Prince Edward County€¦ · ii E Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1999 ISSN 0708--2061 ISBN 0--7778--8173--X All publications of the Ontario Geological Survey and the Ministry of Northern

Aggregate Resources Inventory of

Prince Edward County

Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 172

1999

Aggregate Resources Inventory of


Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 172

By Jagger Hims Limited and Staff of the Sedimentary Geoscience Section,Ontario Geological Survey

1999

ii

E Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1999 ISSN 0708--2061ISBN 0--7778--8173--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

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

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

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Main entry under title:

Aggregate resources inventory of Prince Edward County

(Ontario Geological Survey aggregate resources inventory paper, ISSN 0708-2061; 172)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-7778-8173-X

1. Aggregates (Building materials) — Ontario — Prince Edward.I. Ontario Geological Survey. Sedimentary Geoscience Section. II Ontario.Ministry of Northern Development andMines. III. Jag-ger Hims Limited. IV. Series.

TN939.A43 1999 553.6’2’09713587 C99-964000-3

Every possible effort has beenmade 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. Questions concern-ing the content of this report should be directed to the Ontario Geological Survey.

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

Cette publication est disponible en anglais seulement.

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

Jagger Hims Limited and the Ontario Geological Survey 1999. Aggregate resources inventory of Prince EdwardCounty; Ontario Geological Survey, Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 172, 46p.

iii

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part III - Assessment of Aggregate Resources in Prince Edward County 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Location and Population 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surficial Geology and Physiography 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Extractive Activity 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Areas of Secondary Significance 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Areas of Tertiary Significance 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bedrock Geology and Resource Potential 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resources 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A - Suggested Additional Reading 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix B - Glossary 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix C - Geology of Sand and Gravel Deposits 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix D - Geology of Bedrock Deposits 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix E - Aggregate Quality Test Specifications 44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metric Conversion Table 46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Chart B - Summary of Extractive Activity 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Chart C - Bedrock Resources Summary 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLES1. Total Sand and Gravel Resources - Prince Edward County 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Sand and Gravel Pits - Prince Edward County 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas - Prince Edward County 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Total Identified Bedrock Resources - Prince Edward County 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Quarries - Prince Edward County 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Selected Bedrock Resource Areas - Prince Edward County 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Summary of Test Hole Data - Prince Edward County 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Summary of Geophysical Data - Prince Edward County 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Results of Aggregate Quality Tests - Prince Edward County 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E1. Selected Quality Requirements for Major Aggregate Products 45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURES1. Location of Prince Edward County v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2A-3B Aggregate Grading Curves - Prince Edward County 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D1. Bedrock Geology of Southern Ontario 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D2. Exposed Paleozoic Stratigraphic Sequences in Southern Ontario 43. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GEOLOGICAL MAPS (back pocket)1. Sand and Gravel Resources, Prince Edward County, Scale 1:50 000, Map 1

2. Bedrock Resources, Prince Edward County, Scale 1:50 000, Map 2

v

Abstract

This report includes an inventory and evaluation ofsand and gravel and bedrock resources for Prince EdwardCounty. It is based on a detailed field assessment undertak-en in the summer of 1997 and on previous studies in thearea. The investigation was conducted to delineate aggre-gate deposits in the county and determine its quality andquantity. Such information will help ensure that sufficientaggregate resources are available for future use. The re-port is part of the Aggregate Resources Inventory Programfor areas designated under the Aggregate Resources Act(ARA) 1989.

In general, Prince EdwardCounty contains only limit-ed resources of sand and gravel. Three small SelectedSand and Gravel Resources Areas have been identified atthe primary level of significance, with a resource potentialof approximately 10.4 million tonnes. The aggregate con-tained in these areas is suitable for a range of road buildingand construction products. These areas occupy approxi-mately 104 hectares. Selected Sand and Gravel Resource

Areas of secondary and tertiary significance have alsobeen identified.

Prince Edward County is underlain by bedrock of theVerulam Formation and the upper and lower members ofthe Lindsay Formation. These units have been quarriedmainly to produce lime for cement manufacture and otherchemical uses. The formations do not meet Ministry ofTransportation specifications for many road building andconstruction aggregates. These formations can producenon--specification aggregate for local use. No areas havebeen selected for possible resource protection.

SelectedResourceAreas are not intended to beper-manent, single land use units which must be incorpo-rated in an official planning document. They representareas in which amajor 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 Prince Edward County.

Aggregate Resources Inventory ofPrince Edward County

By Staff of Jagger Hims Limited and the Ontario Geological Survey

Project Supervisors: C.L. Baker and D.J. Rowell; field work by R. Jelly, K. Antoniuk and A.J. Cooper; compilation anddrafting by staff of Jagger Hims Limited, Proctor and Redfern Limited and the Ontario Geological Survey. Assistancewith review provided by the Resident Geologist, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Tweed, Ontario; theSoils andAggregate Section, OntarioMinistry of Transportation, Downsview, Ontario; and theMineral Resources Staff,Peterborough Office, Ministry of Natural Resources.

Manuscript accepted for publication by, and publishedwith the permission of, C.L. Baker, SeniorManager, SedimentaryGeoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey, 1999.

3

Introduction

Mineral aggregates, which include bedrock-derivedcrushed 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 quantities 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-moditymined in the Province (OntarioMinistry ofNaturalResources 1996).

Although mineral aggregate deposits are plentiful inOntario, they are fixed-location, nonrenewable 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 areaswhere land use competi-tion is extreme. For these reasons the availability of ade-quate resources for future development is now beingthreatened inmany 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 primarily in-

volve the interpretation of published geological data suchas bedrock and surficial geology maps and reports (seeReferences) as well as field examination of potential re-source areas. Field methods included the examination ofnatural and man-made exposures of granular material.Most observations were made at quarries and sand andgravel pits located from records held by the OntarioMinis-try of Transportation (MTO), the Ontario Geological Sur-vey (OGS), and by Regional, District and Area Offices ofthe Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Ob-servations made at pit sites included estimates of the totalface height and the proportion of gravel- and sand-sizedmaterials in the deposit. Observations regarding the shapeand lithology of the particles were also made. These char-acteristics are important in estimating the quality andquantity of the aggregate. In areas of limited exposure,subsurface materials may be assessed by hand augeringand test pitting.

Depositswith 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 fromexistingpit 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.Analyseswere performed in the laboratories of the OntarioMinistry of Transportation.

The field data were supplemented by pit informationon file with the Geotechnical Section of the OntarioMinis-try of Transportation. Data contained in these files in-cludes field estimates of the depth, composition and“workability” of deposits, aswell 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 ofNaturalResources. In addition, reports ongeo-logical testing for type, quantity and quality of aggregateswere also obtained from numerous aggregate licence ap-plications on file with the MNR, andwith 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 theOn-tarioMinistry 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.

