DRAFT
Integrated Pest Management Plan for
Lower Klamath and Tule Lake NWRs

May 1997

IV. Principal Authorities, Policies and Other Guidance

A. Kuchel Act

In the early 1960s, Congress debated the best manner of using the land in the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath NWRs. Congress was faced with the question of whether to dedicate the land to homesteading or to waterfowl production. It needed to recognize the existing agricultural uses and the Klamath Project, to overcome the threats to waterfowl management, to recognize international treaty responsibilities for the conservation of migratory waterfowl, and obligations to the Klamath Drainage District and Tulelake Irrigation District. In addition, lawmakers wanted to offset some the costs of services to the refuges provided by affected counties. Debate was heard from all sides and was settled with the passage of the Kuchel Act (Public Law 88-567) in 1964 (from statement of Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, on S.1988 [Kuchel Act] to the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, February 23, 1962).

The administration and management of the agriculture program on the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath NWRs is more complicated than other national wildlife refuges due to the Kuchel Act . The Act, which targeted only four national wildlife refuges, states:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all lands owned by the United States lying within the Executive Order boundaries of the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, the Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, and the Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, are hereby dedicated to wildlife conservation. Such lands shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the major purpose of waterfowl management, but with full consideration to optimum agricultural use that is consistent therewith..."

Section 4 states in part that:

"The Secretary shall, consistent with proper waterfowl management, continue present patterns of leasing.... Leases for these lands shall be at a price or prices designed to obtain the maximum leasing revenues. The leases shall provide for the growing of grain, forage and soil building crops, except that not more than 25 per centum of the total leased lands may be planted to row crops."

Section 3 states in part:

"...that the priority of use of the total net revenues collected from the leasing of the lands described in this section shall be (1) to credit or pay from such revenues to the Tulelake Irrigation District that amounts already committed to such payment or credit; (2) to pay from such revenues to the Klamath Drainage District the sum of $197,315; and (3)to pay from such revenues to the counties the amounts prescribed by this section."

The Kuchel Act requires that these national wildlife refuges be managed for two different purposes: for waterfowl management and agriculture production. The ambiguity of this law has proven difficult for land managers because it leaves priorities open to interpretation by various interest groups.

B. National Wildlife Administration Act

The National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended in 1976 (Public Law 94-233), designated the Service as the agency required to administer units of the Refuge system, including lands covered by the Kuchel Act. A Department of Interior solicitor's opinion of May 26, 1976, stated that the continued presence of Reclamation on Kuchel Act land was consistent with the Act because of a cooperative agreement (in 1977) between the two agencies, recognizing the Service's ultimate administrative control. The solicitor's opinion made the Service the final decision maker as to whether agricultural leases were consistent with proper waterfowl management under the Kuchel Act.

C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation Cooperative Agreement

According to the 1977 cooperative agreement (Reclamation and Service contract No. 7-07-20-W0089) between the two agencies, the Service has ultimate administrative control of the refuges, but Reclamation manages the agricultural leased lands program. Agricultural crops are grown on both refuges by Service personnel, by growers under cooperative arrangements (a sharecrop arrangement), and by private growers who lease Service lands through the program operated by Reclamation. The agricultural programs are subject to limitations on the use of chemicals (and must comply with pesticide use proposals [PUPs]), timing of cultivation, and any other appropriate limitations as may be necessary. Reclamation must consult with and obtain the approval of the Service in developing the agricultural leasing program.

D. Executive Order No.12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System

On March 25, 1996, Executive Order No. 12996 was signed, to affirm the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. As stated in the Order, the mission is to "preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United States." It further affirms the importance of these lands for the use and enjoyment of the public for education and recreational purposes, and the public's role in decisions that affect the system. It also recognizes the necessity of coordination between the agencies responsible for the management of the refuge system.

E. U.S. Department of the Interior Policies

The IPM Plan is needed to comply with certain policy requirements of the U.S. Department of Interior. Specifically, in management of the lands and waters under its jurisdiction, it is Department policy to 'use pesticides only after full consideration of alternatives... including chemical, biological, and physical methods, and no action..." and to "adopt integrated pest management (IPM) strategies whenever practicable" (U.S. Department of the Interior 1982).

The use of pesticides on wildlife refuges requires a series of approvals from the Service and Reclamation. Pesticide use on the refuges is governed by U.S. Department of Interior Pesticide Use Policy (U.S. Department of Interior 1982), Service and Reclamation Manuals (Service Manual 7RM 14.4G). The Service's policies state that, "The Service will eliminate unnecessary use of pesticides by implementing integrated pest management techniques and by selecting crops that are beneficial to fish and wildlife but do not require pesticides." The following Department of Interior policy, guiding use of pesticides on NWRs is taken from the Interior Manual:

"It is the policy of the Department:

A. To use pesticides only after full consideration of alternatives based on competent analyses of environmental effects, safety, specificity, effectiveness, and costs. The full range of alternatives including chemical, biological, and physical methods, and no action will be considered. When it is determined that a pesticide must be used in order to meet important management goals, the least hazardous material that will meet such goals will be chosen.

B. To utilize pest management research, control, education, and assistance programs to develop, support, and adopt integrated pest management (IPM) strategies wherever practicable.

C. To use pesticides registered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in full accordance with FIFRA [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act], as amended, and as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued by EPA.

D. That the handling and use of restricted-use pesticides be conducted with caution and only by personnel who are either certified or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.

E. To insure that all pesticides and pesticide containers are transported, stored, and disposed of in a manner that will safeguard human health, fish, and wildlife, and prevent soil and water contamination.

F. To give full consideration at all times to safety to humans, fish and wildlife, and other non-target organisms.

G. To use pesticides in habitats involving endangered and threatened animal or plant species only after it is determined that such use will not adversely affect the species or its critical habitat. This determination will be made through the Endangered Species Act consultation process prescribed in 50 CFR 402."

Further, a pesticide use proposal (PUP) must be prepared for each chemical used in pest control programs on refuge lands (Service Manual 7RM 14.4G). The PUP process is separate from this IPM Plan. It is used to evaluate the specifics of proposed chemicals, treatment sites, application methods, and sensitive aspects of use. All pesticides recommended in the IPM Workbook must undergo PUP approval and endangered species consultation before their use on leased lands.

To expedite a review of new pesticides being proposed for use within the Refuge leased lands, the Service and Reclamation formed a PUP Core Team, composed of Agency staff having expertise in the leased-land program, Refuge management, IPM, endangered species, and pesticide effects on natural resources. The decision to approve or disapprove a new farm chemical is based on extensive toxicity data, proposed use of the pesticide, environmental conditions, degradation rates, solubility, and numerous other factors. High toxicity ratings for a particular pesticide for trust species on the NWRs (including migratory birds, resident birds, fish, mammals, aquatic or terrestrial invertebrates) and threatened and endangered species are factors considered before approval of PUPs are given.

The Core Team also considers whether there are IPM alternatives, or less toxic chemicals that are effective. Following the review process, growers are given an opportunity to comment, provide additional information, and to appeal decisions. After review, the Core Team's recommendations for a PUP are provided to the Klamath Basin Refuge Complex Refuge Manager for approval or rejection.

Return to the IPM Plan Table of Contents or continue on to V. Public Involvement and Agency Input

[NCTC Library Home Page] [Fish and Wildlife Service]