Laserfiche WebLink
the disturbance to the hydrologic balance. Vol. <br />3, pages 458-459. <br />B <br />3. The Hoard requested the staff to investigate <br />whether additional leak detection measures were <br />necessary for the heap leach operation at the <br />February hearing. Vol. 2, page 361. Steve <br />Renner responded that: <br />...[WJe determined that we honestly feel to be <br />a state of the art type facility at this point <br />and we do not feel that further leak detection <br />systems would be necessary. Vol. 3, page 466. <br />4. I thought the design of the heap pad, the <br />typical excavation and use of the pits was all <br />pretty much standard operating procedux•e. <br />Testimony of CES expert Ron Cohen. Vol. 3, <br />page 471. <br />5. Battle Mountain expert John Halepaska described <br />the location of the facilities with relation <br />to flood plains. He stated that none of the <br />heaps or other facilities were within the 100- <br />year flood plain. Vol. 3, pages 512-514. The <br />Board queried Halepaska and discussed the <br />location of the various structures with respect <br />to their location in the flood plain. Vol. 3, <br />pages 514-518. <br />6. Battle Mountain expert Ann Baldrige stated that <br />the pond design would hold three times tYae 100- <br />year, 24-hour event during most periods of <br />operation because the heap would be constructed <br />in phases. [Emphasis added] Furthe:c, the <br />ponds were designed as non-discharging <br />facilities. Vol. 3, page 539. <br />Substantial Evidence Was Presented Regarding Dredge and <br />Fill Requirements. <br />in addition to the substantial water quality evidence, <br />the Board also received extensive information regarding whether the <br />operation would comply with applicable dredge <br />and fill <br />- 16 - <br />