your use of this ontario geological survey document (the ...€¦ · content: this content is...

THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT

Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the

“User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use.

Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”). Both your use of a linked Web site, and your right to use or reproduce information or materials from a linked Web site, are subject to the terms of use governing that particular Web site. Any comments or inquiries regarding a linked Web site must be directed to its Owner. Copyright: Canadian and international intellectual property laws protect the Content. Unless otherwise indicated, copyright is held by the Queen’s Printer for Ontario. It is recommended that reference to the Content be made in the following form: <Author’s last name>, <Initials> <year of publication>. <Content title>; Ontario Geological Survey, <Content publication series and number>, <total number of pages>p. Use and Reproduction of Content: The Content may be used and reproduced only in accordance with applicable intellectual property laws. Non-commercial use of unsubstantial excerpts of the Content is permitted provided that appropriate credit is given and Crown copyright is acknowledged. Any substantial reproduction of the Content or any commercial use of all or part of the Content is prohibited without the prior written permission of MNDM. Substantial reproduction includes the reproduction of any illustration or figure, such as, but not limited to graphs, charts and maps. Commercial use includes commercial distribution of the Content, the reproduction of multiple copies of the Content for any purpose whether or not commercial, use of the Content in commercial publications, and the creation of value-added products using the Content. Contact:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON PLEASE CONTACT: BY TELEPHONE: BY E-MAIL:

The Reproduction of Content

MNDM Publication Services

Local: (705) 670-5691 Toll Free: 1-888-415-9845, ext.

5691 (inside Canada, United States)

[email protected]

The Purchase of MNDM Publications

MNDM Publication Sales

Local: (705) 670-5691 Toll Free: 1-888-415-9845, ext.

5691 (inside Canada, United States)

[email protected]

Crown Copyright Queen’s Printer Local: (416) 326-2678 Toll Free: 1-800-668-9938

(inside Canada, United States)

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



LES CONDITIONS CI-DESSOUS RÉGISSENT L'UTILISATION DU PRÉSENT DOCUMENT.

Votre utilisation de ce document de la Commission géologique de l'Ontario (le « contenu ») est régie par les conditions décrites sur cette page (« conditions d'utilisation »). En

téléchargeant ce contenu, vous (l'« utilisateur ») signifiez que vous avez accepté d'être lié par les présentes conditions d'utilisation.

Contenu : Ce contenu est offert en l'état comme service public par le ministère du Développement du Nord et des Mines (MDNM) de la province de l'Ontario. Les recommandations et les opinions exprimées dans le contenu sont celles de l'auteur ou des auteurs et ne doivent pas être interprétées comme des énoncés officiels de politique gouvernementale. Vous êtes entièrement responsable de l'utilisation que vous en faites. Le contenu ne constitue pas une source fiable de conseils juridiques et ne peut en aucun cas faire autorité dans votre situation particulière. Les utilisateurs sont tenus de vérifier l'exactitude et l'applicabilité de tout contenu avant de l'utiliser. Le MDNM n'offre aucune garantie expresse ou implicite relativement à la mise à jour, à l'exactitude, à l'intégralité ou à la fiabilité du contenu. Le MDNM ne peut être tenu responsable de tout dommage, quelle qu'en soit la cause, résultant directement ou indirectement de l'utilisation du contenu. Le MDNM n'assume aucune responsabilité légale de quelque nature que ce soit en ce qui a trait au contenu. Liens vers d'autres sites Web : Ce contenu peut comporter des liens vers des sites Web qui ne sont pas exploités par le MDNM. Certains de ces sites pourraient ne pas être offerts en français. Le MDNM se dégage de toute responsabilité quant à la sûreté, à l'exactitude ou à la disponibilité des sites Web ainsi reliés ou à l'information qu'ils contiennent. La responsabilité des sites Web ainsi reliés, de leur exploitation et de leur contenu incombe à la personne ou à l'entité pour lesquelles ils ont été créés ou sont entretenus (le « propriétaire »). Votre utilisation de ces sites Web ainsi que votre droit d'utiliser ou de reproduire leur contenu sont assujettis aux conditions d'utilisation propres à chacun de ces sites. Tout commentaire ou toute question concernant l'un de ces sites doivent être adressés au propriétaire du site. Droits d'auteur : Le contenu est protégé par les lois canadiennes et internationales sur la propriété intellectuelle. Sauf indication contraire, les droits d'auteurs appartiennent à l'Imprimeur de la Reine pour l'Ontario. Nous recommandons de faire paraître ainsi toute référence au contenu : nom de famille de l'auteur, initiales, année de publication, titre du document, Commission géologique de l'Ontario, série et numéro de publication, nombre de pages. Utilisation et reproduction du contenu : Le contenu ne peut être utilisé et reproduit qu'en conformité avec les lois sur la propriété intellectuelle applicables. L'utilisation de courts extraits du contenu à des fins non commerciales est autorisé, à condition de faire une mention de source appropriée reconnaissant les droits d'auteurs de la Couronne. Toute reproduction importante du contenu ou toute utilisation, en tout ou en partie, du contenu à des fins commerciales est interdite sans l'autorisation écrite préalable du MDNM. Une reproduction jugée importante comprend la reproduction de toute illustration ou figure comme les graphiques, les diagrammes, les cartes, etc. L'utilisation commerciale comprend la distribution du contenu à des fins commerciales, la reproduction de copies multiples du contenu à des fins commerciales ou non, l'utilisation du contenu dans des publications commerciales et la création de produits à valeur ajoutée à l'aide du contenu. Renseignements :

POUR PLUS DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR VEUILLEZ VOUS

ADRESSER À : PAR TÉLÉPHONE : PAR COURRIEL :

la reproduction du contenu

Services de publication du MDNM

Local : (705) 670-5691 Numéro sans frais : 1 888 415-9845,

poste 5691 (au Canada et aux États-Unis)

[email protected]

l'achat des publications du MDNM

Vente de publications du MDNM

Local : (705) 670-5691 Numéro sans frais : 1 888 415-9845,

poste 5691 (au Canada et aux États-Unis)

[email protected]

les droits d'auteurs de la Couronne

Imprimeur de la Reine

Local : 416 326-2678 Numéro sans frais : 1 800 668-9938

(au Canada et aux États-Unis)

[email protected]




ONTARIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MISCELLANEOUS PAPER 79

Abandoned Pits and Quarries in Ontario

A Program for their Rehabilitation

by

A. G. McLellan

S.E.Yundt

M.L.Dorfmam

1979

J. A. YoungREGIONAL Chairnwn MUNICIPALITY ^ . Tk

Of W. E. ThompsonlAjATrrni yv^ Commitiionw ofWATenLXJO Planning and Development

Ministry ofNaturalResources

Hon. James A.C. Auld Minister

Dr. J. K. Reynolds Deputy Minister

Ontario

OMNR-OGS 1979 Printed in Canada

Publications of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and price list are available through the Public Service Centre, Whitney Block, Queen's Park, Toronto, and the Ontario Government Book store, 880 Bay Street, Toronto. Orders for publications should be accompanied by cheque or money order, payable to the Treasurer of Ontario.

Parts of this publication may be quoted if credit is given. It is recommended that reference to this report be made in the following form.

Mclellan, A.G., Yundt, S.E., and Dorfman, M.L.1979: Abandoned Pits and Quarries in Ontario, A Program for their Rehabilitation; Ontario

Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Paper 79, 36p.

2,000-79-Thorn

ABSTRACT

The legacy of land made derelict or otherwise left abandoned by the removal of min eral aggregates (sand, gravel and crushed stone) grew rapidly during the economically active 1960's in Ontario. The Ontario Government as a response to this and other prob lems enacted legislation to control the aggregate industry (The Pits and Quarries Control Act) in 1971. This act, however, was not retroactive and much of our past legacy re mains.

The present study has several goals (a) the dimensions of the problem of abandoned pits and quarries are documented their numbers, location and characteristics (b) the factors affecting their disappearance (or otherwise) are analysed over a time period and (c) the attitudes of owners, planners and other decision makers are investigated. The achievement of these goals provides a data set which permits the development of a remedial program the second major goal of the study.

Community interests, physical site characteristics, locational patterns related to road access and urban growth, compatibility of adjacent land uses and other lesser concerns are looked at to develop alternative land uses for abandoned land e.g. forestry, recreation, agriculture, housing, commercial, etc. The final goal a strategy whereby landowners and community planners can propose suitable rehabilitation programs for such land is developed.

It is concluded that revenue derived from existing aggregate producers (under propo sals of the Ontario Mineral Aggregate Working Party 1977) will be more than adequate to eradicate the residual problem of derelict land created by aggregate extraction in a relatively and socially acceptably short time.

in

PREFACE

The authors wish to acknowledge the researchers responsible for the field work and the preliminary draft of the report, Ms. D.B. Augaitis and Mr. N.P. Wood, both graduates of the Faculty of Environmental Studies at the University of Waterloo. The project was under the supervision of Dr. A.G. McLellan.

It should be noted that the study was jointly funded by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

IV

CONTENTS

Page Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivIntroduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3The Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3The Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Definitions and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Inventory Classification System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Primary Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Secondary Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Inventory Results and Site Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Landowner Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Purpose of the Survey ..........................................10Methodology and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Summary of Results ...........................................12

Politician, Planner and Public Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Objectives and Persons Involved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12After use Criteria and Community Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Planning Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Further Survey Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Site Evaluation Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Rehabilitation and After use Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Priority Evaluation Uses and Timing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Cost and Efficacy of the Proposed Rehabilitation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Conclusions and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Appendix 1. Site Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Appendix 2. Survey of Owner of Abandoned Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Appendix 3. Survey of Owner of Rehabilitated Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Appendix 4. Site Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

FIGURES

1. Study area: the Regional Municipality of Waterloo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. Map showing status of pits and quarries in the Regional

Municipality of Waterloo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . back pocket

TABLES

1. Primary classification system: occurrence and size of properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92. Landowner survey of abandoned and rehabilitated pits. ........................113. Summary of the after uses generated by the evaluation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

PHOTOGRAPHS

1. An abandoned pit: unsightly, unproductive, and unnecessary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. A reclaimed pit: no physical change, but a new use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43. Surrounding land use plays an important role in determining

an after use for an abandoned pit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84. An abandoned pit highly visible from a major highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145. Trail biking can be an effective use for an abandoned pit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176. Agricultural practices are impeded by this gravel pit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7

ABANDONED PITS AND QUARRIES IN ONTARIO

A PROGRAM FOR THEIR REHABILITATION

by

A.G. McLellan 1 , S.E. Yundt2 , and M.L. Dorfman 3

INTRODUCTION

Provincial and local governments and the public have been showing increasing concern over the apparent neg lect of rehabilitation in depleted portions of current pit and quarry operations. In June 1971, this concern re sulted in the Government of Ontario passing The Pits and Quarries Control Act (Ontario, Province of 1971). The establishment of this Act was the first major attempt by any Canadian provincial government to control and ensure orderly and environmentally acceptable aggregate production.

However, the Act does not address the problems associated with pits and quarries abandoned prior to its implementation. Such sites are completely outside of the authority of this existing legislation.

The Ontario Mineral Aggregate Working Party was established by the Minister of Natural Resources in response to this omission and other problems. It recog nizes the problem of abandoned pits and quarries and suggests that a sum of money be set aside to help reha bilitate such abandoned areas. The report entitled "A Policy for Mineral Resource Management in Ontario" (Ontario Mineral Aggregate Working Party 1977) re commends:

"Recommendation 24THAT A PROVINCIAL REHABILITATION FUND BE ESTABLISHED FOR ABANDONED PITS AND QUAR RIES FROM THE ANNUAL LICENCE FEES [LEVIED AGAINST PIT AND QUARRY OPERATORS] AND THAT 10 PERCENT OF THE LICENCE FEE BE PRO VIDED FOR THAT PURPOSE TO THE FUND.

