Opinion ID: 501787
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prime Farmland and Pastureland Issues

Text: 146 We consider under this heading two Industry challenges to the district court's dispositions, and one advanced by NWF. In each instance, we affirm the district court's rulings, essentially for the reasons stated by the district judge. 147
148 In order to show effective reclamation of prime farmland, 22 the Secretary requires, as the measure of soil productivity, and prior to the release of the mine operator's performance bond, the actual growth of crops for at least a three-year period. 30 C.F.R. Sec. 823.15(b). 23 Industry complains that the Secretary and, on review, the district court failed to consider adequately whether a careful use of soil survey techniques would measure soil productivity in the manner (a) required by the statute, or (b) if not required by the Act, then at least preferable under the relevant section. 149 The Secretary's regulation calls for a comparison of the reclaimed land's actual crop productivity with the productivity of neighboring, nonmined prime farmland of the same soil type. To promote a valid comparison, similar management techniques must be employed and similar crops must be grown; measurement adjustments may be made, with the concurrence of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, to account for disease, pest, and weather conditions, or specific management practice variations. Before revegetation will be accepted as successful, resulting in release of all or part of a performance bond or deposit, see SMCRA Sec. 519(c)(2), 24 average yield of the restored soil over a period of three or more crop years must equal or exceed the average yield of the comparison area. 150 Industry urges initially that the Sec. 519(c)(2) words until soil productivity for prime farm lands has returned to equivalent levels of yield are qualified by the further words of the section, as determined from the soil survey performed pursuant to section 507(b)(16). Under Industry's reading, a post-mining soil survey, not actual cropping, is the statutory requirement. The district court, however, concluded that the Secretary was entitled to require actual farming and we agree. 151 As the district court observed, [t]he survey required by [Sec. 507(b)(16) ] must be performed before mining takes place, to determine the exact location of the prime farmland. Thus, Congress could not have envisioned that [such a] survey could ... reveal the success of the reclamation operation. PSMRL II (Round II), 21 E.R.C. at 1732-33 (emphasis added). Section 519(c)(2), as we read it, relies on the pre-mining soil survey only to ensure that the comparison area is of the same soil type as the mined land in its pre-mined state. Furthermore, the words equivalent levels of yield, as they appear in the section, are most naturally and plausibly read to anticipate comparison of production yields between the reclaimed land and the nonmined reference area. 25 See FTC v. Manager Retail Credit Co., Miami Br. Office, 515 F.2d 988, 995 (D.C.Cir.1975) (courts should avoid reading statutes in a manner that renders passages functionless). We therefore reject the contention that the statute commands the use of soil survey techniques to measure soil productivity. 152 As to the preferable measurement method, the Secretary stated in the preamble to Sec. 823.15 of the regulation: OSM [the Office of Surface Mining] has determined that cropping is the only method currently available to test the restoration of the productivity of prime farmland soils because insufficient research has been published that demonstrates the reliability of any other method. 48 FED.REG. 21458 (1983). Industry concedes an even division of opinion as to whether the necessary techniques in a soil survey dealing with reclaimed cropland have yet been developed, but urges that a soil survey nonetheless provides a more accurate and much easier measure of soil productivity than does actual crop growth. Brief for Appellants NCA at 52. The Secretary, however, was alert to factors detracting from the reliability of actual crop growth (i.e., the impossibility of ensuring identical management practices between sample and reference areas, yield variations due to weather, disease or pest circumstances, see Brief for Appellants NCA at 51 & nn. 52-56). He endeavored to provide for reliability-enhancing adjustments, see 30 C.F.R. Sec. 823.15(b)(8), and considered this course sounder than adopting a standard as to which, even its proponents concede, there seems to be respectable opinion that further refinement is necessary. Brief for Appellants NCA at 53. 26 153 In sum, we do not hold that actual crop growth is required by the Act, although the statute at least arguably suggests such a requirement. Having rejected as unfounded Industry's contention that a soil survey is required, we have no cause to disturb the Secretary's reasoned and expert judgment that actual crop growth is the appropriate means to measure achievement of the statutory objective of restoration of prime farmland. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 2866-67, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). 154
