Regional Municipality of Waterloo€¦ · E Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1998 ISSN 0708--2061...

Aggregate Resources Inventory of the

Regional Municipality of WaterlooTownships of North Dumfries, Wellesley,Wilmot and Woolwich and the Cities ofCambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo

Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 161

1998

Aggregate Resources Inventory of the

Regional Municipality of WaterlooTownships of North Dumfries, Wellesley,Wilmot and Woolwich and the Cities ofCambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo

Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 161

By Ontario Geological Survey and Planning and Engineering InitiativesLimited

1998

ii

E Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1998 ISSN 0708--2061ISBN 0--7778--7313--3

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 the Regional Municipality of Waterloo

(Ontario Geological Survey aggregate resources inventory paper, ISSN 0708-2061; 161)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-7778-7313-3

1. Aggregates (Building materials)—Ontario—Waterloo (Regional municipality) I. Ontario Geological Survey. II Planning andEngineering Initiatives Limited. III Ontario. Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. IV. Series.

TN939.R68 1998 553.6’2’09713144 C98-964013-2

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:

OntarioGeological Survey and Planning and Engineering Initiatives Limited 1998. Aggregate resources inventoryof the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwichand the cities of Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo; Ontario Geological Survey, Aggregate Resources In-ventory Paper 161, 64p.

iii

Contents

Abstract vii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 1 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 3 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 5 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 6 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 8 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 9 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 10 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 11 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 12 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 13 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 14 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 21 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 22 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 23 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 24 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 25 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 26 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 27 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 28 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 29 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 30 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 31 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 32 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 33 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 34 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 35 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 36 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resource Areas of Secondary Significance 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bedrock Geology 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Bedrock Resource Areas 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 1 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 2 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 3 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References 46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metric Conversion Table 64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

TABLES1. Total Sand and Gravel Resources, Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Sand and Gravel Pits, Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, R.M. of Waterloo 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Total Identified Bedrock Resources, Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Quarries, Regional Municipality of Waterloo 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Selected Bedrock Resource Areas, Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Summary of Test Hole Data, Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Summary of Geophysical Data, Regional Municipality of Waterloo 44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Aggregate Quality Test Data, Regional Municipality of Waterloo 45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E1 Selected quality requirements for major aggregate products 63. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURES1. Key Map Showing the Location of Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Scale 1:1 800 000. vii. . . . . . .

D1. Bedrock Geology of Southern Ontario 60. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D2. Exposed Paleozoic Stratigraphic Sequences in Southern Ontario 61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v

CHARTSA. Area and Population, R.M. of Waterloo 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Extractive Activity, R.M. of Waterloo 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. Bedrock Resources Summary, R.M. of Waterloo 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GEOLOGICAL MAPS1. Sand and Gravel Resources, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Scale 1:50 000 back pocket. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Bedrock Resources, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Scale 1:50 000 back pocket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Abstract

This report includes an inventory and evaluation ofsand, gravel and bedrock resources, in the RegionalMu-nicipality of Waterloo.

Within the RegionalMunicipality ofWaterloo a to-tal of 36 sand and gravel resource areas of primary sig-nificance have been identified. The resource areas con-sist of: several large sand and gravel bearing moraines,including the Waterloo Interlobate Moraine, Breslauand Paris moraines; major outwash deposits; and spill-way terraces extending along the Grand River fromWoolwich to North Dumfries townships. The total areaoccupied by the 36 primary selected sand and gravel re-source area is approximately 14 261 ha. The sand andgravel resources in these areas have the potential to pro-duce a wide range of aggregate products.When the areaoccupied by existing licences, cultural and physical set-backs is considered, the actual resource area that couldpotentially be available is reduced to 9693 ha or about68 percent of the total.

The cities of Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridgeall have major sand and gravel deposits located withintheirmunicipal boundaries along the Grand River corri-dor. Many of these resource areas are now nearingdepletion and/or have been sterilized by encroachingurban development.

Of the rural townships within the region, the Town-ship of North Dumfries has a number of major outwashdeposits and currently, a total of 31 licenced pits. Thesemajor sand and gravel resources within the townshipprovide an important source of road building andconstruction materials for the region.

Surficial materials in the Regional Municipality ofWaterloo are underlain by bedrock of the Guelph, Sali-na, Bass Islands and Bois Blanc formations. However,because of extensive drift cover, marginal quality, andthe ready availability of sand and gravel resources, noquarrying has been done within the Regional Munici-pality ofWaterloo. There are selected bedrock resourceareaswithin the City of Cambridge and the Township ofNorth Dumfries where the overburden is thin over theGuelph Formation. In these areas, there is a potentialfor new quarries to be developed for chemical or aggre-gate uses for which the dolostone of the Guelph Forma-tion is suitable.

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

Figure 1. Key map showing the location of Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Scale 1:800 000.

Aggregate Resources Inventory ofThe Regional Municipality of Waterloo

By Staff1 of Planning and Engineering Initiatives Ltd. and the Sedimentary Geoscience Section, OntarioGeological Survey

1. Project Supervisors: R.I. Kelly andC.L.Baker; fieldwork and report byD.A. Stewart, Z.L.Katona, P.F. Puopolo,andA.G.McLellan; compilation and drafting by Staff of Planning and Engineering Initiatives Ltd. Assistancewithreview provided by Cambridge District Office, Ministry of Natural Resources.

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

3

Introduction

Mineral aggregates, which include bedrock-de-rived crushed rock as well as naturally formed sand andgravel, constitute the major raw material in Ontario’sroad--building and construction industries. Very largeamounts of these materials are used each year through-out the Province. For example, in 1993, the total ton-nage ofmineral aggregates extracted inOntariowas131million tonnes, greater than that of any other metallic ornonmetallic commoditymined in the Province (OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources 1995).

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

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

the best aggregate resources are found in or near areasofenvironmental sensitivity, resulting in the requirementto balance the need for the different natural resources.Therefore, planning strategiesmust be based on a soundknowledge of the total mineral aggregate resource baseat both local and regional levels. The purpose of theAg-gregate Resources Inventory is to provide the basic geo-logical information required to include potential miner-al aggregate resource areas in planning strategies. Thereports should form the basis for discussion on thoseareas best suited for possible extraction. The aim is toassist decision--makers in protecting the public well be-ing by ensuring that adequate resources of mineral ag-gregate remain available for future use.

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

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

4

Part I -- Inventory Methods

FIELD AND OFFICE METHODSThis report provides a consolidation and update

of the previously releasedAggregate Resource Inven-tory Reports for the townships of Wellesley, Wool-wich, Wilmot and North Dumfries and the cities ofKitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge (Ontario Geo-logical Survey 1980, 1981, 1984, 1985a, 1985b). Thecontents of existing reports were reviewed in detail.All of the resource areas of primary significance andsome of the resource areas of secondary significancethat had been originally outlined were field checked.As necessary, field samples were collected and weretested for gradation and petrographically analysed.Data was also collected from the Ontario Ministry ofTransportation (MTO) files and from testing compa-nies involved in licencing procedures under the Ag-gregate Resources Act, 1989. The collected informa-tion was compiled, analysed and incorporated withthe data found within the existing Aggregate Re-source Inventory Reports.

All previously Selected Sand and Gravel ResourceAreas of primary and secondary significance were ex-amined considering the following: 1) licencing that hasoccurred since the original inventory was conducted; 2)discussions with the appropriate staff of the Ministry ofNatural Resources; 3) review of available public andprivate research reports; 4) reports prepared for licencesunder the Aggregate Resources Act, 1989, and otherdocuments; and 5) personal knowledge of the staff in-volved in completion of the project.

Field methods included the examination of natu-ral and man-made exposures of granular material.Most observations were made at quarries and sandand gravel pits located from records held by the On-tario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), the OntarioGeological Survey (OGS) and by Regional, Districtand Area Offices of the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources (MNR). Observations made at pit sites in-cluded estimates of the total face height and the pro-portion of gravel- and sand-sized materials in the de-posit. Observations regarding the shape and lithologyof the particleswere alsomade. These characteristicsare important in estimating the quality and quantity ofthe aggregate. In areas of limited exposure, subsur-face materials were assessed by hand augering andtest pitting.

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

formed in the laboratories of the Ontario Ministry ofTransportation.

The field data were supplemented by pit informa-tion on file with the Geotechnical Section of the On-tario Ministry of Transportation. Data contained inthese files includes field estimates of the depth, com-position and “workability” of deposits, as well as lab-oratory analyses of the physical properties and suit-ability of the aggregate. Information concerning thedevelopment history of the pit and acceptable uses ofthe aggregate is also recorded. The locations of addi-tional sourceswere obtained from records held byRe-gional, District and Area Offices of the Ontario Min-istry of Natural Resources. In addition, reports ongeological testing for type, quantity and quality of ag-gregates were also obtained from numerous aggre-gate licence applications on file with the MNR, andwith specific individuals and companies. The coop-eration of the above-named groups in the compilationof inventory data is gratefully acknowledged.

Aerial photographs at various scales are used todetermine the continuity of deposits, especially inareas where information is limited. Water well re-cords, held by the Ontario Ministry of the Environ-ment and Energy, were used in some areas to corrobo-rate deposit thickness estimates or to indicate thepresence of buried granular material. These recordswere used in conjunction with other evidence.

Topographic maps of the National TopographicSystem, at a scale of 1:50 000,were used as a compila-tion base for the field and office data. The informa-tion was then transferred to a base map, also at a scaleof 1:50 000. These basemaps are preparedwith infor-mation taken from maps of the National TopographicSystem by permission of Natural Resources Canada,for presentation in the report.

RESOURCE TONNAGECALCULATION TECHNIQUES

SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCESOnce the interpretative boundaries of the aggre-

gate units have been established, quantitative esti-mates of the possible resources available can bemade. Generally, the volume of a deposit can be cal-culated if its areal extent and average thickness areknown or can be estimated. The computation meth-ods used are as follows. First, the area of the deposit,as outlinedon the final basemap, is calculated in hect-ares (ha). The thickness values used are an approxi-mation of the deposit thickness, based on the faceheights of pits developed in the deposit or on subsur-face data such as test holes and water well records.Tonnage values can then be calculated bymultiplyingthe volume of the deposit by 17 700 (the density fac-

Regional Municipality of Waterloo

5

tor). This factor is approximately the number oftonnes in a 1 m thick layer of sand and gravel, 1 ha inextent, assuming an average density of 1770 kg/m3.

Tonnage = Area x Thickness x Density Factor

Tonnage calculated in this manner must be consid-ered only as an estimate. Furthermore, such tonnagesrepresent amounts that existed prior to any extraction ofmaterial (i.e., original tonnage) (Table 1, Column 4).

The Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas inTable 3 are calculated in the following way. Twosuccessive subtractions are made from the total area.Column 3 accounts for the number of hectares unavail-able because of the presence of permanent cultural fea-tures and their associated setback requirements. Col-umn 4 accounts for those areas that have previouslybeen extracted (e.g., wayside, unlicenced and aban-donedpits are included in this category). The remainingfigure is the area of the deposit potentially available forextraction (Column 5). The available area is thenmulti-plied by the estimated deposit thickness and the densityfactor (Column 5 x Column 6 x 17 700), to give an esti-mate of the sand and gravel tonnage (Column 7) poten-tially available for extractive development and/or re-source protection. It should be noted however, that re-cent studies (Planning Initiatives Limited 1993a) haveshown that anywhere from 15 to 85% of this last figurein any resource area may be further constrained or notaccessible because of suchthings as environmental con-siderations (e.g., floodplains, environmentally sensitiveareas), lackof landowner interest, resident opposition orother matters.

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

BEDROCK RESOURCESThemethod used to calculate resources of bedrock-

derived aggregate is much the same as that describedabove. The areal extent of bedrock formations overlainby less than 15mof unconsolidated overburden is deter-mined from bedrock geology maps, drift thickness andbedrock topography maps, and from the interpretationof water well records (Table 4). The measured extent ofsuch areas is thenmultiplied by the estimatedquarriablethicknessof the formation, basedon stratigraphic analy-ses and on estimates of existing quarry faces in the unit.In some cases a standardized estimate of 18m is used forthickness. Volume estimates are then multiplied by thedensity factor (the estimated weight in tonnes of a 1 mthick section of rock, 1 ha in extent).

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

UNITS AND DEFINITIONSThe measurements and other primary data avail-

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

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

6

Part II -- Data Presentation and Interpretation

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

MAP 1: SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCES

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

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

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

DEPOSIT SYMBOLThe Deposit Symbol is similar to those used in soil

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

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

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

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

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

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

TEXTURE SYMBOLThe Texture Symbol provides a more detailed as-

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

Selected Sand and GravelResource Areas

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


7

Selected Sand andGravel ResourceAreas ofpri-mary significance are not permanent, single landuseunits. They represent areas in which a major re-source is known to exist and may be reserved whollyor partially for extractive development and/or re-source protection. This protection is now included inmany of the recently approved local and Regional/County Official Plans wherein primary, and in somecases resourcesof secondary significance, are identifiedand protected in the Official Plan.

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

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

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

SITE SPECIFIC CRITERIA

Deposit SizeIdeally, selected deposits should contain available

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

Aggregate QualityThe limitations of natural aggregates for various

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARIP 161

8

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

Location and Setting

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

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

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

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

REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONSIn selecting sufficient areas for resource develop-

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

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

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

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

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

rock geology, drift thickness and bedrock topographymaps, water well data from the Ontario Ministry of theEnvironment and Energy (MOEE), oil and gaswell datafrom the Non-Renewable Resources Section (OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources), and from geotechnicaltest hole data from various sources. Map 2 is based onconcepts similar to those outlined for Map 1.

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


9

only in specific circumstances. Outside of these delin-eated areas, the bedrock can be assumed to be coveredby more than 15 m of overburden, a depth generallyconsidered to be too great to allow economic extraction(unless part of the overburden is composed of economi-cally attractive deposits).

