arip170 - aggregate resources inventory of the east half ...€¦ · e queen’s printer for...

Aggregate Resources Inventory of the

The East Half of the RegionalMunicipality of Sudbury

Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 170

1998

Aggregate Resources Inventory of the

The East Half of the RegionalMunicipality of Sudbury

Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 170

By D.J. Rowell

1998

ii

E Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1998 ISSN 0708--2061ISBN 0--7778--7402--4

All publications of the Ontario Geological Survey and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines areavailable for viewing at the following locations:

Mines and Minerals Information Centre Mines Library900 Bay Street, Room M2-17 933 Ramsey Lake Road, Level A3Toronto, Ontario M7A 1C3 Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5Telephone: 1-800-665-4480 (within Ontario) Telephone: (705) 670--5614

(416) 314-3800Fax: (416) 314-3797

Purchases may be made only through:

Publication Sales933 Ramsey Lake Road, Level A--3Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5Telephone: (705) 670-5691Fax: (705) 670-5770

1-888-415-9847(toll-free)E-mail: [email protected]

Use ofVisa orMastercard ensures the fastest possible service. Cheques ormoney orders should bemade payable tothe Minister of Finance.

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Main entry under title:

Rowell, D.J.Aggregate resources inventory of the east half of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury

(Ontario Geological Survey aggregate resources inventory paper, ISSN 0708-2061; 170)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-7778-7402-4

1. Aggregates (Building materials) — Ontario — Sudbury (Regional municipality).I. Ontario Geological Survey. II Ontario. Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. III. Title IV. Series.

TN939.R68 1998 553.6’2’09713133 C98-964017-5

Every possible effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this report, but the Ministry ofNorthern Development and Mines does not assume any liability for errors that may occur. Source references areincluded in the report and users may wish to verify critical information.

If youwish to reproduce any of the text, tables or illustrations in this report, please write for permission to the TeamLeader, Publication Services, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, 933 Ramsey Lake Road, Level B4,Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5.

Cette publication est disponible en anglais seulement.

Parts of this publicationmay be quoted if credit is given. It is recommended that reference bemade in the followingform:

Rowell, D.J. 1998. Aggregate resources inventory of the east half of theRegionalMunicipality of Sudbury;OntarioGeological Survey, Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 170, 64p.

iii

Contents

Abstract v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part I -- Inventory Methods 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Field and Office Methods 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Tonnage Calculation Techniques 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sand and Gravel Resources 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bedrock Resources 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Units and Definitions 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part II -- Data Presentation and Interpretation 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Map 1: Sand and Gravel Resources 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deposit Symbol 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Texture Symbol 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Site Specific Criteria 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deposit Size 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aggregate Quality 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Location and Setting 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regional Considerations 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Map 2: Bedrock Resources 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selection Criteria 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Resource Areas 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part III -- Assessment of Aggregate Resources in the east half of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury 10. . . . . .Location and Population 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surficial Geology and Physiography 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sand and Gravel Extractive Activity 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 6 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Secondary Sand and Gravel Resources 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tertiary Sand and Gravel Resources 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bedrock Geology 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bedrock Suitability 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References 47. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A -- References and Suggested Additional Reading 48. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix B -- Glossary 49. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix C -- Geology of Sand and Gravel Deposits 52. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix D -- Geology of Bedrock Deposits 54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix E -- Aggregate Quality Test Specifications 62. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHARTSChart A -- Area and Population 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Chart B -- Extractive Activity 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLES1. Total Sand and Gravel Resources, Regional Municipality of Sudbury 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Sand and Gravel Pits, Regional Municipality of Sudbury 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, Regional Municipality of Sudbury 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Total Identified Bedrock Resources, Regional Municipality of Sudbury 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Quarries, Regional Municipality of Sudbury 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Selected Bedrock Resource Areas, Regional Municipality of Sudbury 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Summary of Test Hole Data, Regional Municipality of Sudbury 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Summary of Geophysical Data, Regional Municipality of Sudbury 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Aggregate Quality Test Data, Regional Municipality of Sudbury 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURES1. Key map showing the location of the study area v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2A--5B Aggregate Grading Curves, Regional Municipality of Sudbury 39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GEOLOGICAL MAPS (back pocket)1A. Sand and Gravel Resources, Regional Municipality of Sudbury, North Sheet Scale 1:50 000

1B. Sand and Gravel Resources, Regional Municipality of Sudbury, South Sheet, Scale 1:50 000

v

Abstract

This report includes an inventory and evaluation ofthe sand and gravel resources for the east half of the Re-gionalMunicipality of Sudbury. It is basedon a detailedfield assessment undertaken in the summer of 1997 andon previous studies of the area. The investigation wasconducted to delineate and determine the quality andquantity of aggregate within the area to help ensure thatsufficient aggregate resources are available for futureuse. The report is part of the Aggregate Resources In-ventory Program for areas designated under the Aggre-gate Resources Act (ARA).

In general, the north half of the study area has largeresources of aggregate material. Seven Selected SandandGravel ResourceAreas, occupying5972 ha, containa possible aggregate resource of 552.5 million tonnes.These resources are found in large ice-contact, glacio-fluvial outwash and glaciolacustrine delta deposits. Thesouth half of the study area has relatively few resourcesof aggregate material. Only a few ice-contact and out-wash deposits, selected at the secondary level, are pres-ent. These deposits can supply local demand only.

Thorough testing of all potential aggregate material tobe used in Portland cement concrete should be under-taken because of an alkali-silica reactivity problemwiththe aggregate in this area. Argillite and greywackeclasts derived fromHuronian rocks are the source of thisconcern.

Precambrian bedrock has the potential to supplylarge quantities of aggregate material. Bedrock is ex-posed throughout the Sudbury area and some of thisbedrock meets the specifications for high value prod-ucts. Thorough testing of the bedrock should be com-pleted before quarry development is undertaken.

Selected Resource Areas are not intended to bepermanent, single land use units which must be in-corporated in an official planning document. Theyrepresent areas in which a major resource is knownto exist. Such resource areasmay be reservedwhollyor partially for extractive development and/or re-source protection within the context of the officialplan.

Figure 1. Key map showing the location of the study area. Scale 1:800 000.

Aggregate Resources Inventory ofthe East Half of the Regional Municipality ofSudbury

By D. J. Rowell

Project Supervisor: C. L. Baker; fieldwork and report by D. J. Rowell; compilation and drafting by Staff of theSedimentary Geoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey. Assistance with review provided by the ResidentGeologist, Ministry of Northern Development andMines, Sudbury, Ontario; the Soils and Aggregate Section, On-tario Ministry of Transportation, Downsview, Ontario; and the Mineral Resources Staff, Sudbury District Office,Ministry of Natural Resources, Sudbury, Ontario.

Manuscript accepted for publication by, and published with the permission of, C.L. Baker, Senior Manager, Sedi-mentary Geoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey, 1998.

3

Introduction

Mineral aggregates, which include bedrock-de-rived crushed stone aswell as naturally formed sand andgravel, constitute the major raw material in Ontario’sroad building and construction industries. Very largeamounts of these materials are used each year through-out the Province. For example, in 1995, the total ton-nage ofmineral aggregates extracted inOntariowas130million tonnes, greater than that of any other metallic ornonmetallic commoditymined in the Province (OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources 1995).

Although mineral aggregate deposits are plentifulin Ontario, they are fixed-location, non-renewable re-sources which can be exploited only in those areaswhere they occur. Mineral aggregates are characterizedby their highbulk and lowunit value so that the econom-ic value of a deposit is a function of its proximity to amarket area aswell as its quality and size. The potentialfor extractive development is usually greatest in areaswhere land use competition is extreme. For these rea-sons the availability of adequate resources for future de-velopment is now being threatened inmany areas, espe-cially urban areas where demand is the greatest.

Comprehensive planning and resource manage-ment strategies are required to make the best use ofavailable resources, especially in those areas experienc-ing rapid development. Unfortunately, in some cases,

the best aggregate resources are found in or near areasofenvironmental sensitivity, resulting in the requirementto balance the need for the different natural resources.Therefore, planning strategiesmust be based on a soundknowledge of the total mineral aggregate resource baseat both local and regional levels. The purpose of theAg-gregate Resources Inventory Program is to provide thebasic geological information required to include poten-tial mineral aggregate resource areas in planning strate-gies. The reports should form the basis for discussiononthose areas best suited for possible extraction. The aimis to assist decision-makers in protecting the publicwell-being by ensuring that adequate resources of min-eral aggregate remain available for future use.

This report is a technical backgrounddocument,based for the most part on geological informationand interpretation. It has been designed as a compo-nent of the total planning process and should be usedinconjunctionwith otherplanning considerations, toensure the best use of an area’s resources.

The report includes an assessment of sand andgrav-el resources as well as a discussion on the potential forbedrock-derived aggregate. The most recent informa-tion available has been used to prepare the report. Asnew information becomes available, revisions may benecessary.

4

Part I – Inventory Methods

FIELD AND OFFICE METHODSThe methods used to prepare the report involved

the interpretation of published geological data such asbedrock and surficial geology maps and reports (seeReferences), aswell as field examination of possible re-source areas. Field methods included the examinationof natural and man-made exposures of granular materi-al. Most observations were made at quarries and sandand gravel pits located from records held by the OntarioMinistry of Transportation (MTO), the OntarioGeolog-ical Survey (OGS), and by Regional, District and AreaOffices of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources(MNR). Observations made at pit sites included esti-mates of the total face height and the proportion of grav-el- and sand-sized materials in the deposit. Observa-tions regarding the shape and lithology of the particleswere also made. These characteristics are important inestimating the quality and quantity of the aggregate. Inareas of limited exposure, subsurface materials may beassessed by hand augering and test pitting.

Depositswith potential for further extractive devel-opment or those where existing data are scarce, werestudied in greater detail. Representative sections inthese depositswere evaluated by taking11 to 45 kg sam-ples from existing pit faces or from test pits. The sam-ples were tested for grain size distribution, and in somecases the Los Angeles abrasion and impact test, absorp-tion, Magnesium Sulphate soundness test and petro-graphic analyses are carried out. Analyses were per-formed in the laboratories of the Ontario Ministry ofTransportation.

The field data were supplemented by pit informa-tion on file with the Geotechnical Section of the OntarioMinistry of Transportation. Data contained in thesefiles includes field estimates of the depth, compositionand “workability” of deposits, as well as laboratoryanalyses of the physical properties and suitability of theaggregate. Information concerning the developmenthistory of the pit and acceptable uses of the aggregate isalso recorded. The locations of additional sources wereobtained from records held by Regional, District andArea Offices of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Re-sources. In addition, reports on geological testing fortype, quantity and quality of aggregates were also ob-tained fromnumerous aggregate licence applicationsonfile with the MNR, and with specific individuals andcompanies. The cooperation of the above-namedgroups in the compilation of inventory data is gratefullyacknowledged.

Aerial photographs at various scales are used to de-termine the continuity of deposits, especially in areaswhere information is limited. Water well records, heldby the OntarioMinistry of the Environment and Energy,were used in some areas to corroborate deposit thick-ness estimates or to indicate the presence of buried gran-

ular material. These records were used in conjunctionwith other evidence.

Ontario Base Maps (OBMs), produced by theMin-istry of Natural Resources at a scale of 1:20 000, wereused as a compilation base for the field and office data.The informationwas then assembled for publication at ascale of 1:50 000.

RESOURCE TONNAGECALCULATION TECHNIQUES

SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCESOnce the interpretative boundaries of the aggregate

units have been established, quantitative estimates ofthe possible resources available can be made. General-ly, the volume of a deposit can be calculated if its arealextent and average thickness are known or can be esti-mated. The computation methods used are as follows.First, the area of the deposit, as outlined on the final basemap, is calculated in hectares (ha). The thickness val-ues used are an approximation of the deposit thickness,basedon the face heights of pits developed in the depositor on subsurface data such as test holes and water wellrecords. Tonnage values can then be calculated bymul-tiplying the volume of the deposit by 17700 (the densityfactor). This factor is approximately the number oftonnes in a 1 m thick layer of sand and gravel, 1 ha inextent, assuming an average density of 1770 kg/m3.

Tonnage = Area x Thickness x Density Factor

Tonnage calculated in this manner must be consideredonly as an estimate. Furthermore, such tonnages repre-sent amounts that existed prior to any extraction of ma-terial (i.e., original tonnage) (Table 1, Column 4).

The Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas inTable 3 are calculated in the following way. Twosuccessive subtractions are made from the total area.Column 3 accounts for the number of hectares unavail-able because of the presence of permanent cultural fea-tures and their associated setback requirements. Col-umn 4 accounts for those areas that have previouslybeen extracted (e.g., wayside, unlicenced and aban-donedpits are included in this category). The remainingfigure is the area of the deposit currently available forextraction (Column 5). The available area is thenmulti-plied by the estimated deposit thickness and the densityfactor (Column 5 x Column 6 x 17 700), to give an esti-mate of the sand and gravel tonnage (Column 7) possi-bly available for extractive development and/or re-source protection. It should be noted however, that re-cent studies (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources1993) have shown that anywhere from 15 to 80% of thislast figure in any resource area may be furtherconstrained or not accessible because of such things as

Regional Municipility of Sudbury

5

environmental considerations (e.g., floodplains, envi-ronmentally sensitive areas), lackof landowner interest,resident opposition or other matters.

Resource estimates are calculated for deposits ofprimary significance. Resource estimates for depositsof secondary and tertiary significance are not calculatedin Table 3, however, the aggregate potential of these de-posits is discussed in the report.

BEDROCK RESOURCES

Themethod used to calculate resources of bedrock-derived aggregate is much the same as that describedabove. The areal extent of bedrock formations overlainby less than 15mof unconsolidated overburden is deter-mined from bedrock geology maps, drift thickness andbedrock topography maps, and from the interpretationof water well records (Table 4). The measured extent ofsuch areas is thenmultiplied by the estimatedquarriablethicknessof the formation, basedon stratigraphic analy-ses and on estimates of existing quarry faces in the unit.In some cases a standardized estimate of 18m is used forthickness. Volume estimates are then multiplied by the

density factor (the estimated weight in tonnes of a 1 mthick section of rock, 1 ha in extent).

Resources of limestone and dolostone are calcu-lated using a density factor of 2649 kg/m3, sandstone re-sources are calculated using a density estimate of 2344kg/m3, and shale resources are calculated with a factorof 2408 kg/m3 (Telford, Geldart, Sheriff and Keys1980).

UNITS AND DEFINITIONSThe measurements and other primary data avail-

able for resource tonnage calculations are given inMet-ric units in the text and on the tables which accompanythe report. Data are generally roundedoff in accordancewith the Ontario Metric Practices Guide (Ontario Inter-ministerial Committee onNational Standards andSpec-ifications 1975).

The tonnage estimatesmade for sand and gravel de-posits are termed possible resources (see Glossary, Ap-pendix B) in accordance with terminology of the Ontar-io Resource Classification Scheme (Robertson 1975,p.7) and with the Association of Professional Engineersof Ontario (1976).

6

Part II – Data Presentation and Interpretation

Twomaps, each portraying a different aspect of theaggregate resources in the report area, accompany thereport. Map 1, “Sand and Gravel Resources”, gives acomprehensive inventory and evaluation of the sandand gravel resources in the report area. Map 2, “Bed-rock Resources”, shows the distribution of bedrockformations, the thickness of overlying unconsolidatedsediments and identifies the SelectedBedrockResourceAreas.

MAP 1: SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCES

Map 1 shows the extent and quality of sand andgravel deposits within the study area and an evaluationof the aggregate resources. The map is derived from ex-isting surficial geology maps of the area or from aerialphotograph interpretation in areas where surficial map-ping is incomplete.

The present level of extractive activity is also indi-cated on Map 1. Those areas which are licenced for ex-traction under the Aggregate Resources Act are shownby a solid outline and identified by a number which re-fers to the pit descriptions in Table 2. Each descriptionnotes the owner/operator and licenced hectarage of thepit, as well as the estimated face height and percentagegravel. A number of unlicenced pits (abandoned pits orpits operating on demand under authority of a waysidepermit) are identified by a numbered dot on Map 1 anddescribed in Table 2. Similarly, test hole locations ap-pear on Map 1 as a point symbol and are described inTable 7.

Map 1 also presents a summary of available infor-mation related to the quality of aggregate contained inall the known aggregate deposits in the study area.Much of this information is contained in the symbolswhich are found on the map. The Deposit Symbol ap-pears for each mapped deposit and summarizes impor-tant genetic and textural data. The Texture Symbol is acircular proportional diagram which displays the grainsize distribution of the aggregate in areas where bulksamples were taken.

DEPOSIT SYMBOLThe Deposit Symbol is similar to those used in soil

mapping and land classification systems commonly inuse in North America. The components of the symbolindicate the gravel content, thickness of material, origin(type) and quality limitations for every deposit shownon Map 1.

The “gravel content” and “thickness class” are ba-sic criteria for distinguishing different deposits. The“gravel content” symbol is an upper case “S” or “G”.The “S” indicates that the deposit is generally “sandy”and that gravel-sized aggregate (greater than 4.75 mm)

makes up less than 35% of the whole deposit. “G” indi-cates that the deposit contains more than 35% gravel.

The “thickness class” indicates a depth rangewhichis related to the potential resource tonnage for each de-posit. Four thickness class divisions have been estab-lished as shown in the legend for Map 1.

Two smaller sets of letters, divided from each otherby a horizontal line, follow the thickness class number.The upper series of letters identifies the geologic depos-it type (the types are summarized with respect to theirmain geologic and extractive characteristics in Appen-dix C), and the lower series of letters identifies themainquality limitations that may be present in the deposit asdiscussed in the next section.

G 2 OWC

Gravel Content Geological Type

QualityThickness Class

For example, the above symbol identifies an out-wash deposit 3 to 6 m thick containing more than 35%gravel. Excess silt and clay may limit uses of the aggre-gate in the deposit.

TEXTURE SYMBOLThe Texture Symbol provides a more detailed as-

sessment of the grain size distribution of materialsampled during field study. These symbols are derivedfrom the information plotted on the aggregate gradingcurves found in the report. The relative amounts ofgravel, sand, and silt and clay in the sampled materialare shown graphically in theTexture Symbol by the sub-division of a circle into proportional segments. The fol-lowing example shows a hypothetical sample consistingof 30% gravel, 60% sand and 10% silt and clay.

Selected Sand and GravelResource Areas

All the Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areasare first delineated by geological boundaries and thenclassified into 3 levels of significance: primary, secon-dary and tertiary. Each area of primary significance isgiven a deposit number and all such deposits are shownby dark shading on Map 1.

Selected Sand andGravel ResourceAreas ofpri-mary significance are not permanent, single landuse

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

7

units. They represent areas in which a major re-source is known to exist, andmay be reservedwhollyor partially for extractive development and/or re-source protection. This protection is now included inmany of the recently approved local and Regional/County Official Plans wherein primary, and in somecases resourcesof secondary significance, are identifiedand protected in the Official Plan.

Deposits of secondary significance are indicated bymedium shading on Map 1. Such deposits are believedto contain significant amounts of sand and gravel. Al-though deposits of secondary significance are not con-sidered to be the “best” resources in the report area, theymay contain large quantities of sand and gravel andshould be considered as part of the aggregate supply ofthe area.

Areas of tertiary significance are indicated by lightshading. They are not considered to be important re-source areas because of their low available resources, orbecause of possible difficulties in extraction. Suchareasmay be useful for local needs or extraction under awayside permit but are unlikely to support large-scaledevelopment.

The process by which deposits are evaluated andselected involves the consideration of 2 sets of criteria.The main selection criteria are site specific, related tothe characteristics of individual deposits. Factors suchas deposit size, aggregate quality, and deposit locationand setting are considered in the selection of those de-posits best suited for extractive development. A secondset of criteria involves the assessment of local aggregateresources in relation to the quality, quantity and dis-tribution of resources in the region in which the reportarea is located. The intent of such a process of evalua-tion is to ensure the continuing availability of sufficientresources to meet possible future demands.

SITE SPECIFIC CRITERIA

Deposit SizeIdeally, selected deposits should contain available

sand and gravel resources large enough to support acommercial pit operation using a stationary or portableprocessing plant. In practice, much smaller depositsmay be of significant value depending on the overall re-sources in the rest of the project area. Generally, depos-its in Class 1 (greater than 6 m thick), and containingmore than 35%gravel are considered to be most favour-able for commercial development. Thinner depositsmay be valuable in areas with low total resources.

