Aggregate Resources Inventory of

Aggregate Resources Inventory of

Dufferin CountyTownships of Melancthon, Mulmur, East Luther,Amaranth, Mono and East Garafraxa

Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 163

1998

Aggregate Resources Inventory of

Dufferin CountyTownships of Melancthon, Mulmur, East Luther,Amaranth, Mono and East Garafraxa

Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 163

By MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited, WhiteLandScience, Robinson Consultants and Staff of the SedimentaryGeoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey.

1998

ii

E Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1998 ISSN 0708--2061ISBN 0--7778--7916--6

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

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

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

Purchases may be made only through:

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

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

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

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Main entry under title:

Aggregate resources inventory of Dufferin County: townships of Melancthon, Mulmur, East Luther, Amaranth, Mono and EastGarafraxa.

(Ontario Geological Survey aggregate resources inventory paper, ISSN 0708-2061; 163)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-7778-7916-6

1. Aggregates (Buildingmaterials)—Ontario—Dufferin (County). I. Ontario Geological Survey. II. Ontario.Ministry ofNorth-ern Development and Mines. III. MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited. IV. Series.

TN939.A43 1998 553.6’2’0971341 C98-964033-7

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

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

Cette publication est disponible en anglais seulement.

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

Ontario Geological Survey and MacNaughton et al. 1998. Aggregate resources inventory of Dufferin County:Townships of Melancthon, Mulmur, East Luther, Amaranth, Mono and East Garafraxa; Ontario GeologicalSurvey, Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 163, 65p.

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 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Site Specific Criteria 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

Part III -- Assessment of Aggregate Resources of Dufferin County 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Location and Population 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surficial Geology and Physiography 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Extractive Activity 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 6 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 8 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 9 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 10 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 11 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 12 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 13 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 14 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 15 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 16 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 17 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 18 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 19 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 20 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Areas of Secondary Significance 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bedrock Geology 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Areas 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 1 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 2 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 3 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 4a 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 4b 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 5 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 6a 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 6b 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 7 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 8, 9, 10 and 11 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References 48. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A -- Suggested Additional Reading 49. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix B -- Glossary 50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix C -- Geology of Sand and Gravel Deposits 53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix D -- Geology of Bedrock Deposits 55. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix E -- Aggregate Quality Test Specifications 63. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHARTSA. Area and Population, Dufferin County 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Extractive Activity, Dufferin County 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. Bedrock Resources Summary, Dufferin County 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLES1. Total Sand and Gravel Resources, Dufferin County 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Sand and Gravel Pits, Dufferin County 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, Dufferin County 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Total Identified Bedrock Resources, Dufferin County 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Quarries, Dufferin County 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Selected Bedrock Resource Areas, Dufferin County 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Summary of Test Hole Data, Dufferin County 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Summary of Geophysical Data, Dufferin County 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Aggregate Quality Test Data, Dufferin County 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURES1. Key Map Showing the Location of Dufferin County, Scale 1:1 800 000 v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2a--6b Aggregate Grading Curves, Dufferin County 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D1. Bedrock Geology of Southern Ontario 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D2. Exposed Palaeozoic Stratigraphic Sequences in Southern Ontario 62. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GEOLOGICAL MAPS (back pocket)1A. Sand and Gravel Resources, Melancthon and Mulmur townships, Dufferin County, Scale 1:50 000

1B. Sand and Gravel Resources, East Luther, Amaranth, Mono and East Garafraxa townships, Dufferin County,Scale 1:50 000

2A. Bedrock Resources, Melancthon and Mulmur townships, Dufferin County, Scale 1:50 000

2B. Bedrock Resources, East Luther, Amaranth, Mono and East Garafraxa townships, Dufferin County,Scale 1:50 000

v

Abstract

This report includes an inventory and evaluation ofsand, gravel and bedrock resources in Dufferin County. Itprovides a consolidation and update of the original town-ship Aggregate Resource Inventory Papers (ARIP) pre-pared between 1979 and 1981. The report is part of the on-going Aggregate Resources Inventory Program for areasdesignated under the Aggregate Resources Act, 1989.

In Dufferin County, a total of 20 Selected Sand andGravel Resource Areas of primary significance have beenselected and identified for possible resource protection.These 20 resource areashave, in some cases, been split intosubareas along township boundaries in order to provide de-scriptions and data on a township by township basis. TheSelected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas have an unli-cenced area of 7192 ha. Following removal of previouslyextracted areas and consideration of some culturalconstraints, an estimated 5820 ha remains containing pos-sible resources of approximately 674 million tonnes. This

portion of the Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areascomprise approximately 9% of the total area occupied bysand and gravel deposits in the county.

Possible aggregate resources derived from bedrock inDufferin County are from theAmabel Formation. At pres-ent, however, there are no quarries operating within thecounty. Aggregate from the Amabel Formation is highlyvalued as it is suitable for a wide range of applications in-cluding road building and construction aggregates. Pos-sible resources in 7 Selected Bedrock Resource Areasamount to 1673 million tonnes.

Selected resource areas are not intended to be per-manent, single land use units which must be incorpo-rated in an official planning document. They representareas in which 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 Dufferin County, Scale 1:1 800 000.

Aggregate Resources Inventory ofDufferin CountyTownships of Melancthon, Mulmur, East Luther,Amaranth, Mono, East Garafraxa

By MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited, White LandScience, Robinson Consultants andStaff of the Sedimentary Geoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey

Project Supervisors: C.L. Baker and R.I. Kelly; fieldwork by T. White; report by J. Parkin, T. White and Staff of theSedimentaryGeoscience Section, OntarioGeological Survey; compilation anddrafting byMacNaughtonHermsenBrit-ton Clarkson Planning Limited and Robinson Consultants. Assistance with review provided by Ontario Geological Sur-vey -- Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Staff, Sudbury, Ontario.

Manuscript accepted for publication by and publishedwith the permission of, C.L. Baker, SeniorManager, SedimentaryGeoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey, 1998.

3

Introduction

Mineral aggregates, which include bedrock--derivedcrushed rock as well as naturally formed sand and gravel,constitute the major raw material in Ontario’s road--build-ing and construction industries. Very large amounts ofthese materials are used each year throughout the Prov-ince. For example, in 1993, the total tonnage of mineralaggregates extracted in Ontario was 131 million tonnes,greater than that of any other metallic or nonmetallic com-moditymined in the Province (OntarioMinistry ofNaturalResources 1995).

Although mineral aggregate deposits are plentiful inOntario, they are fixed--location, non--renewable resourcesthat can be exploited only in those areas where they occur.Mineral aggregates are characterized by their high bulkand low unit value so that the economic value of a depositis a function of its proximity to a market area as well as itsquality and size. The potential for extractive developmentis usually greatest in areas where land use competition isextreme. For these reasons the availability of adequate re-sources for future development is now being threatened inmany areas, especially in urban areas where demand is thegreatest.

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 METHODSThis report provides a consolidation of the previously

released Aggregate Resource Inventory Reports for Duf-ferin County (Ontario Geological Survey 1979, 1980a,1980b, 1980c, 1981a, 1981b). The contents of existing re-ports were reviewed in detail. All of the resource areas ofprimary and secondary significance that had beenoriginal-ly outlined were field checked. As necessary, field sam-ples were collected and tested for gradation and were alsopetrographically analysed. Data was also collected fromthe Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) files andfrom testing companies involved in licencing proceduresunder theAggregate ResourcesAct, 1989. All informationwas compiled, analysed and incorporated with the datafound within the existing Aggregate Resource InventoryReports.

All previously Selected Sand and Gravel ResourceAreas of primary and secondary significance were ex-amined considering the following: 1) licencing that hasoc-curred since the original inventory was conducted; 2) dis-cussions with the appropriate staff of theMinistry ofNatu-ral Resources; 3) review of available public and private re-search reports; 4) reports prepared for licences under theAggregate ResourcesAct, 1989, and other documents; and5) personal knowledge of the staff involved in completionof the project.

Field methods included the examination of naturaland man--made exposures of granular material. Most ob-servations were made at quarries and sand and gravel pitslocated from records held by the Ontario Ministry ofTransportation (MTO), the Ontario Geological Survey(OGS) and by Regional, District and Area Offices of theOntario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Observa-tions made at pit sites included estimates of the total faceheight and the proportion of gravel-- and sand--sized mate-rials in the deposit. Observations regarding the shape andlithology of the particleswere alsomade. These character-istics are important in estimating the quality and quantityof the aggregate. In areas of limited exposure, subsurfacematerials were assessed by hand augering and 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 of

the 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 theEnvironment and Energy,were used insome areas to corroborate deposit thickness estimates or toindicate the presence of buried granular material. Theserecords were 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 digital NTS base map by permission ofNatural 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 FactorTonnage calculated in thismannermust be considered

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

The Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas inTable 3 are calculated in the following way. Two succes-sive subtractions are made from the total area. Column 3accounts for the number of hectares unavailable because of

Dufferin County

5

the 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 (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1993a)have shown that anywhere from 15 to 85% of this last fig-ure in any resource area may be further constrained or notaccessible because of such things as environmental consid-erations (e.g., floodplains, environmentally sensitiveareas), lack of landowner interest, resident opposition orother matters.

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

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 bedrock

topographymaps, 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 the Aggregate Resources Act are shown by asolid outline and identified by a numberwhich refers to thepit descriptions in Table 2. Each descriptionnotes the own-er/operator and licenced hectarage of the pit, as well as theestimated 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 Symbol

The Deposit Symbol is similar to those used in soilmapping 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.These components are illustrated by the following exam-ple:

G 2OW

C

Gravel Content Geological Type

QualityThickness Class

For instance, 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.

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.

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.

Dufferin County

7

SELECTED SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCE AREAS

All the Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas arefirst delineated by geological boundaries and then classi-fied into 3 levels of significance: primary, secondary andtertiary. Each area of primary significance is given a de-posit number and all such deposits are shown by 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 andmay be reservedwholly or partial-ly for extractive development and/or resource protec-tion. This protection is now included in many of the re-cently approved local and Regional/County Official Planswherein primary, and in some cases resources of secondarysignificance, are identified and protected in the OfficialPlan.

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-tary Geoscience Section of the Ontario Geological Surveyand from field observations.

Quality data may also appear in Table 9, where the re-sults ofMTOquality tests are listed by test type and sample

ARIP 163

8

location. 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 andGranular BType 1; Hot--Laid Asphaltic Sand Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8; and concretesand. By plotting the gradation curves with respect to thespecification 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 andman--made features whichmay 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 toman--made and cultural features, certainnatural features, such as provincially significant wetlands,may prove to be constraints. 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 a mini-mum of 15 to 85%of an individual licence or resource areacan become inaccessible when these or other specific localconstraints are considered (Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources 1993a).

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 further

in 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 fromvarioussources. 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 lightest

Dufferin County

9

shade 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-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 the

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

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

Selected Resource AreasSelection of Bedrock Resource Areas has been re-

stricted to a single level of significance. Three factors sup-port this approach. First, quality and quantity variationswithin a specific geological formation are gradual. Secondthe areal extent of a 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 inDufferin County

LOCATION AND POPULATIONDufferin County occupies 149 019 ha in south--central

Ontario. It is surrounded by the counties of Grey, Simcoeand Wellington and the Regional Municipality of Peel(Figure 1). The county consists of 8 local municipalitiesincluding the towns of Orangeville and Shelburne, and thetownships of Amaranth, East Garafraxa, East Luther, Me-lancthon,Mono andMulmur. The study area is covered byparts of the Bolton (30M/13), Alliston (31D/4), Orange-ville (40P/16), Dundalk (41A/1) and Collingwood (41A/8)1:50 000 scale map sheets of the National TopographicSystem (NTS).

The populationofDufferin Countywas 40997 in 1994(Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1995), represent-ing an increase of 5.7% from 1991 (Ontario Ministry ofMunicipal Affairs 1992) (Chart A). The major economicactivity in the county is agriculture, however, activity inthis sector is declining.

Provincial highways 9, 10, 24, 25 and 89 provide ac-cess across the study area. These provincial highways aresupplemented by well--maintained county and townshiproads which provide a complete road network across thecounty. Rail service is provided by the Canadian PacificRailway (CPR). No major airports are located in the area.