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

Selection CriteriaCriteria equivalent to those used for sand and grav-

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

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

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

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

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

Selected Resource AreasSelection of Bedrock Resource Areas has been re-

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

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

10

Part III -- Assessment of Aggregate Resources in theRegional Municipality of Waterloo

LOCATION AND POPULATION

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo occupiesan area of 134 270 ha in southwestern Ontario (OntarioMinistry of Municipal Affairs 1992). The cities andtownships are represented on the 1:50 000 scale mapsheets of the National Topographic System (NTS) num-bered 40P/7, 40P/8, 40P/9 and 40P/10.

In 1991, the population of the RegionalMunicipali-ty ofWaterloo was 370 330 (Chart A) with the area pro-jected to grow to a population of approximately 558 000in the following 25 years.

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo comprisesboth large urban areas consisting of the cities of Kitch-ener, Waterloo and Cambridge and other smaller urbanareas such asWellesley, Elmira, NewHamburg andAyr.The townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley, WilmotandWoolwich are predominantly rural in characterwithnumerous small settlement areas and a healthy agricul-tural base.

Road access in the townships and urban areas isprovided by a network of regional and local townshiproads. Major highways, including Highway 401, alsotraverse the Regional Municipality and provides NorthDumfries Township and areas along the Grand Riverready access to major transportation routes. In addi-tion, Highways 7, 8, 24 and 86 connect the outlyingareas to the larger Kitchener--Waterloo--Cambridge ur-ban areas.

PHYSIOGRAPHY ANDSURFICIAL GEOLOGY

The physiography anddistribution of unconsolidat-ed surficial materials within the Regional Municipalityof Waterloo are largely the result of glacial activity thattook place in the lateWisconsinan substage of the Pleis-tocene Epoch, from about 23 000 to 10 000 years befo-represent. This period was marked by the repeated ad-vance and melting of continental ice sheets. In general,ice fluctuated fromminor centres (lobes) in the lake ba-sins. The Region of Waterloo was at times affected byglacial ice from 3 lobes. The western portion of the re-gion was affected by the Huron lobe, the northern partby the Georgian Bay lobe and the southern and easternpart of the region by the Ontario lobe. At the meeting ofthese lobes, end moraines and interlobate moraines,such as the Waterloo Interlobate Moraine, the BreslauMoraine and the ParisMoraine, were formed. Locatingeconomically viable gravel resources in these areas isoften difficult because of the overall sandy character ofthe moraines.

As the glacial ice melted, outwash sands and grav-elswere deposited at the icemargins andmajor spillwaysystems developed along the present day Speed andGrand river valleys. A number of spillway terracesformed by successive water levels contain variablethicknesses of sand and gravel. Almost half of the re-gion’s sand and gravel resource areas of primary signifi-cance are located along these river valleys. These de-posits represent a major source of high quality aggre-

__________________________________________________________________________________Chart A -- Area and Population

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO POPULATION_________________________________________________________________________________MUNICIPALITY LAND AREA 1981 1991

(ha) POPULATION POPULATION_________________________________________________________________________________City of Cambridge 11 260 77 170 89 953City of Kitchener 13 350 142 193 163 923City of Waterloo 6 605 59 646 72 062Twp. Of N. Dumfries 18 722 4 965 6 541Twp. Of Wellesley 27 160 6 770 8 021Twp. Of Wilmot 25 275 10 925 12 699Twp. Of Woolwich 31 898 16 490 17 131TOTAL 134 270 318 159 370 330_________________________________________________________________________________


11

gate but because of their proximity to urban areas, somehave been sterilized and others are nearly depleted.

The western half of the Township of North Dum-fries is covered predominantly by a pitted outwash plaincreated by meltwater at the ice margin. Extraction ofsand and gravel has occurred from this deposit formanyyears. The deposit continues to provide an importantsource ofmaterial for the region as evidenced by a num-ber of recent and ongoing applications for new licences.Given its proximity to Highway 401, it is anticipatedthat there will be greater pressure for aggregate extrac-tion within the township.

The Waterloo Interlobate Moraine covers most ofthe Township of Wilmot. This moraine contains exten-sive ice-contact and glaciofluvial stratified deposits ei-ther at the surface or buried beneath till units. Thewest-ern third of the township and the northwestern two-thirds of Wellesley Township are covered by the Strat-ford Till Plain described by Chapman and Putnam(1984) as having a gently undulating surface, typical ofground moraine. This till plain has very low potentialfor aggregate extraction.

QUALITY OF AGGREGATESThe Regional Municipality of Waterloo has pro-

vided high quality aggregates for the construction in-dustry for over 50 years. Aggregate use and quality dataobtained fromMTO and other sources indicate that ag-gregate from most of the deposits within the region hasbeen acceptable for the production ofGranular A, B andM and hot laid asphalt paving HL2, HL3, HL4 and HL8coarse and fine aggregates. Some of the deposits havealso produced Portland cement concrete coarse and fineaggregates.

The acceptance for hot-mix paving and concreteaggregates is not, however, totally uniform. While thereis a minor presence of some soft porous dolostone, mostlikely originating from theGuelphFormation, and someglacially transported brittle gneisses and granites de-rived from the Canadian Shield, there are two othermain factors that affect quality. First, the presence ofchert and second, the coarseness of the gravel in the de-posits.

The presence of chert in surficialmaterials is gener-ally attributed to glacial erosion of the Lower DevonianBois Blanc Formation. The formation, a chert-richlimestone, forms a 10 to 20 km wide, northwesterlytrending band that underlies the glacial drift in the west-ern part of Wellesley and Wilmot townships. Throughvarious glacial actions of the Georgian Bay lobe manychert-rich clasts were derived from this formation andincorporated into the local surficial aggregate deposits.Consequently, in the western part of Wellesey andWil-mot townships chert concentrations of up to 20 percentmay be found in some deposits. Elsewhere, chert maybe present but not in significant quantities. In general,the chert content decreases in a southeasterly direction.In Woolwich and North Dumfries townships, it is re-

duced to 1 to 3 percent. This trend has been demon-strated by previousMTOwork (Ingham andDunikows-ka-Koniuszy 1965).

The coarseness factor is also discussed by InghamandDunikowska-Koniuszy (1965). It wasnoted that themajority of chert in gravels is concentrated in the 1.18mmand0.50mmparticle size fraction. Therefore, if thegravel in chert-rich zones contains mainly fine-gravelsized particles, the double effect of areal predominanceof chert and the concentration of cherty particles in thefine-gravel sized particles can make the gravel unac-ceptable for hot-mix asphalt paving and Portland ce-ment concrete uses. While the presence of chert mainlyinfluence the quality of coarse aggregate, it can also ren-der fine aggregates unsuitable for these uses. This iscaused by the high percentage of chert in the coarse par-ticle sizes of the fine aggregate.

The effect of the presence of chert is threefold.Firstly, the white coloured “chalky” leached chert can“pop-out” from Portland cement structural and pavingconcrete and from surface course hot-mix asphalt pave-ments due to its high water absorption and frost suscep-tibility. Secondly, the presence of chert, even in smallamounts, can make gravel or sand unsuitable for Port-land cement concrete due to reactivitywith the alkalis inPortland cement. Thirdly, a high percentage of un-leached chert/cherty carbonates (approximately 20 per-cent) may require use of anti-stripping additives in as-phalt cement for hot-mix asphalt paving.

Fortunately, with the exception of a few deposits inthe western part ofWellesley and the southwestern partofWilmot townships chert does not affect the aggregateof the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for hot-mixasphalt and Portland cement concrete uses. In someinstances, coarse gravels even have the potential to pro-duce very high quality aggregate, such as heavy dutyandmediumduty binder hot-mix asphalt pavements andhigh strength concrete if only the +76.5 mm sizes areused in the crushing process. Sands for hot-mix asphaltpaving uses often require blending to correct grain sizedistribution deficiencies. This is considered a normalprocedure for these uses. There are no quality limita-tions for Granular A, B andM and sand production usedby the construction industry, other than possible grainsize distribution problems.

Since the great majority of the region is covered bythick glacial drift, the quality of the bedrock is of lesserimportance. However, since the Guelph Formation out-crops in the City of Cambridge and in the eastern part ofNorth Dumfries Township, it contributes significantlyto the aggregate potential of the region. The GuelphFormation ismainly composed of soft, high purity dolo-stonewhichmay, if pure enough, be used for the produc-tion of chemical lime and metallurgical rock. For ag-gregate use the Guelph Formation is generally consid-ered too soft and is not weather resistant enough to beused for high-quality aggregate. However, it is possiblethat in between the reef-like structures of the GuelphFormation harder and more competent dolostones may

ARIP 161

12

exist. TheSalina Formationhas the potential to producesalt, gypsum and anhydrite from its evaporite beds, butis not likely to produce acceptable aggregates. TheBoisBlanc Formation, due to its chert content, could producesuitable aggregate for Granular A, B and M only. TheBass Islands Formation contains relatively sound dolo-stonewhich could have potential for high quality aggre-gate uses. In the region the latter 2 formations are cov-ered with thick overburden making quarry operationsuneconomical. The best quality bedrock present in theregion is found in the Amabel Formation. This forma-tion underlies the Guelph Formation and could be ex-posed in quarries once the Guelph Formation has beenremoved.

EXTRACTIVE ACTIVITYCurrently there are 81 licenced sand and gravel pits

in the Regional Municipality ofWaterloo, with much ofthe aggregate activity taking place within the Townshipof North Dumfries and along the Grand River. Averageaggregate production within the region over the fiveyear period from 1989 to 1993 was approximately 5.5million tonnes annually, with the largest annual produc-tion coming from the Township of NorthDumfries. Ex-tractive activity for the region is summarized on ChartB.

Within the Township of North Dumfries, the citiesof Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, and the Town-ship of Woolwich, the majority of extraction has oc-curred from the various outwash deposits that are lo-cated along the Grand and Nith rivers and their tribu-taries. Aggregate use andquality data obtained from theMTO and other sources indicate that, in the past, the ag-gregate from these deposits has been acceptable for theproductionofGranular A,B andM, hot laid asphalt pav-

ing coarse aggregates, HL2, HL3, HL4 and HL8 andPortland cement concrete coarse and fine aggregateswith appropriate processing. The possible exceptionmay be the western part of Wellesley Township, whereexcessive chert content makes the aggregate unsuitablefor hot-mix asphalt and Portland cement concrete uses.

High quality bedrock is in demand for applicationssuch as: 1) hot-mix paving used on heavily travelledhighways and roads, such as Highway 401, 2) heavyduty and medium duty binder courses for municipal ar-terial roads and 3) high strength concrete for high riseoffice towers and structures.

SELECTED SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCE AREAS

Map 1 shows all the surficial deposits that containsand and gravel in the Regional Municipality of Water-loo. In the region, the total area occupied by the 36 Se-lected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas of primary sig-nificance is approximately 14 300ha (Table 3). Howev-er, because of constraints including areas previously ex-tracted or areas being extracted, cultural constraintssuch as urban areas, provincial parks and conservationareas as well as physical constraints like roads, rail-ways, rivers, lakes and ponds, the possible area avail-able for extraction is reduced to 9693 ha.

It must be noted, however, that further restrictionson the area actually available or accessible for extrac-tion may occur because of provincially or regionallysignificant wetlands or other sensitive natural heritagefeatures that are not taken account of in this report.Most of these resources have considerable value be-cause of ample deposit size, thickness and/or quality ofthematerial. Selected sand and gravel resources that areconsidered to be of primary significance are designated

______________________________________________________________________________________Chart B -- Extractive Activity

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO______________________________________________________________________________________

Township/ Average Annual Number of Total LicencedMunicpality Aggregate Licences Area (ha)

Production Pits Quarries Pits Quarries1989--93 (Tonnes)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Cities of Kitchenerand Waterloo 699 000 9 0 327.46 0City of Cambridge/Wellesley Twp. 723 000 10 0 413.25 0North Dumfries 2 312 000 31 0 1283.44 0Wilmot 745 000 12 0 439.26 0Woolwich 983 000 19 0 652.85 0Total 5 462 000 81 0 3116.26 0_____________________________________________________________________________________


13

onMap 1. The listing of resource areas is not accordingto size or importance, but rather according to geographi-cal location from northwest to southeast across the re-gion.

Selected Sand and GravelResource Area 1

A hummocky kame deposit, straddling the westernboundary of Wellesley Township, represents SelectedSand andGravel Resource Area 1. The deposit hasbeenselected for possible resource protection inMorningtonTownship, Perth County. In Wellesley Township no li-cencing for sand and gravel extraction has occurred inthis deposit possibly because of distance from markets.Consequently, a more thorough investigation of the de-posit is required before the quality of the material isknown.

Judging by its similarity with other deposits in thearea it is possible that clay and silt seams and objection-able amounts of chert may be present. Although smallin area, this deposit is selected for protection because ofa lack of othermaterials available in the northern part ofthe township. Because of the lack of information aminimum deposit thickness of 6m has been used to esti-mate a possible resource of 3.2 million tonnes in the 30ha potentially available for extraction (Table 3).


A kame deposit situated northwest of the hamlet ofWellesley has provided local supplies of aggregate andfill formany years. The deposit currently has 3 licencedoperations (Pit Nos. 7, 8 and 9) with pit faces rangingfrom 8 to 20 m. All properties are also permitted to al-low future extractionbelow thewater table. The deposittrends northwest and lies within the western part of theWaterloo Interlobate Moraine. The ice-contact strati-fied materials are poorly exposed as the deposit hasbeen partially buried by sediments associatedwith a lat-er advance of glacial ice from the northwest.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 occu-pies a total of 184 ha, of which 83 ha could be utilizedfor aggregate resource extraction. Assuming a depositthickness of 14 m,possible aggregate resources are esti-mated to be 21 million tonnes (Table 3) Gravel contentis estimated to be 35percent, however, theMTOconsid-ers this deposit a marginal crushing prospect. The de-posit exhibits variable grading and the presence of clayand silt seams are present. In places 1 to 2m of overbur-den stripping is required. Chert content may be highenough to cause problems in meeting concrete specifi-cations as well as in hot-mix asphalt paving uses. How-ever, because there are few large deposits in this area, itprovides an important local source of material.


