Source: http://cdm15911.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15911coll2/id/28808
Timestamp: 2018-06-20 05:52:21
Document Index: 122939037

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13050', '§ 2510', '§ 2510', '§ 13050', '§ 4321', 'art 3', '§ 13050', '§ 2510', '§ 2510', '§ 13050', '§ 4321', 'art 3']

United States Department of the Interior post-hearing submission to the California State Water Resources Control Board concerning closure and post-closure maintenance plan for Kesterson Reservoir :: San Joaquin Valley Drainage
Home San Joaquin Valley Drainage United States Department of the Interior post-hearing submission to the California State Water...
United States Department of the Interior post-hearing submission to the California State Water Resources Control Board concerning closure and post-closure maintenance plan for Kesterson Reservoir
United States Department of the Interior February 2, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Closing Legal Memorandum
II. Errata Statement and Photographic Reproductions of Exhibits 2 and
3 for January 26, 1987, Written Submission by Department of the Interior
III. Supplemental Statements
A. Oleh Weres, Ph.D., Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
B. Sally M. Benson, Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Supplemental Well Survey Information
Supplemental Water Quality Data and Level Data for Freitas Property
VI. Supplemental Information Concerning Fish and Wildlife Service Grassland Contaminant Study SECTION I Alfred F. Jahns Attorney
Pacific Southwest Region 2800 Cottage Way, Rm. E-2753 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 978-4831
Attorney for the Department of the Interior
BEFORE THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
In Re the Review of the )Closure and Post-Closure ) File No. A-354 Maintenance Plan for ) Kesterson Reservoir )
CLOSING LEGAL MEMORANDUM
SUMMARY OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT'S POSITION
Responding to the Board's Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 85-1, as
amended by its Order No. 85-5, the Department has submitted its Closure
and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (Plan) for Kesterson Reservoir. As
demonstrated in the Plan document and supporting written materials, as
well as in the testimony presented at the hearing before the Board on
January 26 and 27, 1987, the Department's Plan for Kesterson Reservoir
meets the pertinent requirements of the Board's Subchapter 15
regulations. The Plan also provides for management actions not covered by the Subchapter 15 requirements, to further assure public health and
wildlife resource protection in accordance with all applicable federal,
state and local standards.
The basic purpose of the Department's Plan, and of the comprehensive process of environmental review and decisionmaking under which the Plan was developed, is to address the problems of residual contamination, and particularly selenium, in the Kesterson Reservoir environment. The Plan incorporates a conventional approach to such a problem -excavation and containment in a lined, landfill facility -but calls initially for "in place" management actions premised on the extensive research observations by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and University of California at Berkeley scientists indicating that the residual selenium load in the Kesterson Reservoir can be safely contained in the Reservoir soils.
In presenting its Plan to the Board, the Department has openly acknowledged and explained the scientific uncertainties that are associated with it. We have accounted for these uncertainties by including measures in the Plan to provide environmental protection throughout its implementation. Thus, while the first phases of the closure and cleanup actions described in the Plan have been aptly described as "experimental" in nature, these management actions will not be taken at the expense of environmental protection.
During its hearing on the Plan, the Board expressed particular concern about the indefinite length of time over which continued active management of the flooded ponds will have to occur to assure that the
2 residual selen1um in soils under these ponds remains adequately contained there. Our commitment to this continued, active management of the Reservoir area is based on the premise that this area can thus be restored to habitat that safely supports a more diverse wildlife population than could be maintained there if the area were excavated for landfill disposal. Moreover, this management strategy will utilize the local, shallow groundwater to maintain flooded conditions, and thus recycle a substantial amount of the drainage water previously seeped to the groundwater from the Reservoir.
If implementation of the first phases of the Plan achieves the basic performance objectives, but continued management of the Reservoir area under these circumstances is later determined to be undesirable for other reasons, the site conditions can be further evaluated to identify environmentally acceptable, alternative management options. Such options could include, but would not necessarily be limited to, excavation and disposal of remaining contaminated materials in a landfill facility.¹/
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN WILL ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE BOARD'S REMEDIAL ORDERS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 23, CHAPTER 3, SUBCHAPTER 15 OF
THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
The Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (Plan) presented to the Board was developed in accordance with the Board's remedial Order No. 85-1,
1/ A further discussion of expected future conditions at Kesterson Reservoir over time under flexible management is presented in the supplemental statement of Dr. Oleh Weres, Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, included as part of the Department's post-hearing
3 Cal. Water Code§ 13050 (West 1986). The evidence presented to the Board, based on the extensive monitoring and research investigations conducted to date, is persuasive in demonstrating that the management strategy described in the Department's Plan will prevent "pollution" of the waters of the state during the closure and post-closure management of the Kesterson Reservoir site.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN WILL PROVIDE THE REQUISITE PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY No evidence has been presented to the Board indicating that any beneficial use of the groundwater affected by past seepage from Kesterson Reservoir has been unreasonably affected or may become unreasonably affected by this seepage. Nor is there any substantial indication in the record that any future impacts on ground or surface waters will
unreasonably affect their beneficial uses . ²/ In the unlikely event that any impairment of the beneficial uses of any affected waters of the state
2/ In the Division of Water Quality Staff Report to the Board, dated January 15, 1987 (Staff Report), it is suggested that "[past] groundwater degradation caused by Kesterson Reservoir is not consistent with State Board policy" expressed in State Board Resolution No. 68-16. The referenced policy statement, however, is concerned only with maintaining "existing high quality" in waters of the state. As acknowledged in the Staff Report, however, "[t]he shallow groundwater beneath Kesterson Reservoir has historically been of marginal quality." Staff Report at 12. Thus, the limited impact on this water attributable to past or future management actions at Kesterson Reservoir will not violate the policy expressed in Resolution No. 68-16.
4 were to occur or become threatened in the future, actions will be taken in accordance with the Plan to remedy this circumstance.³/
The only testimony presented at the hearing to the effect that the future maintenance of the southern ponds in a flooded condition may unreasonably affect the quality of the waters of the State concerned primarily the hydraulic influence of Kesterson Reservoir on the local groundwater system. 4/ The witness who presented this testimony acknowledged, however, that his estimates of this hydraulic influence, both in his testimony and in his January 14, 1987 letter to the Board on this subject, were merely "back of an envelope" calculations and did not take into account the proposed groundwater withdrawal that is part of the Plan. 5/ This testimony in no way refutes the extensive and well founded evidence to the contrary presented by the Department on this point.
3/ In her testimony, Sally Benson of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory explained that selenium-contaminated groundwater in the shallow aquifer system could be extracted and blended at the surface for disposal in accordance with the Plan's objectives. This selective extraction of groundwater would not be inconsistent with the County of Merced ordinance concerning groundwater pumping as suggested by Jeff Palsgaard, Merced County of Health, in his testimony before the Board.
Ms. Benson also testified that there has been no detected contamination of the Sub-Corcoran aquifer by past seepage from Kesterson Reservoir and that this circumstance is not likely to arise under the Plan. In further response to questions on this point, we have included in the Department's post-hearing submission additional information concerning the location and depths of known wells in the vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir.
4/ Testimony of David R. Dawdy.
5/ In his testimony Mr. Dawdy suggested that surface ponding on neighboring property at distances up to 2 miles from Kesterson Reservoir could be attributed to the hydraulic influence of the Reservoir, and/or migration of seepage from the Reservoir, and that
5 The Department has developed a substantial and comprehensive
evidentiary record in demonstrating that the management actions proposed
under its Plan will meet the basic objective of Subchapter 15 of
protecting the quality of the waters of the state against pollution. In
combination with the clear showing, in the Plan and supporting documents
submitted to the Board, that strict compliance with all of the
prescriptive closure standards in Article 8 of the Subchapter 15 is "not
feasible," the Department has thus met its burden of demonstrating that
approval of the Plan is warranted in accordance with the provisions of 23
CAC § 2510 (b).6/
(footnote continued from previous page) the San Joaquin River. This characterization of the influence of Kesterson Reservoir is strongly contradicted by the evidence developed under the careful hydrologic studies of the groundwater system by the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory scientists. A supplemental statement concerning this point, by Sally Benson of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, is included in the Department's post-hearing submission. See also U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4196, Directions and Rates of Ground-Water Movement in the Vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir, San Joaquin Valley California (1986) (previously provided to the Board).
During questioning of the Department's witnesses, a member of the Board's staff curiously suggested that, as a condition of the Board's approval of the Department's Plan under the Subchapter 15 requirements, the Department must demonstrate that its management actions under the Plan will afford "equivalent protection'' of the fish and wildlife resources at Kesterson Reservoir. Apparently this statement was intended to refer to the "equivalent protection" showing required under 23 CAC § 2510 (b)(2)(B). As it clearly stated in this regulatory provision, however, the requirement of "equivalent protection" directly concerns water quality, not wildlife resources. Still, as is discussed in text, infra, the Department's Plan does provide for protection of the wildlife resources at Kesterson Reservoir and, indeed, provides for post-closure management actions to develop a more diverse wildlife habitat at the site than would be expected if the area were excavated
for landfill disposal.
6 I I I.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN WILL PROTECT AGAINST CONDITIONS OF NUISANCE
In its Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 85-1, the Board found that the
operation of Kesterson Reservoir for the disposal of agricultural
drainwater constituted a public nuisance for the following stated
11. Operation of Kesterson Reservoir poses a threat to public health due to the potential for consumption of selenium contaminated waterfowl. Kesterson Reservoir also threatens to interfere with the free use of the lands surrounding the reservoir, which are used extensively for waterfowl habitat and duck hunting. Operation of the reservoir impacts both duck hunters and the surrounding property owners. Operation of Kesterson Reservoir, therefore, constitutes a public nuisance.
Order at 2.7/
In compliance with this remedial order the Bureau of Reclamation
submitted a nuisance abatement plan to the Board on April 3, 1985. Upon
its review of this plan, the Board stated in its amendatory Order
No. WQ 85-5: "The overall strategy outlined in the plan is acceptable,
but there are several additions to the plan that need to be made to
ensure protection of waterfowl and to minimize ground water impacts of
7/ The term "nuisance" is defined in the California Water Code as follows:
"Nuisance" means anything which: (1) is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, and (2) effects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal, and
occurs during or as a result of the treatment or disposal of wastes.
Cal. Water Code§ 13050 (West 1986). 7 as amended by Order No. WQ 85-5, to meet the standards of 23 CAC Chapter 3, Subchapter 15 (Subchapter 15) referenced by the Board in these orders. The Plan document addresses how the pertinent requirements of Subchapter 15 will be satisfied under the proposed management actions, and these details will not be repeated here. Instead, the following discussion focuses on the principles of the Subchapter 15 regulations in relation to the management strategy described in the Plan.
In considering the following discussion, the Board should bear in mind that the several phases of the Plan comprise an integrated management strategy that has been presented as an "engineered alternative" to the general closure requirements specified in Article 8 of Subchapter 15. Thus, the Board should view the Plan as a whole, including the provision that the Department will resort to the conventional actions of excavation and onsite disposal in a state-of-the­art landfill facility if the so-called "Flexible Response" and/or "Immobilization" phases of the plan do not prove to be viable means of achieving the specified performance goals.
The "fundamental purpose" of the Subchapter 15 regulations "is prevention of pollution and unacceptable water quality degradation as a result of discharges of solid or liquid waste to land." Statement of Reasons for Subchapter 15 Regulations (Statement of Reasons), Preamble at
12. The term "pollution" is defined in the California Water Code as fo ll ows:
(1) "Pollution" means an alteration of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree which unreasonably affects: (1) such waters for beneficial uses, or (2) facilities which serve such beneficial uses. "Pollution" may include
8 proposed alterations in reservoir operation. Order at 1.8/ In compliance with this amendatory order, the Bureau revised its nuisance abatement plan . 9/ Under its Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan the Department will continue the nuisance abatement activities identified in its previous submissions to the Board and will augment these actions, as described in the Plan, to assure that no conditions of nuisance arise during its implementation.
As stated in the Staff Report on the Plan, the actions taken to date, "in combination with the cessation of drain water flows, have, to a great extent, eliminated the public health threat posed by Kesterson Reservoir."
8/ The Board stated these conditions to be as follows:
"1. The Bureau shall add, or provide the State Board's Executive Director with an adequate explanation why they cannot add, within three months of the date of this order, the following points to their Nuisance Abatement Plan:
The Bureau shall not terminate the hazing program without the approval of the State Board's Executive Director.
The Bureau shall not terminate their supplemental water supply for alternative habitat without the approval of the State Board's Executive Director.
The Bureau shall assess, to the extent feasible, the seepage rates of the ponds in Kesterson Reservoir, and they shall shift water into the ponds with the lowest seepage rates.
Before the Bureau embarks on a vegetation removal process, they should assess, to the extent feasible, whether selenium in the sediments will be mobilized."
Order No. WQ 85-5, at 2-3.
9/ The Department's "Amended Nuisance Abatement Plan for Kesterson Reservoir," dated November 22, 1985, was transmitted to the Board on the same date.
9 Staff Report at 12. Indeed, there has been no substantiated report of any adverse public health effect attributable to conditions at Kesterson Reservoir, and no such significant impact is reasonably expected to occur under the management strategy proposed by the Department . 10/
As expressed in its remedial orders, the Board's concern over the risk of adverse public health effects, as a condition of nuisance found by the Board to have resulted from the past operation of Kesterson for the disposal of agricultural drainwater, was based on its concern that hunted waterfowl contaminated by selenium in the Reservoir environment could be consumed by the public. As discussed above, this risk already has been essentially eliminated on an interim basis through a combination of management actions taken in accordance with the nuisance abatement plan. Such appropriate actions would continue under implementation of the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan until it is demonstrated that the Kesterson Reservoir environment again provides safe habitat for wildlife species.
At the hearing on the Plan, much attention was focused on the continuing risk of harm to wildlife, per se, that may attend implementation of the "Flexible Response" and "Immobilization" phases of
10/ Kesterson Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II, Chapter 4N (October 1986); see Staff Report at 12. At the hearing on the Department's Plan, Dr. Richard D. Welch, Director of the Merced County Department of Health, indicated that there is a population in Merced County "who admit to foraging food in and around Kesterson." This reported foraging at Kesterson Reservoir has not been confirmed,
c.f. Final Environmental Impact Statement, supra, at 4N-6 (concerning reported evidence of foraging activity in Mud Slough). In any event, Dr. Welch indicated that he has not found any indications of adverse public health effects from selenium exposure in the data he has
10 the Plan. This concern apparently derived from the comprehensive coverage of this issue in the Department's environmental documentation developed under the framework of the National Environmental Policy Act.11/ This documentation, as well as the Department's testimony before the Board, openly acknowledged the fact of continuing uncertainty concerning whether the first phases of the Plan will be successful in meeting the Department's ultimate wildlife protection goals. In recognition of the continuing interim risks to wildlife, the Department has planned mitigation actions to assure that it fulfills its responsibilities under federal law in its management of the wildlife resources at Kesterson. These same actions will also assure that the public health risks of concern both to the Department and the Board will continue to be effectively controlled under implementation of the Plan.
A final concern raised by the Board at the hearing was whether the hazing activity at the Reservoir may interfere with duck hunting on adjacent duck clubs. It is important to note here that no such actual interference has been documented in the record before the Board. Still, the Department has taken the possibility of such interference into account in its management actions at the Reservoir. As Gary Zahm, Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, indicated in his testimony at
11/ 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 -4370 (1982). In the interest of fully disclosing its decisionmaking process in the development of the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan, the Department submitted this documentation to the Board as part of the
11 the hearing, the modifications in the hazing program to address this concern appear to have been successful.
Upon the comprehensive record before the Board in this matter, the Department of the Interior has demonstrated that its Closure and Post­Closure Maintenance Plan for Kesterson Reservoir has been developed in compliance with the Board's remedial orders, and the state laws upon which they are based, and that implementation of this Plan should be approved by the Board as the most reasonable course of action for management of the residual contamination at the Reservoir site.
Dated: February 2, 1987
12 SECTION II ERRATA STATEMENT FOR
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUBMISSION TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CONCERNING CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR KESTERSON RESERVOIR
Following is a statement of errata for the U.S. Department of the Interior submission to the California State Water Resources Control Board concerning the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan for Kesterson Reservoir submitted to the California State Water Resources Control Board on January 26, 1987. Underlining indicates where additions were made to the original text. Strike-outs indicate where original text was deleted.
Page 4, para 1, line 2: ••• Service's -endorsementof-concurrence in the... "
Page 4, para 2, line 9: ••• has -certainly-contributed to...
Page 4, para 3, line 6: ••• Reservoir -w-i--l--l-can be
Page 5, para 3, line 9: ••• interim -protective-protection and ...
Page 5, para 4, line 4: ••• their technical review of the
(Above corrections already reflected in the copies of the Department's submission provided to the State Board members on January 26, 1986.)
Page 8, para 5, line 5: ... playa areas -b-e- k-e-p-t-wet. ..
Page 14, para 4, line 6: ••• are -a-t-t-h-ei-r-most ... "
Page 15, para 3, line 4: 11 ... longer experiments_, Nitella... "
Page 15, para 3, line 11: "... increase the update uptake of. ..
Page 17, para 3, line 4: "A-l-l-The tests involve"
Page 18, para 1, line 13: "Using -t-h-is-these data...