SURFICIAL GEOLOGY ANDPHYSIOGRAPHY

The physiography and distribution of surficial materi-als in Dufferin County, including the sand and gravel de-posits shown on Maps 1A and 1B, are the result of glacialactivity that took place in the Late Wisconsinan Substageof the PleistoceneEpoch. This period of time, which lastedfrom approximately 23 000 to 10 000 years before present,

was marked by the repeated advance and retreat of the icesheet margin (Barnett 1992).

At the time of the maximum glacial extent, DufferinCounty was covered by a submass of the main ice sheet,known as the GeorgianBay lobe (Cowan 1976). TheGeor-gian Bay lobe advanced to the southeast and deposited athick layer of till on both the bedrock surface and pre--ex-isting glacial sediments. The uppermost till, TavistockTill, has a clayey silt matrix with a minor stone content(Cowan 1976). This till forms part of an extensive physio-graphic region known as the Dundalk Till Plain (Chapmanand Putnam 1984), which covers large areas of Melanc-thon, Amaranth, East Luther and East Garafraxa town-ships. The till is not suitable for use as aggregate becauseof its fine texture.

Within the Dundalk Till Plain, localized deposits ofsand and gravel occur as stratified deposits and eskers. Alarge esker occurs at Shrigley near the northern boundaryof the county. Smaller eskers occur near Corbetton, River-view and Peepabun; these contain limited and variablequantities of crushable aggregate.

Ice--contact stratified deposits are found throughoutthe county and are typified by a deposit near HorningsMills. Here several pits have been developed in relativelylimited deposits of poorly sorted sand and gravel. Togeth-er, these ice--contact and esker deposits are the only signifi-cant sources of crushable material on the west side of thecounty.

At the point of its furthest advance, the Georgian Baylobe met the Lake Ontario and Lake Simcoe lobes. Melt-waters flowing between the GeorgianBay and LakeOntar-io lobes in the southern part of the country deposited vastamounts of sand and gravel. As a result, a large irregularshaped interlobate ridge, known as the Orangeville Mo-raine, was formed (Cowan 1976). Themoraine extends for

Chart A -- Area and PopulationDUFFERIN COUNTY

Municipality Area 1991 1994(ha) Population Population

Orangeville 1 457 17 227 19 036Shelburne 334 3 352 3 450Amaranth 26 544 3 146 3 187East Garafraxa 16 474 2 037 2 012East Luther 16 213 2 445 2 537Melancthon 31 264 2 320 2 286Mono 27 881 5 766 5 980Mulmur 28 852 2 483 2 509TOTAL 149 019 38 776 40 997

Dufferin County

11

many kilometres in a southwesterly direction and coversmuch ofMono and East Garafraxa townships. It is charac-terized by high relief (approximately 23 to 38 m above thesurrounding till plain) and hummocky topography andcontains large amounts of sand and gravel. The sand andgravel material is irregularly distributed and texturallyvariable.

After the deposition of the Orangeville Moraine, theice margin of the Georgian Bay lobe retreated to the north-west. Sediment--laden meltwaters flowed off the ice mar-gin towards the south in several meltwater channels. Largequantities of sand and gravel were deposited along thecourses of the meltwater channels. The Lavender–VioletHill meltwater channel contains 2 terraces; an upper ter-race composed of 3 to 4 m of gravel over pebbly silty sandand a poorly exposed lower terrace with similar material.Southward--flowing meltwater close to the edge of the Ni-agara Escarpment deposited large quantities of sand andgravel around the head of Hockley Valley.

In the Orangeville area, southward and westward--flowingmeltwater deposited large quantities of coarsema-terial. One of thesemeltwater channels is nowoccupiedbythe Grand River, where narrow terraces of sand and gravelare present along the banks. This high quality, but limitedsand and gravel resource, contains several working pits.

Extensive outwash plains were formed during theeastward retreat of the Lake Simcoe lobe across DufferinCounty. Silty, medium sand fan deposits were laid downeast of the Niagara Escarpment by west--flowing meltwa-ters. These have limited economic value, and consist of 2to 9 m of sand over interbedded sand, gravel, till and silt.

The physiography of the northern part of DufferinCounty, particularly on the west side of Mulmur andMonotownships, is dominated by the Niagara Escarpment. It is acuesta scarp, produced by erosion of the bedrock surfacefor millions of years. The escarpment has a local relief of244 m. Black Bank Hill is an erosion--severed portion of

the escarpment in northern Mulmur Township, while fur-ther south the escarpment is incised by re--entrant valleysof the Pine and Bowring rivers.

The Singhampton and Gibraltar moraines extendsouthwards through Mulmur and Mono townships in aband up to 4 km wide with its broad flat crest 15 to 45 mabove the surrounding terrain (Chapman and Putnam1984). In common with many morainic deposits, this fea-ture containspoorly sorted fine ormedium sandwithminoramounts of gravel and crushable material. Textural vari-ability gives the deposit low aggregate potential with par-ticle size ranging from oversized material to fine sand andsilt. Some deleterious shale and siltstone is also present.

On the east side ofDufferin County, rivers have down-cut through the outwash plain leaving terraces at eleva-tions of 328m, 297m and 282m. To the west, post--glaciallandscape changes have been limited to the developmentof marshes (e.g., Luther Marsh) and localized bogs on thepoorly drained till plains.

EXTRACTIVE ACTIVITYIn 1995 there were 43 licenced sand and gravel pits in

Dufferin County. Chart B shows the distribution of theselicences by township. The total area currently under li-cence in the county is 1355 ha (chart B).

The majority of the licences are located in Mono andEast Garafraxa townships (11 and 14 licences respective-ly). In East Garafraxa Township the pits have been devel-oped in several scattered outwash and ice--contact strati-fied drift deposits. InMonoTownship the pits are predom-inantly located in the meltwater and outwash deposits lo-cated north and northeast of the Town of Orangeville.

Production from licenced pits in Dufferin County hasaveraged approximately 1.41 million tonnes over the peri-od of 1993--95 (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources1993b, 1994, 1995) (Chart B).

Chart B -- Extractive ActivityDUFFERIN COUNTY

Municipality No. Of Licenced 1993 1994 1995Licences Area Production Production Production

(ha) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes)

Amaranth 5 134 147 072 125 406 133 920East Garafraxa 14 573 359 759 521 159 379 726East Luther 4 83 92 422 270 927 55 486Melancthon 4 141 293 402 247 442 168 041Mono 11 288 354 110 360 232 52 230Mulmur 5 136 36 163 48 572 91 872TOTAL 43 1 355 1 282 928 1 573 738 1 381 275

ARIP 163

12

SELECTED SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCE AREAS

Maps 1A and 1B indicate the deposits in DufferinCounty that contain granular materials. These depositsoccupy 64 686 ha and contain an original resource tonnageof 7252million tonnes (Table 1). These figures represent acomprehensive inventory of all granular materials in themap area, althoughmuchof thematerial included in the es-timate has no potential for use in aggregate products.

Twenty sand and gravel deposits of primary signifi-cance have been selected for possible resource protectionin Dufferin County. These Selected Sand and Gravel Re-source Areas occupy a possible aggregate resource area of5823 ha with a possible aggregate resource of 674 milliontonnes (Table 3). The selected resource areas representabout 9% of the total area occupied by all sand and graveldeposits in Dufferin County and include most of the pos-sible resources of crushable aggregate. Aggregate deple-tion in parts of these areas has been considerable since1979.

Selected Sand and GravelResource Area 1

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 is part of alarge esker located in northernMelancthon Township nearShrigley. The esker consists of a well defined central ridge,with local relief of approximately 15 m, flanked by rela-tively thin and sandy ice--contact stratified drift material.

Several pits have been developed in the esker, al-though none are currently licenced for extraction. A sam-ple (DF--SS--1) was taken from this deposit and test resultsindicate a high percentage of fine material (Figures 2a and2b). The sand fraction is too fine for hot mix products un-less blended. The petrographic number (PN) was 163 forgranular and 16 mm crushed and 203 for hot mix and con-crete (Table 9).

A 7m face at the site of sample location DF--SS--1 ex-poses poorly stratified, coarse gravel and sand in the eskercore. Gravel content, consisting predominantly of dolo-stone, is estimated at more than 60%. Oversized materialmay need to be removed prior to crushing and processing.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 covers atotal unlicenced area of 437ha, but previous extraction andcultural setbacks reduce the possible resource area to 390ha. With an assumed average thickness of 5 m, possiblesand and gravel resources are estimated to be 35 milliontonnes (Table 3). This area is a valuable aggregate sourceand contains a high percentage of crushable gravel.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 is an eskerdeposit located in central Melancthon Township. The de-posit consists of a central ridge flanked by hummockykame deposits and sandy deposits of lower relief. The esk-

er is believed to be the southern extension of SelectedSandand Gravel Resource Area 1.

Several pits have been developed in the central ridgeand expose 3 to 5m of poorly sorted coarse sand andgravelwith up to 5% oversized material. The gravel is of goodquality and is suitable for a variety of crushed products;however, at some locations the sand fraction may be toocoarse and dirty for certain hot mix products. MTO dataindicates sand control is necessary to meet Granular Aspecifications. Sample DF--SS--3, taken from this deposit,has a fines content in excess of 10% (Figures 2a and 2b).The petrographic numbers are 124 for granular and 16mmcrushed and 138 for hot mix and concrete (Table 9).

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 covers anunlicenced area of 145 ha of which 107 ha remains avail-able for potential extraction. Assuming an average depositthickness of 5m, possible sand and gravel resources are es-timated at 10 million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3 is a largeice--contact stratified drift deposit located near Horning’sMills, where the terrain is characteristically irregular andhummocky. Several pits have been developed in the de-posit and 3 are currently licenced (Pit Nos. 2, 3 and 4).

Pit faces range from 3 to 9m and expose medium sandwith some gravel and pebbly sand. This material is suit-able for a range of applications, although selection andsand control is required for most crushed stone products.The sand fraction grades both too coarse and too fine forsome hot mix asphaltic products. Field investigation re-corded significant amounts of both oversize and shale ma-terials. Sample DF--SS--4 has a low percentage of fines butprocessing to meet Granular A and hot mix specificationsmay be required (Figures 2a and 2b).

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3 occupies1973 ha exclusive of licenced areas, but previous extrac-tion and cultural setbacks reduce the possible resource areato 1588 ha. Assuming an average deposit thickness of 8 m,possible sand and gravel resources are estimated to be 225million tonnes (Table 3). This selected resource area is lo-cated within close proximity to several local markets. Ac-cess by both rail and road is available.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4 is an out-wash deposit located along the eastern boundary of Me-lancthon Township and extending eastward into MulmurTownship. For convenience the resource area has been di-vided into subareas 4a and 4b according to townshipboundaries.

Selected Resource Area 4a is part of an outwash de-posit adjacent to the eastern boundary ofSelected Sand andGravel Resource Area 3 inMelancthon Township. The de-posit continues through Horning’s Mills into Mulmur

Dufferin County

13

Township. Face heights in previously worked pits andwa-ter well data indicate a sand and gravel deposit 6 to 12 mthick. The material may be suitable for crushed products.The deposit covers a total unlicenced area of 251 ha, butcultural setbacks and previous extraction reduce the pos-sible resource area to 237 ha. Assuming an average thick-ness of 6 m the possible aggregate resource for subarea 4ais 25 million tonnes (Table 3).

Selected Resource Area 4b is located in MulmurTownship, approximately 2 km northeast of Horning’sMills. A 2.5 m high roadcut exposure on the northern edgeof this deposit reveals up to 30% gravel of which the clastsare predominantly dolostone. Some deleterious material,including 2 to 5% fissile siltstone, is present.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4b covers atotal unlicenced area of 76 ha. Cultural setbacks reduce thepossible resource area to 47 ha. Assuming a workablethickness of 6 m, the estimated possible resource is 5 mil-lion tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5 consists ofa series of esker segments trending southeast through thesouthwest corner of Melancthon and northwest part ofAmaranth townships. The resource area has been dividedinto subareas 5a and 5b based on township boundaries.

