HomeMy WebLinkAbout20123384.tiff Savage and Savage Environmental 1,4 4..a.
practical solutions for environmental issues _ r
4610 Haystack Drive 970 674 8080 telephone
Windsor,Colorado 80550 970 674 8088 facsimile
savageandsavage@earthlink.net rtt,
RECEIVED
November 27, 2012
Wti. L J LJNTY
Weld County Clerk and Recorder COMMISSIONERS
1402 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Technical Revision 43 Application for the Coors Energy Company Keenesburg Mine
(CDRMS file C-1981-028)
Dear Weld County Clerk:
Please retain the enclosed technical revision application for the Keenesburg Mine on file
for public review in accordance with your normal procedures. If you have any questions,
please contact me at the above number. Thank you.
Sincerely,
errelyy
04e%rart------
Michael S. Savage
Principal
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED # 7010 1670 0002 2922 9127
Enclosure: Keenesburg Mine Technical Revision 43 application package
cc w/out enclosure: Jared Ebert, CDRMS
Don MacDonald, Coors Energy Company
1)(m ' ?IM 2012-3384
1)=3-0--
VIE 116,014„,
ENERGY COMPANY
P0.1108 467 GOLDEN, COLORADO 80402
November 9,2012
Jared Ebert,Environmental Protection Specialist
Colorado Division of Reclamation,Mining and Safety
1313 Sherman Street,Room 215
Denver,Colorado 80203
Re: Technical Revision No.43
Revision of Vegetation Cover and Herbaceous Production Revegetation
Success Criteria to Remove Prohibited Species
Permit No.C-1981-028 [Keenesburg Mme]
Dear Mr.Ebert:
Coors Energy Company (CEC) is submitting a technical revision (TR-43) application to the
Keenesburg Mine permit to revise the vegetation cover and herbaceous production final
revegetation success criteria by modifying the predictive equations. The modifications provide
for the removal of prohibited species identified by CDRMS during a review of the 2011 Annual
Reclamation Report.
The contents of the TR-43 application include an explanation of the measures that were
undertaken to revise the final revegetation success criteria, as well as the applicable revised
permit page.
In correspondence dated October 16, 2012, you noted an apparent discrepancy in the cumulative
precipitation record for,1995. At CEC's request Michael Savage revisited the precipitation
records and reconfirmed the values he had presented(Table 6,attached). If the CDRMS records
reflect different data,please contact him to compare and confirm the data sets.
With regard to the request for "documentation and rationale that the correlation coefficients
yielded by the new equations are adequate", it can be stated that the equations provide the best
mathematical conelations available that represent the biologic environment, based on the
CDRMS requirement to remove ineligible plant species.
Please advise us when CEC may initiate publication of the attached legal notice.
Sinetjtly,
Donald W. Mac‘ d
Manager,Energy Services Enclosures: CDRMS TR-43 Revision Application,Explanation of the Revision,Proposed Public
Notice for TR-43,revised Page 116b(Permit text)
c: Michael Savage,Savage and Savage,Inc.
ADO
COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
V 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, Colorado 80203,(303) 866-3567
APPLICATION FORM FOR A REVISION
TO A COAL MINING AND RECLAMATION PERMIT
This form must be completed and submitted with all requests for minor revisions, as defined in Rule 1.04(73),
technical revisions, as defined in Rule 1.04(136), and permit revisions, as defined in Rule 1.04(90). All revisions
are to address the requirements of Rule 2.08.4. Three (3) copies of the revision, including maps, must be
submitted in order for it to be complete.
All revisions are to be formatted so they can be inserted into the permit to replace the revised sections, maps,
tables and/or figures, with a revised table of contents, if necessary. The revision submittal date should be printed
in the lower right corner of each revision page. A cover letter to the revision should explain the nature of the
revision and reference the specific permit sections being revised.
