Cover. Main Algonquin level of Lake Michigan confluent with the Orillia (?) level of the Lake Huron basin (11 ,200 to 

11,000 yr B.P.). 
Geological History of 

Glacial Lake Algonquin 

and the Upper Great Lakes 

By CURTIS E. LARSEN 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1801 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dallas L. Peck, Director 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1987 

For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225 

Library of Congress Cataloging In Publication Data 

Larsen, Curtis E. 

Geological history of glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes. 

(U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1801) 

Bibliography: p. 

1. Algonquin, Lake. 2. Glacial epoch-Great Lakes. I. Title. II. Series: 

Geological Survey bulletin ; 1801. 

QE75.B9 no. 1801 557.3 s 87-600256 

[QE698] [551.7'92'0977] 
CONTENTS 

Abstract 1 

Introduction 1 

Acknowledgments 2 

Previous research 3 

Lake Algonquin and its outlets 3 

Evolution of the hinge line model 4 

Relative vertical movement beyond the hinge line 7 

Exponential uplift functions and an uplift model for Holocene events in the upper 

Great Lakes 11 

Evidence for low Lake Michigan and Lake Huron levels 14 

The Chippewa and Stanley low levels 14 

The Main Algonquin low level 16 

Overflow from glacial Lake Agassiz 19 

The North Bay outlets 19 

Reconstructing former water planes 20 

A chronology of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron levels 23 

Main Algonquin of Huron (MAH) 24 

Main Algonquin of Michigan (MAM) 24 

The Post-Algonquin lakes 24 

The Chippewa and Stanley low levels 24 

Pre-Nipissing transgression 25 

Nipissing and Algoma Great Lakes 26 

Conclusion 26 

References 32 

Appendix 36 

FIGURES 

1. Map showing Main Lake Algonquin draining southward through the Chicago 

and Port Huron outlets 2 

2. Map showing position of the Algonquin hinge line 3 

3. Relationship of the Main Algonquin and post-Algonquin shorelines of the 

northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron basins interpreted on the basis of 

Goldthwait's hinge-line model 6 

4. Model of Goldthwait's hinge-line concept for a southward-draining basin 8 

5. Schematic model of shoreline positions in an uplifting basin 9 

6. Sketch showing the scenario advocated in this paper, which Goldthwait failed 

to consider-a case of multiple northern outlets 10 

7. Map showing measured historic vertical movement, contoured as uplift in feet 

per century, on the basis of lake-level gauge records 11 

8. Historic uplift rates plotted along the east shore of Lake Michigan 12 

9. Calculated Main Algonquin and post-Algonquin water planes plotted normal 

to isobases of historic uplift along the east shore of Lake Michigan 15 

10. Diagram showing dating of the Lake Michigan Formation (Lineback and 

others, 1979) on the basis of the revised glacial geology of the Lake Superior 

basin 17 

Contents Ill 
11. Sketch of probable attitude of late-glacial red glaciolacustrine clays of the Lake 

Michigan basin 18 

12. Calculated late Chippewa water plane at about 8,000 yr B.P. 21 

13. Algonquin shoreline data of Lake Huron projected onto the Lake Michigan 

normal plane 22 

14. Decreasing slope coefficients of postglacial water planes following the 

establishment of the North Bay outlet 23 

15. Map showing Calumet-level Lake Chicago and Early Lake Algonquin 26 

16. Map showing Calumet-level Lake Chicago and the Main Algonquin level of 

Lake Huron (11,600 to 11,300 yr B.P.) 27 

17. Map showing Main Algonquin level of Lake Michigan confluent with the 

Orillia(?) level of the Lake Huron basin (11,200 to 11,000 yr B.P.) 28 

18. Map showing Chippewa and Stanley low levels (9,900 yr B.P.) 29 

19. Map showing pre-Nipissing transgression (about 8,000 yr B.P.) 30 

20. Map showing the late Nipissing and Algoma Great Lakes 31 

TABLES 

1. Summary of Leverett and Taylors Great Lakes chronology 5 

2. Comparison of Leverett and Taylors Great Lakes chronology with current 

interpretations controlled by 14C dating 6 

3. Altitudes of raised shoreline features of the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron 

basins 13 

4. Preliminary chronology for the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron basins 25 

IV Contents 
Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the 

Upper Great Lakes 

By Curtis E. Larsen 

Abstract 

Lake-level gauge records show modern tilting of the 

entire Great Lakes basin at rates ranging from 0.53 m/century in the north to 0.08 m/century in the south. This pattern of historic deformation is used in this study as a 

control to describe the upper or Main Algonquin shoreline. 

Regression analyses calculated on the uplifted Algonquin 

beach features show them to descend exponentially with 

distance to the south. The projected Main Algonquin-Fort 

Brady shorelines (about 11,200 to 10,500 B.P.) plunge 

below the level of Lake Michigan at the •hinge line• of 

former models and intersect the southern lake bottom 

between altitudes 60 and 95 m. 

Red glaciolacustrine clays, contained in the 

Sheboygan Member of the Lake Michigan Formation and 

transported by meltwater from the Lake Superior basin, are 

contemporary with the Main Algonquin-Fort Brady shorelines. The descending altitude of these red clays to the 

south points to continuous deformation of the lake basin as 

low-level lakes drained northward through lower outlets 

near North Bay, Ontario. 

Comparative regression analyses of the Main 

Algonquin shoreline data between lake basins show the 

Main Algonquin of Huron (MAH) to lie altitudinally above 

the Main Algonquin of Michigan (MAM). The MAH was a 

separate low-level preglacial lake with an outlet control at 

Fenelon Falls, Ontario. Its level fell when the isostatically 

lower Kirkfield outlet system was deglaciated about 11,500 

B.P. The MAM, on the other hand, reflects a confluent 

low-level lake in the Michigan and Huron basins that 

formed upon deglaciation of the Mackinac Straits about 

11,200 B.P. The MAM drained northward through the Fossmill outlet system south of North Bay, Ontario. 

INTRODUCTION 

Lake Algonquin is currently thought to be the 

largest and latest proglacial lake to occupy the three 

upper Great Lakes (fig. 1). It is currently considered to 

have drained southward through the St. Clair River at Port 

Huron, Mich., and through the Des Plaines and Illinois 

River valleys near Chicago, Ill. 

The Algonquin shoreline was first described along 

the eastern shore of Lake Huron by Spencer (1888, 1891 ), 

who named it and noted that it had been differentially 

uplifted. Subsequent work by Taylor (1894), Goldthwait 

(1906, 1907, 1908, 1910a,b), and Leverett and Taylor 

(1915) defined the highest or upper Algonquin shoreline 

in the Lake Michigan basin. The shoreline features of this 

former lake had been deformed from an area of minimum 

displacement in the south to progressively higher altitudes 

in the north. The zone at which steeply sloping northern 

terraces blended with a relatively horizontal terrace in the 

south was identified as a hinge line (fig. 2). This explanation, which has varied little since the first decade of this 

century, reflects the rigid-earth models favored by the 

early researchers in the region (Chamberlin and Salisbury, 1904; Chamberlin, 1909, 1926; Taylor, 1910). 

The Algonquin shoreline, as defined, has subsequently been used to establish postglacial lake-level chronologies in the upper Great Lakes region (most recently 

Drexler and others, 1983; Farrand and Drexler, 1985). 

More important, however, is that the deformation of the 

Algonquin shoreline has been used to model the glacioisostatic recovery of the Great Lakes basin (Broecker, 

1966, 1970; Walcott, 1970, 1972; Brotchie and Silvester, 

1969). Thus, ironically, the geomorphic interpretations of 

the rigid-earth era are used to examine the responses of a 

visco-elastic crust to ice loading. 

This paper investigates the nature of the deformed 

Main Algonquin shoreline in the Lake Michigan basin 

and the concept of the hinge line. In an earlier paper 

(Larsen, 1985b), the rates of measured vertical crustal 

movements, as determined from lake-level gauge records 

(Clark and Persoage, 1970; Coordinating Committee on 

Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data, 1977), were shown 

to increase exponentially with distance northward from 

the southern shore of Lake Michigan. Following Gilbert's 

(1898) suggestion that measured vertical crustal movements were central to understanding the uplift history of 

the Great Lakes, the middle Holocene Nipissing and 

Algoma shorelines were also shown to conform to an 

exponential model (Andrews, 1970a,b). 

Introduction 1 
Figure 1. Main Lake Algonquin draining southward 

through the Chicago (C) and Port Huron (PH) outlets. The 

Fenelon Falls (FF) spillway to the Kirkfield outlet has been 

abandoned. The northern outlets remain ice covered. KL 

and ML are the Kilrush Lake and Mink Lake sills that 

Comparison among the historic, middle Holocene, 

and late Wisconsinan deformation of the former shorelines suggests that (1) uplift was a continuous glacioisostatic response to deglaciation of the region, (2) the 

hinge line of former usage is an invalid concept, (3) the 

Main Algonquin water plane of Lake Michigan reflected 

a low-level phase of the upper lakes, and ( 4) Main Lake 

Algonquin did not overflow to the south. Instead, the 

Main Algonquin shorelines of Lake Michigan and Lake 

Huron appear to be of dissimilar age and to have discharged first through the Kir kfield outlet to the Lake 

Ontario basin (Main Algonquin of Huron) and then 

through the Fossmill outlet network to the Ottawa River 

valley (Main Algonquin of Michigan). 

Acknowledgments 

Several working drafts of this paper were commented on by colleagues whose insights have helped me 

100 

• - 100 I 

Kilometers 

I 

-; 

200 

I 

controlled overflow through the Fossmill outlet. NB is the 

threshold to the North Bay outlet. Early Lake Erie drains 

eastward through the Niagara River (NR) to Lake Iroquois 

in the Lake Ontario basin. (Based on Hough, 1958, 1963; 

Eschman and Karrow, 1985.) 

better understand the Great Lakes. Peter Sly deserves 

special thanks for patiently reading each draft and providing thoughtful comments. Both he and Christine 

Kaszycki shared data with me and increased my awareness 

of the Lake Huron basin. Paul F. Karrow and C.F.M. 

Lewis provided perspectives on their own Great Lakes 

research. L. Harvey Thorleifson commented on uplift 

models and the complexities of drainage from Lake 

Agassiz, a topic not yet fully explored in the upper Great 

Lakes. Ardith Hansel provided an ongoing appraisal of 

her research and has shared important data. David Rea 

made available unpublished Lake Michigan cores, and 

Lee Oayton gave many important suggestions. James A. 

Clark and I are pursuing similar research goals concerning Great Lakes uplift but from different perspectives. We 

have profited from discussions and an exchange of manuscripts. Byron Stone, Juergen Reinhardt, and William 

Farrand provided helpful reviews of this paper. 

2 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great lakes 
950 goo 850 aoo 75° 

500 

45° 

ONTARIO 0 I 

I 

CANADA \ 

I QUEBEC I 

\ 

I 

I 

MINN. 

------. __ 

NEW YORK 

IOWA 

------. __ PENNSYLVANIA 

OHIO 

MISSOURI 

0 100 200 300 MILES 

0 100 200 300 400 KILOMETERS 

Figu.re 2. Position of the. Al~onquin h.inge line. North of this line postglacial lake shorelines were thought to diverge in a 

fan-l1ke array. South of th1s line, shorelines were considered to be subhorizontal (modified from Goldthwait, 1908). 

PREVIOUS RESEARCH 

Lake Algonquin and its Outlets 

Spencer (1888, 1891) identified Lake Algonquin as 

the earliest and highest lake to simultaneously occupy the 

Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, and Lake Superior basins. 

The lake was defined on the basis of raised terrace 

remnants marked by conspicuous cobble and boulder 

pavements and located along the eastern shores of Georgian Bay in Lake Huron. The Algonquin shoreline, recognized as the uppermost set of coastal landforms in the 

northern lake basins, was found at progressively lower 

altitudes to the south until it apparently plunged beneath 

the modern surface of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. 

Spencer recognized an early temporary outlet channel to 

the Ontario basin, the Kirkfield outlet, but he considered 

the major drainage to be through the Mattawa/Ottawa 

river system at North Bay, Ontario. Significantly, Spencer 

did not recognize the proglacial origin of Lake Algonquin 

(Taylor, 1927a,b). 

Taylor (1894), Goldthwait (1906, 1908, 1910a,b), 

and Leverett and Taylor (1915) also described Algonquin 

and post-Algonquin shoreline features along the northern 

shores of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, reconstructing 

the former water planes associated with these features as 

concave-upward surfaces rising to the north. In addition, 

they interpreted Lake Algonquin as a proglacial lake 

bounded on the north by glacial ice. Each of these writers 

began his research along the southern shores of the lakes, 

where raised coastal terraces seemed horizontal. The 

undeformed terraces of the south were thought to extend 

northward to Green Bay, Wis., and Grand Traverse Bay, 

Mich., on Lake Michigan, and Saginaw Bay, Mich., on 

Lake Huron. Here, the horizontal shorelines apparently 

Previous Research 3 
diverged to correlate with the deformed Algonquin and 

post-Algonquin terraces of the north. The zone of transition, where Spencer had earlier projected the Algonquin 

shoreline beneath modern lake level, was identified as a 

hinge line (Goldthwait, 1908). 

Leverett (1897, 1899) and Taylor (1895, 1908), 

concentrating on the southern outlets to Lake Michigan 

and Lake Huron, respectively, found that altitudes of 

shoreline features and terraces were about 184.5 m ( 605 

ft) in both regions. Leverett identified this shoreline as the 

Toleston level, the lowest level associated with glacial Lake 

Chicago. In sequence from oldest to youngest, the three 

levels that Leverett named were the Glenwood level, 195.2 

m (640 ft), the Calumet level, 189.1 m (620ft), and the 

Toleston level. Taylor (1895) considered a 184.5-m terrace 

around the southern shores of Lake Huron to represent a 

second Lake Algonquin level. The 184.5-m terraces were 

clearly related to the southern outlets of both lakes; 

therefore, they were later associated by Leverett and 

Taylor (1915) with the southern shores and outlets of 

Lake Algonquin. The southern drainage at Port Huron 

was, in fact, a prerequisite to Taylor's model for the 

lake-level chronology (Leverett and Taylor, 1915). Their 

synthesis of lake-level chronology is summarized in 

table 1. 

With the exception of the postglacial chronology, 

which has been revised through radiocarbon age control 

(table 2), Leverett and Taylor's basic outline for Lake 

Algonquin events continues to be accepted with only 

slight modification. Stanley (1936, 1937), for example, 

considered the Lower Algonquin, Battlefield, and Fort 

Brady shorelines of Leverett and Taylor (1915) to represent separate, falling, post-Algonquin lake systems draining at North Bay, Ontario. He assigned the new names 

Wyebridge, Penetang, and Cedar Point to the correlated 

shorelines of northern Lake Huron. 

