Laserfiche WebLink
underlying shale feature; (3) data suggesting the isolation of the permit azea <br />from other recharge water sottrces due to the presence of a shale ridge <br />southwest of the permit azea (inferring that the proposed operation is less <br />likely to impact groundwater resulting from groundwater recharge from <br />nearby irrigation); (4) percolation tests and sieve analyses of gravel <br />deposits at the site showing rapid permeability and little resistance to water <br />flow (thus minimizing the potential tendency of the aquifer to restrict <br />groundwater flow or cause groundwater to "mound up" and rise near the <br />ground surface); (5) the depth to groundwater and in some cases the <br />complete absence of groundwater in neazby gravel pits located within the <br />same gravel terrace deposit as.the Petitioner's; (6) the absence of <br />phreatophyte vegetation along the face of the mesa slopes; and (7) the <br />presence of such vegetation near the mesa's slope toe (tending to confirm <br />the permeability of the gave] deposits). <br />The Petitioner asserts that data contained in its original application was <br />based on the minimal level of detail required of applications for other sand <br />and gravel operations within one mile of Phase I of the proposed operation, <br />The new evidence developed since the October hearing and presented in <br />the Petition was developed in part based on the objections raised at the <br />October hearing, which the Petitioner did not anticipate. The Petitioner <br />also points to new data that is now available due to the drilling of <br />groundwater monitoring wells required by the Board's October order. That <br />data provides a more comprehensive assessment of the area's hydrolosy <br />