Recommendation 25THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER BE REQUIRED TO REPAY THE COSTS OF REHABILITATION OF THE ABANDONED PIT OR QUARRY, IF THE LAND IS SOLD WITHIN 10 YEARS OF THE COMPLETION OF THE REHABILITATION. IF THE LAND IS NOT SOLD WITHIN 10 YEARS THE REHABILITATION GRANT SHOULD BE FORGIVEN."

The study presented here is a prototype to indicate the methodology that can be used by regions or counties and the Ministry of Natural Resources in examining the rehabilitation of abandoned pits and quarries.

Three primary objectives are identified:1) to determine the location, condition and extent of

land made derelict by surface extraction activities,2) to investigate the range of alternative and more ap

propriate uses which could be made of such lands, and

3) to develop a methodological framework which would help the municipalities charged with resolving the problem, make the most efficient and sensible use of the monies made available through the Rehabilita tion Fund. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo shown in

Figure 1, was selected as the study site for the followingreasons:1) It was, is and will continue to be a major aggregate

producing area in Ontario.2) The Council of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo

has identified the need for rehabilitation of abandon ed pits and consequently strongly supports the rehabilitation study.

3) Also, related research has been conducted by A.G. McLellan and others from the University of Waterloo. These past studies allow a very revealing time perspec tive not necessarily available elsewhere (McLellan 1973).

1 Associate Professor of Geography and Associate Dean, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo.

^Supervisor, Industrial Minerals Section, Mineral Resources Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources.

^Director of Development, Department of Planning and Devel opment, Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

This report approved by Chief, Engineering and Terrain Geology Section. This report is published by permission of E.G. Pye, Director, Ontario Geological Survey.

COLLINGWOOD,H Collingwood . V SI

l r/Tlarrtsti

sw\ I?V'

j^^^s^r- " /**.

j?^?^^VS-^ vv ::p^' ̂ ^"""'/M.,, y VGara^Y Er,n 4 ?f E E L^V .^^-^ borough^ g. L ^ I'-.^GA, O N r^jCn.nguKOusir V^

i" OSHAWA ^

rW-^feWs/ \ /l N * /Maltoiii i ^ \ Xor\N,choW Eramosa\Georjetpwn .^V^ 7 ,^ Vt,, Jx^TORONTO

^V V y . X," Esaues.n^'V^fOO^Vlll^ 7 ^ ^'. v\l Strjjitsme \ Toronto

N\ rf^LTbî \ V~7/sH. XM 'llon k *V

îutLRHX.XT'VV-.IT ^,7pORTCREDIT O ^..

;" ^K Ne,,\;^KviLLE ^f^ \"* ''^4^^ )^fonte v ""v

^"^^^r^:y^ s*^"*\J^-^^ \ \ ^rHr-^Tf*. i,e.nbroo^--^j^;^Dl er* ^f i d"'"|v

ord/^ngersoJLîjj--^^^ \ \ ."i-^. uscarori^^^"S^, Seneca^^.^JGamsboroug pe|ham|y7oîand ^ jV

. Dereham 'r^~~~~~X't W.Xdham \ * \ "" P^C ^* j-i' /dunnville* lA/.miiooi 'Humber FortSii S. NofC,ch* " 0 \ WaterforoA JTd^, S^r-VV?T \ wain(leet ,' stool Bert,.^ l ^-7 ' ,,' a 'l \ U t'l ^'-W Cawuoa -^^^, . ^ ,1 .

^-"ûth' Tillsonburg.^2--. V * Oorthester \ ^ f* "elf"f.\

l ^------r*^/ H-,,, . -i"l — c. .X M.ddleton iT^5if*— c ^

Roil W"-11 SherOrooKe ?o^ -,

\ ^ -e ^ .-'xx * ," *'

^ s' e^" o

/A BUFFALO

-^Crystal Bejlh Y

79 C

Figure 1: Key map showing location of study area; Regional Municipality of Waterloo

SUMMARY

THE STUDY

The current study has several major objectives. One is to investigate a methodology which could readily be implemented in different municipalities across Ontario and which would provide the data pertinent to the solution of local problems and possibilities related to abandoned sand and gravel pits and limestone quarries. The report provides information on numerous different sets of data which sometimes complement one another and always add additional insight on the nature of the problem.

There is, through the choice of study areas and in the organization of the study, an attempt to be repre sentative and to develop a methodology that could be duplicated by other regions or counties. Undoubtedly, in certain respects (e.g. absence of large acreage aban doned sites, absence of quarries, and local availability of several pertinent reports) the Regional Municipality of Waterloo may not be entirely typical. However, the study ensures that samples of the three major types of situations are dealt with:

1) an urban area2) a rural area with some indication that urban de

velopment is occurring3) a rural environment.To the extent that the problems are recognized and

incorporated into the study, there is little doubt that similar studies can be successfully conducted through out Ontario, in the manner developed here.

The study was conducted in fourteen weeks with two full-time personnel and a part-time supervisor. The study team, while developing the methodology, examined some extraneous material which would not have to be considered in the future studies by regions or counties. On the other hand, future studies can devote that extra time completing site surveys of the entire area.

It is concluded that the cost of this study is in no way prohibitive and it closely corresponds to the first year sum of money in the Provincial Rehabilitation Fund expected to be generated in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo under the proposed new legislation. It is felt from examination of other regions that Waterloo has probably as great a legacy of disturbed acreage as any area in Ontario.

THE INFORMATION

It is emphasized in the study that there are several widely available data sources which should all be exa mined. The data used in this study to determine licensed, abandoned, rehabilitated, and reclaimed sites came from the following sources: Quaternary Geology Reports by

the Ministry of Natural Resources, open and dead files of aggregate extraction from the Ministry of Transpor tation and Communications, Ministry of Natural Re sources regional and district information, topographic maps, air photographs and University of Waterloo research papers. However, the availability, accuracy and suitability of these sources will vary across the province.

In addition, some areas have been studied, often in a more "fugitive" way which provides additional pertinent data. Local university, planning office and conservation authority studies should all be investigated. Having examined the collected information and given the contents of this current study, one is in a better position to assess the information required from the complemen tary air photograph and field surveys.

ANALYSIS

One of the major concerns of the investigating team should be to avoid biased interpretations. Analytical investigation in a study of this nature could be affected by subjective assessments and decisions by the partici pants. Two approaches have been suggested here to overcome such problems. The first is in data collection and organization and the second is the way the decision- making procedure is accomplished.

In the first case, considerable attention is given to the nature of the site data collected. The major site char acteristics such as size, visibility, vegetation allow an objective appraisal of site opportunities. In addition, the development of a conceptual priority classification system based on community needs is suggested as essen tial before decision-making. The examination of abandoned sites allows the development of a classifi cation based on the degree of likelihood of any site being naturally reclaimed or rehabilitated. It is probably wiser to spend public monies rehabilitating a site which normal influences of urbanization will not affect for many years than one which is liable to "disappear" as a problem in a short space of time.

The other data collected during the study (e.g. scenic road location, recreational areas, environmentally sensitive areas) provide further discriminating data to aid the rehabilitation priority of sites.

In the second case, we propose an application pro cedure for site rehabilitation for regions and counties. This means, the onus of preparing a proposal is left with the applicant. Despite the bias the applicants may have, it is clearly in their interest to provide the decision- making group with the best possible objective argument. As a result, there are two sources of information con cerning each decision: the applicant's proposal and the objective data of the site survey. This ensures a demo cratic decision-making process.

Photo 1: This abandoned pit on the outskirts of the City of Cambridge portrays the common features of derelict land: unstable, steep slopes and poor vegetation cover. In this state, it remains unsightly and unproductive.

Photo 2: The gravel from this pit was originally used to build Highway 401. Part of the pit floor is now being utilized for storage of commercial products. Although the pit is serving a function, the negative physical features still remain and it therefore fits the reclamation category. In the foreground, an initial attempt is being made to backfill the pit with construction material.

The proposed application system will, to some de gree, overcome the apparently insoluble problem of costs. It is anticipated that the variety of site character istics and rehabilitation proposals preclude an assessment of standardized costs. It is left to the applicants to justify the cost of the proposal.

THE RESULTS

Without recounting all the findings of the report, certain important and perhaps unexpected conclusions emerge. First, the problem of abandoned pits is locational. Some parts of Ontario with no aggregate re sources clearly have minimal problems. In this Region, the public and many of the local planners who were interviewed do not generate complaints about these derelict sites. Part of the reason for this is the small size of many of the sites, (.1 ha; .25 acre) and the fact that some sites are still being privately utilized by the landowner. So, in general, abandoned pits are not perceived as a major problem in this area and perhaps this will have some repercussion in the application of the rehabilitation program.

Second, the study clearly shows that in cases where abandoned pits are perceived as problems, the majority of abandoned, unsightly areas are associated with active, licensed, extractive areas. Although it is outside the terms of reference of this study, a brief comment may be made concerning this. The Ontario Mineral Aggre gate Working Party in its report has suggested improve ments designed to speed the rehabilitation process in active licensed areas. The Working Party observes that rehabilitation has become a much more appreciated and profitable phenomenon in the minds of aggregate producers in the last five years and suggests that aban doned land will be much less of a public problem in the near future.

Third, the 103 instances of abandonment in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, although large in number consist of a small total area of only 160 ha (392 acres) with an average size of 1.1 ha (3 acres). Clearly, the small size of most sites is a major con straint to potential future uses. On the other hand, the rehabilitation costs for such sites should not be high, resulting in a larger number of sites being returned to some useful condition in a shorter period of time.

A primary step towards resolution of the abandoned extraction land problem has to be an objective inventory of abandoned extraction acreage in the area and an appraisal of associated problems and potentials as outlined in this report. Without this, the decision-making body will have neither the wide perspective necessary for objective comparative assessment nor the detailed information on each site sufficient to analyze design suggestions in specific applications. Having completed

such an inventory/classification study, it is urged that municipal authorities, be they county, regional or area municipalities, should closely examine the information to assess how the results might be best used in the wider community interest. It is clear that certain community needs of the area might be fulfilled by some of the identified sites.

The results of the study indicate that the amount of money to be made available under the proposed new legislation when matched with the scale of the problem identified in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, will be almost certain of complete eradication of the residue problem in ten years. It is, therefore, concluded that the program if implemented as proposed, could be successful in both the study area and elsewhere.

DEFINITIONS AND OBJECTIVES

After discussions with appropriate persons and examination of literature it is apparent that there is no uniform understanding of what constitutes abandon ment, dereliction and rehabilitation. To overcome these different perspectives, a series of pragmatic definitions are presented. They can be used generally throughout Ontario and will achieve required uniformity.

The abandoned areas are ones which were opened for the extraction of sand, gravel or crushed stone, and then left in a condition which is generally more unsight ly, less productive and less useful than is possible. Abandoned, derelict pits are normally incapable of beneficial social use without treatment. In addition, derelict land sites are often dangerous to health and safety (Photo 1).

Derelict land parcels are potentially capable of providing for numerous uses all valuable to the commun ity in which they are located. This concept is a pri mary thrust of the study.

The ultimate use that these areas can serve depends on two things. First, the community needs are the primary matter of concern. Second, the physical char acteristics of the site must be examined to determine how they will suit an eventual use. The location, size and condition are unique to each pit and thus offer a different possibility for after use. Size may range from a small wayside pit to an immense abandoned commer cial operation. Some arc depleted, and others have remaining sand and gravel reserves. These variations affect the potential of the derelict site.