For federal mines, a copy of the revision application must be submitted to all agencies on the federal mailing list
(except OSM) at the same time the application is submitted to the Division, and proof of distribution must be
submitted to the Division along with the application. Copies of revision pages modified during the review process
must be distributed in the same manner, along with proof of distribution. Proof of distribution must be submitted
prior to implementation of the revision.
Permit No.: C- 1981 -028 Date: November 9, 2012
Permittee: Coors Energy Company
Street: P.O. Box 467
City: Golden
State: Colorado Zip Code: 80402
Brief Description of Revision : Revision of vegetation cover and herbaceous production
revegetation success criteria.
Public Notice Attached: Yes X No (Required for PRs and TRs)
Bond Increase: Yes No X Federal Non-Federal X Mine
Proposed Change in:
Disturbed Area ( + /-) 0.0 acres Acres Affected Area ( + /-) 0.0 acres Acres
Permit Area ( +/-) 0.0 acres Acres Federal Land ( + / -) 0.0 acres Acres
State Land ( +/-) 0.0 acres Acres Private Land ( +/-) 0.0 acres Acres
Revision of Keenesburg Mine Predictive Equations for Vegetation Cover and
Herbaceous Production Revegetation Success Criteria
Coors Energy Company (CEC commissioned Michael Savage (Savage and Savage)) to
conduct a further review and analysis of the development of the original predictive
equations for revegetation success criteria for vegetation cover and herbaceous production
that were approved by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety
(CDRMS) under Technical Revision 37 (TR37). Based on the current requirement of
CDRMS that Colorado Department of Agriculture noxious listed plant species (listed
species) not be included in any comparison of revegetated/reclaimed areas and
revegetation success criteria for vegetation cover or herbaceous production to assess
reclamation success Mr. Savage reanalyzed and recalculated the predictive equations,
removing the offending species where they have been included in the original data
employed to develop the predictive equations, and therefore the final revegetation success
criteria for the Keenesburg Mine.
CDRMS first informed CEC that listed species could not be counted in the comparison of
reclaimed area vegetation cover or total herbaceous production during the review of
Phase III bond release application SL-06. Subsequently, CDRMS staff commented on the
inclusion of listed species in the 2011 monitoring of reclaimed and revegetated areas at
the Keenesburg Mine (2011 AHR Report).
Without acknowledging the merit of the CDRMS interpretation, the more significant
issue is that the revegetation success criteria developed for the Keenesburg Mine
(predictive equations for vegetation cover and herbaceous production) were developed
with the inclusion of the now prohibited listed species, thereby creating an inherent
inequality. When discussed with CDRMS, this inherent inequality was acknowledged,
and the parties agreed to reevaluate and recalculate the predictive equations to reflect
discounting of listed species.
Method of Development of the Original Predictive Equations
And Subsequent Revegetation Success Criteria
The first step in revising the predictive equations was to review the data and revisit the
specifications and negotiations that led to the finalization and approval of TR37 (wherein
the predictive equations were developed to replace use of the Osgood Sand Reference
Area). The suite of data that were used as well as the conditions and restrictions that
were employed, were obtained from the record of sampling at the Osgood Sand Reference
Area between the years 1994 and 2005, and correspondence and meeting records between
CDRMS, CEC, and Savage and Savage.
In developing the predictive equations and the subsequent revegetation success criteria
for vegetation cover and herbaceous production, a measurable parameter to compare the
two vegetation parameters was developed. In this case it was determined that seasonal
precipitation, specifically, total precipitation measured at the mine site from September to
the following calendar year July (August was not included as sampling
Coors Energy Company Keenesburg Mine Page 1
Technical Revision 43
would take place during August each year) provided an excellent correlation to both total
vegetation cover and total herbaceous production for reclaimed areas, and to a slightly
lesser degree, the Osgood Sand reference Area.
CDRMS required that CEC utilize the data set from the Osgood Sand Reference Area for
development of any predictive equations (resulting in revegetation success standards).
The original data set included data from the Osgood Sand Reference Area from 1994 to
2002 (when the concept of predictive equations was originally proposed to CDRMS).
