Iowa Regulatory Program

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 915

[SPATS No. IA-005-FOR]

Iowa Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)

is approving, with certain exceptions and additional requirements, an

amendment to the Iowa regulatory program (Iowa program) under the

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Iowa added

revegetation success guidelines to its program. These guidelines

include revegetation success standards, statistically valid sampling

procedures and techniques for determining revegetation success on areas

being restored to various land uses, and normal husbandry practices.

Iowa intends to revise its program to be consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations and to improve operational

efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 26, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. Coleman, Office of Surface

Mining, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center, Alton Federal

Building, 501 Belle Street, Alton, Illinois 62002. Telephone: (618)

463-6460. Internet: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Iowa Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director's Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

[[Page 66386]]

V. Director's Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Iowa Program

On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of Interior conditionally

approved the Iowa program, effective April 10, 1981. You can find

background information on the Iowa program, including the Secretary's

findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval

in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5885). You can find

later actions on the Iowa program at 30 CFR 915.10, 915.15, and 915.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

By letter dated September 28, 1998 (Administrative Record No. IA-

441), Iowa sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA. Iowa sent

the amendment in response to our letter dated August 1, 1986

(Administrative Record No. IA-280), that we sent to Iowa under 30 CFR

732.17(c). The amendment concerns guidelines for revegetation success

and normal husbandry practices, entitled ``Revegetation Success

Standards and Statistically Valid Sampling Techniques.''

We announced receipt of the amendment in the October 14, 1998,

Federal Register (63 FR 55025) and invited public comment on its

adequacy. The public comment period closed November 13, 1998. Because

no one requested a public hearing or meeting, we did not hold one.

During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns relating

to Iowa's revegetation success guidelines concerning the definition for

``prime farmland''; plant species for recreational and wildlife areas;

reference areas; minimum planting arrangements for recreational,

wildlife, and forested lands; and control area adjustments of prime

farmland yields. We also identified concerns with Iowa's guidelines for

normal husbandry practices. We notified Iowa of these concerns by

electronic mail on November 19, 1998 (Administrative Record No. IA-

441.6). On August 3, 1999, Iowa sent us a revised amendment dated April

1999 (Administrative Record No. IA-441.7).

Based upon Iowa's revisions to its amendment, we reopened the

public comment period in the October 8, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR

54840). The public comment period closed on October 25, 1999.

III. Director's Findings

Following, under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15

and 732.17, are our findings concerning the amendment.

A. Revegetation Success Standards and Statistically Valid Sampling

Techniques for Mined Lands in Iowa

Iowa submitted revegetation success guidelines that describe the

standards and procedures for determining revegetation success on

reclaimed mined lands in Iowa. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.116(a)(1) and 817.116(a)(1) require that each regulatory authority

select revegetation success standards and statically valid sampling

techniques for measuring revegetation success and include them in its

approved regulatory program. Iowa developed its revegetation success

guidelines to satisfy this requirement. In some cases, Iowa's

revegetation success guidelines supplement and clarify the performance

standards for revegetation success contained in the Iowa program, but

they do not replace or change any of them.

The guidelines include revegetation success standards and

statically valid sampling techniques for measuring revegetation success

of reclaimed pastureland; cropland; industrial, commercial, or

residential lands; recreational, wildlife, or forested lands; and

remined lands in accordance with Iowa's counterparts to the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816.116 and 817.116. The guidelines also include

revegetation success standards and statically valid sampling techniques

for restoring soil productivity of prime farmland soils in accordance

with Iowa's counterparts to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.15.

Iowa's standards, criteria, and parameters for revegetation success

reflect the extent of cover, species composition, and soil

stabilization required in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.111 and

817.111. As required by the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2)

and (b), 817.116(a)(2) and (b), and 823.15, Iowa's revegetation success

standards include criteria representative of unmined lands in the area

being reclaimed to evaluate the appropriate vegetation parameters of

ground cover, production, or stocking suitable to the approved

postmining land uses. Iowa's guidelines specify the procedures and

techniques to be used for sampling, measuring, and analyzing vegetation

parameters.