This study differentiates between two common ex pressions of land condition: rehabilitated and reclaimed.

Rehabilitation is the treatment of land to develop and improve it into a beneficial form. It is the end product of man's or nature's efforts to make its appear ance blend into the surrounding landscape. It also serves a specific beneficial societal use. In other words, both

the physical appearance and the land use have been changed to an acceptable condition.

Reclamation, for the purpose of this report, is only partial rehabilitation in the sense that only one of the two necessary components is present. Total rehabilita tion requires an acceptable change in both the physical appearance and the use of the pit. Reclamation occurs when only one of these objectives is met. It can be viewed as a "first step" to eventual rehabilitation. Two cases can exist under this definition:a) One is a site where actual physical treatment of

derelict land has occurred. The land has been return ed partially or totally to an acceptable environmental condition. The land is improved for aesthetic reasons alone, yet it remains vacant and does not fill a need,

orb) The second category of reclamation deals with the

idea of productive use. In this case, reclaimed land iscommonly returned to usefulness, even though actualphysical appearance does not change. For example,a pit or quarry floor may be used for the storage ofindustrial building materials or as a sales area formachinery or vehicles (Photo 2).These definitions provide general boundaries for

determining whether a site is rehabilitated, or whetherit still requires further energy to transform it into anacceptable feature. It appears that this differentiationis sufficient for the intentions of this study.

INVENTORY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

LITERATURE REVIEW

In any study it is of considerable value to find readily available pertinent data. In the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, the following were found.1) "The Survey of Derelict Land in Waterloo County" (McLellan 1973), was based on air photograph interpre tation and field studies. In 1971, all derelict lands, including aggregate operations, were identified on air photographs and a complete field check of all derelict land was done. It provides the following information for each site: size, visibility, distance from the road and adjoining land use.2) The maps of aggregate activity, dead files and active files of the Aggregate Unit, Engineering Materials Office, Ministry of Transportation and Communications in Downsview, Ontario also contain many sites of aggregate extraction and are a second major source of information. This Ministry has complete records and maps of all aggregate sites in Ontario that they have investigated. Records date from the late 1940's to the present and the maps are being continuously updated.

A drawback of the information is that it is biased towards the needs of the Ministry of Transportation and

Communications. The Ministry's description of quality and quantity is directed towards their use of aggregate for road and highway construction. Therefore, their inventory excludes aggregate sites usable for other purposes.

The Ministry of Transportation and Communications source is absolutely necessary in locating rehabilitated sites. The reason for this is that their records go back very far and many former pits have disappeared due to reclamation and rehabilitation.3) The third important information source is the set of 1975 air photographs at a scale of 1:4800. The air photographs were obtained from the Regional Planning and Development Department and used as a check for the other data as well as a source for new sites.

The only difficulty is in distinguishing small pits that are .2 ha (.5 acre) or less in size. Stereo air photo graph pairs would aid immensely in distinguishing pits from other features, and although they are available, time was not adequate to examine each site in this way.4) A brief search was made of topographic sheets at a scale of 1:50,000. Some of the larger gravel pits are marked, and several editions of the maps were checked for additional or deleted pits. A deletion often means that the pit is no longer there and has perhaps been re habilitated.5) The Cambridge District Office of the Ministry of Natural Resources provides records of licensed areas within the Region.6) The district office also keeps records of wayside pits that have permits and those that have been active within the last six or seven years.

All of these sources of data are used to compile a map of past and present aggregate activity in the study area (Figure 2, in the back pocket). The scale of the working map was 1:50,000.

PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

A primary classification system is developed as follows to assist in cataloguing the status of all pits and quarries in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo:(a) Licensed Pit and Quarry Operations (Figure 2)(b)Abandoned Pit and Quarry Operations (Figure 2)(c) Reclaimed Pit and Quarry Operations (Figure 2)(d) Rehabilitated Pit and Quarry Operations (Figure 2). These four categories are intended to facilitate a quick and accurate appraisal of the problem before an in-depth survey of each site is undertaken. This allows tor an evaluation of the extent of the problem and assists in determining whether or not a more detailed study is justified. If the latter is true, a more precise classification is required for each site, encompassing criteria more pertinent to the ultimate decision regarding alternative land uses for such sites. It is at this point that the

secondary classification system can be implemented.

SECONDARY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

The secondary classification breaks the sites down into further characteristics. The data for these variables comes from the site survey that is completed for each site. A sample of the site survey form appears in Appen dix 1.

(a) Size(b) Visibility(c) Vegetation(d) Remaining reserves(e) Other existing uses(f) Ownership(g) Proposed city growth areas(h) Surrounding land useIn brief, the secondary classification system contains

eight categories designed to assist in determining which abandoned sites should take priority over others in the need for rehabilitation. The secondary classification system is constructed to assist in developing an accurate picture of each site so that the potential for alternative land uses can be evaluated. Its primary goal is to identify general limitations for the rehabilitation of abandoned sites, thus indicating those sites not requiring immediate attention.

Each category of this system is described as follows.(a) Size

The site size determines whether the land can be economically rehabilitated for a particular use. Some sites may be so small, .1 ha (.25 acre) that they do not represent any problems, aesthetic or otherwise, and their potential for any alternative land use which requires a substantial area such as parking space needs, is limited if not non-existent.

(b) VisibilityObviously, sites that are highly visible tend to attract more public attention and discontent, than those hidden from view. They are also clearly more adapt able to uses requiring public access. Thus it is sensible to place such pits and quarries in a higher priority bracket for rehabilitation than those obscured from view by trees, hills or valleys.

(c) VegetationIt is possible that a few abandoned pits or quarries that have become completely revegetated may pre sent no aesthetic problems and provide wildlife habitats or niches for various species. In such cases, any other form of rehabilitation may be unwarranted.

(d) Remaining ReservesSince sand and gravel is a non-renewable resource, any sites still containing aggregate reserves should be evaluated to determine whether or not they are or will be in the near future, economical to excavate

and be used as wayside pits. If indeed they are, excavation should take place as soon as possible so that rehabilitation of the site can be initiated. Even if a pit proves uneconomical to excavate, the re maining reserves might be useful in the rehabilitation process.

(e) Other Existing UsesAn abandoned site may be used for some purpose without physical reclamation having taken place (e.g. the site is used for off-road biking or industrial storage). Although the site is still technically aban doned, it is being used and therefore may not require immediate attention.

(f) OwnershipIn the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, three types of ownership are identified:1. Private individual2. Private company3. Public companyThis category is included to determine the general socio-economic status of persons or companies owning abandoned, reclaimed or rehabilitated sites. This information is useful in developing models for management of the money generated by the proposed Rehabilitation Fund.

(g) Proposed City Growth AreasProposed city growth areas are defined by the Re gional Municipality of Waterloo in the Regional Official Policies Plan (Waterloo, Regional Municipali ty of 1976) and the recent report on "Residential and Industrial Land Needs" (Waterloo, Regional Municipality of 1977).Three distinct growth areas are recognized and are as follows:1) Areas already committed to growth that are under construction or have subdivision plans already ap proved.2) Urban development limits by the year 1986.3) Urban development limits by the year 2001. These boundaries of the proposed city and hamlet growth areas assist in identifying sites that will most probably be absorbed by natural urban growth over the next five to ten year period. Hence, many sites located in or near areas of urban development may require absolutely no assistance in the rehabilitation process, while others may merely need an interim land use until urban growth requires a change in use. A few sites may also be rehabilitated for recreational use in readiness for proposed future urban growth. Either way, the knowledge of such growth patterns provides for an efficient and effective use of the Rehabilitation Fund,

(h) Surrounding Land UseThe land activity adjacent to an abandoned site plays an important role in determining both the nature and timing of rehabilitation. Those sites next to a

Photo 3: Surrounding land use plays an important role in determining an after use for an abandoned pit. The fact that this site is adjacent to a medium density housing area will affect its eventual rehabilitation. This site is 4 ha (10 acres) and is presently used by children as a recreation area.

built-up residential area have greater urgency for rehabilitation because they may prove to be danger ous and unaesthetic. At the same time, the after use of the site would be dictated by surrounding land use in that it must be compatible (Photo 3). The opposite case would be a gravel pit found in the middle of an agricultural field. In this situation there is less urgency for rehabilitation and the site could logically be incorporated into the existing agricultural activity.

INVENTORY RESULTS AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The results of the inventory conducted according to the classification system previously discussed are pre sented in Table 1. The table shows the data obtained through the implementation of the Primary Classifica tion System including total averages of each category, and the average size of each category type.

In analyzing Table 1, several points should be noted. 1) The number of licensed hectares, 2,416 (5,968 acres)

greatly exceeds the other three categories of aban doned, reclaimed and rehabilitated. It should be emphasized that this large licensed acreage is subject

to The Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971, which will lead to rehabilitation.

2) The area of 376 ha (928 acres) includes abandoned, reclaimed and rehabilitated pits and is the result of past aggregate extraction activity and not subject to the current Pits and Quarries Control Act.

3) Complete rehabilitation of 132 abandoned hectares (328 acres) has already occurred without government intervention. It should be noted that these are heavily concentrated in cities or rapidly urbanizing areas.

4) The 'partial rehabilitation', or reclamation category, while encouraging, should not be misinterpreted. These areas have not received physical landscaping and it is clear that the withdrawal of the current use would result in the property reverting back to the abandoned category.

5) Only 103 sites totalling 160 ha (392 acres) with an average size of 1.1 ha (3 acres) remain in the aban doned category. This figure shows that the problem of abandoned pits appears to be of a smaller propor tion than anticipated.The scale of the problem is now defined and the

remainder of the study is concerned with the manage ment of this problem.

8

TABLE 1

Classification

PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: OCCURRENCE AND SIZE OF PROPERTIES

No. of Occurrences

1.TOWNSHIP OF NORTH DUMFRIES:

ABANDONED 23RECLAIMED 2Rehabilitated 9Licensed* 20

2. TOWNSHIP OF WILMOT:


3. TOWNSHIP OF WELLESLEY:


4. TOWNSHIP OF WOOLWICH:


5. CITY OF WATERLOO:


6. CITY OF KITCHENER:


7. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE:


31119

713

8

9254

8

293

471720

707

13

1035

123856

217

391828

197

8. TOTAL - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO


16084

1322416

Total Area Hectares Acres

782822

1761

21

23627

21

725

1164150

1747

31

2486

3095139535

954470

487

3922083285968

Avg. Size Hectares Acres

61

36

132

33

232 2

31

.43

235

.61.444.3

54

332.1

49

1.13.32.1

38

2 1142.4

88

1.4

2.578

2.4

81

5852

76

586

1.63.54

11134

775.3

122

38.15.2

95

'These are licensed sites under The Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971, which includes provisions for rehabilitation of the site. Licensed sites also include reserve land for future extraction, rehabilita ted areas, plant and equipment areas and areas that will never be extracted for various reasons such as setbacks, environmental areas, etc.

^excluding an exceptionally large 16 ha (40 acre) site


3excluding an exceptionally large 12 ha (30 acre) site


LANDOWNER SURVEY

PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY

The general objective of the two surveys is to contact the owners of land on which abandoned pits are located, the people most directly involved, and determine their impressions of the situation. Two groups are selected:1. Owners of abandoned pits2. Owners of rehabilitated sites.Specific objectives of the survey are outlined below:

OWNERS OF ABANDONED PITS (A sample of the questionnaire appears in Appendix 2.)1. To obtain information on the pit and its history2. To determine the owner's attitudes and perceptions

of abandoned pits3. To determine the value they would place on their pit

if a rehabilitation program were implemented4. To determine why they have not rehabilitated and to

receive suggestions on what changes are required within the present system of planning approvals and financing to facilitate a rehabilitation program.