During the ongoing review of TR37, additional data for vegetation cover and herbaceous
production was collected from 2003-2005, and at the request of CDRMS, incorporated
into the Osgood Sand Reference Area data set.
Ongoing review and recalculation of the predictive equations by both CDRMS and CEC
revealed that the additional data from 2003-2005 did not improve the correlation or
regression value of the predictive equations. Further, CDRMS and CEC observed that
several of the drought years included in the data set appeared to skew the data set.
Therefore, CDRMS and CEC agreed to utilize only the data sets from the Osgood Sand
Reference Area that included calendar years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, and
2002 in development of the predictive equations for vegetation cover and all the above
years except 1996 for herbaceous production (no herbaceous production data was
collected in 1996). The calendar year 1999 was excluded from the data set at the request
of CDRMS, as it was considered non-representative(too dry).
Additional review and negotiation during the processing of TR37 resulted in finalized
predictive equations for total vegetation cover (y=0.0173x3-0.8592x?+14.562x-47.015)
and total herbaceous production (y=0.3749xa?ass) where "x" is the total cumulative
precipitation from September to the following July, and the calculated "y" value is the
total vegetation cover or total herbaceous production, respectively.
Revision of the Predictive Equations to Remove Prohibited Species
Data Set Revision
The added CDRMS requirement that all noxious listed species be removed from the total
vegetation cover and total herbaceous production data has been employed to revise the
original data set for vegetation cover and herbaceous production from the Osgood Sand
Reference Area for the calendar years 1995, 1996 (no herbaceous production data), 1997,
1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002. All other assumptions and negotiated agreements remain
the same for the revision of the predictive equations. The revised data used in
recalculation of the predictive equations sets are presented below. Precipitation data was
used from Table 6. Yearly and Growing Season Precipitation at the Keenesbrug Mine
(1993-2011). This table is appended following this discussion. Vegetation cover and
herbaceous production data were taken from respective monitoring and bond release
reports submitted to CDRMS from 1995 through 2002. These reports are hereby
incorporated by reference and data is presented in the following tables.
Coors Energy Company Keenesburg Mine Page 2
Technical Revision 43
Osgood Sand Reference Area Total and Revised Vegetation Cover,
Year, and September-July Precipitation
Year Precipitation Amt. TVC3 LSC2 RVC3 RVC4
1995 16.77 51.40 0.20 51.20 39.40
1996 10.29 43.20 0.00 43.20 34.14
1997 9.71 42.80 0.20 42.60 32.50
1998 11.38 45.00 0.60 44.40 32.90
2000 9.70 35.80 1.00 34.80 26.80
2001 15.68 48.80 5.20 43.60 32.20
2002 6.46 22.60 0.40 22.20 17.50
TVC' Total Vegetation Cover of the Osgood Sand Reference Area in%
LSC2 Listed(prohibited)Species Cover in%
RVC3 Revised Species Cover(TVC-LSC)in%
RVC4 Revised Species Cover (approved deduction of 50%of sandsage cover)
Osgood Sand Reference Area Total and Revised Herbaceous Production,
Year, and September-July Precipitation
Year Precipitation Amt. THP1 LSHP2 RHP3
1995 16.77 301.60 4.30 297.30
1997 9.71 55.36 1.19 54.17
1998 11.38 109.65 1.28 108.37
2000 9.70 57.44 0.51 56.93
2001 15.68 119.71 20.32 99.39
2002 6.46 26.28 0.03 26.25
THP1 Total Herbaceous Production of the Osgood Sand Reference Area in g/m2
LSHP2 Listed(prohibited)Species Cover in g/m2
RHP3 Revised Species Cover(FLIP-LSHP)in g/m2
Redevelopment of the Predictive Equations
With revision and establishment of the revised vegetation cover and herbaceous
production data sets from the Osgood Sand Reference Area for the selected years,
Microsoft Excel® was used to plot the data sets (revised vegetation cover versus
September-July precipitation and revised herbaceous production versus September-July
precipitation). The subsequent plots were then correlated with six mathematical
functions (linear, logarithmic (ln), 2°d degree polynomial, 3`d degree polynomial, power,
and exponential) to determine which function best represented the empirical revised data
in terms of the correlation coefficient(r2). The following table presents the results of the
plotting and correlation.
