ll|flimi11imifliflflflWWW ‘ L Image 3 1293 00799 9380 WY Wm University This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Effect Of Drift Thickness on the Topographic Expression of Bedrock Surfaces In The Southern Great Lakes Region presented by Norman Meek has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for LIL—degree in fieography I A.— Major professor Date__9_./_léLL8§__ @7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU BEIURNING MATERIALS: Piace in book drop to “saunas remove this checkout from 4—5—- your record. FINES win be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. Fae. 0.8;. 217'"; fiWS‘ ”M ~95 rs .-= *5 046 " i h .' i‘ 1 .7. 01:5- 0 '08! 2 2 "10‘ a}; ‘- t {'9 V9490 swagger THE EFFECT OF DRIFT THICKNESS ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC EXPRESSION OF BEDROCK SURFACES IN THE SOUTHERN GREAT LAKES REGION BY NOrman Meek A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Geography 198k 300: def: ref‘j For thre ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF DRIFT THICKNESS ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC EXPRESSION OF BEDROCK SURFACES IN THE SOUTHERN GREAT LAKES REGION By Norman Meek Analysis of data from forty-one (9 miz) sites within areas of Hoodfordian glaciation indicates that there is a mathematically' definable drift thickness threshold which, if exceeded, eliminates reflection of the buried bedrock surface in the present topography. For sites with average drift thicknesses between 15 and 35 meters, the threshold is approximately equal to either maximum bedrock relief/2 + 10 meters, or average bedrock relief + 8 meters. Further examination of the site data indicates a) that present topographic relief is generally less than bedrock relief, and b) that increased topographic relief may be related to bedrock surface roughness. In addition, comparative tests suggest that the results of this study may be dependent on the size of the sample sites. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indeed fortunate to have benefitted from the selfless efforts of my mentor, Professor Harold Winters. His uncompromising high standards challenged me to pursue excellence and accept nothing less. I have greatly appreciated his efficient editorial help, advice, and discussions. "Dilemma Hill" will last forever. Secondly, many thanks must be extended to Professor Gary Manson, chairman, Department of Geography. This project would have been difficult, if not impossible, without a solid financial commitment or his wisdom to invest in a high quality word processing system. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the contributions of: Bruce Rhoads, for completing a top-quality thesis which served as my guide; Mr. Dennis Hull, Ohio Geological Survey, Mr. Henry Gray, Indiana Geological Survey, and Dr. Richard Rieck, Western Illinois University, for giving me access to unpublished bedrock maps compiled over countless years; Dr. Richard Groop and Dr. Judy Olson, for serving on my committee and providing many helpful editorial suggestions; Mathematics Professor Richard Hill, for providing the general form of the curve equation; and departmental colleagues Mr. Bob Brewer, Msm Cindy Brewer, Ms. Ann Goulette, Mr. J. Michael Lipsey and Dr. Bruce Pigozzi, for providing invaluable help in my quest to conquer a monstrosity known as the Michigan State computer system. 11 This thesis is dedicated to all of my friends, colleagues and relatives who thought that I was Joking when I said I would start and finish a credible thesis in one term. With hard work and a firm resolve anything is possible. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM............................... Background Information................................. Factors Affecting the Bedrock/Topographic Relationship..................................... Defining the Bedrock/Topographic Relationship....... Defining Drift Thickness............................ Present Evidence For a Drift Thickness Threshold.... Statement of the Problem............................... Hypotheses............................................. Operational Definitions................................ II. DIFFERENTIATING MASKED AND NON-MASKED SURFACES............ Distribution of the Sample Sites....................... Problems With Sample Site Selection................. Sample Site Size Differences........................ Sampling Control.................................... Data Manipulation...................................... Unmodified Surface Correlations..................... Modified Surface Correlations....................... Discussion of the Two Correlation Techniques........ III. HYPOTHESIS TESTING........................................ Small Site Tests....................................... The Effect of Glaciation on Topographic Relief...... Maximum and Average Bedrock Relief.................. Maximum and Average Topographic Relief.............. Maximum and Average Drift Thickness................. Drift/Maximum Bedrock Relief Ratios and Drift/Average Bedrock Relief Ratios.............. Determining the Mathematical Relationships.......... Large Site Tests....................................... The Effect of Glaciation on Topographic Relief...... Maximum and Average Bedrock Relief.................. Maximum and Average Topographic Relief.............. Maximum and Average Drift Thickness................. Drift/Maximum Bedrock Relief Ratios and Drift/Average Bedrock Relief Ratios.............. iv PAGE N... CHAPTER Iv. CONCLUSION................................................ Geographic Implications................................ Geologic Implications.................................. Evaluation of Methodology.............................. Suggestions for Further Research....................... APPENDICES...................................................... A. Small Site Locations and Surface Elevations.............. B. Large Site Locations and Surface Elevations.............. C. Summary of Small Site Statistics......................... D. Summary of Large Site Statistics......................... E. Calculating Average Bedrock or Topographic Relief........ SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHYOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... PAGE A6 #6 A7 50 52 52 93 113 115 116 118 TABLE LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Sample Sites.............................. A Comparison of Sample Sizes.............................. A Comparison of Sampling Patterns......................... Small Site Bedrock/Topographic Correlation Coefficients... Large Site Bedrock/Topographic Correlation Coefficients... Small Site Mann-Whitney U Test Results.................... Large Site Mann-Whitney U Test Results.................... Summary of Small Site Statistics.......................... Summary of Large Site Statistics.......................... vi Page 118 19 20 22 23 33 ‘13 113 115 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Calculation of Maximum Bedrock Relief and Average Drift ThiCkneSSIOOOGOO0.00.0000.0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO. 1o 2. Distribution of Sample Sites.............................. 13 3. Small Site Sample Location and Identification Numbers..... 17 u. Large Site Sample Location and Identification NUmbers..... 18 5. Distribution of Masked and NOn-Masked Sites............... 28 6. Graph of Average Drift Thickness and Maximum Bedrock Relief.0.000......OCO...0.000000000000IOCOCOCOOOOO0..O. 37 7. Graph of Average Drift Thickness and Average Bedrock R6116f--Linear SOlutionoeeoeeooooeoeeeoooeesoeeoeooeeee 39 8. Graph of Average Drift Thickness and Average Bedrock Relief--Curve SOlutionOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0.00...O. no 9. mll Site Gel-18.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0... 116 10. Large Site cells..0...0.0.00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0... 117 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Observations during the mid-19th century indicated that surface sediments of glacial origin shape much of the landscape in the central United States. These sediments, referred to as drift, were found to extend from the Appalachians on the east to the Dakotas in the west, and as far south as the Ohio and Missouri rivers. As the area was settled, data from many water and oil wells revealed that the thickness of the glacial drift often differed from one location to another. At some places, such as along the sides of major stream valleys or atop regional uplands, the drift might be thin or absent. In other areas extensive systems of drift-buried valleys with no topographic expression were discovered. Because it appeared that bedrock/topographic relationships varied depending on the amount of drift present, a widespread assumption developed that glacial drift controls the form of the landscape once the thickness of glacial sediments exceeds the available relief on the bedrock:surface (Lobeck, 1939. pp. 302-303).1 1Direct statements of this assumption are difficult to find in the literature, even though such relationships are implied in several references. For examples of this assumption being applied (but not stated), see Kay and Apfel, 1928, pp. 53-514; Fenneman, 1938, p. 500; Horberg, 1950, p. 11; or Charlesworth, 1957, pt 385. But a recent investigation of south-central Michigan (Rieck and Winters, 1979) indicates that some aspects of the bedrock surface may be reflected in the topography, even though the bedrock surface is deeply buried by glacial drift. The results of this study are even more perplexing when the effects of multiple glaciation and the seemingly independent (random) deposition of drift are considered. As a result, at least two important questions need to be answered: --Are there drift thickness limits controlling the bedrock/ topographic relationship that have not been recognized? --Are the effects of the postulated drift thickness limits widespread or spatially limited to the extent of a single glacial lobe? If these questions are answered, the geographic extent and nature of bedrock-controlled glaciated topography could be determined. Background Information Before the relationship between the bedrock and topographic surfaces is tested, some related topics need to be examined. Among the most important questions are: --What factors are known to affect the bedrock/topographic relationship? --How is the bedrock/topographic relationship defined? --How is "drift thickness" defined? .--What evidence suggests that a drift thickness limit may control the bedrock/topographic relationship? P: K" Factors Affecting the Bedrock/Topographic Relationship According to MacClintock (1929), the surface expression of bedrock topography is largely controlled by two factors: 1) the relief of the preglacial (bedrock) surface; and 2) the thickness of the glacial drift. Available relief on the bedrock surface essentially determines the minimum thickness of drift that is necessary to mask it. (Hereafter, the word ”mask" and its derivatives will be used to refer to a specific situation where the bedrock surface is not expressed in the topography.) In some areas where bedrock relief is small, such as southern Illinois, a drift sheet with an average thickness of only 30 feet (9 meters) has smoothed the landscape (Fenneman, 1938, p. 500; p. 508). At other places, such as north- central Ohio, the available relief on the bedrock surface is so great that glacial deposits with thicknesses averaging 205 feet (62 meters) are insufficient in quantity to obscure the features (Ver Steeg, 193”, pp. 60u-605L. Consequently, a minimal masking relationship in a glacial landscape ostensibly requires that drift thickness must exceed available bedrock.relief. In addition to maximum bedrock relief, drift thickness is also an important factor in determining which areas of the bedrock surface are masked. If drift is thin or absent it is likely that most parts of the bedrock surface will be revealed in the topography. If drift is moderately thick it is likely that some minor features on the bedrock surface may be obscured while large bedrock hills or valleys are still apparent. If drift thicknesses are great, it is possible that the preglacial surface may be completely masked. Initially it might seem that bedrock relief and drift thickness should be independent factors: erosion on the preglacial bedrock surface is not related to subsequently deposited drift; and the volume of drift in any area is dependent only on load, velocity of flow, and time (Flint, 1971, p. 1119)--all of which are characteristics of glaciers and glaciation rather than the bedrock surface. In the southern Great Lakes region, however, drift thickness and the relief on the bedrock surface appear to be closely related. This relationship is so common that at many locations the thickness of drift is largely determined by the relief on the bedrock surface, although rare exceptions do exist (Brown, 1963, p. 33). At many places the thickest drift is in or above preglacial bedrock valleys (for Illinois see Rorberg, 1950, p. 1011; for Indiana see Wayne, 1956, p. 9, 15, 8: 116; for Michigan see Moore, 1959, or Rieck and Winters, 1979, p. 281; for Ohio see Ver Steeg, 1933, p. 656). This is because the thicker drift associated with localized surface features such as moraines appears to be significantly less important in regions than the increased thicknesses caused by valley filling (Ver Steeg, 1938, p. 656; Wayne, 1956, p. 9). The net effect of valley filling is that wherever drift is present the available relief of the bedrock surface is usually reduced (for examples see Moore, 1959, or Rieck and Winters, 1979, p. 276). A 811 Defining the Bedrock/Topographic Relationship The point at which the bedrock surface is masked must, to some degree, be subjectively defined" This is because there is no single point at which geomorphologists will universally'agree that a bedrock surface is expressed, or for that matter masked, in the topography. Some may require that only evidence of a single phenomenon be present on both surfaces (large rivers flowing on the surface over sections of preglacial bedrock valleys), while others may require that several phenomena be present on the surfaces (large rivers, major tributaries, major uplands and/or lowlands, eth. Both Lobeck (1939, t» 302) and MacClintock (1929) discuss bedrock-control led and drift-controlled glacial landscapes, but neither clearly defines the criteria that are necessary to separate the two classes. Any classification dependent upon these landscape types requires that measures of bedrock/topographic surface similarity and diversity be set, permitting separation of the two classes on the basis of definable criteria. This could be accomplished by a visual analysis of the bedrock and topographic maps, but the comparison would be affected to an unknown degree by map qualities such as legibility and scale, as well as difficulties involved with objectively comparing two three-dimensional surfaces. A more expedient, and probably more objective method of defining;a bedrock-controlled surface is to obtain a point sample from the two surfaces and observe how closely the bedrock and topographic surfaces are correlated. If the two surfaces are related the topographic uplandstand‘valleys will correspond to similar features on the bedrock surface. Accordingly, a correlation coefficient (R) measuring the relationship between elevations taken at equivalent spatial locations (X, Y coordinates) on the two surfaces should increase as the relationship between the form of the bedrock and topographic surfaces (as defined in this study) improves. Given an array of bedrock/topographic correlation coefficients, a line can be drawn somewhere in the array that quantitatively describes a bedrock and/or drift controlled surface. Finally, each of the sample sites can be objectively classified as having either a masked or non- masked bedrock/topographic relationship based on its correlation coefficient. Defining Drift Thickness Spatially, drift thickness is highly variable (Chamberlin and Salisbury, 1907, p. 3116). This is particularly true for many parts of the southern Great Lakes region. For example, in Livingston and Shiawassee counties, Michigan, Moore (1959, p. 22) found drift thicknesses ranging from 0 to 330 feet (101 meters); and in Lapeer County, Michigan, Brown (1963, p. 33) reported glacial sediments ranging from 112 to 1110 feet (13 to 125 meters) thick. Because of variability, care must be exercised when discussing the thickness of drift in an area. For this reason Flint (1971, p. 1119) suggests that "average drift thickness" may offer a more realistic approach for analysis. But even "average drift thickness" can be misleading. It has been shown that drift-filled valleys largely contribute to the local drift thickness variations in a region. If one or more such valleys are located within a study area it is possible that the mean drift thickness value may be misleading because the great amount of drift in the valleys can significantly increase the regional average. Consequently, average drift thickness