Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ # <br />In applying the rules stated above to the factual <br />situation presented by Battle Mountain's proposed amendment it is <br />apparent that the MLRB has continuing jurisdiction to amend the <br />permit since the power to amend permits it provided by §34-32-108 <br />of the Mined Land Reclamation Act and Rule 1.8 of the Mineral Rules <br />and Regulations of the MLRB. Because the proposed amendment will <br />only relate to the technical issues attendant to the new <br />beneficiation scheme, and will not alter the issues raised by the <br />parties during the permit process, the exercise of the MLRB's <br />continuing jurisdiction to amend the permit will not comflict with <br />the issues involving the MLRB order raised in judicial review, and <br />thus there is no basis upon which a court may enjoin the MLRB's <br />amendment of the permit. <br />Accordingly, there is a clear legal basis for the MLRB's <br />continuing jurisdiction to consider an amendment to the permit. <br />Any other result is potentially inconsistent with the i`undamental <br />policy behind the separation of powers doctrine and threatens basic <br />policy considerations inherent in the regulatory framework of the <br />MLRB and other state administrative agencies. <br />TEN:d <br />15 <br />