Page 19, para 2, line 5: ••• measure of the permeability of the ... "
Page 19, para 3, line 15: ••• of the plume -i-s-are now ... "
Page 20, para 1, line 5: ••• as it infiltrates through ••• "
Page 20, para l, line 6: ... sediments precludes_ applications ... "
Page 20, para 2, line 8: ••• water levels in these... "
Page 26, para 1, line 10: "Recent data indicat-es-,... " exhibit 2, map; Kesterson Reservoir and vicinity
exhibit 2, map; Kesterson Reservoir and vicinity exhibit 2, map; Kesterson Reservoir and vicinity exhibit 2, map; Kesterson Reservoir and vicinity
EXHIBIT 2 SECTION III SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY OLEH WERES, Ph.D., STAFF SCIENTIST LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORY
This statement is provided to further describe expectable long-term conditions at Kesterson Reservoir, with particular reference to the fate of residual selenium, under the scenario of management of the site according to the so-called "Flexible Response" and "Immobilization" components of the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan . It also addresses further the question of how selenium is expected to become immobilized in the playa areas of the northern ponds without continuous flooding of these ponds. These issues were the subjects of particular interest at the hearing on the Plan, as reflected in the questions of the Board and its staff. Long-term Conditions at Kesterson During the hearing the question was raised of whether the southern ponds of Kesterson Reservoir must be maintained under water indefinitely to effectively control residual selenium in their underlying soils. In the following discussion, I describe the conditions that I expect to be developed as the result of management of the southern ponds in a flooded condition over time. The raising and maintaining of water levels in the southern ponds will create effective conditions for immobilizing selenium in the underlying sediments. The scientific evidence we have developed suggests that this action will quickly clean up surface water and biota, and it is therefore a safe and effective action for the short and medium term. It is not, however, necessarily the answer in perpetuity. I am sure that
more flexible measures can be developed and implemented with time, to
deplete the selenium inventory and decrease the water supply required to maintain the Reservoir.
Several mechanisms will reduce the inventory of selenium in the superficial sediments with time. Decay of seleniferous organic matter will release some amount of dimethylselenide to the atmosphere. This loss mechanism will become less important with time as the organic matter in the sediments matures, and microbial activity declines. Losses of volatile selenium will probably become quite small after a year or two.
Substantial amounts of selenium will be lost from the playa areas. Sediment analyses and early results from Pond 1 suggest that approximately a 40 percent decrease of the superficial selenium inventory will occur this winter. Similar losses are expected elsewhere in the playas of Ponds 1 to 8, and smaller losses will occur in playa areas in Ponds 9 to 12 (because of the different hydraulic regime). Most of the soluble selenium in Ponds 1 and 8 will migrate into the shallow groundwater, and will probably be removed again from solution by slow reactions with the sediments located within a few feet of the surface. The depletion of soluble selenium in the shallow sediments is certain. Fixation of selenium a few feet down is less certain, but early results from the Pond 1 experiment suggest this is in fact happening.
If elevated water levels are permanently maintained in Ponds 1 to 8, this depletion of selenium inventory from the playas will be a one-time
2 If water levels in Ponds 1 to 8 are decreased during future summers to allow the playas to dry out again, additional selenium will be lost from the superficial sediment in the following winters. The Pond 1 experiment will tell us if this would be a prudent practice with regard to groundwater quality. The losses during the second and following years will certainly be smaller than during the first year, because soluble selenium will be a smaller fraction of the total inventory. After a few wet-dry cycles, most of the selenium remaining in the playa areas would be tightly bound Se+4. Similar processes would decrease selenium in inventory in the soil of the salt grass areas and convert what remains to tightly bound Se+4. Meanwhile, the selenium in the black, organic-rich sediments of the wet areas will evolve into more stable forms, particularly Se-0. Both Se-0 and bound Se+4 are insoluble, poorly bioavailable, and fairly resistant to oxidation. In effect, these processes of geochemical evolution will gradually detoxify the selenium that remains in the sediment.
Straightforward agricultural methods for managing selenium­contaminated playa and salt grass terrains are being tested in Ponds 9 and 11, and additional tests have been proposed. I expect that Ponds 6, 7, and 8, and possibly parts of Ponds 1 and 3 will eventually "clean up" to the point that these areas could safely be transferred to Dry-Flex management, as in the northern Ponds.
3 Maintaining historical or moderately increased water levels in the
present cattail areas will be conducive to continued vigorous growth of cattails. I have seen 4-5" thick deposits of peat in Ponds 2 and 4, suggesting that 1"/year of peat may be laid down under optimal conditions. This peat actually contains a substantial amount of mineral matter, probably derived from the erosion of berms, adjacent playas, and airborne dust. After a few years, therefore, today's seleniferous superficial sediment will be buried under several inches of relatively clean peat, and this burial will provide additional, effective isolation of selenium from the food chain. This buried stratum will contain the larger part of total selenium inventory, much of it as chemically stable and biologically unavailable Se-0.
If the water supply to the Reservoir were cut-off completely, the entire area would dry out during the summer. The present cattail areas would evolve into areas with peaty, seleniferous soil, with the peat slowly decomposing when exposed to air. The mineral matter in the peat would remain, and the Se-0 would stay with this material. It is premature to predict the oxidation rate and release of selenium under these conditions, or the rate of selenium dissipation. Ongoing and planned research may shed some light on this question. A thick layer of peat deposited over several decades would permanently isolate the selenium from the surface, no matter what water supply the future holds. In essence, we will have returned the selenium to sedimentary deposits whence it came, thereby completing the selenium cycle. The present deep
4 water areas would contain standing water flooded during the winter. These areas would evolve into playas, and the selenium inventory there would gradually be transferred to deeper sediments as is occurring in the present day playas. Significant groundwater contamination would remain unlikely, but it is premature to predict the impacts upon biota of this situation. It is clear however, that the longer the cattail areas remain wet and deposit peat, the less severe will be the impact of ultimately drying them out.
In summary, over time it will probably become unnecessary to maintain high, constant water levels in the southern ponds to continue to control residual selenium. The playas can probably be allowed to dry out, at first seasonally, and then permanently. However, it will probably be necessary to keep the deep water and cattail areas flooded continually for at least a decade. Northern Playas
The major terrain in Pond 9 is playa, and Ponds 10, 11, and 12 also contain some playa terrains. Wetting playa from above (as in the Pond 1 experiment) will transfer soluble selenium from salt crust to shallow groundwater. Wetting it from below (upwelling water) will tend to transfer soluble selenium to surface water. Pond 9 is not being intentionally flooded, but will probably be wetted by rain (from above) and infiltration of groundwater (from below). The inventory of soluble selenium in the salt crust of Pond 9 is less than in Pond 1; therefore, less will be released to the water than has been observed in our Pond 1
5 experiment. Pond 9 poses little risk of groundwater contamination, because downward water flow will be small. Playa areas have repeatedly been rewetted in this way throughout Kesterson Reservoir in the past, but we have not detected any resulting groundwater contamination in our monitoring wells. The first standing water that appears in the low areas of Pond 9 may have elevated selenium levels from the dissolving salt crust. If, however, enough rain falls on Pond 9 to produce a downward water flow, this selenium will go into the soil. We plan to monitor the test plot in Pond 9 through the spring and summer to follow the transport of selenium in soil and shallow water over a full annual biological cycle.
6 SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY SALLY M. BENSON, STAFF SCIENTIST
LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORY This statement supplements the testimony provided at the Board's hearing on the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan concerning the regional hydrogeologic setting of Kesterson Reservoir. It focuses on (1) the past and expected future hydraulic influences of the Reservoir in this setting and the estimated rates of flows of seepage from the Reservoir site; and (2) on the reliability of the modeling techniques we have used in addressing these issues. Hydraulic Influences/Flow Rates Kesterson Reservoir is situated in the midst of a seasonal wetland that is used largely for duck hunting. Within a 124-square-mile region centered on Kesterson Reservoir, approximately 18 percent of the land is seasonally flooded for duck ponds (U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4196). The ponds at Kesterson account for approximately 8 percent of the total seasonal wetland area within this region. Application of surface water to the duck ponds in this region and Kesterson Reservoir causes the water table to rise locally due to seepage into the underlying soils and sediments, and can have more widespread effects on the water table due to hydraulic influences. Although the applied water may take many years or decades to travel down-gradient, an increase in the pore-pressure of the underlying water-saturated sediments caused by application of the surface water may be relatively quickly transmitted through the groundwater system. This increase in pore­pressure
may cause the water table to rise at a considerable distance
from where the water is applied. The rising water table may dissolve
salts and trace elements that have accumulated in near-surface soils as the result of previous flooding/evaporation episodes, causing highly concentrated brines to surface.
In his testimony before the Board, David R. Dawdy suggested that surface ponds sampled by the U.S. Geological Survey on the Freitas property, at distances of 1/2 to 2 miles to the east and north of Kesterson Reservoir, were the result of the influence of Kesterson Reservoir. Although the physical mechanism described above may be occurring in the region around Kesterson Reservoir, the existing evidence indicates that this was going on long before the Reservoir was constructed, and that, except in the immediate vicinity of the Reservoir (less than 1000 feet from its boundary) it has been only minimally influenced by operation of the Reservoir. It is also unlikely that any significant quantity of drainage water has migrated more than an average distance of 500 feet down-gradient from the Reservoir. Thus it is highly improbable that any accumulation of salts at a distance of 1/2 to 2 miles down-gradient from the Reservoir has been caused by migration and subsequent surfacing of the drain water previously discharged to the Reservoir. In the following paragraphs, these points are discussed in more detail.
2 The seasonal rise and fall of the water table due to the flooding of the duck ponds near Kesterson Reservoir has been documented for a period of more than 30 years (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, CYBER File HllOCF6). These data show that, before construction of Kesterson Reservoir, the water table rose an average of 5 feet each winter. Nearly continuous records of water table measurements, from the mid-1960 1 s to the present, show that the average depth of the water table and the magnitude of seasonal fluctuations outside a radius of 1000 feet from the Reservoir did not change after Kesterson Reservoir was put into use. This implies, as is expected, that the overall influence of Kesterson Reservoir on the water table elevation is small in comparison to the influence of the approximately 14,000 acres of seasonal wetland that surrounds the Reservoir. In light of the relatively small surface area over which water has been applied at Kesterson Reservoir, it is apparent that its hydraulic influence has been dwarfed by the extensive areas of irrigated and seasonally flooded lands within the regional hydrologic setting.
A review of the pre-construction chemical characteristics of the shallow aquifer system is also useful for putting the influence of Kesterson Reservoir into perspective. Chemical analyses of samples taken from shallow wells in the upper aquifer system indicate an average total dissolved solids (TDS) content of approximately 5,000 parts per million
(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 11 Kesterson Reservoir Site Summary of Geologic Data11 -1967). Surface waters in ephemeral ponds are also highly saline as a result of periodic raising and lowering of the water
3 table and surface evaporation. Groundwater samples taken from wells in the immediate vicinity of these ephemeral ponds are also highly saline (LBL Progress Report No. 1). This type of occurrence is expected in a naturally saline environment with a shallow water table and high evaporation rates. As mentioned above, there is no evidence to suggest that operation of Kesterson Reservoir has created a significant increase in the elevation of the water table outside the immediate vicinity of the Reservoir.
Additional confirmation of the improbability that operation of the Reservoir is responsible for the offsite effects described by Mr. Dawdy is provided by our computer model simulation of groundwater flow and chemical transport underneath and adjacent to the Reservoir. Results of several such simulations have been reported in the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Progress Reports. From these studies we expect that non­reactive, dissolved chemical species, such as boron, have traveled an average lateral distance of approximately 500 feet from the edge of the Reservoir (LBL Progress Report 2). Selenium is expected to have traveled a much shorter distance due to chemical processes that cause it to precipitate or be absorbed on the surfaces of mineral grains. Although we can not place precise limits on the accuracy of the models that are used to make these predictions, they do provide a quantitative methodology for evaluating solute migration and are an accepted means of making predictions.
4 Modeling Techniques and Reliability
The uncertainty inherent in mathematical modeling of groundwater systems stems from the fact that all geologic systems are heterogeneous. The size and shape of the rock grains making up the aquifer system vary from place to place, causing the hydrologic properties to vary. This variability poses two problems. First, it is impossible to measure the hydrologic properties in enough places to develop a completely accurate physical model of the system. Second, even if it were possible to make enough measurements, we could not include this level of detail in currently available groundwater flow and chemical transport computer codes.
In practice, this uncertainty is resolved by four steps:
(1) developing a large data base of the hydrological and geochemical characteristic of the system; (2) calibrating the model by adjusting the physical parameters of the model until the predicted speed and direction of chemical transport agree with the actual rate and direction of migration; (3) validating the model by demonstrating its ability to predict the response of the system; and (4) performing sensitivity studies to examine the influence of the variability of the parameters that are subject to the largest uncertainty. All of these activities are currently underway as part of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory research program (LBL Progress Reports 1 to 4). The basic reliability of our modeling results to date is indicated by the following considerations. 1) Extensive groundwater sampling from an array of wells on the
northeastern side of the refuge, extending from the San Luis Drain to
5 the San Luis Canal, show that drain water has not migrated more than
several hundred feet from the Drain (LBL Progress Report 1).
2) The plume of undiluted drain water has migrated to an average depth of approximately 60 feet below the Reservoir (LBL Progress Report 2). This value agrees well with the predictions of the model, providing at least some degree of validation. Moreover, based on a simple mass balance, one can show that, since the plume extends to this depth, the undiluted plume can not have migrated more than an average distance of 500 feet from the edge of the Reservoir.
3) Based on an independent analysis of the regional groundwater setting in the vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir, the U.S. Geological Survey published a study that predicted horizontal pore velocities in the range of 0.01 to 140 feet per year (U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 86-4196). The maximum velocity reported in the U.S. Geological Survey report agrees well with the average value indicated by the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory studies.
4) Although it is expected that high permeability channels from old stream beds underlie the Reservoir, this does not necessarily mean that there are channels along which drain water is free to travel down-gradient much more rapidly than predicted by the models that do not account for these features. Water will only migrate along a stream channel if it is appropriately aligned with the hydraulic gradient. The meandering nature of surface streams makes it unlikely that these channels remain aligned with the hydraulic gradient for
6 more than short distances. Additionally, our inability to correlate
the presence of high permeability strata over distances of more than
several hundred feet indicates that these channels only extend
several hundred feet before they are intermixed with finer grained
The above considerations support our prediction that drain water previously discharged to Kesterson is migrating away from the Reservoir at an average pore velocity of only approximately 150 feet/year. They also support the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that discharge of drain water to Kesterson Reservoir in the past is responsible for the presence of highly concentrated brines that have been observed in shallow pools located at distances of 1/2 to 2 miles down-gradient from the Reservoir. Moreover, under the proposed future management of the southern ponds in Kesterson Reservoir under flooded conditions, the water supply will be provided from local groundwater. This net withdrawal of groundwater in the vicinity of Kesterson will reduce the local and regional hydraulic influence of the Reservoir and the migration of past seepage away from the Reservoir site.
7 SECTION IV SUPPLEMENTAL WELL SURVEY INFORMATION
During its hearing on the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan for Kesterson Reservoir, the State Board requested additional information on locations and depths of wells in the vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir. This information is included in the revised report entitled "Kesterson Program Monitoring Program" (3 vols.) submitted to the Board on January 2, 1986, in compliance with Order No. WQ 85-5. In Volume 1, Appendix A, of this report is a memorandum documenting the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation survey of wells in the vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir conducted between October 30, 1984, and November 2, 1984. In Volume 2, Section 1, is a map (Plate 7) showing the locations of the wells identified in this survey. The well data sheets and available well logs for pre-1985 test wells are provided in Volume 2, Section 2. The more current water-monitoring program logs are provided in Volume 2, Section 3.
Following is additional information about Well No. 9Fl, which has been rehabilitated for use by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in developing additional water supply for Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge lands. Also following is a map showing locations and depths of the monitoring wells added by the Bureau of Reclamation to the monitoring program in 1986.
The location, depth, and method of construction of wells used by the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) scientists in their research activities have been reported in LBL Progress Reports, l, 2, 3, and 4. location map; of well no. 9F1
location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1location map; location of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1location map; location of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1
LOCATION OF WELL NO. 9Fl WATER QUALITY DATA -KESTERSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE WATER SUPPLY WELL FOR ALTERNATIVE HABITAT WELL 9Fl
labEC 4 41 0
chloride 11 00
sulfate -4 50
K 4. 7
metals: TOTAL
boron 3 .
Cr <2
Cu ---­---­< 4
Fe -­Hg
Mn --­Mo
Ni -·­<5
Se -----·--­Zn
112 SECTION V SUPPLEMENTAL WATER QUALITY AND LEVEL DATA FOR FREITAS PROPERTY
Following are copies of recent correspondence from Department officials to Mrs. Janette Freitas, transmitting water quality and level data concerning the property to the east of Kesterson Reservoir. United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE
2800 COTTAGE WAY IN REPLY SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825-1898
Mrs. Janette Freitas
Dear Mrs. Freitas:
The Bureau of Reclamation was notified by Jeff Palsgaard of the
Merced County Health Department on January 9, 1987 that you were
having problems with a well near your residence. we were told
that you had completed a well inspection and that it was verified
that the well would not produce water. We-understand that the
inspector suggested that the ten water supply wells at Kesterson
Reservoir could be causing the problems with your well.
After receiving this information, we closely reviewed our most recent data of water levels in all of our Kesterson monitoring wells and particularly those around the ten .water supply wells including those between the ten wells and your residence. The
monitoring wells are constructed to depths ranging from 11 to 350
feet in depth. The ten water supply wells obtain water from the
63 to 143 foot interval and are fitted with shut off switches ­which prevent the pumping water level from falling below 55 feet.
Because we are uncertain about the depth of your well, we reviewed water level data for wells from both the shallow and deep zones. Measurements for the December 22-24, 1986 period indicate that water levels in the shallow zone monitoring wells in the area
between the ten supply wells and your residence are within 10
feet of the ground surface. No significant variation from past water levels could be seen at any Kesterson monitoring well. On
January 12, 1987, a geologist from the Bureau of Reclamation
obtained additional water level data from Bureau monitoring wells
along the eastern portion of Kesterson Reservoir. No significant
variation from the December 22-24 water levels was observed.
