P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1837 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 185 ) IV-H- 2 Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/14/2008 3:48:12 PM

Sheet 185of 238P. 2

TH E UNDE R SECRETAR YO F TH E INTERIO R

WASHINGTON , D.C . 2024 0

NO V -1' 3 1SS 5

Mr . Charle s Elkin s . Actin g Assistan t Directo r fo r Ai r an

d Radiatio n U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 4t han d M Streets , S . W . Washington , D . C . 2046 0 Dea r Mr . Elkins : eN **QNJ£** MARO *GENCy*

0r£ CTl 0tM 

# s^- r

Than k yo u fo r th e opportunit yt o revie wa draf t o f th e RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s (RIA ) o f th e rul e propose d b yth e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) o n Octobe r 26 , 1985 , 4 9 Fed . Reg . 43211 , whic hwoul d lis t surfac e coa l mine s a s a sourc e categorywhos e fugitiv e emission s mus t b e counte d i n determinin g whethe r theyar e "major " stationarysource s o f ai r pollutio n subjec t t o ne wsourc e revie wunde r th e Clea n Ai r Act . Ou r Offic e o f Polic yAnalysi s serve d t o coordinat e th e revie wo f th e RI Aand t o overse e th e preparatio n o f unifie d ccmment s frcmal l o f ou r intereste d programareas . Th e unifie d se t o f comment s i s attache d fo r you r us e i n revising th e RI Aprio r t o publication . Th e Departmen t woul d appreciat e knowing you r respons e t o eac ho f th e item s i n th e comments . Shoul d yo u wis han yclarificatio n o n an yo f thes e points , pleas e contac t Marti n L . Smith , Director , Offic e o f Polic yAnalysi s (343

- 5978)t . Sincerely ,

An n McLaughli n

Enclosur e



# a 0 

# 5P. 3



# Unite dState s Department

o f th e Interio r OFFICE OF TH E SECRETAR Y WASHINGTON , D.C . 20240



### NO V 7 198 5

Memorandu

m To : Unde r Secretary Fran : Deput yAssistan t Secretary/Director , Offic e o f Polic yAnalysi s Subject : Technica l Comment s o n EPA' s Fugitiv e Dus t Draf t RI A Th e Departmen t o f th e Interio r wa s give n the opportunit yt o revie wthe draf t RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s (RIA ) o f th e rul e propose d b yth e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) o n Octobe r 26 , 1984 , 4 9 Fed . Reg . 43211 , whic hwoul d lis t surfac e coa l mine s a s a sourc e categorywhos e fugitiv e emission s mus t b e counte d i n determining whethe r theyar e "major " stationarysource s o f ai r pollutio n subjec t t o ne wsourc e revie wunde r th e Clea n Ai r Act . Thi s offic e serve d t o coordinat e the comment s an d view s o f th e variou s intereste d bureau s and Assistan t Secretaries . Th e comment s ar e limite d t o th e technica l analysi s and addres s (1 ) whethe r the draf t RI Ademonstrates , wit haccepte d models , tha t surfac e coa l mine s significantl ydegrad e ai r quality ; (2 ) th e estimat e o f costs ; (3 ) th e estimat e o f benefits ; an d (4 ) som e relate d issues . Ai r Qualit yModelin g Th e emission s modelin g i n the draf t RI Arequire s additiona l development . Additiona l empirica l wor k woul d demonstrat e whethe r o r no t ai r qualit yi s threatene d b

ysurfac e coa l mine s an d woul d hel p verif yth e ai r qualit y modeling . 1 . Th e validit yo f using th e Industria l Sourc e Comple x (ISC ) mode l fo r dispersio n o f surfac e coa l min e particulate s ha s bee n calle d int o questio n bythos e wh o saytha t i t i s mor e appropriat e fo r modelin g gaseou s emissions , no t th e heav yparticle s emitte d b ysurfac e coa l mines . Th e IS C mode l ha s a schem e fo r describin g th e depositio n o f particulat e matte r an d ha s bee n use d t o mode l fugitiv e emissions . W e questio n th e adequacy , however , o f using a Gaussia n formulatio n fo r modelin g ground-base d emission s o f heav

yparticles . I t ha s als o bee n estimate d tha t us e o f th e IS C mode l ma yintroduc e cumulativ e systemati c error s tha t overstat e predicte d TS P concentration s b ya facto r o f 5 . EP Ashoul d explai n i n mor e detai l wh

yth e mode l i s appropriat e fo r thi s analysis .

1 . TRC , Quantificatio n o f uncertaintie s i n EPA' s Fugitiv e Emission s an d Modelin g Methodologyo f Surfac e Coa l Mines , 1985 .P. 4

2 . Th e assumptio n tha t emission s occu r a t ground leve l wit hn o pi t retentio n i s a seriou s deficienc ygive n tha t th e PE I repor t estimate s a pi t retentio n rang e o f 2 5 percen t t o 9 0 percent . Th e impac t o f pi t retentio n ha s bee n modele d i n th e cas e o f coa l an d oi l shale . I t ma yb e usefu l t o revie wsuc hmodel s o f pi t retentio n t o bette r qualif yth e result s yielde d b

yth e draf t RIA . 3 . Anothe r deficienc yi s tha t th e IS C mode l assume s th e terrai n i s fla t o r gentl yrolling . Elevatio n difference s betwee n receptor s wer e no t considered . Th e lac k o f terrai n adjustment s coul d ske wth e ai r qualit y analysi s fo r bette r o r worse , depending o n th e terrain . Therefore , som e discussio n concernin g the effec t o f terrai n o n predicte d ground-leve l concentration s an

d overal l cost-benefi t analyse s shoul d b e adde d t o th e RIA . 4 . Th e natur e o f th e particulat e matte r modele d i s unclear ; th e depositio n rate s an d particl e siz e distributio n ar e ver yimportan t t o dispersio n o f th e fugitiv e dust . Thus , PE I shoul d clarif yth e assumption s use d abou t th e percentage s o f particulat e matte r o f differing size s and thei r rat e o f deposition . Informatio n abou t th e studie s whic h"...hav e predicte d smal l particl e (EM 1Q ) contributions...a s higha s 2,00 0 ton s pe r year... " (p.IV-2 ) shoul d b e provided . Additiona l informatio n shoul d clarif ywhethe r th e quote d assertion s hav e bee n verifie d b yfiel d studies . 5 . Th e draf t RI Aals o "assume s (a ) a linea r relationshi p betwee n min e productio n an

d emission s an

d (b ) wors t cas e min e configuration s wit h n o allowanc e fo r min e equipmen t changes . Th e linea r relationshi p i s no t verified . Som e example s o f estimating th e emission s fo r alternat e size s o f th e same min e coul d hel p confirmo r den ythi s assertion . Emission s ar e mor e likel yrelate d t o tota l volum e (coa l an d overburden ) moved , no t jus t coa l production . PE I trie d t o captur e thi s b yusing hypothetica l mine s fo r eac hregion . Ther e i s substantia l variatio n withi n a regio n and sometime s eve n withi n a mine . Particularl yi n th e cas e o f a min e tha t coul d b e downsized , th e operato r woul d highgrad e th e operation , thu s reducing th e emission s pe r to n o f coa l eve n more . Th e wors t cas e tha t bot hth e pi t and 1 0 mile s o f hau l road woul d b e a t th e min e boundary simultaneousl yi s unlikely . Sensitivit yo f thes e assumption s shoul d b e assesse d i n orde r t o clarif ythei r effec t o n th e overal l outcome .

2 . Col e an

d Fabrick , 1984 , "Surfac e Min e Pi t Retention, " Journa l o f th e Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Association , V . 36 , No . 6 , Jun e 1984 , pp . 674-675 . Cole , e t al , 1984 , "Dispersio n o f Airborn e Particulate s i n Surfac e Coa l Mines—Dat a Analysi s (DRAFT), " prepare d b yTR C Environmenta l Consultants , Inc. , fo r EPA , MDAD , OAQPS , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC. , Septembe r 24 , 1984 . Clea r Cree k Shal e Oi l Project : Retorting an d Minin g PS D Application , EP A Regio n VTII , 1982 .P. 5

6 . Footnot e 5 (p . IV-55 ) suggest s tha t mode l result s fo r th e yea r 2016 — th e yea r th e Alto n operatio n i s anticipate d being closes t t o Bryc e Canyo n Nationa l Park—wer e no t analyze d i n th e draf t RIA . W e woul d b e intereste d i n knowing ho wth e analysi s woul d chang e i f thes e result s wer e employed . 7 . Accordin g t o a DO E PEDC O study , th e model s use d i n th e draf t RI Ahav e neve r bee n validated : N o predictiv e proces s fo r estimating particulat e concentration s around coa l mine s ha s eve r bee n verifie d agains t measure d concentrations . Becaus e no t onl yth e rational e fo r th e regulation , bu t the estimate s o f emission s fo r individua l mine s depend o n ai r qualit ymodels , w e sugges t tha t th e EP Aaddres s the proble mo f mode l verification . Th e Stat e o f Wyoming , fo r example , ha s compare d surfac e coa l min e mode l result s wit h measure d ambien t ai r quality . EP Ashoul d provid e simila r comparison s fo r th e model s i t ha s used . I n particular , i t i s unclea r whethe r th e prediction s concernin g violation s a t th e Corder o min e hav e bee n confirme d b ymonitorin g studies . Som e correlation s o f th e analyti c studie s t o actua l condition s shoul d b e sought . 8 . Th e tex t (p.III-6 ) shoul d clarif ywhethe r th e offset s ar e from existing sources , i n whic hcas e th e resul t woul d b e n o ne t chang e i n emissions , o r whethe r th e offset s ar e fromfacilitie s wit hunuse d emissio n permits , i n whic hcas e th e resul t woul d b e a chang e i n emissions . Cos t Estimate s Althoug hcar e wa s take n t o asses s the regulation' s economi c impac t o n loca l coa l producer s i n eac hbasi n studied , thi s i s onl yon e par t o f th e welfar e los s attendan t o n th e impositio n o f th e regulations . Othe r potentia l cost s nee d t o b e considere d a s theyar e likel yt o b e significan t unde r certai n scenarios . I n addition , problem s wit hth e cos t mode l use d cas t seriou s doub t o n som e o f th e cos t estimates . 1 . Th e assumptio n o f marke t independenc e o f eac hbasi n i s a seriou s flaw . Th e market s fo r eac ho f th e region s overla p considerabl yand thi s regulatio n coul d hav e significan t consequence s regarding the relativ e competitivenes s o f thes e markets . Productio n pattern s fo r coa l coul d shif t significantl ybetwee n regions . Th e productio n cost s resultan t from thes e shift s nee d t o b e considered . Thes e shift s wil l als o requir e shift s

3 . "Assessmen t o f Impact s o n the Surfac e Coa l Minin g IndustryResulting from Possibl e Change s t o PS D an d Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandards, " prepare d fo r U.S . DOE , b

yPEDC O Environmental , Inc. , Jun e 1984 , p . 7-15 . 4 . Wyomin g Departmen t o f Environmenta l Quality , Ai r Qualit yDivision , Cheyenne , Wyoming .P. 6

i n th e infrastructur e an d labo r markets , th e cost s o f whic hshoul d als o b e considered . Th e utilit ymarke t coul d b e affected . Fo r example , many powe r plant s ar e designe d fo r certai n type s o f coal . I f thes e coa l type s ar e severel yrestricted , the utilit ywil l fac e th e muc hhighe r cos t o f tha t coa l o r o f modifyin g powe r plant s t o utiliz e les s restricte d coa l types . Th e BL M i s engage d i n a n effor t t o performa simila r larg e scal e analysi s t o analyz e th e macr o effect s o f th e variou s fugitiv e emission s alternatives . 2 . I t i s importan t tha t the wor d "modified " b e specificall ydefine d relativ e t o PS D requirements . Currently , coa l min e operator s o n Federa l lease s ar e require d t o fil e a modificatio n t o a n approve d min e plan . Mos t o f thes e modification s hav e littl e o r n o impac t o n productio n and therefor e woul d no t consum e increment s bu t woul d bring a n existing min e unde r consideratio n eve n i f previousl ygrandfathered . 3 . Th e min e size s use d ar e base d o n productio n figure s severa l year s old . Powde r Rive r productio n ha s grown rapidl ywit hmor e mine s ove r 1 0 millio n ton s an

d th e larges t min e producin g ove r 2 1 millio n ton s i n 1984 . Th e min e simulatio n mode l tha t wa s selected , however , cause s mos t o f th e serious 1 problem s o f th e costing section . Th e EPR I Surfac e Coa l Min e Simulatio n Mode l (1982 ) wa s use d t o cos t ou t eac hregion' s representativ e mine s an

d downsize d mines . I t use s bot hmin e specifi c variable s an d generalize d min e variable s t o determin e wha t th e cost s associate d wit h minin g ar e fo r an yparticula r mine . Th e mode l use d i n th e fugitiv e emission s costing analysi s is , however , outdated , supersede d b yMod- 3 whic hwa s release d i n 1984 . Th e ne wmode l replace d Mod- 2 wit hwhic huser s ha d encountere d man yproblems . Som e o f th e change s t o th e ne wmode l ar e update d cos t tables , modifie d labo r requiremen t calculations , th e consideratio n o f inflation , an d update d taxes . I n additio n t o th e problem s o f th e mode l itself , th e variable s use d i n th e analysi s ma yals o b e inappropriate . Adeb t servicing rat e o f 5 percen t an d rat e o f retur n o n equit yo f 8 percen t ar e probabl yto o low . Th e acquisitio n cos t i s describe d a s representing a wester n average ; a regiona l averag e woul d b e mor e meaningful . Financia l paramete r default s shoul d als o b e override n fo r eac hregion . Bot hseveranc e tax an d stat e tax varydramaticall yfromstat e t o stat e (severanc e tax varie s fro m0 percen t t o 1 7 percen t i n th e region s analyzed ) and , a s a result , shoul d b e define d specificall yfo r the min e being analyzed . Th e magnitud e o f th e erro r tha t result s fromthes e problem s i s uncertain . I t woul d b e usefu l fo r a listing o f al l inpu t variable s t o b e provide d s o tha t a meaningfu l compariso n coul d b e mad e using th e tw o models . However , some preliminaryestimate s o f the cost s o f downsizin g hav e bee n made . Th e assumption s an d variable s ar e probabl ydifferen t fromthos e use d i n th e PE I analysis , bu t d o represen t accepte d minin g practice s an d reasonabl e financia l assumptions . Initia l result s obtaine d using min e costin g algorithm s sugges t tha t PE I significantl yunderestimate d the cos t chang e tha t result s whe n mine s ar e downsize d from1 5 t o 5 millio n ton s pe r year . Th e cost s curve s derive d b yEPR I (Mod-2 ) ma yb e muc hflatte rP. 7