values should be used for analysis only in areas where bedrock relief is reasonably uniform. Present Evidence ForngDrift Thickness Threshold A recent study by Winters and Rieck (1982) indicates that deeply buried bedrock surfaces may control certain aspects of surface morphology, especially hydrographic features. The implication of the word "deeply" in this context suggests that the overlying drift is substantially thick over the entire surface not just over the buried valleys. Another important implication is that the drift thickness necessary to mask a bedrock surface may be substantially greater than the implied minimum relationship referred to earlier in the Introduction. In an investigation of the bedrock and topographic relationships in a four county area of Michigan, Rhoads (1982) suggested a drift thickness threshold might exist in the area, beyond which bedrock valleys are no longer expressed in the topography. The inference that logically follows from Rhoads' suggestion is that there may be a critical threshold drift thickness for any area that determines the point at which the bedrock surface is no longer expressed topographically; Because the average drift thickness needed to mask a landscape apparently depends on the available relief of the bedrock surface, the logical conclusion is that the masking of the bedrock surface in any area may simply be a function of drift thickness as it relates to bedrock relief. Furthermore, if the masking of a bedrock surface can be simplified into the form of a mathematical function relating drift thickness to bedrock relief, then it may be possible to predict an average drift thickness threshold for any area of the southern Great Lakes region. Statement 2: the Problem The objectives of this study are: --to determine if an average drift thickness threshold is a viable concept within the context of explaining bedrock/topographic relationships in sample glaciated areas of the southern Great Lakes region; and --to quantitatively assess what the critical threshold average drift thickness may be for the sample sites, given only the local bedrock relief. Hypotheses To accomplish the objectives, the following hypotheses are considered: --For any given relief value of the bedrock surface at a sample site in a Wisconsinan glaciated area of the southern Great Lakes region, there is an average drift thickness value above which the topographic expression of the bedrock surface is masked; and --There is a mathematical fUnction which defines this relationship. Operational Definitions For this study "a Wisconsinan glaciated area of the southern Great Lakes region" includes locations in the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio or Michigan that are shown as being glaciated during the Wisconsin(an) on the Glacial Map g_f_’ the 0.8. East 9;; the Rocky Mountains (1959). A."relief value of the bedrock surface" is the maximum amount of relief on the bedrock surface in any study sample area, given the control points available. In cases where elevation control must be expressed as a range CLe. where either value is determined from a contour map), the relief value is defined to be the difference between the median values of the appropriate contour intervals (producing a single value rather than a range, see Figure 1L..In every case the resulting relief value is rounded to the nearest meter. An "average drift thickness value" is the mean derived by using the drift thickness calculated for each control point. As with bedrock relief (where elevation control is expressed as a range), the drift thickness at any control point may be defined as the difference between the median values of the appropriate contour intervals (Figure 1). All average drift thicknesses are rounded to the nearest meter. The definition of a "masked" surface is to some degree subjective, with little precedence in the literature. Therefore, to measure surface similarity/diversity, two separate quantitative procedures are performed (see "Data Manipulation," p. 20 ff.). The results of these operations should provide an initial quantitative C1} Q; .9 o r a... .... / / é. ft». / 7J9 e \ 45> Bedrock Map (contours in feet) Topographic Map Control , Point Bedrock Relief Drift thickness 1. 600 - 575 + 575 = 587.5' 995 - 587.5 = h07o5' 2 20 625 - 600 + 600 = 61205. 1115 - 61205 3 50205. 2 3. 650 - 625 + 625 = 637.5' 995 - 637.5 : 357.5' 2 N. 650 - 625 + 625 = 637.5' 1015 - 637.5 = 377.5' 2 5. 675 - 650 + 650 : 662.5' 1005 - 662.5 = 3H2.5' 2 Total 1987.5' Maximum Bedrock Relief Average Drift Thickness 662.5 - 587.5 = 75' = 22.86 meters = 23 meters 1987.5 : 397.5' : 121.16 meters = 121 meters 5 Figure 1. Calculation of Maximum Bedrock Relief and Average Drift Thickness 11 measure for future studies involving masked and non—masked bedrock/ topographic relationships. CHAPTER II DIFFERENTIATING MASKED AND NON-MASKED SURFACES Distribution 9: the Sample Sites Two groups of sample sites were chosen in the southern Great Lakes region: forty-one "smallfl sample sites, each nine square miles in area, and ten "large" sample sites, each thirty-six square miles in area (see Appendices A and B for exact site locations). The distribution of sites is shown in Figure 2 and Table 1. The number of samples in each state reflects the approximate proportion of the total study area that lies within each state. However, because Michigan is characterized by large areas of comparatively thicker drift, the number of Michigan sites was increased to balance the total number of thin and thick drift sites used in the study (see p. 15). The study sites within each state were chosen using the following criteria (listed in order of importance): 1) A detailed bedrock topography map was available. 2) The contour interval of the bedrock map was 25' or less. 3) Sufficient control was available to permit manual contouring at a 25' contour interval (locally). A) The contours in an area were based on a sufficient number of control points to make the map reliable. 12 l3 0 Small Site 0 Large Site Npproximate Limit of Wisconsinan Glaciation Source: Glacial Map 0! m (1.3. End 0! m Rocky Mine (7”) Figure 2. Distribution of Sample Sites 1“ Table 1. Distribution of Sample Sites STATE # OF SMALL SITES I OF LARGE SITES Wisconsin A 1 Illinois 8 2 Indiana' 9 2 Ohio 8 2 Michigan 12 _3 A1 10 “An additional small site was added to the Indiana group during the study (a total of nine sites rather than the usual eight). The site was included to take full advantage of a detailed, apparently reliable bedrock map covering Wabash and Miami counties. 5) The bedrock relief was neither very low nor very rugged. 6) The study site was geographically separated from other study sites. Problems With Sample Site Selection Finding bedrock maps that meet the criteria listed above was difficult. In many instances available maps are limited to those showing the location and elevation of the bedrock surface, thus requiring manual contouring. Other maps display only contours (no control points indicated). In these cases map quality is unknown. Finding appropriate maps, and thus potential sample sites from Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio was especially difficult, while doing so for Illinois and Michigan was only slightly easier. As a result, a few 15 locations with less than optimum qualities were used to fill a state's quota. In virtually every case these were large samples, which could reduce the accuracy of the large site tests. There are many site selection problems because accurate and detailed information about the elevation of the bedrock surface is lacking for most localities in the southern Great Lakes region. In areas where the drift is thin many wells penetrate bedrock and thus, local bedrock control is good. But as drift thickens, data on the uppermost bedrock rapidly declines because penetration of its surface is generally limited to only the deepest wells. At some places where an oil field has been discovered, a dense spacing of control points is available in a thick drift area, but rarely do these sites attain the scale necessary to permit accurate mapping of a township-size area of the bedrock surface. To test the hypotheses, it is preferable to locate most of the sample sites at places where the amount of drift approaches the suspected drift thickness threshold. As a result, thick drift sites were used whereveriavailable. This dictated that most of the sites were chosen from a very restricted group of possible locations limited by the quality and accuracy of the bedrock maps. Although care was used to insure that the best available bedrock maps were used, it should be remembered that the results of this study can be no more accurate than the quality of the bedrock maps that were utilized. Sample Site Size Differences It was necessary to use two sizes of sample sites to test the effect of sample area on the surface correlations, because: 16 --theoretically3 there are minimum and maximum spatial thresholds when comparing bedrock and topographic surfaces. If the amount of sampled space is too small, there is a much greater likelihood that a comparison of the two surfaces will produce highly correlated results--whether the regional surfaces are similar or not. However, if the amount of space is too large, it is likely that the two surfaces will never be highly correlated except when the relationship is obvious (i.e. two planar surfaces, etc.). --spatially3 drift thickness is often highly variable. As a result, average drift thicknesses may become less meaningful as the sample site area increases (see pp. 6-7). --published bedrock surface maps with the necessary detail (contour intervals of 25' or less) are often limited to small areas, such as a county or topographic quadrangle. Furthermore, even in these limited areas adequate control of the bedrock topography is generally restricted to small sections within the region where several wells have been drilled. Thus, sample locations that are township-size or smaller are preferable to large sites in order to maintain data reliablility. The total area covered by the small sites (”1 sites X 9 mi2 = 369 miz) is approximately equivalent to the total area covered by the large sites (10 sites X 362 = 360 miz). The nine square mile difference is due to the addition of the extra small site in Indiana. The use of equivalent total areas is designed to enhance comparison of the two site sizes. 17 Sampligg Control For each small sample site (9 miz), forty-nine control points were sampled in an aligned systematic manner» Both topographic and bedrock elevations were recorded for each point (Appendices A and B) and the statistics calculated (Appendices C and D). The identification number and location of the sample points in each study site are shown in Figure 3. 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section Lines 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Figure 3. Small Site Sample Location and Identification Numbers In each large sample site (36 miz) the control points were set at the same distance intervals as in the small sites, thus requiring 169 points per sample. The identification number and location of the sample points are shown in Figure A. The choice of forty-nine sample points is based on the results of a study by Morrison (1971). Although the number of sample points (sample size) is not the most critical factor which causes errors in 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27262930313233343536373639 41 42 43 44 4s 46 47 46 49 so 51 52 65 79 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 :66 69 90 91 92 96 94 95 96 97 96 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 106 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 116 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 126 129 190 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 136 139 140. 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 146 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 186 187 186 169 Figure 14. Large Site Sample Location and Identification Numbers 19 isarithmic map usage (Morrison, 1971, p. 37; pp. 52-54), a sample of forty-nine points appears to be the most economical sample size choice for spatial modeling that provides a reasonably high accuracy for both simple and complex isarithmic surfaces (Table 2). Table 2. A COMPARISON OF SAMPLE SIZES: Average Standard Deviation of the Residuals, s,‘ and Correlation Coefficient, r, by Sample Size (Morrison, 1971, p. 54) Sample Surface In Surface 12. Surface III Surface I! size 6 r s r s r s r 25 1437’ .85 4599’ .95 312$ .39 212$ .52 49 857 .93 4317 .99 181 .62 202 .61 100 580 .95 3004 .99 189 .85 215 .54 1119 395 .98 3704 .99 184 ' .87 208 .53 'The average standard deviation of the residuals is given in this table as a percentage of the respective standard deviation to enhance comparison. uSurface numbers refer to trend surface orders. Somewhat less desirable was the choice of an aligned systematic sampling pattern (Table 3%. Compared to any unaligned sampling pattern, the aligned systematic method is less satisfactory (an exception is the Surface III sample) for the accurate portrayal of an isarithmic surface (Morrison, 1971, pp. 40-45). However, the ability to accurately locate control points on two maps with different scales 20 is so greatly facilitated by the use of surveyed section lines that the unaligned sampling patterns are simply not feasible. Table 3. .A COMPARISON OF SAMPLING PATTERNS: Average Standard Deviation of the Residuals, s,’ and Correlation Coefficient, r, by Sample Size (Morrison, 1971, p. 28) Sample Surface I Surface II_ Surface III Surface I! type" s r s r s r s r AR 65465 .33 341521 .68 7201 .17 3361 .34 ASR 1325 .94 10186 .99 293 .66 233 .46 AS 1038 .96 5885 .99 159 .82 224 .55 UR 53 .96 16 .99 199 .71 174 .60 USR 31 .97 28 .99 91 .82 153 .66 US 18 .98 4 .99 54 .89 160 .64 'The average standard deviation of the residuals is given in this table as a percentage of the respective standard deviation to enhance comparison. "Sample type codes: A S aligned, U : unaligned, systematic, R : random Data Manipulation All of the steps that follow'were necessary to determine if the bedrock surface at each sample site is masked in the topography. Because a comparison of two three-dimensional surfaces is not well documented at the present time, the surface comparisons are exploratory in nature. Consequently, two statistical techniques were 21 used to compare the bedrock and topographic surfaces--in the hope that the two methods would provide reasonably complementary results. Unmodified Surface Correlations For each site a simple Pearson Correlation was run using the paired values of the topographic and bedrock surfaces. This was accomplished using the SPSS package on the Michigan State University computer system. The results are shown in column 3 of Tables 4 and 5. Modified Surface Correlations First, second, third, fourth and fifth order trend surfaces were fitted to both the bedrock and topographic surfaces as defined by the 49 or 169 control points. The "Trend" and "Trdgrid" subprograms of the GEOSYS statistical and graphics package on the Michigan State University computer system were used to generate the trend fits and the associated statistics. For each bedrock and topographic surface, the highest degree trend surface was used in the subsequent statistics provided that the incremental percent of variance explained by each additional degree was at least one percent. The one percent incremental cutoff point is suggested by Harbaugh and Merriam (1968, p. 74), and was used by Rhoads (1982) with satisfactory results. However, in two cases an exception was made to this rule. In both cases a lower order fit dropped below the one percent threshold, but the variance explained by the trend surface fit of the next higher order jumped by more than ten percent, suggesting that the higher order was explaining a substantial amount of the trend (rather than noiseL 22 Table 4. Small Site Bedrock/Topographic Correlation Coefficientsz Bedrock Surface-- Original Original Trend Trend Topo. Surface-- Original Trend Original Trend Site Final R Class R Class R Class R Class NUmber Class 1 N .2391 N .2408 N .2247 N .2463 N 2 C .8547 C .8874 C .8789 C .9297 C 3 C .7106 C .6948 C .7172 C .7103 C 4 C .5205 C .5369 C .5049 C .5575 C 5 N .3111 N .3279 N .3142 N .3569 N 6 C .4986 C .4754 C .4780 C .5029 C 7 N .2816 N .3322 N .2930 N .3350 N 8 N .2636 N .2671 N .2787 N .2842 N 9 N .1568 N .1822 N .1784 N .1846 N 10 C .6173 C .6191 C .6256 C .6489 C 11 N .1833 N .1920 N .1916 N .1985 N 12 N -.2539 N NA -.1863 N NA 13 N .2103 N .2164 N .1948 N .2354 N 14 N .3087 N .3660 N .3760 N .4122 N 15 N .3689 N .3432 N .3353 N .3584 N 16 C .8043 C .8149 C .7830 C .8455 C 17 C .6722 C .6737 C .6776 C .6807 C 18 N -.0642 N -.0706 N -.0600 N -.0644 N 19 C .4598 C .5427 C .4731 C .5527 C 20 C .7923 C .7679 C .7585 C .8380 C 21 N .2137 N .1982 N .1915 N .2117 N 22 N -.3010 N -.3363 N -.3168 N -.3555 N 23 C .4775 C .5104 C .5103 C .5470 C 24 C .5565 C .5784 C .5766 C .5916 C 25 N .1332 N .1405 N .1394 N .1522 N 26 N .2149 N .2243 N .2304 N .2484 N 27 N -.0220 N -.0265 N -.0257 N -.0292 N 28 N -03385 N -03350 N -03703 N -03606 N 29 C .5547 C NA .4716 C NA 30 C .5889 C .6300 C .6642 C .6933 C 31 C .5077 C .4953 C .4483 C .5603 C 32 N .0053 N -.1317 N NA NA 33 C .5133 C .5694 C .5327 C .6162 C 34 N .0339 N .0919 N .0787 N .0967 N 35 N .0818 N .0655 N .0684 N .0741 N 36 N -.2262 N -.2608 N -.2486 N -.2772 N 37 N .3120 N .3756 N NA NA 38 N -03669 N -0u029 N -03883 N -0u172 N 39 N .0372 N .0343 N .0330 N .0397 N 40 C .5760 C .6146 C .7154 C .7370 C 41 C .7807 C .7461 C .8412 C .8196 C Site Classes: N = Not Correlated; C = Correlated; NA = Not Applicable 23 Table 5. Large Site Bedrock/Topographic Correlation Coefficients Bedrock Surface-- Original Original Trend Trend Topo. Surface-- Original Trend Original Trend Site Final R Class R Class R Class R Class Number Class 1 C .8860 C .8887 C .9166 C .9411 C 2 C .5097 C .5035 C .5599 C .6096 C 3 N -.0738 N NA -.1448 N NA 4 Not used .3037 C .1868 N NA NA 5 N -.1482 N -.1508 N -.1439 N -.1508 N 6 N -.3380 N -.3730 N -.4820 N -.5015 N 7 N .1178 N .1249 N .1475 N .1556 N 9 C .3541 C .3332 C .3742 C .4487 C 10 C .4302 C .4103 C .4564 C .5232 C Site Classes: N = Not Correlated (masked) C = Correlated (not masked) NA = Net Applicable9 The 99.9 percent confidence level is at approximately R = .2000 “The correlation coefficients of the sites marked "NA" are not listed because the trend surface results were rejected due to poor fits. 2The 99.9 percent confidence level is at approximately R = .4300 24 After determining the most appropriate trend surface representation of each surface, several correlations were run using the trend output matrices. In each case the subprogram "Trdgrid" produced a trend output matrix containing an array of trend surface values (Z-values) representing the "new" surface elevations at each sample point. As before, the SPSS package was used to perform the correlations and generate the statistics. For each site, three bedrock/topographic correlations were performed, including: --a correlation between the trend of the bedrock surface and the trend of the topographic surface; --a correlation between the trend of the bedrock surface and the original topographic surface; and --a correlation between the original bedrock surface and the trend of the topographic surface. All of the correlation coefficients produced by using the trends fitted to each surface were then tabulated alongside the correlation coefficients produced by using the unmodified surfaces (Tables 4 and 5, pp. 22-23L. Since an accepted confidence limit does not exist which differentiates masked bedrock/topographic relationships from unmasked bedrock/topographic relationships, a series of procedures was used to establish such a limit for the purposes of this study. The only predetermined element in this search was that the limit should be within the correlation coefficients at or above a ninety percent confidence level. This forces all bedrock/topographic relationships 25 classified as being non-masked to be clearly correlated, even if the correlation coefficients themselves might appear to be insignificant. First, each group of "percent of variance explained" figures for the trend surface fits was examined for extraneous valuesp(commonly referred to as "blow-ups"). ‘Nithin each group, those figures with Z-values greater than two standard deviations from the mean were eliminated from the group. As a result, two of the topographic and two of the bedrock surfaces were eliminated. In these four cases the extreme values were the result of very low ”percent of variance explained" figures. Secondly, each group of correlation coefficients was examined for gaps in the numerical values, more commonly known as "natural breaks." A data classification program (written by Dr. Groop) available in the Computer Room, Department of Geography, Michigan State, was used to perform this step. The natural breaks within each group were compared to see if any gaps were common to all groups. Within the main spread of the small.site correlation values only'one natural break.occurred in every group and surprisingly, it consistently fell at the same point in all of the groups. Fortunately, this gap was above the ninety percent 1evel--at exactly the 99.9 percent confidence level. Consequently, the limit marking the difference between a masked and non-masked bedrock/topographic relationship is defined to be a correlation coefficient between the two surfaces that is exactly 99:9 percent significant. Using this break as the classification limit, each small site was then classified as being either masked or non-masked. Remarkably, 26 ‘ggggy.small site was classified in.the same category no matter what method was used to correlate the bedrock and topographic surfaces (using trends or not). In part this occurred because the principal gap in the correlation coefficients was so great. In any case, the results are clear: the members of each group have distinctly different and separable bedrock/topographic relationships--which more than likely reflect the differences between areas with and without bedrock controlled topographies. The same procedure was used to classify the ten large sites, with the exception that a classification procedure was not needed to search for natural breaks in the data. One of the topographic trends and one of the bedrock trends were eliminated because the coefficients fell significantly below the mean of the group. Although the 99.9 percent confidence level was not as clear-cut as with the small sites, it was the best limit availablergiven the wide distribution.of'correlation coefficients and the very limited sample size. Using this classification limit, the large sites were then classified as having a masked or non-masked bedrock/topographic relationship. One of the ten large sites (site number four) had widely-fluctuating correlation coefficients and could be classified as being both masked and non-masked, depending on whether a trend was fitted to the surfaces or not. As a result, the site was eliminated from the sample, leaving only nine large sites, four of which were unquestionably classified as having;a masked bedrock/topographic relationship. 27 The geographic distribution of the masked and non-masked sites is shown in Figure 5. Using this site classification, no clear geographic patterns are evident for the region as a whole, or for sections of the area divided on the basis of glacial lobes. As a result, it must be tentatively concluded that the masking of a bedrock surface is not simply a function of geographic location. Discussion of the Two Correlation Techniques Prior to this study, it was expected that the traditional method of simple correlation would probably offer the most appropriate test of fit between surfaces, particularly if the surfaces in the sample sites were simple or extremely complex. This is because no new information is generated by perfectly modeling a simple surface, and extremely complex surfaces cannot be reasonably replicated using a fifth degree trend surface. However, trend surface analysis was included because it offers a methodological alternative that.is‘well suited for comparing moderately complex surfaces where a degree of generalization is acceptable or desired. Although it was not designed to be a smoothing technique (Norcliffe, 1969, p. 341), in the case of terrain where moraines or other glacial features can produce a hummocky surface, trend surface can determine the broad underlying trends at each increasingly complex mathematical order'(Harbaugh and Merriam, 1968, p. 87). Using the statistics provided, one may then be able to disregard the "hummocky" effect of the moraines in order to compare the overall fit of the topographic and bedrock surfaces. 28 O Masked Site * Non-Masked Site ”~ Approximate Boundary of Woodtordian Lobes -—~ Approximate Limit of Wisconsinan Glaciation Figure 5. Distribution of Masked and Non-Masked Sites 29 Broadly speaking, a pair of trend surfaces may be compared in three ways. First, the magnitude of the undulations on each surface may be compared. This is accomplished by observing either the trend surface values (Z-values) or the residuals at each increasingly complex trend order. Secondly, the order of the trend surfaces at equivalent levels of "variance explained" can be compared to determine the relative complexity of the surfacesm Finally, the trend surfaces may be compared to see if the rises and falls.of each undulation are spatially related (i.e. if they occur in the same place with respect to X and Y coordinates). The amount of agreement is shown by the correlation coefficients (R) (Doornkamp, 1972, g» 253). Of the three methods, the last method is the only one that directly applies to the hypotheses of this study. Surprisingly, for all of the small sites and nine of the ten large sites the use of trend surfaces fitted to the topographic or bedrock sample points did not significantly affect the correlations between the bedrock and topographic surfaces nor the site classifications. Consequently, it appears that correlations between the bedrock and topographic surfaces are not significantly altered by comparing trend surfaces modeling either surface, and thus, only simple correlation techniques are needed to examine the bedrock/ topographic relationship. CHAPTER III HYPOTHESIS TESTING When comparing two characteristics of each sample site (e.g. average drift thickness and bedrock relief) with the presence or absence of a masked bedrock/topographic relationship, it is first necessary to form a single variable out of the two characteristics. This is accomplished by calculating a series of ratios using the two qualities (i.e. average drift thickness/bedrock relief). Then, a Mann-Whitney U test may be used to determine whether the two sets of ratios, grouped on the basis of site classification (masked or non- masked), represent statistically "different" sets of ratios. In each case, the test results are based on confidence limits set at a 95$ level using a two-tailed hypothesis. The results and conclusions of the hypotheses tests are listed in the "ratio" sections that follow (see p. 35; p. 44). In addition to the hypotheses, the data provided the opportunity to briefly review several related topics. Questions considered include: --Is topographic relief in the southern Great Lakes region generally lessthan bedrock relief as a result of glaciation? 30 31 --Does maximum or average bedrock relief vary between sites classified as being masked and non-masked? (See Appendix E for the method of calculating average relief in this study.) --Does maximum or average topographic relief vary between sites classified as being masked and non-masked? --Does maximum or average drift thickness vary between sites classified as being masked and non-masked? Small Site Tests The Effect of Glaciation 92_Topographic Relief It is an assumption of this study that modern topographic relief in the southern Great Lakes region is less than the preglacial relief on the Pliocene-Pleistocene paleosurface. In other words, multiple glaciation has tended to reduce available relief within the study area. This assumption may be tested by comparing the maximum and average topographic relief values to the maximum and average bedrock relief values respectively, to see if a major difference exists. Findings show that topographic relief is less than bedrock relief for sixty-eight to seventy-eight percent of the sample sites, depending on whether maximum or average relief values are used. Therefore, it appears that multiple glaciation did reduce surface relief. However, two qualifications need to be made. First, the bedrock surface that underlies many of the sample sites is not likely to be the unmodified remnant of a Pliocene-Pleistocene surface. Inl fact, special circumstances would be required to shield the bedrock 32 surface from the erosional effects of’the multiple glacial advances. Furthermore, it is possible that some of the bedrock relief may be attributed to erosion during post-Nebraskan ice-free episodes (Horberg and Anderson, 1956, p. 103; Wright and Frey, 1965, p. 45). As a result, it may be erroneous to conclude (even for small sample sites) that the present bedrock surface represents the terrain that existed Just prior to the glaciations. Secondly, for the purposes of this test the sample could be biased-~potential sample areas with very low or very rugged relief were avoided. Therefore, it is possible that the samples used in this test may not be representative of the bedrock relief for the entire southern Great Lakes region. Maximum and Average Bedrock Relief Maximum bedrock relief is not statistically different for sites with masked bedrock/topographic relationships and for sites with non- masked relationships (Table 6%. The same holds true using average bedrock relief. These results indicate that the relief on the bedrock surface is not significantly different in areas where the bedrock surface is masked and those areas where the bedrock surface is revealed. This suggests, then, that bedrock relief and the masking of such a surface are independent factors. It should be remembered, however, that one of the criteria for choosing sample sites was: "the bedrock relief is neither very flat nor very rugged" (p. 14). Because this rule was closely followed virtually’no samples with bedrock relief extremes are represented in 33 Table 6. Small Site Mann-Whitney U Test Results Site Characteristic Z' g::;:::iigy Maximum Bedrock Relief .4774 .6331 Average Bedrock Relief .1458 .8841 Maximum Topographic Relief 2.6382 .0083 Average Topographic Relief 2.5231 .0116 Maximum Drift Thickness 1.9323 .0533 Average Drift Thickness 2.5160 .0119 Drift/Maximum Bedrock Relief Ratio 2.5934 .0095 Drift/Average Bedrock Relief Ratio 2.2493 .0245 “The 2 values are reported as positive numbers. These results are based on a division of the sample sites into groups of 17 correlated and 24 non-correlated sites. 34 the observations. As a result, the discovery that bedrock relief and the masking of the bedrock surface are independent factors may only apply to areas having a moderate bedrock relief (ixh no 100 meter bedrock valleys, eth. Maximum and Average Topographic Relief Results of the tests also indicate that maximum topographic relief is statistically different between sites that are masked and those that are not (Table 6, p. 33). The same is true for average topographic relief, In both cases topographic relief is greater where the form of the bedrock surface is revealed in the topography than where it is masked. . This test clearly suggests that topographic relief tends to be greater where the thickness of drift is insufficient to mask the bedrock surface. Similarly, where the drift thickness is sufficient to mask the bedrock surface, the topography tends to exhibit comparatively less relief. Since all of the sites were chosen without knowledge of the local topography, it is reasonable to assume that the forty-one topographic surfaces are representative of the present landscape in the southern Great Lakes region. Given that a substantial portion of the sample sites were chosen in "thick drift areas" where constructional glacial landforms may dominate the topography (moraines, kames, eskers, ethh it seems quite remarkable that the rugged relief of such sites does not significantly affect the results of this test (given the rigorous confidence limitsL. Therefore, it can be tentatively concluded that a substantial portion of the relatively greater topographic relief in 35 the Wisconsinan glaciated areas of the southern Great Lakes region may be the result of bedrock influence. Maximum and Average Drift Thickness Analysis shows that maximum drift thickness is not statistically different for sites with masked bedrock/topographic relationships and for sites with non-masked relationships (Table 6, p..33L. This conclusion is somewhat tentative, though, because the results are significant at the 94.6 percent level--Just slightly below the 95% acceptance/rejection threshold. In contrast, when average drift thickness is tested, it is clearly statistically'different for masked and non-masked sites. These results indicate that average drift thickness tends to be greater for sites with a masked bedrock/ topographic relationship than a non-masked relationship. Although the evidence is inconclusive, it appears that glacial drift tends to be thicker at sites where the bedrock surface is masked. This would support the assumption that masking occurs only in thick drift areas. But because the findings are not conclusive, it appears likely that masking of the bedrock surface is a function of more than Just thick drift. Drift/Maximum Bedrock Relief Ratios and Drift/Average Bedrock Relief Ratios The hypotheses proposed in Chapter I were tested by using a composite variable created by dividing average drift thickness by the maximum (or average) bedrock relief for each site. The resultant ratio is indicative of the drift-bedrock relief relationship at each sample site (see Appendices C and D). 