Topographic maps of the National Topographic Sys-tem, at a scale of 1:50 000, were used as a compilation basefor the field and office data. The information was thentransferred to a basemap, also at a scale of 1:50000. Thesebase maps are prepared with information taken frommapsof the National Topographic System by permission ofNat-ural Resources Canada, for presentation in the report.

RESOURCE TONNAGECALCULATION TECHNIQUES

Sand and Gravel ResourcesOnce the interpretative boundaries of the aggregate

units 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. Thecomputationmethods used are as follows. First, the area ofthe deposit, as outlined on the final basemap, 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 bymultiplying 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 Factor

Tonnage calculated in thismannermust be consideredonly 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 poten-tially available for extraction (Column 5). The availablearea is then multiplied by the estimated deposit thicknessand the density factor (Column 5 x Column 6 x 17 700), togive an estimate of the sand and gravel tonnage (Column7)potentially available for extractive development and/or re-source protection. It should be noted however, that recentstudies (Planning Initiatives Ltd. 1993) have shown thatanywhere from 15 to 85%of this last figure in any resourcearea may be further constrained or not accessible becauseof such things as environmental considerations (e.g.,floodplains, environmentally sensitive areas), lack oflandowner interest, resident opposition or other matters.


5

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.

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 15m of unconsolidated overburden is determinedfrom bedrock geology maps, drift thickness and bedrocktopographymaps, and from the interpretation ofwaterwellrecords (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 thenmultiplied 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 resourcesare 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 of the Ontario Re-source Classification Scheme (Robertson 1975, p.7) andwith 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 andgravelresources in the report area. Map 2, “BedrockResources”,shows the distributionof 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 geologymaps 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 onMap 1. Those areaswhich are licenced for extrac-tion under theAggregate Resources Act are shownby a sol-id outline and identified by a numberwhich refers to the pitdescriptions in Table 2. Each description notes the owner/operator and licenced hectarage of the pit, aswell 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 onMap 1 anddescribed inTable 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 symbolswhich are foundonthe 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 useinNorthAmerica. 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 themain quality limita-tions that may be present in the deposit as discussed in thenext section.

G 2OW

C

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 ofmaterial 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-


7

posit number and all such deposits are shownby dark shad-ing on Map 1.

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 andRegional/CountyOfficial Plansprimary, and in some casesresources of secondary significance, are identified andprotected.

Deposits of secondary significance are indicated bymedium 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 lightshading. 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 26.5mm 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 dovarious lithologiesof 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-taryGeoscience Section of the Ontario Geological Survey,and from field observations.

Quality data may also appear in Table 9, where the re-sults ofMTOquality tests are listed by test type and samplelocation. The types of tests conducted and the test specifi-cations are explained inAppendixes 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 172

8

specification envelopes, it can be determined howwell 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 bymeasurement of their areal ex-tent directly from the topographic maps. The area ren-dered unavailable by these features is shown for each re-source area 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 85%of the total resources in a municipality can become inac-cessible when these or other specific local constraints areconsidered (Planning Initiatives Ltd. 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 evaluationprocess are not considered furtherin this report, but readers are encouraged to discuss themwith personnel of the pertinent office ofMNR, 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 asmet-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, Ontario Ministry of Natural Re-sources, and from geotechnical test hole data from varioussources. Map 2 is based on concepts similar to those out-lined for Map 1.

The geological boundaries of the Paleozoic 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 indicateswhere bedrock outcropsor iswithin 1mof 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 whichhave extractive value only in specific circumstances. Out-side of these delineated areas, the bedrock can be assumedto be covered by more than 15 m of overburden, a depthgenerally considered to be too great to allow economic ex-traction (unless part of the overburden is composed of eco-nomically attractive deposits).

Other inventory information presentedonMap2 is de-signed to give an indication of the present level of extrac-


9

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 selectedwater wellwhich 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, inmetres, 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 southernOntario 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 are

much 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 givenquarry operation ismuch 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 SelectedAreas, if present, are shown onMap 2by a line pattern and the calculated potential 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 in PrinceEdward County

LOCATION AND POPULATIONPrince Edward County occupies 104 820 ha along

Lake Ontario south of Belleville and includes the town-ships of: Ameliasburgh, Hillier, Sophiasburgh, Hallowell,Athol, North Marysburgh and South Marysburgh (Figure1). The county encompasses parts of the Consecon (30N/13), Wellington (30N/14), Duck Island (30N/15), Bath(31C/2), Belleville (31C/3) and Trenton (31C/4) 1:50 000scale map sheets of the National Topographic System(NTS).

The population of Prince Edward County was 22 746in 1994 (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Hous-ing 1997), representing an increase of less than 2.2% from1991 (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1992)(ChartA). The Town of Picton is located in the east central por-tion of the county, while the villages of Bloomfield andWellington are situated near the centre and in the westernpart of the county, respectively. The cities of Belleville andTrenton are located just north of the study area. The area ismostly farmland as well as a cottage and tourist destina-tion.

Highway33,which generally trends easterly, providesa transportation corridor between Trenton and Picton.Highways 62 and 49 trend southerly and provide access tothe county from Highway 401. Numerous county andtownship roads provide vehicle access throughout thestudy area.

SURFICIAL GEOLOGY ANDPHYSIOGRAPHY

Prince Edward County is an irregularly shaped penin-sula of land comprised of a plain of limestone which pro-

jects into the eastern part of Lake Ontario. It is almost sep-arated from themainland by the Bay of Quinte. The shore-line is irregular as a number of deep valleys dissect thelimestone and thus form long bays. The surface of theplain has a slight gradient toward the southwest and thewestern and southern shores have very low relief. Thenorthern and eastern shorelines are often precipitous lime-stone bluffs rising 30 m or more. More than half of thecounty has shallowsoilswith less than ametre of unconsol-idated material over the bedrock (Chapman and Putnam1984). Over 10 000 ha of the county’s ground surface iscovered by marsh and other organic soils. Marshes bordermost lakes and lagoons in the county andmany small areasof muck are found in the shallow depressions on the rockplain.

During the Pleistocene Epoch, all of Ontario was cov-ered by a succession of ice sheets. There were definitely 2and probably more major ice advances, each separated byinterglacial periods. The last glacial substage, referred toas the Late or ClassicalWisconsinan, began approximately23 000 years before present (BP) (Barnett 1992). Glacialice initially moved across the study area from the north-northeast followed by a younger readvance from the south-east out of the St. Lawrence Valley.

Glacial ice was primarily erosional in the study area,producing streamlined bedrock features such as the rockdrumlin at McMahon Bluff (Leyland 1982). A thin sandysilt to silty sand till with a moderate stone content was de-posited in the area. This till, after deposition, was partlyeroded andmodified by glaciolacustrine activity. General-ly, till in the study area is less than 1 m thick except in iso-lated pockets where it comprises drumlinoid and drumlinlandforms. Most of these landforms are located betweenPicton and West Lake.

