2 | Yes | nc | 5 | Yes | C, LS, RS, W |
14 | Black Coulee2 | MT | 1,309 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 3 | nd | P, RS | 1 | nd | RS |
15 | Bowdoin | MT | 15,552 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 6 | Yes | C, LS, RS | 8 | Yes | LS, RS |
16 | Charles M. Russell | MT | 1.1 |
Northwestern Great Plains | 4 | Yes | C, RS | 5 | Yes | C, RS |
17 | Creedman Coulee2 | MT | 3,040 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 2 | nd | C, RS | 1 | nd | RS |
18 | Grass Lake2 | MT | 4,318 | Northwestern Great Plains | 6 | Yes | RS | 4 | nd | P, RS |
19 | Hailstone2 | MT | 920 | Northwestern Great Plains | 2 | Yes | P, RS | 3 | Yes | P, RS |
20 | Hewitt Lake2 | MT | 1,680 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 2 | nd | C, P, RS | 1 | nd | RS |
21 | Lake Mason4 | MT | 8,813 | Northwestern Great Plains | 4 | Yes | RS | 6 | Yes | RS |
22 | Lake Thibadeau2 | MT | 3,868 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 5 | nd | C, RS | 1 | nd | RS |
23 | Lamesteer | MT | 800 | Northwestern Great Plains | 7 | Yes | C, LS, RS | 5 | Yes | LS, T |
24 | Lee Metcalf | MT | 2,800 | Middle Rockies | 16 | Yes | C, LS, T | 12 | Yes | C, LS, T |
25 | Lost Trail | MT | 9,225 | Northern Rockies | 11 | Yes | C, LS, T | 13 | Yes | C, LS, T |
26 | Medicine Lake | MT | 31,702 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 11 | Yes | LS, T | 22 | Yes | LS |
27 | National Bison Range | MT | 18,766 | Northern Rockies | 3 | nd | C, RS | 5 | nd | C, RS, T |
28 | Ninepipe | MT | 4,027 | Northern Rockies | 0 | nd | nc | 1 | nd | T |
29 | Pablo | MT | 2,500 | Northern Rockies | 0 | nd | nc | 1 | nd | T |
30 | Red Rock Lakes | MT | 48,955 | Middle Rockies | 9 | Yes | LS, W | 6 | Yes | LS, W |
31 | Swan River | MT | 1,568 | Northern Rockies | 10 | Yes | C, LS | 5 | Yes | LS |
32 | UL Bend | MT | 560,903 | Northwestern Great Plains | 4 | Yes | C, RS | 5 | Yes | C, RS |
33 | War Horse4 | MT | 3,232 | Northwestern Great Plains | 0 | nd | nc | 2 | Yes | RS |
34 | Appert Lake5 | ND | 908 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 12 | Yes | RS, T | 2 | Yes | nc |
35 | Ardoch5 | ND | 2,696 | Lake Agassiz Plain | 1 | Yes | nc | 2 | Yes | RS, T |
36 | Arrowwood | ND | 2,388 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 4 | Yes | RS | 3 | Yes | RS, T |
37 | Audubon | ND | 14,739 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 2 | Yes | RS | 2 | nd | RS |
38 | Bone Hill5 | ND | 640 | Northern Glaciated Plains, Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 2 | Yes | C, RS | 3 | Yes | RS |
39 | Brumba5 | ND | 1,977 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | nd | RS | 1 | nd | RS |
40 | Buffalo Lake5 | ND | 1,540 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | nd | O, RS | 1 | nd | RS |
41 | Camp Lake5 | ND | 585 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 2 | Yes | C, I, RS | 3 | Yes | RS |
42 | Canfield Lake5 | ND | 310 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 2 | Yes | RS | 2 | Yes | RS |
43 | Chase Lake | ND | 4,385 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 9 | Yes | RS | 3 | Yes | RS |
44 | Cottonwood5 | ND | 1,013 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | nd | O, RS | 1 | nd | RS |
45 | Dakota Lake5 | ND | 2,780 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 8 | Yes | nc | 2 | Yes | nc |
46 | Des Lacs | ND | 19,500 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 5 | Yes | LS, W | 5 | Yes | LS, W |
47 | Florence Lake6 | ND | 1,888 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 4 | Yes | nc | 2 | Yes | RS, T |
48 | Half-Way Lake5 | ND | 160 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 0 | nd | nc | 0 | nd | nc |