Ground cover, production, and stocking suitable to the approved

postmining land uses, except prime farmland, are considered equal to

the approved success standard when they are not less than 90 percent of

the success standard. The average production of crops for prime

farmland soils must equal or exceed the average production of the same

crops for the same or similar unmined prime farmland soils. Sampling

techniques for measuring success use a 90-percent statistical

confidence interval for all land uses. We found that use of these

procedures and techniques will ensure consistent, objective collection

of vegetation data.

For the above reasons, we find that, except as discussed in the

following findings, the revegetation success standards and statically

valid sampling techniques for measuring revegetation success contained

in Iowa's revegetation success guidelines satisfy the requirements of

30 CFR 816.116(a)(1), 817.116(a)(1), and 823.15.

1. Reference Areas

Section III, part F of Iowa's revegetation success guidelines

contains requirements for the use of reference areas for establishing

revegetation success standards. Permittees can use data from reference

areas for direct comparison only when Iowa has approved the use of

reference areas in the permit. When reference areas are used, the

reference areas will serve as the data set for establishing the

revegetation success standard. The reclaimed areas will be directly

compared to the revegetation success standard developed from the

reference area production yields for the same growing season.

Management of all of the reference areas and the reclaimed areas must

be identical in all aspects. Part F contains examples of the criteria

that must be met on both the reclaimed and reference areas. Reference

areas must be within a five-mile radius of the permit site, unless the

Division approves a site outside of the five-mile radius that has

special features which cannot be found closer to the permit site. Part

F also contains additional prime farmland reference area requirements,

including examples of calculations for developing corn and soybean

productivity success standards.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) and 817.116(a)(2)

require that standards for success include criteria representative of

unmined lands in the area being reclaimed in order to evaluate the

appropriate vegetation parameters of ground cover, production, and

stocking. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b) and 817.116(b)

allow the use of reference areas for determining revegetation success.

The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(2) requires that permittees

measure soil productivity on a representative sample or on all of the

[[Page 66387]]

mined and reclaimed prime farmland areas using the reference crop

determined under 30 CFR 823.15(b)(6). It also requires that they use a

statistically valid sampling technique at a 90-percent or greater

statistical confidence level as approved by the regulatory authority in

consultation with the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS). The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(4) requires that

permittees manage the reclaimed areas in the same manner as nonmined

prime farmland in the surrounding area. The Federal regulations at 30

CFR 823.15(b)(7) allow the use of reference crop yields of

representative local farms in the surrounding area for determining

revegetation success for prime farmland, with concurrence by the NRCS.

Iowa submitted a fax dated July 21, 1997, from the NRCS as evidence of

consultation when developing its revegetation success guidelines for

reference areas (Administrative Record No. IA-441.5). We find that

Iowa's requirements for reference areas are consistent with the Federal

requirements at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) and (b), 817.116(a)(2) and (b),

and 823.15(b)(2), (4), and (6). Therefore, we are approving the

requirements in section III, part F. However, the fax did not contain

specific concurrence by the NRCS for Iowa's use of the current yield

records of reference areas for measuring productivity on prime

farmland, as required by the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

823.15(b)(7). Because Iowa did not submit evidence of concurrence by

the NRCS, as required by the Federal regulations, we are not approving

the use of reference areas for determining success of productivity on

prime farmland areas. We are requiring Iowa to submit evidence of

concurrence by the NRCS before it allows permittees to use reference

area revegetation success standards for prime farmland. We are

approving Iowa's guidelines on reference areas for all other applicable

land uses.

