arip174 - aggregate resources inventory of the highway 17 ...€¦ · ontario, they are...

Aggregate Resources Inventory of

The Highway 17 CorridorBetween the Wahnapitae Areaand Sturgeon Falls

Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 174

1999

Aggregate Resources Inventory of

The Highway 17 Corridorbetween the Wahnapitae Areaand Sturgeon Falls

Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 174

By D.J. Rowell

1999

ii

� Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1999 ISSN 0708-2061ISBN 0-7778-9081-X

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 LibraryMacdonald Block, Room M2-17 933 Ramsey Lake Road, Level A3900 Bay Street, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5Toronto, Ontario M7A 1C3 Telephone: (705) 670-5615Telephone: 1-800-665-4480 (within Ontario)

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

Purchases may be made only through:

Publication Sales933 Ramsey Lake Road, Level A3Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5Telephone: (705) 670-5691Fax: (705) 670-5770

1-888-415-9845(toll-free)E-mail: [email protected]

Use of Visa or Mastercard ensures the fastest possible service. Cheques or money orders should be made payable tothe Minister of Finance.

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Main entry under title:

Rowell, D.J.Aggregate resources inventory of the Highway 17 corridor between the Wahnapitae area and Sturgeon Falls

(Ontario Geological Survey aggregate resources inventory paper, ISSN 0708-2061; 174) Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-7778-9081-X

1. Aggregates (Building materials) — Ontario — Sudbury (District). 2. Aggregates (Building materials) –Ontario–Nipissing (Dis-trict) I. Ontario Geological Survey. II. Ontario. Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. III. Title IV. Series.

TN939.R68 1999 553.6’2’097131 C99-964017-8

Every possible effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this report; however, theOntario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines does not assume any liability for errors that may occur.Source references are included in the report and users may wish to verify critical information.

If you wish 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 publication may be quoted if credit is given. It is recommended that reference be made in the followingform:Rowell, D.J. 1999. Aggregate resources inventory of the Highway 17 corrdior between the Wahnapitae area and

Sturgeon Falls; Ontario Geological Survey, Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 174, 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 of the Highway 17 Corridor between the Wahnapitae Area and Sturgeon Falls 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Location and Population 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surficial Geology and Physiography 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sand and Gravel Extractive Activity 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 6 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 8 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 9 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 10 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Sand and Gravel Resources 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tertiary Sand and Gravel Resources 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bedrock Geology 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bedrock Suitability 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

iv

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURES1. Key Map Showing the Location of the study area iv. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2a–9b Aggregate Grading Curves, Highway 17 Corridor 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLES1. Total Sand and Gravel Resources, Highway 17 Corridor 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Sand and Gravel Pits, Highway 17 Corridor 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, Highway 17 Corridor 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Total Bedrock Resources, Highway 17 Corridor 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Quarries, Highway 17 Corridor 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Selected Bedrock Resources, Highway 17 Corridor 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Summary of Test Hole Data or Selected Sample Data, Highway 17 Corridor 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Summary of Geophysical Data, Highway 17 Corridor 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9A. Results of Aggregate Quality Tests, Sand and Gravel Samples, Highway 17 Corridor 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9B. Results of Aggregate Quality Tests, Bedrock Samples, Highway 17 Corridor 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GEOLOGICAL MAPS (back pocket)1. Sand and Gravel Resources, Highway 17 Corridor, Scale 1:50 000

v

AbstractThis report includes an inventory and evaluation of thesand and gravel resources along the Highway 17 corridorbetween the Wahnapitae area in the District of Sudburyand the Sturgeon Falls area in the District of Nipissing. It isbased on a detailed field assessment undertaken in thesummer of 1998 and on previous studies in the area. Theinvestigation was conducted to delineate and determinethe quality and quantity of aggregate within the area to helpensure that sufficient aggregate resources are available forfuture use. The report is part of the Aggregate ResourcesInventory Program for areas designated under the Aggre-gate Resources Act (ARA) 1989.

Ten Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, occu-pying a total of 1242 ha, have been selected at the primarylevel. These resource areas, primarily ice-contact and gla-ciofluvial outwash deposits, contain a possible aggregateresource of 93.5 million tonnes. In general, these selectedareas are concentrated in the northern part of the study

area. Secondary and tertiary sand and gravel deposits canadd significantly to the overall quantity of granular materi-al available; these deposits, however, tend to be distantfrom potential markets and may be isolated by a lack ofroad access.

Precambrian bedrock has the potential to supply largequantities of aggregate material. Bedrock is exposedthroughout the study area and some of this bedrock meetsthe specifications for high value products. Thorough test-ing of the bedrock should be completed before quarry de-velopment is undertaken.

Selected Resource Areas are not intended to be per-manent, single land use units which must be incorpo-rated in an official planning document. They representareas in which a major resource is known to exist. Suchresource areas may be reserved wholly or partially forextractive development and/or resource protectionwithin the context of the official plan.

Figure 1. Key map showing the location of the study area.

Aggregate Resources Inventory ofthe Highway 17 Corridor between the Wahnapitae Areaand Sturgeon Falls

By D. J. Rowell

Project Supervisor: C. L. Baker; fieldwork and report by D. J. Rowell; compilation and drafting by Staff of the Sedimen-tary Geoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey. Assistance with review provided by the Resident Geologist, Minis-try of Northern Development and Mines, Sudbury, Ontario; the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, North Bay, 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, SedimentaryGeoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey, 1999.

3

IntroductionMineral aggregates, which include bedrock-derived

crushed stone as well as naturally formed sand and gravel,constitute the major raw material in Ontario’s road build-ing and construction industries. Very large amounts ofthese materials are used each year throughout the Prov-ince. For example, in 1996, the total tonnage of mineralaggregates extracted in Ontario was 141 million tonnes,greater than that of any other metallic or nonmetallic com-modity mined in the Province (Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources 1996).

Although mineral aggregate deposits are plentiful inOntario, they are fixed-location, non-renewable resourceswhich can be exploited only in those areas where they oc-cur. Mineral aggregates are characterized by their highbulk and low unit value so that the economic value of a de-posit is a function of its proximity to a market area as wellas its quality and size. The potential for extractive devel-opment is usually greatest in areas where land use competi-tion is extreme. For these reasons the availability of ade-quate resources for future development is now beingthreatened in many areas, especially urban areas where de-mand is the greatest.

Comprehensive planning and resource managementstrategies are required to make the best use of available re-sources, especially in those areas experiencing rapid de-velopment. Unfortunately, in some cases, the best aggre-

gate resources are found in or near areas of environmentalsensitivity, resulting in the requirement to balance the needfor the different natural resources. Therefore, planningstrategies must be based on a sound knowledge of the totalmineral aggregate resource base at both local and regionallevels. The purpose of the Aggregate Resources InventoryProgram is to provide the basic geological information re-quired to include potential mineral aggregate resourceareas in planning strategies. The reports should form thebasis for discussion on those areas best suited for possibleextraction. The aim is to assist decision-makers in protect-ing the public well-being by ensuring that adequate re-sources of mineral aggregate remain available for futureuse.

This report is a technical background document,based for the most part on geological information andinterpretation. It has been designed as a component ofthe total planning process and should be used in con-junction with other planning considerations, to ensurethe best use of an area’s resources.

The report includes an assessment of sand and gravelresources as well as a discussion on the potential for bed-rock-derived aggregate. The most recent informationavailable has been used to prepare the report. As new in-formation becomes available, revisions may be necessary.

4

Part I - Inventory Methods

FIELD AND OFFICE METHODSThe methods used to prepare the report involved the

interpretation of published geological data such as bedrockand surficial geology maps and reports (see References), aswell as field examination of possible resource areas. Fieldmethods included the examination of natural and man-made exposures of granular material. Most observationswere made at quarries and sand and gravel pits locatedfrom records held by the Ontario Ministry of Transporta-tion (MTO), the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS), and byRegional, District and Area Offices of the Ontario Ministryof Natural Resources (MNR). Observations made at pitsites included estimates of the total face height and the pro-portion of gravel- and sand-sized materials in the deposit.Observations regarding the shape and lithology of the par-ticles were also made. These characteristics are importantin estimating the quality and quantity of the aggregate. Inareas of limited exposure, subsurface materials may be as-sessed by hand augering and test pitting.

Deposits with potential for further extractive develop-ment or those where existing data are scarce, were studiedin greater detail. Representative sections in these depositswere evaluated by taking 11 to 45 kg samples from existingpit faces or from test pits. The samples were tested forgrain size distribution, and in some cases the Los Angelesabrasion and impact test, absorption, Magnesium Sulphatesoundness test and petrographic analyses are carried out.Analyses were performed in the laboratories of the OntarioMinistry of Transportation.

The field data were supplemented by pit informationon file with the Geotechnical Section of the Ontario Minis-try of Transportation. Data contained in these files in-cludes field estimates of the depth, composition and“workability” of deposits, as well as laboratory analyses ofthe physical properties and suitability of the aggregate. In-formation concerning the development history of the pitand acceptable uses of the aggregate is also recorded. Thelocations of additional sources were obtained from recordsheld by Regional, District and Area Offices of the OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources. In addition, reports on geo-logical testing for type, quantity and quality of aggregateswere also obtained from numerous aggregate licence ap-plications on file with the MNR, and with specific individ-uals and companies. The cooperation of the above-namedgroups in the compilation of inventory data is gratefullyacknowledged.

Aerial photographs at various scales are used to deter-mine the continuity of deposits, especially in areas whereinformation is limited. Water well records, held by the On-tario Ministry of the Environment, were used in some areasto corroborate deposit thickness estimates or to indicatethe presence of buried granular material. These recordswere used in conjunction with other evidence.

Ontario Base Maps (OBMs), produced by the Ministryof Natural Resources at a scale of 1:20 000, were used as a

compilation base for the field and office data. The infor-mation was then assembled for publication at a scale of1:50 000.

RESOURCE TONNAGECALCULATION TECHNIQUESSand and Gravel Resources

Once the interpretative boundaries of the aggregateunits have been established, quantitative estimates of thepossible resources available can be made. Generally, thevolume of a deposit can be calculated if its areal extent andaverage thickness are known or can be estimated. Thecomputation methods used are as follows. First, the area ofthe deposit, as outlined on the final base map, is calculatedin hectares (ha). The thickness values used are an approxi-mation of the deposit thickness, based on the face heightsof pits developed in the deposit or on subsurface data suchas test holes and water well records. Tonnage values canthen be calculated by multiplying the volume of the depos-it by 17 700 (the density factor). This factor is approxi-mately the number of tonnes in a 1 m thick layer of sandand gravel, 1 ha in extent, assuming an average density of1770 kg/m3.

Tonnage = Area x Thickness x Density FactorTonnage calculated in this manner must be considered

only as an estimate. Furthermore, such tonnages representamounts that existed prior to any extraction of material(i.e., original tonnage) (Table 1, Column 4).

The Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas inTable 3 are calculated in the following way. Two succes-sive subtractions are made from the total area. Column 3accounts for the number of hectares unavailable because ofthe presence of permanent cultural features and their asso-ciated setback requirements. Column 4 accounts for thoseareas that have previously been extracted (e.g., wayside,unlicenced and abandoned pits are included in this catego-ry). The remaining figure is the area of the deposit current-ly available for extraction (Column 5). The available areais then multiplied by the estimated deposit thickness andthe density factor (Column 5 x Column 6 x 17 700), to givean estimate of the sand and gravel tonnage (Column 7) pos-sibly available for extractive development and/or resourceprotection. It should be noted, however, that recent studies(Planning Initiatives Limited 1993) have shown that any-where from 15 to 80% of the resources in an area may befurther constrained or not accessible because of suchthings as environmental considerations (e.g., floodplains,environmentally sensitive areas), lack of landowner inter-est, resident opposition or other matters.

Resource estimates are calculated for deposits of pri-mary significance. Resource estimates for deposits of sec-ondary and tertiary significance are not calculated in Table3, however, the aggregate potential of these deposits is dis-cussed in the report.

��

5

Bedrock ResourcesThe method used to calculate resources of bedrock-

derived aggregate is much the same as that describedabove. The areal extent of bedrock formations overlain byless than 15 m of unconsolidated overburden is determinedfrom bedrock geology maps, drift thickness and bedrocktopography maps, and from the interpretation of water wellrecords (Table 4). The measured extent of such areas isthen multiplied by the estimated quarriable thickness ofthe formation, based on stratigraphic analyses and on esti-mates of existing quarry faces in the unit. In some cases astandardized estimate of 18 m is used for thickness. Vol-ume estimates are then multiplied by the density factor (theestimated weight in tonnes of a 1 m thick section of rock, 1ha in extent).

Resources of limestone and dolostone are calculatedusing a density factor of 2649 kg/m3, sandstone resources

are calculated using a density estimate of 2344 kg/m3, andshale resources are calculated with a factor of 2408 kg/m3

(Telford, Geldart, Sheriff and Keys 1980).

Units and DefinitionsThe measurements and other primary data available

for resource tonnage calculations are given in Metric unitsin the text and on the tables which accompany the report.Data are generally rounded off in accordance with the On-tario Metric Practices Guide (Ontario InterministerialCommittee on National Standards and Specifications1975).