The Hawkesville Moraine is a north trending ridgeapproximately 2.5 km long that dominates the sur-rounding landscape of east-central Wellesley Town-ship. Its hummocky, kettled nature suggests that it con-tains ice-contact stratified drift. Several detailed sedi-mentological studies of the deposit have been undertak-en through examination of the numerous faces exposedin the gravel operations (Bowes 1976; Kuehl 1975).The deposit can be best described as a glaciofluvial-del-taic complex with a central gravel core that is flanked,locally, by sands. The deposit indicates a general south-ward fining of sediments suggesting that large volumesof meltwater and sediments flowed southward into abody of water. It is presumed that the deposits wereformed in an interlobate position, in close proximity to 2ice lobes, one ice front retreating northwestward, theother ice front retreating eastward.

A large portion of this resource area is currently li-cenced to 3 operators (Pit Nos. 3, 4 and 5) so that only anestimated 3 ha remains unlicenced. Nevertheless, pos-sible resources of 0.9 million tonnes are estimated to beavailable above the water table in the remaining unli-cenced parts of the deposit. This estimate is based uponan assumed deposit thickness of 16 m, although currentpit faces range up to 20m. Water well records and otherevidence suggest that an additional 18 m of aggregatemight also exist below thewater table. All 3 licences arecurrently allowed to extract below water, but as of yetnone have commenced below water extraction.

An earlier study by Bryant and McLellan (1974)found the gravel content to be between 40 and 60 per-cent. Deleteriousmaterials noted by the authors includechert (2 to 3 percent), brittle granite-gneiss and shaleclasts. Karrow (1963) has suggested a higher percent-age of chert, probably derived from the Bois BlancFormation, may be present. Small percentages of dele-terious constitutents do not detract from the perfor-mance of granular base course and similar materials,however, if the chert content is in fact present in objec-tionable quantities then problems may occur. Licencedsourceswithin the area are capable of producing accept-able Portland cement concrete and hot-mix pavingcoarse and fine aggregates with suitable processing.


Situated in the northern corner ofWoolwich Town-ship, Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 4 is anoutwash gravel deposit of moderate thickness. Severalunlicenced properties (Pit Nos. 32, 33 and 34) are over-grown, but faces expose 2 to 10m ofmoderately towell-sorted gravelly sand, with poorly graded and silty sec-tions. Quality testing by the MTO has rated sourceswithin this deposit as moderate to high. Granular mate-rialsmaybe suitable for producing awide range of prod-ucts including HL4 and HL8 asphaltic mixes and Gran-

ARIP 161

14

ular A, B andM (Deike 1982). A low chert content (2 to3 percent in Pit No. 34) has been noted and should not-detract from the overall performance of the aggregate.

This resource area has no major culturalconstraints, and can be accessed by Regional Road 21.After subtracting cultural setbacks, 52 ha, containingpossible resources of up to 4.6 million tonnes, could beavailable for extraction (Table 3).


This outwash deposit lies northeast of the commu-nity of Floradale in Woolwich Township and is thoughtto have been deposited by meltwaters derived from theHuron and Georgian Bay ice lobes. Test results fromMTO files show that a now depleted and overgrown pit(Pit No. 35), exposed sand with silty sections; the mate-rial was acceptable for only limited number of aggre-gate products. In contrast, testing of the Township ofWoolwich licenced property (Pit No. 13) has shown thatgranular materials are acceptable for a wide range ofcrushed products including HL4 and HL8 asphalticmixes.

Cultural setbacks reduce the area available for pos-sible extraction to 83 ha. Assuming an average depositthickness of 4 m, possible aggregate resources are esti-mated to be a maximum of 5.9 million tonnes (Table 3).


This segment of the Elmira Moraine has a hum-mocky, undulating character, typical of ice-contact de-posits. Pit faces in an active and extensively developedproperty (Pit No. 14) reveal irregular interbedding ofsand and rounded to subrounded gravel. Testing of sev-eral sites by the MTO has shown the deposit capable ofproducing a wide range of granular road base aggregateand asphaltic mixes. The sand fraction grades bothcoarse and fine, thereby requiring selection and blend-ing for some uses. A chert content of 3 to 5 percent hasbeen noted (Deike 1982).

Cultural setbacks leave 62 ha available for possibleresource extraction. Assuming a minimum depositthickness of 6 m, possible resources are estimated to be6.6 million tonnes (Table 3).


A large gravel ridge of ice-contact stratified driftidentified in Pilkington Township, Wellington Countyextends into the northeastern corner of WoolwichTownship. Although there has beenno extractive devel-opment in the segment present in Woolwich Township,4 pit operations in adjacent Pilkington Township exhibithighly variable gravel contents and poorly stratifiedsand and gravel with silt and fine sand layers. Quality

constraints include the presence of objectionable quan-tities of oversize material and lithologies such as chertand sandstone. The Woolwich portion should be capa-ble of supplying granular base and surfacing aggregate.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 7 con-tains 22 ha available for possible resource extraction.Assuming a deposit thickness of 6 m possible resourcesare estimated to be 2.4 million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand andGravel Resource Area 8 consistsof 2 terraced outwash deposits. The eastern part of theresource area contains 2 licenced properties (Pit Nos. 17and 19) that are situated near the hamlet of West Mon-trose. Pit faces of 4 to 12 m reveal horizontal beds ofmassive or stratified sandy gravel. Gravel content of upto 50 percent allows the material to produce crushedproducts although average gravel size is generallysmall. In the most southerly pit exposures, stratifiedfine sands overlie massive sandy gravels.

Testing by theMTOhas only evaluated the suitabil-ity of the deposit for granular base course products.Judging by the general high quality of other deposits inthe township, asphalt and concrete specifications canlikely be met, although sand may require blending(Deike 1982). Testing of a sample from unlicenced PitNo. 42 confirms this, as its petrographic number is 100for both granular and hot-mix concrete uses and thesample contains no chert or cherty carbonates (Table 9).

The thickness of the deposit gradually decreases to-wards the west. A largely depleted 11.19 ha licencedproperty (Pit No. 18) located in the western part of theresource area has faces ranging from 3 to 6 m that ex-pose gravelly sand to sandy gravel. Material from thispit was assigned a moderate use by the MTO and wasconsidered suitable to supplyGranular A, B andM. Thematerial, with selection and sand control, could meetspecifications for asphaltic uses (Deike 1982).

After considering cultural setbacks, 438 ha areavailable for possible resource extraction. Assuming anoverall thickness of 6 m, possible resources are esti-mated to be 46.5million tonnes (Table 3). The deposit iswell situated with respect to transportation routes in be-ing able to supply local and regional markets. Currently2 of the 3 licenced properties are extracting materialfrom below the water.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 9 inWoolwich Township is a terraced outwash deposit lyingon the east side of the GrandRiver. The deposit extendsto the northeast into Pilkington Township. Two smallunlicenced pits (Pit Nos. 39 and40), with face heights of5 and 2 m, respectively, have supplied local granularroad base requirements. These pits contain clean, well


15

graded, sandy gravel with a gravel content of approxi-mately 60 percent.

No detailed test information is available for thisarea. Deposit thickness may vary with each terrace.Due to its location, it is expected that the chert contentwithin the deposit is low. Consequently, the materialmay be suitable for HL4 andHL8 coarse and fine aggre-gate specifications. Material testing would be requiredto confirm this.

The resource area covers 219 ha, of which 199 haare available for resource protection. Assuming an av-erage deposit thickness of 5 m, approximately 17.6mil-lion tonnes of possible resources may be available(Table 3).


Selected resource area 10 consists of an outwashterrace situated on the east side of the Grand Rivervalley south of West Montrose. With the exception ofone small pit (Pit No. 44) there has been no extractionfrom the area. Two to 3m ofwell sorted, clean gravel isexposed in the upper outwash terrace of this deposit.This deposit, like other outwash terraces along theGrand River, can be expected to yield high quality ag-gregate suitable for a variety of uses.

After allowing for cultural setbacks, 103 ha couldbe available for extraction. Assuming a deposit thick-ness of 5 m possible resources are estimated to be 9.1million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 11 con-sists of a segment of the Guelph Esker that parallels Re-gional Road 86, near Zuber Corners. A 3.5 ha licencedproperty (Pit No. 20) having 9 to 15m faces is situated atits western end. Several other abandoned and nowlargely overgrown extraction sites have also been iden-tified (Pit No. 43). Detailed geological mapping byBowes (1976) indicated that a core of massive beddedgravel could be extracted. Beds of fine- to medium-sand on the flankswere not often extracted. At thewest-ern end, themain esker ridge separates into 3 ridges. Al-though the massive gravel core is still present, flankingsections are much more variable and contain cross-bedded, fine- to medium-sand, massive sand and silt-clay units. Bowes (1976) suggested that the main ridgeof the esker represents a subglacial channel depositedby westward flowing water. Distributary features at thewestern end represent deposition at an ice margin as theesker stream entered a standing body of water or an out-wash channel.

Detailed testing by the MTO has shown that theesker material can supply Granular A, B and M. Themassive gravel core presents a suitable crushing source.The pits may, with selection, be suitable to supply HL4

and HL8 asphaltic mixes and structural concrete but be-cause of their variable character may contain fine- tocoarse-sand (Deike 1982).

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 11 is wellsituated to supply local quantities of high quality aggre-gate, as it is located along Regional Road 86. The totalarea available for possible extraction is approximately49 ha, however, cultural setbacks and depleted sectionsreduce the potentially available area to 35 ha. Assum-ing an average deposit thickness of 11 m, possible re-sources are estimated to be 6.8 million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected resource area 12 consists of 2 outwash de-posits that lie in the eastern part ofWoolwich Township,alongRegional Road 86. Although similar in character,the 2 deposits have different thicknesses and have beenlabelled separately as areas 12A and 12B on Map 1.

Two licenced operations (Pits Nos. 21 and 22) arefound in area 12A, the thicker, southern outwash depos-it. Five to 10m faces expose 2major textural units. Theupper 2 m is composed of clean, well sorted, cross-bedded, fine- to medium-coarse sand. Water well re-cords for siteslocated immediately south of RegionalRoad 86 showmedium sand to a depth of approximately5 m with clay and hardpan at lower depths. Furtherwest, water well records indicate gravel to a depth of 9m. The lower, massive unit contains sandy gravel withsilty sections. These pits have been given a moderateuse rating by the MTO and are considered suitable forsupplying Granular A, B and M. Evaluation for higherspecification uses has not yet been undertaken.

Although no pits have been opened in area 12B, it isexpected that materials and aggregate products similarto those found in area 12A could be extracted. Waterwell records indicate that the deposit has an averagedepth of 3 m.

After considering cultural setbacks, the total areaavailable for possible extraction in Selected Sand andGravel Resource Areas 12A and 12B are 62 ha and 158ha respectively. Assuming an overall thickness of 7 mfor area 12A and an average of 3 m for area 12B, a totalof up to 16.1 million tonnes of possible sand and gravelresources could be available for extraction in the 2 de-posits (Table 3).


This large terracedoutwash deposit, locatedwest ofWinterbourne, includes a small indistinct northeasttrending esker segment. Limited pit exposures indicatethat thin outwash material in the upper terraces overliesice-contact material. A 3 to 9m face in the property cur-rently licenced (Pit No. 23) shows sandy outwash grav-el. Testing of material for a recent licence expansionprovided petrographic numbers in the range of 108 to125 (Kleinfeldt Group 1992). Recent testing of a sam-

ARIP 161

16

ple from this pit indicates that the aggregate is suitablefor Granular A, B andM, and with appropriate process-ing, hot-mix paving and Portland cement concretecoarse and fine aggregates. The petrographic number ofthe sample is 100 for both granular and hot-mix con-crete uses. The sample does not contain any chert/cherty carbonates (Table 9). This pit provides a goodsource of crushable material although faces at lowerlevels reveal clean, medium- to coarse-sand. If presentin excess amounts the sand could present operationalproblems for extractive development.

The resource area covers approximately 335 ha,however, this is reduced by cultural setbacks to an avail-able area of 243 ha. Possible aggregate resources are es-timated to be 25.8 million tonnes assuming an averagedeposit thickness of 6 m. The resource area is well situ-ated in regard to major transportation routes.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 14 con-sists of a valley terrace situated along the ConestogoRiver. The surface of the deposit is flat to moderatelydissected. The community of St. Jacobs partially coversthe deposit. This urban area has been delineated by acultural constraint boundary onMap 1 and deleted fromresource calculations.

On the west side of St. Jacobs, an unlicenced pit (PitNo. 47) exposed well graded gravels in a 4 m face. Testresults from the MTO indicated the material was suit-able for a variety of granular base products, and withblending, asphaltic fine aggregate. Recent, local indus-trial growth has further reduced the access to aggregateresources in this area.

Testing by MTO in the larger portion of the re-source area situated southeast of St. Jacobs (Pit Nos. 48,49 and 50) has shown that the material is suitable formost granular base products. A relatively high percent-age of sand in the deposit and pockets of coarse gravel,necessitates selective extraction methods to produceGranular A. The sand also grades coarse and fine, ne-cessitating blending for asphaltic uses. Chert, in the 8 to15 percent range, has been noted in sections where fin-er-grained material predominates. Certain benefici-ation measures such as selective crushing or the inclu-sion of crushed oversize boulders could provide a suit-able product for asphalt and structural concrete (Deike1982).

Cultural setbacks, the recent growth ofSt. Jacobs asa tourist area, industrial growth and previously ex-tracted areas reduce the area available for possible re-source extraction to 150 ha. Assuming an overall thick-ness of 5 m, possible resources are estimated to be 13.3million tonnes (Table 3). The resource area is well situ-atedwith respect tomajor transportation routeswithRe-gional Road 86 dissecting the resource area.


