Welcome to Friends of Klamath Basin Birding's monthly newsletter. If you recently subscribed and this is your first newsletter, you can find the archive of our last newsletter here. If you haven't already, please join our Facebook discussion group. We would love to get to know you! |
|
|
In this issue: A Conversation About Water More Ideas and Successful Examples Invitation to participate Species Spotlight: Bullock's Oriole July Birding Events Share this Newsletter
|
|
|
Let's Have a Conversation About Water-by Loree Johnson I'm not an expert on water issues plaguing the Klamath Basin, but I believe solutions often come from creative ideas that can be further refined and implemented by experts. In light of that, my hope is to spark some brainstorming around this issue. The thoughts and opinions in this piece are mine alone and do not represent others in the group. As we watch our wildlife refuges turn to desert, as we see endangered fish populations continue to plummet, as residential wells dry up by the hundreds, and as we hear about farmers and ranchers hanging on by a thread, it's clear to me we need to have a conversation about change in the Klamath Basin. Most people abhor change, but the one thing we know is that it is inevitable. We either change voluntarily, with planning and forsight, or we change when it is forced upon us without the benefit of control. Most of us are well aware of our own circumstances. But what about the big picture? Here are a few statistics about the Klamath Project, the wildlife refuges, and Klamath Basin agriculture in general, just for reference. (sources in parentheses) - The Klamath Project consists of about 240,000 acres of cropland. 62% is in Oregon and 38% in California. (BOR)
- Major crops grown are barley, alfalfa hay, other hay, oats, potatoes, and wheat. (Wiki)
- The project needs about 350,000 acre feet of water to fully irrigate. In 2022, it has received 50,000 acre feet. (OPB)
- The Lower Klamath and Tulelake wildlife refuges are important habitat for 80-85% of migratory waterfowl on Pacific Flyway from Alaska to South America. (USFW)
- Tulelake Refuge is about 39,000 acres. Lower Klamath Refuge is about 51,000 acres, around 44,000 in California and 6700 in Oregon. (Wiki)
- About 40% of refuge acreage is devoted to agriculture. (OPB)
- Approximately 100,000 acre feet of water is needed to successfully manage wetlands on the refuges. They have received less than 1,000 in 2022. (USFW)
- Since the establishment of the Klamath Project in 1905, it's estimated that 85-95% of local wetlands have been lost. (OPB)
- The tiny remaining fraction of wetlands on the refuges is rapidly drying up. It is projected that no wetland habitat will remain by the end of summer 2022. (USFW)
- There are somewhere between 300,000 and 350,000 irrigated acres in the Upper Klamath Basin that are outside the Klamath Project. (USDA)
The two major events that have most impacted the refuges over time are: - The passage of the Kuchel Act in 1964. This law was a compromise between homesteading and conservation, giving the Fish and Wildlife Service authority over refuge land and giving the Bureau of Reclamation authority over the allocation of water. At the time, it was hailed as a win-win solution. Over the years, it has pitted one agency against the other, since they have different, and often opposing, mandates.
- The Water Rights Adjudication by the Oregon Department of Water Resources finalized in 2013, which determined that no water can be allocated for wetlands management on the refuges since all Klamath Project water is intended for agriculture. The result of this finding essentially ruled that the only water to be used for wetland and habitat management on the refuges were the "returns" from irrigation. In other words, only runoff left over after crops are irrigated can be utilized for wildlife. Obviously, when there is not enough water for crops, there is no water at all for wildlife habitat.
