Residents here have concerns over the potential impact of a below-the-water-table gravel extraction proposal in the former township of Pilkington.
Mann Construction is seeking to amend its aggregate licence to change the final depth of two nearly adjacent pit sites which would allow gravel extraction from below the water table.
Just over three dozen area residents attended the mid-afternoon weekday meeting on April 9.
While many of those at the meeting were from Centre Wellington, some were from East Garafraxa, Waterloo and Guelph.
Project hydrogeologist Tony Lotimer explained the start of the hydrogeological investigation began in 1999 as owners at the time had also considered below-water-table gravel extraction.
In addition to background reviews and inspections, four test wells were drilled along with the monitoring of two domestic wells on the gravel pit sites.
Lotimer said that though the pit was created, the below-water-table extraction did not happen.
He noted more recently when Alex Frasson took over the company, the idea was brought back up.
Lotimer came in as someone familiar with the original proposal.
He said one of positives is that there is now over 10 years of water monitoring data.
Lotimer added the property between the two Mann properties is already licensed for extraction below the water table.
Monitoring data indicates little to no impact to local wells.
“Essentially there was no change over that period of time,” he said.
Lotimer said he believes extraction would amount to five to eight metres of material below the water table. Below that is clay and silt soil he added.
Lotimer said the information he had did not indicate any adverse affect on water quantities.
He did recommend continued monitoring at the existing four test wells and the domestic wells as a means of confirming the data.
Lotimer was quick to note if there were problems created by the extraction it would be the responsibility of the owner/operator to mitigate that.
Planner Rob Stovel of Stovel and Associates clarified there is a difference between gravel pits and quarries.
Quarries require blasting to access material while pits scoop materials from the ground.
He compared the machinery involved in digging the sand and gravel "is just the same as digging a pond on your property".
Questions
Some in attendance appeared to connect the gravel pit and its potential impact to groundwater and a proposal in the works by Nestlé Waters for the Middlebrook Water Company land west of Elora which accesses its water through a deep bedrock well.
Stovel said that while he had little information on the Nestlé project – that proposal essentially takes water from the bedrock – “It’s a big difference.
“Our systems are unconnected,” he said.
Linda Lane was concerned with the potential of a cumulative impact on the groundwater because of the Mann Construction and Nestlé Waters proposals.
Lotimer stated that with gravel pits whenever there is a potential impact “we have to have a series of scientific studies to evaluate the quantity of materials and the impact of its removal.”
He said at this stage they have the advantage of 15 years of information.
Lotimer added at most only the two local domestic wells could be affected.
This is shallow groundwater, and is not the same one for the village of Elora.
Stovel said there is a limit to how much material can be extracted below the water table simply because the material ends at till.
Others in the audience requested the meeting turn to the proposed pit rather than confuse the two issues.
Jim Reed of East Garafraxa asked about the nature of rehabilitation and whether the owner could sell the property to avoid that responsibility.
Stovel did not believe the owner can sell the property to avoid that responsibility.
Rehabilitation is a requirement of the pit licence through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.
“And there is pretty strong teeth in the legislation on this.”
But when it comes to a timeline, when to expect that work to be done is fluid.
Stovel said the site is intended to undergo progressive rehabilitation as material is extracted; however the date of final rehab depends on when extraction is complete.
Elora resident Toni Ellis asked for clarity that this is an existing pit, and the request is to go deeper and not expand the size.
She asked how far is the pit currently from the water level.
Stovel estimated there are portions of the pit still 15 to 20 feet from the water table.
“It’s just that some parts of the pit haven’t been extracted yet.”
Ellis wondered what the impact of machinery on site would be and whether the process would put materials in the water that were not there before.
Mike Nagy with Wellington Water Watchers opposed the concept of any extraction below the water table.
“We have a lot of concerns.”
Nagy said this pit was originally a hill and now extraction has gone below ground and proponents are asking to extract even further.
“I think when these pits start mining below the water table they are asking too much.”
Nagy appreciated that there are monitoring wells on site and there is data to refer to.
He also said his group is not just concerned about the quantity of water, but the quality.
Pits and quarries naturally have contaminants as a result of normal operations.
“There is concern those contaminants will make it into the ground water.”
Nagy feels rehabilitation may only be something to consider in the long-term future.
He pointed to a quarry in Guelph which has been in production for over a century.
“It’s great to have plans for rehabilitation, but this operation could go on for quite a long time.”
Anyone wishing to comment on the proposal must send, in writing, their detailed comments to the local Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry office.
The last day on which comments may be submitted to the MNRF is April 27.
