ARIP181 - Aggregate Resources Inventory of the City of ... · ISSN 1917-330X [online] ISSN 0708-2061 [print] ISBN 978-1-4435-3278-5 ISBN 978-1-4435-3277-8 [print] THESE TERMS GOVERN

ISSN 1917-330X [online] ISSN 0708-2061 [print] ISBN 978-1-4435-3278-5 [PDF] ISBN 978-1-4435-3277-8 [print]

THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT

Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the

“User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use.

Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry (MNDMF) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDMF does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDMF is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDMF assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDMF. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDMF neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”). Both your use of a linked Web site, and your right to use or reproduce information or materials from a linked Web site, are subject to the terms of use governing that particular Web site. Any comments or inquiries regarding a linked Web site must be directed to its Owner. Copyright: Canadian and international intellectual property laws protect the Content. Unless otherwise indicated, copyright is held by the Queen’s Printer for Ontario. It is recommended that reference to the Content be made in the following form:

Marich, A.S. 2010. Aggregate resources inventory of the City of Hamilton, southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 181, 40p.

Use and Reproduction of Content: The Content may be used and reproduced only in accordance with applicable intellectual property laws. Non-commercial use of unsubstantial excerpts of the Content is permitted provided that appropriate credit is given and Crown copyright is acknowledged. Any substantial reproduction of the Content or any commercial use of all or part of the Content is prohibited without the prior written permission of MNDMF. Substantial reproduction includes the reproduction of any illustration or figure, such as, but not limited to graphs, charts and maps. Commercial use includes commercial distribution of the Content, the reproduction of multiple copies of the Content for any purpose whether or not commercial, use of the Content in commercial publications, and the creation of value-added products using the Content. Contact:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON PLEASE CONTACT: BY TELEPHONE: BY E-MAIL:

The Reproduction of the EIP or Content

MNDMF Publication Services

Local: (705) 670-5691 Toll Free: 1-888-415-9845, ext. 5691

(inside Canada, United States) [email protected]

The Purchase of MNDMF Publications

MNDMF Publication Sales

Local: (705) 670-5691 Toll Free: 1-888-415-9845, ext. 5691


Crown Copyright Queen’s Printer Local: (416) 326-2678 Toll Free: 1-800-668-9938


Aggregate Resources Inventory of the

City of HamiltonSouthern Ontario

Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 181

2010

Aggregate Resources Inventory of the

City of HamiltonSouthern Ontario

Ontario Geological SurveyAggregate Resources InventoryPaper 181

By A.S. Marich

2010

Users of OGS products are encouraged to contact those Aboriginal communities whose traditional

territories may be located in the mineral exploration area to discuss their project.

ii

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2010 ISSN 0708-2061 [print] ISSN 1917-330X [online]ISBN 978-1-4435-3277-8 [print] ISBN 978-1-4435-3278-5 [PDF]

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

For viewing: Purchases may be made only throughJohn B. Gammon Geoscience Library Publication Sales933 Ramsey Lake Road, Level A3 933 Ramsey Lake Road., Level A3Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5 Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5Tel: 705- 670-5614 Tel: 705-670-5691 (local)

Toll-free: 1-888-415-9845 ext. 5691Fax: 705-670-5770E-mail: [email protected]

Purchases may be made using cash, debit card, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, cheque or money order.Cheques or money orders should be made payable to theMinister of Finance.

PRINT

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication DataMarich, Andrea S. (Andrea Selene), 1979-

Aggregate resources inventory of the City of Hamilton, Southern Ontario

(Ontario Geological Survey aggregate resources inventory paper, ISSN 0708-2061 ; 181)Includes bibliographical references.Available also on the Internet.ISBN 978-1-4435-3277-8

1. Aggregates (Building materials)—Ontario—Hamilton. 2. Geology—Ontario—Hamilton—Maps. I. Ontario GeologicalSurvey. II. Title. III. Series: Ontario Geological Survey aggregate resources inventory paper ; 181.

TN939 M37 2010 553.6’20971352 C2010-964023-3

ONLINE

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication DataMarich, Andrea S. (Andrea Selene), 1979-

Aggregate resources inventory of the City of Hamilton, Southern Ontario [electronic resource]

(Ontario Geological Survey aggregate resources inventory paper, ISSN 1917-330X ; 181)Includes bibliographical references.Electronic monograph in PDF format.Issued also in printed form.ISBN 978-1-4435-3278-5

1. Aggregates (Building materials)—Ontario—Hamilton. 2. Geology—Ontario—Hamilton—Maps. I. Ontario GeologicalSurvey. II. Title. III. Series: Ontario Geological Survey aggregate resources inventory paper (Online) ; 181.

TN939 M37 2010 553.6’20971352 C2010-964024-1

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

If you wish to reproduce any of the text, tables or illustrations in this report, please write for permission to the TeamLeader, Publication Services,Ministry of Northern Development,Mines and Forestry, 933 Ramsey Lake Road, Level A3,Sudbury, Ontario P3E 6B5.

Cette publication est disponible en anglais seulement.

Parts of this publication may be quoted if credit is given. It is recommended that reference be made in the followingform:Marich, A.S. 2010. Aggregate resources inventory of the City of Hamilton, southern Ontario; Ontario Geological

Survey, Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 181, 40p.

iii

Contents

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

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

Inventory Methods, Data Presentation and Interpretation 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Field and Office Methods 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Units and Definitions 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Data Presentation and Interpretation 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Map 1: Sand and Gravel Resources 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selection Criteria 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Site Specific Criteria 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Deposit Size and Thickness 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aggregate Quality 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Location and Setting 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Regional Considerations 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sand and Gravel Resource Tonnage Calculations 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Map 2: Bedrock Resources 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Bedrock Resource Areas 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selection Criteria 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bedrock Resource Tonnage Calculations 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Assessment of Aggregate Resources in the City of Hamilton 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Location and Population 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surficial Geology and Physiography 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Previous Work 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sand and Gravel Extractive Activity 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Sand and Gravel Resources Areas 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resource Areas of Secondary Significance 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bedrock Geology 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resources Areas 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 1 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 2 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 3 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected Bedrock Resource Area 4 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A – Suggested Additional Reading and References 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix B – Glossary 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix C – Geology of Sand and Gravel Deposits 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix D – Geology of Bedrock Deposits 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix E – Aggregate Quality Test Specifications 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metric Conversion Table 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

FIGURES1. Map showing the general location of the study area v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Detailed location map for the City of Hamilton 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Physiographic regions of the City of Hamilton 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D1. Bedrock geology of southern Ontario 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D2. Exposed Paleozoic stratigraphic sequences in southern Ontario 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLES*1. Total Sand and Gravel Resources, City of Hamilton 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Sand and Gravel Pits, City of Hamilton 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, City of Hamilton 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Total Identified Bedrock Resources, City of Hamilton 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Quarries, City of Hamilton 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Selected Bedrock Resource Areas, City of Hamilton 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Summary of Borehole or Selected Sample Data, City of Hamilton 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Summary of Geophysical Data, City of Hamilton 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Results of Aggregate Quality Tests, City of Hamilton 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E1. Material Specifications for Aggregates: Base and Subbase Products. Physical Property Requirements forAggregates: Base, Subbase, Select Subgrade and Backfill Material 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E2. Material Specifications for Aggregates: Hot Mix Asphalt Products. Physical Property Requirements forCoarse Aggregate (Surface Course): SMA, Superpavet 9.5, 12.5, 12.5 FC1 and 12.5 FC2 36. . . . . . . . . .

E3. Material Specifications for Aggregates: Hot Mix Asphalt Products. Physical Property Requirements forCoarse Aggregate (Binder Course): Superpavet 9.5, 12.5, 19.0, 25.0 and 37.5 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E4. Material Specifications for Aggregates: Hot Mix Asphalt Products. Physical Property Requirements forFine Aggregate: SMA, Superpavet 9.5, 12.5, 12.5 FC1, 12.5 FC2, 19.0, 25.0 and 37.5 37. . . . . . . . . . . .

E5. Material Specifications for Aggregates: Concrete Products. Physical Property Requirements forCoarse Aggregate 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E6. Material Specifications for Aggregates: Concrete Products. Physical Property Requirements forFine Aggregate 39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MAPS*1. Sand and Gravel Resources, City of Hamilton, Scale 1:50 000 back pocket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Bedrock Resources, City of Hamilton, Scale 1:50 000 back pocket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*Map1 andMap2 accompanying this report are simplified to depict information critical to themajority of users.Enhanced information on the aggregate resources for this area is provided in a compressed (.zip) file available fordownload from GeologyOntario (www.ontario.ca/geology). Additional documents in the .zip file provide furtherdetails on the vector ESRIRArcGISR files forMap1 andMap 2,MicrosoftRExcelR versions of Tables 1 to 9, andother files that enhance this report.

v

Abstract

This report includes an inventory and evaluation of the aggregate resources in the City of Hamilton. This report is basedon a detailed field assessment undertaken in the summer of 2007 and on previous studies of the area. The investigationwas conducted to delineate and determine the quantity and quality of aggregate within the area, and to help ensure thatsufficient aggregate resources are available for future use. This report is part of the Aggregate Resource Inventory Pro-gram for areas designated under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA).

Sand and gravel deposits located within the City of Hamilton are the result of glacial, glaciofluvial, glaciolacustrineand postglacial fluvial and lacustrine processes. Large areas of sand and gravel exist within themunicipality, but the highproportion of fines, the variability in material type and deposit thickness make them inadequate for selection at the pri-mary significance level. Twoareashave been selected at the secondary significance level andprotectivemeasures shouldbe considered for these resource areas.

Paleozoic dolostones are the primary source of high-quality crushed aggregate in the City ofHamilton. Four areasofthe Amabel and Lockport formations, occupying approximately 11 525 hawith an estimated aggregate resource of 4579million tonnes, have been selected for possible resource protection. There are currently 12 licenced quarries within theCity of Hamilton, but not all are active.

Selected Resource Areas are not intended to be permanent, single land use units that must be incorporatedinto an official planning document. They represent areas in which a major resource is known to exist. Suchresource areasmay be reserved wholly or partially for extractive development and/or resource protection withinthe context of the official plan.

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

Aggregate Resources Inventory of theCity of Hamilton

By A.S. Marich1

Field work, map production and report by A.S. Marich.

Manuscript accepted for publication in 2010 by C.L. Baker, SeniorManager, Sedimentary Geoscience Section, OntarioGeological Survey. This report is published with the permission of the Director, Ontario Geological Survey.

________________________1 Sedimentary Geoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey

3

Introduction

Mineral aggregates, which include bedrock-derivedcrushed stone as well as naturally formed sand and gravel,constitute the major raw material in Ontario’s road build-ing and construction industries. Large quantities of thesematerials are used each year throughout the Province. Forexample, in 2006, the total tonnage of mineral aggregatesextracted in Ontario was 177 million tonnes, greater thanthat of any other metallic or non-metallic commoditymined in the Province (The Ontario Aggregate ResourcesCorporation 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

4

Inventory Methods, Data Presentationand Interpretation

FIELD AND OFFICE METHODS

The methods used to prepare the report involved the inter-pretation of published geological data such as bedrock andsurficial geology maps and reports, as well as field ex-amination of possible resource areas. Field methods in-cluded the examination of natural and man-made expo-sures of granularmaterial.Most observationsweremade atquarries and sand and gravel pits located by field surveysand from records held by theMinistry of Transportation ofOntario (MTO), the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS),and by Regional, District and Area Offices of the OntarioMinistry ofNatural Resources (MNR). Observationsmadeat pit sites included estimates of the total face height andthe proportion of gravel- and sand-sized materials in thedeposit. Observations regarding the shape and lithology ofthe particles were also made. These characteristics are im-portant in estimating the quality and quantity of the aggre-gate. In areas of limited exposure, subsurface materialsmay be assessed by hand augering, test pitting and drilling.

Depositswith potential for extractive development, orthose where existing data are scarce, were studied in great-er detail. In instances, representative sites in these depositsare evaluated by taking 11 to 45 kg samples from existingpit or quarry faces, roadcuts or other exposures. The sam-ples may be subjected to some or all of the following tests:absorption capacity, magnesium sulphate soundness test,micro-Deval abrasion test, unconfined freeze–thaw test,and accelerated mortar bar expansion test.

The field data were supplemented by pit informationon file with the Soils and Aggregates Section of the Minis-try of Transportation of Ontario. Data contained in thesefiles includes field estimates of the depth, composition and“workability” of deposits, aswell as laboratory analyses ofthe physical properties and suitability of the aggregate. In-formation concerning the development history of the pitand acceptable uses of the aggregate is also recorded. Thelocations of additional aggregate sources were obtainedfrom recordsheld byRegional, District andAreaOfficesofthe Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. In addition,testing data for type, quantity and quality of aggregateswere also obtained from aggregate licence applicationswhere these reports are on file with the MNR, and from in-dividuals and companies.

Aerial photographs and remotely sensed imagery atvarious scales were used to determine the continuity of de-posits, especially in areas where information is limited.Water well records, held by the OntarioMinistry of the En-vironment (MOE), were used in some areas to corroboratedeposit thickness estimates or to indicate the presence ofburied granular material. These records were used in con-junction with other evidence.

Topographic maps of the National Topographic Sys-tem, at a scale of 1:50 000, were used as a compilation basefor the field and office data. The information was thentransferred to a basemap, also at a scale of 1:50 000. Thesebase maps were prepared using digital information takenfrom the Ontario Land Information Warehouse, Land In-formationOntario, OntarioMinistry ofNatural Resources,withmodifications by staff of theMinistry ofNorthernDe-velopment, Mines and Forestry.

Units and DefinitionsThemeasurements and other primary data available for re-source tonnage calculations are presented inmetric units inthe text and on the tables that accompany the report. Dataare generally rounded off in accordance with the OntarioMetric Practices Guide (Ontario Interministerial Commit-tee on National Standards and Specifications 1975).

The tonnage estimates for aggregate deposits aretermed possible resources (see Appendix B – Glossary) inaccordance with terminology used by the Ontario Re-source Classification Scheme (Robertson 1975, p.7) andthe Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario(1976).

DATA PRESENTATION ANDINTERPRETATIONTwomaps, each portraying a different aspect of the aggre-gate resources in the report area, accompany the report.Map 1, “Sand andGravel Resources”, provides an invento-ry and evaluation of the sand and gravel resources in thereport area. Map 2, “Bedrock Resources”, shows the dis-tribution of bedrock formations and the thickness of over-lying unconsolidated sediments, and identifies the Se-lected Bedrock Resource Areas.

The hard-copy versions of Map 1 and Map 2 (backpocket of the report) are simplified to depict informationcritical to the majority of users.

Enhanced information on the aggregate resources forthis area (e.g., complete deposit information for Map 1) isprovided in vector ESRI® ArcGIS® files available fordownload as a compressed (.zip) file fromGeologyOntario(www.ontario.ca/geology). A “readme” file included inthe .zip file provides further details regarding the contentsof these vector files. In addition, cross-references to dataprovided in the .zip file are provided for clientswhowish toaccess digital data that does not require opening the vectorArcGIS® files. The tables for sand and gravel resourcesdata are found in the folder “Sand_Gravel”; the data forbedrock resources data are in the folder “Bedrock”. Thetables are in database format (.dbf file) that can be openedusing other software, for exampleMicrosoft® Excel®. Thecross-references include the folder, the table and the field

City ofHamilton

5

name separated by a short vertical line, and the field nameis indicated by bold, small capital letters (e.g., Bedrock |Drift_Thick.dbf | AABBCC).

Map 1: Sand and GravelResourcesMap 1 shows the extent and quality of sand and gravel de-posits within the study area and an evaluation of the aggre-gate resources. The map is derived from existing surficialgeology maps of the area or from aerial photograph inter-pretation in areas where surficial mapping is incomplete.

The present level of extractive activity is also indi-cated on Map 1. Those areas licenced for extraction underthe Aggregate Resources Act are shown by a solid outlineand identified by a number that refers to the pit descrip-tions in Table 2. Each description notes the owner/operatorand licenced hectarage of the pit, as well as the estimatedface height and percentage gravel. Anumber of unlicencedpits (abandoned pits or pits operating on demand under au-thority of a wayside permit) are identified by a numbereddot on Map 1 and described in Table 2. Similarly, any testlocations appear onMap 1 as a point symbol and the resultsof the test material are provided in Table 9.

SELECTED SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCE AREAS

All the sand and gravel deposits are first delineated bygeo-logical boundaries and then classified into one of 3 levelsof significance: primary, secondary or tertiary. The depos-it’s significance is also recorded in Sand_Gravel |Sand_Gravel.dbf | SIGN.

Areas of primary significance are coloured red onMap 1 and identified by a deposit number that correspondsto numbers in Table 3. The deposit number is also recordedin Sand_Gravel | Sand_Gravel.dbf | SELECT_AREA.

Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas of pri-mary significance are not permanent, single land useunits. They represent areas inwhich amajor resource isknown to exist, andmay be reservedwholly or partiallyfor extractive development and/or resource protection.Inmany of the recently approvedmunicipal Official Plans,all or portions of resources of primary significance, and insome cases resources of secondary significance, are identi-fied and protected.

Deposits of secondary significance are colouredorange onMap 1. Such deposits are believed to contain sig-nificant amounts of sand and gravel. Although deposits ofsecondary significance are not considered to be the best re-sources in the report area, they may contain large quanti-ties of sand and gravel and should be considered as part ofthe overall aggregate supply of the area.

Deposits of tertiary significance are coloured yellowon Map 1. They are not considered to be important re-source areas because of their low available resources or be-cause of possible difficulties in extraction. Such areasmay

be useful for local needs or extraction under a wayside per-mit, but are unlikely to support large-scale development.

