Notes from the Nelson Aggregate Hearing, January 10, 2011

4:15 pm

The hearing is adjourned for the day. Tomorrow, the Board will hear more about the impacts of a new quarry on the wetlands on the property. We’ll be back in a few days to pick up on more water issues!

3:55 pm

Mr. Sinnige is using a pitcher of water and a water glass to make a point about wetland filling. This is analogous to a wetland that is not porous (so water comes in from the top, but does not drain out the bottom or sides). If a wetland is not porous, and the pitcher is full of water, you can only pour water into the cup (water can only enter the pond) until the it is full. Then water will begin to overflow or runoff. This happens in a surplus condition – in nature, this happens in the spring. In contrast, if there is no water in the pitcher, you can’t fill the cup regardless. This happens with non-porous wetlands in the fall or winter, and is called a deficit.

3:50 pm

Mr. Sinnige is now discussion wetlands. He says that his focus was on the hydrology of the wetlands. He told the Board that the wetlands are primarily supplied by surface water flow. This is relevant to how the ponds in the wetlands are formed and replenished, and how the water is stored in the wetlands. A portion of the wetlands on the proposed quarry lands have been declared “Provincially Significant”. They provide breeding grounds and habitat for the endangered Jefferson Salamander.

3:30 pm

Mr. Sinnige has been describing his conclusions on water quality in the existing and proposed quarries. He says that, since the new quarry would not have any of the industrial equipment in it that the current quarry has, they would not expect any difference between the water from the quarry expansion and existing water quality.

2:45 pm

Mr. Sinnige has presented the estimated rates for lake filling for each quarry to the Board. This will be variable over the life of the quarry expansion if it goes ahead, since the two quarries will be interacting.

He explains that, once the proposed quarry is full of water, the discharge will be through the lowest point in the quarry, which is at Sideroad 2 and the golf course. This will be discharged through gravity, without pumping.

He clarifies that, if there is no quarry expansion, there would be no discharge from this point; he does not believe / know of a requirement for the existing quarry to continue to pump during lake filling at all.

2:05 pm

Mr. Sinnige tells the Board that the generic number used by Golder to calculate infiltration on Mount Nemo is 170 mm per year. This is based on measurements taken by Environment Canada that are then used in groundwater and surface water flow models.

Mr. Sinnige responds to a question from the Board about how the calculation was performed. He explains that the measurements of water in the creeks includes both “base flow”, which comes from groundwater, and “run off”, which is surface water/precipitation. He says that identifying how much of the flow comes from base flow and how much comes from precipitation would require more intensive testing than Golder used in this case. Since he hasn’t done the procedure to measure base flow itself, Mr. Sinnige applied an MOE technique to estimate the base flow. This means applying standards percentages to estimate the various flows based on the total flow.

Similarly, infiltration was estimated based on measured groundwater levels. When the two estimates were close (about 20 mm apart), they concluded that the estimates were good and they used the average of the two estimates, which was 170 mm per year.

1:55 pm

When we returned from the lunch break, Mr. Sinnige continued his testimony, picking up on his description of water balance and the how water catchments change. This is relevant to if and how the quarries will fill with water following the completion of excavation. He explains that the various land uses (i.e. paved road vs. agricultural land vs. wetland) determine how much precipitation will infiltrate directly into the ground and how much will run-off. This applies to the quarry filling as well. He has also calculated evapotranspiration rates for the various land uses.

12:25 pm

Post extraction, after phase six, we hear that there will be a shallow depth of water on the quarry floor. During filling, we hear that 50% of the water that is collected will stay there. The other half will continue to be pumped out so the surrounding creeks do not completely dry out. Mr. Sinnige says this is an approximation that could be refined. He says the lakes provide an opportunity to benefit the environment, if, for instance, they were engineered to discharge less during spring run-off, and more during dryer seasons like summer.

Once the lakes are filled, there will be one point of discharge for each of the quarries (existing and extension). The exisiting quarry will only go to Bronte Creek.

The extension will go to Grindstone Creek. When Nelson switches to a gravity discharge system (rather than pumping) it will be on the property boundary with the golf course. Water will leave through gravity to the west arm, unless pumping is opted for.

We are breaking for lunch now.

12:10 pm

Mr. Sinnige uses the maps to show that the area of the proposed quarry extension would drain entirely into Grindstone Creek, unlike the existing quarry.