Until recently, the major debates involving Lake 

Algonquin have revolved about the role of the Kirkfield 

outlet, its related period of lower lake level, and a subsequent rise to a high Main Algonquin level. Deane (1950) 

suggested that blockage of the Kirkfield outlet by an ice 

advance caused the rise to the Main Algonquin level. 

Stanley (1938), Hough (1958, 1963), Prest (1970), Harrison (1970, 1972), and Eschman and Karrow (1985) 

supported an uplift theory. Radiocarbon age control was 

added by Karrow and others (1975), who inferred an age 

greater than 11,500 yr B.P. for Early Lake Algonquin. A 

fall in level related to drainage through the Kirkfield 

outlet is placed between 11,500 and 11,200 yr B.P., 

followed by a rise to the Main Algonquin level. Karrow 

and his coworkers concluded that by 10,600 yr B.P. Lake 

Algonquin was drained, probably related to deglaciation 

of the North Bay region. They, too, remained uncertain 

whether the Kirkfield outlet opened briefly about 12,000 

yr B.P., possibly related to an ice-margin fluctuation, or 

whether the outlet had been continuously open since that 

date. In any event, opening of the outlet preceded 

deglaciation of the Mackinac Straits, which took place 

about 11,200 to 11,000 yr B.P. (Hansel and others, 

1985a,b) and formation of the Main Algonquin shoreline 

there. 

Kaszycki (1985) suggested that the Kirkfield outlet 

was deglaciated before 11,500 yr B.P. and continued in use 

as an outlet until 10,800 yr B.P., when drainage was 

shifted to the Fossmill outlet system (Harrison, 1970, 

1972; Fullerton, 1980), the southernmost channel in the 

North Bay region (fig. 2). In addition, she presented 

evidence that the Main Algonquin level of Lake Huron 

drained eastward through the altitudinally lower Kirkfield 

outlet, leaving the Port Huron outlet subaerially exposed. 

In effect, this interpretation resembles that developed by 

Spencer (1888, 1891) for the Algonquin water plane. 

Evolution of the Hinge Line Model 

The upper Great Lakes basin became a testing 

ground for opposing theories of crustal movement in the 

late 19th century. The tilted Algonquin shoreline piqued 

G.K. Gilbert's interest in isostasy. Gilbert felt that unloading of the crust, such as he proposed to have followed 

evaporation of Lake Bonneville (Gilbert, 1890), resulted 

in its return to an original preloaded condition. Tilted or 

deformed shorelines provided a means to monitor the 

processes of isostatic adjustment. Shaler (1874), Jamieson 

(1865, 1882), and De Geer (1892) pointed out that tilting 

of marine and lacustrine terraces in northern Europe and 

North America had followed deglaciation. This suggested 

depression of an elastic crust by glacial ice and subsequent 

rebound upon unloading. Gilbert proposed that a network of lake-level gauges at critical localities around the 

lakes would record differential movement of the crust in 

relation to a common water plane, and he demonstrated 

historic rates of tilting for the Lake Michigan and Huron 

basins relative to Chicago. 

During the 1890's, glacial mapping of this region by 

the U.S. Geological Survey was begun under the aegis of 

T.C. Chamberlin. Chamberlin, a proponent of episodic 

tectonic movements and diastrophism as the key to geologic correlation (Chamber lin and Salisbury, 1904; Chamberlin, 1909, 1926), discounted glacio-isostasy in favor of 

a rigid, permanent earth; isostasy necessitated a fluid or 

viscous mantle. Chamberlin's group of cooperating glacial geologists (Leverett, Taylor, and Alden) was joined in 

1904 by J.W. Goldthwait, who continued the mapping of 

abandoned shorelines along the shores of Lake Michigan 

(White, 1949). Using precise measuring techniques, 

Goldthwait extended his mapping of lake shorelines and 

terraces northward where he defined six successively 

lower shorelines present in both the Lake Michigan and 

Huron basins (Goldthwait, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1910a,b ). 

These shorelines, beginning with the highest Algonquin 

4 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
Table 1. Summary of Leverett and Taylor's Great Lakes chronology (adapted from Leverett and Taylor, 1915, p. 469) 

OUTLETS 

Chicago .L 

~ 

.·.·· <·····. ...... 

0 

0' 

ttj 

C) 

Chicago +- :8 

u 

Q) 

,..!14 

ttj 

.....:1 

LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE HURON 

Modern Lakes 

___,. 

Algoma Beach 

Nipissing Great Lakes 

0 

Toleston Level 

-

Lake Lundy 

Calumet Level 

~ Gra dRiver Lake Warren 

Glenwood 

Level 

Lake Wayne 

Lake Whittlesey 

-':-Grand River 

I Lake Arkona 

~ Gr d River I 

I 

~Grand River 

Lake Maumee 

OUTLETS 

-~Port Huron 

North Bay 

-f+ and 

Port Huron 

-~North Bay 

:~ Port Huron 

Kirkfield 

" 'Port Huron 

-+ Syracuse 

-~Syracuse 

Fort -~ Wayne 

of Taylor (1892) and continuing to the lowermost Nipissing and Algoma shorelines, were incorporated into Leverett and Taylor's (1915) work. The four upper shorelines 

descended in altitude to the south where they appeared to 

converge at a point south of Traverse City, Mich. (fig. 3). 

The Main (or upper) Algonquin water plane was 

defined by a series of isobases that became more closely 

spaced from south to north. The true gradient of the 

plane, drawn along a N. 15° E. trend, showed a concaveupward surface. North of the Mackinac Straits, the 

Previous Research 5 
Table 2. Comparison of Leverett and Taylor's (1915) Great Lakes chronology with current interpretations controlled by 14C 

dating 

AGE 

YEARS B.P 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

8000 

9000 

10,000 

11,000 

12,000 

13,000 (I) 

...lol 

Ill 

~ 

LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE HURON 

(Inferred from Leverett and Taylor, 1915) 

Modern Lakes 

(Port Huron Outlet) 

-Algoma BeachNipissing Great Lakes 

<Draining at North Bay and Port Huron) 

Nipissing Great Lakes 

(Draining at North Bay) 

Glenwood Level 

Lake Lundy 

Lake Warren 

Lake Wayne 

Lake Whittlesey 

Lake Arkona 

Lake Maumee 

LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE HURON 

Bretz, 1955, Hough, 1958, Bretz, 1955, Hough, 1958, 

Lewis, 1969, 1970, 

Eschman and Karrow, 1985 

Modern Lakes 

Nipissing Great Lakes 

(Confluent with Lake Superior) 

Chippewa Low Phase Stanley Low Phase 

Lake Lundy Lake Warren 

Lake Wayne 

Lake Whittlesey 

Lake Arkona Lake Maumee 

184.5 m 

182m 

/ / .; .,., / .................. __ .- ~~­

==========:.:-~-------p;=sent Lake Level (177m) 

OUTLET 

Port Huron 

North Bay 

To New York 

and 

Lake Chicago 

Figure 3. Relationship of the Main Algonquin and post-Algonquin shorelines of the northern Lake Michigan and Lake 

Huron basins interpreted on the basis of Goldthwait's (1908) hinge-line model. (Adapted from Hough, 1958.) 

6 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
-·' 

~ 

gradient was 0.7 m/km (3.73 ft/mi), but it became less 

steep to the south. Between Mackinac Island and Traverse 

City it decreased to 0.63 m/km (3.3 ft/mi), and south of 

Traverse City it was only 0.19 m/km (1 ft/mi) (Goldthwait, 

1908). The gradients of each of the converging shorelines 

were less steep in each successively lower position. This 

indicated progressive deformation of the northern lake 

region. 

To explain this, Goldthwait (1908) adopted a framework of multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlin, 1897). 

To explain the concave-upward water planes he examined 

an ice attraction model (Woodward, 1888), which provided for contemporaneous curved water surfaces rising 

to the edge of an adjacent ice front. Next he examined 

Spencer's interpretation that the Lake Algonquin surface 

projected beneath Lake Michigan at a point south of 

Green Bay, Wis., and Traverse City, Mich. Spencer's Lake 

Algonquin was a low-level lake draining northward at 

North Bay but unaffected by glacial ice; its level rose in the 

south as the northern outlet was uplifted. 

Goldthwait considered the logic of Spencer's hypothesis. It was possible that the point of shoreline convergence that he had observed represented a zone where 

Lake Algonquin and subsequent levels plunged beneath 

modern lake level as Spencer had suggested. For this to 

have occurred, an outlet was needed at the point of 

convergence south of Traverse City, or along an isobase of 

equal uplift passing through that point. This condition 

allowed the controlling outlet to rise relative to the 

southern shore of the basin. 

Detailed mapping by Goldthwait (1908) showed 

four possible outlets to Lake Algonquin. Chicago and 

Port Huron represented the southernmost. An intermediate channel to the east was located at Kirkfield, Ontario, 

while in the north the North Bay outlet remained ice 

covered. Spencer's hypothesis required an isobase joining 

the point of terrace convergence with one of these outlets. 

Goldthwait's synthesis of the shoreline altitudes showed 

the Algonquin shorelines converging between the isobases 

of the Port Huron and Kirkfield outlets. Therefore, neither could have controlled the mapped shoreline configuration. 

Goldthwait favored episodic crustal movements. In 

his view, the northern terraces converged at a hinge line 

that separated a tectonically active northern crust from a 

stable region in the south (fig. 4). The horizontal terrace 

at 184.5 m showed stability and continuous drainage to the 

south. Each lower and less deformed shoreline represented an episode of tilting at an axis while the lake was 

controlled by a stable southern spillway. 

Goldthwait's (1908) concepts of terrace deformation are illustrated simplistically in figure 5. Case 1 shows 

a southward-draining basin with a level controlled by the 

altitude of its spillway. Case 2 (a shoreline-convergence 

concept) shows a basin with an intermediate outlet control. Here, the sequence of tilted shorelines converges on 

a central axis of the basin. North of the axis the shorelines 

descend from oldest to youngest, but to the south the 

evidence is submerged with the oldest shoreline at the 

bottom of the sequence. Case 3 is an example of a tilting 

lake basin with northern outlet control. Here successively 

less deformed but younger shorelines rise to the uplifting 

outlet. 

Goldthwait's explanation was a variation on case 2. 

With inflow balanced by outlet flow in Lake Algonquin, an 

outlet was required at the axis of the basin. He did not, 

however, consider successively lower northern outlets. 

Were such outlets deepened, either by erosion into unconsolidated glacial sediments or by deglaciation of successively lower outlet thresholds, as we now recognize (Harrison, 1970, 1972), a series of shorelines similar to those 

illustrated in case 2 would appear. Each shoreline would 

rise to its own successively lower spillway in the north. 

This mechanism is shown graphically in figure 6. An 

outlet at the point of terrace convergence is clearly not 

required. Therefore, Goldthwait's model was incomplete. 

Nonetheless, Goldthwait's analysis had a profound 

effect on subsequent research. On the one hand, it 

supported Chamberlin's (1909) earth model. On the 

other, it demonstrated that detailed mapping of shoreline 

features could be used to understand processes of crustal 

deformation. Taylor (1927a) used the hinge-line model to 

discount Gilbert's observations on glacio-isostasy and to 

downplay lake-level gauge records in favor of detailed 

geomorphic mapping for recording earth movement. This 

bolstered the rigid-earth models of Suess (1883-1904) 

and Chamberlin (1898, 1909, 1926), which were required 

by his own early hypothesis of continental drift (Taylor, 

1910) and his subsequent interpretations of Great Lakes 

shorelines (Leverett and Taylor, 1915; Taylor, 1927b ). 

RELATIVE VERTICAL MOVEMENT BEYOND 

THE HINGE LINE 

Differential vertical movement south of the 

Algonquin hinge line was suggested by Eschman and 

Farrand (1970) and Evenson (1973) on the basis of 

anomalously high altitudes of the Glenwood and Calumet 

shorelines on the Allendale delta near Grand Rapids, 

Mich. More recent studies (Taylor, 1985) proposed that 

these same shorelines farther to the north are uplifted and 

deformed in the manner of the Algonquin shoreline. 

Difficulties in interpreting the Nipissing hinge line of 

Holocene age (see differing interpretations of Leverett 

and Taylor, 1915, and Hough, 1953) have been indicated 

on the basis of differing altitudes of dated Nipissing and 

Algoma terraces and deposits between Chicago and Port 

Huron (Larsen, 1985a,b). Thus, the Algonquin and 

Relative Vertical Movement Beyond The Hinge Line 7 
Zone of HorizontaliW-No Tilting 

1 

Tilting 

s , . N 

I~ 

T1 

Hinge Line 

1 

II~ t 

T2 

- _____ t 

1 

411 i 

T3 

_________ l 

l 

T4 

/Jij 

------~--------1 Southern Outlet Control 

Figure 4. Goldthwait's (1908) hinge-line concept for a southward-draining basin. 

Goldthwait could find no intermediate outlet located on the point of convergence; 

therefore, he adopted southern outlet control. In order to match the model to the 

geomorphic record, he added a zone of no tilting and concluded that shorelines 1, 2, 

3, and 4 were identical south of the hinge line. This implied crustal stability in the 

south. 

Nipissing hinge lines are not limits of differential vertical crustal movement. Postglacial vertical movement 

south of the hinge lines can be documented from the 

historic perspective proposed by Gilbert (1898) and compared with the geomorphic data. Each synthesis of lakelevel gauge records since Gilbert's time has measured 

differential movement south of the hinge lines (Moore, 

1922, 1948; Gutenberg, 1933, 1941, 1954; Clark and 

Persoage, 1970; Walcott, 1972; Coordinating Committee, 

1977). The most recent appraisal (Coordinating Committee, 1977) suggested uplift of the Port Huron outlet region 

relative to the south shore of Lake Michigan. Clark and 

Persoage's (1970) synthesis of historic movement is contoured in figure 7. 

8 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
::tJ 

CD 

a 

~-

~ :::::. 

0 

!. 

3: 

~ 3 

CD 

:;:, 

... 

Ill 

CD 

'< 

0 

:;:, 

a. 

~ CD 

:I: 

:;-

cc 

CD 

r 

:;· 

CD 

CD 

s N 

- ~-·--·--· -· _. ____ T1 

1111 

t 

T2 

______ + 

II" 

... 