Coors Energy Company Keenesburg Mine Page 3
Technical Revision 43
It should be noted that the resulting correlation coefficients were not as high as those
obtained during the original analysis, due to the perturbation of the data set (removal of
selected species present in the original data set). In both data sets (vegetation cover and
herbaceous production), the correlation coefficients obtained from the revised data sets,
demonstrate a significant correlation between vegetation cover and herbaceous
production (in excess of 75%). For biologic investigations, this is acceptable, indicating
that the predictive equations based on cumulative precipitation explain more than three
quarters of the variation in the vegetation population parameters.
Revised Osgood Sand Reference Area Vegetation Cover Predictive Equations and
Corresponding Correlation Coefficients
Equation Type Equation Correlation Coefficient
Linear y=2.5992x 0.2613
Logarithmic y= 18.187 In(x)-12.731 0.718
Polynomial(2"d) y=(-)0.1136x2+4.1138x 0.7377
Polynomial(3r") y=0.0127x3+0.2115x2+2.1772x 0.7698
Power y= 5.8559x°6825 0.7013
Exponential y= 15.937 e'05535 0.5792
Revised Osgood Sand Reference Area Herbaceous Production Predictive Equations
and Corresponding Correlation Coefficients
Equation Type Equation Correlation Coefficient
Linear y= 10.178x 0.4799
Logarithmic y=215.54 In(x)-410.76 0.5982
Polynomial(2"d) y 1.0568x2-4.2946x 0.7007
Polynomial(31d) y=0.1776x3-3.4466x2+22.174x 0.7359
Power y=0.4666x2'1405 0.8414
Exponential y= 8.676 e°1911x 0.8339
The two equations with the highest correlation coefficient, that were reasonable in terms
of predicting behavior in biologic communities were selected one for vegetation cover
and one for herbaceous production. By reasonable, in terms of predicting behavior in
biologic communities, it is meant that the observed behavior does not vary significantly
from that predicted by the mathematical equation. For example, a predictive equation
that indicated vegetation cover decreased significantly with increased precipitation within
the limits of the data set would not have been judged reasonable for our situation.
However, a predictive equation which showed an overall decrease in the rate of increase
of cover or production at higher levels of precipitation would not have been rejected,
given our knowledge of the physiology and character of the predominantly xeric-mesic
vegetation inhabiting the native areas and reclamation. These equations are the third
order polynomial function (y= 0.012783 + 0.211582 + 2.1772x) for vegetation cover and
the power function (y=0.4666x2'1405) for herbaceous production.
Coors Energy Company Keenesburg Mine Page 4
Technical Revision 43
Verification of the Predictive Equations
The new predictive equations were used to predict vegetation cover values and
herbaceous production for reclamation areas sampled at the Keenesburg Mine from 2006-
2011 (the time period during which the original predictive equations were used).
The revised equations generally produced vegetation cover and herbaceous production
values close to those of the original equations, in some instances the values were lower,
in others higher. These discrepancies resulted from the deletions of data from the original
data sets.
Coors Energy Company Keenesburg Mine Page 5
Technical Revision 43
KEENESBURG MINE:
COMPARISON OF REVEGETATION SUCCESS PREDICTIVE EQUATION RESULTS
2006-2011
ORIGINAL TOTAL VEGETATION COVER EQUATION: y 0.0173x^3-0.8592x^2+14.562x-
47.015
l'.l l 1.(;I t s. 11W .\ , [.t\ ! I ; . ii i. ; 1, ; 1
:“,,iif`� l R ; %&AP., I-iF•ll''.. •.Itlik.ilc. .lria 1( iii':'•ii:_: iil,•ii1lf1t1 sli.t Its,i
Rev. Rev.