2. Prime Farmland

Section IV, part A contains the revegetation success standards for

prime farmland. Section IV, part G contains a method for adjusting the

average prime farmland reference crop yield for adverse or beneficial

climatic conditions.

a. Section IV, part A, provides that in order to establish

revegetation success on prime farmland soils, the production of corn,

soybeans, or a combination of corn and soybeans must produce yields

equal to or greater than the yields of the same crops in similar

unmined prime farmland soils for three years of the five-year

responsibility period. Corn and soybeans are the most common deep-

rooted prime farmland crops in Iowa. The Division will consider

restoration of prime farmland soil productivity achieved each year that

the average yield during the measurement period exceeds or equals the

average yield for the same prime farmland soil map units as provided in

the County Soil Map Unit Yield Data tables for that county. These

tables were developed from a U. S. Department of Agriculture-Natural

Resources Conservation Service State Soil Survey Database. Part A.1

contains the method of determining the average yield of corn or soybean

productivity using the County Soil Map Unit Yield Data tables located

in Appendices 1 through 4. Part A.1 includes examples of how to

calculate the corn and soybean success standards for prime farmland

soils. At part A.2, Iowa also allows permittees to use prime farmland

reference area yield data instead of the County Soil Map Unit Yield

Data to prove productivity. Permittees would calculate corn or soybean

productivity revegetation success standards from the prime farmland

reference area yield data using the methods contained in part A.1.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(7) allow permittees to

prove restoration of prime farmland soil productivity in two ways. At

30 CFR 823.15(b)(7)(i), the permittee can use the current yield records

of representative local farms in the surrounding area (reference areas)

to prove productivity, with concurrence by the NRCS. At 30 CFR

823.15(b)(7)(ii), the permittee can use the average county yields

recognized by the USDA, which have been adjusted by the NRCS for local

yield variation. Iowa submitted a fax dated July 21, 1997, from the

NRCS as evidence of consultation when developing its revegetation

success guidelines for prime farmland (Administrative Record No. IA-

441.5). We find that Iowa's requirements for revegetation and

restoration of prime farmland soil productivity are consistent with the

Federal requirements at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(7). Therefore, we are

approving the requirements in section IV, parts A and A.1. However, in

section IV, part A.2, Iowa proposed to use reference areas. The

evidence submitted by Iowa did not contain specific concurrence by the

NRCS for Iowa's use of the current yield records of reference areas for

measuring productivity on prime farmland, as required by 30 CFR

823.15(b)(7)(i). Because Iowa did not submit evidence of concurrence by

the NRCS, we are not approving Iowa's use of reference areas for

determining success of productivity on prime farmland areas. As

discussed in Finding A.1, we are requiring Iowa to submit evidence of

concurrence by the NRCS before allowing permittees to use reference

area revegetation success standards for measuring productivity on prime

farmland.

b. Section IV, parts A.1(a) and (b) allow permittees to adjust

average yield values for weather conditions by one of two methods. Part

A.1(a) allows the permittee to use control areas to adjust the County

Soil Map Unit Yield Data in accordance with the requirements of section

IV, part G. Part A.1(b) allows the permittee to get written concurrence

from the NRCS to adjust the calculated County Soil Map Unit Yield Data

to reflect a one year disease, pest, or weather induced variation

during a specific growing season. Section IV, part G contains the

requirements and methods for control area adjustments of prime farmland

revegetation success standards developed from the County Soil Map Unit

Yield Data. Control areas must contain one or more of the soil map

units which exist in the reclaimed tract. The control area data is used

to develop a climatic correction factor. The correction factor is used

to adjust the revegetation success standards developed for prime

farmlands for yield variations caused by adverse or beneficial climatic

conditions during the crop year. Permittees can use control areas to

develop a revegetation success standard adjusted for climatic condition

only when the Division approves its use in the permit for that site.

The control area must receive the same management as the reclaimed

area. If the Division approves the use of control areas, the permittee

must use the control area climatic correction factor in all production

years within the responsibility period, whether it increases or

decreases the revegetation success standards.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.15(b)(8) provide that the

permittee may adjust the average reference crop yield for disease,

pest, and weather-induced seasonal variations, with the concurrence of

the NRCS. Therefore, we are approving Iowa's provision at section IV,

part A.1(b) that requires the permittee to get written concurrence from

the NRCS to adjust the calculated County Soil Map Unit Yield Data corn

or soybean productivity revegetation success standards for disease,

pest, or weather-induced seasonal variations. However, Iowa did not

provide evidence that the NRCS concurred with Iowa's provisions at

section IV, part G

[[Page 66388]]