When asked if he has assessed whether the drainage would change if the extension goes ahead, Mr. Sinnige says he assessed this for each of the six phases of the project. Just like the existing quarry, the extension will collect water through rain, groundwater through the walls, and drainage.

He says a stormwater management pond will be constructed before extraction begins. It will be moved to the bottom of the quarry floor after portions have been extracted, likely in phase three or four. Phase six is full excavation. It involves buttressing the sides of the quarry.

11:45 am

Mr. Sinnige is describing the water flows around and through the existing Nelson quarry. We are hearing that precipitation, groundwater and drainage areas that flow into the quarry are collected by sump pumps on the quarry floor. There has been gradual flooding of the areas where quarrying has stopped. This is the beginning of the artificial lake that the quarry land will eventually become.

One of the pumps flows into a creek that crosses Cedar Springs Road. Mr. Sinnige explains that it is “highly managed” as it flows through private property – for instance, some home owners have put small water wheels and other decorations in the creek.

He tells the Board that portions of the west arm is anthropogenic or highly manipulated. It has been disturbed by things like ponds, some of which have subsequently been filled in. It flows through the golf course that sits adjacent to the Nelson site. The golf course has an extensive irrigation system, including ponds fed by the pumps from the quarry. Below the golf course, the west arm meets the east arm, linking with the south central wetlands.

When the existing quarry is completely finished being extracted, the pumping will stop as the hole fills with water. After that, there will only be discharge via gravity to Willoughby and then Bronte Creek. There will no longer be flows towards the golf course.

11:30 am

Mr. Sinnige is showing the Board a map of the escarpment, including Appleby, Shoreacres and Tuck Creeks, the Mount Nemo Plateau, and the Medad Valley. He explains that the existing quarry sits on a watershed divide. It discharges to both Bronte Creek to the east and to the west arm of Grindestone Creek. He notes the wetlands on the south of the extension property discharge to the east arm of Grindstone Creek as well.

11:15 am

With a bit of furniture shifting and a few extension cords, the hearing room has been accepted and we’re off to the races.

Nelson’s first witness is John Sinnige, an engineer and a hydrogeologist from Golder Associates. His experience is in water resource engineering, including engineering wetlands.

10:20 am

The Joint Board hearing into Nelson Aggregate’s application to expand a quarry in Burlington resumes this morning after a break for the holidays. The parties, represented by their lawyers, are gathered in the Quality Hotel, ready to hear from Nelson’s next witness. Well – almost ready. Logistical problems with the room booking in the hotel may still thwart this attempt to resume the hearing.

One of the main logistical challenges with holding this type of hearing is finding space. This may seem strange if you’re thinking of courts, which generally have designated buildings and rooms. Administrative tribunals like the Environmental Review Tribunal and the Ontario Municipal Board also have offices with hearing rooms where proceedings can be held. But when the subject matter of a hearing affects a particular community, it is ideal to hold the hearing locally, so that those likely to be most affected can attend without spending the time and money required to travel to the tribunal’s office.

Additionally, with a hearing like this one that involves a large number of parties, participants, and presenters, the tribunal’s hearing rooms may not hold everyone. That means that space must be found elsewhere and booked for the duration of the hearing.

In this case, the parties were responsible for coordinating the location and splitting the costs. They found an ideal room in the Quality Suites – large enough to host everyone comfortably, with large windows and almost enough power outlets to go around.

Unfortunately, that room could not be booked consistently for the entire hearing, which brings us to the logistical wrangling that is happening this morning. We’ll wait to see whether we are going to move to another room or make due with the space we’ve got – a smaller room on the main floor of the hotel. Fingers crossed that, either way, the hearing proceeds today and we get to hear some interesting ecology evidence.

A member of PERL who attended the hearing told LOW that Dr. Worthington had explained the importance of accounting for karst: “Studying karst features is necessary to understand the permeability of the aquifer and create an aquifer model”. He reviewed the well response tests and groundwater flow models created by Golder for the hearing. He concluded that the quarry’s discharge into Willoughby Creek should be monitored as part of the Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) if the quarry expansion proceeds. He also told the Board that the quarry expansion could impact a spring south west of the site, just north of Lake Medad. This spring will also be monitored as part of the AMP.

Click to Learn More:
Read Waterkeeper’s Live Dispatches from the Hearing Now!
Overview
Key Issues
The Hearing Process
Impact on Lake Ontario
Impact on Wetlands
Impact on Fish Populations
Impact on the Threatened Jefferson Salamander
Reports and Sources
Photo Album