The tonnage estimates made for sand and gravel de-posits are termed possible resources (see Glossary, Appen-dix B) in accordance with terminology used by the OntarioResource Classification Scheme (Robertson 1975, p.7)and the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario(1976).

6

Part II - Data Presentation and Interpretation

Two maps, each portraying a different aspect of theaggregate resources in the report area, accompany the re-port. Map 1, “Sand and Gravel Resources”, gives a com-prehensive inventory and evaluation of the sand and gravelresources in the report area. Map 2, “Bedrock Resources”,shows the distribution of bedrock formations, the thicknessof overlying unconsolidated sediments and identifies theSelected Bedrock Resource Areas.

MAP 1: SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCES

Map 1 shows the extent and quality of sand and graveldeposits within the study area and an evaluation of the ag-gregate resources. The map is derived from existing surfi-cial geology maps of the area or from aerial photograph in-terpretation in areas where surficial mapping is incom-plete.

The present level of extractive activity is also indi-cated on Map 1. Those areas which are licenced for extrac-tion under the Aggregate Resources Act are shown by a sol-id outline and identified by a number which refers to the pitdescriptions in Table 2. Each description notes the owner/operator and licenced hectarage of the pit, as well as the es-timated face height and percentage gravel. A number ofunlicenced pits (abandoned pits or pits operating on de-mand under authority of a wayside permit) are identifiedby a numbered dot on Map 1 and described in Table 2. Sim-ilarly, test hole locations appear on Map 1 as a point sym-bol and are described in Table 7.

Map 1 also presents a summary of available informa-tion related to the quality of aggregate contained in all theknown aggregate deposits in the study area. Much of thisinformation is contained in the symbols which are found onthe map. The Deposit Symbol appears for each mappeddeposit and summarizes important genetic and texturaldata. The Texture Symbol is a circular proportional dia-gram which displays the grain size distribution of the ag-gregate in areas where bulk samples were taken.

Deposit SymbolThe Deposit Symbol is similar to those used in soil

mapping and land classification systems commonly in usein North America. The components of the symbol indicatethe gravel content, thickness of material, origin (type) andquality limitations for every deposit shown on Map 1.

The “gravel content” and “thickness class” are basiccriteria for distinguishing different deposits. The “gravelcontent” symbol is an upper case “S” or “G”. The “S” indi-cates that the deposit is generally “sandy” and that gravel-sized aggregate (greater than 4.75 mm) makes up less than35% of the whole deposit. “G” indicates that the depositcontains more than 35% gravel.

The “thickness class” indicates a depth range which isrelated to the potential resource tonnage for each deposit.Four thickness class divisions have been established asshown in the legend for Map 1.

Two smaller sets of letters, divided from each other bya horizontal line, follow the thickness class number. Theupper series of letters identifies the geologic deposit type(the types are summarized with respect to their main geo-logic and extractive characteristics in Appendix C), andthe lower series of letters identifies the main quality limita-tions that may be present in the deposit as discussed in thenext section.

G 2OWC

Gravel Content Geological Type

QualityThickness Class

For example, the above symbol identifies an outwashdeposit 3 to 6 m thick containing more than 35% gravel.Excess silt and clay may limit uses of the aggregate in thedeposit.

Texture SymbolThe Texture Symbol provides a more detailed assess-

ment of the grain size distribution of material sampled dur-ing field study. These symbols are derived from the infor-mation plotted on the aggregate grading curves found inthe report. The relative amounts of gravel, sand, and siltand clay in the sampled material are shown graphically inthe Texture Symbol by the subdivision of a circle into pro-portional segments. The following example shows a hypo-thetical sample consisting of 30% gravel, 60% sand and10% silt and clay.

SELECTED SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCE AREAS

All the Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas arefirst delineated by geological boundaries and then classi-fied into 3 levels of significance: primary, secondary andtertiary. Each area of primary significance is given a de-posit number and all such deposits are shown by red shad-ing on Map 1.

��

7

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas of pri-mary significance are not permanent, single land useunits. They represent areas in which a major resourceis known to exist, and may be reserved wholly or par-tially for extractive development and/or resourceprotection. In many of the recently approved local and Re-gional/County Official Plans primary, and in some casesresources of secondary significance, are identified andprotected.

Deposits of secondary significance are indicated byorange shading on Map 1. Such deposits are believed tocontain significant amounts of sand and gravel. Althoughdeposits of secondary significance are not considered to bethe “best” resources in the report area, they may containlarge quantities of sand and gravel and should be consid-ered as part of the aggregate supply of the area.

Areas of tertiary significance are indicated by yellowshading. They are not considered to be important resourceareas because of their low available resources, or becauseof possible difficulties in extraction. Such areas may beuseful for local needs or extraction under a wayside permitbut are unlikely to support large-scale development.

The process by which deposits are evaluated and se-lected involves the consideration of 2 sets of criteria. Themain selection criteria are site specific, related to the char-acteristics of individual deposits. Factors such as depositsize, aggregate quality, and deposit location and setting areconsidered in the selection of those deposits best suited forextractive development. A second set of criteria involvesthe assessment of local aggregate resources in relation tothe quality, quantity and distribution of resources in the re-gion in which the report area is located. The intent of sucha process of evaluation is to ensure the continuing avail-ability of sufficient resources to meet possible future de-mands.

Site Specific Criteria

DEPOSIT SIZEIdeally, selected deposits should contain available

sand and gravel resources large enough to support a com-mercial pit operation using a stationary or portable proc-essing plant. In practice, much smaller deposits may be ofsignificant value depending on the overall resources in therest of the project area. Generally, deposits in Class 1(greater than 6 m thick), and containing more than 35%gravel are considered to be most favourable for commer-cial development. Thinner deposits may be valuable inareas with low total resources.

AGGREGATE QUALITYThe limitations of natural aggregates for various uses

result from variations in the lithology of the particles com-prising the deposit, and from variations in the size distribu-tion of these particles.

Four indicators of the quality of aggregate may be in-cluded in the deposit symbols. They are: gravel content (Gor S), fines (C), oversize (O) and lithology (L).

Three of the quality indicators deal with grain size dis-tribution. The gravel content (G or S) indicates the suit-ability of aggregate for various uses. Deposits containingat least 35% gravel in addition to a minimum of 20% mate-rial greater than the 26.5 mm sieve are considered to be themost favourable extractive sites, since this content is theminimum from which crushed products can be economi-cally produced.

Excess fines (high silt and clay content) may severelylimit the potential use of a deposit. Fines content in excessof 10% may impede drainage in road subbase aggregateand render it more susceptible to the effects of frost action.In asphalt aggregate, excess fines hinder the bonding ofparticles. Deposits known to have a high fines content areindicated by a “C” in the quality portion of the DepositSymbol.

Deposits containing more than 20% oversize material(greater than 10 cm in diameter) may also have use limita-tions. The oversize component is unacceptable for un-crushed road base, so it must be either crushed or removedduring processing. Deposits known to have an appreciableoversize component are indicated by an “O” in the qualityportion of the Deposit Symbol.

Another indicator of the quality of an aggregate islithology. Just as the unique physical and chemical proper-ties of bedrock types determine their value for use ascrushed rock, so do various lithologies of particles in a sandand gravel deposit determine its suitability for varioususes. The presence of objectionable lithologies such aschert, siltstone and shale, even in relatively small amounts,can result in a reduction in the quality of an aggregate, es-pecially for high quality uses such as concrete and asphalt.Similarly, highly weathered, very porous and friable rockcan restrict the quality of an aggregate. Deposits known tocontain objectionable lithologies are indicated by an “L”in the quality component of the Deposit Symbol.

If the Deposit Symbol shows either “C”, “O”, or “L”,or any combination of these indicators, the quality of thedeposit is considered to be reduced for some aggregateuses. No attempt is made to quantify the degree of limita-tion imposed. Assessment of the 4 indicators is made frompublished data, from data contained in files of both the On-tario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and the Sedimen-tary Geoscience Section of the Ontario Geological Surveyand from field observations.

Quality data may also appear in Table 9, where the re-sults of MTO quality tests are listed by test type and samplelocation. The types of tests conducted and the test specifi-cations are explained in Appendixes B and E, respectively.

Analyses of unprocessed samples obtained from testholes, pits or sample sites are plotted on grain size distribu-tion graphs. On the graphs are the Ontario Ministry ofTransportation’s gradation specification envelopes for ag-gregate products: Granular A and Granular B Type 1; Hot-Laid Asphaltic Sand Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8; and concretesand. By plotting the gradation curves with respect to the

ARIP 174

8

specification envelopes, it can be determined how well theunprocessed sampled material meets the criteria for eachproduct. These graphs, called Aggregate Grading Curves,follow the tables in the report.

LOCATION AND SETTINGThe location and setting of a resource area has a direct

influence on its value for possible extraction. The evalua-tion of a deposit’s setting is made on the basis of natural,environmental and man-made features which may limit orprohibit extractive development.

First, the physical context of the deposit is considered.Deposits with some physical constraint on extractive de-velopment, such as thick overburden or high water table,are less valuable resource areas because of the difficultiesinvolved in resource recovery. Second, permanent man-made features, such as roads, railways, power lines andhousing developments, which are built on a deposit, mayprohibit its extraction. The constraining effect of legallyrequired setbacks surrounding such features is included inthe evaluation. A quantitative assessment of theseconstraints can be made by measurement of their areal ex-tent directly from the topographic maps. The area renderedunavailable by these features is shown for each resourcearea in Table 3 (Column 3).

In addition to man-made and cultural features, certainnatural features, such as provincially significant wetlands,may prove to be contraints. In this report such constraintshave not been outlined and the reader is advised to consultwith municipal planning staff and the local office of theMNR for information on these matters. Depending on thenumber and type of constraints, anywhere from 15 to 80%of the total resources in a municipality can become inac-cessible when these or other specific local constraints areconsidered (Planning Initiatives Limited 1993).

The assessment of sand and gravel deposits with re-spect to local land use and to private land ownership is animportant component of the general evaluation process.Since the approval under the Planning Act of the MineralAggregate Resource Policy Statement (MARPS) in themid 1980s and the Comprehensive Set of Policy State-ments, including MARPS, in March 1995, many of themore recently approved local and regional Official Plansnow contain detailed policies regarding the location andoperation of aggregate extraction activity and should beconsulted at an early date in regard to considering the es-tablishment of an aggregate extraction operation. Theseaspects of the evaluation process are not considered furtherin this report, but readers are encouraged to discuss themwith personnel of the pertinent office of MNR, and region-al and local planning officials.

Regional ConsiderationsIn selecting sufficient areas for resource development,

it is important to assess both the local and the regional re-source base, and to forecast future production and demandpatterns.

Some appreciation of future aggregate requirementsin an area may be gained by assessing its present produc-tion levels and by forecasting future production trends.Such an approach is based on the assumptions that produc-tion levels in an area closely reflect the demand, and thatthe present production “market share” of an area will re-main roughly at the same level. In most cases, however,the market demand for aggregate products, especially inurban areas, is greater than the amount of production foundwithin the local market area. Consequently, conflicts oftenarise between the increasing demand for aggregates insuch areas and the frequent pressures to restrict aggregateoperations, especially in the near urban areas.

The aggregate resources in the region surrounding aproject area should be assessed in order to properly evalu-ate specific resource areas and to adopt optimum resourcemanagement plans. For example, an area that has large re-sources in comparison to its surrounding region constitutesa regionally significant resource area. Areas with high re-sources in proximity to large demand centres, such as met-ropolitan areas, are special cases.

Although an appreciation of the regional context is re-quired to develop comprehensive resource managementtechniques, such detailed evaluation is beyond the scope ofthis report. The selection of resource areas made in thisstudy is based primarily on geological data or on consider-ations outlined in preceding sections.

MAP 2: BEDROCK RESOURCESMap 2 is an interpretative map derived from bedrock

geology, drift thickness and bedrock topography maps,water well data from the Ontario Ministry of the Environ-ment (MOE), oil and gas well data from the Non-Renew-able Resources Section (MNR), and from geotechnical testhole data from various sources. Map 2 is based on conceptssimilar to those outlined for Map 1.

The geological boundaries of the Paleozoic bedrockunits are shown by dashed lines. Isolated Paleozoic out-crops are indicated by an “X”. Three sets of contour linesdelineate areas of less than 1 m of drift, areas of 1 to 8 m ofdrift, and areas of 8 to 15 m of drift. The extent of theseareas of thin drift are shown by 3 shades of grey. The dark-est shade indicates where bedrock outcrops or is within 1 mof the ground surface. These areas constitute potential re-source areas because of their easy access. The mediumshade indicates areas where drift cover is up to 8 m thick.Quarrying is possible in this depth of overburden and thesezones also represent potential resource areas. The lightestshade indicates bedrock areas overlain by 8 to 15 m ofoverburden. These latter areas constitute resources thathave extractive value only in specific circumstances, suchas when the bedrock has other industrial mineral uses (e.g.,chemical lime and metallurgical rock). Outside of thesedelineated areas, the bedrock can be assumed to be coveredby more than 15 m of overburden, a depth generally con-sidered to be too great to allow economic extraction (un-less part of the overburden is composed of economicallyattractive deposits).