SELECTION CRITERIAThe process by which deposits are evaluated and selectedinvolves the consideration of 2 sets of criteria. The mainselection criteria are site specific, related to the character-istics of individual deposits. Factors such as deposit size,aggregate quality, and deposit location and setting are con-sidered in the selection of those deposits best suited for ex-tractive development. A second set of criteria involves theassessment of local aggregate resources in relation to thequality, quantity and distribution of resources in the regioninwhich the report area is located. The intent of such a pro-cessof evaluation is to ensure the continuing availability ofsufficient resources to meet possible future demands.

Site Specific Criteria

DEPOSIT SIZE AND THICKNESS

Ideally, selected deposits should contain available sandand gravel resources large enough to support a commercialpit operation using a stationary or portable processingplant. In practice, much smaller deposits may be of signifi-cant value depending on the overall resources in the rest ofthe project area.

The “thickness class” indicates a depth range, which isrelated to the potential resource tonnage for each deposit(see Table 1, Column 1: “Class Number”). Four thicknessclass divisions have been established: Class 1 deposits aregreater than 6 m thick; Class 2 sand and gravel depositsare from 3 to 6 m thick; Class 3 represents a deposit that isfrom 1.5 to 3 m thick; and Class 4 represents a sand andgravel deposit that is less than 1.5 m thick. The thicknessclass for each deposit is also recorded in Sand_Gravel |Sand_Gravel.dbf | DEP_THICK.

Generally, deposits in Class 1 and containing morethan 35% gravel are considered to be most favourable forcommercial development. Thinner deposits may be valu-able in areas with low total resources.

AGGREGATE QUALITY

The limitations of natural aggregates for various uses re-sult from variations in the lithology of the particles com-prising the deposit and from variations in the size distribu-tion of these particles.

Four indicators of the quality of aggregate may be in-cluded in the deposit information: gravel content (G or S),fines (C), oversize (O) and lithology (L). Three of the qual-ity indicators deal with grain size distribution.

The gravel content (“G” or “S”) indicates the suitabil-ity of aggregate for various uses. Deposits containing atleast 35% gravel (“G”) in addition to a minimum of 20%material greater than the 26.5 mm sieve are considered tobe themost favourable extractive sites, since this content isthe minimum from which crushed products can be eco-nomically produced. In “sandy” deposits (“S”), the gravel-

ARIP 181

6

sized aggregate (greater than 4.75 mm)makes up less than35% of the whole deposit making it difficult to producecoarse aggregate products. The gravel content is also re-corded in Sand_Gravel | Sand_Gravel.dbf | MATERIAL.

Excess fines (high silt and clay content) (“C”) may se-verely limit the potential use of a deposit. Fines content inexcess of 10% may impede drainage in road subbase ag-gregate and render it more susceptible to the effects of frostaction. In asphalt aggregate, excess fines hinder the bond-ing of particles.

Deposits containing more than 20% oversize material(greater than 10 cm in diameter) (“O”) may also have uselimitations. The oversize component is unacceptable foruncrushed road base, so it must be either crushed or re-moved during processing.

Another indicator of the quality of an aggregate islithology (“L”). Just as the unique physical and chemicalproperties of bedrock types determine their value for use ascrushed rock, so dovarious lithologiesof particles in a sandand gravel deposit determine its suitability for varioususes. The presence of objectionable lithologies such aschert, siltstone and shale, even in relatively small amounts,can result in a reduction in the quality of an aggregate, es-pecially for high-quality uses such as concrete and asphalt.Similarly, highly weathered, very porous and friable rockcan restrict the quality of an aggregate.

If the deposit information shows either “C”, “O” or“L”, or any combination of these indicators, the quality ofthe deposit is considered to be reduced for some aggregateuses. The deposit quality, if applicable, is recorded inSand_Gravel | Sand_Gravel.dbf | LIMITATION. No attemptis made to quantify the degree of limitation imposed. As-sessment of the 4 indicators is made from published data,from data contained in files of both the OntarioMinistry ofTransportation (MTO) and the Sedimentary GeoscienceSection of the Ontario Geological Survey, and from fieldobservations.

Quality data may also appear in Table 9, where the re-sults of quality tests are listed by test type and sample loca-tion. The types of tests conducted and the test specifica-tions are explained in Appendixes B and E, respectively.

Deposit Information

The deposit information coding is similar to that used insoil mapping and land classification systems commonly inuse in North America and indicates the gravel content,thickness of material, origin (type) and quality limitations,if applicable. The “gravel content” and “thickness class”,as described above, are basic criteria for distinguishingdif-ferent deposits. The geologic deposit type is also reported(the types are summarized with respect to their main geo-logic and extractive characteristics in Appendix C of thereport). The geologic deposit type is recorded inSand_Gravel | Sand_Gravel.dbf | DEP_ORIGIN.

In the following example of a deposit information code,

“G / 1 / OW / C”,

where G represents gravel content, 1 represents thicknessclass, OW represents geological type and C represents ag-gregate quality, the deposit information code is interpretedas an outwash deposit greater than 6 m thick containingmore than 35% gravel with excess silt and clay.

The deposit information is recorded in Sand_Gravel |Sand_Gravel.dbf | LABEL.

Texture Symbol

The texture symbol provides amore detailed assessment ofthe grain size distribution of material sampled during fieldstudy. These symbols are derived from the informationplotted on the aggregate grading curves that, if available,are included with the report. The relative amounts of grav-el, sand, and silt and clay in the sampled material areshown graphically in the texture symbol by the subdivisionof a circle into proportional segments. The following ex-ample shows a hypothetical sample consisting of 60%gravel, 30% sand and 10% silt and clay (“fines”).

Fines

Sand Gravel

LOCATION AND SETTING

The location and setting of a resource area has a direct in-fluence on its value for possible extraction. The evaluationof a deposit’s setting is made on the basis of natural, envi-ronmental and man-made features that may limit or pro-hibit extractive development.

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

In addition to man-made and cultural features, certainnatural features, such as provincially significant wetlands,may prove to be constraints. In this report, such constraintshave not been outlined and the reader is advised to consultwith municipal planning staff and the local office of theMNR for information on these matters. Depending on thenumber and type of constraint applicable, anywhere from15 to 85% of the total resources in a municipality may beunavailable for development (Planning Initiatives Limited1993).

The assessment of sand and gravel deposits withrespect to local land use and private land ownership is an

City ofHamilton

7

important component of the general evaluation process.Since the approval of the Provincial Policy Statement(PPS) under the authority of the Planning Act in 2005, re-cently approved Official Plans now contain detailed poli-cies regarding the location and operation of aggregate ex-traction activities. These official plans should be consultedat an early stage with regard to the establishment of an ag-gregate extraction operation. These aspects of the evalua-tion process are not considered further in this report, butreaders are encouraged to discuss them with personnel ofthe pertinent office of theMNR,Ministry ofMunicipal Af-fairs and Housing staff, and/or regional and local planningofficials.

Regional Considerations

In selecting sufficient areas for resource development, it isimportant to assess both the local and the regional resourcebase, and to forecast future production and demand pat-terns.

Some appreciation of future aggregate requirementsin an area may be gained by assessing its present produc-tion levels and by forecasting future production trends.Such an approach is based on the assumptions that produc-tion levels in an area closely reflect the demand, and thatthe present production or “market share” of an area will re-main roughly at the same level.

The availability of aggregate resources in the regionsurrounding a project area should be considered in order toproperly evaluate specific resource areas and to developoptimum resource management plans. For example, anarea that has large resources in comparison to its surround-ing region constitutes a regionally significant resourcearea. Areas with large resources in proximity to high-de-mand centres, such asmetropolitan areas, are special casesas the demand for aggregate may be greater than the amountof production in the areas close to the urban boundary.

Although an appreciation of the multitude of factorsaffecting aggregate availability (e.g., environmental andplanning constraints) is required to develop comprehen-sive resource management strategies, such detailed evalu-ation is beyond the scope of this report. The selection of re-source areas made in this study is based primarily on geo-logical data or on considerations outlined in the precedingsections.

SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCETONNAGE CALCULATIONS

Once the interpretative boundaries of the aggregate unitshave been established, quantitative estimates of the pos-sible resources available can be made. Generally, the vol-ume of a deposit can be calculated if its areal extent andaverage thickness are known or can be estimated. Thecomputationmethods used are as follows. First, the area ofthe deposit, as outlined on the final basemap, is calculatedin hectares (ha). The deposit area is also recorded inSand_Gravel | Sand_Gravel.dbf | AREA. The thickness val-ues used are an approximation of the deposit thickness,

based on the face heights of pits developed in the deposit oron subsurface data such as test holes and water well re-cords. Tonnage values can then be calculated by multiply-ing the volume of the deposit by 0.01770 (the density fac-tor). This factor is approximately the number of tonnes in a1m thick layer of sand and gravel, 1 ha in extent, assumingan average density of 1770 kg/m3.

Tonnage = Area × Thickness × Density Factor

Tonnage calculated in thismannermust be consideredonlyas an estimate. Furthermore, such tonnages representamounts that existed prior to any extraction of material(i.e., original tonnage) (Table 1, Column 4).

The Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Areas inTable 3 are calculated in the following way. Two succes-sive subtractions are made from the total area. Column 3accounts for the number of hectares unavailable because ofthe presence of permanent cultural features and their asso-ciated setback requirements. Column 4 accounts for thoseareas that have previously been extracted (e.g., wayside,unlicenced and abandoned pits are included in this catego-ry). The remaining figure is the area of the deposit current-ly available for extraction (Column 5). The available areais then multiplied by the estimated deposit thickness andthe density factor (Column 5 × Column 6 × 0.01770), togive an estimate of the sand and gravel tonnage (Column7)possibly available for extractive development and/or re-source protection. It should be noted, however, that studies(Planning Initiatives Limited 1993) have shown that sub-stantial proportions of the resources in an area may beconstrained due to environmental considerations (e.g.,floodplains, environmentally sensitive areas). Lack oflandowner interest in development, a range of planningconsiderations or other matters may also reduce the avail-able resources.

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

Map 2: Bedrock ResourcesMap 2 is an interpretative map derived from bedrock geol-ogy, drift thickness and bedrock topography maps, waterwell data from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment(MOE), oil and gaswell data from theNon-RenewableRe-sources Section of the MNR, and from geotechnical testhole data from various sources.Map 2 is based on conceptssimilar to those outlined for Map 1.

Inventory information presented onMap 2 is designedto give an indication of the present level of extractive ac-tivity in the report area. Those areas licenced for extractionunder the Aggregate Resources Act are shown by a solidoutline and identified by a number that refers to the quarrydescriptions in Table 5. Each description notes the owner/operator, licenced hectarage and an estimate of faceheight. Unlicenced quarries (abandoned quarries or way-side quarries operatingon demandunder authority of a per-mit) are also identified and numbered on Map 2 and

ARIP 181

8

described in Table 5. Drill hole locations or other descrip-tive stratigraphic sections appear as a point symbol onMap2. Table 7 provides these descriptions. These descriptionsare also recorded in Bedrock | Add_Info.dbf.

The geological boundaries of the Paleozoic bedrockunits are shown by black dashed lines. Isolated Paleozoicand Precambrian outcrops are indicated by an “×”. Threesets of contour linesdelineate areasof less than 1m of drift,areas of 1 to 8m of drift, and areas of 8 to 15 m of drift. Theextent of these areas of thin drift are indicated on Map 2and are indicated in Table 4 (Column 1). The deposit’s sig-nificance is also recorded in Bedrock | Drift_Thick.dbf |CONTOUR. The darkest shade of blue indicates where bed-rock crops out or iswithin 1m of the ground surface. Theseareas constitute potential resource areas because of theireasy access. The medium shade of blue indicates areaswhere drift cover is up to 8 m thick. Quarrying is possiblein this depth of overburden and these zones also representpotential resource areas. The lightest shade of blue indi-cates bedrock areas overlain by 8 to 15 m of overburden.

Outside of these delineated areas, the bedrock can beassumed to be covered bymore than 15m of overburden, adepth generally considered to be too great to allow eco-nomic extraction. However, areas in which the bedrock iscovered with greater than 8 m of overburden may consti-tute resources that have extractive value in specific cir-cumstances. These circumstances include the resource be-ing located adjacent to existing industrial infrastructure(e.g., a quarry operation or processing plant); speciality in-dustrial mineral products (e.g., chemical lime and metal-lurgical rock) that can be produced from the resources; orpart or all of the overburden being composed of aneconomically attractive deposit.

SELECTED BEDROCK RESOURCEAREASSelectionofBedrockResourceAreas hasbeen restricted toa single level of significance. Three factors support this ap-proach. First, quality and quantity variations within a spe-cific geological formation are gradual. Second, the arealextent of a givenquarry operation ismuch smaller than thatof a sand and gravel pit producing an equivalent tonnage ofmaterial, and third, since crushed bedrock has a higher unitvalue than sand and gravel, longer haul distances can beconsidered. These factors allow the identification of alter-native sites having similar development potential. The Se-lected Areas, if present, are shown on Map 2 by a line pat-tern and the calculated available tonnages are given inTable 6. The selected bedrock resource areas are also re-corded in Bedrock | Drift_Thick.dbf | SELECT_AREA.

Selected Bedrock Resource Areas shown on Map 2are not permanent, single land use units. They repre-sent areas in which a major bedrock resource is known

to exist and may be reserved wholly or partially for ex-tractive development and/or resource protection, with-in an Official Plan.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Criteria equivalent to those used for sand and gravel depos-its are used to select bedrock areas most favourable for ex-tractive development.

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

Deposit “size” is related directly to the areal extent ofthin drift cover overlying favourable bedrock formations.The deposit size is recorded in Bedrock | Drift_Thick.dbf |AREA; the favourable bedrock formations are reported inBedrock | Drift_Thick.dbf | FORMATION. Since vertical andlateral variations in bedrock units are much more gradualthan in sand andgravel deposits, the quality and quantity ofthe resource are usually consistent over large areas.

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

BEDROCK RESOURCE TONNAGECALCULATIONS

The method used to calculate resources of bedrock-derived aggregate is much the same as that describedabove for sand and gravel resources. The areal extent ofbedrock formationsoverlain by less than 15m of unconsol-idated overburden is determined from bedrock geologymaps, drift thickness and bedrock topography maps, andfrom the interpretation ofwaterwell records (Table 4). Themeasured extent of such areas is then multiplied by the es-timated quarriable thickness of the formation, based onstratigraphic analyses and on estimates of existing quarryfaces in the unit. In some cases, a standardized estimate of18 m is used for thickness. Volume estimates are thenmul-tiplied by the density factor (the estimatedweight in tonnesof a 1 m thick section of rock, 1 ha in extent). The areal ex-tent of bedrock formations is also recorded in Bedrock |Drift_Thick.dbf | AREA.

Resources of limestone and dolostone are calculatedusing a density factor of 2649 kg/m3; sandstone resourcesare calculated using a density estimate of 2344 kg/m3; andshale resources are calculated with a factor of 2408 kg/m3

(Telford et al. 1980).

9

Assessment of Aggregate Resources in theCity of Hamilton

LOCATION AND POPULATIONThe City of Hamilton occupies approximately 1117 km2 atthe western end of Lake Ontario (Figure 2). The study areais covered by all or parts of the Hamilton–Grimsby (30M/4), Hamilton–Burlington (30 M/5), Brantford (40 P/1)and Cambridge (40 P/8) 1:50 000 scale map sheets of theNational Topographic System (NTS).

The City of Hamilton, formerly the Regional Munici-pality of Hamilton–Wentworth, was restructured by Bills25 and 62 which received Royal Assent on December 22,1999, and came into effect on January 1, 2001. The popula-tion of the City of Hamilton was 504 559 in 2006, whichrepresents a 2.9% increase from 2001 (Statistics Canada2006).

The main transportation corridors include the QueenElizabeth Way (QEW), Lincoln Alexander Parkway, and

provincial highways 403, 6 and 8. Additional road accessthroughout the study area is provided by well-maintainedmunicipal roads. Rail service is provided by the CanadianPacific (CP), Canadian National (CN), VIA Rail Canadaand the Greater Toronto Transit Authority (“GOTransit”).The City of Hamilton is also served by “GO Transit” andGreyhound Canada Transportation Corporation buses, aninternational airport and extensive port facilities.

SURFICIAL GEOLOGY ANDPHYSIOGRAPHYThe landscape and associated surficial materials of theCity of Hamilton are largely a result of glacial and glacio-lacustrine processes. The following section outlines thephysiographic regions within the study area as well as abrief overview of glacial processes and events that oc-curred to shape the present-day landscape.

Figure 2. Detailed location map for the City of Hamilton

ARIP 181

10

The study area borders the western end of LakeOntar-io and comprises parts of several physiographic regions(Figure 3). The principal physiographic feature within thestudy area is the Niagara Escarpment, characterized bynear-vertical cliffs roughly parallel to the shore of LakeOntario (Chapman and Putnam 1984). The Niagara Es-carpment is capped by theAmabel Formation and is under-lain by a series of interbedded sandstone, limestone, dolo-stone and shale strata (Barlow 2002).Weathering of lower,less resistant strata has resulted in vertical cliffs with steeptalus slopes.

The Flamborough plain is located within the north-west portion of the study area. This region is dominated bya field of drumlins that are composed of the sandy andstonyWentworthTill. Testing of theWentworthTill has re-vealed typical concentrations of 48% sand and 10% clay;clasts within the till are derived from local limestones anddolostones (Karrow 1987a). The till thins between thedrumlins to a veneer suggesting the drumlins sit directly onthe bedrock surface (Chapman and Putnam 1984; Karrow1987a). The drumlins are oriented northwest-southeast inthe northwest portion of the study area, then gradually be-come oriented more east-west toward the centre of the

physiographic region. Evidence of abandoned glacial lakeshorelines has been observed along the north side of thedrumlins in the form of wave-cut benches and wave-builtgravel bars. These deposits have been a localized sourcefor gravel in the past.