tha n thos e actuall yexperience d i n th e Powde r Rive r region . A s a result , th e cost s ma yb e underestimate d i n the RIA , althoughth e magnitud e i s uncertain . Eve n assuming tha t th e EPR I mode l work s properl yan d tha t appropriat e input s wer e used , error s stil l exis t i n it s application . Th e firs t o f thes e i s th e calculatio n o f downsizin g cost s base d o n th e same typ e o f equipment . I t i s no t reasonabl e t o assume tha t a ne wmin e wil l selec t th e sam e typ e (dragline , truck/shovel ) regardles s o f th e siz e limitation s i t i s face d with . A t some productio n rat e i t woul d b e mor e efficien t t o switc ht o truck/shove l eve n i f the "representative " min e fo r th e regio n currentl yuse s a dragline . Althoughi t ma yno t b e possibl e t o determin e thi s switch-ove r poin t fo r eac hregion , a sensitivit yanalysi s i s appropriate , t o provid e a n ide a o f ho wlarg e th e resulting bia s is . Secondly , n o differentiatio n betwee n ol d an d ne wmine s i s mad e i n th e costin g analysis . Existing mine s ar e likel yt o modif ythei r usag e o f existin g equipment , wherea s ne wmine s wil l emplo yth e mos t efficien t equipmen t configuratio n fo r th e constraine d productio n rate . Th e EPR I mode l doe s no t accuratel ymode l th e firs t cas e becaus e i t calculate s the mos t efficien t equipmen t fo r a give n productio n rate . Variabl e override s coul d b e use d t o calculat e a realisti c estimat e o f th e cost s t o existing mines . ' Eve n i f n o quantitativ e analysi s i s done , th e issu e need s t o b e addressed . T o provid e greate r confidenc e i n the cost s generate d i n thi s sectio n o f th e report , severa l item s nee d t o b e done . First , a detaile d and complet e listin g o f th e EPR I input s need s t o b e provided . Thi s woul d allo wth e reviewe r t o determin e whic hdefault s ar e use d and i f theyar e appropriat e fo r th e mine . Afte r the input s ar e reviewe d an d accepte d a s reasonable , th e mine s shoul d b e run , using th e curren t versio n o f EPRI . Determinatio n o f th e appropriatenes s o f the criteri a shoul d als o b e made , specificall y addressin g i f th e selecte d min e represent s a likel yne wmin e i n 1995 . A s anothe r sourc e o f comparison , a min e engineering consultan t estimate d cos t fo r variou s size s o f mine s i n th e Wyomin g an d Montan a portion s o f th e Powde r Rive r Basin . Thei r analysi s confirm s BIM' s interna l analysis , i.e. , tha t PEI' s estimate s o f th e cos t o f downsizin g from1 5 t o 9. 4 millio n ton s pe r yea r ar e reasonable , bu t th e cos t o f goin g frc m1 5 t o 4. 6 millio n ton s pe r yea r ar e greatl yunderestimate d ($2.6 4 - $2.8 2 pe r to n instea d o f $.8 1 pe r ton) . Thi s wil l resul t i n a cos t curv e fo r Powde r rive r tha t i s simila r t o thos e o f th e othe r region s (se e Appendi x B o f PE I report) . Mor e importantly , th e cos t o f down-sizin g from1 0 millio n ton s pe r yea r woul d b e close r t o $2.0 0 pe r to n instead o f $.1 0 pe r ton . Thus , th e downsizin g cost s fo r Clas s I I increment s ma yb e of f b y35 0 percen t t o 200 0 percent . Bot hanalytica l effort s ar e continuing , wit hfina l result s expecte d t o b e availabl e during the publi c commen t period . 4 . I f emission s ar e linea r wit hproduction , the n spreading th e productio n ou t b yhaving smalle r mine s wil l resul t i n the same amoun t o f fugitiv e dus t spread ou t ove r a wide r area . I f productio n shift s fro ma lo w strippin g rati o are a lik e Powde r Rive r t o a n are a wit hhighe r stripping ratios , th e emission s wil l actuall yb e higher . Ther e ar e n o estimate s o f th e cost s (negative benefits ) o f thi s result .P. 8

5 . Unde r Alternativ e IV , th e impact s o n coa l minin g nea r clas s I an d mandatoryclas s I I area s ma yb e greate r than indicate d b yth e RIA . Th e PE I stud

ysuggest s tha t onl y1 percen t o f th e coa l reserve s ar e involved . However , preliminaryestimate s b ythe Burea u o f Lan d Management , usin g a distanc e base d approac hwhic hdoe s no t attemp t t o conside r ai r qualit yimpacts , terrain , o r an yfacto r othe r tha n distance , sugges t tha t a significan t percentag e o f wester n surfac e coa l mines , reserve s an

d acreag e coul d b e affecte d b yth e rule . Whe n thi s analysi s i s complete , w e wil l provid e i t t o EPA . 6 . Th e amount s o f coa l tha t woul d b e unrecoverabl e i f Clas s I 24-hou r increment s wer e impose d shoul d b e a par t o f th e impac t analysis . Impact s t o norma l min e developmen t shoul d b e characterize d a t leas t generically . 7 . Th e adde d socia l cost s o f increase d undergroun d minin g (injurie s and deaths ) shoul d b e considered . Thi s als o result s i n highe r direc t an d indirec t costs . 8 . Th e "advers e impac t test " shoul d b e take n int o accoun t whe n definin g whic hsurfac e coa l mine s coul d "affect " clas s I an d mandator yclas s I I area s unde r alternativ e IV . Th e RI Adescribe s th e "advers e impac t test " an d it s likel yimpact s o n th e cost-benefi t analysi s i n footnot e 7 (pag e IV-55) , bu t w e sugges t incorporating a n expande d discussio n int o th e relevan t portion s o f th e text . Essentia l t o th e Federa l Land Manager' s involvemen t i n th e PS D revie wproces s i s th e "advers e impac t test " fo r clas s I areas , se t fort h i n Sectio n 165(d ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t (4 2 U.S.C . sec . 7475(d)) . Thi s test , o r varianc e procedure , involve s a case-by-cas e evaluatio n o f a ne w source' s ai r qualit yimpact s o n th e resource s o f th e clas s I area . Unde r thi s test , mine s wit hpredicte d ai r qualit yconcentration s i n exces s o f clas s I increment s ma ystil l obtai n a PS D permi t i f th e Federa l Land manage r certifie s tha t th e ai r qualit yrelate d value s o f the clas s I are a wil l no t b e adversel yaffected . I n thi s situation , th e sourc e ma yb e subjec t t o a n alternativ e clas s I incremen t ceiling fo r particulat e matte r numericall yidentica l t o th e clas s I I increment . O n th e othe r hand , i f th e Federa l Land Manage r demonstrate s t o the permittin g authority' s satisfactio n tha t th e ai r qualit yrelate d value s o f a clas s I are a wil l b e adversel yaffecte d b ya min e whos e emission s d o no t produc e exceedence s o f th e clas s I increments , the n th e permitting authorit yshal l no t issu e a PS D permit . T o date , approximatel yte n source s whos e emission s wer e predicte d t o contribut e t o a clas s I incremen t exceedenc e hav e requeste d a "certificatio n o f n o advers e impact, " o r variance , fromthe Federa l Land Manager , an

d following a careful , case-by-cas e analysis , eac hwa s granted . 9 . Th e draf t RI Aseem s t o assume tha t a min e woul d "affect " a clas s I o r mandator yclas s I I are a i f it s emission s woul d caus e o r contribut e t o a n exceedenc e o f th e area' s PS D increments . Thi s interpretatio n need s t o b e expande d i n scop e t o als o includ e potentia l advers e impact s o n th e clas s I areas ' ai r qualit yrelate d values . Thus , the RI Amus t addres s no t onl y surfac e coa l mine s whos e emission s affec t clas s I an d mandator yclas s I I area s b ycausin g o r contributio n t o a PS D incremen t violation , bu t als o thos e creating a n advers e impac t o n the ai r qualit yrelate d value s o f a clas s I area .P. 9

10 . Th e annua l cost s ar e divide d b yth e annua l visitatio n t o determin e wha t use r fee s woul d hav e t o b e t o cove r th e cost s (p . xli-xliii) . Thi s assume s zer o preservatio n valu e an d therefor e overestimate s wha t th e valu e t o user s woul d hav e t o b e t o justif yth e costs . Visitatio n figure s fro m198 4 wer e use d i n th e 199 6 estimates . Perhap s som e effor t shoul d b e mad e t o estimat e whethe r visitatio n woul d b e expecte d t o increase , decreas e o r remai n th e same . Histori c trend s woul d sugges t tha t visitatio n i s likel yt o increase . Whil e th e effec t o f Alternativ e I V o n visitatio n fee s i s a n insightfu l measure , i t shoul d b e clearl ypointe d ou t tha t thi s i s a hypothetica l situation . Th e actua l cost s o f Alternativ e I V woul d b e pai d bycoa l consumer s i n highe r electricit ycoa l costs . 11 . Th e draf t RI A(Appendi xA ) indicate s tha t th e Gran d Canyo n preservatio n valu e estimate s wer e adjuste d b yth e rati o o f visitatio n a t Bryc e Canyo n Nationa l Par k t o visitatio n a t Gran d Canyo n Nationa l Park . W e sugges t tha t EP Aexplai n it s assumptio n tha t preservatio n value s ar e proportiona l t o visitation . 12 . Th e statemen t tha t regulation s woul d hav e n o impac t "i f th e valu e o f a leas e trac t ca n declin e enoug ht o offse t PS D relate d costs " (p . IV-13 ) i s incorrect . Mor e correctl ystate d i s tha t n o pric e increas e woul d result—tha t a min e wit ha cos t advantag e woul d simpl ylos e som e o f tha t advantag e and continu e t o sel l a t th e goin g price . Whil e thi s i s true , tha t fir m

stil l suffer s fro mreal , highe r costs . 13 . Regulatio n o f surfac e coa l mine s coul d also entai l significan t losse s o f Federa l an d Stat e coa l revenue . » Benefit s Estimate s Th e draf t RI Aadmit s tha t certai n benefit s wer e neglecte d i n th e analysis . Benefit s associate d wit hpreservatio n o r existenc e values , wit hnois e pollutio n abatement , an d withaesthetic s shoul d no t b e ignored . 1 . Preservatio n o r existenc e valu e benefit s ar e extremel yimportan t i n th e benefi t cos t analysis , especiall ya s i t pertain s t o Alternativ e IV^ . Tha t th e RI Arecognize s them , a t leas t i n a qualitativ e sense , i s t o b e commended . Survey s sponsore d byth e Nationa l Par k Servic e a t Mes a Verd e

5 . W e prefe r th e ter m "preservatio n value " t o "existenc e value" . Th e RI A define s existenc e valu e t o includ e beques t valu e and othe r component s o f preservatio n value , bu t th e termexistenc e valu e ha s con e t o b e use d i n th e literatur e t o refe r t o th e valu e o f knowin g th e resourc e i s ther e eve n i f n o on e eve r intend s t o us e it , whic hi s on e aspec t o f preservatio n value . I t shoul d b e note d tha t th e Southwes t Parklan d Studyrefer s t o preservatio n value s a s includin g us e and nonus e values , bu t thi s i s no t th e cas e throughou t mos t o f th e literature .P.1 0

an d Grand Canyo n Nationa l Park s indicate d tha t "knowing tha t th e par k resource s wer e bein g protected " ranke d highes t among par k attribute s visitor s believe d t o b e important 6

. Thi s valu e o f park s seem s likel yt o increas e ove r time a s populatio n increases , residence s an d busines s occupy mor e and mor e land , an d area s suc ha s nationa l park s and wildernes s area s se t asid e fo r thei r preservatio n become , mor e scarce . I n estimating preservatio n values , th e draf t RI Areference s th e Southwes t Parkland s Stud yb ySchulz e et . al . Thi s stud yestimate d preservatio n value s no t onl yfo r th e uniqu e Grand Canyon , bu t als o fo r th e remainde r o f th e southwes t region . Th e preservatio n value s fo r the southwes t regio n ar e substantial , thoughles s than fo r th e Grand Canyon . Thre e additiona l studie s concerning the valu e o f protectin g environmenta l qualit ya t recreatio n area s als o provid e evidenc e tha t preservatio n value s ma yb e veryimportan t relativ e t o on-sit e use r values . On e o f thes e studie s use d contingen t marke t technique s t o estimat e user , option , existence , an

d beques t value s associate d wit hwate r qualit ya s i t affect s water-base d recreatio n opportunitie s fo r Sout hPlatt e Rive r Basi n resident s i n Colorado 7

. Th e result s provide d strong suppor t tha t preservatio n value s fo r environmenta l qualit yassociate d wit ha recreatio n resourc e ar e substantia l fo r loca l resident s whethe r the yar e user s o r nonusers . Preservatio n valu e estimate s fo r use s exceede d thei r us e valu e estimates , an

d th e averag e preservatio n valu e estimate s fo r nonuse r household s amounte d t o almos t 7 5 percen t o f th e averag e househol d use r valu e estimates . Asecon d stud yestimate d preservatio n value s fo r wildernes s area s i n Colorad o an d throughou t the country 8

. Th e result s o f thi s stud

yindicat e tha t eve n wit ha broadl ydefine d environmenta l an d recreationa l resourc e suc ha s wildernes s areas , whic hindividuall yhav e manypotentia l substitutes , aggregat e preservatio n value s fo r nonloca l resident s ca n b e substantia l relativ e t o tota l use r values . Athird stud y reviewe d preservatio n valu e estimate s fo r wate r qualit yan d foun d tha t preservatio n value s fo r user s alon e wer e typicall y5 0 percen t o f use r

6 . D . M . Ross , W . M . Malm , R . J . Loomis , "The Psychologica l Valuatio n o f Goo d Visua l Ai r Qualit yB yNationa l Par k Visitors, " Pape r No . 85-10. 4 presente d a t th e 78t hAnnua l Meetin g o f th e Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Association , Detroit , Michigan , Jun e 16-20 , 1985 . 7 . D . A . Greenley , R . G . Walsh , an d A . Y . Young , "Optio n Value : Empirica l Evidenc e froma Cas e Stud yo f Recreatio n an d Wate r Quality, " Quarterl y Journa l o f Economic s 9 6 (Novembe r 1981) : 657-673 . 8 . R . G . Walsh , R . A . Gillman , an d J . B . Loomis , "Wildernes s Resourc e Economics : Recreatio n Us e an d Preservatio n Values, " prepare d fo r th e America n Wildernes s Alliance , Denver , Colorado , 1982 .P. U

q value s . Th e implicatio n exist s tha t preservatio n value s fo r nonuser s ma y ad d substantiall yt o thes e estimate d values . Wha t al l o f thes e studie s sugges t i s tha t preservatio n value s ma yb e substantia l relativ e t o use r values , eve n fo r environmenta l qualit yi n park s les s wel l know n and les s uniqu e tha n th e Grand Canyon . 2 . Tabl e VI- 1 shoul d includ e visua l aesthetic s i n additio n t o visibility . Anothe r potentia l benefi t tha t i s no t discusse d i s th e possibl e decreas e i n soiling an d material s damag e t o cultura l an d histori c resources , particularl yimportan t a t Chac o Cultur e Nationa l Histori c Park . Eve n thoughthes e issue s ar e sit e specific , th e RI Ashoul d describ e a methodologyt o evaluat e thes e benefits . 3 . Th e sectio n o n Cos t Impact s discusse s example s o f efficien t contro l technique s tha t ar e a par t o f norma l operation s (p . IV-41) . Thi s benefi t shoul d als o b e discussed . 4 . Th e roost importan t assumptio n underlying the benefit s analysi s fo r alternative s I I an d II I i s tha t non e o f th e ne wmine s wil l locat e withi n 1 0 mile s o f an

ysignifican t existing population . I f thi s assumptio n i s no t correct , th e benefit s coul d b e significantl yunderstated . Thi s critica l facto r shoul d b e note d earl yi n th e executiv e summary . Fairl y goo d estimate s ca n b e mad e o n th e locatio n an d siz e o f coa l mine s an d populatio n center s i n the Wes t through199 5 du e t o long lead time associate d wit hWester n coa l min e development . 5 . Severa l o f th e studie s i n th e draf t RIA , suc ha s Mazumda r and Ostr o o n whic hbenefi t projection s ar e based , wer e generate d o n population s radicall ydifferen t fromthos e expecte d i n th e rura l U.S . coa l basins . Th e Mazumda r stud

yo f mortalit yi n Londo n an d th e Ostr o acut e morbidit y stud yaddres s pollutant s an d population s unlik e thos e involve d i n majo r minin g areas . Source s fo r mor e comparabl e model s shoul d b e explored . 6 . Th e benefit s fo r the secon d regulatoryalternative , thoughsmall , ma y b e overstated . Th e tota l benefit s fo r al l fiv e basin s studie d wa s $29,10 0 t o $815,90 0 (Tabl e VTI-1 , pag e VII-7) . Give n th e nationa l scop e o f th e propose d regulation , thi s doe s no t represen t a significan t socia l benefi t an d a significan t improvemen t i n ai r quality . Eve n wit hthe limite d benefit s identified , th e overstatemen t i s a significan t problem . A s note d i n th e draf t RIA : "...al l health-relate d benefit s ma yb e overstate d an d ar e conceivabl ya s lo wa s zero " (p . VT-60) . Ye t 9 7 percen t o f th e $815,90 0 i n benefit s identifie d i n the secon d alternative , ar e potentiall y attributabl e t o healt hbenefits . O f th e lowe r figure , $29,100 , 10 0 percen t wer e healt hbenefits .

