## Facts

- The Secretary of the Interior, through the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, issued comprehensive revised permanent program regulations implementing the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
- Environmental organizations challenged several regulatory provisions as insufficiently protective; coal industry intervenors challenged other provisions as exceeding SMCRA or improperly burdensome.
- The regulations addressed, among other topics, reclamation standards for prime farmland and grazing/pastureland, backfilling and grading (including terrace-related requirements), and coal mine waste disposal.
- The district court upheld some provisions (including key prime farmland and grazing/pastureland standards) but set aside or remanded certain backfilling/grading and terrace-related provisions for additional specificity or justification.
- Both environmental plaintiffs and industry intervenors appealed aspects of the district court’s mixed judgment, and the appellate court reviewed standing and the validity of the challenged regulatory choices under SMCRA.

## Issues

1. Whether the environmental organizations had Article III associational standing to challenge the contested SMCRA regulations.
2. Whether SMCRA permits requiring actual postmining crop production over a multi-year period to demonstrate successful reclamation of prime farmland, rather than relying on soil surveys alone.
3. Whether SMCRA permits measuring reclamation success for grazing and pastureland primarily by vegetative indicators rather than requiring proof of actual grazing use.
4. Whether the Secretary may use performance-based standards for backfilling, grading, and terrace-related requirements, and what level of clarity or specificity SMCRA requires.
5. Whether the Secretary may replace certain coal mine waste disposal design standards with performance standards, and whether SMCRA § 515(f) applies to the waste piles at issue.

## Decision

- The court held the environmental organizations had standing and proceeded to the merits.
- The court upheld the prime farmland rule requiring actual crop production over a specified period as a lawful method to verify restoration of productivity.
- The court upheld the grazing/pastureland approach measuring success through vegetative productivity and ground cover rather than actual grazing.
- The court approved the general legality of performance-based regulation for backfilling, grading, and terraces, while permitting limited remand where particular provisions required further explanation or greater clarity.
- The court upheld the shift from certain coal mine waste disposal design standards to performance standards and held SMCRA § 515(f) inapplicable because the relevant waste piles were not dams or embankments.
- Overall, the court largely affirmed the regulatory package and the district court’s rulings, with modifications and limited remands on discrete points.

## Legal Principles

- Environmental organizations may establish associational standing when members’ concrete use and enjoyment interests are plausibly affected by the challenged regulatory scheme and the requested relief could redress the injury.
- SMCRA permits the Secretary to select reasonable, evidence-based metrics for reclamation success (including empirical demonstrations of restored productivity) when consistent with statutory objectives.
- SMCRA does not necessarily require that reclaimed land be put to the postmining use (e.g., actual grazing) to prove capability to support that use; agencies may use reliable proxy measures such as vegetative productivity.
- Performance standards are permissible under SMCRA when they reasonably implement statutory requirements and are sufficiently clear to provide fair notice and allow enforcement; courts may require additional explanation or refinement if a standard is too indeterminate.
- SMCRA § 515(f) applies to structures functioning as dams or embankments; where waste piles do not fall within that category, the Secretary is not compelled to impose design-prescriptive requirements and may rely on performance standards.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit sustained the Secretary’s use of performance-based SMCRA regulations across major reclamation topics, upheld key prime farmland and grazing/pastureland measures, confirmed standing for environmental challengers, and ordered only limited remands to clarify or further justify certain backfilling, grading, and terrace-related provisions.


Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Hodel, 839 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1988)