Aggregate QualityThe limitations of natural aggregates for various

uses result from variations in the lithology of the par-ticles comprising the deposit, and from variations in thesize distribution of these particles.

Four indicators of the quality of aggregate may beincluded in the deposit symbols. They are: gravel con-tent (G or S), fines (C), oversize (O) and lithology (L).

Three of the quality indicators deal with grain sizedistribution. The gravel content (G or S) indicates thesuitability of aggregate for various uses. Deposits con-taining at least 35% gravel in addition to a minimum of20%material greater than the 26.5mmsieve are consid-ered to be themost favourable extractive sites, since thiscontent is the minimum from which crushed productscan be economically produced.

Excess fines (high silt and clay content) may se-verely limit the potential use of a deposit. Fines contentin excess of 10%may impede drainage in road subbaseaggregate and render it more susceptible to the effects offrost action. In asphalt aggregate, excess fines hinderthe bonding of particles. Deposits known to have a highfines content are indicated by a “C” in the quality por-tion of the Deposit Symbol.

Deposits containing more than 20% oversizemate-rial (greater than 10 cm in diameter) may also have uselimitations. The oversize component is unacceptablefor uncrushed road base, so it must be either crushed orremoved during processing. Deposits known to have anappreciable oversize component are indicated by an“O” in the quality portion of the Deposit Symbol.

Another indicator of the quality of an aggregate islithology. Just as the unique physical and chemicalproperties of bedrock types determine their value foruse as crushed rock, so do various lithologies of par-ticles in a sand and gravel deposit determine its suitabil-ity for various uses. The presence of objectionablelithologies such as chert, siltstone and shale, even in rel-atively small amounts, can result in a reduction in thequality of an aggregate, especially for high quality usessuch as concrete and asphalt. Similarly, highly weath-ered, very porous and friable rock can restrict the quali-ty of an aggregate. Deposits known to contain objec-tionable lithologies are indicated by an “L” in the quali-ty component of the Deposit Symbol.

If the Deposit Symbol shows either “C”, “O”, or“L”, or any combination of these indicators, the qualityof the deposit is considered to be reduced for some ag-gregate uses. No attempt ismade to quantify the degreeof limitation imposed. Assessment of the 4 indicators ismade from published data, from data contained in filesof both the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO)and the Sedimentary Geoscience Section of the OntarioGeological Survey, and from field observations.

Quality data may also appear in Table 9, where theresults of MTO quality tests are listed by test type andsample location. The types of tests conducted and thetest specifications are explained inAppendixesB andE,respectively.

Analyses of unprocessed samples obtained fromtest holes, pits or sample sites are plotted on grain sizedistribution graphs. On the graphs are the OntarioMin-istry of Transportation’s gradation specification enve-lopes for aggregate products: Granular A and Granular

ARIP 170

8

BType 1; Hot-LaidAsphaltic SandNos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8;and concrete sand. By plotting the gradation curveswith respect to the specification envelopes, it can be de-termined how well the unprocessed sampled materialmeets the criteria for eachproduct. These graphs, calledAggregate Grading Curves, follow the tables in the re-port.

Location and Setting

The location and setting of a resource area has a di-rect influence on its value for possible extraction. Theevaluation of a deposit’s setting is made on the basis ofnatural, environmental and man-made features whichmay limit or prohibit extractive development.

First, the physical context of the deposit is consid-ered. Deposits with some physical constraint on extrac-tive development, such as thick overburden or high wa-ter table, are less valuable resource areas because of thedifficulties involved in resource recovery. Second, per-manent man-made features, such as roads, railways,power lines and housing developments, which are builton a deposit, may prohibit its extraction. The constrain-ing effect of legally required setbacks surrounding suchfeatures is included in the evaluation. A quantitative as-sessment of these constraints can be made by measure-ment of their areal extent directly from the topographicmaps. The area renderedunavailable by these features isshown for each resource area in Table 3 (Column 3).

In addition to man-made and cultural features, cer-tain natural features, such as provincially significantwetlands, may prove to be contraints. In this report suchconstraints have not been outlined and the reader is ad-vised to consult with municipal planning staff and thelocal office of the MNR for information on these mat-ters. Depending on the number and type of constraints,anywhere from a minimum of 15 to 85%of an individu-al licence or resource area can become inaccessiblewhen these or other specific local constraints are con-sidered (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1993).

The assessment of sand and gravel depositswith re-spect to local land use and to private land ownership isan important component of the general evaluation pro-cess. Since the approval under the Planning Act of theMineral Aggregate Resource Policy Statement(MARPS) in the mid 1980s and the Comprehensive Setof Policy Statements, including MARPS, in March1995, many of the more recently approved local and re-gional Official Plans now contain detailed policies re-garding the location and operation of aggregate extrac-tion activity and should be consulted at an early date inregard to considering the establishment of an aggregateextraction operation. These aspects of the evaluationprocess are not considered further in this report, butreaders are encouraged to discuss them with personnelof the pertinent office of MNR, and regional and localplanning officials.

REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONSIn selecting sufficient areas for resource develop-

ment, it is important to assess both the local and the re-gional resource base, and to forecast future productionand demand patterns.

Some appreciation of future aggregate require-ments in an area may be gained by assessing its presentproduction levels and by forecasting future productiontrends. Such an approach is based on the assumptionsthat production levels in an area closely reflect the de-mand, and that the present production “market share” ofan area will remain roughly at the same level. In mostcases, however, the market demand for aggregate prod-ucts, especially in urban areas, is greater than theamount of production found within the local marketarea. Consequently, conflicts often arise between theincreasing demand for aggregates in such areas and thefrequent pressures to restrict aggregate operations, es-pecially in the near urban areas.

The aggregate resources in the region surroundinga project area should be assessed in order to properlyevaluate specific resource areas and to adopt optimumresource management plans. For example, an area thathas large resources in comparison to its surrounding re-gion constitutes a regionally significant resource area.Areas with high resources in proximity to large demandcentres, such as metropolitan areas, are special cases.

Although an appreciation of the regional context isrequired to develop comprehensive resource manage-ment techniques, such detailed evaluation is beyond thescope of this report. The selection of resource areasmade in this study is based primarily on geological dataor on considerations outlined in preceding sections.

MAP 2: BEDROCK RESOURCESMap 2 is an interpretative map derived from bed-

rock geology, drift thickness and bedrock topographymaps, water well data from the Ontario Ministry of theEnvironment and Energy (MOEE), oil and gaswell datafrom the Non-Renewable Resources Section (MNR),and from geotechnical test hole data from varioussources.Map 2 is based on concepts similar to those out-lined for Map 1.

The geological boundaries of the Paleozoic bed-rock units are shown by dashed lines. Isolated Paleozoicoutcrops are indicated by an “X”. Three sets of contourlinesdelineate areasof less than 1m of drift, areasof 1 to8 m of drift, and areas of 8 to 15 m of drift. The extent ofthese areas of thin drift are shown by 3 shades of grey.The darkest shade indicates where bedrock outcrops oris within 1 m of the ground surface. These areas consti-tute potential resource areas because of their easy ac-cess. Themedium shade indicates areaswhere drift cov-er is up to 8 m thick. Quarrying is possible in this depthof overburden and these zones also represent potentialresource areas. The lightest shade indicates bedrockareas overlain by 8 to 15 m of overburden. These latterareas constitute resources which have extractive value


9

only in specific circumstances, such as when the bed-rock has other industrial mineral uses (e.g., chemicallime and metallurgical rock). Outside of these delin-eated areas, the bedrock can be assumed to be coveredby more than 15 m of overburden, a depth generallyconsidered to be too great to allow economic extraction(unless part of the overburden is composed of economi-cally attractive deposits).

Other inventory information presented onMap 2 isdesigned to give an indication of the present level of ex-tractive activity in the report area. Those areas whichare licenced for extraction under the Aggregate Re-sources Act are shown by a solid outline and identifiedby a number which refers to the quarry descriptions inTable 5. Each description notes the owner/operator, li-cenced hectarage and an estimate of face height. Unli-cenced quarries (abandoned quarries or wayside quar-ries operating on demand under authority of a permit)are also identified and numbered on Map 2 and de-scribed in Table 5. Two additional symbols may appearon the map. An open dot indicates the location of a se-lected water well which penetrates bedrock. The over-burden thickness in metres, is shown beside the opendot. Similarly, test hole locations appear as a point sym-bol with the depth to bedrock, in metres, shown besideit. The test holes may be further described in Table 7.

Selection CriteriaCriteria equivalent to those used for sand and grav-

el deposits are used to select bedrock areas most favour-able for extractive development.

The evaluation of bedrock resources is made pri-marily on the basis of performance and suitability dataestablished by laboratory testing at the OntarioMinistryof Transportation. The main characteristics and uses of

the bedrock units found in southernOntario are summa-rized in Appendix D.

Deposit “size” is related directly to the areal extentof thin drift cover overlying favourable bedrock forma-tions. Since vertical and lateral variations in bedrockunits are muchmore gradual than in sand and gravel de-posits, the quality and quantity of the resource are usual-ly consistent over large areas.

Quality of the aggregate derived from specific bed-rock units is established by the performance standardspreviously mentioned. Location and setting criteria andregional considerations are identical to those for sandand gravel deposits.

Selected Resource AreasSelection of Bedrock Resource Areas has been re-

stricted to a single level of significance. Three factorssupport this approach. First, quality and quantity varia-tionswithin a specific geological formation are gradual.Second the areal extent of a given quarry operation ismuch smaller than that of a sand and gravel pit produc-ing an equivalent tonnage of material, and third, sincecrushed bedrock has a higher unit value than sand andgravel, longer haul distances can be considered. Thesefactors allow the identification of alternative sites hav-ing similar development potential. The Selected Areas,if present, are shown on Map 2 by a line pattern and thecalculated available tonnages are given in Table 6.

SelectedBedrockResourceAreas shownonMap2 are not permanent, single land use units. They rep-resent areas in which a major bedrock resource isknown to exist and may be reserved wholly or par-tially for extractive development and/or resourceprotection, within an Official Plan.

10

Part III – Assessment of Aggregate Resources in the EastHalf of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury

LOCATION AND POPULATIONThe study area covers 23 townshipswith a land area

of approximately 210 000 ha (Ontario Ministry of Mu-nicipal Affairs and Housing and the Association ofMu-nicipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario 1997) in theeast half of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury (Fig-ure 1). The area is covered byparts of the VenetianLake(41I/14),Milnet (41I/15), Chelmsford (41I/11), Capreol(41I/10), Copper Cliff (41I/6) andConiston (41I/7) 1:50000 scale map sheets of the National Topographic Sys-tem (NTS).

The population of the Regional Municipality ofSudbury was 154 799 in 1994 (OntarioMinistry ofMu-nicipal Affairs and Housing and the Association ofMu-nicipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario 1997), whichrepresents a 1.0% decrease since 1991 (Ontario Minis-try of Municipal Affairs 1992) (Chart A).

Much of the map area is accessible by provincialhighways, township and private roads. Access to themap area is provided by the Trans--Canada Highway(Highway 17) and Provincial Highway 69. An airport islocated approximately 32 km northeast of Sudbury inMaclennan and Falconbridge townships. Both the Ca-nadian National and Canadian Pacific railways servicethe Sudbury area.

SURFICIAL GEOLOGY ANDPHYSIOGRAPHY

During the Pleistocene Epoch, all of Ontario wascovered by a succession of ice sheets. There were defi-nitely 2 and probably more major ice advances, eachseparated by interglacial periods. The last glacial stage,referred to as the Late or Classical Wisconsinan, beganapproximately 23 000 years before present (Barnett1992). Glacial grooves, chattermarks and straie aswellas the orientation of eskers and crag and tail featuressuggest a fairly consistent regional ice flow to the south-west (180o to 200o). Local bedrock structures causedthe ice to deflect to the west at orientations ranging from210o to 245o (Burwasser 1979).

During this period, a thin, discontinuous cover oftill was deposited throughout the study area by glacialice. This sandy till generally exists as a thin veneer overbedrock, although in several areas thicknesses of up to40 m are known to exist (Burwasser 1979). The thickertill accumulations are usually associated with easttrending morainic ridges deposited during temporaryhalts of the melting ice front. One such moraine, theCartier I Moraine, extends across the report area fromMaclennan Township toHarty Township. It exhibits lo-cal relief generally between 6 and 30 m (Boissonneau1968).

Chart A - Area and PopulationREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY

Municipality Area 1991 1994(ha) Population Population

City of Sudbury 26 723 90 402 87 087Town of Capreol 18 648 3 684 3 621Town of Nickel Centre 43 252 11 815 12 129Town of Onaping Falls 26 677 5 303 5 068

Town of Rayside--Balfour 33 151 14 606 15 039Town of Valley East 53 871 21 149 22 102Town of Walden 76 922 9 411 9 753TOTAL 279244 156370 154799


11

The till has been described as boulder clay, bouldersand or bouldery sandy gravel. The variability is a prod-uct of local depositional and bedrock conditions; all fa-cies, however, form part of a single till sheet. On aver-age, the matrix consists of 66% sand, 25% silt and 9%clay. Clast content varies from 15 to 25% and the clastsare generally sub-angular to angular. The till is alsomoderately compact, oxidized and slightly fissile (Bur-wasser 1979).

As the glacial ice retreated northward, sinuous esk-er ridgeswere formed throughout the report area. Theseridges are generally 3 to 6 km long and are situated instructurally controlled bedrock depressions. The eskerswere deposited by meltwaters flowing in tunnels underthe ice or in re-entrants at the ice front and consist ofstratified sand and gravel. They often rise between 5and30mabove the surrounding terrain. The eskers gen-erally trend in a south to southwest direction.

Several deposits of undifferentiated ice-contactstratified drift were deposited close to the ice front as itmelted. Many of these ice-contact deposits are associat-edwith esker systemsand display a hummocky topogra-phy (Burwasser 1979).

Outwash features in the report area were depositedbymeltwater flowing from the icemargin. The outwashdeposits primarily consist of well-stratified, uniformlybedded sand andgravel. Major outwashdeposits are sit-uated in the valleys presently occupied by the Spanish,Onaping, Vermilion and Nelson rivers aswell as Bailey,Moncrief, John, Pumphouse and Sandcherry creeks.Outwash is one of the most widespread glaciofluvialsediments in the study area and has been a traditionalsource of aggregate material.

As the ice front melted back to a position north ofthe Sudbury Basin (Cartier I Moraine), the basin, alongwith low-lying areas in the southern part of the reportarea, were inundated by glacial lake water. Where gla-ciofluvial systems entered the lake along the north rimof the basin, broad glaciolacustrine deltas were formed.These deltaic deposits, often more than 30 m in height,are relatively flat features with steep frontal slopes.Along these slopes terraces were developed as waterlevels lowered in the lake (Boissonneau 1968, Burwass-er 1979). Well-stratified, uniformly bedded sand andgravel is exposed in several pits developed in the deltaareas. The major deltaic deposits, located in Morgan,Lumsden, Hanmer, Capreol and Maclennan townships,are well situated with respect to local aggregate mar-kets.

Glaciolacustrine sediments are widespreadthroughout the Sudbury Basin. In the deeper waters ofthe glacial lake, massive and/or varved silt and claywere deposited. The thickness of these fine-grainedgla-ciolacustrine sediments, as determined from water wellrecords, varies between 15 and 110m. Glaciolacustrinesediments, consisting largely of silty fine sand, werelaid down in the shallower areas of the glacial lake.These glaciolacustrine sands are generally too fine for

most aggregate uses. In places, glaciolacustrinemateri-al overlies ice-contact sediments.

The final draining of the Sudbury Basin probablybegan with the opening of the Mattawa outlet. Tiny is-lands would have formed and nearshore deposits wouldhave been created around bedrock knobs. Glaciolacus-trine raised beaches occur as small, discontinuous sandand gravel deposits. Well-developed raised beaches arerarely found in the area. Beach deposits commonly oc-cur against the southern exposure of bedrock knobs atelevations between 250 and 300 m (Burwasser 1979).Drainage of the lakewater would have occurred throughnumerous small bedrock channels.

Erosional activity has been minimal since the dis-appearance of the ice sheet and the drainage of glaciallake waters. Organic deposits have been developed indepressions in the land surface. Alluvium has been de-posited along the courses of existing creeks and rivers.

Themost prominent geological feature in the reportarea is the Sudbury Structure. It is a large oval-shapedstructure measuring approximately 60 km in length and23 km inwidth; its long axis is oriented in a northeaster-ly direction (Dressler 1984). The Sudbury Structureconsists of: the Sudbury Igneous Complex, largely gra-nophyre, quartz gabbro and norite; the overlyingSudbu-ry Basin assemblage which contains breccias, mud-stones, wackes and sandstones of the WhitewaterGroup; and the brecciated footwall rock which occursalong the outer edges of the Sudbury Igneous Complex.

The Sudbury Igneous Complex and the brecciatedfootwall rock form the physiographic region, informal-ly referred to as the “rim”. Local relief varies fromabout 30 m along the south rim to over 60 m along thenorth rim. Rugged upland bedrock knobs characterizethis “rim” area (Burwasser 1979).

The central part of the structure, the SudburyBasin,is filled with glaciolacustrine sediments. The “valley”,which is underlain by the relatively flat-lying Onaping,Onwatin and Chelmsford formations, is a flat to gentlyundulating glaciolacustrine plain with local relief gen-erally less than 15m. Most of the relief is attributable tothe outcrop pattern caused by broad warpings of theChelmsford Formation as well as downcutting of theVermilion River through the glaciofluvial and glaciola-custine sediments (Burwasser 1979).

SAND AND GRAVELEXTRACTIVE ACTIVITY

Two hundred and thirty operating and abandonedsand and gravel pits were identified in the study area(Table 2). At the time of writing 73 licenced operationsoccupied 3972.71 ha and were licenced for an annualproduction of 13 404 688 tonnes (Chart B). This repre-sents the maximum licenced aggregate production. In1995, the total aggregate production for the RegionalMunicipality of Sudbury was 2 604 382 tonnes (OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources 1995).

ARIP 170

12

Chart B - Extractive ActivityREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY

Number of Licenced Licenced Annual 1993 1994 1995Licenced Area Production Production Production ProductionProperties (Hectares) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes)

73 3972.71 13 404 688 2 225 437 2 906 042 2 604 382

The RegionalMunicipality of Sudbury is in a ratherunique position. In many municipalities in southernOntario, commercial aggregate operations operate un-der a permanent or wayside licence. In the Sudbury areamany commercial operations operate on crown landwith an aggregate permit. These permits have not beenincluded in Chart B, but are listed in Table 2. They addgreatly to the number of hectares and potential annualproduction within the Regional Municipality of Sudbu-ry.

Excellent sources of aggregate material in the Sud-bury area include: eskers, other glaciofluvial ice-con-tact features, as well as outwash and deltaic deposits.The townships along the northern and eastern parts ofthe study area, particularly the glaciofluvial/deltaiccomplex around the Sudbury airport, have large poten-tial supplies of aggregate. Some of the sand and gravelmaterial in the airport area cannot be used in Portlandcement concrete mixes because of an alkali-reactivityproblem (Magni and Rogers 1987).

The central and southern parts of the study areahave less aggregate potential. In these areas, small sandand gravel pits have been developed in leeside cavityfill deposits. These deposits have often formed on thesouth side of bedrock topographic highs and have pro-vided small amounts of granular material.

Till is not usually well-suited for aggregate use as itoften contains excess fines and abundant cobbles andboulders. However, it may be a suitable source of fill insome locations. In some cases the till has been re-worked by glacial lake waters removing someof the fin-er material.

SELECTED SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCE AREAS

Maps 1A and 1B indicate the deposits that containgranular materials. These deposits occupy a total of 39745 ha and contain an original resource tonnage of2763.3 million tonnes (Table 1). The above figures rep-resent a comprehensive inventory of all granular mate-rials in the map area, although much of the material in-

cluded in the estimate has no potential for use in aggre-gate products.

Selected Sand and Gravel ResourceArea 1

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 is lo-cated just southeast of the abandoned Moose Mountainiron mine in Hutton Township. This glaciofluvial out-wash deposit is located along the Roberts River. Threeabandoned pits have been developed in this deposit. PitNo. 2 is shallow (1 m) while pit faces in Pit Nos. 3 and 4range from 2 to 4 m.

