Laserfiche WebLink
<br />excessive waste of resources in order to build a ship where there <br />is no ocean upon which to sail. <br />B. Additional Inadequacies Of Battle Mountain's <br />on. <br />On January 13, 1989, the MLRD expressed in writing 99 <br />points of concern they had with Battle Mountain's application. <br />While Battle Mountain has responded to some of these concerns, it <br />has failed to adequately address many others. <br />1. An Adequate Slurcy Wall Must Be Constructed Along <br />The South Wall Of The West Pit To Prevent <br />Dewatering of the Rito Seco. <br />In its response to Point No. 5, Battle Mountain <br />committed to conducting a pit wall stability study. A <br />geotechnical evaluation for the south wall of the west mine pit <br />was received by the MLRD on March 2, 1989. This study concludes <br />that water infiltration through the surface alluvium and the <br />Santa Fe conglomerate will be much more extensive than had been <br />previously thought (125 gpm). Therefore, MLRD requested in a <br />March 10, 1989 letter to Battle Mountain that a slurry wall be <br />constructed between the south wall of the west mining pit and the <br />Rito Seco. MLRD further requested that the slurry wall design be <br />included in the permit application to MLRD. Battle Mountain <br />responded to this concern with a statement that two years of mine <br />operation will be necessary before it can determine whether the <br />-6- <br />