The Rural Voice, 1983-09, Page 8GETTING THE GRAVEL
IN GREY COUNTY
by Mary Lou Weiser
There's gravel in Grey county. So much
of it in fact that if proposed plans for ag-
gregate extraction are carried through,
20,000 acres of land would be swallowed
up by gravel and sand pits within the next
two to three decades.
The proposed area of extraction is con-
centrated in the south part of Grey county
in the townships of Glenelg and Bentick,
and, to a lesser extent, parts of Egremont
and Normanby townships and surroun-
ding areas.
A plan of such magnitude is bound to
licensed resources in the London area
would be depleted by the early 1990's, and
in the Toronto area around the year 2,000
if no new licences were issued.
An uncertain aggregate source for the
future prompted the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources to take a look at viable
alternatives. One alternative was the
transport of aggregate from remote
sources, such as Grey county, where there
would be less disruption to residents. The
Mineral Aggregate Transportation Study
was commissioned by the Ministry to
determine the most effective method of
Many people do not foresee the projected requirement
for aggregate, particularly with the slow economic growth
we have been experiencing. Large scale extraction would
have an impact on agriculture, conservation and tourism.
But some say "it's not what's done, but how it's done."
have a strong impact on the future of Grey
county. Since being introduced it has met
with varied reactions ranging from total
opposition to a 'I'll believe it when I see it'
attitude. The South Grey Aggregate Ac-
tion Group was formed three years ago to
voice the opinions of concerned citizens
who don't want to see south Grey turned
into one big gravel pit.
Few people will argue with the impor-
tance of aggregate in today's society.
However, no one wants the aggravation of
having to put up with noise and dust from
gravel trucks, or the eye sore of a gaping
hole in the ground, not to mention the loss
of agricultural land. Aggregates (including
sand, gravel and limestone) are essential
in the construction industry and
estimates indicate that one job in ten in
Ontario depends directly or indirectly on
their availability. Demand is highest in the
four large urban area of Toronto, London,
Sarnia and Windsor, which consume more
than one-third of the total mineral ag-
gregate volume produced in Ontario. The
Toronto and London areas have substan-
tial high quality aggregate resources to
last for several decades with major
deposits in the regional municipalities of
Durham, York, Peel and Halton. Strong op-
position to aggregate extraction by
residents in large urban areas has meant
that very few new licences are being
issued to open pits or quarries. Existing
transportation of aggregate out of Grey to
the Toronto area.
The study has considered the possibili-
ty of having a main aggregate terminal
located at Durham, with trucks hauling
gravel and sand along a designated route
to another collecting terminal at Bramp-
ton. The present highway system would
not be adequate with a projected
withdrawal of forty million tonnes of ag-
gregate yearly. A new freeway, solely for
the purpose of aggregate transport, would
be necessary to accommodate the four
thousand trucks required annually. Each
truck would carry 35 tonnes of aggregate,
and, it is estimated that there would be
1,440 trucks travelling both ways during
peak hours or one truck every 2'/2
seconds. The new freeway carries an
estimated price tag of about $320 million,
the bulk of which would be paid for in-
directly by truckers through Ontario fuel
taxes.
An alternative to truck transport which
is very expensive would be rail transport.
Unit trains using present rails would con-
sist of four diesel locomotives and eighty
cars. Twenty-four trains would be required
in each direction and each train would
carry 7,230 tonne of aggregate. The distur-
bance to communities where the rail
system passes through would be tremen-
dous, thus prompting the study to con-
sider relocating parts of the CP lines from
Durham to Brampton to bypass com-
PG. 6 THE RURAL VOICE, SEPTEMBER 1983
munities and also to double track its en-
tire length.
The transportation study drew several
major conclusions that could have a
strong bearing on South Grey's future.
Firstly, long distant transportation of
mineral would substantially increase the
price of the delivered products by at least
50 per cent. Secondly, the impacts of ag-
gregate production sites on agricultural
land and on the natural environment
would not be reduced significantly by
moving production further away from the
populated centres. Thirdly, the number of
local residents affected by the extraction
and transportation would be smaller in a
remote resource area, but the impact on
the communities may not be less because
of the concentrated nature of the opera-
tions.
With such a concentrated plan for ag-
gregate extraction, required land in Grey
county would probably have to be ex-
propriated. The Grey -Owen Sound official
plan has a set of guidelines to determine
what land can or cannot be used for ag-
gregate extraction. A map has been for-
mulated by geologists with the Ministry of
Natural Resources, outlining where ag-
gregate resources are located. This map
is presently only an appendix to the of-
fical plan but the South Grey Aggregate
Action Group is afraid that if it is allowed
to be included as part of the plan, it will
give the government full jurisdiction to ex-
propriate without consulation from the
municipal planning board. SCAAG public
relations officer, Chris Dickman, says that
his group is not objecting to wayside pits
at a local level to meet county needs.
However, the group is afraid that Grey
county may become another Uxbridge
with huge pits 60 feet deep that have been
mined out and are not being rehabilitated.
Grey county Pits and Quarries Inspector,
Don Drysdale, says that there is more of
an incentive for aggregate companies to
rehabilitate now than in the past. A com-
pulsory 8 cents per tonne check -off goes
into a security deposit which is held by
the government. Aggregate companies
submit their cost of rehabilitation bills to
the Ministry of Natural Resources and are
then reimbursed when the rehabilitation
has been completed and inspected. An ag-
gregate company must follow certain
guidelines when applying for a license to
operate a pit and must follow them
through. A plan must be submitted in
three parts showing the existing condi-
tions and land formations, the phasing
operation (actual pit usage) and the pro-
posed rehabilitation.
Dickman feels that aggregate com-
panies don't have much