THE CALEDON-GUELPH OUTWASH, ONTARIO, CANADA:

ITS ORIGIN, DEPOSITS, AND ECONOMICS

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of Graduate Studies

of

The University of Guelph

by

LESLEY ANNE HYMERS

In partial fuifïllment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Science

Apd, 2001

O Lesiey Anne Hymers, 2001 National Library BiMiothèque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 WeUington Street 395. rue WeMington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 -ON K1AW Canada CaMde

The author has grantecl a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibiiothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distn'bue or seil reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur fonnat électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propdte du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be phted or othedse de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT THE CALEDON-GUELPH OUTWASH (ONTARIO, CANADA): ITS ORIGIN, DEPOSITS, AND ECONOMICS

Lesley Anne Hymers Advisor: University of Guelph, 2001 Dr. 1. P Martini

The Late Pleistocene Caledon-Guelph outwash has developed in front of the Paris

Moraine from Caledon to Guelph and to Paris in southwestern Ontario. Its sediments were uansported and deposited by braided meltwater streams that flowed quasi-paraliel to the front of the Ontario lobe of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. These streams received input of sediment and water from various points dong their path, and never developed a graded profile. They were dso affected by strongly variable discharge related to variation in thaw in different seasons and from day and night. Occasional bursts of ice-dammed supra- and/or sub-glacial lakes may have triggered short-lived but powefil mega-fioods.

These events led to a complex distribution of variable deposits of sand and gravel. As a result, these deposits maintain the record of events and processes active in these glacial marginal environments. These sand and gravel deposits were studied in four representative pits: Caledon, Enn, Martini (within the outwash), and the Leslie pit (within an ice-contact zone). Stagnant water conditions are revealed by few local occurrences of silt and fine sand iilycls. Braided Stream conditions, with continuous cutting and filling of channels, is revealed by the alternation of massive sandy gravels and cross-bedded deposits. Evidence of extremely large magnitude floods is recorded by the presence of imbricated coarse boulders, large foresetted deposits, and large channel fdls, particularly in the Caledon region.

The Caledon-Guelph outwash is an economically important aggregate deposit.

The deposits are valuable because of their quantity and quaiity. They are thick, lack deleterious lithologies, usually require Limited processing, are located near transportahon routes, and major market areas. Acknowledgments

The following work is owed, in part, to the many people who assisted me in this endeavour. Firstly, 1 wish to thank Dr. 1. P. Martini for his passion, creativity, support, and, especiaily, patience without which this project would not have ken possible. 1 would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Richard Rotz and Dr. Gary

Parkin and thank them for partkipating in my advisory cornmittee. 1 would especially like to thank Dr. Protz for ailowing me the use of his Image Anaiysis Laboratory facilities for an explorative work on ways of quantiQing aggregate characteristics through image analysis. i would especially like to thank Dr. Parkin for his encouragement and for his meaningful input regarding some of the analysis and statistics. 1 would also like to thank

Dr. Christopher Duke for his assistance and advice with respect to the Image Analysis portion of the research. 1 would like to thank the aggregate companies for ailowing me the use of their facilities. 1 hope that some of the results will be meaningful to them. The

Land Resource Science Department office staff needs special recognition for their assistance, especially regarding my administration. Thanks also go to Amanda

Blackmore, my principal field assistant, Steven Sadura for his field, technical, and teaching assistance, Don hine for his technical and graphic support, and Mufiah el Gadi for his assistance with some of the analysis. Sincere and heartfelt thanks must also go to my many graduate student fnends and colleagues who helped make my time here so pleasant. Thank you dl! Dr. Sandra Ausma deserves special recognition for providing a meaningful role model. My partner Paul Machado needs speciai recognition also. Thank you for your cornmitment, support and encouragement! I would also like to thank my farnily for their support and, especially, for my employment without which 1 would never have been able to complete my education. A sincere thank you must go to Ruth Howes and Geoff Kerr who so kindly provided me a Guelph home during the final stages of the preparation of this thesis. My coileagues at Teaching Support Services deserve special recognition. Thank you al1 for your support and professional coaching. Finally, 1 owe an imrneasurabIe debt of gratitude to the many professors and students who, through scholarly and social interaction, facilitated the Merdevelopment of my passion for science and inquiry, and assisted in the continued fostering of my Iife long learning objective.

" Wherever glaciers have passed over, during one of the ages of the Earth's existence, the aspect of the country has been transfonned by their action. As do avalanches, they carry the rubbish of the crurnbling mountains into the plains, not by violence, but by the

patient labour of every rnovernent. " E. Reclus (1880) (Allen, 1997). Table of Contents

Abstract ...... Acknowledgments ...... Table of Contents ...... oo...o...... om0-0 List of Appendices ...... v

List of Figures~~~m~~~~~~m~~~~~~o~~~~o~~~~~~om~o~~~~~~m~oomoo~m~mmmo~m~~omm~~mm~~~mm~~m~~m~~m~~om~~~~~m~~o~~o~~~~~~~~~mo~~~~o~~~~~~o~~~m~~~m~t~Vi List of TabIes ...... ix

RESULTS ...... om.....o...... oo.....~~o~~~o~~~mo~~~~o~~~~mmo~~om~mm~~~~~~o~~o~mm~~~~m~~~mm~~~~l8 Mineralogical Composition and Particle Size Analysis.....,...... m...... 18 Mineralogical Composition ...... o.ooooo18 Particle Size Analysis .....~m.oo...~m.oom..oo~.~ommoow.~mmmm.mm~mmom.~~o~m~momm~~mo.o~.~wmm o.mmw~m~m~mo.~~o~~*~m17 Distributions ...... 18 Scatter Plots ...... o.ooo*.ooooo.ooe~oeoo21 Lithofacies ...... m.~~~~~~~w~~~wm~~m~~~~~~~~~mmm~m~~~~m~~~~m~~~~~~mm~~~~~m~~~o~~~~~m~~~~m~~~omoo~~o~~~~~~~~wm~~~mm~m~~~~28 F: Sandy Silt-Silty Sand ...... m.....m30 S Sand ...... m.mmmo~m~o~3O Sd: Gravelly Sand to Sandy Grave1 .., ...... o..m.mm.~~.~.~.~emw~~~.~m.mwaw.mm~m~.~.m.~a..o.~....3I Gg: Granule to Very Fine Pebble Gravel ..o...... , ..~amm~..~mm~~~om~.om~~mo~~..*m~.aa.~e~m~~m~33 Gd: Pebble Grave1 ...... ~.o~mmm~~~~*~m~~~m33 Gc: Cobble Grave1 ...... 35 Gb: Bouldery Gravel ...... o...... ~..mm.omm~.~mm~.~t~~mo~~.~mm.~m.~o.o~..o.~~m~mm~~.a~m~.~~~~~.ooo e.*.*mw.**.37 Diarnict ...... o.w....oo...o..~...... 037 Special Features ...... o.omo...o.o...... ~ Weatherïng ...... o...o..o.....40 Glaciotectonic Features ...... o...oo.....o...... ~

FACIES ARCHI'IXCTURE ...... O...... m...... e.o..ooe.ooo0.**0..*.**43 Caledon Site ...... 43 Caledon 1 ...... 43 Caledon 2 ...... -48 Leslie Site ...... 60

AGGREGATE RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE CALEDON-GUELPH OUTWASH ...... 66 Introduction ...... 66 Aggregate Resources...... 67 Aggregate Resources Inventories ...... m...... 67 Caiedon Site ...... œ...œ...... œ...... o..o.o...... œ...... oœ...... 48 Erin Site ...... œ...... œ...... 72

CONCLUSIONS ...... 91

REFERENCES ...... m.oo.92

APPENDICES ...... 100 List of Appendices

Laboratory Analysis

Field Data

Image Analysis List of Figures

1. Map of the outwash areas of southwestern Ontario ...... 2

2 . Bedrock map of southwestern Ontario ...... 4

3 . Map of the glacial end-moraines of southwestern Ontario ...... 6

4. Road map of part of southwestem Ontario ...... 11

5 . Typical sand size distributions ...... 19

6A,B . Relations between average grain size and standard deviation ...... 22

6A,B . Relations between average grain size and standard deviation ...... 23

7A,B . Relations between standard deviation and skewness ...... 24

7C,D . Relations between standard deviation and skewness ...... 25

8A,B. Relations between average grain size and skewness ...... 26

8C,D. Relations between average grain size and skewness ...... 27

Photo of facies F ...... ,...... ,, ...... 32

Photographs of sand facies (S) from Caledon Pit No .2 ...... 32

Photographs of cross-bedded gravel sand (Sd) to sandy-grave1 (Gs) from the Caledon 2 pit ...... 34

Photographs of pebble grave1 (Gd) ...... 36

Photos of Gc facies ...... 38

Photographs of bouldery grave1 from Caledon pit No . 2 ...... 38

Photograph of deformed diamict layer in the forcground, fiom Leslie pit ...... 39

Photographs of weathered clasts in the outwash deposits ...... 39

Photographs of defomed and folded outwash deposits ...... 41

Photographs of deformed diamict and adjacent sand and grave1 in Leslie pit ...... 41

Photographs of deformed outwash deposits due to presence and melting of large ice blocks ...... ,...... 42

Hurnmocky surficial topography of the outwash at Erin. with the Paris moraine in the background ...... 42

Map of the Caledon area showing the location of the pits and trend of the boulder grave1 in between pits ...... ,...... 44

Caledon 1. N-S exposure ...... 46

Caledon 2. SW.. NE exposure ...... 47

Photographs of vertical succession in Caledon .....,...... A9

Photographs of cross-bedded pool deposits in the lower unit (cal-I) of the Caledon 2 succession ...... 30

Photographs of middle (cal-II) and part of the upper (cal-III) unit of Caledon 2 pit showing very large forests capped by channel infius ...... 51

Photographs of deformed layers of cal-II unit where directly loaded by overlying cal-III coarse-grained channel fil1 unit ...... 52

Photograph of composite upper cal-III unit formed by arnalgamated flood bouldery deposits . Caledon 2 pit ...... ,...... 55

Photographs showing geometry of upper cal-II channel inf'ïll (A) and stepped boundaries (B. C) with underlying cal-II unit . Caledon 2 pit ...... ,...... 56

Erin . N.. S W exposure ...... 57 Erin. NW.. SE exposure .. south east part ...... 58

Erin. N.. SE exposure .. north west part ...... 59

Martini. E.. W exposure ...... 61

Martini, NE.- SW exposure ...... -62

Leslie pit. W.-SE exposure ...... 64

Leslie pi t, NE.. SW exposure ...... 65

Aggregate resources inventory map for the Caledon area ...... 70

vii 3 8 . Aggregate resources inventory map for the Erin area ...... 73

39 . Extraction operations at Erin ...... 74

40 . Aggregate resources inventory map for the Leslie pit area ...... 77

41 . Aggregate resources inventory map for the Martini pit area ...... 80 List of Tables

S tatistics of most characteristics grain size distributions of collect samples ...... 20

Facies coding system ...... 28

Lithofacies descriptions for Caledon-Guelph outwash ...... 29

Sclected sand and grave1 resource areas in the Town of Caledon ...... , ...... 71

Total sand and gravel resources for the Town of Caledon ...... ,....,...... -72

Total smd and grave1 resources in Erin Township ...... -75

Selected sand and grave1 resources areas in Erin Township ...... 75

Total sand and gave1 resources in Eramosa Township ...... 78

Selected sand and grave1 resources areas in Eramosa Township ...... 79

To ta1 sand and grave1 resources in Puslinch Township ...... 1

Selected sand and grave1 resources areas in Puslinch Township ...... -82

Aggregate properties and applications ...... 87 INTRODUCTION

The Caledon-Guelph outwash is located between Caledon and Paris, Ontario,

Canada. It formed during the late Wisconsinan Substage of the Pleistocene Epoch, a period marked by repeated advances and retreats of continental ice sheets. The Caledon-

Guelph outwash owes its origin to the melting of the Ontario lobe of the Lawentide ice

sheet. This glaciofluvial deposit contains major sand and grave1 resources (ûntarïo

Geological Survey, 1980a; Kamw and Occhietti, 1989; Frazer, 1982; Bamett, 1992).

Glaciers have played a vital role in the formation of the Ontario landscape. Their influence has resulted in significant modifications to the nature of the land surface, its hydrological properties, and soils. The study of surficial geological deposits is warranteci because they are important components of the biophysical environment.

Much research has focused on the nature of glaciofluvial outwash deposits, both recent and ancient. Studies of recent outwash have provided quite a large body of literature and have generated some interesting models of deposition (Miall, 1992a).

However, there has been lunited research on the origin, deposits and economics of the

Caiedon-Guelph outwash, an important economic deposit located in south-central Ontario

(Fig 1)-

Efforts could be made to shift the focus hma primarily qualitative to a more quantitative analysis of these outwash systems. This shifi in focus could involve the use of remote sensinghage analysis. An attempt to apply this technique was made in order to evaluate the aggregate resource importance of the CaledomGuelph Outwash. Difficulties encountered with the methodology limited the success of the image analysis. However, the knowledge gained through this study provides an extremely valuable guide to fiiture work in this area. Details are given in Appendix 3.

Research Goals and Objectives

The goal of this research is to anaiyze the sedimentological characteristics of the

Caledon-Guelph outwash and to determine its economic importance.

This goal is achieved tbrough the following objectives:

1) reviewing the literature regardùig glaciofluvial deposits in general and the Caledon-

Guelph outwash system specifically;

Figure 1. Map of the outwash areas of southwestern Ontario (Pm = Paris moraine; C=Caledon pit, E=Erin pit, L=Leslie pit, M=Martini pit) (after Martini, 198 1). 2) collecting field data fiom selected pits within and adjacent to the CaledomGuelph outwash system;

3) anaiyzing the field data in order to delineate and interpret the sedimentary facies, to descnbe and interpret the facics architecture, and determine its economic value;

4) evaluatïng the quaiity of these deposits as aggregates.

Geological settings

Southwestern Ontario is a peninsula projecting southwestward between Lake Erie, to the south, Lake Ontario, to the southeast, Lake Huron, to the West, and Georgian Bay, to the north (Fig. 1). Overburden is undedain by Precambrian metarnorphic rocks to the north and Paleozoic shallow marine carbonates and clastic rocks elsewhere (Fig. 2). The

Precambrian bedrock to the north lies within the Grenville Province. These rocks consist of a suite of metavolcanics with a predominance (Z3 representation) of granite gneisses associated with syenites and nepheline syenites, and intermittent volcanics. There are also small, remnant Paleozoic outliers near the southern rnargin of the Canadian Shield

(Chapman and Putnani, 1984). The Paleozoic sedimentary bedrock, to the south, has been influenced by the Algonquin Arch that crosses the peninsula £kom SW to NE (Chapman and Putman, 1984; Tovell, 1992). The rocks on the southeast flank of the arch dope into the Allegheny Basin while those on the northwest flank dope into the Michigan Basin.

The former are predominantly clastic with provenance fiom the rising mountains of the

Appalachian system, the latter are predominantly carbonates formed in an intracratonic basin (Fig. 2). Georgian Bay and the northern part of Lake-Huron are bordered by the Canadian Shield in the northeast Lakes Erie and Ontario are whoiiy within the Paleozoic rocks.

Lake - Huron

Mis

& ,?, - Lake Erie

Figure 2. Bedrock map of southwestern Ontario (hmHewitt, 1995). During the Pleistocene, the margin of the Laurentide ice sheet was lobate on the

topographic high of the Algonquin Arch, which has constituted the backbone of the

southern Ontario peninsula since early Paleozoic tirne (Fig. 3). At several times during

the Pleistocene, each present lake basin was occupied by glacier ice that extended during

advancing stages stages outward toward the highland. Ice movement occurred in the

north and northwest fiom the Georgian Bay and Lake Huron basias, and in the east and

southeast fkom the Ontario and Erie basins. The last glacial retreat is documenteci by a

system of end moraines around the lakes @ig. 3) (Karrow, 1987; Tovell, 1992; Kor,

1993). The Niagara Escarpment is a prominent physiographic feature of the southem part

of Ontario. Its origin is in part related to fluvial erosion in pre-Pleistocene times modifieci

fmally by the Pleistocene glaciers (Tovell, 1992). The escarpment can be traced,

northeastward, fiom New York State, through Ontario to the State of Wisconsin.

The Caledon-Guelph study area -was affected by the Ontario lobe of the

Laurentide ice sheet, The ice moved out of the Lake Ontario basin and advanced to the northwest. Several large end moraines, ddins, eskers, and outwash systems were

formed. The Paris moraine is the largest moraine in the region and is fionted tu the West by a large outwash system (the Caledon-Guelph outwash) that extends fiom Caledon in the north, to Paris in the south (Fig. 3). At Caledon, two branches of the outwash merge

(Fig 1). Along its path southward the outwash varies in width, fiom restricted zones

(between the escarpment to the east and topographic highs to the west) at Sleswick to wider areas in the vicinity of Caledon. In places, the outwash is dissected by modem strems and traces of misfit, dry valieys (valleys that carrieci meltwater during deglaciation, but do not contain any active Stream now). Dry valleys and alluvial fans dong the western flank of the Paris moraine attest to multiple water and sediment input

points to the outwash system. Glacial outwash is quasi-regularly af5ected by high

magnitude floods associated with anomalously high rates of glacial melting or ice-dam

breaks of temporary meltwater lakes (Martini et al. 2OOl, in press). In the last decade or

so focus has been placed on determinhg the influence of these large floods and in trying

to detect whether anomalous megafïoods have affectai southwestern Ontario.

Figure 3. Map of the glacial end-moraines of southwestem Ontario (hmMartini et al., 2001). Insert illustrates the distribution of glacial lobes advancing hm the respective lakes on the southwestem Ontario peninsula Glaciofluvial Deposits

There is a large body of iiterature devoted to the research of recent and ancient giaciofluvial deposits- Much work has concentrated on the study of the morphological

and sedimentary transport processes operating in recent, active, glacial and non-glacial braided stream environments (Price, 1973; Smith, 1985; D~e~ry,1986; Mid, 1992a;

Maizels, 1995). Studies of the rnorphology and processes characterizing specific glacial systems have been completed in Alaska (Gustavson, 1974; Gustavson and Boothroyd,

1987; Boothroyd and Ashley, 1975), Baf3ïn Island (Church, 1972; Church and Gilbert,

1975), and Iceland (Krigstrtjm, 1962; Maizels, 1993)- Pleistocene outwash systems in southem Ontario have been examineci by Eynon and Walker (1974) and Frazer (1980), and in the north-central United States by Fraser (1993), among others. Other work has concentrated on the development of generalized normative and predictive models for the braided stream environment (Costello and Walker, 1972; Cant and Walker, 1976; Rust,

1978; Miall, 1992b)-It is important to note that many of the processes and morphological characteristics descnbing non-glacial braided sbeams also apply to proglacial outwash.

Glaciofluvial deposits owe their origin to deposition by glacial meltwater either in contact with the glacial ice (ice contact stratified drift) or beyond the glacier margin

(outwash) (Drewry, 1986; Maizels, 1995; Smith, 1985). Ice contact stratified drift is defined as being deposited by glacial rneltwater located beneath, on, within, or imrnediately adjacent to glacial ice. These deposits are characterized by a wide range of particle sizes, ranging fiom boulders to clay, till inclusions, extreme variability in cross- bedding, deformation stnictures, and hummocb topography- Kames are demied as isolated hills or knobs of ice contact stratified drift. They form as deltas, crevasse fillings, depression fillings or in contact with the ice. When the glacier ice melts they remain as intact features on the landscape (Bamett, 1992; Karrow and Occhietti, 1989). Eskers are described as narrow, sinuous ridges of sand and gravel deposited by meltwater flowing either in tunnels within or beneath the glacial ice, or in channels on the ice surface

(Ontario Geological Swey, 1981). OAen esken consist of a core of poorly sorted, stratified gravel draped with better-sorted sand and gravel flanks.

The discharge of large volumes of meltwater fkom the margins of glaciers results in the transport and deposition of much sediment in braided outwash systems (Pnce,

1973). Weil-developed Pleistocene (12,000-15,000 years B.P.) outwash systems are present in southern Ontario (Bamett, 1992). The outwash contains stratified deposits characterized by numerous cut and fills due to the forrning and partial filling of the numerous braided channels in the original setting @amet, 1992; Smith, 1985). Such a multi-channel, low-sinuosity morphology of outwash depasits occurs as a result of stmng variation in water discharge, high sediment load and the presence of readily erodable banks (Miall, 1992a). Generally, outwash deposits are subdivided uito proximal and distal zones as a result of progressive doownstrearn changes in sediment size and in bedfoms (Miall, 1992a; Boothroyd and Ashley, 1975). Outwash deposits are generally coarse grained proximal to the ice margin and show a trend of decreasing grain size with increasing distance fiom the margin (Boothroyd and Ashley, 1975). In the proximal zone, sediments consist of predominantly massive or crudely horizontally stratified gravels, occ&g in a variety of longitudinal braid bar units. In this zone, fine-grained deposits are rare and wherever present occur as thin, discontinuous beds or lenses. In the medial and distal zones, grain size decreases and transverse bars predominate. Tabular sets of

8 planar cross-beds and cross-liuninated and horizontdy bedded sands increase in

abundance. Grain size may consist predominantly of silt in the most distal reaches

(Boothroyd and Ashley, 1975; Miall, 1992a).

