Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:08-cv-01624-WJM-NRN Document 166 Filed 03/18/19 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 12 <br /> resolution of the matter any further. This case is almost eleven years old, and the <br /> Court's injunction has been in place for more than seven years. <br /> For all these reasons, the Court holds under the unusual circumstances <br /> presented here that DOE need not have assembled and disclosed a full administrative <br /> record before seeking review of its limited, Court-ordered re-consultation with FWS. <br /> B. Whether DOE Properly Evaluated the Significance of the Pinon Ridge Mill <br /> Developments <br /> Plaintiffs' only other argument against dissolving the injunction is that DOE <br /> purportedly did not recognize the true significance of the Pinon Ridge Mill's demise. <br /> (ECF No. 162 at 6-8.) Plaintiffs note that the Pinon Ridge Mill was expected to <br /> consume a substantial amount of water—substantial enough to exceed a numeric <br /> threshold that FWS finds significant, particularly when added to all other estimated <br /> water usage. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiffs argue that FWS therefore should have considered the <br /> Pinon Ridge estimate as a proxy for whatever mill will handle the uranium likely to be <br /> mined in the area: "the newly presented fact that [the] Pinon Ridge Mill license is no <br /> longer effective and another mill must be used does not allow [DOE] to arbitrarily <br /> exclude the water depletions needed to mill the oars from the [DOE] uranium lease <br /> tracts." (Id. (emphasis added).) Plaintiffs' argument fails for at least three reasons. <br /> First, Plaintiffs fail to recognize the significance of the Pinon Ridge Mill in the <br /> Court's previous ruling. The Court noted DOE's prediction that the Pinon Ridge Mill <br /> would prompt a uranium mining boom in the area, particularly on non-ULMP tracts. <br /> CEC ll, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 1273. The Court thus faulted DOE for failing to "estimate the <br /> mill's water requirements, [and] the water requirements of the non-ULMP uranium <br /> mines [DOE] predicts will come into existence." Id. And that is what the Court tasked <br /> 10 <br />