Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:08 -cv- 01624- WJM -MJW Document 102 Filed 02/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 12 <br />San Miguel Counties in southwestern Colorado. Plaintiffs brought this action to <br />challenge (1) Defendants' 2007 decision to expand the ULMP, (2) Defendants' issuance <br />of leases to uranium mining companies under the expanded ULMP, and (3) Defendants' <br />approvals of exploration or reclamation activities on certain lease tracts. <br />The Court, in its October 18, 2011 Opinion and Order, held that Defendants' <br />2007 Environmental Assessment ( "EA ") and Finding of No Significant Impact ( "FONSI ") <br />approving the expansion of the ULMP violated the National Environmental Policy Act <br />( "NEPA ") and Endangered Species Act ( "ESA "). (ECF No. 94.) As a result, the Court <br />invalidated the EA and FONSI, ordered Defendants to conduct a NEPA- and ESA - <br />compliant environmental analysis on remand, stayed the leases already issued by <br />Defendants, enjoined Defendants from issuing any new leases on ULMP lands, and <br />enjoined Defendants "from approving any activities on lands governed by the ULMP, <br />including exploration, drilling, mining, and reclamation activities" (collectively, the <br />"Injunction "). (Id. at 52.) <br />II. ANALYSIS <br />A. Parties' Arguments <br />In their Motion for Reconsideration (the "Motion "), brought under Federal Rule of <br />Civil Procedure 59(e), Defendants argue that: <br />(1) the Injunction is not warranted and constitutes manifest legal error; <br />(2) the Court should reconsider the Injunction given that Defendants have conducted <br />further steps in completing an Environmental Impact Statement ( "EIS "); and <br />(3) the Court should at least modify the Injunction to allow: <br />2 <br />