OWNERS OF REHABILITATEDSITES(Asampleofthe questionnaire appears in Appendix 3.)1. To obtain information on the pit and its history2. To obtain rehabilitation cost figures3. To document the process of rehabilitation and

especially the planning and permission procedures involved

4. To determine what changes are needed to overcome problems

5. To determine owners' perceptions and attitudes towards abandoned pits.

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

To obtain a representative sample of the Region it was decided to conduct the detailed surveys in the following three areas:(1) Cambridge - an urban area(2) North Dumfries - a township with some indication

that urban development is occurring(3) Wellesley - a rural township (later replaced by

Wilmot).The first step in proceeding with the survey is to

locate the names and addresses of the owners. This requires detailed assessment information. After discussion with the Regional Planning and Development Depart ment, the Land Registry Office and the Assessment Office it was decided that the best source of information would be the clerk's office at individual municipal offices. Each office may also have assessment rolls and accompanying maps showing the boundary lines of each

property in the municipality. The location of each pit is determined on the air photographs, and from there it is found on the appropriate property assessment map. Both the air photographs and the property assessment maps are of the same scale, so comparison is facilitated. The deed number for the property is recorded and then a search through the assessment rolls reveals the owner's name and address.

In North Dumfries a very high success rate was exper ienced. The City of Cambridge did not have the property maps that were required, so instead, the Assessment Office was contacted. Two problems presented them selves. The outskirts of the City of Cambridge where many of the pits are located have not been mapped and properties in these areas could not be found. Also there is the problem of actually identifying pits on the air photographs. Many of the rehabilitated sites are impossible to find in a built-up urban area. For these reasons, owners for only 26 out of 34 sites were re corded.

The Wellesley Township office did not have the ownership maps, so no owners' names or addresses were available. There were only seven sites to interview in Wellesley, so it was attempted to locate them by field checking. Four of the sites were found, but the owners were unavailable. Because Old Order Mennonites do not have telephones, it was impossible to call back for appointments. Instead, Wilmot, another rural township was selected.

The Township of Wilmot clerk's office had only those property maps surrounding the urbanized settlements. This again limited the number of names collected. A 26 percent success rate was obtained. One major difference in rural perception of abandoned pits becomes apparent. Rural residents feel that their pits are too small to warrant that name or they have been inactive for so long that they are no longer perceived as gravel pits.

A surprising number of owners of abandoned or reha bilitated sites are private companies or public agencies. In some of these cases, direct interviews were impossible to conduct. However, it is important to make a contact with this segment of the population to obtain their views on the matter. For this reason a telephone interview that was much less complex than the surveys was conducted.

A total of twenty industries or government sectors are known owners of various abandoned or rehabilitated pits in Cambridge, North Dumfries and Wilmot. After contacting the proper person, often the property man ager, the location of the pit is described and the follow ing questions asked:1. Are you aware of the pit on the property?2. When was it last used?3. What is the area's present appearance?4. Are there any plans for redevelopment?5. How would this affect the acreage of the abandoned

pit?

10

TABLE 2 LANDOWNER SURVEY OF ABANDONED AND REHABILITATED PITS.

Township

WilmotNorth DumfriesCambridge

Total Abandoned Sites

152313

Surveys Completed: Interview Phone

6123

Township

WilmotNorth DumfriesCambridge

Total Rehabilitated Sites

99

13

Surveys Completed: Interview Phone

The success rate of the survey was 4T& in Wilmot Township, 65% in North Dumfries Township and 46^. in the City of Cambridge.

6. What is the timing of development?The majority of persons contacted are well aware of thearea in question and are able to provide information.

These are the findings of the telephone survey: of the eleven areas, one is licensed, five are rehabilitated and five are abandoned. For all five abandoned pits, there are no immediate plans for development or reha bilitation. The five rehabilitated pits are divided into the following after uses: two sanitary landfill sites, two industrial development areas and one agricultural site.

Perhaps a few of the more surprising results of the survey are the following. First, the perception of rural residents is very different from those of urban oriented areas, especially in terms of what constitutes an aban doned pit and whether something should be done about it. Second, many of those interviewed have a misleading belief that pit abandonment is a phenomenon associated with large, currently licensed pits. However, under The Pits and Quarries Control Act licensed areas do not contribute to the production of derelict land.

Forty-seven questionnaires were completed out of a possible eighty-two, with an overall success rate of 5796. From the tabulations of responses to the surveys, gen eralizations are made of each question. The following are some conclusions.

Owner of Rehabilitated Land Survey1. The majority of people interviewed are farmers,

most of whom have lived at the same location for at least ten years.

2. The majority of pits are less than 1 ha (2.5 acres) in size and many owners do not perceive them as actual "pits".

3. In almost all cases, the land was in agricultural use prior to excavation.

4. Most pits were created at least five years ago.

5. No complaints have been received by pit owners and they feel little moral urgency to rehabilitate these sites.

6. Over half of the rehabilitated pits are in agricultural use.

7. Reasons for rehabilitating are for financial gain or the pit is obstructing another activity, such as building a house. So, in most cases, rehabilitation is a semi-conscious effort.

8. Half of the pits are rehabilitated immediately upon completion of extraction.

9. The majority of owners did not consult anyone for the project because no planning decisions were necessary.

10. Three-quarters of the sites are graded as opposed to being ploughed over or filled in.

11. Only two cases reported problems. Both complained of "too much red tape" from the government.

12. Almost everyone agrees that it is profitable to rehabilitate and their land is worth more.

13. In this survey, the respondents seem to favour the idea of government involvement, especially at the provincial level.

14. These people are more concerned about abandoned pits getting cleaned up than the respondents of the abandoned pit survey. However, they seem more anxious about the large licensed operations and confuse them with abandoned areas.

Owner of Abandoned Land Survey1. Once again, the majority of respondents are farmers

who have lived at the same location for ten years or more.

2. The predominant size of the pits is under .2-.8 ha (.5-2 acres).

3. Most inhabitants were living there when extraction

11

took place.4. One-half of the abandoned pits are still being used

for on-site personal consumption and are unlicensed.5. The predominant change in pit appearance over the

years has been an increase in vegetative cover.6. Most pits have no use and are lying idle.7. Three-quarters of the owners have never considered

rehabilitating and most are not interested. Another important reason for not rehabilitating is the con cern about remaining gravel reserves.

8. Those that have considered rehabilitating are in terested in agricultural after use.

9. Most respondents feel the government already has too much control over land and that they should not get involved in a program of rehabilitation. They are especially opposed to any grant program which would be paid for from provincial taxes.

10. Opinion is divided on whether abandoned pits are a problem or not. Once again, people are more concerned about putting the large licensed sites back into a productive land use.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Although a large enough sample was interviewed, it is uncertain whether a characteristic cross-section of gravel pit owners was obtained. Farmers own many of the areas and a large percentage of these owners were surveyed. A high percentage of the surveys were unable to be completed for the business and industrial sector. Although these people were telephoned it was impos sible to obtain the same detailed information as in the direct interviews. Very little information was received on the planning stages of rehabilitation and the problems involved, and therefore, one of our objectives has not been met. Cost is another area where minimal informa tion was collected. No figures were obtained on re habilitation costs nor on owners' perception of aban doned land values.

It seems attitudes vary from rural people, to govern ment personnel, to businessmen. Each of these groups has a slightly different definition of abandoned and rehabilitated. This is especially apparent in the rural sector. These people voice their complaints about abandoned pits, but in reality, it is the licensed, com mercial operation that they object to and consider unsightly. These licensed sites are covered by legislation and will be rehabilitated. This is important because it indicates that the abandoned pit problem is not as large as it has been perceived to be. Although the Regional Municipality of Waterloo is probably representative of Ontario conditions, it does not have large abandoned sites. In other regions or counties large individual aban doned sites may occur.

The two surveys discussed in this chapter, concerning

the rehabilitated and abandoned pit owners, were con ducted to gain insight on the methodology used for this report. It is felt that there is no need for regions or counties to execute similar surveys in future studies.

POLITICIAN, PLANNER AND PUBLIC SURVEY

OBJECTIVES AND PERSONS INVOLVED

The rehabilitation of abandoned pits whether done individually or jointly requires some degree of advanced planning. When rehabilitation is examined on a regional basis, the planning process should be clearly elaborated by the regional government. For this reason, it is ap propriate to conduct a planning survey. The purpose of this survey is two-fold:1. To obtain information concerning community-wide

needs that might be served by the rehabilitation of abandoned sand and gravel pits.

2. To discuss present and alternative planning andfinancing procedures that will achieve rehabilitationgoals.A basic concept of this study is that derelict land can

be changed to satisfy a much greater community need. It is, therefore, necessary to know what the demands for various land uses are in order to return derelict land to a productive state. It would be a wasted effort to transform several pits into baseball diamonds if there is no call for this use. In the survey, the respondents are asked to comment on the need for various uses within the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and then to put them in order of priority. The most commonly discussed after uses are recreation, housing, agriculture, forestry, sanitary landfill and industrial/commercial, in that order.

The second objective of the survey deals more speci fically with the proposed Provincial Rehabilitation Fund and the various means of implementing it. Discussions center around three alternative programs for the utiliza tion of this money: land acquisition, financial incentive and aesthetic improvement. The pros and cons of each alternative are discussed. The need for an overall plan ning policy, the supervision and organization of such a program, and the validity of this study are also examined.

The people involved in the survey include regional and local planning staff, planning committee members, planning consultants, staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Grand River Conservation Authority, the Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario and the Blair Ratepayers' Association.

The planners and politicians in the group provide a fair representation of city (Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge), township (North Dumfries, Wilmot, Welles ley and Woolwich) and regional views. In selecting other individuals, interviews are limited to experts

12

within realms of activity that would incorporate poten tial after uses for abandoned pits (recreation expert, agriculture representative, forester, etc.). The citizens group and the aggregate producers are also included to complete the list. The degree of background informa tion on this subject varies with each individual and in fact, a lack of familiarity with the subject often pro duces a fresh view of the matter.

5. Sanitary Landfill- requires compatibility with surrounding land use- geological and hydrological suitability

6. Industrial/Commercial- in or near urban areas- not adjacent to residential area- at least 2 ha (5 acre) sites for light industry, so they

can be grouped together

AFTER USE CRITERIA AND COMMUNITY NEED

The results from the first portion of the survey dealing with "demand" are disappointing. This is due to the difficulty in projecting future needs and deter mining specific figures. Priorities change with each location. Agriculture is deemed the most needed after use in rural areas, and recreation in the urban centres. The possibility of rural residential estates being located in gravel pits is recognized, however, many planners express the general concern to discourage such devel opment in rural areas. The reason being that differences in attitudes of rural residents lead to conflicts. Opinion is unanimous that abandoned sand and gravel pits can be used as sanitary landfill sites. However, the site and location characteristics of each individual pit have to be further examined to meet stringent criteria for this use.

Criteria to determine the suitability of various after uses emerged from the interviews and a list of those commonly mentioned is compiled as follows.

1. Agriculture- not adjacent to incompatible urban activities- adjacent to existing agricultural land- requires adequate topsoil

2. Forestry- near existing woodlot- at least 2 ha (5 acres) if purpose is for wood pro

duction- long-term investment (land must be in this use

for at least twenty to twenty-five years)- can also be used as part of aesthetic improvement

program, in which case it can be a smaller site3. Housing

- not adjacent to industry- in built-up areas- if in rural areas, then it should be a self-contained

unit with buffer zones around it4. Recreation

- if intensive use, then near built-up residential area- if a passive use is intended, it should have some

natural amenities or it should be next to an exist ing recreation area in which case it can be used as a service area (parking, etc.)