Previous MTO testing from Pit No. 2 indicated agravel content of 84%. Thematerial wasnot alkali reac-tive andwas acceptable for granular road base, HL4 andcoarse aggregate. The petrographic number (PN) wastoo high for the material to be used in concrete. A sam-ple taken from Pit No. 4 and tested as part of this study,was 53.3%gravel, 46.3% sand and only 0.4% finemate-rial (Figures 2A and 2B). The petrographic and othertest results indicate that this aggregatematerial could beused for Granular A, B, M and SSM, HL products andconcrete (Table 9).

This deposit is situated a long way from a majormarket such as Sudbury or Valley East, however, thisarea has been selected because it would provide an ex-cellent source of material for local use and has goodquality material. Access to this area is provided byHighway 806.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 occu-pies a total of 181.5 ha, ofwhich 141.2 ha are potentiallyavailable for development. Assuming an average de-posit thickness of 6 m, this area has the potential to sup-ply 15.0 million tonnes (Table 3). The north end of thedeposit may be shallower than 6 m as bedrock outcropsare quite noticeable.

Selected Sand and GravelResource Area 2

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 is a gla-ciofluvial outwash deposit located along the VermilionRiver. The area has been subdivided into 2 areas with


13

resource area 2A located in the southeast corner of Hut-ton Township and resource area 2B located in the north-western part of NormanTownship. The outwash depos-it is intermixed with bedrock outcrops. The materialgrades from medium to coarse sand and fine to coarsegravel, and is poor to well sorted. A number of aban-doned pits have beendeveloped in this deposit aswell asa crown permit (Pit No. 16).

During the course of this study, a sample was col-lected and tested from abandoned Pit No. 5, located inarea 2A. The sample was36.9%gravel, 62.4% sand and0.8% fine material (Figures 2A and 2B). The petro-graphic number for granular and 16.0 mm crushed was108.4 and 114.3 for hot mix and concrete. Other test re-sults are presented in Table 9.

Gradation results from Pit No. 18, area 2B, indicate43.8% gravel, 54.8% sand and 1.4% fines (Figures 3Aand 3B). The petrographic number is 111.0 for granularand 16.0 mm crushed and 116.2 for hot mix and con-crete. Other test results are listed in Table 9. GranularA, B ,M and SSM, HL products and concrete could beproduced from the materials in this deposit. Pit faces inthis deposit range from 1 to 8 m.

An area to the west and north of Pit No. 6 is mainlysand and as a result has not been selected as part of theprimary resource. An area just east of Pit No. 21 is alsopredominantly sand. This sandy material could be usedfor fill and low specification aggregate but is not suit-able for the production of higher specification products.The tertiary area to the south of this selected area alsogrades too fine. Previous gradation results in this areaindicate no coarse material with up to 17.2% finer than75 μm.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 occu-pies 624.9 ha with an available resource area of 524.9ha. Assuming an average deposit thickness of 6 m, thisdeposit could supply approximately 55.7 million tonnesofmaterial (Table 3). The thickness of the deposit couldvary as evidenced by large bedrock outcrops. The 6 mdeposit thickness will not be uniform across SelectedSand andGravel Resource Area 2. Access to this area isprovided by Highway 545.


Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area 3 consistsof 3 outwash deposits that converge along SandcherryCreek in north-central Morgan Township. The surfaceof these deposits is relatively flat, with the exception ofsteep terraces that often rise in excess of 15 m. No li-cenced operations have been developed in the deposits.The resource area has been subdivided into 2 subareas,areas 3A and 3B, on the basis of gravel content.

Abandoned pits located in Selected Sand andGrav-el Resource Area 3A consist predominantly of gravel,although sand may be locally abundant. Previousgradation results indicate a gravel content of approxi-

mately 65%. Samples collected and tested aspart of thisinvestigation indicate 50.8% gravel, 48.3% sand and0.9% fines (Pit No. 32, Figures 4A and 4B). The petro-graphic number for granular and 16.0 mm crushed is100.0 and 103.1 for hot mix and concrete (Table 9). Thematerial would be suitable for the production of Granu-lar A, B, M and SSM, HL4 (CA), HL8 (CA) and con-crete.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3B is lo-cated north of area 3A. The area has been classified as asand source because surface exposures of sand are gen-erally more common than gravel. In one exposure nearSandcherry Creek over 15 m of fine to coarse sand wasobserved. A previous gradation result indicates 75%sand (Map 1A). It is possible that coarse aggregate isavailable at depth.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3 occu-pies 522 ha ofwhich 487.9 ha are presently available forextraction. Assuming an average deposit thickness of 6m, resource tonnages are estimated to total 51.9 milliontonnes (Table 3). Logging andmining roads provide ac-cess to this area, however the bridge near Pit No. 36 hadbeenwashed out during the spring of 1997 whichmakesaccess more difficult.


As meltwater that deposited Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area 3 flowed into the glacial lake thatoccupied the Sudbury Basin, a broad glaciolacustrinedelta was formed. This delta, situated in southernMor-gan Township just south of resource area 3, has beenchosen as Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4.Several terraces have been developed on this relativelyflat topographic feature. The terraces exhibit relief ofover 18 m and were formed as water levels lowered inthe basin. Burwasser (1979) suggests up to 8 terracelevels could be distinguished and correspond to succes-sively lower lake levels within the basin.

Pit No. 36 has been excavated in the thickest part ofthe deposit, north of Sandcherry Creek. The pit facesconsist of about 15 m of slumped sand and gravel. Ex-isting gradation results indicate a gravel content of be-tween 40 and 60 percent. A sample taken as part of thisinvestigation indicates 47.8% sand, 51.1% gravel and1.1% fines. Clasts larger than 10 cm are rare and noneexceed 25 cm.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4 is con-sidered to be well suited for the production of a varietyof aggregate products. These products include HL 4stone, 16 mm crushed stone and granular base course.As a result of the abundance of sand, and the fineness ofthe gravel, sand control and selective extraction may benecessary for crushing purposes. The sand fraction ofthe aggregate may require blending for use in asphalt.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4 occu-pies 395.3 ha, of which 362 ha are considered availablefor extraction. Based on an average thickness estimate

ARIP 170

14

of 6 m, sand and gravel resources are approximately38.5 million tonnes (Table 3). A very conservative de-posit thickness of 6mwas used in this calculation, how-ever, a water well located within Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area 4 indicates as much as 25 m ofsand and gravel. The resource area is accessible by theNickel Offset road.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5 is alarge glaciolacustrine delta deposit situated along thenorth rim of the Sudbury Basin in Lumsden Township.The steep frontal slope reaches up to 30 m in some areas(Burwasser 1979).

Medium to coarse gravel is the predominant sedi-ment exposed on the surface of this deposit. Previoustest holes in this deposit indicated 3.7 to 4.3m of largelyfine to coarse gravel. Between 50 and 62 percent gravelwas contained in the samples from these test holes. Thegravel appears to be hard and durable, and well suitedfor crushing purposes. Finer material located in otherareas of Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5 isconsidered suitable for pit-run uses but marginal forcrushing purposes. A sample taken as part of this inves-tigation (LU-SS-1) indicates 62.9% gravel, 36.6% sandand 0.5% fines (Figures 4A and 4B). The petrographicnumbers are 100.0 for granular and 16.0 mm crushedand 102.5 for hot mix and concrete. Results for othertests are presented in Table 9. Three properties havebeen permitted by theMinistry ofNatural Resources foraggregate extraction in this selected resource area (PitNos. 41, 42 and 43) (Table 2).

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5 occu-pies approximately 469.4 ha of which 425.3 ha are po-tentially available for extraction. Assuming an averagedeposit thickness of 6 m, 45.2 million tonnes of aggre-gate could be available (Table 3). There are areas of Se-lected Sand andGravel Resource Area 5 that are thickerthan 6 m, however, there are also areas where the watertable is within this 6 m. Pockets of till may also existlocally within the deposit and seams of silt and claywere also noted.

SelectedSand andGravelResource Area 5 is acces-sible by the Nelson Lake Road. The area to the west ofSelected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5 is predomi-nantly a silty, fine sand as indicated by the texture sym-bol at Pit No. 52.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 6 consistof 4 glaciolacustrine deltaic deposits located in northernHanmer and Capreol townships. The deposits havebeen a traditional source of aggregate in the area. Anumber of licenced operations, permitted propertiesand abandoned pits have been developed in this re-

source area. Selected Sand andGravelResource Area 6has been subdivided into 4 subareas.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas 6A and6B are glaciolacustrine delta deposits located along thesouthern edge of theCartier IMoraine. They are locatedwhere the Rapid River has breached the moraine andcarried material from the northwest. The deltaic depos-its have stratified, moderate to well-sorted beds of sandand gravel. In licenced Pit No. 57, beds were observedthat indicate a flow to the southeast.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 6C is acomplex of 3 deltaic deposits (Burwasser 1979). Thedelta west of Greens Lake (western part of area 6C) hasan upper surface 24.5 m above the Hanmer flats. Thedelta has stratified, south and west dipping sand andgravel beds and was deposited directly in front of theCartier I Moraine. Its upper surface is marked by ter-races and channels (Burwasser 1979).

The delta on the Capreol flats is about 8.2 m highand contains a mixture of boulders and clays (easternpart of area 6C). The third deltaic area, south of GreensLake, has an elevation from a maximum of 300 m toabout 294 mwhere itmergeswith near shore sediments.

Faces in these 3 areas range from 1.5 to 8 m. Mostfaces expose well-stratified fine to coarse gravel, al-though in sections pockets of sandy aggregate exist.Previous aggregate testing in the area indicates a gravelcontent that ranged from 56 to 73 percent. Test resultsfrom Pit No. 108 indicates 64.4% gravel, 34.8% sandand 0.8% fines (Figures 5A and 5B). The petrographicnumber is 100.0 for granular and 16.0 mm crushed and100.6 for HL and asphalt. Other test results are listed inTable 9. Water was observed on the floor of several pitsindicating a potentially highwater table. Selected Sandand Gravel Resource Area 6D has not been developedfor aggregate extraction, but is believed to contain thesame type and quality of material.

A wide variety of aggregate products have beenproduced from Selected Sand and Gravel ResourceArea 6, including asphalt sand, concrete sand and stone,16 mm crushed stone and granular base course. Blend-ing may be necessary for the production of asphalt sandand selection and sand control may be required in sec-tions for crushingpurposes. An asphalt plant operates inlicenced Pit No. 69.

The resource area is close to Sudbury and is readilyaccessible to the Valley East market. It occupiesapproximately 1371.6 ha exclusive of licenced areas.Cultural constraints and previous extraction reduce thearea currently available to 1268.3 ha. Assuming an av-erage thickness of 6m, possible aggregate resources areestimated to be 134.8 million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7 is alarge ice-contact/outwash/delta complex trendingsouthwest from Massey Bay to the community of Gar-


15

son. The selected area has been subdivided into 3 sub-areas based on geological origin of the material. Se-lected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7A representsthe ice-contact/esker core of the deposit. Kettles, somein excess of 45 m deep, fluvial terraces, discontinuouscrevasse fillingsmark a centralmeltwater channel, part-ly choked with stranded ice blocks which, probablyformed as a subglacial channel. A line of kettles andeskers extend west from Norway Lake towards the Gar-son Mine. Bedrock structure probably had a strong ef-fect on the location of this channel (Burwasser 1979).

Along the flanks of the east and southern portion ofthe ice-contact/esker core is a large delta deposit con-sisting of stratified sand and gravel (resource area 7B).The delta complex descends in 3 steps merging at itsbase with surrounding glaciolacustrine deposits. Theupper step is an ice-contact delta with an upper surfaceat approximately 390 m. It consists of esker and kamedeltas that have been planed by glaciolacustrine action.The delta front descends about 60 m. It is marked by 8water-plane indicators including terraces, beach ridgesand shore bluffs. The lake level which existed duringthe deposition of this feature is informally referred to asthe Falconbridge Level (Burwasser 1979).

The middle step is a pitted outwash delta extendingfrom Norway Lake to the Garson Mine. Its maximumelevation is about 327m. Depositional directionwas to-ward the southwest. At the western edge of the com-plex, basal foreset deltaic pebbly sand overlies a 40 cou-plet sequence of varved silt and fine sand. The deltaformed during what is informally known as the NorwayLake Level of the lake (Burwasser 1979). There are 6water-plane indicators along the northern margin of thedelta.

At the west end of the complex is the third delta lev-el; deposited inwhat is informally referred to as theGar-son Level of the lake. This step extends from theGarsonMine to the community of Garson. This step starts atabout 303m and descends to about 290m. Fragments of4 terraces descend the delta front. This step descendsinto glaciolacustrine sediments.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7C repre-sents outwash and deltaic deposits adjacent to the ice-contact/esker core in the north end of this deposit andflanks the deltaic deposits in the south end of the se-lected area. Large quantities of good crushable sand andgravel material are located in these outwash areas.

The material in this massive complex (all of Se-lected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7) is generallypoor to well sorted, well stratified sand and gravels.Material grades from silts to crushable cobble andpebble sized clasts. The sediments are generally coarserin the north end of the deposit and finer in the south nearthe community of Garson. Near Garson, the material istransitional to glaciolacustrine sediments. At Pit No.155, the fine silt material is being used by INCOasminebackfill at the Garson Mine.

A sample collected from Pit No. 135 in the north-west corner of this massive deposit indicates 58.6%gravel, 40.9% sand and 0.5% fines (Figures 5A and 5B).Much of the gravel content is actually in the pebble/cobble fraction meaning that crushable material isabundant. The petrographic numbers are 117.0 forgranular and 16.0 mm crushed and 118.3 for HL andconcrete. Other test results are presented in Table 9.

Thematerial in Selected Sand andGravelResourceArea 7 is suitable for a wide variety of uses including:Granular A, B,M, SSM,HL products and concrete. Notall of this deposit can be used for concrete. Magni andRogers (1987) studied the influence of the alkali-sili-cate reaction in concrete structures in the Sudbury area.They concluded that the argillite and greywackemateri-al derived from the Huronian rocks tended to form“rims” during the weathering process which eventuallylead to the cracking and ultimately poor performance ofthe concrete. The area of concern appeared to be justnortheast of the airport. This same study indicated,however, that concrete can be produced from the fineaggregate portion.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7 occu-pies 2407.5 ha of which 1991.3 ha are available for pos-sible resource development. Assuming an average de-posit thickness of 6 m, the resource area could produce211.4 million tonnes (Table 3). It is possible to extractaggregates beyond 6 m. Selected Sand and Gravel Re-source Area 7 is perhaps the single most important ag-gregate resource in the Sudbury area. A significant partof this resource area has been sterilized by the Sudburyairport.

Secondary Sand and GravelResources

A glaciofluvial outwash deposit along the RobertsRiver in the northwest corner of Hutton Township hasbeen selected as an aggregate resource area of secon-dary significance. Two pits, located outside the studyarea in Kitchener Township, have crushable material ina medium to coarse sand matrix. Pit faces range from1.5 to 3m. This material has not been tested but is prob-ably similar to Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area1. The southeastern end of the deposit becomes quiteshallow and numerous bedrockoutcrops are present. Asa result, this portion of the deposit is listed as a tertiaryresource.

Just east of Selected Sand and Gravel ResourceArea 2B is a glaciofluvial outwash deposit of secondaryimportance. This area is part of the same deposit as Se-lected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2B but themate-rial in this eastern portion is predominantly medium tocoarse sand. Very little gravel and crushable materialwas observed. Gravel sized material may be present atdepth but further testing of the deposit is required toverify this. Bedrock outcrops are present and theWhistle Mine site is located just south of this section ofthe deposit.

ARIP 170

16

Two areas flanking Selected Sand and Gravel Re-source Area 3A have been selected as secondary re-source areas. Fine to coarse gravel was observed inroadside exposures. The material appears generallysuitable for crushing as well as pit-run use. These areastend to be thinner than area 3A and transportation routesto these areas are extremely limited. These areas canprovide good quality aggregate but may require blend-ing and selective procedures/handling.

An area of gravel outwash located northwest of Se-lected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5 has also beenselected as a deposit of secondary significance. Thisarea is similar to the 2 outwash areas flanking SelectedSand and Gravel Resource Area 3A and may containmaterial that can provide good quality aggregate.

A glaciofluvial outwash deposit along the RapidRiver in the southwest corner of Wisner Township hasalso been selected as a secondary resource area. Anum-ber of abandoned pits, Pit Nos. 11, 12 and 13, have beendeveloped in this deposit. Pit faces range from 1 to 5m.The material is predominantly a medium to coarse sandwith fine to coarse gravel. Test results from Pit No. 12indicate 43.3% gravel, 55.4% sand and 1.3% fines (Fig-ures 3A and 3B). The petrographic number is 100.0 forgranular and 16.0 mm crushed and 106.1 for HL andconcrete. The deposit is somewhat isolated from mar-kets with the only access being a logging road. Thema-terial is important to the construction and maintenanceof these logging roads.

A large glaciolacustrine delta/glaciolacustrineplain deposit, located just west of Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area 6A, has also been selected at thesecondary level. Pit exposures (Pit No. 51) indicate pre-dominantly silty, fine sand. Gravel and crushablemate-rial may be be present.

A significant secondary resource stretches acrossthe north end of Hanmer Township and into the north-east corner of Capreol Township. Licenced and per-mitted operations, Pit Nos. 53, 54, 61 and62, are locatedin this ice-contact deposit. Previous test results from PitNo. 54 indicates a gravel content of approximately 37%.This ice-contact deposit is located along the northernedge of the Cartier I Moraine and may be underlain bytill. The ice-contact material is estimated to be less than6m. While this area has not been selected at the primarylevel it is a significant resource area.

In the east central part of Capreol Township is anice-contact deposit that has been selected at the secon-dary level. Licenced Pit No. 101 has been developedalong the western boundary of this deposit. Althoughthe deposit appears to be a large, high topographic fea-ture, the ice-contact material may be shallow. The ma-terial at Pit No. 118 is predominantly a bouldery till,with some ice-contact material present.

An esker ridge, located just west of Massey Bay inthe Lake Wanapitei area, has also been selected as a re-source of secondary significance. Pit Nos. 124 and 125indicate stratified, moderately sorted sand and gravel.

This deposit hasbeenpartially sterilized by the presenceof the cottage road.

The glaciolacustrine delta deposit located on thesouthern flank of Selected Sand and Gravel ResourceArea 7 has been selected as an area of secondary impor-tance. A significant part of this deposit has been steri-lized by the town of Garson and much of the deposit hasalready been licenced. Thematerial from these licenceshave been used formine backfill and as a source of silicasand.

An ice-contact/outwash deposit located along theHighway 17 corridor in eastern Dryden Township hasalso been selected as a secondary resource. Four li-cenced/permitted properties have been developed inthis deposit. The material is quite variable, rangingfrom silty sand to crushable cobble and pebble. Largeboulders are also present and there are areas of silt andclay.

Three licences have been developed in an ice-con-tact deposit located in the southeast corner of DrydenTownship. Pit No. 181 has a pit face of 16 to 18m. Pre-vious test results indicate a gravel content of about 60%.

Material from an ice-contact deposit located in thesouthwest corner ofDryden Township is currently beingremoved under 2 permits (Pit Nos. 184 and 185). Thewell sorted, well stratified sand and gravel is located onthe south side of a bedrock topographic ridge. Part ofthis bedrock ridge is currently being quarried at Pit No.185.

The final secondary resource areas are small ice-contact deposits located in Broder and Waters town-ships. These ice-contact deposits appear to have beenformed along the sides of bedrock topographic highs.Material from these small deposits has been importantas can be seen bypit development (Pit Nos. 207, 208 and228).

Tertiary Sand and GravelResources

Most tertiary sand and gravel resources will not bediscussed in this report. This is because tertiary re-sources are quite numerous, occupying large tracts ofland and most of the resources are not a valuable aggre-gate commodity. Some tertiary deposits are important,however, because of their location and the lack of moresignificant resources in the immediate area.

In the north end ofWisner and Bowell townships isa series of ice-contact and outwash deposits. These de-posits tend to be small, shallow and intermixed withrugged bedrock outcrops. For these reasons, these de-posits have been selected at the tertiary level. These de-posits may, however, contain good quality granular ma-terial that could be of use in the development of loggingand mineral exploration access roads. There is current-ly a logging operation in progress in the north end ofBo-well Township where these deposits have been used to


17

create an extensive road network necessary to this acti-vitiy (around Pit No. 7).

Fine sand, silty sand and clayey silt have been usedextensively in the Sudbury area for mine backfill andmine rehabilitation. While this type of material is gen-erally not important in terms of construction aggregate,it can be very important for these purposes. Tertiaryareas where these materials have been used for this pur-pose include Pit Nos. 146, 147, 148, 155 and 201.

