Upload File

map - aggregate resource potential of carlton county, mn

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Map - Aggregate Resource Potential of Carlton County, MN
1
975 1225 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 75 1300 8 5 0 975 1225 1325 1300 1250 1300 1 2 0 0 800 1075 137 5 1225 1125 1325 1400 1 3 2 5 1375 14 25 85 0 110 0 1250 700 1 1 5 0 1300 875 1125 1300 1 200 1275 1050 1250 1100 950 1300 1200 1275 1 300 1200 8 7 5 1 3 7 5 850 13 00 875 13 25 1300 1325 1300 1375 130 0 1350 13 25 1300 1 3 5 0 725 120 0 925 1 175 11 25 115 0 1 150 1325 1350 1150 125 0 1 3 2 5 115 0 1325 1250 1350 1275 700 1225 1425 1 3 25 13 7 5 125 0 1325 13 25 1350 1 1 7 5 1325 1200 13 50 900 1325 1325 1225 1050 1400 1200 1 3 2 5 900 82 5 850 122 5 1 300 1 275 1250 1225 1100 1275 1 3 0 0 1300 1 200 1375 1300 1325 1 200 120 0 1 2 0 0 1300 1 1 5 0 13 50 1300 135 0 1375 1300 1 30 0 1450 13 00 1 100 1 1 7 5 1275 1300 1 3 5 0 70 0 1400 1175 1 3 2 5 1275 1325 1 1 5 0 750 1 1 7 5 1 1 0 0 12 25 1350 1175 1325 12 75 1275 11 5 0 1300 1325 1200 11 75 1275 1275 1325 1 325 1 3 0 0 850 1350 1300 1200 1150 1175 1 3 2 5 1 175 1250 1350 1250 1175 1125 13 25 1325 1150 1325 77 5 1 1 7 5 1300 1200 11 75 1 1 25 1 050 77 5 1150 1325 725 1175 1325 1100 1275 800 130 0 1 2 0 0 137 5 1 2 7 5 750 12 50 1350 1225 8 0 0 1125 8 5 0 800 87 5 1325 900 1150 8 25 825 112 5 1100 8 2 5 1 3 2 5 925 1150 1150 1100 1325 1 125 1 075 850 1075 1050 92 5 875 975 1150 1000 1200 1125 900 950 1100 102 5 1 1 7 5 1225 1250 1275 130 0 1100 1075 1050 105 0 1025 1 0 2 5 1000 100 0 975 975 950 9 5 0 950 925 92 5 900 900 875 875 875 1175 1175 11 75 1 1 7 5 1150 1 150 1125 1125 1125 1 1 00 1100 1100 107 5 1075 1025 1000 1100 1125 1200 12 00 1225 1225 1 225 1 2 2 5 1250 1250 1250 1250 1275 1275 1 2 7 5 127 5 1300 1300 1300 1300 1 3 0 0 1150 850 8 5 0 130 0 1325 1200 1 3 0 0 1300 1300 1 3 0 0 Por tage W e s t S o u t h K e t t l e R o c k R i v e r M o os e D e a d T a m a ra c k S k u n k C l e a r Ri v er R i ve r Otter C ree k S to n e y N e m a d j i Si l ve r Tamarac k B l a c k hoo f Pa rk R o ck R i v e r C r e e k H e i k k i l a S p l i t L it t l e Li t t l e R i v e r M o o s e R i v e r M o o s e F o r k F o r k N o r t h C r e e k R i ve r Creek Ri v e r N e m a d j i Rive r Tamarack H o r n N e m a d j i C r e e k M u d H or n Hun t er s St . L o ui s R i ver C r e e k B r o o k B r a n c h L a k e C ree k C r e e k F o r k R i v e r Ri ve r W e s t Cre e k C r e e k R i v e r 847 144 118 152 119 103 847 851 4 23 20 22 22 21 21 20 35 17 12 19 5 12 19 6 6 6 6 6 61 15 35 13 13 13 8 13 6 6 8 11 11 8 8 5 6 6 3 1 6 1 3 4 18 3 61 4 5 2 1 2 61 5 5 26 4 31 80 80 80 31 31 4 9 25 7 7 4 9 7 8 210 210 33 23 210 73 73 73 27 73 27 210 27 73 23 23 23 210 2 2 35 35 35 35 1 6 1 6 31 36 36 31 31 36 31 36 31 36 36 31 36 31 36 6 1 31 36 36 31 6 1 6 1 1 6 6 1 6 1 6 1 31 36 31 31 36 36 31 31 36 31 36 6 1 1 6 6 1 1 6 1 6 1 6 31 36 31 36 31 31 36 31 36 31 36 31 36 6 31 6 1 6 6 1 6 1 6 1 1 6 31 36 31 31 31 36 36 36 31 31 36 36 31 6 6 6 1 6 1 1 6 1 1 E A G L E S I L V E R B R O O K W R E N S H A L L C U L V E R B R E V A T O R T H O M S O N B A R N U M S I L V E R S T O N Y B R O O K P E R C H L A K E H O L Y O K E S P L I T R O C K B E S E M A N M A H T O W A M O O S E L A K E B L A C K H O O F S K E L T O N K A L E V A L A A U T O M B A A T K I N S O N T W I N L A K E S L A K E V I E W R.17 W. R.18 W. R.19 W. T.51 N. R.20 W. T.50 N. R.16 W. T.49 N. T.48 N. T.46 N. R.16 W. R.17 W. R.18 W. R.19 W. R.20 W. T.48 N. R.21 W. T.49 N. R.21 W. T.47 N. T.46 N. T.47 N. ST. LOUIS CO ST. LOUIS CO AITKIN CO ST. LOUIS CO ST. LOUIS CO AITKIN CO PINE CO PINE CO PINE CO ST. LOUIS CO ST. LOUIS CO STATE OF WISCONSIN STATE OF WISCONSIN Cross Lake Merwin Lake Park Lake Perch Lake Rice Portage Lake Miller Lake Section One Lake Woodbury Lake Torchlight Lake Dead Fish Lake Hardwood Lake Simian Lake Cedar Lake Big Lake Wild Rice Lake Bob Lake Thomson Reservoir Lake Venoah Hizer Lake Cole Lake Island Lake Lost Lake Eagle Lake Tamarack Lake Kettle Lake East Twin Lake West Twin Lake Ellstrom Lake Martin Lake Hay Lake Chub Lake Net Lake Bear Lake Munson Lake Katzel Lake Blackhoof Lake Spring Lake Soper Lake Graham Lake Sand Lake Bear Lake Moose Lake Hanging Horn Lake Echo Lake Esko Barnum Scotts Corner Sawyer Brookston Pleasant Valley Wrenshall Moose Lake Carlton Scanlon Thomson Kettle River Mp Hp Mp Hp Lp Lp Mp Mp Hp Hp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Mp Mp Mp Lp Lp Mp Lp Mp Hp Mp Mp Lp Mp Mp Lp Mp Lp Mp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Hp Mp Lp Hp Mp Hp Lp Lp Mp Mp Mp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Mp Lp Lp Hp Hp Mp Mp Hp Hp Mp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Mp Lp Lp Lp Mp Mp Lp Lp Lp Mp Mp Mp Lp Lp Mp Lp Mp Lp Mp Lp Lp Lp Lp Mp Hp Lp Mp Lp Lp Mp Lp Lp Mp Hp Mp Mp Mp Lp Lp Mp Mp Lp Hp Lp Lp Mp Mp Mp Lp Hp Lp Mp Lp Lp Hp Mp Hp Mp Hp Mp Mp Lp Mp Mp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Mp Lp Mp Mp Cromwell Cloquet Automba Duesler Holyoke Otter Creek Lp Hp Mp Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Lands and Minerals - Marty Vadis, Director Plate A - Report 374, Carlton County & Fond du Lac Reservation Aggregate Resource Potential Prepared with support from the Minerals Diversification Program of the Minnesota State Legislature. Mineral Diversification projects are determined by a committee composed of Governor-appointed members from the public and private sectors. © 2009, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Products of this project include a CD/ROM of data and metadata in a digital format and the following map: Plate A, Report 374, Carlton County & Fond du Lac Reservation Aggregate Resource Potential Table 1: Classification of Sand and Gravel Potential AGGREGATE RESOURCES MAP LEGEND AGGREGATE RESOURCES MAPPING RESULTS INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this project is to identify and classify potential construction aggregate resources (sand, gravel, and crushed stone) in Carlton County, Minnesota. This Aggregate Resource Plate is a coordinated project with the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) County Atlas Mapping Program and funded by the Minerals Diversification Program. Having locally available, low- cost construction aggregates is fundamental to building and maintaining public infrastructure and private sector development. This information is intended to assist local planners and others in making comprehensive land-use and zoning decisions regarding aggregate resources, introduce aggregate resource protection, spread the impact of development, and promote orderly and environmentally sound development of the resource. To accomplish these goals, one plate and a comprehensive data set on a CD-ROM were created. Plate A shows both potential sand and gravel deposits and crushed stone resources. Several factors related to aggregate resources affect their availability, usability, and supply. These factors include transportation costs, quality of the material, and land-use conflicts. Aggregate materials are high-bulk, low-value commodities, which means transportation costs can account for a considerable amount of the delivered price. Having a local supply of aggregate lowers the costs for public and private projects. Aggregate products, such as concrete and asphalt, have specific quality requirements depending on the end use. Therefore, aggregate deposits must be evaluated in relation to quality standards. At the same time, land-use conflicts between aggregate mining and urban developments are becoming more common. Land-use conflicts can be caused by cities expanding into adjacent rural areas, aggregate resource deposits being covered by new developments, or new development occurring adjacent to aggregate resources. As a result, the distance from the aggregate source to its consumers is increasing. Due to the increased demand for aggregate material in and around growing urban areas, aggregate resources are being depleted rapidly. With these and other issues in mind, the 1984 Minnesota Legislature passed a law (Minn. Statute, sec. 84.94, Aggregate Planning and Protection) that directs the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR), in cooperation with the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), to identify and classify potential aggregate resources. When mapping is completed, the information is provided to local governments and the public. Since this is a reconnaissance-level survey of aggregate resources, site-specific evaluations are still necessary prior to any development of the resource, especially in relation to aggregate quality or environmental review. Factors such as ownership, zoning, protected waters and wetlands, environmental permitting, and other individual site characteristics are not part of the geological resource data summarized here. METHODOLOGY: The method used for aggregate mapping integrates traditional geologic data gathering and mapping techniques (i.e., fieldwork and drilling) with computer mapping software programs like geographic information systems (GIS). Sand and gravel mapping is accomplished in several phases: 1) preliminary information gathering that consists of compiling, interpreting, and summarizing existing data; 2) verification of data and the collection of new data from fieldwork; and 3) aggregate resource classification. Aggregate Data Gathering: The first step in mapping is to conduct a literature and data search to understand the geology in the area. Some of the data used are aerial photographs, topographic maps, digital elevation models, subsurface data, gravel pit data, surficial and bedrock geology, wetlands, lakes, streams, vegetation, soils, land use data, as well as several datasets of background information, including roads, railroads, township-range-section (Public Land Survey) boundaries, and others. Two notable data sets used to map aggregate resources and provide subsurface geologic information include the County Well Index (CWI) and Aggregate Source Information System (ASIS). CWI is an online database maintained by the MGS and the Minnesota Department of Health that contains location and well log information for over 300,000 wells drilled throughout Minnesota. Approximately 5700 of these wells were located in and immediately surrounding Carlton County and Fond du Lac Reservation and most of these wells contain geologic descriptions. ASIS is a dataset compiled and maintained by Mn/DOT. ASIS consists of aggregate quality data, textural (i.e., sieve or particle size) data, and pit sheets displaying the descriptions of shallow test hole logs and diagrams