Laserfiche WebLink
<br />At that meeting the MLRB set the matter for hearing and named a <br />hearing officer to finalize a Prehearing Order. The MLRD staff <br />conducted an extensive review to determine whether the amendment <br />application fully complied with all applicable requirements of the <br />MLRB's Rules and Regulations. This review resulted in the <br />generation of an adequacy letter from the MLRD which was forwarded <br />to Battle Mountain on December 18, 1989. Battle Mountairlresponded <br />to the MLRD adequacy letter on January 9, 1990 and served copies <br />of its response on all parties to this hearing in accordance with <br />the Prehearing Order. The MLRD reviewed Battle Mountain's <br />responses and following minor clarifications by Battle Miountain on <br />January 18, the MLRD issued a memorandum stating that it had found <br />that the amendment application fully met the applicable <br />requirements of the Mined Land Reclamation Act (CRS 34-32-112 and <br />116) and the MLRB's Rules and Regulations. The MLRD :stated its <br />recommendation to the MLRB to approve the amendment to Battle <br />Mountain's permit. <br />In the course of the MLRD's review of the application, <br />individuals opposed to the San Luis Project filed objections and/or <br />requests for hearings which identified a myriad of issues allegedly <br />posed by the project. A careful review of those statements clearly <br />reveals that the vast majority of the issues identified by the <br />objectors reflect their perception that the development of the San <br />Luis Project is somehow incompatible with their individual views <br />of the future of the San Luis Valley. Battle Mountain adamantly <br />opposes this notion, and recognizes that the MLRB has a statutorily <br />7 <br />