Because of the general lack of good quality, crush-able aggregate material in the central and southern por-tion of the study area, some of the fine-grained, tertiaryaggregate deposits may be important for fill purposes.In other areas leeside cavity fill or small beach depositsoccur could provide limited amounts of material for lo-cal projects. Pit Nos. 215, 216, 217 and 218 are exam-ples of pits that have provided limited material for spe-cific projects.

BEDROCK GEOLOGYThemost prominent geological feature in the report

area is the Sudbury Structure.

The Sudbury Structure consists of: the Sudbury Ig-neous Complex, largely granophyre, quartz gabbro andnorite; the overlying Sudbury Basin assemblage, whichcontains breccias,mudstones, wackes and sandstonesoftheWhitewater Group; and the brecciated footwall rockwhich occurs along the outer edges of the Sudbury Ig-neous Complex. Copper, nickel and platinum groupelement mineralization occurs primarily along the con-tact of the Sudbury Igneous Complex and the surround-ing footwall rocks, as well as in offset dikes that bothradiate out from and trend parallel to the outer edges ofthe Sudbury Igneous Complex (Bajc 1992, 1993). Thecentral part of the structure, the SudburyBasin is under-lain by the relatively flat-lying Onaping, Onwatin andChelmsford formations.

Archean granites, granitic gneisses and metavol-canic rocks of the Superior Province lie to the northwestof the Sudbury Structure. The predominantly clasticHuronian succession, with some metavolcanic rocks ofthe Southern Province, surrounds the remaining por-tions of the basin (Dressler 1984).

BEDROCK SUITABILITYHighly weathered, brittle and friable Precambrian

bedrock, which appears acceptable for low-specifica-tion aggregate use, is common within the report area.There are also many areas that are underlain by moremassive, hard and durable rock which appears suitablefor a variety of aggregate applications.

At a site, within the city of Sudbury limits, gabbroicrock has been found suitable by the Ontario Ministry ofTransportation (MTO) for use in Portland cement con-crete. At this site, the gabbro was stockpiled as wasterock from a tunnel excavation. Factors that would influ-

ence quarry development in this gabbroic rock include:the size of the intrusion; the amount of impurities, suchasmineralization; and the abrasive nature of these rockson crushing equipment. Similarly, the gabbroic rocksofthe Sudbury IgneousComplex are also potential sourcesof aggregate, although information is lacking on thesuitability of this rock type.

The granitic rocks in the report area are also poten-tial sources of quality aggregate. These rocks are usual-ly hard and relatively homogeneous, but brittle varietiescan occur and their use should be avoided in aggregateproducts. Massive, coarse-grained felsic plutonic andgneissic rocks with high mica, feldspar and quartz con-tentsmay have bonding problems. The smooth cleavageand fracture surfaces of the minerals hinder the adhe-sion of asphalt and Portland cement concrete mixes.This problem can often be circumvented by weatheringthe rocks for a period of time in stockpiles or by addingchemicals (anti-stripping agents) that erode the smoothsurfaces and allow better adhesion. Rogers (1985) re-ports that some granitic rocks can slowly react with al-kalies from Portland cement concrete, resulting in con-crete deterioration.

Within the report area, considerable latitude existsin choosing sites for potential bedrock extraction asthere are extensive areas where bedrock is exposed at ornear the surface. Areas in which excessive overburdenthicknesseswould restrict bedrock extraction are gener-ally located within the Sudbury Basin.

Although the Precambrian bedrock in the area maymeetMTOspecifications for concrete aggregate, it maynot be accepted by the MTO for use in Portland cementconcrete whichwill be exposed to de-icing salts. Radio-active mineralization may also occur locally withinsome rock types in the area and these rocks should beavoided during extraction.

Any site proposed for quarry development shouldbe thoroughly tested before extraction commences. ThePrecambrian rocks may vary in quality over relativelyshort distances andmay be alkali-reactive withPortlandcement concrete mixes.

Certain by-products of bedrock mining and proc-essing have been used as alternative aggregate sourcesin the Sudbury area. For 40 years, slag from the area hasbeenused as railway ballast and it is considered to be ex-cellent for this use (Emery 1978). Finely ground nickelslag may also have potential as a pozzolana for use withPortland cement fills and could be used for binder inbase stabilization in road construction (Emery 1978).

MTO has also tested the suitability of nickel slagfrom the Sudbury area for use as granular subbase. Be-cause of the uniform smooth characteristics of the slag,compactionwas difficult as the lack of fine particles didnot allow the material to bind easily. Provided that finematerial can be blended economically with the slag, orthat the slag can be crushed finely enough not to requirethe addition of large quantities of fines, it has the poten-tial for use as aggregate. Slag is hard, exhibits gooddrainage characteristics and forms little dust. Nickel

ARIP 170

18

slag ismuchheavier that gravel, consequently, it ismorecostly. Nickel slag is not well suited for concrete use be-cause its smooth nature would prevent good bondingwith cement and it is too heavy to use in bridge construc-tion (Chojnacki and Ryell 1960). Proposed changes toMTO specifications may mean that previous testing onnickel slag will have to be updated.

SUMMARYLarge ice-contact, glaciofluvial outwash and gla-

ciolacustrine delta deposits, located north of, and alongthe north “rim” of the Sudbury Basin, contain an esti-mated 552.5 million tonnes of good quality aggregatematerial. These deposits have been placed into 7 Se-lected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas. In addition, anumber of Secondary Sand andGravel Resource depos-its are scattered throughout the study area. Most ofthese occur in the north and central portions of the re-gion, with only a few occurring in the southern part ofthe study area.

Some of the sand and gravel (notably the argilliteand greywacke bearing material derived fromHuronian

rocks) have been found to be alkali-silica reactive. Ex-tensive testing of the sand and gravel should occur be-fore this material is used in Portland cement mixes.

Precambrian bedrock can be quarried for use as ag-gregate material, but extensive testing should be under-taken prior to quarry development as Precambrian bed-rock can be quite variable over short distances. Nickelslag has been tested in the past for use as aggregate andhas been used in a limited fashion. In light of revisedMTOaggregate specifications, nickel slag should be re-tested to accesswhether it will meet these requirements.

Enquiries regarding the Aggregate Resources In-ventory of the east part of the Regional Municipality ofSudbury may be directed to the Sedimentary Geosci-ence Section, Ontario Geological Survey, Ministry ofNorthern Development and Mines, 933 Ramsey LakeRoad, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 6B5; or to the ResidentGeologist, Ministry of Northern Development andMines, 933 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E6B5, [Tel: (705) 670-5721]; or to theMinistry ofNaturalResources, Sudbury Area Office.


19

TABLE 1 -- TOTAL SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCESREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY

1 2 3 4CLASS NO. DEPOSIT TYPE AREAL EXTENT ORIGINAL TONNAGE

(Hectares) (Million of Tonnes)HUTTON TOWNSHIP

1 G--OW 312 33.12 G--OW 119 9.4

S--OW 98 7.83 G--IC 49 1.7

S--OW 24 0.94 G--OW 161 2.8

S--OW 10 0.2Subtotal 773 55.9

BOWELL TOWNSHIP1 G--LD 4 0.52 G--IC 43 3.4

G--OW 186 14.8S--OW 156 12.4

3 G--IC 214 7.6G--OW 62 2.2S--OW 15 0.5

Subtotal 680 41.4

WISNER TOWNSHIP2 G--IC 267 21.3

G--OW 196 15.6S--OW 57 4.6

3 G--IC 373 13.2G--OW 55 1.9S--OW 32 1.1

Subtotal 980 57.7

NORMAN TOWNSHIP1 G--OW 494 52.5

S--OW 336 35.72 G--IC 36 2.9

G--LP.OW 16 1.3S--OW 55 4.4

3 G--IC 21 0.7G--OW 43 1.5S--OW 18 0.6

Subtotal 1019 99.6

MORGAN TOWNSHIP1 G--OW 684 72.6

S--OW 77 8.1S--AL 214 22.7

2 G--OW 159 12.6S--LP 794 63.2

3 G--OW 97 3.4G--IC 17 0.6

Subtotal 2042 183.2

ARIP 170

20



(Hectares) (Million of Tonnes)

LUMSDEN TOWNSHIP1 G--LD 510 54.2

G--OW 36 3.82 G--LD 142 11.3

G--OW 113 9.0S--LD.LP 426 34.0S--AL 458 36.5

3 G--IC 42 1.5G--LD 40 1.4G--LP 288 10.2

Subtotal 2055 161.9

HANMER TOWNSHIP1 G--LD 1031 109.4

S--OW 25 2.7S--AL 384 40.8

2 G--IC 130 10.4S--OW 30 2.4S--LD 362 28.9

S--LD.LP 373 29.73 G--IC 580 20.5

S--LD 3792 134.2S--LD.LP 204 7.2

Subtotal 6911 386.2

CAPREOL TOWNSHIP1 G--LD 909 96.5

S--OW 451 47.92 G--IC 91 7.2

G--LD.OW 210 16.7S--LP 91 7.2

3 G--IC 273 9.7G--OW 49 1.7S--LP 2238 79.2S--AL 51 1.8

Subtotal 4363 267.9

MACLENNAN TOWNSHIP1 G--IC 424 45.0

G--LD 1378 146.3S--LP 105 11.2

2 G--IC 187 14.9G--OW 6 0.5

3 G--IC 67 2.4G--OW 149 5.3

Subtotal 2316 225.6


21




BALFOUR TOWNSHIP2 S--LP 871 69.43 S--AL 668 23.6

Subtotal 1539 93.0

RAYSIDE TOWNSHIP3 S--LP 741 26.2

S--AL 293 10.4Subtotal 1034 36.6

BLEZARD TOWNSHIP3 S--LP 1352 47.9

S--AL 282 9.9Subtotal 1634 57.8

GARSON TOWNSHIP1 G--IC 105 11.2

G--LD 286 30.4S--LD 927 98.5

2 G--LD.LP 591 47.1S--LP 152 12.1

3 S--LP 141 5.0S--AL 200 7.1

Subtotal 2402 211.4

FALCONBRIDGE TOWNSHIP1 G--IC 643 68.2

G--LD 781 83.0G--OW 237 25.2S--OW 622 66.1

3 S--AL 573 20.3Subtotal 2856 262.8

CREIGHTON TOWNSHIP3 S--LP 312 11.0

S--AL 301 10.7Subtotal 613 21.7

SNIDER TOWNSHIP

Subtotal 0 0McKIM TOWNSHIP

2 S--LP 185 14.83 S--LP 8 0.3

S--AL 10 0.4Subtotal 203 15.5

ARIP 170

22




NEELON TOWNSHIP1 S--LD 85 9.02 S--LD.LP 54 4.3

S--LP 1859 148.13 S--LP 113 4.0

S--AL 140 4.9Subtotal 2251 170.3

DRYDEN TOWNSHIP1 G--IC 109 11.62 G--IC 160 12.7

G--OW 39 3.1S--OW 106 8.4S--LP 933 74.3

3 G--OW 362 12.8S--LP 59 2.1S--AL 134 4.7

Subtotal 1902 129.7

GRAHAM TOWNSHIP2 S--LP 117 9.33 S--LP 700 24.8

S--AL 297 10.5Subtotal 1114 44.6

WATERS TOWNSHIP1 G--IC 63 6.7

S--LP 339 36.02 G--IC 69 5.5

S--LP 990 78.93 S--LP 22 0.8

S--AL 194 6.9Subtotal 1677 134.8

BRODER AND DILL TOWNSHIPS1 G--IC 54 5.7

G--LB 18 1.92 G--IC 134 10.7

S--LP 1036 82.53 S--LP 139 4.9

Subtotal 1381 105.7

TOTAL FOR STUDY AREA39745 2763.3


23

TABLE 1 -- TOTAL SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY

1 2 3 4

CLASS NO. DEPOSIT TYPE AREAL EXTENT ORIGINAL TONNAGE


Minor variations in all tables are caused by rounding of data.

The above figures represent a comprehensive inventory of all granular materials in the map area. Some of the

material included in the estimate has no aggregate potential and some is unavailable for extraction due to land use restrictions.

ARIP 170

24

TABLE 2 -- SAND AND GRAVEL PITS -- REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURYPit No. Owner/Operator Licenced

Area(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

HUTTON TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits1 Ontario Quarries Inc. -- 3-4 45-60 -- water in pit floor

Unlicenced Pits2 -- -- 1 70-90 -- badly overgrown, slumped3 -- -- 2-4 45-60 -- pit floor is wet4 -- -- 4-5 45-60 -- sample taken, results in Table 95 -- -- 1-3 30-45 -- sample taken, results in Table 96 -- -- 6-8 50-70 -- large pit just west of river/bridge

BOWELL TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits7 Isidore Roy Ltd. -- 2-4 40-60 -- logging operation in the north end

of Bowell Twp. A series of pits, suchas at Pit 7 where small ice-contactand outwash deposits are used tomake logging roads

Unlicenced Pits8 -- -- 1-1.5 0-5 -- predominantly fine sand and silt9 -- -- 2 10-20 -- mainly a coarse sand with fine

gravel

WISNER TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

Unlicenced Pits10 -- -- 1-1.5 0-5 -- predominantly sand11 -- -- 1-1.5 35-55 -- mainly a coarse sand with fine

gravel12 -- -- 2-3 35-55 -- similar to Pit No. 1113 -- -- 3-5 35-55 -- similar to Pit No. 1114 -- -- 3-4 35-45 -- medium sand to pebble/cobble15 -- -- 2 -- -- material has been removed, bed-

rock present

NORMAN TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits16 Carman Construction

Inc.-- 2-4 35-45 -- partially rehabilitated, material

grades from fine sand to crushable

Unlicenced Pits17 -- -- 1.5-2 35-45 -- fine sand to crushable18 -- -- 1 35-45 -- similar to Pit No. 1719 -- -- 6-8 35-45 -- similar to Pit No. 1720 -- -- 3 35-45 -- similar to Pit No. 1721 -- -- 6-8 35-45 -- similar to Pit No. 1722 -- -- 2 30-35 -- material is finer than Pit. No. 1723 -- -- 6-8 0-5 -- fine sand to silty very fine sand


25


Area(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

24 -- -- 1-1.5 25-35 -- depleted

MORGAN TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

Unlicenced Pits25 -- -- 2-3 40-60 -- outwash deposit, material grades

from medium sand to crushable26 -- -- 2-3 40-60 -- similar to Pit No. 2527 -- -- 4-6 40-60 -- similar to Pit No. 2528 -- -- 2 40-60 -- pit is badly overgrown29 -- -- 2-3 40-60 -- similar to Pit No. 2530 -- -- 2-3 40-60 -- badly overgrown, bedrock close by31 -- -- 5-7 40-60 -- similar to Pit No. 2532 -- -- 1 40-60 -- similar to Pit No. 2533 -- -- 2-3 40-60 -- similar to Pit No. 2534 -- -- 1-2 40-60 -- similar to Pit No. 2535 -- -- 2 40-60 -- badly overgrown36 -- -- 10-15 40-60 -- large pit on north side of river37 -- -- 2-3 40-60 -- small deposit of south side of river38 -- -- 2-3 40-60 -- pit located near river bank39 -- -- 6-8 40-60 -- garbage in pit floor40 -- -- 2-3 0-5 -- predominantly fine sand

LUMSDEN TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits41 Ethier Sand and

Gravel Ltd.-- 1 -- -- property in reserve

42 Ethier Sand andGravel Ltd.

-- 6 40-60 -- delta deposit

43 G.Hope CustomCrushing Ltd.

-- 4-5 40-60 -- pit under powerline, old forestryoperation surrounds pit area

Unlicenced Pits44 -- -- 2 40-60 -- small outwash deposit near bedrock

outcropping45 -- -- 3 -- -- stony, sandy till46 -- -- 1 -- -- small pit across from Pit No. 4147 -- -- 1-2 35-50 -- overgrown pit, deltaic material48 -- -- 1 20-30 -- medium to coarse sand49 -- -- 1 5-10 -- predominantly med to coarse sand50 -- -- 2-3 40-60 -- outwash material, small pit51 -- -- 1-1.5 0-5 -- medium to coarse sand52 -- -- 1-3 0-5 -- silty fine sand

HANMER TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits53 G.Hope Custom

Crushing Ltd.-- 1-3 35-50 -- ice-contact deposit

ARIP 170

26


Area(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

54 GLH Consulting Inc. -- 2-4 35-50 -- fine sand to crushable material55 Miller Paving Ltd. 15.78 variable 40-60 -- part of large delta deposit56 Miller Paving Ltd. 64.75 -- -- -- part of large delta deposit57 Ethier Sand and

Gravel Ltd.88.63 6-8 variable -- part of large delta deposit


-- 2-4 variable -- part of large delta deposit, pit flooris moist

59 Fernand Jutras -- 2-4 variable -- similar to Pit No. 5860 Frappier Trucking -- 3-4 0-10 -- coarser material at depth61 Warren Bitulithic

Ltd.-- -- -- -- property in reserve

62 Joe W. Koncz -- 2-4 5-20 -- predominantly sand, some crush-able

63 Coltrinari andFalzetta

63.94 2-4 35-50 -- part of large delta deposit

64 Paul TurcotteExcavating

-- 2-4 35-50 -- part of large delta deposit

65 Kapone’s Excavating -- 2-4 35-50 -- just north of landfill site66 Paul Turcotte

Excavating-- 2-4 35-50 -- just north of landfill site

67 Corp. of the Town ofValley East

-- 2-4 35-50 -- just north of landfill site, part oflarge delta deposit

68 Warren Paving andMaterials Group Ltd.

61.80 2-7 variable -- part of large delta deposit

69 Warren BitulithicLtd.

117.36 2-7 variable -- part of large delta deposit, northpart of property on reserve

70 Aurele Houle 9.06 2-5 variable -- similar material as in Pit No. 6971 Rodney Fielding 16.19 2-4 variable -- similar material as in Pit No. 6972 Dubois Bros.