Water quality analysis for your well suggests that the well taps the deep zone below the Corcoran Clay. The Bureau is not presently pumping any water from this lower zone. Monitoring well 9F1 to the north and monitoring well KR-200A near your residence are both completed in this lower zone. In both cases water levels are less than 15 feet from the ground surface. Well KR-200B, completed just above the Corcoran Clay, shows a water level of
4.7 feet. we are enclosing this data for your information and use, and a map showing the locations of these monitoring wells. Since it appears very unlikely that the ten supply wells at Kesterson are adversely affecting your well, our Geology Branch has discussed other possible explanations for your well no longer producing water. They suggest that one possible explanation is that the well may have caved in below the pump; however an onsite inspection of the well would be required to determine the actual problem with the well. We would be pleased to arrange a further inspection of your well, at government expense, to attempt to determine the cause of the problem you have reported. Please contact Jim Esget at (916) 978-5045, if you are interested in pursuing this.
cc: Jeff Palsgaard Merced County Health Department
P.O. Box 471 Merced, CA 95340
2 location map; monitoring well locations
location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locationsRECENT WELL MEASUREMENTS -FREITAS RANCH AREA
DEPTH TO WATER WELL ID WELL DEPTH OCT 86 NOV 86 DEC 86 JAN 87
KR-311A
KR-311B
KR-311C
KR-311 D
KR-200A 350 13 11.4 KR-200B 250 8.2 4.7 82
WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH
KESTERSON RESERVOIR CLUSTER-SITE TEST WELL SG SERIES
(DEPTH 40') (DEPTH 80') (DEPTH 100') ROAD SURFACE
Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)
80 78 7674 72 70
68 .. ---· JUL 86 OCT 86 JAN 87 WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH
KESTERSON RESERVOIR CLUSTER-SITE TEST WELL KR-311 SERIES
Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)
Apr-Jul-Oct-86
A(DEPTH 25') B(DEPTH 45') C(DEPTH 65') D(DEPTH 85') ROAD SURFACE 80
Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)
KESTERSON RESERVOIR -WELL KR-45 (DEPTH 11 FEET)
GRND.SURF
Water-Level Water-Level Water-LevelWater-Level Water-LevelWater-Level Water-Level Water-LevelWater-LevelWater-LevelWater-LevelWater-Level HydrographHydrographHydrographHydrographHydrographHydrographHydrographHydrographHydrograph KestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonReservoirReservoirReservoirReservoirReservoirRservoirReservoirReservoir - Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1 Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1 Well 8S-10E-9L1(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633') (Well 9F1-Depth 633') (Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633') (Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')
ELEVATION(in
7878 7373 6868 6363 5858 5353 4848 4343
Well 9F1Well 9F1Well 9F1Well 9F1Well 9F1Well 9F1Well 9F1 Grnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfUnited States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE 2800 COTTAGE WAY IN REPLY SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95825-1898 REFER TO:
Mr. and Mrs. Frank Freitas
P. 0. Box 173 Newman, CA 95360
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Freitas:
Enclosed are analytical results of water samples collected on your property in November 1986. We are aware that the U.S. Geological Survey recently sent you its water level data for the wells sampled during 1986. The water quality samples were collected by Geological Survey personnel and analyzed in the Sacramento-based Bureau of Reclamation/ Geological Survey Laboratory. Upon review of the enclosed data table, you will notice several values preceded by a "<" symbol. This indicates that the concentration is below the laboratory's limit for detection of this element.
You will also note that from the December 2 and 3, 1986 sample dates (January 15, 1987 printout) there were four wells with readings in excess of the EPA criterion for selenium in drinking water. This represents an increase in the selenium levels recorded in samples previously analyzed from these wells. In contrast, the most recent reading of the selenium level in well #D1BW1 indicated a significant decline from the prior reading. We will continue to closely monitor the selenium levels in these wells and keep you informed of our findings.
More than 200 wells have been sampled at Kesterson Reservoir to date. Of these, about a dozen have shown selenium concentrations in excess of the existing EPA drinking water criterion of 10 p/b. These wells are generally located in the southeastern portion of the Reservoir. Unlike the rest of Kesterson Reservoir, the ground water in these areas is oxidizing, not reducing, in its chemistry. The plume of oxidizing ground water has been well defined in depth and around most of its periphery except toward the northeast, the direction of ground-water movement. This direction of ground-water movement is toward the southeastern portion of your property.
As we have previously discussed with you, the Bureau would like to be able to better characterize the plume and its movement. In order to define the extent of the plume in the direction of your property, it
would be necessary to place ground-water observation wells at the
locations indicated on the attached map. In addition, the Geological Survey has completed its well canvass which was conducted to locate existing wells drilled on your property. As a result of this survey, the Geological Survey has determined that the Bureau map of well locations was accurate. The wells located during this canvass will be capped by the Bureau upon your request. Wells identified through your request will be capped according to State of California, Department of Water Resources, Water Well Standards 74-81 (part 3) at the Bureau's expense. The capping process will be delayed until late spring or early summer, however, to allow for dryer, more accessible conditions for the work crew.
Please contact me at (916) 978-5142 with any questions regarding the data reported here, future access to your property for well capping, and the possibility of the Bureau or its representative obtaining permission to drill the wells identified on the enclosed map.
cc: District Chief
U.S. Geological Survey 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825
19 8 6 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT PRELIMINARY-SUBJECT TO REVISION
8S10E16Q1
9-08-86
21G21
21G22
D1B-W1
21G23
D1B-W2
12-61-86
21G24
D1B-W3
MDJ-11
9-09-86
22R20
KR-307A
6.29 Mr.
PRELIMINARY-SUBJECTTOREVISION
22R21 KR-307B 40 5-21-86 6.82 9-09-86 9.21 12-03-86 7. 89 22R22 KR-307C 80 5-21-86 5.46 9-09-86 9.35 12-03-86 6.98 16L2 IR-2 16Q21 KR-200A 346 5-19-86 5.82 9-09-86 12.98 12-03-86 11.43 16Q22 KR-200B 210 5-19-86 1.82 09-10-86 8 .18 12-03-86 4.72 map; well locations
map; well locations map; well locations
O Existing USSR Well
• Phase 1 Wells
o Phase 2 Wells
o 1000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------------------
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Water Quality Laboratory, MP 780, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825
date: 01/15/87
to: YATES project: FREITAS from: ga remarks: 12/17,1/6 page: 1 batch: 139
units: mg/L uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
lab ID year
colldate field ID tds labEC chloride sulfate Ca K Mg Na N03+N02-N
2922 86 12/01/86
DM l 2334 3640 750 620 11 0 2.7 45 600 <0.052923 86 12/01/86 KR20 9660 11600 1500 3600 335 4.4 265 2100 <0.052924 86 12/01/86 WQ5 15330 16900 2400 6200 550 9.3 450 3200 <0.052925 86 12/01/86 D1BW1 12630 14300 1800 4600 460 7.6 390 2550 <0.052926 86 12/02/86 D1BW2 9760 11 700 1800 3600 370 9.3 310 1900 <0. 05
86 12/02/86 D1BW3 10540 12600 2000 3600 410 6.3 340 2150 <0.052928 86 12/02/86 MDJ 11
11950 13900 1800 5200 410 1. 9 330 2550 0. 8
2929 86 12/02/86 KR1 9
8400 10300 1200 3000 255 3.5 240 1800 20 2930 86
12/02/86 KR46 8040 10100 1200 3300 260 3.0 200 1850 3.7
12/02/86 KR18 4544 5990 770 1800 210 1.5 130 950 2.3
2932 86 12/03/86 KR47 2282 3180 320 1800 170 o. 9 67 450 0.2
2933 86 12/03/86 KR1 7 2129 2980 350 820 175 1. 6 68 410 0. 7
2934 86 12/03/86
IR2 2830 4650 1000 520 110 2.3 79 730 <0.052935 86 12/03/86 KR62 2442 3580 420 850 130 0. 4 65 590 2.8 2936 86 12/03/86 KR307A 2550 3730 620 750 180 5.6 110 480 <0.05
2937 86 12/03/86 KR307B 2666 4230 970 600 230 5.3 135 460 <0.052938 86 12/03/86 KR307C 3086 4990 1300 300 220 3.8 135 560 <0.052939 86 12/03/86 K R200A 1350 2060 180 500 50 2. 1 14.5 380 <0.05 2940 86 12/03/86 KR200B 4808 6620 1 1 00 1600 215 3.4 150 1100 <0.05
139 END REPORT ANALYTI CAL REPORT U.S Bureau of Reclamation Water Duality Laboratory, MP 780, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825
date: 01/15/87 to: YATES project: FREITAS from: ga remarks: 12/17,1/6 page: 1 batch: 139
trace metals:TOTAL units: ug/L ug/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
labID year colldate f1eldID As Ba boron Cd Cr Cu Fe Hg Mn Mo Ni Pb Se Zn
2922 12/01 /86 DM1 4 <0. 1 21 <5 <1
2923 86 12/01 /86 KR20 <0. 1 29 90
<1 2924 86 12/01/86 WQ5 9 0.3 18 37 86 12/01/86 D1BW1 18 4 0.1 45
86 12/01/86 D1BW2 10 <4 <0. 1 42 <10
2927 86 12/02/86 D1BW3 11 <4 < 0. 1 38 <5
<1 202928 86 12/02/86 MDJ 11 17 15 <0. 1 58 50
2929 86 12/02/86 KR19 13 < 0. 1 94 11 4
2930 86 12/02/86 KR46 11 5 0. 1 1 0 8 37 900
2931 86 12/02/86 KR18 8 7 <0. 1 22 12
2932 86 12/03/86 KR47 5 <4 <0.1 17 9
2933 86 12/03/86 KR17 5 <4 0. 1 12 8
2934 86 12/03/86 IR2 23 < 0. 1 12 44
2935 86 12/03/86 KR62 4 <0. 1 7 6
7 <10
2936 86 12/03/86 KR307A 2. 4 4 0. 1 8 7 <1 <10
2937 86 12/03/86 KR307B 1. 5 4 <0. 1 <4 <5 <1
2938 86 12/03/86 KR307C 0. 4 4 0.1 <4
< 1 <10
2939 86 12/03/86 KR200A 4 <0.1 26 <5 10
2940 86 12/03/86 KR200B 4 <0. 1 19 <5
<1 <10
139 United States Department of the Interior
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY District Office Water Resources Division Room W-2234, Federal Building 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825
(916) 978-4633
Mrs. Janette Freitas Post Office Box 173 Newman, California 95360
Enclosed is a table of well information, with a field map attached, for the wells on your property and a table of the results of water analyses from the wells. The headings are self explanatory except for the last one in the first table, "casing water volume", which is the quantity of water that can be stored inside the casing. The water volume is of interest only to those who are sampling a well as they usually want to remove all of the water that initially is stored in the well.
The second table presents laboratory results from the samples collected in May 1986. The results are for the analyses agreed upon by the Survey, the Bureau and the California Water Quality Control Board. The only items that may appear unusual are the iron and manganese concentrations which are generally high and vary widely from well to well. This occurs because the analyses for iron and manganese were run on unfiltered samples. When the wells are pumped to clean them up before samples are collected, they do not all reach the same level of clarity. Some samples have a little sediment included with the water. When samples containing some sediment are analyzed, iron and manganese in the sediment produce the values shown. Filtered samples represent the dissolved constituents only. Unfiltered samples were used to insure that the samples analyzed contained all of the constituents that were removed with the ground water. Differences in the column in the second table headed "sampling method codes", are because well DM-1 and IR-2, your domestic and irrigation wells, are sampled from the equipment you have installed at each well. The rest of the wells are sampled using portable equipment.
The only analysis for selenium that exceeds the present Environmental Protection Agency drinking water criteria is the sample from the Bureau test well D1B-W1, a 20-foot deep well about one-half mile south of your ranch headquarters, which contains 20 ug/l. The analysis is good, but I do not have any information that establishes the reason for this value being higher than nearby wells. We'll watch that well in the samples collected in September to see if it remains at this level. Mrs. Freitas Page 2
The data in the first table is a compilation from the well canvass which was completed last summer. One result of the canvass was that it proved the Bureau map of well locations to be quite accurate and as a result, we see no reason to issue a new well-location map. During the canvass, no additional wells were found on your property beyond those shown on the Bureau maps. Two wells, KR-70 and KR-70A, were not found, they probably were destroyed or covered over sometime after construction. We will make the well data in the first table available to anyone seeking that information.
The data in the second table have been entered in the Survey's WATSTORE
computer file, a file that is readily available to other users. Entry in
WATSTORE constitutes release of the data to the open file and makes it a
It seems in order for us to apologize for the very late transmittal of
these data on samples that were collected last May. All samples after
September will be analyzed in the Sacramento lab of the Bureau and should
produce a more timely completion of analyses.
Enclosure WELL
USBR WELL NO.
