PERMFILE47269 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IBIA 94-366 • Appellants assert that this case should be decided by applying the above three factors. (SOR at 8.) The other parties to the case likewise utilize those criteria. See Decision at 1, 3; OSM Answer at 9-10; FWCC Answer at 18; SRP Answer at 14; B14P Answer at 10. i • We conclude that, even applying the criteria outlined in the 1988 preamble but never formally adopted by the Department, the railroad and pipeline at issue here do not constitute facilities "resulting from or incident to" regulated surface coal mining activities, within the meaning of section 701(28)(B) of SMCRA. We agree with OSM that both the railroad and pipeline are not geographically proximate to the surface coal mining activities at issue here, since most of those transportation facilities are located many miles from the Black Mesa/Kayenta Mines. Indeed, 80 percent of the pipeline and railroad is located more than 54 and 16 miles, respectively, from the 2 mines. These facilities do not becane geographically proximate because they originate at and traverse a small portion of the mine area that is currently permitted or proposed for permitting. (SOR at 11, 18.) To so hold would render all transportation facilities proximate unless the coal is first transported outside the mine area by other means and then placed into the facility. We do not think this is what the Department intended. Nor is geographic proximity affected by the particular use made of the facilities or, generally, the functional and economic concerns that animate the other criteria. Id. Next, we conclude that, in order to be considered to "result[] fra[t or [be] incident to" surface coal mining activities which are themselves subject to SMCRA regulation under section 701(28)(A) of SMCRA, within the meaning of 30 U.S.C. ~ 1291(28)(5) (1994), facilities must be functionally and economically tied to regulated surface coal mining activities, and thus be justifiably also subject to such regulation. This does not mean that the facilities must be actually "involved in excavation, processing or loading coal," i.e., section 701(28)(A) activity. (SRP Answer at 16.) Rather, there must be a direct and meaningful connection to such activity. See United States v. Devil's Hole, Inc., 747 F.2d 895, 897-98 (3d Cir. 1984) (mining waste piles used to recover anthracite silt - "incidental facility"); Paul F. Kuhn, 120 IBLA 1, 30-32, 98 Interior Dec. 231, 246-47 (1991) (natural gas pipeline section relocated fran mine area - "incidental facility"). We think that is the clear intent of Congress in expanding the definition of "surface coal mining operations" to include "incidental facilities" and also of the Department when it adopted the relevant criteria. See NWF, 839 F.2d at 743, 749; 53 Fed. Reg. 97379 (Nov. 22, 1988); 48 Fed. Reg. 20393 (May 5, 1983). Indeed, to hold otherwise would bring facilities within the ambit of SMCRA regulation that are not sa'nehow functionally and/or economically tied to regulated surface coal mining activity. We find nothing to indicate that Congress and the Department intended to do so. 142 IBIA 38 I • WwW Version