PERMFILE130943

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 4/26/1989
• Doc Name: CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

(g} The proposed reclamation plan does not conform
to the requirements of § 34-32-116, C.R.S.
15. Battle Mountain's Application is incomplete in the
following ways:
(a) The Application failed to provide the water
sources and identify the water rights acquired by Battle
Mountain; and
(b) The Application failed to provide the total
project water requirements.
16. Battle
reclamation plan doe
§ 34-32-116, C.R.S.,
demonstrate that its
significantly affect
dewatering Rito Seco
Mountain's Application and proposed
not conform to the requirements of
in that Battle Mountain has failed to
mining and reclamation activities gill not
the hydrologic balance of the area by
Creek.
17. MLRD staff reviewed the Application, and •~n
January 13, 1989 requested additional information on several
issues, including without limitation, potential ground .and
surface water impacts; reclamation costs; heap detoxification;
reclamation of the water disposal pit areas; and post-mining
configuration of the west pit.
18. On January 25, February 23, and March 23, 1989, the
MLRB heard testimony regarding the Application and the proposed
mining activities.
19. At the hearings, CES presented testimony ,and other
evidence opposing approval of the permit. CES testified that:
(a) Because the Application was incomplete, the
MLRB was required by its own rule and regulations, 2 CC]R 407-1,
Rule 1.10.4, as well as state law, to deny approval of :he
Application;
(b) The Application failed to address either the
total project water requirements or the water rights, ar~d the
sources of water for Battle Mountain's San Luis Project;
(c) Battle Mountain failed to adequately address
the inadequacies and design feature concerns identified by the
MLRB staff during its permit review of the permit applirration
No. M-88-112; and
-4-