 

 

LIBRARYﬁ

Michi9am State
University

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkoutfrom your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 chIRODaeDmpGS-p."

 

LITHOLOGIC DISCONTINUITIES AND MULTIPLE PARENT MATERIALS IN
SOME SOILS OF THE NORTHPORT DRUMLIN FIELD, MICHIGAN.

By

Paul R. Rindﬂeisch

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Geography

1999

 

 

 

 

Frontispiece: View of orchards and the western arm of Grand Traverse Bay from
the Northport drumlin ﬁeld.

ABSTRACT

LITHOLOGIC DISCONTINUITIES AND MULTIPLE PARENT MATERIALS IN
SOME SOILS OF THE NORTHPORT DRUMLIN FIELD, MICHIGAN.

By

Paul R. Rindﬂeisch

Although subtle and often overlooked, lithologic discontinuities occurring within
soils can be useful indicators of paleoenvironmental conditions. The goals ofthis study
were: 1) to determine iflithologic discontinuities similar to those recognized in drumlin
ﬁelds in northeastern lower Michigan are also present in soils of the Northport drumlin
ﬁeld, Leelanau County, Michigan, and where present, 2) to characterize these
discontinuities, and determine their relevance in the regional geomorphic history. These
goals were met through analysis of data collected from soil pits and bucket auger sites on
drumlins. Particle size separates and clay mineral assemblages were determined in the
laboratory. Abrupt increases in gravel content below the discontinuities commonly
observed in the ﬁeld, and mirrored by particle size data, were typically the best indication
of lithologic discontinuities in upland sites. Several hypotheses, including bioturbation,
weathering processes, glacial phenomena, and subaqueous (pro-glacial lakes) processes
were explored to account for these discontinuities and the deposition/erosion of the
sediments above and below them. The hypotheses involving subaqueous processes and
deformation tills best ﬁt with the nature of the discontinuities, their associated materials,

and the evidence currently available.

Copyright by
Paul R. Rindﬂeisch
1999

To J.J., Sally, Mike. Mark, and David.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would ﬁrst like to thank my committee members, Dr. Randy Schaetzl, Dr. Alan
Arbogast, and Dr. Grahame Larson, each of whom contributed wisdom from their area of
expertise, something that was essential given the melange of ideas discussed herein. 1
also appreciate each of their helpful comments and contributions, and the time they
invested in my thesis. I would especially like to thank the Chairperson of my committee
and graduate advisor, Dr. Randy Schaetzl. Dr. Schaetzl shared with me both professional
and personal guidance, provided me with excellent opportunities for professional growth,
always held me to a very high standard, and somehow remained patient while I agonized
over the color or consistence of ﬁeld samples.

I would also like to thank my family, especially my mother who gave her
unﬂagging support throughout this entire process, and my father who taught me the value
of hard work, and persuaded me to take classes at the local community college. I would
also like to show my appreciation to those in the Geography Department with whom I
shared this experience, Scott Crozier, Dan Minadeo, Julie Colby, Mark Bowersox, and
Colleen Garrity.

A special thanks is due to Frank Krist (Department of Anthropology, Michigan
State University), who assembled the GIS products that were later used in elevation
analyses, and in creating several of the maps contained herein. Another special thank you
is owed to all the landowners who allowed me access to their land, and in some instances,
permission to dig pits with a backhoe: Dallas and Patricia Brow, Orville and Cecilia

Dunklow, Waldemar and Mary Firehammer, Richard and Isabelle Firestone, Duane and

vi

Ina Fauser, James Gentel, Annie Heldt, Elizabeth Houdek, Elmer Kalchik, Sylvester and
Marie Korson, Dale Mikowski, Mark Morton, Judy Reinhardt, and Leonard and Theresa
Schaub.

A ﬁnal, but certainly not diminished thanks goes to Department of Geography for
the graduate assistantships that made my attendance here possible, and the Graduate
Ofﬁce Fellowships that I received that allowed me to do my ﬁeld work. This research

was also partially funded by National Science Foundation Grant SBR-9319967.

vii

USI 0?

Mil OI

llIlRi

r—1r—1r'ﬁ

r—w

“W

”7—1”

.A 1.. r--

Rik”-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. xiii
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
STUDY AREA/BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 4
TOPOGRAPHY/RELIEF ........................................................................................ 4
CLIMATE .............................................................................................................. 12

SOILS ..................................................................................................................... 15
NATURAL VEGETATION .................................................................................. 21
LAND USE ............................................................................................................ 22
GEOMORPHIC/GLACIAL HISTORY ...................................... , ........................... 23
Moraines .................................................................................................... 23

Pro—glacial lakes, lake chronology ............................................................. 29

Drumlins of northwestern lower Michigan ................................................ 34
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 40
GLACIAL RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN .............................................................. 4O
DRUMLINS OF MICHIGAN ............................................................................... 41
DRUMLIN STRATIGRAPHY AND SOILS ........................................................ 42
LITHOLOGIC DISCONTINUITIES ..................................................................... 44
METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 48
SITE SELECTION ................................................................................................. 48
FIELD METHODS ................................................................................................ 57
LABORATORY METHODS ................................................................................ 58
ANALYTICAL METHODS .................................................................................. 65
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM METHODS .................................... 68
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 71
DATA AND LINES OF INTERPRETATION ...................................................... 71
Upland sites ................................................................................................ 72
“Cap” material ............................................................................... 97

Glacial till ..................................................................................... 102

Inter-drumlin sites .................................................................................... 105

viii

51m

IPPE

Fluvial materials ........................................................................... 105

Lacustrine materials ..................................................................... 1 10
Beach deposits ............................................................................. 1 14
PRESENCE OF LITHOLOGIC DISCONTINUITIES ........................................ 1 15
Uplands .................................................................................................... 1 16
Stone-lines .................................................................................... l 20
Inter-drumlin areas ................................................................................... 124
Particle size analysis ................................................................................ 129
Sorting .......................................................................................... 134
Identiﬁcation of discontinuities using particle size indices ......... 135
ORIGINS OF UPLAND DISCONTINUITIES AND SANDY “CAP” ............... 148
Pedogenic origins and inﬂuences of near-surface processes ................... 149
Biomantle ..................................................................................... 149
Weathering mantle ....................................................................... 157
Origin and influences of past depositional environments ........................ 162
Eolian hypothesis ......................................................................... 162
Ice contact material/till hypotheses .............................................. 165
Subaqueous hypothesis ................................................................ 175
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 193
FURTHER RESEARCH ..................................................................................... 195
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 1 99
APPENDIX A: AML USED TO CREATE SPATIAL DATA
PRODUCTS ......................................................................................................... 200
APPENDIX B: COMPLETE PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS FOR
PIT-SAMPLED SITES ........................................................................................ 205
APPENDIX C: PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR ALL SAMPLES ....................... 219
APPENDIX D: CLAY-FREE PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR
ALL SAMPLES ................................................................................................... 228
APPENDIX E: PROFILE-WEIGHTED PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR ALL
SAMPLES ............................................................................................................ 237
APPENDIX F: OUTCOMES OF UNIFORMITY INDEX AND MODIFIED
CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION INDEX ............................ 241
APPENDIX G: DIRECTIONS FOR OPERATION OF THE PHILLIPS
XRG 3100 SCANNING DIFFRACTOMETER AND APD SOFTWARE ......... 246
APPENDIX H: PILOT STUDY IN THE WEST LEELANAU
DRUMLIN FIELD ............................................................................................... 247
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 256

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Climatological data for Maple City and Gaylord, Michigan .................. 13
Table 2. Characteristics of soils pertinent to this study ........................................ 16
Table 3. Average topographic characteristics of Northport drumlins ................... 37
Table 4. Approximate locations and elevations of sample sites ........................... 52
Table 5. Example of the derivation of percentages of clay minerals .................... 61

Table 6. Color, pH, texture, gravel content, and soil mapping unit for all
samples ................................................................................................................... 73

Table 7. Parent material interpretations for all sites ............................................. 92

Table 8. Summary statistics for particle size separates, grouped by parent
material .................................................................................................................. 98

Table 9. Semiquantitatively-derived percentages of clay minerals for selected
samples ................................................................................................................. 100

Table 10. Summary statistics for clay mineral data, grouped by parent material (in
%) ......................................................................................................................... 101

Table 11. Volumetric coarse fragment estimates and percent clay-free very coarse
sand in upland proﬁles ......................................................................................... 121

Table 12. Volumetric coarse fragment estimates and percent clay-free very coarse
sand in inter-drumlin proﬁles ............................................................................... 125

Table 13. Summary statistics for clay-free particle size separates ...................... 131

Table 14. Folk and Ward’s (1957) sorting categories ......................................... 135

Table 15. Comparisons of data from the Uniformity Index and modified
Cumulative Particle Size Distribution Index with ﬁeld-recognized
discontinuities ...................................................................................................... 1 3 7

Table 16. Summary data for particle size indices and ﬁeld-recognized lithologic
discontinuities ...................................................................................................... 143

Table 17. Some possible origins of the lithologic discontinuities and sandy “cap”
found in some upland proﬁles .............................................................................. 150

Table 18. Particle size distributions of worm casts at two sites, and their
comparison to sandy “cap” materials ................................................................... 156

Table 19. Clay minerals, color, and textural data reported for Greatlakean and
Port Huron tills in northwestern lower Michigan ................................................ 176

Table 20. Elevations (in meters) of selected polygons containing soils formed in

lacustrine deposits ................................................................................................ 180
Table 21. Complete proﬁle description for HOU-S pedon ................................. 206
Table 22. Complete proﬁle description for HOU-Tl pedon ............................... 208
Table 23. Complete proﬁle description for HOU-T2 pedon ............................... 210
Table 24. Complete proﬁle description for HETT-T2 pedon ............................. 212
Table 25. Complete proﬁle description for NPRT-BZ pedon ............................. 215

xi

Table 26. Complete proﬁle description for NPRT-F pedon ............................... 217

Table 27. Particle size data for all samples ......................................................... 220
Table 28. Clay-free particle size data for all samples ......................................... 229
Table 29. Proﬁle-weighted particle size data for all samples ............................. 238

Table 30. Outcomes of Uniformity Index and modiﬁed Cumulative
Particle Size Distribution Index ........................................................................... 242

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Leelanau County, Michigan, and some of its municipalities
and water bodies. Note: location of the Fox Islands is not actual, for actual
locations see locator map in upper left hand comer ................................................. 5

Figure 2. Surﬁcial geology and physiographic map of Leelanau County (modiﬁed
from Farrand and Bell, 1982). Note: Fox Island locations not actual, see locator
map in Figure 1 ........................................................................................................ 6

Figure 3. Digital elevation model (DEM) of Leelanau County (30 meter
resolution); islands not shown. DEM created by Frank Krist ................................. 7

Figure 4. Nipissing and Algonquin shorelines (after Martin, 1955); islands not
shown ..................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 5. The location of drumlinized terrain in northwestern lower Michigan;
arrows indicate general orientations. The collection of drumlinized terrain east of
Grand Traverse Bay is the Antrim-Charlevoix ﬁeld (after Farrand and Bell,

1982) ...................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 6. Orientation of drumlinoid features in Leelanau County ........................ 38

Figure 7. Map displaying drumlin morphology in the central part of the Northport
ﬁeld. Base map: Gills Pier 75’ topographic map, contour interval 5 meters
(USGS, 1983) ......................................................................................................... 49

Figure 8. Location of the HOU, HW, BLW, BLE, AND HETT transects. Base
map: Gill Pier 75’ topographic map, contour interval 5 meters
(USGS, 1983) ......................................................................................................... 50

Figure 9. Location of the NPRT transect. Base map: Northport NW 7.5’
topographic map, contour interval 5 meters (USGS, 1983) ................................... 51

xiii

Figure 10. Detail of the sampling sites for the HOU and HW transects. Base
map: Gill Pier 75’ topographic map, contour interval 5 meters (USGS, 1983).
Soils map: SSURGO data (NRCS, 1999) .............................................................. 53

Figure 11. Detail of the sampling sites for the BLE, BLW, and HETT transects.
Base map: Gill Pier 75’ topographic map, contour interval 5 meters (USGS,
1983). Soils map: SSURGO data (NRCS, 1999). A = BLW—S, B = BLW-B, C =
BLW-F, D = BL-T, E = BLE-F, F = BLE-B, G = BLE-S, H = HETT-SH, I =
HETT-B, J = HETT-F, K = HETT-T1, L = HETT-T2 .......................................... 54

Figure 12. Detail of the sampling sites for the NPRT transect. Base map:
Northport NW 75’ topographic map, contour interval 5 meters (USGS, 1983).
Soils map: SSURGO data (NRC S, 1999) .............................................................. 56

Figure 13. Determination of the intensity measures used to calculate clay mineral
quantities ................................................................................................................ 62

Figure 14. The distribution of soil complexes with glacial till parent materials.
Soils data: SSURGO (NRCS, 1999) .................................................................... 103

Figure 15. The distribution of soil complexes with sandy, stratiﬁed parent
materials. Soils data: SSURGO (NRCS, 1999) ................................................... 106

Figure 16. Distribution of soils forming in stratiﬁed ﬂuvial and lacustrine
deposits and their elevations. Boxes indicate sampling localities. Soils data:
SSURGO (NRCS, 1999). 30 meter resolution DEM provided by

Frank Krist ........................................................................................................... 107

Figure 17. Photograph from HETT-T2 site of a soil with a sandy “cap” overlying
silty, clayey, and sandy stratiﬁed lacustrine sediments (parent materials 2,3, and
4), which in turn overlie sandy and gravelly outwash materials (5C). Notice the
well developed stratiﬁcation in the 4C horizon. Markings on the tape are at

10 cm increments ................................................................................................. 1 l 1

Figure 18. Close-up of the stratiﬁcation present in the 4C horizon of the HETT-
T2 proﬁle. The pinkish material is silty clay loam in texture while the lighter
colored strata are sand to very ﬁne sand in texture. Golf tee for scale ............... 1 12

xiv

Figure 19. The distribution of soil complexes with lacustrine parent materials.
Soils data: SSURGO (NRCS, 1999) .................................................................... l 13

Figure 20. Photograph from HOU-S site of an upland soil with a sandy “cap”
overlying till (parent material 2). Notice the abrupt increase in gravel within the
2Bt horizon (stone-line/clusters indicated by dashed lines) as compared to the
lower gravel content of the “cap”. The left-most side of the pit was sampled and
described; markings on the tape are at 10 cm increments .................................... 1 17

Figure 21. Scatterplots demonstrating the relationships between volumetric
estimates of gravel content and gravimetrically-derived clay-free sand
percentages ........................................................................................................... 1 18

Figure 22. The distribution of lacustrine parent materials in the central part of the
Northport drumlin ﬁeld. Minimum, maximum, and mean elevations of polygons
designated with letters are listed in Table 20. Soils data: SSURGO (NRC S,

1999). 30 meter resolution DEM provided by Frank Krist ................................. 178

Figure 23. Areas in the Northport drumlin ﬁeld higher in elevation than 275
meters, which is slightly higher than elevations suggested by Clark et al’s. (1994)
model of isostatic depression for the region. Notice that about half of the study
sites are at least partially higher than this value. Soils data: SSURGO (NRCS,
1999). 30 meter resolution DEM provided by Frank Krist ................................. 183

Figure 24. Areas in Leelanau County that are higher than 300 meters in
elevation. 30 meter resolution DEM provided by Frank Krist. Soils data:
SSURGO (NRCS, 1999) ...................................................................................... 191

Figure 25. Map showing sample sites in the West Leelanau drumlin ﬁeld.
Symbols are explained in accompanying text. Base maps: Good Harbor Bay and
Suttons Bay 7.5’ topographic maps, contour interval 5 meters

(USGS, 1983) ....................................................................................................... 254

XV

 

 

._.
u n-
V; :v-1
. \_
no i.
'\
no. \.
."‘-. .
"i 5-
Y.) ..
‘ .
u .
\
v. I
w i
w
"an.
I
.1
. __ ,
' ~
1‘
.5 _
k V\
r
.9 ‘ .
\gL‘I -

 

\‘ﬁ
U
"u
‘.
lu‘
.‘.
w.

 

‘u .
n—
u
‘.
-\
._ N.
4‘
5 -u-
‘ .
.‘
‘ ,
u

INTRODUCTION

Recent investigations of drumlin ﬁelds in northeastern lower Michigan by
Schaetzl (1996, 1998) and Schaetzl et a1. (under review) indicate that the soils there often
contain lithologic discontinuities. The parent material above these discontinuities (where
present) tends to fall into the ﬁne sandy loam textural class of the USDA soil texture
classiﬁcation scheme, contains very small amounts of gravel (<10% by volume), and
appears to have a different origin than the material below the discontinuity, which is
generally a sandy loam with a higher proportion of gravel (5-30%) and is interpreted to be
glacial till. The discontinuity between the two materials is most often marked by a zone
containing large quantities of gravel or a stone-line.

The textural contrast between the materials above and belowthese discontinuities
led Schaetzl et al. (under review) to develop a new depositional model for the region,
and, as a consequence, to suggest a glacial history that is distinctly different than previous
interpretations. Schaetzl et a1. contend that the upper material may represent a
subaqueous deposit. This conclusion was based on the occurrence of lacustrine clays
found in inter-drumlin areas, and the presence of a sandy, relatively gravel-free upper
material overlying both drumlins (till-cored) crests and lacustrine clays found in inter-
drumlin areas. Also, soil and elevation data, manipulated within a geographic
information system, indicates that the study area could have been submerged by an
extensive, previously undiscovered, pro-glacial lake, or by several separate and smaller

areas of ponded water.

 

 

11,.

LL“...
.

ibbﬂur

“3' w-

. “5, u.

s .
II'V‘ .ﬂ‘
‘ .1
‘K
5 u
.
t.
1",
k. ,-
n...)

 

  

The purpose of this thesis research is to (1) ascertain whether ﬁne sandy loam
“caps” and lithogic discontinuities similar to those of the drumlin ﬁelds in northeastern
lower Michigan, occur in the soils of the Northport drumlin ﬁeld in northwestern lower
Michigan, and (2) to characterize these discontinuities, if present, and determine their
relevance in the broader regional geomorphic history. If sandy, low-gravel “caps” are
present in the Northport ﬁeld, toposequence analysis of them may help determine the
sedimentary environment of this upper material, and that knowledge may allow for a
better understanding of the overall glacial history of the region. A more intimate
knowledge of the glacial history of the area and the soils forming in these materials will
also be helpful in soil re-mapping that is scheduled to be undertaken in this area in the
coming years.

My hypotheses for this study are: (1) that ﬁne sandy loam caps and lithologic
discontinuities similar to those found in northeastern lower Michigan are present in the
Northport drumlin ﬁeld, and if such caps are present, (2) that they will be found in
proximity to deposits that suggest a subaqueous depositional environment for the ﬁeld.
The ﬁne sandy loam caps and lithologic discontinuities found by Schaetzl (1998) were
not recognized in the ofﬁcial series descriptions for those soils, and may have gone
unrecognized without detailed ﬁeld and lab work, which included the exposure and
sampling of many proﬁles in backhoe pits. Since many of the same soil series are
mapped on drumlinized uplands in both areas, published soil survey information alone
cannot be assumed to adequately address the ﬁrst hypothesis. Given that the caps found
in northeastern lower Michigan are believed to have formed (at least in part) through

subaqueous processes, I will also test the viability of that hypothesis for the soils of the

 

 

‘II it, 57.. it! I.

Northport drumlin ﬁeld. The hypothesis that caps and lithologic discontinuities, if
present in the Northport ﬁeld, are of subaqueous origin is certainly possible, given the
proximity of the ﬁeld to Lake Michigan and the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay. The
hypothesis that the caps are the result of partial or complete submergence is also
supported by the isostatic deformation models presented by Clark et a1. ( 1994).
According to these models, lake levels could have been 90 m higher than present during
the Glenwood stage of Lake Michigan under a thin ice scenario (700 m ice thickness) and
as much as 220 m higher than present under a thick ice scenario (2000 m ice thickness),
due to isostatic depression of the crust. If the thin ice model is applied to the Northport
ﬁeld, only the highest drumlins would have stood above lake level, while if the thick ice
model is used, all of the Leelanau Peninsula would have been submerged.

This study will use soils to gain insight into the near-surface stratigraphy of the
Northport drumlin ﬁeld. Speciﬁcally, this thesis will focus on the presence or absence of
lithologic discontinuities in these soils, and, if present, attempt to explain their origins.
These goals will be accomplished by looking at toposequences of soils in the ﬁeld, and
through examination of sediment elevations using a geographic information system. The
information acquired through this research will be valuable for both glacial geologists and
soil mappers working in the area by providing both a model of near-surface depositional
history, and detailed information on some of the characteristics of the soil series found in
the Northport drumlin ﬁeld. Hopefully, both types of information and the methods
utilized in this study will be helpful when similar landscapes in northem lower Michigan

are investigated.

 

 

 

 

i\

r.“

s\\

STUDY AREA / BACKGROUND

The Northport drumlin ﬁeld is located on the Leelanau Peninsula in northwestem
lower Michigan (Figure 1). The peninsula is ﬂanked on its western side by Lake
Michigan and by the western arm of Grand Traverse Bay to the east. The Northport
drumlin ﬁeld covers most of the peninsula from about 2.4 kilometers north of the
community of Sutton's Bay to about 4.0 kilometers north of the village of Northport
(Figures 1 and 2). The area of drumlinized terrain encompasses about 72 square
kilometers, and is bounded on the south by the east-west trending Suttons Bay moraine
(as recognized by Lotan and Shetron, [1968]). On the north, the ﬁeld is bounded by the
wave-cut terrace of Glacial Lake Algonquin. The eastern border of the ﬁeld is the
western arm of Grand Traverse Bay, while Lake Michigan forms the western border. A
second, much smaller drumlin ﬁeld, the West Leelanau ﬁeld, is found to the southwest of
the Northport ﬁeld, along the western shore of Lake Leelanau. Although the West
Leelanau ﬁeld was not included in the present study, a pilot study was performed through
bucket angering and ﬁeld observations. Information from this study can found in

Appendix H.

Topography/Relief
A map of the location of the physiograpic units discussed in the following section
is available in Figure 2, and a generalized map of the county's topography is available in

Figure 3. The generic topography of Leelanau County is best described by subdividing

 

North Fox

Island Q

Ni

 

 

 

South Fox
Island
A = Glen Lake H = Bass Lake
B = Shell Lake I = Mud Lake
C = School Lake J = Leg Lake
D = Bass Lake K = Cedar Lake
E = Lime Lake L = Cedar Run

F = Little Traverse Lake M = Shalda Creek
G = Lake Leelanau N = Victoria Creek

 

 

 

 

North

    
     
 

 

 

 

South
Manitou :7
Island ~Omena 4D
. é"
. “992?! W
Y” o“° 4C)
v > : Sux Bay v
Sleeping Bear - i it
Point
I
l l
....... 10 20 km

 

 

Figure 1. Location of Leelanau County, Michigan, and some of its
municipalities and water bodies. Note: location of the Fox Islands
is not actual, for actual locations see locator map in upper left hand
corner.

\.

. \

Exxxxx

. i

 

Ol—

 

 

 

 

 

Drumlin ﬁelds X Subaqueous crevasse ﬁllings

(A = Northport ﬁeld, B = West Leelanau ﬁeld) (Wallbom and Larson. in press)
- Ground moraine E] Lake plains (E I Cedar Swamp)
Unnamed moraines described by I Modem lakes and rivers

Leverett and Taylor, 1915
End moraine (D = Manistee moraine) @ Kamic Moraine (named Suttons

Bay moraine by Lotan and

Outwash Shetron, [1968])
D Dunes O Sugarloaf Mountain (kame)

Figure 2. Surficial geology and physiographic map of Leelanau County
(modiﬁed from Farrand and Bell, 1982). Note: Fox Island locations not
actual, see locator map in Figure 1.

?.~.-.u--. :- I.

~ ~pé

«5‘

Jura— mask
.3 18.3.6 Ema .555 «o: 355 2:22:89. .63.: :9 .3550 sans—oes— me game 3—8.: acacia—o Emu:— .n azur—

 

 

28 5:25. eaneoz 2: .8 9.28m l

mmm-mmm I
mmm-2m I
2m-ma~ I
maméhm I
www-mmm g
www-mmu I
mmm-2~ U
BNAE _Ill_
RTE; D

:5 nougﬂm

 

eaaeoﬁ om 2 o

 

 

qu ~
-15 s\

.,)

-5;

 

, .
.‘s‘

the county into several physiographic groups. The lake plain physiographic group
encompasses those areas affected by the presence of former glacial lakes, and typically
includes present coastal and near-coastal areas, although lake plain landscapes can also be
found further inland (e.g. the lowland surrounding Lake Leelanau). With the exception of
areas where sand dunes occur, these areas tend to be the ﬂattest in the county. These
areas consist mainly of wave-cut terraces formed by Glacial Lakes Algonquin and
Nipissing (Martin, 1955), and are found along the periphery of the county, including areas
bordering Lake Michigan in the extreme western part of the county, the area bordering the
southern and western portions of Good Harbor Bay on Lake Michigan, the lowland
containing Lake Leelanau and Cedar Swamp, the strip of coastline extending north from
the northern shore of Lake Leelanau, and the northernmost tip of the peninsula (Figures 2
and 3). This type of ﬂat topography with low relative relief also covers smaller areas
including a strip along Suttons Bay south of Northport, and the area inland from Lee
Point. These areas tend to be less than 6 m above current lake level (177 m), except in
areas where dunes are present, where relative relief can be considerable, but relief
typically does not exceed 25 m.

The upland topography of Leelanau County can be divided into four different
types: end moraines, ground moraine, ice-contact features, and outwash deposits (Figure
2). Several end moraines have been described/mapped in Leelanau County, although
only the Manistee moraine has been formally named (Leverett and Taylor, 1915). This
moraine, which will be described in much greater detail in the Geomorphic/Glacial
History section, runs roughly west to east across the southern third of the county, and

tums south and southeasterly near the village of Maple City, exiting Leelanau County at

L ..‘
8.

~(
I...

LQC)

was

\
.1
a.
#2.
‘I, a
v" .
'3'!
\V U
1
12;» -
y -o
1 .
'\
\

 

its extreme southeastern corner near Traverse City. This moraine ranges from 165 m
above current lake level (a.l.l.) in the western part of the county (section 22, T28N,
R14W) to 175 m a.l.l. where it crosses into Grand Traverse County in sections 35 and 36,
T28N, R12W. The Manistee moraine’s maximum height exceeds elevations of 130 m
3.1.]. at several places along its path through Leelanau County. The relative relief of the
moraine varies from 20 m, when compared to the adjacent outwash surface to the south,
to 90 m when compared to the Cedar Swamp lowland, an area submerged by Lakes
Nippissing and Algonquin (Martin, 1955). Trending north—south from the Manistee
moraine are three spurs described as being correlative to that moraine (Leverett and
Taylor, 1915) that have similar elevations, rising above the surrounding lowlands in some
cases as much as 90 rn. The two westernmost of these spurs are interpreted to be ridge-
like, mega—crevasse ﬁllings, while the easternmost is composed of glacial till associated
with ground moraine along the western shore of Lake Leelanau (Wallbom, personal
communication).

Two other moraines are described by Leverett (in Leverett and Taylor [1915]) in
Leelanau County and are shown on Figure 2. One stretches from Cathead Point south to
near Suttons Bay and essentially extends across the peninsula, while the second parallels
the western shore of Grand Traverse Bay, looping around Suttons Bay and ending at the
Cedar Lake lowland. This southern moraine rises as much as 85 m a.l.l. throughout its
length. Martin (1955) maps the southern of these two moraines as an end moraine, but
maps the northern moraine as drumlinized ground moraine, which will be discussed later
in this section. Farrand and Bell (1982), however, map both the northern and southern

moraines recognized by Leverett, as ground moraine. A third feature, the Suttons Bay

\
\ID ‘-

tn» 1

,.
nab b.

yin.-

be”...

 

 

1" m.

“‘-.

 

4
o
«T‘
5‘ .
‘
.r
o
.
s.

moraine, named and interpreted by Lotan and Shetron (1968) as a kamic moraine, is
described below. This moraine, though its extent was not described, was sampled near
the crest of a roughly east-west trending ridge to the west of the village of Suttons Bay.

Drumlinized ground moraine forms the spine of the peninsula east of Lake
Leelanau and north of Sutton's Bay (Figure 2). Ground moraine in Leelanau County is
primarily limited to the areas covered by drumlinized terrain as recognized by Martin
(1955) and Farrand and Bell (1982), although both extend the area of ground moraine
beyond the limits of the West Lake drumlin ﬁeld to cover the area from the village of
Lake Leelanau west to Good Harbor Bay and then south to the village of Cedar and back
to the western shore of Lake Leelanau (Figure 2).

In the Northport drumlin ﬁeld, the maximum elevations attained by drumlin crests
increases in a southerly direction, with drumlins in the southern and central parts of the
ﬁeld reaching heights of 95 to 130 m a.l.l., and relative relief (drumlin crest to inter-
drumlin lowlands) ranging from 20 m to as much as 40 m. Drumlins in the area to the
north of the village of Northport tend to be lower, with the highest drumlins having crests
70 m a.l.l., and with crests that are 25 to 30 m higher than the surrounding inter-drumlin
areas. Lotan and Shetron (1968), averaged the relative relief for all the drumlins in the
Northport ﬁeld and found that they are typically 30 m higher than the surrounding inter-
drumlin areas. They also found that the drumlins of the West Leelanau ﬁeld average
about 28 m higher than the surrounding terrain. The northern drumlins of the West
Leelanau ﬁeld, like those of the southern and central Northport ﬁeld, have crests ranging
from 110 to 125 m a.l.l., but drumlin crest heights diminish to the south. The areas

recognized as ground moraine (without drumlins) in Leelanau County (Martin [1955],

10

 

.l
i
¢_

431

 

.R.‘

‘ ‘t..l

 

 

.3. _
“T" l)‘
l \,

“3L, 1‘"
M.
. J’
m ,
e a
r

 

“‘h
l"- p..—
T‘t

s

and Farrand and Bell [1982]) tends to be steeply sloping and heavily dissected by gullies
and valleys. This dissection may be related to drops in base level associated with
regressions of the glacial Great Lakes.

Ice-contact features, though not shown on either Martin’s (1955) or F arrand
and Bell’s (1982) maps, can be found in many locations throughout the county. The
Suttons Bay moraine, a steep ridge rising as much as 60 m higher than land to the south
and 15 m higher than adjacent drumlins to the north, is described as a kamic moraine
(Lotan and Shetron, 1968). This ice—contact feature rises to a maximum elevation of
approximately 130 m a.l.l. Sugarloaf Mountain, southeast of Little Traverse Lake, is also
a kamic feature and has a maximum elevation of 146 m a.l.l.

Outwash plains, though limited in extent, are present in south-central Leelanau
County, south of the Manistee moraine (Martin, 1955; Farrand and Bell, 1982) (Figure 2).
While there are extensive areas typical of outwash, many of the surfaces are pitted with
depressions, with some depressions exceeding 20 m in depth. The outwash surface in
southern of Leelanau County has elevations between 275 to 280 m above sea level
(approximately 100 to 105 m a.l.l.).

The Leelanau Peninsula is drained by a few small streams such as Houdek Creek
which drains the Northport drumlin ﬁeld to the west and into Lake Michigan, and Ennis
and Belangers Creeks which drain the ﬁeld to the east and empty into the west arm of
Grand Traverse Bay. Other small streams, such as Belnap, Leo, Mann, Victoria, and
Merbert Creeks, drain the ﬂatter areas in the southeastern part of the county, while

Crystal River and Shalda Creek drain the lake plains in the northwestern part of the

11

r.
I.

‘....,C.

 

 

'5"? 4 ‘

1....“

 

.. ,
\ s.
"'3‘
.
t
'0-
L, ‘.
x.‘\
l
W. p.
:5
\ 5“
‘~.
"-‘1
‘i-
«t ‘P
54
‘
.

 

county. Weisner Creek and Cedar Run drain the northern ﬂank of the Manistee moraine
in the extreme southeastern part of the county.

With the exception of Bass Lake, lakes are uncommon throughout the drumlinized
part of the county, although marshy and swampy areas are often found in inter-drumlin
areas. The largest lakes and swampy areas found in the county are limited to the lowlands
previously occupied by glacial lakes and include Lake Leelanau, which lies roughly in the
center of the peninsula, Glen, Lime, School, Bass, Shell, and Little Traverse Lakes
located in the lowlands bordering Sleeeping Bear and Good Harbor Bays, Cedar Lake
found in the extreme southeastern comer of the county, and Mud and Leg Lakes found in
the lowland south of Cathead Bay. Several smaller lakes are scattered throughout the
pitted outwash landscape south of the Manistee moraine in the southern part of the

county.

QiaLalLe

Under the modiﬁed Koppen climatic classiﬁcation system (McKnight, 1997), the
study area is described as having a Humid Continental (be) climate, which is
characterized by 4-8 months with average temperatures less than 10°C, by an average
temperature of the warmest month being less than 22°C, and lacking a dry season. A
summary of the precipitation, temperature, extremes of temperature and precipitation. and
the growing season for Maple City and Gaylord is provided in Table 1. Proximity to
Lake Michigan provides the area with warmer winter and cooler summer temperatures
than areas inland, such as Gaylord (located about 88 km east of the study area; see Figure

l). The average Leelanau County, approximately 25 km southwest of the Northport

12

Table 1. Climatological data for Maple City and Gaylord, Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maple City Gaylord
Temperature (°C):
Daily Avera es Daily Avera es
Max. Min. Max. Min.

Month Temp. Temp. T Mean Month Temp. Temp. Mean
Jan. -2.7 -10.0 -6.4 Jan. -3.7 -l2.4 -8.1
Feb. -1.6 -l 1.2 -6.4 Feb. -2.2 -13.1 -7.7
Mar. 4.2 -6.5 -l.2 Mar. 3.3 —8.1 -2.4
April 12.0 -0.2 5.9 April 12.0 -0.7 5.6
May 19.6 5.2 12.3 May 19.6 4.8 12.2
June 24.6 10.4 17.5 June 24.6 10.1 17.3
July 27.2 13.6 20.0 July 26.8 12.5 19.7
Aug. 25.9 13.6 19.7 Aug. 25.6 11.8 18.7
Sept. 21.4 10.3 15.7 Sept. 20.7 8.0 14.3
Oct. 15.2 5.0 10.1 Oct. 14.7 3.0 8.9
Nov. 6.9 -O.6 3.1 Nov. 5.7 -2.6 1.6
Dec. 0.2 -6.5 -3.2 Dec. -1 . l -9.0 -5.0
Annual 12.7 1.9 7.3 Annual 12.2 0.3 6.3

 

 

 

 

 

Temperature extremes (°C):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r Temp. 1 Year 1 [ Temp. 1 Year ]
High 37.2 1988 High 37.2 1955
Low -32.7 1979 Low -38.3 1979
Growing Season: Growing Season:
Avg. Date of Last Frost: May 27 Avg. Date of Last Frost: May 28
Avg. Date of First Frost: October 5 Avg. Date of First Frost: Sept 17
Avg. Length of Growing Avg. Length of Growing
Season: 130 days Season: 112 days

13

'7‘“!

TV

Table 1 continued.

Maple City

Precipitation (cm):

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liquid Equiv. Snowfall

lMonth Mean Mean
Jan. 7.9 133.8
Feb. 5.4 77.7
Mar. 5.8 48.3
April 6.8 10.4
May 7.0 0.2
June 7.5 0.0
July 7.0 0.0
Aug. 7.9 0.0
Sept. 10.8 0.0
Oct. 7.5 1.3
Nov. 7.8 34.5
Dec. 7.1 86.4
Annual 88.5 392.7

 

 

 

Precipitation extremes(cm):

 

 

 

 

[Amount Month/Y ear I
Rainfall
(daily) 8.9 July 1972
Snowfall
monthly) 205.7 Jan 1976

 

 

Data Source: Climatological Summary and Statistics for Maple City and Gaylord.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaylord

Liquid Equiv. Snowfall
Month Mean Mean
Jan. 5.7 87.1
Feb. 4.2 57.2
Mar. 5.2 52.1
April 6.8 19.6
May 7.4 2.8
June 7.6 0.0
July 8.7 0.0
Aug. 8.2 0.0
Sept. 10.0 0.2
Oct. 7.2 6.4
Nov. 7.9 57.4
Dec. 6.4 86.4
Annual 85 .3 369.1

[Amount Month/Year I
Rainfall
(daily) 9.4 Sept. 1961
Snowfall
(monthly) 162.6 Jan. 1971

 

 

Michigan Department of Agriculture Climatology Program

14

. 1"“. I"

 

lb?

1‘ ' "
'.“...\L«'
«H» ..
M‘s-11‘ n-
. . ,
‘«|\-t\o. n.

 

 

”1 1%
. I I
.1. .1, \
I T‘
V
'_v I ‘
WIT-‘11"
I», _‘_.

\\

 

.

“5‘4“. i
i u

1""

3| . II.)-

‘ "~01

‘Hu

.1“ “s‘

~.. .
“4.;

 

 

ﬁeld), is 19.2°C, while the average winter (December, January, and February)
temperature is -5.3°C. Also, as a result ofthe area's proximity to Lake Michigan and due
to northwesterly winds common during the winter, the area receives lake effect snows,
driving the average annual snowfall total to 391 cm. On an average annual basis, the
Maple City area receives 88.5 cm of precipitation. Neamess to Lake Michigan also
extends the length of growing season compared to areas inland, with the mean date of last
frost being May 27 and mean date of ﬁrst frost being September 5, for an average
growing season of 130 days compared to the l 12 day (average) growing season at

Gaylord (Michigan Department of Agriculture climatology program, 1989).

m
9.
:77

 

Weber (1973) recognized twenty-nine different soil series in Leelanau County.
Only a handful of those however, are of importance to this study: the Alcona, Emmet,
Hettinger, Leelanau, Markey, Munuscong, Omena, Richter, and Tonkey series. The
Emmet, Leelanau, and Omena soils are found in upland locations, such as the sides and
crests of drumlins, while the remaining series are found in inter-drumlin areas. Table 2
provides a summary of the characteristics and nature of these soil series. It should be
noted that these upland soils have not been described as having lithogic discontinuities in
their ofﬁcial descriptions. Schaetzl (1996, 1998), however, identiﬁed lithologic
discontinuities in many pedons of Emmet, Onaway, and Omena soils in northeastern

lower Michigan.

15

Table 2. Characteristics of soils pertinent to this study.

 

 

 

A) Upland soils
[Series name: EMMET l OMENA [ LEELANAU ]
Taxonomic class: Typic Eutroboralfs Typic Eutroboralfs Alﬁe Haplorthods
Horizon sequence: A(p), E, Bw, 13’, Ht, C A(p), E, B/E, Bt, C A(p), E, Bs, E‘, Bt, C
Solum thickness: - 61-127 cm 25-61 cm 51-122 cm

% Gravel in solumza 2-25 gr, 0-20 cob 0— 15 gr, cob 0-15 gr, cob

:15: :11: 5-25 gr, 0-10 cob 5-20 gr, cob 0-15 gr, cob

A Horizon texture:b sl, fsl, l, gsl, cbsl, cbfsl, Is 31, fsl s, 15

E Horizon texture: E: 31, fsl, ls; E’: S], fsl, Is 51, fsl s, ls

Bs Horizon texture: - - 5, Is

Bt Horizon texture: sl, fsl, I; may have 51, 1 31

subhorizons of SC]
Bw Horizon texture: sl, fsl, ls - -
C Horizon texture: sl. gsl, fsl, gfsl; poss. Wl sl, gsl ls, poss. w/ pockets of s and

Parent materials:

Drainage class:c
Notes:

 

 

lenses of 1. Is, 5, gr
sandy loam till

wd, mwd

some pedons may have EJB
and/or B/E horizons assoc.
w/ the E’ horizon; E’ horizon
may have fragipan
characteristics; some pedons
may have BC horizons

 

calcareous loamy
glacial till

wd

gr
loamy sand deposits

wd

some pedons have E/B
horizons assoc. w/ the E’
horizon

 

 

 

‘ gr = gravel, cob = cobbles

b s = sand, si = silt, c = clay, I = loam, cs = coarse sand, fs = ﬁne sand,
vfs = very ﬁne sand, 51 = sandy loam, fsl = ﬁne sandy loam,
vfsl = very ﬁne sandy loam, ls = loamy sand, lfs = loamy ﬁne sand,
lvfs = loamy very ﬁne sand, sil = silt loam, sicl = silty clay loam, sic = silty clay,
cl = clay loam, so] = sandy clay loam, g = gravelly, cb = cobbly, m = mucky

’ wd = well-drained, mwd = moderately well-drained, spd = somewhat poorly-drained.
pd = poorly-drained, vpd = very poorly-drained

Data Source:

Ofﬁcial Soil Series Description Sheets, Natural Resource Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture (http://www.stat1ab.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi)

l6

- .. ‘
’ 31 IV!
l"~ﬁ\\11n

 

 

-
w

.

"I"? ﬂip,”

t‘bd. “‘3‘.

 

Table 2 continued.

B) Inter-drumlin soils

 

 

 

Eeries Name: I MUNUSCONG I TONKEY ] HET'I‘INGER ]
Taxonomic class: Mollie Epiaquepts Mollie Endoaquepts Mollie Epiaquepts
Horizon sequence: A(p), Bg, 2Cg A(p), Bg, 2Cg A(p), Bg, Cg
Solum thickness: 51-102 cm 46-91 cm 30-91 cm
% Grave] in solumga 0'5 gr 0-7 COZlI'SC frags in -

lower solum
% Gravel in 0-5 gr 0-7 coarse frags -
substratum:

A Horizon texture:b

E Horizon texture:

Bs Horizon texture:

Bt Horizon texture:

C Horizon texture:
Parent materials:

Drainage class:c
Notes:

 

Bw Horizon texture:

 

fsl, S] w/ mucky analogs

Bg: sicl, cl; may have strata
of sic, e, si, sil
sicl, cl w/ strata of si, sil, c1

loamy glacioﬂuvial deposits
over calcareous clayey
materials

Pd» vpd
some pedons have BC g
horizons

 

sl, fsl, Is, lfs, sil w/
mucky analogs

Bg: I, scl, sl, vfsl, sil;
commonly stratiﬁed
stratiﬁed s to sil

stratiﬁed loamy and
sandy glacioﬂuvial
materials

Pd. VPd

 

1, ml. cl, sil. sicl

Bg: sicl, cl; may have strata
of sic, e, si, sil
sicl, cl, w/ stratiﬁed si, sil, c1

glaciolacustrine deposits

Pd, vpd

 

 

17

 
 

I" V

I‘ u'.

 

Table ZB continued.

 

 

 

[Series Name: | ALCONA l RICHTER [ MARKEY j
Taxonomic class: Alﬁe Haplorthods Argic Endoaquods Terrie Borosaprists
Horizon sequence: A(p), E, Bs, B/E, Bt, 2C A(p), Bs, Bt/E, Bt, C Oa, Cg

Solum thickness: 56-165 cm 56-102 cm depth to C: 41-130 cm

% Gravel in solum:a 0—20 gr, 0-5 cob 0-5 coarse frags -

% Gravel in

substratum: 0-5 gr, cob 0—5 coarse frags 035 gr

A Horizon texture:b sl, fsl, vfsl, lfs, lvfs sl, lfs, ls, fsl, vfsl -

E Horizon texture:

Bs Horizon texture:

Bt Horizon texture:

C Horizon texture:

Parent materials:

Drainage class:c
Notes:

 

Bw Horizon texture:

 

E: S], fsl, vfsl, lfs, 1va
E of B/E: Is, 81, vfsl, lfs, lvfs,
fsl

lfs, lvfs, sl, fsl, vfsl

Bt & B of B/E: sl, fsl, vfsl, l;
poss w/ stratiﬁed sil, lvfs, lfs,
scl

¢

stratiﬁed sl, fsl, vfsl, ls, fs,
1fs,1vfs, vfs, sil, w/ thin
layers of cl, scl, sicl

sandy and loamy
glacioﬂuvial deposits

wd

some pedons have: Bhs
horizons; separate E’
horizons; E/Bt horizons
consisting of lamellae; BC
horizonscombinations of
B/E, Bt, or E/B, but B/E
and/or Bt must be present;

 

E & E part of Bt/E: s1,
lfs, ls, fsl, vfsl

sl, lfs, ls

Bt & Bt part of Bt/E:
stratiﬁed 51 to sicl, cl
and sicl; strata are thin

stratiﬁed s to sil w/
thin bands of sicl;
sandy substratum

phases possible
stratiﬁed loamy and
sandy glacioﬂuvial
materials

spd

5, fs, cs, 1s, gls,

sandy deposits

vpd
organic layers: made up
mainly of herbaceous plants,
has no free carbonates, may
contain up to 15% by
volume twigs, logs,
branches; some pedons have
2.5-10 cm of sphagnum moss:
on the surface

 

 

 

18

39+

~M..

‘vx
we

I." L.

 

 

if".

 

1“ .
ug‘l.
. a
a
L
L~.~
‘u_
u
'1- s.
‘i
1/
it”
in, ~'
1“!
.t ‘
I. \
-
I‘h
;. \
~t
\. I
‘1
l
w.

According the ofﬁcial series descriptions published on-line in 1999 (web site:
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/) by the USDA-NRC S Soil Survey Division,
glacial till is the parent material for the Emmet and Omena upland soils, while the
Leelanau series parent material is simply described as “loamy sand deposits on glacial
landforms”. All of the upland soil series this study is concerned with are mapped within
a number of different complexes on different slopes in Leelanau County, including
Emmet-Leelanau and Emmet-Omena complexes on slopes ranging from 0 to 2 percent (A
slope) to 25 to 50 percent (F slope). Slopes of the Emmet-Leelanau complex that are
greater than 12 percent are usually eroded, with rills and gullies deepening and widening
with increasing slopes; soils of this complex on slopes greater than 18 percent are mapped
as highly eroded, with subsoil materials predominant on the surface. The relative amount
of Emmet soils found in the Emmet-Leelanau complexes diminishes from about 60
percent in the gently-sloping units to about 45 percent in hi ghly-sloping units, while the
amount of Leelanau remains the same, about 30 percent, regardless of slope (Weber,
1973). The percentage quantities of the two constituents of the Emmet-Omena complex,
however, do not vary despite differences in the amount of slope, and the complex is made
up of approximately 50% Emmet series and 45% Omena in all mapping units. The
Emmet soils found in these complexes in Leelanau County differ from the representative
proﬁle of the series in having higher solum pH values, a thicker Bt horizon, and greater
variability in the thickness of the solum (Weber, 1973). The main differences between all
. of these upland soil series is texture and solum thickness. The Omena and Emmet series
are ﬁner in texture with sandy loam textures dominating, while the Leelanau series is

dominantly loamy sand or sand. The Emmet and Omena soil series can be distinguished

l9

by their solum thicknesses, with the Emmet having a much thicker solum and also
tending to be slightly coarser in texture.

