Laserfiche WebLink
water rights. The Board's staff was particularly interested <br />in the effect that mining operations would have on existing <br />water users. Water rights evidence received by the Board <br />provided substantial evidence upon which the Board could base <br />a finding of minimal disturbance to the hydrologic balance <br />under Rule 6.2(1)(a). <br />The Application contained substantial factual <br />information regarding water rights and contained commitments <br />by Battle Mountain to assure existing water users were <br />protected. This evidence included: <br />1. Battle Mountain's commitment to obtain an <br />augmentation plan before commencing mining <br />operations. Vol. 6A, page 1024. Because the <br />permit application becomes part of the permit, <br />this commitment is essentially an enforceable <br />precondition to mining at the site. <br />2. A tabulation of water rights in the project <br />area and an analysis of current uses of these <br />water rights. Vol. 6A, page 1097. <br />3. Submission of a conceptual design for a slurry <br />wall to assure that water flows in the Rito <br />Seco would not be depleted by the mining <br />operations. Vol. 4, pages 713-715. <br />4. Battle Mountain's commitment to construct the <br />slurry wall if significant mine pit :inflows <br />exceeded 125 gpm. Vol. 5, page 951. <br />Extensive information regarding the mining operation's <br />disturbance to water rights was presented during the hearings. <br />This information included: <br />1. To minimize potential Rito Seco and c,:ulebra <br />[Creek] depletion into the west pit, the <br />company has proposed that a low permeability <br />grout curtain be constructed. <br />- 21 - <br />