2019-04-09_REVISION - M1977306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case 1:08-cv-01624-WJM-NRN Document 166 Filed 03/18/19 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 12 need only address whether DOE fulfilled its ESA § 7 consultation duties with respect to water depletion that may affect Colorado River endangered fish. Id. (footnote omitted). C. Current Motion to Dissolve By letter dated May 2, 2018, DOE transmitted a supplemental BA to FWS. (ECF No. 160-1.) The supplemental BA reports DOE's efforts to search for all relevant current or reasonably foreseeable uranium mining and related activities in the area, and to estimate annual water usage of all these activities. (Id. at 4-7.) The BA also tabulates all of the estimated water usage. (ld. at 7-10.) The most notable development reported in the supplemental BA is that, not long after this Court issued CEC II, a Colorado administrative law judge ruled that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ("CDPHE") should not have issued the license under which the Pinon Ridge Mill was to be constructed and operated. (Id. at 5-6.) The supplemental BA further reports that CDPHE elected not to appeal the judge's decision, and "therefore the license [was] revoked as of April 26, 2018." (Id. at 6.) In this light, the supplemental BA announces that the Pinon Ridge Mill is no longer a reasonably foreseeable action coinciding with renewed ULMP mining, so DOE would not consider its potential water usage. (Id.) However, perhaps out of a desire not to appear to be shirking the Court's instructions in CEC Il, DOE included within the supplemental BA the amount of water the Pinon Ridge Mill had been expected to consume. (Id.) DOE also included a parting comment about the changing uranium market and its potential relationship to the defunct Pinon Ridge proposal: Finally, in the [previous BA's] discussion regarding cumulative effects from the yet-to-be constructed Pinon 5