The soils found in inter-drumlin areas (Alcona, Hettinger, Markey, Munuscong,
Richter, and Tonkey) that are important to this study have a wider range of characteristics
(Table 2). Most have formed in stratiﬁed parent materials, and all are found on slopes of
less than 12 percent. The Alcona and Richter series, both of which are formed in
stratiﬁed loamy and sandy glacio-ﬂuvial deposits (on-line ofﬁcial soils series
descriptions, 1999), are mapped within Alcona-Richter and Richter-Alcona complexes.
Fifty-ﬁve percent of the Alcona-Richter complex is Alcona series in A slope (0 to 2%)
mapping units, and the Alcona series make up about 65 percent of the B slope (2 to 6%)
mapping units. The Richter series dominates the Richter-Alcona complex, and makes up
45 percent of the complex in both slope units (Weber 1973). Both of these soils are
distinguished from other inter-drumlin soils by the presence of a spodic horizon, and can
be distinguished from one another by drainage. The Richter series is somewhat poorly
drained, having a mottled B horizon, whereas the Alcona series is well drained.

The Tonkey and Munuscong series are formed in stratiﬁed glacio-lacustrine
materials. In contrast to the Alcona and Richter series, however, the Tonkey and
Munuscong soils are Inceptisols and therefore have simpler horizonation (Table 2). The
two series can be distinguished by presence of two parent materials in the Munuscong
series, and by the ﬁner textures of the Tonkey deposits (on-line ofﬁcial soils series
descriptions, 1999). In Leelanau County, these two series are mapped as the Tonkey-
Munuscong-Iosco complex, in two different slope classes (0 to 2 percent and 2 to 6

percent). This complex is made up of 40 percent Tonkey, 25 percent Munuscong, and 25

20

percent Iosco sandy loam, with the Tonkey and Munuscong being poorly- and very
poorly-drained Inceptisols, and the Iosco being a somewhat poorly drained Spodosol
(Weber, 1973).

The Hettinger soil series, formed in ﬁne loamy glacio-lacustrine deposits. is
mapped as a complex with the Tonkey series and as a complex with Histosols in Leelanau
County. The Hettinger makes up 45 percent and Tonkey 30 percent of the
Hettinger/Tonkey complex (Weber, 1973). The Hettinger series is distinguishable from
other inter-drumlin soils primarily by its ﬁner textures [silty clay loam and clay loam (on-
line ofﬁcial soils series descriptions, 1999).

The ﬁnal inter-drumlin soil, the Markey, is a Histosol consisting of a layer of
sapric and hemic material 41 to 130 cm thick overlying a sandy substrate containing 0 to
25 percent gravel (on-line ofﬁcial soils series descriptions, 1999). In Leelanau County.
the Markey is mapped as a complex with the Lupton series which makes up 60 percent of

the mapping unit while the Markey series makes up about 30 percent (Weber, 1973).

Natural Vegetation

The original land cover of Leelanau County was primarily forest, with the natural
vegetation of sandy loam upland areas (e. g. drumlins and moraines), largely being
broadleaf trees including sugar maple (Acer saccharinum), beech (F agus grandif'olia),
and eastern hemlock ( T suga canadensis). In loamy upland sites, birch (Betula spp.),
white pine (Pinus strobus), black cherry (Prunus serotina), ironwood (C arpinus
caroliniana), basswood (T ilia spp.), elm (Ulmus spp.) (Cleland, 1979), and ash (F raxinus

spp.) were dominant (Weber,1973). Upland sandy areas, such as dunes, outwash plains,

21

beach ridges, and dry, sandy lake plains tended to have coniferous vegetation including
white pine, red pine (Pinus resinosa), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), hemlock, and eastern
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), as well as oaks (QHEI'CLIS spp.), aspen (Populus spp.),
paper birch (Betula papyrifera), red maple (Acer rubrwn), elm, ash, and beech. Wet,
lowland sites with sandy soils were populated by balsam ﬁr (Abies balsamea), northern
white cedar ( T huja occidentalis), hemlock, aspen, basswood, and a maple-beech-birch-
elm assemblage, while wet lowland sites with medium textured soils contained balsam
ﬁr, northern white cedar, black spruce (Picea mariana), aspen, ash, black cherry, and a
maple-birch-elm assemblage (Weber, 1973). Cleland (1979) also reports alder (alnus
spp.), tamarack (Iarix laricina), and white pine in lowland habitats. Lastly, very poorly-
drained areas such as depressions and wetlands were occupied by herbaceous grasses,
sedges, and reeds, and by balsam ﬁr, northern white cedar, black spruce, aspen, and a

maple-elm-birch assemblage in slightly drier areas (Weber, 1973).

Land Use

Because of its rolling, hilly terrain, most of Leelanau County is not suitable for
standard row crops. The area’s proximity to Lake Michigan, however, allows cherries
and apples to ﬂourish. According the 1992 Census of Agriculture (US Department of
Commerce, 1994), about 29% of the county was farmland, with the other 61% subdivided
into federally and state owned land (state and national forests and parks), urban and
industrial land uses, and woodlots. Of 374 farms in 1992, 247 had their land in orchards,
18 farms were devoted to dairying, 44 to beef cattle, 48 to poultry and other livestock,

and 74 were producing corn and/or wheat for grain, and/or soybeans. Although corn is

22

the main row crop, its acreage (1,990 hectares) pales in comparison to that of orchards
and vineyards, which in 1992 covered 7,215 hectares, or approximately 8 percent of the

county’s total area.

Geomorphic/Glacial History

The modern landscape of the Leelanau Peninsula is an expression of the region's
glacial past and subsequent alteration by the forces of water and wind. Given the thick
glacial drift in the area, which is up to 250 m on the Leelanau Peninsula (Rieck and
Winters, 1993), bedrock has little direct control on the landscape present today. The
massive accumulation of glacial drift in this area (Rieck and Winters, 1993) is the product
of at least two glacial advances: a major readvance associated with the Late Woodfordian
deposition of the Port Huron moraine, and the less extensive Greatlakean (formerly

Valders), readvances (Melhom, 1954, Farrand and Eschman, 1974).

Moraines

The Port Huron moraine was ﬁrst identiﬁed by Leverett and Taylor (1915), as a
morainic feature extending from Port Huron in east-central lower Michigan northward to
Gaylord and then south and west to near Muskegon. After analyzing the morainal
sediments, Blewett (I991) reinterpreted the Port Huron moraine in northwestern lower
Michigan as two heads of outwash separated by a narrow sandur, the Mancelona Plain. A
radiocarbon date obtained by Blewett (1993) indicates that the inner Port Huron head of
outwash formed during a readvance about 12,960 yr BP. While the Leelanau Peninsula

was most likely covered by ice during this time, the Port Huron readvance is noteworthy

23

.,,,._,
3.0.1» i

~33,
meal

{lung
-11,

b...

r“;".
L-
-) u
no '

>~Ut

Cafe?

 

 

 

w .
K” r.
H

since it was the last glacial advance in northwestern lower Michigan with a well-deﬁned
areal extent.

The Manistee moraine (Figure 2) of northwestern lower Michigan, believed to be
the westernmost extension of the inner Port Huron moraine (Melhom 1954, F arrand and
Eschman 1974), is especially germaine to this study. Unlike the Port Huron moraine, the
western and central parts of this moraine appear to be more a collection of isolated, high
elevation, subaqueously-fonned crevasse-ﬁll deposits rising above the surrounding
outwash (Figure 2). These deposits are linked in the central portion of the county by a
head of outwash, as opposed to a continuous ridge formed by a stillstand of the ice
margin (Wallbom, personal communication; Wallbom and Larson, in press). Wallbom
postulates that both the head of outwash and the crevasse-ﬁll deposits were formed as the
Port Huron ice margin retreated, and that the crevasse-ﬁll deposits were formed either in
locally ponded waters in front of the ice, or in the waters of the one the phases of Glacial
Lake Chicago (Glenwood or Calumet phase).

The Manistee moraine, as recognized by Melhom (1954), begins near the city of
Manistee on Lake Michigan's eastern coast, then roughly parallels the coastline to the
vicinity of Glen Lake in Leelanau County. At this point, it turns east, and then trends
southeasterly, crossing into Grand Traverse County, eventually forming a large loop
around the southern end of Grand Traverse Bay (Figure 2). The Manistee moraine then
merges with the inner ridge of the Port Huron moraine which proceeds in an easterly
direction to the northwestern corner of Kalkaska County before turning toward the
northeast. It should be noted that Melhom (1954) extended the Manistee morine as far

north and east as the Little Traverse lowland and joined it with the inner ridge of the Port

24

 

 

.,{;J
..u‘).

rule

I..--..

 

WI.
In '

“v ,_

 

 

\‘
0 .0).
tn...
1".)
ts
"
~..

 

‘st.

~ s_

‘V
\ I.
~<
-1
‘. ‘ -
-‘\
‘s
~
.. l‘
u, ,.
's.

 

 

Huron moraine in the Elk Lake/southem Grand Traverse Bay area. Leverett (Leverett and
Taylor, 1915), on the other hand, stated that although it seems logical to merge the
Manistee moraine with others bounding the drumlin ﬁelds on the eastern shore of Grand
Traverse Bay, he reports that the Manistee moraine “becomes closely blended with the
main morainic system [the Port Huron], causing some uncertainty as to its line of
continuation around Grand Traverse Bay” (p. 308), and correlated it with younger
moraines bordering the Antrim-Charlevoix drumlin ﬁeld. Despite these earlier conceived
differences, it is now believed that the inner Port Huron and Manistee moraines are one
contemporaneous unit (Larson, personal communication).

Before getting into details about the characteristics of these two prominent
moraines in the region, I want to discuss the two unnamed moraines ﬁrst identiﬁed by
Leverett (Leverett and Taylor, 1915) that are described in the preceding topography
section (Figure 2). Leverett postulates that both moraines are a “close successor” (p.
309) of the Manistee moraine, but are too low in elevation to correlate directly. He
suggested that the portion of the moraine north of Suttons Bay (described as ground
moraine by Martin [1955] and Farrand and Bell [1982]) may represent an area where a
lobe of ice from the Lake Michigan basin, which was covering the western portion of the
county, came into contact with a lobe of ice coming out of Grand Traverse Bay. The
lower height of this unnamed moraine compared to that of the Manistee moraine led
Leverett to propose that it may have been formed as the ice diminished in altitude and
retreated toward the Bay. Unfortunately, no investigations in this area report particle size

or color data for the till of this moraine.

25

 

(.a
.ﬁ:

v_1 .
NM...

'1‘.) 5
x15 \

"I

-t
mgr

Tm

wi‘.

 

Melhom (1954) describes the till of the Manistee moraine, just west of Traverse
City, as "very sandy, stony, pink clay till". Near this locality, Melhom also reports
ﬁnding sandy outwash and ice contact deposits interpreted to be associated with the
Valders advance overlying, and in some cases extending beyond the moraine. In one
instance, these deposits overlie red till interpreted to Valders age. Melhom also found
reddish Valders till and red lacustrine clay onlapping the Manistee moraine throughout
the extent of moraine to the west of Traverse City.

The till of the Port Huron readvance in Grand Traverse County, to the southwest
of Leelanau County, was described by Melhorn (1954) as being a "buff" color (IOYR
4/3). Melhom also reports ﬁnding a dark bluish-gray(10YR 7/1) clay till in the crest of
the outer Port Huron moraine in Kalkaska and Grand Traverse Counties, which he
interprets to be an unoxidized version of the dark brown till found in other areas. An
average of the particle sizes of all of Melhom's (1954) Port Huron till samples (n < 15)
revealed Port Huron till is “clay” textured (according to USDA-deﬁned textural classes),
with about 2% gravel, 10% sand (0% very coarse sand, 1% coarse sand, 2% medium
sand, 5% ﬁne sand, and 2% very ﬁne sand), 39% silt, and 51% clay. The clay content
varied from 45 to 60%. Unfortunately, Melhom failed to present the individual particle
size runs, and site localities, so the variability of the till between sites (e. g. the western
Manistee moraine and the Manistee moraine in Leelanau County) is unknown.

A more thorough investigation into the characteristics of the till, referred to by
Melhom as the Valders is necessary for several reasons: (1) the Northport drumlin ﬁeld
may have formed during the Valders advance (Melhom, 1954; Eschman et a1., 1973); (2)

because of the controversy related to the geographic extent of this advance in northern

26

lower Michigan; and (3) because of the debate related to the timing of this advance and
correlation of the tills of this advance throughout the region. Because the Valders
advance left no well-deﬁned end moraines or, arguably, a distinctive till, the extent of the
advance and the distribution of its deposits are debatable.

The till burying the Two Creeks forest in Wisconsin was ﬁrst described by
Thwaites (1943), and was later correlated to the uppermost till found at the Valders
Quarry. The Valders till and related deposits in Wisconsin were later correlated to similar
deposits in Michigan by Bretz (1951) and investigated and mapped in northern lower
Michigan by Melhom (1954).

Melhom (1954) describes the Valders till, about 3.2 km south of Lake Leelanau in
Leelanau County, as being a "pink (7.5YR 7/4) clay till". . Melhom gives no particle size
data for speciﬁc locations, but based on an admittedly small number of samples, reported
that the Valders till, on average, consists of about 2% gravel, 23% sand (1% very coarse
sand, 4% coarse sand, 7% medium sand, 6% ﬁne sand, and 5% very ﬁne sand) 42% silt,
and 35% clay--clay loam using the USDA-deﬁned textural classes. The amount of clay in
theses samples ranged from 7 to 52%.

Melhom ( l 954, 1956) was the only researcher to map the extent of the Valders
advance in the area near Leelanau County. In Leelanau County, the extent of the Valders
advance, generally coincides with the Manistee moraine (Figure 2), thereby leaving only
the outwash deposits in the south-central part of the county unaffected by Valders ice.
The extent of the Valders advance was determined using the concept of superposition and
till color. While superposition is typically a reliable method of relative age

determination, the use of till color as a mapping method is risky, because preexisting till

27

may have been incorporated. While Melhom stated that it is easy to differentiate the dark
brown oxidized form of the Port Huron till from the red or pink till of the Greatlakean
advance, Farrand and Eschman (1974) indicate that discerning the two is difﬁcult, if not
impossible. Personal ﬁeld experience in examining exposures of both till types resulted
in a similar conclusion. Also, given the high clay and low gravel content of the material
that Melhom describes as Valders till, there exists the possibility that some of the till
recognized by Melhom may, in actuality, be lacustrine deposits.

Evenson et al. (1976), through ﬁeld mapping and boring. concluded that the till
of the Valders-type area (in Wisconsin) is not the same as the till covering the Two Creek
buried forest, as was previously thought. The study found that what was known as the
Valders till, is in fact an older till correlated to the reddish till found below the Two
Creeks buried forest, and may be contemporaneous with the formation of the inner Port
Huron moraine in Michigan. As a result of these ﬁndings, Evenson et al. (1976)
suggested that the advance which covered the Two Creeks buried forest be identiﬁed as
the “Greatlakean”, and that the use of term “Valders” be discontinued. Later, Larson et
al. (1994) used radiocarbon dating of a buried bryophyte bed to conﬁrm the presence of a
Greatlakean-aged till near Cheboygan in extreme northern lower Michigan. This ﬁnding
is signiﬁcant because it establishes a deﬁnitive date in Michigan for the Greatlakean
advance from radiocarbon dated materials, rather than cross-lake correlations of tills.
Also signiﬁcant, but to a lesser extent, is the texture of the Greatlakean till. In both
situations the till is reddish in color, and clayey in texture (as described by F arrand et al.
[1969] and Miller and Benninghoff [1969]), but the actual texture is reported to be sandy

loam by Schaetzl (personal communication). Unfortunately, however, aside from Larson

28

211' 1

mil.

e
no-

3" .
J“... L

- 1.“.12
I

Pro-a!

A

A,
\T 3.“

"«<~L.l'

i")? o
., .s 3]

 

I:
‘3‘”.
4.,“

 

9.
H
I

s,\

et al. (1994), there have been no studies that have determined a radiometric age for other
reddish tills in northwestern lower Michigan. This fact, combined with the fact that it is
often difﬁcult to differentiate between younger and older tills on the basis of color and
texture, make establishing the spatial extent of the Greatlakean advance in Michigan very
difﬁcult, and demostrate why the true extent of the Greatlakean advance in lower

Michigan is still not known.

Pro-glacial lakes, lake chronology

All of the researchers (Leverett and Taylor, 1915; Melhom, 1954; Lotan and
Shetron, 1968; and Taylor, 1990) who have studied the surﬁcial deposits of northwestern
lower Michigan, present evidence that portions of the study area may have been affected
by pro-glacial lakes or high lake stands. Both Leverett and Taylor (1915) and Lotan and
Shetron (1968) noted the presence of thick, red laminated clays on the Leelanau
Peninsula, while Calver (1947) and Melhom (1954) reported red lacustrine clays around
Herring, Crystal, and Platte Lakes to the southwest of the peninsula, which Melhom
suggested formed as the Valderan ice retreated from the Manistee moraine. Taylor
(1990) also discusses the presence of terraces and strandlines formed by either high lake
stands along the coast of Lake Michigan or by pro-glacial lakes in Benzie County
(directly south of Leelanau County).

Several pro-glacial lakes occupied the Lake Michigan basin during the Late
Pleistocene (Hansel et al., 1985; Hansel and Mickelson, 1988). The ﬁrst of these lakes to
affect the study area was the Glenwood II phase of Glacial Lake Chicago, which occupied

the basin during the time of the Port Huron readvance. The Glenwood 11 phase had an

29

elevation of 195 m (in the southern portion of the basin) and drained to the south through
the Chicago/Des Plaines River outlet. The lack of dates from the Glenwood phases
makes their chronology unclear, although available radiocarbon data establish the
initiation of this lake stage at 14,100 yr BP (Hansel and Mickelson, 1988). Taylor
(1990) reports the presence of terraces in Benzie County at 220 to 235 m that may
represent a rebounded water plane for the Glenwood II phase, but could also represent
high stands of other pro-glacial lakes. Wallbom (in press) has found shorelines in the
western portions of Leelanau County which indicate a lake level of 225 m that may also
be correlative to a Glenwood phase.

As the Port Huron ice retreated to the north, it exposed the Indian River lowland
in northern lower Michigan (Farrand et al., 1969), and possibly the Straits of Mackinac
(Larson et a1, 1994), allowing the lakes occupying the Lake Michigan and Huron basins
to become conﬂuent. The exposure of an outlet lower than the Des Plaines outlet at
Fenelon Falls in southern Ontario led to a lowering of the Glenwood 11 phase to the Two
Creeks low phase (Hansel and Mickelson, 1988).

As the Greatlakean ice readvanced from the north, it cut off the easterly ﬂow of
water from the Lake Michigan basin. The ice then buried a bed of tundra-like vegetation
consisting mainly of mosses (bryophytes) near the city of Cheboygan, Michigan, north of
the Indian River lowland. Radiocarbon dates from this bed give a date of 11,850 yr BP
(Larson et al. 1994), which coincides well with the date 1 1,910 yr BP of the Two Creeks
buried forest in eastern Wisconsin (Schneider 1990). The advance of the Greatlakean ice
into the lower peninsula and the Lake Michigan basin resulted in the Calumet phase of

glacial Lake Chicago at a level of 189 m, which emptied through the Chicago River/Des

30

Plaines River outlet (Hansel and Mickelson, 1988). The lower level of the Calumet
phase, as compared to the Glenwood 11 phase, probably reﬂects the erosion at the Des
Plaines outlet (Hough, 1966). Calumet, according to Schneider and Hansel (1990) was a
relatively short-lived stage, lasting only from 11,800 yr BP to 1 1,000 yr BP. It should be
noted that some researchers (Bretz, 1951; Willman, 1971) have presented arguments that
the Calumet phase consisted of two stages, before and after the Two Creekan, but Hansel
and Scheidner (1990) are the ﬁrst to present radiocarbon dates that suggest that if two
stages did exist, the ﬁrst was likely to have been so short that no well-developed shoreline
features were formed, or persisted beyond the second stage. However, sedimentological
evidence in the vicinity of Plainﬁeld (Michigan) and the Allendale delta in the valley of
the glacial Grand River may indicate two Calumet phases (Eschman and Farrand, 1970).
Taylor (1990), reports the presence of strandlines between 210 and 215 m in the area
around Herring, Crystal, and Platte Lakes in Benzie County as corresponding to a
rebounded Calumet water plane.

Following the retreat of the Greatlakean ice to the north at about 1 1,200 yr BP, the
Straits of Mackinac opened, allowing lakes occupying the Huron and Michigan basins to
become conﬂuent again, initiating the Algonquin lake phases (Larsen, 1987). During the
Main Algonquin phase in the Lake Michigan basin (11,200 to 1 1,000 yr BP) lake levels
were at 184 meters, and the lake drained to the east over the Mink Lake sill in Ontario
(Larsen, 1987).

A shoreline cut by the Algonquin lake phase is identiﬁed on Martin’s (1955) map
of the Pleistocene features of lower Michigan, and a prominent terrace at about 200 m can

be identiﬁed from 1:24,000 topographic maps of Leelanau County. The 200 m elevation

31

dug-Ira. . E. Isabella-mm.
... i . e D.
. . K.

coincides well with the 190 to 21 l m elevations of Algonquin terraces near the city of
Charlevoix (Figure l) to the northeast of the study area and 187 m for the Fort Brady
terrace (formed by a post-Algonquin lake [Stanley, 193 7]) on North Manitou Island, west
of the study area (Table 3 in Larsen, 1987). Former shorelines throughout Leelanau
County are shown on Figure 4, based on interpretations by Martin (1955).

The levels of lakes occupying the Lake Michigan and Huron basins progressively
dropped as lower outlets were exposed by the retreating ice margin. The substantial
lowering to the Chippewa low phase, about 10,000 yr BP, was caused by the exposure of
an isostatically depressed outlet near North Bay, Ontario. Lake levels in the northern
portion of the Lake Michigan basin at this time were 160 m above sea level, with
subsequent ﬂuvial erosion in the Straits lowering it to 140 m (Larsen, 1987). The
Chippewa low stage of the Lake Michigan basin lasted about 4,500 years (Hansel et al.
1985).

The Nippissing transgression was the next high water period to effect the Lake
Michigan basin. This transgression began about 9,000 yr BP as the North Bay outlet
slowly began to rise due to isostatic rebound, and resulted in conﬂuence of the Michigan
and Huron basins about 8,100 yr BP (Larsen, 1987). Lake levels continued to rise until
reaching the elevation of the Chicago River/Des Plaines River outlet near Chicago, and
the Port Huron outlet at the southern end of Lake Huron (both 180 m), around 6,300 yr
BP for the former, 6,100 yr BP for the latter. As a result of this rise, Lakes Superior,
Michigan, and Huron became conﬂuent. About 3,800 yr BP, a lower outlet was cut at
Port Huron, eventually leading to the present-day lake level of 177 m in the Michigan and

Huron basins (Larsen, 1985).

32

       
 

\_——.¢_

/

 

I , .
: '. . .
- . . .
, . .
I ‘ I
, t
, t
I I r ‘ . n
‘T l I
g I I
‘ ' TR, ‘ I
. x ,
I I ~ I
I l \l
1 . , ..
t \.
~._ , . u
‘ I ‘ l

 

I Modem lakes ---------- Algonquin ;I_I
0 5 10 km
Drumlin ﬁelds — — — - Nipissing

—-—-- Unspeciﬁed

Figure 4. Nipissing and Algonquin shorelines (after Martin, 1955); islands not
shown.

33

Clark et al. (1994), using two models of ice thickness, predicted approximate
amount of shoreline tilt associated with isostatic rebound for the shorelines of Lakes
Glenwood, Algonquin, and Nippissing. This predicted shoreline tilt data was then
compared to modern shoreline tilt data collected from lake gauges and from former
shoreline elevations gathered by various workers (Goldthwait, 1908); Evenson, 1973:
Larsen, 1987; Taylor, 1990) to determine which model best ﬁt a transect along the eastern
coast of Lake Michigan. Although neither model ﬁt the existing data completely, the
curves that were created can be used to get a hypothetical estimate of expected lake
levels. The thin ice model predicted Glenwood phase lake levels to be approximately 270
m above sea level in the vicinity of the study area, submerging some drumlins while
leaving others exposed. However, the 270 m level is considerably higher than interpreted
Glenwood II lake levels recorded about 20 km to the south of the study area (Taylor,
1990). The thick ice curve model predicts a water plane at about 400 m above sea level,
completely submerging all of Leelanau County. It should be noted that it is unclear when
Leelanau County became ice-free during the Two Creeks interglacial, but these lake

levels could have been attained at any time immediately following the removal of the ice.

Drumlins of north western lower Michigan

The drumlins of northwestern lower Michigan were ﬁrst described by Leverett
(1905). Although only a summary of the 1905 paper is available, Leverett suggests that
the drumlins in the Antrim-Charlevoix ﬁeld (Figure 5), east of the Leelanau Peninsula,
were formed through various means, including both erosion, and deposition of an

additional till onto pre-existing drumlins. The occurrence of stone-free, laminated clays

34

EMMET

 

Ni

0 50 km

p

 

 

 

LEELAN AU

 

  

 

BENZIE GRAND KALKASKA
TRAVERSE

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. The locations of drumlinized terrain in northwestern lower Michigan;
arrows indicate general orientations. The collection of drumlinized
terrain east of Grand Traverse Bay is the Antrim-Charlevoix ﬁeld (after

Farrand and Bell, 1982).
35

(assumed to be of lacustrine origin) is also mentioned in this summary. The Antrim-
Charlevoix drumlin ﬁeld around Grand Traverse Bay was also described by Bergquist
(1942), Melhom (1954), and Finiol (1978). Melhom (1956) interpreted the drumlins to
have formed as preexisting drumlins were either plastered with the Valderan till and
remained morphologically similar, or as smaller drumlins of Valderan till were built onto
the tops and/or sides ofthe extant drumlins. Lastly, Finiol (1978) suggests that, due to
the drumlin orientations of the two localities, there is a possibility that both the Northport
ﬁeld and the Antrim-Charlevoix ﬁelds could have formed synchronously from a single
spreading center, and hypothesizes that the Antrim-Charlevoix ﬁeld formed as
Greatlakean ice advanced onto pre-existing ground moraine and outwash. F iniol (1978)
also states that he found no strong evidence, based on drumlin orientation and till fabric,
for re-orientation of the drumlins of this ﬁeld, but says more information would be
necessary to state this with certainty.

Leverett (in Leverett and Taylor [1915]) appears to be the ﬁrst to discuss the
drumlins of Leelanau County, but he does not refer to them as such. Rather, he called
them drumlinoids, due to their irregular shapes and rough surfaces. Lotan and Shetron
(1968) credit Martin (1955) as being the ﬁrst to recognize the drumlin-like features of the
Leelanau Peninsula as drumlins, in her map of the glacial features of lower Michigan.

Lotan and Shetron (1968) are the only authors to provide a detailed description of
both the drumlin ﬁelds found in Leelanau County, the Northport ﬁeld with which this
study is concerned, and the smaller West Leelanau ﬁeld found to the southwest of the

Northport ﬁeld (Figure 2). Although their study reported a great deal of information

36

 

Table 3. Average topographic characteristics of the
Northport drumlins.

 

Azimuth Length Width Highest Lowest Relief
(degrees) (m) (m) contour contour (m)

(m) (m)
l7l+l* 1005+52 301+17 260+3 230+3 30+1.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

modiﬁed from Lotan and Shetron, I 968; data gathered/ram 1:62.500 topographic maps
with 20 foot (6 m) contour interval

* standard error of the mean at 5% level of probability

 

about the morphology, abundance, and orientation of the drumlins in Leelanau County
(Table 3), it failed to include a large enough sample size to allow for comparison of till
fabric, texture, lithology or color (only one drumlin of each ﬁeld was sampled). It is
worthy of mention that, although the orientation of Northport drumlins is slightly east of
south (171°), the fabric of pebbles within the sampled drumlin was roughly southwesterly
(213°), indicating that more than one advance may have been responsible for the
formation of the Northport drumlins (Lotan and Shetron, 1968). Again, however, it
should be noted that the fabric information was derived from only one drumlin, and the
authors admit that the fabric of pebbles within the drumlin is roughly 180 degrees from
what would be anticipated, and that further data would be required to determine if this
was true fabric orientation. Figure 6 shows the orientation of the long axes of drumlinoid
features in Leelanau County and reﬂects the orientations given by Lotan and Shetron. In
summary, aside from the morphologic data collected by Lotan and Shetron (1968), a
paucity of information exists for the Northport drumlin ﬁeld and its glacial history.

While the intent of this study is not to determine which ice advance formed the drumlins,

nor the processes involved, examining the near- surface stratigraphy may shed some light

37

0 6 12 Kilometers

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Orientation of drumlinoid features in Leelanau County.

38

on these concerns, as well as illuminating what processes were responsible for this
stratigraphy. Also, because processes like submergence of the ﬁeld or weathering of near
surface materials may be responsible for this stratigraphy, the information gleaned from
the study of the Northport drumlins may have regional signiﬁcance. Finally, as will be
demonstrated in the next section, a general lack of research dealing with near—surface
stratigraphy and soils on drumlins exists. This study hopes to expand this base of
knowledge, and demonstrate the merit of the techniques used by soil geomorphologists

when used in this context.

39

LITERATURE REVIEW
Glacial research in Michigan

While researchers like Leverett and Taylor (1915), Martin (1955), Evenson
(1973), F arrand and Eschman (1974) and Farrand and Bell (1982) have greatly advanced
the study of glaciation in lower Michigan, their works often address glacial features on a
broad (essentially state-sized) scale. As a result, these works are too general to gather
information on the micro- and meso-scales, which can contribute just as much or more
information on processes and chronology.

Since the advent of technologies like aerial photography and geographic
information systems, the collection of pertinent information such as soils data, well logs,
and topography, and through simply more physical accessibility to sites, many
interpretations of both landforms and the processes responsible for creating them have
been revised (e.g. Blewett and Winters, 1995; Wallbom and Larson, in press; Schaetzl et
al., under review). The number of researchers who have addressed processes and features
in Michigan at scales smaller than those cited above are far too numerous to list, but a
deﬁnite scarcity of studies exists on smaller scales for northwestern lower Michigan.
Melhom (1954), Eschman et a1. (1973), Taylor (1990), Wallbom (in press), and Wallbom
and Larson (in press) are the only authors to speciﬁcally address the Pleistocene features
and processes of this region, and only Lotan and Shetron (1968), have studied one
discrete landscape unit in this region, the Northport drumlin ﬁeld. Adding to this body of

knowledge by investigating soils found on the Northport drumlin ﬁeld is one of the

purposes of this research.

40

Drumlins of Michigan

The drumlins of Michigan have been studied in some depth, especially the
extensive Antrim-Charlevoix drumlin ﬁeld on the eastern shore of Grand Traverse Bay
(Leverett 1905; Bergquist 1942; Melhorn 1954, 1956; and Finiol 1978), as noted in the
previous section (Figure 5). Other drumlin ﬁelds in lower Michigan are those in the
southwestern part of the state in the vicinity of Union Township and the village of
Climax, and the several scattered drumlin ﬁelds found throughout the northeastern part of
the lower peninsula. Leverett and Taylor (1915), Bergquist (1942) and Dodson (1985)
described and investigated the drumlins in Union Township; Leverett and Taylor (1915),
Bergquist (1942, 1943), Melhom (1954), Burgis (1977), and Schaetzl (1997, 1998, under
review) investigated the drumlins located in the northeastern part of the state, and Lotan
and Shetron (1968) described the characteristics of the drumlins of the Leelanau
peninsula. Of these studies, most deal with some characteristics of the constituent tills,
with only Melhom (1954), and Schaetzl (1997, 1998, under review) speciﬁcally
addressing the soils associated with their respective study areas.

One reason for this paucity of soil information on glacial landforms is that the
majority of these researchers are geologists, whose primary focus is investigating
materials below the depth of soil formation. Although it is true that subtle features such
as bedding planes may be destroyed by processes of soil formation, an investigations of
soils and near-surface stratigraphy are especially pertinent to this study, because the

Greatlakean till is relatively thin (Melhom, 1954).

41

Drumlin stratigraphy and soils

While countless papers have been written about the relationship of soils and
landforms (soil geomorphology), the amount of literature dealing with the soils of
drumlins is still quite small. The majority of research concerned with drumlins is
typically in one of three research areas: drumlin morphology (e.g. Chorley, 1959; Mills,
1980; Clapperton, 1987; Evans, 1987), drumlin stratigraphy/sedimentology (e.g.
Hillefors, 1983; Sharpe, 1987; Goldstein, 1989; Newman et al., 1989; McCabe, 1991), or
drumlin formation (e.g. Menzies, 1987; Rose, 1987, 1989; Hart, 1997). Drumlin
stratigraphy is commonly a stepping stone to hypotheses regarding formation (e. g., Aario
and Forsstrom, 1979; Kruger and Thomsen, 1984; Hanvey, 1989; McCabe and Dardis,
1989; Shaw et al., 1989). Unfortunately, some researchers, while recognizing an
uppermost strata of a drumlin, do not make a distinction between this uppermost
sedimentary layer and the soil that has formed within it. For example, Kruger and
Thomsen (1984) and Hanvey (1989) describe the uppermost sedimentary layers in
drumlins that were 2 m or less in thickness, without mentioning soil. Wright (1962),
however, in his investigation of the drumlin ﬁelds of central Minnesota, used soil
information to recognize different depths to carbonate, and thus to explain variation in the
glacial till of the region.

Soil scientists and pedologists have looked at soils in drumlinized landscapes
from a number of different perspectives. Soil studies on drumlinized landscapes include
genesis studies such as Allan and Hole’s (1968) investigation of soil formation on
drumlins covered with varying amounts of loess, and studies on the formation of certain

morphological features such as fragipans (Lindbo and Veneman, 1993) in drumlin soils.

42

Spatial variations of soils and soil properties were researched by Pavlik and Hole (1977),
who performed discriminant analysis to compare soil properties on a drumlinized
landscape to an adjacent undrumlinized ground moraine, and by Kabrick et al. (1997),
who investigated the spatial distribution of soil textures and organic carbon contents on
six drumlin summits in northeastern Wisconsin. Whittecar (1983), in the course of
explaining land use planning on drumlins, discusses drumlin formation, the various
parent materials likely to occur on drumlins, and some possible geologic explanations of
these parent material assemblages, and, in doing so, helps bridge the gap between soil
science and glacial geology.

Given the toposequential focus of this study, catemary studies of soils on drumlins
warrant a slightly more detailed discussion. However, a thorough review of the literature
reveals only a few articles where soil variability along drumlin slopes is investigated.
Finch and Jelley’s (1974) study of soil formation along a well-drained catemary sequence
in County Clare, Ireland, concluded that deeper podzolic soils formed in inter-drumlin
areas are a product of enhanced weathering, as demonstrated by increased clay content
and by a lower pH. Pickering and Veneman (1984) investigated morphological evidence,
such as soil color and mottling, of ﬂuctuating water tables in a hydrosequence on a
drumlin in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, however, neither of these soil studies confronts
the sedimentary/glaciologic problem like the one investigated in the present study.
Rather, my study will need to draw from studies concerned with both near surface
stratigraphy (as practiced by many glacial geologists), and soil formation and changes in

soils over catemary sequences (as done by soil scientists and pedologists).

43

Lithologic Discontinuities

A discontinuity in a soil is the “detectable change(s) in the vertical direction of a
soil proﬁle that is interpreted by the observer to be caused by geologic processes (Buol et
al., 1989: p. 65). Arnold (1968) characterizes lithologic discontinuities as being roughly
horizontal surfaces that separate materials that are internally uniform and distinctly
different from each other based on the characteristics of particle size, mineralogy, and
fabric. Simply stated, soil lithologic discontinuities are detectable, non-pedogenic
“breaks” in a soil proﬁle that indicate a transition from one parent material to another.
Schaetzl’s paper (1998) is an excellent review of the theory and detection of lithologic
discontinuities in soils, and some of the methods employed in that study will be used
herein.

A wide variety of techniques have been used in order to detect lithologic
discontinuities (Schaetzl, 1998), including depth proﬁles of various chemical and
mineralogical characteristics of the immobile fraction of soils, e. g. zironium and titanium
content (Chapman and Horn, 1968), heavy minerals including zircon, rutile, and
tourmaline (Beshay and Sallam, 1995) and quartz/feldspar ratios (Price et a1. 1975).
Particle size, in various manifestations, including clay-free sand and silt (Asamoa and
Protz, 1972; Beshay and Sallam, 1995; Schaetzl, 1996, 1998), sand content or sand-size
fractions (Arnold, 1968; Borchardt et al. 1968; Meixner and Singer, 1981; Follmer, 1982;
Schaetzl, 1996), coarse fragment content (Arnold, 1968; Raad and Protz, 1971; Asamoa
and Protz, 1972; Meixner and Singer, 1981; Follmer, 1982; Schaetzl, 1996) and indexes
that identify discontinuities based on particle size (Langohr et al. 1976; C remeens and

Mokma, 1986), has also been used to locate lithologic discontinuities. Schaetzl (1998),

44

however, warns that several different methods should be used to identify potential
discontinuities, and that some methods are more useful than others.

The identiﬁcation of lithologic discontinuities has also been pursued in a number
of different types of soil parent materials. Asadu and Akamigbo (1987) used several
different morphological, chemical, and physical characteristics of soils as indicators of
lithologic discontinuities in two soils forming on the residua of sedimentary rocks in
Nigeria. Studies have also focused on the identiﬁcation of discontinuities in soils formed
in loess (Kuzila, 1995), loess over residuum (Price et a1. 1975; Karathanasis and Macneal,
1994), loess over glacial till (Ransom et al., 1987) and glacial deposits (Foss and Rust,
1968; Asamoa and Protz, 1969; Raad and Protz, 1971; Schaetzl, 1996, 1998). Studies
pertaining to lithologic discontinuities in soils forming in glacial materials are especially
pertinent to this study.

Because glaciated landscapes are subject to a variety of depositional and erosional
environments, the determination of lithologic discontinuities in the near-surface
stratigraphy can be very helpful in understanding glacial sedimentary environments and
landform genesis, and in establishing glacial chronologies (Raad and Protz, 1971). Raad
and Protz (1971) used the ratio of clay- and carbonate-free percentages of total sand to
percentages of total silt in linear regression equations to identify lithologic discontinuities
in soils forming in glacio-ﬂuvially transported shaley sediments overlying dolomitic till,
on, among other landforms, a drumlin. The upland portion of the drumlin showed
uniformity in its parent material throughout its proﬁle, while the proﬁle of the lowland

POrtion exhibited a discontinuity.

45

Asamoa and Protz (1972) investigated lithologic discontinuities in a catemary
sequence in Ontario, where silty materials were found overlying glacial till.
Discontinuities were located using linear regression equations applied to clay- and
carbonate-free silt and sand fractions; the amounts of the non-stable, translocatable
materials, including clay, extractable iron, aluminum, and manganese were also
considered. They found that each pedon exhibited more lithologic discontinuities than
were indicated by using the total soil fraction alone. This study also found that the
presence of lithologic discontinuities inﬂuenced the translocation of these materials. In
this study, the soil in the somewhat-poorly drained pedon was better developed than the
well-drained one, as reﬂected by the larger quantities of extractable iron and aluminum in
the former. Interestingly, in the well-drained pedon three horizon boundaries coincided
with lithologic discontinuities, while in the somewhat poorly-drained pedon only one
boundary coincided with a discontinuity.

Schaetzl (1996), working on drumlins in northeastern lower Michigan, recognized
lithologic discontinuities in many pedons that had previously been mapped as having
formed in only one parent material (till). Lithologic discontinuities in this study typically
featured a slightly ﬁner textured cap, typically overlying a “stone zone”, which was
underlain by coarser calcareous till with higher amounts of gravel. These discontinuities
were recognized through depth plots of coarse fragments and of clay—free sand and silt.
The discontinuities present in this study were very often associated with a zone of
increased gravel content, which was either coincident with, or just above the Bt horizons.

Although samples were taken from a variety of slopes (0-1% to 27%), this information

46

was not presented on a site to site basis, so comparisons of the depth to lithologic
discontinuity could not be made between different slope positions.

Lastly, research in northeastern lower Michigan by Schaetzl et al. (under review),
integrated all the elements discussed thus far, including near-surface stratigraphy, soils,
lithologic discontinuities, and toposequences on drumlins into a single study. The
presence of lithologic discontinuities in soils on drumlin summits and side-slopes had
been determined through previous ﬁeld work (Schaetzl, 1996, 1998), but soils in inter-
drumlin areas were investigated in this later study, i.e. Schaetzl et al. (under review).
These inter-drumlin soils were also found to contain lithologic discontinuities (based
primarily on differences in texture), often having a thin ﬁne sandy loam or silt loam cap
over thick silty clay deposits, which, in turn are underlain by sandy loam glacial till.
These data, when incorporated with data from a digital elevation model of the
isostatically depressed landscape, led the authors to suggest a subaqueous depositional
environment for some of the drumlin ﬁelds in that part of Michigan.

As demonstrated by this literature review, there have been few studies which have
looked at drumlins and lithologic discontinuities in exactly the way I intend to; that is, to
examine the near-surface stratigraphy over a range of slope elements. This review also
shows the the gap in the literature related to the Northport drumlin ﬁeld, and the previous
section on the geomorphology and glacial history shows that few have worked in this
region, and that some of the authors’ interpretations regarding the glacial chronology may
be suspect. This study will hopefully ﬁll some of these gaps, both in drumlin and soils

Studies, and add to our overall understanding of glacial history of this part of Michigan.

47

METHODS
Site selection

Drumlins and other study sites were ﬁrst identiﬁed from l:25,000 USGS
topographic quadrangles. Although few of the drumlins within the Northport ﬁeld have
the classical drumlin shape, i.e. blunt, steep, stoss end and a tapering, gradually sloping
lee side, the elongated shapes were easily differentiated from other landforms in the area
(Figure 7). Soil maps were also used in the site selection; upland sites that had soil series
common to those in Schaetzl’s (1996) study (Emmet and Omena), as well as inter-
drumlin series found on adjacent slope elements, were sampled. Lastly, site selection was
inﬂuenced by landowner access to sites.

In order to measure the changes in soils and sediments across the landscape,
several transects were established roughly normal to the drumlin axes, and samples were
obtained from as many of the different slope elements (summit, shoulder, backslope,
footslope, and toeslope) as possible. Ultimately, samples were collected from 27
different sites, along 6 transects (Figures 8 and 9). UTM coordinates (Table 4) were
chosen over rectangular survey grid coordinates because of the higher accuracy afforded
by the UTM system, and because UTM data are provided on all of the USGS l:25,000
maps for the study area. Because of the small scale of the maps used to calculate UTM
coordinates, actual locations may be up to 25 in different from those shown. The
approximate location of the sampling sites along the transects are shown as points on
Figures 10, 11, and 12. The naming of the transects was based either on the name of the

landowner (HOU: Houdek, HW: Houdek woods), a locality near the sampling site NPRT:

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ 3"“,7: €' _ ~
" ,5‘15-FW“
T' ’ "\i ’1 T x.
r
\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. Map displaying drumlin morphology in the central part of the Northport
ﬁeld. Base map: Gills Pier 75’ topographic map, contour interval 5 meters
(USGS, 1983).

49

 

 

 

 

 

      

E:

i \ K
. \ \.\ s
r '7‘ \\ \
I \/x\/ J i
F )\ 1k“ 1:
\ ,'

 
 
  

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

\
-\. \(1 '
LL : 7 /°"\ \\
1U W A
f‘.'\'\ iﬁxv
'V‘g‘l‘? ’ “aw/U
‘ ” :3) Jam
2);“ ,
/-

 

 

 

 

{

7 \ \ v
r \
L “Q [\‘1 l‘ \ ,. 7%

Figure 8. Location of the HOU, HW, BLW, BLE, and HETT transects. Base map:
Gills Pier 7.5’ topographic map, contour interval 5 meters
(U 808, 1983).

 

5 C
\;’-’:_/—
H.

 

 

 

 

50

 

 
   

 

 

\J" \ j 1 \W
N) J/\\B
’_ /:/||

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
 

"(75“

\
. \
v—“ 9% aim“!!! «an

.K"\ R \\\\“l m.

Figure 9. Location of the N PRT transect. Base map: Northport NW 7.5’
topographic map, contour interval: 5 meterS (USGS, 1983).

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

Table 4. Approximate locations and elevations of
sample sites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slope
Sample position' UTM Coordinates (m) Elevation (m)
HOU S 4988738N. 60480013 270-275
B 4988700N, 604925E 260-265
F 4988425N, 605112E 250-255
Tl 4988700N, 6051135 250-255
T2 4988419N. 605114E 250-255
T3 4988697N, 605115E 245-250
HW S 4988000N, 605175E 280-285
B 4988000N, 605000E 265—270
F 4987888N, 60493813 245-250
T 4987788N, 604850E 245-250
BLW S 4990363N. 605250E 285-290
B 4990413N, 605288E 275-280
F 4990413N, 605350E 275-280
BLE S 4990488N, 605475E 290-295
B 4990450N. 605425E 280-285
F 4990450N, 605350E 270-275
[ BL T 4990425N. 605350E 265-270
HETT SH 49904450N. 60581313 270-275
B 4990488N. 605913E 260-265
F 4990522N, 606015E 255-260
Tl 4990522N, 606018E 255-260
T2 4990525N. 606025E 255-260
NPRT S 4999000N. 6073 87.5E 235-240
B1 4999075N. 607525E 210-215
B2 4999118N, 60760013 200-205
F 4999263N, 60762513 195-200

 

a S = summit, SH = shoulder, B = backslope, F = footslope,

T = toeslope

52

 

 

 

 

% Tonkey-Munuscong-Iosco sandy loams
m Emmet—Omena sandy loams

A

250 meters

m Leelanau-East Lake sands

= Kalkaska

—East Lake loamy sands

......

 

IIII I I I ....
1 IWIWI-IUM I NI Iv?"- OIIIII I

 

 

 

.....
....

\
L .511
\n:

.l... Err-3|

. .1 .1.15.1.... .....

 

 

I.- III . III-III IWIIII W
.....- .r

I’lfll
.....nhm...
.. ban...“-

......
1...- I..-

. .. ... .
. ...-‘1.... III-....”JH

...... 1.3...

 

 

 

I}. III}- MIIWIuIIIIIII

........... W 11mm... again-#31...

...: J11!- . 4.1.13..." . it}???

ﬁnunuwuﬁnﬂm‘mnvmﬂ. .. . ..U...r. ...
...wswm

...

 

{...-5.5.5....- . {Emma
Imuvﬂaiﬁémiﬁuwv 5*. . .
.. . ......ﬁaﬁm... .. .

.., ﬁmﬁ I v

............................. m. mama

..............u..n..n.a..mr m............................1....”.......ﬁn..momma“.

 

....
. . f
I 1
...
. I I .I.
........ ......ﬂhmwﬂf. spa ..
. n inseamﬂer. ...
..u #WJJ 4.. < v.
«...-m» .t e a... e
. ..

1 . a 1 1
« ixot at: a”:\|l.a‘wal

 

e ulna“ of sampling Itesfor the HOU and HW transects. I

I.." .1
7.1.: .
I I ‘ -I'I
L. ' .
l"-

.' .

i. c

3. ' I

.1. w.
Figur

If a

Base map. Gills Pier 75’ topographic map, contour interval 5 meters

(USGS, 1983). Soils map: SSURGO data (NRCS, 1999).