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 15 con-sists of a moderately dissected outwash terrace situatedimmediately southwest of the community of Conesto-go. Recent residential developments have covered thenortheastern portion of this resource area. Despite thelack of extractive development, its location and similar-ity to other spillway-outwash deposits situated along theGrand River suggests the presence of high quality ag-gregate. Information from local water well records sug-gests, however, that the northern half of the resourcearea, especially that area farthest west of the river, isclay-rich and contains little or no commercial aggre-gate. The resource area originally designated has beenreduced to exclude the clay-rich portion and the residen-tial development area.

Cultural setbacks associated with the communityof Conestogo, and the known clay presence in the north-ern half of the area, reduce the area available for pos-sible resource protection to 70 ha. Assuming an overalldeposit thickness of 5 m, estimated possible resourcesare 6.2 million tonnes (Table 3). The deposit is well sit-uated with respect to major transportation routes.


Selected resource area 16 is an outwash deposit sit-uated along the Grand River that extends southwardfromWoolwich Township into the City ofWaterloo. Pitfaces of 5 m in a licenced gravel pit (Pit No. 26) revealsandy coarse gravel. Althoughdetailed test informationis not available, the pit is suitable for a wide range ofuses, with gravel content of 60 percent. It is expectedthat the deposit contains gravel suitable for high qualityuses. A sample collected for this study (Sample KI--SS--1) provided a petrographic number of 111.3 forgranular use and 132.1 for hot-mix and concrete uses.The sample contains 8.5 percent chert/cherty carbon-ates (Table 9).

Within the City ofWaterloo, a portion of the depos-it is unavailable because of estate residential develop-ment. Although there are nopits opened in theWaterlooportion of the resource area, a licenced property (PitNo.26) in the same deposit within the Township ofWool-wich shows about 5 m of sandy coarse gravel.

Resource area 16 occupies a total of 190 ha (exclu-sive of licenced properties) of which 125 ha are present-ly available for extraction. Assuming an average thick-ness of 6 m, possible resources of sand and gravel areestimated to be 13.3 million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 17 con-sists of a terraced outwash deposit situated along theGrand River valley, east of the Village of Conestogo.


17

This deposit has not been tested byMTO. At a depletedlicenced property a 4 m face reveals uniformly beddedsandy gravel with fine- to medium-sand lenses. Thegravel is of good crushable size, which should yieldgood quality aggregate suitable for granular base prod-ucts.

A golf course and an estate residential subdivisionhave recently been developed over a large portion ofthis resource area. When combined with additional ru-ral residential development along the roadways, thema-jority of this resource area is constrained for extractivedevelopment except for the 2 “tails” and a portion of thecentre of resource area. It is expected that the area con-tains high quality aggregates similar to adjacent areas.

After accounting for cultural setbacks such as thegolf course, estate residential development and roads,233 ha are considered potentially available for possibleresource extraction. Assuming an overall deposit thick-ness of 5 m, 20.6 million tonnes of possible resourcesare estimated (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 18 is alarge outwash deposit located near the community ofBloomingdale. In licenced Pit No. 27 a 3 to 6 m face isworked on several terrace levels. The exposure revealsuniformly bedded gravel with a gravel content ofapproximately 70 percent. Material from this sourcehas been given a moderate to high use rating from theMTO. Thematerial has producedGranular AandB, andwith blending, sand for asphaltic aggregate. While alarge portion of the eastern part of the resource area re-mains intact, growth and residential development hassignificantly restricted the likelihood of extraction inthe southern part, near Bloomingdale.

After allowing for cultural constraints the originalresource area of 349 ha is reduced to approximately 79ha for possible resource protection. Assuming an aver-age deposit thickness of 4 m, approximately 5.6 milliontonnes of possible resources are present (Table 3).


North of Bridgeport, part of an outwash deposit hasbeen selected for possible resource protection. En-croaching urban development has sterilizedmuch of thedeposit situated outside of the selected area. The depos-it is terraced and based onwater well recordshas an esti-mated overall average thickness of 5 m. Testing con-ducted by the MTO in 1974 indicated that theaggregatein the deposit would be suitable for granular base prod-ucts.

The unlicenced area of this selected resource is 171ha. Private testing completed on the southern portion ofthis deposit indicates gravel contents of from 50 to 75percent (Planning Initiatives Ltd. and Geoconcepts Ltd.

1989). When cultural constraints and previous extrac-tion are considered, the resource area covers approxi-mately 154 ha. Assuming an average depth of 5 m pos-sible resources are calculated to be 13.6 million tonnes(Table 3). Parts of this resource area may also beconstrained by highwater tables due to its location adja-cent to the Grand River.


SelectedSand andGravel ResourceArea 20 is a ter-raced outwash deposit located along the Grand Riverthat stretches through the east part of Bridgeport. Thisdeposit was initially described as an outwash sand (Kar-row 1963) but an existing pit exposure (Pit No. 52) re-veals a high gravel content (60 percent). Nomajor qual-ity constraints have been noted. In the southern portionof the resource area a licenced pit (Pit No. 30) showsface heights of 5 m and gravel content of approximately65 percent.

Approximately 158 ha of the total 240 ha are avail-able for possible resource development, after account-ing for cultural constraints. It is estimated that the areacontains 14 million tonnes of possible sand and gravelresources, assuming an average deposit thicknessof 5m(Table 3).


Selected resource area 21 is an outwash deposit ly-ing along Hopewell Creek south of Maryhill and is wellsituatedwith respect tomajor transportation routes. In apreviously licenced pit, 5 m faces in the northern part ofthe deposit revealed sandy coarse gravel. Testing by theMTO has shown this area to be acceptable for granularbase course products and hot-laid asphaltic aggregate.The coarseness of the sand fraction observed at the pitmay limit its suitability for some uses. Additional ag-gregate has been obtained below the water table. Waterwell records north ofHighway 7 indicate gravel extend-ing in areas to depths of 8 m.

After considering cultural setbacks the total area of85 ha is reduced to 60 ha. Assuming an overall thick-ness of 5 m, possible resources are estimated to be 5.3million tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 22 liesimmediately northeast of the community of Petersburgin Wilmot Township. Three areas are actively beingmined (Pit Nos. 54, 55 and 56) north of Regional Road6. Face heights range from 6 to 15 m and generally re-veal sandy material with localized pockets of gravel.Selective extractionmay produce sufficient material forGranular A andB, however, this depositmust be consid-ered as being mainly a sand source. Water well records

ARIP 161

18

in the area indicate sand to as deep as 20mwith frequentclay layers. With selection and blending, the finemate-rial may be useful as fine aggregate for concrete, mortarand asphalt uses. The existence of 3 active operationsindicates that there is a continuing demand for this ma-terial.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 22 occu-pies a total area of 527 ha, of which 376 ha are availablefor possible resource extraction. Assuming an averagematerial depth of 12 m, possible resources (primarilysand) are calculated to be 79.9 million tonnes (Table 3).


This large aggregate resource area lies to the northand west of the community of New Dundee. Three li-cenced properties (Pit Nos. 59, 62 and 63) have faceheights ranging from 5 to 12 m. Testing completed byMTO has indicated that the aggregate is suitable forGranular Base A, B and M, HL4 and HL8 coarse andfine aggregates. Sand control and selection may be re-quired for hot-laid asphalt use. Licenced property, PitNo. 59, has recently expanded to include an additional96 ha. Testing done during the licencing process (Plan-ning Initiatives Ltd. 1991) indicates that the site con-tains 35 to 50 percent gravel. Gravel thickness exceeds6mand possibly reaches 25m. Total aggregate reservesare calculated as exceeding 10 million tonnes. Withproper processing, this area can produce Portland ce-ment concrete coarse and fine aggregates.

Detailed testing adjacent toPit No. 59 indicates thatcoarser gravelly deposits are encountered at depth be-low a relatively thin veneer of fine- to coarse-sands(Planning Initiatives 1980). In parts of the deposit, thefine- to coarse-sand extends to a considerable depth.Sandsmay also be encountered beneath the gravel. Theupper sands range in thickness from 2 to 9m. Themaxi-mum depth of the gravel-rich deposit is between 8 and15 m with the groundwater table located at an approxi-mate depth of 10 m. Samples collected during the test-ing program were in general found to meet granularbase specifications. With selection and blending, thesand fractions are suitable for concrete, mortar and as-phalt uses.

The southwestern portion of this resource area hasno licenced properties and appears, in general, to con-tain sandier materials. A 12 m test hole using a hollowstem auger indicated the existence of a uniform sectionof fine- to coarse-sand with minor gravel. The sandgraded silty in some locations and the gravel content ofa grab sample was 16 percent. A comparison of grada-tion results with standard MTO product specificationenvelopes showed that the material was acceptable foronly Granular B Type I and not suitable for any asphaltpaving products without processing. Exposures in ex-cess of 5 m in 2 unlicenced pits (Pit Nos. 79 and 81) andin roadcut exposures reveal clean, irregularly beddedmaterialswith a highly variable gravel content. Prelim-

inary evaluation by MTO of the pits suggests that theyare doubtful crushing sources but may be suitable forGranular B Type I.

Resource area 23 occupies 1057 ha, of which 797ha are presently available for extraction. Assuming anaverage deposit thickness of 9 m, possible resources ofsand and gravel are estimated to be 127 million tonnes(Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 24straddles the eastern boundary of Wilmot Townshipnear the community of Mannheim and represents a ma-jor source of aggregate for the City of Kitchener. Theresource area consists of a section of theWaterloo Inter-lobate Moraine and is partially buried by substantialthicknesses of fine sand, silt or Port Stanley Till (Kar-row 1974). Initial identification and mapping of thisburied deposit was completed through the use of waterwell records (Bryant and McLellan 1974).

Drilling results indicated the presence of 4.6 to 6.1m of silt to fine-sand (Bryant and McLellan 1974).Sieve analysis of a grab sample showed that thematerialwas too fine to meet most specifications without proc-essing and contained a gravel content of 20 percent.Drill hole WL--TH--2 (Table 7) completed in the Town-ship ofWilmot, returned 9 m of clean, fine- to medium-sand. It is concluded that significant coarse aggregatematerials do not extend further south from the outlinedresource area.

Six licenced pits (Pit Nos. 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 and 92)are located within the Kitchener portion of selected re-source area 24. Aggregate reports used in the licencingprocess for Pit No. 87 indicate material extending todepths of 12 to 20 m (MacNaughton, Hermsen, Britton,Clarkson 1990). Petrographic analysis of material atthis property provided petrographic numbers of 108 to119. Pit faces reveal 2 to 15 m of highly contorted bedsof sand and gravel. Good crushable gravel is availablein some beds, however, others are extremely sandy andfor some uses may contain excess fines. Several of thepits have been given a moderate to high use rating byMTOas good quality crushable gravel products suitablefor asphalt paving mixes and Granular A and B may beobtained from these pits (Deike 1978a). With selectionand blending some sandsmay be useful as fine productsfor concrete, mortar and asphalt uses (Peto MacCallumLtd. 1981). In some areas, however, excessive overbur-den or sand may limit extractive development. Al-though water table depths of 12 to 15 m are not a majorconstraint to extraction, the Mannheim area is a majorsource of domestic water for the cities of Kitchener andWaterloo.

Testing and water well information in this deposithas shown a large variation in thickness of granular ma-terials. Locally up to 30 m of sand and gravel may befound although the material may be buried by upwardsof 8 m of sandy and silty materials. Outside of the de-


19

posit boundaries, granularmaterialsmay be present, butthese are believed to lie at depths where economic re-covery is unlikely. From computer mapping, Bryantand McLellan (1974) estimated that the total possibleresources ranged from 193 to 335 million tonnes.

For the purposes of this inventory, the total resourcearea within both the City of Kitchener and WilmotTownship is 970 ha. Taking into account the restrictionslikely to be placed regarding protection of the Mann-heim Groundwater Recharge Area, the estimated totalresource area potentially available is limited to 790 ha.The total possible resources are conservatively esti-mated at 153.8 million tonnes, assuming an average de-posit thickness of 11 m (Table 3).


This terraced outwash deposit lies south of Breslauon the west side of the GrandRiver. A small abandonedpit previously exposed sandy, well-sorted gravel in a 5m pit face. Test results in this area indicate that lowerand upper terraces have thicknesses of 3 m and 6 m re-spectively and contain 30 to 70percent gravel (PlanningInitiatives and Geoconcepts Ltd 1989). A currently li-cenced pit (Pit No. 86) has faces of 5 to 7 m. The coarseaggregate in this deposit is suitable for Granular A, Band M and for hot-mix asphalt paving applications.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 25 occu-pies a total area of 113 ha. After deducting the licencedarea and other constraints approximately 7 ha remainfor extraction. Combined possible resources in the de-posits total approximately 0.7 million tonnes (Table 3).


This thick sandy outwash deposit was originally se-lected because of its potential to provide fine sand forthe manufacture of pressed brick. In the eastern part ofthe deposit Arriscraft Corporation of Cambridgescreens fine sands at their licenced property for the pro-ductionof decorative brick. Exposed faces in the depos-it (Pit No. 95) average 4 to 5 m of predominantly sandwith a stone content of 5 to 10 percent. Gravelly sandsare recorded at depth fromwater well records andmightwarrant more detailed investigation.

In the late 1980s, construction of an automotiveplant on the western two-thirds of the deposit eliminatedmuch of the resource area (Regional Municipality ofWaterloo 1985). In addition, estate residential develop-ment has constrained a portion of the area.

The total area of this Selected Sand and Gravel Re-source Area 26 is 257 ha. When cultural constraints andpreviously extracted portions are considered, approxi-mately 147 ha remain. Assuming an average depositdepth of 5m possible resources are calculated as 13mil-lion tonnes (Table 3).


