Compatibility Determination Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge

Compatibility Determination Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Use: Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation Refuge Name: Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge or NWR), Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Klamath County, Oregon. Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1928. Legal authority for establishment of the Refuge: Executive Order 4851, dated April 3, 1928. Refuge Purpose(s): “…as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and wild animals…subject to the use…for irrigation and other incidental purposes, and to any other existing rights” (E.O. 4851). “…to preserve intact the necessary existing habitat for migratory waterfowl in this vital area of the Pacific flyway…” (Kuchel Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 695k). “…to prevent depredations of migratory waterfowl on the agricultural crops in the Pacific Coast States”. (Kuchel Act, Sec. 695k). “…dedicated to wildlife conservation…for the major purpose of waterfowl management, but with full consideration to optimum agricultural use that is consistent therewith” (Kuchel Act, Sec. 6951). “…for waterfowl purposes, including the growing of agricultural crops by direct plantings and sharecrop agreements with local cooperators where necessary…” (Kuchel Act, Sec. 695n). "... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds" (Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 715d). "... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or (B) plants ..." (Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1534). National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). Description of Use: Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation comprise three of the six priority visitor uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation) identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These three wildlife-dependent visitor uses are being addressed in a single Compatibility Determination (CD) since the facilities and information supporting these visitor services are often combined in one location such as an information kiosk. The visitor use program in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) (USFWS 2016) proposes to provide wildlife observation, photography and interpretation to expand visitor opportunities for these and other wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities as outlined below and in the CCP. As described in the CCP, the Refuge provides opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation by maintaining a 9.5 mile canoe trail through a mix of marshland, open lake and forested shoreline. G-414 The meeting of these three environments provides a rich habitat for an abundance of plant life and wildlife species. The canoe trail has four segments: Recreation Creek, Crystal Creek, Wocus Cut and Malone Springs. Each segment offers spectacular views of the marsh, mountains, and forest. Wocus Cut is best paddled in spring and early summer since it is usually dry by August. Early morning usually proves to be the best time for finding birds on either the canoe trail or adjacent uplands. Smaller birds such as warblers and flycatchers migrate along the lakes edge using willow, aspen and cottonwood trees for cover in the spring and early summer. White pelicans, Canada geese, American coot, belted kingfisher, osprey, and bald eagles are other birds likely to be observed along the canoe trail. One of the most interesting plants found in the marsh is wocus, or yellow pond lily. It’s a large-leaved water plant with large, waxy, yellow cup shaped flowers. Access to the canoe trail is at either Rocky Point or Malone Springs boat launches. The canoe trail is open from sunrise to sunset. A vehicle pull-off on West Side Road is also provided for views of the Refuge. Additional interpretive facilities are also at the Complex’s visitor center which is located at Tule Lake NWR. Availability of Resources: Needed resources Following is an estimate of annual costs associated with administering this use on the Refuge. Upper Klamath NWR – Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation Administration and management of the use Estimated annual cost1 5% GS-12 refuge manager, oversight $5,352 2% GS-9 interpretation specialist $1,490 0.5% LEO-10 law enforcement $443 Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use Printed materials $100 Maintenance costs associated with the use Visitor services (parking, landscaping and covered kiosk) $8,000 Visitor services (outdoor interpretive panels, picnic tables) $2,000 Monitoring costs 10% overhead2 $1,748 TOTAL (Estimated annual cost) $19,133 1 Annual cost. Annual personnel costs = 2015 step 5 salary for appropriate GS/WG level x 35% for benefits. 2 Overhead costs. Salary + benefit costs x 10% overhead expenses include building rent, utilities, equipment and supplies, and support personnel, and do not include salary-related benefits. Adequacy of existing resources Staff necessary to oversee the interpretive, wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation programs will be shared with other refuges described in the CCP/EIS (USFWS 2016). To fully implement this program as described in the CCP, a moderate increase in staff and, capital outlays, and recurring costs will be necessary. Facilities and materials to support the program will require capital outlays and recurring costs; however, some of the costs will be shared among several visitor use programs. If unanticipated costs arise, the programs will be reevaluated and necessary adjustments made such as seeking volunteer or cooperator assistance to maintain facilities or applying for grants. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Once considered “non-consumptive”, it is now recognized that wildlife observation and wildlife photography can negatively impact wildlife by alternating wildlife behavior, reproduction, distribution, and habitat (Purdy et al. 1987, Knight and Cole 1995). G-415 Purdy et al (1987) and Pomerantz et al (1988) described six categories of impacts to wildlife as a result of visitor activities. They are: 1. Direct mortality: immediate, on-site death of an animal; 2. Indirect mortality: eventual, premature death of an animal caused by an event or agent that predisposed the animal to death; 3. Lowered productivity: reduced fecundity rate, nesting success, or reduced survival rate of young before dispersal from nest or birth site; 4. Reduced use of refuge: wildlife not using the refuge as frequently or in the manner they normally would in the absence of visitor activity; 5. Reduced use of preferred habitat on the refuge: wildlife use is regulated to less suitable habitat on the refuge due to visitor activity; and 6. Aberrant behavior/stress: wildlife demonstrating unusual behavior of signs of stress likely to result in reduced reproductive or survival rates. Individual animals may be disturbed by human contact to varying degrees. Many studies have shown that birds can be impacted from human activities on trails when they are disturbed and flushed from feeding, resting, or nesting areas. Flushing from an area can cause birds to expend more energy, be deterred from using desirable habitat, affect resting or feeding patterns, and increase exposure to predation or cause birds to abandon sites with repeated disturbance (Smith and Hunt 1995). Human activity may disturb migratory birds utilizing the Refuge’s habitats for feeding or nesting. Depending on the species (especially migrants vs. residents), some birds may habituate to some types of recreation disturbance and either are not disturbed or will immediately return after the initial disturbance (Hockin et al. 1992; Burger et al. 1995; Knight and Temple 1995; Madsen 1995; Fox and Madsen 1997). Rodgers and Smith (1997) calculated buffer distances that minimize disturbance to foraging and loafing birds based on experimental flushing distances for 16 species of waders and shorebirds. They recommend 100 meters as an adequate buffer against pedestrian traffic however, they suggest this distance may be reduced if physical barriers (e.g., vegetation screening) are provided, noise levels are reduced, and traffic is directed tangentially rather than directly toward birds. Screening may not effectively buffer noise impacts, thus visitors should be educated on the effects of noise and noise restrictions should be enforced (Burger 1981, 1986; Klein 1993; Bowles 1995; Burger and Gochfeld 1998). Seasonally restricting or prohibiting recreation activity may be necessary during spring and fall migration to alleviate disturbance to migratory birds (Burger 1981, 1986; Boyle and Samson 1985; Klein et al. 1995; Hill et al. 1997). Of the wildlife observation techniques, wildlife photographers tend to have the largest disturbance impacts (Klein 1993, Morton 1995, Dobb 1998). While wildlife observers frequently stop to view species, wildlife photographers are more likely to approach wildlife (Klein 1993). Even slow approach by wildlife photographers tends to have behavioral consequences to wildlife

Load more