36 Using either maximum or average bedrock relief as a measure of bedrock roughness at the sample sites, the tests clearly show that the ratios are statistically’different for masked and non-masked sample sites (Table 6, p. 33%. The tests also indicate that the drift/bedrock relief ratios tend to be greater where the form of the bedrock surface is masked in the topography. Consequently, the first hypothesis is accepted: ”For any given relief value of the bedrock surface at a sample site in a Wisconsinan glaciated area of the southern Great Lakes region there is an average drift thickness value above which the topographic expression of the bedrock surface is masked." Determining the Mathematical Relationships Corroboration of the primary hypothesis indicates that the bedrock/topographic relationship can be mathematically'defined. Because of the limited sample size, the approximate mathematical relationships were determined graphically, Although the number of samples is limited, an obvious difference in the drift/relief values for the two classes of sites appears. Because the bedrock relief for any area can be defined as either maximum or average bedrock relief, the threshold predicted by the hypothesis was determined for both definitions. The equation defining the threshold of average drift thickness and maximum bedrock relief appears linear (Figure 6). It can be stated as follows: For a sampled area of 9 miz, if 37 130- 120- 110-1 1”“ Average Drift Thickness (Meters) 10-/ a» a 4; I r l l l r T 0 10 20 so do so to m an 8-1 d 8 MaXimum Bedrock Relief (Meters) . Non-Correlated Surfaces (Masked) a Correlated Surfaces (Non-Masked) Figure 6. Graph of Average Drift Thickness and Maximum Bedrock Relief 38 Average Drift Thickness ) Maximum Begrock Relief + 10 meters then the form of the bedrock surface will not be evident in the topography (it is masked). Furthermore, this equation suggests that below a critical value of 20 meters, average drift thickness must exceed maximum bedrock relief for masking to occur, while above 20 meters average drift thickness can be less than the maximum bedrock relief and masking may still take place. The equation defining the threshold of average drift thickness and average bedrock relief may be linear or curved, depending on whether part, or all of the sample sites are used (Figures 7 and 8). If the threshold is defined within the neighborhood of most of the observations (average drift thicknesses between 15 and 35 meters) the equation can be stated as: For a sampled area of 9 miz, if Average Drift Thickness > Average Bedrock Relief + 8 meters {Given that: 15 meters < Average Drift Thickness < 35 meters} then the form of the bedrock surface will not be evident in the topography (it is masked). But, if the equation is defined using all of the observations, it is possible that it may define a curve rather than a line. Of course, the data are quite insufficient to support a curve equation--especially' beyond the 15 and 35 meter average drift limits, but an equation approximately defining the threshold is suggested. It takes the form: Average Drift Thickness (Meters) 39 130- 120-1 110‘ 1”- ”7 30‘ 10-/ 0 I I I I I I 10 20 30 40 50 U 70 N .0 ‘” Average Bedrock Relief (Meters) . Non-Correlated Surfaces (Masked) a Correlated Surfaces (Non-Masked) Figure 7. Graph of Average Drift Thickness and Average Bedrock Relief--Linear Solution 130- 120- "0" 1”- Average Drift Thickness (Meters) 40 Figure 8. I I I I I I I 10 20 IO ‘0 50 N 70 8—1 8---( d 8 Average Bedrock Relief (Meters) . Non-Correlated Surfaces (Masked) a Correlated Surfaces (Non-Masked) Graph of Average Drift Thickness and Average Bedrock Relief--Curve Solution 41 For a sampled area of 9 miz, if Average Drift Thickness > 60 - 59 e-.032(Average Bedrock Relief) {where "e" refers to a natural logarithm base} (all values are in meters) then the form of the bedrock surface will not be evident in the topography (it is masked). This equation suggests that a theoretical average drift thickness limit may exist where average drift thickness approaches sixty meters. Large Site Tests Because the number of large samples is limited to Just nine sites, it would be unwise to base any of the cOnclusions of this study on the tests that follow. The purpose of including large sites was to see if sample site size significantly affects the results of this study. Only a summary of the large site results are given below. For more details about each test, refer to the equivalent sections in the "Small Site Tests" section (p. 31 ff.) of this chapter. 1h_e_ E_ft_‘_e_c_:t_ o_f Glaciation 9g Topographic Relief Topographic relief is less than bedrock relief for eight or nine of the ten sample sites, depending on whether average or maximum relief values are used. The percentage of large sites with reduced topographic relief (eighty or ninety percent) is slightly higher than the small site percentages, keeping in mind that each large site alters the results by ten percent. 42 Maximum and Average Bedrock Relief Maximum bedrock relief is not statistically'different for sites with masked bedrock/topographic relationships and for sites with non- masked relationships (Table 7). The same was true using average bedrock relief. This is identical to the findings of the small site tests. Maximum and Averagg Topographic Relief Results of the tests indicate that maximum topographic relief is statistically different between sites with masked bedrock/topographic relationships and sites with non-masked relationships (Table 7). The same holds true for average topographic relief, In both cases topographic relief is greater when the form of the bedrock surface is revealed in the topography than when it is masked. Maximum and Average Drift Thickness Maximum drift thickness is not statistically different for sites with masked bedrock/topographic relationships and for sites with non- masked relationships (Table 7L.The same holds true using average drift thickness. These results differ from the results for the small site tests. One explanation of the difference may be the less meaningful nature of a large site average (or maximum) drift thickness value (see pp. 6-7). Because large sites encompass a township-size area (which is rarely devoid of at least some rugged relief), and adequate control on the bedrock surface limited the site selection to Just a few possibilities, it was frequently impossible to meet the criteria 43 Table 7. Large Site Mann-Whitney U Test Results Two-Tailed Site Characteristic 2' Probability Maximum Bedrock Relief .0000 1.0000 Average Bedrock Relief .1230 .9021 Maximum Topographic Relief 1.9596 .0500 Average Topographic Relief 2.0996 .0358 Maximum Drift Thickness .4899 .6242 Average Drift Thickness .7379 .4606 Drift/Maximum Bedrock Relief Ratio .2449 .8065 Drift/Average Bedrock Relief Ratio .2449 .8065 *The 2 values are reported as positive numbers. These results are based on a division of the sample sites into groups of 5 correlated and 4 non-correlated sites. 44 requiring sites to have "bedrock relief that is neither very flat nor very rugged." Consequently, because drift thickness is primarily related to bedrock relief, several large sites may have average drift thickness values that are not representative of the sample area. Drift/Maximum Bedrock Relief Ratios and Drift/Average Bedrock Relief Ratios Using either maximum or average bedrock relief as a measure of bedrock roughness at the sample sites, the results of the large site tests differ from the results for the small site tests. Surprisingly, the drift/relief ratios are not statistically different for masked and non-masked sites. Consequently, the principle hypothesis must be reJected for large sample sites, indicating that: "For any given relief value of the bedrock surface at a sample site in a Wisconsinan glaciated area of the southern Great Lakes region there is no average drift thickness value above which the topographic expression of the bedrock surface is masked!‘ In addition, because a definable relationship does not exist, it would clearly be impossible to find a descriptive mathematical function. Several reasons can be suggested for the differences in the small and large site drift/bedrock relief ratio results. The primary reason involves the meaningfulness of the large site drift thickness values. The results of the drift thickness tests suggest that there may be problems with the efficacy of the large site drift values. Because the ratios are calculated using drift thickness values, it is possible that the ratios are simply not useful in determining drift/bedrock relief relationships. 45 Secondly, control on the bedrock surface for many of the large sites was substantially poorer than that for small sites. Because of the problems associated with sample site selection (pp. 14-15), it is possible that several large sites may have areas where the form of the bedrock surface is significantly different than what is shown on available maps. Furthermore, because there are only ten large sample sites, it was impossible to differentiate masked and non-masked locations accurately. In accordance with the small site results, the line was drawn at the 99.9 percent confidence level--but the large site data are insufficient to support or reJect this classification. As a result, the very foundation of the large site tests is dubious. Finally, if one is willing to dismiss the effect of the preceding problems, sample site size may indeed influence the results of this study. Obviously, the ability to discern whether site size plays a maJor role in the results is complicated by the many problems associated with using large samples. Even though all of the problems involved with using the large sample sites were recognized in advance of the data collection stage, there was simply no way to avoid the problems (e.g. a lack of site possibilities, poor bedrock control, sites with extreme relief variations, etc.) and still include large samples in the study. CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION The principle discovery of this study is that the topographic expression of bedrock surfaces is limited by a drift thickness threshold that is dependent on local bedrock relief. The implications of this discovery can be divided into two broad categories: geographic and geologic. Geographic Implications The primary geographic implication is that topography in the southern Great Lakes region cannot be explained solely in terms of exogenetic (surface) processes--even if the bedrock surface is deeply buried. It has been shown that present topography is substantially' influenced by the bedrock surface below the drift/bedrock relief threshold and it may be influenced to some lesser degree above the threshold. As a result, future analyses of landscape development in the "thick drift areas" of the southern Great Lakes region should consider more than Just glaciers and glacial processes-~they must also consider the form of the bedrock surface and the thickness of the overlying drift. 46 47 Geologic Ipplications As with many geographical investigations, this study only examined two dimensions in detail (i.e. the variation of surface elevations in X, Y speech. The other dimensions--the third (vertical arrangement of drift sediments) and fourth (time), generally fall within the realm of geology. Whereas the results of this study make it possible to define the masking/non-masking relationship and locate sites of each type, the mechanisms and processes actually causing the relationship are only hypothesized (Rieck and Winters, 1979, pp. 285-287). The fact that a drift/bedrock relationship exists and can be defined suggests that the mechanism(s) causing the relationship may also be identified. Such processes, if discovered, might be unusual in that the presence of the buried organics in Michigan tend to occur in interglacial or interstadial lowlands (Rieck and Winters, 1979, pp. 286-287; Rhoads, 1982), suggesting that the processes have operated in some areas despite repeated glacial advances. And yet, whatever processes are causing the relationship can be overcome by simply increasing drift thickness. »If primary evidence for these processes exists, it most likely will be found through a careful stratigraphic analysis of the sediments in both masked and non-masked areas 0 Evaluation g£_Methodology Several of the statistical techniques used in this study are ideally'suited for this type of analysis. In particular, the use of 48 trend surface techniques to compare two surfaces should be noted. The comparison of trend surfaces works best if there is clear reason to believe that two surfaces are or should be related. In geography, few applications are more appropriate than the one used in this study--the relationship of the bedrock surface and the topographic surface directly above it. Although the comparison of trend surfaces did not prove independently significant, the fact that trend surface techniques complemented the findings of the traditional surface correlations suggests that there may be a valuable secondary application of trend surfaces in similar research proJects. Of the other statistical techniques employed, it appears that the sampling pattern densities, the correlation routines, the natural breaks classification routine, and the Mann-Whitney U tests were appropriate and adequate for the tasks being attempted. In addition, there is no reason to doubt that the 95$ confidence level for the acceptance of the hypotheses is too rigorous or lenient of a standard. The weakest link in the study is also the only one beyond direct control--the compilation of the bedrock maps that are used. It was quickly discovered that bedrock topography maps of the southern Great Lakes region are: 1) difficult to locate; 2) of widely varying physical and cartographic quality; and 3) may be of questionable accuracy. The first two problems are not issues which would be difficult to remedy. The former is because most bedrock topography maps are 49 produced as a supplementary item for related research (i.e. a gravity study, a groundwater study, etc.) and are not listed separately in most geological survey publication indexes, while the latter is due to differing standards among the state geological surveys (which seem to reflect how each survey regards its data distribution responsibilities). The third problem, however, will continue to complicate research on Pleistocene-related topics in the southern Great Lakes region for several decades. The final quality of bedrock maps depends not only on the compilation and cartographic abilities of those who construct the maps, but also on the ability of the drillers to accurately report their location, elevation and depth to bedrock. Variations in bedrock surface lithology, experience of the drillers/loggers and type of drilling rig used often complicate this procedure. The only practical way to guard against such problems is to carefully examine potential bedrock maps and screen inferior or inaccurate maps. This was attempted by listing all of the available bedrock maps meeting the standard requirements (i.e. 25' contour interval, sufficient numbers of control points, etc.), and then choosing the maps with the best apparent quality.3 3Such lists were not compiled for Indiana or Michigan. In both of these states I relied on the expertise of Mr. Henry Gray, Indiana State Geological Survey, and Dr. Richard Rieck, Western Illinois University, respectively, to choose areas of the bedrock surface where the control and quality of the bedrock maps is best. 50 Suggestions for Further Research The simple structure of this study could be easily applied to many related problems, including a more in-depth analysis of the bedrock/topographic relationship. For example: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) This analysis might be repeated with large sites scaled four and/or five miles on a side. The township-size samples created numerous problems simply because areas with adequate bedrock control of this scale are difficult to find. Reducing the size of the large sites would certainly facilitate examining the effect of site size on the bedrock/topographic relationship. The theoretical average drift thickness limit (60 meters) that is suggested by the curve equation (see p. 41) could be investigated. This might be done by exploring the drift/bedrock relief relationship in areas where bedrock relief is great and the overlying drift is at least 60 meters thick; Unfortunately, in areas where drift thicknesses reach these magnitudes, the control on the bedrock surface is usually crude at best. This analysis could be performed in other glaciated areas of North America and Europe to see if a drift/bedrock relief threshold exists for these areas as well. This analysis might be performed for glaciated landscapes older than Wisconsinan. For example, it would be interesting to see if a drift/bedrock relief threshold exists for Illinoian glaciated landscapes. This analysis could be performed in a non-glaciated landscape, such as an aggradational river plain. It would be interesting to 6) 51 know if the sediments, processes, or both are responsible for the surface expression of a bedrock surface in a deeply buried landscape. The characteristics of those sites that were anomalously classified as having a non-masked relationship (i.e. in locations where the drift thickness far exceeded the threshold) could be examined. It would be interesting to determine if a bedrock/ topographic relationship really exists at such a site, or if the arrangement of features on the surfaces is purely coincidental. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SMALL SITE LOCATIONS AND SURFACE ELEVATIONS 52 SMALL SITE NUMBER 1 Rock County, Wisconsin Site Location: Sections 13-15, 22-27, T.4N, R.14E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 15, T.4N, R.14E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) 0.1. (ft.) Lima Center, WI 1960/71 10 Bedrock Data Source: LeRoux, E. F., 1963, Geology and Ground Water Resources o_f_ Rock County, Wisconsin, U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 1619-x, Plate 4. Topographic Surface Values 865 900 910 885 885 905 884 911 883 915 885 895 895 885 888 895 881 885 895 895‘ 871 885 895 890 885 875 875 870 876 895 915 890 890 875 858 910 925 935 910 945 925 885 930 925 980 945 970 915 953 Bedrock Surface Values 865 900 900 885 885 900 884 888 883 900 885 888 888 875 838 850 863 875 888 875 863 813 816 813 825 838 838 838 825 816 825 825 838 838 838 875 850 850 850 850 863 863 913 900 875 863 863 863 863 53 SMALL SITE NUMBER 2 Dane County, Wisconsin Site Location: Sections 4-9, 16-18, T.8N, R.11E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 6, T.8N, R.11E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Sun Prairie, WI 1962/82 10 Bedrock Data Source: Cline, D. R" 1965, Geology and Ground-Water Resources 23 Dane County, Wisconsin, U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 1779-0, Plate 5. Topographic Surface Values 990 995 1015 1000 1000 955 970 994 985 985 985 965 970 996 975 985 968 970 970 980 975 970 965 935 925 955 960) 965 935 920 920 955 949 945 955 915 915 948 925 955 960 926 915 925 915 925 927 910 925 Bedrock Surface Values 963 975 1000 988 963 925 963 950 959 920 938 950 925 970 925 938 938 900 888 920 950 900 900 900 888 874 900 925 888 888 888 863 900 913 913 875 875 863 863 920 900 850 888 888 875 863 863 850 840 54 SMALL SITE NUMBER 3 Winnebago County #1, Wisconsin Site Location: Sections 12-13, 24, T.20N, R.16E 7-8, 17-20, TOZON’ R0178 Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 12, T.20N, R.16E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Oshkosh NE, WI 1961/75 10 Neenah, WI 1955/75 10 Bedrock Data Source: Olcott, P.(L, 1966, Geology and Water Resources pf Winnebago County, Wisconsin, U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 1814, Plate 1. Topographic Surface Values 844 817 796 798 809 781 767 879 825 822 819 797 775 769 907 839 831 810 791 777 771 895 845 835 810 789 785 777 902 870 833 825 792 774 765 903 870 833 820 785 774 760 901 862 821 790 780 767 758 Bedrock Surface Values 750 738 738 738 750 763 754 800 763 763 775 763 763 763 813 788 788 788 788 763 763 809 800 800 800 772 763 768 813 813 813 811 788 763 763 805 800 800 800 788 763 750 811 788 788 788 775 763 725 55 SMALL SITE NUMBER 4 Winnebago County #2, Wisconsin Site Location: Sections 7-9, 16-21, T.18N, R.15E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 7, T.18N, R.15E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle(1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Eureka, WI 1961/75 10 Omro, WI 1961/75 10 Bedrock Data Source: Olcott, P.(L, 1966, Geology and Water Resources o_f: Winnebago County, Wisconsin, U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 1814, Plate 1. Topographic Surface Values 772 759 760 760 745 745 753 758 765 765 785 755 760 755 745 745 745 750 752 773 768 761 765 795 766 756 765' 759 779 793 782 778 759 750 752 785 821 787 781 762 755 757 797 816 793 790 775 782 767 Bedrock Surface Values 613 588 588 613 659 675 713 588 600 638 663 664 713 738 675 688 713 688 663 725 738 750 750 763 688 688 688 688 750 763 694 688 688 675 650 700 775 725 700 675 650 625 688 763 763 761 713 700 712 56 SMALL SITE NUMBER 5 'Vermillion County, Indiana Site Location: Sections 7-9, 16-21, T.15N, R.9W Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 7, T.15N, R.9W Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Dana, IN 1978/80 10 Clinton, IN 1978 10 Bedrock Data Source: Photocopied map, compliments of Mr. Henry Gray, Head Stratigrapher, Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, 611 North Walnut Grove, Bloomington, IN 47405 Topographic Surface Values 655 645 600 634 630 615 626 655 645 630 590 625 610 625 655 635 634 596 622 625 625 635 635 620 615 555 615 610 590 620 625 612 550 595 590 585 570 600 610 555 585 545 624 605 535 560 575 545 545 Bedrock Surface Values 513 500 475 462 450 442 538 475 500 513 500 475 425 450 419 450 492 488 500 463 400 475 438 438 463 463 513 400 486 463 430 425 438 425 363 488 475 450 425 400 373 413 513 488 491 475 425 413 413 57 SMALL SITE NUMBER 6 Lake County, Indiana Site Location: Sections 2-4, 9-11, 14-16, T.32N, R.9W Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 4, T.32N, R.9W Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Lowell, IN 1962/80 10 Schneider, IN 1959/80 5 Bedrock Data Source: Photocopied map, compliments of Mr. Henry Gray, Head Stratigrapher, Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, 611 North Walnut Grove, Bloomington, IN 47405 Topographic Surface Values 683 685 657 685 680 658 665 686 675 660 680 663 648 661 694 663 650 650 648 648 649 645 643 648 643 643 643‘ 648 638 640 640 638 641 643 640 633 633 635 635 635 635 635 635 633 637 633 633 633 633 Bedrock Surface Values 590 605 605 635 606 595 595 625 620 625 625 595 595 595 630 621 625 624 597 595 590 610 615 625 622 610 595 590 592 610 613 615 615 615 595 596 595 600 595 600 600 595 592 585 575 580 590 590 586 58 SMALL SITE NUMBER 7 Boone County, Indiana Site Location: Sections 11-14, 23-24, T.19N, R.2W 7, 18-19, T.19N, R.1W Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 11, T.19N, R.2W Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Hazelrigg, IN 1961780 10 Bedrock Data Source: Photocopied map, compliments of Mr. Henry Gray, Head Stratigrapher, Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, 611 North Walnut Grove, Bloomington, IN 47405 Topographic Surface Values 855 845 855 860 840 875 855 840 865 870 885 882 865 860 883 875 879 880 888 875 897 878 885 865 895 895 900 905 890 885 895 875 903 905 911 890 885 900 905 912 900 915 895 900 910 910 913 905 915 Bedrock Surface Values 738 713 702 700 703 713 719 763 738 700 663 650 663 688 763 738 706 650 616 650 679 763 738 713 663 638 675 725 775 738 714 688 650 700 758 788 750 750 725 725 750 788 788 788 775 763 761 800 838 59 SMALL SITE NUMBER 8 Pulaski County, Indiana Site Location: Sections 33-35, T.31N, R.4W 2-4, 9-11, T.30N, n.4w Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 33, T.31N, R.4W Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrapgle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Medaryville, IN 1962 5 North Judson SE, IN 1962 5 Bedrock Data Source: Photocopied map, compliments of Mr. Henry Gray, Head Stratigrapher, Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, 611 Nerth Walnut Grove, Bloomington, IN 47405 Topographic Surface Values 685 698 694 710 715 713 713 678 685 688 700 703 713 703 677 678 680 698 703 705- 695 686 683 675 685 695 695 688 685 688 683 678 686 682 678 688 690 683 678 677 678 680 686 688 683 673 674 673 678 Bedrock Surface Values 625 638 637 638 613 613 638 613 625 638 638 625 613 613 613 613 625 638 638 618 613 625 613 625 663 663 623 613 638 613 625 650 650 617 613 638 625 613 625 613 613 600 638 638 638 613 591 588 575 60 SMALL SITE NUMBER 9 Randolph County, Indiana Site Location: Sections 15-17, 20-22, 27-29, T.20N, R.14E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 17, T.20N, R.14E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Winchester, IN 1960 10 Bedrock Data Source: Photocopied map, compliments of Mr. Henry Gray, Head Stratigrapher, Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, 611 North Walnut Grove, Bloomington, IN 47405 Topographic Surface Values 1085 1100 1090 1080 1092 1105 1115 1077 1060 1055 1080 1083 1080 1085 1085 1080 1085 1085 1090 1085 1100 1094 1095 1094 1105 1096 1100 1104 1100 1100 1105 1115 1112 1115 1106 1115 1110 1110 1115 1120 1125 1125 1115 1120 1106 1128 1130 1130 1145 Bedrock Surface Values 763 764 850 950 988 988 988 775 900 925 950 988 1000 1000 775 875 975 1000 1013 1013 1013 767 888 963 1000 1012 1025 1013 800 875 900 950 988 1000 1013 825 850 888 938 963 975 1013 863 875 888 925 950 963 988 61 SMALL SITE NUMBER 10 Steuben County, Indiana Site Location: Sections 13-15, 22-27, T.36N, R.12E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 15, T.36N, R.1ZE Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Stroh, IN 1959 10 Ashley, IN 1959/81 10 Bedrock Data Source: Photocopied map, compliments of Mr. Henry Gray, Head Stratigrapher, Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, 611 Nerth Walnut Grove, Bloomington, IN 47405 Topographic Surface Values 1051 1035 1035 1035 1084 1025 1025 1001 995 1025 1035 1045 1030 1030 995 1010 1014 1050 1060 1045 .1029 985 990 990 1040 1035 1035 995 985 985 985 1015 1035 1000 1016 956 980 965 1000 1015 1005 1000 945 955 955 965 979 985 984 Bedrock Surface Values 600 563 650 667 719 650 610 550 575 638 663 675 625 588 615 650 663 663 650 600 538 569 638 650 650 638 588 538 550 550 613 644 625 575 563 539 550 588 638 600 563 590 550 563 588 588 575 575 588 62 SMALL SITE NUMBER 11 Miami/Cass Counties, Indiana Site Location: Sections 25-27, 34-36, T.26N, R.3E 1'39 TOZSN, R033 Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 27, T.26N, R.3E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Onward, IN 1963/80 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rosenshein, J. S., 1959, "Map of Bunker Hill A.F.B. and Vicinity, Peru, Indiana, Showing Location of Wells and Contours on the Bedrock Surfaceu'iLSJLS. Water Supply Paper 1619-8, Plate 1. Topographic Surface Values 779 785 780 775 787 785 735 785 785 785 785 785 780 785 783 785 794 790 795 795 795 790 795 795 795 795 795 795 795 795 800 800 795 800 800 805 805 800 810 810 810 811 803 805 805 810 812 815 810 Bedrock Surface Values 680 695 705 725 725 720 735 680 690 705 725 725 715 730 720 715 720 740 740 735 735 735 735 740 740 740 745 735 695 725 730 730 735 740 740 705 700 710 720 730 740 740 710 710 710 715 725 740 745 63 SMALL SITE NUMBER 12 Miami County, Indiana Site Location: Sections 13, 24-25, 36, T.29N, R.3E 16-21, 28-33, T029", 3.43 Upper Left Corner: Center, Section 13, T.29N, R.3E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Macy, IN 1960/80 10 Deedsville, IN 1960 10 Bedrock Data Source: Thornbury, W. D. and Deane, H. L., 1954, "Map Showing Bedrock Topography of Miami County, Indiana," lh_e_ Geology o_f Miami County, Indiana, Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin No. , Plate 6. Topographic Surface Values 837 842 850 845 840 840 850 838 848 840 843 838 850 843 820 833 845 845 850 855- 845 840 827 835 840 858 840 850 848 852 850 839 850 853 840 831 857 850 866 845 838 835 835 821 840 835 840 838 850 Bedrock Surface Values 630 600 420 550 670 680 690 630 480 390 460 450 510 580 440 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 400 410 440 390 390 390 390 410 520 550 430 390 390 390 510 670 650 580 490 420 390 550 670 64 SMALL SITE NUMBER 13 Wabash County, Indiana Site Location: Sections 26-28, 33-35, T.29N, R.7E 2-4, T.28N, R.7E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 28, T.29N, R.7E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrapgle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Nerth Manchester South, IN 1961 10 Servia, IN 1961 10 Bedrock Data Source: Wayne, W. J. and Thornbury, W. D., 1951, "Map Showing Bedrock Topography in Wabash County, Indiana," Glacial Geolggy' pf Wabash County, Indiana, Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin No. 5, Plate 6. Topographic Surface Values 796 801 816 845 873 850 860 806 815 845 840 845 880 883 813 820 830 860 869 875 , 892 821 840 840 870 875 875 894 840 830 864 865 863 880 886 840 840 846 850 865 890 885 825 830 843 855 857 880 863 Bedrock Surface Values 670 660 620 657 670 680 700 670 670 660 670 680 710 690 670 670 670 690 700 690 690 650 670 690 690 690 690 690 680 670 660 670 690 690 690 690 690 680 650 650 670 670 710 700 690 690 670 620 610 65 SMALL SITE NUMBER 14 DuPage County #1, Illinois Site Location: Sections 2-4, 9-11, 14-16, T.40N, R.11E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 4, T.40N, R.11E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Elmhurst, IL 1963/72 5 Bedrock Data Source: Zeizel, A. J., 1959, "Topography of Bedrock Surface in DuPage County, Illinois," Illinois Cooperative Ground-Water Report No. 2, Plate 1. Topographic Surface Values 683 688 723 691 673 674 672 688 685 713 700 680 690 655 690 680 715 695 670 673 668 675 675 713 705 693 675‘ 665 693 688 696 708 688 675 670 700 683 703 705 695 673 673 698 695 703 698 693 683 678 Bedrock Surface Values 610 600 610 580 590 570 570 630 600 590 610 590 590 570 610 590 600 610 590 590 570 620 610 600 610 600 590 550 610 610 590 590 580 580 570 610 590 600 560 540 540 580 610 570 610 590 540 590 620 66 SMALL SITE NUMBER 15 Woodford County, Illinois Site Location: Sections 2-4, 9-11, 14—16, T.26N, R.1W Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 4, T.26N, R.1W Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Secor, IL 1970 10 Bedrock Data Source: Heigold, P. C., McGinnis, L. D., and Howard, R. EL, 1964, Geologic Significance pf the Gravity Field $2 the DeWitt- McLean County Area, Illinois, Illinois StatelGeological Survey Circular 369, Figure 4. Topographic Surface Values 767 765 747 745 736 735 742 775 755 745 755 745 744 742 765 750 757 754 752 745 745 745 753 756 753 750 754‘ 751 765 765 754 752 751 751 750 770 765 756 740 730 725 744 778 764 762 752 749 737 718 Bedrock Surface Values 500 488 463 463 438 438 425 488 475 463 463 438 438 413 488 463 463 450 438 425 413 488 463 463 438 425 413 438 463 463 450 438 413 438 438 463 450 438 400 413 438 463 450 438 425 400 438 463 463 67 SMALL SITE NUMBER 16 Will County, Illinois Site Location: Sections 25, 36, T.36N, R.9E 1, T.35N, R.9E 5-6, T035”, R0103 29-32, T.36N, R.10E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 25, T.36N, R.9E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(S) C.I. (ft.) Plainfield, IL 1962/73/80 10 Joliet, IL 1962/73 10 Bedrock Data Source: Fisher, D..L, 1925, "TOpographic Map of the Joliet Quadrangle Showing Contours on the Bedrock Surface and Location of Wells," Illinois State Geological Survey Division Bulletin No. 51, Plate 2. Topographic Surface Values 610 608 631 643 648 635 645 601 608 620 638 650 645 630 596 618 628 638 647 630' 625 594 597 614 625 595 590 620 590 582 585 613 622 640 660 581 615 633 650 660 660 655 626 627 641 649 665 675 650 Bedrock Surface Values 585 585 595 595 615 615 605 585 585 585 600 605 600 585 585 585 590 600 600 585 585 575 585 595 585 585 585 590 575 575 575 585 590 600 605 565 575 585 590 605 615 610 565 575 590 600 615 615 615 68 SMALL SITE NUMBER 17 Grundy/Kendall Counties, Illinois Site Location: Sections 26-28, 33-35, T.35N, R.6E 2-4, T.34N, R.6E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 28, T.35N, R.6E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Stavanger, IL 1970 10 Bedrock Data Source: Willman, H. B., and Krumbein, W. C., 1941, Bedrock Topography and Mineral Industrial Data of the Marseilles Quadrangle, Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin No. 66, Plate 4. Topographic Surface Values 740 730 720 710 700 699 685 740 720 710 725 705 690 675 693 692 675 692 685 664‘ 668 650 655 665 665 655 650 660 649 655 635 635 635 629 624 650 645 635 625 615 615 615 647 629 632 622 614 609 605 Bedrock Surface Values 588 588 588 613 625 613 663 563 588 613 650 652 638 650 '550 575 588 613 638 638 638 538 525 563 575 588 600 613 538 525 538 550 563 550 563 513 513 513 525 538 538 525 525 513 513 513 513 513 513 69 SMALL SITE NUMBER 18 Champaign County, Illinois Site Location: Sections 1, 12-13, T.19N, R.8E 5-8, 17-18, T019", R.9E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 1, T.19N, R.8E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Rising, IL 1970/75 5 Thomasboro, IL 1970/75 5 Bondville, IL 1970/75 5 Urbana, IL 1970 5 Bedrock Data Source: Foster, J. W., and Buhle, M. B., 1951, .A_n_ Integrated Geophysical and Geological Investigation g§_Aguifersian Glacial Drift Near Champaign:Urbana, Illinois, Illinois State Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 155, Figure 5. Topographic Surface Values 513 513 513 488 488 488 500 488 488 488 488 463 475 488 475 488 488 463 463 463' 475 450 463 463 450 438 463 463 438 438 438 438 425 438 450 413 413 413 413 400 413 413 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 Bedrock Surface Values 751 755 753 735 728 733 737 755 743 738 735 738 700 733 758 755 733 738 742 708 735 768 758 725 738 739 708 700 778 742 723 720 725 710 725 776 748 728 740 730 724 731 759 753 738 760 750 733 733 70 SMALL SITE NUMBER 19 DeWitt County, Illinois Site Location: Sections 13, 24-25, T.21N, R.3E 17-20, 29-30, T.21N, R.4E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 13, T.21N, R.3E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) LeRoy, IL 1981 5 DeWitt, IL 1979 5 Bedrock Data Source: Heigold, P. C., McGinnis, L. D., and Howard, R. IL, 1964, Geologic Significance g£_the Gravipnyield $2 the DeWitt- McLean County Area, Illinois, Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 369, Figure 4. Topographic Surface Values 786 762 768 730 746 711 741 782 778 770 755 714 743 747 778 772 740 734 717 746 748 764 765 744 720 733 750 731 749 767 751 708 730 753 748 783 760 725 735 757 758 755 783 735 718 755 756 755 754 Bedrock Surface Values 588 588 588 588 575 563 563 588 575 563 563 563 563 563 563 563 550 550 550 550 550 575 563 550 538 538 538 538 575 563 538 538 538 538 538 575 563 550 538 538 538 538 588 575 563 563 563 563 538 71 SMALL SITE NUMBER 20 Winnebago County, Illinois Site Location: Sections 8-10, 15-17, 20-22, T.44N, 3.13 Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 8, T.44N, R1E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Winnebago, IL 1971/76 . 