This newly identified Selected Sand and GravelResource Area, consisting of approximately 186 ha,straddles the GrandRiver and the boundaries of the Cityof Cambridge and Township of North Dumfries at theconfluence of the Grand and Speed rivers. The area waspreviously selected at the tertiary level and ismapped asconsisting of stream deposits of gravel, sand, silt andclay (Karrow1983, 1987). Recent testing,Geoconcepts(1991), indicates that the alluvial deposits in this areacontain approximately 10 million tonnes of sand andgravel. Thickness of the deposit is estimated at approxi-mately 5 m, and gravel content is thought to exceed 60percent. After reductions for cultural setbacks, 114 haof land may be potentially available for extraction(Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 28, anoutwash terrace (at the western boundary of the City ofCambridge), is one of the largest and best-quality de-posits in the Township ofNorthDumfries. Although theland surface is relatively flat, the presence of kettles,kettle lakes and other ice-contact features indicate thatthe sedimentswere deposited near amelting icemargin.Such deposits are characterized by considerable textur-al variations.

In general, the deposit consists of 8 to 9 m of poor-ly- to moderately-well sorted gravels with 33 percentgravel content (Bryant and McLellan 1974; PlanningInitiatives 1990a). This material overlies considerablyfiner-grained material that has little potential for crush-ing. Reports prepared by Geoconcepts Ltd. (1991) forlicencing of Pit No. 121 indicated an average materialthicknessof 6 m. A similar report done for Pit No. 119(Planning Initiatives Ltd. 1993b), indicates approxi-mately 7m ofmaterial containing up to 55 percent grav-el. One borehole in the same area indicated an addition-al 9 m of sand below the gravel.

According to quality data obtained from MTO, afull range of crushed products, including concrete ag-gregate, may be produced from the coarse aggregate(Deike 1978b). Several licenced sources are approvedfor the supply of Portland cement concrete coarse andfine aggregates byMTO. Some selection and sand con-trol may be required in sandy areas and additionally,some oversized material exists. In some areas, calcitecementation of the gravel occurs at depths of 5 to 6 mand may pose extraction problems (Bryant and McLel-lan 1974). There are currently 12 licenced properties inthe deposit and MTO rating criteria place them in the“moderate to high” category of potential use.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 28 is verywell situated for extractive development. It is close tothe Cambridge and Kitchener--Waterloomarkets. Roadaccess to the area is excellent, particularly via Highway

ARIP 161

20

401. The potential for rail haulage also exists along theCanadian Pacific Railway, which runs through thesouthern portion of the deposit.

Recent aggregate testing and licencing (Pit No.130) in and adjacent to the southern portion of this re-source area indicates that the adjoining areas previouslyclassified asWentworthTill in fact include considerablegravel resources (Planning Initiatives Ltd. 1992a,1993c). Accordingly, the resource area of primary sig-nificance has been extended to include those areas im-mediately adjacent to the southwestern municipalboundary of the City ofCambridge (Planning Initiatives1992a). Testing done in support of a licence applicationin this area (Test Hole No. ND--TH--3, Table 7) indi-cated thicknesses of material between 7 and 10 m withthe gravel content ranging from 60 to 70 percent.

Resource area 28 occupies a total of 1379 ha, in-cluding 491 ha that are currently licenced. The popula-tion density is low andmost of the land has been clearedfor agriculture. The area possibly available for extrac-tion is calculated to be 759 ha. Assuming an average de-posit thickness of 6 m, estimated possible resources ofsand and gravel are estimated to be 80.6 million tonnes(Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 29 is lo-cated in the extreme western part of North DumfriesTownship. It consists of an outwash terrace that is char-acterized by irregular topography with many stagnant-ice landforms. The terrace may also be till covered insome areas (Bryant and McLellan 1974).

Presently, 2 licenced pits (Pit Nos. 133 and 134) re-main in the high relief area at the southern end of the de-posit. Pit faces expose 6 to 15 m of moderately sortedgravel-rich material. Excess fines in the deposit maylimit use for some aggregate products.

In other parts of the deposit, data is available for anumber of formerly active pits. MTO test holes (PitNos. 148 and 149) indicate 3 to 5m ofmainly sandyma-terial with gravel content ranging from 20 to 50 percent.In the southern part of the deposit, pits tested by MTO(Pit Nos. 156, 157 and 158) show 4 to 6 m of aggregate,having from 25 to 75 percent gravel.

Resource area 29 consists of 1584 ha, including li-cenced areas. There are relatively few constraints onextraction in the eastern part of the deposit, however,roads, railways and residential development pose sig-nificant constraints in the west. The area possibly avail-able for extraction is calculated to be 1180 ha. Assum-ing an average deposit thickness of 9 m, possible sandand gravel resources are estimated to be 188 milliontonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 30 is aburied gravel outwash deposit located north of resourcearea 29 in the western part ofNorthDumfriesTownship.Currently 2 pits are licenced for extraction in the deposit(Pit Nos. 123 and 124). Pit faces range in height from 5to 10 m and expose materials with a 50 to 75 percentgravel content. Data obtained fromMTO indicates thatsand control is required in portions of the deposit for theproduction ofGranular A. MTOdata (Pit No. 151) indi-cates 4.5m of gravelly sand with gravel content rangingbetween 10 to 40 percent. The sand gradings vary, fromcoarse to excess fines making blending a requirementfor hot-laid asphalt paving products. An additionalquality constraint is provided by the presence of someoversize clasts.

Resource area 30 occupies 120 ha. Culturalconstraints are minimal and there has been little pre-vious extraction from the area. The area potentiallyavailable for extraction is calculated to be 79 ha. As-suming an average deposit thickness of 7 m, total pos-sible resources are estimated to be 9.8 million tonnes(Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 31 con-sists of an outwash terrace. It is located to the south ofSelected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 28 along Re-gional Road 97. The deposit is characterized by irregu-lar topography.

Six licenced pits (Pit Nos. 125, 131, 132, 135, 136and 137) have been opened in or adjacent to the area(Planning Initiatives Ltd. 1993a, 1993d). At the time ofwriting 3 additional applicationswere in progress (Plan-ning Initiatives Ltd. 1993e). Face heights in the pitsvary from 2 to 15 m and expose moderately sorted andstratified sand and sandy gravel. The distribution ofcrushable gravel is variable, however, field investiga-tion indicates the percentage may reach 40 to 50 per-cent. As in resource area 30, the gravel in resource area31 overlies considerably sandier material.

A recently opened pit (Pit No. 132) that extends be-yond the outwash material into the adjoining ice-con-tact gravel area includes gravel content of up to 75 per-cent (Planning Initiatives Ltd. 1993e). During site test-ing boreholes were extended to depths of up to 19 m.Boreholes completed along the southwestern edge ofthis deposit, in the area of Pit Nos. 135, 136 and 137 in-dicate sand from 7 to 23 m in thickness with localizedgravel (M.M. Dillon 1991) (Table 7).

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 31 is oneof the largest resource areas in the township consistingof about 1360 ha. Cultural constraints and licencedareas reduce the areapossibly available for extraction toapproximately 1142 ha. Assuming an average deposit


21

thickness of 10m, possible resources are estimated to be202 million tonnes (Table 3).


This resource area of primary significance consistsof 2 areas situated east and west of Cedar Creek. Lo-cated within the area, south of Regional Road 97, is apreviously active pit (Pit No. 147). Pit faces are up to 8m in height show approximately 50 percent gravel. Onthe same property, test pits (Cameron Engineering1992) showed sand and gravel thicknesses up to 8 m and60 to 80 percent gravel content. This testing indicatesthat the till occurs as a thin layer over a granular ice-con-tact deposit. The same relationship is evident in the east-ern portion of resource area 32 as illustrated by testingcompleted for another licence application (ND--TH--3,Table 7). Some 15 test pits dug on the property at Lots15 and 16, Concession 10 showed sand and gravel to adepth of at least 6 m that locally was covered by surfaceoverburden of reddish brown clay till.

The 2 portions of resource area 32 total 299 ha,withabout 10 ha currently licenced. With culturalconstraints, the area potentially available for extractionis approximately 238 ha. Assuming an average thick-ness of 7 m, total possible resources are estimated to be29.5 million tonnes (Table 3).


This narrow area of approximately 230 ha situatedalong Cedar Creek is shown on the Quaternary geologymap of the Cambridge area (Karrow 1983, 1987) as be-ing glaciolacustrine and outwash sand. Testing for a re-cent licence application in the resource area indicatesthe presence of deeper sand andgravel outwashdepositsalong the watercourse. Due to cultural and physio-graphic limitations, however, the total area potentiallyavailable for extraction is limited to approximately 100ha. Assuming an average thickness of material of 5 m,the possible resource is about 8.9 million tonnes (Table3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 34 is anextensive, irregularly shaped outwash deposit, that liesalong the west bank of the Grand River, south of High-way 24, in the south-central portion of North DumfriesTownship. The topography of the area is rolling to hum-mocky and marked by numerous local depressions orkettles. Marsh deposits now fill the depressions. Asmall esker is also located in the central portion of thedeposit. There is significant textural variation in the de-posit and coarse aggregate is not continuous.

Three pits are currently licenced for extraction (PitNos. 140, 141 and 143). Face heights in the pits rangefrom 3 to 9 m and expose variable, often coarse aggre-gate (35 to 50 percent) suitable for road-base and sub-base aggregate and for hot-laid asphalt paving sand andstone. The sand fraction grades coarse and contains ex-cess fines. Coarse aggregate is located in pockets andlenses and some selection is required for crushing.

Resource area 34 consists of 1572 ha, exclusive oflicenced areas. The area is sparsely populated and thereare relatively fewphysical constraints. Previous extrac-tive activity has been minimal. The area potentiallyavailable for extraction is thus calculated to be 1084 ha.Assuming an average deposit thickness of 6 m, possiblesand and gravel resources are estimated to be 115 mil-lion tonnes (Table 3).


Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 35 is asandy outwash deposit located immediately east of theGrand River in North Dumfries Township. Two li-cenced pits (Pit Nos. 138 and 139) cover much of thearea and extend into a gravel outwash deposit to thewest. Face heights average 9 m. Previous testing doneas part of a licence expansion (Schugg 1991) indicatesthe depth of aggregate material is 18 to 20 m, with goodGranular A and B material. Material exposed in thegravel deposit has a 55 to 75 percent stone content. Al-though data for resource area 35 is scarce, field inves-tigation indicated that parts of this deposit may containa higher percentage of sand. The material is acceptablefor a number of Granular A and hot-laid asphaltic prod-ucts.

Area 35 occupies 327 ha, exclusive of the licencedarea 180 ha. Cultural constraints are minimal althoughafter consideration reduce the area available for extrac-tion to 116 ha. Assuming an average deposit thicknessof 9 m, total resources are approximately 18.5 milliontonnes (Table 3).


This outwash deposit, located southeast of Ayr, hasbeen tested by both MTO and Planning Initiatives Ltd.(Planning Initiatives Ltd., 1994). On-site testing (ND--TH--9, Table 7) near Pit No. 142 indicates a gravel con-tent of 60 to 80 percent, high percentagesof coarse grav-el and an estimated reserve on the area licenced ofapproximately 2 million tonnes. Adjacent lands pre-viously tested by MTO indicate at least 750 000 tonnesof crushable material. Water well records near the siteshow gravel to a depth of approximately 12 m. MTOtesting on the property indicates a gravel content of 45to 80 percent. The quality of the gravel is suitable forGranular A and B, hot-laid asphalt paving coarse andfine aggregates.

The total area designated as a resource area of pri-mary significance is 204 ha, however, cultural

ARIP 161

22

constraints reduce the potentially available area to 162ha. Assuming an average depth of 6 m, this resourcearea may contain possible resources of up to 17.0 mil-lion tonnes (Table 3).

RESOURCE AREAS OFSECONDARY SIGNIFICANCE

Several deposits located in the Regional Munici-pality ofWaterloo have been selected as sand andgravelresource areas of secondary significance. These depos-its contain materials similar to those selected at the pri-mary level, however, aggregate quality is more variedand the quantity of available material is limited. Also,the possibility of finding fine-grained material withinthese deposits is greater. Nevertheless, protective mea-sures should be considered for these resource areassince they provide alternate extraction sites.

Five areas have been designated as secondary re-source areas in Wellesley Township. These areas maypresent operational difficulties due to topography, de-posit geometry or deposit quality. Two small deposits inthe northeastern corner ofWellesley Township, north ofHawkesville, have been selected as deposits of secon-dary importance. Licenced Pit Nos. 1 and 2 have beendeveloped in the northernmost deposit.

A kame deposit located in central Wellesley Town-ship has also been selected at the secondary level. Facesin a licenced operation (Pit No. 6) expose predominant-ly sandmaterial. Little crushable material appears to bepresent.

Two other kame deposits are situated adjacent toSelected Sand and Gravel Resource Area 2 and are feltto be similar in character to that resource area. Extrac-tion from these 2 secondary areas may be limited by to-pography and size.

In Woolwich Township several deposits have beenselected at the secondary level of significance. Extrac-tion in these deposits may be hindered by operationaldifficulties imposedby topography, deposit geometry orquality.

Two esker segments have been selected in the northpart ofWoolwichTownship. These deposits form an ex-tension of the esker system identified as a resource areaof primary significance in Peel Township. Granularbase course aggregate has been produced from an unli-cenced pit, although an existing 8 m exposure showsonly sand and silty material.

Two small outwash deposits located at the north-eastern boundary of the township are extensions of alarger secondary resource area in Pilkington Township.Although the deposits contain excess silt and clay (Bry-ant and McLellan 1974), they are capable of producinglow-specification aggregate such as Granular B Type I.

Extraction has occurred at 2 licenced properties(Pit Nos. 15 and 16) in an ice-contact ridge situatednorthwest of Elmira. A gravel core is no longer visible

and the remaining 5 to 8m pit faces expose mostly sand.These pits have a low to moderate use rating. Withselection, this deposit may be capable of supplyingGranular B aggregate.

Two pits (Pit Nos. 24 and 46) have been opened inan ice-contact deposit located west of St. Jacobs. Thedeposit is very sandy with gravel seams and in mostareas lacks sufficient crushable material to produceGranular A. In places, the sand is too fine for asphalticsand mixes. Testing completed by the MTO indicatesthat this area could be a suitable source for Granular Baggregate.

