Laserfiche WebLink
, <br />requirements. Rule 6.2(1)(c). Evidence supporting compliance with <br />these requirements included: <br />1. The U.S. Army, who issues dredge and fill <br />permits under the Clean Water Act, submitted <br />a letter indicating that Battle Mountain would <br />not be required to obtain a dredge and fill <br />permit. Vol. 4, pages 824-825. <br />2. We have asked the Army Corps of Engineers to <br />make a determination as to what sort of <br />permitting process would be required through <br />their office, and they have decided that a <br />nationwide permit is necessary which differs <br />from the 404, and apparently the nationwide <br />permit process is currently active and <br />apparently has actually been issued to Battle <br />Mountain at this point in time. <br />Testimony of Steve Renner, MLRD staff. Vol. <br />2, page 178. <br />The Army Corps does not feel that impacts to <br />the Rito Seco from the operation of from the <br />[haul road] crossing are significant at this <br />point. Vol. Page. <br />Testimony of Steve Renner, MLRD staff. Vol. <br />2, pages 178-179. <br />C. Substantial Evidence Was Presented Regarding P:coject <br />Water Requirements, Project Water Sources and <br />Project Water Rights. <br />Based upon the preceding water quality and dredge and <br />fill information and the standards in Rule 6.2, the Board could <br />have found that disturbance to the hydrologic balance would be <br />minimized under the permit based upon substantial evidence. <br />However, additional evidence was presented in the Application, the <br />adequacy responses and at the hearings describing the project water <br />requirements, the sources of water to be used to meet the project <br />- 17 - <br />