CASING DIAM. (INCHES)
PERF'S (FEET)
CASING WATER (GALLONS)
008S010El6Q01M 008S010E21B03M 008S010E21G21M 008S0l0E21G23M 008S010E21G24M
DM-1 KR-20 WQ-5 D1B-W2 D1B-W3
17 70 29 39
7-17 20-70 26-29 36-39
17 11 5 6
008S010E21G22M 008S010E21G01M 008S010E21H03M 008S010E21H20M 008S010E22M06M
D1B-W1 MDJ-11 KR-19 KR-46 KR-18
2 2 5 2 1-1/4
20 14.5 15 12 20
16-19 5-15 7-12 5-20
3 2 15 2 1
OOOS010E22M20M 008S010E22L01M 008S010E16L02M 008S010E22P23M 008S010E22R22M
KR-47 KR-17 IR-2 KR-62 KR-307C
12.5 15 13 80
7.5-12.5 5-15 8-13 75-80
2 15 2 13
008S0l0El6Q21M 008S010El6Q22M 008S0l0E22R20M 008S010E22R21M
KR-200A KR-200B KR-307A KR-307B
346 210 20 40
326-336 200-210 15-20 35-40
225 137 3 7 map; well location
map; well location map; well location map; well location map; well location map; well locationmap; well locationmap; well location map; well location map; well location map; well locationSURVEY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF INTERIOR -GEOLOGICAL MULTIPLE STATION ANALYSES
LOCAL IDENT-I-Fl ER
AGENCY COL­LECTING TEMPER-SAMPLE ATURE (CODE (DEGc) NUMBER)
AGENCY ANA­LYZING SAMPLE (CODE NUMBER)
SPE­CIFIC CON­DUCT­ANCE (US/CM)
PH ( STAND­ARD UNITS)
PH LAB (STAND­ARD UN ITS)
ALKA­LINITY WH WAT TOTAL FIELD MG/L ASCAC03
NITRO­GEN, N02+N03 DIS­SOLVED (MG/LAS N)
PIIOS­PHORUS, ORTHO, DIS­SOLVED (MG/LASP)
008S0 10E16Q0 1M 008S010E21803M 008 S0 10E 21 G21 M 008S010E21G23M 008S0 10E21G24M
05-19-86 05-19-86 05-19-86 05-19-06 05-19-86
21. 5 23.5 20.5 20.5 22.0
1028 1028 1028 1028 1028
80020 80020 80020 80020 80020
3310 13000 15200 11900 13200
7.39 7. 12 6.63 7.29 7.01
7.70 7.40 7.00 7. 10 7.00
156 459 612 412 406
<0. 10 <0. 10 <0. 10 <0. 10 <0. 10
0.03 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 0.01
008S010E21G22M 008S0 10E21G0 1M 008S010E21M03M 008S0 10E21M20M 008S0 10E22H06M
05-20-86 05-20-86 05-20-86 05-20-86 05-20-86
18.5 21. 5 21.0 21. 5 20.0
12600 11700 12700 12900 6770
6.99 7.05 7.05 7.00 7.05
7.20 7.00 7.30 7.30 7.40
247 461 523 607 461
1. 70 <0.10 5.50 <0. 10 1. 70
0.06 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.02
008S0 10E22M20M 008S010E22L01M 008S010E16L02M 008S010E22P23M 008S0 10E22R22M
05-21-86 05-21-86 05-21-86 05-21-86 05-21-86
17 .5 18.0 19.5 19.5 20.5
3360 3060 4480 3410 4450
6.91 7.09 7.43 7.26 7.40
7.20 7.50 7.60 7.60 7. 40
380 333 14. 7 436 180
<0. 10 0. 14 <0. 10 0.92 0. 10
0.02 0.04 0.08 0. 37 0.05
008S010E16Q21M 008S010E16Q22M 008S0 10E22R20M 008S010E22R21M
KR-200A KR-200B Kl<-307A KR-307B
05-22-86 05-22-86 05-22-86 05-22-86
20.0 20.0 19.5 17.5
1028 1028 1028 1028
80020 80020 80020 80020
2920 2110 3540 3820
6.91 5.80 6.85 6.89
7. 10 6.00 7. 10 7.20
698 280 347 250
<0.10 <0. 10 <0. 10 <0. 10
0. 30 0.27 0.06 0.03 UNITED DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR -GEOLOGICAL SURVEYSTATES MULTIPLE STATION ANALYSES
LOCAL IDENT-I­FIER
CALCIUM DIS­SOLVED (MG/L AS CA)
MAGNE-SIUM, DIS­SOLVED (MG/L AS MG)
SODIUM, DIS­SOLVED (MG/L AS NA)
POTAS­SIUM, DIS­SOLVED (MG/L ASK)
CHLO­RIDE, DIS­SOLVED (MG/L AS CL)
SULFATE DIS­SOLVED (MG/L AS S04)
FLUO-RIDE, DIS­SOLVED (MG/LAS f)
SILICA, DIS-SOLVED (MG/LAS Sl02)
ARSENIC TOTAL (UG/LAS AS)
BORON. TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/L AS B)
008S010E16Q01M 008S010E21B03M 008S0 10E21G21M 008S010E21G23M 008S0 10E21 G24M
DM-1 KR-20 WQ-5D1B-W2 D1B-W3
100 310 560 430 410
30 260 470 350 350
530 2700 3000 2400 2700
2.11 6.0 10 9.2 7 . 6
570 2000 21,uo 2100 2000
590 5200 5800 4800 5600
0.2 0.3 0.2 0.11 0.5
55 27 35 32 29
<1 6 19 7 10
2600 111000 19000 13000 15000
008S010E21G22M 008S010E21G01M 008S010E21M03M 008S010E21M20M 008S010E22M06M
430 350 430 480 260
360 300 420 370 160
2400 2400 2700 2600 1200
6.5 1. 5 3.0 3.2 1. 4
1900 1800 1900 2300 1000
5700 4800 5000 5100 2200
0.6 0.5 0.79 0.4 0.6
26 18 21 33 28
14000 17000 15000 13000 8200
008S010E22M20M 008S010E22L01M 008S0 10E16L02M 008S010E22P23M 008S010E22R22M
210 200 110 130 200
80 80 80 70 120
470 410 760 580 540
1.0 1.6 2.2 0.11 4.5
430 390 1200 430 1200
950 900 520 900 330
0.4 0.4 o. 1 0.3 <0. 1
25 27 26 21 23
2 4 2 24 13
5100 4300 1200 4500 620
008S010E16Q21M 008S010E16Q22M 008S010E22R20M 008S010E22R21M
KR-200A KR-2008 KR-307A KR-307B
100 110 170 210
53 50 100 120
490 290 480 490
3.9 4.6 4.9 5.3
330 290 650 870
530 270 710 610
0.2 o. 1 0.1 0. 1
32 23 33 31
3500 960 2000 1600
• SURVEY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR -GEOLOGICAL MULTIPLE STATION ANALYSES
LOCAL IDENT­I­FIER
CADMIUM TOTAL RECOV­ERAOLE ( UG/L AS CU)
CHRO­MIUM, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/L AS CR)
COPPER, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/LAS CU)
IRON, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/LAS FE)
LEAD, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/LAS PB)
MANGA­NESE, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE ( UG/L AS MN)
MOLYB­DENUM, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE ( UG/L AS MO)
NICKEL, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/LAS NI)
SILVER, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/L AS AG)
ZINC, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/LAS ZN)
008S010E16Q01M 008S010E21B03M 008S010E21G21M 008S010E21G23M 008S010E21G24M
6 31 16 6 7
2 14 19 8 5
1130 16000 35000 12000 8800
510 4500 13000 6100 4500
19 20 13 28 42
4 56 14 26 1
008S010E21G22M 008S010E21G01M 008S010E21M03M 008S010E21M20M 008S010E21M06M
1 <1 <1 1 <1
10 2 4 5 16
4 6 42 8 14
190 39000 4200 1500 111000
11100 5400 5900 970 790
34 24 47 8 7
7 25 26 15 29
10 380 790 30 50
008 S0 10E22M20M 008 S0 10E22L01M 008S010E16L02M 008S010E22P23M 008S010E22R22M
2 11 24 48 10
3 9 11 44 9
280 11000 8900 62000 1400
2 4 7 12 6
1,20 360 1400 2400 2200
11 10 6 230 170
<10 20 30 180 380
008S010E216Q21M 008S010E16Q22M008 S0 10E22R20M 008S0 10E22R21M
<1 1 <1 <1
1800 4300 160 8800
1000 5000 5200 3700
20 20 <10 20 INTERIOR SURVEYUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF -GEOLOGICAL MULTIPLE STATION ANALYSES
SELE­NIUM, TOTAL (UG/LAS SE)
SOLIDS, RESIDUE AT 180 DEG. C DIS­SOLVED (MG/L)
MERCURY TOTAL R[COV­ERABLE (UG/LAS MG)
ELEV. OF LAND SURFACE DAlUH ( FT. ABOVE NGVD)
DEPTH Of WELL, TOTAL ( FEET)
SAM­PLING METHOD, CODES
SPE­CIFIC CON­DUCT­ANCE LAB (US/CM)
ALKA-UNI TY LAB (MG/L AS CAC03)
ALKA­LINITY, CARDON­ATE IT-FLD (MG/L -CAC03)
DICAR­BONATE IT-FLD (MG/L AS MC03)
008S010E16Q01M 008S010E21B03M 008S010E21C21M 008S010E21G23M 008S010E21G24M
DH-1 KR-20 WQ-5 D1B-W2 D1B-W3
<1 l 2 1 1
1970 10700 13400 10400 11100
<0. 1 0.2 0.2 <0. 1 <0. 1
77.0 77.2 76.0 76. 3 76.3
17.00 70.00 28.60 36.60
70.0 4080 4080 4080 4080
3110 12800 14900 12100 14900
163 473 590 3911 370
156 464 624 406 414
190 566 761 495 505
008S010E21G22M 008S010E21G01M 008 S0 10E21M03M 008 S0 10 E21M20M 008S010E22M06M
20 <1 7 1 11
11200 10100 11500 11200 5350
<0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1
76.3 76.0 76.0 77. 1 76.5
18.70 14. 50 15.00 10.30 20.00
4080 4080 4080 4080 4080
12700 10400 12900 12900 6860
252 393 393 602 461
248 458 530 610 466
303 559 647 744 569
008S010E22M20M 008S010E22L01M 008S010E16L02M 008S010E22P23M 008S010E22R22M
<1 "<1 4 <1
2490 2300 2720 2390 2580
<0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1 0. 1 <0. 1
74.6 76.3 77.0 77. 1 77.0
10.50 15.00 .11. 00 79.00
4080 4080 70.0 4080 4080
3420 3150 4640 3510 4480
382 334 151 432 182
382 334 148 440 182
466 408 181 537 222
008S0 10E 16Q21M 008S010E16Q22M 008S010E22R20M 008S010E22R21M
1930 1520 2470 2670
<0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1
346.00 210.00 19.00 39.00
2940 2100 3630 3950
617 451 347 236
702 216 344 248
857 266 420 303
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95825-1898
MP-705530.
SEP 0 8 1986
Mr. Frank Freitas
P.O. Box 173 Newman, California 95360
Dear Mr. Freitas:
In response to your phone request to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on August 1, 1986, during which you expressed concern that the cattle on your ranch were becoming sick from drinking surface seepage water on the property, water quality samples were collected on August 7, 1986. The samples were collected by a USGS representative from the four ponded areas you identified. They were analyzed in the jointly operated USGS­U.
S. Bureau of Reclamation water quality laboratory.
Enclosed are the results of analyses conducted. In addition, enclosed is a map marked during the field collection procedure that depicts the water quality sampling locations labeled ponds 1, 2, 3, and 4, as provided by USGS. A duplicate (split) sample was collected at each site and analyzed for selenium. These duplicate selenium analyses are included on the enclosed data table under the column labeled "Selenium Duplicate." Upon review of the data table you will notice several values preceded by a"<" symbol. This indicates that the concentration is below the laboratory's limit for detection of this element.
For interpretation of the enclosed analytical results in relation to the health of your cattle, it is recommended that you contact the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Department of Health Services, the Merced County Public Health Department, or your local veterinarian. If you have questions regarding the chemical analytical procedures, you may contact Marvin Yates, Laboratory Director, at (916) 978-4923. Also, additional split samples from each sample location are being stored at the laboratory, and you may obtain these for your use by contacting Or. Yates.
cc: John M. Klein, District Chief Water Resources Division
U.S. Geological Survey 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95821 (with enclosures)
Enclosures CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF PONDED WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED ON THE FREITAS RANCH PROPERTY
Date Coll1ct1d
Arsenic ug/1
Chromium Molybdenum Nickel ug/1 ug/1 ug/1
Selenium Duplicate ug/1
Calcium Potassium mg/l mg/l
Magnesium Sodium Total Dissolved Solids mg/l mg/l mg/l
Electrical Conductivity ushos/ca
77, IOO
76,900 0
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REG ION AL OFFICE 2800 COTTAGE WAY IN REPLY SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9582,5-1898 REFER TO:
Mr. Frank Joseph Freitas Freitas Brothers Land &Cattle Co.
P.O. Box 173 Newman, CA 95360
The laboratory analyses from samples collected from shallow ponds on your ranch during the February 21 and 28, 1985, field surveys have been com­pleted. The six samples taken from your property are listed in Table 1. These sample sites are generally located on Figure 1. The remaining ana­lyses of samples collected will be provided as soon as they are available. The concentrations of selenium and hydrogen sulfide are less than detec­tion with the exception of the FR04 site, where the selenium concentration was 2 ug/L. These concentrations are considerably below existing criteria for the protection of public health and aquatic resources.
Included in Table 2 is a summary of all available laboratory analyses of water samples previously collected from your domestic wells. Note that the table includes some information already provided to you informally by Bureau field personnel. We will continue to provide you with laboratory data as they become available.
We appreciate your cooperation in our monitoring of various trace elements within your property, both from the surface sites and wells that you have allowed to be drilled. We hope that, working through our respective legal counsel, we will be permitted to continue investigations relevant to the administrative claims that you and other members of your family have filed with the Bureau.
cc: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR District Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA Regional Solicitor, Pacific Southwest Reqion, Sacramento, CA Commissioner, Washington, DC, Attn: 736 Assistant Secretary, Western Region, Sacramento, CA TO-100, MP-780 Table 1. Water sample analysis in vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir and the Freitas Ranch
Site Name a/-
Ee umhos/cm
H S 2mg/1
Se ( USBR
Lab h/
SLDC02
FR01 SLC@FRØ1 KRPØ1@FRØ1 SLDØFRØ1 FRØ2 SLC@FRØ2 KRPØ1@FRØ2 SLD@FRØ2
26,460 2,840 12,640 10,560 6,350 2,980 15,820 10,420
8.3 8.8 7.5 8.3 8.1 8.8 8.1 8.3
15.1 10.9 12.9 13.0 15.1 13.9 13.0 13.0
< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 -- d/ < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0. 1 < 0.1
--c/--c/ --c/ --c/ __c/ --c/--c/ --c/
FRØ3 SLC@FRØ3 SLD@FRØ3
1,380 2,800 10,740
8.2 8.8 8.2
16. 2 12.8 12.9
< 0. l < 0.1 < 0.1
--c/ -­c/ --c/
FRØ4 SLC@FRØ4 KRPØ5@FRØ4 SLD@FRØ4
35,550 2,710 11,010 15, 560
8.6 8.3 8.1 8.3
--0' ___d/ __ d/ 11.0
--d/ __d/ --!Y --d/
2 26 296 310
FRØ5 FRØ6
--9 c/
-­d/ --d/
--d/ --d/
__ d/ __d/
a/ Identification of sitename by prefix SLD -San Luis Drain FR -Freitas Ranch SLC -San Luis Canal KRP -Kesterson Reservoir Pond
b/ Preliminary Results -USBR lab certification by USGS is pending.
c/ Awaiting analytical results from USGS laboratory. SITE
FREITAS FREITAS FREITAS
84/09/19 84/10/12 84/ 11 /12
3100 3100 2920
<1 < 1 <1
2800 2900 2700
<.. 1 < 1 <16
<.1 <.1
<1 <1 <l
84/11/30 84/12/19
3060 3070
<. 1 0.2
FRElTASl"P84/10/12 R
Table 2. Freitas--Domestic Water Well--Merced County
1984 DATA ENTERED AS UF 04/08/85
a Mobile home sample. Legend: (-) represents data pending.
00001 85 FIGURE 1.
FREITAS RANCH INVESTIGATION
San Slough San Slough San Slough San Slough San Slough San Slough San Slough San SloughSan SloughSan Slough
San Luis Canal San Luis Canal San Luis Canal San Luis CanalSan Luis Canal San Luis Canal San Luis Canal
Kesterson Ponds 1-9
FRØ5
FRØ1 -FRØ5 Ponded areas on Freitas Ranch FRØ6 Ditch south of HWY 165 at Sand Slough San Luis Canal San Luis Drain SECTION VI SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION CONCERNING FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE GRASSLAND CONTAMINANT STUDY
Following is correspondence between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Water Quality Control Board, Division of Water Rights, concerning preliminary data reported from the Service's Grassland Contaminant Study. United States Department of the Interior
Mr. Jerald E. Johns Division of Water Rights State Water Quality Control Board PO Box 2000 Sacramento, California 95810 Dear Mr. Johns: As a response to your agency's requests, we are including a preliminary summary of partial information we have collected during the Fish and Wildlife Service's Grassland Contaminant Study, part of the Federal-State San Joaquin Valley drainage program. Collections for the Grassland Contaminant Study began during June 1985 and were completed in April 1986. Samples were collected from 46,000 acres of privately owned marsh in the Grassland Water District and 28,900 acres of state and federal wildlife areas. Monthly water samples from approximately 30 sites were collected from October 1985 through April 1986. Analyses of 97 water samples collected for the period of December 1985 through March 1986 have been coapleted. The overall eeoaetric mean value of these samples was 1.1 ppb for selenium, with values ranging from non-detectable (less than 0.1 ppb) to 19.0 ppb. The MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE TOXICANT CONCENTRATION (MATC) for water-borne selenium in an impounded wetland has been tentatively identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service at 2.0 ppb total recoverable selenium The seeds of swamp timothy have been shown to be an important waterfowl food in the Central Valley. Seed beads of swamp timothy were collected from the study area during the summer of 1985. Residue analyses of replicates from 13 sites from the study area are available. The geometric mean of this partial data set is 0.62 ppm selenium dry weight, with values ranging from non-detectable to 4.9 ppm dry weight. The MATC for waterfowl food chain items has been tentatively deteralned by the Fish and Wildlife Service at 3.0 ppm total selenium, dry weight.
Lloyd 500 BuildinSgui te 1692
October 22, 1986 RW/CA.SNL.Grasslands Monitoring Mr. Jerald E. Johns:
INVERTEBRATES have been shown to be the primary food for waterfowl during the late winter and early spring in the Central Valley. Invertebrate samples were collected monthlyfrom November 1985 through March 1988. Bottom (benthic) and free-swimming invertebrates (nektonic) were collected from each site. Residue analyses of benthic sampleshave been completed for the December through February collections. The geometric mean of these samples was 8.9 ppm selenium dry weight with levels ranging from 0.73 to
22.0 ppm. Residue analyses of nektonic samples have been completed for the December through 1986 collect1on1. The geometricmean of these samples was
6.2 ppm selenium, with levels ranging fromnon-detectable (less than 0.1 ppm) to 60.0 ppm selenium. Similarto swamp timothy, we have established the MATC at 3.0 ppm for total selenium.
Soil samples were taken from 30 sites in the atudy area, but only 14 sites have been analyzed. These samplesconsist of the organic soil zone (top 3­5 inches of soil). The geometric mean for all replicates of these 14 sites is 2.1 ppm selenium dry weight. Selenium values ranged from non-detectable (less than 0.1 ppm) to 26.0 ppm. The MATC bas been tentatively e1tabli1bed at 4.0 ppm.
Although the chemical and statistical analyses for this study have not been coapleted, preliminary findings indicate that relatively low levels of selenium have been found in selected plants and in water and soil collected from the Grasslands during 1985. However, even with the fall flooding of these marshes with good quality CVP water, Invertebrates, an important waterfowl food, were found to exceed the MATC.
I want to again emphasize these data are preliminaryas laboratory analysis 1s not completeand as a consequence planned statistical interpretation has not yet occurred. You will be provided future reports as they become available.
Title United States Department of the Interior post-hearing submission to the California State Water Resources Control Board concerning closure and post-closure maintenance plan for Kesterson Reservoir
Subject Kesterson Reservoir (Calif.)
Description Cover title.; "February 2, 1987."
Publisher [The Dept.]
