This document is available as http://gravelwatch.org/orig-gw/ebr/EBRall.html. It is a Citizens' request for the Ministry of Natural Resources to investigate alleged violations in the Bowman Pit Complex. See also MNR's report on this investigation. See also documents related to this set of pits. 

Application for Investigation

Under Section 74,

Environmental Bill of Rights

 
 

for

Alleged Contraventions in

Bowman Pit Complex, Near Elora

April 30, 1999

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Abstract. This application records environmental damage in the Bowman Pit Complex, which is near Elora, Ontario. Violations of the pit license and site plans have entailed excavating into the water table, damaging a wetland and damaging a woodland. The evidence presented in this application includes a number of photographs, taken from July 1998 to April 1999, which document these violations.
 
 

Application for Investigation

 

Under Section 74,

Environmental Bill of Rights

 
 

for

Alleged Contraventions in

Bowman Pit Complex, Near Elora

April 30, 1999

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Overview. This submission is a Application under the Ontario Bill of Rights for an investigation of alleged environment damage in the Bowman Pit Complex. This pit complex is a set of gravel pits located 4 kilometers southwest of the village of Elora, Ontario and 1.6 kilometers from the Grand River. It is bounded on two sides by cold water streams (trout fishery) which flow into the Grand River and has a scored Provincially Significant wetland at its centre.

The alleged contraventions include violations of pit license and site plans and have entailed excavating into the water table, damaging the wetland and damaging a woodland. An 80 metre long crescent-shaped pool, showing the excavation into the water table, can been seen in photographs. There are also photographs of wetland and woodland damage.

Organization. This submission has three sections:

 


Table of Contents

Alleged Contraventions

1. The Bowman Pit Complex

2. Excavation into the Water Table: The Crescent Pool

3. Depth Violation in Crescent Pool

4. Back-Filling the Crescent Pool

5. Damage to Wetland

6. Destruction of Woodland

7. Water Table and Depth Violation in Darrington "Deep Pit"

8. Depth Violation in Bosomworth Pit

9. Pattern of Depth Violations

10. MNR Notification

11. Getting Permission to Dig Deeper

12. Bringing in Back-Fill Material

13. Ongoing Rehabilitation

14. Competitive Advantage

15. Conclusion

Exhibits: Summary of Evidence

E1. Bowman Pit Requirement to Remain Above Water Table

E2. Darrington Pit Requirement to Remain 1.5m Above Water Table

E3. Bowman Pit Restriction on Maximum Depth of Excavation

E4. Bowman Pit Requirement to Maintain Woodlot

E5. Relation of Water Table to Central Wetland

E6. Water Table Yearly Rise and Fall

E7. Provincially Significant Central Wetland

P1. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (26 Sept 98)

P2.1. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (11 Feb 99)

P2.2. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (20 Feb 99)

P2.3. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (27 Feb 99)

P2.4. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (13 Mar 99)

L8.1. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 16 Dec 98

L8.2. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 23 Dec 98

L8.3. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 5 Feb 99

L8.4. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 3 Mar 99

D1. Data Sheet for Measurement of Crescent Pool Area (3 Apr 99)

D2. Data Sheet for Darrington "Deep Pit" Water Table Level (18 Apr 99)

W1. Cross Section Locations for Water Table Contours

W2. Cross Section Showing Water Table Contours

W3. Rise and Fall of Water Table Level

Application for Investigation

1. Applicant Number One

2. Applicant Number Two

3. Corporate Applicant (none)

4. Alleged Contravenor

5. Alleged Contraventions (separate section; see above in Table of Contents)

6. Seriousness of the Contraventions

7. Summary of Evidence (separate section; see below in Table of Contents)

8. Previous Contact with Ministry of Environment Commissioner of Ontario
 
 


30d: 30 Apr 99
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Section 5, Application for Investigation,

under Section 74 of the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights

 

 

Alleged Contraventions:

Environmental Damage in the Bowman Pit Complex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The Bowman Pit Complex

In the Bowman complex of gravel pits, near Elora, Ontario (see Figure 1), there have been repeated violations of the licenses and the site plans. Most notably, there has been excavation and removal of gravel below the water table which is prohibited by their licenses and site plans.

Figure 1. Location of Bowman Pit Complex, near village of Elora. This and various other diagrams are based on figures submitted by the Murray Group Ltd in support of the proposed Shoemaker pit (May 1998).

The Bowman Pit Complex consists of the Darrington pit, the Bowman pit proper, and the Bosomworth pit (Ontario pit numbers P722871, P720649 and P723021, respectively). There is a proposal to extend this complex with a new pit, the Shoemaker pit. The pits are 4 kilometers southwest of Elora, a village known for its beautiful gorge in the Grand River (see Figure 1).

Two coldwater stream valleys (for Carroll Creek and Middlebrook Creek) are directly next to the licensed areas of these pits. These valleys are wetlands. These streams merge and flow into the Grand River, which is 1600 meters (1.6km) from the pit complex.
At the centre of the pit complex is a wetland, which has been scored as Provincially Significant by both environmental expert Limnoterra Inc. and the MNR (Ministry of Natural Resources) (Exhibit E7). The wetland is part of and is surrounded by a woodland (see Figure 2). Both the central wetland and woodland are directly next to cleared or excavated land.

Figure 2. Area of Bowman Pit Complex, showing central wetland. The coloured (red) area, in the top centre of the Bowman pit and extending upward into the Shoemaker pit, is the part of the wetland with hydric (mucky) soil. The boundary surrounding it (dotted line) marks the extent of the scored Provincially Significant Wetland. Surrounding that is the central woodland.

2. Excavation into the Water Table: The Crescent Pool

A large standing pool of water, shaped like a crescent, was photographed on February 11, 1999 (Figure 3). The surface of this pool is the top of the water table. A sequence of aerial and ground photographs through February and March show this pool growing with the seasonal rise of the water table (Exhibit P2.1, P2.2, P2.3, and P2.4 in Exhibits: Summary of Evidence). It reached a size of approximately 80m long by 20m wide (Figure 4). It spanned the area from the west, 20m into the Darrington pit, to the east, along the central woods in the Bowman pit. It was estimated to have a depth of 0.3m. A previous photograph of this area (Exhibit P1), on September 26, 1998, shows a considerably deeper excavation in this same area.


Figure 3. Crescent Pool excavated into water table on 11 Feb 99, viewed from Point A. The Marker Tree (Point B) is in background toward the right. (See Figure 4 for points A and B.)

Each year, this water table rises and falls about 1.3m, with a low point in November and a high point in May (according to Limnoterra Statement of Environmental Impact, April 1998; see Exhibit E6). Based on this rise of 1.3m for a six-month period (November-May), it is estimated that there is 3-month seasonal rise of about 0.6m for the period February to May, to the yearly high in May. Since June 1997 (for 23 months as of April 1999), we have been experiencing drought conditions in this area, so the water table is depressed; the amount of this depression has yet to be determined by experts, but is estimated here at 1m. These figures, when added up (see Table 1) imply that in February 1999, there was a depth of excavation of 1.6m below the seasonal high water table.

0.3m

Crescent Pool depth (11 Feb 99)

0.6m

Water table seasonal rise, from February to May

1.0m

Drought lowering of water table

1.9m

Total, excavation depth below seasonal high water table

Table 1. Depth of excavation below water table in Crescent Pool.