In addition to the drumlin field, 2 end moraines occurwithin the Flamborough plain. The oldest and largest ofthese is the Galt moraine, which occupies an area along thenorthwest boundary of the city. TheGaltmoraine is convexto the northwest indicating formation by ice that advancedfrom the southeast (the Lake Ontario lobe). The surface ofthe moraine is hummocky and is composed primarily ofWentworth Till. The till within the moraine is generallystonier than the surrounding area suggesting removal offines by glacial meltwater. The Moffat moraines are com-posed of similar material to that of the Galt moraine. Theywere formed to the east of the Galt moraine and are inter-preted to have formed during brief standstills of glacial re-treat to the southeast. Due to the varied grain size of thematerials within these sets of moraines, they have onlybeen exploited as very local sources of granular material.

The Norfolk sand plain occupies a 10 to 15 km wideband through the centre of the study area. This physio-

Figure 3. Physiographic regions of the City of Hamilton (indicated by heavy black outline) (modified from Ontario Geological Survey 2003).

City ofHamilton

11

graphic region is composed primarily of glaciolacustrineand glaciofluvial sand. In the northern part of the Norfolksand plain, there exists an area of silty sandy gravels con-tained within ice-contact kames and eskers. The glaciola-custrine sands were deposited in deeper water further re-moved from the ice margin than the kames and eskerswhich are the result of stagnating and melting glacial ice.Ice-contact sediments are commonly poorly sorted, andthe gravels foundwithin the kames and eskers are quite an-gular indicating short transport distances. Localized sortedsediments have been observed and can be used as sourcesfor granularmaterial (Chapman and Putnam 1984; Karrow1987a). Gravels in the kames and related ice-contact de-posits may be used for some granular applications.

Just west of the Niagara Escarpment within the Nor-folk sand plain is an area of shale overlain by the HaltonTill. This till is very silty and is red-brown to dark purple,reflecting the incorporation of the red Queenston shale.This area of Halton Till is gently undulating to rolling and,in places, the till is up to 12 m thick and rests directly onbedrock. Testing indicates that the till is composed of 20%sand and 31% clay (Karrow 1987a). The surface of the tillis fluted and grooved, with these features oriented east towest. A series of narrow ridges named theWaterdownmo-raines, which are composed of Halton Till, are located justwest of and parallel to the Niagara Escarpment. The mo-raines are overlain by sand deposits as a result of re-work-ing of the till by glacial lake shoreline processes. General-ly, the Halton Till and associated landforms contains ex-cessive fine material for use in aggregate products.

The eastern half of the study area south of the NiagaraEscarpment is occupied by the Haldimand clay plain: abroad, gently southward-sloping plain underlain by fine-grained glaciolacustrine sediments. These sediments weredeposited in the deep waters of glacial lakes WhittleseyandWarren (Chapman and Putnam 1984; Karrow 1987a).Bedrock in this area is overlain by aminimum of20m fine-grained sediments. Several moraines (Niagara Falls, Vine-mount and Fort Erie) associated with the Halton Tillemerge from the Haldimand clay plain, and pockets of theHalton Till can be found near surface in association withthe moraines. The sediments in this area have extremelylimited, if any, use for mineral aggregate production. Thearea is generally utilized for agriculture.

The area between the Niagara Escarpment and theLake Ontario shoreline is occupied by the Iroquois plain.This physiographic region is underlain primarily by gla-ciolacustrine clay, silt and sand. Halton Till occupies partof this region along the escarpment’s edge nearWaterdownsouthwestward into the Dundas Valley. The former TownofDundas and the oldCity ofHamiltonoccupy this physio-graphic region, largely sterilizing the sediments for any ag-gregate use.

The Dundas Valley, a preglacial valley filled withthick (up to 180 m) Quaternary sediment, (MacCormack,Maclachlan and Eyles 2005) is located at the southwest tipof Lake Ontario. This valley, at its easternmost point, un-derlies the Iroquois plain and extends west and southwest

of Lake Ontario where it is buried. Sediments infilling thevalley include stacked units of fine- and coarse-grainedsediment of glaciolacustrine, glaciofluvial and fluvial ori-gin, which have been deposited subglacially or through icemargin fluctuations. As noted above, the sediments foundin this area are largely sterilized for aggregate use by urbandevelopment. These sediments are poor sources for aggre-gate due to large variability in texture and high amounts offines. Limited gravel may be foundwithin the valley, but isinaccessible due to urban development.

During the Late Wisconsinan, the Laurentide IceSheet had advanced as far as southern Ohio (~18 000 to19 000 years before present (BP)) completely covering thestudy area. During icemargin recession, the ice margin be-came lobate and the Lake Ontario–Erie lobe developed.Large proglacial lakes fronted the icemargin during reces-sion. Approximately 13.5 ka BP, the Ontario lobe began torecede from the Paris moraine. The Galt and Moffat mo-raines formed during retreat and the drumlins and eskersbecame exposed (Chapman and Putnam 1984; Karrow1987a).

A subsequent re-advance of the ice margin blockedeastern outlets leading to the formation of glacial LakeWhittlesey (Barnett 1992). With ice recession, the waterlevels dropped and a suite of glacial lakes, including gla-cial LakeWarren, formed. In the northern part of the studyarea, benches were eroded and gravel bars depositedaround the drumlins by glacial lake shoreline processesand the thick silts and clays of the Haldimand clay plainwere deposited. During this time, several moraines formedalong the ice margin including the Waterdown, Fort Erie,Niagara Falls and Vinemount moraines.

With further retreat of the ice, a series of ice marginallakes within the Erie basin drained, whereas, in the LakeOntario basin, glacial Lake Iroquois developed. The upperlevel ofLake Iroquoiswas approximately 60m above pres-ent-day levels (Karrow 1987a).

PREVIOUS WORKThis area, as the Regional Municipality of Hamilton–Wentworth, was inventoried previously for aggregate re-sources. The earlier publication (ARIP 50: Ontario Geo-logical Survey 1984) may be of historical interest, but thisreport should be the principal source for the basic geologi-cal information required to include potential mineral ag-gregate resource areas in planning strategies.

SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTIVEACTIVITYSand and gravel extraction is extremely limited in thestudy area. In the past, only a limited number of small pitswere operated and these have all been abandoned or reha-bilitated. Large sand and gravel deposits are currently be-ing extracted within the Regional Municipality of Water-loo, directly adjacent to the City of Hamilton’s northwest-ern boundary. Therefore, the City of Hamilton acquiresmuch of its required sand and gravel from these deposits.

ARIP 181

12

SELECTED SAND AND GRAVELRESOURCES AREASMap 1 shows the sand and gravel deposits in the City ofHamilton. Sand and gravel deposits occupy a total ofapproximately 28 815 ha and contain an original resourceof 3029 million tonnes (Table 1). Many of the sand andgravel deposits in the City of Hamilton are predominantlysand with a small percentage of coarse aggregate. A highproportion of fines, variability in material types and limit-ed deposit thicknessmake these areas inadequate for selec-tion at the primary significance level.

Resource Areas of SecondarySignificanceGlaciofluvial outwash deposits located in the northern partof the study area have been selected as sand and gravel re-source areas of secondary significance. The sediments arepredominantly fine- to medium-grained sand and gravel,containing clasts of varying lithology. Clasts are generallypebble sized (2 to 5 cm), but large boulders (>1 m diame-ter) were also observed. The percentage of observed dele-terious lithologies was small. Sediment characteristics areextremely variable spatially. MTO material test resultswithin these areas have found the sediments to be variablycemented and commonly contain a high percentage offines. Although the material is inadequate for high-qualityaggregate usage, it is sufficient for lower specification ag-gregate products and, therefore, protective measuresshould be considered for these resource areas.

BEDROCK GEOLOGYMap 2 shows the Paleozoic geology of the City of Hamil-ton. The City of Hamilton is underlain by a succession ofOrdovician and Silurian dolostones, limestones, sand-stones and shales (Armstrong and Carter 2006; Armstrongand Dodge 2007). A portion of the bedrock stratigraphywithin the City ofHamilton can be observed along the faceof the Niagara Escarpment. The bedrock strata dip gentlyto the southwest. Surficialmaterials are generally thin overmuchof the study area and thicken to the southwest (Ontar-io Geological Survey 2003).

The oldest outcropping of bedrock in the study area isthe Queenston Formation. The Queenston Formation con-sists of red to maroon to green shales with minor interbedsof siltstone and limestone. The formation ranges in thick-ness from 50 m at the north end of Bruce County to over300 m beneath Lake Erie (Johnson et al. 1992). TheQueenstonFormation is commonly exposed along the baseof the Niagara Escarpment, parallel to the Lake Ontarioshoreline, and underlying the Dundas Valley. The Queens-ton Formation shales are well suited for the production ofstructural clay products such as brick and tile, and are a re-source of provincial significance (Guillet and Joyce 1987).Shale has been extracted from quarries at the base of theNiagara Escarpment for this purpose since the turn of the

past century. These shales have a low load-bearing capac-ity and, therefore, are unsuitable for use as construction ag-gregate.

The Queenston Formation is unconformably overlainby the sandstones of the Whirlpool Formation or the dolo-stones of the Manitoulin Formation. The Whirlpool andManitoulin formations as well as the Cabot Head andGrimsby formations comprise the Cataract Group, whichforms the lower portion of the face of the Niagara Escarp-ment. These formations have a limited surface exposure inthe study area as they are often covered by drift.

TheWhirlpool Formation is the lowest unit of theCat-aract Group. The formation has a thickness of 3 to 5 m(Hewitt 1969a, 1969b; Hewitt and Vos 1969) and consistsof thin- to massive-bedded, medium- to fine-grained, cal-careous quartz sandstone. The formation often forms a lowterrace at the base of the escarpment. The sandstone is suit-able for flagstone and building stone, and has been ex-tracted at several quarries north of the study area. The stoneis commercially known as the “Credit Valley Sandstone”and has been used in the construction of such buildings asthe main block of the Ontario Legislature Building(“Queen’s Park”) and the Royal Ontario Museum (Hewitt1969a). The formation is not generally suitable for the pro-duction of crushed aggregate and has no history of suchuse.

The Manitoulin Formation of the Cataract Groupoverlies the Whirlpool Formation north of Stoney Creek.The formation is composed of a grey to brownish grey,thin- to medium-bedded, medium-crystalline dolomiticlimestone to dolostone. Shale partings are common andweathered outcrops often expose flat sheets of dolostoneseveral centimetres thick where the shale has weathered.White chert nodules have been notedwithin this formation(Vos 1969). The formation is generally 6 to 8 m thick. TheManitoulin Formation is reasonably resistant to erosionand, as a result, often forms minor scarps along the face ofthe Niagara Escarpment. The Manitoulin Formation hasnot been selected for possible resource protection due topoor aggregate quality test results elsewhere in the prov-ince.

The Cabot Head Formation of the Cataract Groupoverlies the Manitoulin Formation. The formation occursas a subcropband along the face of the NiagaraEscarpmentand it is commonly covered by thick overburden. Theformation consists of reddish to greenish-grey shale withcalcareous carbonate interbeds. The formation is between11 and 41 m thick (Liberty and Bolton 1971). The shale isnot suitable for aggregate use, but Vos (1969) has indicatedthe potential to use this unit for the manufacture of brickand tile and as an expanded light weight aggregate. Noareas overlying this formation have been selected for pos-sible resource protection.

TheGrimsby Formation is the uppermost formation inthe Cataract Group. It is composed of red shales inter-bedded with sandstone. The formation varies in thicknessfrom 0 to 15 m and has been identified along the NiagaraEscarpment face as far northward as Clappison’s Corners,which is located west of Waterdown.

City ofHamilton

13

The Thorold Formation is the lowest formation in theClinton Group, which overlies the Cataract Group. It is athick-bedded, fine- to coarse-grained quartz sandstonewith minor shale and siltstone partings. The overall thick-ness of the formation has been estimated at between 2 to3 m. Other formations that comprise the Clinton Group in-clude the Neagha, Reynales (equivalent to the Fossil HillFormation farther to the north), Irondequoit, Rochesterand Decew formations. None of these formations are usedextensively by the aggregate industry, although somemaybe utilized where they can be mined in combinationwith the overlying Amabel and Lockport formations.

North of Waterdown, the brow and upper surface ofthe Niagara Escarpment is formed by the tough, erosion-resistant Amabel Formation. Extensive bedrock outcropsoccurs along and on top of the brow of the Niagara Escarp-ment. The Amabel Formation consists ofmedium- tomas-sive-bedded, fossiliferous, crystalline dolostone. TheAmabel Formation dolostone constitutes an aggregatesource of both regional and provincial significance. Be-cause of its high resistance to abrasion and chemicalweathering, the rock is suitable for a wide range of applica-tions including road building and construction aggregate(granular sub-base material, asphalt and concrete stone).In addition, the formation also provides a valuable sourceof armour and architectural stone. The Lockport Forma-tion is the equivalent of the Amabel Formation south ofWaterdown and has also had a long history of aggregateproduction. The formations are shown onMap 2 as a singleunit and are labelled as the Amabel Formation.

The Amabel and Lockport formations have an uppermember referred to as the EramosaMember (Johnson et al.1992). There has been an ongoing debate as to whether theEramosa Member represents the upper member of theAmabel and Lockport formations (Bolton 1957) or thelower member of the Guelph Formation (Sanford 1969).There has also been a suggestion that the EramosaMembershould be promoted to the Eramosa Formation (Brett et al.1995; Brunton 2009). Nevertheless, the Eramosa is a thin-to thick-bedded, tan to black, fine- to medium-crystalline,variably fossiliferous, bituminousdolostone. TheEramosahas been quarried for use as dimension stone elsewhere inthe province, particularly in the Owen Sound area.

TheGuelph Formation dolostone overlies the Amabeland Lockport formations. TheGuelph Formation is a well-laminated, tan to brown to buff coloured, medium- tomas-sive-bedded, fine- tomedium-crystalline dolostone. Thereare a number of biohermal (reef) structures in the forma-tion, which have a coarser texture and numerous fossilfragments. Average thickness of the dolostone is about40 m; however, because of its reefal nature, the unit mayrange in thickness from 4 to 100m (Johnson et al. 1992). Ingeneral, because of the formation’s origin, it tends to besoft and weathers easily. Consequently, it is not well suitedfor high-quality road construction uses, such as hot mixpaving and Portland cement concrete aggregate. However,inter-reefal parts of the Guelph Formation may be morecompetent and more resistant to weathering. In such loca-tions, the rock may be acceptable for some higher quality

aggregate uses. In areas, the Guelph Formation dolostonehas value as an industrial mineral resource due to its highchemical purity. As such, it is a valuable raw material forchemical and metallurgical stone, and agricultural lime inthe Guelph area (Hewitt 1960).

SELECTED BEDROCKRESOURCESThose areas of the Amabel and Lockport formations thatare overlain by less than 8 m of overburden have been se-lected for possible resource protection. The Amabel andLockport formations are a provincially significant aggre-gate resource and have been used to manufacture a widevariety of aggregate products, including crushed granular,asphalt and concrete products, building stone and lime.The Clinton andCataract groupshave not been selected forpossible bedrock resource protection, although the use andimportance of the formations that make up these groups inthe building and dimension stone industry should not beminimized. Other formations, such as the Queenston andGuelph formations, have not been identified for possibleresource protection; however, they are important and valu-able industrialminerals. TheQueenstonFormation shale iswell suited for the manufacture of structural clay productssuch as brick and tile; whereas the Guelph Formation dolo-stone, due to its high chemical purity, is in areas a valuableraw material for chemical and metallurgical stone.

In addition to municipal planning constraints, theavailability of possible bedrock resources in the SelectedBedrock Resource Areas will be further constrained byplanning designations outlined in the Niagara EscarpmentPlan.

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 1Selected Bedrock Resource Area 1 occupies much of thenortheastern portion of the City of Hamilton. In this se-lected resource area, the Amabel Formation is overlain byless than 8 m of overburden. The total unlicenced area forSelected Bedrock Resource Area 1 is approximately 9314ha, which is reduced to 6997 ha after considering physicaland cultural constraints. Using a conservative workablethickness of 15 m, there are approximately 2780 milliontonnes of aggregate resource available in Selected Bed-rock Resource Area 1 (Table 6).

There are a number of quarries operating in the south-west portion, and to the south, of this selected area. Someof these operations are removing the Guelph Formationand the Eramosa Member before mining the AmabelFormation. Both of these rock units are thin in this area.The selected resource area continues eastward into the Re-gional Municipality of Halton where there are active li-cenced quarries extracting the Amabel Formation.

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 2Selected Bedrock Resource Area 2 is located south of Se-lected Bedrock Resource Area 1. In this area, the Amabel

ARIP 181

14

Formation is overlain by less than 8 m of overburden. Thetotal unlicenced area for Selected Bedrock Resource Area2 is 2648 ha, which is reduced to 1476 ha after consideringphysical and cultural constraints. Using a conservativeworkable thickness of 15m, there would be approximately586.6 million tonnes of aggregate available from SelectedBedrock Resource Area 2 (see Table 6).

There are currently no licenced quarries in this se-lected resource area, but there are operations in the Re-gional Municipality of Halton to the east. The Niagara Es-carpment Plan will reduce the opportunities for develop-ment within this selected area.

