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Case 1:08-cv-01624-WJM-NRN Document 166 Filed 03/18/19 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 12 Ridge Mill, whose licensed was revoked in April 2018, DOE cited the following text from that company's reports for the mill: "A surge in uranium exploration, mining, and permitting is anticipated if the mill is constructed, including permitting and development of uranium/vanadium deposits controlled by Energy Fuels Resources." The cited reports were circa 2009 to 2012. This statement may have been appropriate at that time; however, since then, various world events happened (e.g., Fukushima in 2011) that contributed to continued low uranium ore prices—lower than economically feasible for new mining or a surge in mining. (Id. at 10-11.) By letter dated June 19, 2018, FWS responded to DOE's supplemental BA. (ECF No. 160-2.) As to Pinon Ridge, FWS agreed that it was no longer the sort of reasonably foreseeable action that must be considered. (Id. at 3.) As to all other data reported in the supplemental BA, FWS announced that its previous BiOp was still accurate in predicting no jeopardy to the Colorado River endangered fishes' habitat. (Id. at 2-4.) Having received this information, DOE moved to dissolve the injunction in July 2018. (ECF No. 160.) Plaintiffs remain opposed to dissolving the injunction, except as to ULMP least tracts that will be reclaimed rather than newly mined. (ECF No. 162 at 9-10.) II. LEGAL STANDARD In opposing the first motion to dissolve, Plaintiffs argued from case law that a party seeking to dissolve an injunction bears a heavy burden to show that circumstances have changed. (See ECF No. 148 at 10-11.) The Court rejected this argument: "Plaintiffs' cited case law relates to injunctions that were meant to last indefinitely. Here, however, the Court specifically contemplated lifting its injunction after 6