The earlier photograph of September 26, 1998 (Exhibit P1) shows deeper excavation, but the pool was not present, presumably due to the low level of the water table during that time of year.

The licenses for all pits in the Bowman Pit Complex prohibit excavation into the water table (the seasonally high water table). The site plan for the Bowman pit explicitly prohibits excavation into the water table (Exhibit E1). The site plan for the Darrington pit prohibits excavation within 1.5m of the water table (Exhibit E2).

Based on the existing evidence, the operator has mined below the water table in direct violation of its operating licenses, its site plans and the Aggregate Resources Act.

Effects of water table excavation:

Excavation into the water table potentially damages all of these.

Features

Blue: Crescent shaped pool excavated into water table

Pink: Pit face at edge of Crescent Pool, 5-6m high (3 Apr 99)

Points

Point A: Boundary of Bowman and Darrington pits at pit face

Point B: Marker Tree, 17+m tall, less than 3m from collapsing pit face

Point C: Boundary of Bowman and Darrington pits at Shoemaker fence

Point D: Fence line position approximating point B

Point E: Position to which excavation extended into Darrington pit

Point F: Highest position on pit face along Crescent Pool

Point G: End of Crescent Pool pit face, at pit floor

Measurements

Pit face depths: A: 4.87m (3 Apr 99), B: 4.6m (3 Apr 99), F: 6+m (10 Apr 99)

Distances (3 Apr 99): A-C: 33.90m, C-D: 82.70m, D-B: 95.91m, A-E: 25m

Figure 4. Crescent shaped pool, excavated into the water table, extending across the Bowman and Darrington pits. The pit floor up to the pit face (pink) was excavated into the water table. The contour lines show the maximum excavation depth allowed by the site plan for the Bowman pit. The Darrington maximum excavation depth is 1.5m above the water table. This diagram is based on the Rehabilitation sheet of the Bowman pit site plan. (See Exhibit D1.)
 
 


Figure 5. The Marker Tree (Point B in Figure 4), precariously near the 6m pit face (10 Apr 99). The pool at the bottom left shows the water table height.


Figure 6. Aerial photograph of Crescent Pool on 14 Feb 99. Points A, B, C and D as in Figure 4.
 
 

3. Depth Violation in Crescent Pool

Bowman pit. The Bowman site plan specifies the maximum allowed depth of extraction as the contours on its Rehabilitation sheet (see Figure 4, which is based on the Rehabilitation sheet) (See Exhibit E3). The height of the pit face at Point F (Figure 4) was measured as 6+m (10 Apr 99). (Somewhat more precise measurements of lower faces at Points A and B were taken on 3 Apr 99, based on clinometer and tape measure readings, as 4.87m and 4.6m, respectively.) The water table is approximately 364masl at this point, and the base of the face was in the water table. The maximum allowed depth at Point F according to the site plan contours is approximately 370masl (meters above sea level). This implies a depth violation of approximately 6m at this point (Table 2). (The actual depth violation was probably considerably more, if one considers the depth of the pool and the fact that the excavation was deeper in earlier months).
 

370masl

Maximum depth by contour on Bowman site plan

364masl

Water table (surface of Crescent Pool)

6m

Difference: Depth violation in Bowman pit in Crescent Pool

Table 2. Depth violation in Bowman pit in Crescent Pool

Darrington pit. The Darrington site plan (as amended in November 1998) prohibits extraction within 1.5m of the watertable. From Point A to Point E (Figure 4), the Crescent Pit lies in the Darrington pit and has been excavated into the watertable. Given a pool depth of 0.3m, a seasonal rise of about 0.1m (April to May), and a drought depression of water table of 1.0m, this implies a depth violation in the Darrington pit of 2.9m in April 1999 (Table 3).
 

0.3m

Depth of pool

0.1m

Seasonal rise: April to May

1.0m

Drought lowering of water table

1.5m

Required excavation distance above water table in Darrington pit

2.9m

Total: Depth violation in Darrington pit in Crescent Pool

 

Table 3. Depth violation in Darrington pit in Crescent Pool

Based on the existing evidence, the operator has excavated below the allowed maximum depth in direct violation of its site plans and the Aggregate Resources Act.
 
 

4. Back-Filling the Crescent Pool

On March 13, 1999, a photograph was taken, showing that the pit operator had started back-filling the Crescent Pool (see Figure 7).


Figure 7. Back-filling of Crescent Pool in progress (17 Mar 99).

By March 20, 1999, the back-fill of the pool had reached a level where the main part of the pool was covered, but there remained much standing water in the area (Figure 8). A partially completed further layer of back-filling, on top of the layer seen in Figure 8, was in progress and was photographed on April 18, 1999 (photograph not included). A continuation of back-filling in this manner would cover up the excavation into the water table as well as the associated depth violations.
 
 


Figure 8. Back-fill across entire Crescent Pool (20 Mar 99). Marker Tree (Point B) is the very tall tree, extending off top of photograph, in the centre-right.
 
 
 

5. Damage to Wetland

At the centre of the Bowman Pit Complex lies a Provincially Significant wetland (see Figures 2 and 9). The boundary of this wetland can be seen in Figure 2 (see also Figure 9). Limnoterra has ascertained that the wetland lies approximately at the level of the water table (Exhibit E5).

This wetland has been damaged in various ways. Parts of it have been cleared and parts have had earth dumped into them (see Figures 9 and 10).

Generally, there should be setbacks to protect a wetland from the dangers of excavation. Excavation within a distance of 120m from a wetland needs consideration in new pits. A distance of 30m is standard; for example, the proposed Shoemaker pit specifies a setback of 30m from this wetland. The excavation for the Crescent Pool is very close to (about 15m from) the wetland. The proximity of the Crescent Pool excavation is endangering and may already have damaged the wetland.
 
 


Figure 9. Wetland within central woodland in Bowman Pit Complex. The Bowman site plan requires maintaining the central woodland. The outer (red) boundary of the woodland is from the 1993 Bowman site plan. The inner (green) boundary of the woodland is shown in later site plans, such as the proposed Shoemaker site plan.


Figure 10. Stockpiles in wetland. The blue circle shows a blue plastic ribbon which is attached to the small tree (near point B) to mark the edge of the Provincially Significant wetland (see Figures 2 and 9 for boundary of this wetland). Earth piles, on both sides of the ribboned tree, have been dumped into the wetland. This dumping damages the wetland.
 
 

6. Destruction of Woodland

The central woodland (woodlot) includes the central wetland (see Figure 9). The Bowman site plan requires that this woodland be maintained (Exhibit E4), but it has been damaged by piling earth into it and by clearing parts of it. As shown in Figure 11, trees have had earth piled on them; trees with earth piled on them this way generally die.

It appears that the operator has cleared the southern edge of the woodland, based on the following observations. The boundary of the woodlot as given in the 1993 Bowman site plan is the outer boundary (in red) shown in Figure 9. By 1995, the boundary of the woodlot had shrunk to the size shown in green. This shrinkage can be seen by comparing the woodland boundary as given in the 1993 Bowman site plan with that in later site plans such as the 1998 amended Darrington site plan. This clearing of the woodlot edge can also be seen in the 1995 aerial photograph in Figure 2.