Haulage-- 2-4 35-50 -- part of large delta deposit

73 Coltrinari andFalzetta

42.28 2-4 variable -- part of pit in delta deposit, southernpart in lacustrine plain material

74 R. Rivest Haulage 15.72 1-3 5-20 -- lacustrine plain material75 Fernand Jutras -- 1-2 5-15 -- lacustrine plain material

Unlicenced Pits76 -- -- 4-6 35-50 -- outwash material77 -- -- 2-3 20-40 -- overgrown pit78 -- -- 4-6 35-50 -- abandoned pit south of Pit No. 5479 -- -- 1-3 35-50 -- pit just east of Pit No. 5580 -- -- 1-2 0-5 -- silty fine sand81 -- -- 1-2 0-5 -- similar to Pit No. 8082 -- -- 1-2 0-5 -- similar to Pit No. 8083 -- -- 1-2 0-5 -- silty fine sand84 -- -- 1-2 0-5 -- similar to Pit No. 8385 -- -- 1-2 0-5 -- similar to Pit No. 8386 -- -- 2-3 0-5 -- overgrown pit, mainly fine sand87A -- -- 2-3 0-5 -- predominantly sand


27


Area(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

87B -- -- 2-4 0-5 -- similar to Pit No. 87A87C -- -- 2-4 0-5 -- similar to Pit No. 87A88 -- -- 2-4 0-5 -- predominantly a fine to medium

sand89 -- -- 1-3 0-5 -- silty fine to medium sandCAPREOL TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits90 Dubois Bros. Ltd. -- -- 35-60 -- from Pit No. 90 to Pit No. 99 is a

series of permitted properties locatedin a large delta deposit. Pit faces varybut none are greater than 7-8 m

91 A.Houle HaulageLtd.

-- -- 35-60 -- refer to Pit No. 90

92 862227 Ontario Inc. -- -- 35-60 -- refer to Pit No. 9093 Marc Lafreniere

Trucking-- -- 35-60 -- refer to Pit No. 90

94 Corp. of the Town ofValley East

-- -- 35-60 -- refer to Pit No. 90

95 Dubois Bros. Ltd. -- -- 35-60 -- refer to Pit No. 9096 Corp. of the Town of

Valley East-- -- 35-60 -- refer to Pit No. 90

97 Maurice Belzile -- -- 35-60 -- refer to Pit No. 9098 Normand Belzile -- -- 35-60 -- refer to Pit No. 9099 Fernand Jutras -- -- 35-60 -- refer to Pit No. 90100 862340 Ontario Inc. 81.35 2-3 45-65 -- good material, water in pit floor101 Pioneer Construction

Ltd.56.66 12-16 20-30 -- predominantly sand, but crushable

material is present

Unlicenced Pits102 -- -- 3-4 40-60 -- badly overgrown103 -- -- 4-6 -- -- outwash material, till, bedrock104 -- -- 1 0-10 -- predominantly sand105 -- -- 2-3 0-10 -- mainly a silty fine to medium sand106 -- -- 1-2 40-60 -- small pit in delta deposit107 -- -- 2-3 40-60 -- pit located in delta deposit108 -- -- 4-5 40-60 -- pit located in delta deposit109 -- -- 4-7 40-60 -- long pit located in delta deposit

(Suez Canal)110 -- -- 3-5 40-60 -- pit located on south side of road111 -- -- 1 0-10 -- predominantly a fine sand112 -- -- 4-5 0-10 -- predominantly sand113 -- -- 2-3 0-10 -- predominantly sand114 -- -- 1 0-10 -- predominantly sand115 -- -- 1-2 0-10 -- predominantly sand116A -- -- 2-4 0-10 -- predominantly sand116B -- -- 1-2 0-10 -- predominantly sand117 -- -- 1-2 0-10 -- predominantly sand118 -- -- 6-8 -- -- stony, bouldery, sandy till119 -- -- 1-1.5 35-50 -- small ice-contact deposit

ARIP 170

28


Area(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

120 -- -- 2 35-50 -- small outwash deposit

MACLENNAN TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits121 Marslen Investments

Ltd.28.00 6-8 20-35 -- sand with some crushable material

122 North Star Sand andGravel Ltd.

89.43 5-6 0-20 -- predominantly sand, silty sand

123 Rainbow ConcreteIndustries Ltd.

104.46 10-17 variable -- areas of pit that are mainly sandwhile others have crushable material

Unlicenced Pits124 -- -- 4-6 35-50 -- ice-contact material125 -- -- -- 35-60 -- similar to Pit No. 124126 -- -- 1 35-50 -- small outwash deposit127 -- -- 9-15 35-50 -- large amount of material removed128 -- -- 4-6 35-50 -- pit located behind house129 -- -- 1 35-50 -- located in a delta deposit130 -- -- 5-7 35-50 -- outwash/delta material131 -- -- 3-4 0-10 -- predominantly fine sand132 -- -- 2 0-10 -- fine to medium sand133 -- -- 3-4 15-25 -- mainly sand with some gravel134 -- -- 4-6 -- -- outwash on side of bedrock high135 -- -- 6-8 35-60 -- fine sand to crushable136 -- -- 2-3 35-60 -- similar to Pit No. 135137 -- -- 3-4 35-60 -- delta material, junk in pit138 -- -- 2-3 35-60 -- delta material139 -- -- 3-4 35-60 -- partially rehabilitated140 -- -- 3-4 35-45 -- mainly coarse sand141 -- -- 6-8 35-60 -- ice contact material142 -- -- 7-9 35-60 -- delta material143 -- -- 2-4 -- -- rehabilitated

BALFOUR TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits144 510949 Ontario Inc. 14.87 2-3 0-5 -- silty fine to medium sand145 -- -- 1-2 0-5 -- silty fine to medium sand

Unlicenced PitsRAYSIDE TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits146 Rheal Carriere 11.33147 Miro Czerkas 2.40 2-3 0-5 -- silty fine sand/clayey silt148 Miro Czerkas 2.50 2-3 0-5 -- similar to Pit No. 147149 Miro Czerkas 4.40 2-3 0-5 -- similar to Pit No. 147150 J.P. Belanger 6.03 2-3 0-5 -- similar to Pit No. 147

Unlicenced Pits


29


Area(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

BLEZARD TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits151 INCO Ltd. - Mines

Eng. Dept.3.82 -- --

Unlicenced Pits152 -- -- -- 0-5 -- face sloped, fine to medium sand153 -- -- 2 -- -- stony, sandy till over bedrock

GARSON TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits154 Alexander Centre

Industries Ltd.175.24 up to 15 variable --material grades from sand to crush-

able aggregate155 INCO Ltd. - Mines

Technical Services265.08 up to 15 variable -- material grades from silty fine sand

to crushable156 INCO Ltd. - Mines

Technical Services286.79 -- -- -- silty fine sand, area has been reha-

bilitated

Unlicenced Pits157 -- -- 1-2 0-10 -- predominantly sand158 -- -- 2 0-5 -- silty fine sand159 -- -- 1 0-5 -- silty fine sand160 -- -- 1 0-5 -- small pit, silty fine sand161 -- -- 1 0-5 -- small pit, silty fine sand162 -- -- 1 0-5 -- small pit, silty fine sand163 -- -- 1-2 0-5 -- badly overgrown, sand

FALCONBRIDGE TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits164 North Star Sand and

Gravel Ltd.67.18 2-3 35-60 -- ice-contact/deltaic material

165 Falconbridge Ltd. 770.14 6-10 35-60 -- ice-contact/deltaic material166 Pioneer Construction

Ltd.64.90 3-4 35-60 -- ice-contact/deltaic material and

quarry operation (10 m face)167 Pioneer Construction

Ltd.66.78 -- -- --similar to Pit No. 166


16.20 2-4 35-60 -- ice-contact/deltaic material

169 Pioneer ConstructionLtd.

66.78 -- -- -- refer to Pit Nos. 166 and 167

CREIGHTON TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

Unlicenced Pits

SNIDER TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

ARIP 170

30


Area(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

Unlicenced Pits

McKIM TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits170 Alexander Centre In-

dustries Ltd.33.60 2-4 0-5 -- silty fine sand material and quarry

operation171 Alexander Centre In-

dustries Ltd.26.20 -- -- -- similar to Pit No. 170

Unlicenced PitsNEELON TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits172 795647 Ontario Ltd. 7.70 2-4 0-5 -- silty fine sandQ172 -- -- -- -- -- new licenced quarry173 Falconbridge Ltd. 3.30 1-3 -- -- clay pitQ174 Leo Alarie and Sons

Ltd.-- 7-11 -- -- new quarry operation, also listed in

Table 5Unlicenced Pits

DRYDEN TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits175 Falconbridge Ltd. 96.40 2-4 -- -- clay pit176 Marslen Investments

Ltd.-- -- --

177 Alan and Ivan Fram 12.65 1-3 0-10 -- mainly fine to medium sand178 Alan and Ivan Fram -- 4-6 10-20 -- material variable, clay to stone179 Alexander Center In-

dustries Ltd.24.69 4-18 variable -- material grades from fine sand to

crushable pebble/cobble180 Danny Lennon -- -- --181 Ministry of Trans-

portation-- 16-18 35-60 -- esker material

182 Alexander Center In-dustries Ltd.

-- 4-6 10-20 -- mainly a sand with some gravel

183 Gordon Lennon 7.12 1 0-5 -- silty fine sand, partially rehabed.184 North Star Sand and

Gravel Ltd.-- 2-4 35-45

185 Pioneer ConstructionLtd.

-- 4-12 variable -- ice-contact material, also a quarryoperation

Unlicenced Pits186 -- -- 6-7 variable -- clay, silt, sand, gravel and till187 -- -- 1-3 0-10 -- mainly a small sand pit

GRAHAM TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits188 Marslen Investments

Ltd.-- -- --


31


Area(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

189 Rose Rees 9.60 4-6 variable -- silty sand and till, leeside cavity fillUnlicenced Pits190 -- -- 4-5 variable -- sand to cobble/boulder191 -- -- 1-3 0-10 -- silty fine sand192 -- -- 2-3 0-10 -- silt, clayey silt193 -- -- 4-5 0-10 -- badly overgrown, sand194 -- -- 4 0-10 -- medium to coarse sand with gravel195 -- -- 6-8 variable -- leeside cavity fill, sand, till, re-

habed. (?)Q196 -- -- 4-6 -- -- wayside quarry, also listed in Table

5WATERS TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits197 Charles Morissette 6.07 4-6 variable -- silt and clay to gravel material198 INCO Ltd. - Mines

Technical Services8.54 1-3 -- -- similar to Pit No. 197, rehabilitated

quarry north of licence199 Cavdon

Development Ltd.7.28 7-9 -- -- most of material has been removed

to bedrock, water in pit floorQ200 Rintala Construction

Company Ltd.5.30 6-8 -- -- quarry operation, also listed in

Table 5201 INCO Ltd. - Mines

Technical Services13.50 1-3 0-10 -- mainly fine sand, silt and clay

Unlicenced Pits202 -- -- 2 35-50 -- partially rehabed., bedrock core203 -- -- 1-2 -- -- badly overgrown, mainly sand204 -- -- 8-10 0-10 -- partially rehabed., mainly sand205 -- -- 1 0-10 -- overgrown, clayey silt/silty clay206 -- -- 6-8 -- -- reworked stony, sandy till207 -- -- 1 -- -- small roadcut/pit, mainly sand

208 -- -- 5-7 -- -- pit has been rehabilitated

BRODER AND DILL TOWNSHIPSPermitted or Licenced Pits209 Alexander Center In-

dustries Ltd.48.90 6-8 0-10 -- mainly sand, silt and clay

210 K. and E. Kalaba 1.60 4-6 -- -- stony, sandy till211 Pioneer Construction

Ltd.18.20 6-8 variable -- material grades from silt and clay

to bouldery, sandy till

Unlicenced Pits212 -- -- variable variable -- a series of pits, ice-contact deposit213 -- -- variable -- -- similar to Pit No. 212214 -- -- variable -- -- similar to Pit No. 212215 -- -- 8-11 35-45 -- leeside cavity fill216 -- -- -- -- -- similar to Pit No. 215217 -- -- -- -- -- similar to Pit No. 215218 -- -- -- -- -- similar to Pit No. 215

ARIP 170

32


Area(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

219 -- -- 6-8 variable -- leeside cavity fill deposit220 -- -- 6-8 -- -- similar to Pit No. 219221 -- -- 3-4 -- -- leeside cavity fill, till material222 -- -- 3-4 -- -- till pit behind house223 -- -- -- -- -- depleted, pit across from Pit No.

211224 -- -- 6-8 -- -- reworked till material, small beach225 -- -- 2-3 35-45 -- outwash material226 -- -- 2-3 35-45 -- outwash material227 -- -- 6-8 variable -- beach like material over bedrock228 -- -- 6-8 variable -- ice-contact/reworked till, crushable

material229 -- -- 1 0-10 -- small pit, mainly sand230 -- -- 4-6 variable -- bedrock core, reworked till/beach


33

TABLE 3 -- SELECTED SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCE AREASREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DEPOSIT

NO.

UNLICENCED

AREA(Hectares)*

CULTURALSETBACK(Hectares)**

EXTRACTEDAREA

(Hectares)***

POSSIBLEAREA

(Hectares)

ESTIMATEDDEPOSIT

THICKNESS(Metres)

POSSIBLE

AGGREGATERESOURCES****(Million Tonnes)

1 181.5 40.3 -- 141.2 6 15.0

2A 130.6 19.4 -- 111.2 6 11.82B 494.3 80.6 -- 413.7 6 43.9

3A 445.0 30.1 -- 414.9 6 44.13B 77.0 4.0 -- 73.0 6 7.8

4 395.3 33.3 -- 362.0 6 38.5

5 469.4 44.1 -- 425.3 6 45.2

6A 271.1 9.7 -- 261.4 6 27.86B 134.9 -- -- 134.9 6 14.36C 794.7 93.6 -- 701.1 6 74.56D 170.9 -- -- 170.9 6 18.2

7A 915.8 253.2 -- 662.6 6 70.37B 360.8 79.9 -- 280.9 6 29.87C 1130.9 83.1 -- 1047.8 6 111.3

TOTAL FOR STUDY AREA5972.2 771.3 0 5200.9 552.5

Minor variations in all tables are caused by the rounding of data

* Excludes areas licenced under the Aggregate Resources Act.

** Cultural setbacks include heavily populated urban areas, roads (including a 100 m wide strip centred on each road), water features

(e.g., lakes, streams), 1 ha for individual houses. NOTE: this provides a preliminary and generalized constraint application only.

Additional environmental and social constraints will further reduce the deposit area.Additional environmental and social constraints will further reduce the deposit area.

*** Extracted area is a rough estimate of areas that are not licenced but due to previous extractive activity, largely depleted.

**** Further environmental, resource, social and economic constraints will greatly reduce the selected resource quantity realistically

available for potential extraction.

ARIP 170

34

TABLE 4 -- TOTAL BEDROCK RESOURCES


1 2 3 4 5

DRIFT

THICKNESS

FORMATION ESTIMATED

DEPOSITTHICKNESS(Metres)

AREAL

EXTENT(Hectares)

ORIGINAL

TONNAGE(Million of Tonnes)

Since Precambrian bedrock is so variable (refer to the report), total bedrock resources were not calculated( p ),for the Regional Municipality of Sudbury


35

TABLE 5 -- QUARRIESREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY

Quarry

No.

Owner/Operator Licenced

Area(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

Remarks

Q172 -- -- -- -- new quarry licence

Q174 Leo Alarie and Sons Ltd. -- 7-11 -- also listed on Table 2

Q196 Wayside Quarry -- 4-6 -- material used for Highway 17

Q200 Rintala Construction Ltd. 5.3 6-8

ARIP 170

36

TABLE 6 -- SELECTED BEDROCK RESOURCES


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

AREANO.

DEPTH OF

OVER-BURDEN(Metres)

AREA

(Hectares)*

CULTURALSETBACKS(Hectares)**

EXTRACTED

AREA(Hectares)***

POSSIBLERESOURCEAREA(Hectares)

ESTIMATEDWORKABLETHICKNESS(Metres)

POSSIBLEBEDROCKRE-SOURCES****(Million ofTonnes)

Since Precambrian bedrock can be so variable (refer to the report), there were no selected bedrock resource areas for theRegional Municipality of Sudbury.


37

TABLE 7 -- SUMMARY OF TEST HOLE DATAREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY

-- NONE --

TABLE 8 -- SUMMARY OF GEOPHYSICAL DATA


-- NONE --

ARIP 170

38

TABLE9--RESU

LTSOFAGGREGATEQUALITYTEST

SREGIONALMUNICIPALITYOFSU

DBURY

COARSE

AGGREGATE

FINE

AGGREGATE

PetrographicNum

ber

Sample

No.

Granular

&16

mm

crushed

HotMix

&Concrete

Magnesium

Sulphate

Soundness

(%Loss)

Absorption

Freeze/Thaw

(%Loss)

Micro

Deval

(%Loss)

Mortar

Bar

(%)

(Days)

Micro

Deval

Abrasion

(%Loss)

PitN

o.4

100.0

100.0

1.0

0.465

1.0

3.7

0.125(14)

5.8

PitN

o.5

108.4

114.3

3.0

0.565

1.0

----

8.5

PitN

o.12

100.0

106.1

1.0

0.438

2.0

4.9

0.256(28)

8.5

PitN

o.18

111.0

116.2

1.0

0.542

1.0

4.8

--7.5

PitN

o.32

100.0

103.1

1.0

0.702

----

0.089(14)

6.5

LU-SS-1

100.0

102.5

1.0

0.401

1.0

4.0

0.098(14)

8.1

PitN

o.108

100.0

100.4

1.0

0.426

1.0

3.9

0.245(28)

8.4

PitN

o.135

117.0

118.3

2.0

0.568

4.0

8.1

0.261(28)

9.7


39

Figure2A

.AggregateGrading

Curve

-EastH

alfofthe

RegionalM

unicipality

ofSudbury

Based

onanalysisofthetotalaggregatecontainedinunprocessedsamples(gradation

envelopesadaptedfrom

OntarioProvincialStandardSpecificationsOPSS

1010,1988).

NOTE:

Inform

ationportrayedby

gradingcurvesrefersstrictlytoaspecificsampletakenatthetimeoffieldinvestigation.Duetotheinherentvariabilityofsand

andgravel

depositscareshouldbe

exercisedinextrapolatingsuch

inform

ationtotherestofthedeposit.

ARIP 170

40

Figure2B.AggregateGrading

Curve

-EastH

alfofthe

RegionalM

unicipality

ofSudbury

Based

onanalysisofthesand

fraction

oftheaggregatecontainedinunprocessedsamples(gradation


OntarioProvincialStandardsSpecifications

OPSS

1002,1988and1003,1988).

NOTE:

Inform

ationportrayedby


andgraveldeposits

careshouldbe


inform



41

Figure3A

.AggregateGrading

Curve

-EastH

alfofthe

RegionalM

unicipality

ofSudbury

Basedon

analysisofthetotalaggregatecontainedinunprocessedsamples(gradation



1010,

1988).

NOTE:

Inform

ationportrayedby

gradingcurvesrefersstrictlytoaspecificsampletakenatthetimeoffieldinvestigation.Due

totheinherentvariabilityofsand

andgravel



inform


ARIP 170

42


Curve

-EastH

alfofthe

RegionalM

unicipality

ofSudbury

Based

onanalysisofthesand

fraction



OntarioProvincialStandardSpecifications

OPSS

1002,1988and1003,1988).

NOTE:

Inform

ationportrayedby


andgraveldeposits

careshouldbe


inform



43

Figure4A

.AggregateGrading

Curve

-EastH

alfofthe

RegionalM

unicipality

ofSudbury

Basedon

analysisofthetotalaggregatecontainedinunprocessedsamples(gradation



1010,

1988).

NOTE:

Inform

ationportrayedby



andgravel



inform


ARIP 170

44


Curve

-EastH

alfofthe

RegionalM

unicipality

ofSudbury

Based

onanalysisofthesand

fraction




OPSS

1002,1988and1003,1988).

NOTE:

Inform

ationportrayedby


andgraveldeposits

careshouldbe


inform



45

Figure5A

.AggregateGrading

Curve

-EastH

alfofthe

RegionalM

unicipality

ofSudbury

Based

onanalysisofthetotalaggregatecontainedinunprocessedsamples(gradation



OPSS

1010,1988).

NOTE:

Inform

ationportrayedby


and

graveldepositscareshouldbe


inform


ARIP 170

46


Curve

-EastH

alfofthe

RegionalM

unicipality

ofSudbury

Basedon

analysisofthesand

fraction




OPSS

1002,1988and1003,1988).

NOTE:

Inform

ationportrayedby



andgravel



inform


47

References

Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario 1976. Performancestandards for professional engineers advising on and reportingon oil, gas and mineral properties; Association of ProfessionalEngineers of Ontario, 11p.

Bajc, A.F. 1992. Geochemical response of surficial media, north andeast range, Sudbury Basin, Sudbury, Ontario; in Summary ofField Work and Other Activities 1992, Ontario Geological Sur-vey, Miscellaneous Paper 160, p.147-150.

Bajc, A.F. 1993. Geochemical response of surficial media to nickel-copper-platinum group element mineralization, north and eastranges, SudburyBasin; in Summary of FieldWork and OtherAc-tivities 1993, Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Paper162, p.183-187.

Barnett, P.J. 1992. Quaternary geology of Ontario; in Geology of On-tario, Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, Part 2,p.1011-1088.

Boissonneau, A.N. 1968. Glacial history of northeastern Ontario B IIthe Timiskaming–Algoma area, Canadian Journal of EarthSciences, 5, p.97-109.

Burwasser, G.J. 1979. Quaternary geology of the Sudbury Basin area,District of Sudbury; Ontario Geological Survey, Report 181, 103p. Accompanied by Map 2397, scale 1:50 000 and 2 Charts.

Chojnacki,B. andRyell, J. 1960.A laboratory evaluation ofOntario aircooled slags as concrete aggregates; Ont. Department of High-ways, Materials and Research Section, Report No. 21, 19p.

Dressler, B.O. 1984.General geology of the Sudbury area; in theGeol-ogy andOreDeposits of the Sudbury Structure; OntarioGeologi-cal Survey, Special Volume 1, p. 57-82.

Emery, J.J. 1978. Slags as industrial minerals; in Third IndustrialMin-erals International Congress, Paris 1978; edited by B.M. Coope,Metal Bulletin Ltd., London, p.127-142.

Magni, E.R. andRogers,C.A. 1987. The influence of the alkali-silicatereaction on structures in the vicinity of Sudbury, Ontario;OntarioMinistry of Transportation and Communications, EngineeringMaterials Office, Report EM-81, 24p.

Ontario InterministerialCommittee onNationalStandards andSpecifi-cations (Metric Committee) 1975. Ontario Metric practicesguide; 67p.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Associa-tion ofMunicipalClerks and Treasurers ofOntario 1997.OntarioMunicipal Directory 1997; Ministry of Municipal Affairs andHousing, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, 178p.