53

Figure 11. Detail of the sampling sites for the BLE, BLW, and HETT transects.
Base map: Gill Pier 75’ topographic map, contour interval 5 meters
(USGS, 1983). Soils map: SSURGO data (NRCS, 1999). A = BLW-S,
B = BLW-B, C = BLW-F, D = BL-T, E = BLE-F, F = BLE-B, G = BLE-S,
H = HETT-SH, I =- HETT-B, J -= HETT-F, K = HETT-Tl, L = HETT-T2.

54

 

 

E808 omN

. 252 358 ..oEoE-a=oo_< 2
menu... 033 3359503 g
882 €53 «580-688m a
2:8— zou—coheowﬁzom EHE

 

55

s\\\\\\\\\\

100 200 meters

\\\\\\\\\\

(I
\‘ ..........
Illlfll}

..............

Emmet-Omena sandy loams
Leelanau—East Lake sands
Hettinger-Tonkey loams
Tonkey—Munuscong-Iosco sandy loams
Alcona-Richter sandy loams
1;._ :_ ,. ‘ 3:}: Au Gres-Kalkaska sands
Kalkaska-EastLakeloamysands
' ' ' 3 I 53: ' Mancelona-Richter gravelly sandy loams
Roscommon sand - Markey mucks
Lupton-Markey mucks
Alcona—Richter loams
transect. map:

Northport NW 7 topographic map, contour interval 5 meters
(USGS, 1983). Soils map: SSURGO data (NRCS, 1999).

 

56

near the village of Northport, BLW: Bass Lake, western portion of the Bass Lake transect,
BLE: the eastern portion of the Bass Lake transect, BL-T: the toeslope site located
between the eastern and western Bass Lake transects), or after a soil series that typiﬁed
the sampling site (HETT: Hettinger soil series). The sufﬁxes attached to each sample site
name denotes its slope position; i.e. S = summit, SH = Shoulder, B = backslope, F =

footslope, and T = toeslope.

Field methods

Samples were obtained with a bucket auger and from backhoe pits. In all, 21 sites
were sampled using a bucket auger, and six were sampled from backhoe pit faces. For
the bucket auger samples, approximate depths to the tops of the soil horizons were
measured in the ﬁeld, and approximately 500 g from each soil horizon was collected
throughout the thickness of the horizons, for later laboratory analysis. Munsell moist
colors from the samples gathered from bucket augering were obtained by wetting the soil
to ﬁeld capacity, and then comparing the wetted samples to Munsell color chips under a
ﬂuorescent light in the laboratory. Backhoe pits were sampled according to the Soil
Survey Manual (1993), and information such as depth to top of the horizon, Munsell
color, structure, consistence, horizon boundary, volumetric estimation of coarse
fragments, and the presence or absence of cutans and mottling was recorded, as well as
other site information, such as the geomorphic slope element (summit, shoulder, etc.),
slope at the pit, vegetation/land use, drainage class, and evidence of erosion. Full proﬁle
descriptions of these sites can be found in Appendix B. Again, approximately 500 g of

sample were gathered from each of the horizons for laboratory analysis.

57

Laboratory methods

Laboratory methods used in this study included soil particle size analysis, soil pH,
and analysis of clay mineralogy. Soil particle size was determined on air dried soil
samples that were ﬁrst crushed using a mortar and pestle, and then passed through a 2
mm sieve to remove gravel, which was discarded. The pipette method (Sheldrick, 1984)
was used to determine the quantities of clay, and coarse and ﬁne silt. The remaining sand
was passed through four sieves (1 mm, 500 pm, 250 um, and 125 pm) to establish the
ﬁve USDA sand splits. Soil pH was measured using a 2:1 water to soil mixture, with a
model #720A Orion pH meter.

Clay mineralogy samples were prepared by ﬁrst weighing out enough sample to
yield 4 to 5 g of clay (based on a knowledge of the amount of clay in the sample, which
was obtained through particle size analysis). C arbonates were then removed by mixing
about 40 g of soil with 100 mL of 1M sodium acetate solution (82.03 g of CH3COONa in
l L distilled H20) (pH = 5); if more than 40 g of soil was necessary to yield 4-5 g of clay,
then that amount was broken into 40 g lots, each being treated separately, and then
recombined following the sedimentation process described below. Soil organic matter
was removed from all of the A and some E horizon samples by mixing with dilute H303
and heating in an 80°C water bath until foaming subsided. All samples were then
transferred to 1 L sedimentation cylinders that were ﬁlled with distilled water to the l L
mark and shaken for approximately 30 seconds. The settling time for particles <2 um
diameter to a depth of 10 cm was calculated, and when elapsed, the upper 10 cm of the

solution was removed with a pipette, and placed in an oven at 80°C to evaporate most of

58

the water, thereby concentrating the clay; at no time was the clay suspension allowed to
dry completely.

This process of settling, removal, and concentration was repeated until enough
clay was available to prepare a slide for X-ray diffraction. The amount of clay necessary
to prepare a slide is probably less than the 4-5 g this method calls for, and the number of
repetitions of the above sequence was determined by my discretion based on how much
clay was obtained from each run of the sequence. To ensure that a large amount of clay
was obtained from each sample, this process could have been repeated until the upper 10
cm of the sedimentation cylinder was no longer cloudy after the required sedimentation
time.

Once the amount of clay obtained from each sample was deemed sufﬁcient, the
clay slurry (clay mixed with the distilled water remaining from the concentration process)
was then saturated with potassium and magnesium by adding about 10 mL of either 1M
KCl (74.55 g KCl in IL distilled H20) or 0.5M Mng (101.60 g Mng in IL distilled
H30), shaking for 15 seconds to disperse, centrifuging at 1500 rpm for 5 minutes, and
pouring off the supernatant. This sequence of adding the above solutions, dispersal,
centrifugation, and decantation was repeated 3 total of four times for each sample, and for
each treatment. The samples were then washed with distilled water (once for K samples
and twice for Mg samples), and then centrifuged at 1500 rpm for 5 minutes. The
supernatant was then discarded. The samples were then mixed with just enough distilled
water to make a slurry that could be shaken and transferred to a vial. The samples were
then shaken again, and an eyedropper was used to remove some of the clay slurry and

drOp it on a glass slide in an amount sufﬁcient to be contained by water tension. Once

59

dry, these samples were then analyzed on a Phillips XRG 3100 scanning diffractometer
using Cu KOL radiation (35 kV, 20 mA), scanning from 3" to 14° 20 using 1 second steps
of 0.020° 29. The Mg saturated slides were then sprayed with ethlene glycol using a
mister bottle, and the K saturated slides were heated to 550°C for 2 hours. Both sets of
slides were then run again on the X-ray diffractometer using the above protocol. See
Appendix G for information on how to operate the X-ray diffraction machine and
accompanying software.

A modiﬁed version of the semiquantitative clay mineralogy analysis of Johns et
a1. (1954) was used to determine percentage values of smectite, vermiculite, chlorite,
illite, and kaolinite in the samples analyzed. Similar methodologies have been used by
Rutledge et a1. (1975), Wall and Wilding (1976), and Klages and Hopper (1982). In this
study, peak height was determined from diffractograms in counts per second (cps) for
peaks occurring at 14A, 10A, and 7.15A for each of the four treatments.

Assessment of peak height was determined by using a base line curve hand drawn
directly onto the computer-generated diffractogram to account for background, and then
hand measuring the height of the peak above the base line. Table 5 demonstrates
graphically an example of how the following procedure is worked through, and Figure 13
displays how the peak height measurements were made, and the response of clay minerals
to the various treatments. The measured peak height (with background removed) was then
compared to the illite peak (10A), and then some differencing operations were performed
(Johns etal., 1954; Klages and Hooper, 1982). The illite peak is used as the baseline that

all other materials are compared against mainly because it is not affected by

60

Table 5. Example of the derivation of percentages of clay minerals.

 

 

 

 

14.8. 141321071 103. 7.15A/10A 7.1521

cps'd cps cps cps cps
Mg saturated sample 280 7.56 37 n/a n/a
Glycolated Mg sample 153 6.12 25 n/a n/a
K saturated sample 132 3.67 36 2.86 16
K-550°C sample 22 0.32 69 0.23 87

 

 

Determination of clay minerals present:

Smectite: Mg saturated 14A/10A - Glycolated Mg l4A/10A;

Vermiculite: K saturated 14A/10A - K-SSOOC;

Chlorite: K-550°C 1421/1021;

Illite: constant;

Kaolinite: K saturated 7.15A/10A - K-550°C 7.15A/10 A;

Calculation of percentages:

Smectite: 1.44/874* 100 = 16%

Vermiculite: 3.35/8.74*100 = 38%

Chlorite: 0.32/874* 100 = 4%

Illite: 1.0/8.74*100 = 11%

Kaolinite: 2.63/874* 100 = 30%

61

7.56 - 6.12 = 1.44
3.67 - .32 = 3.35
0.32

1.00

2.86 - 0.23 = 2.63

Sum = 8.74

4007 Background - - - -
- 353
Peak height without background: 353 - 73 = 280

 
 
  

. 70-37=33
300. 137-33: 104
“o .
t:
o -
0
5’. .
2200.
4'13 -1
:3 -
O
U .1
100-

 

 

 

 

Degrees 26)

Figure 13. A) Determination of the intensity measures used to calculate clay
mineral quantities.

62

Mg Saturated

 

Mg Glycolated

Intensity (counts per second)

eff?

K Saturated

K Saturated,
heated to 550

. -1 . . . .1.3--- - . degrees C

 

 

 

3 5 7 9 1 1
Degrees 29

Figure 13 continued.

B) Smoothed diffractograms of the treatments for a single sample, demonstrating
the response of clay mineral species due to different treatments.

63

any of the treatments used, and because it is found in all of the samples. The various
treatments used in the clay mineral analysis allow one mineral species to be distinguished
from another, and therefore allow for clay mineral identiﬁcation. The actions of these
various treatments in the determination of the type of clay mineral species present are
presented in Whittig (1965) and are summarized below. In order to determine if smectite
is present in the sample, the ratio of the 14A and 10A peaks of the glycolated sample,
which reﬂects vermiculite and chlorite content, was subtracted from the ratio of the same
peaks of the Mg saturated sample, which represents smectite, vermiculite, and chlorite.

C hlorite was determined from the ratio of the 14A peak to the 10A found on the K-550°C
heated slide (due crystal destruction of vermiculite by heating). Vermiculite was
determined by subtracting the ratio of the 14A to 10A peaks of the K-550°C from the K
saturated l4A/10A peak ratio. Kaolinite was separated by subtracting the 7.15A/10A
peak ratio of the K-550°C from the 7.15A/10A peak ratio of the K saturated sample.
These differencings are based on the following: the Mg saturated peak contains
vermiculite, kaolinite, and chlorite, and heating to 550°C destroys the crystal structures of
vermiculite and kaolinite, while not affecting chlorite content. Once these values have
been established the next step is to sum all of these values, and then divide each value by
the sum to get the percentage of each clay mineral.

While these methods present data in a qualitative fashion, it should be noted that
this is, in actuality, a semiquantitative method, used in lieu of much more rigorous and
time-consuming methods to get actual mineral quantities. However, even if such
methods are employed, there are many variables that must be accounted for, and they do

not necessarily ensure that the outcome will actually be representative of the mineral

64

quantities present in a given sample (Moore and Reynolds, 1989). It should also be noted
that this study investigates only four the many different clay minerals found in soils.
Intergrades of both chlorite-vermiculite and chlorite-smectite were undoubtedly present in
the samples analyzed, and though not accounted for individually, their presence was
accounted for in the percent calculation for whichever mineral they resembled most

closely following the various treatments.

Analytical methods

In addition to the use of ﬁeld observations and mineralogical analyses, this study
used two techniques utilizing particle size to identify lithologic discontinuities. Both of
these methods served to supplement the identiﬁcation of discontinuities in the ﬁeld and to
indicate potentially undiscovered ones, and were applied to all horizons of every pedon,
with the exception of basal horizons where no comparsion was possible. Both of these
indexes were calculated on a clay-free basis, which removes the effect of illuviated clay.

The Uniformity Index of Creemens and Mokma (1986) uses the formula:

' __ (silt + very fine sand) / (sand - very fine sand) of horizon _ 1 O
‘ (silt + very fine sand) / (sand — very fine sand) of immediately underlying horizon '

Creemens and Mokma used values of greater than i 0.65 as indicative of a discontinuity
between two horizons. In this study, the i 0.65 value, as well as a value of i 0.37 used
in a similar particle size ratio by Asady and Whiteside (1982), were used as thresholds to
indicate the presence or absence of discontinuities in a profile.

The other index used, the Cumulative Particle Size Distribution Index (C PSDI), is
a portion of a larger methodology used developed by Langhor et a1. (1976). This index

determines the difference between two materials by summing the lesser amounts of

65

particle size separates of two adjacent horizons. The maximum value allowed in this
index is 100, and indicates the two materials are exactly identical in terms of relative
amounts of particle size separates, while the minimum value is 0, which occurs when the
materials are completely different and do not share any of the same particle sizes (e. g. one
sample is all sand, while one is all silt). The following example is a demonstration of

how this index works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horizon 1
Very coarse Coarse Sand Medium sand Fine Sand Very ﬁne Total
sand sand silt
2% 25% 15% 20% 35% 5%
Horizon 2

 

Very coarse Coarse Sand Medium sand Fine Sand Very ﬁne Total
sand sand silt

1% 5% 10% 15% 30% 40%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bold numbers designate the lower of the two quantities represented by that particle size.
Those numbers are then summed to arrive at the index value:
1%+5%+10%+15%+30%+5%=66

The two samples are more dissimilar as the index value converges on zero.

The CPSD Index, unlike the U1 of Creemens and Mokma (1986), does not have
an established threshold beyond which a difference in materials would be recognized as a
discontinuity, rather it simply tells you how dissimilar two materials are, with lower
numbers indicating greater dissimilarity. To make this index more useful, the CPSD
Index values for each horizon were calculated and those values were manipulated in the

following ways: ( l) a mean value of the index number was determined for samples from

66

upland pedons which were judged in the ﬁeld to have formed in a single parent material;
this was done to avoid discontinuities in inter-drumlin sites (sample mean = 95), (2) the
standard deviation was calculated for the same population (3) the standard deviation
(approximately 2) was then subtracted from the mean to yield a number (93) including
and below which index numbers would be considered signiﬁcantly different. Therefore,
pairs of samples from adjacent horizons, having index values less than or equal to 93,
were considered to have a discontinuity between them.

Particle size sorting and mean grain size were also calculated for two of the parent
materials. McCammon’s (1962) equations with 97% efﬁciency for mean grain size, and

87% efﬁciency for sorting, were used to calculate sorting and mean grain size.

Mean grain size:

1 1
2((1’34 —¢lb ) ‘1' aches —¢5)

Sorting:

.9—1_l(¢7o +¢so +¢90 +¢97 —¢3 _¢'0 -4)” —¢30)

In both cases, the weights of the particle size separates (very coarse sand through ﬁne silt)
for all samples of that particular material were averaged, and the mean grain size and
sorting calculations were performed on this average rather than on individual samples
because of the large amounts of time involved in the analysis. It was not the goal of this
work to identify variation of sorting and mean grain size among adjacent soil horizons (as
the samples were collected), but rather to see if this was a useful tool for discriminating

two different parent materials, and if this information might yield any insight into

67

possible origins of the materials. The particle sizes used were converted to (1) size
categories by multiplying the particle size in millimeters by -log2 , and the percentage of
each particle size was calculated and then cumulatively summed. The cumulative particle

size data were then plotted against (1) size.

Geograghic information system methods

A geographic information system (GIS) utilizing soil and elevation information
was employed to better visualize the spatial distribution of soil parent materials, as well
as to determine the elevation of these materials. The utilization of a GIS was especially
beneﬁcial because it allowed for the determination of elevation and the spatial
distribution of those materials identiﬁed in the ﬁeld without excessive sampling. The
GIS was also useful in that it allowed me to identify and highlight only those soil
mapping units of interest to this study, which is not only dramatically more efﬁcient than
a soil survey, but also allows for much better visualization (e. g. digital maps can be
zoomed in and out, and altered much more easily and efﬁciently than analog maps).
Several of the maps in following sections showing the spatial distribution of different
parent materials throughout the county and the Northport drumlin ﬁeld were created using
this data set.

In addition to displaying the spatial distribution of soil parent materials, the GIS
data set also included elevation information for the soil mapping units based on a 30 m
resolution digital elevation model (DEM). Elevation information was deemed important
for this study because it was potentially useful in determining the origin and/or

depositional environment of some of the soil parent materials found in the area.

68

SSURGO digitized soil mapping units for Leelanau County were obtained from
the Soil Digitizing Team (East Lansing, MI) of the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), and were subsequently converted into Arclnfo format. The Arclnfo
coverages provided by the NRCS were combined into a single coverage fore the whole
county using the MAPJOIN command. With the data in this format, an Arc Macro
Language script (AML) created by Frank Krist was used to complete the procedures
which are summarized below. The actual script used to create the ﬁnal coverages can be
found in Appendix A.

The joined soil polygon coverage (named soils) was queried to produce a
coverage named soil _poly, which contained the sandy, stratiﬁed, alluvial soils (Alcona
sandy loam, 6-12% slopes; Alcona-Richter sandy loam, 0-2% and 2-6% slopes; Richter-
Alcona sandy loams, 0-2% and 2-6%) and the soils containing lacustrine materials
(Hettinger-Muck complex; Hettinger-Tonkey loams; Tonkey-Munuscong-Iosco sandy
loams, 0-2% and 2-6%). This coverage was then coverted to a grid using GRID in
Arclnfo, and was joined with a 30 m resolution “modern” (current) digital elevation
model of Leelanau County to assign elevation values to the selected soil polygons.
Equations were then implemented within the AML to assign minimum, maximum, and
average elevation values for the selected soil mapping unit polygons. This step created a
coverage that allows the user to click on a polygon using the identify tool in ArcView, the
results of which is a return featuring the range of elevation values present within that
polygon, as well as the mean elevation value for it. Other information, such as the area of
that polygon, its mapping unit symbol, and its perimeter are also returned. A similar

coverage was created by joining the soil coverage with a DEM of the isostatically

69

depressed surface, representing the landscape at approximately 1 1,000 yr BP, and is
similar to a method previously used by Schaetzl et al. (under review). This DEM was
created by subtracting from each pixel of the original DEM, the amount of rebound as
calculated from lake level curves for the local area.

All of the maps in the Results and Discussion section were created by bringing the
county soil map and DEM coverages into ArcView as a theme and then creating shape
ﬁles of selected subsets of these two data ﬁles. Another map product was created by
overlaying the alluvial and lacustrine soils coverages onto a digital raster graphic (DRG)
map, which are essentially digital versions of USGS 1:25,000 topographic maps. This
map was created to help locate these soil mapping units in relation to roads and
topographic position on the landscape. Figures 10, 1 l, 12, and 25 are maps created using

this product.

70

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Data and lines of interpretation

Since the primary goal of this research was to determine if lithologic
discontinuities are present in upland sites, this topic is now given emphasis. In the
process of identifying these discontinuities, it was implicit that different parent materials
(above and below the discontinuity) also be recognized and identiﬁed. The nature of
these materials and the discontinuities separating them provide information about the
conditions present at their genesis, and therefore allow for the generation of hypotheses
about the characteristics of the paleoenvironment(s) that existed at the time of their
formation.

Recognition of lithologic discontinuities in the ﬁeld was based primarily on
contrasts in texture and gravel content between soil parent materials. Particle size data,
therefore, also served as the primary basis for laboratory recognition of discontinuities.
Other distinguishing attributes such as clay mineral species present and pH were used to
further characterize the various parent materials. The characteristics and interpretation of
parent materials are dealt with in detail the following section, and the identiﬁcation of
discontinuities and speciﬁc information about particle size attributes of the parent
materials are discussed in a later section.

The discussion of the parent materials that follows is presented according to the
Predominant slope position that material is found on, with "upland" sites representing
Summit, shoulder, and backslopes, and "inter-drumlin" sites on foot and toeslopes.

W11 ere appropriate, however, parent materials with similar properties but different slope

Posi tions are discussed together.

71

The data presented in following section are summarized in Tables 6-1 1. Full
proﬁle descriptions of pedons sampled from backhoe pits are available in Appendix B,
and normal, clay-free and proﬁle-weighted particle size data for all pedons are presented
in Appendices C, D, and E. The particle size classes (e.g. very ﬁne sand) found in the
tables and discussed in the text are the same as those established by the USDA (Soil
Survey Staff, 1999) with the exception of the split between coarse and ﬁne silt, which, for
this study was made at 5 pm. All depths presented for bucket auger samples are

approximate.

Upland sites

All soils found in upland areas have formed in no more than two parent materials

(Tables 6 and 7). In upland situations where only one parent material was recognized in
the ﬁeld, this parent material was interpreted to be glacial till (based on the ofﬁcial proﬁle
description for these soil series). The possibility exists, however, that more than one
material is present at these locations, but was not discemable in the ﬁeld. In several
cases, data on very coarse sand and gravel contents, strongly indicate that two materials
are present. Pedons that were sampled using a bucket auger most commonly indicate
single parent materials in upland sites, but may have failed to capture stone-lines or other
evidence that would be used to establish discontinuities in pit-sampled pedons. In cases
where two parent materials were recognized, the upper material, or “cap” is a sandy
material of uncertain origin with low amounts of gravel, while the lower material was

interpreted to be glacial till.

72

.98: .803 E 8&5 a .

mo 22d. 2 23:3: 83:83 6:3 :0 36 a
8:2 :3 n :3 .862 220 .23 u _2m .58. 220 6:3 u Em £82 220 u _o .58. 6:3 .£o>3w .I. Rm .852 6:3 3c 20> u 3.;
.Ea2 6:3 0:5 n E :82 6:3 n 3 6:3 .382 m=u>3w 50> n 2w> 6:3 .952 233% n 2w

6:3 0:: 20> 252 n 23 6:3 .382 n 2 6:3 >=o>3w 26> u mw> 6:3 2.95% H mm 6:3 3:80 u 8 6:3 u m. a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

am 3 :2 v.2 2 $3 2. :2: +822 0
ca 3 S: v.2 2 3.3 3. ~52 53.3 on
3 o: 0.2 was 6 M3 3 ~52 3-8 a
E w: as :2 2 a: 3 :3 8-2 am
3 M: a: :2 a 8.5 ma. :2: alum am
as. 33 .3358: 3 3 :8 :2 a 2.... S :2: ma: a< ”:5:
3 3. a: ado a 85 Ev 6:: <2 on ma...
2 3 a: Q? a New 3. 6:: <2 om
me 2 3.: owe a o: 3 :3 <2 3
2:8. 9m 2 q: n? a v: 3 :2: <2 m
35a «Because: 3 w: n: n: a. 8:. 3 6:: <2 :< :50:
3 3 as 2: ... m3 3:. :2: +8: om 8%
2 3 2: q: 3 OZ 3 :2: $73 8
es 3 ...: n: .3 8.: on. :3 3.2 “mm
25.2 3 a: 0.: n2. 2 2.x 3 «>3 a: :<
35.... 2.080-585: 3 5 mica

 

 

 

 

..a: means: :3 s Eu , s a... s z: .e 23 .320 m: 863.62 8.3 .28 SEE 03
3E 3:80 Bonh 295m
<3:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.82 :5: =a he :5. «5:92: :8 6:: .233 in :25 3..

629:3 =6 :8 =5. ”5.5::— =3 ES 5.3.89 25.—u .9528. .3.— ..SBU .w 03:.

73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E 2 :2 n5 2 03 9. ~52 +2 mu
0.0 00 3 ~03 m 3: ca 2 03,.- :<
32:: h......ég-coasq - 2 s 5 ~52 80 «0 5-50:
on e» 0.2 05 a 2 .a 3 ~52 +5-3 8m
3. S 2.: :2 2w 8.3 3 ~52 3-8 5m
3 o.» 02 2.: m. :3 3 ~52. 8-2. :33
.2 ~52
Z a.» 0.: ..Q 0 3s 5» ~52 21a..- n<~
25.2 3 N.» n2 3.: a 3.0 3 ~52 3-... <
35... 8050-888: 1. 5 8.50:
no no 3. «.3 W? R». 3 ~52 +2.3 0
w.» E ”.2 0.8 20> :5 3 ~52 8-3 00
- :2. 5 ~52 30m 5
- mm... 5 ~52 8-2 «5
3.88 23.32.59: - 8.» 5 ~52 20 :0 5-00:

 

 

74

02:: 9:002: =0m

 

 

imam?! wwwmwl - W... x.
05m 3300 23on
ES

 

.0200 3.52. ...- 23:3 5006 -. :0»th
208-0m

- mm” -

 

1‘

.Baﬁus <0 «35.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yo We 9m Wm: m 2.: Qm ~52 +09 NU
ad md m6 Odo m $.w Qm ma: 87m: 20
ed 0.0 ON add m 3H,: Em ma: mhém Nam
QM ad _.: few 2 win Em go“ 092 Tim .
32.5 3:32-833 - - - - <2 mm: 3 z 2: < 55:
as ea ﬁm ﬁmw 2 aﬁw 3m ~50: +00 Um
od :2 _.w 05 2 2.x QM gm code 5
N: _.N v.3 m6: 3 5.: v)” ~52 8-2 mm
a; Na 02 oﬁ: 2 mwd m? ES me m
8.2:: mow—32-83:: w.m Wm m.mm Won 7. :06 OR Z We < "—453
Wm QM 3: md: 7. 8.x Ev ﬁns +3 UN
v.2 N; 2.2 m2: 7. mod Ev ﬁrms moém 0mm
v.3 in 02 ed: 6 E .w 3m ﬁns 8-3 5
ad md 0.3 QC. 2 mwd Em gmﬁ 3.9 mm
mano— o.m Wm 9m: 9w: 2 3.0 Qm ~52 07w m
3:3. a:oEO-:oEEm 0m ad 9w. NAK .m 56 ON Z We < m5»:
2: m2 v.1 0.9 _,n mww 3m ~50: + 09 Du
ma: .2 5.2 mi. 3 amw 3m m>m.\. COTE Um
m.: 0.. m.m_ mi: _m was Ev m>ms ondm am
252 EN wd VS ﬁmw 2 :6 Qm ~59 ow-mm m
3:3. a:oEO-§EEm Ev Wm mdd Wm» 3 m2. QM mi: mwd < mirm
U2:: wEmamE =om 9:. EU 9:. Em a“: :6 5.95 :::m «320 In :28 “202 555:
0:5 8:80 22on
<Q|m.D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  

 

 

 

68538 «6 25¢

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2E 8.300

83on
<QmD

£95m

 

2: :m :2 2mm E 93 2% Er: 52 um
:2 3n :2 mm: a m? an ”Em O22: am
3 2 mm 0.8 m as 2% 5,2 92-82 “Emu
S no 3 :2 2 as 2% ES 82.? mama
3 m2 3 new 2 Es 2% ES.» 2-3 mama
232 2m 3 0.8 :2 E a; 3m Er? $9 7,:
22.3 2050.355 ME :N :8 36 .2 2% E E6: 8.: < ":52
2: :m :2 :E 7. 8o 2m EGs +2: 0
q: 3 :2 n: a ”3 S 52 873 mu:
:2 :N :2 :Q .m m: an E65 22: a
252 q: 2 32 at 2 8.5 :m Er: «EN 3
22.3 2050-385 3 3 q: 2: a one E E2: 8: < 2.322
2: 3. :2 go 2 2.» 2m ~52 +02 8
3 :N :2 0.? a 2:: 3 E2: 02-2: 8
E ...N :3 n2 : w; Ev Ex: 2:3 9
2.2 2 2.: :2 a 2; 3m Ea 8-2. mu:
:2 3 0.: :% a :2 2m ES 212 a
25o. E 3 n2 :3 2 2: S. Es 82: mm
2.53. 2080-655: 3 E :2 :2 2 8.5 5 «>2 2.: < :52
163.32%? :8 2. m6 2. 2: 2 2: 22. 2am .22“v :. 5.8 282 2.3 5:8 28%: 02m

 

45:23:50 <0 O—n—ﬂh.

76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.1. .... :2 0.2. 2 mm... 3.. E22 $2 on
..2 2m ...: Sm .8 ...: ...m ES 8.-.... on
3. ... ...w 2.. 2 2: ...m Er: ... .-2 um
:m :N :R ...3 .m 3.0 3.. E85 2-... 32
2...... 3 ...m 3% 2% .2 2.0 2.. E6. ....8 .32
2...... ......ao-§.....m ...2 ..m :2. 2m .2 MS .a E6. 8.. < .32
a... ... N... 22 . 8... 2.. Es. +8 2.
:m 3 .... n2. 2 2.... ...m ES... 3? .mm
...... no 3 :8 w «2 2m Es 8% 2mm
3 ...o a... ..R w Es ...m Er: 8-2 :22
2.32 ...m 3 0.2 3: 2 23 S E»? 22 ..m
2...... 2.2.0-385 ...m n. o... .2 2 R... 5 E6. 2.. < ".222
2 3 :2 2: 2 m2. .2. 52 +3 on
3. n. ..2 2.2 .w 2.... ...m Er: 3.: can
..2 N2 ...2 a? .m as 2.. ES :2 .2
25o. a... :N 3.. ...? .. 5.0 ....“ Er? 2-2 mm
2...... 2.050-355 :m :N 3. 0.2 2 m8 5 E6. 2-.. < 2.52
o... :N w... 22 .. S... S E6. +8 UN
:0 .... o... ..2 2 3... 2.. E6. 8% on
3.. ... w... ...? .w .3 2m Er? 8-2. .m
8.8. ...m :N :a 22 2 8s .2 E6. 218 mm
2...... 2080-32.52 :n 3 .... 2: 2 E... .3 E6. 8... < 252
2.... ”5&2. ..om .... ...u .... .... .... .... ...... ......m .22.... m. .28 .202 ...... 5%.. 82...: 02m
2.... 3.80 22...»... 2.5.8
<3:

 

.82....8 <2 22.2.

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..o :o 3 ..S m 8... 3.. E6. $2-8. 8m
:0 no o... :3 8 E... ...m E6. 8.-.... .8
:m S. m... :8 2w 8... .5 ES .28 .mm
...m ...N :2 m2 .. ....h .8 .52 8.2. 22
m: n. :2 :E .W 8.0 ...m ES.» 2.8 .2.
2:8. 2 :N ...2 :8 .. Es m8 E6. ...:m <
.358 a..oEO-.oEEm mé .O "*9me
.... ...N ..2 n... .m 8... .2. E6. +8 UN
2... ca :2 :2. .. 3.... ...m ES. 8-2. .mm
258. ...... :. ....N :8 .. m3 .8 E6. 2...: mm
2.8.. 2050.225 o... ..N ...: n: .m 2 s S E6. 2.. < 2.32.
:o :m ...2 :8 .8 ... ... 3 E6. 32.2. o...
:0 n. :2 :2 2.. 8... e... E6. N. .-8 03
...2 :. .... :8 .8 2.... .8 ES: 8-8 .mm
:.. .... :2 3: 2 8... ...v ES. 82. :2.
m... 3 :2 :8 2 ...... .8 EEs 2x2 .2.
2:8. o: :N :2 :2. 2 8... SE6. 2-~ <
.83. 22.52085 2. .0 28.52.
- 1 , we: 22.4%-...m1 . 1 21$ ...1... 1.2%1 -.wmmwl11uﬂw .- 11.1.. 1 .w...:.2§11-1.m&:5m& ......me , 1 - 2181.
3E 8.80 2...on 0.95%
.32.

 

82.88 3 2......

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.... ..o .... :3 . m5. 3.. ES. +2. 8m
M... o... :. 2.2. a o: ...m 68. 2.22 .8
:.. :o 3 :2 m NE ...m .52 8.2 33
:N 3 ...w o2 . :3 2.. 52 2.1.... 22
:N o... .... :8 m o...» 2.. a»: 32 :2
2:8. :N :. .... :3. 2 :2 mm $6. $2 ..2
2.5.. «550.2282 :m .... 0.2 3: 2 :3 5 ES. 82 < 3.52..
9.2212922 :3 2. «U11... 2.... 2. .... ﬂaw! mm“ 1. 2 . .1o1.o1m wax 1 N21... 5%.. M.1222. 2:
05m 8280 2...on 0.2—cam

<QmD

 

 

62.5239 a6 232,—.

79

 

 

 

2.2 2.2 ..m :22 . ...... 2.2 ES. +2222 2..
2.. :2 :2 :2 2.. R... 2.... ES. 2.2-22 E
2.2 ...o ...N ..S m 2... 2... ES. 22-22 02
:2 2.2 2.2 2.22 8.... 2 .2 2.2 ES. 2222 .... US
2.2 :2 ..m 2.22 8 22 2... ES. 8222 6 on
:2 :2 ... :8 . mm... 2.2 ES. 222. a. on
:2 :2 :2 :2... .2 22... Q2 ES. 2.22 ... um
22 ES.
”ﬂown-Em .2222
2.2 2.2 3.. ..N .2. 22 ...2 ES 22.... 22-2. 2..
S... ... ...... :2 .2 2:2 ...2 ESs 22...... um
:2 :2 :2 222 .2> .2..- ..... ES 2. .-8. 022
:2 2.2 :22 .....m ... ...2 2... ES 8. 2 .22
2.2 ES ”.2
2.2 2.2 2.: 2.2 .2. 222 ..... ES ”.2 2222 .2222
2.2 :2. S. .. :2 ... 222 :2 ES 22-22 .22
2... ESs
:2 :2 :2. 2.2 2 2.2 ...... ES 22 .2
:2 ES. H2
:2 :2 2.2. :2 2 22 3 ES. H... .22 <2
8.8. 202222-252: ..2 :2 2.2 2.22 .m ......- 2... ES. 22 < 8.2-.22
u...... 252...... .62 2.. 2o 2.. ...... 2.. .... .2. 25.2 ...-.220 ... 8.8 .22.. ...... 5...... 28.52 3.2

02E 8.200

9.822...
...me

0.25m

 

 

60:23:29 «G 22g

80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

 

...2. 2.2 2.2. 2.22 .22 22.2 2.2 ES. +2... 202
..2 ...2 2.2. 2.22 .2 22.2 ....- ES.2 2...-22. .02
5..
2.2. 2.2 ...2. 2.22 .2 22.2 - - .2. 2.....
. 2.2 ES.22.2.
2.2. 2.2 ...2. 2.22 .2 22.2 2... ESE... 22. -22 .22....
2.2 E2222.
2.2 2.. 2.2. 2.22 .2 22.2 ....2 ES.2 2.. 22-. 2 .2..22.
2.2 2.2 2.2. ..22 .2 22.2 2.2 ES .22. 2....
2.2 ...2 2.2. 2.22 2. 22.2 2... ES.2 2. -2. m
258. 2.2 2.2 ..2. 2.22 2. 22.2 2.2 ES. 2.-. <
.2222 2880.22.52. .2 .0 22-5.2.2
2.2. 2.. 2.2 2.22 .2 22.2 ....V ES.2 +2.. 0
2.2 2.. 2.2 2.22 2. 22.2 ...2 ES.2 2. .-22. 0....
2.2. ... 2.2 2.22 .2 22.2 ...2 ES.2 22.-22 .m
..2 2.. ...2. 2.22 2. 22.2 2... 2S 22-22 ém
2.2 .... 2.2. 2.22 2. 22.2 ...2 ES.2 22-2.. 2.
2&8. 2.2 ... 2.2 2.22 2. 22.2 2.2 ES. 2..-.2 2..
.2222 2250.22.22. ...2 .... 2.2. 2.22 2. 22.2 2.2 ES. .22 < ...-5......
2.2. 2.2 2.2. ....2 .2 .22 2.2 ES. +22. 0
2.2 2.. 2.2 2.2 2. 22.2 ....- ES.2 22.-.2 a...
2.2 2.2 2.2 2.22 2. 22.2 ...2 ES.2 .222 m
288. 2.2 2.. 2.2 2.22 2. 22.2 2.2 ES.2 22-22 22.
2.2222 Ease-.2282. 2.2 2.. 2.2 2.22 2. 22.2 22 ES. 222 < 2-5.2.2
2...... 22.2225 ..22 22 2.0 22 ...2 22 .22 222 252 .2222 ... 8.8 2.22 .82. .2222 222.22.. 8.2
2..... 02.30 23on 295%
H222:

 

60:52:00 «G @235

 

 

 

 

 

 

to 22.0 2.2 mda 2 a. .m 2.3;... +22. .2. . NON
... ..o a. 2.02 2 92.2 2.... ~50. 2:122 .02
..2 ..2 2.2 2.22 22 22.2 2.2 ES.2 22-22 232.2
2.2 2.0 ..2 adw 2 2.2 Em go. 3.8 nmm
..c 2.2 9m. c.2- _2 mo... :N Fro. 226m n<~
28.22 We 2.. 2.2. Own 2. 22.2 S go. om-N 2.
30:22 23:03-28? 26 .O "7552
2...... win—2.2:. ..ow 22 2.0 22 2:2 22 52'222 team .2230 I. 20.00 22.02 88. Snow canton W=Wi I
2.."— 0222o0 0.3.8.2 295%
4..me

 

60:25.80 4..» 0329

82

.83- oE=22m 6on 2% 2095:: 6:802 o: .:
”2228:20 0:22:29 22 2029 502 "20398 28 2_ 2:? 9882 .3583.“ vows-322$ .8 2_ 02? .25 05 " baa 20:2 33:32-23 28 032:?“ o

9:22 0:: 20> n mm> can 6:22 25 H mm .982 8338 u m2 .982 0258 n m0 .932 0238 20> u mU> u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2 2.8 $2 2: 3. E42 0
Z: 2.22 2.22 S 2.2 832 um
2.2 2.8 2.22 2.2 S 2.22 a
I: 2.22 32 S 2 22-: ~22
2.2 SN 32 2.2 2 $-22 3m
:2 2.22 222 2.2 2.2 23 2< 2.202
2.2 2.8 32 3 2._ <2 cm 282
:2 2.2 32 n2 3 <2 02
2.2 In 2.: 2.2 no <2 .3
_.: 2.22 2.22 3 2 <2 m
_.: 3H 3.2 3 2 <2 2< @302
<2 2.2 EN tom 2.2 2.2 +2: 02 22%
Q22 2 _ ~22 2.22 3 3 2: -22 UN
2 2.2 2.8 :2 «.2 to NE: 52
N E _ $2 3.2 2.2 3 23 2<
To 5 2.302
H II:
k. 2258222 .222"; .2222 E22 $8 .2229» 2.3 52% carom 22
02:80 £95m

 

25%—:52 =2 ..8 23:3 .95..” 3.525;?» .52 5533—35 gum 5

48:52.8 w 22:5

 

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.: ..2_ 2.22 2.2 2.2 +22 20
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.: E 232 2<
82 20 22-002
m: 2.2 2.8 32 2.2 2.2 5-8 82
m: 2.2 2.8 2.22 2.2 2.2 8-22 52
2 2.: 2.22 2.22 2.2 2 22-22 23mm
2 2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.0 22122 <2
2 2: 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 22.2. <
Yo 5 2-002
22 2.2 2.2 3.2 2.2 2.2 22-22 0
22 2.2 2.2 2.2. 2.3 2.2 22-22 20
o 2222 5
2 22-22 ~20
o 23 :5 2.2-Dom
2 2258222 222"; 222.2 2222 2220 22.-20> Ass 528 carom 22
02.300 295m

 

 

00:52:00 a. «Ea-n.

84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2 2.: 2.22 2.2 2 +22 20
2.: 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 8722 5
2.2 2.22 32 2.2 2.2 2222 232
2.2 2.22 2.:- 2.: 2 22-2 32
- - - <2 23 < 2.22
2.2 2.22 222 2.2 2._ +22 um
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 22 2222 a
2.22 2.22 22 2.2 2.2 22-2 22
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 3 22-2 2
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 22 < 2.22
2.: 222 2.22 2.2 2.2 +22 02
:2 E2 222 2.2 2.2 2222 022
2.2 2.22 2.22 _.2 3 22-2 5
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 2._ 2:2 22
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 22 8-2 m
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 2-2 < 2-32
..2 2.22 2.: 2.2 2.2 + 8. 02
_.: 2.22 2.22 2.2 22 832 02
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 2 2222 22
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 3 22-22 m
2.2 2.22 2.22 2- 2.2 222 < 2.2922
22 985222 222,-; 222-2 2222 2220 2220> 280 5222 28222 2:2
022200 0.2—Sum

 

28:52:00 a. 232%

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

022200

2.2 2.22 2.2_ 2.2 2.2 +22 02
2.: 32 2.22 2.2 2 222-222 222
2.: 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 22722 2222
2.2 2.22 222 2.2 3 22-22 2222
2.2. 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 22-22 2222
2.2_ 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 2222 :2
2.: 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 22-2 < 2.252
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 ..2 +22 0
3 _ 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 22-22 222
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 22-22 22 6
2.: 2.22 222 2.2 3 2222 22 8
2 2 222 2.22 2.2 22 222 < 2.32
2.: 2.22 2.22 _.2 2.2 +22 20
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 _.2 222-22 20
2.: 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 2222 0
2.22 2.22 2.22 _.2 2.2 22-22 222
2.2 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 22-22 22
2.: 2.22 222 2.2 2.2 222: 22
22 _ 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2 2 2 < 2-252

22 2.58222 22.-S 2222 2222 2220 2220> 25V 2.2/Ill!!-

2 5252 22

 

 

50:52.50 a «Ea--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.: 0.22 _.0m 0.0 0.2 +mm_ Um

2.02 2.22 QM: m.m 0.0 $72: Um

2.2 _.0m 2.? 2.2 0.0 X T00 Um

2.2. Z: 2.00 ms 2 00.? 225

2.2 2.0— Ném 0.2 2.0 $2.02 35

2.2 0.0_ . 0.2m 0.m m.0 02-0 < ham
0 .0 2.00 2.22 20 0d +2.0 UV

2.0 2.2m 202 0.2 0. 2 2.000 2mm

2.2 2.02 0.92 2.0 2.0 00-00 M2mm

0.2 0.22m 0.02 0.02 : 00-mm N2m~

0.2 0.NN 32m Q: 2.; 2.0— Em

0.2. 2.2“ 0.02 2.2. 3 070 < 2-5m
2.2 0.m~ 2.0m :- 0.~ +20 UN

02 m. _ N 2.2m 0.2. 24 20.3- 0mm

ms mNN 0.0m 0.0 0._ E02 5

002 ﬁvm 2.22m 2.0 m0 020— 2m

2.2 0._N _.0m 0.2 3 070 < mmﬁm
0 2 22mm :20 0 2 m N +02 UN

2 x 0.2m 2.0m m w 0 _ 02.02 um

0 0 :N m.wm _ w 0 _ 00-02 2m

_ w w.m~ W; m w _ _ 02.8 2m

N w ENN ﬁmm _ w _ _ 0N0 < WmAm

223 .2222
022200 0.05m

  

 

 

 

22.2228 22 2.2.2.

87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 2.0 0.0_ 0.20 2.00 0.0 0242— 202
02 v2 0.3 2.00 v.20 0.2 2275— ~02
02 v.3 0.02 v.22 0.2 2.2 5702 52
20 2.20 0.02 2.02 20 2.0 02.0? 2mm
0_ 0.20 0.02 2.02 00 0._ 3&2 Em
v 0.: v.02 2.02 2.0 2.0 V2-0 <
0.0 5 "WEB.—
0.2— 2.22 2.22 2.0 #2 +02 02
0.0— 2.02 2.02 _.0 0A 02.22. 52
2.0— 0.22 2.02 2.v 0.0 2212— mm
0.00 2.02 #02 v.2. 0.0 270 < nub—mm
22 0.0 0.02 0.02 2.2 0.2 02— -2: 02
02 2.0 2.22 2.22 0.2 0.2.. 22 T20 0m2
20 2.2 0.02 002 0.2 0.0 20-20 52
2 v.22 ~02 2.22 0.0 04 20-02. 2mm
0 2.: 0.02 2.22 —.0 0.0 0v-0_ Em
2 v.0 0.22 2.02 ~.2 04 072 <
2.0 ~O 32-82%

 

 

8800

     

20822

 

 

00:50:09 M0 035.

88

 

 

 

89

 

 

$2 2.0 0.22 2.00 0.0 0.0 022-002 02
<2 0.22 0. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 002-02 2 02
$2 2.0 202 0.00 2.3 _.0 222-02 00
<2 2.2 2.3 0.20 2.00 2.2 0 2002 A00 00
$2 0.0 2.00 2.20 2.22 2.2 002-02— A20 00
$2 0.2 2.02 0.00 2.0 2.0 0270: A20 00
0\2_ 0.0 2.2 ~20 0.0_ 2.0 02.02 :0 00
0 0._ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00_-22_ 00
0 20.22 0002 20.0 00.0 00.0 220 -2: 02
0 22.22 00.2_ 22.0 02.0 00.0 2_ 7200 0m2
0 2002 2.2 00.2 22.0 00.0 200-22 52
0 00.00 22.2 02.0 00.0 02.0 22.00 .2052
0 02.2 22.0 02.2. 00.2 00.0 00-20 .22
2 00.0 _0.02 00.02 22.0 024 00.02 mm
2 22.0 02.22 00.00 22.2 22; 022— <3
2 0.0 2.02 2.22 2.0 0.0 270 < 2.2-.2225
2.2 0.0_ 0.20 0.2_ 2.0 +02_ 202
2.2 0.22 2.00 2.00 0._ 02709 ~02
2.0 0.02 2.20 _ .0 2. _ 002 -20 0222
0.3 0. _ 2 0.02 0.0 2. _ 2000 23
0.0 2.2 2.20 0.0 0.0 00-20 23
0.2 2.22 0.20 2.0 2.0 20.02 1.5
2.2 0.02 2.22 2.0 0.0 02.0 < g-tmm
00 356232 202“; 202m 0022 0220 0220> A88 5000 contom n£2
8800 20:32

 

 

.Eq—EGEOO a O—n—ﬂh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S. m3 3: 8.2 «no a: +3 82
2 03 $2 3mm 80 23 23-3 62
<2 2.2 2.8 0% no we - :3 a .mum
m E 2.2 gm 3 no 027% .85
m 3 SH :3 3 mo 3-: .85
0 ca 32 2.2 S 3 $0 2m
_ E. 0.8 gm ad 2 0.2 m
0 ed 2.22 03 3 3 m; <
3 5 8-552
2.2 ~22 2m 2m 3 5: u
2.2 22 0.2m 3 2 22x: 05
02 as new 3 3 87% a
3 _ 2.0m 2m 2 no 02.20 am
2 0 9mm 02 S 2 20.20 m
02 3.2 9:. 02 no 20-: mm
0.: 022 0.8 an no ad < 5-2%
3 3m 22 2. 3 +2: u
3 202 3m 3 2 87: “mm
to 08 2.3 m0 3 Ex m
0.2 2.8 gm 3 3 2-8 mm
3 0.2 as. 3 3 m3 < 9552
.2 35523 .22"; 2mm 22: .28 28> 080 530 :88: ea
3:80 30:82

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8228 a. 2...:

9O

 

 

 

 

   

 

  

 

 

m m6 mam Dwv o6 m4 +hu_-w: NON

m Nd mam 06m QQ wd 3 73 “UN
m ﬂ Ym ES m.~m QS o.~ 3-3 53mm

m m6 Wmm mdv as v.0 23$ nmN

m 9». WE we». 3: ad 8.9” n<m

m mg. Dom me m9 3 cm-~ <

Nd 5 "7552
§ 3:253“ A88 Snow
8300 295m

 

 

.3538 a. 2.3..

