Laserfiche WebLink
Rule 2.08.4(6)(c)(iii) of the Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board for Coal Mining (the "Rules"). The objections to the Application <br />raised issues with the completeness of the Application, Applicant's lack of legal <br />right of entry, newly -approved roads are not necessary, and that the proposed roads <br />violate Applicant's lease because they cross floodplains and riparian areas. <br />5. At the Board hearing on July 23, 2020, the Division presented <br />testimony regarding its review of the Application and the issues raised by Objectors. <br />Regarding completeness, the Division explained that its determination on <br />completeness was a finding that the Application contained the required information <br />to be complete and did not reflect a decision to approve an application. <br />6. Regarding Objector's argument that Applicant lacked a legal right of <br />entry, the Division presented testimony that this concern was moot. The Division <br />issued its decision on the Application the same day as an order of the federal court <br />for the District of Colorado invalidated an exception to the federal "roadless" rule <br />for coal mining and three days before the Division issued a cessation order requiring <br />Applicant to cease activities on federal land within the Roadless area. The Division <br />explained that approval of the Application was effectively paused while its cessation <br />order was in effect. The cessation order prevents all work on the federal lands at <br />issue, including the changes made under the Application. If the right to entry <br />issues are resolved and the cessation order is lifted or modified, the Application <br />would apply to any future work done by Applicant. MR-446, however, does not <br />supersede the cessation order. <br />7. Regarding Objector's argument that the Application's "new" roads are <br />not necessary, the Division presented testimony the approved application does not <br />create any new roads, rather it reduces roads. The roads Objectors take issue with <br />were approved in 2018 through Permit Revision 15. There have been five minor <br />revisions since Permit Revision 15 was issued on October 6, 2018, and none of those <br />increased disturbances. The Application shows a significant decrease in <br />disturbances, and the changes were made in coordination with the U.S. Forest <br />Service. <br />8. The Division also presented testimony that Objectors' claims that <br />roads in the Application being routed through floodplains or riparian areas violated <br />Applicant's lease with the U.S. Forest Service were not jurisdictional. The Division <br />does not have jurisdiction over federal land leases and cannot find violations of <br />those leases. The Division also presented testimony that the changes to roads in <br />the Application had been made by Applicant with U.S. Forest Service staff, who <br />would be responsible for determining and regulating violations of the lease. <br />Mountain Coal Company, LLC. <br />West Elk Mine, MR-446 / C-1.98-007 2 <br />