155 Rejecting NWF's challenge, repeated here, the district court upheld the Secretary's revegetation regulation for land with a post-mining grazing or pastureland use, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.116(b)(1). 27 That regulation aims to ensure reclamation success by requiring, at a minimum, that the ground cover and production of living plants on the revegetated area shall be at least equal to that of a reference area or such other success standards approved by the regulatory authority. Id. 156 NWF argues first that soil surveys alone are inadequate to demonstrate the success of grazing land reclamation, and second that actual grazing must be required because it is the only reliable measure of range land revegetation success. The district court agreed that the use of a soil survey alone is insufficient, but found that the Secretary so recognized. PSMRL II (Round III), 620 F.Supp. at 1563. In this court too, the Secretary of the Interior has represented that the regulation does not contemplate reliance on a soil survey or any other method not based on actual production to establish vegetative success. Brief for the Secretary of the Interior as Appellee at 23-24; see also 49 FED.REG. 40148 (1983) (preamble to final rule). Thus, there appears to be no contest over the insufficiency of a soil survey. The genuine issue concerns the actual production method necessary or proper to determine vegetation success. 157 For its second point, NWF relies most heavily on a National Academy of Science Report on mined land reclamation, National Research Council, Surface Mining: Soil, Coal, and Society 124-26 (1981). We comprehend that study, as did the Secretary and the district court, to conclude that evaluation of the productivity of soil reclaimed for grazing must be based on measurements of actual production. But we do not find in the study, any more than the Secretary or the district court did, insistence that grazing is the only acceptable method of establishing range land revegetation success. 28 In sum, we cannot say that the Secretary acted unreasonably in declining to require grazing to test reclamation success on sites designated as post-mining range or pastureland; it was sufficient, we hold, for the Secretary to require the use of a reference area comparison or other approved success standard that measures actual vegetation production. 158
159 The Secretary's regulations specify performance standards--measures mine operators must take--to secure eventual restoration of prime farmland to its original state and use following mining. See 30 C.F.R. Secs. 823.12 et seq. These prime farmland protective regulations govern soil removal, storage, replacement, and restoration. An anterior regulation, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 823.11, 29 describes instances in which a mine operator can obtain exemption from the prime farmlands performance standards. NWF successfully challenged in the district court two of the Sec. 823.11 exemptions; one relates to water bodies or impoundments, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 823.11(b), the other, to coal preparation plants, support facilities, and roads, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 823.11(a). Industry has appealed these twin rulings. We affirm both. 160
161 Section 823.11(b) of the regulations condones reclaiming land that had been prime farmland prior to mining by constructing a permanent water impoundment, if the mine operator satisfies the general conditions for altering the use of affected land and if the water body is designed to minimize the loss of prime farmland. The Secretary had proffered a construction of the water impoundment exception that would limit the allowance to those found beneficial or necessary to agricultural activity, i.e., water bodies necessary for irrigation of prime farmland would be allowed. But the district court, in agreement with Industry, found no such limitation in the provision; purposes for impoundments allowed by the regulation, the court enumerated, include[d] recreational, municipal water supply, replacement of wetlands, livestock consumption, and esthetic improvement. PSMRL II (Round II), 21 E.R.C. at 1734. The court concluded that, desirable as such uses may be, the Actspecifically, Sec. 510(d)(1)--does not countenance them. Accordingly, the court struck down the provision because it sanctioned a broad and impermissible variance from the post-mining use of prime farmland. Id. 30 162 Industry locates in Sec. 515(b)(8) of the Act unequivocal[ ] authorization for the creation ... of permanent impoundments when reclaiming mined land, and maintains that the statute at no point commands that all prime farmland be reclaimed to crop farming. Brief for Appellants NCA at 54-55. 