Sediment samples collected from the minor tributary streams and rivers of Lake St. Clair were analyzed to determine if there were any distinct mineral assemblages within the <64 micrometer size fraction. These assemblages could then identify lake sediment provenances. Mineral assemblages were identified for all the streams and rivers by x-ray dffraction analysis, and were found to be uniform in composition. It is suggested that the sources for the suspended and bottom sediments of the streams and rivers have similar compositions, such as that of a uniform till plain. The distribution patterns of the fluvially transported sediments in the lake can not be determined solely on the basis of the composition of the <64 micrometer size fraction.No embarg

Hayden, Brian T.

KnowledgeBank at OSU

•· • • PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE SEDIMENTATION OF LAKE ST. CLAIR - - -· .... FROM MINOR RIVER AND STREAM TRIBUTARIES By Brian T. Hayden Senior thesis submitted to fulfill the requirements for the Bachelors of Science degree in Geology, 1985 The Ohio State University Thesis Advisor bb-~ Department of Geology and Mineralogy • • • ii ABSTRACT Sediment samples collected from the minor tributary streams and rivers of Lake St. Clair were analyzed to determine if there were any distinct mineral assemblages within the < 64 micrometer size fraction. These assemblages could then identify lake sediment provenances. Mineral assemblages were identified for all the streams and rivers by x-ray dffraction analysis, and were found to be uniform in composition. It is suggested that the sources for the suspended and bottom sediments of the streams and rivers have similar compositions, such as that of a uniform till plain. The distribution patterns of the fluvially transported sediments in the lake can not be determined solely on the basis of the composition of the < 64 micrometer size fraction • • • • iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express thanks to my father who helped complete the field work on a very cold Thanksgiving weekend. Without his help the work would not have been completed. I am also thankful to Dr. G.D. McKenzie for suggesting the project. Dr. L.A. Krissek's advice and permission to use the sedimentary lab at Ohio State was also greatly appreciated. I am also greatly indebted to Dr. J.C. Collinson for the use of his office and microcomputer. I would also like to give thanks to Kim Apple for proofreading the text . • iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS INTRODUCTION SAMPLING PROCESSING PROCEDURE MINERAL IDENTIFICATION RESULTS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES CITED • LIST OF FIGURES 1) Locality of Lake Erie 2) Sample locations 3) Sample x-ray diffraction pattern 4) Bedrock Map LIST OF TABLES 1) Location of rivers and streams samples in Canada 2) Location of rivers and streams samples in U.S. 3) Composition of Canadian samples ................... • 4) Composition of U.S. samples ....................... LIST OF PLATES A) Chart of Lake St. Clair (in back cover) Page ii iii 1 3 7 8 8 10 10 14 2 4 9 13 6 7 11 13 • INTRODUCTION • Lake St. Clair is a shallow fresh water lake which is a part of the Great Lake water system. The lake borders southeastern Michigan and southwestern Ontario. It's shape is ellipsoidal with the long axis (25 miles in length) trending northeast. The short axis is approximately 20 miles long. Excluding the shipping channels, which are 26 feet deep, the maximum depth in the lake is 19 feet. The lake's major tributary is the St. Clair river (see fig. 1). The St. Clair river empties into the lake and forms a prograding delta of the Mississippian birds-foot type (Pezzetta 1968). Most of the lake's sediment enters the lake basin from this delta. Drainage for the lake is the Detroit River located in the southwestern corner of the lake. The Detroit river then empties into the western basin of Lake Erie (Giampaolo, 1984) • Previous sedimentological studies of Lake St. Clair have concentrated on the prograding delta. The delta was first described by Cole 1935. Further studies have been conducted by Wightman, 1961 and Pezzetta, 1968. There have not been any previous studies of the sediment influx into the basin from the minor river and stream tributaries. A mineralogical study of the sediment from these rivers and streams could be used in the sediment distribution patterns of the lake. The study could also be used in identifying the sources of the sediments (provenance) that are being transported in the rivers and streams. This study would aid geologists in understanding sediment dispersion in shallow lakes. It would also assist current studies by the Department of Geology and Mineralogy at The Ohio State University on sediment dispersion in the western basin of Lake Erie. • Samples were collected from the Clinton River, Clinton River cut off channel, and the Milk River on the Michigan side of the lake. On the 1 • • Figure 1. • ~ Lo,.