SelectedResource Area 5a consists of a discontinuousand narrow esker ridge, much of which is only about 3 mhigh, that is situated in the southwestern part of Melanc-thon Township. It has been partially depleted in past yearsthrough extraction from a number of wayside pit opera-tions. Working faces expose poorly sorted coarse graveland sand, but in general, the deposit is notably finer--grained than the eskers in Selected Sand and Gravel Re-source Areas 1 and 2. Sand is dominant in the esker flanksand in places this fraction grades coarse and too dirty forhot mix asphaltic products.

The total unlicenced area occupied by selected re-source area 5a is 23 ha, of which 15 ha remains after re-moval of cultural constraints and previously extractedareas. Assuming a deposit thickness of 6 m, possible ag-gregate resources would be about 2 million tonnes (Table3).

The southeast extension of the esker lies in AmaranthTownship and forms Selected Sand and Gravel ResourceArea 5b. It is now largely depleted and partially sterilizedby residential development. The remaining resources arethose most remote from the transportation corridors withsome possible unworked material below the water table.

The unlicenced area of Selected Sand and Gravel Re-source Area 5b is 25ha. Cultural setbacks and previous ex-cavation leaves 22 ha available for possible extraction. Adeposit thickness of 5 mwas used as it is possible to recov-er some material from below the water table. Possible ag-gregate resources are estimated at 2 million tonnes (Table3).


Selected Sand andGravel ResourceArea 6 is located afew kilometres east of Honeywood in Mulmur Township.It is a lobate--shaped deltaic deposit situated on the southflank of Black Bank Hill, near the edge of the Niagara Es-carpment. The material was deposited by southward flow-ing meltwater during an early phase of the Lavender–Vio-let Hill meltwater channel.

The deposit consists of an upper layer of gravel over-lying gravel interbedded with medium to coarse sand.Data is sparse on this particular deposit, but total thicknessmay exceed 12mwith a stone content in the range of 40 to60%.

A face within a wayside pit near Ruskview containsmoderately well sorted gravel and sand with greater than35% subrounded pebbles and cobbles. A sample (DF--SS--2) from this deposit indicates greater than4% fines andapproximately 2% deleterious material (Figures 3a and3b). The sand fraction requires blending for hot mix as-phaltic products and processing is required to meet Granu-lar A specification.

Several pits have been developed in the deposit in-cluding a licenced operation (Pit No. 11). The aggregate inthis deposit has a reddish--brown hue, likely in part due toincorporation of material from the Queenston Formation.A 5 to 6 m high roadcut situated equidistant from Honey-wood andRuskview, exposes stratified ice--contactmateri-al that abuts the northern edge of the deposit.

The generally level terrain in this area has beendeeplydissected by tributaries of the Pine River. The steepwooded valley slopes could present serious access prob-lems for aggregate operations. This deposit, identified byTelford and Narain (1976) as a high priority resource, liesentirely within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 6 occupies325 ha exclusive of the licenced area. After deducting cul-tural setbacks and previously excavated areas the potentialresource area is calculated to be 302 ha. Using an assumedaverage deposit thickness of 8 m, possible aggregate re-sources are estimated at 43 million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7 is locatedin Mulmur Township and consists of 2 outwash terracesproduced by the down--cutting action of the Pine River.The upper terrace lies close to Terra Nova, however, asboth terraces grade downwards to the east, they are not eas-ily differentiated. There are noworking pits in the area, butwater well data indicates 6 to 15 m of gravelly sand may beavailable for possible extraction.

Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area 7 covers 530ha and at present no licenced extractive operations exist inthe area. A considerable proportion of the area is now un-available for extraction, particularly west from TerraNova, as a result of expanding residential development.

ARIP 163

14

After deducting cultural setbacks, the possible resourcearea is 418 ha. Assuming a minimum deposit thickness of5 m, possible resources are estimated to be 37 milliontonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 8 is a largeoutwash deposit situated in the south--central part of Mul-mur Township extending southward into Mono Township.The resource area has been divided into subareas 8a and 8bbased on township boundaries.

Selected resource area 8a is located in Mulmur Town-ship and is situated on the upper terrace of the Laven-der–Violet Hill meltwater deposit. This deposit extendssouthwards into Mono Township as selected resource area8b. At present 4 licenced operations are located in this area(Pit Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15).

The general stratigraphy of the deposit consists ofgravel overlying interbedded medium to coarse sand andgravel. At one of the pits, uniform outwash gravel gradesinto sandier material at the foot of the working face. Thestone content is approximately 30 to 40%, however, quali-ty is variable and requires extensive selection and sandcontrol for crushed products. Significant shale and silt-stone contents render the material unsuitable for use asconcrete aggregate and the fines content is toohigh for pro-ducing hot mix asphaltic products.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 8a occupiesa total of 84 ha. After considering cultural constraints 39ha are possibly available for extraction. Assuming an aver-age deposit thickness of 8 m, the possible aggregate re-source is 6 million tonnes (Table 3).

SelectedResource Area 8b is the southward extensionof the Lavender–Violet Hill meltwater deposit that is situ-ated inMonoTownship. The land ismainly cleared andun-der cultivation. Land surfaces are generally level, but aredeeply dissected in several places by tributary streams ofSheldon Creek. These steeply sloping areas may presentserious difficulties for aggregate development which mayfurther limit the volume of extractable aggregate.

Several pits have been opened in the deposit. Pit No.28 is a licenced operation covering 6.48 ha with a 5 mworking face of moderately sorted and stratified sand andgravel with 30 to 45% stone content. The stone is suitablefor most crushed products, although siltstone is a commonconstituent andmay limit its use for higher quality applica-tions. In particular, fine aggregate may be generally un-suitable for concrete or asphaltic mixes because of silt-stone and the high percentage of fines. Suitability of thedeposit is indicated by the test results of sample DF--SS--5(Figures 4a and 4b). Results indicate a low fines contentand moderate PN values and the need for sand control asthe sample grades too coarse for HL asphaltic products.PN values for this sample are 129 for granular and 16mmand 159 for hot mix and concrete (Table 9).

Selected Resource Area 8b occupies an unlicencedarea of 264 ha. After deducting cultural setbacks the pos-sible resource area is 198 ha. Assuming an average depositthickness of 6 m, possible aggregate resources are esti-mated to be 21 million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 9 is part of asmall esker deposit located south of Highway 89 and westof the Grand River near Keldon. The deposit has beenworked in the past at several small pits, but none are cur-rently active or licenced. The resource area comprises atotal of 59 unlicenced ha, with a possible resource area of48 ha. With an assumed 3 m thickness, the estimated pos-sible resource is 3 million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 10 is part ofthe Grand River outwash terrace system. It extends fromGrand Valley north to Tarbert. One licenced operation, PitNo.16, is currentlyworking the deposit. Working faces aregenerally less than 3 m. Material consists of moderatelysorted and stratified sand andgravel with a highpercentageof crushable material. In places the sand fraction gradestoo coarse and dirty for hot mix asphaltic products.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 10 covers atotal of 134 ha of which 99 ha could be used for extraction.Assuming an average thickness of 2 m, possible sand andgravel resources are estimated at 4 million tonnes (Table3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 11 consistsof an outwash deposit that is situated in the southeast cor-ner of East Luther Township and extends eastward intoAmaranth Township. The resource area has been subdi-vided into areas 11a and 11b based on the township bound-ary.

Resource Area 11a is situated in the southeast cornerof East Luther Township. It consists of 2 deposits contem-poraneous with the terraces of outwash material describedfor Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 10. Texturalproperties and constraints are therefore similar. Severalpits have been developed in the deposit and there are cur-rently 2 licenced operations (Pit Nos. 18 and 19) withworking faces generally less than 3 m.

Selected Resource Area 11a occupies a total of 48 haexclusive of licenced areas. When cultural constraints areapplied the area possibly available for extraction is re-duced to 15 ha. With an assumed thickness of 6m, possibleaggregate resources are estimated to be 2 million tonnes(Table 3).

Selected Resource Area 11b lies in the southwest cor-ner of Amaranth Township and extends eastward from se-

Dufferin County

15

lected resource area 11a. Its origin and properties aretherefore similar. SelectedSand andGravel ResourceArea11b covers a total of 27 unlicenced ha which is reduced to22 ha by cultural setbacks. Assuming an average thicknessof 6 m, estimated possible aggregate resources are 2 mil-lion tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 12 consistsof the southern part of the Brice Hill esker and is located atthe western boundary of Amaranth Township, north of thehamlet of Campania. The esker consists of a northwesttrending single ridge. Local relief is 6 to 9 m and the eskeris less than 200 m wide.

The deposit is mainly silty medium to coarse sandygravel with up to 35% stone content. Pit faces of approxi-mately 5 m expose poorly sorted sandy gravel with lessthan 30% crushable material. Dolostone is the dominantlithology in the coarse fraction. Parts of the deposit arepredominantly sand and a high percentage of fines maylimit the range of possible aggregate uses. Sand controlmay be necessary. This deposit is now partially depletedand in places worked down to ground level. It is felt, how-ever, that some additional material may remain below thewater table.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 12 occupiesa total of 70 ha. After considering cultural constraints 51ha are possibly available for extraction. Assuming an aver-age deposit thickness of 5 m, the sand and gravel resourcesare estimated to be 5 million tonnes (Table 3).


An extensive meltwater channel system consisting ofa series of terraces situated along the banks of the presentday Grand River and a broad indistinct channel depositwith low relief and level topography trending east fromWaldemar, through a well defined valley in the Orange-villeMoraine, has been chosen as Selected Sand andGrav-el Resource Area 13. The resource area has been dividedinto subareas 13a and 13b based on township boundaries.

The outwash terrace deposits of Selected ResourceArea 13a cover a wide area extending from the banks of theGrand River near Waldemar, to eastward through Ama-ranth hamlet. Numerous pits have been developed in thisdeposit and reserves are now considerably depleted atsome locations. Currently, one licenced operation (Pit No.24) is active in the area. Working face heights are variable,but generally less than 6 m. Exposures reveal moderatelysorted and stratified sand and gravelwith significant crush-able gravel content. The sand fraction grades too coarseand dirty in places for hot mix asphaltic products.

Selected Resource Area 13a occupies approximately380ha. Cultural constraints andpreviously extracted areasreduce the possible resource area to 292 ha. Some parts ofthis resource may not be available for extraction due to thelocation within the floodplain of the Grand River or be-cause of encroaching residential development. Assumingan average thickness of 5 m, possible aggregate resourcesare estimated to be 26 million tonnes (Table 3).

Resource area 13b consists of 3 small deposits in thenorthwest corner of East Garafraxa Township. The largestof these extends southward along the banks of the GrandRiver. Based on exposed faces in the deposit 2 to 3 km tothe north, aggregate with a depth of up to 5 mmay be pres-ent. Approximately 3 km to the east, 2 smaller areas ex-tend from resource area 13a south of Highway 9. In thisarea pit working faces are 2 to 5 m high.

Together the areas of Selected Resource Area 13b to-tal 68ha. After allowing for cultural setbacks, the potentialresource area is 53 ha. With an assumed average thicknessof 5 m, estimated possible resources are 5 million tonnes(Table 3). It should be noted that the location of some ofthese resources within the floodplain of the Grand Rivermay restrict their availability.


This selected resource area consists of a large ice--con-tact stratified drift deposit that is situated primarily withinthe Township of East Garafraxa, however, a portion of thedeposit extends northward into Amaranth Township. Theresource area has been subdivided into 2 subareas 14a and14b based on the township boundary.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 14a consistsof an ice--contact stratified drift deposit situated near thenorthern boundary of East Garafraxa Township. Severalpits have been developed in the resource area, including 3licenced operations (Pit Nos. 43, 44 and 45). Faces of up to6 m expose poorly to well sorted sand and gravel. SampleDF--SS--9, from Pit No. 45, has moderate PN numbers andthe presence of considerable fines in a dominantly sandydeposit (Figures 6a and 6b and Table 9).

