COALEX REPORT 187

	Coalex Report 187

This is the Office of Surface Mining's library of COALEX Research Reports. COALEX is a database of mining and reclamation information, including the Surface Mining Law and regulations, maintained in LEXIS-NEXIS -- a commercial, on-line research service. These reports have been compiled under a cooperative agreement between the Office of Surface Mining and the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, which represents most U.S. coal producing states. The following report includes an analysis of a specific issue requested by a state regulatory authority with responsibility for carrying out the Surface Mining Law. Copies of the research reports and attachments are available to the public, upon request. For additional information, or to obtain copies of the listed attachments, contact Ron Tarquinio by phone at (202) 208-2882 or by e-mail at rtarquin@osmre.gov.

                   

COALEX State Comparison Report - 187
July, 1991

Tim Stallman
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

TOPIC: REVEGETATION PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FOR PHASE III BOND RELEASE

INQUIRY: Federal regulations [30 CFR 816.116(a)(1)] require statistically valid sampling
techniques for measuring successful revegetation; however, nowhere in the federal regulations
does it indicate what methods may be used to measure vegetative ground cover, number of trees
per acre, etc. Please conduct a survey to determine what production testing methods other states
are proposing to use to measure revegetation success for final bond release.

SEARCH RESULTS: A questionnaire was prepared to be used in canvassing IMCC members.
Responses to initial calls indicated that other states also were seeking information on OSM-approved statistically valid sampling techniques for measuring successful revegetation. As a
result, the survey was foreshortened when Pennsylvania produced the OSM methodology report,
Virginia produced the Raelson-McKee study and Kentucky provided its memorandum on sampling
techniques recently submitted to OSM. Copies of Federal Register notices which discuss both
federal rules and approval or disapproval of state program amendments are also attached.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

METHODOLOGIES
"An Evaluation of Methods for Measuring Ground Cover for Reclamation Bond Release", Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Eastern Field Operations (January, 1987).
   The report provides an evaluation of the following eight methods of determining ground cover
percentage:

          Line-Frame          Line-Point
          Diagonal Line       Milacre Circle
          Farmer et al.       Modified Rennie-Farmer
          Notched Boot        Raelson-McKee


"Measurement of Plant Cover to Evaluate Revegetation Success", J.V. Raelson and G.W. McKee
(January, 1982) [Agronomy Series 67,  Department of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State University]. 
   According to Raelson and McKee, methods for measuring vegetative cover should meet three
requirements:
          They must be simple.
          They must be precise and repeatable.
          They should provide a statement of statistical error.

   Along with the measurement methods listed below, the report discusses selection of sample
points:

          Visual Estimation        Quadrat Sampling
          Crown Diameter      Line Intercept
          Point-Frequency


"Field Sampling Techniques for Determining Ground Cover, Productivity, and Stocking Success of
Reclaimed Surface Mined Lands", Technical Reclamation Memorandum # 19, Kentucky
Department For Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (June 28, 1991).
   Kentucky's report covers Parallel Transect and Angular Transect as methods for determining
observations points for collecting vegetation data, productivity determination and sampling for
measuring the success of:

          Ground Cover        Tree and Scrub Stocking
          Row Crops      Pastureland and Cropland
          Prime Farmland


REGULATORY HISTORY
The following Federal Register preambles to proposed and final federal rules on revegetation
success (816.116/817.116) are enclosed to provide background information:

44 FR 14902 (MARCH 13, 1979). Permanent Program Preamble - Final Rule. 816.116
Revegetation: Standards of success.

45 FR 51547 (AUGUST 4, 1980). Notice of suspension and statement of policy regarding effect on
State programs. 

47 FR 12596 (MARCH 23, 1982). Proposed rule. Revegetation.
   Among other goals, the proposed rule would broaden the approaches acceptable for
determining the success of revegetation 

48 FR 40140 (SEPTEMBER 2, 1983). Final rule. Revegetation.
  The revision of the federal rules was "not a weakening of revegetation requirements but reflects
that the rules are designed to account for regional diversity in terrain, climate, soils, and other
conditions under which mining occurs."