SAMPLE Reclamation Equation Sampled Pass or Equation Sampled Pass or Precip.
YEAR Area Cover Cover Fail Cover Cover Fail inches
2006 23.29 24.42 7.99
1998 45.60 Pass 36.20 Pass
1999 42.20 Pass 39.80 Pass
2000 46.60 Pass 41.00 Pass
2002 39.80 Pass 39.60 Pass _
2003 31.80 Pass 27.00 Pass
2007 36.45 3--38 15.00
85/86/87 58.00 Pass 56.33 Pass
95/97 _ 58.91 Pass _ 5636 Pass
1998 _ 56.40 Pass 31.40 Fail
1999 54.20 Pass _ 41.20 Pass
2000 57.40 Pass 36.20 Pass
2002 45.60 Pass 34.40 Pass
2003 52.60 Pass 37.40 Pass
2008 23.13 'a."► 7.95
85/86/87 63.20 Pass 60.67 Pass
95/97 59.20 Pass 58.80 Pass
2009 35.69 3 t1.N S 13.71
98/99/00 60.96 Pass 52.66 Pass
2002 61.20 Pass 48.00 Pass
2003 61.60 Pass 54.40 Pass
2006 53.20 Pass 47.00 Pass
2010 36.28 3-.3r, 14.65
98/99/00 51.91 Pass 28.65 Fail
2006 52.60 Pass 28.80 Fail
2011 35.41 36.5(, 13.37
29 52.00 Pass 46.40 Pass
30 55.00 Pass - 47.20 Pass
31 38.40 Pass , 29.60 Fail
•
Coors Energy Company Keenesburg Mine Page 6
Technical Revision 43
KEENESBURG MINE:
COMPARISON OF REVEGETATION SUCCESS PREDICTIVE EQUATION RESULTS 2006-2011
ORIGINAL TOTAL HERBACEOUS PRODUCTION EQUATION:y=O.3749x^2.2485
Rev. Rev.
SAMPLE Reclamation Equation Sampled Pass or Equation Sampled Pass or Precip.
YEAR Area THP THP Fail HP HP Fail inches
2006 40.11 39.89 7.99
1998 121.17 Pass Unknown ??
_ 1999 107.11 Pass Unknown ??
2000 86.72 Pass Unknown ??
2002 184.70 Pass Unknown ??
2003 107.88 Pass Unknown ??
2007 165.33 t 15.00
85/86/87 239.46 Pass Unknown ??
95/97 229.27 Pass Unknown ??
1998 115.75 Fail Unknown ??
1999 150.84 Pass Unknown ??
2000 125.55 Fail Unknown ??
2002 99.87 Fail Unknown ??
2003 135.51 Fail Unknown ??
2008 39.66 ,:o..14, 7.95
85/86/87 144.68 Pass Unknown ??
95/97 174.86 Pass Unknown ??
2009 135.07 i_f,._ii 13.71
98/99/00 261.13 Pass Unknown ??
2002 190.88 Pass Unknown ??
2003 268.63 Pass Unknown ??
2006 189.59 Pass Unknown ??
2010 156.78 1-11I.0 2. 14.65
98/99/00 175.20 Pass Unknown ??
2006 144.85 Pass Unknown ??
2011 127.65 I' i. i' 13.37
29 163.67 Pass Unknown ??
30 200.93 Pass Unknown ??
31 168.87 Pass Unknown ??
Note: Unkbown or??denotes that the evaluation could not be conducted as the data was not in a form
that allowed comparison.