T3 

~ 

1 

T4 

l case 1 Southern Outlet Control 

s F N 

~~~~~~ Level 1 Tt 

t Level 2 

T2 

-------------- _j -

~Level 3 

T3 

--------l 

r Lovol 4 

T4 

L...lo -----~j_ case 2. Intermediate Outlet Control 

s 

\ F==-

., A 

N 

l -.:::::.. ~ fl] - - T1 Level 1 

t Level 2 

T2 

---- ----- _j -

~Level 3 

T3 

__________ l 

I LoYOI. 

T4 

~ -----~j_ Case 3 Northern Outlet Contro' 

Figure 5. Schematic model of shoreline positions in an uplifting basin. 

Goldthwait (1908) considered only case 1 and case 2. Each concept involved 

a lake having a positive hydrologic budget (evaporation less than inflow) and 

being tilted to the north. Only southern and intermediate outlet control produced a shoreline sequence from 1 down to 2, 3, and 4. He was unwilling to 

accept that 1, 2, and 3 plunged beneath 4, so he adopted an intermediate 

outlet control (fig. 4). Case 3 shows northern outlet control and illustrates 

transgressing levels controlled by an uplifting spillway. 
T1 

Time1 

T1 

t 

T2 

Time2 

__________ _l 

2 

t 

T2 

__________ _l 

l 

T3 

------ ____ l_ Time 3 

l 

T3 

I --------- ______ __i_ 

Time4 1 

T4 

______ _l_ 

-Final moments of drainage 

through Northern Outlet #1 

-Opening of Northern Outlet #2 

due to ice marginal recession 

-Final moments of drainage 

through Northern Outlet #2 

-Opening of Northern Outlet #3 

due to ice marginal recession 

-Final moments of drainage 

through Northern Outlet #3 

-Opening of Northern Outlet #4 

due to ice marginal recession 

-Abandonment of 

Northern Outlet #4 

Figure 6. The scenario advocated in this paper, which Goldthwait (1908) failed to consider-a case 

of multiple northern outlets. A single crossover point is a result of the right combination of vertical 

intervals between outlets, uplift rate, and rate of ice retreat. 

10 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
' ' 

Chicago 

Sanitary t Ship Canal 

GREAT LAKES DRAINAGE BASIN 

Scale In •Ill•• 

50 0 60 100 

Figure 7. Measured historic vertical movement, contoured as uplift in feet per century, on the basis of lake-level gauge 

records. Line of profile is normal to isobases along the east shore of Lake Michigan (adapted from Clark and Persoage, 

1970; Larsen, 1985b). 

The historic data are at odds with the traditional 

interpretations of the deformed shorelines. The measured 

historic uplift appears to represent contemporary uplift 

associated with the former Laurentide ice center near 

Hudson Bay (Farrand, 1962; Walcott, 1970, 1972; Andrews, 1970b). The observed vertical movement south of 

the hinges points to glacio-isostatic loading and postglacial rebound beyond the limits of the shoreline records. 

EXPONENTIAL UPLIFT FUNCTIONS AND AN 

UPLIFT MODEL FOR HOLOCENE EVENTS IN 

THE UPPER GREAT LAKES 

Andrews' (1970a,b) method of plotting terrace 

slopes, decreasing exponentially with both time and distance, allows reexamination of the deformed terraces and 

former water planes. This relationship is discernible both 

from the present altitudes of dated former shorelines and 

from their gradients measured over several kilometers. 

The gradient of a given terrace and the uplift rate, which 

increase exponentially toward the former ice centers, 

show a relation between the altitudes of former shorelines 

and time and distance from the center of ice loading. 

Figure 8 is a least-squares regression of historic 

uplift rates calculated from Clark and Persoage's (1970) 

isobases at their points of intersection with the eastern 

shore of Lake Michigan shown in figure 7. The rates of 

uplift relative to the south shore of the lake are defined by 

an exponential function that demonstrates the predicted 

increase in uplift rate toward the former ice center and 

verifies the applicability of Andrews' geomorphic work to 

the Great Lakes basin. Although the rate of uplift is small 

in the southern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron basins 

(0.05 and 0.07 m/century, respectively), the movement 

illustrates that the observed uplift is related to greater 

ongoing movement in the north. 

Exponential Uplift Functions and an Uplift Model for Holocene Events In the Upper Great Lakes 11 
1.0 

e Historic Uplift Rate Clark and Persoage (1970) 

> a: 

:::> 

1-

z 

w 

u 

a: 

w 

n. 

(/) 

a: 

w 

tw 

~ 0.1 

z 

Log y=0.0017x + 1.482, r=0.998 

w 

~ a: 

t Q) 

::::i 

Q. 

::::> 

'i: 

> co c: co :E Q) 

c: Cl 0 a) -

0 

0 Q) co - 0 

0 0 f! c (/) ·a. 0 Q) :iii: :E tO ~ Q) 0 !:: (,) 0 > ::I (J 

:E ::I co co co 

~ .... :E (I) ~ u 1-

I I I I I 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 

DISTANCE IN KILOMETERS FROM SOUTH SHORE OF LAKE MICHIGAN 

Figure 8. Historic uplift rates plotted along the east shore of Lake Michigan (Larsen, 1985b). 

Terrace altitudes measured at various stations along 

the eastern shore of Lake Michigan or projected from 

Lake Huron are compiled in table 3 relative to their 

distance from the southern shore of Lake Michigan and 

the former Chicago outlet. From these data, least-squares 

regressions were calculated for Leverett and Taylor's four 

principal Lake Algonquin terraces. Data points were 

scaled directly from their original profiles, but their data 

points south of Traverse City were deleted because of the 

uncertain differentiation of individual coastal terraces in 

the hinge-line area. Table 3 includes data for the Nipissing 

and Algoma terraces (Larsen, 1985b) and for the past 

century derived from the historic uplift rates. 

The four upper terraces related to Lake Algonquin 

by Goldthwait and by Leverett and Taylor are defined by 

separate exponential curves decreasing in gradient from 

north to south (fig. 9). The Nipissing and Algoma terraces 

(Larsen, 1985b) are shown for comparison. The extrapolated curves of the Main Algonquin through Fort Brady 

shorelines project below the modern level of Lake Michigan and extend southward to the Chicago area where they 

intersect the lake bottom at altitudes between 75 m (246 

ft) for the former and 120m (393 ft) for the latter (see 

also Larsen, 1985c). J.A. Oark proposed a similar projection for the Main Algonquin shoreline on the basis of 

independent geophysical modeling (Clark and others, 

1984, 1985). 

The Main Algonquin and post-Algonquin curves 

intersect and project below the Nipissing and Algoma 

terraces and modern lake level south of Traverse City, 

where they converge on the hinge. The Holocene Nipissing and Algoma shorelines, once thought to be horizontal, are themselves deformed. Like the historic uplifted 

shorelines, these Holocene shorelines are gently sloping 

surfaces that approach the southern outlet regions asymptotically (Larsen, 1985b). They conform to exponential 

curves and are not affected by hinge lines. The projected 

lake levels shown in figure 9 appear to track the continuous change in differential tilting of the upper Great 

Lakes basin since the formation of the upper Algonquin 

12 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
, 

~ 

0 

::::J 

CD 

::::J 

.. 

!: 

c: 

"2.. 

;i 

"T1 

c: 

::::J 

2. 

c;· 

::::J 

en 

I» 

::::J 

0. 

I» 

::::J 

c: 

"2.. 

:s:: = 

0 

0. 

!. 

0 

.... 

:I: 

0 

g 

CD 

::::J 

CD 

::::J 

~ 

Cit 

:;· 

.. 

:::T 

CD 

c: 

, 

, 

CD 

.... 

C) 

.... 

CD 

! 

t; 

~ en 

..... 

w 

Table 3. Altitudes, in meters, of raised shoreline features of the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron basins 

[Theoretical altitude of 100-yr B.P. terrace calculated from data in figures 7 and 8. --, no data] 

Distance Altitude Altitude from south Altitude Altitude Altitude Altitude 

I so base shore Lake Main Lower Battlefield Fort Brady Nipissing I Nipissing II 

Michigan Algonquin Algonquin terrace terrace terrace terrace 

(km) terrace terrace 

Michipicoten 730 -- -- -- -- -- -- Michipicoten Island 600 -- -- -- -- -- -- North Bay 630 -- -- -- -- 212 207 

Killarney Bay 590 -- -- -- -- -- 199.6 

Sault Ste. Marie 570 300 269.9 239.1 -- -- 197 

Algoma Mills 570 -- -- -- 223.9 -- -- Manitoulin Island 530 287 -- -- -- -- 195.1 

Mackinac Island 510 247 231 219.3 208.1 -- 192.5 

Mackinac City 490 242.5 227.5 -- -- -- --

Carp Lake 496 -- -- 214.1 -- -- -- Cross Village 480 -- -- -- 201.3 -- -- Petosky 450 214.7 205.6 200.7 -- -- -- Burt Lake 450 -- -- -- -- -- -- Charlevoix 440 211.10 202 190.6 -- -- -- North Manitou 420 -- -- -- 187.9 -- -- Island 

Traverse City 385 -- -- -- -- -- -- Saginaw Bay 210 -- -- -- -- -- --

Port Huron/Sarnia 190 -- -- -- -- -- 183.6 

Kenosha 100 -- -- -- -- 183 181 

Michigan City 10 -- -- -- -- 182.5 --

Theoretical Altitude 

Algoma Altitude Source 

terrace 100-yr B.P. 

terrace 

-- 176.60 Clark and Persoage ~1970~. 

-- 176.52 Clark and Persoage 1970 . 

-- 176.44 Lewis and Taylor (1915), 

Lewis (1969), Clark and 

Persoage (1970). 

-- -- Lewis (1970). 

-- 176.38 Leverett and Taylor (1915), 

Clark and Persoage ~1970). 

189.1 -- Leverett and Taylor (1 15). 

-- -- Lewis (1970). 

-- -- Leverett and Taylor ~1915J 

-- 176.30 Leverett and Taylor 1915 , 

Clark and Persoage ~19 0). 

-- -- Leverett and Taylor f 15l. -- -- Leverett and Taylor 1915 . 

-- -- Leverett and Taylor 1915 . 

184.5 -- W. Lovis (personal commun.). 

-- -- Leverett and Taylor ~1915~. 

-- -- Leverett and Taylor 1915 . 

-- 176.22 Clark and Persoage (1970). 

181 176.12 Larsen and Demeter ( 1979), 

Clark and Persoage (1970). 

180.5 -- Lewis ~1969, 197£, Parorth 

(196 (· Karrow 1980 . 179 -- Larsen 1974, 198 a). 

-- -- Gutschick and Gonsiewki 

(1976), Larsen (1985a). 
shoreline. This model suggests revision of some aspects 

of the lake history and indicates sites of confirming 

evidence beneath Lake Michigan. 

EVIDENCE FOR LOW LAKE MICHIGAN AND 

LAKE HURON LEVELS 

Stratigraphic research on Great Lakes level changes 

has been obscured by the concepts of hinge-line and fixed 

southern outlet channels for Lake Algonquin and the 

later Nipissing Great Lakes levels. Although periods of 

lower lake level have been proposed (for example, the 

Kirkfield and Ottawa stages of Leverett and Taylor [1915] 

and the Chippewa and Stanley low stages of Hough [1955, 

1958, 1962] and Stanley [1937]), the control to their levels 

has been difficult to explain. In the Lake Michigan and 

Lake Huron basins, control of the low levels has been 

attributed to the Kirkfield and North Bay outlets and that 

of the high Main Algonquin and Nipissing levels to the 

altitudes of the southern outlets. 

The Chippewa and Stanley Low Levels 

Submerged evidence for lower-than-present lake 

levels in both the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron basins 

has generally been attributed to the Chippewa and Stanley 

low levels between about 10,000 and 7,500 yr B.P. For 

Lake Michigan, the earliest dated submerged evidence 

(see Appendix for explanations of analysis numbers) is 

found at the Mackinac Straits, where a fluvially eroded 

channel joins the lake basins. The 112-km-long channel 

was incised into a surface at altitude 160 m (Stanley, 

1937). The spillway to the channel is at about 140m, and 

downstream in Lake Huron, the channel is cut as low as 

117 m into red glaciolacustrine clay (Hough, 1962). 

Spruce stumps near the channel and in growth position at 

about 140m range in age from 9,780 yr B.P. (M-1996) to 

8,150 yr B.P. (M-2337). Thus, the level of both lakes was 

below 140m during this time. The date of a stump at 167 

m near the western approach to the Straits, 6,788 yr B.P. 

(M-1888), suggests that a rising level had rejoined the 

basins after this time. Confirming evidence from a similar 

altitude in Lake Huron is reported from St. Joseph Island 

(6,500 yr B.P., GSC-2245). By 6,270 yr B.P. (M-1282), 

the rising lake had inundated wood, now at 179 m, near 

Cheboygan, Mich. 

A similar submerged record for a falling water level 

is preserved in Georgian Bay near Manitoulin Island, 

Ontario, where plant detritus, peat, and tree stumps have 

been found at altitudes between 145 and 160 m. Sly and 

Lewis (1972) reported a date of 10,305±78 yr B.P. on 

stumps found at a 145-m altitude off the tip of the Bruce 

Peninsula. Peat near this locality and depth is dated at 

9,440 yr B.P. (GSC-1397). Lag gravels (associated with 

low lake levels) have been reported at 122 m in this 

general area (Sly and Sandilands, 1988). These authors 

also suggested that glaciolacustrine clays were exposed to 

erosion to an altitude of 87 m, and echo trace data 

indicate that the erosion surface may extend as low as 77 

m. Tovell and others (1972) noted plant detritus at an 

altitude of 81 m in a nearby core as well as shallow-water 

sands and gravels as low as 62 m. Thus, the drop of 

Georgian Bay to its Hough low level prior to 10,300 yr 

B.P. caused related drops in the upstream lakes in the 

main Huron and Michigan basins. 

In the main Lake Huron basin, shallow-water 

organic layers from the bottom sediments of South Bay, 

Manitoulin Island, found at 162 and 161m, were dated at 

8,310 (GSC-1979) and 9,260yr B.P. (GSC-1971), respectively. Gyttja dated at 10,150 yr B.P. (GSC-1108) from 

nearby Tehkummah Lake (surface altitude 191.7 m; 

Lewis, 1970) shows that this small lake was separated 

from the main Huron basin by a falling level before this 

time. 

The fall in level was in response to the opening of a 

relatively lower outlet at North Bay (Harrison, 1970, 

1972). Lake Huron drained northward to a still lower level 

of Georgian Bay. Lewis and Anderson (1985) suggested 

that the Stanley level drained through a connecting channel at the Mississagi Strait near the northwestern shore of 

Manitoulin Island (sediment-water interface at 125m). A 

still lower channel (sediment-water interface at 107 m) 

crosses the Niagaran escarpment at the eastern end of the 

island. In any event, the main Lake Huron basin drained 

to Georgian Bay controlled by sills on the Niagaran 

escarpment, while water in the Lake Michigan basin was 

