May 1997
IPM strategies are most easily implemented on private land where growers can make their own decisions about farming practices. IPM implementation on the refuges is complicated by the fact that the land is public, and subject to a variety of public laws and goals that may differ or even conflict with IPM strategies. An example of this is the practice of early cutting alfalfa: the practice may eliminate the spread of some pests, but has the potential of disturbing or destroying nesting birds.
In implementing IPM, alternatives will need to be evaluated, in part, using a criterion of limiting non-target impacts and downstream environmental degradation. Specifically, IPM alternatives should be evaluated for their potential impact to fish and wildlife habitat, nutrient loading to the refuges, pesticide drift and toxicity, cumulative effects on survival of species using the refuges, and food chain relationships.
Habitat loss or degradation is at a critical point within the refuges, particularly Tule Lake NWR. Any activity that contributes to the degradation of aquatic habitat or decrease in habitat diversity should be avoided if the refuges are to function as such. The sump rotation project represents an integrated approach to addressing agriculture and wildlife. Sump rotation has potential to create and enhance wildlife habitat. Other things to consider for aquatic habitat are water level fluctuation, erosion reduction, nutrient retention on the farmlands and nutrient loading reduction.
Another important consideration for habitat is the maintenance of true fish corridors that allow the shortnose and Lost River suckers to move from one habitat to another as dictated by their life-cycle requirements. At present, water-ways are solely managed as irrigation water systems and not as fish corridors.
Decisions about continued pesticide use should include consideration of direct and indirect toxicity to organisms, biological interaction, and biological diversity. The accumulated impacts of agricultural chemical use and eutrophication have not been fully studied. Until the effects are known, management options need to be conservative to prevent further habitat degradation and potential loss of species.
Certain existing constraints on agricultural practices were recognized during the preparation of this Plan. For instance, all pesticides used on Refuge leased lands are subject to the PUP process. Therefore, chemical recommendations were made considering this process and currently approved pesticides.
Furthermore, growers have crop contracts with buyers that require certain rotations or chemical restrictions. Reclamation leases also require crop rotations (2 years in grain and 1 year in row crop). Finally, growers must adhere to the goals of the wildlife refuges as they farm -- something they do not have to do on private land.
IPM seeks to prevent pest problems from developing. In doing so, long-term costs of pest control can be reduced. By using different or additional techniques, growers can overcome the problems posed by pest resistance to chemicals, take advantage of the natural enemies of pests, and reduce harmful effects of chemicals on the environment and humans. Given the economic track record of IPM and the possibility to use lease fees as a mitigating measure to absorb short-term increased costs of experimental IPM techniques, farmers appear to face little long-term financial risk from a well designed and implemented IPM plan on leased lands. For further discussion of costs and benefits of IPM on the refuges, see Section VIII, Economic Costs and Benefits of IPM.
Return to the IPM Plan Table of Contents or continue on to VIII. Current Conditions