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

Heading: Backfilling and Grading

Text: 223 In 1983, the Secretary revised his regulations concerning the first stage of reclamation--backfilling and grading the soil and other overburden (spoil) stripped from the land when mining began. NWF challenged the revisions to 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.100 and Sec. 816.101 (contemporaneous reclamation), Sec. 816.102 (terracing), and Sec. 816.104 and Sec. 816.105 (thin and thick overburden). These provisions restate the Act's requirement that mine operators restore land to its approximate original contour, if the volume of spoil permits, as contemporaneously with mining operations as practicable. SMCRA Secs. 515(b)(3), (b)(16). 224 Unlike the replaced regulations, the revised provisions failed to furnish regulatory authorities with guidance beyond the prescriptions of the Act itself, and on that account the district court remanded the revisions. PSMRL II (Round II), 21 E.R.C. at 1744-46. On appeal, the Secretary and Industry contend that the district court incorrectly read the Act to require, for each statutory prescription, additional regulatory guidance or fleshing out. We hold, in accord with the Secretary, that the Act does not automatically and inevitably require him to flesh out the prescriptions of Secs. 515(b)(3) and (b)(16). Nonetheless, we affirm the remand of the contemporaneous reclamation and thick and thin overburden regulations, for only with respect to terracing did the Secretary adequately explain why guidance beyond the statutory requirements sensibly could not be given to local regulators. 225 We note that the Act expressly commands the Secretary to flesh out certain statutory provisions. Section 515(f), for example, directs the Secretary to adopt rules governing the design, location, construction, operation, maintenance, enlargement, modification, removal, and abandonment of the mine waste piles permitted under Sec. 515(b)(13) (mine waste piles used as dams or embankments) and Sec. 516(b)(5) (same) of the Act. Similarly, Sec. 517(h)(2) instructs the Secretary by regulation, [to] establish procedures to insure that the inspections of mine operations mandated by Sec. 517(a) are adequate and complete. Nothing in the Act, however, expressly requires the Secretary to flesh out Secs. 515(b)(3) or (b)(16). 226 NWF, arguing that the regulations must genuinely guide local regulators in applying each of the Act's prescriptions, cites the House Report accompanying the bill that became the Act. This Report states: 227 Another element of flexibility is the avoidance of excessive detail in the requirements of the Federal performance standards. The committee is aware, however, of the history of the development of State laws on the subject of regulation of coal surface mining. This history presents a pattern of increasingly detailed legislation and such detail is often traceable to regulations which have failed to provide full implementation of the more general performance standards of the legislation itself. The committee believes that it has struck a balance between legislation which merely frames performance standards in terms of general objectives and standards which are cast in terms more detailed than those generally found in regulatory legislation. In choosing a middle path, the committee is mindful of the past failures on the State level and thus bases it [sic] approval of [the bill] on the expectation that Federal regulations promulgated under the act will fully implement the environmental performance standards. Obviously, the mere reproduction of the statutory environmental performance standards in the regulations would be inadequate. 228 H.R.REP. NO. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 85 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 593, 622. The Report thus featured by NWF, however, does not say that the Secretary is obliged to flesh out each and every one of the Act's environmental performance standards. We think the Report is most reasonably read to mean that, in addition to the matters on which the Act explicitly directs fleshing out, the Secretary is to exercise his informed discretion in deciding what other statutory performance standards bear elucidation or elaboration. 229 In short, we read the Act, in light of its legislative history (including the House Report passage just quoted) to afford the Secretary discretion, absent an express statutory instruction to regulate, to decide whether fleshing out is appropriate in light of other concerns. 58 Chief among those concerns is the need to accommodate widely varying local conditions that will not admit of a single, nationwide rule. See, e.g., SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(23) (mine operators must tak[e] into consideration the physical, climatological, and other characteristics of the [mine] site in achieving reclamation); H.R.REP. NO. 218 at 85, 1977 U.S. CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS at 622 ([w]orkable Federal requirements must be appropriate to the mining setting); S.REP. NO. 128, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 51, 72 (1977) administration of regulatory program should account for mining conditions, climate, and terrain [that] vary so greatly among the different coalfields). 230 Our task, now, is to review reductions of particular regulations--the contemporaneous reclamation, terracing, and thin and thick overburden regulations--to determine whether the revisions comport with the Secretary's regulatory responsibility. Under State Farm the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for the revised regulations if they are to gain judicial approbation. 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2866-67. The Secretary's accounting for his actions regarding the contemporaneous reclamation, and thin and thick overburden regulations fails to meet this standard; we do not find in the rulemaking record any identified factual basis for, or satisfactory explanation of, the Secretary's conclusion that the variety of local conditions warrants regulations on these matters that simply reiterate the relevant prescriptions in Secs. 515(b)(3) and (b)(16) of the Act. In contrast, we find that the Secretary adequately explained his revision of the terracing regulation. 231
