[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23826]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 27, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 946
Virginia Regulatory Program Amendment
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing the approval, with exceptions, of a proposed
amendment to the Virginia regulatory program (hereinafter referred to
as the Virginia program) under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The proposed amendment includes
changes to Virginia's regulations relative to siltation structures and
impoundments, revegetation standards for success, and roads and road
construction. The amendment is intended to revise the State program to
be consistent with the corresponding Federal standards and to clarify
and correct inconsistencies in Virginia's rules.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 27, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap Field Office, P.O. Drawer
1217, Powell Valley Square Shopping Center, Room 220, Route 23, Big
Stone Gap, Virginia 24219, Telephone: (703) 523-4303.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Virginia Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Director's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Virginia Program
The Secretary of the Interior approved the Virginia program on
December 15, 1981. Background information on the Virginia program
including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and
the conditions of approval can be found in the December 15, 1981,
Federal Register (46 FR 61085-61115). Subsequent actions concerning the
conditions of approval and program amendments can be found at 30 CFR
946.11, 946.12, 946.13, 946.15, and 946.16.
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated October 22, 1993 (Administrative Record No. VA-
829), Virginia submitted proposed amendments to its regulatory program.
The amendments address issues initially submitted to OSM on October 1,
1990 (Administrative Record Number VA-768), but subsequently withdrawn
by Virginia in a letter dated May 12, 1992 (Administrative Record No.
VA-818), as discussed in the final rule issued July 7, 1992 (57 FR
29788). Virginia submitted the request to withdraw portions of the
October 1, 1990, submission (as modified April 18, 1991) in order to
reconsider various proposals. Virginia's October 22, 1993, submission
addresses the sections that Virginia withdrew in its May 12, 1992,
letter except for Secs. 773.16(c)(4)(ii) and 773.16(c)(7).
OSM announced receipt of the October 22, 1993, proposed amendments
in the November 4, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 58827), and in the
same document opened the public comment period and provided opportunity
for a public hearing on the adequacy of the proposed amendments. The
public comment period closed on December 6, 1993.
III. Director's Findings
Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17 are the Director's findings concerning the
proposed amendment.
Revisions not specifically discussed below concern nonsubstantive
wording changes, or revised cross-references and paragraph notations to
reflect organizational changes resulting from this amendment.
1. Section 480-03-19.816/817.49(a)(3)
Virginia proposes to add new stability design requirements at
Sec. 480-03-19.816/817.49(a)(3)(ii) for impoundments not meeting the
size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a), except for a coal mine
waste impounding structure. The impoundments, located where failure
would not be expected to result in loss of life or serious property
damage, shall have a minimum static safety factor of 1.3 for a normal
pool with steady state seepage saturation conditions. These proposed
provisions are substantively identical to the Federal rule at 30 CFR
816/817.49(a)(3)(ii). The amendment further provides for use of earth
embankments whose top widths are no less than 10 feet and whose
embankment slopes are 2h:1v or flatter, provided the permittee
documents that a minimum static safety factor of 1.3 can be met using
the graphical solution methods outlined in the ``Bureau of Mines Report
of Investigations/1981, RI 8564, Factor of Safety Charts for Estimating
the Stability of Saturated and Unsaturated Tailings Pond Embankments,
United States Department of the Interior.'' By letter dated February
23, 1994 (Administrative Record No. VA-836), OSM advised Virginia that
the graphical solution methods could be used in lieu of engineering
tests, for low hazard impoundments not meeting the size or other
criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) if all the appropriate parameters needed
to use the graphs in RI 8564 are adequately documented for each
embankment. OSM pointed out that the appropriate parameters included:
--Unit weight of the soil
--Height of the embankment
--Internal friction angle
--Cohesion
--Pore pressure ratio
--Slope of the embankment
--Depth factor
In addition to satisfying these parameter requirements, OSM stated
that the embankment would have to be constructed of homogeneous
material and the stiff base under the foundation must be flat. By
letter dated March 16, 1994 (Administrative Record No. VA-837),
Virginia agreed that the parameters set forth in OSM's letter of
February 23, 1994, will be required by the State for use with the
graphs in RI 8564 and that the parameters must be documented for each
embankment. Virginia further agreed that the embankment will be
required to be constructed of homogeneous material and the stiff base
under the foundation will be required to be flat. The Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.49(a)(3)(ii), 780.25(c)(3) and
784.16(c)(3) provide for an alternative to engineering tests that
establish for impoundments a minimum static safety factor of 1.3. If a
State regulatory authority, through the State program amendment
process, can establish engineering design standards that ensure
stability comparable to the 1.3 minimum static safety factor, then such
design standards are no less effective than 816/817.49(a)(3)(ii). The
Director has determined that the proposed amendment to the Virginia
regulations at Sec. VR 480.03.19.816/817.49(a)(3)(ii), as clarified by
Virginia on March 16, 1994, ensures stability comparable to the 1.3
minimum static safety factor and is no less effective than the Federal
rules at 30 CFR 816/817.49(a)(3)(ii).