91

:50— 28 n :8 £82 >20 5:8 u 68 :80— »20 3:8 u _8 :52 >20 u .0 :80— 3:8 338» u
.8 3:8 330— 338: bo> n m_w> 6:8 330. 396:» M 3m 6:8 8% b? .380. n £2
6:8 .380—

.E:0_ 3:8 3c

n 7a :32 3:8 u

.8» .88. 3:8 0:: b9, u E>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. 2 +2 Wu
8:8 32: m 02: 2
3:228 25:8 - cm: «0 8.00:
.. a: 5-8 8m
:2 38.» 22 8-3 am
.. 2 8.».- 23mm
8:8 Ea: : 3-9“ 22
2332.0: 7. 84. < $-30:
.. 8 32-3 0
:2 .202» 2: 8-8 :0
.. - 8% _0
.. - 8-2 80
3:358 2.88 - £0 :0 :50:

 

 

 

3:8 338» .63 3:8 302:: H mm 6:8 8800 u 80 3:8 .1. m .
.. 2 5-8: 0
.. 2 878 0:
.. 7. 8-3 .m
.. 2 3.: mm:
.. a :18 3:
=2 .23.: .... m3 3 :50:
.. .... - 0N 8%
.. a .. 0N
.. .... .. an
.. v. .. m
.6 .222» 2 <2 3 :50:
.. a +9; 0m 88
.. a: 92-8 8
=2 :02» :2 8.: an
38.. €52 2 23 :< 8-20:

 

 

 

83:35: 2:23
305:3:—

.8~_0 9::on
<QmD

 

 

 

 

83.8 :5 :8 3058298.: 3:85: «:93: .h 035.

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. E 52 um
:2 322m 2 . 833 am
.. m 92-8. ”mam
.. 2 873 mum:
at m2: .225 2 man mama
.. .2 23 :m
z 22.3 .22.: .2 OS < 2.252
.. a +2: 0
.. a 87% mam
.. a 33m .2
.. 2 22 mm
:2 .222» a 23 < 2-322
.. a $2 8
.. 7. 832 8
.. 7. 83” u
.. 7. 8-9 mum
.. a 91m 5
.. 2 32: 8
=2 .222» 2 25 < .0.-qu

 

 

£385: 823
32925

9.20 23on
.1me

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. m +9: 8
.. m 2: -2 6
.. .0. 3% Nam
22.3 ES: 2 8-2 Em
<2 25 < EB:
.. 2 +8 on
.. 2 8.8 .m
.. a 8-2 mm
.. 2 w; m
=2 .222» a 3 < 2-3m
.. 7. +8 8
:2 322» a 8% 0mm
.. a 8-“: a
.. 2 ”1: mm
.. 2 2% m
18.. €53 3 3 < 2.3:
:2 38% a + 82 8
.. a 872 um
.. a 2% .m
.. 2 8-2 m
as: 22.3 3 35 < 93:

 

 

 

 

3.2935

 

mar—02w:— uﬁWLdWQ. - . mwd—0 EKOH. -l ,- ‘

<QmD

 

 

.Baéas h 2.3

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

.. .... +8 8
:2 .2222 a 23:. .22
.. a mi: ...2
.28.. 223 a ”To < 2-2-2.22
.. :2 22.“: UN
.. 22 a 2-22 U2~
:2 .2222 v.2 22$ .22
.. 2 «n-9- $2
.. 2 3-2 :2
.28.. €53 2 «2.2 < 22-2-2.2:
:2 .2022 2 +3 on
920868 325 3:: .3. m2 -2: UN
.. 2 z 7% U2
.. a 8-; ~32
.. .2 :32 32
+23 3.5: .2 82 < .32
witaga
£32985

3. 22:8 .526 2 +3 0».
mt 3:22 33:: m. 3.0a “mm
.. ... 8% 922
an 225 3.5: W 8-2 222
.. 2 m2: :2
z 8:3 ES: 2 27¢ < 2-222
.. 2 +3 UN
:2 .2222 .... 3.: 02m
.. : E.% 22
.. .... $4.: “2
.23.. .85... 2 22 < 2-222
=2 3% a +8 on
.. 2 82“ U2
.. a 23.. .2
.. 2 3.8 +2
.28.. 22a... 2 82 < 2-222

 

 

 

 

 

 

22:52.5 5 232,—.

94

 

 

 

32 £223.20
mu 5.2350
Nu 52350

g

3 58350
mt 27.02% 25.52.52
at 28202 025232

$ 2823 02.5262

£3

who
8

mm
37.
E
72>
_o
3?.
=2
m—
m—
.m

chm-mvm
nvmémm
mam-m2 N
2 Ndom
com-Owﬁ
AVE-o2
CC .8—
03 -wg
ma -2 _
2 Tue
N9 -Nw
Nwdc
Ago-NW
cmqu
$2—
w—é

Um
Us

3
5
5
3 on
H.
8
02m
222
.2222
.22

 

 

 

 

 

82—2 83on
<QmD

   
  

.. 2 +22 82
.. m 832 82
2. 228%
283 2.52 m 8_ ,8 32m
.. 2 8-3 92
.. ... 2.2-mm v.2
.. 2 22.8 :2
E 228%
283 22a... 2 82 < 3-2-e22
.. m 23.2 8m
an 2288 283
2.3 3222 m2 «2-:: an
a. 282% 283
23 £262 22 z: 2- 222
.. a at: «+2
.. a 23.2 :2
.28.. 2.5... a ..a-n < 2-:-22

 

 

 

 

 

3293:.

222—2 28on
<DmD

  

 

 

.32528 ~- 232,—.

95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

    

    

   

  

 

.. 22 +2: 222
:2 .2022 7. 23-222 62
.. a 222 -3 2:2
.. a of n .222
.. 7- 3-22 2.2
.. 2 M: -2 2
.28.. €53. 2 22.2 < 22-2-222
.. .m 5: u
.. 2 2 32 0:2
.. a 87% .2
.. 2 22.3 22
.. 2 3.3. 2
.. 2 322 m2
.. m +5 -2: 222 :2 3222 2 22¢ < 22--2222
.. m 2:13 82
.. mm 3.3 2322 .. 7. +82 0
.. m 3.3 H22 .. 2 832 .22
2282. .. 2 :3 2
SE82 2&3 7- 8.8 $2 .. 2 8-22 ”2
23382“ 2 2..--2 < 2-2-222 :2 3022 2 225 < 2.222
23.—328 8222 $2.0 235-- mﬁtouaﬁ 2:23 mwd—o 23on
32935 <3: 3383.: <65 5&2

 

 

 

...-2.22:8 2 2222

96

 

 

 

"Cap " material

At several upland sites, obvious lithologic discontinuities were recognized within
soil proﬁles, indicating the presence of an upper and lower parent material. The upper
material, or “cap”, present at these sites is almost always loamy sand or sandy loam in
texture (Table 7) and low in gravel content (mean 40%). Because gravel (> 2mm in
diameter) content is a volumetric estimate and is only available for pit samples, clay-free
very coarse sand was used a proxy for gravel content. Very coarse sand content was
lower in the cap as well (Table 8). The thickness of this upper material ranges from 18 to
129 cm, with 108 cm being the mean value. The sandy cap found on backslopes was
found to be consistently thinner than caps found in summit positions, though differences
are typically on the order of less than ten centimeters. The original color of this upper
material, since it was not found as an unaltered parent material, is unknown because its
color was dependent upon the characteristics of the horizon sampled. As a result, color is
not a useful distinguishing feature of this material. The pH of the upper material reﬂects
both its sandy nature and its location within the solum, and has values ranging from 5.03
to 8.64, with 7.20 representing the mean pH (Table 6).

The sandy cap material is dominated by expandable clays (smectite and
vermiculite), with lesser amounts of illite and kaolinite, and low amounts of chlorite
(Tables 9 and 10). The presence of abundant vermiculite and low chlorite is probably an
indicator of the slightly acid soil conditions and the weathering of illite and chlorite

through time (Jackson et al., 1948).

97

— 9:?— »x» _ .41.....C.v 3 F02... >-_U> $9 ~ 02:; .mb K222702 _»vb.dt,::rv .50 N \ATN) $2» \ \ i N

Jun-anu-n-uh sun-d.- .qA- ki- ~Vovanqdnvkud .l.vu-L-:-.il «02:?- .U~.v‘hi-:~ HA: luvs-....iu-whl i..h-n-~:~=.’. .I- oV\--.§-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G 2 22 2.2 ...2 no no 2. .22
2.2 2.22 2.:. 2.22 2.: 2.22 2.2 3 .222
2.2 3. 2.2 22 2 0.: S: 2.2 3 .52 .222 285%..
2.2 2.2 :2 32 2.: 2.2 2.2 to :82 522252 2.2
22 a
2.2 2. 2.2 a... S: 2.8 2.2. 3 22
2.2 2.2 :2 2.: 2.22 2.2,. 2.: 3. .52
22 2.2 2.2 ...m 2.2 2.2 ..2 3 52 .222
22 2.2 5.2 2.2 2.22 2.:. 2.2 2.2 :82 25.532 .2222
R a
2.2 3 2.2 2.2 222 ...22 2... ...o .52
I: 2.2 32 2.2 2.22 2.:. 2.2 3 .522
2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 22 2.2 .... no .52 2.5.2
:- 22 2.: 2.2 v.22 3.2 2.2 3 :82 .28.. 2.5.2
22 a
2.2 2.2 o... 2.2 Q22 2..: 2.2 ...c .52
2.2 3. 2.2 2.22 2.22 22.2 2.2 2.2 .52
2.2 2.2 22. 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 22 .52 .252
2.2 _.2 2: 2.2 32 2.22 2.2 3 :32 :2 2.520
.220 22 :22 2:2
222 2. 5282 2. 82 25> 2. 222 2. 252.52 2. 5.282 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.:-.35: 2.2-.22 .3 .22.:ch 65323202 2&2 2.96.3: ..8 28.2352 FEE—56 .w 232,—-

98

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.0 0; 0m— wﬁ WON cdm w.m 0.0 .52
wd Na 0.2 m.: men 2.3 02 mg .522
#6 md 24 o; c; w.m 0N md Son .6225
OS ON NB 2: m.NN 5.3 vs o; 2202 52230205
0— 2
ms od Nu— bd 2.2 0.9.” N. m N6 2:2
ﬁx Ev 0.2 WE wém Qwo v.3 Gm .522
0.x v4 m4. m6 v.5 92 m6 m4 509 628m
m8 ﬂu m6 0.0 5mm Qwv mg: n; :32 2320206 nomom
n 2
v.6 _.o a; v6 WI ”3. OK v.0 2:2
EN. Ya 0.3 wd Wmm oéw 2.: gm x22
2mm 0.“ En m; v.5 9m m4. ad >oQ 625m 2222532
as. ho wﬁ Qm WMN wdv _.: NA 532 0:52:02 325%

 

 

 

 

 

62.5.28 w 032,—.

99

Table 9. Semiquantitatively-derived percentages of clay minerals for
selected samples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clay minerals (in percent)ﬁl
Sample Horizon Parent material Smectite Vermiculite Chlorite Illite Kaolinite
HOU-S 2Bt tillc 12 14 5 34 34
deep 2C till 14 4 15 36 31
[HOU-T2 3C2 till 10 16 o 39 34 |
HW-S E sandy Capb 21 20 12 21 26
BI sandy capb l4 8 6 35 36
2C till 15 3 13 44 25
BLW-S Bs till 12 20 6 30 32
C3 till 18 0 7 52 23
IBLE-F 3m ﬂuvial sand 5 9 10 46 30 1
BL-T Bwl ﬂuvial sand 22 33 6 15 23
3C till 15 3 7 43 32
HETT-SH BS] sandy capb 4 43 10 22 20
2Bt till“ 16 4 10 48 22
2C till 18 4 21 34 23
[{E’I‘TJI‘Z BS sandy cap!"6 1 17 25 21 35
2E’ lacustrine silts 4 O 21 29 46
and clays
2Bt lacustrine silts 5 8 5 40 42
and clays
4C lacustrine silts 20 0 17 34 29
and clays
NPRT-32 E sandy capb 16 38 4 l 1 30
2C2 till 0 2 12 38 36

 

 

 

‘ calculated using the procedure outlined in Methods section
bsandy material overlying glacial till or lacustrine deposits; suspected to represent a distinct

parent material
cthese samples are in areas transitional between parent materials

100

Table 10. Summary statistics for clay mineral data, grouped by parent
material (in %).II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Material I Smectite I Vermiculite I Chlorite I Illite I Kaolinite I

Glacial till (n = 8)”

Mean 13 7 10 40 30

Stan. dev. 6 7 6 7 5

Min. value 0 0 0 3O 23

Max value 18 2O 21 52 36

Sandy materials overlying till (11 = 4)b Ff
Mean 13 3o 8 21 27 ;
Stan. dev. 7 l2 4 8 5 a
Min. value 4 20 4 ll 20 L 2
Max value 21 43 12 30 32

Horizons containing illuvial clay (n = 5)

Mean 10 9 7 41 33

Stan. dev. 5 4 3 6 7

Min. value 5 4 5 34 22

Max value 16 14 10 48 42

Lacustrine silts and clays (n = 2)b

Mean 12 0 19 32 38

Stan. dev. 11 0 3 4 12

Min. value 4 0 17 29 29

Max value 20 O 21 34 46

 

 

 

a = these numbers were derived from the semiquantitatively-derived percentages of the clay mineral
samples listed in Table 9.

b = calculation of statistics for these materials did not include Bt horizons to avoid contamination by
illuvial clays and clays forming in situ

101

Slopewash deposits found at sites HOU-T2 and NPRT-F, and other deposits
similar to the sandy cap are found at sites HETT-F and HETT-T2. These sites all have
similar pH, particle size, and gravel content as the upper sandy material found on uplands
(Tables 6 and 7). At the HOU-T2 and NPRT-F sites, it is obvious (from extensive
erosion upslope), that this material represents a deposit of the cap eroded from upslope;
however, at the HETT-F and HETT-T2 sites, the origin of this material is less clear. At r a
these two sites this material may be an in situ deposit or a deposit of transported materials

(either ﬂuvial sediments or Slopewash).

Glacial till

The material present beneath the sandy material in upland sites that have a
recognized lithologic discontinuity, and the parent material of upland soils formed in a
single parent material, was interpreted to be glacial till. Glacial till is also recognized as a
parent material in several inter-drumlin sites. The distribution of soils interpreted to have
formed in glacial till in Leelanau County (based on Weber, 1973) is shown in Figure 14.
The interpretation of this material as till was based primarily on its unsorted, unstratifled,
nature, and the angularity of the gravels and cobbles found within. Although no attempt
was made to quantify bedding structures, till fabric, or the dip angle of stones within this
material, the compactness and high bulk density of the unaltered version of this material
suggests that this material was deposited under active ice.

Gravel content, color, and pH are other distinguishing characteristics of the till
material (Tables 6 and 7). The texture of samples varied from very gravelly sand to fine

sandy loam (Table 7), with the modal texture of the till being sandy loam. Color in

102

.§3 .82 095% "as. £8 gates: .53.. a. 322» a? 85158 =8 «a 5:355. 2:. .3 2:5

 

 

 

.r:

     

Ba: 5256 59:52 ac ransom II
WEB—9:8 BRA “mam - swam—8A E
85388 35.03 - 688m I
85388 acuEO¢oEEm I

 

 

 

quEEO—g cm

3

 

 

103

unaltered form (not including gleyed versions) ranges from 7.5YR 3/4 (dark brown) to
lOYR 5/4 (yellowish brown), with lOYR 4/4 (dark yellowish brown) and lOYR 4/3
(brown) being the most common colors (Tables 6 and 7). Gravel content (volumetric
estimates) varies from as low as 12% to as high as 35%, with a mean value of 18%, and
serves as a distinguishing characteristic of this material (Tables 6 and 7). Cobbles,
though found within this material at several sites, did not occur in great quantities. The

high pH of the unaltered glacial till, which ranges from 8.08 to 9.27 (mean = 8.89, n = 23)

‘ZT_—__“ -1

reﬂects the high amounts of calcareous materials incorporated in the till, and is indicative
of its unleached status (Tables 6 and 7).

The till is dominated by illite, with lower amounts of kaolinite, and small amounts
of expandable clays and chlorite (Tables 9 and 10). Comparison of the two BLW-S
samples (Table 9) shows the dramatic increase in weatherable minerals (chlorite and
illite) in the unaltered till as compared to the solum above, which is interpreted to have
developed in the same material. In situations where a lithologic discontinuity is present,
the clay mineral assemblage of the till (Table 10), on average, has fewer expandable clays
and more weatherable minerals than the sandy material overlying it, again indicating the
greater amount of weathering present in the upper part of the soil. Both the till and the
upper sandy material have similar amounts of kaolinite, indicating a potential link
between these materials (Table 10). Comparisons of the clay minerals found in the sola
of soils with one parent material (till) to those in the sola of soils formed in the sandy cap
do not reveal any major differences, although the samples assumed to have formed in till

contain higher amounts of illite.

104

The color (lOYR 4/3, brown) of the till is similar to that of the Port Huron glacial
till (Manistee moraine) described in the area by Melhom (1954). The texture and gravel
content of the two materials, however, is very different. Particle size data presented by
Melhom (which was the average of approximately 15 different particle size runs) indicate
that his Port Huron till contains about 2% gravel and has a clay loam texture. Melhom’s
(1954) description of Valders till about 3 km to the south of the west Leelanau drumlin
field is even more different, having a much redder color (7.5YR 7/4, pink). The average
gravel content and texture of this material was also very different than the material
described here, with 2% gravel and a clay loam texture. The high clay contents and low
amounts of gravel in the materials sampled by Melhom (1954) raises the question as to

whether the material he sampled was actually till.

Inter-drumlin sites

Soils that have formed in multiple parent materials in inter-drumlin positions are
described in the Leelanau County soil survey (Weber, 1973). The following section
outlines the characteristics of these materials and relates these materials to upland

materials discussed previously.

F] u Vial materials

These materials were interpreted to have a ﬂuvial origin due to their sandy particle
Size and stratification, as well as their position in inter-drumlin areas. The distribution of
theSe deposits throughout the county and in the Northport drumlin field is shown in

Figul‘es 15 and 16. The source of these materials is the surrounding uplands, and the

105

75—-“ ”...-1

.u '.1.cl§.L.‘oI.B

.322 £02 85mm "Sac mzem .m—«ESQE 39:2— 3:59.6 £653 5? ﬁne—n58 =8 «e new—52% 2F .3 0.53,..—

 

 

 

Eac Esau eaﬁoz ac 528 I

85388

«coo—$5953 ...oEoE-m:8_< .9802
”Ear—22: 398 353.5 I

Steam .23 3E: $.3qu zom

 

 

 

whoaoEomv— cm 2 o

 

 

 

106

Figure 16. Distribution of soils forming in stratiﬁed ﬂuvial and lacustrine deposits
and their elevations. Boxes indicate sampling localities. Soils data:
SSURGO (NRCS, 1999). 30 meter resolution DEM provided by Frank

Krist.

107

 

 

 

 

 

Q - Lacustrine parent materials
C} Fluvial parent materials
A 0 1 2 Kilometers
Figure 16.

   

 

Elevation (m)
177 - 195

255 - 275
275 - 295
295 - 315

 

108

 

reworking of other materials found in inter-drumlin areas. These materials were most
likely deposited by modern intermittent stream ﬂow. These deposits range in texture from
sandy clay loam and ﬁne sandy loam to sand, but are dominantly sand or loamy sand in
texture (Table 7). The pH of the ﬂuvial materials varies according to depth, with a
positive correlation with depth (Tables 6 and 7).

Clay mineral analyses were performed on two samples of this material (Table 9

and 10, sample BL-T). These analyses indicate that considerable variability is present

an—-—e-1
.1

within this material. Both samples had low amounts of chlorite and similar
concentrations of kaolinite, which is reﬂective of the amounts of these two minerals in
their upland source areas. The large amounts of illite in the lower sample is most likely
attributable to ﬂuvial reworking of the underlying till, while the greater amounts of
expandables in the upper sample was probably inherited from the sandy loam cap found
in uplands (which as a similar clay mineral assemblage), which was eroded and
subsequently deposited in inter-drumlin areas. The greater illite content of the lower
sample could also simply be a weathering effect, with near surface materials having
experienced more weathering, and therefore more alteration than the lower materials.
The only material encountered that appeared to be a glacio—ﬂuvial deposit were
the sands and gravels beneath lacustrine deposits found at the HETT-T2 site (Table 7).
This material was interpreted as such by its extremely well stratified nature, and its
t‘EXture, which ranged from loamy very fine sand to coarse sand to gravelly sand with
SeVel‘al strata having abundant gravel-size coarse fragments. The high pHs (mean = 8.26)
of this material is due to the large amounts of calcareous rock present within it (Tables 6

and ‘7)

109

Lacustrine materials

The lacustrine materials found in inter-drumlin sites were of two varieties: ﬁne-
textured (dominated by silts) reddish deposits and sandy deposits. The ﬁne-textured
deposits were only found at the HETT-T2 site (Figures 17 and 18), but are widely
scattered throughout the county and study area (Figures 16 and 19), and are mentioned by
other researchers working in the region (Leverett and Taylor, 1915; Calver, 1947;
Melhom, 1954; Lotan and Shetron, 1968; and Taylor, 1990). The interpretation of the
ﬁne-textured deposits as lacustrine was based on their texture, their general lack of
gravel, and the presence of varves or rhymites near the base of the deposit (Figure 18).
These characteristics indicate deposition in either a deep, low energy, subaqueous
environment, possibly a pro-glacial lake or other high standing lake in the Michigan
basin.

The textures of the fine-textured deposits range from clay loam and silt loam to
ﬁne and very ﬁne sandy loam, and they contain no gravel (Table 7). One very distinct
feature of this material is its reddish color, which ranges from SYR 4/4 (reddish brown) to
7.5YR 5/4 (brown). The pH of this material is slightly more acidic than the outwash

underlying it, ranging from 7.72 to 7.94 (Tables 6 and 7).
Four different samples of lacustrine material from the HETT-T2 site (horizons
238, 2E', ZBt, and 4C) were subjected to clay mineral analysis (Tables 9 and 10). The
r eStilts of this analysis show that there is considerable variability within this deposit, some
of Which can probably be explained by the inﬂuences of illuviation (2Bt sample) and

underlying materials (4C sample). In general, however, the lacustrine material is rich in

110

 

Figure 17. Photograph from HETT-T2 site of a soil with a sandy “cap” overlying
silty, clayey, and sandy stratified lacustrine sediments (parent materials
2,3, and 4), which in turn overlie sandy and gravelly outwash materials
(5C). Notice the well developed stratiﬁcation in the 4Ch orizon.
Markings on the tape are at 10 cm increments.

lll

 

ﬁgure 18. Close-up of the stratification present in the 4C horizon of the HETT-T2
proﬁle. The pinkish material is silty clay loam in texture while the lighter
colored strata are sand to very ﬁne sand in texture. Golf tee for scale.

112

.Aaaa .mUHZV Owgmm 5am. ﬂew div—39:

«:98.— 935395 :33 cacao—mace :8 he Hausa—Ema. 2E. .3 3%

 

 

v

 

 

3 £55 eaneoz do began 11

mega—9:8 oomo~-w=oom=§2->ox:oh can
.wcoom===2->ox:oh .xoszéowﬁtom I
”wastage Enema oﬁbmsoﬂ 55 3E: madame =om

z<

 

i

€32:on
wall! 2 a

 

 

 

113

kaolinite and illite, has lesser amounts of chlorite (although it has more chlorite than any
other parent material), and low amounts of expandable clays. This clay mineral
assemblage is somewhat similar to that of the unaltered glacial till (Table 10), possibly
indicating that erosion of the till may be the source of these clays, or that the till and these
deposits were deposited by the same glacial event.

At the NPRT-F site, sandy materials at the base of this slope were interpreted to
be Algonquin lacustrine deposits based on their landscape position and the coincidence of
these deposits with the main Lake Algonquin shoreline (approximately 200 m) in the area
(Figure 4). This material is predominantly sand in texture (Tables 7 and 8) and contains
anywhere from 2 to 15% gravel, with a mean of 5.6% (Table 6). The pH of this material
varies with depth from the surface, with lower values near the surface (Tables 6 and 7).
The sandy as opposed to silty nature of this deposit, as well as its proximity to an upland
area, indicates that this material was deposited in a near-shore environment, and was
likely derived through waves acting upon the adjacent upland. No clay mineral analyses

were performed on this material.

Beach deposits

Materials present at site HETT-F and HETT-T1 were interpreted to be beach
deposits based on their texture, gravel content, and landscape position. Both samples
Were taken near the base of a drumlin slope, at a slightly higher elevation than the HETT-
T2 site, which was clearly in a deeper water depositional environment. The materials
Present at both sites are dominantly sand (Tables 7 and 8), with site HETT-F being more

gravelly throughout (Table 6), and slightly higher in elevation (approximately 1 m). The

114

greater depth to gravel at the HETT-Tl site as compared to HETT-F site, as well as its
lower elevation, indicate this site was a more quiescent near-shore environment than
HETT-F which was probably an erosional location. Both sites demonstrate increasing pH
with depth (Table 6). No clay mineral analyses were performed on these materials. Both
of these sites are similar to the NPRT-F site in texture and landscape position, though

HETT-F site had considerably higher amounts of gravel.

Presence of lithlogic discontinuities:

Data gathered through morphology, particle size analysis, and volumetric
estimation of the gravel content of soil horizons show that lithologic discontinuities exist
in some of the upland soils of the Northport drumlin ﬁeld. As mentioned earlier, several
upland pedons display evidence that they formed in two different materials, while soils
found in foot and toeslope positions often have formed in several parent materials, in part
because these soils are in depositional localities. In general, the discontinuities on upland
sites are found where a sandy deposit overlies glacial till (Table 7). Discontinuities at
lower sites are reﬂective of stratiﬁcation of alluvial or lacustrine soil parent materials, or
burial of existing soils by Slopewash (Table 7). Due to these differences, the data in the
following subsections will be discussed according to slope position (upland = summit,
Shoulder, and backslope; inter-drumlin = foot and toeslopes). It should be noted that
lithologic discontinuities were not recognized in soils on upland sites in the soil survey,
but were identiﬁed in soils in inter-drumlin areas. Thus, the focus of the following
discussion will be on those soils where lithologic discontinuities were not identiﬁed, as

this provides the most additional information about the depositional history of the region.

115

Uplands

Abrupt increases in gravel content were often indicative of lithologic
discontinuities in upland areas, and at least one pedon exhibited a weak stone-line (Figure
20). Unfortunately, however, volumetric estimation of gravel was only available for
pedons exposed in pits. Because of the difﬁculties associated with calculating the
percentage of coarse fragments in bucket auger samples, including extremely large
sample sizes and the tendency of augers to go around stones rather than collect them,
clay-free very coarse sand content was used as a proxy for gravel content for auger
samples. The use of clay-free very coarse sand was chosen as a proxy based on the fact
that the percentage of clay-free very coarse sand (gravimetrically derived), when plotted
against volumetric estimates for the same horizons, yielded the highest correlation
coefﬁcient (r = 0.76), as compared to two other potential proxies: percent clay-free very
coarse sand + percent clay-free coarse sand, and percent clay-free coarse sands.
Correlation coefﬁcients were calculated for several other particle sizes and combinations
of particle size separates (e. g., percent silt + percent clay), but are not reported here since
none had correlation coefﬁcient values greater than i 0.36 when correlated with
volumetric estimates of percent gravel. Scatterplots and trend lines showing the
relationship between the gravimetrically derived percentages of various sand fractions,
and volumetric gravel estimates, are shown in Figure 21. Notice that in all samples, the
relationship between the two has the least amount of variability at lower quantities, and
the predictive power weakens as the estimated quantities of gravel become larger. While

this measure is not as accurate as volumetric coarse fragment estimation, and may fail to

116

 

Figure 20. Photograph from HOU-S site of an upland soil with a sandy “cap”
overlying till (parent material 2). Notice the abrupt increase in gravel
within the ZBt horizon (stone-line/clusters indicated by dashed lines) as
compared to the lower gravel content of the “cap”. The left-most side of
the pit was sampled and described; markings on the tape are at 10 cm
increments.

117

r=OJ6

 

Clay-free very coarse sand (%)

 

 

 

 

O 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Gravel (estimated volumetric %)

r2062

25

 

 

 

Clay-free coarse + very coarse sand (%)

 

 

O l T I l l I l

0 5 10 15 20 25 3O 35

Gravel (estimated volumetric %)

Figure 21. Scatterplots demonstrating the relationships between
volumetric estimates of gravel content and gravimetrically-
derived clay-free sand percentages.

118

40

 

20
15‘ . .

10~ 0

Coarse sand (%)

 

 

 

 

0 10 20 30 40 50

Gravel (estimated volumetric %)

Figure 21 continued.

119

capture ﬁne differences in gravel content such as small stone-lines within a horizon,
collection of samples by auger was a necessity given large number of sample sites.
Table 11 shows the volumetric gravel estimates and clay-free very coarse sand
contents of the upland pedons sampled. Both volumetric gravel estimates and percent
clay-free very coarse sand show an increase in coarse fragments with depth for most
pedons. Several of the pedons sampled with a bucket auger also show clay-free very
coarse sand increasing with increasing depth, with C or 2C horizon materials typically
having the highest gravel or clay-free very coarse sand content (Table 1 1). Summit
pedons HOU-S, HOU-B, and HETT-SH show an increase in gravel in the Bt horizon.
These data also show that the 2C horizons tend to have considerably more coarse
materials than overlying horizons, which, when combined with the abruptness of the
increase in gravel, indicates that lithologic discontinuities are present. Both of these
trends are similar to those observed by Schaetzl (1998) in soils on drumlins in
northeastern lower Michigan. It is assumed that these represent sedimentological rather
than pedogenic features since coarse materials are not translocatable. Also, it seems
unlikely that coarse material was at some time present in the solum, and was then

weathered to sand size or smaller.

Stone-lines

Gravel content or the gravel proxy increased with depth in almost every upland
Pedon sampled (Table l 1), sometimes abruptly (e.g. pedons BLW-S, BLW-B, HETT-B,
and NPRT-S). However, only one of the pedons exposed in a backhoe pit (HOU-S)

el'lhibited a stone-line (i.e. a zone where the quantity of gravel exceeds that of the adjacent

120

Table 11. Volumetric coarse fragment estimates and percent clay-free
very coarse sand in upland profiles.

A) Volumetric coarse fragment estimates and percent clay-free very coarse
sand for pit sampled sites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* % Coarse

I Site Horizon Depth (cm) fragments Type % Cf VCSa

HOU-S Ap l- 18 2 gravel 1.1

2Bt 18-52 15 " 0.5

2C 52- 149+ 25/2 grav/cobs l .8

deep C 149+ N/A N/A 2.5

HETT-SH A 2-19 2 gravel 1.1

B51 1945 5 " 1.0

B52 45-52 7 " 1.1

2Bt 52-68 18 " 1.7

2BC 68-112 20 " 49

2C 112-129 22 " 4.3

NPRT-B2 A 1-13 1 gravel 0.9

E 13-18 1 " 1.1

Bhs 18-51 1 1.1

Bs/E’ 51-89 3 1.0

Bt/E’ 89- 129 5 1.0

2C1 129-147 12 " 2.1

2C2 147+ 19/2 grav/cob 1 .9

 

 

 

a clay-free very coarse sand
* 2 1 standard deviation from the mean calculated for the population of all upland

Samples

121

 

Table 11 continued.

B) Percent clay-free very coarse sand from bucket auger samples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Horizon Depth (cm) ‘70 Cf VCS
HOU-B Ap N/A* 1.4
E N/A 1.4
2131 N/A 0.6
2C N/A 4.3*
Deep 2C N/A 2.0
HW-S A 0—25 1.0
E 25-50 1.4
Bt 50-70 1.2
BC 70- 100 1.5
2C 100 + 1.4
HW-B A 0-5 0.6
E 5-10 1.4
BS 10- 18 1.3
Bt 18-50 1.7
2BC 50—63 2.2
2C 63+ 3.0’ll
BLW-S A 0- 10 0,4
Bs 10-29 1.6
Bi 29-45 0.7
Bt/E 45-80 0.9
C 80- 105 2.6*
C2 105-130 2.3
C3 130+ 29*
BLW-B A 0—20 1.5
BS 20—52 1.0
Bt 52-88 1.0
31/13 88-103 1.1
K c 103+ 34*

 

 

122

* depths are not available for this
site due to disturbance by

tree-throw

Table 113 continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Horizon Depth (cm) % cf VCS
BLE-S A 0-20 1.2
BS 2049 1.2
Bt 49-56 1.9
BC 56-80 1.7
2C 80+ 2.7*
BLE-B A 0—19 1.2
83 19-59 0.6
Bt 59-74 1.1
ZBC 74-94 1.6
2C 94+ 218*
HETT-B A 0—18 0.5
35 18-48 0.6
ZBt 48-80 1.6
2C 80+ 3.7*
NPRT-S A 0-23 1.1
85 23-50 1.0
B 50-71 1.1
FJBt 71-109 1.4
C 109+ 3.7*
NPRT-Bl A 0-21 0.8
Bs 21-47 0.6
E 47-67 1.5
F/Bt 67-89 0.8
Bt 89-100 1.2
Bt/C 100-110 1.3
l\ C 110+ 3.1”“
n = 71
mean = 1.61
standard deviation = 0.97

123

material). The other two upland pedons exposed in pit faces, while exhibiting increases
in gravel with depth, did not have recognizable stone-lines. However, such stone-lines
may have been present in some of the pedons sampled through bucket augering, though
went undetected due to the reasons explained in the preceding section.

The stone-line observed at the HOU-S site was thin (typically only a few stones
thick), discontinuous, and coincided with the ZBt horizon of the soil (Figure 20), and
generally weakly expressed. This stone-line was quite convoluted, with the boundary
between the ZBt horizon and the 2C being described as irregular (having pockets that are
deeper than they are wide, Soil Survey Manual [1993]). It is unknown whether the
irregularity of this stone-line is genetic or a product of post-formation disturbance,
although the HOU-B pedon downSIOpe showed obvious signs of disturbance from
treethrow, including an irregular boundary between the E and ZBt horizons. The stone-
line did not exhibit any clear imbrication or other obvious sedimentalogical features
suggesting its origin, but no attempt was made to measure the orientation of the gravels,
or determine the presence of striations on the stones, nor was the line exposed in plan

view.

Inter—drumlin areas

Gravel and very coarse sand contents in inter-drumlin soils tended to be much
more variable, both within individual pedons and between pedons, with only the three
toeslope pedons (HOU-T2, -T2, HETT-T2, and HW-F) displaying a deﬁnite increase in

very coarse sand content with depth (Table 12). The highest very coarse sand or gravel

124

Table 12. Volumetric coarse fragment estimates and percent clay-free
very coarse sand in inter-drumlin profiles.

A) Volumetric coarse fragment estimates and percent clay-free very coarse
sand in pit sampled sites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% Coarse
Site Horizon Depth (cm) fragments Type % cf VCSa
HOU-Tl Cal 0- 15 0 -
Oa2 15-36 0 -
Oi 36-55 0 -
Cg 55-85 30 gravel 3.1
C 85- 105 35 " 5.8*
HOU-T2 A 4-39 5 gravel 1.0
2Ab 39-48 5 " 0.6
ZBwb 48-65 8 " 1.4
3C 1 65-97 17/ 3 gravel/cob 3.8*
3C2 97-127 17/3 " 38*
HETT-F A 5-24 4 gravel O. 8
851 24-46 10 " l. 1
BS2 46-70 12 " 0.8
ZBt 70-101 35 " 2.5
3C1 101-124 20 " 3.0
3C2 124-135 5 " 0.9
NPRT-F A 2-36 2 gravel 1.2
2Ab 36-63 5 " 1.0
2Eb 63-79 2 0.4
ZBwb 79-94 15 " 2.7
2C 1 94-1 18 5 0.8
2C2 118- 127+ 5 " 1.3

 

 

alclay—free very coarse sand
"‘ 2 1 standard deviation from the mean calculated for the population of all lowland
samples

125

Table 12A continued.

 

 

 

 

% Coarse

 

 

 

 

 

Site Horizon Depth (cm) fragments Type % VCS

HETT-T2 A 0-18 2 gravel 1.0
FJA 18-24 2 " 1.3

Bs 24-56 2 " 2.0

2E’ 52-60 0 0.5

2Bt/E 60-82 0 0.3

2Bt 82- 102 0 0.0

3BC 102-117 0 0.1

3C 1 17- 128 0 0.0

4C 128-160 0 0.0
5C (1) 160-170 18/5 grav/cob 5.3*

(2) 170-180 N/A 0.3
(3) 180-200 " 8.8*
(4) 200—215 " 78*
6C 215-222 " 6. 1*

7C 230—245 " 0.5

8C 245-275+ " 0.5

 

126

 

Table 12 continued.

B) Percent clay-free very coarse sand from bucket auger samples.

 

[ Site I Horizon [Depth (cm)] % Cf VCS]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOU-F Ap 023 0.9
351 23-47 1.1
BS2 47-65 1.2
Bt 65-84 2.3
BC 84-101 0.9
C 101-121 4.2*
HOU-T3 0a 030
Ab 30-70 1.5
Cg 70+ 415*
HW-F A 05 0.8
E 5-18 1.0
Bs 18-60 1.7
Bt 60-66 1.6
BC 66+ 1.7
HW-T A 015 N/A
Bwl 15-50 1.1
Bw2 50-75 0.8
CI 75-100 0.7 |
C2 100+ 1.7
BLW-F A 030 0.6
1351 30-55 0.3
2852 55-75 0.8
2131/13 75-107 1.0
213/131 107-140 0.5
3Bt 140- 150 1.5
30 150+ 1.1
BLE-F A 010 1.2
an 10-33 1.7
213s2 33-60 1.2
2383 60-90 0.9
3131 90—97 2.0
4C 97+ 2.0

 

 

 

127

Table 12B continued.

 

[ Site I Horizon [Depth (cm)[ % VCS_]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BL-T A 0—20 0.3
Bwl 20-41 0.8
Bw2 41-69 1.5
BC 69-114 0.8
2C 114-153 0.2
3C 153+ 1.7
HETT-Tl A 0-20 0.4
le 20-52 0.2
B52 52-64 0.5
BS3 64-68 1.2
2Bs4 68-100 1.3
2C1 100-125 1.9
2C2 125+ 5.3"“
n = 79
mean = 1.66
standard deviation = 1.73

128

contents are found in tills that are overlain by other materials (including Slopewash and
organic deposits). The clay-free very coarse sand proxy does seem to indicate the
presence of increased gravel content in horizons of the pedons HOU-F, HETT-F, HETT-
Tl , and NPRT-Fl. Of these pedons, an increase in very coarse sand content is coincident
with the Bt horizon in the HOU-F pedon, indicating a sequence similar to that found in
some upland sites (Table 12). Of the pits where volumetric estimation of gravels was
possible, only the NPRT-F proﬁle shows a deﬁnite spike in coarse fragment content with
depth, which may be indicative of a stone-line or stone-zone. The ﬂuctuations observed
in: these inter-drumlins soils can be attributed to the stratiﬁed and temporally

discontinuous nature of the deposition of the parent materials.

Particle size analysis

Particle size data were determined for the following size classes: <2 pm (clay), 2-
25 pm (ﬁne silt), 25-50 pm (coarse silt), 50-125 11m (very ﬁne sand), 125-250 pm (ﬁne
sand), 250-500 urn (medium sand), 500 um - 1 mm (coarse sand), and 1-2 mm (very
coarse sand). Since the previous subsection focused on the use of the coarse fractions for
identifying discontinuities, and because of the translocatability of clay (thereby
diminishing its usefulness as a indicator of discontinuities), this subsection will focus on
particle size separates ranging from medium sand to ﬁne silt on a claviuﬁ‘ee basis. Clay-
free particle size analysis has been used in several studies involving the identiﬁcation of
lithologic discontinuities (Bamhisel et. al., 1971; Bussaca and Singer, 1989; Schaetzl,
1996). Clay-free particle size information is useful because it represents the largely

immobile soil constituents and, therefore, the skeletal fraction of the soil, and because it

129

removes eluvial and illuvial effects which may mask discontinuities (Asady and
Whiteside, 1982). Because changes in coarse fragment content are one of the criteria
used to deﬁne the upper and lower materials, and not clay content, it is an acceptable
measure.

Table 13 shows how clay-free particle size separate content varies according to
interpreted parent material, using the lithologic discontinuities recognized in the ﬁeld as
the boundaries separating parent materials (some of these statistics are 'more reliable than
others based on the differing sample sizes). Using only the mean particle sizes, the sandy
cap found predominantly on upland sites (with the exception of HETT-F) is virtually
indistinguishable from glacial till, however, comparison of the standard deviations of the
particle sizes indicates slightly more variability in the till samples. The similarity of the
two materials was conﬁrmed by running a t-test on the two populations, which failed to
ﬁnd a statistically signiﬁcant difference between the two materials, although very coarse
sand had the highest t value. The upper sandy material is also very similar to the
Slopewash found in the HOU-T2 and NPRT—F sites, which is not unexpected given that
the source of the Slopewash was probably the erosion of the same upland material. The
summary statistics also indicate that glacial till, the upper sandy material, and ﬂuvial
sediments are also very much alike, the only difference being the slighlty lower amounts
of silt in the ﬂuvial sediments, which is probably related to the origin of this material, i.e.
the comparatively lighter silt particles were removed in suspension by running water.

Sediments interpreted to be beach sediments, based on their topographic position
and their texture, have higher amounts of coarse and medium sand, and lower amounts of

very ﬁne sand and silt than either the till or upper sandy material, suggesting that these

130

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O E

2 a: to 9m to to ad .52

on 0.8 SA SA 3. 2: 2 .52
no ”.2 «.2 n: . we 3. we so .23 255%.
m6 9mm ﬁwm v.2 NS wd md :32 0:59.53 bzm

S a

3 3 an 2: 2m 3. S .52

2 we 3: 3m men 0.2 3. 52

3 on 3 2 3 2 2 an .23
3 S 2 EN ...9. ma 3 :82 $8568 32.5

R a

S 2 3. EN EN 3 no .52

2 SN 6: 2a 8.3. 2: 3 a:

no 2 2 3 S. 2 to an .25
2 on 2: SN 2m 2 2 :82 as. 35

mm a

no 3 2 v.2 SN 3 to .52

3. 2m 5: ”.8 3a a: we a:

3 3. 3 ca 2 3 2 son .23
3 n: a: 3m 0.3 M: 3 =8: .5 38.6

a... 8E a. asap 23 8a be, 22 8E 23 See: Ba 280 32 958 F5

 
 

 

663.398 36 0.93.5.— oouu..ma_u ..8 gammaﬁm gm .2 933—.

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v c

E «.2 2 5.8 E... 5.5 5.5 .52

«a S: 35 SN 5:. 5.: E .82

no 8 S S «a 3 no .85 .555

2 E: 5.2 new 2..- as 3 :82 5.53855
2 5

5.5 M: S 5.2 «R on No .52

3. $5 5.2 5.8 5.8 2: on .382

2 n... 3 :- od 2 5.5 .85 .5555

2 no we 35 :2 5.: S :82 55.88 5085
m a

3 5.5 mm 5.2 2+ 3 +5 .52

2 5.2 E 53 3.5 2: Z .82

3 5.5 . 2 as 3 3. mo .85 .5555 55553

8 5.5 mm 38 in n: S 582 555.5355

 

 

 

5. 85-53 5. 85-53 35 85-53 5. 85-53 5. 85-53 5. 85-53 5. 85-53
:6 BE Em 8.580 . 38 2.1—whoa» .555 0:5 935 Samoa: 953- 8580 - 985 338 bo> -

 

 

60:52.3 Mu 035,—.

132

materials may be reworked versions of the till or upper sandy material. In these materials,
the larger percentages of coarser sediments and lower percentages of ﬁner materials may
reﬂect winnowing by wave action, leaving only coarser materials.

The ﬁne lacustrine sediments were the most unlike all the other sediments in
having the lowest very coarse, coarse, and medium sand amounts, and the highest
amounts of very ﬁne sand and silts; which indicates these sediments were deposited in a
low-energy environment. The sandy lacustrine sediments had the highest amount of
medium sand of all the materials, and are similar to the beach deposits in that they
contain larger amounts of the coarser sands and smaller amounts of ﬁne sands and silts
than either the till or the upper sandy material. I suggest that these similarities between
the beach deposits and the sandy lacustrine materials are related to the similarity of the
two environments of deposition of the two materials. The beach deposits were found at
the foot of a drumlin about three meters in elevation above clayey lacustrine sediments
(Figure 11), while the sandy lacustrine materials were found on the footslope of a drumlin
in what was probably a near-shore environment or beach during the Main Algonquin lake
stage (approximately 200 m in this part of the county, Figure 12).

The laboratory particle size data, including percent clay-free very coarse sand,
seems to indicate that discontinuities that went unrecognized in the ﬁeld are present in
several upland locations. The BLW-S and -B, and the NPRT-S and -BI pedons, all of
which were sampled through bucket augering, have changes in particle size similar to
those found in pit sampled sites containing lithologic discontinuities. In all four pedons,
the amount of ﬁne sand decreased as compared to the overlying upper material (Table 6),

while the amount of clay-free very coarse sand (gravel content proxy) increased with

133

depth t

the ide

Sonia

sandy

ll CFC

pm
the t
5}‘Slt
Sam-
I 1.4
diff-

are

depth (Table 11). The recognition of these four pedons having discontinuities results in

the identiﬁcation of discontinuities in all upland pedons sampled.

Sorting:

The degree of sorting and mean grain size was also calculated for the upland
sandy material of unknown origin (cap) and for till samples. Neither of these indices
were calculated for inter-drumlin parent materials (ﬂuvial, beach deposit, and lacustrine
materials, with the exception of tills in inter-drumlin positions) because the sorting
present in these materials was obvious (stratiﬁcation of ﬂuvial materials; uniformity of
parent materials in the case of lacustrine materials). Both the upper sandy material and
the till were determined to be poorly sorted using Folk and Ward’s (1957) classiﬁcation
system as a guide (Table 14; McCammon, [1962] offers no sorting categories). The till
samples were only slightly more poorly sorted (1.470) than the upper sandy material
(1.410). These numbers indicate that sorted character of the two materials is not useful in
differentiating them. Mean grain size (MGS) indicates that the grains present in the till
are slightly ﬁner with a MGS of2.61¢ (163 um, ﬁne sand), while the upper sandy
material had an MGS of 2.29d) (204 um, ﬁne sand), however, these small differences are
not substantial enough to differentiate these materials. Both of these measures should be
viewed with caution given the large discrepancy in number of samples, and the fact that

they do not take gravel content into consideration.

