Laserfiche WebLink
slurry wall around the pit was compromised in two locations and that the Operator was in the <br />process of repairing the wall. <br />8. The Division surveyed the area on March 30, 2009. The area around the 120 <br />Estates Gravel Pit lake is 2.2 feet lower than the elevation of the bottom of Mr. Kirby's <br />basement. The Division concluded that the 124th Estates Gravel Pit lake was not the source <br />of the water entering Mr. Kirby's basement. <br />9. On April 9, 2009 the Division issued a Reason to Believe a Violation Exists <br />letter to the Operator that included a notice of possible violation ("Reason to Believe letter"). <br />The Division's Inspection Report was included with the Reason to Believe letter. <br />10. The Inspection Report shows that the Division investigated other potential <br />sources of water. The Division considered whether other mining activity in the vicinity <br />could be responsible for rising ground water levels. However, with the exception of the 124th <br />Estates Gravel Pit, former mines immediately surrounding Mr. Kirby's property have been <br />decommissioned for many years. The Division concluded that the other mine sites in the <br />area were not responsible for the rising ground water. <br />11. The Division also considered whether leakage from the nearby Fulton Ditch <br />was a source of water. The ditch has been flowing at variable rates during the current water <br />year, but the current discharge rate is less than in the past when no impact on the ground <br />water levels were reported. <br />12. The Division's Inspection Report concluded that the backfill material has a <br />lower permeability than the surrounding material, with a consequent ground water mounding <br />effect on the upgradient side of the pit. <br />13. The Division's ultimate conclusion in the Inspection Report is that the <br />Operator's pit backfilling activities are disturbing the prevailing hydrologic balance and <br />causing off-site damage. <br />14. The Division's Inspection Report and Reason to Believe letter notified the <br />Operator of the potential violations regarding: (1) its failure to minimize disturbance to the <br />prevailing hydrologic balance, by allowing groundwater mounding adjacent to the mine site <br />and potentially causing damage to adjoining property; and (2) its failure to protect areas <br />outside of the affected land from damage occurring during mining or reclamation, by <br />allowing the ground water to adversely impact property.2 <br />15. The Division ordered the Operator to implement corrective actions to provide <br />immediate and long-term relief to the mounding occurring in the local water table. <br />16. The Operator chose not to implement an immediate corrective action due to <br />the costs and the Operator's contention that it did not cause the increase in ground water <br />levels. <br />z The Inspection Report also notified the Operator of the potential violation for failing to file a technical revision or <br />Construction Rule 3.1.5(9) notice to modify the Reclamation Plan to include backfilling of imported backfill. This <br />violation is considered in a separate Board Order. <br />Asphalt Specialties <br />Speer Mining Resource Pit <br />M-1983-176