2. Section VR 480-03-19.816/817.116(b)(3)
Virginia proposes to revise Sec. VR 480-03-19.816/
817.116(b)(3)(v)(A) regarding the stocking of trees, shrubs, half-
shrubs, and the ground cover established on the revegetated area where
woody plants are used for wildlife management, recreation, shelter
belts, or forest uses other than commercial forest land, by deleting
the phrase ``approximate the stocking and ground cover on the
surrounding unmined area.'' The Director finds the deleted language to
be duplicative of requirements already found in the Virginia program.
Therefore, the proposed deletion will not render Virginia's regulations
less effective than the Federal requirements at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3).
3. Section VR 480-03-19.816/817.116(c)(3)
Virginia proposed to revise these subsections by deleting the term
``conservation'' and replacing that term with the term ``husbandry.''
In its submittal of this amendment Virginia stated that the wording
change was made to make the language consistent with the counterpart
Federal provisions at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(4). In addition to the
proposed wording change, Virginia submitted administrative record
information containing a list of normal husbandry practices and related
reference materials intended to support the practices identified by
Virginia as normal husbandry practices.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(4) allow State
regulatory authorities to select certain husbandry practices that will
not extend the period of responsibility for successful revegetation and
the bond liability of the permittee. These practices must be expected
to continue as part of the postmining land use or that after
discontinuance, the likelihood of permanent success is not reduced.
Such practices must be submitted through the State program amendment
process and must be approved by OSM before the State can implement such
practices.
Upon review of the materials provided by Virginia, OSM determined
that there was no document establishing the list of practices as
Virginia policy. In addition, there was no information explaining how
the lists and technical references would be used. In a letter to
Virginia dated February 23, 1994 (Administrative Record No. VA-836),
OSM addressed its concerns with the proposed husbandry practices
amendment. Virginia responded by letter dated May 12, 1994
(Administrative Record No. VA-838). The State provided the following
clarification.
Virginia stated that within 30 days of OSM's approval of the
husbandry practices provision, Virginia will issue a policy statement
concerning husbandry practices. The draft policy statement submitted by
Virginia reads as follows:
The Virginia program at 480-03-19.816/817.116(c)(3) provides
that the Division may approve selective husbandry practices that may
be utilized without extending the period of responsibility for
revegetation success and bond liability. On October 1, 1990, DMLR
submitted for OSM's approval a limited list of the selected
practices that can be used in Virginia. On ____________ OSM
published in the Federal Register its final approval of the selected
husbandry practices.
Pursuant to this program amendment, there are a finite number of
husbandry practices that have been approved by OSM. Coal surface
mining operations may utilize only this list of practices without
extending the bond liability period. For a copy of the program
amendment or a description and supporting literature/publications,
please contact Jerry Legg at the Division's Big Stone Gap Office.
This draft language satisfies one of OSM's concerns about the
proposed husbandry practices by making the following point: The list of
husbandry practices approved by OSM comprises the only approved
husbandry practices which may be used by industry without restarting
the period of responsibility for reclamation success and bond
liability.
The following husbandry practices, were submitted and described by
Virginia on October 22, 1993 (Administrative Record Number VA-829).