The excavation for the Crescent Pool is less than 3m from trunks of tall (17+m) trees in the central woodland (see Figures 2 and 5). The Provincial Operational Standards that Apply to [Pit] Licenses (paragraph 5.5) states that "all trees within 5 metres of the excavation face must be removed". Since the site plan requires maintainance of the woodland, the excavation should not have been closer than 5m from the woodland. The contour lines on the site plan do not allow excavation at the current depth near the woodland.


Figure 11. Stockpiles and damage in "maintained" woodland next to Crescent Pool, close to Point B.
 
 
 

7. Watertable and Depth Violation in Darrington "Deep Pit"

In the Darrington pit, just south of the Crescent Pool area, there have been particularly deep excavation violations of 6m and 4m as recorded in the yearly Compliance Assessment Reports for 24 Nov 1997 and 14 Sept 1998, respectively (see "Deep Pit" marked in Figure 11A). On April 18, 1999, piezometer tube "I" in the northeast part of this deep pit, showed that the water table was 39 cm (15 inches) below the surface (Exhibit D2). At that date, the pit floor slanted slowly down from the piezometer to the south and east, and in that direction there was a shallow pool of water, which was then the surface of the water table. At that date, the Deep Pit was roughly circular with a 50-60m diameter.

The current (April 1999) excavation in this Deep Pit is into the water table. This is implied by the April 18, 1999 piezometer reading and the fact that drought conditions have depressed the current watertable. Assuming a drought water table depression of 1m, the current pit floor is 1m below the seasonal high water table. It appears that previous excavation (for example, in 1997 when the depth violation was 6m) was considerably deeper into the watertable.

Apparently, this excavation followed the same pattern as the Crescent Pool, in which the gravel in the water table was extracted and then the area was back-filled to (almost) cover any pools of water.

There is active excavation in this "deep pit" at the current time (April 1999).

Based on the existing evidence, the operator has excavated into the water table and below the allowed maximum excavation depth in direct violation of its site plans and the Aggregate Resources Act.

This evidence indicates that the excavation depth violation reported in the 14 Sept 1998 Darrington Compliance Assessment Report was not corrected within 90 days. This is a contravention of the Aggregate Resources Act, Section 15.1 (5): "If an annual compliance report discloses a contravention of this Act, the regulations, the site plan or the conditions of this licence, (a) the licensee shall (i) within a period of 90 days after the report is submitted to the Minister or within such longer period as may be specified by the Minister, take such steps as may be necessary to remedy the contravention ... "

Destroyed site plan. The site plan for the Darrington pit was formally requested from MNR on 7 Oct 98 under FOI (Freedom of Information Act). After this request, but before delivery of the site plan, the pre-November 1998 version of the site plan was destroyed by MNR and was not delivered. The site plan which MNR delivered, on 7 Jan 99, is the one approved by MNR on 27 Nov 98. Because of these events, it has not been possible to verify the site plan excavation depth limits for the period of 20 May 97 to 27 Nov 98. Even if the pre-November 1998 site plan allowed excavation down to the water table, there was still a depth violation and excavation into the water table.
 
 

Figure 11A. Darrington Pit Sketch from September 1998 Compliance Assessment Report by Operator. The Darrington "Deep Pit" corresponds to C11. The operator's designations in that area of the sketch are: B7: Setback violation, C11: Extraction Depth Violation of 4m, C16: Stockpile Violation, C18: Excavation Face Violation.
 
 
 

8. Depth Violation in Bosomworth Pit

In the Bosomworth pit, the excavation pit face near the northwest boundary (next to Wideman's farm) was measured as approximately 5.5m high (April 25, 1999). The site plan limits depth of excavation to the contours given on the Rehabilitation sheet of the site plan. Apparently the current depth is below the allowed depth as specified by the site plan. The 1997 Compliance Assessment Report records an excavation depth violation and an excavation face violation in this area. (The 1998 Compliance Assessment Report for this pit is not available.) Note: In December 1998, MNR approved a site plan amendment to allow further excavation in this area, namely, into the setback.

9. Pattern of Depth Violations

The 1997 and 1998 Compliance Assessment Reports for the Bowman Pit Complex confirm these depth violations:

In 1996, MNR did not carry out inspections of these pits, so we do not have records for that year. This record shows a consistent pattern of violations.
 
 

10. MNR Notification

The violations for the Darrington and Bowman pit for 1997-98 were brought to the attention of the MNR by R. Holt in letters of 16 Dec 98, 23 Dec 98, 5 Feb 99 and 3 Mar 99, but no apparent action was taken by them; this lack of action suggests that the MNR is not likely to act on further complaints of violations. (See Exhibits L8.1, L8.2, L8.3, and L8.4). If an investigation is undertaken of the alleged contraventions listed here, it should ideally be carried out by MNR personnel other than those to whom these letters were addressed (Mr. Warren Knight and Mr. Craig Selby), as per the recommendation by the Environmental Commisioner of Ontario that EBR investigations should not be carried out by people previously involved.

11. Getting Permission to Dig Deeper

On September 29, 1998, the operator's agent, Mr. Robert J. Gibson (formerly an MNR employee), wrote a letter to MNR requesting a Darrington site plan amendment to allow deeper excavation. This letter states,

"We request permission to extract to a maximum of 4 metres deeper within the area identified on the site plan as Stage 1. Extraction is presently allowed to proceed to an elevation of 366m. Test pits indicate that there is sufficient quantity and quality of material available to be extracted below the present pit floor without extracting within the water table."

The area in question includes the positions where MNR Compliance Assessment Reports record a 1997 depth violation of 6m and a 1998 depth violation of 4m. Apparently, the "test pits" referred to by Mr. Gibson are these depth violations. This area also includes the Darrington "deep pit" where there is currently (April 1999) excavation into the watertable.

At the request of MNR personnel (Mr. Warren Knight) to provide additional information to identify the water table in this area, Mr. Gibson wrote a further letter on October 27, 1998, to MNR stating that,

"It is noted that piezometers identified as MWA and MWB are located within close proximity of Stage 1 of the Darrington Pit and provide us with accurate water level readings. Historical readings as shown on the attached Bowman Pit Water Elevation Survey indicate that the water levels ranged from 359.87 to 360.12masl."

What Mr. Gibson's letter fails to state and what the amended site plan does not take into consideration is that these same water level readings, along with other readings, were used by the Murray Group's expert Limnoterra to analyze the water table in that area and to plot water table contour lines for this area (see Figure 12 and Exhibits W1 and W2). Limnoterra's analysis is part of the Statement of Environmental Impact used to support the operator's application for the proposed Shoemaker pit. Limnoterra's estimation of the watertable in this area is considerably higher than that given in Mr. Gibson's letter and in the amended site plan. The amended site plan shows the water table as flat at 360masl, whereas Limnoterra's estimation for November 1997 (which is seasonally low) shows the water table rising from 360.5masl to 362 in this same area.

As a result of Mr. Gibson's request, in November 1998, MNR granted the amendment to allow 4m deeper excavation in this area. (Note that the amended Darrington site plan limits extraction to 1.5m above the water table.)

The operator's application for this amendment was premised on water table data that does not correspond to the water table information they provided to support their Shoemaker site plan application and does not correspond to the water table level observed in the Crescent Pool within the Darrington pit. Whether considered before or after the amendment, there have been depth violations and excavation into the water table.
 
 

Figure 12. Water table contours for the Darrington, Bowman and Shoemaker pits. Although this diagram is dated February 1998, the data was for November 1997.
 