At the ice margin, part of the ice tongue may be covered by outwash sand and gravel. Also, blocks of ice may be transported in the proximal zone of the outwash beyond the glacier margin, Upon differential melting of this buried or partiaiiy burieci ice, pitting and deformation may develop in the deposits. This generates the so-called "pitted outwash" (Price 1973).

Studies of ancient, high-magnitude glacial flood events and deposits have been conducted on the Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau (Baker, 198 l), and on the mid-continent margins of the Laurentide ice sheet (Kehew and Lord, 1986). Studies of modem hi&-magnitude gIacial flood events have been conducted in Iceland (Maizels,

1995, 1997). Evidence fiom both modem and ancient examples suggest that a suite of erosional and depositional landforms, including imbricated boulder gravel deposits, gravel ripples, gigantic side bars, and massive sand deposits, can be associateci with high magnitude flow events,

Economic Geology

Outwash deposits are of great economic importance both as aggregate resources and as aquifers for potable water (Cowan, 1977; Edwards, 1998). Outwash is of economic importance to the aggregate industry because there is a moderate to high probability of locating valuable, cmshable gravel (Ontano Geological Survey, 198 1).

Eskers are of economic importance both because they often contain a large proportion of cmshable gravel and because they occur as topographie highs on the landscape, making them easily extract able (Ontario Geological Survey, 198 1)- Because they contain readily usable aggregate resources, eskers have been all but exploited in and near the study area

Karnes have a moderate probability of containing coarse aggregates. These deposits are often considered secondary aggregate sources because of their large range in grain size and high spatial varïability (Cowan, 1977).

There are three grain size breaks that are of importance to the aggregate industry:

75 Pm, which is the limït for fines, 4.75 mm, which is the division between sand and gravel sized particles, and 26.5 mm which is the separation between crushable and non- crushable gravel. An economically important deposit must contai. both coarse and fine size fiactions. However, the fine fiaction must represent only 8-10% or less of the total volurne. An over abundance of fines is a limitation because pmcessing is required (Le., the fines need to be washed out). The split between sand and gravel is important because there is often a paucity of gravel, and particularly crushable gravel (Andrew Cooper, personal communication). In many deposits a lack of coarse-grained constituents is Often a limitation for commercial deposits. Further, there is often a premium and greater profit on coarse materials. Figure 4. Road map of part of southwestern Ontario (fiom Ontario Minise of Transportation, 1999). METHODOLOGY

Study Design

A detailed study of the Caledon-Guelph outwash system was conducted on outcrops exposed in working sand and grave1 pits. SeveraI working pits were selected for detailed study: two pits were studied in the town of Caledon, one in the viliage of Erin, one in Erarnosa Township (Leslie) and one in Puslinch Township (Martini). AU pits, apart fiom the Leslie pit, are Iocated within the Caledon-Guelph outwash. The Leslie pit was selected in order to compare the features of the outwash sedirnents with those of an ice contact stratified drift deposit adjacent to the outwash system. At each site a detailed facies analysis was undertaken and the mineralogical quality of the deposit detennined.

The character, presence, and distribution of each lithofacies were measured, and bulk samples were collected for particle size analysis.

Field Procedures

At dl four sites (Figure 41, the pit exposures were mapped aod the fafies were defined according to particle size and sedimentary structures. The sampling site, exposure orientation (the direction of the outcrop with respect to paleocment direction), and vertical location of the sarnples within the pit were recorded in the sample identification scheme, for example M-2-F3 indicates the following:

M: Martini Pit

2: Orientation: parallel

F: layer 3 : Sedimentary unit number above datum (lowest rneasufed part of the exposure)

At each pit two fkeshly exposed faces, where possible one paraIlel to and one perpendicular to paleocurrent, were selected for measurement. The exposwes and the sections rneasured dong them were surveyed using an Sared theodolite. The measured sections were variously spaced depending on logistics, safety, exposure quality, sediment varïability, and the location of active resource extraction. Where strong vûzizrion in sediment characteristics occurred the sections were measured in a lateral sequence of 2.0 m increments. Photomosaics of the pit exposwes were made using a series of partially overlapping photographs taken with a hand-held 35 mm camera, under uniform conditions of light and scale. The average photographie distance nom the face of the exposure was also measured and recorded, Along each section lithofacies were determined and bulk samples were collected, Where possible, the paleocment directions of the facies were detemined, either fiom sedimentary structures (mainiy cross beds) or fiom hnbricated flat clasts. The largest clast size was aIso detemineci by measuring the axes of the 10 Iargest clasts at each site, The lithology and shape of the bouIders and cobbles was also detennined at selected sites.

Laboratory Procedures

The sand samples collected in the field were analyzed for grain size, shape, and mineralogy. Industriai grain size specifications were used as the standard for both the grain size and mineralogic analysis. Image analysis of the photosuites was also attempted. Particle Size Analysis:

Particle size analysis was performed on 56 samples using a standard dry sieving procedure (Folk 1980). Material larger than 2-0 mm was considered to be the grave1 fhction of the sample and material smaller than 2.0 mm was considered to be the sand fiaction. A set of 15 nested sieves was selected for the andysis. The sieve sizes ranged eorn pebbles to coarse silt as follows: 15 sieves + the pan: 10.0 mm (-3.3@), 6.3 mm (-

2.7~)~4.0 mm (-2.0~)~2.0 mm (-1.0@), 1.4 mm (-OS@), 1.0 mm (O.O+), O-710mm (OS@),

0.500 mm (1.0@), 0.355 mm (1.5$), 0.250 mm (2.0~)~0.180 mm (2.5@), 0.125mm

(3.0@),0.090 mm (3.5@), 0-063 mm (4.0@), 0.045 mm (4.549, and< 0.045 mm (5.Sq).

The sieve sizes were selected, in part, according to the economic mineralogical specifications of the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (Andrew Cooper personal communication, 1998).

Pnor to analysis, the samples were air-dried. Each sample was weighed, split where necessary, and subsequently passed through a stack of the coarsest sieves (10.0 mm, 6.3 mm, 4.0 mm, 2.0 mm). If material was retained on any of these sieves it was weighed and placed into a labeled sample container. Of the material retained in the pan

(Le., less than 2.0 mm in size) a 30-70 g sub-sample was obtained. This sub-sample was passed through a stack that included sieves with mesh of 1.4 mm, 1.0 mm, 0.710mm,

0,500 mm, 0.355 mm, 0.250 mm, and 0.180 mm, 0.125rnm, 0.090 mm, 0.063 mm, 0.045 mm, and <0.045 mm. The sieve stack was split and placed separately on a Tyler Portable

Shaker for 15.0 minutes. The sample fiaction retained on each sieve was then weighed and placed into a labeled sample container.

The statistics of the grain size distributions [mean particle size (@) (y = -),CEn n standard deviation (@) (- = ),skewness ( sk, =

- kurtosis (K,= 'm -y ), where meight percent (fiequenc) in each grain size 'looo; grade present, rn=midpoint of each grain size grade in phi values, and n=total nwnber in sample; 100 when f is in percent] were calculated for each sample using the method of moments (Folk, 1980).

Although statistics were calculated for the grouped gravel and sand hctions, the gravel fiaction, and the sand fiaction, only the latter gives reliable resuits. The sarnple size was insufficiently large to provide a reliable estimate of the grave1 parameter. As a result, fiequency and cumulative fkequency distributions were plotted and analyzed for the sand fraction only.

Mineralogical Analysis

The mineralogical analysis was made of the coarse sand fiaction of an analysed bulk sample £iom each pit. A small sub-sample of sand grains were placed into a weighing boat and examuied under a binocular microscope. A modified Toarse

Aggregate Petrographic Analysis" (Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 1996) was performed where particles were analysed for mineralogy, roundness and sphericity. Any other important economic cnteria, such as presence of coatings, degree of weathering etc. were also noted. The total sample size dong with the percent composition of esch identified mineral type (quartz, feldspar, carbonate, deletenous mineralogies) in the sample. Sediment thin sections were prepared as reference standards for the mineraiogical analysis. Sediment in the fine sand fiaction (180.ûpm) was selected for analysis. A sediment thin section was prepared for each pit. Four sedïmentary disks were produced using a subsample of the sediment and resin. An epoxy resin was prepared and poured into an aluminum weighing boat, The sediment was incorporateci into the resin and allowed to settle to the bottom of the weighing boat where it was spread as unifonnly as possible. The disks were oven dried ovemï& at 40 OC and then cut into blocks, ushg a rock saw, to a size slightly smaller than a 4.6 x 2.7cm glass slide. These were then placed in a block polisher to prepare a flat mounting swface. When this step was completed, the bIocks were cleaned and air-dried ovemight. Subsequently, the blocks were mounted on fiosted glas slides. From these blocks, thin sections were prepared and examined under a petrographic microscope. The sections were examined for general mineralogical charactenstics, that is, the type and abundance of the rnkerals present (quartz, feldspar, carbonates, etc.). The microscope field of view was divided into four quadrants. Each quadrant was examined and the type and fiequency of minerals recorded. For each thin section 500-600 grains per sample were identified, RESULTS

MINERALOGICAL COMPOSITION AND PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Mineralogic Composition

The complete resuIts of the rnineralogical analysis of the grain mounts are given

in Appendix 1. An examination of the grain mount thin sections illustrates that there are

some differences in the rnineralogic suites present in the fine sand fiaction (180.00 pm)

of the sarnples. The Erin suite consists of a predominance of quartz dong with a suite of

highly angular fenomagnesium (micaceous) minerais. The minot carbonate grains are

more rounded. The Martini pit sample consists of a predominance of quartz, a Iesser

occurrence of feldspar, and a minor phase of gamets and biotite. Some staining of iron

oxides is present on the grain surfaces. The Caledon pit sample consists of a predorninance of quartz with a lesser occurrence of feldspar. The Leslie pit sample

consists of a predominance of quartz with lesser amounts of feldspar and amphibole.

The image analysis resuIts are presented in Appendix 3.

Particle Size Analysis

Presented here are the results of the sieve-analysis of the sand fiaction of samples obtained either fkom the sandy layers, or fiom the matrix of graveiiy layers. The average particle size, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis, dong with plots of the fiequency distributions and cumulative fiequency distributions for al1 analyzed samples, are presented in Appendix 2.

Out of the 56 samples treated, seven characteristic fiequency distributions could be recognized, matching the various lithofacies uable 1). Distributions

The Type 1 distriiution represents the coarsest measured deposit. It has an average particle size of 0.829 indicatîng coarse sand, a standard deviation of 1.249 indicating poor soaing, and a skewness vaiue of 1.09, indicating a strongly fine skew.

The Type 2 distriiution has an average particle size of 097@, indicating medium to coarse sand, a standard deviation of 0.88@, indicating moderate sorting, and a skewness value of 1.04, indicating a strongly fine skew. The Type 3 distribution has an average particle size of 2.79@, Ïndicating fie sand, a standard deviation of O.49@, indicating the sediments are well sorted, and a skewness value of 0.15, indicating a slight coarse skew.

The Type 4 distribution has an average particle size of 1.2141, indicating medium sand, a standard deviation of 0.819, indicating moderate sorting, and a skewness value 0.15, indicating a slightly coarse skew. The Type 5 distribution has an average particle size of

1.80@, indicating medium sand, a standard deviation of 1-4 1 @, indicating poor sorting, and a skewness value of 0.40, indicating a strongly fine skew. The Type 6 distribution has an average particle size of 1.69@, indicating medium sand, a standard deviation of

1.20@, indicating poor sorting, and a skewness of 0.39, indicating a strong fine skew. The

Type 7 distribution has a particle size of 2.77@, indicating very fine sized sand, a standard deviation of 1.34@, indicating poor sorting, and a skewness value of -0.45, indicating a strong coarse skew.

There are variations in these characteristic distributions. The Type 7A distribution is sUnilar to the Type 7 distribution in that the average particle ske is very fine sand but is more platykurtic and has a smaller skew. The Type 3A and Type 3

distributions are similar in that they closely approximate a normal distriion. However,

"LO 93 O8 Olt 18 15 2.û 1-1 30 3.5 40 4.5 53

Figure 5. Typical sand size distributions: A. Type 1; B. Type 2; C. Type 3; D. Type 4; E. Type 5; F. Type 6; G. Type 7. Table 1. Statistics of the characteristic grain size distriiutions These sarnples have been collected fiom various (1itho)facies

Representative Standard Facies Sample Deviarion (@) (See Tables 2 & 3)

Gd Gc Gb?

S 15-2 (Caledon)

S11-1 (Caiedon)

LSS3F2 (Leslie) the Type 3A distri'bution is more platykurtic and the skewness values range between coarse and fine.

Scatter plots

The graph of average particle size vs. standard deviation illustrates that there is no strong Iinear relationship between these parameters in any data set, except for the coarser (c 2.2 +) fiactions of Erin pit (Fig 6.).The plots illustrate a definite break between coarse and fine fiactions near 2-24 at al1 sites, apart fiom the Martini pit, having only a coarse population. One of the Caledon populations clusters at an average particle size ranging between 0.8 4b1.2 $, and a standard deviation ranging between 0.70 a-1.25

@ indicating a coarse to medium, poorly sorted sand. The other cluster occurs at an average of particle size approximating 2.75 @ and a standard deviation of 0.55 a. The

Leslie pit has variable data, and potential outliers with anomalous high standard deviation. The Erin pit data shows clustering of samples in at least three groups two of which are in the fine fraction (fïner than 2.254).

Graphs of standard deviation vs. skewness illustrates that there are no strong linear relationships between these parameters in any data set (Fig 7). The only information obtainable is that the samples separate into two distinct groups, with standard deviation greater than, and less than one. In the Martini pit al1 standard deviation values are below 1.O @, indicating that the samples are al1 prlysorted.

The graph of average particle size vs. skewness illustrates that there is a distinct separation in the samples at 2.55 + (Fig. 8). In every pit the coarser sarnples show a defmite linear relationship between grain size and skewness; that is, the coarser the saxnple the more finely skewed the distriiution. The fine samples do not show a linear relationship between these variables.

Figure 6. Relationship between average grain sue and standard deviation: A. Martini data; B. Caledon data Figure 6. Relationship between average grain size and standard deviation C. Leslie data; D. Erin data. 8 Martini Ca& don A&#& Ll#n*n

Figure 7. Relationship between standard deviation adskewness: A. Martini data; B. Caledon data. Figure 7. Relationship between standard deviation and skewness:C Leslie data; D. Erin data. Figure 8.Relationship between average particle size and skewness: A. Martini data; B Caledon data D Figure 8. Relationship between average particle size and skewness: C. Leslie data; D. Erin data LITHOFACIES

Eight facies have been defhed on the basis of dominant particle size, with variations associated with sedimentary structures flables 2, 3). A coding system, modified after Miall (1992), was used to distinguish them The system consists of two parts: an upper case letter indicates the dominant grain size: (G) gravel, (S) sand, p) fines, and a lower case letter indicates sedimentary structures and/or lithological charactenstics of secondary importance, for example the letter "g" indicate the presence of granules, Accordingly the symbol "Gci" would indicate a predominance of gravel with cobbles showing well-developed imbrication. The complete field data set is listed in

Appendix 2.

Table 2. Lithofacies coding system (after Midl 1992)

Textural Characteristics Modi*nn Attributes

F silt (fuies)

S sand rn massive 1 laminae x crossbed (t = trough) r ripple cross-lamination

G gravel d pebble c cobble b boulder m massive x crossbed (t = trough) Table 3. Lithofacies descriptions for Caledon-Guelph outwash

I Bed Bed Grain SIie Contacts Zftickness Distribution Type silt-sand Laminae to thin sharp 2.0 mm- 7 to sandy- beds (I) 1.0 m silt

Sand sharp plane-parallel 0)

laminated

crossbedded (t)

rippled (r) --- Gravelly planar sharp sand lamination and erosiond trough crossbedding granule nearly massive sharp gravel (ml to crossbedded (g)

pebble nearly massive diffuse to gravel (ml locally to locally sharp crossbedded (x) cobble nearly massive sharp to gravel (m) to locally grada tional imbricated Boulder nearly massive to sharp NIA Grave1 IocaUy weU 11 imbricated

Diarnict massive sharp F: (silîy-sand tu sane-sila

This facies consists of a bue grey or reddish sandy-silt to silty-sand (Fig. 9). The grain size distribution (7) is characterized by an average particle size of very fine sand and a strong coarse skew (Fig. 4; Appendix 1). It occurs as thin, discontinuous units, ranging fkom 2.0-5.0 mm in thickness, and up to 1.0 m in length. The uni& have sharp bedding contacts. This facies is represented at al1 sites within the study area, apart fiom the Martini pit.

S: sand

This facies consists of fine- to coarse-grained, well-sorted, generaily pebble-fiee, plane-larninated and cross-bedded sand (Fig. 10). The grain size distribution (3) is characterized by fme sand with a slight fhe skew (Fig 4 Appendix 1). Its mineralogical composition is predorninantly quartz (50 %) grains with iesser amounts of feldspar (25

%), carbonates (15%) and other heavy minerals (1 5 %). It occurs as both quasi- continuous beds ranging in thickness fiom 5.0 cm to 1.5 m and as distinct channel fills.

Generally, bedding contacts are sharp. This facies is best represented at the Caledon and

Lesiie sampling sites. Sd: gravelly sand (Sd) to sandy grave1 (Gs)

This facies consists of a graveliy (granule to srnaii pebble) sand, usually occurring in planar laminations and trough cross-beds, occasionaIly massive (Fig. 11). The clasts occur preferentially dong lamination surfaces rather than being interspersecl within the sand matnx. The clasts are composed predominantly of carbonates (90 %) with lesser Figure 9. Silty-sand to sandy-silt (F) lem

Figure. 10. Photographs of sand facies (S) nom Caledon Pit No. 2. A. Fairlx well-sorted massive sand filling a channel; B. Ripple cross-laminated and cross-bedded, f&ly well sorted sand. amounts of crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks (10 %). The sand is predominantly quartz grains with lesser amounts of feldspar and other minerals The grain size distribution (3) of the facies is characterized by medium sand and a slight fine skew. Bedding contacts are sharp and erosional in nature. This facies is best represented at the Caledon and Martini pits. Locally very large cross-beds are present that reach thickness of 4-5 m. These have been obsewed at Caledon and have ken reported in the

Guelph (MaNM et. al, 2001) and Paris (Eynon and Walker, 1974) areas (Fig. 11).

Gg: granule to very fine pebble gravel

This facies consists of plane-larninated to trough crossbedded small pebble gravel to gravelly very coarse sand. The pebbles range in size fiom 10.0 mm- 20.0 cm and their composition is predominandy carbonate (70 %), with lesser arnounts of igneous and metarnorphic species (30 %). The matrix consists predominantly of quartz with lesser arnounts of feldspar and other rninerals .The characteristic grain size distribution (2,5) of this facies is either coarse sand with a positive skew or medium sand with a positive skew. The. bedding contacts are sharp to difise. This facies is best represented at the

Caledon and Martini pits.

Gd: pebble grave1

This facies consists of sandy pebble gravel with disserninated cobbles and occasional boulders (Fig 12). The clasts are composai mostly of carbonates (85 %), with -qauuea a3qAq do3 aq, 2 papoia slasaloj a%q%qunmo dlam 'a%qLm smoqs 8 sam%!d yd2 uopale3 aw ~og(s9) 13~- Apns cu (ps) pues Alla~mSpappaq-ssoio JO sydici%oloqd 11 a~rt.%j a lesser amount of igneous and metamorphic (15 %). The math is composed of quartz

(70 %), feldspar (25 %) and other minerals (5 %). Its grain sue distribution (1, 5) is

characterized by either coarse sand with a strong fme skew, or by medium sand with a

strong fme skew. This facies is highly variable and displays two main structural types.