Relation http://worldcat.org/oclc/190865550/viewonline
Date-Issued [1987]
Full Text UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR POST-HEARING SUBMISSION TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CONCERNING CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR KESTERSON RESERVOIR United States Department of the Interior February 2, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Closing Legal Memorandum II. Errata Statement and Photographic Reproductions of Exhibits 2 and 3 for January 26, 1987, Written Submission by Department of the Interior III. Supplemental Statements A. Oleh Weres, Ph.D., Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory B. Sally M. Benson, Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IV. Supplemental Well Survey Information V. Supplemental Water Quality Data and Level Data for Freitas Property VI. Supplemental Information Concerning Fish and Wildlife Service Grassland Contaminant Study SECTION I Alfred F. Jahns Attorney Pacific Southwest Region 2800 Cottage Way, Rm. E-2753 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 978-4831 Attorney for the Department of the Interior BEFORE THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD In Re the Review of the )Closure and Post-Closure ) File No. A-354 Maintenance Plan for ) Kesterson Reservoir ) -----------) CLOSING LEGAL MEMORANDUM I. SUMMARY OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT'S POSITION Responding to the Board's Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 85-1, as amended by its Order No. 85-5, the Department has submitted its Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (Plan) for Kesterson Reservoir. As demonstrated in the Plan document and supporting written materials, as well as in the testimony presented at the hearing before the Board on January 26 and 27, 1987, the Department's Plan for Kesterson Reservoir meets the pertinent requirements of the Board's Subchapter 15 regulations. The Plan also provides for management actions not covered by the Subchapter 15 requirements, to further assure public health and wildlife resource protection in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local standards. The basic purpose of the Department's Plan, and of the comprehensive process of environmental review and decisionmaking under which the Plan was developed, is to address the problems of residual contamination, and particularly selenium, in the Kesterson Reservoir environment. The Plan incorporates a conventional approach to such a problem -excavation and containment in a lined, landfill facility -but calls initially for "in place" management actions premised on the extensive research observations by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and University of California at Berkeley scientists indicating that the residual selenium load in the Kesterson Reservoir can be safely contained in the Reservoir soils. In presenting its Plan to the Board, the Department has openly acknowledged and explained the scientific uncertainties that are associated with it. We have accounted for these uncertainties by including measures in the Plan to provide environmental protection throughout its implementation. Thus, while the first phases of the closure and cleanup actions described in the Plan have been aptly described as "experimental" in nature, these management actions will not be taken at the expense of environmental protection. During its hearing on the Plan, the Board expressed particular concern about the indefinite length of time over which continued active management of the flooded ponds will have to occur to assure that the 2 residual selen1um in soils under these ponds remains adequately contained there. Our commitment to this continued, active management of the Reservoir area is based on the premise that this area can thus be restored to habitat that safely supports a more diverse wildlife population than could be maintained there if the area were excavated for landfill disposal. Moreover, this management strategy will utilize the local, shallow groundwater to maintain flooded conditions, and thus recycle a substantial amount of the drainage water previously seeped to the groundwater from the Reservoir. If implementation of the first phases of the Plan achieves the basic performance objectives, but continued management of the Reservoir area under these circumstances is later determined to be undesirable for other reasons, the site conditions can be further evaluated to identify environmentally acceptable, alternative management options. Such options could include, but would not necessarily be limited to, excavation and disposal of remaining contaminated materials in a landfill facility.¹/ I I. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN WILL ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE BOARD'S REMEDIAL ORDERS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 23, CHAPTER 3, SUBCHAPTER 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE A. OVERVIEW The Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (Plan) presented to the Board was developed in accordance with the Board's remedial Order No. 85-1, 1/ A further discussion of expected future conditions at Kesterson Reservoir over time under flexible management is presented in the supplemental statement of Dr. Oleh Weres, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, included as part of the Department's post-hearing submission. 3 Cal. Water Code§ 13050 (West 1986). The evidence presented to the Board, based on the extensive monitoring and research investigations conducted to date, is persuasive in demonstrating that the management strategy described in the Department's Plan will prevent "pollution" of the waters of the state during the closure and post-closure management of the Kesterson Reservoir site. B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN WILL PROVIDE THE REQUISITE PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY No evidence has been presented to the Board indicating that any beneficial use of the groundwater affected by past seepage from Kesterson Reservoir has been unreasonably affected or may become unreasonably affected by this seepage. Nor is there any substantial indication in the record that any future impacts on ground or surface waters will unreasonably affect their beneficial uses . ²/ In the unlikely event that any impairment of the beneficial uses of any affected waters of the state 2/ In the Division of Water Quality Staff Report to the Board, dated January 15, 1987 (Staff Report), it is suggested that "[past] groundwater degradation caused by Kesterson Reservoir is not consistent with State Board policy" expressed in State Board Resolution No. 68-16. The referenced policy statement, however, is concerned only with maintaining "existing high quality" in waters of the state. As acknowledged in the Staff Report, however, "[t]he shallow groundwater beneath Kesterson Reservoir has historically been of marginal quality." Staff Report at 12. Thus, the limited impact on this water attributable to past or future management actions at Kesterson Reservoir will not violate the policy expressed in Resolution No. 68-16. 4 were to occur or become threatened in the future, actions will be taken in accordance with the Plan to remedy this circumstance.³/ The only testimony presented at the hearing to the effect that the future maintenance of the southern ponds in a flooded condition may unreasonably affect the quality of the waters of the State concerned primarily the hydraulic influence of Kesterson Reservoir on the local groundwater system. 4/ The witness who presented this testimony acknowledged, however, that his estimates of this hydraulic influence, both in his testimony and in his January 14, 1987 letter to the Board on this subject, were merely "back of an envelope" calculations and did not take into account the proposed groundwater withdrawal that is part of the Plan. 5/ This testimony in no way refutes the extensive and well founded evidence to the contrary presented by the Department on this point. 3/ In her testimony, Sally Benson of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory explained that selenium-contaminated groundwater in the shallow aquifer system could be extracted and blended at the surface for disposal in accordance with the Plan's objectives. This selective extraction of groundwater would not be inconsistent with the County of Merced ordinance concerning groundwater pumping as suggested by Jeff Palsgaard, Merced County of Health, in his testimony before the Board. Ms. Benson also testified that there has been no detected contamination of the Sub-Corcoran aquifer by past seepage from Kesterson Reservoir and that this circumstance is not likely to arise under the Plan. In further response to questions on this point, we have included in the Department's post-hearing submission additional information concerning the location and depths of known wells in the vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir. 4/ Testimony of David R. Dawdy. 5/ In his testimony Mr. Dawdy suggested that surface ponding on neighboring property at distances up to 2 miles from Kesterson Reservoir could be attributed to the hydraulic influence of the Reservoir, and/or migration of seepage from the Reservoir, and that (footnote continued) 5 The Department has developed a substantial and comprehensive evidentiary record in demonstrating that the management actions proposed under its Plan will meet the basic objective of Subchapter 15 of protecting the quality of the waters of the state against pollution. In combination with the clear showing, in the Plan and supporting documents submitted to the Board, that strict compliance with all of the prescriptive closure standards in Article 8 of the Subchapter 15 is "not feasible," the Department has thus met its burden of demonstrating that approval of the Plan is warranted in accordance with the provisions of 23 CAC § 2510 (b).6/ (footnote continued from previous page) the San Joaquin River. This characterization of the influence of Kesterson Reservoir is strongly contradicted by the evidence developed under the careful hydrologic studies of the groundwater system by the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory scientists. A supplemental statement concerning this point, by Sally Benson of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, is included in the Department's post-hearing submission. See also U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4196, Directions and Rates of Ground-Water Movement in the Vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir, San Joaquin Valley California (1986) (previously provided to the Board). During questioning of the Department's witnesses, a member of the Board's staff curiously suggested that, as a condition of the Board's approval of the Department's Plan under the Subchapter 15 requirements, the Department must demonstrate that its management actions under the Plan will afford "equivalent protection'' of the fish and wildlife resources at Kesterson Reservoir. Apparently this statement was intended to refer to the "equivalent protection" showing required under 23 CAC § 2510 (b)(2)(B). As it clearly stated in this regulatory provision, however, the requirement of "equivalent protection" directly concerns water quality, not wildlife resources. Still, as is discussed in text, infra, the Department's Plan does provide for protection of the wildlife resources at Kesterson Reservoir and, indeed, provides for post-closure management actions to develop a more diverse wildlife habitat at the site than would be expected if the area were excavated for landfill disposal. 6 I I I. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN WILL PROTECT AGAINST CONDITIONS OF NUISANCE In its Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 85-1, the Board found that the operation of Kesterson Reservoir for the disposal of agricultural drainwater constituted a public nuisance for the following stated reasons: 11. Operation of Kesterson Reservoir poses a threat to public health due to the potential for consumption of selenium contaminated waterfowl. Kesterson Reservoir also threatens to interfere with the free use of the lands surrounding the reservoir, which are used extensively for waterfowl habitat and duck hunting. Operation of the reservoir impacts both duck hunters and the surrounding property owners. Operation of Kesterson Reservoir, therefore, constitutes a public nuisance. Order at 2.7/ In compliance with this remedial order the Bureau of Reclamation submitted a nuisance abatement plan to the Board on April 3, 1985. Upon its review of this plan, the Board stated in its amendatory Order No. WQ 85-5: "The overall strategy outlined in the plan is acceptable, but there are several additions to the plan that need to be made to ensure protection of waterfowl and to minimize ground water impacts of 7/ The term "nuisance" is defined in the California Water Code as follows: (m) "Nuisance" means anything which: (1) is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, and (2) effects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal, and (3) occurs during or as a result of the treatment or disposal of wastes. Cal. Water Code§ 13050 (West 1986). 7 as amended by Order No. WQ 85-5, to meet the standards of 23 CAC Chapter 3, Subchapter 15 (Subchapter 15) referenced by the Board in these orders. The Plan document addresses how the pertinent requirements of Subchapter 15 will be satisfied under the proposed management actions, and these details will not be repeated here. Instead, the following discussion focuses on the principles of the Subchapter 15 regulations in relation to the management strategy described in the Plan. In considering the following discussion, the Board should bear in mind that the several phases of the Plan comprise an integrated management strategy that has been presented as an "engineered alternative" to the general closure requirements specified in Article 8 of Subchapter 15. Thus, the Board should view the Plan as a whole, including the provision that the Department will resort to the conventional actions of excavation and onsite disposal in a state-of-the­art landfill facility if the so-called "Flexible Response" and/or "Immobilization" phases of the plan do not prove to be viable means of achieving the specified performance goals. The "fundamental purpose" of the Subchapter 15 regulations "is prevention of pollution and unacceptable water quality degradation as a result of discharges of solid or liquid waste to land." Statement of Reasons for Subchapter 15 Regulations (Statement of Reasons), Preamble at 12. The term "pollution" is defined in the California Water Code as fo ll ows: (1) "Pollution" means an alteration of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree which unreasonably affects: (1) such waters for beneficial uses, or (2) facilities which serve such beneficial uses. "Pollution" may include "contamination." 8 proposed alterations in reservoir operation. Order at 1.8/ In compliance with this amendatory order, the Bureau revised its nuisance abatement plan . 9/ Under its Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan the Department will continue the nuisance abatement activities identified in its previous submissions to the Board and will augment these actions, as described in the Plan, to assure that no conditions of nuisance arise during its implementation. As stated in the Staff Report on the Plan, the actions taken to date, "in combination with the cessation of drain water flows, have, to a great extent, eliminated the public health threat posed by Kesterson Reservoir." 8/ The Board stated these conditions to be as follows: "1. The Bureau shall add, or provide the State Board's Executive Director with an adequate explanation why they cannot add, within three months of the date of this order, the following points to their Nuisance Abatement Plan: a. The Bureau shall not terminate the hazing program without the approval of the State Board's Executive Director. b. The Bureau shall not terminate their supplemental water supply for alternative habitat without the approval of the State Board's Executive Director. c. The Bureau shall assess, to the extent feasible, the seepage rates of the ponds in Kesterson Reservoir, and they shall shift water into the ponds with the lowest seepage rates. d. Before the Bureau embarks on a vegetation removal process, they should assess, to the extent feasible, whether selenium in the sediments will be mobilized." Order No. WQ 85-5, at 2-3. 9/ The Department's "Amended Nuisance Abatement Plan for Kesterson Reservoir," dated November 22, 1985, was transmitted to the Board on the same date. 9 Staff Report at 12. Indeed, there has been no substantiated report of any adverse public health effect attributable to conditions at Kesterson Reservoir, and no such significant impact is reasonably expected to occur under the management strategy proposed by the Department . 10/ As expressed in its remedial orders, the Board's concern over the risk of adverse public health effects, as a condition of nuisance found by the Board to have resulted from the past operation of Kesterson for the disposal of agricultural drainwater, was based on its concern that hunted waterfowl contaminated by selenium in the Reservoir environment could be consumed by the public. As discussed above, this risk already has been essentially eliminated on an interim basis through a combination of management actions taken in accordance with the nuisance abatement plan. Such appropriate actions would continue under implementation of the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan until it is demonstrated that the Kesterson Reservoir environment again provides safe habitat for wildlife species. At the hearing on the Plan, much attention was focused on the continuing risk of harm to wildlife, per se, that may attend implementation of the "Flexible Response" and "Immobilization" phases of 10/ Kesterson Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II, Chapter 4N (October 1986); see Staff Report at 12. At the hearing on the Department's Plan, Dr. Richard D. Welch, Director of the Merced County Department of Health, indicated that there is a population in Merced County "who admit to foraging food in and around Kesterson." This reported foraging at Kesterson Reservoir has not been confirmed, c.f. Final Environmental Impact Statement, supra, at 4N-6 (concerning reported evidence of foraging activity in Mud Slough). In any event, Dr. Welch indicated that he has not found any indications of adverse public health effects from selenium exposure in the data he has reviewed. 10 the Plan. This concern apparently derived from the comprehensive coverage of this issue in the Department's environmental documentation developed under the framework of the National Environmental Policy Act.11/ This documentation, as well as the Department's testimony before the Board, openly acknowledged the fact of continuing uncertainty concerning whether the first phases of the Plan will be successful in meeting the Department's ultimate wildlife protection goals. In recognition of the continuing interim risks to wildlife, the Department has planned mitigation actions to assure that it fulfills its responsibilities under federal law in its management of the wildlife resources at Kesterson. These same actions will also assure that the public health risks of concern both to the Department and the Board will continue to be effectively controlled under implementation of the Plan. A final concern raised by the Board at the hearing was whether the hazing activity at the Reservoir may interfere with duck hunting on adjacent duck clubs. It is important to note here that no such actual interference has been documented in the record before the Board. Still, the Department has taken the possibility of such interference into account in its management actions at the Reservoir. As Gary Zahm, Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, indicated in his testimony at 11/ 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 -4370 (1982). In the interest of fully disclosing its decisionmaking process in the development of the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan, the Department submitted this documentation to the Board as part of the administrative record. 