10 Rockford Nbrth, IL 1971/76 10 Bedrock Data Source: Hackett, J. E., 1958, "Topography of Bedrock Surface of Winnebago County, Illinois," Illinois Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 213, Plate 1. Topographic Surface Values 750 741 775 810 797 760 750 819 773 735 750 750 725 738 769 742 735 725 722 724, 739 802 805 735 755 725 727 740 805 775 770 780 805 770 735 820 825 820 765 755 725 735 825 770 760 750 735 750 710 Bedrock Surface Values 700 700 763 775 775 750 725 800 773 725 725 738 725 700 688 688 675 638 650 663 588 713 788 725 732 688 650 738 785 775 770 775 775 750 735 813 800 763 725 700 610 650 800 750 700 725 725 700 670 72 SMALL SITE NUMBER 21 DuPage County #2, Illinois Site Location: Sections 32-34, T.40N, R.9E 3-5, 8-10, T.39N, R.9E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 32, T.40N, R.9E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) West Chicago, IL 1962/72/80 10 Naperville, IL 1962/72/80 10 Bedrock Data Source: Zeizel, A. J., 1959, "Topography of Bedrock Surface in DuPage County, Illinois," Illinois Cooperative Ground-Water Report No. 2, Plate 1. Topographic Surface Values 753 750 760 780 785 770 761 754 755 765 775 795 750 740 751 755 755 767 765 795 765 750 755 755 755 795 785 785 745 750 760 755 780 795 757 740 745 755 755 755 785 755 735 755 743 735 746 746 724 Bedrock Surface Values 690 690 690 690 690 670 670 670 690 690 690 690 680 670 690 690 690 670 670 670 660 690 690 670 680 680 660 640 690 690 680 670 680 670 650 680 680 670 670 620 640 640 660 660 650 640 640 630 610 73 SMALL SITE NUMBER 22 Huron County #1, Ohio Site Location: Connecticut Western Reserve Survey. Point 24 coincides with the 493 B.M. 1/8 mile north of Celeryville, Ohio, on the Willard, Ohio, quadrangle. This is the intersection of Bullhead Road and Ohio Highway 103. Sample points are taken at 1/2 mile intervals away from this point, using the same highways as baselines. Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Centerton, OH 1960/72 10 Willard, OH 1960/72 10 Bedrock Data Source: "Open File Map of Huron County, Ohio," available from Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Fountain Square, Building B, Columbus, OH, 43224 Topographic Surface Values 925 920 930 930 940 960 945 930 940 935 955 965 945 950 955 970 968 940 945 935 930 958 940 943 928 925 930 925 930 940 925 925 923 923 925 930 925 923 928 923 930 930 935 928 928 928 928 925 935 Bedrock Surface Values 810 810 830 800 840 850 850 810 810 830 810 830 850 860 810 830 840 840 820 860 870 820 830 840 850 830 850 870 830 830 860 850 850 830 860 830 840 870 880 870 860 840 840 850 860 870 890 900 890 74 SMALL SITE NUMBER 23 Huron County #2, Ohio Site Location: Connecticut Western Reserve Survey, The upper left corner (point 1) corresponds with Barretts Chapel at the intersection of Cook Road and Ohio Highway 60, Clarksfield quadrangle. The sample grid runs due south and due east at 1/2 mile intervals from this point. Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Clarksfield, OH 1960/72 5 Brighton, OH 1960/73 5 New London, OH 1960/72 10 Nova, OH 1960/73 10 Bedrock Data Source: "Open File Map of Huron County, Ohio," available from Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Fountain Square, Building B, Columbus, OH, 43224 Topographic Surface Values 930 933 938 940 929 947 940 937 948 948 945 953 953 943 954 955 950 940 955 955 935 940 962 962 947 955 955 950 965 965 965 965 960 950 960 955 973 967 958 973 960 972 980 970 975 975 985 980 983 Bedrock Surface Values 870 870 860 850 850 850 800 870 830 820 820 820 820 780 860 790 760 770 750 750 780 820 820 860 850 840 810 810 820 870 870 860 850 850 840 870 890 900 870 870 860 870 870 910 920 880 880 890 890 75 SMALL SITE NUMBER 24 Logan County, Ohio Site Location: The lower left corner (point 43) corresponds with the 1138 B.M. at the intersection of Ohio Highways 292 and 47 on the West Mansfield quadrangle. From this point the sample grid runs due north and due east, with control points at 1/2 mile intervals. Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) West Mansfield, OH Date(s) C.I. (ft.) 1961 5 Bedrock Data Source: Forsyth, J.I”, 1968, Glacial Geology g£_the West Mansfield Quadrangle, Logan and Union Counties, Ohio, Ohio Geological Survey, Reports of Investigation No. 69. 1103 1105 1115 1120 1128 1130 1138 1050 1050 1050 1060 1070 1070 1040 Topographic Surface Values 1093 1098 1095 1098 1100 1090 1098 1030 1030 1050 1060 1070 1050 1020 1075 1083 1088 1093 1100 1108 1115 Bedrock 1020 1030 1040 1050 1050 1030 1010 1078 1085 1085 1090 1100 1098 1110 1075 1078 1083 1078 1085 1090 1093 1078 1078 1078 1075 1075 1083 1088 Surface Values 1010 1030 1030 1040 1030 1010 990 1010 1020 1030 1030 1020 990 1000 1010 1010 1020 1020 1000 970 1010 1078 1055 1070 1075 1078 1075 1080 1010 1010 1010 1000 960 990 1020 76 SMALL SITE NUMBER 25 Fulton County #1, Ohio Site Location: Sections 28-33, T.7N, R.5E 4-6, T.6N, R.5E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 30, T.7N, R.5E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Archbold, OH 1959/71 5 Bedrock Data Source: Vormelker, J.IL, 1971, "Bedrock Surface Map of Fulton County, Ohio," Open File Map No. 28, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Columbus, OH. Topographic Surface Values 716 718 720 723 726 723 738 717 718 723 719 726 730 741 719 723 720 725 733 740 744 724 724 726 728 733 740 723 723 724 725 726 737 742 725 724 725 726 724 723 720 720 725 725 711 709 725 728 733 Bedrock Surface Values 560 570 570 550 570 570 550 560 580 590 580 560 590 570 560 550 570 590 582 590 590 564 570 570 570 570 590 592 560 570 580 590 590 600 600 580 570 580 590 600 610 610 590 590 590 590 600 610 610 77 SMALL SITE NUMBER 26 Crawford County, Ohio Site Location: Sections 24-25, 36, T.1S, R.15E 19-20, 29-32, Te1S’ R016E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 24, T.1S, R.1SE TOpographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Lykens, OH 1960 10 Bedrock Data Source: "Top-of-Rock Map of Huron County, Ohio," available from Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Fountain Square, Building B, Columbus, OH, 43224 Topographic Surface Values 937 939 947 940 958 965 966 935 950 945 950 965 975 975 948 955 920 930 965 960 961 925 920 925 970 965 970 955 939 950 963 975 971 983 971 945 945 965 980 975 985 985 951 960 971 989 991 995 998 Bedrock Surface Values 890 890 910 910 910 920 910 890 890 910 910 910 910 910 890 910 900 910 910 910 910 910 900 910 910 910 900 910 900 890 910 890 900 910 910 890 890 890 900 910 900 910 880 870 890 900 910 910 910 78 SMALL SITE NUMBER 27 Van Wert County, Ohio Site Location: Sections 4-9, 16-18, T.38, R.2E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 6, T.38, R.2E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Glenmore, OH 1960 5 Bedrock Data Source: Vormelker, J.IL, 1981, "Top-of—Rock Map of Van Wert County, Ohio," Ohio Geological Survey, Open File Map No. 115. Topographic Surface Values 818 813 806 803 804 808 798 815 813 810 815 805 805 810 813 813 815 815 813 808 810 813 815 813 813 809 805 810 811 815 810 809 818 815 816 822 818 813 816 822 815 813 828 823 822 829 819 818 822 Bedrock Surface Values 663 663 713 638 713 738 763 700 663 638 663 725 750 763 738 675 638 713 725 763 763 713 663 650 675 713 738 763 713 713 688 650 738 738 763 763 738 700 650 738 750 763 763 738 638 650 738 763 763 79 SMALL SITE NUMBER 28 Fulton County #2, Ohio Site Location: Sections 8-10, 15-17, 20-22, T.7N, R.8E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 8, T.7N, R.8E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Swanton, OH 1960/71 5 Bedrock Data Source: Vormelker, J.1L, 1971, "Bedrock Surface Map of Fulton County, Ohio," Open File Map No. 28, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Columbus, OH. Topographic Surface Values 729 723 719 716 707 699 692 722 717 711 703 698 688 688 713 703 703 697 691 688 685 706 698 695 693 689 688’ 683 703 695 694 688 688 684 682 701 698 692 689 684 681 670 697 696 690 683 680 678 681 Bedrock Surface Values 600 610 614 610 600 590 620 590 620 630 630 610 600 630 610 620 630 630 610 600 630 610 620 621 630 610 610 620 630 620 630 630 610 620 617 630 620 630 630 610 630 620 630 620 630 630 630 630 610 80 SMALL SITE NUMBER 29 Ashtabula County, Ohio Site Location: The lower left corner (point 43) corresponds with the intersection of Clay Street and Chapel Road on the Ashtabula quadrangle. From this point the sample grid runs due north and due east, with control points at 1/2 mile intervals. T0pographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Ashtabula South, OH 1960/70 10 Bedrock Data Source: White, G. W., and Totten, S. M., 1979, Glacial Geology 9; Ashtabula County, Ohio, Ohio Geological Survey, Report of Investigations No. 112, Plate 1. Topographic Surface Values 810 835 860 880 850 845 840 854 865 840 830 835 850 855 850 835 830 835 850 845 840 830 825 830 850 845 845 845 837 865 855 845 845 855 875 840 835 845 835 865 865 865 835 850 850 865 865 845 870 Bedrock Surface Values 738 738 750 775 800 813 788 750 763 763 763 763 788 813 775 763 738 750 800 800 800 750 738 750 763 800 800 800 800 813 825 813 813 813 825 813 800 800 800 825 825 850 813 813 825 825 825 838 838 81 SMALL SITE NUMBER 30 Lapeer County #1, Michigan Site Location: Sections 1-3, 10-15, T.6N, R.9E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 3, T.6N, R.9E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Hadley, MI 1968 10 Metamora, MI 1968 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R.1n, 1983, "Bedrock Topography of Lapeer County, Michigan,” compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. Topographic Surface Values 890 900 880 845 890 900 925 890 865 880 895 885 890 925 875 880 892 885 901 910 929 890 895 898 925 920 955 994 905 910 927 935 937 950 1001 915 940 960 945 975 1015 1015 937 975 985 1000 1095 1050 1043 Bedrock Surface Values 750 750 750 725 763 761 775 763 763 750 763 752 776 763 788 798 766 775 788 763 800 788 800 786 775 788 800 800 738 764 788 788 788 800 825 732 775 805 795 784 800 808 738 750 800 845 788 795 820 82 SMALL SITE NUMBER 31 Lapeer County #2, Michigan Site Location: Sections 1-3, 10-15, T.7N, R.1OE Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 3, T.7N, R.1OE Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Lapeer, MI 1963 10 Attica, MI 1963 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R.lh, 1983, ”Bedrock Topography of Lapeer County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. Topographic Surface Values 853 832 835 825 845 876 843 871 850 835 835 842 845 876 830 861 865 847 846 845 859 841 840 845 855 845 855 855 849 835 857 867 885 849 850 862 868 870 865 858 855 866 881 852 864 880 863 858 867 Bedrock Surface Values 739 750 750 750 731 770 732 750 763 763 750 725 738 788 738 750 775 763 735 768 763 781 763 788 788 788 788 775 800 750 825 800 800 750 750 800 763 813 800 775 738 738 800 765 788 775 800 775 775 83 SMALL SITE NUMBER 32 Livingston County #1, Michigan Site Location: Sections 1-2, 11-14, T.3N, R.3E 6-7, 18, T03", R.4E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 2, T.3N, R.3E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Fowlerville, MI 1973 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R. L., 1983, "Bedrock Topography of Livingston County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. Topographic Surface Values 920 935 929 925 935 940 920 915 925 915 930 906 915 920 910 905 910 928 915 915, 926 900 895 915 905 903 915 935 900 895 909 910 898 915 920 905 895 900 895 899 910 941 896 897 890 895 898 915 915 Bedrock Surface Values 838 838 825 800 838 835 788 838 838 825 775 775 788 813 815 840 850 838 788 813 819 838 825 825 838 838 813 813 838 838 838 838 800 825 813 850 838 838 830 800 788 825 825 825 800 800 788 825 825 84 SMALL SITE NUMBER 33 Livingston County #2, Michigan Site Location: Sections 13, 24-25, T.1N, R.4E 17-20, 29-30, T.1N, R.5E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 13, T.1N, R.4E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Pinckney, MI 1965 10 Hamburg, MI 1965 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R.14, 1983, "Bedrock Topography of Livingston County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. Topographic Surface Values 915 915 885 895 895 890 887 930 925 905 909 885 915 870 884 885 905 875 875 900 884 885 895 890 895 900 865 905 879 875 895 890 905 855 855 865 870 870 880 885 870 855 870 855 855 865 865 855 850 Bedrock Surface Values 825 800 788 813 825 838 838 813 813 825 812 813 863 838 825 850 825 800 825 825 838 850 845 850 750 788 800 825 863 838 788 763 738 763 763 738 763 788 788 725 740 688 800 775 763 738 688 750 675 85 SMALL SITE NUMBER 34 Muskegon County, Michigan Site Location: Sections 19-21, 28-33, T.9N, R.14W Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 19, T.9N, R.14W Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Sullivan, MI 1972 5 NUnica, MI 1972 10 Ravenna, MI 1980 10 Coopersville, MI 1980 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R.14, 1984, "Bedrock Topography of Muskegon County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. Topographic Surface Values 660 662 660 662 670 692 695 657 660 660 645 661 675 685 651 651 665 656 657 665 640 648 655 657 653 645 625 668 651 645 603 640 645 659 663 653 653 655 669 672 665 661 641 668 665 681 681 675 670 Bedrock Surface Values 413 425 438 438 450 438 438 413 425 438 438 463 463 463 425 427 438 438 433 450 473 441 438 438 450 463 463 480 438 450 463 450 450 463 463 438 438 450 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 86 SMALL SITE NUMBER 35 Allegan County #1, Michigan Site Location: Sections 19-21, 28-33, T.4N, R.12W Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 19, T.4N, R.12W Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Burnips, MI 1981 10 Wayland, MI 1982 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R.14, 1980, "Bedrock Topography of Allegan County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. Topographic Surface Values 670 674 679 690 696 705 701 674 675 684 698 730 705 698 678 685 688 693 766 725 704 683 688 689 755 770 740 725 686 705 710 741 748 771 721 700 680 715 765 730 735 747 734 705 707 721 729 735 714 Bedrock Surface Values 600 610 525 538 513 538 550 575 550 588 525 600 650 600 458 519 575 538 638 650 625 475 463 463 463 463 488 513 513 575 538 538 501 525 525 438 550 588 583 588 673 613 438 525 625 588 618 650 663 87 SMALL SITE NUMBER 36 Allegan County #2, Michigan Site Location: Sections 36, T.2N, R.16W 31-32, T.2N, R.15W 1, 12, T.1N, R.16W 5-8, T.1N, R.15W Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 36, T.2N, R.16W Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Glenn, MI 1981 10 Pullman, MI 1981 10 Lacota, MI 1981 10 Fennville, MI 1981 5 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R.ih, 1980, "Bedrock Topography of Allegan County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. T0pographic Surface Values 635 634 638 635 630 640 654 644 640 642 648 639 650 668 655 640 637 643 655 641‘ 657 667 642 643 648 634 638 650 636 634 631 643 634 637 655 647 633 642 640 644 638 650 682 637 637 641 641 642 648 Bedrock Surface Values 525 463 425 463 413 400 425 513 500 475 488 450 400 375 450 488 499 488 475 463 463 413 463 463 475 466 488 488 389 450 450 524 490 463 488 300 400 438 525 513 475 513 363 350 425 475 567 538 525 88 SMALL SITE NUMBER 37 Lenawee County, Michigan Site Location: Sections 15-17, 20-22, 27-29, T.8S, R.2E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 17, T.8S, R.2E T0pographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Clayton, MI 1962/79 10 Morenci, OH-MI 1960 5 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R.14, 1983, "Bedrock Topography of Lenawee County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. Topographic Surface Values 808 802 798 798 793 790 783 787 790 790 788 788 785 785 800 785 780 785 787 788 783 795 785 780 783 788 795 783 785 775 778 783 787 