One is primarily characterized by thick (several metres) poorly structureci amalgamateci

gravel units locally containing few open hworkgrave1 lenses. The other type is

charactenzed by cross beds. The cross beds occur at an intermediate and at a very large

scale. Characteristic of some of the intermediate scale cross-beds is the cyclic repetition

of three sediment types in their foresets. The tripartite composition of the forests consists

of: (a) openwork pebble gravel. overlain by @) pebble gravel filled with fakly weii

sorted, medium sand, overlain by (c) poorly sorted @olymodal) sandy, pebble gravel. The

very large scale cross-beds have can reach thickness of 4-5 meters and consist primarily

of sandy pebble gravel (Fig. 12). This is the prevalent facies within the study area and is

present at ail sites.

Gc: cobble grave1

This facies consists of cobble gravel with some pebbles and occasional boulders

(Fig. 13). Locally it shows well-developed imbrication. The interstices are filled with a

very coarse sand matrix. The clasts range in size fiom 64.û-256.0 mm and are composed predominantly of carbonates (75 %) with lesser amounts (25%) of igneous and metamorphic species. The matrix is composed of quartz (70 %). feldspar (25 %) and other (5 %) minerals. Its grain size distribution (1.2.6) is characterized by either coarse Figure 12. Photographs of pebble grave1 (Gd): A. Massive unit fiom the Enn pit; B, C, D Cross-bedded units fkom Erin pit; unit D shows tipartite foreset succession of open work layer overlain by infilled poorly sorted layer, ovedain by relatively well-sorted pebble Iayers infilled with well-sorted sand mimodal distribution). E. Close-up of a pebble layer infilled with well-sorted sand, developing a bimodal grain size distribution (Erin pitO. sand with a fine skew, or a medium sand with a fine skew. This facies generally occurs as

thick (4.0-5.0m) apparently massive, amalgarnated units, whose components are at times

difficult to recognize as they are marked by slight variation in clast size.This facies is best

represented at the Martini pit.

Gb: boulderygravel,

This facies is mainly characterized by boulders and coarse cobbles with a variable

arnount of pebbles and coarse sand matrix (Fig. 14). The boulders (up to 2 m in diameter)

are composed of solid rnetamorphic rocks such as carbonates, granitogneiss, and

greenstonees. They are rounded to well rounded, and locally well-imbricated when

viewed parallel to paleoflow. Clusters of two or three imbncated boulders occur. This

facies is typical of parts of Caledon.

D: Diarnict

This facies consists of a massive, silty, reddish/gray, clast-poor diamict Fig. 15).

The clasts range in size fiom pebbles (10.0 mm) to cobbles (60.0 mm). The clast suite

consists of 85% carbonates, and 15% crystalline, In open pit faces, this facies is exposed only at the Leslie pit. Figure 13. Imbricated cobble gravel facies (Gc) at the Martini Pit.

Figure 14. Photographs of bouldery gravel fiom Caledon pit No. 2. Boulders of local carbonate bedrock and distant Precambrian metamorphic rocks (A). Local well developed imbrication of flat c1asts. Figure 15. Photograph of deformed diamict layer in the foreground, fiom Lesliepit.

Figure 16. Photographs of weathered clasts in the outwash deposits A. Shaly clasts nom local bedrock; B.Weathered metamorphk clasts. SPECIAL FEATURES

Weathering

The outwash deposit is composed of clasts of various lithologies, some of local ongin (carbonate and clastic rocks) and some nom the Precambrian shield (metamorphic rocks of various types). Characteristic local rocks consist of red shale and silty sandstone

(Ordovician Queenston Formation and Lower Silurian Grimsby member of the Medina

Formation), which have been transported to the study area by glaciers scouring the lake

Ontario basin Pig. 16A). Some of the metamorphic clasts weather very rapidly fonning locaiized "g.s7'(Fig. 16B).

Glaciotectonic Features

At Caledon the major sediment deformations (irregular convolution and load features) occur in the middle unit (cal-II) of Caledon 2 pit, probably associated with the sudden emplacement and loading of the overlaying thick coarse deposits of unit cal-III

(Fig. 17A). The sarne unit has locaily developed slightiy recumbent folds (Fig. 17B).

Regular folds and normal faults are exposed in the Erin (Fig, 19A) and in the

Caledon area (Fig. 19B), which represent sinkholes, possibly associated with buried or partially buried blocks of ice transported into the outwash plain during floods. An analog of what could have happened is given by the features developed in the pitted sandur of southem Iceland during the 1996 flood (Fig. 19C). The pitted morphology of such an outwash type is well displayed in the Erin pit area, backed by the Paris end moraine (Fig. Figure 17. Photographs of deformation features in the outwash deposits fkom the Caledon Pit No. 2. A. Irregularly deformed layer overlain by boulder channel infill; B. Regular folding due to load of overlying boulder gravel infill.

Figure 18. Photographs of deformed diamict and adjacent sand and gravel in Leslie pit.

41 C D Figure 19. Deformed outwash deposits due to presence and melting of large ice blocks. A. Folded, filled sinkhole due to melting of buried ice block; B. Faulted, filled sinkhole due to melting of buried ice blocks; C. Large ice blocks carried on the outwash by meltwater floods: southem Iceland, 1996 flood; D. Surface expression of sinkhole associated with melting of large ice blocks similar to those of Fig 19C: southern Iceland outwash, 1996 flood.

Figure 20. Hummocky surfilcial topography of tile outwash at Enn, with the Paris moraine in the background. FACIES ARCHITECTURE

The lithofacies of the Caledon-Guelph outwash system are grouped variously in the different pits. However, similar associations do repeat.

Caledon Site

Numerous sand and gravel pits occur in the Caledon area, and they show a great variety of deposits, Two pits were studied in detail, Caledon 1 and Caledon 2 (Fig. 21).

Caledon 1 Two exposures were measured in this pit: (1) The succession of the N-S exposure (2) The succession of the SW-NEexposure.

In the N-S exposure (Figure 22), there is an alternation of apparently massive cobble gravel (Gc) and pebbly sand (Sd). The lower gravelly unit shows some evidence of cross-bedding as shown by the preferred orientation of flat cobbles- The middle, thick gravelly unit has locally well imbricated coarse clasts. Few elongated lenses of openwork fme pebble gravel (Gd) occur in the uppennost gravel, possibly indicating foresets with paleocurrent direction nearly perpendicular to the orientation of the exposure. The coarse clast/sand ratio varies in the pebbly sand. The sandier units are cross-bedded, whïle the others are apparently massive. pit Location i-i Channel F]Pit

Figure 2 1. Map of the Caledon area with location of the pits and trend of the boulder gravel in between pits.

The SW-NE exposure consists of a lowennost sandy part and middle and upper gravelly parts (Fig. 23). The sand occurs in larninated beds overlain locally by cross-beds.

The gravel parts consist of various nits including (1) an apparently massive amalgamated cobbly grave1 (Gc) unit at the base, that shows a definite coarsening upward and lateral truncation and (2) a middle unit composed of closely altemathg pebbly gravel and pebbly sand with various amount of coarse clasts. Few small(4.5 m) openwork fine pebble gravel lenses are present; (3) an upper unit consisting of massive pebble gravel

(Gd) laterally grading into cross-bedding. Local lenses of cobble gravel (Gc) are present.

The boundaries between these uni& Vary fiom well defined and erosional to gradational. Figure 22. Caledon 1, N--S exposure: A. Composite photographs with indication of major stratigraphie horizons; B. Line drawing with indication of facies and paleocurrents (Wedge within pie diagram indicates prevalent paleocurrent direction. Numbers along the top indicate sections measured).

Caledon 2

Pits in the southwestern part of the partially exploited deposits at Caledon show cornplex laterd and vertical relations among the facies Fig- 24). Three major units can be recognized simply identified as a lower (cal-I), midùie (cal-@, and upper (cal-III) units in

Fig. 24.

The lower unit (cal-1) is characterized by cross-bedded, massive and laminateci medium sand deposits (S) in cut-and-fill structures, laterally passing into cross-bedded to larninated gravelly sand (Sg) (Fig. 24) Pool deposits are weli defmed at the top of this unit (Figs. 25 A, B).

The middle unit (cal-II) is characterized primariiy by very large foresets of gravelly sand to sandy grave1 (Facies Gg; Figs. 26A, B). The Iarge foresets are capped by thin cross-bedded sandy and gravelly sand units, locally by apparently massive sand, and are bounded laterally by kregular bedded, relatively small-scale cut-and-fiUs with various sediments ranging from sand to sandy gravels to gravelly sand The middle unit (cal-II) has an irregular distribution dong the exposed pits, having been localiy heavily dissected by the overlying unit (cal-m). Its relation to unit cal-1 is not clear because the contact is never exposed. Simila. elevation and geometric considerations suggest that unit cal-II cuts into unit I and in part is its lateral equivaient.

Locally the finer deposits of this unit are heavily contorted (Fig. 27 A, B). The deformation may either be synsedirnentary or, most likely, in part due to sudden overload by the emplacement of the overlying coarse deposits of unit cal-IIT. Figure 24. Photographs of vertical succession in Caledon 2. A. General view; B. Detailed view of the succession. Figure 25. Photographs of cross-bedded pool deposits in the lower unit (cal-I) of i Caledon 2 succession. A. General view of a small cut and fill; B. Detail view of a porti of a large pool infill. Figure 26. Photographs of middle (cal-II) and part of the upper (cal-III) unit of Caledon 2 pit showing very large foresets capped by channel infills. A. General view; B. detailed view. Figure 27. Photographs of deformed layers of cal-II unit where directly loaded by overlying cal-III coarse-grained channe1 fi11 unit: A. Heavily contorted cal-II overlain by coarse grained cal-III; B. Contorted and disturbed sandy layers of unit cal-II. The upper unit (cal-III) is composeci of amalgamateci uni& ranging hm bouldery gravels (Gb) to cobble and pebble gravel (Gc, Gd), locdy subdivided by remnants of fine deposits, ranging nom sandy gravel (Gs) to fely well sorteci coarse to very coarse sand (S) (Fig. 28).

The upper unit (cal-III) is characterïzed by very large cuts-and-fills (channel fills) approximately lOOt m wide and 8 m thick @ig. 29A). The channels cut deep into mits cd-II and locally cal-1. In places, the lower contact acquires characteristic staircase pattern, suggesting slumps toward the centre of the depression (Fig 29).

The architecture of calalII- calalIII is cornplex, remants of channel deposits having escaped erosion such as unit IIIB in Figure 29B.

Erin Site

This is a large pit with numerous exposwes oriented variously relative to paleocurrent direction. In the NE-SW exposure, the deposit is essentially gravel (Gd) with a few thin sand lenses (S) (Fig. 30). The gravel in the lower and upper portions of the sequence contains well-developed, intermediate scale, plana. cross-beds, whereas the gravel in the middle tends to be massive. At some locations the topsets of the cross- bedded units are preserved (Figs. 12 B, C). The middle gravel is composed of amalgamated units, identifiable because of variation in clast size and the presence of sand lenses.

The succession present in the NW-SE exposure consists of lower gravel and an

sand subdivision divided by a thin, continuou sand bed (Fig. 31). The lower subdivision consists of amalgamated tabular units, distinguishable because of variations in clast size (Gg, Gd) (Fig, 3 1). The sand also occurs as large charnel fïiis (Fig. 32). Figure 28. Composite upper cal-iII unit formed by amalgamated flood bouldery depositS. Caledon 2 pit (a,b7c7d,e,flayers with differing grain size deposits).

Figure 31. Erin, NW-SEexposure -- southeast part: A. Photomosaic showing a continuous sand layer dividing the section in two and sand lenses in the upper layer; B. Line drawing (for an explanation of the symbols see Fig. 22). Figure 32. Erin, NW-SEexposure -- north western part: A. Photomosaic showing amalgamated sand troughs; B. Line drawing (for an explanation of the symbols see Fig. 22). Associated with these sandier parts of the section are layers with well developed, relatively well sorted, birnodal deposits. One mode is in the pebble to cobble size and the other is in the sand size (Fig. 12E).

Martini Site

The predominant facies succession of the NE-SWexposure of this pit consists of coarse-grained gravel (Gc) occurring mostly in amalgamated tabular units with some diffùse channel forms (Fig 33). Sand (S) to pebbly sand (Sd) occurs locally in the upper portion of this exposure. The E-W section exposes a similar deposit except that its upper part is composed of pebble gravel (Gd) (Fig 34)- It is heterogeneous with numerous sand lenses and sand and gravel cuts-and-fills. Both the cobbly and pebbly gravels (Gc, Gd) show well developed imbrication with some well defieci "imbrication clusters".

Leslie Site

The facies distributions in this site are rather complex because, in part, the sediments are defonned. There are two facies successions, one dong an E-W exposure, and the other dong a N-S exposure. In the E-W exposure there is a regularly stratified succession consisting of sand units (S) at the base and at the top with a middle gravel unit that includes sand lenses. The sand (S) has locally weli developed crossbeds and wavy bedding at the top of the section (Fig. 35). It occurs either as a continuous (on the order of

1 û's of metres) thin layer or as channel fiil in the middle sections of the exposure. At the Figure 33. Martini, NE-SW exposure -- quasi-perpendicular to paleocurrent: A. Photomosaic showing localized, well-defined sandy cut and fills; B. Line drawing (for explanation of the symbols see Fig. 22). base, the sand (S) occurs in thin layers or lenses of silty sand (F). The pebbly gravel unit

(Gd) is nearly massive with locally poorly defined cross-beds with openwork pebble lenses. In the southeast portion of the exposwe the various units have been irregulariy deformed (foIded) and juxtaposed against a thick diamict @) (Fig. 15).

In the N-S exposure the succession consists of nearly massive gravel units (Gc,

Gd) grading laterally into an amalgamated cross-bedded gravel unit (Gd) (Fig. 36). The cross-beds have thick (1.0 m) foresets and contain welldeveloped openwork lenses. They are apparently oriented differently than the massive, adjacent gravel unit (Fig. 36B).

Figure 36. Leslie pit, NE--SWexposure: A. Photomosaic showing an apparent gradation of massive sandy gravel laterally grading into crossbedded sandy gravel; B. Line drawing (for explanation of symbols see Fig. 22). AGGEGATE RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE CALEDON-GUELPH

OUTWASH

Introduction

This section presents the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the aggregate resources of the Caledon-Guelph outwash, relating particularly to the sites studied in detail. Field information collected f?om the study pits, together with geological data derived fiom published Quatemary maps and geological reports, were used to prepare this section. The available data include:

1) the areal distribution of sand and gravel deposits

2) the composition of the various parcels according to:

a) the predorninance of gravel (G) or sand (S)

b) the deposit thickness

c) the geological ongin of the deposit (such as outwash, ice contact)

d) the quaiity (0: oversize particles, L: deleterious lithologies, C: clay or silt

Ches]),

3) the extent and quantity of sand and gravel published in the Aggregate Resources

Inventory Papers (reserves/resources = not yet extracted or licensed).

4) a list of licensed sand and grave1 pits in the study areas

5) the Ontario Ministry of Transportation aggregate quality and quantity specifications

6) any recent and fùture regional trends in aggregate production. Aggregate Resources

Aggregates, also referred to as minerai aggregate or granular material, are defined as any hard, inert, construction materid that is utilized either for mixing with a cernent or bituminous material, to form concrete, or used alone for construction or mad building

(Ontario Geological Survey, 1980). Although aggregates are abundant in Ontario they are a nonrenewable resource and occur in fixeci locations. Aggregates are characterized by high bulk and low unit value so that the economic value of the deposit is a fiinction of its size, quality and its proximity to a market (Kelly et al., 1999)- The aggregate hdustry is a significant contributor to the Ontario economy. In 1993, the construction work in Ontario was valued at nearly 33 billion dollars (Kelly et al., 1999).

Mineral resources are descnied as an endowment of commercially available usefùl minerds- Mineral reserves are described as an already identified deposit fkom which minerals can be extracted pmfitably.

Aggregate Resources Inventories

Aggregate Resources Inventoxy Papers (ARIPs) have been prepared for several locations in Ontario (Ontario Geological Survey). Although the reports ccnsider al1 potential aggregate resources, only idonnation refeming to the inventory and assessrnent of naturally occurring sand and grave1 resources are considered here. The deposit symbols used in the reports are: The components of the symbol indicate G) the gravel content, 2) the thickness of material, 0) the deposit origin, and C) any deposit quality limitations. The sand and gravel resources were ranked into categories according to site-specific characteristics, such as the deposit size, quallty, and location (Ontario Geological Survey, 1981b).

The Aggregate Resources Inventories Papers identify areas containing significant amounts of sand and gravel selected for possible resowce protection. These are described as Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Resource Areas. Prirnary Resome Areas are designated as the most suitable deposits for aggregate resource extraction. They are not limited by quality, quantity, and are marginally affected by constraints like cultural setbacks (rural or urban development) in the area Secondary and Tertiary Resource

Areas are designated as suitable deposits for aggregate resowce extraction but are limited in value due to constraints in quality, quantity or culturai setback. The Prirnary,

Secondary and Tertiary Resource Areas designated in the study area are illustrated in

Figures 37,38,40, and 41.

Caledon Site

The aggregate resource information related to the Caledon pit is reporteci in the

Aggregate Resources Inventory for the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel

(Ontario Geological Survey, 198 la). A summary of selected deposits is shown in Figure

37 and Table 4. The total licensed extractive operation area in the town is 140.4 ha, with an estimated resource of 109 million tomes of sand and gravel. The total annual production from licensed extractive operations approximates 4.0 million tonnes. Most of the aggregate sources have a use rating ranging nom moderate to moderate-hi&. This rating means that the pits are capable of supplying both pit-run (uncrushed screened aggregate) and road sub-base aggregate such as Granular Base Course (GBC) B and C and high quality crushed products for asphaltic materials and Granular Base Course A

(Ministry of Transportation, 1998; Ontario Geological Survey, 198la). Some deieterious lithologies, such as shale and siltsone are present at some localities, but a moderate to high use rating can be achieved through treatrnent (removal) (Ontario Geological Survey,

198ia).

The Caledon area has a total licensed pit area of 424.5 ha, and sandy-grave1 deposits with average working-face height of 8.0 m above the watertable, and 5.0 m below the watertable. Grave1 percents range between 50-70 %. The deposit symboi for deposits in the area of the studied pits is "G, 1, OW, L". This description means that gravel-shed aggregate likely exceeds 35% of the deposit (G), the deposit thickness exceeds 6.0 m and yields exceeding 18,500 tonnedha (l), it is outwash 0,and that there are some deleterious lithoiogies present (L) (Ontario Geological Survey, 198la).

At the time the report was prepared (Ontario Geological Swey, 1981a) there were 25 licensed pits operating in the Town of CaIedon with a total area of 1401.4 ha and an estimated sand and gravel resource of 109 million tonnes. The working-face height of the licensed pit range fiom 3.0-15.0 m. The total available resowce area of unlicensed pits is 415.0 ha with a total resource of 104.0 million tonnes of aggregate.

Here the deposit face heights range hm3.0-12.0 m and expose moderately well to well- stratified sand and gravel. A summary of the total sand and gravel resources for Caladon is given in Table 5 iz! Channel LE] Pit

Figure 37. Aggregate resources inventory map for the Caledon area (aer Ontario Geologicd Survey, 198 la). Table 4. Selected sand and grave1 resource areas in the Town of Caledon (fiom Ontario Geological Survey , 198 1a).

Deposit Uniicensed Unavailable Extracted Available Available Number Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha)

11 138

1 Total Table 5. Total sand and grave1 resources for the Town of Cdedon (fkom Ontario Geological Swc y, 1981a) Class Deposit Type Areal Extent Originai Tonnage Nurnber &a) (millions of tonnes)

1 G-OW G-IC S-ow S-IC 2 G-OW fpG-IC G-OW S-ow S-IC

4 G-OW G-IC S-OW

Erin Site

The aggregate resources of the Erin pit area, descnïed in the Aggregate

Resources Inventory Paper for Erin Township of Wellington County (Ontario Geological

Survey, 1980), are summarized in Tables 6 Br 7. In Erin township there is a total licensed area of 344.6 ha, compnsing 7 operations, and a total average annual production of 0.1 million tonnes (Fig. 38). Most of the aggregate deposits have a use rating ranging fiom low to moderate. This rating means that the pits are capable of supplying large quantities of road sub-base aggregate such as Granular Base Coarse B and C and may be processed into crushed products suitable for Granula. Base Coarse A (lhistry of Transportation,

1998). Certain operations have a use rating ranging fiom moderate to high. These pits are capable of supplying matends for higher specification uses such as asphaltic and concrete aggregate.

Figure 38. Aggregate resources inventory map for the Erin area (afler Ontario Geologicai Survey, 1980).