Chart A - Area and PopulationPrince Edward County

Municipality Area 1991 1994(ha) Population Population

Town of Picton 404 4 067 4 077Village of Bloomfield 194 669 667Village of Wellington 655 1 340 1 540Ameliasburgh Twp. 19 635 5 154 5 235Athol Twp. 10 224 1 235 1 290Hallowell Twp. 19 290 4 168 4 101Hillier Twp. 13 750 1 651 1 700North Marysburgh Twp. 9 759 1 180 1 165Sophiasburgh Twp. 20 083 1 954 2 067South Marysburgh Twp 10 826 847 904County Total 104 820 22 265 22 746


11

As the ice retreated, a small number of ice-contact de-posits were formed close to the ice margin. These depositsoriginated in a variety of depositional environments. Esk-ers were formed by glacial meltwater flowing and deposit-ing sediment in tunnels under the ice or in reentrants in theice front. Ice-contact deposits range in grain size from siltand sand to coarse gravel and cobbles. These deposits havebeen an important local source of aggregate in the area.Stratified ice-contact deposits of sand and gravel occur in 3northeast trending esker ridges in the Cherry Valley area,Picton to West Lake area and in the Hallowell area. Asso-ciated with these esker ridges are outwash sands. Near-shore glaciolacustrine sands in most places overlie theseoutwash deposits.

Glaciolacustrine sediments, predominantly silty finesand, were deposited in the shallower parts of glacial lakes.These sands occur primarily in topographically low areasand are generally too fine to produce most aggregate prod-ucts. Raised shoreline features are present in the area atelevations between 84 and 91 m asl. These shoreline fea-tures are moderately well developed and probably repre-sents a water level following the high level glacial LakeIroquois stage.

SELECTED SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCE AREAS

Map 1 indicates deposits that contain granularmateri-als. These deposits occupy a total of 5545 ha and containan original resource tonnage of 337.4 million tonnes(Table 1). These figures represent a comprehensive in-ventory of all granular materials in the map area, al-though much of the material included in the estimatehas no potential for use in aggregate products. Many ofthese deposits have limited potential for extraction be-

cause of the small size of the deposit, the poor quality of thematerial and/or restricted access.

Deposits selected at the primary level contain aggre-gate resources considered potentially suitable for the pro-duction of road subbase. Deposits selected at the secon-dary level are generally sand deposits that are consideredpotentially suitable for at least the production of SelectSubbase Material (SSM).

Three small deposits, outlined on Map 1, have beenselected as areas of primary significance for protection andpossible extraction. The 3 areas occupy a total of 232 hawith an available extractive area of 104 ha. The potentialaggregate resource available is 10.4 million tonnes (Table3).

EXTRACTIVE ACTIVITYForty-eight sand and gravel pits were identified in

Prince Edward County (Table 2). The majority of thesehave been developed in ice-contact and glaciolacustrinedeposits. At the time ofwriting, there were 18 pits licencedunder the Aggregate Resources Act, occupying a total of208.48 ha. Average aggregate production from 1994 to1996 was 1 969 695.4 tonnes (Chart B) (Ontario Ministryof Natural Resources 1994, 1995, 1996).

Selected Sand and GravelResource Area 1

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 is locatedin the west part of Hallowell Township, just east of Wel-lington (Map 1). One shallow abandoned pit has been de-veloped in this esker. Pit No. P36 is overgrown with a 2 mface exposing sand and gravel.

During the field investigation, a sample was takenfrom the pit face and various aggregate quality tests were

Chart B - Extractive ActivityPrince Edward County

Municipality 1994 1995 1996Production Production Production(Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes)

Ameliasburgh/Athol 86 985.3 82 329.2 51 076.1Hallowell 137 600.6 104 488.7 140 864.0*Hillier/N. & S. Marysburgh 33 753.0 70 100.1*Sophiasburgh 1 669 178.2 1 937 201.0 1 588 043.7South Marysburgh 7 466.2*County Total 1 927 517.1 2 194 119.0 1 787 450.0

* In 1994 and 1995 Hillier, North and South Marysburgh townships were reported together.In 1996 South Marysburgh was separated and Hillier and North Marysburgh were reportedwith Hallowell Township.

ARIP 172

12

performed. The aggregate is considered of sufficient qual-ity for the production of granular base and subbase materi-al. The results of the quality testing for the most part fallwithin Ministry of Transportation specification limits forthese products. Thematerial from this deposit is unaccept-able for HL and concrete products. The results of thesetests are listed in Table 9 and Figures 2A and 2B.

This small esker occupies approximately 28 ha andhas an estimated resource volume of 2.2 million tonnes(Table 3).


A large esker, located along Ridge Road and trendingsouthwest from Picton for approximately 9 km, representsSelected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2. Eleven pitshave been developed in this feature. Pit faces range inheight from 1 m to 20 m, exposing material ranging fromfine to medium sand to sandy gravel. Generally, the mate-rial is coarser near the core of the ridge and becomes finerin the flanks.

Material from this deposit has reportedly been usedfor the production ofHL4, 16mm crushed, Granular A andB and select subbase (SSM). During the field investiga-tion, a sample was taken from Pit No. P17 for magnesiumsulphate soundness and Micro-Deval abrasion tests. Theresults confirm thatmaterial from the deposit is suitable forthe production of the above-noted applicable uses. The re-sults are presented in Table 9 and Figures 2A and 2B.

This deposit occupies approximately 152 ha but sinceRidge Road is located along the topof the esker, only about52 hawould be potentially available for extractive activity.The 52 ha have an aggregate resource potential of 5.5 mil-lion tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3 is an eskerdeposit located in Cherry Valley, south of Picton. Two pits(Pit Nos. P44 and P45) have been developed in this feature.Pit faces range in height from 3m to 12m, exposing mate-rial ranging from gravelly sand to sand and gravel. Gener-ally, thematerial becomes finer from the centre of the eskerridge.

Material from this deposit has reportedly been used asHL4, 16 mm crushed and Granular A and B. During thefield investigation, a sample was taken from Pit No. P45and aggregate quality tests were performed. The qualitytests included petrographic analysis, magnesium sulphatesoundness, absorption and freeze-thaw soundness. The ag-gregate is considered of sufficient quality for the variousgranular base and subbasematerial, HL4 andHL8. The re-sults of the quality testing for themost part fall within spec-ification limits for these products. The results of these testsare presented in Table 9 and Figures 3A and 3B.

The deposit has an areal extent of approximately 52habut since this esker ridge runs through a developed area,only about 25 ha would be available for extractive activity.The 25 ha has an aggregate resource potential of 2.7 mil-lion tonnes (Table 3).