 
 
 
 

12. Bringing in Back-Fill Material

Since aggregate has been removed below allowed maximum depth, the operator will need to truck in extra material from offsite to back-fill the below-regulation excavated areas (back-filling is required by the site plans). Bringing in foreign material and placing it in this environmentally sensitive area is highly questionable. How can neighbours know that the imported material is in fact "inert fill" (by MOE definition)? If this material is placed in the water table, what affect will it have? Does the pit operator profit from disposing of backfill material in a place that was excavated against regulations?

In the Bowman pit proper, in the south part, there are piles of imported materials (primarily earth), which contain various matter such as plastic pipes, metal pipes, pieces of concrete, etc. Is this pit acting as a dump site? Is this imported material "inert fill" (by MOE definition)? Is it known to be free of harmful chemicals?

13. Ongoing Rehabilitation

A letter from MNR personnel (Mr. Warren Knight) dated August 31, 1998 to the operator (the Murray Group) states about the Darrington pit that, "It was good to see the rehabilitation that you have started in the northeast corner of the site." The 1997 Bosomworth Compliance Assessment Report states, "rehabilitation is going on in one area of the pit", and shows, in an accompanying sketch that rehabilitation is taking place in the west corner of the Bosomworth pit (Figure 14). These two cases of rehabilitation, and a third case, will now be discussed.

Case 1: Darrington Pit. In the first case, regarding the Darrington pit, there is no rehabilitation in the "northeast corner". This area has been stripped and much of it excavated, and forms part of the Crescent Pool. There is an area that lies to the northwest of and outside of the licensed Darrington pit area, which had been covered with top soil just prior to Mr. Knight's visit to the pit August 1998 (see Figure 13). Perhaps this is the area the MNR letter was referring to. Since this area is off the licensed site, these questions arise: Where did the top soil come from? Was it top soil that was from the licensed area and placed off site, in which case this is a violation? Why did this area need to be rehabilitated, since it was a farmer's field that was not on the licensed area? Note that the aerial photograph in Figure 2 seems to show off-site disturbance in this same area.
 
 

Figure 13A. Spreading top soil off-site northwest of Darrington Pit (19 July 98). Photograph taken looking south. Cedar trees in right background are in Carroll Creek valley.
 

Figure 13B. Spreading top soil off-site northwest of Darrington Pit (aerial photograph 11 Aug 98).

Case 2: Bosomworth Pit. In the second case, concerning the Bosomworth pit, most of the rehabilitation has been off the licensed site. Soil has been spread to the west of the licensed boundary of this pit. (Where did this soil come from?). Knee high cedar trees have been planted in rows in one part of this off-site area. The Bosomworth site plan shows that in 1993, there was extensive off-site pit work (in violation of the site plan) in this area, with many stockpiles off the licensed site (see Figure 14). In the area where the cedar trees are now planted, the site plan shows a woodland; this is the rectangular area shown in green in Figure 14. This woodland no longer exists. Presumably, the operator cleared this woodland. Was this a violation similar to the damage to the Bowman central woodland, in which the operator destroyed woods?

Figure 14. West corner of Bosomworth pit site plan (1993). (North is to the top right.) Note stockpiles (red) that are beyond, or partly beyond, the licensed boundary (heavy dashes --- yellow). The rectangle of woods (shown in green) no longer exists; it is now planted in rows of knee-high cedars.
 
 

Case 3: Bowman Pit. A third case of rehabilitation involves the Bowman pit. In this pit, there was considerable rehabilitation that is shown on the site plan in the north corner of that pit. The 1995 MNR Notice of Inspection for this pit states, "Aggregate piles are located within the rehabilitated area in the north corner of the pit. This is contrary to Note 11, page 2 of the site plan. In addition, it appears that the asphalt plant and the gravel roadways surrounding it are within a formerly rehabilitated area." The result is that this rehabilitated area now requires re-rehabilitation.

This evidence indicates that these pits have little more (probably less) total rehabilitation now (April 1999) than in 1993. This indicates a violation of site plans and the Aggregate Resources Act, Section 48 (1), "Every licensee and every permittee shall perform progressive rehabilitation on the site in accordance with this Act, the regulations, the site plan and the conditions of the license or permit to the satisfaction of the Minister."
 
 

14. Competitive Advantage

The Ontario aggregate industry is now self regulating, meaning pit operators are responsible for seeing that regulations are followed. This saves the government and taxpayers the cost of pit inspectors, most of whom were eased out of their jobs in 1996.

As explained by Warren Knight, of the MNR Clinton office, the assumption is "zero tolerance", meaning that there should be no violation of licenses, site plans, etc. Otherwise, as he explained, each violating operator gains a competitive advantage, and there then arises considerable pressure for other operators to also violate rules.

Excavating gravel under the water table is cheap and easy when the water table is low due to the season and due to a drought. The stockpiles of aggregate which have been excavated in this way from the Bowman Pit Complex should bring a higher profit for the pit operator. But surely, the operator should not be benefiting by selling this aggregate, which was extracted in violation of rules and with accompanying damage to the environment. Note that the Aggragate Resources Act has a provision, Section 58(2), for fining operators the amount by which they gain financially from offences.

The dates of the violations and how they correspond to reporting and deadline dates bears questioning. The September 2, 1998 Bowman Compliance Assessment Report records no depth violation in the Crescent Pit area, but by September 26, 1998 (Exhibit P1) there is a very deep excavation in this area. If current back-filling continues in this area, it seems that there will be no (visible) violation to report by the time of the next Compliance Assessment Report (September 1999). The September 14, 1998 Darrington Compliance Assessment Report records a depth violation in the "Deep Pit" (Figure 11A), but the amendment of the Darrington site plan took place on November 27, 1998, thereby apparently obviating the need to correct that violation. (Actually, the violation was still there, but not reported, even with the amended site plan, as explained in Section 7 of this report.) These actions suggest the possibility that there has been a scheduling of non-compliant operations to take advantage of reporting/amendment dates.

There is the possibility that the operator is not aware of the environmental consequences of actions such as excavating into the water table. This seems unlikely, in that Mr. Richard Seibel, who is spokesperson and Vice President for the Murray Group (the operator), has recently served on the Environmental Committee of the APAO (Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario). It seems that he should be aware of both the regulations and the environmental implications of violating them.

The actions of the operator of the Bowman Pit Complex indicate an inability of that party to be self regulating. Since there are insufficient MNR pit inspectors to monitor these actions, it seems external intervention, such as pit license suspension, is necessary.

15. Conclusion

The purpose of this report is to provide a reasonable argument showing that violations of site plans, licenses and Acts in the Bowman Pit Complex have caused and are continuing to cause significant environmental damage. Considerable effort was expended to try to make this report thorough, factual and understandable. It is now requested that an official investigation be carried out to verify our conclusions. Because previous attempts to solve problems involving these pits were unsuccessful, it is suggested that any investigation not be carried out by the same MNR staff who have been involved so far.

This report concludes that there is a history of violations and questionable practices in the Bowman Pit Complex that are environmentally damaging. Damage is likely to continue unless action is taken.