The Erin pit (extractive operation 7; Fig. 39)of this shidy is desipated as G, 1, OW,L. Figure 3 9. Extraction operations at Erin: A. Crushing; B. Pile of treated aggregate; D. Loading of trucks; D. Weight scale. Table 6. Total sand and gravel resources in Erin Township (fkom Ontario Geological Survey, 1980) - - - -

Class ~e~osiip1 Originai Tonnage- Number Type Extent (ha) (mülions of tomes) G-OW 1 1,295 1 181 G-IC 1 850 1 119 S-IC 1 5.140 1 721 G-OW 1 1,100 1 G-IC 1 670 1 56 S-IC 1 630 1 53 G-OW 1 710 1 36 G-IC 1 275 1 l4 G-OW 1 445 1 10 S-OW 1 2,390 1 54 G-IC 1 267 16 S-IC 1 83 12 Total

Table 7: Selected sand and gravel resources areas in Erin Township (hm Ontario Geological Survey, 1980)

Deposit Uniicensed Unavailable Extracted Available Deposit Avdable Number Area (ha) 1 Area (ha) Area (ha) 1 Area (ha) 1 Thickness Aggregate (millions of tonnes) Leslie Site

The aggregate resources of the Leslie pit area are descni in the Aggregate

Resources Inventory Paper for Eramosa Township, Wellington County (Fig. 40, Table 8

& 9; Ontario Geological Survey, 1981b). There are nine licensed sand and gravel operations in Eramosa Township. Extractive operations in Eramosa Township have a total licensed area of 66.7 ha and average annual production of 220,000 tonnes. Many operations have moderate to high use ratings. These ratings indicate that the operations are capable of supplying pit-nin road sub-base aggregates (GBC A) and asphaltic aggregat e.

The Leslie pit is an ice-contact deposit located adjacent to the CaledomGuelph outwash area. It has a Licensed area of 10.5 ha, a working-face height ranging nom 5.0-

6.0 m, exposing irregularly bedded sand and gravel, and a 30% gravel content. The presence of silt places iimits on its suitability for high specification uses. The deposit symbol for the operation is Gy1, IC, C. Primary Secondary :7 1 Tertiary

Figure 40. Aggregate resources inventory map for the Leslie pit area Table 8: Total sand and grave1 resources in Enunosa Township (der Ontario Geological Survey, 1981b) 1 Class 1 Deposit Areal Originai Tonnage Number Type Extent (ha) (millions of tomes) 1 I 1 G-OW 1 235 1 1 G-IC 1 I 1 S-IC 16 l2 1 G-OW 1 1,130

1 1 G-E 1 69 1 G-OW

1 1 G-IC 1 610 1 1 G-E 1 75 l4 1 G-OW 1 630

1 G-IC - - S-IC 40 Total 7,700 Table 9: Selected sand and grave1 resourca are& in Eramosa rownship (hm Ontario Geological Survey, 198 1 Deposit Unlicensed Unavailable Extracted AvailabIe Deposit Available Number Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Area @a) Thickness Aggregate (m) (millions of tonnes)

Martini Site

The Martini pit deposit is described under the Aggregate Resources Inventory

Paper for Puslinch Township, Wellington County Pig. 41, Tables 10 & 11; Ontario

Geological Swey, 1982). Within the township there are 14 pits and a total licensed area

of 6720.0 ha The average annuai aggregate production is 1.7 million tonnes. This deposit

is suitable for road sub-base materials like GBC A and C. To be suitable for hot laid

aggregates use, sand sized materials often need to be added. The deposit symbol is G,1,

OW.There is no designation for quality limitation. Figure 4 1. Aggregate resources inventory map for the Martini pit area. Table 10: Total sand and grave1 resources in Pusiinch Township (ahr Ontario Geologicai Survey, 1982) I Class Deposit Areal Origïnd Tomage Number Type Estent (ha) (miiiions of tomes) 1 I G-OW 3,950 680

I G-IC 1,070 163 G-E 1 20 12

G-OW G-IC 1 710 1 64 G-E I 49 14

G-OW G-IC 1 490 1 27

G-IC 1 355 1 10 G-E 1 30 I1 G-K 1 10 1 cl

S-IC 1 138 1 S-K 1 16 1 4 S-Lp 1 121 14 Table 11: Selected sand and grave1 resources areas in Puslinch Township (hm Ontario Geological Survey, 1982) Deposit Unlicensed Unavailable Extiacted Available Deposit Available Number Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Thickness Aggregate (m) (millions of tonnes)

I 1,030 115 2 920 9 154 2 310 28 O 280 8 39 3 485 95 14 375 6 42 4 630 75 2 550 5 46 5 53 8 O 44 9 7 2,500 325 18 2,180 290 DISCUSSION

Environmental Interpretation

The presence and spatial distribution of the eight major lithofacies record

deposition in a braided stream environment (Miail, 1992a). Accordingly, there is a strong

variation in sediments, at times greater within one site than between sites. This is partly

due to the extraction practices of the aggregate resources and partly to the character of the braided outwash that forms in front of a melting glacier. Regionaily, the industry seeks

and exploits sirnilar aggregate sandy and gravely deposits in order to maximize profit,

hence the similarity between sites. Locaiiy once the pit is open ail possible reserve is removed, thus expanding progressively fiom the main body of sand and grave1 to marginal materials formed in less energetic settùigs, hence the stronger variation at each

site.

The Caledon-Guelph outwash developed in front of the Paris end moraine, and runs parallel to it. It did receive meltwater mainly fkom the glacier terminus of the Paris moraine, but also fkom inland northern systems flanking the Algonquin High. Essentialiy the Caledon-Guelph outwash was confined to îts longitudinal position by the structural

Algonquin high to the northwest and the glacier to the southeast, the elongated lowland being enhanced by the differential ice loading and thus subsidence of the landscape.

The outwash was affêcted by both longitudinal and transverse sediment input. So it appears somewhat differently nom the sandar of southern Iceland, New Zealand and some in Alaska Rather, these sandar are characterised as having a point or head iinear source area, and displaying an overall change with increasing distance hmit. These changes include a decrease in grain size and a progressive change hm crudely honzontally bedded proximal gravel beds to distinctly plane and cross-bedded sand and gravel beds in distal reaches (Miall, 1992a; Maizels, 1993). Corollary to this is the expectation, and subsequent evidence, that as the glacier retreats an overail shift of setting occurs, such that an upward, progressively fjning succession develops at each localiw.

Applykg a Markov analysis, Frazer (1980) identified an apparently repetitive occurrence of facies in the Caledon ma, which he interpreted to be related to variation in meltwatter flow resulting fkom differential melting during warmer and colder periods in the surnmer. We did not observe this cyclic occurrence but rather vertical facies successions being fiequently intempted by erosion likely related to episodic flood events. Similarly, in places it is possible to indeed observe an overail upward fïning in the exposed pit faces. However, this does not occur everywhere, and in the same pit it is possible to have fiequent recurrence of coarse (or fine) deposits, locaily associatecl with evident channel fill. Any variation in grain size, facies, and the presence of some quasi- continuous planation surface, marked by a thin fine sand to silt layer, appear to relate more to IocaI, temporary abandonment of a portion of the outwash rather than a regional influence of the retreating glacier. The melting, thùining and eventual retreat of the glacier did influence the intensity of the floods, and thus the deposits of the outwash.

However, this effect is difficult to recognize, and at best is detectable only locally in some pits. One explanation for this is that the glacier retreated behind a large end moraine, and that this retreat may have been relatively rapid. Meltwater that accumulateci on the topographie lows of the moraine, and between the glacier temiinus and the moraine, incised locally through the deposits and flowed onto the Caledon-Guelph outwash as indicated by dry vaiieys cutting though the moraine and by local alluvial fans feeding laterally into the outwash-

On the whole therefore, the Caiedon-Guelph outwash does not show regular trends like those reporteci in sandar expanding outward hma glacier terminus. It has never developed a graded system due to the lateral, multÏ-input points of meltwater and sediment. The strong variation observed in its deposits is intrinsic to both (a) an active braided Stream environment deveioped as a result of a large but discontinuous source of water and sediments, and (b) strong variation in floods, some king high in magnitude.

Meltwater floods of various dimensions are characteristic of glacial outwash

Paker, 198 1; Boothroyd, 1984; Maizels, 1993; Martini et al., 2001). In the past two decades there has been some interest in detennining whether megafloods of hundreds of thousands m3/day of discharge have affected southem Ontario (Shaw and Gilbert, 1990;

Bamett, 1990). These authors purport that such megafloods may have been responsible for the quasi-instantaneous formation of some of the landfoms of the province, like such erosional features as tunnel vaiieys, and such depositional features as dnimlins. Such

Boods may have been responsible for the formation of large tracts of the outwash and the deposition of much associated glaciolacustrine sediments such as those exposed dong the northshore bluffs of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.

There is indeed evidence that high magnitude flow events may have been responsible for the genesis of parts of the Caledon-Guelph outwash deposit. These events are recorded in bouldery beds and large channel fills, such as in the Caiedon ma, consistently coarse cobble grave1 with some boulders, such as in the Guelph area and in the Martini pit, and some large foresetted deposits in pi& in the Caledon, Guelph and

Paris areas (Eynon and Wallcer, 1974). In the Caledon area, the composite, coarse upper unit is on the whole about 2-300 m wide and it is recognized in pits for more than 1.5 km.

The sediments of this upper unit (cal-III) were probably deposited by major floods, perhaps associated with breakage of ice dams at the terminus of the glacier. The floods were able to carry boulders of several metres in size, hence they had a minimum flood velociv ranging between 4.0-5.0 m/s.

It was also found that in certain pits the outwash deposits display two to three

Ievels, separated by planation surfaces at times marked by a very thin sihy to fine sand layer. However these results do not support the occurrence of megafloods. These calculated flow velocities consistent with large, but regular Stream floods. Aithough the availability of coarse clastics may be a factor in bis record, it 4s noted that larger boulders ranging up to several metres in diameter are present in tills in surround'ig areas.

They were made available to be transported by any major flood if it had occurred.

Furthemore, no pavement or other water-formed structures composed of such coarse clasts, similar to the bouldery ripples reported hmthe Washington scabland affected by late Pleistocene megafloods (Baker, 1981), have been observed anywhere in either the study area, or in southem Ontario as a whole.

A possible conclusion is that indeed variable and even major floods occwed in the Caledon-Guelph outwash, but no rnegafhod or anomalou large flood is recordeci. If any megafloods did occur its evidence must have been removed by erosion and later

"regulai' sedirnentation creaind the deposits now present in Caledon-Guelph outwash. The deposition of any materials that would indicate a megaflood would have ken

removed pnor to the deposition of the materiai that is present,

Aggregate Quaüty and Economics

The following is an analysis of the aggregate of the aggngate quality and

economics of the study area based on the use guidelines of the Aggregate Producers

Association of Ontario, and the Ministry of Transporation of Ontario. The grain size for

the use and profitablitiy of materials is synthesized in Table 12. The cost of production

increases with the amount of processing requïred.

Table 12. Aggregate properties and applications.

Size Percent Cost content Large Cobbles- >20 Ornamental t-- t-- stones if not Very Large treated; as below if

Very Coarse Granular O, Pebbles-Srnail &M Cobbles Medium Pebbles- Granular B -Coarse Pebbles Hot Mixe4 Hot-Laid, Asphaltic Concrete, Concrete Hot Mixéd, SmaU Pebbles; Hot-Laid, some sut Asphaltic Concrete, Concrete Silt & Clay The profitability of a given aggregate resource is a bction of quantity of materials, type and quantity of deleterious lithologies, thickness of overburden, environmental constraints such as extraction below the watertable and restoration, distance to principal market, such as a large town or major infiastructure construction, such as major highways, and the presence of existing transportation routes.

The Caledon-Guelph outwash contains abundant reserves of econornicaliy important aggregates near large, growing urban centres like Toronto and Hamilton. The different pits however, Vary in their profitability because they contain different types and amount of materials

Caledon

The Caledon pit area is located in the northem most reach of the Caledo-

Guelph outwash system. It is a very valuable aggregate deposit because of its resource quantity, limited occurrence of deleterious lithologies, spatially separate occurrences of sand and grave1 deposits, and proximity to the Greater Toronto Area

Extractive activities have taken place in the Caledon pit area for over half a century. It has produced an enormous amount of material and it has a reserve of approximately 120 million tonnes. In this deposit the deleterious lithologies are limited to some degradable metamorphic clasts and a few argillaceous pebbles. One major feature of this area is the availability of different aggregate types at diEerent localities such that extraction can be done according to client requirements, thus minimising processing and therefore increasing profitability. One limitation is the occurrence of large channels with nurnerous boulders. This part of the pit has been worked, both to get at finer, underlying material, and the bouldery deposit. The boulder component of the deposit is processecl by removal of the largest erratics and crushing of the remahder.

The Caledon pit area is particularly well placed in relation to the market, being linked to it via highway IO. Furthemore, the Caledon area has limited environmental constraints because the entire area has been designated for extraction.

Nevertheless, complete extraction of the deposit necessitates underwater extraction.

Erin

The Erin pit area is located in the central part of the CaledoHuelph outwash.

This area contains large reserves although not as thick as the Caledon deposit. It is homogeneous throughout without a significant occurrence of deleterious lithologies, and a slightly greater distance to major markets than Caledon- Large-scale extractive activity has occurred for one or two decades. The relatively homogenous distribution of sand and gravel necessitates crushing. In addition to the presence of metamorphic clasts, there is a minor occurrence of red, Ordovician silty shale, producing a minor economic limitation.

Martini

The Martini pit is in the Guelph area, the central zone of the Caledon-Guelph outwash. It is the southern most pit of the study area. The area contains extensive glaciofluvial deposits, aithough most of the reserve has been depleted. What remains consists of a homogenous sandy gravel deposit that requires cnishing. The aggregate is of good quality: dong with the usual suite of metamorphic clasts, there was a single occurrence of a carbonate clast with a chat nodule, most likely derived from a formation (Ancaster Cherts) exposed along the Niagara Escarpment at Hamilton- The area is close to market and served by reasonably good transportation infrastructure.

Leslie

The Leslie pit is not part of the Caledon-Guelph outwash, but located on the topographie high of a hummocky moraine partially dnunluiized by glacial readvance. It is probably a subglacial, waterlain deposit The deposits are extremely variable in particle size and are affected by glacial tectonics. Layers of fine materials and diamicton are present which limit the quality of the aggregate resource. There is a Limited quantity of materials and the extractive activities are dictated by local demand. CONCLUSIONS

The Caledon-Guelph outwash was formeci in hnt, and parallel to, the large, glacial Paris end moraine, It extends for 80 km. It varies in width fiom a few kilometres to several 10's of kilometres. It consists primarily of sandy grave1 with only local occurrence of boulders, such as part of Caledon, and littie or no fines are exposed at the working pits. Fines are present in abundance only in a pit adjacent to the outwash, in a hummocky moraine area (Leslie pit).

The deposit of this outwash confoms to others reported hmother areas, except it does not show a regional trend in decreasing particle sue, or changing sedimentary structures. This is because the outwash experienced multiple, lateral water and sediment inputs rather than a single head source. It does not reach a "grade&' system condition.

Similar to other outwash areas it shows strmg local variable grain size, due to fluctuathg water discharged locally in the study ma, and pitted features associated with the melting of rafted iceblocks.

A few hi&-magnitude flood events are recorded in the deposit as bouldery channeis and large-scale gravely sand cross-beds.

The CaledoAuelph outwash has been the source of aggregates for the major towns and cities of southem Ontario floronto, Hamilton, Kitchener). The deposits are valuable because they are thick, lack deleterious materials, usually req- limited processing and they are located in proxllnity to transportation routes. In the last half a century there has been an extensive amount of aggregate extracted hm the Caledon-

Guelph outwash with much remaining in reserve.

91 REFERENCES

Allen, J.R L. (1983) Studies in Fluviatile Sedimentation: Bars, Bar-Complexes and

Sandstone Sheets (Low-Sinuosity Braided Streams) In: the Bmwnstones (L.

Devonian), Welsh Borders. Sedimentary Geology, 33: 237-293.

Allen, P-A. (1997) Earth Surface Processes. Blackwell Science: Oxford. 404 pp.

Baker, V. R. (1981) Large-sale erosional and depositional features of the Channeled

Scablands, In: V.R. Baker (ed.) Catastrophic Flooding: The Origin of Channeled

Scabland. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc.: Stroudsberg, pp. 276-310.

Barnett, P.J. (1992) Quaternary Geology of Ontario; In: P.C. Thuston, H.R. Williams,

R.H. Sutcliffe, and GM. Stotts (&.) Geology of Ontario. Ontario Geological

Survey Special Volume 4, Part 2, pp. 1O1 1-1 088.

Barnett, P.J. (1978) Quatemary Geology of the Simcoe Area, Southem Ontario. Ontario

Division of Mines Geoscience Report 162. Ministry of Natural Resources. 74 pp.

Boggs, S. (1995) Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

Englewood Cliffs. pp. 774. Boothroyd, J-C and Ashley, GM (1973) Processes, Bar Morphology, and Sedimentary

- Structures on Braided Outwash Fans, Northeastem Gulf of Alaska. In: lopiing,

A., and Mcdonald, B.C. (eds.) Glaciofluvial and Glaciolacustrine Sedimentation,

Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Paper No. 23:

Tulsa pp. 193-222.

Cant, D. J- and Walker, R, G. (1976) Development of a braided-flwid facies mode1 for

the Devonian Battery Point Sandstone, Quebec. Canadian Journal of Ed

Sciences, 13: 102-1 19.

Chapman, L. J. and Putnam, D. F. (1984) The Physiography ofSouthem Ontario, 3rd ed.

Ontario Geologicai Survey Special Volume 2.270 pp.

Church, M. (1972). Baff?n Island sandurs. Canadian Geological Survey Bulletin: 216.

205 pp.

Church, M. and Gilbert, R. (1973) Proglacial fluvial and lacustrine environments. In:

Jopling, A., and Mcdonald, B.C. (eds.) Glaciofluvial and Glaciolacustrine

Sedimentation. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mindogists Special

Paper No. 23: Tulsa pp. 22-100.

Clayton Research Associates Limited (1999) Aggregates in Ontario: Recent Trends and

Medium-Term Outlook. Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario. 32 pp. Costeiio, W.R. and Walker' R. G. (1972) Pleistocene sedimentology, Credit River,

southem Ontario: a new component of the braided river model, Journal of

Sedimentary Petrology, 42: 389400.

Co wan, W.R- (1 977) Toward the Inventory of Ontario's Mineral Aggregates, Ontario

Geological Survey Miscellaneous Paper MP73.35 pp.

Dell, C. 1. (1959) A Study of the Mineraiogical Composition of Sand in Southern

Ontario. Canadian Jouml of Soi2 Science, 39: 185- 197.

Drewry, A (1986) Glaci-fluvial processes and sedimentaion. In: Glacial Geologic

Processes. Edward Arnold Publishing-Limiteci:London. pp. 147- 166.

Eynon, G. and Walker, R.G. (1974) Facies relationships in Pleistocene outwash gravels,

southem Ontario: a model for bar growth in braided rivers. Sedimentology,. 21:

43-70.

Folk, R.L. (1980) Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphili Publishing Company:

Austin. 182 pp.

Fraser, G. S. (1993) Sedimentation in an interlobate outwash stream. Sedimentory

Geologv. 83: 53-70. Frazer, J. Z. (1982) Derivation of a summary facies sequence based on Madcov chah

malysis of the Caledon outwash: a Pleistocene braided glacial fluvial deposit. In:

Guelph Symposium on Geomorphology-1980. Research in Glacial, Glacio-

Fluvial, and Glacio-Lacustrine Systems. R. Davidson-Amott, W. Nickling, and

B.D. Fahey (eds.). Geo Books: Norwich. pp. 175-199.

Gustavson, TC. (1974) Sedimentation of grave1 outwash fâns, Malaspina glacier

foreland, Alaska human2 of Sedimentary Petrologv, 44: 374-389.

Gustavson, T.C and Boothroyd, J-C. (1987) A depositional model for outwash, sediment

sources, and hydrologic chanrcteristics, Malaspina Glacier, Alaska: A modem

analog of the southeastern margin of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. GeologrcaI Sociew

of Amenka Bulletin, 99: 187-2OO.

Karrow, P.F. and Occhieni, S. (1989) Quatemary Geology of the St. Lawrence Lowlands;

In: R.J. Fulton (ed.). Quaternary Geology of Canada and Greenland. Geological

Society of Amenca, The Geology of North America DNAG V. K-1 . pp. 320-389.

Kmow, P.F. (1987) Quatemary Geology of the Hamilton-Cambridge Area, Southem

Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Report 255.94 pp. Karrow, P-F. (1968) Pleistocene Geology of the Guelph, Ontario Department of Mines

Geological Report 61.38 pp.