of test hole locations (the associated data were summarized in a database). Subsurface information is important to identify buried deposits, determine the depth to bedrock, and identify bedrock type. Fieldwork: Several weeks are spent in the field driving every accessible road in Carlton County and Fond du Lac Reservation looking for outcrops and exposures of geological sediments, as well as drilling test holes to further define aggregate deposits. Sediments exposed in road cuts, stream exposures, excavations such as basements, judicial ditches, construction projects, trenches (cable, pipe, tiling); and animal holes offer observation sites where the surface materials and glacial stratigraphy are inventoried. A total of 1212 observation sites were logged in Carlton County. Fieldwork also includes 372 existing gravel pit observations. Gravel pit observations provide additional quality data and stratigraphic cross-sections to help interpret the various modes of deposition. Test holes drilled in county ditches or with permission of the landowner generate additional data needed to confirm the presence of sand and gravel. A total of 53 sites were drilled and the data is incorporated into the field observations dataset. Aggregate Data Compilation and Interpretation: Aggregate resource mapping was completed as a collaborative effort with MGS surficial geologic mapping (Knaeble and Hobbs, 2009). Additional field observation sites as well as drilling sites were compiled from MGS field data. Results of MGS surficial geologic mapping were used as a source of information, especially in areas where there is little to no aggregate potential. MN DNR conducted a 1:50,000 scale resource assessment and further defined areas of aggregate potential. Other compiled and interpreted datasets include Surficial Geology of Carlton County (Eng, unpublished) and Soil Survey Geographic Database for Carlton County (2006). Using field observations and compiled datasets, interpretations of aggregate resources are delineated by applying a glacial mapping technique known as the landsystems approach. This technique relies on the principle that glacial landforms deposit a predictable range of sediments, some consisting of sorted sand and gravel and others consisting of silts, clays, or unsorted materials. Several other general characteristics also help determine the nature of the material, such as tonal contrasts, texture, context, shape, size, trend, association, and patterns. These characteristics help determine the properties of surface materials. For example, certain vegetation grows on well-drained soils, such as sand and gravel, and has a distinctive texture, tone, and pattern in aerial photographs. Several aggregate-bearing features (eskers, terraces, outwash channels, and other outwash features) are recognized using this technique. Sand and gravel resources account for most of the aggregate potential within Carlton County and the Fond du Lac Reservation in comparison to crushed stone. Three broad geographical regions of sand and gravel potential occur within the mapped area (see Figure 2). The Western Portion of the county contains smaller, isolated pockets of sand and gravel formed by ice contact and outwash features. The ice contact and outwash deposits of this area are smaller (5-10+ acres) and result in thin (5-25 feet) deposits with finer texture, more sand and a lower stone count. The high water table creates large peat expanses which increases the amount of possible overburden and reduces the amount of easily excavated aggregate material. The Central Corridor is an approximately 12-mile-wide region paralleling Interstate 35 and the St. Louis River. Large, generally north-south trending glacial outwash channels deposited coarse sand and gravel in terraces. West of the outwash channels, eskers, or sinuous ridges of sand and gravel, and their associated outwash fans contain coarse aggregate material. Deposits are generally larger (10- 20+ acres) and thicker (10-50+ feet) than deposits in the Western Portion. Overburden in this region is generally less than 5 feet thick and the water table is lower, which restricted peat growth to smaller areas. The Southeastern Portion contains the former Glacial Lake Superior Lake Basin and surrounding beaches. This region consists of clayey glacial till, lake basin clay, and sandy beaches which result in a natural scarcity of coarse aggregate material. Remnant till located around the perimeter of the basin was washed, which produced a few small, isolated pockets of coarser aggregate material. The overburden is less than 10 feet thick and the water table is variable throughout this region. Overall, within Carlton County and Fond du Lac Reservation sand and gravel quality is high due to the competent nature of Superior Lobe source rock. However, the local influence of soft bedrock increases spall and could potentially limit use for concrete. Many of the easily accessible deposits closest to main roads in both the Central Corridor and Western Half are either depleted or are close to depletion. Significant mineable deposits remain but are farther from areas of need such as population centers and main roads. Except for a few outcrops, the overall bedrock quality is generally poor, which restricts its use as a crushed stone resource. The two bedrock units suitable for crushed stone are basalt and a metavolcanic formation. Metavolcanics are exposed in small outcrops near Kettle River in the southwestern portion of Carlton County. Five outcrops of this bedrock unit were directly observed in DNR and MGS mapping and appear to have the durability, or competency, to be considered for crushed stone potential. Other outcrops of this rock type exist; yet their suitability as a crushed stone resource is less certain since the bedrock has been variably metamorphosed and has not been tested. Because this rock type has not been tested in a materials lab, the aggregate potential is based on direct geologic observations and is conservatively delineated. Basalt is exposed in the extreme southeastern corner of Carlton County. Although this rock has not been further tested, there are several quarries within this unit in Pine County, Minnesota and in Wisconsin. Therefore, it is classified as moderate potential as a crushed stone resource. General References Boerboom, T.J., 2009, Bedrock Geology, pl. 2 of Boerboom, T. J., project manager, Geologic atlas of Carlton County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey County Atlas C-19, pt. A, 6 pls., scale 1:100,000. Eng, M. Surficial Geology of Carlton County, Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Unpublished map, scale 1:75,000. Knaeble, A.R., and Hobbs, H.C., 2009, Surficial Geology, pl. 3 of Boerboom, T.J., project manager, Geologic atlas of Carlton County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey County Atlas C-19, pt. A, 6 pls., scale 1:100,000. Marlow, L.M., 2004 Late glacial and early Holocene history of the glacial Lake Aitkin and Upham basin, North - central Minnesota: Implications for the timing of post-glacial eolian activity: Duluth, Minn., University of Minnesota, M.S. thesis, 84 p. Patterson, C.J., and Knaeble, A.R., 2001, Surficial geology, pl. 4 of Boerboom, T.J., project manager, Geologic atlas of Pine County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey County Atlas C-13, pt. A, 7 pls. Scale 1:100,000. Setterholm, D. L., 2009, Depth to Bedrock, pl. 5 of Boerboom, T. J., project manager, Geologic atlas of Carlton County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey County Atlas C-19, pt. A, 6 pls., scale 1:100,000. Wright, H.E., Jr., 1972, Quaternary history of Minnesota, in Sims, P.K., and Morey, G.B., eds., Geology of Minnesota— A centennial volume: Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 515-560. Zarth, R.J., 1977, The Quaternary geology of the Wrenshall and Frogner quadrangles, northeastern Minnesota: Duluth, Minn., University of Minnesota, M.S. thesis, 93 p. IDENTIFIED SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES: Locations where sand and gravel have been or are currently being mined. Several sources of information identify gravel mine locations: topographic maps, aerial photographs, soil surveys, MGS field mapping sites, Mn/DOT files, fieldwork, gravel operators, and other miscellaneous sources. Gravel mines range in size from less than 1 acre to greater than 50 acres and may be active, inactive, depleted, or reclaimed. The aggregate quality of the mines varies. Size of point indicates the relative areal extent of the pit. Small Medium Large < 5 Acres 5-15 Acres > 15 Acres Gravel Pits: Contain significant amount of sand and gravel. Includes sites that have been or are currently being mined. Gravel Pits – Mn/DOT ASIS: Sites were identified by Mn/DOT as part of the Aggregate Source Information System (ASIS). Some locations shown on this map were modified to better correlate to present gravel pit boundaries. Sand Pits: Contain significant amount of sand with little to no gravel. Includes sites that have been or are currently being mined. Sand Pits – Mn/DOT ASIS: Sites were identified by Mn/DOT as part of ASIS. Although they are identified as a potential resource site, sites have not necessarily been mined or geologically evaluated. Some locations were modified to better correlate to present sand pit boundaries. GEOLOGIC DATA SOURCES FOR MAP UNIT INTERPRETATION: Field observations and County Well Index (CWI) database were data sources used in the interpretation of aggregate potential. Field Observations: A total of 1212 field observations were logged during the spring and fall of 2008. Pits were also inventoried during this time, including 372 gravel pits, 33 sand pits, and 19 borrow and clay pits. Surficial geologic sediment, glacial stratigraphy, and bedrock formations were observed in road cuts, stream exposures, excavations for basements, judicial ditches, construction projects, trenches (cable, pipe, tiling), and animal holes. Field observations of gravel pits and sand pits are shown on the map as Gravel Pits and Sand Pits (See Identified Sand and Gravel Resources). County Well Index Database Locations: CWI dataset (www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/cwi ) is maintained by the Minnesota Department of Health and comes in two levels of data accuracy: located and unlocated. Located CWI data are assumed to be accurately located. Unlocated CWI data are used as a source only if the address information on the well log can be verified and located using address information and online address location websites. Approximately 5700 wells located