Laserfiche WebLink
4 ~ <br />DEAN R. MASSEY <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />999 <br />PARCEL, MAURO, HULTIN <br />ATTORNEYS AT UW <br />SUITE J600 <br />IB O~ ULIFORHIA STREET <br />DCNVER, COLORADO 80202 <br />TELEPHONE IJ0312B2-NOD <br />TELECOPIER IJO J1293~JOa0 <br />& SPAANSTRA <br />n , W. 'cam.- ,_ . ~ `~~'~ ~ . <br />'~~'! "~~ i~~','J <br />January 25, 1989 <br />VIA HAND DELIVERY <br />Mr. Steve Renner <br />Colorado Mined Land <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Suite #215 <br />Reclamation Division <br />Denver, Colorado 80203-2273 <br />iv~lyd_D L.~.~s~: <br />Re: Battle Mountain Resources, Inc. - San Luis ]?roject <br />File No.: M-88-112 <br />Dear Mr. Renner: <br />This firm represents Battle Mountain Resources Inc. <br />("Battle Mountain") with respect to the permitting procedures for <br />the above referenced project. We have reviewed your letter to <br />Battle Mountain dated January 10, 1989, in which you note that <br />eight letters of objection and/or requests for hearing were re- <br />ceived by your office after the close of the formal pub:.ic comment <br />period. The letter indicates that your office will recommend that <br />the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board ("CMLRB" or "Board") <br />grant the request for hearing despite receipt of the letters fol- <br />lowing close of the formal comment period. In subsequent tele- <br />phone conversations you have inquired as to Battle Mountain's <br />position regarding the status of the objections and request for <br />hearing. <br />If the Board decides that a formal public hearinc should be <br />held, Battle Mountain intends to cooperate fully with the staff <br />and the Board within that framework. However, for the record, we <br />are compelled to bring the following issues to your attention. <br />In a general sense we understand your desire to establish a <br />staff position which attempts to accommodate the views of the <br />objectors to the project. However, believe that the language of <br />CMLRB Rule 2.3.3 is explicit and provides no authority or juris- <br />diction for the Board to consider documents received after the <br />deadline specified in the regulations. Specifically, :3ule 2.3.2 <br />states: <br />