- if for picnic area, it should be on a scenic road

PLANNING APPROACHES

(1) Acquisition ProgramThe general opinion maintains that using the Reha

bilitation Fund for the acquisition of abandoned sites is a good idea if sites with high public use potential be come available. However, it is also agreed that under this system, very few pits would be rehabilitated. In other words, there are insufficient funds for this approach to be effective. Some interviewees expressed a strong opinion that this money should not be used for purchase of land, but only for actual rehabilitation costs.(2) Financial Incentive Program

This program proposes that the Rehabilitation Fund be given to owners of abandoned sites to reimburse partial or full costs of rehabilitation. Opinion on this alternative is divided. One group favours the idea, and feels that a 5096 incentive is adequate. After all, the landowner has to show some initiative as well. The second and perhaps larger group feels this program will not work because in most cases there are no tangible benefits for the landowners. The landowner requires something more enticing, perhaps a 100*^ reimburse ment of costs, in which case it should be partially paid back if the property is sold within ten years. Some planners express the idea that this should be a simple process, to encourage landowners to partake. On the other hand, stringent criteria are also suggested to con trol abuse of this program.(3) Aesthetic Improvement Program

This proposal suggests that monies from the Reha bilitation Fund be used for basic "cleaning" and land scaping of abandoned sites. Once again, there is a major division of opinion on this question. One group is concerned with the visibility and aesthetics of pits and therefore feels this is the best way of dealing with the problem and that the most widespread rehabilitation could be accomplished under this program. The other group feels this is a cosmetic approach and a waste of money. In their minds, productive use is the key element to any rehabilitation scheme, and there is little value in making things aesthetically pleasing while the pit continues to remain technically abandoned and open to recurrent abuse (Photo 4).

Both groups express valid opinions, but the problem with pits in this study is that their after use is limited by

13

Photo 4: The roadside location of this abandoned site in North Dumfries Township makes it easily accessible for junk dumping. It is highly visible from a major highway route and it could use aesthetic improvement.

their small size. Keeping this point in mind, an aesthetic improvement program may prove valid in setting the stage for productive use in the future. The land will be in a ready state for a productive use, and the private enterprise system will realize a demand when the ap propriate time comes. On the other hand it is recognized that abandonment and unsightly appearance breeds derelict attitudes and therefore, problems such as continued "junk dumping" may offset any cosmetic landscape improvements.

FURTHER SURVEY CONCLUSIONS

Further conclusions from the planning survey are as follows.1) City and township planners do not perceive aban

doned pits as a major problem in their planning areas. There is little pressure to rehabilitate them.

2) City and township planners are not enthused about this program although they would certainly make good use of any available funds.

3) Housing is not seen as an important after use for abandoned pits. The apparent conflicts arising out of urban people living in the rural area is forcing a more stringent implementation of the policy to

restrict rural housing developments.4) Most control and organization of this program should

go to the region. However, the area municipalities want a strong input. The regional planners feel that the Ministry of Natural Resources should play the lead role in organizing the Rehabilitation Fund criteria.

5) A study such as this is vital in organizing the informa tion and coming up with a comprehensive plan of action. It should definitely be completed before any actual money is spent on rehabilitation.

6) Pits with remaining reserves should be noted, and as the need arises, they should be opened as wayside pits. This would then encourage progressive rehabili tation.

7) Regional Planning and Development Department staff are the group most enthusiastic about solving the problem and most able to recognize the possibilities of the various programs and potentials suggested. Many potential drawbacks and problems are pointed

out concerning the alternatives. It is hoped that these discussions will eventually aid the Ministry of Natural Resources in setting forth the criteria for the Rehabili tation Fund. Regardless of how the Rehabilitation Fund is managed, certain objectives must be met. Decisions must remain objective and personal involvement in issues

14

should be avoided. For this reason, the program should be carried out in a regional framework supported by a study done by a reasonably diverse group. Area munici pality input is required, and this should be incorporated into the study. At the lowest level, the landowner himself has a say in the matter by suggesting uses for the pit and submitting an application for rehabilitation funds. So, in keeping with the democratic system, the rehabilitation process should maintain communication with all levels of government, interest groups and land owners.

The series of interviews and surveys is the second major segment of the project. All three surveys allow for an opportunity to receive public input on various aspects of abandoned pits and their rehabilitation.

However, several facts surfaced throughout the process. While searching through assessment records for owners' names and addresses, it was realized that a large percentage of abandoned pit owners in urban areas are companies or firms. This led to the telephone interview where it was discovered that many of these companies are definitely not concerned about rehabili tating their properties.

The general impression gained from these interviews is that the problem of abandoned pits in this Region is not perceived as urgent. This is due to the fact that most pits are small and many have remaining reserves that are being utilized by the owner. On the other hand, there is also great enthusiasm for the implementation of the Rehabilitation Fund.

SITE EVALUATION PROCESS

REHABILITATION AND AFTER USE RELATIONSHIPS

The previous sections of the report deal with various aspects of the actual abandoned sites. The sites and their characteristics are identified and discussed. This portion of the report investigates the following after uses that can be incorporated into a rehabilitation program and outlines various constraints for these uses.

1) Housing2) Recreation3) Agriculture4) Forestry5) Natural/Ecological6) Industrial/Commercial7) Sanitary Landfill8) Aggregate ReserveThe purpose of this exercise is to screen abandoned

pit characteristics to determine the suitability of any pit for various after uses. This is only a preliminary screen ing technique and the result is a wide list of potential

uses for each site. Obviously these uses will be revised after a field examination of individual sites. This parti cular screen deals on a planning level. There is no at tempt at this time to outline all physical restraints for each land use. Physical factors should be considered on an individual basis, at a time when an application for rehabilitation is being made. It is felt that no absolute restraints can be put on each use since landscape re shaping can alter the physical conditions of any site.

HousingThe Regional growth policy anticipates an average

annual growth rate of 396 by 1981 and a rate of 2.8(# by 1991. Obviously, housing must keep in step with the demands that will be made. The Regional Official Policies Plan (Waterloo, Regional Municipality of 1976) encourages housing in existing and new settle ments but also provides for certain rural non-urban severances where they do not conflict with prime agricultural land, environmentally sensitive areas and floodplains.

The trend toward country living in the past has resulted in urban development in the rural area. Not only that, there seems to be some differences of opin ion between ex-urbanites and rural people in the Region.

Conflicts of attitude, the high costs of servicing and other rural activities, and the fact that useful agricul tural land is being unnecessarily used for housing, are the main issues that have influenced the Regional and Area Municipalities to support a policy that severely controls this type of rural residential development. It is evident that the use of abandoned sand and gravel pits would be an acceptable solution if it can be consis tent with rural settlement policies in the Regional Official Policies Plan.

These pits are not prime agricultural land since the topsoil has already been removed by excavation and therefore they could suit residential requirements. It is important however that a separation be created between residential and agricultural activities according to the Agricultural Code of Practice (Ontario, Province of 1976). Cluster housing on these lands if they are large enough to allow it, would be most preferable. Two other physical characteristics of the site to be con sidered are the availability of utilities and the type of sewage disposal and water supply that the site can accommodate.

The following planning constraints can be examined to screen out pits unacceptable for residential use: a) "Settlement Pattern Policy Area." (Waterloo, Region al Municipality of 1976, p.7.11).

If a pit is found within Regional Policy Areas A, B, C or D (urban settlement areas) then its general location is acceptable for residential development if it also con forms to other Regional and Area policies. If it is in Policy Area E (rural settlement area) further scrutiny

75

of other factors must be completed before housing can be accommodated, b) Zoning By-laws

If a pit is in a residential zone, then it may be accep table for this use. Technically a severance can be issued anywhere providing certain criteria are met. This means that pits in zones other than residential must be further examined. Generally, most abandoned pits are zoned as "agriculture" and single family housing on large lots would be permitted, subject to the granting of a sever ance by the Regional Land Division Committee, and in conformity with Regional policies.

RecreationThe Regional Municipality of Waterloo ranks third

among regions and counties in Ontario for receiving the most weekend tourists. This points out the necessity to satisfy the needs of these day and weekend users. There has also been a growth in special interest groups such as trail hikers and bikers, yet present trail facilities are inadequate. Sand and gravel pits if large enough would provide an ideal rough terrain especially for trail bikers. A recreation study published by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Waterloo, Regional Munici pality of 1977) indicates a shortage in boating, camping, golfing, hiking, and skiing facilities (PhotoS).

Recreation areas are basically of two types: a) those that are resource-oriented and provide an interesting natural environment for certain activities; b) those that are man-made and are usually intended for a more intense, organized use. Since abandoned gravel pits are not commonly considered natural amenities, they could fill a recreational function by acting as service areas for existing recreational sites or they could be developed into recreational uses that do not rely on a specific natural resource. The availability of water in an old pit provides additional recreation potential.

A map screening process can be used to filter out pits that would be more acceptable for recreational development than others. The following criteria are used:(a) "Scenic Roads of Waterloo". - Study done by Prid- dle and Lowry for the Regional Municipality of Water loo (unpublished study - expected to be published by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in 1978).

This study identifies roads throughout the Region which have scenic qualities and could therefore become part of a scenic drive route. Roads over hilly terrain are often considered attractive and in many cases, these are also associated with the landforms that con tain sand and gravel. In an event where these roads should be developed and publicized, gravel pits de finitely need to be landscaped and turned into useful picnic sites, service stops or lookouts.

Those pits adjacent to and visible from scenic roads have a priority to be utilized for some practical or

aesthetic function.(b) An ongoing study by the Regional Planning and Development Department has identified existing, pro posed and recommended recreation areas in the Region. Once again, any pit adjacent to or very near one of these areas has a definite recreational potential.

AgricultureMany small gravel pits in our survey are adjacent to

agricultural areas and they can be graded and incor porated into agricultural uses. It is known that initially their productivity will not be as high as adjacent areas. Cover crops or pasture is the solution for the first few years (Photo 6).

The Regional Municipality in its Regional Official Policy Plan establishes Agricultural Policy Areas A and B, p.8.11. "The first priority within these areas is for agricultural pursuits." (Waterloo, Regional Municipality of 1976, p.8.8). Any abandoned pits found within either one of these areas should be considered for re-incorpor ation into agricultural land activities.

ForestryIt is not unreasonable to think that reclaimed gravel

pits can offer a land resource to this industry. When considering forestry as an alternative after use, the long-term investment potential must be established. Trees take a long time to grow, so there cannot be any development pressure on this land for many years. At least .33 m (1.1 foot) of topsoil must be available for trees to thrive. Under ordinary conditions, Christmas trees are productive in 5-10 years, pulpwood 20-30 years, and timber, 50 and over.

The following factors constrain this potential after use:(a) Pits must be at least 2 ha (5 acres) in size. This is the smallest unit of forest management. Pits less than 2 ha (5 acres) are not considered economically viable.(b) Due to their small size and low productivity, it is felt that gravel pits should be adjacent to an existing woodlot to make this type of endeavour successful. Pits not meeting this criteria are unacceptable for commercial forest use. Topographic maps illustrate woodlots in the study area.(c) Due to their long term value, pits intended for com mercial forest production should be retained forever, either within the urban or the rural areas.(d) Pits can also be forested for less intense purposes. For example, a pit may be cleaned up, but essentially it remains abandoned until there are trees planted on a site. This makes the site aesthetically pleasing and the tree growth stabilizes soils, maintains moisture and provides faunal habitat. Virtually any pit can be a candidate for this type of forest reclamation.