within Carlton County and Fond du Lac Reservation and the surrounding area were referenced to create this map. CRUSHED STONE RESOURCE POTENTIAL: Two factors control the distribution of crushed stone potential in Carlton County and the Fond du Lac Reservation: bedrock quality and thickness of overburden. Bedrock mapping was completed by Minnesota Geological Survey (Boerboom, 2009) and crushed stone potential is based on those bedrock units. Only two bedrock mapping units, a basalt (MGS map unit Pmc) and a metavolcanic group containing two identified units defined as porphyritic metabasalt (MGS map unit Pvg) and metagabbro (MGS map unit Pga) appear to have physical characteristics suitable for crushed stone. The second factor, overburden thickness, was based on broad observations of bedrock elevation and thickness of glacial overburden (Setterholm, 2009). Exposures of bedrock are observed as isolated knobs. In areas where well data are available, overburden was interpreted to grade increasingly away from the outcrop to approximately 25+ feet thick. Therefore, crushed stone potential is conservatively delineated and spatially limited to areas near outcrops. Crushed stone resources are classified at a scale of 1:100,000. SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR CRUSHED STONE RESOURCES: Basalt and metavolcanics suitable for aggregate use. Neither formation has been quality tested; however, physical characteristics exhibit a suitable hardness and competency to be considered for crushed stone potential. Both of these units are inferred to be relatively thick (greater than 25 feet), with overburden thicknesses estimated to range from 0 to 10 feet. Moderate Potential for Crushed Stone Resources: Metavolcanics exposed near or at the surface with overburden thickness estimated to range from 0 to 10 feet. Although observed fabric may cause preferential fracturing, the rock unit appears to be significantly competent to withstand crushing. Basalt, identified as part of the Chengwatana Formation, exposed near or at the surface with overburden thickness ranging from 0 to 10 feet. This rock was observed to be massive with limited fabric and appears to be significantly competent to withstand crushing. NONSIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR CRUSHED STONE RESOURCES: Low Potential for Crushed Stone Resources: Metavolcanics and basalt with overburden thickness ranging from 10 to 20 feet. Limited Potential for Crushed Stone Resources: Metavolcanics and basalt with overburden thickness ranging from 20 to 50+ feet and other metasediments and sandstones with overburden thicknesses ranging from 0 to 50+ feet. Metasediments and sandstones are friable and have a strong fabric making these rock types unsuitable for crushed stone resources. NONSIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES: Units that generally have little or no potential for significant aggregate resources. These units either have data exhibiting geological characteristics that are typically not consistent with significant aggregate resources or have a lack of data to infer a higher potential. Units typically contain clay, silt, fine sand, unsorted sediments (till), or very thin layers of sand and gravel. Units may include aggregate resources that are too small to map (<10 acres). Low Potential for Sand and Gravel Resources: Glaciofluvial features, ice-walled lakes, outwash plains, glacial meltwater channels, and terraces; ice contact features like eskers, fans, and kames; and alluvial channels. Predominant sediment varies and can include sand, sand with gravel, and/or silty sand and gravel. The probability that a potential resource exists within this unit is low to moderately low. Thickness of the deposits ranges from 5 to 75+ feet with overburden thickness ranging from 0 to 50+ feet. These resources are small to moderately small in areal extent and the textural characteristics are poor to moderately good. The quality ranges from low to moderately high. Limited Potential for Sand and Gravel Resources: Units that include glacial features such as ground moraines, end moraines, lake plains, and small alluvial features such as flood plains and streams. The deposits of this unit contain one or more of the following: clay with boulders, silt, sand, and/or gravel. The probability that a significant sand and gravel resource exists within this unit is very low to low. The thickness of these deposits is typically less than 10 feet but can range from 0 to 30+ feet with overburden thickness ranging from 0 to 200+ feet. The aggregate resources occurring in this unit are very small to small in areal extent. The textural characteristics are very poor to moderately poor with the quality ranging from very low to moderately low. AGGREGATE RESOURCE POTENTIAL: Aggregate potential is defined as an assessment of the relative probability that an aggregate deposit exists within a given mapping unit. For the purpose of this study, aggregate potential is defined as an assessment of the relative probability that an aggregate deposit exists within a given mapped unit and is classified within the range of potential observed in the study area. Almost all emphasis is placed on geological evidence, physical parameters such as areal extent, and interpretation at the reconnaissance level, rather than upon economic feasibility, site - specific evaluation, or other related parameters. Criteria used to define aggregate potential within Carlton County may not extend into surrounding areas where geologic parameters can change. Furthermore, this assessment does not imply that economic aggregate deposits exist everywhere within a given map unit designated as “Significant Potential Aggregate Resources,” but rather, that within such a map unit, geologic processes were active that could have created aggregate deposits at specific sites. Geologic measurements of aggregate deposits such as thickness or quality test data remain constant, but economic criteria and environmental permitting vary across time and at different locations. Important site-specific factors such as ownership, zoning, protected waters and wetlands, sensitive or protected environments, permitting, distance to markets, royalties, and individual site characteristics such as access all contribute to the feasibility of mining specific parcels; however, these factors are not considered in this reconnaissance-level study. Sand and gravel resources are classified at a scale of 1:50,000. SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES: Units inferred to contain sand and gravel resource potential. Data for these units exhibit geological characteristics associated with sand-and-gravel-bearing landforms. Existing gravel pit and Mn/DOT aggregate sources lying within these units are considered identified or known resources which increases the level of confidence for the mapping unit. High Potential for Sand and Gravel Resources: Glaciofluvial features; outwash plains; glacial meltwater channels; and terraces; as well as ice contact features like eskers, fans, and kames (Figure 1). Sand and gravel is the predominant sediment. The probability 2 that a potential sand and gravel resource exists within any mapping unit is moderately high to very high. Thickness of the deposits ranges from 10 to 60+ feet with less than 15 feet of overburden. These resources are moderate to very large in areal extent 3 and the textural characteristics 4 are good to very good. The quality 5 is moderately high to very high. Moderate Potential for Sand and Gravel Resources: Glaciofluvial features; outwash plains; glacial meltwater channels; and terraces; as well as ice contact features, like eskers, fans, and kames. Predominant sediment ranges from sand with gravel to sand and gravel. The probability that a potential sand and gravel resource exists within this unit is moderate to very high. Deposit thickness ranges from 10 to 50+ feet with less than 20 feet of overburden. These resources are moderately small to large in areal extent and the textural characteristics are moderately good to good. The quality is typically moderate to high. CLASSIFICATION OF SAND AND GRAVEL POTENTIAL: Sand and gravel resources were divided into four categories based on the type of geological feature, probability (certainty), sand and gravel thickness, overburden thickness, deposit size (areal extent), textural characteristics (sieve analysis), quality (soundness and durability), and the sediment description as observed in the field (Table 1). For example, a geological feature, such as an outwash terrace, typically contains sand and gravel. If the resource has gravel pits located within its boundaries, sand and gravel was observed at or near the surface, and sand and gravel was encountered in surrounding water wells, the resource has a high probability of containing aggregate. Probability, or the amount of information, was a major factor in identifying and delineating aggregate potential. Areal extent indicates how many acres a resource covers. Good texture indicates the sediment contains a high percentage of gravel. Laboratory test results of aggregate quality were compiled, interpreted, and extrapolated from Mn/DOT pit sheets. Thickness and overburden were determined from observations and well information. Therefore, if a deposit has areal extent greater than 20+ acres, has thickness greater than 10 feet, has overburden thickness less than 15 feet, and has high quality and good texture, then the resource was classified as high potential. The areas delineated as limited potential for sand and gravel resources did not meet the above-mentioned criteria. The resources may not exist; were lacking supporting data sources (very low probability); were too small in areal extent; were too thin; were under too thick of an overburden; consisted of more sand than gravel; or did not meet quality specifications. Figure 1: Cross Section of Predominant Sediment Relative to Sand and Gravel Potential Cross-Section A-A’ on Base Map The above cross section highlights landforms and their respective sediment associations. Major aggregate-bearing landforms in the cross section include ice contact features, an end moraine, and outwash features. Non-bearing landforms are composed of unsorted glacial till, fine sand, or a complex of till and sand with gravel. The main outwash channel is classified as nonsignificant aggregate potential because it was scoured by erosional processes creating a region of near-surface bedrock with little to no deposition of coarse aggregate material. The color of the line representing surface elevation correlates to sand and gravel potential. Construction aggregate, sand and gravel, is the only material classified as having significant potential. Surface and subsurface sediment and their associations were interpreted from field observations, the gravel pit survey, and county well information. Bedrock lithology in this area consists of Thomson (greywacke) and Fond du Lac (sandstone) Formations (Boerboom, 2009). Bedrock elevation was derived from the Depth to Bedrock Plate created by Setterholm, 2009. Although exposures of bedrock occur within an outwash channel, the bedrock here is not suitable for crushed stone. This map was prepared from publicly available information. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the factual data on which this map interpretation is based. However, the Department of Natural Resources does not warrant the accura cy, completeness, or any implied uses of these data. Users may wish to verify critical information; sources include both the references here and information on file in the offices of the Minnesota Geological Survey and the Minnesota Department of Natural R esources. Every effort has been made to ensure the interpretation shown conforms to sound geologic and cartographic principles. This map should not be used to establish legal title, boundaries, or locations of improvements. Base Map Data Sources: Lakes, rivers, streams, and drainage ditches from NWI (National Wetland Inventory), Mn/DOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) Base map, MN DNR 24K Streams, compiled at 1:24,000 from aerial photography (1979 -1988) and USGS quadrangle maps (1980 -1990). PLS (Public Land Survey) townships and sections layers extracted from PLS Project, 2001, MN DNR, Division of Lands and Minerals. Minor civil divisions from Minnesota Department of Revenue, 2007. Populated places were derived from the GNIS (Geographic Name Information System) by pulling out the features that were coded as populated places. A selected subset of these was used for this map, 2003. County boundaries from MN DNR, derived from combination of 1:24,000 scale PLS lines, 1:100,000 scale TIGER, 1:100,000 scale DLG, and 1:24,000 hydrography lines, 199 3. Fond du Lac Reservation boundary derived from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 200 3. Roads from Mn/DOT Base map, Fall of 2006. Railroad Tracks from Mn/DOT Base map, 2001. Contour Intervals created by smoothing the Digital Elevation Model (see topographic relief) and then applying ArcGIS 9.3 Spatial Analyst to create the contours. Topographic relief or hillshade created from a combination of 30-meter and 10-meter digital elevation models (DEM) from the USGS National Elevation Dataset, 2007. GIS and Cartography by Kevin J. Hanson, MN DNR, Division of Lands and Minerals. Copy edited by Nick Kroska, MN DNR Division of Waters. AGGREGATE RESOURCES Produced by the Aggregate Resource Mapping Program Division of Lands and Minerals Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Mapped By Hannah G. Friedrich St. Paul, Minnesota - June 2009 Carlton County, MN, and Fond du Lac Reservation AGGREGATE POTENTIAL Scale 1 : 100,000 Figure 2: Inset Map of Aggregate Regions WE ST E RN P ORTION CENTRAL CORRIDOR SOUTH EASTERN PO RTION 35 Gravel Pit Gravel Pit Gravel Pit Gravel Pit Gravel Pits 0 9 7 8 6.5 .5 1 3 9.5 4.5 3.5 10.5 11 10 8.5 5 12 7.5 11.5 5.5 4 2.5 2 1.5 6 Reservation Boundary Thomson Formation Bedrock Hay Lake Fond du Lac Sandstone Bedrock Sand & Gravel Exposed Bedrock Lake Sediments Sand & Gravel Till Till Organics End Moraine Esker Esker Till Knob Outwash Channel End Moraine End Moraine Beach 1050 1300 1000 1100 850 950 900 1200 1150 1250 1350 1400 1400 1050 1100 850 1250 1150 1350 1000 950 1200 900 1300 Sand Till Sand Till Till Sand Till Sand Sand Sand Distance (approximate miles) Elevation (feet) - Vertical Exaggeration ~33X A A' Bedrock - Thomson Formation County Well Index Location and Well Depth Gravel Pit Significant Sand and Gravel Potential Sand and Gravel Sand Till Lake Sediments Complex Organics Bedrock - Fond du Lac Sandstone Dominant Sediment or Bedrock Cross-Section Features Nonsignificant Sand and Gravel Potential S a n d & G r ave l Co m p l e x Base Map and Generalized Aggregate Resources Legend Bounding Features Fond du Lac Reservation Boundary County Boundaries PLS Township Boundaries Section Boundaries Transportation Features Interstate Highway 35 US Highway 2 MN Highway 210 County Highway 18 County Road 119 Municipal Roads Railroad Tracks Township and Other Roads Rivers & Streams Physical Features Lakes Drainage Ditches Other Features Minor Civil Divisions Townships are labeled. Includes boundaries of townships, cities, and unorganizedtownships Sections 1,6,31, & 36 labeled Cross-Section Line (see Figure 1) Generlalized Aggregate Resource Features (see aggregate resources map legend for feature's details) Gravel Pits - Size Relative to Areal Extent Gravel Pits (MN DOT Evaluated) Size Relative to Areal Extent Sand Pits - Less than 5 Acres Sand Pits (MN DOT Evaluated) Size Relative to Areal Extent Field Observations County Well Index Locations High Potential for Sand & Gravel (Hp) Moderate Potential for Sand & Gravel (Mp) Low Potential for Sand & Gravel (Lp) Limited Potential for Sand & Gravel Moderate Potential for Crushed Stone Low Potential for Crushed Stone Populated Places Esko MOOSE LAKE A A' (Size of font type indicates relative populations) Footnotes associated with potential sand and gravel resources seen throughout map text and Figure 1 1 Nonsignificant: Having or yielding a value that is small in size or quantity and variation is attributed to lack of data. 2 Probability: The degree of certainty that aggregate exists within a mapping unit largely defined by the amount of available information. 3 Areal Extent: The size, horizontal extent, or distribution of a unit (e.g., area in acres). This attribute does not necessarily reflect the size of an individual polygon but the size of a deposit found within that polygon. 4 Textural Characteristics : Particle size distribution defined as the percent of gravel or sand vs. silt or clay (e.g., sieve analysis). 5 Quality: The physical characteristics of the material, such as soundness (e.g., magnesium sulfate test), durability (Los Angeles Rattler test), and percent of deleterious rock types such as shale, iron oxide, and unsound chert. Mapping Sources: Aerial photograph interpretation, fieldwork, and delineation of mapping units by Hannah Friedrich, 2009, Aggregate Resource Mapping Program, Division of Lands and Minerals, MN DNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). Source information included aerial photographs from NAPP (National Aerial Photography Program), 1991 -1992, 9" x 9" color infrared photos at 1:40,000; 1991 DOQs (Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles) at 1:12,000 from USGS (United States Geological Survey); FSA (Farm Services Administration) Color Orthophotos collected from the following years; 2003-04, 2005, 2006, 2008; FSA CIR (Color Infrared) Imagery collected in 2008; DRGs (Digital Raster Graphics) at 1:24,000 from USGS; 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangles at 1:24,000 (dating from 1964-1992); the Soil Survey Geographic Database for Carlton County, published November 16, 2006, from the USDA-NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resource Conservation Service); A combination of 30-meter and 10-meter USGS Digital Elevation Models from the National Elevation Dataset, 2007; CWI (County Well Index) database from the Minnesota Geological Survey, downloaded in June 2007; MGS (Minnesota Geological Survey) Carlton County Geologic Atlas field books, field maps, bedrock outcrops, and draft surficial geology maps obtained throughout this project (2007-2009). DEPLETED SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES Depleted Mining Lands: Information gathered from aerial photographs and verbal communication on areas showing indication(s) that sand and gravel resources are significantly depleted. For Carlton County and Fond du Lac Reservation delineated areas are 20 acres or larger. Indicators include reclamation of mine lands, secondary use of mine lands, and/or reclaimed extent of mine lands bounded by other land uses. Additional resources may exist at depth. Areas labeled as depleted are limited to mine lands where aggregate resources have been partially or entirely extracted and do not include development (i.e. residential or commercial) over resources that have not been mined. Depleted Mining Lands Topographic Relief/Hillshade Azimuth = 315, Altitude = 45 100 Foot Elevation Contours 25 Foot Elevation Contours 1275 1100 0-15 0-20 5-75+ 0-30+ 0-50+ 10-60+ 10-50+ 0-200+ Probability 2 Sand and gravel Characteristics Very low to low Surficial Geology Features Moderate to very high Moderate to high Good to very good Clay/silt/sand sand and gravel Very small to small (0-10 acres) Sand and Gravel Quality 5 Overburden Thickness (in feet) Predominant Sediment Description Moderate to very large (20-50+ acres) Alluvial valleys, glacial lake plains, moraines Low Potential High Potential SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES Low to moderately low Very low to moderately low Silty sand to sand and gravel Low to moderately high Moderately high to very high Moderately high to very high Very poor to moderately poor Sand with gravel to sand and gravel Poor to moderately good Moderately good to good Sand and Gravel Thickness (in feet) Sand and Gravel Textural Characteristics 4 Sand and Gravel Deposit Size (areal extext 3 ) Limited Potential NONSIGNIFICANT RESOURCES Alluvial terraces, glacial beaches, outwash channels, ice contact features Collapsed outwash channels, outwash terraces, ice contact features Eskers, outwash channels, outwash terraces, ice contact features Moderately small to moderately large (10-40 acres) Moderate Potential Small to moderately small (10-20 acres) 1 Using GIS software, aggregate resources are delineated by layering multiple datasets. Topographic maps (USGS 1:24,000), digital elevation models, shaded relief maps, aerial photographs (multiple sets of varying scales), subsurface data, field observations , location and distribution of existing pits, and soils are all used to identify the sand and gravel bearing features. A' A C ross-Section (see Figure 1) D U L A C F O N D R E S E R V A T I O N I N D I A N S t . L o u i s R iver S t . L o u i s R i v e r Scale 1 : 100,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers Sand and Gravel Potential Classified at a 1:50,000 Scale Crushed Stone Potential Classified at a 1:100,000 Scale 0 1 2 3 4 Miles Moosehead Lake

