DRAFT
Intetgrated Pest Management Plan for
Lower Klamath and Tule Lake NWRs
May 1997
VI. IPM Plan Issue Statements and Goals
Once the public involvement process was established, and a consensus reached on a common definition of IPM, the participants in the planning process identified issues and goals pertaining to IPM and the leased lands. Problem statements and IPM goals were developed to focus work priorities on issues associated with pest management on Tule Lake and Lower Klamath NWRs. Goals were developed subsequent to issue statements to assure that identified problems were being addressed in the plan.
Issue statements and goals were initially drafted by reviewing notes from informal meetings with growers, federal agency staff, and members of conservation organizations. Project-related materials in agency files and reports, newspaper articles, telephone interviews with varied constituencies and researchers, and the scope of work described in the contract between the Service and the Contractor were reviewed and used as background material for problem statements and goals.
The draft statements and goals were presented, reviewed, discussed, and modified by the IPM Citizen's Advisory Group and the Agency IDT. It is important to present both the issues and goals so that plan recommendations and updates to this plan address identified issues, and are in conformance with goals. The issue statements and goals for this IPM Plan are presented below:
A. IPM ISSUES (As Identified by the Citizen's Advisory Group)
- Depending on the definition of IPM, farmers are concerned that implementing IPM may increase their financial risk from increased production cost and/or decreased value of crop produced.
- Current land management/farming practices may contribute to habitat degradation for endangered sucker species (sedimentation, eutrophication, potential toxicity of pesticides, dredging).
- Some agriculture service businesses may be concerned that implementing IPM may require a change in products and services and may reduce business opportunities.
- Land management practices have reduced many wildlife populations and species diversity on leased lands.
- Information on practical alternatives to pesticides is not widely available locally (few local demonstration projects, no action thresholds for many pests, local research does not support new pest management options.)
- Growers and agencies are motivated to select pesticides for different reasons (i.e., growers selecting for effective pest control, FWS selecting for wildlife/environmental safety).
- Reduced wildlife populations limit some recreation uses (hunters, bird watchers).
- Growers are concerned that IPM will allow uncontrolled spread of pests.
- Lack of historical data on fisheries limits management priorities.
- Many growers believe they are already implementing IPM or don't see the need for an IPM Plan.
- Some stakeholders believe that on a national wildlife refuge, only crops which provide a beneficial food source to wildlife or improve wildlife habitat should be grown.
- Lack of financial incentives for growers to experiment with new IPM practices and/or promote wildlife conservation.
- Poor water quality and low dissolved oxygen limit habitats for fisheries.
- Some stakeholders are concerned that the PUP process and IPM Plan will not be well integrated/coordinated.
- Pesticide use on refuges is not in compliance with Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service policies.
- Wind erosion is a problem on leased lands, contributing to siltation of the sumps and loss of waterfowl and fisheries habitat.
- There is a mutual lack of appreciation for the knowledge and experience and efforts that the growers and agencies have.
- There is confusion about interpretations of federal statutes, policies, regulations and procedures as they relate to the Service leased lands and they are open to widely differing interpretations by stakeholders, which helps to create confusion and distrust.
- General concern by stakeholders that IPM Plan won't be implemented as agreed on.
- Lack of fall flooding creates a management problem for some growers.
B. IPM PLAN GOALS
| Goal A:
| Provide land managers and users with practical pest management guidelines and options that minimize negative environmental impacts, are compatible with recreational uses, and protect and support wildlife habitat.
|
| Goal B:
| Develop ways and means for providing land managers and users with sources of innovative and practical IPM information and implement cooperative practices so that land managers and users can access information about the most useful IPM tools and techniques that are based on local demonstrations and local conditions.
|
| Goal C:
| Develop effective incentives to encourage and promote wildlife conservation and IPM implementation on refuge lands
|
| Goal D:
| Develop an ongoing way for land managers and users with different views to communicate regularly and effectively in an atmosphere that builds trust and successful implementation of the IPM Plan over the long term.
|
| Goal E:
| Ensure that the IPM Plan will be both flexible and responsive to ongoing scientific discoveries and new pests.
|
| Goal F:
| Ensure that the IPM Plan implementation is effectively coordinated between responsible agencies.
|
| Goal G:
| Develop long-term strategies to ensure the implementation effectiveness of the IPM Plan and to establish a process for updating and revising IPM approaches.
|
Return to the IPM Plan Table of Contents or continue on to
VII. Constraints and Opportunities for IPM Strategies
[NCTC Library Home Page] [Fish and Wildlife Service]