1989-10-10_REVISION - M1988112 (26)

Home Browse Search

• iii iiiiiiiiiiiuiii ~, DEAN R. MASSEY PARCEL, MAURO, HULTIN & SPAANSTRA, P.G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE J600 IB O~ CALIFORNIA STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE130 ]1292~6a00 TELECOPIER (]O]I 29530<O October 10, 1989 VIA MESSENGER MINED LAND RECLAMAThJN DIVISION Mr. Fred Banta Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division 1313 Sherman Street Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80202 Re: Battle Mountain Resources, Inc San Luis Project Permit No. M 88-112 Dear Mr. Banta: f~E~EIVED OCT 101989 ("Battle Mou:~tain") Today your office received an application from Battle Mountain for an amendment to the above referenced permit. In simmary, the application describes a modification to the ore be.neficiation process, which if approved, would result in elimination of the heap leach facility, and the construction and operation of s carbon in leach mill and tailings facility. We believe that the proposed amendment is desirable from a number of perspectives and would request that your office proceed expeditiously to Ilrocess and review the application. In the course of preliminary discussions regarding the proposed amendment, Frank Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, has indicated his concern that the pendency of the judicial appeal with respect to the Board's issuance of the original permi~ to Battle Mountain (CES v. Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board and Battle Mountain, Case No. 89-CV-06224, Courtroom 10, Denver District Court), could affect the Board's authority to review the amendment application. As we understand the issue, Mr. Johnson bases his concern on the recent holding by the Colorado Supreme Court in O'Bryant v. Public Utilities Commission, XIII Brief Times Reporter, 853 (Colo. 7-17-89) in which the court held that an administrative agency may not alter its decision once that decision is appealed in a judicial proceeding. Accordingly, Mr. Johnson suggested that the CMLRB may be foreclosed from considering the amendment proposed