Upload: others

Post on 19-Dec-2021

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Map - Aggregate Resource Potential of Carlton County, MN

975

1225

1200

12

00

1275

1300

850

975

12251325

1300

1250

1300

120

0

800

1075

13

75

1225

1125

1325

1400

13

25

1375

1425

850

1100

125

0

70

0

11

50

1300

875

1125

1300

1200

1275

1050

1250

1100

950

1300

1200

1275

1300

1200

875

13

75

850

1300

875

1325

1300

1325

1300

1375

1300

1350

1325

1300

13

50

725

1200

925

1175

1125

1150

1150

1325

1350

1150

1250

1325

1150

1325

1250

1350

1275

700

1225

1425

1325

1375

1250

1325

1325

1350

1175

1325

1200

1350

900

1325

1325

1225

1050

1400

1200

13

25

900

825

850

1225

1300

1275

1250

1225

1100

1275

13

00

1300

1200

1375

1300

1325

1200

1200

1200

1300

11

50

1350

1300

1350

1375

1300

1300

1450

1300

1100

11

75

1275

1300

135

0

700

1400

1175

13

25

1275

1325

11

50

750

1175

11

00

1225

1350

1175

1325

1275

1275

1150

1300

1325

1200

1175

1275

1275

1325

1325

13

00

850

1350

1300

1200

115

0

1175

1325

1175

1250

1350

1250

11

75

1125

1325

1325

1150

1325

775

1175

1300

1200

1175

1125

1050

775

1150

1325

725

1175

1325

1100

1275

800

1300

12

00

1375

1275

750

1250

1350

1225

80

0

1125

850

800

875

1325

900

1150

825

825

1125

1100

825

1325

92511

50

1150

1100

1325

1125

1075

850

1075

1050

925

875

975

1150

1000

1200

1125

900

950

1100

1025

11

75

1225

1250

1275

1300

1100

10751050

1050

1025

10

25

1000

1000

975

975

950

950

950

925

925

900

900

875

875

875

1175

1175

1175

117

5

1150

1150

112

5

1125

1125

110

0

1100

1100

1075

1075

1025

1000

1100

1125

1200

1200

1225

1225

1225

1225

1250

1250

1250

1250

1275

1275

1275

1275

1300

1300

1300

1300

130

0

1150

850

850

1300

1325

1200

13

00

1300

1300

13

00

Portage

West

South

Ket

tle

Rock

River

MooseDead

Tamarack

Skunk

Clear

River

River

Otte

r

Creek

Stoney

Nemadji

Silver

Tamarack

Bla

ckho

of

Park

Rock

River

Creek

Heikkila

Split

Little

Little

R ive r

Moo

se

Rive

r

Moo

se

Fo

rk

Fork

North

Creek

River

Creek

Riv

er

Nemadji

River

Tamarack

Hor

n

Nem

adji

Creek

Mud

Horn

Hunters

St. Louis

Riv

er

Creek

Brook

Branch Lake

Creek

Creek

Fo

rk

River

River

Wes

t

Creek

Creek

River

847

144

118

152

119

103

847

851

4

23

20

22

22

21

21

20

35

17

12

19

5

12

19

6

6

6

6 6

61

15

35

13

13

13

8

13

6

6

8

11

118

8

5

6

6

31

6

1

3

4

18

3

61

4

5

2

1

2

61

5

5

26

4

31

80

80

80

31

31

4

9

25

7

7

4

9

7

8

210

210

33

23

210

73

73

73

27

73

27

210

2773

23

23

23

210

22

35

35

35

35

1 61 6

31363631 31 3631363136 3631

36

3136

61

313636 31

616 11 661 6161

31 36 3131 3636 3131 363136

6 11 6 61 161 61 6

31 36 31 36 313136 31 363136 3136

6

31

6 1 66161611 6

31 36 3131 31363636 31313636 31

66 61 6 1161

1

E A G L E

S I L V E R B R O O K

W R E N S H A L L

C U L V E R

B R E V A T O R

T H O M S O N

B A R N U M

S I L V E R

S T O N Y B R O O K

P E R C H L A K E

H O L Y O K E

S P L I T R O C K

B E S E M A N

M A H T O W A

M O O S E L A K E

B L A C K H O O F

S K E L T O NK A L E V A L AA U T O M B A

A T K I N S O N

T W I N L A K E S

L A K E V I E W

R.17 W.

R.18 W.

R.19 W.

T.5

1 N

.

R .20 W.

T.5

0 N

.

R .16 W.

T.4

9 N

.

T.4

8 N

.T

.46

N.

R .16 W.R.17 W.R.18 W.R.19 W.R.20 W.

T.4

8 N

.

R .21 W.

T.4

9 N

.

R .21 W.

T.4

7 N

.

T.4

6 N

.T

.47

N.

S T . L O U I S C OS T . L O U I S C O

AI

TK

IN

C

O

S T . L O U I S C O

ST

.

LO

UI

S

CO

AI

TK

IN

C

O

P I N E C O P I N E C O P I N E C O

S T . L O U I S C OS T . L O U I S C O

ST

AT

E O

F W

IS

CO

NS

IN

ST

AT

E O

F W

IS

CO

NS

IN

CrossLake

MerwinLake

ParkLake

Perch

Lake

RicePortage

Lake

MillerLake

SectionOneLake

WoodburyLake

Torchlight

Lake

DeadFishLake

HardwoodLake

SimianLake

CedarLake

Big

Lake

WildRiceLake

BobLake

ThomsonReservoir

LakeVenoah

HizerLake

ColeLake

IslandLake

LostLake

Eagle

Lake

TamarackLake

KettleLake

EastTwinLake

WestTwinLake

EllstromLake

MartinLake

Hay

Lake

ChubLake

NetLake

BearLake

MunsonLake

KatzelLake

BlackhoofLake

Spring

Lake

Soper

Lake

GrahamLake

SandLake

BearLake

MooseLake

HangingHornLake

EchoLake

Esko

Barnum

Scotts

Corner

Sawyer

Brookston

Pleasant

Valley

Wrenshall

Moose

Lake

Carlton

Scanlon

Thomson

Kettle

River

Mp

Hp

Mp

Hp

Lp

Lp

Mp

MpHp

Hp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Mp

Mp

MpLp

Lp

Mp

Lp

Mp Hp

Mp Mp

Lp

Mp

Mp

Lp

Mp Lp

MpLp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Hp

Mp

LpHpMp

Hp

Lp

Lp

Mp

MpMp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Mp

Lp

Lp

Hp

Hp

Mp

MpHp

Hp

Mp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Mp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Mp

Mp

Lp

Lp

LpMp

Mp

Mp

Lp

Lp

Mp

Lp

Mp

Lp

Mp

LpLp

Lp

Lp

Mp

Hp

Lp

Mp

Lp

Lp

Mp

Lp

Lp

MpHp

Mp

Mp

Mp

Lp

Lp

MpMp Lp

Hp

Lp

Lp

Mp

Mp

Mp

Lp

Hp

Lp

Mp

Lp

Lp

Hp

Mp

Hp

Mp

Hp

Mp

Mp

Lp

Mp

Mp Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Lp

Mp

Lp

Mp

Mp

Cromwell

Cloquet

Automba

Duesler

Holyoke

Otter

Creek

Lp

Hp

Mp

Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesDivision of Lands and Minerals - Marty Vadis, Director

Plate A - Report 374, Carlton County & Fond duLac Reservation Aggregate Resource Potential

Prepared with support from the Minerals Diversification Program of the Minnesota State Legislature.Mineral Diversification projects are determined by a committee composed of Governor-appointed members from the public and private sectors.

© 2009, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Products of this project include a CD/ROM of data and metadata in a digital format and the following map:Plate A, Report 374, Carlton County & Fond du Lac Reservation Aggregate Resource Potential

Table 1: Classification of Sand and Gravel Potential

AGGREGATE RESOURCES MAP LEGEND

AGGREGATE RESOURCES MAPPING RESULTS

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this project is to identify and classify potential construction aggregate resources (sand, gravel, and crushed stone) in Carlton County, Minnesota. This Aggregate Resource Plate is a coordinated project with the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) County Atlas Mapping Program and funded by the Minerals Diversification Program. Having locally available, low-cost construction aggregates is fundamental to building and maintaining public infrastructure and private sector development. This information is intended to assist local planners and others in making comprehensive land-use and zoning decisions regarding aggregate resources, introduce aggregate resource protection, spread the impact of development, and promote orderly and environmentally sound development of the resource. To accomplish these goals, one plate and a comprehensive data set on a CD-ROM were created. Plate A shows both potential sand and gravel deposits and crushed stone resources. Several factors related to aggregate resources affect their availability, usability, and supply. These factors include transportation costs, quality of the material, and land-use conflicts. Aggregate materials are high-bulk, low-value commodities, which means transportation costs can account for a considerable amount of the delivered price. Having a local supply of aggregate lowers the costs for public and private projects. Aggregate products, such as concrete and asphalt, have specific quality requirements depending on the end use. Therefore, aggregate deposits must be evaluated in relation to quality standards. At the same time, land-use conflicts between aggregate mining and urban developments are becoming more common. Land-use conflicts can be caused by cities expanding into adjacent rural areas, aggregate resource deposits being covered by new developments, or new development occurring adjacent to aggregate resources. As a result, the distance from the aggregate source to its consumers is increasing. Due to the increased demand for aggregate material in and around growing urban areas, aggregate resources are being depleted rapidly. With these and other issues in mind, the 1984 Minnesota Legislature passed a law (Minn. Statute, sec. 84.94, Aggregate Planning and Protection) that directs the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR), in cooperation with the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), to identify and classify potential aggregate resources. When mapping is completed, the information is provided to local governments and the public. Since this is a reconnaissance-level survey of aggregate resources, site-specific evaluations are still necessary prior to any development of the resource, especially in relation to aggregate quality or environmental review. Factors such as ownership, zoning, protected waters and wetlands, environmental permitting, and other individual site characteristics are not part of the geological resource data summarized here. METHODOLOGY: The method used for aggregate mapping integrates traditional geologic data gathering and mapping techniques (i.e., fieldwork and drilling) with computer mapping software programs like geographic information systems (GIS). Sand and gravel mapping is accomplished in several phases: 1) preliminary information gathering that consists of compiling, interpreting, and summarizing existing data; 2) verification of data and the collection of new data from fieldwork; and 3) aggregate resource classification. Aggregate Data Gathering: The first step in mapping is to conduct a literature and data search to understand the geology in the area. Some of the data used are aerial photographs, topographic maps, digital elevation models, subsurface data, gravel pit data, surficial and bedrock geology, wetlands, lakes, streams, vegetation, soils, land use data, as well as several datasets of background information, including roads, railroads, township-range-section (Public Land Survey) boundaries, and others. Two notable data sets used to map aggregate resources and provide subsurface geologic information include the County Well Index (CWI) and Aggregate Source Information System (ASIS). CWI is an online database maintained by the MGS and the Minnesota Department of Health that contains location and well log information for over 300,000 wells drilled throughout Minnesota. Approximately 5700 of these wells were located in and immediately surrounding Carlton County and Fond du Lac Reservation and most of these wells contain geologic descriptions. ASIS is a dataset compiled and maintained by Mn/DOT. ASIS consists of aggregate quality data, textural (i.e., sieve or particle size) data, and pit sheets displaying the descriptions of shallow test hole logs and diagrams of test hole locations (the associated data were summarized in a database). Subsurface information is important to identify buried deposits, determine the depth to bedrock, and identify bedrock type. Fieldwork: Several weeks are spent in the field driving every accessible road in Carlton County and Fond du Lac Reservation looking for outcrops and exposures of geological sediments, as well as drilling test holes to further define aggregate deposits. Sediments exposed in road cuts, stream exposures, excavations such as basements, judicial ditches, construction projects, trenches (cable, pipe, tiling); and animal holes offer observation sites where the surface materials and glacial stratigraphy are inventoried. A total of 1212 observation sites were logged in Carlton County. Fieldwork also includes 372 existing gravel pit observations. Gravel pit observations provide additional quality data and stratigraphic cross-sections to help interpret the various modes of deposition. Test holes drilled in county ditches or with permission of the landowner generate additional data needed to confirm the presence of sand and gravel. A total of 53 sites were drilled and the data is incorporated into the field observations dataset. Aggregate Data Compilation and Interpretation: Aggregate resource mapping was completed as a collaborative effort with MGS surficial geologic mapping (Knaeble and Hobbs, 2009). Additional field observation sites as well as drilling sites were compiled from MGS field data. Results of MGS surficial geologic mapping were used as a source of information, especially in areas where there is little to no aggregate potential. MN DNR conducted a 1:50,000 scale resource assessment and further defined areas of aggregate potential. Other compiled and interpreted datasets include Surficial Geology of Carlton County (Eng, unpublished) and Soil Survey Geographic Database for Carlton County (2006).