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 3Selected Bedrock Resource Area 3 is located in the StoneyCreek area along the browof the Niagara Escarpment. Thetotal unlicenced area for Selected Bedrock Resource Area3 is approximately 4003 ha, which is reduced to 2368 hawhen physical, cultural and environmental constraints areconsidered. Assuming a workable thickness of 15 m, Se-lected Bedrock Resource Area 3 has a possible bedrock re-source of 940.9 million tonnes (see Table 6).

The urban expansion of Stoney Creek and the NiagaraEscarpment Plan will reduce the aggregate developmentopportunities in this area. There are currently 2 existingquarries within this area and 4 other quarries are currentlybeing used in waste management operations.

Selected Bedrock Resource Area 4Selected Bedrock Resource Area 4 is located southwest ofSelected Bedrock Resource Area 3. The total unlicencedarea is approximately 877 ha, which is reduced to 684 haafter considering physical and cultural constraints. Thereare approximately 271.6 million tonnes of bedrock re-sources available in this area based on a workable thick-ness of 15 m (see Table 6).

SUMMARYThe sand and gravel deposits in the report area are the re-sult of glacial, glaciofluvial, glaciolacustrine and postgla-

cial fluvial and lacustrine activities.No sand and gravel de-posits have been identified at the primary level of signifi-cance; however, there are outwash deposits located in thenortheastern portion of the City ofHamilton that have beenselected at the secondary significance level. These depos-its continue eastward into the Regional Municipality ofHalton. High-quality granular aggregate resources areavailable adjacent to the report area in the Regional Mu-nicipality of Waterloo.

Four Selected Bedrock Resource Areas have beenidentified within the City of Hamilton. These resourceareas consist of areas where the Amabel and Lockportformations are overlain by less than 8 m of overburden.The total possible resource area for all 4 locations is 11 525ha or 4579 million tonnes of bedrock resource (see Table6).

The Clinton Group, Cataract Group, QueenstonFormation and Guelph Formation have not been selectedfor bedrock resource protection although their importanceto the building and dimension-stone industry, the brick andtile manufacturing industry and the high-purity chemical-metallurgical industry must not be underestimated. Theareas where these groups are exposed or covered by lessthan 8 m of overburden should be considered carefully forprotection during the planning process. Further site inves-tigations and testing should proceed before bedrock re-source areas are developed.

Care should be taken to ensure the continued avail-ability of as much as possible of the selected resourceareas. The resource calculations above do not take into ac-count the effect of the Niagara Escarpment Plan, as thiswas not within the scope of this study.

Enquiries regarding the Aggregate Resources Inven-tory of the City of Hamilton may be directed to the Sedi-mentary Geoscience Section, Ontario Geological Survey,Mines andMineralsDivision,Ministry of NorthernDevel-opment,Mines and Forestry, 933RamseyLake Road, Sud-bury, Ontario P3E 6B5 [Tel: (705) 670-5758].

City ofHamilton

15

Table 1 - Total Sand and Gravel ResourcesCity of Hamilton

1 2 3 4Class Number Deposit Type Areal Extent

(Hectares)Original Tonnage(Million Tonnes)

1 G-IC 82.9 8.8

G-LB 217.4 23.1

G-LD 46.9 5.0

G-OW 2387.5 253.6

S-AL 234.9 24.9

S-LP 25 079.8 2663.5

S-OW 143.0 15.2

2 G-IC 42.5 3.4

G-LB 36.4 2.9

G-OW 165.2 13.2

S-E 19.6 1.6

S-LP 50.7 4.0

3 G-IC 84.8 3.0

G-LB 9.8 0.3

G-OW 79.5 2.8

S-LP 56.6 2.0

4 S-LP 77.6 1.4

TOTAL 28 815.1 3028.6

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

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

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

Explanation of Deposit Type:

First letter denotes gravel content:

G = >35% gravel; S = generally “sandy”, gravel-size (>4.75 mm) aggregate <35% gravel.

Letters after hyphen denote the geologic deposit type (see also Appendix C):

AL = alluvium; IC = ice-contact stratified drift, includes esker (E) and kame (K) deposits; LB = glaciolacustrine beach deposit;

LD = glaciolacustrine delta; LP = glaciolacustrine plain; OW = outwash.

Table 2 - Sand and Gravel PitsCity of Hamilton

PitNo.

Owner/Operator LicencedArea

(Hectares)

Face Height(Metres)

% Gravel Remarks

Licenced

Unlicenced

1 - - 7 30 - 40 Clasts are fissile, matrix is fine-grained sand

2 - - - 40 - 50 Very silty matrix, granule to boulder-size clasts

ARIP 181

16

Table 3 - Selected Sand and Gravel Resource AreasCity of Hamilton

- NONE -

Table 4 - Total Identified Bedrock Resources

City of Hamilton

1Drift Thickness

(Metres)

2Formation

3Estimated Deposit Thickness

(Metres)

4Areal Extent(Hectares)

5Original Tonnage(Million Tonnes)

<1 Amabel–Lockport 15 1528.5 607.3

Clinton-Cataract groups 15 549.4 218.3

Guelph 15 4956.1 1969.3

Queenston 15 322.3 116.4

1-8 Amabel–Lockport 15 18 673.2 7419.8


Guelph 15 14 146.9 5621.3

Queenston 15 6984.1 2522.7

8-15 Amabel–Lockport 15 6661.5 2646.9


Guelph 15 9856.5 3916.5

Queenston 15 770.0 278.1

TOTAL 64 767.8 25 443.5

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

The above figures represent a comprehensive inventory of all bedrock resources in the map area. Some of thematerial included in the estimate has no

aggregate potential and some is unavailable for extraction due to land use restrictions.

City ofHamilton

17

Table 5 - QuarriesCity of Hamilton

QuarryNo.

Owner/Operator LicencedArea

(Hectares)

Face Height(Metres)

Remarks

1 Lafarge Canada Inc. 218.85 ~18

2 St. Lawrence Cement Inc. 90.49 ~18





7 Newalta 32.34 ~18

8 Newalta 9.55 ~18

9 Newalta 13.02 ~18

10 Newalta 17.03 ~18

11 Waterford Sand and Gravel Ltd. 22.82 ~18

12 Vinemount Quarries 17.22 ~18

Table 6 - Selected Bedrock Resource AreasCity of Hamilton

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Area Number Depth of Unlicenced Cultural Extracted Possible Estimated Possible

Overburden Areas* Setbacks** Area*** Resource Workable Bedrock(Metres) (Hectares) (Hectares) (Hectares) Area Thickness Resources****

(Hectares) (Metres) (Million Tonnes)

1 0-8 9313.9 2317.3 0 6996.6 15 2780.1

2 0-8 2648.2 1171.8 0 1476.4 15 586.6

3 0-8 4003.4 1635.6 0 2367.9 15 940.9

4 0-8 877.3 193.6 0 683.6 15 271.6

Total 16 842.8 5318.3 11 524.5 4579.3

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

* Excludes areas licenced under the Aggregate Resources Act (1989).

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

streams), 1 ha for individual houses. NOTE: This provides a preliminary and generalized constraint application only. Additional environmental

and social constraints will further reduce the deposit area.

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

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

potential extraction.

ARIP 181

18

Table 7 - Summary of Borehole or Selected Sample DataCity of Hamilton

- NONE -

Table 8 - Summary of Geophysical DataCity of Hamilton

- NONE -

Table 9 - Results of Aggregate Quality TestsCity of Hamilton

- NONE -

19

References

Armstrong, D.K. and Carter, T.R. 2006. An updated guide to the subsur-face Paleozoic stratigraphy of southern Ontario; Ontario GeologicalSurvey, Open File Report 6191, 214p.

Armstrong, D.K. and Dodge, J.E.P. 2007. Paleozoic geology of southernOntario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data219.

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

Barlow, J. 2002. Rock creep and the development of the Niagara Cuesta;Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v.27, p.1125-1135.

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

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

Bolton, T.E. 1957. Silurian stratigraphy and palaeontology of the NiagaraEscarpment in Ontario; Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 289,145p.

Brett, C.E., Tepper, D.H., Goodman, W.M., LoDuca, S.T. and Eckert, B.Y.1995. Revised stratigraphy and correlations of the Niagaran provin-cial series (Medina,Clinton, andLockportGroups) in the type areaofwestern NewYork; United States Geological Survey, Bulletin 2086,66p.

Brunton, F.R. 2009. Update of revisions to the Early Silurian stratigraphyof the Niagara Escarpment: integration of sequence stratigraphy, se-dimentology and hydrogeology to delineate hydrogeologic units; inSummary of FieldWork andOtherActivities 2009,OntarioGeologi-cal Survey, Open File Report 6240, p.25-1 to 25-20.

Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. 1984. The physiography of southern On-tario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2, 270p., accom-panied by Preliminary Map P.2715, scale 1:600 000.

Cowan, W.R. 1972. Pleistocene geology of the Brantford area, southernOntario; Ontario Department of Mines and Northern Affairs, Map2240, scale 1:63 360.

Feenstra,B.H.1975.Quaternarygeology,Grimsbyarea, southernOntario;Ontario Division of Mines, Preliminary Map P.993, scale 1:50 000.

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

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

———1969a. Industrial mineral resources of the Brampton area: Halton,Peel and York counties; Ontario Department of Mines, IndustrialMineral Report 23, 22p.

——— 1969b. Brampton area, southern Ontario, industrial mineral re-sources sheet; Ontario Department of Mines, Map 2176, scale 1:63360.

Hewitt, D.F. and Vos, M.A. 1969. Brampton area, southern Ontario, driftthickness sheet;OntarioDepartment ofMines,Map 2179, scale 1:63360.

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

Karrow,P.F. 1987a.Quaternary geology of theHamilton–Cambridge area,southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Report 255, 94p.

——— 1987b. Quaternary geology, Hamilton area, southern Ontario;Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2509–Revised, scale 1:50 000.

——— 1987c. Quaternary geology, Cambridge area, southern Ontario;Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2508, scale 1:50 000.

Liberty B.A. and Bolton T.E. 1971. Paleozoic geology of the Bruce Penin-sula area,Ontario;Geological Survey ofCanada,Memoir 360,157p.

Liberty,B.A.,Bond, I.J. and Telford, P.G. 1976. Paleozoic geology,Hamil-ton, southern Ontario; Ontario Division of Mines, Map 2336, scale1:50 000.

Liberty, B.A., Feenstra, B.H. and Telford, P.G. 1976. Paleozoic geology,Grimsby, southern Ontario; Ontario Division of Mines, Map 2343,scale 1:50 000.

MacCormack, K.E., Maclachlan, J.C., and Eyles, C.H. 2005. Viewing thesubsurface in three dimensions: initial results of modelling the Qua-ternary sedimentary infill of the Dundas Valley, Hamilton, Ontario;Geosphere, v.1, p.23-31.

Ontario Geological Survey 1984. Aggregate resources inventory of theRegional Municipality of Hamilton–Wentworth, southern Ontario;Ontario Geological Survey, Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper50, 53p.

——— 2003. Surficial geology of southern Ontario; Ontario GeologicalSurvey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 128.

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

Planning Initiatives Limited 1993.Aggregate resourcesof southernOntar-io — A state of the resources study; Ministry of Natural Resources,Toronto, Ontario, 201p.

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

Sanford, B.V. 1969. Silurian of southwestern Ontario; Ontario PetroleumInstitute, 8th Annual Conference Proceedings, Technical PaperNo.5, p.1-44.

Statistics Canada 2006. Population and dwelling counts for Canada, prov-ince and territories;Government ofCanada, 2006Census of Popula-tion.

Telford, P.G. 1979. Paleozoic geology of the Brantford area, southern On-tario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.1984, scale1:50 000.

Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sherriff, R.E. and Keys, D.A. 1980. Appliedgeophysics;CambridgeUniversity Press,London,UnitedKingdom,860p.

The Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation 2007. Mineral aggregatesin Ontario, statistical update 2006; The Ontario Aggregate Re-sources Corporation, unpublished report, 20p.

Vos,M.A. 1969. Stone resources of theNiagara Escarpment;OntarioDivi-sion of Mines, Industrial Mineral Report 31, 68p.

20

Appendix A – Suggested Additional Reading andReferences

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

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

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

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

Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. 2007. Physiography of southernOntario;Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release—Data 228.

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

Derry Michener Booth and Wahl and Ontario Geological Survey 1989a.Limestone industries of Ontario, Volume 1—Geology, propertiesand economics; Ministry of Natural Resources, Land ManagementBranch, Toronto, Ontario, 158p.

———1989b.Limestone industriesofOntario,Volume 2—Limestone in-dustries and resources of eastern and northern Ontario; Ministry ofNatural Resources, Land Management Branch, Toronto, Ontario,196p.

———1989c.Limestone industries ofOntario,Volume 3—Limestone in-dustries and resources of central and southwestern Ontario;Ministryof Natural Resources, Land Management Branch, Toronto, Ontario,175p.

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

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

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

Lowe, S.B. 1980. Trees and shrubs for the improvement and rehabilitationof pits and quarries inOntario;Ministry ofNaturalResources,Toron-to, Ontario, 71p.

McLellan,A.G.,Yundt, S.E.andDorfman,M.L. 1979.Abandoned pits andquarries in Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Pa-per 79, 36p.

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

Ministry of Natural Resources 1975. Vegetation for the rehabilitation ofpits and quarries;Ministry ofNaturalResources,Division of Forests,Forest Management Branch, Toronto, Ontario, 38p.

Neuendorf, K.K.E., Mehl, J.P., Jr. and Jackson, J.A. 2005. Glossary ofgeology, 5th ed.;American Geological Institute, Alexandria,Virgin-ia, 779p.

Ontario 2007. TheMining Act; Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990,ChapterM.14.

Ontario Mineral Aggregate Working Party 1977. A policy for mineral ag-gregate resource management in Ontario; Ministry of Natural Re-sources, Toronto, Ontario, 232p.

Rogers, C.A. 1985. Alkali aggregate reactions, concrete and aggregatetesting and problem aggregates inOntario –A review, 5th ed.;Minis-try of Transportation and Communications, Engineering MaterialsOffice, Toronto, Ontario, Paper EM-31, 44p.

——— 1986. Evaluation of the potential for expansion and cracking ofconcrete caused by the alkali–carbonate reaction; CCAGDP, Journalof Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, v.8, no.1, p.13-23.

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

21

Appendix B – Glossary

Abrasion Resistance: Tests such as the Los Angeles abra-sion test (see Appendix E) are used to measure the abilityof aggregate to resist crushing and pulverizing under con-ditions similar to those encountered in processing and use.Measuring resistance is an important component in theevaluation of the quality and prospective uses of aggre-gate. Hard, durable material is preferred for road building.

Acid–Soluble Chloride Ion Content: This test measurestotal chloride ion content in concrete and is used to judgethe likelihood of re-bar corrosion and susceptibility to de-terioration by freeze–thaw in concrete structures. There isa strong positive correlation between chloride ion contentand depassivation of reinforcing steel in concrete. Depas-sivation permits corrosion of the steel in the presence ofoxygen andmoisture. Chloride ions are contributedmainlyby the application of de-icing salts.

Aggregate: Any hard, inert, construction material (sand,gravel, shells, slag, crushed stone or other mineral materi-al) used for mixing in various-sized fragments with a ce-ment or bituminousmaterial to form concrete, mortar, etc.,or used alone for road building or other construction. Syn-onyms include mineral aggregate and granular material.

Alkali–Aggregate Reaction:A chemical reaction betweenthe alkalis of Portland cement and certain minerals foundin rocks used for aggregate.Alkali–aggregate reactions areundesirable because they can cause expansion and crack-ing of concrete. Although perfectly suitable for buildingstone and asphalt applications, alkali-reactive aggregatesshould be avoided for structural concrete uses.

Beneficiation: Beneficiation of aggregates is a process orcombination of processes that improves the quality (physi-cal properties) of a mineral aggregate and is not part of thenormal processing for a particular use, such as routinecrushing, screening, washing, or classification. Heavyme-dia separation, jigging, or application of special crushers(e.g., “cage mill”) are usually considered processes ofbeneficiation.

Blending: Required in cases of extreme coarseness, fine-ness, or other irregularities in the gradation of unprocessedaggregate. Blending is done with approved sand-sized ag-gregate in order to satisfy the gradation requirements of thematerial.

Cambrian:The first period of the PaleozoicEra, thought tohave covered the time between 540 and 500 million yearsage. The Cambrian precedes the Ordovician Period.

Chert: Amorphous silica, generally associated with lime-stone. Often occur as irregular masses or lenses, but canalso occur finely disseminated through limestones. It maybe very hard in unleached form. In leached form, it iswhiteand “chalky” and is very absorptive. It has deleterious ef-fect for aggregates to be used in Portland cement concretedue to reactivity with alkalis in Portland cement.

Clast: An individual constituent, grain or fragment of asediment or rock, produced by the mechanical weatheringof larger rock mass. Synonyms include particle and frag-ment.

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

Deleterious Lithology: A general term used to designatethose rock types that are chemically or physically unsuitedfor use as construction or road-building aggregates. Suchlithologies as chert, shale, siltstone and sandstone may de-teriorate rapidlywhen exposed to traffic and other environ-mental conditions.

Devonian: A period of the Paleozoic Era thought to havecovered the span of time between 410 and 355 millionyears ago, following the Silurian Period. Rocks formed inthe Devonian Period are among the youngest Paleozoicrocks in Ontario.

Dolostone: A carbonate sedimentary rock consisting chief-ly of the mineral dolomite and containing relatively littlecalcite (dolostone is also known as dolomite).

Drift: A general term for all unconsolidated rock debris,transported from one place and deposited in another, dis-tinguished from underlying bedrock. In North America,glacial activity has been the dominant mode of transportand deposition of drift. Synonyms include overburden andsurficial deposit.

Drumlin:A low, smoothly rounded, elongated hill, moundor ridge composed of glacial materials. These landformswere formed beneath an advancing ice sheet and wereshaped by its flow.