9 . A . Fishe r an

d R . Raucher , "Intrinsi c Benefit s o f Improve d Wate r Quality : Conceptua l an

d Empirica l Perspectives, " Advance s i n Applie d Microeconomics , Vol . 3 , V . K . Smit han d A . DeWitte , eds. , Greenwich , Connecticut , JA I Press .P.1 2

1 0

7 . W e sugges t tha t EP Aexplai n th e applicabilit yo f th e Randal l stud yt o

, wester n mine s du e t o th e natur e o f th e are a an d the objec t o f th e study , i.e. , reclamatio n o f a n ope n pit . 8 . Benefit s (o

r costs ) t o th e employee s shoul d no t b e include d becaus e thi s woul d b e doubl e counting , becaus e suc hcost s ar e include d unde r th e cost s o f minin g - i.e. , employe e compensation . Relate d Issue s 1 . I n the draf t RI Adiscussio n o f th e Surfac e Minin g Contro l an d Reclamatio n Ac t (SMCRA ; pp.111-2,3) , i t incorrectl ystate s tha t SMCR A provision s appl yonl yt o mine s locate d o n federa l lands ; rather , SMCR A

. applie s t o al l surfac e coa l minin g operation s o n federal , state , o r privat e lands . Acopyo f a memorandu mdescribin g the lega l authoritie s fo r protectin g unit s o f th e Nationa l Par k Systemfromth e advers e effect s o f ai r pollution , date d Septembe r 20 , 1985 , whic hwa s recentl ytransmitte d t o th e Subcommitte e o n Nationa l Park s an d Recreatio n o f th e Hous e Committe e o n Interio r an d Insula r Affair s i s enclose d (se e Attachment) . Furthe r lega l analysi s i s being pursued . 2 . Th e draf t RI Adoe s no t tak e int o accoun t th e existing requirement s fo r contro l technolog

ya t ne wsources . Fo r example , th e discussion s con cernin g coa l preparation " plant s an d captiv e mine s throughou t th e tex t shoul d indicat e tha t BAC T i s require d fo r thes e source s no wsubjec t t o PSD . Othe r mine s ma yb e subjec t t o contro l technolog yrequirement s unde r othe r authorities . Instead th e draf t RI Aseem s t o impl ytha t considera

tio n o f suc hcontro l technolog yfo r ne wsource s i s unusual . 3.** Th e RI Ashoul d indicat e wha t genera l type s o f effectiv e pollutio n contro l device s coul d b e require d fo r installatio n a t surfac e mine s t o contro l dus t fromroad s an d ope n pits . 4 . Th e us e o f Ne wSourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) fo r dus t contro l deserve s fulle r analysi s i n th e RIA . Th e PE I stud yindicate s tha t th e majo r sourc e o f fugitiv e dus t fro msurfac e mine s appear s t o b e dus t generate d b

ytruck s traveling o n hau l roads . Al l firm s us e dus t contro l t o reduc e equipmen t maintenanc e cost s an d t o improv e safet yan d visibility . Th e principa l contro l metho d i s watering . Thi s mayno t b e th e mos t efficien t metho d fo r broa d us e i n ari d regions . Th e Burea u o f Mine s ha s identifie d a t leas t fiv e othe r way s t o contro l road dust : hygroscopi c sal t compounds , surfactants , adhesives , bitumen s (petroleu m products ) an

d films . No t al l hav e bee n studie d an d foun d t o b e effectiv e a s wel l a s environmentall ysound . Nevertheless , hau l roads , a s source s o f dust , migh t b e regulate d throughNSPS . 5 . Th e discussion s o f Visibilit yModelin g (p . IV-32 ) shoul d acknowledg e tha t th e Secretaryo f th e Interio r ha s decide d no t t o procee d wit h integra l vist a rulemaking .P.1 3



### 1 1

6 . Ther e coul d b e conflic t betwee n th e constraint s o n coa l productio n unde r thi s proposa l and th e diligenc e productio n requiremen t o n Federa l coa l leasin g unde r th e Minera l Leasin g Ac t a s amended . * \ u Marti n L . Smit h 

# Y~

Attachmen tP.1 4 

## w ATTACHMEN T 

# Unite dState s Department o f th e Interio r

I n Repl yRefe r To : NPS.CW.026 4 OFFICE OF TH E SOLICITO R WASHINGTON , D.C . 20240 

## SEP 2 0 1985

Director , Nationa l Par k Servi c Associat e Solicito r Memorandu

m To : From : Subject : Protectio n o f Nationa l Park SystemUnit s fro mthe Advers e Effect s o f Ai r Pollutio n Thi s memorandu

mi s writte n i n respons e t o you r reques t fo r an analysi s o f the lega l authorit yo f the Departmen t o f the Interio r (DOI ) t o protec t unit s o f the Nationa l Park System(NPS ) fro mth e adverse , effect s o f ai r pollution . Sinc e it s creatio n i n 191 6 the Nationa l Par k Servic e ha s bee n charge d wit hthe responsibilit yo f managin g NP S unit s i n suc h a waya s t o "conserv e the sceneryan d the natura l an

d histori c object s an

d the wildlif e therei n . . . . " (Se e 1 6 U.S.C . § § 1 , 3. ) Tha t responsibilit ywa s reaffirme d i n 1978 . (Se e id . § la-1. ) Thi s memorandu mexamine s the lega l tool s t o carryou t tha t responsibilit yinsofa r a s i t entail s the protectio n o f NP S unit s fro

mth e advers e effect s o f ai r pollution . B yan d large , ai r pollutio n whic h adversel yaffect s NP S unit s ha s it s sourc e outsid e thos e unit s and , therefore , outsid e th e are a o f DOI' s genera l par k regulatoryjurisdiction . Accordingly , the authorit yo f the Secretaryo f the Interio r t o addres s the harmfu l effect s o f ai r pollutio n withi n NP S unit s largel ydepend s upo n th e exten t t o whic hexisting lawempower s the Secretaryt o regulate , contro l o r otherwis e affec t ai r pollutin g activitie s outsid e NP S unit s whic hcreat e thos e harmfu l effect s withi n them . CLEA NAI R AC T Th e cleares t gran t o f authorit yt o th e Secretaryt o protec t NP S unit s fro

m the harmfu l effect s o f air'pollutio n generate d outsid e thos e unit s i s containe d in the Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA) . (Se e 4 2 U.S.C . $ 7401 , e t seq.) " Th e CA Aaddresse s ai r pollutio n a t severa l levels . Initially , i t require s the Administrato r o f the Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) t o prescrib e primaryan d secondarynationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s fo r eac hai r pollutan t fo r whic h ai r qualit y criteri a ar e established . (Se e _id . § 7409(a). ) Primary standard s ar e designe d t o protec t th e publi c healt hfro mai rP.1 5

*i *

pollution ; secondarystandard s t o protec t the publi c welfare . (Se e _id_

. § 7409(b). ) Thes e standard s represen t ai r qualit ygoal s applicabl e nationwide . Wit hrespec t t o region s o f the countrywhic halread yhav e relativel yclea n air , the CA Aimpose s control s o n additiona l ai r pollution . Th e preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) o f ai r qualit yin certai n unit s o f th e NP S i s addresse d i n Par t C o f th e CAA . (Se e id . § § 7470-7491. ) O f particula r relevanc e t o suc hunit s ar e th e statutorystatement s o f Congressiona l purpos e i n sectio n 7470 :

(2 ) t o preserve , protect , an d enhanc e the ai r qualit yi n nationa l parks , nationa l wildernes s areas , nationa l monuments , nationa l seashores , an d othe r area s o f specia l nationa l o r regiona l natural , recreational , scenic , o r histori c value ; (3 ) t o insur e tha t economi c growt h wil l occu r i n a manne r consisten t wit h the preservatio n ; o f existin g clea n ai r resources ; an d (5 ) t o assur e tha t an ydecisio n t o permi t increase d ai r pollutio n in an yare a t o whic h thi s sectio n applie s i s mad e onl yafte r carefu l evaluatio n o f al l consequence s o f suc ha decisio n an

d afte r adequat e procedura l opportunitie s fo r informe d publi c participatio n in the decisionmakin g process . T o thos e end s Congres s ha s prescribe d maximu m allowabl e increase s ove r baselin e concentrations—an d maximu mallowabl e concentrations—fo r particulat e matte r an d sulfu r dioxid e ai r pollutio n i n thre e classe s o f the presumabl ycleane r ai r qualit y contro l region s o f the country . (Se e id . § § 7407 , 7473(a),(b). ) Whil e Congres s di d no t prescrib e simila r limitation s fo r othe r ai r pollutants , i t di d requir e the Administrato r o f EPA , afte r stud yan d n o late r than Augus t 7 , 1979 , t o promulgat e regulation s t o preven t the significan t deterioratio n o f ai r qualit ywhic h woul d resul t fro

mthe emission s o f hydrocarbons , carbo n monoxide , photochemica l oxidants , an d nitroge n oxides . (Se e id . § 7476(a). ) I n addition , i t require d the Administrato r t o promulgat e PS D regulation s fo r othe r pollutant s withi n two year s afte r nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s ar e promulgate d fo r thos e othe r pollutants . (Ibid. ) T o dat e the Administrato r ha s adopte d suc hregulation s onl yfo r particulat e matte r an d sulfu r dioxid e ai r pollution .P.1 6

Contro l o f additiona l ai r pollutio n i s t o b e accomplishe d b ya permi t systemgenerall ysupervise d b ythe state s pursuan t t o EPA-approve d implementatio n plan s designe d t o preven t significan t deterioratio n o f ai r qualit yi n thos e regions . (Se e U_. § § 7410 , 7471 , 7475. ) O f the foregoin g "clean air " qualit ycontro l regions , "clas s I " area s ar e t o receiv e the greates t protectio n fro madditiona l ai r pollution . (Se e id . § 7473(b)(1). ) Depending upo n existin g level s o f ai r pollution , the maximu mallowabl e increase s i n concentratio n o f controlle d pollutant s whic har e permitte d i n clas s I area s ca n provid e significantl ygreate r protectio n fo r thes e region s tha n i s provide d generall yunde r th e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandards . Progressivel ygreate r increase s o f ai r pollutio n ar e permitte d i n clas s I I an d clas s II I areas . (Se e _icL

_ § 7473(b)(2) , (3). ) Clas s I area s includ e al l o f the following whic hwer e i n existenc e o n Augus t 7 , 1977 : internationa l parks , nationa l wildernes s area s an d memoria l park s whic hexcee d 5,00 0 acre s i n size , an

d nationa l parks.whic h excee d 6,00 0 acre s i n size . (Id . § 7472(a). ) Unles s redesignate d a s clas s I o r clas s II I area s pursuan t t o sectio n 747 4 o f tha t title , al l othe r NP S units — including nationa l monuments , smalle r nationa l parks , memoria l park s an

d wildernes s areas , an d al l NP S unit s designate d afte r Augus t 7 , 1977—ar e clas s I I areas . (Id . § 7472(b). ) Further , certai n NP S unit s mayb e redesignate d onl ya s clas s I o r clas s II . Thes e unit s includ e al l nationa l monuments , primitiv e areas , preserves , recreatio n areas , wil d an d sceni c rivers , lakeshore s an

d seashore s whic h excee d 10,00 0 acre s i n siz e (id . § 7474(a)(1) ) an

d al l nationa l park s an d wildernes s area s establishe d afte r Augus t 7 , 1977 , whic h excee d 10,00 0 acre s i n siz e (i£\- § 7474(a)(2 ) ) . Baselin e concentration s o f eac h pollutan t fo r whic h a ceilin g ha s bee n promulgate d mus t b e establishe d befor e thes e provision s wil l hav e an yeffec t o n additiona l ai r pollution . Baselin e concentration s ar e se t i n eac h ai r qualit ycontro l regio n a t th e leve l o f concentratio n o f eac hregulate d ai r pollutan t existin g a t th e time tha t the firs t applicatio n fo r permissio n t o construc t a "majo r emitting facility " i s submitte d t o th e stat e containin g tha t region . (Se e id . § § 7475(a) , 7479(4). ) Amajo r emittin g facilit yi s on e o f a specifi c lis t o f stationary source s whic hemit s o r ha s th e potentia l t o emi t a t leas t on e hundre d ton s pe r yea r o f an yai r pollutant . (Se e id . § 7479(1). ) Source s o f ai r pollutio n whic h ar e no t include d i n tha t specifi c lis t ar e no t considere d majo r emittin g facilitie s subjec t t o thes e regulation s unles s theyhav e th e potentia l t o emi t a t leas t tw o hundre d fift yton s pe r yea r o f thos e pollutants . (Ibid. ) Further , onl yemission s whic hcome fro ma "poin t source"—suc h a s a smok e stack—-ar e include d in the two hundre d fift yto n pe r yea r threshol d calculatio n unles s th e EP AP.1 7

Administrato r promulgate s a regulatio n specificall yincluding i n tha t calculatio n emission s tha t otherwis e "escape " a facility , suc ha s "fugitiv e emissions.. " (Se e i_[. § 7602(j) ; Alabama Powe r Co . v . Costle , 63 6 F.2 d 323 , 368-37 0 (1979). ) Wher e n o majo r emittin g facilit ycovere d b ythes e requirement s ha s sough t permissio n fo r construction , the PS D provision s o f th e CA A provid e NP S unit s n o protectio n agains t additiona l ai r pollution . Ne wmajo r source s o f ai r pollutio n whic har e subjec t t o thi s permi t proces s ar e require d t o perform detaile d ai r qualit y impac t analyse s prio r t o filing a permi t application , t o instal l the bes t availabl e contro l technology , an d t o conduc t monitorin g a s necessaryafte r operatio n o f the facilit yha s commenced . (Id . § 7475(a)(2)-(4) , (a)(6)-(8) , (e)(l)-(3). ) I n addition , whe n a ne wmajo r emitting facilit ymayaffec t a federa l "clas s I " area , th e statut e provide s fo r notificatio n o f the responsibl e federa l lan d manage r an

d impose s upo n hi m a particula r dut yt o protec t th e ai r qualit yrelate d value s o f the area . Sectio n 7475(d)(2 ) provides :

(A ) Th e [EPA ] Administrato r shal l provid e notic e o f the permi t applicatio n t o the Federa l Lan

d Manage r an

d th e Federa l officia l charge d wit hdirec t responsibilit yfo r managemen t o f an

yland s withi n a clas s I are a whic hmaybe affecte d b yemission s fro

mthe propose d facility . (B ) Th e Federa l Lan d Manage r an

d th e Federa l Officia l charge d wit h direc t responsibilit y fo r managemen t o f suc hland s shal l hav e an affirmativ e responsibilit yt o protec t th e ai r qualit yrelate d value s (including visibility ) o f an ysuc hland s withi n a clas s I are a an d t o consider , i n consultatio n wit hthe Administrator , whethe r a propose d majo r emitting facilit ywil l hav e an advers e impac t o n suc hvalues . I n connectio n wit hNP S unit s th e "Federa l Lan d Manager " i s the Secretaryo f the Interio r (Se e id . § 7602(D ) o r hi s delegat e withi n th e Departmen t o f th e Interio r (se e Reorganizatio n Pla n No . 3 o f 1950 , 5 U.S.C . Appendix) . Th e "Federa l officia l charge d wit hdirec t responsibilit yfo r management " o f suc h land s presumabl ywoul d b e th e par k superintenden t o r comparabl e official . Th e "affirmativ e responsibility " o f thes e federa l official s i s delineate d in som

e detail . I f eithe r officia l file s a notic e allegin g tha t emission s fro mthe propose d majo r emitting facilit y "ma ycaus e o r contribut e to " a chang e i n th e ai r qualit yin the clas s I area , a permi t t o construc t the facilit ymayno t issu e unles s the owne r o r operato r o f the facilit ydemonstrate s tha t an yresulting pollutio n wil l no t excee d the maximu mincrease s allowabl e unde r the statute . (4 2 U.S.C . § 7475(d)(2)(C)(i). ) Further , eve n i f the maximu mallowabl e increase s wil l ho t beP.1 8

exceede d b

ythe propose d facility , a permi t stil l ma yno t issu e i f the Secretarydemonstrate s t o the satisfactio n o f the stat e in whic hthe facilit yi s t o b e locate d tha t suc hfacilit y nonetheles s wil l hav e an "advers e impac t o n the ai r quality-

