From: 	Felice Pace <unofelice@gmail.com>
To:	Cat Kuhlman <ckuhlman@waterboards.ca.gov>
CC:	"Matt St. John" <Mstjohn@waterboards.ca.gov>, <rob.vankirk@humboldt.edu>...
Date: 	2/28/2009 11:42 AM
Subject: 	FYI

Felice Pace

28 Maple Road    Klamath, Ca. 95548    707‑482‑0354    unofelice@gmail.com

February 28, 2009

Catherine Kuhlman, EO

North Coast Water Board

Via E‑mail:

Dear Cat,

I have been studying various reports in preparation for Klamath TMDL action
plan. I noticed what I believe are problems with the Scott River 303 (d)
evaluations and the SWAMP monitoring program as follows:

1. pesticide evaluation for 303 (d) list: (
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/303d/2008_integrated_report.shtml
):

 SWAMP has four sampling locations in the Scott but only 3 were used for the
pesticide samples. The one omitted was (2) at Fort Jones (SWAMP Station ID
105SCOTFJ) but this is the location that has the greatest likelihood of
showing pesticides in the water because it is the most immediately
downstream of the area where pesticides are most in use. I would like an
explanation of why this sampling site was not sampled. And I request samples
be taken at this location in the future – and at the proper season (late
summer and early fall) in order to accurately determine if there is a
pesticide impairment.

2. The long term monitoring site is at Callahan ‑ above where most of the
agriculture occurs. Again I would like an explanation and consideration of
changing the long term monitoring site.

3. The evaluation of nitrogen appears to be flawed ‑ perhaps in the
selection of the relevant substance/pollutant to evaluate. SWAMP summary
DRAFT Integrated Report 2000‑2006 has this to say about nitrogen pollution
in the Scott:

“The NCR Basin Plan does not include numeric objectives for phosphorus and
nitrogen

species, except for nitrate concentrations. Data for these parameters is
compared to USEPA’s recommended nutrient criteria for rivers and streams in
Western Forested Mountains portion of the US, also known as Ecoregion II*.*

The NCR collected and analyzed grab samples for TKN, nitrite‑N, and
nitrate‑N. The

values of all analytes were added together to determine the total‑N
concentration.

• Total‑N concentrations exceeded the USEPA’s recommended concentration

criterion of 0.12 mg/L on 24 of 40 site visits (60% exceedance rate), with

concentrations ranging from ND (MDL 0.10 mg/L) to 3.96 mg/L.

• Total‑P concentrations exceeded the USEPA’s recommended concentration

criterion of 0.10 mg/L on one of 27 site visits (4% exceedance rate), with

concentrations ranging from ND (MDL 0.03 mg/L) to 0.110 mg/L.

• O‑PO4 concentrations exceeded the USEPA recommended concentration

criterion of 0.05 mg/L on one of 27 site visits, with concentrations ranging
from

DNQ (RL 0.01 mg/L) to 0.395 mg/L at station SCOTSH.

• Chl‑A concentrations exceeded the USEPA recommended concentration
criterion

of 1.08 ug/L on nine of 39 site visits (23% exceedance rate), with
concentrations

ranging from 0.109 to 7.65 ug/L.

It appears from this data that a nitrogen and phosphorus (i.e nutrient)
impairment exists in the Scott River but was not found because staff decided
NOT to evaluate nitrogen and phosphorus but rather to evaluate ammonia!  I
question that decision and I am asking you to evaluate this and take
corrective action. I am specifically recommending that you correct the
303(d) draft and recommend listing the Scott for nutrient pollution based on
the SWAMP data. Your staff should have made a decision based on the SWAMP
reports to evaluate the Scott for Nitrogen and Phosphorus but failed to do
so. Therefore corrective action is, in my view, warranted. I hope you will
agree.

4. 22 of 41 samples taken in the Scott River hydro‑unit/sub‑basin during the
six year period (53.7%) were taken just above the mouth of the river (see
Figure 38 on page 183 and Table 16 on page 184). This allows maximum mixing
of water from Scott Valley and dominance of the National Forest Watersheds
coming from wilderness. If these samples were taken in summer or early fall,
very little of the mixed water would have come out of the Scott Valley where
the vast majority of agriculture is located due to the dewatering of the
Valley in summer and fall. This is a problem. While it is easier just to
sample the Scott at the bottom while driving up the Klamath, the dominance
of these samples does not give a clear picture and does not provide the data
the NCWQCB needs to fulfill its responsibilities. A brief detour by the
sampling crew via Fort Jones is needed. Again, I believe corrective action
is needed. Please advise me if, when and what corrective action you will
take.

I would like to share this letter with the relevant contact persons at EPA R
9 and the State Water Board. Please provide me with names of the relevant
staff persons and their contact information – including e‑mail addresses.

Thank you for assistance with my requests and for looking into these
matters.

Sincerely,

Via e‑mail

Felice Pace

Cc; Matt St John, QVIR. Klamath Riverkeeper, other interested parties

‑‑ 
Felice Pace
Klamath, CA 95548
707‑482‑0354
unofelice@gmail.com

"Whoever controls the narrative controls history. This is a powerful
message. Those who ignore it will remain blind to the manipulation of
others; but those who get it, like the people of the American Revolution,
will be able to challenge abusive authority and take control of their
destinies."

Ray Rafael in Founding Myths