Coors Energy Company Keenesburg Mine Page 7
Technical Revision 43
APPENDIX
Coors Energy Company Keenesburg Mine Page 8
Technical Revision 43
t
I r , m
O TD N a T O er, e7 O eh Tr r•'J `D C rJ "r r. — CP
r
a M .1' i e N re) Y e e? en N N N
o J)
o f v " v, r_ N h h �0 T ,, if. rf. co f,) M If, a if, r,
o w , x x e? , . N) M 7 e l e? I N N r x — x r i
A —
7 k r N ON OD Jn co 0C D 00 V 00 ? 00 p — x e N
5 a N N h en so h sc �7 V, x r 0., a O r- .i, , r., -r
I) J... ^ .O•i Q; I mo•. O+ ^ •D �i ,L o r 'T 00 ' K-4 —
n N N I-- C N T 'Y 00 'T O CO v. .0 0D N It-, N re
C 7 O co so 'S M �: O� N N O [- i— C Vi N T N
.Aj —: oo 4 M DviaOD .O 00 '• Q � [+ M Og or: T r 00
Z ®err _. - - -- -r
I
n -t M '0 — Y M rf, N N N N C I) -t
wO„ 00 N TO O rrl .r, a so h N- &" .—. ,D N en J!. 00 00
HrJ �; v, N M try h _ rn r N- a M O V1 4 sa — N
�_ _ s
u O re) !f O T *" '0 h Irk in O N 0C O' "I' h
s, eel h C lee)el O O e) O O `7 O M K — rO 00 N -t
O co o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 o eei o O O o
. 1
.+ > O C — V) ? C C s0 00 O H) N V) co T rn N C
`
0 00 .O N le) 00 'V `7 h el r+) r h `7 el — N — v,
o ,Z O o 0 0 0 0 0 — O .. o 0 0 o co o 0 0 0
N
ON O O O N N V) e7 — O O 0 ‘ 4C M en N k O
T •
u N t- NI '.0 — 01 •-• N ef, O •-• O+ O MO Jn 'O T N O
T O
a _
O T N N OD 00 N N .7 •-• O s-- O In N .ON `7 00
a T T 0 N 'O 0 - Tr. 00 T 0 en N 'T in O O O O'
CA - o - N6 o N O o O o O o - 0 0
DO
L
3 bC O a r N M so o en Jf, 00 as N If! 0C O Jf. V, r-
o O rJ `t -7 V) I. C OT 00 00 .,I T .0 M '.0 h `7
a Q O - C O ery N M o to: - * O , , o M so 0 0
O
a
00 OC h N0 01 N N N O` en 40 .f) N `741 h N ,n M
3 M C rn N O O co so a '.t r7 Ire U) - Ili - kr -I- el
CLOZ O ,- C N . . 1 . N ^ ri o O O o N o M ,- N
CQ 0 O rn O N M a 00 O N II
I. 00 ;O O NO N M T
C G ? Jf. M if? N rn m r_ -r N V. If) h H) 4O O ^ M 'O
O T N •-.. N O - . . - ' ' N O I:. - N N - .•
•
Y O O' M h en H) -r N -7 PJ kr, M) — x — 00 — ef,
G' t. N V) — M — 0 eV et N "r r- 00 N MN
u X,. — O -r N — N M N ^ eri — — o -r — — N \O N
a
L 4 -
4 d
C L N •7 T co 00 N ef) O en ON q) N 00 eh N M "t =
O 0. M N `17 N e7 so rf. `7 e) O: \0 N V, ef, O in •0 so T
Q N — N O — — `7 O N C — — N O — — H) N —. — con
a fl.