Photo 5: Trail bikers have very few areas in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to exercise their sport. The rough terrain in this abandoned pit near the City of Cambridge has become a favorite site for young bikers.

Photo 6: This abandoned pit in North Dumfries is surrounded by a corn field and interferes with its production. With limited landshaping and addition of topsoil, it could easily be incorporated into agricultural use.

77

Natural/Ecological SitesTwo Geologists were asked to assess the ecological

value of several sites. It was noted that these sites are valuable in examining the order of succession in dry, stoney habitats.

The first plants that inhabit these areas arc annual weeds or the first year's growth of biannuals, such as: ragweed, foxtail grass, Queen Anne's lace, sweet white dover, thistles, bladder campion. As the slopes stabilize and more nutrient materials become available, shrubs and trees will eventually colonize. Early shrubs are Hawthorne and dogwood and common trees include the poplars, balsam fir, willow, fire cherry, Manitoba maple. Later oaks and ashes will grow as well.

This type of environment does not provide an ex ceptional habitat for any native species of fauna. The environment is too sterile for most mammals, although groundhogs and mice can be found. Birds that do nest in these areas are killdeer, horned lark, and night hawks. Later, savannah sparrows and meadowlarks also nest here. These birds do not normally nest in gravel pits, but rely on shores and bumed-out areas. It can be argued that this type of environment creates a unique mixture of flora and fauna and it should be left to thrive naturally. On the other hand, this is an artificially cre ated environment and an artificial ecosystem is the result.

The two ecologists agree that most dry pits do not offer any unique ecological assets. However, the pre sence of water in an abandoned pit can make a con siderable difference. Water acts as a nucleus for vegeta tion, as well as creating diversity in habitat. Wet habitats provide for water fowl, fish and amphibians. Over time, the water area develops into a marsh and many species will encroach upon this area. It is con cluded that if a site is attractive it can be left as a natural area, as it does serve some ecological purpose. Otherwise, if these sites are near areas that have defin ite environmental significance, then there should be some incentive to ecologically "clean up" adjacent abandoned gravel pits. In some cases, the pits may warrant an inclusion into the environmentally signi ficant area, but if so, they should be revived and made to look more natural so they will not offend the aesthe tic sense of environmentalists and naturalists that do use these areas.

The following areas have been identified as being environmentally significant and pits adjacent to these properties should be rehabilitated to appear natural, (a) Environmentally Sensitive Areas. "These are quality natural communities which have been recognized over a period of time by regional naturalists." (Waterloo, Regional Municipality of 1976, p.13.6). Fifteen of these areas have also been identified as International Biosphere Protection Areas. All of the Environmen tally Sensitive Areas are protected and are virtually

nature sanctuaries. Any pits found in an Environmen tally Sensitive Area should be rehabilitated to fit in with the surrounding landscape.(b) Grand Valley Trails and the City of Cambridge Trails are areas used by people who enjoy an outdoor exercise or experience. Pits found adjacent to trails should either be reclaimed to appear natural, or they can be used as service areas (lavatories, rain shelters, parking areas).(c) Conservation areas, although more recreation orien ted, also play an important role in preserving the en vironment. Once again, pits found adjacent to these areas deserve rehabilitation.

Industrial/CommercialOld gravel extraction sites can provide land for this

purpose. Gravel operations have tended to locate near urban centres to reduce transportation costs. This characteristic is also important to industry and com merce. Gravel pits generally have flat bottoms and this even terrain is necessary for building industrial or commercial developments.

The constraints are:(a) Access is one of the major criteria for successful industrial or commercial development. Any pit that is located on a trunk or primary road, as outlined on the Regional Policies Plan Maps 5: Transportation Policy City Areas and Map 6: Transportation Policy Township Areas has a definite advantage for this type of development (Waterloo, Regional Municipality of 1976, p.15.12 and p.15.13).(b) Size is the other important criteria. Small, isolated commercial enterprises are not desirable. A cluster of stores, or an industrial mall are more preferable. Pits under 2 ha (5 acres) are ruled unacceptable for this type of use.

Sanitary Landfill SitesThere are several landfill sites, both large and small

that at one point were sand and gravel pits. As they get filled, the need arises for new sites. A series of small pits could be used and filled in short periods of time. One set of machinery could be set aside for this purpose and moved around to various sites. The use of small pits also diminishes the overall danger of methane gas formation. Those pits that do not meet strict hydro- geological constraints can be used for dry inert wastes.

A study of landfill potential of abandoned sand and gravel pits was conducted in 1975 by students at the University of Waterloo. In this study, several waste generation zones are examined and the pits in those areas are investigated to determine their landfill po tential. The life expectancy of each pit is calculated and accessibility, adjacent land use and visibility from the road are used to screen out unacceptable pits. In the study area, sixteen sites are potentially suitable

18

landfill sites capable of handling wastes. These sites are compared to our inventory and designated as potential landfill areas.

Aggregate ReservesMany of the abandoned pits in this inventory are no

longer being excavated, but they still have remaining reserves. In the early days of extraction, it was much easier for the township to move to a new and closer site rather than remove all the material from each successive pit.

The Regional policy is to ensure that sand and gravel is available in this Region and that pits be re stored to acceptable conditions. Sand and gravel de posits are regarded as valuable resources and should therefore be identified.

There are two alternatives for the abandoned pits with remaining reserves. If the deposit is large, then a commercial license is required. If the reserve is small, then an agreement could be made for the township to use it under a wayside pit permit. In any case, once a pit is re-activated, it falls under the jurisdiction of The Pits and Quarries Control Act where rehabilitation is required. In this way, progressive rehabilitation can take place without using monies from the rehabilita tion fund.

It is important to identify these areas, but the scope of this study does not allow in-depth field examinations of each site to determine quantity and quality of re maining reserves. Several data sources are provided to screen out probable pits, but the information is only general.(a) Sand and Gravel Resource Policy Areas

Likely sources of sand and gravel are identified in the Regional Official Policies Plan as Policy Areas A and B, p.11.7 (Waterloo, Regional Municipality of 1976). Lands in these areas are given priority for ex traction. Pits within these are noteworthy for this purpose.(b) "Recommendations for Sand and Gravel Extrac tive Areas, North Dumfries Township" (Cowan 1976).

This report produces a map showing potential ex tractive areas for North Dumfries Township. The On tario Geological Survey is conducting similar studies for townships throughout Ontario.(c) Another study is entitled "The Aggregate Resources of Waterloo/South Wellington Counties: Towards Effective Planning for the Aggregate Industry" (Mc- Lellan and Bryant 1973). This report investigates remaining aggregate reserves in this area and delineates areas of potential aggregate supply.

PRIORITY EVALUATION - USES AND TIMING

The preceding pages have outlined planning con straints that must be considered in order to determine an acceptable after use for a site. Each abandoned site is evaluated and potential after uses emerge by process of elimination. This is done by placing an overlay map of all abandoned and reclaimed pits on maps of the eight constraints found in the study area. Obviously, this is a preliminary screen, but nonetheless, it provides a neutral and objective guide for decision-makers in judging the potential value of a site. After assessing the criteria, each site receives an acceptable or unacceptable rating for each use. For example, if a site is located within an Environmentally Sensitive Area and is also adjacent to a segment of the Grand Valley Trail, then it has high potential for a natural or ecological area.

Potential uses could also be suggested by the field workers completing the site surveys. These suggestions are made at the abandoned site location and are based on the information collected for the site survey. In the field, the most practical use for an abandoned pit is often very obvious.

Therefore, each site has potential uses assigned to it from two sources: the evaluation system and the site survey. In some cases, one after use is seen to be of a higher order or has more practicality and greater community value. If this is apparent from planning information or the site survey, then that use receives a higher priority rating for rehabilitation. In other words, each site has several potentials, but in some cases, one or even two uses are isolated if their poten tial is judged more acceptable than others. These dif ferentiations are made using capital letters rather than lower case letters. A sample of the format used for this evaluation process is found in Appendix 4. The symbols that could be used are as follows:

Recreation HousingIndustrial/Commercial Agriculture ForestryNatural/Ecological Sanitary Landfill Aggregate Reserve

Low Priority ree h inagfec

a.r.

High Priority REG H IN AG FEC S.L. A.R.

The results of the evaluation system after reviewing a) the primary and secondary classification and b) the evaluation process producing possible uses with low and high priorities, for North Dumfries, Cambridge and Wilmot are presented in Table 3.

19

TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF THE AFTER USES GENERATED BY THE EVALUATION PROCESS: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO.

North Dumfries

Low Priority Uses (Number of Sites)*

ree. 4

High Priority Uses

REG 3

Cambridge

Low Priority Uses

8 15

High Priority Uses

9 6

Wilmot

Low Priority Uses

10

High Priority Uses

2

m. 3

IN 2

17

AG 11

10

3 1 12

*each site may have more than one priority

EC 1

s.l. 3

S.L. 2

a.r. 15

A.R. 1

12

It is clear that the system of allocating priorities and restraints will encourage and discourage certain uses in different townships. For example, urban oriented uses such as housing and industry, (H, IN), will be preferred in Cambridge compared with agricultural or aggregate reserve uses (AG, A.R.) which in North Dumfries Town ship become more numerically significant.

This evaluation system sets out general rules to determine an after use. The final and perhaps most important suggestion for an after use should come from the landowner himself in the form of an appli cation to the Rehabilitation Fund. In this application, the owner should provide a detailed plan of all physical rehabilitation and set out objective reasons for the chosen after use.

The landowner is most familiar with his land and can realize its potentials. This program allows the landowner freedom to rehabilitate and it saves decision makers the task of doing an in-depth site and situation study of all pits in the region to determine the costs and type of rehabilitation.

Once these applications are received, they should be reviewed in a two-step process. First, the primary and secondary classification system as background and second, possible uses of high and low priorities. The ranking system outlined below is then applied against the above data. It aids decisions by indicating the

zone of the site and thus determining the timing of the development. If many applications are to be received, this would aid in selecting the sites to be rehabilitated that year.

Rank 1. Zone A rural area - no development pressures Rank 2. Zone B development by 2001 Rank 3. Zone C development by 1986 Rank 4. Zone D land already committed for develop

ment. These zones are outlined on Figure 2 (back pocket).

Applications in zones A and B would be higher priorities for the Rehabilitation Fund than in C and D where the private enterprise system would be likely to rehabilitate pits through the natural processes of urbani zation. This is clearly demonstrated in this study in the high percentage of abandoned pits which have disappear ed in and around urban areas even since the McLellan (1973) study.

All of the above mentioned factors, such as the de velopment zones and determination of high and low priority uses have an important bearing on the form and timing of rehabilitation, and must be considered in dependently for each individual pit or quarry.

20

COST AND EFFICACY OF THE PROPOSED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

COSTS

An original intent of this study was to obtain average rehabilitation costs to determine a total cost for reha bilitating all of the abandoned acreage in the Region. In this way, the time it would take the Rehabilitation Fund to obliterate any trace of past sand and gravel extraction could be determined and the adequacy of the fund assessed. As proposed, the fund should provide approxi mately 110,500 annually in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and initially, many people felt that 1096 of the licence fee would not be enough to do the necessary rehabilitation. It is a small amount for outright purchase of sites and obviously there can be no involvement in major landscape renovation. It is however, sufficient for basic grading to stabilize slopes and the establishment of vegetation on a site, making it more harmonious with the surrounding landscape.