Resource Areas of SecondarySignificance

A small area of ice-contact material located in thenorth-central part of Ameliasburgh Township, has been se-lected at the secondary level of significance. Houses and acounty road restrict development in this area. No pits havebeen developed in this deposit.

A small glaciolacustrine beach deposit located at thesouthwest end of Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area2 southwest of Picton, has been selected at the secondarylevel of significance. Abandoned Pit No. P42 was estab-lished in this deposit and much aggregate has been re-moved. Pit faces expose sandy material with some gravel.

A sandy outwash deposit is located at the northeastend of Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area 2 near Pic-ton, has also been selected at the secondary level of signifi-cance. Licenced Pit Nos. P21 to P24 have been establishedin this deposit. Pit faces expose a fine tomedium sandwitha minor amount of gravel. Most of the deposit is licencedfor extraction.

A sandy glaciolacustrine plain deposit adjacent to Se-lected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3 has been selectedat the secondary level of significance. Pit No. P45, locatedin Selected Sand andGravelResource Area 3, has southernfaces extending into this sand deposit. These pit faces ex-pose sand with a minor amount of gravel. The majority ofthe deposit is undeveloped to the east of the 2 existing pits.

Another sandy glaciolacustrine plain deposit locatedsouth of Milford in South Marysburgh Township has beenselected at the secondary level of significance. LicencedPit No. P48 has been established in this deposit. Pit facesexpose up to 11 m of medium sand.

Resource Areas of TertiarySignificance

There are a number of glaciolacustrine plain andbeach deposits that could supply sand and fill for low-spec-ification purposes. Some of these deposits cover large ex-panses of the county, particularly surrounding the largeesker deposit southwest of Picton. The beach depositshave many small abandoned pits which expose materialcomposed of a silty sand and gravel. The shallow watersand plains are generally composed of fine sand with verylittle gravel and are usually 1 to 3 m thick.

BEDROCK GEOLOGY ANDRESOURCE POTENTIAL

A succession of limestones and shales of Ordovicianage, including the Lindsay and Verulam formations, un-derlie Prince Edward County. Excluding 2 small inliers, a


13

Precambrian (granitic) inlier and anOrdovician agedBob-caygeon Formation inlier, the oldest Paleozoic unit in themap area is the Verulam Formation.

The Verulam Formation consists of interbedded lime-stones and shales andhas anupper and lowermember (Lib-erty 1969). The lower member, ranging from 23 to 68 m inthickness, consists of interbedded dark grey to grey, fossi-liferous, fine- to coarse-grained limestone and green shale.The upper member is a medium- to coarse-grained, buff totan coloured, cross-bedded, bioclastic limestone, rangingfrom 2 to 9 m in thickness. The upper member is not wide-ly present in the study area.

The Lindsay Formation is the youngest Paleozoic unitin the study area and underlies most of the southern part ofthe county. The formation can be divided into 2 members.The lower member, approximately 30 m in thickness, con-sists of medium grey and bluish grey, fine- to medium-crystalline limestone. The limestone occurs in beds 3 to 10cm thick separated by thin shaly seams and partings (Car-son 1981). The upper member of the Lindsay Formationconsists of pale to medium grey, sublithographic to fine-crystalline, nodular and shaly limestone. The thickness ofthe upper member is estimated to be 60 m.

Portions of the Verulam Formation can be used in theproduction of aggregate products, however, the Verulam isnot generally suitable for the production of crushed prod-ucts for road building or construction whichmeet theMin-istry of Transportation specifications. Shale content ofsome beds tend tomake the rock soft, and shaly zones havepoor freeze-thaw resistance. Although drift cover is lessthan 8 m throughout most of the county, no resource areashave been selected. Although this rock unit does not meetMinistry of Transportation specifications for aggregateproducts, the material can produce non-specification ag-gregate material for local use.

Both members of the Lindsay Formation have beenquarried for lime production, but they are generally unsuit-able for road building or concrete aggregate which meetsMinistry of Transportation specifications. The rock of thisformation is soft and not resistant to weathering, makingthe aggregate produced from it unsuitable for load-bearinguses. Since the county has a lack of high quality aggregatereserves, rock from this formation is used for local roadbuilding and construction purposes. Although drift coveris less than 8 m throughout most of the county, no areashave been selected for possible resource protection (ChartC).

During the field investigation, 3 quarry stockpileswere sampled from 3 separate quarries each in a differentbedrock unit. QuarryQ2 is extracting the lowermember ofthe Lindsay Formation; QuarryQ35 is extracting the uppermember of the Lindsay Formation and Quarry Q22 ismin-ing in the Verulam Formation. The quality tests performedon the samples included petrographic analysis, magne-sium sulphate soundness, absorption, Los Angeles Abra-sion, freeze-thaw, accelerated mortar bar expansion andMicro-Deval Abrasion. The aggregate fromQ2andQ35 isconsidered of sufficient quality for Granular B and select

subbase material (SSM) only. Material from Quarry Q22(Verulam Formation) does not meet specifications forthese uses. The results of these tests are presented in Table9.

Within the study area, there are 13 quarries currentlylicenced under the Aggregate Resources Act, occupying atotal of 531.49 ha (Table 5). Of this total area, approxi-mately 60% (318.87 ha) is under one licenced propertycurrently operated by Essroc Canada Inc. (Quarry No.Q19). At this quarry, all quarried rock (Verulam and Lind-say formations) is used in the production of cement. Of theremaining licenced quarries, 3 are in the Verulam Forma-tion, 8 are in the lower member of the Lindsay Formationand one is in the upper member of the Lindsay Formation.Aggregate materials produced from the licenced quarriesare generally limited to Granular B and select subbasema-terial (SSM). There are 35 abandoned quarries in the studyarea. Most of these quarries are in the lowermember of theLindsay Formation.

Selected Bedrock ResourcesBedrock formations inPrince EdwardCounty are gen-

erally of poor quality for aggregate uses, but some of thehorizons are useable for select purposes. Due to the lack ofaggregate reserves in the county, rock from the Verulamand Lindsay formations are used for local road buildingand construction purposes. No bedrock resource areashave been selected for possible extractive development inview of the limited quality of the material and the fact thatextensive areas of bedrock are available for potential ex-traction.

SUMMARYThree sand and gravel deposits have been selected for

possible resource protection in Prince Edward County.The 3 eskers contain locally important resources of crush-able gravel and other aggregate products. Other depositsof secondary and tertiary significance are also available inthe county, however, these deposits generally contain ma-terial suitable for use as fill or low specification uses only.

