Laserfiche WebLink
COMMENT: <br />f. .4 revised discussion based on loading <br />into worst case low-flow conditions on <br />conditions by year based on the mine <br />should be provided in the Probable Hydr <br />of the renewal application. <br />of spoils :>pring effluent <br />Grassy Cree4:, and expected <br />plan area of disturbance, <br />ologic Consequences section <br />RESPONSE: <br />Refer to the response to comment e. (Grassy Creek Impacts) and to the <br />first PHC comment regarding the assumptions used in this PHC analysis. <br />Fish Creek Impacts <br />COMMENT: <br />a. The Division requested a worst case analysis of spoils discharges <br />to the predicted low flow of Fish Creek. The Peaboay analysis <br />presented in the submittal focused on TDS during the irrigation <br />season (June through September), but uses mean daily flow r'or the <br />period of record instead of low flow conditions. An evaluation • <br />based on low flow should be included in a revised analysis and <br />discussion. <br />RESPONSE: <br />Refer to the response to the first PHC comment regarding the assumptions <br />used in this PHC analysis. <br />CGt4MENT: <br />b. The Division, in the Preliminary Adequacy Review, requested that an <br />analysis of dissolved constituent concentrations in the fish Creek <br />watershed he proviued in the renewal application. The Peabody <br />response prcvides a loadin5 analysis cf total dissolved solids <br />(TDS) from the Pond 004 basin into Fish Creek ar~d discussion of <br />resulting TCS concentrations. Hov+ever, no discussion of sulfate, <br />dissolved manganese, cadmium or other constituents are presented. <br />The section on "Parameters in Effluent Exceeding Colorado <br />Department of Health Standards", (p. 7-226) refers the reader to <br />discussions in previous AHRs. This section should stand alone in • <br />L4 <br />