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 14a occu-pies a total of 216 ha. After considering cultural setbacks,the area potentially available for extraction is 130 ha. As-suming an average thickness of 6 m of usable aggregate,the possible sand and gravel resources in Selected Sandand Gravel Resource Area 14a are estimated to be 14 mil-lion tonnes (Table 3).

Selected Resource Area 14b has properties very simi-lar to those for the contiguous SelectedResource Area 14a.The area covered by Selected Resource Area 14b isapproximately 3 ha. After considering cultural setbacks,the area possibly available for extraction is less than 1 ha.Assuming a working thickness of 6 m, possible resourcesof less than 1 million tonnes are available in Selected Sandand Resource Area 14b (Table 3).

ARIP 163

16


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 15 consistsof a large ice--contact stratified drift deposit that forms partof the Orangeville Moraine. The resource area is situatedprimarily within East Garafraxa Township, however, it ex-tends northward into Amaranth Township. As a result, theresource area has been divided into 2 subareas 15a and 15bbased on the township boundary.

Selected Resource Area 15a is situated in the easterncorner of East Garafraxa Township. Characterized by roll-ing hummocky terrain, this ice--contact stratified drift de-posit has a local relief of over 30 m. There are many pits,including 3 licenced operations (Pit Nos. 47, 48 and 49), inthis resource area. Working faces range from 3 to 11 m inheight and expose moderately sorted sand and minor grav-el. Selection and sand control are required for crushed ag-gregates as the deposit contains only minor amounts ofcrushable material. Detailed field investigation would berequired to determine whether any localized concentra-tions of gravel occur within this predominantly sand--richdeposit.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 15a occu-pies 891 ha exclusive of licenced properties, but culturalconstraints reduce the potential area to 794 ha. With an as-sumedaverage deposit thicknessof 6m, possible resourcesare estimated to be 84 million tonnes (Table 3).

Selected Resource Area 15b consists of 2 small areaslocated at the southeast corner of Amaranth Township.These areas are contiguous with the ice--contact depositdescribedunder SelectedArea 15a. The resource area cov-ers a total of 29 ha ofwhich 28 ha are possibly available forextraction. Assuming an average thickness of 6mpossibleresources are estimated to be 3 million tonnes (Table 3).

Most of the resource area has been cleared and is usedpredominantly for pasture. There is good road and rail ac-cess to the resource. Residential development extendingwestward from the TownofOrangeville is exerting consid-erable pressure on the resource and may limit future devel-opment.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 16 forms apart of the Hockley Valley outwash and is situated on thenorth side of the valley. Nearly all of the resource area hasbeen cleared and is under cultivation. The terrain is gener-ally level, but theremay be practical difficulties for extrac-tive operations around the steeply sloping, dissected to-pography on the southern edge of the deposit.

No pits have been developed in the area, therefore es-timates of texture and aggregate quality are based on datafrom other parts of the Hockley Valley outwash deposit.The stratigraphy of this area is assumed to be similar to thatof Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 17, with 6 to

12 m of outwash gravel overlying sandier ice--contactstratified drift.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 16 covers atotal unlicenced area of 392 ha. After considering culturalsetbacks, the potential resource area is reduced to 330 ha.Assuming an average deposit thickness of 9m, possible re-sources are estimated to be 53 million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 17 consistsof outwash material and forms an important aggregate re-source. The deposit lies immediately north of the Orange-ville Reservoir at the head of the Hockley Valley. The sur-rounding land surface is generally smooth and level, ex-cept along the very dissected northern edge of the HockleyValley.

Ice--contact sand deposits are exposed on the lowerslopes of the valley. Similar ice--contact material may un-derlie most of the outwash material in Selected ResourceArea 17 at depths ranging from 6 to 12 m.

This resource area contains medium to coarse--tex-tured sand and gravel, with stone content generally 40 to60% and observed thicknesses of up to 6 m. The underly-ing ice--contact material is likely of poorer quality becauseof siltstone and shale fragments incorporated from theGeorgian Bay and Queenston formations. These frag-ments have low abrasion resistance and can cause pop--outs in concrete. Some of the aggregate in the outwashmay have incorporated this deleterious material from theice--contact deposit and consequently may be unsuitablefor crushed products. Water well and borehole data sug-gest thicknesses, including the lower ice--contact deposit,may exceed 30 m in places.

Several pits have been developed along the westernedge of the deposit and there are currently 2 licenced op-erations present (Pit Nos. 33 and 34). Pit faces range from6 to12m inheight and exposemoderately sorted and strati-fied sand and gravel with 40 to 45% stone content. Thecoarse aggregate from the deposit is generally acceptablefor Granular A and some hot mix products. Sample DF--SS--7, indicates the need for sand control if hot mix prod-ucts are to be produced from the deposit (Figures 4a and4b).

The lower slopes of the terrace are hazard lands re-quiring detailed examination to assess their suitability forextraction. Much of the southwest portion of the HockleyValley outwash deposit is becoming increasingly unavail-able for extraction due to the encroachment of residentialdevelopment.

SelectedSand andGravel ResourceArea 17has a totalunlicenced area of 185 ha which is reduced to 120 ha bycultural setbacks. Assuming an average deposit thicknessof 7 m, possible aggregate resources are estimated to be 15million tonnes (Table 3).

Dufferin County

17


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 18 formspart of the Mono Mills meltwater channel. During itsformation, the west bank of the channel was the NiagaraEscarpment, while the east bank was probably the marginof the glacier itself. The resultant ice--contact terrace de-posit consists of a unit 1 to 5 m thick of medium to coarsesand, overlyingmoderately sorted and stratified gravel andsand, with stone content of approximately 40 to 50%. Thecoarser material is exposed in pits and along the valley ofthe Humber River.

There are 2 licenced operations (Pit Nos. 36 and 37)extracting material in the southern part of the deposit. Pitfaces range from 5 to 8 m and some development is nowprogressing below the water table. Quality limitations aretypical of many other outwash deposits in the area, that is,stone quality is limited by the presence of fissile siltstone.The fine fraction grades coarse and too dirty for asphalticproducts. Selection and sand control are therefore requiredto produce crushed products.

The terrain is mainly flat except at the dissected ter-racemargins, which could raise some operational difficul-ties. Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area 18 occupiesa total area of 252 ha. After removing cultural constraintsthe possible resource area is reduced to 212 ha. Assumingan average deposit thickness of 5 m, estimated possible re-sources are 19 million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 19 is an out-wash deposit located near the eastern corner of East Gara-fraxa Township. The area lies between 2 large ice--contactstratified drift deposits and was probably formed by melt-waters cutting a channel through the pre--existing ice--con-tact deposits.

A number of pits have been developed in the deposit.One licenced operation now operates in the deposit (PitNo. 46). Working faces exposemoderately sorted sand andgravel in these pits. The thickness and texture of the out-washgravel is typicallymore uniform than in adjacent ice--contact drift deposits. Consequently, this area provides amore valuable resource,well suited to supplymaterial suit-able for most road building and construction applications.Sample DF--SS--10 was taken from this area and indicatesthat selective extraction may be required (Figures 6a and6b). Road access is good and the area lies close to localmarkets.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 19 occupies246 ha exclusive of licenced areas. Cultural setbacks re-duce the possible area for extraction to 212 ha. Assumingan average deposit thickness of 6 m, possible sand andgravel resources are estimated to be 23 million tonnes(Table 3).


This selected area is a small portion of an outwash de-posit situated on the southwest border of theTown ofOran-geville. Commercial development is encroaching from thenortheast. The resource area occupies 59 ha exclusive oflicenced areas, and is reduced to 51 ha after consideringcultural setbacks. Assuming an average deposit thicknessof 5 m, possible resources are calculated to be 5 milliontonnes (Table 3).

Resource Areas of SecondarySignificance

A sand--rich outwash deposit located in the vicinity ofMansfield (Mulmur Township) has been selected at thesecondary level of significance. Gwyn (1975) describes 3small pits developed in this area. Faces in the pits exposeinterbedded medium sand, pebbly sand and sandy gravelranging in thickness from 2 to 18 m. Water well data indi-cate that the thickness of sandy material ranges from 1 to 6m. Much of the material in this area may be used for sandcushion and other low specification road--building prod-ucts.

The lower terrace of the meltwater channel situatednorth and east of Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area8a in Mulmur Township has also been identified as a re-source area of secondary significance. This deposit con-sists of silty medium sand, pebbly sand and minor gravel.Moderate amounts of aggregate suitable for fill and sandcushion may be available.

A small segment of the Brice Hill Esker in the north-east corner of East Luther Township has been selected as aresource area of secondary significance. This depositforms the westward extension of a resource area of secon-dary significance located in Amaranth Township. The de-posit is small but contains sand and gravel resources suit-able for local use.

Two ice--contact stratified drift deposits located in thesouthwest corner of East Luther Township have also beenselected at the secondary level of significance. The depos-its are associated with the Mount View Esker which lies tothe west inWest Luther Township (Cowan 1976). Faces inpits developed in the 2deposits expose sandymaterial suit-able for road subbase aggregate.

Several deposits inAmaranth Township have been se-lected for possible resource protection at the secondarylevel of significance. Some deposits are substantial, whileothers are small and contain limited resources. All may beof value as alternative sites for local extraction in the eventthat deposits of primary significance are unavailable.

The low relief esker segments located in the northernpart of Amaranth Township, at the southern end of the Riv-erview Esker, have been selected at the secondary level ofsignificance. These segments may contain limited re-sources of crushable gravel, but because of their proximityto local demand areas and the ease of extraction, they maybe valuable local sources of aggregate. Similarly, the low

ARIP 163

18

relief, westernmost part of the BriceHill Esker has been se-lected at the secondary level of significance. The third de-posit selected at the secondary level of siginificance is thesand--rich outwash associated with an ice--contact depositlocated 2 kmwest of Laurel in the south--central portion ofthe township. Licenced Pit Nos. 22 and 23 are located inthis deposit. Although the sand deposit itself has no pos-sible resources of crushable aggregate, it overlies coarsermaterial and, therefore, further investigation of this areamay be justified.

The lower terrace of the Lavender–Violet Hill melt-water channel, situated adjacent to Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area 8b inMonoTownship, may have re-sources of sandy aggregate suitable for sand cushion andfill. A similar terrace extending south from Selected Sandand Gravel Resource Area 8b to Mono Centre containshigher proportions of crushable gravel and a greater depthof material. These deposits are classified as secondary re-sources due to operational difficulties imposed by topogra-phy, height of water table and deposit geometry. These re-strictions are similar to, but more severe than, those dis-cussed for selected resource area 8b.

Two outwash terraces located along the NottawasagaRiver in the eastern part of Mono Township have been se-lected as resource areas of secondary significance. Thesedeposits form the western extensions of areas selected forpossible resource protection in Adjala Township. Both de-posits may contain large resources of aggregate suitablefor low--specification uses.

Two outwash deposits, one situated northeast of Pur-ple Hill and the second located north of Orangeville alongHighway 24, are similar in size and character to SelectedSand and Gravel Resource Area 17. Both deposits are partof the important Hockley Valley outwash complex, how-ever, until further information is available they should beconsidered as resources of secondary significance.

An ice--contact stratified drift deposit located in thesouthwest corner ofMono Township have been selected atthe secondary level of significance. The deposits formpartof the OrangevilleMoraine and extendwest intoAmaranthTownship. A few pits have been developed in these re-source areas. Pit faces reveal predominantly sandy aggre-gate with irregularly distributed gravel lenses. The pres-ence of excess oversize material, siltstone, silt and clay,may limit the range of uses for the aggregate. Previouslyrecorded PN numbers range from 130 to 250 which maypreclude use of the material for higher specification prod-ucts. Waterwell data indicate granularmaterial of variablethickness (15 to 45m) and stone content (10 to 60%) that isoverlain by a considerable thickness of sand. The depositsare accessible by road and rail and form an important re-source for the Town of Orangeville.

The entire extent of that part of the Orangeville Mo-raine which is located in East Garafraxa Township hasbeen selected as a sand and gravel resource area of secon-dary significance. The western and southern extensions ofthismoraine intoWestGarafraxa andErin townships,Wel-lington County, have also been selected at the secondarylevel of significance.