controlled by the head of the Mackinac River channel with 

a threshold at about 140 m. The Michigan and Huron 

basins were separated by this river between 10,300 and 

9,800 yr B.P. and were not rejoined until rising water in 

the Lake Huron basin inundated the Mackinac Straits 

after 8,150 yr B.P. 

In the southern Lake Huron basin, Anderson and 

Lewis (1974) described subaerial exposure of the lake 

bottom north of Saginaw Bay where marsh peat (9,370 

yr B.P., GSC-1935) overlies glaciolacustrine sediments 

at an altitude of 126 m. Reflooding of the basin is 

indicated by algal gyttja found at nearly the same altitude and dated to 8,460 yr B.P. (GSC-1966). This 

transgression reached an altitude of 172 m after 7,250 

yr B.P. (M-1012), when trees near Thompsons Harbor, 

Mich., were inundated. 

The radiocarbon record for the Stanley level is 

consistent with dated organic remains from the St. Qair 

delta south of Port Huron. Subaerial exposure of this 

outlet channel is indicated at least as early as 

9,310±210 yr B.P. (Mandelbaum, 1969) by wood near 

the base of the deltaic sediments. Gyttja dated at 

7,300±80 yr B.P. by Wightman (1961) at 172m overly14 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
.. .. ;: • 

• :I .. 0 :I 

0 ,.. 

• 

e 1111 

I! 

• .. • 0 0 

II. z 

360 •• " • 

1200 

c 1: 

340 :::; :::; 

• • 1100 

320 al al 

.: c: 

300 := ~ 

~ c al 

280 '; .: :I ~ • .. 0 1: .!! 0 

-; c ~ Q. 

e i 0 :I c ::c I l .. 

0 

~ 

1000 

900 

800 

700 

600 .. 

• F II. • 

500 .5 

• B-B', Low•r Alaonquln 

log 'I"" O.OOOiUhct 1.882, r • 0.1106 

, 

400 ~ ~ C-C', Bettlefl•ld 

log 'I= 0.00071x + 1.975, rs 0.988 30() 

D-D', Fort Brad'/ 

loa 'I= o.ooos1x + 2.011, r = 0.099 200 

E-E', Nlpleelng II 

log 'I= o.ooooax + 2.2468, r-= 0.902 100 

F-F', Algoma 

log 'I= 0.00004x + 2.2•••. r= 0.927 0 

~ -100 

! • • 

0 !! - ::E 

c loC c ! ,.. '0,.. .., u = • • 0 • • • • 0 D .1: II ! :11>.-_ 

II • c 0 • i • • • .!• - - .. .. • 0 .- "0 . . - ~ v i • c • c ... v u c • 0 :c • :II • ..:e • • • • 0 

u :Ill: :1 :1 OD. :1 ::E ::E In IL z 

I I I I II I I I I I I 

-200 

I I I I I I I I I 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 

Distance In Kilometers 

Figure 9. Calculated Main Algonquin and post-Algonquin water planes plotted normal to isobases of historic uplift along 

the east shore of Lake Michigan. 

ing peat beneath the delta indicates rising water levels. 

Deltaic sedimentation, dated from wood fragments to 

6,100±80 yr B.P., covered the gyttja and marsh deposits. Thus, Lake Huron drainage to the south through the 

St. Oair River began after this date. 

The Chippewa low level in the Lake Michigan 

basin is poorly recorded. Apart from the Mackinac 

Straits dates, which also apply to northern Lake Huron, 

evidence for subaerial exposure and marsh development 

is recorded at Grand Traverse Bay where plant detritus 

at 153 m is dated at 7,850 yr B.P. (M-834). This 

deposit indicates a rising level that followed inundation 

of the Straits at about 8,150 yr B.P. and was caused by a 

rising North Bay outlet. In the north, the level had risen 

to 167m by 6,788 yr B.P. (M-1888), while in the south 

the transgression surpassed 177 m after 6,350 yr B.P. 

(ISGS-185) and 6,340 yr B.P. (W-1017) near Kenosha, 

Wis. (Larsen, 1985a,b ). 

Dates on peat from the Chicago outlet, 8,690 yr 

B.P. (ISGS-1241) and 6,280 yr B.P. (ISGS-960), show 

Evidence for Low Lake Michigan and Lake Huron Levels 15 
that the outlet channel was subaerially exposed during 

these periods. Southward drainage began after 6,300 yr 

B.P., as indicated by clayey silt deposition that covered 

these marshes. Active drainage to the south ended by 

3,390 yr B.P. (ISGS-1240) when peat accumulation was 

renewed. 

Hough (1955, 1958) defined the Chippewa low 

level on the basis of bottom cores from southern Lake 

Michigan. An unconformity at altitude 79 m truncated 

red glaciolacustrine clays of the Sheboygan Member of 

the Lake Michigan Formation (fig. 10), dated between 

11,200 and 9,800 yr B.P. (Lineback and others, 1970; 

Drexler and others, 1983; Farrand and Drexler, 1985). 

A thin zone of sand containing mollusk sheHs characterized the unconformity. Shells found offshore Muskegon 

and Manistee, Mich., provided dates of 7,400 yr B.P. 

(M-1571) at 73 m, 7,580 yr B.P. (M-1736) at 80 m, 

and 7,570 yr B.P. (M-1972) at 69 m. Gray lacustrine 

sediments of the Winnetka Member overlie and, in 

some places, truncate the red clays (Lineback and others, 1970). Hough's dates (Crane and Griffin, 1965, 

1968, 1970) mark the base of the Winnetka Member. 

The stratigraphic record indicates low postglacial 

Lake Michigan levels ·controlled by the threshold altitude of the Mackinac River channel at about 140m. An 

apparent fall in level from the 208-m Fort Brady terrace 

on Mackinac Island to the 140-m spillway took place 

when the North Bay outlet opened between 10,300 and 

10,100 yr B.P. The Stanley level of Lake Huron fell at 

least as low as 117 m at the Niagaran escarpment 

before draining into Georgian Bay. The Hough level in 

Georgian Bay dropped to between 62 and 90 m and 

drained to the North Bay outlet (Sly and Lewis, 1972; 

Sly, written commun., 1985). The rising water that inundated the Mackinac Straits after 8,150 yr B.P. shows 

progressive uplift of the controlling outlet at North Bay. 

The level rose to within 10 m of the present lake surface between 6, 788 and 6,500 yr B.P. and above it by 

6,270 yr B.P. 

The Main Algonquin Low Level 

The truncated glaciolacustrine Sheboygan Member 

overlain by the lacustrine Winnetka Member in Lake 

Michigan bottom sediments is a significant marker highlighted by the change from red to gray clay. Lineback and 

others (1974) related the deposition of red clay to the 

retreat of Greatlakean glacier ice from the Lake Michigan 

basin. The red clay originated in ice in the Lake Superior 

basin (Lineback and others, 1979). Drexler and others 

(1983) associated red clays of the upper and lower parts 

of the Sheboygan Member with separate discharges of 

meltwater from ice fronts lying in the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan. The Sheboygan Member postdates the retreat 

of ice from the Lake Michigan basin at about 11,200 yr 

B.P. The upper part of the member corresponds to the 

Marquette glacier advance into Lake Superior at about 

9,900 yr B.P. (Drexler and others, 1983; Farrand and 

Drexler, 1985). This sequence marks the final flow of 

meltwater and red clay from the north. The subsequent 

gray lacustrine clays of the Lake Michigan Formation 

were derived from erosion of the surrounding glacial 

deposits and postdate retreat of Marquette ice at about 

9,800 yr B.P. Definitive dates on the red clay-gray clay 

interface in Lake Michigan are not available, but in 

Georgian Bay, near Manitoulin Island, the change from 

glaciolacustrine sedimentation predates 9,770 yr B.P. 

(GSC-1830, Sly and Sandilands, 1988) and predates peat 

formation at 9,370 yr B.P. (GSC-1935) near Saginaw Bay 

(Anderson and Lewis, 197 4). 

The Main Algonquin through Wyebridge terraces 

near Sault Ste. Marie that postdate deglaciation of the 

Mackinac Straits at about 11,200 yr B.P. were truncated 

by the Grand Marais Moraine of the Marquette advance 

at about 9,900 yr B.P. (Drexler and others, 1983; Farrand 

and Drexler, 1985) and possibly as late as 9,600 yr B.P. 

(Clayton, 1983). The altitude of the Wyebridge terrace as 

identified by Drexler and others (1983) coincides with the 

Battlefield shoreline of Leverett and Taylor (1915). 

Marquette ice remained at this terminal position until 

about 9,800 yr B.P. Therefore, the Main Algonquin 

through Fort Brady terraces of Leverett and Taylor range 

in age from about 11,200 to about 10,000 yr B.P. and are 

broadly contemporaneous with the red clays of the 

Sheboygan Member. Retreat of the Marquette ice front 

marked the end of red-clay deposition but apparently 

postdated opening of the North Bay outlet (Farrand and 

Drexler, 1985). The red clays of the Sheboygan Member 

are stratigraphic markers in the bottom sediments of Lake 

Michigan. 

In the southern Lake Michigan basin, the red clays 

of the Sheboygan Member are found present below an 

altitude of 95 m (Lineback and others, 1972). On the 

southern slope to the Lake Michigan basin, they are 

onlapped by the Winnetka Member at an altitude of 92 m 

(Lineback and others, 1972). East of Waukegan, Ill., the 

upper limit to the red clay is also 92 m, but, east of 

Milwaukee, the Sheboygan is found as high as 100 m 

(Lineback and others, 1972, Core 861). Farther to the 

north near the Straits, the Sheboygan Member has been 

reported at an altitude of 152m (Illinois State Geological 

Survey, Core 1132, A. Hansel, written commun., 1984). D. 

Rea (written commun., 1985) also reported the presence 

of the Winnetka-Sheboygan unconformity between altitudes 120 and 130 m at Little Traverse Bay near Charlevoix. Cahill (1981) reported red glaciolacustrine clays at 

about 172 m in Green Bay. Finally, Kelly (in Crane and 

Griffin, 1961) described varved red clays overlain by gray 

Holocene lacustrine clays above the level of the lake (178 

16 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
Lake Superior 

North South 

Age 

Years B.P. 

o~~~~------~~~~ ·-~:.·.=.·:. ·.··.: ~· .. ·. Sand 

Brown 

Sediment 

..,_..._..__.. 

Massive 

Gray 

Clay 

Age 

Years B.P. 

Lake Michigan 

o-...--..... ------.......----. 

Waukegan 

Member 

c: 

0 

Lake Forest .. 

~ 

Member e 7050~----~----------~ ~ 

8200~~-~-~-:~~~~--~-~~~~L~-~-~~=L~

500 ~-= 

_ __; ----- ...... ~ --=-=--- == ~ 9800 ~~---~lllllj,~~-~;::"1""':-...:.#f-1~~~~;7", --------1 

0 

LL 

Winnetka c 

Member CG 

C) 

J: 

0 

1300 

Varves 

~:=-:~= =--=-- ==-=--=---~ Ora Y (~~?i~~:l~[~ __ -:...= ==----- Varved 

Sheboygan :::E 

Member CD 

=--=~-=- ---=-.:-=--= CIa y 

--

---- --- --

----- ----- ---- --- ===--= ----

--- --- ---- - -_-:_ 9800 ---

9500 ... -~-==-:-~==-~:.....-__________ :;;;*': ~=~ved 

' 

Wilmette Bed 

South 

Haven 

Member 

~ 

~ 

..J 

.i:·£~ _-J.P..~. ~. "":.~ ...... c ray 

· · ·· · ,j::t_: .. ~.~.:~ ... -~--:::,::_:_.:' .• · ..):: ... 1_;_·.:.:_::.·.:.·.: R e d C I a y /!!::~·t~:.·~~;{~:~;;~· ,._ ~~~~---------~~~~ ··· ·. ·.·. · 99 · ··: ·.· Sand .. :.:.:: .. ~,-.: R d 00 .~-~ ..... ~ .:.: .. : =~·;·~l~i~ e ~1.;,::~(·~';; Red Till •.·t..~-::;.· ·i: .ti and Gray 1Z~ ::f'~ :·~r 

!'-~.•.-_•.. Equality FM. 11,500~~~~--~------------

~~?.:r.;,~ 13,5QO.....-Iiilioilioiii.lillil Red Till 

Till 

Figure 10. Dating of the Lake Michigan Formation (Lineback and others, 1979) on the basis of the revised glacial geology 

of the Lake Superior basin (Drexler and others, 1983; Clayton, 1983; Farrand and Drexler, 1985). 

m) at the Mackinac Straits. This progression suggests that 

the upper limit to the red clay rises to the north. 

In all reports, the red clays occur below the projected Battlefield water plane (fig. 11) that immediately 

predates the Marquette advance. Farrand and Drexler 

(1985) pointed out that final overflow to the Michigan 

basin from the Superior basin, including that from the 

Marquette advance, was through the Whitefish-Au Train 

channels near northern Green Bay. Because the gradient 

of these channels, with a threshold at 234 m (Lineback 

and others, 1979; Farrand and Drexler, 1985), coincides 

with the Battlefield shoreline (figs. 9, 11 ), a relationship 

between that former water plane and the early Sheboygan 

Member is likely. Although Lake Huron had fallen below 

the threshold of the Mackinac Straits before the final 

contribution of red clays from Marquette ice, the Battlefield and Fort Brady water planes in the south approximate a nearly contemporaneous upper limit to the occurrence of the Sheboygan Member. The successively younger 

Winnetka and Lake Forest members tend to pinch out at 

progressively higher altitudes, 132m (Buckley, 1974) and 

147 m (Lineback and others, 1970), respectively. This 

Evidence for Low Lake Michigan and Lake Huron Levels 17 
360 . • • • c: c 340 :::i :::i 

• • 320 0 0 

c: c 

300 ~ 1 c 0 

:; c 

cr .. c: • 0 "i 0 z D' c 

GOO 

800 

700 

200 

• 180 .. 

• 

eoo • II. • .... 180 • .! 

:1 • 

.!: 140 

'g • 120 

~ c 100 e Red Glaciolacustrine Clays 

"0 

~ c 

300 

80 

.A Submerged Terraces 200 

40 100 

20 

0 0 

: • i: .. • :: :1 -100 

fll • c 0 0 • • ;; 0 0 • c 0 • .... :; .. • .1111 • -; 0 • 'i u • :c ~ • • fl) 

(.) :1 :I :I 

I I I .I 

-200 

' I I I 4bo I I I 

0 100 200 300 500 eoo 700 800 

Figure 11. Probable attitude of late-glacial red glaciolacustrine clays of the Lake Michigan basin. Circles represent present 

altitudes of red clays from bottom cores. Triangles show altitudes of submerged terraces. C-C' and D-D' are the calculated 

Battlefield and Fort Brady shorelines of figure 9. 

suggests that the red glaciolacustrine clay was originally 

deposited in a horizontal attitude and was differentially 

raised to the north by postglacial isostatic uplift. 

Terraces eroded into glacial till and covered by the 

Waukegan or Lake Forest Members of the Lake Michigan 

Formation (7,000 yr B.P. or younger) have been identified 

in high-resolution seismic profiles along the eastern edge 

of the Lake Michigan basin (Lineback and others, 1972). 

Apparent erosional surfaces are found offshore Muskegon at altitudes 70.3 m, 95 m, 98 m, 104m, and 113m 

(fig. 11 ). Dating of these features is hampered by the 

thickness of the overlying late Holocene Waukegan Member. The cores used by Lineback and others (1972) rarely 

reached into the Winnetka Member in these areas. The 

oldest age determined for the Lake Forest Member, 7,050 

yr B.P. (ISGS-36), provides the younger limit for terrace 

formation. These submerged terraces, which lie below the 

projected Algonquin-age shorelines, may be related to 

early low levels, but, because of our lack of knowledge of 

