Laserfiche WebLink
permit addresses production well impact on adjacent water users. In Tab 17, page 14, <br /> Seneca concludes that ... "the production well impact on adjacent users will be minimal <br /> and of little significance. There are no wells other than Peabody's Well No. 1 that <br /> produce from the Trout Creek sandstone, so there is no impact to adjacent wells." With <br /> only one on-site monitoring well, how can this conclusion be verified and does the water <br /> drawdown information collected from the observation well verify this conclusion <br /> concerning groundwater quantity impacts? If appropriate, please update this portion of <br /> the permit document to ensure that potential water quantity impacts to the Trout Creek <br /> Sandstone continue to be accurately predicted. <br /> 17. The PHC does not directly address potential water quality impacts to the Trout Creek <br /> Sandstone. Please update the permit document to include PHC predictions for potential <br /> water quality impacts to the Trout Creek Sandstone. <br /> 18. Culverts G-1, G-5, and T-9 are in place on the ground, but the designs for these culverts <br /> could not be located in the permit document. Please provide designs for these culverts <br /> and modify the permit document accordingly. <br /> Rule 4.15.1(4) <br /> 19. Revegetation reporting and evaluation conducted by Seneca and included in the annual <br /> revegetation reports is in general thorough and well presented. Data presented for the <br /> `91-93 seeded areas indicate that a relatively diverse vegetation cover is becoming <br /> established, with woody plant densities in excess of 1000 stems per acre. However, there <br /> appear to be a couple discrepancies between the monitoring plan specified in the permit <br /> application, and the monitoring reports as submitted. <br /> First, the application states on page 35, Tab 22, that"periodic monitoring of a given area <br /> of reclamation (identified by year of initial seeding) will be conducted in years 2, 4, and <br /> 7." 1996 would have been the second year for the `94 seeding, and 1997 would have <br /> been the second year for the `95 seeding, however no monitoring data was included in the <br /> `96 or `97 reports for the `94 or `95 seeding areas. Please provide an explanation for this. <br /> Second, the application narrative also indicates that vegetation production sampling <br /> would be conducted as a part of the monitoring program, and that production data would <br /> be included in the revegetation monitoring reports, but no production data was included <br /> in the 1995 or 1996 revegetation reports. Page 2 of the 1997 revegetation report states <br /> that no production sampling was undertaken in 1997, but page 6 of the same report states <br /> that production sampling was conducted, and production data is reported in Table 2 of the <br /> report. Please provide and explanation for why production was apparently not sampled in <br /> 1995 or 1996 and correct the erroneous sections of the 1997 report. <br /> 8 <br />