49 | Hiddenwood5 | ND | 568 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 2 | Yes | RS | 3 | Yes | LS, RS, T |
50 | Hobart Lake5 | ND | 1,831 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 3 | Yes | I, RS | 3 | Yes | RS |
51 | Hutchinson Lake5 | ND | 479 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 8 | Yes | I, RS | 1 | Yes | RS, T |
52 | J. Clark Salyer | ND | 58,700 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 9 | Yes | nc | 3 | Yes | nc |
53 | Johnson Lake5 | ND | 2,003 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | Yes | RS | 2 | Yes | RS, T |
54 | Kellys Slough | ND | 1,270 | Lake Agassiz Plain | 1 | Yes | RS | 2 | Yes | I, T |
55 | Lake Alice | ND | 12,096 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 5 | nd | I, P, RS | 3 | Yes | T |
56 | Lake George5 | ND | 3,090 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 9 | Yes | RS | 2 | Yes | RS |
57 | Lake Ilo | ND | 4,033 | Northwestern Great Plains | 3 | Yes | I, P, RS | 3 | Yes | RS, T |
58 | Lake Nettie | ND | 3,055 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 3 | Yes | LS, RS, T | 4 | Yes | LS, RS, T |
59 | Lake Otis5 | ND | 320 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 1 | Yes | nc | 1 | Yes | T |
60 | Lake Patricia5 | ND | 800 | Northwestern Great Plains | 2 | Yes | RS | 2 | Yes | T |
61 | Lake Zahl | ND | 3,823 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 9 | nd | RS, W | 12 | nd | W |
62 | Lambs Lake5 | ND | 1,027 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | Yes | RS | 3 | Yes | RS |
63 | Little Goose5 | ND | 288 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | nd | RS | 1 | nd | RS |
64 | Long Lake | ND | 22,300 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 20 | Yes | C, I, RS | 7 | Yes | RS, T |
65 | Lords Lake5 | ND | 1,915 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | nd | O, RS | 1 | nd | RS |
66 | Lost Lake5 | ND | 960 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 0 | nd | nc | 1 | nd | RS |
67 | Lostwood | ND | 27,589 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 9 | nd | RS, W | 11 | nd | W |
68 | Maple River5 | ND | 712 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 3 | Yes | nc | 2 | Yes | T |
69 | Mclean | ND | 760 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 1 | Yes | nc | 2 | Yes | T |
70 | Pleasant Lake5 | ND | 898 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | Yes | nc | 1 | Yes | RS |
71 | Pretty Rock5 | ND | 800 | Northwestern Great Plains | 2 | Yes | RS | 2 | Yes | RS |
72 | Rabb Lake5 | ND | 261 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | nd | O, RS | 1 | nd | RS |
73 | Rock Lake5 | ND | 5,506 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | Yes | nc | 1 | Yes | nc |
74 | Rose Lake5 | ND | 836 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | Yes | RS | 1 | Yes | RS |
75 | School Section Lake5 | ND | 297 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 0 | nd | nc | 0 | nd | nc |
76 | Shell Lake | ND | 1,835 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 9 | nd | RS, W | 12 | nd | W |
77 | Sheyenne Lake5 | ND | 797 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 2 | Yes | C, RS | 2 | Yes | RS, T |
78 | Sibley Lake5 | ND | 1,077 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 4 | Yes | RS, T | 3 | Yes | RS |
79 | Silver Lake5 | ND | 3,348 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | Yes | RS | 1 | nd | T |
80 | Slade6 | ND | 3,000 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 6 | Yes | RS | 3 | Yes | RS, T |
81 | Snyder Lake5 | ND | 1,550 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | nd | RS | 1 | nd | RS |
82 | Springwater5 | ND | 640 | Northwestern Great Plains | 10 | Yes | RS, T | 3 | Yes | nc |