the Winnetka Member, we cannot rule out a Chippewa 

age. 

Higher erosional terraces are present on the lake 

bottom offshore Benton Harbor, Mich., and Michigan 

City, Ind., at altitudes 107 m and 142.4 m, respectively 

(Lineback and others, 1972). These terraces are covered 

by the Waukegan and Lake Forest Members and are 

related to the post-Chippewa rise in lake level. Unconformities in the Lake Michigan Formation are present offshore Benton Harbor at 100 and 110 m, where conspicuous breaks in sedimentation predate the Waukegan 

Member (3,460 yr B.P., ISGS--68) but postdate the Carmi 

Member of the underlying Equality Formation (11,500 yr 

18 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
B.P., Lineback and others, 1979). It is impossible to 

differentiate low Chippewa from low Algonquin events 

here, although these terraces are also found below the 

projected Battlefield water plane. 

OVERFLOW FROM GLACIAL LAKE AGASSIZ 

Lake Superior played a key role in dispersal of 

glacial Lake Agassiz water during the late glacial period. 

During most of its postglacial history, Lake Superior 

drained directly into the Lake Huron basin through the St. 

Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie. However, large continuous volumes of overflow from Lake Agassiz occurred 

during its Moorhead (11,000 to 10,500 yr B.P.) and 

Nipigon (9,500 to 8,500 yr B.P.) phases when ice retreat 

exposed outlets to the Lake Superior basin. Overflow was 

apparently punctuated by periodic bursts of catastrophic 

discharge that entered Lake Superior and passed eastward into Lake Huron (Teller and Thorleifson, 1983; 

Teller, 1985; Clayton, 1983). 

Direct overflow into the Lake Michigan basin took 

place briefly during the Moorhead phase. This overflow 

entered the basin through the Whitefish-Au Train channels and spilled into a post-Main Algonquin lake that 

drained eastward through the Mackinac Straits. Teller 

(1985) suggested that the Wilmette Bed within the 

Sheboygan Member of Lake Michigan Formation (fig. 

10) may reflect this diversion of Lake Agassiz water, but 

the major portion of Moorhead-phase water flowed 

directly into the Lake Huron basin. On the basis of Teller 

and Thorleifson's (1983) research, Farrand and Drexler 

(1985) postulated that catastrophic diversions of as much 

as 4,000 km3 of water into Lake Superior over short 

periods might have resulted in brief rises of 50 m in that 

lake. Similarly, they consider that if Lake Superior was 

broadly connected with the Lake Michigan and Lake 

Huron basins during the Algonquin-phase Great Lakes, 

then all three lakes may have experienced brief surges of 

as much as 20 m of Lake Agassiz water. No evidence for 

such surges has been discovered as yet. 

The advance of Marquette ice into Lake Superior 

closed drainage from Lake Agassiz until ice retreated 

once again after 9,900 yrs. B.P. Ice retreat from the Lake 

Nipigon region reopened drainage to Lake Superior. 

Increased water flow and catastrophic flooding once again 

affected the upper Great Lakes during the Nipigon phase. 

This water was directed to the Lake Huron basin, which 

had already fallen to its Stanley low level. Overflow of 

Lake Agassiz water from the Lake Huron basin was 

through the North Bay outlet to the Ottawa River. Catastrophic floods may have had a significant impact on both 

Lake Superior and Lake Huron. Teller (1985) pointed out 

that, during the Nipigon phase, flood events with volumes 

as great as 3,000 km3 took place. Had there been no 

overflow from Lake Superior, this volume would have 

raised that lake by 36m. Oearly, then, significant shortlived bursts of Lake Agassiz water must have raised Lake 

Huron waters during the Stanley low phase. Because Lake 

Huron was at its low phase, subaerial evidence for these 

events can only be anticipated at the outlet region near 

North Bay. Submerged evidence from the Lake Huron 

basin, at this juncture, seems to reflect a slow rise 

governed by uplift of the controlling outlet. 

THE NORTH BAY OUTLETS 

A complex system of outlets controlled the levels in 

the Lake Huron basin. Harrison (1970, 1972) showed that 

a series of interconnected channels along a retreating ice 

front provided the drainage link between the Great Lakes 

and the Champlain Sea to the east. Harrison noted that 

drainage shifted initially from the Kirkfield outlet and the 

Lake Ontario basin to the Ottawa River drainage through 

an intermediate outlet at South River, but this shift is 

poorly documented. The earliest northern drainage for 

which we have evidence was through the Fossmill outlet 

system, which directed overflow along the retreating ice 

front and into the upper Petawawa River drainage. Harrison (1972) suggested that overflow through this system 

took place in four distinct phases as ice retreat uncovered 

successively lower outlets to the Petawawa valley. 

The earliest of these, the Genesee phase, left 

evidence of a water plane as high as 365 m, overflowing a 

sill at 348 m at Kilrush Lake before draining to the 

eastern lowlands. A lower Fossmill-phase level at 357m 

followed. The lake had fallen below a 348-m sill at Kilrush 

Lake before gyttja deposition dated at 9,860 yr B.P. 

(GSC-1246), but drainage may have begun as early as 

11,800 (GSC-1363) and 11,400 yr B.P. (GSC-1429) as 

indicated by gyttja from Boulter Lake 6.5 km farther 

north. Fullerton (1980) and Kaszycki (1985) suggested 

that the shift to the Petawawa did not occur until10,800 yr 

B.P. Lower phases at 343 and 328 m were termed the 

Sobie-Guilmette and Mink Lake. Before 8,670 yr B.P. 

(GSC-1097) and 9,820 yr B.P. (GSC-638), the outlet 

shifted northward to the Mattawa valley through the 

Amable du Fond valley. The relative water level fell below 

an altitude of 290 m at this time. 

Shortly before 10,100 yr B.P. (GSC-1275), the 

deglaciation of North Bay allowed direct drainage through 

Trout Lake into the Mattawa River system. The water 

level there was about 212 m (Harrison, 1972). Gyttja 

deposits from lakes in the North Bay area at altitudes 

211.8 and 213.5 m have been dated at 8,320 (GSC-821) 

and 8,200 yr B.P. (GSC-815), respectively (Lewis, 1969). 

Anderson and Lewis (1987) recently suggested that shoreline features at about the 212-m altitude relate to catastrophic overflow from Nipigon-phase Lake Agassiz. If 

The North Bay Outlets 19 
this is the case, then a brief surge may have interrupted 

the steady rise in level caused by outlet uplift. 

Gyttja from successively lower lakes, including Trout 

Lake at the North Bay sill (207 m ), provided younger 

dates. These included samples at 204.2 m ( 4,650 yr B.P., 

GSC-843), 206.8 m (4,580 yr B.P., GSC-828), 202.3 m 

( 4,490 yr B.P., GSC-850), and 204.6 m ( 4,430 yr B.P., 

GSC-808). These dates limit the final drainage through 

the North Bay channel. Uplift is generally considered to 

have raised the North Bay sill above the altitudes of the 

southern outlets at this time. 

RECONSTRUCTING FORMER WATER 

PLANES 

The present altitudes of the northern outlets, 

together with the exponential-uplift model investigated 

here, provide a framework for examining the complex of 

deformed shorelines in the upper Great Lakes basin. One 

of the current problems is the correlation of the Main 

Algonquin water planes of the Lake Michigan and Lake 

Huron basins. Karrow and others (1975) pointed out a 

lack of consistency between the basins, indicating that the 

Algonquin level of Lake Michigan is considered younger 

than that of Lake Huron. 

This is highlighted in figure 9, where the calculated 

Main Algonquin of Goldthwait, Leverett, and Taylor 

passes below the controlling sill to the Kirkfield outlet at 

Fenelon Falls (257 m ). Similarly, the Main Algonquin 

terrace on Manitoulin Island at 289 m lies above the Main 

Algonquin shoreline of Lake Michigan (MAM), while 

lower terraces tend to match the altitudes shown in figure 

8 (Sly and Lewis, 1972; Sly, written commun., 1984). 

Clearly, if Goldthwait's concept of outlet control or the 

model discussed here have validity, then contemporaneous water planes, though deformed, must pass through 

their controlling outlet as well as any connecting channels. 

Figure 12 shows the position of the Chippewa 

unconformity in the Lake Michigan basin. Once the 

isostatically depressed channel at North Bay was deglaciated, three interconnected lakes were formed, each with 

levels controlled by a downstream sill. As the outlet at 

North Bay was uplifted, lake levels rose accordingly until 

each successively higher connecting channel was inundated. When this occurred at the Mackinac Straits a 

single water plane briefly joined the Mackinac River ~ill (140m), the North Bay sill (207m), and the Chippewa 

unconformity in the bottom sediments of Lake Michigan. 

The few data points available suggest that the late Chippewa water plane is described by an exponential function 

passing through four critical altitudes. Data from the 

southern basin do not plot on this curve because that 

basin contained a separate lake controlled by a channel 

with a sill at 74 m (Hough, 1958, p. 240). 

Figure 12 also identifies the locations and present 

altitudes of the northern outlets and their controlling sills. 

If deglaciation is taken as the primary explanation for 

drainage of the Michigan and Huron basin lakes, then it is 

clear that the Fenelon Falls spillway was the first outlet 

exposed. This was followed by successive exposures of the 

Fossmill (Kilrush Lake) and the North Bay systems. 

Concomitantly, least -squares regressions calculated on 

contemporaneous shoreline features must intersect outlets of similar age. 

Shoreline data from the eastern Lake Huron shore 

are shown in figure 13 superimposed on the calculated 

Lake Michigan shorelines, as projected along isobases of 

historic uplift (fig. 9). Main Algonquin and Orillia shoreline data were those assembled by Kaszycki (1985) and 

Finamore (1985) on the basis of their own and earlier 

work (Deane, 1950; Chapman, 1954). The Main 

Algonquin of Huron (MAH) shows a best-fit relationship 

through the Fenelon Falls sill and the Algonquin terrace of 

Manitoulin Island. The slope of MAH (m = 0.0014) is 

greater than that of the Main Algonquin of Michigan 

(MAM) (m = 0.0012), which implies a greater age and 

greater continuous differential uplift. A still lower shoreline, identified by Kaszycki as the Ardtrea, is based upon 

a correlation with "lower Algonquin" shorelines to the 

north and is not shown here. Its position, however, is 

below the MAH and its apparent spillway control is at 

Fenelon Falls. Thus, it predates the MAM. Her Orillia 

data, and other surfaces she considered to be Ardtrea 

(1985, her fig. 9), tend to plot on the MAM curve and 

below the Fenelon Falls sill. A least-squares regression 

calculated on Kaszycki's three recognized Orillia terraces 

and plotted on figure 13 shows a slope (m = 0.0012) and 

y intercept (b = 1.7802) nearly identical with those of the 

MAM in figure 9. In each example, these curves project 

beneath the level of Lake Huron. As a comparison, the 

MAH projects to a lower altitude than the MAM, pointing to its earlier place in the sequence. 

The calculated MAH level rises northward to the 

vicinity of Maple Lake, Ontario. It is extrapolated to an 

altitude of 361 m near the mouth of the Fossmill outlet 

system, which is nearly coincident with the Genesee level 

proposed by Harrison (1970, 1972) as the first overflow 

channel to the east. The MAM curve intersects the Mink 

Lake sill, and the Lower Algonquin curve intersects the 

lower threshold to the Amable du Fond River valley that, 

when deglaciated, shifted overflow northward from the 

Petawawa River drainage. No lower outlets correspond to 

the Battlefield and Fort Brady curves, although 

deglaciation of the North Bay region probably exposed 

lower channels. The North Bay sill (207 m) probably 

functioned as early as 10,300 yr B.P., as indicated by 

submerged stumps in Georgian Bay. A late-Chippewa 

low-phase (8,000 yr B.P.) curve passing through the 

controlling North Bay sill is shown for comparison, as are 

20 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
360 

340 

320 

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

• 180 ! 

• 2 

~ 

'a • 

~ c 

0 

-20 

-40 

-60 

Port Huron Sill (172 m) 

Chicago Sill ( 180 m) 

I 

c: • • 0 • • • : • "" .-• • :II • 'i • :::11 • ~ Ji ::1 

I I I 

0 100 300 

•• 

c: 

::; 

• a 

c: 

~ 

c: 

-; 

fl 

c: 

0 

a 

:c 

•• 

c: 

::; 

• Cll 

c: 

~ 

a 

c: 

• .! 

Q. 

i 

Kilrush Lake Sill (348 m) 

I 

A 

Fenelon Falla Sill (257 m) 

I 

A 

,._ IC 

. . -: 

. 

c ! 

.. • .. I: • Cll u 

I I 

: 

-: 

; 

0 

• c 

i 

0 

·.· 

North Bay Sill (207 m) 

11 

~ 

{Mackinac River Sill ( 140 m) 

• Red Gleclolacuatrlne Cleye 

Q Clllppewe Unconformity 

A Controlling tUlle 

• 

~ 

c • 

~ 

Ji • ; 

I I 

500 

900 

800 

700 

100 .. 

• • 

... 

500 .E 

'a • 

400 ~ :c 

300 

200 

100 

0 

-100 

•200 

Diatance in Kilometers 

Figure 12. Calculated late Chippewa water plane at about 8,000 yr B.P. Overflow of the Lake Michigan basin is to the 

northeast at the Mackinac Straits and is ultimately controlled by the North Bay outlet. 

curves for the Hough low level of Georgian Bay (10,300 

yr B.P.) and the mid-Stanley level (9,000 yr B.P.) linking 

Georgian Bay with the main Huron basin. Because all the 

calculated shorelines project below the lake surface, an 

outlet control is indicated to the north and east rather than 

at Port Huron to the south. 

The complete array of late Wisconsinan and early 

Holocene shoreline curves assembled along isobases of 

historic uplift suggests that outlet controls to the postMAR lakes were to the northeast through the Fossmill 

and then the North Bay drainage systems. This alternative, 

not considered by Goldthwait (1908) in his derivation of 

