Laserfiche WebLink
and suggests that the Petitioner's proposed Phase I operations will be less <br />disruptive than previously thought. <br />8. The new information provided by the Petitioner and the Petitioner's <br />explanation of why such information was not available at the time of the <br />October hearing constitute a clear and thorough explanation of the grounds <br />justifying reconsideration. <br />9'. The new information provided by the Petitioner supports the Findings of <br />Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the initial Board Order with <br />respect to, but not limited to, Construction Materials Rules 6.4.7 and <br />3.1.6(1). The new information provides additional evidence that the <br />Petitioner adequately analyzed impacts to surface and groundwater systems <br />and impacts to prevailing hydrologic balances. The new information also <br />supports the Board's conclusion that the Petitioner will minimize <br />disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land of the <br />surrounding area and to the quantity and quality of water in surface and <br />groundwater systems both during and after the mining operation. <br />10. Because the Petitioner presented a clear and thorough explanation of the <br />grounds justifying reconsideration, including but not limited to new and <br />relevant facts that were not known at the time of the October hearing and <br />an explanation why such facts were not known at the time of the hearing, it <br />is appropriate that the Board grant the Petition and consider the new <br />evidence pursuant to Construction Materials Rule 2.9. <br />