83 | Stewart Lake | ND | 2,230 | Northwestern Great Plains | 3 | Yes | P, RS | 3 | Yes | RS, T |
84 | Stoney Slough5 | ND | 880 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 3 | nd | RS | 2 | nd | RS |
85 | Storm Lake | ND | 683 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 3 | Yes | I, RS | 1 | Yes | nc |
86 | Stump Lake | ND | 27 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 2 | Yes | I, RS | 2 | Yes | nc |
87 | Sunburst Lake5 | ND | 327 | Northwestern Great Plains | 9 | Yes | T | 2 | Yes | nc |
88 | Tewaukon | ND | 8,343 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 11 | Yes | LS, RS, T, W | 10 | Yes | LS, P, RS, T, W |
89 | Tomahawk5 | ND | 440 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 4 | nd | RS | 3 | Yes | RS |
90 | Upper Souris | ND | 32,092 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 10 | Yes | CAP, LS, T | 4 | Yes | CAP, LS, O, W |
91 | While Horse Hill National Game Preserve | ND | 1,674 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | Yes | nc | 2 | Yes | nc |
92 | White Lake | ND | 1,040 | Northwestern Great Plains | 1 | nd | RS | 2 | Yes | RS, T |
93 | Wild Rice Lake | ND | 776 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 0 | nd | nc | 1 | nd | RS |
94 | Willow Lake5 | ND | 2,620 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | nd | O, RS | 1 | nd | RS |
95 | Wintering River5 | ND | 239 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | nd | O, RS | 1 | nd | RS |
96 | Wood Lake5 | ND | 280 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 1 | Yes | RS | 2 | Yes | RS |
97 | Crescent Lake | NE | 45,849 | Nebraska Sandhills | 4 | nd | I, RS | 3 | nd | RS |
98 | Fort Niobrara | NE | 19,131 | Nebraska Sandhills, Northwestern Great Plains | 2 | Yes | M, RS | 3 | Yes | M, RS, T |
99 | John W. and Louise Seier | NE | 2,400 | Nebraska Sandhills | 2 | nd | RS | 2 | nd | RS, T |
100 | North Platte | NE | 5,047 | High Plains | 2 | nd | P, RS | 1 | nd | RS |
101 | Valentine | NE | 71,516 | Nebraska Sandhills | 6 | Yes | I, RS | 4 | Yes | I, RS |
102 | Bear Butte5 | SD | 374 | Northwestern Great Plains | 0 | nd | nc | 0 | nd | nc |
103 | Karl E. Mundt | SD | 1,085 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 5 | Yes | W | 11 | Yes | LS, W |
104 | Lacreek | SD | 16,410 | Nebraska Sandhills, Northwestern Great Plains | 2 | Yes | nc | 5 | Yes | LS, W |
105 | Lake Andes | SD | 5,639 | Northwestern Glaciated Plains | 9 | Yes | I, LS, T, W | 28 | Yes | nc |
106 | Sand Lake | SD | 21,498 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 4 | Yes | P, RS | 3 | Yes | RS, T |
107 | Waubay | SD | 4,650 | Northern Glaciated Plains | 3 | Yes | nc | 3 | Yes | nc |
108 | Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge | Utah | 74,000 | Central Basin and Range | 7 | Yes | nc | 39 | Yes | nc |
109 | Fish Springs | Utah | 17,992 | Central Basin and Range | 3 | Yes | LS, W | 15 | Yes | LS, W |
110 | Ouray | Utah | 13,846 | Colorado Plateaus | 6 | Yes | LS, W | 16 | Yes | LS, W |
111 | Bamforth | WY | 1,166 | Wyoming Basin | 1 | nd | C, I, RS | 3 | nd | C, RS |
112 | Cokeville Meadows | WY | 9,259 | Wyoming Basin | 12 | nd | C, CAP, LS, P, T | 15 | nd | C, CAP, LS, RS, W |
113 | Hutton Lake | WY | 1,968 | Wyoming Basin | 3 | Yes | nc | 3 | Yes | C, RS |
114 | Mortenson Lake | WY | 1,776 | Wyoming Basin | 5 | Yes | C, RS | 4 | Yes | C, RS, T |
115 | National Elk Refuge | WY | 24,700 | Middle Rockies | 2 | Yes | CAP, LS, RS | 7 | Yes | C, CAP, LS, RS |
116 | Pathfinder | WY | 16,806 | Wyoming Basin | 1 | nd | RS | 1 | nd | RS, T |
117 | Seedskadee | WY | 27,230 | Wyoming Basin | 10 | Yes | CAP, LS, T, W | 10 | Yes | LS, T, W |
On
Satellite refuge managed by Bowdoin NWR. Refuge is not staffed.