Using field observations and compiled datasets, interpretations of aggregate resources are delineated by applying a glacial mapping technique known as the landsystems approach. This technique relies on the principle that glacial landforms deposit a predictable range of sediments, some consisting of sorted sand and gravel and others consisting of silts, clays, or unsorted materials. Several other general characteristics also help determine the nature of the material, such as tonal contrasts, texture, context, shape, size, trend, association, and patterns. These characteristics help determine the properties of surface materials. For example, certain vegetation grows on well-drained soils, such as sand and gravel, and has a distinctive texture, tone, and pattern in aerial photographs. Several aggregate-bearing features (eskers, terraces, outwash channels, and other outwash features) are recognized using this technique.

Sand and gravel resources account for most of the aggregate potential within Carlton County and the Fond du Lac Reservation in comparison to crushed stone. Three broad geographical regions of sand and gravel potential occur within the mapped area (see Figure 2). The Western Portion of the county contains smaller, isolated pockets of sand and gravel formed by ice contact and outwash features. The ice contact and outwash deposits of this area are smaller (5-10+ acres) and result in thin (5-25 feet) deposits with finer texture, more sand and a lower stone count. The high water table

creates large peat expanses which increases the amount of possible overburden and reduces the amount of easily excavated aggregate material. The Central Corridor is an approximately 12-mile-wide region paralleling Interstate 35 and the St. Louis River. Large, generally north-south trending glacial outwash channels deposited coarse sand and gravel in terraces. West of the outwash channels, eskers, or sinuous ridges of sand and gravel, and their associated outwash fans contain coarse aggregate material. Deposits are generally larger (10-20+ acres) and thicker (10-50+ feet) than deposits in the Western Portion. Overburden in this region is generally less than 5 feet thick and the water table is lower, which restricted peat growth to smaller areas. The Southeastern Portion contains the former Glacial Lake Superior Lake Basin and surrounding beaches. This region consists of clayey glacial till, lake basin clay, and sandy beaches which result in a natural scarcity of coarse aggregate material. Remnant till located around the perimeter of the basin was washed, which produced a few small, isolated pockets of coarser aggregate material. The overburden is less than 10 feet thick and the water table is variable throughout this region. Overall, within Carlton County and Fond du Lac Reservation sand and gravel quality is high due to the competent nature of Superior Lobe source rock. However, the local influence of soft bedrock increases spall and could potentially limit use for concrete. Many of the easily accessible deposits closest to main roads in both the Central Corridor and Western Half are either depleted or are close to depletion. Significant mineable deposits remain but are farther from areas of need such as population centers and main roads. Except for a few outcrops, the overall bedrock quality is generally poor, which restricts its use as a crushed stone resource. The two bedrock units suitable for crushed stone are basalt and a metavolcanic formation. Metavolcanics are exposed in small outcrops near Kettle River in the southwestern portion of Carlton County. Five outcrops of this bedrock unit were directly observed in DNR and MGS mapping and appear to have the durability, or competency, to be considered for crushed stone potential. Other outcrops of this rock type exist; yet their suitability as a crushed stone resource is less certain since the bedrock has been variably metamorphosed and has not been tested. Because this rock type has not been tested in a materials lab, the aggregate potential is based on direct geologic observations and is conservatively delineated. Basalt is exposed in the extreme southeastern corner of Carlton County. Although this rock has not been further tested, there are several quarries within this unit in Pine County, Minnesota and in Wisconsin. Therefore, it is classified as moderate potential as a crushed stone resource.

General References Boerboom, T.J., 2009, Bedrock Geology, pl. 2 of Boerboom, T. J., project manager, Geologic atlas of Carlton County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey County Atlas C-19, pt. A, 6 pls., scale 1:100,000. Eng, M. Surficial Geology of Carlton County, Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Unpublished map, scale 1:75,000. Knaeble, A.R., and Hobbs, H.C., 2009, Surficial Geology, pl. 3 of Boerboom, T.J., project manager, Geologic atlas of Carlton County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey County Atlas C-19, pt. A, 6 pls., scale 1:100,000. Marlow, L.M., 2004 Late glacial and early Holocene history of the glacial Lake Aitkin and Upham basin, North -central Minnesota: Implications for the timing of post-glacial eolian activity: Duluth, Minn., University of Minnesota, M.S. thesis, 84 p. Patterson, C.J., and Knaeble, A.R., 2001, Surficial geology, pl. 4 of Boerboom, T.J., project manager, Geologic atlas of Pine County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey County Atlas C-13, pt. A, 7 pls. Scale 1:100,000. Setterholm, D. L., 2009, Depth to Bedrock, pl. 5 of Boerboom, T. J., project manager, Geologic atlas of Carlton County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey County Atlas C-19, pt. A, 6 pls., scale 1:100,000. Wright, H.E., Jr., 1972, Quaternary history of Minnesota, in Sims, P.K., and Morey, G.B., eds., Geology of Minnesota— A centennial volume: Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 515-560. Zarth, R.J., 1977, The Quaternary geology of the Wrenshall and Frogner quadrangles, northeastern Minnesota: Duluth, Minn., University of Minnesota, M.S. thesis, 93 p.

IDENTIFIED SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES: Locations where sand and gravel have been or are currently being mined. Several sources of information identify gravel mine locations: topographic maps, aerial photographs, soil surveys, MGS field mapping sites, Mn/DOT files, fieldwork, gravel operators, and other miscellaneous sources. Gravel mines range in size from less than 1 acre to greater than 50 acres and may be active, inactive, depleted, or reclaimed. The aggregate quality of the mines varies. Size of point indicates the relative areal extent of the pit. Small Medium Large < 5 Acres 5-15 Acres > 15 Acres

Gravel Pits: Contain significant amount of sand and gravel. Includes sites that have been or are currently being mined. Gravel Pits – Mn/DOT ASIS: Sites were identified by Mn/DOT as part of the Aggregate Source Information System (ASIS). Some locations shown on this map were modified to better correlate to present gravel pit boundaries. Sand Pits: Contain significant amount of sand with little to no gravel. Includes sites that have been or are currently being mined. Sand Pits – Mn/DOT ASIS: Sites were identified by Mn/DOT as part of ASIS. Although they are identified as a potential resource site, sites have not necessarily been mined or geologically evaluated. Some locations were modified to better correlate to present sand pit boundaries.

GEOLOGIC DATA SOURCES FOR MAP UNIT INTERPRETATION: Field observations and County Well Index (CWI) database were data sources used in the interpretation of aggregate potential.

Field Observations: A total of 1212 field observations were logged during the spring and fall of 2008. Pits were also inventoried during this time, including 372 gravel pits, 33 sand pits, and 19 borrow and clay pits. Surficial geologic sediment, glacial stratigraphy, and bedrock formations were observed in road cuts, stream exposures, excavations for basements, judicial ditches, construction projects, trenches (cable, pipe, tiling), and animal holes. Field observations of gravel pits and sand pits are shown on the map as Gravel Pits and Sand Pits (See Identified Sand and Gravel Resources). County Well Index Database Locations: CWI dataset (www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/cwi) is maintained by the Minnesota Department of Health and comes in two levels of data accuracy: located and unlocated. Located CWI data are assumed to be accurately located. Unlocated CWI data are used as a source only if the address information on the well log can be verified and located using address information and online address location websites. Approximately 5700 wells located within Carlton County and Fond du Lac Reservation and the surrounding area were referenced to create this map.

CRUSHED STONE RESOURCE POTENTIAL: Two factors control the distribution of crushed stone potential in Carlton County and the Fond du Lac Reservation: bedrock quality and thickness of overburden. Bedrock mapping was completed by Minnesota Geological Survey (Boerboom, 2009) and crushed stone potential is based on those bedrock units. Only two bedrock mapping units, a basalt (MGS map unit Pmc) and a metavolcanic group containing two identified units defined as porphyritic metabasalt (MGS map unit Pvg) and metagabbro (MGS map unit Pga) appear to have physical characteristics suitable for crushed stone. The second factor, overburden thickness, was based on broad observations of bedrock elevation and thickness of glacial overburden (Setterholm, 2009). Exposures of bedrock are observed as isolated knobs. In areas where well data are available, overburden was interpreted to grade increasingly away from the outcrop to approximately 25+ feet thick. Therefore, crushed stone potential is conservatively delineated and spatially limited to areas near outcrops. Crushed stone resources are classified at a scale of 1:100,000. SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR CRUSHED STONE RESOURCES: Basalt and metavolcanics suitable for aggregate use. Neither formation has been quality tested; however, physical characteristics exhibit a suitable hardness and competency to be considered for crushed stone potential. Both of these units are inferred to be relatively thick (greater than 25 feet), with overburden thicknesses estimated to range from 0 to 10 feet.

Moderate Potential for Crushed Stone Resources: Metavolcanics exposed near or at the surface with overburden thickness estimated to range from 0 to 10 feet. Although observed fabric may cause preferential fracturing, the rock unit appears to be significantly competent to withstand crushing. Basalt, identified as part of the Chengwatana Formation, exposed near or at the surface with overburden thickness ranging from 0 to 10 feet. This rock was observed to be massive with limited fabric and appears to be significantly competent to withstand crushing.

NONSIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR CRUSHED STONE RESOURCES: Low Potential for Crushed Stone Resources: Metavolcanics and basalt with overburden thickness ranging from 10 to 20 feet.

Limited Potential for Crushed Stone Resources: Metavolcanics and basalt with overburden thickness ranging from 20 to 50+ feet and other metasediments and sandstones with overburden thicknesses ranging from 0 to 50+ feet. Metasediments and sandstones are friable and have a strong fabric making these rock types unsuitable for crushed stone resources.

NONSIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES: Units that generally have little or no potential for significant aggregate resources. These units either have data exhibiting geological characteristics that are typically not consistent with significant aggregate resources or have a lack of data to infer a higher potential. Units typically contain clay, silt, fine sand, unsorted sediments (till), or very thin layers of sand and gravel. Units may include aggregate resources that are too small to map (<10 acres).