- relate d value s (including visibility ) o f such " area . (Id . § 7475(d)(2)(C)(ii). ) Correspondingly , i f the owne r o r operato r o f th e propose d facilit ydemonstrate s t o the satisfactio n o f the Secretar ytha t the emission s fro

m the facilit ywil l no t hav e an advers e impac t o n suc hvalue s o f tha t area , the n the stat e mayissu e a constructio n permi t notwithstandin g the fac t tha t the emission s wil l caus e o r contribut e t o increase s in pollutan t concentration s whic hexcee d thos e otherwis e allowabl e i n the area . (Id . § 7475(d)(2)(C)(iii). ) Th e "ai r quality-relate d values " whic h ar e t o b e protecte d fro m the advers e impac t o f a propose d majo r emittin g facilit yar e no t define d unde r th e Clea n Ai r Act . The yare , however , discusse d i n th e Senat e repor t accompanying the bil l fromwhic hthe advers e impac t determinatio n provisio n o f th e 197 7 Amendment s wa s take n verbatim . Th e Senat e repor t states :

[T]h e ter m"ai r qualit yrelate d values " o f Federa l land s designate d a s clas s I include s th e fundamenta l purpose s fo r whic h suc hland s hav e bee n establishe d an d preserve d b

ythe Congres s an

d the responsibl e Federa l agency . Fo r example , unde r the 191 6 Organi c Ac t t o establis hth e Nationa l Park Servic e (1 6 U.S.C . § 1) , the purpos e o f suc hnationa l par k land s "i s t o conserv e the sceneryan d the natura l an

d histori c object s an d the wildlif e therei n an d t o provid e fo r th e enjoymen t o f the same i n suc hmanne r an d b y suc hmean s a s wil l leav e themunimpaire d fo r th e enjoymen t o f futur e generations. " (S . Rep . No . 95-127 , 95t hCong. , 1s t Sess . 3 6 (1977). ) Similarly , i n th e preambl e t o it s proposa l o f the regulation s governin g the preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n o f thes e values , EPAnoted :

Accordin g t o the legislativ e historyo f the Amendments , the ter m"ai r qualit yrelate d values " include s the fundamenta l purpos e fo r whic hsuc hland s hav e bee n establishe d an d preserve d b

ythe Congress . I n additio n t o visibility , whic h i s specificall ycite d i n the Amendments , othe r "ai r qualit yrelate d values " tha t maybe considere d includ e odor , damag e t o flor a an d fauna , geologi c an d cultura l characteristics , aci d rai n an d climate . (4 2 Fed ; Reg . 57,48 1 (1977). )P.1 9

I n announcin g initiatio n o f the stud yrequire d b

y4 2 U.S.C . § 7474(d ) t o determin e the importanc e o f ai r qualit yrelate d value s t o nationa l monument s an d preserves , the Departmen t o f the Interio r define d the phras e a s follows :

Ai r qualit yrelate d value s ar e al l thos e value s possesse d b yan are a excep t thos e tha t ar e no t affecte d b ychange s i n ai r qualit y an d includ e al l thos e asset s o f an are a whos e vitality , significance , o r integrit yi s dependen t i n some wayupo n th e ai r environment . Thes e value s includ e visibilit y an d thos e scenic , cultural , biological , an d recreatio n resource s o f an are a tha t ar e affecte d b

yai r quality . (4 3 Fed . Reg . 15,01. 6 (1978). ) B yimposing upo n the federa l lan d manage r th e affirmativ e responsibilit yo f protectin g ai r qualit yrelate d value s o f clas s I area s fro

madvers e impac t b yan ypropose d majo r emittin g facility , an

d b ygivin g hi ma participatoryrol e i n tha t protection , the CA Aprovide s the Secretaryo f the Interio r wit h specifi c mean s fo r the protectio n o f som e NP S unit s fro

mcertai n additiona l ai r pollutio n generate d b yenumerate d sources . Th e portio n o f the CA Aregulating newmajo r emittin g facilitie s ha s bee n judiciall yconstrue d t o appl yonl yt o thos e facilitie s whic har e t o be constructe d i n "clean air " areas . (Se e Alabama Powe r Co . v . Costle , supra , 63 6 F.2 d a t 368.) . I t doe s no t appl y t o the constructio n o f ne wmajo r emittin g facilitie s in nonattainmen t (non-clean air ) areas , eve n i f theywil l hav e a n advers e impac t o n NP S unit s locate d i n nearb yclas s I areas . Neithe r d o thes e PSD/advers e impac t protection s extend : 1 ) t o clas s I I areas , whic hcompris e the bul k o f NP S units , 2 ) t o existin g emitting facilities , o r 3 ) t o facilitie s smalle r tha n thos e designate d i n the statute . Subpar t I I o f par t C o f the CA Adeal s wit hvisibilit yprotectio n i n certai n NP S units . I t i s bot hbroade r an d narrowe r i n scop e than subpar t I . I t i s broade r becaus e i t addresse s existin g a s wel l a s futur e visibilit yimpairment ; i t i s narrowe r becaus e it s protection s ar e afforde d onl yt o "mandatoryclas s I areas " i.e. , statutoril ydefine d clas s I area s tha t canno t b e redesignate d a s a les s protecte d class . In addition , i t limit s the rol e o f the Secretaryo f the Interio r i n the proces s o f protecting visibilit y in NP S unit s t o a consultativ e one .P.2 0

In thi s regard , Congres s ha s declare d a s a "nationa l goal" :

the preventio n o f an yfuture , an

d the remedying o f an

yexisting , impairmen t o f visibilit yin mandatoryclas s I Federa l area s whic himpairmen t result s fro mmanmad e ai r pollution . (4 2 U.S.C . § 7491(a)(1). ) Th e statut e direct s the Administrato r o f EPAt o promulgat e regulation s t o carryou t thi s nationa l goa l (se e id . § 7491(a)(4) ) and , afte r consultatio n wit h the Secretaryo f the Interior , t o promulgat e " a lis t o f mandator yclas s I Federa l area s i n whic hhe determine s visibilit yi s a n importan t value. " (Id . § 7491(a)(2). ) Th e "mandatoryclas s I Federa l areas " designate d her e ar e the specifi c NP S unit s describe d i n sectio n 7472(a ) a s no t being subjec t t o redesignatio n t o anothe r class . Regulation s adopte d b yEPApursuan t t o th e CA Arequir e stat e implementatio n plan s t o provid e fo r notic e t o the Secretaryo f the Interio r o f th e anticipate d impact s o n visibilit yi n an y Federa l Clas s I are a o f an yo f thos e newmajo r emitting facilitie s subjec t t o the PS D permi t process . (Se e 4 0 C.F.R . § 51.307(a)(1). ) Thes e plan s als o mus t provid e fo r " [consideration " o f an yanalysi s b

ythe Secretaryindicating tha t the newsourc e wil l adversel yaffec t a clas s I area . (Se e id . § 51.307(a)(3). ) Unlik e the PS D regulations , thos e pertainin g t o visibilit yprotectio n als o purpor t t o gover n new source s proposin g t o locat e in non-attainmen t (non-"clea n air" ) areas , i f theywil l hav e an impac t on visibilit yin an ymandator y Clas s I area . (Se e _id_ . § 51.307(b)(2). ) Apar t fro

mthe consultativ e an d analytica l role s assigne d t o the Secretaryo f the Interior , the statut e entrust s t o th e state s the implementatio n o f the nationa l goa l o f preventin g an d remedyin g visibilit yimpairment . Pursuan t t o regulation s t o be adopte d b y the EPAAdministrator , stat e implementatio n plan s mus t b e designe d t o accomplis h"reasonabl e progress " toward tha t nationa l goal . (Id . § 7491(b)(2). ) (EPA' s regulation s requir e eac hstat e pla n t o includ e a long-ter m(10-1 5 years ) strateg yfo r achievin g tha t "reasonabl e progress. " (4 0 C.F.R . § 51.306(a)(1). ) I n determinin g the reasonablenes s o f it s progress , eac h stat e i s authorize d t o conside r the cost , energ yan d othe r "nonai r quality " impact s o f measure s whic hi t migh t requir e fo r the reductio n o r preventio n o f visibilit yimpairment . (4 2 U.S.C . § 7491(g)(1) , (2). ) Pursuan t t o the statutoryauthorit ycited , the EPAAdministrato r ha s define d "visibilit yimpairment " t o mea n "an yhumanl y perceptibl e chang e i n visibilit y(visua l range , contrast , coloration ) fro

m tha t whic h woul d hav e existe d unde r natura l conditions. " (4 0 C.F.R . § 51.301(x). ) Presumably , suc h visibilit yimpairmen t coul d b e cause d b ya variet yo f manmad e ai r pollutants .P.2 1

Existing regulation s als o affor d the Secretaryo f the Interio r a rol e in the identificatio n o f a specifi c resourc e describe d in the regulation s whic hmaybe.affecte d b yai r pollutio n an d whic h mayb e foun

d worth yo f protectio n b

ythe state s i n thei r implementatio n plans . Th e regulation s defin e "visibilit yin an y mandator yClas s I . Federa l area " t o includ e "an yintegra l vist a associate d wit htha t area " (id . § 51.301(y) ) an d authoriz e th

e Secretaryo f the Interio r t o identif yintegra l vista s fo r consideratio n b

ythe state s i n thei r implementatio n plan s (id . § 51.304(a)) . A

n "integra l vista " i s define d t o mea n " a vie w perceive d fro

mwithi n the mandatoryClas s I Federa l -are a o f a specifi c landmar k o r panorama locate d outsid e the boundaryo f the mandatoryClas s I Federa l area. " (Id . § 51.301(n). ) (Th e validit yo f thes e regulation s i s being challenge d i n pendin g litigation. ) Unde r the regulations , the stat e i s onl yrequire d t o conside r i n it s cost/benefi t analysi s the harmfu l effect s o f ai r pollutio n upo n an yintegra l vist a withi n it s boundarie s whic hha s bee n identifie d b

yth e Secretaryaccording t o criteri a adopte d b yhim . (Id . § 51.304(a) , (d). ) Thes e criteri a include , bu t ar e no t limite d to , "whethe r the integra l vist a i s importan t to the visitor' s visua l experience " o f the area . (Id . § 51.304(a). ) Onc e an integra l vist a i s identifie d properly , i t i s fo r the stat e t o determin e ho wmuch , i f any , protectio n i t shoul d b e afforded . Th e Secretary' s opportunit yt o identif yintegra l vista s fo r consideratio n b

yth e state s i n thi s proces s expire s unde r curren t regulation s o n Decembe r 31 , 1985 . Absen t identificatio n b ythe Secretary , eac hstat e woul d b e authorize d t o determin e fo r itsel f whic hvistas , i f any , ar e integra l t o an yo f the mandatoryClas s I Federa l area s withi n it s boundaries , an d shoul d be considere d fo r protection . Pursuan t t o thi s regulatoryscheme , on January 15 , 1981 , DO I publishe d a propose d guidelin e o f criteri a fo r th e identificatio n o f integra l vista s an d a preliminar ylis t o f specifi c integra l vista s identifie d according t o thos e criteria . (Se e 4 6 Fed . Reg . 3646. ) Th e opportunit yafforde d th e Secretaryt o identif yadvers e impact s on clas s I area s an d associate d integra l vista s fo r thei r possibl e protectio n b ythe state s represent s DOI' s primaryrol e i n the implementatio n o f the nationa l goa l o f preventing an d reducing visibilit yimpairmen t i n the clas s I Federa l area s describe d i n th e statute . Whethe r visibilit yin mandatoryclas s I area s an

d associate d integra l vista s identifie d b yhi mreceiv e an yprotectio n from

ai r pollutio n wil l depen d upo n th

e judgment s o f th e concerne d state s i n weighing the benefit s o f protectio n agains t it s costs . Ther e ar e othe r law s upo n whic hthe Secretaryma ybe abl e t o rel y t o som e exten t i n an

yeffor t t o protec t NP S unit s fro mai r pollution . Unlik e the CAA , non e o f thes e authoritie s focusse s onP.2 2

ai r qualit yprotection . On the othe r hand , som e o f the

mmay affor d the Secretarya mor e substantia l rol e in thei r implementatio n than the CA Adoes . NATIONAL PAR

K SERVIC E ORGANI C AC T Th e Nationa l Park Servic e Organi c Ac t (1 6 U.S.C . § 1 , e_ t seq . ) provide s tha t the Park Servic e

shal l promot e an

d regulat e the us e o f the Federa l area s know n a s nationa l parks , monuments , an

d reservation s .. . b ysuc h mean s an

d measure s a s confor mt o the fundamenta l purpos e o f the sai d parks , monuments , an

d reservations , whic hpurpos e i s t o conserv e the sceneryan d the natura l an

d histori c object s an d the wil d lif e therei n an d t o provid e fo r the enjoymen t o f the same i n suc hmanne r an

d b ysuc hmean s a s wil l leav e themunimpaire d fo r the enjoymen t o f futur e generations . (Id . § 1. ) Sectio n 3 o f tha t titl e direct s the Secretaryo f the Interio r t o "mak e an

d publis hsuc hrule s an d regulation s a s he maydeem necessaryo r prope r fo r the us e an d management " o f suc hareas . I n 197 8 Congres s amende d NP S legislatio n t o reasser t tha t the variou s area s o f the NP S shoul d be maintaine d in a manne r consisten t wit hthe purpos e establishe d in titl e 1 6 U.S.C . § 1 . Mor e specifically , i t declared : » Congres s furthe r reaffirms , declares , an d direct s tha t the promotio n an d regulatio n o f the variou s area s o f the Nationa l Park System

. . . shal l be consisten t wit han d founde d in the purpos e establishe d b ysectio n 1 [of titl e 16] , t o the commo n benefi t o f al l the peopl e o f the Unite d States . Th e authorizatio n o f activitie s shal l be construe d an

d the protection , management , an d administratio n o f thes e area s shal l be conducte d i n ligh t o f the highpubli c valu e an d integrit yo f the Nationa l Park System an d shal l no t be exercise d i n derogatio n o f the value s an

d purpose s fo r whic hthes e variou s area s hav e bee n established , excep t a s may hav e bee n o r shal l be directl yan d specificall yprovide d b yCongress . (1 6 U.S.C . § la-1. )P.2 3

Th e Organi c Ac t wa s enacte d pursuan t t o the Propert yClaus e o f the Unite d State s Constitution , whic h empower s Congres s "t o dispos e o f an

d mak e al l needfu l Rule s an d Regulation s respecting the Territoryo r othe r Propert ybelonging t o the Unite d State s .

