Impacts of Changes in Water Rights on Waterfowl in the

Lower Klamath Basin

By

Robert B. Frederick

Area map

Lower Klamath NWR

TYPE ACRES %

Marsh 30,016 56

Croplands 15,008 28

Uplands 8,576 16

53,600 100%

Tule Lake NWR

TYPE ACRES %

Croplands 17,000 44

Open Water 10,557 27

Uplands 8,415 21

Marsh 3,128 8

Total 39,100 100%

History• 1905 - lands under Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes

“reclaimed” for agriculture through water draining and diversion

• 1908 - Lower Klamath NWR established– Nation’s first waterfowl refuge!

• 1928 - Tule Lake NWR established • 1964 - Kuchel Act established farming as secondary to

waterfowl management, but mandates farming consistent with waterfowl management– "...dedicated to wildlife conservation...for the major purpose

of waterfowl management, but with full consideration to optimum agricultural use that is consistent therewith"

The 1990’s• Listing of the shortnose and Lost River

suckers in Upper Klamath Lake

• Heightened awareness of tribal trust obligations in the Klamath River and Upper Klamath Lake

• Preliminary legal opinion from Interior Regional Solicitors office: Klamath Basin Tribes and Endangered Species Act have rights senior to waterfowl needs

Some other facts

• Water is delivered to private agriculture within “Project” lands first, then Tule Lake Refuge, and finally to Lower Klamath wetlands

• These wetlands are critical habitat for millions of migrating ducks and geese annually

Predicted Impacts

• The new water priorities significantly reduce water to fill natural wetlands

• Reclamation and water delivery models predict a significant acreage of Lower Klamath Refuge wetland habitat will be dry in about half of future years

• Similar impacts are predicted for Tule Lake

Reduce farming?

• Currently most refuge lands are leased for agriculture as called for by the Kuchel Act

• If reduced water threatens waterfowl, and refuge farming (irrigation) is partly responsible for water shortages, farming is no longer consistent with waterfowl management needs

• Farmers were given the bad news in January of 1999

BUT!!• As expected, the farmers were a little

disappointed

• They claimed waterfowl eat the waste grains and other crops, and that waterfowl would be harmed by reduced agriculture

• Previous modeling studies indicated agriculture within the refuge was especially critical to waterfowl, especially white-fronted geese

What previous modeling studies?

• The earlier modeling work was done by yours truly in 1990

• That work was aimed at recent waterfowl declines seen at that time

Pacific White-fronted goose declines (thousands)

0

100

200

300

400

500

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

Klamath Basin Entire Population

The new ecological questions

• The earlier modeling was aimed at recent waterfowl declines, and did not look the many possible scenarios that might allow for a reduction in agriculture without impacting waterfowl

• However, I can do that

• In 1999, Refuge Biologist Dave Mauser called and asked for new simulations

Potential Impacts on White-Fronted Geese of Different Cropping Patternson Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Funded by

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office

REFMOD History• “Refuging” waterfowl simulation model• A computer program designed to

simulate the behavior and energetics of snow geese at DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge in western Iowa and eastern Nebraska

• A “stochastic” model to look at impacts of hunting and food availability on migrating waterfowl

• Wildlife Monographs Number 96

Behavior and energy acquisition is affected by

disturbance from hunters, fall-plowing, and by snow cover

Modified to simulate white-fronted geese in the Klamath Basin

• Changed the map– Location of “core” and shape of the arena– The type of food

• From corn to primarily barley and potatoes

• Changed the species

Waterfowl use days (millions)

Maximum daily feeding distance (km)

Control conditions 4.5 8.0

No refuge food 4.0* 15.0**

* P<0.05

** P<0.0001

Results of earlier simulation experiments (1990)

New questions about water rights

How can irrigation (conventional farming) be reduced without stressing white-fronted geese energetically?

• Add additional output variables

+ waterfowl use days + maximum daily

distance flown to feed

+ mean food “want” • Updated waterfowl

and crop inputs

Modified REFMOD to allow for

• Buffer strips near the lake

• All field-feeding waterfowl

• Additional habitat units to be managed separately

• More precisely manage hunting

15 cropping scenarios simulated

• 2 that maximize refuge crops used by geese

• 3 that fallow 1/3 of refuge crops• 3 that fallow about half of the refuge• 2 that eliminate potatoes (all grains)• 2 that fallow 1/3 - 2/3 of entire project• 3 that eliminate or nearly eliminate all

refuge farming

Results

• Complete elimination of refuge farming had the greatest impact on waterfowl

– increased distances moved to feed– increased food “want”– caused population declines due to

hastened emigration• Complete elimination of refuge farming

but leaving unharvested buffer strips had minimal impact

Results• What actually happened this year (Fall and

Winter of 2001/2002) at Tule Lake– There was a mild drought– To provide water to Lower Klamath marsh, no

irrigation was allowed on refuge lands– Standing barley at much reduced yields was

left unharvested (the result of no irrigation) with no potatoes planted

– Impact on waterfowl appeared minimal• They fed mainly on standing barley near the refuge

lake

Politics today

• State of Oregon says feds can’t tell them what to do with their water

• USFWS in Washington says farming is not a legitimate use of the refuge

• Water shortages are currently due to ESA, but tribal trust (supporting salmon and sucker fisheries) is predicted to become an even bigger burden than ESA in the future

• Farmers want to irrigate again• Refuge manager says hardly a week goes by

without consulting the modeling results

End