Portions of the Guelph esker in the eastern part ofWoolwich Township have been utilized in the past forlocal needs. The sharply defined ridges have exposedfaces varying from 1.5 to 6 m. As with adjacent eskersegments (e.g. Selected Sand andGravel ResourceArea11), high quality crushable aggregates may be availablefrom gravel cores but flanking sands tend to be fine.

In Wilmot Township 4 deposits have been selectedfor possible resource protection at the secondary level.A number of these deposits are strategically located toprovide locally needed road sub-base aggregate.

A major part of a small gravel deposit northwest ofPetersburg is under licence (Pit No. 53). WhileMTOre-cords indicate this deposit consistsmainly of silty sand anearby unlicenced pit shows a moderately good contentof crushable gravel content at depth although somelocalized cementation is evident.

A thin kame ridge near Josephsburghas been exten-sively extracted butmay contain additional quantities ofmaterial for local use (Pit No. 67). The Baden Hillssouth of Baden are primarily a possible sand source. Alicenced property (Pit No. 57) is located on the southside of the hills. MTO records indicate that materialfrom the pit showed a highly variable sand and gravelcontent, some of which was too fine for granular baseand asphalt paving sand uses, but in other parts the grav-el content was acceptable for some uses.

Amoderately thin outwash deposit located south ofHaysville has yielded material with a good crushablegravel content but the presence of chert reduces its suit-ability for asphalt paving and concrete uses. AccordingtoMTO records parts of licenced Pit No. 64 contains ex-cess fines for some uses. Nevertheless, this deposit pro-vides a useful source of granular base products for localneeds.

In the Kitchener--Waterloo--Cambridge area, sev-eral resource areas of secondary significance have beenidentified. These areas are classified as secondary rath-er than primary due to the fact that either they are near-ing depletion or there are objectionable quantities ofmaterial that affect quality.

A terraced outwash deposit located near Breslaualong Victoria Street--Highway 7 has been a source ofaggregate for the City of Kitchener for many years(Planning InitiativesLtd. 1981). Industrial subdivisionshave gradually replaced extractive operations through-


23

out much of the area. Based on testing of the propertyapproximately 500 000 tonnes of material remains(Planning Initiatives Ltd. 1992b).

A small part of a terraced outwash deposit locatedon the west side of the Grand River south of Highway401 has been selected at the secondary level. Much ofthis deposit has either been extracted or made unavail-able because of urbanization. Pit faces exposed 5 to 6mof uniform, evenly beddedmaterial that was suitable fora variety of granular base and asphalt paving products.Pit No. 111 reveals some good crushable gravel al-though, sand may require blending for hot-laid asphaltpaving use.

Immediately southeast of Resource Area 24, whichcontains the Mannheim Recharge Area, is another areaidentified as being of secondary significance. Reportsprepared for a licence in this area (Planning InitiativesLtd. 1990b) (Pit No. 93) indicate seams of sand andgravel up to 4 to 5 m thick that is suitable for Granular Bmaterials.

Three esker segments located in the north part ofthe City of Cambridge are well situated to supplycrushed aggregate for local use. The resource area liesnorthwest of the community of Hespeler and is believedto contain about 3 to 6 m of material that is suitable forcrushing. ConstructionofHighway8 and a regionalwa-ter tower have constrained the esker along Highway 8(Planning Initiatives Ltd. 1983). As a result of thesevarious constraints, accessibility to the remaining re-sources results in these areas being designated as secon-dary significance.

Part of a large terraced outwash deposit situatedwest of Highway 8 in the Pioneer Tower area contains apotential resource, however, much of it has been steri-lized by development. To determine aggregate qualityand thickness of the spillway terraces in this area, twoholeswere drilled 1981 (KI--TH--2 and KI--TH--3, Table7). Test Hole KI--TH--2, located in the uppermost ter-race, returned 3 m of gravelly sand. A second test hole(KI--TH--3) drilled in a middle terrace showed 9 m ofsandy cobble-sized gravel. Subsequent testing of a low-er terrace by the MTO confirmed the presence of highquality aggregate. The coarse aggregate fractionproved suitable for Granular A and B, hot-laid asphaltpaving mixes, structural concrete stone and concretepaving stone base. The thickness of the lower terrace isvariable and high water table conditions exist near theriver.

A small terraced outwash deposit located on thewest side of theGrandRiver has beennearly depleted byextraction over the last number of years. Testing in1989 byMTO indicated that approximately 300 000 t ofmaterial remained in this deposit.

Testing completed in the extreme northeast part ofthe Cambridge municipal boundary (Planning Initia-tives Ltd. andGeoconcepts Ltd. 1989) indicated that thearea is mainly sand with only a trace of gravel. Themaximum deposit thickness is 4 m.

In the central part of North Dumfries Township be-tween resource areas 31 and 34 lies a large area shownonQuaternary geological maps asWentworth Till (Kar-row 1987). Field observations in the area (A.G.McLel-lan, personal communication, 1995) indicate that thearea is in fact a complex area of eskers, ice-contact, andoutwash sands and gravels occasionally containingoversized boulders. It has therefore been upgraded to adeposit of secondary significance.

An outwash deposit located along the east bank ofthe Grand River has also been selected at the secondarylevel. This deposit has seen considerable extractive ac-tivity in the past and presently supports 2 licenced pits(Pit Nos. 144 and 145). Faces in the pits are 3 to 9 m inheight and exposemoderately sorted and stratified grav-el and sand. Crushed aggregate, including Granular A,have been produced from all of the pits. The aggregateis also acceptable for hot-laid asphalt paving sand andstone. Parts of this outwash deposit are built over andmuchof the aggregate is nowunavailable for extraction.Portions of the deposit are still available and protectionmeasures should be considered.

BEDROCK GEOLOGYThe Paleozoic rocks underlying the glacial drift of

the Regional Municipality of Waterloo were depositedin the eastern part of theMichiganBasin. In this area therocks are of Silurian and Devonian age. They consistmainly of limestones, dolostones, shales with somegypsum, anhydrite, salt and chert, as summarized inChart C. The rock formations, are, with one exception,conformable and dip gently to the southwest.

The region is underlain by a series of formationsranging from the youngest, Bois Blanc Formation ofLower Devonian age, to subsequently older formations,including the Upper Silurian Bass Islands and Salinaformations and the Middle Silurian Guelph Formationto the east (Johnson et al. 1992). The olderMiddle Silu-rianAmabel Formation underlies the GuelphFormationat depth and could be exposed by first removing theGuelph Formation throughquarrying. The areal dis-tribution of the bedrock formations, are shown on Map2.

The bedrock subsurface is relatively flat, with anaverage relief of about 30 m (Karrow 1976a, 1976b;Karrow et al. 1979; Miller et al. 1979). In places it isincised by pre-glacial valleys that are filled with glacialdrift. The bedrock surface inNorth Dumfries Townshipis flat to gently rolling and its elevation varies frommore than 274 m above sea level near Orrs Lake to 193m above sea level north of Ayr (Karrow 1963). Thenorth side of a large pre-glacial valley (now buried un-der 60 m of drift) passes southeastward through thesouthern portion of the township near Ayr. Karrow(1963) has shown it as a tributary of the buried DundasValley. These valleys were eroded by a large preglacialriver. Except for exposures in the southeastern part ofNorth Dumfries Township and in the valleys of the

ARIP 161

24

Speed and Grand rivers in the City of Cambridge thereare no bedrock outcrops in the region.

In general, the overburden is thickest in the westernand northern parts of the region. In the townships ofWellesley and Wilmot, the drift thickness ranges from30 to 90 m. In Woolwich Township the drift thicknessis, on average, greater than 30 m, but can be as much as82m. In general, overburden thins toward the southeastin the region and is especially thin in river valleys andthe eastern part of North Dumfries Township. In otherparts of NorthDumfries Township, the drift ranges from15 to 46 m.

The bedrock formations are described as followsfrom the youngest to the oldest.

The Bois Blanc Formation consists of a brownishgrey, thin- to medium-bedded, fine- to medium-grainedcherty limestone, that is locally very fossiliferous (Tel-ford and Tarrant 1975). It has been quarried for crushedstone products at several locations in the Niagara Penin-sula and is suitable for Granular A, B Type II and M.The high chert content that characterizes the BoisBlancFormation makes the crushed rock unsuitable for hot-mix asphalt paving and Portland cement concretecoarse and fine aggregates (Hewitt 1960). The forma-tion occurs in the southwest corner ofWellesley and thenorthwest corner of Wilmot townships. The high chert/cherty carbonate content of gravels in these areas werederived from this formation. Due to its poor quality andthick overburden cover over the Bois Blanc Formationno part of this formation is recommended for resourceprotection.

The Bass Islands Formation occurs in a 3 km wideband through the southwestern part ofWellesley and thenorthwestern part ofWilmot townships. It consists of upto 28m of brownmicrocrystalline dolostone (Johnson etal. 1992). A major break in deposition (disconformity)occurs between the Bois Blanc and Bass Islands forma-tions. This has resulted in the development of brecciasin the Bass Islands and equivalent rock units.

The formation is extensively quarried on theNiaga-ra Peninsula and is likely to be acceptable for the pro-duction of crushed aggregate for Granular A, B Type II,M, hot-mix paving and Portland cement concrete coarseand fine aggregates (Hewitt 1960, 1972). Due to thethick cover of overburden in the region, however, nopart of this formation has been selected for resourceprotection.

The Salina Formation consists of about 100 m (Tel-ford 1979) of soft, grey to tan shale and dolostone withevaporitic deposits of salt, anhydrite and gypsum (He-witt 1972). At several places in Ontario, the salt, anhy-drite and gypsum are mined as industrial mineral re-sources (Hewitt 1960).Gypsum ismined atHagersville,Caledonia and Drumbo. Salt is mined at Windsor andGoderich. The formation is not suitable for roadconstruction aggregate. The formation underlies thecentral and eastern parts ofWellesley andWilmot town-

ships, thewestern part ofWoolwich andNorthDumfriestownships, and the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo.Due to the thick cover of overburden and poor aggregatequality, no areasof this formation have been selected forresource protection.

The Guelph Formation underlies the eastern part ofWoolwich Township, the cities of Kitchener andWater-loo, the central and eastern part of North DumfriesTownship and the whole of the City of Cambridge. Theformation in this area has amaximum thickness of 40m(Caley 1941; Telford 1976, 1979). At outcrops alongthe SpeedRiver inGuelph andCambridge and along theGrand River in Cambridge, the dolostone is usuallythick-bedded, light brown and fine- to medium-crystal-line (Telford 1976). A reefal facies may also be present.Some beds contain abundant fossils that weather irregu-larly.

In general the formation is soft and not resistant toweathering, rendering the rock unacceptable for highquality road building and construction aggregates.However, at selected locations it can produce GranularA, B Type II and M and in some inter-reefal parts of theformation the rock can be more sound and can producehigher quality rock suitable for hot-mix paving coarseand fine aggregates. The dolostone is generally of highchemical purity and well suited as a rawmaterial for theproduction of lime. The Guelph Formation has beenquarried at several locations above the Speed River atGlenchristie and Guelph for the manufacture of dolo-mitic lime used in the production of quicklime and highquality white hydrated lime (Hewitt 1960). Areas ofGuelph Formation dolostone have been selected for re-source protection in the City of Cambridge and the east-ern part of North Dumfries Township. In the Townshipof Woolwich and the central and western part of NorthDumfries Township, the overburden exceeds 15 m,therefore extraction is not economical. In the cities ofKitchener and Waterloo, the only potential resourcearea is unavailable for extraction because of urban de-velopment.

The Amabel Formation occurs under the GuelphFormation, however it has the potential to be exposed inquarries that choose to remove the Guelph Formationand extract below it. The formation has been separatedinto 2 units on the basis of textural differences. The up-per level is named the EramosaMember and consists ofvery thin- to medium-bedded, fine-crystalline, brown-ish grey to greyish black, bituminous dolostone withsome minor sandy layers (Telford 1976, 1979). The re-mainder of the Amabel Formation consists of white,mi-crocrystalline to fine-crystalline, fossiliferous dolo-stone. The formation is approximately 30 to 35 m thick(Telford 1979); it is well suited for the production ofhigh quality construction and road aggregates such ashot-mix paving and Portland cement coarse and fine ag-gregates. The formation is a resource of provincial sig-nificance for these uses.


25

ChartC--Bedrock

ResourcesSummary

REGIONALMUNICIPALITYOFWATERLOO

FORMATION

ROCKTYPE

APPROXIM

ATE

SUITABILITY

OTHER

OCCURRENCE

NOTES

THICKNESS

(m)

AGGREGATE

USE

S

BoisBlanc

Limestone,cherty,

brow

nishgrey,lo-

cally

fossiliferous

3--50

Yes(Granularbaseand

subbaseonly)

--Southw

estpartofW

ellesley

and

northw

estcornerofW

ilmottown-

shipsunderthick

overburden

Highchertcontentmakesthisformationunac-

ceptableforhot-mixpaving

andconcrete.

Chertfrom

thisformationisfoundingravelin

varied

amounts

BassIslands

Dolostone,

brow

n

microcrystalline

40Yes

--Southw

estpartofW

ellesleyandnorth-

westcornerofWilm

ottownships

un-

derthick

overburden

Goodquality

dolostone,used

forhigh

quality

aggregateson

NiagaraPeninsula.

Salina

Shaleanddolostone

with

layersof

gyp-

sum,anhydrite

and

salt

100

No

Gypsum,an-

hydrite

and

salt

MostofWellesley

andWilm

ottown-

ships,westernpartofWoolwichTown-

ship,citiesofKitchenerandWaterloo

andTownshipofNorthDum

friesun-

derthick

overburden.

Gypsummined

atHagersville,Caledoniaand

Drumbo;saltism

inedatWindsorandGoderich.

Guelph

Dolostone,fossilif-

erous,light

brow

n,

medium-to

mas-

sive-bedded

40No,inmostareas;yesin

afewareas(bestininter-

refalareas)

Chemical

andmetal-

lurgical

stone

Eastern

partof

WoolwichTownship

andcitiesofKitchenerandWaterloo.