The Orangeville Moraine is characteristized by roll-ing to hummocky topography and, locally, has relief ofmore than 30 m. The uppermost portions of the depositconsist almost entirely of sand, but isolated pockets ofgravel may be present in some areas. Anumber of licencedproperties have been developed within the deposit. One ofthe operations exposes poorly to well sorted stratified sandand minor gravel. This pit is not considered by the Minis-try of Transportation to be a source of crushed aggregate.Detailed field investigation would be required to identifyareas within the moraine suitable for the production ofcrushed aggregates.

An outwash terrace situated on the north bank of theGrand River in the western part of East Garafraxa Town-ship has been selected for possible resource protection atthe secondary level. Very little is known about the thick-ness or quality of the deposit in this area but, it is likely thatcrushable gravel is available. The deposit lies on the flood-plain of the Grand River.

One small ice--contact deposit in the central portion ofEast Garafraxa Township has been selected at the secon-dary level. Although the deposit is small, it constitutes agood local source for crushed road building aggregates.

Significant additional resources of sand and smalleramounts of gravel may also be available in an extension ofthe Orangeville Moraine that is located just south of Shel-burne and in an extensive ice--contact stratified drift de-posit located in the northwestern part of Mono Township.These deposits have not been selected for resource protec-tion at the primary or secondary level of significance be-cause of the generally fine texture of the aggregate and thelack of quantitative subsurface data. Further investigationis recommended.

BEDROCK GEOLOGYThe Paleozoic rocks underlying the glacial drift in

Dufferin County comprise a portion of the eastern rim ofthe Michigan Basin. In this area the rocks are of Ordovi-cian and Silurian age and consist mainly of limestones, do-lostones and shale. The rock formations, in general, lieconformably over each other and dip gently toward thesouthwest. The structural geology of Dufferin County isrelatively simple and is not disturbed by folding or fault-ing. The areal distribution of the bedrock formations areshown on Maps 2A and 2B (Sanford 1969, Ontario Geo-logical Survey 1991).

The oldest rocks occur near the northeast corner of thecounty and outcrop or subcrop beneath drift cover inMul-mur andMono townships. These rocks are of UpperOrdo-vician age and in ascending order are the: BlueMountain,Georgian Bay and Queenston formations.

These formations are succeeded by younger rocks ofMiddle and Lower Silurian age. In ascending order theseunits are the: Cataract group, which includes the Whirl-pool, Manitoulin and Cabot Head formations; Fossil HillFormation; Amabel Formation; and the Guelph Forma-tion.

The characteristics and uses of the complete suite ofbedrock formations that underlie the county are summa-

Dufferin County

19

rized in Chart C. In addition to identifying bedrock suit-able for the production of crushed stone aggregate, this re-port also notes bedrock resource areas that may be suitableas raw material for the the production of heavy clay prod-ucts (brick and tile--making).

The Middle Silurian Guelph Formation is the youn-gest andmost widespreadof the rock units found inDuffer-in County. The Guelph Formation consists mainly of buffcoloured, irregular, medium-- to massive--bedded, fine-- tomedium--crystalline, sucrosic dolostone (Liberty and Bol-ton 1971; Telford 1976). Its average thickness is about 40m, however, because of its reefal nature the unit may rangein thickness from 4 to 100 m (Johnson et al. 1992). Somebeds contain abundant fossils which weather irregularly.

The Guelph Formation occurs in a wide band runningfromMelancthon Township south through East Luther andAmaranth townships into East Garafraxa Township. Theformation is generally covered by a thick blanket of driftthroughout the county. In Melancthon Township, howev-er, there is a large area with less than 8 m of drift cover.

In general, because of the rock’s reefal origin it tendsto be soft and weather easily. Consequently, it is not wellsuited for high quality road construction uses, such as hotmix paving and Portland cement concrete aggregates. Inthe inter--reefal parts of this formation, however, the rockmay be sounder and more resistant to weathering. In suchlocations, the rock may be acceptable for some higherquality aggregate uses.

The Guelph Formation dolostone does have value asan industrial mineral resource due to its generally highchemical purity. As such, it is a valuable raw material forchemical and metallurgical stone products (Hewitt 1960).

Beds of the Middle Silurian Amabel Formation formthe erosion--resistant durable caprock partly responsiblefor the existence of the Niagara Escarpment. This forma-tion consist of light grey to blue--grey, crystalline dolo-stones. The unit is generally thick to massive bedded. To-tal thickness of the unit may be up to 38 m (Johnson et al.1992).

The Amabel Formation underlies the western parts ofMulmur and Mono townships and subcrops in a southerlytrending band, 5 to 15 km wide, that underlies the middlepart of the county. Outcropsoccur on themain scarp face ofthe Niagara Escarpment in Mono Township and also in asmall area in the northwest corner ofEast GarafraxaTown-ship.

The Amabel Formation dolostones constitute an ag-gregate source of both regional and provincial signifi-cance. Because of its high resistance to abrasion andchemical weathering, the rock is suitable for a wide rangeof applications including road building and constructionaggregates. In addition, the formation also provides avaluable source of armourstone and architectural stone.

TheMiddle Silurian Fossil Hill Formation, part of theClinton Group, has limited outcrop in Dufferin Countywith exposures limited to the upper slopes of the NiagaraEscarpment. The formation consists of grey--brown, thin--

tomedium--bedded, crystalline dolostone. The unit is gen-erally thin, less than 3m onaverage, butmay reachup to 24m in places. The upper beds of the Fossil Hill Formation inthis area are similar to parts of the Reynales Formation ofthe Niagara Peninsula and the lower unit member of theAmabel Formation of the Bruce Peninsula (Liberty et al.1976). Locally, the Fossil Hill Formation has not beenused for crushed stone aggregate due to its high silica(chert) content which may hinder use for some aggregateproducts. However, on the Niagara Peninsula, the strati-graphically equivalent of the Fossil Hill Formation, Re-ynales Formation, has been used as a source of crushedstone aggregate.

The Lower Silurian Cataract Group overlies theQueenston shales and in Dufferin County consists of 3formations. These formations are, in descending strati-graphic order: the Cabot Head Formation; the ManitoulinFormation; and the Whirlpool Formation.

The Cabot Head Formation consists of maroon togreen and grey, non--calcareous shales with minor in-terbeds of siltstone, limestone and dolostone. Total thick-ness of the unit ranges from 10 to 39 m (Johnson et al.1992). The formation has no utility for crushed stone ag-gregate products.

The Manitoulin Formation consists mainly of grey,thin-- tomedium--bedded dolostone. Outcrops occurmain-ly on the upper slope of the Niagara Escarpment. An ex-ception is the area northeast of Black BankHill inMulmurTownship where drift cover is thin or non--existent. Theformation has potential to supply crushed stone aggregateproducts and is presently quarried near Collingwood andOwen Sound for such purposes. The area near BlackBankHill lends itself to possible extraction and has been pre-viously identified as a resource area of high--priority.How-ever, the landscape in this vicinity is distinctive for its aes-thetic and recreational value leading to possible conflictswith the demands of extractive development. Road accessis also limited for use by heavy trucks because of steep gra-dients in this hilly terrain.

The oldest formation within the Cataract Group is theWhirlpool Formation. It consists of a white to light grey,maroon, fine--grained quartz rich sandstone. The unit isthin reaching a maximum thickness of 9 m. Exposures aremostly restricted to the face or slopes of the Niagara Es-carpment. The unit has been a traditional source of build-ing stone for many years. Numerous historic buildings indowntownToronto and nearby cities and towns have incor-porated stone from this source in their construction.

The Upper Ordovician Queenston Formation overliesthe Georgian Bay Formation and consists of maroon andgreen shales with minor interbeds of siltstone and lime-stone. Thickness of the formation ranges from 45 to 335m(Johnson et al. 1992). The formation outcrops and sub-crops in a convoluted pattern through Mulmur and Monotownships, east of the Niagara Escarpment. Outcrops oc-cur at a number of places on the eastern side of the countyin stream valleys and along the north side of the HockleyValley.

ARIP 163

20

ChartC--Bedrock

ResourcesSummary

COUNTYOFDUFFERIN

FORMATION

ROCKTYPE

APPROXIM

ATE

THICKNESS

(m)

SUITABILITY

AGGREGATE

OTHER

USE

S

OCCURRENCE

NOTES

Guelph

Fossiliferousdolostone.

18No

Chemicaland

Industrial

Easternhalfofregion,trendingnorth

tosouth,mainlythickdriftcovered.

Drift<8

monlyinMelancthonandN.

Amaranthtownships.

Amabel

Thick--beddedtomassive,w

hite--grey

weathering,fine--crystallinedolo-

stone,containsporous,fossiliferous

reefalzones.

15Yes

Armourstone,

landfilldrain-

agelayer,

architectural

stone

Centralband

trending

northtosouth

throughregion.Mainlythickdrift

covered.

Drift<8

monlynorthandcentralpartof

studyarea.ExposuresinNiagaraEscarp-

mentPlanArea.

ClintonandCataractgroups(Top)

--FossilH

illBrownweathering,thin--tomedium--

irregularlybedded,finetomedium

crystalline,bufftotancoloured

dolo-

stone,richlyfossiliferous.

5No

--NiagaraEscarpm

ent

Potentialsulphates

--CabotHead

Mottledgreenandredshale,with

thin

limestone

interbeds.

5No

--NiagaraEscarpm

ent

Potentialsulphates

--Manitoulin

Greyormottledbrow

n,fine

tomed.

crystalline

dolostone,with

thindark

shaleinterbeds,somechert.

12Yes

--NiagaraEscarpm

ent

Someoldquarries

--Whirlpool

Whiteortanquartzsandstone,with

thingrey--green

shaleseam

sneartop

ofunit.

2Yes

Dimension

stone

NiagaraEscarpm

ent

Traditionalbuildingstone.

Queenston

Thick

bedsofdarkred,calcareous

shale,lightgrey

togreenshaleseam

s

andpatches,minoram

ountsofsubli-

thographiclim

estone.

145

No

Brick

andtile

manufacture

Escarpm

entfootslopes,stream

valley

outcropsandsub--parallelN

iagaraEs-

carpmentunderdrift(subcrop).

Drift>8

movermajority

ofsubcrop.

PartlyinNiagaraEscarpm

entPlanArea.

GeorgianBay

Blue--greyandgrey--green

shalesin-

terbeddedwith

sandstone,green--grey

fossiliferoussiltstone

andgrey

argilla-

ceouslim

estone.

219

No

Cem

ent,brick

andtile

manufacture

limiteddueto

impurities

Stream

valleyoutcropsandsubcrop

inEastM

ulmurandEastM

onotwps.

Driftcover>8movermostofthe

area.

BlueMountain

Greytoblackshales.

--No

Brick

Subcroponly

Drift>8

mwholearea

Dufferin County

21

Rocks of the Queenston Formation are not suitable forcrushed stone aggregate products, road--building orconstruction aggregate. The formation does, however,have significant industrial mineral value as a rawmaterialfor the production of brick and tile. Quarryingof the shalesfor such purposes has been carried out at a number of loca-tions in and around Toronto for over a century.

Within Mulmur and Mono townships there are areaswhere drift cover is thin enough to permit economically vi-able quarrying of Queenston shales. These areas include:one immediately west of Mansfield, another in the north-east corner of Mono Township and a third in the southeastcorner of Mono Township.

TheGeorgianBay Formation overlies the BlueMoun-tain Formation and occurs in both Mulmur and Monotownships. The formation consists of blue--grey shale withminor interbeds of siltstone and limestone. Limestone anddolostone interbeds become more predominant near thetop of the formation. Apart from a few places along thesides of the Pine RiverValley and tributaries, the unit is ex-tensively drift covered. This formation has been quarriednear Toronto for brickmaking materials and testing showsthat the rock is also suitable for heat expanded light weightaggregate.

The oldest formation underlying the county is the Up-per Ordovician Blue Mountain Formation. The formationconsists of blue--grey, non--calcareous shale. Total thick-ness of the formation may be up to 60 m (Johnson et al.1992). Within the county the unit is covered by drift coverof more than 30 m, consequently, quarrying of this forma-tion is not considered viable.

