DOCSLIB.ORG

KESTERSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Los Bancs, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
KESTERSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Los Bancs, California KESTERSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Los Bancs, California ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1986 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM KESTERSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Los Banos, California ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1986 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM REVIEW AND APPROVALS KESTERSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Los Banos, California ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1986 Date ^^i^gefuge Supervisor Review Regional Office Approval INTRODUCTION Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established in July, 1969. It consists of 5,846 acres in Merced County, California and is located 4 miles east of Gustine and approximately 18 miles north of Los Banos, California. The Refuge is an overlay on a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) project. The lands are held in fee title by BOR. The conservation and management of wildlife, including any associated recreation activities, were transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The BOR project is a series of holding ponds (approximately 1,283 acres) for drain water which has been transported via the San Luis Drain. Kesterson NWR is within the historic flood plain of the San Joaquin River. The flat grasslands are disrupted b^ narrow meandering channels of former streams. Much of the upland area, (east side of Mud Slough) is dotted with vernal pools, which contain many unique plant species. In addition to the uplands, native marshes also occur. In the lowest part of the flood plain, good stands of iodine bush occur. The elevation of the Refuge ranges from 60 to 75 feet mean sea level. Uplands comprise 2,965 acres while wetlands make up 1,505 acres plus 8 acres of riparian habitat. The Objectives of the Refuge are to: 1) Preserve and improve habitats that support the endangered San Joaquin kit fox and other listed species; 2) Provide habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds; and 3) Maintain adequate populations of native plants and animals. TABLE OF CONTENTS A. HIGHLIGHTS 4 B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 4 C. LAND ACQUISITION 1. Fee Title (Nothing to Report) 2. Easements (Nothing to Report) 3. Other (Nothing to Report) ... D. PLANNING 1. Master Plan (Nothing to Report) 2. Management Plan (Nothing to Report) 3. Public Participation (Nothing to Report).. 4. Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resource Mandates (Nothing to Report) 5. Research and Investigations 5 6. Other 8 E. ADMINISTRATION 11 1. Personnel ' 11 2. Youth Programs 11 3. Other Manpower Programs 11 4. Volunteer Program (Nothing to Report) 5. Funding 12 6. Safety 12 7. Technical Assistance (Nothing to Report) i i F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT 12 1. General (Nothing to Report) 2. Wetlands 12 3. Forest (Nothing to Report) 4. Croplands (Nothing to Report) 5. Grasslands (Nothing to Report) 6. Other Habitat (Nothing to Report) 7. Grazing 13 8. Haying (Nothing to Report) 9. Fire Management (Nothing to Report) 13 10. Pest Control 14 11. Water Rights • 14 12. Wilderness and Special Areas (Nothing to Report) 13. WPA Easement Monitoring (Nothing to Report).... « G. WILDLIFE 16 1. Wildlife Diversity (Nothing to Report) 2. Endangered and/or Threatened Species 16 3. Waterfowl 17 4. Marsh and Water Birds 17 5. Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species .. 6. Raptors 18 7. Other Migratory Birds (Nothing to Report) 8. Game Mammals (Nothing to Report) 9. Marine Mammals (Nothing to Report) 10. Other Resident Wildlife (Nothing to Report).... 11. Fisheries Resources (Nothing to Report)... 12. Wildlife Propagation and Stocking (No Report).. 13. Surplus Animal Disposal (Nothing to Report).... 14. Scientific Collection (Nothing to Report) 15. Animal Control (Nothing to Report) 16. Marking and Banding (Nothing to Report) 17. Disease Prevention & Control(Nothing to Report). H. PUBLIC USE 18 1. General (Nothing to Report) 2. Outdoor Classrooms - Students (Nothing to Report) - 3. Outdoor Classrooms - Teachers (Nothing to Report) - 4. Interpretive Foot Trails (Nothing to Report)... 5. Interpretive Tour Routes (Nothing to Report)... 6. Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations (No Report) 7. Other Interpretive Programs 18 8. Hunting 19 9. Fishing (Nothing to Report) i i i H. PUBLIC USE 18 10. Trapping (Nothing to Report) 11. Wildlife Observation (Nothing to Report) 12. Other Wildlife Oriented Recreation (No Report). 13. Camping (Nothing to Report) 14. Picnicking (Nothing to Report) 15. Off-road Vehicling (Nothing to Report) 16. Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation (No Report) 17. Law Enforcement 19 18. Cooperating Associations (Nothing to Report)... 19. Concessions (Nothing to Report) I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES 20 1. New Construction (Nothing to Report) 2. Rehabilitation (Nothing to Report) 3. Major Maintenance (Nothing to Report) 4. Eguipment Utilization and Replacement (No Report) - 5. Communications Systems (Nothing to Report) 6. Computer Systems (Nothing to Report) 7. Energy Conservation (Nothing to Report) 8. Other (Nothing to Report) J. OTHER ITEMS 26 1. Cooperative Programs 26 2. Other Economic Uses (Nothing to Report) 3. Items of Interest 26 4. Credits 26 K. FEEDBACK 27 L. INFORMATION PACKET (Inside Back Cover) A. HIGHLIGHTS Major water control system installed on east side of refuge (Section 1.2). Bureau of Reclamation looks into cleanup possibilities for Kesterson cells (Section D.5). San Joaquin kit fox study initiated (Section G.2). B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS The on-site Kesterson weather data is summarized in Table 1 below. It was gathered between cells 5 and 7 by the Bureau of Reclamation. Table 1 On-Site Kesterson Weather Data Month High Low Precipitation January 70 32 1.09 February 74 27 3.75 March 79 40 2.87 April 87 39 0.45 May 97 42 0.08 June 102 48 • 0.00 July 103 52 0.05 August 104 50 0.00 September 97 40 0.45 October 89 39 0.02 November 78 29 0.00 December 65 25 0.49 Total Precipitation: 9.25 1 Precipitation was almost an inch above the amount received in Los Banos in 1986...8.34"* February and March were wet months accounting for over 70% of the annual precipitation. Late winter storms during these same months caused a 200% above-normal snowpack which allowed large volumes of Sierra Nevada reservoir water to be released into the San Joaquin River-Grassland Water District System and ultimately through the refuge. These fresh water flows, plus flood flows from Garzas and Los Banos Creeks, were used to dilute and flush accumulated salts from all wetlands west of Mud Slough. D. PLANNING 5. Research and Investigations Wet Flex Scientists from the Lawrence Berkeley Lab at UC Berkeley (BOR contractors) designed a 1-acre impoundment just north of Gun Club road in Pond 5 to determine if selenium could be immobilized in the mud on the bottom of the pond by keeping a deep layer of water (3-4 feet) on top of it. This process called the Flexible Response Plan or "Wet Flex" is favored by the BOR. "Wet Flex" is estimated to cost 2.3 million to initiate costs for the following 4 years would be another 4.6 million. In contrast, the plan favored by environmentalists and the USFWS calls for digging up all contaminated soil and vegetation (1/2 million cu.yds.) and sealing it in an on- site, state-of-the-art landfill at a cost of $25-$50 million. Constructing 1 aci "Wet Flex" experimental impoundment in Pond 5. 5/86 WH 2 San Luis NWR '86 - Survey of Selenium Contamination in the Grasslands of the Northern San Joaquin Valley - (Phase I and Phase II). During 1983 and 1984, Dr. Harry Ohlendorf, USFWS, Pacific Coast Field Station, discovered that aquatic birds nesting at Kesterson Reservoir were experiencing poor reproductive success. It was determined that the problem was a result of high concentrations of selenium in drain water entering the Kesterson Reservoir. In addition during 1984, Ohlendorf and Hothem collected nesting waterbirds from the South Grasslands. The results of their study, reported in January 1985, indicated that these birds also contained elevated levels of selenium. Since drain water has traditionally been used for irrigation of waterfowl food plants and fall flooding of duck clubs within the entire 51,000 acres of the west Grasslands in addit ion to the San Luis and Kesterson NWR's and Los Banos Wildlife Management Area (WMA), it was suspected that contamination of these areas could eVcist. As a result, Fred Paveglio, Wildlife Biologist, San Luis NWR and Jon Kauffeld, Easement Biologist, San Luis NWR, prepared a proposal in February 1985 to determine the extent and severity of selenium contamination as well as other heavy metals in the West Grasslands. Assistance during preparation of the proposal was provided by California Department of Fish and Game and the Grasslands Water District. The proposal was approved and funded in March 1985. The objective of the study are to: 1. Determine the levels of selenium and other heavy metals in major biotic and abiotic components of the wetlands system in the West Grasslands including state and federal wildlife areas. Samples will include birds, mammals, fish, invertebrates, plants, soils, and water. 2. Describe the geographic extent of selenium and heavy metals in the West Grasslands including state and federal wildlife areas. 3. Provide baseline information for future management decisions. 3 Fred Paveglio was given the responsibility as the principle investigator for the study and seven biological technicians were hired to assist in the collection and preparation of samples to be analyzed for contaminants (see Section E.l Cor a list of personnel). A temporary laboratory to house eguipment and personnel was established in a vacant building provided by the California Department of Fish and Game at Los Banos Wildlife Management Area. Samples were sent to Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (WRC) in Maryland for contaminant analysis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulatory Implications of Using Constructed Wetlands Totreat Selenium-Laden Wastewater
    Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 52, 46 56 (2002) Environmental Research, Section B doi: IO. 1006/eesa.2002.2145, available online at http://www/idealibrary.com on IO E +l” Regulatory Implications of Using Constructed Wetlands toTreat Selenium-Laden Wastewater and agricultural wastewater during the past two decades. The practice of using constructed wetlands to treat seleninm- Textbooks such as those by Hammer (1989), Moshiri laden wastewater is gaining popularity in the linited States and (1993), and Kadlec and Knight (1996) attest to the elsewhere. However, proponents of treatment wetlands often escalation in awareness and application of this treatment overlook important ecological liabilities and regulatory implica- technology. Constructed wetlands can substantially im- tions when developing new methods and applications. Their prove down-gradient water quality by removing pollutants research studies typically seek to answer a basic performance question-are treatment wetlands effective in improving water through a variety of chemical, physical, and biological quality-rather than answering an implicit safety question-are processes. Pilot or operational-scale wetlands have been they hazardous to wildlife. Nevertheless, wetland owners are used to remove everything from sediment and nutrients to responsible for both the operational performance of treatment organic chemicals, pesticides, trace elements, and heavy wetlands and the health of animals that use them. This is true metals. With their apparent low cost relative to conven- even if wetlands were not created with the intent of providing tional wastewater treatment methods, as well as the wildlife habitat; the owner is still legally responsible for toxic environmentally friendly image they generally convey, hazards. If poisoning of fish and wildlife occurs, the owner can be constructed wetlands have become popular throughout prosecuted under a variety of federal and state laws, for many regions of the world (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Areas Susceptible to Irrigation-Induced Selenium Contamination of Water and Biota in the Western United States
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Publications of the US Geological Survey US Geological Survey 1999 Areas Susceptible to Irrigation-Induced Selenium Contamination of Water and Biota in the Western United States Ralph L. Seiler U.S. Geological Survey Joseph P. Skorupa U.S. Geological Survey Lorri A. Peltz U.S. Geological Survey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgspubs Part of the Earth Sciences Commons Seiler, Ralph L.; Skorupa, Joseph P.; and Peltz, Lorri A., "Areas Susceptible to Irrigation-Induced Selenium Contamination of Water and Biota in the Western United States" (1999). Publications of the US Geological Survey. 84. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgspubs/84 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications of the US Geological Survey by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Areas Susceptible to Irrigation-Induced Selenium Contamination of Water and Biota in the Western United States U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1180 Marine rocks like those exposed at the base of Mount Garfield, Colo., are sources for trace elements in many irrigated areas of the Western United States. Photograph by James G. Crock, U.S. Geological Survey, 1992 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Prepared in cooperation: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Availability of Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey Order U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications from the Documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of Major Litigation Involving the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project