Ontario Ministry ofMunicipal Affairs 1992. Ontario Municipal Direc-tory 1992; Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers ofOntario, 190p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1993. Aggregate resources ofsouthernOntario -A stateof the resource study;Ministry ofNatu-ral Resources, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1995. Mineral aggregates inOntario - overview and statistical update 1995;Ministry ofNatu-ral Resources, 62p.

Robertson, J.A. 1975.Mineral deposit studies,mineral potential evalu-ation and regional planning in Ontario; Ontario Division ofMines, Miscellaneous Paper 61, 42p.

Rogers,C.A. 1985.Alkali aggregate reactions,concrete aggregate test-ings and problem aggregates in Ontario - A review, 5th Edition,Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Engineeringand Materials Office, MTC Paper EM-31, 44p.

Telford, Geldart, Sheriff and Keys 1980, Applied Geophysics, Cam-bridge University Press, London, England, 860 p.

48

Appendix A - Suggested Additional Reading

Antevs, E. 1925.Retreat of the Last ice sheet in eastern Canada,GeologicalSurvey of Canada Memoir No. 146.

Bates, R.I. and Jackson, J.A. eds 1987. Glossary of geology, 3RDEdition;American Geological Institute, Alexandria, 788p.

Bauer, A.M. 1970. A guide to site development and rehabilitation of pitsand quarries; Ontario Department of Mines, Industrial Minerals Re-port 33, 62p.

Boissonneau, A.N. 1965. Surficial geology Algoma, Sudbury, Timiskam-ing and Nipissing, Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, MapS465.

Boissonneau, A.N. 1966. Glacial history of northeastern Ontario – I theCochrane to Hearst area. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 3,p.559--578.

Burwasser, G.J. 1976. Quaternary geology and granular resources of theSudbury Basin area, District of Sudbury; Ontario Division ofMines,OFR 5185, 267 p.

Burwasser, G.J. 1976. Quaternary geology Sudbury, RegionalMunicipali-ty of Sudbury; Ontario Geological Survey; Map 2397, scale 1:50000.

Bezys,R.K. and Johnson,M.D. 1988.The geology of the Paleozoic forma-tions utilized by the limestone industry of Ontario; CIM Bulletin,April 1988, p.49--58.

Chapman, L.J. 1954 An outlet of Lake Algonquin at Fossmill, Ontario.Proceedings of Geological Association of Canada, 6, p 61--68.

Cowan,W.R. 1977. Toward the inventory ofOntario’s mineral aggregates;Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Paper 73, 19p.

Dell, C.J. 1963 A study of the mineralogical composition of sand in north-ern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 43, 189--200.

Derry Michener, Booth and Wahl and Ontario Geological Survey 1989a.Limestone industries of Ontario, Volume I -geology, properties andeconomics; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Land Manage-ment Branch, 158p.

_______ 1989b. Limestone industries ofOntario,Volume II -limestone in-dustries and resources of eastern and northernOntario; OntarioMin-istry of Natural Resources, Land Management Branch, 196p.

_______ 1989c. Limestone industries of Ontario, Volume III -limestoneindustries and resources of central and southwestern Ontario; Ontar-io Ministry of Natural Resources, Land Management Branch, 175p.

Fairbridge,R.W. ed. 1968. The encyclopedia of geomorphology;Encyclo-pedia of Earth Sciences, V.3, Reinhold Book Corp., New York,1295p.

Flint, R.F. 1971. Glacial and Quaternary geology; John Wiley and SonsInc., New York, 892p.

Gartner, J.F. 1980. Cartier Area (NTS 41I/NW), Districts of Algoma andSudbury; Ontario Geological Survey, Northern Ontario EngineeringGeology Terrain Study 94, 18 p. Accompanied by Maps 5000 and5004, scale 1:100 000.

_______ 1980. Capreol Area (NTS 41I/NE), Districts of Nipissing andSudbury; Ontario Geological Survey, Northern Ontario EngineeringGeology Terrain Study 95, 16 p. Accompanied by Map 5001, scale1:100 000.

_______ 1980. Espanola Area (NTS 41I/SW), Districts of Manitoulin andSudbury; Ontario Geological Survey, Northern Ontario EngineeringGeology Terrain Study 99, 14 p. Accompanied by Map 5002, scale1:100 000.

_______ 1980. Sudbury Area (NTS 41I/SE), Districts of Nipissing, ParrySound and Sudbury; Ontario Geological Survey, Northern OntarioEngineering Geology Terrain Study 100, 12 p. Accompanied byMap 5003, scale 1:100 000.

_______ 1980. North Bay Area (NTS 31L/SW), Districts of Nipissing andParry Sound; Ontario Geological Survey, Northern Ontario Engi-neering Geology Terrain Study 101, 19 p. Accompanied by Map5044, scale 1:100 000.

Hewitt,D.F. 1964a. Building stones ofOntario, part I introduction;OntarioDepartment of Mines, Industrial Mineral Report 14, 43p.

_______ 1964b. Building stones of Ontario, part II limestone; OntarioDe-partment of Mines, Industrial Mineral Report 15, 43p.

_______ 1964c. Building stones of Ontario, part III marble; Ontario De-partment of Mines, Industrial Mineral Report 16, 89p.

_______ 1964d. Building stones of Ontario, part IV sandstone; OntarioDepartment of Mines, Industrial Mineral Report 17, 57p.

_______ 1972. Paleozoic geology of southern Ontario; Ontario Divisionof Mines, Geological Report 105, 18p.

Hewitt, D.F. and Vos, M.A. 1970. Urbanization and rehabilitation of pitsand quarries; Ontario Department of Mines, Industrial Mineral Re-port 34, 21p.

Lowe, S.B. 1980. Trees and shrubs for the improvement and rehabilitationof pits and quarries in Ontario; Ontario Ministry of Natural Re-sources, 71p.

McLellan, A.G., Yundt, S.E. and Dorfman, M.L. 1979. Abandoned pitsand quarries in Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, MiscellaneousPaper 79, 36p.

Michalski, M.F.P., Gregory, D.R. and Usher, A.J. 1987. Rehabilitation ofpits and quarries for fish and wildlife; Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources, Land Management Branch, 59p.

Ontario 1980. The mining act; Revised Statutes of Ontario 1980. Chapter268, Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Geological Survey 1987. Aggregate Resources Inventory West ofSudbury,RegionalMunicipality of Sudbury andDistrict of Sudbury;Ontario Geological Survey, ARIP 140, 152p. Accompanied by 6maps, scale 1:50000

Ontario Geological Survey 1991. Geology ofOntario; OntarioGeologicalSurvey, Special Volume 4, Part 1, 711p.

Ontario Mineral AggregateWorking Party 1977. A policy for mineral ag-gregate resource management in Ontario; Ontario Ministry of Natu-ral Resources, 232p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1975. Vegetation for the rehabilita-tion of pits and quarries; Forest Management Branch, Division ofForests, 38p.

Peat, Marwick and Partners and M.M. Dillon Limited 1981a. Mineral ag-gregate transportation study; IndustrialMineralBackground Paper 1,133p.

_______ 1981b. Mineral aggregate transportation study; IndustrialMiner-al Background Paper 1a, 26p.

Prest, V.K. 1949. The Pleistocene geology of the Vermilion River systemnear Capreol, District of Sudbury, ODM. PR. 1949--2 (Mimeo--Re-port)

Proctor and Redfern Limited, 1974. Mineral aggregate study, central On-tario planning region; prepared for the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources, 200p.

Proctor and Redfern Limited and Gartner Lee Associates Limited 1975.Mineral aggregates study and geological inventory of part of theeastern Ontario region; prepared for the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources, 326p.

Rogers, C.A. 1985a. Alkali aggregate reactions, concrete aggregate test-ings and problem aggregates in Ontario -A review; 5TH Edition,Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Engineering andMaterials Office, Paper EM--31, 44p.

_______ 1985b. Evaluation of the potential for expansion and crackingdue to the alkali--carbonate reaction; in Cement, Concrete and Ag-gregates, CCAGDP, V.8, No. 1, p.13--23.

Terasmae J and Hughes Owen J. 1960 Glacial Retreat in the North BayArea, Ontario, Science 131 p 1444--46.

49

Appendix B -- Glossary

Abrasion resistance: Tests such as the Los Angelesabrasion test are used tomeasure the ability of aggregateto resist crushing and pulverizing under conditionssimilar to those encountered in processing and use.Measuring resistance is an important component in theevaluation of the quality and prospective uses ofaggregate. Hard, durable material is preferred for roadbuilding.

Absorption capacity: Related to the porosity of the rocktypes of which an aggregate is composed. Porous rocksare subject to disintegration when absorbed liquidsfreeze and thaw, thus decreasing the strength of theaggregate.

Acid-Soluble Chloride Ion Content: This test measurestotal chloride ion content in concrete and is used tojudge the likelihood of re-bar corrosion andsusceptibility to deterioration by freeze-thaw inconcrete structures. There is a strong positivecorrelation between chloride ion content anddepassivation of reinforcing steel in concrete.Depassivation permits corrosion of the steel in thepresence of oxygen and moisture. Chloride ions arecontributed mainly by the application of de-icing salts.

Aggregate: Any hard, inert, construction material(sand, gravel, shells, slag, crushed stone or othermineral material) used for mixing in various-sizedfragmentswith a cement or bituminousmaterial to formconcrete, mortar, etc., or used alone for road building orother construction. Synonyms include mineralaggregate and granular material.

Aggregate Abrasion Value: This test directly measuresthe resistance of aggregate to abrasion with silica sandand a steel disk. The higher the value, the lower theresistance to abrasion. For high quality asphalt surfacecourse uses, values of less than 6 are desirable.

Alkali-aggregate reaction: A chemical reactionbetween the alkalies of Portland cement and certainminerals found in rocks used for aggregate.Alkali-aggregate reactions are undesirable becausethey can cause expansion and cracking of concrete.Although perfectly suitable for building stone andasphalt applications, alkali-reactive aggregates shouldbe avoided for structural concrete uses.

Beneficiation: Beneficiation of aggregates is a processor combination of processeswhich improves the quality(physical properties) of a mineral aggregate and is notpart of the normal processing for a particular use, suchas routine crushing, screening, washing, orclassification. Heavy media separation, jigging, or

application of special crushers (e.g., “cage mill”) areusually considered processes of beneficiation.

Blending: Required in cases of extreme coarseness,fineness, or other irregularities in the gradation ofunprocessed aggregate. Blending is done withapproved sand-sized aggregate in order to satisfy thegradation requirements of the material.

Bulk Relative Density: The density of a material relatedto water at 4oC and atmospheric pressure at sea level.An aggregate with low relative density is lighter inweight than one with a high relative density. Lowrelative density aggregates (less than about 2.5) areoften non-durable for many aggregate uses.

Cambrian: The first period of the Paleozoic Era,thought to have covered the time between 570 and 505million years age. The Cambrian precedes theOrdovician Period.

Chert: Amorphous silica, generally associated withlimestone. Often occur as irregular masses or lenses butcan also occur finally disseminated through limestones.It may be very hard in unleached form. In leached form,it is white and “chalky” and is very absorptive. It hasdeleterious effect for aggregates to be used in Portlandcement concrete due to reactivity with alkalies inPortland cement.

Clast: An individual constituent, grain or fragment of asediment or rock, produced by the mechanicalweathering of larger rock mass. Synonyms includeparticle and fragment.

Crushable Aggregate:Unprocessed gravel containing aminimum of 35% coarse aggregate larger than the No. 4sieve (4.75 mm) as well as a minimum of 20% greaterthan the 26.5 mm sieve.

Deleterious lithology: Ageneral term used to designatethose rock types which are chemically or physicallyunsuited for use as construction or road-buildingaggregates. Such lithologies as chert, shale, siltstoneand sandstone may deteriorate rapidly when exposed totraffic and other environmental conditions.

Devonian: A period of the Paleozoic Era thought tohave covered the span of time between 408 and 360million years ago, following the Silurian Period. Rocksformed in the Devonian Period are among the youngestPaleozoic rocks in Ontario.

Dolostone: A carbonate sedimentary rock consistingchiefly of the mineral dolomite and containingrelatively little calcite (dolostone is also known asdolomite).

ARIP 170

50

Drift: Ageneral term for all unconsolidated rock debristransported from one place and deposited in another,distinguished from underlying bedrock. In NorthAmerica, glacial activity has been the dominant modeof transport and deposition of drift. Synonyms includeoverburden and surficial deposit.

Drumlin: A low, smoothly rounded, elongated hill,mound, or ridge composed of glacial materials. Theselandforms were formed beneath an advancing ice sheet,and were shaped by its flow.

Eolian: Pertaining to the wind, especially with respectto landforms whose constituents were transported anddeposited by wind activity. Sand dunes are an exampleof an eolian landform.

Fines:A general term used to describe the size fractionof an aggregate which passes (is finer than) the No. 200mesh screen (0.075 mm). Also described informally as“dirt”, these particles are in the silt and clay size range.

Glacial lobe: A tongue-like projection from themarginof the main mass of an ice cap or ice sheet. During thePleistocene Epoch several lobes of the Laurentidecontinental ice sheet occupied the Great Lakes basins.These lobes advanced thenmelted back numerous timesduring the Pleistocene, producing the complexarrangement of glacial material and landforms found inOntario.

Gneiss: A coarse-textured metamorphic rock with theminerals arranged in parallel streaks or bands. Gneiss isrelatively rich in feldspar. Other common mineralsfound in this rock include quartz, mica, amphibole andgarnet.

Gradation: The proportion of material of each particlesize, or the frequency distribution of the various sizeswhich constitute a sediment. The strength, durability,permeability and stability of an aggregate depend to agreat extent on its gradation. The size limits fordifferent particles are as follows:

Boulder more than 200 mmCobbles 75-200 mmCoarse Gravel 26.5-75 mmFine Gravel 4.75-26.5 mmCoarse Sand 2-4.75 mmMedium Sand 0.425-2 mmFine Sand 0.075-0.425 mmSilt, Clay less than 0.075 mm

Granite: A coarse-grained, light-coloured rock thatordinarily has an even texture and is composed of quartzand feldspar with either mica, hornblende or both.

Granular Base and Subbase: Components of apavement structure of a road, which are placed on thesubgrade and are designed to provide strength, stability

and drainage, aswell as, support for surfacingmaterials.Four types have been defined: Granular A consists ofcrushed and processed aggregate and has relativelystringent quality standards in comparison to Granular Bwhich is usually pit-run or other unprocessed aggregate,Granular M is a shouldering and surface dressingmaterial with quality requirements similar to GranularA, and Select Subgrade Material has similar qualityrequirements to Granular B and it provides a stableplatform for the overlying pavement structure. (Formore specific information the reader is referred toOntario Provincial Standard Specification OPSS1010).

Heavy Duty Binder: Second layer from the top of hotmix asphalt pavements, used on heavily travelled(especially by trucks) expressways, such as Highway401. Coarse and fine aggregates are to be producedfrom high quality bedrock quarries, except when gravelis permitted by special provisions.

Hot-laid (or Asphaltic) Paving Aggregate:Bituminous, cemented aggregates used in theconstruction of pavements either as surface or bearingcourse (HL 1, 3 and 4), or as binder course (HL 2, 4 and8) used to bind the surface course to the underlyinggranular base.

Limestone: A carbonate sedimentary rock consistingchiefly of the mineral calcite. It may contain themineral dolomite up to about 40 percent.

Lithology: The description of rocks on the basis of suchcharacteristics as colour, structure, mineralogiccomposition and grain size. Generally, the descriptionof the physical character of a rock.

Los Angeles Abrasion and Impact Test: This testmeasures the resistance to abrasion and the impactstrength of aggregate. This gives an idea of thebreakdown that can be expected to occur when anaggregate is stockpiled, transported and placed. Valuesless than about 35% indicate potentially satisfactoryperformance formost concrete and asphalt uses. Valuesof more than 45% indicate that the aggregate may besusceptible to excessive breakdown during handlingand placing.

Magnesium Sulphate Soundness Test: This test isdesigned to simulate the action of freezing and thawingon aggregates. Those aggregates which are susceptibleto freezing and thawing will usually break down andgive high losses in this test. Values greater than about12 to 15% indicate potential problems for concrete andasphalt coarse aggregate.

Medium Duty Binder: Second layer from the top of hotmix asphalt pavements used on heavily travelled,usually four lane highways andmunicipal arterial roads.It may be constructed with high quality quarried rock orhigh quality gravel with a high percentage of fracturedfaces or polymer modified asphalt cements.


51

Meltwater Channel: A drainage way, often terraced,produced by water flowing away from a melting glaciermargin.

Ordovician: An early period of the Paleozoic Erathought to have covered the span of time between 505and 438 million years ago.

Paleozoic Era: One of the major divisions of thegeologic time scale thought to have covered the timeperiod between 570 and 230 million years ago, thePaleozoic Era (or Ancient Life Era) is subdivided intosix geologic periods, of which only four (Cambrian,Ordovician, Silurian and Devonian) can be recognizedin southern Ontario.

Petrographic Examination: An aggregate quality testbased on known field performance of various rocktypes. In Ontario the test result is a PetrographicNumber (PN). The higher the PN, the lower the qualityof the aggregate.

Pleistocene: An epoch of the recent geological pastincluding the time from approximately 2 million yearsago to 7000 years ago. Much of the Pleistocene wascharacterized by extensive glacial activity and ispopularly referred to as the “Great Ice Age”.

Polished Stone Value: This test measures the frictionalproperties of aggregates after 6 hours of abrasion andpolishing with an emery abrasive. The higher the PSV,the higher the frictional properties of the aggregate.Values less than 45 indicate marginal frictionalproperties, while values greater than 55 indicateexcellent frictional properties.

Possible Resource: Reserve estimates based largely onbroad knowledge of the geological character of thedeposit and for which there are few, if any, samples ormeasurements. The estimates are based on assumedcontinuity or repetition for which there are reasonablegeological indications, but do not take into accountmany site specific natural and environmentalconstraints that could render the resource unaccessible.

Precambrian: The earliest geological period extendingfrom the consolidation of the earth’s crust to thebeginning of the Cambrian Period.

Sandstone: A clastic sedimentary rock consistingchiefly of sand-size particles of quartz and minorfeldspar, cemented together by calcareous minerals(calcite or dolomite) or by silica.

Shale: A fine-grained, sedimentary rock formed by theconsolidation of clay, silt or mud and characterized bywell developed bedding planes, along which the rockbreaks readily into thin layers. The term shale is alsocommonly used for fissile claystone, siltstone andmudstone.

Siltstone: Aclastic sedimentary rock consisting chieflyof silt-size particles, cemented together by calcareousminerals (calcite and dolomite) or by silica.

Silurian:An early period of the Paleozoic era thought tohave covered the time between 438 and 408 millionyears ago. The Silurian follows the Ordovician Periodand precedes the Devonian Period.

Soundness: The ability of the components of anaggregate towithstand the effects of variousweatheringprocesses and agents. Unsound lithologies are subjectto disintegration caused by the expansion of absorbedsolutions. This may seriously impair the performanceof road-building and construction aggregates.

Till: Unsorted and unstratified rock debris, depositeddirectly by glaciers, and ranging in size from clay tolarge boulders.

Wisconsinan: Pertaining to the last glacial period of thePleistocene Epoch inNorthAmerica. TheWisconsinanbegan approximately 100 000 years ago and endedapproximately 7000 years ago. The glacial deposits andlandforms of Ontario are predominantly the result ofglacial activity during the Wisconsinan Stage.

52

Appendix C -- Geology of Sand and Gravel Deposits

The type, distribution and extent of sand and gravel de-posits in Ontario are the result of extensive glacial andglacially influenced activity in Wisconsinan time dur-ing the Pleistocene Epoch, approximately 100 000 to7000 years ago. The deposit types reflect the differentdepositional environments that existed during the melt-ing and retreat of the continental ice masses, and canreadily be differentiated on the basis of their morpholo-gy, structure, and texture. The deposit types are de-scribed below.

GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS

These deposits can be divided into two broadcategories: those that were formed in contact with (or inclose proximity to) glacial ice, and those that weredeposited by meltwaters carrying materials beyond theice margin.

Ice-Contact Terraces (ICT): These are glaciofluvialfeatures deposited between the glacial margin and aconfining topographic high, such as the side of a valley.The structure of the deposits may be similar to that ofoutwash deposits, but in most cases the sorting andgrading of thematerial ismore variable and the beddingis discontinuous because of extensive slumping. Theprobability of locating large amounts of crushableaggregate ismoderate, and extractionmay be expensivebecause of the variability of the deposits both in termsofquality and grain size distribution.