11 the hearing, the modifications in the hazing program to address this concern appear to have been successful. IV. CONCLUSION Upon the comprehensive record before the Board in this matter, the Department of the Interior has demonstrated that its Closure and Post­Closure Maintenance Plan for Kesterson Reservoir has been developed in compliance with the Board's remedial orders, and the state laws upon which they are based, and that implementation of this Plan should be approved by the Board as the most reasonable course of action for management of the residual contamination at the Reservoir site. Respectfully submitted, Dated: February 2, 1987 12 SECTION II ERRATA STATEMENT FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUBMISSION TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CONCERNING CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR KESTERSON RESERVOIR Following is a statement of errata for the U.S. Department of the Interior submission to the California State Water Resources Control Board concerning the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan for Kesterson Reservoir submitted to the California State Water Resources Control Board on January 26, 1987. Underlining indicates where additions were made to the original text. Strike-outs indicate where original text was deleted. " Page 4, para 1, line 2: ••• Service's -endorsementof-concurrence in the... " " " Page 4, para 2, line 9: ••• has -certainly-contributed to... " Page 4, para 3, line 6: ••• Reservoir -w-i--l--l-can be " " Page 5, para 3, line 9: ••• interim -protective-protection and ... " Page 5, para 4, line 4: ••• their technical review of the " scientific ... (Above corrections already reflected in the copies of the Department's submission provided to the State Board members on January 26, 1986.) "" Page 8, para 5, line 5: ... playa areas -b-e- k-e-p-t-wet. .. " Page 14, para 4, line 6: ••• are -a-t-t-h-ei-r-most ... " Page 15, para 3, line 4: 11 ... longer experiments_, Nitella... " " Page 15, para 3, line 11: "... increase the update uptake of. .. Page 17, para 3, line 4: "A-l-l-The tests involve" " Page 18, para 1, line 13: "Using -t-h-is-these data... " Page 19, para 2, line 5: ••• measure of the permeability of the ... " " Page 19, para 3, line 15: ••• of the plume -i-s-are now ... " " Page 20, para 1, line 5: ••• as it infiltrates through ••• " " Page 20, para l, line 6: ... sediments precludes_ applications ... " " Page 20, para 2, line 8: ••• water levels in these... " Page 26, para 1, line 10: "Recent data indicat-es-,... " exhibit 2, map; Kesterson Reservoir and vicinity exhibit 2, map; Kesterson Reservoir and vicinity exhibit 2, map; Kesterson Reservoir and vicinity exhibit 2, map; Kesterson Reservoir and vicinity EXHIBIT 2 SECTION III SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY OLEH WERES, Ph.D., STAFF SCIENTIST LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORY This statement is provided to further describe expectable long-term conditions at Kesterson Reservoir, with particular reference to the fate of residual selenium, under the scenario of management of the site according to the so-called "Flexible Response" and "Immobilization" components of the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan . It also addresses further the question of how selenium is expected to become immobilized in the playa areas of the northern ponds without continuous flooding of these ponds. These issues were the subjects of particular interest at the hearing on the Plan, as reflected in the questions of the Board and its staff. Long-term Conditions at Kesterson During the hearing the question was raised of whether the southern ponds of Kesterson Reservoir must be maintained under water indefinitely to effectively control residual selenium in their underlying soils. In the following discussion, I describe the conditions that I expect to be developed as the result of management of the southern ponds in a flooded condition over time. The raising and maintaining of water levels in the southern ponds will create effective conditions for immobilizing selenium in the underlying sediments. The scientific evidence we have developed suggests that this action will quickly clean up surface water and biota, and it is therefore a safe and effective action for the short and medium term. It is not, however, necessarily the answer in perpetuity. I am sure that more flexible measures can be developed and implemented with time, to deplete the selenium inventory and decrease the water supply required to maintain the Reservoir. Several mechanisms will reduce the inventory of selenium in the superficial sediments with time. Decay of seleniferous organic matter will release some amount of dimethylselenide to the atmosphere. This loss mechanism will become less important with time as the organic matter in the sediments matures, and microbial activity declines. Losses of volatile selenium will probably become quite small after a year or two. Substantial amounts of selenium will be lost from the playa areas. Sediment analyses and early results from Pond 1 suggest that approximately a 40 percent decrease of the superficial selenium inventory will occur this winter. Similar losses are expected elsewhere in the playas of Ponds 1 to 8, and smaller losses will occur in playa areas in Ponds 9 to 12 (because of the different hydraulic regime). Most of the soluble selenium in Ponds 1 and 8 will migrate into the shallow groundwater, and will probably be removed again from solution by slow reactions with the sediments located within a few feet of the surface. The depletion of soluble selenium in the shallow sediments is certain. Fixation of selenium a few feet down is less certain, but early results from the Pond 1 experiment suggest this is in fact happening. If elevated water levels are permanently maintained in Ponds 1 to 8, this depletion of selenium inventory from the playas will be a one-time 2 If water levels in Ponds 1 to 8 are decreased during future summers to allow the playas to dry out again, additional selenium will be lost from the superficial sediment in the following winters. The Pond 1 experiment will tell us if this would be a prudent practice with regard to groundwater quality. The losses during the second and following years will certainly be smaller than during the first year, because soluble selenium will be a smaller fraction of the total inventory. After a few wet-dry cycles, most of the selenium remaining in the playa areas would be tightly bound Se+4. Similar processes would decrease selenium in inventory in the soil of the salt grass areas and convert what remains to tightly bound Se+4. Meanwhile, the selenium in the black, organic-rich sediments of the wet areas will evolve into more stable forms, particularly Se-0. Both Se-0 and bound Se+4 are insoluble, poorly bioavailable, and fairly resistant to oxidation. In effect, these processes of geochemical evolution will gradually detoxify the selenium that remains in the sediment. Straightforward agricultural methods for managing selenium­contaminated playa and salt grass terrains are being tested in Ponds 9 and 11, and additional tests have been proposed. I expect that Ponds 6, 7, and 8, and possibly parts of Ponds 1 and 3 will eventually "clean up" to the point that these areas could safely be transferred to Dry-Flex management, as in the northern Ponds. 3 Maintaining historical or moderately increased water levels in the present cattail areas will be conducive to continued vigorous growth of cattails. I have seen 4-5" thick deposits of peat in Ponds 2 and 4, suggesting that 1"/year of peat may be laid down under optimal conditions. This peat actually contains a substantial amount of mineral matter, probably derived from the erosion of berms, adjacent playas, and airborne dust. After a few years, therefore, today's seleniferous superficial sediment will be buried under several inches of relatively clean peat, and this burial will provide additional, effective isolation of selenium from the food chain. This buried stratum will contain the larger part of total selenium inventory, much of it as chemically stable and biologically unavailable Se-0. If the water supply to the Reservoir were cut-off completely, the entire area would dry out during the summer. The present cattail areas would evolve into areas with peaty, seleniferous soil, with the peat slowly decomposing when exposed to air. The mineral matter in the peat would remain, and the Se-0 would stay with this material. It is premature to predict the oxidation rate and release of selenium under these conditions, or the rate of selenium dissipation. Ongoing and planned research may shed some light on this question. A thick layer of peat deposited over several decades would permanently isolate the selenium from the surface, no matter what water supply the future holds. In essence, we will have returned the selenium to sedimentary deposits whence it came, thereby completing the selenium cycle. The present deep 4 water areas would contain standing water flooded during the winter. These areas would evolve into playas, and the selenium inventory there would gradually be transferred to deeper sediments as is occurring in the present day playas. Significant groundwater contamination would remain unlikely, but it is premature to predict the impacts upon biota of this situation. It is clear however, that the longer the cattail areas remain wet and deposit peat, the less severe will be the impact of ultimately drying them out. In summary, over time it will probably become unnecessary to maintain high, constant water levels in the southern ponds to continue to control residual selenium. The playas can probably be allowed to dry out, at first seasonally, and then permanently. However, it will probably be necessary to keep the deep water and cattail areas flooded continually for at least a decade. Northern Playas The major terrain in Pond 9 is playa, and Ponds 10, 11, and 12 also contain some playa terrains. Wetting playa from above (as in the Pond 1 experiment) will transfer soluble selenium from salt crust to shallow groundwater. Wetting it from below (upwelling water) will tend to transfer soluble selenium to surface water. Pond 9 is not being intentionally flooded, but will probably be wetted by rain (from above) and infiltration of groundwater (from below). The inventory of soluble selenium in the salt crust of Pond 9 is less than in Pond 1; therefore, less will be released to the water than has been observed in our Pond 1 5 experiment. Pond 9 poses little risk of groundwater contamination, because downward water flow will be small. Playa areas have repeatedly been rewetted in this way throughout Kesterson Reservoir in the past, but we have not detected any resulting groundwater contamination in our monitoring wells. The first standing water that appears in the low areas of Pond 9 may have elevated selenium levels from the dissolving salt crust. If, however, enough rain falls on Pond 9 to produce a downward water flow, this selenium will go into the soil. We plan to monitor the test plot in Pond 9 through the spring and summer to follow the transport of selenium in soil and shallow water over a full annual biological cycle. 6 SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY SALLY M. BENSON, STAFF SCIENTIST LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORY This statement supplements the testimony provided at the Board's hearing on the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan concerning the regional hydrogeologic setting of Kesterson Reservoir. It focuses on (1) the past and expected future hydraulic influences of the Reservoir in this setting and the estimated rates of flows of seepage from the Reservoir site; and (2) on the reliability of the modeling techniques we have used in addressing these issues. Hydraulic Influences/Flow Rates Kesterson Reservoir is situated in the midst of a seasonal wetland that is used largely for duck hunting. Within a 124-square-mile region centered on Kesterson Reservoir, approximately 18 percent of the land is seasonally flooded for duck ponds (U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4196). The ponds at Kesterson account for approximately 8 percent of the total seasonal wetland area within this region. Application of surface water to the duck ponds in this region and Kesterson Reservoir causes the water table to rise locally due to seepage into the underlying soils and sediments, and can have more widespread effects on the water table due to hydraulic influences. Although the applied water may take many years or decades to travel down-gradient, an increase in the pore-pressure of the underlying water-saturated sediments caused by application of the surface water may be relatively quickly transmitted through the groundwater system. This increase in pore­pressure may cause the water table to rise at a considerable distance from where the water is applied. The rising water table may dissolve salts and trace elements that have accumulated in near-surface soils as the result of previous flooding/evaporation episodes, causing highly concentrated brines to surface. In his testimony before the Board, David R. Dawdy suggested that surface ponds sampled by the U.S. Geological Survey on the Freitas property, at distances of 1/2 to 2 miles to the east and north of Kesterson Reservoir, were the result of the influence of Kesterson Reservoir. Although the physical mechanism described above may be occurring in the region around Kesterson Reservoir, the existing evidence indicates that this was going on long before the Reservoir was constructed, and that, except in the immediate vicinity of the Reservoir (less than 1000 feet from its boundary) it has been only minimally influenced by operation of the Reservoir. It is also unlikely that any significant quantity of drainage water has migrated more than an average distance of 500 feet down-gradient from the Reservoir. Thus it is highly improbable that any accumulation of salts at a distance of 1/2 to 2 miles down-gradient from the Reservoir has been caused by migration and subsequent surfacing of the drain water previously discharged to the Reservoir. In the following paragraphs, these points are discussed in more detail. 2 The seasonal rise and fall of the water table due to the flooding of the duck ponds near Kesterson Reservoir has been documented for a period of more than 30 years (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, CYBER File HllOCF6). These data show that, before construction of Kesterson Reservoir, the water table rose an average of 5 feet each winter. Nearly continuous records of water table measurements, from the mid-1960 1 s to the present, show that the average depth of the water table and the magnitude of seasonal fluctuations outside a radius of 1000 feet from the Reservoir did not change after Kesterson Reservoir was put into use. This implies, as is expected, that the overall influence of Kesterson Reservoir on the water table elevation is small in comparison to the influence of the approximately 14,000 acres of seasonal wetland that surrounds the Reservoir. In light of the relatively small surface area over which water has been applied at Kesterson Reservoir, it is apparent that its hydraulic influence has been dwarfed by the extensive areas of irrigated and seasonally flooded lands within the regional hydrologic setting. A review of the pre-construction chemical characteristics of the shallow aquifer system is also useful for putting the influence of Kesterson Reservoir into perspective. Chemical analyses of samples taken from shallow wells in the upper aquifer system indicate an average total dissolved solids (TDS) content of approximately 5,000 parts per million (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 11 Kesterson Reservoir Site Summary of Geologic Data11 -1967). Surface waters in ephemeral ponds are also highly saline as a result of periodic raising and lowering of the water 3 table and surface evaporation. Groundwater samples taken from wells in the immediate vicinity of these ephemeral ponds are also highly saline (LBL Progress Report No. 1). This type of occurrence is expected in a naturally saline environment with a shallow water table and high evaporation rates. As mentioned above, there is no evidence to suggest that operation of Kesterson Reservoir has created a significant increase in the elevation of the water table outside the immediate vicinity of the Reservoir. Additional confirmation of the improbability that operation of the Reservoir is responsible for the offsite effects described by Mr. Dawdy is provided by our computer model simulation of groundwater flow and chemical transport underneath and adjacent to the Reservoir. Results of several such simulations have been reported in the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Progress Reports. From these studies we expect that non­reactive, dissolved chemical species, such as boron, have traveled an average lateral distance of approximately 500 feet from the edge of the Reservoir (LBL Progress Report 2). Selenium is expected to have traveled a much shorter distance due to chemical processes that cause it to precipitate or be absorbed on the surfaces of mineral grains. Although we can not place precise limits on the accuracy of the models that are used to make these predictions, they do provide a quantitative methodology for evaluating solute migration and are an accepted means of making predictions. 4 Modeling Techniques and Reliability The uncertainty inherent in mathematical modeling of groundwater systems stems from the fact that all geologic systems are heterogeneous. The size and shape of the rock grains making up the aquifer system vary from place to place, causing the hydrologic properties to vary. This variability poses two problems. First, it is impossible to measure the hydrologic properties in enough places to develop a completely accurate physical model of the system. Second, even if it were possible to make enough measurements, we could not include this level of detail in currently available groundwater flow and chemical transport computer codes. In practice, this uncertainty is resolved by four steps: (1) developing a large data base of the hydrological and geochemical characteristic of the system; (2) calibrating the model by adjusting the physical parameters of the model until the predicted speed and direction of chemical transport agree with the actual rate and direction of migration; (3) validating the model by demonstrating its ability to predict the response of the system; and (4) performing sensitivity studies to examine the influence of the variability of the parameters that are subject to the largest uncertainty. All of these activities are currently underway as part of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory research program (LBL Progress Reports 1 to 4). The basic reliability of our modeling results to date is indicated by the following considerations. 1) Extensive groundwater sampling from an array of wells on the northeastern side of the refuge, extending from the San Luis Drain to 5 the San Luis Canal, show that drain water has not migrated more than several hundred feet from the Drain (LBL Progress Report 1). 2) The plume of undiluted drain water has migrated to an average depth of approximately 60 feet below the Reservoir (LBL Progress Report 2). This value agrees well with the predictions of the model, providing at least some degree of validation. Moreover, based on a simple mass balance, one can show that, since the plume extends to this depth, the undiluted plume can not have migrated more than an average distance of 500 feet from the edge of the Reservoir. 3) Based on an independent analysis of the regional groundwater setting in the vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir, the U.S. Geological Survey published a study that predicted horizontal pore velocities in the range of 0.01 to 140 feet per year (U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 86-4196). The maximum velocity reported in the U.S. Geological Survey report agrees well with the average value indicated by the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory studies. 