the hinge-line model, provides an explanation for terrace 

convergence. 

In addition to demonstrating outlet control, figure 

13 places the uplifted shorelines of Lake Michigan and 

Lake Huron in chronological sequence by slope value 

until the basins drained through North Bay at about 

10,300 yr B.P. The MAH and Ardtrea shorelines of 

eastern Lake Huron predate the MAM and lower shorelines of northern Lake Michigan, and the MAM may 

correlate with the Orillia shoreline of Ontario. 

At the same time, figure 13 demonstrates anomalously steep curves for the low-level lakes draining through 

North Bay. The current concept of shoreline deformation 

interprets each shoreline as an increment in an uplifting 

lake basin. The earliest and highest shoreline therefore 

records the cumulative uplift since deglaciation and shows 

Reconstructing Former Water Planes 21 
360 

.. 340 Gl 

c 

;:j 

320 ·a~ 

Cl 

c: 

300 ~ c 

~80 ·~ 

0' 

260 Cl) 

0 

240 Cl 

as 

Cl) c: 

0 c: ~ e -c: ::I 

X 

-~ 220 ,/;; 

0 

.. ... 

0 

a. 

200 I 

:! 180 

0 

a; 160 ::t 

~ 140 

G) 

~ 120 :I 

--

< 100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

-20 

-40 

-60 

0 100 200 300 

•CII 

c: 

;:j 

G) 

Cl 

.5 

;:. 

·a 

c: 

-; 

., 

0. 

z 

I 

i ! ~ ::I 0 

0 ,.. 

as 

E m Cll ~ • 0 I i 

\ --Gene••• Level 

0 /~ -- Foumlll Level . 

!! ~ --Kilrush Lake Sill 

ca I ~ i ;;t\ --Mink Lake Sill 

:f /.1 A --Amable du Fond Sill 

IJ/ \ A: a 

0/ 

~~!;; North Bay Sill 0 

.. 

0 

a. 

I 

Mackinac Sill 

Niagaran Escarpment 

• Controlling Sills 

e Main Algonquin of Huron 

• Lower Algonquin ? 

0 Orillla 

Distance in Kilometers 

Figure 13. Algonquin shoreline data of Lake Huron projected onto the Lake Michigan normal plane (fig. 9). The 

Chippewa-Stanley-Hough low levels are also shown. The 

Main Algonquin of Huron (MAH) is altitudinally higher than 

the Main Algonquin of Michigan (MAM). The Main 

the steepest gradient. Each successively younger shoreline 

should be lower in the sequence and display decreasing 

gradients through time. The calculated water planes for 

the lakes draining at North Bay show slope coefficients of 

0.005, 0.0024, and 0.0012, indicating gradients as great as 

or greater than those of the MAH and MAM. Figure 14, 

Algonquin and post-Algonquin lakes drain northward as 

progressively lower outlets are deglaciated. The Lower 

Algonquin shoreline of Lake Michigan apparently drained 

across the Amable du Fond sill. 

on the other hand, demonstrates that the slopes of the 

low-level lakes are consistent with those of the Nipissing II 

(4,000yr B.P.) and Algoma (3,200yr B.P.) shorelines (fig. 

9) and a historic shoreline (100 yr B.P.) calculated from 

the lake-level gauge data (table 3). The slopes of the 

MAH and MAM are shown for comparison. This an om22 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
0.01 

~gh Low Level of Georgian Bay 

0.01 

\ 

\ 

QMAH 

bMAM 

\ 

e'\nfluent Stanley Level with Georgian Bay 

e Confluent c·hippewa and s·tanley Low Levels 

... 

c 

CD 

(J 

--

CD 

0 

0 

CD 

c. 

0 

0 

CD 

c: 

CD 

... 

0 

.c 

UJ 

0.001 

0.00001 

' 

Log y.: 0.0003x - 6.6488 

r = 0.995 

0.001 

0.0001 

0~0000 1 

Historic Uplift e 

' 

12 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 

Radiocarbon Years Before Present (x 1000) 

Figure 14. Decreasing slope coefficients of postglacial water planes following the establishment of the North Bay outlet. 

The slopes of the MAH and MAM are shown for comparison. 

aly underscores the value of the exponential model for 

reconstructing post-10,300 yr B.P. water planes but points 

out potential problems with the earlier shoreline data. 

Several factors may influence the low gradients of 

the Algonquin shorelines. Figure 13 shows the control of 

a single, rising spillway between 10,300 and 4,000 yr B.P. 

The Algonquin water planes, on the other hand, were 

governed by a shift from the Kirkfield to the Fossmill 

systems, each spillway rebounding at a different rate upon 

deglaciation. In addition, the Fossmill spillways were 

occupied only briefly as successively lower channels were 

deglaciated. These changes, coupled with the dissimilar 

deglaciation histories of the two lake basins, the effect of 

the Marquette advance into the Lake Superior basin, and 

overflow from Lake Agassiz, may account for the discrepancies noted. 

A CHRONOLOGY OF LAKE MICHIGAN AND 

LAKE HURON LEVELS 

A preliminary chronology for the Lake Michigan 

and Lake Huron basins is shown in table 4 using 11,500 yr 

A Chronology of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron Levels 23 
B.P. as the youngest probable deglaciation of the Kirkfield 

outlet (Karrow and others, 1975). In the few hundred 

years before 11,500 yr B.P., separate proglacial lakes 

draining southward through the Chicago and Port Huron 

outlets occupied the Michigan and Huron basins, respectively. Lake Chicago stood at its Calumet level of 189 m 

while Early Lake Algonquin filled the southern Huron 

basin, possibly at a 184.5-m level (fig. 15). Ice retreat into 

a progressively deepening isostatic depression caused 

deglaciation of successively lower northern outlets, which 

in turn caused the lakes to fall. 

Main Algonquin of Huron (MAH) 

Deglaciation of the Fenelon Falls sill before 11,500 

yr B.P. opened a low outlet to the Ontario basin near 

Kirkfield, Ontario. This event caused a drop in Lake 

Huron to a low level identified as the Kirkfield Stage 

(table 1) by Leverett and Taylor (1915) but correlated in 

table 4 with the MAH shoreline, which passes through the 

Fenelon Falls sill. Continued rapid ice retreat into the 

North Bay region opened lower overflow channels to the 

headwaters of the Petawawa River drainage and allowed 

the lake to fall and to abandon the Kirkfield outlet (fig. 

16). 

Main Algonquin of Michigan (MAM) 

Deglaciation of the Lake Michigan basin was accompanied by northward expansion of Calumet-level Lake 

Chicago until drainage channels to the Huron basin were 

uncovered north of Traverse City, Mich. Drainage through 

the Indian River lowland possibly linked the two lake 

basins briefly, joining the Calumet level of Lake Chicago 

with the MAH (fig. 17). 

Deglaciation of the Mackinac Straits at about 11,200 

yr B.P. joined the basins at depth. The MAM dates from 

this period and represents a single water plane draining to 

the north through the Fossmill system and probably 

controlled by the Mink Lake sill at 328m. This isostatically depressed outlet channel caused the level of Lake 

Michigan to fall to a low of about 61 m in the southern 

basin. The best altitudinal correlative with the MAM is 

the Orillia shoreline of northeastern Lake Huron. 

The Post-Algonquin Lakes 

The Lower Algonquin, Battlefield, and Fort Brady 

shorelines of Leverett and Taylor (1915)-subsequently 

renamed by Stanley (1937) as the Wyebridge, Penetang, 

and Cedar Point-as well as the altitudinally lower Payette, Sheguiandah, and Korah shorelines of Lake Huron, 

postdate the MAM (11,200 yr B.P.) and predate drainage 

across the North Bay sill (10,300 yr B.P.). Each shoreline 

relates to northern overflow via successively lower outlet 

thresholds. The Lower Algonquin shoreline, as originally 

described for Lake Michigan, appears to coincide with 

overflow to the Mattawa valley through the Amable du 

Fond valley as well as a shift away from the Petawawa 

headwaters. The outlet controls to the subsequent levels 

are not documented. As Harrison (1970, 1972) proposed, 

overflow may have paralleled the receding ice edge and 

allowed the lakes to fall until the final channel at North 

Bay was uncovered. A progressive fall in outlet altitude, in 

concert with a rapidly rebounding crust, resulted in a 

transgression in the southern lake basins in the manner 

shown in figure 5, until North Bay was deglaciated. 

The Chippewa and Stanley Low Levels 

The lakes underwent their final fall when ice receded 

from North Bay (fig. 18). The level of Georgian Bay 

dropped to as low as 62 m. The Stanley level of the main 

Huron basin, controlled by sills along the Niagaran escarpment separating it from Georgian Bay, fell to as low as 107 

m. The Lake Michigan level, in turn, fell to a plateau near 

160 m at the Mackinac Straits and subsequently eroded 

the Mackinac River channel to a controlling threshold 

now at about 140 m. This spillway governed a lowered 

level of the lake, creating a separate lake in the south at an 

altitude of about 55 m that overflowed northward through 

a channel near Muskegon (Hough, 1958, p. 241 ). The 

slow rise from the early Chippewa low level in the 

southern basin was controlled by uplift of the Mackinac 

Straits. In contrast, southern Lake Huron was drained 

when the waters of the Stanley level fell below a 113-m 

threshold along an escarpment separating the northern 

and southern basins. 

The low-level phases of Lake Michigan and Lake 

Huron (table 4) were progressively ended by uplift of the 

controlling spillway at North Bay. First, the uplifting outlet 

caused the Hough level of Georgian Bay to rise until it 

attained the altitude of the connecting channels to the 

main Huron basin about 9,000 yr B.P. The confluent level 

of both basins then rose to the 113-m threshold to reflood 

the southern Huron basin after 8,460 yr B.P. Some portion 

of this rise to reflood the southern Huron basin may have 

been caused by Nipigon-phase flooding from Lake Agassiz, but the evidence is unclear. A transgression, led by the 

expanding lake in the Huron basin and caused by the 

steadily rising North Bay outlet, rejoined the Michigan 

and Huron basins at the Mackinac Straits after 8,150 yr 

B.P. The episode marked the end of separate low-level 

phases in the lakes and initiated the pre-Nip is sing transgression. 

24 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
Table 4. Preliminary chronology for the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron basins 

AGE 

YEARS 

B.P. 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

8000 

9000 

10,000 

11,000 

12,000 

13,000 

LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE HURON 

Modern Lakes 

Algoma Great Lakes 

Nipissing Great Lakes 

{Confluent with Lake Superior) 

Pre-Nipissing Transgression 

(Confluent Lake Michigan and Lake Huron Basins) 

Michigan Basin Draining via 

the Mackinac River Channel 

Two Creeks Low 

Glenwood II 

Glenwood 

Confluent Main Huron & 

Georgian Bay Basins 

Huron Basin Draining to 

Hough Level Georgian Bay 

Confluent Lakes of the 

Huron and Erie Basins 

OUTLETS 

"'0 - ::-- l=l 0 ] - 10 tJI ·a l:Q .... ..... o 10 Q) ........ 0 ~ til ~ A 

;a til .... .... 0 .... 0 {.) ~ ~ 0 

z 

Pre-Nipissing Transgression 

Reflooding of the Mackinac Straits began a tandem 

transgression in the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron 

basins related to overflow at North Bay (fig. 19). This 

transgression continued until overflow to the south began 

at Port Huron before 6,100 yr B.P. The pre-Nipissing 

transgression (table 4) attained the threshold of the 

Chicago outlet (180m) after 6,300 yr B.P. From this point, 

the combined southern outlets modulated lake level in the 

confluent basins. 

A Chronology of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron Levels 25 
\ / 

I ---- ---

--

0 100 200 MILES 

0 100 200 KILOMETERS 

Figure 15. Calumet-level Lake Chicago and Early Lake Algonquin. Overflow was to the south at Chicago and Port Huron 

at the maximum advance of Two Rivers ice about 11,800 yr B.P. Early Lake Erie drained to the Lake Ontario basin. 

Nipissing and Algoma Great Lakes 

Once drainage to the south was established, the 

outlet configurations and probable paleoclimatic influences on water volume became major variables in the 

system. Lake level fluctuated about a mean altitude 

adjusted to the cross sections of the southern outlets. 

Before 4,500 yr B.P., the record of lake-level change is 

poorly known; however, distinct high levels occurred at 

4,500, 4,000, and 3,200 yr B.P. (Larsen, 1985a,b). These 

highs, referred to as the Nipissing I, Nipissing II, and 

Algoma levels, are identified by terraces that rise exponentially with distance from the southern shores of Lake 

Michigan to the North Bay region (Larsen, 1985b). They 

reflect probable high-amplitude fluctuations related to 

runoff variations in the drainage basins. The permanent 

outlet channel linking North Bay with the Mattawa River 

maintained a level adjusted to its rising sill. Isostatic uplift 

finally raised the North Bay sill above the southern outlets 

between 4,500 and 4,000 yr B.P. The Chicago outlet was 

abandoned after 4,000 yr B.P., and the modern drainage 

system at Port Huron came into being (fig. 20). Since 

then, lake levels have continued to fluctuate adjusted to a 

single outlet channel. 

CONCLUSION 

The uplifted Lake Algonquin terraces of the northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron basins are progressively deformed from youngest to oldest to the north. 

Profiles drawn along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan 

and erected normal to isobases of historic vertical movement show that these late glacial terraces fit exponential 

curves directed toward the former centers of glacial-ice 

loading near Hudson Bay. The Main Algonquin through 

Fort Brady terraces of Leverett and Taylor (1915) show 

concave-upward slopes that decrease in steepness with 

both distance and time, implying a decrease in the rate of 

uplift. Vertical movement, monitored over the Great Lakes 

26 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
/ 

0 100 200 MILES 

0 100 200 KILOMETERS 

re gonqu of Lake Huron 1,600 to 11,300 yr B.P.). 

Overflow was to the south at Chicago and eastward to Early Lake Ontario at Kirkfield. The Michigan and Huron basins 

were possibly linked by drainage through the Indian River lowland south of the Mackinac Straits. Lake Erie overflowed to the 