SELECTED BEDROCK RESOURCEAREAS

Portions of the Amabel Formation have been selectedfor possible resource protection because of its suitability inthe road building and construction industry. The Clintonand Cataract groups have not been selected for possiblebedrock resource protection, although the use and impor-tance of these groups in the building and dimension stoneindustry must not beminimized. Other formations, such asthe Queenston and the Guelph formations have not beenidentified for possible resource protection, however, theydo have value as industrial minerals. The QueenstonFormation shale iswell suited for themanufacture of struc-tural clay products such as brick and tile, whereas theGuelph Formation dolostone, due to its high chemical pu-rity, is a valuable rawmaterial for chemical andmetallurgi-cal stone product. While the Clinton and Cataract groupsand the Queenston andGuelph formationsmay not be usedin the aggregate industry, they are important sources ofrock throughout the area and the significance of themshould not be overlooked.

Total available resources of Amabel Formation in the9 selected bedrock resource areas are estimated to be 1623million tonnes (Table 6). The Bedrock Resource Areashave been selected on the basis of current geological infor-

mation. Parts of the selected areas are coincident with pro-tected areas of the Niagara Escarpment Commission;therefore the availability of the resource will be less thanindicated.

The cut--off limit of 8 m is somewhat controversial asonly very high unit value chemical--grade bedrock mayeconomically be extracted from areas of 8 m drift cover.Rarely would a quarry producing construction aggregatestrip more than 3 to 5 m drift.

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 1Selected Bedrock Resource Area 1 covers a large area

in the northwestern part of Mulmur Township and thenortheastern corner ofMelancthon Township. This area isunderlain by theAmabel Formation. The bedrock is gener-ally covered by less than 8 m of glacial drift which consistsprimarily of till.

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 1 covers a total unli-cenced area of 2904 ha which is reduced to 2593 ha whencultural setbacks are considered. With an assumed work-able thickness of 15 m possible bedrock resources ofAma-bel Formation dolostone are estimated to be 1031 milliontonnes (Table 6). Asubstantial portion of this resource areafallswithin the Niagara Escarpment PlanArea, a consider-ation that may have a major impact on possible extraction.

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 2Selected Bedrock Resource Area 2 forms a part of an

outlier along the Niagara Escarpment where the AmabelFormation forms the caprock on top of Black Bank Hill inMulmur Township. Drift cover is significantly less than 8m in this area, such that surface exposures of the AmabelFormation are common.

The resource area occupies 372 ha, which is reducedto 352ha by cultural setbacks. Assuming aworkable thick-ness of 15 m, possible bedrock resources of AmabelFormation dolostone are estimated to be 140 milliontonnes (Table 6).

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 3Selected Bedrock Resource Area 3 is located near the

centre of Melancthon Township, about 4 km northwest ofHorning’s Mills. The bedrock resource area is underlainby the Amabel Formation. Drift cover is consistently lessthan 8 m and consists of till over bedrock. The total unli-cenced area of Selected Bedrock Resource Area 3 is 270ha, with a possible resource area of 250 ha. Assuming anaverage workable thickness of 15 m possible bedrock re-sources of Amabel rock are estimated to be 97 milliontonnes (Table 6).

Selected Bedrock Resource Area4a

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 4a is located in thesoutheast corner of Melancthon Township immediatelynorthwest of Shelburne. The resource area is underlain bydolostones of the Amabel Formation. Glacial drift cover is

ARIP 163

22

less than 8 m thick over a relatively flat bedrock surface.Access to the area is provided by Highway 10, townshiproads and a line of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

The total unlicenced area of Selected Bedrock Re-source Area 4a is 477 ha. After applying limited culturalconstraints the possible area available for extraction is 421ha. Assuming a workable thickness of 15 m, possible bed-rock resources are estimated to be 167 million tonnes ofAmabel Formation rock (Table 6).

Selected Bedrock Resource Area4b

SelectedBedrockResourceArea 4b is located approx-imately 2 km east of Shelburne and straddles bothMulmurand Melancthon townships. The area is underlain by theAmabel Formation, which is covered by less than 8 m ofglacial drift. SelectedBedrockResource Area 4boccupiesa total area of 99 ha, with a possible resource area of 73 ha.Using an assumed workable thickness of 15 m, possiblebedrock resources are estimated to be 29 million tonnes(Table 6).

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 5Selected Bedrock Resource Area 5 is situated in the

southwest corner of Mulmur Township approximately 2km northwest of Primrose. It consists of a small area un-derlain by the Amabel Formation. Drift cover is less than8m and consists mainly of clay--silt till, with associatedpoorly drained soils and accumulated organic material ormuck in several depressions.

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 5 covers a total unli-cenced area of 71 ha. The area possibly available for ex-traction is reduced to 61 ha after cultural setbacks havebeen applied. Assuming a workable thickness of 15 m,possible resources of Amabel Formation bedrock in Se-lectedBedrockResourceArea 5 are estimated to be 24mil-lion tonnes (Table 6).

Selected Bedrock Resource Area6a

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 6a consists of asmall area located a few kilometres south of Mono Centre(MonoTownship), that is underlain by Amabel Formation.The resource area covers a total unlicenced area of 118 ha.The area possibly available for extraction is reduced to 81ha after cultural setbacks are considered. Assuming aworkable thickness of 15m, possible resources in SelectedBedrock Resource Area 6a are estimated to be 32 milliontonnes (Table 6).

Selected Bedrock Resource Area6b

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 6b is located on themain face of the Niagara Escarpment north of MonoCentre (MonoTownship). Outcrop exposures are common

in this area. The resource area covers a total unlicencedarea of 211 ha which is reduced to 161 ha after cultural set-backs are considered. Using aworkable thickness of 15m,possible resources are calculated to be 64 million tonnes(Table 6). Selected Bedrock Resource Areas 6a and 6bwere previously identified as high priority resource areasby Telford andNarain (1976). Both resource areas also fallwithin the Niagara Escarpment Plan Areawhich may limitopportunities for extraction.

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 7SelectedBedrockResource Area 7 is located in south-

east corner ofMonoTownship and consists of 2 small areasof Amabel Formation bedrock. Drift cover is thin or non--existent. Overburden is primarily a sandy--silt till and un-likely to cause problems in stripping. However, removal ofan older layer of hard, compact till at the bedrock interfacemay cause some difficulty.

The 2 subareas occupy 105 ha, which, after allowingfor cultural setbacks, is reduced to 99 ha that are possiblyavailable for extraction. With an assumed workable thick-ness of 15m possible resources are calculated to be 39mil-lion tonnes (Table 6). A series of township and countyroads provide good access to the resource area.

Selected Bedrock Resource Areas8, 9, 10 and 11

Selected Bedrock Resource Areas 8, 9, 10 and 11 arethinly drift--covered areas of the Queenston Formation lo-cated in the eastern portion ofDufferin County. Recent ag-gregate resources inventory reports have focused on bed-rock resources that would provide good quality crushedstone for road building and construction use. However,since the Queenston Formation is a provincially signifi-cant resource in the production and manufacture of brickand tile, areas with less than 8 m of overburden have beenselected as bedrock resource areas that should be protectedfor resource development.

SUMMARYTwenty areas have been identified as sand and gravel

resource areas of primary significance within DufferinCounty. These Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areasoccupy a total unlicenced area of 7192 ha,which is reducedto 5820 ha after considering cultural constraints and pre-vious extractive activity. Combined, these selected sandand gravel resource areas have possible aggregate re-sources of 674 million tonnes (Table 3).

Less than a quarter of the area of the county is under-lain by dolostone of the Amabel Formation. Rock fromthis formation has excellent potential for the production ofbedrock derived aggregates and is suitable for a wide rangeof construction and roadbuilding applications. Drift thick-ness over the Amabel Formation is greater than 8 m inmost areas but where drift cover is less than 8 m possibleresource areas have been identified. Much of the AmabelFormation possible resource is associatedwith the outcropof the Niagara Escarpment and may therefore be affected

Dufferin County

23

by additional planning, environmental and other culturalconstraints.

Other bedrock formations that are present within thecounty have limited or little value as sources of crushedstone aggregate, however, several are suitable for other in-dustrial mineral applications.

Enquiries regarding the Aggregate Resources Inven-

tory ofDufferin County should be directed to the Sedimen-tary Geoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey,Mines and Minerals Division, Ontario Ministry of North-ern Development and Mines, 7th Floor, 933 Ramsey LakeRoad, Sudbury,Ontario P3E 6B5 [Tel:(705) 670--5904]; orto the Midhurst District Office, Ontario Ministry of Natu-ral Resources, Midhurst, Ontario, [Tel. (705) 725--7500].

ARIP 163

24

TABLE 1 -- TOTAL SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCESDUFFERIN COUNTY

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

(Hectares) (Million Tonnes)*MELANCTHON TOWNSHIP

1 G--E 100 11G--IC 2092 293G--OW 251 28S--IC 21 2S--OW 305 34

2 G--E 547 46G--IC 221 19S--OW 283 24

3 G--E 12 <1G--IC 32 2S--IC 222 10S--OW 888 39

4 G--E 74 2G--IC 6 <1S--OW 1393 32

Subtotal 6447 544MULMUR TOWNSHIP

1 G--OW 609 85S--IC 4520 680S--OW 10677 1795

2 G--IC 529 44G--OW--C 530 42S--IC 1546 120S--OW 434 32

3 S--IC 136 54 S--IC 16 <1

Subtotal 18997 2804EAST LUTHER TOWNSHIP

1 G--OW 74 8S--OW 19 2

2 G--E 48 4G--OW 44 7

3 G--E 15 1G--IC 141 6G--OW 150 8S--OW 945 42

4 G--IC 15 <1G--OW 102 2S--OW 1014 23

Subtotal 2567 104AMARANTH TOWNSHIP

1 G--IC 35 4G--OW 88 10S--IC 1577 179S--OW 134 15

Dufferin County

25



(Hectares) (Million Tonnes)*AMARANTH TOWNSHIP

2 G--E 67 6G--IC 43 4G--OW 382 26S--IC 9 <1S--OW 268 18

3 GE--C 96 6G--IC 46 2G--OW 127 6S--IC 48 2S--OW 1455 59

4 G--OW <1 <1S--OW 3373 78

Subtotal 7749 417MONO TOWNSHIP

1 G--IC 396 57G--OW 1674 222S--IC 7447 1358S--OW 1811 237

2 G--IC 275 23G--OW 784 46S--IC 6066 633S--OW 347 33

3 G--OW 111 4S--IC 765 33S--OW 853 48

4 G--OW 33 1S--IC 29 <1S--OW 1073 30

Subtotal 21664 2726EAST GARAFRAXA TOWNSHIP

1 G--IC 299 34G--OW 335 40S--IC 4214 500

2 G--IC 62 7G--OW 275 18S--IC 44 3S--OW 65 5

3 G--E 49 3G--IC 54 2G--OW 123 5S--IC 59 3S--OW 48 2

4 G--OW 3 <1S--IC 58 1

ARIP 163

26



(Hectares) (Million Tonnes)*EAST GARAFRAXA TOWNSHIP

S--OW 1574 33Subtotal 7262 657

COUNTY TOTAL 64686 7252

N.B

*

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

The above figures represent a comprehensive inventory of all granular materials in themap area. Some of the material included in the estimate has no aggregate potentialand some is unavailable for extraction due to land use restrictions.

Dufferin County

27

TABLE 2 -- SAND AND GRAVEL PITSDUFFERIN COUNTY

PitNo.