4) Although it is expected that high permeability channels from old stream beds underlie the Reservoir, this does not necessarily mean that there are channels along which drain water is free to travel down-gradient much more rapidly than predicted by the models that do not account for these features. Water will only migrate along a stream channel if it is appropriately aligned with the hydraulic gradient. The meandering nature of surface streams makes it unlikely that these channels remain aligned with the hydraulic gradient for 6 more than short distances. Additionally, our inability to correlate the presence of high permeability strata over distances of more than several hundred feet indicates that these channels only extend several hundred feet before they are intermixed with finer grained sediments. Summary The above considerations support our prediction that drain water previously discharged to Kesterson is migrating away from the Reservoir at an average pore velocity of only approximately 150 feet/year. They also support the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that discharge of drain water to Kesterson Reservoir in the past is responsible for the presence of highly concentrated brines that have been observed in shallow pools located at distances of 1/2 to 2 miles down-gradient from the Reservoir. Moreover, under the proposed future management of the southern ponds in Kesterson Reservoir under flooded conditions, the water supply will be provided from local groundwater. This net withdrawal of groundwater in the vicinity of Kesterson will reduce the local and regional hydraulic influence of the Reservoir and the migration of past seepage away from the Reservoir site. 7 SECTION IV SUPPLEMENTAL WELL SURVEY INFORMATION During its hearing on the Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan for Kesterson Reservoir, the State Board requested additional information on locations and depths of wells in the vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir. This information is included in the revised report entitled "Kesterson Program Monitoring Program" (3 vols.) submitted to the Board on January 2, 1986, in compliance with Order No. WQ 85-5. In Volume 1, Appendix A, of this report is a memorandum documenting the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation survey of wells in the vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir conducted between October 30, 1984, and November 2, 1984. In Volume 2, Section 1, is a map (Plate 7) showing the locations of the wells identified in this survey. The well data sheets and available well logs for pre-1985 test wells are provided in Volume 2, Section 2. The more current water-monitoring program logs are provided in Volume 2, Section 3. Following is additional information about Well No. 9Fl, which has been rehabilitated for use by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in developing additional water supply for Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge lands. Also following is a map showing locations and depths of the monitoring wells added by the Bureau of Reclamation to the monitoring program in 1986. The location, depth, and method of construction of wells used by the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) scientists in their research activities have been reported in LBL Progress Reports, l, 2, 3, and 4. location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1location map; location of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1location map; location of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 location map; of well no. 9F1 LOCATION OF WELL NO. 9Fl WATER QUALITY DATA -KESTERSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE WATER SUPPLY WELL FOR ALTERNATIVE HABITAT WELL 9Fl Uni t S: mg/L uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L lablD year colldate fieldID tds labEC 4 41 0 chloride 11 00 sulfate -4 50 Ca 110 K 4. 7 Mg 33 Na 740 trace metals: TOTAL units: ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L labID year colldate fieldID As boron 3 . 0 Cr <2 Cu ---­---­< 4 Fe -­Hg 0 . 1 Mn --­Mo 16 Ni -·­<5 Pb Se -----·--­Zn < 1 0 112 SECTION V SUPPLEMENTAL WATER QUALITY AND LEVEL DATA FOR FREITAS PROPERTY Following are copies of recent correspondence from Department officials to Mrs. Janette Freitas, transmitting water quality and level data concerning the property to the east of Kesterson Reservoir. United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE 2800 COTTAGE WAY IN REPLY SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825-1898 MP-405 REFER TO: 530. Mrs. Janette Freitas Post Office Box 173 Newman, California 95360 Dear Mrs. Freitas: The Bureau of Reclamation was notified by Jeff Palsgaard of the Merced County Health Department on January 9, 1987 that you were having problems with a well near your residence. we were told that you had completed a well inspection and that it was verified that the well would not produce water. We-understand that the inspector suggested that the ten water supply wells at Kesterson Reservoir could be causing the problems with your well. After receiving this information, we closely reviewed our most recent data of water levels in all of our Kesterson monitoring wells and particularly those around the ten .water supply wells including those between the ten wells and your residence. The monitoring wells are constructed to depths ranging from 11 to 350 feet in depth. The ten water supply wells obtain water from the 63 to 143 foot interval and are fitted with shut off switches ­which prevent the pumping water level from falling below 55 feet. Because we are uncertain about the depth of your well, we reviewed water level data for wells from both the shallow and deep zones. Measurements for the December 22-24, 1986 period indicate that water levels in the shallow zone monitoring wells in the area between the ten supply wells and your residence are within 10 feet of the ground surface. No significant variation from past water levels could be seen at any Kesterson monitoring well. On January 12, 1987, a geologist from the Bureau of Reclamation obtained additional water level data from Bureau monitoring wells along the eastern portion of Kesterson Reservoir. No significant variation from the December 22-24 water levels was observed. Water quality analysis for your well suggests that the well taps the deep zone below the Corcoran Clay. The Bureau is not presently pumping any water from this lower zone. Monitoring well 9F1 to the north and monitoring well KR-200A near your residence are both completed in this lower zone. In both cases water levels are less than 15 feet from the ground surface. Well KR-200B, completed just above the Corcoran Clay, shows a water level of 4.7 feet. we are enclosing this data for your information and use, and a map showing the locations of these monitoring wells. Since it appears very unlikely that the ten supply wells at Kesterson are adversely affecting your well, our Geology Branch has discussed other possible explanations for your well no longer producing water. They suggest that one possible explanation is that the well may have caved in below the pump; however an onsite inspection of the well would be required to determine the actual problem with the well. We would be pleased to arrange a further inspection of your well, at government expense, to attempt to determine the cause of the problem you have reported. Please contact Jim Esget at (916) 978-5045, if you are interested in pursuing this. Sincerely, Enclosures cc: Jeff Palsgaard Merced County Health Department P.O. Box 471 Merced, CA 95340 2 location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locations location map; monitoring well locationslocation map; monitoring well locationsRECENT WELL MEASUREMENTS -FREITAS RANCH AREA DEPTH TO WATER WELL ID WELL DEPTH OCT 86 NOV 86 DEC 86 JAN 87 SG-40 40 6.4 6.4 6.1 5.9 SG-80 80 8.1 8 7.9 7.5 SG-100 100 8.8 8.4 7.9 7.9 KR-311A 25 6.8 6.5 6.2 6.2 KR-311B 45 7 8.7 6.6 6.4 KR-311C 65 8 7.6 7.4 7.2 KR-311 D 85 8 8 7.7 7.4 KR-45 11 6.5 6.4 5.9 5.9 WELL 9Fl 633 11.5 9.5 9.5 4.7 SEP 86 DEC 86 KR-200A 350 13 11.4 KR-200B 250 8.2 4.7 82 WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH KESTERSON RESERVOIR CLUSTER-SITE TEST WELL SG SERIES (DEPTH 40') (DEPTH 80') (DEPTH 100') ROAD SURFACE Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) 80 78 7674 72 70 68 .. ---· JUL 86 OCT 86 JAN 87 WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH KESTERSON RESERVOIR CLUSTER-SITE TEST WELL KR-311 SERIES Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) 80 78 76 74 72 70 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 A(DEPTH 25') B(DEPTH 45') C(DEPTH 65') D(DEPTH 85') ROAD SURFACE 80 Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet) Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet)Ground-water elevation (in feet) 78 76 74 72 70 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 Jan-85 Apr-Jul-Oct-86 87 WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH KESTERSON RESERVOIR -WELL KR-45 (DEPTH 11 FEET) KR-45 GRND.SURF Water-Level Water-Level Water-LevelWater-Level Water-LevelWater-Level Water-Level Water-LevelWater-LevelWater-LevelWater-LevelWater-Level HydrographHydrographHydrographHydrographHydrographHydrographHydrographHydrographHydrograph KestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonKestersonReservoirReservoirReservoirReservoirReservoirRservoirReservoirReservoir - Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1 Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1Well 8S-10E-9L1 Well 8S-10E-9L1(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633') (Well 9F1-Depth 633') (Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633') (Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633')(Well 9F1-Depth 633') GROUND-WATER ELEVATION(in feet) 7878 7373 6868 6363 5858 5353 4848 4343 77 77 78 78 79 79 80 80 81 81 82 83 83 84 84 85 85 86 86 87 FEB JUN MAR JUN JAN JUN MAR AUG FEB AUG AUG FEB AUG FEB AUG JAN AUG JAN AUG JAN Well 9F1Well 9F1Well 9F1Well 9F1Well 9F1Well 9F1Well 9F1 Grnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfGrnd. SurfUnited States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE 2800 COTTAGE WAY IN REPLY SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95825-1898 REFER TO: MP-705 530. Mr. and Mrs. Frank Freitas P. 0. Box 173 Newman, CA 95360 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Freitas: Enclosed are analytical results of water samples collected on your property in November 1986. We are aware that the U.S. Geological Survey recently sent you its water level data for the wells sampled during 1986. The water quality samples were collected by Geological Survey personnel and analyzed in the Sacramento-based Bureau of Reclamation/ Geological Survey Laboratory. Upon review of the enclosed data table, you will notice several values preceded by a "<" symbol. This indicates that the concentration is below the laboratory's limit for detection of this element. You will also note that from the December 2 and 3, 1986 sample dates (January 15, 1987 printout) there were four wells with readings in excess of the EPA criterion for selenium in drinking water. This represents an increase in the selenium levels recorded in samples previously analyzed from these wells. In contrast, the most recent reading of the selenium level in well #D1BW1 indicated a significant decline from the prior reading. We will continue to closely monitor the selenium levels in these wells and keep you informed of our findings. More than 200 wells have been sampled at Kesterson Reservoir to date. Of these, about a dozen have shown selenium concentrations in excess of the existing EPA drinking water criterion of 10 p/b. These wells are generally located in the southeastern portion of the Reservoir. Unlike the rest of Kesterson Reservoir, the ground water in these areas is oxidizing, not reducing, in its chemistry. The plume of oxidizing ground water has been well defined in depth and around most of its periphery except toward the northeast, the direction of ground-water movement. This direction of ground-water movement is toward the southeastern portion of your property. As we have previously discussed with you, the Bureau would like to be able to better characterize the plume and its movement. In order to define the extent of the plume in the direction of your property, it would be necessary to place ground-water observation wells at the locations indicated on the attached map. In addition, the Geological Survey has completed its well canvass which was conducted to locate existing wells drilled on your property. As a result of this survey, the Geological Survey has determined that the Bureau map of well locations was accurate. The wells located during this canvass will be capped by the Bureau upon your request. Wells identified through your request will be capped according to State of California, Department of Water Resources, Water Well Standards 74-81 (part 3) at the Bureau's expense. The capping process will be delayed until late spring or early summer, however, to allow for dryer, more accessible conditions for the work crew. Please contact me at (916) 978-5142 with any questions regarding the data reported here, future access to your property for well capping, and the possibility of the Bureau or its representative obtaining permission to drill the wells identified on the enclosed map. Sincerely, Enclosures cc: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 2 Page 2 19 8 6 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT PRELIMINARY-SUBJECT TO REVISION DEPTHS IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE DEPTH WELL NO. OF WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS USGS DWR WELL DATE DEPTH 8S10E16Q1 DM-1 21B3 KR-20 17 5-19-86 3. 13 9-08-86 5.56 12-01-86 3.64 21G21 WQ-5 70 5-19-86 1. 53 9-08-86 4.61 12-01-86 2.26 21G22 D1B-W1 20 5-19-86 2.05 9-08-86 5.35 12-01-86 l. 89 21G23 D1B-W2 29 5-19-86 2.05 9-08-86 5.55 12-61-86 2.57 21G24 D1B-W3 39 5-19-86 2.11 9-08-86 5.53 12-01-86 2.96 21Gl MDJ-11 14.5 5-19-86 1. 80 9-08-86 5.24 12-02-86 1. 17 21H3 KR-19 15 5-20-86 3.80 9-08-86 7.99 12-02-86 3.00 21820 KR-46 12 5-20-86 3.31 9-08-86 9.00 12-02-86 l. 34 22M6 KR-18 20 5-19-56 2.68 9-08-86 8.76 12-02-86 1.41 22M20 KR-47 12.5 5-20-86 1. 91 9-09-86 7. 27 12-02-86 0.65 22Ll KR-17 15 5-21-86 3.21 9-09-86 7.99 12-03-86 2.22 22P23 KR-62 13 5-21-86 4. 70 9-09-86 9 .13 12-03-86 3.59 22R20 KR-307A 20 5-21-86 5.57 9-09-86 8.66 12-03-86 6.29 Mr. Page 3 PRELIMINARY-SUBJECTTOREVISION 22R21 KR-307B 40 5-21-86 6.82 9-09-86 9.21 12-03-86 7. 89 22R22 KR-307C 80 5-21-86 5.46 9-09-86 9.35 12-03-86 6.98 16L2 IR-2 16Q21 KR-200A 346 5-19-86 5.82 9-09-86 12.98 12-03-86 11.43 16Q22 KR-200B 210 5-19-86 1.82 09-10-86 8 .18 12-03-86 4.72 map; well locations map; well locations map; well locations O Existing USSR Well • Phase 1 Wells o Phase 2 Wells o 1000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------------------- ANALYTICAL REPORT U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Water Quality Laboratory, MP 780, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 date: 01/15/87 to: YATES project: FREITAS from: ga remarks: 12/17,1/6 page: 1 batch: 139 units: mg/L uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L lab ID year colldate field ID tds labEC chloride sulfate Ca K Mg Na N03+N02-N 2922 86 12/01/86 DM l 2334 3640 750 620 11 0 2.7 45 600 <0.052923 86 12/01/86 KR20 9660 11600 1500 3600 335 4.4 265 2100 <0.052924 86 12/01/86 WQ5 15330 16900 2400 6200 550 9.3 450 3200 <0.052925 86 12/01/86 D1BW1 12630 14300 1800 4600 460 7.6 390 2550 <0.052926 86 12/02/86 D1BW2 9760 11 700 1800 3600 370 9.3 310 1900 <0. 05 2927 86 12/02/86 D1BW3 10540 12600 2000 3600 410 6.3 340 2150 <0.052928 86 12/02/86 MDJ 11 11950 13900 1800 5200 410 1. 9 330 2550 0. 8 2929 86 12/02/86 KR1 9 8400 10300 1200 3000 255 3.5 240 1800 20 2930 86 12/02/86 KR46 8040 10100 1200 3300 260 3.0 200 1850 3.7 2931 86 12/02/86 KR18 4544 5990 770 1800 210 1.5 130 950 2.3 2932 86 12/03/86 KR47 2282 3180 320 1800 170 o. 9 67 450 0.2 2933 86 12/03/86 KR1 7 2129 2980 350 820 175 1. 6 68 410 0. 7 2934 86 12/03/86 IR2 2830 4650 1000 520 110 2.3 79 730 <0.052935 86 12/03/86 KR62 2442 3580 420 850 130 0. 4 65 590 2.8 2936 86 12/03/86 KR307A 2550 3730 620 750 180 5.6 110 480 <0.05 2937 86 12/03/86 KR307B 2666 4230 970 600 230 5.3 135 460 <0.052938 86 12/03/86 KR307C 3086 4990 1300 300 220 3.8 135 560 <0.052939 86 12/03/86 K R200A 1350 2060 180 500 50 2. 1 14.5 380 <0.05 2940 86 12/03/86 KR200B 4808 6620 1 1 00 1600 215 3.4 150 1100 <0.05 139 END REPORT ANALYTI CAL REPORT U.S Bureau of Reclamation Water Duality Laboratory, MP 780, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 date: 01/15/87 to: YATES project: FREITAS from: ga remarks: 12/17,1/6 page: 1 batch: 139 trace metals:TOTAL units: ug/L ug/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L labID year colldate f1eldID As Ba boron Cd Cr Cu Fe Hg Mn Mo Ni Pb Se Zn 2922 12/01 /86 DM1 4 <0. 1 21 <5 <1 2923 86 12/01 /86 KR20 <0. 1 29 90 <1 2924 86 12/01/86 WQ5 9 0.3 18 37 86 12/01/86 D1BW1 18 4 0.1 45 <10 86 12/01/86 D1BW2 10 <4 <0. 1 42 <10 2927 86 12/02/86 D1BW3 11 <4 < 0. 1 38 <5 <1 202928 86 12/02/86 MDJ 11 17 15 <0. 1 58 50 6 930 2929 86 12/02/86 KR19 13 < 0. 1 94 11 4 2930 86 12/02/86 KR46 11 5 0. 1 1 0 8 37 900 10 2931 86 12/02/86 KR18 8 7 <0. 1 22 12 30 2932 86 12/03/86 KR47 5 <4 <0.1 17 9 16 <10 2933 86 12/03/86 KR17 5 <4 0. 1 12 8 <10 2934 86 12/03/86 IR2 23 < 0. 1 12 44 <1 100 2935 86 12/03/86 KR62 4 <0. 1 7 6 7 <10 2936 86 12/03/86 KR307A 2. 4 4 0. 1 8 7 <1 <10 2937 86 12/03/86 KR307B 1. 5 4 <0. 1 <4 <5 <1 <10 2938 86 12/03/86 KR307C 0. 4 4 0.1 <4 < 1 <10 2939 86 12/03/86 KR200A 4 <0.1 26 <5 10 2940 86 12/03/86 KR200B 4 <0. 1 19 <5 <1 <10 139 United States Department of the Interior GEOLOGICAL SURVEY District Office Water Resources Division Room W-2234, Federal Building 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825 (916) 978-4633 December 19, 1986 Mrs. Janette Freitas Post Office Box 173 Newman, California 95360 Dear Janette: Enclosed is a table of well information, with a field map attached, for the wells on your property and a table of the results of water analyses from the wells. The headings are self explanatory except for the last one in the first table, "casing water volume", which is the quantity of water that can be stored inside the casing. The water volume is of interest only to those who are sampling a well as they usually want to remove all of the water that initially is stored in the well. The second table presents laboratory results from the samples collected in May 1986. The results are for the analyses agreed upon by the Survey, the Bureau and the California Water Quality Control Board. The only items that may appear unusual are the iron and manganese concentrations which are generally high and vary widely from well to well. This occurs because the analyses for iron and manganese were run on unfiltered samples. When the wells are pumped to clean them up before samples are collected, they do not all reach the same level of clarity. Some samples have a little sediment included with the water. When samples containing some sediment are analyzed, iron and manganese in the sediment produce the values shown. Filtered samples represent the dissolved constituents only. Unfiltered samples were used to insure that the samples analyzed contained all of the constituents that were removed with the ground water. Differences in the column in the second table headed "sampling method codes", are because well DM-1 and IR-2, your domestic and irrigation wells, are sampled from the equipment you have installed at each well. The rest of the wells are sampled using portable equipment. The only analysis for selenium that exceeds the present Environmental Protection Agency drinking water criteria is the sample from the Bureau test well D1B-W1, a 20-foot deep well about one-half mile south of your ranch headquarters, which contains 20 ug/l. The analysis is good, but I do not have any information that establishes the reason for this value being higher than nearby wells. We'll watch that well in the samples collected in September to see if it remains at this level. Mrs. Freitas Page 2 The data in the first table is a compilation from the well canvass which was completed last summer. One result of the canvass was that it proved the Bureau map of well locations to be quite accurate and as a result, we see no reason to issue a new well-location map. During the canvass, no additional wells were found on your property beyond those shown on the Bureau maps. Two wells, KR-70 and KR-70A, were not found, they probably were destroyed or covered over sometime after construction. We will make the well data in the first table available to anyone seeking that information. The data in the second table have been entered in the Survey's WATSTORE computer file, a file that is readily available to other users. Entry in WATSTORE constitutes release of the data to the open file and makes it a public record. It seems in order for us to apologize for the very late transmittal of these data on samples that were collected last May. All samples after September will be analyzed in the Sacramento lab of the Bureau and should produce a more timely completion of analyses. Sincerely yours, E~nd Enclosure WELL INFORMATION USGS WELL NO. USBR WELL NO. CASING DIAM. (INCHES) DEPTH (FEET) PERF'S (FEET) CASING WATER (GALLONS) VOL. 008S010El6Q01M 008S010E21B03M 008S010E21G21M 008S0l0E21G23M 008S010E21G24M DM-1 KR-20 WQ-5 D1B-W2 D1B-W3 5 2 2 2 17 70 29 39 7-17 20-70 26-29 36-39 17 11 5 6 008S010E21G22M 008S010E21G01M 008S010E21H03M 008S010E21H20M 008S010E22M06M D1B-W1 MDJ-11 KR-19 KR-46 KR-18 2 2 5 2 1-1/4 20 14.5 15 12 20 16-19 5-15 7-12 5-20 3 2 15 2 1 OOOS010E22M20M 008S010E22L01M 008S010E16L02M 008S010E22P23M 008S010E22R22M KR-47 KR-17 IR-2 KR-62 KR-307C 2 5 2 2 12.5 15 13 80 7.5-12.5 5-15 8-13 75-80 2 15 2 13 008S0l0El6Q21M 008S010El6Q22M 008S0l0E22R20M 008S010E22R21M KR-200A KR-200B KR-307A KR-307B 4 4 2 2 346 210 20 40 326-336 200-210 15-20 35-40 225 137 3 7 map; well location map; well location map; well location map; well location map; well location map; well locationmap; well locationmap; well location map; well location map; well location map; well locationSURVEY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF INTERIOR -GEOLOGICAL MULTIPLE STATION ANALYSES LOCAL IDENT-I-Fl ER DATE AGENCY COL­LECTING TEMPER-SAMPLE ATURE (CODE (DEGc) NUMBER) AGENCY ANA­LYZING SAMPLE (CODE NUMBER) SPE­CIFIC CON­DUCT­ANCE (US/CM) PH ( STAND­ARD UNITS) PH LAB (STAND­ARD UN ITS) ALKA­LINITY WH WAT TOTAL FIELD MG/L ASCAC03 NITRO­GEN, N02+N03 DIS­SOLVED (MG/LAS N) PIIOS­PHORUS, ORTHO, DIS­SOLVED (MG/LASP) 008S0 10E16Q0 1M 008S010E21803M 008 S0 10E 21 G21 M 008S010E21G23M 008S0 10E21G24M DM-1 KR-20 WQ-5 D1B-W2 D1B-W3 05-19-86 05-19-86 05-19-86 05-19-06 05-19-86 21. 