Eolian: Pertaining to the wind, especially with respect tolandforms the constituents of which were transported anddeposited by wind activity. Sand dunes are an example ofan eolian landform.

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

Glacial Lobe:A tongue-like projection from the margin ofthemainmass of an ice cap or ice sheet. During the Pleisto-cene Epoch, several lobesof theLaurentide continental icesheet occupied the Great Lakes basins. These lobes ad-vanced then melted back numerous times during the Pleis-tocene, producing the complex arrangement of glacialmaterial and landforms found in Ontario.

Gneiss:Acoarse-texturedmetamorphic rockwith themin-erals arranged in parallel streaks or bands. Gneiss is rela-tively rich in feldspar. Other common minerals found inthis rock include quartz, mica, amphibole and garnet.

Gradation: The proportion of material of each particlesize, or the frequency distribution of the various sizes,

ARIP 181

22

which constitute a sediment. The strength, durability,permeability and stability of an aggregate depend to a greatextent on its gradation. The size limits for different par-ticles are as follows:

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

Granite: A coarse-grained, light-coloured rock that ordi-narily has an even texture and is composed of quartz andfeldspar with either mica, hornblende or both.

Granular Base and Subbase: Components of a pavementstructure of a road, which are placed on the subgrade andare designed to provide strength, stability and drainage, aswell as support for surfacing materials. Granular A con-sists of crushed and processed aggregate and has relativelystringent quality standards in comparison to Granular B,which is usually pit-run or other unprocessed aggregate.Granular M is a shouldering and surface dressing materialwith quality requirements similar to Granular A. SelectSubgradeMaterial (SSM) has similar quality requirementstoGranular B and it provides a stable platform for the over-lying pavement structure. (For more specific information,the reader is referred toOntario Provincial StandardSpeci-fication (OPSS) 1010 and Appendix E).

Heavy Duty Binder: Second layer from the top of hot mixasphalt pavements used on heavily travelled (especially bytrucks) expressways, such as Highway 401. Coarse andfine aggregates are to be produced from high-quality bed-rock quarries, except when gravel is permitted by specialprovisions.

Hot–Laid (or Asphaltic) Paving Aggregate: Bituminous,cemented aggregates used in the construction of pave-ments either as surface or bearing course or as bindercourse used to bind the surface course to the underlyinggranular base.

Limestone: A carbonate sedimentary rock consisting chief-ly of the mineral calcite. It may contain the mineral dolo-mite up to about 40%.

Lithology: The description of rocks on the basis of suchcharacteristics as colour, structure, mineralogic composi-tion and grain size. Generally, the description of the physi-cal character of a rock.

MediumDuty Binder:Second layer from the topof hotmixasphalt pavements used on heavily travelled, usually four-lane, highways and municipal arterial roads. It may beconstructed with high-quality quarried rock or high-quali-ty gravel with a high percentage of fractured faces or poly-mer modified asphalt cements.

Meltwater Channel: A drainage way, often terraced, pro-duced by water flowing away from a melting glacier mar-gin.

Ordovician: An early period of the Paleozoic Era thoughtto have covered the span of time between 500 and 435mil-lion years ago.

Paleozoic:One of the major divisions of the geologic timescale thought to have covered the time period between 540and 250 million years ago, the Paleozoic Era (or AncientLife Era) is subdivided into 6 geologic periods, of whichonly 4 (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian andDevonian) canbe recognized in southern Ontario.

Pleistocene:Anepoch of the recent geological past includ-ing the time from approximately 1.75 million years ago to7000 years ago.Much of the Pleistocenewas characterizedby extensive glacial activity and is popularly referred to asthe “Great Ice Age”.

Possible Resource: Reserve estimates based largely onbroad knowledge of the geological character of the depositand for which there are few, if any, samples or measure-ments. The estimates are based on assumed continuity orrepetition for which there are reasonable geological indi-cations, but do not take into account many site-specificnatural and environmental constraints that could render theresource inaccessible.

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

Sandstone: A clastic sedimentary rock consisting chieflyof sand-sized particles of quartz and minor feldspar, ce-mented together by calcareous minerals (calcite or dolo-mite) 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 also com-monly used for fissile claystone, siltstone and mudstone.

Siltstone:A clastic sedimentary rock consisting chiefly ofsilt-sized particles, cemented together by calcareous min-erals (calcite and dolomite) or by silica.

Silurian: An early period of the Paleozoic Era thought tohave covered the time between 435 and 410 million yearsago. The Silurian follows the Ordovician Period and pre-cedes the Devonian Period.

Soundness: The ability of the components of an aggregateto withstand the effects of various weathering processesand agents. Unsound lithologies are subject to disintegra-tion caused by the expansion of absorbed solutions. Thismay seriously impair the performance of road-buildingand construction aggregates.

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

Wisconsinan: Pertaining to the last glacial period of thePleistoceneEpoch inNorthAmerica. TheWisconsinanbe-gan approximately 100 000 years ago and ended approxi-mately 7000 years ago. The glacial deposits and landformsof Ontario are predominantly the result of glacial activityduring the Wisconsinan Stage.

23

Appendix C – Geology of Sand and Gravel Deposits

The type, distribution and extent of sand and gravel depos-its inOntario are the result of extensive glacial and glacial-ly influenced activity in Wisconsinan time during thePleistocene Epoch, approximately 100 000 to 7000 yearsago. The deposit types reflect the different depositional en-vironments that existed during the melting and retreat ofthe continental ice masses, and can readily be differen-tiated on the basis of their morphology, structure and tex-ture. The deposit types are described below.

GLACIOFLUVIAL DEPOSITSThese deposits can be divided into 2 broad categories:those thatwere formed in contactwith (or in close proximi-ty to) glacial ice, and those that were deposited by melt-waters carrying materials beyond the ice margin.

Ice–Contact Terraces (ICT): These are glaciofluvial fea-tures deposited between the glacial margin and a confiningtopographic high, such as the side of a valley. The structureof the deposits may be similar to that of outwash deposits,but, in most cases, the sorting and grading of the materialis more variable and the bedding is discontinuous becauseof extensive slumping. The probability of locating largeamounts of crushable aggregate is moderate, and extrac-tion may be expensive because of the variability of the de-posits both in terms of quality and grain size distribution.

Kames (K):Kames are defined as mounds of poorly sortedsand and gravel deposited by meltwater in depressions orfissures on the ice surface or at its margin. During glacialretreat, themelting of supporting ice causes collapse of thedeposits, producing internal structures characterized bybedding discontinuities. The deposits consist mainly of ir-regularly bedded and cross-bedded, poorly sorted sand andgravel. The present forms of the deposits include singlemounds, linear ridges (crevasse fillings) or complexgroups of landforms. The latter are occasionally describedas “undifferentiated ice-contact stratified drift” (IC) whendetailed subsurface information is unavailable. Sincekames commonly contain large amounts of fine-grainedmaterial and are characterized by considerable variability,there is generally a low to moderate probability of discov-ering large 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-sized par-ticles).

Eskers (E): Eskers are narrow, sinuous ridges of sand andgravel deposited by meltwaters flowing in tunnels withinor at the base of glaciers, or in channels on the ice surface.Eskers vary greatly in size. Many, though not all, eskersconsist of a central core of poorly sorted and stratifiedgravel characterizedby awide range in grain size. The corematerial is often draped on its flanks by better sorted andstratified sand and gravel. The deposits have a high proba-bility of containing a large proportion of crushable aggre-

gate and, since they are generally built above thesurrounding ground surface, are convenient extractionsites. For these reasons, esker deposits have been tradition-al aggregate sources throughout Ontario, and are signifi-cant components of the total resources of many areas.

Some planning constraints and opportunities are in-herent in the nature of the deposits. Because of their linearnature, the deposits commonly extend across several prop-erty boundaries leading to unorganized extractive devel-opment at numerous small pits. On the other hand, becauseof their form, eskers can be easily and inexpensively ex-tracted and are amenable to rehabilitation and sequentialland use.

Undifferentiated Ice-Contact Stratified Drift (IC): Thisdesignationmay include deposits from several ice-contact,depositional environments which usually form extensive,complex landforms. It is not feasible to identify individualareas of coarse-grained material within such deposits be-cause of their lack of continuity and grain size variability.They are given a qualitative rating based on existing pitand other subsurface data.

Outwash (OW): Outwash deposits consist of sand andgravel laid down by meltwaters beyond the margin of theice lobes. The deposits occur as sheets or as terraced valleyfills (valley trains) and may be very large in extent andthickness. Well-developed outwash deposits have goodhorizontal bedding and are uniform in grain size distribu-tion. Outwash deposited near the glacier’s margin is muchmore variable in texture and structure. The probability oflocating useful crushable aggregates in outwash deposits ismoderate to high depending on howmuch information onsize, distribution and thickness is available.

Subaqueous Fans (SF): Subaqueous fans are formed with-in or near the mouths of meltwater conduits when sedi-ment-ladenmeltwaters are discharged into a standingbodyof water. The geometry of the resulting deposit is fan orlobe shaped. Several of these lobes may be joined togetherto form a larger, continuous sedimentary body. Internally,subaqueous fans consist of stratified sands and gravels thatmay exhibit wide variations in grain size distribution. Asthese featureswere deposited under glacial lake waters, siltand clay that settled out of these lakes may be associated invarying amountswith these deposits. The variability of thesediments and presence of fines are the main extractiveproblems associated with these deposits.

Alluvium (AL): Alluvium is a general term for clay, silt,sand, gravel, or similar unconsolidated material depositedduring postglacial time by a stream as sorted or semi-sorted sediment, on its bed or on its floodplain. The proba-bility of locating large amounts of crushable aggregate inalluvial deposits is low, and they have generally low valuebecause of the presence of excess silt- and clay-sizedmate-rial. There are few large postglacial alluvium deposits inOntario.

ARIP 181

24

GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSITS

Glaciolacustrine Beach Deposits (LB):These are relative-ly narrow, linear features formed by wave action at theshores of glacial lakes that existed at various times duringthe deglaciation of Ontario. Well-developed lacustrinebeaches are usually less than 6 m thick. The aggregate iswell sorted and stratified and sand-sized material com-monly predominates. The composition and size distribu-tion of the deposit depends on the nature of the sourcematerial. The probability of obtaining crushable aggregateis highwhen thematerial is developed fromcoarse-grainedmaterials such as a stony till, and low when developedfrom fine-grained materials. Beaches are relatively nar-row, linear deposits, so that extractive operations are oftennumerous and extensive.

Glaciolacustrine Deltas (LD):These featureswere formedwhere streams or rivers of glacial meltwater flowed intolakes and deposited their suspended sediment. In Ontario,such deposits tend to consist mainly of sand and abundantsilt. However, in near-ice and ice-contact positions, coarsematerial may be present. Although deltaic deposits may belarge, the probability of obtaining coarsematerial is gener-ally low.

Glaciolacustrine Plains (LP): The nearly level surfacemarking the floor of an extinct glacial lake is called a gla-ciolacustrine plain. The sediments that form the plain arepredominantly fine tomedium sand, silt and clay, andweredeposited in relatively deep water. Lacustrine deposits aregenerally of low value as aggregate sources because oftheir fine grain size and lack of crushablematerial. In someaggregate-poor areas, lacustrine deposits may constitutevaluable sources of fill and some granular subbase aggre-gate.

GLACIOMARINE DEPOSITSGlaciomarine Beach Deposits (MB): Similar to glaciola-custrine beach deposits, glaciomarine beach deposits areformed in a glaciomarine environment (i.e., ocean ratherthan lake environment).

Glaciomarine Plains (MP): Similar to glaciolacustrineplains, glaciomarine plains are the result of a glaciomarineenvironment.

GLACIAL DEPOSITSEndMoraines (EM): These are belts of glacial drift depos-ited at, andparallel to, glaciermargins. Endmoraines com-monly consist of ice-contact stratified drift and, in suchinstances, are usually called kame moraines. Kame mo-raines commonly result from deposition between 2 glaciallobes (interlobate moraines). The probability of locatingaggregates within such features is moderate to low. Explo-ration and development costs are high. Moraines may bevery large and contain vast aggregate resources, but thelocation of the best areas within the moraine is usuallypoorly defined.

EOLIAN DEPOSITSWindblown Deposits (WD):Windblown deposits are thoseformed by the transport and deposition of sand by winds.The form of the deposits ranges from extensive, thin layersto well-developed linear and crescentic ridges known asdunes. Most windblown deposits in Ontario are derivedfrom, and deposited on, pre-existing lacustrine sand plaindeposits. Windblown sediments almost always consist offine to coarse sand and are usually well sorted. The proba-bility of locating crushable aggregate inwindblowndepos-its is very low.

25

Appendix D – Geology of Bedrock Deposits

The purpose of this appendix is to familiarize the readerwith the general bedrockgeology of southernOntario (Fig-ure D1) and, where known, the potential usesof the variousbedrock formations. The reader is cautioned against usingthis information for more specific purposes. The strati-graphic chart (Figure D2) is intended only to illustrate thestratigraphic sequences in particular geographic areas andshould not be used as a regional correlation table.

The following description is arranged in ascendingstratigraphic order, on a group and formation basis. Pre-cambrian rocks are not discussed. Additional stratigraphicinformation is included for some formations where neces-sary. The publications and maps of the Ontario GeologicalSurvey (e.g., Johnson et al. 1992 andArmstrong andCarter2006) and the Geological Survey of Canada should be re-ferred to for more detailed information. The lithology,thickness and general use of rocks from these formationsare noted. If a formation may be suitable for use as aggre-gate and aggregate suitability test data are available, the

data have been included in the form of ranges. The follow-ing short forms have been used in presenting these data:

AAV = aggregate abrasion value,Absn = absorption (percent),BRD = bulk relative density,LA = Los Angeles abrasion and impact test

(loss in percent),MgSO4 = magnesium sulphate soundness test

(loss in percent),PN (A-C) = PN (Asphalt & Concrete) = petrographic

number for asphalt (“A”) and concrete (“C”) use,PSV = polished stone value.

The ranges are intended as a guide only and care should beexercised in extrapolating the information to specific situ-ations. Aggregate suitability test data have been providedby the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. Aggregatesuitability tests are defined in Appendix E. Aggregateproduct specifications are also provided in Appendix E.

Covey Hill Formation (Cambrian)

STRATIGRAPHYand/orOCCURRENCE: Lower formationof the Potsdam Group.

LITHOLOGY: Interbedded noncalcareous feldspathic con-glomerate and sandstone.

THICKNESS: 0 to 14 m.USES:Has been quarried for aggregate in the UnitedCountiesof Leeds–Grenville.

Nepean Formation (Cambrian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Upper formationof the Potsdam Group.

LITHOLOGY: Thin- to massive-bedded quartz sandstonewith some conglomerate interbeds and rare shaly partings.

THICKNESS: 0 to 30 m.USES: Suitable as dimension stone; quarried at Philipsvilleand Forfar for silica sand; alkali–silica reactive in Portlandcement concrete.

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 (A-C) = 130-140.

March Formation (Lower Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHYand/orOCCURRENCE: Lower formationof the Beekmantown Group.

LITHOLOGY: Interbedded quartz sandstone, dolomiticquartz sandstone, sandy dolostone and dolostone.

THICKNESS: 6 to 64 m.USES: Quarried extensively for aggregate in areas of outcropand subcrop; alkali–silica reactive in Portland cement con-crete; lower part of formation is an excellent source of skid-resistant aggregate. The formation is suitable for use as fac-ing stone and paving stone.


Oxford Formation (Lower Ordovician)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Upper formationof the Beekmantown Group.

LITHOLOGY: Thin- to thick-bedded, microcrystalline tome-dium-crystalline, grey dolostone with thin shaly inter-beds.

THICKNESS: 61 to 102 m.USES: Quarried in the Brockville and Smith Falls areas andsouth of Ottawa for use as aggregate.


Rockcliffe Formation (Lower Ordovician)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Divided into alower member and an upper (St. Martin) member.

LITHOLOGY: Interbedded quartz sandstone and shale; inter-bedded shaly bioclastic limestone and shale predominate inthe upper member.

THICKNESS: 0 to 125 m.USES:Uppermember has been quarried east ofOttawa forag-gregate; lower member has been used as crushed stone;some high-purity limestone beds in upper member may besuitable for use as fluxing stone and in lime production.

AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: PSV = 58-63,AAV=10-11,MgSO4= 12-40, LA=25-28,Absn=1.8-1.9,BRD = 2.55-2.62, PN (A-C) = 122-440.

Shadow Lake Formation(Upper Ordovician)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: The basal unit ofthe Black River Group. Informally, the formation is knownas the basal unit of the OttawaGroup in eastern Ontario andthe basal unit of the Simcoe Group in central Ontario.

LITHOLOGY: Poorly sorted, red and green sandy shales; ar-gillaceous and arkosic sandstones; minor sandy argilla-ceous dolostones and rare basal arkosic conglomerate.

THICKNESS: 0 to 15 m.

ARIP 181

26

USES:Potential source of decorative stone; very limitedvalueas aggregate source.

Gull River Formation (Upper Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the BlackRiverGroup. Informally, the formation is part of the SimcoeGroup in central Ontario and the Ottawa Group in easternOntario. In easternOntario, the formation is subdivided intoupper and lowermembers; in central Ontario, it is presentlysubdivided into upper, middle and lower members.

LITHOLOGY: In central and eastern Ontario, the lowermem-ber consists of alternating units of limestone, dolomiticlimestone and dolostone. West of Lake Simcoe, the lowermember is thin- to thick-bedded, interbedded, grey argilla-ceous limestone and buff to green dolostone. The upper andmiddle members are dense microcrystalline limestoneswith argillaceous dolostone interbeds. The upper memberalso consists of thin-bedded limestones with thin shale part-ings.

