Laserfiche WebLink
37 <br />• 1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />• 13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />• 24 <br />25 <br />'and resolving the rest of those concerns, but what <br />I would like to do is address about -- I think <br />there's about 15 concerns which I think summarizes <br />the concerns we've received -- the objections we've <br />(received. <br />What I'd like to do is just summarize <br />those concerns and objections for you and briefly <br />tell you how i think the Division in conjunction with <br />Battle Mountain are reaching concurrence oc1 these <br />issues. <br />These are really in no particular <br />order so I'm just going to run on through i~hem. <br />The first would concern the east pit <br />south wall stability, and again I think that we're <br />addressing the stability by the buttress ic9ea. The <br />Division feels like this will be a very stable <br />configuration, a very workable solution. <br />The waste rock disposal faci~.lity <br />areas -- there was some question as to the long-term <br />stability of those facilities, and given tYie proposed <br />reclamation of three to one as well as the <br />geotechnical analyses done, we feel that ttie <br />long-term static and pseudostatic conditions are <br />such that they will stand. <br />There is a concern regarding the <br />