\<.e. HLJrOr\ So..t"n\o,. f:it: C.lo .. \r Kiver Locality of L k a e St. Clair 2 • Canadian side Pike Creek, Puce River, Belle River, Ruscom River, Thames River, Jeannettes Creek and Big Creek will also be sampled (see plate A and fig. 2). The sediment was processed and then analyzed with x-ray diffraction to determine the mineral composition of each sample. Since the study is only a preliminary study, only the < 64 micrometer size fraction was analyzed. The silt and clay fraction (< 64 micrometer fraction) is a good representative fraction to analyze because it is the most probable size fraction to be transported into the lake. Only during the spring high water outflows would the > 64 micrometer size fractions be transported into the lake from the rivers. SAMPLING METHODS Samples were collected from the minor streams and rivers that drain • into Lake St. Clair (see table 1 and 2). At each stream, samples were • taken to represent the stream profile as best as possible. The samples were taken from bridges as close to the lake as possible to get a representative sample of the actual sediment that is being contributed to the lake from the stream or river. The number of samples depended on the width of the river or stream and the bridge buttress structure. River names are represented by the first two letters in the sample code. The third letter is either a W or B for water or bottom sample respectively. The fourth letter represents the location of the sample in the sampling profile (see fig. 2). The bottom samples were collected with a LaMotte Chemical bottom sampling dredge. The samples were stored in plastic zip lock bags to prevent them from drying out during storage. One gallon of water was collected 0.5 meters above each of the bottom sample locations with a Kemler water sampler, and was stored in clean one-gallon jugs. 3 • • • 0 c E N Mt::TER5 CLINTON P.IVER MILK RIVE.R f3 1j I ,' i /, A(C.WA~~,// I CC.fl.A x~0 C.LWP, / ~ I LL~" ,' ~'V /.._/ / 40:' CLINTON ~IVER CUT OFF GHAN NE L D N ~ 1-..--....----() IDO UIO 300 "t:X> PC.WA /):,,, PC.BP. O PC..WB PCB -e, Q PC.WC.. PC.BC . f?,j ~:- -. - ~ PIKE CREEK F ··-\J l..a.l<e. St c1.,:,, 0 100 0 PUCE R.IVER A BRWI\ BRBA OBRWB. BR\$£ m BRWC B~BC. ·-··-R.R·-. --~)1 ~ (------100 BELLE RIVER Figure 2. Sample location, 2A Clinton R., 2B Clinton R. Cut Off Channel, 2C Milk R., 2D Pike Cr., 2E Puce R,. 2F Belle R. Note: river width is exaggerated to show detail. • • • G Ct' H N ~ ------r------~--_,,_---- .----~ ---- .... 0 -;re.we. ~C.8.B :!C.IJJC 0 -;J'C.B.C IH AN ES ~TVER.., BIG CREEK, AND J"EANNETTES CREEK ------------ __ ) = ~~-0 ~ R.RWA RRBA ~RWS. 0 J:l.RBt. l(KVJC.. ~-~--Jiaem(=-~~~~~Z Me.te.r .1 RUSC.OM RIVER Figure 2. Sample location, 2G Thames R., Big Cr., Jeannettes Cr., 2H Ruscom R. Note: river width is exaggerated to show detail • 5 • TABLE 1 SAl'PLE LOCATION ANO DATA FRDl'I CANANDIAN RIVERS SAflPLE WIDTH DEPTH (Pletors) LOCATION PIKE CREEK PCWA 12 1.0 E. side of Haute 8 2 bridge PC6A 12 1.5 E. sldu of Route N 2 bridge No sample PCW6 12 1.3 Center of Route # 2 bridge PCBB 12 1.6 Cuntur of Route # 2 bridge PCWC 12 1.6 w. s ldu of Route # 2 bridge PCBC 12 2.1 w. side of Route I 2 bridge PUCE RIVER PRWA 10 D.6 w. side of Haute N 2 bridge PR6A 10 1.1 w. sidu of Route N 2 bridge PRWB 10 1.0 Center of Haute 8 2 bridge No sample PR86 10 1.5 Center of Route I 2 bridge PRWC 10 1.1 E. side of Route I 2 bridge PR6C 10 1.6 E. side of Route I 2 bridge BELLE RIVER BRWA 15 D.7 W. side of R.R. bridge N. of Rt. BR6A 15 1.2 w. side of R.R. bridge N. of Rt. BRWB 15 2.9 Center of R.R. bridge N. of Rt. 2 BRB6 15 3.1 Center of R.R. bridge N. of Rt. 2 No sample BRWC 15 o. 7 E. side of R.R. bridge N. of Rt. Bf!BC 15 1.2 E. side of R.R. bridge N. of Rt, No sample HYSCDl'I RIVER RRWA 13 1.7 w. side of Rt. 2 bridge • RRBA 13 2.2 w. side of Rt • 2 bridge RRWC 13 1.7 E. side of Rt. 2 bridge RRBC 13 2.2 E. side of Rt. 2 bridge THAl'IES RIVER TRWA 25 2 miles upstream on the N. side TABA 25 2 miles upstream on the N. side No sample JEANNETTES CREEK JCWA 20 2.3 E. side of R.R. bridge JCBA 20 2.6 E. side of R.R. bridge JCW6 20 2.5 Center of R.R. bridge