The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20080868 Ver 2_ESS Comments_20090519Dorney, John From: Hale, Mark Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:11 PM To: Dorney, John Cc: Overton, Jimmie Subject: FW: PCS Comments Attachments: benthossop.pdf; ISUPCScomments.docx John: See enclosed for ESS comments on the PCS 2008 End of Year Monitoring Report. Let me know if you have questions or need further clarification. Thanks. Mark From: Fleek, Eric Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:05 PM To: Hale, Mark Subject: PCS Comments Here ya go mark. Comments: 1) Page 46: "very abundant taxa were not enumerated fully". What is the maximum number of specimens that are enumerated for this study? In other words, do you stop at 50 individuals, 75, 100, etc? 2) Its been noted that the chironomid Chironomus sp. was abundant at several locations. A mentum deformity analysis should be conducted in order to rule out possible toxic effects from mining operations. See the attachment for more information on this analysis. Comments of NCPC Tract Stream Monitoring Program for PCS Phosphate Company,Inc. . Post-Disturbance year two (2008) end-of-year report -field measurements (temp/d.o./cond./salinity) were made in the middle of the water column. This is not standard operating procedure for DWQ, as we do surface readings (at a minimum) or stratified field readings as appropriate. I think they should have done surface readings instead. -I am confused about where the samples were taken, i.e. the statement was made "water depth was measured to the nearest quarter inch in close proximity to the monitoring well, where samples were collected and all other measurements taken". Were the samples collected at monitoring wells, or out in the creeks? Also, logistically I don't see how water depth could be accurately measured to the nearest quarter inch, with factors such as wind and flow present, although I am not familiar with these particular creeks. -Three creek systems were mentioned although the Huddles Cut stations were more closely described and data was discussed more for this area - what is the rationale for this? -the discussion of water depth pre and post disturbance did not take in account precipitation. Although I am not familiar with the area, due to the shallow depths present, I would think this would have a great affect on water depths in the area. The precipitation issue is addressed in the summary later on in the report but the discussion is confusing to me. -the discussion on salinity readings discusses (as mentioned previously) readings taken "in the middle of the water column". There is also no discussion of precipitation affecting the salinity, and I would think the salt wedge situation, and precipitation would have a great affect on salinity. -many dissolved oxygen readings were below state water quality standards. This may also be affected by measuring "in the middle of the water column" and the concern of having these d.o.'s below state standards was not addressed -the statement was made in the discussion on orthophosphorus that P04 is expected to be lower in the winter and higher in the summer. I am not sure if this is correct as we typically see the opposite situation as algae in the summer use P04 as an available nutrient and therefore the numbers would be lower in summer -a chlorophyll a figure of 913.14 ug/L (range of 0.00 to 913.14 ug/L) was listed. This is extremely high, I don't even know if it is possible, yet in the summary the statement was made "none of the measured water quality parameters are at levels of concern". This statement also ignores the low dissolved oxygen issues mentioned previously.