Laserfiche WebLink
Testimony of Steve Renner, MLRD staff. Vol. <br />2, page 177. <br />2. Battle Mountain is putting together and will <br />submit a water augmentation plan to the State <br />Engineer's Office and submit to the water <br />courts, therefore precluding impacts to any <br />adjacent use which may exist. <br />Testimony of Steve Renner, MLRD staff. Vol. <br />2, page 179. <br />3. Concerning hydrogeologic impacts to the Rito <br />Seco from the west pit dewaterinq, we feel that <br />the grout barrier is sufficient to minimize <br />inflows into the pit should they occur at all. <br />Testimony of Steve Renner, MLRD staff. Vol. 2, page <br />188. <br />4. The Board discussed water uses on the Rito <br />Seco. Steve Renner indicated that downstream <br />water rights were adjudicated for both dcomestic <br />and agricultural use. Vol. 2, page 19°~. <br />5. [W]e've put together ah augmentation plan that <br />we will file with the water court once this <br />project is approved, so that is one of our next <br />steps. <br />Testimony of Gary Dodson, Battle Mountain expert. <br />Vol. 2, pages 228-229. <br />6. Battle Mountain expert John Halepaska testified <br />that the ore zone aquifer which would be <br />dewatered during the mining process was <br />unconnected to the Rito Seco and was a~ small <br />isolated aquifer. Vol. 2, pages 232-234. <br />7. [W]e will buy that water [for the project], and <br />that will be a condition to proceeding w:Lth the <br />project....There's a lot of water for sale in <br />the county." <br />Walter Wise, Battle Mountain attorney. 'Vol. 2, page <br />353. <br />8. Testimony of John Halepaska indicating that <br />Battle Mountain conducted a worst case analysis <br />- 22 - <br />