Kames (K): Kames are defined as mounds of poorlysorted sand and gravel deposited by meltwater indepressions or fissures on the ice surface or at itsmargin. During glacial retreat, the melting ofsupporting ice causes collapse of the deposits,producing internal structures characterized by beddingdiscontinuities. The deposits consist mainly ofirregularly bedded and crossbedded, poorly sorted sandand gravel. The present forms of the deposits includesingle mounds, linear ridges (crevasse fillings) orcomplex groups of landforms. The latter areoccasionally described as “undifferentiated ice-contactstratified drift” (IC) when detailed subsurfaceinformation is unavailable. Since kames commonlycontain large amounts of fine-grained material and arecharacterized by considerable variability, there isgenerally a low to moderate probability of discoveringlarge amounts of good quality, crushable aggregate.Extractive problems encountered in these deposits aremainly the excessive variability of the aggregate and therare presence of excess fines (silt- and clay-sizedparticles).

Eskers (E): Eskers are narrow, sinuous ridges of sandand gravel deposited by meltwaters flowing in tunnelswithin or at the base of glaciers, or in channels on the icesurface. Eskers vary greatly in size. Many, though notall eskers, consist of a central core of poorly sorted andstratified gravel characterized by a wide range in grainsize. The core material is often draped on its flanks bybetter sorted and stratified sand and gravel. Thedeposits have a high probability of containing a largeproportion of crushable aggregate, and since they aregenerally built above the surrounding ground surface,are convenient extraction sites. For these reasons eskerdeposits have been traditional aggregate sourcesthroughout Ontario, and are significant components ofthe total resources of many areas.

Some planning constraints and opportunities areinherent in the nature of the deposits. Because of theirlinear nature, the deposits commonly extend acrossseveral property boundaries leading to unorganizedextractive development at numerous small pits. On theother hand, because of their form, eskers can be easilyand inexpensively extracted and are amenable torehabilitation and sequential land use.

Undifferentiated Ice-Contact Stratified Drift (IC): Thisdesignation may include deposits from severalice-contact, depositional environments which usuallyform extensive, complex landforms. It is not feasible toidentify individual areas of coarse-grained materialwithin such deposits because of their lack of continuityand grain size variability. They are given a qualitativerating based on existing pit and other subsurface data.

Outwash (OW): Outwash deposits consist of sand andgravel laid down by meltwaters beyond the margin ofthe ice lobes. The deposits occur as sheets or as terracedvalley fills (valley trains) and may be very large inextent and thickness. Well developed outwash depositshave good horizontal bedding and are uniform in grainsize distribution. Outwash deposited near the glacier’smargin is much more variable in texture and structure.The probability of locating useful crushable aggregatesin outwash deposits is moderate to high depending onhow much information on size, distribution andthickness is available.

Subaqueous Fans (SF): Subaqueous fans are formedwithin or near the mouths of meltwater conduits whensediment-laden meltwaters are discharged into astanding body of water. The geometry of the resultingdeposit is fan or lobe-shaped. Several of these lobesmay be joined together to form a larger, continuoussedimentary body. Internally, subaqueous fans consistof stratified sands and gravels which may exhibit widevariations in grain size distribution. As these features


53

were deposited under glacial lake waters, silt and claywhich settled out of these lakes may be associated invarying amounts with these deposits. The variability ofthe sediments and presence of fines are the mainextractive problems associated with these deposits.

Alluvium (AL): Alluvium is a general term for clay, silt,sand, gravel, or similar unconsolidated materialdeposited during postglacial time by a stream as sortedor semi-sorted sediment, on its bed or on its floodplain.The probability of locating large amounts of crushableaggregate in alluvial deposits is low, and they havegenerally low value because of the presence of excesssilt- and clay-sized material. There are few largepostglacial alluvium deposits in Ontario.

GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSITS

Glaciolacustrine Beach Deposits (LB): These arerelatively narrow, linear features formedbywave actionat the shores of glacial lakes that existed at various timesduring the deglaciation of Ontario. Well developedlacustrine beaches are usually less than 6 m thick. Theaggregate is well sorted and stratified and sand-sizedmaterial commonly predominates. The compositionand size distribution of the deposit depends on thenature of the source material. The probability ofobtaining crushable aggregate is highwhen thematerialis developed from coarse-grained materials such as astony till, and low when developed from fine-grainedmaterials. Beaches are relatively narrow, lineardeposits, so that extractive operations are oftennumerous and extensive.

Glaciolacustrine Deltas (LD): These features wereformed where streams or rivers of glacial meltwaterflowed into lakes and deposited their suspendedsediment. In Ontario such deposits tend to consistmainly of sand and abundant silt. However, in near-iceand ice-contact positions, coarse material may bepresent. Although deltaic deposits may be large, the

probability of obtaining coarse material is generallylow.

Glaciolacustrine Plains (LP): The nearly level surfacemarking the floor of an extinct glacial lake. Thesediments which form the plain are predominantly fineto medium sand, silt and clay, and were deposited inrelatively deepwater. Lacustrine deposits are generallyof low value as aggregate sources because of their finegrain size and lack of crushable material. In someaggregate-poor areas, lacustrine deposits mayconstitute valuable sources of fill and some granularsubbase aggregate.

GLACIAL DEPOSITS

End Moraines (EM): These are belts of glacial driftdeposited at, and parallel to, glacier margins. Endmoraines commonly consist of ice-contact stratifieddrift and in such instances are usually called kamemoraines. Kame moraines commonly result fromdeposition between two glacial lobes (interlobatemoraines). The probability of locating aggregateswithin such features is moderate to low. Explorationand development costs are high. Moraines may be verylarge and contain vast aggregate resources, but thelocation of the best areas within the moraine is usuallypoorly defined.

EOLIAN DEPOSITS

Windblown Deposits (WD): Windblown deposits arethose formed by the transport and deposition of sand bywinds. The form of the deposits ranges from extensive,thin layers to well developed linear and crescenticridges known as dunes. Most windblown deposits inOntario are derived from, anddeposited on, pre-existinglacustrine sand plain deposits. Windblown sedimentsalmost always consist of fine to coarse sand and areusually well sorted. The probability of locatingcrushable aggregate in windblown deposits is very low.

54

Appendix D -- Geology of Bedrock Deposits

The purpose of this appendix is to familiarize the readerwith the general bedrock geology of southern Ontario(Figure D1), and where known, the potential uses of thevarious bedrock formations. The reader is cautionedagainst using this information for more specific pur-poses. The stratigraphic chart (Figure D2) is intendedonly to illustrate the stratigraphic sequences in particu-lar geographic areas and should not be used as a regionalcorrelation table.

The following description is arranged in ascendingstratigraphic order, on a group and formationbasis. Pre-cambrian rocks are not discussed. Additional strati-graphic information is included for some formationswhere necessary. The publications and maps of the On-tario Geological Survey (e.g. Johnson et al. 1992) andthe Geological Survey of Canada should be referred tofor more detailed information. The composition, thick-ness, and uses of the formations are discussed. If aformation may be suitable for use as aggregate and ag-gregate suitability test data are available, the data havebeen included in the form of ranges. The followingshort forms have been used in presenting this data: PSV= Polished Stone Value, AAV = Aggregate AbrasionValue, MgSO4 = Magnesium Sulphate Soundness Test(loss in percent), LA = Los Angeles Abrasion and Im-pact Test (loss in percent), Absn =Absorption (percent),BRD=BulkRelativeDensity, PN(Asphalt &Concrete)= Petrographic Number for Asphalt and Concrete use.The ranges are intended as a guide only and care shouldbe exercised in extrapolating the information to specificsituations. Aggregate suitability test data has been pro-vided by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.

Covey Hill Formation (Cambrian)

STRATIGRAPHY: lower formation of the PotsdamGroup. COMPOSITION: interbedded non-calcareousfeldspathic conglomerate and sandstone. THICK-NESS: 0 to 14m. USES: has been quarried for aggre-gate in South Burgess Township, Leeds County.

Nepean Formation(Cambro-Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of the Potsdam Group. COM-POSITION: thin- to massive-bedded quartz sandstonewith some conglomerate interbeds and rare shaly part-ings. THICKNESS: 0 to 30 m. USES: suitable as di-mension stone; quarried at Philipsville and Forfar forsilica sand; alkali-silica reactive in Portland cementconcrete. AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING:PSV = 54-68, AAV= 4-15, MgSO4 = 9-32, LA = 44-90,Absn = 1.6-2.6, BRD = 2.38-2.50, PN (Asphalt & Con-crete) = 130-140.

March Formation (Lower Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHY: lower formation of the Beekman-town Group. COMPOSITION: interbedded quartzsandstone, dolomitic quartz sandstone, sandy dolostoneand dolostone. THICKNESS: 6 to 64 m. USES: quar-ried extensively for aggregate in area of subcrop andoutcrop; alkali-silica reactive in Portland cement con-crete; lower part of formation is an excellent source ofskid-resistant aggregate. Suitable for use as facing stoneand paving stone. AGGREGATE SUITABILITYTESTING: PSV = 55-60, AAV = 4-6, MgS04 = 1-17,LA = 15-38, Absn = 0.5-0.9, BRD = 2.61-2.65, PN (As-phalt & Concrete) = 110-150.

Oxford Formation (Lower Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHY: upper formation of the Beekman-town Group. COMPOSITION: thin- to thick-bedded,microcrystalline to medium-crystalline, grey dolostonewith thin shaly interbeds. THICKNESS: 61 to 102 m.USES: quarried in the Brockville and Smith Falls areasand south of Ottawa for use as aggregate. AGGRE-GATESUITABILITYTESTING: PSV=47-48, AAV=7-8, MgSO4 = 1-4, LA = 18-23, Absn = 0.7-0.9, BRD =2.74-2.78, PN (Asphalt & Concrete) = 105-120.

Rockcliffe Formation (MiddleOrdovician)

STRATIGRAPHY: divided into lower member and up-per (St. Martin) member. COMPOSITION: inter-bedded quartz sandstone and shale; interbedded shalybioclastic limestone and shale predominating in uppermember to the east. THICKNESS: 0 to 125 m. USES:upper member has been quarried east of Ottawa for ag-gregate; lower member has been used as crushed stone;some high purity limestone beds in upper member maybe suitable for use as fluxing stone and in lime produc-tion. AGGREGATESUITABILITYTESTING: PSV=58-63, AAV = 10-11, MgSO4 = 12-40, LA = 25-28,Absn = 1.8-1.9, BRD = 2.55-2.62, PN (Asphalt & Con-crete) = 122-440.

Shadow Lake Formation (MiddleOrdovician)

STRATIGRAPHY: eastern Ontario - the basal unit ofthe Ottawa Group; central Ontario - overlain by theSimcoe Group. COMPOSITION: in eastern Ontario -silty and sandy dolostone with shale partings and minorinterbeds of sandstone; in central Ontario - conglomer-ates, sandstones, and shales. THICKNESS: easternOn-tario - 2 to 3 m; central Ontario - 0 to 12 m. USES: po-tential source of decorative stone; very limited value asaggregate source.


55

Gull River Formation (MiddleOrdovician)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of the Simcoe Group (centralOntario) andOttawaGroup (easternOntario). In easternOntario the formation is subdivided into upper and low-ermembers; in centralOntario it is presently subdividedinto upper, middle and lower members. COMPOSI-TION: in central and eastern Ontario the lowermemberconsists of alternating units of limestone, dolomiticlimestone, and dolostone, the upper member consists ofthin-bedded limestones with thin shale partings; west ofLakeSimcoe the lowermember is thin- to thick-bedded,interbedded, grey argillaceous limestone and buff togreendolostonewhereas the upper andmiddlemembersare dense microcrystalline limestones with argillaceousdolostone interbeds. THICKNESS: 7.5 to 136m.USES: Quarried in the LakeSimcoe, Kingston,Ottawa,and Cornwall areas for crushed stone. Rock from cer-tain layers in eastern and central Ontario has proven tobe alkali-reactive when used in Portland cement con-crete (alkali-carbonate reaction). AGGREGATESUIT-ABILITY TESTING: PSV = 41-49, AAV = 8-12,MgSO4 = 3-13, LA = 18-28, Absn = 0.3-0.9, BRD =2.68-2.73, PN (Asphalt & Concrete) = 100-153.

Bobcaygeon Formation (MiddleOrdovician)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of the Simcoe Group (centralOntario) and theOttawaGroup (easternOntario), subdi-vided into upper, middle and lower members; membersin eastern and central Ontario are approximately equiv-alent. COMPOSITION: homogeneous, massive tothin-bedded fine-crystalline limestone with numerousshaly partings in the middle member. THICKNESS: 7to 87 m. USES: Quarried at Brechin,Marysville, and inthe Ottawa area for crushed stone. Generally suitablefor use as granular base course aggregate. Rock fromcertain layers has been found to be alkali-reactive whenused in Portland cement concrete (alkali-silica reac-tion). AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: PSV= 47-51, AAV = 14-23, MgSO4 = 1-40, LA = 18-32,Absn = 0.3-2.4, BRD = 2.5-2.69, PN (Asphalt & Con-crete) = 100-320.

Verulam Formation (MiddleOrdovician)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of Simcoe and Ottawa Groups.COMPOSITION: fossiliferous, pure to argillaceouslimestone interbedded with calcareous shale. THICK-NESS: 32 to 65m. USES: Quarried at Picton and Bathfor use in cement manufacture. Quarried for aggregatein Ramara Township, Simcoe County and in the Belle-ville--Kingston area. May be unsuitable for use as ag-gregate in some areas because of its high shale content.AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: PSV =43-44, AAV= 9-13,MgSO4 = 4-45, LA= 22-29, Absn=

0.4-2.1, BRD = 2.59-2.70, PN (Asphalt & Concrete) =120-255.

Lindsay Formation (Middle UpperOrdovician)STRATIGRAPHY: part of Simcoe and Ottawa Groups;in eastern Ontario is divisible into an unnamed lowermember and the EastviewMember; in central Ontario isdivisible into the Collingwood Member (equivalent toportions of the EastviewMember) and a lowermember.COMPOSITION: eastern Ontario - the lower memberis interbedded, very fine- to coarse-crystalline lime-stone with undulating shale partings and interbeds ofdark grey calcareous shale, whereas the EastviewMem-ber is an interbedded dark grey to dark browncalcareousshale and very fine- to fine-crystalline, petroliferouslimestone; central Ontario -- Collingwood Member is ablack, calcareous shale whereas the lower member is avery fine- to coarse-crystalline, thin-bedded limestonewith very thin, undulating shale partings. THICKNESS:25 to 67m. USES: eastern Ontario - lower member isused extensively for aggregate production; central On-tario - quarried at Picton, OgdenPoint andBowmanvillefor cement.May be suitable or unsuitable for use as con-crete and asphalt aggregate. AGGREGATE SUIT-ABILITY TESTING: MgSO4 = 2-47, LA = 20-28,Absn = 0.4-1.3, BRD = 2.64-2.70, PN (Asphalt & Con-crete) = 110-215.

Blue Mountain and BillingsFormations (Upper Ordovician)STRATIGRAPHY: central Ontario -- Blue MountainFormation includes the upper and middle members ofthe former Whitby Formation; eastern Ontario -- Bill-ings Formation is equivalent to part of the Blue Moun-tain Formation. COMPOSITION: Blue MountainFormation -blue-grey, noncalcareous shales; BillingsFormation - dark grey to black, noncalcareous to slight-ly calcareous, pyritiferous shale with dark grey lime-stone laminae and grey siltstone interbeds. THICK-NESS: Blue Mountain Formation - 43 to 61m; BillingsFormation - 0 to 62m. USES: Billings Formation maybe a suitable source for structural clay products and ex-panded aggregate; Blue Mountain Formation may besuitable for structural clay products.

Georgian Bay and CarlsbadFormations (Upper Ordovician)COMPOSITION: central Ontario -- Georgian BayFormation composed of interbedded limestone andshale; eastern Ontario -- Carlsbad Formation composedof interbedded shale, siltstone and bioclastic limestone;THICKNESS: Georgian Bay Formation - 91 to 170m;Carlsbad Formation - 0 to 186m. USES: Georgian BayFormation - used by several producers in MetropolitanToronto area to produce brick and structural tile, aswellas for making Portland cement; at Streetsville, expand-ed shale was used in the past to produce lightweight ag-

ARIP 170

56

gregate. Carlsbad Formation - used as a source materialfor brick and tile manufacturing, has potential as a light-weight expanded aggregate.

Queenston Formation (UpperOrdovician)

COMPOSITION: red, thin- to thick-bedded, sandy toargillaceous shale with green mottling and banding.THICKNESS: 45 to 335m. USES: There are severallarge quarries developed in the Queenston Formation inthe Toronto--Hamilton region and one at Russell, nearOttawa. All extract shale for brick manufacturing. TheQueenston Formation is the most important source ma-terial for brick manufacture in Ontario.

Whirlpool Formation (Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: lower formation in the CataractGroup in the Niagara Penninsula and the Niagara Es-carpment as far north as Duntroon. COMPOSITION:massive,medium- to coarse-grained, argillaceouswhiteto light grey quartz sandstone with thin grey shale part-ings. THICKNESS: 0 - 8 m. USES: building stone,flagstone.

Manitoulin Formation (Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of the Cataract Group, occursnorth of Stoney Creek. COMPOSITION: thin-bedded,blue-grey to buff-brown dolomitic limestones and dolo-stones. THICKNESS: 0 to 25m. USES: extracted forcrushed stone in St. Vincent and Sarawak townships,GreyCounty, and for decorative stone onManitoulin Is-land.

Cabot Head Formation (LowerSilurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of the Cataract Group, occursin subsurface throughout southwesternOntario and out-crops along the length of the Niagara Escarpment.COMPOSITION: green, grey and red shales. THICK-NESS: 10 to 39m); USES: potential source of coatedlightweight aggregate and raw material for use inmanufacture of brick and tile. Extraction limited bylack of suitable exposures.

Grimsby Formation (Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: upper formation of the CataractGroup, is identified on the Niagara Peninsula as farnorth as Clappison’s Corners. COMPOSITION: inter-bedded sandstone and shale, mostly red. THICKNESS:0 to 15m. USES: no present uses.

Thorold Formation (Middle Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: lower formation in the ClintonGroup on the Niagara Peninsula. COMPOSITION:

thick-bedded quartz sandstone. THICKNESS: 2 - 3 m.USES: no present uses.

Neagha Formation (Middle Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY: part of the Clinton Group on the Ni-agara Peninsula. COMPOSITION; dark-grey to greenshale withminor interbedded limestone. THICKNESS:0 to 2 m. USES: no present uses.

Dyer Bay Formation (Middle Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY: on Manitoulin Island and northern-most Bruce Peninsula. COMPOSITION: highly fossi-liferous, impure dolostone. THICKNESS: 0 to 7.5m.USES: no present uses.

Wingfield Formation (Middle Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY: on Manitoulin Island and northern-most Bruce Peninsula. COMPOSITION: olive green togrey shale with dolostone interbeds. THICKNESS: 0 to15m. USES: no present uses.

St. Edmund Formation (MiddleSilurian)STRATIGRAPHY: occurs on Manitoulin Island andnorthernmost Bruce Peninsula, upper portion previous-ly termed the Mindemoya Formation. COMPOSI-TION: pale grey to buff-brown, micro- to medium-crystalline, thin- to medium-bedded dolostone.THICKNESS: 0 to 25m. USES: quarried for fill andcrushed stone on Manitoulin Island. AGGREGATESUITABILITY TESTING: MgSO4 = 1-2, LA = 19-21,Absn = 0.6-0.7, BRD = 2.78-2.79, PN (Asphalt & Con-crete) = 105.

Fossil Hill and Reynales Formations(Middle Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY: Fossil Hill Formation occurs in thenorthern part of the Niagara Escarpment and is approxi-mately equivalent in part to the Reynales Formationwhich occurs on the Niagara Peninsula and the Escarp-ment as far north as the Forks of the Credit. COMPOSI-TION: FossilHill Formation; fine- to coarse-crystallinedolostonewith high silica content; ReynalesFormation;thin- to thick-bedded shaly dolostone and dolomiticlimestone. THICKNESS: Fossil Hill Formation 6 to26m; Reynales Formation 0 to 3m. USES: both forma-tions quarried for aggregate with overlying Amabel andLockport Formations. AGGREGATE SUITABILITYTESTING: (Fossil Hill Formation on Manitoulin Is-land) MgSO4 = 41, LA = 29, Absn = 4.1, BRD = 2.45,PN (Asphalt & Concrete) = 370.

