Opinion ID: 501787
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exemption for Prime Farmland Affected by Coal Preparation

Text: Plants, Support Facilities, and Roads 168 The exemption contained in Sec. 823.11(a) of the Secretary's regulation, see supra note 29, applies to surface and underground mines alike, and concerns [c]oal preparation plants, support facilities, and roads that affect a minimal amount of land. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 823.11(a). To fall within the exemption, these facilities must be actively used over extended periods of time. Id. On NWF's challenge, the district court remanded this exemption for two distinct reasons. First, the court held that despite adequate reasons for exempting land underlying surface facilities of underground mines, the Secretary had too swiftly equated surface mining with underground mining for the purpose at hand. The district judge instructed the Secretary to reconsider, taking account of basic differences between the two operations. Second, the district court found the exemption imprecise because the Secretary had not further defined the terms extended periods of time and minimal amount of land. PSMRL II (Round II), 21 E.R.C. at 1734-35. This second ruling is not contested on appeal. The challenge here is limited to Industry's objection to the district court's first basis for the remand. 169 We note, initially, that Industry misdescribes what the district court held. The ruling we review does not command application of Sec. 515(b)(7) of the Act to the soil under support facilities for surface mines. But see Brief for Appellants NCA at 59, 63. Rather, the remand called for a more cogent explanation of the Secretary's action, so that the court could intelligently rule on the consistency of that action with the statute. 170 The regulatory preamble to Sec. 823.11, 48 FED.REG. 21452-55 (1983), offers two reasons for ranking surface mining operations with underground operations in the context at issue. First, the Secretary referred to the district court's 1980 ruling that it would be unreasonable not to exempt underground mine operators' surface support facilities that are actively used over extended periods of time but affect a minimal amount of land. See PSMRL I (Round II), 19 E.R.C. at 1480-81. The Secretary thought that the same rationale, i.e., the arbitrariness of command[ing] operators to segregate [and store] the topsoil and the underlying horizons for 20-40 years in situations where reclamation will affect a small area, id., appl[ies] equally well to such facilities associated with surface mines. Surface mines often use the same types of facilities as underground mines and for comparable periods of time. 48 FED.REG. 21453 (1983). 171 Second, the Secretary relied upon his own finding that, for restoring prime farmland affected by surface support facilities, the prime farmlands standards provide procedures less suitable than those contained in the general performance standards. 34 A reasonable construction of the prime farmland sections of the Act, the Secretary commented, does not require that they be applied to 'areas' where their special protections would be to no avail. 48 FED.REG. 21453 (1983). 172 The Secretary's first justification, as the district court observed, did not adequately explain why the court's 1980 opinion, written with underground mine facilities in mind, should apply to surface facilities for surface mining operations. During the comment period on Sec. 823.11, two commenters noted that surface mine operations, unlike underground mine operations, constantly disturb and reclaim the surface in the process of removing coal. 48 FED.REG. 21453 (1983); see SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(16) (reclamation is to proceed as contemporaneously as possible to the land disturbance). Soil affected by surface mine facilities, these comments suggested, need not be stored for 20-40 years until the facilities are dismantled, but could be used in the reclamation of the earliest mine cuts. Similarly, the prime farmland area affected by facilities for the life of the mine might be reclaimed using soil removed from the final mine cut. 173 Industry stresses that neither the district court nor this court is qualified to settle questions of mining techniques, i.e., to say how surface mines deal with the soil under support facilities. Brief for Appellants NCA at 62. We do not pretend to mining technique expertise, nor did the district court. We do insist, however, that the Secretary tell us comprehensibly, based on his expertise, why--despite basic differences between surface and underground mining operations, PSMRL II (Round II), 21 E.R.C. at 1735--a decision focused on facilities serving underground mines applies equally well to facilities supporting surface mines. 174 The Secretary's second prop for Sec. 823.11(a) is unstable at two critical joints. First, the proffered explanation addresses only, and thus could justify only, exemption from the special soil removal, storage, and replacement standards; the explanation does not tell us why the special soil restoration requirements of 30 C.F.R. Sec. 823.15 need not be observed. And second, the explanation loses some of the force it might otherwise have when, three sentences after the Secretary concludes that the special performance standards would be to no avail for land affected by support facilities, he stresses that only [facilities] which affect a minimal amount of land are exempted [from prime farmland performance standards]. 48 FED.REG. 21453 (1983). We do not comprehend why the effectiveness of the reclamation scheme the Secretary appraises as superior when support facilities are involved, see supra note 34 and accompanying text, should vary according to the amount of land to be reclaimed. 35 The Secretary's position on this matter, in short, is in need of clearer statement. 175 The district court, we reiterate, remanded Sec. 823.11(a) because the Secretary's reasoning [was] flawed. PSMRL II (Round II), 21 E.R.C. at 1735. We agree. The district court did not rule that the requirements of Sec. 515(b)(7) of the Act are nonwaivable even as to soil under support facilities for surface mines, nor do we. 36 176