Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />lJ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />r~ <br /> <br />CJ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CJ <br /> <br />1 <br />zz <br />1 clarify our adequacy comments and concerns. <br />2 On the 26th of December, as required by <br />3 the Act, we arranged for publication of notice of <br />4 the public hearing in two newspapers, one in Alamosa <br />5 and one at San Luis. <br />6 On December 27th we received <br />7 correspondence from the Colorado Historical Society <br />8 which stated that the core zone in San Luis Culebra <br />9 Historic Division will not be affected by the permit <br />to amendment. <br />11 On the 5th day of January of this year, <br />12 the Division and Battle Mountain once again met to <br />13 discuss specific aspects of the adequacy riocument. <br />14 Battle Mountain Resources at that time submitted <br />15 initial tailings geochemical data to the Division <br />16 for its review. <br />17 On 3anuary 5th and the 8th we forwarded <br />18 to the Board requests for party status, which I <br />19 believe there were five requests for party status. <br />20 On the 9th of January we issued a -- the <br />21 Division issued a tentative list of issues to be <br />22 considered at the public hearing today. <br />23 Also on the 9th, Battle Mountain <br />24 Resources responded to the Division's adequacy <br />25 concerns. <br />AGREN, BLANDO & BILLINGS <br />