The bedrock in Prince Edward County is not consid-ered to be a suitable source of high quality crushed stonefor aggregate. However, stone has been quarried in thecounty to produce lime for cement manufacture, particu-larly from theVerulam Formation. Although neither of thebedrock formationspresent in the county exhibit the poten-tial to manufacture Ministry of Transportation specifica-tion aggregate, the units have the potential to manufacturenon-specification products to meet local aggregate needs.

Enquiries regarding the Aggregate Resources Inven-tory of Prince Edward County may be directed to the Sedi-mentary Geoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey,Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, 7th Floor,933 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 6B5; theResident Geologist Office, Ministry of Northern Develop-ment and Mines, Tweed, Ontario; or the Ministry of Natu-ral Resources, Peterborough Office.

ARIP 172

14

CHARTC-B

EDROCKRESO

URCESSU

MMARY

PRINCEEDWARDCOUNTY

FORMATION

ROCKTYPE

APPROXIM

ATE

THICKNESS

(m)

SUITABILITY

AGGREGATE

OTHER

OCCURRENCE

NOTES

Lindsay

Low

ermem

berisin-

terbedded,fine-to

coarse-grained

lime-

stonewith

shalypart-

ings.U

ppermem

ber

isinterbedded,dark

grey

shalewith

petro-

liferouslim

estones.

25to65

Yes(Low

erspecifica-

tionuses

-Occursthroughoutthestudyareaandun-

derliesmostofthe

southernpartofthe

county.

Hasbeen

used

foraggregateinEastern

Ontario.IncentralO

ntario,the

Lindsay

Formationhasbeen

used

intheproduc-

tionofcement.May

besuitableorun-

suitableforuseasconcreteandasphalt

aggregate.

Verulam

Fossiliferous,pureto

argillaceouslim

e-

stoneinterbedded

with

calcareousshale.

30to65

Yes(Low

erspecifica-

tionuses

-Occursthroughoutthestudyarea.

Hasbeen

used

foraggregateelsewhere

intheProvince.Can

beused

inthe

manufactureofcement.May

beunsuit-

ableforuseasaggregateinsomeareas

becauseofitshigh

shalecontent.

Bobcaygeon

Subdivided

intoup-

per,middleandlower

mem

bers.Hom

oge-

neous,massive

to

thinbedded,fine-

crystalline

limestone

with

numerousshaly

partings.

5to90

Yes(Low

erspecifica-

tionuses

-Occursasasingleinlier.

QuarriedthroughoutOntarioforuseas

granularbasecourseandforuseinas-

phaltand

concrete.Certainlayersare

silicaalkali-reactivewhenused

inPort-

land

cementconcrete.


15

TABLE 1 - TOTAL SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCESPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

1Class No.

2Deposit Type

3Areal Extent(Hectares)

4Original Tonnage(Million Tonnes)

1 G-E 280 29.7G-LB 14 1.5S-LD 8 0.8S-LB 24 2.5S-LP 118 12.5S-OW 32 3.4

2 G-E 28 2.2S-IC 12 1.0S-LB 4 0.3S-LP 2708 215.7S-WD 14 1.1

3 G-LP 274 10.9G-IC 6 0.2S-LB 86 3.4S-LD 52 2.1S-LP 944 37.6

4 G-LB 18 0.2S-AL 133 1.8S-LB 4 0.1S-LD 25 0.3S-LP 148 2.0S-WD 613 8.1

COUNTY TOTAL 5545 337.4

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

ARIP 172

16

TABLE 2 - SAND AND GRAVEL PITSPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

Pit No. Owner/Operator LicencedAreas

(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

AMELIASBURGH TOWNSHIPLicenced Pits

P1 Roger Redner and BarbaraGray

24.06 6-8 10-50 Rehabilitated

Unlicenced PitsP2 - - 6-8 20-80 DepletedP3 - - 4-6 10-60 DepletedP4 - - 2-3 10-30 OvergrownP5 - - 2-6 10-50 DepletedP6 - - 3-4 10-60 Landfill siteP7 - - 3-5 50 OvergrownP8 - - 3 20 Depleted

SOPHIASBURGH TOWNSHIPLicenced Pits

P9 Roy Longwell 2.53 4 -Unlicenced Pits

P10 - - 2 10 Overgrown

HILLIER TOWNSHIPUnlicenced Pits

P11 Wright - 9 1 DepletedP12 Grossman - 2 10-30 DepletedP13 Hillier Township - 2 10-30 Landfill Site

HALLOWELL TOWNSHIPLicenced Pits

P14 Anthony Grootheest 23.00 8 10-20 OvergrownP15 Raymond Moore 3.80 3-7 10-40 Mostly SandP16 Paul Greer 8.07 - - UnopenedP17 Township of Hallowell 15.55 5-15 20-70P19 Monika Amos/Gord Amos 14.58 2-8 10-20 Below water extractionP20 Prince Edward County 5.20 5-14 30-70 OvergrownP21 Prince Edward County 7.01 10 10 OvergrownP22 Peter Hennessy 5.05 5 10-30P23 Power Concrete Products 1.30 10-15 10P24 Miller Paving Ltd. 4.45 8-10 10

Unlicenced PitsP18 - - 6-15 20-60 OvergrownP25 - - 6-8 10-30 OvergrownP26 - - - - UnopenedP27 - - - - UnopenedP28 - - - 60 UnopenedP29 - - 4-12 20-60 DepletedP30 - - 3-10 10-60 Water on floorP31 - - - - UnopenedP32 - - - - UnopenedP33 - - - - UnopenedP34 - - 2-6 20-60 Rehabilitated


17

TABLE 2 - SAND AND GRAVEL PITSPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

Pit No. Owner/Operator LicencedAreas

(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

P35 - - 6-7 10 OvergrownP36 - - 2 30-50 Overgrown small pitP37 - - - - UnopenedP38 - - - - UnopenedP39 - - 20 30-70 DepletedP40 - - - - UnopenedP41 - - 20 10-50 Sloughed & overgrownP42 - - 4-6 10-30 OvergrownP43 - - - - Rehabilitated

ATHOL TOWNSHIPLicenced Pits

P44 Prince Edward County 2.70 5 30-50P45 C.B. Fennell Ltd. 60.70 3-12 30 Large Pit

NORTH MARYSBURGH TOWNSHIPLicenced Pits

P46 Gerald McAuley 8.09 6-8 <10

SOUTH MARYSBURGH TOWNSHIPLicenced Pits

P47 William Creasy 4.61 - - Filled with waterP48 County of Prince Edward 8.04 8-11 10 Overgrown

ARIP 172

18

TABLE 3 - SELECTED SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCE AREASPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

1DepositNo.