Kehew, A. E and Lord, M. L. (1983) Glacial outbursts dong the mid-continent margins

of the Laurentide ice-sheet. In: Teller J. T. and Clayton L. (eds.). Glacial Lake

Agassiz. Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 26. 45 1pp.

Kor, P.S.G. (1993) An Earth Science Inventory and Evaluation of the Mono Mills-

Caiedon Meltwater Channels Area of Natural and Scient& Interest, Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources, Southem Region, Aurora, Open File Geologicai

Report 9302 25 pp.

Krigstrom, A. (1962) Geomorphological studies of sandw plains and their braided rivers

in Iceland. Geografikaannaler, XLIV: 32 8-346.

Krüger, J. (1997) Development of Minor Outwash Fans at K6tluj6kull, Iceland.

Quaternary Science Reviews, 16: 649-659.

Maizels, J. (1997) Jokulhlaup deposits in proglacial areas. Quatemary Science Raiiiews,

16: 793-8 19.

Maizels, J. (1995) Sediments and landforms of modem proglaciai terrestriai

environrnents. In: Modem Glacial Environments: Process Dynamics and

Sediments. J. Menzies (ed.). Buttenivorth-Heinmann, London. pp. 365416. Maizels, J. (1993) Lithofacies variation within sandur deposits: the deof moff regime,

flow dynamics and sediment supply characteristics. Sedimentary Geology, 85:

299-325.

Martini, 19. (1981) Coastal dunes of Ontario: distribution and geomorphology.

Géographie physique et Quaternaire, XIEXV, 219-229.

Martini, I.P., Broockfield, M.B, and Sadura S. (2001) Principles of Glacial

Geomorphology and Geology. Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, USA. 377

PP-

Miall, AD. (1992a) Glaciofluvial Tmsport and Deposition. In: Glacial Geology: An

introduction for Engineers and Earth Scientists. N. Eyles (ed.). Pergamon Press:

Toronto. pp. 168- 183.

Mid, A.D. (1992b) Alluvial Models. In: Facies Models: Response to Sea Level Change.

R.G. Waker and N.P. James (eds.). Geological Association of Canada. pp. 119-

142.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources-Ontario Geological Swey (1980) Aggregate

Resources Inventory Paper 12. Aggregate Resources Inventory of Erin Township,

Wellington County, Southern Ontario. 33 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources-Ontario Geological Survey (1981a) Aggregate

Resources Inventory Paper 39. Aggregate Resources Inventory of Eramosa

Township, Wellington County, Southern Ontario. 33 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources-Ontario Geological Survey (1981b) Aggregate

Resources Inventory Paper 23. Aggregate Resources Inventory of Town Of

Caledon, Regional Municipality of PeeI, Southem Ontario. 39 pp,

Ontario Mïnistry of Natural Resoutces-Ontario Geological Survey (1982) Aggregate

Resources Inventory Paper 54. Aggregate Resources Inventory of Puslinch

Township, Wellington County, Southem Ontario. 37 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Transportation. (1997) Laboratory Testing Manual. Method of Test

for Sieve Andysis of Aggregates. 11 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Transportation. (1996) Laboratov Testing Manual. Procedure for the

Petrographic Analysis of Coarse Aggregate (Type Descriptions). 17 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Transportation (1999) Officd Road Map of Ontario, Canada,

1 :700,000 Price, R.J- (1973) Glacial and Fluvial Landforms. Longman Group Limited: London. 242

PP-

Rust, B. (1973) Fabric and structure in glaciofluvial gravels. In: Jopling, A-, and

Mcdonald, B.C. (eds.) Glaciofluvial and Glaciolacustrine Sedimentation. Society

of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Paper No. 23: Tulsa. pp.

Smith, N.D- (1985) Proglacial Fluvial Environment. In: Glacial Sedimentary

Envuonments. G.M. Ashley, J.Shaw and N.D. Smith (eds.). Society of Economic

Paleontologists and Mineraiogists Short Course No. 16. p. 85-134.

Szoke, S.I. and Katona, Z.L. (1993) Aggregate Quality and Quantity Requirernents and

Cost Considerations for Highway Construction in Ontario (1 988- 1991). Soils and

Aggregates Section, Engineering Materials Office, Ministry of Transportation

Report MI-163. ..pp. 29.

Tovell, W. M. (1992) Guide to the Gecilogy of the Niagara Escarpment with Field Trips.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission. pp. 200. Appendices Appendix 1

A. Particle Size Analysis

Inciuded here are the results of the particle size anaiysis for alI the coliected samples. Descriptive s tatis tics, including average particle size, particle size class, variance, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis., dong with fiequency distributions and cumulative frequency distributions.

B. Mineralogical Anaiysis Included here are the results of the minerological analysis. The mineralogical analysis inciudes both the sand grain mount thin section mineral abundance tables and the loose grain rnineralogicai anaiysis tables. Appendix A- Partide Sue Annlysis Caledon Pit SAMPLE S&vé(aual sk.c(Pbn WchiuW cun, WC~F&~C~F&SF&C~~W&F~~S~C~F-SMY&)~~~~S~~* r~l-3a 1.40 -05 11.BS Il.gS 19.76 19-76 13.86 13.86 19-76 19-76 424Maa 1-01 Toul (g) 361.00 1.W 0.0 9.62 21.47 16.04 35.W LI26 5.12 16.04 3280 022 rn wnd 418.85 0.710 05 10.99 3246 1837, S4.12 1286 3798 lu2 55.12 0-75 Vu 1.02 T Sand (g) 702 0500 1.0 897 41.43 14-95 69.08 10.49 48.47 14.95 69.07 122 SIkr 1.01 Split (g) 60.15 0355 15 8.26 49.69 13-77 a85 9.66 58.14 13.77 8284 1-75 SLcr 0.71 S Factor 1.17 0.30 Z.0 5-98 55.67 997 932 7.00 65-13 9.97 92-81 2.24-Kun 334 Z Grnvci 79.88 0.180 25 1-75 ,r7.42 2-92 95-74 205 67-18 292 95.73 274 % Sand 20-17 0-12.5 3.0 12 58.65 205 97-79 1.44 68.62 205 97-78 324 0.090 35 0.41 59.06 0.69 98.47 0.48 69.10 0.69 98.47 3-73 0.063 413 027 5934 0.46 9893 032 69.43 0.46 9893 423 0.015 45 0.73 5957 0.38 9931 on 69-69 038 9931 497 4.045 5-5 0.41 5998 0.69 L00.W 0.48 70-18 0.69 100.00 274

% Sand 3635 0.13 3.0 093 a.76 0-70 99.m 0.m 12U3 0-70 99.00 324 0.090 35 0.21 6097 034 9935 0.42 lm5 034 9935 3.73 0.063 4.0 0.14 61-11 023 99.57 028 12323 023 9957 423 0.045 45 0.11 61-7 0.18 99.75 022 123.46 0.18 99.75 497 4.045 55 0.15 6131 024 L00.W 030 123.76 024 1LOO.OC 274

O 625.00 1.00 0.0 10.81 61E85 0.710 OS 14.91 TSand (0) 279.85 OJM] 1.0 13.71 Spiito 6293 0355 15 10.14 S Fmor 4.43 0.250 20 3.21 56 Gnvcl 56.04 0.190 LS OAZ % Sand 45.66 0.12.5 3.0 0.25 0.090 35 0.12 0.063 4.0 0.07 0.045 45 0.11 d.045 55 022 I 6293 n9.m 1 SAMPLE Sicrrjmni~Sk*c(PkOWmWCria WdFrssuic~CoriFmSFulor

Tot.I(O) 339.00 1.00 326.85 0.710 TSend (g) lX57 0500 Split cg) 59.40 O355 S Faaor 211 0350 % Gnvcl 6154 0.180 % Sand 38.57 0.13 0.090 0.063 0.045 dm5

Total (g) 587.00 1.00 574.85 0.710 TSand (O) 568.85 05m Split (O) 59.00 0355 S Fiaor 9.63 0250 % Cnvcl 0.69 0.180 A Sand 98.96 0.125 0.090 0.063 O.CM5

Total (g) 140.00 1.00 127.85 0-710 TSand e) 5938 0.500 Split (gl 6031 0355 S Fnaor 0.98 0250 56 Cmvd 5355 0.180 % Sand 46.45 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.w5 c0.045 SAMPLE Sieve(mm) SkveO'Wekbt W:Cum-WCIP F~OCI)EYCm7Fretw C MU Pdr Puu#ta Grivd ' -

SI-30 ' 10.00 -33 19857 19857 71.26 7126 -2991Mcaa -257 Tolal(g) 361.00 630 -27 2201 22058 7.90 79.16 -233 Size ClPss v s pebble 348.85 4.00 -2.0 2592 24650 930 88.46 -150 Va+ 052 T Sand (g) 70.2 2.00 -1.0 3215 278.65 11.54 100.00 -1.00 SIkv 0-72 Split (g) 60-15 278.65 Skcw 1.35 S Factor 1-17 Qa Gnvel 79.88 % Sand 20-12 SAMPLE Sievdmm) SieveO Weiat0 ~umWeig Frtciueacy CmFmi G Mid Poli PkÏ&r Gr&&. - SI-3b 10.00 -33 113-77 113.77 53.09 53.09 -2,991Meui -222 Total (g) 352.00 630 -2-7 27.60 14137 1288 65.97 -233 Si Clrus v s pcbble 339.85 4.00 -20 36.04 177.41 16.82 8279 4.50 Var 091 T Sand (g) 12557 2.00 -1.0 36.87 214.28 i721 100.00 -0JOSDcv 095 Split (g) 62-27 21428 Skew 0.82 S Factor 2.02 % Gnvel 63.05 % Sand 36.95 SAMPLE Skvdmm) SievePbi) Wekbt 0 Cum Wdg Frequeiy Cum Fmi G Mkl Pa& P&meter ~rivel S4-3 10.00 -33 231-00 231.00 67.26 67-26 -2.99 ~MCUI -2-48 Total (g) 625-00 630 -2.7 405 1 27 151 11.80 79.06 6 12-85 4.00 -2.0 30.08 30159 8-76 87.81 T Sand (g) 279.85 2.00 -1.0 41.86 343.45 1219 100.00 Split (g) 62.93 343-45 Skew S Factor 4.43 Kurt 3 -64 4% Gnvel 56.04 % Sand 45.66 SAMPLE 510-3 - Total (g) 1288.83 630 -2-7 24.08 556.93 3.92 90-73 -233 S&eCI.ss v s pbble 1276.68 4.00 -2.0 22-75 579.68 3.71 94.44 -150Var 0-40 T Sand (g) 662.88 2.00 -1.0 34.12 613.80 556 100.00 -0.50 S ikv 0.63 Sp[it (g) 59.00 613.80 Skew 2.89 s-~actor 1 1.24 % Gnvel 48.08 9% Sand 51.92 SAMPLE - -- ~iev&) Siive0Weigbt W 'CÜm WC& Fkquency CU~Fnac G Mid Pdr &mker hvel S11-1 . 10.00 -3 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -239 1M-n -0.50 Total (g) 71.91 630 -2-7 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.76 4.00 -2.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Sand (g) 59.60 2.00 -1.0 0.16 0.16 100.00 Split (g) 59.00 0.16 Skew 0.00 S Factor 1.01 Kurt 0.00 % Gravel 0.27 % Sand 99.73 SAMPLE Sievdmm) SievdPhi3 ~eighla)Cm Weig Frcaucncv Cum FmiG Mid Pdr P&u&ter GA& S13-2 10.00 -3 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.99 1 Mean -0.76 rotal (g) 339.00 630 -2.7 6-12 6.12 5.22 336.85 4.00 -2.0 19.22 25.34 16.40 21.62 ï' Sand (g) 218.85 2.00 -1.0 91.87 117.21 7838 Split (g) 5754 1 17.2 1 Skew 5 Factor 3.80 Kun 5.02 % Gravel 34.80 % Sand 64.97 - . .. - cumF- SAMPLE ricQ 5142 -- 10.00 -33 532.85 53285 75-79 75-79 -299IMm -2.60 Total (g) 30 1.09 630 -27 5435 587.20 7.73 8352 -233 Size Clas v s pcbble 28834 4.00 -2.0 5352 640.72 7.61 91-13 -150 Var 0.60 T Sand (g) 70.20 2.00 -1.0 6236 703.08 8.87 100.00 -050 S üev 0.78 59.87 703.08 Skcw 1.89

% Sand 24.30 SAMPLE Sieve(mm) SïeveO Weigbt e) CmWeig Fnriuchc~rCm Freqi G Mid Pdi panmder Gmvd -- SIS-2 10.00 -33 69.64 69.64 34.62 34.62 -299IMc0n -2.0 1 Total (g) 339.00 630 -2-7 4730 11694 2351 58.14 -233 Shc Clas v s pcbble 326.85 4.00 -2.0 44.29 161.23 22.02 80.15 -150 Var 0.87 T Sand (g) 12557 2.00 -1-0 3992 201.15 19.85 100.00 -050 S kv 093 Split (g) 59.40 201.15 Skew 0.48 S Factor 2.1 1 I 5% Gravel 6154 1 % Sand 38.42 1 SAMPLE Sievdmm)Suve(Pbi) WdPht 0 Cum Wcia Frcciucacy Cum Freqi C MM Pob Pa&&r Girvd S14.15-2b . 10.00 -3 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -299IMc~n 4-05 TO&I (g) 587.00 630 -27 054 054 13.60 13.60 -233 SizeCb granule 574.85 4.00 -20 1.18 L.72 29.72 4332 -150 VIW 0-45 T Sand (g) 568.85 200 -1-0 2.25 397 56.68 100.00 4.50 SDrv 0.67 split (g) 59.00 397 SLCW 4-73 S Factor 9.63 I % Grave1 0.69 % Sand 98.96 ------.. 7 - -. , SAMPLE . s~v~(II&)SkveO -wdpbti~ .cumW &E - ~inacy CU^ FWI'C MM RI&I&&& ~&i" S17-3 10.00 -33 2631 2631 38-43 38-43 -2.99 I Mcui Total (g) 140.00 6.30 -2-7 2036 46-67 29-74 68-17 -2.33 Shc Clpss v s pcbble 127.85 4.00 -2.0 10.20 56.87 14.90 83.06 -150 Var 0.80 T Sand (g) 5938 2.00 -1.0 11.60 68-47 16.94 100.00 -050SDrv 0.90 Split Oz) 603 1 68.47 Skew 0-79 S Factor 0.98 % Gravel 5355 % Sand 46.45 1

Particle Size Aliily%iP SI-SA

Psnicle Sue Analyu 1

l Pariicle Size Analysk IY Y-3 -27 630 22.01 22058 650 65.14 -233 Slze c1.ss granule -2.0 4.00 25.92 24650 7.65 7279 -150 VW 252 -1.0 200 32-15 278.65 9.49 8229 4-74 S DCV 159 -05 1.00 11.85 29050 350 85.79 -0.24 Skcw 138

-2.7 630 27-6 14137 5-42 27.74 -233 Sùe Ciass c sand -2.0 4.00 36.04 177A1 7.07 34.81 -150 Var 5.2a -1.0 200 36.87 21428 7.23 4204 4-74 S Dev 22a -0.5 1-00 27-40 241.68 538 47.42 -0.24 S~CW 0-16 0.0 1-40 28.02 269.70 550 52.91 0-25 / Kurt 2.02 05 0.710 42.92 31262 8-42 61.34 0.75

-2-7 630 4051 27151 9-97 66.81 -2.33 Sbc1.ss grande -2.0 4.00 30.08 30159 7.40 7421 -150 VU 216 -1.O 200 41.86 343.45 1030 84.51 -0.74 S DCV 1-47 -05 1.O0 8-96 352.41 220 86.72 4-24 SLew 133 -2-7 630 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -233 SiCku f sand -20 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 -150 var 021 -1.0 200 0.16 0.16 0.27 027 4-74 SDcv 052 -05 1-00 0.05 O21 0.08 035 4.24 Skew -0.64 0.0 1-40 0.03 024 0.05 0.40 025 1 Kurt 9.82 0.5 0.710 0.06 030 0-10 0.50 0.75

-2-7 6.30 6-12 6-12 265 265 -233 Size Cbv c sand -20 4.00 19.22 2534 832 10.97 -150 Var 1.2l -1.0 2.00 91-87 11721 39-77 50.74 -0.74 S DCV 1-1 1 -05 1-00 11.69 128.90 5.06 55.80 -024 Skew 1.63 0-0 1-40 9.64 13854 4.17 5997 0.25 1 Kurt 729 O5 0.710 933 147.87 4.04 64.01 0.75

-2-7 6.30 5435 102.86 1952 3695 -233 Size Chgranule -2.0 4.00 5352 15638 19.22 56-18 -1.50 VU 193 -1.0 2.00 6236 218.74 22-40 7858 -0.74 SDcv 1.39 -05 1-00 1283 23157 4.61 83-19 -024 Skew 0.8C

-2.7 630 0.54 0.54 0.59 0.59 -233 Size Clrss m sand -2-0 4.00 1-18 1-72 1.28 1.87 -1.SOVir 1.25 -1.0 200 225 3 -97 2.45 4.32 -0.74 S Dtv 1-12 -05 1-00 0.12 4.09 0.13 4.45 -024Skcw 0.09

SAMPLE ElSllR ' Total (O)

T Sand(@ Split (p) S Factor *A Crave1 '?ASand

68.75 406.40 1 SAMPLE Siwc (iaC SIcvdW WchLcW Cmi W& Freammr Cui. Fm1S FmCmi Wda Fm- Cmi FrmS MY Nr !ùd EISIIF4 1.400 -05 35 O35 O51 0.51 155 155 0.51 031 -025IMam 2531 Total (g) 316.06 1.W 30391 0.710 TSand(@ 30391 0.500 Split (g) 68.70 0355 S Factor 4-42 0250 % Grnvcl 0.00 0.180 %Sind 100.00 O.!25 0.040 0.063 0.045 9.045

Total (g) IO339 1.W 91-84 0.710 TSande) 91.84 0500 125 SDev Split (p) 48.88 0355 1.75 Slur S Factor 1.88 0250 224 Kirt % Cnvel 0.00 0.180 274 %Smnd 100.00 O.[= 324 0.090 3.73 0.063 4.23 0.045 499 4.045 2-75 48.60 91.31 1 SAhlPLE Slevr (mmîSlcvdPM WmCri WdrF-Chi FmiS FWCmi WcltFnrmcr Cmi FryiS MY h(t -S.d EIS174 ' 1.400 5 0.10 0.10 0.14 O 025 015 -0.14 0.14 4.25lMai 3.621 Total (p) 18829 I.WO 176.14 0.710 TSand(@ 176.14 0500 Split(@ 66.45 0355 S Factor 765 OU0 *A Gravel 0.00 0.180 %Sand 100.00 0-12s 0.090 0.063 0.045 9.045 66.42 176.06 1 SAMPLE . ~lr*e(imimW~~-Cmi~W&FmmemwChiF~SF~ 'CmrWrltFri.mclCriFniiSMYWl-Sul-- . EZSIFZ 1.400 -05 6.48 6.448 10.65 10.65 L 1.85 11.85 10.65 10.65 -0251~ai I.SO~ Total (g) 318.69 1.000 997 20.62 IL.IO 2295 9.97 20.62 30654 0.710 1330 34-12 15.02 3797 13.50 34.12 TSand(g) Il293 O300 LI.84 4597 13.18 51-15 11.84 4597 Split (g) 61.74 0355 1150 57-46 1279 6395 II30 57.46 1.75 Slur S Factor 1-85 0350 II.0L 68.47 LW 76.10 11.01 68.41 L24 K.rt 'A Cnvcl 63.16 0.180 3.65 7212 4.06 8026 3.65 RIZ 27!21 ./o Sand 36.84 0.125 634 79.06 7.72 8798 694 59.06 314 0.090 5.1 8431 5.73 93-71 5-15 8431 0.063 4. 88.82 5.13 98.84 4.61 88.82 0.045 3.85 92.67 429 103.13 3.85 9267 4.04s 733 100.00 8-16 11129 733 100.00 60.84 11 1.29 SAMPLE Slcve (muiSlcvd?hD WefgLcW Cam Web FmmmrCmr FmS FœImr CiiW8k FmmnwCmi FmS MU ?Wr Snd. E2SIR -. 1-400 -O5 t8.79 18.79 2624 2624 3391 3391 2624 2624 -035lMai- 093 1 rota1 (0) 454.00 I-MW) 441.85 0.710 TSande} 128.19 0.500 Split(p) 71.04 O355 S Facior 1.80 0350 % CnvcI 7039 0-180 % Sind 29.01 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 9.045 Tornl(p) 449.00 1.000 436.85 0-710 TSand(g) 24222 O500 Spiir(d 6295 0355 S Faaor 3.85 0250 Y. Grivcl 44.55 0.180 ./. Sand 55.45 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 4.015 1 62-92 24212 1 SNUPLE Shve (mi Sicvc(rrr) WdabeW Cri Wdi F.rrmcr CriFmlS Fw(.r Cim Wrh F~WYTCri Fm8 S MY Nr ruuik Sand k?S2F1 1.400 -05 1175 1175 1897 18-97 3125 3325 1897 1897 -025iMar 1.121 73053 1.000 0.25 Chm 71838 0.710 0.7skm%l TSand(p) 16623 O500 12s SDW Split (0) 67.82 0355 1-75 SLrr S Factor 245 O250 124 Krrl 3-72 Y. Gnvel 83.09 0.180 2-74 % Sand 23.14 0.lU 0.090 0.063 0-045 4.045

