1989-10-10_REVISION - M1988112 ‎(35)‎

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 10/10/1989
• Doc Name: MEMO MLRB CONTINUING JURISDICTION DURING PENDENCY OF JUDICIAL APPEAL
• From: PARCEL MAURO HULTIN & SPAANSTRA PC
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iii iiiiiiiiiiiu iii ~
DEAN R MASSEY
DATE
RE
PAxGEL, MAUxO, HULTIN & SPAANSTRA, P.Ci.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 3600
X601 CALIFORNIA STREET
DENVER, COLORA DO 80202
TELEPHONE [phone]~6a00 t ~ {~
/
TELECO PIED 130312953060 ~ ~ ~ ~'
YV
C
MEMORANDIIM dCr ~~19~g
MINED LAND
RECLAMATION OIVI410N
October 10, 1989
Mined Land Reclamation Board's ("MLRB")
Continuing Jurisdiction During Pendency
of Judicial Appeal
I. BACKGROUND.
On November 11, 1988 Battle Mountain filed a Section 112
Reclamation Permit Application No. M-112-88 with the Mined Land
Reclamation Division ("MLRD"). The permit application sought a
permit for an open pit gold mine and processing facilities,
including a mill and a cyanide heap leach to be located northeast
of San Luis, Costilla County, Colorado. Following extensive
technical review of the permit application the MLRB held hearings
concerning Battle Mountain's permit application ir. January,
February and March, 1989.
In a formal hearing after considering all of the evidence,
including evidence presented by opponents to tze permit
application, the MLRB entered an Order approving the reclamation
permit application for Battle Mountain's San Luis facili~~y on March
23, 1989. Following Battle Mountain's submission of financial
warranty, a reclamation permit was issued to Battle Mcuntain for
the facility.
On April 21, 1989 a group of citizens of San Luis, acting
under the name of the Costilla County Committee for Environmental
Soundness (CES"), filed a Complaint in Denver District Court
seeking judicial review of the decision of the MLRB to approve the
reclamation permit to Battle Mountain. CES' Complaint contains two
claims for relief. The first is based upon Colorado's
Administrative Procedure Act C.R.S. §24-4-101 et sec. (1988 Repl.
Vol.) (APA) and alleges that the MLRB's actions in approving the
permit violated the APA as well as the MLRB's own rules and
regulations because (1) the permit application was incomplete in
that it failed to contain information concerning project water
needs and sources of water; (2) it did not adequately assure that
disturbances to the hydrologic balance will be minimized and (3)
it did not provide protection from cyanide and other pollutants.
CES' second claim is constitutionally based and alleges that CES