Laserfiche WebLink
<br />' 92 <br />' 1 investigated by the Board, utilizing available <br />~ 2 sources to obtain the necessary information in a <br />` 3 timel <br />manne <br />i <br />t <br />th <br />B <br />d' <br />id <br />i <br /> y <br />r pr <br />or <br />o <br />e <br />s cons <br />oar <br />erat <br />on of <br /> 4 the application. <br /> 5 Battle Mountain's application is <br /> 6 incomplete in that it fails to adequately indicate <br /> 7 its sources of water. What it has indicated so far <br /> 8 is a plan to obtain water. It indicates a status of <br /> 9 various proceedings that it has initiated. But as <br /> 30 t <br />f <br />i <br />i <br /> o <br />now, <br />ts wa <br />er sources are both unrel <br />able and <br /> 11 insufficient. <br /> 12 The Division, in its adequacy review, <br />' 13 addressed this same issue on water sources, and in <br /> 14 Item No. 47 of its adequacy review, it states what <br />' 15 Battle Mountain has identified as its free water <br /> 16 sources, focusing on the correct issue. Hut then it <br />' <br /> 17 asks two questions, the first about incidental <br />' 18 precipitation and the second about moisture <br /> 19 retention in the tailings. And we submit those <br /> 20 aren't the most important questions to be asked. <br /> 21 The most important question is, where <br />' 22 are the <br />ettin <br />roject <br />the wat <br />r f <br />the <br /> y g <br />g <br />e <br />or <br />p <br />1 23 requirements? That has not yet been properly, <br /> 24 fully indicated. <br />' 25 Now I would like to ask Steve to explain <br />' AGREN, BLANDO & BILLINGS <br />