134

Table 14. Folk and Ward’s (1957) sorting categories.

 

 

 

 

 

o Sorting category
Less than 0.35 very well sorted
0.35-0.50 well sorted
0.50-1.00 moderately sorted
1.00-2.00 poorly sorted
2.00-4.00 very poorly sorted
Greater than 4.00 extremely poorly sorted

 

 

 

Identiﬁcation of discontinuities using particle size indices

The Uniformity Index of Creemens and Mokma (1986) and a modiﬁed version of
the Comparative Particle Size Distribution Index (CPSDI) of Langohr et a1. (1976) were
calculated and used to detect lithologic discontinuities. These two indices were selected
because they are not reliant on soil color and structure like the relative horizon distinction
method used by Meixner and Singer (1981) and Beshay and Sallam (1995). Soil color
would not be a useful characteristic in identifying discontinuities in the Northport soils
for reasons stated earlier, and soil structure and consistence are measurable only from pit
sampled sites, which were a minority of the sites in this study. The selected indices were
also easy to implement, unlike other indicators that are very labor intensive, such as those
involving heavy mineral separations (Schaetzl, 1998), or elemental analysis (Rutledge et
al., 1975) which was an important consideration given the large number of samples
collected in this study. The use of mineralogy, such as quartz/feldspar ratios (Price et. al.,

1975) or resistant mineral content (Chapman and Horn, 1968) was rejected for this study

135

since it seemed likely that, despite morphological differences, the two materials were
probably genetically related.

The goal of these analyses was to see if these indices were in agreement with the
occurrence and position of discontinuities identiﬁed in the ﬁeld, and to determine if and
where discontinuities were present that went unnoticed in the ﬁeld. Table 15 contains the
data produced by running these two indices, and Table 16 compares the perfomiance of
these indices against each other and against ﬁeld observations. The actual index values
calculated can be found in Appendix F. It should be noted that both indices are reliant
solely on changes in texture of the ﬁne earth fraction, and make no quarter for gravel
content, color, and other characteristics used in ﬁeld identiﬁcation of discontinuities.

The Uniformity Index (UI) identiﬁed only two discontinuities in two separate
pedons on upland landscape positions, while the CPSDI indicated ten discontinuities in
eight upland pedons, surpassing the nine ﬁeld identiﬁed discontinuities found in nine
separate upland sites (Table 16). However, only one discontinuity in an upland pedon
(HETT-SH 280 was identiﬁed by all three indices, and only one other discontinuity was
recognized by both the CPSDI and ﬁeld observations (HOU-B). This outcome was not
unexpected given the high similarity in particle size (<2 mm) between the two materials
found in upland sites and the subtleness of the discontinuities present. The lower
threshold of the U1 (1 0.37), the UI and CPSDI did agree on the position of lithologic
discontinuities between the Bs and Bt horizons at the BLE-B site (Table 15). This
horizon break may represent an actual discontinuity, given that its position within the
proﬁle is similar to that of ﬁeld identiﬁed discontinuities, and because of twofold

increase in percent very coarse sand between these two horizons. This proﬁle also has a

136

Table 15. Comparisons of data from the Uniformity Index and modified
Cumulative Particle Size Distribution Index with field-recognized

discontinuities.“

 

Field
recognized
Site Horizon discontinuity UI CPSDI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOU-S Ap -------
ZBt
2C
deep 2C

 

 

HOU-B Ap
E ..............
2Bt
2C
Deep 2C

 

 

HOU—F Ap -------
le -------
B52
Bt -------
BC -------
C

 

 

 

HOU-T l Cg ..............

 

 

HOU-T2 A .......

 

 

 

 

 

a ------- indicates that a lithlogic discontinuity was detected at the base
of that horizon
b discontinuity indicated using the 0.37 threshold for U1

137

Table 15 continued.

 

Field
recognized
Site Horizon discontinuity UI CPSDI

 

 

 

 

HW-S A
E
Bt
BC .......
2C

 

 

HW-B A
E .......
Bs
Bt .......
2BC
2C

 

 

 

HW-F A
E .......
Bs .......
Bt
BC

 

 

 

HW-T A N/A N/A
Bwl ..............
Bw2 ..............

138

 

Table 15 continued.

 

 

Site

Field
recognized

discontinuity UI

Horizon

CPSDI

 

 

BLW-S

 

A
B8
Bt
Bt/E
C
C2
C3

 

 

BLW-B

 

A

Bs

Bt
Bt/E

 

 

BLW-F

 

 

 

BLE-S

A

Bt
BC
2C

 

 

BLE-B

 

 

 

BLE—F

 

 

139

 

 

 

 

 

Table 15 continued.

 

Site

Horizon

 

 

Field
recognized
discontinuity

 

 

 

 

BL-T

 

A

Bwl
Bw2
BC
2C
3C

 

 

HETT-SH

B31

852
ZBt

ZBC
2C

 

 

Bs
ZBt
2C

 

 

B81
B52
2Bt
3C1
3C2

 

 

 

HETT-T 1

B51

B82
Bs3
2Bs4

2C 1
2C2

 

140

 

 

Table 15 continued.

 

Horizon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Field
recognized
discontinuity U1
_______ b
_______ b
b

 

141

 

Table 15 continued.

 

Site

 

Field
recognized

Horizon discontinuity UI

 

 

 

CPSDI

 

 

NPRT-S

 

A
BS
13th
E’
C

 

 

NPRT-B l

A
Bs
E
E/Bt
Bt
Bt/C

 

 

NPRT-B2

 

 

NPRT-F

 

 

 

142

 

Table

A) Sur
0b!

NU!

Nu:
and

Dis
091

Dis

t .
ilISI m
Danni;

' C(il‘ln“
0f lite

CCiUnt‘

[hijge

Table 16. Summary data for particle size indices and field-
recognized lithologic discontinuities.

A) Summary of the performance of the indices as compared to field
observations.

Number of possible discontinuities: 121
Upland 58
Lowland 63

Number of cases where both indices

and ﬁeld observations agree:a 14 (53)
Upland l (41)
Lowland 13 (12)

Discontinuities identiﬁed through

field observation only :b 13
Upland 9
Lowland 4

Discontinuities identiﬁed through

agreement of both indices only: 25
Upland l
Lowland 24

a ﬁrst number is agreement that a discontinuity is present, the number in
parentheses is agreement that a discontinuity does not exist

b Counts only those discontinuities identiﬁed through ﬁeld observation alone, and
does not include those recognized in the ﬁeld and also detected by either or both

of the indices

c Counts only those discontinuities identified by the indices, and does not include
those also recognized in the ﬁeld

143

Table 16 continued.

B) Comparison of Uniformity Index data with CPSDI and field

observation data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UI CPSDI Field
0.37 L060
Number of discontinuities identiﬁed: 40 59 29
Upland/Lowland: 2/38 10/49 9/20
Agreement with UI:' - 38 (63) 14 (69)
0.37 - 13 2
0.60 — 25 12
Overall agreement (%):d - 83 68
Uplanda - 2 (48) l (48)
0.37 - 2 l
0.60 - O 0
Overall agreement (%):d - 86 84
Lowlanda - 36 (15) 13 (21)
0.37 - 11 l
0.60 - 25 12
Overall agreement (%):d - 81 52
C) Comparison of CPSDI data with field observation data.
CPSDI Field
Number of discontinuities identiﬁed: 59 29
Upland/Lowland: 10/49 9/20
Agreement with CPSDI:'l - 18 (54)
Overall agriement (%):d - 60
Upland" 2 (41)
Overall wement (%):d - 74
Lowlanda - 16 (13)
Overall aggement (%):d 46

 

 

d . .
see text for calculation of this value

144

 

 

ﬁeld-indicated discontinuity at depth. Discontinuities at the other two sites identiﬁed by
the CPSDI (HW-B, BLW-B, HETT-B, NPRT-S, and NPRT-Bl) but not in the ﬁeld, may
also represent actual discontinuities. The discontinuity in the HETT-B proﬁle is different
from other index-identiﬁed discontinuities in that it occurs within glacial till, and has a
higher very coarse sand content than the overlying material (a till characteristic), yet it has
a higher ﬁne sand content than the material underlying it (a characteristic of the upper
sandy material). This apparent mixing of features of both materials may indicate that the
ZBt horizon is actually a transitional horizon. The discontinuities in the BLW-S, NPRT-
S, and NPRT-Bl proﬁles were recognized previously from analysis of particle size data.

Although both indices differ both in number and position of discontinuities from
those identiﬁed in the ﬁeld, for the most part the two indices had relatively high amounts
of agreement with each other, and varying amounts of agreement with the ﬁeld
identiﬁcation of discontinuities (Table 16). This correlation is demonstrated by the
concept of overall agreement. Overall agreement is deﬁned here as being the number of
times indices or ﬁeld observations agree (includes situations where both indicate a
discontinuity, and where both agree a discontinuity is absent) out of the total number of
opportunities they could have agreed (the number of horizon "contacts"; e. g. six samples
would have 5 contacts or 5 possible discontinuities). A percentage value for overall
agreement can be calculated by summing the two types of agreement values, dividing this
number by the total number of opportunities for agreement and multiplying by 100.

In upland sites (Table 168), there is a fairly high level of overall agreement
between the two indices (86%), while the overall agreement between the two indices is

slightly lower, and the overall agreement between the indices and ﬁeld-identiﬁed

145

discontinuities is considerably lower. Nonetheless, the UI agreed with ﬁeld observations
68% of the time, while the CPSDI agreed with ﬁeld observations 60% of the time (Table
16C). This level of overall agreement between the two indices is probably a result of the
reliance of both indices on a similar variable, particle size. The main factor in the high
levels of overall agreement between the indices, and between the indices and ﬁeld
observations, however, is due in large part to the very high level of agreement of the
indices and the ﬁeld observations on the absence of discontinuities. In fact, agreement
on the absence of discontinuities in upland sites makes up over half (62%) of the
agreement between indices and 75 % and 83% of the agreement between the indices and
ﬁeld observations.

These high levels of overall agreement (if the assumption is made that the ﬁeld
data are correct), indicate that these indices are less likely to errors of commission
(calling something a discontinuity when it’s not). This line of reasoning is supported by
evidence indicating that discontinuities may be present in those locations identiﬁed by
indices, and the failure to recognize these discontinuities in the ﬁeld may indicate the
shortcoming of bucket auger sampling as compared to pit sampling. The fact that both
indices agreed with only one of the nine upland discontinuities recognized in the ﬁeld,
however, indicates that the indices are not immune to errors of omission (failing to
recognize a discontinuity when it’s present). Assuming ﬁeld recognition of
discontinuities is correct, errors of omission for upland sites ranged from 89% using the
UI to 78% for the CPSDI. Whether greater amounts of commission or omission error is

desirable depends on the individual (lumpers vs. splitters), and the nature of the research.

146

Errors of omission is especially troublesome for this study since it is my goal to identify
and locate discontinuities in upland areas.

In inter-drumlin sites, both the U1 and the C PSDI recognized more than twice as
many discontinuities as were recognized in the ﬁeld. These high numbers were not
unexpected given the fact that the stratiﬁed materials present in these landscape positions
were grouped into single, yet, stratiﬁed parent materials (e.g. site HETT-T2, samples SC
1-4, Table 6). Both indices and ﬁeld observations agreed on the presence and position of
discontinuities on fourteen occasions, and both indices agreed on discontinuity presence
and position where ﬁeld observations indicated no discontinuity 25 times. As was
observed in upland locations, there is a relatively high level of overall agreement (81%)
between the two indices, however, the majority (62%) of agreement here is due to
agreement on the presence and position of discontinuities, rather than on the absence of
discontinuities as was observed in upland sites (Table 16B).

The level of overall agreement of the indices with ﬁeld observations is
substantially lower (52% for U1 and 46% for CPSDI) for inter-drumlin sites, as compared
to the higher levels of overall agreement found between the indices and the ﬁeld
observations in upland positions. Lower overall agreement in inter-drumlin sites is
primarily a result of the lower number of discontinuities recognized in the ﬁeld in uplands
as compared to the numbers recognized by the indices (causing more disagreement both
in the presence and the absence of discontinuities), rather than a lower level of accuracy
by the indices. This conclusion is supported by the fact that indices and ﬁeld

observations agreed on 15 of the 20 lithologic discontinuities recognized in inter-drumlin

sites.

147

In summary, identiﬁcation of the upper parent material from the underlying till on
upland sites, is difﬁcult, if not impossible based solely on particle size analysis and
amount of sorting. The gravel proxy, percent clay-free very coarse sand, and other
particle size data indicated the presence of discontinuities in four upland pedons that were
unrecognized in the ﬁeld (BLW-S, BLW -B, NPRT-S and NPRT-B 1 ). The two indices
used indicated the presence of three more upland discontinuities that were previously
recognized (HW-B, HETT-B and BLE-B), and agreed with the recognition of several
others that was identiﬁed through particle size analysis (BLW-B, NPRT-S, and NPRT-
Bl). However the low level of recognition of discontinuities identiﬁed in the ﬁeld
questions their effectiveness under these circumstances.

The identiﬁcation of discontinuities as result of all the methods employed
(indices, gravel content and gravel proxy, ﬁeld identiﬁcation, particle size) leads the
recognition of a discontinuity in all of the upland pedons sampled, further strengthening
the case for the presence of more than one parent material in upland sites in Northport
drumlin ﬁeld. However, the shortcomings of the bucket augering and particle size indices

indicate that that the best way to observe these discontinuities is at a pit face.

,9

Origins of upland discontinuities and sandy “cap

In the preceding sections, several lines of evidence were presented indicating that
lithologic discontinuities and multiple parent materials, not indicated in the county soil
survey, are present in all upland sites in the Northport drumlin ﬁeld. These
discontinuities are most obvious when they coincide with a stone-line or band of

increased gravel content. The contact is usually overlain by loose, sandy sediment, and is

148

underlain by denser, sandy glacial till containing considerably higher amounts of gravel.
In light of these ﬁndings, the following discussion will address some possible origins of
the discontinuity and the sandy cap overlying it, and the relationship of this discontinuity
and its attendent materials to other sediments present in the Northport ﬁeld.

The low gravel content, sandy cap could be the product of a wide range of

depositional and pedogenic processes or combinations thereof. Potential depositional

 

processes include: eolian, supraglacial and/or subglacial, and glaciolacustrine/subaqueous

YP-ﬁ'ﬁ-T . i :A

(Table 17). The deposits resulting from these processes would then have been subject to
pedogenetic processes such as eluviation, illuviation, weathering, and bioturbation.
Some of the above depositional processes and their related deposits, can be easily ruled
out with minimal evidence, while others are strongly supported by several lines of

evidence.

Pedogenic origins and inﬂuences of near-surface processes
Biomantle

One possible origin for the sandy cap is that it represents a biomantle. A
biomantle is a layer or zone within the soil formed through the activities of soil organisms
and/or vegetation (Johnson, 1990). Biomantles, according to the Soil Survey Staff (1975)
form as subsoil material is brought to the surface by soil animals (faunalturbation;
Johnson, 1990) and then subjected to rainfall, which removes ﬁner materials. Johnson
(1990) suggests that a more appropriate deﬁnition for a biomantle should also include
references to vegetation (ﬂoralturbation), and stone-lines formed as larger materials are

gradually displaced and buried by soil organisms. Although biomantles are often ignored

149

Table 17. Some possible origins of the lithologic discontinuities and upper sandy
material found in some upland profiles.”

 

Possible origin

Evidence in support

Evidence against

 

Biogenic processes

worm casts are present at almost all
sites except where too wet

could explain stone-lines through
the "drop down" of materials
(coarse fragments) too big to be
moved by small soil organisms

actions of larger soil organisms
could allow for some gravels to
remain scattered throughout the
sandy cap

abundant evidence of ﬂoralturbation
which could result in stone-lines/
zones

could account for the relatively
uniform thickness of the sandy cap

cap texture is the same, even when it
overlies clay (HETT-T2 site). not
typical of biomantles which usually
exhibit textural contrasts

worm cast particle size analysis
shows no preferential uptake ofa
particular soil fraction by worms

extensive ﬂoralturbation would
destroy stone-lines or create lines
that vary widely with depth and
number across the surface

 

In situ weathering processes

 

 

soil morphology and clay mineral
assemblages are indicative of
greater weathering in the upper
material. as compared to the
underlying till

sandy cap is always found within the
solum, where chemical and physical
weathering is greatest

sandy cap materials are always
found at the surface, not buried by
any other material

greater amounts of clay than would
expected through elluviation alone
are found in some illuvial horizons

 

on average. pHs of upper material
are near neutral, indicating a lack of
intense weathering

does not explain abrupt increase in
gravel content

sandy cap has lower amounts of clay
than the underlying till despite the
occurrence of illuvial clay horizons
and a closer proximity to more
intense weathering conditions

 

 

a for the sake of brevity, citations for some of the information presented in this table has been omitted. but

is fully cited in the accompanying text

150

Pm micrul n ‘

Table 17 continued.

 

Possible origin

Evidence in support

Evidence against

 

Eolian processes

 

 

nearby coastal areas and sandy lake
plain sediments are potential source
areas

deﬂation oftill could result in lag
deposits explaining the abrupt
increases in gravel

could explain particle size
similarities between cap and till

 

very poor sorting of sandy cap
materials

occurrence of gravel and cobbles in
the upper material

topography: ruggedness would
lower wind speeds and result in
ﬁner grain sizes than observed in
cap materials

no evidence of “drifted areas",
dunes, or blow-out landforms

basal till is compact. gravelly. and
somewhat ﬁne-textured, and
therefore not easily deﬂated

no spatial indication of wind
direction. e.g., thicker deposits
found consistently on only one side
of drumlins

under eolian conditions. greatest
sand accumulations would be
expected in lee-side backslope
positions. not on drumlin crests as
observed here

 

 

151

WL-i‘o‘ HY" ——

F:

Table 17 continued.

 

Possible origin

Evidence in support

Evidence against

 

Ice-contact processes

 

deformation and lodgment processes
could explain the formation of
gravel concentrations and weak
stone—lines

strong particle size similarities
between cap and till may indicate
similar depositional vectors

incorporation of underlying till by
advancing ice could result in the
similar particle sizes observed
between the cap and till

deformation crushing and shearing
associated with a deforming bed
could result in gravel content and
textural differences between the cap
and till

Boulton’s (1996a) model suggests
that two tills with differing
characteristics and separated by an
erosional contact could result from a
single glacial cycle

same deformation processes
responsible for drumlin formation
may result in cap and stone- lines

similarities in drumlin shape to
drumlins formed by subglacial
meltwaters

 

cap is too thin to represent an
independent ice advance

unlikely that an ice advance would
result in relatively uniform thickness
of cap observed at sample sites

high sandiness of local till may
diminish deforming conditions

cap is too similar in texture to
represent a melt-out till (melt-out till
would probably be coarser than the
basal till)

lack of hummocky topography
commonly associated with ablation
tills

cap does not contain stratiﬁcation or
other features indicating inﬂuences
of supraglacial meltwater

Attig et al’s. (1989) model
suggesting drumlins and thick
supraglacial deposits form
simultaeneously in different areas
same the glacier

presence of the cap found over
undisturbed stratiﬁed lacustrine and
beach sediments

 

 

 

152

 

Table 17 continued.

 

Possible origin

Evidence in support

Evidence against

 

Subaqueous (pro-glacial) processes

 

 

stratified silty deposits with beach
gravels at their edges demonstrate
that partial submergence was a part
of the region’s post-glacial history

the ubiquity and general uniformity
in texture of the cap across widely
disparate upland surfaces

sandy cap overlies tills and ﬁne-
textured lacustrine deposits

drumlin ﬁeld could have been
submerged. partially or wholly.
under 3 Glenwood phase as
suggested by the isostatic
depression model of Clark et al.
(1994)

stone-lines could represent erosional

lag deposits formed in an energetic
shallow water environment

similar near-surface stratigraphy to
other drumlin ﬁelds hypothesized to
have been submerged

subaqueously-formed deposits exist
south of the drumlin ﬁeld

 

no shore-zone landforms such as
shorelines. or wave-cut terraces.
spits, and ﬂattened drumlin crests as
are seen associated with other
submerged drumlin ﬁelds

poor sorting of sandy cap

does not explain abrupt difference
in gravel between cap and till

a Glenwood inundation of the
Northport ﬁeld precludes a
Greatlakean advance since observed
lake clays were not deformed or
buried by till

 

153

 

 

01

511,

of

dr

b}

of

81.

th

TE

uI

Sij

or not reported, even when they exist, Johnson and Balek (1991) and Johnson (1993)
suggest that biomantles may be integral and widespread in soil formation under a variety
of different climatic conditions and parent materials.

Abundant worm casts and tree-tip topography are common throughout the
drumlin ﬁeld, and demonstrate that the potential exists for the formation of biomantles.
The upland sites in the Northport ﬁeld ﬁt well with characteristics of the model suggested
by Johnson (1993) including sand to sandy clay layers over stone-lines; however, instead
of overlying weathered material, as in Johnson's model, the lithologic discontinuities in
the Northport ﬁeld typically overlie relatively unweathered glacial till.

The hypothesis that the upper material represents a biomantle would explain the
presence of abrupt increases in gravel content at some upland sites. The lowering of
stones or human artifacts to the lower boundary of organism activity is accomplished
through the relocation of material underlying the stones or artifacts, to the surface
(Moeyersons, 1978; Johnson, 1989; Johnson, 1990). In an experiment conducted by
Rolfsen (1980), artifacts were lowered to a depth of 45 cm by earthworms after ﬁve years,
indicating that the effectiveness of earthworms at forming such layers should not be
underestimated. The activity of earthworms and other soil fauna may also account for the
relatively uniform thickness of the upper material. The occurrence of some gravel in the
upper material could be explained by the activities of larger, but less numerous soil fauna
like woodchucks and foxes capable of moving larger particles.

Worm casts were present at virtually every site except those that were very wet.
Earthworms were shown to be an agent of formation of sandy topsoil layers over clayey

subsoils in soils in Ivory Coast (Nooren et al., 1995). In this study, it was found that

154

earthworms deposited ﬁner subsoil materials on the surface in the form of casts, which
were subsequently impacted by rainfall and overland ﬂow, removing ﬁne materials and
leaving the coarser-textured materials behind. To see if earthworms were responsible for
the sandy upland caps in the Northport ﬁeld, worm casts were collected at two sites (HW-
B and NPRT-F) and particle size analysis was performed on them to ascertain if worms
were preferentially bringing any particular particle size to the surface (Table 18). The
worm casts sampled contained less ﬁne sand, very ﬁne sand, and clay, and more medium
sand than the upper sandy material or the underlying till. If the upper material is a
biomantle formed through earthwomi activity similar to that observed by Nooren et al.
(1995), it would seem that a cap formed in this way would be slightly coarser than the
underlying till. This ﬁnding is contrary to particle size data for the sandy cap, which is
almost identical to the underlying till in every respect except for coarse fragments. Many
more worm casts would need to be analyzed before a trend could be established for
materials deposited by worm activity, and therefore demonstrate their role in the
formation of the sandy caps. A number of other unknowns, such as the determination of
the amount of time it would take for earthworms to create a layer of material of the
observed thickness under these conditions, and a determination of how rapidly earthworm
bioturbation began following deglaciation, would also have to be addressed before this
hypothesis can be conﬁdently conﬁrmed or rejected.

Microtopography caused by tree throw is an enduring feature on the landscape
(Schaetzl and Follmer, 1990), and is a common source of soil disturbance (Schaetzl et al.,

1990). The formation of stone pavements associated with mounds of ﬁner materials has

155

 

 

Table 18. Particle size distributions of worm casts at two sites, and their
comparison to sandy “cap” materials.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample %VCS %CS %MS %FS %VFS % Si %Clay

 

 

 

HW-B 1.0 6.4 36.3 22.6 7.7 19.2 6.7
NPRT-F 0.5 11.1 48.8 17.7 4.2 13.8 3.9
Worm cast 0.8 8.8 42.6 20.2 6.0 16.5 5.3
(mean)

Sandy cap 1.0 6.9 34.6 23.4 9.9 16.6 7.7
(mean)

Till (mean) 1.9 7.2 33.7 23.0 10.0 16.2 8.1

 

*VCS = very coarse sand, C S = coarse sand, MS = medium sand, FS = ﬁne sand,
VFS = very ﬁne sand, and Si = silt

 

been attributed to tree-tip activity (Denny and Goodlett, 1968), as have been the
formation of gravelly lag deposits on mounds (Small et al., 1991). Tree-throw is also
cited in the burial of surﬁcial materials, including pre-existing soils (Schaetzl and
Follmer, 1990), and could be the mechanism involved in burying gravel lags or
accumulations of gravel, resulting in a near-surface stratigraphy similar to that observed
in the Northport ﬁeld.

In a model of ﬂoralturbation by Johnson (1990), stone-lines are formed in soils as
a product of tree-tip. According to this model, a tree rooted in a pre-existing stone-line,
formed perhaps through faunalturbation, falls, exposing the root plate to rainwash.
Rainwash then removes the ﬁnes, while stones and coarser materials remain tangled in
the root system until the tree decays, at which time the stones and gravel are deposited on
the soil surface. As stated earlier, there is abundant evidence for tree throw in the
Northport ﬁeld as expressed by cradle and knoll topography and disturbed horizonation of

soils in the subsurface. However, the tree-tip “biomantle model” proposed by Johnson

156

(1990), in the absence of repeated major disturbances such as windstorms, would seem to
result in discontinuous stone-lines at widely varying depths, a pattern not observed in the
Northport ﬁeld. This model, by itself, also does not account for the general increase in
gravel content with depth or stone-lines in inter—drumlin sites.

It is likely that both faunal- and ﬂoralturbation are occurring in the Northport
ﬁeld. Given the ﬁeld observations and arguments presented, however, it seems unlikely

that these processes alone are responsible for the formation of the upper sandy cap.

Weathering mantle

Since the sandy cap was always found within the solum of the upland soils
sampled, it seems possible that this material may represent a weathered layer forming
through the interaction of the soil parent material with near-surface phenomena such as
freeze—thaw activity and throughﬂow of water. This idea is also supported by the fact that
that the cap material was always found at the surface, and not buried by any other
material. The morphology of the soils also provides evidence indicating that chemical
weathering has occurred within the sandy cap.

Many of the upland soils sampled exhibit bisequal morphology (Table 6), and
have A-E-Bs-E'-Bt, or related proﬁles, indicating soil pH has been low enough (pH < 6,
Cline, 1949; pH 5.0-5.5, Schaetzl, 1996) for the mobilization of clay, then sequioxides.
Soils with similar morphology have been observed by Schaetzl (1996) in northeastern
lower Michigan, Gardner and Whiteside (1952) in central Michigan, and Cline (1949)
and Frei and Cline (1949) in New York state. The presence of bisequal soils in the

Northport drumlin ﬁeld implies that pHs have dropped sufﬁciently to allow the

157

mobilization of iron and aluminum. Despite pHs as low as 5.02 (Table 6), the average
pH of the sandy cap material is nearly neutral (7.02). Soil pH is important not only in the
translocation of clays and sequioxides, but also has a profound impact on clay minerals
present within soil (Borchardt et al., 1968; Lietzke et al., 1975).

A soil pedon (Blue Lake I) sampled and described by F ranzmeier and Whiteside
(1963) on a moraine in nearby Emmet County, has morphology and a clay mineral

assemblage similar to that found in upland soils of the Northport ﬁeld. This pedon is

rmﬁfr? 1i,
i

bisequal, has increasing illite and chlorite content with depth, and abundant smectite in
horizons near the soil surface. The alteration of clay mineral assemblages through
pedogenesis in glaciated areas has been well documented throughout the Midwest by
Ross and Mortland (1966), Lietzke et al. (1975), Badraoui et al. (1987), and in southern
Ontario by McKeague et al. (1972) and Kodama (1979). The alteration of clay minerals
in soils is shown in Jackson's (1964) continuum of clay mineral alteration, which ranges
from the less intensely weathered and unstable minerals (e. g. micas and illite) to more
intensely weathered and stable minerals (e.g. kaolinite and sesquioxides), with various
mineral stages (e. g. vermiculite and montmorillonite) in between. As stated earlier, soil
pH, as well as the amount of the leaching, contribute to chemical weathering and clay
mineral formation/alteration through processes such as the removal of potassium ions and
through mineral oxidation. The weathering sequence of clay minerals is inﬂuenced by
the ﬁve soil forming factors, including the porosity of, and primary minerals found in, the
soil parent material (Jackson, 1959), and climatic factors such as soil water status and

seasonality (Folkoff and Meentemeyer, 1987).

158

The clay minerals present in many midwestem soils formed in calcareous glacial
till exhibit Jackson et al's. (1948) depth function of increasing clay mineral instability
with increasing depth in the soil proﬁle. These soils typically have increasingly unstable
clay minerals with increasing depth and pH, and more stable clay minerals in the more
acidic and leached upper portions of the proﬁle (Droste, 1956; Droste and Tharin, 1958;
Bhattacharya, 1962). The sequence of clay minerals, with greater amounts of expandable
clays (smectite, vermiculite, and interlayered expandable clays) and lower amounts of
primary chlorite and illite in the sandy cap as compared to the underlying till (Tables 9
and 10), found in the Northport ﬁeld, appears to mirror the pattern of clay mineral
weathering seen elsewhere. The similarities between the type of clay minerals and their
distribution within the soil, and the shared bisequal morphology of the upland Northport
soils and other Midwestern soils seems to indicate that the upper material could simply be
a weathered version of the underlying till. However, chemical weathering within the soil,
alone, would not account for the difference in the quantities of gravel between the sandy
cap and the till, nor does weathering explain the stone-line observed at the HOU-S site.

The greater quantities of gravel in the underlying glacial till as compared to upper
material could be explained by physical weathering (dominantly through freeze/thaw
processes) occurring in the modern climates as well as during the periglacial climate
regime present following deglaciation. St. Amaud and Whiteside (1963), working on
soils formed in dolomitic till in south central Saskatchewan, found that coarse materials
such as gravel, and coarse, medium, and ﬁne sands were considerably less common in the
solum than in the parent material, while the amounts of very ﬁne sand and silt in the

solum were greater than those in the parent material. These differences were attributed to

159

freeze-thaw processes, and were found to be more intense in pedons with dense Bt
horizons with low permeability. Data from a subsidiary freeze-thaw experiment
performed by St. Amaud and Whiteside (1963) found that upon freezing and thawing
sands and gravels (from ﬁeld samples) in a saturated state, losses of close to 4% of
materials to the next smaller size class were possible after just 200 cycles.

Unfortunately, similar studies have not been done in the slightly warmer and
wetter climate of the Great Lakes region, which experiences fewer annual freeze-thaw
cycles than south-central Saskatchewan. In fact, work by Isard and Schaetzl (1998) found
that soils in this region may only freeze once every ﬁve years because of region's thick
wintertime snowpack (a result of lake-effect snowfall), which serves to insulate the soil.
Obviously, low amounts of winter freezing restrict the amount of freeze/thaw weathering
of soil particles in near surface layers.

The texture of the parent materials in the present study and that of St. Amaud
and Whiteside are also considerably different (loamy versus sandy), and the age of the
Saskatchewan deposit is also not given. Therefore, making comparisons between the two
studies may be somewhat tenuous. Another unknown related to the comminution of
gravel by physical weathering processes is the length of time that the till in the Northport
drumlin ﬁeld was subjected to periglacial conditions of increased freeze-thaw activity.
Assuming that a process similar to that observed by St. Amaud and Whiteside (1963) is
responsible for the formation of the sandy cap, it would seem logical that the upper
material would be found everywhere similar till is present, provided soil drainage is
similar. Since this study was limited to well-drained sites, validation of this assumption

would require further ﬁeldwork.

160

These processes combined could result in the diminished frequency and size of
coarse fragments within the upper material as compared to the underlying till.
Additionally, analysis of the rates of chemical weathering occurring within the ﬁeld,
similar to that done by April et al. (1986) for tills in New York, could determine the rate
at which minerals, especially calcium carbonate, are being weathering and removed from
the soil, thereby diminishing the abundance and size of coarse fragments. However, the
abrupt increase in gravel with depth and weak stone-lines imply a rapid decrease in
weathering with depth, which simply does not occur under natural circumstances. Despite
the strong evidence that both chemical and physical weathering are impacting the upper
material, neither can explain the pattern of increasing gravel content with depth observed
in upland soils. In fact, St. Amaud and Whiteside's (1963) proposal of enhanced
weathering near the Bt horizon would seemingly decrease the likelihood of stone-lines
such as the one observed at the HOU-S site.

Another potential argument against the upper material being simply a
"weathering mantle" of the underlying till is based upon the very strong similarities in
particle size between the two materials. Despite the fact that illuvial horizons are almost
twice as common in the upper material than in the underlying till (Table 6), the till, on
average, has a slightly higher clay content (Table 8). This indicates that little in situ
weathering is occurring within illuvial clay horizons, which is demonstrated by the fact
that only a third of the Bt or 2Bt horizons sampled in upland sites contain more clay than
would be expected through normal translocation. The three upland pedons (HOU-B,
BLE-B, and BLW-S) that do exhibit such horizons show no pattern to this phenomenon,

as they come from pedons both with and without ﬁeld-recognized discontinuities.

l6l

The strong particle size similarities between the two materials also seems to
indicate that very limited in situ comminution of grains larger than clay-size has occurred
in these soils, and could suggest a time lag between the deposition of the two materials.
Based on the ﬁndings of St. Amaud and Whiteside (1963), one would expect a
weathering mantle to be ﬁner-textured than the underlying parent material. However, the
fact that the till has higher amounts of clay, in spite of enhanced physical and chemical
weathering and illuviation in the sandy cap, may indicate that this material had less clay
than the till did initially. This conclusion suggests that the upper material may be actually
be a different parent material, and not a simply a weathered layer.

There is no question that both weathering and bioturbation are occurring to some
extent at all sites investigated in this study. However, based on arguments presented
against both of these and their failure to fully explain ﬁeld observations, it seems unlikely
that either process, alone or in concert is wholly responsible for the presence of the upper

sandy material.

Origin and inﬂuences of past depositional environments
Eolian hypothesis

Many of the coastal areas of Leelanau County demonstrate extensive present and
past eolian activity (e.g. Sleeping Bear Dunes). The county also has outwash plains and
sandy lake plains that could have acted as source areas for eolian materials (Figure 2).
Any hypothesis that the sandy cap and abrupt increases in gravel are a result of eolian
processes requires increases in gravel to represent erosional lag surfaces, with the sandy

cap representing later deposits of eolian material.

162

In order to accept this eolian hypothesis, another sandy and gravelly material
would had to have been present overlying the compact till (perhaps a less compact melt-
out or ﬂow till). This material would then had to have been deﬂated through eolian
processes leaving the lag, and depositing the eroded sands on surrounding drumlins. A
scenario similar to this is described by Boulton and Dent (1974). In this study, it was
found that freshly exposed till had two distinct layers, a compact lower layer, and a silty
(40% less than 63 um) upper layer proposed to have resulted from post-depositional
crushing. This silty material was then deﬂated, leaving stony lag surfaces. Although this
provides a mechanism for deﬂation, the materials being deﬂated, and subsequently
deposited, in this situation were silty, while the cap found in the of the Northport ﬁeld is a
mixture of different particle sizes dominated by sand.

Several other characteristics of the upper sandy material indicate that is not related
to eolian deposition. According to Livingstone and Warren (1996), eolian sands are
commonly ﬁner in texture and better sorted than glacial, ﬂuvial, and lacustrine sediments.
However, the sandy cap is poorly sorted which suggests that it is not an eolian deposit.
Wind, by its nature, will entrain and transport ﬁner particles before larger ones, so long as
the wind strength is greater than the cohesiveness of the materials (Bagnold, 1984). Also,
winds with similar velocities will deposit particles of similar sizes (Twenhofel, 1932).
Both of these processes will result in sorting of eolian deposits. Sorting in eolian deposits
is also a function of the limited range of particle sizes commonly found in dunes
(Livingstone and Warren, 1996). It has been shown in a previous section, however, that
the sandy cap present in the Northport ﬁeld is only slightly better sorted than the

underlying till, which is poorly sorted.

163

 

The sandy cap also contains particle size separates that would also not be
anticipated in a dune-like landform. The average amount of clays and silts present in the
cap are considerably higher than the amounts observed in landforms known to be dunes
in the east-central part of the state (Arbogast et al., 1997; Jameson, 1997). Although the
mean grain size of the sandy cap is ﬁne sand, a particle size commonly observed in dunes
(Ahlbrandt, 1979; Goudie et al., 1987), the similarities between the textures, sorting and

mean grain size of the till and cap indicate that there is a relationship present between the

rt—i'iﬁhil . AY‘ _‘ “'-

two, rather than an uncanny resemblance between an upper eolian deposit and the
underlying till.

The presence of gravel (Table 11) within the sandy upper material, and the lack of
any pattern to the presence or absence, or thickness of this material in relation to slope
aspect, and therefore wind direction, also argues against an eolian origin. Additionally, if
the sandy upper material were a product of eolian processes, one would expect the
greatest thicknesses of sand to be found on the lee-side backslopes (i.e. the slip face of the
dune or sand deposit) of the drumlins rather than on the drumlin crests, as was observed
in this study. The paucity of any recognizable dunes or dune-like topography, or clear-cut
erosional and depositional areas (e. g. blow-outs) in either upland or inter-drumlin sites
within the ﬁeld also indicates that eolian processes did not form the discontinuities or

sandy cap.

164

Ice-contact material/till hypotheses

This suite of related hypotheses suggests that the observed discontinuities and the
deposition of the sandy cap may be a product of contact with, or direct deposition by
either active or stagnant ice. One hypothesis is that the upper material may represent
another basal till (lodgement or deformation), deposited by ice (Greatlakean?) that
followed the advance that formed the drumlins, and has since been altered through

pedogenesis. Another hypothesis is that the drumlins, the discontinuity, and the upper

"ﬁr-Tm. imp-t7—
-1

and lower materials are the product of a single advance with a deforming bed, that has
been subsequently altered by pedogenesis. Both of these hypotheses could explain the
strong particle size (Table 10) and sorting similarities between the two materials. A third
hypothesis suggests that the upper sandy material covering the drumlins represents a
drape of supraglacial or ablation material deposited contemporaneously with the basal till
as a result of ice sheet stagnation. And, ﬁnally, a fourth hypothesis attributes the
formation of the cap to processes associated with the formation of the drumlins.

Proving or disproving the above arguments, based on a glacial (till) origin for the
cap, would require a much more rigorous examination of the materials present in the
upland sites than was undertaken in this study. Till fabrics, detailed examination of other
sedimentary features such as folding, and a closer scrutiny of gravel shape and striation
would be necessary in order to make a more thorough interpretation of the cap as glacial
till. Therefore, in this thesis, I will only suggest and present the available evidence, both
from the ﬁeld and the literature, for these theories.

Investigation of the fabric of both the sandy cap and the lower till would be an

important ﬁrst step in determining which of the scenarios occurred in the Northport ﬁeld.

165

in
cm

ht

pe

Ill:

C0

131
b}.

lOt

Till fabrics, and their strength of expression have been used extensively to distinguish
different types of till (Drake, 1971; Marcussen, 1975; Haldorsen and Shaw, 1982), as well
as deposition of till by different ice advances (Pessl, 1971; Muller et al., 1986).
Unfortunately, till fabrics were not measured in the course of this study. One

complication in using till fabric measurements in the sandy cap is the disruption caused

 

. by modern and relict frost heave, bioturbation, and pedogenesis. Subtle sedimentary i»
features such as weak stratiﬁcation and fold features are also susceptible to destruction by
pedogenic processes. Despite the lack of these types of data, the gross morphology of the 1' '

materials present, such as abrupt increases in gravel with depth and stone-lines, is similar
to that observed in other studies involving ice contact deposits, and allows some

comparisons to be made.

Ice-contact hypothesis #1 .' the “cap " represents a basal till distinct from that forming the
core of the drumlins

This hypothesis suggests that the upper material represents a basal till deposited
following the formation of the drumlins, perhaps by the Greatlakean advance. The theory
of the upper material having been deposited by a separate ice advance ﬁts well with the
largely erosional character and thin deposits of till attributed to the Greatlakean advance
by Burgis (1977). The hypotheses of the upper material representing a weathered
lodgement or deformation till could also account for the discontinuities and abrupt
increases in gravel and weak stone-lines observed at the contact between the upper

material and the underlying till. If the sandy cap does represent a lodgement till, the

166

textural similarities between the two could easily be attributed to incorporation of the pre-
existing till into the later advance’s deposits.

Concentrations of stones or clast pavements may be found at the basal contact of
lodgement tills (Dreimanis, 1989). Lodgement till stone-lines are suggested to represent
"trafﬁc jams" formed as one clast becomes grounded in an underlying bed and blocks the
movement of other clasts up glacier (Boulton, 1978). Hicock (1991) describes the
characteristics of the stone-lines formed through both erosional and lodgement processes
and deformational processes, and reports that stone-lines forming through
erosional/lodgement processes tend to form level surfaces, while those formed as product
of deformation tend to be more uneven. The weak stone—lines observed in the ﬁeld
(HOU-S and HOU-B) were both uneven, but tree throw was the apparently the source of
uneveness in at least one proﬁle (HOU-B). The other criteria used by Hicock to indicate
whether stone-lines are erosional or deformational involve measures of striae, tilt of

stones, and stone orientation, none of which were determined in the present study.

Ice-contact hypothesis #2: the “cap " represents the upper portion of a deforming bed
611223;!

In an investigation of a subglacial till being deposited by a modern glacier,
Boulton and Dent (1974) found a sequence of materials very similar to those in Northport
drumlin ﬁeld. They found that the upper portion (< 50 cm) of the raw till was enriched in
ﬁnes, was less dense, and contained considerably less gravel than the underlying platy till.
The concentration of silt-sized ﬁnes within this upper material was attributed to post-

depositional, subglacial shearing and crushing of rock within the till under deforming bed

167

conditions; the lower, platy till was below this zone, and therefore maintained its coarser
texture (Boulton et al., 1974). Upon exposure of this sediment to subaerial processes,
Boulton and Dent found that silt and clay initially found in the upper material were
eluviated deeper into the proﬁle forming an illuvial silt horizon, and that gravelly lags
covering up to 90% of the surface had formed due to eolian erosion of ﬁnes. Although
the dewatering of the upper material results in eventual collapse of voids and compaction
of this material, its void ratio was similar to that of the underlying till after 30 years. This
evidence, supported by the occurrence of stone-lines within deforming beds, suggests that
the package of materials found in upland areas within the Northport ﬁeld could be a
deformation till.

The occurrence of stone-lines (boulder pavements, stone pavements) in glacial
tills is well documented (Hicock, 1991), and is commonly associated with deforming bed
conditions (Hicock and Dreimanis, 1989; Hicock and Dreimanis, 1992). One method by
which boulder pavements in till sequences can be formed is through an erosional espisode
occurring between the deposition of advance and retreat tills in Boulton's (1996a) model
of subglacial deformation processes. In this model, areas near the ice margin may exhibit
two till sheets resulting from a single glacial cycle, one till having been laid down by the
advance of the ice and the second till deposited by the decay of the same ice. As one
moves slightly back from the ice margin, an area containing the thickest till in the glacial
system is encountered, and within this area the upper and lower tills may be separated by
an erosional clast pavement. The erosional and depositional theories of this model are
also used to explain the formation and height of drumlins, suggesting that the dominant

characteristics of the drumlins (erosional or depositional) is function of proximity to the

168

""1" cm: nun-F
l 2 a

ice margin. If this model is applied to the Northport ﬁeld, the upper material would
represent the retreat or decay till, the lower material the advance till, and the weak stone-
lines and abrupt increases in gravel, the erosional zone formed between the two. This
model would work well for the northwest portion of lower Michigan given its proximity
to the Manistee moraine, and the extremely thick deposits of till in the area.

Another deforming bed theory that is applicable to the Northport drumlin ﬁeld is
suggested by Hicock (1991). In this model, stones fall through a deforming layer due
their greater density compared to the surrounding till and accumulate at the base of the
this zone where the matrix density becomes high enough to support them, resulting in a

stone-line within the zone of deformation.

Ice-contact hypothesis #3: the “cap " represents a meltout or ablation till

Another ice-contact hypothesis is that the upper material represents some kind of
ablation or melt-out till. Melt-out tills are deﬁned in Dreimanis (1989, p. 45) as material
"deposited by a slow release of glacial debris from ice that is not sliding or deforming
internally", and may form on the surface of the ice or at the base of a stagnant ice sheet.
As shown in Boulton (1971), stagnation of ice and subsequent downwasting could result
in the formation of a layered deposit consisting of melt-out and ﬂow tills overlying basal
lodgement till. Flow till, commonly formed in conjunction with ablation deposits, is
produced as pore pressures within ablation materials become high enough to allow
transport by gravity. Highly ﬂuidized ﬂow tills are thin enough that stones can drop
down within them, potentially forming stone-lines, and have enough water present within

them to achieve some amount of sorting, but seldom attain the thickness (usually < 20

169

cm; Boulton, 1971) necessary to form the discontinuities observed in the Northport ﬁeld.
Such low viscosity ﬂows are also unlikely given the sandy nature of the underlying till.
One characteristic attributed to ablation tills is their coarser textures and greater
friabilities compared to the underlying till (Stewart and MacClintock, 1971; Drake,
1971). This increase in coarseness is hypothesized to be a product of the winnowing of
ﬁnes (silts and clays) by meltwater present in the supraglacial environment. There are, E
however, no strong textural differences between the sandy cap and the basal till of the

Northport drumlin ﬁeld (Table 8). In fact, the till has slightly higher amounts of coarse

 

and very coarse sands when compared to the cap. Although examination of individual
upland pedons (Table 6) with discontinuities reveals that till samples have slightly higher
amounts of clay than the overlying sandy material, the presence of more abundant clay in
the till does not necessarily accord with an ablation till hypothesis, since winnowing or
removal of ﬁnes from the upper material could be a result of illuviation, or processes in

lacustrine or eolian environments.

Ice-contact hypothesis #4: the “cap " as representing a deposit associated with drumlin
tormation

As described in the literature review, drumlins worldwide often contain
stratiﬁcation and stone-lines that are a product of their formation. While applying
theories of drumlin formation to the drumlins of the Northport ﬁeld was not one of the
goals of this research, some of these theories may offer insight to the origin of the upper
sandy material. Only two theories, both of which seem to be especially relevant to the

Northport ﬁeld based on similarities to ﬁeld observations, are discussed. These theories

170

on drumlin formation are forwarded as potential explanations for the observed sediments
and discontinuities, but they are difﬁcult to corroborate or dispute based on the evidence
collected in this study.

The theory of drumlin formation forwarded by Shaw and Kvill (1984), suggests
that some drumlins are formed as cavities cut within the base of the ice by catastrophic
releases of subglacial meltwater are subsequently ﬁlled with hyper-concentrated sediment
ﬂows. At the same time, other drumlins are simultaneously carved from preexisting till
by the same meltwaters. Drumlins formed through cavity inﬁlling tend to have narrow,
pointed upstream ends and widen downstream, and often have a clustered or shield-like
appearance, while those formed erosionally tend to have convex proximal ends and
roughly parallel ﬂanks, or ﬂanks which converge into a tail (Shaw et al., 1989). Drumlins
with either morphology can be found within the Northport ﬁeld (Figure 7).