    Chronology of Major Litigation Involving the Topic: Litigation Central Valley Project and the State Water Project CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR LITIGATION INVOLVING THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND THE STATE WATER PROJECT I. Central Valley Project 1950 United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950) Riparians on San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam sued for damages for impairment of their rights to periodic inundation of their “uncontrolled grasslands.” Under reclamation law, the United States had to recognize prior vested rights and compensate for their impairment. 1958 Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 (1958) Congress did not intend that Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, which generally makes state water law applicable to reclamation projects, would make the 160-acre limitation in Section 5 inapplicable to the CVP. If needed for a project, Reclamation could acquire water rights by the payment of compensation, either through condemnation, or if already taken, through actions by the owners in the courts. 1960 Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. All Parties, 53 Cal.2d 692 (1960) State law conferred legal capacity upon irrigation districts to enter into contracts with federal government for CVP water. Districts could execute the contracts even though they contained the 160-acre limitation under federal law. 1963 Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963) Parties claiming water rights along the San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam sued the United States and Bureau of Reclamation officials, seeking to enjoin storage or diversion of water at the dam. The Court held that the courts had no jurisdiction over the United States because it had not consented to suit and the McCarran Amendment did not apply.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Model Improves Real-Time Management of Water Quality
    The San Joaquin River sometimes contains high levels of selenium, boron and salt from drainage water. Reservoir releases can be timed to dilute these concentrations. Computer model improves real-time management of water quality Nigel W.T. Quinn P Leslie F. Grober o Jo-Anne Kipps P Carl W. Chen o Earle Cummings Members of the San Joaquin The San Joaquin River provides essen- The major water-quality problems River Management Program’s tial drainage for agricultural land and on the San Joaquin River are caused by Water Quality Subcommittee have managed wetlands in the San Joaquin high loadings of selenium, boron and developed a water-quality fore- Valley. The river has an average an- salt, much of which is contained in ag- casting model to help improve the nual flow of approximately 1.8 million ricultural subsurface drainage from timing, coordination and manage- acre-feet, measured at Vernalis. Dur- the west side of the San Joaquin Val- ment of agricultural drainage and ing the period 1985 to 1994, an average ley. The Mud and Salt sloughs are reservoir releases into the San of 70% of the annual flow in the San tributaries of the San Joaquin River Joaquin River. The goal of this Joaquin River was derived from the and contribute approximately 85% of major east-side tributaries (Stanislaus, the selenium load, 65% of the boron effort is to improve water quality Tuolumne, Merced and Upper San load and 45% of the salt load carried in the San Joaquin River and to Joaquin rivers), which receive flow by the river.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Material a Methodology for Ecosystem-Scale Modeling of Selenium
    Supporting Material A Methodology for Ecosystem-Scale Modeling of Selenium (Ecosystem-Scale Modeling of Selenium) Theresa S. Presser*† and Samuel N. Luoma†‡ †U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025 ‡John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis *To whom correspondence may be addressed: [email protected] Theresa S. Presser U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025 [email protected] 650-329-4512 FAX 650-329-4538 Samuel N. Luoma U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025 [email protected] 650-329-4481 FAX 650-329-4545 John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, California 95616 [email protected] 530-754-9141 1 ECOSYSTEM-SCALE SELENIUM MODELING: DATA AND REFERENCES Compilation and Calculation of Kds and TTFs Ratios derived here employ dry weight (dw) for media (particulate material and tissue). Datasets are temporally and spatially matched from 52 field studies that included water-column Se concentrations and particulate Se concentrations (Supplemental Table A). The Kds typical of a variety of ecosystems (e.g., ponds, rivers, estuaries) are given. If a range was reported, a median is listed; if a series of data was reported, a mean is listed. A compilation of experimental data for invertebrate physiological parameters allowed calculation of kinetic TTFs for invertebrates (particulate to invertebrate) (Supplemental Table B). Additional calculated TTFs from denoted field studies are shown in Supplemental Table C. A compilation of experimental data for fish physiological parameters allowed calculation of kinetic TTFs for fish (invertebrate to fish) (Supplemental Table D).
