July 14,1998
Ric Holt
6565 8th Line West, RR 1, Elora Ontario
The purpose of this note is to record various observations about a meeting that took place on July 13, 1998 (yesterday) at the site of the proposed Shoemaker Pit. The meeting was suggested a week ago by Mr. Richard Seibel. Those attending the meeting were:
Mr. Richard Seibel, Vice President of the Murray Group,
Mr. Jon Planck of Limnoterra,
Ms. Paulette Hache of Limnoterra,
Mr. Tony Lottimer of Lotawater, and
Mr. Ric Holt (myself) -- My wife & I are the closest residents to the proposed pit
(I hope I have spelled these names correctly). The meeting took place on July 13, 1998, and lasted from 3:00 pm until 6:15 pm. For me, this was an interesting and fruitful meeting. The discussion was open and cordial
We met at the asphalt plant in the adjacent Bowman pit. We toured the area of the proposed pit as follows. We entered the part of the internal wetland that is within the Bowman pit. We walked from there on the high ground to the west of the wetland, observing the surrounding fields, the Carroll Creek vegetation, etc. We walked across the high ground that is north of the pit, then returned to the west side and followed the old road that leads into the north end of the wetland. We walked through the wetland, climbed the northeast slope, and walked along the edge of the field (which Harvey Shoemaker has in grain), arriving back at the edge of the Bowman pit, having completed a circuit around the woodland in the proposed pit.
Throughout this walk, we had a wide ranging discussion, centred around the proposed pit and related topics, often in groups of 2 to 3. At the end of the walk around, we met in the "control building" at the Bowman Pit, which was air conditioned, and had a rather intense discussion for about half an hour, and then went our separate ways at 6:15 pm.
I note that Mr. Planck has a central interest in biological and environmental issues and is very much a "big picture" person, interested in the long view and how things generally fit. Ms. Hache did biological studies that went into the SEI (Statement of Environmental Impact). Mr. Lottimer was responsible for the water studies, in particular, the wells, the estimates of the topology of the water table in the Shoemaker site and the adjacent pits, as well as the wells and monitoring within the Bowman pit. It is not clear to me who actually wrote or assembled the SEI.
We discussed Plan (or Scenario) A versus Plan B for some time. My understanding from this conversation are that Plan A (as given on the Site Plan) is necessary according to Provincial policy, which requires excavated farmland to be rehabilitated to equal or better quality farm land, and which requires the central wetland to be preserved. The 30 metres left surrounding the wetland in the excavation follow some precedent (which I don't entirely understand). I voiced my concern about Plan A, that the survival of this wetland seems in considerable danger with only that 30 metres separating it from a surrounding pit. My understanding, primarily from Mr. Planck's discussion, is that Plan B is in most ways superior to Plan A. Plan B, in Mr. Planck's thinking, allows an extension of the wetlands as well as a corridor to the existing Carroll Creek corridor. He says that continuous monitoring through the years is necessary to keep track of things such as ground water flow, to make sure that Plan B results in a good and extended wetland and natural area. The trouble is, Plan B cannot be implemented because it does not agree with Provincial policy. My concern is that Plan B is only sketched in any document that is available (to the public, to the Councillors of Pilkington, etc), and that much of it seems to be only in Mr. Planck's mind.
I voiced my concern about the viability of the wetland, with its hydroperiod (rising and falling of wetness during annual cycles), with the implementation of Plan A, with the excavation removing much of the wetland's surrounding "catchment" and the corresponding woodlot. I did not feel that anyone provided any reasonable assurance that the viability of the wetland under Plan A is assured. My feeling remains that a clear written explanation by an expert of the viability of the wetland under Plan A is necessary to allow a clear understanding and possible review of this danger.
I voiced my concern about the excavation of a significant part of the slope leading to Middlebrook Creek, on the east side of the Shoemaker site. Mr. Planck told me that this will not have a large effect. Although I cannot reproduce the details of his reasoning. I believe his thinking has to do with the general flow of groundwater, with the implementation of his Plan B. My concern remains that a clear written explanation by an expert of how this excavation does (or does not) harm Middlebrook Creek is necessary to allow a clear understanding and possible review of this potential negative impact.
I voiced my concerns about various hydrogeological information presented in the SEI (Statement of Environmental Impact). I noted that although the groundwater flow from the Shoemaker, as estimated by Mr. Lottimer and company, seems to flow south and southeast across the Bowman pit, there are no measurements (no wells) discussed in the SEI in the southeast of the Bowman pit to verify this flow. After a considerable amount of discussion, mostly with Mr. Lottimer, we examined a map of the site which belongs to Mr. Lottimer. His map shows wells, near the asphalt plant, and he used information from these wells in his estimations. However, the SEI does not mention these wells. My feeling is that the SEI is missing critical information, such as information about these wells. With the facts currently available in the SEI, it seems quite plausible that an expert, other than Mr. Planck or Mr. Lottimer, might arrive at quite different conclusions than they have arrived at. It is essential that estimations of the groundwater flow be accurate, for otherwise, the monitoring positions could be misplaced and hence could miss detecting chemical or temperature problems with ground water. My concern is that the groundwater facts and estimations given SEI are difficult to verify or check, because the necessary facts are either missing from the report or have not been collected in the field.
I voiced my concern that SEI does not consider the dramatic difference in the underground configuration of till versus sand and gravel from cross section AA' to BB', and that this difference was apparently not taken into consideration in the groundwater flow estimations. I said I was worried that the SEI did not take into consideration the possibility that there could be perched water (lying above the surrounding watertable) which might provide flow of water to or from the wetland that is essential to its viability; section BB' shows such perched water in the adjacent Bowman site. While we discussed this consideration, I did not feel that the issue was clarified.
I voiced my concern that a separate and clear hydrogeological report is needed, that would allow an expert hydogeologist to evaluate the findings of the SEI for soundness. The current SEI report intermixes many kinds of observations and conclusions, and makes this hydrogeological evaluation difficult. Mr. Planck, Mr. Lottimer and Mr. Seibel argued rather forcefully that an integrated report such as the SEI by Limnoterra is superior because it considers the interactions of features, such as biology, waterflow, and allows the experience and intuition of people such as Mr. Planck, to provide better planning. My position to them was that we are betting the lives of two coldwater creeks and a wetland on Plan A or Plan B, and that first (before we start drawing conclusions) we need to clarify the facts, such as groundwater flow, and that these facts should by a separate and clear hydrogeological presentation to allow their direct study. I was surrounded by people who did not agree with my position, and I therefore felt some discomfort arguing my position. On the other hand, all of these people are paid by the Murray Group, and all of them apparently already accept the inevitability of the Shoemaker pit, so I wasn't confident that they were in an ideal position to consider my position impartially. My concern remains that a clear and separate hydrogeological analysis is needed.
It is clear to me that Murray Group wants to minimize the expenses they incur in putting forward this proposal and to minimize the elapsed time until they can proceed with this new pit. However, this desire on their part should not be the main or only force determining what steps that should be taken in evaluating this proposal for a new pit. Plans A and B remain incomplete and inconsistent. My concern is that Plans A and B must be clarified before a reasonable understanding of this proposal is possible.
Ric Holt, July 14, 1998
(This document is publicly available on the World Wide Web from: plg.uwaterloo.ca/~holt/pit)