1. Impacts of Changes in Water Rights on Waterfowl in the Lower Klamath Basin By Robert B. Frederick

5. Area map

7. Lower Klamath NWR TYPEACRES% Marsh 30,01656 Croplands 15,00828 Uplands8,57616 53,600100%

8. Tule Lake NWR TYPEACRES% Croplands17,000 44 Open Water10,55727 Uplands 8,41521 Marsh 3,128 8 Total39,100 100%

12. 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"

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Pacific White-fronted goose declines (thousands)

22. 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

23. Potential Impacts on White-Fronted Geese of Different Cropping Patterns on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge Funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office

24. 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

30. Behavior and energy acquisition is affected by disturbance from hunters, fall-plowing, and by snow cover

31. 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

39. Waterfowl use days (millions) Maximum daily feeding distance (km) Control conditions4.58.0 No refuge food4.0*15.0** *P<0.05 ** P<0.0001 Results of earlier simulation experiments (1990)

40. New questions about water rights How can irrigation (conventional farming) be reduced without stressing white-fronted geese energetically?

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. End