2Unlicenced

Area(Hectares)*

3CulturalSetback

(Hectares)**

4ExtractedArea

(Hectares)***

5AvailableArea

(Hectares)

6EstimatedDepositThickness(Metres)

7PossibleAggregateResources(Million

Tonnes)****

1 28 0 1 27 4.5 2.2

2 152 90 10 52 6 5.5

3 52 27 0 25 6 2.7

COUNTY TOTAL232 117 11 104 10.4

Minor variations in all tables are caused by 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 fea-

tures (e.g., lakes, streams), 1 ha for individual houses. NOTE: this provides a preliminary and generalized constraint applicationonly. 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 constraintswill greatly reduce the selected resourcequantity realistically avail-able for potential extraction.


19

TABLE 4 - TOTAL BEDROCK RESOURCESPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

1Drift

Thickness(Metres)

2Formation

3EstimatedDepositThickness(Metres)

4Areal Extent(Hectares)

5Original Tonnage(Million Tonnes)

0 - 1 Lower Lindsay 18 45578 21732.51 - 8 Lower Lindsay 18 7008 3341.68 - 15 Lower Lindsay 18 320 152.6> 15 Lower Lindsay 18 80 38.1

0 - 1 Upper Lindsay 18 19659 9373.81 - 8 Upper Lindsay 18 6291 2999.78 - 15 Upper Lindsay 18 2394 1141.5> 15 Upper Lindsay 18 440 209.8

0 - 1 Verulam 18 13275 6329.81 - 8 Verulam 18 9256 24413.48 - 15 Verulam 18 117 55.8> 15 Verulam 18 102 48.6

0 - 1 Bobcaygeon 18 180 85.8

COUNTY TOTAL 104700 69923

The above figures represent a comprehensive inventory of all bedrock resources in the map area. Some of the material included in the estimate hasno aggregate potential and some is unavailable for extraction due to land use restrictions.

ARIP 172

20

TABLE 5 - QUARRIESPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

QuarryNo.

Owner/Operator LicencedAreas

(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

Remarks

AMELIASBURGH TOWNSHIPLicenced Quarries

Q1 Roger Redner & Barbara Gray 24.06 6-8 Pit and quarryQ2 Tarmac Canada Inc. 15.75 18-20 Mountain View Quarry

Unlicenced QuarriesQ3 - - 1 Filled with waterQ4 - - 2-3 Filled with waterQ5 - - 1 Filled with waterQ6 - - 5-8 OvergrownQ7 - - - UnopenedQ8 - - - UnopenedQ9 - - - Shaley Limestone

HILLIER TOWNSHIPLicenced Quarries

Q10 Tarmac Canada Inc. 35.10 7-8 Consecon QuarryUnlicenced Quarries

Q11 - - 2 OvergrownQ12 - - - RehabilitatedQ13 - - - Filled with waterQ14 - - 2 Filled with waterQ15 - - 3 OvergrownQ16 - - - RehabilitatedQ17 - - 3 OvergrownQ18 - - 4-7 Overgrown

SOPHIASBURGH TOWNSHIPLicenced Quarries

Q19 Essroc Canada Inc. 318.87 51 Three LiftsQ20 Wimpy Minerals Canada 4.86 7Q21 Miller Paving Ltd. 47.60 7-8 One LiftQ22 Anderson Farms 26.98 10 One LiftQ23 R. Anderson 7.70 10 One LiftQ24 Township of Sophiasburgh 6.57 4.5 Water on floorQ25 John E. Fox 21.30 0.5 Shallow quarry

Unlicenced QuarriesQ26 - - - UnopenedQ27 - - 1-9 Filled with waterQ28 - - 1 Filled with waterQ29 - - 3 OvergrownQ30 - - 3 OvergrownQ31 - - 3 Filled with waterQ32 - - 1 Filled with waterQ33 - - 1 Filled with waterQ34 - - - Filled with water


21

TABLE 5 - QUARRIESPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

QuarryNo.

Owner/Operator LicencedAreas

(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

Remarks

HALLOWELL TOWNSHIPLicenced Quarries

Q35 Foster Quarry 9.79 7-9 One LiftUnlicenced Quarries

Q36 - - 1-2 Filled with waterQ37 - - 3 OvergrownQ38 - - 4 Filled with waterQ39 - - 10-20 Landfill site

ATHOL TOWNSHIPUnlicenced Quarries

Q40 - - 1 Filled with waterQ41 - - 6 OvergrownQ42 - - 4 Overgrown

NORTH MARYSBURGH TOWNSHIPUnlicenced Quarries

Q43 - - 4-5 Filled with waterQ44 - - 2-3 Overgrown

SOUTH MARYSBURGH TOWNSHIPLicenced Quarries

Q45 William Creasy 4.61 7-9 Pit and quarryQ46 William Creasy 8.30 1-2 Filled with water

Unlicenced QuarriesQ47 - - 1 Filled with waterQ48 - - 1 Filled with water

ARIP 172

22

TABLE 6 - SELECTED BEDROCK RESOURCESPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

1AreaNo.

2Depth of

Overburden(Metres)

3Area

(Hectares)*

4CulturalSetbacks

(Hectares)**

5ExtractedArea

(Hectares)***

6PossibleResourceArea

(Hectares)

7EstimatedWorkableThickness(Metres)

8PossibleBedrock

Resources****(Million Tonnes)

NONE


23

TABLE 7 - SUMMARY OF TEST HOLE DATAPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

NONE

TABLE 8 - SUMMARY OF GEOPHYSICAL DATAPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

NONE

ARIP 172

24

TABLE 9 - RESULTS OF AGGREGATE QUALITY TESTSPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY

COARSE AGGREGATEFINE

AGGREGATE

Petrographic Number

Sample

No.

(Pit/Quarry)

Granular

& 16 mm

Crushed

Hot Mix &Concrete

Magnesium

Sulphate

Soundness(% Loss)

Absorption

(%)

Los AngelesAbrasion*(% Loss)

Freeze-Thaw(% Loss)

Accelerated

Mortar Bar

Expansion(% Expansion)

Micro

Deval

Abrasion(% Loss)

MicroDeval

Abrasion(% Loss)

Pit No.P17

14 13.4

Pit No.36

199 283 21 1.545 28 13 0.047 24.2 18.2

Pit No.P45

130 138 10 0.737 12 13.3

Q2 143 167 23 0.672 22 9 0.222 27.0

Q22 190 229 27 1.006 21 17 0.099 35.6 35.2

Q35 148 244 33 0.721 21 0.229 29.2

* Note - Los Angeles Abrasion no longer accepted, however, included for comparison purposes.


25

ARIP 172

26


27

ARIP 172

28

29

References

Association of Professional Engineers ofOntario 1976. Performance stan-dards for professional engineers advising onand reportingon oil,gasand mineral properties; Association of Professional Engineers ofOntario, 11p.

Barnett, P.J. 1992. Quaternary geology of Ontario; inGeology 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 Paleozoic forma-tions utilized by the limestone industry of Ontario; The CanadianMining and Metallurgical Bulletin, v.81, no.912, p.49-58.

