WORKING GROUP 9 
MOLLARD 
519 
1. Land form. Examples: kames, eskers, outwash plains, pitted outwash 
plains, glacial deltas, kame terraces, glaciofluvial terraces. 
2. Expected dominant materials composing the landform. Examples: domi 
nantly coarse gravelly materials, gravelly sands, chiefly graded fine to 
coarse sands, “dirty” fine sands. In many cases the interpreter will preface 
these terms with “expect” or “anticipate.” 
3. Qualitative terms giving additional information about expected quantity 
and quality of a prospect. Where the interpreter can do so, he should out 
line a prospect, in heavy full line where the boundary is definite and dashed 
where the boundary is indefinite or assumed. Qualitative terms frequently 
used are these: shallow, deep, expect deepest portion of deposit at X, expect 
deposit to be coarsest at X, deposit anticipated to be highly variable in thick 
ness, very large volume of sand and gravel anticipated, small volume expected 
(few 100 cubic yards), typically a “pockety” deposit, erratic stratification 
pattern anticipated, depth of deposit is not predictable from airphotos, shallow 
overburden is expected, prospect probably contains a detrimentally high shale 
content, probably a high water table in the deposit, etc. Inferences shown on 
photos, or on plans traced from them, depend largely on the occurrence and 
character of landscape features the interpreter can confidently recognize in the 
photos. Qualified inferences should be included if the interpreter believes they 
will assist the person checking prospects in the field. If a deposit is very small 
in areal extent and if it is highly doubtful that usable material exists at all, 
the interpreter will often indicate a prospect by an X and, along side the X, 
note simply “inspect”. 
4. Finally, the interpreter will rate deposits according to relative chances of 
discovering a deposit of usable quantity and quality. In the past we have 
used excellent or very good to indicate the highest rating, followed by good, 
fair, poor, doubtful, and “inspect”, which is the lowest rating. If in the field 
the observer is near a place marked “inspect” on the photos he should check for 
surface indications of sand and gravel. These relative terms, it must be pointed 
out, have meaning only in terms of a particular survey objective. That is to 
say, a given granular deposit may be marked “very good” in a search for high 
way sub-base material but may be marked “doubtful” in a search for coarse 
aggregate for use in concrete fabrication. 
Common Photo-Identifying features of granular surficial deposits 
The relative importance a photo interpreter assigns to a given diagnostic 
feature depends to a large extent on the interpreter’s experience in that region. 
In many situations only one identifying feature may appear in the photographs, 
and even then it may be very weakly expressed. At the other extreme there 
may be a half dozen features, all of which indicate a granular deposit. In 
Western Canda the following photo-identifying features are most significant. 
(See also figs. 3-8). 
1. Physiographic, or geomorphic, setting.