MostofN

orthDum

friesTownshipand

alloftheCity

ofCam

bridge.O

utcrops

alongtheGrand

River.

Generallyhashigh

chem

icalpurityandlocally

isverypure.Isusedaschem

icalandmetallurgi-

calstone.Generallypooraggregatebetterinin-

terreefalareas.

ARIP 161

26

Selected Bedrock ResourceAreas

Selected Bedrock Resource Areas consist of thoseareas in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, wheretheGuelph Formation is overlain by less than 8m of gla-cial sediment. The 3 selected bedrock resource areas inthe region cover a total of 1130 ha with 919 ha uncon-strained by cultural restrictions. At present there are nolicenced quarries in the region. Assuming an averageworkable thickness of 18 m, possible bedrock resourcesare estimated to beapproximately 439 million tonnes(Table 6).

Due to the thick cover of overburden and generallypoor quality of the bedrock underlying Wellesley,Woolwich and Wilmot townships, and in the cities ofKitchener and Waterloo no areas of bedrock have beenselected for possible resource protection. One area hasbeen selected in the City of Cambridge and 2 in theTownship of North Dumfries for possible bedrock re-source protection. All of these selected areas are under-lain by the Guelph Formation.

Selected Bedrock ResourceArea 1

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 1 consists of 210ha situated in the northeast part of the City of Cam-bridge just south of Glenchristie. Outcrops of theGuelph Formation are exposed at a railway cut andalong the Speed River. This resource area lies adjacentto the GuelphDolime Limited, Glenchristie Quarry thatfor many years produced dolomitic lime, hydrated limeand limestone (Hewitt 1960). The lower 22 to 23 m ofthe total 30 m section contains reefal structures com-posedofmassive, vuggy, grey andblue-grey, very finelycrystalline dolostone. The upper part of the quarry sec-tion containsuniformly thick-bedded, light brown, fine-to medium-crystalline dolostone with alternating bandsof even-textured sucrosic dolostone and vuggy, coral-line or coquinoid dolostone (Telford 1979). In additionto chemical lime, construction aggregates have beenproduced at this site.

The area currently available for extraction isapproximately 125 ha after allowing for cultural set-backs. Assuming a workable thickness of 18 m, pos-sible resources are estimated to be approximately 60million tonnes (Table 6).


Selected Bedrock Resource Area 2, situated in theeastern part of North Dumfries Township, consists of760 ha of outcrop and thinly drift-covered bedrock oftheGuelphFormation. Cultural constraints areminimaland there hasbeen noprevious extraction from this area.After considering cultural constraints the area currentlyavailable for extraction is 659 ha. Assuming aworkable

thickness of 18m, possible resources are estimated to be314 million tonnes (Table 6).


Selected Bedrock Resource Area 3 is situated eastof Branchton in the southeastern corner of North Dum-fries Township. The area covers 160 ha. In general thebedrock is buried by a thin layer of drift, however, occa-sional outcrops of the Guelph Formation do occur.There has been no extractive activity from this area andcultural constraints are minimal. The area currentlyavailable for extraction is calculated to be 135 ha. As-suming a workable thickness of 18 m, possible re-sources are estimated to be 65 million tonnes (Table 6).

SUMMARYThe Regional Municipality of Waterloo continues

to act as an important sand and gravel producing region.Significant resource areas in the region include thesouthern portions ofWoolwich Township, along theGrand River in Kitchener--Waterloo--Cambridge andthe northern part of North Dumfries Township. Extrac-tive activity and resource potential investigations havebeen considerable in these areas due to their proximityto the large regional market within Kitchener, WaterlooandCambridge, and because of their proximity tomajorhighway routes, especially King’s Highway 401. Asmuch as 35 percent of the overall sand and gravel pro-duction in the Regional Municipality ofWaterloo is be-ing exported to othermarket areas including the GreaterToronto and Hamilton Areas. Exports to these largermarket areas are likely to continue, especially if envi-ronmental and cultural constraints are increased in ag-gregate resource areas such as the Niagara Escarpmentand Oak Ridges Moraine. At the same time, urban andrural residential development, as well as environmentalconstraints, in particular groundwater concerns in theregion are making it more difficult to ensure that theseaggregates are protected for extraction purposes.

Most extractive activity has occurred within thelarge, high quality outwash deposits located along themajor water courses within the municipalities of the re-gion. In the more northerly and westerly parts of the re-gion (i.e., Wellesley, northern Woolwich and the west-ern part ofWilmot townships)moraine and kamedepos-its serve as important local sources.

Because of the generally thick cover of glacial driftacross most of the region, and due to the large supply ofhigh quality sand and gravel resources, there has beenno bedrock quarrying within the Regional Municipalityof Waterloo. Three bedrock resource areas have beenidentified in the region where the drift cover is thinenough that quarrying could be practical. To date, how-ever, no quarrying is being done within the region.

Within the region, resource areas of primary signif-icance cover a total of approximately 9700 ha and con-tain possible sand and gravel resources of 1200 million


27

tonnes (Table 3). Selected bedrock resource areas cover919 ha and contain possible resources of 439 milliontonnes (Table 6). Cultural constraints such as residentialand industrial development have been taken into con-sideration. It should be noted, however, that there aremany other possible restrictionson aggregate extractionsuch as social considerations, transportation difficul-ties, groundwater concerns and environmentally sensi-tive areas that have not been included in this study. Nev-ertheless, the inventory provides an overview of pos-sible resources that should be considered in the context

of regional and provincial need for aggregates.

Enquiries regarding the Aggregate Resources In-ventory of the Regional Municipality of Waterlooshould be directed to the Sedimentary Geoscience Sec-tion, Ontario Geological Survey, Mines and MineralsDivision, Ontario Ministry of Northern DevelopmentandMines, 7th Floor, 933 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury,Ontario, P3E 6B5 {Tel:(705) 670-5758} or to the Cam-bridge Area Office, Ontario Ministry of Natural Re-sources, Cambridge, Ontario, {Tel: (519) 658-9355}.


29

ARIP 161

30


31

ARIP 161

32


33

ARIP 161

34


35

ARIP 161

36


37

ARIP 161

38


39

ARIP 161

40


41

ARIP 161

42


43

ARIP 161

44


45

46

References

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

Bowes, E. 1976. Sedimentology of the glaciofluvial deposits ofWool-wich and Pilkington townships; unpublishedM.A. thesis,WilfridLaurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, 216 p.

Bryant, C.R. and McLellan, A.G. 1974. The aggregate resources ofWaterloo/SouthWellington counties: towards effective planningfor the aggregate industry; Ontario Division ofMines, Open FileReport 5100, 246 p.

Caley, J.F. 1941. Paleozoic geology of the Brantford area, Ontario;Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 226, 176 p.

Cameron Engineering 1992. Geotechnical Investigation of proposedsand and gravel extraction, phase 1 report, Planning InitiativesLtd., 25 p.

Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. 1984. The physiography of southernOntario;Ministry ofNaturalResources, SpecialVolume 2, 270 p.

Deike,W. 1978a. Aggregate evaluation, Kitchener--Waterloo; unpub-lished report, Aggregate Unit, EngineeringMaterials Office,On-tario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, 2 p.

Deike, W. 1978b. Aggregate suitability evaluation, North DumfriesTownship, Regional Municipality of Waterloo; unpublished re-port, Aggregate Unit, Engineering Materials Office; OntarioMinistry of Transportation and Communications 4 p.

Deike, W. 1982. Aggregate suitability evaluation, Township ofWool-wich, Regional Municipality of Waterloo; unpublished report,Aggregate Sources Research, 33 p.

Geoconcepts Ltd. 1991. Evaluation of gravel resources, CruickstonPark Estates, report no. 2, floodplain properties, Township ofNorth Dumfries and City of Cambridge, Regional Municipalityof Waterloo, unpublished report.

Hewitt, D.F. 1960. The limestone industries of Ontario; Ontario De-partment of Mines, Industrial Mineral Circular 5, 177 p.

Hewitt, D.F. 1972. Paleozoic geology of southern Ontario; Ontario Di-vision of Mines, Geological Report 105, 18 p. accompanied byMap 2254, scale 1:1 013 760.

Ingham, K. W. and Dunikowska-Koniuszy, Z. 1965. The distribution,character and basic properties of cherts in southwestern Ontario;Ont. Department of Highways, Rep.RB106, 35 p.

Johnson,M.D., Armstrong, D.K., Sanford, B.V., Telford, P.G. and Rut-ka, M.A. 1992. Paleozoic and Mesozoic geology of Ontario; inGeology of Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume4, p. 907-1008.

Karrow, P.F. 1963. Pleistocene geology of the Hamilton--Galt area,southern Ontario; Ontario Department ofMines, Geological Re-port 16, 68 p., accompanied by Maps 2029, 2030, 2033, and2034, scale 1:63 360.

_______1974. Till stratigraphy in parts of southwestern Ontario; Geo-logical Society of American Bulletin, v.85, p. 761-768.

_______ 1976a. Bedrock topography of the Conestogo area, southernOntario; Ontario Division of Mines, Preliminary Map P.167 (re-vised), Bedrock Topography Series, scale 1:50 000.

_______ 1976b. Bedrock topography of the Stratford area, southernOntario; Ontario Division of Mines, Preliminary Map P.168 (re-vised), Bedrock Topography Series, scale 1:50 000.

_______ 1983. Quaternary geology of the Hamilton--Cambridge area,southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report5429, 147 p. accompanied by Map P.2604, scale 1:50 000.

_______ 1987. Quaternary geology of the Cambridge area, southernOntario; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2508, scale 1:50 000.

Karrow, P.F., Miller, R.F., and Farrell, L. 1979. Guelph area, southernOntario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.2224,Bedrock Topography Series, scale 1:50 000.

Kleinfeldt Group 1992. Planning and environmental report for class Alicence, Township of Woolwich, Harvey M. Brubacher; unpub-lished report, Ministry of Natural Resources, southwest district,Cambridge, Ontario.

Kuehl, G.A. 1975. Sedimentology of the Hawkesville Kame; unpub-lishedB.Sc. thesis,University ofWaterloo,Waterloo, Ontario, 56p.

M.M. Dillon 1991. Planning and environmental report for class A li-cence, conc. 8, part lot 25, 26, 27, Township of North Dumfriesfor Fermar Crushing and Recycling Ltd.; unpublished report,Ministry of Natural Resources, southwest district, Cambridge,Ontario.

MacNaughton, Hermsen, Britton, Clarkson 1990. Planning and envi-ronmental report for classA licence,Gehl Place Pit for Stamm In-vestments; unpublished report, Ministry of Natural Resources,southwest district, Cambridge, Ontario.

Miller, R.F., Farrell, L. and Karrow, P.F. 1979. Bedrock topography ofthe Cambridge area, southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Sur-vey, PreliminaryMap P. 1985, Bedrock Topography Series, scale1:50 000.

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

Ontario Geological Survey 1980. Aggregate Resources Inventory ofTownship of North Dumfries, Regional Municipality of Water-loo, southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey; AggregateResources Inventory Paper 14; 33 p.

Ontario Geological Survey 1981. Aggregate Resources Inventory ofthe Township of Wellesley, Regional Municipality of Waterloo,southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey; Aggregate Re-sources Inventory Paper 49; 30 p.

Ontario Geological Survey 1984. Aggregate Resources Inventory ofthe Township of Wilmot, Regional Municipality of Waterloo,southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey; Aggregate Re-sources Inventory Paper 81; 34 p.

Ontario Geological Survey 1985a. Aggregate Resources Inventory oftheKitchener--Waterloo--CambridgeArea,RegionalMunicipali-ty of Waterloo, southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey,Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 102, 35 p.

Ontario Geological Survey 1985b. Aggregate Resources Inventory ofthe Township of Woolwich, Regional Municipality of Waterloo,southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Aggregate Re-sources Inventory Paper 103, 32 p.

Ontario Ministry ofMunicipal Affairs 1992. Ontario Municipal Direc-tory 1992; Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Queen’s Print-er for Ontario, 120 p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1995. Mineral aggregates inOntario,Overview and statistical update;Ministry of NaturalRe-sources, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, 44 p.

Peto MacCallum Ltd. 1981. Gravel investigation Bleams road andGehl Place, Kitchener,Ontario; forDimension Investments Lim-ited; Ref. No. 79F 307A, July 1981; Ministry of Natural Re-sources, southwest district, Cambridge, Ontario, 11 p; unpub-lished report

Planning Initiatives Ltd. 1980. Summary report, inventory of aggre-gate resources in the Hallman/Weaver property (part. lot 8, conc.1, SBR, Wilmot Township)13 p; unpublished report.

_______ 1981. Summary report: inventory of aggregate resources ontheBickle property, part of lot 123, GermanCompany Tract,Cityof Kitchener; 8 p; unpublished report.

_______ 1983. Development potential study for Ontario Land Corpo-ration, City of Kitchener, September 1983; 45 p; unpublished re-port.


47

_______ 1989. Anaggregate resource inventory investigation,Snyderproperty, City of Cambridge; 9 p; unpublished report.

_______ 1990a. Revised 1991. Planning report for a class A licenceunder theAggregate ResourcesAct, 1989,Whistle Bare pit; 22 p;unpublished report.

_______ 1990b.Revised 1992. Planning report forRockwayHoldingsLtd., lots 10-14 and 24-26 and part of lots 9 and 23, registeredplan 585, and part of lot 149 German Company Tract, City ofKitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, proposed Coberpit no. 2; 15 p.; unpublished report.

_______ 1991. Planning report (report for a class “A” licence under theAggregate ResourcesAct, 1989)WarrenCattleland pit; 25 p.;un-published report.

Planning Initiatives Ltd. 1992a. Revised 1993. Planning report (reportfor a class “A” licence under the Aggregate Resources Act,1990), Forwell Gravel Inc., Dance property; 21 p; unpublishedreport.

_______ 1992b. Revised 1994. Planning report (report for a class “A”licence under the Aggregate Resources Act, 1990), Corporationof theCity ofKitchener,Victoria Street pit; 22 p.; unpublished re-port.