Charles M. Russell is approximately 1.1 million acres in size, including UL Bend NWR. The UL Bend NWR is within the boundary of the Charles M. Russell NWR.
Satellite refuge managed by Charles M. Russell NWR Complex. Refuge is not staffed.
Limited-interest easement refuge.
Satellite refuge managed by Long Lake NWR Complex. Refuge is not staffed.
The 540 unique water-resource threat occurrences were grouped into 1 of 3 categories—aquatic habitat, water quality, or water quantity—for purposes of this report; the categories themselves are not included in the WRIA application of the ECOS database. The 10 most common water-resource threat types on refuges and their related category grouping are shown in
About 43 percent (230 of 540) of all threat occurrences had a high-severity threat rating (
A total of 72 unique causes of water-resource threats were reported for refuges in the LMPR (
Compromised water management capability was the most common water-resource threat type reported (64 refuges) and the most common high-severity threat type (29 refuges) (
[Number in parentheses is a count of refuges reporting the common threat type or the common threat cause. The most common threat types and count of refuges for each threat are shown in
Most common threat cause | Most common threat type | ||
1st. compromised water management capability (64) | 2nd. habitat shifting/alteration (48) | 3rd. altered flow regimes (47) | |
1st most common cause | Inefficient, inadequate, or damaged water infrastructure (31) | Invasive species (19) | Change in precipitation patterns (non-extreme) (11) |
2nd most common cause | No active monitoring (12) | Climate warming (6) | Groundwater pumping: agriculture (8) |
3rd most common cause | Other legal/political constraints (12) | Agricultural runoff (5); Change in precipitation patterns (non-extreme) (5) | Dams (7) |
[Number in parentheses is a count of refuges reporting the common high-severity threat type or the common threat cause. The most common high-severity threat types and count of refuges for each threat are shown in
Most common threat cause | Most common high-severity threat type | ||
1st. compromised water management capability (29) | 2nd (tied). habitat shifting/alteration (24) | 2nd (tied). altered flow regimes (24) | |
1st most common cause | Other legal/political constraints (8) | Invasive species (11) | Groundwater pumping: agriculture (8) |
2nd most common cause | Inefficient, inadequate, or damaged water infrastructure (7) | Climate warming (4) | Climate warming (5) |
3rd most common cause | No active monitoring (4) | Inefficient, inadequate, or damaged water infrastructure (2); Oil and gas development (2) | Dams (4); Inefficient, inadequate, or damaged water infrastructure (4) |
Habitat shifting/alteration was the second most common overall threat type (48 refuges) and tied for second for high-severity threat type (24 refuges) (
Altered flow regimes was the third most common overall threat type (47 refuges) and was tied for second for high-severity threat type (24 refuges) (
One or more of 9 aquatic-habitat threat types were reported at about 65 percent (71 of 109) of refuges and accounted for about 33 percent of all threat occurrences (177 of 540) (
About 62 percent (67 of 109) of refuges had threats related to water quality, which accounted for about 32 percent (174 of 540) of water-resource threat occurrences (
Threat types related to water quantity were the most common among the three threat categories. About 85 percent (93 of 109) of refuges reported 1 or more of the 7 water-quantity threat types, and these threat types accounted for 35 percent (189 of 540) of all water-resource threat occurrences (
Many of the reported legal-related causes of water-quantity threats, including other legal disputes/issues and other legal/political constraints, were related to water-rights issues. The ability of a given refuge to divert water, based on the refuge water rights, is important for ensuring adequate water supply for birds and other wildlife at specific times of the year. If insufficient water is available for diverting, a refuge may not be receiving their legally protected share.