0C r. h N N r- so N N J(', en 00 h rT so h C e7 N 0' O 'D
Qi ere N "7 '.0 - eel r- 00 r- C `7 CO rr Q '0 00 O 0D C CO
p
c a O - ere _ U c
C O o O O C G - o C N6 O C O o - O o ) o
L. 7. Y
AN 00 O C O In C C O O - v
u CI d N O N coO M N N o.I ) O -I O If, -7 .•+ 0 O 3 ,h 'O N l •-• s-.O el In N Li] c t,
'O 7 w O O O o 0 0 o C O O C o 0 0 o O O C O
C O o
cc ce E
4
>• c 0 O O r) N O a In - If) O co e�) N a O h h 00 O Cp.) p
T. a 0Q O R •-• e7 N - -r 0 '.O 11) O V'. Na' Ir.". O O - - '7 U •,
CZ 21 "b .- O o o c o 0 0 C C O o O o 0 o O O O 'ey' L 3
. 3 ca
�C
E Tti
46 o L. M •. en s0 r- 00 T o N en '7 V) '0 h 00 T C, -- 0 • o L) u
a ,r 01 as T a a a a a co co O O O O O co O O y r Ski c
0 as T. T as a 0% a O O a O O O O O O O C O ..' s
.76 cc >e N N N N N N N N N rr N rJ T A 0 u
j o (j -
PUBLIC NOTICE
Coors Energy Company, P.O. Box 467, Golden, Colorado 80402 (telephone (303) 927-
3648) has filed an application for a technical revision to revise revegetation success
criteria for vegetation cover and herbaceous production at the Keenesburg Mine with the
Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (permit C-1981-028, approved
November 3, 1981). The technical revision modifies two revegetation success criteria by
revising predictive equations to remove ineligible plant species from being considered in
the revegetation. The legal description of the permit area is: a tract of land located within
Sections 25 and 36, Township 3 North, Range 64 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian,
Weld County, Colorado. The surface owner of the property for which bond release in
being requested is Coors Energy Company. The U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangles titled
"Klug Ranch" and "Tampa" contain the permit area of the mine. The permit area is
located seven miles north of Keenesburg, Colorado, and is accessed by Weld County
Road 59. A copy of the technical revision application is available for public review at the
Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office, 1402 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado
80631, the Keenesburg Town Hall, and at the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining,
and Safety, 1313 Sherman St., Room 215, Denver, Colorado 80203, phone (303) 866-
3567. In accordance with Rule 2.07.3(2) any person with a valid legal interest which
might be adversely affected by approval of the technical revision, or any federal, state, or
local governmental agency with jurisdiction over regulated activities at the mine shall
have the right to file written objections to or comments upon the revision with the
Division within ten (10) days of the publication of this notice. All comments, objections,
and requests must be submitted in writing to the Colorado Division of Reclamation,
Mining, and Safety at the above address. Published in the Fort Lupton Press,
2012.
Final Revegetation Success Standards
Final revegetation success will be judged for vegetative cover and herbaceous production
through the use of the approved predictive equations for total vegetation cover and total
herbaceous production. Species composition will be evaluated using the approved
success standard.
Quantitative comparisons for vegetation cover and herbaceous production will be made
using the Student's t-test or Confidence Interval test. Reclaimed area cover and
herbaceous production values will be evaluated for statistical equality to the values from
the respective predictive equations if the reclaimed area values do not equal or exceed the
predictive values. Species composition will be judged on meeting the species
composition standard.
Total vegetation cover. Reclaimed areas will be considered successfully reclaimed if the
total vegetation cover on the reclaimed area(s) is not less than 90 percent of the the total
vegetation cover value from the equation: y=0.0127x3 +0.2115x2+ 2.1772x (where xis the
cumulative September-July precipitation at the mine) with 90 percent statistical
confidence using a one-tailed Student's t or Confidence Interval test.
Herbaceous production. Reclaimed areas will be considered successfully reclaimed if the
total herbaceous production on the reclaimed area(s) is not less than 90 percent of the total
herbaceous production value from the equation: y=0.4666x2.1405 (where x is the cumulative
September-July precipitation at the mine)with 90 percent statistical confidence using a one-
tailed Student's t or Confidence Interval test.
Woody plant density.There is no woody plant density revegetation success standard.
Species composition.Reclaimed areas will be considered successfully reclaimed if the
species composition on any reclaimed area is such that there are at least four perennial
species of which three are warm season perennial grasses and one is cool season
perennial grass.No one component of the above species should comprise greater than
40% relative importance nor less than 3%relative importance. Relative importance will
be measured by calculating relative cover of the revegetation species.Vegetation species
which may be used in the calculation of species composition may be any plant species
not defined as a noxious or prohibited plant species, and may be native or introduced.
1166 TR43 11/12
Hello