This theory has intriguing implications for the Northport ﬁeld, since subglacial
meltwater erosion could account for the abrupt increase in gravel content found in some
Northport drumlins. The sandy cap could be a deposit associated with diminishing ﬂow
of meltwater under either circumstance. The occurrence of a layer of a massive sand
overlying a poorly sorted diamict in a cavity ﬁll drumlin was reported by Shaw and Kvill
(1984), and is similar to the stratigraphy observed in Northport drumlins. However, this
sand was better sorted than the Northport caps. Though erosionally formed drumlins
typically consist of the till they were carved from, the sediments of the cavity-ﬁll
drumlins investigated by Shaw and Kvill (1984) for the most part, tended to be much
more stratiﬁed and sorted, and also coarser than those of the Northport ﬁeld. Also the

erosional drumlins described by Shaw and Sharpe (1987), were typically found in

171

association with crescentric furrows at the proximal end, a feature which is not apparent
on the Northport drumlins.

Hart's (1997) discussion of drumlin forming hypotheses includes a section on the
formation of drumlins through erosion. In this section, Hart discusses the stratigraphy of
a small drumlin on the Isle of Skye, which has a stratigraphy similar to that observed in
the Northport ﬁeld. The drumlin contains a lower till, that is potentially overlain by a
boulder pavement, and is capped by a (<1 m thick) sandy diamicton containing some
sandy lenses. Hart interprets this upper diamicton to be either a carapace deposit, formed
under erosional deformable bed conditions, as a preexisting till sheet was overridden, or a
layer of supraglacial material that was deposited following drumlin formation. Hart's
theory on erosional drumlin formation supports the deforming bed model of Boulton
(1996b) and suggests that till could be laid down and subsequently altered to form
drumlins in a single advance. This theory could be especially applicable to the Northport
ﬁeld, where questions could be raised regarding which advances deposited the till and
which shaped the drumlins. Under the circumstances proposed by Hart, the drumlins
could maintain their stratigraphy, and have been deposited and shaped by single advance,
which agrees with a lack of evidence for multiple tills and advances in the Northport
ﬁeld. To test the validity of these theories, till fabrics would have to be examined at
various positions on, and at various depths within, the drumlin.

Several arguments can be lodged against the hypotheses that suggest that the cap
is some type of till or other ice contact deposit. One argument that can be made against
the cap representing a lodgement till or melt—out till is its thickness. It seems unlikely that

an ice advance would deposit a either a basal till or a melt-out till as thinly (average

172

thickness ~ 1m) and with such spatial uniformity as is seen in the sandy cap. Topography
alone would seem to dictate differential deposition such as that demonstrated in Boyce
and Eyles (1991), where an ice advance resulted in the accumulation of thick till deposits
in inter-drumlin areas.

The thickness of the cap would not rule out the theory that this material is a
deformation till, given that the porous upper material observed by Boulton and Dent
(1974) was less 50 cm. However, Boulton's (1996a) model of sediment deformation is
inﬂuenced by till texture, and suggests that the permeability of sandy tills like those in the
Northport ﬁeld, would tend to yield greater internal ice ﬂow and sliding rather than
deformation of sediments.

A supraglacial origin for the cap seems unlikely for a number of reasons, aside
from the textural differences discussed above. One argument against the melt-out
hypothesis is suggested by Attig et al's. ( 1989) model of the late Wisconsin ice margin in
northern and eastern Wisconsin. This model suggests that the processes that formed
drumlins and thick supraglacial deposits occurred simultaneously, but in two distinct
regions of the same ice sheet. In the literature reviewed on the subject of ablation/melt-
out materials for this study, it was found that most of these materials are deposited at the
periphery of the ice sheet, typically through upward shear of debris-rich bands of material
and that deposits of this material commonly form supraglacial moraines (Boulton, 1967;
Boulton, 1970; Stewart and MacClintock, 1971) or hummocky topography (Johnson et
al., 1995), of which there is no evidence of in the Northport ﬁeld. Deposits found to be of
low relief and formed through extending ﬂow of the ice sheet were either signiﬁcantly

washed or contained lenses of stratiﬁed material indicating interaction with glacial

173

meltwaters (Drozdowski, 1977; Andersson, 1998), another feature which is absent in the
sandy cap. Another argument against the upper material representing a melt-out till is
that this genesis provides no explanation of stone-lines observed in some pedons.

A ﬁnal argument against the ice-contact depositional hypotheses is the occurrence
of a sandy cap covering inter-drumlin lacustrine and beach deposits at the base of the
HETT transect. The presence of this material at sites HETT-F and HETT-T2 argues
against the theory of the upper material being a supraglacial deposit since at these sites
the cap is separated from the basal till material by lacustrine, outwash, or beach deposits,
which, according to the law of superposition must be post—glacial in age. The
preservation of these lacustrine materials without obvious deformation also undermines
the hypothesis that the upper material represents the upper portion of deformation till laid
down by active ice. The evidence provided at this site, however, is not indisputable since
the upper material here could be a product of Slopewash from the nearby drumlin, or
delivered to this position by ﬂuvial processes.

These hypotheses related to the stratigraphy in the Northport drumlins raise
questions about which advance(s) created the drumlins and deposited the upper sandy
material, the Greatlakean or Port Huron, and also raise the possibility, however unlikely,
of an as yet undocumented glacial advance to account for the sandy cap. The clay
minerals present in the till samples from the Northport drumlin ﬁeld are very similar to
those of the Filer till, interpreted to be Greatlakean by Taylor (1979, 1981), and sampled
from a wave-truncated drumlin just to the west of the NPRT site (Peterson Park; see
Figure 9) by Monaghan (1989). Nevertheless, mixing of these two tills and the

incorporation of similar lacustrine clays (Monaghan, 1989) from the northern Lake

174

Michigan basin by both advances may make such a differentiation of these two till sheets
impossible. This difﬁculty of differentiating of these two materials based on clay
mineralogy is demonstrated in Monaghan's (1989) comparison of the clay mineral ratios
of the Orchard Beach till (Taylor, 1979), interpreted to be of Port Huron age, and the
sample of Greatlakean till taken from Peterson Park (Monaghan, 1989, p. 78-79).
Differentiation of the two tills is further complicated by a lack of detailed particle size
and Munsell color information for these deposits. The positive identiﬁcation of only one
obvious basal till, along with the strong dissimilarities both in color and in texture
between the basal till forming the drumlins and Greatlakean till recognized in the region,
shown in Table 19, indicates that the drumlins of the Northport drumlin ﬁeld may not
have been affected by Greatleakean advance. This hypothesis is further supported by
evidence indicating that the upper material and stone-lines may represent deforming bed

conditions, which could have occurred during the Port Huron advance.

Subaqueous hypothesis

A ﬁnal hypothesis for the sandy cap found on upland areas is that it represents a
subaqueous deposit. As mentioned in the previous section on pro-glacial lakes (pages 29-
34), all of the authors doing research in this region have indicated that the area has been
inﬂuenced by ponding or high lake stands. Under this scenario, the drumlins would have
to have been submerged, partially or wholly, and then impacted by a combination of wave
action and deposition. A subaqueous origin for this material seems to ﬁt well with ﬁeld
observations for several reasons. Sedimentologically, a subaqueous origin explains the

abrupt increases in gravel and weak stone-lines found in upland sites as being lag

175

Table 19.

Color

 

\ lat]
: Mar
3 Lars
4.‘t‘lel

Table 19. Clay minerals, and color and textural data reported for Greatlakean and

Port Huron tills in northwestern lower Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Greatlakean I Port Huron This study
Color Red (non-Munsell)“;3 Red, Brown (non- Brown (IOYR 4/3),
Munsell)“2
Pink (7.5YR 7/4)4 Brown (lOYR 4/3)4 Dark yellowish brown
(lOYR 4/4)
Texture Sandy (non-quantiﬁed)"2 Clay4 Sandy loam or
Clayey (non-quantiﬁed)3 loamy sand
Clay loam4
Clay minerology "Two Rivers" till2 Orchard Beach till? basal till

(Michigan)

(nit/10A ratio) range: 0.71 — 1.39 range: 0.82 - 1.32
mean and st. dev: mean and st. dev:
0.92 i 0.16 0.99 1: 0.15
Filer till2

range: 0.73-1.32
mean and st. dev:
0.98 1; 0.20

 

range: 0.58 —1.29
mean and st.dev:
0.98 i 0.31

 

 

' Taylor(l979, 1981)
2 Monaghan (1989)
3 Larson et al. (1994)

4 Melhom (1954); texture data represents the average of several particle size runs

176

F1.” .m. c 3017——

deposits, formed as wave action from a rising lake impacted the drumlins and removed
ﬁner materials. The sandy cap that buries the till and gravel concentrations, under this
hypothesis, is explained as potentially representing wave-worked materials, material that
was deposited due to sediment inﬂuxes when the water was higher, or a material
deposited clue to a change in the depositional environment (e. g. as the lake fell). Similar
sandy materials on glacial landforms are attributed to shoaling during marine regression
in Maine (Smith, 1982). The subaqueous depositional hypothesis would also explain the
ﬁne-textured lacustrine deposits observed in some inter-drumlin areas (Figure 22),
including those at the base of the HETT transect, where lacustrine silts are buried by
approximately 60 cm sandy material (Figure 17). Sandy beach-like deposits are also
found at the base of the HETT transect at sites HETT-F and HETT-Tl ). The subaqueous
depositional hypothesis is also supported by evidence for a large subaqueous fan
identiﬁed to the south of the Suttons Bay moraine (Larson, personal communication).
The coarseness of the sandy cap indicates that at no time were drumlin areas
submerged in excessively deep water, which would have resulted in the deposition of
ﬁnes on the drumlins themselves. However, the absence of features like spits, wave cut
notches, platforms, and terraces, and substantially ﬂattened drumlin summits like those
observed a in drumlin ﬁeld inundated by Glacial Lake Iroquois (Chute, 1979; Francek,
1990), indicates that the ﬁeld was not in the swash zone of a shallow lake either. These
two factors, plus possible erosional lags, seem to indicate that the drumlins were not
submerged deeply, and the lack of coastal—type features suggests that the lake they were

inﬂuenced by was of a short duration, or was ﬂooded and drained with rapid periodicity.

177

Figure 22. The distribution of lacustrine parent materials in the central part of the
Northport drumlin ﬁeld. Minimum, maximum, and mean elevations of
polygons designated with letters are listed in Table 20. Soils data:
SSURGO (NRCS, 1999). 30 meter resolution DEM provided by

Frank Krist.

178

 

 

fin-1.3;... -

Elevation (m)

 

Lacustrine parent
materials

 

 

rials

Fluvial parent mate

 

m
m
c
m
0
l

i

2K

 

 

Figure 22

 

 

 

179

 

Table 20. Elevations (in meters) of selected polygons containing soils formed in
lacustrine deposits.

 

 

 

 

 

Min. Max. Mean Soil mapping unit
elevation elevation elevation

A 274 279 275 Hettinger-Tonkey
B 269 273 271 Tonkey-Munuscong
C

North 259 263 261 Hettinger-Tonkey

South 257 261 264 Hettinger-Tonkey
D 253 274 259 Hettinger-Tonkey
E 255 265 259 Tonkey-Munuscong
F 254 266 260 Hettinger-Tonkey
G 246 258 250 Hettinger-Muck
H 234 244 241, Hettinger-Tonkey
I 269 269 269 Hettinger-Tonkey

 

 

Submergence of drumlins and the sediments accompanying such submergence
have been well documented in New England (Birch, 1984; Muhammad Som et al., 1987;
Caldwell et al., 1998), upstate New York (Chute, 1979; Francek, 1990; Woodrow et al.,
1990), and southern Ontario (Chapman and Putnam, 1966). Caldwell et al. (1998) found
sand and gravel drapes, ﬁning upward sequences, and wave planing associated with
Maine drumlins submerged by high sea levels. A gravel lag on a drumlin capped by
marine clay and channel sand deposits in Massachusetts (Muhammad Som et al., 1987)
could also indicate wave action followed by deep water submergence. In upstate New
York, Chute (1979) identiﬁed gravel lags on the crests of wave-truncated drumlins, as
well as wave cut platforms and terraces in a drumlin ﬁeld submerged by Glacial Lake
Iroquois. Working in the same ﬁeld, F rancek (1990) found that drumlin morphology was
profoundly inﬂuenced by drumlin location relative to water depth. Those drumlins within
the swash zone this lake exhibited wave-cut notches and planed and lowered summits

while those in deeper water experienced little modiﬁcation as compared to drumlins

180

unaffected by the lake. The drumlins of the Peterborough and Arran ﬁelds of southern
Ontario (Chapman and Putnam, 1966) also exhibit stony lags, with inter-drumlin areas
occupied by stratiﬁed lacustrine clays, a pattern similar to that shown in the Northport
ﬁeld.

Perhaps the best analog, however, is that reported by Schaetzl et al. (under
review). This study, conducted in northeastern lower Michigan, featured drumlins with a
near-surface stratigraphy almost identical to that observed in the Northport ﬁeld, with
both drumlins and inter-drumlin areas capped by low-gravel, sandy or ﬁner caps. These
drumlins also exhibited stone-zones which were assumed by the authors to represent lag
deposits associated with wave-working of glacial till. The inter-drumlin areas of the
ﬁelds investigated in Schaetzl et al. also featured lacustrine, stone-free clays, although
these clays were much more widespread and thicker than the silty lacustrine deposits
observed in the Northport ﬁeld.

Other than scattered shorelines at a height of 225 m described by Wallbom
(personal communication) in western Leelanau County, and the Algonquin shoreline
(Figure 4), no shorelines are present that would suggest that the Northport drumlin ﬁeld
was ever partially submerged. While Taylor (1990) identiﬁed possible Glenwood II
shorelines around 235 m to the southwest of this area in Benzie County, transposing of
these numbers to Leelanau County is risky because of unknown differences in the amount
of isostatic depression and rebound between the two areas.

Despite the apparent lack of evidence for partial or complete submergence of the
Northport drumlin ﬁeld, a thin ice model (700 m thick ice sheet) of isostatic depression

(Clark et al., 1994) allows for much of the ﬁeld to be submerged by the Glenwood lake

181

(I)

ha

rm

'IW

(J

phase. Clark et al. (1994) tested models of earth rheology by comparing predicted
shoreline elevations and tilts to observed elevations and tilts in the Great Lakes region,
and found that of the thin and thick ice models that were tested, the thin ice model came
closest to the observed data for the Glenwood shoreline. Figure 18 in Clark et al. shows
graph produced using this model, which demonstrates that under a thin ice sheet, the
Glenwood shoreline in the area around the Northport drumlin ﬁeld would have been at an
elevation of roughly 270 m. While this height is not sufﬁcient to submerge the entire
ﬁeld, Figure 23 shows that a signiﬁcant portion of the Northport ﬁeld would have been
submerged if lake levels had attained 275 m’. Figures 22 and 23, show the distribution
and elevation of ﬁne-textured lacustrine soil parent materials within the Northport ﬁeld,
and Table 20 indicates that only a handful (A and B) of these polygons have elevations
greater than 270 m. It should be stressed, however, that this model simply provides
evidence that the area may have been submerged, which is supported by sedimentological
evidence, and is not stand-alone proof that the area was inundated following the retreat of
the Port Huron ice front.

There are several problems with the use of Clark et al's. (1994) Glenwood
shoreline elevations as evidence for inundation of the Northport drumlin ﬁeld. The ﬁrst
problem is that several of the upland pedons containing well-deﬁned discontinuities are
found at elevations exceeding 270 m (Figure 23 and Table 4). Water levels to at least 300
m above sea level would be necessary to ﬁilly submerge all such sites. Secondly, it is
unknown how much or how rapidly the crust rebounded following the retreat of the Port

Huron ice, i. e. the lake may have been high enough, but the ﬁeld may have been

 

' 275 in rather than 270 m was used because of the elevation limitations imposed by the DEM

182

Figure 23. Areas in the Northport drumlin ﬁeld higher in elevation than 275
meters, which is slightly higher than elevations suggested by Clark et
al’s. ( 1994) model of isostatic depression for the region. Notice that
about half of the study sites are at least partially higher than this value.
Soils data: SSURGO (N RCS, 1999). 30 meter resolution DEM provided

by Frank Krist.

183

 

 

 

 

 

- Lacustrine parent materials

Elevation (m)

Q l :1 ms m
G Fluvial parent materials 275 _ 295
N 295 - 315
A 0=1E2 Km 315 ‘325
Figure 23. I

 

184

 

covered with ice. This problem is based on a paucity of data regarding when the ice
actually left the Leelanau Peninsula during the Two Creeks interstadial, how far to the
north the ice retreated from the peninsula, and on uncertainties related to the initiation of
the Two Creeks low phase by the exposure of the Fenelon Falls outlet. All that can be
said about the chronology of Glenwood lake phase and its potential to have submerged
the Leelanau Peninsula is that it occurred sometime following the formation of the inner
Port Huron moraine (approximately 13,000 yr BP) but before the Greatlakean readvance
(approximately 1 1,800 yr BP), and was interrupted by the Two Creeks low stage.
Information related to the rate of rebound during this time is unknown, but has important
implications for determining how long (or how deeply) the Northport ﬁeld may have been
submerged. The duration of submergence is important because it affects the thickness of
sediment accumulation, the nature of the depositional environment, and the
formation/absence of shorelines. A slower rebound caused by a slow retreat of the ice
through the northern Lake Michigan basin would have lead to more time for subaqueous
processes and perhaps would have resulted in well deﬁned shorelines.

These shortcomings, however, do not rule out the usefulness of the Clark et al.
(1994) model. One reason why the Clark et al. model could still be applied to this region
stems from the fact that the thin ice model slightly underestimated depression. If it is
assumed that a slightly thicker ice would better match reality, it would result in more
depression, and may allow a greater proportion of the Northport ﬁeld to become
inundated. It must also be realized that the Clark et al. model is based on assumptions
and cannot possibly be expected to capture and account for all real world variability, and,

perhaps most importantly, can only give a rough estimation of shoreline elevation(s).

185

A ﬁnal complication associated with Glenwood ﬂooding is that it precludes a
Greatlakean advance over the Northport ﬁeld. The sandy cap, under this scenario
determined to a subaqueous deposit, and the lacustrine clays in the ﬁeld would have had
to have been removed, or in the very least buried, by the Greatlakean advance, indicating
that some other process, or a later submergence (possibly by a Calumet phase lake),
deposited these materials. Observations on the till of the region, discussed in a previous
section, indicate that the Greatlakean advance may not have covered the Northport ﬁeld,
and lend support to the hypothesis of a Glenwood phase inundation of the area. However,
if the Greatlakean ice did override the Northport ﬁeld, the upper material would have to
be attributed to some later event or process.

Aside from, or in addition to, inundation of the Northport drumlin ﬁeld by 3
Glenwood phase lake, the ﬁeld could have also been ﬂooded by the Calumet phase of
Glacial Lake Chicago (Hansel and Schneider, 1990), by catastrophically released water
from Glacial Lake Agassiz (Teller, 1985), or by localized ponding of water near an ice
front. A similar set of problems to those besetting the Glenwood lake hypothesis are
associated with a Calumet lake scenario, however, and an inundation by a Calumet lake
phase is even more difﬁcult to establish since no model of isostatic rebound or ice
thickness was created by Clark et al. (1994) for this lake phase. It is also unknown
whether the Greatlakean advance which accompanied the Calumet lake phase impacted
the Northport ﬁeld, and what the implications would be for this lake phase in either
situation. The only hint at the amount of isostatic depression that occurred during this
time is the height the Algonquin shoreline around the county, which is about 23 m higher

than present lake levels. However, Taylor (1990) suggests that some strandlines between

186

210 and 215 m might be attributable to the Calumet phase in Benzie County, located
directly to the south of Leelanau County. But like Taylor’s (1990) elevations for
Glenwood II shorelines in Benzie County, these too, must also be viewed with caution
due to differing amounts of isostatic rebound in the two areas. The likelihood of a thinner
ice sheet associated with the Greatlakean advance, and the lower lake levels observed for
the Calumet phase due to lowering of the Chicago outlet, seem to indicate that the
Northport ﬁeld was not impacted by the Calumet lake phase.

Occasional catastrophic releases of water from Glacial Lake Agassiz in to the
Great Lakes system have been documented by Colman et al. (1994a) and Colman et al.
(1994b). These releases, between 10,900 and 9,900 yr BP, a time when Lakes Michigan,
Huron, and Superior would have been conﬂuent during the Algonquin phase (Larsen,
1987), would have occurred periodically as the ice margin ﬂuctuated, allowing Glacial
Lake Agassiz to drain into the Great Lakes. Farrand and Drexler (1985), suggest that
such outbursts would have been capable of raising lake levels in the Michigan basin as
much as 20 to 50 m. However, even the largest rise postulated fails to account for some
of the clays found within the drumlin ﬁeld proper (Figure 22, Table 20), though these
ﬂuxes may explain some of lower elevation clay units not investigated in this study.

The color of the clays associated with the Wilmette bed, a gray clay deposit
interpreted to represent an inﬂux of Agassiz sediment (Colman et al., 1994a), is also
inconsistent with observations in the Northport ﬁeld. The clays found at the HETT-T2
site are very similar in color to red clays found both above and below the Wilmette bed in
the Lake Michigan basin (Lineback et al., 1979). The deposit underlying the Wilmette

bed, the South Haven member, represents deposition as the Twocreekan ice began to

187

retreat, and may coincide with isostatic depression sufﬁcient to submerge portions of the
Northport ﬁeld. Although the clays of the South Haven member are very similar in color
to those found in the Northport ﬁeld, the clay mineral assemblages of the two clays are
considerably divergent, with the South Haven member containing considerably more
chlorite and expandable minerals (Lineback et al., 1979). These differences, however,
could be attributable to differing methods of analysis between the two studies, and
because of the disparity in number of samples analyzed (this study: n = 4, Lineback et al.:
11 = 47). The amounts of illite found in samples from both studies is similar.

Lastly, the possibility remains that the Northport ﬁeld was impacted by localized
ponding associated with a stationary or retreating ice front, which is proposed by Schaetzl
et al (under review) to account for similar deposits in drumlin ﬁelds in northeastern lower
Michigan. In order for this hypothesis to be accepted, the Northport ﬁeld would have to
be deglaciated while surrounding lowlands (on all sides except to the south) contained ice
at least 120 m thick, allowing for submergence of the highest documented sandy cap. Ice
thicknesses in excess of this height are likely, even with a thin ice sheet. Sugarloaf
Mountain, (elevation 323 m) an asymmetrical kame found to the south and west of the
ﬁeld (Figure 2), indicates that in its waning stage, the ice sheet that deposited the kame
was at least 80 m thick, and possibly as much as 120 m thick. It is probable that the kame
was probably higher since the ice is always at least as thick as the kames it produces, and
it has also probably decreased in height due to subaerial erosion and collapse. If the
Northport ﬁeld was exposed during this time, meltwater from the ice front could have

ponded in drainageways leading away from the ﬁeld on either side, resulting in localized

188

ponding. The morphology of the Northport ﬁeld (Figure 3), a higher area, surrounded on
either side by lowlands, lends itself well to this model of deposition.

One scenario in which ponding may have occurred arises from possible
differential withdrawal of the ice from the region. In this model, suggested by Larson
(personal communication) lobate ice retreats faster in the Traverse Bay area than in the
Lake Michigan basin. As the ice retreats, the peninsula is exposed, and a pro-glacial lake
forms in front of the Traverse Bay “lobe”. With its outlet to the Michigan basin blocked
by ice, and the area still experiencing considerable isostatic depression, the pro-glacial
lake occupying the Traverse Bay basin would continue to grow in area, potentially
inudating the Northport drumlin ﬁeld. This lake would then be drained either
catastrophically as the ice in the Michigan basin retreated, or as a lower outlet to the south
was exposed. This ponding scenario is supported by evidence from glacio-ﬂuvial
deposits in southwestern Leelanau County indicating stream ﬂow parallel to an ice front
(Wallbom, 1999), and therefore demonstrating that at least some of the peninsula was ice-
free while the Lake Michigan basin remained occupied by ice.

Because of the ﬂuctuating nature of ice fronts, and thus varying water levels in
any lake dammed by an ice front, this hypothesis may also help explain the lack of well-
developed shorelines and shoreline features within the ﬁeld. If such a scenario did occur,
the exposure of the peninsula alone would imply that climatic conditions for preserving
glacial ice were declining rapidly, and therefore an ice dam such as the one proposed
could not have existed for any extended period of time.

Ponding hypotheses would explain the patchy distribution of lacustrine deposits in

isolated depressions within the ﬁeld (Figure 22), and more widespread deposits on the

189

ﬂanks of the ﬁeld. Abrupt increases in gravel content, stone-lines, and the upper sandy
material would have similar origins to those outlined previously.

Despite evidence for adequate ice thicknesses and the various sedimentological
evidence presented herein, there are several arguments in opposition to the hypothesis of
pro-glacial ponding. One problem is that the kame used as a proxy for ice thickness is
deposited on a break in slope between a lowland plain (~200 m) and an upland plain
(~250 m). The 250 m surface is commonly the elevation at the base of drumlins in the
Northport ﬁeld, indicating ice was probably covering the two areas simultaneously. The
theory of ponding also seems unlikely since it would require the exposure of the Leelanau
Peninsula and the formation of an ice wall around it, another situation that seems less
than plausible. Deglaciation of the Northport ﬁeld before the surrounding lowlands
would also seem to imply that the ﬁeld itself would be covered by interlobate ice-contact
deposits as the retreating ice sheet exposed the peninsula, and there is no evidence of such
deposits within the ﬁeld. The occurrence of thick subaqueous debris ﬂow deposits on the
ﬂanks of the ﬁeld, however, would serve as evidence that this type of process might have
occurred, but these areas were not investigated in the course of this study. A ﬁnal
complication to this hypothesis is that there is no “dam” within Leelanau County high
enough to constrain the lake to the area immediately around the ﬁeld. Figure 24 shows
that there are very few areas in the county that are higher than 300 m and none are
continuous enough to act as a dam for glacial meltwater. Further work would be
necessary to identify such a landform in the counties to south, if it exists.

In spite of evidence indicating that the Northport drumlin ﬁeld may have been

wholly or partially submerged, most likely by a high lake stand in the Lake Michigan

190

A33 .momzv owgmm "Sac 23m
45 Adah-.— 3 335.:— ZHG news—em“: .33.: cm .5592“. E E can :55 kiwi— bnsoo age—eon— E mam-3. .vu 9.53%

 

 

    

doce>2o E E 8m :2: coon-kw moo-2.. I

.2382: “:23 05-582 553 mzom E

Willi ll

anoEozm cm 9 o

 

 

191

basin, there are several questions which are not addressed by this hypothesis. For
example, deposition of the upper material by settling seems unlikely given the coarse
nature of this material and its ubiquity on the landscape. Instead, it would be expected
that sedimentary sequences of ﬁning and coarsening in relation to the topography of
landscape would occur. However, any kind of pattern of particle size or deposit thickness
with spatial position within the ﬁeld, e. g., thinner, ﬁner deposits capping drumlins further
from a potential source area, is absent. The lack of sorting in the upper sandy material
could also be used as an argument against a subaqueous origin. If the upper material was
derived from simple wave action, it would seem that not only would the upper material
contain less clay than it does, but would also have a considerably higher level of sorting

than the underlying till.

192

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The goals of this study were twofold: l) to ascertain whether lithologic
discontinuities occur in upland soils of the Northport drumlin ﬁeld, Leelanau County,
Michigan, and 2) if such discontinuities are present, to characterize them, and establish
their relevance to the geomorphic history of the region. These goals were met through the
collection of samples from both soil pits and by bucket augering along six transects
established roughly perpendicular to the long axes of drumlins, and included sampling
from the different slope elements present along these transects, ranging from drumlin
summits to inter-drumlin areas.

Upland discontinuities were best expressed in exposed pit faces. The upland soils
with discontinuities typically consisted of a layer of sandy loam or loamy sand containing
low amounts of gravel overlying what I interpreted to be a different parent material — a
sandy loam glacial till with a considerably higher gravel content. Occasionally, the
discontinuity between these materials was marked by a weak stone-line or "stone-zone".
Discontinuities were usually found in association with the Bt horizon of the soil proﬁle.
Particle size, pH, and clay mineral analyses were performed on the collected samples to
characterize the materials above and below the recognized discontinuities, and to
determine their relationship to one another.

The particle size data from these analyses showed very little variation between the
upper and lower materials, and clay mineral assemblages and pH values appeared to
simply show trends associated with the weathering and leaching that occur through
normal soil forming processes. Two indices, the Uniformity Index of Creemens and

Mokma (1986) and a modiﬁed version of the Cumulative Particle Size Distribution Index

193

(Langhor et al., 1976), as well as a coarse fragments proxy (“/0 clay-free very coarse sand)
were employed to conﬁrm discontinuities initially identiﬁed in the ﬁeld, and to
potentially identify others that were missed. The indices, while often in agreement on the
absence of discontinuities with ﬁeld observations, for the most part failed to recognize
ﬁeld-identiﬁed discontinuities in upland soils, probably because of the strong particle size
similarities between the two materials, and because of the lack of a provision for coarse
fragment data in either index. However, these indices in combination with ﬁeld
observations and the gravel content proxy resulted in the identiﬁcation potential
discontinuities in every upland pedon sampled.

The recognition of upland discontinuities, paired with a variety of materials
ranging from lacustrine clays to ﬂuvial sediments found in foot and toeslope positions,
led to the formulation of several hypotheses to account for the origin of both the
discontinuities and the materials present within the Northport drumlin ﬁeld. Of several
erosional/depostional hypotheses developed, the two most plausible seemed to be: 1) the
upper material and stone-lines represent a deforming layer associated with a glacial
advance, and 2) that the upper material and abrupt increases in gravel represent
deposition and erosion in a subaqueous environment.

The deformation hypothesis is supported by evidence from other studies that
indicates that deforming beds commonly contain stone-lines (Hicock, 1991), and could
result in erosional surfaces between materials deposited during a single glacial cycle
(Boulton, 1996a). Deforming bed conditions have also been found to result in the

deposition of materials with textural contrasts similar to those observed in the ﬁeld

194

(Boulton and Dent, 1974), and are often cited as a means of formation for drumlins
(Boulton, 1996b, Hart, 1997).

The best subaqueous erosion/deposition model suggests that the Northport ﬁeld
was inundated by one of the phases of glacial Lake Chicago. This hypothesis is
supported by the presence of reddish silts observed in some inter-drumlin areas, and
suggests that the discontinuity found in upland pedons represents some type of erosional
lag that was subsequently buried. Similar near-surface stratigraphy was attributed to
subaqueous processes by Schaetzl et al. (under review), and gravelly lags on drumlins
were also recognized as a feature formed under subaqueous conditions by Chapman and
Putnam (1966), Chute (1979), and Muhammad Som et al. (1987). This hypothesis is
further supported by the model of isostatic depression of Clark et al. (1994) which shows
the Glenwood phase of glacial Lake Chicago as being approximately 90 In higher than
present lake level in the vicinity of the Northport ﬁeld. This height is sufﬁcient to have
covered virtually all lacustrine sediments present with in the ﬁeld, though not all upland
pedons exhibiting discontinuities. Lastly, this hypothesis is supported by the
identiﬁcation of subaqeous fan deposits southwest of the community of Suttons Bay

(Larson, personal communication).

Further research

This study, though successful in accomplishing its outlined goals, leaves many
unanswered questions. Before either of the hypotheses forwarded for the explanation of
the discontinuities and materials observed in the ﬁeld can be accepted, more work must

be done. Hypotheses forwarded involving glacial till or ice contact processes will be

195

especially difﬁcult to conﬁrm or refute due to the strong similarities between the tills
observed in the region (Table 19) and the absence of any well-deﬁned Greatlakean
moraines. An important ﬁrst step in showing that the deformation till hypothesis is
correct, however, would be the collection of numerous till fabric samples from both the
sandy cap and lower till. The underlying and largely unaltered till would also need to be
scrutinized much more closely to determine if deformation features such as shear planes,
faulting, and folding are present. A stronger characterization of the tills present in
northwestern lower Michigan through more thorough particle size, color, and clay
mineral analyses may also be helpﬁJl in distinguishing diamicts occurring in the region.

One interesting phenomenon that may also shed light on the spatial distribution of
till sheets and the glacial history in Leelanau County is the abrupt transition from sandy
loam and loamy sand soils (Emmet and Omena series) north of the Suttons Bay moraine
to loamy sands and sand soils (Leelanau and Emmet series) south of the moraine (Figure
14). A pilot study conducted in the West Leelanau ﬁeld (Appendix H) found that soils on
these drumlins are much sandier, and often didn't contain the increases in gravel or stone-
lines associated with lithologic discontinuities in the Northport ﬁeld. Often the gravelly
till recognized in the Northport ﬁeld was also absent at and, in one drumlin exposure,
clearly stratiﬁed sands were found overlying gravelly and cobbly glacial outwash, which
in turn, overlaid brown till. This seems to indicate that different materials were overriden
by the ice advance forming the drumlins of the two fields.

In order to strengthen the hypotheses of the submergence of the Northport drumlin
ﬁeld by one of the phases of glacial Lake Chicago or through ponding behind an ice dam,

several lines of evidence would need to be investigated further. Obviously the

196

identiﬁcation of shorelines, either in the ﬁeld itself or in the surrounding area at
elevations that support Clark et al's. (1994), model would be the best indication of such
an inundation. However, the realization of this evidence may never occur if the
submergence was short-lived, or if the shorelines were poorly preserved due the sandiness
of the tills present throughout the county. Another feature which, if discovered, would
lend credence to this hypothesis would be a delta graded to a lake level sufﬁcient to
inundate the ﬁeld. More extensive ﬁeld investigation of surﬁcial deposits and their
elevations, in Leelanau and surrounding counties, would also be necessary to determine if
a near-surface stratigraphy similar to that found in upland soils of the Northport ﬁeld is
present on other surfaces. Such an investigation may also reveal outlets and channels
supporting the ponding hypothesis. A more thorough investigation may also result in the
discovery of near-shore features such as spits, wave cut terraces, and offshore bars,
conﬁrming this theory. Lastly, data from the analysis of a much larger population of clay
mineral samples collected from the silty lacustrine sediments found scattered throughout
the Northport ﬁeld would be useful in the determination of which lake phase resulted in
their deposition.

A closer examination of stone orientation and the striations present on the clasts
present at the lithologic discontinuity should also be helpful in determining which of two
competing hypotheses (deformation till or subaqueous processes) is correct. For
example, if all the stones at the discontinuity are aligned in a particular direction,
irregardless of landscape position, and the striations on those clasts are parallel to that
orientation, it would seem likely that deformation or other ice-contact processes was the

most dominant process. However, if the orientation of the clasts at the discontinuity

197

varies with landscape position, such as all of the stones above a certain elevation having
one orientation while all the stones below that elevation having a distinctly different
orientation, then subaqueous processes would seem to be most likely. Some other
indicators of a subaqueous processes would be a lack of correlation between striae on the
individual clasts and their fabric, imbrication (such as the beach deposit at HETT-F), and
orientation of clasts perpendicular to the contours of the slope.

Finally, one of the more troublesome shortcomings of this study was the use of a
bucket auger as opposed to exposures in pit faces for the majority of the pedons sampled.
As mentioned in an earlier section, estimation of gravel content, and detecting features
such as gravel concentrations are particularly difﬁcult using a bucket auger, and were
often times the key feature in identifying the presence of a lithologic discontinuity in
upland soils. As a result, any future study would certainly beneﬁt through the use of
more pit exposures. Pit exposures would also be an obvious necessity for any detailed
examination of clast orientations.

A clearer understanding of the chronology of ice advances and glacial lakes in the
region is key to either of the hypotheses forwarded, and contributing to that body of
knowledge was one of the fundamental goals of this study. As shown in this study, the
geomorphic history of this region is quite complex, and there are many avenues of
potential research in this region. It is hoped that this study, and the questions it has

raised, will generate further research in this part of the state, and will assist in future

investigations.

 

LII-
I-
_ H
IL.
\

APPENDICES

199

APPENDIX A

AML USED TO CREATE SPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS

This AML creates a DEM of isostatic rebound and calculates various elevation values for
a series of selected polygons. Soil elevation polygons are individual soil polygons for
which minimum, maximum, and mean elevation values are calculated. All ﬁle names
ending in 1 (e.g. soil_minl) were generated using 1 1,000 ka ground elevations. All ﬁle
names ending in 2 (e.g. soil_minZ) were generated using modern ground elevations. Use
ArcView Spatial Analyst to view the grids produced (e.g. soil_minl, etc.).

This AML was developed by Frank Krist, Jr. in May 1999.

*/ indicates a brief verbal description of what tasks a particular part of the AML is doing

 

*/ Convert isostatic rebound lines and the county boundary to coverages

shapearc rebound rebound
clean rebound rebound # .1 line

shapearc county county
clean county county # .1

*/ Pull out all desired soils (by mapping unit)

reselect soils soil _poly
reselect soil-id in {'AlC', 'ArA', 'ArB', 'Hm', 'Ht', 'RaA', 'RaB', 'TmA', 'TmB'}

n
n

*/ Create a grid from the selected soils (use the soil _poly# so soil information can be
joined in later)

polygn'd soil _poly soil _grd soil _poly#

30
Y

200

*/ Join in soil information to the soil grid
additem soil _grd.vat soil _grd.vat soil _poly# 4 5 b

tables
select soil-grd.vat
calc soil _poly# = value

‘1

joinitem soil _grd.vat soil _poly.pat soil _grd.vat soil _poly# soil _poly#

*/ Create a DEM of isostatic rebound

topogrid reb_dem 30
boundary county

contour rebound elevation2
datatype contour

enforce OFF

tolerences S, l, 0

end

*/ Start grid
grid
*/ Subtract the modern elevation DEM from the rebound DEM

algon_dem = dem - reb_dem

*/ Calculate elevation values for each soil polygon

soil_minl = zonalmin (soil _grd, algon_dem, NODATA)
soil_min2 = zonalmin (soil _grd, dem, NODATA)
soil_maxl = zonalmax (soil _grd, algon_dem, NODATA)
soil_max2 = zonalmax (soil _grd, dem, NODATA)
soil_meanl = zonalmean (soil _grd, algon_dem, NODATA)
soil_meanZ = zonalmean (soil _grd, dem, NODATA)

201

*/ Overlay soil grid wth elevation values (to combine attributes, give labels to elevation
polygons).

soil_minlb = combine (soil_minl , soil _grd)
soil_min2b = combine (soil_min2, soil _grd)
soil_maxlb = combine (soil_maxl, soil _grd)
soil_max2b = combine (soil_max2, soil _grd)
soil_meanlb = combine (soil_meanl, soil _grd)
soil_mean2b = combine (soil_mean2, soil _grd)

*/ Exit Grid

*/ Fix attribute labels on soil elevation polygons.

tables

select soil_min 1 b.vat
alter soil_min]
min_elev

~
~

~

alter soil _grd
soil _poly#

~

~

select soil_min2b.vat
alter soil_min2
min_elev

~
~

alter soil _grd
soil _poly#

~

~

202

select soil_max 1 b.vat
alter soil_maxl
max_elev

alter soil _grd
soil _poly#

~

select soil_max2b.vat
alter soil_max2
max_elev

~
~

alter soil _grd
soil _poly#

~
~

A!

select soil_meanlb.vat
alter soil_meanl
mean_elev

~
~

~

alter soil _grd
soil _poly#

~

~

select soil_mean2b.vat
alter soil_mean2
mean_elev

~
~

alter soil _grd
soil _poly#

~
~

~

‘1

*/ Join soil type information to soil elevation polygons.

joinitem soil_minlb.vat soil _poly.pat soil_minlb.vat soil __poly# soil _poly#
joinitem soil_min2b.vat soil _poly.pat soil_min2b.vat soil _poly# soil _poly#
joinitem soil_maxlb.vat soil _poly.pat soil_maxlb.vat soil _poly# soil _poly#
joinitem soil_max2b.vat soil _poly.pat soil_max2b.vat soil _poly# soil _poly#
joinitem soil_meanlb.vat soil _poly.pat soil_meanlb.vat soil _poly# soil _poly#
joinitem soil_mean2b.vat soil _poly.pat soil_mean2b.vat soil _poly# soil _poly#

*/ Get rid of old ﬁles and rename new ones.

kill soil_minl all
rename soil_min 1 b soi l__minl

kill soil_min2 all
rename soil_min2b soil_min2

kill soil_maxl all
rename soil_max l b soi l_max1

kill soil_max2 all
rename soil_max2b soil_max2

kill soil_meanl all
rename soil_mean 1 b soil_mean 1

kill soil_mean2 all
rename soil_mean2b soil_mean2

*/ Quit the program

&mmm

204

APPENDIX B

COMPLETE PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS FOR PIT—SAMPLED SITES

The following appendix contains proﬁle descriptions for pedons that were exposed in
backhoe pits. Although volumetric gravel content information is available for sites HOU-
S, HOU-Tl, HOU-T2, HETT-SH, HETT-F, HETT-T2, NPRT-82, and NPRT-F, detailed
proﬁle descriptions were only recorded for pedons at sites HOU-S, HOU—Tl & T2,
HETT-T2, NPRT-82, and NPRT-F. Also, additional samples were collected using a
bucket auger from the base of the pit at sites HOU-S and HETT-T2. Particle size
information for all samples is available in Appendix C.

Legend: USDA Soil Texture: s = sand, cs = coarse sand, gs = gravelly sand, vgs = very
gravelly sand, ls = loamy sand, lvfs = loamy very ﬁne sand, gls = gravelly loamy
sand, vgls = very gravelly loamy sand, 31 = sandy loam, fsl = ﬁne sandy loam,
vfsl = very ﬁne sandy loam, gsl = gravelly sandy loam, cl = clay loam,
scl = sandy clay loam, sicl = silty clay loam, sil = silt loam

205

Table 21. Complete proﬁle description for HOU-S pedon.

Part A.

Date sampled:
Slope element:

Approximate UTM coordinates (m):
Elevation (m):

Parent material:

Mapped as series:

% Slope at pit:

Aspect:

Drainage class:

Water table:

Vegetation/land use:
Erosion, if yes describe:
Evidence of bioturbation:

7/29/97
summit

4988738N, 604800E

270-275

sandy material over glacial till
Emmet/Omena

2

east

well-drained

fallow ﬁeld
extensive, has been actively farmed for 60+ years

worm casts, tree throw

206

603.5% 8: an? acute; at; am 05 8:53 .2522: 85-5 5 m :u 883 E :5 “a «co—:0 ago:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

   

 

- E20; - Sonia me +9: -Nm UN
mEE
- - >20 QM gm .022» 2 ~93 “mm
5:36 .38
- - - saw N WE a<
II To 5
ENE 8
3:82 3:080:0th 38:0 5:0 Em 8800 9:8 .3an contom
a co
_m Rainier: Esvwchma 388 wcobm Em mi: +37%
300
_m “rs—$5608 Eswcaﬂzm E5608 23086 9v m>m ~93
w :83 .
E Each; 5 Esmﬁﬁzw 0:: x83 Em m>m 5 M2-—
To
23x2 «cm _ aim _ 0930 _
# 22n— quﬁﬁSU ﬂ anagram _ CEOEV 5.00 AEUV Egon :oNtoE

 
 

 

 

.3228 a 2.3.

.m «ham

207

Table 22. Complete proﬁle description for HOU-T1 pedon.

Part A.

Date sampled:

Slope element:
Approximate UTM coordinates (m):
Elevation (m):

Parent material:

Mapped as series:

% Slope at pit:

Aspect:

Drainage class:

Water table:
Vegetation/land use:
Erosion, if yes describe:
Evidence of bioturbation:

7/28/97

toeslope

4988700N, 605113E
250—255

organics over very gravelly till
Tonkey/Munuscong
0-1

east

very poorly-drained
90 cm

fringe of cedar swamp
no

110

208

$> USN >20 ho ﬂowibm mu: :Sto: mo 68? :5 awo—
Eﬁésna mu: 5 5m ~59 2: $53. ”EB—=38: box: “mos: éowﬁbm :53. mm: £33803 25:8 :0 M80:

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

- any: - “Elam m we -3 u
- 8a - 3am» 8 3-3 we
- - - o wmém m0
- - - o 9W2 NdO
- - - C 2 -o :0
01:45
3:52 oo:oomo>:otm_ 38:0 9:2: «a 8:80 AEoV ﬁnen— £553
2 use: b? - - 2:35 S E6. we .3 u
5.83
500:; 320 m 22:5 b9 ESwﬁﬁzm E2on 2525:: N? go: mw-mm wU
58:; :22 as: use: BEBE 3 mi: 2.8 5
500:: a 2% 23:5 33:8 05.: 330:9: :N gro— omﬁd N:O

 

 

58:5 :83 o: 3 05:5 :o> 5:5: “EC 380:9: in ~52 96 :0

 

 

2:38: 36:; @920 _
mangom _ 22m 8:25:00 232:6 73655.00 ASE—Lava :ontom

 

 

 

.—

 

 

.m «.3.—

.BEE8 «a as“...

209

Table 23. Complete profile description for HOU-T2 pedon.

Part A.

Date sampled:

Slope element:

Approximate UTM coordinates (m):
Elevation (m):

Parent material:

Mapped as series:

% Slope at pit:

Aspect:

Drainage class:

Water table:

Vegetation/land use:
Erosion, if yes describe:
Evidence of bioturbation:

7/29/97

toeslope

4988419N, 605114E
250-255

Slopewash over glacial till
Tonkey/Munuscong

O-l

east

somewhat poorly-drained

grasses
site of Slopewash deposition
worm casts

210

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'

 

- d:5... - 383:0 ms +5 -3 8m
- use: - 383...: Q: 8-8 am
832: 0:.
gm 00:33
.§_Be - - .220 w 8-? namu
.:o:::00
- - - :58: W 3-3. 2N
- - - as: m :3. <
I Yo 5
I 0&9 8
00302 00:03.0E0tm 83:0 8:0 20 8:30 A800 5:09 .838:
m 0 a: .0303 00:80 3 . -
_ 3 . 0 5:333. + 8:32: 030 3n “km N. +52 3 N0m
509:: 336% 3 03:5 .3003 8:62: 0303 Sn ~52 3-3 ~0m
. 83233 .
>32: :00 0 m 0 : N303 8:30.: 3 . - 3
_ _ 3 E 5:333. + 8c 0.00 Em gm 5 no we 3 mm
3m ~53
>33 :8 0 m 0 a :0 :8» E:— E 0:20 8
_ _ .0 3 E B be :0 3R ~52 mvdm 3<~
>203 H:20 3 0305 .3003 0:: 0303 NR ~52. 93. <
. 55:33.
v.0 5
a : oh 30:38:55 0:58: EOE ..anm
Egon 20E 8:206:00 2:625

 

 

30:52:00 MN 035.

211

Tabb
Part

Date 5
Slope
Appn
Elex‘a
Parcn
Map;
..Cr Sh
Aspc
Drair
Watt
Vega
Emsj
E\ 1dl

Table 24. Complete proﬁle description for HETT-T2 pedon.

Part A.