Total(p) 63138 1.000 619.63 0.710 TSinde) 272-14 O300 Split (p) 67.19 0355 S Factor 4.05 0.250 ./. Gnvcl 6056 0.180 %Sand 43.92 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 4.045

TotaI(p) 400.00 1.000 387.85 0-710 0.75 Vu TSand(pJ IOSJ9 OJOO Split (p) 48.76 0355 S Factor 2-17 O250 2.24 Kirl %Crave1 73.16 0.180 Y. Sand 2712 0.125 324 0.090 3.73 0.063 4.23 0.045 499 4.045 2.75 1 47.82 103.56 1 SAMPLE Slne (œiSk*d~~W~~-Cmi~WdiFnmwirrCri FnntS FWar -.CuWIIFrr-Cmœ FirisMY P&-s.il--k - 1 EZS~R 1.400 -05 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0IS~Mai 2321 Totale, 82-91 [.O00 70.76 0.710 TSand(g) 68.04 0.500 Split (p) 68.04 0355 S Factor 1.00 0.250 Y. Gnrcl 3.85 0.180 *A Sand 96.16 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 4.045 1 68.03 68.03 SAMPLE --- - -Skve fiiSLsrdPh0 .WeWm:Cmi Wdl FirmcrCriFmnS Fœt~=CiiW.i FiruurCuFnrSMY Pa& -Sul 5::-. WF3 : 1.400 -05 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 -035Me~m 333 Total(& 31333 1.000 0.0 0.29 030 0.41 0.43 122 1.27 0.41 0.43 OZCliu vfd 301.08 0.710 O5 0.07 037 0.09 0.52 028 156 O.Cl9 0.52 0.75Var 0.60 TSaad(gl 300.00 0.500 1.0 0.16 0.53 0.23 0.75 0.68 2.24 023 0-75 IZSDir 0.77 Split (g) 71.04 0355 15 1-10 1.63 5 230 4.63 6.87 155 230 1-75 SLn -0.05 5 Factor 4.22 0150 2.0 7.60 922 10.72 13.02 3207 3895 10-72 13.02 2.24 Kin 3 53 Y. Girvcl 036 0.180 25 10.85 20.07 1531 2833 45.5.80 84-75 1531 2833 2-74 %Sand 99.64 0.125 3.0 2132 48 30.08 58-41 90.02 174.76 30.08 58-41 324 0.090 35 1393 5532 19.66 78.08 58.84 233.60 19-66 78.08 3-73 0.063 4.0 9.42 64.73 1329 9137 39-78 27338 13.29 9137 423 0.045 45 429 69.03 6.06 97.43 18.12 29150 6.06 97.43 439 4.045 55 1.83 70.85 238 100.00 7.72 29921 238 1OO.W 275 Toul(0) 1086.00 1.000 lOï3.85 0-710 TSande) Z47.17 O500 Split (a 56.65 0355 S Factor 436 OZ0 % Grive1 16.95 0.180 % Sand 23.02 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 QJ.Or5 Total (g) 514.00 50 1.85 4.00 -2.00 23-19 25208 7-76 8438 -1.50 T Sand&) 203.42 2.00 -1.00 46.67 298-75 15.62 100.00 -050 Split (g) 6921 298.75 S Factor 294 % Crnvel 5953

Total (g) 203.03 630 -2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 190.88 4.00 -LOO 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Sand(g) 190.88 LOO -1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Split (g) 54- 13 0.00 S Factor 353 Kurt % Grnvel 0.00 % Sand 100.00 SAiMPLE Sievc(mm) SkvdPhD Wd~htW-Crm Web Freque~yCra Fm1 C Mid Po& PanmctaCnvel - ElSiEl 10.00 -332 23953 23953 5285 5L85 -2991Man -220 Total (g) 726.59 630 -1.66 60.00 29953 1324 66.09 -233 Clru vspcbble "4.44 4.00 -2.00 63-87 363.40 14-09 80-18-150~v~r T Sand(g) 26 1.22 200 -1.00 89.82 453.22 19.82 100.00 -050SDcv Split (g) 6154 45322 Skew 0.79::;l S Factor 434 I% Crnvel 63.44 "LI Sand 3!??0 c.-- . --- .. - - SAMPLE - - Skvc(mun) ~kvefPbAf~;hh~. a mimu;c& F-C -- p&pa"-c"-r;i--.i; ~EIS~F~ 10.00 -332 632 632 12-19 12-19 -199(Man -I.18 Total (g) 24270 630 -266 795 14.27 1534 2753 -233 Cl- granule 4 12.05 4-00 -2.00 4" "37 9.07 36." -la/V8r T Sand(g) 36022 2-00 -1.00 32.86 51.83 63.40 100.00 -050 S Dcv 67.44 5 1.83 S~CW -090

Total (g) 32737 630 -2.66 20.78 13958 928 6235 31572 4-00 -2.00 24.40 163.98 10.90 73-25 vsw~jl TSand(g) 9136 2.00 -1.00 59.88 W.86 26.75 100.00 -050::$l~ S DCV Split tg) 57-16 223.86 Skew 0.60 S Factor 1.60 Kurt O/. Crnvel 71.02 % Sand ..--Y 28;?& . - c &fi&fiG----C-mTdd;77 ElS103: 10.00 -332 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -299 1 Mcin -1.67 Total (g) 284.94 6.30 -266 246 2.46 63.67 63.67 272.79 4.00 -2.00 0.00 246 0.00 63.67 T Sand(g) 268.93 2-00 -1.00 1-40 3.86 3633 100.00 Split (g) 70.47 3.86 S Factor 3.82 Kurt % Crave1 1-41

Toial (g) 427.00 630 -2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -233 Clam da 4 14.85 4.00 -2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -150 Var TSand(g) 414.85 2-00 -1.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 -050 Skv Split le1 70.18 0.00 Iskew

Total(g) 316.06 6.30 -2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 303.91 4.00 -2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Sand(g) 303.9 1 2.00 -1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Split <1) 68-70 0.00 S Factor 4.42 Kurt 0.00 % Crave1 0.00 Total (g) 103.99 630 -2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 1.84 4.00 -2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TSand(g) 91.84 LOO -1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Split (g) 48.88 0.00 sktw 0.00 S Factor 1.88 % Gravel 0.00 % Sand 1OO.T - Srt'MPLE I~ieve(mm) SkvefPhi) WcightW Cam Weig Freqww Cam F~G id ~oc~irii~ü EIS174 10.00 -332 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2S91Mein 0.M Total (g) 18639 630 -2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.14 4.00 -200 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Sand(g) 176.14 200 -1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Split (g) 66.45 0.00 Skcw S Factor 2-65 Kurt 0.00 % Crave1 0.00 Oh Sand 100.00 SM1PLE Sieve(mm) ~kc(~lii) ~dghî(g) CU^ Wkk FrniaemCUP FraiC Mid Pei! hrinkter~mvd -. E2SlF2 10.00 -332 100.49 110.49 5190 5190 -2.991Mmn -2.29 Total (g) 3 18.69 630 -2.66 36-75 14724 18.88 70.78 v s pcbblc 30654 4.00 -200 29-90 177-14 15.36 86.14 T Sand&) 1 1293 LOO -1.00 26.47 203.61 13.60 99.74 Split (g) 6 1.74 193.6 1 S kcw S Factor 1.83 Kurt 256 % Crave1 63.16 % Sand 3-6:84

SUIPLE ~itvc(mm)~ic;;(~bi)~&ba (WY -, Mi;d CriVd-dd . USIR 10.00 -332 58-72' 58.72 18-72 18-72 -299lMnn -1.53 Total (g) 454.00 630 -L66 5232 111.04 16.68 35.40 44 1-85 4.00 -2.00 82.47 193.51 2629 61.69 TSand(g) 128.19 2-00 -1.00 120.15 313.66 3831 100.00 Split (g) 71.04 3 13.66 S Factor 1.80 % Gravel 7099 %Sand -29.0 1 SAMPLE Sievc(mm) skvc(~wW~i~~t~'c~iilWei F~&&&Y CU^ Pr& G MM ~oi:hmkr Ckicl" EZSlF5 UslR 10.00 -332 8737 8727 44.84 44.84 -2.991~nn -2.15 Total (g) 449.00 630 -266 40.48 127-75 20.80 65.64 -233 Clus v s pcbble 436.85 4-00 200 3054 158.29 "-69 "33 -l.!iOII" T Sand(g) 242.22 200 -1.00 3634 194.63 18.67 100.00 -0.50 S lkv Split (g) 6295 194.63 Skew 0-74 S Factor 3.85 Kurt % Gravtl 4455 % Sand se5 SAMPLE sit~e(mm) skv&jjwd&cds~iin, W& ~-k&'.iyCUI F& c id P;Db~imsccer &Gd '- US2F1 10.00 -332 287.67 287.67 4820 4820 -2991Mnn -225 Total (g) 73053 630 -2.66 122.86 41053 2058 68.78 71838 4.00 -200 10229 512.82 17.14 8592 T Sand(g) 166.23 LOO -1.00 84.06 596.88 14.08 100.00 Split (g) 67.82 596.88 S Factor 145 Kurt % Cravel 83.09 Oh Sand 23.14 SAMPLE -- Sieve(mm) SlevdPhQ WeinbtO Cum-WdgFrequein Cim FraiC Mid Pou Parimeter Crivd E2S2F2 10.00 -332 225.14 225.14 60.00 60.00 -2.991Mein -2.33 Total (g) 631.78 6.30 -266 41.42 266.56 11.04 71.0;) -2.33 Cl- vspcbblc 619.63 4.00 -200 49.80 31636 1317 8431 -1.50 Vsr T Sand(@ 272.14 2.00 -1.00 58.86 37522 15.69 100.00 -0.50 S Dcv Split (g) 67-19 375.22 f S Factor 4-05 Kurt Oh Gravel 60.56 Oh Sand 43.92 SAMPLE . .': = .~ievc(;nmj &&Ph0 W~.L ~m~'FkarG Mid pakt&r ~kvd.* E2S2F3_. 10.00 -332 46.80 46.80 16.49 16-49 -2991Me.a -137 Total(g) 400.00 630 -266 6290 109-70 22-17 38.66 387.85 4.00 -200 7213 181.83 25.42 64.07 T Sand(g) 10559 2.00 -1.00 IO194 283.77 3592 100.00 Split (g) 48.76 283.77 S Factor 2.17 Kurt %Grave1 73.16 Total (g) 8291 630 -266 0.00 0.00 70.76 4.00 -2-00 1-1 1 T Sand(@ 68.04 LOO -1.00 i-61 Split (g) 68.04 2-72 Skew -037 S Factor 1 .O0 Kurt O/. Grave1 3.85 % Sand SAMPLE E2s4F3 Totnl (g) 3 1373 630 -266 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.33 Clur vc sand 301.08 4.00 -200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1SOVir 0.00 T Sand(g) 300.00 2.00 -1.00 1-08 1-08 100.00 100.00 -050 S D~v 0.00 Split (g) 71.04 1.O8 SkeW 0.00 S Factor 422 1 I % Çravel 036 % Sand 99.64 SAMPLE Sicve(mm) Skve(Phi) WehbtW Cum W& Frequency Cum Fm8 G MWPOL Pirimeter Grivd . E2S7F2 10.00 -332 425.85 42585 SIS3 5153 -2SIMeiii -225 Total (g) 1086.00 630 -2-66 13453 56038 1628 67.81 1073.85 4.00 -2.00 14287 70325 17-29 85-10 TSand(g) 247-17 200 -1.00 123.I L 82636 149 100.00 Split (g) 56.65 82636 S Factor 436 Kurt % Grave1 7695 Particte Size Analysis Partick Size AmilysU EISlFI RSlR 1 '" II

Particle Sue Analysis Partkle Size Analysu ElSm i

1 Partide Sue Analvsis 1

Particle Sue Analysis Partick Size Analpis Pirticle Size Aaalysb ELSIR EISlOFI RsxL

lm II'= I i

Particle Size Analysis Particle SÙe Analysb ELRR EIPF4 l 1

Particle Sue Analysis EISl7FJ Particle Sùe Analysis 1 Particle SiAnalysis lm I I E- M U - SI

4J 04 OJ 1.0 13 20 3 IO 13 4.0 U 53 Dianma (Phi)

Particle Size Analpis I EXIFS EISIFI =Y - -,l

Partide Suc Ana[+ ElZm lPI, Particle Sue Aoalysu Partick Snt Analpis - E157FL ElSm I

Particle Sue Analysis Particle Siu Analpis ELSIOF3 1

i Particle Sue Analysis 1 Particle SiAnalysis Particle Sitr Analysis - EISL7F4 EISLIF4

Particle Size Annlysis 1 Partick Sbt Analysis 1 ElSlFt

Particle Sue Anafysir Particle Size Analysis 1 E?StR

1 Particle Size Analysis Yarticie Size Analysas QSn=Z 1 E2SIR -2.7 6.30 7.95 14.27 6.67 1 1.97 -233 1 ~izeCks v c sand -2.7 630 2.46 75.96 334 334 -233 SiCbf sand -2.0 4.00 0.00 75-96 0.00 334 -150 V~V 1.60 -1 .O 2.00 1-40 7736 191 5.25 -0.74 S DCV 127 -0.5 1.00 035 77-70 0-47 5.72 -0.24 Skew -133 -2.7 630 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -233 Sizc CJass f sand -2.0 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 -150 VU 0.41 -1.0 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0-74 S I~v 0.64 -05 1-00 035 035 OS1 051 -024 S~W 4-19

-233 Size Chv f sand -150 VW 0.64 -0.74 s Dev 0.80 -0.24 Skew -0.88 -2-7 630 31.80 143-12 1129 50.83 -2.33 Size Cbss granuIe -2.0 4.00 23.19 16631 8.24 59.07 -150 VU 422 -1 .O 2.00 46.67 21298 1637 75.64 -0-74 S DCV 222 -05 1.00 035 21333 0-12 75.77 4.24 Skew 0.87 -2.7 630 122.86 365.80 19.84 59.07 -233 Ske Clrss granule -2.0 4.00 10229 468.09 1652 7558 -159 VU 1.8t -1.0 2.00 84.06 552-15 1357 89-16 4-74 S tkv 13 -05 1.OO 12-75 564.90 2.06 91.21 -0.24 Skew 1.64

-2-7 630 41-42 238.83 9.99 57.61 -233 Size Ciass granule -2-0 4.00 49.80 288.63 12.01 69.63 -150 Var 355 -1 .O 2.00 58.86 347-49 14-20 83.82 -0-74 S D~v 1.88 -05 1-00 5.87 35336 1.42 8524 -024 S~CW 1-56

-2.7 6.30 62-90 109-70 18.97 33.08 -233 Size Ciass granule -2.0 4.00 72.13 181.83 21.75 54.83 -150 Var 158 -1.0 2.00 101.94 283.77 30.74 8557 4-74 S DCV 1.26 -0.5 1.00 16.13 299.90 4.86 90.44 -0.24 Skew 1.17 -2-7 630 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.33 Size Cîas f sand -2.0 4.00 1.1 1 1.1 1 157 157 -150 VU 0-99 -1.0 2.00 1.61 2.72 2.27 3.85 -0.74 S DCV 099 -0.5 1-00 0.01 2-74 0.02 3.87 -0.24 Skew 4-74

-2-7 630 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -233 S&tCh v f sand -2.0 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -150 Var 0.83 -1 .O 2.00 1-08 1.O8 150 150 4-74 S DCV 091 -0.5 1.OO 0.0 1 1-09 0.02 152 -0.24 Skew -1.18

-2.7 630 134.53 524.83 15.88 6 1.95 -233 l~heCiass v s pebble -2.0 4.00 142.87 667-70 16.86 78.81 -150 Var 1.58 -1 .O 2.00 123.11 790.81 1453 93.34 -0.74 S DCV 1.26 -0.5 1.00 8.99 799.80 1-06 94.40 -0.24 1Skew 1-75 Total (0) 8282 1.00 70.67 0.710 TS8nd (g) 7056 O500 Split(g) 7056 O355 S Factor 1-00 OU0 % Gnvcl 0.16 0-180 % Sand 99.83 0.12s 0.090 0.063 0.045 cO.045

Total (O) 267.63 1.00 255.48 0310 T Sand (a 118.28 0.300 Split (g) 57.69 0355 S Factor 2.05 OU0 % GrpvcI 53.70 0.180 % Sand 4630 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.042 4.045

Totd (R) 384.00 I.00 371.85 0.710 TSand (g) 371.85 O300 Split (a 61.71 0355 S Factor 6.03 0250 ./. Crave1 0.00 0-180 %Sand 100.00 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 4.045

Total (g) 413.00 1.00 400.85 0-710 TSand (g) 490.81 0500 Spllt(g) 6132 0355 S Factor 654 OU0 %Cnvcl 0.12 0.I80 % Sand 99.99 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 aws

Total (g) 85626 1.00 844-1 I 0-710 T Sand (g) 535.88 0500 sprit e) 61-91 035s S Factor 8.65 OU0 ./. Gmvcl 3632 0.180 %Sand 63.48 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 4.045

TO~OI (g) 123o.n t.00 1218.62 OJLO TSandO 13422 O500 Split@ 67.62 0355 S Factor 1.98 O250 % Gravcl 8899 0.180 % Sand 11.01 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 a.045 - - --."i- r. -i- -Y------r -- -n------P -& ~DW&W~M:W~T-W&I~O)C nr~~œhmtm~.i.~~'hirrrrcirlnrl~~~~~ LLSUFL 1. -05 0.00 0.00 0.00 55.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0U.n.lu 223 Total(& 650.15 1.00 0.0 0.00 0-00 0-00 35-65 0.W 0.00 0.00 0.m OU!S&eCian€mnd 638.00 0.710 05 0.06 0-06 0.09 55-75 0.61 0.61 0.10 0.10 0.75Var 5-45 f Sand Cg) 638.00 O300 1.0 0.67 0.73 1.00 56-74 7-02 7.64 1-11 1.20 1-25 SDrr 233 Split(& 613 0355 1.5 13.34 14.08 1989 76.63 13899 146.62 2191 23.Ii 1.75 Slur -093 S Faaor L0.C 02-50 tO 3226 5634 48.09 124.72 336.03 48265 5297 76.09 224,Krn 0.0 l % Gravcl 0.00 0.180 tS 8-76 55.09 13.05 137-7ï 9121 573.86 1438 90.47 274 Y. Sand 100.00 0-125 3.0 428 5937 637 144.15 44.53 61839 7.02 91-49 324 0.090 35 0.97 6033 1-44 14539 10.06 628.45 159 99.07 3.73 0.063 4.0 031 60.64 0.45 146.04 3-L8 631.63 050 993 423 0.045 4.5 0.13 60.76 0.19 14623 1-30 63293 021 99-78 2.24 cO.045 5 0.14 60.90 O20 146.43 1.41 63433 022 LM).W 275

Total (p) 84-65 1.00 NO 0.710 TSand (p) 44.46 0500 Split (g) 44.56 0355 S Factor 1.00 02-50 ./.Grivcl 38.76 0.180 ./.Sand 6132 0-125 0.090 0.063 0.W5 co.045

Toul(p) 459.00 1.00 0.0 120 U1 192 3.70 446.85 0-710 05 1-49 3.80 U9 6.09 TSand (p) 420.68 0.300 1.0 128 5.08 205 8-15 Split(p) 6337 035 15 131 639 210 1034 S Factor 6.64 OZ0 20 1-31 7-70 210 1235 '!A Gravel 518 0.180 25 1.63 933 261 1496 ./i Sand 94.14 0.125 3.0 434 13.67 636 2131 0.090 35 4.02 17-69 6.45 1836 0.063 4.0 533 23.02 8-54 3690 0.045 45 7.76 30-78 12-44 4933 4.045 55 31.61 6U9 50.67 100.00