5 23.5 20.5 20.5 22.0 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 80020 80020 80020 80020 80020 3310 13000 15200 11900 13200 7.39 7. 12 6.63 7.29 7.01 7.70 7.40 7.00 7. 10 7.00 156 459 612 412 406 <0. 10 <0. 10 <0. 10 <0. 10 <0. 10 0.03 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 008S010E21G22M 008S0 10E21G0 1M 008S010E21M03M 008S0 10E21M20M 008S0 10E22H06M D1B-W1 MDJ-11 KR-19 KR-46 KR-18 05-20-86 05-20-86 05-20-86 05-20-86 05-20-86 18.5 21. 5 21.0 21. 5 20.0 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 80020 80020 80020 80020 80020 12600 11700 12700 12900 6770 6.99 7.05 7.05 7.00 7.05 7.20 7.00 7.30 7.30 7.40 247 461 523 607 461 1. 70 <0.10 5.50 <0. 10 1. 70 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.02 008S0 10E22M20M 008S010E22L01M 008S010E16L02M 008S010E22P23M 008S0 10E22R22M KR-47 KR-17 IR-2 KR-62 KR-307C 05-21-86 05-21-86 05-21-86 05-21-86 05-21-86 17 .5 18.0 19.5 19.5 20.5 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 80020 80020 80020 80020 80020 3360 3060 4480 3410 4450 6.91 7.09 7.43 7.26 7.40 7.20 7.50 7.60 7.60 7. 40 380 333 14. 7 436 180 <0. 10 0. 14 <0. 10 0.92 0. 10 0.02 0.04 0.08 0. 37 0.05 008S010E16Q21M 008S010E16Q22M 008S0 10E22R20M 008S010E22R21M KR-200A KR-200B Kl<-307A KR-307B 05-22-86 05-22-86 05-22-86 05-22-86 20.0 20.0 19.5 17.5 1028 1028 1028 1028 80020 80020 80020 80020 2920 2110 3540 3820 6.91 5.80 6.85 6.89 7. 10 6.00 7. 10 7.20 698 280 347 250 <0.10 <0. 10 <0. 10 <0. 10 0. 30 0.27 0.06 0.03 UNITED DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR -GEOLOGICAL SURVEYSTATES MULTIPLE STATION ANALYSES LOCAL IDENT-I­FIER CALCIUM DIS­SOLVED (MG/L AS CA) MAGNE-SIUM, DIS­SOLVED (MG/L AS MG) SODIUM, DIS­SOLVED (MG/L AS NA) POTAS­SIUM, DIS­SOLVED (MG/L ASK) CHLO­RIDE, DIS­SOLVED (MG/L AS CL) SULFATE DIS­SOLVED (MG/L AS S04) FLUO-RIDE, DIS­SOLVED (MG/LAS f) SILICA, DIS-SOLVED (MG/LAS Sl02) ARSENIC TOTAL (UG/LAS AS) BORON. TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/L AS B) 008S010E16Q01M 008S010E21B03M 008S0 10E21G21M 008S010E21G23M 008S0 10E21 G24M DM-1 KR-20 WQ-5D1B-W2 D1B-W3 100 310 560 430 410 30 260 470 350 350 530 2700 3000 2400 2700 2.11 6.0 10 9.2 7 . 6 570 2000 21,uo 2100 2000 590 5200 5800 4800 5600 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.11 0.5 55 27 35 32 29 <1 6 19 7 10 2600 111000 19000 13000 15000 008S010E21G22M 008S010E21G01M 008S010E21M03M 008S010E21M20M 008S010E22M06M D1B-W1 MDJ-11 KR-19 KR-46 KR-18 430 350 430 480 260 360 300 420 370 160 2400 2400 2700 2600 1200 6.5 1. 5 3.0 3.2 1. 4 1900 1800 1900 2300 1000 5700 4800 5000 5100 2200 0.6 0.5 0.79 0.4 0.6 26 18 21 33 28 2 2 1 3 3 14000 17000 15000 13000 8200 008S010E22M20M 008S010E22L01M 008S0 10E16L02M 008S010E22P23M 008S010E22R22M KR-47 KR-17 IR-2 KR-62 KR-307C 210 200 110 130 200 80 80 80 70 120 470 410 760 580 540 1.0 1.6 2.2 0.11 4.5 430 390 1200 430 1200 950 900 520 900 330 0.4 0.4 o. 1 0.3 <0. 1 25 27 26 21 23 2 4 2 24 13 5100 4300 1200 4500 620 008S010E16Q21M 008S010E16Q22M 008S010E22R20M 008S010E22R21M KR-200A KR-2008 KR-307A KR-307B 100 110 170 210 53 50 100 120 490 290 480 490 3.9 4.6 4.9 5.3 330 290 650 870 530 270 710 610 0.2 o. 1 0.1 0. 1 32 23 33 31 4 2 3 7 3500 960 2000 1600 • SURVEY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR -GEOLOGICAL MULTIPLE STATION ANALYSES LOCAL IDENT­I­FIER CADMIUM TOTAL RECOV­ERAOLE ( UG/L AS CU) CHRO­MIUM, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/L AS CR) COPPER, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/LAS CU) IRON, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/LAS FE) LEAD, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/LAS PB) MANGA­NESE, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE ( UG/L AS MN) MOLYB­DENUM, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE ( UG/L AS MO) NICKEL, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/LAS NI) SILVER, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/L AS AG) ZINC, TOTAL RECOV­ERABLE (UG/LAS ZN) 008S010E16Q01M 008S010E21B03M 008S010E21G21M 008S010E21G23M 008S010E21G24M DM-1 KR-20 WQ-5 D1B-W2 D1B-W3 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 6 31 16 6 7 2 14 19 8 5 1130 16000 35000 12000 8800 1 12 9 6 4 510 4500 13000 6100 4500 19 20 13 28 42 4 56 14 26 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 100 90 70 40 20 008S010E21G22M 008S010E21G01M 008S010E21M03M 008S010E21M20M 008S010E21M06M D1B-W1 MDJ-11 KR-19 KR-46 KR-18 1 <1 <1 1 <1 10 2 4 5 16 4 6 42 8 14 190 39000 4200 1500 111000 3 4 5 2 4 11100 5400 5900 970 790 34 24 47 8 7 7 25 26 15 29 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 10 380 790 30 50 008 S0 10E22M20M 008 S0 10E22L01M 008S010E16L02M 008S010E22P23M 008S010E22R22M KR-47 KR-17 IR-2 KR-62 KR-307C <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 11 24 48 10 3 9 11 44 9 280 11000 8900 62000 1400 2 4 7 12 6 1,20 360 1400 2400 2200 12 9 13 6 8 11 10 6 230 170 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10 20 30 180 380 008S010E216Q21M 008S010E16Q22M008 S0 10E22R20M 008S0 10E22R21M KR-200A KR-200B KR-307A KR-307B <1 1 <1 <1 10 9 2 1 7 5 3 4 1800 4300 160 8800 3 4 1 5 1000 5000 5200 3700 4 5 9 7 12 12 16 1 <1 <1 1 <1 20 20 <10 20 INTERIOR SURVEYUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF -GEOLOGICAL MULTIPLE STATION ANALYSES LOCAL IDENT­I­FIER SELE­NIUM, TOTAL (UG/LAS SE) SOLIDS, RESIDUE AT 180 DEG. C DIS­SOLVED (MG/L) MERCURY TOTAL R[COV­ERABLE (UG/LAS MG) ELEV. OF LAND SURFACE DAlUH ( FT. ABOVE NGVD) DEPTH Of WELL, TOTAL ( FEET) SAM­PLING METHOD, CODES SPE­CIFIC CON­DUCT­ANCE LAB (US/CM) ALKA-UNI TY LAB (MG/L AS CAC03) ALKA­LINITY, CARDON­ATE IT-FLD (MG/L -CAC03) DICAR­BONATE IT-FLD (MG/L AS MC03) 008S010E16Q01M 008S010E21B03M 008S010E21C21M 008S010E21G23M 008S010E21G24M DH-1 KR-20 WQ-5 D1B-W2 D1B-W3 <1 l 2 1 1 1970 10700 13400 10400 11100 <0. 1 0.2 0.2 <0. 1 <0. 1 77.0 77.2 76.0 76. 3 76.3 17.00 70.00 28.60 36.60 70.0 4080 4080 4080 4080 3110 12800 14900 12100 14900 163 473 590 3911 370 156 464 624 406 414 190 566 761 495 505 008S010E21G22M 008S010E21G01M 008 S0 10E21M03M 008 S0 10 E21M20M 008S010E22M06M D1B-W1 MDJ-11 KR-19 KR-46 KR-18 20 <1 7 1 11 11200 10100 11500 11200 5350 <0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1 76.3 76.0 76.0 77. 1 76.5 18.70 14. 50 15.00 10.30 20.00 4080 4080 4080 4080 4080 12700 10400 12900 12900 6860 252 393 393 602 461 248 458 530 610 466 303 559 647 744 569 008S010E22M20M 008S010E22L01M 008S010E16L02M 008S010E22P23M 008S010E22R22M KR-47 KR-17 IR-2 KR-62 KR-307C <1 "<1 4 <1 2490 2300 2720 2390 2580 <0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1 0. 1 <0. 1 74.6 76.3 77.0 77. 1 77.0 10.50 15.00 .11. 00 79.00 4080 4080 70.0 4080 4080 3420 3150 4640 3510 4480 382 334 151 432 182 382 334 148 440 182 466 408 181 537 222 008S0 10E 16Q21M 008S010E16Q22M 008S010E22R20M 008S010E22R21M KR-200A KR-200B KR-307A KR-307B <1 <1 <1 <1 1930 1520 2470 2670 <0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1 <0. 1 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 346.00 210.00 19.00 39.00 4080 4080 4080 4080 2940 2100 3630 3950 617 451 347 236 702 216 344 248 857 266 420 303 • United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95825-1898 IN REPLY REFER TO: MP-705530. SEP 0 8 1986 Mr. Frank Freitas P.O. Box 173 Newman, California 95360 Dear Mr. Freitas: In response to your phone request to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on August 1, 1986, during which you expressed concern that the cattle on your ranch were becoming sick from drinking surface seepage water on the property, water quality samples were collected on August 7, 1986. The samples were collected by a USGS representative from the four ponded areas you identified. They were analyzed in the jointly operated USGS­U. S. Bureau of Reclamation water quality laboratory. Enclosed are the results of analyses conducted. In addition, enclosed is a map marked during the field collection procedure that depicts the water quality sampling locations labeled ponds 1, 2, 3, and 4, as provided by USGS. A duplicate (split) sample was collected at each site and analyzed for selenium. These duplicate selenium analyses are included on the enclosed data table under the column labeled "Selenium Duplicate." Upon review of the data table you will notice several values preceded by a"<" symbol. This indicates that the concentration is below the laboratory's limit for detection of this element. For interpretation of the enclosed analytical results in relation to the health of your cattle, it is recommended that you contact the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Department of Health Services, the Merced County Public Health Department, or your local veterinarian. If you have questions regarding the chemical analytical procedures, you may contact Marvin Yates, Laboratory Director, at (916) 978-4923. Also, additional split samples from each sample location are being stored at the laboratory, and you may obtain these for your use by contacting Or. Yates. Sincerely, cc: John M. Klein, District Chief Water Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95821 (with enclosures) Enclosures CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF PONDED WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED ON THE FREITAS RANCH PROPERTY Field ID Date Coll1ct1d Arsenic ug/1 Boron mg/l Chromium Molybdenum Nickel ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 Selenium ug/l Selenium Duplicate ug/1 Zinc ug/l Calcium Potassium mg/l mg/l Magnesium Sodium Total Dissolved Solids mg/l mg/l mg/l Electrical Conductivity ushos/ca POND 1 08/07/86 8 14 <2 <4 7 10 3,000 170 2,100 16,000 68,850 77, IOO POND 2 08/07/86 16 5 <2 <4 6 2 2 <10 2,200 58 1,700 8,600 41,180 51,000 POND 3 08/07/86 29 41 <2 <4 65 8 9 <10 2,200 77 1,700 8,700 44,720 46,900 POND 4 08/07/86 <1 2 <2 <4 13 <1 <1 20 8,100 200 2,900 81800 65,150 76,900 0 . 33 24 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REG ION AL OFFICE 2800 COTTAGE WAY IN REPLY SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9582,5-1898 REFER TO: MP-705 530. Mr. Frank Joseph Freitas Freitas Brothers Land &Cattle Co. P.O. Box 173 Newman, CA 95360 Dear Mr. Freitas: The laboratory analyses from samples collected from shallow ponds on your ranch during the February 21 and 28, 1985, field surveys have been com­pleted. The six samples taken from your property are listed in Table 1. These sample sites are generally located on Figure 1. The remaining ana­lyses of samples collected will be provided as soon as they are available. The concentrations of selenium and hydrogen sulfide are less than detec­tion with the exception of the FR04 site, where the selenium concentration was 2 ug/L. These concentrations are considerably below existing criteria for the protection of public health and aquatic resources. Included in Table 2 is a summary of all available laboratory analyses of water samples previously collected from your domestic wells. Note that the table includes some information already provided to you informally by Bureau field personnel. We will continue to provide you with laboratory data as they become available. We appreciate your cooperation in our monitoring of various trace elements within your property, both from the surface sites and wells that you have allowed to be drilled. We hope that, working through our respective legal counsel, we will be permitted to continue investigations relevant to the administrative claims that you and other members of your family have filed with the Bureau. Sincerely, Enclosures cc: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR District Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA Regional Solicitor, Pacific Southwest Reqion, Sacramento, CA Commissioner, Washington, DC, Attn: 736 Assistant Secretary, Western Region, Sacramento, CA TO-100, MP-780 Table 1. Water sample analysis in vicinity of Kesterson Reservoir and the Freitas Ranch Site Name a/- Ee umhos/cm pH Temperature °C H S 2mg/1 ug/l Se ( USBR Lab h/ SLDC02 10,630 8.5 12 .1 < 0.1 --c/ FR01 SLC@FRØ1 KRPØ1@FRØ1 SLDØFRØ1 FRØ2 SLC@FRØ2 KRPØ1@FRØ2 SLD@FRØ2 26,460 2,840 12,640 10,560 6,350 2,980 15,820 10,420 8.3 8.8 7.5 8.3 8.1 8.8 8.1 8.3 15.1 10.9 12.9 13.0 15.1 13.9 13.0 13.0 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 -- d/ < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0. 1 < 0.1 --c/--c/ --c/ --c/ __c/ --c/--c/ --c/ FRØ3 SLC@FRØ3 SLD@FRØ3 1,380 2,800 10,740 8.2 8.8 8.2 16. 2 12.8 12.9 < 0. l < 0.1 < 0.1 --c/ -­c/ --c/ FRØ4 SLC@FRØ4 KRPØ5@FRØ4 SLD@FRØ4 35,550 2,710 11,010 15, 560 8.6 8.3 8.1 8.3 --0' ___d/ __ d/ 11.0 --d/ __d/ --!Y --d/ 2 26 296 310 FRØ5 FRØ6 --9 c/ -­d/ --d/ --d/ --d/ __ d/ __d/ < < l 1 a/ Identification of sitename by prefix SLD -San Luis Drain FR -Freitas Ranch SLC -San Luis Canal KRP -Kesterson Reservoir Pond b/ Preliminary Results -USBR lab certification by USGS is pending. - c/ Awaiting analytical results from USGS laboratory. SITE DATE QA EC AS BORON CD CR cu FE PB MN HG MD Nl SE AG ZN NAME FREITAS FREITAS FREITAS 84/09/19 84/10/12 84/ 11 /12 R R R 3100 3100 2920 <1 < 1 <1 2800 2900 2700 <1 2 2 4 <1 45 60 <.. 1 < 1 <16 20 <.1 <.1 30 15 3 5 6 <1 <1 <1 <1 2800 2 2 5 290 < 1 30 <. 1 0.2 18 <1 <1 <1 2600 FRElTASl"P84/10/12 R 3090 <1 2900 < 1 540 <. l 29 3 <1 4100 Table 2. Freitas--Domestic Water Well--Merced County 1984 DATA ENTERED AS UF 04/08/85 a Mobile home sample. Legend: (-) represents data pending. 00001 85 FIGURE 1. FREITAS RANCH INVESTIGATION San Slough San Slough San Slough San Slough San Slough San Slough San Slough San SloughSan SloughSan Slough San Luis Canal San Luis Canal San Luis Canal San Luis CanalSan Luis Canal San Luis Canal San Luis Canal Ranch Kesterson Ponds 1-9 FRØ5 FRØ2 FRØ1 -FRØ5 Ponded areas on Freitas Ranch FRØ6 Ditch south of HWY 165 at Sand Slough San Luis Canal San Luis Drain SECTION VI SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION CONCERNING FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE GRASSLAND CONTAMINANT STUDY Following is correspondence between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Water Quality Control Board, Division of Water Rights, concerning preliminary data reported from the Service's Grassland Contaminant Study. United States Department of the Interior Mr. Jerald E. Johns Division of Water Rights State Water Quality Control Board PO Box 2000 Sacramento, California 95810 Dear Mr. Johns: As a response to your agency's requests, we are including a preliminary summary of partial information we have collected during the Fish and Wildlife Service's Grassland Contaminant Study, part of the Federal-State San Joaquin Valley drainage program. Collections for the Grassland Contaminant Study began during June 1985 and were completed in April 1986. Samples were collected from 46,000 acres of privately owned marsh in the Grassland Water District and 28,900 acres of state and federal wildlife areas. Monthly water samples from approximately 30 sites were collected from October 1985 through April 1986. Analyses of 97 water samples collected for the period of December 1985 through March 1986 have been coapleted. The overall eeoaetric mean value of these samples was 1.1 ppb for selenium, with values ranging from non-detectable (less than 0.1 ppb) to 19.0 ppb. The MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE TOXICANT CONCENTRATION (MATC) for water-borne selenium in an impounded wetland has been tentatively identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service at 2.0 ppb total recoverable selenium The seeds of swamp timothy have been shown to be an important waterfowl food in the Central Valley. Seed beads of swamp timothy were collected from the study area during the summer of 1985. Residue analyses of replicates from 13 sites from the study area are available. The geometric mean of this partial data set is 0.62 ppm selenium dry weight, with values ranging from non-detectable to 4.9 ppm dry weight. The MATC for waterfowl food chain items has been tentatively deteralned by the Fish and Wildlife Service at 3.0 ppm total selenium, dry weight. Fish and Wildlife Service Lloyd 500 BuildinSgui te 1692 500 N.E. Multnomah Street Portland, Oregon 97232 October 22, 1986 RW/CA.SNL.Grasslands Monitoring Mr. Jerald E. Johns: October 15,1988 INVERTEBRATES have been shown to be the primary food for waterfowl during the late winter and early spring in the Central Valley. Invertebrate samples were collected monthlyfrom November 1985 through March 1988. Bottom (benthic) and free-swimming invertebrates (nektonic) were collected from each site. Residue analyses of benthic sampleshave been completed for the December through February collections. The geometric mean of these samples was 8.9 ppm selenium dry weight with levels ranging from 0.73 to 22.0 ppm. Residue analyses of nektonic samples have been completed for the December through 1986 collect1on1. The geometricmean of these samples was 6.2 ppm selenium, with levels ranging fromnon-detectable (less than 0.1 ppm) to 60.0 ppm selenium. Similarto swamp timothy, we have established the MATC at 3.0 ppm for total selenium. Soil samples were taken from 30 sites in the atudy area, but only 14 sites have been analyzed. These samplesconsist of the organic soil zone (top 3­5 inches of soil). The geometric mean for all replicates of these 14 sites is 2.1 ppm selenium dry weight. Selenium values ranged from non-detectable (less than 0.1 ppm) to 26.0 ppm. The MATC bas been tentatively e1tabli1bed at 4.0 ppm. Although the chemical and statistical analyses for this study have not been coapleted, preliminary findings indicate that relatively low levels of selenium have been found in selected plants and in water and soil collected from the Grasslands during 1985. However, even with the fall flooding of these marshes with good quality CVP water, Invertebrates, an important waterfowl food, were found to exceed the MATC. I want to again emphasize these data are preliminaryas laboratory analysis 1s not completeand as a consequence planned statistical interpretation has not yet occurred. You will be provided future reports as they become available.
Add tags for United States Department of the Interior post-hearing submission to the California State Water Resources Control Board concerning closure and post-closure maintenance plan for Kesterson Reservoir
Post a Comment for United States Department of the Interior post-hearing submission to the California State Water Resources Control Board concerning closure and post-closure maintenance plan for Kesterson Reservoir