Owner/Operator LicencedArea

(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

MELANCTHON TOWNSHIPLicenced Pits1 Township of Melancthon 21.70 3--5 25 substantial depletion2 Nelson Arnold and William

Arnold28.35 5--8 --

3 Lockyer Brothers Limited 66.82 5--9 20 substantial depletion4 679899 Ontario Limited 23.61 -- --Unlicenced Pits5 A. Hiltz -- 3--9 35--606 A. Hiltz -- 2--3 25--357 H. Squirrel & Son -- 4--10 --8 D. Hallow -- 3.0 20--409 N. Arnold Construction -- 9.7 --10 B. Arnold -- 5.0 --

MULMUR TOWNSHIPLicenced Pits11 Mulmur Stone Inc. 16.20 5 20 red shale content12 C.Doney Construction Ltd. 11.30 6 55--7013 Mulmur Aggregates Inc. 58.74 -- --14 Mulmur Aggregates Inc. 16.20 5 <20 depleted 30%15 Township of Mulmur 33.33 5 30 depleted 40%Unlicenced Pits

--NONE--

EAST LUTHER TOWNSHIPLicenced Pits16 Allto Holdings Inc. and

MTJN II Holdings Inc.25.40 -- -- substantial depletion

17 Greenwood ConstructionCompany Limited

11.34 3--4 -- substantial depletion

18 Allto Holdings Inc. andMTJN II Holdings Inc.

6.08 3--8 -- substantial depletion

19 Amaranth Aggregates 40.31 -- -- substantial depletionUnlicenced Pits20 Lankiet -- 2--3 50 overgrown21 Warren Mak -- 2--4 60 overgrown

--NONE--AMARANTH TOWNSHIPLicenced Pits22 Township of Amaranth 7.71 3--6 40--6023 Lafarge Construction

Materials49.92 3--9 variable substantial depletion

24 Township of Amaranth 17.70 -- -- part overgrown25 John LaVielle 17.01 3--7 -- part overgrown26 Lockyer Brothers Limited 41.71 8--9 10--20 70% depletedUnlicenced Pits

--NONE--

ARIP 163

28


PitNo.


(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

MONO TOWNSHIPLicenced Pits27 Lorne Patton 4.00 2--10 <15 part depleted28 Glen Robson 6.48 3--5 >30 part depleted29 Greenwood Construction

Company Limited13.97 -- variable

>35substantial depletion

30 G.R.M. Contracting Limited 22.70 -- -- substantial depletion31 Greenwood Construction

Company Limited34.02 6 -- substantial depletion

32 Township of Mono 23.80 -- --33 Lockyer Brothers Limited 15.30 -- -- 100% depleted34 Lockyer Brothers Limited 38.00 -- 40 10% depleted35 Doug’s Haulage 4.46 5 --36 The Warren Paving and

Material Group Limited40.47 -- --

37 Lafarge ConstructionMaterials

84.47 -- 15--20 underwater extraction

Unlicenced Pits38 J. Pointon -- 3 --39 M. Thompson -- 3--8 --40 Dr. Betty Dolbear -- 3--6.1 --41 Seeley & Arnill Aggregates -- 4.0--5.5 --

EAST GARAFRAXALicenced Pits42 Gowland’s Sand and Gravel

Limited9.31 -- --

43 James and Lorna Gray 78.00 -- --44 Bill Wood 39.16 -- --45 John Wood 39.17 -- --46 Greenwood Construction

Company Limited40.47 -- --

47 Trevor Henry 31.73 -- --48 Roy Black 64.39 8--11 --49 Rayburn Construction

Limited18.62 3--6 --

50 Dixie Sand & Gravel Com-pany Limited

20.25 -- --

51 Dixie Sand & Gravel Com-pany Limited

40.66 3 --

52 Greenwood Ready MixContracting Limited

87.50 2--3 --

53 Township of East Garafraxa 9.20 -- --54 John Rayburn 61.63 8 --55 Greenwood Construction

Company Limited33.08 -- --

Dufferin County

29


PitNo.


(Hectares)

FaceHeight(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

Unlicenced Pits--NONE--

ARIP 163

30

TABLE 3 -- SELECTED SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCE AREASDUFFERIN COUNTY

1

DEPOSITNO.

2UNLICENCED

AREA(Hectares) *

3CULTURALSETBACKS(Hectares)**

4EXTRACTED

AREA(Hectares)* **

5POSSIBLERESOUCEAREA

(Hectares)

6ESTIMATED-DEPOSIT

THICKNESS(Metres)

7POSSIBLE

AGGREGATERESOURCES****(Million Tonnes)

MELANCTHON TOWNSHIP1 437 37 10 390 5 352 145 31 7 107 5 103 1973 371 14 1588 8 2254a 251 12 2 237 6 255a 23 6 2 15 6 2Subtotal 2829 457 35 2337 297MULMUR TOWNSHIP4b 76 29 -- 47 6 56 325 21 2 302 8 437 530 112 -- 418 5 378a 84 39 6 39 8 6Subtotal 1015 201 8 806 91EAST LUTHER TOWNSHIP9 59 7 4 48 3 310 134 33 2 99 2 411a 48 22 11 15 6 2Subtotal 241 62 17 162 9ARMARANTH TOWNSHIP5b 25 2 1 22 5 211b 27 4 1 22 6 212 70 17 2 51 5 513a 380 82 6 292 5 2614b 3 3 -- <1 6 <115b 29 -- 1 28 6 3Subtotal 534 108 11 415 38MONO TOWNSHIP8b 264 64 2 198 6 2116 392 62 -- 330 9 5317 185 60 5 120 7 1518 252 40 -- 212 5 19Subtotal 1093 226 7 860 108EAST GARAFRAXA TOWNSHIP13b 68 15 -- 53 5 514a 216 46 40 130 6 1415a 891 89 8 794 6 8419 246 19 15 212 6 2320 59 8 -- 51 6 5Subtotal 1480 177 63 1240 131

TOTAL 7192 1231 141 5820 674

Dufferin County

31

TABLE 3 -- SELECTED SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCE AREASDUFFERIN COUNTY

1

DEPOSITNO.

2UNLICENCED

AREA(Hectares) *


4EXTRACTED

AREA(Hectares)* **

5POSSIBLERESOUCEAREA

(Hectares)

6ESTIMATED-DEPOSIT

THICKNESS(Metres)

7POSSIBLE

AGGREGATERESOURCES****(Million Tonnes)

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

* Excludes areas licenced under Aggregate Resources Act.

** Cultural setbacks include heavily populated urban areas, roads, (including a 100 mwide strip centred on eachroad), water features (e.g., lakes, streams), 1 ha for individual houses. NOTE: this provides a preliminary andgeneralized constraint application only. Additional environmental and social constraints will further reducethe deposit area.

*** Extracted area is a rough estimate of areas that are not licenced but largely depleted such as abandoned andwayside pit sites.

**** Further environmental, resource, social and economic constraints will greatly reduce the selected resourcequantity realistically available for potential extraction.

ARIP 163

32

TABLE 4 -- TOTAL IDENTIFIED BEDROCK RESOURCESDUFFERIN COUNTY

1DRIFT

THICKNESS(Metres)

2FORMATION

3ESTIMATEDDEPOSIT

THICKNESS(Metres)

4AREALEXTENT(Hectares)

5ORIGINALTONNAGE

(Million Tonnes)*

MELANCTHON TOWNSHIP1--8 Guelph 18 8300 40508--15 Guelph 18 8100 3950

1--8 Amabel 15 2800 10808--15 Amabel 15 6000 2310

1--8 Manitoulin 8 12 38--15 Manitoulin 8 44 9

1--8 Queenston 18 16 88--15 Queenston 18 30 14

Subtotal 25302 11424MULMUR TOWNSHIP

0--1 Amabel 15 12 41--8 Amabel 15 1480 5998--15 Amabel 15 2310 934

1--8 Manitoulin 8 780 1588--15 Manitoulin 8 720 146

0--1 Queenston 18 10 41--8 Queenston 18 730 3188--15 Queenston 18 2830 1216

0--1 Georgian Bay 18 8 41--8 Georgian Bay 18 275 1198--15 Georgian Bay 18 1640 708

Subtotal 10795 4210EAST LUTHER TOWNSHIP

0--1 Guelph 18 7 31--8 Guelph 18 446 2138--15 Guelph 18 1668 795

Subtotal 2121 1011AMARANTH TOWNSHIP


1--8 Amabel 18 8 48--15 Amabel 18 29 14

Subtotal 5415 2627

Dufferin County

33

TABLE 4 -- TOTAL IDENTIFIED BEDROCK RESOURCESDUFFERIN COUNTY

1DRIFT

THICKNESS(Metres)

2FORMATION

3ESTIMATEDDEPOSIT

THICKNESS(Metres)

4AREALEXTENT(Hectares)

5ORIGINALTONNAGE

(Million Tonnes)*

MONO TOWNSHIP1--8 Guelph 18 2 18--15 Guelph 18 14 6

0--1 Amabel 18 114 551--8 Amabel 18 516 2708--15 Amabel 18 2541 1230

0--1 Manitoulin 18 44 211--8 Manitoulin 18 335 1628--15 Manitoulin 18 1137 551

0--1 Queenston 18 28 121--8 Queenston 18 1498 6458--15 Queenston 18 1140 491

1--8 Georgian Bay 18 8 48--15 Georgian Bay 18 24 10

Subtotal 7401 3458EAST GARAFRAXA TOWNSHIP


8--15 Amabel 18 2 1Subtotal 569 275

COUNTY TOTAL 51603 23005

* Minor variations in the tables are caused by the rounding of data.

ARIP 163

34

TABLE 5 -- QUARRIESDUFFERIN COUNTY

Quarry No. Operator/Owner Licenced Area(Hectares)

Face Height(Metres)

Remarks

Licenced Quarries--NONE--

Unlicenced Quarries--NONE--

Dufferin County

35

TABLE 6 -- SELECTED BEDROCK RESOURCE AREASDUFFERIN COUNTY

1AREANO.

2DEPTH OFOVER-BURDEN(Metres)

3UNLI-

CENCEDAREA

(Hectares)*


5EXTRACTED

AREA(Hectares)***

6POSSIBLERESOURCE

AREA(Hectares)

7ESTIMATEDWORKABLETHICKNESS(Metres)

8POSSIBLEBEDROCKRESOURCES

(MillionTonnes)

1 1--8 2904 311 0 2593 15 10312 1--8 372 20 0 352 15 1403 1--8 270 20 0 250 15 974a 1--8 477 56 0 421 15 1674b 1--8 99 26 0 73 15 295 1--8 71 10 0 61 15 246a 1--8 118 37 0 81 15 326b 1--8 211 50 0 161 15 647 1--8 105 6 0 99 15 39

Total 4627 536 0 4091 1623

N.B. Minor variations in the tables are caused by the rounding of data.

* Excludes areas licenced under the Aggregate Resources Act.

** Cultural setbacks include heavily populated urban areas, roads (including a 100m wide strip centred on each road),water features (e.g. lakes, streams), 1 ha for individual houses. NOTE: this provides a preliminary and generalizedconstraint application only. Additional environmental and social constraints would further reduce the deposit area.

*** Extracted area is a rough estimate of areas that are not licenced but largely depleted such as abandoned and waysidepit sites.

**** Further environmental, resource, social and economic constraints will greatly reduce the selected resource quantityrealistically available for potential extraction.

ARIP 163

36

TABLE 7 -- SUMMARY OF TEST HOLE DATADUFFERIN COUNTY

TEST HOLENUMBER

LOCATION DEPTH(Metres)

DESCRIPTION

MELANCTHON TOWNSHIPDF--DS--1 1 km southeast of Shrigley 0--0.25 Topsoil

0.25--2.5 Poorly sorted coarse and finesand and gravel; clasts predomi-nantly subrounded dolostone,oversize (5%)

DF--DS--2 4 km south of Shrigley;north side County Road #21

0--2.5 Poorly sorted coarse to finegravel and sand (partly workedwayside pit----no topsoil)

DF--DS--4 Location: 2 km southeast ofRiverview

0--0.25 Sandy loam topsoil

0.25-- 2.5 Coarse to fine sand with <10%gravel

MULMUR TOWNSHIPDF--DS--3 4 km east of Honeywood:

roadcut at Blackbank Hill0--0.5 Sandy loam topsoil and stony

similar subsoil0.5--5.0 Poorly sorted coarse to fine sand

and silt with subrounded, suban-gular and tabular gravel. Clastspredominantly dolostone, with<2% fissile siltstone and minorigneous clasts.

