. According to the Bumstead…

. According to the Bumstead Planning Report, the extraction of aggregate is proposed to be at the water table. This appears to me to be too low. There should be some depth of material that will isolate the ground water from the extraction process, which is hardly precise. The water table level established in the proposal was based on a very limited sampling at 3 test wells for 3 years from 2011 to 2013. The results could be misleading since in 2012 we had an extreme drought. This year, 2014, has been very wet and more testing ought to be done to establish the high water table. 2. The proposal states that if standing water remains over a period of one month, action will be taken by adding suitable soils. This seems too long a time period since the soils here are porous and water will not remain above the water table for very long. This inaction could allow the extraction process to proceed below the water table. 3.According to the Planning Report, the flow of ground water is to the East Northeast. The extraction process could impact the two adjoining properties, one to the north, and one to the east. If pollution from the extraction affects the ground water quality, it could impact future development/use on these sites. A spill at the water table could have terrible results, with no opportunity for remedial action. 4.There does not appear to have been any analysis of baseline water quality before extraction. There needs to be comprehensive testing of the chemical and bacteriological quality in at least 3 test well locations so that possible detrimental effects can be attributed to the extraction process and are not naturally-occurring. No further sampling appears to have been done, for example, of nearby households. To ensure that local water quality remains good, testing should not be left to the homeowners to perform and to pay for. 5. The ground water at this proposed site is very close to the surface, as indicated by the fact that there is a spring near the southeast corner of the site. The extraction area there should be reduced to avoid close interaction with the water table. In conclusion, I have many reservations about this propsed pit and its impact on the quality of our local groundwater. In fact, I seriously question whether there should be a gravel pit on this site at all. I found their Planning Report to be self-serving, downplaying all the possible environmental effects. In this case, there is too much of a fine line between the groundwater levels and the proposed extraction level. Grey County is known for the high quality of its ground water and this should not be jeopardised in any way.