GENERAL37934

• Permit No: M2003037
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 1/22/2004
• Doc Name: Petition For Reconsideration
• From: AGO
• To: Thomas F. Smith Esq. and Susan L. McIntosh Esq.
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

'• oF'cO~o
~ti
Vl~ ~Q
*~*
* X876
KEN sal-AZAH STATE OF COLORADO
Attorney General
DONALD S. QU[CK DEPARTMENT OF LAW
Chief Deputy Attorney Genera] OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ALAN J. GILBERT
Solicitor General
January 22, 2004
TRANSMITTED VIA FACSIMILE
AND U.S. MAIL
- Thomas-F. Smith, Esq.
Austin, Peirce & Smith, P.C.
600 E. Hopkins Avenue
Suite 205
Aspen, CO 81611
Susan L, McIntosh, Esq.
Susan L. McIntosh, P.C.
Post Office Box 1019
Ouray, CO 81427
RE: Haldorson and Sons, File No. M-2003-037
Dear Mr. Smith and Ms. McIntosh:
STATE SERVICES BDILDING
1525 Sherman Street - 5th Floor
Denver Colorado 80203
Phone [phone]
FAX 303; 866-5691
On Tuesday, January 20, 2004, the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board")
voted 3-1 to hold a hearing at its February meeting to consider the Petition for Reconsideration
("Petition") in the above-referenced matter. The Board did not decide whether the Petition met
the threshold inquiry set forth in Construction Materials Rule 2.9.1(2). It simply decided that it
would hear oral argument at the upcoming Febmary meeting to consider the threshold inquiry
and other substantive issues related to the Petition, if necessary. It is my understanding that the
Board intends to either approve or deny the Petition at the February meeting. The Board does
not intend to schedule another hearing on this matter.
The Board directed me to prepare a letter describing procedural guidelines for the
upcoming hearing. The procedures are essentially the same as those set forth in my letter to you
of January 16, 2004. The procedures aze set forth as follows:
• The parties will be allowed to present oral azgument concerning the Petition,
including whether the Petition meets the standard set forth in Construction
Materials Rule 2.9.1(2)