232 Section 515(b)(16) of the Act directs mine operators to reclaim land as contemporaneously as practicable [to the] mining operations. In 1979, the Secretary had issued both a general instruction that reclamation occur as contemporaneously as practicable with mining operations, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.100 (1982), 59 and specific time and distance standards for backfilling and grading spoil at contour and area strip mines, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.101 (1982). 60 The Secretary at that time addressed the difficulty of issuing nationwide standards in view of varying mine conditions. He declined to adopt a timetable for backfilling and grading at open pit mines, or for additional reclamation steps at any mine. Furthermore, the time and distance standards he adopted were waivable on a case by case basis. Also, he explained in his regulatory preamble that these standards afforded adequate time to backfill and grade under any of the varying local conditions. 44 FED.REG. 15226 (1979). 233 The 1983 revision retained the general prescription in Sec. 816.100, 61 but eliminated Sec. 816.101 entirely. See supra note 60. To support his deletion, the Secretary commented that 'contemporaneous reclamation' is a relative term which must be interpreted by each State on the basis of the mining conditions in its territory. 48 FED.REG. 23357-58 (1983); see also id. at 24649. ([T]he regulatory authority can establish a time table, one which is more in keeping with conditions within the State, and can probably reduce the number of waiver requests received from operators.). Because Sec. 816.101 was devised to account for local differences, we do not find entirely satisfying, as an explanation for scrapping the regulation entirely, the observation that  'contemporaneous reclamation' is a relative term whose precise meaning depends on local conditions. The core deficiency, however, is that the Secretary has published barely more than a conclusion that the variety of mining conditions across the nation made Sec. 816.101 of the regulations infeasible. State Farm requires a satisfactory explanation, one that informs us why he drew his conclusion. The Secretary, in other words, if he determines there is no need to flesh out the statute, must flesh out his explanation so that we can review the rationality of his decision. 234
235 Section 515(b)(3) of the Act directs mine operators to return land to its approximate original contour. 62 The provision contains an exemption, however, for situations where the spoil is either so thin or thick relative to the coal seam that there is insufficient or too much spoil to permit return to approximate original contour. See supra note 62 (SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(3)). 63 In 1979, the Secretary issued regulations that defined numerically when a variance from the approximate original contour requirement for too little or too much spoil could be granted. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.104 and Sec. 816.105 (1982). 64 236 In 1983, the Secretary eliminated the numerical definition, permitting a variance whenever the mine operator demonstrates that spoil is either insufficient or more than sufficient to restore land to its approximate original contour. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.104 and Sec. 816.105 (1986). 65 The sole support we have found for this revision is the Secretary's cryptic observation that [t]he mathematical limit ... has proved to be impractical because of its preciseness. 47 FED.REG. 26764 (1982). We do not know from this unadorned statement why no adjusted (less precise) or alternate nationwide rule was ordered in place of the one found impractical. Absent fuller statement of the reason for the revision, we cannot intelligently determine whether the Secretary has a satisfactory explanation for his action. 66 237
238 The direction in Sec. 515(b)(3) of the Act to return land to its approximate original contour countenances the substitution of a terraced post-mining landscape for a non-terraced pre-mining landscape. See supra note 62 (SMCRA Sec. 701(2) permits terracing to achieve approximate original contour). The 1979 regulations required terraces to be constructed with bench widths less than twenty feet and slopes between benches (out-slopes) less than fifty percent, unless the regulatory authority approved a wider bench or steeper outslope. 30 C.F.R. Secs. 816.102(b)(1), (3) (1981). 67 As revised, 68 the regulations do not describe a maximum bench width or outslope angle, leaving approval of these and other terrace characteristics 69 to the regulatory authority's judgment. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.102(g) (1986). 70 The current regulations do instruct regulators to ensure a reasonable reproduction of the land's original contour. See 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.102(a) (1986). 71 As in the 1979 regulations, the current regulations allow terracing only upon approval of the regulatory authority. 48 FED.REG. 23362 (1983); 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.102(g) (1986), supra note 70; 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.102(b)(1) (1981), supra note 67. 239 The Secretary has explained on various occasions, both before and after the revisions, that the purpose of the terrace dimension regulations is to ensure the creation of land forms that will support post-mining land uses and provide erosion and water runoff control. See 48 FED.REG. 23363 (1983); 46 FED.REG. 39854 (1981); 44 FED.REG. 15228-29 (1979); see also Memorandum in Support of Federal Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (March 5, 1984) at 68, National Wildlife Federation v. Hodel (D.D.C.) (No. 83-698), reprinted in Supplemental Brief for the Secretary of the Interior (Dec. 24, 1986) at Tab 3 (memorandum filed in district court in this case). The terrace bench and outslope requirements were never intended to fulfill the statutory environmental performance standard of ensuring return to approximate original contour. SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(3). Instead, these requirements existed to ensure restoration of mined land to a condition capable of supporting its post-mining uses, by affording erosion control and moisture conservation, so that revegetation could be accomplished in accordance with SMCRA Secs. 515(b)(2), (4), (19). 240 Supporting his elimination of the bench width and outslope angle rules, the Secretary explained that terrace design to control surface erosion and water runoff must be based on local soil characteristics, local soil-management practices, and local climate. 48 FED.REG. 23363 (1983). 72 This explanation of the inutility of providing national terrace dimension guidelines adequately justifies the Secretary's decision against imposing such guidelines to fill out the statutory approximate original contour standard. We therefore reverse the district court judgment remanding the terrace regulation and uphold the Secretary's action.