As I was compiling these facts, a number of questions came to mind. What are the hidden costs of allowing our wildlife refuges to dry up? It's easy to put a dollar value on agriculture because products are bought and sold. But, what is the value of a healthy ecosystem? What is the cost of invasive plants that overtake wetlands when they are parched? How many resources and how much time will it take to restore versus maintaining in the first place? Do we value only the economics of a place? Or is there value in the quality of life natural settings provide? Is there a value to abundant, or even average wildlife populations? What about hunting and tourism the refuges attract? It's clear to me that these things are currently out of balance. What changes can be made to restore a healthy balance between our human economy and our natural world? One thought that came to me as I pondered these questions involves drought relief programs. Currently, we pay farmers and ranchers taxpayer dollars because their livelihoods are impacted by drought. By most accounts, they do not like it. It makes sense that hardworking people would rather be earning a living than receiving subsidies for not working. Why not offer them the opportunity to put their equipment to work restoring wetlands, planting native vegetation, and improving riparian zones? What if we paid people to do restoration work which could ultimately make the basin healthier and better able to sustain agriculture? Paying people to do meaningful work makes more sense than paying them because they are a victim of circumstances. Another question that keeps coming to mind is what are we sacrificing and what are we getting in return? There have been many news articles over the past few years about the water crisis. Some of them mention the potatoes used by the In-N-Out Burger chain come from the Klamath Basin. Aside from the fact that there aren't any In-N-Out locations within an hour's drive of us, are fast-food fries really more valuable than wildlife? Are the plummeting waterfowl populations a reasonable tradeoff so people in other parts of the country can have fries with their burger? This is just one example of the conversation we should be having about the ways agriculture benefits us and the ways it doesn't. The crops grown in the Klamath Basin are driven by demand. I was under the impression that potatoes are the main crop grown here. In my quest for information, I discovered that alfalfa and other forms of hay are far and away the biggest agricultural output by number of acres. Much of it ends up at cattle ranches and dairy farms outside the basin. Purchase and consumption of beef and dairy products drives the market. I'm not suggesting that everyone should become a vegan. I also not suggesting that we put hay farmers out of business. But what if we cut back on things that aren't good for us or the land? If market forces have driven the production of hay, can market forces drive a transition to crops that provide us with more health and nutrition per gallon of water? One more thing to consider is what happens when farmers and ranchers decide to give up? When they sell their land, who buys it? What if we had a government agency or land trust to buy land when it goes up for sale? This seems to me a reasonable way to downsize agriculture over time which would make it more sustainable and alleviate the over-allocation of limited water. It would also keep the land out of the hands of corporate conglomerates and foreign investors who have no concerns about local quality of life. I know that there are no simple answers to any of these questions and I realize there are complex laws, regulations, contracts and infrastructure in place that make change difficult. But difficult does not equal impossible. Yes, it will take lots of work, lots of money, and most of all, cooperation to put this region on a healthier and more sustainable track for the future. Is it worth it? I think so. My hope is to start a conversation and give everyone the space to share their own ideas. I don't have all, or maybe any, of the answers. What I do know is there are a lot of smart, creative people in this group and maybe together we can make a difference! We can continue down the well-worn path of the last 150 years until it leads us off the cliff. Or, we can blaze a new trail. One that doesn't pit endangered species against agriculture, Native Americans against farmers, and the Bureau of Reclamation against the Fish and Wildlife Service. I can envision a future where all these groups, and many others, work together to restore and protect the place we all love. Can you envision it, too? Who will speak up about changes that must be made? Maybe more importantly, who will listen? |
|
|
Wetlands and More-by Mary Williams Hyde To say solutions to the Klamath Basin water crisis are complex is of course an understatement. My special interest is to advocate for the importance of wetlands to our overall ecosystem recovery. My concern is that the focus on endangered fish recovery pulls attention and resources away from the bigger picture work that has to be coordinated to truly be successful. It is my belief that wetlands won’t be restored, and endangered fish won’t be saved, and ag won’t thrive without a holistic approach to all the problems we have. I would like to see every person that lives in this community choose from a menu of work that needs to be done (prepared by the experts on ecosystem restoration) and do their part to help. I would like to see federal funding move in a more balanced way towards fixing every aspect of what is wrong, including how important wetlands are. Not only fish and wildlife, but also to fighting climate change and recharging ground water. Other projects such as juniper removal in the uplands are important components to improving overall ecosystem health that should have more attention and funding. I have had a particular interest in juniper removal for years ever since I witnessed the results of juniper removal above a spring that had gone dry on Louis Randall’s ranch in the Langell Valley area. The spring that had been dry for at least ten years sprang back to life when junipers were removed all around it. The abundance of water that flowed from the renewed spring was enough to water hay fields in the area for the summer. Here is a link to a story about the O'Keeffe Ranch near Adel, Oregon “Taking Back the Range – Removing Junipers Restore an Oregon Ranch” by Brianna Randall NRCS Working Lands for Wildlife Dec. 08, 2021. https://www.farmers.gov/blog/taking-back-range-removing-junipers-restores-oregon-ranch Here is the ink to a story about other work done in the Klamath Basin where juniper removal resulted in positive benefits to Klamath County’s Gerber watershed. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/or/newsroom/stories/?cid=nrcseprd1350846 Every federal dollar that comes into the basin should support the work of ecosystem restoration. I like Loree's idea that funding that supports farmers and ranchers to idle their fields, could put those same farmers to work, instead, on restoration projects that could include juniper removal. Our farmers and ranchers are really good people with really good farm machinery that could be used for other work, and I don't believe they like taking handouts. Locally, one of the agencies doing excellent work is the Klamath Lake Forest Health Partnership. Kevin Lehman of that agency says of their program in response to my questioning about the benefits of juniper removal…. "You mentioned Juniper, and I agree that this is a good issue to address but I think it’s also important to explain why it hasn’t been addressed more. First of all, it’s a great upland focus for a wide variety of interests – farmers like the juniper removed because it improves land for grazing, it creates increased fire hazards for communities, sucks an excess amount of groundwater, and as an invasive plant it changes the species composition of wildlife that utilize the area. But it’s expensive to remove mechanically, and the controlled burning creates fears of legal liability that agencies are hesitant to address. About 10 years ago the Greater Sage Grouse habitat concerns led to a review for possible listing on the Endangered Species Act. Throughout the west it was determined that much of that natural sagebrush flat habitat had been overtaken by Juniper and funding for treatments was increased. This lasted about 5 years, and though we still occasionally get good funding to address Juniper treatment, the bigger fisheries and water quality concerns will be funded first if there is a limited amount of money. Look at Klamath county this way: With all the legal and political concerns related to fisheries, irrigation, water quality, and tribal rights, funding is directed to fisheries and water quality improvement projects about 75% of the time. We cannot prove how much removal of Junipers will change the water available in the aquifer, so it becomes a challenge to address with the various interests weighing in on how to spend money on conservation. The work that gets good support right now is upland forest health and recovery. For decades our primary concern has been fisheries, water quality, and agriculture, so in our rush to solve those problems the government agencies didn’t spend enough money addressing forest health. Though this does include junipers, most of the KLFHP work is related to overstocked pine and fir forests higher in the mountains that have been in need of controlled burns, expensive thinning treatments, which are very difficult across different land ownerships and agencies. The KLFHP has done a good job of compiling and addressing this type of work in both Klamath and Lake counties." My other interest is the importance of wetlands to overall ecosystem health and fighting climate change in addition to their importance the Pacific Flyway birds. Turns out our community has been very short-sighted to give wetlands such a low priority the last century and a half. Here is a resource to read about why wetlands are important: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/wetlands/why.htm Wetlands are important because they: • improve water quality • provide wildlife habitat • maintain ecosystem productivity • provide recreational opportunities • improve the water supply • provide opportunities for education And I would mention again, the lower Klamath Basin wetlands can be the answer to saving endangered sucker fish that would thrive swimming in waters of the the National Wildlife refuges at Lower Klamath and Tulelake if there was water there year around. That would solve two huge problems we have, saving the endangered sucker fish and providing habitat to millions of Pacific flyway birds. The adversarial political and legal climate is the primary reason we can’t solve our problems. Will we never solve our problems because we are stuck where no one interest really wins? That would be so frustrating to me, because I can see how, if we could all come together to divvy up the work, we could restore the Klamath Basin to the healthiest it has been in generations. |
|
|
Do you have ideas or solutions? Maybe you have an idea for restoring wetlands, or a solution for the wildlife refuges. Perhaps you've been thinking about a response to a problem in the watershed above Upper Klamath Lake. Or maybe you know of a project or initiative that deserves recognition. If so, we would like to hear about it. This month's issue is all about starting a conversation. If you would like to write an article for next month's newsletter, just reply to this one and let us know. We'd love to hear about it! |
|
|
Species Spotlight: Bullock's Oriole |
|
|
Photo by Loree Johnson Bullock's Orioles are showstoppers of the bird world. The male is bright yellow and orange with a mostly black back and black markings on his face and head. The female is also mostly yellow, but more subdued in color with a grayish back. Like other oriole species, Bullock's Orioles build what is known as a "pensile" nest. Using plant fibers and sometimes man made fibers they have found, they weave a tubular sock-like structure that hangs from a tree branch, rather that sitting on top of it. This allows very good camouflage for protection from predators. Both the male and female guard their nest during incubation and brooding. These birds have a varied diet which includes fruits, berries, nectar and insects. Bullock's Orioles are not endangered, but it is believed their numbers are declining due to habitat loss. They are known to nest in both wild and urban areas. Because of this, it is important to avoid pruning trees during nesting season. Around here, that would be roughly May through July. |
|
|
July, 2022 Events 5thBird Banding Demonstration Crater Lake National Park in Partnership with Klamath Bird Observatory 7:30am and 9:15am at Crater Lake National Park Details and Registration 12thBird Banding Demonstration Crater Lake National Park in Partnership with Klamath Bird Observatory 7:30am and 9:15am at Crater Lake National Park Details and Registration 16thWingwatcher Bird Walk with Elijah Hayes 9:30am-11:30am - meet at Discover Klamath Visitor Center parking lot 205 Riverside Dr, Klamath Falls, OR More information 26thBird Banding Demonstration Crater Lake National Park in Partnership with Klamath Bird Observatory 7:30am and 9:15am at Crater Lake National Park Details and Registration |
|
|
Share this Newsletter Do you know someone who should see this newsletter? Someone who cares as much as you do about the birds of the Klamath Basin? Maybe someone in a position to bring about change? Please forward this to one or more of your contacts and help our voices grow! Did someone forward this to you and you want to receive future monthly newsletters?
|
|
|
Get our monthly newsletter |
|
|
Want to help with future newsletters or send feedback? Would you like to contribute to our newsletter by writing an article of interest to Klamath Basin Birders. Do you have special knowledge about birds, habitat, photography or something else? Maybe you're an expert at layout and formatting. Please reply to this email if you would like to contribute or give feedback. Thanks, and happy birding! |
|
|
|
|