��

9

Other inventory information presented on Map 2 is de-signed to give an indication of the present level of extrac-tive activity in the report area. Those areas which are li-cenced for extraction under the Aggregate Resources Actare shown by a solid outline and identified by a numberwhich refers to the quarry descriptions in Table 5. Each de-scription notes the owner/operator, licenced hectarage andan estimate of face height. Unlicenced quarries (aban-doned quarries or wayside quarries operating on demandunder authority of a permit) are also identified and num-bered on Map 2 and described in Table 5. Two additionalsymbols may appear on the map. An open dot indicates thelocation of a selected water well which penetrates bedrock.The overburden thickness in metres, is shown beside theopen dot. Similarly, test hole locations appear as a pointsymbol 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 gravel

deposits are used to select bedrock areas most favourablefor extractive development.

The evaluation of bedrock resources is made primari-ly on the basis of performance and suitability data estab-lished by laboratory testing at the Ontario Ministry ofTransportation. The main characteristics and uses of thebedrock units found in southern Ontario are summarized inAppendix D.

Deposit “size” is related directly to the areal extent ofthin drift cover overlying favourable bedrock formations.

Since vertical and lateral variations in bedrock units aremuch more gradual than in sand and gravel deposits, thequality and quantity of the resource are usually consistentover large areas.

Quality of the aggregate derived from specific bed-rock units is established by the performance standards pre-viously mentioned. Location and setting criteria and re-gional considerations are identical to those for sand andgravel deposits.

Selected Resource AreasSelection of Bedrock Resource Areas has been re-

stricted to a single level of significance. Three factors sup-port this approach. First, quality and quantity variationswithin a specific geological formation are gradual. Secondthe areal extent of a given quarry operation is much smallerthan that of a sand and gravel pit producing an equivalenttonnage of material, and third, since crushed bedrock has ahigher unit value than sand and gravel, longer haul dis-tances can be considered. These factors allow the identifi-cation of alternative sites having similar development po-tential. The Selected Areas, if present, are shown on Map 2by a line pattern and the calculated available tonnages aregiven in Table 6.

Selected Bedrock Resource Areas shown on Map 2are not permanent, single land use units. They repre-sent areas in which a major bedrock resource is knownto exist and may be reserved wholly or partially for ex-tractive development and/or resource protection, with-in an Official Plan.

10

Part III - Assessment of Aggregate Resources of theHighway 17 Corridor between the Wahnapitae Area andSturgeon Falls

LOCATION AND POPULATIONThe study area covers 13 townships or approximately

130 000 ha (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs andHousing and the Association of Municipal Clerks andTreasurers of Ontario 1997) along the Highway 17 corridorbetween the Wahnapitae area and Sturgeon Falls (Figure1). The area is covered by parts of the Sturgeon Falls(31L/5), Marten Lake (31L/12), Coniston (41I/7), Verner(41I/8), Glen Afton (41I/9) and Capreol (41I/10) 1:50 000scale map sheets of the National Topographic System(NTS).

Road access in the map area is provided by ProvincialHighway 17, highways 535, 539, 575 and 64, as well astownship and private roads. Both the Canadian Nationaland Canadian Pacific railways have rail corridors throughthe study area.

SURFICIAL GEOLOGY ANDPHYSIOGRAPHY

During the Pleistocene Epoch, all of Ontario was cov-ered by a succession of ice sheets separated by interglacialperiods. The last glacial advance, referred to as the Late orClassical Wisconsinan Stage, began approximately 23 000years before present (Barnett 1992). In the study area gla-cial grooves, chatter marks and straie as well as the orienta-tion of crag and tail features indicate a regional ice flow tothe southwest (195o to 205o). Local bedrock structurescaused the ice to deflect slightly to the west yielding orien-tations up to 225o.

During the Late Wisconsinan a thin, discontinuouscover of till was deposited throughout the study area byglacial ice. This sandy till generally exists as a veneer overthe bedrock surface (Boissoneau 1966, 1968). The till inthe Sudbury area to the west, has been described by Bur-wasser (1979) as a boulder clay, boulder sand or boulderysandy gravel. The variability is a product of local deposi-tional and bedrock conditions; all facies, however, formpart of a single till sheet. On average, the matrix consists of66% sand, 25% silt and 9% clay. Clast content varies from15 to 25% and the clasts are generally subangular to angu-lar. The till is also moderately compact, oxidized andslightly fissile (Burwasser 1979).

As the glacial ice melted, sinuous esker ridges wereformed throughout the report area. These ridges are gener-ally 3 to 6 km long and are situated in bedrock depressions.The eskers were formed by meltwater flowing in tunnelsunder the ice or in re-entrants along the ice front. Theyoften rise between 5 and 30 m above the surrounding ter-rain and consist of stratified sand and gravel. The eskersgenerally trend in a south to southwesterly direction.

Some of these eskers are associated with subaqueousfan deposits. Subaqueous fans are formed within or nearthe mouths of meltwater conduits when sediment ladenmeltwater is discharged into a standing body of water.

Outwash deposits in the report area were formed undersubareal conditions by meltwater flowing from the icemargin. The outwash primarily consists of well-stratified,uniformly bedded sand and gravel. Outwash is one of themost widespread glaciofluvial sediments in the northwest-ern part of the study area and has been a traditional sourceof aggregate material.

As the ice margin retreated northward, glacial melt-water was dammed against the wasting ice margin and thehighlands to the south forming post-glacial Lake Algon-quin. At this time ice blocked the Mattawa outlet so muchof the study area was submerged by this glacial lake. Bois-soneau (1968) correlates massive clay deposits betweenNorth Bay and Sudbury, with a maximum water levelelevation of 310 m in the area. The highest part of the studyarea is along the western part of Street Township at about300 m. North of Sturgeon Falls the land surface rises to be-tween 245 and 275 m. In the deeper waters of the glaciallake, massive and/or varved silt and clay were deposited.Glaciolacustrine sediments consisting largely of silty finesand were deposited in the shallower areas of the lake.These glaciolacustrine sands are generally too fine formost aggregate uses. In places, glaciolacustrine materialoverlies ice-contact sediments.

The final draining of this glacial lake began with theopening of the Mattawa outlet. This period is character-ized by low water stages in the Upper Great Lakes basin.As water levels fell, tiny islands would have formed andnearshore deposits would have been created around bed-rock knobs. Glaciolacustrine raised beaches would haveformed and occur in the study area as discontinuous sandand gravel deposits. Most beach deposits in the northernpart of the study area are about 245 m. The Mattawa outleteventually closed as a result of isostatic uplift putting anend to this stage.

Once the Mattawa outlet closed, water levels in thestudy area began to rise and the Nipissing Great Lakescame into existence. This would have been approximately5000 years before present. The Nipissing Great Lakestransgression produced strong shoreline features in Ontar-io (Barnett 1992). Extensive fine-grained glaciolacustrinesediments were deposited during this period. These flat-lying deposits along the Veuve River and near present dayLake Nipissing are generally located below 215 m. Inareas around Sturgeon Falls, these fine-grained glaciola-custine sediments may be overlain by a thin cover (20 - 70cm) of silty fine sand and sand. Selected sample site DR-SS-4 illustrates this point. Shallow fine sand overlies silty

��

11

clay/clayey silt. A complete log for this selected sample isprovided in Table 7. North of Hwy.17 just east of Verner, afew strand lines associated with the Nipissing Great Lakesexist below 215 m.

Present day Lake Nipissing is the largest remnant ofthe glacial and post-glacial lakes in the area. Lake Nip-issing has a surface elevation of 196 m. The lake is lessthan 18 m deep and local relief surrounding the lake is lessthan 15 m.

Wave erosion of glacial sediments from low-lyingrocky uplands by glacial lake water was very pronounced.In general, the terrain in the study area is characterized byabundant wave-washed bedrock knobs with widespreadglaciolacustrine deposits in intervening low areas. AwreyTownship consists of up to 70% bare rocky ridges (Lum-bers 1975).

Erosional activity has been minimal since the disap-pearance of the ice sheet and the lowering of glacial lakewater to present day levels. Organic deposits have been de-veloped in depressions in the land surface. These organicdeposits often overlie sand, silt and clay material. Allu-vium has been deposited along the courses of existingcreeks and rivers, particularly the Sturgeon River nearField.

SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTIVEACTIVITY

One hundred and forty-two sand and gravel pits wereidentified in the study area (Table 2). At the time of writ-ing, 26 pits operated under aggregate permits issued by theMinistry of Natural Resources. Aggregate production fig-ures are unavailable for the report area.

The study area is in a rather unique position. In manymunicipalities in southern Ontario, commercial aggregateoperations operate under a permanent or wayside licence.In the study area many commercial operations operate oncrown or private land with aggregate permits. In January1998, the Ministry of Natural Resources designated town-ships within the study area, meaning that many of these op-erations will have to convert from aggregate permits to fulllicences. Once this process is completed, specific produc-tion figures should be available for the report area.

In the study area excellent sources of surficial aggre-gate material are eskers, other glaciofluvial ice-contactfeatures and outwash deposits. In general, the northernpart of the study area contains the largest potential suppliesof aggregate. Some of the sand and gravel material cannotbe used in Portland cement concrete because of an alkali-reactivity problem.

In the southern part of the study area small sand andgravel pits have been developed in leeside cavity fill de-posits. These deposits have formed on the southern side ofbedrock topographic highs and have provided limitedamounts of granular material for local projects.

Because of the glacial history of the area, many of thedeposits have a complex depositional history. For exam-

ple, ice-contact deposits may have been reworked in anearshore environment resulting in a beach deposit overly-ing glaciofluvial material (e.g., Pit Nos. 91 and 92). Alsocommon to the area are ice-contact/subaqueous fan land-forms.

Till is usually not well-suited for aggregate use as itoften contains excess fines and abundant cobbles and boul-ders. However, it may be a suitable source of fill in somelocations.

SELECTED SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCES AREAS

Map 1 indicates the deposits in the study area that con-tain granular material. These deposits occupy a total of 13228 ha and contain an original resource tonnage of 994.2million tonnes (Table 1). The above figures represent acomprehensive inventory of all granular materials inthe map area, although much of the material includedin the estimate has no potential for use in aggregateproducts.

Selected Sand and GravelResource Area 1

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 consists of2 outwash deposits located in the northern part of StreetTownship. Pit faces in Pit Nos. 1 and 9 expose well-strati-fied, well-sorted sand and gravel with a small amount ofpebble and cobble-sized material.

Test results from Pit No. 1 indicate 50.9% sand, 44.7%coarse material and 4.4% fines (Figures 2A and 2B). Thepetrographic number for granular and 16 mm crushed is106.5 and 107.1 for hot mix and concrete. Other test re-sults for this particular sample are listed in Table 9A. Thetest results would suggest that the material is suitable forthe production of Granular A, B, M, Select Subbase Mate-rial (SSM), HL4, HL8 and concrete.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 occupies atotal area of 162.7 ha, with 142.5 ha available for resourcedevelopment. The selected resource area has possible ag-gregate resources of 10.1 million tonnes (Table 3). Kuka-gami Lake road provides access to Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area 1.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 is locatedalong Kukagami Lake road just south of selected resourcearea 1. The deposit is an outwash deposit located on theeastern side of a bedrock ridge. The southern part of the pitface at abandoned Pit No. 11 reveals a fining upward se-quence suggesting sediment deposition within a sub-aqueous fan environment. Further north along the deposit,the material and depositional sequence is more suggestiveof an outwash deposit. The material is well-stratified,well-sorted sand and gravel with crushable pebble andcobble-sized material available.

ARIP 174

12

From field observations, the material appears to besimilar to Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1. Thematerial may be suitable for the production of Granular A,B, M, SSM, HL4, HL8 and concrete.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 occupies atotal of 40.7 ha, with 16.5 ha available for resource devel-opment. The selected resource area has possible aggregateresources of 1.8 million tonnes (Table 3). The develop-ment of this deposit is limited by the presence of the bed-rock ridge to the west (along which the deposit has beenformed) and Kukagami Lake road running along the east-ern side of the deposit.


Further south along Kukagami Lake road is SelectedSand and Gravel Resource Area 3. This resource area is anice-contact deposit. The material appears to be well-strati-fied, well-sorted sand and gravel with crushable pebble tocobble-sized material present.

Previous MTO test results from the north end of thedeposit (Pit No. 14) indicate a coarse material content of49.7%, with 48.1% sand and 2.2% fines. Test results fromthe south end of the deposit (Pit No.15) indicate 38.7%coarse material, 60.6% sand and only 0.7% fines (Figures2A and 2B). The test results suggest that the material couldbe suitable for the production of Granular A, B, M, SSM,HL4, HL8 and concrete.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3 occupies atotal area of 147.9 ha, with 112.4 ha available for resourcedevelopment. The resource area has possible aggregate re-sources of 11.9 million tonnes (Table 3). The developmentof this deposit is restricted by the presence of bedrock andKukagami Lake road.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4 is locatedat the junction of Kukagami Lake road and Highway 17.The deposit is an ice-contact deposit with a subaqueous fanat its southern end. Pit No. 23 exposes well-stratified,well-sorted sand and gravel with crushable material pres-ent in the north part of the pit. In the southern part of the pitis a fining upward sequence capped with seams of silt andclay. Previous mapping (Gartner 1980a) suggested thatthis deposit may be a glaciolacustrine delta. The fining up-ward sequence and lack of topset and foreset beds wouldsuggest the southern portion of the deposit is a subaqueousfan.