Date sampled:
Slope element:
Approximate UTM coordinates (m):
Elevation (rn):
Parent material:
Mapped as series:

% Slope at pit:
Aspect:

Drainage class:
Water table:
Vegetation/land use:

Erosion, if yes describe:
Evidence of bioturbation:

7/31/97

toe310pe

4990525N, 60602513

255-260

ﬁne sandy cap over lacustrine silts and clays over outwash
Hettinger/1' onkey

0

moderately well—drained

tag alders, grass/roadside ditch

worm C3818

212

otmvz=~N=NVMU .I‘ udh‘IIV I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

  
  

 

 

:::: 0. 3>8w 080— - - 0:03.838: m3 ~99 +02 0m
m3 ~59
”80:88:
E? ”88::
585: :35: . 03:: - - 322208: :5: 87:2 0:
E .38 3: 8%
008.0
5008: away: 3 03:5 - - 0:80:08 3m ~50: wNT:_ 0m
5008: _:::::w 3: 03:5 - - 0:80:08 3: gm 2 Tue 0mm
8:: N303
6008: 3::8w 3:: ::_:m::n:m 88:08 m:05 9: gm N9 -Nw .mm
85 N303 08:00 Qm gm Hm
09:3 35:8» 33 83:83:: + 8:508 w:08: 3: gm um mwd: .mbmm
8: 0:85 -
>>:3 _:::::w z: 8:398:33 08.“ 88:08 NR an on mm .mm
x 00 .
09:3 803 3 03:5 8.:0_m::_M:m 88:08 0303 MNWMMW owém mm
x 00 NB Mi: Hm
:0033 803 E to: ::_:v_w::_m:m 08.: 0303 Qm ~90— u< v~-§ <xm
at; 803 3 03:5 83:8 88:08 :08: NR «>9 w ~ .0 <
_ 0:808: :3E 00:23:00 0:80:85 \ ‘ C8080 :030 A800 8009 5:801
.m tam

60:80:00 Va 035.

213

 

.0000 >=0>00w 030 8 :008 03 000 003300 080— .8050 .9630
00:0 00:00:00 >_000_:088_ 0000 >=0>00w ”03>00w :00 0:000 "00:0 :00 0:000 30.50.00 :00 00008000 E030:
838.3 008.30: 000800.“ "0300008 8000: :35 3030008 .m 00 0000: :0: w00_0 >03 08. 8:030:00 0:000 00:
0.03 3.00008 8000: 8008 60:000. >00> .003300 03.: 302000000 080800 300008 8000: 00080000: ”0003
:03_0000: 000 000 :00 SEE 000303 0 5.3 :03800 0003 000003 On 00080000: 05 :00>03 :030000: 0:00:03 ”0000:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 803:, ”:000 - 030038? Q3 +02 On
0:000
- >00> "008.3 - o o:— -wm_ U:
0000 “:000
- - - o wﬂ -2 _ Um
- - - o S 3.8: 0mm
085

>03 03.008
- - 00 0200 0 N2 -Nw 0mm

0800 .0800

.008800
08E

>03 .5308

- - 00 00.00 0800 o mwd: .mme
.080: .30...
- - - o 09% .mm
- - - 3>Mw N omém 0m
- - - 3>00w N $33 <\m
- - - 38.0w N wTo <
25. _ .0
00802 0000000280.": 00080 00000503 000000 A800 5009 000:0:

 

 

 

 

60:03:00 m 2.5

43:65:00 VN 3:59

214

Table 25. Complete proﬁle description for NPRT-B2 pedon.

Part A.

Date sampled: 7/30/97

Slope element: summit of erosional remnant on backslope of drumlin
Approximate UTM coordinates (m): 4999250N, 607675E

Elevation (m): 200-205

Parent material: glacial till

Mapped as series: Emmet/Omena

% Slope at pit: 2-3

Aspect: east-northeast

Drainage class: well-drained

Water table: -

Vegetation/land use: northern hardwoods

Erosion, if yes describe: extensive gullying slightly upslope, likely cultivated at one time
Evidence of bioturbation: worm casts, tree throw

215

.NE-V§-~m-~°pv VtN Q‘aﬁhwrh

322w do x08 mo Boxoom 258a >80 :08 Ea 38028828 £88 am 5.30:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  

- a be, - g Q2 +3 8N
- maolam - Ema 2 3.8 Ca
.m $8 - - - Ea m 37% ream
mm $8 - - - saw m av: .88
- - - saw _ Ea: Em

- - - 3% 8 8-2 m

- - - saw _ m: <

To 5

_ _ a:
$on 8822 oocowototm 33:0 858 at 8300 88 Egon conic:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q83
3 £me sﬁwﬁn—zm 838 x83 Qm mi: +3: NON
FEB :3an E 2me 3003 338 x33 Ev gm.» S; -oﬁ UN
. Esmcgam
. @1605 Q0 gmﬁm
co 9 :6 o om a m o a: 88 08 82 08 - . a
x n _ E m C 5 .8 38383 b b Ev gwsum oﬁ mm m: m
385 338 + am 885
t w , -
~5on :89: E 032.: aﬁmﬁnsm 8:808 8:8808 v? m>ws am am E .95
>23» 1: 2w 5 o a: 30> 003 388+ 03 A r w
. T U: C 3.. % Sﬁmsﬁzm 8:808 in (m m>m S M: :m
a a 4% _ -
29$ 320 E oEmE o> 8.8333 82808 x33 N? ”ﬁrm 5 M2 2 m
93> 520 E BEBE in; SEE 85:58 x33 NR more 2; <
To 5
86.5 _ gm saw 820 _
Numccsom _ 20E 8:83:00 ﬂ 282:8 4 CﬂoEV 8200 88 8&va 88.53
.m E.—

.EEES mu 2.3.

216

Table 26. Complete proﬁle description for NPRT-F pedon.

Part A.

Date sampled:
Slope element:
Approximate UTM coordinates (m):
Elevation (m):

Parent material:
Mapped as series:

% Slope at pit:
Aspect:

Drainage class:
Water table:
Vegetation/land use:

Erosion, if yes describe:
Evidence of bioturbation:

7/30/97
footslope
4999263N, 607625E

195-200
sandy Algonquin lake sediments
Alcona/Richter

2

east

somewhat poorly-drained
122 cm

northern hardwoods forest
uppermost parent material is Slopewash from drumlin above
worm casts, tree throw

217

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  

 

“up—am 0.2.:— %§— M\V gm: 0.5 805 .E:_>==a banana 0:3qu 30— .«O ﬂown—Em was CORT—O: < “30:
- Ema - 35m? n +33: 8N
- - - 35% n M: 73 UN
- - - 35$ 2 3-3 3%
3 «>2
.§_Ba - - BE» N 3-8 4%
.8868 .33
- - - 3%: m 3% 2m
- - - 322:? N 93 <
3 5
. a a 8
3802 geomototm ﬁcoqmwﬁu 8300 coutom

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m 23: b2 - - aeeaogm 3:52 +5-”: 8a
as; :38.» m 2&5 :2 - - massage” 2.. 5.2 M: 73 UN
:33 .83 2 page :2, 528m 25 v.83 2:. 53 3-? Damn
:33 an: m 2&5 335E 25 :33 2m Ex: 8-8 a:

as; aaﬁ E 038:. 55% 2c x33 5 ES: 8% a<~
585m :53? E 29% 33.5w 25 x83 3 ES: 02 <
3 5
n 8 oh 30580835 2:28 988v J 2m 3% 0220
Dav—50m 20E 3:036:00 2:835 9895 .200 A88 53G canto:
.m :5

60:82.8 ea 035—.

218

APPENDIX C
PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR ALL SAMPLES

Legend: VCS = very coarse sand, CS = coarse sand, MS = medium sand, F S = ﬁne sand,
VFS = very ﬁne sand, C Si = coarse silt, F Si = ﬁne silt

USDA Soil Texture: s = sand, cs = coarse sand, gs = gravelly sand, vgs = very
gravelly sand, ls = loamy sand, lvfs = loamy very ﬁne sand, gls = gravelly loamy
sand, vgls = very gravelly loamy sand, $1 = sandy loam, fsl = ﬁne sandy loam,
vfsl = very ﬁne sandy loam, gsl = gravelly sandy loam, cl = clay loam, scl =
sandy clay loam, sicl = silty clay loam, sil = silt loam

219

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aw 9n 9m 9w— m.mn wd mdm 0.; e.m o.m 1.3-8 Nun
2w v... n: EL v.2. NE mdm Nam w.w mam 5-3 "Um
2 cs 0N 9.2 8.: 0: new 9mm m6 m4 3-x: 93mm
8 5w «N oi ﬁns od— vda 9% ad ed 81% n<m
a no N.~ m9 3:. Z: w.n~ 9mm wd ad mmé < «9.30:
mm,» 00 no oé Nma EN 02 New o2 Qm $2-3 U
2m> md v: 92 98 ad 0.2 0? NE o.m 2.? m0 2.50:
2 in 2 E: #2. Wm odm New «.2 Q». $2-8: U
2 oh :6 5.3 v.2. 2: NR mom ﬁe ad 87% Um
U ad o: OS DE. 0.: «EN w.wm 5w _.N 3w? 5
2 ﬁn w: ﬂu: o9. v.3 3N Eom as N: 3-? Nam
3 05 w: NS 5.2. w.w GS asm M: 3 S18 Em
a v6 ad odu 0Q. ﬁn— mdn wdm 9m wd mad m< «~50:
8m w.w 3. NS ado md— odm mom #0 w: .. UN moon
3 ms Om VS 0.? g od— ogm hm oé .. ON
a :9 mg mg owe _.o #8 mi.“ On We .. EN
3 06 ad 0.2 02. 8.: w.m~ “.mm ﬁe m; .. m
2 no M: W: OF 8.: YR vim I. 2 $2 m< mic:
3 ad ﬁn a9 a9. 0.: 8.8 ton ob Nd $3 UN moo:
Em m.» N.m Ow— o.:. m: Gwm 9% N6 3 37% UN
Em od— : v.3 W: 2: 03 :m tn to «2: EN
2 S. a: 9: 02. v.2 NeN v.3 m6 0: EA m< mica
"ﬂ%
05:3: >50 a» 6 n— 8 5 U 8 Qz<m w"; ﬂ. mm as m2 R. mo 8 mU> 8 So 5 D 83.8: 2 m
mom <QmD £909 8
$.35 E 5.. as. a: 0:28 .R 2.3.

 

 

220

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 0A. 0A Ad ANw 0.0 N.0N 0.5m 0.0 nA +00 Um
mA 0.0 VA A.w mAw Nd n.0N ham 0.0 mA 00-00 Am
G NA. A.N v.3 m0“, ENA w.mN 0AM N.0 0A 00-wA mm
2 NA N.N n.0A 0.3. 0.9 b.0N n.mm 0.x 0A 3.0 N
Am wd m.N m.mN v.05 Nd NAN N.Nm 0th w.0 0-0 < m5»:
Am 0.» 0.m A.wA mdh mAA wAN N.wN N.0 5N +m0 UN
Am v.0A NA ANA m.:. A.0A vAN mAm 0.0 0.N M000 UmN
Am v.3 TN m.mA 0.0\. 0.2 wNN w.wN A.0 VA 0m-w— Am
8 0.0 MN 0.: ”E. 0.0 FNN 0.0m v.w NA wToA mm
2 0.m 0N 0.0— 0am v.0 FMN Ahm 5w mA 070 m
E m6 0N 0.3 NS. 0.0 hNN ndm w.0 0.0 00 <
7. 5.0 NS u :8 A59 0;: 5H 0.NN m.0m v.0 0A 893 8.53 93:
E 0.2 0A v.3 0.Nh AAA 0.NN mAm 0.0 NA + 00A UN
Am wdA FA v.2 mAh AAA 0.mN 0.0m 5n mA 00705 Um
Am mAA 0A m.mA méh ad 0.NN NéM 0.0 AA 05-00 Am
8 EN w.N v.NA ANw b.0A w.mN Ohm v.0 vA 0n-wN m
Am 50 0N 00A OMB v.0 0.NN Wmm A6 0.0 0N-0 < 93!
2 VA AA AdA man mAA A.wA w.mm wdA 0.». +05 mU
m 0.0 0.0 mA. w.ww 0+ MAN 00¢ 0AA vA 05-0m n< MFA—OE
“
23x2 ><AU 00 Am m 00 Am U 00 DZ<m mg 00 mm 00 w: a» mu n5 wU> 8 ~80“ Emma 008.53 Sam
mow <me 1:900. 00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3559 a use.

 

 

221

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eu wAA 5.0 5.wN 0.00 5.0 de 0.0A 0.N 0.0 +00— Um
Am 0.2 A0 5.3 0.00 0.: 0AN QVN 0.v 0A 0070: in
m 0.N 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.3 N.Nm 0.50 5.0 V0 8750A HEMN
2 A0 0.0 N.w N.mm 00A n.0N Aém 0.0 0A 50705 mSmN
2 AA. mA 0.0 0.00 5.0A Adm 060 0.0 0.0 05-00 NmmN
E w.m 0.N 0.0N :5 0.3 n.0N 0.0N 0.N 0.0 00-00 Amm
E w.0 5.N ANN v.00 0.5A 5.0N A.0N 0.m 0 .0 00-0 < "H-315
Am v.0A N.m 5.0A 5.05 0.2 mAN 0.0N 5.0 A.m +00A U
E 0.: 0A 5.NA 0A5 0AA w.mN 0.00 5.0 0.0 0073 mSm
Aw 0.NA N.N NAA 5.05 0.0 0.0N 0.00 0.0 0.0 ww-N0 0m
2 0.0 0.N v.3 0.55 0AA 0.VN 0Am 5.0 0A N0-0N mm—
E 0.0 0.N 05— 0A5 AAA A.0N 0.0N 0.0 VA 0N0 < M4513
Am 0.0— v.0 5.0A 0.00 VAA VNN 0.0N A.0 0.N +00— mU
Am v.0 0.N A.0A 0.m5 5.mA A.VN 5.5N 0.0 A.N 00700A NU
Am v.5 v.N 5.3 0.05 NA— wAN 0A0 A.w v.N 00700 U
Am 0.2 A.N A4; 0.05 0.NA 0.mN m.wN A0 0.0 00.0wq mum
Au 5.0A 0.N 0.: 5.00 N.0A 5.mN 0.0N 5.0 0.0 0v.0N E
m_ A.0 0.N 0.NA 0.05 NAA n.0N Adm 0.5 0A 0N-0A mm
2 0.0 YN 0.0A 0.05 0AA N.0N 5.Nm A0 #0 070 < 93AM!
m V0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0— 0A0 0.Nv v.0 5A +00A NU
m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.N0 0.5 0.00 wdm N.v 5.0 00705 AU
m 0.N 0.0 0.N 040 0.0 N00 70¢ 0.x w.0 05.00 NBm
2 0.0 0.0 AAA Aéw 0.5 vNN 0.; NAA AA 00-0A ABm
<H<Q CZ 070 < H.30—
H
0508“ ><AU 00 Am m 00 Am U 00 Qz<m wm> 00 mm R mg 00 mU m0 mU> $ Eu 5 Q canto: 3 m
mom <me #500. 8
.8328 R 2.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

222

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w 0.0 AA N.0 0.00 A0 V.0N V.NV 0.0 0.N +50 UV

2 5.0 0.0 V.0 0.00 5.0 0.VN A.0V 0.0 0A 50-00 50

m 0.0 0 .0 0.0 N00 0 .0 V.0N 0.NV V.0 0.0 00-00 0me

m 0.N V.0 0.V A.N0 0.0 0.VN 0.0V 0.0— A A 00.00 NmmN

2 0.0 0.N 0.2 0.05 0.0 0.NN A.V0 0AA 5A 000A Ann

2 V.0 0A 0.: A.N0 0.5 5.0N 0.0V V.5 AA 070 < m-m-Am
2 0.5 0.N 5.: 0.05 0.0 0.0N N.00 5.5 0.N +V0 UN

Am 0.NA 0A :2 0.N5 A0 0AN 0.V0 N.5 VA V0-V5 UmN

Am. A.0A NA V.0— 0.05 0.5 0.NN 0.50 0.0 0A V5-00 um

E 0.0 5.N 0.3 0.05 0.0— A.VN 0.V0 V.0 0.0 00.2 mm

0A N.0 N.N 0.2 0.05 0.0 0AN A00 0.0 AA 070 < m-mAm
E 0.0 N.N 0.: 0.05 0.0 V.0N A.V0 0.5 0.N +00 UN

3 5.0 0A 0.0 A00 0.0 0.VN 0.00 0.0 0A 00-00 Um

Am N.VA AA 0.0 0.05 0.0 AAN 0.00 A0 0A 00-0V am

2 V.0 N.N 5.0 0.N0 A.0 0.0N 0AV 0.0 AA 0V-0N mm

2 N0 0.N AVA N.05 N.0 5.NN A00 A0 AA 0N-0 < m-mAAm
wA V.V 0A 5.0— 0.00 0.: 0.0N A00 0.0 0A +00A U0
A8 A.0N 0.0 0.5A 0A0 50A A.0A 0.0— 0.0 N.0 007V: UN

2 0.V AA V.0 0.00 0.0A A00 V.00 0.0 0.0 VA 700 Um

Am 5.0 5.N N.5N V.V0 0.5 A.0A 0.0N 0.5 0A 00.3. NBm
Aw.“ 0.5 0.0 0.V0 0.V0 V.0 V.0A N.VN 0.V 5.0 AV-0N ABQ
Amw V.0A A .0 N.0N 0.50 ANA 0.0— 0.NN 0.0 0.0 0N-0 < P-Am

ﬂ
0.5080 ><AU 8 Am m 8 Am U 8 QZ<0 0% 8 mm 8 02 8 wU 8 0U> 8 Bu 5 Q GONE: 0A 0
now <QmD 1398 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avon—5:8 5N 035,—.

 

 

223

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m 0A Ad V.V N.V0 N.N 0.0A V.00 0.5A N.0 +0NA NUN
m 0A 00 5A 0.00 5.N 0.0N N.0V 0.VA 0A 0N700A AUN
m 0.V 5.0 0.0 0.00 5.V 0.VN 0.0V A.0 NA 00700 meN
m N.N 0.0 V.0 0.00 0.VA 0A0 0.00 0.0 NA 00-V0 0%—
m 5.N 0.0 V.V 0.N0 V.0 0A0 0.0V 0.0 V.0 V0-N0 Nam—
mA 0.N 0A AAA 5.V0 0.5 0.0N 0.0V N0 N0 N0-0N EM
2 0.0 0A 0.2 0.05 0.0 0.0N N.00 0.0 V.0 0N-0 < ENE:
m A0 N.0 0.N A50 5.0 0.2 0.00 5.0A 0.0 +007VNA NUO
mm 5.0 0.0 0.V 5.V0 V.N 0.3 0.00 V.0A 0.0 VN7AOA AUO
$0 0.0 5.V N.V 5.00 V.0A 0.0N V.50 0.0A 0.N A0705 5N
E 0.0 0.N 0.0A 0.05 0.0A 0.0N 5.00 0.V 5.0 05-0V Num—
Am 0.5 0A N.0A 5.V5 0.NA 0.0N 5.00 0.V 0A 0V-VN Amm—
Am 0.5 N.N 0.0A 5.V5 0AA V.0N 5.00 N.0 0.0 VN-0 < WEE
A0 0.5 V.N A.0A 0A5 0.NA N.NN N.5N N.0 V.0 +00 UN
E 0.0 0.N 5.0A 5.05 0.0A 0.0N 5.0N A.0 0A 00-0V EN
E 0.0 0A VAN 0.00 5.0A 0.NN 0.0N 5.V 0.0 0V-0A mm
E 0.0 A.N V.5A 0A5 0.0A 0.0N V.0N V.V 0.0 070 < m-E-A
$0 0.0 5.0 V.0A 0.05 0.0 0.0N 0.0N N0 0.0 +0N7NAA UN
20 0.0 0A 0.2 5.05 5.0 N.NN V.00 0.0 0.V NA 700 UmN
Amm V.0A 0A 0.0 0.N5 5.5 0.0N 0.V0 0.5 0A 00-N0 EN
2 0.V 0A 5.3 0.05 V.0A A.0N N.N0 0.0 CA N0-0V Num—
2 0.V 0.N N.0A 0.05 NAA 0.0N 0.N0 A0 0.0 0V-0A Amm
mA 0.0 N.N 0.0A N.55 V.0 0.0N 5.00 A0. 0A 07N < mam-E
05x3 ><AU 8 Am "A 8 A0 U 8 gm 0% 8 0n— 8 02 8 0U 8 0U> 8 ”Eu“ 5&0— :onﬁo: oAﬂmm
now (503 12.-HOP 8
35:8 5 23.

 

 

224

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m 0.0 0.0 A.0 N.00 5.0 0.00 N.00 0.0 0.0 +05N-0VN U0
$3 0A 0.0 0.2 0.55 0.N5 0.0 VA 0A 0.0 0VN-00N U5
m 0.0 V.0 V.N A50 5.V 5AN 0.0V 5.3 A0 NNN-0AN U0
mo) 5.0 0.0 0.N 0.00 5.N 5.VA 0.N0 5.0— 5.5 0AN-00N AVV
8 0.0 5.0 A0 0.00 0.V 0.0A 0.0V N.0N 0.0 00N-00A A00
m N.0 0.0 AA 0.50 0.0 N.0N A00 0.0 0.0 00705A ANV
mm 0.0 0.0 N.N 5.00 0.V 5AN A.0V 0.2 0.0 05703 30 U0
A08 0.V0 0.0A V.5V AN 0A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0070NA UV
30 0.0 AA V.0A 0.05 0.N0 0A0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0N75AA U0
30> 5.0A N.N N.VN 0.50 0.N0 0.0A 0.V 0.0 A0 5A 7NOA Um0
Au 5.0N 0.0 0.00 V.V0 0AN A.0A V.N 0.0 0.0 N07N0 EN
88 0.00 0.2 0.50 0.0— V.0A V.N 0.0 0.0 N.0 N000 .mme
=0 0.0— 0.NA 0AV 5.0N 0.0 5.0 0.NA A.0 V.0 00-N0 .mAN
mA N.5 0.N 0.NA 0.55 0.0 V.0N 0.00 0.0 0A 00-VN mm
2 0.N 0.N 0.0A 0.05 0.0 0.NN 0.0V V.0 0A VN-0A <5
Am A.0A 0.N 0 .0N 0 .00 0 .0 N.0N 5.N0 N.0 0.0 070 < $-53

 

:00 <me

0.5003 ><AU8 A008 AOU8 DZ<0

A<HOF 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avon—5:8 5N 035.0

 

 

225

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amm V.NA 0.0 5.2 0.05 0.0 0AN A.N0 0.0 0A +5VA NUN

6 A0 V.N 0.NA 0.05 0.0 5.0N 0.00 V.0 0A 5V70NA AUN

Am 99 0.N V.0A 0.55 5.0 0.0N 0.00 0.0 0.0 0N700 .mbm

i N.0A N.N V.0A N.00 0.5 5.0N 0.N0 0.0 0.0 - Emma .mbm

Am N.0 0A 5.9 0.05 0.0 A.0N 5.00 N.5 0.0 00.0 .mxwm

E 5.0 0.N N.0A A05 0.0 0.NN 0.00 5.0 0A A0-0A £5

2 N.N V.N 5.0— 5.05 5.5 0.0N 0.00 0.0 AA 070A m

2 0.N 0.N A.0A 0.05 0.0 0.NN 0.50 N.0 0.0 07— < Nm-Hmmz

E 92 5A 0.0 0.05 0.5 N.NN 0.50 5.0 0.N +0: U

E 0.0 0A 0.0 0.05 5.0 A.0N V.00 0.0 NA 2 700A me

A0 0.2 AA 0.0 5.05 V.0 0.0N 0.00 A0 0A 00700 E

2 A0 0A V.0A 0.00 5.0 5.VN 0.50 0.5 0.0 00-50 “Em

mA 5.0 VA N.NA 5.00 0.: 0.0N V.00 5.0 0A 50-5V m

2 0.0 AA N.0 5.N0 V.0 0.VN 0AV 0.5 0.0 5V-AN mm

2 V.0 VA 0.0— 0.N0 0AA A.0N V.00 0.0 0.0 AN-0 < m-Hmmz

Am 00— 0.N 0.NA A.V5 N.0 0.NN N.00 N.5 0.0 +03 U

E 0.0 0A 5.0 0A0 A.0 5.VN 0.00 A0 NA 007A5 .m

2 0.0 0.N N.0 0.00 V.0 0.0N 0.00 0.0 0A A5-00 as

0A 0.5 0A 0.0 0.N0 0.0 N.5N 5.00 0.5 0.0 00-0N mm

2 N0 0A 0.0 0.V0 N.0 0.0N 0.0V N.0 0A 0N-0 < @3552

0.:sz ><AU 8 Am "A 8 Am U 8 gm 0% 8 mm 8 02 8 0U 8 mU> 8 ~80“ 5WD canto: 2am

:00 «RED €0.00- 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8=€=8 R as“...

 

 

 

226

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m V.0 V.0 5.N 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0V 0.5 0A +5N70: NUN
.0. AA A0 0A 0.00 NV 0.0N 0.V0 0.NA 0.0 0— 7V0 AUN
mm A0 A0 0.N 0.00 V.0 5.5A 0.N0 0.5A 0.N V0-05 meN
w 0.0 0.0 A0 0.00 0.0 0.0N 0.0V 0.5 V.0 05-00 nmN
6 A0 V.N 0.0— 0.05 0.V 0.VA 0.VV 0.3 0.0 00-00 0<N
2 0.0 0A 0.2 0.05 0.5 0.0N 0.00 0.3 AA 00-N <
2 0.0 0A 0.NA 0.N0 N.V 5.5A 0.0V A A A 0 .0 393 8.53 "7532
ﬁjﬁﬂ
0.508. ><AU 8 A0 .0 8 0 U 8 QZ<0 0% 8 0m 8 02 8 0U 8 0U> 8 A80“ Emma dour—om 2 0
:00 <DOD A0909. 8 _
6250.39 50 «SE

 

227

APPENDIX D

CLAY-FREE PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR ALL SAMPLES

Legend: VCS = very coarse sand, CS = coarse sand, MS = medium sand,
F S = ﬁne sand, VFS = very ﬁne sand, C Si = coarse silt, F Si = ﬁne silt

228

 

 

 

-1|-I\ . L Ii 1. vii i: - L . a
-, N i i- 5 i. Way—452.8 =~w ha: 330» as? 29.-what 99:3»5U 0.N 3-~E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 52 9R 2: EN ”.8 2.. 3 +5-3 8m
2 q: «.8 52 SN 5: do 3 8-8 6m
2 0.2 as «.2 SN N8 3 5 8-3 33%
V.N S: 3: 9: SN 52 to 3 8-8 8a
3 5: Q8 0: #3 3m 2 3 %+ < 9.30:
no 3. n3 2 0.2 I.“ 3: ME +878 0
E S: v.8 mm 0.2 as. 9: S 3-2 mo Canon
2 0.2 NS 3 2m Em 2: N... +5.8“ 0
S ...2 9mm 2: 3m 3m 3 3 878 on
2 Q: a...” 2: «.2 3m 3 2 £8 a
3 0.: a3 a: v.2 2: E S 8.: Nam
S 02 5% no ”.8 2:. 3w 2 Sum :m
2 «.5 n? as 3a 3m 3 3 m3 3. "30:
w... 3: 0.2 n: SN 0.8 S 0.N .. on 88
2 we 52 2 SN 38 ta 3. .. UN
3 92 q; 2: v.2 3m 3 no . an
2 3: 8.2 w: an in 3 Z . m
3 n2 5% n: own 58 3 1 <2 m< 930:
...m 3: 3: 2: 0% n8 3 2 +0: 0 88
on we 58 NS 3m 98 S 3 33m ow
2 v.2 w: 0.2 «.8 SM 3 no «2: EN
2” wﬁ ...3 02 «.8 Sn 3 I ”I m< Woo:
80-30 80 80.30 80 A8830 80 A8850 .80 A8850 .5 80.30 $0 , 80.30 § 320.50 8 Mao“ 5M9 :88 2am
a m a o 92% 452. 85 mm m2 8 mu>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8388 :5 .50 55. on? 390.5.— 3.0-.35 .00 93:0.

 

 

229

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 ma 3» 52 v.8 5:. 2 5_ +8 on
3 3 0.3 2: 3” OS 3 3 8-8 a
2 02 NS 52 5m 3m 50 5_ 8-8 mm
on ”.3 38 _.: mg mg od 3 ”E m
0.N SN 5? ed 3N 3m 2 3 9o < "+3:
on 2: 3: ...E 08 08 we 3 +8 8
2 0.2 9% n: ”.8 3m 3 N.N $8 0%
ma “.2 5; 5d 98 0.8 E 50 8.8 a
V.N 3; 5S 2: SN 5% ed 2 2-2 mm
3 2: 9; 0.2 #8 58 3 E o; m
3 0.2 m: 2: 9% In 2 3 2 <
0.8 u .8 89 v.3 3 3m 3m 3 E 8.8 853 35:
..N 0.2 m: «.2 0.2 in E I + 02 om
0.N 0.: new 2: QB 3m 3. 2 872 on
S 92 max _.: on 3m 3 S 2-8 a
3 we 0% q: 3” 3m 3 Z 8-3 m
0.N 58 Eu 3 5mm Em E 3 25 < ...--3:
Z «.2 2.8 v: 2: 5% m2 3. +2 wo
ad 3. n3 an own 0% 0.2 2 2-8 n< 8-30:
88.50 a: 80.30 00 A8830 .80 A8830 80 A8830 .00 A8830 80 A8830 8 80.50 *0 N80“ 589 885: saw
a m a o 92% .289 m"; mm m2 m0 mu>
82.588 am «ES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on w: 35 n: ”.2” Zn E E +2: 0

Z a: 2m ”.2 EN 3m 3 3 82.3 mum

0.N ”.2 3w 2: EN 3m 3 3 3-2 ,m

3 2.2 a; 2.2 QR 9mm Na 3 ~28 mm

2 0.2 2: 2.2 m2 Rm 3 3 03 < 9qu

3 0.: WP 5.2 0.2 Sn 3 3 $2 8

NM v.2 v.8 O2 03 mom 3 3 O22: 8

0.N o2 n; 2.2 32 «em 3 0.N 82-8 0

V.N m2 «.5 2..: NR an an 3 8-2. mum

V.N Q: 5 3— EN 02 no 8 mg” .m

2 N2 3% a: ham QR N.» 3 2.2 mm

3 .2: 98 02 SN 3m 3 to 25 < 2qu

no on a? 2: Zn 2.2. «a 2 +82 8

no we ”.8 3: 33 In m... 3 82-2 6

od 2 v.8 ea 9: tom 3 we Pow «am

3 9: n; N.” 22 N2. 0.: 2 8-2 Em

«55 oz 25 < #32

822-50 2% A9530 m; 2822-30 93 322.30 93 382-30 § Aggso as A3220 98 302-30 as ”Bowman :85: 2am

a m a u 92% 1.59 E mm 22 mo mo>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

635:8 an 2.3.

 

 

231

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Z 3 0.8 2‘. how we. 3 ca +8 9
9o 3 2o 2: new ad. 3‘. 3 8-8 am
he an 58 3 non 5.? ma 3 8-8 E:
to ow 3.9 S. v.2 mow 2: 3 32 ~me
G N2 in od ”.8 3m 5.: S 8.2 an
3 0.: new S «.5 one as S 26 < $15
N.N 5.2 2.2 Na ”.2 can 8 3 +22 8
E m: v.3 no ...a gm 3 3 3-: 0mm
3 0.2 0.3 3 0.8 we. 3 2 2.5% .m
3 >2 Em 2.: an Em 3 3 %2 mm
2 m2 «8 no ..2 3m 2. 2 2-0 < 92:.
V.N C2 3,” 3 QR Em v.» 2 +8 8
5 Na «3 ma EN Ev a.» 5 8-8 on
2 we v.3 2 3a 34 no 3 8-3 a
3 2: new 3 N2 we. 3 S San mm
3 a: tax 3 3.” N3 3 S 86 < 25m
.3. 2m 08 9: “.3 2.8 a.” 2 $2 on
3 3m 02 2.2 #5 Q3 3 2 O26: an
2 S v.8 N2 6mm 3; .2 no 82.2 “Em”
no a.» 0.8 mi 3m Sn ﬂ 3 82-2 mum”
m2 3 08 v.2 in can 2 we 2-2 Nmmm
0.N EN 92 98 #8 SN 3 no 2-8 3m
3 EN 12 ﬂ: v.2 SN 3 ed and < "2-25m
rlll
282-220 93 A8230 5 2822-50 03 282-30 22 282-30 98 282-50 my 282-22% é 93-50 $2 Nae“ amula gonna: “zﬂm
a m a 0 92m 458 m"; mm 22 mo mo>
ﬂea—«E8 ma ~35.

 

 

232

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No 3 NS 3 2: 9% 1.2 we +232 Um

no 3 v.2. V.N 1.: new n2 3 2.2.2: 8n

3. I. 0.8 q: EN 22 2: 2 872 EN

3 S: «.8 2.: «.2 3m 3. we 2-2. Nam

S n: ”.8 0.2 SN «.2 3. Z 8-x :m

V.N ”.2 ”.8 92 92 N2 on 3 ”.3 < "2.5:

0.N SN 31 “.2 SN 22 we 3 +8 8

3 ”.2 Ex 52 SN 92 2 3 8-2. “mm

3 98 3.1 ,2 0.2 MEN 3 9o 3-2 mm

mm 2.2 SK 0: ”in as 3 no 26 < 2.5:

3 2: at we QN Sm 9m 3 32.22 cm

3 1.: 3w 2: 0.2 02 3 3 2 2-8 0m”

3 1.: n8 3 0.2 2+ 3 E 8.2 2mm

3 n2 9% 3: OR 28 S 3 ~22. Nam

2 m2 ...8 1.: in men to 3 2.2 am

3 +2 n; 3. N2.“ 0.: 3 2 22 < 5-2.52

2 a: n5 02 22 w: 3 2 +2 um

ms 3N 26 w: New EN 3 No 24: UN

2 3 o? n: 9:“ a? ma no 2 7% on

3 ”.2 3o 3 «.2 3m 2. 2 $2.. «am

3. Sn Sn 3 9: SN 2 no :18 Em

nm 08 N8 9: SN ...2 2. no 85 < .Sm
322-1% 83 282-1% é 282-1% 93 22.1% as 282-1% 83 282-1% as 322-1% 83 221% a; 1983mm 825: 2mm

6. m a o 22% 458 m"; m2 m2 mo 25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.2528 a 2.3

 

 

233

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 em 02. S 0.2 Now a no 32.22 8
no 22 :2 :2 2 E 3 no 2.32 on
to ...N Ea 2. SN 3.. S; S 23: 8
0.0 0.N 0.8 2 m2 v.2 o2 3 238 E
be am So 3. 2.2 32. EN 3 832 6
mo 2 0.2 3. 22 N2 8 no 025: €
no N.N 0.3 3. a: 22. Q: an £32 8 on
2.2 w: an N.N 3 od od ed 832 9.
2 SN wt 92 .22 no no 3 21: um
3 0.2 +2. 22 ”2 E 3 S 2 2-82 umm
3 2.2. 92. gm 2..: 2 ...o od 87% 2:
O2 0.2 m2 m2 3 to S no 2-8 .222
S; we. 92 2.. 3 S; 2 no 8-2 .2
...N 22 0.2 E cam 2+ n2 3 2-: mm
3 .22 2.3 3 ”.2 2:. 3 2 2-2 <2
2 EN 32 S n2 «.8 no 3 26 < SEE:
S 3. v.2. N.N Q2 2.: _.2 3 $2 22
o.o 3 «.2. Z :2 :2 n: 3 2782 UN
3 3 2o 3. n2 new 3m 2 82-2. 3mm
no 3 $5 w: in in an 2 21.0 2m
o.o 2. 2o 3 can we. 3 2 3-2 2m
3 2..: Sm E 22 3... on 3 ~28 am
3 «.2 a; 3 QR mam o2 to cg < $-22:
Eli
322-1% 23 282-1% .2 321% 23 282-1% .2 822-1% .2 282-1% .2 282-1% 23 321% 2 ~62 52.5 .5252 22am“.
6 m a o 22% #98 22> mm 22 mo mo>
62:5an an 035,—.

 

 

234

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M; 3.2 3.8 2: BR 3.8 E 3 +3; 8R
3 as g 2: SN 0R 3 3 $12 OR
w.” 3.: $3 3.2 SR 3m 3 3 R33 .mum
. . . . . 2a
2 on Em 3 SR 3% m; 3 amsm
S 3.: new 3 2R 9% as 3 $3 ham
2 3.: 2.8 3: 3R 9% 3 Z 3-8 Em
2 Q: m8 3 3R v.8 2: Z 2-2 m
mm 2: 2w 2 YR can 3 .3 m: < $522
3 3.2 QR 3 3R 2.. 3 3 3: u
E 2: wR 3 on” a? ma 2 232 03m
2 0: WR 3 3R a; E S 87% a
S a: 2.3 2: GR 2m 3 M3 213 ES
3 as 3.8 NS RR QR S 2 8-: .m
S 3 0% NS 3.8 mi o3 no RR mm
2 2: QR mﬁ 3R 2; S 3 Rd < 8-5%
2 9: RS 3 OR RR 3 2 +2: 0
3 no 33 3 38 iv 3 I 87: .m
N.N 2: :3 2: QR we. 3 2 5% @m
S 3 ma 3 3R ed. 3 3 8R 8
E 3 0% 3 mR 5.9. 3 2 R6 < Whiz
A8233 3% 321% 33 321% 33 A821% 38 321% m; 321% 33 332-1% 33 A821% m; S8“ 6me 28.8: 2am
a m a 0 9:3 12.59 93 mm m2 8 RS
.8528 an 2.39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

235

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to 2 3.8 3 2m :3 3 2 +R_-w: 8R
3 3 3.8 3. SR 3% NS no 833 6R
3 on 3.8 on 2: 9% 2: S 3-3 233
We 3 R? 3 ...R In S to 3-8 ham
2 3.2 3.8 3. 3.2 2.3 3.: 3 8-8 2R
5 a: 2.3 3 QR 9:. q: S 8.” <
3 3.8 3.8 E. E: wow n: no 228 as; 2.222
ﬁll!
321% 33 321% 33 332-33 38 A8233 3; 332-1% 33 302-33 33 323-1% 33 321% 33 ~20“ Sam 828: gﬂm
a m a u 933 45.8 mm; mm m2 m0 mu>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$2553 an 22:.

 

 

236

APPENDIX E

PROFILE-WEIGHTED PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR ALL SAMPLES

Legend: VCS = very coarse sand, CS = coarse sand, MS = medium sand, FS =
ﬁne sand, VF S = very ﬁne sand, C Si = coarse silt, F Si = ﬁne silt

237

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ 5.3 oz 555
N.N «.2 «.3 ed QR 3.2 E 2 82-36
Qn S we v.2 Q: QR QR S I "is:
V.N 3.2 Q; Q: QR 3m 3 3 82-36
Q2 3 Q: QR 2: UR In 3.3 I m-Bm
N.N 2: as Q: QR 3.8 as 2 82-36
2 3 Q: Q? 2: WR QR no 2 m-Bm
33520-20 9oz MERE
E 3.: new 0: QR 2m 3 QR 82-36
G 3 S: 3.? 3.2 ...R 08 ....» Q. 2-30m
3352in .52 :uooE
E 0.2 QS 3.2 ER 33 E 2 82-36
Q3 3 Q: has 2: ER 3.2 S- 2 "So:
_ 52o oz m-DoE
Q_ 22 33 as R mom to 3 82-36
3 S we 22 3.2 ER 3m 3 no moo:
93% 33% oEQsV 353V 353V 523V SE§ SE 33 SE 38 295m
>50 3 m a o 02% 95 mm m2 8 mo>
4&2-

 

 

.8323- =3 .2 as. 3% 22:3 32333-368; .R 333,—.

238

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o._ qm Nda ﬁw mom 0? ma: m4 8:120
w.m ad n.» wow ms awn Q? ad N; "ﬁn-3m
3 Q2 33 Q3 QR me as 3 82-36
Em ﬁm 3: 02. "d w.- Ymm :- ad mwd-Hm
ﬂu ".2 wow w.w aha odv Wm .2 ooh->20
We 9N v.3 :w aw n.m~ odm Nd mg m-m.-_m
ﬁn mom ndw ﬁﬁ min vsm 0m 5o out->35
od 9n v.3 mam od— hdm Qnm ed 56 Ham
v; NE N.Vm v.2 mam N.Nm o.n 5.0 25.120
wh m: m.m_ 02. 5.2 Sim tom 3. ed ”3qu
EN 92 0% 5.: Wow inn n6 2 oat->30
wd hm 02 Ni. 0.9 SUN QE mo o._ méﬁm
0.N Wm— wéw Om— vow n.mm ﬁn W— cob->20
ad V.N oi EQ- o: ZN mdm v6 v4 @qu
93$ 93$ 93$ 92% 99% 933 I 93% 9: so 93 we 2 m
330 a m 5 U Qz<m mg mn— m2 m0 mU>
4.42.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dos—5:8 an 035,—.

239

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Q2 Q3 Q2 QR QR Q: Q_ 82-36 ,

I. 2 Q3 QR Q2 QR QR Q: I 2-2-222
Qm QR Q2: Q2 QR Q8 Q2 Q2 82-36

Q: Qm QR QR_ Q2 QR Q8 Q: 3 8-222
Q_ Q: QR Q2 QR Q8 Q» Q. 82-36

3 Q2 Q2 Q8 Q2 QR QR Q2 Q0 5-522
Q2 Qa QR Q2 QR QR S Z 82-36

Q2- , Q_ Qw Q; Qw QR QR Q2 2 m-Emz
3- QR Q: QR Q: QR Q3 QR 82-36

Q3 Q2 QR. Q8 2: Q2 QR Q2 QR 3-2-Em
3 Q3 Q8 Q2 QR Q3. Q3 Q2 82-36

Qm 3 Q2 QR Q2 QR QR Q3 Q2 23E:-
Qn Q2 QR Q2 QR Q3 Q3 Q2 82-36 .

5 Q2 QS Q8 Q2 QR QR Q3 3 2.2-5:
2 Q2 QR Q2 QR QR Q2 3 82-36

Q2- QR QM: QR Q2 QR QR Q2. Qo RE:
Q2 Q2 QR Q2 QR QR Q2 QR 82-36

Q2 Q2 Q: Q3 Q2 QR QR Q2 QR :m-E:

$33 99232 99232 5232 9532 c5232 c5232 SE 32 SE 38 2am
>56 3 m a o 02% 82> mm m2 m6 mo>
452- .

 

8.52:8 R 2.3-p

APPENDIX F

OUTCOMES OF UNIFORMITY INDEX AND MODIFIED CUMULATIVE
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION INDEX.

Numbers in excess of the thresholds established in the methods section indicate the
presence of a discontinuity at the base of that horizon.

Legend: A = indication of discontinuity through ﬁeld observation and both indices.
B = discontinuity indicated by both indices, but not recognized in the ﬁeld.
C = discontinuity indicated by one index, and is recognized in the ﬁeld.
D = discontinuity indicated by one index, but is not recognized in the ﬁeld.
E = discontinuity indicated by ﬁeld observation, not recognized by either index.
Z = absence of discontinuity indicated by both indices, and ﬁeld observations.
3 = discontinuity indicated using the 0.37 threshold for U1.

241

Table 30. Outcomes of Uniformity Index and modied Cumulative Particle
Size Distribution Index.

 

[ Site I Horizon l UI T CPSDI [ Type of agreement ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOU-S Ap -0. 15 96 E
2Bt -0.21 95 Z
2C 0.14 98 Z
deep 2C
HOU-B Ap -0. 12 95 Z
E 0.14 92 C
2Bt -0.09 96 Z
2C -0. 16 96 Z
Deep 2C
HOU-F Ap 0.56 88 Ba
B5] 0.03 86 D
B52 0.05 95 Z
Bt -0.09 92 ’ D
BC 0.02 91 D
C
HOU-Tl Cg 2.46 86 B
C
HOU-T2 A -0.06 98 E
2Ab 0. 18 97 Z
ZBwb -0.06 93 C
3C 1 -0-10 97 Z
3C2
HOU-T3 Ab -0.74 76 B
Cg
HW-S A 0.34 98 2
E -0.03 94 Z
Bt -0.20 97 Z
BC 0.06 97 E
2C
HW-B A 0.20 95 Z
E 0.08 93 D
Bs -0. 16 94 Z
Ht 003 95 E
ZBC -0. 16 95 Z
2C

 

242

Table 30 continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Site Horizon UI CPSDI Type of agreement J

HW-F A 0.16 95 Z
E 0.07 89 D
Bs 0.78 97 D
Bt -0.06 97 Z

BC

HW-T A N/A

Bwl 1.77 85 B
Bw2 -0.72 82 B

C
BLW-S A 0.21 96 Z
B8 -0.04 97 Z
Bt -0. 19 95 Z
Bt/E 0. I3 94 Z
C -0. I7 94 Z
C2 -0.03 96 Z

C3
BLW-B A 0.15 96 Z
B8 0.24 98 Z
Ht -0- 16 96 Z
Bt/E -0. 13 93 D

C
BLW-F A 0.03 96 Z
le 1.27 80 A
2B52 0. 10 96 Z
2Bt/E 0.14 97 Z
2E/Bt -057 79 A“
313: -0.28 88 13a

3C
BLE-S A 0.33 95 Z
Bs 0.1 1 98 Z
Bt -0.06 97 Z
BC —0.25 94 E

2C
BLE-B A -0.05 95 Z
B8 0.51 92 Ba
Bt -0.20 94 E
ZBC 0.10 97 Z

2C

 

 

 

243

Table 30 continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ Site Horizon UI CPSDI Type of agreement 1
BLE-F A .027 90 D
1351 1.89 82 A
2Bs2 -0.28 92 D
2353 -0.28 95 E
3131 0.08 98 E
4c
BL-T A -0.09 91 D
Bwl 0.52 90 B‘
Bw2 1.04 76 B
BC -0.62 78 A
2C 1.54 78 2
3c
HETT-SH A -012 93 D
351 -001 97 z
382 0.56 89 A8
2131 -019 94 z
2BC -0.26 94 2
2c
111517-13 A -012 96 2
BS 0.31 95 E
213: -004 92 D
2c
HETT-F A -004 99 z
le -005 100 z
Bs2 1.00 84 A
2131 2.42 75 A
3C1 1.05 89 B
3C2
HETT-Tl A 0.38 93 B“
an 0.43 92 B'
BS2 -0.41 89 B“
BS3 1.21 83 A
2Bs4 2.13 92 B
2C1 -0.38 87 B“
2C2

 

 

 

244

Table 30 continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ Site Horizon UI CPSDI Type of agreement 1

HETT-T2 A 0.43 92 B"
FJA 0.18 95 2
BS -090 48 A
213‘ -0.85 80 B
2Bt/E’ 3.19 78 B
2131 0.88 81 A
3BC 0.71 88 B
3C -099 25 A
4C 1344.86 6 A
5C (1) 0.57 81 13b
(2) -043 70 Bb
(3) 0.74 93 B
(4) -035 90 C
6C -099 12 A
7C 135.35 16 A

8C
NPRT-S A -005 97 2
BS -015 97 z
E/Bt 0.10 97 z
13’ -0.24 92 D

C
NPRT-Bl A 0.29 93 D
Bs -030 93 D
E 0.04 96 z
F/Bt 0.23 95 z
Bt 0.03 96 z
Bt/C 0.04 97 z
c

NPRT-132 A 0.04 96 z
E 0.03 94 z
Bhs 0.23 97 z
Bs/E’ -023 97 z
131/13’ .013 97 E
2C1 -009 98 z

2C2
NPRT-F A 0.02 91 c
2Ab 0.96 84 B
2Eb 0.45 90 13a
2Bwb 0.66 91 B
2C1 -0.36 90 D

2C2

 

 

 

245

APPENDIX C

DIRECTIONS FOR OPERATION OF THE PHILLIPS XRG 3100 SCANNING
DIFFRACTOMETER AND APD SOFTWARE

Turning on and off the diffractometer: It is important that these procedures are followed
to ensure proper function of the machine and to extend bulb life.