Of the 109 refuges with water-resource threats, Long Lake NWR in south-central North Dakota had the most (20) threat types (
Other refuges with the greatest number of threat types included Marais des Cygnes NWR in eastern Kansas with 18 threat types and Arapaho NWR in north-central Colorado and Lee Metcalf NWR in northwest Montana, each with 16 threat types (
National Wildlife Refuges in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region with the most
Count of water-resource threat types on National Wildlife Refuges in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region (EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
About 54 percent (59 of 109) of refuges had threats with a high-severity rating (
Count of high-severity water-resource threat types on National Wildlife Refuges in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region (EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
As stated previously, there were a total of 72 unique causes of threats among refuges (
Among the 8 states in the LMPR, the most water-resource threat types were in North Dakota (26), Montana (24), and Colorado (23), and the greatest percentages of high-severity threat types were in Utah (80 percent), Kansas (67 percent), and Colorado (65 percent) (
[No., Number]
State |
No. of unique threat types | Percentage of unique threat types with high-severity rating | No. of unique threat causes | Percentage of unique threat causes of threats with high-severity rating |
Colorado (8) | 23 | 65 | 43 | 72 |
Kansas (4) | 21 | 67 | 22 | 68 |
Montana (21) | 24 | 21 | 43 | 26 |
Nebraska (5) | 8 | 62 | 7 | 43 |
North Dakota (63) | 26 | 46 | 36 | 67 |
South Dakota (6) | 17 | 53 | 24 | 67 |
Utah (3) | 10 | 80 | 32 | 53 |
Wyoming (7) | 19 | 47 | 28 | 61 |
Each state had compromised water management capability and (or) other contaminants/altered water chemistry among their top 3 threat types and had compromised water management capability, altered flow regimes, and (or) habitat shifting/alteration among their top 3 high-severity threat types (FWS, 2017a). The top overall threat causes for states in the LMPR were invasive species (Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming); inefficient, inadequate, or damaged water management infrastructure (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah), and agricultural runoff (Kansas, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) (
The LMPR refuges are represented by 15 of 16 EPA Level III ecoregions labelled on
[Number in parentheses is a count of refuges in the ecoregion or a count of refuges reporting the common threat types. Count of refuges does not include refuges in more than one EPA Level III Ecoregion. The ecoregion characteristics are from Bryce and others (1996) and Woods and others (2002). The threat types and number of refuges with the threat are from the Environmental Conservation Online System (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017a)]
EPA Level III ecoregion | Level III Ecoregion characteristics | Water-resource threat types | ||
1st most common threat type | 2nd most common threat type | 3rd most common threat type | ||
Northern Glaciated Plains (36) | Characterized by subhumid conditions that support grasslands that are transitional between tall and shortgrass prairie. Agriculture on fertile souls is dependent on fluctuating climate conditions. There are high concentrations of temporary and seasonal wetlands in the ecoregion. | Altered flow regimes (18) | Compromised water management capability (18) | Excess surface water (11), Sedimentation (11) |
Northwestern Glaciated Plains (28) | Transitional ecoregion between the moister dryland farming on the Northern Glaciated Plains to the east and the drier farming and cattle ranching on the Northwestern Great Plains to the west. The ecoregion has high concentrations of semi-permanent and seasonal wetlands. | Habitat shifting/alteration (18) | Nutrient pollution (16) | Compromised water management capability (14) |
Northwestern Great Plains (15) | Largely an unglaciated, semiarid, and rolling plain with ephemeral-intermittent streams and a few perennial rivers. Precipitation is erratic, and there are limited opportunities for irrigation. Rangeland is common. Native grasslands occur in some areas but have been replaced by spring wheat and alfalfa over much of the ecoregion. | Compromised water management capability (8) | Nutrient pollution (8) | Habitat shifting/alteration (7), Other contaminants/ |
The most common threat types in the Northwestern Glaciated Plains ecoregion (which is transitional between the Northern Glaciated Plains and Northwestern Great Plains ecoregions) were also common threat types in the two other ecoregions (
Equally important as identifying threats to water resources was identifying needs that could be implemented to help mitigate the threats, either within a few years or in the longer term. A total of 637 unique water-resource need occurrences were reported for 114 refuges in the LMRP (
About 39 percent (248 of 637) of water-resource need occurrences had a high-priority rating and included 54 need types (
The 10 most common high-priority need types were in 5 of 8 need categories (
The fourth most common need type differed for need types overall and among high-priority need types (
Bear River MBR in northern Utah had 39 unique water-resource need types, the most for any refuge within the LMPR (