Forestry--Common management practices for the land use of unmanaged
forestry that will be allowed in Virginia without the restart of the
bonding liability period:
Replanting of trees
Herbicide application
Pest control
Repair of rills and gullies as necessary to implement the land use
Commercial Forestry--Common management practices for land use of
commercial forestry that will be allowed in Virginia without the
restart of the bonding liability period:
Replanting of trees
Herbicide application
Basal pruning
Insecticide application
Mowing
Fertilization and liming
Repair of rills and gullies as necessary to implement the land use
Hayland/Pasture--Common management practices for the land use of
hayland/pasture that will be allowed in Virginia without the restart of
the bonding liability period:
Repair of rills and gullies
Application of lime fertilizer
Maintenance, weed and brush control
Rotation or continuous grazing
Reseeding or spot seeding
Fencing
Commercial, Industrial, Residential, or Recreational--Common
management practices for the land uses of commercial, industrial,
residential, or recreational that will be allowed in Virginia without
the restart of the bonding liability period:
Planting or replanting of trees
Application of lime and fertilizer
Surface roughing or the repair of rills and gullies
Seeding or reseeding
Irrigation
Sodding
Weed and pest control
Topsoiling and other standard landscaping practices
Gravel or asphalt
Construct structures
In the administrative record information provided by Virginia
concerning the husbandry practices of reseeding and spot seeding, these
practices are limited to those situations listed below.
Hayland/Pasture
Periodic reseeding to maintain or improve the desired combination
of grasses and legumes.
Seeding for weed control.
Spot seeding in high traffic areas: e.g., around water troughs,
salt licks, and areas damaged by livestock.
Seeding of reclaimed rills and gullies.
Commercial, Industrial, Residential, or Recreational
Reseeding to prevent rill erosion.
Seeding to maintain the desired mix of plants.
In its May 12, 1994, letter to OSM, Virginia also clarified the
following points concerning its implementation of the husbandry
practices provision. Virginia proposes to limit the extent of reseeding
or spot seeding that it will allow as husbandry practice to a maximum
of 10 percent of the applicable area. Virginia will also use the 10-
percent figure to limit areas where liming, fertilization, and
irrigation may be used in excess of the levels normally applied to
similar lands with the same land use.
The 10-percent figure is inspired by the Virginia regulations
concerning revegetation success. Specifically, VR 480-03-
19.816.116(a)(2) provides that ground cover, production, or stocking
shall be considered equal to the approved success standard when they
are not less than 90 percent of the approved success standard. The
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) have a similar standard.
While the 10-percent statistical standard in the revegetation rules
does not directly apply to husbandry practices, the proposed limiting
of reseeding or spot seeding to 10 percent is reasonable. However, the
Director finds that some additional limits must apply. For example,
normal husbandry practices do not include large barren blocks of the
reclaimed area. On the contrary, large blocks of barren areas (such as
a block representing 10 percent of the applicable area) would indicate
failed reclamation, not successful revegetation. Additionally, in
revegetated areas which pass the established 90-percent standard bare
or poorly revegetated areas are likely to be scattered about the
applicable area, and not large blocks of barren land. Again, large
blocks of barren areas would indicate failed reclamation. Consequently,
the reseeding of such large blocks of barren areas representing failed
reclamation would be augmentative seeding and would necessitate the
restarting of the period of responsibility for reclamation success and
bond liability. In addition, the reestablished vegetation must be in
place for a sufficient length of time so as not to adversely affect
Virginia's ability to make a valid determination at the time of bond
release of the success of the reclamation.
In the special case of the repair of rills and gullies as part of a
forestry postmining land use, the administrative record contains a
September 27, 1990, letter from the Virginia Department of Forestry. In
that letter, the Regional Forester states that rills and gullies need
not be repaired ``as a part of typical forest management unless the
magnitude of the gully would interfere with the land use (of
forestry).'' The letter goes on to say that rills and gullies often
occur naturally in the steep slope areas of the Appalachian Region. OSM
agrees that the repair of occasional and minor rills and gullies where
proper grading and erosion management is practiced could be considered
part of normal forestry management practice.
Virginia clarified its interpretation of the degree of allowable
repair of rills and gullies. Since erosion is a natural phenomenon, the
repair of minor rills and gullies is not viewed by the Virginia program
as a violation, nor does it require restarting of the bonding clock.
However, the State added, the Virginia program considers erosion that
repeatedly creates rills and gullies over a large area as a violation
of at least one performance standard and potentially a violation of
several standards. When the permittee fails to comply with the Virginia
performance standards and rills and gullies repeatedly develop over a
large area, Virginia will require restarting of the responsibility
period. Virginia has demonstrated, and the Director finds through this
amendment, and Virginia's clarifications and administrative record
information, that in the State of Virginia, certain specified instances
of rill and gully repair associated with land used for Forestry,
Commercial forestry, Commercial, industrial, residential, or
recreational, and Hayland/pasture will be considered a normal husbandry
practice.