concerning the methods used to adjust the County Soil Map Unit Yield

Data for climatic conditions using control areas. Therefore, we are not

approving Iowa's provisions at section IV, part G that contain the

requirements and methods for adjusting prime farmland revegetation

success standards using control areas. Our decision also makes the

provision that allows the use of control areas at section IV, part

A.1(b) moot. We are requiring Iowa to either remove section IV, part G

from its revegetation success guidelines or submit evidence that the

NRCS concurs with this provision.

3. Recreational, Wildlife, and Forested Lands

Section IV, part E contains the revegetation success standards for

recreational areas, wildlife areas, and forested lands. The permittee

must first meet all of the general erosion control and ground cover

requirements of section III, part A and the general revegetation

requirements of section III, part C for these land uses. Once the

Permittee has documented that all of the criteria in these two sections

has been met, the reclaimed permit site must achieve 90 percent

vegetative cover density for a minimum of two years. Tree and shrub

survival must be measured by counting live and healthy trees and

shrubs. All trees and shrubs counted must have been in place for a

minimum of two years and must have at least one-third of their height

in live crown. At the time of counting trees or shrubs to determine if

their survival meets the revegetation success standard, 80 percent of

the original number of trees and shrubs planted per acre must be alive

and must have been in place for three years. There must be a minimum of

400 live trees or shrubs per acre of land under a forested land use,

including recreation or wildlife land use areas where woody plants are

used, for purposes of achieving revegetation success. The Division will

require the permittee to document the time of planting of all trees and

shrubs on the permit. The permittee must tag all trees and shrubs

planted with permanent markers which indicate the planting date. The

permittee is responsible for assuring that the markings are permanent

and will remain legible during the period of responsibility. Any tree

having tags which are illegible or appear to have been tampered with

will not count towards meeting the revegetation success standard for

forest lands. Iowa submitted two appendices that are referenced in its

guidelines for these land uses. Appendix 5 lists the recommended tree

planting species in Iowa. This appendix was developed by using lists of

tree planting species obtained from the Iowa Department of Natural

Resources and the Iowa State University Forestry Extension. Appendix 8

contains the recommended wildlife and recreation planting species in

Iowa. This appendix was also developed from information provided by the

Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the Iowa State University

Forestry Extension. Iowa submitted a letter dated October 21, 1996,

from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources as evidence of

consultation with the State agency responsible for the administration

of forestry and wildlife programs when developing it guidelines for

recreational, wildlife, and forested lands (Administrative Record No.

IA-441.5).

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3) and 817.116(b)(3)

for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or forest

products require that permittees determine success of vegetation on the

basis of tree and shrub stocking and vegetative ground cover. They also

require that:

(i) Minimum stocking and planting arrangements shall be

specified by the regulatory authority on the basis of local and

regional conditions and after consultation with and approval by the

State agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and

wildlife programs. Consultation and approval may occur on either a

programwide or a permit-specific basis.

(ii) Trees and shrubs that will be used in determining the

success of stocking and the adequacy of the plant arrangement shall

have utility for the approved postmining land use. Trees and shrubs

counted in determining such success shall be healthy and have been

in place for not less than two growing seasons. At the time of bond

release, at least 80 percent of the trees and shrubs used to

determine such success shall have been in place for 60 percent of

the applicable minimum period of responsibility.

(iii) Vegetative ground cover shall not be less than that

required to achieve the approved postmining land use.

We find that Iowa's revegetation success standards for

recreational, wildlife, and forested lands at section IV, part E are no

less effective than the requirements of the Federal regulations at 30

CFR 816.116(b)(3) and 817.116(b)(3), with two exceptions. First, Iowa's

guidelines do not contain any planting arrangement provisions for these

land uses as required by 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(i) and 817.116(b)(3)(i).