Test results from Pit No. 19 (north end of deposit) indi-cate a coarse aggregate content of 70.8%, 28.4% sand and0.8% fines (Figures 3A and 3B). Test results from thesouth end of the deposit (Pit No. 24) indicate 7.9% coarsematerial, 91.2% sand, and 0.9% fines (Figures 4A and 4B).Other test results for this particular sample are listed inTable 9A. The coarser material in the northern part of the

deposit is suitable for the production of Granular A, B, M,SSM, HL4, HL8 and concrete. The material in the southend of the deposit is too fine for many of these aggregateproducts.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4 occupies atotal of 46.0 ha, with 15.7 ha available for resource devel-opment. The resource area has possible aggregate re-sources of 1.6 million tonnes (Table 3). Much of the southend of the deposit has been removed and a significant por-tion of the remainder of the deposit has been sterilized byKukagami Lake road and housing. The selected resourcearea is located along Highway 17 so transportation to thedeposit is immediate. Further development of the depositcould take place to the west and north of the housing devel-opment.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5, locatednear the community of Hugel, is located on the boundarybetween the District of Sudbury and the District of Nip-issing. The selected resource area consists of 3 segments ofan ice-contact deposit and one ice-contact/subaqueous fandeposit. The material grades from pebble and cobble-sizedcrushable material to fine sandy silt.

Previous MTO test results from Pit No. 97 indicate17.8% coarse material, 82.2% sand and 1.5% fines. Thelarge pit face displays a fining upward sequence character-istic of a subaqueous fan deposit. The previous analysisprobably reflects the upper part of the pit face, because thelower part of the face is quite coarse (pebble to cobble-sized material). This may be part of the ice-contact core.

Pit Nos. 73, 74, 75 and 76 appear to be located in theice-contact portion of the deposit. Previous MTO test re-sults from Pit No. 74 indicate 59.2% coarse material,36.9% sand and 2.9% fines. Field observations at Pit Nos.75 and 76 indicate 1 to 2 m of fine-grained sediments over acore of sand and gravel. The material could be suitable forthe production of Granular A, B, M, SSM, HL4 and HL8.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5 occupies atotal of 197.0 ha, with 173.2 ha available for resource de-velopment. The resource area has a possible aggregate re-source of 18.3 million tonnes. Access to the area is pro-vided by Highway 539. Because of the nature of sedimentdeposition at Pit No. 97, selective extraction and specialhandling of the material will be required.

Selected Sand and GravelResources Area 6

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 6 is locatedalong Highway 539 northeast of the community of Hugel.The deposit is an ice-contact esker that trends to the south-west. The material is well-stratified, well-sorted sand andgravel with crushable material available.

The upper 1 to 1.5 m of the west pit face at Pit No. 92has been reworked by wave action. Well-developed beachstructures are present on the western side of the deposit

��

13

while “overthrow” material appears on the east side of thedeposit.

Test results from Pit No. 92 indicate 52.5% coarse ma-terial, 44.9% sand and 2.6% fines (Figures 7A and 7B).The Petrographic Number for granular and 16 mm crushedis 100.6 and 109.1 for hot mix and concrete. Other test re-sults for this particular sample are listed in Table 9A. Pre-vious MTO gradation results for Pit No. 94 indicate slight-ly less coarse material. The test results would suggest thatthe material from this deposit could be suitable for the pro-duction of Granular A, B, M, SSM, HL4, HL8 and con-crete.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 6 occupies atotal of 22.9 ha, with 18.9 ha available for resource devel-opment. The resource area has a possible aggregate re-source of 2.0 million tonnes (Table 3). Access to the area isprovided by Highway 539.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7 is locatednorth of Warren. The deposit is a subaqueous fan, the up-per surface of which has been reworked by glacial lakewave action.

As a result of these 2 depositional environments,gradation results from previous work are quite variable.One set of results yielded 11.9% coarse material, 86.9%sand and 1.2% fines. A second set of results, shown on theMap at Pit No. 80, indicates 51.9% coarse material, 46.7%sand and 1.4% fines. The material would be suitable forthe production of Granular A, B, M, SSM, HL4 and HL8.Because of the variability of the material, selective extrac-tion and care in handling the material would be required.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7 occupies atotal of 89.1 ha, with 48.5 ha available for resource devel-opment. The resource area has a possible aggregate re-source of 5.2 million tonnes (Table 3). The southern part ofthe deposit has been sterilized by the community of Warrenand has been removed from the selected resource area. Ac-cess to the area is provided by Highway 539. A portion ofthe deposit is sterilized by the location of township roadsand cemeteries.


An ice-contact/subaqueous fan deposit located in cen-tral Dunnett Township has been selected as Selected Sandand Gravel Resource Area 8. The north face of Pit No. 86reveals a fining upward sequence and ball and pillow struc-tures consistent with sediment deposition in a subaqueousfan environment. The coarse core material, found in PitNos. 86 and 87, is suggestive of ice-contact material.

Previous MTO test results indicate the variability ofthe material. One sample collected in the fine subaqueousfan portion of the deposit had 0.2% coarse material, 97.9%sand and 1.9% fines. Material collected from the core area

indicates 44.3% coarse material, 53.5% sand and 2.2%fines. Material at Pit No. 88 is predominantly sand withlittle or no coarse material.

The test results indicate that the material could be suit-able for the production of Granular A, B, M, SSM, HL4,HL8 and concrete. Selective extraction and handlingwould be required for the production of some of these prod-ucts.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 8 occupies atotal of 92.8 ha, with 46.0 ha available for resource devel-opment. The resource area has possible aggregate re-sources of 4.9 million tonnes (Table 3). The area is not farfrom Highway 17 and access is provided by Stewart Road.Stewart Road and housing sterilizes some of the deposit.Bedrock outcrops are also located within the selected re-source area.


An ice-contact deposit trending southwesterly in Dun-nett Township has been chosen as Selected Sand and Grav-el Resource Area 9. The ice-contact deposit is flanked byglaciolacustrine fine-grained sediments.

A large pit has been developed in the south-centralpart of this ice-contact deposit. Pit No. 90 exposes ice-con-tact sediments overlain by glaciolacustrine material. Pre-vious gradation tests indicate 30.4% coarse material,66.2% sand and 3.4% fines. The material may be suitablefor the production of Granular A, B, M, SSM, HL4 andHL8.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 9 occupies atotal of 175.8 ha, with 155.7 ha available for resource de-velopment. The resource area has possible aggregate re-sources of 16.5 million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 10 is locatedalong Highway 575, north of Verner. The deposit is an ice-contact/subaqueous fan deposit. Pit No. 112, in the north-east corner of the deposit, exposes well-stratified, well-sorted sand and gravel. Gradation results from this pit indi-cate 52.5% coarse material, 46.8% sand and 0.7% fines(Figures 8A and 8B). The petrographic number for Granu-lar and 16 mm crushed is 102.2 and 109.1 for Hot Mix andconcrete. Other test results for this particular sample arelisted in Table 9A.

Pit No. 107, located on the western end of the deposit,has a lower percentage of coarse material and a significantfines content. The northwestern face of Pit No. 113, lo-cated in the southern part of the deposit, has a fining up-ward sequence with seams of silt and clay, suggestive of asubaqueous fan deposit. There is coarse material at depth.

The coarse material in the northern part of the depositis suitable for the production of Granular A, B, M, SSM,HL4, HL8 and concrete. The material in the south end ofthe deposit is too fine for many of these aggregate prod-

ARIP 174

14

ucts. Selective extraction and care in handling the materialmay be required to produce some of the higher-specifica-tion products, particularly in the southern part of the depos-it.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 10 occupiesa total of 267.3 ha, with 199.8 ha available for resource de-velopment. The resource area has possible aggregate re-sources of 21.2 million tonnes (Table 3). Highway 575connects Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 10 tothe Highway 17 corridor area. Highway 575, townshiproads and some houses sterilize some of selected resourcearea 10.

Secondary Sand and GravelResources

Two outwash deposits located along the WanapeitiRiver in the northwestern part of Street Township havebeen chosen as selected sand and gravel resource areas ofsecondary significance. The material in these deposits issimilar to the material in Selected Sand and Gravel Re-source Area 1. Selected sample DR-SS-1 has a coarse ma-terial content of 38.2%, 61.3% sand and only 0.5% fines.The area has not been selected at the primary level becauseaccess to the area is extremely limited. The only access tothe deposit is via an abandoned CNR right-of-way.

Another secondary resource area is located in thenorthwest corner of Awrey Township. The resource area isan ice-contact deposit that has been developed along a bed-rock ridge. Test results from Pit No. 17 indicate 70.3%coarse material, 26.3% sand and 3.4% fines (Figures 4Aand 4B). The test results would suggest that the material issuitable for the production of Granular A, B, M, SSM, HL4(CA) and HL8 (Table 9A). Previous MTO results have re-stricted the use of this material for HL4 (FA). Access to thedeposit is provided by Sunset Road.

A small ice-contact deposit located north of the Wana-peiti River in Street Township has also been selected as asecondary resource. This deposit is believed to be similarto the ice-contact deposit located in northwestern AwreyTownship. No pits have been developed in this deposit.Access is via a dirt road on the north side of the WanapeitiRiver.

A small ice-contact deposit located in east centralAwrey Township has been selected as a secondary resourcearea. The deposit is located just south of Highway 17. Apermitted pit, Pit No. 20, and 2 abandoned pits have beendeveloped in this deposit. Gradation results from Pit No.27 indicate 50.8% coarse material, 39.4% sand and 9.8%fines. The high percentage of fine material would be ofconcern for the production of some higher-specificationaggregate products.

A small ice-contact/subaqueous fan deposit locatedon Main Street north of Markstay has been selected as asecondary resource area. The deposit trends in a south-westerly direction across the Hagar-Loughrin townshipboundary. Three abandoned pits have been developed inthis deposit (Pit Nos. 39, 40 and 52). The material grades

from silt and clay to crushable pebble and cobble-sizedmaterial. Material from these pit areas has been used forGranular A, B, SSM, HL4 (FA) and HL8 (CA). The roadintersection and bedrock (bedrock is exposed in the floor ofPit No. 52) limit the development of this deposit. This sec-ondary deposit could provide material for local projects.

A large ice-contact deposit located along the Lough-rin-Hagar township boundary has been selected at the sec-ondary level. Pit Nos. 48, 49, 54 and 66 expose good quali-ty granular material. Unfortunately, the deposit is locatedwell north of the Highway 17 corridor along Highway 535.Long haul distances and the location of other aggregatematerial reduce the significance of this deposit. The bridgecrossing the Veuve River just north of Hagar may have tobe upgraded to handle heavy traffic loads.

An ice-contact deposit located along MuskosungLake road in Badgerow Township has been selected as asecondary resource area. The ice-contact sediments havebeen deposited on the western side of a large bedrock ridge.Pit Nos. 100, 101, 102 and 116 expose well-stratified, well-sorted sand and gravel. Gradation results from Pit No. 100indicate a coarse material content of 14.5%, 84.3% sandand 1.2% fines (Figures 7A and 7B). Other test results forthis particular sample are listed in Table 9A. Material fromthis area could be used locally for repairs and reconstruc-tion of roads.

Two ice-contact/glaciolacustrine beach deposits, lo-cated in the southeast corner of Badgerow Township, havealso been selected at the secondary level. Four permittedproperties (Pit Nos. 103, 104, 105 and 106) and an aban-doned pit (Pit No. 118) are located in these deposits. Thematerial grades from fine sandy silt to crushable pebbleand cobble-sized material. These pits are located along adirt road following the powerline, so access to these depos-its is limited.

Tertiary Sand and GravelResources

There are other deposits in the study area that containlarge quantities of aggregate material, however, the aggre-gate potential of these deposits is limited by their location,size and/or quality of material.

A glaciolacustrine delta deposit in the northwesternpart of Street Township appears to contain good qualitysand and gravel. The material may be similar to the ice-contact/delta complex deposit located near the Sudburyairport (Rowell 1998). Unfortunately, the only access tothis area is along an abandoned CNR right-of-way.

The deposits in the northern part of Loughrin andHenry townships, particularly surrounding Pit Nos. 43, 45and 62 have large quantities of good quality material.Gradation results from Pit No. 43 indicate a coarse materi-al content of 50.1%, 46.4% sand and 3.5% fines (Figures5A and 5B). Other test results for this particular sample arelisted in Table 9A. The problem with these deposits is thelong haul distances to markets. Existing roads are limitedand these roads would have to be upgraded in order to han-dle the additional, heavy-load traffic.

��

15

A small ice-contact deposit located west of Highway64 in Field Township could supply significant quantities ofaggregate material. The deposit thickness, based on the pitface at Pit No. 123 is approximately 15 m. Gradation re-sults indicate 2.9% coarse material, 94.9% sand and 2.2%fines (Figures 8A and 8B). Other test results for this sam-ple are listed in Table 9A. Previous MTO test results hadindicated a coarse material content of 18.7%. Access tothis deposit is limited.

