2012-09-12_REPORT - C1981028

• Permit No: C1981028
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 9/12/2012
• Doc Name: Response to Review Comments Regarding Annual Hydrology & Reclamation Report
• From: Coors Energy Company
• To: DRMS
• Annual Report Year: 2011
• Permit Index Doc Type: Hydrology Report
• Email Name: JLE
• Email Name: SB1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Year
Precipitation Amt.
TVC
LSC
RVC
RVC
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
Year
Precipitation Amt.
THP
LSHP
RHP
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
Osgood Sand Reference Area Total and Revised Vegetation Cover,
Year, and September -July Precipitation
TVC Total Vegetation Cover of the Osgood Sand Reference Area in %
LSC Listed (prohibited) Species Cover in %
RVC Revised Species Cover (TVC -LSC) in %
RVC Revised Species Cover (approved deduction of 50% of sandsage cover)
Osgood Sand Reference Area Total and Revised Herbaceous Production,
Year, and September -July Precipitation
THP Total Herbaceous Production of the Osgood Sand Reference Area in g/m
LSHP Listed (prohibited) Species Cover in g /m
RHP Revised Species Cover (THP -LSHP) in g /m
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
precipitation and revised herbaceous production versus precipitation). The subsequent
plots were then correlated with six mathematical functions (linear, logarithmic (ln), 2nd
degree polynomial, 3rd degree polynomial, power, and exponential) to determine which
function best represented the empirical revised data in terms of the correlation coefficient
(r 2 ). 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. The
following table presents the results of the plotting and correlation.
Coors Energy Company Keenesburg Mine Page 3
Response to CDRMS 2011 AHR Review: Revision of Revegetation Criteria