Virginia also clarified that the husbandry practices for areas
designed to enhance fish and wildlife will be consistent with the
practices set forth for unmanaged forestry. The Director finds this to
be reasonable.
Virginia stated that since the Virginia coalfields are primarily
located on steep slopes, there has been no incident where cropland,
other than hay, has been developed on the postmining land use.
Consequently, Virginia has not developed nor proposes any husbandry
practice for such croplands. Should the Virginia coalfields expand or
crop production become a viable option, the State will develop
husbandry practices relevant to those crops and submit them to OSM for
approval. Such practices will not be permitted by the State until
approved by OSM. The Director concurs with the understanding that the
State will submit any new husbandry practices to OSM for approval prior
to their being permitted in Virginia.
With the exceptions listed below, the Director finds the proposed
amendment as augmented by the administrative record information
submitted with this amendment, and as clarified by Virginia by letter
dated May 12, 1994, is no less effective than the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(4). This finding is made with the
understanding that the policy statement to be issued by Virginia
concerning normal husbandry practices will be identical in meaning to
the draft language of that policy statement submitted to OSM by letter
dated May 12, 1994. The Director is not approving as normal husbandry
practice the reseeding of large blocks of areas made barren by poor
reclamation, or where the reestablished vegetation has not been in
place for a sufficient length of time for Virginia to make a valid
determination of the success of the reclamation at the time of bond
release.
4. VR Sec. 480-03-19.816/817.151(b)
Virginia proposes to revise this section by changing the title from
``Embankments'' to ``Safety factor,'' and by changing the language in
(b)(1) to (1) reference ``organic material'' rather than ``vegetative
material,'' and (2) add the phrase ``or other unsuitable material.''
These changes were proposed by Virginia in response to an issue letter
from OSM dated March 20, 1991 (Administrative Record No. VA-792). The
issue letter refers to the proposed program amendment submitted by
Virginia on October 1, 1990, as discussed herein at II. Submission of
Amendment. In that letter, OSM also asked Virginia to amend this rule
to reflect that keyway cuts extend a minimum of two feet below the toe
of the fill and that material placed in road embankments will be within
acceptable moisture content levels. In its current submission, Virginia
did not make the suggested changes, but provided clarification intended
to show that its current regulations adequately address OSM's concerns.
Virginia's Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME)
interprets its existing regulations to require keyway cuts beneath
embankments on steep slopes to provide for stability of road
embankments. The design of the keyway will be prepared by, or under the
direction of, the applicant's registered professional engineer and will
be reviewed by a DMME engineer. A minimum width of ten feet is
specified and the keyway must be sloped inward in all cases. While
other specifications may be proposed by the applicant or required by
DMME, taking into account the conditions of the site, DMME believes the
general requirement that keyway cuts be constructed at the toe of the
road fills on steep slopes and the specific width and slope standards
provide sufficient detail to ensure road embankment stability in most
site specific cases. However, DMME interprets its regulations to
require appropriate design given unusual site specific conditions. DMME
retains the authority to require a keyway that has a two foot minimum
depth below the toe of a road fill embankment as necessary when the
foundations of the embankment is located in bedrock.
DMME also feels that its current regulations adequately address
OSM's concerns regarding moisture content of materials placed in road
embankments on steep slopes. According to DMME, its regulations require
such road embankments to be constructed in uniform compacted layers. In
order to achieve a desired degree of compaction, materials must be
placed within the acceptable range of moisture content. The DMME
interprets its rule to embody the requirement that materials must be
within the acceptable range of moisture content if the larger
performance standard, that of placement in compacted layers, is to be
achieved. DMME believes that its existing regulation is as effective as
the Federal regulation. The Director finds that based upon the March
20, 1991, letter and the clarification provided by Virginia, that VR
480-03-19.816/817.151(b)(1) through (4) as set forth in Virginia's
October 22, 1993, submission is consistent with the Federal rules set
forth at 30 CFR 816/817.151, 780.37(c) and 784.24(c).