Rehabilitation costs are very difficult to determine. It is virtually impossible to obtain them from aggregate producers since accurate figures of these activities have not been recorded. In addition, in most cases rehabilita tion costs for producers are not meaningful for the rehabilitation of relatively small abandoned sites. The producers are dealing with sites that are much larger and often much deeper, requiring different machinery. Also, on active sites, the machinery is readily available whereas on abandoned sites, the movement of equip ment onto the site is required.

Costs were obtained from two sources: TCG Materials Ltd., Brantford (D. Sterrett, personal communication 1977) and the Arboretum at the University of Guelph (S. Lowe, personal communication 1977). TCG figures are for a total of 5 ha (13 acres) and the cost per hectare is approximately $7,800 (^3,000 f acre). This figure is not representative however, because large amounts of fill and topsoil had to be hauled a considerable distance to the site. TCG personnel stress that areal extent of a rehabilitation project would not be as important as depth of the pit or the necessity of hauling fill material long distances.

The second source of data is from the Arboretum at the University of Guelph where a project involving the rehabilitation of a gravel pit is being undertaken. Esti mating from the Arboretum's figures, a one hectare pit could receive basic landscaping (grading and seeding) for as little as $1,235 ^SOO/acre). At this rate, approxi mately 8 ha (20 acres) of abandoned pits in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo could be cleaned up in one year. When we project this to the 160 ha (392 acres) of derelict land in the Region, it would appear that complete eradication would occur in less than twenty years (assuming some pits will continue to disappear

by normal rather than induced means). It should be noted that this figure is based on total costs being supplied from the fund. In fact, applicants may be required to supply a portion of the total costs, thereby increasing the rate at which rehabilitation will proceed.

EFFICACY

Costs depend almost entirely on each individual site and the future plans that are intended for it. Lack of interest on the owner's part or remaining aggregate reserves could also be a block to any rehabilitation scheme. Perhaps only one-half of the sites are in a position to be rehabilitated due to ownership and location within development zones. Another consider ation is that certain sites of small acreage in "invisible" locations may be considered of minimal significance to owners and municipalities alike. These small sites may never come forward as applications and would be left to slower natural rehabilitation. For these reasons, the best estimate of the time to clean up the sites might be ten years.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

The inventory and surveys of this report are intended to explain the methodology necessary to undertake a rehabilitation study. Every region and county in Ontario need not necessarily duplicate this work but can refine and adapt it to each situation. This report explains a basic and fundamental approach to the problem. Other counties or regions may choose to be more elaborate in the research and retain the services of outside consul tants.

This report is a prototype. The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo believe that the initiative for rehabilitating individual sites must come from the landowner and the decision to provide money from the Rehabilitation Fund must be made by the regional or county government. It is expected that the proposed Rehabilitation Fund can be used as an incentive by the county and regional govern ments to fully satisfy the objective of rehabilitating abandoned pits and quarries.

The following conclusions are intended to define an implementation program for the regional and county government, local municipalities and Ministry of Natural Resources. These suggestions can be realized mainly through new legislation to replace The Pits and Quarries Control Act. This would have to require the collection of money for the Provincial Rehabilitation Fund and allow the municipalities to make decisions on the ex penditure of this money.

21

(1) An inventory/classification study should be a pre requisite for every county and region before appli cations are entertained for funds to rehabilitate abandoned pits or quarries.

(2) This study of abandoned pits and quarries should be financed by the first year (or first sever al years) funds in the Provincial Rehabilitation Fund for each county or region.

(3) This study should be undertaken by the region or county, and provide the following data:(a) A detailed statement of the location, size and

condition of all abandoned sites in the study area.

(b) A classification system which provides some priority ranking of the sites based on high potential for community usefulness.

(c) The likelihood of rehabilitation without a financial contribution from the Rehabilitation Fund.

(d) Guidelines to the decision-making authority of other pertinent considerations in the wider regional and county community interest and on specific sites considered to have outstand ing potential value.

(e) Some assessment of budgets to be expended in any one year and how that meets the area problem. Also, over what time and how a program of rehabilitation should be imple mented.

(f) A policy to determine the share of the reha bilitation cost which is to be contributed by the owner and by the region or county coun cil from the Rehabilitation Fund.

(4) Public co-operation and participation would be encouraged in the rehabilitation program. Informa tion about funds available would be advertised in the local newspapers over local radio stations and disseminated by the regions, counties, local muni cipalities and the Ministry of Natural Resources. All institutional groups, private citizens and local municipalities should be encouraged to make application for funds to rehabilitate abandoned sites.

(5) Each application submitted to the region or county should be objective, fully documented with costs (the financial contribution of the land owner as well as the money requested from the Rehabilitation Fund), final land use plan and public benefits.

(6) The regional or county council should be identi fied as the decision making authority, ultimately deciding which sites should be rehabilitated, to whom the money should be paid and the amount of the financial contribution. The council would consult with the local municipalities before the decision is made and the abandoned pit or quarry

study would be available as the background data for decision-making. The Ministry of Natural Resources would earmark the money from the fund at the request of the regional or county council.

(7) A committee shall be established by the regional or county council to manage the abandoned pit or quarry rehabilitation program and to advise the council on each application. It is suggested that the permanent committee be comprised of re presentatives from:(a) regional or county staff,(b) Ministry of Natural Resources District staff,(c) technical member from the public domain,

for example, a university professor, a con sulting engineer or an industry person and

(d) local municipality staff to be added only when discussing an abandoned pit or quarry in that particular municipality.

The committee would determine how the rehabili tation was to be executed and the extent of the financial contribution. The committee would monitor the rehabilitation once it was completed.

The committee would be prepared to hear land owners who felt that their property was in fact not abandoned but which was identified in the study as abandoned. Similarly the committee would also be prepared to add abandoned sites which were previously omitted from the study.

(8) A complete file would be kept for each application and the decision made, including a statement of reasons for the decision. The file should be avail able for public scrutiny.

(9) The money in the Provincial Rehabilitation Fund for each county or region would continue to ac cumulate in the absence of acceptable applications until such time as the council judged the problem resolved. At this time a decision would have to be made by the Ministry of Natural Resources as to whether,a) the money should be paid into a general re

habilitation fund available to any region or county particularly where existing funds do not match the problem,

b) the money be given to the county or region for other uses,

c) the portion of the licence fee dedicated to the rehabilitation of abandoned pits and quarries cease to be collected.

(10) The study indicates that Recommendation 24 of the Ontario Mineral Aggregate Working Party re garding the establishment of the Provincial Reha bilitation Fund be implemented as stated in the above conclusions. It is less conclusive that Re commendation 25 of the Working Party, concerning

22

the repayment of rehabilitation costs be imple mented. In some cases, it may not be necessary to return the portion of public money. The study indicates that any financial assistance from the Rehabilitation Fund will likely be only a partial contribution to the rehabilitation program. The landowner is expected to contribute as well. It is also expected that rehabilitation will be a secondary benefit and that the landowner will incorporate this work as part of a broader objec tive in changing the land. The rehabilitation ob jective will be achieved and any subsequent sale of the land will unlikely result in the land re verting to a derelict or abandoned state. There is no reason for repayment of the financial con tribution in this case. However, in the situation where 10026 of the costs come from the Reha bilitation Fund a portion of the money should be repaid if the land is sold.

(11) It is also implied in this procedure that appli cants and municipalities will abide by the pro visions of The Planning Act when considering development proposals. It is recognized that official plans, secondary plans, zoning by-laws and building by-laws must be adhered to notwith standing the approval of an application for re habilitation funds.

23

APPENDIX l

SITE SURVEY

Site No.

reclaimed __

abandoned V

Lot

Owner

Con. IT Twp./City

ng Cork

Sketch - slopes S contours, water areas, vegetation, building, road

hillslop* l:t

\s'

Area acres.

IIUtah wav 4 0|

PlncJoash

-ri--li

licensed

24

1. Elevation of site to surrounding land:

above ___ comments: (view onto S from site)

level l/ ^ab^yg/t -Vm-e, (UX**u*^su*-g- \Sie*f

below S-t^e. is leo.si*q -fo took.

2. Availability of topsoil: yes no

comments: (how much Si quality) Or |A*LS

3. Drainage: \/ good, fair, poor

comments: (water bodies or standing water)

- no

4. Vegetation cover

comments: (weeds, shrubs , trees,)

5. Natural Amenities:

positive features (trees, etc.)

negative features: (garbage, odor, bare slopes)

faflu-e,

6. Surrounding landuses :

J

o

25

26

7. Proximity to utilities.

power lines

telephone lines

8. Distance from road O

What kind of road - paved _

dirt or gravel _

4 lane highway _

comments: on M J"* e^ b u 5 h

\ toui^ j\Av*s oj — i/^TW QLce.gsg.Uale.

9. Present use — abandoned

other:

10. Visibility from road tX yes ____ no

comment: \fgS~tA VVzUOl&s iLUStafcK-tf /TtbtfU^LOAje^-' P'' ————l———"————/ ^^—H———i—*^————— r

11. Is it a hazard?

12. Are there remaining reserves?

13. Subjective opinion of what it could be used for.

agriculture t/ industrial l/

housing V other ____

recreation

comments : ^(tJjjJ&uA \s i/KO^ Ut^C -fo

IS

bit Q-

14. Subsurface soils: type

15. Depth to bedrock:

_______ 0-3 ft., 3 - 7 ft. s? ft,

16. Proximity to urban area vn -Wvp CutU & C&fvJo H

17. Zoning: foxri

18. Is it in an urban development area?

_____ 1-5 years

_____ 5-10 years

_____ 10-20 years

comments:

19. Photograph:

v committed area

27

Code No.__________ Lot_______Cone. -—————

APPENDIX 2

SURVEY OF OWNER OF ABANDONED LAND

I am______________________________, doing research at the

University of Waterloo on land management and I am more specifically

interested in sand and gravel pits and their control.

Since there have been gravel operations on this property, I wonder

if you would be kind enough to answer some questions.

1. Are you the owner of this land?_____yes, ____no. If no, who is?

Name———————.——,^——————-———.—-—-————

Address

2. How long have you been living here?_____years, ____all my life.

3. What is your occupation?^———^———————-————————-^—^——————

4. What is the acreage of the old gravel pit?_______acres.

5. Were you living here when extraction took place? ___yes, ___no,

6. What was the land used for before?

7. How long ago was the pit excavated? _____years

8. Who excavated it?

9. For what purpose was the gravel used?

10. How much was extracted? (If you remember)

11. For what period of time was it used? ______________years.

12. Are you aware of any remaining gravel reserves? ______yes,

____no, ____ don't know.

If yes, do you plan to make use of it? ___yes, ___no.

28

13. How has the appearance of the pit changed over the years? (write verbatim) (probe: vegetation, erosion).

14. Has any use been made of the pit since extraction?(write verbatim) (probe: garbage, kids playing, storage,

wildlife habitat).

15. In its present state, is the pit seen as an ____ asset, _____ a liability, or ____ neither.

16. How much use do you have for that land in its present condition? _____ none, ____some, _____ very useful.

17. One simple way that I am using to assess the importance of land is to give it a dollar value. So, just as a comparison, if this land went up for sale, what would you sell it for? $________________, won't sell______________.

18. How well do you think the pit fits in with the rest of the landscape? _____ fits in well, _____ does not fit in too well, but can be

overlooked, _____ does not fit in.

19. Is there any other use the pit could serve?(write verbatim) (probe: agriculture, reforested, small park, put a building on it....) ________________________________

20. Have you ever considered reclaiming the pit? ____yes, ___no, (probe: grading, seeding, topsoil.....). If yes - just to clean it up _______

or for a specific after use _____________________ If for an after use, what is it? ________________________ Why was that use chosen? _______________________________

29

21. Why haven't you reclaimed?(write verbatim, then check one reason). _____financial (bad crop, high costs).

jDwner and tenant not the same person, too elderly, not interested.