1) Write name, type of samples, date, and time in log book.

2) Turn on cooling water. Check tank water level indicator, the “full” light should
be illuminated. If it is not, remove top cover and ﬁll with distilled and
deionized water as described on the tank cover until the “full” light is
illuminated.

3) Turn key to “on” position on diffractometer. Make sure kV is reading out at 25
and mA is reading out 10. This is done by pressing the green display button.
Occassionally these readings will be off; if this occurs it is commonly because
the cooling water tank is not completely full, check the tank, and add water if
necessary. If this fails to correct these readings, contact someone in the
department.

4) Push X-ray “on” button on diffractometer. Wait 3—5 minutes while the machine
warms up, then using the thumbwheel, turn kV up to 35, and wait 3-5 minutes.
Next turn the mA up to 20. Again check the readings on these two measures,
and if incorrect, follow the procedure described in step 3.

5) When you are ﬁnished using the diffractometer turn the mA down to 10 and kV
down to 25. Next push the X-ray “oft” button, turn diffractometer power key
to the “off” position, and shut off cooling water apparatus.

6) Sign out on log book.

Using the APD software package

This software is somewhat difﬁcult to get used to since it operates in a DOS-type
environment, but if you keep these two things in mind, they will take you a long
ways: 1) The ESC key acts like a “back” key and will always return you to the
previous menu, and if pushed enough times, back to the main menu; 2) all the
commands available for any given screen are listed in a strip at the base of that
screen.

246

*NOTE* This software system is currently offset by l.15° of two-theta. Although
the goniometer is using the correct 20, all computer functions will report the
actual goniometer readings plus 1.15°. So, if you are, for example, creating an
identity program, and you want the goniometer to begin scanning at a 20 of 3°,
you would enter 4.15°. Another example would be if you were looking for a 7.15
peak, you would ﬁnd this peak at 8.3A on the diffractogram.

To start the software, type “apd” (without the quotation marks) at the C:\ prompt,
then press any key to get to the Main Menu screen. To highlight selections, use
the arrow keys. To enter a submenu displayed on this page, highlight it, then
press the F1 key.

Submenus:

System preparation: selection of this option will open another submenu
with the following selections:

-Diffractometer parameters: these will normally not be altered by
the user

-System parameters: this submenu allows you set the data
directory, i.e. where all scans and other data will be stored. This
should be checked each time you use the machine so that you will
not be storing you data in someone’s directory space. Other
system parameters typically will not be altered by the user

Program settings: allows the user to customize data treatments such
as peak search, smoothing, 012 stripping, etc.

Edit: opens the submenu screen with Identify Program. This program is
used to allow the user to alter or create an identify program, which
essentially tells the diffractometer how you want it to treat a sample,
e.g., it allows you to set step size, start and end angle, # of steps, time
per step, and scan speed. To alter an identify program, highlight it
and hit enter. This will give you the most recently used identify
program; to edit this program, simply hit enter. To see a full list of
identify programs saved in that directory, press F5. An “identify”
program called CLAY with the parameters used for this study
(outlined in the methods section), was saved in the directory
c:\apd\data\n'ndﬁe on 8/17/99.

Utilities: provides a ﬁle manager type function, e.g. create, remove
directories or ﬁles. “List directory” function shows ﬁles
contained within the currect data directory, and allows you move,
copy, delete, rename, and view ﬁles. The “view” command in

247

this group allows you see a text summary of the ﬁle, and then
either save the ﬁle as text or print it. One of the more important
functions available in Utilities is the UDI-UDF ﬁle formatting
group. This group allows you to convert raw data ﬁles such as
scans, and other data ﬁles such as peak data ﬁles (discussed later)
into a ﬁle format useable in Microsoft Excel. These UDF
converted ﬁles consist of metadata for the ﬁle (summary
statistics, treatments used, etc.) and counts per step for each step,
and can easily be converted into graphs similar to those produced
by the software. This function is especially handy when the
computer running the APD software is not hooked up to a
printer.

Graphics: allows for the display of data ﬁles created, such as unaltered
scan (RD) ﬁles, or manipulated data ﬁles such as smoothed
scans. With sample name highlighted (the default is the sample
last manipulated), click F5 to select other available data ﬁles.
More than one data ﬁle can be displayed at a time, and the
appearence of the plots can be manipulated and printed.

Data Collection: allows for actual data collection from the X-ray
diffraction unit. Click on Identify measurement to chose
the the identify program you created previously. Next ﬁll
in Sample ID and the data ﬁle name. Load your clay
sample in the chamber, and open the shutter on the
diffractometer by pressing the second ﬁ'om the top
“open”button on the right-hand side of the machine.
Press F l to begin the scan.

*NOTE* At this point, the shutter will close, and you will
have to repeat the preceding sequence; why this happens
is a mystery, and it only occurs on the ﬁrst sample you
run.

You can view the diffractometer plot as the scanning is
occurring by choosing the proper command at the bottom
of the window. Viewing the scan is helpful because it
will alert you to user or machine errors such as the shutter
being closed. When the scan is ﬁnished, you are returned
automatically to the data collection menu screen.

Pattern treatments: allow the user to manipulate raw data scan (.RD) and

other data (e. g. smoothed, .SM) ﬁles. Peak searches,
smoothing, and 012 stripping can be perfonned by

248

highlighting the treatment, clicking Fl , and entering
the name of the ﬁle you wish to manipulate. Once you
have set the parameters within that treatment, press F1.
The resulting plots can then be printed out immediately
or converted to UDF format. Smoothing is a useful
ﬁinction for the removal of “noise” from a
diffractogram. To print a smoothed (.SM) data ﬁle
without the original data in the plot, you must open
that ﬁle in Graphics and then print the ﬁle.
Unfortunately, smoothed (.SM) data ﬁles cannot be
converted to UDF format. The peak search function,
though complicated, is also a very useful tool. The
parameters for peak search need to set carefully to ﬁnd
the peaks you are anticipating, otherwise it will
overlook peaks. One useful feature of the peak search
is the creation of a Peak Data (.PK) ﬁle (this is can be
done in peak search parameter window). This plot
shows the raw or smoothed data with the background
subtracted, which is useful when calculating peak
intensities. Peak Data (.PK) ﬁles can be opened and
printed using the Graphics command or converted to
UDF ﬁles which can be opened in Microsoft Excel
spreadsheets.

249

APPENDIX H

PILOT STUDY IN THE WEST LAKE LEELANAU DRUMLIN FIELD

A pilot study of the West Lake Leelanau drumlin ﬁeld (Figure 2) was done in the
summer of 1997. The following appendix documents the location of sample sites, and
observations made at those sites, either from bucket augering or from gravel pit
exposures. All soil textures and colors are ﬁeld estimates, and all depths are
approximate. All primary sites (e.g. Site 1R, 2R, etc.) described are shown in Figure 24.

Dunklow:

Site 1D: 25 cm ﬁne sandy loam cap overlying sand; lOYR 4/3 sandy loam till at
112 cm. Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

Site 2D: 30 cm of ﬁne sandy loam overlying gravelly lOYR 4/3 sandy loam till.
Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

Site 3D: 117 cm of ﬁne sand containing rocks over calcareous lOYR 5/3 till.
Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

Site 4D: 86 cm of ﬁne sand over ﬁne sandy loam, lOYR 5/4 till containing
abundant gravel. Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

Site 5D: 81 to 102 cm of ﬁne sand over impervious gravels. Mapped as Leelanau-
East Lake complexes.

Schaub:

Gravel pit: stratiﬁed ﬁne sand over stratiﬁed gravel which buries lOYR 4/3 till; at
north end of exposure, ﬁne sand is thick overlying a stone-line; rocks
in upper ﬁne sandy material appear to have random orientation/sorting;
thickness of upper sandy material variable, with thickest being 66 cm.
Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

Site IS: 58 cm of ﬁne sand over layer of sand and gravel, then clean sand to 183
cm with band of gravel between 157 and 183 cm. Mapped as Alcona-
Richter complex.

Site ZS: 58 cm of ﬁne sand over sand to 142 cm, which was underlain by dark red
sandy loam and gravel. Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

250

F auser:

She3S:

She4S:

SheSS:

Site 68:

Site 78:

Site 88:

Site lF:

SueZF:

Site 3F:

Site 4F:

Site 5F:

Site 6F:

60 cm of ﬁne sandy loam over lOYR 4/3, gravelly till, impervious gravel
reached at 86 cm. Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

76 cm of ﬁne sand over gravel and sandy loam. Mapped as Emmet-
Leelanau complexes.

stratiﬁed sand, no till encountered. Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau
complexes.

sand over lOYR 4/3 till; no depths available. Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau
complexes.

unstratiﬁed sand to 183 cm. Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

sand over lOYR 4/3 till; no depths available. Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau
complexes.

91 cm of ﬁne sandy loam to loamy ﬁne sand overlying very gravelly,
brown, sandy loam (till?). Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

61 cm of ﬁne sandy loam over brown, sandy loam containing some gravel
over lOYR 4/3 till at 122 cm. Mapped as Emmet—Leelanau complexes.

61 cm of ﬁne sandy loam (containing some gravel) over gravelly brown
sandy loam (Bt horizon), overlying till at 81 cm; most of the gravels are

rounded. Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

152 cm of ﬁne sandy loam and loamy ﬁne sand containing some gravel.
Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

152 cm of ﬁne sandy loam with layer of darker material at 122 cm.
Mapped as Alcona-Richter complex.

66 cm of very ﬁne sand over silt loam containing abundant gravel,
impervious gravel at 91 cm. Mapped as Alcona-Richter complex.

251

Brow:

Site 18: 91 cm of ﬁne sandy loam to very ﬁne sandy loam over gravelly, brown,
sandy loam (till?), impervious gravel at 112 cm. Mapped as Alcona-
Richter complex.

Site ZB: 25 cm ﬁne sandy cap overlying sand, which overlies calcareous, lOYR
4/3 sandy loam till at 91 cm. Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

Site 38: 91 cm of ﬁne sandy loam over lOYR 4/3, but relatively stone-free,
calcareous sandy loam till. Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

Site 48: 51 cm of ﬁne sandy loam over impervious gravel. Mapped as Emmet-
Leelanau complexes.

Site SB: 96 cm of ﬁne sandy loam and ﬁne sand to stone-line, then yellowish sand
to 152 cm. Mapped as Alcona-Richter complex.

Reinhardt:

Site IR: 104 cm of sand/loamy sand over lOYR 4/3 sandy loam till with a higher
gravel content. Horizonation: Ap - le - Bs2 - E' - B/C - C. Mapped as
Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

Site 2R: 36 cm of ﬁne sandy loam overlying stratiﬁed sand and loamy sand
containing few rocks to 183 cm. Mapped as Richter-Alcona complex.

Site 2RA (5 m northeast of Site 2R): stratiﬁed sand and loamy
sand containing lenses of ﬁner materials, contained few

rocks.

Site 2R8 (1.5 m northeast of Site 2RA): 102 cm of stratiﬁed sand
over coarse sand and gravel, calcareous at 117 cm,
impervious gravel.

Site 2RC (~ 5 m northeast of Site 2RB): 81 cm of sandy loamy
over sand and gravel, impervious gravel at 96 cm.

Site 2RD (~ 5 m northeast of Site 2RC): very gravelly (many
pebbles rounded) sandy loam to impervious gravel at 66
cm.

Site 2RE (~ 5 m northeast of Site 2RD): sandy loam to impervious
gravel at 76 cm.

252

Site 2RF (2 m northeast of Site 2RE): 56 cm of ﬁne sandy loam
over 15 cm of loamy sand overlying lOYR 4/3 sandy
loam till at 71 cm.

Site 3R: lOYR 4/3 sandy loam till beneath 61 cm of very gravelly sand and loamy
sand. Mapped as Emmet—Leelanau complexes.

Site 4R: loamy sand and sand with rounded pebbles over lOYR 4/3 sandy clay
loam and lOYR 4/3 silt loam to 152 cm. Some whitish sandy loam and

impervious gravel at 152 cm. Mapped as Emmet-Mancelona complex.

Site 5R: sand over sandy clay loam at 132 cm, then clay loam to 152 cm, some
rocks throughout. Mapped as Emmet-Mancelona complex.

Site 6R: 7] cm of sand containing rounded pebbles over reddish sandy loam till
(note red, not pink color). Mapped as Emmet-Leelanau complexes.

Site 7R: 36 cm of muck over sand and gravel; lOYR 4/3 sandy loam till at 79cm.
Mapped as Tonkey-Munuscong complex.

253

Figure 25. Map showing sample sites in the West Leelanau drumlin ﬁeld. Symbols
are explained in accompanying text. Base maps: Good Harbor Bay and

Suttons Bay 7.5’ topographic maps, contour interval 5 meters
(USGS, 1983).

254

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
    

 

ev-

——o’—I _*.'
l'rxl
1/ \‘1
Jill

I

 

 

l—T-

I

/ ‘/7,7t

 

 

 

 

       

 

._I

I
17

0.5

1 Kilometer

‘1-
1

 

 

"“5

7‘6“
"420°

 

1;;

1
l

 

 

\

 

48‘

l

’

Figure 25.

 

255

BIBLIOGRAPHY

256

Bibliography

Aario, R. and L. Forsstrdm. 1979. Glacial stratigraphy of Koillismaa and North Kainuu,
Finland. Fennia 157: 1-49.

Ahlbrandt, TS. 1979. Textural parameters of eolian deposits. In: McKee, E.D. (ed), A
study of global sand seas. United State Geological Survey Professional Paper
1052. p. 21-51.

Allan, R]. and FD. Hole. 1968. Clay accumulation in some Hapludalfs as related to
calcareous till and incorporated loess on drumlins. Proceedings - Soil Science
Society of America 32: 403-408.

Andersson, G. 1998. Genesis of hummocky moraine in the Bolmen area, southwestern
Sweden. Boreas 27: 55-67.

April, R., R. Newton, and LT. Coles. 1986. Chemical weathering in two Adirondack
watersheds: Past and present day rates. Geological Society of America Bulletin.
97: 1232-1238.

Arbogast, A.F., P. Scull, R.J. Schaetzl, J. Harrison, T.P. Jameson, and S. Crozier. 1997.
Concurrent stabilization of some interior dune ﬁelds in Michigan. Physical
Geography 18: 63-79.

Arnold, R.W. 1968. Pedological signiﬁcance of lithologic discontinuities. Transactions of
the 9th International Congress on Soil Science (Adelaide, Australia) 4: 595-603.

Asadu, C.L.A. and FOR. Akamigbo. 1987. The use of abrupt changes in selected soil
properties to assess lithologic discontinuities in soils of eastern Nigeria. Pedologie
37: 43-56.

Asady, G.H. and BP. Whiteside. 1982. Composition of a Conover-Brookston map unit in
southeastern Michigan. Soil Science Society of America Journal 46: 1043-1047.

257

Asamoa, GK. and R. Protz. 1972. Inﬂuence of discontinuities in particle size on the
genesis of two soils of the Honeywood catena. Canadian Journal of Soil Science
52: 497-51 1.

Attig, J .W., D.M. Mickelson, and L. Clayton. 1989. Late Wisconsin landform distribution
and glacier—bed conditions in Wisconsin. Sedimentary Geology 62: 399-405.

Bagnold, RA. 1984. The physics of blown sand and desert dunes. Chapman and Hall
Limited. New York, NY. 265 pp.

Bamhisel, R.I., H.H. Bailey, and S. Matondang. 1971. Loess distribution in central and
eastern Kentucky. Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America 35: 483—487.

Badraoui, M., RR. Bloom, and RH. Rust. 1987. Occurrence of high-charge beidellite in a
vertic haplaquoll of northwestern Minnesota. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 51: 813-818.

Berquist, SC. 1942. The distribution of drumlins in Michigan. Papers of the Michigan
Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters. 27: 451-464.

Beshay, NP, and AS. Sallam. 1995. Evaluation of some methods for establishing
uniformity of proﬁle parent materials. Arid Soil Resource Rehabilitation 9: 63-72.

Bhattacharya, N. 1962. Weathering of glacial tills in Indiana: I. Clay minerals. Geological
Society of America Bulletin 73: 1007-1020.

Birch, F .S. 1984. Seismic sedimentary units of the inner continental shelf of New
Hampshire. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 16: 3.

Blewett, W.L. 1991. Characteristics, correlations, and reﬁnements of Leverett and
Taylor’s Port Huron in Michigan. The East Lakes Geographer 26: 52-60.

Blewett, W.L. and HA. Winters. 1995. The importance of glacioﬂuvial features within
Michigan’s Port Huron moraine. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 85: 306-319.

258

Blewett, W.L., H.A. Winters, and R.L. Rieck. 1993. New age control on the Port Huron
moraine in northern Wisconsin. Physical Geography 14: 131-138.

Borchardt, G.A., F.D. Hole, and ML. Jackson. 1968. Genesis of layer silicates in
representative soil in a glacial landscape of souteastem Wisconsin. Proceedings -
Soil Science Society of America 32: 399-403.

Boulton, GS. 1967. The development of a complex supraglacial moraine at the margin of
Sorbreen, Ny Friesland, Vestspitsbergen. Journal of Glaciology 6: 717-735.

Boulton, GS. 1970. On the deposition of subglacial and melt-out till at the margins of
certain Svalbard glaciers. Journal of Glaciology 9: 231—245.

Boulton, GS. 1971. Till genesis and fabric in Svalbard, Spitsbergen. In: Goldthwait, R.P.
(ed), Till, a Symposium. Ohio State University Press. Columbus, OH. pp. 41-72.

Boulton, GS. 1978. Boulder shapes and grain-size distributions of debris as indicators of
transport paths through a glacier and till genesis. Sedimentology 25: 773-799.

Boulton, GS. 1996. The origin of till sequences by subglacial sediment deformation
beneath mid-latitude ice sheets. Annals of Glaciology 22: 75-84.

Boulton, G.S. 1996b. Theory of glacial erosion, transport and deposition as a
consequence of subglacial sediment deformation. Journal of Glaciology 42: 43-62.

Boulton, GS. and D. L. Dent. 1974. The nature and rates of post-depositional changes in
recently deposited till from south-east Iceland. Geograﬁska Annaler 56: 121-134.

Boulton, G.S., D.L. Dent, and EM. Morris. 1974. Subglacial shearing and crushing, and
the role of water pressures in tills from south-east Iceland. Geograﬁska Annaler
56: 135- 145.

Boyce, J .I. and N. Eyles. 1991. Drumlins carved by deforming till streams below the
Laurantide ice sheet. Geology 19: 787-790.

259

Bretz, J.H. 1951. The stages of Lake Chicago: their causes and correlations. American
Journal of Science 249: 401-429.

Bretz, J.H. 1959. The double Calumet stage of Lake Chicago. Joumal of Geology 67:
675-684.

Buol, S.W., F.D. Hole, and R]. McCracken. 1989. Soil genesis and classification. 3’“ ed.
Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA. United States. 466 p.

Burgis, WA. 1977. Late Wisconsin history of northeastern lower Michigan. PhD
Dissertation. University of Michigan. 396 pp.

Bussaca, A.J. and M.J. Singer. 1989. Pedogenesis of a chronosequence in the Sacremento
Valley, California, USA: 11. Elemental chemistry of silt fractions. Geoderma 44:
43-75.

Caldwell, D.W., l. Buynevitch, and D.M. Fitzgerald. 1998. Erosion and redeposition of
glacial deposits during glacial-marine submergence in southwestern Maine and in
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. Geological Society of America Abstracts with
Programs 30: 9

Calver, J .L. 1947. The glacial and post-glacial history of the Platte and Crystal Lake
depressions, Benzie County, Michigan. In: Smith, R.A. (ed), Occasional papers
for 1946 on the geology of Michigan. Michigan Geological Survey Division 45,
Geological series 38. Lansing, MI. 70 pp.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1966. The physiography ofsouthern Ontario, 2"" ed.
University of Toronto Press. Toronto, ONT. 386 pp.

Chapman, S.L. and ME. Horn. 1968. Parent material uniformity and origin of silty soils
in northwest Arkansas based on zirconium-titanium contents. Soil Science
Society of America Preceedings 32: 265-271.

Chorley, R]. 1959. The shape of drumlins. Journal of Glaciology 3: 339-344.

260

Chute, NE. 1979. Glacial Lake Iroquois in Central New York. Northeastern Geology 1:
69-105.

Clapperton, CM. 1989. Asymmetrical drumlins in Patagonia, Chile. Sedimentary
Geology 62: 387-398.

Clark, J.A., M. Hendriks, T.J. Timmermans, C. Struck, and K]. Hilverda. 1994. Glacial
isostatic deformation of the Great Lakes region. Geologicial Society of America
Bulletin 106: 19-31.

Clark, P.U. 1990. Striated clast pavements in ﬁne-grained glacial diamicton, products of
deforming subglacial sediments? Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical
Union.71: 1314.

C leland, N.N. 1979. A reconstruction of post-glacial vegetation in the northwestern
portion of Michigan’s lower peninsula. Masters Thesis. Michigan State
University. 80 pp.

Cline, MG. 1949. Proﬁle studies of normal soils of New York: 1. Soil proﬁle sequences
involving brown forest, gray-brown podzolic, and brown podzolic soils. Soil
Science 68: 259-272.

Colman, S.M., R.M. Forester, R.L. Reynolds, D.S. Sweetkind, J .W. King, P. Gangemi,
G.A. Jones, LD. Keigwin, and D.S. Foster. 1994a. Lake-level history of Lake
Michigan for the last 12,000 years: the record from deep lacustrine sediments.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 20: 73-92.

Colman, S.M., L.D. Keigwin, and RM. Forester. 1994b. Two episodes of meltwater
inﬂux from glacial Lake Agassiz into the Lake Michigan basin and their climatic
constrasts. Geology 22: 547-550.

Denny, CS. and J .C. Goodlet. 1968. Tree-throw origin of patterned ground on beaches of
the ancient Champlain Sea near Plattsburgh, New York. United State Geological
Survey Professional Paper 600-B: 157-164.

261

Dodson, R.L. 1985. Topographic and sedimentary characteristics of the Union
streamlined plain and surrounding morainic areas. PhD Dissertation. Michigan
State University. 171 pp.

Drake, L. 1971. Evidence for ablation and basal till in east-central New Hampshire. In:
Goldthwait, R.P. (ed), T ill, a Symposium. Ohio State University Press. Columbus,
OH. pp. 73-91.

Dreimanis, A. 1989. Tills: Their genetic terminology and classiﬁcation. In: Goldthwait,
RP. and CL. Matsch (eds), Genetic classiﬁcation ofglacigenic deposits. AA.
Balkema. Rotterdam, Netherlands pp. 7-83.

Droste, J .B. 195 8. Alteration of clay minerals by weathering in Wisconsin tills.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 67: 911-918.

Droste, J .B. and Tharin, J .C. 1958. Alteration of clay minerals in Illinoian till by
weathering. Geological Society of America Bulletin 69: 61-68.

Drozdowski, E. 1977. Ablation till and related indicatory forms at the margins of
Vestspitsbergen glaciers. Boreas 6: 107-1 14.

Eschman, DP. and W.R. Farrand. 1970. Glacial history of the glacial Grand valley. In:
Annual excursions 1970. Michigan Basin Geological Society. Lansing, MI. pp.
131-157.

Eschman, D.F., W.R. Farrand, and EB. Evenson. 1973. Pleistocene geology of the
northwestern quarter southern peninsula, Michigan. In: Geology and the
environment; man, earth, and nature in northwestern lower Michigan. Michigan
Basin Geological Survey annual ﬁeld excursion. pp. 14-17.

Evans, LS. 1987. A new approach to drumlin morphometry. In: Menzies, J. and J. Rose
(eds), Drumlin Symposium. AA. Balkema Publishing. Rotterdam, Netherlands.
p.119-130-

Evenson, EB. 1973. Late Pleistocene shorelines and stratigraphic relations in the Lake
Michigan basin. Geological Society of America Bulletin 84: 2281-2297.

262

Evenson, E.B., D.F. Eschman, and W.R. Farrand. 1973. The “Valderan” problem, Lake
Michigan Basin. Friends of the Pleistocene Midwest Section Guidebook, 22nd
Field Conference. Department of Geology and Mineralogy, University of
Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI. 59 pp.

Evenson, E.B., W.R. Farrand, D.F. Eschman, D.M. Mickelson, and L.J. Maher. 1976.
Greatlakean substage: A replacement for Valderan substage in the Lake Michigan
basin. Quaternary Research 6: 411-424.

F arrand, W.R. and D. Bell. 1982. Quaternary geology of southern Michigan. 1:500,000
scale. State of Michigan, Dept. of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Division.
Lansing, MI

Farrand, W.R. and CW. Drexler. 1985. Late Wisconsinan and Holocene history of the
Lake Superior basin. In: Quaternary evolution of the Great Lakes. (eds), Karrow,
RF. and PE. Calkin. Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 30. pp. 1 7-
32.

Farrand, W.R., and D.F. Eschman. 1974. Glaciation of the southern peninsula of
Michigan: a review. Michigan Academician 7: 31-56.

Farrand, W.R., R. Zahner, and W.S. Benninghoff. 1969. Cary-Port Huron interstade:
evidence from a buried bryophyte bed, Cheboygan County, Michigan. Special
Paper - Geological Society of America 123. p. 249-262.

Finch, T.F. and RM. Jelley. 1974. A catemary sequence on well-drained drumlin soils of
County Clare. Irish Naturalist’s Journal 18: 65-73.

Finiol, G.W. 1978. Morphology and sedimentology of the Charlevoix—Antrim drumlin
ﬁeld. Masters Thesis. University of Michigan. 111 pp.

Follmer, LR. 1982. The geomorphology of the Sangamon surface: Its spatial and
temporal attributes. In C. Thorn (ed), Space and time in geomorphology. Allen
and Unwin. Boston, MA. p.117-146.

263

Folkoff, ME. and V. Meentemeyer. 1987. Climatic control of the geography of clay
mineral genesis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77: 635-
650.

Folk, R.L. and WC. Ward. 1957. Brazos River bar: a study in the signiﬁcance of grain
size parameters. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 27: 3-26.

Francek, M. 1990. Proglacial lake modiﬁcation of the central New York drumlin ﬁeld: a
morphometric analysis. Northeastern Geology 5: 21 1-217.

Franzmeier, DP. and BP. Whiteside. 1963. A chronosequence of Podzols in northern
Michigan. Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station State
Quarterly Bulletin 46: 2-57.

Frei, E. and MG. Cline. 1949. Proﬁle studies of normal soils of New York: 11.
Micromorphological studies of the Gray-Brown Podzolic-Brown Podzolic soil
sequence. Soil Science 68: 333-344.

Gardner, DR. and BP. Whiteside. 1952. Zonal soils in the transition region between the
Podzol and Gray-Brown Podzolic regions in Michigan. Proceedings - Soil Science
Society ofAmerica 16: 137-141.

Goldstein, B. 1989. Lithology, sedimentology, and genesis of the Wadena drumlin ﬁeld,
Minnesota, USA. Sedimentary Geology 62: 241-277.

Goldthwait, J.W. 1908. A reconstruction of water planes of the extinct glacial lakes in the
Lake Michigan basin. Journal of Geology 16: 459-476.

Goudie. AS, A. Warren, D.K.C. Jones, and R.U. Cooke. 1987. The character and
possible origins of the aeolian sediments of the Wahiba Sand Sea, Oman.
Geographical Journal 159: 306-317.

Haldorsen, S. and J. Shaw. 1982. The problem of recognizing melt-out till. Boreasl 1:
261-277.

264

Hansel, AK. and D.M. Mickelson. 1988. A reevaluation of the timing and causes of high
phases in the Lake Michigan basin. Quaternary Research 29—128.

Hansel, A.K., D.M. Mickelson, A.F. Schneider, and CE. Larsen. 1985. Late Wisconsinan
and Holocene history of the Lake Michigan basin. In: Quaternary evolution of the
Great Lakes. (eds), Karrow, RF. and PE. Calkin. Geological Association of
Canada Special Paper 30. pp.39-53.

Hanvey, RM. 1989. Stratiﬁed ﬂow deposits in a late Pleistocene drumlin in northwest
Ireland. Sedimentary Geology 62: 21 1-221.

Harpstead, M. and RH. Rust. 1964. A pedological characterization of ﬁve proﬁles in
gray wooded soils area of Minnesota. Proceedings - Soil Science Society of
America 28: 113-118.

Hart, J .K. 1997. The relationship between drumlins and other forms of subglacial
glaciotectonic deformation. Quaternary Science Reviews 16: 93-107.

Hicock, SR. and A. Dreimanis. 1989. Sunnybrook drift indicates a grounded early
Wisconsin glacier in the Lake Ontario basin. Geology 17: 169-172.

Hicock, SR. and A. Dreimanis. 1992. Deformation till in the Great Lakes region:
implications for rapid ﬂow along the south-central margin of the Laurantide Ice
Sheet. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 29: 1565-1579.

Hicock, SR. 1991. On subglacial stone pavements in till. Journal of Geology 99: 607-
619.

Hillefors, A. 1983. The Doesbacka and Ellesbo drumlins — Morphology and stratigraphy.
In: Ehlers, J. (ed), Glacial deposits of north-west Europe. AA. Balkema
Publishing. Rotterdam, Netherlands. p. 141-151.

Hough, J .L. 1966. Correlation of glacial lake stages in the Huron-Erie and Michigan
basins. Journal of Geology 74: 62-77.Isard, SA. and R.J. Schaetzl. 1998. Effects
of winter weather conditions on soil freezing in southern Michigan. Physical
Geography 19:71-94.

265

Jackson, M.L., S.A. Tyler, A.L. Willis, G.A. Bourbeau, and RP. Penningtion. 1948.
Weathering sequence of clay minerals in soils and sediments: Part I. Fundamental
generalizations. Journal of Physical and Colloid Chemistry 52: 1237-1260.

Jackson, ML. 1959. Frequency distribution of clay minerals in major great soil groups as
related to the factors of soil formation. International Series of Monographs on
Earth Science 2: 133-143.

Jackson, ML. 1964. Chemical composition of soils. In: Bear, F.E. (ed), C hemistiy oft/1e
soil. Reinhold Publishing Corporation. New York, NY. pp. 71-141.

Jameson, T.P. 1997. Relative age dating of an inland duneﬁeld in eastern lower
Michigan using soil data. Masters Thesis. Michigan State University. 101 pp.

Johnson, D.L. 1989. Subsurface stone lines, stone zones, artifact-manuport layers, and
biomantles produced by bioturbation via pocket gophers (T homomys bottae).
American Antiquity 54: 292-326.

Johnson, D.L. 1990. Biomantle evolution and the redistribution of earth materials and
artifacts. Soil Science 149: 84-102.

Johnson, D.L. 1993. Dynamic denudation evolution of tropical, subtropical and temperate
landscapes with three tiered soils: toward a general theory of landscape evolution.
Quaternary International 17: 67-78.

Johnson, D.L. and CL. Balek. 1991. The genesis of quaternary landscapes with stone-
lines. Physical Geography 12: 385-395.

Johnson, M.D., D.M. Mickelson, L. Clayton, and J .W. Attig. 1995. Composition and
genesis of glacial hummocks, western Wisconsin, USA. Boreas 24: 97-116.

Johns, W.D., R.E. Grim and W.F. Bradley. 1954. Quantitative estimations of clay
minerals by diffraction methods. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 24: 242-251.

266

Kabrick, J .M., M.K. Clayton, and K. Sweeney. Spatial patterns of carbon and texture on
drumlins in northeastern Wisconsin. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61:
541-548.

Karathanasis, AD. and ER. Macneal. 1994. Evaluation of parent material uniformity
criteria in loess-influenced soils of west central Kentucky. Geoderma 64: 73-92.

Klages, MG. and R.W. Hopper. 1982. Clay minerals in northern plains coal overburden
as measured by X-ray diffraction. Soil Science Society of America Journal 46:
415-419.

Kodama, H. 1979. Clay minerals in Canadian soils: Their origin, distribution and
alteration. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 59: 37-58.

Kriiger, J. and H.H. Thomsen. 1984. Morphology, stratigraphy, and genesis of small
drumlins in front of the Glacier Myrdalsjokull, south Iceland. Journal of
Glaciology 30: 94—105.

Kuzila, MS. 1995. Identiﬁcation of multiple loess units within modern soils of Clay
County, Nebraska. Geoderma 65: 45-5 7.

Larsen, CE. 1985. Lake level, uplift, and outlet incision the Nippissing and Algoma
Great Lakes. In: Quaternary evolution of the Great Lakes. (eds), Karrow, PF. and
RE. Calkin. Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 30. pp.63-78.

Larsen, CE. 1987. Geologic history of glacial Lake Algonquin and the upper Great
Lakes. US. Geological Survey Bulletin 1801. 36 pp.

Larson, G.J., T.V. Lowell, and NE. Ostrom. 1994. Evidence for the Two Creeks
interstade in the Lake Huron basin. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 31: 793-
797.

Leverett, F. 1906. Drumlins in the Grand Traverse region of Michigan. Geological
Society of America Bulletin 16: 577.

267

Leverett, F. and F .B. Taylor. 1915. Pleistocene history of Indiana and Michigan and the
history of the Great Lakes. United States Geological Survey Monograph 53. 529

PP-

Lietzke, D.A., M.M. Mortland, and BP. Whiteside. 1975. Relationship of
geomorphology to origin and distribution of a high charge vermiculite soil clay.
Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America 39: 1 169-1 177.

Lindbo, D.L. and P.L.M. Veneman. 1993. Morphological and physical properties of
selected fragipan soils in Massachusetts. Soil Science Society of America 57: 429-
436.

Lineback, J .A., D.L. Gross, and CI. Dell. 1979. Glacial and postglacial sediments in
Lakes Superior and Michigan. Geological Society of America Bulletin 90: 781-
791.

Livingstone, I. and A. Warren. 1996. Aeolian geomorphologv. Addison Wesley Longrnan
Limited. Essex, England. 21 1 pp.

Lotan, J .E. and SC. Shetron. 1968. Characteristics of drumlins in Leelanau County,
Michigan. Annual Report of the Michigan Academy of Sciences. 53: 79-89.

Marcussen, I. 1975. Distinguishing between lodgement till and ﬂow till in Weichselian
deposits. Boreas 4: 1 13-123.

Martin, HM. 1955. Map of the surface formations of the southern peninsula of Michigan.
Scale 1:500,000. Michigan Geological Survey Division. Publication 49. Lansing,
MI

McCabe, A.M. 1991. The distribution and stratigraphy of drumlins in Ireland. In:
Elhers, J ., P.L. Gibbard, and J. Rose (eds), Glacial deposits in Great Britain and
Ireland. AA. Balkema. Rotterdam, Netherlands. pp. 421-425.

McCabe, A.M. and GP. Dardis. 1989. Sedimentology and depositional setting of Late
Pleistocene drumlins, Galway Bay, western Ireland. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 59: 944-959.

268

McCammond, RB. 1962. Efﬁciencies of percentile measures for describing the mean
size and sorting of sedimentary particles. Journal of Geology 70: 453-465.

McKeague, J .A., N.M. Miles, T.W. Peters, and D.W. Hoffman. 1972. A comparison of
luvisolic soils from three regions in Canada. Geoderma 7: 49—69.

McKnight, TL. 1987. Physical geography: a landscape appreciation, 6’” ed. Prentice
Hall, New York. 612 pp.

Meixner, RE. and M.J. Singer. 1981. Use of a ﬁeld morphology rating system to evaluate
soil formation and discontinuities. Soil Science 131: 1 14-123.

Melhom, W.N. 1954. Valders glaciation of the southern peninsula of Michigan. PhD
dissertation, University of Michigan. 178 pp.

Melhom, W.N. 1956. Valders drift in the southern peninsula of Michigan. In: Prehistory:
geology, soils, and archeology of the northern lower peninsula of Michigan.
Friends of the Pleistocene Midwest Section Guidebook, 7th Field Conference.
University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 13-19.

Menzies, J. 1987. Towards a general hypothesis on the formation of drumlins. In:
Menzies, J. and J. Rose (eds), Drumlin Symposium. AA. Balkema Publishing.
Rotterdam, Netherlands. p.9-24.

Michigan Department of Agriculture Climatology Program. 1989. Climatological
summary and statistics for Gaylord, MI. National Climate Data Center. Asheville,

NC.

Michigan Department of Agriculture Climatology Program. 1989. Climatological
summary and statistics for Maple City, MI. National Climate Data Center.

Asheville, NC.

Mills, H.H. 1980. An analysis of drumlin form in the northeastern and north-central
United States. Geological Society of America Bulletin 91: I 637-639, 11 2214-
2289.

269

Moeyersons, J. 1978. The behavior of stones and stone implants buried in consolidating
and creeping Kalahari sands. Earth Surface Processes 3: 115-128.

Monaghan, G.W. 1989. Systematic variation in clay mineral composition of Wisconsinan
age till sheets in the Lake Michigan Basin. PhD Dissertation, Michigan State
University. 79 pp.

Moore, D.M. and RC. Reynolds, jr. 1989. X-ray diffraction and the identiﬁcation and
analysis of clay minerals. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 332 pp.

Muhammad Som, M.R., D.M. Fitzgerald, and CT. Fitzgerald. 1987. Backbarrier
stratigraphy along a glaciated coast: Castle Neck, Massachusetts. Geological
Society of America Abstracts with Programs 19: 31.

Muller, E.H., D.A. Franzi, and J.C Ridge. 1986. Pleistocene geology of the western
Mohawk Valley, New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 455: 143-157.

Newman, W.A., R.C. Berg, P.S. Rosen, and H.D. Glass. 1989. Pleistocene stratigraphy of
the Boston Harbor drumlins. Quaternary Research 34: 148-159.

Nooren, C.A.M., N. van Breeman, J.J. Stoorvogel, and AG. Jongmans. 1995. The role of
earthworms in the formation of sandy surface soils in a tropical forest in Ivory
Coast. Geoderma 65 : l 35- 148.

Pavlik, HF. and FD. Hole. 1977. Soilscape analysis of slightly constrasting terrains in
southeastern Wisconsin. Soil Science Society of America Journal 41: 407-413.

Pessl, jr. F. 1971. Till fabrics and till stratigraphy in western Connecticut. In: Goldthwait,
R.P. (ed), Till, a Symposium. Ohio State University Press. Columbus, OH
p. 92-105.

Pickering, E.W. and P.L.M. Veneman. 1984. Moisture regimes and morphological
characteristics in a hydrosequence in central Massachusetts. Soil Science Society
ofAmerica 48: 113-118.

270

Price, T.W., R.L. Blevins, R.I. Bamhisel, and H.H. Bailey. 1975. Lithologic
discontinuities in loessial soils of southwestern Kentucky. Proceedings - Soil
Science Society of America 94-98.

Raad, AT. and R. Protz. 1971. A new method for the identiﬁcation of sediment
stratiﬁcation in soils of the Blue Springs Basin, Ontario. Geoderma 6: 23-41.

Ransom, M.D., N.E. Smeck, and J.M. Bigham. 1987. Stratigraphy and genesis of
polygenetic soils on the Illinoian till plain of southwestern Ohio. Soil Science
Society of America Journal 51: 135-141.

Rieck, R.L. and HA. Winters. 1993. Drift volume in the southern peninsula of Michigan-
a prodigious endowment. Physical Geography 14: 478—493.

Rolfsen, P. 1980. Disturbance of archeological layers by processes in the soil.
Norwegian Archeological Review 13:1 10-1 18.

Rose, J. 1987. Drumlins as part of glacier bedform continuum. In: Menzies, J. and J. Rose
(eds), Drumlin Symposium. AA. Balkema Publishing Rotterdam, Netherlands. p.
103-1 16.

Rose, J. 1989. Glacier stress patterns and sediment transfer associated with the formation
of superimposed ﬂutes. Sedimentary Geology 62: 151-176.

Ross, G.J. and M.M. Mortland. 1966. A soil beidellite. Proceedings - Soil Science
Society of America 30: 337-343.

Schaetzl, R.J., S.F. Burns, T.W. Small, and D.L. Johnson. 1990. Tree uprooting: review
of types and patterns of soil disturbance. Physical Geography 1 1: 277-291.

Rutledge, E.M., L.P. Wilding, G.F. Hall, and N. Holowaychuk. Loess in Ohio in relation
to several possible source areas: 11. Elemental and mineralogical composition.
Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America 39: 1 133-1 139.

271

Schaetzl, R.J. 1996. Spodosol-Alﬁsol intergrades: bisequal soils in NE Michigan, USA.
Geoderma 74: 23-47.

Schaetzl, R.J. 1998. Lithologic discontinuities in some soils on drumlins: theory,
detection, and application. Soil Science 163: 570-590.

Schaetzl, R.J. and LR. F ollmer. 1990. Longevity of treethrow microtopography:
implications for mass wasting. Geoderma 3:1 1-123.

Schaetzl, R.J., F.J. Krist, P.R. Rindﬂeisch, J. Liebens, and TB. Williams. under review.
Interpreting glacial deposits in northeastern lower Michigan: integrating GIS,
soils, and geomorphology.

Shaw, J. 1982. Melt-out till in the Edmonton area, Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of
Earth Science 19: 1548-1569.

Shaw, J. and D. Kvill. 1984. A glacioﬂuvial origin for drumlins of the Livingstone Lake
area, Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 21: 1442-1459.

Shaw, J ., D. Kvill, and B. Rains. 1989. Drumlins and catastrophic subglacial ﬂoods.
Sedimentary Geology 62: 177-202.

Shaw, J. and DR. Sharpe. 1987. Drumlin formation by subglacial meltwater erosion.
Canadian Journal of Earth Science 24: 2316-2322.

Schneider, A.F. 1990. Evidence for post-Two Creeks of the type Calumet shoreline of
glacial Lake Chicago. In: Schneider, A.F. and GS. Fraser (eds), Late Quaternary
history of the Lake Michigan basin. Special Paper - Geological Society of
America 251. p.1-8

Schneider, A.F. 1990. Radiocarbon conﬁrmation of the type Two Rivers till in eastern
Wisconsin. In: Schneider, A.F. and GS. Fraser (eds), Late Quaternary history of
the Lake Michigan basin. Special Paper - Geological Society of America 251. p.
51-55

272

Sharpe, DR. 1987. The stratiﬁed nature of drumlins from Victoria Island and southern

Ontario, Canada. In: Menzies, J. and J. Rose (eds), Drumlin Symposium. AA.
Balkema Publishing. Rotterdam, Netherlands. p. 185-214

Sheldrick, B.H. (ed), 1984. Analytical methods manual 1984. Land Resource Research
Institute Contribution 84-30. Ottawa, Canada.

Small, T.W., R.J. Schaetzl, and J.M. Brixie. 1990. Redistribution and mixing of soil
gravels by tree-uprooting. Professional Geographer 42: 445-457.

Smith, G.W. 1982. End moraines and the pattern of last ice retreat from central and south
coastal Maine. In: Larson, G.L. and ED. Stone (eds), Late Wisconsinan

Glaciation of New England. Kendall-Hunt Publishers. Philadelphia, PA. pp. 195-
209.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1999. National Soil Survey
Handbook, title 430-VI. US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington, DC.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1993. Soil Survey Manual.
USDA Handbook 18. US Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington, DC.

Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil Taxonomy: A basic system of soil classiﬁcationfor making

and interpreting soil surveys. Agricultural Handbook 436. Soil Conservation
Service, USDA.

St. Amaud, R.J. and BP. Whiteside. 1963. Physical breakdown in relation to soil
development. Journal of Soil Science. 14: 267-281

Stanley, GM. 1937. Lower Algonquin beaches of Cape Rich, Georgian Bay. Geological
Society of America 48: 1665-1686.

Stewart, DP. and P. MacClintock. 1971. Ablation till in Northeastern Vermont. In:

Goldthwait, R.P. (ed), Till, (1 Symposium. Ohio State University Press. Columbus,
OH. pp. 106-114.

273

Taylor, L.D. 1979. Preliminary analysis of glacial stratigraphy in the vicinity of Port
Huron and Two Rivers till sheets, Manistee, Michigan. Geological Society of
America Abstracts with Programs 9: 658.

Taylor, L.D. 1990. Evidence for high glacial-lake levels in the northeastern Lake
Michigan basin and their relation to the Glenwood and Calumet phases of glacial
Lake Chicago. In: Schneider, A.F. and GS. Fraser (eds), Late Quaternary history
of the Lake Michigan basin. Special paper - Geological Society of America. 251:
91 -109.

Teller, J .T. 1985. Glacial Lake Agassiz and its inﬂuence of the Great Lakes. In: Karrow,
PF. and RE. Calkin (eds), Quaternary evolution of the Great Lakes. Geological
Association of Canada Special Paper 30. pp. 1 -16.

Thwaites, F .T. 1943. Pleistocene of part of northeastern Wisconsin. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 54: 87-144.

Twenhofel, W.H. 1932. Treatise on sedimentation. Williams and Wilkins Company.
Baltimore, MD. 926 pp.

US. Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the
Census. 1994. 1992 census of agriculture. Volume 1, Geographic area series.
Part 22, Michigan, state and county data.

Wall, G.J. and LP. Wilding. 1976. Mineralogy and related parameters of ﬂuvial
suspended sediments in northwestern Ohio. Journal of Environmental Quality. 5:
168-173.

Weber, H.L. 1973. Soil survey of Leelanau County, Michigan. USDA, SCS in
cooperation with Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. 90 p.

Willman, HE. 1971. Summary of the geology of the Chicago area. Illinois State
Geological Survey Circular 460. 77pp.

Whittecar, GR. 1983. Planning the use of soils on drumlins. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 38: 386-400.

274

Whittig, L.D. 1965. X-ray diffraction techniques for mineral identiﬁcation and
mineralogical composition. In: C.A. Black (ed), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1.
American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, WI. p. 671-698.

Woodrow, D.L., D. B. Mckinney, A. Cortes, J.J. Williams. 1990. Chimney Bluffs, New
York: An eroded drumlin, badlands topography, glaciolacustrine clays and
longshore transportation of sediments. Geological Society of America Abstracts
with Programs 22: 79.

Wright, HE. jr. 1962. The role of the Wadena lobe in the Wisconsin glaciation of
Minnesota. Geological Society of America Bulletin 73: 73-99.

275