Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. On Page 91, the statement is made that there does not appear to be <br />any distinct trends in TDS values at Station FG1. There appears to <br />be a gradual trend toward a minimum value in 1983 followed by a <br />gradual rise in later years. The report states there is a general <br />inverse relationship between flow and TDS at all stations. It is <br />suggested that a regression equation be developed to quantify this <br />relationship. A similar equation, developed after mining <br />commences, would be an instructive measure of changes in TDS, if <br />any, due to mining. <br />RESPONSE: <br />Peabody will further investigate the relationship between streamflow and <br />TDS. Attempts will be made to develop a regression equation describing <br />this relationship and the results will be presented in a future AHR. <br />4. In the discussion of springs on Page 107, the report states that <br />for the Olson Springs (5-45), the concentration of sulfate does not <br />meet CDH Secondary Drinking Water Standards. Since no data has <br />been reported on Table 30 for sulfate it is difficult to verify the <br />accuracy of this statement. <br />RESPONSE: <br />Sulfate values were inadvertently left off of the data base. AHR <br />replacement Pages 108 and i06a detail the sulfate levels at Olson <br />Spring. <br />5. Peabody Coal Company should, upon completion of all new hydrologic <br />monitoring sites, submit all pertinent completion information to <br />the Division for the purpose of updating monitoring site records. <br />RESPONSE: <br />Following their completion, Peabody <br />pertinent completion and aquifer test <br />II-W hydrologic monitoring sites. <br />attachments to the Seneca II-W Permit. <br />will submit to the CMLRD all <br />information for the new Seneca <br />fhe submittal will consist of <br />