    [Show full text]
  • Felix E. Smith (FS)
    COMMENT LETTER Felix E. Smith (FS) March 16, 2009 Joseph C. McGahan FAX 1-209-826-9698 Drainage Coordinator E-mail <[email protected] San Luis & Delta-Mendota Authority P.O. Box 2157, Los Banos, CA 93635 Ms. Judi Tapia FAX 1-559-487-5397 Bureau of Reclamation E-mail <[email protected] South-Central California Area Office 1243 N. Street Fresno, CA 93721 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report for Continuation of the Grassland Bypass Project, 2010 –2019, SCH# 2007121110. Noticed by letter of December 19, 2008 to the State Clearinghouse, agencies and interested parties. Attached are my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report for the Continuation of the Grassland Bypass Project, 2010 –2019. The Draft EIS / EIR addresses the potential environmental effects / impacts that would result from implementing a new Use Agreement for the Grassland Bypass Project (GBP) for the period 2010 to 2019. Use of the Drain allows the separation of drainage water from the supplies to Nation Wildlife Refuges, State wildlife management areas and private wetlands. An agreement allows the Drainers to continue to irrigate about 97,000 areas of uplands. The associated salt and selenium-contaminated drainage would be conveyed to the San Luis Drain from where the drainage would flow north and discharged to Mud Slough, then flow to the San Joaquin River and on to the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. Please include these comments in to the record of the subject project / activity. Sincerely, Felix E. Smith 4720 Talus Way Carmichael, CA 95608 916-966-2081 cc: interested parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Selenium in San Joaquin Valley Agricultural
    McGeorge Law Review Volume 27 | Issue 2 Article 6 1-1-1996 Selenium in San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Drainage: A Major Toxic Threat to Fish and Wildlife Inadequately Addressed by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act Scott M. Rennie University of the Pacific; cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Scott M. Rennie, Selenium in San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Drainage: A Major Toxic Threat to Fish and Wildlife Inadequately Addressed by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 27 Pac. L. J. 303 (1996). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol27/iss2/6 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comment Selenium in San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Drainage: A Major Toxic Threat to Fish and Wildlife Inadequately Addressed by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act Scott M. Rennie* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 304 II. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY ................................................ 307 A. Transformationof the Central Valley ...................... 307 B. The Central Valley Project .............................. 311 III. THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM ............................... 314 A. A Stage Set for a Toxic DrainageProblem .................. 314 1. Soils of the West Side: Latent Toxins Beneath the Surface ... 315 2. Clay Beneath the Soil: Buildup of Shallow Ground Water ... 316 3. Imported Water .................................... 317 B. Consequences of Irrigatingthe West Side of the Valley .......
    [Show full text]
  • Selenium Contamination of the Grasslands, a Major California Waterfowl Area
    "; The Science of the Total Enuironment, 66 (1987) 169--183 169 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands SELENIUM CONTAMINATION OF THE GRASSLANDS, A MAJOR CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL AREA HARRY M. OHLENDORF and ROGER L. HOTHEM U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seruice, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Pacific Coast Field Station, clo Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, Uniuersity of California, Dauis, CA 95616 (U.S.A.) THOMAS W. ALDRICH* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seruice, Diuision of Ecological Seruices, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 (U.S .A.) ALEXANDER J . KRYNITSKY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seruice, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD 20708 (U.S.A.) (Received November 27th, 1986; accepted December 9th, 1986) ABSTRACT In a recent study at Kesterson Reilervoir in California, selenium was shown to cause mortality and deformities in embryos of aquatic birds. The present study was conducted to determine if selenium or other contaminants in agricultural drainwater used for marsh management were likely to cause similar adverse effects in the nearby Grasslands area. Selenium concentrations were elevated ( > 15 ppm, dry-weight) in livers of some birds of all species collected from the Grasslands. Mean selenium concentrations in all species sampled in the South Grasslands were significantly higher (P < 0.05) than those from the "control site", the Volta Wildlife Area. Mean selenium levels in black-necked stilts (Himantopus mexican us) from the South Grasslands (35.6 ppm) were similar (P > 0.05) to levels in stilts from Kesterson (46.4 ppm), but means for American avocets (Recuruirostra americana) from the South Grasslands (67.3 ppm) were higher (P < 0.05) than those from Kesterson (28.4 ppm).
