Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:08 -cv- 01624- WJM -MJW Document 102 Filed 02/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 12 <br />numerous reasons why the action was not prudentially moot. (ECF No. 94, at 11 -15.) <br />Although the Court emphasized in its Order that Defendants had not even yet created a <br />timetable for the completion of the EIS, the fact that a draft schedule has now been <br />created does not change the Court's conclusion, given all the other reasons expressed <br />by the Court for why the action was not prudentially moot. <br />4. Activities Necessary to Complete EIS <br />Defendants also seek clarification of the Court's Order regarding activities on <br />ULMP lands that are necessary to complete the EIS. (ECF No. 95, at 10 -12.) The <br />Court recognizes that its injunction prohibiting "any activities on lands governed by the <br />ULMP" is broad, and there is good cause to amend that portion of the Injunction. (ECF <br />No. 94, at 52.) Therefore, as ordered below, the Injunction will be amended to allow <br />those activities on ULMP lands that are absolutely necessary to conduct an <br />environmental analysis on remand regarding the ULMP that fully complies with NEPA, <br />ESA, all other governing statutes and regulations, and this Court's October 18, 2011 <br />Opinion and Order. As proposed by Defendants, the Court will require Defendants "to <br />provide notice to the Court and Plaintiffs ... before any such activities beg[i]n ... on the <br />[ULMP] lands." (ECF No. 101, at 3.) <br />5. Activities Necessary to Comply With Orders From State Regulatory <br />Agencies <br />Defendants also seek clarification regarding activities on ULMP lands that are <br />necessary to comply with orders of government regulatory agencies. (ECF No. 95, at <br />14 -15.) They point out that the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />has already ordered two lessees to prepare an Environmental Protection Plan, and that <br />5 <br />