795 790 780 778 773 788 787 803 805 778 773 770 782 793 788 790 Bedrock Surface Values 625 613 600 588 588 588 588 638 600 588 588 588 613 625 625 625 613 588 625 625 613 600 613 613 588 600 588 588 590 575 613 588 588 600 613 575 563 600 575 588 588 588 575 563 569 575 600 588 588 89 SMALL SITE NUMBER 38 Clinton County #1, Michigan Site Location: Sections 10-15, 22-24, T.7N, R.2W Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 10, T.7N, R.2W Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) St. Johns Nerth, MI 1965 5 St. Johns South, MI 1965 5 Price, MI 1972/82 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R.I”, 1984, "Bedrock Topography of Clinton County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. Topographic Surface Values 745 755 755 750 758 745 753 765 768 765 757 758 765 758 764 768 766 764 756 758 759 772 768 765 763 760 752 754 754 752 764 765 760 755 745 753 750 748 750 753 745 745 747 740 744 745 748 746 750 Bedrock Surface Values 638 613 613 613 613 625 638 613 613 588 600 625 638 650 600 588 588 625 663 669 663 600 613 625 638 663 663 663 603 608 638 638 663 663 663 613 638 632 638 663 663 675 613 613 613 638 663 663 688 9O SMALL SITE NUMBER 39 Clinton County #2, Michigan Site Location: Sections 13, 24-25, T.5N, R.3W 17-20, 29-30, T05", R02" Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 13, T.5N, R.3W Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Lansing North, MI 1965 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R.Ih, 1984, "Bedrock Topography of Clinton County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. T0pographic Surface Values 844 824 819 830 844 848 815 785 790 805 845 855 855 830 840 849 843 865 845 837 825 815 845 850 845 865 845 865 840 830 850 865 850 845 840 855 850 860 855 835 855 840 864 855 842 845 845 835 840 Bedrock Surface Values 713 725 725 690 719 738 738 738 738 738 725 713 731 740 795 753 738 713 765 738 738 763 763 725 725 763 738 725 764 738 713 750 763 741 738 760 738 713 763 763 738 738 763 750 756 763 763 763 725 91 SMALL SITE NUMBER 40 Tuscola County #1, Michigan Site Location: Sections 16-21, 28-30, T.11N, R.8E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 18, T.11N, R.8E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Vassar, MI 1963/73 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R. L., 1984, "Bedrock Topography of Tuscola County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. Topographic Surface Values 630 649 650 655 667 665 675 643 645 660 675 680 680 690 630 651 661 677 685 688 694 653 645 655 665 665 670' 690 670 670 650 665 678 677 696 677 675 675 670 683 695 700 673 685 685 678 690 701 711 Bedrock Surface Values 563 563 578 600 588 592 600 600 588 588 600 617 600 575 .588 583 588 600 613 613 600 588 600 588 600 613 613 613 600 588 591 588 613 614 638 605 588 604 613 613 588 625 588 588 588 623 588 638 613 92 SMALL SITE NUMBER 41 Tuscola County #2, Michigan Site Location: Sections 4-9, 16-18, T.10N, R.8E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 6, T.10N, R.8E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Vassar, MI 1963/73 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R.1h, 1984, "Bedrock Topography of Tuscola County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. Topographic Surface Values 673 685 696 700 699 706 724 685 690 695 705 710 720 735 694 695 703 710 720 735 739 685 700 711 730 730 740 750 692 710 710 735 745 755 758 708 715 733 745 755 756 765 740 735 757 762 762 763 771 Bedrock Surface Values 600 600 613 613 613 625 638 588 588 588 613 638 650 638 593 597 625 638 638 650 650 574 600 613 613 650 638 650 588 588 592 650 638 663 625 588 600 625 613 650 663 663 613 613 638 657 638 668 638 APPENDIX B LARGE SITE LOCATIONS AND SURFACE ELEVATIONS 93 LARGE SITE NUMBER 1 Winnebago County, Wisconsin Site Location: Sections 13, 24-25, 36, T.18N, R.15E 1, 12, T.17N, R.15E 2-11, T.17N, R.16E 14-23, 26-35, T.18N, R.16E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 13, T.18N, R.1SE Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangl§(1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Omro, WI 1961/75 10 Oshkosh, WI 1961/75 10 Pickett, w: 1980 10 Van Dyne, WI 1980 10 Bedrock Data Source: Olcott, P.(L, 1966, Geology and Water Resources 22 firm—613153 County, Wisconsin, U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 1814, Plate 1. Topographic Surface Values 773 840 835 830 793 775 754 750 745 I745 755 768 760 828 847 830 825 785 780 770 765 750 755 745 765 765 817 841 821 805 789 795 791 785 760 755 750 760 769 813 816 819 800 795 798 791 770 766 760 752 745 755 802 825 821 805 802 795 780 779 775 760 765 753 755 821 825 820 805 805 795 785 785 780 745 765 765 755 843 830 833 811 801 809 814 815 805 789 775 775 765 841 815 811 815 818 825 819 825 825 805 785 785 765 824 848 823 821 836 845 850 841 837 815 804 781 769 848 835 842 845 845 850 852 845 839 830 813 795 776 866 859 850 845 857 865 856 845 844 822 820 805 789 869 865 876 865 889 850 855 860 847 835 817 805 794 854 885 888 883 879 884 883 870 860 852 821 810 793 94 LARGE SITE NUMBER 1 Winnebago County, Wisconsin Bedrock Surface Values 700 800 813 813 763 738 725 725 713 700 675 688 713 750 828 813 808 750 730 738 738 731 713 713 675 713 763 788 788 775 738 750 763 738 725 725 713 700 688 763 788 788 763 750 775 775 725 738 738 738 713 700 763 788 788 788 775 775 738 750 739 738 738 725 713 763 788 788 788 779 763 738 763 763 745 763 750 738 800 788 788 788 788 763 775 788 788 788 763 763 738 813 813 811 800 788 788 800 813 813 788 763 763 747 813 813 813 813 788 813 825 813 788 775 763 763 752 813 813 813 813 813 825 813 788 775 .763 775 763 750 813 813 813 813 833 813 813 788 775 788 788 763 753 825 813 813 813 813 825 813 800 788 800 813 775 775 850 825 838 813 825 825 813 826 813 813 797 788 775 95 LARGE SITE NUMBER 2 Steuben County, Indiana Site Location: Sections 1-5, 8-17, 20-29, 32-36, T.36N, R.12E 6-7, 18-19, 30-31, T.36N, R.13E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 5, T.36N, R.12E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Stroh, IN 1959 10 Ashley, IN 1959/81 10 Bedrock Data Source: Photocopied map, compliments of Mr. Henry Gray, Head Stratigrapher, Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, 611 North Walnut Grove, Bloomington, IN 47405 Topographic Surface Values 1017 1010 985 1035 1045 1035 1005 995 965 ,960 955 950 975 1029 1018 1025 1020 1034 1039 1049 1031 969 970 965 940 945 1007 1040 1024 1005 1056 1060 1057 1030 1048 1005 976 965 967 975 1030 1045 1060 1065 1060 1045 1050 1055 1050 1010 1005 980 956 1007 1015 1038 1051 1035 1035 1035 1084 1025 1025 1005 986 940 963 945 1000 1001 995 1025 1035 1045 1030 1030 1020 995 927 955 975 985 995 1010 1014 1050 1050 1045 1029 1025 1011 935 940 935 990 985 990 990 1040 1035 1035 995 1005 1005 985 945 950 990 985 985 985 1015 1035 1000 1016 1015 1002 965 975 931 935 956 980 965 1000 1015 1005 1000 1005 1000 985 975 949 940 945 955 955 965 979 985 984 985 992 985 985 964 950 940 945 960 940 945 950 985 975 975 980 960 960 950 953 975 976 960 965 985 988 995 1000 566 563 563 563 563 563 563 563 588 613 613 613 600 575 575 575 575 563 563 563 563 588 617 613 600 592 588 588 588 588 588 563 550 550 582 588 588 588 575 600 600 613 613 600 563 550 538 550 563 563 563 563 LARGE SITE NUMBER 2 96 Steuben County, Indiana Bedrock Surface Values 613 613 625 613 625 626 600 550 615 569 550 539 550 550 543 625 638 613 563 575 650 638 550 550 563 570 563 638 638 638 650 638 663 650 613 588 588 578 588 638 638 638 663 667 663 663 650 644 638 588 575 596 638 637 638 700 719 675 650 638 625 600 575 563 588 638 638 638 650 650 625 600 588 575 '563 575 575 613 640 638 625 613 610 588 538 538 563 590 588 600 613 550 575 613 613 613 575 538 550 575 588 600 613 613 538 550 600 613 618 600 575 550 575 600 613 613 613 97 LARGE SITE NUMBER 3 Wabash County, Indiana Site Location: Sections 25-36, T.27N, R.6E 1-24, T.26N, R.6E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 30, T.27N, R.6E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Rich Valley, IN 1963/81 10 Habash, IN 1963/81 10 Peoria, IN 1969 10 Somerset, IN 1969 10 Bedrock Data Source: Wayne, W. J., and Thornbury, W. D., 1951, "Map Showing Bedrock Topography in Wabash County, Indiana,” Glacial Geology o_f_ Wabash County, Indiana, Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin No. 5, Plate 6. Topographic Surface Values 770 775 767 770 788 785 793 795 797 '797 795 795 795 785 770 765 745 780 785 795 795 800 805 805 805 800 780 785 794 760 797 785 789 795 797 800 800 805 804 795 790 795 775 795 795 805 795 795 795 805 805 805 795 795 799 795 799 800 804 805 802 795 804 805 805 795 800 805 795 805 805 805 805 795 805 805 800 804 805 805 802 805 803 805 805 805 807 805 809 795 780 800 805 805 805 806 805 810 805 807 805 799 770 770 770 800 797 805 805 800 802 795 794 770 780 765 770 700 705 770 805 782 770 791 785 785 765 766 765 735 795 780 690 700 730 800 802 800 760 725 760 735 730 785 790 790 705 760 805 775 720 775 810 720 815 790 801 806 800 745 745 715 740 810 812 810 813 805 779 560 430 410 510 520 610 700 730 700 650 710 700 720 500 420 390 400 400 600 690 720 740 640 710 690 650 600 590 500 430 410 540 670 710 710 630 690 701 710 750 710 600 470 420 420 580 660 650 640 700 705 690 LARGE SITE NUMBER 3 98 Wabash County, Indiana Bedrock Surface Values 780 780 640 490 460 410 510 610 560 560 580 580 600 750 770 520 500 530 420 430 510 540 620 610 620 640 650 500 550 570 640 430 410 460 590 680 720 710 740 510 600 660 650 570 450 420 490 590 670 750 720 750 620 730 700 730 630 500 430 410 560 630 690 750 760 600 690 620 670 670 490 530 460 470 610 650 680 700 590 600 640 680 650 590 630 600 410 560 630 660 690 700 750 750 720 650 690 710 640 520 420 610 640 660 740 750 760 750 750 750 750 690 540 410 530 610 650 99 LARGE SITE NUMBER 4 DuPage County, Illinois Site Location: Sections 1-4, 9-16, 21-28, 33-36, T.38N, R.1OE 5-8, 17-20, 29-32, T038N, R011E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 4, T.38N, R.10E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Romeoville, IL 1962/73/80 10 Sag Bridge, IL 1963/73 5 Wheaton, IL 1962/72/80 10 Hinsdale, IL 1963/72/80 5 Bedrock Data Source: Zeizel, A..L, 1959, ”Topography of the Bedrock Surface in DuPage County, Illinois," Illinois Cooperative Ground-Water Report #2, Plate 1. Topographic Surface Values 755 735 695 675 673 720 738 745 685 A725 735 750 763 735 750 725 663 685 710 760 770 750 735 740 742 765 735 735 740 663 685 695 715 745 749 730 735 731 731 725 720 680 663 725 705 698 695 705 705 715 725 733 719 730 715 668 725 745 750 735 740 760 725 730 723 750 730 720 668 685 740 752 745 735 755 755 765 763 740 740 720 685 658 685 703 714 738 745 745 765 759 745 750 725 675 655 735 750 765 755 750 760 755 772 735 765 725 680 653 725 729 745 790 765 755 770 765 740 745 735 715 650 730 750 753 770 775 775 776 775 723 755 758 730 650 700 734 751 778 765 765 755 750 715 745 743 700 650 715 746 758 763 760 775 750 745 724 720 693 685 645 685 733 761 745 765 755 760 711 670 650 650 690 670 650 650 670 670 650 650 640 650 670 650 650 660 670 640 640 640 660 630 650 650 640 670 650 650 650 630 630 640 640 630 650 630 630 650 650 630 610 590 590 610 590 620 650 610 630 640 600 LARGE SITE NUMBER 4 100 DuPage County, Illinois Bedrock Surface Values 650 620 630 630 630 630 610 620 590 610 610 600 590 650 610 630 630 670 670 650 650 650 630 620 670 610 630 630 630 620 660 670 650 670 650 650 630 600 610 650 600 630 640 620 620 630 680 680 650 650 630 650 630 650 640 630 630 620 650 670 650 650 610 620 630 640 630 650 630 650 600 650 640 630 620 630 630 570 620 650 650 650 610 620 610 640 670 650 630 640 630 590 590 630 650 610 630 650 670 660 650 640 630 630 610 630 640 620 600 610 630 630 670 650 630 620 630 101 LARGE SITE NUMBER 5 McLean County, Illinois Site Location: Sections 1-36, T.24N, R.6E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 6, T.24N, R.6E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:62250) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Colfax, IL 1957 10 Sibley, IL 1949 10 Arrowsmith, IL 1962 10 Gibson City, IL 1957 10 Bedrock Data Source: Heigold, P. C., McGinnis, L. D., and Howard, R. 1L, 1964, Geologic Significance g£_the Gravity Field 22 the DeWitt- McLean County Area, Illinois, Illinois State Geological Survey, Circular 369, Figure 4. Topographic Surface Values 770 780 784 781 782 775 787 770 768 790 788 790 790 760 760 755 760 765 760 755 760 755 760 765 765 770 754 750 750 750 755 760 764 765 763 765 765 770 770 765 760 765 755 765 770 765 765 775 770 770 770 785 771 770 766 760 769 775 776 780 798 800 775 770 772 780 770 765 770 780 775 785 795 810 795 775 775 785 783 775 773 775 784 790 796 815 811 790 787 805 803 785 785 780 785 790 805 805 820 805 785 795 815 825 796 795 793 800 818 820 824 825 792 815 816 830 827 805 810 800 810 820 830 835 800 815 820 835 840 850 819 820 819 835 836 845 823 805 837 845 839 850 830 830 835 845 855 855 840 825 830 855 880 855 845 825 854 860 889 880 861 845 834 835 866 865 837 835 809 600 613 613 625 638 663 688 713 738 738 738 725 713 613 613 613 638 663 675 700 725 738 738 725 713 688 613 613 625 638 663 688 700 725 738 725 700 688 675 613 613 638 650 663 688 688 713 700 700 688 675 663 LARGE SITE NUMBER 5 102 McLean County, Illinois Bedrock Surface Values 613 613 600 588 613 638 663 663 688 688 688 688 688 663 663 638 625 638 663 663 675 688 688 675 663 650 638 625 613 638 650 663 663 663 663 650 638 625 613 588 613 625 638 638 650 650 638 638 625 613 588 575 588 600 613 625 625 638 625 625 613 613 588 563 550 563 588 600 613 613 613 613 600 588 ‘ 575 550 538 525 563 563 588 588 588 588 588 588 563 550 538 500 488 550 563 563 563 575 575 563 550 538 525 500 488 463 538 550 563 563 563 563 550 538 525 500 475 463 475 103 LARGE SITE NUMBER 6 Fulton County, Ohio Site Location: Sections 12-13, 24-25, 36, T.7N, R.5E 1, T.6N, R.5E 7-11, 14-23, 26-35, T.7N, R.6E 2-6, T.6N, R.6E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 12, T.7N, R.5E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Wanseon, OH 1960/71 5 Bedrock Data Source: Vormelker, J.IL, 1971, "Bedrock Surface Map of Fulton County, Ohio," Open File Map No. 28, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Columbus, OH. T0pographic Surface Values 743 749 753 745 758 765 768 774 786 786 788 783 775 743 747 748 748 755 763 768 773 784 783 786 775 775 743 745 749 760 750 757 764 772 785 785 785 777 772 745 750 752 755 756 765 770 774 785 779 778 770 771 742 745 752 750 759 760 771 781 787 774 773 765 765 747 743 746 750 754 760 764 780 788 778 771 765 757 745 749 750 755 755 763 771 781 777 775 768 763 753 742 738 746 750 767 765 772 773 764 770 776 750 753 744 745 751 750 752 761 770 772 764 759 750 754 747 742 748 753 753 758 768 713 765 759 750 754 753 745 743 744 749 755 760 769 761 758 756 753 742 746 740 744 748 747 758 763 765 753 758 749 740 742 738 736 746 747 747 748 755 753 749 746 744 737 737 726 722 580 590 590 590 580 580 596 590 590 610 610 610 610 600 610 590 600 600 590 590 590 600 600 580 610 610 610 600 600 600 600 600 599 598 600 580 560 610 614 590 590 590 570 600 600 600 590 580 570 570 610 610 LARGE SITE NUMBER 6 Fulton County, Ohio 104 Bedrock Surface Values 590 590 570 550 590 590 603 605 590 570 590 610 617 590 590 550 540 550 550 589 590 580 530 590 610 610 580 570 530 530 530 530 540 540 530 550 570 610 610 560 530 540 560 590 560 580 600 590 560 540 570 614 530 550 587 600 620 590 590 621 610 590 576 550 560 560 560 590 600 610 590 600 621 621 1610 590 590 600 590 590 580 590 610 610 610 621 621 621 621 621 621 600 590 590 590 590 600 610 610 610 610 605 620 621 600 605 600 600 593 590 590 600 610 610 610 624 618 105 LARGE SITE NUMBER 7 Van Wert County, Ohio Site Location: Sections 22-27, 34-36, T.2$, R.1E 19-21, 28.33, T028, R028 1-3, 10-13, T.38, R.1E 4-9, 16-18, 7.33, n.zs Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 22, T.23, R.1E Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Glenmore, OH 1960 5 Bedrock Data Source: Vormelker, J.IL, 1981, "Top-of-Rock Map of Van Wert County, Ohio," Ohio Geological Survey, Open File Map No. 115. Topographic Surface Values 813 810 810 804 804 803 803 798 793 789 790 788 779 815 813 805 803 806 803 799 798 797 798 790 783 789 818 817 808 806 808 808 802 803 803 793 797 795 791 820 818 813 810 808 803 798 800 796 793 800 795 796 820 818 815 818 808 808 806 800 801 802 800 794 796 826 826 822 823 815 813 810 810 806 800 797 796 797 823 824 825 823 823 819 818 813 806 803 804 808 798 827 819 822 815 822 818 815 813 810 815 805 805 810 829 825 826 813 821 816 813 813 815 815 813 808 810 808 805 816 815 813 813 813 815 813 813 809 805 810 812 821 813 812 813 812 811 815 810 809 818 815 816 830 828 821 827 818 820 822 818 813 816 822 815 813 835 831 825 830 828 822 828 823 822 829 819 818 822 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 750 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 750 738 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 738 738 738 738 738 763 763 763 738 LARGE SITE NUMBER 7 106 Van Wert County, Ohio Bedrock Surface Values 763 738 763 763 750 725 725 725 750 763 763 750 738 738 750 738 738 738 713 688 725 750 750 750 738 750 700 688 713 738 738 713 663 700 738 713 713 763 763 763 738 688 688 688 663 663 663 675 663 713 738 738 750 738 763 738 738 725 713 638 638 650 688 700 638 750 763 750 738 713 713 638 663 713 ’ 675 650 650 650 763 750 763 763 725 638 713 725 725 713 738 738 738 763 738 738 713 663 713 738 750 763 738 738 750 763 738 738 688 713 738 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 763 Site Location: Upper Left Corner: LARGE SITE NUMBER 8 107 Clinton County, Michigan Sections 19-36, T.6N, R.2W 1-18, T.5N, 11.211 NW Corner, Section 19, T.6N, R.2W Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) St. Johns South, MI 1965 5 Lansing North, MI 1965 10 Bath, MI 1972 10 Price, MI 1972/82 10 Bedrock Data Source: Clinton County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. 