22. If the government were to provide money for this purpose would you be interested in reclaiming the pit? ___yes, ___no.

a) If yes, how would you go about it? (write verbatim) (probe:would you work yourself or engage a contractor? If you needed it, where would you go for consultation? What would you estimate the costs to be? Would you need a zoning change? Do you think that would be a problem? What other problems would you

anticipate?) ,^——.—-—-——-————————————————-————————^—

b) Has anyone ever complained about the pit? ___yes, ___no.

Complaints: ———^—————————,—————-.——————^——i————.———————

23. Have you ever heard of The Pits and Quarries Control Act? ____yes, ____no.

24. Did you attend any public hearings of the Ontario MineralAggregate Working Party? __________________________________

25. Are there any further comments concerning abandoned gravel pits a) in the Region? b) your own pit?

30

After completion of questionnaire, immediately fill in the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Sex: male,

Approximate age:

Co-operativeness of

Prior awareness of dimly aware,

female

respondent:

problem:aware and

very,

never thoughtconcerned.

somewhat ,

about it,

not.

5. Is this a possible pit for rehabilitation? ___yes, ___no, _____can't tell.

6. Is owner likely to sell? ___yes, ___no, ___can't tell.

31

Code No.__________ Lot_____ Con.

APPENDIX 3

SURVEY OF OWNER OF REHABILITATION LAND

1. Are you the owner of this land? ____yes, ____no. If no, who is?

Name _________________________

Address

2. What is your occupation?

3. How long have you owned this property? _________ years,

4. What is the acreage of the old gravel pit? ______ acres.

5. Were you living here when extraction took place? ____yes, ____no.

6. What was the land used for before?

7. How long ago was the pit last used?________ years

8. Who excavated it?—————————^^^———————————..^^

9. For what purpose?^^_^^_^_^^_^____________^_^^^^_

10. Did anyone ever complain about the pit? ___yes, ___no,

Complaints ______________________________________

11. What is the pit being used for now?

12. Why did you decide on this use? ^^—

13. When did you decide to convert the land to this use?

32

14. Did you consult anyone about the project? Was it beneficial?

15. What were the planning stages? Problems

16. What actual physical work was involved? workequipment who did it

17. What problems, if any, did you encounter?

18. Do you feel it was profitable to rehabilitate? ___yes, ___no.

19. Is the land worth more now? ___yes, ___no, ___don't know.

20. If in agriculture, is the land up to the same level of production as it was before extraction? ___yes, ___no.

21. Should the government get involved in rehabilitation of abandoned pits? (stricter regulations or subsidies).

_____yes, ____no. -^————^———————^—^—^^—^—^————————If yes, what level of government _____Federal

_____Provincial_____Local

What type of involvement?__________^^_^^^_________^____^__

22. Do you feel that abandoned sand and gravel pits are a problem in this Region? ____yes, ____no.

23. Any further suggestions or comments? _____________________

33

Site Number

APPENDIX 4

SITE EVALUATION PROCESS

5 47 235

Present Use

Size (ha)

Drainage

Vegetation Cover (96)

Adjacent Landuse

Distance from road (km)

Visibility from road

Availability of topsoil

Proximity to utilities

Proximity to urban areas (km)

Remaining Reserves

Zoning

Time Development Zone

Settlement Pattern Policy Area

Scenic Road

Adjacent to Existing Recreation area

Agriculture Policy Area

Environmentally Sensitive Area

Grand Valley Trails

Conservation Area

Transportation Route

Sanitary Landfill Study

Regional Aggregate Policy Area

POTENTIAL USES:

Suggested Uses from Site Survey:

Result of Evaluation

commercial

1 6 (40 acres)

good

6007o

Ag., In.

0

very visible

none

available

1.6 (1 mile) Ayr

some

commercial

2001

E

No

No

A

near No.42

No

No

Primary

No

A

- versatile site - almost any use

ag, in, a. r.

abandoned

.1 (1/4 acre)

very good

SOP/o

Ag-

.4 0/4 mile)

not visible

some stockpiled

.4 km (V* mile)

4.8 (3 miles) Baden

yes

agriculture

rural

E

No

No

-

No

No

No

Secondary

Yes

B

- too small - grade # seed

s.l., a.r.

storage

1.6 (4 acres)

fair

1596

F.

.4 0/4 mile)

not visible

none

.4 km (Vi mile)

3 (2 miles) Blair

none

agriculture

2001

A

Yes

Yes

-

flood plain

Yes

No

Trunk

No

-

REC, EC, F

REC, ECSystem:

34

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahearn, V.P.1974: Land Use Planning and the Sand and Gravel Produ

cer, National Sand and Gravel Association, Silver Springs, Maryland, 47 pp.

Bauer, Anthony M.1965: Simultaneous Excavation and Rehabilitation of Sand

and Gravel Sites, University of Illinois and National Sand and Gravel Association, Silver Springs, Mary land, Research Project No. 1, 60 pp.

1970: A Guide to Site Development and Rehabilitation of Pits and Quarries, Ontario Department of Mines, Industrial Mining Report No. 33, 62 pp.

Belknap, R.K., Furtado, J.G., Forster, R.R. and Blossom, H.D. 1967: Three Approaches to Environmental Resource

Analysis, The Conservation Foundation, Washing ton, D.C.

Camin, K.Q. and Hardy, R.G.1969 to 1972: Mined Land Redevelopment; Southeast Kan

sas Portion of the Ozarks Region, Lawrence: Univer sity of Kansas, The Ozarks Regional Commission.

Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F.1966: The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 2nd edition,

University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 215 pp.

Civic Trust1964: Derelict Land, England, 66 pp.

Coates, W.E.1971: Rehabilitation, Aggregate Producers Association of

Ontario, Downsview, 8 pp.1974: "Operations and Rehabilitation Planning," Reha

bilitation Seminar, Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario, Toronto: May.

1975: "Can Surface Mining be Compatible with Urbaniza tion?" Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin Vol. 68, No. 763.

Collins, W.G. and Bush, P.W.1969: "The Definition and Classification of Derelict Land",

Journal of the Town Planning Institute, 55, No. 3,March, pp. 111-115.

1969: "An Air-photo Key for Derelict Land Studies,Journal of the Town Planning Institute, 55, No. 6,June, pp. 246-255.

Cowan, W.R.1976: "Recommendations for Sand and Gravel Extraction

Areas, North DumfriesTownship, Waterloo County," Ontario Division of Mines, Geological Branch, Open File Report 5207, Toronto.

Cox, K.W.1973: "Preferred Rural Recreational Landscape in the

Counties of Waterloo-South Wellington," Unpublish ed Masters Thesis, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo.

Glover, C.H.1957: "Restoration of Derelict Mineral Land,

the Town Planning Institute, January.Journal of

Gold, Seymour M.1972: "Environmental Planning: A Professional Challenge,"

Parks and Recreation, 7, June, p. 23.

Jensen, D.R.1967: Selecting Land Use for Sand and Gravel Sites, Uni

versity of Illinois and National Sand and Gravel Association, Silver Spring, Maryland, Research Pro ject No. 3, 66 pp.

Johnson, Craig1966: Practical Operating Procedures for Progressive Re

habilitation of Sand and Gravel Sites, University of Illinois and National Sand and Gravel Association, Silver Spring, Maryland, Research Project No. 2, 75pp.

McHarg, lan L.1 969: Design with Nature, Garden City, New York, Natural

History Press.

McLellan, A.G.1973: "Derelict Land in Ontario Environmental Crime or

Economic Shortsightedness?" Bulletin of the Conser vation Council of Ontario, No. 20, pp. 9-14.

1974: "Aggregate Production Today Quarry Rehabilita tion The Case for Legislative and Industry Action," Engineering and Contract Record, Vol. 87, No. 5, pp. 63-65,85,93.

1975: "The Aggregate Dilemma the Conflicts of Public Sentiment and Industrial Conscience in Canada," Bulletin of the Conservation Council of Ontario, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 12-20.

McLellan, A.G. and Bryant, C.R.1973: "The Aggregate Resources of Waterloo-Wellington

Counties: Towards Effective Planning for the Ag gregate Industry," Ontario Division of Mines, Geo logical Branch, Open File Report 5100, Toronto.

Mulamoottil, G. and Farvolden, R.1975: "Planning for the Rehabilitation of Gravel Pits,"

Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Re sources Association, Vol. 11, No. 3, June, pp. 599-604.

National Sand and Gravel Association1961: Case Histories: Rehabilitation of Worked Out Sand

and Gravel Deposits, Silver Spring, Maryland, 42 pp.

Newcastle Upon Tyne, University of1971: Landscape Reclamation, IPC Business Press Limited,

Surrey.

Ministry of Natural Resources1975: Vegetation for the Rehabilitation of Pits and Quar

ries, Forest Management Branch, Division of Forests, Toronto, 38 pp.

Ontario Mineral Aggregate Working Party1977: A Policy for Mineral Aggregate Resource Manage

ment in Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto.

Ontario, Province of1972: The Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971. SO, 1971,

Chapter 96, Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto, May 1976.

1976: Agriculture Code of Practice, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, in conjuncton with Ministry of the Envi ronment, Ministry of Housing, Toronto, 42 pp.

1977: Green Paper on Planning for Agriculture; Foodland Guidelines, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, To ronto, 8 pp.

Oxenham, J.R.1966: Reclaiming Derelict Land, Faber and Faber, Ltd.,

London, 1 34 pp.

Pickels, George1970: Realizing the Recreational Potential of Sand and

Gravel Sites, University of Illinois and National Sand and Gravel Association, Silver Spring, Maryland, Research Project No. 5, 48 pp.

Presant, E.W. and Wicklund, R.E.1971: Soils of Waterloo County, Ontario Soil Survey Re

port No. 44, Canada Department of Agriculture, Research Branch, 104 pp.

Schellie, K.L. and Rogier, D.A.1963: Site Utilization and Rehabilitation Practices for

Sand and Gravel Operations, National Sand and Gravel Association, Silver Spring, Maryland, 80 pp.

Sears, P. 1956: "The Process of Environmental Change by Man,"

Man's Role in Chaning the Face of the Earth, edited by W.L. Thomas, Jr., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 472 pp.

Smith, M.1959: "The Survey of Derelict Land," Journal of the

Town Planning Institute, January, pp. 34-41.

Waterloo, Regional Municipality of1 976: Regional Official Policies Plan, Waterloo.1977: Report to the Planning and Development Com

mittee, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, on Industrial, Residential Land Need and Supply Study, Department of Planning and Develop ment, Waterloo.

1977: Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Study, De partment of Planning and Development, Waterloo.

Wallwork, K.L.1973: Derelict Land: Origins and Prospects of a Land-

Use Problem, David and Charles Inc., North Pom- fret, Vermont.

Wood, N.P.1977: "The Suitability of Abandoned Sand and Gravel

Pits for Residential Development and Recreational Development in the Township of North Dumfries: A Feasibility Study" Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo.

36

IS

^.1

FIGURE 2

THE STATUS OF PITS AND QUARRIES IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO:

LICENSED, ABANDONED, RECLAIMED AND REHABILITATED

3 Miles

URBAN DEVELOPMENT TIME ZONES

Built-up {Committed)

PIT AND QUARRY* CLASSIFICATION

Reclaimed ;

Rehabilitated

Abandoned

Licensed

*No quarries are found in this area.

Source: Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Department of Planning and Development. March 1, 1978

your use of this ontario geological survey document (the ...€¦ · content: this content is...

Documents