Opinion ID: 501787
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alluvial Valley Floors

Text: 203 Section 515(b)(10)(F) of the Act requires surface coal mining operations to preserv[e] throughout the mining and reclamation process the essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors in the arid and semi-arid areas of the country. 50 Alluvial valley floors are the productive lands that form the backbone of the agricultural and cattle ranching economy in those areas. H.R.REP. NO. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 116 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 593, 649. 204 Prior to 1983, Sec. 785.19(d) of the regulations contained detailed specifications of the information needed in a permit application when the proposed operation might affect an alluvial valley floor or waters supplied to an alluvial valley floor. In 1983, the Secretary withdrew the enumeration of technical data, information, and analysis that formerly had to be presented and evaluated in a permit application, and instead require[d] generally that sufficient information be submitted to enable the regulatory authority to make the necessary determinations. 48 FED.REG. 29814 (1983). 51 205 NWF challenged the Secretary's deletion of specific criteria for determining what constitutes the preservation of essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors. The district court ruled that the Secretary had abandoned the detailed specification of standards approach without adequate explanation, and therefore remand[ed] this issue to the Secretary for further consideration. PSMRL II (Round II), 21 E.R.C. at 1740. In so ruling, the district judge recalled the Secretary's own recognition that Congress was extremely concerned about protecting the [alluvial valley floors]. Id. at 1741. We affirm. 206 The Secretary cites the following passage as setting out a fully adequate explanation for the deletion of the detailed requirements contained in the original regulation: 207 OSM carefully evaluated the detailed informational requirements contained in the previous alluvial valley floor regulation. The changes to the alluvial valley floor rules will eliminate much of the confusion about protection requirements of the Act and will provide regulatory authorities with flexibility to reflect site-specific conditions. Much of the technical information being eliminated, while not wrong, adds unnecessary length and confusion to the regulatory structure. Most of the eliminated material will continue to be available in guidelines and is the type of information likely to be valuable in assisting the regulatory authority in making its determinations. Elimination of the detailed informational requirements from every permit application will not result in the regulatory authorities making unsupported or technically inadequate determinations with respect to alluvial valley floors. Every decision must be based on and supported by adequate technical data and analyses regardless of whether each detail or study is enumerated in the rules. 208 48 FED.REG. 29802-03 (1983) (emphasis added), quoted in Brief for the Secretary of the Interior as Appellant at 60-61. We find this account somewhat incoherent. 209 As to the asserted confusion attributed to the detailed informational requirements, we note that the Secretary gave no particulars. He did not identify the specific source or effects of the confusion, nor did he say why revisions trimming and clarifying the requirements would not suffice to deal with that problem. 210 The Secretary's principal justification for the changes, however, was not to dispel confusion, but to provide regulatory authorities with flexibility. 48 FED.REG. 29802 (1983); see id. at 29814 (The principal difference [between the original and the revised regulation] is that the regulatory authority will have the flexibility to adjust the type of data and level of analysis necessary on which to base its determinations.). But if [m]ost of the eliminated material ... is the type of information likely to be valuable in assisting the regulatory authority in making its determinations, 48 FED.REG. 29802-03, why was wholesale elimination ordered? As the district judge observed, the reference to unofficial guidelines is not forceful: The[ ] guidelines [alluded to] are not mandatory and there is no indication that operators or regulatory authorities will heed them. The existence of these guidelines, however, undermines the Secretary's argument that the diversity of [site-specific] conditions ... precludes the use of [standards or criteria set by regulation]. PSMRL II (Round II), 21 E.R.C. at 1740 n. 20. 211 In 1978, in support of the original regulation, the Secretary then in office noted that the required studies are believed to be representative of standard ... studies necessary to establish characteristics which support the essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors, and determine the effect of the proposed operation on agricultural activities. 43 FED.REG. 41720 (1978) (emphasis added); see also 44 FED.REG. 15079, 15089 (1979) (objective of Sec. 785.19(d) is to ensure regulatory authority has information it needs). In changing the regulation to foster flexibility, the Secretary in 1983 did not question the above-quoted conclusion. But if the standards originally set are necessary to establish characteristics ... support[ing] the essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors, then we do not comprehend why or how flexibility would measurably increase under the Secretary's revised approach. 212 In sum, the Secretary's accounting for the 1983 deletions slips from our grasp, as it did from the district court's. We affirm the remand so that the Secretary may provide appropriate, official guidance to the operators and regulatory authorities, or explain coherently why such guidance is not needed.