776 788 809 795 822 870 862 860 833 805 819 800 843 794 770 775 818 832 885 867 850 815 805 830 845 865 785 803 805 823 831 875 866 835 795 805 844 855 845 785 804 801 818 827 830 832 815 835 840 848 855 837 Rieck, R. L” Topographic Surface Values 797 796 800 815 858 835 831 860 815 830 815 840 825 790 790 790 830 805 835 837 860 805 850 855 835 820 790 810 841 819 808 835 824 800 817 805 836 855 836 840 845 833 808 823 810 815 803 795 815 840 820 835 880 850 818 825 815 815 840 814 865 865 862 845 855 803 819 813 818 828 835 817 825 850 865 867 840 854 805 845 819 818 817 820 830 816 847 865 870 850 844 1984, "Bedrock Topography of 815 814 810 805 805 805 815 820 840 855 864 860 855 831 823 805 800 805 805 805 817 839 850 853 843 863 638 690 675 640 675 713 713 731 713 713 725 738 725 688 688 693 663 675 713 707 713 713 688 690 725 708 688 663 676 688 688 700 688 713 688 700 719 713 750 675 675 675 688 700 688 688 700 707 738 738 731 738 LARGE SITE NUMBER 8 108 Clinton County, Michigan Bedrock Surface Values 663 688 688 663 675 688 688 688 688 700 725 740 738 665 694 688 663 688 688 711 713 688 707 702 700 688 663 688 688 688 675 688 713 713 700 685 713 755 725 663 663 688 688 728 700 695 713 680 700 713 713 723 688 700 687 688 713 720 700 713 688 700 713 688 695 688 688 688 700 738 725 738 730 700 688 675 688 750 688 700 707 720 738 713 713 713 687 688 663 700 744 688 666 713 725 713 713 713 725 736 688 700 713 735 690 700 700 713 713 719 698 710 713 731 713 750 738 Site Location: Upper Left Corner: Topographic Data Source: LARGE SITE NUMBER 9 109 Allegan County, Michigan Sections 8-17, 20-29, 32-36, T.4N, R.13W 1-5, T.3N, R.13W 6, T.3N, R.12W 7, 18-19, 30-31, T.4N, R.12W NW Corner, Section 8, T.4N, R.13W U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Hudsonville West, MI 1980 10 Hudsonville East, MI 1980 10 Hamilton East, MI 1981 10 Burnips, MI 1981 10 Bedrock Data Source: Allegan County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. 659 662 691 718 680 716 635 644 648 663 665 680 696 722 730 715 675 712 680 635 650 656 665 670 685 700 717 753 695 706 672 661 640 640 663 675 685 696 705 Rieck, R. L" 703 705 693 710 719 675 700 690 681 675 647 645 664 685 730 695 714 698 685 690 659 655 650 667 727 697 690 710 679 665 665 668 658 645 667 725 685 690 705 715 703 681 675 668 667 655 665 663 672 660 668 668 667 650 655 668 675 670 680 685 690 688 695 704 705 Topographic Surface Values 687 > 701 669 663 682 665 668 670 661 680 680 684 708 723 747 700 726 671 679 663 663 668 670 680 674 673 678 680 683 675 686 665 700 703 734 705 718 695 728 1980, "Bedrock Topography of 701 695 676 675 674 675 685 688 705 680 705 735 796 752 717 691 668 679 684 688 689 710 715 707 705 750 563 563 563 563 563 525 449 475 500 550 588 588 613 552 575 525 563 588 575 550 450 500 525 563 575 625 566 525 488 525 588 586 525 463 538 563 540 563 588 563 488 425 525 600 575 550 438 550 588 599 600 583 LARGE SITE NUMBER 9 110 Allegan County, Michigan Bedrock Surface Values 525 550 425 512 588 582 463 438 538 575 601 600 621 438 378 500 438 488 438 438 438 538 575 600 550 513 498 350 350 450 538 450 500 550 563 613 613 600 563 547 538 520 438 538 513 475 500 550 588 588 650 600 538 538 550 475 475 538 438 475 525 575 588 600 588 588 538 588 588 538 563 450 4450 438 525 538 613 588 563 568 575 600 600 502 475 500 513 450 438 613 588 588 588 600 550 588 563 525 450 563 588 550 635 588 613 613 604 600 525 600 575 488 538 588 613 111 LARGE SITE NUMBER 10 Lapeer County, Michigan Site Location: Sections 1, 12-13, 24-25, 36, T.7N, R.1OE 2-11, 14-23, 26-35, T.7N;, R.11E Upper Left Corner: NW Corner, Section 1, T.7N, R.1OE Topographic Data Source: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:24000) Date(s) C.I. (ft.) Attica, MI 1963 10 Thornville, MI 1968 10 Almont, MI 1968 10 Bedrock Data Source: Rieck, R.1L, 1983, "Bedrock Topography of Lapeer County, Michigan," compliments of Dr. Rieck, Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455. Topographic Surface Values 845 875 843 851 853 888 925 877 892 _874 878 842 845 876 865 864 870 880 853 885 865 864 846 845 859 873 867 861 877 896 880 865 870 845 855 855 855 866 865 870 890 933 865 895 885 849 852 854 860 873 884 876 903 893 887 858 855 866 855 858 872 876 890 892 900 895 863 858 867 860 865 865 870 885 901 857 900 867 875 916 865 901 885 881 875 859 845 875 885 871 918 932 974 929 901 913 875 865 891 888 895 885 927 945 925 944 890 914 865 855 895 899 907 915 955 975 971 928 898 897 869 904 935 922 925 965 1010 983 945 902 890 899 923 995 995 965 955 1005 975 945 910 910 906 874 860 881 895 902 910 913 865 891 860 849 865 885 864 855 885 895 895 880 860 838 884 873 864 840 870 750 720 735 775 800 788 800 813 813 810 813 813 825 770 725 768 788 750 738 750 788 788 813 827 813 825 732 775 775 775 763 738 763 788 800 825 813 813 825 750 798 800 775 794 725 763 788 812 837 813 813 813 112 LARGE SITE NUMBER 10 Lapeer County, Michigan Bedrock Surface Values 788 763 788 806 813 750 750 788 810 813 813 800 784 750 763 763 800 817 763 738 788 813 788 813 788 810 738 770 700 750 775 738 713 775 813 788 813 768 775 680 700 788 788 763 785 713 750 797 813 813 775 763 675 713 788 790 763 750 700 725 775 800 800 775 763 650 688 788 775 725 738 675 650 775 813 750 738 738 675 675 781 750 663 763 752 638 785 775 750 738 738 725 738 775 763 725 788 790 650 638 663 688 738 750 713 738 775 775 688 750 738 655 736 625 638 713 713 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF SMALL SITE STATISTICS 113 APPENDIX C Table 8. Summary of Small Site Statistics 0 o ’7 v1 -= -c a a 1? 5‘ 9.. .. a E, E? Q, “I a: :3 £743 1313 .9 " 35’ £3 3 7: 21 ~72! 323' 5 £317 .331" “‘7 ‘39.. ‘35,", “g? ,1?“ :9“ . 0 e o -x ‘S .. .55 «it? 873 6'5: egg 85 38 3? .1: :39: «5'5" so? 1‘32 It: 83 338 178 to g g £9 5 £31 :5 5‘3 :58 1. 3O 20 37 23 33 12 .395 .603 2. 49 24 32 15 28 14 .289 .591 3. 27 17 45 23 30 11 .421 .662 4. 57 33 23 13 52 24 .418 .732 5. 53 33 37 23 72 45 .850 1.394 6. 18 11 19 8 28 14 .770 1.233 7. 68 37 23 15 83 50 .734 1.345 8. 27 13 13 7 31 20 .739 1.486 9. 80 43 27 11 102 52 .650 1.220 10. 55 37 42 20 150 123 2.232 3.298 11. 20 13 24 9 32 22' 1.094 1.724 12. 91 82 14 9 145 112 1.225 1.361 13. 30 19 3O 15 79 54 1.761 2.818 14. 27 18 21 12 47 30 1.083 1.695 15. 30 15 18 9 107 93 3.041 6.051 16. 15 8 29 17 19 11 .699 1.332 17. 46 21 41 14 54 28 .622 1.356 18. 38 19 24 13 113 88 2.305 4.629 19. 15 11 24 16 67 58 3.814 5.085 20. 69 48 35 27 46 11 .164 .236 21. 24 14 22 14 44 27 1.123 1.996 22. 30 16 15 10 44 28 .918 1.749 23. 52 27 17 1O 62 34 .663 1.253 24. 34 15 25 12 37 20 .604 1.329 25. 18 10 11 6 57 44 2.422 4.404 26. 15 8 24 10 27 17 1.132 2.264 27. 38 30 9 5 56 31 .813 1.048 28. 12 9 18 7 40 24 1.932 2.576 29. 34 17 21 13 34 17 .490 .979 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 38. 39. 40. 41. 37 30 23 57 20 72 81 23 30 32 23 29 19 18 18 29 8 53 37 13 15 19 11 16 76 18 16 24 28 31 16 12 10 24 25 30 114 Table 8 (cont'd) 32 12 11 15 1s 16 10 7 7 16 12 15 94 47 26 28 27 64 50 56 58 37 30 22 30 1.272 .859 1.222 .477 3-137 .670 .686 2.543 1.223 .953 .966 1.062 2.394 1.450 1.540 .956 7.643 .903 10527 4.360 2.523 1.627 1.985 1.939 All non-ratio statistics are in meters 115 APPENDIX D Table 9. Summary of Large Site Statistics o O E 3 8 8 3 8‘ .. .. 8 8’ 6‘3 8° 8° 55 S? 65:? 8:? ~37 3 8:7 68.; 1:9.H .9: 8'3? .55} in? :66“! ‘H ”H 0 0-1-1 0 \‘3 <3 . .51; 8°: 85 8;; 5.5 .35" :38 >8 :3 3* 0“ gm 3: fig’ pg 3% 3% ‘0 38 3: $3 :2 S?“ 351 9:8 $3 1. 53 17 nu 15 27 11 .200 .633 2. 55 22 48 21 150 122 2.203 5.u10 3. 119 69 38 16 121 54 .455 .782 u. 37 18 an 23 59 29 .783 1.605 5. 84 19 42 15 113 54 .639 2.767 6. 29 16 20 7 78 52 1.802 3.257 7. 38 20 17 5 56 23 .610 1.138 8. 36 16 35 17 63 38 1.077 2.356 9. 91 u1 49 17 95 an .485 1.077 10. 65 30 52 20 77 39 .602 1.280 All non-ratio statistics are in meters APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF LARGE SITE STATISTICS APPENDIX E CALCULATING AVERAGE BEDROCK 0R TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF 116 APPENDIX E--CALCULATING AVERAGE BEDROCK 0R TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF In order to calculate average bedrock or topographic relief, each site was divided into a set of equal-area cells (shown below). The available relief in each cell was determined by using the maximum and minimum elevation values. Finally, an average relief value for each site was calculated by averaging the relief values of the cells. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43444546474849 Figure 9. Small Site Cells APPENDIX E--continued 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 31 32 34 35 37 38 41 42 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 54 55 57 58 60 61 62. 63 64 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 61 82 83 84 85‘ 86 67 88 89 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 96 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 116 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 126 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 146 149 150 154 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 Figure 10. Large Site Cells SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, R. B., 1963, Bedrock Topoggphy, Lithology, and Glacial Drift Thickness of Lapeer and St. Clair Counties, Michi an, (M.S. thesis), East Lansing: Michigan State University, 54 pp. Chamberlin, T. C., and Salisbury, R. D., 1907, Geolo , New York: Henry Holt and Co., vol. 3, 2nd ed., 624 pp. Charlesworth, J. K., 1957, The Quaternary Era, London: Edward Arnold Ltd., vol. 1, 591 pp. Chayes, F., 1970, "On Deciding Whether Trend Surfaces of Progressively Higher Order Are Meaningful," Geoggical Society o_f America Bulletin, vol. 81, pp. 1273-1278. Chorley, R. J., and Haggett, P., "Trend-Surface Mapping in Geographical Research," Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 37, pp. 47-67. Doornkamp, J. C., 1972, "Trend-Surface Analysis of Planation Surfaces, With An East African Case Study,” pp. 247-281, in Chorley, R. J., ed., Spatial Analysis i_n_ Geomorphology, New York: Harper and Row, 393 pp. Fairbridge, R. W., 1968, Encyclopedia o_f_ Geomorphology, Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series, vol. 3, New York: Reinhold Book Corp., 1295 pp. Fenneman, N. M., 1938, Physiography _o_f_‘ Eastern United States, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 714 pp. Flint, R. F., 1971, Glacial and Quaternary Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 892 pp. Frye, J. C., Willman, H. B., and Black, R. F., 1965, "Outline of Glacial Geology of Illinois and Wisconsin," pp. 43-61, in Wright, H. B., and Frey, D. 0., eds., The Quaternag 91 92 United States, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 922 pp. Glacial Map o_f the United States East g the Rocky Mountains, New York: Geological Society of America, 1959. 118 119 Goodie, A., 1981, Geomorphological Techniges, London: George Allen and Unwin, 395 pp. Harbaugh, J. W., and Merriam, D. F., 1968, Computer Applications i_p Stratigraphic Analysis, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 282 pp. Horberg, L., 1943, "A Major Buried Valley in East-Central Illinois and its Regional Relationships," Journal g: Geolo , vol. 53. pp. 349-359. . 1946, "Preglacial Erosion Surfaces in Illinois," Journal 2: Geology, vol. 54, pp. 179-192. . 1950, Bedrock Topography 95 Illinois, Urbana: Illinois State Geological Survey, Bulletin no. 73, 111 pp. Horberg, L., and Anderson, R. C., 1956, "Bedrock Topography and Pleistocene Glacial Lobes in the Central United States," Journal gf. GGOIO ’ V01. 6”, n0. 2, ppo1o1-116o Hull, C. H., and Nie, N. H., eds., 1981, SPSS Update 7-9, New York: Kay, G. F., and Apfel, E. T., 1928, Pre-Illinoian Pleistocene Geology 9_f_ Iowa, State Geological Survey of Iowa, vol. 34, pp. 51-54. Krumbein, 17. C., and Graybill, F. 4., 1965, .A_n Introduction 33 Statistical Models 313 Geolo , New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 475 PP. Lobeck, A. K., 1939, Geomoghology, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 781 pp- MacClintock, P., 1929, Physicaraphic Divisions gt; the Area Covered by the Illinoian Drift-Sheet 31 Southern Illinois, Urbana: Illinois State Geological Survey, Report of Investigation no. 19, 25 pp. Miller, R. L., 1964, "Comparison-Analysis of Trend Maps," in Computers :_L_n_ the Mineral Industries, Stanford University Press, Geological Series, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 669-685. Moore, R. K., 1959, Pre-Pleistocene Topography, Lithology, and Glacial Drift Thickness g: Livingston and Shiawassee Counties, Michigan, (M.S. thesis), East Lansing: Michigan State University. 39 pp. Morrison, J. L., 1971, Method Produced Error _13 Isarithmic Mapping, Madison: University of Wisconsin, 76 pp. 120 Newcombe, R. B., and Lindberg, G. D., 1935, "Glacial Expression of Structural Features in Michigan: Preliminary Study," Bulletin 21: the Association 93 Petroleum Geologists, vol. 19, no. pp. 1173-1191. Nie, N. H., et. al., 1975, SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 2nd ed., 675 pp. Norcliffe, G. B., 1969, "On the Use and Limitations of Trend Surface Models," _Tpe Canadian Geographer, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 338-348. Norris, S. E., and White, G. W., 1961, "Hydrologic Significance of Buried Valleys in Glacial Drift," U.S.G.S. Professional Paper ”Zn-B, pp. 3u-350 Piskin, K., and Bergstrom, R. E., 1967, Glacial Drift _i_n Illinois: Thickness and Character, Urbana: Illinois State Geological Survey, Circular no. 416, 25 pp. Rhoads, B. L., 1982, Interrelationshifi Between Glacialg Buried nganic Matter, the Bedrock SurfaceJ and the Present Topggraphl in South-Central Mich Jam A Case 22 Multiple Paleosurfaces, (M.A. thesis), East Lansing: Michigan State University, 89 pp. Rhoads, B. L., Rieck, R. L., and Winters, H. A., (no date), "Effects of Thick Drift on Quaternary Landscapes in Central Michigan," unpublished manuscript. Rieck, R. L., 1976, Th__e_ Glacial Geomorpholc5y_ of a_n Interlobate Area in Southeast Michigan: Relationships Between Landforms, Sediments and Bedrock, (Ph.D. dissertation), East Lansing: Michigan State University, 216 pp. Rieck, R. L., and Winters, H. A., 1979, "Lake, Stream and Bedrock in Southcentral Michigan," Annals 9_f the Association o__f American Geographers, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. _27 6- 288. Robinson, A. H., and Caroe, L., 1967, "On the Analysis and Comparison of Statistical Surfaces," pp. 252-276, in Garrison, W. L., and Marble, D. F., Quantitative Geography, Northwestern University: Studies in Geography, no. 13, part 1. Ruhe, R. 1]., 1950, "Graphic Analysis of Drift Topographies," American Journal pf Science, vol. 248, no. 6, pp. 435-443. Thornbury, W. D., 1965, Regional Geomo_rphology g the United States, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 609 pp. 121 Ver Steeg, K., 1934, "The Buried Topography of North-Central Ohio and its Origin," Journal 53 Geolo , vol. 42, pp. 602-620. . 1938, "Thickness of the Glacial Drift in Western Ohio," Journal pf Geolo , vol. 46, pp. 654-659. Wayne, W. J., 1956, Thickness of Drift and Bedrock Physiography p_f_' Indiana North g: the Wisconsin Glacial Boundary, Bloomington: Indiana Geological Survey, Report of Progress no. 7, 70 pp. Wayne, W. J., and Zumberge, J. H., 1965, "Pleistocene Geology of Indiana and Michigan," pp. 63-84, in Wright, H. E., and Frey, D. G., eds., The Quaternary g the United States, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 922 pp. White, G. W., 1974, "Buried Glacial Geomorphology," pp. 331-350, in Coates, D. R., Glacial Geomorphology, Binghamton: State University of New York, 398 pp. Winters, H. A., and Rieck, R. L., 1982, "Drainage Reversals and Transverse Relationships of Rivers to Moraines in Southern Michigan," Physical Geography, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 70-82. Wittick, R. I., 1974, GEOSYS: A Computer System for the Description and Analysis g Spatial Data, East Lansing: Michigan State University. 35 pp. Zigich, D. K., and Kolm, K. E., 1982, "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Landsat Data as a Tool for Locating Buried Pre-Glacial Valleys in Eastern South Dakota," Photogrammetric Emgineeripg £13 Remote Sensing, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 1891-1901.