ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

A recitation of the facts in this case is unnecessary, as the parties are familiar with them. Both parties agree we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal, though for different reasons. The Intervenor Defendant-Appellant maintains that this case is constitutionally moot. The Plaintiffs-Ap-pellees argue instead that we cannot reach the mootness issue because the district court’s remand was not a final decision, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor had the practical effect of an injunction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We are not so constrained and may dismiss on any jurisdictional ground. Cf. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999); Boyce v. Ashcroft, 268 F.3d 953, 955 (10th Cir. 2001) (“Although the court may have discretion to decide subject matter jurisdiction before reaching the issue of mootness, however, we find no reason to do so in this case. The matter is unquestionably moot. The court therefore vacates its judgment and remands to the district court with directions to vacate its judgment as moot.”).

Pending this appeal, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, in accordance with the district court’s remand, issued a Revised Environmental Assessment and Finding of No New Significant Impact as well as re-approved the permit revision. Aplt. Notice of Supp. Auth. Because this case now lacks a live case or controversy, we lack subject matter jurisdiction. New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 701 (10th Cir. 2009). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as constitutionally moot and vacate the district court’s March 2, 2015 opinion and order (Doc. 79), its April 6, 2015 remedies order (Doc. 83), and its Final Judgment (Doc. 86).