Irondequoit Formation (MiddleSilurian)STRATIGRAPHY: part of Clinton Group on the Niaga-ra Peninsula south of Waterdown. COMPOSITION:


57

massive, coarse-crystalline crinoidal limestone.THICKNESS: 0 to 2m. USES: not utilized extensively.

Rochester Formation (Middle Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of Clinton Group along the Ni-agara Peninsula. COMPOSITION: black to dark greycalcareous shale with numerous limestone lenses.THICKNESS: 5 to 24m. USES: not utilized extensive-ly. AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: PSV =69, AAV= 17, MgSO4 = 95, LA = 19, Asbn = 2.2, BRD= 2.67, PN (Asphalt & Concrete) = 400.

Decew Formation (Middle Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of Clinton Group south ofWa-terdown along the Niagara Peninsula. COMPOSI-TION: sandy to shaly dolomitic limestone and dolo-stone. THICKNESS: 0 to 5 m. USES: too shaley forhigh quality uses, but is quarried along with LockportFormation in places. AGGREGATE SUITABILITYTESTING: PSV= 67,AAV=15,MgSO4= 55, LA=21,Absn = 2.2, BRD = 2.66, PN (Asphalt & Concrete) =255.

Lockport and Amabel Formations(Middle Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: Lockport Formation occurs fromWaterdown to Niagara Falls, subdivided into 3 formalmembers: Gasport, Goat Island and EramosaMembersand an informal member (the “Vinemount shale beds”);the approximately equivalent Amabel Formation,found from Waterdown to Cockburn Island, has beensubdivided into Lions Head, Wiarton/Colpoy Bay, andEramosa Members. On the Bruce Peninsula and in thesubsurface of southwestern Ontario the Eramosa Mem-ber is considered to be part of the overlying GuelphFormation. COMPOSITION: Lockport Formation isthin- to massive-bedded, fine- to medium-crystallinedolostone; Amabel Formation is thin- to massive-bedded, fine- tomedium-crystalline dolostonewith reeffacies developed near Georgetown and on the BrucePeninsula. The Eramosa Member is thin bedded and bi-tuminous. THICKNESS: (Lockport/ Amabel) 3 to 40m. USES: both formations have been used to producelime, crushed stone, concrete aggregate, and buildingstone throughout their area of occurrence, and are a re-source of provincial significance. AGGREGATESUITABILITYTESTING: PSV= 36-49,AAV=10-17,MgSO4 = 2-6, LA = 25-32, Absn = 0.4-1.54, BRD =2.61-2.81, PN (Asphalt & Concrete) = 100-105.

Guelph Formation (Middle Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: exposed south andwest of theNiag-ara Escarpment from the Niagara River to the tip of theBruce Peninsula, mostly present in the subsurface ofsouthwestern Ontario. COMPOSITION: fine- to me-dium-crystalline, medium- to thick-bedded, porous do-lostone, characterized in places by extensive vuggy, po-

rous reefal facies of high chemical purity. THICK-NESS: 4 to 100m. USES: Some areas appear soft andunsuitable for use in the production of load-bearing ag-gregate. This unit requires additional testing to fully es-tablish its aggregate suitability. Main use is for dolomit-ic lime for cement manufacture. Quarried near Hamil-ton and Guelph.

Salina Formation (Upper Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY: present in the subsurface of south-western Ontario; only rarely exposed at surface. COM-POSITION: grey and maroon shale, brown dolostoneand, in places, salt, anhydrite and gypsum; consists pre-dominantly of evaporitic rich material with up to eightunits identifiable. THICKNESS: 113 to 330m. USES:Gypsummines at Hagersville, Caledonia, and Drumbo.Salt is mined at Goderich and Windsor and is producedfrom brine wells at Amherstburg, Windsor and Sarnia.

Bertie and Bass Islands Formations(Upper Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY: Bertie Formation found in southernNiagara Peninsula; Bass Islands Formation, the Michi-gan Basin equivalent of the Bertie Formation, rarelyoutcrops in Ontario but is present in the subsurface insouthwestern Ontario; Bertie Formation represented byOatka, Falkirk, Scajaquanda, Williamsville, and AkronMembers. COMPOSITION: medium- to massive-bedded, micro-crystalline, brown dolostone with shalypartings. THICKNESS: 14 to 28m. USES: Quarried forcrushed stone on the Niagara Peninsula; shaly intervalsare unsuitable for use as high specification aggregatebecause of low freeze-thaw durability. Has also beenextracted for lime. AGGREGATE SUITABILITYTESTING: PSV = 46-49, AAV = 8-11, MgSO4 = 4-19,LA = 14-23, Absn = 0.8-2.8, BRD = 2.61-2.78, PN (As-phalt & Concrete) = 102-120.

Oriskany Formation (Lower Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY: basal Devonian clastic unit, foundin Niagara Peninsula. COMPOSITION: thick-to mas-sive-bedded, coarse-grained, grey-yellow sandstone.THICKNESS: 0 to 5 m. USES: Has been quarried forsilica sand, building stone, and armour stone. May beacceptable for use as rip rap, and well cemented vari-eties may be acceptable for some asphaltic products.AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: (of a wellcemented variety of the formation) PSV = 64, AAV= 6,MgSO4 = 2, LA = 29, Absn = 1.2-1.3, BRD = 2.55, PN(Asphalt & Concrete) = 107.

Bois Blanc Formation (LowerDevonian)STRATIGRAPHY: Springvale Sandstone Memberforms the lower portion of formation. COMPOSITION:a cherty limestone with shale partings and minor inter-bedded dolostones; Springvale Sandstone Member is amedium-to coarse-grained, green glauconitic sandstone

ARIP 170

58

with interbeds of limestone, dolostone and brown chert.THICKNESS: 3 to 40 m. USES: Quarried at Hagers-ville, Cayuga, and Port Colborne for crushed stone.Ma-terial generally unsuitable for concrete aggregate be-cause of high chert content. AGGREGATESUITABIL-ITY TESTING: PSV = 48-53, AAV = 3-7, MgSO4 =3-18, LA= 15-22, Absn =1.3-2.8, BRD= 2.50-2.70, PN(Asphalt & Concrete) = 102-290.

Onondaga Formation (Lower - MiddleDevonian)

STRATIGRAPHY: correlated to part of the Detroit Riv-er Group; occurs on the Niagara Peninsula from Simcoeto Niagara Falls; contains the Edgecliff, Clarence, andMoorehouse Members. COMPOSITION: medium-bedded, fine- to coarse-grained, dark grey-brown orpurplish-brown, variably cherty limestone. THICK-NESS: 8 to 25m. USES: Quarried for crushed stone onthe Niagara Peninsula at Welland and Port Colborne.High chert content makes much of the material unsuit-able for use as concrete aggregate and asphaltic con-crete. Has been used as a raw material in cementmanufacture. AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TEST-ING: (Clarence and Edgecliff Members)MgSO4 = 1-6,LA = 16.8-22.4, Absn = 0.5-1.1, PN (Asphalt & Con-crete) = 190-276.

Amherstburg Formation (Lower -Middle Devonian)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of Detroit River Group; corre-lated to Onondaga Formation in Niagara Penninsula;contains Sylvania Sandstone Member and FormosaReef Limestone. COMPOSITION: bituminous, bio-clastic, stromatoporoid-rich limestone with grey chertnodules; Formosa Reef Limestone - high purity (cal-cium rich) limestone; Sylvania Sandstone Member -quartz sandstone. THICKNESS: 0 to 60 m; FormosaReef Limestone -up to 26 m. USES: cement manufac-ture, agricultural lime, aggregate. AGGREGATESUITABILITY TESTING: PSV = 57, AAV = 19,MgSO4 = 9-35, LA = 26-52, Absn = 1.1-6.4, BRD =2.35-2.62, PN (Asphalt & Concrete) = 105-300.

Lucas Formation (Middle Devonian)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of the Detroit River Group insouthwestern Ontario; includes the Anderdon Memberwhich, in theWoodstock -- Beachville area, may consti-tute the bulk of the formation. COMPOSITION: lightbrown or grey-brown dolostone with bituminus lamina-tions and minor chert; Anderdon Member consists ofvery high purity (calcium-rich) limestone and locally,sandy limestone. THICKNESS: 40 to 75m. USES:Most important source of high-purity limestone in On-tario. Used as calcium lime for metallurgical flux andfor the manufacture of chemicals. Rock of lower purityis used for cement manufacture, agricultural lime and

aggregate. Anderdon Member is quarried at Amherst-burg for crushed stone. AGGREGATE SUITABILITYTESTING: PSV= 46-47, AAV= 15-16,MgSO4 =2-60,LA = 22-47, Absn = 1.1-6.5, BRD = 2.35-2.40, PN (As-phalt & Concrete) = 110-160.

Dundee Formation (Middle Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY: few natural outcrops, largely in thesubsurface of southwestern Ontario. COMPOSITION:Fine- to medium-crystalline, brownish-grey, medium-to thick-bedded, dolomitic limestone with shaly part-ings sandy layers, and chert in some areas. THICK-NESS: 15 to 45m. USES: Quarried near Port Dover andon Pelee Island for crushed stone. Used at St.Marys as araw material for Portland cement. AGGREGATESUITABILITYTESTING:MgSO4 = 1-28, LA= 22-46,Absn = 0.6-6.8, PN (Asphalt & Concrete) = 125-320.

Marcellus Formation (MiddleDevonian)STRATIGRAPHY: subsurface unit, mostly found be-low Lake Erie and extending into the eastern U.S.A.,pinches out in the Port Stanley area. COMPOSITION:black, bituminous shales. THICKNESS: 0 to 12m.USES: no present uses.

Bell Formation (Middle Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY: lowest formation of the HamiltonGroup, no out-crop in Ontario. COMPOSITION: softblue and grey calcareous shale. THICKNESS: 0 to14.5m. USES: no present uses.

Rockport Quarry Formation (MiddleDevonian)STRATIGRAPHY: part of the HamiltonGroup; noout-crop in Ontario. COMPOSITION: grey-brown, veryfine-grained limestone with occasional shale layers.THICKNESS: 0 to 6m. USES: no present uses.

Arkona Formation (Middle Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY: part of the HamiltonGroup. COM-POSITION: blue-grey, plastic, clay shale with occa-sional thin and laterally discontinuous limestone lenses.THICKNESS: 5 to 37m. USES: has been extracted atThedford and near Arkona for the production of drain-age tile.

Hungry Hollow Formation (MiddleDevonian)STRATIGRAPHY: part of the HamiltonGroup. COM-POSITION: grey crinoidal limestone and soft, fossilif-erous calcareous shale. THICKNESS: 0 to 2m. USES:suitable for some crushed stone and fill with selectivequarrying.

Widder Formation (Middle Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY: part of the HamiltonGroup. COM-POSITION: mainly soft, grey, fossiliferous calcareous


59

shale interbedded with blue-grey, fine-grained fossilif-erous limestone. THICKNESS: 0 to 21m. USES: nopresent uses.

Ipperwash Formation (MiddleDevonian)

STRATIGRAPHY: upper formation of the HamiltonGroup; very limited distribution. COMPOSITION:me-dium- to coarse grained, grey-brown, bioclastic lime-stone. THICKNESS: 2 to14m. USES: no present uses.

Kettle Point Formation (UpperDevonian)

STRATIGRAPHY: occurs in a northwest - southeasttrending band between Sarnia and Erieau; small partoverlain by Port Lambton Group rocks in extremenorthwest. COMPOSITION: black, highly fissile, or-ganic-rich shale with minor interbeds of grey-greensilty shale. THICKNESS: 0 to 75m. USES: possiblesource of material for use as sintered lightweight aggre-gate or fill.

Bedford Formation (Upper Devonianor Mississippian)STRATIGRAPHY: lower formation of the Port Lamb-ton Group. COMPOSITION: soft, grey shale. THICK-NESS: 0 to 30m. USES: no present uses.

Berea Formation (Upper Devonian orMississippian)STRATIGRAPHY: middle formation of the Port Lamb-ton Group; not known to occur at surface in Ontario.COMPOSITION: grey, fine to medium grained sand-stone, often dolomitic and interbedded with grey shaleand siltstone. THICKNESS: 0 to 60m. USES: no pres-ent uses.

Sunbury Formation (Upper Devonianor Mississippian)STRATIGRAPHY: upper formation of the Port Lamb-ton Group; not known to occur at surface in Ontario.COMPOSITION: black shale. THICKNESS: 0 to 20m. USES: no present uses.

ARIP 170

60

FigureD1.Bedrock

Geology

ofSouthernOntario


61

Figure D2.Exposed Paleozoic stratigraphic sequences in Southern Ontario (adapted from:Bezys, R.K., and Johnson,M.D.1988. The geology ofthe Paleozoic formations utilized by the limestone industry of Ontario; The Can. Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin,v.81, no. 912, p.49-58. )

62

Appendix E -- Aggregate Quality Test Specifications

Six types of aggregate quality tests are often performedby the Ontario Ministry of Transportation on sampledmaterial. A description and the specification limits foreach test are included in this appendix. Although a spe-cific sample meets or does not meet the specificationlimits for a certain product, it may or may not be accept-able for that use based on field performance. Additionalquality tests other than the six tests listed in this appen-dix can be used to determine the suitability of an aggre-gate. The tests are performed by the OntarioMinistry ofTransportation.

Absorption Capacity Related to the porosity of the rocktypes of which an aggregate is composed. Porous rocksare subject to disintegration when absorbed liquidsfreeze and thaw, thus decreasing the strength of theaggregate. This test is conducted in conjunction withthe determination of the sample’s relative density.

Los Angeles Abrasion and Impact Test This testmeasures the resistance to abrasion and the impactstrength of aggregate. This gives an idea of thebreakdown that can be expected to occur when anaggregate is stockpiled, transported and placed. Valuesless than about 35% indicate potentially satisfactoryperformance formost concrete and asphalt uses. Valuesof more than 45% indicate that the aggregate may besusceptible to excessive breakdown during handlingand placing.

Magnesium Sulphate Soundness Test This test isdesigned to simulate the action of freezing and thawingon aggregate. Those aggregates which are susceptiblewill usually break down and give high losses in this test.Values greater than about 12 to 15% indicate potentialproblems for concrete and asphalt coarse aggregate.

Micro-Deval Abrasion Test The Micro-Deval Abrasiontest is an accurate measure of the amount of hard,durable materials in sand-sized particles. This abrasiontest is quick, cheap and more precise than the fineaggregate Magnesium Sulphate Soundness test thatsuffers from a wide multilaboratory variation. Themaximum loss for HL 1/HL 3 is 20%, for HL 2 and HL4/HL 8 it is 25% and for structural and pavementconcrete it is 20%. It is anticipated that this test willreplace the fine aggregate Magnesium SulphateSoundness test.

Mortar Bar Accelerated Expansion Test This is a rapidtest for detecting alkali-silica reactive aggregates. Itinvolves the crushing of the aggregate and the creationof standard mortar bars. For coarse and fine aggregates,suggested expansion limits of 0.10% to 0.15% areindicated for innocuous aggregates, greater than 0.10%but less than 0.20% indicates that it is unknownwhethera potentially deleterious reactionwill occur, and greaterthan 0.20% indicates that the aggregate is probablyreactive and should not be used for Portland cementconcrete. If the expansion limit exceeds 0.10% forcoarse and fine aggregates, it is recommended thatsupplementary information be developed to confirmthat the expansion is actually because ofalkali-reactivity. If confirmed deleteriously reactive,the material should not be used for Portland cementconcrete unless corrective measures are undertakensuch as the use of low or reduced alkali cement.

Petrographic Examination Individual aggregateparticles in a sample are divided into categories good,fair, poor and deleterious, based on their rock type(petrography) andknowledge of past field performance.A petrographic number (PN) is calculated. The higherthe PN, the lower the quality of the aggregate.

63

Table E1. Selected quality requirements for major aggregate products.

TYPE OF TEST

COARSE AGGREGATE FINE AGGREGATE

TYPE OF MATERIAL PetrographicNumberMaximum

MagnesiumSulphateSoundnessMaximum%

Loss

AbsorptionMaximum%

Los AngelesAbrasion

Maximum%Loss

Micro--DevalAbrasion

Maximum%Loss

MagnesiumSulphateSoundnessMaximum%

Loss

Granular A 200 -- -- 60 --

Granular B Type 1 250* -- -- -- --

Granular B Type 2 250 -- -- 60 --

Granular M 200 -- -- 60 --

Granular S 200 -- -- -- --

Select Subgrade Material 250 -- -- -- --

Open Graded DrainageLayer (1)

160 15 2.0 35 --

Hot Mix--HL 1, DFC, OFC See OPSS 1149 and Special Provision No. 313S10

Surface Treatment Class 1 135 12 1.75 35 --

Surface Treatment Class 2 160 15 -- 35 --


Surface Treatment Class 4 -- -- -- -- 20


Hot Mix -- HL 1 100 5 1.0 15 20 16

Hot Mix -- HL 2 -- -- -- -- 25 20

Hot Mix -- HL 3 135 12 1.75 35 20 16

Hot Mix -- HL 4 160 12 2.0 35 20 20

Hot Mix -- HL 8 160 15 2.0 35 25 20

Structural Concrete,Sidewalk, Curb, Gutterand Base

140 12 2.0 50 20 16

Pavement Concrete 125 12 2.0 35 20 16

* requirement waived if the material has more than 80% passing the 4.75 mm sieve(1) Hot mix and concrete petrographic number applies(Ontario Provincial StandardSpecificationsOPSS304, OPSS1002, OPSS1003, OPSS 1010 andOPSS1149)

64

Metric Conversion Table

Conversion from SI to Imperial Conversion from Imperial to SI

SI Unit Multiplied by Gives Imperial Unit Multiplied by Gives

LENGTH1 mm 0.039 37 inches 1 inch 25.4 mm1 cm 0.393 70 inches 1 inch 2.54 cm1 m 3.280 84 feet 1 foot 0.304 8 m1 m 0.049 709 chains 1 chain 20.116 8 m1 km 0.621 371 miles (statute) 1 mile (statute) 1.609 344 km

AREA1 cm@ 0.155 0 square inches 1 square inch 6.451 6 cm@1 m@ 10.763 9 square feet 1 square foot 0.092 903 04 m@1 km@ 0.386 10 square miles 1 square mile 2.589 988 km@1 ha 2.471 054 acres 1 acre 0.404 685 6 ha

VOLUME1 cm# 0.061 023 cubic inches 1 cubic inch 16.387 064 cm#1 m# 35.314 7 cubic feet 1 cubic foot 0.028 316 85 m#1 m# 1.307 951 cubic yards 1 cubic yard 0.764 554 86 m#

CAPACITY1 L 1.759 755 pints 1 pint 0.568 261 L1 L 0.879 877 quarts 1 quart 1.136 522 L1 L 0.219 969 gallons 1 gallon 4.546 090 L

MASS1 g 0.035 273 962 ounces (avdp) 1 ounce (avdp) 28.349 523 g1 g 0.032 150 747 ounces (troy) 1 ounce (troy) 31.103 476 8 g1 kg 2.204 622 6 pounds (avdp) 1 pound (avdp) 0.453 592 37 kg1 kg 0.001 102 3 tons (short) 1 ton (short) 907.184 74 kg1 t 1.102 311 3 tons (short) 1 ton (short) 0.907 184 74 t1 kg 0.000 984 21 tons (long) 1 ton (long) 1016.046 908 8 kg1 t 0.984 206 5 tons (long) 1 ton (long) 1.016 046 90 t

CONCENTRATION1 g/t 0.029 166 6 ounce (troy)/ 1 ounce (troy)/ 34.285 714 2 g/t

ton (short) ton (short)1 g/t 0.583 333 33 pennyweights/ 1 pennyweight/ 1.714 285 7 g/t

ton (short) ton (short)

OTHER USEFUL CONVERSION FACTORS

Multiplied by1 ounce (troy) per ton (short) 31.103 477 grams per ton (short)1 gram per ton (short) 0.032 151 ounces (troy) per ton (short)1 ounce (troy) per ton (short) 20.0 pennyweights per ton (short)1 pennyweight per ton (short) 0.05 ounces (troy) per ton (short)

Note:Conversion factorswhich are in boldtype areexact. Theconversion factorshave been taken fromor havebeenderived from factors given in theMetric PracticeGuide for the CanadianMining andMetallurgical Industries, pub-lished by the Mining Association of Canada in co-operation with the Coal Association of Canada.

ISSN 0708–2061ISBN 0–7778–7402–4

arip170 - aggregate resources inventory of the east half ...€¦ · e queen’s printer for...

Documents