Second, Iowa did not submit any documentation to prove that the State

agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife

programs approved its minimum stocking provisions as required by 30 CFR

816.116(b)(3)(i) and 817.116(b)(3)(i). Therefore, we are requiring Iowa

to either add planting arrangement provisions for recreational,

wildlife, and forested land to its guidelines and obtain program-wide

concurrence from the State agencies responsible for the administration

of forestry and wildlife programs or add a provision to its guidelines

that requires permit-specific concurrence for planting arrangements

from the State agencies responsible for the administration of forestry

and wildlife programs. We are also requiring Iowa to either obtain

program-wide concurrence for its minimum stocking provisions or add a

provision to its guidelines that requires permit-specific concurrence

for minimum stocking from the State agencies responsible for the

administration of forestry and wildlife programs.

4. Sampling Procedures and Techniques

Section V of Iowa's revegetation success guidelines contain

sampling procedures and techniques to determine productivity for corn,

soybeans, oats, wheat, and forage crops; to determine ground cover

percentage; and to determine if trees and shrubs meet minimum density

standards. With one exception, we find that Iowa's sampling procedures

and techniques are statistically valid at a 90 percent or greater

statistical confidence level as required by the Federal regulations at

30 CFR 816.116(a) (1) and (2), 817.116(a) (1) and (2), and

823.15(a)(2). Section V, part A.2, which contains the grain sampling

technique for test plot harvesting, does not specify how the permittee

is to obtain the dry weight of the test plot grain samples. The dry

weight is used in a calculation to determine the moisture percentage

for each test plot sample. Therefore, we are requiring Iowa to revise

its revegetation success guidelines at section V, part A.2 by adding a

provision that specifies the standard method that permittees are to use

for obtaining the dry weight of test plot grain samples.

B. Normal Husbandry Practices

Iowa also proposed guidelines relating to normal husbandry

practices that may be used without restarting the responsibility

period. Section III, part H contains requirements for rill and gully

repair; terrace repair and maintenance; riprap repair and maintenance;

land smoothing and reseeding; and liming, fertilizing, and

interseeding. Rill and gully erosion may be addressed within the permit

or partial permit area without restarting the responsibility period

only if repairs are completed using normal

[[Page 66389]]

husbandry practices. If the repair work requires augmented seeding,

fertilization, or irrigation, the period of responsibility will

restart. Normal husbandry practices do not include any temporary

erosion control structures, such as silt fencing, straw, or hay bale

dikes. Part H.1 specifies that the State will consider as normal

husbandry practices any terrace repairs and maintenance required due

to: (1) Rainfall events that exceed their designed capacities; (2)

sediment deposition into a terrace flow line during the first year or

two after the initial terrace construction and seeding that exceed the

designed sediment storage capacity of the terrace; and (3) differential

settling that impacts the flow line of the terrace. Part H.1 includes a

listing of the types of terrace repair and maintenance options that the

State will consider as normal husbandry practices. In part H.2, the

State considers riprap repair and maintenance on ditches and structures

due to storm events that exceed the maximum design standard as normal

husbandry practices. Part H.2 includes a listing of the types of riprap

repair and maintenance practices that will be considered normal

husbandry practices. Part H.3 provides that normal husbandry practices

can include limited land smoothing and reseeding as long as: (1) the

individual areas are no larger than one acre in size and (2) the

cumulative acreage is no greater than 10 percent of the entire permit

or partial area. At part H.4, Iowa will consider applications of lime

and fertilizer and interseeding to be normal husbandry practices when

they meet specified conditions. For lime and fertilizer applications,

the permittee must submit the original weight tickets for the

applications at the times specified in section III, part B.3. For

interseeding, the permittee must submit the original seed tickets at

the times specified in section III, part B.3. Part H.4(a) and (b)

provide, respectively, that lime and fertilizer applications must be

made based on soil test recommendations for the appropriate crop or

vegetation. Before any lime and fertilizer applications, the permittee

must submit to the Division the original copies of the soil test

recommendations and a map of the permit areas indicating where each

soil sample was taken. If subsequent submittals of lime and fertilizer

weight tickets prove that actual applications were in excess of the

soil test recommendations, the Division will restart the responsibility

period. Interseeding will be considered a normal husbandry practice

based on the criteria listed in part H.4(c). This criteria includes:

(1) interseeding of a legume on the third year of a grass/legume

vegetative cover; (2) interseeding of a single species that failed to

germinate due to unfavorable climate conditions on half or more of the

permit area; and (3) interseeding of a species due to excessive winter

kill.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(4) for surface mining

operations and 817.116(c)(4) for underground mining operations allow

the regulatory authority to approve selective husbandry practices,

excluding augmented seeding, fertilization, or irrigation, without

extending the period of responsibility for revegetation success and

bond liability, under specified conditions. The regulatory authority

must obtain prior approval from OSM in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17

that the practices are normal husbandry practices that can be expected

to continue as part of the postmining land use or that discontinuance

of the practices after the responsibility period expires will not

reduce the probability of permanent revegetation success. Approved

practices must be normal husbandry practices within the region for

unmined lands having land uses similar to the approved postmining land

use of the disturbed area. In the September 7, 1988, preamble for the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(4) and 817.116(c)(4), we

discussed the type of documentation that the regulatory authority must

submit to support its proposed normal husbandry practices (53 FR

34641). The regulatory authority must submit documentation that

demonstrates that the practice is the usual or expected state, form,

amount or degree of management performed habitually or customarily to

prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect of the resource and

maintain a prescribed level of use or productivity of similar unmined

lands. We will consider, on a practice-by-practice basis, the

documentation supporting each practice proposed by a regulatory

authority as a normal husbandry practice. The documentation must

include conservation practice guidelines or agronomy guidelines and

fact sheets for the management of unmined lands in the applicable

State. The guidelines and fact sheets could be those distributed by the

NRCS or other organizations with similar expertise in management of a

State's natural resources, including agricultural lands.

Iowa submitted a fax dated July 21, 1997, from the NRCS as evidence

that Iowa consulted with the NRCS when developing its normal husbandry

practice guidelines (Administrative Record No. IA-441.5. Iowa also

submitted a letter dated December 16, 1996, from the Iowa State

University, Department of Agronomy, as additional evidence of

consultation when developing its normal husbandry practices. However,

Iowa did not submit actual NRCS conservation practice guidelines or

Iowa State University agronomy guidelines or fact sheets to support its

proposed normal husbandry practices. Therefore, we find that Iowa has

not adequately demonstrated that its proposals for rill and gully

repair; terrace repair and maintenance; riprap repair and maintenance;

land smoothing and reseeding; and liming, fertilizing, and interseeding

of areas disturbed by mining in Iowa are normal husbandry practices

within the region for unmined lands having land uses similar to the

approved postmining land uses of the disturbed areas. We are requiring

Iowa to either remove its guidelines for normal husbandry practices at

section III, part H or submit documentation that support the proposed

normal husbandry practices.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Public Comments

We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive

any.

Federal Agency Comments

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the

amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential

interest in the Iowa program (Administrative Record Nos. IA-441.1 and

IA-441.9). On October 5, 1999, the Mine Safety and Health

Administration sent us a letter stating that it had no comments on the

amendment (Administrative Record No. IA-441.10).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written

agreement from the EPA for those provisions of the program amendment

that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the

authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the revisions that Iowa

proposed to make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality

standards. Therefore, we did not ask the EPA to agree on the amendment.

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the

amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record Nos. IA-441.1 and IA-

441.9). The EPA did not respond to our requests.

[[Page 66390]]

State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from

the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic

properties. On October 5, 1998, and September 28, 1999, we requested

comments on Iowa's amendment (Administrative Record Nos. IA-441.1 and

IA-441.9), but neither responded to our request.

V. Director's Decision

Based on the above findings, we approve, with certain exceptions

and additional requirements, the amendment as sent to us by Iowa on

September 28, 1998, and as revised and sent to us by Iowa on August 3,

1999.

With the requirement that Iowa further revise its revegetation

success guidelines, we do not approve, as discussed in: findings No.