. . . " (U.S . Const , art . IV , § 3 , C1.2. ) Tw o earl yUnite d State s Supreme Court.decision s confirme d Congress ' authorit yunde r the Propert yClaus e t o regulat e activit yoccurrin g on non-federa l property . (Se e Camfiel d v . Unite d States , 16 7 U.S . 51 8 (1897 ) [upholdin g federa l statut e construe d t o prohibi t fence s o n privat e lan d whic hha

d the effec t o f enclosin g federa l lands] ; Unite d State s v . Alford , 27 4 U.S . 26 4 (1927 ) [upholding federa l statut e construe d t o prohibi t th e building o f fire s o n privat e lan d nea r federa l lan d withou t extinguishin g them thereafter]. ) Th e Cour t acknowledge d the continue d existenc e o f tha t extra
territoria l legislativ e authorit yo f Congres s mor e recentl yin Klepp e v . Ne wMexico , 42 6 U.S . 52 9 (1976) . Whil e the Cour t decline d t o defin e the limit s o f congressiona l powe r in tha t context , becaus e th e cas e befor e i t di d no t demand tha t delineation , i t nonetheles s reiterate d tha t "regulation s unde r th e Propert yClaus e mayhav e some effec t o n privat e land s no t otherwis e unde r federa l control. " (I_d . a t 546 ) Severa l subsequen t federa l appellat e decision s hav e uphel d the applicatio n o f federa l law s an d implementing regulation s t o non federa l land s withi n the boundarie s o f federa l area s t o furthe r the purpose s fo r whic hthos e federa l area s ar e held . A s the Nint hCircui t ha s observed :

[Th e Propert yClause ] grant s t o the Unite d State s powe r t o regulat e conduc t on non federa l lan

d whe n reasonabl ynecessaryt o protec t adjacen t federa l propert yo r navigabl e waters . (Unite d State s v . Lindsey , 59 5 F.2 d 5 , 6 (9th Cir . 1979). ) Pursuan t t o tha t analysis , statute s an d regulation s prohibitin g o r regulating activitie s withi n a federa l conservatio n are a regularl yar e applie d t o privat e inholdings . Fo r example , i n Fre e Enterpris e Cano e Renter s Ass' n v . Watt , 71 1 F . 2d 85 2 (8thCir . 1983) , the Eight h Circui t uphel d the applicatio n t o non-federa l lan d o f a Nationa l Park Servic e regulatio n prohibitin g the "'deliveryo r retrieva l withi n the boundarie s o f Ozar k Nationa l Park Sceni c Riverways ' o f rente d watercraf t withou t a permit. " (!__• a t 856. ) Th e cour t declared :

I t i s undispute d tha t the Unite d State s acte d withi n it s constitutiona l authorit yi n attemptin g t o regulat e th e busines s activitie s o f the member s o f the [plaintiff ] Associatio n a s the yaffec t the ONSR , eve n

1 0P.2 4

thoughmember s themselve s ma yneve r ente r federall yowne d property , bu t strictl ykeep t o stat e o r count yroad s an d rights-of-way withi n the ONSR . -(Id . a t 855-856. ) I n reaching tha t conclusion , the cour t cite d it s earlie r constructio n o f the Propert yClaus e i n Stat e o f Minnesot a b y Alexande r v . Block , 66 0 F.2 d 124 0 (8thCir . 1981) , cert , denied , 45 5 U.S . 1007 , i n whic hi t had

conclude d tha t "[u]nde r thi s authorit yto . protec t publi c land , Congress * powe r mus t extend t o regulatio n o f conduc t o n o r of f the publi c lan

d tha t woul d threate n the designate d purpos e o f federa l lands. " -.Id * a t 124 9 (footnot e omitted) . Se e als o Unite d State s v . Richard , 63 6 F.2 d 236 , 24 0 (8th Cir . 1980)(pe r curiam ) ("federa l regulatio n mayexcee d federa l boundarie s whe n necessary") , cert , denied , 45 0 U.S . 103 3

. . . (1981 ) ... . (71 1 F.2 d a t 856. ) Accordingly , th e Fre e Enterpris e cour t affirme d bot hthe crimina l conviction s o f Associatio n member s fo r violating the regulatio n b yretrieving canoe s fro mnon-federa l lan

d situate d withi n the boundarie s o f th e federa l are a withou t a permit , an d the denia l o f the Association' s civi l clai m fo r a n injunctio n agains t the enforcemen t o f tha t regulatio n on non-federa l lands . (Id . a t 858. ) I n Stat e o f Minnesot a b yAlexande r v . Block , supra , 66 0 F.2 d 124D , the cour t similarl yha d uphel d the applicatio n o f federa l la wbarring th e us e o f motorize d craf t withi n a federall y designate d wildernes s are a t o land s an d water s unde r stat e jurisdictio n falling withi n the boundarie s o f tha t area . I n explanatio n o f Congress ' authorit yt o regulat e activitie s o n non-federa l land , the cour t reasoned :

Congres s clearl yha s the powe r t o dedicat e federa l lan

d fo r particula r purposes . As a necessaryinciden t o f tha t power , Congres s mus t hav e the abilit yt o insur e tha t thes e land s b e protecte d agains t interferenc e wit h thei r intende d purposes . A s the Supreme Cour t ha s stated , unde r th e propert yclaus e "[Congress ] maysanctio n some use s an d prohibi t others , an d mayforbi d interferenc e wit hsuc ha s ar e sanctioned. " McKelve yv . Unite d States , 26 0 U.S . 353 , 35 9 . . . (1922 ) (emphasi s added) . (66 0 F.2 d a t 1249. ) Applyin g tha t analysi s t o the federa l statute s unde r attac k i n tha t case , the cour t observed :

1 1P.2 5

Thus , i f Congres s enacte d the motorize d us e restriction s t o protec t the fundamenta l purpos e fo r whic hth e [wildernes s area ] ha d bee n reserved , an

d i f the restriction s .. . reasonabl yrelat e t o tha t end , w e mus t conclud e tha t Congres s acte d withi n it s constitutiona l prerogative . (I__. a t 1250. ) Concludin g tha t the motorize d us e restriction s wer e a smal l par t o f a n elaborat e systemo f regulatio n considere d necessaryt o preserv e the are a a s a wilderness , the cour t hel d "tha t Congres s acte d withi n it s powe r unde r the Constitutio n t o pas s needfu l regulation s respectin g publi c lands. " (I_d_ . a t 1251 , footnot e omitted. ) Stil l earlier , th e sam e cour t hel d tha t unde r the Propert yClaus e Congres s coul d prohibi t hunting o n water s withi n the boundarie s o f Voyageur s Nationa l Park i n Minnesota , eve n thoughthe water s wer e subjec t t o stat e jurisdiction . .(Unite d State s v . Brown , 55 2 F.2 d 817 , 82 1 (8t hCir . 1977 ) cert , denied , 43 1 U.S . 94 9 (1977). ) I n Brown , the cour t uphel d a convictio n fo r violatin g Park Servic e ..regulations agains t hunting i n a nationa l park . (_Ic[ . a t 819. ) Th e hunte r concede d tha t h e wa s hunting duck s fro ma boa t o n water s withi n the park , bu t argue d tha t the regulatio n di d no t appl yt o hi s conduc t becaus e the water s wer e owne d b ythe state . I n a n alternativ e holding the cour t rejecte d thi s defense . Th e cour t declared :

Assumin g arguend o tha t th e stat e di d no t ced e jurisdictio n ove r th e water s i n the park , w e

. furthe r conclud e tha t the federa l regulation s prohibitin g hunting i n Voyageur s Park wer e a constitutiona l exercis e o f congressiona l powe r unde r the Propert yClause . (___[- a t 821 , footnot e omitted. ) I t woul d thu s appea r tha t b ythe adoptio n o f the Organi c Act , a s amended, . Congres s ha s delegate d t o the Secretaryo f the Interio r the genera l authorit yt o impos e reasonabl e regulation s upo n privat e inholding s i n NP S unit s fo r the protectio n o f thos e unit s an d the primarypurpose s fo r whic h theywer e establishe d an d ar e maintained . Othe r specifi c example s o f suc h delegatio n appea r in 1 6 U.S.C . § 190 2 ("al l activitie s resulting fro mthe exercis e o f vali d existing minera l right s o n patente d o r unpatente d minin g claim s withi n an

yare a o f the Nationa l Park System shal l be subjec t t o suc hregulation s prescribe d b ythe Secretaryo f the Interio r a s h

e deem s necessaryo r desirabl e fo r the preservatio n an d managemen t o f thos e areas.") ; an d 1 6 U.S.C . la-2(h ) (authorizing the Secretaryt o "promulgat e an d enforc e regulation s concernin g boatin g an d othe r activitie s o n o r relating t o water s locate d withi n area s o f th e Nationa l Park System , including water s subjec t t o the jurisdictio n o f the Unite d State s . . . ." )

1 2P.2 6

However , mos t ai r pollutio n harmfu l to'NP S unit s doe s no t originat e withi n NP S units . Th e issu e i s whethe r NP S Organi c ^c t authorit ymaybe applie d t o ai r polluting activitie s occurrin g outsid e thos e units . Th e cour t decision s d o no t ye t recogniz e congressiona l delegation s o f regulatoryauthorit yt o federa l lan d managers — suc ha s th e Secretary—a s including extra-territoria l jurisdictio n fo r the protectio n o f land s withi n thei r jurisdiction . However , i t ha s bee n suggeste d tha t existin g law s governin g regulatoryjurisdictio n ove r inholding s ccjul d suppor t tha t recognition . Th e genera l responsibilitie s o f the Secretaryo f th e Interio r hav e lon

g bee n recognize d b ythe Supreme Court : Th e Secretaryi s the guardia n o f the peopl e o f the Unite d State s ove r the publi c lands . Th e obligation s o f hi s oat h o f offic e oblig e hi mt o se e tha t the la wi s carrie d out , an d tha t non e o f the publi c domai n i s waste d o r i s dispose d o f t o a part yno t entitle d t o it . (Knigh t v . U.S . Lan d Association , 14 2 U.S . 161 , 18 1 (1891). ) Tha t prescription , considere d i n ligh t o f the Court' s acknowledgmen t tha t Congres s ma y"forbi d interferenc e with " th e particula r purpose s an d use s fo r whic hi t ha s dedicate d federa l lan d (se e McKelve yv . Unite d States , 26 0 U.S . 353 , 35 9 (1922) , logicall ywoul d appea r t o be a s supportiv e o f the Secretary' s effort s t o protec t NP S unit s fro m externa l threat s a s i t ha s bee n foun d applicabl e t o interna l threats . Indeed , the analyse s o f th e Eight han

d Nint hCircuit s discusse d abov e i n the latte r contex t seemequall yappropriat e t o the former . Ther e i s n o obviou s reaso n wh yth e "powe r t o regulat e conduc t o n non-federa l lan d whe n reasonabl ynecessaryt o protec t adjacen t federa l property " (se e Unite d State s v . Lindsey , supra , 59 5 F.2 d a t 6 ) shoul d exten d t o internally-adjacent , bu t no t externally-adjacen t non-federa l land s in comparabl e promixit yt o th e federa l holdings . Similarly , the court' s explanatio n o f congressiona l authorit yt o regulat e inholding s i n Stat e o f Minnesota , supra , 66 0 F.2 d a t 1249-1250 , seem s equall ysuite d t o externa l threats . I n Stat e o f Minnesot a the cour t firs t note d the Supreme Court' s recen t reminde r tha t "regulation s unde r th e Propert yClaus e may hav e some effec t o n privat e land s no t otherwis e unde r Federa l control. " (Klepp e v . NewMexico , supra , 42 6 U.S . a t 546. ) I t pointe d ou t tha t i n Klepp e the high cour t had relie d upo n Camfiel d v . Unite d States , i n whic h i t ha d conclude d man

yyear s earlie r

1 3P.2 7

tha t Congres s possesse d the powe r t o contro l conduc t occurring of f federa l propert y throughit s "powe r o f legislating fo r th e protectio n o f the publi c lands , though i t ma y thereb yinvolv e the exercis e o f wha t i s ordinaril yknow

n a s the polic e power , s o lon g a s suc hpowe r i s directe d solel yt o [th e publi c lands' ] ow

n protection. " Camfiel d v . Unite d States , supra , 16 7 U.S . a t 52 6 ... . (Stat e o f Minnesota , supra , 66 0 F.2 d a t 1249. ) Fromthi s premise , the cour t continued :

Unde r thi s authorit yt o protec t publi c land , Congress ' powe r mus t extend t o regulatio n o f conduc t o n o r of f the publi c lan d tha t woul d threate n the designate d purpos e o f federa l lands . Congres s clearl yha s the powe r t o dedicat e federa l lan d fo r particula r purposes . A s a necessaryinciden t o f tha t power , Congres s mus t hav e the .abilityt o insur e tha t thes e land s be protecte d agains t interferenc e wit h thei r intende d purpose s . .

. . Thus , i f Congres s enacte d the . . . restriction s t o protec t the fundamenta l purpos e fo r whic hthe [federa l area ] had bee n reserved , an

d i f the restriction s . . . reasonabl yrelat e t o tha t end , w e mus t conclud e tha t Congres s acte d withi n it s constitutiona l prerogative . (Id . a t 1249

- 1250 , footnot e omitted. ) Despit e the logica l applicabilit yo f the foregoing analysi s t o externa l threats , i t mus t b e acknowledge d tha t the court s hav e ye t t o recogniz e secretaria l regulatoryauthorit yunde r existin g la wt o protec t NP S unit s fro m thos e threats . Whil e the Secretary' s responsibilitie s hav e bee n identified , hi s mean s o f acquittin g themhav e not . Th e tensio n betwee n the clearl yperceive d secretaria l dut yan d the les s clearl ydelineate d authorit yt o acqui t i t i s apparen t i n thre e successiv e opinion s o f the U.S . Distric t Cour t fo r th e Norther n Distric t o f Californi a i n a cas e brough t t o compe l th e Secretaryt o us e hi s power s t o protec t Redwoo d Nationa l Park fro m damag e allegedl ycause d o r threatene d b ycertai n logging operation s o n privatel yowne d lan d o n the peripheryo f the park . I n the firs t o f the three , i n denying Interio r Departmen t motion s t o dismis s the actio n an d fo r summaryjudgment , the cour t cite d bot hthe Organi c Ac t an d the Redwoo d Nationa l Park Ac t (1 6 U.S.C . § § 79a-79j ) a s empowering the Secretaryt o protec t the par k fro m th e threat s perceived . (Sierr a Club v . Departmen t o f Interior ,

1 4P.2 8

37 6 F . Supp . 90 , 9 3 (N.D.Cal . 1974). ) However , i t wa s the specifi c mandat e o f the Redwoo d legislatio n upo n whic h the cour t relie d t o discer n specificall yenforceabl e duties .

