Laserfiche WebLink
underlying shale feature; (3) data suggesting the isolation of the permit azea <br />from other recharge water sources due to the presence of a shale ridge <br />southwest of the permit area (inferring that the proposed operation is less <br />likely to impact groundwater resulting from groundwater rechazge 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 neaz the <br />ground surface); (5) the depth to groundwater and in some cases the <br />complete absence of groundwater in nearby 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 neaz the mesa's slope toe (tending to confirm <br />the permeability of the gravel deposits). <br />The Petitioner asserts that data contained in its original application was <br />based on the minnnal 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 Petitioner contends that the new evidence developed since the October <br />hearing and presented in the Petition was developed in part based on <br />objections raised at the October hearing, which the Petitioner did not <br />anticipate. The Petitioner also points to new data that is now available due <br />to the drilling of groundwater monitoring wells required by the Board's <br />October order. That data provides a more comprehensive assessment of the <br />