Some leeside cavity fill deposits could supply goodquality aggregate material for local projects. Gradation re-sults for Pit Nos. 31 (Loughrin Twp.), 71 (Ratter Twp.) and129 (Field Twp.) indicate reasonable percentages of coarseaggregate material (Figures 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 9A and 9B re-spectively). Other test results for these samples are listedin Table 9A. These deposits are usually small and thequantity of aggregate material would be insufficient forlarge-scale projects.

Some glaciolacustrine sand deposits may be able toproduce some low-specification aggregate. Selected sitesample DR-SS-5, collected just south of Sturgeon Falls,contains 91.1% sand. A fines content of 8.9% will limit theuse of this material (Table 7). It may be possible to use thismaterial for fill.

Till is not usually well suited for aggregate use as itoften contains excess fines and abundant cobbles and boul-ders. However, it may be a suitable source of fill in somelocations. In some cases the till has been reworked by gla-cial lake wave action resulting in the fine fraction being re-moved.

BEDROCK GEOLOGYMost of the study area is underlain by biotite gneisses

derived from a relatively thick sequence of thinly beddedgreywacke and argillite. These rocks are part of the Gren-ville Province of the Canadian Shield. Lumbers (1975) de-scribed these rocks as a light to dark grey, fine- to coarse-grained, biotite-quartz-feldspar gneiss that consists of 10to 35% biotite, up to 15% garnet, less than 10% hornblendeand generally more plagioclase than potassic feldspar. Amigmatitic biotite gneiss is also located in the study areaand Lumbers (1975) describes this rock as similar to thebiotite gneiss but veined by 10% or more granitic material.

The northwestern corner of the study area is underlainby arkose, arkosic wacke, wacke and conglomerate rocksbelonging to the Huronian Supergroup of the SouthernProvince (Dressler 1984). The Grenville and Southernprovinces are separated by the Grenville Front BoundaryFault.

The Red Deer Anorthosite is located in the southwest-ern corner of Awrey Township. It consists of gneissicanorthosite gabbro and gabbroic anorthosite with somemetagabbro and metadiorite units near the eastern margin(Lumbers 1975).

The Markstay Pluton is located near the town of Mark-stay in Hagar Township. It is a small intrusion of gneissictonalite, minor gneissic diorite and pink to grey gneissic

quartz syenite and monzonite intruding metasediments(Lumbers 1975).

Located in Badgerow and Hugel townships is the Bad-gerow Complex containing sodic syenite and monzonite.The complex is moderately deformed, with a narrowgneissic margin and a massive to slightly foliated interior.Lumbers (1975) describes these rocks as pink, gneissic torarely massive, ferro-hastingsite bearing sodic syenite toquartz syenite.

BEDROCK SUITABILITYIn general, the gneissic and granitic rocks in the report

area are a potential source of quality aggregate. PreviousMTO test results for a granite pegmatite at location BD-1in Hugel Township, indicate a petrographic number forgranular and 16 mm crushed of 100 and 148 for hot mix andconcrete. At location BD-5 in Springer Township, a gran-ite sample provided petrographic numbers of 100 for gran-ular and 16 mm crushed and 105 for hot mix and concrete.A granite gneiss sample at location BD-4 (Caldwell Town-ship) had a petrographic number of 102 for granular and 16mm crushed and 194 for hot mix and concrete.

In general, the petrographic number for sites tested bythe MTO, most of which were gneissic and granitic rocks,is about 100 for granular and 16 mm crushed. The petro-graphic number for hot mix and concrete is more variable,ranging from 100 to 194, as can be seen in Table 9B. Ingeneral, the bedrock may be suitable for the production ofGranular A, B, M, Select Subbase Material (SSM) andHL4 (CA).

Having stated this, Precambrian bedrock may exhibitwide variations with respect to aggregate quality over rela-tively short distances. Precambrian rocks are usually hardand relatively homogeneous, but brittle varieties can occurand should be avoided in aggregate use. Massive, coarse-grained felsic plutonic and gneissic rocks with high mica,feldspar and quartz contents may have bonding problems.The smooth cleavage and fracture surfaces of the mineralshinder the adhesion of asphalt and Portland cement con-crete mixes. This problem can often be circumvented byweathering the rocks for a period of time in stockpiles or byadding chemicals (anti-stripping agents) which erode thesmooth surfaces and allow better adhesion.

Rogers (1985) reports that some granitic rocks canslowly react with alkalies from Portland cement resultingin concrete deterioration. Although the Precambrian bed-rock in the area may meet MTO specifications for concreteaggregate, it may not be accepted by the MTO for use inPortland cement concrete which will be exposed to de-ic-ing salts. Radioactive mineralization may also occur lo-cally within some rock types in the area and these rocksshould be avoided during extraction.

Within the report area, considerable latitude exists inchoosing sites for potential bedrock extraction as there areextensive areas where bedrock is exposed at or near thesurface. Any site proposed for quarry development shouldbe thoroughly tested before extraction commences.

ARIP 174

16

SUMMARYTen Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas have

been identified for possible aggregate resource protectionand development. The selected resource areas occupy a to-tal of 1242.2 ha, with a possible 929.2 ha available for re-source extraction. Possible aggregate resources for theseselected areas total 93.5 million tonnes (Table 3).

Secondary and tertiary resource areas could add sig-nificantly to the aggregate resources of the study area,however, long haul distances and poorly developed accessreduce the availability of these resources. In some areas,previous extractive activity has greatly reduced the materi-al available in these resources areas.

The highly metamorphosed gneissic rock of the Gren-ville Province can be used for bedrock-derived aggregate

material. Before development of a quarry operation, ex-tensive drilling and testing of the rock should be undertak-en because of variability of Precambrian bedrock over rel-atively short distances.

Enquiries regarding the Aggregate Resources Inven-tory of the Highway 17 corridor between the Wahnapataearea and Sturgeon Falls may be directed to the Sedimenta-ry Geoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey, Minis-try of Northern Development and Mines, 933 RamseyLake Road, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 6B5; or the ResidentGeologist, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,933 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 6B5 [Tel:(705) 670-5735]; or the Ministry of Natural Resources,Sudbury District Office, 522-7823.

��

17

TABLE 1 – TOTAL SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCESHIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR

1Class No.

2Deposit Type

3Areal Extent

(Hectares)

4Original Tonnage(Million Tonnes)

Street to Dunnett Township – West Half of Map 1 G–IC 292 31.0 G–IC.LP 176 18.7 G–IC.SF 147 15.6 G–SF 64 6.8 G–SF.LB 89 9.5 G–OW.SF 48 5.1

G–LD 82 8.7 2 G–IC 2038 162.4

G–OW 3541 282.0S–LP 1196 95.3

3 G–IC 2 <1 G–OW 230 8.1

S–OW 124 4.4

Subtotal 8029 647.6

Hugel to Springer Township – East Half of Map

1 G–IC 24 2.5 G–IC.LB 34 3.6 G–IC.SF 267 28.4 G–SF 32 3.4 G–LB 51 5.4

2 G–LB 2 <1

G–IC.LB 40 3.2 S–SF 213 17.0

S–AL 1396 111.2 S–LP 1310 104.3

S–LB 39 3.1S–OW 38 3.0

3 S–LP 1557 55.1S–AL 181 6.4S–LB 15 <1

Subtotal 5199 346.6

ARIP 174

18

TABLE 1 – TOTAL SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCESHIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR

1 2 3 4Class No. Deposit Type Areal Extent Original Tonnage

(Hectares) (Million Tonnes)

Total for Report Area 13228 994.2

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.

��

19

TABLE 2 – SAND AND GRAVEL PITSHIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR STUDY

Pit No. Owner/Operator LicencedArea

(Hectares)

FaceHeight (Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

STREET TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

1 MTO – 2–3 35–50 Pit located in outwash deposit2 Emerald Isle Resources – – –3 Emerald Isle Resources – – –4 Camroy Construction – – – Ice–contact deposit5 Wm. Day Construction – 7–9 35–50 Ice–contact deposit6 MTO – 6–8 35–50 Outwash deposit – ridge located along

bedrock high

Unlicenced Pits7 – – 2–3 – Till material8 – – 2 35–50 Outwash material – similar to Pit No.

19 – – 1–3 35–50 Outwash material – similar to Pit No.

110 – – 2 – Outwash material 11 – – 4–6 – Similar to Pit No. 612 – – – – Rehabilitated – side of bedrock high13 – – 1–3 0–15 Mainly sand / silty sand14 – – 3–4 35–50 Ice–contact deposit15 – – 6–7 35–50 Ice–contact deposit16 – – 3–4 35–50 Ice–contact deposit

AWREY TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

17 MTO – 6–8 55–65 Ice–contact deposit – located alongbedrock high

18 MTO – 6–8 55–65 Similar to Pit No. 1719 MTO – 6–8 50–65 Ice–contact deposit20 Maurice Blais – 2–3 –21 MTO – 6–8 – Ice–contact deposit

Unlicenced Pits22 – – 4–6 35–50 Similar to Pit Nos. 17 and 1823 – – 4–6 – Large pit – subaqueous fan deposit24 – – 2–3 0–10 Mainly sand25 – – – – Badly overgrown26 – – – – Badly overgrown27 – – 3–4 – North side of bedrock high28 – – 3–4 – Similar to Pit No. 27

ARIP 174

20



(Hectares)

FaceHeight

(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

LOUGHRIN TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

29 MTO – 4–6 – Pit partially rehabilitated30 MTO – – –

Unlicenced Pits31 – – 2–3 25–40 Leeside cavity deposit32 – – 1 25–40 Small pit – leeside cavity fill33 – – 2–3 25–40 Small pit – along logging road34 – – 2–3 5–10 Silty fine sand over medium sand35 – – 2–3 25–40 Located off logging road36 – – 1–2 0–10 Mainly sand37 – – 1–2 0–10 Mainly sand38 – – 4–5 30–50 Outwash material39 – – Variable Variable Cored by bedrock40 – – Variable Variable Similar to Pit No. 3941 – – 1–2 0–10 Fine to medium sand42 – – 3–4 20–35 Mainly sand43 – – 8–11 45–60 Outwash material – cored by bedrock44 – – 6 45–60 Similar to Pit No. 4345 – – 9–11 45–60 Similar to Pit No. 4346 – – 2–3 25–35 Medium to coarse sand47 – – 3–4 20–35 Small, overgrown pit48 – – 9–11 20–40 Ice–contact deposit49 – – 2–3 20–40 Ice–contact deposit – similar to Pit

No. 48

HAGAR TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

50 MTO – 4–5 0–10 Mainly silt, fine to medium sand

Unlicenced Pits51 – – 6–8 20–40 Ice–contact deposit52 – – Variable Variable Similar to Pit Nos. 39 and 4053 – – 2 0–10 Mainly sand54 – – 3–4 20–40 Similar to Pit Nos. 48 and 4955 – – 4–5 0–10 Similar to Pit No. 5056 – – 4–5 0–10 Similar to Pit No. 5057 – – 5–7 – Till material

HENRY TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

Unlicenced Pits

58 – – 2–3 15–25 Mainly coarse sand – fine gravel59 – – 4–5 15–25 Similar to Pit No. 58

��

21



(Hectares)

FaceHeight

(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

60 – – 8–10 20–40 Badly slumped – coarse sand – finegravel

61 – – 4–6 40–60 Ice–contact deposit62 – – 8–11 40–60 Ice–contact deposit63 – – 2–3 20–40 Coarse sand – fine gravel64 – – 6–8 20–40 Coarse sand – fine gravel – water in

pit floor65 – – 2 0–10 Mainly fine to medium sand66 – – 6–8 40–60 Two benches – similar to Pit Nos. 48

and 4967 – – 2–3 20–30 Fine to coarse sand – some gravel

RATTER TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

68 Andy Lavallee – – – Located along powerline

Unlicenced Pits69 – – 3–4 20–30 Pit located in field70 – – 2–3 0–10 Fine to medium sand71 – – 2–3 50–60 Small ice–contact deposit72 – – 6–7 30–50 Variable material – cored by bedrock73 – – 6–7 40–60 Cored by bedrock ridge74 – – Variable 40–60 Ice–contact deposit – large pit75 – – 5–7 40–60 Ice–contact deposit – fine sediments

in upper layers76 – – 3–4 40–60 Ice–contact deposit – fine sediments 77 – – 4–6 10–20 Leeside cavity deposit78 – – 4–6 40–60 Subaqueous fan – beach deposit79 – – 6–8 40–60 Similar to Pit No. 78

DUNNETT TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

Unlicenced Pits

80 – – 7–10 25–40 Subaqueous fan – beach deposit81 – – 7–10 25–40 Subaqueous fan – beach deposit82 – – – 45–55 Small pit83 – – 3–4 20–40 Ice–contact – subaqueous fan84 – – 10–12 20–40 Similar to Pit No. 8385 – – – 20–40 Overgrown86 – – 8 20–40 Township pit87 – – 10–12 20–40 Fine material over coarse88 – – 5–8 10–20 Mainly sand (fines present)89 – – – – Ice–contact deposit90 – – 10–18 Variable Ice–contact deposit

ARIP 174

22



(Hectares)