THICKNESS: 7.5 to 135 m.USES: Quarried in the Lake Simcoe, Kingston, Ottawa andCornwall areas for crushed stone. Rock from certain layershas proven to be alkali reactive when used in Portland ce-ment concrete (alkali–carbonate reaction).

AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: PSV = 41-49,AAV = 8-12, MgSO4 = 3-17, LA = 18-28, Absn = 0.3-0.9,BRD = 2.68-2.73, PN (A-C) = 100-153, micro-Deval (C) =8.8-18.7, mortar bar (14 days) = 0.004-0.030.

Bobcaygeon Formation(Upper Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Informally, theformation is part of the SimcoeGroup in central Ontario andthe Ottawa Group in eastern Ontario. The formation is sub-divided into upper, middle and lower members. Formally,some researchers refer to the lower member as the Cobo-conk Formation of the Black River Group. The upper andmiddle members are sometimes referred to as the KirkfieldFormation, a part of the Trenton Group.

LITHOLOGY: The lower member is light grey-tan to brown-grey, medium- to very thick-bedded, fine- to medium-grained, bioturbated to current-laminated, bioclastic lime-stones, wackestones, packstones and grainstones. Themiddlemember is thin- tomedium-bedded, tabular-bedded,bioclastic, very fine- to fine-grained limestones with greenshale interbeds and partings. Theuppermember is similar tothe middle member, but also includes fine- to medium-grained, dark grey to light brown, thin- to medium-bedded,irregular to tabular bedded, bioturbated, horizontal to low-angle cross-laminated, bioclastic, fossiliferous limestones,wackestones, packstones and grainstones.

THICKNESS: 7 to 87 m.USES:Quarried atBrechin,Marysville and in the Ottawa areafor crushed stone. Generally suitable for use as granularbase course aggregate. Rock from certain layers has beenfound to be alkali reactive when used in Portland cementconcrete (alkali–silica reaction).


Verulam Formation (Upper Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: The VerulamFormation is often referred to as the Sherman Fall Forma-tion of the Trenton Group. Informally, the formation is partof the Simcoe and Ottawa groups.

LITHOLOGY: The Verulam Formation is informally subdi-vided into 2 members. The lower member consists of inter-beddedwith limestone and calcareous shale. The limestonebeds are very fine to coarse grained, thin to thick bedded,nodular to tabular bedded, light to dark grey-brown and fos-siliferous. The upper member is thin- to thick-bedded, me-dium- to coarse-grained, cross-stratified, tan to light grey,fossiliferous, bioclastic limestone.

THICKNESS: 32 to 67 m.USES: Quarried at Picton and Bath for use in cementmanufacture. Quarried for aggregate in Ramara Township,Simcoe County and in the Belleville–Kingston area. Theformation may be unsuitable for use as aggregate in someareas because of its high shale content.


Lindsay Formation(Upper Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: The LindsayFormation is divided into 2members. The lower member isoften referred to as the Cobourg Formation of the TrentonGroup. The uppermember is referred to as theCollingwoodMember of the Trenton Group. In eastern Ontario, the Col-lingwood Member is often referred to as the EastviewMember. Informally, the Lindsay Formation is part of theSimcoe and Ottawa groups.

LITHOLOGY:The lowermember is interbedded,very fine- tocoarse-grained, bluish-grey to grey-brown limestone withundulating shale partings and interbeds of dark grey calcar-eous shale. The Collingwood Member is a black, organic-rich, petroliferous, calcareous shale with very thin, fossilif-erous, bioclastic limestone interbeds.

THICKNESS:The uppermember is up to 10m thick,whereasthe lower member can be up to 60 m thick.

USES: In eastern Ontario, the lower member is used exten-sively for aggregate production; in central Ontario, it isquarried at Picton, Ogden Point and Bowmanville for ce-ment. The formationmaybe suitable or unsuitable for use asconcrete and asphalt aggregate.

AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: MgSO4 = 2-47,LA = 20-28, Absn = 0.4-1.3, BRD= 2.64-2.70, PN (A-C) =110-215.

Blue Mountain and Billings Formations(Upper Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: The BlueMoun-tain Formation includes the upper and middle members ofthe former Whitby Formation. In eastern Ontario, the Bill-ings Formation is equivalent to part of the Blue MountainFormation.

City ofHamilton

27

LITHOLOGY: Blue-grey to grey-brown, noncalcareousshales with thin, minor interbeds of limestone and siltstone.TheBillings Formation is dark grey to black, noncalcareousto slightly calcareous, pyritiferous shale with dark greylimestone laminae and grey siltstone interbeds.

THICKNESS: Blue Mountain Formation - 43 to 60 m; Bill-ings Formation - 0 to 62 m.

USES: The Billings Formation may be a suitable source forstructural clay products and lightweight expanded aggre-gate. The Blue Mountain Formation may be suitable forstructural clay products.

Georgian Bay and Carlsbad Formations(Upper Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: The GeorgianBay Formation trends in a northwest direction from LakeOntario toward Georgian Bay. The Carlsbad Formation isthe equivalent of the Georgian Bay Formation in easternOntario.

LITHOLOGY: The Georgian Bay Formation consists ofgreenish to bluish-green shale interbedded with limestone,siltstone and sandstone. The Carlsbad Formation consistsof interbedded shale, siltstone and bioclastic limestone.

THICKNESS:GeorgianBayFormation - 125 to 200m;Carls-bad Formation - 0 to 186 m.

USES: Georgian Bay Formation was previously used by sev-eral producers in the Metropolitan Toronto area to producebrick and structural tile, as well as for making Portland ce-ment.At Streetsville, expanded shalewas used in the past toproduce lightweight aggregate. These operations are nolonger in production. The Carlsbad Formation may be usedas a sourcematerial for brick and tilemanufacturing and haspotential as a lightweight expanded aggregate.

Queenston Formation (Upper Ordovician)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: The QueenstonFormation conformably overlies the Georgian Bay Forma-tion and crops out along the base of the Niagara Escarp-ment.

LITHOLOGY: Red-maroon, thin- to thick-bedded, sandy toargillaceous shale with green mottling and banding.

THICKNESS: 45 to 335 m.USES: There are several quarries developed in the QueenstonFormation along the base of the Niagara Escarpment andone at Russell, near Ottawa. All extract shale for brickmanufacturing. The Queenston Formation is the most im-portant source ofmaterial for brickmanufacture in Ontario.

Whirlpool Formation (Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHYand/orOCCURRENCE: Lower formationof the CataractGroup, generally located in the Niagara Pen-insula and along the Niagara Escarpment as far north asDuntroon.

LITHOLOGY: White to grey to maroon, fine-grained, ortho-quartzitic sandstone with thin grey shale partings.THICKNESS: 0 to 9 m.

USES: Building stone, flagstone.

Manitoulin Formation (Lower Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Cata-ract Group. The formation generally occurs north of StoneyCreek.

LITHOLOGY: Thin- to medium-bedded, moderately fossilif-erous, fine- to medium-crystalline dolostone with minorgrey-green shale. Chert nodules or lenses, and silicified fos-sils have also been reported within the formation.

THICKNESS: 0 to 25 m.USES: Extracted for crushed stone in Grey County, and fordecorative stone on Manitoulin Island.

Cabot Head Formation (Lower Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Cata-ractGroup. The formation occurs in the subsurface through-out southwestern Ontario and crops out along the length ofthe Niagara Escarpment.

LITHOLOGY: Grey to green to red-maroon, noncalcareousshales with subordinate sandstone and carbonate interbeds.

THICKNESS: 12 to 40 m.USES: Potential source of lightweight aggregate. Extractionopportunities are limited by the lack of suitable exposures.

Grimsby Formation (Lower Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Upper formationof the Cataract Group. The formation has been identifiedalong theNiagara Peninsula as far northasClappison’sCor-ners.

LITHOLOGY: Interbedded sandstone, dolomitic sandstoneand red shale. The lower part of the Grimsby Formation be-comes greener and shalier as it grades into the upper CabotHead Formation.

THICKNESS: 0 to 15 m.USES: No present uses.

Thorold Formation (Lower Silurian)STRATIGRAPHYand/orOCCURRENCE: Lower formationin the Clinton Group.

LITHOLOGY: Grey-green to white, fine- to coarse-grained,quartzose sandstone with minor thin grey to green shale orsiltstone partings.


Neagha Formation (Lower Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Clin-ton Group.

LITHOLOGY: Dark to greenish grey shale, sparsely fossilif-erous, fissile shale, with minor thin limestone interbeds.The base of the Neagha Formation consists of a phosphaticpebble lag that indicates an unconformable contact with theunderlying Thorold Formation.


Dyer Bay Formation (Lower Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Cata-ract Group. Crops out on Manitoulin Island and along theeast side of theBrucePeninsula as far southasOwenSound.In the subsurface, it underlies the Bruce Peninsula andmostof Essex and Kent counties.

ARIP 181

28

LITHOLOGY: Thin- to medium-bedded, fine- to medium-grained, blue-grey to brown, argillaceous, fossiliferous do-lostone with green-grey shaly partings.


Wingfield Formation (Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Cata-ract Group. Occurs on Manitoulin Island and the northern-most part of the Bruce Peninsula.

LITHOLOGY: Interbedded brown, fine- to medium-grained,argillaceous dolostone and olive-green, noncalcareous,sparsely fossiliferous shale.


St. Edmund Formation (Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Cata-ract Group. Occurs on Manitoulin Island and the northern-most part of the Bruce Peninsula. The upper portion of theformation was previously termed the Mindemoya Forma-tion.

LITHOLOGY: Light creamy tan, microcrystalline, thin-bedded, sparsely fossiliferous dolostone with tan to brown,fine- to medium-crystalline, thick-bedded dolostone.

THICKNESS: 0 to 25 m.USES: Quarried for fill and crushed stone on Manitoulin Is-land.

AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING:MgSO4 = 1-2, LA=19-21,Absn= 0.6-0.7,BRD=2.78-2.79, PN (A-C)= 105.

Fossil Hill Formation (Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Clin-ton Group. Occurs on Manitoulin Island and the northernpart of the Bruce Peninsula.

LITHOLOGY: Thin- tomedium-bedded, very fine- to coarse-grained, very fossiliferous dolostone. The formation alsocontains intervals of tan-grey, very fine-crystalline, sparse-ly fossiliferous dolostone.

THICKNESS: 3 to 34 m.USES: The formation is sometimes quarried along with theoverlying Amabel and Lockport formations.

AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: (Fossil HillFormation on Manitoulin Island) MgSO4 = 41, LA = 29,Absn = 4.1, BRD = 2.45, PN (A-C) = 370.

Reynales Formation (Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Clin-ton Group. The Reynales Formation occurs on the NiagaraPeninsula and along the Niagara Escarpment as far north asthe Forks of the Credit.

LITHOLOGY: Light to dark grey, buff weathering, thin- tothick-bedded, very fine- to fine-grained, sparsely fossilifer-ous dolostone to argillaceous dolostone, with thin shaly in-terbeds and partings.

THICKNESS: 0 to 5 m.USES: The formation is sometimes quarried along with over-lying Amabel and Lockport formations.

Irondequoit Formation (Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Clin-ton Group generally along the Niagara Peninsula south ofWaterdown.

LITHOLOGY: Thick- to massive-bedded, light to pinkishgrey, medium- to coarse-grained, crinoidal- and brachio-pod-rich limestone.

THICKNESS: 0 to 10 m.USES: Not utilized extensively.

Rochester Formation (Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Clin-ton Group generally along the Niagara Peninsula.

LITHOLOGY:Dark grey to black, calcareous shale with vari-ably abundant, thin, fine- to medium-grained calcareous todolomitic calcisiltite to bioclastic calcarenite interbeds.

THICKNESS: 5 to 24 m.USES: Not utilized extensively.AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: PSV = 69,AAV= 17,MgSO4 = 95, LA = 19, Absn = 2.2, BRD = 2.67,PN (A-C) = 400.

Decew Formation (Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Clin-ton Group south of Waterdown along the Niagara Escarp-ment.

LITHOLOGY: Very fine- to fine-grained, argillaceous to are-naceous dolostone, with locally abundant shale partingsand interbeds.

THICKNESS: 0 to 4 m.USES: Too shaly for high-quality uses, but it is quarried alongwith the Lockport Formation in places.

AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: PSV = 67,AAV= 15,MgSO4 = 55, LA = 21, Absn = 2.2, BRD = 2.66,PN (A-C) = 255.

Lockport and Amabel Formations(Lower Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: The LockportFormation occurs from Waterdown to Niagara Falls and issubdivided into 2 formalmembers: theGasport andGoat Is-landmembers. TheAmabelFormation is found fromWater-down to Cockburn Island and has been subdivided into theLions Head and Wiarton members.

LITHOLOGY: The Gasport Member consists of thick- tomassive-bedded, fine- to coarse-grained, blue-grey towhiteto pinkish grey dolostone and dolomitic limestone, withmi-nor argillaceous dolostone. TheGoat IslandMember is darkto light grey to brown, very fine- to fine-crystalline, thin- tomedium-bedded, irregularly bedded, variably argillaceousdolostone with locally abundant chert and vugs filled withgypsum, calcite or fluorite. Near Hamilton, abundant chertnodules and lenses in the Goat Islandmember have been in-formally named the Ancaster chert beds. A shaly interval,termed the Vinemount shale, occurs at the top of the GoatIsland near and east of Hamilton.

City ofHamilton

29

The Wiarton Member consists of massive-bedded, blue-greymottled, light grey to white, fine- to coarse-crystalline,porous crinoidal dolostone. Underlying the Wiarton Mem-ber in the Bruce Peninsula is the Colpoy Bay Memberwhich is browner, finer grained and less fossiliferous thanthe Wiarton Member. The Lions Head Member consists oflight grey to grey-brown, fine-crystalline, thin- to medium-bedded, sparsely fossiliferous dolostone with abundantchert nodules.

THICKNESS: (Lockport and Amabel) 3 to 40 m.USES: Both formations have been used to produce lime,crushed stone, concrete aggregate and building stonethroughout their area of occurrence, and are a resource ofprovincial significance.


Guelph Formation(Lower to Upper Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Exposed southandwest of the Niagara Escarpment from the NiagaraRiverto the tip of the Bruce Peninsula. The formation is also pres-ent in the subsurface of southwestern Ontario.

LITHOLOGY: The formation is tan- to brown-coloured, fine-to medium-crystalline, moderately to very fossiliferous,commonly biostromal to biohermal, sucrosic dolostones. Inplaces, the formation is characterized by extensive vuggy,porous reefal facies of high chemical purity. The EramosaMember consists of thin- to thick-bedded, tan to black, fine-to medium-crystalline, variably fossiliferous, bituminousdolostone. Locally, the Eramosa Member is argillaceousand cherty.

THICKNESS: 4 to 100 m.USES: Some areas appear soft and unsuitable for use in theproduction of load-bearing aggregate. This unit requiresadditional testing to fully establish its aggregate suitability.Themain use is for dolomitic lime for cementmanufacture.The formation is quarried near Hamilton and Guelph.

Salina Formation (Group) (Upper Silurian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Present in thesubsurface of southwestern Ontario; only rarely exposed atsurface. In southern Ontario, the succession of evaporatesand evaporite-related sediments underlying the Bass Is-lands and Bertie formations, and overlying the reefal dolo-stones of the Guelph Formation, have been termed the Sali-na Formation. In other jurisdictions, this formation is oftenreferred to as the Salina Group.

LITHOLOGY: Grey andmaroon shale, brown dolostone and,in places, salt, anhydrite and gypsum; consists predomi-nantly of evaporitic-richmaterial with up to 8 units identifi-able. The Salina Group is dominated by evaporate litholo-gies in the Michigan Basin and become gradually shalierinto the Appalachian Basin.

THICKNESS: 113 to 420 m.USES:Gypsummines atHagersville, Caledonia andDrumbo.Salt ismined atGoderich andWindsor and is produced frombrine wells at Amherstburg, Windsor and Sarnia.

Bertie and Bass Islands Formations(Upper Silurian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: The BertieFormation is anAppalachian Basin unit found in theNiaga-ra Peninsula. The Bertie Formation is equivalent to the Ber-tieGroup ofNewYork and, therefore, consists of theOatka,Falkirk, Scajaquada, Williamsville and Akron members inOntario. The Bass Islands Formation is a Michigan Basinequivalent of the Bertie Formation, which rarely crops outin Ontario, but is present in the subsurface in southwesternOntario.

LITHOLOGY: The Bertie Formation consists of a successionof dark brown to light grey-tan, very fine- to fine-grained,variably laminated and bituminous, sparsely fossiliferousdolostones with argillaceous dolostones and minor shales.The Bass Islands Formation consists of dark brown to lightgrey-tan, variably laminated, mottled, argillaceous and bi-tuminous, very fine- to fine-crystalline and sucrosic dolo-stones with minor anhydritic and sandstone beds.

THICKNESS: 10 to 90 m.USES: Quarried for crushed stone on the Niagara Peninsula;shaly intervals are unsuitable for use as high specificationaggregate because of low freeze–thaw durability. Theseformations have also been extracted for the production oflime.


Oriskany Formation (Lower Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY and/orOCCURRENCE: LowerDevonianclastic unit, found in the Niagara Peninsula. The formationis equivalent to the Oriskany Formation in New York andOhio and the Garden Island Formation of Michigan.

LITHOLOGY: Grey to yellowish white, coarse-grained,thick- to massive-bedded, calcareous quartzose sandstone.

THICKNESS: 0 to 5 m.USES: The formation has been quarried for silica sand, build-ing stone and armour stone. The formation may be accept-able for use as rip rap and well-cemented varieties may beacceptable for some asphaltic products.