Lake Ontario basin. 

basin during the past century, shows an exponential 

decrease with distance from the former ice centers. This 

similarity points to a continuous process of deformation 

of the Great Lakes basin related to postglacial isostatic 

uplift of the region that followed deglaciation. The terrace 

sequences of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron reflect 

increments of isostatic adjustment; the highest terrace in 

each lake basin represents the cumulative vertical movement since deglaciation. 

The calculated Main Algonquin through Fort Brady 

shorelines of Lake Michigan descend in altitude to the 

south and plunge beneath the present surface of the lake 

south of Traverse City, Mich. This area was chosen as a 

hinge line by Goldthwait (1907, 1908, 1910b) and Leverett and Taylor (1915). These authors thought that the 

deformed terraces north of the hinge line merged with a 

nearly horizontal terrace at the hinge line. The projected 

Algonquin and post-Algonquin water planes, however, 

indicate a low lake that did not drain to the south but was 

controlled initially by the eastern outlet of Lake Huron 

near Kirkfield, Ontario, and subsequently by deglaciation 

of the Fossmill outlet system. A low late Wisconsinan lake 

may be evidenced by the presence and upper altitude of 

red glaciolacustrine clays in the Lake Michigan basin. The 

contemporaneous late glacial water planes, projected to 

the south, represent the upper limit to red-clay deposition 

and indicate the attitude of the former lake surface. These 

data delineate an isostatically deformed region extending 

south of Lake Michigan that rebounded after deglaciation. 

The concept of continuous isostatic deformation of the 

basin enables us to derive consistent relative lake-level 

models for the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron basins. 

These models are developed on the basis of the observed 

exponential decay of the rate of uplift following 

deglaciation and the exponential decrease in the amount 

of uplift with distance from the former centers of isostatic 

depression. The change in the position of water planes can 

also be described by similar functions for critical areas in 

Conclusion 27 
.....____ I - ---

--- I .............. I I 

-........ -- -- ---- -

0 100 200 MILES 

0 100 200 KILOMETERS 

Figure 17. Main Algonquin level of Lake Michigan confluent with the Orillia (?) level of the Lake Huron basin (11 ,200 to 

11,000 yr B.P.). Overflow was eastward to the Ottawa valley at the Mink Lake sill. Lake Erie and Lake Ontario basins 

contained low lakes controlled by rising northeastern outlets (fig. 5, case 3), which show rising water levels along their 

western shores. 

the paleohydrological system. Such models compare synchronous events throughout the interconnected lake 

basins and, when coupled with detailed field investigations, will lead to further revisions to the lake-level 

chronology shown in table 4. 

The interpretations presented here differ from those 

predicated on the early views concerning Lake Algonquin, 

the hinge line, and stable southern outlet regions. The 

Great Lakes region is a dynamic, isostatically rebounding system. Main Lake Algonquin of Lake Huron was 

a low-level lake that drained eastward into an isostatically depressed region at Kirkfield, Ontario. It was 

not contemporaneous with the Main Algonquin shoreline of Lake Michigan, which also represented a lowlevel lake, but one that drained via the Fossmill outlet 

system. 

28 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
Figure 18. Chippewa and Stanley low levels. Marquette 

ice filled the Lake Superior basin and supplied overflow 

through the Whitefish-Au Train channels (9,900 yr B.P.). 

The upper Great Lakes drained eastward to the Ottawa 

valley across a controlling sill at North Bay that was 

deglaciated as early as 10,300 yr B.P. Chippewa-level Lake 

0 100 200 KILOMETERS 

Michigan overflowed eastward through the Mackinac River 

channel. Separate lakes occupied the deep basins of Lake 

Huron and overflowed across the Niagaran escarpment 

into the Hough low level in Georgian Bay. Lake Erie and 

Lake Ontario continued to rise and expand westward as 

their outlets rose. 

Conclusion 29 
0 100 200 KILOMETERS 

Figure 19. Pre-Nipissing transgression. Overflow through the rising North Bay outlet reflooded the Lake Michigan and 

Lake Huron basins, creating a confluent lake system (about 8,000 yr B.P.). Lake Erie and Lake Ontario continued their rise 

westward. Lake Michigan and Lake Huron began a tandem transgression controlled by the rising North Bay outlet (fig. 5, 

case 3). 

30 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
St. Marys River uplifted between 4,500 and 4,000 Yr P. 

Figure 20. Late Nipissing and Algoma Great Lakes. The 

rising North Bay outlet reflooded the Lake Michigan, Lake 

Superior, and Lake Huron basins until overflow returned to 

first the Port Huron (St. Clair River) and then the Chicago 

outlets. Lake level rose above the present levels to leave 

the prominent Nipissing and Algoma terraces. For a brief 

time, overflow was through three outlets, but the North Bay 

outlet was abandoned between 4,500 and 4,000 yr B.P. 

when uplift raised it above the southern outlet controls. 

Uplift also raised the St. Marys River at about this time, 

0 100 200 MILES 

0 100 200 KILOMETERS 

creating a separate Lake Superior. Overflow through the 

Chicago outlet ceased by 4,000 yr B.P. and may have 

accommodated a climate-related rise in lake level (Nipissing 1). This time period, 4,000 yr B.P., marks the onset of 

the hydrologically modern upper Great Lakes that continue 

to overflow through the St. Marys and St. Clair Rivers. 

Deformation of former Lake Michigan and Lake Huron 

shorelines now follows the pattern of figure 5, case 2. Lake 

Erie and Lake Ontario continue to rise in concert with their 

uplifting eastern outlets. 

Conclusion 31 
REFERENCES 

Anderson, T.W., and Lewis, C.F.M., 1974, Chronology and 

paleoecology of an Holocene buried plant detritus bed in 

Lake Huron [abs.]: 17th Conference on Great Lakes 

Research, Hamilton, Ontario, Abstracts, p. 4. 

---1987, Late-Quaternary oscillations of Laurentian Great 

Lakes levels [ abs.]: 30th Conference on Great Lakes 

Research, Ann Arbor, Mich., Program and Abstracts, p. 

A-1. 

Andrews, J.T., 1970a, Differential crustal recovery and glacial 

chronology (6,700 to 0 BP) West Baffin Island, N.W.T., 

Canada: Arctic and Alpine Research, v. 2, p. 115-143. 

--1970b, Present and postglacial rates of uplift for glaciated northern and eastern North America derived from 

postglacial uplift curves: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences,v. 7,p. 703-715. 

Bretz, J.H., 1955, Geology of the Chicago region, Part II, 

The Pleistocene: Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin 

65, 132 p. 

Broecker, W.S., 1966, Glacial rebound and the deformation 

of the shorelines of proglacial lakes: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 71, p. 4777-4783. 

---1970, Discussion: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 

v. 7, p. 730. 

Brotchie, J.F., and Silvester, R., 1969, On crustal flexure: 

Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 74, p. 5240-5252. 

Buckley, S.B., 1974, Study of post-Pleistocene ostracod distribution in the soft sediments of southern Lake Michigan: 

Urbana, Ill., University of Illinois, unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Cahill, R.A., 1981, Geochemistry of recent Lake Michigan 

sediments: Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 517, 

94 p. 

Chamberlin, T.C., 1897, The method of multiple working 

hypotheses: Journal of Geology, v. 5, p. 837-850. 

---1898, The ulterior basis of time-divisions and the classification of geologic history: Journal of Geology, v. 6, p. 

449-462. 

---1909, Diastrophism as the ultimate basis of correlation: 

Journal of Geology, v. 17, p. 685-693. 

---1926, Certain phases of megatectonic geology: Journal 

of Geology, v. 34, p. 1-28. 

Chamberlin, T.C., and Salisbury, R.D., 1904, Geology: New 

York, Henry Holt & Co., 3 vols. 

Chapman, L.J., 1954, An outlet of Lake Algonquin at Fossmill, Ontario: Proceedings of the Geological Association 

of Canada, v. 6, p. 61-68. 

Clark, J.A., Pranger, H.S., Primus, J.A., and Walsh, J.K., 

1984, Holocene sea level and proglacial lake indicators 

of vertical crustal movement [ abs.]: American 

Geophysical Union, Chapman Conference on Vertical 

Crustal Motion; Measurement and Modeling, October 

22-26, 1984, Harpers Ferry, W. Va., Program with 

Abstracts: available from American Geophysical Union, 

Washington, D. C. 

Clark, J.A., Walsh, J.K., Primus, J.A., and Pranger, H.S., 

1985, A model of proglacial lake strandline delevelling 

during the past 18000 years: Stratigraphic implications 

[ abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 17, no. 5, p. 283. 

Clark, R.H., and Persoage, N.P., 1970, Some implications of 

crustal movement in engineering planning: Canadian 

Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 7, p. 628-633. 

Clayton, Lee, 1983, Chronology of Lake Agassiz drainage to 

Lake Superior, in Teller, J.T., and Clayton, Lee, eds., 

Glacial Lake Agassiz: Geological Association of Canada 

Special Paper 26, p. 291-307. 

Coordinating Committee on Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic 

Data, 1977, Apparent vertical movement over the Great 

Lakes; Detroit: Detroit District, Corps of Engineers, 70 

p. 

Crane, H.R., and Griffin, J.B., 1960, University of Michigan 

radiocarbon dates V: Radiocarbon, v. 2, p. 31-48. 

---1961, University of Michigan radiocarbon dates VI: 

Radiocarbon, v. 3, p. 105-125. 

--1965, University of Michigan radiocarbon dates X: 

Radiocarbon, v. 7, p. 123-152. 

--1966, University of Michigan radiocarbon dates XI: 

Radiocarbon, v. 8, p. 25fr-285. 

---1968, University of Michigan radiocarbon dates XII: 

Radiocarbon, v. 10, p. 61-114. 

--1970, University of Michigan radiocarbon dates XIII: 

Radiocarbon, v. 12, p. 161-180. 

--1972, University of Michigan radiocarbon dates XV: 

Radiocarbon, v. 14, p. 195-122. 

Deane, R.E., 1950, Pleistocene geology of the Lake Simcoe 

district, Ontario: Geological Society of Canada Memoir 

256, 108 p. 

De Geer, G., 1892, On the Pleistocene changes of level in 

eastern North America: Proceedings of the Boston Society for Natural History, v. 25, p. 454-477. 

Drexler, C.W., Farrand, W.R., and Hughes, J.D., 1983, Correlation of glacial lakes in the Superior basin with eastward discharge events from Lake Agassiz, in Teller, J .T., 

and Clayton, Lee, eds., Glacial Lake Agassiz: Geological 

Association of Canada Special Paper 26, p. 261-290. 

Eschman, D.F., and Farrand, W.R., 1970, Glacial history of 

the glacial Grand Valley, in Guidebook for Field Trips, 

North-Central Section, Geological Society of America 

Meeting, East Lansing, Michigan: East Lansing, Mich., 

Michigan Geological Society, p. 131-157. 

Eschman, D.F., and Karrow, P.F., 1985, Huron basin glacial 

lakes: A review, in Karrow, P.F., and Calkin, P.E., eds., 

Quaternary evolution of the Great Lakes: Geological 

Association of Canada Special Paper 30, p. 79-93. 

Evenson, E.B., 1973, Late Pleistocene shorelines and stratigraphic relations in the Lake Michigan basin: Geological 

Society of America Bulletin, v. 84, p. 2281-2298. 

Farrand, W.R., 1962, Postglacial uplift in North America: 

American Journal of Science, v. 260, p. 181-199. 

Farrand, W.R., and Drexler, C.W., 1985, Late Wisconsinan 

and Holocene history of the Lake Superior basin, in 

Karrow, P.F., and Calkin, P.E., eds., Quaternary evolution of the Great Lakes: Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 30, p. 17-32. 

Finamore, P.F., 1985, Glacial Lake Algonquin and the 

Fenelon Falls outlet, in Karrow, P.F., and Calkin, P.E., 

32 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
eds., Quaternary evolution of the Great Lakes: Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 30, p. 125-132. 

Fullerton, D.S., 1980, Preliminary correlation of post-Erie 

interstadial events (16,000-10,000 radiocarbon years 

before present), central and eastern Great Lakes region, 

and Hudson, Champlain, and St. Lawrence Lowlands, 

United States and Canada: U.S. Geological Sutvey Professional Paper 1089, 52 p. 

Gilbert, G.K., 1890, Lake Bonneville: U.S. Geological Sutvey 

Monograph 1, 438 p. 

--1898, Recent earth movements in the Great Lakes 

region: U.S. Geological Sutvey 18th Annual Report, Part 

2, p. 601-647. 

Goldthwait, J.W., 1906, Correlation of the raised beaches on 

the west side of Lake Michigan: Journal of Geology, v. 

14, p. 411-424. 

--1907, Abandoned shore-lines of eastern Wisconsin: 

Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Sutvey Bulletin 17, 134 p. 

--1908, A reconstruction of water planes of the extinct 

glacial lakes in the Lake Michigan basin: Journal of 

Geology, v. 16, p. 459-476. 

--1910a, An instrumental sutvey of the shorelines of 

extinct lakes in southwestern Ontario: Geological Sutvey 

of Canada Memoir 10, 57 p. 

--1910b, Isobases of the Algonquin and Iroquois beaches 

and their significance: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 21, p. 227-248. 

Gutenberg, B., 1933, Tilting due to glacial melting: Journal 

of Geology, v. 41, p. 449-467. 

--1941, Changes in sea level, postglacial uplift, and 

mobility of the Earth's interior: Geological Society of 

America Bulletin, v. 52, p. 721-772. 

--1954, Postglacial uplift in the Great Lakes region: 

Archiv fiir Meteorologie, Geophysik und Bioklimatologie, ser. A, v. 7, p. 243-251. 

Gutschick, R.C., and Gonsiewski, J., 1976, Coastal geology of 

Mt. Baldy Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, south end 

of Lake Michigan: Field guide, in Field trip guidebook, 

coastal and environmental geology of southwestern Lake 