National Wildlife Refuges in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region with
Count of water-resource need types on National Wildlife Refuges in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region (EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
About 40 percent (46 of 114) of refuges with needs had one or more high-priority need types (
Count of unique water-resource need types with a high-priority rating on National Wildlife Refuges in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region (EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
Among the 8 LMPR states, the most water-resource need types occurred in Utah (47), Colorado (46), and Montana and South Dakota (37 each) (
[No, Number]
State |
No. of unique need types | Percentage of unique need types with high-priority rating |
Colorado (8) | 46 | 54 |
Kansas (4) | 30 | 87 |
Montana (21) | 37 | 46 |
Nebraska (5) | 6 | 17 |
North Dakota (63) | 31 | 58 |
South Dakota (6) | 37 | 68 |
Utah (3) | 47 | 55 |
Wyoming (7) | 24 | 46 |
A WRIA need was the most common water-resource need type in the Northern Glaciated Plains, Northwestern Glaciated Plains, and Northwestern Great Plains EPA Level III ecoregions and the only top need type in common among the three ecoregions (
[Number in parentheses is a count of refuges in the ecoregion or a count of refuges reporting the common need types. Count of refuges does not include refuges in more than one Level III Ecoregion. The need types and number of refuges with the need are from the Environmental Conservation Online System (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017a)]
EPA Ecoregion III | Water-resource need types | ||
1st most common need type | 2nd most common need type | 3rd most common need type | |
Northern Glaciated Plains (36) | Water Resource Inventory and Assessment (25) | Repair or replace water management infrastructure (6) | Climate change vulnerability assessment (5), Create/update water management plan (5) |
Northwestern Glaciated Plains (28) | Water Resource Inventory and Assessment (20) | Reduce nonpoint source pollution (11) | Develop or promote adoption of best management practices (7), Protect habitat from invasive species (7), Reduce point-source pollution (7) |
Northwestern Great Plains (15) | Water Resource Inventory and Assessment (13) | Reduce nonpoint source pollution (7) | Repair or replace water management infrastructure (5), Water quality baseline monitoring (5) |
In the LMPR, almost all refuges (93 percent, 109 of 117) reported a water-resource threat (
The three most common threat types overall (compromised water management capability, habitat shifting/alteration, and altered flow regimes) were also the most common high-severity threat types (
Almost all refuges (97 percent, 114 of 117) reported a water-resource need (
The ranking values for refuges calculated from high-severity threats and high-priority needs were used to develop three separate rankings: a ranking of refuges by the most high-severity threat types, a ranking of refuges by the most high-priority needs, and an overall ranking of refuges for conservation efforts to fulfill refuges’ statutory purposes. The overall ranking values for refuges were calculated by summing the refuges’ high-severity threat ranking number and high-priority need ranking number. A higher overall ranking value can correspond to a greater need for conservation efforts. Refuges with the greatest ranking values of 7–10 for high-severity threat types are shown in
National Wildlife Refuges in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region with the greatest ranking values for
The threats and needs identified in this report can be used to help inform FWS about potential current and future actions to manage and preserve the water resources at refuges in the LMPR. Although most threats (67 percent, 363 of 540) would involve working with outside partnerships for mitigation, about 33 percent (177 of 540) of the threats were under the control of the FWS to mitigate (
Unlike threats, most need occurrences (68 percent, 434 of 637) were under control of the FWS (
In 2019, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), began a study to complete the compilation and quality assurance of water-resource threats and needs data for the 117 National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) in the FWS Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region (LMPR) and to characterize the threats and needs of each refuge and of the LMPR itself. The LMPR encompasses the states of Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Included in this report are the compilation and quality assurance of current (April 2020) water-resource threats and needs data for refuges in the LMRP and the statistical, graphical, and spatial characterization of the threats and needs dataset. This includes the ranking and prioritizing of threats, threat causes, and needs by number of occurrences in the LMPR as a whole and by refuges, states, and select U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Level III Ecoregions. To compile and quality assure the threats and needs data, existing data were downloaded from the FWS Environmental Conservation Online System Water Resource Inventory and Assessment (WRIA) application, publications and websites were searched for additional threats and needs, and refuge staff and staff of the LMPR Division of Water Resources were conferred with.