- 326.85 0.710 TSnnd (p) 306.76 OJW Split O 62-09 0355 S Factor 4.94 0x0 % Crivel 5.84 0.180 Y. Sand 93.85 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045

Torrle) 9720 85.05 T Sand (g) 85-05 Split (g) 85.05 S Factor 1.00 *A Grive1 0.00 %Sand 100-00

85.05 8505 J SAMPU.'-=;+-tiri::Mri) SI.rimn=W&bW8CXm WehlmwwrCuFmS --C mm' WdllruacrCU -8 IW W hiiur&d*.rii-. LLS6FIwnd+Iincr 1.40 -05 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.M 0.05 0.05 0.04 0-01 -025lMar TotaI(0) 146.71 1.00 13456 0.710 TSand 134.45 0563 Split (g) 64.76 O355 S Factor 208 0250 % Crivcl 0.08 0.180 ./. Sand 99.92 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 4.W5 Toral (g) 235.78 1.W 223.63 0.710 TSand (p) 223.43 0500 Splft (0) 6333 0355 S Factor 353 OU0 % Gnvct 0.09 0.180 7. Sand 9991 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 4.045 1 6Z17 21926 1 SMIPLE. - '"~SLrr(u~~~~WddY11CuWdrF~irwrCmiFrrrSF.d.r(iCmmWdiFi1#~1Cu~SMYN~biiil"fi; ILLS3FI---- - und 1.40 -O5 0.84 0.84 1.40 1.40 230 270 1-40 1-40 -0251Mru 1 .ml Totrl (p) 206.47 1.00 19432 0.710 TSand (0) 19315 O500 Split(@ 6033 0355 S FacIor 321 030 % Cravcl 056 0.180 %Sand 99.44 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 4.045

Toral (g) 303.79 1-00 291.65 0.710 TSaod(0) 29151 O500 Split (p) 57.76 0355 S Fador 5.05 0150 % Gmvcl 0.04 0.180 %Sand 9996 0-125 0.090 0.063 0.045 a.045

Total e) 126.49 1.00 035 Sbtcl8n rd 11434 0110 0-7". TSand (0) 113.02 0500 1.2s SDN :I Split (g) 5234 0355 1-75 Sk S Factor 216 0250 2.24 Kmrt 4.66 % Gravel 1.16 0.180 274 7. Sand 98.85 0.125 0.090 0.063 0.045 cO.045

Total (g) 289.63 1.00 276.72 0.710 T SandW 196.06 0500 Split (p) 196.06 0355 S Facior 1.00 0.250 % Crnvcl 28.46 0.180 % Sind 70.85 O.ils 0.090 0.063 0.045 4.045

S Factor 6.64 I% Cravcl 528

326.85 4.00 -2.00 2.03 895 10.63 46.89

Split (p) 6L09 19.09 S Factor 494 Y. Grivel 5.84

Toul 0 9720 630 -LM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.05 4.00 -200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TSand(g) 85.0s 200 -1mi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Split (p) 85.05 0.00 S Fmcfor I.O0 O/. Cnvcl 0.00 */.Sand 10000

-- ,= wFe- - ---. ..a- - rilc mmœaorcrirdi LLSllF1 10.00 -332 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -299 Man -050 Toiil 255.78 630 -266 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -233 Sbt CLu vcd 23.63 4.00 -200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -tJOVar 0.00 TSand(g) 223.43 2.00 4-00 020 020 IW.00 100.00 -030 SDcr O-Oa Split (g) 6333 020 SLcr 0.W S Factor 353 % Crave1 0.09 %Sand 99-91 .-- ---+.+ --m.- . s~p~:;y:~r-s-k-~~~SI;.*I- -w ww-.-.-T. cUw7 a-r--r- ri.wwr- -,. Fi.iicMunhnrir)rr~rndS."...- - - -. LLS3FI und 10.00 -332 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.W -299 Mmi -030 Toul 0 206.47 630 -266 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -233 SluCLu vcd 194.32 ITSind (g) 19323 6023 1.O9 331 Kart 056

folil (g) 30339 630 -2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 291.64 4.00 -200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TSand(p) 29151 2-00 -1.00 0.13 0-13 hBû 100.00 Split (p) 57.76 0.13 S Factor 5.05 Kan % CnveI 0.04 % Sand 99.96

Total O 126.59 630 -2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -233 SlzcCLu vcd IL434 4.00 -200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -150 Var TSind (u 113.02 2.00 -1.00 1.32 132 100.00 100.00 450 Slkv SpIlt (p) 5234 1.32 il S Factor 1.00 1% Cmd 28-46 ance ue na ysu Panicle Sur Analpis jWFI

Panicie sueAaalpu LLan

A

Particle Sue Aodysü USlFl iÏ- t-

Pankk SiAamlysb LLntl 1.)

z-1 -- As - -. Particle Suc Analysis unn f-1 6,- f.- g- k .-. .. l '3 f , ------2 4UUIOUZ.UJIU.*UU ih-Ih)

Particie Sue Analysis _ - ----

'W

6236 SAMPLE - Sievc(Phn' Sk*r(œm) WB - *. --- ,~.2+&-&& -33 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -299 Man 1-72 -2-7 630 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -213 SItcCLs mund -2-0 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -150 VU 0.93 -1.0 200 1.09 1 .O9 1-78 1.78 -0.75 S Der 0.97 -0.5 1.40 0.84 1.93 137 3.t6 425SLLIC 0.16 -2-7 630 8.27 29.36 298 10.65 -2.33 SiztCî~~csand -2.0 4-00 12.35 4131 4.45 15-10 5.031 36.84 1338 2838 -ImlvU4-75 -1.0 LOO 78.75 S Lkr 224 -05 1 2592 104.67 934 37.n -0.25 Sirnr 0.27

Martini Pit SAMPLE i - S~U)SL.n(Pbi):WdlLql)-.Cmm.Wdgt~œœy.CuFrqtS F--Cu Wdg Frq- CuFmS MISIF1 1. 45 6.64 6.6) 995 995 2139 2139 995 995 Tolrl (g) 878.00 1.000 0.0 892 1536 1336 233 1 28.74 50.13 1336 2.331 015 SCnCbn mmnd 865.85 0.710 05 15.12 30.68 Zr65 4597 48.R 98.85 2265 4597 0.75Vir 119 TSand (g) 216.03 O500 1.0 13.07 43-75 1958 6-5 421 I 14096 1958 6555 1-25 Sb 1.13 Split (g) 67.05 0355 l 7.62 SI37 11-42 7697 2455 16551 11.42 7697 1-75 S(ur 094 S Factor 32- 035 70 4.70 56.07 7.04 84.01 15-14 180.65 7.04 84.01 224,Kim 4.25 '!A Gnvel 76.25 0.180 253 58.60 3.79 87.80 8-15 188.80 3.79 87.80 274 %Sand 24.84 0.125 3.0 3.07 61.67 4.60 9240 9.89 198.69 4.60 9L40 324 Total 101.09 0.090 35 1.23 6230 1.84 9424 396 20266 1.84 rU.24 3-73 0.063 4.0 0.85 63-75 128 9552 275 20541 128 9552 423 0.045 45 1.07 61.82 1-60 97.12 3.44 208.84 1-60 97.12 499 0.044 55 1.93 66.75 288 100.00 620 215.05 t88 100.00 L75 66.75 2 15.05 Skv-) .Wdgb41) Car Wdg Fraqmcy CmiiF-S Fw(r(iCri. Wdg Fmqwncy Cam FriyS MU Wi -Sul. - 1400 4.5 736 736 1246 1246 14.65 14.65 12-46 1246 4-25M.u 1.17 Total (g) 27122 1.000 0.0 12-11 19.47 2030 3296 24-10 38.75 2050 3296 015SitcCluicd 259.07 0.710 OS 1593 35.40 2697 5993 31.70 70.45 26.97 5993 0-75 Vu L51 TSand (g) 117.07 O500 1.0 639 4119 10.82 70.74 1272 83.17 10.82 70-74 ilri S &v 113 Split (p) 58.82 0355 15 452 4631 7.65 7839 839 9216 7.65 7839 1XSh 131 S Factor 1-99 0.255 LO 292 4923 494 8334 5.81 9797 494 8334 224 Kim 4.91 % Gnvel 53.83 0.180 25 1.47 50-70 249 85.83 293 100.90 249 85.83 274 Y. Sand 4538 0.125 3.0 Lot 52-71 3.41 8923 4.01 10490 3.41 89-23 324 Total 10021 0.090 35 1-19 nsi 2.02 9tu 37 10728 202 9115 3-73 0.063 4.0 095 54.85 1.60 92-86 1.88 iU9.16 1.60 9286 423 0.045 45 1.41 5626 US 9524 280 Il 196 238 9524 499 0.044 55 281 59.07 4.76 100.00 5.60 11756 1-76 100.00 2-75

Total (g) 179.71 1.000 0.0 5-14 9.07 821 1449 Il56 22-40 821 14.49 035 SizeCLU md 16756 0310 O5 6.86 1593 10.96 3-46 15.43 35.83 10.96 25.46 0.75 Var 1.08 TSand(0) 140.96 O5Oû 1.0 727 2320 11.62 37-07 1635 5218 11.62 37.07 1-25 f 33 t .O4 Spüt(g) 62.67 0355 13 II58 34.78 1851 55.58 26.05 782.3 1851 5558 1-75 75- 4.00 S Factor 225 0255 2.0 14.19 4897 22.68 7826 3192 110.15 22-68 7826 7L24 Kin 292 % Gnvcl 15.87 0.180 25 6.85 55.82 1095 8920 15-41 IUSS 10.95 8920 2074 ./.Sand 84.00 0.125 3.0 3.85 59.67 6.15 9536 8.66 13421 6.15 9536 324 Total 99.87 0.090 35 1-23 6090 197 9732 tn 13698 197 9732 3.73 0.063 4.0 0.64 6154 1.02 9834 1.43 138.41 1.02 9834 423 0.045 45 037 6190 038 9892 0.82 13933 058 9892 4.99 0.044 55 0.67 6ZS8 1.08 100.00 132 140.75 1.08 IW.00 275 6258 140.75 SAMPLE Srcn(mm)SkrdCU) WdmW CriWdgF.il-Cri FriqiSF-Cu WdaFripwyCmm FmSMU Nihrudasd:.. MIS4F1 1.400 -O5 691 691 II.10 11.10 1856 18.56 11.10 11.10 425Mai 121 Totat (g) 407.85 1-000 0.0 10.96 17.87 17.61 28.71 29.44 48.00 17.61 28.71 OUSbtClirr md 395.70 0.710 O5 15.75 33.62 2530 54.01 4230 9030 2530 54.01 0.75Var 133 TSsnd(g) 168.41 0500 1.0 928 429û 1491 6891 24.93 11523 1491 68.91 IZSSDc* 1.16 Split(g) 6L70 OJ55 15 5.85 48.75 9.40 7831 15.71 13094 9.40 7831 1-75s- 1-09 S Facror 269 0255 20 4.07 5282 6.54 84.85 10.93 141.87 6-54 64.85 L24.Ka6 4.55 %Gnvcl 72-51 0-180 25 198 54.80 5-18 88.03 5 147.19 3.18 88.03 274 ./.Sand 4226 0.125 3.0 2-15 5693 3.42 91.45 5-72 ISL91 3.42 91.45 314 Total 114.77 0.090 35 1-11 58.04 1.78 9313 W8 155.89 1.78 9323 3.73 0.063 4.0 094 5897 150 94.73 2.51 158.40 150 M.73 4-23 0.045 4.5 1.03 60.00 1-65 9638 Z75 161.15 1.65 9638 439 0.045 55 226 6225 3.62 I00.00 6.06 16721 3.62 100.00 2.75 6225 1672 1 SAMPLE Skve(mm) SLVe@N) ,WwwCn We& F~y.~r~CriFrrqtS Fwcw(iCmi wecnqmemcy criF-S Mld WCuircrSrl. -: MISFI. 1.- -0.5 9.64 9.64 1634 16-04 21.68 27.81 16.04 14.43 -OU Bleu 1.00 Toill(p) 54.00 1.000 0.0 1139 21.03 1895 34- 25.62 53.43 1895 3338 035SbrCLucvnd 531.85 0.710 05 15.06 36.09 25.06 60.05 33.87 8730 25-06 58.44 0.75Vir 1-18 TSand(g) 17439 0500 1.0 11.18 4727 18.60 78.62 25.15 II245 18.60 77.04 IXSb 1.09 SpIit (g) 6053 O355 15 4.08 5135 6.79 85.44 9-18 121.63 6.79 83.83 1-75 Sb 133 S Factor L88 035 2.0 1-43 5280 2-41 87.85 3.26 124.89 2-41 8624 294.Kim 527, %Gnvel 69.23 0-180 2.5 0.82 53.62 137 8922 1.85 126.74 137 17.61 274 '$4 Sand 3.42 0.125 3.0 139 55.01 231 9153 3.13 129.86 231 8992 314 Total 94.65 0.090 35 0.88 55.89 1.46 9299 197 131.84 1.a 9138 3.73 0.063 .4.0 on 56.66 127 w6 1-12 113s 1-27 9x65 433 0.045 45 010 5ï36 1.16 95.43 1.57 135.13 1.16 93.82 439 0.044 55 L75 60.11 458 100.00 6.19 14132 458 9839 275 60.1 1 135.19 SAhlPLE . . - SLcve(mai) Sievc(lU) Ww(W CriWdg Pmqmmcy CriFrrgiS FwCur Ww Fmq- CrrFiiqiS MZSlFl 1.400 -05 5.45 5.45 8.86 8.86 20.29 20.29 8.86 8.86 Total (p) 493.98 1.000 0.0 7.78 1323 1264 2150 28-96 49Z 12.64 2150 481.83 TSand(g) 23034 Spllt (g) 61-88 S Factor 3.72 % Gnvcl 53.99 %Sand 4754 Total 10153 Martini Pit : : 2 ww~s1w.sICirrilt- MlSlFl. 1.400 -05 6.64 6.64 995 995 2139 2139 995 995 4yh 131 ToW @ 878.00 1.000 0.0 892 15s 1336 2331 74 50.13 1336 2331 025 !&eau md 865.85 0-710 05 15.12 30.68 2265 4597 48-72 98.85 2265 4597 0-75Vu 125 TSand (g) 216.M 0.503 1.0 0.07 43.75 1938 65.55 4211 14096 1938 6535 1.25SsDLr I.l! Split(& 67.05 0355 15 7.62 5137 L1.42 7697 2435 16551 11.42 7697 1.75 SLcr 0.94 S Fmor 3.22 O355 20 4-70 56-07 7.04 84.01 1x14 180.65 7.W 84.01 224 Kœt 42 %Cnvd 76.25 0-180 ZS 233 58.60 3.79 87.80 8-15 188.80 3.79 87.80 274 % Sand 25.84 0.125 3.0 3.07 61.67 4.60 9240 9.89 198.69 4.60 92-40 3.24 Total 101.09 0.090 35 123 6190 1.84 94.24 3-96 2fJ2.66 1.84 W24 3.73 0.063 4.0 0.85 63.75 1.28 9532 275 205.41 128 9552 49 0.045 45 1.07 60.82 1.60 97.12 3.44 $A.& 1-60 97.12 499 0.044 55 193 66-75 288 100.00 620 215.05 288 100.00 275

MlgFl. Toml e)

T SPnd (g) Split (0) S Factor 56 Grave1 % Sand Total

TSuid (p) Split @ S Factor ICrnvcl % Sind

6238 140.75 - W*~.~'~SlIb(r(i.Cwdg-, C-~SMMWhiiirrn~ Ml!iWl 1.400 4.5 691 6-91 11.10 11.10 1836 18% 11.10 11.10 -035 [HCY LZl Toml(0, 407.85 I-OûO 0.0 1096 17.87 17.661 28-71 29.14 48.00 17.61 28-71 O~sbhmund 395.70 0-710 0.5 57 33.62 2S30 9.01 4L30 9030 2530 41.01 0.75Vu 133 Thd(p) 168.41 0300 1.0 928 42-90 1491 6891 2493 11523 1491 6891 125 Sh 1-16 Split@ 6270 0355 15 SU 4835 9.40 7831 15.71 13034 9.40 7831 1-75 sirer 1.09 S Fuior 2.69 0-255 20 4.07 52.82 654 84s 10.93 141.87 6.54 84.U 2.24 hrt 435 % Cnvtl 7251 0.180 ZS 1198 9-80 3.18 88.03 532 147.19 3.18 88.03 2-74 96 Sand 4126 0.125 3.0 213 56-93 3.42 91.45 5.72 1-1 3.42 91.45 324 TOIB~ 114.n 0.090 3.5 1-11 sa04 1-78 93.23 238 1ss.89 1-78 93.23 3-73 0.063 4.0 034 58.97 150 W.73 Ul iS8.40 150 W-73 4.23 0.045 45 1.03 60.M 1.65 56.38 275 161.15 1.65 %38 499 0.044 5.5 2.26 6W 3.62 100.00 6.06 16721 3.62 l00.00 275 622s 167.21 SAMPLE:,:.-,- ..-7~Y>L~w~!w!!~ar#ru;_rW* hq-w -8 lQ1wsr- . , luwm@% I.UX) 5 9.64 9. 16.m ILUM 21-68 na1 16.m 1.4 IM ToW@ 544.00 1.000 0.0 1139 21.03 1895 3499 25.62 9.43 1895 3338 0.25 SbrQr cvnd 531.85 0.710 05 15.06 3a09 2S.06 60.05 33.87 8730 2S.06 58.44 0-75 Vu 1.10 TF(@ 17459 om 1.0 11.18 4727 18.60 18.65 3.15 112.45 1a.60 77.04 iusorr 1.a Splite) 6053 0355 15 4.08 5135 6.79 85.44 9-18 121.63 6.m 83.83 1.75 Slur 133 S Factor 288 0355 2.0 1.4 S?-Uû 2.41 87.m 326 124.89 241 86.24 2-24-Kui 5-27 Sb Crnvcl 6923 00.180 23 0.82 S3.62 137 379.22 1.a 126.74 137 87.61 274 % Sand 25.42 0.125 3.0 139 55.01 231 91.53 3.3 129.86 231 8932 3.24 Tou1 94.65 0.090 35 0.88 55.89 1.46 9299 191 131.84 1.46 9138 3-73 0-063 4.0 0.77 56.66 Il7 926 1.72 133.56 1.27 92.65 433 0.045 4.5 0.70 5736 1-16 95.43 137 135.13 1.16 93.82 4- 0.044 5.5 2.75 60.11 438 100.00 6.19 14132 438 9839 275 60.1 1 135.19 2130 40.32 T Sand Cg) 56.05 Split ig) ROI S Fmor 86.81 46 Cmvd 9 135 94.89 PdR 9738 98.43 1M.W

Toial(@ 376.w 363.85 TSmdig) 19133 Split ig) 647? S f ~tor L% % Cravd 47.40 % Sand 57253 Totnl 99.92

Total& 231.66 21931 T Sud (g) 75.66 Split (g) 6154 S Faclor 123 % Crivd 65-77 %Sand 34-40 Tod 100.17

6 1.42 7531 .u3L; SMZPLe ,.-. "

------Totale) 507.00 17.71 494.85 293 1 T Sand e) 188.85 lai1 Split@ 60.61 6249 S factor 3.12 74-73 % Crivcl 4830 025' 96 Sand 38.01 9036 T0i.1 8630 9332 95.88 91s IOQOD Totd (g) 878.0 6.3û -2.7 54-13 569.06 865.85 4-00 -20 43.16 61222 654 92-73 TSand W 216.03 2.00 -1.0 4799 660.21 Split (gl 67.05 600.23 S Fiaor 312 Kun 4; Crave1 7925 % Sand 24.84

Tolil e) 27122 63 -27 27.42 9492 19-30 66.82 39.07 4.0 -20 D68 117.6 1297 8279 TSand (g) 117.02 20 -1.0 24.45 14205 17.21 1W.00 spiil e) 58.n 14205 S FKtor 199 Kmn 96 Cmvd 54.83 C Sand 4538

TOM(g) 179-71 630 -2-7 2-12 2-12 797 797 16756 4.00 -20 6.71 8.83 25.23 333 ~Sind(p) 140.96 2-00 -1.0 17.n 26W a&80 100.00 ~plit(g) 6167 2660 -1.14 S Fiaor 23 % Gmvel 15.87 1% Sand 84-00