AGGREGATESUITABILITYTESTING: (of awell-cement-ed variety of the formation)PSV=64,AAV=6,MgSO4=2,LA = 29, Absn = 1.2-1.3, BRD = 2.55, PN (A-C) = 107.

Bois Blanc Formation (Lower Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: The formationdisconformably overlies Silurian strata or, where present,the Lower Devonian Oriskany Formation. The SpringvaleMember forms the lower portion of formation.

LITHOLOGY: Greenish grey to grey-brown, thin- to me-dium-bedded, fine- to medium-grained, fossiliferous, bio-turbated, cherty limestone and dolostone. The SpringvaleMember is a white to green-brown, commonly glauconitic,rarely argillaceous, quartzitic sandstone with minor sandycarbonates.

THICKNESS: 3 to 50m.The SpringvaleMember is generallyfrom 3 to 10 m thick; however, 30 m thickness has been re-ported.

USES: Quarried at Hagersville, Cayuga andPort Colborne forcrushed stone. Material is generally unsuitable for concreteaggregate because of a high chert content.

ARIP 181

30


Onondaga Formation (Middle Devonian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Correlated topart of theDetroitRiverGroup.Outcrops occuron theNiag-ara Peninsula from Simcoe to Niagara Falls. The formationincludes the Edgecliffe, Clarence and Moorehouse members.

LITHOLOGY:Medium-bedded, fine- to coarse-grained, darkgrey-brown or purplish-brown, variably cherty limestone.

THICKNESS: 8 to 25 m.USES: Quarried for crushed stone on the Niagara Peninsula atWelland and Port Colborne. The high chert content makesmuch of the material unsuitable for use as concrete and as-phaltic aggregate. The formation has been used as a rawma-terial in cement manufacture.

AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: (Clarence andEdgecliffe members) MgSO4 = 1-6, LA = 16.8-22.4,Absn = 0.5-1.1, PN (A-C) = 190-276.

Amherstburg Formation(Lower to Middle Devonian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the De-troit River Group. The formation correlates to the Amherst-burgFormation ofMichigan and the lower part of theOnon-daga Formation in western New York. The OnondagaFormation terminology has been used in the outcrop belt ofsouthern Ontario east of Norfolk County.

LITHOLOGY: Tan to grey-brown to dark brown, fine- tocoarse-grained, bituminous, bioclastic, fossiliferous lime-stones and dolostone. Stromatoporoid-dominated biohermsare locally significant in Bruce and Huron counties andhave been termed the Formosa Reef Limestone or Formosareef facies.

THICKNESS: 0 to 60m.The FormosaReefLimestone is up to26 m.

USES: Cement manufacture, agricultural lime, aggregate.AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: PSV = 57, AAV =19, MgSO4 = 9-35, LA = 26-52, Absn = 1.1-6.4, BRD =2.35-2.62, PN (A-C) = 105-300.

Lucas Formation (Middle Devonian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the De-troit River Group in southwestern Ontario. The formation issubdivided into 3 lithological units: the Lucas Formationundifferentiated, the Anderdon Member limestone and theAnderdon Member sandy limestone.

LITHOLOGY: The undifferentiated Lucas Formation con-sists of thin- to medium-bedded, light to grey-brown, finecrystalline, poorly fossiliferous dolostone and limestone.Anhydrite and gypsum beds are present near Amherstburgand Goderich. The Anderdon Member consists of light todark grey-brown, thin- to medium-bedded, fine-grained,sparsely fossiliferous limestone, alternating with coarse-grained, bioclastic limestone.

THICKNESS: 40 to 99 m.

USES:Most important source of high-purity limestone in On-tario.Used as calcium lime formetallurgical flux and for themanufacture of chemicals. Rock of lower purity is used forcement manufacture, agricultural lime and aggregate. TheAnderdon Member is quarried at Amherstburg for crushedstone.


Dundee Formation (Middle Devonian)STRATIGRAPHYand/or OCCURRENCE:The Dundee For-mation occurs between the Hamilton Group or MarcellusFormation and the limestones and dolostones of the DetroitRiver Group. There are few outcrops and the formation isobservedmostly in the subsurface of southwesternOntario.

LITHOLOGY:Grey to tan to brown, fossiliferous,medium- tothick-bedded limestones andminor dolostones.Bituminouspartings andmicrostylolites are common.Chert nodules arelocally abundant.

THICKNESS: 35 to 45 m.USES: Quarried near Port Dover and on Pelee Island forcrushed stone. Used at St. Marys as a rawmaterial for Port-land cement.

AGGREGATE SUITABILITY TESTING: MgSO4 = 1-28,LA = 22-46, Absn = 0.6-6.8, PN (A-C) = 125-320.

Marcellus Formation (Middle Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Subsurface unit,mostly found below Lake Erie and extending into the east-ern USA, pinches out in the Port Stanley area. The forma-tion occurs on the southeast side of the Algonquin Arch.

LITHOLOGY: Black, organic-rich shales with interbeds ofgrey shale and very fine- to medium-grained, impure car-bonates.


Bell Formation (Middle Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Lowest forma-tion of the HamiltonGroup, not known to crop out inOntar-io.

LITHOLOGY: Blue-grey, soft, calcareous shale with thinlimestone and organic-rich interbeds toward the base of theformation.

THICKNESS: 0 to 14.5 m.USES: No present uses.

Rockport Quarry Formation(Middle Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Ham-ilton Group; not known to crop out in Ontario.

LITHOLOGY:Grey to brown, fine-grained argillaceous lime-stone.


Arkona Formation (Middle Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Ham-ilton Group.

LITHOLOGY: Blue-grey, plastic, soft, calcareous shale withminor thin and laterally discontinuous argillaceous lime-stone beds.

City ofHamilton

31

THICKNESS: 5 to 37 m.USES: Has been extracted at Thedford and near Arkona forthe production of drainage tile.

Hungry Hollow Formation(Middle Devonian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Ham-ilton Group.

LITHOLOGY: The upper part of the formation is a coral-rich,calcareous shale-dominated unit. The lower part of theformation is predominantly fossiliferous, bioclastic lime-stone.

THICKNESS: 0 to 2 m.USES: Suitable for some crushed stone and fill with veryselective quarrying methods.

Widder Formation (Middle Devonian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Part of the Ham-ilton Group.

LITHOLOGY: Calcareous, grey to brown-grey shale, biotur-bated, fine-grained, argillaceous, nodular limestone andcoarse-grained bioclastic limestone.


Ipperwash Formation (Middle Devonian)

STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Upper formationof the HamiltonGroup; very limited distribution inOntario.

LITHOLOGY: Grey-brown, fine- to coarse-grained, argilla-ceous and bioclastic limestone with shaly interbeds.


Kettle Point Formation (Upper Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Occurs in anorthwest-trending band between Sarnia and Lake Erie;small part overlain byPort LambtonGroup rocks inextremenorthwest.

LITHOLOGY: Dark brown to black, highly fissile, organic-rich shale with subordinate organic-poor, grey-green siltyshale and siltstone interbeds.

THICKNESS: 0 to 75 m.USES: Possible source of lightweight aggregate or fill.

Bedford Formation (Upper Devonian)STRATIGRAPHYand/orOCCURRENCE: Lower formationof the Port Lambton Group.

LITHOLOGY: Light grey, soft, fissile shale with silty andsandy interbeds in the upper part of the formation.


Berea Formation (Upper Devonian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE: Middle forma-tion of the Port Lambton Group; not known to crop out inOntario.

LITHOLOGY: Grey, fine- tomedium-grained sandstone withgrey shale and siltstone interbeds.


Sunbury Formation (Lower Mississippian)STRATIGRAPHY and/or OCCURRENCE:Upper formation ofthe Port Lambton Group; not known to crop out in Ontario.

LITHOLOGY: Black, organic-rich shale.THICKNESS: 0 to 20 m.USES: No present uses.

ARIP 181

32

FigureD1.Bedrock

geologyofsouthernOntario.

City ofHamilton

33

FigureD2.Exposed Paleozoic stratigraphic sequences in southern Ontario (adapted fromBezys and Johnson 1988 and Armstrong and Dodge 2007).

34

Appendix E – Aggregate Quality Test Specifications

Aggregate quality tests are performed by the Ministry ofTransportation of Ontario (MTO) for the Ontario Geologi-cal Survey on sampled material. A brief description andthe specification limits for each test are included in this ap-pendix. Although a specific samplemeets or does not meetthe specification limits for a certain product, it may ormaynot be acceptable for that use based on field performance.Additional quality tests other than the tests listed in this ap-pendix can be used to determine the suitability of an aggre-gate. Greater detail on the tests and aggregate specifica-tions can be obtained from the MTO.

Absorption Capacity (LS-604): This test is related to theporosity of the rock types of which an aggregate is com-posed. Porous rocks are subject to disintegration when ab-sorbed liquids freeze and thaw, thus decreasing thestrength of the aggregate. This test is conducted in con-junction with the determination of the sample’s relativedensity.

AcceleratedMortar BarExpansionTest (LS-620):This is arapid test for detecting alkali–silica reactive aggregates. Itinvolves the crushing of the aggregate and the creation ofstandard mortar bars. For coarse and fine aggregates, sug-gested expansion limits of 0.10 to 0.15% are indicated forinnocuous aggregates; greater than 0.10%, but less than0.20%, indicates that it is unknown whether a potentiallydeleterious reaction will occur; and greater than 0.20% in-dicates that the aggregate is probably reactive and shouldnot be used for Portland cement concrete. If the expansionlimit exceeds 0.10% for coarse and fine aggregates, it isrecommended that supplementary information be devel-oped to confirm that the expansion is actually because ofalkali reactivity. If confirmed deleteriously reactive, thematerial should not be used for Portland cement concreteunless corrective measures are undertaken such as the useof low- or reduced-alkali cement.

Aggregate Abrasion Value (AVV) (British Standard 812):TheAAV is ameasure of the resistance of aggregate to sur-face wear by abrasion using a standard silica sand. A lowAVV (6 or less) implies good resistance to abrasion. Anag-gregate with good resistance to abrasion will usually givegood macrotexture. This test is described in British Stan-dard 812 (1975).

Bulk Relative Density (BRD) (ASTM C29): An aggregatewith low relative density is lighter in weight than one witha high relative density. Low relative-density aggregates(less than about 2.5) are often non-durable for many aggre-gate uses.

Los Angeles Abrasion and Impact Test (LS-603 or ASTMC131): This test measures the resistance to abrasion andthe impact strength of aggregate. This gives an idea of thebreakdown that can be expected to occur when an aggre-

gate is stockpiled, transported and placed. Values less thanabout 35% indicate potentially satisfactory performancefor most concrete and asphalt uses. Values of more than45% indicate that the aggregate may be susceptible to ex-cessive breakdown during handling and placing. This testhas been replaced by the micro-Deval abrasion test forcoarse aggregate (see below), but, because of the largenumber of Los Angeles abrasion analyses that exist in his-torical MTO records, this test can still provide an indica-tion of the aggregate quality.

Magnesium Sulphate Soundness Test (LS-606): This test isdesigned to simulate the action of freezing and thawing onaggregate. Those aggregates which are susceptible willusually break down and give high losses in this test. Valuesgreater than about 12 to 15% indicate potential problemsfor concrete and asphalt coarse aggregate.

Micro-Deval Abrasion Test (LS-618 and LS-619): The mi-cro-Deval abrasion test for fine aggregate is an accuratemeasure of the amount of hard, durable materials in sand-sized particles. This abrasion test is quick, cheap andmoreprecise than the fine aggregate magnesium sulphatesoundness test that suffers from a wide multi-laboratoryvariation. The magnesium sulphate soundness test is stillconsidered an alternative test as indicated in many of theaccompanying tables in this appendix. The micro-Devalabrasion test for coarse aggregate has replaced the LosAn-geles abrasion and impact test.

Petrographic Examination (LS-609): Individual aggregateparticles in a sample are divided into categories good, fair,poor and deleterious, based on their rock type (petrogra-phy) and knowledge of past field performance. A petro-graphic number (PN) is calculated. The higher the PN, thelower the quality of the aggregate.

Polished Stone Value (PSV) (British Standard 812): ThePSV is a measure of the resistance of aggregate to the pol-ishing action of a pneumatic tire under conditions similarto those occurring on the road surface. The actual relation-ship between skidding resistance and PSV varies depend-ing on the type of road surface, age, amount of traffic andother factors. Nevertheless, an aggregate with a high PSVwill generally provide higher skid resistance than onewitha low PSV. This test is described in British Standard 812(1975). Values less than 45 indicate marginal frictionalproperties, whereas values greater than 55 indicate excel-lent frictional properties (average value no less than 50).

Unconfined Freeze–Thaw Test (LS-614): This test is de-signed to identify aggregate material that may be suscepti-ble to excessive damage caused by freeze–thaw cycles.Aggregates that give losses greater than about 6% have ahigh probability of causing “popouts” on concrete and as-phalt surfaces.

City ofHamilton

35

MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR AGGREGATES: BASE AND SUBBASEPRODUCTS

Table E1. Physical property requirements for aggregates: base, subbase, select subgrade and backfill material.

MTOTestNumber

Laboratory Test Granular O Granular AGranular B(Type I andType III)

Granular B(Type II) Granular M

SelectSubgradeMaterial

LS--614 UnconfinedFreeze–Thaw Loss(% maximum)

15–

– – – –

LS--616LS--709

Fine AggregatePetrographicRequirement

[Note 1]

LS--618 Micro-DevalAbrasion Loss,Coarse Aggregate(% maximum loss)

21 25 30[Note 2]

30 25 30[Note 2]

LS--619 Micro-DevalAbrasion Loss,Fine Aggregate(% maximum loss)

25 30 35 35 30 –

LS--630 Amount ofContamination

[Note 3]

LS--631 Plastic Fines None Permitted

LS--704 Plasticity Index(maximum)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Note 1.Formaterials north of the FrenchRiver andMattawaRiver only: formaterialswith >5.0%passing the 75 mmsieve, the amount ofmica retainedonthe 75 mmsieve (passing the 150 mmsieve) shall not exceed 10%of thematerial in that sieve fractionunless testing (LS--709) determinespermeabil-ity values >1.0 ×10–4 cm/s and/or field experience show satisfactory performance (prior data demonstrating compliance with this requirementwillbe acceptable provided such testing has been done within the past 5 years and field performance has been satisfactory).

Note 2. The coarse aggregate micro-Deval abrasion loss test requirement will be waived if the material has more than 80% passing the 4.75 mm sieve.

Note 3.Granular A,B Type I, BType III, orMmay contain up to 15%bymass crushed glass and/or ceramic material.Granular A,O, BType I,B Type IIIandM shall not contain more than 1.0%by mass of wood, clay brick, and/or gypsum, and/or gypsumwall board or plaster. Granular B Type II andSSM shall not contain more than 0.1% by mass of wood.

Greater detail, additional specifications and other aggregate product information can be obtained from the Ministry of Transportation. Detailsabove are derived fromMTO SP--110513 (August 2007).

ARIP 181

36

MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR AGGREGATES: HOT MIX ASPHALT PRODUCTS

Table E2. Physical property requirements for coarse aggregate (surface course): SMA, Superpavet 9.5, 12.5, 12.5FC1 and 12.5 FC2.

Aggregate Type

MTO Test Laboratory Test SuperpaveGravel Quarried Rock

(SMA, Superpave 12.5 FC1 and 12.5 FC2)MTO TestNumber

Laboratory Test Superpave9.5, 12.5 (Superpave

12.5 FC1 only)DolomiticSandstone

Traprock,Diabase,Andesite

Meta--arkose,Metagabbro,

Gneiss

LS--601 Wash Pass, 75 mm sieve(% maximum loss)

1.3[Note 4]

1.0[Note 5]

1.0[Note 5]

1.0[Note 5]

1.0[Note 5]

LS--604 Absorption(% maximum)

2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

LS--608 Flat and Elongated Particles(% maximum (4:1))

20 15 15 15 15

LS--609 Petrographic Number (HL)(maximum)

[Note 6] 120 145 120 145

LS--613 Insoluble Residue Retained,75 mm sieve (% minimum)

– – 45 – –

LS--614 Unconfined Freeze–ThawLoss (% maximum loss)

6[Note 7]

6 7 6 6

LS--618 Micro-Deval Abrasion Loss(% maximum loss)

17 10 15 10 15

Alternative Requirement for LS--614

LS--606 Magnesium SulphateSoundness Loss(% maximum loss)

12 – – – –

Note 4.When control charts (n >20) are used for LS--601, the average value shall not exceed the specification maximum (1.3%), with no single valuegreater than 1.7%. When quarried rock is used as a source of coarse aggregate, a maximum of 2.0% passing the 75 mm sieve shall be permitted.When control charts (n >20) are used fromLS--601 for quarried rock, the average value shall not exceed the specification maximum (2.0%) with nosingle value greater than 2.4%.

Note 5.When control charts (n >20) are used for LS--601, the average value shall not exceed the specification maximum (1.0%), with no single valuegreater than 1.4%.

Note 6.For the locations listed below, PetrographicNumber (HL) is replaced by the following Petrographic Examination requirements.When the coarseaggregate for use in a surface course mix is obtained from a gravel pit or quarry containingmore than 40% carbonate rock type, e.g., limestone anddolostone, then blendingwith aggregate of non-carbonate rock type shall be required such as to increase the non-carbonate rock type content of thecoarse aggregate to 60% minimum, as determined by LS--609. The method of blending shall be uniform and shall be subject to approval by theowner. In cases of dispute, LS--613 shall be used with a minimum of acid insoluble residue of 60%.When the aggregate for a surface course mix isobtained from a non-carbonate gravel or quarry source, blendingwith carbonate rock types shall not be permitted. This requirement is applicable tocoarse aggregates used in surface course mixes in the area to the north andwest of a boundary defined as follows: the north shore of Lake Superior,the north shore of the St. Mary’s River, the south shore of St. Joseph Island, the north shore of Lake Huron easterly to the north and east shore ofGeorgianBay (excludingManitoulin Island), along the SevernRiver toWashago anda line easterly passing throughNorland,BurntRiver,BurleighFalls, Madoc, and hence easterly along Highway 7 to Perth and northerly to Calabogie and easterly to Arnprior and the Ottawa River.