W e ar e o f the opinio n tha t the term s o f the statute , especiall y§ 79c(e) , authorizin g the Secretary"i n orde r t o affor d a s ful l protectio n a s i s reasonabl ypossibl e t o the timber , soil , an

d stream s withi n the boundarie s o f th e park"—"t o acquir e interest s in lan

d from , an

d t o ente r int o contract s an

d cooperativ e agreement s with , the owner s o f lan

d o n the peripheryo f th e par k an d o n the watershed s tributaryt o stream s withi n the park"—impos e a lega l dut y o n the Secretaryt o utiliz e the specifi c power s give n t o hi mwheneve r reasonabl y necessaryfo r the protectio n o f the par k an d tha t an ydiscretio n veste d i n the Secretary concernin g time , plac e an d specific s o f the exercis e o f suc hpower s i s subordinat e t o hi s paramoun t lega l dut yimpose d .. . t o protec t the park . (37 6 F . Supp . a t 961 ) I n the secon

d opinion , afte r trial , the cour t describe d the issu e fo r decisio n a s whethe r the Secretaryha d take n reasonabl e step s t o protec t the resource s o f Redwoo d Nationa l Park and , i f not , whethe r hi s failur e t o d o s o wa s arbitrary , capriciou s o r an abus e o f discretion . (Sierr a Clu b v . Departmen t o f Interior , 39 8 F . Supp . 284 , 28 6 (N.D.Cal . 1975). ) In reaching it s conclusio n that ^ the Secretaryha d no t carrie d ou t hi s responsibilitie s properly , the cour t noted :

[T]h e conduc t o f the Secretarymus t b e considere d in the ligh t o f a ver yuniqu e statute— a statut e whic h di d mor e than establis ha nationa l park ; i t als o expressl y veste d the Secretarywit h authorit yt o tak e certai n specificall ystate d step s designe d t o protec t the Park fro mdamag e cause d b

y logging operation s o n the surrounding privatel yowne d lands . (39 8 F . Supp . a t 286. ) Accordingly , whil e onc e agai n citing bot hthe Organi c Ac t an d the Redwoo d Nationa l Park Ac t i n suppor t o f it s genera l conclusion , the court' s orde r setting fort hthe specifi c "reasonabl e steps " tha t the Secretarymigh t be oblige d t o tak e "withi n a reasonabl e time " t o acqui t hi s statutoryresponsibilitie s include d onl y thos e action s identifie d i n the "unique " Redwoo d park enablin g legislation , t o wit : acquiring interest s i n lan d and/o r enterin g int o cooperativ e agreement s wit hadjoining landowner s (se e 1 6 U.S.C . § 79c(e)) , an d modifyin g park boundarie s (se e id . § 79b(a)) . (39 8 F . Supp . a t 294. )

1 5P.2 9

Th e remainde r o f the court' s orde r revealingl yinclude d withi n possibl e secretaria l actio n request s t o Congres s fo r additiona l fund s an

d fo r clarificatio n a s t o "whethe r th e power s an

d dutie s o f defendants , a s herei n found , ar e t o remai n o r shoul d be modified. " (39 8 F . Supp . a t 294 ) In short , whe n i t came t o implementing it s determinatio n tha t the Secretarywa s oblige d t o ac t t o carryou t hi s statutoryduties' , th e cour t implicitl y acknowledge d tha t additiona l congressiona l actio n woul d b e necessarybefor e the Secretarywoul d b e empowere d t o d o anythin g t o tha t en

d no t specifie d i n th e Redwoo d legislation . Finally , i n it s third opinion , issue d approximatel ya yea r later—afte r the Secretaryreporte d essentiall ytha t he ha d apprise d Congres s o f the stat e o f the matter , an d ha d neithe r fund s no r authorit yt o tak e the othe r action s propose d b ythe cour t i n it s secon

d opinion—th e cour t purge d the Secretaryo f hi s previousl yfoun d failure . (Sierr a Club v . Departmen t o f Interior , 42 4 F . Supp . 172 , 175-17 6 (N.D.Cal . 1976). ) Th e cour t observed : Th e cour t furthe r find s that , in orde r

adequatel yt o exercis e it s power s an d perform it s dutie s in a manne r adequatel yt o protec t the Park , Interio r nowstand s in nee d o f new Congressional " legislatio n and/o r new Congressiona l appropriations . (Id_ . a t 175. ) Thus , i t woul d see mclea r tha t the Redwoo d case s di d no t suppor t th e notio n tha t the Organi c Ac t endow s the Secretarywit h extensiv e extra-territoria l jurisdictio n whic hwoul d allo whi mt o protec t NP S unit s fro m threat s originating o n land s withou t them . T o the contrary , th e clea r implicatio n o f thes e case s i s tha t the Secretary' s extra-territoria l powe r i s limite d t o tha t expressl y identifie d b

yCongress . At leas t partl yin respons e t o th e Redwoo d cases , Congres s amende d the Organi c Ac t in 1978 , adopting wha t i s now1 6 U.S.C . § la-1 . I n submitting a draf t bil l t o Congres s fo r th e purpos e o f expandin g Redwoo d Nationa l Park , the Secretaryo f the Interio r had sough t expres s authorit yt o regulat e timbering activitie s o n non-federa l land s adjacen t t o th e par k in orde r t o protec t par k resource s fro

mthos e activities . (Se e H . Rep . No . 95-531 , 95t h Cong. , 1s t Sess . 32-3 4 (Augus t 5 , 1977) ; S . Rep . N o 528 , 95t h Cong . 1s t Sess . 18-2 0 (Oct . 21 , 1977). ) Whethe r th e Secretary' s motivatio n in s o doing wa s t o clarif yexisting authoritie s o r t o creat e newone s i s no t clear . I n an yevent , whil e the measur e wa s adopte d b

ythe Hous e o f Representatives , i t wa s rejecte d b y the Senat e on the ground tha t the problem s t o b e addresse d a t Redwoo d Nationa l Par k wer e "to o urgen t t o plac e relianc e o n suc h a newconcept " (i.e. , legislatio n authorizing extra-territoria l regulations) . (S . Rep . No . 528 , supra , 8. ) Instead , Congres s enacte d the languag e nowcontaine d in sectio n la-1 .

1 6P.3 0

I n Sierr a Club v . Andrus , 48 7 F . Supp . 44 3 (D.D.C . 1980) , the cour t addresse d the clai mtha t the Secretaryhad faile d t o carry ou t hi s dutie s unde r the newl yamende d Organi c Act , inte r alia . Th e clai mwa s base d upo n th e Secretary' s failur e t o asser t an d protec t federa l reserve d wate r right s allege d t o b e threatene d b

y variou s energy-relate d development s externa l t o NP S unit s whic h sough t t o establis hwate r right s unde r stat e law . Th e cour t firs t identifie d the responsibilitie s o f the Secretary b yreferenc e t o the legislativ e historyo f the 197 8 amendmen t t o th e Organi c Ac t se t fort hi n titl e 1 6 U.S.C . § la-1. :

"The Secretar yha s an absolut e duty , whic hi s no t t o be compromised , t o fulfil l the mandat e o f th e [Organic ] Ac t t o tak e whateve r action s an d see k whateve r relie f a s wil l safeguar d the unit s o f the Nationa l Park System. " Senat e Repor t 95-528 , 95t h Cong. , 1s t Sess. , 9 (Octobe r 21 , 1977 ) ... . Thus , i t seem s clea r tha t in the even t o f a rea l and immediat e wate r suppl ythrea t t o the scenic , natural , histori c o r bioti c resourc e value s o f the [NP S unit s ther e involved] , the Secretar ymus t tak e appropriat e action . However , nowher e in eithe r 1 6 U.S.C . § § 1 o r la- 1 i s ther e a specifi c directio n a s t o ho w the protectio n o f Park resource s an d thei r federa l administratio n i s t o be effecte d . .

. . Th e Cour t conclude s tha t defendant s hav e broa d discretio n i n determinin g wha t action s ar e bes t calculate d t o protec t Park resources . (48 7 F . Supp . a t 448. ) Th e cour t the n enumerate d action s tha t the Secretarymigh t tak e i f the threat s allege d b yplaintiff s wer e foun d t o b e "rea l an

d immediate. "

Suc haction s mayinclude , bu t ar e no t limite d to : 1 ) assertin g reserve d wate r rights , 2 ) acquirin g wate r right s an d rights-of-way , 1 6 U.S.C . § 17j- 2 (1976) , 3 ) denying the lan d exchang e an

d rights-of-waywhic h may constitut e o r ai d a threa t t o Park resources , 4 3 U.S.C.A . § § 1716 , 1761 , 176 5 (Wes t Supp . 1979) , o r 4 ) bringing trespas s o r nuisanc e action s i f appropriate . (Ibid. ) However , becaus e th e cour t foun d tha t ther e wa s n o rea l o r immediat e threa t t o the Park resourc e allege d b yplaintiff s t o b e i n jeopardy—i.e. , reserve d wate r rights—i t conclude d tha t the Secretary' s failur e t o asser t thos e right s ha d a rationa l basi s an d dismisse d th e actions . (Id . a t 450. )

1 7P.3 1

I t i s arguabl e tha t the court' s discussio n o f action s tha t th e Secretarymigh t tak e t o protec t Park resource s wa s dictu mbecaus e o f it s preliminaryconclusio n tha t no threa t existe d whic h require d an

yactio n o n hi s part . Eve n i f tha t discussio n was - no t dictum , however , tw o thing s mus t be acknowledged : Mos t o f th e action s described—reserve d wate r right s assertion , acquisitio n o f right s an

d denia l o f exchange s o r right s t o others—wer e authorize d specificall yb yindependen t legislativ e o r clearl y establishe d commo n la wsources . Fo r the remainin g possibl e actions—bringin g trespas s o r nuisanc e actions , i f appropriate — the cour t offere d n o furthe r explanatio n t o demonstrat e thei r viability . Whil e i t i s understandabl e tha t i t woul d no t engag e i n extende d analysi s o f the possibilit yo f suc h action s in vie w o f it s conclusio n tha t n o action s wer e required , the court' s referenc e t o relianc e upo n thes e commo n la wremedie s provide s n o guidanc e i n thei r possibl e us e fo r the protectio n o f NP S unit s fro mexterna l threats . (Thes e remedie s ar e discusse d furthe r below. ) I n additio n t o the foregoing constitutiona l an d statutory concerns , ther e i s a n administrativ e one . Traditionally , the exercis e o f regulatoryjurisdictio n pursuan t t o the Organi c Ac t ha s bee n limite d t o activitie s occurrin g withi n the boundarie s o f NP S units . Whil e tha t pas t practic e doe s no t automaticall yba r a mor e expansiv e interpretatio n o f the Ac t t o authoriz e extraterritoria l regulation , i t seem s reasonabl e t o suppos e tha t the validit yo f suc hregulatio n woul d be subjecte d t o challeng e i n the court s b

ynewl yaffecte d parties . I n suc hchallenge , bot h the Secretaryo f the Interior' s lon g standing interpretatio n o f hi s regulatorypowe r unde r the Organi c Ac t a s relating t o activitie s withi n the boundarie s o f NP S unit s an d th e absenc e o f recen t judicia l extensio n o f federa l regulatorypowe r generall y unde r th e Propert yClaus e woul d militat e agains t acceptanc e o f tha t broade r interpretation . Unde r the circumstances , the utilit yo f the administrativ e reinterpretatio n o f the Organi c Ac t t o suppor t newregulatio n o f park-threatenin g activitie s o n non federa l land s outsid e the boundarie s o f NP S unit s remain s unteste d an

d uncertain . I t i s als o possibl e tha t the Organi c Ac t ma ybe use d i n conjunctio n wit hothe r la wt o provid e an additiona l mean s fo r the protectio n o f NP S unit s fro mexterna l threats . Tha t possibilit y arise s whe n the languag e o f 1 6 U.S.C . § la- 1 i s considere d in ligh t o f the Secretary' s statutorydutie s relating t o th e administratio n o f federa l land s othe r than NP S units . Fo r example , federall yowne d coa l locate d withou t the boundaries , bu t i n the vicinit yof , NP S unit s ma ybe lease d i n the discretio n o f the Secretaryo f the Interior . (3 0 U.S.C . § 201(a). ) Th e manne r i n whic htha t discretio n i s exercise d obviousl ymayhav e a n effec t o n nearb yNP S units . Th e questio n i s whethe r th e mandat e o f th

e Organi c Ac t ha s an ybearing o n the Secretary' s exercis e o f tha t discretion .

1 8P.3 2

I n the contex t o f the "promotio n an d regulation " o f NP S unit s consistentl ywit hthe origina l Act' s purpose , th e relevan t languag e reads :

Th e authorizatio n o f activitie s shal l be construe d an

d the protection , management , an d administratio n o f thes e area s shal l b e conducte d in ligh t o f the high publi c valu e an d integrit yo f the Nationa l Park Systeman d shal l no t be exercise d in derogatio n o f the value s an

d purpose s fo r whic h thes e variou s area s hav e bee n established , excep t a s may hav e bee n o r shal l be directl yan d specificall yprovide d b yCongress . (1 6 U.S.C . § la-1. ) Th e legislativ e historyo f sectio n la- 1 doe s no t clarif ythe limit s o f it s application . On th e on e hand , i t coul d be argue d fro mthe contex t o f the statut e tha t the polic yse t fort htherei n relate s solel yt o the regulatio n o f activitie s occurrin g withi n NP S unit s a s thos e activitie s maybea r upo n the purpose s fo r whic hsuc hland s hav e bee n dedicated . I f so , th e statut e provides' " n o additiona l guidanc e fo r dealing wit h externa l threats . O n the othe r hand , becaus e o f it s inheren t ambiguity , the statut e coul d b e construe d t o relat e t o the tota l rang e o f programmati c discretio n veste d i n the Secretaryunde r a variet yo f laws , including th

e coa l leasing statutes . Howth e Secretaryexercise s tha t discretio n coul d hav e relevanc e t o the "promotion " o f NP S units . I f tha t interpretatio n wer e substantiated , the statutory polit ycoul d b e usefu l i n the Secretary' s attemp t t o protec t NP S unit s fro

mexterna l threat s originating on othe r land s unde r hi s jurisdiction . However , th

e latte r interpretatio n woul d itsel f generat e furthe r interpretiv e problems . Th e las t claus e o f the excerp t quote d fromsectio n la- 1 except s fromthe generall yprotectiv e thrus t o f the statut e thos e activitie s whic h"ma yhav e bee n o r shal l be directl yan

d specificall yprovide d b yCongress. " Th e questio n is : T o whic hstatutoril yauthorize d activitie s doe s thi s exceptio n apply ? I t ca n b e argue d tha t al l law s authorizing th e Secretaryt o undertak e o r overse e developmenta l activities—suc h a s the coa l leasing o r surfac e min e permittin g statutes—ar e "directl yan d specificall yprovide d b yCongress, " an

d s o excepte d fro

mthe polic ydefine d i n sectio n la-1 . Anothe r reading o f the exceptio n woul d limi t i t t o thos e secretaria l dutie s mandate d b yCongress . Th e narrowes t interpretatio n o f the exceptio n woul d requir e statutoryacknowledgemen t o f the possibl e advers e consequence s o f authorize d o r mandate d activitie s t o NP S unit s befor e i t becam e applicable . I n thes e las t case s ther e coul d be littl e questio n tha t Congres s mean t the exceptio n t o apply .

1 9P.3 3

Neithe r sectio n la- 1 no r it s legislativ e historyspeak s directl y t o the issue , however , an d i t woul d appea r tha t resolutio n o f conflict s betwee n th e directiv e o f sectio n la- 1 an d othe r statutoryauthoritie s mus t be undertake n on a n ad

_ho c basi s pending judicia l clarification . Fo r al l o f the foregoing reasons , the Organi c Act , whethe r utilize d independentl yo r i n conjunctio n wit hothe r laws , currentl yi s neithe r a certai n no r an expeditiou s too l fo r the protectio n o f NP S unit s fro mth e harmfu l effect s o f ai r pollutio n originating outsid e thos e units . Othe r statutoryprogram s administere d b ythe Secretaryhav e specifi c referenc e t o the protectio n o f NP S units . Th e Surfac e Mining Contro l an

d Reclamatio n Ac t i s one . SURFAC E MININ

G CONTRO L AN

D RECLAMATIO

NAC T Th e primaryprotection s fo r NP S unit s unde r thi s Ac t (3 0 U.S.C . §1201 , e t seq . ) can be foun d i n sectio n 1272 . Insofa r a s relevan t t o ou r inquiry , sectio n 1272(e ) provide s tha t afte r Augus t 3 , 1977 , an d subjec t t o "vali d existing rights" , n o surfac e coa l minin g operation s whic hdi d no t exis t on tha t dat e shal l be permitted :

(1 ) o n an

yland s withi n the boundarie s o f unit s o f the .Nationa l Park System , th e Nationa l Wildlif e Refug e System , the Nationa l Syste mo f Trails , the Nationa l wildernes s Preservatio n System , the Wil d an d Sceni c River s System , including stud yriver s designate d unde r sectio n 1276(a ) o f titl e 1 6 an d Nationa l Recreatio n Area s designate d b y Ac t o f Congress ;
(3 ) whic hwil l adversel yaffec t an ypublicl y owne d par k o r place s include d i n the Nationa l Registe r o f Histori c Site s unles s approve d jointl yb

ythe regulatoryauthorit yan d the Federal , State , o r loca l agenc ywit h jurisdictio n ove r the park o r the histori c site ;
(5 ) . . . withi n thre e hundre d fee t o f an y.