DF--DS--5 0.5 km east of Hornings Mills 0--0.20 Sandy loam topsoil0.20--5.0 Coarse to fine sand and silt with

<15% stone content; clasts pre-dominantly dolostone <20 cm,with <5% fissile siltstone andminor igneous clasts

DF--DS--6 2.5 km southwest of TerraNova

0--0.5 Podzolic sandy loam soil profile

0.5--2.5 Poorly sorted, coarse to finesand and silt with <30% suban-gular to subrounded gravel

TABLE 8 -- SUMMARY OF GEOPHYSICAL DATADUFFERIN COUNTY

-- NONE --

Dufferin County

37

TABLE 9 -- RESULTS OF AGGREGATE QUALITY TESTSDUFFERIN COUNTY

Sample No. Petrographic NumberGranular

& 16 mmcrushed

Hot Mix

& Concrete

MELANCTHON TOWNSHIP

DF--SS--1 163 203DF--SS--3 124 138DF--SS--4 112 125

MULMUR TOWNSHIP

DF--SS--2 119 183

MONO TOWNSHIP

DF--SS--5 129 159DF--SS--7 120 136

AMARANTH TOWNSHIP

DF--SS--6 100 102DF--SS--8 133 173

EAST GARAFRAXA TOWNSHIP

DF--SS--9 125 150DF--SS--10 151 183

NOTE: The quality test data refers strictly to a specific sample. Because of the inherent variability of sand and graveldeposits, care should be exercised in extrapolating such information to the rest of the deposit.

ARIP 163

38

Figure2a.A

ggregateGrading

Curves,MelancthonTownship.

Basedon

analysisofthetotalaggregatecontainedinunprocessedsamples(gradationenvelopesadaptedfrom

OntarioProvincialStandardSpecificationsOPSS1010,1988).

NOTE:

Informationportrayedbygradingcurvesrefersstrictlytoaspecificsampletakenatthetim

eoffieldinvestigation.Duetotheinherentvariabilityofsand

andgraveldepositscare

shouldbe

exercisedinextrapolatingsuch

informationtotherestofthedeposit.

Dufferin County

39

Figure2b.A

ggregateGrading

Curves,MelancthonTownship.

Based

onanalysisofthetotalaggregatecontainedinunprocessedsamples(gradationenvelopesadaptedfrom


NOTE:

Informationportrayedby

gradingcurvesrefersstrictlytoaspecificsampletakenatthetim



shouldbe



ARIP 163

40

Figure3a.A

ggregateGrading

Curves,MulmurTownship.

Based



NOTE:





shouldbe



Dufferin County

41

Figure3b.A

ggregateGrading

Curves,MulmurTownship.

Based



NOTE:



eoffieldinvestigation.Due

totheinherentvariabilityofsand


shouldbe



ARIP 163

42

Figure4a.A

ggregateGrading

Curves,MonoTownship.

Basedon



NOTE:




shouldbe



Dufferin County

43

Figure4b.A

ggregateGrading

Curves,MonoTownship.

Based



NOTE:





shouldbe



ARIP 163

44

Figure5a.A

ggregateGrading

Curves,AmaranthTownship.

Based



NOTE:






shouldbe



Dufferin County

45

Figure5b.A

ggregateGrading

Curves,AmaranthTownship.

Based



NOTE:






shouldbe



ARIP 163

46

Figure6a.A

ggregateGrading

Curves,Garafraxa

Township.

Based



NOTE:






shouldbe



Dufferin County

47

Figure6b.A

ggregateGrading

Curves,Garafraxa

Township.

Basedon



NOTE:


eoffieldinvestigation.Duetotheinherentvariabilityofsandandgraveldepositscare

shouldbe



48

References

Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario 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; in Geology of Ontario,Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, Part 2, p. 1011--1088.

Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. 1984. The physiography of southern On-tario; Ministry of Natural Resources, Special Volume 2, 270p.

Cowan,W.R. 1976. Quaternary geology of the Orangeville area, southernOntario; Ontario Division of Mines, Geoscience Report 141, 98p.

Gwyn, Q.H.J. 1975. Quaternary geology of the Dundalk area, southernOntario; Ontario Division of Mines, Open File Report 5132, 138p.

Hewit,D.F. 1960.The Limestone Industry ofOntario;OntarioDepartmentof Mines, Industrial Minerals Circular 5, 177p.

Johnson, M.D., Armstrong, D.K., Sanford, B.V., Telford, P.G. and Rutka,M.A. 1992. Paleozoic andMesozoic geology ofOntario; inGeologyof Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4,p.907--1008.

Liberty,B.A. andBolton,T.E.1971. Paleozoicgeology of theBrucePenin-sula area,Ontario,Geological Survey ofCanada,Memoir 360, 163p.

Liberty, B.A., Bond I.J. and Telford, P.G. 1976. Paleozoic geology, Oran-geville. NTS 40P/16, southern Ontario; Ontario Division of Mines,Map 2339, scale 1:50 000.

Ontario Geological Survey 1979.Aggregate resources inventory ofMonoTownship, Dufferin County; Ontario Geological Survey, ARIP 1, 31p., 3 maps, scale 1:50 000.

Ontario Geological Survey 1980a. Aggregate resources inventory of EastGarafraxa Township, Dufferin County; Ontario Geological Survey,ARIP 28, 33 p. 3 maps, scale 1:50 000.

Ontario Geological Survey 1980b. Aggregate resources inventory of EastLuther Township, Dufferin County; Ontario Geological Survey,ARIP 31, 31 p., 3 maps, scale 1:50 000.

Ontario Geological Survey 1980c.Aggregate resources inventory ofMul-mur Township, Dufferin County; Ontario Geological Survey, ARIP5, 33 p., 3 maps, scale 1:50 000.

Ontario Geological Survey 1981a. Aggregate resources inventory ofAmaranth Township, Dufferin County; Ontario Geological Survey,ARIP 53, 32 p., 3 maps, scale 1:50 000.

Ontario Geological Survey 1981b. Aggregate resources inventory ofMe-lancthon Township, Dufferin County; Ontario Geological Survey,ARIP 21, 32 p., 3 maps, scale 1:50 000.

Ontario Geological Survey 1991. Bedrock geology of Ontario, southernsheet; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2544, scale 1:1 000 000.

Ontario Interministerial Committee on National Standards and Specifica-tions (Metric Committee) 1975. Metric Practices Guide, 67p.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1992. Ontario Municipal Directory1992; Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, 120p.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1995. Ontario Municipal Directory1995; Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, 190p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1993a. Aggregate resources ofsouthern Ontario -- A state of the resource study;Ministry of NaturalResources, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1993b. Mineral aggregates in On-tario -- Overview and statistical update 1993;Ministry of NaturalRe-sources, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, 51p.

OntarioMinistry ofNatural Resources 1994.Mineral aggregates inOntar-io -- Overview and statistical update 1994; Ministry of Natural Re-sources, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, 40p.

OntarioMinistry ofNatural Resources 1995.Mineral aggregates inOntar-io -- Overview and statistical update 1995; Ministry of Natural Re-sources, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, 44p.

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

Sanford,B.V. 1969.Geology of the Toronto--WindsorArea, Ontario;Geo-logical Survey of Canada, Map 1263A, scale 1:250 000.

Telford, P. G. 1976. Paleozoic geology of the Guelph area, NTS 40P/9,southern Ontario; Ontario Division of Mines, Map 2342, scale1:50 000.

Telford, P.G. andNarain,M. 1976. Industrialmineral resource inventoryofthe Niagara Escarpment Planning area; Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources.

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

49

Appendix A -- Suggested Additional Reading

Antevs, E. 1928.The last glaciation,with special reference to the ice retreatin northeastern North America; American Geography Society, Re-search Series No. 17, 292p.

Banerjee, I. and McDonald, B.C. 1975. Nature of esker sedimentation; inGlaciofluvial and Glaciolacutrine Sedimentation, Society of Eco-nomic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Paper No. 23, p.132--154.

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.

Bezys,R.K. and Johnson,M.D. 1988.The geology of the Paleozoic forma-tions utilized by the limestone industry of Ontario; Canadian Insti-tute of Mining,Metallurgy and Petroleum Bulletin, v. 81, no. 912, p.49--58.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson, M.D, Armstrong, D.K., Sanford, B.V., Telford, P.G. and Rutka,M.A. 1992. Paleozoic andMesozoic geology ofOntario; inGeologyof Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, p.907--1008.

McLellan,A.G.,Yundt, S.E.andDorfman,M.L. 1979.Abandoned pits andquarries in Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Pa-per 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 1992.TheMiningAct;Revised Statutes ofOntario, 1990,ChapterM.14, Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

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

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

Peat, Marwick and Partners and M.M. Dillon Limited 1981a. Mineral ag-gregate transportation study; Industrial Mineral Background Paper1, 133p.

_______ 1981b.Mineral aggregate transportation study; IndustrialMiner-al Background 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.

_______ 1977.Mineral aggregates study andgeological inventory, south--western region ofOntario; prepared for theOntarioMinistry ofNatu-ral Resources, 246p.

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

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

Wolf, R.R. 1993. An inventory of inactive quarries in the Paleozoic lime-stone and dolostone strata of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey,OFR 5863, 272p.

50

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.

Dufferin County

51

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

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

Glacial lobe: A tongue-like projection from themarginof the main mass of an ice cap or ice sheet. During thePleistocene Epoch several lobes of the 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 to Granular A,and Select Subgrade Material has similar quality re-quirements to Granular B and it provides a stable plat-form for the overlying pavement structure. (For morespecific information the reader is referred to OntarioProvincial Standard 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 (orAsphaltic) PavingAggregate: 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 percent.

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.

ARIP 163

52

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

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

Soundness: The ability of the components of an aggre-gate to withstand the effects of various weathering pro-cesses and agents. Unsound lithologies are subject todisintegration caused by the expansion of absorbedsolutions. This may seriously impair the performanceof road-building and construction aggregates.

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

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.

53

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

ARIP 163

54

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 DEPOSITSEndMoraines (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.

55

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 14m. USES: has been quarried for aggre-gate in South Burgess Township, Leeds County.

Nepean Formation(Cambro-Ordovician)

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

March Formation (Lower Ordovician)

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

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

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

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

ARIP 163

56

Gull River Formation (MiddleOrdovician)

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

Bobcaygeon Formation (MiddleOrdovician)

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

Verulam Formation (MiddleOrdovician)

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

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

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

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

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

Dufferin County

57

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

Queenston Formation (UpperOrdovician)

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

Whirlpool Formation (Lower Silurian)

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

Manitoulin Formation (Lower Silurian)

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

Cabot Head Formation (LowerSilurian)

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

Grimsby Formation (Lower Silurian)

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

Thorold Formation (Middle Silurian)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARIP 163

58

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

Rochester Formation (Middle Silurian)

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

Decew Formation (Middle Silurian)

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

Lockport and Amabel Formations(Middle Silurian)

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

Guelph Formation (Middle Silurian)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dufferin County

59

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

Onondaga Formation (Lower - MiddleDevonian)

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

Amherstburg Formation (Lower -Middle Devonian)

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

Lucas Formation (Middle Devonian)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARIP 163

60

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

Ipperwash Formation (MiddleDevonian)

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

Kettle Point Formation (UpperDevonian)

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

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

Berea Formation (Upper Devonian orMississippian)

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

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

Dufferin County

61

FigureD1.Bedrock

Geology

ofSouthernOntario

ARIP 163

62

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. )

63

Appendix E – Aggregate Quality Test Specifications

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

Absorption Capacity Related to the porosity of the rocktypes of which an aggregate is composed. Porous rocksare subject to disintegration when absorbed liquidsfreeze and thaw, thus decreasing the strength of 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 The Micro-Deval Abrasiontest is an accurate measure of the amount of hard, dura-ble materials in sand-sized particles. This abrasion testis quick, cheap and more precise than the fine aggregateMagnesium Sulphate Soundness test that suffers from awide multilaboratory variation. The maximum loss forHL 1/HL 3 is 20%, for HL2 andHL 4/HL8 it is 25%andfor structural and pavement concrete it is 20%. It is an-ticipated 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.

ARIP 163

64

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)

65

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--7916--6

Documents

Aggregate Resources Inventory of