Opinion ID: 501787
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Values Incompatible with Surface Mining.

Text: 303 Section 522(e)(2) prohibits coal mining operations on any federal lands within the boundaries of any national forest. 87 It provides for an exception to that proscription, however, when the Secretary finds that there are no significant recreational, timber, economic, or other values which may be incompatible with such surface mining operations. Secretary Watt promulgated regulations implementing Sec. 522(e)(2) and defining its operative terms: 304 Significant recreational, timber, economic, or other values incompatible with surface coal mining operations means those values to be evaluated for their significance which could be damaged beyond an operator's ability to repair or restore by, and are not capable of existing together with, surface coal mining operations because of the undesirable effects mining would have on those values, either on the area included in the permit application or on other affected areas. 88 305 30 C.F.R. Sec. 761.5. NWF challenged this regulation, claiming that to allow mining anytime the land could be properly reclaimed would upset the balance among uses of public lands established by Congress in the Act, and would render Sec. 522(e)(2) redundant: Sec. 522(a)(2) independently requires that all lands for which reclamation is not technologically or economically feasible be declared unsuitable for mining. 89 The district court agreed and remanded the regulation. PSMRL II (Round III), 620 F.Supp. at 1557. 306 The Secretary defended his regulation before the district court, arguing that it was responsive to Congress' recognition that national forests have multiple land uses, which include mining, and that the reclamation requirement of the regulation guaranteed that the mining use would be a temporary one. 90 The preamble accompanying the regulations explained: 307 To the extent an operator completely repairs the damage caused by mining, then the values will ultimately be compatible with the mining operation. During mining itself there could be a temporary interruption of important activities. However, the mere interruption does not make the mining incompatible with the long-term resumption of the activity.... [The Office of Surface Mining] continues to believe that mining is an acceptable temporary use of the land in most situations. 308 48 FED.REG. 41317 (1977). 309 The district court correctly rejected the Secretary's argument that temporary interruption[s] of important activities were permissible within national forests, and concluded that by focusing on whether the land may eventually be reclaimed, the Secretary's regulation ignores explicit congressional direction to preserve lands in national forests for other uses. The Senate Committee Report made clear that 310 the Committee has made a judgment that certain lands simply should not be subject to surface coal mining operations. These include primarily and emphatically those lands which cannot be reclaimed under the standards of this Act and the following areas dedicated by the Congress in trust for the recreation and enjoyment of the American people: lands within the ... National Forests with certain exceptions. 311 S.REP. NO. 128 at 55 (emphasis added). We could not hope for a more clear statement from Congress that the ability to reclaim the land may not be the only test for compatibility. Moreover, elementary principles of statutory construction dictate that we not construe one section of the statute so as to make another superfluous. 91 Section 522(a)(2) requires that any land that may not be reclaimed be declared unsuitable for mining, see supra note 89. This requirement is mandatory on state regulatory agencies, and applies to all lands, not just those in national forests. If the only factor in the Secretary's consideration of incompatibility under Sec. 522(e)(2) were to be whether the land may be reclaimed and damage to other values repaired, then that section would merely restate the requirements of Sec. 522(a)(2). 312 On appeal, the Secretary seems to have shifted his position, and now argues not that reclaiming alone will make a mining operation compatible with other values, but that the plain language of the regulation requires that the regulatory authority consider as well whether other values may coexist with stripmining for any period of time. 92 The Secretary appears at this point not to differ with the district court's interpretation of the Act or its legislative history, but rather to claim that his regulation, as promulgated, is actually consistent with those interpretations. We must reject that argument. Counsel's post-hoc assertions notwithstanding, the preamble to the regulation, quoted above, explicitly states that the relevant inquiry under the regulation is whether the land may be reclaimed, 48 FED.REG. 41317, and it is that interpretation that we must look to. See Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168-69, 83 S.Ct. 239, 245-46, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962). The further recognition in the preamble that [m]ining, even when fully reclaimed, may result in permanent changes which may be undesirable, 48 FED.REG. 41317 (1983), only goes to how good a job of reclamation and restoration the operator may carry out. The Secretary's willingness to consider whether even after reclamation other important values would still be damaged, is a far cry from the congressional intent to give priority to non-mining uses of national forests: 313 Since mining has traditionally been accorded primary consideration as a land use there have been instances in which the potential for other equally or more desirable land uses has been destroyed. The provisions discussed in this section were specifically designed and incorporated in the bill in order to restore more balance to Federal land use decisions regarding mining. 314 S.REP. NO. 128 at 55. 315 Congress did not write a statute that required the Secretary to make sure that in the long-term the national forests be available for some use other than mining. Section 522(e)(2) of the SMCRA specifically declared national forests to be off limits to stripminers, except insofar as the Secretary could determine that the preferred uses of those lands were not interfered with by the mining operations. By saying that lands in national forests may be taken over for mining and occupied for the forty to fifty years that a coal mining and reclamation operation may take, without any consideration whatsoever of damage to significant recreational, timber, economic, or other values during that time, the Secretary violates the clear mandate of the SMCRA. Accordingly, the district court's remand order is affirmed. 316