Laserfiche WebLink
Appellate Case: 18-1374 Document: 010110139036 Date Filed: 03/14/2019 Page: 58 <br />Secondly, in contrast to the lack of significant error, vacating the entire <br />Exception pending review of the Pilot Knob Alternative would have significantly <br />disruptive consequences. As is likely hoped by the Conservation Groups, vacatur <br />of the entire North Fork Exception would again freeze coal exploration in the <br />entire North Fork Coal Mining Exception Area and prevent Mountain Coal from <br />further roadbuilding and mining in the Lease Modifications. This would certainly <br />result in bypass of the coal in the Lease Modifications. In effect, the Purpose and <br />Need of the CRR and Lease Modifications would be thwarted, as applied to the <br />Sunset CRA, because of a completely unrelated NEPA error associated with <br />another CRA. <br />Consequently, under any test or equitable analysis, any remedy should be <br />confined to the Pilot Knob CRA while allowing the remainder of the North Fork <br />Exception to remain in effect. <br />2. Remand without Vacatur to the District Court is the Only <br />Appropriate Remedy for any Prejudicial APA Violation Related <br />to Methane Flaring. <br />The same law and logic is applicable to the Lease Modifications. The <br />choice presented by the Conservation Groups' advocacy of methane flaring was <br />whether to approve the Lease Modifications with, or without, a flaring mitigation <br />requirement. Approval of the Lease Modifications was the baseline assumption for <br />both paths, and consequently it would be unnecessary and overbroad to vacate the <br />49 <br />