_______ 1993a. Aggregate resources of southern Ontario: a state ofthe resources study, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 341p.

_______ 1993b. Planning report (report for a class “A” licence undertheAggregate Resources Act, 1990) Forwell Limited, Brown pit;22 p.; unpublished report.

_______ 1993c. Planning report (report for a class “A” licence underthe Aggregate Resources Act, 1990) Fastrock Ltd., Oliver pit; 23p.; unpublished report.

_______ 1993d. Planning report (report for a class “A” licence underthe Aggregate Resources Act, 1990) Bedrock Resources Inc.,North Dumfries pit; 30 p.; unpublished report.

_______ 1993e. Planning report (report for a class “A” licence underthe Aggregate Resources Act, 1990) Canada Building MaterialsCo. (CBM), regional road 97 pit; 22 p.; unpublished report.

_______ 1994. Planning report for a class A licence under the Aggre-gate Resources Act, 1990, Tom Hall pit; 25 p.; unpublished re-port.

Planning Initiatives Ltd. and Geoconcepts Ltd. 1989. Aggregate re-source inventory, Trunor and Grand River ConservationAuthor-ity properties, City of Kitchener, 29 p.; unpublished report.

Regional Municipality of Waterloo 1985.Toyota -- north Cambridgedevelopment impact report; 94 p.

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

Schugg, G. 1991. Planning and environmental report for class A li-cence, part lot 2 and 3 and lot 8, concession 8, township of NorthDumfries, Waynco Ltd.; unpublished report,Ministry of NaturalResources, southwest district, Cambridge, Ontario.

Telford, P.G. 1976. Paleozoic geology of theGuelpharea, southernOn-tario; Ontario Division of Mines, Map 2342, scale 1:50 000.

_______ 1979. Paleozoic geology of the Cambridge area, southernOntario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.1983,scale 1:50 000.

Telford, P.G. and Tarrant, G.A. 1975. Paleozoic geology of Dunnvillearea, southern Ontario; Ontario Division of Mines, PreliminaryMap P.988, scale 1:50 000.

Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sherriff, R.E. and Keys, D.A. 1980. Ap-plied geophysics; Cambridge University Press, London, En-gland, 860 p.

48

Appendix A -- Suggested Additional Reading

Antevs, E. 1928. The last glaciation, with special reference to the iceretreat in northeastern North America; American Geography So-ciety, Research Series No. 17, 292p.

Banerjee, I. andMcDonald,B.C. 1975. Nature of esker sedimentation;in Glaciofluvial and Glaciolacustrine Sedimentation, Society ofEconomic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Paper No.23, p.132-154.

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

Bates, R.L. and Jackson, J.A. 1987. Glossary of geology, 3rd ed.;American Geological Institute, Alexandria, 788p.

Bauer, A.M. 1970. A guide to site development and rehabilitation ofpits and quarries; Ontario Department of Mines, Industrial Min-eral Report 33, 62p.

Bezys, R.K. and Johnson, M.D. 1988. The geology of the Paleozoicformations utilized by the limestone industry of Ontario; Cana-dian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Bulletin,v.81, no.912, p.49-58.

Burwasser, G.J. 1975. Recommendations for sand and gravel extrac-tive areas,WilmotTownship, southernOntario; OntarioDivisionof Mines, unpublished report, 5p.

Cowan, W.R. 1972. Pleistocene geology of the Brantford area, south-ern Ontario; Ontario Department of Mines and Northern Affairs,Industrial Mineral Report 37, 66p.

Cowan, W.R. 1976. Recommendations for sand and gravel extractiveareas, North Dumfries Township, Regional Municipality of Wa-terloo, Southern Ontario; Ontario Division of Mines, Open FileReport 5207, 4p.

Cowan, W.R. 1977. Toward the inventory of Ontario’s mineral aggre-gates; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Paper 73, 19p.

Deike,W. 1981. Aggregate suitability evaluation,Township ofGuelphincluding the City of Guelph; unpublished report, AggregateSources Research, 28p.

Derry, Michener, Booth and Wahl and Ontario Geological Survey1989a. Limestone industries of Ontario, volume I--geology,properties and economics; Ontario Ministry of Natural Re-sources, Land Management Branch, 158p.

Derry, Michener, Booth and Wahl and Ontario Geological Survey1989b. Limestone industries of Ontario, volume II--limestone in-dustries and resources of eastern and northern Ontario; OntarioMinistry ofNaturalResources, LandManagementBranch, 196p.

Fairbridge, R.W. ed. 1968. The encyclopedia of geomorphology; En-cyclopedia of Earth Sciences, v.3, Reinhold Book Corp., NewYork, 1295p.

Flint,R.F. 1971. Glacial andQuaternarygeology; JohnWiley andSonsInc., New York, 892p.

Guillet, G.R. 1967. The clay products industry of Ontario; Ontario De-partment ofMines, IndustrialMineralReport22, 206p.accompa-nied by maps 2130 and 2131, scale 1:1 013 760.

Guillet, G.R. 1977. Clay and shale deposits of Ontario; Ontario Geo-logical Survey, Mineral Deposits Circular 15, 117p. accompa-nied by Map 2358, scale 1:2 000 000.

Guillet, G.R. 1983. Mineral resources of south-central Ontario;Ontar-io Geological Survey, Open File Report 5431, 155p.

Hewitt,D.F. andKarrow,P.F. 1963. Sand and gravel in southernOntar-io; Ontario Department of Mines, Industrial Mineral Report 11,151p.

Hewitt, D.F. and Vos, M.A. 1970. Urbanization and rehabilitation ofpits and quarries; Ontario Department of Mines, Industrial Min-eral Report 34, 21p.

Karrow, P.F. 1968. Pleistocene geology of the Guelph area; OntarioDepartment of Mines, Geological Report 61, 38p. accompaniedby Map 2153, scale 1:63 360.

Karrow, P.F. 1971. Quaternary geology of the Stratford--Conestogoarea, Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 70-34, 11p.,accompanied byMaps 26-1970, 27-1970, 28-1970 and 29-1970,scale 1:50 000.

Lowe, S.B. 1980. Trees and shrubs for the improvement and rehabilita-tion of pits and quarries in Ontario; Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources, 71p.

McLellan,A.G.,Yundt, S.E. andDorfman,M.L. 1979. Abandonedpitsand quarries in Ontario: A Program for their Rehabilitation; On-tario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Paper 79, 36p.

McLellan, A.G. 1987. The Sequence of Deglaciation & MassiveDrainageDiversions in anArea South ofKitchener,Ontario. TheMonograph. Vol. 38, No. 4. p 22-28.

Michalski,M.F.P., Gregory, D.R. and Usher, A.J. 1987. Rehabilitationof pits and quarries for fish andwildlife; OntarioMinistry ofNat-ural Resources, Land Management Branch, 59 p.

Ontario 1989. Aggregate Resources Act; Statutes of Ontario, 1989,Chapter 23 and Ontario Regulation 702/89, Queen’s Printer forOntario.

Ontario 1992. The Mining Act; Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990,Chapter M.14, Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Mineral Aggregate Working Party 1977. A policy for mineralaggregate resource management in Ontario; Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources, 232 p.

OntarioMinistry ofNaturalResources 1975. Vegetation for the rehabi-litation of pits and quarries; Forest Management Branch, Divi-sion of Forests, 38p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1977. Ontario mineral review1976-1977; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 95p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1980. Statistics 1980; OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources, 122p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1983. Statistics 1983; OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources, 123p.

OntarioMinistry ofNorthern Development andMines 1989. 1988On-tario mineral score; OntarioMinistry of Northern Developmentand Mines, 194p.

Rogers, C.A. 1985. Evaluation of the potential for expansion andcracking due to the alkali-carbonate reaction; in Cement, Con-crete and Aggregates, CCAGDP, v.8, no.1, p.13-23.

Sanford, B.V. 1969. Geology of the Toronto--Windsor area, Ontario;Geological Survey of Canada, Map 1263A, scale 1:250 000.

Sanford, B.V. and Baer, A.J. 1981. Map 1335A -- southern Ontariosheet 30S;Geological Survey ofCanada,Map 1335A; sheet 30S,Geological Atlas, scale 1:1 000 000.

Township ofWoolwich 1980. The official plan for the Woolwich plan-ning area; Township of Woolwich, unpublished report.

Wolf, R.R. 1993. An inventory of inactive quarries in the Paleozoiclimestone and dolostone strata of Ontario; Ontario GeologicalSurvey, Open File Report 5863, 272p.

49

Appendix B -- Glossary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beneficiation: Beneficiation of aggregates is a processor combination of processeswhich improves the quality(physical properties) of a mineral aggregate and is notpart of the normal processing for a particular use, such

as routine crushing, screening, washing, orclassification. Heavy media separation, jigging, orapplication of special crushers (e.g., “cage mill”) areusually considered processes of beneficiation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARIP 161

50

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magnesium Sulphate Soundness Test: This test isdesigned to simulate the action of freezing and thawingon aggregates. Those aggregates which are susceptibleto freezing and thawing will usually break down and


51

give high losses in this test. Values greater than about12 to 15% indicate potential problems for concrete andasphalt coarse aggregate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible Resource: Reserve estimates based largely onbroad knowledge of the geological character of the

deposit and for which there are few, if any, samples ormeasurements. The estimates are based on assumedcontinuity or repetition for which there are reasonablegeological indications, but do not take into accountmany site specific natural and environmentalconstraints that could render the resource unaccessible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

52

Appendix C -- Geology of Sand and Gravel Deposits

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

GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITS

These deposits can be divided into two broad catego-ries: those that were formed in contact with (or in closeproximity to) glacial ice, and those that were depositedby meltwaters carrying materials beyond the ice mar-gin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


53

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

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

GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSITS

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

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

probability of obtaining coarse material is generallylow.

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

GLACIAL DEPOSITS

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

EOLIAN DEPOSITS

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

54

Appendix D -- Geology of Bedrock Deposits

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

Covey Hill Formation (Cambrian)

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

Nepean Formation(Cambro--Ordovician)

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

March Formation (Lower Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHY: lower formation of the Beekman-town Group. COMPOSITION: interbedded quartzsandstone, dolomitic quartz sandstone, sandy dolostoneand dolostone. THICKNESS: 6 to 64 m. USES: quar-ried extensively for aggregate in area of subcrop andoutcrop; alkali-silica reactive in Portland cement con-crete; lower part of formation is an excellent source ofskid-resistant aggregate. Suitable for use as facing stoneand paving stone. AGGREGATE SUITABILITY

TESTING: 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.

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 of


55

LakeSimcoe 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, Ogden Point and Bowman-ville for cement.Maybe suitable or unsuitable for use asconcrete 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: BlueMountain 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-gregate. Carlsbad Formation -- used as a sourcematerialfor 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. The

ARIP 161

56

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

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.


57

Decew Formation (Middle Silurian)

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

Lockport and Amabel Formations(Middle Silurian)

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

Guelph Formation (Middle Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: exposed south andwest of theNiag-ara Escarpment from the Niagara River to the tip of theBruce Peninsula, mostly present in the subsurface ofsouthwestern Ontario. COMPOSITION: fine- to me-dium-crystalline, medium- to thick-bedded, porous do-lostone, characterized in places by extensive vuggy, po-rous reefal facies of high chemical purity. THICK-NESS: 4 to 100m. USES: Some areas appear soft andunsuitable for use in the production of load-bearing ag-gregate. This unit requires additional testing to fully es-tablish its aggregate suitability. Main use is for dolomit-ic lime for cement manufacture. Quarried near Hamil-ton and Guelph.

Salina Formation (Upper Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY: present in the subsurface of south-western Ontario; only rarely exposed at surface. COM-

POSITION: grey and maroon shale, brown dolostoneand, in places, salt, anhydrite and gypsum; consists pre-dominantly of evaporitic rich material with up to eightunits identifiable. THICKNESS: 113 to 330m. USES:Gypsummines at Hagersville, Caledonia, and Drumbo.Salt is mined at Goderich and Windsor and is producedfrom brine wells at Amherstburg, Windsor and Sarnia.

Bertie and Bass Islands Formations(Upper Silurian)

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

Oriskany Formation (Lower Devonian)

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

Bois Blanc Formation (LowerDevonian)

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

ARIP 161

58

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 andaggregate. 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 calcareousshale interbedded with blue-grey, fine-grained fossilif-


59

erous limestone. THICKNESS: 0 to 21m. USES: nopresent uses.

Ipperwash Formation (MiddleDevonian)

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

Kettle Point Formation (UpperDevonian)

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

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

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

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

ARIP 161

60

FigureD1.Bedrock

Geology

ofSouthernOntario


61

FigureD2.Exposed Paleozoic Stratigraphic Sequences in Southern Ontario (adapted from:Bezys,R.K., and Johnson,M.D.1988.The geology ofthe Paleozoic formations utilized by the limestone industry of Ontario; The Can. Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin,v.81, no. 912, p.49-58. )

62

Appendix E -- Aggregate Quality Test Specifications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63

Table E1. Selected quality requirements for major aggregate products.

TYPE OF TEST

COARSE AGGREGATE FINE AGGREGATE

TYPE OF MATERIAL Petro-graphicNumberMaximum

MagnesiumSulphateSoundnessMaxi-mum%Loss

AbsorptionMaximum

%

LosAngelesAbrasionMaximum% 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, Side-walk, Curb, Gutter andBase

140 12 2.0 50 20 16

Pavement Concrete 125 12 2.0 35 20 16

* requirement waived if the material has more than 80% passing the 4.75 mm sieve(1) Hot mix and concrete petrographic number applies(Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications OPSS 304, OPSS 1002, OPSS 1003, OPSS 1010 and OPSS 1149)

64

Metric Conversion Table

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 0–7778–7313–3

Regional Municipality of Waterloo€¦ · E Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1998 ISSN 0708--2061...

Documents

Transcript of Regional Municipality of Waterloo€¦ · E Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1998 ISSN 0708--2061...