Toul 407.85 63 -27 46.69 22427 1 78-16 395.70 4.0 -20 31253 535.80 10.93 89-15 TSand@l 168.41 20 -1.0 31.12 28692 1O.M 100.00 Split (g) 6x70 28692 S FOCUW 2.69 Kiur 295 % Grave1 7UL %Sand 4226

-+Fs~ S~WPW~W~I~~~.~~ 1 lUISiECit. 10.00 -33 232W Z32.M 63.02 63.02 -299 Mcu -234 Totd e) 545.00 630 -L7 58.47 W51 15.88 78.90 -213 Sbr Cbr @bk 531.85 4.00 -20 30.62 321.13 832 8712 -130 VU 0-75 T Sand @l 17439 2.00 -1.0 47.08 36621 12.79 100.00 -030 SR.. 0.86 Spüte) 6053 3682 1 Skv 1-40 S Fmr 2.88 Uwt 3.0 l % Cmvd 6923 % Sind U.42

Toril (p) 493.98 630 -27 289( 199.70 11.12 76.76 481.83 4.00 -20 2493 224.63 958 8635 TSind (g) 23034 200 -1.0 3551 260.14 13.6s LWOOW Split (g) 6 1.88 260.14 S Fiaor 3.72 % Cmvd 5399 46 Sind 473 Totd 10153 ~~1.:~:3:.;9mlii).~W~F"W~rYlTmm GDU&M--.c-ux? M~SZ~. 10.00 -3.3 13269 13269 7W 7694 -299 -277 Totd e) 376.00 630 -2.7 30.63 16332 17.76 94-70 -213 Sht Clir pbbk 363.85 4.00 -20 4.25 16757 246 97.16 -1-50 VU 026 TS.nd(p) 19133 2.00 -1.0 4.89 17246 2M 100.00 -03SRr 051 6-8-72 172.46 SLrr 295 5" 296 KurC 6-26 % Cmvd 47.40 SM 52%)

Totde) 231.66 630 -2-7 t9.61 203.70 1358 7159 219.51 4.00 -20 1310 21690 9.14 80.73 TSindW 7566 2ûû -1.0 27.82 244.72 1927 1ûO.W Split (8) 61.54 1438 S Fwlor 1.23 Yui % Gmvd 65-77 % Sind 34-40

TO~w ns4.00 630 -27 28.07 4n.80 5s 9o.m 841.85 4.00 -20 1731 475.1 1 3.43 W.13 Thnd (0) 175.99 2.00 -1.0 29.64 W.75 5.87 100.00 spute) 60.w Xn.75 S Fw*or 2.89 6.14 % Cmvd 5996 8 Sind 20.86 - 494.85 4.M -20 18-13 308.41 1-84 9796 T.!hd(g) 188.U ZM Lû 4-89 31336 205 1ûû.UJ SIE - gi Split W 60.61 23899 S Fiaor 3.12 Sb Gmvel 5630 %Sand 38.01

Dimrrs (Ri) t

Particle Size Andysis

56557 ~Sic*c(Pbn!Siri;i(~)WclaY.yi~"~~- Mm- B. Mineralogical Analysis

Sand Grain Mount Thin Sections:

Abundant: A, Common: C, Rare: R, Absent: N

1 Caledon: Sub-sarn~ieA: 1 1 1 Mineral 1 Abundance 1

Feldspar Microcline C Carbonate R Other: Biotite R Hornblende R Mametite R

Caledon: Sub-sample B: Minera1 Abundance Quartz Feldspar Microcline Anorthoclase Plagioclase 1 Carbonate 1 1R 1 Other: Gamet Hornblende

1 Caledon: Sub-sam~ieC: 1 1 1 Mineral 1 Abundance 1 Quartz A Feldspar Anorthoclase R Plagioclase R Carbonate R Other: Biotite R Hornblende R Sphene R Abundant: A, Common: C, Rare: R, Absent: N

Martini: Sub-sam~leA: Mineral Abundance A FeZdspar Microcline Plagioclase Carbonate Other: Biotite Homblende Magnetite Muscovite Gamet

~Martini:Sub-sarnple B: Minera1 Abundance Quartz Feldspar Anorthocf ase Plaeioclase -- Carbonate Other: Gamet Hematite

- Martini: Sub-sample C: Mineral Abundance Quartz A Feldspar Microcline R Plagioclase R Carbonate R O ther: Hornblende I Hemati te 1 Abundant: A, Common: C, Rare: R, Absent: N

Lesiie: Sub-sample A: Mineral Abundance Quartz A Feldspar Anorthoclase R Microcline R Carbonate 1 R Other: Homblende

Leslie: Su b-sample B: Minera1 Abundance Quartz A Feldspar Microcline R Carbonate R Other: Biotite R Hornblende R

Leslie: Sub-sarnple C: Mineral Abundance Quartz A Feldspar Microcline R Plagioclase R Carbonate R ------':otite Hornblende Zircon Gamet Abundant: A, Common: C, Rare: R, Absent: N

Erin: Sub-sample A: Mineral 1 Abundance

Feldspar Anorthoclase

Carbonate Other: Biotite Hornblende S~hene

Erin: Sub-sample B: Mineral Abundance Quartz Feldspar 7 Anorthoclase Plagioclase Carbonate Other: Biotite Hornblende

Erin: Sub-sample C: Minera1 Abundance Quartz A Feldspar Anorthoclase R Plagioclase R Carbonate R Other: Biotite Homblende S~hene Loose Grain Mineralogic Analysis

1 Caledon (710 pm) 1 Number 1 Roundness 1 Sphericity Index 1 Crystalline 12 NSA 0.75 Carbonate 48 A/SR 0.67

Caledon (500 vm) Number Roundness Sphericity Index Crystalline 19 NSR 0.73 Carbonate 40 SAISR 0.73

iMartini (710 pm) Number Roundness Sphericity Index Crvstalline 11 0.77 " SAISR 1 1 Carbonate 1 39 1 SAISR 1 0.77 1

Martini (500 pm) Number _. Roundness Sphericity Index Crystalline 20 SNSR 0.75 Carbonate 40 SA/SR 0.71

Leslie (710 pm) Number Roundness Spbericity Index Crystalline 11 SNSR 0.73 Carbonate 22 SNSR 0.73

Leslie (500 prn) Number . Roundness Sphericity Index Crystalline 23 SA/R 0.71

Carbonate 40 ; SNSR 0.77

Erin (710 pm) Number Roundness Sphericity Index Crystalline 23 SA/R 0.71 _ Carbonate 41 SNSR 0.73

Erin (500 urn) Number Roundness Sphericity Index CrystaHine 25 SNSR 0.71 Carbonate 35 SNSR 0.77 Field Data

Included here are the field data collected at the four sites. The sections, lithologic layers, facies type, layer thicknesses, A-B plane azimuth, largest clasts mesurements, and pebble counts are illustrated in tables- Caledo. Pit Field Data: S-N Exposure (Figs. 22,23) Section Layer Facies Thickness (m) A-B Plane Azimuth and Dip Angle 1 355/15,35/28,325/12 322/20,355/ 18

2

1Gd with sand lem

S Gd (with openwork lens)

1 S 2 Sd 3 Gc 4 Gc (openwork) 5 Gc 1 S 2 Sd 3 S 4 Sd 5 Gd (with openwork 1.61-6.68 lens) 15 1 S 0-00-0-50 225/34,283/30,205/10, 2 Gd 0.5 1-0.80 235/15 3 S 0.8 1-1.10 4 Gd (with openwork 1.10-3.10 5 lem) 3.1 1-6.38 Gd 16 1 S Skree 172/15, 165f 18 2 Gd (with openwork 0.00-5.88 lem) 17 1 S Skree 260/10,250/13 2 Gd 0.00-1.20 3 Gd 1.2 1-2.70 4 Gd (with openwork 2.7 1-2.85 5 lem) 2.86-5.88

18 1 S 0.00-0.22 2 Gd 0.23-1.67 3 Gd (sand Iens) 1.68-5.88 19 1 Gd 0.00-1.50 2 Gd 1.51-2.50 3 S 2.5 1-2.80

2 Gc (openwork) 1-2 1-2.20 3 S 2.2 1-2.50 4 GC 2.5 1-5.88

Erin Pit Field Data: NE-SW Exposure (Figs. 30,32) Section Layer Facies Thickness (m) 1 A-B Plane Azimuth and Dip Angle 0.00-1.10 3 1 5/22,312/22 1.1 1-1.50 21 8/23 1.5 1-2-40 2.41-3.00 3.01-3.40 3.41-3.80 3.8 1-4.00 4.0 1-4.85 0.00-0.60 308/25,303/23 0.6 1 - 1.60 3 18,25,318/27,3 10/10,308/15, 31811 1.61-1.80 1.81-3.90 3.91 -4.30 Erin Pit Field Data: NW-SE Exposure (Fig. 31) Section Facies Facies l Thickness (m) 1 A-B Plane Azimuth and Dip 1 Angle Gd 0.00-0.70 40/45,73,/30 Gd 0.71-1.20 S (crossbedded) 1.21-1.45 Gd 1.46- 1.70 Gd (openwork) 1.71-2.35 2.36-4.00 0.00-1.1 1 45/28,3 55/42 1.12-1.90 75/15 1.91-2.10 2.1 1-2.50 2.5 1-2.60 2.61-2.80 2.8 1-2-90 Gd S Gd Sd Gc Sd Gd Sd Gd S Gd Gd S Gd Gd (openwork) Gd Gc 6 Gd washed Gd out Gd Gd Gd Gd (openwork) Gd Gd S

Gd (openwork) Gd S Sd Gd S Gd Gd (crosbedded) S Gd (crossbedded) Gd (edge of l

2 Gd (openwork) 3 Gd 4 S 5 Gd 6 Gd

Leslie Pit Field Data: NW-SE Exposure (Fig. 36) Section Layer Facies Thickness (m) A-B Plane Azimuth and Dip Angle

Gd 5.1 1-5.70 Gd 0.00- 1.O0 Sd 1.01-1-50 Gd 1.51-1.90 Sd 1.9 1-2.00 Gd 2.01-2.51 GC 2.52-2.72 Sd 3 -73-4.73 Gd(sand drape) 4.74-5.1 1

Leslie Pit Field Data: NE-SWExposure: (Fig. 37) Section 1 Layer 1 Facies 1 Thkkness (m) 1 A-B Plane Azimuth and Dip Angle 1 1 Gd 0.00-2.57 2 Gd 2.58-3.29 3 , Gd 3.30-5.72

Martini Pit Field Data: SE-NIN Exposure (Fig. 33) Section Layer Facies Thickness A-B Plane Azimuth and Dip (m) Angle 1 1 Gc 0.004.35 227/9.280/26.267/20

Martini Pit Field Data: W-E Ex~osure Fig. 34) Section Layer Facies Thickness (m) 1 A-B Plane Azimuth and

-. Dip Angle 1 0.004.50 10/22, 3 10/20,350/35 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 Largest Clasts Per Pit

Erin Pit Largest Clast Measurements Number 1 A Axis 1 B Axis 1 C Axh 1 Lithology Roundness Sphericity 1 (cm) 1 (cm) 1 (cm) 1 27 1 23 16 metamorphic Rounded 1 low 33 30 20 metarnorphic Subrounded 1 low 1 40 40 25 _ dolostone Rounded 1 low 1 35 33 18 dolostone subrounded 1 low 1 50 45 15 carbonate subrounded iow 38 33 20 1 carbonate subrounded low 1 18 1 carbonate subannular T low 1 8 1 25 1 25 1 15 1 carbonate subrounded 1 modm 9 45 40 22 carbonate subanmlar 1 low 7 10 40 35 25 carbonate xounded 1 low 1

Caledon Pit Largest Clast Measurements Number 1 A Axis 1- B Axis 1 C Axis 1 Lithology Roundness Sphericity (cm) (cm) (cm) 1 53 38 22 crystalline subangular 1 low 2 38 27 20 crystalline subangular 1 low 1 3 38 20 17 crystalline angular low 4 130 115 40 crystalline angular low 5 94 47 40 crvstalline subrounded low - subrounded low 7 30 28 10 crystalline subrounded 1 modeGe 1 8 39 26 7 carbonate subangular 1 very low I 9 40 25 6 carbonate subrounded 1 very low I 10 40 15 8 carbonate subangular 1 very low 1 Martini Pit Largest Clast Mea iurements Number A Axis B Axis C Axis Lithology Roundness Sphericity (cm) (cm) (cm) 1 50 43 14 crystalline subrounded low

2 45 30 17 crystalline - wellrounded moderate 3 36 16 16 crystalline subrounded low-moderate 4 34 25 16 carbonate subrounded low-moderate 16 carbonate angular low 20 crystalline welirounded moderate 20 crystalline subrounded very low 20 crystalline wellrounded very low 15 carbonate subangular very Iow 20 carbonate subangular - very low

Field Pebble Counts

Caledon------Lithological 1 Lithology 1 Size 1 Roundness 1 Sphericity 1 Layer 1 carbonate 27,l 0,3 SA L

1 carbonate 44,20,14 SA L 1 carbonate 4 1,20,2 S L

Erin 1 Lithological 1 Lithology 1 Size 1 Roundness 1 Sphencity 1 Layer 1 carbonate 10,l 0,3 SR VL I 1 carbonate 10,11,3 SR VL 1 carbonate 13,15,6 SR L 1 Carbonate 16,15,3 SR L I Carbonate 1 1,l 0,4 SR L I Carbonate 33,17,9 SR L I Carbonate 18,12,12 R M 1 - - - - . - -- I Carbonate 23,13,12 SR M 1 Carbonate 23,l 2,7 SR L 1 Carbonate 20,13,4 SR , L 1 Carbonate 20,13,6 SR L 1 Carbonate 25,l 5,6 SR L 1 Carbonate 24,14,13 SR M 1 Carbonate 26,16,12 SR M 1 Carbonate 25,17,7 SR L 1 Carbonate 25, I5,9 SR L 1 Carbonate 20,11,7 SR L 1 Carbonate 23 -20-5 SR L 11 1 Carbonate 1 17,15,8 / SR 1 L 1 I Carbonate 21,173 SR L I Carbonate 22,16,14 SR L 1 I 1 Carbonate 1 32,21,12 1 SR IVL 1 1 carbonate 26,I 1,4 SR M 1 carbonate 17,15,8 SR M 1 carbonate 20,15,3 SR VL 1 , carbonate - 30,20,8 SR VL Appendir 3

Included here is a discussion of the image analysis perfonned on the glaciofluvial data. Image Analysis

Introduction

Image analysis may prove to be a usefui tool in the study of glaciofluvial deposits by assisting in the acquisition if quantitative information about the sediments.

Methodology

A Iiterature review was undertaken in order to determine the application of image analysis to galciofluviai deposit. Photogeological data, from each measured section of the four pits, was collected in the field. Ground tmthing data, via buk sediment samples, was also collected nom the field. Photographs of each pit exposure were scanned, in order to be transforrned into digital data.

The 35mm colour negatives of the photogeological section photographs were digitized using a

Nikon Cooiscan 2 scanner at a resolution of 53 1.5 pixelsfcm with 3, 8 bit channels (2700 dpi and

24 bit). The files were written to a compact disc. The files were loaded ont0 a Silicon Graphics Indy cornputer in the Image Analysis Laboratory in the Department of Land Resource Science, University of Guelph. Databases were generated for each pit outcrop orientation. The size of each database was estimated to be large enough to support the mosaicking of three to four images. The images were registered using the GCPworks application in PCIworks version 6.2. For each database, the initial image was registered using the "User Entered Coordinates" option. Registration involved the coIlection of a series of ground control points (gcps: coordinates of objects comrnon to adjoining images).To register the first image a gmund control point (representing the image centre coordinates) was selected fiom the image. This gcp was registered as the spatial centre (the centre value of pixels and lines) of the pit database to be created. The adjoining images were registered (joined) to the initial image via shared ground control points, using the initial image as a referenced database. The mounted photogeological section prints were used to preselect some of the ground control points for each of the adjoining images. Shared propertïes of the sedunentary units, such as c!asts comrnon in both images for example, were used as the ground control points. These gcps, and others selected fiom the digital images, were saved as segments in the pit database. In photogeological sections, where edge darkening was a problem, vector line segments were created,

These allowed for the use of the "colour balancing" option. It was necessary to use the colour balancing finction to attempt to create uniform pixels on each image (create a uniforrn scene).

Colour correction sampling areas (pixel subsamples) were selected fiom areas unafTected by edge darkening. This meant that the sample pixels contained a representative sample, including some of the brightest pixels in the scene. Care was taken to include only those areas that were not affected by edge darkening.

Classification was undertaken on the NE-SWErin exposure. The classificationprocedure was undertaken following the registration and colour correction of the images. Three classification techniques were evaluated: supervised, unsupervised and hybrid. The unsupe~sedclassification process was used to establish if there were any natural spectral clustea within the scene. The unsupe~sedclassification algorithm that was used was ISODATA. The spectral classes generated by the algorithm were exarnined and aggregated where possible (where known pixels were found to be represented by more than one cluster). The supervised classification technique used the

Maximum Likelihood algorithm. Training areas were selected by referrïng to the ground Cnith data

(i.e., using the photomosaics of the sedimentary facies collected in the field). A hybrid classification technique was also evaluated. Unsupe~sedtrainuig areas were generated by creating bitmap masks- These allowed for the classification of subsets of the data rather than the entire scene.

Results

None of the classification techniques were very successful at consistently separating the scene pixels into representative classes. The ~nsupe~sedtechnique did produce classes but

Iacked the amount of separation to successfiilly cluster them into discrete classes that represented the facies accurately. The hybrid technique also produced classes but much tirne was required to generate the bitmap rnasks. The supe~sedtechnique was the most successful at classifying the scene. However the degree of success was a function of the number of training area pixels used to represent a known class. In some instances .% of a facies' representative pixels, that is of an entire sand lens, were required to successfully classi@ a facies.

The least successfùl facies classifrcations occurred in instances where the facies contained a wide range of spectral values, that is, a dark, mixed matrix containhg Light coloured clasts. The most successfiil classification occurred in rather spectrally homogeneous nits, like uniform particle sized sand lenses (Fig. App. 3-1) Discussion

The pater the homogeneity in the sediments the less successfiil the classincation. This was evident both in facies that contained a matrix of mixed particle sizes, that is, hesaud and granules, and clasts of mixed rnineralogies, that is, carbonates and metamorphics. The range in pixel values, that represented the homogeneous units, limited the resolution of these units into discrete spectral classes. This was a particular issue where facies contained bright, carbonate cobbles.

It is likely that several constraints reduced the success of the image analysis procedures,

The main limitations were a result of the photogeological data. Non-unlform illumination of the exposures and the presence of concavity or convexity in the exposures crea!ed shadows in parts of some of the photomosaic scences. This caused an increase in the range of pixel values that represented a certain facies type. This phenomenon was often exacerbated by the presence of bright coloured clasts. The bright coloured clasts Merincreased the range of pixel values contained in a particular facies type. If a particular facies contained both shadows and bright cloured cobbles, these acted synergistically to increase the pixel value range. Problems of shadow could have been overcome by the use of a lighthg system that would have provided uniform illumination of the exposures. The sbadow caused by the concavity or convexity could have been avoided if those sections of the exposures were not included in the data sets. The edge darkening of the photographs proved to be an issue because it added a step to classification process (colour correction). If a perspective Lens had been used to gather the data then the edge-darkening phenomenon would have been effectively eliminated. Wetting the surface of the exposure, prior to data collection, could also have been undertaken. The use of this technique may have reduced the shadow and scene heterogeneity. Obviously these myriad

172 limitations fünctioned to reduce the value of image analysis for the classification and quantification of the aggregate deposits.

Attempts were made to overcome these limittations. Experimentation involved re- shooting some of the exposures and mashg certain pixels with scenes, effectively removing thern fiom the classification. .However, the image analysis methodology was intended to serve stakeholders (pit operators) by providing them with and easy, inexpensive, and foolproof method to quanti@ their aggregate deposit. The extensive data manipulation and technique experimentation that would have been required to discover a successful technique placed a limitation on the value of continued work.

Conclusions

Experimentation in the application of image analysis to the quantification of an aggregate resource should continue. As image analysis becomes more common place and programs more 'ber fnendly" perhaps a methodology that would be suitable to the needs of the stakeholder can be developed.

Image analysis rnay lend itself well to aggregate resources assessment. Outwash facies data can be remotely collected and analysis can be performed. Image analysis rnay be able to relate the spectral characteristics of the components of a photomosaic scene to the sedimentary facies that are actually present within an exposure. These spectral properties can be used to establish a facies classification and architecture scheme. Image analysis can provide the means to both quanti@ the areal extend of facies and to perform comparïsons in the spectral ct.laracteristics of the different facies.