5. VR Sec. 480-03-19.816/817.152
Virginia proposes to revise the language of this rule relating to
the waiver of design standards for existing roads. As originally
submitted on October 22, 1993, the proposed language could be read to
imply that existing roads do not have to meet the performance standards
of VR 480-03-19.816/817.150 and 816/817/151. In its issue letter dated
February 23, 1994, OSM suggested new language which would resolve the
controversy. In its March 16, 1994, response to the issue letter,
Virginia revised the proposed language consistent with OSM's
suggestion. The current proposal provides that where existing roads
that are to be used meet the performance standards of 816/817.150 and
816/817.151 and it can be demonstrated that reconstruction to meet the
design standards of those provisions would result in greater
environmental harm, the Division may waive the design requirements.
Therefore, the Director finds that the provisions of VR 480-03-19.816/
817.152, as revised on March 16, 1994, are not inconsistent with the
requirements of 30 CFR 701.11(e) which allow existing structures that
meet the performance standards but not the design requirements to be
exempt from meeting the design requirements.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
The Director solicited public comments and provided an opportunity
for a public hearing on the proposed amendment. No public comments were
received, and because no one requested an opportunity to speak at a
public hearing, no hearing was held.
Agency Comments
Pursuant to section 503(b) of SMCRA and the implementing
regulations of 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), the Director solicited comments
from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in
the Virginia program. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Mine
Safety and Health Administration, and the Environmental Protection
Agency acknowledged receipt of the amendment without comment.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), the Director is required to obtain
the written concurrence of the Administrator of the EPA with respect to
any provisions of a State program amendment that relate to air or water
quality standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) or the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.). The Director has determined that this amendment contains no
provisions in these categories and that EPA's concurrence is not
required.
V. Director's Decision
Based on the above findings, the Director approves, with the
exceptions noted in Finding 3 above, the proposed amendment with
supplemental administrative record information which was submitted by
Virginia on October 22, 1993, and as revised on March 16, 1994, and on
May 12, 1994.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 946, codifying decisions
concerning the Virginia program, are being amended to implement this
decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to
expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to
bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without
undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by
SMCRA.
Effect of Director's Decision
Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise
jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the
Secretary. Similarly, 30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any alteration of
an approved State program be submitted to OSM for review as a program
amendment. Thus, any changes to the State program are not operational
until approved by OSM. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g)
prohibit any unilateral changes to approved State programs. In the
oversight of the Virginia program, the Director will recognize only the
statutes, regulations and other materials approved by him, together
with any consistent implementing policies, directives and other
materials, and will require the enforcement by Virginia of only such
provisions.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsection (a) and (b) of that section.
However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of
State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such
program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM.
Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30
CFR 730.11, 732.15 and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State
regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must
be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is
consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and
whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)] provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR 946
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: September 16, 1994.
Ronald C. Recker,
Acting Assistant Director, Eastern Support Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,
Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth
below.
PART 946--VIRGINIA
1. The authority citation for part 946 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 946.15 is amended by adding paragraph (hh) to read as
follows:
Sec. 946.15 Approval of regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
(hh) The following amendment, with supplemental administrative
record information, pertaining to the Virginia regulatory program, as
submitted to OSM on October 22, 1993, and revised on March 16, 1994,
and May 12, 1994, is approved, except as noted herein, effective
September 27, 1994. The amendment consists of revisions to the
following provisions of the Virginia Coal Surface Mining Reclamation
Regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VR 480-03-19.816 Topic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
816.49(a)(3)(ii)................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;
Impoundments.
816.116(b)(3)(v)(A)................ Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;
Revegetation: Standards for Success.
816.116(c)(3)...................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;
Revegetation: Standards for Success, except not approved as normal
husbandry practice is the reseeding of large blocks of areas made barren
by poor reclamation, or where the reestablished vegetation has not been in
place for a sufficient length of time for Virginia to make a valid
determination of the success of the reclamation at the time of bond
release.
816.151(b)......................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities; Primary
Roads.
816.152............................ Permanent Program Performance Standards--Surface Mining Activities;
Existing Roads.
817.49(a)(3)(ii)................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;
Impoundments.
817.116(b)(3)(v)(A)................ Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;
Revegetation: Standards for Success.
817.116(c)(3)...................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;
Revegetation: Standards for Success.
817.151(b)......................... Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;
Primary Roads.
817.152............................ Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining Activities;
Existing Roads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 94-23826 Filed 9-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M