FaceHeight

(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

HUGEL TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

91 MTO – – 40–55 Ice–contact – beach deposit92 MTO – – 40–55 Ice–contact – beach deposit

Unlicenced Pits93 – – 4–5 40–55 Ice–contact deposit94 – – 6–8 40–55 Ice–contact deposit95 – – 6–8 40–55 Ice–contact deposit96 – – 8–10 40–55 Ice–contact deposit97 – – 10–12 Variable Subaqueous fan 98 – – 2–3 – Till – small beach deposit

KIRKPATRICK TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

Unlicenced Pits

99 – – 4–6 15–30 Beach deposit – cored by bedrock

BADGEROW TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

100 MTO – Variable 10–20 Ice–contact – cored by bedrock101 MTO – Variable 10–20 Similar to Pit No. 100102 Marc Presseault – Variable 10–20 Similar to Pit No. 100103 Seguin Trucking – 5–6 Variable Beach deposit 104 Beauparlant – 4–6 Variable Beach deposit105 Twp. Of Caldwell – 5–7 Variable Ice–contact – beach deposit106 Fern Beauparlant – 6–10 Variable Ice–contact – beach deposit

Unlicenced Pits107 – – 5 40–50 Ice–contact – subaqueous fan108 – – 5 40–50 Ice–contact – subaqueous fan109 – – 7–9 0–10 Subaqueous fan deposit110 – – 8–10 0–10 Subaqueous fan deposit111 – – 7–9 20–40 Ice–contact deposit112 – – Variable 40–60 Ice–contact deposit113 – – 5–12 Variable Subaqueous fan deposit114 – – 2–3 10–20 Mainly sand115 – – 1–2 5–15 Mainly sand116 – – Variable 10–20 Similar to Pit Nos. 100 and 101117 – – 2–3 – Till material118 – – 1 0–10 Beach deposit

��

23



(Hectares)

FaceHeight

(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

CALDWELL TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

Unlicenced Pits119 – – 2–4 5–10 Mainly sand120 – – 2–4 5–10 Mainly sand – Dump121 – – 2–4 5–10 Mainly sand122 – – 5–7 – Leeside cavity deposit

FIELD TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

123 Springer Twp. – – 0–10 Mainly sand

Unlicenced Pits124 – – 3–4 0–10 Silty fine sand125 – – 2 0–10 Silty fine sand126 – – 2–3 0–10 Sand – cored by bedrock127 – – 4 0–10 Mainly sand – pit behind barn128 – – 2 Variable Till material129 – – 4–5 10–20 Leeside cavity deposit130 – – 2 0–10 Silty fine to medium sand

SPRINGER TOWNSHIPPermitted or Licenced Pits

131 Stewart Jessup – 2–3 0–10 Mainly sand

Unlicenced Pits132 – – 4–6 10–20 Beach deposit – cored by bedrock133 – – Variable 0–10 Mainly sand134 – – 3–4 5–20 Mainly sand135 – – 3–4 5–20 Similar to Pit No. 134136 – – 4–5 5–20 Bedrock core – silt and clay137 – – 4–5 25–40 Beach deposit – cored by bedrock138 – – 2–4 0–10 Subaqueous fan – cored by bedrock139 – – 2–4 0–10 Subaqueous fan – cored by bedrock140 – – 1–3 0–10 Mainly sand141 – – 1–2 0–15 Silty fine sand142 – – 4–6 35–55 Beach deposit – almost depleted

ARIP 174

24

TABLE 3 – SELECTED SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCE AREASHIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR

1Deposit

No.

2Unlicenced

Area(Hectares)*

3CulturalSetback

(Hectares)**

4Extracted

Area(Hectares)***

5Possible

Area(Hectares)

6Estimated

DepositThickness(Metres)

7Possible

AggregateResources****

(Million Tonnes) 1 162.7 20.2 – 142.5 4 10.1 2 40.7 24.2 – 16.5 6 1.8

3 147.9 35.5 – 112.4 6 11.9 4 46.0 30.7 – 15.7 6 1.6 5 197.0 15.3 8.5 173.2 6 18.3 6 22.9 4.0 – 18.9 6 2.0 7 89.1 37.1 3.5 48.5 6 5.2 8 92.8 32.3 11.3 46.0 6 4.9 9 175.8 7.2 12.9 155.7 6 16.5

10 267.3 46.0 21.5 199.8 6 21.2

TOTAL FOR STUDY AREA1242.2 252.5 57.7 929.2 93.5

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.

*** 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.

��

25

TABLE 4 – TOTAL BEDROCK RESOURCESHIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR

1Drift

Thicknes

2Formation

3Estimated

DepositThickness(Metres)

4ArealExtent

(Hectares)

5OriginalsTonnage

(Million Tonnes)

Since Precambrian bedrock is so variable (refer to the report),

total bedrock resources were not calculated for the Highway 17 Corridor

ARIP 174

26

TABLE 5 – QUARRIESHIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR

QuarryNo.

Owner/Operator LicencedArea

(Hectares)

FaceHeight

(Metres)

Remarks

��

27

TABLE 6 – SELECTED BEDROCK RESOURCESHIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR

1AreaNo.

2Depth of

Overburden(Metres)

3Area

(Hectares)*

4CulturalSetbacks

(Hectares)**

5Extracted

Area(Hectares)***

6PossibleResource

Area(Hectares)

7EstimatedWorkableThickness(Metres)

8PossibleBedrock

Resources****(Million Tonnes)

Since Precambrian bedrock can be so variable (refer to the report),there were no selected bedrock resource areas for the Highway 17 Corridor

ARIP 174

28

TABLE 7 – SUMMARY OF TEST HOLE DATAOR SELECTED SAMPLE DATA

HIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR

Sample No. Depth Comments

DR–SS–1 1.5 m sample taken along railway tracks in outwash deposit – 38.2% coarse material, 61.3%sand and 0.5% fines

DR–SS–2 0.15 m topsoil5.33 m clayey silt – very stiff, light brown, laminated with frequent fine sandy silt seams –

becoming wet at a depth of 3.04 m

DR–SS–3 1.52 m silt – compact, mottled grey and brown – moist0.76 m clayey silt – firm, brown, moist

1.67 m silty clay – firm, light brown, stratified with silt seams, moist

DR–SS–4 0.8 m sand – fine to medium, brown2.7 m silt – slightly cohesive, grey, moist

DR–SS–5 1.2 m silty sand – 91.1% sand and 8.9% fines

DR–SS–6 1.0 m sandy silty clay – 34.2% sand and 65.8% fines

DR–SS–7 1.2 m silty sand – 92.5% sand and 7.5% fines

TABLE 8 – SUMMARY OF GEOPHYSICAL DATAHIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR

– NONE –

��

29

TABLE 9A – RESULTS OF AGGREGATE QUALITY TESTSSAND AND GRAVEL SAMPLES

HIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR

COARSE AGGREGATEFINE

AGGREGATE

Petrographic Number

Sample

No.

Granular& 16 mmCrushed

Hot Mix

&

Concrete

MagnesiumSulphate

Soundness

(% Loss)

Absorption

(%)

Los AngelesAbrasion*(% Loss)

Freeze–Thaw

(% Loss)

Accelerated

Mortar Bar

Expansion(% Expansion)

Micro

Deval

Abrasion(% Loss)

MicroDeval

Abrasion

(% Loss)

Pit No. 1 106 107 2 0.652 2 0.268 (28) 4.6 11.5

Pit No. 24 – – – 0.633 – – 0.332 (28) – 6.4

Pit No. 31 102 104 – 0.503 – 2 0.191 (14) 6.7 9.1

Pit No. 43 103 113 2 0.351 – 1 0.272 (28) 7.9 8.1

Pit No. 71 100 106 1 0.251 – 1 0.303 (28) – 8.0

Pit No. 82 103 117 – 0.552 – 1 0.121 (14) 7.7 8.9

Pit No. 92 101 109 – 0.501 – 1 0.258 (28) 6.7 6.1

Pit No. 100 – – – – – – 0.175 (14) – 7.5

Pit No. 112 102 109 – 0.402 – 1 0.129 (14) 7.4 6.4

Pit No. 123 – – – – – – 0.197 (14) – 6.7

Pit No. 129 – – – – – – 0.109 (14) – 5.8

Pit No. 140 – – – – – – 0.123 (14) – 6.0

Note – the quality test data refers strictly to a specific sample. Because of inherent variability of sand and gravel deposits, careshould be exercised in extrapolating such information to the rest of the deposit.

ARIP 174

30

TABLE 9B – RESULTS OF AGGREGATE QUALITY TESTSBEDROCK SAMPLES

HIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR

COARSE AGGREGATEFINE

AGGREGATE

Petrographic Number

Sample

No.

Granular& 16 mmCrushed

Hot Mix

&

Concrete

MagnesiumSulphate

Soundness

(% Loss)

Absorption

(%)

Los AngelesAbrasion*(% Loss)

Freeze–Thaw

(% Loss)

Accelerated

Mortar Bar

Expansion(% Expansion)

Micro

Deval

Abrasion(% Loss)

MicroDeval

Abrasion

(% Loss)

BD–1 100 148 1 – 42 – – – –(Granite Pegmatite)

BD–2 100 140 – 0.768 67 7 – 18.9 –

BD–3 100 101 – 0.317 – – – – –

BD–4 102 194 – 0.905 63 2 – – –(Gneiss)

BD–5 100 105 2.6 0.837 32.9 – – 2.6 –(Granite)

Sample BD–3 has an AAV of 4.4 and a PSV of 50.

Note – the quality test data refers strictly to a specific sample. Because of inherent variability of the bedrock (see report), careshould be exercised in extrapolating such information to the rest of the outcrop/region.

��

31

ARIP 174

32

��

33

ARIP 174

34

��

35

ARIP 174

36

��

37

ARIP 174

38

��

39

ARIP 174

40

��

41

ARIP 174

42

��

43

ARIP 174

44

��

45

ARIP 174

46

47

ReferencesAssociation of Professional Engineers of Ontario 1976. Performance stan-

dards for professional engineers advising on and reporting on oil, gasand mineral properties; Association of Professional Engineers ofOntario, 11p.

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

Bezys, R.K. and Johnson, M.D. 1988. The geology of the Paleozoicformations utilized by the limestone industry of Ontario; The Cana-dian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin, V.81, No. 912, p.49-58.

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

_______ 1968. Glacial history of northeastern Ontario: II the Timiskam-ing–Algoma area; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 5,p.97-109.

Burwasser, G.J. 1979. Quaternary geology of the Sudbury Basin area, Dis-trict of Sudbury; Ontario Geological Survey, Report 181, 103p.

Dressler, B.O. 1984. General geology of the Sudbury area; in the Geologyand Ore Deposits of the Sudbury Structure; Ontario Geological Sur-vey, Special Volume 1, p. 57-82.

Gartner, J.F. 1980a. Sudbury Area (NTS 41I/SE), Districts of Nipissing,Parry Sound and Sudbury; Ontario Geological Survey, Northern On-tario Engineering Geology Terrain Study 100, 12p. Accompanied byMap 5003, scale 1:100 000.

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

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

_______ 1980d. Tomiko Area (NTS 31L/NW and part 31L/NE), Districtof Nipissing; Ontario Geological Survey, Northern Ontario Engi-neering Geology Terrain Study 96, 14p. Accompanied by Map 5040,scale 1:100 000.

Johnson, M.D., Armstrong, D.K., Sanford, B.V., Telford, P.G., and Rutka,M.A. 1992. Paleozoic and Mesozoic geology of Ontario, in Geologyof Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, Part 2,p.907-1011.

Lumbers, S.B. 1975. Geology of the Burwash area, Districts of Nipissing,Parry Sound and Sudbury; Ontario Division of Mines, GR116, 160p.

Ontario Interministerial Committee on National Standards and Specifica-tions (Metric Committee) 1975. Ontario Metric practices guide; 67p.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Association ofMunicipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario 1997. Ontario MunicipalDirectory 1997; Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Queen’sPrinter for Ontario, Toronto, 178p.

Planning Initiatives Limited 1993. Aggregate resources of southern Ontar-io – A state of the resource study; Ministry of Natural Resources,Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, 241p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1996. Mineral aggregates in Ontar-io – overview and statistical update 1996; Ministry of Natural Re-sources, 40p.

Robertson, J.A. 1975. Mineral deposit studies, mineral potential evalua-tion and regional planning in Ontario; Ontario Division of Mines,Miscellaneous Paper 61, 42p.

Rogers, C.A. 1985. Alkali aggregate reactions, concrete aggregate testingsand problem aggregates in Ontario – A review, 5th Edition, Ministryof Transportation and Communications, Engineering and MaterialsOffice, MTC Paper EM-31, 44p.

Rowell, D.J. 1998. Aggregate resources inventory of the east half of theRegional Municipality of Sudbury; Ontario Geological Survey, Ag-gregate Resources Inventory Paper 170, 64p.

Russell, D.J. and Telford, P.G. 1983. Revisions to the stratigraphy of theUpper Ordovician Collingwood beds of Ontario – a potential oilshale; Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 12,p.1780-1790.

Sado, E.V. 1977a. Quaternary geology of the Coniston area, northeasternOntario: Ontario Geological Survey, Unpublished Preliminary map.

_______, 1977b. Quaternary geology of the Copper Cliff area, northeast-ern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Unpublished PreliminaryMap.