Carson, D.M. 1981. Paleozoic Geology of the Belleville–WellingtonArea, Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, PreliminaryMap P. 2412, Geological Series, scale 1:50 000.

Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. 1984. The physiography of southern On-tario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2, 270p.

Johnson,M.D., Armstrong, D.K., Sandford, B.V., Telford, P.G. and Rutka,M.A. 1992. Paleozoic andMesozoic geology ofOntario; inGeologyof Ontario, OGS Special Volume 4, Part 2, p.907-1011.

Leyland, J.G. 1982. Quaternary Geology of theBelleville Area, SouthernOntario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P. 2540, Geo-logical Series, scale 1:50 000.

Liberty, B.A. 1969. Paleozoic geology of the Lake Simcoe Area, Ontario;Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 355, 201p.

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

Ontario Ministry ofMunicipal Affairs 1992. Ontario MunicipalDirectory1992;Ministry ofMunicipalAffairs,Queen’s Printer forOntario,To-ronto, 120p.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Association of Mu-nicipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario 1997. Ontario MunicipalDirectory 1997; Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, 163p.

OntarioMinistry ofNatural Resources 1994.Mineral aggregates inOntar-io – overview and statistical update 1994; Ontario Ministry of Natu-ral Resources, 64p.



Planning Initiatives Ltd. 1993. Aggregate resources of southern Ontario –A state of the resource study;Ministry ofNaturalResources,Queen’sPrinter for Ontario, Toronto, 201p.

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

Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E. and Keys, D.A. 1980. Appliedgeophysics; Cambridge University Press, London, England, 860p.

30

Appendix A - Suggested Additional Reading

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.

Carson, D.M. 1980. Paleozoic Geology of the Trenton–Consecon Area,Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.2375, Geological Series, scale 1:50 000.

____ 1982. PaleozoicGeology of the Bath–Yorkshire Island Area, South-ern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P. 2497,Geological Series, scale 1:50 000.

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

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 - limestone in-dustries and resources of eastern and northernOntario; OntarioMin-istry of Natural Resources, Land Management Branch, 196p.

____ 1989c. Limestone industries of Ontario, Volume III - limestone in-dustries and resources of central and southwestern Ontario; OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources, Land Management Branch, 175p.

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

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

Guillet,G.R. and Joyce, I.H., 1987. The clay and shale industries ofOntar-io; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 157p.

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

____ 1964b.Building stones ofOntario, part II limestone; OntarioDepart-ment of Mines, Industrial Mineral Report 15, 43p.

____ 1964c. Building stones of Ontario, part III marble; Ontario Depart-ment of Mines, Industrial Mineral Report 16, 89p.

Hewitt,D.F. 1964d.Building stones ofOntario, part IV sandstone;OntarioDepartment of Mines, Industrial Mineral Report 17, 57p.

_____ 1972. Paleozoic geology of southern Ontario; Ontario Division ofMines, Geological Report 105, 18p.

_____ and Vos, M.A. 1970. Urbanization and rehabilitation of pits andquarries; Ontario Department of Mines, Industrial Mineral Report34, 21p.

Liberty, B.A. 1963. Geology of Tweed, Kaladar and Bannockburn mapareas, Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 63-14, 15p.

_____ 1982a. Quaternary Geology of the Wellington Area, Southern On-tario;OntarioGeological Survey, PreliminaryMap P. 2541,Geologi-cal Series, scale 1:50 000.

Leyland, J.G. and Mihychuk, M. 1984. Quaternary Geology of the Tren-ton–Consecon Area, Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey,Map P. 2586, Geological Series, Preliminary Map, scale 1:50 000.

____ and Russell, T.S. 1983. Quaternary Geology of the Bath–YorkshireIsland Area, Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Prelimi-nary Map P. 2588, Geological Series, scale 1:50 000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

OntarioMinistry ofNaturalResources 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 MineralBackground Paper 1a, 26p.

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-ing and problem aggregates inOntario –A review; 5th Edition,Min-istry of Transportation and Communication, Engineering andMate-rials Office, Paper EM-31, 44p.

____ 1985b. Evaluation of the potential for expansion and cracking due tothe alkali-carbonate reaction; in Cement, Concrete and Aggregates,CCAGDP, V.8, No. 1, p.13-23.

Terasmae, J. 1980. Some Problems of Late Wisconsin History and Geo-chronology in Southeastern Ontario; Canadian Journal of EarthSciences, Vol. 17, No. 3, p.361-381.

Vreeken,W.J., 1981. Distribution ofChronology of FreshwaterMarls Be-tween Kingston and Belleville, Ontario; Canadian Journal of EarthSciences, Vol. 18, No. 7, p. 1228-1239.

Williams, D.A., and Rae, A. 1983. Paleozoic Geology of the Ottawa–St.Lawrence Lowland, Southern Ontario, pp. 107-110, Summary ofField Work 1983; Edited by J. Wood, O.L. White, R.B. Barlow andA.C. Colvine, Ontario Geological Survey,Miscellaneous Paper 116,313p.

Wolff, J.M. 1982. Geology of the Kaladar Area, Lennox and Addingtonand Frontenac Counties; Ontario Geological Survey, Report 215, 94p. Accompanied by Map No. 2432, scale 1:31 680.

31

Appendix B -- Glossary

Abrasion resistance: Tests such as the Los Angelesabrasion test are used tomeasure 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 otherminer-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 includemineral 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 crackingof concrete. Althoughperfectlysuitable 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 processeswhich improves the quality(physical properties) of a mineral aggregate and is notpart of the normal processing for a particular use, suchas routine crushing, screening, washing, or classifica-tion. Heavymedia 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:Ageneral 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 andsandstonemay deteriorate rapidlywhen 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 360mil-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:Ageneral term for all unconsolidated rock debristransported from one place and deposited in another,distinguished from underlying bedrock. In NorthAmerica, glacial activity has been the dominant modeof transport and deposition of drift. Synonyms includeoverburden and surficial deposit.

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

ARIP 172

32

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

Granite: A coarse-grained, light-coloured rock 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 toGranular A; Se-lect SubgradeMaterial 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 toOntario 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 fromhighquality 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 theminer-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 andDevonian) can be recognized in southernOn-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.


33

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 forwhich there are few, if any, samples ormea-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 andmud-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 andunstratified rockdebris, deposited di-rectly by glaciers, and ranging in size from clay to largeboulders.

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

34

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 ofoutwashdeposits, but inmost cases the sorting andgrad-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 termsofquality 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-ingbodyofwater. 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 featureswere depositedunder glacial lake waters, silt and claywhich 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


35

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-sizedmaterial. 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 6m 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 sourcematerial. 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. InOntario 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 kamemoraines.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, anddeposited 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.

