2019-03-28_REPORT - C1981028

• Permit No: C1981028
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 3/28/2019
• Doc Name: Annual Hydrology Report
• From: Coors Energy Company
• To: DRMS
• Annual Report Year: 2018
• Permit Index Doc Type: Hydrology Report
• Email Name: RDZ
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Keenesburg Mine 2018 Vegetation Monitoring Report
Table 22: Reclamation Area 31 Success Criteria
7 DISCUSSION
Reclamation Areas 29, 30, and 31 were monitored in 2015 and 2016, Reclamation Area 25 was
monitored in 2016, and Reclamation Areas 32, 33, and 34 were monitored in 2018 for the first
time. No data were collected in 2017 due to a hail storm on August 10, 2017 that destroyed the
above -ground vegetation.
7.1 Vegetation Cover
Based on the results of the quantitative sampling, four of the seven Reclamation Areas (29, 31,
32, and 33) had allowable vegetation cover that passed the success standard (Table 23).
Reclamation Areas 30 and 34 would have passed using the non -noxious cover without the excess
annual cover removed and Reclamation Area 25 would have passed using the total cover
including cheatgrass.
Total vegetation cover in Reclamation Areas 25, 29, 30, and 31 decreased from 2016 to 2018,
but desirable cover, especially of perennial species, increased markedly (Figure 8). Cover of
annual introduced forbs was almost non-existent in 2018 and cover of cheatgrass decreased by
38 - 95% across all Reclamation Areas (Figure 9).
Table 23: Vegetation Cover Success Standard Com arison
Vegetation Cover
Phase
90%
Phase III Monitoring
Reclamation Success
Reclamation
Technical
Area
33
Criteria
Area
Standard
Pass?
Allowable* Cover %
37.1
33.6
Yes
Allowable* Production
42.7
40.4
38.9
mz
103.8 1
136.1
No
Species Composition
40.4
38.4
37.1
(perennial grass, warm, cool
5,0
3,1
No -
7 DISCUSSION
Reclamation Areas 29, 30, and 31 were monitored in 2015 and 2016, Reclamation Area 25 was
monitored in 2016, and Reclamation Areas 32, 33, and 34 were monitored in 2018 for the first
time. No data were collected in 2017 due to a hail storm on August 10, 2017 that destroyed the
above -ground vegetation.
7.1 Vegetation Cover
Based on the results of the quantitative sampling, four of the seven Reclamation Areas (29, 31,
32, and 33) had allowable vegetation cover that passed the success standard (Table 23).
Reclamation Areas 30 and 34 would have passed using the non -noxious cover without the excess
annual cover removed and Reclamation Area 25 would have passed using the total cover
including cheatgrass.
Total vegetation cover in Reclamation Areas 25, 29, 30, and 31 decreased from 2016 to 2018,
but desirable cover, especially of perennial species, increased markedly (Figure 8). Cover of
annual introduced forbs was almost non-existent in 2018 and cover of cheatgrass decreased by
38 - 95% across all Reclamation Areas (Figure 9).
Table 23: Vegetation Cover Success Standard Com arison
Vegetation Cover
Phase
II Monitoring
Phase III Monitoring
Area
25
Area
32
Area
33
Area
34
Area
29
Area
30
Area
31
Average Total Cover
32.7
38.7
43.1
36.3
42.7
40.4
38.9
Average Non -Noxious Cover
25.2
37.6
42.3
32
40.4
38.4
37.1
N
15
18
15
15
15
15
15
Nmin Non -Noxious
13
16
11
10
12
6
8
Average Allowable Cover
25.2
37.6
42.3
26.4
30.9
30.6
37.1
Stdev Allowable Cover
6.7
11.2
1 10.3
7.7
10.4
6.9
7.7
Standard
37.3
90% of Standard
33.6
T (one -tail, a=0.9)
-4.83
1.53
3.28
-3.56
-0.97
-1.64
1.78
Standard Passed?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Habitat Management, Inc. 25 October 2018