We believe that an investigation of these alleged contraventions is necessary, in order


30d Apr 99

Section 7, Application for Investigation,

under Section 74 of the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights

Exhibits:

Summary of Evidence

For Environmental Damage in the Bowman Pit Complex

For Submission to

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

 
 
 
 

Table of Contents for Exhibits

E1. Bowman Pit Requirement to Remain Above Water Table

E2. Darrington Pit Requirement to Remain 1.5m Above Water Table

E3. Bowman Pit Restriction on Maximum Depth of Excavation

E4. Bowman Pit Requirement to Maintain Woodlot

E5. Relation of Water Table to Central Wetland

E6. Water Table Yearly Rise and Fall

E7. Provincially Significant Central Wetland

P1. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (26 Sept 98)

P2.1. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (11 Feb 99)

P2.2. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (20 Feb 99)

P2.3. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (27 Feb 99)

P2.4. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (13 Mar 99)

L8.1. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 16 Dec 98

L8.2. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 23 Dec 98

L8.3. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 5 Feb 99

L8.4. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 3 Mar 99

D1. Data Sheet for Measurement of Crescent Pool Area (3 Apr 99)

D2. Data Sheet for Darrington "Deep Pit" Water Table Level (18 Apr 99)

W1. Cross Section Locations for Water Table Contours

W2. Cross Section Showing Water Table Contours

W3. Rise and Fall of Water Table Level
 
 
 
 


List of Evidence

Please see also the figures in "Alleged Contraventions: Environmental Damage in the Bowman Complex", which constitute a part of the evidence.
 
 

Exhibit E1. Bowman Pit Requirement to Remain Above Water Table

From Bowman site plan (1998 as amended), Operational Plan, Note 15:

"Aggregate excavation is not proposed to proceed below the water table."
 
 

Exhibit E2. Darrington Pit Requirement to Remain 1.5m Above Water Table.

From Darrington site plan (1998), Operational Plan, Note 5:

"Excavation of aggregate will remain 1.5m above established Water Table and will not extend below elevation 362masl."

Exhibit E3. Bowman Pit Restriction on Maximum Depth of Excavation

From Bowman site plan (1998 as amended), Operational Plan, Note 14:

"The proposed contours illustrated on page 3, Progressive and Final Rehabilitation, indicates the maximum extractions depths. Spot elevations indicate the maximum depth of extraction. Extraction depths may vary throughout the pit depending on materials encountered. Maximum depths shall not be exceeded."

These contours are shown in Figure 2 of the document "Environmental Damage in the Bowman Pits". They are defined on the Bowman site plan Progressive and Final Rehabilitation sheet.

Exhibit E4. Bowman Pit Requirement to Maintain Woodlot

From Bowman site plan (1998 as amended), Operational Plan, Area 3, Note 8,

"Assure the existing deciduous woodlot is maintained during extraction."

This area should be measured, based on the 1993 site plan boundaries of the woodlot, and the extent of the damage should be estimated by an expert.

Exhibit E5. Relation of Water Table to Central Wetland

Limnoterra's Statement of Environmental Impact, for the Shoemaker pit states:

"The floor elevations of the wetland/depression occurring in the Shoemaker property and the north part of the Bowman Pit were provided to us by Mr. Richard Seibel of the Murray Group. ... In the north half of the depression the floor elevation is reported at 365.90 metres; near the boundary between the Shoemaker property and the Bowman Pit the floor elevation is 365.1m; on the Bowman Pit property the floor elevation is 364.6 metres. These elevations show that the November 28, 1997 water table is below the floor of the wetland/depression across all parts of the depressions (i.e. Water Table varies from approximately 363 to 365 compared with polygraphic variation of 364.6 to 365.9 metres). Adding 1 to 1.3 m to the water table surface to represent high water table conditions indicates that the water table may seasonally rise into the central and north parts of the wetland/depression by as much as 10 to 70 cm above the floor. However, the south part of the wetland/depression would appear to remain above the ground water table for most of the year. These conclusions are consistent with the water level observations in the wetland during biological surveys."

This suggests that even a small variation in the Water Table may have a definite affect on the hydroperiod (annual degree of wetness) of the wetland.

Exhibit E6. Water Table Yearly Rise and Fall

Limnoterra's Statement of Environmental Impact, for the Shoemaker pit states:

"The water level elevations measured in monitoring wells adjacent to the wetland show that groundwater levels can vary by 1.33 meters ..."

Exhibit E7. Provincially Significant Central Wetland

Limnoterra's Statement of Environmental Impact, for the Shoemaker pit states:

"The Carroll Creek wetland complex was evaluated in the field by OMNR by late 1995, but the score and therefore the provincial classification are not yet available. However, Darryl Coulson of OMNR has indicated that the Carroll Creek Wetland Complex should be considered to be provincially significant."


Exhibit P1. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (26 Sept 98).

Photograph taken from near Point A (Figure 4). Note depth of excavation. Marker Tree is in left background. [image15.jpg]
 
 

Exhibit P2.1. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (11 Feb 99).

Photograph taken from near Point A (Figure 4). Marker Tree is in right background. This is a copy of the photograph in Figure 3. Exhibits P2.1, P2.2, P2.3 and P2.4 are photographs of the Crescent Pool for the period 11 Feb 99 to 13 Mar 99. See also Figures 7 and 8 for photographs of this area on 17 Mar 99 and 20 Mar 99, respectively. [image09.jpg]
 
 
 
 


Exhibit P2.2. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (20 Feb 99).

Photograph taken from near Point A (Figure 4). Marker Tree is in right background.. [image04.jpg]


Exhibit P2.3. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (27 Feb 99).

Photograph taken from near Point B (Marker Tree) looking toward Point A (Figure 4). [image10.jpg]
 
 


Exhibit P2.4. Photograph of Bowman Pit Crescent Pool area (13 Mar 99).

Photograph taken from near Point A (Figure 4). Marker Tree is in left/centre background.. [image07.jpg]
 
 
 


Exhibit L8.1. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 16 Dec 98.

Exhibits L8.1 L8.2, L8.3 and L8.4 are letters to MNR from R. C. Holt of 16 Dec 98, 23 Dec 98, 5 Feb 99, 3 Mar 99 and 3 Mar 99, respectively, pointing out violations in the Bowman Pit Complex.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Ric Holt
RR 1
Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0
December 16, 1998

Mr. Warren Knight,
MNR,
PO box 819,
100 Don Street,
Clinton, Ont N0M 1L0
Dear Mr. Knight:

This letter is to request that you defer any approval of new or modified site plans for the Darrington Pit (License Ref # 5683) and Bowman/Bosomworth pits (License Ref # 5569).

My understanding is that the operator of these pits (the Murray Group) has submitted a modified set of site plans for approval by you. These proposed site plan changes allow new excavation in certain areas that is beyond that allowed by the current site plans.

The compliance reports for these pits show a long term, consistent pattern of violations. Granting further excavation rights to an operator with this pattern of violations amounts to rewarding violators, thereby encouraging further violations. This is particularly important as the operator has a current application for expansion to the North and East to do excavation surrounding a wetland and abutting a cold water creek, in which careful conformance to site plans is absolutely essential.

Within the Darrington pit, the operator has repeatedly violated:

You can verify these violations by inspection of the MNR Compliance Reports for the years 1994 to the present, of which I have copies. Further, I have photographs documenting violations of which you can have copies of you wish. There is already excavation in violation of the existing site plans in the area where the operator is asking for more excavation. There is also an aerial photograph that indicates significant violations, of which you have a copy. By making these violations, the operator has flaunted the site plans, and the MNR rules. In the case of the Darrington Pit in particular, it seems wholly inappropriate to reward them for this behaviour.