51 FR 41952 (NOVEMBER 20, 1986). Final rule; suspension. Compliance with court order.

52 FR 28012 (JULY 27, 1987). Proposed rule. Revegetation.

53 FR 34636 (SEPTEMBER 8, 1988). Final rule. Revegetation.


STATE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS AND GUIDELINES
Federal Register preambles for Virginia, Ohio and Louisiana are also attached. In these
preambles, OSM discusses the specific elements of the state methodology or techniques for
measuring revegetation success and why they do or do not comport with the federal regulations.



ATTACHMENTS
A.   Questionnaire
B.   "An Evaluation of Methods for Measuring Ground Cover for Reclamation Bond Release",
     Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Eastern Field Operations (January,
     1987).
C.   KENTUCKY: "Field Sampling Techniques for Determining Ground Cover, Productivity, and
     Stocking Success of Reclaimed Surface Mined Lands", Technical Reclamation
     Memorandum # 19, Kentucky Department For Surface Mining Reclamation and
     Enforcement (June 28, 1991).
D.   VIRGINIA:
       1. State program revegetation regulations; 
       2. Excerpts from Federal Register discussions of program amendments: MARCH 7,
          1988 at 53 FR 7181 & NOVEMBER 25, 1986 at 51 FR 42548; 
       3. Attachment #1: "Measurement of Plant Cover to Evaluate Revegetation Success
          by J.V. Raelson and G.W. McKee (January, 1982), Agronomy Services 67, Dept. of
          Agronomy, Pennsylvania State University.
E.   44 FR 14902 (MARCH 13, 1979). Permanent Program Preamble - Final Rule. [Excerpts]
F.   45 FR 51547 (AUGUST 4, 1980). Notice of suspension and statement of policy regarding
     effect on State programs. [Excerpts]
G.   47 FR 12596 (MARCH 23, 1982). Proposed rule.
H.   48 FR 40140 (SEPTEMBER 2, 1983). Final rule. Revegetation.
I.   51 FR 41952 (NOVEMBER 20, 1986). Final rule; suspension. Compliance with court order.
J.   52 FR 28012 (JULY 27, 1987). Proposed rule. Revegetation.
K.   53 FR 34636 (SEPTEMBER 8, 1988). Final rule. Revegetation.
L.   OHIO:
       1. 56 FR 21113 (MAY 7, 1991). Proposed rule; withdrawal of proposed rule revisions
          and Administrative Record information. Evaluation of revegetation success.
       2. 56 FR 12691 (MARCH 27, 1991). Proposed rule; reopening of public comment
          period. Evaluation of revegetation success.
       3. 55 FR 32643 (AUGUST 10, 1990). Proposed rule; reopening of public comment
          period. Evaluation of revegetation success.
       4. 55 FR 3588 (FEBRUARY 2, 1990). Final rule; correction. Revegetation.
       5. 55 FR 649 (JANUARY 8, 1990). Proposed rule. Evaluation of revegetation success.
       6. 54 FR 51395 (DECEMBER 15, 1989). Final rule. Revegetation.
       7. 52 FR 46783 (DECEMBER 10, 1987). Proposed rule. Revegetation.
M.   Louisiana: 56 FR 21270 (MAY 8, 1991). Final rule; approval of amendment.


Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall



ATTACHMENT A: QUESTIONNAIRE RE: REVEGETATION PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENT
(Reformatted from original)

For Phase III bond release:
A.   Has your state submitted any revegetation productivity measurement techniques for
     OSM's approval?  [Circle one]
     Yes  No

If YES, answer these questions, if NO, proceed to the next page:
1.a. What measurement techniques were submitted?
1.b. Were the techniques approved? Was there any qualification to OSM's approval? If the
     techniques were not approved, what reasons did OSM's give for disapproval?
1.c. What is the next step in the technique approval process, if any?


PROCEED TO QUESTION B. ON PAGE 2.
QUESTIONNAIRE, p.2

If NO, answer these questions:

2.a. At what stage is your state in the development of measurement techniques?
2.b. What techniques are you contemplating using? Why were these particular techniques
     chosen?

B.   What sources are your state using to develop measurement techniques, e.g., books, state
     agricultural experts, etc.?

(Home Page)

Office of Surface Mining
1951 Constitution Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
202-208-2719
getinfo@osmre.gov