My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2019-04-09_REVISION - M1977306
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977306
>
2019-04-09_REVISION - M1977306
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2024 1:06:09 PM
Creation date
4/10/2019 12:30:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977306
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/9/2019
Doc Name
Notice Of Status Change
From
Operator
To
DRMS
Email Name
DMC
THM
GRM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Case 1:08-cv-01624-WJM-NRN Document 166 Filed 03/18/19 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 12 <br /> or, if it did, the error is attributable to Plaintiffs as the equivalent of invited error. These <br /> outcomes are evident from the procedures that led up to the Motion to Dissolve. <br /> To repeat, the Court's instructions in CEC //were as follows: <br /> Fortunately, the remedy in this circumstance does not <br /> require total vacatur . . . . Instead, the Court will leave the <br /> existing injunction in place, for the time being, and order <br /> DOE to reinitiate consultation with FWS based on a <br /> supplemental BA. The supplemental BA may be limited <br /> solely to the question of water depletion based on DOE's <br /> estimates of the likely combined annual water usage of <br /> ULMP mines, non-ULMP mines likely to become operational, <br /> and the Pinon Ridge Mill. Upon receiving FWS's response <br /> (presumably an additional or supplemental BiOp), DOE may <br /> then issue an updated or supplemental ROD and move once <br /> again to dissolve the injunction. Such a motion need only <br /> address whether DOE fulfilled its ESA § 7 consultation <br /> duties with respect to water depletion that may affect <br /> Colorado River endangered fish. <br /> 302 F. Supp. 3d at 1274 (footnote omitted). A few months later, DOE submitted a <br /> status report announcing that it had transmitted its supplemental BA to FWS and <br /> "intend[ed] to file a motion to dissolve the injunction as soon as practicable after receipt <br /> of [FWS's] final response to the [BA]." (ECF No. 154 at 1-2.) The Court then ordered <br /> the parties to "confer and . . . file a joint status report explaining their views (including <br /> their respective views, if they cannot agree) on: (1) what steps remain, if any, before <br /> [DOE] may file a motion to dissolve the injunction, and (2) an appropriate briefing <br /> schedule for such a motion." (ECF No. 155.) In the joint status report, "[t]he parties <br /> agree[d] that the only step remaining before [DOE] may file a motion to dissolve the <br /> injunction is for [DOE] and [FWS] to complete their consultation over [the supplemental <br /> BA]." (ECF No. 156 at 1.) The parties also presented an agreed-upon briefing <br /> schedule, with the motion to dissolve due "30 days after receipt of final response from <br /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.