31 We find Industry's argument unpersuasive and hold that the Act and its legislative history impel the district court's ruling. 163 Taking one step back from the subsection Industry advances, we come upon the instruction, in Sec. 515(b)(7), that for all prime farm lands ... to be mined and reclaimed ... operator[s] shall follow specified soil removal, storage, and replacement procedures deemed necessary by Congress to restore the productivity of mined prime farmland. See also H.R.REP. NO. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 67 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 593, 605 (standards designed to assure full reclamation). 32 We emphasize the words all and shall in the Sec. 515(b)(7) prescription. Beyond question, Congress did not intend to allow any mined prime farmland to be left altogether unreclaimed, and the subsection appears to instruct, inclusively, that all prime farmland reclamation shall, as a minimum, be conducted pursuant to the statutorily enumerated requirements. The listed requirements entail precise and arduous specifications that are altogether unnecessary, indeed counterproductive, to the construction of a water impoundment. We leave open the question whether, without defying congressional intent, the Secretary might plausibly urge a narrow exception allowing water impoundments necessary or beneficial to prime farmland activity. See supra note 30. Section 515(b)(7), it suffices to point out here, plainly supports the district court's conclusion that a general exception for water impoundments authorizes impermissible post-mining uses of prime farmland. 164 Section 519(c)(2) of the Act also accords with the district court's ruling and is dissonant with Industry's position. See supra note 24. This section permits release of the bond or deposit placed by a mine operator to guarantee satisfactory reclamation only when the soil productivity of the affected prime farmland has been returned to levels of yield equivalent to those of neighboring, nonmined prime farmland. While the provision does not say in so many words that mine operators shall restore prime farmland to its pre-mined use, bond release is impermissible until such restoration is achieved. 165 We reproduce in the margin a significant excerpt from the legislative history. The item is a statement by Senator Culver, sponsor of an amendment to the Act; as proposed by Senator Culver, the amendment expressly denied a mining permit to any operator unable to demonstrate the ability fully to restore prime farmland, if the mine area at stake included more than ten percent prime farmland. 33 The Culver statement strongly maintained that alternate uses of prime farmland, even uses perceived by a regulator as higher or better, are inappropriate, and therefore must be disallowed by those who administer the Act. We find in the legislative history no reference to any objection to the amendment on the ground that alternate post-mining uses for prime farmland should be permitted; dissenters merely urged that the Act already protected prime farmland so that the amendment was superfluous. 123 CONG.REC. 15712 (1977) (statement of Senator Hansen); 123 CONG.REC. 15718 (1977) (statement of Senator Melcher). Senator Culver's amendment was incorporated into the Senate bill, and it emerged from the Conference Committee and full Congress without even the ten percent threshold limitation proposed by its sponsor. See SMCRA Sec. 510(d)(1). The subsection containing Senator Culver's amendment is the very one featured by the district court in holding that the regulation's water impoundment exception is at odds with the Act. 166 Industry's reliance on Sec. 515(b)(8)'s recognition that permanent water impoundments may be created on mined land does not aid the more focused inquiry we must make. That provision instructs that any water impoundment constructed on mined land must meet certain performance standards, but it neither requires mine operators to build impoundments, nor says they may do so regardless of the prior use of the land. The Act anticipates that mine operators will be able to comply with each of the requirements set out in section 515. SMCRA Sec. 508(a)(5) (emphasis added); see also SMCRA Sec. 515(b) (listed performance standards shall be required as a minimum). The district court thus most plausibly comprehended Congress to have ordered that permanent water impoundments unconnected to prime farmland use not be constructed on prime farmland. Compare SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(7) (obligation to follow specified restoration procedures) with SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(8) (permission to construct permanent water impoundments). We have no warrant to disturb the district court's solidly-supported disposition. 167
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