This similarity of volume is. in contrast to wliat was found at the Fairport 

 Harbor deposit. The explanation appears to be that because of the thin nature 

 of this deposit, and because sand rests directly on cohesive till in a large 

 part of the area (see cores 97 and 92), the jetted-hole data give a more reli- 

 able estimate of sand thickness in the Lorain-Vermilion area than in the 

 Fairport Harbor area. Hartley (1960) calculated that about 102 million cubic 

 meters of sand was present in the entire Lorain-Vermilion deposit within the 

 United States. This figure seems reasonable since plate 19 in his study shows 

 sand in thicknesses of 0.3 to 1.5 meters on the bathymetric ridge extending to 

 the U.S. -Canada border. Additional cores and seismic profiles would be neces- 

 sary to substantiate his jetted-hole data in this area. 



4. Cedar Point . 



a. Bathymetry and Bottom Sediment . The Cedar Point sand deposit, which 

 includes the Bay Point spit, is at the mouth of Sandusky Bay (Fig. 18). Gen- 

 erally, the bottom slopes gently lakeward, except for a bathjrmetric high made 

 up of rock (dredged from the harbor channel) that lies about 1.5 kilometers 

 north of transponder location "CG." 



Surficial deposits consist of fine and very fine sand that grade offshore 

 through muddy sands to lacustrine muds (Fig. 19). The surface sand averages 

 93 to 94 percent quartz and feldspar, 3 to 4 percent shale, and 3 to 4 percent 

 heavy minerals with only trace amounts of shell and limestone fragments (Hartley, 

 1960). 



b. Subbottom Sediment and Sand Volumes . Since the seismic records over 

 the area show little acoustic penetration, an interpretation of the subbottom 



is impossible. The lack of penetration is probably due to the dense fine-grained 

 nature of the sediment. Only one of the seven cores taken had an appreciable 

 quantity of sand; core 101 had 5.6 meters of fine and medium sand. 



The jetted-hole data from Hartley (1960) and Herdendorf and Braidech (1972) 

 suggest that thick accumulations of very fine and fine sand are present near 

 vibracore hole 101; they concluded that fine sand overlies a coarser sand and 

 gravel which overlies compacted lacustrine clays. Hartley (1960) states that 

 bedrock is from about 13 to 19 meters below lake level in this area. 



The poor seismic records and limited vibracore coverage prevent an accurate 

 sand volume calculation for this deposit. Moreover, it is likely that large 

 volumes of sand are present on the shoal platform southeast of the Cedar Point 

 jetty (the entire Cedar Point-Bay Point sand deposit was probably built up by 

 longshore transport from the east) and because the area is accretional some sand 

 could be removed without causing erosion on the Cedar Point-Bay Point shore. 

 Additional information on the longshore transport regime would be necessary, 

 however, before this proposal could be considered. Furthermore, even though the 

 Cedar Point-Bay Point deposit may have a large quantity of sand, the sand is 

 fine grained which would probably limit its use for beach nourishment. 



5. Maumee Bay . 



Since the seismic records of this area show little acoustic penetration, an 

 interpretation of the subbottom would only be marginal; this coupled with a lack 



30 