Low Potential for Sand and Gravel Resources: Glaciofluvial features, ice-walled lakes, outwash plains, glacial meltwater channels, and terraces; ice contact features like eskers, fans, and kames; and alluvial channels. Predominant sediment varies and can include sand, sand with gravel, and/or silty sand and gravel. The probability that a potential resource exists within this unit is low to moderately low. Thickness of the deposits ranges from 5 to 75+ feet with overburden thickness ranging from 0 to 50+ feet. These resources are small to moderately small in areal extent and the textural characteristics are poor to moderately good. The quality ranges from low to moderately high. Limited Potential for Sand and Gravel Resources: Units that include glacial features such as ground moraines, end moraines, lake plains, and small alluvial features such as flood plains and streams. The deposits of this unit contain one or more of the following: clay with boulders, silt, sand, and/or gravel. The probability that a significant sand and gravel resource exists within this unit is very low to low. The thickness of these deposits is typically less than 10 feet but can range from 0 to 30+ feet with overburden thickness ranging from 0 to 200+ feet. The aggregate resources occurring in this unit are very small to small in areal extent. The textural characteristics are very poor to moderately poor with the quality ranging from very low to moderately low.

AGGREGATE RESOURCE POTENTIAL: Aggregate potential is defined as an assessment of the relative probability that an aggregate deposit exists within a given mapping unit. For the purpose of this study, aggregate potential is defined as an assessment of the relative probability that an aggregate deposit exists within a given mapped unit and is classified within the range of potential observed in the study area. Almost all emphasis is placed on geological evidence, physical parameters such as areal extent, and interpretation at the reconnaissance level, rather than upon economic feasibility, site -specific evaluation, or other related parameters. Criteria used to define aggregate potential within Carlton County may not extend into surrounding areas where geologic parameters can change. Furthermore, this assessment does not imply that economic aggregate deposits exist everywhere within a given map unit designated as “Significant Potential Aggregate Resources,” but rather, that within such a map unit, geologic processes were active that could have created aggregate deposits at specific sites. Geologic measurements of aggregate deposits such as thickness or quality test data remain constant, but economic criteria and environmental permitting vary across time and at different locations. Important site-specific factors such as ownership, zoning, protected waters and wetlands, sensitive or protected environments, permitting, distance to markets, royalties, and individual site characteristics such as access all contribute to the feasibility of mining specific parcels; however, these factors are not considered in this reconnaissance-level study. Sand and gravel resources are classified at a scale of 1:50,000. SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES: Units inferred to contain sand and gravel resource potential. Data for these units exhibit geological characteristics associated with sand-and-gravel-bearing landforms. Existing gravel pit and Mn/DOT aggregate sources lying within these units are considered identified or known resources which increases the level of confidence for the mapping unit.

High Potential for Sand and Gravel Resources: Glaciofluvial features; outwash plains; glacial meltwater channels; and terraces; as well as ice contact features like eskers, fans, and kames (Figure 1). Sand and gravel is the predominant sediment. The probability2 that a potential sand and gravel resource exists within any mapping unit is moderately high to very high. Thickness of the deposits ranges from 10 to 60+ feet with less than 15 feet of overburden. These resources are moderate to very large in areal extent 3 and the textural characteristics4 are good to very good. The quality5 is moderately high to very high.

Moderate Potential for Sand and Gravel Resources: Glaciofluvial features; outwash plains; glacial meltwater channels; and terraces; as well as ice contact features, like eskers, fans, and kames. Predominant sediment ranges from sand with gravel to sand and gravel. The probability that a potential sand and gravel resource exists within this unit is moderate to very high. Deposit thickness ranges from 10 to 50+ feet with less than 20 feet of overburden. These resources are moderately small to large in areal extent and the textural characteristics are moderately good to good. The quality is typically moderate to high.

CLASSIFICATION OF SAND AND GRAVEL POTENTIAL: Sand and gravel resources were divided into four categories based on the type of geological feature, probability (certainty), sand and gravel thickness, overburden thickness, deposit size (areal extent), textural characteristics (sieve analysis), quality (soundness and durability), and the sediment description as observed in the field (Table 1). For example, a geological feature, such as an outwash terrace, typically contains sand and gravel. If the resource has gravel pits located within its boundaries, sand and gravel was observed at or near the surface, and sand and gravel was encountered in surrounding water wells, the resource has a high probability of containing aggregate. Probability, or the amount of information, was a major factor in identifying and delineating aggregate potential. Areal extent indicates how many acres a resource covers. Good texture indicates the sediment contains a high percentage of gravel. Laboratory test results of aggregate quality were compiled, interpreted, and extrapolated from Mn/DOT pit sheets. Thickness and overburden were determined from observations and well information. Therefore, if a deposit has areal extent greater than 20+ acres, has thickness greater than 10 feet, has overburden thickness less than 15 feet, and has high quality and good texture, then the resource was classified as high potential. The areas delineated as limited potential for sand and gravel resources did not meet the above-mentioned criteria. The resources may not exist; were lacking supporting data sources (very low probability); were too small in areal extent; were too thin; were under too thick of an overburden; consisted of more sand than gravel; or did not meet quality specifications.

Figure 1: Cross Section of Predominant Sediment Relative to Sand and Gravel Potential Cross-Section A-A’ on Base Map The above cross section highlights landforms and their respective sediment associations. Major aggregate-bearing landforms in the cross section include ice contact features, an end moraine, and outwash features. Non-bearing landforms are composed of unsorted glacial till, fine sand, or a complex of till and sand with gravel. The main outwash

channel is classified as nonsignificant aggregate potential because it was scoured by erosional processes creating a region of near-surface bedrock with little to no deposition of coarse aggregate material. The color of the line representing surface elevation correlates to sand and gravel potential. Construction aggregate, sand and gravel,

is the only material classified as having significant potential. Surface and subsurface sediment and their associations were interpreted from field observations, the gravel pit survey, and county well information. Bedrock lithology in this area consists of Thomson (greywacke) and Fond du Lac (sandstone) Formations (Boerboom,

2009). Bedrock elevation was derived from the Depth to Bedrock Plate created by Setterholm, 2009. Although exposures of bedrock occur within an outwash channel, the bedrock here is not suitable for crushed stone.

This map was prepared from publicly available information. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the factual data on which this map interpretation is based. However, the Department of Natural Resources does not warrant the accura cy, completeness, or any implied uses of these data. Users may wish to verify critical information; sources include both the references here and information on file in the offices of the Minnesota Geological Survey and the Minnesota Department of Natural R esources. Every effort has been made to ensure the interpretation shown conforms to sound geologic and cartographic principles. This map should not be used to establish legal title, boundaries, or locations of improvements. Base Map Data Sources: Lakes, rivers, s treams, and drainage ditches from NWI (National Wetland Inventory), Mn/DOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) Base map, MN DNR 24K Streams, compiled at 1:24,000 from aerial photography (1979 -1988) and USGS quadrangle maps (1980 -1990). PLS (Public Land Survey) townships and sections layers extracted from PLS Project, 2001, MN DNR, Division of Lands and Minerals. Minor civil divisions from Minnesota Department of Revenue, 2007. Populated places were derived from the GNIS (Geographic Name Information System) by pulling out the features that were coded as populated places. A selected subset of these was used for this map, 2003. County boundaries from MN DNR, derived from combination of 1:24,000 scale PLS lines, 1:100,000 scale TIGER, 1:100,000 scale DLG, and 1:24,000 hydrography lines, 1993. Fond du Lac Reservation boundary derived from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 2003. Roads from Mn/DOT Base map, Fall of 2006. Railroad Tracks from Mn/DOT Base map, 2001. Contour Intervals created by smoothing the Digital Elevation Model (see topographic relief) and then applying ArcGIS 9.3 Spatial Analyst to create the contours. Topographic relief or hillshade created from a combination of 30-meter and 10 -meter digital elevation models (DEM) from the USGS National Elevation Dataset, 2007. GIS and Cartography by Kevin J . Hanson, MN DNR, Division of Lands and Minerals. Copy edited by Nick Kroska, MN DNR Division of Waters.

AGGREGATE RESOURCES

Produced by the Aggregate Resource Mapping ProgramDivision of Lands and MineralsMinnesota Department of Natural Resources

M a p p e d B y H a n n a h G . F r i e d r i c hSt. Paul, Minnesota - June 2009

Carlton County, MN, andFond du Lac Reservation

AGGREGATE POTENTIAL

Scale 1 : 100,000

Figure 2: Inset Map of Aggregate Regions

WESTERN PORTION

CENTRAL CORRIDOR

SOUTH EASTERN

PORTION

35

GravelPit

GravelPit Gravel

Pit

GravelPit

GravelPits

0 97 86.5.5 1 3 9.54.53.5 10.5 11108.55 127.5 11.55.542.521.5 6

Reservation Boundary

T h o m s o n F o r m a t i o n B e d r o c k

Hay Lake

Fond du LacSandstoneBedrock

Sand& Gravel

ExposedBedrock

LakeSediments

Sand &Gravel

Till

Till

Organics

End Moraine

Esker EskerTill Knob

Outwash ChannelEnd Moraine

End Moraine

Beach

1050

1300

1000

1100

850

950

900

1200

1150

1250

1350

14001400

1050

1100

850

1250

1150

1350

1000

950

1200

900

1300

Sand

Till

SandTill

Till

Sand

Till

Sand

Sand

Sand

Distance (approximate miles)

Elev

ation

(fee

t) - V

ertic

al Ex

agge

ratio

n ~33

X

A A'

Bedrock - Thomson Formation

County Well Index Locationand Well DepthGravel PitSignificant Sand and Gravel Potential

Sand and GravelSandTillLake SedimentsComplexOrganics

Bedrock - Fond du Lac Sandstone

Dominant Sediment or BedrockCross-Sect ion Features

Nonsignificant Sand and Gravel Potential

Sand & GravelComplex

B a s e Ma p a n d G e n e r a l i z e d A g g r e g a t e R e s o u r c e s L e g e n d

Bounding FeaturesFond du LacReservation BoundaryCounty Boundaries

PLS Township BoundariesSection Boundaries

Transportation FeaturesInterstate Highway35

US Highway2

MN Highway210

County Highway18

County Road119

Municipal RoadsRailroad Tracks

Township and Other Roads

Rivers & Streams

Physical FeaturesLakes

Drainage Ditches

Other Features

Minor Civil Divisions Townships are labeled.Includes boundaries of townships, cities, and unorganizedtownships

Sections 1,6,31, & 36 labeled Cross-Section Line (see Figure 1)

Generlalized Aggregate Resource Features(see aggregate resources map legend for feature's details)

Gravel Pits - Size Relative to Areal ExtentGravel Pits (MN DOT Evaluated) Size Relative to Areal ExtentSand Pits - Less than 5 AcresSand Pits (MN DOT Evaluated) Size Relative to Areal ExtentField ObservationsCounty Well Index Locations

High Potential for Sand & Gravel (Hp)Moderate Potential for Sand & Gravel (Mp)Low Potential for Sand & Gravel (Lp)Limited Potential for Sand & Gravel

Moderate Potential for Crushed StoneLow Potential for Crushed Stone

Populated Places Esko

MOOSE

LAKE

A A'

(Size of font type indicates relativepopulations)

Footnotes associated with potential sand and gravel resources seen throughout map text and Figure 1 1Nonsignificant: Having or yielding a value that is small in size or quantity and variation is attributed to lack of data. 2Probability: The degree of certainty that aggregate exists within a mapping unit largely defined by the amount of available information. 3Areal Extent: The size, horizontal extent, or distribution of a unit (e.g., area in acres). This attribute does not necessarily reflect the size of an individual polygon but the size of a deposit found within that polygon. 4Textural Characteristics: Particle size distribution defined as the percent of gravel or sand vs. silt or clay (e.g., sieve analysis). 5Quality: The physical characteristics of the material, such as soundness (e.g., magnesium sulfate test), durability (Los Angeles Rattler test), and percent of deleterious rock types such as shale, iron oxide, and unsound chert.