. . publi c par k ... . I t shoul d b e emphasize d tha t thes e prohibition s agains t ne w surfac e coa l minin g withi n the NP S unit s identifie d (including privat e inholding s withi n th e boundarie s o f thes e units) , an d withi n a three-hundre d foo t buffe r zon e surrounding an y"publi c park, " an

d o n othe r lan

d whe n i t wil l "adversel yaffect " the publi c land s indicated , ar e subjec t t o a n importan t exception :

2 0P.3 4

Eac hc f th

e thre e mining prohibition s se t fort hi s subjec t t o "vali d existing rights. " Unti l recently , thos e right s generall y wer e define d a s follows :

Aperso n possesse s vali d existing right s fo r an are a protecte d unde r sectio n [1272(e) ] o n Augus t 3 , 1977 , i f the applicatio n o f an yo f the prohibition s containe d in tha t sectio n t o the propert yinteres t tha t existe d o n tha t dat e woul d effec t a taking o f the person' s propert ywhic hwoul d entitl e the perso n t o jus t compensatio n unde r the Fift han d Fourteent hAmendment s t o the Unite d State s Constitution ; (3 0 C.F.R . § 761.5(a). ) .I n addition ,

Aperso n possesse s vali d existing right s i f the perso n proposing t o conduc t surfac e coa l mining operation s can demonstrat e tha t the coa l i s bot hneede d for , an d immediatel y adjacen t to , a

n ongoing surfac e coa l minin g operatio n whic h existe d o n Augus t 3 , 1977 . A determinatio n tha t coa l i s "neede d for " wil l b e base d upo n a finding tha t the extensio n o f mining i s essentia l t o mak e the surfac e coa l mining operatio n a s a whol e economicall y viable ; (Id ^ § 761.5(c). ) However , i n a recen t roun d o f litigatio n challenging the Secretary' s regulation s unde r thi s Act , bot hregulatory definition s wer e remande d fo r hi s reconsideratio n upo n a finding b ythe distric t cour t tha t h e ha d faile d to . compl ywit hthe notic e an

d commen t requirement s o f the Administrativ e Procedure s Act . (I n Re : Permanen t Surfac e Mining Regulatio n Litigation , No . 79-114 4 (D.D.C . Marc h22 , 1985 ) (Mem . Op . a t pp . 4-11 , 18-20). ) Pending promulgatio n o f acceptabl e regulation s defining "vali d existing rights, " i t i s virtuall yimpossibl e t o provid e an y reasonabl yaccurat e analysi s o f the degre e o f protectio n provide d NP S unit s b

ythe foregoing prohibition s agains t certai n surfac e coa l mining . Apar t fro

msuc h"vali d existing rights, " the prohibition s agains t minin g withi n the federa l area s identifie d an d withi n 30 0 fee t o f publi c park s ar e fairl ystraightforward . Les s clea r i s the regulatio n o f surfac e coa l minin g in area s outsid e thes e unit s whic hwil l "adversel yaffec t an ypublicl yowne d park. " (3 0 U.S.C . § 1272(e)(3). ) Th e Ac t set s fort hno specifi c indicatio n a s t o whe n surfac e coa l mine s ma ybe foun

d t o threate n suc h advers e effect . Fo r example , on e relevan t provisio n direct s coa l operator s "to ' effectivel ycontro l erosio n an d attendan t ai r an d wate r pollutio n

. . . . " (Id . § 1265(b)(4). ) However , a n attemp t b

ythe

2 1Secretaryt o protec t a

emission s fro

msurfac e dow n b ythe cour t a s a (I n Re : Permanen t Sur 114 4 (D.D.C . Ma

y16 , 1 rule d tha t onl yai r p o regulate d unde r thi s s apparen t assertio n th a pollutio n stemfro ms u erosio n activities. " "Moreover , i f Congres s regulation s protectin g straightforwar d manne r opinion , the cour t re a itsel f (se e 3 0 U.S.C . authorit yt o regulat e Clea n Ai r Ac t ... . i r qualit yb yregulating al l fugitiv e dus t coa l mine s unde r thi s provisio n wa s struc k n overbroa d interpretatio n o f th e statute . fac e Mining Regulatio n Litigation , No . 7 9

- 980 ) (Mem . Op . a t pp . 27-29). ) Th e cour t llutio n relate d t o erosio n coul d b e tatute , notwithstandin g th e Secretary' s t i n thi s contex t "mos t source s o f ai r rfac e mining operation s unrelate d t o (Id . a t p . 28. ) Th e cour t observed : wante d the Secretaryt o develo p ai r quality , i t coul d hav e don e s o in a

. " (I_d . a t p . 29. ) I n a subsequen t ffirme d it s ruling , relying o n the Ac t § 1292(a) ) t o conclud e tha t "EP Aha s the fugitiv e dus t fro

msurfac e mine s under,th e (Jul y6 , 198 4 mem . opn . a t p . 34. ) I n the onl yreporte d ca s issu e o f par k protectio n Secretaryo f the Interi o fugitive

- dus t a t level s operatio n in the Alto n C Canyo n Nationa l Park wo u not , however , exclud e c o advers e effects . I n ad d the minin g operatio n (i n adversel yaffec t the pa r lan d wa s "unsuitable " f o th e Unite d State s Distr i Interio r o f the U.S. , 5 5 e o f whic h w e ar e i n the contex t o f r Andru s conclude d expecte d t o resul t oa l Field s in clo s Id no t adversel ya nsideratio n o f su e ition , h e conclud e eluding nois e an

d k and , accordingl y r mining . Tha t de c t Cour t in Utah I 3 F . Supp . 87 2 awar e th a sectio n tha t sur fro ma m e proxim i ffec t the h dus t in d tha t o t unsightl i

, determ i cisio n wa ntern . v . t raise d the

1272 , forme r fac e coa l min e inin g t yt o Bryc e park . H e di d ascertainin g he r aspect s o f ness ) woul d ned tha t suc h s uphel d b

y Dept . o f (CD . Utah 1982 ) . I n additio n t o the thre e specifi c pro h sectio n 1272(e) , supra , the Ac t autho r interes t whic hi s o r mayb e adversel y minin g t o petitio n the Secretaryo f t h designate d a s unsuitabl e fo r mining . Similarly , the Secretaryi s himsel f d i ther e ar e federa l land s whic h ar e uns u mining . (Id . § 1272(b). ) Insofa r a s determinatio n o f unsuitabilit ywoul d r minin g operation s wil l "affec t fragil e suc hoperation s coul d resul t i n signi f historic , cultural , scientific , an d e s systems. " (Id . § 1272(a)(3)(B). ) Th e UtahIntern. , supra , wa s precipitate d pursuan t t o sectio n 1272(c ) b ysevera l intereste d i n environmenta l protectio n ibition s se t fort h i n ize s an yperso n "having an affected " b

ysurfac e coa l e Interio r t o hav e a n are a (3 0 U.S.C . § 1272(c). ) recte d t o determin e whethe r itabl e fo r surfac e coa l relevan t here , a equir e a finding tha t th e o r histori c land s in whic h ican t damag e t o importan t theti c value s an

d natura l Alto n decisio n uphel d i n b ya petitio n file d individual s an

d group s Although"vali d existin g rights " ar e no t expressl yexempte d from the statutoryunsuitabilit ypetitio n process , a recen t ruling o f the Interio r Board o f Surfac e Mining Appeal s ha s incorporate d tha t exemptio n int o the process . In tha t ruling the Board conclude d tha t lan

d whic hi s ope n t o surfac e coa l mining a s a

2 2P.3 6

resul t o f vali d existing right s canno t be designate d unsuitabl e fo r mining pursuan t t o a petitio n file d unde r sectio n 1272(c) . (Se e I n Re : Shaver s Fork Watershe d Unsuitabilit yPetition , I3SM A 81-64 , 4 IBSM

A192 , 19 7 (Dec . 10 , 1982). ) I t i s apparen t tha t th e curren t applicabilit yo f the "vali d existin g rights " exemptio n t o bot h the specifi c prohibition s agains t surfac e coa l minin g se t fort h i n sectio n 1272(e ) an d the unsuitabilit ypetitio n proces s o f sectio n 1272(c ) contribute s t o the substantia l uncertaint yconcerning the amount
- o f protectio n fro mai r pollutio n availabl e t o NP S unit s unde r the Surfac e Mining Contro l an

d Reclamatio n Act , a s tha t Ac t wa s construe d b y the Ma y16 , 1980 , an

d Jul y6 , 1984 , opinion s i n I n Re : Permanen t Surfac e Mining Regulatio n Litigation , supra . COMMONLA

W ACTION S I t ha s bee n suggeste d tha t protectio n o f NP S unit s fro mexterna l threats—suc h a s ai r pollution—coul d b e accomplishe d through traditiona l commo n la waction s lik e thos e fo r nuisanc e o r trespass , wher e appropriate . (Se e Sierr a Clu b v . Andrus , supra , 48 7 F . Supp . a t 488. ) (Becaus e the same principle s appl yt o the availabilit yo f bot hremedies , w e wil l limit , ou r discussio n t o th e former. ) Initially , i t mus t b e note d tha t suc hremedie s ar e cumbersom e an

d b ythei r natur e can be invoke d onl yafte r the damag e i s don e o r appear s inevitable . Mor e importantly , ther e currentl yi s substantia l doub t a s t o the availabilit yo f thes e remedie s i n thi s contex t becaus e Congres s ha s addresse d ai r qualit yprotectio n i n NP S units--a s elsewher e —comprehensivel yi n the Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA ) an d th e regulatory scheme mandate d therein . Thi s legislativ e initiativ e impinge s upo n bot hfedera l commo n la wan d stat e commo n la

wgovernin g thes e remedies . I n the earl y1900' s the Unite d State s Suprem e Cour t utilize d federa l commo n lawt o resolv e interstat e ai r an d wate r pollutio n problems , withou t labeling i t a s such . (Se e Georgi a v . Tennesse e Coppe r Co. , 20 6 U.S . 23 0 (1907) ; Missour i v . Illinois , 20 0 U.S . 49 6 (1906). ) I n 197 1 the Tent h Circui t invoke d th e federa l commo n la

wb yname t o addres s a clai m b ythe Stat e o f Texa s tha t pesticid e runof f fro mthe Stat e o f NewMexic o .wa s pollutin g it s waters , declaring : "Federa l commo n la wan d no t the varyin g commo n la wo f th e individua l State s i s .. . a basi s fo r dealin g i n uniformstandar d wit hthe environmenta l right s o f a Stat e agains t imprope r impairmen t b ysource s outsid e it s domain. " (Texa s v . Pankey , 44 1 F.2 d 236 , 24 1 (10t h Cir. , 1971). ) Subsequently , the Supreme Cour t adopte d the same approac hi n anothe r interstat e wate r pollutio n dispute . "Whe n w e dea l wit h ai r o r wate r in thei r ambien t o r interstat e aspects , ther e i s a federa l commo n law. " (Illinoi s v . Cit yo f Milwauke e (Milwauke e I ) 40 6 U.S . 91 , 10 3 (1972) , footnot e omitted. ) I t explaine d tha t the court s ha

d fashione d a federa l commo n la w"wher e ther e i s an

2 3P.3 7

overriding federa l interes t i n th e need fo r a unifor m rul e o f decisio n o r wher e th e controvers ytouche s basi c interest s o f federalis m

. . . . " (Id . a t 105 , n . 6. ) Shortl yafte r Milwauke e I wa s decided , Congres s passe d the 197 2 Amendment s t o th

e Federa l Wate r Pollutio n Contro l Ac t (FWPCA) , whic hcreate d a permi t systemfo r the discharg e o f pollutant s int o interstat e waters . (Se e 3 3 U.S.C . § § 1251-1376. ) I n a subsequen t stag e o f the wate r pollutio n disput e betwee n Illinoi s an d Milwaukee , the Supreme Cour t rule d tha t the federa l commo n la wo f nuisanc e ha

d bee n supplante d in the wate r pollutio n fiel d b ythe adoptio n o f the FWPCA . (Milwauke e v . Illinoi s (Milwauke e I_I ) , 45 1 U.S . 304 , 31 7 (1981). ) Th e cour t declared :

Federa l commo n la

wi s a "necessary expedient, " . . . an d whe n Congres s addresse s a questio n previousl ygoverne d b ya decisio n reste d o n federa l commo n la wthe nee d fo r suc han unusua l exercis e o f lawmaking b y federa l court s disappears . (Id . a t 314 , citatio n omitted. ) Th e Cour t note d tha t the Pankeycase , upo n whic h i t relie d extensivel yi n Milwauke e I , ha d itsel f observe d tha t "federa l commo n la

wapplie s '[u]nti l the fiel d ha s bee n mad e the subjec t o f comprehensiv e legislatio n o r authorize d administrativ e standard s ....' " (Ibid. , quoting Texa s v . Pankey , supra , 441 ' F.2 d a t 241. ) Th e appropriat e question , th e Milwauke e I I cour t said , wa s "whethe r the legislativ e scheme 'spok e directl yt o a question ' . . . no t whethe r Congres s ha d affirmativel yproscribe d th e us e o f federa l commo n law. " (45 1 U.S . a t 315. ) Th e Cour t conclude d tha t in contex t o f the proble mbefor e it ,

Congres s ha s no t lef t the formulatio n o f appropriat e federa l standard s t o th e court s throughapplicatio n o f ofte n vagu e an d indeterminat e nuisanc e concept s an d maxim s o f equit yjurisprudence , bu t rathe r ha s occupie d the fiel d through the establishmen t o f a comprehensiv e regulatoryprogra msupervise d b ya n exper t administrativ e agency . (Id . a t 317. ) Further , wit hrespec t t o the conten t o f the legislativ e approac h t o the proble mperceived , the Cour t declared :

Althougha federa l cour t ma ydisagre e wit h the regulatoryapproac h take n b ythe agenc y wit hresponsibilit yfo r issuin g permit s unde r the Act , suc hdisagreemen t alon e i s n o basi s fo r the creatio n o f federa l commo n law . . . .

2 4P.3 8

Th e questio n i s whethe r the fiel d ha s bee n occupied , no t whethe r i t ha s bee n occupie d in a particula r manner . (Id . a t 323 , 324. ) ' Tw o month s later , in a cas e rejecting the commo n la wclaim s o f fisherme n agains t variou s governmenta l entitie s fo r damag e t o fishing ground s cause d b ydischarge s an

d ocea n dumpag e o f sewag e an d othe r waste , the Cour t lai d t o res t an ydoub t in th

e matter . Th e Cour t ha s nowhel d tha t the federa l commo n la

wo f nuisanc e i n the are a o f wate r pollutio n i s entirel ypreempte d b yth e mor e comprehensiv e scop e o f the FWPC A... . (Middlese x Cty . Sewerag e Auth . v . Se a Clammers , 45 2 U.S . 1 , 21-2 2 (1981). ) Whil e the Suprem e Cour t ha s ye t t o addres s the issu e o f preemptio n o f an

yfedera l commo n la wo f nuisanc e i n the are a o f ai r pollution , th e foregoing analysi s o f th e closel yanalogou s proble mi n th e wate r pollutio n are a woul d seemcontrolling . Th e CAA , lik e the FWPCA , establishe s a comprehensiv e regulatory programsupervise d b ythe same exper t administrativ e agency—EPA . Whatever ' objection s maybe pose d t o the manne r in whic h Congres s ha s electe d t o regulat e ai r pollutio n unde r tha t program , i t can hardl yb e denie d tha t Congres s ha s addresse d the questio n directly . O n thi s reasoning , a t leas t on e federa l cour t ha s dismisse d a nuisanc e actio n fo r damage s brough t b yth e Unite d State s agains t a landfil l operator , declaring :

Sinc e Congres s ha s addresse d the proble mo f ai r pollutio n i n the Clea n Ai r Act , I fin d tha t the statut e pre-empt s plaintiff' s federa l common-lawclai mfo r nuisance . (Unite d State s v . Kin-Buc , Inc. , 53 2 F . Supp . 699 , 70 2 (D.N.J . 1982) . Similarly , i n successiv e opinions , th e Secon d Circui t affirme d dismissa l o f federa l commo n la wnuisanc e claim s brough t agains t EP A(Ne wEnglan

d Lega l Foundatio n v . Costle , 63 2 F.2 d 93 6 ( 2 Cir . 1980) ) an

d a lighting compan y(Ne wEnglan

d Lega l Foundatio n v . Costle , 66 6 F.2 d 3 0 ( 2 Cir . 1981) ) fo r th e latter' s us e o f a high sulfu r fue l afte r EPAapproval . Whil e th e cour t di d no t reac h th e "broad questio n o f whethe r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t totall ypreempt s federa l commo n la

wnuisanc e action s base d on the emissio n o f chemica l pollutant s int o the air " (id_ . a t 32) , it s analysi s followe d the rational e underlyin g preemptio n determinations :

Ou r affirmanc e i s specificall yo n the groun d tha t the EPA' s approva l o f [th e lighting company's ] us e o f highsulphu r fue l preclude s

2 5P.3 9

appellant s fro

mmaintainin g a commo n law nuisanc e actio n agains t [th e company] . (Ibid. ) I t ha s bee n suggeste d tha t th e CAA' s "saving " clause s ma y preserv e federa l commo n la wremedies . However , ther e woul d seem t o b e littl e basi s fo r s o concluding . I n the sectio n o f the CA Aauthorizing "citize n suits, " ther e i s the followin g provision :

Nothin g in thi s sectio n shal l restric t an y righ t whic han

yperso n (or clas s o f persons ) mayhav e unde r an

ystatut e o r commo n la wt o see k enforcemen t o f an yemissio n standar d o r limitatio n o r t o see k an yothe r relie f . . .