Note that the Darrington Pit directly abuts the Carroll Creek valley and that Carroll Creek is a cold water creek and that its valley is a "wetland" according to MNR Wetland Mapping Series July 1998 map. It therefore seems appropriate to consult with authorities such as the Grand River Conservation Authority before making any approvals for further excavation that approaches this valley.

I would appreciate being kept up to date on the proceedings regarding these site plans

Thank you for your consideration,
(Original signed by R. C. Holt)

Richard C. (Ric) Holt

Copy to:

Fred Natolochny, Senior Resource Planner, GRCA, 400 Clyde Rd, box 729, Cambridge Ont N1R 5W6
Peter Pickfield, Turkstra Mazza, 221 Woolwich St, Ont N1H 3V4
George McKibbon, McKibbon Wakefield Inc, Box 318, 1063 King St W, Hamilton Ont, L8S 1L8
Harry Panjer, RR1, Elora Ont N0B 1S0
 
 
 


Exhibit L8.2. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 23 Dec 98.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Ric Hol
RR 1
Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0
December 23, 1998

Mr. Warren Knight,
MNR,
PO box  819,
100 Don Street,
Clinton, Ont N0M 1L0

Dear Mr. Knight:

This is a follow-up to my letter of December 16, 1998 requesting a deferral of the approval of the amendments to the Bowman/Bosomworth and Darrington pits.

The request was based on a telephone conversation on that date, whereby you indicated that you had just received proposed new site plans for the Bowman/Bossomworth and Darrington pits. In our conversation you indicated that you were looking at these proposed amended site plans for the first time during our conversation. You also informed me that the Darrington site plan involved a relaxation of the setback requirement at certain points, back to the licensed boundary, and indicated that, in your view, this amendment was "major". During the conversation, I raised a concern that the operator not be permitted an amendment which effectively forgives a previous violation of site plan requirements. In my opinion, granting retroactive amendments to "regularize" an existing set of violations, simply encourages or sanctions a pattern of violations by an operator.

You have now advised me in a conversation which we had yesterday that the Darrington amendment was approved by you on November 27, 1998, prior to our conversation of December 16, 1998. Based on this new information, I have the following concerns:

Based on this, would you please provide the following information:

1. Your comments on the three concerns raised above;

2. Information on the status of the approval of the Bowman/Bossomworth proposed amendments, which I understand are still pending;

3. The description of what, if any, procedures exist to allow members of the public to obtain notice of, and participate in the decision-making process for, proposals by operators to amend approved site plans, including any procedures provided for by the Environmental Bill of Rights.

In addition, please advise as to your progress with respect to my request, initially asked of you on September 11, 1998, to provide copies of the site plans of these pits.

Thank you for your help,
(Original signed by R. C. Holt)

Richard C. (Ric) Holt

Copy to:

Fred Natolochny, Senior Resource Planner, GRCA, 400 Clyde Rd, box 729, Cambridge Ont N1R 5W6
Peter Pickfield, Turkstra Mazza, 221 Woolwich St, Ont N1H 3V4
George McKibbon, McKibbon Wakefield Inc, Box 318, 1063 King St W, Hamilton Ont, L8S 1L8
Harry Panjer, RR1, Elmira Ont
 
 
 


Exhibit L8.3. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 5 Feb 99.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Ric Holt
RR 1
Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0
(519) 846-2298
February 5, 1999

Mr. Craig Selby, District Supervisor
Ministry of Natural Resources
1 Stone Rd, Guelph, Ont N1G 4Y2
 
 

Re: Danger of Excavation Near Cold Water Creek: Carroll Creek

Dear Mr. Selby:

This letter is to express my profound concern about a proposed excavation in the immediate vicinity of Carroll Creek, a cold water creek, in Pilkington Township, southwest of Elora, Ontario. This creek flows from near Alma to the Grand River.

The Murray Group Inc. excavates gravel in the Bowman pit complex (Darrington, Bowman and Bosomworth pits) next to this creek. The danger is that they are about to dig into the water table that feeds Carroll Creek. The concern I raise in this letter regards the Darrington Pit, which abuts the Carroll Creek valley.

Carroll Creek is a delightful and beautiful creek, which has been much studied by MNR staff and University of Guelph staff and students. It is notable for being clean and supporting wildlife and fish. Carroll Creek is a cold water creek, and as such serves as the basis for trout spawning. This means that its preservation is publicly recognized. This creek is of special pleasure to me and my family, because it runs through my property, just upstream from the pit area. It forms part of the environment that makes the Grand River basin, especially near Elora, well loved by residents and often visited by fishermen and tourists.

The Murray Group has a long and publicly documented record of violating its site plans, by excavating beyond allowed boundaries, excavating too deeply, failing to rehabilitate its pits, locating its asphalt plant the wrong place, etc. These violations can be read in the publicly available MNR Conformance Reports for the last many years.

The Murray Group submitted a proposal, in November 1998, to excavate 4 meters (12 feet) deeper in the Darrington Pit in the vicinity of Carroll Creek. This was approved by MNR on November 27, 1998. This presents a clear and immediate danger to Carroll Creek, in that the nature of a cold water creek, such as Carroll Creek, is that it receives its cooled waters from the underground flow from nearby land, which in this case includes the area of proposed excavation.

The argument presented by the Murray Group and its consultant, Robert Gibson, is intended to show that there is no danger in this proposed excavation. However, their argument appears to be incomplete, biased and unscientific. It claims a flat water table at the level of 360 MASL (meters above sea level) across the proposed excavation area. This claim disagrees with (has a significantly lower Water Table than) two detailed analyses of this same area of water table prepared by the Murray Group's experts, Limnoterra and the hydrogeologist Tony Lotimer (Figure 6A, cross section A-A' showing water table, and Figure 8, showing Water Table contours, both from Limnoterra's Site Environmental Impact Statement, April 14, 1998, prepared for Murray Group). Neither of these Figures were provided by the Murray Group to the MNR in requesting permission for this excavation; this seems to be a serious omission of scientific fact. There are a number of other scientific observations that are unexplained by the Murray Group's submission. There is a water table reading at 364 MASL just to the east of the proposed excavation and this reading is not correlated with Murray Group's stated water table level of 360 MASL. The stated Water Table level of 360 at Carroll Creek just to the west of the proposed excavation seems unlikely (too high), based on the contour lines shown on the new site plan. What all this suggests is that the Murray Group have provided a biased and unscientific argument, which is intended to serve their goal of further excavation, but which is not suitable as a basis for deciding the potential danger of their proposed excavation to Carroll Creek.

One argument the Murray Group has presented is that its non-conforming excavation of a 6 meter deep hole (Nov 24, 1998 Conformance Report) and/or later a non-conforming 4 meter hole (Sept 14, 1998 Conformance Report) near the proposed new excavation, did not fill with water. Since the hole did not fill with water, this suggests that the water table is deeper that might otherwise be expected. This argument is insulting in that it uses a blatant violation to try to justify further dangerous practices. Scientifically, the argument is flawed in that the water table during this last year has been unseasonably low, so lack of pooling during a dry period tells us little about the high level of the water table, which is the critical level.

The approach, which is essentially what is proposed, of simply digging and seeing if water is encountered is wholly unacceptable in a sensitive area such as this.