Note 7. For Superpave 12.5 only, the requirements will be waived by the owner when the aggregate meets the alternative requirements for LS--606.

City ofHamilton

37

Table E3. Physical property requirements for coarse aggregate (binder course): Superpavet 9.5, 12.5, 19.0, 25.0and 37.5.

MTO Test Number Laboratory Test Superpave 9.5, 12.5, 19.0, 25.0 and 37.5

LS--601 Wash Pass, 75 mm sieve(% maximum loss)

1.3[Note 8]

LS--604 Absorption(% maximum)

2.0


*

LS--614 Unconfined Freeze–Thaw Loss(% maximum loss) [Note 9]

15

LS--618 Micro-Deval Abrasion Loss(% maximum loss)

21


LS--606 Magnesium Sulphate Soundness Loss(% maximum loss)

15

Note 8.When control charts (n >20) are used for LS--601, the average value shall not exceed the specification maximum (1.3%), with no single valuegreater than 1.7%. When quarried rock is used as a source of coarse aggregate, a maximum of 2.0% passing the 75 mm sieve shall be permitted.When control charts (n>20) are used for LS--601 for quarried rock, the average value shall not exceed the specification maximum (2.0%), with nosingle value greater than 2.4%.

Note 9. This requirement will be waived by the owner when the aggregate meets the requirements for LS--606.

* Designer fill-in, contact the MTO.

Table E4. Physical property requirements for fine aggregate: SMA, Superpavet 9.5, 12.5, 12.5 FC1, 12.5 FC2,19.0, 25.0 and 37.5.

MTOTest Number

Laboratory Test SMA,Superpave 12.5 FC2

Superpave 12.5 FC1 Superpave 9.5, 12.5,19.0, 25.0 and 37.5

LS--619 Micro-Deval Abrasion Loss(% maximum loss) [Note 10]

15 20 25

LS--704 Plasticity Index(maximum)

0 0 0

Note 10.Where the blending method has been selected for QC, the micro-Deval abrasion loss of each individual fine aggregate in the stockpile, prior toblending, shall not exceed 35%.

Greater detail, additional specifications and other aggregate product information can be obtained from the Ministry of Transportation. Theabove specifications are fromMTO SP--110F12 (2007).

ARIP 181

38

MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR AGGREGATES: CONCRETE PRODUCTS

Table E5. Physical property requirements for coarse aggregate.

Acceptance Requirements

MTO or CSA Test Number Laboratory Test Pavement Structures, Sidewalk, Curb andGutter, and Concrete Base

LS--601 Material finer than 75 mm sieve, by washing(% maximum loss) [Note 11]

• for gravel• for crushed rock

1.02.0

1.02.0

LS--604 orCSA A23.2--12A

Absorption(% maximum)

2.0 2.0


20 20

LS--609 Petrographic Number (Concrete)(maximum)

125 140

LS--614 orCSA A23.2--24A

Unconfined Freeze–Thaw Loss(% maximum loss) [Note 12]

6 6

LS--618 orCSA A23.2--29A

Micro-Deval Abrasion Loss(% maximum loss)

14 17

LS--620 orCSA A23.2--25A

Accelerated Mortar Bar Expansion(% maximum at 14 days) [Note 13, Note 14]

0.150[Note 15]

0.150[Note 15]

CSA A23.2--14A Concrete Prism Expansion(% maximum at 1 year) [Note 13, Note 16]

0.040 0.040

CSA A23.2--26A Potential Alkali–Carbonate Reactivity ofQuarried Carbonate Rock [Note 17]

Chemical composition must plot in thenonexpansive field of a specific figure used with

test


LS--606 Magnesium Sulphate Soundness Loss, 5cycles (% maximum loss) [Note 12]

12 12

General Notes:•Where a concrete surface is subject to vehicular traffic, the physical requirements for “Pavement” will apply to the aggregate used.

• For air--cooled blast-furnace slag aggregate, the allowable maximum value for micro--Deval shall be 21% for structures and pavements and the allow-able maximum value for absorption will conform to the owner’s requirements for slag aggregate.

• A coarse aggregate may be accepted or rejected by the owner based on the results of freeze–thaw testing of concrete or field performance.Note 11.When control charts (n >20) are used for LS--601, the average value shall not exceed the specification maximum (1.3%), with no single value

greater than 1.7%. When quarried rock is used as a source of coarse aggregate, a maximum of 2.0% passing the 75 mm sieve shall be permitted.When control charts (n >20) are used for LS--601 for quarried rock, the average value shall not exceed the specification maximum (2.0%), with nosingle value greater than 2.4%.

Note 12.The owner will waive the requirements for freeze–thaw loss when the aggregate meets the alternative magnesium sulphate soundness require-ments, LS--606.

Note 13.The need to demonstrate compliance with this requirement will bewaived by the ContractAdministrator if the source is on the currentMinistryof Transportation regional Aggregate Source List (ASL) for Structural Concrete Fine and Coarse Aggregates or theAggregate Source List ofCon-crete Base/Pavement Coarse Aggregates. If the aggregate is potentially expansive due to alkali-carbonate reaction as determined by CSAA23.2--26A, the aggregate shall meet the requirements of CSA A23.2--14A, even though it may be shown as a coarse aggregate on the ASL forStructural Concrete Fine and Coarse Aggregates or the ASL for Concrete Base/Pavement Coarse Aggregates.

Note 14.An aggregate that fails tomeet these requirementswill be accepted by theContractAdministrator provided the requirementsofCSAA23.2--14Aare met.

Note 15. If the aggregate is a quarried sandstone, siltstone, granite or gneiss, the expansion shall be less than 0.080% after 14 days. For quarried aggre-gates of the Gull River, Bobcaygeon, Verulam and Lindsay formations, the expansion shall be less than 0.100% after 14 days.

Note 16.An aggregate needs to meet this requirement only if it fails the requirements of either CSA A23.2--25A or CSAA23.2--26A. The test data shallhave been obtained within the past 18 months from aggregate from the same location within the source as that to be used in the work. If this test isconducted to show that an average deemed potentially expansive byCSAA23.2--26Adoes not exceed 0.040% after one year, then chemical analy-sis,CSAA23.2--26A, shall be provided to show that the aggregate intended for use has the same chemicalcomposition as thematerial tested inCSAA23.2--14A.

Note 17. This requirement only applies to aggregate quarried from the Gull River and Bobcaygeon formations of southern and eastern Ontario. Thesedolomitic limestones crop out on the southernmargin of the Canadian Shield fromMidland toKingston and in theOttawa–St. Lawrence Lowlandsnear Cornwall.

City ofHamilton

39

Table E6. Physical property requirements for fine aggregate.

MTO or CSA Test Number Laboratory Test Acceptance Limits

LS--610 Organic Impurities,(organic plate number) [Note 18]

3

LS--619 orCSA A23.2--23A

Micro-Deval Abrasion Loss(% maximum loss)

20

LS--620 orCSA A23.2--25A

Accelerated Mortar Bar Expansion(% maximum at 14 days) [Note 19, Note 20]

0.150

CSA A23.2--14A Concrete Prism Expansion(% maximum at 1 year) [Note 19, Note 21]

0.040

Note 18.Afine aggregate producing a colour darker than standard colourNo.3 shallbe considered to have failed this requirement.Afailed fine aggregatemay be used if comparative mortar specimens prepared according to ASTM C87 meet the following requirements:

• Mortar specimens prepared using unwashed fine aggregate shall have a 7 day compressive strength that is aminimum of 95%of the strengthof mortar specimens prepared using the same fine aggregate washed in a 3% sodiumhydroxide solution.Type GUhydraulic cement shall beused.

• Setting time of the unwashed fine aggregate mortar specimens shall not differ from washed fine aggregate mortar specimens by more than10%.

Note 19.The need for data to demonstrate compliance with this requirement shall be waived by the Contract Administrator if the aggregate source is onthe current Ministry of Transportation’s regional Aggregate Source List for Structural Concrete Fine and Coarse Aggregates.

Note 20. An aggregate that fails this requirement may be accepted provided the requirements of CSA A23.2--14A are met.

Note 21.An aggregate need onlymeet this requirement if it fails the requirements ofCSAA23.2--25A.Test data shall have been obtained with the past 18months from aggregate that is from the same source, processed in the same manner, as the material intended for use.

Greater detail, additional specifications and other aggregate product information can be obtained from the Ministry of Transportation. Theabove specifications are fromMTO SP--110F11 (2007).

40

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--2061 [print]ISBN 978--1--4435--3277--8 [print]

ISSN 1917--330X [online]ISBN 978--1--4435--3278--5 [PDF]

!

!

Creek

Bronte

Creek

Fle tcher

Barlow

Creek

Creek

Sinkhole

Redhi

ll Cr

eek

Lake Ontario

Hamilton Harbour

Niapenco

Lake

ReservoirChristie

ValensReservoir

MountsbergReservoir

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

ED5

ED6

ED2ED8

ED52

ED52

ED53

ED20

ED20

EDQEW

ED6

ED53

ED2

ED2

ED97

ED6

ED52

ED8

ED8

ED8

ED5

EDQEW

ED8ED403

ED53

ED56

ED6

Clappison'sCorners

Renforth

Mount Hope

Dundas Valley

Stoney Creek

Vinemount

Sheffield

WaterdownMillgrove

Binbrook

Ancaster

Copetown

Hamilton

Carlisle

Puslinch

Lynden

Dundas

2

1

SOURCES OF INFORMATION Base map information derived from National Topographic System (NTS)maps, Natural Resources Canada, scale 1:50 000, and from the OntarioLand Information Warehouse, Land Information Ontario, Ontario Ministryof Natural Resources, scale 1:50 000, with modifications by staff of theMinistry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. Projection: North American Datum 1983 (NAD83), Zone 17.

Aggregate suitability data from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.Selected drilled water well data from the Ontario Ministry of theEnvironment. Test hole data from the Ontario Geological Survey,Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry.

Geology based on Cowan, W.R. 1972 Feenstra, B.H. 1975 Karrow, P.F. 1987a Karrow, P.F. 1987b Karrow, P.F. 1987c Ontario Geological Survey 2003

Additional geology by A.S. Marich, 2007. Compilation by A.S. Marich.Drafting by S.A. Evers. This map is published with the permission of theDirector, Ontario Geological Survey.

Information from this publication may be quoted if credit is given. It isrecommended that reference to this map be made in the following form:

Marich, A.S. 2010. Aggregate resources inventory for the City of Hamilton, southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 181, Map 1–Sand and Gravel Resources, scale 1:50 000.

Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 181MAP 1

Sand and Gravel Resourcesfor the City of Hamilton

Scale 1:50 000

NTS References: 30 M/4, 5; 40 P/1,8

SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES Selected Sand and Gravel Resource Area, primary significance; deposit number (see Table 3)

Selected sand and gravel resource area, secondary significance

Sand and gravel deposit, tertiary significance

Other surficial deposits or exposed bedrock

!(1

1000 m 0 1 2 km

Location Map 1 cm equals 80 km

SYMBOLS Licenced property boundary: property number (see Table 2)

Unlicenced sand or gravel pit (i.e., abandoned pit or wayside pit operating on demand under authority of a permit). Property number (see Table 2).

Geological and aggregate thickness boundary of sand and gravel deposits

Administrative boundary

1

!18

Québec

USA

USA

Lake Ontario

Lake Erie

GeorgianBay

LakeHuron

Barrie

Ottawa

London

Toronto

Windsor

Sudbury North Bay

Brockville

Hamilton

80°82° 46°

44°

42°

76°78°

N

NNNNN NN NN NN

NN NNNNN NN

NN

NN NNNNN

NN N

NNN N N N

NNN NN NN NN

NNN NNNNNN N NNN NNN NN N NNN N NN NN N NN NN NNNN N NN N NNN N NNN N NNN NN N NN NN NNNN NN NN NNN N NN N NNN NN NNNN NN NN NNN NNN N NN NN NNN N NN

NN NNNNN NN

N NN NNNN

NNNNNNNNNNN NN NNN N NNN NN NN NN NN N N NNNN N NNNN

NN N NNNNN NNNN NNNN N NN NNN N N NNN N NNNN NNN NNN N N N NN NN NNN NN N NNN NN

N NN NN N

NNN

NN NN N NNNN NNN NNN NN NN N NNN NNNNN

NN

NN N

NNNN

N NN NN NNN

NN NN N N NN NNN NN N

NNNNN N NN NN

N NNN

NNNNN NN

NN NN NN NN

NN

NN N NNNN N NN

NN

NNNN

NNNNN

NNN

NN NN N NN

NNNNNN

NN

NNNN

NNN N NN

NN

NN

NNN NN

NNN NNN

NNN NN

N

NN

N

N

N

N

NN

N

N

N

N

NNNN

N

N Amabel Formation

Amabel Formation

Amabel Formation

Amabel Formation

Amabel Formation

Guelph Formation

Guelph Formation

Guelph Formation

Clinton-Cataract Groups

Queenston Formation

Lake Ontario

!(1

!(2

!(3

!(4

Clinton-Cataract Groups

Queenston Formation

Dundas

Lynden

Puslinch

Carlisle

Hamilton

Copetown

Ancaster

Binbrook

Millgrove Waterdown

Sheffield

Vinemount

Stoney Creek

Dundas Valley

Mount Hope

Renforth

Clappison'sCorners

ED6 ED56

ED53

ED403 ED8

EDQEW

ED5

ED8

ED8

ED8

ED52

ED6

ED97

ED2

ED2ED53

ED6

EDQEW

Bronte

Creek

Fle tcher

Creek

Barlow

Creek

Sinkhole

Creek

Redhi

ll Cr

eek

ED20

ED20

ED53

ED52

ED52

ED8ED2

ED6

ED5

MountsbergReservoir

ValensReservoir

Christie Reservoir

Lake

Niapenco

Hamilton Harbour

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

1

6

2

7

35

9

11

4

8

12

10

Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 181MAP 2

Bedrock Resourcesfor the City of Hamilton

Scale 1:50 000

NTS References: 30 M/4, 5; 40 P/1,8

1000 m 0 1 2 km

LEGEND–BEDROCK UNITS

PHANEROZOIC PALEOZOIC SILURIAN LOWER SILURIAN Guelph Formation: Dolostone Amabel Formationa: Dolostone, sandstone, shale Clinton—Cataract Group: Dolostone, sandstone, shale

ORDOVICIAN UPPER ORDOVICIAN Queenston Formation: Red shale

a Lockport south of Waterdown has been included with the Amabel Fm.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION Base map information derived from National Topographic System (NTS)maps, Natural Resources Canada, scale 1:50 000, and from the OntarioLand Information Warehouse, Land Information Ontario, Ontario Ministryof Natural Resources, scale 1:50 000, with modifications by staff of theMinistry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry.Projection: North American Datum 1983 (NAD83), Zone 17.

Aggregate suitability data from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.Selected water well data from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.Additional test hole data from the Ontario Geological Survey, Ministry ofNorthern Development, Mines and Forestry.

Geology based on Armstrong, D.K., and Dodge, J.E.P. 2007 Liberty, B.A., Bond, I.J., and Telford, P.G. 1976 Liberty, B.A., Feenstra, B.H., and Telford, P.G. 1976 Telford, P.G. 1979

Additional geology by A.S. Marich, 2007. Compilation by A.S. Marich.Drafting by S.A. Evers. This map is published with the permission of theDirector, Ontario Geological Survey.

Information from this publication may be quoted if credit is given. It isrecommended that reference to this map be made in the following form:

Marich, A.S. 2010. Aggregate resources inventory for the City of Hamilton, southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper 181, Map 2–Bedrock Resources, scale 1:50 000.

Location Map 1 cm equals 80 km

DRIFT THICKNESS

Paleozoic bedrock outcrop (see Table 4); areas of exposed bedrock partially covered by a thin veneer of drift. Drift thickness is generally less than 1 m (3 feet).

Paleozoic bedrock covered by drift (see Table 4); drift thickness is generally 1 to 8 m (3 to 25 feet). Bedrock outcrops may occur.

Paleozoic bedrock covered by drift (see Table 4); drift thickness is generally 8 to 15 m (25 to 50 feet). Isolated bedrock outcrops may occur.

Paleozoic bedrock covered by drift; drift thickness is generally greater than 15 m (50 feet).

SYMBOLS Selected Bedrock Resource Area; deposit number (see Table 6)

Licenced quarry boundary; property number (see Table 5)

Unlicenced quarry (i.e., abandoned quarry or wayside quarry operating on demand under authority of a permit). Property number (see Table 5).

Geological formation and/or member boundary

Drift thickness contour

Isolated bedrock outcrop

Administrative boundary

1

24!

!(6

N

Québec

USA

USA

Lake Ontario

Lake Erie

GeorgianBay

LakeHuron

Barrie

Ottawa

London

Toronto

Windsor

Sudbury North Bay

Brockville

Hamilton

80°82° 46°

44°

42°

76°78°

Documents

ARIP181 - Aggregate Resources Inventory of the City of ... · ISSN 1917-330X [online] ISSN 0708-2061 [print] ISBN 978-1-4435-3278-5 ISBN 978-1-4435-3277-8 [print] THESE TERMS GOVERN