Laserfiche WebLink
17. At the hearing Mr. Bird presented testimony and evidence that further <br />explained the Division's conclusions reached in the Inspection Report. Specifically, Mr. <br />Bird introduced evidence that shows the regional flow of ground water moves in a <br />northwesterly direction. The four citizen complaints received after the elevated monitoring <br />well responses indicates that the ground water stress is propagating from northwest to <br />southeast. <br />18. Mr. Bird explained the basics of ground water mounding. Generally, ground <br />water mounding occurs when hydrologic input exceeds an aquifer's ability to drain the influx <br />of water. This happens in response to a barrier damming ground water flow. Mr. Bird <br />provided testimony that the backfill material used in the Speer Mining site was less. <br />permeable and had a lower transmissivity than the native materials. Mr. Bird also testified <br />that in this case the backfill material is acting as an impermeable barrier to the movement of <br />ground water. <br />19. Mr. Bird demonstrated the link between the rise in ground water levels to the <br />Operator's backfilling operations through data from various monitoring wells. <br />20. Mr. Bird also demonstrated how the Division considered and eliminated other <br />possible causes of the rise in ground water level at Mr. Kirby's property and the other <br />affected properties whose owners complained to the Division. <br />21. Mr. Laird testified on behalf of the Operator. Mr. Laird contends that based <br />on historic well records, the ground water system has rebounded or returned to the historic <br />conditions that prevailed before sand and gravel mining occurred in the area. Mr. Laird <br />stated that the dewatering activities occurring at the site, combined with other historic pit <br />related dewatering had artificially lowered the water table for a number of years in the <br />1990's. <br />22. Mr. Laird presented historic alluvial well records and data in support of his <br />assertion that the current high ground water is a return to historic ground water levels. <br />23. Mr. Laird testified that the backfill material consists of left-over sand and <br />gravel from other locations and wash fines. Fines consist of silt-like material that is left-over <br />from processing gravel. Mr. Laird testified that he did not know the transmissivity of the <br />backfill material. <br />24. Mr. Laird testified and stated in his response to the Division's Inspection <br />Report and Reason to Believe letter that based on his analysis the high alluvial ground water <br />cannot be attributed to the backfilling of the Speer Mining Resource site. <br />25. Mr. Laird also testified that the Operator had not yet engaged the services of a <br />ground water hydrologist to analyze the situation. <br />26. Mr. Kirby testified as a rebuttal witness to Mr. Laird's testimony. Mr. Kirby <br />stated that he installed the sump pump in his basement, under flood conditions, the weekend <br />that his basement flooded. Mr. Kirby is a licensed pump installer and was able to install the <br />sump pump in his basement and effectively manage the flood through running additional <br />pumps. Mr. Kirby pumped 250 gpm of water using the combination of pumps. Mr. Kirby <br />Asphalt Specialties <br />Speer Mining Resource Pit 4 <br />M-1983-176