What will happen in the event that this planned excavation enters the water table? The answer is that there is a reasonable chance that the cold water discharged from the excavated area to Carroll Creek will be disrupted. This could in turn mean that cold water no longer arrives in the current volume at spawning positions in Carroll Creek. It also may mean that the diverted cold water is subsequently warmed before entering the creek, thereby negating its vital contribution to the coldness in the creek.

I wish to add that for months the critical information (pit site plans) about the excavation, were withheld from the public --- until after the amendment process had been completed. There are other anomalies which this letter does not address.

I want to summarize my concerns: there is a real danger that the extra 4 meter excavation will enter the water table, and there is a real danger of disturbing cold water flow to Carroll Creek.

I therefore request:

(1) that this proposed excavation not proceed until an independent and scientific hydrogeologic investigation shows that the excavation will not enter the Water Table and does not endanger Carroll Creek,

(2) that you respond to my concern., and

(3) that you tell me what I may do now and in the future to express my concerns about this and related matters, to appeal what appear to be inappropriate actions, and to assist in rectifying such actions.
 

Thank you for your consideration,

(Original signed by R. C. Holt)

Ric Holt
 

PS: Note that I have previously communicated with Mr. Warren Knight, MNR, regarding this matter.

Copies to:

Mr. Ted Arnott, MPP, 181 St Andrews Street, Fergus, Ont. N1M 1P9 (800)265-2366
Mr. Warren Knight, MNR, PO Box 819, 100 Don Street, Clinton, Ont N0M 1L0
Mr. Fred Natolochny, Senior Resource Planner, GRCA, 400 Clyde Rd, box 729, Cambridge Ont N1R 5W6
Mr. Peter Pickfield, Turkstra Mazza, 221 Woolwich St, Ont N1H 3V4
Mr. George McKibbon, Planner, McKibbon Wakefield Inc, Box 318, 1063 King St W, Hamilton Ont, L8S 1L8
Mr. George Pickney, Reeve, Centre Wellington, Elora Town Centre
Mr. Richard Seibel, Vice President, Murray Group Limited, Box 40, Moorefield, Ontario N0G 2K0
Mr. Harry Panjer, RR2, Elmira, Ontario
Mr. Doug Ratz, Friends of Carroll Creek, 236 Colborne East, Elora
Mr. Jim Clark, Friends of Carroll Creek, 442 Geddes St, Salem, Ont
Mr. David Meyer, Wellington Advertiser, Box 252, 180 St. Andrew St East, Fergus, Ont N1M 2W8
Friends of the Grand River, P.O. Box 271, Fergus Ontario, N1M 3E2
Trout Unlimited Canada, 403-221-8360, Box 6270, Stn. D, Calgary, Alberta T2P 2C8 tuc@cadvision.com
Mr. Steve Copeland, Vice President, Ontario Streams, Main Office, Old Main Street, Belfountain, Ontario L0N 1B0 (519) 927-9725 Fax: (519) 927-3939 onstream@aztec-net.com
Izaac Walton Fly Fishing Club, 2400 Dundas Street West, Unit 6, Suite 283, Mississauga, Ontario Canada L5K 2R8 (905) 855-5420

 


Exhibit L8.4. Letter to MNR from R. C. Holt of 3 Mar 99.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Ric Holt
RR 1
Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0
March 3, 1999

Mr. Warren Knight,
MNR,
PO box 819,
100 Don Street,
Clinton, Ont N0M 1L0

Dear Mr. Knight:

This letter is to register a complaint about the Bowman pit (pit number 5596) in regard to a violation of its site plan and corresponding environmental damage to a woodlot and/or wetland. The violation is the disturbance of the woodlot that is in the northwest part of the licensed area of the Bowman pit.

The disturbance of this woodlot can be seen in the aerial photograph in figure 2 of the Statement of Environmental Impact prepared by Limnoterra Inc for the Murray Group in support of the Group's Shoemaker pit application. You and I have discussed this violation in the past and you have confirmed that the disturbance includes dumping piles of earth into the woodlot. Dumping earth onto the base of trees kills them. Dumping earth into a wetland wrecks it.

Clear violation. This is clearly a violation of the Bowman pit site plan which states in its Operational Plan (page 2), regarding Area III (where the woodlot is located), in Note 8: Assure the existing deciduous woodlot is maintained during extraction.

Not in Conformance Reports. The Murray Group has failed to report this violation in their yearly Conformance Reports. This failure appears to be a serious omission on their part.

I therefore request:

(1) that you investigate this violation,

(2) that an independent professional, paid for by the pit operator, evaluate the extent of the damage and recommend the appropriate means to restore the woodlot and wetland to at least as good condition as it was before the damage,

(3) that an independent professional carry out the repair within six months of the present and prepare a written report ascertaining that appropriate corrective action was carried out,

(4) that all transactions regarding this violation be corresponded to me, and

(5) that, in any case, you respond to my complaint and keep me abreast of related actions.

Because the Murray Group has a long record of site plan violations, many of which remain uncorrected, the level of care and scrutiny I have requested seems necessary.

Thank you for your consideration,

(Original signed by R. C. Holt)

Richard C. (Ric) Holt

Copy to:

Fred Natolochny, Senior Resource Planner, GRCA, 400 Clyde Rd, box 729, Cambridge Ont N1R 5W6
Peter Pickfield, Turkstra Mazza, 221 Woolwich St, Ont N1H 3V4
George McKibbon, McKibbon Wakefield Inc, Box 318, 1063 King St W, Hamilton Ont, L8S 1L8
Harry Panjer, RR1, Elmira Ont
Mr. Richard Seibel, Vice President, Murray Group Limited, Box 40, Moorefield, Ontario N0G 2K0
 
 


Exhibit D1. Data Sheet for Measurement of Crescent Pool Area (3 Apr 99).

Attached are: (1) Map accompanying data sheet and (2) actual data sheet


 
 


Exhibit D2. Data Sheet for Darrington "Deep Pit" Water Table Level (18 Apr 99).

Attached are: (1) Map accompanying data sheet and (2) actual data sheet.


 
 
 


Exhibit W1. Cross Section Locations for Water Table Contours.

Prepared by Limnoterra for Shoemaker Pit application, from Statement of Environmental Impact. See corresponding Cross Section in Exhibit W2. See also Figure 12 giving water table contours.


 
 
 


Exhibit W2. Cross Section Showing Water Table Contours.

This is the south part of cross section A-A' marked in Exhibit W1. This cross section crosses the Darrington pit. Prepared by Limnoterra for Shoemaker Pit application, from Statement of Environmental Impact.


 
 
 


Exhibit W3. Rise and Fall of Water Table Level.

Prepared by Limnoterra for Shoemaker Pit application, from Statement of Environmental Impact. See well locations in Exhibit W1.


 
 
 
 
 


30b: 30 Apr 99

Application for Investigation

Section 74, Environmental Bill of Rights

 
 
 
 
 

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

1075 Bay Stree, Suite 605, Toronto Ontario M5S 2B1

(416) 325-3377, Fax (416) 325-3370

1(800)701-6454
 
 

1. Applicant Number One

Holt, Richard, C.