Michigan: Kalamazoo, Mich., Western Michigan University, p. 40-90. 

Hansel, A.K., Larsen, C.E., and Schneider, A.F., 1985a, High 

lake phases in the Lake Michigan basin [ abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 17, p. 

292. 

Hansel, A.K., Mickelson, D.M., Schneider, A.F., and Larsen, 

C.E., 1985b, Late Wisconsinan and early Holocene history of the Lake Michigan basin, in Karrow, P .F., and 

Calkin, P.E., eds., Quaternary geological evolution of the 

Great Lakes: Geological Association of Canada Special 

Paper 30, p. 39-54. 

Harrison, J.E., 1970, Deglaciation and proglacial drainage: 

North Bay-Mattawa region, Ontario; 13th Conference on 

Great Lakes Research, Ann Arbor, Mich., Proceedings: 

Ann Arbor, Mich., International Association for Great 

Lakes Research, p. 756-767. 

--1972, Quaternary geology of the North Bay-Mattawa 

Region: Geological Sutvey of Canada Paper 71-26, 37 p. 

Hough, J.L., 1953, Revision of the Nipissing Stage of the 

Great Lakes: Illinois State Academy of Science Transactions, v. 46, p. 133-141. 

--1955, Lake Chippewa, a low stage of Lake Michigan 

indicated by bottom sediments: Geological Society of 

America Bulletin, v. 66, p. 957-968. 

--1958, Geology of the Great Lakes: Urbana, Ill., University of Illinois Press, 313 p. 

--1962, Lake Stanley, a low stage of Lake Huron indicated by bottom sediments: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 73, p. 613-620. 

--1963, The prehistoric Great Lakes of North America: 

American Scientist, v. 51, p. 84-109. 

Jamieson, T.F., 1865, On the history of the last geological 

changes in Scotland: Quarterly Journal of the Geological 

Society, v. 21, p. 161-203. 

--1882, On the cause of the depression and re-elevation 

of the land during the glacial period: Geological Magazine, v. 9, p. 400-407. 

Karrow, P.F., 1980, The Nipissing transgression around 

southern Lake Huron: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 17, p. 1271-1279. 

Karrow, P.F., Anderson, T.W., Clarke, A.H., DeLorme, L.D., 

and Sreenivasa, M.R., 1975, Stratigraphy, paleontology, 

and age of Lake Algonquin sediments in southwestern 

Ontario, Canada: Quaternary Research, v. 5, p. 49-87. 

Kaszycki, C.A., 1985, History of glacial Lake Algonquin in 

the Haliburton region, south central Ontario, in Karrow, 

P.F., and Calkin, P.E., eds., Quaternary evolution of the 

Great Lakes: Geological Association of Canada Special 

Paper 30, p. 109-123. 

Larsen, C.E., 1974, Late Holocene lake levels in southern 

Lake Michigan, in Collinson, C., ed., Coastal geology, 

sedimentology and management; Chicago and the 

Northshore: Illinois State Geological Sutvey Guidebook, 

Series 12, p. 39-49. 

--1985a, A stratigraphic study of beach features on the 

southeastern shore of Lake Michigan: New evidence for 

Holocene lake level fluctuations: Illinois State Geological Sutvey, Environmental Geology Notes 112, 31 p. 

--1985b, Lake level, uplift, and outlet incision, the Nipissing and Algoma Great Lakes, in Karrow, P .F., and 

Calkin, P .E., eds., Quaternary evolution of the Great 

Lakes: Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 

30, p. 63-78. 

--1985c, Glacio-isostasy-An alternative to the hingeline model in the southern Lake Michigan basin [abs.]: 

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 

v. 17, no. 5, p. 298. 

Larsen, C.E., and Demeter, C.S., 1979, Archeological investigations of the Proposed West River Drive, Bay City, 

Michigan: Jackson, Mich., Commonwealth Associates 

Inc., 108 p. 

Leverett, F., 1897, The Pleistocene features and deposits of 

the Chicago area: Chicago Academy of Sciences, Geology and Natural History Sutvey Bulletin 2, 85 p. 

--1899, Illinois glacial lobe: U.S. Geological Sutvey 

Monograph 38, 817 p. 

Leverett, F., and Taylor, F.B., 1915, The Pleistocene of 

Indiana and Michigan and the history of the Great 

Lakes: U.S. Geological Sutvey Monograph 53, 529 p. 

References 33 
Lewis, C.F.M., 1969, Late Quaternary history of lake levels in 

the Huron and Erie basins; 12th Conference on Great 

Lakes Research, Ann Arbor, Mich., Proceedings: Ann 

Arbor, Mich., International Association for Great Lakes 

Researqh, p. 250-270. 

---1970, ~.Recent uplift of Manitoulin Island, Ontario: 

Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 7, p. 665-675. 

Lewis, C.F.M., and Anderson, T.W., 1985, Early Holocene 

lake levels in the Huron basin: Comparative uplift histories of basins and sills in a rebounding glacial marginal 

depression, in Karrow, P.F., and Calkin, P.E., eds., Quaternary evolution of the Great Lakes: Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 30, p. 147-148. 

Lineback, J.A., Ayer, N.J., and Gross, D.L., 1970, Stratigraphy of unconsolidated sediments in the southern part 

of Lake Michigan: Illinois State Geological Survey, Environmental Geology Notes 35, 35 p. 

Lineback, J.A., Dell, C.l., and Gross, D.L., 1979, Glacial and 

postglacial sediments in Lakes Superior and Michigan: 

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 90, p. 

781-791. 

Lineback, J.A., Gross, D.L., and Meyer, R.P., 1972, Geologic 

cross sections derived from seismic profiles and sediment 

cores from southern Lake Michigan: Illinois State Geological Survey, Environmental Geology Notes 54, 43 p. 

--1974, Glacial tills under Lake Michigan: Illinois State 

Geological Survey, Environmental Geology Notes 69, 

48p. 

Lowdon, J.A., and Blake, W., Jr., 1978, Geological Survey of 

Canada radiocarbon dates XVIII: Geological Survey of 

Canada Paper 78-7, 20 p. 

Lowdon, J.A., Robertson, I.M., and Blake, W., Jr., 1977, 

Geological Survey of Canada radiocarbon dates XVII: 

Geological Survey of Canada Paper 77-7, 25 p. 

Mandelbaum, H., 1969, Analysis of sediment cores from Big 

Muscamoot and Goose Bay in the St. Clair river delta: 

12th Conference on Great Lakes Research, Ann Arbor, 

Mich., Proceedings: Ann Arbor, Mich., International 

Association for Great Lakes Research, p. 271-299. 

Moore, S., 1922, Tilt of the earth in the Great Lakes region: 

Military Engineer, v. 14, p. 153-155, 181-183. 

__ 1948, Crustal movement in the Great Lakes area: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 59, p. 697-710. 

Papworth, M.L., 1967, Cultural traditions in the lake forest 

region during the high water stages of the post-glacial 

Great Lakes: Ann Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan, 

unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, 276 p. 

Prest, V.K., 1970, Quaternary geology in Canada, in Douglas, 

R.J .E., ed., Geology and economic minerals of Canada: 

Geological Survey of Canada Economic Geology Report 

1, p. 675-764. 

Shaler, N.S., 1874, Preliminary report on the recent changes 

of level on the coast of Maine: Memoirs of the Boston 

Society for Natural History, v. 2, p. 321-340. 

Sly, P.G., and Lewis, C.F.M., 1972, The Great Lakes of 

Canada-Quaternary geology and limnology: International Geological Congress, 24th, Montreal, 1972, 

Guidebook for Field Excursion A43, 92 p. 

Sly, P.G., and Sandilands, R.G., 1988, Geology and environmental significance of sediment distribution in an area of 

the submerged Niagara escarpment, Georgian Bay, in 

Munawar, M., ed., Limnology and fisheries of Georgian 

Bay and the North Channel ecosystem; International 

symposium on developments in hydrobiology, Proceedings: Dordrecht, Netherlands, W. Junk, in press. 

Somers, L.H., 1969, Preliminary report on geological studies 

in northern Lake Michigan using underwater observation 

techniques: 11th Conference on Great Lakes Research, 

Ann Arbor, Mich., Proceedings: Ann Arbor, Mich., 

International Association for Great Lakes Research, p. 

239-244. 

Spencer, J.W., 1888, Notes on the origin and history of the 

Great Lakes of North America: Proceedings of the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 

v. 37, p. 197-199. 

--1891, Deformation of the Algonquin beach and birth 

of Lake Huron: American Journal of Science, 3rd ser., v. 

41, p. 12-21. 

Stanley, G.M., 1936, Lower Algonquin beaches of Penetanguishene Peninsula: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 47, p. 1933-1960. 

--1937, Lower Algonquin beaches of Cape Rich, Georgian Bay: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 48, 

p. 1665-1686. 

--1938, The submerged valley through Mackinac Straits: 

Journal of Geology, v. 46, p. 966-974. 

Suess, E., 1883-1904, Das Anlitz der Erde: Prague, F. 

Tempsky, 4 v. 

--1904-1909, The face of the Earth: Oxford, Clarendon 

Press, 4 v. 

Taylor, F.B., 1892, The highest old shore line on Mackinac 

Island: American Journal of Science, v. 63, p. 210-218. 

--1894, A reconnaissance of the ancient shore lines of 

Green Bay: American Geologist, v. 13, p. 315-327. 

---1895, The second Lake Algonquin: American Geologist, v. 15, p. 100-120. 

--1908, Pleistocene deposits of southwestern Ontario: 

Geological Survey of Canada Summary Report, p. 

102-111. 

--1910, Bearing of the Tertiary mountain belt on the 

origin of the Earth's plan: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 21, p. 179-226. 

---1927a, Evidence of recurrent depression and resilience 

in the region of the Great Lakes: Papers of the Michigan 

Academy of Science, v. 7, p. 135-143. 

---1927b, The present and recent rate of land-tilting in 

the region of the Great Lakes: Papers of the Michigan 

Academy of Science, v. 7, p. 145-157. 

Taylor, L.D., 1985, Warped water planes of Lakes Glenwood 

and Calumet and their relationship to the last ice 

advance of the northeastern Lake Michigan basin [ abs.]: 

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 

v. 17, no. 5, p. 329. 

Teller, J.T., 1985, Glacial Lake Agassiz and its influence on 

the Great Lakes, in Karrow, P.F., and Calkin, P.E., eds., 

Quaternary evolution of the Great Lakes: Geological 

Association of Canada Special Paper 30, p. 1-16. 

Teller, J.T., and Thorleifson, L.H., 1983, The Lake Agassiz-Lake Superior connection, in Teller, J .T., and 

34 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes 
Clayton, Lee, eds., Glacial Lake Agassiz: Geological 

Association of Canada Special Paper 26, p. 261-290. 

Tovell, W.M., McAndrews, J.H., Lewis, C.F.M., and Anderson, T.W., 1972, Geological reconnaissance of Georgian 

Bay-A preliminary statement; 15th Conference on 

Great Lakes Research, Abstracts: Ann Arbor, Mich., 

International Association for Great Lakes Research, p. 

15. 

Walcott, R.I., 1970, Isostatic response to loading of the crust 

in Canada: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 7, p. 

716-727. 

---1972, Late Quaternary vertical movements in eastern 

North America: Quantitative evidence of glacio-isostatic 

rebound: Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, v. 

10, p. 849-884. 

White, G.W., 1949, Memorial to James Walter Goldthwait: 

Geological Society of America Proceedings, Annual 

Report for 1948, p. 171-182. 

Wightman, R.W., 1961, The St. Clair delta: London, Ontario, 

University of Western Ontario, unpub. M.A. thesis, 

140 p. 

Woodward, R.S., 1888, On the form and position of sea 

level: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 48, 88 p. 

References 35 
Appendix. List of radiocarbon dates 

[GSC, Geological Sutvey of Canada; M, University of Michigan; ISGS, Illinois State Geological Sutvey; W, U.S. Geological Sutvey. -, no 

data] 

Lab no. Date (yr B.P.) Material Altitude (m) Reference 

Mackinac Straits/Manitoulin Island 

Unreported 10,305± 78 Wood 145 Sly and Lewis (1972). 

GSC-1108 10,150±190 Gyttja 191.7 Lewis (1970). 

M-1996 9,780±330 Wood 140 Somers ~1969). 

GSC-1830 9,770±220 Wood 122.4 Sly and andilands G1988). 

GSC-1397 9,440±160 Peat 145 Sly and Lewis (1972 . GSC-1971 9,260±290 Detritus 161 Lowdon and others ~1977j. 

GSC-1979 8,310±130 Detritus 162 Lowdon and others 1977 . M-2337 8,150±300 Wood 140 Crane and Griffin (1972). 

M-1888 6,788±250 Wood 167 Somers (1969). 

GSC-2245 6,500± 70 Wood 167 Lowdon and Blake (1978). 

M-1282 6,270±210 Wood 179 Crane and Griffin (1966). 

Southern Lake Huron Basin 

GSC-1935 9,370±180 Peat 126 Anderson and Lewis ~1974j. GSC-1966 8,460±180 Gyttja 126 Anderson and Lewis 1974 . M-1012 7,250±300 Wood 172 Crane and Griffin (1961). 

St. Clair Delta 

Unreported 9,310±210 Wood 172 Mandelbaum (1969). 

Unreported 7,300±80 Gyttja 172 Wightman ~1961j. Unreported 6,100±80 Wood 172 Wightman 1961 . 

Grand Traverse Bay 

M-834 7,850±350 Detritus 153 Crane and Griffin (1960). 

Southern Lake Michigan Basin 

ISGS-934 11,010±130 Wood 178.3 Hansel and others [1985bl. ISGS-950 10,570±180 Wood 178.6 Hansel and others 1985b . ISGS-927 8,590±140 Picea cones 178.8 Hansel and others 1985b . M-1736 7,580±350 Shell 80 Crane and Griffin ~1968). 

M-1972 7,570±250 Shell 69 Crane and Griffin 1970j. M-1571 7,400±500 Shell 73 Crane and Griffin 1965 . ISGS-36 7,050±200 Organic matter Lineback and others ?970). 

ISGS-33 6,920±200 Organic matter Lineback and others 1970). 

ISGS-185 6,350±200 Wood 177 Larsen ?985a~. W-1017 6,340±300 Wood 177 Larsen 1985a . ISGS-68 3,460±210 Organic matter Lineback and others (1970). 

Chicago Outlet Channel 

ISGS-1241 8,690±80 Peat 180 Hansel and others (1985b). 

ISGS-960 6,280±70 Peat 180 Hansel (pers. commun.). 

ISGS-1240 3,390±70 Peat 180 Larsen (1985a). 

Norlh Bay Region 

GSC-1363 11,800±400 Gyttja 345 

GSC-1429 Harrison r972f 11,400±280 Gyttja 345 Harrison 1972 . GSC-1275 10,100±240 Gyttja 194 Harrison 1972 . GSC-1246 9,860±270 Gyttja 348 Harrison 1972 . GSC-638 9,820±200 Gyttja 312.4 Lewis (1969J. GSC-1097 8,670±140 Wood 290 Harrison (1 72). 

GSC-821 8,320±170 Gyttja 211.8 Lewis ~1969~. GSC-815 8,200±160 Gyttja 213.5 Lewis 1969 . GSC-1263 8,070±190 Wood 212.3 Harrison (1972). 

GSC-836 4,650±200 Gyttja 202.2 

GSC-843 4,650±160 Gyttja 204.2 Lems Lewis ~1969!. 1969. 

GSC-828 4,580±160 Gyttja 206.8 Lewis 1969 . GSC-850 4,490±180 Gyttja 202.3 Lewis ~ 1969 . GSC-808 4,430±160 Gyttja 204.6 Lewis 1969. 

36 Geological History of Glacial Lake Algonquin and the Upper Great Lakes