Laserfiche WebLink
been vacated. The Division also explained that it had discussed the Cessation <br />Order with the OSM. During that discussion, OSM did not raise any issue of <br />whether the Division had exceeded its authority in issuing the Cessation Order. <br />9. At the hearing, Operator argued that the Cessation Order exceeded <br />Colorado's authority and that its past and future work were lawful under the <br />Colorado Roadless Rule. Regarding the federal litigation that led to the vacatur of <br />the North Fork Exception, Operator explained that its federal lease modifications <br />had been affirmed. It constructed the roads that are subject to the Cessation Order <br />before the Roadless Rule was vacated, and, according to Operator, it was allowed to <br />build those roads at the time it did under both its lease and the then -in -effect North <br />Fork Exception. <br />10. Operator also argued that even with the North Fork Exception's <br />vacatur, it is allowed to construct well pads for mine ventilation boreholes. That <br />work, according to Operator, involves cutting trees, which is an "approved <br />management activity" under its leases. Drilling bore holes on the pads is also not <br />prohibited. Accordingly, Operator argued that it is authorized to complete the drill <br />pads and use the roads it constructed under its federal lease and applicable federal <br />rules. <br />11. Intervenors argued at the hearing that the vacatur of the North Fork <br />Exception eliminated Operator's right to build roads or cut trees for drill pads. <br />Intervenor also argued that if Operator's federal lease provided a separate authority <br />for roadbuilding in the Sunset Roadless Area, it would not have needed to rely on <br />the North Fork Exception in the first place. Intervenors also argued that Operator's <br />filings in the Tenth Circuit indicated that it knew the vacatur of the North Fork <br />Exemption would eliminate its ability to build roads and, as a practical matter, <br />continue mining in new panels. According to Intervenors, Operator assumed the <br />risk that the North Fork Exception could be invalidated when it entered into the <br />federal lease at issue here. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />12. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to section 34-33- <br />124(1) of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act ("Act") and Rule <br />5.01.3(2)(6) of the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for <br />Coal Mining ("Rules")_ <br />13. The Division and Board have the full power and authority to carry out <br />and administer the provisions of this article. C.R.S. § 34-33-104. <br />Mountain Coal Company, LLC. <br />West Elk Mine, CO-2020-001, Permit No. C-198-007 <br />