RR 1, 6565 Eight Line West

Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0

(519) 846-2298 holt@uwaterloo.ca

Business (519) 888-4567 ext 4671

I, Richard C. Holt, am an Ontario resident and have been since January 1971
 
 

Date___11 May 1999_______ Signature____(Original signed by Richard C. Holt)____

2. Applicant Number Two

Piotrowski, Piotr

RR 1, 7160 Middlebrook Road

Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0

(519) 846-8146

I, Piotr Piotrowski, am an Ontario resident and have been since 1986
 
 

Date____May 13/99________ Signature____(Original signed by Piotr Piotroski)___

3. Corporate Applicant

(not applicable)

4. Alleged Contravenor(s)

Operator of pits: The Murray Group Limited, Box 40, Moorefield Ontario N0G 2K0, (519)638-3077; Richard Seibel, Vice President, residence phone (519)843-6553.

License holder: Mrs. Nancy Watson, RR1, Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0
 
 

Are you an employee of the suspected contravenor? No (for all applicants)
 
 

5. Alleged Contraventions

(A) Name of Act:

1. Aggregate Resources Act , section 15: "Every licensee shall operate the licensee's pit or quarry in accordance with this Act, the regulations, the site plan and the conditions of the license ... " The site licenses are for these pits: Bowman Pit (P720649 /5596), Darrington Pit (P722871/5683/19333) and Bosomworth Pit (P723021/5696).

2. The Fisheries Act, section 35 (1): "No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alternation, disruption or destruction of fish habitat."
 
 

(B) Provide a short description of the alleged contravention(s). For example, "An illegal discharge into the the air or water", "the contravention of an existing Certification of Approval", or "the operation of equipment without proper approvals".
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Short description of contraventions: The known violations of license and of site plan in the Darrington, Bowman and Bosomworth pits, include:

  1. ongoing excavation into the watertable and ongoing excavation depth violations,
  2. corresponding harmful alteration of fish habitat, namely of coldwater creek and coldwater fishery, which receive cold water discharge from this watertable,
  3. damaging Provincially Significant wetland, and
  4. damaging adjacent woodland.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

(C) Provide a detailed description of the alleged contravention(s). You can do this on an attachment to this Application if you don't have enough space on this form. Please reference additional sheets with this section number 5(C). The description must contain:

An explanation of what the contravention is,

Details of why you believe that the company and/or individual cited as the "contravenors" are responsible for the contravention,

Where known, the date and time of the contravention, or the approximate date and time,

The date you first became aware of the incident(s),

How you became aware of the incident,

Any other information that you think is relevant.
 
 

The detailed description of contraventions is given in the attachment"Alleged Contraventions: Environmental Damage in the Bowman Pit Complex"

6. Seriousness of the Contravention(s)

Provide your explanation of why the alleged contravention(s) is serious enough to warrant an investigation. Explain the potention harm to the environment.

Harm to environment:

The ongoing excavation into the watertable holds the danger of desiccating the wetland and disrupting the flow of water to neighbourhood wells and to streams such as coldwater stream Carroll Creek. Disturbing the flow to a coldwater stream can harmfully alter or disrupt the spawning conditions in the stream, which can damage trout fisheries.

The wetland, which is 15m from the excavation, could suffer irreparable damage. This wetland has been scored as Provincially Significant by MNR and by environmental expert Limnoterra.

The destruction of woodlands on the site, which the operator is required by the site plan to maintain, constitutes environmental damage.

The violation of excavating gravel from beneath the watertable is explicitly disallowed by the pit site plans for these pits. The operator has a record of working outside the limits of the approved site plans, as recorded in the yearly Conformance/Inspection reports, including 1997-98 excavation depth violations in all three pits (Bowman, Darrington and Bosomworth). This record indicates that there will be no cessation of these violations and corresponding environental damage without serious intervention.

These license and site plan violations warrant an investigation because:

 
 

7. Summary of Evidence

(A) List of all material evidence that supports your allegation. For example: "1. Photographs were taken of illegal discharges into the Bell Creek. 2. Samples were take on the discharge."

Attach copies of written materials and photographs to this Application. Reference each document and photograph against the list you have created below.

Please note that if this Application is forwarded to an investigator, any evidence contained in it may be released to the ministry investigators. Ministry investigators may also contact you to get more evidence, if it is available.
 
 

The list of materials and the materials are given in the attached section "Exhibits: Summary of Evidence".

(B) Provide names and addresses of anyone who might be able to give evidence about the alleged contravention, to the extent that this information is available. For example:

"Jane Doe, Abatement Officer, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Central Region, (416) 555-1234, Ms. Doe will confirm that on August 25, 1995 a pipe from the alleged contravenor's company was discharging into Bell Creek. Ms. Doe can also cnfirm that the samples mentioned in Section 8 were obtained on August 25, 1995 from the same discharge."

Mr. Warren Knight, MNR, PO Box 819, 100 Don Street, Clinton, Ont N0M 1L0, telephone (519)482-5031, is the MNR person responsible for these pits. R. Holt and M. Holt have talked with him numerous times about violations in these pits, and about the application for a new extension to these pits to the north and west.

Mr. Jack Imhoff, MNR, 1 Stone Road, Guelph, Ont N1G 4Y2, telephone (519) 826-4938, has extensively studied Carroll Creek and is an expert on watertables and their interaction with coldwater streams.

Mr. Darryl Coulson, MNR, 1 Stone Road, Guelph, Ont N1G 4Y2, telephone (519) 826-4955, has studied the wetland within the woodland where environmental damage has occurred.

Mr. Dwight Boyd, hydrogeologist with Grand River Conversation Authority (GRCA) who is an expert in depth of water table in Elora area, 400 Clyde Road, Box 729, Cambridge Ont N1R 5W6, telephone (519) 621-2763 GRCA.

(C) Describe the document(s) or other material you believe should be considered in the Investigation. Attach a copy of any document(s) referred to in this section where it is reasonable to do so.

Site plan for Bowman pit, available from Mr. Warren Knight, MNR (519)482-5031

Site plan for Darrington pit, available from Mr. Warren Knight, MNR (519)482-5031

Site plan for Bosomworth pit, available from Mr. Warren Knight, MNR (519)482-5031

Site plan for proposed Shoemaker pit, available from Mr. Warren Knight, MNR (519)482-5031

Groundwater Flow and Fish Habitat, MNR, Bulletin AR.6.01.02

Statement of Environmental Impact for Shoemaker Pit, by Limnoterra, containing hydrogeological analysis, available from the operator, the Murray Group (519)638-3077

Licensee's Compliance Assess Reports, Aggregate Resources Act, for 1997 and 1998 for Darrington, Bowman and Bosomworth pits, available from Mr. Warren Knight, MNR (519)482-5031

Note: R. Holt also has copies of the above documents, except for the Bosomworth 1998 Compliance Assessment Report. MNR staff state that they have destroyed the site plan for the Darrington pit as it existed before it was amended in November 1998.
 
 
 
 

8. Previous Contact with the Ministry of Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

If you have previously contacted any ministry or the Environmental Commissioner, please

provide the following information:

Name, address and telephone number of the person of office contacted and date contacted,

Details of the reason for contact,

The outcome of the contact.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has not previously been contacted by us. We have contacted Mr. Warren Knight (MNR) and Mr. Craig Selby (MNR) regarding our concern for the Darrington watertable. In February 1999, R. Holt asked Mr. Jack Imhoff questions about the recently amended Darrington site plan.

Attach sworn statement by each applicant he or she believes that the facts alleged in the Application are true.