36

Appendix D -- Geology of Bedrock Deposits

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

The following description is arranged in ascendingstratigraphic order, on a group and formationbasis. Pre-cambrian rocks are not discussed. Additional strati-graphic information is included for some formationswhere necessary. The publications and maps of the On-tario Geological Survey (e.g. Johnson et al. 1992) andthe Geological Survey of Canada should be referred 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=BulkRelativeDensity, PN(Asphalt &Concrete)= Petrographic Number for Asphalt and Concrete use.The ranges are intended as a guide only and care shouldbe exercised in extrapolating the information to specificsituations. Aggregate suitability test data has been pro-vided by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.

Covey Hill Formation (Cambrian)

STRATIGRAPHY: lower formation of the PotsdamGroup. COMPOSITION: interbedded non-calcareousfeldspathic conglomerate and sandstone. THICK-NESS: 0 to 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 SUITABILITYTES-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 SUITABILITYTESTING: 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 SUITABILITYTESTING: PSV =58-63, AAV = 10-11, MgSO4 = 12-40, LA = 25-28,Absn = 1.8-1.9, BRD = 2.55-2.62, PN (Asphalt & Con-crete) = 122-440.

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


37

Gull River Formation (MiddleOrdovician)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of the Simcoe Group (centralOntario) andOttawaGroup (easternOntario). In easternOntario the formation is subdivided into upper and low-ermembers; in centralOntario it is presently subdividedinto upper, middle and lower members. COMPOSI-TION: in central and eastern Ontario the lower memberconsists of alternating units of limestone, dolomiticlimestone and dolostone, the upper member consists ofthin-bedded limestones with thin shale partings; west ofLakeSimcoe the lowermember is thin- to thick-bedded,interbedded, grey argillaceous limestone and buff togreendolostonewhereas the upper andmiddlemembersare dense microcrystalline limestones with argillaceousdolostone interbeds. THICKNESS: 7.5 to 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). AGGREGATESUIT-ABILITY TESTING: PSV = 41-49, AAV = 8-12,MgSO4 = 3-13, LA = 18-28, Absn = 0.3-0.9, BRD =2.68-2.73, PN (Asphalt & Concrete) = 100-153.

Bobcaygeon Formation (MiddleOrdovician)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of the Simcoe Group (centralOntario) and theOttawaGroup (easternOntario), subdi-vided into upper, middle and lower members; membersin eastern and central Ontario are approximately equiv-alent. COMPOSITION: homogeneous,massive 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 EastviewMember; in central Ontario isdivisible into the Collingwood Member (equivalent toportions of the EastviewMember) and a lowermember.COMPOSITION: easternOntario - the lowermember isinterbedded, very fine- to coarse-crystalline limestonewith undulating shale partings and interbeds of darkgrey calcareous shale, whereas the EastviewMember isan interbeddeddark 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, OgdenPoint andBowmanvillefor cement.May be suitable or unsuitable for use as con-crete and asphalt aggregate. AGGREGATE SUIT-ABILITYTESTING: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-tionmay 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, aswellas for making Portland cement; at Streetsville, expand-ed shale was used in the past to produce lightweight ag-

ARIP 172

38

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,GreyCounty, and for decorative stone onManitoulin Is-land.

Cabot Head Formation (LowerSilurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of the CataractGroup, 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 withminor interbedded limestone. THICKNESS:0 to 2 m. USES: no present uses.

Dyer Bay Formation (Middle Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY: on Manitoulin Island and northern-most Bruce Peninsula. COMPOSITION: highly fossi-liferous, impure dolostone. THICKNESS: 0 to 7.5 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- tomedium-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:


39

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

Rochester Formation (Middle Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: part of Clinton Group along the Ni-agara Peninsula. COMPOSITION: black to dark greycalcareous shale with numerous limestone lenses.THICKNESS: 5 to 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 EramosaMembers,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- tomedium-crystalline dolostonewith reeffacies developed near Georgetown and on the BrucePeninsula. The Eramosa Member is thin bedded and bi-tuminous. THICKNESS: (Lockport/Amabel) 3 to 40m.USES: both formations have been used to 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 330m. 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 28m. USES: quarried forcrushed stone on the Niagara Peninsula; shaly intervalsare unsuitable for use as high specification aggregatebecause of low freeze-thaw durability. Has also beenextracted for lime.AGGREGATESUITABILITYTES-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 172

40

stone with interbeds of limestone, dolostone and brownchert. THICKNESS: 3 to 40m. USES: quarried atHag-ersville, Cayuga and Port Colborne for crushed stone.Material generally unsuitable for concrete aggregatebecause of high chert content. AGGREGATE SUIT-ABILITYTESTING: 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. AGGREGATESUITABILITYTESTING:MgSO4 = 1-28, LA= 22-46,Absn = 0.6-6.8, PN (Asphalt & Concrete) = 125-320.

Marcellus Formation (MiddleDevonian)STRATIGRAPHY: subsurface unit, mostly found be-low Lake Erie and extending into the eastern 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 inOntario. 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


41

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 20m. USES:no present uses.

ARIP 172

42

FigureD1.Bedrock

geologyofsouthernOntario.


43

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.)

44

Appendix E – Aggregate Quality Test Specifications

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

AbsorptionCapacity: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 downand 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:TheMicro-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 HL2 andHL 4/HL8 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.


45

Table E1. Selected quality requirements for major aggregate products.

TYPE OF TEST

COARSE AGGREGATE FINE AGGREGATE

TYPE OF MATERIAL PetrographicNumberMaximum

MagnesiumSulphateSoundnessMaximum%

Loss

AbsorptionMaximum%

Los AngelesAbrasion

Maximum%Loss

Micro--DevalAbrasion

Maximum%Loss

MagnesiumSulphateSoundnessMaximum%

Loss

Granular A 200 -- -- 60 --

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

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

Granular M 200 -- -- 60 --

Granular S 200 -- -- -- --

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

Open Graded DrainageLayer (1)

160 15 2.0 35 --

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

Surface Treatment Class 1 135 12 1.75 35 --

Surface Treatment Class 2 160 15 -- 35 --


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


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

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

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

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

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

Structural Concrete,Sidewalk, Curb, Gutterand Base

140 12 2.0 50 20 16

Pavement Concrete 125 12 2.0 35 20 16

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

46

Metric Conversion Table

Conversion from SI to Imperial Conversion from Imperial to SI

SI Unit Multiplied by Gives Imperial Unit Multiplied by Gives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ton (short) ton (short)

OTHER USEFUL CONVERSION FACTORS

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

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

ISSN 0708--2061ISBN 0--7778--8173--X

Documents

Prince Edward County€¦ · ii E Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1999 ISSN 0708--2061 ISBN 0--7778--8173--X All publications of the Ontario Geological Survey and the Ministry of Northern