Telford W.M., Geldart L.P., Sheriff R.E. and Keys D.A. 1980, Applied Geo-physics, Cambridge University Press, London, England, 860p.

48

Appendix A - Suggested Additional ReadingAntevs, E. 1925. Retreat of the Last ice sheet in eastern Canada, Geological

Survey of Canada Memoir No. 146.Bajc, A.F. 1992. Geochemical response of surficial media, north and east

range, Sudbury Basin, Sudbury, Ontario; in Summary of Field Workand Other Activities 1992, Ontario Geological Survey, Miscella-neous Paper 160, p.147-150.

_______ 1993. Geochemical response of surficial media to nickel-copper-platinum group element mineralization, north and east ranges, Sud-bury Basin; in Summary of Field Work and Other Activities 1993,Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Paper 162, p.183-187.

Bates, R.I. and Jackson, J.A. eds 1987. Glossary of geology, 3RD Edition;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.

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

_______1976. Quaternary geology Sudbury, Regional Municipality ofSudbury; Ontario Geological Survey; Map 2397, scale 1:50 000.

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

Chojnacki, B. and Ryell, J. 1960. A laboratory evaluation of Ontario aircooled slags as concrete aggregates; Ont. Department of Highways,Materials and Research Section, Report No. 21, 19p.

Cowan, W.R. 1977. Toward the inventory of Ontario’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, p.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 of Ontario, Volume II - limestoneindustries and resources of eastern and northern Ontario; OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources, Land Management Branch, 196p.

Derry Michener, Booth and Wahl and Ontario Geological Survey 1989c.Limestone industries of Ontario, Volume III - limestone industriesand resources of central and southwestern Ontario; Ontario Ministryof Natural Resources, Land Management Branch, 175p.

Fairbridge, R.W. ed. 1968. The encyclopedia of geomorphology; Ency-clopedia 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.

Hewitt, D.F. 1964a. Building stones of Ontario, part I introduction; Ontar-io Department of Mines, Industrial Mineral Report 14, 43p.

_______ 1964b. Building stones of Ontario, part II limestone; Ontario De-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.

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

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 1991. Geology of Ontario; Ontario GeologicalSurvey, Special Volume 4, Part 1, 711p.

Ontario Mineral Aggregate Working 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; Industrial Mineral Background Paper1, 133p.

_______ 1981b. Mineral aggregate transportation study; Industrial Min-eral 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 Aggre-gates, 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 to measure the ability of aggregateto resist crushing and pulverizing under conditions sim-ilar to those encountered in processing and use. Mea-suring resistance is an important component in the eval-uation of the quality and prospective uses of aggregate.Hard, durable material is preferred for road building.

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 the ag-gregate.

Acid-Soluble Chloride Ion Content: This test measurestotal chloride ion content in concrete and is used tojudge the likelihood of re-bar corrosion and susceptibil-ity to deterioration by freeze-thaw in concrete struc-tures. There is a strong positive correlation betweenchloride ion content and depassivation of reinforcingsteel in concrete. Depassivation permits corrosion ofthe steel in the presence of oxygen and moisture. Chlo-ride ions are contributed mainly by the application ofde-icing salts.

Aggregate: Any hard, inert, construction material(sand, gravel, shells, slag, crushed stone or other miner-al material) used for mixing in various-sized fragmentswith a cement or bituminous material to form concrete,mortar, etc., or used alone for road building or otherconstruction. Synonyms include mineral aggregate andgranular 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 the re-sistance to abrasion. For high quality asphalt surfacecourse uses, values of less than 6 are desirable.

Alkali-aggregate reaction: A chemical reaction be-tween the alkalies of Portland cement and certain min-erals found in rocks used for aggregate. Alkali-aggre-gate reactions are undesirable because they can causeexpansion and cracking of concrete. Although perfectlysuitable for building stone and asphalt applications, al-kali-reactive aggregates should be avoided for structur-al concrete uses.

Beneficiation: Beneficiation of aggregates is a processor combination of processes which 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, or classifica-tion. Heavy media separation, jigging, or application ofspecial crushers (e.g., “cage mill”) are usually consid-ered processes of beneficiation.

Blending: Required in cases of extreme coarseness,fineness, or other irregularities in the gradation of un-processed aggregate. Blending is done with approved

sand-sized aggregate in order to satisfy the gradation re-quirements 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. Low rela-tive density aggregates (less than about 2.5) are oftennon-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 the Ordovi-cian 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 in Port-land cement.

Clast: An individual constituent, grain or fragment of asediment or rock, produced by the mechanical weather-ing of larger rock mass. Synonyms include particle andfragment.

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: A general term used to designatethose rock types which are chemically or physically un-suited for use as construction or road-building aggre-gates. Such lithologies as chert, shale, siltstone andsandstone may deteriorate rapidly when exposed to traf-fic and other environmental conditions.

Devonian: A period of the Paleozoic Era thought tohave covered the span of time between 408 and 360 mil-lion 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 containing relative-ly little calcite (dolostone is also known as dolomite).

Drift: A general 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.

ARIP 174

50

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 the marginof the main mass of an ice cap or ice sheet. During thePleistocene Epoch several lobes of the Laurentide con-tinental ice sheet occupied the Great Lakes basins.These lobes advanced then melted back numerous timesduring the Pleistocene, producing the complex arrange-ment of glacial material and landforms found in Ontar-io.

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 for differ-ent particles are as follows:

Boulder more than 200 mm Cobbles 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 that or-dinarily has an even texture and is composed of quartzand feldspar with either mica, hornblende or both.

Granular Base and Subbase: Components of a pave-ment structure of a road, which are placed on the sub-grade and are designed to provide strength, stability anddrainage, as well as support for surfacing materials.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 dressing mate-rial with quality requirements similar to Granular A; Se-lect Subgrade Material has similar quality requirementsto Granular B and it provides a stable platform for theoverlying pavement structure. (For more specific infor-mation the reader is referred to Ontario Provincial Stan-dard Specification OPSS 1010).

Heavy Duty Binder: Second layer from the top of hotmix asphalt pavements, used on heavily travelled (espe-

cially by trucks) expressways, such as Highway 401.Coarse and fine aggregates are to be produced from highquality bedrock quarries, except when gravel is per-mitted by special provisions.Hot-laid (or Asphaltic) Paving Aggregate: Bituminous,cemented aggregates used in the construction of pave-ments either as surface or bearing course (HL 1, 3 and4), or as binder course (HL 2, 4 and 8) used to bind thesurface course to the underlying granular base.Limestone: A carbonate sedimentary rock consistingchiefly of the mineral calcite. It may contain the miner-al dolomite up to about 40%.Lithology: The description of rocks on the basis of suchcharacteristics as colour, structure, mineralogic com-position and grain size. Generally, the description of thephysical character of a rock.Los Angeles Abrasion and Impact Test: This test mea-sures the resistance to abrasion and the impact strengthof aggregate. This gives an idea of the breakdown thatcan be expected to occur when an aggregate is stock-piled, transported and placed. Values less than about35% indicate potentially satisfactory performance formost concrete and asphalt uses. Values of more than45% indicate that the aggregate may be susceptible toexcessive breakdown during handling and placing.Magnesium Sulphate Soundness Test: This test is de-signed to simulate the action of freezing and thawing onaggregates. Those aggregates which are susceptible tofreezing and thawing will usually break down and givehigh losses in this test. Values greater than about 12 to15% indicate potential problems for concrete and as-phalt coarse aggregate.Medium Duty Binder: Second layer from the top of hotmix asphalt pavements used on heavily travelled, usual-ly four lane highways and municipal arterial roads. Itmay be constructed with high quality quarried rock orhigh quality gravel with a high percentage of fracturedfaces or polymer modified asphalt cements.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 the geo-logic time scale thought to have covered the time periodbetween 570 and 230 million years ago, the PaleozoicEra (or Ancient Life Era) is subdivided into six geologicperiods, of which only four (Cambrian, Ordovician, Si-lurian and Devonian) can be recognized in southern On-tario.Petrographic Examination: An aggregate quality testbased on known field performance of various rocktypes. In Ontario the test result is a Petrographic Num-ber (PN). The higher the PN, the lower the quality of theaggregate.

��

51

Pleistocene: An epoch of the recent geological past in-cluding the time from approximately 2 million yearsago to 7000 years ago. Much of the Pleistocene wascharacterized by extensive glacial activity and is popu-larly 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 frictional proper-ties, while values greater than 55 indicate excellent fric-tional properties.

Possible Resource: Reserve estimates based largely onbroad knowledge of the geological character of the de-posit and for which there are few, if any, samples or mea-surements. The estimates are based on assumed conti-nuity or repetition for which there are reasonable geo-logical indications, but do not take into account manysite-specific natural and environmental constraints thatcould render the resource unaccessible.

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

Sandstone: A clastic sedimentary rock consisting chie-fly of sand-sized particles of quartz and minor feldspar,cemented together by calcareous minerals (calcite ordolomite) 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 and mud-stone.

Siltstone: A clastic sedimentary rock consisting chieflyof silt-sized 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 an aggre-gate to withstand the effects of various weathering pro-cesses and agents. Unsound lithologies are subject todisintegration caused by the expansion of absorbedsolutions. This may seriously impair the performanceof road-building and construction aggregates.

Till: Unsorted and unstratified rock debris, deposited di-rectly by glaciers, and ranging in size from clay to largeboulders.

Wisconsinan: Pertaining to the last glacial period of thePleistocene Epoch in North America. The Wisconsinanbegan 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 DEPOSITSThese deposits can be divided into two broad catego-ries: those that were formed in contact with (or in closeproximity to) glacial ice, and those that were depositedby meltwaters carrying materials beyond the ice mar-gin.

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 and grad-ing of the material is more variable and the bedding isdiscontinuous because of extensive slumping. Theprobability of locating large amounts of crushable ag-gregate is moderate, and extraction may be expensivebecause of the variability of the deposits both in terms ofquality and grain size distribution.

Kames (K): Kames are defined as mounds of poorlysorted sand and gravel deposited by meltwater in de-pressions or fissures on the ice surface or at its margin.During glacial retreat, the melting of supporting icecauses collapse of the deposits, producing internalstructures characterized by bedding discontinuities.The deposits consist mainly of irregularly bedded andcrossbedded, poorly sorted sand and gravel. The pres-ent forms of the deposits include single mounds, linearridges (crevasse fillings) or complex groups of land-forms. The latter are occasionally described as “undif-ferentiated ice-contact stratified drift” (IC) when de-tailed subsurface information is unavailable. Sincekames commonly contain large amounts of fine-grainedmaterial and are characterized by considerable variabil-ity, there is generally a low to moderate probability ofdiscovering large amounts of good quality, crushableaggregate. Extractive problems encountered in thesedeposits are mainly the excessive variability of the ag-gregate and the rare presence of excess fines (silt- andclay-sized particles).

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 and

stratified gravel characterized by a wide range in grainsize. The core material is often draped on its flanks bybetter sorted and stratified sand and gravel. The depos-its have a high probability of containing a large propor-tion of crushable aggregate, and since they are generallybuilt above the surrounding ground surface, are conve-nient extraction sites. For these reasons esker depositshave been traditional aggregate sources throughout On-tario, and are significant components of the total re-sources of many areas.Some planning constraints and opportunities are inher-ent in the nature of the deposits. Because of their linearnature, the deposits commonly extend across severalproperty boundaries leading to unorganized extractivedevelopment at numerous small pits. On the other hand,because of their form, eskers can be easily and inexpen-sively extracted and are amenable to rehabilitation andsequential land use.Undifferentiated Ice-Contact Stratified Drift (IC): Thisdesignation may include deposits from several ice-con-tact, depositional environments which usually form ex-tensive, complex landforms. It is not feasible to identifyindividual areas of coarse-grained material within suchdeposits because of their lack of continuity and grainsize variability. They are given a qualitative ratingbased 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 in ex-tent 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 and thick-ness is available.Subaqueous Fans (SF): Subaqueous fans are formedwithin or near the mouths of meltwater conduits whensediment-laden meltwaters are discharged into a stand-ing body of water. The geometry of the resulting depositis fan- or lobe-shaped. Several of these lobes may bejoined together to form a larger, continuous sedimentarybody. Internally, subaqueous fans consist of stratifiedsands and gravels which may exhibit wide variations ingrain size distribution. As these features were depositedunder glacial lake waters, silt and clay which settled outof these lakes may be associated in varying amountswith these deposits. The variability of the sedimentsand presence of fines are the main extractive problemsassociated with these deposits.Alluvium (AL): Alluvium is a general term for clay, silt,sand, gravel, or similar unconsolidated material depos-ited during postglacial time by a stream as sorted or

��

53

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 have gen-erally low value because of the presence of excess silt-and clay-sized material. There are few large postglacialalluvium deposits in Ontario.

GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSITSGlaciolacustrine Beach Deposits (LB): These are rela-tively narrow, linear features formed by wave action atthe shores of glacial lakes that existed at various timesduring the deglaciation of Ontario. Well developed la-custrine beaches are usually less than 6 m thick. The ag-gregate is well sorted and stratified and sand-sized ma-terial commonly predominates. The composition andsize distribution of the deposit depends on the nature ofthe source material. The probability of obtaining crush-able aggregate is high when the material is developedfrom coarse-grained materials such as a stony till, andlow when developed from fine-grained materials.Beaches are relatively narrow, linear deposits, so thatextractive operations are often numerous and extensive.