. (4 2 U.S.C . § 7604(e). ) I n Milwauke e II , however , the Supreme Cour t rejecte d the clai m tha t practicall yidentica l language—substitutin g the wor d "effluent " fo r "emission"—containe d in th e citizen-sui t sectio n o f the FWPCA(3 3 U.S.C . § 1365(e) ) had th e saving effec t als o argue d fo r i n tha t case . Th e Cour t noted :

Th e subsectio n i s commo n languag e accompanyin g citizen-sui t provision s an d w e thin k i t mean s onl ytha t the provisio n o f suc hsui t doe s no t revok e othe r remedies . I t mos t assuredl ycanno t b e rea d t o mea n tha t the Ac t a s a whol e doe s no t supplan t formerl y availabl e federa l common-lawaction s ... . (45 1 U.S . a t 329 ; accord Kin-Buc , Inc. , supra , 53 2 F . Supp . a t 703. ) I t i s suggestiv e o f a "substantive " approac h t o preemptio n analysi s tha t the Cour t foun d federa l commo n la wpreempte d b

ythe FWPC Anotwithstandin g fairl yspecifi c evidenc e t o the contraryin the relevan t legislativ e history . A s the Milwauke e I I dissen t argued : [T]h

e Cour t ignore s expres s statement s o f legislativ e inten t tha t contradic t it s position . Th e Senat e Repor t accompanyin g the 197 2 legislatio n explicitl ydescribe s the congressiona l inten t informing [3 3 U.S.C . § 1365(e)] : "I t shoul d b e noted , however , tha t the sectio n woul d specificall y preserv e an

yright s o r remedie s unde r an

yothe r law . Thus , i f damage s coul d be shown , othe r remedie s woul d remai n available . Complianc e wit h requirement s unde r

2 6P.4 0

thi s Ac t woul d no t be a defens e t o a commo n la

wactio n fo r pollutio n damages. " S . Rep . N O 92-414 , p . 8 1 • (1971) , reprinte d in 2 Legislativ e Historyo f th

e Wate r Pollutio n Contro l Ac t Amendment s o f 197 2 (Committe e Prin t compile d fo r the Senat e Committe e on Publi c Work s b y th e Libraryo f Congress) . Ser . No. . 93-1 , p . 149 9 (1973 ) (Leg . Hist. ) Thi s deliberat e preservatio n o f al l remedie s previousl yavailabl e a t commo n la wmake s n o distinction ' betwee n th e commo n la

wo f individua l State s an d federa l commo n law . (45 1 U.S . a t 343 , Blackmun , J. , dissenting , footnot e omitted. ) Apparently , the Milwauke e I I majorit ywa s guide d b ythe appropriatenes s o f the statutorysolution—becaus e o f the latter' s comprehensiv e approac h t o a comple x proble mrequirin g oversigh t b

yan exper t administrativ e agency. —i n finding federa l commo n la

wha d bee n preempte d in the are a o f wate r pollutio n contro l b

ythe FWPCA , nothwithstandin g evidenc e o f contrary congressiona l intent . Asimila r approac h woul d seemlikel ywit h respec t t o ai r pollutio n an d the CAA . Th e CA Aals o contain s the following provision : [T]hi s chapte r [titl e 4 2 U.S.C . § § 7401-7642 ] shal l no t b e construe d a s supersedin g o r limiting th

e authoritie s an

d responsibilities , unde r an yothe r provisio n o f law , o f the [EPA ] Administrato r o r an y othe r Federa l official , departmen t o r agency . (4 2 U.S.C . § 7610(a). ) I t ma ybe argue d tha t thi s provisio n coul d b e rea d t o preserv e the Secretary' s optio n t o utiliz e commo n la wremedies—suc h a s nuisanc e actions—t o addres s source s o f ai r pollutio n outsid e NP S unit s whic hthreate n thos e units . B ycomparison , the FWPCA' s simila r "saving " claus e i s mor e qualified , preservin g onl y"the authorit yo r function s o f an yoffice r o r agenc yo f the Unite d State s no t inconsisten t wit hthi s chapte r . . . . " (3 3 U.S.C . § 1371(a ) . ) Neithe r Milwauke e I I no r Seaclammer s discusse d the effec t o f sectio n 1371(a ) o n thei r respectiv e conclusion s tha t the FWPCA preempte d federa l commo n la win the are a o f wate r pollution . Thos e preemptio n determinations , however , a t leas t implicitl y rejec t an

y"saving " effec t o f tha t section . Nonetheless , becaus e o f the mor e comprehensiv e "saving " languag e o f the CA Aprovisio n embodie d i n 4 2 U.S.C . § 7610(a) , i t can be argue d tha t the

2 7P.4 1

Court' s implici t determinatio n tha t 3 3 U.S.C . § 1371(a ) doe s no t preserv e federa l commo n la waction s ha s les s bearing on an y simila r argumen t whic hmigh t be mad e unde r the CAA. " However , i t seem s unlikel ytha t the Supreme Cour t woul d conclud e Congres s preserve d the viabilit yo f judiciall ycreate d federa l commo n la

wright s o f action , suc h a s thos e fo r nuisance , in thi s genera l formulation . I f the Cour t wa s willin g t o fin d pre emptio n o f federa l commo n la wb ythe FWPC

Anotwithstandin g the specifi c contrarylegislativ e historynote d b ythe dissen t in Milwauke e I I (an

d discusse d above) , i t woul d seem unlikel yt o b e swaye d b

ythe argumen t tha t the CA Asough t t o preserv e federa l commo n la

wb ythe genera l languag e o f sectio n 7610(a) . (I t woul d seemreasonabl e t o suppos e tha t th e contraryvie wo f a federa l distric t cour t whic hha d relie d upo n the cour t o f appea l decisio n vacate d in Milwauke e I I (se e Unite d State s v . Atlantic-Richfiel d Co . , 47 8 F . Supp . 1215 , 121 9 (D . Mont . 1979) ) ha s los t it s " foundation . (Se e Kin-Buc , Inc . supra , 53 2 F . Supp . a t 702.) ) Considerin g the teno r o f the Court' s preemptio n analysi s unde r the FWPC

Aan d the similarl ycomprehensiv e approac ht o ai r pollutio n unde r the CAA , littl e relianc e ca n be place d upo n section s 7604(e ) an d 7610(a ) a s preserver s o f a federa l commo n la wo f nuisanc e i n thi s context . Ther e ar e othe r difference s betwee n the CA Aan d the FWPCA , o f course , an

d onl yjudicia l interpretatio n can determin e whethe r the former , lik e the latter , ha s "occupie d the field " t o th e exclusio n o f federa l commo n law . I t i s ou r opinion , however , tha t the Secretarycanno t rel ywit h confidenc e upo n an yfedera l commo n la

wo f nuisanc e in an yeffor t t o protec t NP S unit s fro m th e advers e effect s o f ai r pollutio n generate d outsid e the boundarie s o f thos e units . B yimplicatio n Milwauke e I I raises—bu t doe s no t analyz e o r resolve—th e possibilit yo f th e existenc e o f anothe r bod yo f la

w whic hmaysuppor t nuisanc e action s fo r relie f fro mai r pollution : the commo n la

wo f the States . Fo r compariso n in discussin g pre emptio n o f federa l commo n la wb yfedera l statute s the Cour t observed : Contraryt o the suggestion s o f respondents ,

the appropriat e analysi s in determinin g i f federa l statutoryla wgovern s a questio n previousl ythe subjec t o f federa l commo n la w i s no t the same a s tha t employe d in decidin g i f federa l la

wpre-empt s stat e law . In considerin g the latte r questio n "'we star t wit hthe assumptio n tha t the histori c publi c power s o f th

e State s wer e no t t o b e supersede d b

ythe Federa l Ac t unles s tha t was ' the clea r an

d manifes t purpos e o f Congress.' " Jone s v . Rat hPacking Co. , 43 0 U.S . 519 , 52 5 (1977 ) (quotin

g Ric e v . Sant a Fe.Elevato r

2 8P.4 2

Corp . , 33 1 U.S . 218 , 23 0 (1947)) . Whil e we hav e no t hesitate d t o fin d pre-emptio n o f stat e law , whethe r expres s o r implied , whe n Congres s ha s s o indicated , se e Ra yv . Atanti c Richfiel d Co. , 43 5 U.S . 151 , 15 7 (1978) , o r whe n enforcemen t o f stat e regulation s woul d impai r "federa l superintendenc e o f the field, " Florida Lim e & Avocad o Growers , Inc . v . Paul , 37 3 U.S . 132 , 14 2 (1963) , ou r . analysi s ha s include d "du e regar d fo r the presupposition s o f ou r embracing federa l system , including th e principl e o f diffusio n o f powe r no t a s a matte r o f doctrinair e localis mbu t a s a promote r o f democracy. " Sa n Dieg o Building Trade s Counci l v . Garmon , 35 9 U.S . 236 , 24 3 (1959) . Suc h concern s ar e no t implicate d i n the same fashio n whe n the questio n i s whethe r federa l statutoryo r federa l commo n la

wgoverns , an

d accordingl y the same sor t o f evidenc e o f a clea r an d manifes t purpos e i s no t required . Indeed , a s noted , in case s suc h a s the presen t "w e star t wit hthe assumption " tha t i t i s fo r Congres s no t federa l courts , t o articulat e the appropriat e standard s t o be applie d a s a matte r o f federa l law . (Milwauke e II , supra , 45 1 U.S . a t 316-317 , footnot e oo. i tted . ) Th e Court' s genera l compariso n di d no t expressl yaddres s the possibilit ytha t stat e commo n la wmaysurviv e it s conclusio n o f preemptio n o f federa l commo n la wb ythe federa l legislation . Th e dissent , however , did :

B yeliminating the federa l commo n la wo f nuisanc e i n thi s area , the Cour t i n effec t i s encouragin g recours e t o stat e la wwheneve r the federa l statutoryscheme i s perceive d t o offe r inadequat e protectio n agains t pollutio n fromoutsid e th e State , eithe r i n it s enforcemen t standard s o r i n the remedie s afforded . Thi s recours e i s nowinevitabl e unde r a statutoryscheme tha t accord s a significan t rol e t o stat e a s wel l a s federa l law . Bu t i n the presen t contex t i t i s als o unfortunate , sinc e i t undermine s the Court' s prio r conclusio n tha t i t i s federa l rathe r than stat e la

wtha t shoul d gover n th e regulatio n o f interstat e wate r pollution . Illinoi s v . Milwaukee , 40 6 U.S. , a t 102 . Instead o f promoting a mor e unifor mfedera l approac ht o the problemo f alleviating interstat e pollution , I fea r tha t today' s decisio n wil l lea

d State s t o turn t o thei r ow n court s fo r statutoryo r common-law

2 9assistanc e in filling the interstice s o f the federa l statute . (45 1 U.S . a t 353-354 , Blackmun , J . dissenting. ) I t i s unclea r whethe r the dissent' s characterizatio n o f the availabilit yo f stat e commo n la wwoul d be accepte d b ythe Cour t i f the issu e wer e presente d fo r decision . A s indicated , the majorit ydiscusse d i t onl yt o describ e the relativ e eas e o f finding preemptio n o f federa l commo n law . However , i t i s suggeste d tha t the ver yprogressio n o f pollutio n problem-solvin g discusse d above—fro mstat e commo n la wt o federa l commo n lawt o federa l legislation—preclude s relianc e a t thi s stag e on the commo n la wo f the state s relating t o nuisanc e actions . Apparently , the impetu s fo r th e developmen t o f federa l commo n la

wi n thi s are a wa s the inadequac yo f differin g concept s o f stat e commo n la wdoctrine s t o dea l wit h ambien t pollutants . (Se e Texa s v . Pankey , supra , 44 1 F.2 d a t 241. ) A s Milwauke e I suggested : "Whe n w e dea l wit h ai r o r wate r i n thei r ambien t o r interstat e aspects , ther e i s a federa l commo n law " becaus e o f th e "overriding federa l interes t i n th e nee d fo r a uniformrul e o f decision. . . . . " (Milwauke e I , supra , 40 6 U.S . a t 103 , 105 , n . 6 ; se e Hinderlide r v . La Plat a Co. , 30 4 U.S . 92 , 11 0 (1938). ) In short , wher e federa l concern s mandat e the applicatio n o f federa l commo n law , stat e commo n la wi s superseded . Tha t analysi s ha s los t non e o f it s forc e b ythe Court' s subsequen t conclusio n tha t federa l legislatio n remove d the nee d fo r federa l commo n law . Rather , the congressiona l initiativ e presumabl yaddresse d the same proble mo f disparat e stat e commo n lawdoctrines , bu t i n a mor e unifor man d comprehensiv e manner . Unde r the circumstances , i t woul d appea r tha t a n attemp t t o rever t t o the earlie r relianc e upo n stat e commo n la wi s unlikel y t o succeed . Accordingly , on the basi s o f existing cour t decisions , substantia l doub t exist s a s t o the availabilit yo f federa l o r stat e commo n la

waction s fo r nuisanc e (or trespass ) a s mean s t o protec t NP S unit s fro mthe advers e effect s o f ai r pollutio n generate d outsid e thos e units . CONCLUSION Variou s law s mayb e utilize d b yth e Departmen t o f the Interio r t o som e exten t t o protec t NP S unit s fro mthe harmfu l effect s o f ai r pollution . Non e provide s complet e protection . Som e authoritie s seem bette r suite d fo r the tas k than others . Othe r authoritie s mayhav e bee n preempte d b ythe Clea n Ai r Act . Tha t Ac t addresse s the problemo f ai r pollutio n i n NP S unit s an d elsewher e comprehensively , an d afford s the Secretar y opportunitie s t o participat e in tha t protection .

3 0P.4 4

T o a certai n exten t the effectivenes s o f existin g la wt o dea l wit hthi s problemwil l b e determine d cas e b ycase - in the litigatio n process . Statutorymandate s wil l hav e t o b e interprete d b

ythe Secretaryin the contex t o f specifi c problems . Ultimately , thos e judgment s wil l b e teste d an d resolve d i n the courts , wher e the Justic e Departmen t i s responsibl e fo r defendin g the interest s o f the Unite d States . Howthos e action s ar e prosecute d an

d defende d wil l playa rol e i n the developmen t o f the lawfo r the protectio n o f NP S unit s fro mthe harmfu l effect s o f ai r pollution .

Keit hE . Easti n

3 1