JC66 20 3.0 Center of R.R. bridge JCWC 20 0,5 w. side of R.R. bridge JCBC 20 1.0 w. side of R.R. bridge BIG CREEK 6CWA 18 3,3 E. side of R.R. bridge 6C6A 16 3,8 E. side of R.R. bridge No sample BCW6 16 2.3 Center of R.R. bridge 6CB6 16 2.6 Center of R.R. bridge No sample 6CWC 16 0.7 w. side of R.R. bridge 8C6C 16 1.2 w. side of R.R. bridge Na sa~le • ... TABLE 2 SAMPLE LOCATION AND DATA FROM U.S. RIVERS SAMPLE WIDTH DEPTH (Meters) LOCATION • CLINTON RIVER CUT OFF CHANNEL CCWA 50 2.0 N. side of river Jefferson Rd. bridge CCBA 50 2.5 N. side of river Jefferson Rd. bridge CCWB 50 3.5 s. side of river Jefferson Rd. bridge No sample CCBB 50 4.0 s. side of river Jefferson Rd. bridge CLINTON RIVER CRAW 70 2.3 s. side of river off a boat dock CRBA 70 2.8 s. side of river off a boat dock MILK RIVER MRWA 8 1.a Jefferson road bridge MRBA 8 2.3 Jefferson road bridge No sample PROCESSING PROCEDURE Twenty milliliters of one molar magnesium chloride was added to the water samples and then allowed to settle out in undisturbed gallon • containers for four weeks. The MgCl was added to aid in the focculation (settling) of the clays. After the sediment settled out of suspension most of the water was decanted. To remove any organic content, the samples were treated with 20% hydrogen peroxide solution. To preserve any carbonates in the samples, 14 ml of ammonium hydroxide per liter of hydrogen peroxide was added to keep the reaction's pH above 7. Twenty ml of the hydrogen peroxide solution was added to the sample every 12 hours until the reaction with the organics ceased. The remaining liquid was then removed from the sample by centrifuging the sample. A freeze drier was used to dry the sediment samples completely. After freeze drying, the sediments were powdered and randomly mounted onto x-ray diffraction powder mounting slides. To expand the clays in the samples before x-ray diffraction, the slides were glycolated at 65 C for four hours. A Phillips diffractometer • was used to run powder x-ray analysis on the samples. The x-ray patterns were ran from 3 20 - 50 20 at 35 kilovolts and 15 megaamps, 2 0 per 7 • • minute, sixty inches per minute, and with a range of 500. CuK x-rays were used in the analysis. Twenty grams of each bottom sample were processed for x-ray analysis. The bottom samples were digested in the same procedure as described above. After digestion, the samples were sieved into > 1 micrometer fraction, 1 -250 micrometer fraction, 250 - 64 micrometer fraction, and < 64 micrometer fraction. The < 64 micrometer fractions were freeze dried and randomly mounted for x-ray diffraction and glycolated the same as the suspended water sediments. The samples were also x-rayed at the same setting as the suspended water samples. MINERAL IDENTIFICATION Minerals were identified by their characteristic basal x-ray diffraction peaks (see fig. 3). The d-spacing of the unknown minerals were determined from the dif fractogram pattern and used to identify the mineral composition of sample (Chen, 1977). The area of the characteristic peaks were compared, to obtain an estimate of the abundance of the minerals in the sample. The greater the area of a characteristic peak on a diffractogram indicates a greater relative abundance of that mineral in the sample. RESULTS The minerals identified can be classified into three divsions, clay minerals, terrigenous minerals, and carbonate minerals. Four clay minerals were identified in the study. Illite, chlorite, montmorillonite, and smectite were identified in every sample, except in sample PRBC chlorite • was absent. The abundance of the clay minerals varies from rare to very abundant. The terrigenous minerals indentified included quartz, 8 i. ~.. 1 ... .... --_ ~::---:--_·-----=---=------31 s l:l _ _: _____ -- ---=-· --~ ell ----::-----:--_--;------ - ----------------- ------- ----1 ----------------------·-·------------- - - -·- )'5" 0 --~-- t.