Glaciolacustrine Deltas (LD): These features wereformed where streams or rivers of glacial meltwaterflowed into lakes and deposited their suspended sedi-ment. In Ontario such deposits tend to consist mainly ofsand and abundant silt. However, in near-ice and ice-contact positions, coarse material may be present. Al-though deltaic deposits may be large, the probability ofobtaining coarse material is generally low.

Glaciolacustrine Plains (LP): The nearly level surfacemarking the floor of an extinct glacial lake. The sedi-ments which form the plain are predominantly fine to

medium sand, silt and clay, and were deposited in rela-tively deep water. Lacustrine deposits are generally oflow value as aggregate sources because of their finegrain size and lack of crushable material. In some ag-gregate-poor areas, lacustrine deposits may constitutevaluable sources of fill and some granular subbase ag-gregate.

GLACIAL DEPOSITSEnd Moraines (EM): These are belts of glacial drift de-posited at, and parallel to, glacier margins. End mo-raines commonly consist of ice-contact stratified driftand in such instances are usually called kame moraines.Kame moraines commonly result from deposition be-tween two glacial lobes (interlobate moraines). Theprobability of locating aggregates within such featuresis moderate to low. Exploration and development costsare high. Moraines may be very large and contain vastaggregate resources, but the location of the best areaswithin the moraine is usually poorly defined.

EOLIAN DEPOSITSWindblown 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, and deposited on, pre-existinglacustrine sand plain deposits. Windblown sedimentsalmost always consist of fine to coarse sand and are usu-ally well sorted. The probability of locating crushableaggregate 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 formation basis. 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 to

for 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 = Bulk Relative Density, 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 14 m. 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 SUITABILITY TES-TING: PSV = 55-60, AAV = 4-6, MgS04 = 1-17, LA =15-38, Absn = 0.5-0.9, BRD = 2.61-2.65, PN (Asphalt &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-GATE SUITABILITY TESTING: 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. AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: 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: eastern On-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) and Ottawa Group (eastern Ontario). In easternOntario the formation is subdivided into upper and low-er members; in central Ontario it is presently subdividedinto upper, middle and lower members. COMPOSI-TION: in central and eastern Ontario the lower memberconsists of alternating units of limestone, dolomiticlimestone and dolostone, the upper member consists ofthin-bedded limestones with thin shale partings; west ofLake Simcoe the lower member is thin- to thick-bedded,interbedded, grey argillaceous limestone and buff togreen dolostone whereas the upper and middle membersare dense microcrystalline limestones with argillaceousdolostone interbeds. THICKNESS: 7.5 to 136 m.USES: quarried in the Lake Simcoe, Kingston, Ottawaand 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). AGGREGATE SUIT-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 the Ottawa Group (eastern Ontario), subdi-vided into upper, middle and lower members; membersin eastern and central Ontario are approximately equiv-alent. COMPOSITION: homogeneous, massive to thin-bedded fine-crystalline limestone with numerous shalypartings in the middle member. THICKNESS: 7 to 87m. USES: quarried at Brechin, Marysville, and in theOttawa area for crushed stone. Generally suitable foruse as granular base course aggregate. Rock from cer-tain 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 65 m. 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 Eastview Member; in central Ontario isdivisible into the Collingwood Member (equivalent toportions of the Eastview Member) and a lower member.COMPOSITION: eastern Ontario - the lower member isinterbedded, very fine- to coarse-crystalline limestonewith undulating shale partings and interbeds of darkgrey calcareous shale, whereas the Eastview Member isan interbedded dark grey to dark brown calcareous shaleand very fine- to fine-crystalline, petroliferous lime-stone; 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 67 m. USES: eastern Ontario - lower member isused extensively for aggregate production; central On-tario - quarried at Picton, Ogden Point and Bowmanvillefor 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 & Concrete) =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.THICKNESS: Blue Mountain Formation - 43 to 61 m;Billings Formation - 0 to 62 m. USES: Billings Forma-tion may be a suitable source for structural clay productsand expanded aggregate; Blue Mountain Formationmay be suitable 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 170 m.Carlsbad Formation - 0 to 186 m. USES: Georgian BayFormation - used by several producers in MetropolitanToronto area to produce brick and structural tile, as wellas for making Portland cement; at Streetsville, expand-ed shale was used in the past to produce lightweight ag-

ARIP 174

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 335 m. 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 Peninsula and the Niagara Escarp-ment as far north as Duntroon. COMPOSITION: mas-sive, medium- to coarse-grained, argillaceous white tolight 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 25 m. USES: extracted forcrushed stone in St. Vincent and Sarawak townships,Grey County, and for decorative stone on Manitoulin Is-land.

Cabot Head Formation (LowerSilurian)STRATIGRAPHY: part of the Cataract Group, occurs insubsurface throughout southwestern Ontario and out-crops along the length of the Niagara Escarpment.COMPOSITION: green, grey and red shales. THICK-NESS: 10 to 39 m. 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 15 m. 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 with minor 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 7.5 m.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 to15 m. 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-crys-talline, thin- to medium-bedded dolostone. THICK-NESS: 0 to 25 m. USES: quarried for fill and crushedstone on Manitoulin Island. AGGREGATE SUIT-ABILITY TESTING: MgSO4 = 1-2, LA = 19-21, Absn= 0.6-0.7, BRD = 2.78-2.79, PN (Asphalt & Concrete) =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: Fossil Hill Formation - fine- to coarse-crystal-line dolostone with high silica content; ReynalesFormation - thin- to thick-bedded shaly dolostone anddolomitic limestone. THICKNESS: Fossil Hill Forma-tion 6 to 26 m; Reynales Formation 0 to 3 m. USES:both formations quarried for aggregate with overlyingAmabel and Lockport Formations. AGGREGATESUITABILITY TESTING: (Fossil Hill Formation onManitoulin Island) 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 2 m. 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 24 m. 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 of Wa-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 Eramosa Members,and 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- to medium-crystalline dolostone with reeffacies developed near Georgetown and on the BrucePeninsula. The Eramosa Member is thin bedded and bi-tuminous. THICKNESS: (Lockport/Amabel) 3 to 40 m.USES: both formations have been used to produce lime,crushed stone, concrete aggregate and building stonethroughout their area of occurrence, and are a resourceof provincial significance. AGGREGATE SUITABIL-ITY TESTING: 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 and west of the Niag-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 100 m. 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 330 m. USES:gypsum mines 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 28 m. 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 SUITABILITY TES-TING: PSV = 46-49, AAV = 8-11, MgSO4 = 4-19, LA =14-23, Absn = 0.8-2.8, BRD = 2.61-2.78, PN (Asphalt &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 be ac-ceptable for use as rip rap, and well-cemented varietiesmay be acceptable for some asphaltic products. AG-GREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: (of a well-ce-mented 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 sand-

ARIP 174

58

stone with interbeds of limestone, dolostone and brownchert. THICKNESS: 3 to 40 m. USES: quarried at Hag-ersville, Cayuga and Port Colborne for crushed stone.Material generally unsuitable for concrete aggregatebecause of high chert content. AGGREGATE SUIT-ABILITY 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 25 m. 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 Peninsula;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 the Woodstock–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 75 m. 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 45 m. USES: quarried near Port Dover andon Pelee Island for crushed stone. Used at St. Marys as araw material for Portland cement. AGGREGATESUITABILITY TESTING: 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 USA,pinches out in the Port Stanley area. COMPOSITION:black, bituminous shales. THICKNESS: 0 to 12 m.USES: no present uses.

Bell Formation (Middle Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY: lowest formation of the HamiltonGroup, no outcrop in Ontario. COMPOSITION: soft,blue and grey calcareous shale. THICKNESS: 0 to 14.5m. USES: no present uses.

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

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

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

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

��

59

shale interbedded with blue-grey, fine-grained fossilif-erous limestone. THICKNESS: 0 to 21 m. 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 to 14 m. USES: no present uses.

Kettle Point Formation (UpperDevonian)

STRATIGRAPHY: occurs in a northwest-trending bandbetween Sarnia and Erieau; small part overlain by PortLambton Group rocks in extreme northwest. COM-POSITION: black, highly fissile, organic-rich shalewith minor interbeds of grey-green silty shale. THICK-NESS: 0 to 75 m. USES: possible source of material foruse as sintered lightweight aggregate or fill.

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

Berea Formation (Upper Devonian orMississippian)

STRATIGRAPHY: middle formation of the PortLambton Group; not known to occur at surface inOntario. COMPOSITION: grey, fine- tomedium-grained sandstone, often dolomitic andinterbedded with grey shale and siltstone.THICKNESS: 0 to 60 m. USES: no present uses.

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

ARIP 174

60

Figu

re D

1. B

edro

ck g

eolo

gy o

f sou

ther

n O

ntar

io.

��

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 SpecificationsSix 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 Ontario Ministry 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 the ag-gregate. This test is conducted in conjunction with thedetermination of the sample’s relative density.

Los Angeles Abrasion and Impact Test: This test mea-sures the resistance to abrasion and the impact strengthof aggregate. This gives an idea of the breakdown thatcan be expected to occur when an aggregate is stock-piled, transported and placed. Values less than about35% indicate potentially satisfactory performance formost concrete and asphalt uses. Values of more than45% indicate that the aggregate may be susceptible toexcessive breakdown during handling and placing.

Magnesium Sulphate Soundness Test: This test is de-signed to simulate the action of freezing and thawing onaggregate. Those aggregates which are susceptible willusually break down and give high losses in this test. Val-ues 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, dura-ble materials in sand-sized particles. This abrasion testis quick, cheap and more precise than the fine aggregateMagnesium Sulphate Soundness test that suffers from awide multilaboratory variation. The maximum loss forHL 1/HL 3 is 20%, for HL 2 and HL 4/HL 8 it is 25% andfor structural and pavement concrete it is 20%. It isanticipated that this test will replace the fine aggregateMagnesium Sulphate Soundness test.

Mortar Bar Accelerated Expansion Test: This is a rapidtest for detecting alkali-silica reactive aggregates. It in-volves the crushing of the aggregate and the creation ofstandard mortar bars. For coarse and fine aggregates,suggested expansion limits of 0.10 to 0.15% are indi-cated for innocuous aggregates, greater than 0.10% butless than 0.20% indicates that it is unknown whether apotentially deleterious reaction will 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 that sup-plementary information be developed to confirm thatthe expansion is actually because of alkali-reactivity. Ifconfirmed deleteriously reactive, the material shouldnot be used for Portland cement concrete unless correc-tive measures are undertaken such as the use of low- orreduced-alkali cement.

Petrographic Examination: Individual aggregate par-ticles in a sample are divided into categories good, fair,poor and deleterious, based on their rock type (petrogra-phy) and knowledge of past field performance. A petro-graphic number (PN) is calculated. The higher the 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 PetrographicNumber

Maximum

MagnesiumSulphate

SoundnessMaximum%

Loss

AbsorptionMaximum%

Los AngelesAbrasion

Maximum%Loss

Micro–DevalAbrasion

Maximum %Loss

MagnesiumSulphate

SoundnessMaximum %

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 Drainage Layer (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 Standard Specifications OPSS 304, OPSS 1002, OPSS 1003, OPSS 1010 and OPSS 1149)

64

Metric Conversion Table

��

��

�� ! �� ! ��

"#�"�� $$� �% �&�� % �&��

�� % �&�� % �&��

�� % �&�� % �&�� $� � ��

�� $� ��&�� &� ��$��

'(�)*�� +�� +��

�� $�� +�� +�� $ �

�� $� � +��,�&-� �� +��,�&- ��$$��

."/".0�1�� $ ��$$ 2�� 2�� $�� % �&�� % �&� ��$�� 3�� 3��

*"44��3 ��$�� 5-2! �� 5-2! �� $�� 3��3 ��$�� &�,! �� &�,! �� 3��3 �� 2� �-��5-2! ��2� �-��5-2! �� 3��3 �� &�! ��&�! �� 3�� &�! ��&�! �� 3 �� 3! ��3! �� 3�� $ ��3! ��3! ��

.(�.��#"�0(��36� �� &�,!6 �� &�,!6 ��$�� 36�

��&�! ��&�!��36� �$�� 2��,7��3��6 ��2��,7��3��6 ��$�� 36�

��&�! ��&�!

(��#�)4�8)��.(�'�#40(��8".�(#4

��

�� &�,!�2�&��&�! �� 3&��2�&��&�!��3&��2�&��&�!�� $� � ��&�,!�2�&��&�!�� &�,!�2�&��&�! �� 2��,7��3��2�&��&�!��2��,7��3��2�&��&�! �$ � ��&�,!�2�&��&�!

!��"�� #�$�� $�� %�$�&�'��$�� #�$�� (��# � ��

�� # � �#�$�� $�) �$��$��#� �� $�� *��+

��$��#��$�+�� $��#��&

ISSN 0708–2061ISBN 0–7778–9081–X

arip174 - aggregate resources inventory of the highway 17 ...€¦ · ontario, they are...

Documents