A total of 540 unique threat occurrences spread among 29 threat types were identified for 109 refuges. No threats were identified for eight refuges. About 43 percent of the threat occurrences had a high-severity threat rating. These high-severity threats were reported for 59 refuges. About 54 percent of refuges had at least one threat severe enough to potentially threaten the conservation mission of the refuge. Of the 10 most common threat types, 8 were also among the most common high-severity threat types. There were 72 different causes for the water-resource threats. About 83 percent of all threat causes were associated with high-severity threats.
The three most common threat types overall and the most common severe threat types were compromised water management capability, habitat shifting/alteration, and altered flow regimes. Compromised water management capability was most commonly caused by inefficient, inadequate, or damaged water management infrastructure for overall threats and by legal/political constraints for high-severity threats. Habitat shifting/alteration was most commonly caused by invasive species, for both overall threats and high-severity threats. Altered flow regimes was most commonly caused by change in non-extreme precipitation patterns for overall threats and pumping of groundwater or agriculture in the case of high-severity threats.
Refuges with the greatest number of water-resource threat types included Long Lake (20), Marais des Cygnes (18) and Arapaho and Lee Metcalf (16 each) NWRs. About 54 percent of refuges with threats also had high-severity threats. Arapaho and Quivira NWRs each had 10 high-severity threat types, the maximum number of high-severity threats for LMPR refuges.
Among the eight LMPR states, the most water-resource threat types occurred in North Dakota, Montana, and Colorado, and the percentages of high-severity threat types were greatest in Utah, Kansas, and Colorado. All states had compromised water management capability and (or) other contaminants/altered water chemistry among their top 3 threat types and compromised water management capability, altered flow regimes, and (or) habitat/shifting alteration among their top 3 high-severity threat types.
Threats and needs data for refuges in the Northern Glaciated Plains, Northwestern Glaciated Plains, and Northwestern Great Plains EPA Level III ecoregions were compared. Of the 4 most common threat types for the Northern Glaciated Plains ecoregion, 3 were unique to that ecoregion. The most common threat types in the Northwestern Glaciated Plains ecoregion were also common threats in the two other ecoregions. Other contaminants/altered water chemistry was a most common threat type only in the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion.
A total of 637 unique water-resource need occurrences were identified for 114 refuges, which included 62 need types. No needs were reported for three refuges. The most common need type, a WRIA need, was reported for 78 refuges. About 39 percent of water-resource needs had a high-priority rating. This included 54 need types at 46 refuges. About 40 percent of refuges had at least 1 need type that was necessary to fulfill the conservation mission and water-resource management objectives of a refuge. Two of the most common need types, repair and replace water management infrastructure and water supply/quantity monitoring, were the most common high-priority need types. Water quality baseline monitoring was the third most common overall need type and high-priority need type.