Mapping Sources: Aerial photograph interpretation, fieldwork, and delineation of mapping units by Hannah Friedrich, 2009, Aggregate Resource Mapping Program, Division of Lands and Minerals, MN DNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). Source information included aerial photographs from NAPP (National Aerial Photography Program), 1991 -1992, 9" x 9" color infrared photos at 1:40,000; 1991 DOQs (Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles) at 1:12,000 from USGS (United States Geological Survey); FSA (Farm Services Administration) Color Orthophotos collected from the following years; 2003-04, 2005, 2006, 2008; FSA CIR (Color Infrared) Imagery collected in 2008; DRGs (Digital Raster Graphics) at 1:24,000 from USGS; 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangles at 1:24,000 (dating from 1964-1992); the Soil Survey Geographic Database for Carlton County, published November 16, 2006, from the USDA-NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resource Conservation Service); A combination of 30-meter and 10-meter USGS Digital Elevation Models from the National Elevation Dataset, 2007; CWI (County Well Index) database from the Minnesota Geological Survey, downloaded in June 2007; MGS (Minnesota Geological Survey) Carlton County Geologic Atlas field books, field maps, bedrock outcrops, and draft surficial geology maps obtained throughout th is project (2007-2009).

DEPLETED SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES Depleted Mining Lands: Information gathered from aerial photographs and verbal communication on areas showing indication(s) that sand and gravel resources are significantly depleted. For Carlton County and Fond du Lac Reservation delineated areas are 20 acres or larger. Indicators include reclamation of mine lands, secondary use of mine lands, and/or reclaimed extent of mine lands bounded by other land uses. Additional resources may exist at depth. Areas labeled as depleted are limited to mine lands where aggregate resources have been partially or entirely extracted and do not include development (i.e. residential or commercial) over resources that have not been mined.

Depleted Mining Lands

Topographic Relief/HillshadeAzimuth = 315, Altitude = 45

100 Foot Elevation Contours25 Foot Elevation Contours1275

1100

0-15 0-20

5-75+ 0-30+

0-50+

10-60+ 10-50+

0-200+

Probability2

Sand and gravel

Characteristics

Very lowto

low

Surficial GeologyFeatures

Moderateto

very high

Moderateto

high

Goodto

very good

Clay/silt/sandsand and gravel

Very smallto small

(0-10 acres)

Sand and GravelQuality5

OverburdenThickness

(in feet)

PredominantSediment

Description

Moderateto very large(20-50+ acres)

Alluvial valleys,glacial lake plains,

moraines

Low PotentialHigh PotentialSIGNIFICANT RESOURCES

Lowto

moderately low

Very lowto

moderately low

Silty sandto

sand and gravel

Lowto

moderately high

Moderately highto

very high

Moderately highto

very high

Very poorto

moderately poor

Sand with gravelto

sand and gravel

Poorto

moderately good

Moderately goodto

good

Sand and GravelThickness

(in feet)

Sand and GravelTextural

Characteristics4

Sand and GravelDeposit Size(areal extext3)

Limited PotentialNONSIGNIFICANT RESOURCES

Alluvial terraces,glacial beaches,

outwash channels,ice contact features

Collapsed outwashchannels, outwash

terraces, icecontact features

Eskers, outwashchannels, outwashterraces, ice contact

features

Moderately smallto moderately large

(10-40 acres)

Moderate Potential

Smallto moderately small

(10-20 acres)

1

Using GIS software, aggregate resources are delineated by layering multiple datasets. Topographic maps (USGS 1:24,000), digital elevation models, shaded relief maps, aerial photographs (multiple sets of varying scales), subsurface data, field observations , location and distribution of existing pits, and soils are all used to identify the sand and gravel bearing features.

A'

A

Cross-Section (see Figure 1)

D U L A C

F O N D

R E S E R V A T I O N

I N D I A N

St

. L

ou

i s Ri v

er

St

.

Lo

ui

s

R

iv

e r

Scale 1 : 100,000

0 1 2 3 4 5Kilometers

Sand and Gravel Potential Classified at a 1:50,000 ScaleCrushed Stone Potential Classified at a 1:100,000 Scale

0 1 2 3 4Miles

Moo

sehe

ad

Lake

aggregate demand and aggregate supply - · PDF file259 CHAPTER 8 aggregate demand and aggregate supply Aggregate demand Aggregate demand curve The aggregate demand

2017 CARLTON CORPORATE - Australian Football League Tenant/Carlton... · corporate.carltonfc.com.au Carlton FC Corporate Sales (03) 9389 6354 [email protected] CARLTON

Carlton Speak 2015 - Carlton Public School · E [email protected] W Carlton Speak 2015 Carlton Public School E-Bulletin Term 3 - Thursday 6 AugustWeek 4 2015 Dear Parents

Carlton Speak 2013 - carlton-p.schools.nsw.gov.au€¦ · Carlton Speak 2013 Carlton Public School E-Bulletin Term 3 - Week 6 Thursday 22 August 2013 Principal’s Report Dear Parents

CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON ... · PDF fileHydraulic System Hyd Pump ... give the Carlton 12" Chippers more infeed pulling power than any other 12" capacity

Larry Carlton - Elements of Style (Larry Carlton)

CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON …€¦ · opening, dual top and bottom feed rollers, and high torque feed motors, the Carlton 1260 will out perform any other 6"

John Carlton OTS 1994 by John Carlton

THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL, SARASOTA 1111 Ritz Carlton Dr

Ritz carlton

Carlton Ridge

Carlton Rent the carlton EN

Carlton House

Evaluation of Aggregate Sections at Mn/ROADdotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/research/pdf/200029.pdf · Appendix A Aggregate Testing Results Appendix I3 Adsorption Test Procedure Appendix C

Carlton court

carlton 46 & carlton 39 - Kozy Heat Fireplaces

With respect to our iconic heritage, The Ritz-Carlton sets ... · The Ritz-Carlton®, Dubai The Ritz-Carlton®, Kyoto The Ritz-Carlton®, Hong Kong The Ritz-Carlton®, Rancho Mirage

Carlton County, MN | Official Website

Carlton Associates Incorporated. Carlton Associates Incorporated

CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON … · The Carlton Model 1790 wood chipper is the most versatile and powerful 9-inch disk style chipper available. The 1790 is portable

TRANSMISSION AREA MAP FOR THE ITV REGIONS - CARLTON · TRANSMISSION AREA MAP FOR THE ITV REGIONS Region Sales House LWT/Carlton LondonGranada/Carlton Carlton Central Carlton Granada

Carlton chile

Amazon Web Services - Non-profit Org. U.S. Postage …...Non-profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Carlton, MN 55718 Permit No. 7 POSTAL CUSTOMER CARLTON, MN 55718 ISD #93 P.O. Box 310 Carlton,

MAP AND GUIDEMAP AND GUIDE: JAY COOKE STATE PARK 780 HIGHWAY 210 CARLTON, MN 55718 CARLTON COUNTY 218-673-7000 [email protected] VISITOR TIPS • Wear good hiking shoes

Carlton Advisory Services, Inc. - The Carlton Groupcarltongroup.com/registration/CarltonRRB.pdf · In business since 1991, Carlton Advisory Services, Inc. (“Carlton”)is an international

AGGREGATE TEST EQUIPMENTS AGGREGATE TEST … · AGGREGATE TEST EQUIPMENTS AGGREGATE TEST EQUIPMENTS AGGREGATE TEST EQUIPMENTS CONTENTS Aggregate Crushng Value Apparatus Aggregate

Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply - Mansoor Maitahmaitah.com/Macroeconomics/Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply… · Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply ... Why the Aggregate

CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON … · The Carlton 2018HD wood chipper is an extremely versatile high production machine. The 2018HD is built to stand the day in day

Vanessa carltonvanessacarlton-france.wifeo.com/documents/02Whos-to-say.pdf · Vanessa carlton Who˜s to say. 2 Vanessa Carlton. 3 Vanessa Carlton. 4 Vanessa Carlton. 5 Vanessa Carlton

ICE HOUSE, CARLTON TOWERS, CARLTON, GOOLE, · PDF fileICE HOUSE, CARLTON TOWERS, CARLTON, GOOLE, NORTH YORKSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION, INVESTIGATION AND RECORDING Ed Dennison

CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON CARLTON …€¦ · truck or out in the woods with a clearing crew!! The super high torque feed system unique to the 2018HD provides the most

Carlton pajamajam

Gedling Neighbourhood Promise - Carlton and Carlton Hill

AGGREGATE AIR BALANCING · 2019-06-07 · 4701 Mike Colalillo Drive, Duluth, MN 55807 Kenny Boiler & Manufacturing... 651-224-7471 344 E. University Ave., St. Paul, MN 55101 Lakehead

Floodways - The Original Intent · Mapping Floodways: MN Best Practice - Ceil Strauss (MN DNR) Managing Development in Floodways: Basic, Better, NAI - Alan Lulloff & Dave Carlton