A Quantitative Approach to Evaluate Changes in Hydrologic Conditions of Headwater Streams: A Case Study of Restoration and Recovery Following Longwall Mine Subsidence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
On figure 3, the apparent prediction limits are labelled PI in the figure. If those, indeed, represent prediction limits, they should be labelled PL. Otherwise, check text to ensure consistency.
Author Response
We thank you for your careful review of this manuscript and constructive comments. We have submitted a revised version of the manuscript using the track-changes function and a cover letter detailing these revisions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a robust study and I have only a few comments. As some readers may be less familiar with longwall mining and subsidence, consider adding a few sentences in the introduction of the Bailey mine. A bit of explanation emphasizing total extraction in the panel of coal approximately 2 meters thick, followed rapidly by disruption and subsidence that can propagate to or near surface.
Consider adding some brief background to indicate that PA also considers biological monitoring in its assessment of stream impacts. I am curious as to how consistent the biological data are with the stream flow findings, but that is beyond the scope of the paper.
Although the evaluation criteria and methodology are developed based on mining impacts, the approach has potential application to other types of perturbations to hydrologic systems. That is in the conclusions, but kind of gets buried in a long sentence. Consider separating the thoughts into a couple of statements.
Any limitations or constraints on applying the results? If so be sure they are clearly identified.
Author Response
We thank you for your careful review of this manuscript, as well as the positive feedback and constructive comments. We have submitted a revised version of the manuscript using the track-changes function and a cover letter detailing these revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper seems to be rather a local study but with high scientific impact for similar mine areas. There is a strong novelty, the reviewer doesn'[t know so many papers in this theme. Editing was made properly, the figures are clear and interesting. I recommend the manuscript to publish.
Author Response
We thank you for your careful review of this manuscript and the positive feedback. We have submitted a revised version of the manuscript using the track-changes function and a cover letter detailing these revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