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge had the most (39) water-resource need types among refuges in the LMPR. Other refuges with the greatest number of need types included Baca NWR (38), Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs (36 each), and Lake Andes NWR (28). Of the 114 refuges with water-resource needs, 46 had high-priority needs. Monte Vista NWR had the most (23) high-priority need types. Alamosa (22), Baca (22), and Lake Andes (19) NWRs were also among the top 4 refuges with high-priority need types.
The need type of repair or replace water management infrastructure was among the top 3 water-resource need types for 6 states in the LMPR, and a WRIA need was among the top 3 need types for 5 states. The need type of repair or replace water management infrastructure was also one of the top 3 high-priority need types for 6 states, and water supply/quantity monitoring was one of the top 3 need types for 5 states.
A WRIA need was the most common water-resource need type in the Northern Glaciated Plains, Northwestern Glaciated Plains, and Northwestern Great Plains EPA Level III Ecoregions and the only need type in common among the 3 ecoregions. Other need types common to 2 of the 3 ecoregions included repair or replacement of water management infrastructure and reduce nonpoint source pollution.
An overall ranking scheme was developed to identify refuges that have the highest-ranking priority for conservation efforts to fulfill refuges’ statutory purposes. The count of occurrences of high-severity threats and high-priority needs were summed to determine the overall ranking value for a refuge. A higher overall ranking value can correspond to a greater need for conservation efforts. The 10 refuges with the highest overall ranking values (sum of high-severity threat counts and high-priority need counts), in order of ranking from higher to lower, were Alamosa, Baca, and Monte Vista NWRs (tied for highest); Lake Andes NWR, Ouray and Quivira NWRs, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge and Flint Hills NWR, Cokeville Meadows NWR, and Arapaho NWR.
About 33 percent of threat occurrences were reported as under the control of the FWS to mitigate, most commonly the threat types of compromised water management capability; habitat shifting/alteration; altered flow regimes; loss/alteration of wetland habitat; and legal challenges of fines for non-compliance with water policy, law, or regulation. These 5 threat types were also the most common of the 37 percent of high-severity threat occurrences under FWS control at NWRs in the LMPR. A total of 68 percent of need occurrences were under the control of the FWS, most commonly the need types of a WRIA, repair or replace water management infrastructure, water supply/quantity monitoring, water quality baseline monitoring, and protect habitat from invasive species. Most (67 percent) of high-priority need occurrences were also under the control of the FWS. These high-priority need occurrences included most of the common overall need types under FWS control and water level monitoring.
Publishing support provided by the Science Publishing Network,
Denver Publishing Service Center
For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the
Director, USGS Colorado Water Science Center
Box 25046, Mail Stop 415
Denver, CO 80225
(303) 236-4882
Or visit the Colorado Water Science Center website at
This appendix includes a table and maps related to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges in the Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region (LMPR). The table lists refuges in the LMPR as well as the number of unique threat and needs types for each refuge and sources of the threats and needs data. The maps show refuges in the LMPR and the three most common water-resource threat types, causes of water-resource threats, and water-resource need types and severity and priority ratings.
Severity rating for the compromised water management capability threat type on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges in the Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region and the number of refuges with each severity rating.
Severity rating for the habitat shifting/alteration threat type on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges in the Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region and the number of refuges with each severity rating.
Severity rating for the altered flow regimes threat type on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges in the Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region and the number of refuges with each severity rating.
Severity rating for threats caused by inefficient, inadequate, or damaged water management infrastructure on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges in the Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region and the number of refuges with each severity rating.
Severity rating for threats caused by agricultural runoff on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges in the Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region and the number of refuges with each severity rating.
Severity rating for threats caused by the invasive species on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges in the Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region and the number of refuges with each severity rating.
Priority rating for the Water Resource Inventory and Assessment need type on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges in the Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region and the number of refuges with each priority rating.
Priority rating for the repair or replace water management infrastructure need type on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges in the Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region and the number of refuges with each priority rating.
Priority rating for the water quality baseline monitoring need type on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges in the Legacy Mountain-Prairie Region and the number of refuges with each priority rating.