My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-06-23_REVISION - C1980007
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2020-06-23_REVISION - C1980007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2020 1:01:39 PM
Creation date
6/23/2020 12:49:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/23/2020
Doc Name
Objection
From
Wild Earth Guardians
To
MLRB
Type & Sequence
MR446
Email Name
JRS
LDS
CMM
JDM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Against this backdrop, DRMS inexplicably approved MR446 — authorizing road - <br />building within the Sunset Roadless Area — without delay or any apparent consideration of <br />Mountain Coal's lack of a legal right of entry to conduct such activities in light of the federal <br />court decisions vacating the North Fork Exception. In fact, DRMS issued its approval of MR -446 <br />the next business day after receipt of the application, despite regulations providing for up to a <br />ten-day period for DRMS review. MLRB Rule 2.08.4(6)(c)(1). In light of DRMS's ongoing <br />investigation into Mountain Coal's lack of legal authority to construct roadless in federally - <br />designated roadless areas, the Division's rush to approve MR -446 is troubling. DRMS's approval <br />of MR -446 provided the State's approval for Mountain Coal to continue its unlawful <br />construction activities, authorizing roadbuilding of more than three miles of new roads, the vast <br />majority illegally located within the Sunset Roadless Area <br />Two days after approving MR446, on June 17, DRMS issued a Cessation Order based <br />on the Division's determination that "Mountain Coal has failed to maintain its legal right to enter <br />the Sunset Roadless area at the West Elk Mine," and directing the company to "immediately <br />cease all surface -disturbing activities in longwall panels LWSS-1, LWSS-2, LWSS-3, and <br />LWSS4 at the West Elk Mine." Cessation Order No.: CO -2020-001 (attached as Exhibit D). <br />Because Mountain Coal lacks a legal right to build roads or scrape drilling pads in the Sunset <br />Roadless Area under the Colorado Roadless Rule absent the North Fork Exception, DBMS <br />lacked the authority to approve MR -446. <br />I. General Background. <br />The Colorado Roadless Rule, which the Forest Service adopted in 2012, generally <br />prohibits road construction in designated areas but initially included an exception for the North <br />Fork Coal Mining Area (the "North Fork Exception"). See Special Areas; Roadless Area <br />Conservation; Applicability to National Forests in Colorado, 77 Fed. Reg. 39,576, 39,578 (July <br />3, 2012). In 2014, however, a federal court concluded that the Forest Service's 2012 <br />promulgation of the North Fork Exception violated the National Environmental Policy Act <br />("NEPA") and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and the court vacated the North Fork <br />Exception. High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv. ("High Country F), 67 F. <br />Supp. 3d 1262, 1266-67 (D. Colo. 2014). <br />In 2016, the Forest Service prepared a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact <br />Statement ("North Fork SFEIS") and readopted the North Fork Exception, Roadless Area <br />Conservation. National Forest System Lands in Colorado, 81 Fed. Reg. 91,811 (Dec. 19, 2016). <br />Mountain Coal then submitted lease modification requests to expand existing coal leases (COC - <br />1362, COC -67232) into the Sunset Roadless Area, which were consented to by the Forest <br />Service and approved by the Bureau of Land Management (`BLM"). <br />Conservation Groups filed suit, alleging that the federal agencies' issuance of the North <br />Fork Exception and leases violated NEPA and the APA. The district court initially rejected these <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.