A.1 and A.2.a, the use of reference areas for determining success of

productivity on prime farmland areas; finding No. A.2.b., section IV,

part G, concerning the requirements and methods for use of control

areas to adjust the County Soil Map Unit Yield Data for climatic

conditions; and finding No. B, section III, part H, concerning normal

husbandry practices.

With the requirement that Iowa further revise its revegetation

success guidelines, we approve, as discussed in finding No. A.3,

section IV, part E, concerning revegetation success standards for

recreational, wildlife, and forested lands; finding No. A.4, section V,

concerning sampling procedures and techniques for ground cover,

stocking, and production.

To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations

at 30 CFR Part 915, which codify decisions concerning the Iowa program.

We are making this final rule effective immediately to expedite the

State program amendment process and to encourage Iowa to bring its

program into conformity with the Federal standards. SMCRA requires

consistency of State and Federal standards.

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 change to an

approved State program be submitted to OSM for review as a program

amendment. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) prohibit any

changes to State programs that are not approved by OSM. In the

oversight of the Iowa program, we will recognize only the statutes,

regulations and other materials approved by the Secretary or by us,

together with any consistent implementing policies, directives and

other materials. We will require the enforcement by Iowa of only such

provisions.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempts this rule from

review under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required

by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (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 State regulatory

programs and program amendments 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

This rule does not require an environmental impact statement since

section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency

decisions on 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

corresponding 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. Therefore, this rule will ensure that existing requirements

previously published 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 corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

OSM has determined and certifies under the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that this rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year on local, state, or tribal

governments or private entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 915

Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: November 10, 1999.

Richard J. Seibel,

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 915 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 915--IOWA

1. The authority citation for part 915 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 915.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as

follows:

Sec. 915.15 Approval of Iowa regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

[[Page 66391]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original amendment submission Date of final

date publication Citation/description

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *

September 28, 1998............... November 26, 1999.. Revegetation Success Guidelines dated April 1999 (partial approval).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Section 915.16 is amended by adding paragraphs (a) through (e)

to read as follows:

Sec. 915.16 Required program amendments.

* * * * *

(a) Before Iowa allows the use of reference areas for determining

success of productivity on prime farmland as proposed at section III,

part F and section IV, part A.2 of its revegetation success guidelines,

Iowa must submit for OSM approval evidence that the U.S. Natural

Resources Conservation Service concurs with these provisions.

(b) By May 25, 2000, Iowa must either remove the guidelines for

normal husbandry practices from section III, part H of its April 1999

revegetation success guidelines or submit for OSM approval

documentation that demonstrates each practice is a normal husbandry

practice within the region for unmined lands having land uses similar

to the approved postmining land uses of areas disturbed by mining in

Iowa.

(c) By May 25, 2000, Iowa must either remove section IV, part G,

which contains the requirements and methods for control area climatic

adjustments to the prime farmland average yields provided in the County

Soil Map Unit Yield Data tables, from its April 1999 revegetation

success guidelines or submit for OSM approval evidence that the U.S.

Natural Resources Conservation Service concurs with this provision.

(d) By May 25, 2000, Iowa must amend its revegetation success

guidelines at:

(1) Section IV, part E by either adding planting arrangement

provisions for recreational, wildlife, and forested lands and obtaining

program-wide concurrence for the provisions from the State agencies

responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife programs or

adding a provision that requires permit-specific concurrence for

minimum planting arrangements from the State agencies responsible for

the administration of forestry and wildlife programs.

(2) Section IV, part E by either obtaining program-wide concurrence

for its minimum stocking provisions or adding a provision that requires

permit-specific concurrence for minimum stocking from the State

agencies responsible for the administration of forestry and wildlife

programs.

(e) By May 25, 2000, Iowa must add a provision to section V, Part

A.2 of its revegetation success guidelines that specifies the standard

method that permittees are to use for obtaining the dry weight of test

plot grain samples.

[FR Doc. 99-30677 Filed 11-24-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-05-P