What is this case about?

Unique among the more than 500 wildlife refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Fish and Wildlife Service allows broad-scale commercial agriculture within the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath refuges that provides no benefit to wildlife. In cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, FWS maintains an agricultural lease program of approximately 20,500 acres. The Service also administers a cooperative farming program of approximately 5,100 additional acres.

This commercial farming demands a significant volume of water for irrigation (close to 60,000 acre-feet per year), results in the application of highly toxic pesticides, and consumes acreage that could otherwise be used as wetlands or for surplus water storage. By destroying habitat, diverting scarce water resources, and degrading water quality, the commercial agricultural uses of refuge lands have undermined the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuges, resulting in the decline of migratory waterfowl, bald eagles, and other wildlife that utilize and rely on the refuges.

Despite these impacts, in 2002, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the continuation of its current agriculture and water management practices was consistent and compatible with the primary purpose of the refuges and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and would have no significant impact on the refuges. In so doing, it simultaneously reversed a 1999 decision to allow farming within the refuges only to the extent that sufficient water was available to maintain refuge wetlands.

Why are these wildlife refuges important?

The Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges contain some of the last remnants of the hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands that once existed in the Klamath Basin. These wetlands lie along the Pacific Flyway, a vital migration corridor for waterfowl traveling between northern breeding grounds and southern wintering sites along the west coast. Consequently, millions of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife rely upon the Klamath refuges for food, rest, and shelter. In the winter months, the refuges provide essential habitat for the largest concentration of bald eagles in the lower-48 states.

Aren't the crops grown on the refuges used by the birds?

Waterfowl and other birds were using the Klamath Refuges during migration for food and habitat long before there was ever any farming. Now, while birds do eat a small percentage of the grains grown, much of the commercial farming is crops such as onions, potatoes, and alfalfa that have no value to wildlife, require large volumes of water, and demand the heavy application of pesticides. Natural wetlands would provide greater food production for wildlife. Refuge biologists have said that wetlands, not artificially supplied foods, are the primary limiting factor for waterfowl on the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges.

How is Refuge management linked to the recent Klamath River fish kill?

There is not enough water in the Klamath Basin to go around, and the recent fish kill on the lower Klamath River is a sign of that over-allocation of water. Given its scarcity, we should not be devoting water to grow crops in a National Wildlife Refuge to the detriment of the animals that rely on those wetlands.

Will the Refuges get water if commercial farming is modified or eliminated?

The Service previously found that water not used to irrigate refuge lease lands would remain in (or be delivered to) the Tule Lake sumps, where it could be used to benefit both Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges. This surplus could range from 14,000 to 29,000 acre-feet of water, and as observed by the Service, "a 'savings' of this magnitude could provide a much needed supply of water to Lower Klamath NWR in below average and dry years." (2001 Draft Environmental Assessment at 1.14.)

--------------------------------------------------------

Commercial Farming in the Klamath National Wildlife Refuges:

Fish and Wildlife Service's Own Words

As the following quotes clearly show, the Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly found that current commercial farming practices harm the wildlife refuges.

The "agricultural program on Tule Lake and Lower Klamath NWRs is compatible and consistent with the primary purposes for which these two refuges were established and the mission of the Refuge System, only if sufficient water is available to maintain wetlands first, followed secondarily by water for use on agricultural habitats." Compatibility/Consistency Determination The Agricultural Program on Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges (Feb. 1, 1999), Executive Summary at 1 (emphasis added).

Commercial farming programs "are significant water users. In some years, where water supplies are insufficient to meet all Refuge needs including leased agricultural lands, especially during the April to October period, the agricultural program may use water that could otherwise be available for waterfowl management and other wetland needs on the Refuge." Draft Environmental Assessment on Implementation of an Agricultural Program on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Jan. 19, 2001), Executive Summary at 1.

With respect to continuation of pre-1999 commercial farming on the wildlife refuges, "[t]he sharp reduction in seasonal wetlands coupled with the lack of permanent marshes could have severe consequences for the ecological integrity of Lower Klamath NWR. Lower Klamath NWR is the most biologically productive freshwater wetland in the Klamath Ecoregion and is a key to the overall carrying capacity of the Pacific Flyway for a variety of waterbird species." 2001 Draft Environmental Assessment at 4.2.

"Reduction in wetland habitat of the magnitude which may occur under [continued farming] has the potential to seriously degrade the Upper Klamath Basin as a primary fall staging area for 80% of Pacific Flyway waterfowl (2-6 million waterfowl) and reduce the overall carrying capacity of the Pacific Flyway to support present waterfowl populations." 2001 Draft Environmental Assessment at 4.6.

"[I]n years in which permanent marshes are dry, waterfowl production may be reduced by 20,000 to 40,000 birds." 2001 Draft Environmental Assessment at 4.6.

Even in its June 4, 2002 flip-flop, where the FWS reversed its prior findings and chose to continue pre-1999 refuge commercial farming, the Service stated that "[f]rom a refuge management perspective, wetlands rather than agricultural fields are a higher priority as waterfowl habitat." June 4, 2002 Finding of No Significant Impact Cover Letter at 2.