< Figure 3. Sample x-ray diffraction pattern plagioclase, and k-feldspar. Quartz varied from common to very abundant in ~ abundance. Plagioclase and k-feldspar varied from absent to abundant. Calcite and dolomite were the carbonate minerals that were identified and they varied from absent to very abundant. The mineralogical composition of the samples are summerized on tables 3 and 4. CONCLUSION Qualitative mineral assemblages < 64 micrometers could not be used to identify the provenance of the fluvial (river) sediments in Lake St. Clair. This is because the mineral assemblages determined for the rivers and streams within the study all contain the same minerals. None of the rivers or streams contain significantly different minerals, which might be expected due to different erosional products from different provenances. The Thames River, Jeannettes Creek, Big Creek and Ruscom River • drainage basins are all above the Delaware Limestone Formation. Pike Creek, Puce River, and Belle River are above the Kettle Point and Hamilton shales • (see fig. 4). A difference should be noticed in the mineral assemblages if the rivers are receiving sediments from these different bedrock types. The limestone would increase the relative abundance of the carbonate minerals and the shales would increase the clay minerals. Because of a relative lack of these mineral assemblages in the stream samples, the bedrock types must not be a significant source of the sediment. Therefore, the major source for the rivers and streams sediment must be the fairly uniform surficial deposits, mainly a till plain and associated lacustrine materials. RECOMMENDATIONS Since the preliminary study indicated no distinct qualitative differences in mineral assemblages in the < 64 micrometer size fraction, 10 TABLE 3 COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLES FROM THE CANADIAN RIVERS * • SAMPLE QUARTZ ILLITE CHLORITE MONT. SMECTITE CALCITE DOLOMITE PLAG. K-FELD. PIKE CREEK PCWA A R R R R c c x R PCWB A c c A c c c R R PCBB A c c c R A A c c PCWC A c A c R c c c c PCBC A c c c c c A c R PUCE RIVER PRWA A c c A c c A R R PRBA A c c c c R c c R PRBB A c c c c c c c R PRWC A c c A R c c c A PRBC c c x R R c c c R BELLE RIVER BRWA c c c c c R c R R BRBA VA c c c c R VA c R • BRWB A c c A c R R R R BRWC A c c A A c c R x *Note: VA = very abundant A = abundent C = common R = rare x = absent • 11 • TABLE 3 CONT. SAMPLE QUARTZ ILLITE CHLORITE MONT. SMECTITE CALCITE DOLOMITE PLAG. K-FELD. RUSCOM RIVER RRWA c c c R R c c A c RRBA A A A c c c c c R RRWC A R c R A c c R A RRBC A c c R R c c x x THAMES RIVER TRWA A R R c R VA A c x JEANNETTES CR. JCBA A R R c c c c R x JCWB VA c c c VA A A c R JCBB VA A c c VA c c c R JCWC VA R c c c c c c x JCBC A R R R R c c c x BIG CREEK • BCWA c c c A c VA c R x BCWB VA R R c c VA R R x BCWC A c c R R c VA c R *Note: VA = very abundant A = abundant C = COrmlOn R = rare x = absent • 12 • • • TABLE 4 COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLES FROM THE U.S. RIVERS * SAMPLE CLINTON CUT R. CCWA CCBA CLINTON RIVER CRWA CRBA MILK RIVER MRWA ·' QUARTZ A A A A c *Note: Lc.ke. E1\~ Figure 4 • ILLITE CHLORITE MONT. SMECTITE CALCITE c c c c A c c R R c R c A c c c A R R A R R c c c VA = very abundent A = abundent C = convnon R = rare X = absent / \-----7--Y /" .>-------..,-KE.Y § k<?..-t+lli!- ?c.i~ o.rd Ho.""\ \+c~ S'no..\-e,.. 22 Delo_.wos·e. L . .S ... Bedrock Geology (McKenzie, 1964) 13 DOLOMITE A c A A R PLAG. K-FELD • R R c R A R A c R R • • • this study should be continued with a more detailed investigation including all size fractions, with a more quantitative analsis. Future sampling of sand and silt fractions should not be conducted from brigdes, because there is a possible source of contamination of the sediments from road debris falling into the water • 14 • • • REFERENCES Chen, P. N., 1977, Table of Key Lines in X-ray Powder Diffraction Patterns of Minerals in Clays and Associated Rocks: Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources Geological Survey Occasional Paper 21. Cole, L. J., 1903, The delta of the St. Clair River: Geological Survey of Michigan, vol. 9, part 1, pp. 1-28. Giampaolo, V. F., 1984, Clay Mineral Distributions within Lake Erie's Western Basin: Unpublished B.S. Thesis, Dept. of Geology and Mineralogy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. McKenzie, G. D., 1964, The Type Section of the Port Talbot Intertidal: Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Geology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, pp. 80. Pezzetta, J. M., 1968, The St. Clair River Delta: Unpublished PhD. Thesis, Dept. of Geology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Wightman, W. R., .1961, The St. Clair Delta: Unpublished M.A. thesis, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada • 15 

Preliminary study of the sedimentation of Lake St. Clair from minor river and stream tributaries

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/1811/63095/2/SES-SeniorThesis_HaydenBrianT_1985_text.pdf

Preliminary study of the sedimentation of Lake St. Clair from minor river and stream tributaries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnowledgeBank at OSU