    [Show full text]
  • The Migratory Bird Treaty Act - Protecting Wildlife on Our National Refuges - California's Kesterson Reservoir, a Case in Point
    Volume 26 Issue 3 Summer 1986 Summer 1986 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act - Protecting Wildlife on Our National Refuges - California's Kesterson Reservoir, a Case in Point Betsy Vencil Recommended Citation Betsy Vencil, The Migratory Bird Treaty Act - Protecting Wildlife on Our National Refuges - California's Kesterson Reservoir, a Case in Point, 26 Nat. Resources J. 609 (1986). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol26/iss3/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act- Protecting Wildlife on Our National Refuges-California's Kesterson Reservoir, a Case in Point The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) built Kesterson Reservoir (Kesterson) to collect irrigation tailwaters from the San Joaquin Valley' in California, and to replace marshland drained for agriculture that had been used by migratory birds.2 Kesterson was part of the joint use wildlife refuge system. 3 The San Joaquin Valley is located in the west-central part of California's Central Valley. Its climate is good for agriculture and its soils are rich, but soil salinity is a problem,4 and there is not enough water for irrigation.5 Reclamation constructed the San Luis Unit,6 which removes thousands 1. The original proposal called only for a canal and supportive waterworks to deliver water to the San Joaquin Valley. However, farmers' insistence led to the addition of a drain provision to the Bill.
    [Show full text]
  • Tragedy at Kesterson Reservoir: a Case Study in Environmental History and a Lesson in Ecological Complexity
    THE TRAGEDY AT KESTERSON RESERVOIR: A CASE STUDY IN ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY AND A LESSON IN ECOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY BY Philip Garone*t I. INTRO DU CTIO N .................................................................................... 10 7 II. WHERE HAVE ALL THE WETLANDS GONE? .............................................. 111 III. THE RISE AND FALL OF KESTERSON RESERVOIR ........................................ 113 IV KESTERSON AND THE LAW ..................................................................... 122 V THE SCIENCE AND THE SELENIUM ........................................................... 124 V I. POLITICS, POLITICS, POLITICS ................................................................ 127 VII. CLOSING IT DOWN AND CLEANING IT UP ............................................... 130 VIII. BEYOND KESTERSON ................................................ 133 IX. PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE ................................................................ 138 X. KESTERSON TODAY AND TOMORROW ...................................................... 143 X I. PO STSCRIPT ......................................................................................... 144 I. INTRODUCTION OnJuly 23, 1970, the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service ("USFWS" or "Service") signed an agreement to create the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in the heart of California's agricul- tural San Joaquin Valley, about eighty miles southeast of San Francisco. Nearly fifteen years later, on March 15, 1985, Secretary
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Trust, the Esa, and the Trinity River
    SALMON MEDICINE: FEDERAL TRUST, THE ESA, AND THE TRINITY RIVER BY Anne M. Hartridge* 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 108 II. THE HUPA INDIANS AND THEIR CULTURE: RECLAIMING THE PAST, IMAGINING THE FUTURE .......................................................................... 109 A.Salmon as Food .................................................................................... 110 B. Salmon as Cultural Icon ....................................................................... 110 1. The Story of Salmon's Grandmother ................................................. 110 2. The FirstSalmon and Its Ceremony .................................................. 111 C. M odern Life on the Reservation ............................................................ 112 III. THE FALL OF THE FISH ........................................................................... 113 A. Salmon Biology ..................................................................................... 113 B. The Multiple Uses and Abuses of the Valley: Mining, Hydropower, Timber, and Fishing .............................................................................. 114 1. The Trinity Dam ............................................................................... 114 2. Timber .............................................................................................. 116 3 . Fishing .............................................................................................. 1 17 4. M ining
    [Show full text]
  • Selenium Contamination and Potential Toxicity In
    Forecasting Selenium Discharges to the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary: Ecological Effects of A Proposed San Luis Drain Extension Open-File Report 00-416 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey FORECASTING SELENIUM DISCHARGES TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA ESTUARY: ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF A PROPOSED SAN LUIS DRAIN EXTENSION By Samuel N. Luoma Theresa S. Presser ___________________________________________________________ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 00-416 Water Resources Division National Research Program This project has been funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Interagency Agreement DW-14-95534701-4 (Region 9, Water Division) and Joint Funding Agreements with Contra Costa County and Contra Costa Water District. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contra Costa County, or Contra Costa Water District. Menlo Park, California 2000 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. _________________________________________________________________ For information write to: Copies of the report can be purchased from: Samuel N. Luoma U.S.Geological Survey Theresa S. Presser Information Services U.S. Geological Survey Box 25286 345 Middlefield Road Federal Center Menlo Park, CA 94025 Denver,
    [Show full text]